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, 04/14/2026. We do not yet have a quorum. Just a few announcements as we start today's hearing. I've asked that all members please come to Capitol at Room 112 so we can establish a quorum and conduct business.

And just to summarize how we're gonna conduct our hearing today, on each bill, we'll take up to two principal witnesses in support and opposition to the bill. The principal witnesses in support were designated by the bill author.

Witnesses in opposition are based on those who submitted formal opposition letters to the portal before today's hearing, after which time will take me to testimony of those in support and opposition to the bill can come to the microphone and express your name, where you're from, what organization you represent, and your position on the bill. Thank you for joining us today. With that, we'll begin with and also, couple other announcements.

Senate bill 1338 by Senator Jones has been pulled from the agenda. We'll take that bill up next Tuesday on April 21st. And just to summarize the consent calendar, that consists of file one SB 962 Archuleta. File item two, SB 1001 Archuleta. File item number four, SB 1012 by oh, five rather.

SB 1100 by Smallwood- Cuevas and SB 1211 by Senator Gonzalez and SB 13- and that's it. Okay. So we'll enter a motion on consent when we establish a quorum. So we'll begin with our first bill presentation, bottom three, SB 1157 by Senator Archuleta. Good morning.

Sorry.

Good morning, Senator. Whenever you are ready, you may present your bill.

Good morning. Let's see. Is the mic on? Yes? Okay.

Good. Well, thank you, Mister Chair, and I appreciate this time this morning. And Good morning to everyone. Thank you again, Mister Chair and members. I am here to present Senate bill 1157, which will create a framework for less restrictive placements in the probation setting.

I would like to begin by accepting the amendments offered by the chair to require the Judicial Council of California to develop rules of court to assist courts in determining whether a particular less restrictive program is an appropriate place for award and delete the behavioral health bed section of the bill.

The guidelines developed by judicial counsel will include insurance guidelines, staffing training, background checks, whether a program has demonstrated ability to address the risk needs of youth being transferred to the less restrictive program, whether a program has provided proof of notice to the city and county in which it operates, and whether a program operator meets the state and local zoning and land use requirements for residential facilities.

California made a significant policy shift in closing the Department of Juvenile Justice. When the state closed the Division of Juvenile Justice in 2020, responsibility for the most serious and violent youth offender shifted to the counties. As part of that transition, the state created what are known as less restrictive programs, known also as LRP's or Community based placements.

These programs were intended to serve as step down options within a youth court ordered baseline detention term representing the final portion of their custody time that would otherwise be served in a secure setting.

Despite the establishment of a less restrictive placement as the option for courts to consider upon progress of the youth, statute does not establish rules or framework when the program is in its residential setting. The current system has resulted in varying program offerings and administration variations across counties, creating physical and service delivery inconsistencies in each county and giving rise to integrity and the public safety and their concerns.

Examples of this are programs with no background checks for employees, no coordination with county probation for ongoing supervision or violations, no perimeters for mixed gender staff and or staff family members living on-site and no metric for pricing. This is inconsistent with other residential settings that are geared for the youth and their safety and their progress.

Because these programs are part of the original term of secure detention and not part of the post jurisdiction or release, it is critical that these are rules and we have rules in place to protect the ward and the community.

Having programming expectations and safety considerations for programs serving the high risk and highest need youth and young adults in the state is vital to the success of the program. With me today to testify in support is Costa County Chief Probation Officer, Esa Ehmen-Krause, President of the Chief Probation Officers of California, as well as Jeff Neal on behalf of the Costa County constituents. And with that, I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Good morning to our witnesses who each have two minutes to address the committee.

Chair and members, good morning. My name is chief Esa Ehmen-Krause, President of the Chief Probation Officers of California and Chief Probation Officer in Contra Costa County. CPOC is proud to sponsor SB 1157. When the state closed the division of juvenile justice, responsibility for our most serious and violent justice involved youth and young adults shifted fully to counties.

Essentially, less restrictive programs were intended to build an optional piece of the continuum of custody for certain youth committed to county run secure youth treatment facilities who've been determined by the court to have shown substantial progress toward their rehabilitative goals.

It's important to note that these youth are still in their custodial term when being transitioned to an LRP. They are not released or discharged from their custody time. It's imperative that LRP's are safe for the youth, the staff and the communities in which they are located. It's also important to note what this bill does not do. It does not place restrictions on transitional housing.

It does not limit other options utilized as LRP that are already subject to some form of regulation. As someone who's worked with this population for more than twenty five years, I know these types of additional programming can be tremendously useful and beneficial to our youth in the justice system, but only when they meet the needs of those youth and when they are ready to begin this type of program. The law, however, currently has no framework to protect the youth where new residential options are emerging.

No licensing, no inspections, no background check requirements for staff, no consistent standards, and no oversight. This bill seeks to build workable guardrails where we've already built the off ramps.

SB 1157 provides the infrastructure California has been missing, informed by judges who ultimately will be making decisions regarding the use of LRPs as these youth are still under the court's jurisdiction at this time. We respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Hi. Good morning. Morning. Jeff Neal here representing the Contra Costa County Board Of Supervisors. Happy to support SB 1157. You know, in a county run detention facility, it would be unthinkable for the staff not to have training requirements, to not do background checks for the staff who are interacting with these high risk, high need youth. It would, you know, to make sure to do background checks, to make sure they hadn't committed disqualifying offenses, that would prevent them from working with the youth.

Obviously, county staff would have to adhere to, the care plan for the youth. These less restrictive placements, they essentially are detention facilities. Right? Even though they're privately run, these youth are still in their term of detention, but none of those requirements apply to the people who are running those facilities.

So this bill, as the previous speakers have said, as the Senator said, would just put in place a framework for making sure that the youth who are in these facilities have the proper care, that the the employees have the proper training, the proper requirements on them.

In fact, right now, the less restrictive programs don't even need to tell the county that they exist or where they are. They don't need to meet basic you know, there's not a way to make sure that they comply with basic zoning requirements. So this bill would put in place a framework to make sure that all of those apply. These are important. These are an important piece of the new Juvenile Justice Continuum.

We wanna see them succeed. We just need to make sure that they're appropriately run and overseen.

Thank you very much. We'll now take any testimony from the public wishing expressed support for SB1157.

Mister Chair, members, Paul Yoder on behalf of the counties of Fresno, Kern, and Shasta in support. Thank you.

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

Is there anyone else wishing to express support for SB 1157? Seeing no one else approaching the microphone, we'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to SB 1157.

Once again, as I announced at the beginning, you'll each have two minutes to address the committee. And when you hit the two minute mark on me, just tell you your time is wrapping up. So thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, chair and committee members. My name is Lindsey Dazel, and I've been practicing Youth Defense in San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Sonoma Counties for the past eighteen years. In that role, I've developed individual LRP plans with my clients, both in collaboration with probation and where probation opposed. I am also a member of the advisory board of California Youth Defender Center.

We appreciate the recent amendments. However, we remain concerned that the bill still drastically limits LRP options and undermines the continuum of care model intended by SB 823. When the legislator closed DJJ, it made a clear commitment to reduce reliance on confinement by prioritizing the least restrictive placement and utilizing community based responses. At the center of that vision are less restrictive programs or LRPs. We are not opposed to standards and accountability for LRPs.

We share that goal where we part ways is on how we get there. LRP's are not a single defined category of placement or facility. Rather, they are a broad continuum of individualized programs that vary widely in structure services and level of supervision. A youth can be in an LRP at home with family, in a college dorm, in a CBO residential program, or receiving wraparound services in the community. Because of that diversity, they do not lend themselves to uniform rules and regulations.

This bill treats all of those things as if they are the same. They are not. Developing standards for LRPs is both appropriate and necessary. However, they must be nuanced, flexible, and grounded in subject matter expertise. Uniform standards without field input risk creating requirements that are so rigid that providers cannot meet them.

This work requires an agency with deep knowledge of the field, relationships with probation, and CBOs. The Judicial Council's role is procedural. It develops rules for how courts operate. Developing substantive standards for community based programs is a different exercise entirely entirely and it belongs to the Office of Youth and Community Restoration. For these reasons, I ask the committee to vote no on SB 1157.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Reuben Moreno. I currently sit as, I currently serve as a Supervising Attorney for the Juvenile Division of the Sacramento County Public Defender's Office. I've been practicing juvenile delinquency for 21years. I currently sit as the, training committee chair for the California Youth Defender Center, which provides training to over 2100 delinquency practitioners.

And I'm on the National Advisory Board for the Galt Center, which was formerly known as the National Youth Defender Center. As my colleague explained, what LRP's are and why uniform standards cannot work across such a diverse continuum, I'd like to focus on two very specific problems and why the Judicial Council is the wrong entity to fix them. First, the Judicial Council's role is procedural. It develops rules for how courts conduct proceedings, but this bill asks for it to play a very different role.

It asks judge judges to make substantive determinations about program operations that no Judicial Council guidelines can equip them to answer.

Consider just a few of the questions that this bill raises with no answers. What insurance is required and under what standards? What constitutes adequate training and who decides that? What does it mean to address risk needs and what instruments are used? If a zoning question were to be raised, how does the judge resolve that and what happens if they can't?

Which local ordinances apply to a program operating in a particular city or neighborhood? The bill names no agency to answer any of these questions. That is not a gap that the judicial council guidelines can fill. But more fundamentally, the bill asks courts to focus on the wrong thing entirely. The core purpose of an LRP hearing is to to determine what will best support a young person's growth, safety, and successful reentry.

This bill buries that purpose under an administrative checklist. Second is insurance, California is in the midst of a state wide insurance crisis for youth serving programs. Many community based organizations cannot access coverage right now. Not because they've done something wrong, but because the market has failed that space.

Inflexible judicial requirements could render them uninsurable. Assigning the judicial council responsibility to evaluate insurance coverage is misplaced. They lack the expertise and regulatory role to do so. Both problems point to the same conclusion. This is not the right process.

The right path forward is a bill that directs OICR to convene stakeholders, community based organizations, probation, courts, and youth to identify gaps and develop standards grounded in field expertise.

If you can please wrap up here.

For these reasons, we ask you to the committee to vote no on SB 1157. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Now take any, testimony from any members of the public wishing to express opposition to SB1157. You can please approach the microphone and state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Good morning. Colin Ford on behalf of Fresh Lifelines for Youth in opposition, also in opposition on behalf of the Place for Grace, Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice, California Coalition for Women's Prisoners, GLIDE Foundation, Justice to Jobs Coalition, La Defensea, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, National Institute for Criminal Reform, Alliance for Boys and Men of Color, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, The Collective for Liberatory Lawyering, California's United for a Responsible Budget, the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, National Center for Youth Law, Community Works, Felony Murder Elimination Project, the Peace and Justice Law Center, and Starting Over Strong. Thank you.

Thank you.

Liz Blum Gutierrez on behalf of the LA County, Public Defenders Union Local 148 in opposition.

Good morning. Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defender's Association in opposition as well as the San Francisco Public Defender's Office. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mister chair, members. Mica Doctoroff on behalf of Smart Justice California. We remain opposed to the bill, but we appreciate the author's amendments, and we look forward to continuing the conversation.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair. Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. We don't we're a tweener, so we don't have an official position. Thank the authors, staff for working with us. We have concerns about Section two, and thankful to continue the conversation.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB 1157? Seeing no one approach the microphone, I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments. Vice Chair Seyarto?

