Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning. I'd like to call to order this meeting of the Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety for Tuesday, 03/24/2026. We do not yet have a quorum, so we will meet as a subcommittee to hear bill presentations. Just a few announcements as we start today's hearing. First, file item eight, Senate bill 1105 by Senate Perez has been pulled from the agenda.

We'll hear that bill at our next committee hearing. And for those of you who are new to the set of public safety committee, welcome to the state capital. We really appreciate you being here today. I wanna just summarize our public comment procedure. We will take two principal witnesses in support of a bill and two principal witnesses in opposition to a bill each will have two minutes to address the committee.

After that time, we welcome anyone to come forward and state your name, organization, and position on the bill, but we're limiting your testimony just to your name, organization, and position on the bill. And we also accept written comments. So if you would like to write the committee to express your opinion on an issue, we welcome that, and thank you for being here today. Okay. Senator Grayson, Senator Gonzales just walked in, but that's okay.

We do take measures and file orders. So we'll begin with item one, Senate bill 937 by Senator Gonzales, and then we'll go to item two, Senate Bill 1056 by Senator Grayson. Okay. So with the agreement of the authors, we'll now proceed to file item two, sb 1056 by Senator Grayson. Good morning.

Present. Thank you so thank you so much, mister chair and committee members. I first would like to begin by thanking, the committee, mister chair, you and the committee and sergeants for accommodating media in the room today. And I also want to also thank the committee for their great work and collaboration with my office. I will be accepting the committee's suggested amendments today. And I am pleased to present SB ten fifty six, which requires courts to issue protective orders governing the handling of sexually explicit material depicting or involving an adult victim in criminal cases in order to prevent unnecessary copying, transmission, and dissemination of such material. California law mandates strong court oversight over the handling of highly sensitive child sexual abuse material. Courts, not individual attorneys, control the copying and dissemination of such material, and disclosure is tightly regulated. While child sex sexual abuse material is appropriately subject to explicit statutory safeguards, no parallel provision expressly requires similar court supervision when the material depicts or involves adult victims. As a result, safeguards may depend on prosecutorial discretion rather than judicial oversight. Survivors of sexual violence and privacy based crimes may face a heightened risk of unnecessary copying, transmission, and dissemination of deeply personal material. These this undermines a survivor's privacy and public confidence in the justice system. SB ten fifty six extends a proven statutory framework already applied to child sexual abuse material to similarly sensitive material involving adult survivors while preserving defendant's rights to reasonably access necessary to prepare for a defense. Specifically, this bill requires courts to issue a protective order in criminal cases involving sexually explicit material depicting or involving an adult victim, preventing unnecessary copying, transmission, or dissemination of such materials. SB ten fifty six also prohibits attorneys from providing copies to a defendant, the defendant's family members, or anyone else unless authorized by the court after a hearing and showing of good cause. The bill also clarifies that this does not relieve the prosecution of its constitutional duty to disclose relevant and ex exculpatory evidence nor does it affect the admissibility of evidence at trial. SB 1056 ensures that survivors are afforded meaningful privacy protections through clear and consistent standards. Seeking justice does not have to retraumatize or expose survivors even further. Every survivor deserves privacy, dignity, and the right to control their own narratives. After me, you'll hear from my support witnesses whose case is the impetus for this bill. As a former assembly member who represented Vallejo and a cofounder of a nonprofit serving survivors of violence, I was incredibly moved by their resilience and continued advocacy. In 2015, they became the focus of a shocking case that captured national attention and was later featured in Netflix's American Nightmare documentary. Today, they advocate for trauma informed policing, survivor centered practice, and trained law enforcement agencies nationwide. For supporting testimony, I am pleased to introduce through the chair, Denise Heskins Quinn and Erin Quinn, doctors of physical therapy, survivors, authors, and advocates. Mister chair.

Thank you, Senator. Good morning. And you may proceed.

Good morning, mister chair and members of the committee. My name is Aaron Quinn and I'm here to present on s b ten fifty six. In 2015, a man stalked me and my now wife, Denise, for over a year and a half. He later claimed he was targeting me because he believed I didn't deserve the life I had and he wanted to take away my things. So he attacked us in the middle of night, took the love of my life and held her captive for two days and raped her twice while recording it. After Denise and I were reunited, she told me through deep visceral sobs about the horrors she experienced, and I felt like I had failed to protect her. I feared she would never heal from such a devastating wound. And at the time, the police didn't believe us, and the assailant went on to attack two more families before he's before he was finally caught months later. Denise showed incredible courage by participating in the criminal proceeding to ensure he can never harm anyone else. But the story didn't end there. Just last year, during a new investigation, we learned that the underlying evidence, including recordings of the rapes, may still be in the possession of his now ex wife. And only recently, we also learned that there had been efforts to put a protective order in place to limit access and required those materials be returned and destroyed. But even now, we don't know whether those safeguards were followed, monitored, or enforced. There was there were no consistent standards, no transparency, and more uncertainty. This is unacceptable, especially in a digital age where this time material can be copied and shared instantly. So I watch as my wife, the mother of my two daughters was potentially exposed to harm again. Denise and I know the importance of supporting, protecting survivors as they navigate the legal process because if they don't feel safe, they will not come forward. And this is why I'm here today. I will not fail Denise again. Sb 1056 closes a critical privacy gap while fully preserving the constitutional rights of the accused. California already recognized that certain evidence involving children is so sensitive, it must be tightly controlled through the courts. This build builds upon that principle by ensuring similar sense of material involving adult survivors is handled with consistent judicial oversight. As someone who has felt both the weight of the government power and the pain of retraumatization, I believe in balance, due process must be preserved, but survivor's dignity must not be left to chance. SB ten fifty six ensures both. Thank you to Senator Grayson for champion this important issue.

Thank you, chair and committee members. My name is Denise Huskins Quinn. Eleven years ago, on this day, March 24, I was in my second day of captivity, unsure if I'd live to see another day. What followed was not only trauma from the crime itself, but trauma from the system that was supposed to protect me. Like many survivors, I made the incredibly difficult decision to come forward. I cooperated fully and entrusted the justice system with deeply personal evidence, recordings, private communications, and intimate details of the most terrifying experiences in my life, believing it would all be handled with care. An added layer of being kidnapped, drugged, and raped was my attacker's decision to record the violence. He threatened to release it online if I reported to police. He threatened my life and the lives of my loved ones. His intent was to maintain control over me, my body, for the rest of my life. Months later, when law enforcement arrested him for another crime, they found a laptop containing the recordings of the assaults. That footage allowed him to violate me over and over again, reliving his violence with each viewing. It was already devastating to learn that he could continue accessing that footage by representing himself. He also had the option to cross examine me in a public courtroom and have access to information that I didn't have access to, but I accepted this all as part of due process. What I never imagined, however, was that the underlying evidence, including that footage, could be copied or remain outside the court's control and potentially in his ex wife's possession for an extended period of time, unsecure. Knowing that it could be copied, shared, or stored without clear limitations, reopen wounds I had worked for years to heal. It made me question whether participating in the justice system meant permanently surrendering my privacy and, again, my body. Only recently, I also learned that there had been a protective order in place intended to limit access to the material. But even now, I don't know whether those safeguards were followed, monitored, or enforced. That uncertainty is its own kind of harm. Because when protections depend on discretion rather than consistent enforceable standards, survivors are left without clarity, without transparency, and without any sense of control. That evidence is not just discovery. It's a record of some of the worst moments of people's lives. I believe in due process. I have seen what happens when it fails, but due process and dignity are not in conflict. This bill ensures that when survivors entrust the system with the most intimate record of what happened to them, courts, not chance, set the rules for how that evidence is handled. Judicial oversight ensures that accountability does not come at the cost of dignity. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote on sb 1056. Thank you.

Thank you very much. On behalf of the entire committee, we thank you so very much for being here, and for your bravery and courage to tell this horrific story, and and for advocating for justice. And so we really appreciate you being here. And, with that, I'll open it up to any other members of the public who'd like to express support for Senate Bill 1056. Please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Good morning. Rochelle Beardsley, California District Attorneys Association. Strong support.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for Senate Bill 1056? Seeing no one else, we'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to the bill.

Good morning. Margo George for the California Public Defenders Association. We'd like to thank the author and the committee for the conversations and, but we must still respectfully oppose. Sb 1056 attempts to wholesale import the protection for child pornography into that's in penal code Section 1054.10 and apply them to adult sexually explicit material. It's not an apt comparison. First and foremost, child pornography is illegal to own, possess, distribute. Adult pornography, unfortunately, one might say or not, is readily available on the Internet, on social media, and on magazine covers. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly noticed that child sexual abuse is different. There are even special rules governing how it is handled. SB 1056 does not define what sexually explicit material is. And some religions showing one's hair is sexually explicit. SB 1056 does not even require that the expressed sexually explicit material be recognizable as the victim or any other person. Sb 1056 does not appropriately balance the defendants due process right to a fair trial and to see the evidence against them with the victim's right to privacy. The defendant has a fundamental due process right to see the evidence against them. SB 1056 would erect a hurdle. SB 1056 will not pass constitutional muster, but while it is litigated in the appellate courts, it will waste courts, district attorneys, and public defenders time, which is ultimately the taxpayers money. And that's no small thing when you hear that rural hospitals in California are being forced to close. The governor's budget has cut the mental health crisis unit, the one that serves my community in Oakland and Berkeley. We respectfully ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Good morning, mister chair and members. Excuse me. Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, Statewide Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Private Practice and work in public defender offices, and we are respectfully in opposition. I thank the author for this bill and also for the earlier witnesses for sharing their very personal and very difficult stories today. Our opposition is largely rooted in what the prior witness mentioned in that this will significantly interfere with the ability, both legal and ethical obligation for an attorney to prepare a defense, and to work with his or her client. The bill, as as we read it, prohibits the sharing of the information that is that fits the definition with their clients, and that's concerning. That will absolutely prohibit us from putting together a defense, which is the obligation of the defense attorney and also is required under due process. That needs to be rectified. Otherwise, we are dismantling the promise of the criminal justice system. The other thing we're concerned is that current law creates a a way to protect this material, which gives notice to the defense as to which material cannot be shared and which which can. And right now, the way this bill is drafted, the defense attorney will have to guess what fits the sexually explicit material definition. And it sets up a situation where the defense attorney may not be aware that a court or someone else will interpret certain evidence that that will fit under definition. Under court practice and court procedure, the courts will specifically state this evidence is subject to a protective order. Exhibit a, exhibit, you know, b, c, d, so that defense attorneys know exactly what they cannot share. And that is how it should be set up. I think I heard earlier that somebody may have violated the protective order, and that should not have happened, and there should be consequences. But that is how the current system is set up to balance the protection of victims and also the protection of the constitutional right to defend oneself. So we think the the current process of establishing, protective orders that specifically state which evidence is protected and is should be limited in sharing is the way to go, and we ask, for a no vote on this bill.

Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to Senate Bill 1056? Please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

George Prample, on behalf of ACLU California Action, we are opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB 1056? Okay. Seeing no one else, I'll bring it back to the committee for questions and discussion. Just to summarize the committee amendments that the authors agreed to accept, they would strike the word involving from the phrase, sexually explicit material depicting or involving an adult victim throughout the bill. And there are the types of cases this bill would apply to, that applies to those in which the defendant is being prosecuted for a violent felony or violation of penal code section six forty seven j, which includes the unlawful acts of peeping and lawfully recording a person under through their clothes with the intent of arousal, unlawfully recording a person with the intent to invade the privacy of a person, and intentionally distributing intimate images of another person. So those are the committee amendments. Any questions or comments from members of the committee? Yes. Vice Chair Seyarto.

Yeah. You you state that this bill somehow denies the defendant the opportunity to look at the evidence. How what I see is that either not allowed if the judge, the order, is not allowed to make copies of it and that defendant to have copies of it, but it doesn't prevent them from sitting down with their attorney and looking at the evidence, does it?

Is that a question for Yeah. Opposition?

Yeah. That's an opposition question.

Well, I think it says, in the amendment, except as provided in subdivision b, which is the hearing, you shall not disclose or permit to be disclosed to a defendant. And then it goes on members of the defendant's family, etcetera, etcetera.

I'm reading that too, but I don't

That's the part about disclose. That means that you the way I read it. Right? I guess it could be interpreted perhaps differently. But disclose means that you're my client

I understand.

And I can't show it to you. It doesn't mean I can't copy it and give it to you. It means I can't show it to you without a court hearing.

Because the way I read this is it's they're not allowed to disclose who the victim's family to, you know, who their family members are and things like that.

I don't think we have any quarrel with that. It's the actual defendant that we need to be able to say, you know, here's the picture. Here's the evidence against you. And, you know, have a

I don't see in this bill where it says that they can't do that. They can show them that. They just can't make copies of it and and allow those copies to escape the room to other areas. In other words, this bill is all about protecting, the people that have been violated, and and the defendant will get their time in court. I don't see I think this bill is an important protective mechanism for for victims. And I don't I just don't understand what and looking at this, I don't I'm not understanding how this somehow doesn't allow a defendant, the appropriate, venue to or the avenue to to have their, their case, adjudicated. So done.

