Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

Thirty seconds. Okay. Good morning. I'd like to call to order this meeting of the Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety. As we begin today's hearing, we do not yet have a quorum, so we'll operate as a subcommittee. Just a few announcements. We have 26 bills on today's, public safety committee agenda. So I anticipate that we will continue into the afternoon.

We will have to recess the committee at 12:00, consent calendar. File item eight, SB 1018, by Senator Groove. File item 10, SB 1190 by Senator Grove. And file item 26, SB 1427 by the Committee on Public Safety. File item two, SB 906 by Senator Jones has been pulled from the agenda.

We will not hear that today. And as we begin today soon, just a few announcements on our public comment procedure. Thank you for joining us for today's public safety committee hearing. We will take two principal witnesses in support of each bill that were designated by the bill author and two witnesses in opposition. And witnesses in opposition should have registered the opposition officially in the portal prior to today's hearing.

After which, Shimon, let anyone to come up just to indicate whether you support or oppose the bill. We'll limit your testimony to stating your name, the organization, or what city you're from, and your position on the bill. And thank you for joining us today. So we'll begin first with our special order business. We now have two items on the special order filed in one SB 1446 by the Committee on Public Safety and filing three SB 1278 by Senator Nilo.

And I will present, SB 1446. So I'll turn the gavel over to the vice chair.

Alright. We have an author for SB 1446. Mister chair, go ahead with your report.

Mister Vice Chair, Committee Members, for the public, the release of somebody back into the community after serving a significant amount of time in custody for the conviction of serious crimes can be confusing and unsettling. That's why California law, similar to other states, does not treat parole suitability decisions lightly. To be suitable, an initial parole hearing panel consisting of two commissioners must evaluate and agree whether a person will pose an unreasonable risk to danger to society if released from prison.

Even after applying the law faithfully and evaluating all the facts in forensic interviews, parole commission decisions aren't final. They are subject to internal review, the governor's review, and ultimately review by other commissioners.

It has come to light during these reviews, known as an en banc review, that there is a need to provide additional discretion in order to further the goals that we can all agree on, ensuring the release of only those who do not pose any reasonable risk of danger to society. We can appreciate that these parole decisions aren't easy. There are lots of things to balance, due process rights, public safety risk, victims, and the public's interest.

In order to honor prior federal court decisions that required California to implement measures to reduce prison overcrowding and establish additional parole mechanisms while still providing the flexibility for the state of California to balance these various interests, paramount being public safety, Senate Bill 1446 provides additional discretion for en banc review while still ensuring that those decisions are transparent in order to protect the general public.

The amendments reflect our attempt to fine tune that process as we continue to have conversations with criminal justice partners and the board of parole hearings to advance our shared goals to ease the public while respecting the constitutional civil rights of everyone in the process.

With that I ask respectfully for an I vote on SB 1446, I do not have any principal witnesses in support of the bill.

Alright. Without any principal witnesses, we'll ask people who are in favor of the bill if they'd like to express that by coming up to the mic, state your name, the organization you represent, and your support for the bill. You can do that now. If not, I will ask for any are you gonna go ahead? Okay.

Thank you, sir.

Good morning, Mister Vice Chair on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, my name is Matthew Greco. We're here in support.

Thank you, sir. Okay. At this time, we'll take anybody who would like to be a principal primary witness against the measure. You can come up, sit in these couple of Chairs wherever you're comfortable, but it has to be these two chairs. And, yeah, you each have two minutes.

And because of the length of our hearing today, we're really gonna try to, stay on that two minute. Whichever of you would like to start first, you may go proceed. There you go. You're on.

Thank you to the esteemed Chair, to the Vice Chair, and Members of the public safety committee for your thoughtful consideration of the parole process. My name is James King. I serve as director of programs for the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. I'm here today in respectful opposition to SB 1446, a bill which would loosen restrictions on the the parole hearing process and make an already conservative process considerably more restrictive. Doge me for a moment

as a formerly incarcerated person who went through the parole process and the en banc process, I never thought I'd be testifying not to change the current system. Of the 21 parole commissioners, 17 come from a law enforcement background. They're former wardens, police officers, and prosecutors. Before finding anyone suitable, they review all documentation from the parole candidate's incarceration history. They review a comprehensive risk assessment conducted by a forensic psychologist.

And finally, they hold a hearing with survivors in the district office district attorney's office also often participating. Following a rigorous assessment, they make their determination and afterward, the decision is reviewed to ensure it's factually and legally correct. Additionally, the psychologist provides the board with information about risk to others including risk of sexual violence or other violence, so a second assessment by the state mental hospitals as proposed by this bill would be redundant. The governor initiated en banc referral stand as the final check-in the system.

The current guardrails around what the en banc panel considers protects the process from undue political influence.

We can imagine a future governor who takes issue with the very notion of second chances. I personally empathize deeply with the survivors and the Ella Baker Center and allied organizations strongly support investments in better victim services to make survivors and their families whole to every extent possible. We must emphasize, however, that removing the existing guardrails subverts our art towards a more just and balanced system. Thank you.

Thank you very much, and thank you for adhering to the two minutes. You may begin your testimony.

Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. Thank you for allowing me to be here. My name is Darby Onoshek and I'm an attorney at Uncommon Law, an organization that represents people serving life sentences in California. I'm here today to oppose SB 1446 which would create confusion, reduce integrity and waste resources without improving safety for any of us. First, the bill changes the en banc review process for certain parole grants.

This will create confusion and inconsistency by subjecting grants to different review processes solely based on when the review was requested. Additionally, changing the substantive standard of review raises ex post facto concerns that will likely lead to costly litigation. Finally, rescinding a parole decision without holding a rescission hearing would very likely be unconstitutional under the cases Inray Pruitt and Morrissey v Brewer. Second, this bill would publicize the names and votes of commissioners in en banc decisions.

Those decisions are supposed to be based on law and evidence, but this bill would force commissioners to decide whether following the law is worth getting harassed, doxed, or worse.

Finally, this bill would expand the SBP process to include people serving life sentences, ensnaring already strained resources of state and county agencies in order to duplicate the analysis that the California parole board already does without any analysis needing to be redone. California already has one of the lowest parole grant rates in the country. And our parole board is even more conservative when it comes to people convicted of sex offenses with grant rates dropping to as low as five percent.

The few people who are granted parole have an exceptionally low recidivism rate of less than three percent. Everyone in this room wants and deserves public safety.

But no matter what your vision of public safety looks like, sinking resources into a problem that does not exist will not achieve that vision. Thank you.

Thank you.

To wrap up. Thank you. Alright. Anybody else who wishes to express opposition to this bill can come to the microphone, express your opposition and name and organization you represent.

Good morning. Glenn Backus, entering the opposition of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office. Thank you.

Good morning. Lily Perotori Uncommon Law in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Marco George on behalf of the California Public Defender's Association in opposition.

Good morning. Israel Via with the California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice in respectful opposition.

Alright. Thank you all for your testimony and coming up and expressing your opinions today. At this time, we'll bring it back to the dais, which is, I guess, just me. You may close.

Well well, thank you, Mister Chair.

You know, what this bill does is one specifies that the governor, when the governor requests an en banc review, that commissioners have additional discretion to evaluate the granting panel's decision, specifies that the decision, the vote of the commissioners during an en banc review are public record, and clarifies that the of Corrections or Rehabilitation may refer an any incarcerated person, whether serving an indeterminate sentence or a determinate sentence to the State Department of Hospitals for sexually violent predator evaluation if they meet the criteria and either scheduled to be released or up for parole.

The amendments that we are also making to the bill clarify that the standard review is whether the granting panel's decision was supported by substantial evidence while still deferring to the panel's factual findings and credibility determinations, not substantially changing the criteria that the, the board of parole commissioners would consider in the process of determining whether, a person is suitable for parole.

Clarifies that the commissioners are viewing a parole decision have the discretion to order a new hearing, rescind the proposed decision not based on new information or set the case for rescission, requires

the en banc decision to include a statement of reasons. And once again clarifies that c d the CDCR referral for SBP evaluation happened six months prior to the incarcerated person's parole hearings. I just wanna clarify what the bill does and what the amendments would do.

Once again, it's it's largely preserving the criteria and discretion of the board of parole commissioners, but ensuring that when there's an en banc review, that the commissioners would not just consider the public record, but need to look at whether there's substantial evidence to support the determination. And I agree that in most instances, the the determinations on parole suitability, are supported by the evidence and balanced public safety interests, with whether the individual, is suitable for parole.

We certainly know of some recent, very high profile, decisions by the board of parole commissioners of sexually violent predators who've been released. And, really, this is intending to to clarify the law, to improve the process, to make sure we're balancing public safety, and also making sure that people that are suitable for parole can be considered for parole with that I respectfully ask for an aye vote. I will.

Thank you very much for your testimony on your bill today. We do not have a quorum right now. So we will take the vote up later when we do establish a quorum. Thank you all for being here. And we will be moving on to the next item as soon as I pass the gavel.

Okay. Our next bill in the special order business is file item three, SB 1278 by Senator Niello. I see the Senator present. Good morning.

And if there are any principal witnesses, Senator, they're welcome to join us. And ever whenever you're ready to present, Senator, you may begin.

Good morning.

Thank you very much. I appreciate that. So today, I am presenting, SB 1278. Some bills are about policy. Some are about process.

This bill is about people and the lifelong trauma inflicted on victims, SB 1278 asks a simple but very important question. Should the worst predators be eligible for release simply because they turn 50? Under current law, California allows individuals convicted of heinous sexual crimes to become eligible for parole after just twenty years served regardless of sentence, and after reaching the elderly age of 50. That eligibility is not theoretical. It's happening.

And I'll talk about a few. In 1999, serial child predator David Funston was convicted by a jury of kidnapping and sexually assaulting seven children all under seven years of age. One victim was five years old, kidnapped, and taken to the remote mountains for hours, horrifically assaulted, and later abandoned on the side of the road. She was found beaten, crying, and wandering alone. She could have been killed.

He then lured a four year old girl into his vehicle. He took her to a residence, bathed with her, dressed her in different clothing, held a knife to her throat, and forced multiple sex acts on her causing bleeding. I apologize for being so graphic, but this is an important part of the issue. Funston was convicted of multiple crimes. The judge sentenced Funston to the Max, three life terms plus twenty years, telling him, and I quote the judge, you are the monster parents fear most.

There is no man on the face of this earth who deserves this sentence more than you, mister Funston. He was sentenced to die in prison yet under California's elderly parole law, he is eligible for parole. He has been deemed safe to reenter society. And the only reason he was not released was because Placer County has arrested him on another child abuse case from 1996. They chose not to prosecute at the time because there was no concern he would ever get out of prison.

Yet here we are. Now consider Gregory Vogelsang, nearly 30 counts of sexual abuse involving children ages five to 11. A sentence of three fifty five years. These are not one time mistakes. These are patterns of calculated, might one say, habitual repeated harm.

Even if parole is denied, the process itself causes damage. It reopens old wounds wounds by forcing families and victims to revisit trial trial records, review graphic as evidence, prepare statements, and sometimes testify in person forced to face the perpetrator and prove once again why sometimes people think that criminals have more rights than victims. SB 1278 makes a clear targeted change by excluding enhanced sentences for rape, sodomy, lewd acts, and habitual or serial sexual offenses from eligibility, for elder parole.

This bill does not eliminate elder parole. It draws a line where it matters most.

These sentences are not arbitrary. They reflected the severity, the pattern, and the irreparable harm of their crimes. SB 1278 ensures that those sentences are respected, and victims are respected, and not forced back into the system again and again. California already recognizes limits in other parole programs such as the youth offender parole program, which excludes certain sex offenses, offenses, offenses from eligibility. The opposition argued that elderly parole program is cost saving, and that money could be better spent elsewhere like roads, etcetera.