Thank you. So I look at this bill as an attempt to try to balance out a less restrictive environment, which is better for our kids, but with the accountability that they need so that we can get the job done. Too many times somebody brought up the insurance issue.

There is a lot of reasons you can't get insurance is because too many times, the lack of accountability when placing juveniles into either foster care or whatever it is, has resulted in them being with the wrong people in the wrong place and being abused. And those result in multimillion dollar lawsuits.

And you know, there has to be a trade off. If we're going to have a less restrictive pathway that is more constructive in theory, we need to ensure that that more constructive part can get done. And we can't do it if we don't have the ability to hold not only the persons that we're trying to help accountable, but also the facilities that they're going to accountable.

When you enter into the private sector to provide services, and I'm not saying this is true of all private sector, businesses like that, it opens the door, for abusive, efforts by those private, services. We hear the same thing with our prisons, private prisons.

There's a big uproar about private prisons are not being run because, you know, the bottom line is what counts. Same thing here. We need the accountability, and I appreciate that the author has brought a bill that is concerned with actually the outcomes of these youths instead of just getting them out and making them feel like they don't have any, any more responsibilities towards, working towards their character building. And therefore, I will be supporting this bill.

And, I hope the author will continue to work with the people that are in opposition to address some of their concerns. But I think you're on the right track. So thank you.

Thank you very much. Good morning, Senator Cortese. You're on SB 1157 Archuleta. Do you have any questions or comments? Okay.

Thank you to the author for working with the committee on these amendments. I believe having the judicial council codify these guidelines as opposed to putting them in statute is the right approach.

And I agree with your comments that we need to have guidelines in place. We need to make sure that if youth are being placed in less restricted placements that first of all, we know where they are. The fact that the county doesn't doesn't isn't even notified in some cases where these LRPs are is is a concern.

But also making sure that, you know, issues around, you know, addressing risk, making sure that there are colonel background checks, that these are in the best interest of the youth that will be served.

But I would strongly encourage you to continue to work with opposition, and thank you very much for your this bill, and I'll turn over you to close.

Yeah. Well, thank you, Mister chair and committee members. You know, we've discovered something that is so vital to our system of rehabilitation. And I think this is what we have to think about. How do we get these young people back into the system that we all want them back into?

And it takes time, but it also takes a good setting. You know, if we were talking today about foster kids, we would be very concerned about the home that these foster kids would go into. Well, some of these young men and women have been pushed around as foster kids. Some of these young men and women have, during their incarceration, had no hope.

And now that the system says, okay, you've got the last leg of your term, and we're gonna go ahead and put you into a setting that I think you'll enjoy, that you'll be able to feel comfortable with, safe, and because the individuals that'll be working with you and the home you'll be in has been vetted, the people you'll be working with have been supervised, and whether it's the meals, whether it's the environment, it's all being supervised just because of this bill.

So Senate Bill 1157, yes, we had to negotiate with the chair. Yes, we had to go back and forth. And that's why I accept the amendments and that the chair is thrown at me. And we've worked it out because it is imperative that we realize it is something we have to work on, and it's something that we need to do. And I think that everyone can answer this.

Are we not doing this for the betterment of the youth? Yes. We are. And so with that, Mister chair, I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much, Senator. We don't yet have a quorum. We're one short. But when we do, we'll entertain a motion on the bill. And thank you for being here today and for presenting.

And we'll move now to, our next but soft Senator Smallwood- Cuevas, because her bill's next in file order. We're gonna take a brief recess while we'll wait for an author to appear. And once again, any members can please join us in Capital Room 112 so we can get a quorum and conduct business.

Okay. The committee is back in session, and we'll proceed now to our next bill, which is SB 1012 by Senator Smallwood- Cuevas.

Good morning. And if you have any principal witnesses

We have our witnesses. They please have a seat at the table.

Thank you.

We have two witnesses and a technical witness.

No problem. And whenever you're ready, you may present your bill.

Thank you so much. Good morning, mister chair and members. I am pleased to present SB 1012. This is the fire camp career fire camp to career act, which strengthens pathways to stable skilled careers for incarcerated individuals with fire camp experience. Far too long, California has relied on incarcerated fire camp participants during some of our state's most dangerous emergencies, while failing to ensure that the same service can lead to long term economic opportunity for those who return home. I want to ground this conversation in the workforce we're talking about.

During the 2025 Los Angeles wildfires, over 1,000 incarcerated individuals were deployed as first responders, working alongside professional firefighters to protect lives, homes, and communities. Our professional firefighters put their lives on the line to contain those fires and to protect our communities before the disaster could spread any further. And standing alongside of them was what I would call the forgotten labor force, our incarcerated fire camp participants. These individuals are not observing from the sidelines.

The California Conservation Camp program gives them an opportunity to do real work in real conditions.

They fight wildfires, clear hazardous vegetation, support emergency response, and take on dangerous cleanup and work. They gain hands on training. They build discipline, and they develop skills that clearly translate to careers in the fire service and the skilled trades. And yet, when they come home, that training experience too often does not count in any meaningful way toward a stable career.

California has made important investments in rehabilitation and post release employment outcomes, but the truth is that too many people are still leaving the program without a real bridge to the opportunities they have earned and I had the opportunity, to serve on the Rules Committee and to help with some of the, appointments in our prison system and parole system.

And, many of the directors told us in those hearings was that if individuals have a plan and a job, recidivism is cut by 90%. So this also saves us money as a state in the long run. And as someone who has long worked on a workforce equity and access to good jobs campaign, my whole life, including through my work last year on SB 423, And I really want to thank our member, Seyarto, for his participation in that work.

We all care deeply about making sure the people our state relies on in moments of crisis are not left behind. If we are willing to rely on this workforce when California is in danger, then we should be willing to create a real pathway to economic stability when the service is over. And that is what SB 1012 does.

It requires the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to connect participants with complete who complete the California Conservation Camp program to state approved apprenticeships. It requires apprenticeship programs to consider prior fire camp training and work experience, so that participants do not have to start from square one. And it ensures that fire camp services is formally recognized, so it can count toward apprenticeship eligibility. At its core, this bill is about fairness. It's about recognizing the training, the service, the sacrifice that these individuals make every day for us.

And if someone is good enough to stand on the front lines for California, they should have a real chance to build a stable union career in California. With me to testify today is James Thuerwachter with the California State Council of Laborers, Michelle Solis, a current apprenticeship of the Laborers Union Local 185, and Michelle Sotelo with Igniting Futures.

Good morning. I think that first witness is for technical questions.

That's right. That's right. So maybe we can have, James speak for a few minutes.

Thank you, chair members. James Thuerwachter with the California State Council of Labors. I'll be very brief since I'm gonna cede my time to Miss Solis here. I just wanna commend the author for her leadership in workforce development and in criminal justice reform. Bills like this and the opportunities that this bill seeks to create don't just benefit organizations like the laborers, but they unequivocally strengthen our state and our local communities.

And you're available for technical questions.

I'm also available for technical questions. So I will just go ahead and cede the rest of my time

To my union sister. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Michelle Solis, and I am a member of the Local 185 Laborers Union in Northern California. I was formerly incarcerated at the California Institution for Women in Corona, California. During that time, I joined CalPIA, now known as CalCTRA, labor's pre apprenticeship program. I received many hours of hands on construction training.

I was able to serve as a lead on numerous large scale projects throughout the institution. I helped oversee site preparation, demolition, and multiple concrete pours, including a 100 foot by 35 foot concrete slab for a shade structure that required forming and installing rebar cages for the footings. I received many certificates and graduated from the pre-apprenticeship program, completing over seventeen hundred hours.

I could have graduated after 672, but I wanted to continue to learn because I knew the value of this trade and how important it would make a difference in my life. Because of pre apprenticeship programs like the one at CIW, I am very confident that the skills and fundamentals my supervisor taught me will help me be successful transitioning into the union.

With a strong work ethic and mindset and the right resources, anyone can work themselves into a better healthier life. It is so important that we provide more pre apprenticeship opportunities in the institutions. Measures like SB 1012 that we support today can positively impact many more lives and provide confidence that formerly incarcerated individuals will need to reenter into society as responsible and successful citizens. Thank you.

Good morning.

Good morning, mister chair and committee members. My name is Michelle Sotelo, and right now I'm absolutely. There we go. Is that better?

And I'm the Chief Operating Officer for Future Fire Academy. Future Fire Academy is a wildland fire academy focused on justice involved individuals. It equips individuals with the certifications and the training that they need to enter careers in fire service, forestry, other emergency medical response, fields as well. I'm here in strong support today of Senate bill 1012. Throughout my career, I've worked inside of carceral institutions, teaching individuals life skills, career development, education, and vocation.

But I noticed one thing, going in. They individuals in there were working really hard. I spent a lot of time in fire camps. They're doing the work. They're fighting fires like the Palisades.

They're putting in a tremendous amount of hours to learn their trade but they're coming home with no certifications. Coming home, I'm one of their first phone calls to come into some of the workforce development programs that I have developed, and the they can't get a job. They have the experience, but they cannot get work because there are entities like the Forestry and CalFire. They will hire them, but with certifications. So we put them through our training so that they can obtain the certifications.

We've been successful after training to place individuals in forestry even as hotshots because of the experience they have inside of the CDCR Fire camps. We've been successful in placing individuals with CalFire. But coming home and having barriers, like not getting a job, when they have all of the experience, I mean, they're running circles around all the other individuals that are coming into our training because of the experience that they have.

So one of the main things that that is needed is the certification so they can come home instead of starting from square one all over again when they already have other barriers. But some of the programs that we've built inside to develop, you know, essential life skills, financial literacy, digital literacy, getting individuals job ready and life ready, the one thing that is missing is the certifications.

Without those certifications, they will not be hired by CalFire. They will not be hired by forestry. It is essential that these certifications, their hard work, their community service that they're doing while incarcerated, be recognized with certification so that they can gain get gainful employment. So I'm here today to request and in strong support that we get favorable for Senate bill 1012. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for SB 1012? Please state your name, organization, position on the bill.

Morning, James. Director of California State Council of Labor, strong support.

Mister Chair, member, Sara Flock, California Federation of Labor Unions in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning, mister chair. Felipe Fuentes here on behalf of the Associate General Contractors in strong support.

Good morning, chair and committee members. Kami Peer with NextGen California, cosponsor in strong support.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Nico Molina on behalf of the California Forestry Association in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association in support.

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

Good morning, chair and respected committee members. Doyle Radford, labors 185 in strong support.

My name is Frank Solorzano. I'm a formerly incarcerated individual. I'm with Local 185 in support.

I'm Joe Perez, also a three time incarcerated person and very proud union worker. Thank you. Support the SB 1012. Thank you.

Good morning. Lionel Bergen in strong support. Lionel Bergen with Laborers Local 185, strong support of the bill. Thank you.

Victor Dela Torre. I'm with the Laborers. I'm in full support of this, SB, 1012.

