Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning, everyone, and welcome back to the Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety. Before we begin, there's a couple announcements I'd like to share. First of all, you can never have enough good help in this job, let alone in this committee. And really wanna not only thank all of our hardworking staff who have been working diligently to get all of your bills processed. I also wanna acknowledge that we're joined by Mary Kennedy, a retired annuitant who served most recently as chief counsel for Senate public safety.

She's gonna be helping us out for a couple of weeks. So I just wanna welcome Mary and thank her in advance for all of her work, and I see that I am alone on the dais. Okay. And we'll wait for a few more colleagues to show up. Second announcement, for staff, for committee members that are monitoring the hearing today.

My intention around 11:45 or 11:50 is to stop and do add ons for all of the morning business. So if your boss is not on the dais right now, if you could have them here no later than 11:45AM, I'd like to get everything done that we get tackled this morning. We we we do anticipate coming back in the afternoon. For the general public, we have a large agenda ahead of us today.

There have been a few polls, but nonetheless, we have 26 items that will hear testimony.

To ensure that all measures are heard, we will have we have limited witness testimony for today. Two witnesses per side who will each have two minutes to testify in support or in opposition to a measure. Second, as a reminder, there are some general rules of conduct as I share every week.

Just as a reminder, in order to conduct a fair legislative hearing and to ensure fairness to all who are participating in the hearing, I want to ensure that everyone knows we do have rules to maintain order. In some, we're not gonna permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings.

I typically try to give a warning before we have to escalate up from there. As a reminder and at the request of sergeants and others, clapping and snapping during the hearing can be a little disruptive as we're trying to call up the next speakers, so I welcome the use of jazz hands. It's a really wonderful tool, and then I can visually see all of the support that you have. So if you wouldn't mind to get thank you, Sharon. That's fantastic.

And as a reminder, be aware that violation of the rules can subject you to removal or other enforcement actions, but you're all great. We won't have to do that. Once we have a quorum, we'll tackle the rest of the calendar, because today you're stuck with just me. We are hearing today's measures in sign in order with standing committee members presenting their bills towards the end of the hearing. And with that, we'll proceed as a subcommittee of one.

That's still the unusual. Okay. First up, we have assembly member Pellerin to present oh, I'm sorry. We will list the off calendars first. Do you mind if I borrow that?

Okay. That's oh, here we go. It's changed so many times. There we go. So the latest is we have the following items off calendar for today.

So if you're here for one of these bills, you're free to leave. Item three, AB 1627 by Avila Farias pulled by the author. Item 18, AB 2,232 by Assemblymember Patterson pulled by the author. Item 20, Assembly Bill 2,273 by Banes, that's been pulled by the committee. Item 23, AB 2,344 by Haney, that has been pulled by the author.

Item 28, AB 2553 by Petrie Norris, that has been pulled by the committee. And last but not least, item 31, this is AB 2669 by Gibson, pulled by the author. With that, we do have a few authors in the room today. So we're going to start with Assembly Member Pellerin to present a b okay. Never mind.

We'll We're waiting on it. Fantastic. Then we'll go, to a person sitting in the front row, Assembly Member Quirk Silva, to present AB 24 nineteen.

Good afternoon, mister chair and members. Today, I'm proud to present AB 2419, which extends body worn cameras known as BWC to the Los Angeles County juvenile probation officers. AB 2419 promotes youth safety, officer protection, fiscal responsibility, and public trust. The California Board of State and Community Corrections, BSCC, has repeatedly found LA juvenile halls unsuitable for confinement, failing to meet minimum health and safety standards.

For example, in 2024 to 2025, criminal charges were filed against probation officers related to alleged gladiator fights involving more than a 140 detained youth.

Body worn cameras reduce investigative time and internal review costs. The objective the objective video evidence lowers litigation risk and potential settlements while helping address serious cases, including juvenile abuse, more efficiently. Avoiding even a small number of high cost lawsuits can offset body worn camera program expenses. BWCs function as a cost avoidance and a risk management tool.

With me today to testify in support is Catherine Bay, president of the Professional Managers Association AFSCME nineteen sixty seven, Shane Lavigne from Levine Strategies on behalf of the Fraternal Order of Police.

Good morning, chair and members. My name is Catherine Bey. I serve as the president of the Professional Managers Association AFSCME Local 1967, representing managers and leaders within the Los Angeles County Probation Department. I am here today in strong support of AB 2419. This bill is about accountability, it is about safety, and it is about restoring public trust in a system that urgently needs it.

Every day in Los Angeles County, probation officers, supervisors, and managers work in very challenging environments. In our juvenile facilities, we are responsible for the care of young people who are often dealing with trauma and instability. Our youth range can range from anywhere from 13 to 25 years old. Unfortunately, violent situations do occur in our facilities. And when they do, we owe it to everyone involved, the youth, the staff, and the public to ensure there's a clear and objective record of what occurred.

Body worn cameras provide that truth. They protect youth by ensuring transparency and dignity in every interaction. They protect staff by documenting the reality of the difficult decisions they must make in real time, and they protect the public by strengthening accountability across the system. Let me be clear. This is not about punishment for anyone involved.

This is about professionalism and the tools needed to perform an extremely important job. Body worn cameras are a tool that have been used in law enforcement for years. They will help us raise the standard of care for the young people we serve. AB 2419 is a proactive solution. By implementing body worn cameras with clear policies developed collaboratively collaboratively with labor, the county, and stakeholders, we can resolve complaints or allegations quickly and significantly reduce the risk of costly legal action.

Members, this is a balanced and common sense approach. It protects our young people, it supports staff, and it strengthens accountability and safeguards taxpayer dollars. Thank you.

Thank you. And before we go on, by the way, excellent timing. That was almost two minutes exactly. I'll I'll try to give a visual cue as you're getting close to two minutes. And then just, for the sergeants as best you can.

I know it's really loud in the hallway. If we can keep the door closed as much as possible. And for our witnesses on this and future bills, if you can just bring that mic up as close as possible so committee members can hear you, that would be great. Mister Levine, whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Good morning, mister chair, member Shane Lavigne, on behalf of the Fraternal Order of Police, and the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs, and our probation officers in strong support of this bill. You know, doing a body camera bill ten years ago was a very challenging endeavor for the law enforcement profession. The profession was under siege. We're getting attacked from all sides.

And admittedly, some reforms were needed. Some of the criticism was fair and some was not. But at the end of the day, this technology was adopted and has since been embraced. Back then, it was new technology and there were real concerns. The community and many social justice organizations wanted it, but from law enforcement's perspective, there was some understandable apprehension.

At the time, body cameras were viewed as a potential gotcha tool. But today, that perspective has shifted. What became clear is that these tools serve as an objective arbiter of truth. They show in real time what actually occurs between officers and the public. The profession realized quickly there was nothing to hide, and if there was, there would be a price to be paid.

Today, nearly every law enforcement agency in California has implemented body worn cameras. CHP most recently finished deploying 7,600 cameras across all their jurisdictions. Labor has bargained for these policies to ensure proper implementation. At this point, their effectiveness is no longer in dispute, and we've seen improvements in officer behavior and significant declines in complaints. And that brings us to LA County probation, particularly juvenile custody.

Year after year, bills are introduced in this legislature to dismantle the department while complaints continue to emerge from in custody settings. I'm here with President Bey and the unions I represent to take a step forward for the profession. We have said repeatedly, the profession is good. It is necessary, and many of the characterizations about LA probation are simply unfair or false. But this reform is one small important step in demonstrating that.

We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you, assembly member, for the presentation, and thank you both for your testimony. Next, we'll hear from the Me Too's. If you'd like to be heard in support of the bill, come on down.

Mister chair and members, Matt Brown on behalf of Teamsters California in support. Thank you.

Fantastic. Thank you. Final call for anyone in support. I'm just doing that in case there's anyone in the hallway who wants to straggle in. Hello, Tom and John.

Alright. Next, we'll take the opposition witnesses. Anyone here to oppose the bill? Okay. I see at least one witness.

Come on down. Oh, do we have a support on this bill? Kind of.

Okay. Mister chair and members,

Matthew Siverling on behalf of Los Angeles Probation Officers Union, AFSCME Local six eighty five. We currently have support if amended position on this bill. This would be the very first mandated body camera program on a local agency.

Support if amended?

Support if amended. We need some other protections and considerations Understood. Understanding statewide. Thank you.

Thank you. Support if amended. Registered. Alright. We have one opposition witness, I believe.

Feel free to grab a chair and a mic, and once you begin speaking, you'll have two minutes to address the committee. Thanks for being here.

Alright. Good morning, chair Schultz and members of the committee. My name is Shayla Wilson, and I am the policy and advocacy advisor at La Defensea, and I am here in opposition to AB 2419. Despite continuous enforcement and monitoring, conditions at LA County Juvenile Halls have deteriorated.

Persistent failures include adequate staffing, stemming the flow of drugs, preventing staff from instigating or encouraging youth on youth assaults, taking youth to medical appointments, preventing retaliation who file against youth who file grievances, and ensuring cameras are installed in all areas and that that video footage is reviewed.

Unfortunately, we don't believe that the use of body worn cameras will contribute to resolving any of these concerns. In addition to lackluster evidence supporting their use, the devices rely on officers to use their discretion to start and stop recording. The camera does not simply record all activity all of the time. This requires an officer to exercise appropriate discretion to activate the body worn camera prior to use of force, misconduct, a disturbance, etcetera.

Given that 80% of Los Angeles' county's probation officers are opposed to this bill, it raises significant concerns about the regular, consistent, and appropriate use of body worn cameras and whether it'll actually address the reality of juvenile halls.

While we support increased efforts to make our youth safer, we believe that efforts to decarcerate youth and get into compliance with current court mandates need to be prioritized. For these reasons, we urge you to vote no on this bill. Thank you for your time.

And thank you for your testimony. We'll temporarily pause and establish a quorum. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

Schultz?

Present.

Alanis, Mark Gonzales? Here. Haney, Harbidian? Here. Lackey?

Here.

Gwen, Ramos, Sharp Collins.

Okay. One present for hears. We have a quorum. Thank you. Next, we'll take the Me Too's in opposition to the bill.

If you'd like to be heard in opposition to the bill, please line up with that microphone. Final call. Okay. Now we'll turn it back to the dais. Are there questions or comments from members of the committee?

I'll move the We have a motion by Harabedian. Alright. We'll wait for a second. Mister Lackey, you have the floor.

Yeah. It's been some some time since I retired, but I I would tell you that car cameras were instigated when I was still on patrol. And I can could tell you that people are on their best behavior when they're being filmed. It encourages more professional behavior, and it it prevents poor judgment. And it's good to see that we're moving forward on this piece of legislation that has my full support.

Alright. Thank you very much, Mr. Lackey. I will note that we have a second by mister Gonzales on the bill. Are there other questions or comments? I have two very brief ones.

First of all, for the opposition, your point about the use of body worn cameras not necessarily resolving all of the concerns and complaints well taken. What would be your response to the observation that at least with body worn cameras, there would be the ability to, at least in theory, if they're properly used, have some independent review of whether an action happened or not. I mean, do you see any value in having the body worn camera in the facility?

I mean, we we certainly do. Again, I think our primary concern is about how they are used, and and this is coming from the sheriff's department, LASD's current policy about body worn cameras, which is cited in our letter of opposition, which does state that they have to be turned on and off. And so I think we need to see some really strict requirements around when they are turned on and off, so that discretion is not actually left up to the officer.

I think also, you know, some of the youth facilities have major gaps in their installed cameras, which can't be turned on and off, as well as, like, reviewing that footage. So we definitely see the value in consistent monitoring through video camera use, but we definitely need to see a lot of, like, less discretion around its use.

