Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning, everyone. Apologize for being late. Welcome back to the State- State Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety. I'd like to begin with a few housekeeping items this morning. As a reminder, we do have what was a a large agenda and was supposed to be an even larger agenda.

To ensure that all measures are heard, we will- we have limited witness testimony for this hearing to two witnesses per side. Each witness will have two minutes to testify in support or in opposition to a measure. I would also like to remind everyone that there are some general rules of conduct before we start our proceedings today.

Please note that in order to facilitate the goal of conducting a legislative hearing and as we proceed with witness and public witness testimony and public comment, I wanna ensure that everyone understands that our committee and the assembly has rules to ensure that 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 legislative proceedings.

Right? Assemblymember Gonzales? Just making- okay. Thank you. Please be aware that the violations of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement action.

I just wanna make sure he's fully alert and paying attention. Well done, my friend. Third, we have the off calendar, which is floating around here somewhere. Okay. We have a lot.

All of the following items will be off calendar for today. Item one, AB 1588 by Assembly Member Stefani. Item number three, Assembly Bill 1753 by Assembly Member Stefani. Item number five, AB 1867 by Assembly Member Tangipa. Item number six, AB 1897 by Assembly Member Haney.

Item number nine, AB 1922 by Assembly Member Lowenthal. Item 15, AB 2052 by Assembly Member Stefani. Item 16 AB 2073 by Assembly Member Johnson. Item 17 AB 2097 by Assembly Member Burner. Item 19- 19 AB 2122 by Assemblymember Kalra.

Item 22, Assembly Bill 2232 by Assembly Member, Patterson. Item 23, Assembly Bill 2273 by Assembly Member, Baines. Item 24, Assembly Bill 2274 by Assembly Member, Baines. Item 29, Assembly Bill 2318 by Assembly Member Elhawary, and item 37, Assembly Bill 2749 by Assembly Member Sharpe-Collins. I see we have a few more members joining.

We're still waiting on a quorum, so we'll wait to conduct the roll until that time. We will skip over the proposed consent calendar to now for- for now. And before we get to our first bill presentation, as a reminder, we are hearing today's measures in sign in order. Standing committee members will present their bills towards the end of the hearing. We appreciate everyone's patience in advance.

And with that, the first item that I have up and for which I see an author present would be item number I believe it's 34 by Assembly Member Ellis. This is AB 2698. Mister Ellis, whenever you're ready. And just for all of the witness who will testify today, in absence of a time or anything more formal, I'll try to give you an indicator when you have about thirty seconds or so left so you can wrap up on that thought.

Thank you, mister chair members. I'm here to present AB, 2698, which authorizes local governments to implement a proven locally designed youth court diversion program that holds first time juvenile offenders accountable through restorative peer accountability while delivering meaningful rehabilitation, civic engagement, and a clean start all without creating a juvenile record. Right now, the default process for many first time juvenile incidents fall short. Youth are arrested and entered into a record system that often receive a warning letter to the family. This approach does little to address root causes.

A B 2698 offers a better alternative that has already been demonstrated excellently with excellent results in Bakersfield. Since 2022, it has delivered a 100% completion rate and zero recidivism because it gives kids their structure and support they need to succeed. The success comes from voluntary buy in peer accountability and consistent follow through not from peer fear or punishment. Youth court programs like this also deliver powerful civil engagement benefits to the students, jurors themselves.

Hundreds of local high school students have received leadership training, learned empathy, and practice civil civic responsibility while serving on these juries.

It is true win win for the community. This approach directly addresses the concerns some stakeholders have raised. It is it is designed to

minimize

system involvement, not expand it. Cases are diverted, before probation filing. Records are protected, and the focus is restorative rather than than adversarial. The date data from Bakersfield shows us reliability helps keep youth on a positive path. Many cities and countries, counties have, want to replicate Bakersfield success but lack the resources of clear statutory authority to do so.

AB 2698 simply opens the door to local governments launching their own version using the same proven framework. I respectfully ask your aye vote on AB 2698. Testifying with me today is sergeant Sandeep Mollie of the Bakersfield Police Department who has led this successful program from day one, and Haley Tatt, who has been a student volunteer for Bakersfield's program.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Sandeep Singh Maly. I'm with the Bakersfield Police Department. We started the youth diversion program in 2022.

Just to understand, like, the practical side of it, how the clock works in the system, give you a practical explanation would be if Johnny gets out of school one day, goes with his friends to a local store, doesn't have any money on him, gets peer pressured into stealing some food, chips, and candy, the police department would typically respond and take the report and arrest Johnny on the spot and release them to the custody of his guardian.

At that point in time, that report would automatically get sent over to juvenile probation, and juvenile probation at that time would formally charge Johnny. And in Johnny's situation, juvenile probation typically sends cases like that to either court, puts Johnny on probation, or three sends a warning letter to, Johnny's residence. Regardless of whatever decision that the juvenile probation department makes, Johnny at that point gets a criminal record that follows him, from the remainder of his juvenile, life.

With the youth diversion program, what we've, been able to do is in that same scenario with Johnny was contacted for stealing from a store, we would respond out there, take a report, and that report would not get sent over to to juvenile probation department. It would get sent over to the youth diversion team.

At that point in time, the youth diversion team would have a follow-up conversation with Johnny's guardian and Johnny himself and to for explain the process of the program. And if Johnny successfully completes the program, that case would be closed entirely and would not be sent over to the the juvenile Justice Department excuse me, the juvenile probation department. So what that cog looks like is if Johnny agrees to participate in the program, he admits to guilt.

At that point, he would go to court and be in front of a real judge, and a jury of his peers in local high schools that do not know who Johnny is will listen to Johnny's testimony and ask him several questions such as, what have you learned from this?

And that's your time. Thank you. Sorry. Next witness, please.

You could just take the microphone.

Oh, okay. Good morning, everyone. My name is Haley Tatt. I'm a current freshman at UC Irvine. I've been with the youth diversion program for about three years, and my senior year of high school, I was a student representative for the program. Throughout my time in high school, I was involved in mock trial and the youth diversion program, giving me a gateway for several civic engagement opportunities.

However, many of generation z and youth today don't have the same opportunities that I do. The youth diversion program gives youth a gateway into being civically engaged as well as engaging with the community through restorative justice efforts. The program was, at first, very wild when I was introduced to it. To have a pure attorney represent a youth, we call them respondents in the program, and to have a group of pure jurors decide what would happen to that youth.

While being in the program, jurors learned several important skills such as public speaking, community engagement, and community building.

The program also taught many students who didn't have the chance to be introduced to law a new opportunity and newfound passion. I met a lot of respondents who went through the program, became jurors, and became interested in actually pursuing a career either in law enforcement, getting a job outside of the town that they might have thought they would always live in, and even pursuing a career in law.

This program works not only to help the youth, but to actively stop the system of youth crime and to actively stop repeated occurrences of youth crime. It's important to note that our program has had a 100% success rate, meaning that 30 students who would have otherwise counted a charge on their college applications, their job applications, now have no charge and are able to pursue a career, to pursue a job, to pursue a successful future.

The program gives students the resources and support necessary that they wouldn't have otherwise without the program. Thank you.

Thank you very much, assembly member, for the presentation, and thank you both for your testimony. Nice to see a young person testifying up in the state capitol today. Not that you're not all very young and fresh. Okay? Boy, I just keep stepping in it, don't I?

I see that we now have a quorum, so we'll take a brief pause to conduct the role.

Schultz?

present

Alanis?

Present.

Mark Gonzalez?

Here.

Haney, Harvideon, Lackey?

Here.

Gwen, Ramos, Shar Collins?

Okay. We have a quorum present. Next, we'll take the me too's. Anyone who'd like to be heard in support of the bill, please come forward at this time. Please share with us your name.

If you're with an organization, let us know, and, of course, your position of support.

Good morning, mister chair and the members of the board. My name is Adam Brady, and I'm the current student program coordinator at the Bakersfield Police Department's youth diversion program. I I support a vote of a for this bill, and I'm open to any technical questions regarding the program.

Thank you very much. Nice to see you up here as well. Thank you. Anyone else hoping to be heard in support of the bill? Okay.

Well, next turn. Are there any opposition witnesses present today? There are. Okay. Take your time.

Come on down. We have a pair of seats right here for you with the microphones. You'll each have two minutes to address the committee, and your time doesn't begin until you start speaking.

Good morning. My name is Lynn Berkeley Baskin with Justice to Jobs Coalition. I'm a sixteen year veteran in research system transformation and policy development focusing on preventing incarceration and building sustainable health based and anti recidivism systems. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

I'm here to strongly oppose AB 2698 unless it is fundamentally revised to align with California's modern diversion framework, the same health based community rooted approach that led the legislature to create OICR and place it under the Department of Health and Human Services to ensure youth receive evidence based healing center supports rather than court based punishment.

AB 2698, although well intended, and I loved hearing I do love hearing from the from the youth too, is not really a true diversion program. It is an alternative to incarceration program, very different. The bill requires youth to be adjudicated before entering the program, and by that point, the harm of system involvement has already occurred. True diversion happens before a young person enters the court pipeline.

This bill is alternative sentencing, not diversion, and research shows that post adjudication programs increase recidivism risk, disrupt education, and deepen system penetration.

Second, AB 2698 relies on a teen court model that is not evidence based. CSU Chico recent analysis found that teen court struggle to provide rehabilitation or or restorative justice and reproduce and institutionalize racial and socioeconomic inequalities. Peer reviewed research shows these courts normalize hyperpunitiveness among teens and leave youth defendants with lasting harm, not healing. Third, the bill will widen the net of system involvement and increase county costs. The offenses covered, petty theft, vandalism, etcetera, are low level.

For these cases, the most healing and cost effective response is pre arrest, community based diversion addressing the root causes of behavior.

That's your time. Thank you. I know. Two minutes goes awfully quick. Next, please.

Good morning. My name is Daphna Ghazani, and I'm here on behalf of the National Center for Youth Law and the other youth justice organizations listed in the oppose unless amended letter. We appreciate the author's intent to expand diversion and improve outcomes. And I'll say personally for myself as somebody who thirty years ago went through something like this post incarceration, I can also say I appreciate people trying to be intentional. But the fact of the matter is, I experienced this thirty years ago.