Good morning, Alejandro Martinez. I'm also with the laborers and I'm in full support of SB 1012.

My name is Daniel Garcia. I'm a member of Laborers Local 185 here from Sacramento, California, and I'm supportive of SB 1012. Thank you.

Thank you very much for coming today, for expressing your support of the bill. Is there anyone wishing to express opposition to SB 1012? We'll take up to two principal witnesses in opposition. Seeing no one come forward, is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB 1012?

Seeing no one, I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments. Vice Chair Seyarto?

Alright. Thank you very much for bringing this bill forward. And I think it's important that we build on what we talked about last year, which was giving people the tools they need so that they can go compete for those jobs. And and this is part of it, but I also want to caution that you don't get a certificate for time on the job. You get a certificate for demonstrated capabilities.

If we gave certificates to paramedics who couldn't start IV's just because they were on the job for a while, that wouldn't be very good for public safety at all. So there still has to be an element of that certification process where the people that are coming in that have all that experience, still demonstrate that skill. And yes, they can they can get to that higher level, very quickly that way by just challenging that skill and and and demonstrating that they have it.

And this is another avenue for people to have all of the skills they need. You know, and it doesn't cross the line, which I talked about last year of preferential hiring for the job, because that's a disaster for both the person that's getting the preference and the people on the other end that have gone through whatever processes they do because that sets an animosity within a team and you can't have that.

People need to know when their people are coming on board, their new guys are coming on board, that they have paid the price to to be there and that they will be a team member that they can count on. You don't build that by putting somebody in the front of somebody of a line. And, so, and I don't read that into this bill at all. This is still on the side of giving people the tools so that they can go compete.

We have people that go into the camp systems, all the time.

They don't have a lot of those people don't make it into the firehouse itself. They stay in the camps. And there's a variety of reasons for that, and none of it has to do with incarceration. It has to do with the skill and ability to do the job.

And the job that transitions when you're in the firehouse, there's a lot more, a lot of the paramedic field, being an EMT, all of those things are part of the fire service now. The aptitude to understand, you know, some of the chemicals that we're involved with and hazmat, and all of those things are part of the job.

And, so even if people are incarcerated and come through or not incarcerated and come through the camps, there is still a process to get to that coveted position as a as a firefighter. And so this, I think its helpful.

I think it is very good for what we're trying to achieve with our incarcerated population, which is giving them a chance. And at the same time, it also leaves with them the challenge of overcoming whatever it is that got them in their situation in the first place. And building that and having that be part of the character that makes them fully accepted if they ever do get to that position as a firefighter or a full time firefighter in in in the fire service.

So I'll be supporting your bill today. I think it's well written.

It's very concise as far as what we're trying to achieve and it builds on some of the stuff last year that we talked about. I appreciate that. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments from members of the committee? Thank you, Senator, for bringing this bill forward. I strongly support it, and I'll turn it back over to close.

Thank you so much, and really appreciate the comments made and your partnership on this, Senator Seyarto. And we attended Pine Valley, and we saw the capability. We saw the skill. We saw the determination. We saw the fire camp participants in the line of duty working that engine, showing us all of the equipment.

So we know very well that these are capable individuals with a lot of experience, both lived experience, but professional skilled experience that they get on the job in these camps. We can't let that go to waste. We need that when they come out, so that they can contribute to our economy and help our communities thrive. I'm very proud to, author this bill. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. When we establish a quorum, we'll enter a motion. And thank you all for being here today. Thank you. Next in file order is SB1027 Strickland, but I don't see the Senator here.

But Cortese Oh, I believe you do have a witness here. Okay. So we'll now proceed to file it in 15, SB 1306 by Senator Cortese. Thank you, Senator.

Good morning, Senator, whenever you're ready to present.

Alright. Good morning, Chair, all state members of the committee. SB1306 aligns California law with existing federal exemptions for certain chemical mixtures containing GBL, which is defined in the bill. These are essential to semiconductor manufacturing and research. To be clear, nothing in this bill would change the requirements for purchase, storage, or use of pure GBL.

In 2010, the US Drug Enforcement Administration adopted regulations exempting chemical mixtures containing GBL at conscious, concentrations of 70% or less from the Controlled Substance Act and those requirements, since extracting GBL from these complex industrial mixtures is not practically feasible. Companies and state agencies are currently spending time and money enforcing chemical regulations that Federal Government has already deemed irrelevant to public safety. California law leaves suppliers serving the semiconductor industry subject to significant regulatory requirements, including permitting, owner's reporting, record keeping, and21 day transact transaction holds.

This administrative burden makes it more expensive to operate in California, compared to states like Texas, Arizona, and Florida risking the exodus of critical engineering manufacturing jobs. Our state leads the nation in semiconductor R&D, accounting for roughly 51% of total US semiconductor R&D in 2021, and the state's semiconductor sector contributes more than $100,000,000,000 annually to the economy.

This bill will encourage companies from outstanding manufacturing to other states and ensure, from outsourcing manufacturing, excuse me, to other states, as I noted earlier, and will ensure the vitality of California's semiconductor industry. By bringing California into alignment with federal policy, in this case, SB 1306 helps reduce operational disruptions, supports in state R&D, and strengthens California's role, our state's role as a global leader in the high technology innovation sector.

With us here today to testify, we have Ann Grimaldi, principal at Grimaldi Law Offices, and Tatum Ackler, on behalf of Semi. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

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

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Tatum Akler with Samsung Advisors on behalf of Semi, which is the trade association which represents the entire supply chain of the semiconductor industry. In strong support of SB 1306. This is a very straightforward measure that helps reduce unnecessary and burdensome regulation on semiconductor manufacturing and research while posing no risk to public safety.

Specifically certain mixtures containing low levels of GBL are critical for the manufacturing of semiconductors, which are used in high-tech and the consumer electronics industry, such as our cell phones, computers, cameras.

In addition to being supplied to semiconductor companies for chip manufacturing, they are also supplied in small amounts to universities, including in California for research purposes. And by being regulated as a drug under the California Uniform Controlled Substance Act, companies that obtain these mixtures are subject to extraordinarily burdensome, costly, and unnecessary requirements. This narrow exemption proposed in SB 1306 would align California with longstanding federal law, which would allow California to remain crtic, competitive in this critical space.

And perhaps more importantly, the bill poses no risk to public safety because there is no risk of diverting the mixtures into other dangerous substances, which I know Ms. Grimaldi can speak to further. Lastly, the late opposition letter was quite concerning as it is based on the false premise that the bill seeks to exempt pure GBL rather than the GBL mixtures from the California Uniform Controlled Substance Act.

That is most certainly not what the bill does, and I don't think there's anyone in this room that would support such a bill. That said, we've been in conversations with the opposition and look forward to continuing that dialogue. We request your aye vote.

Thank you very much.

Good morning. My name is Anne Grimaldi. I'm an attorney at Grimaldi Law Offices in San Francisco, and I'm here in support, strong support of SB 1306. For over thirty years, I have practiced in the area of chemical regulation, advising companies, including suppliers to the semiconductor industry, on their obligations and requirements under federal and state chemical laws. I'm familiar with the current California law at issue today and familiar with the burdens imposed on the industry as a result of that law.

I wanna point out a couple of things initially, and it's it's been stated already. Nothing in this bill would affect the requirements, restrictions, and penalties for pure GBL. We're concerned only with mixtures. The other thing I wanna point out is that even with the passage of this bill, these mixtures would still remain subject to a strong regulatory requirements because they're hazardous. So OSHA worker protection requirements would still apply.

Hazardous material storage requirements would still apply. Hazardous materials transportation requirements would still apply. Hazardous waste requirements would still apply. The only thing that this bill would do would be to remove the burdens and obstacles to a strong semiconductor economy here and align with federal law. In that regard, to my knowledge, there has been no instance of theft or misuse of these GBL mixtures that are used in the semiconductor industry.

And in the sixteen years that the DEA, the federal DEA exemption has been in place, I have to imagine that if there had been such a pattern, the DEA would either have amended or repealed this exemption, and it has not. On the, there's some practical considerations in play here. These mixtures are very expensive. They cost thousands of dollars per liter. They have low concentrations of GBL.

And so together, that means that there are strong financial business incentives to protect these mixtures. They're locked in in warehouses with security cameras. They're transported by well known and reputable transportation companies like FedEx and DHL. By the same token, there is a strong disincentive for nefarious use or theft because it would cost so much money to extract these low levels of GBL from these mixtures, and it just, there's no bang for the buck for any nefarious use by bad actors.

So for all these reasons, I I urge and I vote on this bill.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for SB 1306? If you can please approach the microphone, state your name, organization, and position on the bill. Okay. Seeing no one else, is there any any principal witnesses in opposition to SB 1306?

Seeing no one come forward, bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments. Just say thank thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward. This is a very straightforward, practical measure. I think this would have remained on consent, but there was late opposition filed, and I strongly support the bill. And we don't have a quorum yet, so we can't entertain a motion, but I'll turn it over to you to close.

I'll make my comments too.

I also support the bill.

There we go. Thanks. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, chair and committee staff, for the help with this, the analysis. We'll continue to work with opposition.

We're aware of the late opposition that you referred to, And hopefully, we can sort things out readily with them. That that work will continue. So at the appropriate time, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much, Senator. Thank you for joining us today. Okay. We'll recess the committee for five minutes while we wait for an author to present.

Morning, Senator.

You have any witnesses? They're welcome to join us.

They'll hustle over. I'll get started if that's okay. Yes. And then,

oh, you're here. Alright. There you are.

You don't have to hustle over at all. Good to see

you. So we're presenting a bill that is supposed to bring some parity around people who commit felonies and are deemed incompetent to stand trial to similar procedures we've we've established for folks who commit misdemeanors under similar circumstances. The big concern is that people aren't getting treated. And even when you commit a crime, those are often cries for help, and opportunities to intervene, and get people the care they need.

And too often in our system, we're simply dismissing cases, and dismissing people because it's convenient and an easy way out of helping them.

But in many of these cases, it doesn't just lead to recidivism, but much worse. You'll hear some of the testimony today about some of the failures and cracks between our our public safety system and our mental health system. But this bill is really designed to remedy some of that. We're we're trying to improve our time frames so that we don't have sort of these blind dismissals and send people back to the streets without care.

We're also trying to share better information with the courts and improve the court's ability to make findings that are necessary to get people into conservatorships in those extreme cases where people have are so gravely disabled that they're that they can't take care of themselves, and actually are a risk not just to others, but but to themselves as well.

Found incompetent, and then eligible for diversion as a result, they can be referred to Care Court, or AOT, or for conservatorship. The time frames to effectuate a proper assessment of an individual's eligibility and suitability are built into statute in in penal code thirteen seventy o one, which we worked on over the last few years. But in in this case, we have that framework for misdemeanors, but we simply don't have it for felonies. So we're gonna try to rationalize that with this legislation here.

And the complimentary provisions also align with county conservatorship investigations to make sure that they can be eligible for referrals out of courts.

And we're also gonna allow the courts or qualified mental health experts to make preliminary findings to facilitate such a referral. We believe this bill is gonna save lives. And we know these are tough issues, and I really appreciate not just the support here with me today, but also the opposition who we've had a really strong working relationship over the years on a very difficult subject. So I appreciate them as well. I'll turn it over to my lead witnesses from Marin County.

