Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning, everyone. I'd like to welcome everyone back to the Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety. I'd like to begin with a few housekeeping matters today. First, we have a relatively large agenda ahead of us today. Although, I wanna thank everyone for all of your work over the last few weeks.

It's a manageable 23 items today that will hear testimony. As a reminder, to ensure that all measures are heard, we will we have limited witness testimony for this hearing The two witnesses per side, each witness will have two minutes to testify either in support of or in opposition to the measure. Second, there are some general rules of conduct before we start our hearing today.

Please note that in order to facilitate the goal of conducting a fair legislative hearing and as we proceed with witness and public comment today and throughout the hearing, I want to ensure and remind everyone that the assembly has rules to ensure that we maintain order and and run a fair and efficient hearing. I will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of today's proceedings.

This includes clapping or snapping during the hearing. Jazz hands are not in the prohibition though, so you're welcome to do that.

Please be aware that violations of the rules can subject you to removal or other enforcement actions, but you're all lovely people and I will I know that won't be necessary today. We are gonna proceed as a subcommittee of one, but I will note for those of you who are waiting, we do have three items that are off calendar today. So I'm gonna read those at this time. We have item number 15, assembly bill twenty one fifty one by Pacheco that has been pulled by the author.

We have item number 24 AB 2342 by Hoover that has been pulled by the author.

And we have item 32, AB2669 by Gibson that has also been pulled by the author. In other words, those bills will not be advancing out of, committee this year. Again, we're proceeding as a subcommittee. I'm very sorry to do we have an agreement other okay. Like my two colleagues Hold on. Are both colleagues in agreement to let miss Caloza go first?

Oh my god. Yes. It's definitely agreement.

Okay. Then we'll go out of order. I love the camaraderie, and we'll take up assembly member Kolozho's AB 1650, followed by in sign in order, we have mister Hart, and then we have miss El Hawari. Alright. Assembly member Colosa, whenever you're oh, okay.

We're gonna do it. Okay. So it'll be Elhawary and then Hart. Fantastic. Okay.

Mister Hart, the gentleman and scholar of the group. I love it. Miss Caloza.

Good morning, mister chair, members. Thank you to Assemblymember Hart and Al Hawari for their kindness and showing grace this morning on a busy committee day. I'm here to present AB 1650 this morning. Thank you to the committee consultant, staff, and our principal co author, Assemblymember Ortega, for their partnership and thoughtful work on this critical piece of legislation.

I would also like to accept the committee's proposed amendments, making sure that law enforcement agencies that are conducting undercover operations from the DECAL requirement, which is consistent with the provisions of SB 805.

AB 1650 is about safety, transparency, and accountability. Since the 2025, enforcement activities by ICE have intensified across our state From Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, and San Francisco, these operations have raised serious concerns about oversight and safety. We've seen growing concern on the use of unmarked rental vehicles in enforcement operations that involved arrest, detention, and transport of members of our own community. When vehicles used by government agencies lack proper identification, it becomes difficult for the public to distinguish between legitimate law enforcement and bad actors.

Additionally, inviting potential abuses of power in government given the absence of transparency or accountability in how these vehicles are being used.

These practices create not only just confusion, but fear. Fear for the public and fear for those who are being who are facing illegal, action by the Federal Government. At the same time, rental car companies are finding themselves at the center of this issue. Their vehicles are being used in these operations without notification or consistent standards for safety and identification. AB 1650 delivers a necessary and urgent staff to safeguard our communities and restore trust in the leaders who are meant to serve and protect them.

This bill ensures that any privately owned vehicle rented or leased to a governmental agency for purposes of enforcement is clearly identifiable with decals. It also establishes enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance and accountability. With that, I'm proud to be joined by Christopher Sanchez representing the Central American Resource Center, also known as CARESN.

Buenos Dias. Good morning, member good morning, mister Chen members. Christopher Sanchez with the Mesa Verde Group here on behalf of the Central American Resource Center CARECEN, the largest Central American immigrant rights organization in the country, here in strong support of AB 1650. On June 6, when ICE began its aggressive attacks on Californians CARECEN day labor center, a center that safely connects workers to employment opportunities, was targeted and raided by unmasked individuals on unmarked cars.

On that day, ICE had detained day laborers who woke up in the morning seeking to secure work for the day.

They violently ransacked our center and recklessly discharged chemical agents because there was no way for our staff to identify them due to their to their masks and unmarked cars. Unfortunately, this wasn't an isolated isolated incident. ICE has entered into our center several times, becoming more aggressive time after time. In one instance, they showed up in an unmarked Penske rental truck with over a dozen federal agents and military fatigues ready to wage war on community members.

This incident has been widely known as Operation Trojan Horse, an operation that was carried out while a federal judge had ordered them to halt their operations in the region due to the recklessness chaos that they've caused in our communities.

But Cadisen is not alone in these experiences. Car wash workers, street vendors, construction workers, mechanics, and other workers have been subject to these aggressive and violent attacks by ICE, who've shown up in unmarked cars causing havoc, stroking fear in anyone with an accent or a pigment of in their skin.

These rental cars have enabled ICE to terrorize communities by harming women and children, but and ICE having no repercussions for them to get in hit in hit hit cars and for the individual that they've hit to have to foot the bill, or for jumping out of move moving vehicles, manhandling, landscapers, and car wash workers when they're simply doing their job. It is for these reasons we are a drive up.

Thank you very much, assembly member. Mister Sanchez, thank you. I actually owe you an apology. Just for all the other presenters and and those offering testimony, I'll give you this sort of informal signal that you have about twenty to thirty seconds remaining, but you didn't even need it. So nicely done, sir.

Next, we'll take the Me Too's, also in support of the bill. Please come down. Name, organization, and position, please.

Monica Madrid, on behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, CHIRLA, in support.

Jarrett Elliott, in behalf of the California Community Foundation, in support.

Edgar Goodall with SEIU California in support.

Lizzie Guansona here on behalf of the City of West Hollywood in support.

Thank you all. Final call. Anyone else hoping to be heard in support? Okay. Do we have anyone here testifying in opposition? Seeing no response, anyone else hoping to register a position on the bill? Okay. We'll turn it back to the dais. Doctor Sharp Collins, since you're the only other one, any questions or comments? I'm good.

How are you today? It's always good when I see you. Glad you're here. Okay. Then with that, Assemblymember Caloza, you can close.

Thank you, chair, and members, for your time this morning. Just respectfully ask for your aye vote so that we can have more protections to ensure that our community members, our our businesses, and everybody, back at home that we represent have more protections. Thank you.

Well, thank you very much, assembly member. You will have an eye recommendation. And in full disclosure, I believe I'm on this bill as a co author, so that would be odd if I didn't. Out of respect to the fact that we're waiting on our Republican colleagues, we won't take a motion at this time, but we will at the appropriate time, and we'll let you know the outcome. And again, it's a strong aye from the chair.

Thank you.

Alright. Thank you all very much. Okay. Next, we have Assemblymember Elhawary with three items. Mister Hart is quite the gentleman. Thank you, sir.

Assembly member Elhawary, would you like to start in file order, or do you wanna go in particular order here?

I'm gonna change it up a little bit. I'm gonna start with 2014.

Okay. This is 2014, everybody. This is item number 12 on our agenda. Sorry. I shouldn't say everyone.

Just doctor Sharp Collins. It's item 20 item 12. Thank you. And I'm also reminded correctly thank you, madam secretary. We can't take a motion till quorum is present, but we wouldn't do it without our Republican colleagues, at least one of them anyway.

Assembly member Elhawary, the floor is yours.

Thank you so much. Good morning, mister chair and members. I am proud to present AB 2014, a bill that allows someone to challenge their conviction through habeas corpus if gender bias was used in their trial and there is a reasonable chance it impacted the outcome. Gender bias has no place in our justice system, but we've seen it show up in real cases, especially impacting women and LGBTQ defendants where prosecutors relied on stereotypes instead of facts.

Arguments about maternal instinct, using someone's same sex relationship to suggest motive, portraying a person's clothing or gender expression as deviant or threatening, that is not evidence.

It's bias. The California Supreme Court has already made it clear. Gender stereotypes cannot be the basis for criminal liability. And when they are, it puts the integrity of the trial into question. When bias shapes a conviction, people deserve a path to challenge it.

AB 2014 creates that path. People should be allowed to petition the court if gender stereotypes were used and convictions did not rely on facts. Joining me today is Kelly Savage Rodriguez with California Coalition for Women Prisoners and Rick Owens with the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code.

Good morning, chair members. My name is Rick Owen. I'm senior staff counsel for the Committee on Revision of the penal code. The penal code committee is a state entity created by the legislature to study California's criminal laws and to recommend improvements. AB 2014 is based on a recommendation from the committee's 2025 annual report and represents a modest expansion of existing post conviction relief.

It is based on the committee's review of research and case examples showing that some convictions have been influenced by evidence or arguments that appeal to gender based stereotypes, those about sexuality, parenting, appearance, or so called a woman or so called woman's nature. The committee also heard testimony indicating that these dynamics are not isolated and that gender bias often intersecting with race and other factors can shape how juries interpret evidence and assess credibility.

The research and examples made clear that the risk is real and that existing law does not fully address it. AB 2014 allows a person to seek habeas relief where gender biased evidence or argument was used at trial, and there's a reasonable probability that the result would have been different without it. This is a narrow case by case remedy that ensures that convictions are based on law and facts, not stereotypes.

Allowing habeas relief in these circumstances is consistent with the legislature's broader trend of giving special attention to preventing bias from impacting criminal trials. For these reasons, the penal code committee recommended their this reform to promote fairness and confidence in our legal system. Thank you. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Hi. My name is Kelly Savage Rodriguez with the California Coalition for Women Prisoners in support. Support. In 1995, my abusive husband killed my son, Justin. I was attempting to escape with my kids.

I left the house to get some final supplies and came back to find that he'd beaten my son to death. I served twenty three years on a life without the parole sentence. If I wasn't commuted by governor Brown, I was going to die in prison. It was that gender bias at trial that paved that way. No one argued that I was there or that I killed my son.

They painted me as the most responsible, the Jezebel who only cared about keeping my husband, not caring about my son's life if he lived or died. The DA argued that even though we were married, I should never have left him alone with them. I was blamed for leaving the house at all. I was the bad mother. During the trial, the DA brought four of my ex boyfriends to testify if I liked abuse, if I got off on it.

She showed pictures of me in a miniskirt and argued I was a dominatrix suggesting I controlled my relationships. The abuse I experienced continued to come up throughout the hearings. The DA never brought up his relationship to attack his his character. They argued he was young, dumb, angry, and irresponsible. They didn't talk about his past girlfriends, whether there was abuse involved or his sex life.

Even though I was traumatized, I knew it was not okay. I expected someone to interrupt, but no one ever did, not the judge, not even my own attorney. He actually made it worse. I'm not alone in this. I've heard many stories like mine.

Everyone should have an opportunity at a fair trial. Allowing this bias gives a wrong impression to jury, and it it allows them to believe that the sexism is acceptable and it shouldn't be. Unless you've lived this, you don't know how hard it is, and it will make that person suffer for the rest of their life. Change has to happen. Please support this bill.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Thank you all for your testimony and for the presentation. Next, we'll take the Me Too's. Come on down. Good morning.

Craig Pulsipher on behalf of Equality California, proud cosponsor and strong support.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of Vera California in support.

Leslie Caldwell Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in support as amended. Thanks.

