Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning. I'd like to call to order this meeting of the Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety for Tuesday, 04/07/2026. We do not yet have a quorum, but we will operate as a subcommittee. Just a few announcements before we start today's hearing. In terms of the public comment procedure, on each bill, we'll take two principal witnesses in support of the bill and two principal witnesses in opposition of the bill.

And then we invite any members of the public who wish to express their support or opposition to come forward to the microphone. Your testimony will be limited to just state your name, your organization, or your or your or city that you're from, and whether you support or oppose the bill. But we are very, grateful that you're here today for today's hearing. And with that, we'll begin with our first bill, which is filed in one SB 907 by Senator Archuleta. Good morning, Senator.

And whenever you're ready, Senator, you may begin your presentation. Okay?

Well, good morning, committee members and chair, and, thank you for having us, first up bright and early this morning. And, again, I'd like to thank the chair, and I'm here today to present Senate Bill 907, which will implement five necessary fixes to California's DUI laws. I wanna begin by thanking the chair for working with me and my office, and I accept the committee's amendments. I accept the committee's amendments to remove the stripe provision of Senate bill nine zero seven.

As many in the room know, my eldest granddaughter, Samantha, life was taken by a drunk driver during the twenty twenty four Christmas holiday season.

At just 30 years of age, she was just had just received her master's degree in social work and was ready to save the world and one child at a time. That was her calling because she's no longer with us. I'm here to say today and I'm honored to present Senate Bill 907 to honor her, her friends, her families, your families, everyone's family because across California, we have lost so many loved ones. This can happen to anyone, anyone at any time.

Senate bill nine zero seven will finally strengthen California's DUI enforcement and sentencing laws, particularly for repeat offenders.

The first provision, bronze law, will ensure Watson warnings are read to all offenders who plead down from a drunk driving charge. The Watson warnings currently are generally not read in cases where a DUI is pleaded down to another charge. Braun's mother, Jennifer, is here today with me to testify on how this entire situation has impacted her family with the loss of her son.

Second, Coila and Anna's law will allow judicial discretion in con consecutive sentencing instances where a drunk driver kills multiple people in a single crash. When someone kills multiple people in one crash while drunk, that needs to be considered in sentencing.

One of my district attorney I'm sorry. One of my district representatives actually lost five members of his family who was killed. And I asked my staff, my chief of staff, where's Fred today? He wasn't here. He was on his way to Arizona to meet with the rest of his family because all five of them were killed in one crash.

Five. He's still trying to recover today. Third, Senate bill nine zero seven goes after repeat serial offenders with enhancements for prior felony DUI convictions. So in California, typically, a person only receives a felony DUI upon their fourth violation fourth violation in ten years. Adding additional enhancement for repeat felony offenders and offenses will keep serial offenders off our streets.

Fourth, Senate bill 907 also targets repeat offenders by increasing punishment for hit and runs if the driver has a prior recent DUI conviction. Repeat offenders are able to take advantage of our laws surrounding hit and runs, and they understand that if they they can benefit from running away and staying away from being tested. If they are impaired or drunk, if they could hide and stay away, guess what? The testing will have to be done as soon as they're caught.

If that case, the accused drunk driver can delay the arrest, It is likely that he will not be able to be charged with a DUI.

And lastly, Senate bill 907 adds gross vehicular manslaughter and vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated to the violent felony list. Per the amendments agreed upon with the committee, Senate bill 907 will not include the strike under California's three strike laws, and I understand that. While California does not currently consider these offenses to be violent felonies, it does consider great bodily injury caused by a drunk driver to be a violent felony.

Because of this discretionary discrepancy, someone who kills another person with their car while intoxicated may serve less time than if the victim survived. Is that true?

Let me read that again. Because of discrepancy, someone who kills another person with their car while intoxicated may serve less time than if the victim survived. This is because violent felonies are restricted to earning a maximum of a 33 and a third percent for good time or work time while incarceration. These credits benefits the individual, whereas nonviolent felonies allow them up to 66% of credits. This allows someone who kills another person to serve under half of their sentence.

Senate bill nine zero seven closes the loophole while someone that kills someone while drunk driving may serve less time than if they had only injured the victim. Senate bill 907 sponsored by Los Angeles County and Orange County district attorneys Nathan Hodgman and Todd Spitzer, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and Safe California Roads Coalition. The bill is supported by law enforcement, traffic safety organizations, and local governments across California, including League of Cities and California Contract Cities Association.

This broad bipartisan let me say that again if I may, mister chair. This broad bipartisan coalition shows how saving lives should never be a partisan issue.

It is a family issue. This is about showing Californians that we take our drunk driving epidemic seriously, and we're committed to making our roads safe and prevent the types of tragedies that have sadly made this bill nine zero seven necessary. So today, mister chair and committee members, we have to testify in support as Orange County senior deputy district attorney Robert Mitsum and Jennifer Livy whose son's life was tragically taken by a drunk driver. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Each witness will have two minutes to address the committee, and thank you for joining us today. Whoever would like to proceed. You go

first. Mister chair mister chairman and and members, thank you so much for having me. As the Senator introduced me, I'm Robert Messman, senior deputy district attorney at the Orange County DA's office. I'm a twenty four year career prosecutor, and unfortunately, I've seen the the tragedy that drunk driving and vehicular manslaughter causes. And unfortunately, I've seen in my career, an increase in these crimes and the and the impact it's had on families.

As the Senator said, the bill does five primary things. First, it adds vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and gross vehicular manslaughter to the violent felony list without adding it to the three strikes list. As the Senator said, if you personally inflict great bodily injury in a DUI, that is considered a violent offense. But if you kill somebody, that is not considered a violent offense. It's a clear loophole in the law that this bill attempts to address.

It also allows, gives discretion to the judge to impose what we call full term consecutive sentencing. California's determinant sentencing law has what I like to say is a volume discount rule, where each subsequent crime or each subsequent victim can only be punished at what we call one third the midterm for the crime. So each additional victim is only allowed to be sentenced to one third of the sentence for the crime.

There is an exception for this for voluntary manslaughter that gives the court discretion to impose impose a full term for each additional victim of voluntary manslaughter. This bill adds vehicular manslaughter and gross vehicular manslaughter to that exception list to give the court discretion.

That is named Kai Kyles and Anna's Law. There was a defendant who killed these two young teenagers who are out on a date, was sentenced to ten years concurrent, and ended up only serving three and a half years of that ten year sentence. This bill also adds a three year enhancement for prior felony DUIs. We've seen defendants that have ten, twelve, I've heard of 16 prior convictions for felony DUI within a ten year period.

Under current law, each of those DUIs is treated the same, has the same sentencing range.

There's no enhancement for additional or prior convictions. This bill gives the court discretion. Again, it's not mandatory. Gives the court discretion to impose a three year enhancement for each subsequent felony DUI. So there's an increase in punishment with the continued dangerous conduct.

It also allows increased punishments for hit and run if the defendant has a prior DUI within ten years. The way our laws work, there's an incentive. If you're driving drunk and you get into a crash, there's an incentive to flee because the punishment for hit and run is so less and de minimis compared to DUI. So I've seen in my experience a lot of the people fleeing accidents or fleeing because they've been drinking or they're under the influence.

If you have a prior DUI within ten years, this will increase the punishment for hit and run.

And finally, there's the Watson piece that allows a Watson advisement or mandates a Watson advisement anytime a DUI is pled down to another charge. This is a usually, a defendant gets a benefit in a plea bargain when a charge is reduced. But because he gets that benefit, he shouldn't escape a warning that driving drunk is dangerous. And if you continue to drive drunk and kill someone, you can be charged with murder. This is a preventative measure.

It's designed to prevent tragedies in the future. So thank you very much. Thank you, Senator Archuleta, for taking the leadership on this. I'm happy to answer any questions, and thank you for your time.

Thank you. Hi. Good morning.

Hi. Can you hear me? Hi. I'm Jennifer Levy. I'm from LA County.

I'm here because our son, our only son, Ron Levy, 18 years old, is dead. He's not a statistic. He's not just another name on a page. He was a real person, vibrant, beloved, magnetic, and the hole left by his death is so deep and violent that there are moments it still feels impossible to wake up and live my day. He suffered a death that was 100% preventable and heinous.

Someone with a suspended license, repeat DUI offender got behind the wheel of a dangerous weapon, a car, and it was that simple and selfish. Braun was killed instantly. Braun was called the blonde bomb because he was a pure force of life. He was full of energy, uplifting, inclusive, and joy. He had that rare kind of spirit that made every room, every gathering, every situation he walked into better just by being there.

He made people feel seen. He made people laugh. He brought light. He brought connection. He elevated everything.

He loved his friends, going to concerts, watching sports, eating steaks, laughing, spending time on the vibrant beaches of Southern California. He even ran the LA marathon with no training. He was just that person who always did the unthinkable. You would have loved him. You would have wanted to know him.

In fact, the week before he was killed, my husband and I received three phone calls. One was that he had earned a walk on spot at University of Virginia tennis team, one of the best division one tennis teams in the country. He was so ecstatic and happy. He could not wait to live his life. Then we got a second call.

Loyola High School called us to inform us Braun was not only graduating in the top 10 in his class, he's being awarded the Scholar Athlete of the Year Award and the Frank Callahan Award, the most coveted and prestigious award a young man can earn at Loyola High School. We decided to keep all this a secret. We wanted to watch with honor and pride as our son accepted these awards of surprise. And then we got the third phone call, five days before graduation.

Ma'am, your son's been hit by a car, and I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but he didn't make it.

That was five days before high school graduation. I wanna show you before I got here, I decided to go on my camera and look for the last picture I had of Braun. This is Braun and my husband, Dan, and they're sitting in bed together, eating cereal, watching ESPN. It's such a simple, ordinary, beautiful moment, a father and son safe in their rituals and their love and the assumption there'd be another morning and another game and another bowl of cereal.

I did not know that one day this picture would be sacred.

He died a few hours after this photo was taken. That is what drunk driving does. It does not just kill a person. It annihilates a family's future. It takes the ordinary precious moments that make up a life and turns them into artifacts of grief.

That is our life right now. People call DUI a mistake, an accident. No. It's a choice. A person chooses to drink.

A person chooses to get behind the wheel. And when that choice ends a life, we cannot keep minimizing it with soft language and weak consequences. I have been lobbying for change since the day my son was killed, talking to everybody we know. Our life is braided from Northern to Southern California, and this is what I this is what I hear over and over. Oh, if you wanna get away with murder, go to California and use a car.

