Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning. The Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety will now come to order. I'm Senator Jesse Arreguin, the chairman of the committee, joined by Senator Kelly Seyarto, the vice chair of the committee. We do not yet have a quorum, so we will operate as a subcommittee to begin our bill presentations. I ask that all members please come to Capitol Room 112 so we can establish a quorum and conduct business.

Just a few announcements as we begin today's hearing. First, file item 17 AB 2274 by Assemblyman Bains has been pulled at the author's request. And our consent calendar consists of file item one, AB 464 Aguir Curry. File item five, AB 1541 Dixon. File item six, AB 1549 Krell. File item seven, AB 1583 Rogers.

File item 11, AB 1948 Ramos. File item 16, AB 2055 Jeff Gonzalez. File item 18, AB 2286 Brian. And file item 19 AB 2556 by Assembly member Boerner. We'll enter the motion on the consent calendar when we establish a quorum.

So we will begin with the first bill presentation. I am presenting filed them to AB 647 on behalf of Assembly member Mark Gonzales. I'll pass the gavel over to the vice chair.

Hi. Good morning, everybody. We're gonna start off with AB 647, being presented, by Senator Arreguin on behalf of Assembly member Mark Gonzales. You may begin when you're ready.

Well, thank you, Mister vice chair. I'm presenting Assembly Bill 647 on behalf of Assembly member Mark Gonzales. I wanna thank the committee staff for their work on this bill. This bill is a cleanup bill to a bill that the assembly member authored last year, which I coauthored, AB 630. It's sponsored by Los Angeles Mayor, Karen Bass.

The bill is simple. It clarifies that local agencies within LA County and Alameda County can implement the law that was passed last year. AB 630 was passed and signed into law last year to allow LA County and Alameda County to implement a pilot program allowing them to dispose of recreational vehicles valued at $4,000 or less if the vehicle was inoperable and was a public safety or environmental hazard.

However, due to a drafting error, more clarity is needed to ensure that local governments within these counties can use this pilot program as intended. Abandoned and operable RVs present significant public health and safety risks across California cities and counties.

Many of these RVs are in extreme disrepair, exposing occupants to hazardous living conditions and creating broader public health risks, like improper waste disposal, sewage leaks, and fire hazards. AB 647 will ensure that AB 630, which was passed last year, can be implemented that local agencies within these counties can have these tools to combat this growing issue. I don't know if the witness from LA County is here.

There is a person coming up who is going to be the witness apparently. Right?

And I'll turn over to the witness.

At this time, go ahead and then we have two minutes

Okay.

For each witness. Thank you.

Okay. Willie Armstrong, Senior Director of State Affairs on behalf of Los Angeles Mayor, Karen Bass. This measure is an important follow-up to AB 630 Assembly member Gonzales. We thank the author for authoring the measure, and we thank the committee for approving that bill last year. Obviously, we thank the chair for stepping in on behalf of Assembly member Gonzales.

Mayor Bass has made the homelessness crisis in Los Angeles her top priority. On her first day in office, she declared a state of emergency on homelessness and launched Inside Safe, which has moved thousands of individuals voluntarily indoors and connected them with housing and services.

Unsheltered homelessness can take on may forms including people living in recreational vehicles. While these RVs can provide shelter, they are often dilapidated and unsafe and can pose harms to the environment, public health, and safety. Often, these RVs are illegally rented to individuals experiencing homelessness after predatory landlords purchase them for as little as $50.

These vehicles often get towed away cycling on and off the streets in Los Angeles.

AB 630 approved by the legislature last year was intended to address the issue by creating a five year pilot program that allows an impounded RV to be dismantled in Alameda and Los Angeles Counties if valued at $4,000 or less and other specified conditions are met. It also requires additional notifications and reporting for cities before an RV can be operated scrapped. I'm sorry. As well as fee relief for wrongly towed RVs.

The bill further clarifies that local jurisdictions within LA and Alameda Counties may utilize the authority granted under AB 630, an authority that is crucial for this pilot's effectiveness.

For these reasons, on behalf of Los Angeles Mayor, Karen Bass, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Are there any other, witnesses? Other witnesses. Okay. If there are no other primary witnesses at this time, we'll go ahead and take me too's on, anybody that is supporting this bill.

They can come up and state so at the microphone.

This is your opportunity. Okay. At this time, we'll go ahead and take primary witnesses in opposition. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition? Come on up here.

Each of you will have two minutes. Thank you for your attendance this morning.

Good morning, senators. My name is Tori Larett. I am an attorney, law professor, and the Research Director of the National Vehicle Residency Coalition, an organization dedicated to advocating for the rights and dignity of vehicle residents across this country. I spent a decade in courtrooms and classrooms representing and studying the rights of unhoused and vehicularly housed individuals. I'm here today in strong opposition to AB 647.

Proponents of this bill argue that municipalities need these tools to address genuine public nuisances. Vehicles that are truly abandoned, deteriorating, and creating health and safety hazards. But California law already provides those tools. Vehicle code sections 22660 through 22672 provide a comprehensive framework for addressing abandoned vehicles, including those that are inoperable and valueless.

If there were any doubt that this bill targets vehicle residents, look no further than the bill's own reporting requirements. Under subdivision 15 b, public agencies are required to annually report the number of people found living in RVs prior to removal and the number of vehicles that were operable versus inoperable.

Senators, you would not require agencies to count the people sleeping inside vehicles if you are only concerned with abandoned junk. These reporting requirements are an implicit acknowledgment that this program will be used to remove vehicles in which people are actively living. The bill's own text give up gives away its true target.

Vehicle residency is not a lifestyle choice for the overwhelming majority of people living in RVs in Los Angeles and Alameda Counties. It is survival housing.

These are seniors on fixed incomes, veterans, working and migrant families, and individuals with disabilities who cannot afford rent in one of the most expensive housing markets in the nation. Further, AB 647 contains no requirement that any social services, housing referrals, or outreach be connected to these removals. Dismantling a home without any support will not solve our housing crisis. I respectfully urge your no vote on AB 647. Thank you.

Next speaker. Go ahead. You have two minutes as well.

Good morning, vice chair and committee members. My name is Marshall Arnwine. I'm legislative advocate for the ACLU California Action. We are here in respectful opposition to AB 647. The ACLU thanks to author's office for the opportunity to share our concerns in meeting with them.

We respectfully must continue our opposition as it is our position that towing and disposing of vehicular homes is costly practice that does not solve the housing affordability and houses crisis. In fact, it will make it worse and harm countless Californians in the process.

First, it is important to note and acknowledge that people are living in RVs because they cannot afford the high cost of rent. There's also a lack of government investment and affordable housing to meet the need.

As detailed in our guidance to the California Interagency Council on Homelessness, the ACLU recommends bringing humanitarian aid to people in vehicular homes such as providing referrals to voluntary services without destroying their places of residence.

This bill, as written, does not provide any pathway towards permanent housing before, during, or after their vehicle is towed and destroyed. Second, this bill does not define abandoned, and operable, and abandoned are not the same thing. The bill does not consider whether someone is living in an RV before towing and destroying their home.

Taking away a person's shelter exposes them to violence, extreme weather conditions, and premature death. All Californians deserve to be treated with dignity, respect, and care.

We respectfully ask for a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. At this time, we'll take anybody who is in opposition can come up and express so at the microphone. Just your name, your organization you represent, and your opposition to the bill.

Begging the committee's indulgence. Andrew Antwih here on behalf of the City of Los Angeles in support.

Thank you.

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

Good morning. Glenn Backus for Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Matt Sotorosen on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office in opposition.

Benjamin Henderson with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in opposition of AB 647.

Thank you very much. And oh, we have one more person. Go ahead, ma'am.

Alright. Elizabeth Kim on behalf of Initiate Justice in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And at this time, we'll bring it back to the dais for any comments from any of my colleagues. That would be me. So, I'm supporting this bill. I supported the bill last year.

It's one thing to hear the theoretical of that but it's one another thing to see it in action. And unfortunately, you have these type of of motor homes that are both inhabited and uninhabited because you don't know when they become an uninhabited.

And people living in squalor, just because it's a motor home, that's a dilapidated motor home with with trash and and waste and rats and things falling out of the, you know, surrounding the area, parked in the middle of neighborhoods, is not compassionate. It is not going to fix a homeless problem. It is not an answer to our housing solutions.

What we have to do is make sure that when people are because some of the people that are living in those, have the same incapacities that other people on the street do, as far as mental illnesses and drug addictions and things like that. Simply hiding them or allowing them to hide in dilapidated motor homes and such is not going to solve their problems. It's going to exacerbate their problems.

It creates problems in the neighborhood and that's what, and this is in LA City. I know of one specific case, where they've been working for months trying to get rid of a motor home that was or motor homes, that they don't know whether people are there or not, and they come in and out, once in a while.

Whether there are new people that are going into them, nobody knows. And LA City seems to not be able to do anything about it. So that's what this bill was tailored after. It's actually meant to help people, and I support that effort. Do we need to do more?

Yeah. Do we do need to do more to actually help the people that are that are finding themselves that they think this is their only option? Yeah. And those things are being worked on as well. So with that, I'll allow the author to close.

Well, thank you, Mister vice chair. I just once again wanna clarify. All this bill does is fix a drafting error in the law that was passed last year, which 76 members of the assembly approved, and 37 members of bipartisan vote in both houses approved in the Senate and was signed into law by the Governor to ensure that abandoned RVs, that there is an expedited process for removal of those vehicles.

I'll say as a former mayor in Alameda County, I was the mayor of Berkeley for eight years. There are challenges in terms of how quickly local governments can get these vehicles off the road.

There are impacts. And I agree with the opponents. We need to be working to get people into permanent housing. That is the goal. Which people should not be living in vehicles long term.

And there is lots of work that has happened and will continue to happen to increase the supply of permanent supportive housing in California to address the needs of our unhoused community. But this is around ensuring that our communities are have a way to get these vehicles off the street when they are creating impacts and harming the health and safety of communities. With that I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. And we will keep that open until we get, quorum established and we're able to vote on it this time. I also encourage other authors to scurry across the street over to our building here and present your bill so we can get them through.

Thank you. And members of the committee as well. You're welcome to come over here and let's get this thing established. Thank you.

Okay. The Senate Public Safety Committee will reconvene.

And we have a quorum. So if the committee assistant can please call the roll.

Arreguin?

Here.

Arreguin here. Seyarto?

Here.

Seyarto here. Caballero?

Here.

