Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning, everyone. Welcome back to the Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety or top of the morning to the those of you celebrating Saint Patrick's Day. Welcome. I'd like to begin just a little bit off the normal script. A couple housekeeping matters, it has been brought to my attention by the Sergeant's Office, just a reminder for all of all of us about decorum.

Please keep clapping or other, sort of, auditory outburst to a minimum. I will give a couple warnings. Doesn't seem like much, but it can actually slow down and disrupt the proceedings. So, I'm gonna ask you not to clap, but if you'd like to use jazz hands, which is something I'm very much a fan of, please feel free to use that.

It looks just like this. And I still get to see it, so I can judge the support in the room. Other thing I would mention just to staff that are in the room and are watching, representing other authors with business before the committee, we had a pretty high number of polls this week. We're gonna have a very short agenda as you'll all find out.

That leaves us with a little bit of a predicament. So, this is as much for staff as it is for all of you advocates who come every week. We have a 125 bills and only four hearings left to go. So, my ask of all the authors and all the staff watching is please, to the extent that you can, try not to pull your bill in the coming weeks. We absolutely need to get through our business, and I would rather not have you all here for two days for our final hearing.

So, please try to keep your bill on calendar when set. To the advocates in advance, I apologize. It will be very long days. Generally speaking, our session schedule will start at 8:30. We'll go to lunch.

You will have that consistent twelve to 11:30 break in your day. I think ordinarily, we'll probably have to break around 4:00 is what I'm thinking for Veterans Committee that will be in this room. And then, if we're still needing more time, we'll be back here as soon as they're done, somewhere between 5:30 and 6:30 going as late as we need. We may also move over to 127, I'm reminded. So, we'll either be in this room or in 127.

But for the next four hearings, you can plan to start your morning every day right here, 8:30 AM in Room 126. So, thank you all very much in advance. As a reminder, there are some general rules of conduct before we start a hearing. Please note that in order to facilitate the goal of conducting a legislative hearing and as we proceed with witness and public comment throughout the hearing, we wanna ensure that everyone understand the assembly has rules to ensure that we maintain order and run a fair and efficient hearing. I won't permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of proceedings.

However, as mentioned, jazz hands do not do those things and are welcome. Please be aware that violation of the rules can subject you to removal or other enforcement actions. We do not yet have a quorum, so, we'll proceed as a subcommittee. I will note, that we have a few items off calendar today. I'll read those items now.

We have item number one, Assembly Bill 1538 by Assemblymember Krell. We have item number seven, Assembly bill 1874 by Assemblymember Wilson. We have item number 11, Assembly Bill 1922 by Assemblymember Lowenthal, and lastly, we have item number 13, Assembly Bill 1955 by Assemblymember Alanis, all pulled by the author. Good morning, Mr. Vice Chair.

We are still without a quorum, so we'll continue moving as a subcommittee. Before we go to our first item, I will just note as a reminder that we will be hearing today's measures and sign an order with standing committee members, presenting their bills towards the end of the hearing. So, if you're here to talk for or against my bill, you'll have to wait to the end, and I apologize about that. We appreciate your patience. Authors will have five minutes to present, as will your main witnesses, as will the witnesses here to testify in opposition, as that's the committee standing practice.

I see that we have Assemblymember Ta here on two items, I believe. Assemblymember Ta, would you like to begin with item number six, AB 1872?

Yeah.

Fantastic. Alright. So, sir, your time will begin once you begin speaking, and I'll just note that we're waiting on one more member to establish a quorum.

Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. I'm here today to present AB 1872, a measure to protect innocent victim from in recently prevalent act of swatting. I want to begin by really appreciate the committee staff and the Chair for their collaboration on this bill. Our collaboration in the past has verified that this bill will apply only to adult repeat offenders. Swatting is some when someone make a false claim of an emergency in order to have a massive emergency response, is often result in SWAT team and helicopter being sent to a location thinking there's a bomb threat, active shooter, or hostage situation.

When our first responder show up to the side of a false report, people lives are at stake. Thinking there's bomb threat or active shooter, our first responder break down doors with crossfire and put directly in harm's way. Meanwhile, as our law enforcement looking for a bomb or active shooter that doesn't exist, our public resources are taking away from real emergencies where people are actually in danger.

We've seen a rustic increase of swatting in recent years in which public official on both side of the political aisle have been targeted. And most importantly, school aroused our state and nation have been shut down because of this incident.

According to educator school safety networks, swatting account for 63.8% of all violent incident in school and has increased 546% from 2018 to 2023. When this swatting incident have happened at school, our kid and teacher have been put in danger. School have been shut down, and communities have suffer. After I order this bill, several school district reached out to my office, and they really, really thankful for our team for running this bill. AB 1872 will address this serious crime by making swatting a warbler.

Warbler is a crime that can be prosecuted as either a misdemeanor or a felony, depend on the circumstance. Also, AB 1872 will ensure that victim, also compensate by the perpetrator for any property damage. I'm honored to introduce my witnesses. Matty Hyatt with California's Civil Liberties...and Nick Bishop with the Sacramento County Sheriff Office.

Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Matty Hyatt from California Civil Liberties Advocacy. We are a proud sponsor of AB 1872. Let's be clear, swatting isn't a prank. It's an abuse of emergency services that endangers lives, violates constitutional rights, and cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars per incident.

When law enforcement is sent to a home based on a false report, they often arrive with weapons drawn, enter without a warrant, and conduct a search under the plain view doctrine. That's where the CCLA actually takes issue and and supports this bill. We see this as a fourth amendment issue, and we take it very seriously and an addition to the public safety issue. But swatting has targeted people across the political spectrum, so we also see this as bipartisan. We've had everyone from, Mayor Michelle Wu on Christmas day, in 2024, I believe it was, to Maine Secretary of State, Shenna Bellows, in response to removing Donald Trump from the ballot, whether you agree with that or not, to California's own Lieutenant Governor, Eleni Kounalakis.

Even this building, as a member mentioned, the State Capitol's been swatted not once, but twice in the past with the anthrax hose, and then—hoax—and then with a bomb threat. Given the shifting landscape of federal enforcement, particularly in light of signals from the Trump Administration and its allies, for pardons for individuals convicted in the January 6 capital attack, there is a growing concern that federal accountability for politically motivated crimes, including swatting, may erode.

If individuals who commit acts of intimidation or public disruption are shielded from consequences at the federal level, California must ensure it has its own legal infrastructure to respond swiftly and proportionately. AB 1872 provides state level prosecutors with the discretion and tools they need to hold repeat swatting offenders accountable, regardless of what happens in Washington.

We cannot rely on a federal system that may be undermined by political favoritism. California must protect its residents, our institutions, and public servants through our laws and that we can force independently. So, this isn't in hypothetical. As we know, we talked about this last year. There was one very big case of a repeat offender, Alan Fillion, and he was responsible for over 375 swatting incidents across the country.

So, as a civil liberties organization, I just want to be clear, we, we support restorative justice reforms that make sense, but we don't see this as a, as a problem for like creating a new crime on the books. We, we are at privacy advocates. We are also safety advocates. How else do we enforce our crimes if we don't have some kind of a law on the books to make it a crime and to make it enforceable? Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Nicholas Bishop, supporting Assembly Bill 1872 as an individual based on my academic and professional experience. I hold a master's in Emergency Services Administration from California State Long Beach where I authored a thesis on recognizing and mitigating swatting incidents. I've worked as a law enforcement dispatcher for eleven years and currently serve as a training officer and tactical dispatcher. AB 1872 addresses the growing problem of intentional false emergency reports as a harassment tool, commonly known as swatting, and the misuse of the 9-1-1 system.

At a minimum, these incidents place significant stress on responders and victims. In serious cases, they result in unnecessary emergency deployments, increased public safety costs, property damage, injury, and even death. They also erode public trust in emergency services. Victims are not limited to individuals; they include families, schools, businesses, public officials, and entire communities.

Public safety personnel are also directly and indirectly affected. Recent incidents highlight the scope of the problem. Just four days ago, Disneyland was the target of a swatting incident. In 2023, targets included Modesto College, multiple elementary and high schools in Burbank. And as Maddie noticed, or Maddie mentioned, Lieutenant Governor Kunallakis's office was swatted.

Both research and field experience indicate that these incidents are likely to increase, driven by widespread online access to personal information in our ever advancing technology. AB 1872 strengthens accountability by allowing repeat offenders to be charged in a way that better reflects the severity of their actions. This is a practical and necessary deterrent. Swatting creates conditions where deadly force can be used based on false information. That's not a prank. That's a serious public safety threat. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your presentation, Assembly Member and gentlemen, for your testimony. We'll take a brief interruption in our proceeding. We have a quorum. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We have a quorum present. Thank you, everyone. We'll now take the me too's in support of the bill.

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

David Bullog...alliance, in support.

Good morning. Matthew Gallagher, on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, in support.

Alright. Thank you all very much. Do we have anyone here testifying—hoping to testify in opposition? We do. Alright. Once you come down and get seated, you'll have five minutes to address the committee, total time.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Schultz and committee members. My name is Leslie Wolf. I am a Deputy Public Defender. I represent Local 148, the Los Angeles Public Defenders Union.

Our union represents over 600 attorneys in Los Angeles, and we respectfully oppose AB 1872. Existing law already makes it a misdemeanor to knowingly make a false emergency report or to misuse the 911 system to harass others. In more serious cases where a false report results in great bodily injury or death, these offenses can already be charged as felonies. The law also already allows public agencies to recover the cost of emergency responses. By making so called swatting a wobbler, this bill is inconsistent with existing law.

Similar conduct remains treated as a misdemeanor under other statutes, creating an uneven and incoherent penalty structure. In practice, many of my clients charged with repeatedly making 911 calls are experiencing serious mental illness. Paranoia and delusions often drive repeated calls to 911, resulting in multiple charges, currently as misdemeanors. Under AB 1872, these individuals could quickly face felony exposure, lengthy prison time, given the potential for numerous charges.

If mental health diversion were sought in these cases, our clients would likely spend months in custody awaiting mental health evaluations and programming. Rather than addressing root causes, this approach risks criminalizing mental illness and deepening harm.

California already has the tools to address truly harmful swatting conduct, including felony liability where serious injury occurs. Expanding punishment beyond that is unnecessary and counterproductive, and for these reasons, I respectfully urge a no vote. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Simelia Rogers. I'm a Policy Associate at the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. I'm here today in opposition to AB 1872. We understand that the conduct of swatting and falsification is harmful.

With that said, AB 1872 takes the wrong approach by focusing on punishment rather than prevention. Proponents of this legislation highlight the waste of resources caused by swatting or false 911 calls. At the same time, increased punishment and incarceration are also costly, expensive, and a waste of resources. AB 1872 is unnecessary. As my colleague pointed out, this conduct can already be punished under both California and federal law.

Importantly, this bill seeks to oppose additional financial and civil penalties to individuals convicted of swatting, in addition to other criminal punishments. 80% of individuals in the criminal legal system experience poverty before entering the system. Once incarcerated, individuals lose their jobs, possessions, and face significant financial barriers. Once they exit, people with prior convictions face significant barriers to employments. Studies have found that criminal legal system debt compounds precarious finances and limits social mobilities.

These negative outcomes only make reentry harder. An analysis by researchers at UC Berkeley found that criminal court debt can cause families to spend less on positive social goods such as education, preventative health care, which imposes long term costs on families, communities, and society by prolonging and exacerbating poverty. We know well that fines such as the fines included in AB 1872 are an ineffective and costly source of revenue.

Counties net little to no revenue from fines because of the high cost and low returns associated with trying to collect fines from people who are low income and cannot afford them in the first place. Most of the revenue pays for administrative costs and collection activities.

AB 1872 is an ineffective and costly approach to punishing conduct already covered under existing law. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you both for your testimony. Now we'll take the me too's in opposition to the bill.

Aubrey Rodriguez, with ACLU Cal Action, in strong opposition.

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

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

Shivani Nishara, on behalf of Initiate Justice, in opposition.

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

Thank you all very much. Now, we'll turn it back to the dais. Are there questions or comments from members of the committee? Okay, we have we have a motion by Harabedian and a second by Dr. Sharp-Collins. Any further discussion? Alright. Assemblymember Ta, you have a chance to close if you'd like.

Yeah. I really appreciate the support, from the Chair and committee staff. This is the same bill that introduced last year, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember Ta. I'll be brief. You are correct. This did pass out of committee last year. Appreciate your engagement on the issue.