Right? We have Dori Hana, and then Kaino Hopper who's been a compass and for me on these issues through her own personal experiences, but is here officially as the with family advocates for individuals with serious mental illness. Thank you, mister chair.

You're very much, Senator. Good morning. You each have two minutes to address the committee. Whoever would like to start.

Good morning, mister chair and members. My name is Doria Hana, and I'm here on behalf of the Marin County District Attorney's Office, but also on behalf of the California District Attorney's Association in support 0f SB 140 14 o one.

SB 141 seeks to align common sense provisions in felony and misdemeanor incompetent to stand trial statutes to ensure that decisions surrounding mental health treatment are being made in an in an efficient, thoughtful, informed way that benefits both the individual as well as the community as a whole. SB 141 does this in three different ways.

First, SB 141 is a follow-up to SB 1400 enacted in 2024, which provided the court and service providers in misdemeanor cases time to properly assess an individual's eligibility and amenability for pathways like assisted outpatient treatment, care court, or conservatorship.

These provisions, however, were not added for similarly situated felony defendants. SB 141 seeks to fix that oversight by adding to the felony statute the same time frames that currently exist in the parallel misdemeanor statute. Second, SB 141 allows behavioral health providers to share mental health information with the court so the court can make a fully informed decision as to which path might best suit the needs of an individual.

That exact language was added last year by SB 27 to the misdemeanor statute and is precisely what SB 141 seeks to add to the felony statute. And currently, in felony cases, a court or a qualified mental health expert can make a preliminary finding that a defendant appears to be gravely disabled, which is required before a court can refer an individual for conservatorship investigation.

SB 141 aligns this exact provision with the misdemeanor statute to allow court in misdemeanors to be able to facilitate a similar referral for conservatorship investigation when appropriate. And in conclusion, SB 141 makes common sense changes, which align the provisions of parallel felony and misdemeanor incompetent stand trial statutes to better meet the specialized needs of justice involved individuals with mental health issues. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Hi. Good morning.

Thank you, honorable chair and committee members for your service to Californians. My name is Elizabeth Kino Hopper, and I live in Carmichael. I support SB 1401 because it brings parity between felony and misdemeanor court procedure provisions regarding time frames for dismissal, sharing information with the court, and the court's ability to recommend a medical evaluation for grave disability, with LPS conservative as possible.

With these adjustments for inmates found as, to be incompetent to stand trial, the focus truly becomes the right level of treatment for the right length of time while maintaining safeguards. My daughter fell through the current legal cracks that SB 141 would fix.

After two years, she was found competent to stand trial, but she was still functionally gravely disabled. And the two week timeline was too short to build trust, to accept the care court services. Also, there was zero coordination between civil care court and criminal court public defenders. So the workers who were in the court that day, but they couldn't access my daughter because the criminal public defender had no right to communicate with the civil side.

And both courts had been informed about the two care petitions, one from family, one from adult correctional health that happened during right before she was to be released, and both were approved to move forward.

And doctor Warburton of the state hospital system advises inmate health experts to file care petitions for qualifying inmates returning to jail from IST hospitals. In fact, readily available on the care act web videos. The day of the trial, the judge, the PD, and the DA were all frustrated to see a clearly gravely disabled inmate unable to accept reentry housing and aftercare services prior to release. And the judge said, my hands are tied because she has legally maxed out on time served.

We are not aware there was any attempt to consider her for an LPS conservatorship despite the existing jail health experts diagnosis of schizophrenia with lack of insight and constant medication refill refusals.

She was released to the streets in June 2025 and continues to be caught in the revolving doors of streets to ERs to psychiatric hospitals to streets. Have an AOT petition for her. It was approved. They're having a very hard time finding her to engage her voluntarily in services. And since she doesn't think she's sick, why would she do that?

SP fourteen oh one puts the courts in a position of greater oversight of timeliness and appropriateness of voluntary programs with the possibility of medical assessment for LPS conservatorships prior prior to release. Please vote yes. Thank you.

So very much. We'll not take any testimony from anyone else wishing to express support for SB14O1. If you would like to express your support, please approach the microphone, state your name, organization, and position on the bill. K. See no one come forward.

We'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to SB 141.

Good morning, mister chair and members. My name is Conrad Crump with Disability Rights California, and, we respectfully oppose SB 1041. We understand that this bill is intended to align procedures between misdemeanor and felony incompetent to stand trial cases, but in practice, SB, 141 makes substantive changes that expand court control over people with mental health disabilities and weaken important safeguards.

First, the bill, also allows confidential medical and mental health information to be shared, particularly, therapy records, that information more broadly with the court, and that fundamentally undermines the trust that's necessary for effective treatment. And if people believe that what they say in therapy can be used against them in a criminal proceeding, they are less likely to seek care or to be honest with their providers, and that weakens the entire mental health system.

Secondly, 14 o one, lowers due process protections by allowing courts to refer individuals to conservatorship without requiring a mental health a qualified mental health expert. This is a significant step because it puts the court in a position to initiate a process that can take away a person's autonomy. It can strip a person of the ability to make decisions about their health, their finances, and where they live. That decision should be grounded in clinical expertise, not expanded judicial discretion.

These changes move us further toward a system where people with mental health conditions are managed through the courts rather than supported through voluntary community based care.

Instead of reducing system involvement, this bill expands it. And we also have to be mindful about those who will be, most impacted, particularly people of color who are already overrepresented in the criminal legal system and in the court based mental health interventions like assisted outpatient treatment and care court. So expanding these pathways risks deepening those disparities. And finally, this bill has real world, consequent consequences and implications. It risks unnecessarily and costly conservatorship that referrals and expanding court involvement.

And without addressing those underlying gaps in our behavioral health system, those resources would be better invested in full service partnerships, supportive housing, and other approaches that actually stabilize people and reduce system contact. So at the time where we, as a state, should be building trust in mental health care, we need to be investing in services. So we're respectfully asking, for your no vote. And as I close, I'd also like to register opposition on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office as well.

Thank you very much. I will now take me to testimony in opposition to SB 141. If you can please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

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

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

Margo George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, we have not taken a position on this bill. We have concerns. We helped draft SB 1400, and we're in conversations with the author and appreciate it about fourteen o one. Thank you, and would like to continue them.

Thank you very much. Seeing no one else come forward, I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments. Senator Cortese.

Thank you, mister chair. I know you and the committee have put put some real time into this in terms of analysis. And because of that, today, I'm I'm gonna cast an eye vote when we have a quorum and I'm able to do that. I I do have serious reservations. They're not unique to me because they align almost a 100% with what the opposition concerns are that were just raised.

And it's not first of all, let me just say some of that is largely professional but philosophical based on lived experience, but also based on my twelve years in the county board of supervisors of Santa Clara County, where we desperately work to to try to essentially completely delink the criminal platform from these behavioral health issues, mental health issues, knowing that they need to be dealt with and treated.

It's one of the reasons I supported Care Corp because at least it was this huge step to to say we're not going to do this on a criminal platform. We're going to do it on on the civil side. Now second point I wanna make is in Santa Clara County, we do have, some integration that would be helpful. I think, you know, best case scenario, I mean, it's very, very difficult to deal with somebody who doesn't have insight into their their own condition.

Right? Frustrating. You know, families all over California are are dealing with that. So we have to work on that. Really, the path that's historically been taken in in my own county is that what used to be called drug courts or or full on behavioral health courts, kind of founded by a gentleman named Judge Manley who's been very involved up here over the years as well.

And those courts basically don't have the you know, what we would ordinarily consider to be HIPAA information or or medical record information coming right into open court on the criminal side.

Rather, caseworkers are are mandated to be there in court so that they can continue to maintain the confidentiality of of the actual records and interaction with what would be the defendant in this case, but actually really essentially a a patient of in all likelihood of the county's behavioral health And so those case workers, especially, you know, for the indigent and so forth, are are there. It allows the judge basically to establish a record of compliance with case worker visits.

He can ask general questions as to whether or not there's been, you know, compliance with medical prescriptions and so forth without essentially exposing that individual's entire medical history in in a criminal court, that's a slippery slope that I worry about. It's probably a little more for me, it's more than a slippery slope in the sense that, you know, we we either we either have to stand by the confidentiality of of medical records or not.

And I think for years, it's it's bothered me that when people check into, county jails, for example, there's not a medical record history that goes in with them. And oftentimes, we end up with people with suicidal ideation, you know, hurting themselves within the first twenty four hours in jail. I don't know how to fix that, though, without essentially exposing someone's medical records, you know, to the rest of the world. So it's a tough issue. It's a really tough issue.

So I don't I don't know what I do to the author on the floor, but I wanted to take a few minutes to in in case you wanna respond as well, but I wanna take a few minutes to at least explain to you that I feel like I've given this a lot of thought, you know, and I think there's a path, like I said, to to to how to do this and still get to the same outcome, but I think it requires, handoffs that are in in very defined roles in terms of what people can say and what people can't say, especially in open criminal court.

I I don't think the bill actually does that even though it's a noble outcome it's trying to achieve. So thank you. Thank you, mister chair.

Thank you. Senator Stern, do you wish to respond?

I'll I'll just say briefly, I I really appreciate the the the experience that you've had at the county level because that's where rubber meets the road here. And frankly, that's where they're starved for resources, and a lot of this is about a lack a lack of resource gain. Right? And if we actually had, you know, enough beds and enough treatment and enough folks in the system, it would work a lot better. I I'm I'm up for working with you on refining that information sharing piece.

I think it's a it's a important concern, and I don't think our goal in any way was to say, undermine, say, a therapy relationship, as the opposition, noted. We don't want to undercut what that information is. In fact and we also don't want to sort of add that criminal, what what a sort of criminal context does to a mental health therapy relationship either. In fact, kinda wanna do the opposite. We wanna transition people out of the criminal justice system and into treatment.

Right? And and try to find alternatives to carceral care. That was sort of the idea of finding warm handoffs or ways to move into AOT out of the criminal system. Right? Or even an extreme case into a conservatorship.

I don't think that should be the first I think that's the kind of the last case. But even into the care court system. Right? Like, get out of criminal and get into care. So that's actually the thrust of the bill and why we carried 1,400 a couple years back and why we're we're trying to bring this back to bring the same pathway to to 14 o in 14 o one here.

I I don't know if just a a brief comment on the the information sharing. I don't think the idea was to have the full medical records exposed in court, but I don't know if our our friends at Marin County DA have any insight on the information sharing piece and that the guardrails, if you'll indulge us, mister chair, or that'd be alright, or we can move on too.

If Mae, if you can briefly respond. If

you want to, but if if you think I covered it, that's fine.

I I I think we're willing to work on this issue. We certainly value confidentiality here even though really sharing the information piece is not unusual in a criminal context. We're dealing with questions of competency, mental health diversion, and then when that's gone by, we're looking for off ramps. And whether that's AOT or care or conservatorship, the court needs that critical information to be able to make the right decision as to which off ramp to choose.