Seeing no other questions from the vice chair, I'll just clarify that copies of the Mitchell could be provided to the defendant, the representative, if I'm not mistaken, Senator Grayson, as well as provide their attorney, but the court would have to issue a protective order to govern the how that material would be distributed. And I think the intent is to ensure that people don't have these images in their own personal possession, but rather to ensure that attorneys have access to it and can and can share them with the defendant. Alternatively, making sure that a defendant that represents the sole pro per can have access to it, but with certain conditions as part of a protective order. Is that correct, Senator Grayson?

That is correct.

Okay. Any other questions or comments from members of the committee on this bill? We're on sb 1056. Okay. If not, I see no other questions.

I'll turn it back over the author to close.

Thank you, mister chair. Proposition 115 guarantees access to discovery, but it does not prohibit reasonable procedural safeguards governing how discovery is handled. The California Supreme Court has held that the legislature may enact statutes that supplement discovery procedures so long as they do not undermine core rights. SB 1056 does not reduce discovery. It ensures that it is handled responsibly. Furthermore, SB 1056 is not just based on one single case. This bill addresses a real and foreseeable harm. While see while there are voices that emphasize that the bill was prompted by a single incident, legislation often responds to identified gaps before they become widespread problems. The absence of widespread abuse is not evidence that safeguards are unnecessary. It may reflect that the legal system has not yet fully confronted the risk. And given modern technology and the ease of digital distribution, the potential for harm is significant. SB ten fifty six is a proactive measure to prevent revictimization. And while I understand that, be because we've heard that SB ten fifty six is modeled after child sexual abuse materials protections, but adult pornography is legal. While I understand that legally, there is a difference between the two, our issue is not the legality of the material in the abstract. It is the risk of further harm to victims through unnecessary distribution of sensitive materials. So we are happy to continue working with public defenders on amendments that clarify the bill, but we believe that the amendments that they have initially offered go a step too far. For instance, the amendments add the phrase recognizable adult victim. We think this term would raise messy questions about whether the victim is recognizable in a given instance, leading judges to make an ad hoc decision without any definition of consistent criteria to follow. It does not appear that a recognizable victim appears anywhere else in California code. So with that, s b ten fifty six is solely intended to ensure the privacy and protection of survivors. It is not, and I repeat, not our intention to restrict defendant's rights to access evidence to prepare a defense. It is my commitment to continue working in good faith with the opposition and committee to get this bill to a good place where there are no unintended consequences, clear definitions, and does not impede the defendant's ability to prepare a defense. Thank you so very much, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Are we seeing a motion on the bill? We have a quand. We do have a quand, so let's call the roll first and foremost.

Aragin, here. Sejarto?

Here.

Here.

Aragin?

Caballero, here. Here. Cortesi? Here. Cortesi here. Perez Weiner.

Move the bill.

Okay. Motion by vice chair Ciarto.

SP 1056 Grayson motion is do passed as amended to appropriations. Aragin?

Aye.

Aragin, aye. Sejarto?

Seyarto aye. Caballero? Caballero aye. Cortese?

Aye.

Cortese, aye. Perez Guiner.

Aye.

Okay. We'll keep that bill on call. Thank you very much. Thank you all for joining us today. Okay. Going back in file order, we'll proceed to file an M1SB937 by Senator Gonzales. I understand you have

With me and a and a

A display. Yes. Just removing the camera here for the previous bill. So we'll wait a minute.

I think we can now proceed.

Sarah Gonzalez, whenever you're ready, you may present on SB937.

Yes. Good morning, mister chair and members. I'm here today to present sb 937 which will restrict law enforcement's use of Flashbang devices for crowd control and ban the use of Flashbangs and explosive breaching devices for immigration enforcement. According to a recent report by the Physicians for Human Rights, Flashbang devices are military grade explosive pyrotechnic devices meant to disperse and disorient enemy combatants. They produce a form of combustion accompanied by a blinding light and a loud blank.

Though classified as less lethal, flashbangs have caused life altering injuries to both protesters, journalists, law enforcement, and even innocent people. In one recent case in June 2025, a Los Angeles artist attending a protest in downtown was hit with a law enforcement deployed flashbang. The device fragmented on impact resulting in the permanent amputation of his fingers. Crowd control equipment has become increasingly militarized in recent years, threatening the safety of citizens exercising their constitutional right to protest.

And unfortunately, the excessive use of force is a problem at all levels of law enforcement.

In the last year, specifically, federal authorities have relied on egregious tactics for immigration enforcement, stoking fear and distrust in the communities that I represent. Last summer in Huntington Park in my district, border patrol agents used a high power explosive as you can see here. Breaching charge explosive breaching charge to blow the door and windows off a home where a mother and her two small children, ages six and one, were directly inside.

In fact, the I believe one year old was just, you can't see the window, but where the fire is, there's a window. The baby was sleeping right under that.

They were not a threat, and they did not present an imminent danger to police officers or for, border patrol agents. This was the type of policing that was in our communities in Southeast Los Angeles at the time. It does not belong in our California communities anywhere. And neighbors who are speaking up in protest for their other neighbors should not feel threatened by military grade explosives or flashbangs.

Nine thirty seven will protect citizens and officers alike by adding flashbang devices to the already existing restrictions on the use of tear gas and kinetic energy projectiles, like rubber bullets and, beanbag rounds.

Any officer using flashbangs will be required to undergo proper training on their use, and any deployment of the devices on Californians will need to be publicly reported within sixty days. Nine 37 will also ban the use of flash bangs and explosive breaching charges for any immigration enforcement purposes. With me to testify in support is Shana Englund from the California Community Foundation and mayor Eddie Martinez of Huntington Park. I respectfully ask for an aye vote, mister chair.

Thank you very much. Good morning. You each have two minutes to address the committee.

Good morning, mister chair and members, and thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of Senate Bill 937. My name is Eduardo Martinez. I'm the mayor of the great city of Huntington Park. This past year, our Southeast select communities have been under a constant threat of violence. The betrayal coming out of the federal administration has trickled down to local levels, fostering distrust between our community and law enforcement. Protesters in the Southeast Los Angeles region exercising their First Amendment rights have been repeatedly subject to unnecessary intimidation. Peaceful protest has been escalated with the indiscriminate use of quote unquote less lethal weapons, such as flash bags and tear gas against protesters. In our neighboring city of Maywood, beautiful footage captures an officer throwing a flash bag from a moving car into a park where children were playing while protesters were demonstrating across the street. My own constituents and her children were directly in danger by the misuse of these military style weapons. When border patrol agents blew the windows and doors off of missus Ramirez's home without justifiable cause, they disrupted they disrupted the sense of safety and community that she and her children deserves in our city. Her children were born on the age of seven when this happened. They should have not been they should not have the experience of fear of hearing the window shatter and the door break on their home, and watching as mass or men force their way inside. We can take back what happened to my consis constituents, but with s p nine three seven, we take an important step to prevent it from happening again. S p nine three seven places reasonable restriction on the use of flash bangs and explosive breaching charges, restriction we already have in place for the use of tear gas, rubber bullets, and bing bang bing bang rounds. This bill will not stop, well intentioned law enforcement for doing their job, but it will keep our communities safe, protect their ability to stand up for what they believe, and without fear or serious harm. Thank you, and ask them to vote yes on sb 937.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, chair and members of the committee. I'm Shana England I serve as the vice president of policy and advocacy at the California Community Foundation, and we are proud sponsors of Senate bill 937. This bill is about a simple but urgent truth. Laws can and must be enforced safely with order and without turning our neighborhoods into war zones. The use of flashbang grenade style devices has already caused grave time to residents and terrorize families and children in our neighborhoods, as you've heard already examples today. Human Rights Watch documented that flashbang grenade style devices, including those addressed in this bill, were among the non lethal projectiles. Officers fired directly at protesters, journalists, and other observers, often at close range and often without sufficient warning or provocation. The science is unambiguous. The visual burst from a flashbang is bright enough to cause flash blindness. The auditory blast loud enough to cause permanent deafness and inner ear damage. Many single use devices have cases that fragment upon deflagration, leading to amputations, such as the one seen in LA last summer. Stinger excuse me. Stinger grenades and blast balls, again, devices covered under this bill, carry an inherent risk of generating shrapnel, combining explosive, chemical, and traumatic injuries that are painful, debilitating, and extraordinarily difficult to treat. In 2011, a US SWAT officer died of internal bleeding after a stun grenade detonated in his own hand. Senate bill nine thirty seven would prohibit the use of these demonstrably dangerous devices near school grounds, parks, and other areas where children may be present, and ban their use in immigration enforcement entirely. This is not a radical ask. It is the bare minimum that our children and neighborhoods deserve. We oppose the militarization of our communities and support policies that prioritize the safety of residents. Not because we oppose lawful enforcement, but because we know that more violence, injured children, and terrorized families don't make any of us safer. Therefore, we urge your aye vote on Senate bill 937. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll not take any, me too testimony from anyone else in support of Senate bill 937. If you can please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Good morning again. Marco George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association and also the San Francisco Public Defender's Office in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Jim Lindberg on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California in support.

George Parampathyu on behalf of ACLU California Action in strong support. Thank you.

Elizabeth Kim on behalf of Initiate Justice in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for Senate bill 937? Seeing no one else, we'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to the bill.

Good morning, mister chair and members. Corey Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriffs Association. We are in opposition to the bill. First, I would note the bill's definition of Flashbang grenades groups together devices that are quite different. The devices that are commonly referred to as flash bangs emit sound and light, but no physical projectile. This is important because different devices have different uses and produce different results. Sound and light emitting devices, we don't think should be characterized in a fashion similar to devices that actually expel some other item. We would also raise concerns about the bill's language, which at best is vague. The bill provides that flashbang grenades shall not be deployed near school grounds, parks, or other areas where children are visibly present. This bill lacks a definition of what near means, leaving officers on the scene to ponder if they're operating within the bounds of the law and likely high pressure and high risk situations. And aside from relying on a totally subjective interpretation of what the legislature intended the bill raises other in questions relative to the limitation on deploying flash banks near a school or a park, we can't think of a particular reason that trained peace officers should be from precluded from using appropriate resources for a situation if a qualifying event is near a school, but occurs at 2AM when no children would be present. More broadly, when we restrict when and under what conditions an officer may use certain tools, their response to a situation may end up being guided by choices about practices that may be acceptable or unacceptable to some, instead of what's most appropriate in the context of the events. We're concerned about mandating specific tactics directly in statute as the bill would. And it's difficult to legislate around situations that are rarely identical, and that a standard approach may neglect the situation's unique features, instance, we think law enforcement practitioners and regulators are better positioned to set out guidelines to your policies, to your practices, and recognize the fluidity of situations that are prone to rapid evolution. The use of force is already extensively regulated by statute and case law. For those reasons, we're respectfully opposed to sb 937. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, chair and members. Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs I first wanna thank the author and her staff for reaching out on this bill early, for having conversations with me, and listening to the concerns that we raised. I I thought we had a constructive conversation when we last spoke and look forward to continuing to work with them as the bill moves forward. I do share some of the concerns from my colleagues. One issue I think we talked about was the definition of school. Are we talking about k 12 schools? Are we talking about universities? I think we saw over the course of last summer that there were lots of protests and demonstrations at universities that then turned violent, required a intervention from law enforcement. And, you know, I know we're and the bill speaks to just assemblies, demonstrations, and protests, but oftentimes, you know, law enforcement is called in when those things become unruly or unlawful. And using less force, less lethal force in those situations, is always the first option when we have to use force. And that's why these tools are important for us to continue to make available to law enforcement, both statutorily and, you know, through resources provided. I do think that we need to talk about some language around an exigent circumstance when law enforcement does, you know, because of the threat that's presented itself, have to use some type of less lethal force to protect the public. And I do think in the provision of the bill that talks about non use for immigration purposes, we've gotta consider the language that was negotiated into s b 54. I worked on that language with them Pro Tem de Leon for a year to make sure that our law enforcement officers, when they're partnered with federal agents and task forces going after human trafficking, kidnappers, transnational drug cartels, terrorists, they continue to use, the tools that they need and be a part of those operations. Obviously, not for immigration purposes as long the the way that the statute reads currently is that as long as our primary purpose is not immigration and that we are there for some other violation of state or federal law, we can continue to operate lawfully in those partnerships. I think we've gotta make sure that we include some compliance with 54 in this language. But otherwise, I Aye, again, respect the author. I respect the intent. I do apologize. I'm going to have to run to the assembly side for a bill that I'm gonna testify on right now, so I won't be able to answer your questions. But if you need me, you guys know where to find me. But for now, thank you for considering our concerns.