I'll just note that the arguments made by the opposition are not unheard. I think there are some good points that were made. I will agree with them that mental health diversion does remain as an available alternative to do additional incarceration. And the last thing I would say is it's not a perfect solution, but swatting is a very serious risk posed to everyone involved. I think this bill reflects how seriously the committee takes it. With that, I recommend an aye vote.

[Roll Call]

Okay. That measure passes. Mister Ta, that brings you to your second item. This is item number three on the agenda. Assembly bill 1787. Are you ready to go forward?

Yes. I'm ready to go.

Outstanding. Your time begins whenever you start speaking.

Good morning, our honorable chair and members. I another bill that I'd like to, introduce, AB 1727 bill to protect Californians' most private information, their DNA. I want to start by really, really appreciate the committee staff and the chair for working with us on this bill. I'm happy to accept the committee amendments which verify the language and ally the bill with assistant genetic privacy policy. Current California law mainly regulate direct to consumer genetic testing company, but there are no broad protection for person, genetic data, or genetic material.

Someone could collect your DNA, test it, and obtain your genetic information without your permission. In 2020, the earnest project attempted to auction up DNA symbol it had collected from the World Economic Forum. A used breakfast fork was estimate to to be worth at $36,500. At that at at the time, the main risk was simply learning someone genetic sequence, but genetic technology is advancing very, very quickly. In the recent results, artificial intelligence has even been used to recreate facial images from genetic data.

As technology advance, society also moving toward biological verification methods for identification. As AI make image and video easier to fake, people may rely more on biological identifiers. DNA is the most permanent and unique identifier for a person has. Password, addresses, and even Social Security numbers can be changed, but your DNA cannot one of these exposed, you cannot undo the damage. AB 1727 help protect Californians by making it misdemeanor to transfer or sell a person genetic data without their consent.

It's bill bill on the protection in the genetic information privacy act by extending protection to people genetic information. Honor to introduce my witnesses, Maddie Hyatt again from California civil liberties of Apple Cassie and April Robinson, former voice for for our choice, Apple Cassie.

Good morning, chair and members. My name is April Robinson testifying on behalf of a Voice for Choice advocacy and support for AB 1727. California has long prided itself on being a leader in protecting individual privacy. Yet when it comes to the most personal information a person has, their DNA, our laws still leave important gaps. The hit the story of Henrietta Lacks reminds us why this matters.

In 1951, Henrietta Lacks, an African American woman dying of cervical cancer, had her cells taken by doctors without her consent. These cells became the first immortal human cell line known as HeLa cells, and they helped advance modern medicine. They have been used in research for decades and generated enormous scientific progress and commercial value, yet Henrietta Lacks and her family never asked for permission. Her medical records were shared publicly, and even her genome was published without family consent. It took more than seventy years before her family finally began receiving settlements from companies that profited from those cells.

Her story reminds us that scientific progress must never come at the expense of privacy and bodily autonomy. Today, the same fundamental question remains. Who owns your DNA? For years, there have been concerns about what some call genetic paparazzi, where someone collects DNA from some from something a person has discarded. Even celebrities have worried about this.

In the case of Ciccone versus Gotta Have It collectibles, clothing worn by Madonna was e was sold even though it contained her DNA. The court ruled that the law did not recognize her ownership of that biological material. That case exposed a clear gap in how our laws treat genetic privacy. California has taken important steps with the laws like the Genetic Information Privacy Act, GIPA, but those protections mainly address direct to consumer testing companies. They don't fully protect Californians from private actors who collect, test, or share someone's DNA without consent.

And unlike other personal information, DNA cannot be changed once it's compromised. Your DNA is the most personal identifier you have. You can change a password. You can replace a credit card, but you cannot change your DNA. It can reveal deeply personal information about someone's health, ancestry, and family relationship.

At the same time, genetic technology is advancing rapidly. Researchers are already demonstrating that genetic data can be used to infer physical traits that even generate facial images using AI. At as these technologies evolve, protecting genetic privacy becomes even more critical. A v 1727 takes a proactive step to close this gap by reinforcing a simple principle. Your DNA belongs to you and should not be collected, tested, or shared without your consent.

And for these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote to help ensure that Californians' most personal information, their genetic identity remains protected. Thank you.

Yes. So Matty Hyatt, from California's Civil Liberties Advocacy. I admit I am not as prepared for this, for testimony. I didn't have something prepared today, but I have worked a lot with, the author's office and the committee on amendments. And I just wanted to say that we do accept the committee's amendments, and we were just we were concerned that the bill might overstep. We didn't want it to have any, impede law enforcement investigations, but after going over JIPA and going after the CMIA, we realized that the committee's amendment was sound, and we're looking forward to working through I think it's going to go to privacy now. So but I just wanted to echo my colleague sentiments about the HeLa cells and CRISPR. We got all these things.

I've I've even read recently that they're trying to plug our genetic information DNA into AI now and trying to replicate, like, I guess, our entire genetic makeup. I I I don't even know what they're trying to do with it. It's just crazy. But I've I've been reading about some of this stuff. And so I I've long advocated that our legislature needs to be proactive in preventing these things.

We're very reactive. And I feel like a lot of times we end up having to go back and fix things after we've already let the cat out of the bag. And Silicon's Silicon Valley's motto is to move fast and break things. I mean, you can read it in a lot of their books. They say that a lot.

And so I think that the legislature needs to pay very close attention at what's going on with genetic privacy, and and we need we need to give our prosecutors tools to go after bad actors, and we need to give our civil libertarians the tools to be able to protect our citizens. So with that, I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you all very much. I'll also correct myself. I referred to it as Assembly Bill 1787. We are talking about Assembly Bill 1727. And then 77. No. That was on me. That was on me. This is what I get for starting at 08:30. And then just to be clear, assembly member Ta, you are accepting the committee amendments? Thank you very much. Now we'll hear from the Me Too's in support of the bill. David Bullock, SFB Alliance in support.

Good morning, mister chair. Alex Khan on behalf of GeneDx. We had a supportive amended and think the amendments take a big step in the right direction. Look forward to supporting when we've reviewed.

Alright. Thank you all very much. Is there anyone here testifying in opposition? There is. Alright. Come on down. You'll have five minutes. And then just as a reminder, there'll be an opportunity for me too's right after, so get ready. Alright.

Good morning, chair members. My name is Aubrey Rodriguez. I'm an Leg Advocate with ACLU Cal Action. At the ACLU, we highly value privacy for all and have fought relentlessly to safeguard this fundamental right. While we deeply appreciate the author, wanting to protect some of our most personal and sensitive information, we do not believe proposing a carceral solution for a nonviolent crime will prevent the unauthorized sharing of our DNA.

Rather, we should consider additional safeguards, to our existing regulatory and, civil enforcement framework without more incarceration. Under the Genetic Information Privacy Act, there are existing civil penalties that can be applied to anyone who violates that law. We encourage the author to not deviate from this approach, for those who knowingly sell or transfer genetic data without expressed consent. It was not long ago when The US Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its prison population, citing that we were violating the constitution's eighth amendment. In order to prevent history from repeating itself, we must avoid incarcerating people for nonviolent offenses and focus on other enforcement mechanisms instead.

For these reasons, we respectfully urge your no vote on ab 1727. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Is there anyone else here hoping to be heard in opposition to the bill? Okay. We'll turn it back to the dais. Are there questions or comments from members of the committee? We have a motion by doctor Sharp Collins. We have a second by Winn. Any other discussion? Alright. Assembly member Ta, the floor is yours.

I really wanna thank, I really want I wanna thank the chair and the members, and I appreciate the committee committee time and the work you do to protect Californians and their privacy. And I feel that it is unfortunate that ACLU oppose the bill, especially seeing as one of the founding tenants of ACLU was their adamant defense of personal privacy and autonomy. So a b 1727 asked very simple question, who does your genetic genetic information belong to? I believe the answer is very clear. It belong to you.

And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much, assembly member. Wanna thank the opposition witness for testifying today. I hope that there's continued conversation between the opposition and your office. I find them to be very reasonable and to raise good points at times, so perhaps there's a way to even strengthen the bill. And I'll just note with saying that I know the committee amendments didn't give you give you everything that you sought for initially assembly member, but I think this is a good starting point.

And certainly, if we continue to see an uptick in this sort of criminal behavior that I didn't know existed, Apparently, it's it's all new to me. Why is someone would wanna steal the president's fork is beyond me, but apparently people do. And so if there continues to be a problem, we're always happy to look at the data and revisit this issue in future years. But with that, appreciate your work with the committee, and I'll recommend an eye for today's purposes.

And I really, really appreciate your support. That's amazing. Really, really want. Thank you again.

Thank you, sir.

[Roll Call]

Okay. That measure remains on call as we wait for members. Thank you. Colleagues, before we move to our next bill, I'd like if we if your consent to just move, move forward with the proposed consent calendar. We have three items on consent.

Item number five is Assembly Bill 1825 by Assembly Member Krell, entitled health care state hospitals. We have item number eight, Assembly Bill 1889 by our very own Assembly Member Ramos, entitled protective orders. And we have a two for Mr. Ramos today. We have item number 12, Assembly Bill 1948. This one's entitled firearms concealed carry licenses. Do we have a motion? Okay. Do we have a second? Okay. With a motion and a second, we'll conduct the roll.

For items on consent. [Roll Call]

Alright. That remains on call as we wait for Members. Thank you to our next two authors who've been waiting very patiently. First up, I have Assembly Member DeMaio, presenting Assembly Bill 1782. And then we will go, unless Mr. Gallagher arrives, we'll go then to Assembly Member Johnson. Mr. DeMaio, the floor is yours whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I'm here today to present Assembly Bill 1782, which would prevent the reckless release of dangerous individuals with mental illness. It's not often that I agree with the San Francisco Chronicle.

But this bill was inspired by a reckless release incident that occurred just last year that brought scorn and concern from both sides of the of the political spectrum. My bill is laser like in making two important changes. Under current California law, dangerous individuals with severe mental health disorders can be prevented from release if they are certified to meet six criteria by public health mental health professionals.

My bill would allow an individual to be retained in custody and treatment if they meet three of the six criteria. The second amendment that my bill makes to current state law is that one of the criteria relates to physical harm to others. What is exempt from the definition of physical harm to others is sexual harassment and battery.

And I believe that these two offenses should at least be taken into consideration by the professionals. The case that spawned this legislation, and again bipartisan calls for action to clean up and improve state law, eliminating some of these flaws, is the case of Bill Gene Hobbs.

He was ordered released in March 2025. He's a notorious serial harasser. He was released from Atascadero State Hospital, where he had been serving parole after being sentenced for five and a half years for groping, grabbing, forcibly kissing, and chasing more than a dozen known victims. Three psychologists testified that Hobbs had a serious mental health disorder. He was not in remission.

Two of the criteria, by the way, of the six under state law. That he also represented substantial danger of physical harm to others. But despite this, a San Luis Obispo Superior Court Judge released Hobbs stating, quote, hopefully he's telling the truth and that he will take his medication. Hope is not adequate public safety. Hobbs returned to the streets of San Francisco, and of course, what did he do?

He started harassing women in San Francisco Duboce Triangle neighborhood. He was arrested soon after his release for alleged parole violations. This is not the only case though. There was a similar case dating back in 2023. A man named Fook Poy Lai was released from Atascadero State Hospital after court found that he was no longer eligible for involuntary confinement and mental health treatment.

Shortly after, Lai was accused of stabbing a Chinatown worker and is now currently in State Hospital once again after being found mentally incompetent to stand trial. This is not a sweeping bill. This is a bill that provides clarification to existing state law and provides our mental health professionals with greater ability to protect the public and prevent a reckless release. And I urge bipartisan support for these refinements in existing state law.

Thank you very much, Assembly Member. I don't see any chief witnesses in support. If anyone else would like to be heard in support of the bill, now would be the time to come forward. Okay. Is there anyone here testifying in opposition? Alright. I see one person coming forward. So once you begin speaking, you'll have five minutes to address the committee.

In honor of my grandparents, top of the morning to you. Good morning, all. Lesli Caldwell-Houston, a volunteer for the California Public Defenders Association in opposition to AB 1782, a bill by Assemblymember DeMaio. AB 1782 would fundamentally alter the carefully crafted framework of the law of an Offender with Mental Health Disorder, OMHD, by allowing continued detention when only three of the five currently required criteria are satisfied. In practical terms, the bill would allow the state to detain a person even if there's no finding that the individual suffers from a meant a severe mental disorder or that they pose a substantial danger of physical harm.