We have lots of research, lots of experience, and lots of resources in California that have shown us there is a better way to go about diversion. We can see this through the investments through the youth reinvestment grant and the tribal diversion programs, and these investments work. They reduce recidivism, they improve youth well-being, they increase public safety, and they address persistent racial disparities. Evidence shows that pre arrest, deflection and diversion are more effective than formal system processing at reducing offending.

If you look at the offenses that are listed, these are offenses that should never have go through an arrest process.

It is simply a waste of resources and increases the chances that young people will end up deeper in the system. As written, 2698 undermines the progress that we have made. It doesn't sufficiently prioritize pre rep deflection. It doesn't expand pathways to formal system processing. It marginalizes community based organizations, and it creates inconsistent implementation across counties, weakening California's broadly broader diversion infrastructure.

We would ask and be supportive of a model that goes with the youth reinvestment grant, one that prioritizes pre arrest diversion, community based programming, and culturally relevant resources. For these reasons, we respect respectfully urge and oppose unless amended on AB 2698. Thank you.

Thank you both very much. Next, we'll take the me too's also hoping to be heard in bill. Come on down and share with us your name, your organization, and the opposed position, please.

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

Good morning. Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, oppose unless amended.

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

Javier Rodriguez with ACLU California action, oppose unless amended.

Nedrick Miller, all of us none in LSPC. Forgive me. I got a long list of those who oppose. Alliance for Boys and Men of Color, California Alliance for Youth and Justice, California Coalition for Women's Prisoners, California for Safety and Justice, California United for responsible budget, Center of Juvenile and Criminal Justice, and another youth services, community agents for re resources, advocacy and services, communities united for restorative youth justice, fresh lifelines for youth, Hayward, Burns Institute, hopes for hoops for justice. Well, she said it.

Initiate justice, justice to jobs, La Defenseia, legal services of prisoners with children, Live Free USA, Milpa Collective, National Center for Youth Law, Santa Cruz Barrios Unidos, Sisters Warriors Freedom Collection, Coalition, the California Youth Project, the Collective for Laboratory Lawyer, the Collective Healing and Transportation Project, Underground, Urban Peace Movement, Youth Forward, Youngsters for Change, Youth Alliance, Youth Justice Education Clinic, and La Loya Law School, Youth Law Center, individual and self. Okay. We strongly oppose.

Well well done. Thank you. Alright. We'll now turn it back to the dais. If there's any questions or comments from members of the committee, let's see.

Mister Lackey first.

Yeah. First of all, thank the author for addressing a very difficult topic, and that is juvenile offenses. It's it's something society's been wrestling with for my entire lifetime, and it's not a simple one size fits all effectively. But in listening to the opposition, I I find it entertaining and almost sad that we consider community service hyper punitive. I think that that's misstated.

I think that consequences for misconduct are powerfully shaping when administered properly. And I think the fact that this process that you're suggesting attaches consequences but also erases the outcome if followed. And I think that is the great balance, is being able to erase the misconduct is the goal. Actually, the bigger goal is never reoffending. And I I think that consequences I know that we have an energy that thinks that all consequences are hyper punitive.

I do not. I I think that it it can be helpful when administered with with care and concern. And I believe that that's what your program does, and so I support it.

Thank you, Assemblymember Lackey. Doctor Sharp Collins?

Okay. Thank you for bringing forth the bill. You're just smiling. I do understand where you are coming from, but I also understand where opposition is coming from. And when I think about these programs, number one, from what I from what I gather is it looks like we are introducing you to a formal process.

Right? A formal court process. Right? Do we always want to to introduce them to that process? I thought the goal was to try to keep them from that particular process.

From my experience of community service and advocating at home in San Diego, working with different organizations, Data has shown there's other data across the state that community based alternative programs work. If we invest in those programs because that community knows that population the best, then we are able to turn things around if we believe that everyone can be restored. Right? Everyone deserves a second chance. So there are some restorative processes that exist.

The school system have a storage of justice programs and things of that nature that currently exist. But I believe that those programs are better aligned. Those programs have a lot more trauma informed practices that is their more holistic approaches that are there. And those programs are really, a lot more cost effective. I understand that having that process and it being through the police department or other things that's there, yes, we want to better the relationship with our officers.

And we do want to do what we can to make sure people know that in that, you know, the system in in some cases is not all jacked up like we think it think it is, whichever. However, when one of the testimonies someone said, about admitting guilt, Youth sometimes admit guilt under pressure. And if you are already putting them in a process to admit guilt, we're already setting them up for failure. That's just the way that I currently see it.

I don't want to put them in a situation where they are being judged by their peers and they're admitting to guilt and not really knowing.

We know that the brand is not fully developed. So this whole thing is is a whole process. For me to even consider going forward with this bond, I need to know that you are listening to your opposition and that you are understanding where opposition is coming from in regards to investing in your community, investing in these other types of programs that currently exist with the community based alternatives programs. Is that something I know I said a lot just to get to this point.

But is that something that you as the author would consider doing is really working with opposition and working with community based organizations to be able to move forward in this in in a to me, in a much better positive direction.

I know that there's consequences of everybody's actions, but not all not all of them have to go through this process. To me, there's a more structured, aligned, meaningful process with the community that understands the population that they're serving more so than others. Is that something you

Yes. Assembly member, we are looking forward to working with opposition because we know that there's some holes in this, and we would look love to work with them to get this bill through.

Okay. Alright. I know that there was, some other deeper conversations. So I do hope that you would keep that word and be able to move forward, with opposition and figuring out how we can find a middle ground on this particular part. Programs do need to exist, but we have to also look at combining both types of programs and not really focusing on one on one program.

But that's just where I am right now. Thank you.

Thank you, doctor Sharp Collins. Anyone else hoping to be heard? Mister vice chair?

Thank you, mister chair. For those who know, again, I my background's in law enforcement, and I spent my first four years or so with a juvenile diversion program at my old department. And I love that program. We, we did just like you guys said. We're getting them out of the system.

We're never putting their name in there, and that's what we want. And these are these were definitely kids of color, of of kids who didn't have parents that took care of them. Unfortunately, we're probably in jail or were strung out on the streets. They didn't have any mentors. They didn't have anybody to guide them, and I saw this diversion program do that, and I got to be part of that.

And I enjoyed that. I still am in touch with some of them who have now gone to be successful, and who have stayed out of trouble. And so I wholeheartedly believe in the diversion program. Let me be clear that regardless of what we do today, departments still have a choice whether or not they're gonna do a diversion program. It just seems that this is gonna help with the funding of some diversion programs, which they do need help.

I've seen a lot of programs in the state get funded for things I probably don't agree with, and obviously, I do agree with this. As far as the opposition, I I wanna say most of the things you guys said are the same things that they're trying to do. Obviously, all of us here are here to help the children, help these youth that are not guided, need help, and just need to basically help with their best foot forward is what we're trying to do here.

So I wholeheartedly believe in diversion. I obviously will be supporting this bill, and I look forward to other departments hopefully adopting this as well and doing the same thing.

Thank you. And I'll move the bill.

Second.

Alright. Thank you. Motion by Alanis, second by Lackey, noting that some member Ramos has joined us. We do have a quorum. No need to add the we'll add them to the role.

Any other questions or comments? Okay. I just have one question, mister Ellis, just for the sake of fostering a good fruitful discussion. Having had a chance to hear some of the concerns raised by opposition witnesses, is there anything you'd like to respond to today or share with the committee?

I just want you to know that we wanna we would look forward to working with opposition. You know, we started this with good intentions, of course, and we wanna protect our youth. And if it in and and and and includes certainly a different perspective, and we look forward to working with you.

Thank you very much, assembly member. Seeing no other questions, would you like to close, mister Ellis?

Yes. Thank you. AB 2698 is reasonable, evidence based measure that expands a locally successful program to help first time youth take accountability, get the support they need to change, and receive a real second chance. I respectfully ask your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Assemblymember Ellis. Colleagues, I have a non recommendation on this bill, meaning that I'm making no recommendation. Mister Ellis, I believe that your bill is supportive of our youth youth peer courts and diversion generally. Those are goals that I share and I applaud you for that. However, the opposition, both in the course of today's testimony and in their letters, have raised some good points.

And should your bill advance out of committee, I would refer you specifically to the points raised in the letter submitted by the center on juvenile and criminal justice. I think that they spelled it out pretty clearly there. Separately, I also believe personally that your bill, while very well intentioned, would in my mind be more appropriate for budget committee since it is contingent upon funding by the legislature. So I will not personally be voting on the bill today, but there is a motion and a second.

And should it pass out, just encourage you to, as you always do, sir, work collaboratively with the opposition.

Let's take the role.

For item 34, AB 2698 Assemblymember Ellis, the motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz?

Not voting.

Schultz not voting. Alanis?

Aye.

Alanis, aye. Gonzales? Gonzales, aye. Haney, Harbidian, Lackey?

Aye.

Lackey, aye. Gwen Ramos? Aye. Ramos, aye. Sharp Collins?

Sharp Collins not voting.

Okay. That measure will remain on call. Thank you, mister Ellis. Thank you, everybody. Alright.

Yes. Why don't we go ahead and take the consent calendar while we get ready for our next, presenter? The next one up in the queue will be, assembly member Patel on AB 1959. Before we get there, though, let's go ahead and read the proposed consent calendar. We have 10 items on the calendar.

Item number four, AB 1759 by Elhawary, entitled Prisons Classification. Item number seven, AB 1912 by Hadwick entitled Deer Archery Season Concealed Firearms. Item number eight, AB 1913 by Soria entitled Licensure Emergency Equipment. Item 13, AB 1994 by Alvarez entitled Defending Immigrate Immigrant Victims Act. Item 14, AB 2001 by Assembly member Stefani entitled Criminal Procedure State Summary Criminal History Information.

Item 20, AB 2147 by Schiavo entitled Criminal Procedure Jurisdiction of Public Offenses. Item 21, AB 2204 by Gabriel entitled Prisons Organized Sports Programming. Item 26, AB 2286 by Brian entitled Criminal Procedure Attorney Visits Medical Settings. Item 30, AB 2347 by Ahrens entitled Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, Hate Crime Training and Guidelines.