That's not funny. That's what people say. That's California. That's not a joke to us. Mandatory minimums don't work.

This bill is more than deterrence. A person in prison can't get behind the wheel and kill another person. There's racial disparities. The solution to inequity is fair application of the law. Victims of drunk driving don't get to choose.

Ron didn't choose. I didn't choose. DUI does not discriminate. It's too expensive. Ask me what it costs to lose our son and bury him.

I dare you ask me. I'll tell you because I have to live with it every single day morning tonight. And how do you think it trickles down to the survivors and our extended family? My husband goes to work every day, employee of the state for the past thirty years. He goes to work every day as a pediatric surgeon to save the lives of other children while his child is dead.

How does he do it? I don't know, but it has cost him. Our daughter who's trying to finish her college education, she lost her little brother and best friend. How has this cost her? No 20 year old should carry this burden.

To say this is too expensive is insulting. Removes judicial discretion. This bill targets cases where discretion already failed. The discretion argument is weakest exactly where this bill is strongest. We should focus on treatment, not punishment.

You can believe addiction is a problem and disease and believe the State of California deserves better. We deserve protection. We deserve better. There is no sentence strong enough to describe what it means to wake up every day and remember that your child is dead. Just think about that for five seconds.

If everyone you woke up and the first thing in your head was, my son is dead. My only son is dead, and now I have to live this day again. There's no punishment that can restore the sound of his voice, the way he filled the room, the way he made people feel, but the law can decide whether the state takes these crimes seriously. Too often DUI is treated like an unfortunate last instead of what it truly is, a completely preventable act of violence.

Criminals should not fall between cracks because it's their first offense.

I am here asking so the next parent does not have to stand at this microphone. Braun's death left wounds that do not heal and not just for me. My wounds remain open and my soul not was not broken as mutilated. Please make change and protect those that are still alive. Ron, my only son who is so loved and missed, and all the other victims deserve that at the very least.

Thank you for listening and taking the time.

Thank you very much. Okay. We invite any members of the public who wish to express support for Senate Bill nine zero seven to please come forward. Your testimony is limited to your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Good morning, chair and members. Tamar Tokat on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, proud cosponsors and strong support. Thank you.

Nicole Wordelman on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors in support.

Gia Chen on behalf of the California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals in support.

Chair members, Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association in support.

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

Good morning. Usha Mutchler on behalf of the California State Sheriffs Association in support.

Brandon Epp on behalf of the Los Angeles County Sheriff in support.

Good morning, mister chair. Mike Sharif with Fanslau Government Affairs on behalf of cosponsors, Safe California Roads Coalition. Thank you and your staff for your work on this bill. Appreciate it.

Good morning. Ivy Fitzpatrick on behalf of the Riverside County District Attorney's Office and the California District Attorney's Association. Strong support.

Thank you. Is anyone else wishing to express support for Senate Bill 907? Seeing no one else, we'll now invite up to two principal witnesses in opposition to the bill. If they would like

to present.

You understand? Sorry? I believe we have a quorum at this time. So I think she needs please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Thank you very much. And good morning. You each have two minutes to address the committee.

Thank you. Good morning. I wanna express my incredible, you know, heartfelt sympathy for your pain. I I have lost a family member to drunk driving. He was a school principal and had a five year old child.

He was 35 years old. I too understand that pain. I think that all of us may have been touched in one way or another by either our friends or loved ones and the pain that this brings. But even given that I don't think the emptiness can be filled by, putting people away for longer periods of time. I believe that what is necessary is to prevent drunk driving.

And I believe there's research and evidence that have brought to us what are now proven methods to do that. And I want to turn it over at this point to, my colleague Ignacio Hernandez but I do wanna say that California Public Defenders Association respectfully ask for your no vote.

Good morning mister chair members. Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice. We are a statewide association of criminal defense lawyers and private practice and also working in public defender offices, and we are respectfully in opposition. Let me start by saying I have a lot of respect for the author. I've worked with him on other bills with other clients.

A lot of respect for the witnesses that testified earlier about their family tragedy. Really have no words to address the pain. A lot of respect for the prosecutor who testified. Our position as CCJ and policy making is that all voices need to be heard in the decisions that you make and then when we craft policy. I've been involved in lobbying and being a part of this capital and policy making for over twenty five years.

And I've always appreciated hearing all sides. And I think that we can take into consideration the tragedies because I think in some ways we are more alike than we're different. Nobody wants to see these tragedies. I've had to testify on public safety bills for over two decades. Some tough ones.

At the end of the day, we don't want these tragedies. But we can care about the families and victims and Harabedian. And concurrently, we can also care and try to be stewards of core legal and constitutional principles. And that is the challenge.

I would not wanna sit where you sit every Tuesday morning where I've been coming in for last twenty years to figure out how do we craft laws in a way that address the tragedies that you heard today, but also address the entire spectrum of cases that you may hear, and how do we also address the core constitutional principles to have a balanced system.

It's difficult. I'm gonna mention a couple things in the bill but let me just say this. I have been saying this entire year that what we need to do because

there are over 20 bills dealing with DUIs and reckless driving.

They're is there are over 20 bills dealing with DUIs and reckless driving this year. Is we all need to sit together at the table and figure out where the gaps are and figure out how these bills can fit together in a more uniform holistic approach to prevent DUIs in the first place and to fill gaps on sentencing where it makes the most sense. And so I reiterate that today.

My commitment, I've been telling authors and telling offices the last few weeks, and working with colleagues to come up with a game plan on what laws can look like. And so I will share that with you and I'll reach out.

If I haven't reached out to your office already, to you individually, I will do that. Let me just mention if I have any more time, I'm not sure that I do, but just on the bill itself. I do appreciate the amendments that were accepted by the author today and provided by the committee. We do have some legal concerns with the consecutive sentencing. As was stated earlier, it is a new it is unique, and not, in a lot.

It's only in one area of the law where you allow consecutive, even at the discretion. And we think there may be some core legal principles that may be problematic in applying it here even though I think, you know, when we look at the tragedies, it would make sense. We think there's some core legal principles that may be problematic. I know my time's wrapping up. I'm available for questions on the Watson advisement.

I'll just mention one of the challenges is that there may be a a someone who was driving with alcohol and then it was pled down. They were saying to hit hit and run, I think is what was mentioned. The concern is that if it turns out the evidence that someone was not drinking and driving, we're now imposing a drinking and driving Watson advisement on them for the future even if it turns out that they did not engage in a DUI.

And so that's problematic for us to treat a non DUI as if it were a DUI. If the evidence shows that it was played down for that reason that it turned out it was not a DUI.

So but I'm happy to answer questions and I'm out of time and I appreciate, the time.

Thank you very much. Now take any of the members of the public who wish to express opposition to SB 907. Please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

George Brampton on behalf of ACLU California Action in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Liz Blum Gutierrez on behalf of the LA County Public Defenders Union Local one forty eight in respectful opposition.

Good morning, mister chair members. Micah Doktoroff on behalf of Smart Justice California in opposition.

Okay. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition at SB 907? Seeing no one else, I'll bring it back to the committee for any, questions or comments at this time. Vice Chair Ciarra.

I'll offer my Alright. First, to the author, thank you for bringing this forward. Is this on? Yeah. It's about time that we start taking this a lot more seriously than we have.

You don't if if you worked at any position in public safety for any amount of time, you realize that this problem isn't getting better. It's getting worse. And the I I think a lot of the pain from the victims is knowing that the person that has caused them so much pain that is irreversible will be able to continue to do that. And I do believe that the best way to prevent a DUI is through prevention and keeping people from doing that.

But when that fails, there should be consequences for that failure.

And that failure needs to be born on the person that decided to disregard all of the consequences that they know are out there for for doing a DUI, for for being that person. And they go out and do it anyway. There is no bringing back the person that they have maimed, killed, injured, psychologically damaged forever. Somebody needs to have justice. And sometimes, we forget that part.

We forget the part where, you know, this isn't just about rehabilitating people. This is about people needing their justice for the damage that has been incurred by somebody who knows darn well that what they're doing can result in in in that type of damage. I'm a coauthor on this bill. I would have been more than glad to to carry it as well. I'm sick and tired of this.

I'm sick and tired of well, fortunately, I don't have to go on those calls anymore. Hundreds of calls. Most of the calls I went on in my thirty five year career were the the horrendous accidents were DUI related. And yet, we just continue to allow the same thing to occur over and over and over. And we make excuses for people.

And we talk about, oh, well, you know, they need rehabilitation. Yeah. Great. If you can't, then then focus on that. For Pete's sake, focus on that rehabilitation.

Because if you can do that, then the DUI will never happen, and we don't need justice for somebody who's dead, nor do we need justice for their families. So you bring the bills that help people not do DUIs. But once they've done it, they need to pay the price. And that price that they're paying is substantially less than the price that the people that they have victimized are are paying. So, yes, I will be supporting this.

And I will support whatever efforts we can to to prevent DUIs, because I don't want them to happen. And I don't want to see another parent bearing their children. I've seen too many.

Thank you, mister vice chair. Senator Cortezi?

Thank you, mister chair. Just wanted to to make a couple of comments before we move on here. First of all, it's my understanding, if I'm if I'm understanding the briefing I received regarding prospective amendments that that the authors agreed to take an amendment regarding eliminating the strike provision in the bills.

Thank you, mister chair. Just wanted to to make a couple of comments before we move on here. First of all, it's my understanding, if I'm if I'm understanding the briefing I received regarding prospective amendments that that the authors agreed to take an amendment regarding eliminating the strike provision in the bills.

Is that correct? That's correct. Okay, great. I would have liked to have seen more done, and let me just say, as somewhat of a qualifier, I'm a full time legislator, and I have been for a long time at the local and state level, and I haven't practiced criminal law actively in the courts for some time, but clearly I'm trained to do that.

And there there's there's some fundamental some fundamental lines that have been crossed in the bill, in my humble opinion, and and that doesn't that doesn't mean we don't need to do this. We we need to move this along, I think today, but, and we need to do something in this year, this year of 2026 in the legislature to deal with this problem. We just conducted, a very, very compelling hearing between my committee, transportation and public safety.

I think most people in this room are aware of that. The listeners may not be aware of it. There's nothing you could say after that hearing other than changes need to be made, changes need to occur, not only on the criminal side, but on the transportation side as well. That said, I think it's important that, you know, if we're not going to be amending the violent felony language in this bill today, that we do that going forward.

If we don't do that, it would present a problem for me, you know, supporting the bill, either in a subsequent committee hearing, or probably more importantly, on the floor.

