Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning, everyone. Welcome back to the greatest show on Earth: the Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety. I'll call the committee meeting to order. I'd like to begin by welcoming everyone back to our committee. And I'd like to dispense with a few housekeeping items right out the gate.

First, as a reminder, for those of you who are regular here, there are some general rules of conduct before we start our hearing 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 proceedings, I want to ensure that everyone understands that the assembly has rules to ensure we maintain order and run a fair and efficient hearing.

I will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of today's legislative proceedings. Please be aware that violation of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement actions. Next, we have the off calendar. I just want to read this for public consumption.

We have two items that have been pulled by the author today. The first is item number one, Assembly Bill 1538 by Assemblymember Krell. The second is item number eight. This is Assembly Bill 1727 by Assemblymember Ta. Again, both of those items have been pulled by the author and will be reset.

We do not yet have enough members to establish a quorum, so we'll proceed as a subcommittee. We will therefore pause on the consent calendar. Before we begin with bill presentations, some general reminders for everyone attending today. We will be hearing today's measures in sign and order.

Standing committee members will present their bill towards the end of the hearing. We appreciate everyone's patience in advance. As a reminder, authors will have five minutes to present, as will their main witnesses, and then a combined total time of opposing witnesses. And we'll take the me-toos after that. That is the committee standing practice. So, thank you all.

And first up today we have item number 10. This is Assembly Bill 1741 by Assemblymember Pacheco.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. I am pleased to present AB 1741, which addresses a gap in state law, to ensure that sexual battery committed during a residential break in may be appropriately prosecuted.

Under current California law, felony sexual battery committed during a home invasion is generally limited to cases involving unlawful restraint or victims under the age of 15.

This means that a perpetrator who breaks into a home and sexually touches a sleeping victim with no intent to steal or commit another felony may face only misdemeanor charges. While prosecutors may attempt to pursue other felony charges, in some cases, the legal burdens and technical limitations often make that path difficult and uncertain.

Breaking into a home to commit a sexual offense represents a serious invasion of personal safety and privacy. The violation extends far beyond the physical act. It shatters a fundamental sense of safety and security. AB 1741 ensures that California law recognizes the gravity of this crime by allowing it to be charged as a wobbler.

This bill is about closing a loophole and ensuring that prosecutors and courts have the necessary discretion to to scale the legal response to the specific facts of the case. Victims of residential sexual batteries should not be sidelined by an outdated, misdemeanor only standard. Thank you to the committee for your thoughtful work on this bill.

We are happy to accept the committee amendments that align the language with existing statutes. Here with us today to testify, our Chief Deputy District Attorney William Robinson and Assistant Director for the Division of Victim Service, Patty Cardenas, both with the Riverside County District Attorney's Office. They are here also to answer any technical difficult any technical questions.

So, I'm going to go ahead and hand it over to my witnesses.

Good morning, Chair and members. My name is William Robinson and I am a Chief Deputy District Attorney at the Riverside County District Attorney's Office. I am here today in strong support of AB 1741, legislation sponsored by our office to close a very serious gap in California law.

Imagine waking up in the middle of the night in your own home, the place where you should feel the safest, and realizing that a stranger has broken in and is touching your body for his own sexual gratification. This is not just a hypothetical. These are real cases that prosecutors encounter.

Victims have awakened in their beds to find a stranger groping their breasts, buttocks, and other intimate areas before fleeing when the victim wakes up. These crimes are deeply traumatic violations that occur in the victim's most private and sacred place: their home.

But under current California law, in many of these cases, the most serious charge available is only a misdemeanor. That is because existing statutes require proof that the offender intended to commit another felony, such as rape or that the victim was unlawfully restrained.

When the evidence shows sexual touching, but does not establish those additional elements, prosecutors are left with misdemeanor charges only, even though the offender broke into the victim's home to commit a sexual assault. You may hear the argument that prosecutors can simply charge a Penal Code Section 220 violation. Penal Code Section 220 is assault, intent to commit rape.

But the reality is that not every sexual assault inside a home rises to the level of appeal. Penal Code Section 220 violation that charge requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant specifically intended to commit rape or another enumerated offense.

In many real world cases, the evidence shows that the intruder entered the home to sexually touch or grope the victim, but there is insufficient evidence to prove intent to rape. AB 1741 closes that loophole with a simple and targeted fix.

That bill, or this bill, allows felony sexual battery charges when someone breaks into another person's home and commits sexual touching inside that residence. A person's home should be their sanctuary. When someone violates that sanctuary to commit sexual assault, the law should reflect the seriousness of that conduct.

And for these reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 1741. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Patricia Cardenas and I serve as the Assistant Director at the Riverside County District Attorney's Office for the Division of Victim Services.

I've worked with victims for over 30 years and can tell you from personal and professional experience that there is nothing more painful than being victimized and then not getting justice. I'm here today speaking from the perspective of victims and survivors in support of Assembly Bill 1741, authored by Assemblywoman Blanca Pacheco.

I think we can all agree that our home is meant to be our sanctuary. It is where we go to find rest, to care for our families, and to raise our children to become better adults than we are. Our homes are the foundation of our communities and the hope for our future.

So, when someone breaks into that space, when someone enters our home uninvited, it is one of the most profound violations a person can experience. Regardless of what happens next, the break in alone is enough to shatter a person's sense of safety. Victims often describe the moment, that moment as the instant their home no longer feels like home.

Laws like AB 1741 matter because they send a clear message. People deserve to be safe in their own homes. These crimes must be taken seriously and victims deserve justice, dignity, and protection under the law. Strengthening this law increases accountability for those who commit these acts and help restores justice for those who've been victimized.

AB 1741 represents an important step toward a justice system that recognizes the real impact of these crimes and prioritizes the safety and healing of victims. On behalf of survivors who may not be able to stand here today, I respectfully urge your support. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you for the presentation, Assemblymember, and both of you for your testimony. Next we'll hear from the me-toos in support of the bill. If you'd like to be heard in support of the bill. Please use the microphone to the left of Mr. Weber here. Please state your name, organization and position, please.

Okay, at least I got that out of the way for the first bill. Are there opposing witnesses today? Oh, we do have one. All right, come on down.

Good morning. Ivy Fitzpatrick, California District Attorneys Association, in support.

Thank you very much. Anyone else? Okay. Do we have opposing witnesses? We do. All right. Once you're seated and begin speaking, you'll have a total time of 5 minutes to address the committee.

Thank you. I will be brief. I expected a second witness, but here I am all by myself. Can you hear me now? Good morning. My name is Leslie Caldwell-Houston. I am here a volunteer on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. We do appreciate the amendment that was proposed.

However, we still feel that AB 1741 is unnecessary, vague, and overbroad. We are deeply concerned about victims. I don't want any mistake on that point.

But as public defenders, we represent 80 to 90 percent of criminal defendants in California, and therefore we have a unique view overview of the charging of criminal offenses in our state's many and varied counties.

If an assailant broke into a victim's home and sexually touches the victim, the defendant could and would be charged with a violation of, for instance, you're correct, Penal Code Section 220: assaulting another with the intent to commit mayhem, rape, sodomy, or oral copulation, which is punishable by two, four, or six years in prison.

I myself have been practicing criminal defense for indigent people for 40 years. In public defender offices, I represented countless defendants charged with currently available crimes, such as Penal Code Section 220, in the same or similar circumstances described by the prosecutors in favor of this bill. Their hands are simply not tied.

In fact, one of my very first cases as a felony trial lawyer was exactly this sort of situation. We did not have a loophole, and my client, unfortunately for him, fortunately for the victim, was convicted.