And lastly, item 33, AB 2556 by Boerner entitled Evidence Credibility of Witnesses and Evidence Affected or Excluded by Extrinsic Policies.

Do we have a motion?

Motion.

Ok. Motion by Alanis, second by Ramos. Please call the roll.

For consent items, Schultz?

Aye.

Schultz, aye. Alanis?

Aye.

Alanis, aye. Gonzales?

Aye.

Gonzales, aye. Haney, Harabedian, Lackey?

Aye.

Lackey, aye. Nguyen? Ramos? Ramos, aye. Sharp-Collins? Sharp-Collins, aye.

Okay. The consent calendar is adopted. We'll keep it open for others to add on later. And next, I see that we have Assemblymember Patel ready to go. Colleagues, this will be AB1959

Thank you. Good morning, chair and colleagues. I am here to present AB 1959. I want to start by saying that I will accept the committee's amendments to narrow the scope of the bill and address concerns raised by opposition. I also wanna thank the committee chair and his staff for taking the time to work with me and my office on this bill so that we can address this very important issue related to constituents in my county.

As amended, the bill seeks to close a dangerous loophole in the law related to a school shooting in San Diego County. You will hear from witness testimony of the real pain and impact that was caused by the school shooting in 2001 at Santana High School, which ended the lives of two fellow students and caused injury to 11 other students, one teacher, and a campus security officer. The individual was sentenced to prison after his guilty plea.

However, because of a loophole in the law, he was able to file for resentencing in a jurisdiction that didn't even try him, even after getting denied parole months before the motion. AB 1959 simply seeks to ensure that my community continues to feel safe and that convicted individuals are held accountable for their actions until they are successfully rehabilitated.

And I urge your aye vote today. With me to testify are my district attorney, Summer Stephan, and City Council member, Phil Ortiz, a survivor of the Santana school shooting. Thank you.

Madam district attorney, whenever you're ready.

Thank you.

Chair Nick Schulz and committee members, I'm Summer Stephan, San Diego County's District Attorney and a thirty year plus prosecutor. I'm here to bring the voices of my really terrified community here before you today and to ask for a narrow exception that allows judges to regain their discretion to make decisions regarding public safety, remorse, and all of the other factors that judges are good at making. AB 1959 is that solution.

What it does is it creates an exception in the welfare and institution code 707-B regarding violent offenses. There's already an exception if a youth was not apprehended until they were past the age for juvenile treatment.

This would create a second exception if a- a youthful offender is past the age of juvenile treatment and is resentenced to be sentenced in juvenile court where there is no discretion by the judges. The case of the Santana shooter where two people were murdered, a 17 year old and a 15 year old, and 13 people were shot. Multiple reloads, a premeditated murder. The defendant was sentenced to fifty years to life.

There was an exception that was developed by the court that decided fifty years to life was tantamount to a life without parole sentence.

That's what's causing the resentencing in juvenile court, which means immediate release.

Thank you very much. Council member?

Good morning. Thank you, chair and honorable committee members. My name is Phil Ortiz. I'm a survivor of this shooting at Santana High School that happened on March 5th, 2001. I'm also a council member for the neighboring city where the school shooting happened.

I represent thousands of former students, teachers, faculty, parents, friends, family, and community members who experienced unimaginable mental, emotional, spiritual, and physical loss from the school shooting. I'm here to say that the pain doesn't go away. More than twenty years later, the effects are still causing casualties. One of my classmates who died, Randy Gordon, his mom was found a couple years ago in a homeless encampment just a few miles from Santana, her life destroyed by the death of her son.

My other classmate, Tommy Millsap, he killed himself on the anniversary of the shooting in 2020, citing the shooting in his suicide letter.

We're here to ask that you would ensure justice is balanced. The victims have no opportunity to be free from their mental, emotional, and physical wounds, including Randy Gordon and Brian Zucker who were killed. Perpetrators shouldn't so easily have the opportunity to be opportunity to be free from the consequences of their actions either. Teenagers who have committed some of the most violent crimes are deserving of the consequences of their original sentence.

However, when they bring a petition for resentencing, they can only be sentenced in juvenile court even though they are in their forties and the juvenile court has lost jurisdiction long ago.

This rule will result in their early release through resentencing even if a parole board has determined they're not deserving of release. Thankfully, AB 1959 fix this- will fix this loophole, restore discretion to the juvenile court, and ensure these offenders who have aged out of the juvenile court could be resentenced in adult court appropriately. I urge an aye vote on AB 1959. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for the presentation, Assemblymember. Madam district attorney, thank you for making the effort to be here today. I know it was quite a way to come. And council member, thank you for your testimony and turning, taking that pain in that tragedy and what I would imagine is trauma that you probably carry with you every day as we all do when we've been through something.

And taking that and making a lot of good out of it and giving back to your community and lending your voice to your community.

So thank you for being here. Next, we'll take the me too's in support of the bill. Please come up to that microphone there by mister Weber. Name, organization, and position, please. Okay.

Oh, we may have one. Alright. Come on down.

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

Alright. Thank you very much. Do we have any opposition witnesses here? Alright. Possibly one.

Okay. Would you-

Morning. Leslie Caldwell for the California Public Defender's Association. We'd like to withdraw our opposition and-

Alright. Thank you. Anyone else who wants to be heard on the bill, you might as well line up at this time. We'll take this as the me too's or other positions to register.

Good morning. Glenn Backes for Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. We are opposed to the bill in print, but we wanted to thank the author for her office and the committee working with us to address our concerns. We'll reconsider our position after we see the bill in print. Thank you, Assemblymember Patel.

Good morning. I've been get asked to give a comment on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office. They have an opposed position to the bill in print, but we'll review—appreciate their work on the bill, and we'll review the amendments and their position.

Hello, Serna from Saving Lives in Custody California, San Diego. I oppose. Thank you.

Jim Lindberg on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation. We're reviewing the amendments and hope to get to neutral. I'm also voicing opposition on behalf of Youngsters for Change. Thank you.

Javier Rodriguez with ACLU California Action. Want to thank the author for accepting amendments, and we look forward to reviewing the proposed amendments.

Ariana Montes, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, in opposition right now, but reviewing. Thank you.

Thank you. Any—final call—anyone else hoping to be heard on the bill? Okay. We'll turn it back to the dais.

Are there questions or comments from members of the committee? None? Okay. Is there a motion?

Motion.

Thank you. Okay. Motion by Alanis, second by Ramos. Assemblymember Patel, seeing no other questions or comments, would you like to close?

Yeah. I would like to offer deep gratitude, once again, to you, Mr. Chair, as well as your committee staff and the coalition of people who came to speak with me on this bill. We introduced it in a certain manner, and we were able to work very collaboratively with those, with our sponsors, as well as those in opposition to bring it to a place that we think will serve the state of California and really put justice forward, first and center.

And I would respectfully ask the committee for an aye vote today. Thank you.

Well, thank you, assembly member. You will have my Iaye recommendation and my aye vote. I really wanna thank you for being the thoughtful and collaborative author and partner that I know you to be. And I'll simply say that in my view, the authors that have the most success in this committee do exactly what you do. They listen to every perspective.

They treat committee staff and myself as a resource and someone willing to help you brainstorm and get the very best possible outcome from your bill. I know this isn't the bill that you started out with, but I think this will deliver fundamentally good things for San Diego and for everyone impacted by in this incident and probably many more, sadly to say, but others that might be in similar circumstances down the road. Appreciate all that you've done and your witnesses. Recommending an aye vote.

Let's call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. That measure is on call as we wait for absent members. Thank you very much. Alright. Next up, I see assembly member Rodriguez here to present AB 1628 if she's ready.

Great. Alright. AB 1628, everyone.

Mister chairman, members of the committee, good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of California's most vulnerable newborns and the mothers who need our support. I'm proud to present AB 1628, the keeping infants from danger act, which extends California's safe surrender window from seventy two hours to thirty days, giving mothers a time and space they need to make safe, informed decisions during one of the most vulnerable periods of their lives.

California has long led the nation in Compassion, first, evidence based policy. AB 1628 continues that proud tradition.

No woman should be forced to make a permanent life altering decision while she's still recovering physically, emotionally, and mentally from childbirth. We know the postpartum we know that postpartum depression, physical complications, and emotional crisis do not resolve themselves in seventy two hours. For many mothers, the hardest and most desperate moments come down come days or even weeks after delivery. Our law must reflect that reality.

This life saving bill, it meets mothers in their moment of crisis with compassion, not restriction, and it gives the newborns a chance of of safe, loving future that every child deserves.

AB 1628, a woman's caucus priority bill, preserves full confidentiality for mothers and strengthens the safety net for newborns across our state. By modernizing this law, we reduce the risk of unsafe abandonment and ensure that when a mother reaches her breaking point, a safe legal option is within reach. Additionally, it's important to understand that even with California's robust social safety net and existing adoption resources, gaps in awareness and access mean mothers still need a clear, protected avenue for relief.

In practice, when a baby is safely surrendered, firefighters are often the ones on the ground receiving these newborns and taking them to into care, Making them a critical part of this process and a powerful reason why their support on this bill holds so much weight. Joining me today to offer testimony is Doug Subers from California Professional Firefighters.

Thank you, mister chair members. Doug Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters. We represent more than 37,000 professional firefighters and emergency medical services personnel across California, and we are proud to support AB 1628. This critical bill, will provide a pathway of safety for an infant should, a parent in crisis, need a pathway to ensure that child's, safety. As the analysis notes, firefighters and fire departments are trusted community resources that are well understood in, location and their practice and their role in the community.

And the analysis does a really good job of laying out the process by which, an infant is cared for in the case of a safe surrender. Every fire department in the state has a protocol and a packet to initiate that process to ensure the child is taken safely, the appropriate elements of the community of of the safety net system are notified, and the child is safely put into the care of the state. So for those reasons, we would respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much, assembly member, and to your witness as well. Next, we'll take the Me Too's, also hoping to be heard in support of the bill. Come forward, name, organization, and position, please.

Thank you, mister chair, members of the committee, Angela Hill, California Medical Association in support.

Good morning. Kelly McMillan on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics, California in support. Rochelle Connor, on behalf of Concerned Women for America, sworn in support, ask for a nigh vote.