And again, let me go back to what I started to say. There's no way that I'm gonna say that any kind of legal technicality should stand in the way of of of justice consequences. I I do agree and I appreciate very much, Senator Sayreutho's comments about, we we also need committees, like Senator Winter select committee and others to keep working on rehabilitation, to keep working on, you know, preventing, much, much more of this kind of behavior, addictive behavior, that than what we're we're currently preventing, basically.

We have an epidemic of of serious substance abuse of addictive behavior and alcoholism out there, obviously, which is at the root and foundation of all of this. That said, I also agree with Senator Sauer to there needs to be consequences.

So, you know, we're in agreement there.

But without getting into the way I was trained on the law, you know, in terms of any deep dive, I do wanna say that for hundreds of years of me going all the way back to the British system that we're based on, the the purpose of of having a manslaughter category, if you will, for this kind of harm was so that you had some place to put cases where that were really lacking what they teach us in Latin, the mens rea, but the criminal intent that would rise to the level of of of a more serious homicide, basically.

So to cross that line, you know, to sit here in a committee as a as an attorney who who knows that, who knows better and say, hey, we're just gonna vitiate and we could.

I mean, it's the the the power that we have here is that we could actually set the precedent to to change all that in the California legislature and and set some kind of precedent that would not only affect this particular body of law, but also become something that's relied upon in other areas of criminal law.

I'm not prepared to do that. And so part of the message is always with these kinds of comments from the day, as as Senator Archuleta knows, he's made his share of him as a not as an author, but as somebody voting in committee. I just have to urge you to to if this bill gets out of committee today to to work on that aspect of it.

It's not. it's not of a very very significant consequence to the way that we apply the law to to the way we've adopted criminal law in this country going back to the foundation of the country. It's not just this would this will send a message, you know.

It would. It would send a message if we if we left those violent felony language in there. But it's it it also sends it sends a message to perpetrators, people who fall into this behavior intentionally or not, that it doesn't matter anymore if it's intentional. If you do it, we're gonna treat it as if it was it was absolutely intentional every step of the way. And that's just not that's just not the way our our legal system works.

We have to have a place to put those cases where it's either unprovable and and probably because it's unclear as as to whether or not that level of criminal intent has been has been reached. So I don't wanna be redundant. And also, again, I'm trying not to be, you know, Legalese or technical. There's a lot of smart people here that know exactly what I'm talking about, smarter than I am, but I I wanna explain that concern.

And Senator Archwood, I'm I'm more than happy as a colleague, you know, to help flush out my concerns on a one on one basis more with you.

In fact, I would be honored to to help, you know, get the bill in final form in in a condition where we we didn't have any of those kind of problems because I do think we need action and I I commend you for not only your passion about this, but for your your commitment to making sure, you know, something happens this year, you know.

We're seatmates for those of you that don't know and he's been telling me as we sit next to each other, Senator, this has gotta happen. You've gotta help me make this happen. We've gotta have a different response to these DUIs. I'm with you on that.

But we also have to to navigate some very, very important criminal law doctrines that, perhaps inadvertently, I don't know, but have, are in the category of a line that's been crossed in the bill right now that that we need to fix. That's that's where I'm at on it. And and I won't change my mind about that unless it's fixed. So I just wanna be clear about that. That said, I'll pass it back to the chair.

My intention is to, you know, seek the chair's recommendation on this when the chair has an opportunity to to advise us where he's at on it. But again, if the bill gets out today, I hope you'll take seriously the comments I made this morning. Thank you.

Thank you. I have several other members in the queue. And just to be clear, my my recommendation is to move the bill out with the one amendment that the Senator has accepted. But I do agree with Senator Cortezi's comments.

And as you know, the other amendment I did propose did remove that violent felony piece. And, Senator, you wanted to keep that in, but I really encourage you to heed the heed the comments you're hearing from the committee today, as this bill moves forward, because I think that these are serious legal questions that we have to consider.

I agree with you that we need to we need to have a system of accountability to make sure that people that repeatedly drive over the influence and inflict harm and kill people are held accountable. I think as Senator Cortes had said, we held a hearing just a few weeks ago on this issue.

And there are many gaps, whether it's DMV and their tracking enforcement of people that engage in reckless driving or whether it is loopholes in the law that allow for people to repeatedly inflict harm while driving under the influence.

And so this is a very serious issue. I commend you for bringing this bill forward. I know this is a deeply personal issue to you and your family, and we do need to take action this year. And that is why I believe we should move this bill out today as with the amendment that you accepted. But I do strongly encourage you to listen and heed the comments from committee members about other issues that need to be considered if this bill moves forward today.

Senate press.

May I call?

Oh, we we're still having, discussion. Oh, yeah. But we'll get to you in a second.

Yeah. Well, wanna appreciate the comments that both the chair as well as Senator Cortezi has made in regards to this bill and, you know, I think I wanna underscore Senator Archuleta, just for the personal issue that I recognize this is for you.

In addition to that, I'm sure that many of us sitting up on the diocese have read, the reporting by many entities, including CalMatters, on the gaps that currently exist within the system, and, how we have, unfortunately, you know, seen in many cases folks that have had repeated DUIs or repeatedly driven recklessly seen back on the roads who have harmed other people.

And I think many of us in this room, you know, know of family members, of loved ones, of friends that have been impacted, you know, as a result of those gaps. I you know, your bill is doing quite a bit.

It's a very significant bill, and there's about six different pieces of it. And I was spending some time, you know, yesterday evening, taking a look at it, and I can appreciate the direction that you're trying to take this, which I think is to address the gaps that exist, particularly for those that are repeat offenders, you know, of driving, vehicular manslaughter, or adds it adds gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated vehicular manslaughter while intoxicating gross vehicular manslaughter to the violent felony list.

And so it talks, you know, about folks that are driving with DUIs and folks that are driving recklessly and, who are repeat offenders. But one of the things that I did note, you have six different measures in here. And the fourth one, which requires imprisonment in the state prison or county jail for up to one year for a hit and run, causing damage to property within ten years of a separate conviction for DUI, gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, or gross vehicular manslaughter.

I will know, you know, as I went through your bill, that portion of it stood out to me as well because it doesn't really match up with some of the other issues that you identified. Right? I mean, we're talking about somebody committing a hit and run causing property damage versus, you know, in these other cases that you've outlined here where somebody's actually harmed someone else, right, or gotten on the road like drunk.

So I do think that's this fourth policy that you've outlined here, I do think that you need to revisit. I also think that the concerns that Senator Cortese brought up, you know, are valid and, you know, will require you to look at those as this bill continues to move forward.

It's a significant piece of legislation, but, you know, as someone that spent time getting to know you over, you know, the last two years, I understand why it's such a significant piece of legislation. You lost your granddaughter as a result of a drunk driver, and I can understand what a deeply personal issue this is for you. And I too want to see something done about this.

There's no reason for us to continue, you know, to allow for victims of these tragedies to occur and to suffer and to have their families suffer either. So I'll be supporting your bill today, I think, with the understanding, as some committee members have mentioned, that there is some work that needs to be done here.

It's quite a significant bill. But I understand your passion and wanting to really make an impact on this issue. And so, you know, appreciate the work that you've done here and, you know, the research also that you've brought in as well because there's certainly been a lot of discussion about this in media and with some of the data that's been gathered around this too.

Thank you. Senator Caballero?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Could I ask if this bill passes out of committee, what is the next committee close to?

Appropriations.

Okay. Let me just say that that makes a difference to me because the more eyes from the from the Senate that are on this, I think the better. Senator Archuleta, we know how close this is to your heart, And I really appreciate the work that you've done and the steadfastness in you to to stay focused and not be bitter and and and angry. Although I know you're angry, about the loss of your granddaughter. The challenge for me is that I this is the area of the law. You and I have talked about this before that that I worked fairly significantly in, and it is six bills, six bills in one.

And probably what we should have done is said, you know what?

Take it apart and let's deal with them one by one, because it it gives us the opportunity to really be, I think, wise about what we're doing. And for me, the bottom line is that the the three strikes and the violent felony were are are roads too far. The other part, we can tinker with the words. I get where you're trying to go, and I think there have to be increased penalties.

And there has to be consistency in in how we we deal with what is a it's it's a it's a complicated issue related to mental health.

It's an addiction and personal choice. We want people to take responsibility for the bad choices that they make. And we've been struggling with trying to figure out how to give people the benefit of the doubt, but also to be to consequence people. So I wish this went to another committee because then there'd be another backstop. People could look at it and have a discussion about what what they're willing to do.

I'm willing to listen to the rest of the comments of the committee as well as your closing here, but I have real problems. Both the three strikes and the violent

felony designation have consequences way beyond rehabilitation and punishment that start affecting how individuals are in in in because I did this area of the law, in many instances, it affects the entire family. I mean and, yes, their bad behavior affects other entire families as well. But but I'm I'm particularly concerned with trying to do things in a way that actually it makes sense and is not a react overreaction to us not having done things for for far too long.

So, as I said, I'm I'm not sure what I'm gonna do right now, but those are my two two bottom lines. And so I'm thank you for taking the the committee amendment to strike this section section number one that has the three strikes.

But I I for me, if I end up supporting it today, if if there the change is not made on the by the time it gets to the floor, I won't be willing to support it on the floor despite the fact that it I think there are some good elements. You've taken pieces that need to be fixed. So thank you, Mr. Chair.

Senator Wiener. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also want to thank the author for bringing this forward and I know the devastation that was inflicted on your family is just unfathomable. And thank you as well for also turning your unthinkable tragedy into action.

I also like many people have lived experience here when I was six years old, a drunk driver killed my aunt, my father's only sister, his big sister. And I was very young but I remember very vividly I believe it was the only time that I can recall in my life that I saw my father cry when he picked up the phone and was informed that his big sister was dead.

And then I vividly remember my grandmother collapsing at the burial site at the funeral as she put her her eldest child in the ground. And our family had impacted us forever. And if we think California's laws are a little or too loose, teleport back to 1976 New Jersey or any state back then when drunk driving laws were just abysmal.

And I don't remember exactly what happened to the guy who killed my amp but it was not very much. And I know California's laws are they need to be strengthened. There are just it's not enough and people who can cycle through over and over again with very, very few consequences. So I'm glad that this year there's finally a long overdue focus in both houses on strengthening these laws and ensuring real accountability. It's very different than it was in the seventies.

There's at least more stigma now around drunk driving but the laws are not where they need to be. And so this is important work. I'm going to support moving this bill out of committee today as part of the two house conversation to strengthen and rationalize our DUI laws. But I do want to be very clear this bill goes too far. This bill is in some ways it's just it is it goes way further than it needs to go.

