Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning, everyone. Thank you all for being here, and a special thank you to Assemblymember Mark Gonzales from Los Angeles for always keeping me company at 08:30 in the morning. Thank you, assembly member. I'd like to welcome everyone back to the assembly standing committee on public safety as we begin the long road to the end of our committee season. I'd like to begin with a few housekeeping matters.

First of all, we have a very large agenda today. We have 26 items on file. I will note this is the lightest of all the remaining hearings we have, so we'll hopefully get you all home in time for dinner. To ensure that all measures are heard, we will we have, chosen to limit witness testimony for this hearing with two witnesses per side who will be given two minutes each to testify in support or opposition to a measure.

There are also some general rules of conduct that I'd like to go over before we start our hearing today.

Please note that in order to facilitate the goal of conducting a legislative hearing and as we proceed with witnessandpubliccom witness testimony and public comment throughout today's hearing, I wanna ensure that everyone understands that the assembly has rules to ensure we maintain order and run a fair and efficient hearing. I will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of today's legislative proceedings. Please be aware that violations of these rules will subject you to removal or other enforcement actions.

And lastly, I have been asked by the sergeants to relay a reminder, and that is that what we all have bills that we love and those that we don't love. If you could please try not to delve into applause.

While it's great, it does slow the proceeding down because then we can't hear what witnesses are trying to say. We can't call the next group up. So please try not to have any of those audible outbursts to the extent possible. Thank you. We do not yet have a quorum, so we are gonna proceed as a subcommittee, and I see a couple authors here.

Before we do that, I will note the off calendar items. Following items have been pulled off today's calendar by the author. We have item number six, Assembly bill 1739 by Assembly member Ward. We have Assembly bill 1897 by Assembly member Haney. We have Assembly bill 2073 by Assembly member Johnson.

And lastly, we have Assembly bill 2122 by Assembly member Kalra. As a reminder, those are now off calendar. When we establish a quorum, I will have the secretary call the roll. And with that, we'll proceed as a subcommittee as stated. We have, Assembly member Davies here first.

Assembly member, I believe you'll be presenting on item number nine. This is assembly bill 1816. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. You can get started whenever you're ready.

Alright. Good morning. Thank you, mister chair. Members, today I am here to present AB1816. I first want to thank committee staff for working with my staff and stakeholders on this bill.

I'm proud to accept the committee's amendments. Members in 2020, the legislature passed a b nineteen fifty that kept most probation terms to either one year for misdemeanors or two years for felonies. However, except for narrow circumstances, that measure provided no judicial discretion for a judge to extend terms for individuals who need to complete further rehabilitation.

With committee amendments, AB 1816 will now say that if a person on probation for a sex offense hasn't finished their required treatment program, a court may extend their probation for up to one extra year. This gives the individual more time to complete the necessary classes while remaining under the court supervision.

Since these cases involve sex offenders registration, section 290 the community is safer if the person actually completes their specialized treatment rather than being released into the world with unfinished business. Members at the heart of this issue is making sure those on probation receive the treatment and rehabilitation they need to become productive members of the communities post probation without artificially and rigid timelines.

With that, mister chair, respectfully ask for an aye vote. And with me here today to talk about this issue is Siri McLeod and Danielle Sanchez on behalf of the chief probation officers of California.

Good morning, mister chair and members. Danielle Sanchez on behalf of the Chief Probation Officers of California and certainly pleased to sponsor AB 1816. We wanna acknowledge and appreciate our conversations with the committee regarding the impactful issue and the amendments taken today. While the arbitrary impacts of shortened probation terms is an important area for continued discussion, particularly around the impacts of doing so on the rehabilitative efforts and public safety, this bill addresses key aspects around individuals who have committed sex offenses.

We must remember that probation is intended to help people succeed at their second chances and to meet their rehabilitative and public safety goals and protect our communities from those who are not ready.

AB 1950 made this primary of function of probation exceedingly difficult. AB 1816 takes an important step toward bringing back this important balance. In 2020, AB nineteen fifty set the maximum term of probation for most misdemeanor crimes at one year and the maximum term for felonies at two years. This arbitrary cap set by ab 1950 moved away from an evidence based model, which resulted in limiting the time to reasonably complete treatment for these offenses.

Other states have already adjusted to lessons learned in California by regarding probation term lengths that considered rehabilitative and treatment needs and risk factors by focusing on approaches that required suitability to terminate, as well as approaches such as authorizing court extensions and modifications in order to meet specific rehabilitation goals that have not yet been achieved.

AB 1816 would establish an appropriate pathway for courts to extend probation beyond two years, when programs have not been completed for individuals convicted of registerable sex offenses. Rehabilitation related to these criminogenic needs, particularly around sex offenses, requires targeted, structured, and closely monitored programming to address underlying risks and needs. This approach is consistent with evidence based practices, which emphasizes that supervision should end based on progress, stability, and successful completion to best ensure sustainable community safety.

That's two minutes.

With that, we ask for your aye vote. Thank you, mister chair.

Hello, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Siri McLeod. I'm a senior deputy probation officer, also representing CPOC, the chief probation officers of California. I work for Plaster County Probation Department. I'd like to note that I serve on a Speaker of the Assembly appointed position on CASON, the California sex offender management board.

I am a supervision representative for the California chapter of ATPSA or the Association of the Treatment and Prevention of Sexual Abuse. I teach sex offender supervision to California probation officers through ..., the state authorized risk assessment tool for sex offenders committee. And I am our department trainer for sex offender supervision. Studies indicate that risk of reoffense among amongst adult males with a history of sexual reoffending is highest within the first few years following release from custody.

Reoffense rates decline as individuals age and remain offense free in the community.

Therefore, timely engagement in sex offender treatment upon release whether following the instant offense or a probation violation is critical. Longer periods of supervision can further enhance community safety by supporting sustained participation in treatment. The abbreviation of probationary periods following ab 1950 has had a detrimental impact on treatment dosage for individuals convicted of sexual offenses. Many individuals are unable to complete case on certified sex offender treatment within the two year time frame. So in practice, treatment rarely begins immediately after release from custody.

Additionally, consultation with a local CASEOM certified sex offender treatment provider indicates that only a minority of individuals continue with treatment after their probation term has concluded. In some, AB 1816 is consistent with evidence based practices, and better aligns probation terms with court ordered sex offender treatment program timelines, and completion, which supports both rehabilitative goals and public safety. Thank you.

Alright. Assembly member, thank you very much for your presentation today. Just to confirm, you will be accepting committee amendments?

Thank you very much, and thank you to both of your witnesses for testifying in support. Next, we go to the Me Too's.

Yes.

Good morning, mister chair members. Corey Salzillo on behalf of California State Sheriffs Association in support.

Anyone else in support? Come on down right now.

Thanks, Perry. On behalf of the California Police Chief Association, and with permission with, on behalf of PORAC in support as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Wesley, public safety and community advocate, and I support this bill.

Okay. Final call. Anyone hoping to be heard in support of the bill? Okay. Next, we'll turn to opposition.

Are there any witnesses here hoping to testify in opposition to the bill? Okay. I do see one. We actually have a chair for you down here if you'd like here at the end of the table. Your time doesn't begin until you begin speaking.

If the assembly member is fine, you would sit there. That's great. So once you begin speaking, you'll have two minutes to address the committee.

Thank you very much. Good morning, chair and members of the committee. My name is Ilona Yanez, deputy public defender at the San Francisco public defender's office. We appreciate the author and the committee for working on the amended language. However, we must still respectfully oppose.

Under ab 1816, an individual required to register under two ninety c where probation files a petition to the court and the court finds the person has not successfully completed probation and additional time is necessary for programming, the court can order the term of probation to continue for a period not exceeding one additional year.

AB 1816 is unnecessary because if a person fails to comply with treatment or other conditions set by the court during the probationary period, the court may revoke a person's probation until the person's back in compliance. The period during which the probation is revoked does not count towards the termination of probation. To be clear, a b 1816 does not apply to individuals who are not in compliance. It applies to people who have been compliant with their terms of probation.

Further, the real problem with this bill is that the language is vague. Successful completion of probation is not defined in the law and can be extremely subjective. On the other hand, a violation of probation is well defined in the law. And so because successful completion is not, it leaves it, overly vague and subject to the discretion of a judge, who may not understand what it means.

The bill discriminates against the population that is already heavily stigmatized in our society and will be subjected to increased scrutiny and requirements, in most cases, already for life.

Keeping people on probation longer is a significant cost to the state and was a contributing factor for the passage of ab 1950. One of the many reasons the legislature passed ab 1950 which set time limits on probation in California is because the legislature acknowledged that the lengthier period probation periods increase the risk of reincarceration for arbitrary or technical violations. Moreover, studies demonstrate the probation services such as mental health care and substance time.

I'm sorry. Thank you very much for your testimony. If you remain right there, we may have an opportunity to ask some questions of you, and you could continue your testimony then. Okay. So thank you.

Next, we'll hear the Me Too's in opposition to the bill. Come on down.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of Vera California in opposition.

Deputy public defender Estetra Mendez representing local 148 in opposition.

Lesli Caldwell Houston for California Public Defenders Association in opposition.

Good morning, mister chair members. Mica Doctoroff on behalf of Smart Justice California in opposition.

Katarina Sayally, Community Works in opposition.

Shivani Nashar on behalf of Initiate Justice in opposition.

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

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

Good morning. Kim Nguyen with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in Opposition.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU Cal Action in Opposition.

Alright. Thank you all. Anyone else hoping to be heard on the bill? I saw our minority leader walk in. I almost thought he got into the oppose line, and that really had me going there for a moment. Good to see you, Mister ....

Alright. With that, we'll turn it back to the day as colleagues. As a reminder, we don't yet have quorum, so we can't dispense with the bill. But if there's questions or comments, now would be the appropriate time. Any questions or comments from members of the committee?

I only have one assembly member Davies. Having listened to the concern from the opposition witness, especially about the vagueness of some of the language in the bill, I guess my question is twofold. Do you have a response to the opposition testimony? And should the bill advance out of committee, can I get a commitment from you to continue to meet with the opposition and to the extent possible, try to find common ground on clarity on the statute?