Good morning, mister chair and members. I'm with Ronco here on behalf of the California Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire Districts Association of California in support.

Alright. Thank you all very much. Do we have anyone here hoping to testify in opposition to the bill? Okay. Seeing no affirmative response. Anyone else hoping to register a position on the bill? No.

Alright. Back to the dais. Questions, comments, or motions? No. Okay.

We have a motion by Ramos and a second by mister Gonzales. Alright. Any other questions or comments or coffee orders? No? Alright.

Assembly member Rodriguez, would you like to close?

Yes. I just respectfully ask for an aye vote.

And I'm recommending an Aye. Let's do it.

[Roll Call]

Okay. That measure's on call as we wait for absent members. We'll let you know the outcome, though. Alright. Just doing a call out for okay.

I don't see assembly member Johnson present. So with her absent, the next in line would be assembly member Stefani. Alright. And this is oh, let me see. Assembly member Stefani, did you wanna start with 1974?

And I think you also, yes. You wanna start with 1974? Place. Alright. Let's go ahead whenever you're ready.

Thank you, chair. I'm actually thrilled to be presenting AB 1974 to the committee today, and I wanna first start by thanking the committee and the staff for the amendments and indicate my support for those amendments. I will be accepting them. AB 1974 is about giving people a safe, responsible option when they need to temporary temporarily store a firearm, especially during moments of crisis. There are more guns than people in this country.

Twenty seven thousand people die by suicide by a firearm in this country every year. I don't think I have to tell this committee, this public safety committee, the dangers of firearms in our country, in The United States Of America, where it is now the leading cause of death of teens and children. So I don't think I need to make the case that we need to do something about the gun problem in our country.

And this bill is an excellent example of what happens when people who are affected by gun violence turn that pain into advocacy and do something about it. This bill is inspired by the incredible work of Leslie Hu, an incredible gun violence prevention advocate and the founder of Pierce's Pledge in San Francisco, which has helped lead the way in creating voluntary safe storage programs in partnership with local law enforcement.

Now Leslie Hu lost her nine year old son during a very embittered battle of custody with her ex husband who used a gun to kill her child and then himself. Pierce's pledge is about working with family law professionals to make sure when there are custody battles that are contentious and there are firearms present, that we have a place to store those weapons to protect children in those extremely difficult times.

I've also been contacted by a commander for a retired commander at the San Francisco Police Department, commander Al Casciado, who expressed support for this saying, sometimes after officers perish, their widows are left with the guns and there's no place to place them. There's no place to store them. When Leslie Hughes started Pierce's pledge, there were a whole bunch of women who were helping her figure out what we do and where we store guns.

There's a woman named Cody who called around to all the federally licensed firearm centers in California. Not one of them was willing to store weapons. Thank goodness we had SB 368 by Senator Portantino that changed that problem, but there are still many places in California that just don't store weapons in times of crisis like this. And I wanna express my extreme gratitude to the San Francisco Police Department.

We don't have gun stores in San Francisco, but we have a police department that was willing to work with Leslie Hue and Pierce's plead to make sure that we solve this problem, and I can't thank them enough.

The San Francisco Police Department has implemented one of the first programs of its kind in the state, offering individuals and families a trusted place to store firearms when they feel it is no longer necessary to keep them at home. And the goal here is simple. With more guns safely stored and fewer guns accessible during moments of crisis, we can save lives, and we should do everything we can to do that.

We know that there are times when people recognize they need help, when they know that having a firearm nearby is not safe, and in those moments, access to a secure voluntary storage option can make all the difference. And the data is clear, creating distance between a person in crisis and a firearm, even temporarily, significantly reduces the risk of suicide and firearm related injury.

AB 1974 builds on that understanding. It provides clear, consistent guidelines so that law enforcement agencies across California can implement these programs safely, responsibly, and effectively. This is about prevention, and it's about giving individuals and families the tools they need to make safer choices in difficult times. And here with me today, to support is Ethan Murray from Giffords and Steven Lopez from the San Francisco Police Department.

Good morning, Chair Schultz. Oops. Vice Chair Alanis and members of the Assembly's Public Safety Committee. My name is Steven Lopez. I am the legislative liaison for the San Francisco Police Department.

I'm here today to give my testimony on behalf of the city and county San Francisco and the San Francisco Police Department in support of assembly bill nineteen seventy four, which would authorize law enforcement agencies to create voluntary temporary firearm storage programs. Last year, our department partnered with the nonprofit organization Pierce's Pledge to establish a temporary safe firearms surrender program.

This program was created in part to address a gap in safe storage options in San Francisco, which currently has no licensed firearm dealers operating within city limits who could normally provide the service. Under our program, each of our 10 district stations serve as designated drop off locations for surrendered firearms where they can be temporarily stored. Firearms may be stored for up to one year and returned upon request.

Prior to any destruction, owners are notified if a firearm is not reclaimed, and we also have an additional sixty day period for them to pick up the firearm if they wish to. The bill would set one year as a minimum amount of time for a agency to store a firearm, but they would have discretion to make it longer if they wish. Eight the bill does not mandate participation by a law enforcement agency or a firearm owner.

Instead, it provides clear statutory authority and a flexible framework for agencies that choose to implement this these types of programs, allowing them to tailor procedures to local needs. The bill includes, safeguards as well, including law enforcement ensuring that the owner is still eligible to possess a firearm upon returning, or when destroying a firearm to properly update the automated firearm system.

Temporary firearm storage in California is currently too inconsistent. While licensed firearm dealers may offer storage, they are not required to do so, and availability varies by location. AB 1974 expands access to safe storage options, especially for individuals who will need it most, such as those experiencing health crisis, family instability, or the situation where

it's time. I'm sorry. Okay. But thank you very much. Alright.

Next witness, please.

Chair Schultz. Vice chair Alanis. My name is Ethan Murray. I am a state policy attorney with Giffords, the organization led by for former congresswoman Gabby Giffords. We are proud to sponsor AB 1974, which authorizes law enforcement agencies to create a voluntary safe storage program. Out of as the assembly member eloquently put it, out of out of home storage options can create essential time between and space between a person in crisis and highly lethal means.

The committee analysis does really very well to highlight the connection between access to lethal means, namely firearms, and suicide. I wanna broaden the scope and note that out of home storage can also be a less intrusive safety measure in contentious cop child custody battles. As assembly member Stephanie outlined, Pierce's pledge started this program with mayor Lurie and the San Francisco police department in San Francisco.

It also followed in 2023 the legislature's pastor passage of SB 368 requiring licensed firearm dealers to provide a crucial safety valve of out of home storage options. In the times since, Pierce's pledge has called all of these licensed dealers.

The findings reveal the areas like San Francisco that don't have any options, but also where options are limited. Chair Schultz, according to Pierce's pledge, your district has 43 licensed dealers. Only four offer out of home storage at about $55 per month. 13 said they didn't offer storage, and the rest didn't respond to the survey. Vice chair Alaniz, your district has 27 dealers according to Pierce's pledge.

Three said that they would store firearms at about $50 a month. 10 said they would not, and the rest did not respond. Those are just two examples, but they reveal the gap SB 368 left has left behind. AB 1974 gives law enforcement the agency to step up like SFPD and fill that gap if they want to. It establishes clear, standardized protocols for intake and return, including vital eligibility checks to ensure weapons are only returned to legally permitted owners.

Your time. I'm sorry. Too many things go very quick. But thank you both very much for your testimony. Thank you, of course, assembly member for your presentation.

Next, we'll hear the Me Too's in support of the bill.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the city and county of San Francisco board of supervisors as well as the city and county of San Francisco, both in very strong support and just wanted to thank the author for this important measure. Thank you.

Good morning. Jamie Minor passing on our support for our colleagues over at Everytown for Gun Safety. Thank you.

Good morning, chair members. Rebecca Marcus representing the Brady campaign and Brady, California in support. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you all very much. Do we have any witnesses testifying in opposition today? Going once, going twice. Alright. Anyone else hoping to register in a a position on the bill? Okay.

We'll turn it back to the dias. Questions, comments, motions, all appropriate at this time. Mister vice chair.

Thank you, mister chair. So I I like this bill. It's a great bill. My concerns are with the law enforcement agencies. So it's completely volunteer if they wanna do it or not.

And have there been any agencies that you know of that that do hold them that maybe do charge to hold them?

I haven't heard of any agencies charging. I'll let the witnesses answer that too. I know that the San Francisco Police Department does not.

Okay. And it is good to know. Thank you for those points that you made that it's cheaper to storm in my district than it is the chair, so thank you for saying that. Oh, no. That's all I got.

Thank you.

Thank you, mister vice chair, I I think. Thank you. Alright. Any other quest yes, mister Gonzales? That's it. No comment? No commentary? Okay. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. We have a second. Alright. Anyone else? Alright. Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you, chair. I I'm very happy the opposition didn't show up, but I was ready and ready to go for that. So this is absolutely nonsensical, but I respectfully request your aye vote.

Alright. Well, thank you very much, assembly member. Colleagues, chair recommends an aye. We have a motion and a second, so let's conduct the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. That bill is out. We'll keep it open. However, perhaps the members to add on. Thank you all very much.

Alright. Oh, Assemblymember Stefani, you have one more bill. Alright. Colleagues, that will be Assembly Bill 2297. This is item 27 on page two of your agenda. Assemblymember, you can begin whenever you're ready.

Are we ready?

Oh, thank you, chair. Today, I'd like to present AB 2297, which makes sure victims have a fair and consistent path to restitution when a case is resolved through diversion. And I wanna make, very clear that I am a huge fan of diversion as a former prosecutor, from Contra Costa County. It is something that, I often, worked with public defenders to make sure that people have second chances, and I absolutely do believe in diversion.

I also believe in making sure that victims are made whole when they are harmed, and this bill is an opportunity to do both of those, two very valid goals.

When a case is resolved through diversion, victims can be left behind, and diversion is an important tool. It helps people get treatment, turn their lives around, and helps them to reduce, repeat offenses. I support diversion because it gives people a second chance and really does help build safer, healthier communities, but I don't think it should be, a situation where victims are forgotten. And right now, our laws are inconsistent. In some diversion programs, victims receive restitution, and in others, they receive nothing.