And I I I wish that the author and I expressed this yesterday to him had taken the the chairs request to remove the violent felony piece entirely. I know that's not happening. I I do believe that that should happen because as Senator Caballero pointed out, this is a lot of bills in one. I'm never gonna having done that, I'm never gonna criticize for people doing multiple bills in one. I do that regularly.

But But even without that, this bill is still quite harsh in terms of the changes to the consecutive terms. So for example, I believe in San Francisco, the woman who was not because the bill is not just also about DUI. It's also about gross vehicular manslaughter. So the the woman who who killed an entire family in West Portal in San Francisco and who plead to gross vehicular manslaughter, her

she would have had four consecutive sentences. She's an elderly woman. She would have served until probably age 130. That in and of itself is a massive massive change to the law in terms of how we do consecutive sentences when there are multiple people who are who are killed. This changes hit and run law so that if you leave the scene, you are presumed to have been intoxicated.

I don't know if that's ever been done in California law before. That seems that is also a very significant shift. People leave the scene. Yes. Perhaps because they're intoxicated but for a lot of reasons that is a massive change in the law.

This change the change to credits for time for for good behavior in prison, normally you can reduce your sentence. If you're sentenced to ten or fifteen years, you can probably reduce it by about 50%. If you have if you were an exemplary prisoner, this would eliminate that possibility largely. You can still have some reduction but very minimal. So someone who who who say gross vehicular manslaughter not intoxicated kills a few some people kills a family.

Horrific. Should have severe consequences. You're now with the consecutive sentences and and much reduced credits is gonna serve an enormous amount of time way more than now. And again, whether that's good or not good, it's a huge change. In addition, even if even if the DA chooses not to charge as a violent felony, I believe the credit reductions still apply whether or not even if the DA says I'm not charging it as a violent felony under the circumstances.

The credit reductions still apply. And then there's the expansion of the Watson advisement for if someone is not convicted of a DUI but they were initially charged with a charged with a DUI. Each of these things is a big bill on their own and a big big change of the law. And again, there there's and I and I think some of it is is really good and important. Some of it is probably needs to be have some work on it.

So so even without the violent felony piece, there's a lot of really significant additional accountability in this bill. So I wish you would agree to that. I understand that you've decided not to and I respect that. But this is the first committee. Again, there's work happening in both houses, so many bills, long overdue work.

And so I'm gonna watch closely to see how this bill evolves before it gets to the floor. But for today, I'm gonna vote to move it out so that this conversation can continue.

So with that, I'll turn it back over to the author to close.

Thank you, mister chair. And thank each and every one of you for your comments. And each and one of you and your comments is well heard. I am gonna take note of that because what was so significant originally was, of course, the three strikes and what that would mean to to anyone who did something from stealing a candy bar to using a knife in a fight, whatever it is, and that's the third stripe. And, okay, we removed that that amendment is there.

Now the other one, of course, the violent felony. That is something that I will consider. So please take note because we have got to listen to California. The Californians are in this room that I spoke to. 800 people, last week in Orange County.

Listen to me. 800 people showed up in between two buildings was this walkway and each building was glass and each building had hundreds of pictures on each side of all the victims' lives lost. It was incredible. I've never seen anything like it and I was honored to speak there. And the number of police officers and families and and supervisors in Orange County and and all of you who sat on city councils, mayors, they was there.

It was packed. It was a statement that yes, it is time we do something. And thank God you're here. This is your time, this is my time because 10:15, twenty years ago, you weren't here. I wasn't here.

My granddaughter would still be alive, but it is our time to listen to the people that are saying, please stop this epidemic. We've got to get people to understand. You don't drink and drive and expect to walk away and have no consequences. So, yes, it's a monumental bill as it should be because California is speaking. Braun, his life was going to be stardom.

A tennis player on his way to stardom. Maybe the Olympics, God knows where. My granddaughter with her masters. Who knows what she'd have done for the youth that need so much help? And it goes on and on.

But I will tell you this, when we got the call, my wife and Aye, and we we hugged each other, we cried, we couldn't believe it. And the driver Listen, you all know I'm a combat veteran, a former paratrooper with the eighty second airborne. I've been there, I've seen it. But to hear that about your granddaughter and we had to drive from Los Angeles, Pico Rivera area to Victorville, the longest drive of my life because we didn't know what to do and what to expect.

But when we got there, it was true.

And our granddaughter was so tragic, they had to use her fingerprints to identify her. Think about that. The mangling, the pain, the tragedy. And yes, we have opposition. No doubt.

And I thank you for acknowledging Braun and his loss. And the toughest job I would think is to be a defense attorney because you're trying to defend someone who four, five, six times has driven drunk time and time again. How many times has he injured someone or maybe even killed? Who knows? But I will tell you this, we've got to go forward.

And yes, I'm gonna amend the bill. And yes, when it gets to the floor, it may not be the the same bill because those two provisions that you both talked about may be removed, but I will tell you what, I think everyone would agree in California that this legislator, 2026, each and every one of you has taken a move forward. That's the key. And because of your intelligence, your experience, your background, I am listening.

Well, let's go ahead and listen to California and let's move this bill forward so then I can make these adjustments, so we can go forward, so California can make a statement that we have not forgotten our victims, and I urge an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Motion by vice chair Searto, which is the motion is do passes amended to the committee on appropriations.

SB 907 Archuleta do passes amended to appropriations. Aragin? Aye. Araghen, aye. Searto?

Aye. Searto? Aye. Caballero? Aye.

Cabeiro? Aye. Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye.

Perez? Weiner?

Aye. Weiner, aye. Okay. We'll keep that bill on call. Thank you very much.

And again, I'd like to thank you all and it it it was the most difficult thing for me to do today. But I thank you, and we will make those changes. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. As we transition next bill, I need a caucus with the author, Senator Strickland.

Focused on blackmailing for self harm images, and the No Lives Matter is motivated by nothing other than violence for violence sake. According to the Institute of Strategic Dialogue, the majority of the federal 674 cases were related to child sexual abuse material. 70% of California cases will be covered by this bill SB 1015 because the defendant coerced or exploited their victims into committing acts of self harm.

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children reported 115%, a 115% increase in sadistic online exploitation from 2024 to 2025. Law enforcement and researchers both agree this one of the fastest growing forms of cyber crimes targeting our children.

These predators specifically target the most vulnerable children, often through struggling with their mental health, depression or isolation. The pattern they use to harm our children is consistent. First, they befriend the child online, then they isolate them, then they coerce them into producing explicit images, self harm content, or other compromising material. And once they have that material, they weaponize it. What makes especially dangerous is what comes next.

Victims are not just exploited. They are turned into tools. They are focused to- they are forced to recruit, threaten and extort other minors. These networks are motivated by notoriety, control and status within their communities, not ideology and not money, but the thrill of the influence of power they extort over children that they exploit. Under current law, law enforcement can prosecute adults who directly exploit the children, but there's a critical gap in our current law.

The law does not clearly provide an avenue to prosecute adults who indirectly exploit children by coercing them against other children. This loophole is exactly how these predators not networks operate. I've heard directly from law enforcement that adults are intentionally using minors to distance themselves from the crime. This is similar to how criminal street gangs use minors to avoid their harsher penalties.

SB 1015 addresses this gap by creating a specific offense for anyone who recruits, directs, courses or uses a minor to harm, groom, harass or exploit another child.

This gives law enforcement a direct tool to go after the masterminds of these criminal networks. It also sends a clear message to these predatory networks. You can you cannot hide behind a child to commit a crime. The second part of this bill addresses another critical gap that we can no longer ignore. Currently, minors are largely excluded from being charged with extortion in order to avoid criminalization, co central relationships between minors.

However, the online networks are not just targeting minors. Increasing minors themselves are voluntary members of these predatory online networks. At a certain point, when the conduct rises to the extreme levels of coercion and harm, the minors engaged in this damaging conduct need to be held accountable. SB 1015 creates a very focused tool to charge these minors with misdemeanor or felony to wobbler. Importantly, a minor may only be held liable if all the followings are true.

They knowingly engage in the conduct. They the conduct involves threats, coercion, or intimidation. And if the conduct causes another minor to cause physical harm to others and engage in sextortion by using in intimate images, including AI generated images. Without this change in law, these networks can continue to operate by cycling exploitation through minors with little accountability. All in all, SB 1015 is about modernizing our laws to match how crimes are being committed today.

These networks are evolving quickly. The members are organized, and they are targeting our children. Right now, our laws are one step behind. SB 1015 gives law enforcement the tools they need to stop people from driving this behavior. Members, this bill is about continuing to protect our children from violent predators.

I respectfully ask your aye vote. Here with me today is my sponsor, Sheriff Don Barnes of Orange County and Riverside County Chief Deputy District Attorney William Robinson to, testify on this bill.

Good morning. Thank you for joining today. Each we each have two minutes to address the committee and who would like to begin? Sheriff.

Sorry. Good morning, Chair and Members of the committee.

One of the most serious threats facing young people today is online exploitation, specifically online extortion. A particular concern are decentralized online groups like 764, who use social media gaming platforms and messaging apps to target other minors. They groom victims, pressure them into sharing explicit content and then blackmail them for more images, money or even to perform dangerous acts to themselves and the public. The psychological harm is severe. In some cases, victims have been driven to self harm or suicide.

This problem is growing rapidly. In 2024, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children Cyber Tip Line received more than 1,300 reports connected to groups like 764. A more than 200% increase from 2023. And most alarming, this area is also referred to as nihilistic violence. There is not 1 of the 55 field offices at the FBI nationally that doesn't have at least one case they're looking at for nihilistic violence targeting groups like 764.

Sadistic is putting it mildly. Many of the actions and images caused by these groups cannot be described in this setting. Locally, in Orange County, my department has investigated multiple cases. In 1 adult use a game platform to coerce a 12 year old boy into having sex with his 10 year old sister, exploited repeatedly and consistently or a matter of years. And another, a 15 year old member of an online group called in a bomb threat and an active shooting threat at a local high school resulting in a SWAT response and lockdown.

Gaps in current law hinder investigations. Adults can no longer I'm sorry- Adults can be charged for a direct exploitation or extortion, but there's no clear charge when a minor is manipulated to exploit another minor. Many members of 764 and affiliated groups are themselves minors. Deliberately used like criminal street gangs to use minors and avoid penalties.