Yes. Absolutely. I would definitely meet across the aisle, and I do have my witness that would like to respond to her comments,

if I may, through the chair. Thank you. I I would know, you know, this bill really is about ensuring continuity and completion of programs. And so it was structured in the way of of requiring the court to make a finding based off the factors of the case. And obviously, you know, those factors are laid out in things of rules of court and and statute.

And so, continue talking about that. But I think, you know, we're not changing any of the options available to the court around other processes. I know revocation and different things were noted.

This is really just about the option to extend and that flexibility when they make a finding based on the facts of those circumstances that completion of a court ordered requirement has not yet been met in order to, again, make sure that that we are finalizing treatment and that they are then completing that as they return, you know, to their communities.

Alright. Thank you very much. And in fairness, if the opposition witness has anything else in maybe thirty seconds or less that you think the committee should know, I'd like to hear that at this time.

Yes. Absolutely. Hearing the witness talk about option to extend, that's unnecessary if the person is not in violation. If the person hasn't met their requirements, then they are in violation, and probation will be extended. So this question of what successful completion means is overly subjective because it's not defined in the law.

And that makes it potentially arbitrary and capricious how a judge might determine, oh, this person hasn't violated any conditions, but maybe they haven't they didn't participate enough in class or something like that. And that would be not successful completion in one judge's mind, but not another. And I think the problem is we wanna limit the amount of time that people spend on probation that is wasteful and save resources for those who really need to be on probation because they're in violation.

Thank you. Alright. Thank you all very much. Assembly member Davies, although we don't yet have a quorum, if you'd like to give a close now, and then we'll keep it open for a motion later.

Thank you, mister chair. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Alright. Thank you all very much. I'll just briefly note for later and for staff watching. The chair appreciates Assemblymember Davies for working with the committee. I think there's still some conversations to be had, but to allow those to continue, I will recommend an aye for today at the appropriate time.

Thank you all very much for being here. With that, I see that we have, next in terms of sign in order, assembly member Elhawary. Assembly member Elhawary is here to present on item number 29. This would be Assembly Bill 2593. Assembly member, your time begins when you start speaking.

And as a reminder, your witnesses will each have two minutes to address the committee.

Good morning, mister chair and members. I am proud to present AB 2593 a bill that ensures that when we take someone into custody, we take on the responsibility of caring for them. Right now, that responsibility is not being met. People who are incarcerated are still having their care delayed, denied, and overridden by non-medical staff, and the consequences are preventable. Worsening conditions, unnecessary suffering, and in some cases, even death.

This is why this is exactly why California's prison health care system remains under federal receivership. While the law says that care cannot be denied, the reality is that accountability is unclear, and the system continues to fail these patients. That creates a creates a system where harm can happen without consequences and where patients have nowhere to turn. And as we know, systems like this don't impact everyone equally.

These failures fall hardest on vulnerable communities, including communities of color and people living with chronic conditions who rely on consistent, timely care.

AB 2593 addresses this by clearly prohibiting any staff, administrator, or supervisor from interfering with care prescribed by a licensed health care professional. This is about making sure incarcerated patients actually receive the care their doctors prescribe and that providers can do their jobs without interference. It will help prevent avoidable harm, reduce long term costs, and improve overall public health outcomes.

At its core, this bill is about accountability and basic human rights because incarcerated individuals have a right to care, and no one should be standing in the way of that. AB 2593 is about making sure we meet this fundamental responsibility.

Joining me today is Dr. Jennifer Villa, the Union of American Physicians and and Dentists. Excuse me, President of the Union of American Physicians and Dentists. Maybe not close close by.

Yeah. And executive director Doug Chapeta. Oh, just and Gary. Okay. You know we got different people in the house. This is Gary Cooper. I'm sorry.

Mr. Chairman and members, Gary Cooper representing the Union of American Physicians and Dentists, and we're very proud to have supported and sponsor AB 2593. And with that, I will turn it over to doctor Jennifer Villa, who has a lot to say because she has been a doctor in a prison, and she's very well experienced in this issue. Dr. Villa.

So one of the primary goals, this bill will accomplish is to ensure that inmates get the specialty care that they need. When CDCR developed their medication assisted treatment program for treatment of substance use disorder, it was clear that psychiatrists were best suited to manage substance use disorder for many reasons. However, it was incorporated into primary care.

Primary care providers were told that treating substance use disorder was mandatory and that they would even pursue charges of patient abandonment against providers who did not feel qualified to treat substance use disorder given the limited training. Also, there were extremely strict guidelines on how substance use disorder treatment would be implemented on a day to day basis.

This culminated in a public employment relations board unfair labor practice lawsuit for $13,900,000, which was won by the primary care providers. This is simply to illustrate that the pressure on primary care providers is real and that CDCR has demonstrated a clear disregard for primary care provider autonomy and professional judgment at times. This bill would allow PCPs to exercise the same autonomy in the practice of substance use disorder treatment as they have in other areas of medicine.

The other area I think this where this bill will have a real impact on inmate health is specialty referrals. Specialty referrals must be approved by a supervisor, and they are often denied.

Inmates know that they need a specialty referral, and it causes genuine distress when these referrals are denied, not to mention less than optimum care. For both of these reasons, this bill would support the health and well-being of CDC our inmates.

Alright. Thank you very much, Assembly Member, and thank you to both of your witnesses for your testimony. We're gonna pause here just momentarily. Don't go anywhere, folks. Madam secretary, I see we have a quorum.

Can you please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Okay. We have a quorum present. So thank you both. I thank all three of you. Next, we'll hear the "Me Too's" in support of this measure.

So if you'd like to be heard in support, please come down. As a reminder, your comment should be confined to your name, your organization, and the position you're taking. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. George Osborn for the Union of American Physicians and Dentists, in support.

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

Greg Garner, Drug Policy Alliance, in support.

Conrad Crump with Disability Rights California, in support.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU Cal Action, in proud support.

Alia Griffing with the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, proud co-sponsor. Thank you.

Kevin Guzman with the California Medical Association, in support.

Good morning. Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center, in support.

Tina-Marie Silva, CCWP, California Coalition for Women Prisoners, in support.

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

Hien Win with the Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, in support.

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

Shivani Nishar on behalf of Initiate Justice, in support.

Katarina Sayally, Community Works, in support.

Alright. Thank you, everybody. Next, we'll go to witnesses hoping to be heard in opposition. Do we have anyone here in opposition? Okay.

Seeing no affirmative response. Do you have anyone else who wants to be heard on the bill? Any position at all? Okay. Easy enough.

We'll turn it back to the day. So are there questions or comments? Great. With a motion and a second, any other discussion? Alright.

Assembly Member, would you like to give a closing comment?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Very good. Thank you, Assembly Member. The recommendation, colleagues, is an aye. With a motion and a second, let's call the roll.

For item 29 AB 2593 by Assemblymember Elhawary, the motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

That motion is out. We'll keep it open though for those to add on later. Thank you all for being here.

Thank you so much.

Okay. Next, we have Assemblymember Krell. Assemblymember, if, if I might oh, I apologize. Just to confirm, is Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris

No. Then it'll be, assembly member Krell next. Assembly member, before we go to your bill, if I can just dispense with the consent calendar. That's alright? Okay.

And for the record, that was wonderful, you guys. On the consent calendar is item 14 ab 1927 by Assembly member Krell entitled Bail Consumer Protection Act. We also have item 26, Assembly bill 2502 by Assembly member Pellerin entitled vehicles driving under the influence, driving automation. With a motion and a second, let's conduct the roll.

[Roll Call]

Consent calendar is adopted. With that, Assemblymember Krell, you can begin whenever you're ready.

Thank you so much. Good morning, everyone. I bring to you today Assembly Bill 1538. This is a short, simple bill that prohibits any elected or appointed official from using their political power for the purposes of retribution. What we're seeing throughout this country is a backsliding on our democratic values.

We need to make sure that people are free to exercise their constitutional rights, that those rights are not suppressed, and that people in positions of authority use that authority to do the people's bidding, not to exert political retaliation. With me today to testify for this bill is Louis Russell. Louis Russell is a high school student. He's a junior at, CK McClatchy High School. He helped to organize, the student march.

I don't know if you guys noticed, but about 5,000 students were here at the capitol, earlier this year, and he helped to organize that protest and exercise his constitutional rights. He's also a current participant, in my junior legislator program. Also with me here today is Vanessa Kahina, who represents the, California News Publishers Association. Thanks so much.

Thank you. And before your witnesses present, if I can ask the sergeants, if to the extent possible, if we can keep the door closed just to minimize external, noise so we can hear the witnesses. Thank you. Alright. With that, who will be testifying first?

Okay. Alright. You have two minutes.

Good morning, to the chair and members. My name is Louie Russell, like she said, and I'm a student activist who works with, Assemblymember Crowell's Young Legislators Program. And in my eyes, ab 1538 is an essential piece of legislation. It prioritizes our constitutional rights, especially to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. And the bill creates an approach to address this gross misuse of authority that we're seeing right now by elected and appointed officials in our state and national governments.

Me and my fellow students have been organizing protests, including the protest on January 30, and we had an enormous amount of people come out. But we also had people who said they supported what we wanted to do, but they didn't wanna come out because they were afraid of retaliation. They were afraid they would be arrested by federal or state law enforcement officers. And we feel like that's something that can exist in a functioning democracy.

And we think that, AB 1538 will help to fight back against this fear.

And we think it safeguards our constitutional rights. It sets a precedent that we hope other states will follow. And for students like me and for people who were looking to express their freedom of speech and to stand up for their beliefs, It means safety to defend those beliefs without fear of retaliation. It checks the power of public officials, and it helps the public to place our trust in them.

And so for these reasons and for the sake of the people of California, I ask the committee to vote aye in favor of AB 1538. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members. Vanessa Cajina with KP Public Affairs on behalf of the California News Publishers Association here to support AB 1538. CNPA was founded on the mission to protect news media and to foster free press in the news profession. We thank the committee for its attention to this critical issue and the author for working to ensure journalism is protected from undue pressure and reporting stories that the public needs to hear. News media is the cornerstone of a free society.