Two victims can suffer the same loss from the same crime, and one is paid back while the other is not simply because of the type of diversion that is used, and I don't think that's fair. AB 2297 fixes that problem. It makes clear that choosing diversion does not mean leaving victims behind. People deserve the opportunity to turn their lives around, but they must also take responsibility for the harm they've caused. Fairness makes making victims whole, and this bill delivers on that promise.

With me today to speak is in support is Victor Rowe from the San- San Diego District Attorney's Office and Carl London from Crime Victims United.

Good morning, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Victor Rowe. I'm a deputy DA from San Diego County. Last week, I had the opportunity to speak with some of the people that are opposed to this bill, and I wanted to briefly address some of the concerns that they raised.

And that is primarily that those who enjoy the benefits of diversion, they are able to avoid conviction. And therefore, the question is whether or not we can ask them to do anything, let alone pay back the the victims, the restitution that they owe. And first of all, diversion almost

universally is- is voluntary. Nobody has to force anybody to participate in a program of diversion. Article one section 28 requires restitution every time there's a conviction, but that that mandate doesn't necessarily translate into a preclusion against restitution in diversion cases. And this is not a new or untested concept. In fact, the requirement of restitution has been in mandatory or- or mental health diversion since its inception.

And it has withstood judicial scrutiny in People v Braden, a California Supreme Court case that directly looked at the reason why there is a restitution requirement in mental health diversion. And it came to the conclusion that it's actually a good thing because trial courts then don't have to be forced to choose between criminal offenders and their victims. And so the problem is though that mental health diversion is only one form of diversion in California.

In California, 10 out of the 14 available forms of diversion are completely silent on the issue of restitution. And so in those cases, victims, they don't get restitution through 1202.4 because there's no conviction, and they don't get it through the the applicable diversion statute.

So they're out of luck. And those courts in those situations would be forced to choose between offenders and the victims. And so that's what this bill is all about. Never forgetting California crime victims. Thank you.

Yeah. Mister chairman and members, Carl London here today on behalf of Crime Victims United. As miss Stefani pointed out, this bill, it helps protect crime victims who often suffer financial hardship as a result of crime. They lost wages, property loss, other costs associated with being a victim. We believe that this bill strikes an appropriate balance between diversion, rehabilitation, while also maintaining the principles of accountability and affirming victims' rights.

We urge your support for the bill.

And I tried to do that in under a minute.

Oh, you both did fantastic. I didn't even have to signal you. That was great. Let's next take the "me toos" hoping to be heard in support of the bill.

Julian Devores, on behalf of the League of California Cities, in support.

Rochelle Beardsley, California DA's Association, in support.

Alright. Thank you both very much. Do we have anyone here hoping to testify in opposition? We do. Alright.

Come on down. Once you begin speaking, do we have two witnesses? Sounds—okay, great. So, there's two microphones right over here.

You'll each have two minutes. Your time doesn't begin until you start speaking. Again, these two microphones and chairs right here. Thank you both in advance.

Good morning, chair and members of the committee. My name is Nedrick Miller. I'm an...policy, well, Senior Policy Fellow at Legal Services of Prisoners with Children. I'm also a member of All of Us and None. Because requiring restitution in all diversion context is largely duplicative, all existing law is unlikely to increase restitution collection and undermines local authority and discretion in diversion cases, we respectively oppose AB 2297.

California courts already have the authority to order restitution in diversion cases. Indeed, state law requires assessment of diversion in mental health and misdemeanor diversion and judge order restitution as a matter of course and other diversion courts. State law also requires the imposition of up to a thousand dollars in diversion restitution fees on anyone whose felony or misdemeanor charge is diverted, the revenue for which goes to the restitution fund.

AB 2297 is therefore largely duplicative on both existing diversion practices and victim compensation efforts. To that end, AB 2297 is also unlikely to increase restitution collections. One study found that individuals assessed restitution were more likely to recidivate than the likelihood of reentering the legal system increase with every additional essential, excuse me, dollar ordered against them. But plainly order and restitution, whether it is not essential, perpetuates the cycle of law breaking and harm.

Furthermore, most cases are criminal legal, are low income, lack of brown Californians who face significant barriers to financial stability, especially considering California's persistent poverty crisis. Imposing additional financial obligations in the context will likely result in low collection rates while increasing administrative enforcement costs on courts and counties.

The number of cases where restitution is not already required is limited to circumstances where the victim suffers no loss. In instances, the court has determined that a thousand dollars diversion key, dessert—diversion fee.

Your time is up, sir.

I know. Thank you. Kind of my head. Sorry.

Yeah. Go ahead, ma'am.

Thank you. Good morning. Elizabeth Kim, Policy Director at Initiate Justice. I respectfully oppose AB 2297. I wanna start by acknowledging the intent of the bill.

We all agree that victims deserve restitution and meaningful accountability. That is not in question. But this bill changes when restitution is imposed in a way that undermines one of the most effective tools we have to promote long term public safety diversion. At its core, diversion is designed to move people out of the traditional punishment system and into pathways focused on stability, rehabilitation, and successful reentry.

This bill shifts restitution into the pre-conviction phase, requiring individuals to take on financial obligations while they are still navigating that process.

That shift matters. Because the individuals who qualify for diversion are often those most impacted by economic instability, housing insecurity, and unmet behavioral health needs, this bill states that inability to pay cannot disqualify someone from diversion in practice, imposing financial obligations early in the process creates additional barriers to successful completion. And when diversion fails, individuals are pushed back into the traditional system, resulting in worse outcomes for both public safety and long-term accountability.

And from my work with directly impacted communities across California, we consistently see that successful diversion depends on stability. So, if the goal is restitution, California already has mechanisms in place to ensure victims are compensated in a structured and enforceable way, and that is why we believe support—we, we can support victims without undermining diversion success.

Thank you.

Thank you both very much for your testimony. Next, we'll take the Me Too's in opposition to the bill.

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of Debt Free Justice California, in respectful opposition.

Leslie Caldwell-Houston for the California Public Defender's Association, in opposition.

Eric Henderson, on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, in opposition.

Paloma Serna from Saving Lives in Custody California, opposition.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU California Action, in opposition.

Alright. Thank you, everybody. Now, we'll turn it back to the dais. Questions, comments, motions? Motion by Nguyen, second by Ramos. Sorry, by Gonzalez. I, I can give it to you, James, if you want.

Okay. Now, we'll give it to Mr. Gonzalez. Okay. Third by Mr. Ramos. Mr. Vice Chair, please.

Thank you. So, this—for the DA from San Diego.

Yes.

There were some things mentioned in regarding to the restitution fund and the direct restitution. Can you tell me the difference between the two?

Yeah. The, this bill, this bill addresses victim restitution. Those are completely different subjects. This, this bill doesn't touch restitution fund or restitution fees or anything like that. It, it directly addresses victim restitution.

And in, in this case, what, what this bill primarily addresses is the, the lack of uniformity that we currently face with, with, within our current system, where you have 14 different forms of diversion. The four that, that, that address victim restitution are kind of all over the board in terms of how they apply to victims and, and what is mandated.

This bill preserves some due process that is already reflected and already exists and has withstood some scrutiny in mental health diversion 1,001.36, where the court can entertain a hearing upon request to determine whether or not restitution is owed at all and make that determination before any order is, is made.

This, and also, to address one of the, the points on restitution being ordered at a pre-conviction stage, that, that is precisely one of the issues that was looked at by the court in People v Berlin, was the fact that restitution was attempted to be ordered after the completion of the two year period of mental health diversion and the court concluded that after that two year period, there's only one thing left to do is dismiss the case.

And so, it has to be ordered during the period of, of diversion. It has to be. And so, what, what we're looking for is some consistency, some uniformity, and the ability to give victims a, a level expectation of what comes out of their criminal case.

Thank you. And then, just one more. As far as the courts determining the restitution to include the, the ability to pay, could you also comment on that?

Yeah. That, that's the, that's always a, a, a factor that the court can consider. That's, that's in 1001.36, and I don't think the bill changes that.

I agree. Thank you, and I'll be supporting this bill.

Are there any other questions or comments? I just have one. I really appreciated the thoughtful answer and explanation from our representative from the District Attorney's Office. Just wondering if opposition witnesses had any brief response.

Thank you. I just wanted to point out that—thank you for the answer. Regarding the victim fund, we did have a discussion with the Department of Finance, and it does cost more money now to pursue recovering victim funds than it is to actually receive victim funds. So, the cost benefit analysis done by the Department of Finance is showing that it's at a, a net loss at this time. So, I do wanna point that out.

Thank you very much.

Does that beg any further questions from the committee? Alright. Seeing none. I believe we have a motion and a second. Would you like to close, Assemblymember?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, diversion is about second chance. And when someone's standing before a court and a judge and the public defender and the DA agree to diversion, the person sets out on a process to make sure that they don't harm again. And part of that is to make certain they make their victims whole.

If they've caused harm, they should do everything they can to eliminate that harm. And I, I don't think people realize that restitution is not just about the victim; it's about the person that harms someone. Making amends is a self-esteem building project, and everyone who is on diversion should have that opportunity to do it. If you are lucky enough to know anyone in 12 step programs or in a 12-step program yourself, you know the power of amends.

You know what it means when someone who has harmed an individual turns around and makes amends to a person. That's what restitution is. Diverseness is a second chance. So, this is not just about helping victims. It's about helping the people who are on diversion make the amends that they should for the harm that they've caused, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much, assembly member. Really wanna appreciate the thoughtful testimony of everybody today. Assembly member, I am gonna recommend an aye. I'll be voting for it today. In my time working with you, I've known you to be someone who really does try to work with every perspective and find that common ground.

I have no doubt that you'll continue to meet with the opposition and do what you can to find that common ground, but I think this is a thoughtful bill. It's a smart bill. Colleagues, I am recommending an aye, with a motion and a second. Let's conduct the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. That bill is out, but we'll keep the role open for absent members. Okay. Quick programming note, everyone. I believe next up in the queue, we have Assemblymember Johnson.

So, in a moment, we'll take her two bills. After that, on my list, Mr. Kalra was actually the first one to sign in. So, if he comes back, Mr. Carrillo, I apologize, he'll go in front of you. You will be right after Assemblymember Johnson.