Thank you very much. We'll not take any other testimony in opposition to sb 937.

Mister chairman, members, Randy Perry on behalf of Porak in sup in opposition to the bill.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to sb 937?

Good morning, mister chair. Members, Ryan Sherman on behalf of the Riverside Sheriff's Association, California Narcotic Officers Association, Re Reserve Peace Officers Association, and Deputy Sheriff's Association, Placer County, And Police Officers Association, Arcadia, Brea, Burbank, Clermont, Corona, Marietta, Newport Beach, Nevada, Florida, Palos Verdes, and Pomona, all in opposition.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB 937? Seeing no one else, I now bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments. Senator Caballero.

Thank you very much, mister chair. Let me start off by saying thank you very much for being here today and testifying. I'm sorry, but a drive a drive by vehicle throwing a flash bomb in a park is illegal under any circumstances. I mean, it's just not appropriate. If if anybody else did that, they'd be in jail right now, and they'd be looking at a really long sentence because we don't allow people to throw things out of cars. That's just the bottom line. And to be throwing something as lethal as I understand a flashbang to be is is is really unacceptable. So let me just start by saying that I I thank the author for bringing this forward. The the devices that have the ability to blind, to permanently damage the hearing, to cause amputations for someone showing up at a peaceful rally. I've been in innumerable rallies for good I mean, for for things that I supported and for things that I didn't support against things. And the idea that that I could come away maimed because of law enforcement is really disturbing. And so I think there's this is a really important bill. And I heard the language issues, and I I agree. I think that some of them may need to be tailored so that we get at the activity that we're really talking about. I'm not opposed to something that makes a noise and that that flashes a light that's not damaging permanently to somebody. But I also think that that there there have to be exceptions for exigent circumstances. And I'm thinking here, the Boston bomber, those young people for anybody that remembers, set up set off a backpack that exploded and damaged, injured, and killed people in in a at a track meet. But with but the police officers did incredible work, to and it was a team. It was a team approach that identified who did it. If my memory within twenty four hours, they had them identified where they were and had to go in and and take them into custody, and they were coming they were not coming in willingly. And so there that's a kind of situation that I think we can describe with some particularity that gives the the police the ability to stop somebody that's on a rampage to hurt people, because we need to be able to do that. But that's not what we're talking about today. We're talking about a number of different things that that are happening in our community and that that absolutely are terrifying people. It caused people not to wanna come out of their houses and express their opinion. So so the I wrote down some of the the issues that that were raised. We we have to give police the tools to be able to handle the things that are going on on our on in our community that none of us wanna have to deal with really quite frankly. But but I think that that that if that if well, what I would ask is that for the the opposition to come up with language so we can look at it, so we're not crafting it on the fly. I'm gonna support this bill today. I think it's, it's really appropriate right now. And, but we also have to give police officers the tools that they need in order to be able to handle the kinds of of illegal activity that happened in our community that hurt people. So with that, mister chair, whenever we're ready to make a motion, I'm prepared to make that motion. But thank everybody for for coming in today. This is an important issue.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Senator Cortese?

Thank you, mister George. Just a quick question for the author. It seemed that the opposition witness that had to leave was alluding to a productive conversation that occurred. Was there any language offered in terms of of amendments or redefinitions?

Thank you for the question. Not at this time, through the chair. Not at this time, but we are working through that. You know, I do wanna get to a definition of Flashbang devices. Come to find out there's not a textbook, language and statue that we could, go to. There's different LA County has one. ATF has a a different one. There are the, Physicians for Human Rights that have a different definition. So we wanna get that right. I think that's what we've learned through this. Children visible and present, near. You know, we also ask that, you know, based on your bill, sp 230 there were escalation tactics. It brings up the issue of objectively reasonable. That coincides with this bill and marries with it perfectly. But, you know and then the the sp 54 joint task force issues, I think we can absolutely figure out a way to clarify, some of the language. So it's very poignant that they can still do their job function, and not be impeded by that, per this bill.

What was it, and I I would agree that any refinement of of the definitions in the bill around devices and so forth, you know, is is a positive thing for all of us. Again, I'm just trying to get to the conversation thus far. Was it indicated that if if such changes were made that the opposition would come to a support position?

I think, you know, through the police officers association, we've been police chiefs association, excuse me, that we've had productive conversations. I would hope with the sheriff's association, we can do the same. There hasn't been specific language, but we're more than open to amending the bill so it works for police officers on the ground and law enforcement, state, local, federal.

Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Senator Gonzalez, for bringing this bill forward. This built on existing state law that restricts the use of kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents in an assembly protester demonstration, lawful assembly protester demonstration. And as you noted, existing law has a number of requirements.

You have to use the escalation techniques, repeated warnings, and then ultimately giving the authority to the to the commanding officer to make the decision to deploy those, less lethal weapons, in those instances. So there are those exceptions, but this adding flashbang grenades to that statute. Appreciate the conversations you've had with with the California Police Chiefs Association. I would encourage you to, you know, also have conversations with some of the other, opposition organizations. You know, I wanna make sure that, in the case, where something escalates, and, active shooter situation, for example, on on a school campus that there is the flexibility to to use less lethal weapons, you know, to help contain that very dangerous situation. But what you described of throwing a flashbang into a into a a school property, blowing off somebody's door in in the in the case of of issuing immigration enforcement warrant, that's not acceptable, and that's not what we should be allowing to happen in California. And I'll just note the distinction between civil immigration enforcement And then enforcement when somebody's committed a violent felony. I think what we're talking about here is civil immigration enforcement. Why do we need to blow off somebody's door if you're gonna be, you know, arresting somebody for a civil immigration matter?

That's not acceptable. So thank you for bringing this bill forward. I mean, glad that conversations have been ongoing. I think we can find a way to nearly craft the language to provide that flexibility in those instances where something escalates to a violent circumstance because we wanna protect, you know, those children and those individuals as, as well as the the community. But in the case of civil immigration enforcement that just like in existing law, we have these restrictions on the use of these weapons of war for protests. We wanna make sure that, those those exceptions also apply in this instance. So happy to support the bill today. With that, I'll turn it back over to Clif.

That's right.

Thank you. I think this has been a great discussion. Happy to continue to work on the bill, especially in these great circumstances. Obviously, this is not to impede on those dire situations, especially when it poses a threat to life or danger to the the officer. But I will say, you know, federal agents, as we've known, have very little training. In some cases, it's one week of training, if that. So you're going up against and trying to align with local and state police officers that have weeks of training, multiple choice questions. They've got to do continued training through post, and it's just really unfair. We shouldn't align ourselves with federal agents at this time that are picking up, and kidnapping individuals who often have no criminal, record as you mentioned for civil, purposes. So with that, I respectfully ask for an I vote, and I really thank mayor, Martinez as well as miss England for being here.

Thank you very much. I heard a motion from Senator Caballero. Okay. If the committee assistant, please call the roll.

SB 937 Gonzales motion is do passed to appropriations. Aragin?

Aye.

Aragin, aye. Seyarto?

I saw you come in, Senator Reyes, but we do take measures in file order. We're gonna proceed now to file item three, Senate bill 1070 by Senator Groff. And Senator, if you have any witnesses and support, if they can please come forward.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Today, I'm here to present SB 1070 which strengthens protections for houses of worship by giving courts the tools they need to respond to serious coordinated disruptions of religious services.

Across California, we're seeing an increase in intentional disruptions of of worship services. These are not peaceful protest on sidewalks. There are incidents where individuals are blocking entrances. They're infiltrating services, shouting through bull horns, and intimidating congregates during worship.

We've seen this all across California. In Los Angeles, a mob blocked access to Attis Torres synagogue. In Carlsbad, agitators entered the Mission Church and disrupted the service from inside the sanctuary.

In San Diego County, a group of sirens a group of individuals use sirens and intimidation tactics during an interfaith service that was a worship event. A national report documented that over 400 hostile acts against against houses of faith in 2024 and included 40 from California.

That's 10% of the nation's attacks on our faith and worship services across the nation happen right here in the state. No one should fear gathering to pray. As Americans, this is our first amendment right.

Current law treats all intentional disruptions of worship services as misdemeanors, regardless of how serious, coordinated, or repeated the conduct is.

Hate crime statutes, is a nonworkable response to these cases since those laws require proof on bias against the religion that it was substantial substantial and a motivating factor, which is difficult to prove when the individuals claim they're, protesting a political issue.

As a result, serious disruptions that have created disruptions in California and across our nation, but specifically here, the 40 that were referenced, they fall into a gap, where the penalties do not match the conduct. SB 1070 addresses that gap by creating a wobbler offense.

It gives us judicial discretion. Less serious incidences remain misdemeanors, but when disruptions are coordinated, repeated, particularly egregious, prosecutors and the courts have the discretion to charge them as felonies.

A felony can include a fine up to $5,000 in county jail for sixteen months, two years, or three years, depending on the offense. This approach increases deterrence and ensures courts have the flexibility to impose fair proportionate penalties.

I also want to be clear about this bill that what it does not do. It does not limit peaceful protest in public spaces. Places of worship are private property, and this bill regulates intentional disruption inside those spaces, not protected by speech.

It protects the constitutional rights to freely exercise religion and assemble peacefully. This bill has strong support from faith communities across our state. Today, with me here to testify is Milton Matczak, a constitutional attorney, and Tanner Dibella, the president of American Council.

We each have two minutes to address the committee on the bill.

Thank you. Honorable Chair and Senators, my name is Milton Matjak. I'm a Former Deputy District Attorney, retired after eighteen and a half years, and I currently work as a Staff Attorney with Pacific Justice Institute, firm dedicated to, among other things, the protection of our first amendment right to freedom of religion.

SB 1070 simply amends penal code section 302 into a wobbler, which is you all know means that a violation of 302 can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony. This amendment would give prosecutors and courts discretion.

One, depending on the circumstances of the violation of PC 302, to charge the crime as a felony or misdemeanor. And or number two, based on the prior criminal history of the suspected perpetrator, to charge as a misdemeanor or a felony as appropriate.

This amendment puts more teeth into PC 302, adds additional force behind it to protect the rights of California citizens to worship in their churches and houses of worship with confidence they are protected by the law.

It gives California a stronger law to protect the First Amendment rights to freedom of religion and freedom of assembly. Amending penal code section 302 to a wobbler is really a pro victim choice, putting victims ahead of perpetrators.

This bill is similar to the Federal Face Act, which has support, I believe, from both sides of the political divide. As senate bill 1070 puts more force behind the state's attempts to prevent breaches of the peace at places of worship. That should be something that everyone can agree on.

Again, SB1070 does not substantively change or alter penal code section 302 at all. It changes no language except to make it a wobbler and make more powerful tool, and that a felony can be charged when appropriate. Thank you. I welcome your questions.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, committee Members. My name is Tanner DeBella. I am a pastor in Sacramento and Rockland, California, and I'm a sponsor of Senate Bill 1070. I have been a witness to disruption and interruption in churches, in my church over the years.

Senate Bill 1070 is about protecting something basic, protecting something sacred, and something every free society should defend. The right of people to worship without intimidation, harassment, or chaos.

The bill, as Senator Grove said, is not about silencing disagreement, and it's not about restricting free speech. People are free to disagree. They are free to protest. But there is a line between expressing disagreement and intentionally disrupting a worship service.

There is a line between public debate and targeted interference. There is a line between liberty and disorder. And when that line is crossed, the law should be clear, and that is why I support Senate Bill 1070. This bill says something simple, but important.

People of faith should not have to choose between gathering for worship and wondering whether service will be targeted. Churches feed the poor, they counsel families, they care for widows, they serve children, they mentor young people, and they stand with communities in crisis.

They are often the first place that people run to when their lives fall apart. Religious liberty is not just the right to believe something in your heart, it is the right to live it, practice it, and gather around it in peace. Senate Bill 1070 is a necessary and reasonable step to

protect that freedom. This should not be partisan. It should not be controversial. No one should support the disruption of worship. No one should be comfortable with intimidation aimed at people gathered in prayer.

Today, we are asking our leaders to stand where they should have always stood, on the side of peace, order, and the fundamental right to worship freely. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll now take any other members of the public wishing to express support for Senate Bill 1070. If you can please, come forward and state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Emily Blanchard Sager with the Guoco Group on behalf of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in support of 1070. Thank you.

Emily Campbell with the California Baptist Capital Ministry. On behalf of five California Baptist Churches, South Coast Baptist in Santa Barbara, Freedom's Way in Santa Clarita, Mountain Avenue in Banning, Solid Rock Baptist Tabernacle in Bellflower, and Silicon Valley Chinese Baptist in Santa Clara in support.

Brock Cambell from the California Baptist Capital Ministry on behalf of six California Baptist churches Ridgewood Heights in Eureka, Faith in Sheridan, Calvary in American Canyon, New Testament in Hanford, Faith in Atascadero and Lighthouse in Santa Maria in support. Thank you.