But I ask you, is cost saving worth the revictimization of people? Is it worth the sleepless nights or living in fear? The thought of what if they do it again? SB 1278 is about drawing a moral line to commit to protect the victims, respect sentences, and recognize that some crimes leave permanent scars. Turning 50 does not absolve people from of their crimes or heal the wounds of survivors.

I have as a witness here, Matt Greco, San Diego DA office.

Hi. Good morning. You have two minutes to adjust the committee on the bill.

Thank you.

You wanna move the microphone closer. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair and hopefully, that won't count against my two minutes. Thank you, Chair and Vice Chair. My name is Matthew Greco. I'm a Deputy District Attorney in San Diego, which is a, cosponsor of the bill. I'm also here on behalf of the California District Attorney's Association, in support of, SB 1278, which strengthens public safety by excluding dangerous sex offenders from eligibility under the elderly parole program.

Recently California's elderly parole program made headlines for the Reese, release of Gregory Vogelsang. Vogelsang is a 57 year old sex offender convicted of 30 counts of kidnapping and sex crimes against multiple children between the ages of 5 and 11 in the 1990's. Vogelsang was released after serving only 27 of his three fifty five year sentence to the surprise and disappointment of mothers and fathers and victims. And the entire community was shocked. 355 was a 90% off sale for their victimization.

Vogelsang was released. And his release occurred on the heels of a board of parole hearings decision to release David Funston after serving only twenty years of seventy five years of his life sentence for 16 counts of kidnapping and child molestation. SB 1278 appropriately ensures that individuals like Vogelstein and Funston convicted of violent sexual offenses remain ineligible for parole early, early parole consideration.

Specifically, this bill would exclude from the elderly parole program the crimes of rape, sodomy, oral copulation, lewd or lascivious acts with the child, sexual penetration. This bill would also exclude sex offender sentence under the one strike law and sentenced as habitual sexual offenders.

California has made significant efforts in recent years to reform the parole system, but those efforts must be balanced with the need to protect the public and respect the rights of crime victims. SB 1278 would not repeal the statutory elderly parole program. SB 1278 simply seeks to narrow the eligibility criteria for elderly parole. Inmates would still be eligible for

Thank you. If you can please complete your comments.

Thank you.

For these reasons-

If I could say my my second witness is not here.

Oh, okay.

So perhaps he could have a little bit more minutes. Certainly. Thank you.

I'm almost done. I will wrap it up. I understand we're under time pressure. So thank you. Would still be eligible for a three judge panel.

For all of these reasons, San Diego, District Attorney's Office and CDA is happy, to support SB 1278 and would urge this committee, committees aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll now take any members of the public wishing to express support for SB 1278. If you can please push the microphone and say your name, organization, and position on the bill. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for SB 1278? Okay.

Seeing no one come forward, we'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to the bill. And you'll have two minutes to address the committee, meet you testimony of those in opposition to SB 1278.

Good morning. Thank you for your time. My name is Lily Perotori, and I'm the director of legal services at Uncommon Law, where for nearly a decade, I've represented people convicted of serious and violent crimes, including crimes of sexual violence in the parole process. And I'm in respectful opposition of this bill. From my work, I understand and acknowledge how deeply harmful crimes of sexual violence are.

My opposition to this bill in no way discounts those experiences and harms. And instead, my opposition is rooted in my belief that this bill will not result in increased levels of public safety. Instead, this bill will unravel the progress California has made in safely releasing rehabilitated parole candidates and accelerate fear based policies that put politics over public safety. The elderly program for parole is strenuous. To be granted parole after a conviction for sexual violence is extremely difficult.

The Parole Board requires evidence based programming regarding sexual violence, positive psychological evaluations, and a battery of tests examining risk for future sexual violence, and robust parole plans ensured continued compliance with sex offender treatment. When the Board does grant parole, which it does in only sixteen percent of scheduled scheduled elderly parole hearings, it's because the evidence overwhelmingly supports the decision. The public narrative that people convicted of sexual violence are especially dangerous and cannot change is false, and carving them out of this program is not evidence based.

There has never been a single documented case of sexual re offense from this program. Aging also significantly impacts sexual recidivism.

Most people convicted of sexual offenses do not re offend, and the likelihood of re offense declines significantly with age. Data is clear. The carve outs in this bill are simply not based in the facts. And last, these carve outs are also wasteful of taxpayer dollars. The health care costs alone to incarcerate someone over the age of 70 are almost $140,000 a year.

We should be investing that money in real healing for survivors and the people in our prisons who are ready to come home. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chair, Members of the public safety hearing for your thoughtful consideration of the matter before you. My name is James King. I'm director of programs at the Ella Baker Center, and I'm before you today in opposition to SB 1278, a bill we believe will substantially harm efforts to incentivize rehabilitation for people with very serious convictions. As my colleague noted, the current parole board hearing process is extremely conservative and rigorous.

Of those who do earn their way out through the parole board hearings, the overwhelming majority stay out.

Currently, only two to four percent of people who are released through this process recidivate and less than one percent are convicted of new crimes against people. Once released, those who fall under the category we are discussing today undergo an extensive post release post release parole supervision process. They're typically given ankle monitors, weekly lie detector tests, extensive mandated self help programming, frequent check ins with their parole officers. These conditions may extend for the remainder of their lifetimes unless extraordinary circumstances demonstrate otherwise.

People in prison with the types of convictions this bill includes already face significant barriers to pursuing rehabilitation.

Undermining incentives to them pursuing change will send the wrong message. Lastly, elderly parole is not a get out of jail early card. It's an opportunity for the commissioners to do a careful review of whether it is still within the state's best interest to incarcerate them, knowing that elderly people are not only the least likely cohort to recidivate, they are also the cohort that most significantly drives the cost of incarceration.

The elderly parole process was initially authorized by the federal receivership that oversees our correctional system, not due to altruism or a lack of empathy for survivors and victims, but because our rapidly aging prison population is a solvable problem. Making elderly parole more restrictive risk undermining the progress California has made towards making our correctional system constitutionally compliant.

We've been down that road before, and we know it doesn't work. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll invite any members of the public wishing to express opposition to SB 1278 to please come forward and state your name, organization, and position on the bill. I'm assuming you're in support.

Yes. Yes.

Good good assumption. Sorry for speaking out of turn, but Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association supported the bill.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB 1278?

Israel Via with CYCJ in support. I mean, in opposition. I'm sorry.

Good morning, Chair, Members. George Parem, through on behalf of ACLU California Action in respect of opposition. Thank you.

Luis Rojas with the Peace and Justice Law Center in opposition.

Good morning. Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Mica Doctoroff on behalf of Smart Justice California in opposition.

Darby Ahonasek with Uncommon Law in respectful opposition.

Adrianna Griffith with Initiate Justice in opposition.

Anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB 1278? Okay. We'll bring it back to the dais. Any questions or comments? Vice Chair Seyarto.

Thank you and thank you for tackling this. I know it's controversial for some. It's not controversial for me. I don't consider 50 years old to be old at all. In fact, I don't consider 60 year old to be old at all.

That's just a number. And, and, this process that has been developed in the in the interest of justice, does not provide justice for families. I've seen it firsthand. I have a a friend of our families who who their four year old was was killed, strangled, probably molested, but they didn't charge him for that because they were getting him on murder. And they thought he was going away for life.

But since he's turned 50, he's had three parole hearings. Three. Every couple of years, they drag him out, have him answer the questions. Unfortunately, they're not coaching him enough how to answer them right. And so he always gets stumped on one of the questions.

And and even though we are beating up on the parole board today, they did the right thing this time. They put them away back back away for five more years. But every time that happens, they have to come out. They have to relive this nightmare that happened to their daughter. And you can just read it in the transcripts.

It's it's brutal. In this is lost. We we lose this this concept that prison is yeah. We try to rehabilitate people. Some people deserve rehabilitative efforts and they respond to those real but there's also a justice for the victims part of this.

There is no therapy for having your four year old strangled and killed. The therapy is that person doesn't ever get out. They chose to do that act, and that's what they chose for themselves. If there was a death penalty, they would get the death penalty. There since we do not have that, they get to go away and spend the rest of their lives.

I don't care till they're 90 thinking about what they did to that family. And that family should never ever have to worry about even a 90 year old getting out because somehow he's paid the price for killing a four year old. So I see this as a whole different type of issue. And and part of that is this nonsense that we've come up with elderly parole and started it at 50. So this bill makes sense, at least a little bit.

It moves it to 60 or or the the the number is 60 for these. But these sexually violent predators, there's just no way. No way you can reconcile that with the general public out there. Because if that guy, mister Funston, moved next door to you guys, anybody in this room, You know what? You'd move.

You'd move. Can't tell me any different. Because if you wouldn't, then you should step up and offer the parole board a a a room in your house or the house next door. If you want these folks running around out in the out in the public. And if you don't think there were a public safety risk, hey, you know, bring them in.

Take care of them. So, yes, I will be supporting your bill, and I hope that we arrive at some kind of sense that this is about justice for victims as well. And they and that comes first, not second or third. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Senator, I'll turn over you to close.

I appreciate that. So it was, first of all, I'm not here to argue against elderly parole. Although, I do think we ought to rethink what is elderly. Originally, the three judge panel placed it at 60. And for some reason, the legislature felt it wise to reduce that to 50.

But nonetheless, I'm not arguing against that program, generally. Nor am I arguing against rehabilitation or existing incentives for rehabilitation. But there are some crimes that not just with regard to sensitivity and respecting the rights of victims, But there are some crimes behaviors that suggest that rehabilitation that is overcoming that person's burning desire to do those horrible heinous acts cannot be changed.

Mister Vogel saying in the evaluations prior to his initial decision to be released, said that he was still attracted to young boys between the ages of 5 and 12. And yet the first panel decided to release him.

The it was stated that this bill would not make us more safe. I would suggest that not passing this bill, particularly if mister Vogelsang had been released and he was the only reason he wasn't released was because of public outcry. He'd be out on the streets now. I would suggest that not passing this bill, that would make things less safe. We must respect victims.

Yes. And we must respect at least pay initial respect to initial sentencing and look behind the behavior that motivated that very severe sentencing. Not in all cases of elder elderly parole consideration, but in some that are particularly heinous. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much, Senator. Thank you for joining us today. We do not yet have a quorum, but we're entering a motion when we establish a quorum. Thank you. Thank you.

So that completes our special order business at the top of our agenda. And so we we do take up measures and file order, but do you have an agreement to let Senator Artuleta go first? Okay. Thank you. So, with the agreement of the authors present, we'll proceed now to file item 21, Senate Bill 1354 by Senator Archuleta.

Good morning.

And if you have any witnesses, Senator, they could please join us.

Yes. I do.

Whatever you're ready to present. Okay.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, thank you, and committee members. I wanna start off by accepting the committee amendments and thank committee staff for working with me and engage with me on this bill. We work for quite a number of hours to reach that agreement, but we have.

Members, it's with great sense of duty that I present Senate Bill 1354, which would prohibit military personnel not operating under Title 10 from another state, territory, or district to enter California to perform military or law enforcement functions without the express permission of the Governor of the State of California.

The bill's clear prohibition is on out-of-state, unapproved military activity, reinforces the Governor's constitutional authority as our commander in chief here in the state of California, which includes state militia. It ensures California retains control over any armed or law enforcement operations conducted within its borders. Unfortunately, California is well aware of what it's like to have a national guard activated in our state without the express permission from our Governor. California should not live in fear of unwanted military involvement from any other state National guard.

I want to clarify this bill does not affect the activation of the guard under Title 10.

This legislation would not impact current mutual aid agreements, such as the Emergency Management Assistant Compact, or prohibit outside military personnel from attending schools or training here in California. At least seven other states have passed similar legislation that prohibits outside forces from entering their states, including Maryland, Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Idaho, North Carolina, and Washington. Oregon currently has legislation pending similar to our bill. This measure perhaps will prevent misuse of military power.