Here in California, there have been a rising number of incidents involving the arrests of reporters and news publication employees who are simply doing their jobs. This includes publications reporting nationally who were later detained and arrested in California. It's not just the high profile examples that we hear about, but also small publications and independent outlets against whom charges are brought. Indeed, Reporters Without Borders, an international group focused on preserving freedom of information, points to The United States downward slide on

the press freedom index. Points to The United States downward slide on the press freedom index. Actions this past summer in Los Angeles also demonstrate the threats the press faces and retaliatory actions taken by authority figures. There is not only trust by the public in their news outlets, but in their officials that they elect to office. Using public office to chill speech is something against which we must take a stand. For those reasons, the California News Publishers is proud to support ab 1538.

Thank you very much for your presentation, assembly member, and both of you for your testimony. Young man, was this your first time testifying in the capital?

It was.

Well done. You did it under two minutes. You're a pro. And then just to be, clear, assembly member, just on record, are you accepting the committee amendments?

Yes. And thanks, to the committee for their work on this bill.

You got it. Thank you. Next, we'll hear from the Me Too's in support of the bill. If you'd like to be heard in support of the bill, please come down at this time.

Good morning, mister chair and members. Kathy Van Austen, American Association of University Women, California, in support.

Thank you. One more call. If anyone's hoping to be heard in support of the bill, please come on down. Use that microphone right there. Name, organization, and position, please.

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

Thank you, mister chair. Michael Young on behalf of the California Teachers Association also in support.

Mister chairman, members Randy Perry on behalf of Porac in support.

Alright. Thank you very much, everybody. Do we have anyone here hoping to testify in opposition? Going once, going twice. Okay.

Are there any other me too's? Anyone wanna register a position on the bill? Okay. There's at least one.

Real quick. Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU Cal Action. Just wanna thank the author and her staff for working on the bill, and we look forward to reviewing the amendments. Thanks.

Alright. Unless there's anyone else dying to be heard on the bill, we'll turn it back to the days. Questions, comments, motions, all appropriate at this time. We have a motion by Assemblymember Winn. Is there a second?

We have a second by mister Gonzales. Any other questions or comments from the dais? Okay. We'll turn it back to you, assembly member Krell, for a brief close.

I respectfully request your aye vote.

You're you're a pro too. That was easy. Now with all due respect, appreciate working with the author on this one. Appreciate her taking the amendments. Happy to recommend an aye for today with a motion and a second. Let's call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. That measure passes, but we'll allow members to add on later. Thank you, everybody. Alright. Seeing no other author here, I do see mister Flora present, and mister Flora is here to present on item number 28.

This is assembly bill 2584. Before you begin assembly member, you can sit down. That's okay. As you well, as your witnesses. Just wanna make a call out for the following authors if your staff is listening in.

This is an order of sign in. We have Assembly member Petrie Norris, then assembly member Wilson. We have Assembly member Zbur, assembly member Gabriel, assembly member Gipson. So if you're listening in, please have them report here. Alright.

Mister Flora, whenever you're ready. Alright. We have a motion by Lackey.

Thank you, Tom. Thank you, colleagues and members. First, I wanted to accept the committee's amendments, and I appreciate working with the committee and the chair, to move this bill forward. Today, I'm presenting AB 2584, amend the civil code section 50 to reinforce civil immunity for those who lawfully defend themselves.

My witness today are Mike Beltran, an MMA referee for the California State Athletic Commission, as well as Jason Mills, a a veteran of the US Army Rangers and the head of Gracie Jiu Jitsu in Elk Grove. Respectfully turn over to my witnesses.

Hello. Good morning, everyone. My name is Mike Beltran. Just to give you a little bit about myself. I'm a 32 year veteran of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department with my last six years with the DEA.

Also, United States Marine in addition to black belt in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. And I've been fortunate enough to referee mixed martial arts, not only in the state of California and throughout the world. So as far as when it comes down to the AB twenty five eighty four bill, I take a very strong position in supporting this bill. For one, it's something that is very important to understand what self defense is for individuals such as yourselves, myself, and people who have a trained perishable skill set.

What I mean by that is in addition to someone starting a fight with you or becoming an aggressor towards you, okay, it is important that we are able, not just me, but everybody in here, be able to defend themselves intelligibly so that threat doesn't become harmful to the individual.

With defending yourself and having that perishable skill set, this allows you to see a threat that's coming towards you and be able to apply what you know and the skill set that you have. For example, if someone comes up to you and confronts you, you see the threat, but you also don't want to engage. You try to deescalate a situation by talking to them, bringing it down. Sometimes folks don't understand that, and they want to engage and close the gap between you and that individual.

If something happens there after that because you try to defend yourself or you allow yourself to get hit or struck, which could cause death or great bodily injury to an individual.

That is not what we want. We wanna be able to defend ourselves intelligibly to create distance, call for help, restrain an individual with that skill set we have by calling the police. Be aware of your surroundings. Maybe you have to leave and exit the situation as soon as possible so you can call law enforcement to come down and effectively do their their job.

With this bill here, it it it protects you from not only engaging in a situation that you may or may not lose the situation, but you don't get sued.

You don't you're you're protected. And I think as as American patriots and as patriots here and as citizens of this great country and the state And, sir? Yes, sir.

I'm sorry to interrupt you. You're about two and a half minutes in. I'm fine to let you use the whole four minutes. I just wanted to point out to mister Flores, it's a four minute total for witnesses. So happy to give you the remainder of the time if that's the Assemblymember's prerogative.

Yes. You know what? Thank you very much for for I think I you guys get my point for the most part, and I want I'm gonna pass it over to my partner here, Jason.

Thank you, mister chairman. Members of the committee, good morning. Thank you for taking the time to listen to our statements. My name is Jason Mills. I am the head instructor of Gracie Jiu Jitsu Elk Grove, and I'm also a retired army combat veteran.

To be clear, I am not I was not a ranger, but I did support the army rangers. I'm here to today to share with you my perspective on the bill being proposed at today's hearing. I'm speaking to you in my personal capacity. I do not represent Gracie the views of Gracie Jiu Jitsu, Gracie University, or the United States Army. In my school, we teach self defense focused training to our students.

Our main goal is to give our students solutions to tactical situations. Our strategy, centers on managing distance in order to manage the damage. To that end, we teach several pre attack indicators that of an attacker's intent to strike. Indicators such as bladed stance, bald fist, forward movement, elevated tone, and hostile speech are well established indicators of hostile intent. The they are so well known that they are taught to law enforcement officers.

Once an attack is determined to be imminent, we teach legally, ethically, and morally acceptable tactics to create distance to escape. If escape is not possible and physical force becomes necessary, we teach our students to close the distance in order to control the aggressor's balance. Our goal is twofold. Prevent our own injury of the or the injury of others and control the situations in order to keep the attacker as safe as possible.

While the current law allows for the the use of self defense when attacked, it often relies on the the definition of an attack as being one that requires the attacker to physically assault a victim before the self defense actions are justified.

In other words, a first attack can often be a final attack. Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not advocating for the use of an unreasonable level of force just because someone uses foul language. I am saying that, however, that there are a confluence of factors that can indicate to a reasonable person that an assault is imminent. In that case, I feel that the law should recognize that that preventable preventative physical actions by a potential victim constitutes a valid self defense standard.

And, sir, sorry to cut you off. That is two minutes. I know it goes awfully quick, but thank you for being here. Please stay right where you're seated. We may have questions.

Do we have anyone just to jump ahead? Anyone here hoping to testify in opposition to the bill? Show of hands. Okay. You might be okay where you're seated, sir.

I'll let you know later. With that, we'll take the me too's. Those hoping to be heard in support of the bill, please come down at this time and state your name, organization, and position, please. If you're hoping to be heard in support of the bill, this would be the time.

Hi, everyone. Thank you for having me here. My name is Hector Fajardo. I'm a professional MMA fighter and the director of operations for the combat youth program here at Sacramento State University. I'm here in support of this bill. I serve Sir,

I'm sorry. That that's all we can take during the me too portion, but thank you, and we have registered your support of the bill.

Oh, awesome. Thank you very much. You guys have a nice day.

Thank you For being here. Alright. Next.

My name is Andy Foster. I'm just here as a private citizen, and I'm here to support the bill.

Wonderful. Thank you both very much. Anyone else hoping to be heard in support of the bill? Okay. I'll ask one more time.

Is there anyone here hoping to testify in opposition to the bill? Okay. I see no response. Is there anyone else who's hoping to register a position on the bill? Good, bad, or indifferent?

Okay. We'll turn it back to the dais. Any questions or comments looking at you vice chair? Second. Alright.

We have a motion and a second. Just to clarify, so member Flora, you are taking the committee amendments today?

Yes, sir.

Thank you very much. Any other questions or comments? Okay. Mister Flora, you have the chance to close.

Just respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Alright. Well, thank you very much. Colleagues, this is a relatively rare instance, but the chair has no recommendation on this one. In full disclosure, I'll probably be voting aye. I will be because I have to vote in a minute.

I wanted to just note that the committee amendments take out most of the portions of the bill except for the proposed elimination to any potential civil liability against a person who lawfully uses defensive force unless that person was the primary aggressor and subsequently suffers injury or in the instance where that person uses disproportionate force. Assembly member, I just wanna say on the record what I told you yesterday in our conversation.

Should this make it to the floor unchanged, I don't know that I would vote for it. I do have concerns about eliminating civil liability. However, that's not the purview of this committee, today.

And so in the spirit of good faith and an appreciation for your working with the committee and in consideration of your witness's time today, I will be voting aye. Although, technically, the chair has no recommendation. Okay. I hear we do have an opposition. Is a testimony or just a re sure. Come on down and register your your opposition.

Thank you. My name is Shayla Wilson. I'm here in opposition to this bill on behalf of La Defensa and the Justice Jobs Coalition.

Thank you very much. Alright. Anyone else hoping to be heard? Okay. With that, we have the lack of recommendation.

We have a motion and a second. Let's call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. That measure passes and you'll be on your way to judiciary. Although, we'll keep it open for others to add on later. Alright. Thank you very much, everybody. Appreciate your time.

Thank you.

And I see that we have mister Punctual himself, mister Zbur, he is here. Are you ready? I'm ready. Yes. Alright.

Mister Zbur, thank you for being here. You're the first person to answer the call for witnesses, so it is appreciated by the committee. Colleagues, this is item 21 on your agenda. This is assembly bill 2217. Is that correct, Assemblymember Zbur?

Yes. Okay. Just as a reminder, you'll be able to present as soon as you begin speaking. That's when your time starts. As for your two witnesses, they'll have two minutes each to address the committee.