Good morning. Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, Drug Policy Alliance, and Smart Justice California in support.

Jim Lindberg, Friends Committee on Legislation in California in support.

Colby Lenz, survived and punished as a sponsor in support.

Yannick Ortega with Sister Warriors in support.

Wonderful. Thank you all very much. Is there anyone here testifying in opposition today? Okay. We do have one.

Come on down. We have a pair of microphones and chairs here. Once you begin speaking, you'll have up to two minutes to address the committee.

Good morning. My name is Sam Haddad. Am I can you hear me? Thanks. And I'm here on behalf of CDAA, California District Attorneys Association in opposition, respectfully.

Aimed at strengthening protections against gender bias in criminal trials, this bill purports to prevent gender based stereotypes from influencing criminal proceedings and to ensure that verdicts are based on evidence rather than prejudice. However, the bill requires a court to presume the probative value of evidence likely to trigger gender based stereotypes is minimal. Additionally, the bill acknowledges that otherwise admissible evidence is likely to be excluded if passed requiring a two thirds vote of legislature.

The bill further allows a person to seek a writ of habeas corpus if gender based bias was admitted or relied upon at trial, and there's reasonable probability the outcome would have been different without it. While well intentioned, AB 2014 would create serious legal and practical problems in criminal proceedings.

First, California's constitution favors admitting relevant evidence in criminal trials. By creating a presumption that certain evidence tied to gender related topics has minimal probative value, the bill may properly improperly restrict relevant evidence and conflict with the state's truth and evidence standard. This tilts the balance too far toward exclusion. Second, the bill defines evidence likely to trigger gender based stereotypes broadly, including references to sexual activity, appearance, parenting roles, or romantic relationships.

These categories are vague and subjective, making it difficult for judges to apply consistently and inviting and predictable rulings.

This results in the creation of ambiguous and overbroad standards. Third, in some cases, sexual relationships, domestic dynamics, parenting conduct, or gender expression may be directly relevant to motive, intent, credibility, or elements of the crime. By presuming such evidence has minimal probative value, AB 2014 could prevent juries from hearing important facts necessary to evaluate guilt or innocence. The risk of excluding legitimately relevant evidence is a very serious concern. AB 2014 has the potential to expand

Ten seconds.

And appeals. The bill requires additional and eliminate hearings outside the jury's presence, mandate courts to consider social science research on gender bias, and creates a new basis for habeas corpus petitions if gender bias evidence is omitted.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate it. Are there anyone else, hoping to register a position of opposition with the committee? No? Okay. We'll turn it back to the dais. Questions or comments from members of the committee? Doctor Sharp Collins.

It's not so much of a question. Assembly member El Hawari, thank you for bringing forth this bill. To your witnesses, I really appreciate your testimonies. And I wanted you to kinda go back for me in your in your statement. You said can you go back to the to a section in your statement where you were talking about the way you dressed, just the sexual history?

Can you just kinda go back to restate? Because I know it it was a little bit low, so I had to move move the microphone over. But I wanted to know if you can go back to restate that, and then then I'll I'll comment on why. Is that okay, Cheer? I just needed to hear this one part again.

Yeah. No. I'm good. Perfectly, reasonable request. Absolutely.

So the DA brought up my four ex boyfriends to testify about the abuse if I liked it. If I got off on it, they showed pictures of me in a miniskirt and argued that I was a dominatrix, suggesting I controlled all my relationships.

I wanted that to be restated because that's completely unacceptable. 100%. The way that I carry myself, the way that I present myself, that's the way that I present myself. You know, we're not supposed to judge a book by its character. Right?

Bay based on the outer based on the outer appearance. If I I just have a issue with how too often if we don't conform to what traditional gender roles is like, then we're labeled. You know? We may have a certain style of dress that we like, but then we're labeled. What you do in your sexual preference, that should be your privacy.

Correct? So I just wanted you to to restate that because I know of other women and men who are impacted based on their personal decisions, which to me is their right to privacy. I heard you, and I do believe that we need to do something about making sure that we are all protected in this particular way, which is similar to what we already have in place with the Racial Justice Act.

So I just it was hard for me to hear, but when I heard it, I just was like, what? But I hear you.

Thank you so much for sharing your story. Just like I said, Chair, it wasn't so much of a question. It was just a comment of making sure that I actually heard what I heard. And so thank you for bringing us forward, and I do hope that we can find some type of balance. Opposition, I do hear hear what you're saying.

I I really do that there's any way that we can correct the wrongs and making sure that we keep the gender based stereotypes out of these type of situations. I am all all for that. So just still, I'm hoping that whatever opposition is saying you are still taking into consideration, and we could still make sure that we find some middle ground. But I will be supporting this bill today.

Thank you very much, doctor Sharp-Collins. Mister Lackey?

Yeah. I have a question to the opposition. When such statements are made that have been used as examples here today, shouldn't the judge make a a ruling that there's no relevancy or those statements are inflammatory without this legislation? Am I wrong on that? Or can you help me?

I don't think you're wrong on that. And I'll a member. And also, while we also agree that combating bias is is an important goal, we just don't want to overcorrect by creating vague standards, increasing litigation, restrict relevant evidence, and as member pointed member Lackey pointed out, this is

something we also feel should be handled by a judge who hopefully takes acknowledge of the times and responds more favorably than you are unfortunately treated. I also just wanna clarify.

Sorry, Assemblymember. There isn't technically a question. Posed. I will give you a chance to respond, but I actually had a question for your witness representative from the committee to revise the penal code. I listened very intently to the opposition testimony.

Good points were raised. However, my understanding is that some of those points were addressed in recent amendments. Could you walk us through that? Because I believe some of the opposition concerns, respectfully, are no longer relevant.

Correct. The original version of the bill created an evidence code provision similar similar to the rap lyrics evidence code provision that was passed, I think, just a few years ago that would have required judges to give heightened scrutiny to any evidence or argument that was identified as gender biased evidence. And and once the the judge would do that in evidence code three fifty two hearing where they would weigh the probative value versus the prejudicial impact.

That type of hearing would take place out of the presence of the jury. That portion of the bill in its entirety has been amended, and it is no longer in the bill.

There is no longer evidence code provision whatsoever. So this is purely a habeas corpus bill where, that issue would be able to be addressed post conviction. There is no this doesn't keep evidence out of trials in any way in its current form.

Okay. Thank you. And then assembly member El Hawari, in the form of a question, anything else you'd like the committee to know? I I I have one other naive question, but just because I never wanna assume that everybody knows what we're talking about. In plain terms, what's a habeas petition as opposed to the trial and principle?

As opposed to? I'm sorry.

The trial.

So a habeas petition is is after a person has already been convicted and they it's a it's a form of post conviction relief where they could petition the court based on some legal basis that the the legal judgment was somehow, wrong. And so it it's a petition that gets the convicted person back into court so the judge can look at their case.

Okay.

Thank you all very much. Does that beg any other questions or comments from members of the committee? Mister Lackey.

It seems to me that that would make it even more severe of a supine finding, unless I'm not understanding it correctly. Because now it would overturn potentially if they make their point that the innocence would be brought forward instead of whatever the finding may have been. So instead of it just addressing the issue, now it's it's it's total finding. Am I right?

Well, I can certainly opine, mister Lackey, but if any of the witnesses or anyone would like to respond to your point, this would be an appropriate time.

Just to say that the habeas petition would require a reasonable probability that the result of the trial would have been different. So not only, you know, did gender bias influence the decision, but it's not limited to one particular aspect of the trial. The judge would still have to make a finding that there's a reasonable possibility probability that that particular form of bias that was used actually impacted the the the judgment.

So I think it applies to the overall case and not a very small issue.

Okay.

Thank you. And then Mister Lackey just mentioned, my understanding is the habeas provision was in the original version of the bill, so they lifted out the evidence code provision. What remains is the habeas provision. You got it. Without any other questions or comments, would you like to close, Assemblymember?

Yes. And I just wanted to say to your earlier point, I, Rick had done a really great job of, explaining what I wanted to say, related to what I heard from our opposition witness. So appreciate you offering me that space.

I really just wanna thank our witnesses here today for just being such staunch advocates after going through an entire, you know, lifetime of being in prison, knowing that there were so many stereotypes used in trial, in a way that has impacted her and her family's entire lives. I think it's important that we really take an opportunity, to push forward legislation that doesn't allow, this.

And in this

case, we're specifically looking at habeas corpus, and we know that we have to keep working hard

to ensure that, have to keep working hard to ensure that, as, the assembly member said, our colleague, that we don't allow that to just continue to happen and that judges and DAs and, you know, everyone who's there doesn't speak up to ensure that we're not allowing that. But in this case, really making sure that we're, doing the work around habeas corpus. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. At the appropriate time when we have a quorum, I will recommend deny, and I'll just say I really appreciate the very respectful dialogue. I hope it continues between opposition and those in support, but I think that you're heading towards the right place and a bill that I'll be supporting on the floor. So thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

Okay. Assembly member, do you wanna go next to 2126 or 1886?

1886.

Okay, colleagues. This is Assembly 18 Assembly bill 1886. This is item number eight on your agendas. And Assembly member, whenever you're ready, you can begin. I see there's a handout.

I'll allow it just for all authors. In the future, I prefer I'm assuming is this is this from your office assembly member? This handout? Anyone knows or from the sponsor? I'll I'll allow it today.

I'm just I'm just this is more just for next time. I prefer advance notice even if it's just, like, five minutes before you come up just so I can review it. But I am familiar with the bill. I'm quickly glancing at it. I don't see anything objectionable, so I'll allow it.

But just in the future, if you're gonna come so if you have a handout for hearing later today, if you could bring that forward at this time, I'd appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you so much, mister chair, and we'll make sure to do that in the future. Good morning. Again, I'm proud to present AB 1886, which is about fairness and consistency in how we treat young people in the justice system. This bill closes a gap in current law so that youth in out of home placements and those transitioning from secure youth treatment facilities, also known as SYTFs, receive the same protections as youth living at home, helping prevent unnecessarily long probation terms. Right now, we have a two tiered system.

Youth who remain at home benefit from clear timelines and regular court review. But youth in out of home placements don't receive those same protections. Because of that, young people can stay on probation longer than necessary often for reasons outside of their control, like placement decisions or system delays, not their behavior. That's not fair, and it doesn't support rehabilitation. AB 1886 addresses this by creating clear, consistent standards.

It establishes a twelve month baseline for probation unless a court finds a specific reason to extend it. It also requires regular court review and ensures probation conditions are reasonable, age appropriate, and focused on helping young people succeed. At its core, this bill is about making sure every young person has a real chance to move forward, not stay stuck in the system because of the gaps in its structure.

I also wanna note that we are actively working with the juvenile court judges, and I look forward to continuing this these conversations as the bill moves forward. With me here today to testify is Caitlin Radigan, who is the statewide policy manager for California intern at National Center for Youth Law and a UC Berkeley student.

And here for technical questions only is Daphna Golzani with the National Center for Youth Law.

Good morning. My name is Charlie Wen. I'm a senior at UC Berkeley graduating this May, a clerk at the National Center for Youth Law, and I'll be applying to law schools this fall. I spent nearly two years on probation from June 2024 to March 2026 after being released from a secure youth treatment facility, and it did more to hold back my personal growth and development than nurture it. AB 1886 means giving youth a clear path to fully reintegrate into their community.