Further, we oppose the bill is that it's vague on temporal and definitional grounds, such as creating a potential felony requiring sex registration, even if the person entered the inhabited dwelling without an intent to commit a sexual battery and the sexual battery occurred hours or days later. Moreover, there is no legal definition of guest.

If a friend is invited to someone's home and invites another person, is that other person now a guest? There are too many problems with this bill, along with the fact that it is not necessary, and we urge a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony. We're going to take a momentary pause in this particular hearing. I see that a quorum has arrived. Madam Secretary, please conduct the roll.

[Roll Call].

All right, a quorum is present. Thank you all for that. Next we'll hear from the me-toos in opposition to the bill. You know the drill.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU Cal Action, and strong opposition.

Simelia Rogers, on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in opposition.

Liz Blum Gutierrez with Whole Consulting, on behalf of the LA County Public Defenders Union, Local 148, in opposition.

Shivani Nishar on behalf of Initiated Justice, in opposition; also registering opposition for Californians United for Responsible Budget.

Thank you all very much. Anyone else hoping to be heard on the bill? Okay, with that, we'll turn it to the committee. Are there any questions or comments from members of the committee? We have a motion. Is there a second? We have a motion and a second.

I guess my one question to you, Assemblymember, or for your witnesses, would be what is your response to the claim levied by the opposition that the bill, even as amended, would be overbroad or too vague? What would be your position there?

I'll let my witnesses answer that question.

So I referenced Penal Code Section 220, as well as the opposition, that would be the charge that would be considered by prosecutors in the event someone entered the home, someone and touch that person in a sexual manner, for example, touch their breasts or touch their buttocks or any other intimate area.

However, the challenge that we have as prosecutors is that Penal Code Section 220 requires intent to commit rape. And in many instances in real life prosecutions, proving intent to commit rape requires more than just touching of a sexual part.

It requires more circumstantial evidence or direct evidence, which would lead a jury or a fact finder, like a judge, to understand and believe that that person intended to commit rape, not just intending to commit the sexual touching itself.

And so, in many instances we can't charge, or if we do charge, we lose because we can't prove the intent to commit rape part of it.

Other than that, the other challenge is that when you enter a residential dwelling, in order for us to prove a felony burglary, we have to prove that there was intimate intent to commit a felony.

Well, a sexual battery, a 243.4 Subdivision E1, requires restraint and it's only a misdemeanor. In those instances, like the example I just gave you, where someone enters a home and they just touch the buttocks or the breast of a person; we can't prove intent to rape necessarily.

And we also can't improve intent to commit a felony because that particular conduct in and of itself is misdemeanor conduct. And so this is the loophole that we're trying to fix with this particular legislation.

We'd like to be able to charge appropriately a felony in instances where someone violates the sanctity of someone's home and commits a sexual offense, which is atrocious and very violative of a person's personal freedom, and as Ms. Cardenas mentioned, also has very traumatic impacts on that person.

You would think that you'd be able to charge a felony in those instances, but under current California law, many times we can't. And so that's what we're attempting to do with this legislation: fix that loophole so that we can have the option of at least charging a felony where appropriate.

Thank you. One follow up, I'd like to just make sure that I'm tracking along. So, Penal Code Section 220, and I'll just read from an excerpt of it, a sub one: any person who assaults another with intent to commit mayhem, rape, sodomy, oral copulation, or any violation of - and there's a few other code sections there.

So, if I heard Ms. Caldwell-Houston correctly, the concern is that perhaps prosecutors could charge that provision for breaking into someone's home and engaging in some form of sexual contact. My reading of, say, sodomy, which might be the most - the definition in there that might fit it the most.

Well, sodomy is defined in Section 286, and it's very specific. Sodomy is sexual conduct consisting of contact between the penis of one person and the anus of another person, and any sexual penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the crime of sodomy. And there's more in that section.

Is that what you're getting at, that the definitions are too restrictive and therefore the conduct that you're trying to charge is not captured in the statute?

That is correct. It's too restrictive. So, I don't know if you want me to follow up with more, but yeah, that is the, the, the argument from the, the people and from the proponents of the legislation.

Okay, thank you. Are there any other questions or comments from committee members? Okay. Assemblymember Pacheco, you have a chance to close.

Yes, thank you. And thank you for allowing me to present this important bill. I want to thank my witnesses also for being here to testify as well. And I think it's important for us all to feel safe in our homes. This is, you know, are places where, you know, we should feel the safest out of all places.

And so I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much, Assemblymember. With that, colleagues, the Chair does recommend an aye as amended. Appreciate the author taking the amendments. Let's take the roll call.

For AB 1741 by Assemblymember Pacheco. The motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call].

Okay, that measure passes, but it will remain open for members to add on. Thank you all for being here today. That next takes us to item number five. This is Assembly Bill 1701 by Assemblymember DeMaio.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to present AB 1701, relating to mass shootings at schools. There are disagreements in the political world on how to prevent mass shootings and gun violence. I don't think we're going to resolve those disagreements.

Hopefully we will enact policies that will reduce mass shootings and gun violence, but where we should have broad-based bipartisan support and where I know Californians have overwhelming support across party lines is that we should punish mass shooters and those engaging in gun violence, particularly on school campuses, to the fullest extent of the law.

Anyone who does not agree with this is on the fringe of public opinion. This week, members of the San Diego community gathered to call for action on a reform bill, AB 1701, that would prevent the resentencing and release of a mass shooter who terrorized our community.

On March 5, 2001, Andy Williams, a 15-year-old freshman at Santana High School, shot and killed two students and injured 11 others, including two school officials in a mass shooting. The trauma inflicted on the San Diego community was great. The two students who passed away were 17-year-old Randy Gordon and 14-year-old Bryan Zucker.

Andy Williams was sentenced to 50 years to life in prison after pleading guilty to two counts of murder and 13 counts of attempted murder in adult criminal court. But to the astonishment of community members, in January of this year, Andy Williams was granted recall for his sentence by a judge, opening the door for his early release.

In current law, there are only two exceptions for resentencing and recall of juveniles who have been sentenced to life without possibility of parole. The first, if they harmed a public safety official. The second, if they tortured their victim. We have two exemptions from recall and resentencing. AB 1701 would create a third: if you engage in a shooting at a school.

It's quite simple. If we're going to protect public safety officers by saying a crime committed against them should not be eligible for recall and resentencing, shouldn't we give the same protections to our teachers? Shouldn't we give those same protections to minor children?

When mass shootings occur, particularly on school campuses, we hear a lot from politicians, and it can get very politically divisive when it doesn't have to, but this is one instance where there should be overwhelming bipartisan support, that when someone commits this heinous act on a school campus and murders individuals, that there should be no resentencing or recall opportunity, that they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, and I urge bipartisan support for AB 1701.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Do you have any witnesses testifying in support today? Okay.

Not from my office.

Okay, we'll take the MeToos. Anyone else hoping to be heard in support of the bill, please come forward at this time. And just as a reminder, please confine your comment to name, organization, and position, please.

Adam Wilson from Gun Owners of California, in support.

All right. Anyone else? Okay. Is there anyone here testifying in opposition to the bill? Okay, it appears there are. Once you come down and begin speaking, you'll have a combined total time of five minutes to address the committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members. My name is Tommy DeLuna, and I'm a program manager at the Exodus Project here in Sacramento, which supports people coming out of incarceration, providing resources like housing, employment, transportation, and more, all to help people not return to criminal behavior. My work makes the community safer.

And every day, I think about the impact of crimes on communities. I'll never forget that I, too, caused harm. At 17 years old, I committed a robbery and murder. I was selfish at the time. As an adult, I continue to live with that deep regret of the harm I caused.

My sentence was life in prison without the possibility of parole. LWOP has one clear message: you are not redeemable. You're not even worthy of rehabilitation. And for young people like me, that led to despair. Many years later, California passed a law that told me I was redeemable.