Good morning. Thank you, mister chair, members. I'm proud to present ab 2217 sponsored by the Drug Policy Alliance and Californians for Safety and Justice, which will allow the law enforcement assisted diversion programs, otherwise known as LEED, to be renamed the alternatives to rest to continue connecting California's most vulnerable residents to critical services and expand the program throughout the state of California. Too often, poverty is criminalized and individuals who are simply seeking to provide for their basic needs are incarcerated.

However, incarceration does not address the root causes of crime. In fact, it only exacerbates the underlying issues of poverty, instability, lack of access to resources, and lack of housing that contribute to crime.

Established in 2017, law enforcement assisted diversion program or LEED allows law enforcement officers to refer someone to a case manager for immediate crisis services instead of making an arrest. The program foes focuses on individuals with low level repeat offenses where the underlying issue is often homelessness, mental health needs, or substance use. These referrals are voluntary. They're made at the officer's discretion and connect people to housing, health care, mental health support, and substance use treatment when it's appropriate.

An evaluation of the LEAD program found that it not only reduced recidivism and lowered crime, but it also successfully connected participants to housing services and nonjudgmental individualized help.

In 2017, ab 2217 will rename the program as alternatives to arrest and will add petty theft, second degree burglary, and trespass to the list of offenses eligible for referral through the program. The bill will also allow local jurisdictions the flexibility to add additional offenses if agreed upon by the local law enforcement and public health leadership. We can't arrest our way out of poverty, mental health challenges, or addiction.

AB 2217 recognizes the simple truth and instead expands this research backed program, which connects vulnerable individuals to housing, health care, and mental health support and substance use treatment. Members, I ask for your I vote at the appropriate time.

And with me today in support of the bill, Rebecca Brown, consulting expert for the law enforcement assisted diversion support bureau, and Glenn Backes on behalf of the Drug Policy Alliance.

Good morning. Glenn Backes for Drug Policy Alliance. The bill renews the grants program through Bureau of State and Community Corrections. The goal is to give law enforcement another tool to allow them to identify need high needs individuals, people who need social services, and connect them to case managers who can get them into housing, drug treatment, and systems of care. The other goal is to reduce recidivism crime and public disorder.

The grant dollars may be used for community outreach and engagement, service costs including drug treatment, housing, and case management, dedicated prosecutorial resources, and dedicated law enforcement resources as well as data collection. This builds on experience in 90 jurisdictions across The US that demonstrate that cooperation between police officers, case managers, and others can reduce crime. A couple key stats from the successful project in Los Angeles. Comparing people who were referred by police officers to case managers to those who were not.

Those who were referred by police officers to case management were 80% less likely to get a felony arrest in the next year, and they were 50% less likely to get a misdemeanor arrest in the next year.

The program in Los Angeles has proven popular with law enforcement, including LAPD and Lancaster PD. However, the county department of health reports that they're close to capacity and that without additional funding above their county allocation that they may need to stop taking referrals the next twelve months. This bill and accompanying budget action will allow LA to grow and allow BSCC to identify other jurisdictions that are ready to pilot and evaluate similar programs. We respectfully yes or no vote.

Chair Schultz, vice chair Alanis, and distinguished members, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'm Rebecca Brown, a Contra Costa County resident with twenty five years experience designing and improving justice systems in California and nationally. I serve as consulting expert for the lead support bureau, which is the nation's leading resource for prebooking diversion, policy development training, and technical assistance.

In 2016, I served on the Board of State Community Corrections executive steering committee that implemented California's SB eight forty three, the $15,000,000 pilot that seeded the successful lead programs now operating across Los Angeles County. That history is the foundation for a b twenty two seventeen, which reflects the state's commitment to deploying public safety solutions that strengthen community well-being.

What LEED does is bay based on the LEED the well established LEED model, the bill gives law enforcement a practical alternative for people repeatedly arrested due to chronic mental illness, substance use disorder, or poverty. Redirecting them

I apologize to interrupt your testimony. Could you pull the microphone just a little closer so folks at home can hear? Thank you.

I'm rarely asked to talk louder. Based on the well established lead model, this bill gives law enforcement a practical alternative for people repeatedly arrested due to chronic mental illness, substance use disorder, or poverty, redirecting them into coordinated community based health and social services instead of the costly cycle of arrest, prosecution, and rearrest. In each community, the model works through collective local governance. Law enforcement, prosecutors, public agencies, service providers, and neighborhood leaders jointly build and steward this non punitive system of ongoing multi agency case coordination.

Launched in 2011 and now operating more than 90 jurisdictions, LEED has proven effective across varied political and local contexts.

Individual, independent evaluations show that it has reduced recidivism, increases legal income, and improves individual outcomes. Four features is up to find the lead model, population, case management, voluntary, and shared governance. And this builds on California's own proven track record, and I urge a yes vote.

Alright. Thank you very much for the presentation, assembly member, and thank you both for your testimony. Now we'll hear the me too's in support of the bill.

Good morning. Capri Walker with Californians for Safety and Justice Proud cosponsor in support.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of Vera California in support.

Deputy public defender Esther Mendez on behalf of Local 148 the LA Public Defender Union in support.

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

Conrad Kremp with Disability Rights California on behalf of the millions of Californians with disabilities in support.

Katarina Sayally on behalf of Community Works, in support.

Shivani Nashar on behalf of Initiate Justice, in support.

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

Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support.

Danny Munoz on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and all of us who are known, strong support.

April Grayson on behalf of Sister Warrior Freedom Coalition in support.

Ryan Elaine on behalf of the California Retailers Association in support. Thank you. Excellent. Thank you all very much. Do we have anyone here hoping to testify in opposition to the bill?

Okay. Seeing no response. Is there anyone hoping to register a position on the bill, neutral or otherwise? Okay. We'll turn it back to the dais.

Are there any questions or comments from members of the committee?

K. With a motion and a second, any other discussion? Alright. We're doing business today. Assembly member Zbur, you have a chance to close.

Thank you so much. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Well, thank you very much for bringing the bill forward. Assembly member, would be happy to jump on as a co author at the appropriate time. With that, I do recommend an aye, and let's conduct the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. That measure is on call. Just waiting for members, but I think you should be fine. Thank you very much. Alright.

Thank you. Colleagues, I'd like to go back very quickly. We heard but did not take a motion on item number 9 AB 1816 by Assembly Member Davies. Is there a motion at this time? Okay.

Is there a second? Okay. We we have a motion and a second. Let's conduct the roll.

For item 9, AB 1816 by Assembly Member Davies, the motion was do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. [ROLL CALL]

Ok. That measure remains on call.

Alright. We are currently waiting on authors. I'm gonna ask one of our colleagues to present in a moment.

But, again, if you're staffed for Petrie-Norris, Wilson, Gabriel, or Gipson, please come down to Room 126 at your earliest convenience. With that, we have and Assembly Member Stephanie is apparently on her way. But with that, we have the one and only Assembly Member Mark Gonzalez, who represents the largest territory I've ever heard. I hope he'll bake that into his opening comments. With that, Mr. Gonzalez, you have the floor whenever you're ready.

So honored to be here with you today, sir.

What?

There you go.

Do we have a motion? Dang. Alright. Doctor Sharp-Collins came to play. We have a motion. Is there a second? And a second? Alright. Mr. Gonzales, this is just fun time for you.

I know. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. First, I wanna thank the committee, the staff for their work on this bill, and to let you know that I will be accepting the committee's amendments. I'm proud to present AB 1941 a bill designated to confront a very real epidemic sweeping across our state, organized copper theft. AB 1941 will do two things.

One, strengthen enforcement against repeat offenders by creating a new category, organized metal theft, giving prosecutors enhanced tools and tackled coordinated or repeated crimes much like our retail theft laws.

Number two, it establishes a statewide data sharing system to give law enforcement clears sight lines into these organized operations so patterns can be seen and stopped before more damage is done. The scale of this crisis is staggering. Copper prices are at historic highs, and thieves are taking advantage, stripping our communities safety, lighting, and essential services.

These thefts, hit where it hurts most, critical public infrastructure, telecommunication lines, electrical, water utilities, traffic, and street lights.

Even fiber optic cables, which contain no copper at all, are targeted by these desperate to strip of anything of value. One stolen wire, one missing connection can ripple through a community.

911 lines cut, electricity gone, water disrupted, streets left in the darkness. This is not a victimless crime. It leaves abuelita shivering in the dark without heat or the risk of heat stroke with no AC, halts buses and trains, blacks out phone service in rural towns, and leaves entire neighborhoods exposed.

Cities from San Jose to Santa Monica, Richmond to Fresno to Burbank, Los Angeles itself are bearing the brunt. A striking example in my own district, the iconic 6th Street Bridge, our ribbon of light rebuilt in 2022, now lies dark. Thieves stowed nearly seven miles or 38,000 feet of copper wiring. Its street value, $11,000. The cost to repair the damage, $2,500,000, a bill taxpayers must shoulder.

Three years later, the bridge remains unlit, vulnerable to the same crime again. In Los Angeles alone, streetlight outage requests have more than doubled since 2021, reaching approximately 45,000 in 2024. Each case can take up to six months to even repair. Last year, I authored AB 476 to address this crisis requiring drunk dealers to attract sellers more closely and expanding protections for public infrastructure.

AB 1941 builds on that foundation, strengthening enforcement, protecting our essential services, and ensuring that our communities are not left in the dark literally and figuratively.

This bill is more about copper. It's about light in our streets, safety in our neighborhoods, and the promise that essential services will be there when we need them the most. This morning to testify in support is Amanda Gualderama with CalBroadband and Richmond City Council member and member of the League of Cities, Cesar Zepeda.

Thank you. Good morning, mister chair and members. Amanda Gualderama on behalf of California Broadband and Video Association. We are a cosponsor for AB 1941. The broadband and telecommunications industry provide the critical infrastructure that ensures access to 911 and emergency alert systems and is a vital link to the daily lives of Californians.

The rising market value of copper has created a powerful incentive for criminal theft and vandalism targeting communications and other infrastructure in California. In indiscriminate search for copper, bad actors sabotage modern communications facilities that may contain little or no copper, including fiber optic transmission lines, underground vaults, and wireless communications towers. These attacks can cause widespread outages, disrupt emergency communications, and jeopardize public safety.