With me today is Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, and I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Well, thank you, Senator. Before I go to Miss George, I just wanna summarize the amendment that the author has accepted, that the committee requested. It's Section 570, Subsection B, striking the criminal penalty. And the reason for that is technically, the criminal penalty would be against individual service members who were deployed. And I think the issue is the executive, or the president, or whoever, is deploying those individuals.

The Attorney General can still enforce the statute and file legal action against a particular state that's in violation of the statute. So there are penalties and accountability mechanisms in the bill. So I just wanna summarize that amendment. I'll turn over to Miss George to present.

Good morning. Thank you. Margo George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. And thank you to the author and to the committee for the amendment. The California Public Defenders Association is proud to support SB 1354, which sends a clear message to the governors of other states who might be tempted to send their state National Guard units to California without their express request or permission of the Governor.

SB 1354 would make it illegal for military personnel from another state or territory to enter California to perform military law enforcement functions without the express permission of the governor. And according to the amendment would apparently give the Attorney General the authority to enforce that. Californians are grateful for the assistance that the Nevada and Wyoming National Guard provided in multiple air and ground fighting efforts, as the wildfires raged across the Los Angeles Basin and Southern California in January 2025.

Although it's unclear if other states' National Guards were mobilized and arrived in Los Angeles in June 2025, a number of states volunteered their National Guard to assist with immigration enforcement and other states in Washington DC. Responding to request from Trump, GOP governors from nine states have agreed to activate their guard troops under Title 32 for deployment in the District of Columbia.

Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Tennessee. As public defenders, we have long witnessed how unauthorized and overly aggressive law enforcement actions, particularly those involving militarized tactics and racial profiling, inflict deep and lasting harm on our clients and communities. SB 1354 is a critical safeguard affirming that Californians will not tolerate unlawful or uncoordinated incursions by outside state or federal forces that threaten our residents' constitutional rights, safety, and peace of mind.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for SB 1354? You can please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

You should be able to speak.

Luis Rojas, with the Peace and Justice Law Center, in support.

Thank you.

Israel Villa, with the California Alliance for Youth & Community Justice, in support.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to express support for SB 1354? Seeing no one come forward, we'll take up to two principal witnesses in opposition, SB 1354. Seeing no one come forward, we'll take anyone wishing to express opposition to SB 1354.

Okay. Seeing no one come forward, I'll bring it back to the dais. Thank you, Senator, for this bill. This is extremely important. Thank you for working with our committee staff on the amendment, which does give the Attorney General the authority to enforce this against any governor, or president, or federal agency that seeks to send military personnel into our state without us requesting them to come.

It's unfortunate that we have to take this action, but I think this is a critical measure to protect our state and to ensure that other states and our federal government are acting within the bounds of our Constitution.

And as a proud veteran and somebody who served this country, I really appreciate you bringing this forward. I'll turn over to close.

Good. Thank you. And of course, committee members, I respectfully ask for your eye vote.

Okay. Thank you. We don't have a quorum, so we'll obtain a motion when we establish a quorum. But thank you, Senator. We'll proceed now to the back and file order to File Item 6, SB 926 by Senator Strickland.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Members, I'm here this morning to present SB 926. Proposition 36, The Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act, was approved by the voters with 68% of the vote on November 2024 general election ballot. Notably, it passed all 58 counties, affirmatively. I've been an active a long time.

I can't recall the last initiative that passed all 58 counties. Its provisions are now in state law and in effect, having added sections to the Health and Safety Code, the Penal Code, and the Government Code. The purpose of my bill is simple and straightforward. It was introduced to provide funding for the implementation and ongoing administration of this law. The cities, counties and public officials of the state are required to implement the new provisions of this law.

I believe that the state should be providing adequate funding for our cities and counties to implement this initiative. I would hope that each of you would join me in supporting our cities and counties and believe that together, we can obtain the necessary funding. The most essential role of government is public safety. I have discussed this bill with the Chair and the committee and proposed amendments. I thank the Chair and his staff for his cooperation and accept the committee amendments.

Those amendments remove the specific appropriation while recognizing the program services and functions that require the funding, so we can continue to work on this issue. So I wanna make sure we are understanding. I'm accepting the committee's amendments in order to get this moving forward. And I also, it's in your committee analysis, that I requested the budget funding through the normal budget process. With me today are two witnesses who provide comments.

Jolena Voorhis from the League of California Cities and Amy Costa from the Chief Probation Officers of California and the California State Sheriffs Association, and the California District Attorneys Association. Thank you for being here.

Alright. Thank you. And each of you will have two minutes. Go ahead.

I'm gonna clock in at a minute. Good morning. My name is Amy Costa. Good morning, Mr. Chair. As stated, I'm here on behalf of the California State Sheriffs Association, the California District Attorneys Association, and the Chief Probation Officers of California in support of SB 926.

Unfortunately, many of us have a personal experience with a loved one who has struggled with substance use disorder. We know how incredibly difficult it can be for those battling addiction to successfully complete treatment. It is even more difficult and complex for justice-involved individuals to overcome substance use disorder. Successful completion of treatment for substance use disorders, whether someone is justice-involved or not, requires support.

For individuals who are justice-involved, it requires treatment support and a full system response to provide them the best chance at rehabilitation.

These support services ensure individuals are paired with the best treatment options for their unique circumstances and assistance to complete their treatment. SB 926 provides a reasonable funding methodology for providing local governments with funding to provide both treatment and support services. Counties are managing increasingly complex cases requiring structured treatment, physical detention, and increased monitoring. This methodology also ensures people can be served in a variety of environments. Many of the individuals who are in our jails will need treatment and support.

Probation is critical in connecting the court's treatment and accountability. Probation is seeing impacts in our pretrial caseloads and can be instrumental during drug court or felony probation when Prop 36 defendants are not in an incarcerated setting. The committee amendments would make the amount of funding subject to legislative appropriation. Recently, the Senate Budget Committee released its state budget plan, which did include funding for exactly this purpose.

We look forward to continuing these conversations with policymakers to ensure these local efforts, which provide the best chance at treatment success, are funded. We thank the author for bringing forward this important measure, and we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Next speaker.

Mr. Chair and members, Jolena Voorhis, on behalf of the League of California Cities. We are in support of SB 926, which would provide that Proposition 36 fund to be provided to key services and supports. As the Senator said, if you go back to 2024, remember, we're experiencing a lot of smash and grabs, organized retail theft, shoplifting, and people were seeing this in their everyday lives in the grocery stores and retailers.

In 2024, the voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 36, which made changes to existing law related to fentanyl, organized retail theft, and shoplifting, and created a new treatment mandate felony. For the League of California Cities, one of the key reasons they were in support of Proposition 36 was due to the focus on treatment and diversion, not on returning to mass incarceration.

Last year, the legislature provided a 100 million to fund the implementation of Proposition 36 with funding to behavioral health, trial courts, and public defenders. However, absence from this list of services is funding for probation and other assessment needs for these very complex cases. As proposed to be amended, SB 926 will provide, upon appropriation, funding the key services needed to provide treatment and services.

These amendments are consistent with Cal City's priority and advocacy related to Proposition 36 and the budget request submitted by Senator Blakespear and Assemblymember Nguyen. And this bill would continue to emphasize the legislature's priority to fund Proposition 36 and address the will of the voters.

For these reasons, we are in support of this bill and urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you very much. At this time, people, if you're in support of the bill, may come up and state your name, your support, and then your organization that you represent.

Thank you, senators. Paul Yoder, on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists. They just took a support position very end of the week. I owe you a letter, but urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good morning. On behalf of the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department, the Orange County Sheriff's Department, and the San Bernardino County Police Chiefs and Sheriffs Association, in support.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to express support for SB 926? Seeing no one else. Would now take two principal witnesses in opposition to SB 926. Is anyone wishing to testify?

And you'll each have two minutes to address the committee on the bill.

Who would like to begin?

Great. Thank you. I'll start. Good morning, Chair, members, staff. Capri Walker with Californians for Safety and Justice, or CSJ, here today in respectful opposition to SB 926, the Funding of Prop 36 Act, authored by Senator Strickland.

While we acknowledge the voters intent with Prop 36 and the need for increased investments in behavioral health, even with the recent amendments, SB 926 is a fiscally reckless solution that fundamentally misallocate the state's resources. As California faces a significant budget shortfall and ongoing cuts to federal funding, this bill would funnel hundreds of millions of dollars from the general fund into sheriff's county probation and other entities without necessary transparency or accountability guardrails. Our opposition is rooted in three critical concerns. First, fiscal irresponsibility.

Diverting general fund resources at this time is unsustainable, particularly when those funds are funneled towards agencies that already have established revenue streams while leaving out essential providers impacted by Prop 36 implementation, like indigent defense. We cannot prioritize a flawed funding bill when our essential investments in behavioral health, food security, housing and health care are at risk.

Next, lack of accountability. SB 926 fails to include robust guidance on how funds will be divided among receiving entities. It creates a new public safety services support fund but lacks the guardrails to ensure these dollars are used effectively.

Thirdly, redundant funding. This bill overlooks existing resources already flowing to the same, these same agencies. Specifically, the $2,000,000,000 annual investment through AB 109, which design which is designed for the exact purpose of managing and rehabilitating non-serious, non violent offenders at the county level. California cannot afford to fund redundancies while life-saving public safety services are at the risk of collapse. Like our trauma recovery centers or our TRCs, without immediate state action, thousands of survivors will lose access to these critical services that the TRCs provide.

Furthermore, the Senate Democrats have maintained a $100,000,000 allocation for Prop 36 in the 26/27 budget plan, and we believe the annual budget process for fiscal fiscally responsible venue for these conversations and decisions

You're you're at times. Please complete your comments.

While we fully endorse dedicating more resources to behavioral health and treatment, the bill is misguided, and rather than addressing the most urgent, treatment-centered needs for our communities, the bill shifts funding towards probation departments and loosely defined entities. For these reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Hi, good morning.

Yeah, good morning, Chair, committee, staff, committee members. My name is Claudia Gonzalez. I'm a Senior Program Associate at Vera California. We are a local initiative of the Vera Institute of Justice, a criminal justice advocacy and research organization. I'm here today to strongly oppose SB 927 by Senator Strickland.

SB 926 seeks $400,000,000 in funding for Prop 36, a 2024 initiative that misled voters. Prop 36 promised expanded treatment and to end homelessness. It has delivered neither. While SB 926 would deliver needed funding for treatment, it will not address the reasons this policy has failed so far. Proponents of Prop 36 explicitly said to voters, "Proposition 36 is not about going back to an era of mass incarceration.

This is about creating a new era of mass treatment for the underlying condition, fueling so many thefts and driving so many people into homelessness." As jail populations statewide continue increasing towards pandemic levels, it is clear this is not true. In addition to funding treatment, this bill delivers a massive influx of funding to incarcerate people. In an earlier draft of the bill, the bill suggested that only one-third of funding would go to treatment. This is not what California voted for.

A recent poll asked more than 5,000 Californians what the state should prioritize to funding to support Prop 36. 59% said treatment and 56% said transitional housing and job training. On the other hand, only 22% just said jails and courts. But lack of treatment funding is not the only reason this is not working. A judicial council report found only 17% of people charged with treatment-mandated felonies have opted to receive treatment.

This suggests that coercing people into treatment is not as effective as high quality voluntary and community based treatment. Unfortunately, Prop 36 takes money away from many of these programs. Under Prop 36, Californias are still languishing in jail instead of receiving treatment. They are being charged with harsh felonies that make it more difficult for them to find housing, jobs, second opportunities, and rebuild stable lives. This is why

To interrupt. If you can, please complete your comment.