Caballero here. Cortese?

Here.

Cortese here. Perez? Weiner?

Okay. The consent calendar consists of file in one AB 464 Aguiar Curry, file item 5 AB1541 Dixon, file item 6 AB1549 Krell, file item 7 AB1583 Rogers, file item 11 AB1948 Ramos, File item 16 AB2055 Jeff Gonzales. File item 18 AB2286 Brian. And file item 19 AB2556 Boerner. I'll entertain a motion on the consent calendar.

Moved by Senator Caballero. If you can please call the roll.

Arreguin?

Aye.

Arreguin, aye. Seyarto?

Aye.

Seyarto, aye. Caballero?

Aye.

Caballero, aye. Cortese?

Cortese, aye. Perez? Weiner?

Aye.

Keep that on call. And I see we have an author. And so we'll proceed now, to file item nine AB 1656 by Assemblymember Davies. Good morning.

Alright. That worked out well.

And Assemblymember, whenever you're ready you may present.

Thank you, Mister speaker. Senators, today, I'm here to present AB 1656. I would like to start off by thanking committee staff for working with my staff on the measure. I will be accepting the proposed amendments negotiated between our two staffs. Senator, AB 1656 is a common sense victim protection bill that gives more legal protection for victims of human trafficking.

Survivors of human trafficking frequently experience severe trauma, coerced control, and psychological harm. Some are under debt bondage, immigration coerced, or family threats.

It is very hard for survivors to trust persons with authorities, such as prosecuting attorneys who work overtime to establish trust and communications with the victims, continuance preserve, continuity of counsel, which is particularly important where victims rely on a single trusted point of contact, forcing victims to proceed with a substitute attorney due to scheduling conflicts may undermine victim's cooperation, increase anxiety, and lead to delayed or incomplete testimony.

Under current law, good cause is always defined to include cases in which the prosecutor has another court appearance to make for cases involving murder, stalking, domestic violence, hate crimes, or a case that is being handled through the career criminal prosecution program.

Again, AB 1656 simply gives courts the discretion to take into account a prosecutor's availability in human trafficking cases if it continues, is needed or requested.

With the amendments, this bill becomes completely disc sorry, discretionary. With me here today to help answer any questions is Dan Owens from the San Diego District Attorney Office. Thank you so much, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

I forgot to announce at the beginning of the hearing our procedure for witness testimony. Authors have designated up to two principal witnesses. They'll each have two minutes to present on the bill, then we'll invite two principal witnesses in opposition, and then we'll invite anyone to come forward and state their name, organization, and position on the bill. That testimony is limited just to your name, organization, and position on the bill. And so, sir, you have two minutes if you like to do that.

Thank you very much, and good morning, everyone. As assembly member Davies stated, I am with the San Diego County District Attorney's Office, and I have the pleasure of supervising a division of vertical prosecutors who work on the front lines, prosecuting human trafficking cases in our sex crimes and human trafficking division. AB 1656 is a common sense solution to a real problem.

Human trafficking survivors have been subjected to both physical and psychological trauma at the hands of traffickers and sex buyers who have exploited them. They're often distrusting of law enforcement and the criminal justice system due to their own negative lived experiences and interactions with our institutions in our society.

Unfortunately, prosecutors are often overburdened by heavy caseloads, and it becomes incredibly important to be able to allow some flexibility, some accommodations so that prosecutors who are working directly with human trafficking victims have the ability to handle those cases vertically and at all stages of the criminal justice process.

Much like domestic violence and stalking, it's essential to have a Deputy District Attorney support human trafficking victims throughout the court process. These DDAs are motivated to support survivors as they confront their traffickers.

It helps build trust and faith in our own justice system when victims of human trafficking are supported by a single in a Deputy District Attorney. And these prosecutors are specially trained in this area, including, the manipulative tactics and modus operandi of traffickers.

It allows Deputy District Attorneys to implement trauma informed methods and it respects the dignity of survivors who are often, and it enhances our ability to support them. There are two recent examples I wanted to offer to the committee in criminal cases in San Diego, which illustrate the need to allow for some flexibility in these continuances. Following the December 2025 Department of Justice operation on his home for the holidays, there were 19 victims of human trafficking that were recovered and the arrest of three traffickers and facilitators.

One arrestee had prior federal sex trafficking convictions involving children and recently completed a substantial prison term. But when the prosecutor who was assigned to that case was unavailable for the preliminary hearing due to a scheduling conflict, that matter had to be reassigned.

And then again in January, an adult human trafficking victim who is being trafficked from Ventura County through LA County and into San Diego County reached out to a task force officer that she had interacted with before saying that she wanted help to get out of the life. She was being physically abused and there was a prosecutor who worked with that victim from the case's inception, reviewing search warrants, filing the charges, meeting with the victim on multiple occasions, and proceeding with the case.

When that prosecutor was engaged in a two week child molest case at trial, they were unable to proceed to the preliminary hearing, and that case had to be reassigned. Given the amendments that have been negotiated, this current version of the bill strikes the proper balance in allowing judicial discretion on the need for continuances, but still recognizing the incredible efforts of prosecutors in order to support human trafficking victims. With that, we respectfully urge an aye vote.

Thank you very much. I should summarize the amendments that we negotiated with the author, which the amendment to the bill would state that rather than make continuances mandatory in human trafficking cases when a prosecutor has a scheduling conflict, the court must give great weight to the fact that the prosecuting attorney assigned to the case has another trial, preliminary hearing, or motion to to suppress in progress in that court or another court when deciding whether a good cause for continuous exists.

So rather than having it be mandatory, to have that be something that the court is considering to ensure that we can implement a vertical prosecution model and thank the author for working with the committee on that. Okay. Are there any other members of the public who wish to express support for AB 1656?

Please state your name, organization, position on the bill.

Good morning. [inaudible] in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff's Association, California Narcotic Officers, and the other associations listed in the analysis in support.

Thank you. Okay. Unless there's anyone else wishing to express support, we'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition, if there are any, to AB 1656?

You're welcome to sit here, and you'll each have two minutes.

Good morning chair members of the committee. My name is Ilona Yanez and I am a San Francisco Public Defender. I am testifying in respectful opposition to AB 1656. First, I think it's important to recognize that we as public defenders also represent trafficking victims because they're often forced to engage in criminal activity, and they face prosecution.

Our strong relationship with these with our clients who are also victims requires us to fight for their right to receive due process, justice, and a speedy trial.

The right to a speedy trial is a California safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration or of presumptively innocent people prior to trial and to limit lengthy delays that impair the ability to get to the truth and deliver justice.

It is a right enshrined by both our federal and state constitutions. Over time, this legislature has added exceptions to the rule, that criminal trials must occur at the earliest possible time, including exceptions for certain types of cases to preserve vertical prosecutions.

This bill seeks to add human trafficking to these exceptions. The legislative intent behind vertical prosecution exceptions is to ensure that the prosecutors assigned to certain cases remain there because it is presumed that those prosecutors have an important relationship with the witnesses and the families of the victim.

Despite the intent of the statute, prosecutors regularly obtain trial delays even when they have no relationship to the victim or the witnesses and even where the victim or witnesses would not support delay. Broadening the types of cases where prosecutors can delay trials will be costly, both financially and in terms of justice even if there are numerical limits placed on the use of these exceptions.

Expanding the crimes forming the basis of a good cause continuance will delay cases longer regardless of whether prosecutors have a good relationship with witnesses or a victim, and that should be required before they obtain a continuance, and also regardless of whether a witness or victim supports the continuance. For these reasons, please vote no on AB 1656. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Arreguin and senators. My name is Daniel Allen. I'm a Deputy Public Defender with at the Los Angeles County Public Defenders Union, rising in opposition to AB 1656. When we hear an allegation as serious as human trafficking, it is easy to grab our pitchforks and join the crowd demanding punishment. That is exactly why constitutional protections exist.

The right to a speedy trial was not created for easy cases. It was created for the difficult ones, for the unpopular cases, and the cases where emotions run high. AB 1656 weakens that protection. I would also remind this body that it is the prosecution that decides when to file a case and start the speedy trial clock. Prosecutors are supported by countless law enforcement agencies and possess resources far beyond those available to the defense.

They are not the underdogs in our criminal justice system. The underdog is the presumed innocent defendant sitting in a jail cell waiting for his constitutional right to a trial. The underdog is a wrongfully accused person who accepts a plea bargain not because he is guilty, but because freedom today becomes more valuable than vindication months from now.

If prosecutors need additional resources to handle human trafficking cases, then we should provide those resources. But we should not solve a staffing problem by weakening a constitutional right.

The answer to a resource problem is more resources, not fewer constitutional protections. For those reasons, Local 148 respectfully urges this committee to please put down the pitchforks and protect the constitution. Vote no on AB 1656. Thank you.

Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 1656?

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU California Action in opposition.

Matt Sosna on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office in opposition.

Elizabeth Kemm on behalf of Initiate Justice in opposition.

Anyone else wishing to express opposition? Okay. I'll bring it back to the committee, and I wanna thank the opposition minister for being here. I think you really pointed out really what's at stake with these exceptions to good cause that extend the amount of time, one, that somebody's incarcerated and extend the amount of time involved in scheduling hearings.

And the legislature has included specific crimes under the good cause list to have the court give the discretion to provide additional time for political prosecution of certain cases given the gravity of those cases.

But, really, it's important that we strike a balance that we protect people's right to a speedy trial, with also making sure that we can ensure effective representation of those victims, in these cases as well as the defendants as well, in those cases. And I think the amendments that we negotiate with the author make it discretionary that don't make it mandatory, and really it's the intent to try to strike that balance.

But I'll turn it over to my colleagues if there are any questions or comments.

Senator Caballero and then Cortese.

Well first, let me thank everyone for being here today. Appreciate the the information. And quite frankly, I think in terms of the let me just say that I really appreciate the amendments. I wouldn't have been there without the amendments. But also, the requirement or making a requirement that the that there be some kind of proof of a relationship with the victim makes a lot of sense to me.

It doesn't to me, it doesn't appear to be a burdensome kind of requirement. It's not before us today in terms of how we can push, but I'd like to ask the author if she'd be willing to consider something like that as the bill moves through the Senate. Because I, And here's the deal is that when judges are trying to figure out how they're going to schedule things, there's a lot on the table. There's arraignments. There's preliminary hearings.