Hello. I'm Reverend Jose Velasquez. I, pastor of Multi Campus Church in Temecula, Menifee, and in Homeland and I'm here in support of, Senate Bill 1070. Thank you.

Bless you guys. My name is Judy Velasquez. I'm also a holy pastor with Reverend Jose Velasquez, pastors in Temecula Valley and we are in support of SB 1070. God bless you.

Good morning. My name is Jonathan Keller, president of the California Family Council, and also here representing, over 2,200 multi ethnic Southern Baptist churches in the Southern Baptist Convention here in the state of California.

Grateful to Senator Grove for bringing this very important piece of legislation forward. Thank you very much for your consideration.

Good morning. My name is Tiffany Baker. I'm the founder of the Empowerment Center. We've served youth and family in Temecula Valley for 25 years, And I want to say I am in support of this bill because I want our children to come back to the house of the Lord.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Scott Thompson, pastor of River of Life Church, city councilman up in Oroville. Also wanna lend my support for for this bill 1070. I support our houses of of worship. I believe it's the primary role of government to protect our freedoms.

Of those essential is our freedom to worship. So thank you for considering this.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you all very much for being here. We'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to SB1070.

Good morning, Chair and Members. I'm Jim Winberg on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California, a public interest lobby founded by members of the Religious Society of Friends in 1952. Friends is synonymous with the word Quakers.

Regardless, the Friends Committee has taken up an opposed position on Senate Bill 1070. Friends have a long history of religious persecution, and Friends cherish the right to worship freely without being obstructed by state actors or non state actors, the former being protected by the First Amendment.

Friends also have a long history of advocacy and justice reform, and we know of the long term harm created by an overreliance on incarceration, especially for people from underserved marginalized communities of color. The enduring consequences of a felony conviction leads to discrimination in

housing, employment, student loans, other important benefits, which negatively impacts families and creates a permanent underclass. In a nutshell, the behavior sanctioned in this bill does not rise to the level of a felony.

The challenge for friends and for many people of faith is how do we address harm and hold people accountable without creating more harm? The behavior sanctioned in this bill would lend themselves to a restorative justice solution involving ongoing dialogue,

between the victims and the offender, victor offender, mediation, all in a supervised setting.

And for all of these reasons, we ask the committee to reject this bill. Thank you.

And quite frankly, a person who disrupts a religious service could very well be someone in need of help, not punishment. Our fear is that Friends meetings would be dissuaded from contacting authorities if it could result in the harm of a felony conviction.

Thank you very much. Any other principal witnesses in opposition? Anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB1070?

George Parampathu, on behalf of ACLU California Action, in opposition as the underlying statute is a content based regulation. Thank you.

Margo George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, and also the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, in opposition. Thank you.

Liz Bohm Gutierrez, on behalf of the LA County Public Defenders Union Local 148 and Smart Justice California, in opposition.

Elizabeth Kim, on behalf of Initiate Justice, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB1070? Seeing no other members of the public wishing to testify, I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments.

Vice Chair Seyarto.

Thank you for your bill. Today's world is calling for us to increasingly crack down on some of the the behaviors because apparently the, deterrence that we have now aren't working. And I understand we don't want to over incarcerate, and we don't want to create that environment.

But the best people that, have the control over, that are the people that are, perpetrating, crimes that they know. They darn well know that they can get in serious trouble for doing.

And this is becoming one of them. And it's not just the, you know, a violent outburst, in the courts or in churches, but we've also had shootings and things like that, are born from these kind of, this kind of activity.

And so, I don't think this bill, goes, too far in ratcheting it up to the next level. Judges still have discretion on the wobbler, whether, what what is occurring is rises to that level, and therefore, I'll be supporting it, and I'll move the bill.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments, Senator Caballero then Cortese?

So thank you very much for the opportunity to have this discussion here today. Let me just say that, I am as concerned as you are at at at the disruption of religious services and and the vitriol that seems to be so common nowadays, the lack of respect and the lack of decorum.

The idea that someone would come into a religious setting and, disturb it is I think should be abhorrent to all of us, but it it's always happened. It's just gotten uglier. If, in fact, there's a violent outburst or a shooting, that's already a felony.

So we have deterrents for violence. These are, as I understand it, these are words and we're talking about I do I do appreciate the the context of content based defense. I was trying to figure out what we were regulating, and it really is content based offense.

The idea that we would make it a felony for someone to walk into a church and not act violently, but to object for whatever reason, even if we disagree with it, that's part of the foundation of our constitution is the ability to to disagree.

And as disagreeable as it is, I do agree that restorative justice is the place where it really where it needs to go and there are more opportunities to have a discussion about why is this happening, and what can we do differently, and how can we bring you in and make you part of our of our church.

So I won't be supporting the bill. I don't think we wanna make this this a felony. And and what it does is it just creates, I think, more opportunities for people to to to wonder what are we really trying to do. I don't wanna get into a religious discussion here because I just don't.

But people have forgotten what peace looks like and what talking to people looks like and what it means to open your hearts and to say, what can we do? Would you like a meal?

Can we bring you in and make you part of a group that's studying the bible, that is working towards peace, and that really believes in peace. And anyway, enough of that. I just don't think making it a felony is the right way to go. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Senator Cortez.

Yeah. I have very similar very similar position or explanation for the position of Senator Caballero. I can't imagine the number of circumstances I've seen in my own Catholic church over the years resulting in which have been rude and disruptive,

sometimes by folks who perhaps, you know, aren't functioning with the full ability to form intent to send them to CDCR under a felony, as as far as I'm concerned, is a bridge too far.

I understand that you could be jailed for one year under current law, which I think is pretty extreme for a lot of the behavior that would have to be parsed out here. Not all. I do believe that, you know, as as those of us who went to law school learned, if somebody comes walking

into a church and tries to incite a riot, under the fighting words definition of, you know, of what constitutes that kind of speech that supreme courts upheld for years and years and years. There's there's remedies for that.

But this this the bill at least says it's as it's written currently, and I assume that's the way it wants to stay going forward, you know, speaks very directly to rude speech, which is I can't imagine a definition that gets you from rude speech to the fighting words or

to inciting a right riot, which from my sense of the way things should be, would be the essentially, the minimum justification, for this kind of a penalty a felony penalty. So, I like enough where we are with with law currently.

I suppose, you know, there may be a lot of judges that are, you know, trying to redirect folks away from incarceration under the misdemeanor laws, and a lot of DAs won't even go after misdemeanors as we know under almost anything.

But but that's that's something for the judicial system to sort out and to figure out how they wanna deal with it. For us to mandate or to create even to create an option for a felony, for this kind of behavior is a bridge too far for me.

Thank you. I'd like to respond a little bit to that. I'm well aware that if somebody walks into a church and starts shooting it up, that, there are there's current, laws that, that govern that. And we're not talking about somebody that goes in and says a few words and then leaves.

We're talking about people that go in and intimidate. And that's where the judge's discretion comes into play in this bill. All this is doing is giving a judge the discretion to determine to what level, the occurrence rises to.

If they're going into a church and intimidating people and scaring them and scaring the kids and scaring all the worshipers into not wanting to be able to come back again and again to worship peacefully, I think a stronger deterrent is needed, and that's something for a judge to decide.

So, you know, I think we're we're kind of getting caught up in in the it sounds like people are concerned that this is an automatic jail sentence.

It is not, but it is a stiffer penalty or at least gives the judge the discretion to make that determination as the, behavior of people, is starting to be, to escalate. And it's causing people's disruptions in their lives. And I think it's, incumbent on us,

to at least send a message, that we do care what happens. And so, you know, I appreciate the concerns, but I don't, align my my concerns with that. I think this bill is, doing an appropriate level of response to what is occurring today.

Thank you. We are discussing SB1070 currently. Senator Weiner, do you wish to speak on the bill?

Thank you. And I apologize for for for being a little late today. And I appreciate the author brought that. I mean, this has been, there have been issues, of course, with synagogues as well that that have been, targeted in some pretty, egregious ways in term particularly in

terms of harassing people who are entering and exiting, synagogues. And so I understand why the author is bringing this.

I and I know their the Jewish caucus actually has a priority bill, or I don't know if it's been designated priority yet, but, that, Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan has introduced in the assembly, deal with buffer zones in terms of protesting.

So to acknowledge, right to protest, but have a buffer zone so that you're not impeding people's ability to actually enter a place of worship. If I recall correctly, I believe it's either a misdemeanor or a Wobblatt. I don't I don't remember which.

I do have concerns with the possibility of this being a felony. There's existing and I know that's the point of the bill. Right? To make it turn it from a misdemeanor into a wobbler.

I you know, that's something that's challenging for me to make it the potential for a felony for this. So I'm not in any way taking away from the point of the bill or the rationale behind it because I that does cause me concern as well. But it's the felony aspect that is sort of weighing on me.

Are there any other questions or comments from Members of the committee? I share Senator Wiener's perspective on this. This is a very serious issue. No one should be afraid to go to a place of worship.

And I'll just note in the analysis, there are four pages of citations of existing penal code sections that govern a variety of circumstances where somebody threatens, somebody inflicts physical harm, somebody destroys, religious real property, somebody,

uses force or physical obstruction to prevent somebody from worshiping.

So there is rightfully so in California, a body of law, to establish various penalties, including criminal penalties for people that are intentionally trying to disrupt or threaten people who want to exercise their right, their fundamental right to worship peacefully in the state of California.

So I appreciate the intent of this bill, but I share the concern about adding a felony provision to this existing penal code section 302. And I just have to say, I share I wasn't on the legislature when penal code 302 was adopted. I probably wouldn't have voted for it,

at the time it was brought forward. And I share the ACLU's analysis that I would argue that the existing penal code is an unconstitutional content based regulation because you can't actually you know, a judge can't determine, whether penal code 302 is applicable unless you have

to weigh the content of an individual's message. And I think there are just underlying constitutional issues with that law. I'll note as was noted in the analysis, there was a case this was referenced on page eight of the analysis, the Cruz case.

And while that case does provide guidance, I'm just reading from the analysis. The narrow scope of the analysis and specific procedural history suggests that it doesn't immunize section 302 from the vagueness scrutiny, especially if the penalty is elevated to a felony.

So I would argue, elevating the penalty to a felony aside from just the the the various concerns that have been expressed by Members of the committee, may actually make this statute more constitutionally questionable.

And I don't know whether that's something we wanna do. And so to build on existing statute that has constitutional issues, especially given the body of law that already exists, rightfully so, including the face act, I have I have difficulty to of supporting that.

And so on that basis, I will not be voting for the bill today. But I very much appreciate, you know, why you bring this forward. I understand the concern, and, you know, I think there's an existing body of law that exists in California that does provide adequate

protections in cases where somebody physically obstructs access to a place of worship. Somebody threatens somebody. Somebody destroys property. But when we start getting into the regulating the content of people's speech, it's a slippery slope.

And that's why, you know, we have to really judge these issues on a case by case basis, and to make sure that we're creating a safe space, but we're also not infringing on people's fundamental constitutional rights.

That's my perspective on this bill. But thank you very much for bringing it forward. I'll turn it back over to you to close.

Thank you. Very well, if you would like a response from him, briefly.

I think we have a fundamental difference of difference of opinion on this, so then that's fine.

Okay. Alright. I just wanted to offer it up. Some headlines in on the Internet. California Jewish community is increasing its security among string of invasions into synagogues.

Sacramento synagogue fire bombings. The press conference that we had this morning where a rabbi spoke, and also some pastors, some that were here today, during the testimony. We only get two witnesses for two minutes, and I understand that process,

and it's a rules of the house, and on on every committee, right, to adjust the time that we have. But pastors got up, and faith leaders got up and talked about having to use a human shield to keep perpetrators from entering the church. And when a gentleman that was here in service here in Rockland, California walked out.

He and his son had shaved heads. And the bull horns, and the screeching, and the yelling that was going on, and the hate that was perpetrated against them, and the disruption and following them to the car, and harassing them all the way to the car from the

church service out to their vehicle, was despicable and disgusting. What they didn't know behind the scenes of that particular subject matter is that the father was just diagnosed with brain cancer and the child say shaved his head in solidarity with his father.

Another situation described, this morning again by the rabbi and other individuals that spoke at the the press conference, talked about an individual who brought a firearm into the church, and when that individual was detained or disrupted,

that individual brought when that brought that firearm, later that individual was arrested for having body parts on his property. There is 40 cases that we are aware of that have been not just hate speech, not just what you would label. It's not a constitutional issue.

People have the right to freely assemble peaceably. They don't have a right to impede on our first amendment rights for freedom of worship, whether it's a synagogue, a goudoir, a temple. It doesn't matter.

All houses of faith should be protected under the same constitutional rights that we're allowing for perpetrators the right to come in and disrupt these services.

You should have the freedom freedom to worship in peace, and you should not have to tolerate individuals coming in with bull horns, blocking entrances, any of that.