Yes. This is why one in four voters believes the state should repeal Prop. 36. California should invest in real solutions to homelessness and addiction. And for this reason, we ask the legislature to please reject SB 926. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB 926? Please set your name, organization, position on the bill.

Good morning. Glenn Backes for Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in opposition. We will review the amendments. We'll likely still be opposed, but we will review and consider.

Thank you.

Good morning. Evan Fern with Disability Rights California in opposition.

Luis Rojas with the Peace and Justice Law Center in opposition.

Israel Villa with California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice in opposition.

Thank you.

Carlos Montoya with the All Youth Are Sacred in opposition.

Shivani Nishar, on behalf of Drug Policy Alliance, we will also review the amendments, but currently in opposition.

Good morning. Alex Tuchman with the Los Angeles County Public Defender's Office Union Local 148, in opposition.

Mica Doctroff on behalf of Smart Justice California. We're also opposed and will review the amendments.

Good morning, Marco George, we'll review the amendments, but at this point, we remain opposed on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. Thank you.

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

And apologies. Ryan Morimune with California State Association of Counties in support of SB 926.

Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB 926?

Okay. Seeing no one come forward, I'll bring it back to the dais. I just wanna summarize the amendments and thank you for the author, to working with the committee. The amendments to the following, delete the $400,000,000 appropriation. That's something that will be addressed through the budget process. I'll note that the Senate Democrats do have a proposed a $100,000,000 in this in their budget plan.

Delete police and district attorneys as being eligible for the grant program. So if this bill were to pass in the sum of the governor, funding would be prioritized for county Behavioral Health Departments by treatment, to support interventions in the community offset incarceration costs, to county probation departments, and for administrative costs.

And to delete the word fully from subdivision d, because the the prior language said that, prior language said that, that the, governor shall include a proposed transfer to, forever amount sufficient to fully fund, the ongoing, administration of the Prop 36 Act. And, you know, this is ultimately, gonna be addressed through the budget process, and we need to determine what the sufficient amount is, and other conforming changes. So thank you to the author for working with us on these amendments and Vice Chair Seyarto.

Thank you very much, and thank you for bringing a bill that shouldn't be necessary because the, the voters already spoke on this. You don't get to come up and and and undo the voters' will. We we can't make a law that says that. You'd have to go through a petition process, a referendum process, and, put it back on the ballot and, put it in in in in words of what you want to do.

The issue here is that, no, Proposition 36 has not worked out as intended because we haven't funded it. And we haven't funded the adjacent the other, the the the infrastructure that's required for these things to work the right way.

In order for a proposition 36 person to come through and choose that drug treatment over jail, there has to be a judge, there has to be facilities, there has to be probation to follow-up on them, to make sure that they got the treatment and that they didn't didn't just come in and say, yes. I'm gonna go get treatment and go out and not get treatment. That whole thing, if if we don't fund, we we can't complain that it's not working.

Yeah. All this is telling us is all, the the voters said "would they want to help?" That's what I've been hearing for four years. We need to help these people get off their addictions because that's why they're doing their crimes. But then we underfund every piece of what's going to help them.

And our and and the what we were doing before, just simply trying to fund the the the help that's out there for them, and and having, you know, trying to fund that and and having it be a choice that they make before they do their crime, they're not doing it. They're not making that choice. So, what we're left with is, we need, we have work to do, and it's a priority because the the the residents, the voters in California told us it's a priority.

And and if we wanna help people, then that's what we're gonna have to do. We need to strengthen the court system.

We need to put the judges in that are going to be able to make these go through quickly enough so people can get their treatment. And we're gonna have to have a probation department can help people follow-up on that stuff. And and we need to fully fund the part where the behavioral services are paid for and things like that that this bill that this proposition promise. We can't underfund it and say it's it's failing. The only thing that's failing is our leadership in that case.

So I'll be supporting your bill.

Thank you. Senator Cortese, we're on SB 926 by Senator Strickland, the funding Prop. 36 act. If you have any questions or comments, I'll recognize you at this time. Okay. Thank you.

Just to address the bill, I wanna first be clear. I did not support Prop. 36 because it was an unfunded mandate. And, the proponents have promised that, this bill was gonna ensure that people with serious drug addiction issues were gonna get treatment. But there was no money in in the proposition, to increase funding for treatment. And what we're seeing, throughout California are people that are crowding our jails, because we don't have enough, treatment for those people.

We don't have enough staff to evaluate people and refer them to treatment, and we don't have enough treatment programs. So we have to increase our investment in treatment, in behavioral health treatment, substance use disorder treatment in California. But Prop. 36 is a law of California. The voters throughout the state spoke overwhelmingly and didn't support it passing this act.

So now it's our responsibility as a legislature and the governor to fund the implementation of this measure to honor the will of the voters and make sure it's working right.

Because right now, it's not working right Because this is woefully underfunded. And so, this ultimately will be addressed to the budget process, which is why I appreciate the author striking the specific dollar amounts in the bill. And once again, as the Chair of this committee and as a member of the Senate Democratic caucus, the Senate Democrats have included a $100,000,000, the ongoing implementation of Prop 36. I'll note that administration included no money for the implementation of Prop 36.

And so, it's critical that we continue our investment to make sure that this lot works the right way, that we're getting people connected to treatment, that we're keeping our neighborhood safe.

And so I appreciate the author bringing this forward. And with that, I'll turn over you to close unless Senator Cortese has any questions or comments. Okay. Senator Strickland.

First of all, Mr. Chair, I wanna thank you so much for your leadership as Chairman of this committee. I also wanna thank your staff for working with me on this particular item. You know, everybody can agree to disagree without being disagreeable. I happen to believe the most essential role of government is public safety. It it should be the first thing that gets funded, in my opinion, but I know we have, various opinions throughout the legislature.

I will say that, where we are today is this is implemented. 70%, almost nearly 70% of Californians voted for this initiative. And I can't recall the last initiative, that passed all 58 counties. That means overwhelming amount of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans said that they wanna make public safety a top priority and give law enforcement and local cities and counties the tools they need to keep us safe. Even my opposition said one in four voters said that they would like to repeal this initiative.

That means it's only 25%. We're talking about, again, over 70% of Californians nearly 70% of Californians voted for this in the affirmative. Where we are today, zero money is being put in for probation, which is the centerpiece and the accountability piece of this initiative. Another part that. I agree with you Mr. Chair, I actually think it's gonna be about $400,000,000 a year, and we can argue about that.

But even $400,000,000 a year, I think, is not enough and sufficient because I think our mental health issues in California are more severe than anybody thinks about in this legislature.

We need more data on that information, but I respect that that the Democrats are asking for a $100,000,000. I'm pushing for more because I think it's gonna need more money. But this bill allows me to at least keep the this discussion moving forward, and I appreciate you for allowing me to get this, moving forward. I am working on the budget side, asking for, funding, and I know our caucus, the Republican caucus is asking for funding, and that's something that we can come together with.

But this is the law of land.

As Senator Steyarto said, this is the law of land. And what we are seeing is it's gonna be a failure if we don't get proper resources on the ground, particularly, when it comes to probation and the accountability piece. And what it really comes down to, I was a mayor of a city. I know you were mayor of a city.

It becomes another unfunded mandate to cities and counties where they're asked to do, the job, but have nowhere near the adequate resources to do the job and the will of the people.

So I stand with, 70% of Californians, overwhelming amount of independence, Democrats, and Republicans who voted for this, and I'm pushing all 58 counties voted for this. And so I wanna keep this issue moving forward, and I appreciate the Chair's willingness to work with my my office to get this forward, and I really appreciate your staff's working. With that, I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We do not yet have a quorum. We need one more member. But when we do, we will entertain a motion on the bill.

Thanks again, Mr. Chair.

Thank you senator. Thank you witnesses for being here today. Okay. We'll move back and file order to file item four, SB 874 by Senator Weber-Pierson.

After which time we'll take up SB 1210 by Senator Doctor Weber Pearson. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair and colleagues. I wanna thank you for the opportunity to present SB 874. I accept the amendments from the Senate Health Committee that will be taken in this committee given a short time frame between the two committees. SB 874 strengthens oversight and standardization of behavioral health treatment services and Medi Cal.

Behavioral health treatment services include applied behavior analysis, commonly referred to ABA treatment, and other behavioral interventions that prevent or reduce behaviors that interfere with learning and social interaction, most commonly for children diagnosed with autism.

Recently, utilization of ABA services has grown significantly in both Medi Cal and the commercial market here in California and across the nation. Some of its growth is by design as the legislature has passed many bills to reduce barriers that families faced in accessing ABA services and to ensure that children could access behavioral health treatment early when it can be most beneficial.

However, as a result, a referral for behavioral health treatment services is simpler than many other referrals for many other Medi Cal specialty services, and many of these providers do not have the same licensing requirement as for other Medi Cal services. At the same time, we have seen several media reports documenting ABA services that were overcharged or overprescribed, and at least one ABA provider in California has been charged with false billing and settled.

Additionally, beginning in 2022, the Federal Office of Inspector General initiated audits of Medicaid payments for ABA services in several states.

In the four states reviewed to date, audits identified significant improper payment and compliance issues resulting in substantial repayment obligations. Prior to introducing this bill, I had in fact considered requesting an audit of the program. However, an audit review is largely for compliance and the real issue is whether the benefit itself needs additional parameters or guidance to ensure that children who need the benefit are the ones that get it and that families aren't unwittingly signed up for more hours than necessary.

Furthermore, we must prevent services from being delivered by paraprofessionals without adequate supervision who were not even required by statute to be fingerprinted despite their work with children. It is the issue of background checks that brings this bill within the jurisdiction of this committee.

SB 874 requires DHCS to take the following actions to evaluate and improve Medi Cal's behavioral treatment services, require background checks for BHT providers who are not already subject to fingerprinting during licensing, convene a stakeholder work group to advise on standards for BHT services, issue, and maintain clear clinical guidance for BHT services based on stakeholder input and federal guidance, and report to the legislature on BHT utilization and recommendations to improve program integrity and compliance.

Back in 2014, when these services were first added to Medi Cal, there were very few providers and much less awareness of services available. The services in the field have changed considerably, so now is a good time to conduct a thorough review. People who work with vulnerable children, whether in their homes or at treatment centers, should absolutely have a background check. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

And with me today is Rachel Blaucher representing California Association for Behavioral Analysis and Katie Andrew from the Local Health Plans of California.

Thank you. And good morning. You each have two minutes to address the committee on the bill.

Good morning, Chair, Members. My name is Katie Andrew, and I'm here to speak in support of the SB 874 on behalf of the Local Health Plans of California, which represents all 17 local community based Medi Cal plans serving over 9,000,000 Californians. LHPC supports SB 874 because it strengthens critical safeguards to protect Medi Cal members, especially children, receiving behavioral health treatment services from unlicensed providers. The bill helps ensure these services are delivered safely by establishing a more consistent statewide approach to oversight.

In particular, the bill's requirement for a centralized process to collect and retain background check information is a key patient safety protection.

It helps ensure individuals who should not be providing care are appropriately screened out while also providing gaps, duplication, or inconsistent standards across the system. This focus on safety and accountability is especially important in today's environment of increased federal scrutiny. Strengthening program integrity and ensuring proper vetting of providers not only protects patients but also reinforce trust in the Medi Cal program. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your aye vote on SB 874. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Hi, good morning. Rachel Blucher with Nielsen Merksemer on behalf of the California Association for Behavior Analysis, CalABA. We are the professional membership association representing over 37,000 practitioners of behavior analysis in California. Our mission is to advance, promote, and protect the science and practice of behavior analysis. Our members provide applied behavioral analytic services or ABA services across a range of settings, including homes, schools, clinics, and community environments.