Thank you. And then my one question for the the two witnesses in support, and of course, you assembly member if you'd like to ask, Like like to answer. In reading some of the the letters that came in, I know there were concerns raised about privacy in the institution and not having them activated if someone's using the restroom, for example. I'm just wondering if either of you could speak to either any existing or contemplated policies to address those privacy concerns.

Regulations require that there are no cameras, whether they're installed in the wall or body worn cameras to be used in private spaces where young people reside, like the restroom medical. So those cameras would not be turned on. The cam body worn cameras would not be turned on in those events.

Alright.

Thank you all very much. Does that draw any further questions? Alright. Assembly member Quirk Silva, would you like to close?

Just would appreciate an aye vote.

Alright. Thank you very much. Colleagues, chair is recommending an Aye. We have a motion and we have a second. We'll call the roll.

For item 25 AB 2419 by Assemblymember Quirk Silva, the motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz? Aye. Schultz, aye. Alanis?

Gonzales? Aye. Gonzales, aye. Haney? Harbidian?

Aye. Harbidian, aye. Lackey? Aye. Lackey, aye.

Wen Ramos, Sharpe Collins? Sharpe Collins, aye.

Okay. That bill is out. We'll keep it open for others to add on. Thank you, everyone. Colleagues, before we lose a quorum, I know some of you have other committees to get to.

We have the proposed consent calendar. On the consent calendar today is two items. We have item number four, AB 1688 by Carrillo, entitled child abuse or neglect reporting. And we have item 33, AB 2720 by Schiavo, entitled human trafficking victim support coordinator. Can I get a motion? Okay. Motion by Lackey, second by Harabedian. Let's call the roll.

For consent item. [Roll Call]

Consent calendar is adopted. We'll keep that open for others to add on. And next, we have Assembly Member Pellerin here to present AB 1902.

Oh, hit my knee. Good morning, Chair and Members. I'd like to start by accepting the committee amendments. And I would like to extend my appreciation to you, Chair, and to your incredible committee staff for their engagement on this bill. I approached this bill first and foremost as a mother and as a member of the Santa Cruz community.

In 2015, our community was shaken to its core by the brutal rape and murder of eight year old Madyson "Maddy" Middleton, by her neighbor, Adrian Gonzalez, who was just three months shy of turning 16. This was not just a headline. It was a child, a family, a community forever changed.

Due to several changes in the juvenile justice system, Gonzalez's case was ultimately adjudicated in juvenile court in 2021. At 21 years old, he was committed to a secured youth treatment facility in Sonoma County. Three years later in 2024, he was back in court.

This time because the Santa Cruz District Attorney believed he still posed a danger to the community and petitioned for an extension detention hearing. This marked the first Welfare and Institutions Code section 876 hearing of its kind anywhere in the state of California.

Santa Cruz County became the test case at the intersection of a system in transition and a case that pushed its limits. These hearings are meant for the rarest of circumstances when, despite every effort, rehabilitation has not been achieved. After the hearing, I met with jurors who made the difficult decision that he was not safe to be released.

I spoke with the District Attorney's Office about the challenges they faced, and I heard from community members whose grief and trauma were brought back to the surface all over again. For the past year, I've worked to understand what this case revealed about the gaps in our system, the limits of rehabilitation, and our responsibility to protect our communities while honoring the values of our juvenile justice system.

The culmination of this year long effort is AB 1902, which makes several important improvements to the detention extension hearing process. First, the bill clarifies jurisdictional authority. Santa Cruz County identified that ambiguity in the existing process, which could have resulted in Gonzalez being released into the community while the hearing was under consideration or even during the hearing itself.

Second, the bill allows either party to petition for a continuance. Third, it permits hearsay testimony, but only during the probable cause hearing. Fourth, the bill extends the maximum term for detention extension to four years. It also requires courts to consider both the evidence presented at trial and the clinical assessment and to clearly explain the basis for the length of time ordered. Fifth, the bill authorizes transfer to and treatment in more appropriate facilities, including a state hospital or other suitable adult facility.

My office engaged with several juvenile justice organizations early in this process and has adopted multiple amendments to address their key concerns. Joining me today to testify in support are Lauren Apter, Assistant District Attorney with Santa Cruz County, and Laura Jordan, a Santa Cruz community member, but most importantly, Maddy's mother.

My name is Laura Jordan, and I am the mother of Madyson Middleton. Madyson was eight years old when her life was brutally taken by Adrian Gonzalez in 2015. She was lured, strangled, raped, tortured, and murdered in a manner that was vicious and calculated. Madyson was a spitfire and filled our lives with humor and light. Her last moments were instead filled with pain and terror.

Since that day, my life and my family's lives have been a living hell. In 2017, after a grueling nine week transfer hearing, the judge stated that the crime was the most heinous he had seen and ruled that AG would be tried as an adult. But that small victory was ripped away in 2018 when SB 1391 passed. From that point on, we've been stuck in a never ending cycle of hearings. In 2021, AG was finally sent to the Department of Juvenile Justice, justice that was being dismantled.

Then as he approached 25, we were pulled back into court to determine if he would be released. From July 2024 to February 2025, we endured an eight month trial process. I had to listen to my daughter's sadistic killer describe her cruel death when he took the stand for eight long days. He has never expressed remorse nor apologized. His crime was a calculated predatory act, not the mistake of a child.

And the trauma continues because under current law, every two years, he has a chance of release. Preparations for trial begin months in advance. There is no real break. For the rest of my life, I will be forced to relive my daughter's murder, to defend the truth of what happened to her, and to beg the system to protect other children and families. Every court appearance, every hearing, every trial brings more pain.

I feel like a ghost to the woman I once was living a joyless life. I haven't been able to hold a job for a decade. I've instead spent months at a time prepping for trials. Madyson's dad couldn't cope with the grief, self medicated, and lost his life. Both of Maddy's grandpas passed before seeing justice.

We have no resolution. Instead, we are forced to return again and again to court to fight for justice in a system that failed us. We could not, we should not have to relive this nightmare every two years. No parent should. No community should. My daughter mattered. Madyson matters, and the law must reflect that. Thank you.

Thank you, chair and members. Lauren Apter, assistant district attorney on behalf of the Santa Cruz County District Attorney's Office who are cosponsoring this bill with assembly member Pellerin, who we thank. I would like to acknowledge, most importantly, miss Laura Jordan, Maddie's mother, our elected DA, Jeff Roselle, who is here in in the room with us, as well as Tara George, our chief deputy who conducted the first welfare and institutions code section eight seventy six hearing in the state.

When SB 1391 was signed into law, then governor Brown's promise to victims was that this juvenile detention extension process would permit extended incarceration if the youth is deemed truly dangerous. That is a direct quote.

In conducting our hearing of Adrian Gonzalez, Maddie's now 26 year old rapist and murderer, our community learned that changes must be made so this promise may be met both for Maddie and future families. Critically, unlike the SBP process, which is our closest analog and permits indefinite detention with annual review to determine whether actual rehabilitation has occurred, we will be having extension hearings every two years. Whether or not Adrian's treatment has progressed enough so that he's no longer a danger.

Miss Jordan, more eloquently than I ever will, has explained that impact on families. Every hearing is a new trauma.

But we have also provided letters from victim advocates and law enforcement, and our own attorneys will tell you that this is traumatizing for every member of the community. We also have jurors who despite not choosing a life in criminal justice, who don't want anything to do with the system at all, will be retraumatized by trials. Things that they never wanna hear. This two year cycle also does not result in appropriate treatment for the offender.

Rather than being focused on treatment, he's being pulled out to go to trial every eighteen months.

While then an appeal is pending and then he's focusing on a new trial and he will be a 26 year old adult man housed and programming with children, which is isolating for him and a danger to the children he is housed with. This is not a common sense approach to justice, treatment, or the use of public resources. We believe we have addressed many of the opposition's concerns where appropriate and note that this is not going to be an arbitrary process.

That that's your time.

But Thank you.

Maybe you'll get a question so you can finish that statement. Absolutely. Thank you very much. In a moment, we're gonna take the me too's. I just wanted to thank the assembly member for a presentation.

And miss Jordan, I really wanted to thank you for being here today. You've been through more than any parent should ever have to be, and there's nothing that I could say to make it better other than to say that I personally believe Maddie's here in the room strengthening you today. I really appreciate you being here and telling and I am going to ask you a question a few moments about what she was like, but I just I really appreciate you being here so we can hear your testimony, ma'am. Thank you.

Next, we'll take the Me Too's in support.

Please confine your comment to name, organization, and your position, please.

My name is Jeff Roselle. I'm the Santa Cruz County District Attorney, and I just wanna say that we support this bill.

Shawna Spalding, Santa Cruz community member in support.

June Parvis, Madison's best friend and Tannery resident, strong support.

Randy Perry on behalf of Porak in support.

Danielle Sanchez on behalf of the chief probation officers of California in support.

Max Perry on behalf of the California Police Chief Association also in support. Thank you.

Lauren Apter on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in strong support.

Alright. Final call. Anyone hoping to be heard in support of the bill? Okay. Do we have opposition witnesses.

Okay. Come on down. We have two chairs and microphones here, if we need them. and you have two minutes, once you begin speaking to address the committee.

Mr. chairman and committee members, thank you. I'm Rachel Draznanaghi, a deputy public defender in Contra Costa County where I've represented kids in the juvenile system and currently represent almost every adult who's been forensically civilly committed in my county. Youth justice advocates are grateful for the author's openness to our concerns. We appreciate the amendments that have been made, but there are several critically important problems with AB 192, so we oppose until further amended. And we hope for continued conversations with the author.

We have to think about the broad applicability of laws. The existing law, week eight seventy six, allows extension of juvenile court jurisdiction when a young person confined to an SYTF is determined to be a danger to the public due to a mental condition. This is civil commitment. While juvenile court jurisdiction normally ends at age 25, this law permits ongoing recurring two year periods of commitment if a judge or jury so finds.

WIC eight seventy six is most parallel to the adult systems offenders with mental health disorders law.

And there, the state can commit an adult past their parole period for just one year at a time, allowing a court to regularly assess the person's need for a locked treatment. AB 192 would double the commitment period in WIC eight seventy six from two to four years. This doesn't make sense. Young people, including those in their mid twenties, are still developing. Their brains are still changing more rapidly than other adults.

Youth are more amenable to change, not less, and require more frequent assessment, not less. Additionally, the bill retains physical condition or other problem as justification for commitment alongside mental condition or disorder, and these words should be struck. That language is not in line with any adult civil commitment law, and mental condition or disorder is broad enough to capture every mental condition that could justify civil commitment.

Finally, AB 192 would authorize treatment to occur in an undefined appropriate adult institution, and we expect that probation departments will argue that authorizes placement placement in an adult jail or prison. That's a penal setting, antithetical to civil commitment, which is only legal so long as focused solely on treatment.

So that language needs to be clarified or stricken. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Next, we'll hear from others in opposition to the bill. Please come forward. Name, organization, and position, please.

Avi Rodriguez with ACLU California action and opposition, even with the committee amendments. Thank you.

Elizabeth Kim on behalf of Initiate Justice and Respect for Opposition.

Shail Olsen on behalf of Justice Jobs Coalition and Law Defense Act in respect for opposition.

Leslie Caldwell-Houston for California Public Defender's Office or Association. While we did not file an an official opposition, we are having some concerns, and we welcome further conversation with the author's office.

Laura Rodolfi, really appreciate the conversations around amendments from the Burns Institute, and I also have an, oppose and less amend position from the Alliance for Boys and Men of Color, from the California Youth Defender Center, from the Coalition of State Tribes, from the Community United for Restorative Youth Justice, Fresh Lifelines for Youth, Human Rights Watch, National Center for Youth Law, San Francisco Public Defender's Office, Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition, and the Center for Juvenile and Criminal Justice. Thank you.