It helps them be accountable without further criminalizing them and sets a standard by giving youth something to work towards. Prior to probation, I spent almost eight years in the Orange County Juvenile Hall. They say the purpose of probation is to help facilitate rehabilitation. I didn't see that. I had a probation officer who oversaw my rehabilitation, but my but my success post juvenile hall was in spite of the probation system, not because of it.

When I was on probation, most aspects of my life were at the discretion of the court, probation, or the district attorney. Some tried to keep me on probation despite my high grades at Berkeley, the lack of violations throughout my probation supervision, and my unwavering commitment to paying my debt to society. Despite following the rules to the point of a judge calling me a star of the Juvenile Court and prime example of rehabilitation, I was kept on probation until I was assigned to a new judge.

He reviewed my file and not long after, lifted supervision and ruled that I completed probation successfully. During my probation period, there were many people who acknowledge how well I was doing, but no one ever saw how probation really affected me.

I spent every day anxious and feeling like I was always gonna be treated as a criminal because every probation check-in began with, have you used any drugs or have you been stopped by police? It was never, how are you doing or is there anything I can do to support you? My home was constantly searched, making my little cousins worried that I was going to be arrested even though I had done nothing wrong.

Since being released from juvenile hall and beginning my probation term, I've been offered many opportunities professionally and academically both in and out of state, much of which I had to decline because of probation restrictions, and I couldn't even give a reasonable timeline for when I might be able to participate. My experience is exactly what AB 1886 addresses.

I was discharged from an SYTF after years in custody, but under current law, youth who excel and do what they are supposed to are excluded from a twelve month presumptive termination.

And I'm sorry. That's your time. Thank you. I'm sorry. But if you stick around, there might be questions that give you a chance to finish that statement.

Next witness, please.

Thank you. My name is Caitlin Radigan. I'm a former foster youth and ward of the court. I spent many years on probation, but not because I was unsafe, because the system didn't know how to let me go or empower me to thrive as a self sufficient adult. Unfortunately, the system wanted to control me under the guise of protection.

And what I actually needed was stability, healing, and someone who believed that I could succeed without my every move being monitored. Probation was more destabilizing. It meant more rules, more chances to fail. And I've heard the concerns about the twelve month presumption being too rigid. But what's rigid is keeping young people under surveillance, with no off ramp or way to exit the system.

And I've also heard the concerns around public safety, but there's really nothing safe about keeping young people entangled in the system longer than necessary. When we keep someone in the system and under surveillance, it doesn't create independence. It actually creates an unhealthy, codependence. And AB 1886 actually creates accountability. It asks the system to answer one simple question.

Why does this young person still need to be here? It actually shifts the burden from youth who are forced to prove they deserve freedom, and the system needs to now prove wise continued supervision necessary. A timeline creates urgency, and urgency creates focus. And focus creates real support for young people who are navigating multiple systems.

If this bill had been in place when I was navigating the system, it might have helped me experience a bridge to independence instead of a barrier to my self sufficiency as a young adult.

I ask you to see us not as risks to manage, but as young people ready to move forward when given the chance. For young people like me, especially those in foster care, those coming home from placement, we don't need more time in the system. We need a clear path out of it. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And thank you both for sharing your stories with such courage today in front of the committee. Appreciate that. Next, if we can hear from those also in support, come on down. Name, organization, and position, please.

Leslie Caldwell, Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in support.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU California Action and proud support.

Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and Smart Justice California in support.

Gwen Gunheim, Whole Consulting on behalf of LA County Public Defenders Union, Local one four eight in support.

Keely O'Brien with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, proud cosponsor and in strong support.

Nicole Morales on behalf of Children Now in support.

Elizabeth Kim on behalf of Initiate Justice in support.

Rachel Volkoff Holt, behalf of the National Center for Youth Law and expressing support, for Alianza for Opportunity, All of Us or None of Us Sacramento, All Youth are Sacred, Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment Action, Angeles Behavioral Health and Reentry Consulting, Asian Solidarity Collective, Back to the Start, Better Alternatives for Youth Peace, Then the Arc, Jewish Action California, Books and Buckets, Bridges of Hope California, Brotherhood Crusade, California Coalition for Women's Prisoners, California School Based Health Alliance, Californians for Safety and Justice, Californians for a Responsible Budget, Cancel the Contract, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, Children's Defense Fund California, Community Interventions, Community Works, Consumer Attorneys of California, Courage California, Fair Chance Project, Freedom for Youth, Fresno Barrios Unidos, and Hoops for Justice.

Hello. My name is Danny Munoz. I'm legal services for prisoners of children on behalf of Initiate Justice, Inside Out, Riders, and to integral Community Solutions Institute, Peace United Church of Christ, so Santa Cruz, Restore one eighty, Restoring Hope California, San Francisco Public Defender's Office, Santa Cruz Barrios Unidos, Silicon Valley Debug, Starting Over Inc, the California Youth Justice Project, the Collective for Liberatory Lawyering, the Peace and Justice Law Center, Underground Grid, Universidad Popular, Upward Together, Urban Peace Institute, Urban Peace Movement, UNO Search for Change, Youth Alliance, Youth for Innocence, Youth Justice Coalition LA, Youth Justice Education Clinic at Loyola Law School, Youth Leadership Institute, and the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, Toronto support.

Marco Duncan, Ronald Elder Freeman, policy fellow, I support.

Jim Lindbergh, Friends Committee on Legislation of California in support.

Good morning again. Yannnick Ortega with the Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition and proud cosponsor in support.

Good morning. Ariana Montes on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice in support.

Wonderful. Thank you all very much. Do we have opposition witnesses? I see two assembly member perfect. We can get your technical expert just to take a seat in the front row.

Your other witnesses are perfectly situated. Each of you will have two minutes to address the committee once you begin speaking.

Good morning, mister chair. Cliff Costa today on behalf of the California Judges Association and the Juvenile Court Judges of California in respectful opposition to AB 1886. Juvenile probation is purposeful, individualized, and not unnecessarily prolonged, this bill, unfortunately, goes too far by extending the twelve month probation presumption to youth and out of home placements and youth discharged from a secured youth treatment facility.

These were populations that were specifically excluded under last year's AB 1376 by Assemblywoman Bonta and was part of a carefully negotiated compromise with the California Judges Association and the Juvenile Court Judges of California. This bill would immediately undo that agreement less four months after the agreement was reached.

First, youth and out of home placement often present some of the most complex circumstances in the juvenile system, because their lives are less stable and their services are even greater. A twelve month presumption does not reflect that reality, unfortunately. It pressures courts into working through the arbitrary timeline instead of focusing on a case by case judgment about what is actually needed for rehabilitation, safe transition, and for the youth. Additionally, applying the same presumption to youth discharge from an SYTF facility is also particularly problematic.

Now, we'd like to thank miss El Hawarhe and her staff for bringing the sponsors and us together so that we could try to resolve our miscommunications.

Should this bill move forward today, we would continue to seek ways to improve probation for foster youth who are in the juvenile justice system. That was our commitment last year and we continue to abide by that commitment. But we remain opposed to applying that presumption to all youth and out of home treatment or out of home placement. So, therefore, today, we respectfully request a no vote. Thank you.

Good morning, mister chair and members. Danielle Sanchez on behalf of the chief probation officers of California in opposition to AB 1886. I do want to first note that any notion of kind of, you know, extended or indefinite probation is not accurate in practical application. There are a series of processes involved in the judicial ordering of probation, check ins, progress, and determinations.

Goals of making sure that youth are being successful and then transitioned kind of out of the system, in in, safe and appropriate ways.

But this bill is not just about setting up court hearings or addressing populations that were left out because for both populations included in the bill, there are existing requirements for court check-in here. What this bill does is directly upends important exemptions that were made last year by applying the twelve month presumption, of discharge to you serious and violent offenses.

Last year, we opposed AB 1376, which implemented in just January, set that twelve month mandatory presumption fact that the bill set the presumption of discharge and removed the ability to make individualized determinations based on the criminogenic needs, the progress of meeting a youth's rehabilitative goals, and public safety.

AB 1886 will now apply this to youth who are leaving our SYTF, a part of the continuum that's reserved for the highest risk and highest need youth for adults up to age 25, and again, the most serious and violent offenses that were transferred from DJJ. So, again, the we see this one year supervision term as arbitrary and also upending important exemptions that were made with a focused discussion on these populations.

So for those reasons, we're opposed today.

Thank you both very much. Now we'll hear from others in opposition to the bill. Please come forward.

Sam Hadda on behalf of California District Attorneys Association. We concur in opposition members' comments. And on behalf of CDAA, we must oppose AB 1886, specifically as it relates.

I apologize. This is only for the Me Too's. It's very antiquated I don't know why we have these rules, but we do.

marching orders that I was speaking on this today as well.

It's all good.

We are in opposition. Me too.

Thank you very much. Mister Torrico, welcome back.

Thank you, mister chairman. Good morning. Alberto Torrico on behalf of the rank and file probation officers, state coalition probation organizations in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Kim Craig with ARC Strategies on behalf of the California Police Chiefs Association in opposition. Thank you.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the Solano County Board of Supervisors with the position of oppose unless amended. Thank you. Thank you. Final call. Anyone else hoping to be heard on the bill?

Okay. We'll turn it back to the dais, doctor Sharp Collins. Oh, we're good. Okay. Well, we only have you and me, so that's it. I I don't have any questions. I have a statement, but no questions. So assembly member, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Well, that was quick. Look, I I I do I I genuinely appreciate the concerns raised by the opposition. I do, especially when we have representatives of judicial officers before this committee. To to our other witnesses point, I understand that after AB 1376 left this committee last year that there were negotiations and conversations to include certain exemptions.

Regrettably, I was never consulted or part of that, so I am asked to enforce an agreement that I have very little knowledge of other than what's sitting before me today.

As a matter of policy, AB 1376, which advanced out of committee last year, contains substantially similar provisions to what's before us today in Assemblymember Elhawary's bill. Assemblymember, you may have some obstacles in front of you as you approach other committees, but for today's purposes, in a matter of and as a matter of public safety policy and especially with a mind of what's best best for our youth, I'm an Aye. So at the appropriate time, I'll be recommending an Aye.

Thank you all very much. And I would ask that should the bill advance out of committee and there's future conversations, would love to be included and consulted on those conversations since I tend to be asked to often enforce and arbitrate those disputes. Thank you very much.

Thank you

With that, still waiting for a quorum. So if your boss is not here and you're watching in, if you could send them to Room 126, that would be great. And if it's mister Gonzales' staff, if they wanna bring a orange juice, that'd be wonderful too. Next, we have Assemblymember El Hawari, and I believe your last bill is 2126?

Yes. I am.

Great. Alright. And thank you to all the authors waiting patiently in the wings. Assemblymember, the floor is yours.

Good morning again. I'm proud to present AB 2126, which removes unnecessary hiring barriers for peer partners in our child welfare system. People who bring lived experience and are uniquely positioned to support others navigating those same systems. We know peer partners work. They improve engagement, support stability, and help young people stay connected to school and family.

Last week, members of the human services committee heard about this impact firsthand from Santo Flores Castro, a peer partner who's testified in support of this bill. His story was so powerful that even one of our Republican colleagues mentioned switching their vote, helping us receive unanimous support. But right now, too many qualified applicants, especially former foster youth, are being blocked by a lengthy background check exemption process, which it can take up to twelve months.