Many practitioners serve individuals diagnosed with autism and other developmental disabilities and these services are critical to improving functional outcomes and quality of life. We support SB 874 because it establishes important safeguards to ensure that individuals providing BHT services meet appropriate background check requirements, while also strengthening statewide clinical guidance and program integrity. The bill requires that unlicensed providers delivering Medi Cal BHT services undergo fingerprint or finger image based background checks and directs DHCS to specify how this information is collected and maintained.

This promotes both consumer protection and clarity for providers responsible for compliance. It also creates consistency across the industry.

So for these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I will invite any members of the public wishing to express support for SB 874 to please come forward and state your name, organization, and position on the bill. Okay. Don't, anyone after this gentleman.

Luis Rojas of Peace and Justice Law Center in support.

Thank you very much. Okay. Seeing no one else, we'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition, if there are any, to SB 874? And seeing no one come forward, is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB 874? Seeing no one, I'll bring it back to the dais.

Any questions or comments? Thank you, Senator, for bringing this bill forward. It's extremely important, and I'll turn it over if you like to close.

I just wanna thank the committee, and at the appropriate time, respectfully ask for an aye vote on SBA 74.

Thank you very much. Once we establish a quorum, we're entering a motion on the bill, but thank you for joining us today. It will now move to the second bill by doctor Weber Pierson, filed in five SB 1210. And whenever you would like to present center, you may begin.

Thank you. Good morning again, Chair and Members. I'm here to present SB 1210, a bill that advances both Californians' privacy interest and law enforcement's need for collaborative tools to investigate organized crime. Excuse me. For nearly thirty years, California's law enforcement agencies had used the Cal Gang database to store and share information related to the investigation of criminal street gangs.

In 2015 an audit of Cal Gang found that as a result of its weak oversight structure it contained questionable information that may violate individuals' privacy rights. The alarming results included the discovery of more than 600 individuals in Cal Gang who had purged dates extending beyond the five year limit, many of which were not scheduled to be purged for more than a hundred years and that the agency failed to provide the basis for gang designations.

The report actually goes on to conclude that the Cal Gang current oversight structure did not ensure that law enforcement agencies collect and maintain criminal intelligence in a manner that preserved individuals' privacy rights, that there was no transparency nor meaningful opportunities for public input.

And although it asserted compliance with federal regulations and state guidelines, standards designed to protect privacy and other constitutional rights, there was little evidence that existed that Cal Gang's governance had ensured these standards were met, and as a result the user agencies were tracking some people in Cal Gang without adequate justification, potentially violating their privacy rights. And further by not reviewing the information as required, Cal Gang's governance and user agencies had diminished the system's crime fighting value.

It was recommended at that time that Cal Gang needed oversight structure that ensured that information is reliable and that users adhere to requirements to protect individuals' rights. It was recommended at that time that the legislature adopt state law assigning it to the Justice Department the responsibility for kal gang oversight and specify that kal gang must operate under defined requirements such as supervisory and periodic record reviews.

And so following that audit, the legislature rightfully acted, and AB 2298, was passed, which created notice to appeal rights for individuals whose personal information was added to Cal Gang or any other shared database. That was followed by AB 90, who tasked the Department of Justice with regulating and overseeing Cal Gang and other gang database.

And in 2020, the Department of Justice promulgated regulations that established governance guide rails, including the requirement that all personnel who had access to a shared database undergo comprehensive and standardized training and that any records contained in a database not be disclosed for employment screening or enforcing federal immigration law, among other requirements.

Unfortunately, we are now seeing that many law enforcement agencies have chosen to disregard the legislature's reforms by ending their relationship and use of Cal Gang. The number of law enforcement agencies entering records into Cal Gang has dropped from 214 agencies to just 19. There is no evidence that these agencies stopped collecting gang intelligence altogether. In fact, if you read the opposition's letters, they actually admit the fact that they are still collecting this information but just keeping it locally.

And rather, the available evidence suggests that once regulations went into effect, the agencies began adopting the use of local databases not subject to regulation.

Stockton Police Department is the clearest public example. In 2019, Stockton Police Department told ABC ten that, quote, it chooses to use its own database instead of Cal Gang, citing time and resources to add names to both, end quote. The same report stated that Stockton maintained more than 2,000 names in its local gang database, while DOJ reported that Stockton had only added eight names to Cal Gang.

Finally, it is worth noting that the use and accuracy of gang databases is not only a statewide issue as it was initially, but it is a national nationwide immigrant issue now. In 2025, the Trump administration began using gang database entries as justification to fast track the removal of immigrants to the prison in El Salvador.

Most notable was the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was sent there on the basis of a Maryland gang database entry that alleged gang membership on only the slightest of evidence.

Being wrongfully placed in a gang database can have serious life altering consequences, which is why the audit and this became an issue in the first place, including increased police scrutiny, higher bail, harsher sentencing through gang enhancement, barriers to employment and even now the risk of deportation, often without the individual's knowledge or meaningful opportunity to challenge their inclusion.

For all of these reasons, SB 1210 amends penal code to make all gang databases, regardless of whether they are shared or not, subject to the legislature's previous enacted reforms, including the Department of Justice and Oversight and Regulation. With me today to testify is Sean Garcia Lades Yes. Executive director for the Peace and Justice Law Center, and Israel Vila, deputy director at the California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice.

Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning. You each have two minutes to your justice committee on the bill.

Thank you, Chair, Members, staff. At its core, this issue is about a basic constitutional principle. Law enforcement cannot keep intelligence files on people who are not suspected of specific criminal acts. We do not allow Dragnet surveillance of people based on how they look, where they're from, or their attitudes towards police, even if that might seem effective. That kind of approach is simply inconsistent with American principles of civil rights, privacy, and limited government.

But like all general legal principles, there are exceptions. Here, there's an exception for people who are reasonably suspected of actively participating in a criminal organization with the intent to further the organization's criminal activities. But that's a high bar. It essentially says there must be reason to believe the person is participating in organized crime. For many years, that standard was not followed in the context of gang databases.

Instead, people were added based on appearance, neighborhood, or perceived associations, and not based on their connection to organized criminal activity. At one point, the Los Angeles County report found nearly half of all young black men in Los Angeles had been entered into a gang database. That was not targeted enforcement. It was gang suppression as a tool of what's been called the new Jim Crow. Law enforcement practices that claim to be race neutral, but produce overwhelmingly racial disparities.

Over the past decade, the legislature has looked hard at the problem. You reformed Cal Gang oversight, strengthened DOJ regulation, updated the step act to require actual participation in organized crime, and more recently, defense attorneys have begun using the Racial Justice Act to challenge prosecutors use of gang allegations as a proxy for racist stereo excuse me, racist stereotypes. But one area has not worked as intended. In response to these reforms, many agencies simply left Cal Gang.

As you heard today, only about 20 agencies remain, while nearly 200 have moved unregulated in house databases.

Some agencies, like Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Sheriffs, and my local agency, the Santa Ana Police Department, have stayed in Cal Gang and shown that compliance is workable, but many others have opted out to avoid oversight. SB 1210 addresses this gap. It does not expand the law or rebalance public safety and civil rights. It simply ensures that all gang databases shared or local follow the same standards the legislature set set.

In short, SB 1210 preserves the effectiveness of your prior reforms and ensures they apply uniformly.

Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning.

Good morning, Muy buenos dias, Chair and Members. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Israel Salazar Villa, a 48 year old from East Salinas who survived the school to prison pipeline and spent nearly two decades incarcerated. I clearly recall being labeled a gang member as a child before any real affiliations. I'm now approaching twelve years of freedom and serve as a deputy director of the California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice.

Have been mentoring hundreds of young people from throughout California. See, YCJ is in 24 counties and growing, and supporting system reform and transformation. Yet in 2019, Salinas police claimed I was living a double life as a documented gang member in their internal files. Because this information was never entered into Cal Gang, I had no way to challenge or clear my name. This unregulated designation cost my employment at the time and harmed my ability to serve my community.

My story and experience highlights a broader problem. Unregulated databases allow people to be labeled without notice based on inaccurate or outdated information with no pass to appeal. This erodes trust and undermines effective public safety. The solution is simple. Amend PNACl sections one eight six point three four dash one eight six point three six to remove the word shared and ensure all gang databases are subject to existing oversight and due process protections.

This restores the law's original intent without creating new burdens. If the database they put me on was regulated, I would have been able to go to the superior court and have a judge look at all the evidence that I have successfully transformed my life and ultimately clear my name. I respectfully urge your support to close this loophole and protect both civil rights and public safety. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay. We'll invite any members of public wishing to express support for SB 1210. Please state your name, organization, position on the bill.

Good morning. Glenn Bacchusilla Baker Center for Human Rights in support.

Anyone else wishing express support?

Capri Walker with Californians for Safety and Justice is in support.

Good morning. Marco George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association in support. Thank you.

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

Carlos Montoya with the All Youth Are Sacred, strong support.

Claudia Gonzalez, and as someone who spent many years on the CalGame database, and strong support.

Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for SB 1210? Seeing no one can afford, we'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to SB 1210.

Good morning, Chair Members. Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association in respectful opposition. I do wanna start by apologizing to the author and her staff. They did reach out after the bill was introduced several weeks ago to meet, but it being April, we haven't had a chance to sit down and talk. You have my commitment to do that.

But unfortunately, as the bill stands now, we are opposed. This is a very familiar issue. I was lead with the police chiefs when the original Cal Gang audit came through. The history there is that we actually ran our own bill through a form of the system at the same time that, then assembly member Shirley Weber ran her bill, AB 90, and there was a deal that was negotiated throughout the course of the year where a lot of the police chief's language ended up in AB 90.

We were there for every part of the development of the regulations and the oversight, have heard these arguments, have heard, you know, the the abuses that occurred and acknowledge that there was definite need for oversight and reform.

And, you know, through the work, obviously, the CalGain database system has changed tremendously. And I understand, you know, the shift then to the local databases, not as an attempt to circumvent, I think, the oversight, but in terms of doing active investigations and needing to record that information on a daily basis as you're developing leads before it's formalized, there is a need at the local level to be able to, you know, develop those leads and, collect that information, without going into a formal database system.

So I do think it's, very, very difficult to take those AB 90 CalGang standards, apply them ubiquitously to all gang databases. A lot of these are informal in process developing investigations, thousands of potential data sets that we'd have to then regulate, and there'd have to be notification and, outreach and chances to remove them even if it's an ongoing investigation.

I do think that there's some room to talk about performs and oversight that's needed in these local systems, but I don't think it's as simple as taking Cal Gangs statutes and applying them to every single database they've got.

And then the last concern that we have is there's a small change in the definition of criminal street gang where we now would have to prove that the association is organized. That's actually a pretty significant change. A lot of the criminal street gangs that law enforcement faces are loosely affiliated. There is not some type of hierarchy. There's not, you know, a boss and a captain and lieutenants down below.

It's just an association. So we do think that that's a pretty significant change in the definition. We like to talk about that as well. But happy to continue working on this one as it moves on and answer questions respectfully in opposition today though.

Thank you, mister Feldman. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition SB 1210? Okay. Seeing no one couldn't afford to bring it back to the dais and ask if there

are any questions or comments from committee members. Well, thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward. You know, this ensures that the will of the legislature is reflected in these local databases. It's extremely important given the testimony we heard from our witnesses of the impacts of these databases and how it impacts people's lives. And I really appreciate you bringing this forward and encourage you to continue to talk to opposition.

But thank you for bringing this bill forward. I'll turn over to close.

Yeah.

Thank you, Chair. Really wanna thank my witnesses who came and spoke today and, you know, being vulnerable, letting us know your story. When this was originally an issue that the legislature was grappling with, back in 2015, I wasn't here, but my mother was here and, I would hear about the stories. I would hear about the things that were going on.