It said that if I worked hard enough to turn my life around, I could have a second chance of returning to society. AB 1701 seeks to diminish that law. The truth is, no matter how horrible a crime, they cannot predict who a young person will become, and I am proof of this.

I worked hard in prison, and after 25 years, the parole commissioners determined I was eligible for parole in 2019. I've earned a bachelor's degree. On top of my entry work, I also have two other jobs and I take care of my mother as well. I'm not unique.

CDCR reports that of the 125 young people who had life without parole but were released, during an eight-year period, only one was convicted of a felony. The Human Rights Watch research shows that 90% are working and paying taxes once they are released, and many work with nonprofits, like me.

Ninety-four percent reported volunteering with charities since their release as well. I was given a chance to redeem myself. Please don't take that same chance away from others. I respectfully ask for your no vote on AB 1701.

Mr. Chairman and committee members, thank you. I'm Marisa Harris, a professor and clinic director at Loyola Law School Center for Juvenile Law and Policy, and I'm also the parent of a school-age child.

Like everyone here, I'm terrified by the idea of a school shooting, and I understand the urge to want to make law to prevent them, but AB 1701 is deeply flawed, it's reactionary, and it fails to improve public safety for many reasons. Here are five reasons to vote no. First, AB 1701 is overly broad.

It does not just apply to the rare mass-planned attack we think of when we hear school shooting. It also sweeps in gun offenses that occur in school zones, even when no one is injured. As written, 1701 would punish a wide swath of young people completely unrelated to the problem of school shootings.

Second, AB 1701 will not prevent the next school shooting. Decades of research show adolescents are not deterred by the length of a prison sentence because young people are impulsive and rarely weigh decades-long consequences before acting. Relief under this law comes decades after the crime, and it's something no teenager would consider before they commit a crime.

Third, neuroscience shows that younger adolescents have a diminished ability to regulate emotions, resist peer pressure, and assess consequences as compared to their older peers.

In fact, as stated in the Burns Institute and Human Rights Watch report, Futures Denied, 14 and 15-year-olds are biologically and neurologically more similar to 12 and 13-year-olds than they are to their older peers in terms of brain development and executive functioning, but the corollary to that immaturity is heightened neuroplasticity, which means a remarkable capability to change and grow. And that science doesn't change depending on the label we attach to the crime.

Research shows there is no single profile of a school shooter, and the cases often arise from the same history of childhood trauma that we see in other youth crimes. For that reason, it's illogical to close the door on judicial review for this one group of youth. Fourth, AB 1701 is a solution in search of a problem.

The existing resentencing law is a veritable gauntlet of checks and balances. It's not a get-out-of-jail-free card. To be resentenced, a judge has to determine your eligibility for recall, which requires demonstrated remorse and rehabilitation, and then the court conducts a rigorous individualized assessment, and then only then can you actually be resentenced.

The small-- most people who apply for resentencing go back to prison and await their parole hearing, but the small number who are resentenced remain under court supervision, and for the even smaller group who are eligible for release, there are safeguards in place to ensure that if they are a danger to public safety, that they stay in custody long past juvenile court jurisdiction.

Finally, this exact issue is being considered by our Supreme Court right now and this committee should not enact new laws while the court is actively working to settle this area of law. For those reasons, I respectfully urge you to reject AB 1701.

Thank you both for your testimony. Now we'll hear from the MeToos. If you'd like to be heard in opposition to the bill, come down. Name, organization, and position, please.

Liz Blum-Gutierrez with Whole Consulting, on behalf of LA County Public Defenders Union Local 148, in opposition.

Good morning. Jim Lindberg, Friends Committee on Legislation of California. Opposed.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU Cal Action, in strong opposition.

Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, in opposition.

Dominique Nong, Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition, in strong opposition.

Shivani Nishar with Initiate Justice, in strong opposition; also registering opposition for Californians United for a Responsible Budget.

Katarina Sayally, Community Works, in opposition.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Mica Doctoroff, on behalf of Smart Justice California, in opposition.

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

Simelia Rogers, on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in opposition.

Anyone else hoping to be heard on the bill? Okay. We'll turn it back to the committee. Questions or comments from committee members? Mr. Lackey.

Yeah. First of all, let me thank the author for addressing a very important and tragic set of circumstances, as we often discuss in this committee and try to evaluate justice based on fairness and based on the acts committed. And here, this is a very narrow bill, very, very narrow, very specific-- and let's talk about what you're addressing.

Someone who actually enters a public school and takes the life of students who are there to learn, who feel secure, who feel like they're protected, and the loss of life is permanent. Let's be reminded of the permanency suffered not only by the victim themselves, but their families, their friends, and all those impacted by this act of evil.

There's no other way to describe it. It's darn right evil to walk into a school--and usually planned out, by the way--carefully planned, considered, calculated, and starts robbing people of the most precious gift we all have, and that's life.

Now, all you're saying is that, after a court of law has determined that this party is completely guilty of this offense, that we hold to the sentence. We are not trying to add, we are not trying to enhance the penalty associated with this ridiculous act. And congratulations, young man, for your accomplishments.

And this doesn't apply to you, right? You didn't go into a school, I'm assuming, and do-- I mean, you described a completely different offense. We're not talking about that. We are not talking about those kind of circumstances. We are talking about a very specific act.

And how anybody could dismiss, or reduce, or excuse this kind of behavior is beyond my comprehension, in all truth. Why wouldn't we want to hold the finding from a judge? That's all we're asking for, that we not reduce or minimize the actions of such a very incredibly hard to understand event. I hope that you'll consider me as a co-author for this very worthy discussion. Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member Lackey. Are there other questions or comments from committee members? Okay. Seeing-- Mr. Vice Chair, do you have something? No? Okay. I just have one question. I'll start with the opposition. In your testimony, you made a comment that you felt that the bill, as currently drafted, was too broad. Could you elaborate on what specifically you mean by that comment?

Absolutely. The bill would cover not just school property, school buildings, even parking lots, but also school zones. So if you're thinking about how many school zones you drove through to get here today, that covers a huge amount of space. School zones are within a 500-foot radius, sometimes 1,000-foot radius of a school.

And in a county like Los Angeles alone, there are 80 school districts, over 2,000, I think K-12 schools. And so this would capture not just the very, very rare planned mass attack that Mr. Lackey was talking about, but also, it would capture any kind of gun incident, even where no one is hurt, in a school zone, and that could be thousands of kids swept in to this law that have nothing to do with school shootings in that way.

Let me follow up with a hypothetical. And for the discussion, I'm looking at the proposed bill by Assembly Member DeMaio. This would be, as proposed to be added to the Penal Code, Subsection 14, Subdivision A. I believe what you're referring to is the provision that says, within a school zone-- that's the fourth line down.

Within a school zone is defined in Section 626.9. The question I would have is this. If a pair of individuals resided within 1,000 feet of a school, I believe that would put them within the school zone as defined by state law, is that right?

Yes.

So if there were a domestic altercation where there was the discharge of a firearm and someone was injured, not killed, the point I'm trying to make is that that under this bill as proposed to be amended, they too would be prohibited from recall and resentencing?

Yes.

Well, Mr. DeMaio, I have the floor, and that was my question to the witness. You'll have your chance to close, sir. Please respect decorum. Are there any other questions or comments? Yes, Dr. Sharp-Collins.

No.

I just had a question. When they are going through the adjudication process--I just want clarification--for these cases, are they majority of them tried as adults or is it only the decisions being made by the judge?

Why don't we pose that first to the witnesses or to the proponent of the bill if they have any response. I'm happy to add on later, but do either Mr. DeMaio or the witnesses have a response to Dr. Sharp-Collins?