I believe we're waiting for check ins from Assembly Member Jeff Gonzalez and Assembly Member Soria. So if they wanna make their way down here to sign in, that would be terrific. We have eight bills remaining today. Assembly Member Johnson, I believe you'd like to take AB 2438 up first. Is that correct?

Okay. Come on down. You once you make your presentation, your witness or witnesses and support will have two minutes each. As I mentioned at the beginning, I'll try to give a visual cue when there's about thirty seconds remaining so you can wrap up, and you can begin whenever you're ready.

Alright. Good morning, mister chair and committee members. Still morning. I am here today to present AB 2438, a common sense measure to address the unintended consequences of California's 2011 public safety realignment, stemming from AB 109. This bill ensures that individuals sentenced to long term felony terms serve their time in state prison rather than in our overcrowded county jails.

Since realignment, county jails originally designed for the short term stays and pretrial detention. These have become the defacto long term prisons. Under current law, there is no maximum limit on the length of sentence served in a local jail provided the offense meets certain criteria. This has resulted in individuals serving decades long sentences in local facilities that lack high security infrastructure and robust real rehabilitative resources found at the state level.

County jails are now faced- or facing, severe overcrowding and strained budgets that are undermining their ability to focus on effective community reentry and supervision.

AB 2338 provides a straightforward threshold. Any person sentenced to a term or a total term of more than six years for a felony must be housed in a state prison, not a county jail. This shift will allow local government the flexibility necessary to manage their populations more effectively. The burden on our counties is significant and it is measurable. In Riverside County alone, the county I come from, it costs approximately 59,000 annually to house a single inmate.

Just three individuals serving terms of six years represents a million dollar local custody cost over the life of their sentence. These are taxpayer dollars that are being sapped from our communities while state prisons are shut down due to declining prison populations. Additionally, as noted by the California Police Chiefs Association, jail overcrowding leads to extended booking delays, sometimes lasting for several hours. This takes officers off the street, reduces availability, patrol resources in our communities. Jail was never meant to hold prisoners for more than a few years.

With state prison populations declining, AB 2438 provides a solution to ensure correctional resources are properly leveraged while decreasing local overcrowding. With me to testify in support of this bill is Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco.

Thank you. Assembly Member, sheriff, whenever you're ready. Thanks for being here today.

Absolutely. Good morning, chair and members. I'm Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco in strong support of AB 2438. AB 109 shifted a significant portion of long term incarcerated state to counties, but it did not change the fundamental design, capacity, or availability of services to local jails. County jails were built for short term detention less than one year, not for individuals serving multi year or long term sentences.

In Riverside County, we are currently housing 46 individuals serving sentences of three years or more, including three individuals serving six years or longer, including one at 20. This creates a measurable strain on already limited county resources, increased classification and housing complex- complexity, greater demand for programming, medical care and supervision, ongoing staffing and operational pressures. These individuals require a different level of management, which pulls resources away from the rest of our jail population.

The result is a system wide impact, overcrowding pressures, reduced program access, operational inefficiencies, and serious safety concerns for those incarcerated. The fiscal impact to Riverside County alone is significant.

It costs approximately $59,000 per year to house one incarcerated person. Those three long term individuals represent $177,000 annually and over 1,000,000 for just their sentences alone. AB 243- 2438 addresses directly by establishing a clear threshold for individuals sentenced to more than six years, they should serve their time in state prison. This is fiscally sound possible policy. It shifts long term incarceration costs back to the system that was designed to handle these individuals.

But this is not just about cost, it is about doing it the right way. State prisons are built, staffed, and structured for long term incarceration. They provide more appropriate housing, better classification systems, and greater access to programming and rehabilitation services. That ultimately leads to better outcomes for the incarcerated population and safer communities for us. County jails simply do not have the infrastructure to replicate those conditions at scale.

AB 2438 reduces or restores the proper balance between county jails and the state prison system. It relieves pressure on local systems while placing individuals in environments better suited for their needs. For those reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 2438. Thank you.

Thank you again, assembly member and sheriff, for making the effort to be here today. Next, we'll hear from the Me Too 's hoping to speak in support of the bill. If anyone would like to be heard in support, please come forward at this time. Okay. Do we have anyone hoping to testify in opposition?

Alright.

Alright. It looks like we have two. Great. We have two chairs with two microphones right down here. You know the drill.

Two minutes. Your time begins once you start to speak.

Good morning, chair and members. Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and respectful opposition to AB 2438. To understand why AB 2438 is dangerous, we must understand the history of realignment. In 2006, plaintiffs filed class action lawsuits arguing California's overcrowded prisons were preventing the state from providing constitutionally adequate medical and mental health care to incarcerated people. A federal judge three panel agreed.

The US Supreme Court upheld that finding and declared that the state needed to reduce overcrowding. And, essentially, the court ordered the state to dramatically reduce its prison population. The 2011 Criminal Justice Realignment Act, also known as AB 109, was California's answer to that crisis, and it worked. California came into compliance with the federal population cap in 2015. The critical point is that court order has not gone away.

The state is still required to maintain a durable, lasting solution to overcrowding. As of December 2025, California's prisons are operating at a 122% of design capacity. And if passed, AB 2438 would send a significant number of people back to the state prisons. The bill does not just reverse realignment. It risks putting California back on a collision course with the federal courts, reopening litigation that cost the state significant sums of money and caused immeasurable harm to incarcerated, people and their families.

And for these reasons, we, urge your no vote.

Thank you. Good morning. Elizabeth Kim, policy director at Initiate Justice. I respectfully oppose AB 2438. I wanna build on what my colleague just raised about realignment and prison overcrowding.

At its core, this bill expands who is sent to prison that is already under significant strain without addressing the underlying drivers of risk or recidivism. I also want to acknowledge the concern underlying this bill. I understand that the intent is to ensure that individuals serving longer sentences, particularly those over six years, are placed in settings that the legislature believes may better address public safety risk and accountability. But this bill does not actually solve that problem.

Under existing law, individuals are already sent to state prison when there are clear indicators of heightened risk, such as serious or violent prior convictions, sex offense registration, or other specified factors.

This bill does not refine that framework. Instead, it creates a bright line rule based solely on sentence length, which is not a reliable proxy for risk, rehabilitation needs, or likelihood of reoffending. And importantly, this bill moves in the wrong fiscal direction. At a recent assembly budget subcommittee hearing on CECR, the legislature discussed ongoing concerns around cost overruns and structural spending pressures within the prison system.

At a time when the state is actively trying to manage correctional costs and and reduce reliance on incarceration, this bill expands the use of the most expensive part of the system, state prison, which costs a $120,000 per person annually without evidence that improves outcomes.

Thank you.

Thank you both very much for your testimony. Now, we'll hear from others hoping to register a position of opposition on the bill. Please come forward at this time.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California, opposed.

Jim Lindberg, Friends Committee on Legislation. You don't have our letter yet, but we do have an opposed position. Thank you.

Hanania- Hanania Sundaraj at the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office in opposition.

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

Paloma Serna with Saving Lives in Custody California in opposition.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU California Action in srong opposition.

Alright. Thank you all very much.

I'd like to turn it back to the dais. Are there questions or comments from members of the committee? Mister Ramos.

Thank you, Mr, Chair. And to the author, before realignment, what was the sentencing, that the counties actually would hold in those then going to the state prisons? Was it three years, particularly?

I can- I can- I don't know if I can hear you fully, but I think the answer is one year? You said what was it before?

Yeah.

One year.

So, being on the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, we've seen the- the impact of realignment on the county, and we've seen how county jails served as more of a rehabilitation area prior to the realignment. And we're seeing the influx of at least myself on the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors seeing the influx of- of inmates with- wearing red suits, and that means high level inmates.

And so I think looking at this, we have to start to look at a balance that starts to look at counties and the state and the responsibilities that are there to justice in the State of California. So I just wanted to ask that question, that's there. And also make sure that reiterating, on the county board of supervisors in San Bernardino County, we did see the impact on San Bernardino County.

So it's more of a statement. Thank you.

Thank you, mister Ramos. Are there other questions or comments? Mister vice chair?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So opposition, you pointed out that a 122% at design capacity for the prisons. What study was that from?

I can follow-up with you for the specifics. I believe it came from the- an LAO report, but I'll I can happy to follow-up.

Well, I just wanna point out that you both pointed out that there's prison overcrowding going on, but, yet I wanna say we're closing prisons. So I don't know how we could be closing prisons yet there's still overcrowding issues. I don't- I don't understand that part, but my colleague made a great point as far as what sensing used to be before AB 109. If you got prison, you went to prison.

Okay.

That's how it used to be when I was in law enforcement, and that's the way I think it should be.

So, obviously, AB 109 has done a a big impact on the counties. Sheriff, I think I'd like to hear a little bit more about your county specific after AB 109, how it impacted maybe your probation officers, how it how it also impacted your community.

Yeah. It's it's actually the entire criminal justice system, from us, from law enforcement on the in the field, and specifically the probation department. And it was truly it- it may have been a great idea on paper, but there was no application to real world life. And once it was pushed onto us, all it really did is shirk that responsibility from the state onto county jail.

So you can talk about the state prison for overcrowding, but all this bill did, AB 109, was make every single jail in California completely overcrowded.

So it was it's not about responsibility. It was not about anything other than shirking a responsibility of housing these inmates. And it's like one of the things that we tried to argue was that if you- if you're a family of five in a two bedroom apartment, you don't get to get rid of your kids. You have to build more rooms if you want more individual rooms for your kids. And it's and it's no it's no different.

And the overcrowding that it has done to every jail every sheriff in the entire state is I mean, it's something that we are dealing with on an everyday basis.

Thank you. I have no further questions.

Alright. Thank you very much, mister vice chair. Any other questions from the committee? Alright. Assembly member, would you like to close?

Actually, before you do, I apologize. Is there a motion?

Is there a second? 'Kay. With a motion and a second, assemblymember, would you like to close?

Motion.

I would. Thank you, chair. AB 2438 is a modest common sense change to our criminal justice system. I thank you to my colleague who brought up that this isn't just a Riverside County issue. This is a statewide issue.