But it was also personal, and I think she may have mentioned it as well. I have a a younger brother who is six, five, and was kinda much bigger then than he is now. And the San Diego police tried to put him on a gang database. Never been affiliated with a gang in his life. And so, you know, the legislature did a lot of work.

The Department of Justice did a lot of work to ensure that, this information could be collected, but not in a manner that, infringed on individual rights. That was done in a way that was not racist or biased or stereotypical, and it was not done in a way that if you got on it, there was absolutely no way that you could get off.

Even when I called my mom last night and I told her I was doing this today, she was like, remember, there was, like, a three year old kid on the database. A three year old kid was put on the gang database. There is a reason why we needed oversight.

I look forward to speaking with the opposition, like, you know, with stated, my staff, has reached out multiple times to sit down to talk about this, and so I look forward to doing that. I do want to just note that the criminal definition of street gang in the bill just aligns with already established definition of criminal street gang in our current penal code. But we can def definitely consider continue to have conversations about that.

And there is an exception for providing notice if an active criminal investigation will be compromised. And so if that is the case, you would not have to disclose that information, and that is also already in the in statute.

But definitely look forward to further con conversations. But, you know, I was quite surprised and disappointed that I would be doing something like this this year because I thought the legislature had handled this. But it also shows why we always need to go back and review whether or not the bills and the regulations that we have passed are actually working or if if people have found a potential loophole. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB 1210 at the appropriate

time. Thank you very much. We are one short of a quorum, but when we do, I'll issue a motion on the bill. And thank you, Senator, for bringing this bill forward. Thank you for your witnesses.

Next in file order is SB 938 by Senator Menjivar, but I don't see her here. So we'll move to the three bills by Senator Grove. And so the first in file order is SB 1019, the California Cargo Theft Task Force. If there are any principal witnesses, you're welcome to join us here at the table.

And good morning, Senator.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Mr Chair and members. SB 1019 would establish a dedicated cargo theft task force in the Department of Justice to enhance coordination between federal, state, and local law enforcement and industry representatives to target the rise in cargo theft. I appreciate the committee's suggestions to add the data collection on cargo theft and the task force mission on the annual report and I'm happy to accept those amendments. Thank you, mister chair and your staff, for working with us.

Members from the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to the rail corridors and highways across the Central Valley, California moves more goods than any other state in the nation. Our farms, factories, energy producers, and retailers depend on the freight network that works safely, efficiently, and without criminal interference. Unfortunately, that system is under coordinated attack by sophisticated criminal networks that operate across the state and national lines with little fear of consequence. These are not isolated thefts of petty crimes.

They are deliberate, strategic, operations designed to exploit gaps in the state law and weak coordination among enforcement agencies across different levels of government.

Nationwide, cargo theft costs the trucking industry an estimated $18,000,000 every day. Dollars 18,000,000 every day. Railroads have reported $100,000,000 in losses on last year alone, a 40% increase from the year before. Given California's role in the global trade gateway, the state bears a large share of these losses. Rail theft is a huge problem in rural communities with criminal crews monitoring train movements, identifying high value shipments, and striking when the chains the trains slow in a remote access area.

A perfect example of that is the Tehachapi Loop. It's an amazing feat to see where a train will wrap around the mountain several times, but they have to go very, very slow to not derail the train. There have been several videos, that, were submitted to me from cargo theft, individuals, and these people are well organized and well armed. This is not your average everyday criminal or homeless person walking down the road, seeing a train, and trying to break into it.

These people are throwing Molotov cocktails, grenades, all kinds of crazy stuff at these trains, and it's affecting the safety of the operators of those trains at the same time.

When one train is stalled, the whole system shuts down, which ceases the delivery of the products that we need to get to stores. Rail theft is a huge problem in rural counties. These theft rings move goods quickly across the city, country and state lines, making cases difficult to investigate and prosecute because as soon as they sell are still, you know, a thousand boxes of Nike shoes being released, it immediately goes to another state or another country for resale. They're very hard to catch.

Members, these are not mobs of teenagers or, swamps of lululemon outlets.

This is not what this is. They are organized criminal gangs. And like I said earlier, they are well armed and well organized. I appreciate the committee's support on the bill. If you haven't seen it, I would like to draw your attention to Milwaukee Tools' letter.

The company notes that they will no longer ship out of Southern California corridor, including ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, because of the frequent the frequent cargo losses that they have suffered. One of the other things that I wanna mention is is, Tyson Foods. And not that the perpetrators are interested in the food product, which are like chicken nuggets and things that go to feed our children in the food program that we provide for our schools.

But once the container of food is opened, it can no longer be used for resale. It has to be destroyed because you don't know if it was contaminated.

So we've lost millions upon millions of free and reduced lunches provided to our schools that taxpayers pay for in order for the our kids that are that can't afford lunch at school that we provide. They're losing out on that as well. S. B. The Department of Justice currently has a task program with eight separate task forces targeting a number of critical areas impacted by crime.

Each task force commander works closely with police, chiefs, sheriffs, and other local and state and federal agencies from Oregon to the Mexico border. SB 1039 would direct the Department of Justice to add a task force focusing on cargo theft moving through the interstate and interstate supply chain including goods in transit, warehouses, distribution centers, and other storage locations.

By creating a specialized intelligence driven unit, SB 1019 strengthens California abilities California's ability to protect supply chains, safeguard businesses, and disrupt organized cargo theft including operations targeting rail rail rail yards and freight lines. Again, from Long Beach, Los Angeles through the Central Valley and up north. I ask for your aye vote.

And with me here to support is Brian Lohrey, the Chief of Police and Protection for BNSF Railroad.

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

Chair Arreguin and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity for me to speak. My name is Brian Lowry, Chief of Police for BNSF Railway Police Department, and I'm here to represent BNSF as a sponsor for SB 1019. Cargo theft in California has evolved into a highly organized coordinated threat to the state supply chain. What we are seeing today is not petty theft. It is systematic criminal activity targeting rail lines, intermodal facilities, staging areas, and distribution centers, activity that disrupts service, endangers workers, and affects communities across the nation.

On 03/24/2026, along our Cajon and Sub and Needle subdivisions, we saw just how sophisticated these operations have become. 16 trains were impacted in a single night. Excuse me. We documented five sabotage events, including cut air hoses and tampered breaks, actions that could have caused catastrophic accidents. One train had a 111 burglaries alone.

Across multiple trains, dozens were breached. Hundreds of boxes of consumer goods were stolen. These groups moved with precision, bypassed locks, and disappeared before law enforcement could respond. Unfortunately, this is not unusual. Every day, our employees encounter tactics, such as suspects sabotaging safety systems for trains to stop climbing or cutting open railcars while they're in motion, dumping masses massive amounts of debris along the right of way, and even threatening workers with deadly weapons.

Routes serving California's ports are specially targeted to the point that some major shippers are choosing to route freight through other states to avoid the risk. This is why SB 1019 is so important. This bill establishes California cargo theft task force within the attorney general's office, an intelligence driven statewide unit designed to match the scale and complexity of the threat. It strengthens coordination among state and local law enforcement, improves information sharing, and supports target investigators investigations into organized deaf networks.

It also ensures that rail and freight industry expertise is incorporated into enforcement strategies, which is essential for operations that span multiple jurisdictions and move at high speed.

The bill's broad definition of cargo reflects how modern supply chains actually work, covering goods in transit and in temporary storage. And the required annual reporting beginning in 2028 will give the legislator clear avail avail sorry, clear visibility into theft trends. Recovered cargo and recommendations for strengthening enforcement. Cargo theft undermines California's economy, threatens worker and community safety, and weakens the reliability of the state supply chain. SB 1019 provides a coordinated statewide response needed to confront this challenge.

On behalf of BNSF, I respectfully urge your support. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Is anyone else wishing to express support for SB 1019? Please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Good morning. Nick Chappie with the California Trucking Association. We registered our position after the deadline, but we are in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, members, Paul Yoder on behalf of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association in support. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members, Beau Biller on behalf of the California Association of Port Authorities asking for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Morning. Faith Conley with Weideman Group on behalf of the Supply Chain Federation and strong support.

Good morning. Jennifer Curry with PPS. Thank you for your support.

Thank you. Okay. Unless there's anyone else wishing to express support for SB 1019, we will now move to opposition witnesses. Are there any witnesses in opposition to the Seeing no one come forward, is there anyone wishing to express opposition to SB 1019? Seeing no one else come forward, I'll bring it back to the dais for questions or comments.

Vice Chair Seyarto.

Alright. Thank you for bringing attention to this growing and growing and expanding problem that we're having in California. I appreciate you being here this morning.

I had a question regarding, the enforce not enforcement, but are we catching anybody? And are we able to determine what level of criminal organization they're at? Are they, like, local levels? Or are they are international levels? Who are they?

Yes, sir. So both. We're we and depends on where it's at. And some of the the broader cities, it's local folks. And some of the desert areas, it's a it's an international group.

Okay. Just given some of the efforts that we are hearing about here in this committee, we may have to work with some of our other members to ensure that our efforts to rein this in isn't hampered by efforts to undo databases and things like that. Because otherwise, we're not gonna be able to solve these problems either. And they do cross lines.

They do cross international lines, state lines, and we have to have that type of cooperation, in order to to to unravel these and and then deal with them ultimately.

So thank you very much for the bill and, I certainly intend to support it.

Thank you, sir.

Are there any other questions or comments from members of the committee? Strongly support it. Just to clarify, the amendments added data collection requirement to the task force objectives and annual reports. So, when we get this annual report to get some specific data on, what is actually happening, to inform, law enforcement strategies and coordination, which is extremely important. I I proudly represent the city of Oakland.

The Port Of Oakland is one of the largest container ports in The United States. And just this past Friday, I was out, at the refrigerated cargo business in Oakland where they see a great deal of freight traffic that happens on rail and by truck. And this is a major issue that impacts our ports throughout the state of California, whether it's agriculture, which is one of our major commodities in our state, whether it's imports or exports.

This is really about protecting our state's economy, and addressing, you know, not just local, but international criminal enterprises that are, you know, engaging these these coordinated operations. Right?

It's not a one off thing. This this is this is an actual organized criminal activity. So I thank you very much for bringing this forward. I don't think this is duplicative. I think this adds value critical to our state's economy.

With that, I'll turn over to Cliffs.

I wanna thank the chair. California is a diverse state, whether it's on our beautiful coastlines, our ports in the Central Valley where we produce food and energy, our high desert areas or the Long Beach area and the beach area and the ports in the economy that's there.

This is a very rare bill that affects our state entirely statewide, not only because the impacts of cargo theft in each one of our areas and the impacts that it has, but the the harm it potentially causes to our employees that are running the rail operations. When a rancher brought me the information, I had a meeting with BNSF Railway, and we had a a a lengthy discussion. And I they were completely aware.

They had been documenting this stuff. They had been making sure that they could do everything possible. And some of the things that I got from people on the ground was just horrific. It's like a a war zone in some cases in the Central Valley, and that is not an exaggeration.

I would be glad to share videos with you to show you exactly what some of these employees that are engineers and people that are on these trains have to deal with when they go through that slow area I described earlier.

So with my deepest respect for the chair and accepting the amendments, and I do think we need to make sure it continues to be tracked, I do agree with you. It is not duplicative. The CHP has a wonderful program. It doesn't focus on this particular type of cargo theft, and I just appreciate your aye vote. Thank you, sir.

Thank you very much. Okay. We're into the motion when we establish a quorum. Thank you, chief, for being here. Appreciate your service.

We'll proceed to the next bill by Senator Grove on our agenda, which is file item 11 SB 1217, the Nonconsensual Intimate Image Clearing House Bill. So, if there are any witnesses, on SB 1217, you're welcome to join us here at the table. And as they're approaching, just wanna summarize the amendments, which are amendments that were, well first, requested by the privacy committee that we're making in our committee.