There's just a lot of things happening. And it's too I think it is too easy just to to out of convenience to for someone to say, you know, I've got this case. I've got a relationship, and I need a continuance of the other cases. And either there has to be an opportunity to request a release pending trial because you violated the opportunity for that the that there really is a relationship and that that no one else can take it over.

And I'm I feel pretty strongly about that. I really do think that that's probably a good a good backstop to really overriding the right to a speedy trial. So I'm wondering Sure. As author of the bill, whether that's something you'll be willing to consider.

I think that when we took the amendments, this really did allow that. And I think that discretionary, that the judge could speak to the victim and, you know, and ask them, is this you know, is there's a relationship here that you feel safe, that you feel that, you know, you can go forward with this with your prosecutor or not. So that's where I you know, we put it into the hands of the judge, but also the victim.

So, just to be clear, it's rare that the victim would be in court at the time that the motion is made to continue another case. And so if we're requiring that the victim be in court and that there be some kind of acknowledgment that the victim would like the alleged victim would like vertical prosecution, then that, I think satisfies what I'm concerned about, which is that there be some kind of a finding.

And I'm not talking about a finding that's on the record that's reviewable, because it's discretion. Right?

Right.

It's a discretionary act. But to require the victim to be there is, I think, what I would feel more comfortable with, where there's some kind of inquiry about the status of the case and the relationship.

Mister Owens, if I may

Yes. I'd love to address that, Senator Caballero. I appreciate, the comments. First, I would just point out that the proposed amendments, that would include a 1050 G subsection 4 would be limited to those situations where the assigned prosecutor so the single assigned prosecutor is only unable to proceed to with the hearing, on the human trafficking case, because that assigned prosecutor is engaged in another matter, and it would be limited to trials, preliminary hearings, or motions to suppress.

So the court would only be able to allow for this type of a continuance for a human trafficking case when that single assigned prosecutor is engaged in another matter, and it would be limited to those three types of matters. Secondarily, I would also echo the chairman's comments that this does strike the right balance.

So let me just ask you that. Is it the other matter is not necessarily a one of the categories for which they can ask for? I'm trying to get down to the detail because the bottom line is that it's rare that you have prosecutors that only do one kind of case. Maybe in the big cities, but not in this small rural communities that I represent. You're a jack of all trades.

And so, you're talking about continuing the human trafficking case, but I'm just talking about the other, the cases that would be continued for the human trafficking case.

I guess that's what I'm concerned about.

I understand the concern. And what this bill would do is it would allow the court to have discretion to take into account that the assigned prosecutor on the human trafficking case is engaged in another preliminary hearing, motion to suppress, or trial. Those would be the limited hearings that would trigger the ability for the court to grant a continuance.

And again, that continuance would only be limited one time per case on the human trafficking case, and it would only be limited to no more than ten days. So it does strike the right balance of respecting a defendant's speedy trial rights and due process rights, while ensuring that there can be continuity between the prosecutor assigned and the human trafficking victim.

So that when that human trafficking victim does have to come to court to confront the person who exploited them, that trusted prosecutor who they have been working with from the case's inception would be the one who is questioning them and supporting them during their testimony. That is why we propose, the amendments to ensure that it strikes that right balance between the separation of powers, concerns that were raised in the bill analysis.

Okay. So now let me see from the defense. Miss Yanez.

Thank you very much. So I just wanted to add, typically and I've had these situations in domestic violence cases where vertical prosecutions also allow continuances, where I've had clients who were innocent who've had their cases continued because the prosecutor was in another domestic violence trial and the alleged victim of my client's case is saying, I'm not coming to court. I don't I lied at the time. I was just angry, and they have no relationship with the prosecutor.

And, so if there was something where the prosecutor's motion to continue under 1050 G, which always comes with a declaration of counsel, had to include that they do have a relationship with the victim, and the victim does support this delay in order to preserve the vertical prosecution, I think that would strike a better balance.

And instead of just the without knowing whether or not the person supports it.

I agree. I mean, that's probably a neater way than what I was anticipating, which is bring everybody in and have a conversation. Right? Which is messy and not really done a whole heck of a lot. So

Senator, I think those are excellent ideas. But the concern I still believe we have is while that lessens the constitutional violation, it doesn't

Understand.

Be eliminated. And prosecutors are fungible. Right?

Understandably, they wanna work with if they have a relationship, these are intense cases. These are personal issues. Like, we need to respect that. But there are other prosecutors available, and there is not a permitted slight violation of the constitution. There's not a permitted slight violation of the defendant's speedy trial rights.

And even with these great weighty considerations you have to balance, I still think it's entirely inappropriate to have any sort of prolonging of a person's custody.

Yeah. I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you, Mister chair. Appreciate it

Senator Cortese.

Appreciate the Chair and the committee's work on the amendments, and because of that, I'm gonna support this today. I do have real concerns. I think that before you reach the issue of relationship, you have to take in, you know, the much broader issue on the constitutional side of not just the right to a speedy trial, but the presumption of innocence.

So, you know, when you start care categorizing certain alleged crimes as those that qualify for exceptions, it implies that, you know, this one's okay. This is okay for an exception because of the nature of the crime, or maybe let me just leave it at that, the nature of the crime.

We don't know that person is guilty in the first place, and I have had clients in that exact situation as a practitioner, as a private attorney for six and a half years representing folks in the criminal justice system on the defense side, where that client wanted to get to trial as quickly as possible, get the preliminary hearing as quickly as possible, essentially, and I did I supported that as an attorney, knowing that, you know, there were fabricated facts, and that once we put once we put the witness on the stand, which was the alleged victim, the whole case was gonna crumble.

Now why should that individual be waiting for that opportunity? Because the alleged crime is in this category, and you know, that's a larger issue that it's sort of the slippery slope that we may be on, where we're starting to make secondary the presumption of innocence, and make primary that well, what if this person is guilty, and shouldn't we, you know, preserve relationships and so forth.

So it's a much more complex bill, I think, than not that the than the committee has taken account of. I know you've done that, but that, you know, has implications beyond just a quick read, you know, in the criminal justice system. And I just felt compelled to state my point of view on that. But I'm gonna support it.

I don't know what opportunities there will be to continue working on it. It's not that the notion is bad in terms of outcome that you're trying to get to, but, it really takes threading the needle to get it right. Thank you.

Sen. Seyarto.

Thank you. You know, I think, case are discussions like this point out one of the things that, I've been a big advocate for is ensuring that we have the tools. I agree with the opposition, the tools to be able to perform our justice system the way it's supposed to work. And we are woefully inadequate in that, and, we're trying to address that.

But in the meanwhile, there are going to be these, these issues that come up, especially when you're talking about some of the more egregious crimes that are out there.

I am not an attorney and I don't pretend to be. But, you know, I am a citizen that expects people who do the things that do bad things to other people. I expect them to be held accountable for that. And a broken system shouldn't be the excuse to not hold them accountable. Most of the continuances that I've seen are a lot of continuances are on the defense side.

They need time to try to figure out how they're gonna get out of whatever it is that they did. That's their right to do that if they wish. And I think this is just trying to address a a real specific problem.

And that specific problem is the victims in these cases are super vulnerable, and they'll become victims again if we don't allow, at least this little bit of space so that they can maintain or retain a a prosecuting attorney that's already been working on a case and is familiar with it, and the victim is comfortable with it.

Otherwise, the injustice becomes, that they fear that or they fear and their distrust drives them away from the prosecution, and this person is left to go back out in the street under the presumption of innocence and continues to do what they were doing.

We need to strike a balance to make sure that, this is public safety, that public safety gets, at the end of the day, public safety wins. And so from from just a regular person standpoint, that's what, that's what I look for. It doesn't mean you disregard the constitution or disregard constitutional rights. But it does mean at the end of the day, that's what we're trying to do is make sure people are safe out there.

And we can't use a broken system to try to get people off on technicalities. So

Are there any other questions or comments from members of the committee? Okay. We have a motion by Vice chair Seyarto. I'll turn it back over to the author to close.

Thank you. I appreciate the dialogue and the insight, and I appreciate the amendments that we made, making a discretionary for the judge to decide if he's going to go ahead and move it back. But I also feel that the ten days is adequate, and that also helps as well knowing that this case won't go continuously over. So I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Yeah. We have a motion by Vice chair Seyarto. The motion is do pass as amended to the floor. Please call the roll.

AB 1656 Davies. Motion is do pass as amended to the floor. Arreguin?

Aye.

Arreguin, aye. Seyarto?

Aye.

Seyarto, aye. Caballero? Cortese?

Aye.

Cortese, aye. Perez? Weiner?

Aye.

Weiner, aye.

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

We're waiting for another author. While we're waiting, I wanna change a motion on file item two AB 647 by Gonzales. Moved by Senator Caballero.

Thank you. So if we can please call the roll on AB 647.

AB 647. Mark Gonzales. Motion is do passed to appropriations. Arreguin?

Aye.

Arreguin, aye. Seyarto?

Seyarto, aye. Caballero?

Aye.

Aye.

Caballero, aye. Cortese?

Aye.

Cortese, aye. Perez? Weiner?

Weiner, aye.

Aye.

Keep that bill on call. And let's lift the call on the consent calendar, which, consists of file item one AB 464, file item five AB 1541, file item six AB 1549, file item seven AB 1583, file item 11 AB 1948, file item 16 AB 2055, file item 18 AB 2286, and file item 19 AB 2556.

Currently consent is 4-0. Weiner?

Weiner, aye.

Keep that bell on call for absent members. I think those are all the motions that need to be made at this time. We'll recess the committee, for five minutes while we wait for an author to present.

Okay. We are going to reconvene the Senate Public Safety Committee Hearing and wanna welcome the Chair of the Assembly Public Safety Committee, which I know you're having a hearing right now. Assembly member Schultz, who's here to present file item 10 AB 1917. And do you have any principal witnesses, Mister chair?

We do. We have a representative in the San Francisco State County Public Defender's Office.

Okay. Whenever you're ready, Mister chair, you may present.

Well, thank you very, thank you very much, mister chair and colleagues. I'm pleased to present AB1917 today, which was strengthened judicial efficiency and transparency by ensuring that charges brought against defendants are always evidence based. And if you'll allow me, I'd love to explain.

Californians deserve assurance that their due process rights are strongly protected and that every charge a prosecutor brings in our judicial system is based on sufficient evidence.

In criminal case proceedings, a judge evaluates all charges against a defendant in a preliminary hearing and can dismiss any charges that they find do not have probable cause.