I appreciate the the my colleague from San Francisco with a bill that the Jewish caucus may or may not take up. Maybe a buffer zone of a 100 feet. That's what they did, and this body passed when it came to abortion clinics. You don't allow protesters within a 100 feet of an

abortion clinic. The governor signed that bill. But yet, they can walk into a church and barricade the doors so that individuals cannot get in or get out and they can terrorize them while they're in those church services.

It is happening in the state of California. It is just a misdemeanor when they do that. And so this bureau clearly makes it judicial discretion that it's something that's minimal. The judge has the right to say, look, please don't do that again. Don't enter the church.

And then if it becomes a repeat issue where there's destruction and disruption and, you know, things that have been happening in our state, then the judge can actually offer a wobbler and make the penalties.

The penalties here, like I said, are up to $5,000 it doesn't mean they are $5,000 and up to time in jail. There's no CDCR involvement in this case, in this bill, because they do jail time, not prison time.

Just to clarify, my good colleague from the Bay Area's comment. And again, I do have a constitutional attorney here that can respond. I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Yes, Senator. So I believe Vice Chair is here to move the bill. Okay. So we have a motion. If the committee assistant can please call the roll.

SB 1070 Grove motion is due passed to appropriations. [Roll Call] Bill fails.

The bill fails, but thank you for joining us today, and thank you. Move to reconsider without objection. So granted. Thank you. Okay.

So we'll now proceed to our next file item, filing four SB1130 by Senator Reyes, who's been waiting very patiently, to present her bill.

Yes.

Hey. Senator Reyes, whenever you'd like to be, you can present on SB 1130.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee Members, for the opportunity to present SB 1130. I also want to thank the committee for their thoughtful engagement, and I am accepting the committee amendments. SB 1130 updates California's privacy laws to address the rapid rise of wearable recording technology, such as smart glasses and other discrete devices.

These devices can record audio and video in real time often without others' knowledge, blurring the line between public and private spaces, especially in places of business where individuals still expect a degree of privacy. For example, TikTok influencer reported feeling uneasy after discovering her aesthetician was wearing Meta AI glasses during a Brazilian wax, leaving her unsure whether she was being recorded.

In other cases, women have been secretly filmed by strangers using smart glasses without their knowledge, only to later find the footage posted online generating misogynistic comments and profit. While it is generally legal to record in public spaces where there is no expectation of privacy, smart glasses and similar wearable devices make it easier to record surreptitiously in both public and private settings. SB 1130 establishes clear common sense guardrails.

It prohibits recording with wearable devices in areas of a business where individuals have a reasonable expectation of that of privacy without explicit consent. It prohibits the manufacture sale and use of technology designed to bypass recording indicator requirements.

The committee amendments lower penalties to a misdemeanor and move manufacturer related provisions to the business and professions code with civil penalties to ensure appropriate enforcement. We recognize that technology is evolving faster than our laws, and we want to ensure we get it- we get this right, protecting individuals' privacy while allowing innovation. I remain committed to working with all stakeholders as we continue to refine the bill. This bill does not ban technology.

It ensures that innovate- innovation continues while reinforcing core principles of consent, transparency, and individual dignity in an era of rapidly evolving surveillance technology.

With me today are Catherine Crump, clinical professor at UC Berkeley School of Law, and Becca Kramer on behalf of the Consumer Reports.

Thank you very much. We just have two minutes to address the committee.

Thank you. Chair Arreguin, my former mayor, Vice Chair Seyarto, and members of the committee, thanks for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Catherine Crump. I'm a professor at Berkeley Law School working on technology law and policy issues, and I'm here to provide expert testimony on SB 1130. I wanna make two brief points today.

First, the threat of wearable technology. We already know bad actors use concealed cameras to invade private places like hospital restrooms, but this threat is evolving rapidly due to the rise of wearable technology. To put this in perspective, Meta sold 7,000,000 pairs of smart glasses last year and is projected to sell 16,000,000 this year. When recording technology is integrated into everyday devices like glasses, nonconsensual recording is going to skyrocket. It will become nearly impossible for individuals to know when their privacy is being violated.

Second, why SB 1130 proposes a promising solution. This bill directly addresses the emerging threat by prohibiting a person from disabling the indicator light or sound on a wearable recording device. A working indicator light is essential. With older technology, a camera looks like a camera. Today, a camera can look like a pair of standard glasses, and who knows what will come next.

And disabling the indicator light deceives other people. We must establish these guardrails now, and the idea of imposing a penalty for safety for disabling safety related indicators is already embedded in law. For example, it's already a crime to tamper with a smoke detector. The FAA, regulates drones and, does not allow you to disable the anti collision or light sensors on the drone. And SB 1130 just extends this established common sense, logic to smart glasses.

So, by, protecting the integrity of these indicator lights, SB 1130 advances a useful concept, to protecting Californians privacy. And I'd be happy to answer any questions about the bill or the legal framework surrounding it.

Thank you. Next speaker, go ahead.

Becca Kramer with Kaiser Advocacy on behalf of Consumer Reports. Consumer Reports is in support of SB 1130, which would place reasonable restrictions on the use of wearable cameras to secretly film California residents in sensitive locations without our permission. Last year, 404 Media reported on online influencers recording employees in massage parlors filming their reactions upon being sexually propositioned.

Just yesterday, Wired published a story called the rising- the rise of the Ray Ban Meta Creep, which described men using Meta Glasses to record women as they were being harassed. Meta cameras include a small LED light that is meant to indicate interaction is being recorded, but many people do not know what the light means if they notice it at all.

Moreover, many companies sell cheap defeat technologies on sites like Amazon to cover up the light and film secretly. And as 404 Media has reported, folks have found ways to disable the light indicator from going on while it is still recording. SB 1130 would put in place common sense protections around the use of this increasingly invasive technology.

It would require that users of wearable cameras get consent before filming in commercial spaces where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as gym changing rooms and the massage parlors I just mentioned. It would also prohibit people from disabling recording indicators on wearable cameras or from selling such technologies to others.

Arguably, we should have even stronger protections around wearable cameras, such as a mandate for manufacturers to include prominent indicators of filming and limitations on the use of facial recognition technology. However, the protections set in place by SB 1130 are an excellent and needed start. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We're now taking any testimony from anyone else in support of SB 1130. Please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Elmer Lizardi here on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions in strong support.

Thank you. Matty Hyatt from the California Civil Liberties Advocacy in strong support.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for SB 1130? Seeing no other members of the public coming forward, we'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition, if there are any.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Robert Boykin with TechNet. Here today in respectful opposition to SB 1130. We appreciate the author's intent to modernize privacy protections in light of emerging technologies and agree with the committee's framing that existing law may not fully account for new less visible recording technologies.

However, as written, we have concerns that the bill creates liability for businesses and developers well beyond its intended targets. Given California's robust framework governing eavesdropping and a status of the two party consent state, we support building on these statutes rather than creating a parallel liability structure. As mentioned in the analysis, our companies believe that, yes, liability should focus on the bad actors using the device rather than the companies that manufacture them. Sorry.

Historically, California law targets the misconduct of the individual interactions rather than entities that have no control over their misuse.

Our member companies share many of the privacy concerns that the author has raised. That is why these devices are generally designed with features like recording indicator lights in the first place. Accordingly, we agree with the analysis that the bell could be better aligned by being integrated into the existing statute governing unlawful non consensual recordings.

At the end of the day, a person who misuses a wearable device or tampers with his privacy features should be the one held responsible for those actions, not the businesses that created the product. Based on our conversations with the author's office, I am hopeful that we can work together to address this liability concern while holding wrongdoers accountable.

Thank you for your time today.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB 1130?

Thank you. Ronak Daylami on behalf of Cal Chamber, also in opposition. I also wanna, express the opposition of our colleagues at the Computer and Communications Industry Association. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB 1130? Seeing no one coming forward. Before we begin the, committee's discussion, I just wanna summarize the, committee amendments that we were able to negotiate with the author, which one, reduce the wobbler in Section six of the bill to a misdemeanor. Two, strike section seven of the bill, which I think gets to the issue that you raised around the manufacturing of the technology.

That was a concern that I had. Three, the amendment strike cross references to the code sections created in section six and seven of the bill from the wiretapping and eavesdropping statutes that would allow for the elevated penalty when there are prior convictions for any of those crimes. But leave in the cross references for the statutes exempting people for the general prohibitions on wire tapping and eavesdropping, and create a new code section, the business and professions code, for these civil penalties for manufacturers.

I wanna thank the author for the work with the committee. And so with that, Senator Wiener.

Thank you. Right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I'm very sympathetic to what you're trying to to do here. There's some really creepy stuff happening, and I understand why you're doing it.

I'm gonna vote for the bill today, understanding that I think this bill is very much a work in- in progress, and I think the the amendments are are positive. But, I the- the- the main thing that I- I- I'm trying to wrap my head around is this applies to wearables. So the- the glasses, presumably Apple Watch would qualify because that's wearable, but it doesn't apply to to an I to, like, a smartphone. Right? Am I correct about that?

That is correct. It's wearable devices.

Yeah. So and I understand the wearable devices are not so much Apple Watch, but the the glasses are obviously new, and although in a within a few years, they won't be anymore, and they'll become probably over time as normal as a as a smartphone. And obviously, with a smartphone, people are recording each other constantly, and sometimes it's super obvious that they're recording you when they walk up to you and they have it in your face.

Sometimes they're just holding and they certainly, maybe, and at times are recording you and it's really unclear. And so I- if you could maybe talk to me a little bit about why- why are we distinguishing between wearable and something you hold in your hands?

And other than the fact that people are more used to smartphones and seeing it but again, I- I could be I'm not recording you now, but I could be recording you right now. I'm holding my phone, looking at it, and I could be recording you either audio or, or video. And I don't think there's any I mean, I know there are laws around, like, the one way recording, like, especially there I know there's some laws around that.

There's the laws- a law around someone in the state of undress. There's some very specific and- and, of course, like, wiretapping kind of stuff, but there's no general law about, you know, I- like smartphones.

And so could you just talk to me about why we should distinguish between the two, especially since the wearable stuff is going to become super normalized in coming years, and then we'll have this two track law where if it's attached to your body, one rule applies. If you're holding it in your hand, another law applies, but they really do the same thing. So

I'll just say briefly and then I'll leave it to the experts that with the cell phone, you know somebody's recording you normally. You're right. You could be recording and I'm not even aware of it. But with wearables, it's something completely different. You're not anticipating that somebody can be recording you.

You have the light that will say somebody is recording you. But if you're not familiar with these classes, you're not aware that you are being recorded. And I think if we have a reasonable expectation of privacy in those areas, you should not be recorded. But I'm going to leave it to the experts now.

Thank you.

Do you wanna- I don't know that I have much more to add because you said it so well. But, yes, that is- that is the concern. And also wanting to make sure that we're drawing a line that allows for, like, investigative reporters and such who are using it responsibly, and making sure that we're getting the lines right around what is public and what is not.

And I'll say that and I'll stop, you know, being the drum, but, like, Iphones can be used incredibly irresponsibly in recording. Right? It's one thing if someone's up like this and you're it's crystal clear they're recording you, you know it, but it's, you know

Right. And- And- And also as the way that I think the definitions, were as was indicated, this is a work in progress. And so working on the definitions, because right now there is a way of reading the definition of wearable that it would apply to your smartphone.

So I'll- I'll support moving out committee today. I think it's gonna- is it gonna be re referred to privacy or something which I also said on, so I'll see it there. So, yeah, I look forward to seeing the bill evolve because it does need to, I think, be tightened. There's some real vagueness in it- in it now.

Thank you.

Thank you. But I think this is gonna go to rules and then we refer to privacy. Right? Okay. If this passes out today. Any other questions or comments? Vice Chair Seyarto.

I have a question in reference to section 12, where it talks about, a person or entity, which is a business, shall not manufacture, sell, deliver, hold, or offer for sale in any commerce in the state. Any technology that enables a person to disable something, what technologies are there? Because it that could be as, one of those really fancy little screwdrivers that you can just poke out the light.

And if somebody's going to you know, are we gonna go after Lowe's for selling the screwdrivers that somebody can use to disable the light? How are we gonna distinguish for that?

So some of the devices, so for example, Meta Glasses, my understanding is that they are supposed- the light is only supposed to- if it's you're recording, the light has to come on. And if you disable the light, then it should not allow for recording. There is someone who has claimed to be able to get around that, and that would be covered by this bill.

But for most of the devices, like, if you just take a screwdriver and break the light, then it should make it so that you cannot actually record. But there are other devices out there that are being marketed on Amazon and such that would, like, cover up the light in a way that you then wouldn't- it wouldn't be as obvious as, like, a piece of tape or something covering it. And those would be--

When you're talking about a light though, you can cover up the light with a piece of tape that like, duct tape that's the same color as the glasses that can potentially be used to cover that up. So does Lowe's go to pay $2,500 or did they get one of those fancy Paga suits against them? Because they must have done this sold- sold a bunch of these.