Most people can't wait that long for a job, so we lose qualified candidates. AB 2126 creates a narrow targeted exemption for peer applicants who are current or former foster youth when offenses occurred before age 21.

It does not include violent or child related felonies, and all fingerprint based checks remain in place. This bill allows agencies to hire faster and ensures the people best equipped to do this work, like Santo, aren't pushed out before they even get started. Joining me today is Annie Thomas, policy advocate with the California Alliance of Child and Family Services.

Hi. Good morning, Chair Schultz and members. Annie Thomas on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, proud cosponsor of AB 2126. The California Alliance represents over 200 organizations, including many licensed providers such as short term residential therapeutic programs, foster family agencies, and other programs serving youth in the child welfare system. Our members recognize the value of hiring peers with lived experience because they see every day the trust, connection, and credibility those peers bring to youth engagement and support.

Too often, the very young people best positioned to support foster youth are blocked from employment because of youth age offenses such as or offenses tied to trauma, instability, and system involvement. Under current law, if the offense is not on the state's list of disqualifying crimes, the Department of Social Services already has authority to grant an exemption. The problem is that according to our data, the process can take seven to twelve months, and most applicants can't wait that long for a job.

These delays not only cause agencies to lose qualified candidates, but also discourages agencies from hiring peers in the first place. Current and former foster youth are uniquely appropriate for these roles because they know the system from the inside.

They understand what it means to navigate placements, court hearings, case plans, and the instability that so many young people in care experience. That lived experience helps them build trust, improve engagement, and help youth advocate for themselves from a place of firsthand understanding. AB 2126 removes that barrier. It doesn't change the law for serious nonexemptible crimes, and it maintains the same background check and safety standards already required under current law.

It simply ensures that for current former foster youth seeking to work in a peer support capacity, already exemptable offenses committed before age 21 do not trigger a long discretionary delay that keeps them out of the workforce.

This bill recognized lived experience as an asset, not a liability, and helps ensure that foster youth are supported by people who truly understand their experience. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thanks.

Well, thank you very much for being here. Next, we'll take the Me Too's. Come on down.

Nicole Wortleman on behalf of the Children's Partnership, proud cosponsor and strong support.

Nicole Morales on behalf of Children Now in support.

Javier Rodriguez with ACLU Cal Action and proud support.

Yannick Ortega with Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition in support.

Colby Lens with Survived and Punished in support.

Kelly Savage Rodriguez with CCWP in support.

Alright. Thank you all. Just final call. Anyone else hoping to register a support position? Okay.

Do we have anyone here testifying in opposition today? Going once, going twice. Any, anyone else wanna register any other position? Nope. Doctor Sharp Collins, any questions?

You're good. Okay. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

And it will be an aye at the appropriate time. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Alright, that concludes all of Assembly member Elhawary's bills. And Mister Hart, the, gentleman that he is, thank you very much for being so patient. We're actually gonna next take up, Assembly Bill 2624 by Assemblymember Bonta, followed by mister Hart. Assemblymember, you'll whenever you're ready, you can begin. Your witnesses will have two minutes each to address the committee as will the opposition witnesses.

And, again, you can begin whenever you're ready to do so.

Good morning.

Good morning. AB 2624 expands California's safe at home program to include immigrant service providers, their employees, and volunteers. This program allows participants to use a substitute address designated by the secretary of state, keeping their home, work, and school addresses out of public records while still allowing them to safely remain receive mail and legal documents throughout the state. This gives them a critical layer of protection and privacy in an environment where their personal safety is increasingly at risk.

Individuals who provide vital immigrant support services, including legal aid, humanitarian relief, case management, and advocacy are facing targeted harassment.

This is not hypothetical. Advocates and workers are receiving death threats being targeted at courthouses and facing coordinated online doxing campaigns even facing this vitriol at their home. These threats have risen sharply in 2025 and are expected to continue due to the current political climate. At the same time, personal information is increasingly easy to access. Data brokers collect and sell information from public records, and social media can allow individuals to piece together identifying details.

This makes it easier for bad actors to threaten or harm those who are simply doing their jobs. Advocates in California report doxing of staff and volunteers at immigration legal organization aid organizations, coordinated death threats against service providers, anti immigrants, vigilante activity directed at organizations by name and address. Organizations serving serving LGBTQ plus and immigrant communities commonly hide their locations, staff information, and other details to keep their teams and their people they serve safe.

Currently, California state law does not provide adequate protections for sensitive data and information, leaving immigrant advocates and service providers vulnerable. General privacy laws act, after harm has already occurred and were not designed to address the coordinated online put it politically motivated harassment that we are now seeing.

This bill protects sensitive personal data in a way that empowers people to do their job safely and confidently under the Secretary of State's Safe at Home program before harm occurs. Since its inception thirty years ago, nearly thirty years ago, the Safe at Home program has protected thousands of victims of stalking and domestic violence victims along with reproductive health care workers.

The program, very simply, provides participants with a substitute address to shield their real addresses, requires the secretary of state to act as an intermediary for mail and legal service forwarding documents with a short time frame, keeping individual participants' home, work, and school addresses confidential and protected from public disclosure, establishes penalties for misuse or false applications to ensure program integrity, and prohibits the posting, displaying, selling, or distributing of the personal information or images of program participants online when done with proven intent to threaten, harass, or incite violence.

No one should have to face harassment or threats at their home. This law helps prevent individuals with malicious intent from targeting service providers where they live, reducing the risk of escalation to violence, bodily harm, or worse.

I'm continuing to work with my colleagues in the legislature and community partners to ensure this law is carried out as is as it's intended to protect and prevent harm. At its core, this is about the safeguard of our privacy, dignity, and safety of immigrant service workers and their families. California has also recognized in the context of reproductive healthcare providers that when program participants are targeted because of their work, the state has a responsibility to provide proactive protections.

Immigrant service pro providers now face similar threats and they deserve those same safeguards under the safe at home program. Protecting these workers and volunteers means protecting access.

If providers are driven out or silenced, immigrant communities lose access to vital services that help them survive and thrive. Here to testify and support, or I they, Rodriguez from the environmental justice campaign project manager for Alliance at Coachella Valley, and Brandon, who is a JD candidate.

Hi. Good morning, chair and members. Thank you for your consideration of AB 2624, privacy for immigration support services. My name is Ayla Rodriguez. I'm testifying as a fellow for the Solis Policy Institute at the Women's Foundation of California.

I'm here today to respectfully ask for your eye vote on this bill. Why? This bill seeks to expand the safe at home program, which for thirty years has provided qualified groups such as victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and human trafficking, as well as reproductive justice service providers, and more recently, gender affirming care providers and patients with address confidentiality, a substitute mailing, address, and other legal tools to prevent or respond to doxxing before it escalates into physical harm.

As I sit here today, willingly, I also recognize I may be targeted for advocating for this bill. I fear that people may come after me and or my family because of my affiliation with this effort through my fellowship and my solidarity with organizations and coalitions doing the good work of supporting vulnerable immigrant communities across California.

These organizations help individuals understand and exercise their constitutional rights, amplify immigrant voices, and provide vital community resources such as humanitarian relief and translation services to counseling and health care. At a time when increasingly contentious and dangerous times for immigrant communities, when even citizens are being taken from the streets by ICE and some contract agents under an aggressive federal administration, The work of these people working and volunteering for these organizations is more important than ever.

Yet, the people who carry out this work are often stopped, harassed, threatened, and intimidated. Organizations are doing what they can with limited funding to protect their employees and volunteers in their workplace through increased security and enhanced anonymity so their identities are protected as they do important work. AB 2624 would extend that protection by helping ensure their safety, security, and privacy at home.

Everyone deserves to feel feel and be safe, especially in their own home. This bill ensures those facing growing threats in their professional lives can return home to peace, privacy, and security without fear for their own well-being and that of their families. AB 2624 seeks to do that, and I respectfully, ask for a aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Yeah. Abs... or you can pull the mic closer to you, whatever you prefer.

Good morning, chair. Good morning, chair and members of the committee. My name is Brandon. I'm a JD candidate in the great state of California and aspiring candidate an aspiring immigration attorney, and I'm here in support of AB 2624. As a child of immigrants, I've chose to pursue immigration law after witnessing firsthand challenges that immigrant families face from navigating through the complex legal system and through living with constant uncertainty and fear.

Those experiences have shaped my, my commitment to this work and and to supporting vulnerable communities in times like these, especially as attacks, on immigrant communities, continue. As I prefer to enter this field, I'm increasingly concerned. I'm increasingly concerned about my safety and the safety of others doing this work. Amid rising hostility towards immigrant communities and immigrant immigration attorneys and service providers have been targeted, have been harassed, and in some cases, docs. I've seen how organizations, that support immigrant communities, here in California are targeted.

Immigration legal nonprofits already operate with limited resources, and those threats directly limit the ability to serve those communities. These threats have been shaping whether people like myself, feel can we can safely enter this field. Even within the last week, this the the the reaper misrepresentation and online mobilization around this bill has made me question whether it was safe to me to speak publicly.

But I'm here today to I'm here today because I know this is very important to share my perspective on on AB 26 AB 2624. AB 2624 is a critical step in addressing, these concerns by strength strengthening in privacy con privacy protections for, immigrant immigration service providers and and those who can serve.

And this bill ensures that people can continue this work without the fear for their safety. Without these protections, back bad actors can continue to, spread misinformation and expose, personal information Providing putting both providers and the communities they serve at risk. For these reasons, I respectfully ask, for your aye vote. Thank you. Great.

Thank you both very much for your testimony today and for your bravery in being here. It's appreciated by the committee. And thank you, of course, assembly member. Next, if we can take the me too's in support of the bill, come on down. Name, organization, and position, please.

Gareth Elliott on behalf of the California Community Foundation in support.

Sophia Liu from Burbank, California at Mulberry High School with Coalition of Humane Immigrant Rights in support.

I heard Burbank. That's great.

I made sure she she said that. Southeast Asian Resource Action Center, CRAC, Central Valley Empowerment Alliance, services immigration rights and education networks, Siren, and Monica Madrid with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights in support.

Nina Long with API Specific Empowerment in support.

Good morning, mister chair members. Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California in strong support and in solidarity with our CHIRLA members. Thank you.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU Cal Action in strong support.

She Ming Sher with the California Immigrant Policy Center and also a former immigration attorney in strong support.

Good morning. Ruth Sosa with Power California Action and on behalf of Unidos US in support.

Julie Mello with Felony Murder Elimination Project in strong support.

Kelly Savage Rodriguez with CCWP in strong support.

Mike Harold, mentor to the police policy institute team in support.

Yannick Ortega with Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition in strong support.

Thank you all very much. Do we have anyone here testifying in opposition today? Okay. Come on down, sir. There are two chairs right here in front of me.

You're welcome to take either chair, and you'll have two minutes to address the committee. Your time doesn't begin until you start to speak. I'll give you the thirty second warning. Okay. Thank you.

You can turn it is it on? Okay. My name is Damien Duran. I am a Sacramento native, independent journalist, and I oppose this because the clarification has not really been made whether this is gonna affect journalism and investigating crime. If if that is the case that we can we can establish that it's not gonna affect journalism and posting YouTube videos, then maybe there'll be more support because I understand what he's saying about attacking immigrants.

I understand that the the intent for journalism is not to incite violence. So I wanna clarify that for all the truth seekers out there like myself. We're not trying to incite any violence. However, we do wanna expose criminal activity, fraud, other things. So that's why I'm in opposition right now, and I I represent a number of truth seekers that if we can understand that it's not if the intent from journalist is to incite, then yes.