Jim Lindberg, on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California, opposed. I'm also registering opposition on behalf of the California Coalition for Women Prisoners, Californians United for a Responsible Budget, Community Interventions, Community Works, felony murder elimination project, freedom for youth, in our care, San Mateo County, Peace United Church of Christ, Silicon Valley debug, the collective for liberatory lawyering, unlocked futures, Urban Peace Institute, youth alliance, and youth justice coalition. Thank you.

Daphne Ghazani, on behalf of the National Center for Youth Law, oppose unless amended.

Good morning. Jay Vasquez on behalf of Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice, respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Bruce, with initiate justice in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you all very much. Just doing one final call for anyone else in opposition. Okay. I'm told that's everybody. Alright.

Fantastic. We'll now turn it to the dais. Are there any questions or comments from members of the committee? Miss Jordan, I'd like to start with one question, if I might. I think the one of the hardest parts about this job, especially for someone sitting up here, is the emotional toll that it takes hearing all of these stories.

And I think one of the things that really pains me is that all too often we're talking about something horrible that was done to another person. We're talking about the conduct and the action, and I try to not lose sight of the fact that we're talking about human beings in all of this.

And you had this amazing daughter, I imagine, Maddie, who was just a ball of energy like my two kids are, and I'd like the record to reflect just a little bit more about how we should remember Maddie. So can you tell us a little bit about what she was like, what were her favorite things, what should the committee know?

Maddie loved to talk and laugh, and her grandparents called her chatty Maddie. And they'd come to visit and put her in the car. She's talking and put her in the car, shut the door, come around, open the other door, and she's still talking to them. And she was an incredible artist, and she grew up in an artist community. And she had so much energy and so much love for people.

She loved animals. She we went she demanded we get a dog, and I am a cat person. And I'm like, we live in an apartment. We have a cat. We you know.

So we went to get a dog, and I said, no puppies, no pimples, and no poodles. That was my and I fell for a puppy, and she I the puppy was taken. And she turns around, and she's like, I'm not leaving here without a dog. What about that one. So that's how we have our little dog, Lucy.

And she eventually developed a love for wolves, and she used to be afraid of the full moon, and she got over that. And one night, she went and was standing on our balcony looking at the moon, like, talking to it, like incantations. Like, it was so amazingly beautiful and struck me. She one day, she was she was with my friend, and they were in the supermarket. And they ran across my friend's friend, and I had never met them, but they had transitioned and never really felt comfortable or seen.

And Maddie just went up to them and started talking, and, you know, that person later wrote a poem about how this little girl made them feel seen. And, yeah, she was the love of our lives. She was my only child, and she was my parents' only grandchild. She made me a mother, and I'm still a mother. I'm a childless mother, and.

It's been really hard to figure out what to do with my life besides this. And this is not fun. Nobody should have to do this. Madison loved the color purple, and she used to say purple purple. She made a video a few months before she was killed, and she called it her vlog.

And she starts out and says, my name's Madison. I live at the tannery. I did my hair purple. See, Purple purple.

I did my nails purple. She also liked red and black. She went through the tannery describing all the art on the walls, whose it was. You know, she walked by and said, the tannery is for artists.

You better be qualified, Dot clip. She did this video, and it is the last images I have of her alive. And it's on YouTube. You can you can watch it. She made friends very easily.

And in first grade, she she was very bright, and she finished her classwork right away. And her teacher said, you need to help Violet with her homework. So she was teaching her classmate, you know, their schoolwork, and they became friends for a while. She was just hilarious. Hilarious.

And I homeschooled her, and I am sometimes I felt like, oh, she needs to be in school. She was in school and homeschooled. But I am so grateful now that I was a stay at home mom, and I wasn't at work, and she wasn't in daycare because those were the only that's the only time I had with her. Those precious eight years, and I spent most of them with her. Yes.

She was in day care and school. I went to UC Santa Cruz, went back, and she from two to three, she was in their early education program. She, she also would always wear a braid in her hair, and she hated her hair to be brushed. She was very sensitive. And I said, if you're not gonna brush your long hair, we're gonna have to cut it shorter.

And we compromised, left a braid, left a long part, and then cut a short bob. So she she was quite an individual. Very much her own person. She wasn't afraid to talk to people. She talked to, you know, elders.

She was just fearless and brave, and I'm sure she fought like the dickens when he duct taped her and strangled her. So, yeah, he picked the wrong child. He shouldn't have done anything. But yeah. Beautiful memories.

She used to say, my mom can fix anything. And, you know, I could. I could fix little things. Her toys broke. Her clothes you know, I could sew a hole.

I could do things, but how do I fix this, how. So she went to summer camp every summer. She learned to swim when she was very young, and she loved the water. Absolutely loved the water, and we were really fortunate to live in Santa Cruz.

You know, we live in California. I think every child should learn to swim. Yeah. She she was a little firecracker.

Sounds like it.

Yeah. She was funny. She was great. She loved to sing.

She was great at very detailed art, but she couldn't dance at all.

Sounds like her and I have that in common.

She danced like Elaine on-site. She fell out of this. She hadn't taken dance lessons yet. And I talked to the head of the dance center at the Tannery, Tannery World Dance Center, and she's like, don't worry. She'll get she's got time.

you know, she's not coordinated now. She was thin and lanky, and I went to my chiropractor once and brought her, and he said, she's got your same body. Wow. That's she's my daughter. You know.

She we were like this.

And you still are.

Maddie and mommy. Beautiful.

I appreciate you taking the time to answer that question. And the reason that I ask it is several fold, but in it I think it's important that we remember folks not for what was done to them, but for the beautiful souls that they are. And I also think that the healing process requires that we not just talk about the bad, we talk about the good too.

There's nothing that I can say or do to make it better, but I hope in some small way today as you leave this room, you choose to think about all the positive as I will when I think about Maddie, All the wonderful things that you described here today. And the last thing I will say, and then I will gladly pass it over to the committee if there's any questions or comments is this.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I believe there is a life beyond this mortal plane. And no matter where Maddie is, you are still her mom, and she still loves you. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Yes.

Mr. Lackey, you have the floor.

In the last twelve years, when I've heard a lot of testimony lot. And it frustrates me because there seems to be so much offender sympathy. And I think at times, it's appropriate. Other times, it's very, very misplaced. Such inhumane actions deserve justice based on the inhumane behavior, not just age.

And all I can say is excuse me. You talk about not being able to fix things. Well, your testimony can help fix injustice, and that's exactly what it's doing. And I appreciate you. Thank you.

Other questions or comments? We have a motion by Harabedian. Do we have a second? We have a second by Gonzalez. Any other questions or comments?

Alright. Miss Pellerin, would you like to close?

Yes. I appreciate the thoughtful discussion today, and I wanna thank the advocates who engaged with my office early in the process. You showed up. You raised important concerns, and I listened. Where it made sense, I took amendments because getting this right matters.

Let me be clear. AB 192 is not about punishment. It is also not about an in response to one case. AB 192 is about responsibility. It is about ensuring that the small number of individuals who face an extension detention hearing are placed in the most appropriate setting to receive meaningful treatment grounded in clinical judgment and public safety.

It is also about honoring victims, their voices, their experiences, and their trauma must not be sidelined. They must be a part of how we define justice. Maddie's mother, Laura, you spoke today with such extraordinary courage. Your presence is a powerful reminder that long after the headlines are gone, the pain remains. That lasting impact must be reflected in how our system responds.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, assembly member. I wanna also thank you for taking the committee amendments. I did, review several times the opposition letters that were submitted, and I know that the committee amendments don't address all of their concerns. But I do thank you for, addressing some of the concerns around, use of the word secure in the bill as well as the initiation of proceedings. I think those are good changes.

As you move out of committee today, I would like you to consider I I do as I mentioned in our private conversation, I do share some of the concerns raised by the opposition about the antiquated language of a physical only standard, which I think could lead to misapplication of this law. But I also know that you will have more stops along the way, and I look forward to watching this bill as it evolves.

But for today, I'm recommending an aye, and we have a motion and a second. We'll conduct the roll right now.

For item 10, AB 192 by Assemblymember Pellerin, the motion is do passed as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz, aye. Schultz, aye. Alaniz, aye. Alaniz, aye. Gonzalez, aye. Gonzales, aye. Haney. Harabedian, aye. Harabedian, aye. Lackey, aye. Lackey, aye. Ramos. Sharp-Collins. Sharp-Collins not voting.

Okay. That bill is out. We'll leave it open for others to add on. Thank you all very much.

Mr. Ward, I'm sorry. Assembly member Stefani is present and was ahead of you in line. Assembly member Stefani, you have three bills. Did you wanna go in file order?

Twenty fifty two first.

Okay. Colleagues, we're gonna start with assembly bill twenty fifty two.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair and colleagues. I'd like to begin by actually thanking the Chair and the committee staff for their work on this bill, and I will be accepting the committee amendments. I'm here today to present AB 2052, a measure designed to protect some of the most vulnerable people in our communities by making sure our justice system works for them when they need it most.

And as a former prosecutor, I feel very lucky to understand how vital it is that some victims have the predictability of the same prosecutor as they're going through the criminal justice system. So this bill really means a lot to me personally.

As California's population ages, we are seeing more cases of elder and dependent adult abuse. For many victims, the court process can feel overwhelming. Not because they lack courage, but because they are facing physical, cognitive, or medical challenges that make participation extraordinarily difficult.

Some victims are living with dementia or other cognitive impairments that affect their memory and their ability to communicate clearly. Others rely on caregivers for transportation, medication, or daily support. Simply getting to court can be a major challenge.

And once they are there, they may need accommodations that require planning, coordination, and trust. And in these moments, it's where continuity matters. Too often, a victim may meet one prosecutor at the beginning of the case, another at the next hearing, and someone new by the time the matter reaches trial, and it's very disconcerting to the victim.

Each transition requires the victim to rebuild trust, repeat painful details, and adjust to a new person who may not yet understand their needs. This is not just inefficient. It can be discouraging, disorienting, and in some cases, it can make it harder for victims to fully participate in the pursuit of justice.

AB 2052 addresses this problem in a practical and compassionate way. This bill allows a prosecutor handling a case involving a senior or dependent adult victim to remain with that case and, when necessary, request a continuance. That flexibility ensures the victim can continue receiving support from someone who understands their situation and can anticipate their needs.

At its core, AB 2052 ensures that vulnerable victims are supported every step of the way and that our justice system works with them, not against them. With me today to speak in support is Andrew Mendoza from the Alzheimer's Association, and Julie Moore is here to share her personal story.

Andrew Mendoza on behalf of the Alzheimer's Association, proud sponsor of AB 2052. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Committee Members, and staff, for your work to advance this prudent measure. I'd be remiss to say if I didn't welcome Mary Kennedy back, workplace icon. It's a pleasure to be in your space.

We're thankful that the Assembly Member has prioritized improving services rendered to vulnerable victims, especially those living with cognitive impairment. In enabling law enforcement to dedicate a singular prosecutor for each stage of a vertical prosecution for crimes against older and dependent adults, AB 2052 better facilitates a statewide approach to a crime that can be under-prioritized.

This bill enables a prosecutor to meet a victim, establish their independence, and spend more time with vulnerable populations when necessary, including those living with dementia. This is sensible to stabilize a procedure and provide a dedicated resource to caregivers for coordination of the necessary follow-up.

Further, it would develop expertise in elder abuse cases and better facilitate accommodations for those residing in assisted living facilities or who have been hospitalized because of the crime. It minimizes the likelihood that a prosecutor would reduce charges or decline to bring them due to the fact that the primary witness of the abuse or exploitation is living with Alzheimer's disease or dementia.