And some of these minors are acting independent of adults to perpetuate these acts. SB 1015 closes this gap by criminalizing the use of any minor as a tool of exploitation. Passage of this bill represents an important step in addressing a growing problem that seriously threatens the well-being of our youth. I ask for an aye vote in support of SB 1015.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is William Robinson, and I'm a Chief Deputy District Attorney with the Riverside County District Attorney's Office. I'm here today in strong support of SB 1015. This bill addresses one of the most urgent and rapidly evolving threats facing our children today, online exploitation and extortion.

Across California and throughout the country, children are being targeted through social media platforms, gaming systems and messaging apps. Offenders establish contact, build trust and then quickly shift to coercion. In other words, pressuring children to produce explicit images or engage in harmful conduct. Once that happens, the dynamic changes. The offender now has leverage and that leverage is used to control, threaten, and exploit.

But what is especially concerning and what this bill directly addresses is what happens next. We are increasingly seeing offenders force victims to recruit or exploit other children, turning victims into unwilling participants in the harm of others. This is not impulsive or immature behavior. This is structured coercive exploitation. Law enforcement has identified organized online groups that use this exact model to target minors, coercing them and then using them as conduits to reach additional victims.

The psychological harm is severe. Victims experience fear, isolation, and long term trauma. In some cases, this coercion has led to self harm and even suicide. And the scope of this problem is growing rapidly with significant increases in reports tied to these types of networks in recent years. But here's the critical issue, our current laws have not kept pace with this evolving form of exploitation.

We have statutes that address direct sexual exploitation. We have statutes that address extortion. But when an offender uses a minor as a tool to exploit another minor, there is no clear direct statute that captures that conduct in a way that reflects what is actually happening. And that gap matters. It makes investigations more difficult.

It creates challenging or challenges in charging decisions, and it allows sophisticated offenders to exploit that gray area. SB 1015 provides a clear and targeted solution. It creates a specific offense for individuals who recruit, direct, coerce, or use a minor to harm or exploit another minor including through digital platforms. It also clarifies that sexual images, intimate images, and AI generated content can be used as tools of extortion, ensuring the law reflects modern realities.

I need to wrap up this thank you.

I will.

This bill is narrowly tailored I'm sorry. At its core, this bill reflects a simple and urgent principle. Children should be never be used as instruments of harm, and when individuals deliberately exploit them in that way, the law must provide a clear and effective response. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote on SB 1015.

Thank you very much both of you for your testimony. At this time, we'll take Me Too's in favor of the bill. Come up, state your name, the organization you represent, and your support for the bill.

Thank you. Brandon Epp on behalf of Los Angeles County Sheriff Robert Luna in support.

Thank you.

Brock Campbell from the California Baptist Capitol Ministry on behalf of 6 California Baptist Churches, Ridgewood Heights in Eureka, Faith in Sheridan, Calvary in American Canyon, New Testament in Hanford, Faith in Atascadero, and Lighthouse in Santa Maria, we support. Thank you.

Emily Campbell with the California Baptist Capitol Ministry on behalf of 5 California Baptist Churches, South Coast in Santa Barbara, Freedom's Way in Santa Clarita, Mountain Avenue in Banning, Solid Rock Baptist Tabernacle in Bellflower, and Silicon Valley Chinese Baptist in Santa Clara in support.

Good morning. Usha Mutschler on behalf of the California State Sheriffs Association in support. Thank you.

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

Thank you very much. Okay. At this time, we'll take primary witnesses in opposition. So if you're a primary witness and opposition, please come forward. Now we've had a problem this morning keeping to our 2 minutes. So I'm gonna let you I'm gonna give some deference on this one. But after this, we're gonna have to tighten that up.

Okay. So do a round 2 but not 5, okay?

Sounds good.

Thank you.

George Parampathu speaking on behalf of ACLU California Action in opposition to SB 1015. As listed out extensively in the analysis, a whole host of current laws address these situations motivating this bill. It is currently a crime to contribute to any child's delinquency by causing them to engage in a crime. It is currently a crime to cause any person to engage in very serious crimes, including causing someone to engage and lewd acts with a child.

It is currently a crime to contact a minor with the intent of committing sexual or violent offenses even if that contact is made indirectly through an agent.

It is currently a crime to possess, develop or reproduce child sexual abuse material. Not to mention the other 4 pages of current laws listed in the analysis. Given our current laws are extensive, the question becomes what is going wrong? In many of the cases cited, there are a few core issues. It is difficult to gather the necessary evidence for this sort of cybercrime.

It is difficult to identify the actual perpetrator in the cybercrime environment. And if that perpetrator is outside the state's borders or outside the country's borders, there are some complex jurisdictional questions that arise. In other words, our laws are not the issue. These logistical problems are. And SB 1015 isn't going to make those logistical problems disappear.

We agreed that there is more the legislature can do to protect our children, but the answer is not duplicative penal code sections. Perhaps the most direct answer to this issue is to require the corporations who are operating and making a profit of these online forums to put in place policies to protect children from these crimes in the first instance. For these reasons, we urge you no vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good morning. Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. What were the amendments, please?

The amendments narrow section one of the bill to limit the covered conduct, define terms and limit the bills application to adults and make the crime a wobbler instead of a straight felony. Narrow section two of the bill and include a definition and require diversion for a juvenile.

So are juveniles still allowed to be charged?

Yes. But they are eligible for diversion.

Thank you. I wanna echo the comments of my colleague from the ACLU and I do believe that SB 1015 seeks to address, legitimate concerns regarding coercion and harm to youth in the digital spaces. But the part that we're concerned about the most is the part that addresses adolescent peer behavior. Because as the author says in his statement in the analysis, this closes a loophole because offenders manipulate minors into harming or exploiting other minors.

And I think that recognizes that the minors whether they're recruited into the platform or they're listen to the platform, engage in the platform. They are used almost like Oliver Twist and a Charles Dickinson kind of scenario. And they should not be punished. California has chosen to go in a different direction in terms of how we deal with minors.

Specifically the State office of Youth and Community Restoration says that the goal is to replace punishment oriented approaches with restorative justice ensuring youth receive support, mentorship and mental health care to thrive.

And in the last ten years there has been a more, even more robust body of evidence and research that shows that the harms of a punitive response to teenage behavior, has led to the recognition in California that that's not the path we're going down and we're going to tailor our responses. So I believe that this is a misguided attempt to criminalize, youthful behavior when in fact as you said in your opening and also in your letter in the analysis we're talking about adults manipulating behavior.

So for those reasons we respectfully ask for your no vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB 1015?

Liz Blum Gutierrez on behalf of the LA County Public Defenders Union Local 148 and the San Francisco Public Defender's Office in opposition.

Thank you.

Mica Doctoroff on behalf of Smart Justice California in opposition.

Thank you.

Jonathan Laba, California Youth Defender Center in opposition.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB 1015? Okay. Seeing no one else, I'll bring back the committee for any questions or comments. Senator Caballero?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator, can you address the issue that was raised in regards to, the tech companies and their responsibility in some of this and do you understand my question?

No.

There was a comment raised that this is that we're going after the wrong people, that the tech companies have the ability to do work to protect minors that are accessing information on their site.

Just wondering if you've thought about that or if there's a a response to that.

You know, I would love to have my sheriff, who's a a sponsor of the bill, maybe respond to that.

That would be fine. Part. And then and then I wanna be able to speak to the bill.

Senator, that's a great question and the point that was brought up. There is a issue that's a decades long issue, you know, the section 230 that protects the software companies from the actions of individuals on their platforms that needs to be addressed over time. It's created a a safeguard for them. This has been brought up in numerous instances and other harms have been created in the public space, predominantly in Fentanyl distribution and others.

There's been a reluctance of the software platform companies to address this issue because they have a safeguard to hide behind section 230.

So I believe that that is a federal issue that needs to be addressed. It's been brought up several times with members of Congress. I testified on this issue last year. I don't disagree that needs to be addressed, but that is not something that can be addressed in this bill to make the Federal Government's change section 230. So it's always going to be a platform or safeguard for those companies to hide behind until it's changed.

Thank you very much, Sheriff. I I appreciate that comment, and that really then puts it squarely in our in our lap. And let me just say that that, you know, we have treated youth differently than we had treated adults.

But some of the behavior that has created issues of safety in the community, I think have to be addressed and addressed aggressively because my understanding of what is happening with the ability to recruit, solicit, get other young children involved in behavior they don't understand and that is they're easily manipulated into is, is seriously affecting the mental health and their physical well-being of children. When they're committing suicide, when they are hurting other youth and whether it's, whether they're too young to understand the consequences of their behavior or not, we've gotta do something that says, we gotta get you into the system, and maybe there's a way to also do referrals to the Department of Social Services so that there's eyes on the family situation as well.

But I I really appreciate what you're trying to do with this bill.

I'm gonna support it today because I think the ability to access information on the internet has gone way beyond parental control, way beyond what is appropriate, age appropriate in particular, and to be able to leave it as the Wild West, an unaffected by what our state does is just not something that I'm willing to to go with. So I do appreciate you bringing it forward. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Vice Chair, Seyarto.

Thank you. I'll be supporting your bill today, because it does you're attacking a problem that's evolving. And we always get into this issue with the minors. On one hand, we don't wanna harm them by creating a permanent record through criminal charges and things like that. But at the same time, if you're not going to have a consequence or a charge or something to reel them in as my colleague, was stating, how are you gonna help them?

How are you gonna get them out of that cycle? My most the biggest exposure I've had to this type of behavior is, with the gang related behavior where the the older members of the gang were recruiting, you know 13 and 12 and 13 year olds to go in and rob the store or shoot the person or do that because there was less consequences or no consequences.

If we don't have some way of charging a minor and they they're we have laws to protect them down the down the road as far as the records are concerned, if they if they're able to clean up. We have to get them into a situation where we can help them.

And that's what I think this is trying to do, is trying to not only hold the people that are trying to manipulate them or have manipulated manipulated them, but also getting the person that's been manipulated into an environment where we can help them.

You know, that's the rehabilitation part that we keep being told that's what we wanna be focused on. You can't rehabilitate people if you're just turning them back into the environment that they were in before and saying, "hey, you're too young to know what you're doing, so see you later". So I agree with my colleague from Salinas. I think it's Salinas. Right?

It's Merced.

Mercedes. My bad. Somewhere in the middle of this. That this takes a step in that direction to try to address something that is evolving. This is, you know, new stuff over the last 10,15 years that is getting worse and worse and we have to we have to get a grip on it. So

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, I wanna thank you, for your leadership and help with this bill and your staff, all their hard work in helping us, craft this. I would just say law enforcement community has come forward that these networks are growing rapidly, and 70% of the California cases will be covered by this bill, SB 1015. As a father of two, I think it's about time that we close a loophole on this law. And for those reasons, I ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Motion by Vice chair Seyarto. And the motion is to pass. To pass the committee on appropriations. As amended.