I get that. They're they're gonna have to face their consequences. But independent journalists who actually investigate and are not trying to harm anyone or get anybody to show up at somebody's house and attack them, that's that's where I stand. Thank you.

Thank you very much, sir. If there's anyone else hoping to register a position of opposition or any other position on the bill, you can come up to this microphone by mister Ironside at this time. Okay. I don't see any, anyone taking the bait. Any questions or comments from members of the committee?

Mister Lackey, welcome back. We are on Assemblymember Bonta's bill. Doctor Sharp Collins.

Hi. Assemblymember Bonta for bringing forth this such this is a really important bill. This bill reminds me of mine that came up last year, 1392, which was to do the exact same thing for what you're asking for today. It is important that we do everything to everything we can to protect those that are working in this particular field as we have done with us for elected officials and also for candidates, but also for those who are working in the reproductive field as well.

As I stated when I introduced 1392, no one should fear walking out of their home every day.

No one should fear even coming into the office every day when you're just trying to do what you can. As as the member said, survive and thrive. And so I just I just wanted to echo the fact that this is a important bill. It definitely resembles, 1392. It is the same thing from 1392.

It's just go moving forward to to, actually extend it, and I am going to be supporting this bill today. And, hopefully, what what we did do with thirteen ninety two, though, was that we did speak to the journalist as well, and we did find some middle ground. So I'm not sure whether you've had those have that dialogue yet in in in regards to the journalist, but maybe still considering speaking with them in case there is some listed oppositions for that. Right now, I don't see anything.

But but listening to his testimony did remind me of the fact that we did have some deep conversations with them to make sure that it did not impede on their ability to still do their work.

So I just recommend maybe still having that dialogue, but definitely support the bill and understand where it's going, and no one should fear being able to do their work to be able to provide for their family. So, I will be supporting the bill today. Thank you.

Thank you very much, doctor Sharp Collins. Other questions or comments? Mister Lackey.

Okay. Here we are. This is a a bill that's gotten a lot of attention, obviously. And here's the reason why I'm not able to support it today is because the way it's being interpreted is very controversial and seems to be possibly even misunderstood. But because of that, it shows that this bill is not clear.

Maybe it's clear in your intent, but the application needs help. In my opinion, if there's this much attention being drawn and accusations that it represents something that you say it doesn't claim, doesn't represent, we need to work it through. And at this point, I'm not able to support it because of that very fact that it's very confusing and it's it's causing so much animus. Maybe we can bring calm and show that your intent is really what your intent is.

But as of right now, it's a it's a lightning rod, and it's a it's causing a lot of stir and a lot of concern, and I see both sides. So I'm caught in the middle, and that means that I'm gonna be laying off. I just wanted you to know where I'm at. Thank you.

Thank you, mister Lackey. Mister Harabedian. Thank you,

Mister chair. Thank you to the author and the both witnesses for being here today. I will be supporting the bill at the right time. Happy to move the bill, and I have full confidence in the author to ensure that anything that needs clarification will be clarified going forward. And I just wanna thank you for bringing the bill.

Okay. Thank you all very much. Assembly member, would you like to close?

Well, thank you. I will first wanna thank Aida and Brandon for being here, for sharing their testimony, and for continuing their important work despite the very challenging conditions. I saw handshaking, people questioning whether or not they should have come to testify, and that is largely because of the over the last, you know, week or so of this bill, either in Brandon and many immigrant service providers as well as my colleagues and staff having to face hateful profanity, disrespectful language, and threats death threats.

So I can't imagine how it must be for immigrant service providers who are doing their job every single day to have to deal with this level of of hate. This bill has always been very clear in that it preserves California's journalist Shields evidence code section 1070.

That is in the legislation. It is very clearly in the legislation. It only targets intentionally hosting or distribution of personal information when tied to threats, harassment, or incitement of violence. Constitutional free speech protections still fully apply. It does not prevent lawful reporting of matters of public concern, and the bill is narrowly focused on preventing misuse of personal information, not restricting lawful speech.

That is in the legislation as it stands, that has been in the legislation since the very first committee that has reviewed this bill. I wanna be clear that at this moment in time, when people decide to proactively put out misinformation, it has dire consequences for individuals. It causes us to in assembly member Lackey, your words have a bit of a stir for some. For others, it means that they fear walking down the street.

So, while I am appreciative of the legislative process that we go through to ensure that we have an opportunity to fully vet and refine legislation as it moves forward.

I want to first acknowledge that this piece of legislation, as Assemblymember Sharp Collins noted, with her prior legislation, follows a program that has been in existence for nearly thirty years. It follows line and verse the aspects of those program that program as it was stood up, in its origination for domestic violence survivors.

And we are doing no different here other than trying to make sure that good people, good residents of California, good citizens of California have the ability to serve our immigrant community, who are also good residents of California, good citizens of California, and good people of California. And with that, I respectfully request your eye vote.

Well, thank you very much, assembly member. I am recommending an eye today. I do have a brief statement. I'd like to provide some context. My only misgiving is that my colleague from San Diego who's had so much to say about this bill on the floor isn't here.

So I hope his staff will flag it, and I hope he takes to heart what I'm about to say. First of all, and most importantly, Assemblymember, I wanna thank you for your continued passionate advocacy for our underserved communities and for our communities of color, especially our undocumented residents in this moment. I also wanna thank both of the witnesses for your courage and your bravery being here before this committee today so that we can hear your testimony, and we can feel the importance of this moment.

Our undocumented residents and family members, both here and across The United States, live in unrelenting and constant fear of brutalization by ice and unjustified rendering simply because of how they look or sound or the jobs that they perform in the state. I share your commitment to protecting our undocumented communities.

Second, maybe one of the most important things I'll say, the safe at home program, which is really what this bill is all about, has existed in California since 1998 as part of the secretary of State's programming. It offers and I'm gonna go slow because this is what I really hope gets out there.

The safe at home program offers a substitute mailing address to receive first class certified and registered mail for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, human trafficking, child abduction, and elder or dependent adult abuse, as well as for reproductive health care workers, that's the subject of recent legislation, providers of gender affirming care, and public entity employees who are in fear for their safety. I'll note that it requires filing an application under penalty of perjury with verified grounds that a person's safety is in fact in danger.

This bill simply adds people providing specific types of immigration support services, including employees and volunteers to the list of eligible people.

Importantly, the privacy protections provided in this bill have been the law in California for reproductive health care workers going back to 2006. It was expanded to include online privacy protections in 2021 and 2024, and for providers of gender affirming care most recently in 2025. This bill simply includes people providing a specific type of immigration support services to the same protections.

And if I repeated myself twice, that was intentional because the misinformation is rampant, and I rest it solely at the feet of a certain member from San Diego who quite intentionally is doing this. Since 2016, the rise in online threats resulting in real world violent attacks have spurred the need for these laws.

Let me be extraordinarily clear again to the member from San Diego. There is and not doctor Sharp Collins. She's delightful. There is no part of this bill. None that prevents law enforcement, district attorneys, or the attorney general of the great state of California from investigating fraud, notwithstanding, what those in acting in bad faith might claim.

And I will also note to the opposition witness that was here today, and I did appreciate your testimony, sir. I would respectfully say that there's no part of this bill that impedes your ability to do your job. If I'm the subject of a journalistic approach, I would argue that you can certainly come at me. You don't necessarily need to publicly disclose where I live or where I take my children to school for you to do your job. And I'm not suggesting that's what you said, sir, but that's the point.

This is about setting in place real guardrails to protect people. These programs are not new. They have been the law in the state for twenty five to thirty years, and yet only after online agitators and disingenuous actors, including members of this legislature, raise the specter of concern. Are we seeing the opposition expressed over the last week? And I'm fired up because as we heard from assembly member Bonta, this is resulting in real threats and harassment targeted at members of this body.

And if they're targeting members of this body, I can only imagine what others, especially those who are trying to provide critical support services to our immigrant community, what they're facing every day that we don't even know about. So assembly member, thank you for your tireless work in defending our communities of color and our undocumented residents who all have contributed to the success of our state and are part of our state. We stand with you all at the appropriate time.

I will proudly recommend an eye and shame to on anyone who is making this lightning rod, this firestorm happen. Shame on them.

Thank you. Oh, I see we have a quorum now. Can we call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Here. We have a quorum present. We have a motion. Is there a second? We have a motion and a second. Let's call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. That measure remains on call. We'll let you know the outcome. And if my staff is watching, let's get this clip to mister DeMaio, shall we? Thank you.

Alright. There being a quorum, before we go on, let's dispense with the consent calendar, shall we? Everyone, I'm gonna read it out loud, and then I know some of you might need to go. We have the following items on proposed consent and I believe there was a motion by mister Lackey if I heard correctly and a second by mister Harabedian. The following items are on proposed consent.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Mister Chair and Members. I'm here today to present Assembly Bill 2257 on county jail accountability. California's county jails are in crisis. Deaths are occurring at record highs. People with mental illnesses are languishing, and costs are skyrocketing without improved outcomes.

These issues are occurring on the watch of California's elected sheriffs. Before 1993, a board of supervisors could appoint a county level Department of Corrections to operate the jails independently of a sheriff's office. Napa County made this shift and continues to operate its jail system through a county department of corrections today. In 1993, the legislature enacted a moratorium on this option, giving sheriff sole and exclusive jail operating authority in all counties that have not made the switch to the Department of Corrections.

Thirty years later, pervasive issues persist within our jails.

While exclusive authority held by sheriff's over jail oversight does not create these issues, it gets in the way of addressing them. AB 2257 would restore the option for counties to appoint a county level corrections agency to operate the jails if such a move would advance the public safety, rehabilitation, and financial responsibility. The bill does not require counties to change the management structure of their jails, but it gives boards of supervisors more leverage in critical jail policy issues.

Prior to serving in the assembly, I served as a county supervisor in Santa Barbara County. In my time on the board, our county navigated difficult issues in our jails, including the occurrence of preventable jail deaths, chronic fiscal mismanagement, and resistance to reform efforts.

The monopoly that sheriffs have over jail policy decisions creates a disincentive for the sheriff to be accountable to the county government and the community at large. Our board of supervisors, like many others throughout the state, was forced to write blank checks to the sheriff for the operation of the jails. We were required by law to fund the sheriff's jail and to be responsible if anything went wrong, but we had no authority to compel changes that would prevent issues going forward.

The sheriff recently reminded the board that their hands were tied when it came to jail funding decisions. The lack of jail checks and balances also interferes with the authority of a board of supervisors to manage the county's broader finances.

In my county alone, the sheriff has overspent his jail budget four of the past five fiscal years, and there has been an he has been on track to overspend by $8,000,000 this year. When a sheriff overspends on jail operations, boards of supervisors can be forced to make cuts to other county agencies, especially the social safety net.

In other counties, sheriffs have failed to address civil rights abuses, rejected recommendations from state oversight bodies, and refused to comply with county ordinances preventing the use of county funds for immigrant enforcement. My bill does not require counties to take any action. It simply restores important discretion that counties previously had.

Many or even most counties may continue to operate sheriff run jail systems. These counties will still benefit from this bill as the sheriff will have a greater incentive to work in good faith with the board of supervisors and the community to address jail issues. If a county experiences persistent jail governance issues and would like to bring the jail under the county management structure through an agency led by an appointed and accountable department head, they will have that authority.