As a result of the growing population of older adults, elder abuse and financial exploitation are on the rise. As the number of older adults increases, so does the number of people living with cognitive impairment. And as a preventative measure, we should adjust our systems of justice to better protect older adults and otherwise vulnerable populations.

AB 2052 is a support for district attorneys who have dedicated resources to serving older and dependent adult victims with vertical prosecutions, and we hope this bill encourages a comprehensive statewide approach. I am respectfully asking for your aye vote at the appropriate time. Appreciate your time, and we'll now turn it over to our advocate, Julie Moore, to provide how this bill connects to her lived experience.

Thank you. Julie, you have two minutes.

Thank you, Chairman Schultz, Members of the Public Safety Committee, for your time. My name is Julie Moore. I'm from Irvine. I'm an advocate with the Alzheimer's Association. We appreciate Assembly Member Stefani's authorizing this important legislation.

As a victim survivor of crime, someone living with dementia, and a former caregiver for each of my parents, I understand how bad actors target people living with cognitive impairment and see the value of vertical prosecution units offered to help seniors contend with fraud and abuse by providing the victim with one point of contact for follow-up and only having to explain their case to one person.

Two years ago, I was diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment with Alzheimer's pathology. Both my parents died of Alzheimer's disease. I was the primary caregiver for my mother when she developed Alzheimer's disease at 72. Shortly after diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment, my mother was robbed in the home by care providers that we had hired on a referral from a rehab after a hemorrhagic stroke from a head injury.

Those care providers also locked me out of the house and tried to get my mother to pay for a fictitious trip for them to go to Ireland together. Just after moving to assisted living, which became necessary when in home care was not reliable. Still in the stage. Just after moving to the assisted living. Still in this... Oh. She was kidnapped by a long time family friend for two weeks while this individual tried to empty out the bank accounts.

AB 2052 promotes vertical prosecution of crimes perpetrated against older adults, including elder abuse and financial exploitation. Both of these were things that my mother experienced. This is important because every time you must...

Every time you must reexplain how you were defrauded or abused, you have to relive the trauma and embarrassment. It takes you back to that place. It disorients your present. Furthermore, it can be further disorienting to have to continually deal with new attorneys repeatedly.

And I'm sorry. I'll have to stop you there because we're at two minutes, but I'm sure that we can give a chance to finish when we ask a question. But thank you very much, ma'am. Alright. Next, we'll take the me toos in support. Please come down. Name, organization, and position, please.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Cory Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriffs Association in support.

Max Perry on behalf of the California Police Chiefs Association in support.

Lauren Apter, California District Attorneys Association, in support.

Alright. Thank you all very much. Do we have any opposition witnesses here? Going once, going twice. Do we... Oh, we do have... Okay. It looks like we have one witness. Alright. Come on down. We have a microphone right here. Got it. Okay. I this sounds like it's just you. You have two minutes whenever you're ready.

Good morning. My name is Alex Trantham. I'm a public defender from the LA County Public Defender's Office representing Local 148 in opposition of this bill. One of the core principles of due process is that a person charged with a crime has the right to a speedy trial.

When someone is charged with a crime, they are often in jail away from their family and community, or they have posted cast bail and are paying thousands of dollars to be out of custody. Time is of the essence. Section 1050 outlines the circumstances that allow for continuances and the waiver of the right to a speedy trial in very specific scenarios.

The person charged can waive the right themselves for purposes of case preparation. But when a continuance is granted in spite of our client's waiver, it should be in the rarest of circumstances. Importantly, section 1050 already outlines what is good cause for a continuance and allows the court to consider witness availability.

Since judges already have the good cause standard to guide them in granting continuances, the amendment needlessly carves away the right to a speedy trial. For adults 65 or dependent adults, if a witness has certain transportation issues, for example, the state will often deploy a law enforcement officer as transport or an escort to court. DAs must communicate with witnesses and victims and understand the nature, the unique nature that they require in making sure they come to court.

If there are safety concerns, there would be safety measures in place. The right to a speedy trial is one of the most important rights of the accused. The statute is overbroad and doesn't detail any specific difficulty that courts aren't already dealing with for these particular witnesses. For these reasons, we oppose.

Alright. Thank you very much. Next, we'll take the me toos. So if you're also here to register an opposition position, please come down at this time. Name, organization, and position, please.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, statewide association of criminal defense lawyers. We are opposed but reviewing the amendments.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU California Action in opposition, still reviewing the amendments. Thank you.

Elizabeth Kim on behalf of Initiate Justice in opposition.

Lesli Caldwell-Houston, California Public Defenders Association. We remain opposed unless amended. We do thank the author for taking the amendments, but we do still have some concerns, which I've expressed, and hope to have further conversation.

Alright. Anyone else hoping to register a position on the bill? Seeing none. Assembly Member Stefani, with your permission, ma'am, I'd like to ask you. I apologize. For the sake of the rules, I have to give everybody two minutes, and I know that seems unfair.

But I also can't pick favorites, and I have to be fair across the board. But I'd like to give you a chance to finish your statement. Anything else you think the committee should know, take as much time as you need, ma'am.

This bill better supports senior crime victims by preventing additional victim trauma and supporting them when the process, through the process. For these reasons, I urge your aye vote at the appropriate time. That's... Thank you very much.

Thank you. I really should've just let you go there, I suppose. Thank you. Alright. Colleagues, I've done a lot of talking this morning. Does anyone have a question or a comment at all? It's okay if you don't. Just throwing it out there. Mr... Oh, wow. Mr. Harabedian, Mr. Alanis on the first and second.

The only question I would have, Assembly Member Stefani, and you can address it in your close if you like, is I really appreciate your working with the committee and your movement in terms of taking the amendments. Just wondering if you have any response to some of the opposition testimony we heard today. But if you wanna address that in your close, that's okay with me.

I'll address it in my close.

Excellent. Any other questions or comments? Alright. Assembly Member, the floor is yours.

Thank you. And with regard to the opposition, I believe that the bill strikes the balance with those concerns by only allowing for one continuance, considering the story that we just heard by the witness, Julie. And thank you for sharing your personal story with us and how crucial it is to provide such type of prosecution in these cases. My dad was diagnosed with Lewy body dementia in January 2018.

And watching the slow decline of someone you love and knowing that they are can be victimized in a way that others can't. And should they be, the fact that they need a different type of prosecution shouldn't be lost on anyone, and I encourage your aye vote.

Well, thank you, Assembly Member. And I do appreciate all the testimony we heard today. I did review the opposition letter. I know that the amendments may not address all of the concerns, but I think the bill is in a much stronger position. And you do have my aye recommendation today, Assembly Member.

When it comes to certain kinds of cases, sometimes we do need to grant that flexibility so that someone who has come to know the victim of crime is able to continue representing their interest to the extent that they can throughout the criminal justice process. So I am recommending an aye today. We have a motion and a second. Let's conduct the roll.

For item 13, AB 2052 by Assembly Member Stefani, the motion is do pass as amended. [Roll Call]

Okay. That bill is out. We'll allow others to add on as they come back. Thank you all very much. And Assembly Member, I know you need to change out witnesses. Are you gonna be taking 1588 next or 17... Okay. 1588, everybody. So if you're a witness on that bill, please come on down and join the Assembly Member. And Assembly Member, whenever you're ready, you can begin on 1588.

My glasses on. Thank you, chair and colleagues. Again, I would first like to begin by thanking the chair and the committee staff for their thoughtful work and collaboration on this bill, and I will be accepting the committee amendments. I also wanna thank San Francisco mayor Daniel Lurie, the sponsor of this bill, for working with my office as we've, worked through the amendments. Today, I'm presenting AB 1588, a bill that will strengthen accountability and protect public safety in our communities.

Across California, sideshows are turning ordinary intersections into dangerous, zones in absolute mayhem, actually, where roads are blocked, traffic is halted, and neighborhoods are left dealing with noise, chaos, and real threats to public safety. These events do more than just disrupt traffic. They put residents, small businesses, and first responders at risk, especially when emergency vehicles cannot get through as we have seen when the Bay Bridge was taken over completely.

Sideshows have become more organized and more frequent thanks to social media, often involving repeat offenders, unlicensed dirt bikes, and coordinated crowds that overwhelm existing enforcement tools. Increasingly, these events are also associated with illegal firearms, many assault rifles on display, turning already dangerous situations into potentially deadly ones.

Since February, enhanced enforcement efforts in the East Bay have led to the seizure of more than a 110 illegal guns at sideshows, underscoring how quickly these gatherings can escalate from reckless behavior into serious threats to human life. Despite steps taken by cities and the state, enforcement has not kept pace with how these events operate today, leaving officers without clear authority to intervene early and leaving communities frustrated when the dangerous behavior continues to occur.

AB 1588 closes key enforcement gaps by updating state law to reflect how sideshows actually operate today, including adding motorbikes and dirt bikes to the sideshow framework so officers can take action when unlicensed vehicles are used to block streets and perform dangerous stunts. The bill also strengthens accountability by aligning penalties for sideshows with those already in place for speed contests. Together, these changes give law enforcement the tools they need to respond effectively and protect our communities.

Here with me today is sergeant Ben Shea from the San Francisco Police Department Stunt Driving Response Unit and Jolena Voorhis with the League of California Cities.

Thank you very much. Whenever you're ready.

Good morning, Chair Schultz and members of the Assembly Public Safety Committee. My name is Benjamin Shea, Star2089. I'm a police officer for the San Francisco Police Department. One of my specialty areas is sideshow investigations and enforcement, responding to the needs of the community as they arise. I'm a sergeant of police, a supervisor, and I hold post certificates for both traffic investigations and collisions.

I'm an attorney and a member of the bar in good standing as well as the designated subject matter expert on sideshows and takeovers in the San Francisco Police Department. I'm here today to speak in support of Assembly Bill one five eight eight, which seeks to address the worrying trends of illegal sideshows and street races taking place in San Francisco, in the Bay Area, and in the wider state of California.

AB 1588 closes loopholes in current law by adding missing vehicle classes such as motorcycles and dirt bikes and places them into state sideshow law. And these same vehicles are commonly used at sideshow and takeover events. This bill also brings sideshow offenses online with existing law related to the exhibition of speed and speed contests.

A part of my role is simply responding to community town halls. In these town halls, a recurring plea of the community is requesting action on some of these missing categories of vehicles, I.e. motorcycles and dirt bikes and off road vehicles. A common question I receive is simply," is there any pending legislation to address this?"

The tendency of these events to result in serious bodily injury or become fatal is also worrying. The same data that we gather from CHP we use has showed that in the five year period between 2019 and 2024, These incidents have resulted in two hundred and sixty four crashes and thirty fatalities.

And I'm sorry that's your time, but stick around. There'll probably be questions. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Alright.

As to the second witness, you have two minutes as well.

Yes. Mister chair, committee members, I hope this is on. My name is Jolina Voorhees. I am the legislative advocate with the League of California Cities, pleased to be here in support of AB 1588, which would increase penalties and consequences for operation of sideshows. As previously stated, vehicle sideshows and street takeovers are dangerous events where public spaces are taken over to engage in reckless driving behavior and stunts that pose a danger to drivers and pedestrians.

These events threatened the safety of those involved as well as caused noise pollution, traffic obstructions, and property damage. Recent incidents highlight the seriousness of this issue, including the death of a 16 year old who fell from an overpass during the East based sideshow last September and the death of an 18 year old during a sideshow in Monterey County last November.

Cal City has heard from several of our members to use across the state on this issue, and many have been forced to enact local ordinances to address the ongoing threat that sites has posed to some public safety. In Southern California, Norwalk, Pico Rivera, and Paramount have expressed that sideshows put the residents at risk and often occur in high traffic areas where they disrupt vital transportation corridors and impede emergency services.