Right. And I think if you look at the language, it's the devices are meant to disrupt the light. And I think that the folks who produce the tape, for example, would not argue that that is why they are making the tape. It's for it's an incidental use, whereas there are devices that are specifically created for the purpose of defeating the light and the indicator.

I would probably work on those definitions a little bit Because I do not want to expose businesses to, ridiculous lawsuits any more than they're already exposed. And- And this seems to leave a little bit of a door open, and whenever we leave the door open, guess what happens? So- So, yeah, it needs a little bit of work, before it.

I absolutely sympathize with the effort here of trying to ensure that these type of technologies aren't being used irresponsibly against people that don't know that they're being used and and the privacy concerns about that. We just need to make sure the language is tightened up enough to make sure that nobody walks through that and creates another money making empire for themselves.

Thanks.

We do appreciate the comment and that the the term technology is something that we have talked about defining in a more strict way. So I appreciate that comment, Senator.

Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments from members of the committee? Okay, seeing no further comments I'll turn it back over to you, Senator, to close.

Appreciate the- the comments and the- the questions. I think that makes helps us in as we move forward with this particular bill and trying to tighten it up as we say. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. My recommendation is- is an aye as amended. Is there a motion? Moved by Senator Cortese. Thank you.

The committee assistant can please call the roll.

SB 1130 Reyes. The motion is due pass as amended to rules. [roll call].

[Roll Call]

Okay. We'll keep that bill on call. Thank you, Senator. And so, I don't see Senator Mendrobar, so we'll go now to Senator Troy, who's been waiting very patiently to present. So now proceed to file item seven, Senate constitutional amendment two.

A good morning, Senator. And as as you're approaching, just to announce to everyone here in the committee room and is watching, we will have to recess this committee at 11:55. And so if we have not completed our agenda, we will have to recess this committee and come back at 01:30. We'll do our best to try to get through the agenda as quickly as possible. So, Senator Choi, good morning. Do you have any witnesses?

I don't.

Okay. I'll turn over your Senator to present.

Thank you, chairperson and the members. I'm pleased to present SCA two, which ensures that no one is above the law in California, not even the state's governor. The executive pardon power was intended to ensure justice and mercy, but the recent actions at the both the federal and the state show how easily it can be used without accountability.

We have seen controversial pardons throughout our nation's history, with the first pardon of the family member occurring under president Abraham Lincoln, who pardoned his half sister, Emily Todd Helm, who was married to a Confederate general. In more recent history, we have seen president Clinton pardon his half brother and the president Trump pardon his daughter's father-in-law.

When then in 2024, president Biden, Joe Biden issued a full pardon to his son, Hunter Biden, who previously pleaded guilty to tax charges and was found guilty of illegal drug and or weapons charges. He later granted preempted the pardons to multiple family members, which raised the concerns about the conflicts of interest and the lack of oversight. However, this is not just a federal issue.

In Kentucky, former governor Matt Bevin issued over 400 last minute pardons, including one for a convicted killer, whose family had hosted a fundraiser and donated thousands of dollars to his campaign. These pardons have sparked bipartisan outrage and accusations that the power was being used for political favoritism rather than justice, with critics warning of the appearance of corruption.

There is nothing that California can do about presidential pardons because those powers are established by federal law. However, with the s e SCA two, California has the opportunity to be the example for the entire nation by being the first state to limit the pardoning powers of its most powerful elected official. If passed by the voters, SCA two would prevent a governor from potentially shielding themselves or their family members from illegal consequences of their criminal convictions.

This measure is about reinforcing public trust by enacting clear ethical boundaries on executive authority. Under SCA two, the governor could still grant the pardons, commutations, and the reprieve reprieves to individuals that they believe are deserving of a relief, but that they would have clear restrictions against the self pardons or pardons for immediate family members.

This proposal is is narrow and targeted. It does not eliminate or weaken the governance of broader broader clemency powers. Instead, it simply ensures that those powers cannot be used for personal or familial protection. By approving SCA two, voters can affirm affirm that accountability, fairness, and the equal application of the law remain fundamental principles in our state. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Senator. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for SCA 2? Please come forward and state your name, organization, and position on the bill. Seeing no one else, is there anyone wishing to express opposition to Senate constitutional amendment two? Seeing no one, come forward, I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments.

Vice chair Seyarto.

Thank thank you for the bill, and thank you for your concern in this. You know, I I think the only question people might have is, well, what happens if a family member does deserve to get pardoned? And I believe the answer would be, then the next governor can can do that. So there's still the opportunity for somebody to be heard. I also understand what this is doing and, and I think it's, it's right headed and, and I'm, I'm happy to support it.

This is the kind of thing that should be, offered to the public, to, allow them to vote on whether, these these kind of, restrictions are are, something that, you know, they support or not. This would be one of those other seventy, thirty, or eighty, twenty type, things, but usually we make people jump through hoops and go out and get signatures to do this.

I think this is something that we can offer up, that, comes from the legislature with the intent of doing exactly what you're talking about. So, with that, I'll go ahead and move the bill.

Thank you very much. Are there any other questions or comments? Senator Cortese.

I can be able to support the bill today. And I I I do it is because I I believe that if somebody deserves to be released and the governor determines that, they should have to wait a minute longer to be released. It's as simple as that. Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak? Corner's staff's understanding, there have been no reports that the current or past California governors have granted clemency to relatives or themselves. Pattern of behavior that we need to necessarily address through this constitutional amendment. You know, I personally, you know, take very seriously putting things on the ballot, because it costs money to put something on the ballot, unless there's like a really there's a really critical need. I frankly think the initiative process is broken in California.

It's too easy for people to put stuff on the ballot, but that's a separate matter. That's a matter with the elections committee, not the public safety committee. And I agree with Senator Cortesi that, you know, if there's a family member like a niece or a nephew who, you know, may have, you know, committed a crime and warrants clemency or or a commutation, I don't wanna restrict the ability of a governor to do that. I absolutely, however, believe that governors should not be able to pardon themselves.

Just like presidents should not be allowed to pardon themselves. But for those reasons, I I do have concerns about supporting the bill today. I wanna make sure that if there are legitimate circumstances where a family member would warrant would warrant benefit from clemency that they're not restricted to do so. But if this was just saying that governors should not be able to pardon themselves, I would be more inclined to support it. That that's my position on this. Are there any other comments from members of the committee?

Now I'll turn back over to

I appreciate your all comments. I'm sure we can talk about this all day long, and there's also a resolution being proposed at the federal level limiting similar limitations to presidential pardoning rights and then also other states such as Kentucky is working on that in different scope including the family per million, pardoning rights, etcetera.

So I think that this is a clear step for California, step forward and then become the model of the nation that that this does not limit any power of the governor, other than clarifying that, he should not abuse such a power for himself or immediate family members. Therefore, I ask for your I vote, to ensure public, servants, in power do not abuse the law.

Thank you.

I believe vice chair is here to move the bill. If we can please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

On call, Senator, if the bill does not have sufficient number of votes, would you like reconsideration?

I'm debating whether reconstitution will change your mind. If that will have any chance, then I would appreciate that.

Okay. So noted. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. I don't see Senator Menjivar. I think next and followed after that is Senator Caballero. If that's okay, we can go to you at this time.

He did.

And so we'll now proceed to the next bill. Which is, SB 1143 by Senator Caballero.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Members. Before I begin, I want to gratitude to the opposition for working, with my office to address their concerns. We're working on proposed amendments, and, I I think we're gonna get there is my point. Thank you for the opportunity to present SB 1143, which would authorize child abuse forensic interview recordings to be shared with child welfare agencies, law enforcement, and county council.

While social workers are member of a multi of multi multi disciplinary teams and can be present at a forensic interview, they are often limited to reviewing written summaries and investigative reports due to timing, and they're not guaranteed access to the recorded interview.

Reviewing a recorded video can provide critical insights to social workers who can benefit from having and seeing vocal tone or nonverbal cues. Access to the recording reduces the likelihood that the social worker will have to conduct an additional interview when questions arise during an investigation that cannot be answered with written summaries, potentially retraumatizing the child victim.

Furthermore, there are instances where child where welfare agencies have an obligation to respond to grievances and complaints involving child welfare investigations, and access to these forensic interview recordings can provide valuable evidence when reviewing allegations of investigative misconduct or procedural concerns. SB 1143 would permit child welfare agencies to receive and review forensic interview recordings to support child abuse investigations, and related case management responsibilities.

With me to testify in support is Amanda Kirchner from California Welfare Directors Association and Stephannie Novitski, policy analyst with the San Diego County Department Of Social Services.

Thank you very much. Good afternoon. You have two minutes to address the committee.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Senators. Amanda Kirchner on behalf of CWDA. We are the sponsors of SB 1143. We've worked hard to ensure that child victims are treated in a trauma informed way when we're investigating allegations of abuse and neglect. The part of the conducting the forensic interviews and utilizing multidisciplinary teams ensures that everyone gets the same access to all of the information that's provided.

SB 1143 is gonna bring some additional clarifications to that. Stephannie Novitski can get into more of the, inner workings of how the MDT's process works, and I'm happy to answer any other technical questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Committee Members and Senator Caballero, who authored this bill, for hearing SB 1143 this morning. AB 2741 from 2020 authorized counties to use a CAC to implement a coordinated multidisciplinary response when investigating reports involving child physical or sexual abuse, exploitation, or maltreatment.

More recently, SB 603 from 2023 specified requirements for the release or use of any recordings, such as a forensic interview video to only law enforcement agencies authorized to investigate child abuse or agencies authorized to prosecute juvenile or criminal conduct described in the forensic interview or county council evaluating an allegation of child abuse.

Unfortunately, child welfare agencies who are tasked with investigating child abuse and neglect allegations were not specifically listed, which has created a barrier in receiving these forensic videos despite child welfare agencies being a part of the MDT and eligible to receive the information.

Due to trauma informed approach of minimal facts interviews, the necessary details are also are often contained within the forensic interviews and not the child welfare social worker interviews. CAC video recordings are integral components to child welfare services and child abuse investigations and any subsequent grievance hearings. While CAC submit written reports to social workers after the interview, these are not as comprehensive as the video itself, often with only minimal information in them, potentially leaving social workers with incomplete information.

Social workers are expected to attend and observe forensic interviews to witness the evidence they will use to make their allegation determination. However, there are times that the social worker might not be able to attend and therefore would need to have a copy of the video in order to review the child's full statement as to alleged abuse, neglect, to make thorough to make a thorough safety and risk assessment leading to the allegation conclusion.

More so videos will be able to show a child's demeanor or actions during the interview that a written report or transcript might not be able to capture. Additionally, reviewing the full recording allowance once you see how disclosures emerge, the questions asked, and the sequence and context of the child statement. This context can be critical in understanding the dynamics surrounding the allegation and determining whether the responses were spontaneous or influenced by the interview process. A recent example from our child abuse hotline illustrates illustrates this problem.

A teenager disclosed sexual abuse from a relative for several years when she was younger and stated the abuse occurred at night when the relative stayed up with her until she fell asleep.

The social worker substantiated the allegation. However, during the subsequent internal review process, it was downgraded to inconclusive. The reviewer noted that the available forensic interview documentation from the CAC was limited. The written notes from the interview were brief, and the interview video was inaccessible. The written report did not make it clear whether the child was specifically asked questions necessary to determine whether an alleged touching was intentional and for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification as required by penal code 11,165.1.

This example highlights the essential role of the, forensic interview video and providing contacts that cannot be captured in written reports alone, ensuring that all records, investigative details, and testimony are evaluated as thoroughly as possible to support the most accurate finding.

To better align the intent of prior legislation and streamline what is allowable per MDT guidelines, adding that CAC forensic interview videos can and should be released to child welfare agencies who are authorized to investigate child abuse or neglect allegations is needed to support a thorough record for decision making, while also being available as evidence for anyone exercising their due process and grieving their listing on the khaki. Thank you for your time, and I'm available for any questions.

Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for SB 1143? If you can please come forward, state your name, organization, and position on the bill. Seeing no other members of the public wishing express support, we'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to SB 1143.

Good morning, chair and members. My name is Rochelle Beardsley. I'm here on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association. We are here in opposition, because we have concerns about sharing information during a pending sensitive investigation or prosecution, and have shared those same concerns with the sponsors and the author.

And we are confident that we can work, with them to craft language that will enable the sharing of such information with child welfare organizations as long as that sharing does not hamper the investigation or prosecution of those criminal cases.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB 1143? Seeing no one, I'll bring it back to the committee, for any questions or comments or motion. Moved by Senator Cortese. Okay.

Any other questions or comments from members of the committee? Seeing none, I'll turn it back over to you Senator, to close.

Thank you very much, Mister Chair, and I wanna thank the DA's association. We're on the same page. We don't wanna impede an investigation. We just wanna make sure that the evidence can support the, Department of Social Services as well. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Cortese. If the committee assistant can please call the roll.