And so we're looking to balance the information the court needs with the value of confidentiality. The language that we imported here is the exact same language that SB 27 added to misdemeanors. We think it strikes a good balance between those two. The confidentiality piece and the information piece, it limits the use of this information simply to the purpose of looking to see which off ramp is appropriate, and it's subject to state and federal laws as well in terms of privacy considerations. So

Thank you. Thank you very much. We are on, s p 14 o one, by Senator Stern. If there are any other questions or comments at this time and seeing none. We do have a quorum, so let's first establish a quorum.

Aragin here. Seoerto Caballero? Caballero here. Cortesi? Here. Cortesi here. Perez? Here. Perez here. Weiner? Here. Weiner here.

Okay. Thank you very much. Once again, if any members have any questions or comments on SB 141, if not, we'll turn it back over to Senator Close.

Thank you so much, mister chair, and thank you to the committee staff for an excellent analysis. I would just say, echoing Kaino's case, with her daughter and that sort of impasse we found in the court system where, the intent here is not to publish someone's mental health history, to the public. It's not supposed to be sort of an airing out.

This is actually supposed to be treating it in a confidential setting within the court proceeding to make sure that they get care, and then they don't die on our streets or in our jails. Because people are dying every day, and this is a problem.

This is a crisis. In these felony cases, we think that it can even be a more extreme problem than what we faced in misdemeanors. And so in this case, we would just suggest that the same kind of protections that we've got, the same off ramps we've got for folks with misdemeanors, at least should be afforded to those who've committed felonies in this this case.

So but we look forward to working with both the opposition, those who are not opposed yet, like the the public defenders as well as the center for Santa Clara County. And, with that respect, we ask your right vote.

Thank you very much. I'll entertain a motion on SB 141. Moved by Sena Presse. The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee.

SB 141 Stern, do passed to appropriations. Aragin? Aye. Aragin, aye. Sayardo Caballero? Aye. Caballero? Aye. Cortesi? Aye. Perez, aye. Weiner? Aye. Weiner, aye. Okay.

That bill on call for absent members. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for joining us today. So we'll now move back and file order to our next bill, which is file item six SB 1027 by Senator Strickland. Good morning.

I just wanna first take this opportunity to thank the Senator for the dialogue over the last week on this bill and giving us opportunity to to meet and work out a set of amendments that broaden the scope of this to also focus on the impacts of enforcement on victims of human trafficking. No no doubt we have an issue in California on human trafficking and street prostitution, and I really appreciate your openness in working with the committee on these amendments. I'll turn over

Mister chair, I I really appreciate your openness, and it shows you that when we work together, we can get a better product moving forward. And I really appreciate you and your staff for all the hard work. And, Senator Perez, thank you as well. I know you, and I talked, and I just really appreciate all the hard work that came into this bill. It's a very important bill to my district, and I very much appreciate your your help, mister chair.

I open with the accepted committee amendments and thank the chair for working with me. As we all know, laws around street prostitution have been in flux for the past few years, but one thing has not changed, the damage that street prostitution causes to victims and the communities around them. Communities across the state have reported increased visibility of street prostitution, broader impacts on neighborhood and quality of life, and growing challenges in identifying victims and connecting them to services and support.

The National Human Trafficking Hotline reported over seventeen hundred trafficking cases in California in 2024 alone. As we know, many individuals involved in street prostitution are not there by choice.

They are victims of coercion, manipulation, and trafficking. This bill recognizes that law continues to evolve, and the changes have different impacts on communities, victims, service availability, and outcomes for those who've been exploited. We need to have a clear understanding of how victims are being identified, whether they are receiving appropriate services, where the gaps exist in our current system, and the best and most efficient practices for communities to respond.

We also do not fully understand how these engage in exploitation are shifting their methods in response to recent legal challenges. With that that understanding, we risk the policies that do not actually reach victims.

We risk the gaps in services going unaddressed. We risk failing and providing the support and protection victims need, and we risk communities demoralized by lack of progress. My bill, Senate bill 27 ten twenty seven takes community focused data driven approach. It creates a task force to bring together victim service providers, human trafficking survivors, public health and social services agencies, community organizations, and law enforcement and legal professionals. And importantly, this bill ensures that survivor and victims voices are essentially part of the conversation.

S v SB 1027 directs the task force to examine how victims are currently being identified and supported, evaluate existing services and whether they are accessible, effective, and sufficient, identify gaps and disconnects in the current law, review existing data and research to understand the trends and the impacts, and propose additional studies where information is lacking. And, ultimately, it develops recommendations and best practices to better protect and support victims and their communities.

Senate bill ten twenty seven is about understanding where we are, identifying what is working and what is not, and making sure that our response is grounded in data and experience on the ground. This bill will give us a clearer picture and current landscape, the gaps in our system, and path forward to better support those affected by exploitation and trafficking. I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Here with me today to testify is Christina Strzok from the Orange County Sheriff's Department and Hannah Shen Haindorf, who is the city manager from the city Of Stanton in my district. Thanks again, members, for your hard work, and I really appreciate the opportunity.

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

Good morning, chair and committee members. My name is Hannah Schonhadeorn. I'm the city manager of the City Of Stanton in Orange County. I'm here today to talk about the very real impacts of street prostitution in our community. In Staunton, street prostitution is not an abstract policy issue.

It is something our residents and businesses must deal with every day. We see ongoing solicitation along Highway 39 and other major corridors and increasingly within our residential neighborhoods. Buyers circle blocks, stop unpredictably, and create unsafe conditions for both drivers and pedestrians. But beyond that, the situation has escalated in ways that are deeply concerning. Residents are being verbally harassed and intimidated.

Businesses trying to maintain their properties have experienced vandalism and in some cases have had a gun drawn on them. And our community is suffering from secondary impacts related to drug and alcohol addiction, gang activity, and human trafficking. These are not isolated concerns. They are part of a pattern that is affecting our community's sense of safety and quality of life. Families are especially impacted.

Children walking to and from school are being exposed to extreme displays of public nudity and explicit sexual behavior. Parents are being put in the difficult position of having to explain these situations to very young children, something no family should have to navigate on a daily basis just to get to school safely. Local businesses are also impacted. They struggle to ensure the safety of employees and customers avoid certain areas.

The perception of disorder makes it harder for small businesses to survive and for our local economy to thrive. Residents in Stanton are trying to be compassionate, but they also feel unheard. They are asking for safe, stable neighborhoods where families and businesses can function without fear or fear or constant disruption. Our community is asking for policy grounded in reality. This is why SB 1027 is important. It creates a path to better understand based on data and not assumptions what communities like Stanton are experiencing and to develop solutions that restore safety while also addressing underlying social issues.

On behalf of Stanton, we respectfully request your support of SB 1027. Thank you so much for your time and consideration.

Thank you very much. Hi. Good morning.

Good morning. The Orange County Sheriff's Department is a sponsor of Senate Bill ten twenty seven, which establishes the California Street Prostitution Issues and Options Task Force. This legislation will strengthen our ability to address human trafficking, improve coordination statewide, and provide better support and resources for victims across California. I'm a sergeant for the human trafficking unit for the Orange County Sheriff's Department. I have spent seven years working in an undercover capacity, directly combating exploitation and supporting victims.

Every day, my team sees the realities of human trafficking. These are not just cases, they are victims. Many of them young and vulnerable, controlled through fear, violence, and manipulation. The scope of this issue across California is significant. And while law enforcement and community partners continue to work tirelessly, the challenges remain complex and evolving.

In my role, I contact dozens of individuals each week who are engaged in prostitution. These interactions give me a Firsthand perspective, and I know that many of these individuals are not there by choice, but are being exploited, coerced, or controlled by traffickers. Prostitution persists because it's highly profitable. In my experience, a single female engaged in prostitution can make between a thousand and $3,000 a night.

However, she often keeps none of that money, turning it all over to a trafficker, leaving her financially dependent, vulnerable, and under continued control. Human trafficking is directly tied to prostitution, and both research and my experience shows that many individuals engaged in prostitution are in fact victims. In hold, the majority of individuals I've encountered, both juveniles and adults, have been victimized as a direct result of prostitution either by their traffickers or by their customers. Thus continuing the cycle of victimization and an exploitation of a vulnerable population. In Los Angeles, along the Figueroa Corridor, more than half the underage victims recovered are reported to come from foster care systems. And San Diego County has reported seeing an increase in street prostitution activity, which negatively affects neighborhoods, businesses, and public safety.

In Orange County, since 2021, I've seen a noticeable increase in street level prostitution along Beach Boulevard in the cities of Stan and Anaheim. Policy changes such as SB 357 have impacted law enforcement's ability to proactively contact victims, creating challenges in intervention enforcement. This is why SB 1027 is so important. It brings together law enforcement, policymakers, and service providers to take an evidence based look at current laws and develop informed solution to better combat trafficking while supporting victims. Thank you for your consideration. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Match, is there anyone else wishing to express support for SB 1027? If you can please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

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

Good morning. Pat Espinosa on behalf of the San Diego County DA's office in support.

Thank you.

Morning, Mr. Chair. Ryan Sherman with California Narcotic Officers Association and Riverside Sheriffs Association and the other POAs in the analysis in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Doria Hana for the California District Attorneys Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay. We'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to SB 1027. Is there anyone wishing to testify in opposition to the bill? Okay.

Seeing no one come forward, anyone wishing to express opposition to SB 1027?

George Pram, Theo, on behalf of ACLU California Action, we're opposed to the bill as in print, so we need to review the amendments. Thank you.

Shivani Nishar on behalf of Drug Policy Alliance. Alliance. We also registered opposition, for the bill in print and will review the amendments.

Good morning. Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. Similar to my colleagues, haven't had an opportunity to review the amendments, but have an opposed position to the original version, but have to review. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay. I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments. Senator Caballero?

Thank you, mister chair. I wanna thank the chair and the author for working so hard on this bill. I think it's in much better shape. I I the amendments, I think, really take into consideration what's needed if we're really gonna get a handle on it. And I appreciated the testimony because I've had the same complaints from the cities that I represent.

Children shouldn't have to walk the gauntlet to go to school in the morning, and parents shouldn't have to try to explain what's really happening so that kids can understand it. The one thing when I worked for Governor Brown, I also sat on the Victims Compensation Board. And one of the more difficult situations that occurred when I did that was that victim's compensation is paid out. It's a it's a it's a fund that's created by people that commit crimes.

And it tries to make the victims whole in some ways even if the perpetrator never pays restitution.

But and it's a fund that's oversubscribed. But the individuals that came in that were sex workers that had been hurt pretty badly were unable to access resources because if you commit a crime and in the commission of that crime you get hurt through, you know, no fault of your own, then you're not eligible. And so they were not eligible to receive benefits.

And I had a number of conversations with them and it it occurs to me, and this is just my personal feeling is that to add the possibility of an analysis of what changes would occur if we legalized sex workers and made them in control of their future rather than someone else might be worth it. Just to to get I'm interested in getting people off the street as as one solution.

But also, making sure that, that there's alternatives for people. Obviously, don't want them doing sex work, but if they're, if that's a choice that they've made until they decide to get out, there's nothing you can do. And so to keep them off the street might be a way to be able to deal with it. So that that would be one of the elements in the report that I think would be important.