In Northern California, Oakland City Council reported that sideshows have frequently been linked to gun violence and property destruction.

According to the CHP, in 2021, they respond to almost 6,000 street races and sideshows, issuing 2,500 citations statewide, making seven 87 arrests. AB 1588 would help to address the continuation of these incidents by making sideshows equivalent to street racing and allows for the impoundment of vehicles at a sideshow. Without additional statewide determinants or or funding for continued enforcement or law enforcement, these organized incidents will continue to harm our communities and strain local resources.

For these reasons, on and on behalf of Cal State University, you're in strong support of AB 1588, and we urge the committee to pass this important legislation. Thank you, sir.

Thank you. You must have practiced that. That was two minutes on the dot. Well done.

I did practice.

Though. Alright. I I if you'd like to be heard in support of the bill, we'll take the Me Too's. Come on down. Name, organization, and position, please.

Good morning. Eileen Mariano on behalf of the bill sponsor, mayor Daniel Lurry, in support.

Steven Lopez on behalf of the city and county of San Francisco, in support.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the board of supervisors for the County of San Joaquin and as well as the city of Beverly Hills both in support, and thank you for the measure. Appreciate it.

Good morning. Iria Rapichang on behalf of

triple a Northern California in support.

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

Good morning. Indigo Byers with SC Justice Group in opposition.

Good morning. Kevin Benedicto, vice president of the San Francisco Police Commission in an individual capacity in support.

Max Perry on behalf of the California Police Chiefs Association also in support.

Monica Samuel, SC Justice Group in opposition.

Okay. Thank you. We'll note the the one opposition testimony. We'll add that later. Two opposition.

Oh, I'm sorry. Two. Alright. Do we have any opposition witnesses who'd like to testify? Okay.

Just the one, or are there two, or one? There are two. Okay. Perfect. Yeah.

If I could just get you thank you so much for scooting down. We do have two chairs here. Once you both start speaking, you'll each have two minutes to address the committee.

Good morning, chair members. My name is Aubrey Rodriguez, and I'm a ledge advocate with ACLU California Action. Initially, we laid out our concerns in a letter around incentivizing police to create new surveillance programs that would have accelerated us towards a dystopian future, police cameras on every street corner. Constant police surveillance of public spaces is simply inappropriate in a free society and threatens our rights to association, expression, and privacy.

Thankfully, the author has accepted committee main amendments to alleviate these concerns, and we want to express our gratitude where we can.

So thank you, assembly member. However, we continue to have issues with this proposal as it seeks to create redundant criminal penalties of existing crimes. If a person causes bodily injury to another while engaging in reckless driving, which can include those participating in sideshows, they can already be convicted of a misdemeanor and sentenced up to six months in jail. If a person causes a serious injury resulting in loss of consciousness, bone fracture, or serious wound, that person can be convicted of a felony.

So we are simply just opposed to this bill because of the redundancy in this bill, and I'll pass it off to Keyon to give other perspective.

Thank you.

Thank you, Aubrey. Good afternoon, chair Schultz and, members of the committee. My name is Keyon Bliss, and I'm the senior manager of policy and organizing with the Anti Police Terror Project. We are a black led multiracial organization that works, every day with families navigating the impacts of state violence as well as economic hardship. And I'm here to be very clear.

We strongly oppose, AB 1588, even with the amendments. The bill, unfortunately, is not about safety. It's more about punishment. And at a time when, families across California are struggling to survive, raising fines or making it easier for people's vehicles to be seized or be caught up in the criminal, punishment system is simply unacceptable. And let's be honest about how this about who this will impact.

It will be not wealthy communities, but it will be black, brown, and low income communities who are already overpoliced and over penalized. And we already know that a lot of these fines and fees that we're talking about do not deter behavior. What they do is trap people in cycles of debt, punishment, and poverty. And the data is clear. Cities like Oakland, San Jose, and Fresno have already increased fines, and it did not stop sideshows.

In fact, in Oakland, incidents continued and enforcement only increased, the number of vehicles that were seized, limiting people's ability to access jobs and their livelihoods. So what are we really doing here? We're really doubling down on a strategy that has already failed. That is not public safety. That this is a dangerous expansion of fines as well as also enabling surveillance and police power with very little accountability.

If we are going to be serious about safety, we really need real solutions. We need investment in community based programs. We need youth engagement, and we need infrastructure changes that actually prevent harm, particularly to our traffic safety infrastructure. We have already seen that in Oakland where simple roadway redesigns such as traffic ballers have actually reduced such activity. We do not need more punishment.

We need prevention, and we need care, and we need investment in our communities. So I really urge you. Please vote no on AB 1588, and let's avoid and try new strategies in criminalizing poverty.

Thank you both very much for your testimony. Next, we'll take the Me Too's. If you'd also like to be heard in opposition to the bill, come on down at this time.

Leslie Caldwell, Houston for the California Public Defenders Association. We thank the author for taking the amendments, and we will withdraw our opposition.

Alex Trantham on behalf of Local one forty eight, LA County Public Defenders Union, no opposition.

Elizabeth Kim, on behalf of initiate justice in opposition.

Okay. Final call. Anyone else hoping to register a position on the bill? Okay. We'll turn it back to the dais.

Are there any questions or comments from me or doctor Sharp Collins? Because that's all we got left. It's always just you and me. Okay. I just had two very quick questions.

I guess I'll start with our opposition witnesses. You know, your your your point is well taken about even enhanced tools doesn't really prevent the behavior from happening, and I get your point about application. I guess my question is if the answer is not fines or impoundment, could you speak a little bit more to what you think are the right tools?

I mean, I know education is a big piece of it, but what are the other things to actually prevent someone from getting in the car and doing a road takeover or a sideshow? Like, what what can we do in your perspective?

I mean, a lot of the things that we could be doing is redesigning our existing roadways and traffic infrastructure that for a lot of neighborhoods, particularly in low income communities, simply haven't been updated for years or have been neglected. It looks like installing traffic bollars in the intersections that make it hard for people to take like, take them over or for vehicles to do the activities that we often see, like donuts within sideshows.

It also could look like road narrowing, creating more like creating smaller roads so that fewer cars actually go like, can actually fit through and occupy those sorts of spaces. But in a lot of the neighborhoods, there's like, there are basic traffic infrastructure that makes it easy. And such as like the lack of sidewalks, no bike lanes, or even crosswalks within those spaces that simply have been neglected for too long, and we could be and could actually help to mitigate some of these activities.

Yeah. And I just like to add, like, there's curve extensions, and I understand this can be expensive and would there's a budget crisis right now, but a lot of times, we have this it's an easy solution to just add more crimes, but our penal code's already oversaturated. And we need to move away from this carceral approach and try to think about more holistically or systemically rather than creating more crimes or and redundant crimes at that at that fact.

Really appreciate both of you sharing that perspective with the committee. And then in fairness, my question to the to the author and the sponsors would be having heard some of the testimony today and some of the alternatives that are being presented. Do you have any response, to those concerns that have been raised in committee today?

Should I turn it to you first and then I'll do you have anything to say?

Oh, sure.

If you don't mind.

I'll turn it to my witness first, and then I'll respond.

Well, I like to think outside the box. So two items. The first one is this. I love traffic improvements. Steel plates, bollards, construction, etcetera.

We champion that in San Francisco. I love the fact that the city and county San Francisco likes to think outside the box, hears disparate voices, and tries to figure out a solution. But in my enforcement, what I found out is this. Sideshows, street takeovers, they're like water. So a perfect example is Barnabell and McKinnon in the Bayview District, which was plagued for years.

The city came in with the help of SFMTA, which is our city streets, and erected all of these countermeasures, the sideshow simply moved one block away. So in order for the traffic prevention devices to work, we need to basically get an agreement with the sideshow organizers that simply not to move the sideshows. In San Francisco, whenever we put up the traffic barriers, our next goal across the next quarter is to simply track where they move in the same neighborhood.

So I'm not certain if that's a viable solution. The second one is simply this, regarding, the vehicle classes.

Right now, 14602.7 merely addresses cars. In my enforcement experience, over 50% of the sideshows and takeovers are actually dirt bikes, off road vehicles, and motorcycles. The current state of the law, what we have is kinda almost like if the assembly sponsored a Little League Hockey team, but we only gave hockey sticks to half of the teammates. We're simply missing 50% or greater of the activities that happened in the city.

Thank you for the answer. And then just to be clear, assembly member, did you or your other witness have anything to add? Or if not, that's okay. I just wanna make sure.

No. I'll just handle it in my close.

Okay. Very good. Seeing no other questions or comments, assembly member, I'll give you a chance to close.

Thank you, chair. And again, I wanna thank the committee for working on with me working with me on amendments to remove some of the opposition. And, you know, I find it impossible to believe in, you know, two things that were said that don't really make sense by the opposition that they are both redundant and yet a dangerous expansion. So I don't understand how that actually works.

And I believe that this bill is about treating repeat offenders appropriately and holding people accountable for the reckless behavior and the harm they caused to our communities.

And as far as rebuilding all our intersections, I I think, you know, rebuilding the Bay Bridge isn't an option. Putting things in place on the Bay Bridge, not an option. It's so expensive. And the transit funding that we're fighting for in the Bay Area alone just to keep Muni and everything running, going intersect intersection by intersection, like, a $100,000 or more per intersection is not an option. What is an option is to make sure that people are held accountable for the reckless behavior.

These sideshows are causing real harm. And the message is that you can if you can find a place to do it, just go ahead and do it. And so we worked on this bill to make sure that we came up with something that works and that is going to be a real deterrent, and I think it's necessary, and I urge an aye vote.

Thank you very much, assembly member. Before I proceed, we do need a motion and a second. I don't like to motion myself, but given there's only two of us. Okay. Fantastic.

I'll second. Thank you, doctor Sharp Collins. So yes. Just doctor Sharp Collins. I'm recommending an Aye.

Really appreciate the work of I know it's so weird. There's just you and me here today. Appreciate the work of the author. I think that the amendments do improve the bill substantially. Sounds like there's some continued conversation to happen and and and I know that Assemblymember Stephanie, in my time working with you, you're very collaborative.

You have an open door. Not that we're gonna all agree on everything all the time, but I do encourage those continued conversations. And I would just leave you all with this. I think this is an it's not an either or, it's an and. I think that these are tools that will be helpful to our our local officials trying to get this sort of conduct off of our streets and off of the Bay Bridge, for example.

But I also think that education and roadway design are things that we don't talk about nearly enough in this committee that can also make it difficult to do the very things that we're trying to guard against. So I just encourage all of us to think of it in that regard. I think we can do both. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. So I really appreciate all of you being here today.

We have a motion and a second. We'll call the roll.

For item one, AB 1588 by Assemblymember Stephanie, the motion is do pass as amended to the Transportation Committee. Schultz?

Aye.

Schultz, aye. Alanis, Gonzales, Haney, Harabedian, Lackey, Gwen, Ramos?

Aye.

Ramos, aye. Sharp Collins? Aye. Sharp Collins, aye. That measure is on call.

Okay. That measure is on call. We'll let you know the outcome. And Assemblymember Ramos with the moment of the day walking in just in time to cast that vote. I love the swagger.

Okay. Assembly Member Stefani, I think you have one more bill, AB 1753.

Yes. Okay. I'll get started. Thank you again, Mr. Chair and colleagues. And today I'm presenting AB 1753, the Survivor Pathways to Safety Act. I am accepting committee amendments and would like to express my deep appreciation and thanks to Chair Schultz and Dustin Weber for all their important work on this bill. We went rounds, and I really, I really cannot express my gratitude enough for hanging in there with me, and thank you.