And those amendments change the definition of covered platform to apply only to platforms with user generated content, eliminate images of minors from the bill, and define nude, the terms nude and sexual. The amendments that we, have proposed in the public safety committee edit language that peace officers must, quote, possess knowledge to verify the nonconsensual images, and that is related to the the scope of the bill that is before our committee with regard to the role of peace officers and enforcement of the statute.

So with that, I will turn over to you, Senator to present.

Thank you, Mister chair again. SB 1217. Before I begin, I wanna accept the amendments as the chair just described in Senate Privacy Committee that provide a definition for what an intimate image is. And to clarify, the bill does not cover images of minors and to refine the definition of a covered platform. I saw also wanna accept the public safety committee's amendment to change the phrase of who is able to verify.

The two able to possess the knowledge in Section 647.05 B, which adds clarity for law enforcement. I wanna publicly thank the sponsors, of this bill who are survivors of sexual exploitation themselves and their tireless engagement on this bill to try to get their images out of the public eye that were taken against their will. And, and I said survivors. One survivor is here to testify with us today.

The mother of another individual who was severely impacted on this is is here today, but the individual is not.

And I'll share more about that later. This is a complex issue, and the collaboration that we've seen so far has been completely incredible. My commitment to protecting the vulnerable in our state, particularly Women and Children, has been the cornerstone of my work in the legislature. Representing the Central Valley, I came up here to protect oil and ag.

Never in a million years did I think I was gonna be standing before you trying to protect children from being sold for sex in the state, protecting individuals for their privacy to not have horrible images up online that anybody has access to or individuals who are affected by mental health diversion.

In the modern-day era, traffickers and exploiters have a new weapon that serves survives long after they're behind bars. The digital record of their abuse is still out there for everyone to see. We're seeing an explosion of Non-Consensual Intimate Imagery also called NCII, which includes not just stolen photos or pictures and videos taken under duress, but increasingly sophisticated AI generated deep fakes. These images are used to blackmail, silence, and retraumatize survivors, often preventing them from ever truly rebuilding their lives.

SB 1217 is the next step to fight against human trafficking and exploitation.

The bill establishes a secure state administrative clearinghouse with the con- within the control of the California DOJ that will allow survivors to submit verified requests for removal of which the department will authenticate that request and generate unique identifiers and transmit them to covered platforms like Instagram and Facebook. These platforms would have the be required to remove the images within forty-eight hours which is consistent with federal law under the 2025 Take It Down Act.

The bill ensures that when criminal harm ends, that the digital harm can finally end as well and not carry on and haunt these victims for life. I'm proud that SB 1217 is a survival driven proposal and it's a solution focused on fixing every real problem that plagues many human trafficking victims and sexual assault survivors. The bill reflects what survivors have been asking for, which is a system that recognizes the ongoing nature of this harm and importantly shifts the burden away from those who are exploited.

The bill focuses on three critical areas. Closing the tech gap. We explicitly include AI generated content to ensure that laws keep pace with predators using digital forgeries to harass victims. Number two, the frontline response. We require peace officers to act as a bridge to recovery by informing victims about the clearinghouse the moment the crime is reported, letting victims know that the clearinghouse is available to them.

So, if a victim comes and says, my images were caught online and they report it to their local law enforcement, the local law enforcement says, have you heard about the clearinghouse? That's it. It's not a big task. A certified or centralized number three, a centralized enforcement pillar while federal law will undertake the Take It Down Act. It now requires platforms to remove this content.

SB 1217 creates the how to take it down. It provides a secure state portal where the DOJ verifies the request once the victim submits the information through a nonprofit and depends the and demands the removal of the platform simultaneously. So, it's not like whack a mole where a victim has to go to every single platform to try to get their images taken down just to have them move to another image, another platform.

I want to reiterate that my commitment to refining this bill further sharpens the verification process to ensure that the clearinghouse is safe, secure, and bulletproof process for all survivors to use. For women healing from trafficking and those lives that are being devastated by deepfakes, we should not force them to chase down and fight multibillion dollar tech companies on their own.

We can provide them with a centralized government backed clearinghouse to help them reclaim their dignity. SB 1217 is supported by a large number of survivors led organizations and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. With me here to testify, two incredible individuals with lived experience. They are lived experience experts. They're fierce advocates and representatives of the California Survivor Coalition, Nyatsa Niobla Serrano and Candace Lynn, a mom that has a story to tell.

Thank you so much. Thank you for joining us this morning. You each have two minutes to address the committee on the bill.

would like to start?

Okay.

Mister chair, members of the committee, my name is Nitya Nieble Serano. I am a federally recognized victim of victim of sex trafficking in the Girls Do Porn case. I'm here today for myself, for Mariah Reef, who is in Washington, DC advocating for the same bill and alongside a mother who is speaking for her daughter because her daughter can't. This issue does not end when the crime ends. Nonconsensual intimate imagery is not just a privacy issue.

It's an ongoing puff public safety issue. When this content is uploaded, it spreads instantly, copied, downloaded, and reuploaded across countless platforms. Even when it's removed, it comes back. And it doesn't just come back, it actually evolves. There are entire online communities built around this content.

They track victims, treat our identities, and treat us like collectibles. They call fighting our names and lives the holy grail. They exchange that information with each other. We are being traded like Pokemon cards. They categorize us by our bodies and what they have done to us.

They mix our personal photos with those videos. They upload our names. They leave time stamps marking moments of pain. They mock us. They shame us.

Now they're using AI to recreate us, making it look like we are speaking, participating, and even celebrated what happened to us. This is not passive. This is ongoing exploitation. And the system today tells victims to handle it themselves. They to track it, we report it, we relive it over and over again.

There are cases where the same image is removed and reuploaded within hours again and again until victims just simply stop reporting because the process becomes more traumatic than their original violation. This is the system we have today. SB 1217 changes that. It verifies content once and removes it at scale, shifting the burden off victims and onto systems that can actually stop it. Because when this content stays online, the harm doesn't end.

It grows. One in five adults has experienced this. This is not rare, and it's not going away. For those of us who are still living and for those who no longer care, please pass it.

Committee. Thank you. My name is Candace Lin. I'm the mother of Isabelle Shukart, a victim of sex trafficking in the GirlsDoPorn case. Isabel lost her life as a result of unchecked nonconsensual intimate imagery.

I've come from Seattle to support this critical bill and to attempt to convey the tragedy our family has experienced. Isabelle was vibrant, funny, intelligent, and deeply loved. As a child, Isabelle enjoyed animals, music, and drawing. She had attended college, became a licensed real estate agent at 19, and had big dreams. Then everything changed.

Just before her twentieth birthday, she began to withdraw. I knew something had happened to my daughter. I begged Isabelle to tell me, but she never would. I could never have imagined the reality that she had been coerced, raped, filmed, posted online, and that trauma would follow her publicly forever. On 09/20/2023, Isabel died under suspicious circumstances that have still not been investigated.

Last May, I stumbled on an obscure Reddit posting referencing GDP. It read, quote, one of the girls, Isabelle Shukart, said they kept her in San Diego for several days and wouldn't let her leave until they had two videos, end of quote. This is how I learned of GDP and Isabel's trauma. A few months later at Michael Pratt's sentencing, I learned what fully what happened to my daughter. I saw Isabel in every brave woman who gave testimony that day.

These young women were tricked, coerced, and raped. They complied so they might live. They didn't know that within months, their trauma would not be behind them, but ahead. To this day, these women live with fear and anxiety knowing their content continues to circulate. Their rape viewed by friends, coworkers, boyfriends, professors and by millions of important consumers.

I now understand why my daughter I now understand my daughter was doxed, attacked, trafficked and trolled and trafficked again. What I live with today is this. My daughter is gone, but her content of rape is not. It still exists online, accessible, searchable, and impossible to fully remove. I've had to tell her sister and brother.

Her brother who is still in high school lives in a world where that content is one click away. Following Michael Pratt's sentencing, US Attorney Adam Gordon stated, we as a society failed these women. They were forced to walk alone. I completely agree. I've learned that Isabel tried to get help.

She went to law enforcement. She reported to platforms like so many others, nothing worked. She was left to carry the trauma, the shame and the burden of trying to remove her own abuse from the Internet. Now that responsibility falls on me. Senate Bill 1217 changes that.

It creates a system that verifies and removes the content at scale and finally shifts the burden of off victims and families. Lately, I have been working with the GDP survivor and their non profit who is taking down content. She successfully removed much of Isabel's content, but not all. This clearing house is a critical piece needed for a coordinated full scale takedown, one that will truly make a difference for the victims and their families.

This bill comes too late for Isabelle, but it does not have to be too late for others.

I'm asking you to vote yes to protect victims, prevent further harm, and ensure no family has to live in a world where their child's abuse remains online after they are gone. Thank you.

Thank you both for being here today, on behalf of the committee. We are deeply sorry, your loss and the harm your family and friends had endured. And I really appreciate your courage being here to to talk about this very difficult issue and why this bill is so important. So thank you for being here today.

We'll now invite any members of the public wishing to express We'll now invite any members of the public wishing to express support for SB 1217. If you can please approach the microphone and state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

My name is Justine Lee. I'm here in my personal capacity as a survivor trafficking, and I support.

Thank you.

Hello. I'm Matthew Greco. I'm here on behalf of the San Diego County District Attorney's Office and the California District Attorney's Association in strong support.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is, Stephanie, and I I'm here to support.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Ashley Faison. I'm with Diamond Collective and the California Survivors Coalition. I'm also a survivor of human trafficking and strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mister Chair. Ryan Sherman with California Narcotic Officers Association in support.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for SB 1217? Okay. Thank you all for being here. We'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition, if there are any, to SB 1217.

So anyone wishing to testify in opposition to the bill. Seeing no one come forward, any members of the public wishing to express opposition to SB 1217. Seeing no one come forward, I'll bring you back to the dice for questions and comments. Vice Chair Seyarto?

Again, to the author, thank you. It's a tough issue to tackle. And part of what makes it really tough is you know, there there's been such a resistance to bringing justice to these folks and and going after people that are perpetrating this. It's not fair to them. It's not fair to their the, the people that have been personally affected and their families.

And, and so, you know once again, you've brought us a bill that needs to move and and the time is right for it to move, because this isn't getting better. It's getting worse. I have zero sympathy for people that are engaged in this type of activity, that are continuing to exploit these young ladies. And so, and sometimes young men also.

So, you know, with that, I appreciate you having the courage to bring bills like this and and then having you know, people that can come in and give us their story because that's really, really important.

And, I I'm glad there was no opposition today, because otherwise, I would make this even tougher. So, thank you, and I will be supporting your bill.

Thank you, Mister Vice Chair.

Thank you. Senator Cortese?

I will be supporting the bill. I just have one question of the author and it may or may not have come up with this particular bill yet.

In working in this area myself, and I'm very glad that you're tackling the issue, but in working in this area, we've had a very, very difficult time trying to navigate federal section 230, which basically, causes to be dismissed any action, based on content, based on the content of that which shows up on a platform.

And I'm just wondering, I mean, clearly, you've done a a good job and I guess with committee help have done a good job of of talking about what the content is. Right?

We're depicting very specific things. No qualms here. But it's that old congressional based, you know federal protection of you know, what shows up online as if it's in the public square. And I just don't know if you've encountered that yet or if you if you have if you have a game plan for it through the process that you're gonna be going through after this committee.

So your specific question is the first time that's came up. The Take It Down Act which just recently plant was passed on the federal side did address part of that. Okay. And then I can have I can actually have I know that Mariah is in Washington DC, but I also I also know that Leticia is very familiar with what happens in that arena. But what the Federal Government didn't do is allow us a mechanism on how to do it.