It's not there now, but I think it's worth at least asking the questions, of what what would change if we did that.

So just wanted to say that. And I'll support your bill today. I think it's in really good shape.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions

or comments? Senator Press? Yeah.

I I too just wanna express, Senator Strickland, just thank you for all of the work that you've done on this bill. I know you came by my office, and you shared with me what an important issue this was regionally for you, and in your district. And I know that you wanted to make sure that you were really addressing, this issue of, of prostitution that you've seen happen in particular cities. And I know that this is a statewide issue as well.

You know, we see it in Los Angeles, and there's been lots of conversation about how we better address this problem.

And I think creating a task force allows us to strategize together, bringing all partners to tape to the table so that we can come up with a common solution, because we have one common goal, which, is to protect people at the end of the day and ensure public safety. So, I'm really grateful for the amount of, effort that you've put into amendments around this bill. I think it's a very strong piece of legislation, and and really, excited to see the outcome of this. Thank you.

And I just wanna say, Senator, thank you so much for taking time to meet with me and talk about these issues, and I really appreciate working together. And, like I said, this is one of those bills that, show you get a better work product when we all work together, and I really appreciate your help and and particularly the staff and the chair's help as well.

Thank you. And, also I'll add my thanks to the author, for, for tackling this. One of the things that we do in the legislature that I think is sometimes not good is in reaction to something, we come up with 15 bills to try to address it instead of trying to figure out, how we can, focus in on the real parts that need to be addressed in doing that. And and the task force concept, I think, does that.

What I've seen in the past though is that a lot of times our task force never gets put together, like a fentanyl task force.

And, and instead it goes in kind of a different some it goes off in a different room way. And I am hoping that we will all follow-up to ensure that this gets done. This puts everybody who has who all the stakeholders in a room to figure out, hey, what do we do about this? Because doing nothing about it is not the answer. And, and we want to take into account what everybody has to say about it.

And, and and so, with that, I just, applaud you for for working with everybody to get this, across, this finish line. Of course, there's other finish lines as well. But, hopefully, you'll have the support to be able to do that. And with that, I'll move the bill.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator. And through the chair, my understanding of this now goes to the it's under purview of the attorney general's office So as we move forward.

Any other questions or comments? Just clarity. Where does this bill go next?

Well, technically, the

Well, the reason why the GO is we don't

We took that amendment and so We took

the amendment so it wouldn't have to go to GO because we wouldn't have the timeline.

Okay.

And that's why it's under the deal.

But they but they they may waive review.

Yeah.

Okay. Procedurally has to go there. Yeah.

Got it. Okay. Thank you. And just to summarize the amendments, adding language about supporting survivors of human trafficking and preventing human trafficking, require the task force to prepare a prevalence study on sex work and human trafficking, expanding the membership to include health health officials, a university researcher, mental health expert, and people with lived experience, and extending the timeline of the task force so that they have adequate time to complete the work.

And I wanna thank the author for working with the committee and my colleagues for your input on this bill as well.

This is a very important issue in my district. I live and represent the city of Oakland, and we have our own blade along International Boulevard where issues of human trafficking are a serious problem. And I think the outcome of this task force can result in real good recommendations, not just on changes to law, but also resources to help support those people that have been victimized. So thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward. I'll turn back over to close.

It's simple. Again, thank you to everybody. Ask for aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm gonna chain a motion. Moved by vice chair Ciarato, which is do pass as amended to the government organization committee.

SB ten twenty seven Strickland motion do pass as amended to Gio. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Perez? Aye. Perez, aye.

Weiner? Keep that bell and call for absent members. Thank you, Senator. Okay. I see, Senator Jones here.

But before we go to him, let's go to the consent calendar, which consists of SB 962 Archuleta, SB 101, Archuleta, SB 1,100, Small La Cuevas, and SB 1211. Gonzales. Otina, motion on consent. Move. Moved by vice chair Searto. If you can please call the roll

Aragin? Aye. Aragin, aye. Searto? Aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Cortese, aye. Cortese? Aye. Perez, aye. Weiner.

Keep that bill on that on call for absent members. Thank you. Okay. We'll now proceed to file item nine, SB 1307 by Senator Jones. Good morning.

Thank you, Chair and Members. I appreciate your indulgence this morning as I present SB 1307, regarding clouded titles. This addresses a delay in clearing fraudulent or forged real estate documents from the public record. I wanna thank the committee and your staff for their collaboration on this bill, and I will be accepting the committee's suggested amendments. Under current law, even when a recorded deed is clearly false or forged, victims must wait until the end of the criminal case before a court can void it.

This delay keeps a cloud on title in place, blocking a, blocking or complicating basic property actions like selling, refinancing, or transferring ownership. SB 137 allows a defendant to stipulate to voiding a false or forged document, rather than requiring full litigation.

In those cases, the court may void the document only if the prosecution proves by clear and convincing evidence that no interested parties would be harmed. In many cases, no one meaningfully disputes that the document is fraudulent, yet the process still requires full adjudication. This provision allows the court to resolve those cases more efficiently while preserving strong safeguards.

With that, joining me today is Deputy District Attorney John Dunn with the San Diego County District Attorney's Office. Also with me today is Riverside County Deputy District Attorney Marvin Adviento, and they are available to answer any questions, with some testimony.

Good morning, Honorable Chair, Members. Thank you for consideration and having us here this morning. We appreciate Senator Jones for authoring this bill, and we appreciate working with your staff and consultants, and we will continue to do so as this moves forward. As the Senator noted, the current law causes some delay, and we believe that there are ways we can improve it.

Especially in the context of the, the mental health diversion motions where there's no conviction ever obtained. So by way of example, we have a case, a recent case where we charged a woman, and she filed false deeds transferring interest in a home she had no interest in to herself.

And after two years of litigation, the judge granted her mental health diversion motion, which, of course, has no conviction. And so we're left without any sort of resolution for her, and she remains with a clouded title and kinda having to deal with this on her own. So, with that, again, thank you for your time and consideration, and we ask you vote aye on this bill.

Thank you very much. Hi. Good morning.

Good morning, Honorable Chair, Members of the Committee. Thank you, Senator Jones, for sponsoring this bill and to the committee for your work on this bill. I wanted to address a question that was raised in the bill analysis regarding civil courts and there being a separate process to quiet title, one that's not predicated on criminal convictions.

The important distinction here is that we're not trying to quiet title with this bill. All we're doing is seeking a judicial declaration voiding the fraudulent deed, period. Stop. In contrast, judgments in quiet title actions will have further language decreeing that someone is a true owner with superior title and further extinguishing other party's interests as well.

As one who has practiced civil real estate litigation for over 15 years, including quiet title actions, that separate process can be quite lengthy and quite frankly expensive. In my experience, a quiet title action can take two to four years to resolve, sometimes five or longer, either with a settlement or a trial. And you can attribute that length of time to discovery and the time frames attendant with that.

Discovery motions, getting hearing dates six to nine months out, depositions, and a plethora of other motions in pretrial civil litigation. Also, the cost of a quiet title case can range from as low as $5,000 to well over a $100,000. And these are funds that many if not most victims I come across do not have. And these aren't lawsuits that lawyers can take on contingency because there's no monetary award at the end of it, just title.

As my colleague just testified, the statute and the amends we propose here are for our victims of crime. And to the extent we remain within our criminal jurisdiction and avoid crossing over into that world of civil litigation, this motion merely voids a deed. And with that in mind, we respectfully request an aye vote.

Okay. Thank you. We'll take any me too testimony for anyone else in support of SB 1307. If you can please state your name, organization, and position on the bill. Okay. Seeing no one else. Are there any principal witnesses in opposition to SB 137?

Good morning, Chair. Could you share the amendments, please?

Yes. The amendments remove all proposed changes to existing law, but leave in the provision allowing the defendant after conviction to stipulate that an instrument is void in lieu of the court holding a hearing on the motion to void the false or forged instrument.

So they remove the proposed changes that the... Which would allow the court in the midst of the criminal proceeding?

Yeah. The change in section one under Section 115 of the Penal Code subsection E is struck E1A. It's changing the language, say, after a person convicted of a violation of this section or a plea is entered whereby a charge alleging a violation of the section is dismissed and a waiver obtained pursuant to People versus Harvey. Happy to provide a written if you wanna see the written version of this.

And while she's reviewing that, is there, are there any other principal witnesses in opposition? Okay. I'll ask is there anyone else in opposition to SB 137, if you would like to approach the microphone and state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

I believe that that satisfies our primary objection. So at this point, we will withdraw our opposition. Thank you so much.

Thought it would.

Alright. The wheels of government grinding forward.

I forgot to say. Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defender's Association. Sorry to interrupt you.

No problem.

Okay. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to asking 1307?

If you're gonna support, you can interrupt anytime.

I didn't say that.

No, I did.

Okay. Seeing no one wishing to testify, I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions to come. Senator Caballero.

Thank you. I appreciate your testimony because I was struggling with the difference between a the civil case, which is a quiet title, and then the activity that we're dealing with today, which is getting a resolution when there's a criminal case pending. So I do appreciate that. I think it's very strategically or surgically done, and I appreciate the amendment. So I'm gonna be supporting it today. Thank you.

Vice Chair Seyarto.

Yep. Thank you for this because it's a great follow-up to last year's bill that tried to catch them before they got swindled. And what happens when they get swindled? This bill happens. And I think it's a great bill. Thank you for bringing it and will be supporting it.

And I wanna thank the author and the witnesses, not just for your service to the state of California, but for really raising this issue. This is a very legitimate issue, and I wanna thank the author for bringing the bill forward. Unless there are any other questions or comments, turn it back over to close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. SB 1307 is a targeted measure that ensures that fraudulent documents do not continue to interfere with legitimate property rights. I ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Motion by Vice Chair Seyarto. The motion is do pass the Senate floor as amended.

Excellent.

SB 1307, Jones, do pass as amended to the floor. [Roll Call]

Keep that bill on call for absent Members. Thank you.

Thank you, Members.

Okay. I see Senator Rubio, and so we will go now back in file order to file item eight, SB 1276 by Senator Rubio. Good morning. I know you're chairing another committee, so thank you for being here. You may present on your bill.

Thank you. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to present this bill, SB 1276, the End Child Exploitation Act, which will protect children and hold predators accountable. This bill makes a simple change. It clarifies it is a crime to watch livestream and AI generated content of a sexually exploited child.

Throughout time, the legislature has tried to keep up with the change and the evolution of all these technologies, and our responsibility is to continue to be vigilant and watchful, to keep predators away from our children, especially exploiting loopholes, which we find as technology evolves.

Existing law already criminalizes the creation and distribution of livestreams depicting sexual exploitation of a child, but the ambiguity is around the viewership. And so today we wanna make sure that we close that loop hole. If this content was consumed through any other medium, it would be a crime.

Facebook live, TikTok live, Discord, and other technologies are growing in popularity. And so with that, it is our job to ensure that we stay current and that we make sure that predators are not taking advantage. Today, a predator can click once knowingly and consume child exploitation content, but exit the stream without leaving any footprint.