SB 1015 Strickland motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Arreguin?

Aye.

Arreguin, aye. Seyarto?

Aye

Seyarto, aye. Caballero?

Caballero, aye. Cortese?

Aye.

Aye.

Cortese, aye. Perez?

Aye.

Perez, aye. Winner

Okay. We'll keep that bill on call.

Thank you, Senator.

Thank you, everyone.

And as as I announced prior to this bill being heard, SB 1027 will be continued to our next hearing on April 14. So with that, I see Senator Drazos here. And we have two bills on our agenda today by you. And so if you're ready, we can proceed to file item six SB 1285.

Good morning. Thank you very much, mister chair. God, I can't get this. Okay. Yes.

I'm here to present SB 1285. Good morning. This bill affirms California values by allowing justice impacted youth, we were just talking about it, the opportunity to petition for dismissal of their records and begin their new adult lives. California's juvenile justice system is designed to rehabilitate youth to eliminate long term collateral consequences after termination of their court involvement. Juvenile courts have discretion to seal records and grant dismissals.

Record sealing does not give juveniles a completely fresh start. California's record sealing laws do not apply to federal jurisdictions or other states. For example, prior juvenile records, even if sealed, often hinder a person's ability to enlist in the military, obtain gainful employment out of state, or at facilities that require federal background checks, and secure occupational licenses, which are factors that help drive recidivism.

Collateral consequences make it more difficult for the juvenile justice system to achieve its rehabilitative purpose and make it easier for justice impacted youth to repeat a cycle of incarceration. Unfortunately, many youth with past juvenile justice involvement encounter obstacles to fully participating in society even after the juvenile records have been sealed.

In 2022, AB 2629, which is the current law, requires when a juvenile court terminates jurisdiction, a juvenile court judge considers factors such as the juvenile successful completion of probation, mental illness, prior victimization when considering whether to dismiss a juvenile's petition. More importantly, the court's discretion remains regardless of whether the petition was sustained at trial, admitted by the youth, or by plea agreement. Some of the courts regrettably have experienced confusion with the current law's intent.

So this bill clarifies and codifies that section, welfare and institutions code seven eighty two is a general dismissal statute and ensures that a petition dismissed under seven eighty two is treated as it it never happened. Protecting individuals from unfair or harmful consequences in the future, this is in accordance with long standing and widely accepted interpretation of California's dismissal law.

With us today, we have the pleasure of hearing from our witnesses, Jonathan Laba with the California Youth defend Defender Center and Evelyn Gonzalez with Fresh Lifeline for Youth. They are also available, thank God, for technical questions.

Good morning, chair and members. My name is Jonathan Laba, and I'm testifying today on behalf of the California Youth Defender Center, the sponsor of Senate Bill 1285. SB 1285 is a follow-up to a previous bill sponsored by CYDC. In 2022, the legislature enacted Assembly Bill 2,629, which reformed the juvenile court statute that governs dismissal of juvenile cases in the interests of justice.

AB 2,629 created a great weight standard in favor of dismissal when mitigating circumstances are shown unless there is a danger to public safety.

AB 2629 passed with a super majority in both houses and no identified law enforcement opposition. It reflected a encourage juvenile courts to relieve youth of the penalties and disabilities of juvenile justice system involvement whenever public safety is not at risk. The juvenile dismissal statute has always been considered by appellate courts to be what's known as a general dismissal statute affording broad relief just like the adult companion statute, which is penal code section thirteen eighty five.

Once a juvenile court has determined in its discretion that the interests of justice favor dismissal, a person is protected from future adverse consequences based on that adjudication. So why are we here with SB 1285?

AB 2,629 included language to ensure that there was clarity that dismissal of the case and sealing of records are two separate processes. Defenders like myself need to make separate motions to seal records and to obtain dismissal of a case that is uncontroversial. However, as described in the bill analysis, there was a recent appellate court decision that misinterpreted the language in AB 2629 on this point and suggested that AB 2,629 actually eliminated the character of the juvenile dismissal statute as a general dismissal statute.

SB 1285 is a very narrowly tailored bill intended to correct this judicial misinterpretation. It does not create new law, rather it reaffirms the longstanding understanding that section seven eighty two is a general dismissal statute as it has been interpreted by the appellate court since its enactment over fifty years ago.

In so doing, SB 1285 safeguards justice for youth by ensuring that youth are treated with fairness and dignity and where appropriate protected from the potential lifelong impact of the juvenile record. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Hi. Good morning.

Good morning, chair and committee. My name is Evelyn Gonzales, and I'm with Fresh Lifelines for Youth or FLI. It's a nonprofit serving Bay Area youth impacted by the justice system. I'm a program manager and coach at FLI, and I have three children. I'm attending school to finish my bachelor's degree, and I know I also volunteer at a community hub, in the evenings to support marginalized communities, suffering from substance abuse in San Jose, California.

I stand here to to advocate for SB 1285 because the barriers created by having a juvenile record affected me and now the youth that I'm serving. In 2022, I traveled to Sacramento to advocate for AB 2629. I'm returning now to ensure the promise of AB 2629 is realized through SB 1285. My involvement with the justice system started when I was 15 years old. I was charged with multiple felony robberies.

I committed these robberies to obtain my basic needs, like food, clothes, and hygiene items. My father struggled with substance abuse and will disappear for days, never having money anytime he got back. So I had to flee and focus on my own survival during my incarceration. I found out I was expecting a child. I decided that my son will have a better life and a nurturing parent.

I focused on burying myself. I finished probation successfully and graduated from high school. I went to enroll in college and my goal was to become a nurse. However, my record did not allow me to enroll in the nursing program. Despite my good academic standing, I struggled with employment a lot.

I felt like my plan had failed. I had no other support system. I was first gen. Parents didn't speak English. I lost motivation and returned to harmful environments, bringing my toddler along with myself.

However, with the support with FLY, I was able to get back on track. And now years later, I'm supporting young people also find their path. The youth I coach have strong desires to also succeed in life, but when they're set to take the next step into a different, better environment, these doors close because of their backgrounds. They struggle with obtaining employment and housing. And when we create these barriers, it increases the risk of recidivism as it did with me.

These cycles can be stopped. The legislator can break these challenges and see an upsurge of young people becoming productive members of society like myself if they're able to get their records fully dismissed and start fresh. I really ask, the members here to vote yes on SB 1285.

Thank you very much. Well, I'll take any other members of public wishing to express support for SB 1285. You can please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Good morning, chair and members. Ed Little with California for safety and justice and support.

Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association in support. Thank you.

George Prampathu, on behalf of ACLU California action in support. Thank you.

Diego Ballesteros on behalf of Fresh Lifelines for Youth in strong support.

Micah Doctoroff on behalf of Smart Justice California in support.

Maya Howard on behalf of San Quentin Skunk Works in support.

Liz Bum Gutierrez on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office in support.

Okay. Thank you very much. We're now take up the two principal witnesses in opposition if there are any, to SB 1285. K. Seeing no way coming forward, is there any wishing to express opposition to SB 1285?

Mister chairman, members, Randy Perry on behalf of Porak. Appreciate working with the author, and we've removed our opposition.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB 1285? Seeing no one else, I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments. Senator Caballero?

Well, I was gonna thank the lobbyist for Borak for removing their opposition that, what I think is just a a really, reasonable bill. Thank you to the author for bringing this back so we can get clarification. And thank you to miss Gonzales for her testimony here today, and for your participation over the years on this really important issue. We have to give people a second chance.

And if we're not willing to do that, then we're not what we say we are, which is a a society that believes that everybody can make amends and can change their life.

And my experience is that once you you you you become pregnant and you have a child, you realize you want something entirely different for that child and it's a transformational experience. And the number of individuals that were former gang members that I represented, they all came back and said I'm ready to make the change that I need to make.

And so this is a really important bill and when the time is appropriate, I'd like to be added as a co author and also make the motion, Mr. Chair.

Vice Chair Sierto.

Alright. I just had a question regarding the the sealed records versus what you're accomplishing here. Because what we're accomplishing here is erasing the past and sealed records keep that past hidden. If it's hidden, how is it affecting the the people going forward? And maybe one of your witnesses can Yeah.

Can address that.

Thank you.

Because if their record is sealed, I don't understand how it's it's impacting them when they're trying to get a job or or going to college. So maybe that can help me with that.

Yes. If I may. So there are a number of situations where sealed records can still be accessed for various reasons and what we have found is that, for certain types of situations, it includes military, occupational licensure, out of state implications that dismissal is what is required and that ceiling is not sufficient to achieve the the true benefits of being able to move forward.

And and how does one go about showing that this is that a pattern of behavior is continuing as opposed to because if if if it's not continuing, then I I can see where their problem kinda goes away because then nobody seeks that. But when the pattern is getting repeated again, every offense seems to become a first offense. And and that and if we're treating every offense as a first offense when there are multiple offenses before, then how do we recognize that now?

Sure. So so this bill doesn't change existing law relating to ceiling of records. It doesn't touch that space at all. But I think to address your question, defenders so I'm a public defender in Contra Costa County, youth defender. And what we have to do if we're trying to achieve ceiling or dismissal is we make separate motions.

Ceiling is sometimes less controversial. Judges tend to take a very exacting view in terms of whether they're going to grant a dismissal or not. So sometimes we achieve ceiling and not dismissal. Sometimes we achieve both, but, this bill just confirms that they are separate processes under the law.

Alright. Thank you. That helps me out a lot.

Thank you. Unless there are any other questions or comments, I'll turn it back over to Senator Russell to close.

Thank you. Thank you, members. I just you know, this is basically to uphold our commitment to a serious, second chance opportunity for our youth and the rehabilitation that they seek, healing, careers. This is all part of a really important, a really important part of their future. So respectfully answer your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Caballero. The motion is do pass to the floor. If you can please call the roll.

SP 1285, Durazo. Motion is do pass to the floor. Aye. Araghen, aye. Searto?

Aye. Searto, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye.

Cortesi? Aye. Cortesi, aye. Perez Weiner.

Okay. We'll keep that bill on call for APSA members, but thank you very much for joining us today. With that, we'll proceed to the second bill by Senator Toresso SB 1342.

Thank you. Thank you very much. SB 1342 is a technical fix to improve implementation of California's automatic record clearance laws. AB 1076 and SB 731 already established who qualifies for eligibility. This bill does not expand eligibility.