Yes. The people contemplated in this bill are juveniles. So people under the age of 18 who were sentenced in adult court-- convicted and sentenced in adult court to long sentences.

All right. I was just trying to go back because I remember my bill, 1279, of looking at this as well for people who are convicted of crimes under the age of 18 and looking at the mental development of folks and so forth, but I wanted to thank you for sharing your story and being here today because I am a strong believer that people do change.

Thank you.

And you being here and serving your overall community and also testifying and let people know that people deserve a right to have a quality of life is very important to hear it from you, so I wanted to thank you for that.

I just wanted to get that point of clarification because I know too often some decisions are made strictly by the judge, and then here we are coming back to these conversations again, so.

Thank you, Dr. Sharp-Collins. Are there other questions or comments from committee members? Or is there a motion? This would be an appropriate time for a motion. Okay, we have a motion by Alanis, a second by Lackey. Any further discussion from the dais? Okay. Assembly Member DeMaio, your opportunity to close, please.

Thank you. I think it's important to deal with facts and not misrepresent what's in a bill. Of the five points that were made by the opposition, four of them can easily be dispensed with with this argument. We already allow for the sentence to be fully enforced if an individual tortures their victim or the crime is committed against a law enforcement officer, public safety officer.

You can bring up arguments of, well, you know, they were having a bad day, their emotional development-- no. If we're going to protect law enforcement, if we are going to make torture one of the exemptions from resentencing, then we should stand up for our teachers. We should stand up for these kids. That's what this bill does.

Secondly, the opposition says it's overly broad and they come with this canard, this misrepresentation that somehow someone might commit a misdemeanor and they would-- you know, wouldn't be able to get some sort of leniency. No. Section 2A, quote, the defendant was convicted pursuant to felony murder. That is not a light crime.

And when you get sentenced to life without parole, these are not small offenses. So let's not misrepresent what's in this bill. You can disagree. You can say, yes, law enforcement deserves protection, but not our teachers and our kids. You can make that argument--I don't agree with it--but at least you'd be honest with the voters.

You'd be honest with the constituents and you'd be honest with the victims in San Diego County. But do not lie to them. This is about murder, felony murder, and it's also about treating our teachers and these children with the same protection that we are going to give law enforcement.

This is not a partisan issue. This is an 80, 90% issue. If this committee can't act on this bill, then the notion that there's any sort of effort to protect our children would be questioned by many in this state, and I don't want us to be at that point because this should not be a partisan issue. With that, I urge that this committee advance the bill for full consideration on the floor.

Well, thank you very much, Assembly Member DeMaio, and I appreciate your passion and waiting to have that opportunity to respond. I agree with you that heinous acts deserve severe consequences.

School shootings are terrible crimes, and I'm deeply saddened that in particular, your community right now is continuing to deal with the aftermath of this tragedy and a lot of angst and concern about what's going to happen with what I understand to be a pending case going to appeal now.

I also understand that minors are not adults, that their brains haven't fully developed, and that their personality traits are less fixed. This is probably what I'm about to say is the most important part of my entire justification for my recommendation today.

Both the United States Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court have clearly articulated on multiple occasions that even for the most serious of offenses, punishing minors the same as adults without providing them an opportunity to demonstrate growth and rehabilitation violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

The Recall and Resentencing Law in California was enacted to allow juveniles who have been sentenced to a term of life without the possibility of parole--we refer to that as LWOP--to petition the court after having served a minimum of 15 years to show that they are remorseful and that they have changed for the better.

The other probably very important part that I hope you'll take away from my comment today is this. It is not an automatic release. The court may deny the petition, or if it determines that resentencing is appropriate, and I would argue that's a pretty high burden in many instances, it may resentence the person to a life sentence without the--sorry--with the possibility of parole.

And if resentence, the person would still have to wait for their minimum eligibility parole date and appear at a parole hearing where the board of parole hearings would decide whether parole is appropriate.

Mr. DeMaio, I commend you for your passion. I think that you have identified an issue worthy of further conversation. However, I think that your proposal is too broad, it is arguably unconstitutional, and with that, I recommend a no today.

For AB 1701 by Assembly Member DeMaio, the motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll call].

That measure remains on call, Assembly Member. Thank you all for your appearance today. I will note that if you're staff for one of the member's offices and your member's not here on the dais, please inform them to make their way down.

We have two more authors in the room and we're quickly closing to the end of our agenda. Next up, we have item number 11. This is by Assemblymember Wicks. And this is Assembly Bill 1743. Assemblymember, thank you so much for your patience. You'll have five minutes whenever you're ready.

Great. Thank you. Well, good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Thank you for allowing me to present AB 1743 today. This bill allows local governments, state agencies and institutions of higher education in California to request firearm trace data from the State Department of Justice for research and public policy purposes. Firearm trace data is exactly what it sounds like.

Data points tracing the flow of a firearm from its legal construction or importation to a federally licensed firearm dealer and then to the firearms original purchaser. The California DOJ's Automated Firearm System contains a database with trace information on all gun crimes recovered in California.

That data is a powerful tool that can link suspects to crimes, identify trackers, and uncover patterns in the sources of guns that cause harm in our communities. AB 1743 expands the number of trusted partners that are able to use this tool as our communities continue to confront gun violence in California.

Under the existing law, the DOJ can share trace data with localities as part of an investigation in real time, and previous legislation already allows data sharing with the California Firearm Violence Research Center at UC Davis.

With AB 1743, more California universities, colleges and community colleges will be able to do rigorous research to understand gun violence trends and governments will be able to make smarter decisions about public safety policies that are tailored to the local, regional, or state level.

The privacy and cybersecurity guardrails currently in place for those existing instances of data sharing would be extended under this bill. This is sensitive information that must be treated accordingly.

California has already invested significant resources into gathering this information at the state level and allowing our public partners to use it for research and policy purposes will amplify the impact the data can have. Although California has made great strides in reducing gun violence, there's more work to be done.

It takes collaboration across every level of government and with our research partners to keep moving the needle forward. With me here to testify in support of the bill is Rebecca Marcus representing Brady, the bill sponsor, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote when the time comes up.

Good morning, Chair and members. Rebecca Marcus on behalf of the Brady Campaign in support of AB 1743. Every gun recovered on California street starts somewhere and the overwhelming majority have their origins in the legal marketplace.

Understanding how guns, particularly those that have been diverted from legal commerce to the underground market, make their way to crime scenes is essential to crafting evidence based and life saving solutions to America's gun violence epidemic. TRACE data is key to this story. In 2000, ATF conducted their last public nationwide analysis on crime gun tracing.

The analysis showed that about 5% of gun dealers are responsible for about 90% of recovered crime guns.

In 2003, the Tiahrt Amendment was added to the annual federal appropriations bill and because of ATF's interpretation of the amendment, policymakers, academics and the general public no longer have any visibility into how crime guns flood into their communities or which gun dealers supply them. California is in a unique situation.

As the Assemblymember stated, Cal DOJ's automated firearm system currently contains a database with information on all crime guns recovered in California.

Since this data is obtained and maintained by Cal DOJ is outside the restrictions set by the federal government. The bill is simple it explicitly gives DOJ the authority to share this key data to localities and academic institutions upon request.

This data can reveal patterns of gun violence, often seemingly unrelated, identify potential traffickers, and provide a better understanding of the region's market for illegal weapons. Local leaders can use these insights to create evidence-based policies such as increased oversight of local gun dealers or direct community violence intervention and public health resources to the areas most affected.

California has invested in a system that ensures it has access to this vital data, and it is important that all levels of government can utilize it to keep their constituents safe. I respectfully request an aye vote on this important measure.