You may ask, how could a county run a jail separate from the sheriff's office? In Napa County, the Department of Corrections led by an appointed director recently opened a state of the art twenty first century correctional facility.

This facility was designed to support the rehabilitation and mental health needs of the incarcerated. The agency has also opened a reentry facility in partnership with the probation department, helping people transition out of jail with support so they do not return. The Napa County Department of Corrections has come in, at, or under budget over the past several fiscal years. In Washington state, counties large and small, urban and rural, have chosen to create independent jail agencies. Other examples exist in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

My bill exclusively looks at the management of the county jails. The bill is not intended to displace the professionals who work in our jails. The bill specifies the county departments of correction and rehabilitation can continue to hire the incumbent workforce, including peace officers. The difference is that peace officers and correctional staff would report to a professional jail administrator appointed by and accountable to the board of supervisors rather than to the sheriff.

I ask for your aye vote to restore local choice in the governance of county jails by allowing counties to maintain sheriff run jail systems or establish separate departments of corrections and rehabilitation.

With me to testify in support today are Paul Parker and Leslie Houston. Mister Parker has decades of public safety experience serving as a police officer, death investigator, and chief deputy coroner. In recent years, Mr. Parker served as the executive officer at the San Diego County Civilian Law Enforcement Review Board, which has oversight authority over the sheriff's office and the county jail. Miss Houston is the former chief public defender for the county of Solano and is representative of the California Public Defenders Association.

Mister Parker?

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Schultz and Members of the Committee. My name is Paul Parker, and I am a long time California death investigator, a former police officer, and the retired executive officer of the San Diego County Citizens Law Enforcement Review Board, the civilian oversight body that was tasked with independently investigating in custody deaths in San Diego County Jails. I'm here today in strong support of AB 2257.

Over the years, I've sat with families who ask again and again how and why their loved one died in custody or was not provided appropriate care.

I then watched those families wait, sometimes for years, for investigations to conclude and for answers that were delayed, incomplete, or never provided. During my tenure at CLERB, I worked to expand authority oversight authority to include healthcare providers, pressed for the transparency family so rightly deserved, and helped advance approximately 40 recommendations aimed at reducing in custody deaths. Yet CLERB, like many civilian oversight bodies, is advisory only. Counties lack both the tools and statutory options needed to compel meaningful change.

Civilian oversight boards and inspectors general may issue recommendations to boards of supervisors and sheriffs regarding jail issues and practices.

That's true. Unfortunately, those boards have no authority or leverage to compel that change and sheriffs are not required to consider, implement, or even respond to those recommendations. Even the state's very own jail oversight agency, the BSCC, lacks the authority to mandate compliance or enforce proposed reforms. Just as the legislature regis recently gave counties the option to establish an office of inspector general, AB 2257 applies the same logic directly to jail governance. The bill mandates nothing and imposes no new requirements.

When counties have the option to establish independent operation of a jail that is demonstrably failing, sheriffs do have greater incentive to work with the board of supervisors and communities before more families are left waiting, before more people die, before years long audit findings continue to document preventable failures. I respectfully urge your support of AB 2257. Thank you.

Good morning. Leslie Caldwell-Houston on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. I would like to read into the record the statement of my colleague, the public defender, chief defender of Santa Barbara County. I will read it verbatim.

Permission granted.

Tracy, I Tracy Makugat, defender public defender of Santa Barbara County, a position I have held for ten years. Today, I speak on behalf of the Public Defender's Office in support of AB 2257. I am not representing the board of supervisors of Santa Barbara County. AB 2257 does one thing. It gives each county the option to either keep the sheriff running the county jail or to appoint a different official answerable to the board of supervisors to operate it.

It does not mandate any structure. It simply restores the local choice that counties had before 1993. Excuse me. This matters because many California jail systems face serious operational challenges, rising in custody deaths, inadequate care for people in mental health crisis, chronic staffing shortages, and costly legal settlements when failures occur. Under current law, boards of supervisors are responsible for funding jail operations and for absorbing these costs, but they do not have the authority to direct the operational changes needed to address those failures and issues.

In Santa Barbara County, we have seen firsthand what happens when the authority to run the jail sits with one elected official and the responsibility to pay for it sits with another. Since 2006, the Santa Barbara County civil grand jury has documented at least thirty nine in custody deaths in our county jail. Twenty three of those deaths occurred in during my ten years as public defender. One of them was Cecilia Michelle Covarrubias. She was 41 years old and in acute psychiatric crisis.

On 11/12/2024, miss Covarrubias told jail members

10 seconds

staff that she wanted to hang herself. She was placed in a safety cell. The following day, after a brief check-in, she was moved out of that safety cell and into an observation cell, a cell equipped with a wall mounted telephone.

I'm sorry. That's two minutes. Sorry. I know it goes quick.

Well, that evening, she hung herself.

Very sorry to hear that. Thank you for your testimony. Okay. Next, we'll take the Me Too's, also in support of the bill.

Good morning. Eric Henderson on behalf of Smart Justice California and the League of Women Voters of California in support.

Andy Munoz, Legal Services for Prisons with Children, and support.

Bernie Singh with All of Us in Nance Sacramento, in support.

Marco Duncan with All of Us in Nance, Oakland, I support.

Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice in support.

Jay Vasquez on behalf of community's Manafort story to do Justice, support. Thank you.

Thank you. Final call for anyone hoping to be heard in support of the bill. Okay.

And miss Caldwell Houston, I'll just note that if you have a statement in writing, you're welcome to submit that. We can include that as part of the record.

I can do that.

Okay. You're welcome. Alright. Anyone here testifying in opposition? Alright.

Come on down. We have a pair of chairs here with your name on it.

Good morning, Chair, Members. Usha Mutschler on behalf of the California State Sheriffs Association, respectfully in opposition to Assembly Bill 2257, which would clarify the authority of the County Board of Supervisors to establish Department of Corrections to oversee the county jail. Fundamentally, we disagree with this bill's approach to governance of local corrections policy and facilities. Respectfully, county board of supervisors supervisors are not more qualified to run jails than elected sheriffs.

Corrections is one of the key functions of the sheriff's office and issues of sheriff's office, and issues of security and rehabilitation are more properly retained within the law enforcement profession. Proponents cite inmate deaths and the difficulty of addressing inmate mental health issues as reasons to enact this bill that there is no evidence that a jail run by the Board of Supervisors would have an easier time dealing with the with these highly complex and challenging issues, and we do not discount these issues.

Currently, jails in all these counties are dealing with these issues, and we do not discount it. Due to realignment, we have a high population of those who are dealing with mental health issues. We are all aware of that.

But prior to 1993, counties could give control of the jail to a local department of corrections. Three counties chose that path. And since doing so, two of them have reverted control of the jail to the sheriff's office. This reality is hardly a ringing endorsement for opening the door once again to this significant governance change.

Sheriffs are elected county officials subject to certain yet broad oversight from entities including state and federal courts, the California attorney general, the civil grand jury, the board of state and community corrections, and others, not to mention the voters. who

have elected the sheriff every four years. To assert that these there are no checks and balances on the power of the office of the sheriff is flat wrong. And for these reasons, we oppose AB 2257. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you very much. We'll next take the me too's. If you also like to register an opposition position, come forward at this time. Okay.

We'll turn it back to the dais. Assemblymember Harabedian, and you're up first.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Thank you to the author and to witnesses on both sides, and I appreciated our conversation. Senate member Hart on the bill. As I expressed to you, my background, I former prosecutor, deputy district attorney, worked in the jails quite a bit, and I think that the goal of this bill is laudable. And I think that we need to continue to talk about reform and how to perfect how we run our correctional systems.

I disagree on the policy approach as I've as I've told you, and I just wanna ask you a question. To the extent that you need my vote to get out of committee today, would you be willing to ensure that this bill would not apply to Los Angeles County?

Yes. And I appreciate the conversations we had about this bill. I think the situation in in Los Angeles County deserves its own solution, and we'll be making amendments to the bill to address your concerns and exempt the county of Los Angeles from AB 2257.

I appreciate that. With that, I I will give a vote out of the committee today, and appreciate you you working with me on that issue.

So thank you again for bringing the bill.

Thank you very much for working with me.

Alright. Thank you, Assemblymember Harabedian. Doctor Sharp Collins.

Hello.

Hello.

How are you? Initially, as we talked about, I shared some of the same sentiments of of my colleague, and I've had the luxury of being able to officially have that dialogue with my county. And my county is in support. The my county believes that this bill will increase accountability and governance for California county's jails.

The county board of supervisors, they made it clear that they are committed to bringing forward the comprehensive justice reform to strengthen accountability, enhance protection, and advance trauma informed practices. We in San Diego County have a high number of in custody deaths within our county jails each year, and so they are believing that we must utilize all tools to ensure that that the track the tragic and the preventable deaths we've seen in San Diego County jails can come to some type of end.

My county also believes that this bill definitely restores the local choice in jail governance as it has flexibility for counties had back in '28 back in 1993, which was the opposition talked about. And so and being able to move forward, I I just wanted you to know that from that dialogue with them that my county is officially supportive, And they do believe that it creates a stronger incentive for local officials, especially sheriffs, to address these systemic jail issues.

And so if there's anything else that that should arise from this moving forward as it moves to this committee, please continue to have conversations with the different counties.

I know that LA is asking to be removed, but just keep in mind that, once again, there can't be a one size fit on model approach. But I appreciate you having a dialogue with me and giving me the opportunity to hear back from my county before I was able to make a, informed decision on this vote today. So knowing that I have my county support and the county vice supervisors, I will be supporting this bill.

Thank you, assembly member. K.

Alright. Thank you very much, assembly member. Mister Ramos, you're next.

Well, thank you, mister chair, to the author. Also, on this bill, and it it's good that you're taking amendments and carving out certain exemptions on your bill that I'm hearing for the first time. But there's also the the greater concern the greater concern of, the county board of supervisors and the authority they have at the local economy. Have you weighed in, with their voices to find out if they're receptive in all 58 counties?

We're working very closely with everybody, including the opposition, trying to find the right landing point. The purpose of the bill is to give choice to counties. They do not have to make any change in jail management structure. But prior to 1993, that was an option. And and I think so that we can have a full range of creativity and experimentation necessary to prove outcomes, I think it's appropriate to give that option to counties.

So if you could get to my office out of the 58 counties who are supporting it, I would appreciate that. But also establishing this type of rehabilitation area at the county level, does that also come with funding or is that expected to be funded at the county level?

It's be expected to use the existing dollars. No change in funding. And the experience that I had as a member of the board of supervisors was deep frustration in that we were not fully in charge of the financial situation in the county jail. The sheriff would operate the jail, and whatever the costs were that came from that operation were passed on to the board of supervisors to absorb with their budget, and that forced budget cuts in other ways.

And that that was really the motivation for this bill is the frustration that while the sheriff has control of operations and those spending, the ultimate financial obligation remains with the board of supervisors, and that tension is a problem.

Tension in in not all counties. Correct. Would you Correct. So thank you for that. And but I think the cost at the at the local level, again, with 58 counties, have they chimed in that they would be open to absorbing that?

Well, I think, again, it's a voluntary program. Counties can choose to do that or not. If they think that that makes economic sense and that they can operate the jail, you know, as efficiently or more efficiently, they would have that option. Today, they do not have that choice.