It simply ensures people who already have eligibility can access the relief they deserve. Current law allows individuals who are eligible for automatic record clearance if they meet certain criteria, including not having pending charges. Unfortunately, today, many old arrests are still labeled as pending, quote unquote, in the California Department of Justice records due to missing or incomplete information, such as cases where charges were never filed or dismissed in court or resolved but never properly reported or updated.

These outdated pending charges wrongfully block eligible individuals from receiving relief even when no prosecution ever occurred. When relief is granted, California DOJ updates the person's state record, but there's no requirement for local courts to do the same.

As a result, background checks that rely on local court data show old convictions that have already been cleared, leading to confusion and harm to the individual who rightfully deserves to move forward. People may may also need to provide documentation that the record has been cleared, but there's no standardized court certificate available for them to request. These detrimental gaps are preventing otherwise eligible individuals from fully benefiting from California's automatic record clearance laws.

This bill offers practical, targeted, procedural changes that ensure the laws we've already passed function as we intended. With me today, I have, mister Ed Little, California government affairs manager with Californians for Safety and Justice.

Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning.

Good good morning. Chair and members, my name is Ed Little, with Californians for Safety and Justice. California made historic progress with AB 1076 of 2019 and SB 731 of 2022, expanding automated record clearance for millions of Californians with eligible arrest convictions. Implementation has revealed three critical barriers preventing some individuals from receiving or fully benefiting from this relief.

SB 1342 addresses these issues by preventing outdated pending charges from blocking record clearance, requiring local court records to be updated to match California DOJ records, and establishing a clear process for individuals to obtain written proof of relief.

This bill would address a set of issues that we have identified as implementation pain points that require some minor adjustments. Courts are, by and large, doing their part to shield records from the public view when they have ident been identified by the Cal DOJ as subject to this relief. However, certain entities retain access to cleared records through court and local data systems, primarily law enforcement agencies, a designation that includes public defenders offices providing record clearance and legal services.

Without a process to resolve old and incomplete pending charges, individuals remain ineligible for relief. Under current law even when the legal system itself abandoned the charges years ago.

At the same time, individuals who do receive relief under current law may have no reliable way to prove it because local records are outdated and there is no simple court issued proof of relief available for them to request. Potential fixes to the court level include requiring courts to produce upon request a written confirmation that they have received notification of relief from Cal DOJ for a particular record and are limiting access to the record pursuant to Cal DOJ notification 1203.425.

Allowing people to easily obtain record specific confirmation of relief is important. We believe that SB 1342 strikes the right balance to ensure that the laws we've already passed are implemented as the legislature intended. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Is anyone else wishing to express support for SB 1342?

Micah Doctoroff on behalf of Smart Justice California in support.

Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defender's Association in support. Thank you.

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

Maya Howard on behalf of San Quentin's Skunk Works in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there any any principal witnesses in opposition to SB 1342? Seeing no one, anyone else wishing to express opposition SB 1342. Okay. I'll bring it back to the committee or to the motion or any questions or comments.

Moved by Senator Caballero. Any other questions or comments? If not, I'll turn back over to close.

Thank you. Thank you, members, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. The motion by Senator Caballero is do pass to the committee on appropriations. If you can please call the roll.

SB 1342 do pass to appropriations. Arreguin? Aye. Seyarto no. Caballero aye. Cortese aye. Perez. Wiener.

We'll keep that bell and call for absent members. Thank you.

Thank you, mister chair and members.

I don't see another author here, so we're gonna go to my bill, SB 1330, and I'll pass the gavel to Vice Chair.

Okay. As stated, we're on SB 1330 by Arreguin. Welcome, Senator Arreguin. You may present your bill.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair, members of the committee. It's my pleasure to present Senate bill thirteen thirty, which seeks to extend protections for utility workers who face growing threats and violence while in the performance of their duties.

Under current law, an assault or battery committed against protected professionals, such as peace officers, firefighters, and health care workers engaged in the performance of their duties is punishable by county jail time of no more than one year by a fine not exceeding $2,000 or both that fine and

county jail time. Senate Bill thirteen thirty extends these protections to include utility workers, such as those employed by investor owned and publicly owned water, electrical, and gas utilities.

Over the last several years, utility corporations have collected data on the incidents reported by utility workers.

And in 2025, one utility alone reported 180 hostile encounters involving its employees. Incidents of harassment and assault against utility workers create a stressful and unsafe work environment that can complicate the ability of these workers to perform their duties that are critical for the health and safety

and economic vitality of our communities. This also delays critical public utility infrastructure projects and maintenance, including utility workers among employee groups afforded enhanced protections promotes accountability through consequences.

With me to testify in support of SB 1330 is Hunter Stern from the International Brotherhood of Electoral Workers, Local 1245, and Luis Arajo Sanchez of IBW 465.

Alright. Thank you very much for attending today. And if you can keep your comments to two minutes, I'd appreciate it.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair, members of the committee. I'm Hunter Stern, IBW Local 1245, and on behalf of the Coalition of California Utility Workers. We are all workers. Some of us have to work when others aren't able or don't want to because the weather, etcetera. Utility workers are those workers.

They provide essential electricity, water, and natural gas service. We have to be out there no matter what. Our members have to be there to respond and make safe and ensure people continue to get the service they need and and rely on.

Just last month, one of our crews performing work, routine work in El Dorado County came under attack and was shot at. One of our members was shot. One of the members of the crew is here today. His name is Keith Hutchinson, and he's a journeyman line worker. I'd ask Keith to stand up.

Yeah. Oh, thank you. Yes. Thank you. It in that incident, one of our members was struck by a bullet, and there was a pretty big police response, and two of the deputy sheriffs were also struck by gunfire.

This is unusual for sure. It's dramatic, but it is not entirely out of the realm of our experience and our members' experiences. We have, as the Senator mentioned, hundreds of assaults on our members every year, and it's becoming worse and worse and worse. We need this bill.

We need our members to be able to go out and do their job, finish their job, and go home safe every day. And with that, I'd like to introduce Luis Raul Sanchez.

Thank you. And that was right on two minutes, so follow suit. Thanks.

Good morning, Members. My name is Luis Laredo Sanchez. I work for San Diego Gas and Electric. My actual job position is traffic control specialist. So whenever there is a electrical failure, gas failure, crews have to go out there, we get called out.

On September 14, 2021, I was doing just that, answering the call out. Went out to a job in Ocean Beach, proceed to do my job, met with the four men, and figured out what needed to be done. In this case, complete road closure. Went out there.

Turns out the box was dragged across the road. Oil spills everywhere. Hazmat was called. Crews working in the street. So couple minutes into it, maybe thirty minutes or so, I had an individual who needed to get across the road to continue on his way home or wherever

he was going. Obviously, he was upset because the road was closed. Now we had to get him to turn around. And aside all the advanced warning signs that were out and me letting him know, hey. Road closed. We have crews working in the road.

He proceeded to still yell out an attack with racial slurs, stepped out of his vehicle, did not like what I had to say to him about, you know, just follow the road road signs.

So he struck me. He struck me. Split second decision, I had to figure out, like, what do I do now? You know? And in the back of my head, I'm thinking my kids, my wife, am I gonna lose my job, different things going on in my head.

I decided not to and just tell him, hey. You know what? Just get on your way. It obviously it was obvious that he was intoxicated at the time, and he had a kid with him on top of that, but that still didn't stop him.

And even though I've been doing this for many years and I always hear about incidents like this. This is probably the first time where I've actually been struck by someone during my job.

Didn't think this was gonna happen on a normal routine call out. Never do. But that's when things do happen. Right? Expect the unexpected.

So this morning, you're

Wrap up.

To just ask you guys to support SB 1330.

Very good. Thank you very much for your testimony today. Okay. At this time, we'll take all the #MeToo's in support of the bill. If you come to the microphone, you know what to do.

Mr. Chairman and member Scott Wetsch on behalf of the State Association of Electrical Workers and IBW Local 18, LA Department of Water and Power. Thank you.

Good morning. Andrea Abergel with the California Municipal Utilities Association in support.

Hello. Sophia Quach on behalf of the Bay Area Council in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Debbie Michael on behalf of East Bay Municipal Utility District in support.

Good morning. Joe Zanzu with San Diego Gas Electric and SoCal Gas in support.

Good morning. Yvonne Fernandez with the California Labor Fed in support.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Cesar Diaz on behalf of Pacific Gas and Electric Company. It's from strong support.

Aliyah Griffin with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees in support.

Good morning, Chair, Members. Connor Gressman on behalf of the Utility Workers Union of America and the Engineers and Scientists of California in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Mika Murray with the Vitamin Group on behalf of Cal Water in strong support. Thank you so much.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Caitlin Johnson with Political Solutions on behalf of California Water Association in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Renee Cruz Martinez, IBW 1245 in strong support.

Good morning. Samantha Carter with IBW 1245 in strong support.

Good morning. Emilio Randolph, IBW 1245 in strong support.

Good morning. Joshua Fernandez, IBW Local 1245 in strong support of SB1330. Thank you.

Good morning. Steve Marcotte with IBW 1245 with strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Alvin Dayon with IBW Local 1245 in strong support.

Good morning. Mark Rollo, Journeyman Lineman. IBW 1245, strongly support. Thank you.

Good morning. Catherine Borg on behalf of Southern California Edison in support.

Good morning. Joey St. Pierre, IBW 465 in strong support.

Good morning. Shawna O'Neil, IBW 1245, Local SMUD utility worker in strong support.

Good morning. Joe Long. Also, Local 1245 and SMUD utility worker, strong support.

Keith Hutchison, IBEW, IBEW 1245, strong support.

Jesse Green, IBW 1245. Journeyman Lyman, strong support.

Good morning. Kiko Diaz, IBW Local 465, and strong support.

Chair Members, Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association, strong support.

Very good. At this time, we'll call up primary witnesses in opposition to the bill. We would like to come up. Have a seat. You have two minutes.

I apologize, sir. I was over in capital. I testified against this bill last year when the author brought it forth. My name is David Bollog. I'm a seventeen year employee of the Los Angeles Department of Wanted Power, a member in good standing of Local 18 IBEW.

I do not represent either organization. I speak as excuse me, for my own as a public utility worker. I appreciate the author bringing this bill. I appreciate my brothers coming here to testify for it, but this bill will do nothing to protect the utility workers.

All it will do is after the fact is double the penalty. If you're in jail, whatever the thousand dollars instead of $500 fine is, this will do nothing to allow us to protect ourselves. If I get attacked while I'm out in public, all I can do is run retreat, maybe block something.