He they relegated that to the states. So this is a way that Californian's survivors can have a mechanism to take it down unilaterally, once their images are verified by an authenticated trained law enforcement officer, that were the amendments that were taken. And you are right. We did take the amendments from the chair and committee staff that have been graciously working with us on the bills that we have here. All of the bills that we have here, the chair has been just phenomenal.

And I don't say that lightly. I've been here since 2010. And when he first agreed to meet with me, I was in shock that he was the public safety chair because he really does believe in public safety. So I we did work on these this language.

This committee staff requested that we clearly identify, exclude minor children, obviously, and then clearly identify what a a nonconsensual image was and an intimate image was, and we did, take the committee's amendments to address that as a concern that was in, the analysis.

Appreciate that. I'm, you know, more than happy to share some of our old experience if it comes up as an obstacle of any kind as you go through the process. I had done most of this what we believe to be the sharpest Academic Attorneys on the topic from both Stanford and Harvard try to help us navigate the issue, and get around the content based.

You know, it's really it's the first amendment, so I don't wanna call it a loophole, but it is fundamentally a loophole for platforms to be able to hide behind the first amendment, you know with this kind of content.

So again, I completely commend you and I'm eager to see somebody overcome this whole problem with the bill. Last year, we my office under my authorship, we just took the old statutes of middle books for years, decades, that say your image can't be usurped. It can't be taken by somebody else and and put into commercial distribution or sharing regardless of regardless of the content.

And but all we could really do with that bill was just try to clarify that restraining order should be issued, you know, on demand for that kind of activity in 48 hours or less.

Because, you know, we've had tragedies over the years in our own district where in talking to, not the, you know with non survivors and talking to the family members, the family survivors, that the most frustrating thing for the week to ten days after the image was being distributed was trying to figure out how to get it taken down before any other before any other issue comes up and obviously that's very understandable.

So appreciate the testimony, appreciate your effort. Again, I'm supporting the bill, obviously. And I appreciate you answering my question about whether or not that's become an issue. I hope it doesn't become an issue.

I appreciate you, Sir. And I know that we have worked on several. We are working together right now as co authoring or joint authoring a bill that's very high profile as well in a different area. And I've always appreciated your wisdom on certain situations like this and the bills that we work on. I'd be glad to meet with you and try to address this issue.

I am a a constitutional conservative. I believe in the first amendment, but I also know that the first amendment does not allow victims to continue to have their images that were forced upon them. These girls were told they were going to a modeling agency and that they were gonna be models. And when they came out of the dressing room, they were forcibly raped, beaten. They were doing everything they could to comply just to survive the ordeal.

600 people were arrested during this operation, and their images still haunt them today online over a thousand downloads a day on 231 platforms with comments of sick people that if I read this, I think the chair would shut me down about what they say about these beautiful women and how young they are and their braces and their blonde and glad blank blank blank blank blank that happened to her.

And what they're advocating and and cheering on when they watch these videos of these young girls and the abuse that they endured, I wish there was a way to go after those people as well. But right now, we have a bill before us that will allow us to protect these victims that have been victimized. Prosecutions have already taken place, and now we need to make sure that they are not continually haunted and make sure that platforms should be doing this themselves.

But I know that that doesn't work well in the state of California, and we need to make sure the DOJ authenticates the images, and these images are no longer available on anyone on the platform for any of you, anybody in this room to just download and watch.

And that to me is completely unacceptable.

Thank you very much. And thank you, Mister chair.

If there are no other questions or comments, thank you, Senator. This bill is extremely important, and, I really appreciate you tackling a really difficult issue, and working with us to clarify some language so that we can ensure that this bill can be effectively enforced. And with that, I'll turn it back over to you to close.

Thank you. I first I wanna thank the chair again for your your willingness to work with us on these serious public safety issues. I wanna thank Nitya, for her courage to come forward and Candace. I'm a mother of five and a grandmother of 11, and we're just not equipped to lose our children. They're supposed to take care of us.

And I have the last birthday picture of Isabelle, who will never celebrate another birthday because of what these people did to her. And so, this bill is supported by a lot of survivor organizations. I'll just read a few because there's three pages full. Three Strands Global, California Survivor Coalition, Central Valley Justice System, Love Never Fails, Current Coalition Against Human Trafficking, and many, many others.

And I respectfully ask for your aye vote for justice for those that are still alive and that are dealing with this and justice for individuals like Isabel who will no longer is no longer with us, but justice nonetheless.

Thank you so very much. Thank you for joining us today. And when we establish a quorum, we'll enter a motion on the bill. Thank you very much. And I know that we have members in the energy committee, they're presenting or serving, and hopefully, they'll join us when they're available.

That's hopefully before noon so we can establish a quorum. Okay. We will now just

All due respect, sir, is there another author? I just need a little bit of a break. Sorry. Is if there's not, I'll continue.

Let's- let's take a brief recess.

I just need one minute to walk outside. I apologize.

No problem.

Okay.

And so as we are taking a brief recess, if Sergeants, I know you're working on trying to get members here.

My deepest apologies, Mr. Chair. I really did come up here to fight for oil and ag, and I find myself in a situation that as a mom and a grandmother, it's a little emotionally, distressing, especially when you think about all the perpetrators that are way ahead of us on any criminal activity that we could ever possibly legislate in this, body. So thank you for your indulgence.

So first, I want to thank the chair again, on the third bill for his willingness to meet with me over the past several weeks and discuss these issues and work really hard on language together that we could get an I recommendation out of this committee.

I also want to thank the committee staff, specifically the chief consultant. Your diligent work on this bill was pretty incredible and I really do thank you for that. In 2018, California created a mental health diversion allowing judges to stop criminal proceedings, stop criminal proceedings, so eligible defendants could receive treatment instead of going through the traditional court process. The goal was to improve public safety by addressing the root causes of low level nonviolent offenses, particularly individuals with manageable mental health needs.

However, the reality is that this program was not built with sufficient guardrails and has opened the door for violent, repeat offenders to avoid accountability and return to our communities without the oversight necessary to prevent reoffending.

All across California, perpetrators are going free with no record of their crimes. Victims are left with the pain and no recourse while the individual who destroyed their lives is receives a clean slate after maybe just a few therapy sessions and some medication. In my own county, disgraced former county supervisor Zach Scrivner serves as a primary example of how broken this program is. Despite felony charges of child abuse and possession of assault weapon, he was granted diversion. He went to work as a county supervisor that day.

He introduced a piece of legislation on victim's right and victim's advocacy. And then he went home taking the same medication and getting the same counseling treatment that he was under orders for. And he's a fit he assaulted his children, every one of them. And he didn't get a plea entered. He never spent a day in jail.

And once his diversion was complete, his record will be wiped clean. Keep in mind that the same sentence that he got under the diversion program is the same medication and counseling he was receiving when he assaulted his own children. Background check. That's what happened in my community that alerted me to mental health diversion.

And then I dug deeper and I came up here and I met with the Sacramento County Sheriff's Office and I met Sergeant Saad Saadou who investigates horrific crimes against children, which we're going to go over in a few minutes.

This is just one case that I talked about and we've been given recorded jailhouse calls of career criminals talking about using diversion as their way out. We have recorded calls of individuals talking to family members that say, hey, I'm going to use this diversion thing. It's a new thing where we don't have to go to trial. And the respondent on the other end of the line basically said, but you did it. How are you going to get out of it?

He said, I'll explain it to you. It's called divert mental health diversion. We're seeing habitual offenders like the one in San Francisco and Sacramento that use loopholes to commit brutal assaults and even murder while out on diversion. In San Francisco, a man had been granted mental health diversion that murdered a young woman by strangling her to death as he slept in her bed and she bled out at the foot of her bed. He was a transient passing through the neighborhood.

He had previously faced arrest for second degree robbery, battery, assault with a deadly weapon, inflicting injury on an elderly dependent adult, possession of burglary tools, drug paraphernalia and drug pilliferinaria. The violent repeat offender released on mental health diversion left no left to face no consequences, free to assault, abuse and kill at will, which he proved.

All across California, we've been absolute there's absolute horrendous cases of child abuse where the parents and abusers are using mental health diversion as a get out of jail free card, not even having to go through the court process. A one year old baby girl died from skull fractures and brain hemorrhaging while while in the sole care of her father who admitted to heavy drinking, claimed he didn't remember what happened and he was granted diversion. The baby girl will never have another birthday.

A three year old boy was found overdosing on lithium that his parents had been force feeding him their medication, locked in a filthy room with cats eating cat feces. The room was clear signs of abuse, yet both caregivers were granted diversion and never charged with child abuse. A 20 old baby is dead. He had a catastroph he had catastrophic internal injuries with nearly fifty, fifty, five zero, external wounds while his parents blamed his clumsiness blamed blamed clumsiness and they have sought diversion.

A three month old infant suffered a skull fracture and brain bleeding consistent with abuse, living with conditions too severe to face, and was completely covered in cockroach bites all over his body and of course his mother sought diversion.

And a two year old little girl was brutally beaten, held underwater and slammed against concrete. Abuse and torture which was captured on video that was proudly displayed by the individual doing it and the abuser sought diversion to escape any type of justice. Some may argue that these cases are an exception and not the rule, but the truth is these are just a handful example that we could pull from. We could sit here for hours reviewing case after case after case from across the state.

It's estimated that the Sacramento County Sheriff's Office alone, five percent of the people in custody, are using mental health diversion that are offenders of child, trauma, which I have described just now.

That's 200. One child that I'm going to describe later, the effects on that child is one too many. We're talking about 200 individuals in Sacramento County alone. There are countless reports of violent repeat offenders being released under diversion and the public is simply asking why. Why is this happening?

With me today is Deputy District Attorney from Placer County that can explain just how many violent repeat offenders are free to go under this program on a daily basis. And the reality is there is nothing they can do to stop this unless we give the prosecutors across the state of California the tools to do so by passing this tools to do so by passing this reform. It also upholds the original intent of the program.

The original intent of the program was to ensure that those that need mental health diversion that can be helped through mental health diversion classes and programs and therapy that they get that help and they description of what happened in our county and the description of what I'm going to describe later is not the intent of what this original mental health diversion program was established for. The reality is is that nothing can do to stop it unless prosecutors have the tools.

SB 1373 finally fixes a broken system. It reforce it enforces and restores full judicial discretion consistent with AB 46 which this committee approved last month, ensuring that a judge can deny diversion if they feel the defendant possesses a risk to public safety based on their history and the language that the chair and I worked out to substantiate that.

However, because we all know that California courts don't operate uniformly, there are some may impose jail time for certain offenses while others may allow defendants to avoid it. Judicial discretion alone is not enough. We absolutely must ensure that those who commit the most heinous acts repeat violent offenders and those that assault and have offenses that are horrendous against children such as child assault resulting in death, human trafficking.

Those things should never be allowed for diversion. Removing diversion as an option simply means that they have to go through the court proceedings. The diversion programs that are available now, there's no evidence to go present to court on behalf of a child abuse endangerment wall wobbler under PC code section two seventy three where Hudson, a 20 old baby, died from several lacerations. That evidence doesn't even get to be presented in court because the individual got mental health diversion.

We want justice and the victim's part of justice and healing is going through the court process.

Because the courts don't always operate uniformly and they commit heinous acts in these repeat offenders, we shouldn't have loopholes like I just described. Justice diverted is justice denied. We must ensure those who truly need help get it under the original bill for mental health diversion. And those using the program as a get out of jail free card are held accountable and it is about this is not about politics. It's about policy.

There needs to be a balance. The balance that should be struck is that, like I said, those that need help, that are rehabilitative, that have have the ability to have mental health diversion and get back on track, like the people I pass driving in, some of them on the street. They're out there with no clothes on, and they're catching things that aren't even in the air. That person needs help. That nerd's person needs help to get off the street.