I've also been asked to voice support of AB 1743 for my client, the Consumer Protection Policy Center at the University of San Diego School of Law, as well as for my colleagues at Everytown and Moms Demand Action. Thank you.

Thank you both very much. Now we'll go to the me-toos. Come on down.

Good morning. Jamie Minor, on behalf of Giffords in support. Thank you.

All right, thank you all very much. Is there anyone here testifying in opposition to the bill? Yes, I see one person. Great. So, sir, once you come down and begin speaking, you'll have a total of 5 minutes to address the committee.

Good morning, Chair and members. Thank you. My name is Adam Wilson. I'm here on behalf of Gun Owners of California, Gun Owners of America, and also authorized to speak on behalf of the California Rifle and Pistol Association. We are in opposition to AB 1743.

I think we all share the goal of reducing violent crime and stopping illegal firearm trafficking. But the policies we adopt should actually help achieve that goal. Firearm trace data identifies the first lawful retail sale of a firearm. It does not always show how a firearm later changed hands, whether it was stolen, trafficked, or illegally resold.

Even ATF cautions that trace data should not be used to determine wrongdoing by a firearm dealer.

We would like to know, since trace data only identifies the first lawful retail sale and does not establish wrongdoing by a dealer, how does expanding access to that data help identify illegal firearm trafficking rather than risk creating a misleading conclusion about a lawful firearm dealer who has done nothing wrong? There are also practical concerns.

California DOJ already faces significant backlogs administering existing firearm regulations and oversight responsibilities. This bill would require the DOJ to compile and distribute trace data to cities, counties, and universities, including customized formats for research and policy use. That adds administrative workload for an agency already struggling to perform core functions.

Most importantly, if a dealer is actually breaking the law, the DOJ and ATF already have inspection and investigative tools to identify and prosecute the misconduct. If the legislator wants to reduce crime and illegal trafficking, resources would better be directed towards enforcement and investigations, not expanding data sharing requirements. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for a no vote.

Thank you very much. We'll next take the me-toos. Anyone else hoping to be heard in opposition to the bill? Okay, we'll now turn it back to the dais. Are there any questions or comments from committee members? Vice Chair, you have the floor.

For the author: Assemblymember Wicks, or for your witnesses: given the existing workload and backlogs at the Department of Justice, has there been any analysis of the administrative burden created by requirements?

Oh, I guess I just sound loud to myself. Has there been any analysis of the administrative burden created by requiring DOJ to compile and distribute customized trace data sets to cities, counties, and universities?

I'm happy to have my witness answer that. But just from my perspective, a lot of that happens in the Appropriations Committee, where there will be a cost assigned to that. So, we will be doing that analysis in the next committee should this bill move forward.

Thank you.

I don't believe a formal cost analysis has been done, but we have been having conversations, the Department of Justice, back into the fall, about how to make this. They actually think this is a, speaking off the, you know, off the record, they're not sitting here, that this could create a more streamlined way to do things.

Right now, when localities ask that question, there is a lot of review. And this actually creates a system, puts a system into place. But the trace data is actually compiled already by the Department of Justice. They put out an annual report, and so they already have these data sets.

Thank you. And one other the opposition brought some points up as well on how is the trace data, which only identifies the first lawful sell of a firearm, how could it be used to determine that a firearm dealer did anything wrong?

I think it's a good question. What we're really looking to have the data for is to understand if there are particular dealers where there's a high volume of guns being purchased there that are causing a crime.

And if that is the case, you know, could there be additional audits, either by the state DOJ or other work from local law enforcement? Only if we have the data can we understand those trends and then we can actually take action on that.

Thank you. For the opposition, did you have anything to respond on that?

No, I don't. Thanks.

Thank you.

No further questions.

Thank you very much. Mr. Vice Chair. Any other questions or comments? Okay. Assemblymember Wicks, you have a chance to close, if you would like?

Just respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. Is there a motion? We have a - okay, we have a motion by Gonzalez. A second by Ramos. I do recommend an aye. I just want to say I really appreciated the conversation today between the proponents in opposition. And I have no doubt that those conversations will continue.

Assemblymember, I know you're very collaborative in your approach. So with that recommended an aye. Let's take the roll.

For AB 1743, by Assemblymember Wicks, the motion is do pass through the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call].

Okay. That measure remains on call. Thank you, Assemblymember. And Mr. Wilson, right? Okay. Thanks for your testimony today. Appreciate it. Colleagues, just a quick programming note. We only have two items left on the agenda. Next up will be Assemblymember Stephanie. She can come down and right and then start getting ready.

I just want to note that if staff is watching for Assemblymembers Harabedian, Nguyen, or Haney, please get them here as soon as possible. And if staff is watching for Assemblymember Boerner, she's the only item on after this bill.

Please get her here as quickly as possible or else I will put her over to the next hearing. Assembly Member Stefani, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And today I would like to present AB 1716, which would support college students who experience sexual violence to receive tuition reimbursement from the California Victim Compensation Board, also known as CalVCB, after facing academic setbacks.

I think it's understandable that when one encounters sexual assault and violence, one has consequences such as not being able to do very well in school. And victims understandably tend to do poor academically, sometimes failing classes or even being placed on academic post probation.

These students may end up in a position where they must withdraw from classes, repeat coursework, or even delay graduation, costs that can push them out of school entirely, especially if they lack financial support. And under current law, crime victims may receive reimbursement from CalVCB for medical expenses, including counseling and mental health treatments.

So by adding tuition as a reimbursable expense, the state can provide meaningful relief that helps students remain enrolled and continue their education. Not only does AB 1716 affirm our commitment to a more holistic and survivor centered justice system.

But it also affirms to our students that they should not have to choose between healing from violence and staying in school. With me today as witnesses is Jacquelynn Lira with the Center for Advocacy Resources and the Education Unit at UC Davis and Jessica Duong with the University of California Office of the President.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Jessica Duong with the University of California. We are the sponsor of AB 1716. Sexual harassment, sexual assault, intimate partner violence, and stalking are unfortunate realities of the college landscape.

At UC, our campuses implement a variety of preventative measures, including annual mandatory sexual violence and sexual harassment awareness prevention and education training, bystander intervention workshops, safety escort programs, and have CARE centers that offer free and confidential support to our students. While there are resources to support survivors of sexual assault and violence, students often understandably do worse academically.

Two studies found that students who face sexual violence were more likely to have lower GPAs or to not graduate. Students who continue their education will need to retake classes and may not have budgeted for extra terms, which increases their financial burden. Research found that the estimated lifetime cost of rape was over 122,000 per survivor.

By creating eligibility for tuition reimbursement from the California Victims Compensation Fund, AB 1716 will allow students to apply for tuition reimbursement and continue their education with less financial repercussions and hopefully be on a path to healing and getting their goals back on track. Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Committee. My name is Jacquelynn Lira, and I'm the Assistant Director for the UC Davis Center for Advocacy Resources and Education Program, commonly known as CARE.

I've been an advocate for 19 years and one of the reoccurring themes that I have seen in the educational financial impact to victims who have experienced sexual assault, domestic violence, and stalking. Thus, I'm here to offer my full support for AB 1716.

The idea for this bill came from seeing the look of defeat in far too many students who had experienced harm and where their education had then become collateral damage. I'll often hear them say, well, I need to stay for another quarter. Now I need to sign up for summer school.

My graduation plan has been delayed. And often they are doing this in a tone of absolute defeat, resignation because it's just one more thing that their experience now has them dealing with. When a student survivor has to drop a class, retake a term, or extend their tenure, this is time and money.

In the aftermath of their experience, one of the many things they have to contend with is evaluating their academic and financial options, and the weight of these decisions leads to additional stress, fear, guilt, and shame. Furthermore, there are survivors who simply end their educational pursuits.