At a time when all of our state prisons are historically underutilized, we need real solutions to keep our community safe and ensure inmates are treated humanely. That is simply not possible under our current system. For those reasons, I respectfully request your aye vote on this bill.

Well, thank you very much, assembly member. I I don't mean to bury the lead. I will be recommending a no, but I mean it when I say that I appreciate you bringing the bill and raising what I think are legitimate issues. Even if we don't agree on the solution that's being proposed today, I think that the issues that have been testified to by the sheriff are real issues facing our local communities.

Not long ago, as we all know, California's prisons were so overcrowded that the United States Supreme Court found that we had violated prisoners eighth amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment, and ordered the state to reduce our prison population.

Criminal justice realignment is one of the many reforms aimed at reducing these numbers to a constitutionally acceptable level. Realignment limited which persons could be sent to state prison and required more persons to serve their sentences in county jail. Now here's

probably the most important thing I'm going to say. Knowing this history, I cannot today support legislation that would potentially return large swaths of people back to state prison without considering the data that has previously been requested by this legislature, and I'm referring to, and you'll find it, actually in the committee analysis on page six, Assembly bill 1080 by Republican Assemblymember, Trita, which has a due back date by June 30th of this year.

I'm even more concerned, separate and aside from that fact, given the research that demonstrates keeping nonviolent, nonserious, and non sex offenders closer to their communities actually improves reentry outcomes and recidivism rates. In closing, I can't- your- support your your bill today because Assemblymember Ta has requested this data to study the efficiencies of realignment or the lack of efficiencies. This data is coming back in short order.

And with all due respect, assembly member, I think your bill is premature. So with that, I am recommending a no vote today.

For item 31, AB 2438 by Assemblymember Johnson, the motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. [roll call].

That measure will remain on call. We'll let you know the outcome. Assemblymember Johnson, I think that brings us to your second bill. This is 2450. Is that correct?

It is, sir.

Great. We're ready whenever you are. The bill. Okay. Do we have a second while we're at it? I'm gonna assume mister Lackey would second the bill.

Okay. Very good. Assemblymember, whenever you're ready.

Great. Thank you so much. I'm here in now switching hats to AB 2450, a bill intended to restore true judicial discretion for specific drug related sentencing enhancements. For decades, California used enhancements like the schoolyard act and large quantity enhancements to protect children and deter mass drug trafficking. Recent legal changes have effectively nullified these tools by requiring judges to give great weight to broad mitigating factors, essentially tying judges' hands.

This dismissal has become the default even in cases involving kilograms of narcotics or crimes committed on school grounds. AB 2450 changes the standard for six specific drug enhancements from shall to May. It does not remove a judge's ability to dismiss enhancement. It simply removes the near mandatory requirement to do so. This bill applies to high stake drug crimes, including crimes against children, soliciting minors for drug deals on school or childcare grounds, and manufacturing drugs where children are present and injured.

The schoolyard act trafficking drugs in school zones, major trafficking, large quantity enhancements for the possessing kilograms of cocaine, heroin, or methamphetamine. Drug crimes are extremely serious, especially those that involve children or vulnerable spaces and protected places. It is our sacred duty as a legislative body to protect the children of California. As a mother and a former mayor, I'm beyond heartbroken by the devastation caused by the drug trade, and for all the needless lives lost because of lax and lacking enforcement.

I wanna be clear, there is absolutely no reason why anyone convicted of these crimes should get anything less than the full extent of the law leveraged against them.

We have to draw a line and say enough is enough when it comes to our kids. Sentencing enhancements are a public safety tool that keep dangerous criminals behind bars and out of communities, and judges are best positioned to weigh the specific facts of a case. Rigid legislation mandates that force dismissal across the board undermine the transparency and accountability of our judicial system.

With me to testify, for this bill is Desmond Young, business development director for Riverside County Resources, a nonprofit providing alcohol and drug addiction recovery and behavioral health services, and Rochelle Beardsley, deputy district attorney for the Sacramento County District Attorney's Office, here on behalf of California District Attorneys Association.

Good morning, chair. Good morning, members. I'm Rochelle Beardsley with the California District Attorney's Association. I'm here to testify in support of AB 2450, legislation that would responsibly restore judicial discretion in the application of critical sentencing enhancements in regards to narcotics offenses. Recent changes to the law, SB 620, SB 81, they basically act to compel courts to dismiss enhancements whenever broadly defined mitigating circumstances are claimed.

Even when defendants trafficking massive quantities of narcotics or endangered children, this shift has undoubtedly undermined public safety and accountability in some of the most serious drug offenses. AB 2450 does not eliminate judicial discretion, rather it restores the balance by allowing courts to dismiss enhancements when appropriate rather than simply requiring dismissal in nearly every case.

This bill reinforces legislative intent by preserving enhancements related to soliciting minors for drug crimes, large quantity trafficking, manufacturing drugs in the presence of children causing great bodily injury, and meth and PCP violations on church grounds. These enhancements exist to protect vulnerable communities, to ensure proportionate consequences for high risk offenders, and they reestablish meaningful judicial discretion. And because of that, I urge a passage today.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Schultz and members. My name is Desmond Young, and I am the business development director and community relations, person for Riverside Recovery Resources. I come before you today as someone who has been personally active in the recovery community since 2004 and as a board founding board member for Inland Empire Harm Reduction. My guiding principle in this work is responsible compassion, a balance between deep empathy for those struggling with substance use and firm accountability for their growth and for the safety of our neighborhoods.

At Riverside Recovery Resources, been around, excuse me, for more than forty years.

Our mission is to build stronger families and communities by providing the tools and sustainable healing. For healing to take place, our communities must be safe, yet current law has effectively erased critical protections for our most vulnerable residents. AB 2450 is a measured necessary step to restore judicial discretion for drug related enhancements that target high level trafficking and crimes against children. I personally engage with fam, formerly incarcerated people daily, and all that I speak to will support this bill, which is amazing.

I don't think people recognize that for those of us, and I'm fortunate that I have not been justice involved, but I'm working with people every day.

I'm sorry Thats Your time.

And many of them say, if it wasn't for judge so and so, I would not have stopped. I personally feel that I just don't understand why everyone wouldn't be in support for protecting our children. In my role, I see firsthand how open air drug sales and manufacturing disproportionately devastate disadvantaged communities and families, restoring enhancement for crimes and safe zones like schools and childcare centers is an act of equity for children living in those neighborhoods. We cannot ignore Riverside County is a major thrower.

Thank you very much.

I look for an a.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Alright. Next, we'll hear from others who'd like to hear in support of the bill.

Come on down.

Good morning, Lieutenant Julio De Leon from Riverside County Sheriff's Office and sheriff Jack Bianco who had to step away in support.

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

Alright. Thank you both for your testimony. Is there anyone here to testify in opposition to this bill? Okay. There are two.

Come on down. You know the drill. Your time starts when you begin to speak.

Morning.

Good morning. Glenn Backus for Drug Policy Alliance. Drug Policy Alliance opposes AB 2450 because it would encourage district attorneys to return to the failed policy of stacking enhancements onto base sentences for nonviolent drug offenses. Sentence stacking has the effect of forcing defendants to accept unjust plea agreements or be threatened with many years, even decades of incarceration should they assert their constitutional right to a trial by jury. Sentencing enhancements have been one of the primary drivers of mass incarceration and prison overcrowding.

They have caused intergenerational harm to tens of thousands of low income families and wasted vast amounts of taxpayer dollars. The California legislature working with governors Brown and Newsom have incrementally reformed policies related to enhancements as well as policies related to drug use and drug sales to better emphasize treatment and public health approaches. This bill would degrade the requirement to dismiss certain drug related enhancements even if the court decide determines that it's in the furtherance of justice to do so.

AB 2450 would also require more severe punishment if drug sales occur within a thousand feet of a school. These drug free school zones as they're called encompass every inch of an urban area.

And most residential suburban, residential parts of the suburbs as well. I'm sure it's not the intention of the author to punish people who reside in cities more severely than those who reside in rural areas, but that would be the effect. Respectfully, the Drug Policy Alliance supports policies to invest in drug use prevention as well as drug treatment and public health programs to reduce death and disability caused by drugs.

But we strongly oppose bills like this one as a waste of public dollars and a waste of human lives. Thank you.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of the Los Angeles County Public Defenders Union Local one forty eight. The basic premise of this bill is that allowing judges to choose to not, impose an enhancement after finding that dismissing it would be in the furtherance of justice would somehow deter drug crimes, strains, credulity, and would really result in absurd results. So we urge a no vote.

Alright. Thank you both for your testimony. Next, we'll take the me too's who'd like to be heard in opposition to the bill. Can you please come forward at this time?

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California, opposed.

Leslie Caldwell Houston for the California Public Defenders Association, opposed.

Lynn Berkeley Baskin, Justice to Jobs Coalition and Law Defense in LA. Opposed.

Jim Lynn Burke, Friends Committee on Legislation of California. Opposed.

Hanania Sundaraj at Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and the San Francisco Public Defender's Office in opposition.

Hello,Paloma Serna from Saving Lives in Custody, California in opposition.

Elizabeth Kim on behalf of initiate justice in opposition.

Avi Rodriguez with ACLU California Action in strong opposition.

Capri Walker with Californians for safety and justice in opposition.

Mister chair, I apologize. We're here in support. Ryan Sherman with California Narcotic Officers Association and Riverside Sheriffs. I was stuck over in the Senate. My apologies.

Not not a problem. This is the second week you almost had me you almost had me going like, what is going on here? You're gonna oppose this bill. No. No.

Alright. Thank you, sir. Position of support registered and duly noted. Thank you. Anyone else hoping to register a position on the bill?

Okay. We'll turn it back to the dais. Are there questions or comments from members of the committee? I believe we have a motion and a second already. No questions, no comments.

Alright. My only question, but you can address it in your closed assembly member, is just hearing some of the concerns raised by the opposition. If you could speak to that in your closing, I'd appreciate it. But unless there's any other questions or comments from the committee, I will give you a chance to close.

Okay. I'll keep it pretty simple. As a former mayor and experiences at the local level and government, I have seen this devastation that drugs can cause in our neighbor neighborhoods. I actually worked alongside, my my support testimony, Desmond, here this today, boots on the ground, helping those, meeting them where they were and offering services to help them, say yes, hopefully.