In other words, the bill would allow a continued confinement under a mental health commitment scheme without proof of the underlying mental health condition that would justify the confinement. This change undermines the constitutional foundation that permits civil commitment in the first place. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that involuntary civil commitment constitutes a significant deprivation of liberty and therefore, requires strict due process protections. At a minimum, the state must establish that the individual suffers from a mental health condition and as a result is not only dangerous but also has serious difficulty controlling the dangerous behavior. California's OMHD statute currently reflects these constitutional principles.

Penal Code Section 2960 explains the purpose of the law is to protect the public from individuals who, as a result of a severe mental disorder, pose a substantial danger of physical harm to others, while ensuring those individuals receive treatment until the condition is in remission. AB 1782 eliminates this essential nexus by allowing the state to detain a person even where there's no finding that the individual has a mental health condition or poses a substantial danger to the community. Detention under these circumstances cannot be justified as civil commitment, fails to satisfy basic due process requirements, and risks transforming what is intended to be a carefully tailored treatment-based scheme into a form of preventive detention. The bill also expands the concept of dangerousness to include conduct such as sexual harassment and battery.

Because battery can encompass any unlawful use of force, even without causing injury, this expansion risks sweeping minor conduct into a framework designed to address serious violence. Broadening the commitment criteria in this way would not meaningfully enhance public safety and would instead divert scarce clinical and judicial resources from individuals who truly require intensive treatment and supervision. It would also permit the detention of people who do not meet the constitutional standards for civil commitment, undermining both due process and the law's intended purpose. California can protect public safety while respecting the constitutional rights and dignity of individuals living with serious mental illness. AB 1782 takes the wrong approach.

Safe and effective outcomes depend on robust inpatient treatment, active discharge planning, and comprehensive community-based symptoms—systems—that support successful transitions. For these reasons, we request your no vote.

Thank you. You have about a minute remaining.

Chair and members, my name is Aubrey Rodriguez, and I'm a Ledge Advocate with ACLU Cal Action. Our organization is in strong opposition to this unconstitutional proposal that violates Supreme Court precedent. The existing process to admit an offender with a mental disorder to a state hospital is very comprehensive and exhaustive. By lowering an ex—the existing burden of proof—we undermine due process protections. If AB 1782 were to become law, people with mental health conditions will be unnecessarily swept into extended state control and involuntary treatment when they pose no danger to the public.

We cannot violate people's rights under the guise of public safety when the chief psychiatrist of CDCR determines they are not a substantial danger to the community. Other than violating constitutional principles, this proposal is dangerous as it will increase stigma and discrimination against people with psychiatric conditions. By lowering the criteria for involuntary institutionalization, this bill risk reinforcing harmful and false stereotypes that can play mental health conditions with danger. The vast majority of people with mental health conditions are not violent, and policies that conflate disability with dangerousness can deepen stigma and add barriers to community integration, employment, and housing. For these reasons, we respectfully urge the committee to soundly reject AB 1782.

Thank you.

Thank you both for your testimony. Is there anyone else who'd like to be heard in opposition to the bill? Alright. Come on forward. You'll give us your name, your organization, and your position, please.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. My name is Conrad Crump with Disability Rights California, in opposition to the measure. Thank you very much.

Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Simelia Rogers with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in opposition.

Mica Doctoroff, on behalf of Smart Justice California, in opposition.

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

Capri Walker, with Californians for Safety and Justice, in opposition.

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

Katerina Sayali, Community Works, in opposition.

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

Thank you all very much. We'll turn it back to the dais. Are there any questions or comments from members of the committee? We have a motion by Alanis and a second by Lackey. Any other discussion from the dais? Okay. Mr. DeMaio, you have a chance to close.

Thank you. I wanna respond to some of the misrepresentations about the bill from the opposition. First, the the the comment was made that my bill would eliminate the need to determine that there's a mental illness at play here. That is not true at all. What our bill does is simply says that instead of meeting all six criteria, which we believe would be overly restrictive, that the professionals would have to meet three out of the six.

Now, they claim no mental illness has to be shown. That's not true because, you have the following criteria that all relate to mental illness. Criteria one, the individual has a severe mental health disorder currently. Criteria two, the mental health disorder is not in remission or cannot be kept in remission without treatment. Criteria three, the severe mental health disorder that the individual has was one of the causes or an aggravating factor in the prisoner's criminal behavior.

Number four, the prisoner has been in treatment for a severe mental health disorder. Do you understand where we're going here? By having three out of the six criteria met, they have to at least make the findings relating to the individual having these mental health problems. So, that is not true, the opposition to say that we are gonna be with withholding release for people that do not have a mental health problem.

Second, the opposition says that we're lowering the burden of proof. We are not. We are not changing the standard of professional determination by mental health professionals. We are simply saying that they don't have to meet all six criteria, but the burden of proof for each individual criteria will still be the mental health professionals' determination. And finally, not presenting a risk of threat or harm.

Excuse me. We are simply adding sexual harassment and battery to a laundry list of crimes that can be considered for making the determination of risk to the public. This is an additive definition. It, it does not eliminate the need to determine that the individual has a risk of, of harm to themselves and the community. So, with that, I would urge a, an aye vote on this bill to move it through the process because these are important refinements to make in state law.

It's not often that I agree with the San Francisco Chronicle, but I do think that our professionals need to have, a little bit more clarity and a little bit more discretion as it relates to the these criteria that we've established.

Thank you very much, Mr. DeMaio. I wanna thank you and the witnesses who testified on the bill today. Colleagues, I do have a recommendation. I hope you'll indulge a brief explanation. At issue today is the offenders with mental health disorder statute, which currently allows a person to be paroled to the custody of the Department of State Hospitals for treatment.

For that to happen, as Mr. DeMaio mentioned, existing law requires among other things that a CDC or chief psychiatrist certify that the person certify the following. First, that the person suffers from a severe mental disorder. Next, that the disorder is not in remission or cannot be kept in remission without treatment. Next, that the disorder was one of the causes of or an aggravating factor in the person's criminal behavior. Next, that the person has been in treatment for ninety days or more in the last year.

And lastly, that because of their disorder, the person represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others. That's the current state of the law. Mr. DeMaio, your bill would dispense with the requirement that the CDC, our chief psychiatrist, certify all five of these things, instead requiring only three. Which means under your bill, a person could be involuntarily committed to DSH even if their severe mental health disorder was not one of the causes of or an aggravating factor in their criminal behavior and even if the person did not present a danger of harm to others. That is contrary to the purpose of the statute.

Further, the original offenders with mental health disorder statute did not require a finding of substantial danger of physical harm to others. That's an important note. The legislature then rushed to include that language after the statute was deemed unconstitutional as a violation of the equal protection clauses of both The United States and the California constitutions. Mr. DeMaio, by dispensing with the requirement that the chief psychiatrist certified that the person present a substantial danger of physical harm to others, I believe, as does my staff, that your bill suffers from the same unconstitutional infirmity. Mr. DeMayo, I admire your commitment to your convictions.

You stand up for what you believe. Unfortunately, today, you stand for a policy that is unstanned and constitutionally deficient. I cannot support such a proposal. And with all due respect and for the reasons stated above, I'm recommending a no today. We do have a motion and a second. We'll conduct the roll.

[Roll Call]

That measure remains on call. Thank you, Assemblymember. Okay. Assemblymember Johnson, I'm sorry. Mr. Gallagher is here. He was in front of you.

Ladies first.

Are you sure? Okay. Chivalry is not dead. Assembly Member Johnson, we have item number two. This is Assembly Bill 1632. Come on down. You'll have five minutes once you begin speaking, as will your witnesses in support.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. I am here today to present AB 1632, which streamlines a vital public safety tool for property owners and law enforcement. I wanna start by accepting the committee's amendments, and I appreciate the work of the committee staff on this bill.

As amended, AB 1632 makes one simple common sense change, removing the notary requirement from trespass letters filed pursuant to Penal Code Section 602. As a former mayor and a council member for the City of Lake Elsinore, I've seen firsthand how administrative red tape can hinder public safety.

Currently, property owners must find, pay for, and file a notarized letter every twelve months to ensure police can protect their property in their absence. When a letter lapses, law enforcement is often legally unable to proactively remove trespassers, leading to potential public safety hazards.

In the City of Riverside and the county across the state, unauthorized occupation of vacant lots, buildings is a leading cause of structure fires and wildfires. By making it easier to maintain an active 602 letter, we allow officers to intervene proactively before a trespass incident... Bless you. Incident turns into a public safety hazard. In addition to the direct public safety risk posed by a lapsed 602 letter, current law also poses indirect risk due to administrative costs and wasted staff time.

Since this notary requirement went into effect, the Riverside Police Department has had to certify eight additional staff members to process just the notarizations for 602 letters. This equates to roughly $37,800 a year in salary costs in addition to taking away from staff time that could be used in the pursuit of improving public safety.

AB 1632 will eliminate these costs in addition to protecting small business owners and residents in low income neighborhoods who are often the most impacted by these property crimes and devaluation. This bill is sponsored by the City of Riverside and is supported by the League of California Cities, the Southwest California Legislative Council, the California Police Chiefs Association, and more than a dozen individual cities from my district and others across the state.

With me to testify in support of this bill is Chief Larry Gonzalez with the Riverside Police Department, Aaron Petroff representing the Social Work Action Group, a nonprofit that advocates for marginalized individuals and families in Southern California.

Good morning, honorable Chair and Committee Members. My name is Larry Gonzalez. I'm the Chief of Police at the Riverside Police Department. I also represent the California Police Chiefs Association as the Executive Committee Member, which sponsored about 335 different agencies across the state.

I'm here today to respectfully voice our support for Assembly Bill 1632, which is a practical common sense measure that strengthens public safety, protects private property, while reducing unnecessary bureaucracy for both property owners and law enforcement.

Across California, police departments receive daily calls from property owners frustrated with repeated trespassing that often results in trash, bodily waste, drug paraphernalia scattered across the property, and other damage to facilities. Just last year, the Assembly Member said in 2025, our police department received more than 4,300 calls for service related to trespassing.

Under current law, we have the California Penal Code, call it 602 letter, which is a written request that authorizes us, peace officers, to enforce trespassing laws on private property when the owner is not present, so those calls in the middle of the night.

Last year, we received 825 trespass authorization letters and made 850 arrests for trespassing. However, existing law requires that these letters need to be notarized, which creates unnecessary administrative burdens for both property owners and the police department.

Our department has been assisting with the notary equipment of many of these letters, which cost the department approximately $38,000 in staff time where we're trying to set up workshops at our stations throughout the city to have property or business owners come in and get that done.

When a valid 602 letter is not in place, officers may have limited ability to address situations immediately, which only increases frustration for property owners and neighbors. Additionally, when these letters expire or cannot be renewed quickly, officers responding to trespassing complaints find themselves without the legal authority to act proactively even when the property owner clearly wants the enforcement.

AB 1632 also addresses these challenges by removing the requirement that 602 letters need to be notarized, eliminating the unnecessary hurdle that often delays or prevents property owners from maintaining valid authorizations. Importantly, also, is AB 6032 does not expand trespass laws or create any new criminal penalties.

It simply ensures that existing public safety tools work more efficiently for the people who rely on that. On behalf of the California Police Chiefs Associations and the chiefs across the state, I respectfully ask for your support for AB 1632. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Good morning, Chair. I appreciate what you guys do to help protect the state of California. Born and raised here. I love this state, and I'm here to speak briefly on our approach and how we deal with homeless individuals on the streets. And the homeless, term homeless individual encompasses students, couch surfers, lots of different people that are in different situations.

But it doesn't necessarily capture what's going on with somebody who's literally sleeping on the streets, laying their head down at night in encampments, and that's addiction. You know, I don't want, like, labeling people, but 99.9 percent of people that are living on the streets are deep in their addiction and or untreated mental health issues.

And what I've spent the last fifteen years doing is working in the trenches, you know, so to speak, boots on the ground or vans on the ground with those people, asking and begging them to change their life. And what I've seen over these years is the power and the pull of addiction, the stronghold addiction has on people. It's not a simple choice.

One analogy or or one way to look at this is it's never us reaching somebody and saying, oh, wow. Your your meth addiction, you need to get help, and it's an epiphany for those individuals. No. They know they need help, but that stronghold has taken over emotionally, physically.