They just don't come back to school, and that is an absolute loss. The current support structures allow for both short term and long term options. When students connect with services, campus based advocates will often help identify options for the survivors and make the right decision for them.

And these options may include extensions on assignments, tests, late drops for classes after the deadline, or assisting a student in taking leave or withdrawing from school altogether. Even with these supportive measures, I will watch students struggle through an entire term trying to focus, trying to make it to class, trying to be the student they were before their experience, and still fail all their classes.

In these situations, I've supported them in seeking retroactive withdrawals which will help them wipe the grades, but the money is still gone. My time in this profession has provided me with so much knowledge and strategy around how to best help my community as well as given me a glimpse into what is lacking in the various systems and programs. I determined this to be a lack in the systems and is an opportunity to do better.

There's a clear need to create a potential avenue for survivors to help restore some of the loss they've experienced. And I've supported students through the existing support structures and have watched them go on to do amazing things. Some of my survivors have become teachers, lawyers, therapists, educators, just to name a few.

But I've also watched them struggle with the decision about how their education was impacted and what it meant for them to stay longer and what it meant to them to repeat terms. For all of the successes I've witnessed, there are many who weren't able to continue with school.

And it is my hope that AB 1716 will create a critical support pathway that will allow more survivors to complete their education successfully and fulfill the potential that our community will undeniably benefit from. Thank you so much.

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.

Ivy Fitzpatrick, California DAs Association, Riverside County District Attorney's Office, in support.

Good morning. I'm Maggie White with the California State University Chancellor's Office. We weren't able to get a letter in on time, but we are in support of this bill. Thank you very much.

Morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Ryan Sherman on behalf of the California Coalition of School Safety Professionals and the other law enforcement groups in the analysis in support. Thank you.

Dominique Nong, Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition, in support.

Great. Thank you all very much. Are there any witnesses here to testify in opposition? Seeing none. Is there anyone else hoping to be heard on the bill and register a position? Seeing none. We'll... Oh, there is one. All right. Come on down.

Liz Blum Gutierrez, on behalf of LA County Public Defenders Union, Local 148, in opposition, respectfully.

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

All right, one more call. Anyone else hoping to be heard on the bill? Okay, we will turn it back to the dais. Are there questions or comments or motions from members of the committee? We have a motion. Is there - we have a second, a third, and a fourth. Any other questions or comments? No.

Assemblymember Stephanie, would you like to give a brief close?

I would, and actually, I do want to address the opposition. Although the reasons were not given for the opposition, after reading the letter, I felt like it could not go unanswered. And I am shocked by the assertion in the opposition letter that this is too attenuated to actually give reimbursement for tuition.

The actual line is, "The reimbursement for tuition, however, is too attenuated for the board to determine whether a person's decision not to continue in college or another education institution is due to a sexual assault." And for me, this smacks of not believing victims or even having contempt for them.

Sexual assault is associated with serious psychological and physical effects such as PTSD, depression and anxiety disorder. These can cause difficulty concentrating, sleep problems, panic attacks, and missed classes or assignments, as our witnesses have so brilliantly displayed today. These effects make it very hard for a student to perform academically, and it's not attenuated at all.

This is classic victim blaming. Even questioning whether or not the victim was already a bad student to begin with, stating that the board is without access to the student's academic history. Why not just ask what the victim was wearing? This line of reasoning has the same underlying contempt at its core.

What kind of academic history or grades would a victim have to have to deserve compensation for being raped? Would a C plus student indicate to the board that maybe she was already struggling and just using the assault as an excuse, as is the tone of the letter?

Or would the straight A student be compensated because she would appear to be more believable to the board? I don't see how you read this letter any differently. To say I am incensed by this argument is an understatement. It's 2026, folks. It's time we start believing women. It's time we start believing victims. I urge an aye vote.

Thank you very much, Assemblymember. Colleagues, I do recommend an aye. And with that, we have a motion and a second. So we'll conduct the roll.

For AB 1716, by Assemblymember Stefani, the motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call].

Okay, that measure passes. Thank you, Assemblymember. And before we bring up Assemblymember Boerner, I will just note that we are still waiting on Assemblymembers Haney, Harabedian, and Nguyen. This is our final item, so if they could please make their way to room 126, I would appreciate it and probably drink less coffee being all stressed out with that. Assemblymember Boerner, you have the floor. You have five minutes, as do. Do you have any witnesses with you in support today? You do? So, you'll have five minutes, as will they.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. AB 1667 would add fentanyl to the list of drugs on the existing serious felony list, making it a serious felony to furnish fentanyl to a minor. Fentanyl is wrecking havoc on our communities. It is up to 50 times more potent than heroin and 100 times more potent than morphine.

Despite this, fentanyl is not on the serious felonies list, a list which currently includes heroin, cocaine, PCP, and meth as being a serious felony to deal these dangerous drugs to minors. This bill would ensure that the list properly includes this recently proliferating and deadly drug, fentanyl.

We should be protecting our children from this deadly drug. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote. I have here with me Jorge Del Portillo with the San Diego District's Attorney's Office and the sponsors of the bill, and Chris Didier.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, Mr. Vice Chair. Can you hear me okay? Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, and Committee Members. My name is Chris Didier, and this is my son, Zach. Zach died tragically at age 17 from fentanyl poisoning, only two days after Christmas. In high school, Zach was incredibly successful.

A straight A student, a respected athlete, active in Scouts and community service. He held the lead role of his high school musical. After Zach died, we opened acceptance letters into five UCs, including UCLA. What adds to our confusion is there were no red flags of substance abuse. First responders never found products or paraphernalia.

Zach and friends were simply sold a fake pill from the deceptive influence of a dealer. Two months before Zach died, the dealer was sentenced to five years probation on other drug charges with no jail time. 1667 can help. So allow me to qualify.

In January 2020, Philadelphia Public Health and National Institute of Health interviewed 45 incarcerated dealers of which all knew about fentanyl and referred to fentanyl as something that they, quote, could kill you, end quote. In January 24, New England Journal of Medicine Studies showed 22 students ages 14 to 18 die every week from drugs.

A classroom of students dying every week. In October 24, Yahoo News reported fentanyl test strips used by dealers to advertise, quote, clean pills, end quote, Implying the awareness of fentanyl. In November 25, PubMed Central study included claims from a dealer. I knew that they weren't real pills from a doctor, end quote. Characterizing the knowledge of fentanyl.

These dealers illegally possess those pills, not knowing where they actually came from. They're not doctors. They're not pharmacists. They are wrongfully claiming these are harmless, legitimate pills. Our children are all unrepeatable miracles.

Still, someone died 12 minutes ago from illicit fentanyl. So my question to you is, what does it take to hold a dealer accountable who profits on the lives of our children, your children? Thank you for your time. I urge you for your aye vote, and I very much look forward to your questions.

Good morning. My name is Jorge Del Portillo. I am the Assistant Chief of the Major Narcotics Division of the San Diego County District Attorney's Office. I've been a prosecutor for 20 years, and more than half of that time has been working in narcotics. Fentanyl, selling it to a kid should be a serious felony. Period. And including analogs.

This doesn't create a new strike because the strike law has been frozen. So it just simply declares it a serious felony to sell these poisons to children. This amendment actually has the unintended consequence of making it less risky for a fentanyl dealer than a heroin dealer to sell to children. What do I mean?

If a heroin dealer sells to a child, they are facing a serious felony prior. But if they were fortunate enough for that heroin only to be fentanyl, they are not facing that consequence. So how can it be that selling heroin is treated harsher than selling fentanyl? The number one way children die from fentanyl is from pills.

Pills that it doesn't look like anything else. You can't smell fentanyl. You can't detect that it's there. They're ordering Percocet, Oxy, Xanax, and it has these deadly substances. So this amendment unfortunately benefits the fentanyl dealer by allowing them to escape accountability and claiming they don't know.