As the assembly member stated, AB 1941 builds on previous efforts to tackle copper theft by establishing a new tool of organized metal theft, allowing prosecutors to pro to bring enhanced charges for coordinated thefts. Bill also supports improved information sharing among law enforcement agencies, public agencies, and private entities such as the telecommunications companies for a statewide database to help identify patterns, connect cases, and dismantle theft rings.

These incidents of theft and vandalism have become increasingly common and cause unnecessary service disruptions and threaten California consumers and businesses. AB 1941 gives California added added tools needed to stop coordinated theft rings that cut off 911 access, disrupt essential services, and endanger communities, unless we urge an aye vote on this bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Mr. Chair and council and Committee Members, my name is Cesar Zepeda, council member in the city of Richmond, and I am here representing the League of Cities California who is a proud sponsor of AB 1941.

As you may know, metal theft has become a costly issue for cities across California and the nation, severely impacting critical infrastructure components such as street lights, fire hydrants, manhole covers, electric vehicle charging stations, and the backflow prevention devices.

Thieves often target these public assets due to the high value of precious metals, specifically copper, leaving behind significant damage that endangers public safety and imposes burdensome repair costs on local governments and businesses. In June 2024, copper cable thefts disrupted 911 services in parts of West Contra Costa County, including Pinal, Hercules, and San Pablo.

The outages disrupt disrupted emergency communications for about a week, and then two men were arrested in June. The financial burden of repair, in replacing solar infrastructure components currently falls on tax payers, utility providers, and municipalities, draining resources that could otherwise be used for essential services.

AB 1941 would prohibit organized metal theft, which is defined as acting in concert with two or more persons to receive, purchase, or possess those metal materials that have been stolen.

This bill would also provide that a violation of this prohibition could be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony. This bill would also protect vital public infrastructure from ongoing damage by allowing prosecutors to bring enhanced charges for coordinated or repeated thefts.

In closing, on behalf of CalCities, we are in strong support of AB 1941 and urge the committee to pass this important legislature. Thank you.

Right. Thank you very much, Assembly Member, for your presentation and both of you for your testimony. Assembly Member, wanna go out of turn. Can you remind me I believe this is a a a big issue in your district. Can you remind me what is your district?

Do you really want that?

Yes, I'm, this is a legitimate question. What is your district?

54th District in the State. 70% of my district speaks another language other than, you know, just 85% of my are renters. The area that I represent is Pegu De MacArthur Park, Koreatown, East Hollywood, Little Bangladesh, historic Filipino town, Chinatown, Lincoln Heights, Historic State Park, Union Station, Downtown Los Angeles, Arts District, Little Tokyo, Boyle Heights, City Of Vernon, City Of Commerce, and City Of Montebello.

That gets me going every time. I love it. I really do. I do.

That was for Mr. Solange too.

You know, you you find odd things to make you happy in this job. I don't know why that does. Alright. With that, we'll go to the Me Too's. Thank you both for your testimony. Me Too's, come on down.

Impressive. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Michelle Balcava representing the County of Yolo in support.

Good morning. Kiara Ross on behalf of the City of Burbank Water and Power Agency in support. Thank you.

Max Barry on behalf of the California Police Chief Association and with permission on behalf of the San Francisco Police Officers Association in support. Thanks.

Nick Romo on behalf of the City Of San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, in support.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Members of Obed Franco here on behalf of the California Electric Transportation Coalition and CalCom in support.

Good morning, Chair, Members. Yolanda Benson, a proud sponsor of, AB 1941, US Telecom, the Broadband Association.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Jonathan Arambel on behalf of CTIA, the trade association for the wireless industry, also in support.

Mister Chair, Amir Johnson with AT&T in support.

Ashonte Smith with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group in support.

Michael Pimentel with the California Transit Association representing 85 transit and rail agencies in the state in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Nicole Kurian on behalf of the Office of Los Angeles Mayor, Karen Bass, in support.

Chair and Members, Nate Sullivan on behalf of Frontier Communications in support. Appreciate the hard work by the members, staff, and the committee. Thank you.

Mister Chair, Members, Corey Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriffs Association in support.

Alright. Thank you very much, everyone. Is there anyone here hoping to testify in opposition to the bill? Show of hands, anyone hoping to testify in opposition?

Okay. Great. Come on down. We have two seats right here with a microphone. Once you begin speaking, you'll have, if it's just you, you'll have two minutes to address oh, we have two witnesses.

Okay. So you'll each have two minutes to address the committee. Your time doesn't start until you begin speaking.

Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Katarina Sayally, and I'm here on behalf of Community Works in respectful opposition to AB 1941 though I'm looking forward to reviewing the amendments. As a mother of a young child, I think about safety every day. But let's be clear. This bill is not about safety.

It's about expanding punishment in a system that already over polices and over penalizes black and brown communities. Creating a new crime for organized metal theft and increasing penalties will not prevent harm. It will only deepen the existing racial disparities that have come to define our legal system. We already have laws that address theft. What this bill does is layer on harsher consequences that we know do not work.

Decades of research show that increasing punishment does not deter crime. At Community Works, we see every day what real safety looks like. Through our diversion programs, people take responsibility for the harm they caused, engage in months of reflection on its impact on both individuals in the broader community, and participate in restorative conferences with survivors and community members. They make accountability statements and agree to a concrete plan to repair the harm. This process works.

Participants in our programs are far less likely to reoffend than those processed through the traditional carceral system. That is what safety looks like. Accountability without incarceration, repair without destruction, and investment instead of punishment. This bill moves us in the opposite direction. It doubles down on a system that has never delivered safety equitably.

If we are serious about safety, we should be scaling the solutions that actually work. Community based diversion programs, social safety nets, food, housing, health care, and education, not expanding criminalization. For these reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote on ab 1941. Thank you.

Good morning, chair Schultz and members of the committee. My name is Shayla Wilson. I am the policy and advocacy adviser at La Defensa and here in opposition to AB 1941, which as you know, would unnecessarily create a new crime of organized metal theft. We're deeply concerned about the similarity of this proposed statute to the recent retail theft statute as we've already seen how that one is leading to further criminalization of black and brown communities.

While we understand the author's intent to address recent copper thefts across the state, we believe that the answer is not further criminalization of our communities.

In fact, local officials are already identifying innovative noncarceral solutions to copper metal theft. Los Angeles City Council member Eunice Hernandez has invested half $1,000,000 from her discretionary fund to install solar powered lights in Lincoln Heights and Cypress Park.

These will keep neighborhoods safe and lit even during power outages and ultimately prevent copper wire theft. This is not an isolated move as these lights are being installed throughout Los Angeles. For these reasons, we urge you to vote no on this bill. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you both very much for your testimony. Next, we'll hear from the Me Too's also in opposition to the bill. Please come on down. Name, organization, and position, please.

Thank you. Danny Munoz from Legal Services for Prisoners With Children. Strong opposition.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of Vera California in opposition.

Natalie Smith on behalf of All of Us or None in opposition.

Micah Doctoroff on behalf of Smart Justice California. We've opposed unless amended and appreciate the conversation we've had with the author's office and look forward to continuing it.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU Cal Action in strong opposition.

Ariana Montez, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice in opposition, we're reviewing the amendments.

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

Shivani Nishar on behalf of Initiate Justice in respectful opposition.

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

Alright. Thank you all very much for your testimony. And before we go on, I just wanna thank both of you for testifying today. I do listen to everything that's said in this room. I just wanna apologize if I'm ever speaking to a member of staff it's usually to coordinate the administrative issue.

But with that said, I appreciate all the testimony we've heard today. Mister Gonzalez, I do have, a pair of questions to lead us off. I was wondering, I had a chance to come visit your district, and you had a chance to sort of walk me through, at least partially, the inspiration for your bill. I'm wondering if you can share a bit about what you're seeing in your district, what inspired you to bring the bill forward, number one.

The second question will be, we did hear from the opposition witnesses some testimony about major concerns that they have with the bill. I'm wondering if you have a response to their concern.

Sure. Look, I, I think the conversation about black and brown communities that are losing street lights, same communities that are losing 911 access, same communities that are losing power, same communities that are losing AC.

I challenge you to join me in my district as we walk through the fifth poorest district in the state. There is that the member asked me to mention. Affluent West Side areas don't necessarily have this issue, and if they do, they get repaired like that.

Council district one, millions of dollars are barely going into putting these solar lights. The problem has been occurring every single year prior to COVID. People are cashing on that, and we've been working for people to do that. The definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. Nothing is getting done.

The more that we can increase these solar lights, the less value that this does have, but it's impacting our community. It's not fair that black and brown communities can continue to remain in the dark, and there's no solutions, for those areas.

I'll turn it over to my witnesses if they wanna add anything since they are here today. But I do appreciate the the ability to answer that because we are addressing this issue. And trust me, black and brown communities are frustrated the most at this. But we've gotta do something about it. But I'll let her, you wanna add on?

I think you said it well.

If I can just add, the City of Richmond is also installing solar lights, but they're very, very costly. And we have to then move money away from pavement and other public safety measures to try to catch up to keep our city in, out of the dark and into the lighting literally. So while it's the solar, I love it, and it's a great step. It also doesn't fix when they cut the lines for 911. We don't have solar for that.

It doesn't fix when the red lights go out. We don't have solar for that just yet. So it's it is a good step in the right direction, but I think that there's so many other pieces there. And how do we keep our community safe as the ultimate outcome? City of Richmond is 60% Latino, and none of us wanna be in the darkness. So thank you.

Alright. Thank you very much. I'd like to turn it to my colleagues. Are there questions or comments from other members of the committee? All two of you?

Three of you. I'm sorry, Mister Gonzalez. I assume you don't have a question.

No.

Okay. Fair enough. Alright. Mister Gonzalez, there being no other question, if you'd like to give a brief closing, the floor is yours.

Sure. Thank you, Mister Chair, and thank you to the members of the opposition. I mean, we, this is why we have these bills. We have these discussions. And, again, I, I do wanna have these conversations offline, have you come to my district and see what's happening there.

This bill sends a message. If you rip apart our neighborhoods for scrap, if you trade our safety for a quick dollar, if you leave our families in the dark, there will be consequences. Because this isn't just copper. It's a streetlight that never turns on. It's a 911 call that doesn't go through.