And so what we've done, we went from, I went from a homeless outreach worker to an interventionist because we're needing to provide same day interventions, especially with the fentanyl explosion. As you guys know, tomorrow isn't promised for people living on the street.

So every day, we're looking for opportunities to intervene in somebody's addictive lifestyle to provide them the way out. So although working with law enforcement may seem counterproductive, it's actually the tool we need. Without that accountability, without the, you know... I'll say we're mother. Law enforcement's father. Without that accountability for somebody to say, you know what, maybe today is the day I need to change my lifestyle.

My organization is extremely ineffective. I'm extremely ineffective. And I've worked with over a dozen law enforcement agencies in Riverside and San Bernardino County. And so I come here to urge you to respectfully support AB, this this bill, because it's not, it's not just about criminalize, it's not about criminalizing individuals.

It's about providing that intervention to reach somebody in that addictive lifestyle. We're constantly chasing people down to reach them. You know, they're hiding in the shadows because of what they're doing. And when we come across multiple properties or properties where there is no 602 for trespassing.

That's a place that's a refuge that an addict will take and hide and makes it unable, makes us unable to reach them and provide that support. So although it may seem, may seem counterproductive, this tool to intervene in somebody's life, that accountability of today, you may be forcing misdemeanors...

I'm sorry. That's your time. Thank you. And for the record, could you state who you're with again?

Social Work Action Group.

Great. Thank you very much. Alright. Don't go anywhere. There could be questions. Anyone else who'd like to be heard in support of the bill, come forward at this time. Please state your name, your organization, and your position on the bill, please.

Hello. Douglas Andreasen from California Public Policy Group on behalf the Cities of Corona and Eastvale in support.

Good morning. Lily Mackay on behalf of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District in support. Thank you.

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

Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff's Association and the Police Officer Associations of Riverside, Murrieta, and that's it. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you very much. Anyone else hoping to be heard in support of the bill? Okay. Do we have anyone here hoping to testify in opposition? Alright. I see one, possibly two. Alright. Come on down. Your time will begin speaking... Your time will begin once you begin speaking.

Good morning, Committee Members. Purva Bhattacharjee with Housing California. We're here today to oppose AB 1632 because our analysis of this bill shows that this would exasperate our state's homelessness crisis and create more barriers to getting people the services and housing they desperately need.

A recent report from the ACLU has showed that trespass violations are sometimes used by cities to target people experiencing homelessness, giving them nowhere to legally rest within a city, and remove them from the city altogether, rather than coordinating with the state and county partners needed in order to give people the services and housing that they need.

Extensive research has shown that when people experiencing homelessness are met with fines, arrests, and citations in response to offenses that are solely a result of their lacking of housing, their homelessness is further prolonged.

A study of people living unsheltered in Seattle found that people who receive tickets were homelessness for two years longer. Arrest and tickets lead to an array of barriers. People lose possessions. They lose their social security cards, ID cards, their needs to access housing. People lose touch with case managers and family members helping them out of their homelessness.

They get a mark on their record that makes it harder to access jobs and housing in the future. And perhaps most importantly, they lose trust in the public services and agencies working to provide assistance. AB 1632 removes the notarization requirement to apply trespassing law without evidence or data showing why this is needed.

In fact, data from the Public Policy Institute of California shows property crime rates decreasing, down 10% in 2024, reducing their lowest level in thirty years. The ability to support or to submit these 602 letters without notarization would likely undermine critical due process protections and sweep more people up, especially those experiencing homelessness into the carceral system. Thus, we respectfully urge a no vote.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Schultz and Committee Members. Again, my name is Leslie Wolf, a Deputy Public Defender with Local 148, the Los Angeles Public Defender's Union. I agree with everything my colleague...

I'm sorry to interrupt you. We paused your time. Can you move the mic just a little bit closer just so folks listening in can pick it up?

Sure.

Much better. Alright.

Thank you. So as I was saying, I'm with the Public Defender's Union, and I agree with everything my colleague just stated. I have personal experience with this criminal statute, and in my experience, almost all my clients who are charged under this subsection of 602 are experiencing homelessness.

And what I've seen is that one arrest, even a citation, can then result in a warrant due to the inability of my clients to make it to court. Those warrants lead to arrest, incarceration, and additional consequences, such as losing personal belongings, identifying information, medications, and creating further instability.

And on multiple occasions, I have seen circumstances where our clients gain housing, are stabilized, but due to old warrants, usually trespass warrants, they are then pulled back into the criminal justice system and they then lose that housing, which they have just gained.

In addition, this law, as the committee knows, was changed only two years ago to vastly expand, the ability of the 602 letters from thirty days to twelve months and to allow property owners to file them electronically. The notarization requirement was added at the time that we provided the electronic filing to ensure that the proper property owner and owner of the property was submitting these letters.

So I would urge the committee to keep the law as it stands currently with that notarization requirement so we can make sure that these enforcement actions, which can have very serious consequences on our homeless neighbors, are accurate and up to date.

In addition, I would note, that the notarized requirement is only when the owner is in absentia and that any property owner can still contact the police to enforce a trespass order without requiring notarization. So I would thank the committee for its time and urge a no vote on this. Thank you.

Thank you both for your testimony. Next, we'll hear from others hoping to be heard in opposition to the bill. Come on down. And, actually, if we can get our opposition witnesses to remain, I don't know if there could be questions of the of the committee for you. Thank you.

Danica Rodarmel of Whole Consulting on behalf of Western Center on Law and Poverty in opposition.

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

Shivani Nishar on behalf of Initiate Justice in opposition.

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

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

Aubrey Rodríguez with ACLU California Action in strong opposition.

Alright. Anyone else hoping to be heard on the bill? Okay. We'll turn it back to the dais. I had Assembly Member Lackey to kick us off. No? Okay. Anyone else hoping to speak or have a question? Vice Chair is first, I guess. Mr. Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I wanna thank the author for bringing this. As someone who worked prior in law enforcement, it's nice to have something on file because trespassing doesn't happen during business hours for the most part. Usually, I'm at 2:00 in the morning with some people who are occupying a house saying, oh, I'm supposed to be here. And it's kinda hard to find sometimes property owners at that time.

The the opposition had brought up how this is usually people who are experiencing homelessness, a warrants then generated, then they gotta do time. You know, I get that. I know they're looking for a place to stay sometimes.

But I don't like that people who pay their bills and buy property and try and do what's best get victimized all the time because of people who are unhoused at the moment. But we do have some shelters. We do have other ways.

But it it doesn't help the homeowners and doesn't help the neighbors as well when an area becomes a blight or becomes something that is degraded because people are taking advantage of a house that maybe they gained access to.

For the opposition, you talked about how you have clients that gained the housing and then lose the housing. Were you referring to them occupying a house that wasn't theirs, or are you talking about them occupying a house because they got it through some program?

Services. Programs.

Okay. So then that jeopardizes them with the programs by getting the trespass?

Yes. If they find themselves in custody, they can then lose the housing that they've secured. Often if you're absent from that housing for a period of time, even a short period of time, you can lose that housing. And also, the arrest could cause them to lose.

So what I'm I'm confused about is if they have this housing, why are they trespassing at another house?

So the point that I was trying to bring up is that oftentimes we see that when people are homeless they get arrested for trespass many times, and there's a lot of old warrants that end up in the system from their failure to appear at court due to citations.

And then once they are then arrested due to contact with law enforcement, they end up in custody. And oftentimes, when we are interviewing those clients, they have since secured housing at that point. They may have forgotten about these citations or be unaware of these warrants.

But then due to the fact that they have failed to appear, they remain in custody for a significant period of time due to the court's concern about releasing them, and then they lose that housing, which they have since secured, putting them back into homelessness and getting additional arrests.

Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. Chief, do you have anything to say about that?

I don't. I'm not aware of, I'll speak for our region, of any significant time people are serving for trespass warrants. They just don't. There's not the jail space for that. But my concern is what I hear on a daily basis, it's might not be the middle of the night. It's that business owner that on the daily is coming and saying, I can't open up my business because I have encampments in front of it.

And to take away a tool like that that we could use where it is five in the morning before they even get there, it's to try to help whether it's a pop project or something like that. It would be difficult for us to navigate to that without these trespass authorization forms on file. So that's kinda what we're seeing mostly in our city.

Thank you. I agree with you. And I'm looking forward to voting on this. Move the bill.

Okay. We have a motion and a second. We'll continue with questions. Dr. Sharp-Collins, you're next.

Well, my colleague asked one of my questions for a point of clarification in regards to the housing. So see. I went. I'm glad you went first. Thank you for that. But I also, one of the things for me is that I do have a concern about the unintended consequences of it, of this particular expansion and knowing that it will disproportionately, you know, target people who are experiencing homelessness.

So one of my other questions is, how can we ensure that this doesn't lead to more unneeded arrest? Because if anyone can do this without notarization or whichever, how do we know for a fact that we're not just, you know, giving people the label or having them be arrested for something that's frivolous? I'm I'm not sure, but I'm trying to figure out what can we do to ensure that this doesn't lead to more unneeded arrest.

Thank you. Thank you for the question. Well, something that's really important to remember in that sequence of question is that this is already law. Removing the notary isn't going to change the current enforcement of the non-trespass.

It allows business owners and private property owners to be more, have that administrative burden removed to continue to do the right thing. There isn't data to show that the notary would create more arrests, but I'm not the law enforcement professional. Chief Gonzalez, do you want...

I think it's just removing the administrative burden. And we will continue to do that, to provide, but, you know, to the tune of $3,840,000 dollars for our staff. We're sending people to get notary certified, sending up workshops for business owners to come and even try to be proactive in going to them. So we would continue to do that, but it's just it would be just the the burden would be removed for us to continue to. I can't see the significant increase on on trespass arrest because of this.

I just I think I understand the point that it could cause an administrative burden, but I believe that by allowing electronic filing, they significantly lowered that administrative burden already with the guarantee that notarization would provide that additional security.

And I think that most business owners probably have to have many documents notarized and should be familiar with the notarization process. So given this only has to now happen one time per year, I wouldn't imagine that given the concern that the current owner, to prove current ownership, I think that that's a low burden given that people could be arrested and remain in custody on on outdated or inaccurate information.

Thank you. I just wanted to get clarification on will this increase a number of arrests if that's being removed. I get that it's going to reduce the burden of getting the 602 letter, but, just from what I'm hearing, it does sound like that it could possibly increase the arrest.

But that's something that we won't know until it's actually moved forward. So maybe coming back to reassess, should this move, coming back to reassess the legislation to see whether something needs to be rectified in that avenue.

Thank you, Dr. Sharp-Collins. Other questions or... Oh, yes, Mr. Lackey.

Yeah. It looks like the, the fellow of social work in the gray has something he would like to say, and I'd like to hear what he has to say.

Okay. We'll construe that as a question. Sir, please answer.

Thank you. You know, I think the way I'm hearing the opposition posing this at is as if the individual who's homeless has no other options, and if we do any type of any law enforcement, that would be cruel and unusual if there's no options.

But on a daily basis for fifteen years now, there's a multitude of options, emergency shelters, there's transitional housing, there's options that the individual, because of their addiction, is saying no to. So I think it needs to be reframed that it's not there, it's it's not either or.

It's they get to stay there or they're going to jail. It's people who are not in their right state of mind who do have options that are choosing not to accept those options, and so that's the perspective from boots on the ground.

That's Riverside San Bernardino County. I don't think that's different in the rest of the state. We've spent $24 billion on homeless housing projects in the state in the last few years, and homelessness is increasing. So I think we have to reimagine what we're looking at, that it's not a housing crisis.

And it's individuals, this affects individuals who are not making the choice that we all think they should be making to accept a form of housing. Again, I could give 10 different forms of housing to the individuals that we're working with, and they're still choosing no because of their addiction. And so I think that's the way it needs to be framed.

And that's the way I look at it is we're here to meet somebody, and they're not accepting the multitude of options available. So we shouldn't leave them there. We shouldn't leave them in their addiction. You know, and one other thing is, you know, all the cities we work in, when I go and get the business license, I've never had to do no get it notarized as the business owner of doing business. So it's it's interesting that you can conduct business in the city without having, you know, notarizing who I am, but this one particular aspect requires notary, so notarization.

Thank you, Assembly Member Lackey. Any other questions or comments? Is that a fan?

Every time. Every time.