And, as he responded in his comments that if it hadn't been for a certain judge, they never would have said that yes, even though we had potentially greeted them 83 times in the field.

So this bill isn't about unfair or unjust, chair to your,

to your

question. It's not about unfair or unjust punishment. It's about giving judges the power back to impose appropriate penalties for dangerous offenders, and it's to protect our children. Enough is enough. AB 2450 is supported by California State Sheriffs Association, PORAC, the California Civil Liberties Advocacy, and Riverside County District Attorney and Sheriff.

I'm gonna keep it simple and and strongly request and urge you for your aye vote on this bill.

Thank you very much, assembly member, and thank you again to all of our witnesses for your testimony today. I know two minutes is sounds like a lot of time. It's not really a lot of time. I get it. Assemblymember Johnson, I understand wholeheartedly the desire in bringing the bill forward.

It's my view that the courts already have discretion to not dismiss an enhancement. For the sake of time, I won't read it and it's entirely, but I would encourage everyone to refer to pages eight and nine of the committee analysis, and I would point specifically to a recent California Supreme Court case, People versus Walker. Citation there is 16 Cal fifth ten twenty four. This is a 2024 case. I'd like to read an excerpt, a short excerpt if I might.

This is the court's writing. It is clear that the structure does not presume an enhancement should be dismissed whenever an enumerated mitigating circumstances present, but instead, the ultimate question before the trial court remains whether it is in the furtherance of justice to dismiss an enhancement. And this furtherance of justice inquiry requires a trial court's ongoing exercise of discretion. Thus, notwithstanding the presence of a mitigating circumstance, trial courts retain their discretion to impose an enhancement based on circumstances long deemed essential to the furtherance of justice inquiry.

In rendering their position, the Supreme Court was citing a prior case from 2023, People versus Ortiz.

Citation on that one is 87. CalAP fifth ten eighty seven specifically pages ten ninety eight and ten ninety nine. The point that I'm trying to make assembly member Johnson is while I do understand the the the the impetus for your bill, the court has been clear. The Supreme Court of California has been clear in saying that the court that the clause shall dismiss is notwithstanding that the court retains discretion to dismiss an enhancement.

Therefore, and with all due respect, I find your bill unnecessary and passing a bill to suggest otherwise what is now well established, well interpreted law of this land risk jeopardizing what I view to be a very clear instruction to the trial courts that they do retain that discretion.

So I'm sorry to say that I must recommend a no today.

For item 32 AB 2450 by Assembly member John Johnson, the motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz? No. Schultz, no. Alanis, Gonzales, Haney, Harabedian, Lackey?

Aye.

Lackey, aye. Wen? Wen not voting. Ramos? Ramos, no.

Sharp Collins? No. Sharp Collins, no.

Okay.

That measure remains on call for absent members. We'll let you know the outcome. Thank you.

Okay. At long last, mister patient himself, mister Carrillo, the floor is all yours, my friend. I believe you have some demonstratives that you'll be showing today. Pictures, I believe.

I do for one of my bills. If it's okay with you, mister chair, can I start with AB2104?

Yes. Absolutely. We can start with that one.

Yeah. The second bill will

have pictures. Alright. Whenever you're ready.

But thank you, mister chair and members of the committee. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 2104. This bill will improve access to justice by requiring court hearings related to sexually violent predators known as SBPs, provide a remote access option for viewing. This bill will only apply to hearings that have already been deemed open to the public by a judge, and our constituents have a fundamental right to view the decision making process.

As of now, courts are not required to provide a remote access option, which means that members of the public must attend in person.

Doing so can be extremely difficult for those with illnesses, disabilities, children or dependents, and without reliable child care, the inability to miss work, and many other reasons why. Additionally, a lack of reliable transportation, which is well known issue in rural district by mine, can make it traveling to a courthouse nearly impossible. Many courts have already implemented remote access options for core participation due to the COVID nineteen pandemic, and AB 2104 will make use of these available technology.

I do not have any witnesses with me today, mister chair, but I must mention a constituent in my district, Mary Gidders, who has been a fierce advocate of improving this process. She would have loved to be here to be a principal witness, but she fell ill, and she's not able to be here today.

So thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember. Sorry. Thank you, Assemblymember. And your constituent's name one more time? Mary Jitters.

Okay. Well, Mary can't be here, but she's now on the record. So maybe that's some small token of her still being here with us. Thank you. Others hoping to be heard in support of the bill, please come forward at this time.

Good morning, chair and members. My name is Erica Short, and I am here in strong support of AB 20104. I live within two fifteen minute drives of two of the, predators that were released in the Antelope Valley. And if it wasn't for Mary Jeters who was at those hearings, she was the only one that was able to make it. She we would not have known that these were something that happens in our community.

So it's important that we understand that this has to be a fair process for our entire community, and it's not fair that sexually violent predators are being released into our area at higher rates than more affluent communities. So I really urge you all to support and help our community out. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. And assembly member, since you didn't have a witness, I'll let her go a little over.

But Thank you for allowing that, mister chairman.

Of of course, assembly member.

Good morning. Rochelle Beardsley, California District Attorneys Association in support. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. Anyone else hoping to register a support position? Okay. Is there anyone here testifying in opposition?

I do see one, so come on down. You'll have two minutes whenever you're ready. Don't feel any rush.

Okay.

No rush until I start talking. Good morning. Leslie Caldwell Houston on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. We are in respectful opposition to AB 2104, which seeks to mandate a one size fits all policy and strips judges of their legal discretion and rule making ability. First, proceedings under the SVP, laws like juvenile proceedings are generally not open to the public.

Specifically, SVP proceedings are not punitive and are about determining an individual's mental status, which by their very nature turns on the individual's mental health records, evaluations of their current mental health. AB 2104 risks tainting a jury pool for an SVP case in smaller counties where broadcasting the proceedings makes it more likely that potential jurors will be prejudiced against the individual facing commitment or petitioning for release.

Courts have held that is up to judges to determine which parts of SVP proceedings are public and which are not. Second, the policies of the 58 county, superior courts, which allow remote access or video live streaming vary widely from all public proceedings being remotely accessible to the public to none at all. For example, Alameda and Yolo Counties appear to allow public access to all public proceedings.

Other superior courts like Santa Clara and Santa Cruz appear to allow live streaming at the judge's discretion. I can go on with the counties, I won't. Even the courts like Los Angeles County Superior Court, which prominently post no public remote policies in their website, have demonstrated that judges are best able to determine when it is appropriate to livestream hearings.

However, in September 2025, LA County Superior Court judge sent out a press release inviting the public to appear remotely for an SVP hearing that generated a lot of public interest.

I apologize. That's your time.

Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Are there others hoping to be heard in opposition to the bill? If so, now would be the time to come forward. Okay.

I don't see anybody, so we will turn it back to the dais. Are there any questions or comments from members of the committee? Mister Lackey. K? We have a motion.

Is there a second? K. Motion by Lackey, second by Wynn. Any other discussion?

I do have a quick comment.

Please, mister Lackey.

I'm greatly appreciative to the assembly member for bringing this to the attention of this committee. Just so everybody is aware, our our we we share we live close to each other. And and I will tell you that our region is frequently targeted for the placement of these individuals with this very severe problem. And it strikes fear in the hearts of those who share property nearby.

And I I think that what what this bill just seeks for is a little bit more transparency so that everybody could be aware of what's actually happening and of our judicial process.

I I don't know what we have to hide. And I think that it it's nice that it it could build confidence in our system. And, I don't know what we again, I don't know what we have to hide, and so I completely support this.

Thank you.

Thank you, mister Lackey. Any other questions or comments? Alright. The only question I have is just in fairness to our opposition witness. I know you're in the middle of a point when I had to cut you off.

If there's any brief other point that you'd like to leave with the committee No.

I I would just ask for a no vote.

Okay. Thank you very much. Alright. Mister Carrillo, would you like to close?

I would, mister chair, and thank you for the opportunity to present this bill. And to the comments by Assemblymember Lackey, thank you for your support. I know that you represent our our area for twelve years this year. And, and as you mentioned, looking at placement of these individuals, they have to be placed somewhere. We all understand that.

But the fact that, we don't have one or two, but three individuals in the High Desert, is concerning to me and it should be concerning to everybody that represents our communities. In fact, there's been talks about placing a fourth individual in

in our in our district. And one of those personally being there right now was actually placed there ten years ago. He violated his release, and he's placed back again. So I thank for your support. Mister chair, thank you very much.

With that, I just simply say that AB 2104 will reduce barriers to justice so that California residents can stay informed when decisions are made that directly impact them. And that that's all this bill is asking just for more transparency in the process. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you, mister chair.

Thank you very much, assembly member. I will be recommending an aye, and I'd like to take this opportunity briefly to share what we've talked about in private in my office.

I appreciate your approach to this bill, notwithstanding that there are some legitimate questions and concerns have been raised by opposition, and I trust that you'll continue to work with them to the extent They're being funneled to a They're being funneled to a very narrow category of rural communities and is disproportionately impacting your communities, but also every year and and this is the the word of caution I shared to the capital community.

We see bill after bill trying to add further restriction, further limiting where we can place these individuals. Not only is it unfair in that your districts are the ones bearing the brunt of that burden of of giving them a place to go after they leave custody, it also jeopardizes rendering an entire system unconstitutional because these folks are not sentenced to life without parole.

These folks do have an opportunity, a right to be released. And so my caution to the capital community is that we should be thoughtful about putting in place reasonable restrictions, but we should also be mindful of the impact that it bears on rural communities as opposed to urban communities, which are largely exempt from placement right now. And we cannot have a system that becomes unconstitutional because it's so darn restrictive. There is no place to put these folks leaving custody.

So I I appreciate the opportunity there, mister Carillo.

I share that admonishment, that concern with the capital community. For today, I am proud to rep I'm proud to recommend an Aye, and I'll be voting for it.

Thank you, mister chair.

For item 18, AB 2104 by Assemblymember Carrillo. The motion is do passed through the appropriations committee. Schultz?

Schultz, aye. Alaniz, Gonzales, Haney, Harabedian, Lackey? Aye. Lackey, aye. Nguyen?

Aye.