Just to clarify, there is no amendment on the table.

Oh, there is no amendment.

Just to be extraordinarily clear and to avoid any confusion of the Committee Members.

Thank you. One final thing I did notice in the analysis, there was a small error on page seven. It says, according to the Department of Justice, that laws and policies to deter crime. That's not according to the Department of Justice. When you look at that source, it's actually an essay published on the Department of Justice.

So I just wanted to flag that. I wanted to say that in San Diego County, we've had multiple cases where a drug dealer sells one substance but accidentally sells another. And the number one way that kids are receiving this drug is through the Internet, through social media, and it's usually in a pill form. So I urge you to vote aye. Thank you.

All right, now that we're all clear. Me toos, anyone else hoping to be heard in support of the bill?

Mr. Chair, Ryan Sherman with California Narcotic Officers Association and the other law enforcement associations in the analysis in support. Thank you.

Ivy Fitzpatrick, California District Attorneys Association, Riverside County District Attorney's Office, in support,

Douglas Andreasen for the City of Carlsbad in support.

Serena Scott on behalf of the League of California Cities in support.

Good morning. Lieutenant Julio De Leon. I'm here in support on behalf of Sheriff Chad Bianco, Riverside County.

Regina Chavez with the Empower and Resilience Project, and also, more importantly, an angel mother in support of this bill. Thank you.

Alisa Brooks Novak. My son, Ryan Brooks, and I support this bill, AB 1667.

Mareka Cole. And I'm an angel mom of Marek, who was autistic and it affected him. So I support this bill. Thank you.

Anyone else hoping to be heard in support of the bill? Okay, next we'll be taking up opposition witnesses. Just want to take this moment to say thank you, sir. And to the other witnesses who came forward to share your very painful personal stories, your connection to this issue, it's appreciated.

I can't imagine it gets any easier over time to talk about those issues, but appreciate you being here in our state capitol today so we can hear from you. All right. We do have two opposition witnesses. Gentlemen, you'll have a combined total time of 5 minutes to address the committee. Your time begins when you start speaking.

Thank you, Chair, Members of the Committee. Grey Gardner on behalf of the Drug Policy Alliance. DPA respectfully opposes this bill. We all want our loved ones, our communities, and particularly young people to be safe and healthy.

And the losses described here previously today are truly tragic. And we feel tremendous sympathy for the parents who have lost ones, loved ones and others who have lost loved ones in the community. We want overdose deaths to be eliminated.

We want those who use drugs, especially young people, to have access to easily obtainable person centered care, substance use disorder treatment, mental health services, and evidence based overdose prevention services. Health centered approaches to drugs.

But extensive research has found that lengthening sentences and increasing arrests do not protect health, prevent substance use, or reduce the availability of drugs or overdose deaths. Longer sentences do not have the intended deterrence effect. Literally decades of increasing sentences has not prevented the use or distribution of illicit substances.

As mentioned previously, the sentencing enhancement that would be added by the incident bill is already applied to other controlled substances. It has been for over 40 years. Heroin, cocaine, phencyclidine, methamphetamine.

And those enhancements have proven ineffective for decades in reducing the distribution of those substances. Instead, enhanced penalties have been associated with negative health harms, such as increased HIV risk behaviors and lower utilization of prevention services.

Because people who sell or share drugs are often themselves people who use drugs and often experiencing substance use disorders, legislation such as this further drives people needing SUD treatment away from systems of care. Because this would effectively prohibit plea bargaining in more cases, it would expand incarceration instead of allowing the negotiation of treatment alternatives and increase the risk of overdose deaths.

The added years of incarceration facilitated by this bill come at huge expense and do not address the measures that could keep people safer. Expanding peer outreach programs, evidence based overdose prevention education, naloxone access, and expanding access to medication treatment, especially for young people. Because it increases harm rather than invest in health, we respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.

Chair and Members, My name is Aubrey Rodriguez. I am a leg advocate, ACLU Cal Action. I want to start by acknowledging the witness today for sharing your story. Thank you. And by acknowledging the great risk posed by this substance and the immense amount of harm that has caused to many communities around the country.

However, I would be remiss to not underscore how this harm is unquestionably exacerbated by the war on drugs. California's experiment with tough on crime policies has more than demonstrated its inability to to prevent crimes and has resulted in a costly mass incarceration machine that drains taxpayer money without solving the root causes of crime.

Sentencing enhancements, as this bill proposes, does absolutely nothing to deter crime, which is supported by a great deal of evidence. And I know, as mentioned last week in this committee room, that there may be other motives to impose criminal, longer criminal penalties other than deterring crime.

And if that's the case, I'd like to understand not only as a leg advocate to ACLU but as a Californian keen on what our state representatives are doing in Sacramento, what exactly are these other motives? Beyond the ineffectiveness of enhancements, another glaring issue is the Legislature explicitly violating the doctrine of separation of powers.

Mandatory sentencing enhancements take away discretion from a judge who is responsible for exercising their best judgment on a case by case basis. When the Legislature decides to mandate a sentence, it is therefore exercising its power over the judicial branch and a clear obstruction of what we intended with our separation of powers doctrine.

To quote former California Governor and US Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, the best available evidence indicates that the words of the Constitution were intended as a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function, or more simply, trial by Legislature.

But this Legislature does not heed the advice of our former Governor, which is evident with our penal code having more than 100 unique sentencing enhancements that are routinely applied in nearly every criminal case.

We need to move away from these failed carceral solutions, respect the separation of powers, and treat this issue that this bill aims to solve as the health problem it is. For these reasons, we urge your no vote on AB 1667. Thank you.

Thank you both for your testimony. Next we'll hear the me toos. If you'd like to be heard in opposition to the bill, please come down. Please confine your comment to name, organization, and the position you're taking. Thank you.

Jim Lindburg, Friends Committee on Legislation in California, respectfully opposed.

Liz Blum-Gutierrez on behalf of the LA County Public Defenders Union Local 148 in respectful opposition.

Dominique Nong, Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition, in respectful opposition.

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

Shivani Nishar on behalf of Initiate Justice in respectful opposition. Also registering opposition for Californians United for a Responsible Budget.

Lesli Caldwell Houston for the California Public Defenders Association and the San Francisco Public Defender's Office in opposition.

Good morning. Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice in respectful opposition.

Mica Doctoroff on behalf of Smart Justice California. We've taken an opposed unless amended position asking for the bill to be amended to add a knowledge requirement. We appreciate the conversations that we've had with the author's office and we look forward to further conversations. Thank you.

Thank you all. Is there anyone else hoping to be heard on the bill? Okay, I'll turn it back to dais. Are there questions or comments from any Members of the Committee? Mr. Lackey.

I'm almost speechless for some of the accusations by some of the defense comments, and I'll just try to dismiss them. But I will tell you, first of all, thank you for addressing this issue and my sympathies to the families. I've seen you here before, and it's hard for me to understand opposition to this truthfully.

I mean, when you think about the carelessness of what's done and the way that these people died, how can you not want to ascribe a consequence that is serious? Because there's nothing more serious than a death. And I think to dismiss and to forgive has its place.

But also assigning accountability to the dangers may not be proven to be a preventive measure, but it certainly is an accountability measure that I think we're uncomfortable wrestling with as a committee. And I find that that's really not our role as a committee other than to make sure that a judge has the option to do the right thing.

The judge is the one that ascribes penalties, and we got to give them the latitude to be serious with those penalties and not limit their ability to assign circumstances that fit and a penalty that fits with the crime, especially repeat offenders in this arena.

They've proven they don't care. They've proven it. Why wouldn't we want to take action against that? And that's what this bill allows. I would ask to be a co-author, and it will get my hearty support.