And being from the the county board of supervisors up in prior terms and as chair, worked with the sheriff of San Bernardino San Bernardino County. And they did know their role pretty well more than specifically to the knowledge of the board of supervisors. Our role at the board of supervisors was basically dealing with the community and calming community in times of times of of emergency. We actually was chair of the board of supervisors during a terrorist attack.

During that attack, law enforcement knew exactly what to do.

I think without the input from all 58 counties and the elected county sheriffs, I think I need more information on that from them to support your bill. I will be a no on this bill today.

Thank you, Senator. Alright. Thank you very much, Assembly member. Any other questions or comments? Alright. Mister Hart, would you like to close?

I just respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you.

Alright. Can we get a motion?

Almost.

Do we have a second? K. With a motion and a second, chair is recommending an aye. Let's conduct the roll.

For item 18 AB 2257 by Assemblymember Hart, the motion is do pass. Schultz?

Schultz, aye. Alanis, Gonzales, Haney, Harabedian. Harbidian, aye. Lackey, Gwen, Ramos? No.

Aye.

Ramos? No. Sharp Collins? Aye. Sharp Collins, aye.

Okay. That measure's on call. We'll let you know the outcome. Thank you. Thank you.

And the spirit of collegiality, I understand there's been an agreement. So Assembly member Krell, I believe you'll be presenting next. And then mister Rambula, you'll you have my word, you'll be the next up in the hopper. So thank you both. Assembly member Krell, I believe you're presenting AB 1545?

Yes.

Okay. Floor is yours whenever you're ready.

Good morning, everyone. Thanks so much to assembly member Arambula for letting me go first. I promised him I'd be quick, so please help me cooperate in that endeavor. I'm pleased to rep I'm pleased to present assembly Bill fifteen forty five today. This is an important bill that closes a loophole that would require sexually violent predators to actually receive a sexually violent predator evaluation before being paroled.

Right now, defendants who have determinate sentences, like five years, twenty years, fifty years, who qualify as SBPs automatically get evaluated for possible civil commitment and rehabilitation as an SBP. But there's a loophole where defendants that receive indeterminate terms, like 25 to life, 75 to life, even three hundred and fifty five years to life, like we recently had in a Sacramento case, are not getting that same referral, not because of their convictions, but because of how their sentence was originally structured.

So this is an important bill to close that loophole here in my district in Sacramento. We recently had a defendant who was convicted of multiple, crimes of sexual abuse of young children. This defendant received three terms of twenty five to life, and yet because of elderly parole, he was slated to be released.

We had another defendant similarly whose sentence was three hundred and fifty five years to life. Because of elderly parole, he was being considered for release. Both of these defendants were not referred to the SBP system because of this gap in our current law. AB 1545 is a simple bill. All it does is close a loophole and bring indeterminate terms in conformity, with determinate sentencing terms.

With me here today is a sponsor of the bill, San Diego district attorney, dep chief deputy, Pat Espinosa.

Good morning, chair and members of the committee. My name is Pat Espinosa here on behalf of the California District Attorney's Association in the San Diego District Attorney's Office here to talk about AB 1545. And what it does, it addresses a critical critical gap in the law. Question being, why do we have that gap? We have that gap because the SPP law was set up in 1996, and the one strike sex law was created in 1994.

Before the one strike sex law, there also was the the habitual offender sex, sentencing scheme that existed. That that scheme, as well as the one strike sex law, were designated to address the most serious sex offenders in our in our system and sent them to lengthy indeterminate terms. At the time SPP was created, it was limited just to determinate terms. And so what we saw later in time is the elderly parole bill. When that became law, now we had these lengthy, long, indeterminate terms.

Now we're much shortened, and the possibility of release existed much sooner. And there was never the contemplation that those folks would enter the SDP process. The as you all know, the SDP process is designed to identify the most serious offenders in the system so that they they they can then get sex offender specific treatment before they're released and placed back in the community. And so what this bill does, it makes a simple tweak.

It recognizes we should not allow the release of violent sex offenders without have them evaluated through a thorough sex offender specific evaluation where the most highly trained mental health professionals are asked to do the evaluation.

And currently, what we see the reason why we see these two cases ripped from the headlines, sentences like 35, three hundred fifty five years to life or seventy five to life. Why wouldn't those folks be evaluated for SBP since we have an SBP program? And the reason is it was never contemplated that those folks would have such shortened release dates.

And so what this bill does is it recognizes that and says those individuals at the very least should be evaluated to make sure that they do not meet all SPB criteria before we simply say they should be returned to the community. Thank you.

Thank you both very much. Next, we'll take the Me Too's. Anyone else hoping to be heard in support? Come on down.

Chair members, Randy Perry on behalf of Porak and strong support.

Thank you.

Sam Haddad for the San Joaquin County District Attorney's Office in support.

Great. Thank you all so much. Do we have anyone here testifying in opposition? K. We do have a pair of witnesses.

Come on down. Chairs are yours. Microphones are yours. You each get two minutes.

Thank you, chair and members. My name is Colby Lenz, and I direct policy at UCLA Center for the Study of Women. I've also worked directly with people in the women's prisons for twenty two years as a volunteer with the California Coalition for Women Prisoners, and more recently, survived and punished. First, I want to acknowledge victims of sexual violence in the room.

I know that sexual violence, including child sexual abuse, has devastating impacts and less devastating and lasting impacts, and I believe that survivors should be deeply supported.

I know this from personal experience as a survivor of child sexual abuse and from decades of work as a victim advocate. My opposition to this bill in no way discounts these experiences and harms. Instead, it's rooted in my belief that the bill will not result in increased public safety. I believe it duplicates existing risk assessment processes and responds to a political moment rather than a demonstrated need.

The board of parole hearing suitability process already performs the function as SBP the same function as SBP proceedings, thoroughly assessing whether individuals with sexual convictions pose a current public safety risk.

The board conducts comprehensive evaluations, including psychological assessments, extensive review of institutional records, victim input procedures, and rigorous in person hearings focused on assessing rehabilitation and risk. In other words, applying the SBP process to people with indeterminate sentences is redundant since the life or parole process thoroughly screens for sexual re offense risk. As a result, parole is granted very rarely for this group with approval rates as low as five percent in certain years. When the board does grant parole, it's because the evidence over overwhelmingly supports it.

And when those few individuals are granted parole, they remain safe in the community.

In fact, there has never been a documented case of someone with a sex offense released through the elder parole program who has ever reoffended. Not one. I believe that individuals can change.

I've seen this firsthand through my volunteer work with people serving life sentences, understanding that there is no single victim or survivor voice, I wanna offer that some victims support release for people who've committed sexual violence when they have done the work to take accountability, transform their behavior, and work to repair harm over decades of incarceration. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next witness, please.

Good morning to the chair and the members of the public safety committee. I'm Kamau Butcher on behalf of Uncommon Law. We respectfully oppose AB 1545. As Colby mentioned earlier, the parole suitability process already performs the same function as SBP proceedings for individuals with indeterminate sentences.

For people with sexual conv convictions, both the parole suitability and parole supervision processes additionally require the administration of research validated actuarial risk instruments specifically for assessing sexual re offense risk, including the static nine static 99 r and stable 2,007.

People released to California's parole hearing process are serving indeterminate sentences consistently have among, the lowest recidivism rates not only in our state prison system, but in the nation. Approximately three percent overall, including misdemeanor recidivism and just point seven percent for felony crimes against another person. Moreover, introducing SBP referrals to a markedly low risk population after they have already been found suitable for parole risk leveraging the SBP system as a back end civil tool for undermining parole grants, particularly in high profile or politically sensitive cases.

Given the significant political pressure that surrounds parole grants involving sexual offenses, expanding SBP referrals to people with indeterminate sentences invites the the exertion of political pressure to influence both SBP and parole proceeding outcomes. This dynamic threatens the integrity and independence of both systems, making them vulnerable to politicized pressures rather than evidence based standards.

The SBP proceedings are notoriously resource intensive, often involving years of litigation, multiple expert evaluations, and extended detention, placing substantial strain on courts, prosecutors, public defenders, and the Department of State hospitals. A 2024 state audit of the program found that the cost of SBP conditional release alone, not accounting for the cost of SBP referrals and proceedings, is approximately $495,000 per person annually.

Expanding the system to individuals already deemed safe for for release by the parole board diverts millions in limited resources away from more effective public safety strategies. Ten seconds. Finally, AB 1545 undermines rehabilitation for for people with sexual offenses by creating a conflict in the parole process.

For these reasons, we respectfully are due to vote no on AB 1545. Thank you.

Thank you both for your testimony today. Next, if there's anyone else who'd like to register an opposition position, come forward at this time. As a reminder, please confine your comment to your name, your organization, and the position you're taking, please.

Eric Anderson on behalf of the elevator Center for Human rights, opposed.

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

Elizabeth Kim on behalf of Initiate Justice in opposition.

Javier Rodriguez with ACLU California action in strong opposition.

Julie Mello, felony murder elimination project in strong opposition.

Ariana Montes on behalf of the California attorneys for criminal justice in opposition.

Alright. Thank you all very much. I'll turn it back to the dais. Mister Ramos, mister Lackey, any questions or comments? You don't have to, but you're the only two here. Mister Lackey.

Just a quick comment that this is a very delicate matter, and it's a very serious problem, my opinion. And I appreciate this proposal because I think it's rooted in logic. And I think sometimes our our desire to protect people binds our reality. And I I think that this is more reality based, and I'm thankful for it. And I appreciate it.

Alright. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Mister Ramos, were you wanting to make a question or comment? You don't have to. I just wasn't sure.

Move the bill. Okay.

We have a motion and a second. That was quite the wind up, mister Ramos. I like that. Alright. Assembly member Krell, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much, colleagues. I will be recommending an Aye. I will just note that I read all the opposition letters. Appreciate the testimony today. There have been a lot of proposals, many on this topic in the legislature this year.

And for what it's worth with maybe one other exception, one other bill I can think of, I find this to be one of the most narrowly tailored and reasonable proposals, so I will be recommending an aye today. Hope the conversation continues if it advances out. Let's conduct the roll.

For item one, AB 1545 by Assembly member Carell, the motion is do passed through the Appropriations Committee. Schultz Schultz, Aye, Alanis, Gonzales, Haney, Harabedian, Lackey?

Aye.

Lackey, aye. Nguyen, Ramos?

Aye.

Ramos, aye. Sharp Collins.

Okay. We have the coauthor request noted. That measure remains on call. We'll let you know the outcome. Thank you, everybody.

Assembly member Arambula, thank you so much for your patience. I believe we'll next hear AB 2605. And before you begin, I'll just do a call out. Here are the authors that I have in sign in order that we are waiting for in Room 126. We have Gabriel oh, Ocheco's here, so we do have her next.

Gibson, Zibur, Banes, and Brian. Make your way to Room 126, please. Assembly member, floor is yours.

Thank you, mister chair and members. I would like to begin by thanking the chair and the committee staff for their work on this bill. California's long standing issues providing public defense to individuals accused of crimes has had a real cost on some of the state's poorest and most under resourced counties. Though the sixth amendment enshrines the right to counsel for defendants in criminal prosecution, the state does not currently collect data on how this public defense is provided at a county level.

This has created a system where many defendants report never see even having met their attorney and repeated failures to investigate the accusations made against them.

AB 2605 addresses this issue by establishing reporting requirements on the nature of public defense services provided across the state. Most other states appropriate significant funding for public defense services, and California is an outlier in shifting this responsibility to the county level. We understand the difficulties that counties face and will work to address cost concerns as this bill moves forward. This bill is a necessary first step in understanding the scope of this issue.