It's a grandmother sitting in the dark waiting for the power to come back on. It's a small business forced to close early. We cannot accept this as normal and business as usual. AB 1941 is how we draw the line, how we protect what keeps our communities running safe and seen. So let's turn the lights back on. Let's stand up for our neighborhoods. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Mister Gonzalez. Colleagues, Chair is recommending an aye. Appreciate the author taking the amendments, which I do think improve the bill. With that, do we have a motion?

Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Oh, boy. She gave me the stare. I'm not gonna forget that one. Alright. With the motion and the second, let's call the roll.

For item 15, AB 1941 by Assembly Member Mark Gonzales. The motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. [ROLL CALL]

Okay. That measure is on call as we wait for absent members. Thank you all very much for being here. Alright. Mister Gipson, thank you so much for coming down.

Colleagues, we're next gonna turn to item number 25 on your agenda. This is bill number 2499 by Assembly Member Gipson. Assembly Member, you can begin speaking whenever you're ready. Do you have witnesses in support today? Okay.

They're on their way. Great. They'll each have two minutes to address the committee. The floor is yours.

Thank you very much. I wanna say good morning, mister chairman and members. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 2499. Assembly Bill 2499 requires the California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation to strengthen protections for incarcerated individuals and workers. I wanna underscore workers who are living and laboring inside of our state, correctional facilities.

Let me be clear. No one, and I repeat, no one regardless of their circumstances should be should be subjected to dangerous, inhumane conditions. Yet across California, our prisons are increasingly exposed to extreme weather conditions that put lives at risk because of aging infrastructures and inadequate ventilation systems. Indoors temperatures in these facilities, regardless of I mean, regular, regular, exceeding to 90 degree heats. There are not just uncomfortable conditions.

They are dangerous, especially for individuals with existing health conditions. These are conditions that would violate workplace safety laws virtually in any other settings, and yet they persist behind prison walls. Prison prison walls. They persist behind prison walls where accountabilities is too often out of sight and out of mind. Under California's laws, incarcerated individuals are recognized as workers, but in practice, they are not afforded the same level of protections. They would be otherwise demanding by state workers or in other places.

This gap is real, but we have the authority and the responsibility to close that gap right here and right now. In 2024, Adrianne Beulworth died from extreme heat exhaustion inside of a central Californian women's facility. She was less than one year away from being released from prison. Her death is not just a statistic.

It's a it's a tragic tragedy, and it's a warning. A warning that we have failed her and others, and we need to make sure that this never happens to anyone in our state facilities ever again in the state of California. And that's why assembly bill 2499 is important. Assembly bill 2499 is about accountability. It is about dignity, and it is about assuring that our correctional facility and systems reflect the values that we come to uphold in the state of California.

And we can do better, and we must do better, and we must do better now. And that's why I'm standing behind and authoring Assembly Bill twenty four ninety nine With me to to stand in support of assembly bill twenty four ninety nine is Lawrence Cox, the regional advocate and organizer for association for legal services for prisoners with children who will speak and support. And also, we have the daughter of Adrian who will self introduce the daughter of Adrian who will talk about her mother. So mister Cox?

Thank you, mister Gibson. Good morning, chair and committee members. My name is Lawrence. I am the regional advocacy and organizing associate for LSPC and All of Us or None. I speak from my professional capacity, but I also speak from lived experience.

As someone who has spent close to two decades incarcerated, I know what extreme heat and cold behind prison walls feels like because I survived it. I have worked and lived in facilities where the air did not cool you, it punished you. When it was a 100 degrees outside and in any given working area or living quarters, it was at least 10 to 15 degrees hotter. Relief was rare and often nonexistent.

I can remember soaking sheets in water and wrapping them around my body just to cool from the heat.

I remember heat rashes, skin damage, compounding in unfamiliar mental health episodes of panic and anxiety, and the psychological pressure of feeling trapped. I remember the fear that came with the disasters and emergency conditions. The threat of wildlife wildfire, excuse me, blazes with immediate proximity, smoke rushing through cracks and ventilation shafts, the confusion, the neglect, the terrifying reality of being locked behind those walls while staff evacuated themselves. That's not safety. That's actual abandonment.

In multiple offices of the inspector general's audits, it was found that temperature in the prisons could not consistently be maintained with CDCR's own 68 to 89 degree guidelines, and that staff did not consistently complete required heat logs. Also, that CDCR was unable to evacuate incarcerated people and staff at most prisons within the first seventy two hours of an emergency. And they also lack specific external evacuation plans. AB twenty four ninety nine does not demand reckless spending or immediate system system wide retrofits.

It is a practical bill focused on material protections, transparency, monitoring, mitigation, and procedures. It recognizes that the legislative analyst on this report has

Sir, I'm so sorry to interrupt you. That is two minutes and I just wanna save two minutes for the other witness as well. Thank you. But thank you for your testimony.

Thank you.

Hello, chair and members. My name is Tyresha Reed. My mother is Adrienne Bowyer. On July 6, my mother died while she was incarcerated at the Chowchilla women's prison. It wasn't because of natural causes.

It was because of heat related, incidences. My mother leaves left behind four kids, 12 grandkids who she loved dearly, a lot of other family members as well. My mother was not just an inmate. She was a human. She was a human that deserved the basic adequate necessities that any one of us would have deserved and needed as well.

Just because someone is incarcerated does not mean that they shouldn't have heat or air or the basic necessities. Even the animals at the zoo have at least that. And I feel like this bill would support that a 100%. My mother was also very young, and she could have been here today. She could have witnessed her grandkids growing up.

She was so close to coming home. We've spent days talking to her every single day. My children and my siblings' children cry every single day because their nana was supposed to come home and she didn't, and this could have been preventable. So I'm asking you guys to see this as a chance to prevent what we went through and experienced from happening to other families and other children whose loved ones are coming home. Thank you.

Assembly member, thank you very much for bringing the bill forward, and thank you both for your testimony today. I say this often, but I mean it every time to talk about what you have both been through, all those separate experiences. I can't imagine it gets any easier every time you tell that story. Really appreciate you being here today so that the committee can hear your perspective. Thank you.

Alright. Can we take the Me Too's also in support of the bill?

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

Thank you. Thank you.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU Cal Action and proud support.

Shivani Nashar on behalf of Initiate Justice and proud support.

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

Katarina Sayally on behalf of Community Works in support.

In the memory of Adrienne Bollware and Faye McCabe, Tianbury Silva, California Coalition of Women Prisoners in support.

Danny Munoz on behalf of legal services prisoners with children, Santa Clara County Waste Life Coalition, WorkSafe, Legal Aid at Work, Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto, strongly support.

Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support.

Mica Doctoroff on behalf of Smart Justice California and support.

I'm Cynthia Rogers and I support. Antonia Jefferson and I support.

Chaunte Rogers and I support.

Deontay Howard, Adrian was my auntie and I support.

Bernie Singh with legal services for prisoners with children, I support.

Jason Hanel on behalf of SB California in support.

Nedrick Miller, all of us in Sacramento, of course, I support. Thank you.

April Bryson, Sister Warrior Freedom Coalition, and strong support. My name is Selene Nguyen. I'm a student from UCLA, and I support

Hi. I'm Jasmine Madrigal. I'm from UCLA, and I support this bill.

Danica Rodana on behalf of the Grip Training Institute and strong support.

Hi. My name is Caitlin Tsui. I'm a student from UCLA, and I'm in support of this bill.

My name is Kayla Chen. I'm a student at UCLA, and I'm in support of this bill.

My name is Coco D'Angelo. I'm a student at UCLA, and I support this bill.

Hi. My name is Ava Johnson. I'm from UCLA, and I'm in support of this bill.

Hi. My name is Emily Sue. I'm from UCLA. I'm in I'm in support of this bill.

Marco Duncan at Legal Services for Children. I'm in support of this bill.

I'm Cassandra Gorman with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in strong support of this bill.

Saskia Perks on behalf of California civil liberties advocacy and support.

Camriah Walker with Californians for safety and justice and support.

Shayla Wilson on behalf of the Justice Jobs Coalition and Law Defensa in support.

Ariana Montes with on behalf of the California attorneys for criminal justice in support.

Niani Miles, I support. Sierra Warren, chief Adrianne was my mother-in-law, I support.

Savon Griggs with Movement for Life and strong support.

Thank you all very much for your testimony today here in our state's capital. Thank you to all of the loved ones who came to voice their support for the bill, and thank you to all of our students from UCLA. It's great to see young people involved and advocating so early. Alright. Is there anyone here hoping to testify in opposition to the bill?

Okay. I don't see any response there. Anyone else hoping to register an opinion on the bill one way or the other? Okay. We'll turn it back to the dais.

Are there questions or comments from members of the committee? Doctor Sharp Collins.

Yeah. Thank you. Thank you so much for bringing forth this this piece of legislation, and thank you to the family and those that are here to to provide testimony. I always talk about putting a face to this, and I I do truly feel for you. I wasn't gonna speak on this, but you guys are here, and this says a lot.

This bill for me is about quality of life. This is something that I've heard about. I've seen. I've taken tours of different facilities, and I have to admit I'm not okay with the current infrastructure. These prisons have been built well before, you know, some of us well before all this climate change stuff is happening.

But it makes me think about all of us in this room. How do we feel when we walk outside and it's a hundred and 200 and two? You know, it's a 104. We are quick to try to find some air condition, a fan, or someplace, but then they don't have that opportunity. And that's not fair to them at all.

I understand that you're in prison. There's things that have happened, but you still deserve your quality of life. There's so many people who have diabetes. It could be lupus, fibromyalgia, vertigo, and etcetera. And extreme heat increases the symptoms from vertigo.

And so and and through all of that, that makes you have an impact on your mental health, your mental instability. There it does cause, you know, for you to hallucinate. It calls for a lot of other things that actually happens, and it also impacts the cleanliness of the facility. So I'm knowing that this really increases the the notion of feeling abandoned and, you know, because you're suffering from extreme heat exhaustion.

I I just hate that we're at this point where we have to bring up a bill to get this done.

We shouldn't have to have a bill to get this done. And we have to remind people to me, it's sad that we have to remind this part of it just to even try to get it done is to remind people that it's not just about your prisoners. You have workers, thousands of workers that are there that are also going through the same thing. You have your nurses, your janitors, you have your officers, and all of that.

But we shouldn't have to put them in the equation to make sure that we're taking care of the people that are currently in our system.