Assembly Member González, you keep me paying attention. Thank you. Alright. I only have one question. I'm gonna define my normal logic and ask a question that I don't know the answer to.

I try not to do that. But I am curious, when the owner is in absentia, and a PC 602 letter is sought, is the letter signed, the person requesting it, is the is it signed under penalty of perjury? And I don't know if that varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but does anyone know?

I do not know that, but I I have an inkling that it is jurisdiction by jurisdiction. Because I know that in our in our area, in our county from being boots on the ground for so long that they are signing under perjury. So.

Okay. I'll just note for the record, I was getting some nods from the audience indicating possibly not. I only bring that up because regardless of the notarization requirement, if it were to be signed under penalty of perjury.

Even without the notary, if you're claiming to be someone that you're not, that would be a violation of Penal Code Section 118. So just a just an observation. I'll look further into it. Does that raise any other questions from the committee? Okay. Assembly Member Johnson, would you like to close?

I would. Thank you so much. I just want to share quickly and I appreciate the testimony today, both in opposition and, of course, in support. I've worked alongside these gentlemen for over a decade, providing street outreach. And while this bill isn't about the unhoused or homeless, it does have components of it that directly impact that.

This is also a responsibility to help our private property owners and our business community and protect them in public safety. There is the portion of those that 602 letters affects, and that's the unhoused. And this isn't about weaponizing anything or penalizing them.

As a matter of fact, we saw it for over a decade as a very successful tool in our community to help those that want to get help, whether it be crisis stabilization or accepting some of the programs that were offered. So I just wanted to share with you that 602 is a targeted common sense change that will strengthen our private property protections.

It's actually going to help our small business communities, and it's going to help make our city safer and give another tool to law enforcement that they so desperately need. So this morning, I respectfully request your aye vote on this bill.

Thank you very much. Appreciate the author, who I understand is accepting the committee amendments. So thank you. And just, that is a yes, Assembly Member Johnson?

Yes. Thank you.

Excellent. Thank you. Colleagues, I am recommending an aye. Appreciate the testimony, both in opposition and in support. Would encourage the author to look at the issue of a 118 statement to help ensure that we're not seeing misuse or weaponization of someone trying to seek a letter that they don't have authority to do.

But for all intents and purposes, I will note that the law was changed under SB 602 by Senator Archuleta. I failed to see the public safety benefit of the notarization requirements, so I'm comfortable moving forward and recommend an aye.

For item two, AB 1632 by Assembly Member Johnson, the motion is do pass as amended. [Roll Call]

That measure passes. Thank you very much, everybody. Okay. That brings us to, outside of Committee Members, our last bill today. This is item number 14 by Assembly Member Gallagher. Colleagues, this is Assembly Bill 1968. Assembly Member, you'll have five minutes once you begin speaking, as will your witnesses in support.

Okay. Thank you, mister chairman. My question this morning is what if we were able to stop Dylan Claibold and David Harris before they committed the the atrocity at Columbine. That's the exact situation that we face right now in a case in Tehama County where two students, unfortunately, were planning the same exact type of attack on Evergreen Middle School. And under our current law, conspiracy to commit mass murder does not qualify for the type of accountability and re rehabilitation that would be provided if this crime was to be able to be charged under welfare and institutions code 707 b.

Now there are many things that we can do certainly to help prevent mass shootings, and there's many things that we've tried to work on on a from a policy standpoint. But at least one of them should be that when we do catch someone about to do this, when we prevented that from happening, let's make sure that we actually have the kind of rehabilitation and accountability to make sure that we get to people and that we help change the kind of thinking that goes into this kind of atrocities. And that's what a b 16 in 1968 seeks to do. It adds this the crime of conspiracy to commit murder to the list of offenses under that welfare and institutions code 707 b. This allows for heightened juvenile court handling and enhanced disposition options, including commitment to a secure youth treatment facility where we have more intensive and better rehabilitation programs.

Otherwise, what happens is what's with one of the, you know, assailants here, they're going to go to juvenile hall for 365 days where they will not have the same type of rehabilitation, intensive rehabilitation. And we'll see serve no more than a year and be back out. And hopefully, we'll be crossing our fingers that they don't plan another attack. To me, that is not good public policy. And we can do something about it by passing this this law today.

It's a reasonable change. It it it only adds this one crime. Again, conspiracy to commit mass murder, you know, to the list of offenses. And this this, you know, does not provide it doesn't make any changes to what we currently do with youth in terms of ensuring that judges have the discretion. We preserve that discretion to look at other other factors such as sophistication, prior history, amenability rehabilitation, circumstances, and gravity of the offense.

This change strengthens public public safety, particularly when it comes to school and mass threat context while maintaining California's commitment to youth rehabilitation. It deters future plots by ensuring serious conspiracies receive serious review in proportion of consequences. Now you're gonna hear from some of my witnesses, today, the sheriff of Tehama County and the superintendent of Evergreen Middle School. And you'll you'll hear first town how we miraculously stopped this from happening. Luckily, someone said something.

Another youth in Tennessee caught up on this online and alerted people to the fact that this was happening. But what we had is two students who were planning the attack, who had written a manifesto already, who had gathered weapons, and were getting ready to go in and actually do this, this had planned attack. Thank God we stopped them ahead of time. Thank God somebody said something. We saw those preventative factors.

Thank God for our local law enforcement who who reacted quickly. But how do we now with with these young men, how do we make sure that they get back on a better path? And I think that is what we're really trying to do with this legislation. I would ask for your support for it. And with that, I will turn it over to our witnesses, Sheriff Dave Kain and Superintendent Brad Mendenhall.

Good morning, Chairman Schultz and the committee. My name is Dave Kain. I'm the sheriff of Tehame County. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today in support of AB 1968. In law enforcement, our greatest success is not responding to tragedy.

It is preventing it. That prevention often comes from recognizing warning signs and having the courage to report them. In this case, what stands out most is a courageous decision by a teenager in Tennessee who saw something while playing video games that he thought was odd and reported it to his mother, which then was reported to law enforcement and to Amy County. Because of that decision, law enforcement uncovered something far more serious than rumors or teenage talk. Investigators found a manifesto outlining plans for mass violence and evidence that the suspects had tested weapons and explosive devices in preparation for that attack.

Perhaps most disturbing is they also plan to call on a false call of a report of an active shooter at another school out of the area intentionally trying to draw law enforcement away from the scene of the Evergreen Middle School where they intended on carrying out their attack. Their intention was to kill at least 100 victims, including children and staff. Without that teenager's courage to report what they saw, that outcome could have been devastating for our community. It would have been the second active shooter at a school that we've had in our county's history. As sheriff, I spend every day focused on preventing tragedies like this from ever occurring.

Laws like AB 1968 help ensure threats are recognized and addressed accordingly and early. And while we should always strive to find a balance between understanding the circumstances that led someone down this path and holding individuals accountable for their actions, public safety must remain our highest priority. Balance must be struck between rehabilitation and accountability. I also stand before you not just as sheriff, but as a parent. Because when I read about these planned attacks, I picture the students sitting in those classrooms and what would I do if I was a father of one of those children.

Well, indeed, I am the father of one of those children. My son attends that very school and was a potential target for attack. Every parent expects your children will return home safely from school. As sheriff's and law enforcement officers, protecting that expectation is our responsibility. Because when we talk about school safety, we're not talking about policy.

We're talking about someone's child that could be any of ours or yours and was mine. Thank you very much. I respectfully urge your support and an aye vote on AB 1968.

Good morning, committee and and mister Schultz. Brad Mendenhall, superintendent of Evergreen School District, where I've been for 27 years. And I was born and raised there, went through Evergreen School myself. I know the community well. I spent and I spent the last 1415 years as superintendent there.

You you've heard from mister Gallagher and mister Kane about the incident and the behavior and the and the activities that the two boys in question, were engaged in. But I wanna focus for a minute on on the victims of this of this situation. The victims include the 1,300 students that attend our school. The victims also include the nearly 200 employees, that that work under me, and they're victimized every day. Every day, I get questions.

Every week, I get questions because they know that one of these juveniles is gonna get out probably in May. This sentence is gonna be over. And they understand that and no offense to sheriff Gaine or anybody else, but Juvenile Hall is not equipped to do the rehabilitation, nor does anyone think that that's enough time. There's nothing prohibiting right now that child when they get out of Juvenile Hall from reenrolling and reattending the very school that he threatened to kill so many people. It's tragic.

The staff are when this first happened, they reigned their their emotions range from they were scared, disbelief. They couldn't believe it. They've had these kids for years. They've met with the parents. I myself have this I've had the siblings of these kids in my own home.

It's it's very personal to our staff, if it's very personal to me. But I just don't want you to lose sight that who the victims are in this. It's really easy to focus on. We have a 14 year old juvenile who needs to be rehabilitated, and I agree with that. I spent my career doing that very seriously, but do not forget the victims. And and this bill this amendment would and this bill would help, that rehabilitation process and to make a community feel much safer.

Thank you for your presentation, Assemblymember, and thank you gentlemen, both of you for your testimony today. Next, we'll hear from others in the room who'd like to be heard in support of the bill. Come on down.

Chair members, good morning. Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association in support. Thank you.

Chair and members, Matthew Gallagher on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in support.

David Bolog as of the Alliance in support.

Good morning. Libby Sanchez on behalf of the Chief Probation Officers of California in support.

Mister chair, members, Cory Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriffs Association in support.

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

Dylan Lisowski with the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department in support..

Thank you everyone for your testimony. Is there anyone here hoping to testify in opposition to the bill? Okay. Come on down. And once you begin speaking, you'll have a combined total time of five minutes to address the committee.

Good morning, chair and members. My name is Simelia Rogers. I'm a policy associate at the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. I'm here today in respectful opposition to AB 1968. This bill would add conspiracy to commit murder to the list of offenses allowing youth to be transferred from juvenile court to adult criminal court.

AB 1968 is redundant. Existing law supports the transfer of youth and youth to adult court for serious conduct. As mentioned, the existing welfare and institution codes includes over thirtieth serious offenses, which comprehensively address violent conduct. Adding additional offenses to this list will not benefit public safety. The conduct the author is looking to address can involve immature online behavior, peer dynamics, and adolescent bravado that do not inherently lead to violent behavior.

Though WIC 707 has been amended multiple times, the list of crimes in 707 b has remained unchanged for the last 25 years. In that time, attorneys have successfully charged and prosecuted cases as needed. In addition, adding this charge to the list would expand the pool of offenses that carry with them a lifelong consequence. Seven 7 b offenses are considered strikes. California's three strike sentencing structure has produced significant racial and geographic disparities.

Children from specific communities are more likely to be arrested, charged, and transferred to adult court, which means that there is bias baked into who who accumulates strike convictions early on in life. According to the Human Rights Watch in California, black youth are 11 times as likely and Latino youth nearly five times as likely to face adult court prosecution. Transfer hearings do not alleviate these disparities. All youth subject to transfer hearings enter the courtroom with similar offenses. However, youth of color face significantly different outcomes.

Finally, the criminal prosecution of children does not increase public safety. A wide body of research surrounding adolescent brain science suggests that youth cases should not be treated as adults and that children rarely weigh the consequences of long term prison sentences. AB 1968 seeks to unnecessarily expand the list of violent offenses despite a substantial body of evidence and existing charging history showing that current laws are sufficient for charging violent conduct. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Shivani Nishar, and I'm the policy associate with Initiate Justice. I have a graduate degree in public health and a research background in adolescent development. We are firmly opposed to AB 1968. While this bill is framed as expanding when youth may be transferred to adult court, that authority already exists as my colleague noted.

Instead, this bill adds to the list of offenses under California welfare and institutions code section 707 b, exposing youth to permanent consequences for conduct committed during childhood and running counter to decades on of research on adolescent brain development and youth behavior. Modern neuroscience confirms what we already know intuitively. Children are still children with developing brains that affect their judgment and susceptibility to outside influence. The brain regions responsible for impulse control, long term planning, and risk evaluation continue to develop well into the mid twenties. During adolescence, these regions are still maturing, while reward seeking and emotion driven systems are highly active.

As a result, children are prone to impulsive or short sighted decision making, more susceptible to peer influence, less capable of evaluating long term consequences, and more likely to engage in risk behavior without fully understanding the implications. These developmental realities mean that children's actions often reflect transient immaturity. That same developmental science demonstrates that young people have an extraordinary capacity for growth. Their personalities, judgment, and emotional regulation are still forming. With appropriate intervention, education, and support, most youth who engage in harmful behavior will stop as they mature.