SB 1143 Caballero. Motion is do passed to the floor. Arreguin? Arreguin, aye.

Seyarto? Seyarto, aye. Caballero? Caballero, aye. Cortese?

Cortese, aye. Perez? Weiner? Weiner, aye.

Thank you very much. Okay. I see Senator Menjivar is in the room. So we'll proceed now to SB 1198. Thank you.

Whenever you're ready, Senator, you may present on your bill.

Thank you so much, Mister Chair, for squeezing me in before your recess. Colleagues, in just in 2024, about seventeen thousand traffic accidents resulted in a fatality or a serious bodily injury. And among those primary contributions to those seventeen thousands are of those collisions are the fact that a driver was recklessly driving. In LA alone in LA County alone, just in the year of 2023 into 2024 we saw an increase of one hundred and thirty eight percent of these types of collisions.

And while we have current laws that are aiming to deter this behavior, we are among the top two states in all of The United States that continues to unfortunately increase in the number of types of debts related to traffic collisions at the hands of a reckless driver.

So which is why I introduced SB 1198, which is asking to increase accountability for the dangerous drivers and negligent owners of said drivers by of said cars by increasing license suspension and impoundment appearance for repeat reckless driving, closing the unaware owner loophole by requiring proof and a signed statement that they had no idea, that that vehicle was being used by someone who had malicious intent and limiting the amount of times an owner can claim unawareness when that when it's the same driver using that same vehicle. Now I recognize that some accountability measures for this behavior may create inconvenience or have devastating consequences for the driver's family.

But you know what really has devastating consequences to a family? When there's a death of a loved one at the hands of a reckless driver. Longer impoundment periods are a small inconvenience when looking to prevent one more traffic collision death. Opposition points the inability of being able to afford impound and tow fees.

But those charges don't compare when a family has scrambling to raise funds to put on a last minute funeral and pay to bury their loved one. I can imagine that there are instances where a family member is unaware of their vehicle being used for nefarious reasons and of course they shouldn't be punished for it. But how many times can we allow that excuse to be used until we recognize that they're enabling said behavior and cannot be held without responsibility. And since I am accepting the committee amendments, I believe we kept all those points in mind and have landed on a balanced approach. Now, Mr. Chair, I'd like to turn over to my two witnesses in support of this.

I'll go first.

Who would like to begin?

Oh, sure. Thank you. Thank you, Chair, Committee Members. My name is Romik Hacobian, and I'm here on behalf of the Burbank Armenian Association, proud sponsor of SB 1198. We're a nonprofit focused on community engagement and public safety.

After the tragic 2021 high speed crash on Glen Oaks Boulevard in Burbank, that took the life of three young teenagers, we lost we lost a drive right, save lives campaign. It's a partnership with local law enforcement, schools, car dealerships, and community partners. Through that work, we delivered workshops, awareness materials, and community outreach focused on prevention. SB 1198 comes directly from that effort. It's a real solution designed to prevent tragic loss and help future proof California's approach to road roadways safety.

Today, we have the support of over 30 local organizations and we have 11 local car dealerships handing out these trifolds at point of sale, reaching drivers when it matters most. This year- this issue is personal to me. At 19, I lost two close friends to street racing. Years later, I was rear ended by a distracted driver and diagnosed with cervical radiculitis. A degenerative neurological condition I will live with for the rest of my life.

And though I'm not here in my official capacity as a police commissioner, I've seen firsthand the impact of reckless driving has on our communities. In the in the city of Burbank and Glendale alone, there are over 9,900 speeding violations each year, over 780 hit and runs, over 100 reckless driving cases, and over 40 street racing incidents which leads to crashes, injuries, and lives lost. For many families, this bill is the difference between a loved one coming home or a life altering phone call.

Right now, the law does not give enough tools to support repeat offenders. SB 1198 changes that, allowing intervention before the next crash, not after.

We respectfully ask for your support to protect families, strengthen public safety and be the voice for the ones who are not here today. Thank you.

Sorry.

My name is Allison Lyman. Sorry. I'll composed myself. My 23 year old son, Connor Elliot Lopez, was killed on April 23, 2025 in Oak Grove by a reckless and negligent driver that turned into oncoming traffic. Connor died on the road.

Connor was my only son. He was a devoted big brother, a classically trained pianist. He taught piano while attending Sacramento City College. He dreamed of becoming a lawyer and he made this world a better place and he filled our home with his magnificent music. I saw my son's broken body in the hospital.

That image will haunt me for the rest of my life. These are violent, brutal deaths. I'm here for all the victims of reckless drivers. For Misha, 27 years old, killed in San Francisco by a speeding reckless driver craning at 90 miles per hour. His mother's Julia is here with us as well.

The drivers charged in both Connor's and Misha's death have faced almost zero accountability. We all know the statistics and failures exposed in CalMatters License to Kill. The laws in our state do not reflect the gravity of these crimes and do not hold reckless drivers accountable. This must change to save lives. SB 1198 will close loopholes and bring accountability to reckless drivers and deter dangerous behavior on our roads.

For Connor, for the thousands of other innocent lives taken by negligent reckless drivers, for the thousands more you have the power to save, it's too late for Connor, but not for others. Please vote yes on SB 1198.

Thank you. On behalf of the entire committee, we we thank you so much for being here today, and we are so terribly sorry for your loss. And thank you for your courage and not just for honoring Connor's life and memory, but also making sure we can protect others from violence on our roads. So thank you for being here. We'll now invite anyone else who wishes to express support for SB 1198 to please come forward, state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Good morning, Kiara Ross on behalf of the City of Burbank in support of the bill.

Christine Clinkenbeard, grandmother to Connor Elliott Lopez. I'm here to support him and Misha. I, I'm sorry. I support 1198 Senate Bill 1198 and I hope you vote for it too. Thank you.

Christina Thompson on behalf of Connor Elliott Lopez and Misha, strong support.

I am Julia Romanenko. I am Misha's mom. We started Stop Reckless Driving, and we are supporting many families coming forward. You have a letter of support for four angels. These were the four sorority sisters at Pepperdine University killed by a reckless driver, violently, viciously, just like my son in Malibu this year, and their names are Niamh, Payton, Asha, and Deslyn.

There was a family killed in San Francisco again. The whole family of Diego and Matilde and their two little babies. These people don't have voices anymore. We're here speaking for them, and we ask you to support every bill on reckless driving. Save lives. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for SB 1198? If not, is there anyone are there any principal witnesses in opposition?

Hello, Chair and Members. George Parampathu speaking on behalf of ACLU California Action in respectful opposition to SB 1198. We appreciate the courage of the families who have spoken up today. Reckless driving already carries numerous consequences under current law. It may be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony.

In addition to any incarceration, a person may be fined or have their vehicle impounded. On top of that, their license may be suspended for up to six months and they I believe they get DMV points as well. All told, California's existing punishment scheme is the same or harsher than 31 other states. We should not double down on this punitive approach, which has produced mixed results at best.

While we agree that traffic tragedies harm entire families, SB 1198 impoundment scheme would also harm entire families.

A mother's car may be impounded because her child caused a violation while driving the car. This can have devastating impacts as impoundment fees are often more than people can afford, and when a person cannot afford cannot pay the associated fees, the vehicle is sold at auction. We should not punish families in this way, especially when cars are vital to a family's ability to get to work, take kids to school, and put food on the table.

While the legislature's desire to address reckless driving and speeding is completely understandable, the proper and proven approach is investing in traffic calming measures. According to the Federal Department of Transportation, roundabouts lead to an eighty two percent reduction in traffic related fatalities and accident, accident injuries, while also reducing traffic delays by up to seventy four percent.

By investing in our communities, we can solve this problem, save lives, and produce good union jobs. I urge you to prioritize and targeted investments in the affected communities over a more punitive approach. For these reasons, I urge you no vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Chair, Members. Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, Statewide Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, private practice, and work in public defender offices, and we are regretfully in opposition. I want first, I wanna thank the author who this is probably the rare time I'm, opposite sides of the author. I also wanna thank the family for their testimony. I wanna focus my concerns specifically on the empowerment measure. This bill is drafted.

It is not exclusive to reckless driving where there is the type of injury or death that you heard about from the families, the tragedies that you heard. This applies to all reckless strivings, I believe second, in particular on the impoundment. So I just wanna make that clear. If we were just talking about impoundments on a death, reckless driving involving death, it might be different discussion. We might have a different position.

The other thing to keep in mind is vehicle impoundments, even authorized by statute, are unconstitutional, and have been since 2006 in the in the ninth circuit decision, Cornelius versus Miranda versus City of Cornelius. And there have been subsequent court decisions since then as recently as Contra Costa County in January that have said, you cannot impound a vehicle unless there are other factors related to that, which means if you leave the vehicle on scene, you're blocking traffic, or there's some other public safety.

It's called the Community Caretaker Doctrine. So that's the challenge that we have with the statute and the intent of the author is that well intended or not, it's still in violation. If it does not have these Community Caretaker Doctrine requirements included in the statute, I can say two things.

There's a statute now that already has a vehicle impoundment, which is what this bill is amending. That was in 2007 by then Pro Tem Senator Prada. I was there testifying against that bill, and the argument he made was, well, the Ninth Circuit decision just came out. We don't know what that means. We now have almost two decades of court decisions that have reiterated you cannot impound a vehicle without this Community Caretaker Doctrine.

Last thing I'll mention is I worked on a bill in 2018 with Assemblymember Joan Sawyer, that specifically put in the vehicle code for certain impoundments the Community Caretaker Doctrine that said you can impound, but one of these things have to also be in place. And so we would ask for that amendment to be taken or for the impoundment provision to be removed or perhaps made exclusive to whether it's a death involved.

But unfortunately, the constitution, the fourth amendment does protect the seizure of a vehicle according to a long line of cases since 2006. For those reasons, we have opposition at the moment.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB 1198?

Liz Blum-Gutierrez on behalf of the LA County Public Defenders Union Local 148 and the San Francisco Public Defender's Office in respectful opposition. So sorry for your loss.

Anyone else wishing to express opposition to the bill? Okay. Seeing no one else. Just to summarize the amendments, the amendments would reduce suspension penalties, remove the one time limit on relief for unaware drivers, but to limit it to three times, to insert a provision absolving driver or owner of impoundment fees and instances where the case is dismissed, and to remove the perjury provision. Any questions or comments from members of the committee?

Senator Cortese?

I guess it's a question for the opposition witness. I didn't catch your name, counsel. But, my understanding is that much of what you said, if not all, is true as to an impoundment without a warrant for criminal investigation. But if there's a warrant for criminal investigation that involves the the vehicle, then impoundment is allowed as long as there's an ongoing investigation for that purpose. Is that correct?

Yes, Senator. That's correct. There would if there is a warrant, then yes, that would be allowable in the constitutional. The way this bill is drafted though doesn't require that there be a warrant. And in fact, I think in most cases, there wouldn't be a warrant.

I would generally have concerns along the lines of of that opposition testimony, except that I think, you know, at this early stage of this process, there's been a lot of work to- to create, you know, exceptions and what we would call here carve outs to, you know, allow individuals who are third parties, etcetera, to to retrieve the vehicle.

The other the other issue, if you've ever visited one of those impound facilities is, you know, very few of the cars are in any condition, to go anywhere, basically. So I I don't know. Maybe during the course of the the advancement of the bill, if it gets out of committee today, we can, you know, hear some more about not just worst case examples, but really this sort of the statistics of of what's really going on. How many are being held without a warrant?

You know, should warrants be required more expressly in in bills like this? And if so, why is it because there's, you know, there's an enormous amount of abuse that would be something that would bother me a lot. You know, that in fact, would bother me a lot if warrants were being issued willy nilly regardless of, you know, just as some sort of as some sort of a sort of automatic kind of reaction by law enforcement.

So I I think those are are important issues and I think they should be, at least for me, explored a little bit further. But I I think the author and the committee staff have done a lot of work already, you know, at this fairly early stage to, to try to address the impoundment issues.

And and basically the penalty issues overall. So I'm gonna support the bill and just hope some of these issues I I know we have a very good author here who works very hard on her bills throughout. That's been my experience, and and, you know, I would hope that she will continue to, kind of flesh out, the very important nuances with, some of this, particularly the impoundment issues.

Thank you. Senator Caballero.

Thank you, Mister Chair. First, let me express my condolences. Thank you all for being here today. It's hard to hear your testimony and along with the Chair, I'm appreciate the commitment you've made to change the law so that this doesn't happen to anyone else. People have gotten crazier driving.

I mean, crazier. It's every day I make the sign of the cross when I get safely to where I I need to go. But there are differences between silly stupid behavior, you know, cutting people off, not signaling running through red lights, but but I think what we're talking about is death or serious injury. So I hear what you're saying in regards to the need to elevate the reckless.

But you you can't classify every reckless the same and say, can't we get to impound, I'm not opposed to it.