And I wanna commend the committee analysis for probably having one of the best descriptions of the preliminary hearing process and the various tools that are available. It's really all there right in the analysis. As the analysis notes, currently in California, a prosecutor is allowed to simply add back any of these dismissed charges, often without a formal process or I would argue sufficient explanation.

The important part and really where this bill stems from is the fact that the defendant, not the prosecution, but the defendant must then carry the burden of proof in filing a lengthy motion, a 995 motion, to once again have these charges removed, arguably, undercutting both due process rights and compromising judicial efficiency. AB 1917 seeks to change that and instead require that prosecutors file a motion based on legal arguments to request the reinstatement of dismissed charges.

If a judge grants this motion, these charges can still be easily added back onto a case. This strengthens transparency and integrity in our legal system by one, guaranteeing that charges are always based on probable cause at every stage of the legal process. Two, explicitly protecting an avenue for the reinstatement of charges when appropriate.

And three, increasing efficiency in our courts. I'd like to note a couple of things that were raised in the opposition letters, and I also discussed in committee analysis and, again, thank the chair and staff for the calm conversations that we had with our office. AB 1917 will only apply to charges that are dismissed at these preliminary hearings.

To further clarify this, we will be amending the bill today to make it clear that a prosecutor is not, I repeat, is not prevented from filing new charges that were not initially included in a case, but are later shown by the evidence at a preliminary hearing, for example, prosecutors will have to file motions only for charges that are specifically dismissed by an officer of our judicial branch.

We will also be accepting committee amendments today that clarify refiling restrictions currently in statute will not apply to violent felonies when such offenses are dismissed. We'd like to sincerely thank committee staff again, as well as the chair for all of your hard work on navigating and putting together these amendments. And we're happy to accept all of those.

This bill is a matter of basic fairness and will further ensure that Californians can rely on a transparent and accountable justice system at the appropriate time, Mister chair. I will respectfully ask for an aye vote. And testifying in support today, we have Miss Yanez, Deputy Public Defender with the San Francisco public Defender's Office.

Thank you very much. Good morning.

Good morning again, members of the committee. Yolona Yanez, Deputy Public Defender at the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, a proud cosponsor of AB 1917, the Respect Judicial Decisions Act. This built, this bill is built on a basic principle. People should not face criminal charges that are not supported by evidence. If a judge, a neutral arbiter, determines that there's not enough evidence to support a charge even at that low probable cause standard, that charge should not continue to hang over a person's head.

And here is why AB 1917 is needed. When a person that is accused of committing a felony, a judge holds a preliminary hearing to make sure that there's enough evidence, probable cause, to support each accusation or charge. Specifically, the charge must be supported by probable cause, which is a relatively low standard. That means that there is a reasonable basis for believing a crime may be may have been committed. If a charge is not supported by probable cause, a judge can remove it from the case.

Under current law, when a judge removes a charge at the preliminary hearing, the prosecutor can simply add it back without providing any reason or explanation. AB 1917 is narrowly tailored to address this issue as it only applies to this very unique situation.

The situation where the judge has dismissed account for insufficiency of the evidence at the preliminary hearing. In this very limited circumstance, AB 1917 would simply require prosecutors to file a motion. That's it.

File a motion, explain why the char, why the charge that was removed should be added back to the case. If the motion's granted, the charge will be added back. And further, we have listened to and addressed the concerns raised by the district attorneys. The committee amendments we have accepted makes clear that the prosecution can refile a violent felony. This simple amendment to the court process will make courts more efficient and increase transparency and fairness.

Please vote aye. Thank you.

Good morning, mister chair, members. Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, Statewide Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and we are cosponsor of the measure. I'll only, add a couple of brief things. I think the author and the prior witness cover just about everything. Two things.

On this bill, we have spent a lot of time engaging with judicial counsel, to ensure that the, you know, the courts can handle this, addressing what the procedures are at the courts and how it will change or not change, to make sure that it works for everybody. And that's been very really key and that will be baked into the amendments that we are working on.

The second piece I wanna highlight is because we'll you know, in the debate on this, one of the core values for CACJ and why we are cosponsoring is that oftentimes preliminary hearings right now under current law are really really devalued. It is the only time in a felony case that a judge hears evidence before you get to trial. It's the only time I think late, individuals oftentimes think that, oh, you just explained to the judge if there's evidence on your side. No, there's one time at the preliminary hearing.

And it was always frustrating. It's been years since I've practiced, but when I practice, it was always frustrating to me when I would go to a prelim calendar and they'd say, well, how long is the prelim gonna be fifteen minutes, twenty minutes?

And I would get so fierce say, no, I'm thinking about four hours, maybe two days, because I wanna make sure that preliminary hearing means something. And so this statute addresses that same principle by making clear that if the judge at a prelim determines that a charge is not supported by the evidence, that the DA can't just come the next week and add it back on. So for for those reasons, we are cosponsors. We ask for your support. Thank you very much.

We're taking any me too testimony of anyone else in support of AB 1917. Please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

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

Daniel Allen on behalf of the Los Angeles County Public Defenders Union in support.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU California Action and proud support.

Glenn Backes for Drug Policy Alliance and the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support.

Good morning, mister chair and members. Mica Doctoroff on behalf of Smart Justice California in strong support.

Elizabeth Kim on behalf of Initiate Justice in strong support.

Capri Walker with Californians for Safety and Justice, proud cosponsor in support.

Matt Sosna on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, a cosponsor of AB 1917, and the following organizations in support, La Defensea, the Justice to Jobs Coalition, Alliance for Boys and Men of Color, Rubicon Programs, Friends Committee on Legislation in California, Bueno Vecino, Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice, Courage California, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, American Friends Service Committee San Diego.

Good morning. Jim Lindberg, Friends Committee on Legislation of California in support. Thanks.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of Vera California in strong support.

Ariana Montes on behalf of the WREN Action Group in support.

Thank you all so much. We'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to AB 1917, if there are any.

Good morning, chair and members. My name is Assistant District Attorney Nicholas Hunt on behalf of the San Francisco District Attorney and the California District Attorneys Association in respectful opposition. We appreciate the work that this committee has done, and I agree with the chair.

The committee analysis is spot on identifying some of the issues with this bill, but more work needs to be done. No prosecutor would disagree with, Chair Schultz that probable cause is necessary to bring a person before a felony trial.

But unfortunately, the way the bill is written as is, 871.5 is the wrong mechanism to do that. Under current law, section 995 exists as this procedural safeguard. 871.5 applies when there is a clear air of law, not whether or not there is sufficient evidence to support the charges.

And if this bill is passed as is, it's going to set a double tracked criminal procedure in our trial courts, where you will have a section 995 motion judge who reviews sufficiency of the evidence, whereas you might also have a, 871.5 judge review whether or not there was a clear legal error.

And so for judicial economy purposes, it's been our contention in the opposition letters that this is going to as an unfunded mandate to the courts, it's going to overburden our trial courts with this mechanism.

And with 871.5 not having been written in the way that the chair is proposing since 1927, it doesn't make sense to bring us back 99 years in criminal procedure to accomplish this. And finally, I would just like to call to the attention the recent Supreme Court decision, Jail versus Superior Court, where the California Supreme Court noted the burdens that the legislature is putting on our trial courts without the appropriations to follow.

That with the more specialized hearings, with the more required motion practice, our trial courts need the resources to be able to do the job. Passing this bill where there already is a mechanism just adds another burden on those counties. Thank you.

There any other principal witnesses in opposition?

Seeing no one, is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 1917?

Okay. Seeing no one else, I'll bring it back to the committee for questions and comments. Senator Caballero.

Let me ask the question of Mister Hunt because let me ask the question before I make my comment. Where would you put it? If it's in the wrong place, where would you put it? Because I don't hear you saying this will be a travesty of justice. To me, it seems like it's the code section becomes important.

And I have to tell you, this happens all the time because there's disagreement on where things should go, and then we put it somewhere, and it's clear that we made it more complicated than it needed needed to be. So where would you put it?

I would create a, you know, a .5 on 995 That if we're going to have this motion, because the procedural problem with 871.5, it's a motion to reinstate the felony complaint. So when we're talking about an information and the problem arises in the scenario where you have a multi count felony complaint, which I think both sides can agree is very common. If two charges are held to answer, the government's going to file the information on those held charges.

Two charges are not held to answer, and we're now filing a motion to reinstate the complaint. If that is granted by the superior court, that is then going back to the magistrate in order to say, you know, I got it wrong.

There was probable cause. This is certifying him. And then we're creating the joining problem up in the superior court from the magistrate. So I do think that, you know, 995.5 would be an area to add this section.

Okay. If I could address the

Please.

Proponents on on that issue? Because that was what I thought I heard you saying. And to me, the issue is getting the procedure right. And if it means putting it in a different section, I mean, I think that makes makes a lot of sense, but it's not my bill. It's yours.

And I appreciate being caught off guard. I'm not saying are you gonna do it today. Just is it something you're willing to consider? Because I think that's the nature of the opposition and if it ends up that it can be fundamentally clear how it should be used, that might be something that makes sense.

Absolutely, Senator. Appreciate the question. Wanna thank Mister Hunt for his testimony today. He raised some good points. Yes.

We're happy to consider it. And more than that, we're actually exploring amendments with the Judicial Council, which is recently engaged with our office and with committee to look at doing that through the 995 mechanism as opposed to 871.5. We believe it would not substantially change the intent or operation of the bill, but could reduce some of those Mister Hunt's highlighted.

And the last thing I'll note is should it advance out of committee today, we've enjoyed, and appreciated the input of his office, DA Jenkins Office, and we just love those conversations to continue so we can land this plane correctly.

That sounds good. I appreciate that. Thank you very much, Mister chair. I will be supporting the bill today, and I appreciate the discussion that's happening because I think this is important.

Once again, wanna thank the author for his work with the committee and as well as the District Attorney's Office, for their work with our committee as well. I think what was just described, I think sounds like a better path forward that I think accomplishes the goals of the bill, but helps ensure that it's workable. And with that, I'll turn over to you to close.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you all.

I'll enter in a motion on AB 1917. Moved by Senator Caballero. If we can, please call the roll.

AB 1917 Schultz. Motion is do passed as amended to appropriations. Arreguin?

Arreguin, aye. Seyarto? Caballero?

Aye.

Aye.

Caballero, aye. Cortese? Perez? Weiner?

Keep that bill on call for absent members. Thank you all. I see Assembly Pacheco is here. Good morning.

And we'll now proceed to file item 20 AB 2636. And do you have any principal witnesses? Okay.