Right. You shouldn't have to use that to justify to do what what we know is right. So I am 100% behind this bill. I would like to be added as a coauthor to this bill. We need to make sure that we are taking care of our own.

We're locking people up and putting them in there, but we need to take care of them and also protect them as well. They deserve to have a quality of life just like everybody else. That's just how I feel. So I thank you bringing it forth, and I'm truly sorry for your loss. And thank you for always coming and sharing your story.

Thank you, doctor Sharp Collins. Well said. Mister Gonzalez?

Just to echo my colleague on, I just thank the author, thank the family for being here today, taking time out of your day to share your story. I too was able to tour a facility where they didn't even have any trees. And, obviously, we know that needing trees to be able to, you know, suck up that sun and that energy. And and these are people to miss Sharpe Collins' point who are trying to rehabilitate themselves, trying to get back into society.

And that's what we are preaching about here today is to get people back into society, but they can't do that if they're feeling sick.

They can't read. They don't feel good. I mean, we don't tolerate that in other arenas and, you know, we wanna get people to get back out there. And we are supposed to be a party of second chances, and we are supposed to be delivering that here in the state capital. I just wanna thank the author again for bringing this forward and thank my colleague, miss Sharpe Collins from San Diego for also, echoing this.

And thank you again, mister Gipson, for, just being the the justice advocate that you are on behalf of California. Thank you.

Thank you.

Alright. We have a motion and a second. Thank you both. Before we get to your close, mister Gib\pson, I have one question. All too often in this job, we focus on the policy, and the policy is the at the heart of what we do.

But it's also important to understand the reason that the bill is here and the story behind it. So, ma'am, I was wondering if you could tell me a little bit about your mother. What was she like?

My mom was the neighborhood mom for all of our friends. We had a really good life growing up. She was also, like, the backbone of our family. My grandmother passed away at a young age, and my mom stepped up, and she raised her siblings, her nieces and nephews. A lot of the cousins in her generation, she helped raise them and take care of them as well.

If anybody in the neighborhood didn't have food, she was there to cook for them, you know, make sure that they were okay giving people rides to and from school. She was really the backbone of our family. Genuinely, she was, I hate to say it like this, but it's the only way I can describe it because it's her. She was a bookworm. She loved to read.

She was very smart and educated. And even though she was in prison, she didn't let that stop her from getting continuing her education. She got multiple degrees while she was in prison. A lot of the members that were in prison with her have reached out and said she was like a mother to them and helped get their education and helped get them on the right track. So even though she was in prison, she still continued her journey of caring and helping take care of others. She just had a all around good heart.

One more question. What did she mean to you?

She was everything. My best friend, my right hand, my protector, my peace. She's genuinely my everything.

Mister chair? Well Is it okay?

Doctor Sharp Collins?

If we can yield for thirty seconds to have a moment of silence and if we can please ask her family to stand, is that is that okay with you?

I'll indulge you. Would you like to do that right now?

Yes, please.

K. Yes, please.

Do a moment of silence right now.

Now her family members, if you don't mind standing so we can acknowledge you. Thank you, mister chair.

Thank you, doctor Sharp Collins. Thank you to the family, and I just wanted to before I give mister Gipson a chance to close, you're you're welcome to sit if you'd like. I appreciate you answering those difficult questions because it's important that that's how she be she be remembered. And now it's a matter of state record Thank you. As to what this bill is really about.

So thank you for sharing the story of your mother with all of us so that that can be officially part of the state of California's record on who she will. Mister Gibson, you have the floor for your close.

I wanna say thank you very much to the chair and also to the committee. And so all those who came out and gave their eye and their support for Assembly Bill 2499 and to my witnesses and to the family for supporting this important piece of legislation. Support, and we appreciate the village. We appreciate everyone speaking in support. This is about not only those inmates that are there in our state correctional facilities, but it's about the workers as well.

This bill is about raising the visibility that we must do something. California is better than this. I had an opportunity last year to go to Alabama and to and visit some areas in Alabama. But in that pilgrimage, we saw, Alabama state prison system. California is much better than that.

I was horrified to see the prison system in Alabama and the inmates what they went through and said, not on my watch.

And when this bill came forward and I heard the stories of what's taking place in our prison system in terms of the ventilation, I grabbed the opportunity to carry and jockey this bill to talk about and raise the visibility and to talk about why this bill is important to making sure, that during the hot months, in these facilities that we have to do better, that we need we must, have ventilation system.

And then when I heard about, Adrienne, to making and to hear that she passed away due to the ventilation and the heat exhaustion and how hot it would get in a facility in California to say no more should anyone have to suffer like she suffered in our facility. This is important not only to the workers, but also to those who are incarcerated in our facilities. This is moving the right direction.

I believe that the dead can speak from the grave, and she's speaking loud and clear. And she's saying that we must do something, and we must do something now. I respectfully ask for a strong I vote in the memory of not only her, but those who've come before her as well. Respectfully ask for a strong I vote.

Thank you very much, Assemblymember Gipson, for carrying the bill and championing the cause. You have an emphatic eye recommendation from the chair.

Thank you.

It goes without saying I would like to be added on as a coauthor, should it pass out of committee. And I I simply wanna close with saying thank you again to the family for sharing the memory of Adrianne and how she should be remembered.

And what I would close with in response to your testimony and yours as well, sir, is that all too often in this line of work, we talk about crime and punishment, consequences for activity, and the underlying assumption and all of that is that you somehow lose your humanity when you're in custody. It's fundamentally wrong. Mister Gibson, to your point, it is unfortunate that we are here under these circumstances having to run a bill to address this issue.

But if there's any good that can come of this, as hard as that is to stomach, as hard as it is to fathom, I hope that this conversation today sheds light on the fact that those who are in the care and custody of the state of California deserve humane treatment. They deserve basic living conditions, and to do anything other is to truly engage in cruel and unusual punishment of those in our custody. So with that, I thank you all for being here today.

And in Adrian's memory and in her name, I do recommend strongly in the strongest possible terms an aye vote.

Thank you.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Alright, everyone. I see that we have Assembly Member Stefani here. Thank you for being here, Assembly Member. Colleagues, this is item number 12 on our agenda, Assembly Bill 1877. Assembly Member, you will have an opportunity to present the Bill and your witnesses will have two minutes each to address the committee.

Their time does not begin until they start speaking. And with that, ma'am, the floor is all yours.

Thank you, mister Chair. I would like to start by thanking you and your committee staff and all the stakeholders for their feedback and collaboration. And with that, I would, accept the amendments that have been offered. So thank you so much for that. AB 1877 really started a while back when I authored what is known as Prop D, which became the mayor's office of victim rights in the city and county of San Francisco.

And that was meant to make sure that victims had a place to go, free of law enforcement, so that they were seen and heard and protected. That also involved doing a survey of the victims and finding out what do they need to feel protected in the city and county of San Francisco.

And one of the things that continue to come up is that protective orders feel like just a piece of paper, that they don't do what they're intended to do, which is to protect victims from further harm. There's no barrier of protection that comes with just this piece of paper. No DA, no police officer goes home at night with the victim when they have a criminal protective order.

They're not standing by your door. They're not there with you when you're running errands. You have this piece of paper, and the words must carry weight, and they must mean something for this criminal protective order or stay away order to have meaning and to have victims feel protected. When they don't, abusers are emboldened and survivors are left wondering if the system is capable of protecting them at all. We know that there are repeated violations of criminal protective orders and stay away orders.

We know that half of them aren't followed, over half of them. We know that there are egregious, egregious violations of restraining orders, and we know that these are indicators of further harm, of escalating risk, often resulting in the death of the survive of the victim and sometimes the death of children as well. We know what happens when restraining orders, protective orders are repeatedly violated over and over and over again.

AB eighteen seventy seven is an attempt to show that these orders do have meaning by strengthening enforcement of criminal protective and stay away orders. Right now, a violation of a protective or stay away order under existing law is chargeable only as a misdemeanor, regardless of whether there are felony charges pending or if there are repeated violations of that order.

This means that abusers simply get a slap on the wrist many times in, again, the most egregious of cases. If there is a criminal protective order in place as a result of a felony DV charge and that person violates that order, often repeatedly, or causes injury even, only a misdemeanor can be charged. This system leaves victims feeling very vulnerable, setting up scenarios where they're the only consequences are after further harm or violence to the victim.

So this piece of paper means nothing if it can't be enforced in a way that has meaning. AB eighteen seventy seven would allow prosecutors to have the discretion to charge the discretion to charge a violation of a criminal stay away order or protective order as a felony.

If one, the underlying conduct for the initial order was charged as a felony, if there are repeat violations of that order, and if there is a repeat conviction for a violation that occurs within one year. Prosecutors, like I said, will retain discretion to to charge a violation as a misdemeanor if they choose, which is known as a wobbler. I know you're aware of that.

Based on recent events, and I can't stress this enough, it's more critical than ever that we believe and support survivors, equipping them with every tool in the toolbox to ensure their protection against their abusers. So many times, women don't feel like they can speak up.

They don't feel like they're they will be protected, and that needs to change. I have the honor today to have with me two incredible women who I have so much respect for. We have Ivy Lee, director of the San Francisco mayor's office for victim rights, and doctor Pamela Tate with Black Women Revolt Against Domestic Violence. I'll turn it over to them.

Thank you. Good morning, Churchill's Committee Members. My name is Ivy Lee. I am the director of the San Francisco Mayor's Office for Victims Rights. We serve as an independent agency that is there to support victims and survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder and child abuse, as well as human trafficking.

Through direct casework, we worked in partnership with victim service providers throughout the city as well as with law enforcement, city departments, and the courts to identify a problem that was a pattern throughout the city. At least one criminal protective order every week in throughout 2024 in San Francisco alone was charged by the DA. When we think about the criminal protective order violations that are not ever reported or not presented to the DA and followed by a prosecution, that number escalates exponentially.

One of the most egregious case examples is with a client that I actually supported. She had a criminal protective order.

She was stalked by a former, someone that she used to date. He violated the criminal protective order three times. Twice by going to her workplace, and then the third time when he couldn't find her, he went to her child's school, chased her around the school, physically assaulted her. This is all caught on school cameras. Only after that third violation was there ever action taken to actually charge him with physical assault.