I I think we having a thousands of pounds of power behind you is a privilege, it's not a, it's not a right. But that having been said, you may wanna work on the death or serious injury issue of the impoundment for moving forward just in terms of constitutional framework. If it if it if in fact, it's it's necessary. I think it it may be. I'm gonna support your bill today.

I think it's a work in progress, and I appreciate you bringing this forward. And I thank you to everybody who's here today. Thank you, Mister Chair.

Any other questions or comments? Okay. Vice Chair, Seyarto, then Senator Perez.

I'm supporting your bill today, so let's get that cake out. Might be the first time. Right? But here's why. Because what we are doing now clearly is not working.

I don't care about the technicalities, although we have to. I understand that. But there are too many young people who wind up being victims of the people that actually wind up getting in the accident and getting they wind up having to suffer those consequences. This bill is is aimed at trying to intervene before that happens. And, you know, there's there's a lot of people that don't want people to go to jail.

I get it. But but when they're driving the way they do out there, I see it every day. 110 miles an hour. You can tell, because everybody else is going 80. But not them, they're going 110.

And they're weaving in and out, and they're cutting across the freeway. Then they pick up somebody who wants to to race them. When they get caught, something has to happen. Something has to happen to take their toy away, because that's what they think it is. They think it's a toy.

And if we don't do something to start changing that behavior, we are going to have more people like these poor people in here who lose their sons and their daughters and all these young people. I've been in public safety for 35 years before I retired ten years ago. This problem is not getting better. I've seen the worst of the worst of the outcomes of these, and yet the answer is always, well, you know, they won't be able to get to their job. You know what?

They can get to their job. They can get on a bus. They can get on the rail. Whatever it takes, they can get a ride from one of their friends who actually drives responsibly and can get them to the job. So that's the message that we need to send as a legislature, is that we're done with this and and and laws like this that are created to tell them that are are absolutely supportable.

Is there some technical stuff we have to do to ensure that that the the impound process can happen in a in the the way the constitution says it needs to, great. Go ahead and work on that. But we're not gonna kill bills like this because of things like that. I want bills like this to happen. I think everybody in Cal- this is one of those things you put on the ballot, and it will be a 99-1. And the one being the ones that like to race around.

So, I'll be supporting this bill. Thank you for bringing it. I'm very sorry to hear about, your tragic circumstances, but I've seen a bunch of them, and I'm sick and tired of them. Just as sick and tired as much as you, but I know you're more more than that. And and I feel very, very sorry for you, and we need to stop it.

And, so, fortunately, I hope you have a group of advocates here for doing that today. Thank you.

Senator Perez.

Yeah. First of all, I, just wanna thank the family for, you know, being here today for the letter that you've provided, the testimony that you've provided. I, you know, I can't imagine how, you know, profoundly difficult it is to to lose somebody in this way.

And I I know so many of us even in this room, you know, have stories of having lost loved ones to either someone that was driving reckless recklessly, somebody that was driving under the influence and just how painful it is to go through a loss like that.

In addition to that, you know, I've, I've overall been really alarmed by the number of articles recently by CalMatters, who's done some really great investigative research, into what a huge issue this is and how, the penalties that we have in place oftentimes aren't working and people who have been repeat offenders of either driving recklessly or driving under the influence, have continued to make their way out onto our roads.

Having strong penalties does have an impact. I know of folks, I have watched people that I love go through addiction and, you know, struggle with this issue in particular. And really having strong accountability measures, I think forces folks to have to reflect on their behavior. And that's what this is about here. It's trying to prevent somebody from taking somebody else's life, and really forcing people to contend with the result of their actions.

It's for those, and I've, I've spoken to those that, are sitting either, you know, in in prison for several years for having done crimes like this. And what I've heard over and over again is how badly they wish that they could take that moment back, you know, and how much they wish that they they could have made a better decision from the start. Right? Whether it's street racing or something else.

And I think this bill is it's about protecting people and ultimately preventing that kind of catastrophe from happening.

So I really appreciate Senator Menjivar, you bringing this forward. I think this is a particularly powerful piece of legislation, especially given the amount of research and data that's been done on this topic over the last several years. And as Senator Seyarto just said, it's become very clear that the policies that we have in place are not working effectively, and we need some major changes here. So, grateful for you to bring this forward, and happy to support this bill. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments? Senator Wiener?

Thank you. And thank you for your testimony today. I cannot even imagine how painful it is to have to continually relive the worst possible trauma. And and I really admire that you've taken this incredible trauma and turned it into trying to make sure that others don't experience the pain and the devastation that you've experienced.

So thank you for that courage. And I you know, we have to take this more seriously. And again, we're not talking about minor traffic violations or people who are, you know, make make a mistake. This is about extreme, intentional, like, reckless, highly dangerous behavior, and we've not done enough in California to address it. The DUI piece is is part of it, and that's also being addressed this year, but this is another part.

And I also wanna acknowledge someone in public comment, referenced, the, the just disaster that happened in West Portal in San Francisco, which was not a joyriding situation, but was just over the top recklessness. I think 70 or 80 miles an hour down, down West Portal, which is a, you know, small commercial, street, and an entire family wiped out while they were waiting at the bus stop heading to the zoo, including a baby.

And and the sentence came down the other day and it was a pretty light sentence. And so there's just enormous pain and a lot of frustration in the community. And so I I appreciate bringing this forward, and I'll support it today.

Moved by Senator Seryarto. Thank you. Seeing no other questions or comments, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mister Chair and colleagues on your comments. I just wanna clarify some some things. Current law and practice allows for police officers that they may impound a vehicle. I'm not adding a different category to the current law and statute. So we're not increasing the instances that a law enforcement officer can impound a vehicle.

They may, currently, right now, in my law, still says they may. Now this only happens after a police officer, after when it's, you know, said reckless drive driving elevated to a level that the driver needs to be arrested on that point, and the vehicle is then impounded.

In those scenarios only, then my bill would kick in to say that now that you've impounded his vehicle because you witnessed a really intense reckless driving, we want to keep that vehicle off the streets a little bit longer than current law right now. So we're not adding category like I mentioned. It's just in those specific scenarios.

I'm not touching increased sentencings for individual. I'm talking about addressing the means of of destruction, which is the vehicle and keeping it off the streets a little longer because that is the means of a person that is being that is using it to cause the harm to someone else. So we are applying it to all reckless driving that the the officer determines elevates to a need of an arrest and an impoundment. Why we're not starting at just death is because it's too late.

You'll see you've read you've read in the Calmatters article that even the most recent one that occurred here in NorCal, the individual that killed the infant, the toddler, had a history of reckless driving, and no one intervened then.

We need to intervene before it gets to a death. It's a little too late for that. So with that, I appreciate your support now, and I urge that we continue to prioritize people's lives over anything else. Respectfully asking for an eye vote.

Motion by Vice Chair Seyarto. If the committee assistant can please call the roll.

SB 1198 Menjivar. Motion is do passed as amended to appropriations. Arreguin? Arreguin, aye.

Seyarto? Seyarto, aye. Caballero? Caballero, aye. Cortese?

Cortese, aye. Perez? Perez, aye. Wiener?

Wiener, aye.

That bill's out on a vote of six to zero. Thank you. Okay. We're gonna lift calls on bills, and I've been informed by leadership that we do need to recess even though there's one more bill left. So to my witnesses, I'm very sorry, but we're gonna have to come back at 01:30.

But colleagues, please come down right after caucus so we can gavel this hearing out. Senator Cardenasias of chair transportation.

It's not my call. Okay. Let's let's lift calls very quickly.

SB 937, Gonzales. The motion is due passed to appropriations. Current vote is three to zero. Seyarto? No.

Perez?

Perez, aye.

Perez, aye. Wiener? Aye. Wiener, I let those out.

Okay. SB 937 is out on a vote of five to one.

SB 1056, Grayson. Motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. Current vote is four to zero. Perez? Grayson? Aye.

Perez, aye. Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye.

Okay. SB 1056 is out on my vote of six to zero.

1070 has been dispensed with. SB 1130, Reyes. Motion is due passed as amended to rules. Current vote is three to one. Caballero?

Aye.

Caballero, aye. Perez?

Aye.

Perez, aye.

Okay. SB 1130 is out in a vote of five to one.

SB 1198 has been dispensed with. SCA 2, Choi. Current vote is three no's, one aye. Perez?

No.

Perez, no. Those fails.

Okay. SCA 2 fails. One to four. I move reconsideration to request of the author without objection. Reconsideration is granted.

SB 1143 Caballero. Motion is due passed to the floor. Current vote is five to zero. Perez?

Aye.

Perez, aye. Okay.

SB 1143 is out in a vote of six to zero. We have one more bill. I have to honor leadership's request that we adjourn. I think the vice chair left with the understanding, right, that the bill that we were recessing the committee. I I I have to honor the request of leadership that we that we have to recess the committee.

Senator Cortese, if you're not able to join us, I I certainly understand since you have the chair trans transportation, but I think we'll be able to dispense with that bill very quickly. So my request to members, if we can please just come down right after caucus, so we can just gavel this carrying back into session and just finish the last bill, I'd appreciate it. With that, we will recess the committee until 01:30.

Okay. The Senate Committee on Public Safety is now back in session. We have one more bill on our agenda, and we- we voted out all the other bills correct. And that is SB 1257 by myself. I'm gonna turn the gavel over to to Senator Caballero, so I can present.

Senator Arreguin, you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members for the opportunity to present SB 1257, which requires the attorney general to publish annually a publicly available report that summarizes immigration enforcement incidents and activities that occur in the state of California and so submit that report to the governor of the legislature.

This bill builds on legislation we passed last year, namely SB 81, and other bills to protect schools and other sensitive areas, to make sure that we have information about when incidents happen at these sensitive areas, and also to ensure that the attorney general has information, to enforce these laws because, that's the goal of the laws that we passed were to ensure that we have a patchwork of protections for people who want to see a doctor or go to school or go vote that they can do so without fear of enforcement and deportation.

And so I just wanna clarify, I am accepting the committee amendments. With me to testify are Mar Velez, policy director with the Latino Coalition for Healthy California, and Luz Gallegos, executive director of Todec Legal Center. At the appropriate time, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. You may proceed.

Good afternoon now, Chair and Members. My name is Mar Velez, again, director of policy with the Latino Coalition for a Healthy California, and we are proud cosponsors of SB 1257. SB 1257 represents a significant step in guaranteeing the effective enforcement of protections for immigrant communities that were assigned into law last year. Additionally, it provides essential accountability to the public regarding violations of these laws and the circumstances surrounding immigration enforcement within our state.

The truth is that although laws like SB 81 were passed, sensitive locations like hospitals and clinics continue to deal with the impacts of violent, fear inducing, and disruptive activities by immigration enforcement.

Health care providers and health care workers continue to be the front lines between ICE and immigrant patients. Therefore, providing and reporting data when these incidents take place is one of the strongest accountability tools that we have. Without accurate public data, unlawful actions go undetected, excuse me, and fear continues to spread. The gathering and reporting of data will assist the state in ensuring that entities comply with regulations designed to safeguard Californians. And for these reasons, I ask for your aye vote on SB 1257.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Luz Gallegos, executive director of Todec Legal Center. We are a lifeline for immigrants and and their families in California's Inland Empire and Coachella Valley. For over forty years, Todec has been a hub for healing, organizing, and community transformation led by people who live, work, enroll- in rural inland counties. In Todec, we firmly believe that those closest to the pain should be closest to the power.

We are here today as a proud cosponsor of SB 1257 authored by Senator Arreguin because as an organization on the front lines, we need stronger transparency, accountability by our state to protect immigrant communities. We are guided by our community struggle, and it is our responsibility to uplift community stories, to inform and educate systems, to find solutions that reflect the pain of our community.

Enforcement activities and what used to be considered safe public spaces is cornering vulnerable families and children not to seek medical care, education, attend mass, or leisure. On January 15th, 2026, an immigration operation by federal authorities took place within the boundaries of the Coachella Valley Unified School District. The presence of this operation affected multiple families as several parents and students traveling to work and on their way to school were stopped by immigration officers.

The incident generated concern, confusion among district administrators, educators, and community members. Recently, a parent shared how when taking their child to a doctor's appointment, saw immigration agents outside the clinic, turned around, and never rescheduled. They never went back. Families continue to share that once they see enforcement near their service sites, it changes everything, whether they seek care, go to school, or even attend church.

We've have had several- several of our region's Catholic churches and community parks impacted as federal agents have used their their private parking spaces as staging areas.

Reporting public data on incidents like this will help Californians know that something is being done to protect our communities. When data reflects a community's lived reality, it helps build trust, particularly in a time when immigrant communities are being targeted by government agencies. California must show that it is doing everything it can to ensure the safety of immigrant communities. It is our state's best interest that we continue to do everything that we can to protect our vulnerable immigrant communities.

If our immigrant workers and their families are healthy, strong, and present, so is our state's economy.