Great. Thank you. Good morning, assembly member. Whenever you're ready, you may present in your vote.

Good morning, mister chair and members. Today I present I was about to say I rise. Today, I present AB 2636. California continues to face a serious challenge with youth access to firearms. In recent years, juvenile violent crime arrests have increased, and firearms remain a leading cause of death among children and adolescents.

Underscoring the urgency of this issue, existing law prohibits minors from possessing firearms. However, these cases still are eligible for deferred entry of judgment. A program intended for low for first time low level offenses to provide an off ramp from further justice involvement by allowing a court to order programming or treatment to address the underlying criminal factors.

AB 2636 requires when determining suitability for deferred entry of judgment to consider whether the offense charged is possession of a loaded firearm, a violation of penal code section 25850. AB 2636 represents a balanced and necessary change to ensure that courts are giving consideration to this specific offense of carrying a loaded firearm, which has significant impact and consequences to our communities when looking at the appropriate disposition for these cases.

Ensuring that conduct posing a significant risk to public safety is addressed with appropriate rehabilitative and accountability interventions. AB 2636 prioritizes public safety while preserving rehabilitative opportunities for youth that promote community safety. With me today to testify is Danielle Sanchez, Legislative Director, Chief Probation Officers of California, and Jonathan Feldman, Legislative Advocate, California Police Chief. And I'll hand it over to them.

You have two minutes.

Good morning, chair and members. Danielle Sanchez on behalf of the Chief Probation Officers of California pleased to cosponsor AB 2636 to address juvenile gun related offenses as was shared by the author. This bill requires courts when determining suitability for deferred entry of judgment to consider whether the offense charge is possession of a loaded firearm already a violation of penal code II 25850.

With an uptick in serious and violent juvenile crime and impacts in communities from juvenile gun violence, it's imperative that these types of crimes are addressed via structured rehabilitative programming and accountability to mitigate future risk of adult reoffense. In regards to recent Juvenile Felony, violent felony data from '21 2021 to 2024, violent felony arrests went up by over 69%.

And we are seeing firsthand the impacts of juvenile crimes in our community with too many unfortunate examples. I do wanna underscore a few things. It is already illegal for a minor to possess a firearm. This bill does not change that, nor does it increase the penalty. This bill does not mandate a specific outcome or court disposition.

And importantly, this bill is not in lieu of front end, juvenile gun violence prevention efforts. Those are complimentary and something that we too find important in addition to this. But what this bill does is make sure that courts are carefully taking a look at what the appropriate disposition is in regards to firearm offenses, which carry such great weight to our communities.

So we're here today with our local partners to address, these rehabilitative needs, but also the public safety. So for those reasons, we ask for your aye vote today.

Thank you very much.

Hey. Good morning, chair, members. Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association, proud co sponsor of the bill. I don't have much to say, that won't be duplicative of what my colleague already just went over. But do you wanna highlight that this is a priority for the police chiefs, not just in one region, but across the state.

At our board meeting in the fall, we round tabled, you know, priority issues and emerging threats. And I was actually pretty shocked to hear chief after chief talk about armed juveniles, that seem to not understand the threats that carrying a loaded firearm in public presents the community to themselves. And we need to make sure that we're intervening in those incidents early on and with substantive type oversight and accountability.

Because what we see is those juveniles that are caught with loaded firearms at an early age progress into more dangerous situations, more dangerous crimes, and continue to cause harm until we actually find some meaningful intervention. As my colleague had stated, this bill doesn't replace noncustodial programming, probation, oversight.

It just says that if we are gonna give them deferred entry of judgment, which really is meant for the lowest level offenders, minor offenders, first time offenders, that we're really considering all the facts of the case. And unfortunately, we have seen cases where, juveniles were given deferred entry of judgment, under these circumstances, only to reoffend. And for those reasons, we think this bill is very modest but important. We ask for your aye vote.

Well anyone else who'd like to express support for AB 2636. So please come forward, state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Chair, Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff's Association, California Narcotic Officers Association, and the others listed in the analysis in support.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to express support for AB 2636?

Seeing no one else come forward, we'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to AB 2636. And you'll each have two minutes to address the committee.

Good morning again, chair, and senators. My name is Daniel Allen. I'm a Deputy Public Defender in Los Angeles County speaking on behalf of Local 148 in opposition to AB 2636. When I was a new law clerk, I was assigned to a juvenile courthouse. To be honest, I was disappointed with the assignment.

I thought I'd be spending my days handling petty thefts and vandalism cases, but I quickly learned how wrong I was. On my very first day, I sat through a disposition hearing for a child who had been found to have committed murder. The public defender I was shadowing told me the child's father had come to testify. I remember thinking how wonderful. Surely his father is going to be there to offer some form of support.

But the seasoned public defender did not share my naive optimism. Despite repeated efforts, she had never once heard from the child's father. When the father addressed the court, he spent nearly ten minutes talking about himself in his own glory days. He never once spoke in support of his son. What struck me most was not the father's testimony, it was the child's reaction.

He seemed genuinely grateful that his father had even shown up at all. When I left court that day, I called my own parents and thanked them for the support they had given me throughout my life. The day I realized that I was that day I realized what separated me from that child was not intelligence, potential, or worth, it was support. Many of our juvenile clients truly have no one fighting for them.

They're raised in foster care systems or have parents who are incarcerated, struggling with addiction, battling mental illness, or absent from their lives altogether.

Many grow up in poverty and communities played by violence and instability, and even those with families often lack the stability, support, and opportunities many of us take for granted. Too often, they turn to gangs and firearms in search protection, acceptance, or some sense of security.

The youth who require a second chance are often the same youth who never received a fair first chance. We have seen time and time again throughout the justice system that when additional discretionary barriers are created, they rarely fall evenly.

As a public defender, I know that this additional discretionary factor will disproportionately impact my black and brown clients.

That is precisely why Local 148 opposes 2636. Every child is capable of growth and change. This bill will eliminate the number of children who are gifted that opportunity. If our goal is safer communities and fewer victims, we should be expanding opportunities for rehabilitation, not narrowing them. For those reasons, Local 148 respectfully urges a no vote.

Thank you.

Thank you. Sir?

Good morning, chair Araguin and members. My name is Israel Villa. I'm the Deputy Director of the California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice. We respectfully oppose AB 2636. CYCJ is a statewide coalition of more than 50 community based organizations that work alongside young people impacted by the juvenile legal system and other systems of care.

From that perspective, we are concerned that AB 2636 moves California away from proven, evidence based approaches to youth accountability, rehabilitation, and community safety.

As someone who has spent almost two decades incarcerated in the last twelve years working directly with system impacted youth and families, I have seen first hand that accountability and rehabilitation are not mutually exclusive.

When young people are connected to meaningful support, treatment, education, and mentoring, they are far more likely to change their behavior and avoid future system involvement than when they are pushed deeper into the justice system.

Deferred entry of judgment is available only to a limited group of young people, those facing a first time non violent offense. It provides courts with the flexibility to connect youth to education, treatment, mentoring, and community based services, while holding them accountable for their actions.

Successful completion allows youth to move forward without the lasting consequences of a juvenile adjudication. AB 2636 will significantly reduce access to this rehabilitative path for youth charged with firearm possession offenses.

Yet research consistently shows that deeper system involvement and incarceration increases the likelihood of for future justice contact while community based interventions are more effective at reducing recidivism and improving long term outcomes. We all share the goal of preventing youth access to firearms and reducing gun violence.

However, there is no evidence that limiting access to diversion program advances that goal.

In fact, targeted intervention programs that address the underlying causes of firearm possession have demonstrated positive outcomes for both youth and community safety. The young eligible for deferred entry of judgment are precisely those most likely to benefit from early intervention and rehabilitation.

Restricting access to these opportunities will not make our community safer. It will simply increase the likelihood of deeper system involvement for youth who could otherwise be successfully redirected. For those reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote on AB 2636.

And lastly, I urge you and y'all to please defend the last decade of progress where youth justice is concerned. We strongly believe that all youth are sacred, and we see attempts to take us backwards and roll back things that we fought very, very hard for. And I respectfully urge you and I plead to you to please do not allow any other forces to take us backwards. Our youth are sacred and they deserve love, treatment, support, and their community. Thank you.

Thank you. Look. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 2636? Please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Good morning. Glenn Backes, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, and respectful opposition.

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

Matt Sosna on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office in opposition.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU California Action in strong opposition.

Ariana Montes on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice in opposition.

Okay. Thank you very much. I'll bring it back to the committee and ask if there are any questions or comments from members of the committee at this time. Senator Caballero.

So, thank you for the testimony here today. I really appreciate it. I did criminal defense work for 25 years, so I'm pretty familiar with this area. And the challenge and I also started a nonprofit doing violence prevention from a public health perspective, not from a criminal perspective, or not from a incarceration perspective. I guess that's the best way to put it.

So I'm turned on this, and let me, let me say why. Because there were times that I represented individuals that had never been in trouble before, but they did something really stupid and really serious. And I spent enough time in the courtroom so that I was able to convince some pretty hardcore judges that had come up through the DA's office to give them a break and not implement a mandatory sentence that would require state prison for a 17 year old kid.

And it took a lot of work to get them through their probationary period that was much longer than a normal one, but was set up specifically so that the judge was willing to take a risk. So I'm really familiar with rehabilitative type of programs, and I think they're really important.

In this instance, the question that I that came up for me was there's one thing it's one thing to be carrying a gun. And I say that because in our community, there was one faction or one gang that was hardcore. They were never coming out because it had been in the family for years. And there was another faction that just wanted to survive.

And so they were willing and ready to get out, and it was much the detail was, did you use the gun or did you just have it?

Because the having it was a protection, and everybody says that, right? Everybody says, oh, I had the gun for protection. But the problem is when you're carrying a gun, you're more likely to use it, because it's easy.

So what we wanna do is protect the public, and people are feeling they're feeling like the legislature has moved away from that. And yet we also want to offer rehabilitation for those that may be ready, and that understand the seriousness of of what's happened.

And sometimes just ending up in custody brings that home faster than almost anything. So I get where the bill is going and I support the concept. The question is, for me, whether there's discretion for a judge, if it's, and this is a loaded gun, so that's where, where you got me in terms of feeling like this is important to not allow the deferred injury of judgment. But that and because deferred entry of judgment is supposed to be for low level offenses.

And depending if the gun was used in the commission of a crime, then I don't think you should be able to do deferred a different entry of judgment.