Youth in juvenile court do not have the right to a jury trial for offenses listed in WIC 707 b. A juvenile adjudication for a 707 b offense and in this case, an offense that may involve planning or talk rather than completed harm can result in a lifelong strike for behavior that occurred during their childhood when they are especially susceptible to impulsivity, peer pressure, and immature decision making. Accountability is extremely important, and it must be guided by evidence, which this bill is not. For these reasons, I respectfully urge your no vote on AB 1968. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll now hear from anyone else hoping to register a position of oppose on the bill. Please come forward and state your name, organization, and position, please.

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

Lesli Caldwell Houston for the California Public Defender's Association in opposition.

Mica Doctoroff on behalf of Smart Justice California in opposition.

Leslie Wolf on behalf of Local 148 the Los Angeles Public Defenders Union in opposition. Katarina Sayeli, Community Works in opposition.

Capri Walker with Californians for Safety and Justice in opposition.

Jim Lindburg, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, opposed.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU CAL action and strong opposition.

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

Alright. Thank you, everyone. We'll now turn it back to the dais for questions or comments. If it's alright, mister Lackey, I will go to you first. I actually do have a question.

Rare for me to ask a question I don't know the answer to. Sheriff, I don't mean to put you on the spot. I'm actually just curious. The fact pattern that brought the case forward, these two students at Evergreen Middle School, if you happen to know, were they both charged by the prosecutor's office with the same crimes? I know they were convicted of different crimes, but do you know if they face the same charges?

I believe they were charged with the same crimes. I believe the in one case, there was a plea bargain struck. On the other one, it went to trial.

Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

Mister Lackey, I'll turn it to you.

Yeah. It's basically just a comment. It's not really a question. Because it seems to me that what we're really evaluating here is whether or not we consider conspiracy to commit murder a serious juvenile offense. How is that not how is that criteria not met?

How could it get more serious? Well, other than actually committing murder, But planning to commit murder and especially in this kind of instance where we we've proven the statute is in demand because of the way it was adjudicated. You have hundreds hundreds of kids who are in fear that their lives are in jeopardy. I don't understand the arguments in trying to object to the fact that this is a serious juvenile offense because that's the qualification that allows you to go to an adult court. It defies common sense to me.

And I'm I'm so sorry to those of you who are trying to make sure that injustice doesn't take place. But for heaven's sakes, this is a very, very, very, serious thing for all these kids now that are going to be living in fear needlessly when this these kids could be getting rehabilitative intervention instead of just custody because that's all they're getting right now. But we need to do better, and this bill will make it better in my opinion and has my support.

Thank you, mister Lackey. Assembly member Ramos, you have the floor.

Thank you, mister chair. Just a a couple of questions. If you could walk me through a scenario where it talks about a crime of conspiracy to commit murder to a list of specified offenses. And and if you could walk me through the commitment to a a secure youth treatment facility, How would that work and and the rehabilitation start? And I imagine that this is being more preventative than reactive at this point when you're sending somebody in for treatment.

Yeah. I'll I'll let the sheriff maybe give a little bit more context. But right now, I mean, this is really the crux of this issue. And and again, it's like, what if we caught someone ahead of time, which is what we always wanna do. Right?

We wanna catch them before something terrible happens like a mass shooting. If we do, what's the best way to help rehabilitate this person? So right now, without having this change, if you're convicted of conspiracy to commit murder, the likely scenario is you do 300 and 65 days a year or less in juvenile hall where there's not as much rehabilitative, programming. Whereas if you do go to, you know, the secure youth facility, they actually have intensive rehabilitation structures. And what and what the likely scenario is is it's probably a four year term.

It's probably a four year term where you're there and you're getting programming that's helping to, you know, get your mind right and get you back on a better productive path as opposed to just doing maybe a year in juvenile hall where they don't have that program. So that to me is the critical thing, but I'll let the sheriff maybe weigh in on that too.

No. I can I concur? I think part of the problem here is that you get to the point where the rehabilitation, especially in rural communities like ours in juvenile hall just don't exist like they do in secure track. And so the other problem with this is even if they were to have been sentenced to a longer sentence in juvenile hall, our goal right is to rehabilitate and not punish, the juveniles. And so when you run out of options within the juvenile hall system to rehabilitate them, then effectively it ends their sentence and releases them from custody.

No matter what their sentence is, they're not gonna be held to the end of that. So I think this law allows us to look at getting them additional rehabilitative treatment, which is what they need. I recognize that these are juveniles and that this could affect them long term, but I think that we also can't turn our back on the fact of that there were a lot more juveniles that could have been affected and their livelihoods and their entirety of their life. And and it still may be affected just by the threat of this violence and how they perceive life moving forward.

So I'm really looking for what specifically what would the treatment be if it it is more preventative. Right? So what would that be? I understand there's different programs that are out there, but here we're being asked to vote on something that now changes it to a conspiracy to commit murder, to get treatment to the individual. That's what the argument is.

So what is that treatment And how would that benefit, right, the community? What is that treatment? And then if you could walk me through also, transfer to a doc criminal court. So what is that treatment And how would that benefit, right, the community? What is that treatment? And then if you could walk me through also, transfer to a doc criminal court.

And if they're transferred to a doc criminal court, does that mean that the crime has already been committed, no longer a conspiracy?

No. I mean, so one: the answer to that question is no. It's just an adult court. Right? But it's still considering all the juvenile factors. In fact, that doesn't change at all. You know? So, the judge will still consider the fact that this is a juvenile, their prior history, amenable to rehabilitation. This law does not change the transfer rules for 16 and older youth. Doesn't change that at all.

And that's already possible for any felony, and it does not lower any age thresholds. But when they get transferred over there and and if and the opportunity to go into a secure youth treatment facility, there is more intensive programming. Now I don't know all the exact things, but it's mental health treatment. It's, you know, learning to deal with the consequences, you know, of your actions and what that could have led to with more, like, professionals, you know, who are dealing, who are dealing in the - they're at these facilities. Right?

They're not if I mean, if you go to your local juvenile hall, you don't really have that same programming. It's more intensive. It has more specialists, you know, at these facilities that are working to make sure and, again, we're not talking about this person going away for life. We're not talking about a juvenile going there for life. That doesn't happen, you know.

What happens is they go to a long - there is a longer penalty. You know? And again, like, four years is what happened to the one that was convicted of of of attempted murders. Not conspiracy, but of attempted murder. Four years secure youth treatment facilities. Whereas, right now, conspiracy to commit, conspiracy to commit murder is not in there. So, it can't be considered at all. And the maximum that you're gonna do is maybe a year in juvenile hall, where there isn't the same treatment options.

So I asked the question, mister chair, because we we did move a bill that got signed to law in psychiatric residential treatment centers. And that was specifically laid out, the treatment that was been gonna be taking place because of the behavioral component to it. So, I'm looking for that component to make sure if it doesn't exist, what needs to exist to make sure that we're getting that preventative help to the individual before the crime is committed. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Assemblymember Ramos. Are there other questions or comments from members of the committee? Right, and...no? Do we have a motion, by the way? Motion? Second> Alright. Just wanna make sure. Motion by Alanis, second by Lackey. Alright. Mister Gallagher, you have a chance to close if you'd like.

Yeah, no; I just I would really like the the consideration of this committee and, you know, to really seriously consider that this, you know, this is giving better rehabilitation, you know, to someone, again, we're sitting here today having prevented this from happening. That's a great thing. But but for a call from a youth in Tennessee, it'd be a very different situation, man.

There would be another mass shooting that would have occurred in our state. Kids dead at school. Right? And there are many things that I know we're trying to do on a policy front to try and avoid that from happening. Again, I think there's a multi pronged thing to this, But certainly, like, trying to stop the mentality that leads to this point where somebody says, "Yeah, my only option, I'm gonna go in there, I'm gonna shoot up a school," should be one of them.

Right? And I think we could all agree here that, you know, one of these individuals who now is only gonna spend less than a year in juvenile hall where he's not going to get where no one in this room can honestly say he's going to get programming that helps to change his mindset at the juvenile hall.

No one can honestly say that. That's not a good result. Whereas, if we make this change, then they could go to a secure youth treatment facility where they have more intensive programming, where they have the ability to start really working on the mindset of this individual. And again, they're not spending the rest of their life in prison. We don't do that, right, with juveniles.

But they are gonna spend more time and they're also gonna spend, you know, they're spend more time in a secure facility, but also more time actually working on what caused you to go down this road. What do you need to learn? What has to happen in your mindset to change that so that we don't have this again? Again, ask yourself, what if we were able to get a Dylan Klebold before he committed, you know, Columbine. I was in high school when that happened.

I was a senior in high school in Columbine happened. I think about that all the time. What what could we have done beforehand? You know, and there's many different things. Mental health treatment, bullying, all these different things that maybe we could have stopped these people from going down that path. But, imagine we caught them. That somebody caught them ahead of time. We stopped the thing from happening and then we're like, now we have an opportunity to change that mindset. Right? Shouldn't we take that opportunity?

And I think our policy can be better to make sure that we when we when we do that, that we can actually get people back onto a path of rehabilitation and they don't get back out without that. That's a scary thing. And especially if you're a teacher at Evergreen Middle School where you go, "Hey, man. I don't think that person got that and they're gonna get out pretty soon." And they were plan - and this was a very well planned out.

If you read up on this, there was a manifesto created. There was, you know, photos of mimicking past mass shooters. This is a very serious thing, man. And I think we all wanna make sure it never happens again. And so I think if we can make this, again, very modest policy change, targeted policy change, it's not opening up the the book to everybody.

But in these in these cases where we have evidence of a conspiracy to commit murder, we can have this option for people. I think that that's something that we should do and so I hope and and plead for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Assemblymember Gallagher. Colleagues, hope you'll indulge me with a brief recommendation. I wanna begin by thanking the Assemblymember for bringing the bill forward. In my short time knowing you, sir, I've known you to be a thoughtful advocate for your community, and I'm really sorry to hear about what has happened in your county and specifically at your middle school. As a parent to two young kids, we're starting public school this fall.

It pains me to think that we have to talk about mass shooter drills as the new norm that people have to prepare for. And so there's nothing that we can do to undo the psychological harm that's been done in your community, but I just wanna empathize and say thank you for being here today to to share that story, and I'm sorry for what you've been through. I'm sorry that it's all too common. I really appreciated the discussion and the testimony from all of our witnesses today. Though there might be points of disagreement, I thought it was very fruitful and and eye opening.

I will just note, and this is set forth in the committee analysis on page number seven. I just wanted to make a distinction; yes: if the offender is 16 or 17 years old, there is already a mechanism under the statute. The juvenile can be transferred to adult criminal court for the commission of any felony.

So, as applied to 16 and 17 year old, that is already the state of the law. This bill is really looking at anyone age 15 and younger. Now Assemblymember Gallagher, your bill would add conspiracy to commit murder to Section 707 Subsection B offenses under the welfare and institutions code, for which a juvenile could be sent to SYTF or transferred to adult court. The 707 B list of offenses has not been expanded since the voters passed proposition 21 about a quarter century ago. And in my view, conspiracy is a distinguishable criminal offense from those that are on the list.

And for the purpose of the 707 B list, I view attempted murder as distinguishable from conspiracy to commit murder. Allow me to explain: attempted murder applies when the murder would have been completed, but for some intervening cause that interrupted the attempt. Conspiracy, on the other hand, requires only an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy; that act need not be in and of itself a criminal act.

Kind of complicated, but that is that is criminal law. That's why criminal conspiracy is a separate and distinguishable criminal offense. I will note, after asking my question to the sheriff, and I appreciated you, sir, answering, I have found and I'm gonna cite my source here. This is a report by KRCR, a local affiliate of ABC: an article entitled, "Court Finds 14 year Old Guilty of Three Felonies in Evergreen School Planned Attack."

This is dated 09/24/2025. I just wanna note that, the 14 year old offender did proceed to trial. They were originally charged with attempted murder, and the court found them not guilty. And I think that's an important fact because, while I do very much appreciate the passion and the purpose of you bringing forward the bill, Assemblymember Gallagher, I would respectfully argue there isn't a loophole in the law. What we had here was a court disagreeing with the charging decision of a prosecutor and finding insufficient evidence to hold the the offender culpable for attempted murder.