It means a lot. As I've stated before in front of this committee, when a survivor walks into a courthouse and asks for protection, they are not just simply asking for a piece of paper. They are asking for safety and to be protected. They're asking for peace of mind and are placing their trust in a system that promises to protect them and their families. But too often, we know that that promise is not fully kept.

A survivor goes through the difficult and sometimes very dangerous process of seeking a restraining order. They follow the rules. They show up in court. They take the steps that the law requires. And when that order is granted, some of them believe they are finally safe.

Yet in too many cases, the person who threatened them still has access to a firearm, and the danger remains. We know that people who are legally required to surrender their firearms do not always do so. In one investigation, only one out of 25 armed abusers provided proof that they had turned in their guns as required by law.

That is not just a compliance issue. It is a public safety failure that puts lives at risk. Just two years ago, a couple who had gone to court to extend a restraining order were targeted and killed by the very person they were seeking protection from.

They had done everything the law asked of them, yet the system failed them. That tragedy is a painful reminder that a protective order must be more than a promise on paper. It must be backed by a system that works every time, nothing less. That is why AB 1753, that is what AB 1753 is designed to do.

Our protective order system must work. Hard stop. End of story. This bill closes critical gaps in how protective orders are enforced and how firearms are kept out of the hands of people who pose a threat to others. First, it strengthens firearm prohibitions for individuals who have demonstrated dangerous behavior, including those convicted of hate crimes or criminal threats against schools, houses of worships, or medical facilities.

When someone targets a community or makes credible threats of violence, we should not allow them easy access to weapons. Second, it improves coordination between courts and law enforcement so that when a protective order is issued, there is a clear and reliable process to determine whether the restrained person has firearms and whether those firearms have been properly surrendered.

Third, it makes the system more accessible and safer for survivors by allowing remote court appearances, strengthening enforcement of protective orders issued by tribal courts in other states, and ensuring that victims are promptly notified when protections are put in place on their behalf.

Taken together, these changes make our protective order system more consistent, more accountable, and more focused on safety. At its core, this bill is about closing the gap between what the law promises and what survivors actually experience.

A restraining order should never create a false sense of security. It should provide real protection backed by real enforcement. Because someone takes a courageous step of asking for help, the system has a responsibility to respond with action and provide that help. Every survivor deserves to live free from fear, everyone.

Every family deserves to know that the law will protect them, and every community deserves to be safe from preventable gun violence. And AB 1753 moves us closer to that goal. Today, I have with me a dream team of gun violence prevention advocates, Ethan Murray with Giffords and Ari Freilich with the California Department of Justice.

Thank you very much, Assembly Member. Gentlemen, nice to see you both again. And I said I'd see you this morning. Did I not? Alright. Good to see you again. Who's going first? Alright. Very good, sir. Two minutes when you're ready.

Chair Schultz, Members of the Committee. My name is Ethan Murray. I am a State Policy Attorney at Giffords, the gun violence prevention organization founded by former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. In 2023, nearly 290,000 protective orders were reported to the California Department of Justice.

Whether it's domestic violence or workplace harass or workplace violence or civil harassment, these protection orders are one of the most important legal tools available to Californians seeking protection. For the past several years, the California state legislature has worked to improve the implementation of these protection orders.

One by one, this body has passed, laws this body has passed have brought new innovations and consistency to how the firearm relinquishment process is handled, regardless of which protection order type a person seeks.

Since 2021, the legislature has created a consistent court process for the relinquishment of firearms that involves a referral to local prosecutors if a person fails to relinquish them, and it created a standard policy for the service of protection orders.

AB 1753 takes the next step by ensuring that prosecutors have a policy for dealing with noncompliance. Many authors have expanded remote hearing access and protection order cases. AB 1753 takes the final step to allow for remote hearings in workplace violence and school violence restraining order cases. This legislature has recently created new offenses relating to firearms, including threats to schools.

AB 1753 makes the firearm prohibition with those laws consistent with similarly situated laws. AB 13 or AB 3083 by Assembly Member Lackey requires judges to check California's automated firearms system in domestic violence cases. AB 1753 gives judges the authority to check that system in all protection order cases. This is a capstone project. Respectfully urge your aye vote.

Good morning, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Ari Freilich. I serve as Director of the California Department of Justice's Office of Gun Violence Prevention. Our office was proud to work with Assembly Member Stefani, Giffords, and other survivor advocates to develop this package of reforms.

About a dozen provisions to address various implementation gaps in our protective order processes to better prevent gun violence, armed intimidation, and hate crimes. Attorney General Bonta is proud to co-sponsor this measure.

High profile gun violence case before the United States Supreme Court in 2024, United States v Rahimi, highlighted the dangers that survivors of violence and abuse face when our protective order systems, when our courts, our local law enforcement, our prosecuting agencies do not effectively and proactively coordinate to ensure firearm relinquishment compliance and accountability.

In that case, public reporting indicates that a domestic abuse survivor provided testimony to a Texas court that her ex boyfriend had brutally battered her, fired his firearm at her, and threatened to kill her if she told anyone.

The court found that he was likely to commit domestic violence again after committing this act of gun violence, issued a protective order against him that ordered him to relinquish that firearm that he had used to threaten her life. He did not comply.

He remained in unlawful possession of firearms for about eleven more months, during which time he committed six more shootings in his community. That case focused a lot of attention on the second amendment issues.

It stuns me how little attention went to the underlying facts of the case and what it means for survivors at the heart of it. California's policymaking and investments in firearm relinquishment programs seek to prevent those outcomes and promise much more to survivors navigating the most dangerous days of their lives.

Accordingly, in recent years, as has already been mentioned, California has an active nation leading legislation requiring courts, law enforcement, and prosecuting agencies to take a proactive role in ensuring that people who become legally prohibited from keeping firearms under a protective order follow the law and comply.

We are making progress, but gaps remain. These efforts seek to replace passive, siloed, and reactive honor systems with coordinated partnerships invested in proactive safety for our survivors. We urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. You practice too. You're right on the mark. It's pretty good. You aren't, you're like a second off. Don't worry. That was pretty good. Others in support of the bill, please come forward at this time.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Rebecca Marcus representing the Brady Campaign, Brady California, the Consumer Protection Policy Center at the University of San Diego School of Law, as well as my colleagues at Everytown. Thank you. In support.

Max Perry on behalf of the California Police Chiefs Association, also in support.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco in support. Thank you.

Kevin Guzman with the California Medical Association in support.

Kevin Benedicto, Vice President of the San Francisco Police Commission, individually in support.

Alright. Thank you all very much. Next, we'll see if there's anyone here hoping to testify in opposition to the bill. Do we have any opposition witnesses? Anyone from the California Rifle and Pistol Association? Okay.

Anyone else hoping to register a position on the bill? Okay. Over to the dais. Questions? Comments? Coffee orders, Mr. González? No? Okay. We got a motion by Dr. Sharp-Collins. We had a second by Mr. González. Thank you. Alright. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Alright. I recommend an aye. We'll make this one quick. Please call the roll.

For item six, AB 1753 by Assembly Member Stefani, the motion is do pass as amended to the Judiciary Committee. [Roll Call]

Okay. That measure's on call, but I think that bill will get out. We'll let you know the outcome. Thank you, everybody. Alright. Quick programming note. Mr. Ward is up next who's been patiently waiting. You can come on down, Chris. Next up in sign in order is Assembly Member Kalra on 2122.

So if staff can send Mr. Kalra to Room 126, we'd love to take him next. After him, I have Assembly Members Johnson and Elhawary on the list. So feel free to start making your way back to Room 126. Mr. Ward, when you are ready, the floor is yours.

Well, thank you, and good morning, mister chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to present AB 1739. I wanna thank the committee for their work on the measure, and I'm very happy to take the committee's amendments as well. AB 1739 strengthens California law by disclose closing a dangerous gap in protections against sexual exploitation by individuals in positions of therapeutic authority, including when those services are provided by members of the clergy.

At its core, this bill is about protecting people in vulnerable trust based relationships where power imbalance is profound and well established.

Today, California law already recognizes that certain professional relationships such as those involving physicians, psychotherapists, and substance use counselors create an inherent imbalance of power that makes sexual contact exploit exploitative, not consensual. However, gaps remain when similar therapeutic services are provided in a religious context. Many individuals seeking counseling, emotional guidance, or mental health support from members of the clergy can be vulnerable. In those settings, congregates may rely on spiritual leaders in the same deeply personal independent way that they would a licensed therapist.

A B 1739 ensures that when clergy are providing therapeutic services, they are held to the same clear standard as other therapeutic professionals.

Specifically, this bill makes it a crime for any member of the clergy providing therapeutic services to engage in sexual intercourse or sexual contact with a current or former patient, or congregant within two years after termination of the services when their relationship was ended primarily to facilitate that conduct. The two year standard in AB 1739 is not new. It is well grounded and well established precedent in both state law and professional ethics governing therapist patient relationships.

States like Minnesota and Colorado already prohibit sexual relationships between a provider and a former client for at least two years after the treatment ends, and this bill mirrors that widely accepted framework. Similarly, leading professional standards, including those from the American Psychological Association, established a minimum two year prohibition recognizing the power dynamics and influence of a therapeutic relationship persists well beyond its formal end.

AB 1739 aligns with this widely accepted baseline ensuring consistency with existing norms rather than creating a new or an outlier policy. It also makes clear that consent is not a defense in these circumstances recognizing the inherent power imbalance in therapeutic relationships. E b seventeen thirty nine applies only in the narrow context where clergy are acting as therapeutic service providers, not in ordinary religious or pastoral activities. And that's that is thanks to the committee staffs and your, very thoughtful amendments that we are accepting.

The bill also ensures that appropriate protections for confidentiality and limits the scope of disclosure and investigation safeguarding sensitive patient and congregate information.

Importantly, this bill reinforces that accountability must be consistent across all forms of therapeutic care. And whether care is provided in a clinical setting or a spiritual counseling context, the standards should be the same. No exploitation of trust gained for sexual gain. The bill includes graduated penalties based on severity and pattern of conduct, including multiple for, victims or repeat offenses ensuring proportionality accountability under the law consistent with current law.

AB 1739 is about protecting vulnerable individuals, maintaining the integrity of therapeutic relationships, and ensuring that positions of trust are never abused.

With me to testify in support of AB 1739 are doctor Amina, Nolasco, a neuroscientist, advocate survivor, and Yovanna, Truninich, a survivor of abuse at the hands of a clergy member providing therapeutic services.

Chair Schultz, members of the committee, it is an honor and duty to be here today. My name is doctor Hermina Nedelescu. I'm a neuroscientist at Scripps Research and president of Procepon Healing, a new five zero one c three organization supporting victims of clergy perpetrated sexual abuse. In my research, I found that twenty five percent of people of faith seek counsel from clergy before turning to a therapist because of the trust placed in their authority. Clergy abuse begins with trust, not force.

In 2023, a Greek orthodox priest came to my laboratory at Scripps Research and sexually assaulted me resulting in permanent injuries. I reported the sexual assault to law enforcement. Despite this, the clergy man remains in ministry today at the same parish with no real accountability. Currently, California does not have a structure to hold criminally liable, sexually abusive clergy as many other states do. As a consequence, my experience of being sexually assaulted by a priest is unfortunately common.

One one survivor in California told me she was victim number 64. Her abuser is still in ministry. Another Californian, a mentally ill man, was sexually exploited for years by a priest with aids. In fact, research shows that perpetrators abuse on average between 70 and a 150 victims before they get caught and are held accountable.

Clergy abuse is a major public safety concern in a human rights violation with its own particularities because of the immense power differential, whereby victims take a long time to realize that the perceived quote God's representative on earth unquote is sexually assaulting and raping them rather than healing them.