I just think it's important for there to be a more structured environment and accountability. And you show it, right? You gotta show it. Do you give up the the do you agree that there are people bringing you in that are not good for you and that you gotta get away from it and maybe substances that are getting you involved in situations and get a job and I think Father Boyle always had it right. There's nothing that stops a bullet faster than a job.

It does. It does. And getting having people working, it makes a big difference. So I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but I, I think that the public needs to see that we're serious about about firearms. But I also think that there are instances, if it's not been used in the crime and it's because by the time we end up with some of these cases getting resolved, there are two or three cases we're dealing with.

And if there's one case that that ends up being a problem, then the question becomes whether there's some discretion. So I guess I'm looking for you to see if you're willing to have at least have conversations with the opposition on this and whether you've had those conversations and there's just no place to go. I guess

Thank you, Senator. And to answer your question, yes, the courts do have discretion, and it only applies to when a juvenile is detained with a loaded weapon. And I'll let go ahead and let my witness also make comments about that as well.

If I may, through the chair. Yes. I think you raised a number of very important things that I did wanna just make mention. We we have been talking to opposition, and part of where this bill language kind of landed in its introduction was based off of some of those early conversations with conversations with opposition.

But I think a couple other key things it, you know, it is focused on carrying a loaded firearm, which from a risk perspective and having it loaded and carrying it in a public place, rises to the level, I think, from ourselves and our cosponsors that the risk to the community is greater than other offenses that would be eligible for DEJ. DEJ does also exclude other firearms related offenses already.

And then obviously, it's illegal for anyone on you know, as a minor to possess a firearm period. And so there's already a penalty in law, which makes it a wobbler for carrying a loaded firearm.

So we're not touching any of that. We are merely saying when it comes to deferred entry of judgment and those diversionary pathways that the court really should be looking at and considering those factors as a loaded firearm when making that decision. So nothing determines what the judge needs to do in that situation. It just, ask that they consider that knowing that there are existing penalties already in statute for this offense.

Okay. Got it. Alright. Thank you. Thank you, mister chair.

Okay. We're on AB 2636. Mister Vice Chair, any comments? Okay. I'll turn it back over to the author if you'd like to close.

Thank you, and thank you for the opportunity to allow me to present this very important bill. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

I wanna take a motion at AB 2636

So moved.

Moved by the vice chair. If we can please call the roll.

AB 2636, Pacheco. Motion is do passed to the floor. Arreguin?

Aye.

Arreguin, aye. Seyarto?

Aye.

Seyarto, aye. Caballero?

Aye.

Caballero, aye. Cortese? Perez? Weiner?

Call for absent members. Thank you very much. I see we have Assembly member Johnson here. We'll go to file an eight AB 1632, and then we'll go to, the bills by Assembly member Stefani thereafter. So good morning, Assembly member. And whenever you're ready, you may present in your bill.

Thank you, mister chair. Good morning, committee members. I am here today to present AB 1632, which streamlines a vital public safety tool for property owners and law enforcement. I wanna start by accepting the committee amendments, and I appreciate the work the committee staff and chair have done on this bill. With the amendment, AB 1632 very simply replaces the onerous notarization requirement previously required for 602 letters with the new penalty of perjury statement.

As a former mayor and City Council member for the city of Lake Elsinore, I've seen firsthand how administrative red tape can hinder public safety. Under current law, property owners must find and pay for and file a notarized letter every twelve months just to ensure that law enforcement can protect their property in their absence. When a letter lapses, law enforcement is often legally unable to proactively remove trespassers leading to potential public safety hazards.

In Riverside and across the state of California, unauthorized occupation of vacant lots and buildings is the leading cause of structure fires and wildfires. By making it easier to maintain an active six zero two, we allow officers to intervene proactively before a trespass incident turns into a public safety hazard.

In addition to the direct public safety risk posed by a lapsed six zero two letter, current law also poses indirect risk due to administrative costs and wasted staff time. Since the notary requirement went into effect, the Riverside Police Department has had to certify eight additional staff members to process notarizations just for these six zero two letters. That equates to just under 40,000 a year in salary cost in addition to taking away from staff time that could be used in the pursuit of improving public safety.

AB 1632 will eliminate these costs in addition to protecting small business owners and residents in low income neighborhoods who are often the most impacted by these property crimes. This bill is sponsored by the City of Riverside and is supported by the League of California Cities, Southwest California Legislative Council, the California Police Chiefs Association, the California Association of Realtors, 19 individual cities, and 15 police officer associations from across the state.

With me to testify today in support is, chief Larry Gonzalez on behalf of the Riverside Police Department.

Good morning. Good morning, honorable chair and members of the committee. My name is Larry Gonzalez. I'm the chief of police at the Riverside Police Department, and I'm also on a on the executive committee for the California Police Chiefs Association. I'm here today to respectfully voice our support for assembly bill 1632, which is a practical common sense measure that strengthens public safety and protects private property while reducing unnecessary bureaucracy for both property owners and law enforcement.

Across California, police departments receive daily calls from property owners that are frustrated with repeated trespassing, which often results in trash, bodily waste, or drug paraphernalia scattered across the property and other damage to facilities. In 2025, our department received more than 4,300 calls for calls for service related to trespassing.

Under current law, the California penal code six zero two, have, property owners submit what's called a six zero two letter, which is a written request authorizes police officers to enforce trespassing lies trespassing laws on private property even when the owner is not present. Last year received we received 825 trespass authorization letters and made 580 arrests for trespassing. However, existing law requires that these letters need to be notarized, which creates unnecessary administrative burdens for both property owners and our police department.

Our department has been assisting with the notary requirement for many of these letters, which costs our department, like the, assembly member said, almost $40,000 in staff time and resources. When a valid six zero two letter is not in place, officers may be have limited ability to address these situations immediately, which only increases frustration for both property owners and neighbors. Additionally, when these letters expire, we cannot they cannot be renewed quickly.

Officers responding to trespass complaints, we find themselves without the legal authority to proactively to act proactively even when the property owner clearly wants the enforcement. AB 1632 addresses these challenges by removing the requirement that six zero two letters need to be notarized, eliminating an unnecessary hurdle that often delays or prevents property owners from maintaining valid authorizations.

Importantly, AB 1632 does not expand trespass laws to create new criminal penalties. It simply ensures that existing public safety tool like this one works more efficiently for the people who rely on it. On behalf of the California Police Chiefs Association and chiefs across the state, I respectfully ask for your support for AB 1632. Thank you for your time and concern.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 1632? You can please come forward and state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Good morning. Kendra Begley on behalf of the city of Corona and city of Eastville in support.

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

Chair and members, Carlin Shelby on behalf of the Tri Valley Cities Coalition comprised of the communities of Danville, Dublin, Livermore, Seymour, Seymour, and Ramon Pleasanton in strong support. Thank you.

Jose Santos with the Riverside Sheriffs Association. We support this.

Unless there's anyone else wishing to express support for the bill, we'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to, AB 1632.

Oh, I have to. I'm so sorry.

Oh, okay.

Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. Having just seen the amendments, we're reviewing them. We were opposed. I will just say that California is very generous in using police resources to provide the service to absent property owners. My family owns property in South Carolina, and the we're responsible for securing the property and making sure that no one is squatting on it or you otherwise using it.

So I don't think that it is onerous to request that the property owners either have their form six zero two letters notarized or perhaps in this case, filed under penalty of perjury. But we are reviewing that the amendment. Thank you.

Good morning, chair Arreguin and senators. My name is Daniel Allen. I'm a deputy public defender in Los Angeles County speaking on behalf of Local 148 in opposition to AB 1632. Proponents of this bill argue that the notarization requirement is burdensome. Let me tell you what is far more burdensome, Having your Fourth Amendment rights violated, being thrown into a jail after an unlawful arrest, and being subjected to a search that should never have occurred.

The notarization requirement is not a mere formality. It is one of the few safeguards ensuring law enforcement is acting with the property owner's actual authorization rather than assumption, mistake, or abuse. In practice, officers do not simply use these authorizations to move people peacefully along. They approach individuals they suspect of trespassing, often homeless, arrest them, and search them incident to that arrest. During those searches, officers may discover drugs or weapons, leading to additional charges that otherwise would never have existed.

For noncitizens, these charges can result in deportation, denial of naturalization, or or denial of admission into The United States. Let's not hide from the truth. This bill would disproportionately impact our homeless population and erode their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The constitution can and must apply to the poorest among us. Officers cannot be given a blank blank unverifiable check to decide who may be on a private property.

If they are given that authority, constitutional rights will be trampled upon and there will be no meaningful way to verify whether or not that property over owner ever authorized the enforcement action in the first place. Our concern is not limited to the rights of our clients. Without verification, it is law enforcement, not the property owner, who effectively decides who may have be who may be on private property and when. The Fourth Amendment exists because our founders understood the danger of unchecked government power.

The notarization requirement is a modest safeguard against a monumental danger. For those reasons, local 148 respectfully urges a no vote on AB 1632. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition AB 1632? If you can please come forward and state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

... with Housing California in opposition, also on behalf of the National Alliance End Homelessness.

Matt Sosna on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office in opposition.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU California Action in opposition.

Elizabeth Kim on behalf of Initiate Justice in opposition.

Benjamin Henderson with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in opposition.

Anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 1632? Seeing no one else, I'll bring it back to the committee for discussion and just say, once again, the amendment the author has agreed to take, is to require that the the six zero two letters, the trespass letters of authority, be signed under penalty of perjury. And for me, I think there needs to be a really high bar because the consequences of these letters are significant as our opposition witnesses have spoken to.

I'm particularly concerned in cases where there's a dispute about whether somebody is a is a legal tenant of a property, whether they're a business or whether they're a residential tenant, and making sure that there are safeguards so that owners can't abuse this process to unlawfully evict someone. And so I I think it needs to be a really high bar.

I understand the concern around, you know, the costs and administrative burden, but there's a reason we have to verify that the person is the owner and there's a there's a reason to ensure that, this is a legitimate request because the ramifications of it are pretty significant in terms of, legal consequences. But I'll turn over my colleagues too. And I think penalty of perjury, if you if you sign somebody something under penalty of perjury and you did so fraudulently, you committed perjury. There are legal consequences to that. And so Senator Cortese.

Just ask clarification of of you because it's on the amends on the amendments. So the penalty of perjury in effect is in lieu of the notarization at this point. The notarization would go away, which was part of the intent of the the bill.