Here to testify in support of AB 2605 is Scott Bailey, a retired Fresno County public defender.

Good morning. Our state and federal constitutions protect the right to effective assistance of counsel. This isn't a right to effective assistance of counsel to just rich people. It also applies to poor people, indigent people accused of crime. If you were charged with a crime in California, you would be brought into a room kinda like this one, a courtroom.

Not as nice as this one, but it would look kinda like this. And some of the people would be sitting in the audience waiting for their turn, and other people would be waiting in another part of the room in custody in the county jail. In this room, you can see who the lawyers are. They're busy. They're carrying files.

And you you don't know which one is going to be yours, but you're hoping that it's somebody who can answer your questions. Somebody who has had time to read the police reports. Someone who has time to maybe maybe meet you in the jail and and listen to your side of the story. Are they gonna talk to me and are are they gonna help me with this problem? The answer to these questions is caseload.

How busy are these lawyers? And the standards, the American Bar Association standards are unchanged. They've been reaffirmed. 400 misdemeanor cases per year for lawyers. A 150 felony cases per year for for lawyers.

These are sometimes difficult numbers to match. In 2013, I was at the Fresno Public Defender's Office when we were crushed with caseloads because of the Great Recession. And the lawyers were hurting, and we needed to know the caseload for the entire office. This information was not known at the time. I had to hand count open files to determine how hurt we were with the devastating caseload that led to a lawsuit against Fresno and the state of California.

This is just data that should be reported and shows that lawyers in in in for the indigent can be affected. Thank you for your time.

Yeah. Thank you both very much for the presentation. Next, if you'd like to register a position of support, come forward at this time.

Hi. Good morning. Eric Henderson on behalf of Smart Justice California in support.

Ariana Montes on behalf of the Wren Collective and California attorneys for criminal justice in support.

Alright. Thank you all very much. Is there anyone here testifying in opposition? Okay. We do have one.

Come on down. Take your time. Once you begin, you will have up to two minutes to address the committee.

Thank you, chair, committee members, and staff. Ryan Moore Muni with the California State Association of Counties. Also on behalf of the urban counties of California and the rural county representatives of California. We'll be pretty brief. We appreciate the author's commitment to ensure that the bill's provisions only apply upon appropriation of funds from the legislature.

I think this aligns with his previous work of AB 625 and recommendations out of that report that that recommend that the state provides funding including funding for data collection. And so I look forward to the continual work and appreciate the time and consideration. Thank you.

Thank you very much. If anyone else would like to register either a position of opposition or any other position come forward at this time. Okay. We'll turn it over to the dais. Questions or comments or motions?

Move the bill. Third. Great.

We have a motion and a second. Seeing no one else, assembly member, would you like to close?

Thank you, mister chair, for the opportunity to present assembly bill twenty six zero five. Ultimately, this bill is about making sure that all Californians are treated fairly and provided with a defense. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Well, thank you very much, assembly member. You're I I love this bill, and I love it because you're hitting on an issue that I care deeply about. As I know with the opposition, we've had some conversations on my bill, six ninety. I'm not gonna talk about that bill today, but we really have to ensure that the robust defense that everyone is entitled to under the constitution isn't just a promise on paper, but something we actually deliver. And I think we're falling short, if I'm being honest, in this moment.

But this bill moves the ball forward. I would love to jump on as a coauthor if you'd have me, sir, and recommending a strong eye today. With that, we have motion in the second. Let's call the roll.

For item 29, AB 2605 by Assemblymember Arambula, the motion is do passed with appropriations committee. Schultz Aye. Schultz, aye. Alanis, Gonzales, Haney, Harabedian, Lackey

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

Aye.

Okay. That measure remains on call. Thank you, everybody. Appreciate everyone's flexibility this morning. And next, we have assembly member Pacheco to do, present AB 2636, and that's the last author we have in the room.

So Gabriel, Gibson, Ziburr, Baines, Brian, Patterson, Petrie Norris, McKinner. We'd love to see one of you here soon. But Assembly member Pacheco, we have you. The floor is yours. Thank you for being here.

Thank you, and thank you for having me. Good morning, everyone. Good morning, mister chair and members. Today, I am here to present AB 2636. Youth access to firearms remains a serious public safety concern in California.

Juvenile violent crime arrests have increased in recent years, and firearms have become a leading cause of death for children and idle adolescents, underscoring the urgency of this issue. Existing law prohibits minors from possessing firearms. However, cases involving minors in possession of a firearm are still eligible for deferred entry of judgment, a program intended for first time low level offenses.

Deferred entry of judgment is an off ramp from furthered justice involvement that allows a court to order programming or treatment to address the underlying factors that led to the offense. AB 2636 requires courts to consider whether a youth was carrying a loaded firearm when determining suitability for deferred entry of judgment.

Carrying a loaded firearm presents a serious safety risk to our communities and should be weighed accordingly in these cases. This bill in no way eliminates rehabilitative options for youth. It ensures that courts give appropriate weight to conduct to conduct that poses a significant risk to public safety. AB 2636 prioritizes public safety while preserving judicial discretion and rehabilitative opportunities for young people.

And with me today to testify in support is Danielle Sanchez, legislative director, chief probation officers, California, and also Jonathan Feldman, legislative advocate for California police chiefs.

And I will hand it over to my witnesses.

Good morning, chair and members. Daniel Sanchez on behalf of the chief probation officers of California. Pleased to be a cosponsor of this bill to address, juvenile gun offenses. As as shared by the assembly member, this bill requires when courts determine deferred entry of judgment to consider whether the offense charged is possession of a loaded firearm. With an uptick in serious and juvenile crime, in serious and violent juvenile crime and the impacts that these offenses have on our communities.

It's imperative that, these types of offenses are addressed via structured rehabilitative programming and accountability to both address that behavior at hand, but also, really to to mitigate future potential for reoffense. In regards to some of the juvenile violent felony data from '21 to 2024, the period following the closure of d j j, violent felony arrests have gone up by over 69%. I think really underscoring what we're seeing in our communities and some

of the impetus behind wanting to make sure that the impetus behind wanting to make sure that we are, again, addressing the rehabilitative goals of youth and also the community safety. A few things I do wanna underscore, it is already illegal to for a minor to possess a firearm. This bill does not change that nor does it increase that penalty. This bill does not mandate a specific outcome or court disposition. This bill is not in lieu of front end gun violence prevention efforts.

Those continue to be very important and complementary to this. But what this does is make sure that courts are carefully kind of looking at and scrutinizing when to use diversionary tools to address these offenses. So we see this as a very balanced approach to, again, making sure that those rehabilitative, programs continue, but that we have structured interventions and the right levels of supervision and engagement, to ensure that we are mitigating these, public safety impacts. So we ask for your aye vote today. Thank you.

Alright. Chair members, Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association. Not gonna reiterate all the things that my colleague had mentioned, but I do wanna let you guys know that at our board meeting in the fall of this last year, at a round table discussion, we went around the room, and I was shocked to see chief after chief talk about issues that they are having contemporarily with armed juveniles.

Almost every single chief from every part of the state mentioned that this is an increasing issue, that the juveniles seem to not care about the consequences, and this specific type of very risky, very dangerous behavior is escalating, and there's something that we have to do about it. So when I was approached by, chief probation officers, also facing the same problem, It was a no brainer that we had to at least try and put something forward.

We think the bill is pretty, modest in its approach, requiring the courts to consider whether or not the juvenile was, in possession of a loaded firearm. Guess they can already consider it now, but it is the job of this legislature to sometimes set standards for courts, and give them the direction. Not tie their hands, but at least say, hey, these are priorities that we want you guys to make sure that you're actually taken into serious account, And that's what we're doing here. It's not eliminating DJ.

It's not eliminating probation or other types of non custodial oversight and care.

But just saying when it's this type of a serious risky dangerous behavior, we have to treat it as such. And for that reason, we are a cosponsor and respectfully request an aye vote.

Alright. Thank you all very much. Would anyone else like to register a position of support on the bill? Okay. Do we have anyone here in opposition?

K. At least one, maybe two. Certainly one. No. There's two.

Alright. We got two chairs right here whenever you're ready, guys.

Alright. Chair members, my name is Aubrey Rodriguez. I'm alleged advocate with ACLU Cal Action. Under existing law, juvenile court may consider whether youth charged with the first time nonviolent offense would benefit from education, treatment, and rehabilitation when determining whether to grant a deferred entry of judgment. AB 2636 impedes this process, requiring a court to consider whether the offense charge includes possession of a loaded firearm.

Responses to a charge with weapon possession have grown increasingly punitive over the last decade, with juvenile courts less likely to provide diversion and more likely to choose detention, especially for youth of color. Rather than keeping us safe, removing opportunities for education, treatment, and rehabilitation will worsen gun violence and other crimes. We must prioritize comprehensive initiatives involving community partners, not punitive responses that only exacerbate the problem.

Target die targeted diversion is a proven solution, especially for youth charged with a first offense with little prior involvement in the justice system. It is well established that longer periods of confinement produce higher rates of recidivism for youth.

This bill reduces opportunities for youth charged with the first time nonviolent offense to participate in diversion and receive the services they need, increasing the number of youth incarcerated. This will do nothing to serve public safety and will only increase cost at juvenile detention facilities. For these reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote on AB 2636.

Good morning. Leslie Caldwell Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in opposition to AB 2636. First, we all must understand that deferred entry of judgment is not a gift and often comes with a longer term on probation than if the juvenile or youth was sentenced without d DEJ. This bill is unnecessary. The court must already consider the nature of the offense such as consider such consideration would all already consider possession of a firearm.

Therefore, this bill's requirement adds nothing. Moreover, the bill seeks to put additional pressure or influence on the court's discretion in making the decision of suitability. As the California Youth Offender Center points out in their letter to this committee, current law provides that youth charged with a felony shall be screened by the prosecution for statutory eligibility. Statutory eligibility specifically excludes certain offenses from being consider considered. That's welfare and institutions code Section seven zero nine a sub seven.

If the youth meets eligibility criteria, the youth is then screened for suitability by both probation, which prepares a thorough written report and by the court. The court, by statute, must make a finding that the youth is suitable and would derive benefit from education, treatment, and rehabilitation efforts provided by DEJ. The court considers the youth's prior record, if any, the current status of the youth, including school status conditions in the home, and the youth's willingness to cooperate.

If the youth is both eligible and suitable, the youth admits the charge and is placed on probation for up to three years. If the youth is successful, that youth's record is sealed.

If the youth is not successful, the youth is then sentenced for the crime or crimes they have admitted. This bill is unnecessary and not at all productive. Did you just say time?

Yes. Ten seconds. Give me a chance to close.

Okay. The court already considers the nature of the offense, and the prosecutor has the ability to make the argument in individual cases where it believes the youth is not suitable for d e j. We request your no vote.

Thank you both very much. If anyone else would like to register an opposition position, please come forward at this time. Or if you have any other position, that's welcome too.

Gwen Gunheim, Whole Consulting on behalf of LA County Public Defenders Union Local one four eight, we oppose.

Israel Salazarvilla with California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice in strong opposition. Thank you.

Ariana Montes on behalf of the California attorneys for criminal justice in opposition.

Julie Mello with felony murder elimination project in opposition.

Jim Lindbergh, friends, committee on legislation of California oppose.

Carlos Montoya with the All Youth Are Sacred in opposition.