And for that reason and for everything else I have said, I I'm not convinced today that this bill would have changed to the outcome, in this instance. I don't believe that locking up juveniles is the right approach. And for these reasons and with all due respect for you, sir, I can't support the bill today. The Chair is recommending it no.

For item 14, AB 1968 by Assemblymember Gallagher. The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call].

Alright. That measure will remain on call for absent members, but based on the current math, that measure will fail. Thank you all very much for being here. Alright, colleagues, that brings us to our last two items for the day. These are both my items. Items number nine and ten on your agenda. I'll be proceeding with Assembly Bill 1905 first, followed by Assembly Bill 1917. I'm now, at this time, gonna hand the gavel over to our very capable vice chair.

Can you have a seat? Hello? Good morning, Mister Vice Chair and committee members. I'm pleased to present today Assembly Bill 1905, which will strengthen protections for young people in custody by establishing clear guardrails around custodial interrogation. Let me begin by mentioning that research has increasingly found that juveniles are more susceptible to pressure, manipulation, and deception, putting them at a higher risk for making constitutionally questionable statements and confessions.

This risk is partly, particularly heightened when juveniles are interacting with undercover law enforcement agents. Now, California has not yet implemented clear statutory limits on the use of undercover tactics during juvenile interrogations in a custodial setting. This can result in officers eliciting statements that are arguably not credible or lawfully obtained, leading to costly litigation over admissibility and slowing down the judicial system. AB 1905 would seek to change that. AB 1905 would prohibit the use of undercover law enforcement agents to seek statements from individuals in custody who are 17 years of age or younger at the time of the alleged defense.

This fortifies the integrity of our judicial and reduces the risk of unreliable statements by one, creating a consistent and clear statewide standard to prevent constitutionally questionable interrogations. Number two, directing courts to consider violations when determining admissibility. And number three, requiring courts to weigh willful violations when assessing an officer's credibility. This bill will not only better protect uniquely vulnerable youth in the state of California, but it will also promote public trust in our justice system by ensuring the use of reliable evidence and fair proceedings. I respectfully ask your aye vote, and with me to testify in support today, I have Leslie Caldwell-Houston, former Solano County Chief Public Defender and current California Public Defenders Association Legislative Committee Co-chair, as well as Jasmine Harris, Policy Director for the California Innocence Project.

Sorry. California Innocence Coalition.

Thank you.

Thank you. You both have five minutes.

Good morning, members and staff. Nice to see you all. My name is Jasmine Harris, and I am here on behalf of the California Innocence Coalition, cosponsor of AB 1905. Our work focuses on preventing and correcting wrongful convictions, and one of the most consistent patterns we see in innocence cases is the outsized role of unreliable statements obtained in custodial settings. This risk is particularly acute when the alleged conduct occurred during adolescence. Developmental science and decades of case experience demonstrate that young people are more susceptible to pressure, more likely to comply with perceived authority, and less likely to fully understand the long term consequences of their statements.

California has already taken - has already taken meaningful steps to strengthen protections for youth during interrogations. In fact, our coalition worked, closely with other stakeholders in this legislature to pass AB 2644 just a couple years ago, and that experience gives us a clear understanding of what current law covers and where gaps remain. Existing protections do not address custodial undercover elicitation where individuals may unknowingly speak with agents of law enforcement in environments that carry significant significant psychological pressure. AB 1905 addresses that narrow but important gap by establishing clear rules for custodial undercover questioning about conduct that occurred during adolescence. The bill helps ensure that statements relied upon in court are both reliable and constitutionally sound.

When cases rely on evidence that later proves vulnerable to suppression or reversal, victims and communities are forced to relive trauma and and confidence in the legal system is undermined. AB 1905 is carefully tailored. It does not prohibit undercover investigations or limit lawful interrogation practices broadly. It addresses a specific custodial context tied to alleged conduct during adolescence where the risk of unreliable or unconstitutionally problematic statements is well documented. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your aye vote.

Good morning. Leslie Caldwell Houston, volunteer for the California Public Defenders Association as a cosponsor of this bill and in proud support. In recent years, in recognition of the unique vulnerabilities of young people, the courts in this legislation legislature have sought to ensure young people are afforded counsel before any custodial interrogation. Further, law enforcement is prohibited from using deceptive or coercive tactics when interrogating young people. Unfortunately, law enforcement has exploited a loophole to Miranda protection for vulnerable youth.

There now exists a growing and insidious use of undercover, sorry, my glasses are all screwed up. Insidious use of undercover informants and who are planted by law enforcement with the intention avoiding legislative prescription on deception and manipulation, using undercover operatives to do what they themselves are prohibited from doing. Most often, young people are placed in detention with older, often intimidating informants who are free to use whatever tactics they wish to purse pressure, deceive, and manipulate youth into making statements. These interactions, if recorded at all, are audio only, no video. Many examples of cases of abuse of the law come from California lawyers for youth, such as a situation where an extremely inebriated 17 year old girl suspected of involvement, involvement in a robbery murder, was placed in custody.

A Perkins agent was placed in the holding cell with her. The intoxicated client, quote unquote, admitted participation as a lookout. Also, a 17 year old was arrested for murder and placed in adult custody with two Perkins agents who were older homies. These older homies schooled him on how he had to explain what he did per gang call. One agent had his shirt off, was flexing, and his tattoos were showing, which was very intimidating.

He then, quote unquote, confessed to the Perkins agent. I'd like to note that in the jails and in the prisons, there's a very strong culture of individuals being required to provide gang members with information and with copies of their police reports. I've experienced this myself. So, this is a very real problem. Recognizing that Perkins' operations may be a valuable tool to solve...oh; to solve crimes, courts have recognized that allowing such a statement in violation of the constitution protection of Miranda, and I quote, "would place the premium on the ingenuity of the police to devise methods of indirect interrogation instead of implementing the plain mandate of Miranda." I would respectfully request your eye vote.

Thank you.

Anyone else in support, please step up. Name, organization, please.

Simelia Rogers, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in strong support.

Aubrey Rodriguez, with ACLU Cal Action, and enthusiastic support.

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

Mica Doctoroff with Smart Justice California, in strong support.

Capri Walker with California for Safety and Justice, in support.

Saskia Perks, on behalf of California Civil Liberties Advocates, in support.

Shivani Nishar, with Initiate Justice, in support.

Leslie Wolf with Local 148, Los Angeles Public Defenders Union, in strong support.

Katarina Sayally, Community Works, in support.

Jim Lindbergh, on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California, in support.

Ariana Montez, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice and Exonerated Nation, in support.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? Seeing none, opposition in the room? Please have a seat. You will have five minutes.

Good morning, Mister Chair and members. Corey Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriffs Association, regrettably in opposition to the bill. I first wanna point out, the materials offered in support of this bill and the testimony reference young people. And the bill does apply to some young people, but you have to read the entirety of the bill to make sure you understand that this is not limited to people who might be interrogated when they are under the age of 18. The bill applies to any person who is under the age of 18 at the time of the crime.

This means this not only applies to someone who was two days before their eighteenth birthday, commits a crime, is arrested, is in custody, and then questioned two days after their eighteenth birthday. That fact pattern would be covered by this bill. But another fact pattern covered by this bill is someone who is 17 when they commit a crime, and the crime is not prosecuted until that person reaches the age of 40 years old, for example. So, a 23 year old case. Do - are are we honestly saying that that a person who is 40 years old at the time of the questioning deserves the same protections as the proponents argue that someone who's under the age of 18, deserves at the time of questioning?

That I think that's a really important, issue with this bill because this is not just about young people being questioned. Also, the the appellate case that is cited in the fact sheet, People v Zapata, candidly, that reads more as a Miranda case than a Perkins case. And we're talking about both issues here. But there's no indication, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Zapata was a juvenile at the time of the offense or when questioned. And the issue as I understand Zapata, was that the court noted Zapata's admission of guilt was obtained after he had invoked his invoked his Miranda rights.

This is a Miranda issue and not a Perkins issue. As the proponents noted, this relates to to the extent this relates to actual juveniles, legislature enacted AB 2644 in 2022, that prohibits law enforcement officers from playing threats, physical harm, deception, or psychologically manipulative interrogation techniques or tactics, excuse me, during a custodial and tenting aggregation of a person 17 years of age or younger. These protections are in the law. We don't see the justification for further limitations on Perkins operations for a couple of main reasons.

One, Perkins operations involving juveniles are exceedingly rare. And and when they do happen, it's almost always in the case of a homicide. The examples that were cited by counsel indicate that those were homicide cases or a gang case or perhaps when a juvenile is used to commit a crime because of the knowledge of likely reduced culpability on behalf of the offender. And candidly, when it involves Perkins operations, you have to have physical facilities that can accommodate that sort of thing, as suspect you're aware, Mister Chair; this it's it would be not common to have the facilities necessary. Certainly, in a jail, where you would have a juvenile suspect who is being questioned or is the subject of a Perkins operation, and then also having other juveniles in that with the separation requirements. And so there are protections that exist.

Again, those those operations are exceedingly rare. They're used sparingly because of the types of cases that typically, I would say, necessitate them. So for all those reasons, we respectfully ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition, please come up. Seeing none, I will turn to the dais. Any questions?

I'll move. Second.

I'll move in a second. Miss Collins?

I think, first off, I just want to say thank you to the author for bringing forth this bill. I really do appreciate you bringing this forward. What I can say is that I do agree that science has actually proven to us that youth are vulnerable. You know, their brains are not fully developed, and I am a strong supporter of making sure that we do everything we can to make sure make sure folks can be re rehabilitated. I am in strong support, and if I could move the age up to 24 based on what sciences have shown, I would.

You know? Because they're saying all the way up to the age of 24. And so, I do understand that. Now I do, I did have a bill last year, 1279, that went into the juvenile adjudication and also three strikes. And when we talked about this issue.

But also having the ability to have some of our our youth be coerced into some of their overall statements and testimonies. I think that that is concerning. And with that happening, people are receiving different life sentences and or even some enhancements based on how they have been coerced into this coerced into their confection. So, I think that that this should be an unthinkable thing that California is the only state where we give strikes to folks where these things are hanging over their heads, you know, as as a youth.

And that's something that we we should continue to look into, and I think this will help this particular process as we move forward. So, I want to thank you for that to make sure that those youth that are in these different types of situations is not being forced into something because of their their their mental development. So, I just wanted to comment and tell you thank you.

Thank you.

And I would like to be a coauthor. Please add me ass coauthor.

Absolutely.

Alright. Thank you.

Thank you. you. Mister Lackey.

What's it - excuse me. What's its issue to me very, very clearly is the focus of the age of the defendant of the interview. Not the age of the crime, the age of the interview. Because sometimes, as was brought out by the opposition, these cases take years before they're brought in a prosecutorial environment. To me, the age of the interview should be the focus, not the age of the crime.

Can you just clarify that that is the point of the bill that it's actually the age of the crime versus the age of the interview at the interview?

Well, what I would say, Mister Lackey, and thank you for the opportunity to respond to the letter, and we very much appreciate the letter. Should the bill move out of committee today, I would have, be ready to commit right now to having those conversations to look at those odd back patterns where I think in your letter you'd mentioned 23 years might pass and someone's interviewed about conduct when they were a juvenile. Happy to at least engage and see if there's any common ground there. What I would note though, Mister Lackey, is at at least in my experience, not that I know everything, those are fairly rare occurrences, and and here's why. If you're trying to prosecute conduct that's 23 years old, hopefully, you're not hinging your prosecution on a confession in the course of a jail context.

And even if you were to extract a confession, the corpus delicti doctrine would require that we can't prosecute someone solely on the basis of their confession. There has to be independent evidence. So, we introduced this bill to start a conversation. We're in receipt of the letter from five days ago, and should the bill move out of committee, we'd be happy to engage with the opposition to see if we can address some of their concerns.

And I would just add that the frequency of this whole process is also rare. And so, I don't think frequency needs to be the the focus of what what we're talking about here because the severity of this issue is what should be the focus. And, anyways, I do have concerns, and I think I've expressed them already. So, thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else? Okay. Mister Chairman, you may close.

Yes. Thank you very much. I just wanna say again, I I do genuinely appreciate the opposition letter. I don't anticipate or have any illusion that we'll ever get them to a point of neutral, but we're still nonetheless willing to engage and see if we can strengthen the bill to address some of those concerns. But I'll simply close with this.