I don't, you know, I I guess, I'd be open through the chair of hearing any further response from the opposition, but I'm not clear given my own background, which is as an attorney focused into kind of disparate areas, real estate transactional law and and criminal defense of all things, mixed together, but actually works pretty well in looking at something like this.

I'm not sure where a notary in and of itself, a notarization of a signature, does much for us, you know, in terms of in terms of of of of what the objective is here.

I mean, it's and I I understand the amends taking that away, and that's why I'm supportive. I do think, under penalty of perjury is a much better way of going about. And if it's about identification, there's, a 100 ways of doing that that are simpler than having somebody who's a notary verify that somebody's signature is actually the signature of the person who says it is. A copy of a driver's license would do the same thing post ace. Right?

So I mean, if if if a law enforcement agency wanted to verify identification, I'm just saying there's many ways to do that without going all the way to a a a notary or bringing a notary into into the office. So I'm supportive based on that world view. I I I guess I'm not understanding the sanctity of of the notary at this point. And I just wanted to acknowledge the opposition on that, but I also wanted to say that's my thinking on it. Thank you. So I'll be supporting the bill.

Any other members? Mister Vice Chair?

Thank you. I have a similar, view on that particular issue as, my colleague just stated, so I'm not gonna repeat that. You know, we I heard a lot from the homeless coalition and folks like that. You know, one of the problems that we're having out there is there's properties that are in transition. They used to house a family, but now they're being transitioned into, you know, another property, you know, they're going to be building on or something.

But the process takes so long, you have properties sitting there for two years. We had one such similar property used for by some of the high school kids for Lord knows what, despite several efforts to maintain a fence and a perimeter around it that is secure. And, and that's what these that's what this is for is is to prevent that. That house eventually burned down almost with people in it. So, you know, it becomes a real safe public safety hazard.

So again, you know, we're looking at, some, technicalities that I I think actually this is a stronger way of doing it than a notary. And all the notary is doing it saying, is that your signature and is that you? Yeah. Then they then they have to then they proceed to the next step, which is to go find the police.

What we're really trying to do is get their permission to go in there when without having to call them every single time or without having the neighbor having to call the owner and say, hey, there's somebody in the house again, you know, and then the neighbor calls the police and they go, okay, you know, we need we can eliminate all that.

And this is kind of easy. Private property is private property. People know whether they should be there or or they shouldn't be there. And, you know, whether they they want to sneak in and and and, and do that, well, then they're the ones taking the risk, that they are going to have a confrontation, with either an owner or a police officer or a security officer or somebody. And and so I I don't I don't feel the need to protect them in that manner.

But and I think this allows the police to work effectively with property owners who are trying to maintain their property. They may be an absentee property owner, and that's even a more even a better reason to have a process like this that that facilitates some supervision of that property even, you know, if if if when it when there are, nefarious things going on on the property. And, so therefore, I'll be, I'll be supporting the bill, and I'll move the bill.

Any other questions? Senator Caballero.

Well, I have a question of the 602 notice, which is a little bit beyond what we're talking about today, but I think is at least relevant.

Can anybody tell me whether that notice has a requirement in it that indicate that they are the owners of the property and that they have the I'm I'm I'm concerned with the issue that's been raised about being used the the six zero two being used as a way to either get rid of a tenant that they have not lawfully evicted or a business that may not you know, there's processes.

And I'm just I'm I'm wondering because it just seems to me that signing under penalty of perjury has consequences that a notary doesn't. And, it is a higher standard, and it may make sense for that notice to also indicate, because you're right, some of the properties are owned as trusts or as in a LLC, you know, in a in a in a situation where you can't tell who the real owners are. Right?

But you wanna make sure that it's the person is stating under penalty of perjury that that's their property, that they have the right to make decisions, I guess, and that that that they're asking for our police assistance because no one has the right to be there at this particular point. Some something that's very specific because I'm I'm I'm with you, miss George. It's, you know, why are we using police resources for this?

And for heaven's sake, why is Riverside paying notary public to to to as a as a convenience for people, should be charging a lot more money to cover all of the costs if that's the if that's the case. But anyway, does anybody know whether that's the that's that may be another bill, but I'm just I'm I'm concerned that we get this right.

I think that's a question for the author. Yes. And or the or the author.

Thank you, Senator. I I'm not sure if it's owner or tenant. Because if you think about it, like, I think about the in the business perspective where you know, a property owner owns a whole business section in our city and there's several different tenants within there. So each individual person would sign that trespass authorization form. So I'm not really sure to answer your question as far as if it's the owner or tenant or puts both that on the

Okay. I just think It's

May I okay. Mister chair oh, he's left. Okay. Thank you. Owner. It it it is owner.

The 602 currently states that it is the owner of the property who files the six zero two. And so in current in its current form, the notary is just, as you heard, making sure that the person who signed it is who they say they are. So we agree that penalty under perjury is a much stronger way to do this because it is owner related. A tenant cannot file a 602 . The property owner has to file the 602 .

Okay. Thank you for that. I appreciate it.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? If not, I'll turn over the Assemblymember to close.

Thank you very much. AB 1632 is a targeted and common sense change. Thank you for the discussion today. We believe this is gonna strengthen private property protections, help our small business community, and make our city safer. The bill has received overwhelming bipartisan support in the assembly and no no votes. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

We've seen a motion on AB 1632 moved by the vice chair to pass as amended to where's the next door? To the floor. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We'll keep that bill on... Thank you all very much. We'll now move to the next four bills by Assembly member Stephanie. And, Assembly member, do you have any particular preference in terms of order or just file order? Okay. Great.

So we'll begin with file item 12, AB1974. And whenever you're ready, Assemblymember, you may present.

Thank you, chair and colleagues. I'm here on a bill, the first bill that I wish actually I didn't have to present at all. But, unfortunately, we are a nation awash in guns. There are more guns in this nation than there are people, and gun violence is now the leading cause of death of teens and children in our country, and we must do more to prevent gun violence in all our communities.

AB 1974 is about giving people a safe, responsible option when they need to temporarily store a firearm, especially during moments of crisis.

And this bill is inspired by the incredible work of Leslie Hu, an incredible gun violence prevention advocate who has really turned a lot of pain into advocacy, and the founder of Pierce's Pledge in San Francisco, which has helped lead the way in creating voluntary safe storage programs in partnership with local law enforcement, and we've already seen this model work.

The San Francisco Police Department has implemented one of the first programs of its kind in the state, offering individuals and families a trusted place to store firearms when they feel it is no longer safe to keep them at home. The goal here is simple. With more guns safely stored and fewer guns accessible during moments of crisis, we can save lives. We know that there are times when people recognize they need help.

We know that having a firearm nearby is not safe in those moments. And access, to a secure voluntary storage option can make all the difference. We've also heard from responsible gun owners who need temporary storage for reasons beyond a personal crisis. One father shared that his son was returning home from prison, but a condition on his probation prohibited firearms from being present in the home.

That the dad wanted to comply with the law and support his son's successful entry, but struggled to find a safe lawful place to temporarily store his firearm.

A B 1974 helps provide a clear and trusted option in those situations. We know the data is clear. Creating distance between a person in crisis and a firearm, even temporarily, significantly reduces the risk of suicide and firearm related injury. This bill builds on that understanding, provides clear, consistent guidelines so that law enforcement agencies across California can implement these programs safely, responsibly, and effectively. This is all about prevention, and it is about meeting people where they are.

It's about giving individuals and families the choice to temporarily store their firearm with a participating department if they want to. And here to me today here with me today in support is Leslie Hume and Cody Doherty with Pierce's Pledge, who will share with you just exactly why this is so important.

Thank you very much. You each have two minutes to present the bill, and thank you for joining us today.

Thank you. Thank you, honorable chair and members. My name is Leslie Hu. And on 01/13/2021, my only son, nine year old Pierce Howard Hu, was shot and murdered by his father, my ex husband in San Francisco's Marina District while I was fighting for my son's safety in custody court. I knew my ex husband was not well.

He was difficult, angry, and our marriage was full of course of control, which continued after we divorced and throughout our co parenting together. But I had forgotten about the firearms that lived in his house. And I was naive to the danger that my son was in. Every day, sometimes multiple times a day, I think about my son's last moments on Earth. Did he open his eyes to see the gun that his father was at the other end of?

Did he feel the pain when he was shot? And did he know what was actually happening? I gave my son all the love and laughter and sweetness I could in this world. And the last moment of my baby's life was was violent. And that reality is really hard and impossible to live with.

But unfortunately, this is not an isolated tragedy. In America, a child is killed by a parent or guardian during custody every six days. It is the leading cause of death of children in America, firearms. On Monday, this past Monday, a father shot and killed two 10 year old twins in Los Angeles. Another living another mother living a nightmare that never ends.

And these cases are preventable. That's why we created Pierce's Pledge, a simple voluntary program inspired by a family law attorney who began asking every client about firearms and asking their clients to store their firearms off-site as a requirement of the retainer agreement. That one conversation could have saved Pierce. But moments of crisis are not limited to custody disputes. They can include mental health, suicidal ideation, job loss, depression, bullying.

Here's another hard fact. Five teens a day die by suicide with a firearm, and eighty percent of those guns are from guns that live in the home already. We need more reliable voluntary off-site gun storage locations for people in crisis, and AB 1974 expands its life saving resources statewide. I've personally presented Pierce's Pledge Safe Gun Storage to more than a dozen California police chiefs. They know these situations intimately.

Cities like San Francisco, Riverside, Palm Springs, Menifee, San Diego, and Los Angeles are already stepping up to add this program. And passing AB 1974 will accelerate this progress across our state and inspire our nation to follow suit because we cannot afford to lose another minute. I also have a passionate group of young teenagers who are ready to reach out to every police station in California to push implementation because firearms are their leading cause of death.

These teens are ready to take action and to advocate for their own safety because they want that and they deserve that. So a vote yes tells every child in California that their safety matters.

It tells every grieving parent and community that we refuse to look away and a vote yes gives every family action and one more proven tool to prevent tragedies in the most dangerous moments in people's lives. So senators, I respectfully ask for for your aye vote for Pierce and for every child who needs protection from us. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. My name is Cody Doherty. I am Leslie's friend of thirty five years, and I have been a part of Pierce's Pledge's team since we launched on Pierce's birthday in 2022. One of my first responsibilities with Pierce's Pledge was creating a firearm resource storage map. And I personally contacted all 1,700 type one federal firearms license holders, those are FFLs, in California to identify dealers willing to provide temporary firearm storage.