New research from neuroscience shows that sexual abuse causes an irreversible negative impact on the brain and the nervous system. It reorganizes the brain at the neurobiological level and survivors become a patient population often requiring long term medical care. I hope you support this bill. Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members of committee. My name is Yovana Treinich. Today, I stand before you not just as a survivor of clergy sexual abuse, but as a witness to the profound pain and injury caused by this abuse of authority. In 2021, I moved to California by myself without family as a single Serbian woman looking for a safe community, and I assumed Serbian Orthodox Church in California was a safe place.

What began with trust and faith turned into confusion, fear, and trauma that still negatively affects my life today.

The priest who was guiding me slowly crossed boundaries over time. He knew I was in California alone. The sexual abuse affected my mind, my health, and my ability to trust others. I developed PTSD and felt shut off from the world around me. Parishioners cannot give true consent because of the power clergy have over them.

This power imbalance between a clergy and parishioner creates a trap where forgiveness is weaponized to silence victims. After connecting with doctor Hermina Nadellesco through her advocacy and support that cross upon healing, I found hope and strength that lifted the heavy burden of the of this pain. As a single woman, this trauma made it painful to scare and trust men, which is crucial for building a meaningful relationship. I urge you to protect others from this pain and trauma.

The priest who sexually assaulted me is still in ministry today without accountability.

Nothing is worse than being victimized and denied justice. If this bill had existed when I was abused, this priest would have been held accountable. I respectfully urge your support for AB 1739. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for the presentation, and thank you both for testifying today and being so patient to to get up here and have your moment. So thank you. Next, we'll hear from others hoping to be heard in support of the bill. If there's anyone else, come on down.

Morning, chairman and members. My name is David Bunn. I'm a volunteer with SNAP, the survivors network of those abused by priests. We strongly support the bill. I'm also here to represent my stepson, Trevor, who was raped by a priest for two years and by a priest who was found guilt found to attack kids at a previous parish before moved to the parish where he raped Trevor.

Thank you for your testimony, sir. Alright. Do we have anyone here hoping to test fine opposition? One or okay. Just the one.

Alright. Feel free to grab a oh, maybe there's two. Is there another opposition witness? I guess I just you today. Just me.

Alright. Whenever you're ready, sir. Alright.

Chair members, my name is Aubrey Rodriguez. I'm a ledge advocate with ACLU Cal Action. While we appreciate the committee amendments and the author accepting those to limit the scope of the bill, we continue to have issues. This nation has a long history of legislating people's sexual lives, which we have long advocated against as it is a blatant violation of a person's autonomy. While consensual sexual activity between a clergy person and adult parishioner may be unadvisable, it does not rise to the level of being a crime.

Attempting to legislate this intimate part of our lives is a clear example of massive government overreach in which the government has no business legislating when these acts are consensual. It is important to underscore the amount of people that belong to any recognized religious denomination or religious organization in this nation. There are hundreds of distinct denominations across numerous faiths, many that may have different customs and practices to that of the dominant Abrahamic religions we tend to center these sorts of conversations around.

Applying a uniform policy that attempts to legislate the inner workings of every religious denomination may be problematic as not every religion operates the same way as the dominant religions in this nation. As was raised in the committee analysis, certain religions permit sexual relationships between clergy and their congregants.

Consensual sexual relationships, including marriage, are not, uncommon between worship leaders and congregants in some religions. This proposal, as amended, can force a couple to choose between partnership and faith, which threatens one's right to freely associate and potentially their right to marriage if they are married and have this spiritual, relationship. Ultimately, we believe religious congregations can adopt their own rules concerning clergy members' sexual activity with a parishioner. That is a matter best handled by each religious sect, not the government.

For these reasons, we respectfully urge your no vote on AB 1739.

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone else who'd like to register an opposition position? Great. Come on down to the microphone when you're ready.

Elizabeth Kim on behalf of initiate justice in opposition.

Okay. You survived the door.

I did. Leslie Caldwell, Houston for the California Public Defenders Association. We'd like to thank the committee and the author for taking the amendments, and we will withdraw our opposition.

Okay. Thank you very much. And just glad everyone was okay. I don't know why we have a door right there, but apparently we do. Okay.

Anyone else hoping to register position on the bill? Seeing none, we'll turn it to the dais. Mister Gonzales, would you like to go first?

Curious. I was asking our team yesterday when we were going over this. What what's the definition of therapeutic services? Like, is confession considered that or couples counseling within, in my case, a priest or if anybody else can answer that, I don't

I appreciate that. No. It is a work in progress to make sure that we are getting a more concise definition of what these therapeutic services are. We want to align them to every extent that we can with sort of more, like, non religious therapeutic and counseling services and how it's defined there.

Okay.

So you'll So confession no.

I've been in confession too. And so that that that that I think would not mean, I think, you know, our common understanding of what a therapeutic service would be.

And any other the Sacramento pieces that people do, like oh, gosh, for surely communion or when you go to, like, on a retreat and you have to do it, like I'm Catholic in that sense, so I'm curious about do any of those pieces fall in line under therapeutic?

What I think that we're gonna continue to improve on is trying to make sure that the definition here is consistent with a bona fide therapist therapy therapist client relationship.

Okay.

Thank you. Doctor Sharp Collins?

Okay. You you took my my other question because you and I spoke about this already. Yes. First off, before I start, let me thank you both for coming to share your story. What happened to you both should have never happened.

Okay? So I wanna make sure that I'm clear on that I'm not supportive of of people being taken advantage of, people being impreied upon. Not at all. What I will speak to is that the the idea of this bill is something that I do understand. And I spoke to pastors within my district as we've talked about, and they understand the aim of this bill, and they believe that some merits of the bill is valid.

However, when you think about the black church, the structure is completely different. And I'm saying that because the black church occupies a unique space within the black culture. And to have a one size fit our approach and model was something that is concerning to me and also concerning to the members, were other clergy that I have actually spoken with. There's a difference between a priest and a pastor. You know, the pastor is preaching, is teaching.

There's different types of structures that's there. But another concern besides the difference goes into when you're lumping everyone into a category of a therapeutic process as a therapist, we already know that the pastors are not licensed. The therapists are licensed. There's a contractual agreement. You're not to disclose any of these other types of things, and there's all the legality things that is there.

But they're not licensed mental health professionals. One way to hold them to the standard from what you're putting out there is to now then regulate them and make them become licensed. That's that's the only other way to hold them to a standard of what you're saying of a two year and have them be in that in that area. When when you are a pastoral counselor, you are ordained with a theological training, which is not the same as being a licensed counselor.

So that was one concern that was brought up by a pastor of if you're doing this, then there would have to be a different structural change.

It also begs the question of going into what assembly member Gonzalez was was talking about, the question of defining what services is actually is going to be. And that was also something that was discussed because the way the black church structure is is not just confession, but different things that that we do, whether it's premarital counseling, where it's divorce counseling, where it is, you know, grief counseling. There's all types of other things that that they do.

But in the end, if there is something that's consensual, something that have happened a year and a half later, they will be punished for that based on the different types of counseling structures that they have that that they partake in. So I would like to have and and talking to my pastors, that definition of treatment is still so broad because it's if it's one on one, I get it from a therapeutic you know, a process.

I have a, a master's in counseling. So I get the one on one. I I I understand. But in some cases, it's not always just the one on one because the bill doesn't say one on one. The bill does not specify.

So that area is a little bit broad. So I'm hoping that you would consider still working on the bill a little bit more, having a deeper dialogue and to understand the different cultural structures that exist for different types of churches and understanding the complexity of the clergy relationship within the black community. This bill is not connecting to that. And so even considering the two year from a one year, this came from pastor to say maybe just do the one year.

They understand exactly what your aim is.

But I just have some concerns. So to get me to get to a certain space, I would honestly need that commitment from you to work with other clergy to get a better understanding of cultural and and religious differences to be able to address that. Because they operate as a separate board, five zero one c three, and all these other things is totally different than dealing with the the other Catholic structure that currently exists.

So I didn't really have as much as a question because we spoke about this. But I wanted to put it on record that this is a totally different process for for the black church.

And it could have some impact, but the pastors that I spoke with understand they are they are supportive of the idea, but there are some structures that we still need to work on because there's no one size fit on model approach. They were concerned about sermons being Included in that as, you know, as a form of of therapy. They were concerned about even our online platforms of the faith room or online platforms or others. Those are considered forms of services. So I'm just highlighting that.

So is there would you care to respond, or can I get a commitment from you to continue to work on this bill, but also be able to speak with other ethnic groups that provide services in the district or or in the state?

Through the

chair, I thank you, doctor Sharp Collins, as well for, having this conversation with me prior to the committee hearing. And so I'll just jump to the end and say, yes. Absolutely. Full commitment to be able to continue to work with them. I'm glad you're my neighbor.

Glad you're my colleague, and I'm glad and I would like to hopefully even meet with some of those individuals or others that they recommend back at home, in our in our districts and everything to have that direct conversation. I think that perspective is critically important because I have a lot to learn, and I wanna make sure that we are not invoking or creating a law that somehow is gonna disproportionately impact any of our communities greater than what we intended.

I think that there is a common thread here. It sounds like there's some understanding that, yes, there are very direct and intimate relationship moments that have a balance of power present where somebody is vulnerable, is getting through that trust and and that that that that guidance and that advice. Important self improvement and important therapy,

I guess.

And and how we define that is something I've already and we'll continue to commit to work on that. And I wanna make sure that passes muster as well for how it is might be applied in other community settings as well too. I believe my witness wanted to add a little bit more context as well from from her perspective.

Oh, yeah. I'm I teach regarding drug abuse and mental illness with the black community in San Diego, and I'd be happy to connect them with assembly member Chris Ward to to further narrow that relationship and maybe, yeah, work with him. He's the expert.

Thank you. Thank you very, very, very much. My last point was when it when it comes down I mean, sometimes people do meet their partners in church. But that doesn't mean that they were prayed upon or anything of that nature. And so we just, once again, thank you for that commitment.

Let's let's connect back home and see what we can do to, make sure that we are not, impeding any of any of the penalties on communities that are already marginalized and underrepresented as we move forward in this process. So thank you. So with that, I will be able to support today with that commitment.

Thank you, doctor Sharp Collins. Assembly member Gonzales.

I apologize. I think in the updated documents we got here, therapeutic services means counseling, mental health guidance, spiritual counseling involving the treatment of emotionally, psychological, or behavioral conditions or other services that are substantially similar in nature to psychotherapy, whether or not the provider is licensed by the state. So I just wanna make sure for the record I I have the update, so I apologize for that. Thank you.

Thank you for that.

Thank you very much. Are there any other questions or comments from members of the committee? Alright. Mister Ward, would you like to close?

Thank you, mister chair. Of course, I recognize the deep importance of working with all of our community stakeholders as we think about how this could actually be implemented to meet the intent and the very important intent of what the bill is seeking to do.

California has long led the nation in recognizing and preventing sexual exploitation in therapeutic settings, and this bill, eighty seventeen thirty nine, continues that leadership by ensuring that those protections extend to all who provide therapeutic services regardless of setting and respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you very much, Assemblymember Ward. I'd like to just briefly so so I will be recommending an I today. Appreciate you taking the amendments. First, to our two witnesses and support, thank you very much for your bravery and courage and your expertise in being here today. It feels like all too often, as of late, we've been talking about people with positions of incredible power, misusing that power and exploiting people.

And I think everyone in the if we all in this room agree on one point, it is that that is absolutely unacceptable, and

there ought to be and should be and is, in fact,

a zero tolerance and there ought to be and should be and is, in fact, a zero tolerance policy in our state for that sort of behavior. So sorry for what you two have been through, but thank you for being here today so we can hear from you. To the opposition witness, I would say I I thank you for your testimony and your letter.

This is a tough bill, mister Ward, as you know, because you are walking a fine line as it relates to the first amendment, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom to worship the religion of our choosing. I appreciate you taking the committee amendments.