But if I try to defend myself, I will face charges. My utility will face civil lawsuits. I could get fired. So while I appreciate this and I appreciate my brothers and sisters being here today, this does nothing to protect us.

So I ask you to vote no so the author and my brothers can come back with legislation that will protect us. Thank you and I apologize for being out of breath.

Alright. That's okay. I get it. Sometimes we have meetings over there, then over here, then over there, then over here. So anyway, at this time, we'll take anybody in opposition to the bill, come to the mic and state.

I won't go into further detail because I don't see anybody coming up there. We'll bring it back to the dais. Any comments, questions? We have a motion to move the bill. My only comment on the the bill is that while this probably isn't going to deter all, it'll deter some.

And it would be nice to see what kind of effect it has. It's an incremental approach for those who like incremental approaches. But certainly, what's happening out there is people are becoming more and more free with their frustrations,

and they're allowing those frustrations to turn into violent acts. And when that happens and impedes people from just doing their job, we need to do something.

And so while your bill is doing that something at this level, hopefully, we will have more information as time goes on whether this is a adequate deterrent for people that choose to engage in that type of behavior.

With that, you may close.

Well, thank you, mister Vice Chair. I'd like to emphasize that the increased protections for other protected professionals already exist. This bill simply extends those protections to utility workers who do essential work for our communities.

No one should be afraid, to go out to a job, to make sure that we're maintaining our critical telecommunications and water and utility infrastructure in our state without a respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Alright. With that, we can call the roll.

SB 1330, Arreguin. Motion is due passed to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Alright. We'll leave that bill on call. It has four votes at this time. Thank you very much. Next presenter is looks like SB1230, Bayaderez.

So as Vice Chair of CRT said, we'll not proceed to SB 1230 by Senator Valadares. And if there are any principal witnesses, you can please join us. Thank you. And, Senator, whenever you're ready, you may begin your presentation.

Thank you, and good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm here this morning to present Senate Bill 1230, and let's be clear what this is really about. Illegal dumping is not happening in Beverly Hills. It's not piling up in Brentwood.

It's happening in communities that don't have the resources, the political clout, or the access to fight back. In places like my community, the Antelope Valley, Lake Los Angeles, Phelan, Pinion Hills, families are living to what are essentially

next to what are essentially open landfills, not by choice, but because bad actors know there is no real consequence. This isn't just about how it looks, this is about public safety and it's about quality of life. Illegal dumping contaminates soil and

groundwater, it attracts vermin, It increases wildfire risks. And every time it happens, taxpayers are stuck footing the bill. The problem is that our enforcement tools haven't kept up.

The fines that are supposed to deter this behavior haven't been meaningfully updated since 2004, over twenty years ago. While we took a step in 2022 to increase maximum penalties for large scale violators,

the minimum fines and non commercial penalties were left untouched. And those are the penalties most often applied in communities getting hit the hardest. Today, those fines are still far below the actual cost of cleanup.

For repeat offenders, that's not a deterrent. It's just the cost of doing business. In my district alone, residents have documented more than 100 unauthorized dump sites across our, Antelope Valley.

From Lake Los Angeles to our Antelope Valley, Poppy Reserve, some stretch hundreds of acres and go dozens of feet deep. We've seen over 70 trash related fires responded to by LA County Fire in just the past couple of years,

costing taxpayers over $1,600,000 And in 2024, the Apollo Fire sparked by illegally dumped material, burned 800 acres, destroyed a home, and killed several dogs.

I've talked to residents who have had to stay inside their homes because the smoke and the smell from these sites made it unsafe to go outside.

Here, SB 1230 is a targeted fix. It increases fines for second and subsequent violations only. We are not touching the first time offenders and it creates centralized resource through CalRecycle so local governments have the tools they need to

actually enforce the law and clean this up. Here today to testify in support is Jael Dantes on behalf of supervisor Nate Miley from Alameda, and second, Christina Brown.

She's one of my constituents who has experienced firsthand the consequences of illegal dumping.

Great. Thank you. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair and Members, Jael Dantas with Full Moon Strategies on behalf of Alameda County Board of Supervisors. We do appreciate the leadership of Senator Valadares for bringing this issue forward.

Illegal dumping is a major issue impacting communities across California. It lowers the quality of life of our residents in urban, suburban and rural areas alike.

In Alameda County alone, we spend over $2,000,000 every year cleaning up illegal dumping in unincorporated areas.

And that does not include the cost borne by our cities. This is not a local inconvenience. Illegal dumping creates environmental hazards, fire risks, and public health concerns, while draining already limited public resources.

For over a decade, supervisor Nate Maile from Alameda has worked to address this issue by bringing together stakeholders across the state.

Through his leadership, we developed a best practice framework known as the three E's, education, air education, and enforcement.

This approach focuses on preventing dumping before it happens, removing waste quickly when it does occur, and ensuring that are real consequences for those who break the law.

But in reality, our current laws are not as strong enough to support the third E, enforcement. Existing penalties for illegal dumping are outdated and are too low.

In many cases, it's cheaper for bad actors dump illegally than dispose in the waste of the waste properly. As a result, prosecutors often deprioritized these cases giving limited resources and a minimal impact.

SB 1230 takes a practical and a targeted approach to fixing this problem. And in the end of the day, this is about protecting our communities, our environment, and our public resources. We ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you very much. Hi.

Hi. Good morning. My name is Christina Brown. I'm a property owner in the Antelope Valley, one hour north of the city of Los Angeles.

I'm here because Senator Valadares invited me to tell you about what the illegal dumping crisis looks like from the inside, not from a reporter agency briefing, but from someone who has had their life upended by it.

What happened next door to me is happening across Southern California's rural and desert lands. In January '24, the parcel next to my property changed ownership.

Massive transfer trucks began arriving around the clock, illegally dumping thousands of tons of waste, ground up construction debris, and plastics coming directly from facilities and transfer stations in the city.

This waste was then covered with organics, ie, mulch littered with plastics and solid waste. The smell was rank. The dust clouds were stories high.

The noise from the trucks in our formerly quiet neighborhood was constant and the waste stretched half a mile long and 12 feet high.

This was a profit driven scheme run by waste companies to avoid paying the price of landfill disposal tipping fees. My community absorbed their operating cost, their pollution, and their fires.

Over 72 mulch fires broke out across Northern California sorry, Northern Los Angeles County during this eighteen month period. Two homes burnt to the ground due to self combusting mulch.

In my neighborhood, people started on rounds of antibiotics to combat illness caused by the constant dust. My partner developed an agonizing cough.

My own health collapsed from the stress, and both of my neighbors, the only other residents on our road, sold their homes, took huge losses, and moved.

SB 1230 matters because it raises the cost of illegal dumping high enough that companies can no longer treat fines as a line item cheaper than compliance.

It strengthens the mechanism for enforcement so that there are meaningful ramifications for illegal dumping. I urge you to strongly support SB 1230 for the families who lost their homes, for the neighbors who sold and left, and for the

children being treated for dust allergies, and for every property owner in rural areas of California who are living next to landfills and hoping that you and Sacramento see them. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll take any testimony from anyone else in support of SB 1230.

David Bolog, the Alliance in support. Thank you.

John Kennedy, Rural County Representatives of California in strong support for the reasons that you just stated. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. I wrote out a fifty second statement. Is that okay if I can get it?

If you could just we're just limiting this Okay. Time to this name.

Understood. My name is Ashley Moreauz, and on behalf of my community and my entire community, I'm in full support.

Okay. Is there anyone in opposition to the bill? We'll take up to two principal witnesses in opposition.

Good morning, Chair and members. George Parampathu speaking on behalf of ACLU California Action in respectful opposition to SB1230 unless it is amended to remove increases for fines for individuals.

We understand the legislature's desire to address illegal dumping, but increased fines do not deter behavior and they will not backfill city budgets.

For example, take Oakland, which suffers from some of the worst illegal dumping issues in the state. From 2021 to 2024, the city issued nearly 3,000 fines for illegal dumping, but only collected 10% of those fines.

The same story repeated last year when Oakland issued citations totaling $230,000 but only collected about $20,000. Given the cost to chase down these fines, the city likely lost revenue by trying to address illegal dumping through fines.

The legislature should not set every other local budget down the same treacherous course. Moreover, while not the intention of the author, the bill will likely lead to increased fines for those experiencing homelessness.

And with the current law line for each day to count as a separate violation, the fines quickly stack up. As noted in the analysis, simply leaving a sleeping bag on a sidewalk for three days can lead to nearly $31,000 in fines.

Of course, there would be no way for that person to ever pay those fines, leaving them deeper in poverty and less likely to ever find stable housing.

We can avoid all these issues and solve this problem by enacting any of the 22 preventative measures that Contra Costa County has currently begun implementing including launching free disposal days offering more opportunities for bulk waste pickup,

creating options to dispose of broken down vehicles and making sure that the public is actually aware of these options. Because SB 1230 does not take this preventative approach, we urge a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. I'm a resident of Oakland and Alameda County. And I certainly can attest that the examples that, my colleague from the ACLU pointed out exist.

That, Oakland has a horrible problem and the strategy of fining people is not working. And that it would really be helpful to have more bulky waste pickups and reduce landfill fees.

And one thing that's a particular problem is that as a homeowner and, someone who has a garbage bill, I can call and schedule a bulky waste pickup. Renters and people who are unhoused do not have that capacity.

And then once they're in a location, people come and just dump things that it's clearly they didn't bring there like washing machines, dishwashers, you know, stuff like that. So I think there are strategies without further impoverishing the poor.

This legislature in the budget trailer bill, a merely five years ago eliminated some 42 fines and fees.

And, making note of the impact and also the fact that they're uncollectible. And it costs the counties more to collect them than, you know, they brought in as a result. They also have a racially disparate impact.

The count the US Supreme Court in Timbs v Indiana, said that the eighth amendment's excessive fines clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the states and protects people against abuses of governments,

punitive or criminal law enforcement authority. And, Justice Ginsburg wrote in her decision that that constitutional protection extends to excessive fines.

We respectfully ask for your no vote unless it is amended and again as a resident of Alameda County I can attest it's not working. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing express opposition to SB 1230? So you know, I wanna bring it back to the guys. I have to hand the gavel over to the vice chair. I have to go vote in the energy committee, but I just wanna make a comment.

I have a fellow resident of Oakland here. I am also a resident of the city of Oakland, proud to represent the city of Oakland and Alameda County and the California State Senate.