The protective order violations were never, charged. When we spoke with members of law enforcement and stakeholders, what we what they identified to us was that this is just a misdemeanor. The violation is just a misdemeanor with understaffed police forces, with understaffed resources. They need to triage. And so because of the misdemeanor limitation on prosecutors, that was that was one inevitable result.

And I apologize. That is two minutes.

Thank you.

Of course. Thank you very much. And for our next witness.

Yes. Greetings. Hear me? Greetings, Chair Schultz and Members of the Assembly and Safety Committee. Sorry.

My name is doctor Pamela Tade, and I am the executive director of Black Women Revolt Against Domestic Violence in San Francisco. I urge you to support AB 1877 just as I do. I wanna share the story of a survivor who did everything that we asked her to do when she had endured abuse at the hands of her partner. She had been beaten and threatened with a gun. She called for help, and we responded.

He was arrested. A temporary restraining order was issued, and she believed, like most survivors do, that that would protect her. But after he was released during pretrial, he ignored that restraining order, and I'm going to be graphic, so trigger warning here. He tracked her down and stalked her. He threatened her again with a gun, and this time, he strangled her almost to death.

This is in the city and county of San Francisco. That survivor did everything that she was supposed to do. However, the system failed her. Protective orders are a few tools that survivors actually have that they can utilize to protect themselves from further harm and to protect their families. But when violations are treated like a slap on the wrist or as a misdemeanor, it's often the survivor who is sitting around like a sitting duck waiting for harm to continue to come to her door.

AB 1877 matters, and it matters because it recognizes what survivors already know. Repeated violations of protective orders are not minor. They are acts of continued terrorism. If this bill had been a law, the prosecutors would have already had the means to treat this threat as a violation, and it would have been very serious. Her abuser would have been reprimanded excuse me, remanded to jail during pretrial, and she would have been safe as would her children.

I respectfully urge you all, strongly urge you all, to support this Bill. And thank you to assembly member Stefani and her team as well as mayor Lori for working on this. Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member, and thank you both for your testimony today. Next, we'll hear from the Me Too's in support of the Bill. Come on down. Name, organization, and position, please.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of mayor mayor Daniel Lurie, city and county of San Francisco, proud sponsor of the Bill and in support. And thank you for the committee for all the work.

Thank you.

Hi. Good morning. Bobby Lopez on behalf of the following organizations in support, San Francisco Safe House, San Francisco Domestic Violence Consortium, Safe and Sound, Open Door Legal, and Community Forward. Thank you.

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

Kevin Guzman with the California Medical Association in support.

Chair and Members, Max Perry on behalf of the California Police Chief Association, and on behalf of Porak as well with their permission and support. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you all very much. Do we have anyone here hoping to testify in opposition to the Bill?

Going once, going twice. Okay. Would anyone else like to register a position on the Bill? Alright. We have one taker.

Yes. Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU Cal Action. I just want we're still reviewing the amendments and just wanna state for the record, we uniformly oppose any Bill that increases criminal penalties on existing crimes as it undermines a great deal of evidence, to deter crime. But happy to review the amendments and thank the committee for working with the author.

Thank you.

Alright. Thank you all very much. And just for the record, because we didn't have any opposition witness, gave him a little extra time there. So now that that's noted, we'll turn it back to DEAS. Are there questions or comments from Members of the Committee?

Second.

Okay. Motion by Nguyen, second by Lackey. Any other discussion from DEAS? Okay. Assembly Member Stefani, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you, chair Schultz. I have to say one of the things that drives me most constantly in my head is how do we protect women and children from abusers, and that's born out of three things. It's born out of watching my mother suffer at the hands of my stepfather for forty one years.

It's born out of working with victims and survivors when I was a prosecutor at the Contra Costa County DA's office and working in a gun violence prevention movement and knowing that the United States is the most dangerous developed country in the world for women when it comes to gun violence.

Knowing about the visceral fear that victims and survivors go through in this process when they're trying to escape their abuser truly haunts me and truly drives me to try to do anything I can to erase that fear and keep them safe.

And I think AB 1877 is a step in the right direction, and I can't thank these incredible women enough and mayor Daniel Lurie and everyone who has helped us get to this place where we're able to put a bill forward that I think that can make a meaningful difference. AB 1877 is a message with follow through that a survivor's safety is a priority, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Well, thank you very much, Assembly Member. I wanna, again, appreciate the testimony of both of your witnesses and making the trip and being here today. Your passion and your expertise, Assembly Member, shines through every time you present a Bill in this space. So with that, happy to recommend an aye. Appreciate the author taking the Committee amendments.

We have a motion and a second. Let's conduct the roll.

For item 12 AB 1877 by Assemblymember Stefani, the motion is do passed as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz. Aye. Schultz, aye. Alanis Gonzalez?

Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Haney, Harabedian, Lackey. Aye. Lackey, aye. Nguyen.

Aye. Nguyen, aye. Ramos.

Aye. Yes. Ramos, aye. Sharp-Collins. Sharp-Collins, aye.

Okay. That measure is out. We'll keep it open for others to add on, of course, but thank you all for being here. And next, I see we have assembly member Wilson.

Assembly Member, before you get started, I just wanna say, for staff listening in who I have on my list, who I don't see here yet, so maybe they can show up during your presentation. We have assembly member Petrie Norris on item 10. We have Assembly Member Gabriel on item 24, and we have a host of authors who have not yet signed in. So if you'd like to make your way down to Room 126, it's a fun time. Oh my god.

Assembly member Wilson, the floor is all yours. And as a reminder, your witnesses will have two minutes each to address the committee. Time doesn't begin until you start speaking. The floor is all yours, assembly member.

Thank you so much. Good morning, mister Chair and Members. I am pleased to present my second transportation safety Bill, AB 1874. Today, when someone is convicted of a dangerous driving offense, a court will suspend their suspend their license. But under current law, suspension can be served while the individual is incarcerated and already lacking access to a vehicle.

The result, dangerous drivers can serve all or part of their license suspension while incarcerated, allowing them to be back behind the wheel the very same day they're released. That is not accountability. The purpose of the license suspension is not symbolic. It is a critical public safety tool. According to the license to kill reports from CalMatters last year, nearly forty percent of the drivers charged with vehicular manslaughter since 2019 have a valid license.

And since 2019, roughly 400 drivers accused of causing a fatal crash went on to receive another ticket, get into another collision, or boat after the date they allegedly killed someone on the road. That should be a concern to every single one of us because it means preventable risk are still on the road. California has a responsibility to ensure that anyone allowed back on the road does not pause pose an ongoing risk to others.

AB eighteen seventy four ensures that people convicted of serious driving offenses cannot concurrently serve their license suspension while actively incarcerated and without access to a vehicle. This is targeted on the most serious and dangerous driving offenses such as vehicular manslaughter, repeat reckless, and hit and run driving and fleeing law enforcement causing death or severe injury.

I really appreciate the committee's work and the Chair and the Committee staff's work on on helping us navigate the language to ensure that our legislative intent match the language that you see before you. And we believe that by aligning license suspensions with the time when someone is back on our roads, we create real accountability, strengthen deterrent, and most importantly, reduce the risk of repeated harm.

AB 1874 is supported by a coalition of public safety advocates including California Police Chiefs Association, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and the California Association of Highway Patrolmen. And we continue to engage in meaningful conversation with the opposition. I'd like to now introduce my two witnesses, Jonathan Feldman on behalf of the California Police Chiefs Association, and Justin Fanslaw on behalf of Safe California Roads Coalition.

Yep. Morning, Chair and Members. Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association in strong support of the bill. I thought the author did a great job articulating exactly what the policy is achieving here, and so I'll just add, you know, for over a decade, I've represented Cal Chiefs before this body, worked on DUI bills over that time, have met with the families, have participated in the press conferences, and heard their stories.

It continues to break my heart every time I have to listen to a family talk about their loved one, who had died from an injury, caused by a repeat offender.

Somebody who had, time and time again, been given opportunities to rehabilitate, to be reformed, and yet our laws were not strong enough or did not do the job to ensure that the behavior was corrected. They were allowed to continue to operate on the roads dangerously, whether it's reckless driving or DUI. I think about my kids, my family, and how I would feel, how devastated it would be to know that, you know, somebody had a chance.

We had a chance as a as a state to intervene, and we didn't do the job that we we could've done. I think this Bill is incredibly important, thinking back to all those stories, you know, ensuring that there's some actual accountability for the reckless driving, for the driving behavior that has to get corrected.

You know, if it's running if the the license suspension runs concurrently, it really is meaningless. And so adding some meaning back into that provision, is incredibly important for all the families, for all the police chiefs, and all the officers out there who have to, respond to these incidents. We are in very strong support and urge your aye vote.

Good morning, mister Chair. Justin Fanzall on behalf of the Safe California Roads Coalition. First of all, I'd like to thank you mister Chair and Chair of transportation. This Bill, along with your Bill and the previous hearing and the number of other Bills we're gonna hear today, are all a result of the sort of, eye opening CalMatters report that we saw last year. And I'm extremely grateful, like mister Feldman, that we're taking serious actions this year.

Simply stated, if a suspension or revocation is issued, it's worthless if it's then not applied to when a person could be driving. Sitting in jail, you cannot drive. If we're gonna have some leniency, then perhaps we should be talking about the length of that suspension. But offering a suspension and then allowing it to be served while in custody is pointless and does not help the protect the public. Very happy to be here and support today.

We'll have many of those testimonies that mister Feldman talked about, in a few other bills today that are, heart wrenching. And quite honestly, we've heard them for too many years, and so I'm very glad again that, hopefully, this year will be the last time that we have to hear these. Thank you.

Assembly Member, thank you very much for all of your work on this issue, and I believe you said it. But just to confirm, you are taking the Committee Amendments?

Absolutely.

Thank you very much. I know we'd get it done. And, of course, thank you to both of your witnesses for your testimony. Next, we'll take the Me Too's. Others hoping to be heard in support of the Bill.

Come on down. Name, if you're with an organization, let us know that and your position of support, please.

Mister Chair, Members, Jolene Dolores on behalf of League California Cities in support.

David Martinez with Streets for All in support.

Colin Campbell, a bereaved father and member of the National Board of Directors for Mothers Against Drunk Driving in support.

Jia Chen on behalf of the California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals in support if amended. We have a letter coming in soon. Thank you.