I I I guess I am recommending an eye. I would just flag for you as you navigate the committee process, and I'm really glad to hear that you'll be working with doctor Sharp Collins to further understand and explore those issue areas.

I think the the definition of rendering therapeutic services as I understand it would arguably not include catechism or marriage counseling in my faith, but I think that really honing in on what it that definition and what does fall within it and what does not is really going to be crucial as you navigate the the coming committees that you'll be presenting for. But with that said, First House, first committee, I think the bill is strengthened with the committee amendments. Appreciate your work on it.

We have a motion. Oh, we do not have a motion. Do we have a motion? Do we have a second? Second.

K. Motion by Gonzales, second by Ramos with an I recommendation. Let's call the roll.

For item five, AB 1739 by Assemblymember Ward. The motion is do passed as amended to the business and professions committee. Schultz?

Aye.

Schultz, aye. Alanis? Gonzales? Aye. Gonzales, aye.

Haney? Harabedian? Lackey? Gwen? Ramos?

Aye. Ramos, aye. Char Collins? Char Collins, aye.

Okay. That measure remains on call as we wait for absent members, but we'll let you

know the outcome. You should be in good shape.

Thank you.

Thank you, everyone. Appreciate it. Okay. I see we have two authors that have arrived. However, the first in sign in order is Assembly member Krell, followed by Assembly member Bauer Kehan.

Assembly member Krell is presenting AB 1854.

Great.

Alright. Assembly member, the floor is yours whenever you're ready.

Just confirming, do we have any witnesses in support today? Okay. And I take it you're an opposition witness, ma'am?

Yes, sir.

Okay. Perfect. You can you can stay there for now.

Okay. I did have witnesses in support earlier, but they may have had to leave. Anyways, good morning, everyone. My name is Maggie Krell. This is Assembly Bill 1854.

The purpose of this bill is to do one simple thing, and that is to clarify and fortify California's existing shield laws that protect patients and medical providers who are receiving and providing, reproductive health care and gender affirming care. In light of what's happened in other states, doctors and patients involved in legally protected reproductive health care services in California are being increasingly targeted by aggressive out of state laws.

This ensures that law enforcement will not arrest anyone who has not had a governor's warrant of extradition signed, and it will also ensure that companies that receive subpoenas notify the attorney general's office that they have an opportunity to intervene if information is sought that relates to reproductive health care or gender affirming care services. With me today is the freedom for all, as well as the attorney general's office, the sponsor of this bill. Respectfully ask for your aye vote and happy to answer any questions.

Sure. Good morning, chair and members. Martin Radosevich, on behalf of Reproductive Freedom for All, as a proud supporters of AB 54 AB 1854 crawl. For more than fifty years, reproductive freedom for all has fought to protect and advance reproductive freedom at the federal and state levels, including access to abortion care, birth control, pregnancy, postpartum care, and paid family leave. We're powered by more than 4,000,000 members from every state in the country, representing eight in 10 Americans who support legal abortion.

California's existing shield laws were a critical step forward after the Dobbs decision, but the threats have escalated. Out of state actors are now using subpoenas, criminal investigations, civil actions, and extradition requests to target California providers for lawful care. We saw this firsthand in other states like Louisiana, who sought to extra extradite a California physician for prescribing abortion medication at a to a Louisiana resident.

A t AB 1854 responds directly to these tactics by expanding shield law protections to more California business and individuals who receive legal demands. It creates a notification process so the attorney general can inter intervene before improper disclosures occur.

Our members and patients and providers and advocates across the state depend depend on California to be a true safe haven, and this bill strengthens those requirements. For these reasons, we're proud to support AB 1854. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you for the presentation and, you, sir, for your testimony. Before we go to the opposition witness, we'll take the Me Too's in support of the bill. If you'd like to be heard in support of the bill, please come down at this time and state your name, organization, and position.

Good morning, chair and members. Natalia De Silva Tellez with Greenberg Tarrag on behalf of Equality California in support. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you very much. Final call. Anyone else hoping to be heard in support of the bill? Okay.

I see we have one opposition, witness. You'll have two minutes whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Good morning. My name is Jamie Reed. I hold a master's of science in clinical research management. I am a Lesbian, and I run a national gay and Lesbian organization dedicated to evidence based medicine.

I spent nearly five years working inside a pediatric gender center, the Washington University Transgender Center at Saint Louis Children's Hospital. That center is now closed. Not because of political opponents, it is closed because Aye, a liberal lesbian, came forward as a whistleblower and documented that the interventions you were trying to protect were harming the very children I was responsible for protecting. LGB Courage Coalition stands in opposition to AB 1854.

We oppose this bill because we know directly what pediatric gender medicine does to gender nonconforming young people.

The children who in an earlier area era would simply have grown up to be gay or lesbian. Medical transition pathways are being placed in front of children who are proto gay, proto lesbian, and gender nonconforming. This bill would further insulate the providers of those interventions from accountability. This is not a fringe concern.

Hernan Van Graddock, the former president of GLAAD, the organization that helped build the architecture to support these interventions, stated publicly just last month, I just think that we should completely stop doing anything that might harm children, even if it means that we admit that we got something very wrong.

And my understanding is that we have. Finland was among the first countries to adopt the pediatric gender medicine protocol, now practiced in California. This very week, a bombshell study came out of Finland, found no psychiatric improvement in youth following gender transition treatment. Sweden and The United Kingdom have done similar. The international scientific reckoning is already underway.

What Grattic is voicing is what I know from direct clinical experience. I was there. I was inside a pediatric gender center. I saw it. I had the courage to say so at significant personal cost.

California should not be in the business of shielding from scrutiny the medical practices that are currently producing the international reckoning. I welcome any questions, and we firmly are in opposition to bill AB 1854.

Thank you for your testimony. I see we have a second witness in opposition. Sir, you will also address the committee.

Chair members, my name is Greg Burt. I'm the vice president of the California Family Council. AB 1954 turns California into a legal fortress for abortion and gender transition industry, punishing any Californian who cooperates with another state's lawful investigation even when the activity happened outside our borders. This is a sweeping attempt to export the culture of death while shielding those who harm children and take innocent life.

This bill does not protect, it punishes Any person or entity in California that complies with a lawful subpoena from another state could face fines of fifth 10 to $15,000 for from our own attorney general.

That is not protecting health care. That is compelled obstruction of justice. And who pays the price? Families and children. Our witness here already mentioned the finished study that simply, came out a couple weeks ago.

2,000 asked asked, adolescents found that severe psychiatric problems were already high before these interventions, and critically, they did not improve after medical treatment with gender treatments. In fact, mental health disorders remained elevated or even worsened over time. These findings should give every member of this committee pause. The evidence is increasingly clear these sex rejecting procedures do not involve resolve underlying distress. They often deepen it.

AB 1954 doubles down anyway, shielding these interventions from scrutiny and accountability even across state lines. It tells providers no matter what harm is done, California will protect you. And it tells parents in other states, California will obstruct your efforts to protect your own children. This bill also places California organizations, including ministries and nonprofits and businesses, in an impossible situation, obey another state's lawful order or be punished here and refuse and face consequences there. It is not neutrality or discriminatory.

To cut you off there, but thank you. Thank you.

And if you stick around, there might be a question and more opportunity to add. Great. Thank you both. Next, we're gonna take the Me Too's in opposition to the bill.

Erin Friday, president of our duty, the group behind the Maravelli decision, the title nine and FTC investigations in California, and soon the investigations related to this bill because it violates the Minors Protection Internet Act. We oppose.

Hi. David Bullock representing LA County Moms for Liberty, SFB Alliance, TOPS taxpayer oversights for parents and students, and Loca Leave Our kids alone. We are all in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Final call for those hoping to register an opposition view with the committee. Okay. We had two opposition witnesses. I see that the second support witness arrived, so I will allow you to two minutes to address the committee, and then we will turn it over to the committee for questions and comments.

Okay. Thank you very much. Tiffany Brokaw, deputy attorney general in the office of legislative affairs here on behalf of attorney general Rob Bonta. And he is the proud sponsor of AB 1854, and we'd like to thank assembly member Krell for carrying this piece of legislation. AB 151854 clarifies and expands California's reproductive shield laws to protect patients, health care providers, and others involved in reproductive health care and gender affirming care that is legal in California.

Since California's shield laws took effect, anti abortion states have increased efforts to investigate and prosecute California providers, and some states have tried to extradite or take adverse legal actions against California doctors. AB 1854 addresses these issues by expanding shield log coverage to more California businesses and individuals who receive legal demands. It creates a notification process so that the attorney general can intervene and stop improper disclosures, and it clarifies that law enforcement cannot arrest someone if the California governor refuses an extradition request.

As the legal landscape continues to change nationwide, AB 1864 ensures California will remain a safe haven for reproductive access. And I have here with me, deputy attorney general, Haley Pennon, to answer any technical questions.

Thank you. We are set to ask for an aye vote.

Alright. Thank you all very much for your testimony. Now I'll turn it to the dais. Are there any questions or comments or motions from committee members? Okay.

Then, Assemblymember Krell, I just have one question, but perhaps you could address it in your close. Having heard some of the opposition testimony here today, I'm just wondering if you have any response that you'd like to leave with the committee. I don't see any other questions or comments from staff sorry, from committee members. So we'll allow this your opportunity to close, but anything you'd like to add would be great.

Thank you so much. Appreciate the opposition's concerns. I do think they're outside the scope of the scope of the bill. This bill merely deals with how sensitive information is shared. We have a subpoena process.

We have an arrest process. There's criminal investigations. There's civil investigations. This ensures that sensitive California information is protected, that our providers are protected, that our patients are protected from out of state investigations and criminal prosecutions that are increasingly targeting people who are receiving and providing health care that is legal here in California. This simply deals with how information is shared.

We appreciate the opposition concerns. I will say we've also heard some concerns from the California Hospitals Association, and we're working with them on amendments to ensure that, our timelines are consistent, with federal law, and that this bill is easy to implement. So, appreciate all the comments and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Alright. Thank you, assembly member. And again, thanks to everyone who testified today. Now would be the appropriate time. Is there a motion?

I think we will.

Is there a second? K. We have a motion by Ramos, a second by Gonzalez. Colleagues, the chair does recommend deny. I think it's a good bill.

An assembly member, should it pass out a committee today, would be honored to jump on the bill in a co author capacity. With that, let's take the role.

For item nine, AB 1854 by Assemblymember Carell, the motion is do passed to the Judiciary Committee. Schultz?

Aye.

Schultz, aye. Alanis? Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye.

Haney? Harabedian? Lackey?

No.

Lackey, no. Nguyen? Ramos? Aye. Ramos, aye.

Sharp Collins?

Okay. That measure will remain on call as we await absent members. Thank you, everybody. Okay. Assemblymember Bauer Kehan, I'm so sorry.

But assemblymember Elhawari had signed in earlier, so she is up next. As long as Mr. Keller or Miss Johnson don't show up, you will be right after her though. So thank you for your patience. Assembly member Elhawari, I have you listed here to present a v twenty three eighteen. Is that correct?

Yes, sir. And I also apologize to my colleague, and I will be quick. And we will all be quick. Correct? Okay.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. I am proud to present AB 2318, which makes it clear that when someone is under law enforcement control, officers cannot deny, delay, or obstruct access to medical care when it is safe and reasonable to provide it. It also requires documentation when care is delayed or denied. This bill comes from a real tragedy. Renee Nicole Good was shot, and eye witness video shows that agents delayed medical aid.

That delay matters. In those moments, access to care can mean the difference between life and death. This bill is about setting a clear standard. If someone is in custody, their access to medical care cannot be treated as optional. And if care is denied or delayed, there should be transparency around why.