And that's not good for children. Before we have hard drives and other technologies where we can trace, not this time with this new technology. So the codes have been updated throughout time, facilitating the development from floppy disk to hard drives.

There should be no available loophole, especially for these worst offenders. So the intent of this bill is to ensure that we take care of our most innocent, and that is our children. So today, we wanna make sure that we protect them by holding child sex predators accountable.

That is our moral obligation here today. And anyone that knows me knows that I focus a lot on these issues because children matter to me not only as a citizen, as a teacher, but I think all of us care what happens to our children. This bill has bipartisan support, and Senator Wahab and Grove are also supporting and co-authors to this bill.

Joining me here today to speak in support of SB 1276 is Lara Drino, Director of Crimes Against Children, and Gina D'Aquilla, Director of Center for Assault Treatment Services at Dignity Health. If I may turn it over to my witnesses.

Hi. Good morning. You have two minutes to address the committee.

Thank you. Good morning. I'm Lara Drino. I'm the Director of Crimes Against Children for the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office. I've been a prosecutor for a little over 32 years, with the majority of my career holding those who abuse children accountable.

What this bill really does is it closes a very real gap in the law right now, and harmonizes the law of mandated reporting under the Child Abuse Neglect Reporting Act known as CANRA and Penal Code Section 311.3, the child sexual exploitation. I come to you because as a prosecutor, I know because I've tried these cases that predators do not stop adapting.

They use new technology. They exploit new platforms. We're seeing a lot on Discord these days. And increasingly, technology has changed the way offenders access and consume this material. They now access child sex abuse material through streaming platforms rather than traditional downloads.

Our law must reflect that reality. A child being sexually abused on the streaming platform is no less a victim because the abuse is viewed in real time instead of from a saved or downloaded file. The trauma is the same, the exploitation is the same, and the demand created by every viewer of a child being sexually exploited is growing every day.

1276 makes clear that knowingly watching a livestream of a minor engaged in sexual conduct is sexual exploitation under Penal Code Section 311.3. Also important is that it harmonizes the Penal Code for 311.3 with CANRA, so that the definition of sexual exploitation is the same for prosecutors, law enforcement, and mandatory reporters across the state.

No offender should escape accountability because technology moved faster than our statutes. California must be clear, child exploitation in any form, streamed to digital, AI generated, will be reported and prosecuted, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Gina D'Aquilla, and I am the Director of a SART Program in Van Nuys, California, and I'm also a forensic nurse examiner and a mandated reporter. I work directly with children who have been sexually exploited and abused.

I strongly support SB 1276. And I right now, I want to speak from the perspective of children we see in the med legal exam room. For these children, the trauma does not end with the physical assault that they endured. It continues.

It continues when the abuse is recorded. It continues when the abuse is streamed. It continues every time it's viewed, shared, or digitally recreated. The ongoing trauma is something children carry with them. We see the fear, the shame, we see anxiety, depression, and oftentimes we see this in self harm that these children have on their bodies.

The sleeplessness and the post traumatic stress is there. One of the most devastating things a child tells us is the fear that someone, somewhere is still watching and viewing what has happened to them and what they were forced to do on these livestreams. To the child, it makes no difference whether the offender downloaded the material or watched it live.

The material happened. The harm is the same. The bill is also critically important for mandated reporters. It gives clear direction that stream content and AI generated content, anything digitally altered that depicts minors, fall within the reporting framework under the Child Abuse Reporting Act. That clearly means earlier reporting, it clearly means earlier Intervention, earlier protection for children who may still be in danger.

But also the prevention to other children who have not yet been victimized. Technology is changing rapidly. Unfortunately, the exploitation of children is changing with it. Our reporting laws and our criminal laws must keep pace. For the children we serve every day, I respectively urge your aye vote. And I would be happy to share an actual case and answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Is anyone else wishing to express support for SB 1276? If you can please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Kathy Van Osten on behalf of the American Association of University Women California in strong support.

Thank you.

Dori Ahana on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in support. Thank you.

Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriffs Association in support.

Thank you. Okay. We'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition, if there are any, to SB 1276. Seeing no one come forward. Is there anyone wishing to express opposition to SB 1276?

Good morning. Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. We have not taken a position. We have concerns. We would like to be able to discuss them with the author's office. Thank you very much.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members. Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice. We did submit a late letter. We have a meeting later this week with the author's office. Just concerned about some of the definitions on AI when individuals, human beings actually aren't involved in the making of the AI products. And so we're trying to figure out some definitions that maybe could be helpful going forward. So looking forward to the discussion with the author's office later this week.

Thank you. Okay. Seeing no one else coming forward, I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments. Moved by Vice Chair Seyarto. Thank you. Seeing no further comments, I'll turn it back over to Senator to close.

Thank you, Members. Again, this is just a minor change to already existing law, and so we definitely need to be more vigilant and close loopholes so that we don't have these monstrous predators taking advantage of our most vulnerable, which is our children. And with that, I ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Motion by Vice Chair Seyarto, which is do pass to Appropriations. Can you please call the roll?

SB 1276, Rubio. The motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

We'll keep that bill on call for absent Members. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We need some authors. Senator Caballero had to go to GO, but I think the remaining bills we have right are Menjivar. Senator Menjivar's bill, Senator Wiener's bill, and Senator Caballero's bill. So we'll take a brief recess. Oh, let's lift calls on bills. Thank you.

SB 1157 needs a motion.

Okay. Yeah. Okay. SB 1157, Archuleta needs a motion.

I'll give you a motion.

Moved by Vice Chair Seyarto. Thank you. That is...

Do pass as amended to Appropriations.

Do pass as amended to Appropriations.

[Roll Call]

Keep that bill on call.

[Roll Call]

That bill's out on a vote of six to zero. Anything else we need to record votes on? Okay. I think we've caught up on on votes, so we'll take a five minute recess.

The Senate public safety committee is now back in session and we'll proceed now to file item 14 SB 1173 by Senator Caballero.

Perfect timing.

Good morning. Whenever you're ready to present.

Good morning, Mister Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to present SB 1173, which would allow a judge to determine whether the evidence presented at trial supports instructing the jury on a lesser related offense. Under current law, defendants cannot request that a jury consider lesser related charges even when the facts support them.

For example, an individual who breaks someone someone's window in a moment of anger could be charged with burglary when a lesser related offense such as vandalism may be more appropriate based on the facts presented at trial. In practice, prosecutors routinely pursue the charge with a higher penalty if they believe they can meet that burden, omitting lesser alternatives. This creates an all or nothing framework for juries even when the evidence supports more proportionate outcomes.

In 1984, the California Supreme Court in People v Geiger held that when supported by the evidence, lesser related offense instructions could be given to a jury at the request of the defense. For over a decade, trial courts allowed this practice. However, in 1998, during the tough on crime era, the Supreme Court reversed course in People v Burks and eliminated the ability of defense counsel to make such a request. SB 1173 restores this tool in a balanced and limited way.

The bill allows the defense to request the lesser related instruction only where the evidence supports it, and a judge retains full discretion to evaluate the evidence and determine whether the instruction is appropriate before it is presented to the jury.

This ensures that juries are not forced to consider only the most serious offense. It restores a practice that previously existed and continues to function effectively in other jurisdictions such as the federal system, and it it restores the practice by making it in or putting it in statute, which makes it clear. With me today in support is Ignacio Hernandez with the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Members. Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of CACJ. We are cosponsor of the measure. I wanna thank the author for taking this bill up.

Excuse me.

As the author mentioned, there was a time period in California which this was the practice. And fundamental to this rule previously, that the focus in our criminal justice system is on ensuring that proper evidence is presented to the jury. There are so many rules of evidence. There's a lot that's done. Because at the end of the day, we wanna make sure that the crime, that is charged and the crime that someone's convicted of is supported by the evidence.

That is fundamental and core to our, criminal justice system. Where we are out of step at the moment is that there may be evidence that suggests a different crime, but because the DEA chose not to include that, in the complaint or information, then the jury does not have that option. And what has happened over the years since 1998 court decision is that oftentimes, if juries find themselves in this catch 22.

There may be sufficient evidence to believe that someone has committed a crime, but it doesn't match the the menu of options provided to them by the DA.

And so they're stuck either having to go ahead and convict somebody of a crime they don't think actually was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or they have to completely find someone not guilty even though they believe somebody did commit a crime, as in in the situation that the author mentioned where someone is charged with burglary, commercial burglary, but they actually were vandalizing the building.

What's key to this bill are two things. One, it's only if the evidence supports the alternative charge, and the defense is required to disclose their defense theory. So that gives notice to to the DA. It is not just gonna be on a whim, and it's not just gonna be throwing something against the wall. It has to be consistent with what the defense is arguing as the theory of defense.

So that is presented to the judge. The judge then makes that decision and has to decide whether the evidence supports it. I'll close by saying the key thing in the 1998 case was that they felt that one, it wasn't a constitutional requirement and that's why that rule was thrown out in '98. This is a statutory approach. And they also said it was unworkable because there weren't specific rules.

This bill includes specific requirements that have to be met and retains the judicial discretion to determine whether those elements are met. For those reasons, we think we will get better outcomes, more accurate outcomes, and everyone should agree that that is what we should be doing our criminal justice system. So for those reasons, I ask for your support.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for SB1173? If you could state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

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

Thank you.

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

Shivani Nishar on behalf of Drug Policy Alliance in support.

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

Phil Melendez with Smart Justice California in support as well as support from CRIMP, California for Safety and Justice as proud cosponsors.

Thank you very much.

I forgot to mention, I'm also authorized to register support for the office of the San Francisco Public Defender.

Thank you very much. Are there any principal witnesses in opposition to SB 1173? Seeing no one, is there anyone wishing to express opposition to SB 1173?

Doria Hanna on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association registering our respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no one else come to the microphone, I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments. Okay. Moved by Senator Perez. Thank you.

And I'll turn it back over to Senator Caballero to close.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Perez. That motion is-

Do pass to Senate.

Do pass to the Senate floor. Can you please call the roll?

SB 1173 Caballero. Motion is do passed to the floor. Arreguin? Arreguin, aye.

Seyarto? Seyarto, no. Caballero?

Caballero, aye. Cortese? Perez? Perez, aye.

Weiner.

You got the on call absent members. Thank you. So I've been authorized on behalf of Senator Weiner to present, SB 104. So I'll pass the gavel to the Vice Chair. Keep us going.

Next up on the docket is SB 1004 being presented by Senator Arreguin on behalf of Senator Wiener. You may begin when you wish, but really soon.

Well, thank you, mister vice chair and members. I'm here today to present SB 104 on behalf of Senator Wiener, and I'm also a proud coauthor of this bill. I'd like to start by thanking, the committee and staff for their work. Senator Wiener is accepting the committee amendments to add exemptions for sunglasses, helmets with clear face shields, officer training activities and operations, enforcing fish and game code to law, and to clarify existing exemptions for officers wearing motorcycle helmets.

SB 1004 is follow-up to legislation that, the legislature passed and the governor signed, SB 627, the no secret police act, which prohibits local and federal law enforcement from covering their faces while conducting operations in the state of California, which included numerous exemptions such as clear or medical masks and masks to protect against toxins, gas, and smoke.