Thank you, Assembly Member Lackey. Other questions or comments from Members of the Committee? Mr. Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Curious. Doug, you said that lengthening sentence do not have an intimate deterrence, but yet you also said it would increase harm. Curious, what harm is going to increase with this bill? I'm sorry, was that your first name? Doug? No. Was your name Doug? What was your first name?

We can also use last names. It's also a good decorum.

Could I ask that of you then? What increase of harm do you have?

Yes, you can answer.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We know from decades of experience that increasing length of incarceration actually increases risks. It increases risks of overdose death. Every time a person is incarcerated, it increases overdose death significantly.

So you're talking about the person who committed the crime, not the victim?

Well, you know, I think, to be clear, one day a person may be a furnisher and another day they may be a recipient of a substance. I think we know very clearly that in the sharing of substances, in the furnishing of substances, there's a lot of different forms that this takes.

There are individuals who are receiving one day a substance or sharing with friends and colleagues or just receiving small remuneration for a substance. That's a vast amount of the furnishing that occurs in the markets. And this creates a penalty that actually prohibits plea bargaining for people who are themselves experiencing substance use disorder, as I mentioned.

So there are significant harms here because it is driving more people underground. It's driving more people into dangerous situations who themselves may be at greater risk for lengthy sentences. But as I think is elucidated in the literature, harsh sentences do not have the intended deterrence effect.

And that's what I think is largely missed by this type of approach. And we need to stop extending this type of approach that we've been trying for 30 years and start investing more in other types of approaches that are more effective.

Gotcha. I hear that excuse all the time about the lengthening sentences. And so it's kind of getting old up here. But I was curious about your increasing harm and increasing overdose deaths. And I was just curious on. So was that come back? Was there, like, somebody who did a study on that, or is this from personal experience?

Yes, there are actually extensive studies, and we're happy to provide those to your office. That periods of detention and even lengthy detention increase overdose risk by as much as, well, some studies show 26%. Some show much greater percent in terms of the overdose risk. And that is partially because substance use disorder does not change during periods of incarceration, periods of detention.

Again, you're talking about those that have been arrested for this, not those that are outside that are victims who are trying to protect right now, right? I'm talking about the victim.

So what you're telling me right now is that his son and their children that came up, the angel mothers, that their kids, after taking the drug, were going to then now sell it to other people, according to what you told me earlier?

Assembly Member, what we know from talking with parents of individuals that have been both who have experienced losses and who have experienced children who have been incarcerated, they tell us that some days their child may be the recipient of a substance, and some days their child may be the one who is sharing it with another child.

Okay, so what you're referring to is like cocaine, methamphetamines, other drugs other than fentanyl. We're talking about fentanyl is a little bit different. Actually, I'm going to shift over to you, sir. How do you feel about that with the accusations made that your son would be selling this after he took it?

I'm gonna just pause right there before the witness answered. And I would just encourage all of my colleagues to ask questions. It's perfectly fine to have a difference of opinion, but let's not paraphrase or put words in the mouths of any witnesses today.

All right, well, then I will ask it because this stuff is getting tiresome. Sir, your son, do you feel that he would be selling this drug after he took it? Unfortunately, I know he died and I know who we're talking about are people who are dying after this. So I don't know how they could sell it afterwards. But if you would not mind asking or answering that question, please.

Thank you for that question, Vice Chair. It's impossible to know for certain exactly what my son would have done after surviving a first experience with any kind of drug. But knowing his history, I believe at the cellular level, he would never want to impart any harm to anyone else.

And sadly, a lot of children that I know of other grieving families, literally thousands, have a similar story where they unintentionally, I call it the new age or the emergence of a new category of victim. This isn't a struggle of a long term addiction story. This is different.

I call it an acute story where it's a one off, unfair scenario where it's more like a landscape. Instead of a slippery slope of addiction, it's a minefield. One tiptoe down that path one time and it's lights out. And in many cases, it's truly a tragedy that should not have happened.

It kind of reminds me of what happened in Chicago in 1982 with the extra strength Tylenol poisonings. The first victim was a lady named Catherine. She was only 12. She was taking extra strength Tylenol to manage cramps, and she ingested potassium cyanide unknowingly. And that's when someone was tampering with Tylenol bottles.

And after a serious study, we've invented this thing called a tamper proof seal. That lady did not have an addiction problem. She wasn't looking to sell drugs or anything. She just was taking pain medicine I thought would help her when in fact she died from something that took her life. So I don't see this as a problem where someone could come across a drug and then later become a dealer themselves.

Thank you. And I fully agree with that. And again, thank you to the angel mothers and angel fathers out there continuing to fight. I appreciate it. And I'd also like to be added as a co-author, if I could, please. And I would like to move the bill, Mr. Chair.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Thank you, Vice Chair. Are there other comments or questions from Members of the Committee? Seeing none. All right. Assembly Member Boerner, with a motion in hand, this is your opportunity to close.

Yes, thank you. I'd like to recenter the bill on what the bill does do. And it puts fentanyl at the same level as cocaine, heroin, meth, and PCP as a serious felony. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Assembly Member Boerner. Colleagues, I'll be very brief. I wasn't planning to say anything, but there were a couple things that came up in the discussion today that I'd like to briefly respond to.

To our representative from the ACLU, I can't speak for any other legislator, but to answer your question directly, I think there's multiple goals of our criminal justice system. Rehabilitation is certainly one, as is deterrence, as is community safety.

And what I mean by that is there are some people that have committed crimes and are so dangerous that until they're rehabilitated, they need to be separated from society. And I don't think one goal is more important than the other. They're all part of what we're trying to achieve in our justice system.

And that's the balance we try to strike as a committee. So I appreciate the question. I just share at least one legislator's perspective on that. Assembly Member Boerner, I would just thank you for your bringing the bill forward. I know you quite well. You're a very caring and thoughtful and passionate advocate on the issue.

I will be voting aye today. However, because it did come up. I would like to mention that I think that the amendments that we did discuss are absolutely essential to public safety. I have to disagree with one of your witnesses comments on it.

I'm fine to move it forward today, but I will be looking to see that added in through Appropriations and certainly as it hits the floor. And I know you to be an author that will at least engage in the conversation and work with the opposition. And the last thing I'll say is based on some comments from the dais.

It's perfectly fine to have a reasonable difference of opinion. I think we should really not question each other's motivations. That is how democracy divides. That's how democracy dies and debate ends. It's okay to disagree. It's not okay to question others' motivations in my humble opinion. With that, there's a motion and a second. Call the roll.

For AB 1667 by Assembly Member Boerner, the motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Okay, that measure passes. Thank you all for being here. Colleagues, we're not yet done. We have a proposed consent calendar. I'm going to read the consent calendar. We have 44 items on consent calendar. Item number two, Assembly Bill 1549 by Assembly Member Krell entitled alternative domestic violence program. I will note that has an urgency provision.

Item number four, Assembly Bill 1681 by our very own Assembly Member Ramos, entitled victims and witnesses rights. We have item number 7, Assembly Bill 1723 by Assembly Member Ellis entitled driver's licenses revocation. And lastly we have item number nine, Assembly Bill 1737 by our very own Assembly Member Lackey entitled post release community supervision. Is there a motion? With a motion and a second, we'll conduct the roll

[Roll Call]

All right, consent calendar is adopted and colleagues for final order of business will go back through everything to let those who've arrived late add on and then we'll be done for the day.

[Roll Call]

That measure passes. Colleagues, that completes today's business. I will note that next week we will. Beginning at 8:30am we have an early start time next week and we anticipate having an early start time from here on out. We have a very busy docket with that. Thank you all for being here. And we stand adjourned.