As mentioned earlier, prior legislation relatively recently recently enacted codified welfare and institutions code 625.7. And I just wanna read that portion. "During a custodial interrogation of a person 17 years of age or younger relating to the commission commission of a misdemeanor or felony," and this is the operative part, "A law enforcement officer shall not employ threats, physical harm, deception, or psychologically manipulative interrogate interrogation tactics." At least insofar as we are talking about an interrogation of someone under the age of 18, I view this bill as very much in line with consistent already law of the state of California.

It just builds upon an already expressed policy purpose, and that is that our children are vulnerable to manipulation. There's nothing wrong with sitting them down, Mirandizing them, and getting a statement that way. But when they think that they are not talking to a law enforcement officer, we're not playing on a level playing field. That's what this bill seeks to address. And with that, I respectfully, Mister Vice Chair, asked for an aye vote today.

Thank you, Mister chair. I'm pretty sure the Chair is recommending an aye vote on this.

Yes.

Take the role.

You're the chair.

For item nine, AB 1905 by Assemblymember Schultz, the motion is do passed. [Roll Call].

Chair, that measure passes, and we'll move to item number 10, AB 1917.

Great. Thank you. Alright. Thank you very much, mister vice chair. I believe my witness is on his way, but I'll begin.

I'm pleased to present today Assembly Bill 1917 which would strengthen judicial efficiency and transparency by ensuring that charges brought against defendants are always evidence based. Californians deserve assurance that every charge a prosecutor brings in our judicial system is based on sufficient evidence, and that their due process rights are strongly protected. Let me allow just a little bit of background. In a criminal case proceeding, and specifically what we're talking about felony charges, so a prosecutor has filed a complaint alleging the commission of a felony. At the preliminary hearing, a judge will evaluate all of the evidence presented against the defendant, if they believe that probable cause, which is one of the lower evidentiary standards in our justice system, if that burden has been met, then the defendant will be held to answer.

In some instances, however, a court may find that there is insufficient evidence, meaning not even probable cause exists to hold the defendant to answer. And that's really what this bill is looking at. Currently, in California, if a pro a prosecutor is allowed to simply add back any of those dismissed charges without a process or any explanation. So let me be clear. Here's the hypothetical we are we are we are considering.

I'm a criminal defendant in a matter. I go to preliminary hearing. My attorney does their job and says, you might have proved charge a and b, but there's not enough evidence for charge c. A prosecutor can simply add it back in. And then the onus is actually on the defense.

The defendant carries the burden to file a lengthy motion, a 995 motion, to once again remove those charges, undercutting both due process and judicial efficiency. And really what we're talking about here, in my humble opinion based on my experience, is the concept of separation of powers, Respecting a determination made by a judicial officer who is objectively and impartially evaluated all of the evidence and found that there was insufficient evidence to hold a criminal defendant to answer. AB 1917 would seek to change that. Ab 1917 would instead require that a prosecutor file a motion based on legal arguments to request the reinstatement of dismissed charges. This does not close the door on the ability of a prosecutor to bring back a charge.

What it would say is that, for example, if my prosecutor is assembly member Harabedian, he simply needs to explain why it's appropriate to add the charge back. Perhaps there's new evidence that wasn't previously available. This is about fairness in our judicial process. Now if a judge grants the motion, those charges can be easily added back to a case. The bill would only apply to charges that have been dismissed by a judicial officer at a preliminary hearing.

In closing, the bill would strengthen transparency and integrity in our justice system by number one, guaranteeing that any charge a defendant is facing is always based on probable cause at every stage of the legal process. Number two, explicitly protecting an avenue for the reinstatement of charges where appropriate. And number three, increasing efficiency and resource utilization in our courts by respecting judicial decisions. The bill, in my estimation, is a matter of basic fairness and will ensure that Californians can rely on a transparent and accountable justice system. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

That is the chair's recommendation. And with me testifying in support today is Manoh Raju, the public defender of San Francisco City And County.

Good morning, members of the committee. My name is Mano Raju, the elected public defender of San Francisco and a proud cosponsor of AB 1917 the Respect Judicial Decisions Act. This bill is built upon a basic principle. People should not face criminal charges that are not supported by evidence. If a judge determines there isn't enough evidence to support a charge, that charge shouldn't continue to hang over a person's head.

Here's why AB 1917 is needed. When a person is accused of committing a felony, a judge holds a preliminary hearing early on in the case to make sure there's enough evidence to support each accusation or charge. Again, not beyond a reasonable doubt, but a much lower standard. Specifically, the charge must be supported by, it's called probable cause, which is a relatively low legal standard that means there's a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed. If a charge is not supported by probable cause, a judge can remove that charge from the case.

Under current law, when a judge removes the charge of preliminary hearing, a prosecutor can simply add that charge back to a case without providing any reason or any explanation. This defies common sense, and it actually undermines the value of the most significant evidentiary hearing that ever happens in the vast majority of felony cases, because as we know, most cases don't end up in trial. Right? A b 1917 is narrowly tailored to address this issue. It would simply require prosecutors to file a motion explaining why why a charge that was removed should be added back to the case.

If this motion is granted, the charge will be added back to the case. This simple amendment to the court process will make courts more efficient and increase transparency and fairness. Please vote aye on this. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else with support, please step up. Name and organization, please.

Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the California attorneys for criminal justice, cosponsor of the bill.

Capri Walker with Californians for Safety and Justice, proud cosponsor and support, also on behalf of Youth Alive in support.

Thank you.

Danica Rodarmel of Hall Consulting on behalf of Western Center on Law and Poverty in support.

Leslie Wolf, deputy public defender on behalf of Local 148 the Los Angeles Public Defenders Union in strong support.

Simelia Rogers on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in strong support.

Shivani Nishar with initiate justice in support.

Keyan Bliss on behalf of Anti Police Terror Project in strong support.

Mica Doktoroff on behalf of Smart Justice California in strong support.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU Cal Action and enthusiastic support.

Lesli Caldwell Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in strong support.

Thanks, miss Caldwell. Anyone else? Alright. Seeing no one else, anyone in opposition? Mister Gallagher, you have five minutes.

Thank you. Chair, members, my name is Matthew Gallagher. I am a deputy district attorney in El Dorado County, and I'm here on behalf of the California District Attorney's Association. We are unfortunately in respectful opposition to the bill here today because it has several unintended consequences that raise serious concerns for criminal procedure in California. First and foremost, after preliminary hearing, if a defendant is held to answer, they're arraigned on an information. And the author is correct that if there isn't probable cause, those charges are dismissed and would not be included in the information.

However, frequently, we see judges sometimes get it wrong. They're often taking notes during the the preliminary hearing, and they don't have all the facts in front of them. They don't always review the Calcrantz. They're impacted by calendars. They're impacted by numerous cases on that morning or afternoon, and so sometimes they do make mistakes.

In those instances, the prosecutor, like myself, will file charges in the information even if the court did not hold them to answer on it. Under the current procedure, if I do that, the defense files a 995 motion moving to dismiss the charges. The burden never shifts to the defendant. The burden always remains on me as the criminal prosecutor in this state and in every other state. What happens is they file a 995 motion.

Relatively simple. I disagree. That is long and tedious because the moment that motion's filed, the burden is on me to prove beyond not beyond a reasonable doubt, but that there is sufficient cause we that this person has committed this crime. We examine the case law. We examine the jury instructions, and we cite to the record of preliminary hearing transcript to show why the charge has been supported.

This bill fundamentally alters that process because one of the most fundamental points about a 995 is it goes to a different judge than the judge who heard the preliminary hearing. So an independent, neutral, and detached magistrate reviewing the entire transcript, reviewing the pleadings from both parties makes a independent decision on whether or not that charge is supported by the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing. And that judge looks at the four corners of the transcript, doesn't examine or contemplate evidence not within the four corners of the transcript. That is a fundamental due process protection every defendant is entitled to. So the notion that we are prosecuting people for charges that is unsupported by the evidence isn't true.

Because if a 995 motion is filed, another independent judge makes that determination. What this bill does is basically requires me to justify an additional motion for why I'm bringing these charges, and then it also gives the defendant another opportunity to file a 995. And if I disagree, I have to file an appeal. And if the defendant doesn't waive time, that appeal might not be resolved before the trial goes, and then I lose on that charge. It's a fundamental issue that has to be raised and addressed.

And while I understand the purpose and intent, the simple truth is we don't proceed on charges that are not supported by the evidence. It's a fundamental rule of law. It's a principle of due process, and fairness always remains our paramount and utmost priority. With that, I respectfully ask for a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition, please step up. Seeing none, we'll turn to. Any questions?

Well, thank you very much, mister vice chair. I I really do wanna thank the opposition witness for your testimony. I agree with, some of what you said. And more importantly, I wanna thank you for your service to the people of California and keeping our community safe. I'll just make two observations.

I have no basis of knowledge. I've never prosecuted a case in El Dorado County. So your your experience of the 995 process not being tedious may very well be true. Having prosecuted in Ventura County, Los Angeles County, Orange County, San Bernardino County, I can tell you that in some case, it takes months. And I'm not talking two or three, it takes in advance of six months to litigate some of those cases.

So I think the reason I bring that up is to say that is inevitably the problem of trying to legislate solutions that apply equally in El Dorado County as in one of the largest counties in the country, Los Angeles County. The only other thing I would I would note is that at the end of the day, I believe that even if a defendant is facing a charge that was dismissed for their matter of a week, whatever it takes to defend or to litigate the 995 motion. It really strikes at the heart of our criminal justice system, which I believe the bedrock of which is the division of and separation of powers. I I appreciate the opposition witness's testimony today, and I've heard it from other district attorneys around the state who have who have said, sometimes judge gets it wrong. Well, that might be the case, and I've been there.

I've certainly prosecuted cases myself over ten years, in fact, where I was frustrated and felt the judge got it wrong, but I also understand they wear the black robe and I do not. At the end of the day, I think it's presumptuous to for us to assume that the judge got it wrong because they weren't paying attention. And I'm not saying that there's no instance of that ever happening, but I do think at its core, we have to trust our judicial officers to do their job. If they independently evaluate the evidence and find that there is insufficient evidence to move forward, perhaps it is because they were distracted. Perhaps the prosecutor didn't do their job in presenting sufficient evidence.

I've seen that in the courtroom as well from younger attorneys that I've been training, and I probably made a mistake or two along the way. The point I'm trying to make is this. I believe that this bill is grounded in procedural fairness, but my commitment to CDAA moving forward is that while we may not see eye to eye completely on the issue, to the other points that were raised in the letter, I am happy to engage in those conversations and see if we can clean it up and address at least some of those concerns. My goal with every bill, even if we won't get the opposition removed, is to make the best possible version of that bill advance forward. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Chairs recommend an aye vote. Please take roll.

[Roll Call]

That measure passes. Thank you. I'll wait for you to come up top to redo the roll.

Alright. Thank you very much. And mister Vice Chair, thank you for always running a good meeting.

Oh' you're welcome.

I love that tie today, by the way. Very festive. I can't wait to get home and cook. Alright, folks. We're almost done.

I'm gonna repeat what what I said at the beginning because some of you might not have heard of it, then we'll go through the agenda and we'll send you all on your way out of here. What I wanted to mention is that moving forward for the next four weeks minus, spring break week, we will be starting every day at 08:30AM. I'm asking all of you and to the staff of anyone watching who is gonna be offering a bill to the best you can. Please try not to pull your bills from any future meetings. You have the ability to.

I'm asking if you can not to, and here's why. We have a 125 bills to process through four hearings. That's an average of 31.25 bills per hearing. And if we get a bunch of them pulled, that last hearing is gonna be a bear. We could be talking about, like, a two day hearing.

So in terms of all of you, I just wanted to anticipate our schedule will be as follows. We'll start every day at 08:30. We'll go to noon. We'll always break in time for caucus lunch, so you'll get your hour and a half break there. We'll come back to this room most likely at 01:30 and go as late as we can, probably stopping at around 04:00 for the veterans committee to come in.

And then if we still have not finished our business, we may need to move across the hallway to 127, but we will likely have evening sessions for the remainder of our of our year. I think the last hearing is April 21. So my ask all of you is just plan accordingly and try to not schedule anything in the early evening hours because we could be going that late. So with that, feel free to get in touch with me if you have any questions, and we'll go through our agenda item one more time and send you all out of here.

[Roll Call]

That measure fails. Alright. That completes our business for today. Thank you, everyone. I'll see you next Tuesday at 08:30AM. Buckle up.