In response to the bill's passage, the Trump administration sued the state of California on the basis that SB 627 violated The United States Constitution supremacy clause. This February, the California central district courts ruled that California indeed has the power to ban federal agents from covering their faces under Senate bill 627, but put a hold on enforcement of Senate bill 627, and asserted that the ban must include state officers in addition to local and federal officers.

Immediately after this ruling, Senator Wiener introduced thiS Bill, to amend state law, which fills this gap and allows SB 627's prohibition on face masks to be enforced on all law enforcement in the state of California, including state and local law enforcement officers, as well as ICE, California or, border patrol and other federal officers.

Importantly, in the ruling, judge Snyder of the central district court made extremely clear that the Federal Government failed to show that masking is essential to their operations, and that there is no cognizable justification for law enforcement to conceal their identities during the performance of routine, non exempted law enforcement functions and interactions with the general public.

The judge said what we all know to be true, that ICE's secret police tactics have no place in democracy. People are terrified, and with mothers and nurses being shot in the street by masked men, they have every right to be. Masking is creating an air of impunity that's enabling the worst abuses from ICE, and masking doesn't make anyone safer.

In fact, as just center wrote in the decision, and I quote, the presence of masked unidentifiable individuals, including law enforcement, is more likely to heighten the sense of insecurity for all. In the decision, the court also wrote that at the hearing, counsel for The United States acknowledged that Senate bill 627 would not unlawfully discriminatory, if it was amended to be applied to all law enforcement.

In other words, the Trump administration's lawyers admitted that SB 627 would not be discriminatory against the Federal Government if it applied evenly to all levels of government. Colleagues, it's imperative that we pass this Bill, SB 104, as soon as we can to ensure our mass ban can be lawfully enforced. I wanna thank Senator Perez, Senator Wahab, and the other coauthors of the bill. At the appropriate time, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

And, with me to testify is Daniel Rascon, a licensed truck driver born and raised in San Bernardino, and Christine Soto Deberry, the executive director of the Prosecutor's Alliance Action.

Alright. Each of the, witnesses, you have two minutes, please. Go ahead. Hello.

Good morning, members of the committee, and, thank you, chair Arreguin, for your part in the bill. My name is Daniel Rascon. I am a US citizen from San Bernardino, the eldest of three brothers and the father of a three month old baby girl. Violent and traumatic encounter with mass federal agents that changed our lives forever. We were out running we were out running errands early that morning when our car suddenly stopped.

I looked up and saw four men in face mask, sunglasses, and baseball caps approaching us with guns drawn, pointed directly at our car. They yanked they yanked on the doors, pounded on our windows, and screamed at us, but refused to identify themselves. We had no idea who they were, then everything escalated. One man shattered the driver's side window and punched my father-in-law in the face. Another smashed the passenger window where my brother-in-law was sitting.

Glass was everywhere. We were trapped, defenseless, and terrified. My father-in-law did the only thing he could to save us. He drove forward through an open path. But as we passed them, one of the men opened fire on our car.

Shooting multiple times into the passenger side, I remember ducking as bullets hit the vehicle. Any one of those shots could have killed me or my family. We escaped shaken and covered in glass and called 911 to report that masked unidentified men had assaulted and shot at us. Soon after, our home was surrounded by over 50 armed officers who were also masked and unidentified. They turned our home into a trap.

Weeks later, masked agents returned in the early morning and detained my father-in-law for for months. A federal judge ultimately saw through the lies of the Federal Government and dismissed all charges, but the damage was done. How do you move on from knowing someone tried to kill your family and face no accountability? I now hold my baby daughter and wonder how I'm supposed to protect her in a world where masked unidentified agents can act with this kind of violence and face no accountability. This can be normal.

This violence is enabled by the masked unidentified agents of this administration who act with complete impunity as they endanger the lives of families like mine. I urge you to do everything in your power to protect Californians from these abuses and vote to support SB 1004 to ensure the mask ban that this legislature passed is enforceable. Thank you.

Your next witness, please, with two minutes, please, if you could stay to that.

Thank you. I'll be brief. Christine Sotto DeBerry with Prosecutors Alliance Action, proud cosponsor of SB 1004. I come to this work after a decade in the San Francisco District Attorney's Office. Last year, as you all know, we passed the no secret police act to protect Californians from mass federal agents terrorizing our communities.

The good news is since then, 33 other states have followed our lead, in introducing similar bills. Three of those have since passed and many more are in the process, including Maryland that just passed and is awaiting the governor's signature. After the Trump administration sued the state of California for this bill, they gave one and only one reason they were not able to enforce it. And it was the exclusion of state agencies from our bill. Even minimal discrimination was found to invalidate that portion of the bill.

The good news is that Judge Snyder found that we do as a state of California indeed have the right and the authority to enforce a no masking policy. Authority to enforce a no masking ban in our state. That, clear path has facilitated other states, and we now seek to make that correction necessary here in California so that we can proceed with the great legislation we passed last year. That ruling was not a rejection, it was a road map.

We're here before you today to affirm the bill that we passed and ensure that states can regulate law enforcement, including federal officers from banning, from hiding their faces and wearing masks.

And as was indicated earlier, the judge affirmed what we asserted here in committee that those masks actually lead to increased fear and insecurity in our communities, not greater safety and security. SB 1004 does exactly what the court invited the legislature to do. It adds state law enforcement to the no secret police act and it ensures that that law applies equally across all levels of government. SB 1004 is the required next step in California to protect our communities and prevent atrocities like we have seen here today.

We urge your aye vote.

Thank you very much. All those, who would like to express their support for the bill can come up and, your name, your organization you represent, and your support for the bill. That's it.

Margo George with the California Public Defender's Association and also for the San Francisco Public Defender's Office in support. Thank you.

Lucy Salcedo Carter with the Alameda County Office of Education in support.

Shivani Nishar on behalf of Drug Policy Alliance in support.

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

Tiffany Whiten with SEIU California, cosponsors and proud support. Thank you.

Good morning. Kyra Ross on behalf of the city of Pasadena in support.

Carlos Lopez with the California School Employees Association in support, also on behalf of AFSCME in support.

Parker Clarke on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support.

John Skoglund with the County Of Los Angeles in support.

Brooke Banetti with Kaiser Advocacy in support on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Karen Stott here on behalf of Unidos Us in support. Thank you.

Phil Melendez on behalf of Smart Justice California in support.

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

Alright. Do we have any primary opposition witnesses who wish to testify on this bill? If they would, come up, take a seat there. Each of you have two minutes. If you could adhere to that, we'd appreciate it.

Good morning, still. Mister chair, member Shane LaVigne, on behalf of the California Statewide Law Enforcement Association. SB 1004 creates real uncertainty around how liability will be applied to officers in the field, particularly those making decisions with incomplete information under rapidly evolving circumstances. Specifically, subsection G removes all privileges and immunities and imposes civil liability without recognizing good faith or reasonable performance of duties. At a minimum, there must be a clear good faith exception for officers acting reasonably in real time.

This Bill also doesn't address a lot of the concerns raised in the governor's signing message on SB 627. Those concerns focus on balance between accountability and the practical realities of policing. The balance is still missing in this bill. And I also want to acknowledge something else in this bill overall because it it matters, significantly. There's a real sentiment right now across the state that law enforcement officers are increasingly being placed in the bull's eye of a broader political debate.

And whether intended or not, bills like SB 1004 contribute to that reality. At the same time, we're facing a significant staffing crisis. Departments across California are increasingly relying on mandatory overtime just to maintain basic operations. In cities like San Francisco, San Jose, Long Beach, this is already the norm. Many departments in state government are hovering around a 30% vacancy rate.

And this is not isolated. Nearly every county in California, with the exception of two, is dealing with staffing shortages. And why? Low applicant numbers, high retirements, and morale because of public perception of the profession. Officers who once stayed for thirty years are now retiring at 20, if not less, to pursue second careers.

And I'm gonna say it plainly, it's policies like this that contribute to that decline. Our officers are paying attention. They watch these hearings. They would see what happens in this building, and when they see legislation that expands liability, removes protections, and fails to account for good faith decision making, it reinforces the perception this is not a profession that people want to get into or stay in. Committed to accountability, but accountability must be balanced with clarity, fairness, and an understanding of the realities of the job.

For those reasons, we must respectfully oppose. Thank you.

Thank you. That was right at two minutes. Go ahead next.

I don't even have that much to add at this point. Just Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association echo the comments of my colleague.

I do appreciate the committee and the author's attempt to address some of the concerns that we outlined last year in the original bill, and that were also mentioned

in the governor's governor's, signing message. But unfortunately, the amendments still, failed to address officer safety needs. Every one of the exemptions in the bill is qualified in some way, shape, or form, or reason it makes it too narrow. Isn't also still a provision that says that any opaque facial covering that can only be used if there's no other alternative in that type of language, we think swallows all of the exemptions because there's always an alternative that somebody could possibly mention.

And most critically, we think that the good faith protections need to be placed back into statute for when an officer does make a decision based off the circumstances, the information that they have at the time, and do so in good faith, attempting to protect the public.

And unfortunately, again, those issues have not been addressed by these amendments. We will continue to work with the legislature, the author, and even this committee as the bill moves forward. But for now, we respectfully ask for your your no, vote.

Alright. Thank you very much. Now at this time, we can have everybody who opposes come on up to the microphone. Name, organization you represent, your opposition to the bill.

Mister chair and members, Matthew Seiberling on behalf of the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs and the California Peace Officers Association in opposition. Thank you.

Cody Boyle's on behalf of the California Association of Highway Patrolmen in opposition.

Ryan Sherman with the, California Narcotic Officers Association in opposition.

Good morning. Apologies. Missed the support line. So just jumped in. Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association in strong support.

Alright. We'll bring it back to the dais. Miss Caballero.

Thank you, mister vice chair. So let me ask the question in regards to this subsection G or section section G. Is that the paragraph that starts off not notwithstanding either either any other law, any person? That's where the concern about a good faith exception should rest. Okay.

Oh, I appreciate that because I don't think anybody's trying to do a gotcha here. This is about conduct designed specifically to conceal who you are so that there's no accountability and very clearly no accountability. And unlike any operations that we've ever seen in this country, I would venture to say, At least in the many years that I've been around, and I've seen a lot of a lot of conflict around issues that people felt very strongly about.

Some of which were very disturbing during the sixties and the seventies. So I guess my my my position has been that wearing a mask that covers your face in a way that well, first of all, it's failing to identify yourself.

I I I am I venture to say that that that has not been a real issue in law enforcement. People people are very they know they gotta carry a badge. They know they have to show it if you ask. So I see this as a limited in limited category. And so the good faith exception is something that I I agree with you.

We don't wanna be punishing individuals that have to make a very quick decision about what to do to maybe deter further illegal conduct and that we've put on at risk. Right? We've put them on the front lines to do to make sure that we can maintain the peace and safety of our communities. And if there is a good faith exception, I don't I mean, I'm I'm good with that. I will urge I'm good with that.

I will urge the the author of the bill to consider that. I'm prepared to support the bill today, because I think it's it more accurately reflects what we were talking about in the original bill. And yeah. So that having been said, when the appropriate when the time is appropriate, I'll move the bill.