I heard a lot of no's when I made those calls. In the end, we only found about a 144 participating FFLs statewide. And in some major cities, including my hometown of San Francisco, there were no storage options at all. Frustrated by the lack of resources, I obtained my own FFL license to help support this work. As an FFL and a firearm owner, I am not anti second amendment.

But if my teenage son were experiencing a mental health crisis, I would absolutely choose to temporarily store our firearms off-site until it was safe to bring them home. Programs like this give responsible gun owners practical options. But what happens when there's no participating FFL nearby? That's where AB 1974 comes in. We need more reliable options for firearm storage.

Every community has a police station. This bill expands access to safe temporary firearm storage for people who need it. Because of local restrictions, San Francisco has no FFL storage options. Through its partnership with Pierce's Pledge, the San Francisco Police Department created a secure storage solution for residents who would otherwise have to travel outside the city to store their firearms. One of the first people to use the program was a veteran in crisis, and that's why this bill matters.

It protects everybody, not just children, but everyone. Access to temporary firearms access to temporary firearm storage can save lives. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 1974. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I I think I speak for everyone in the committee in expressing our deepest condolences on your loss, very tragic loss, and just our gratitude for you being here today and for your advocacy, to honor the life of your son and to make sure other children and families are safe in California. So thank you very much for being here today. With that, we'll invite anyone else who'd like to express support for, AB 1974 to please come forward.

Hi. Jamie Minor on behalf of Giffords, a a proud cosponsor in honor of Pearson. Yeah, thank you for being here.

Good morning. Rochelle Beardsley on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in support. Thank you.

Good morning, chair members. Rebecca Marcus on behalf of the Brady campaign and strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Larry Gonzalez, chief of police of the Riverside Police Department, on behalf of the Association of Riverside County Chiefs of Police and Sheriff, which I'm the president of now. Thank you. Strong support.

Good morning. Dylan Elliot on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, all in strong support.

Chair and members, Tim Madden representing the California chapter at the American College of Emergency Physicians in strong support. Thank you all so very much. On strong support.

Thank you all so very much. We'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition. If there are any opposition witnesses, seeing no one come forward. Anyone wishing to express opposition to AB 1974? Seeing no one come forward, I'll bring it to the committee for any questions or comments. Senator Cortese.

Thank you. Thank you very much for to the author for bringing forward, you know, thoughtful approach to to the situation, especially focusing on on storage. We did a program in Santa Clara County that had a piece of this in it, which was to require the sheriff to have a twenty four seven receptionist available for firearms that wanted to be surrendered by individuals in a household.

But that really came about through a firearms summit and the local NRA members council, as well as advocacy groups for firearm safety supported that. One one thing I'm I'm concerned about, and this is in the form of a question, is in that program, there was amnesty.

In other words, we had a lot of situations where a husband would pass away who was the registered owner of the gun, and one of the reasons the gun was staying in the house is because the the surviving spouse knew that the gun wasn't registered to her, and and this is always followed gender lines. Of course, it could be the other way around as far as gender, but this is a very typical scenario.

And the and and this is documented through a through a phone bank system with one of our non profits that was using a very old school method of helping people where they would phone in, you know, no AI, no portal, no email. They would literally phone in and say, this is my situation. What do I do?

And the nonprofit was afraid to tell them to transport the gun to the sheriff's office and turn it in, even under normal working hours, because they couldn't assure them that they could transport a firearm that was unregistered to them, or that they could be in possession of that and and actually tender it, you know, for destruction. So basically, what we did at the county level is just built the amnesty right into and we baked that right in.

And I'm wondering if this has that because I I mean, I just think a lot of times with with language that says, you know, that that that provides or requires qualifiers to get the gun back, for example, or to, you know, qualifiers that that the gun will have to be background checked when it comes in to make sure it wasn't stolen or something like that. We think of the most likely culprits, you know, that we're after in those situations. Right?

The, you know, somebody who's somebody who ripped off the the firearm or had somebody who's trying to distance themselves from a crime, give it to them, and now they're bringing bringing it into storage. Those should be caught. Right? Those should be caught. The unintended consequence I'm worried about is the person who's a law abiding citizen, so to speak, who's really trying to do the right thing.

You know, the grandkids are coming into the house, in and out. I wanna get rid of this gun. I'm not a gun person. I don't want the kids to stumble across it. I do not have storage in the house.

And what do I do? And I see your bill as a way for them to go, so long as, you know, they are gonna be exalpated basically in in the case where, you know, law enforcement says, wait a minute. This I see your ID, but this isn't this isn't your gun, and now we're gonna have to figure out, you know, what the consequences of that are. Or or even, you know, what we attorneys call holder in due course. Right?

It could be that an example I'm giving I don't think these are far fetched examples where the spouse actually acquired the gun in in a way that was inappropriate is now gone and, you know, the the rest of the fact pattern would be the same. Right? I I'm now trying to get it over to a safe place. And the last thing I want is to be a holder in due course of of, you know, of of a hot firearm.

And and so the amnesty types of provisions, as we know we use them for gun buybacks all the time, tend to be erase those kind of problems for the most part, especially if we can assure people it's safe.

You know, you can bring it in, no questions asked. And I'm wondering if you have language like that, because I I did not read every line of the bill, and just wanted the author's assurances that either you have that language or you'll work on trying to figure that out.

Through the chair, Senator, I think you bring up an excellent point, and our intent, of course, is to make sure that people can turn in these guns or store the guns in a way, that does not provide any type of, you know doesn't hurt them in any way. We want them to be able to, turn them in with no problem. So I am definitely happy to explore an amnesty provision in this.

It's not spelled out as you have so clearly stated, which I think is very important. So I moving forward with that bill, we will look to it.

I've participated in many gun buybacks, and I think that we can pull from a lot of experience that I have in that regard, and we will move forward with that intent. I thank you for bringing that up. I think it's very important. And, you know, the intent too was to have the local law enforcement agencies build out their own guidelines, but I think providing this type of direction is extremely important. So my promise to you is that we will move forward with language around that.

Thank you. And I'll I'll be supporting the bill and appreciate the assurances that you'll keep looking at that. Thank you, mister chair.

Thank you very much. Vice chair Seyarto.

Thank you very much. As as people who frequent this committee often find out that I I generally opposed to gun bills that, bump up against the second amendment rights because I don't like wasting our money in court. This does not appear to have that issue. These are voluntary motions, voluntary actions by people, that find themselves are in crisis, or if a family member finds them in crisis, the family member can do the same thing. And, and that can prevent you know, tragedies.

And, so, I will be supporting this bill. And, you know, like I said, it's I think it's a smart approach. It doesn't have constitutional issues to it. It doesn't prevent anybody from exercising their first amendment or second amendment rights. And, and when they, when they turn it in, that's, it's voluntary, it's, it's up to them to, to do that or not.

And right now, given that we've kind of made it not legal to give it to other people, their options are limited, and we need to unlimit them a little bit. So thank you for your bill, and thank you for your courage for coming here. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments? If not, I'll turn it back over to your Assemblymember to close.

Thank you, chair. I just have so much respect for Leslie and Cody. And on their behalf, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

I'll take a motion on the bill. Moved by Senator Caballero. Thank you. The motion is to pass to the Senate floor.

[Roll Call]

We'll keep that bill on call for absent members, but it has the votes to move out today. Thank you. As we're transitioning to the next bill, which is AB 2001, mister Vice Chait, if you can briefly take over, I'd appreciate.

So next step on the docket, as said, was as stated was AB 2001. Assembly member, whenever you are ready.

Thank you, mister vice chair and members. First, I would like to thank the chair and this committee and the staff for their collaboration on this bill. I will be accepting the committee amendments. AB 2,001 gives city attorneys and county council access to state summary criminal history information when they are pursuing certain public nuisance cases and actions under California's red light abatement laws, which involve illegal gambling and prostitution. This is information they can already access in other civil enforcement proceedings.

AB 2001 simply extends that authority to some of the most challenging nuisance cases our local governments face. These cases often involve human trafficking, illicit massage businesses, illegal cannabis sales, and substandard housing conditions, which put communities at risk. The reality is, that these are rarely isolated situations. The same individuals often appear across multiple properties. Illegal operations move from one location to another.

Businesses shut down and reopen under a different name, and too often, local officials are left addressing the same problems over and over again. When city attorneys and county council bring these cases, they may know what is happening at a particular property, but they do not always have access to the broader context that can reveal repeat offenders and ongoing patterns of unlawful activity. AB 2001 helps fill that gap.

By providing access to summary criminal history information, this bill gives civil prosecutors a more complete picture of who they are dealing with and allows them to build stronger evidence based cases. That means more informed decisions, more effective enforcement, and ultimately better outcomes for the communities we serve.

This is a targeted and practical measure. It does not create new penalties or expand criminal enforcement. It simply gives our local partners the information they need to more effectively use the tools they already have. Our goal should not be temporary disruption of illegal activity. Our goal should be lasting accountability and safer neighborhoods.

And here with me today, we have Wade Chao, who's chief attorney with the San Francisco City Attorney's Code Enforcement Team, and Erin Evans-Fudem, legislative deputy county council.

Alright. Thank you both for being here today to testify. You each have two minutes. If you can stick to that, we would appreciate it.

Thank you. Mister chair and members, I'm Erin Evans, legislative deputy county council for the county of Santa Clara appearing on behalf of the Civil Prosecutors Coalition. The Civil Prosecutors Coalition is proud to sponsor AB 2001. The coalition is composed of seven city attorneys and county councils, including for the cities of Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose, and San Diego, along with the counties of Los Angeles, San Diego, and Santa Clara.

We represent some of the largest public law offices in the state and advise our local government clients on all issues.

We wanna thank the committee and mister chair for working with us on these amendments. Current law allows city attorneys and county councils to access criminal history information when they're pursuing gang injunctions, drug abatement actions, or gun violence restraining orders. Expanding this to red light abatement and certain public nuisance cases is modest and critical work. It will strengthen our cases and provide context to ensure public safety.

For example, it will help us rebut defenses that problematic owners and operators can raise, such as it was a mistake or a lack of knowledge.

We can confirm connections between bad actors or repeat offenders. It also helps us ensure the safety of our code enforcement staff by informing us of past violent offenses or firearm use. It offers context so we can have resources available to help identify potentially exploited individuals and coordinate appropriate interventions rather than perpetuating criminalization, such as for human trafficking operations. The amendments narrow the scope and only apply to certain public nuisance cases where access to criminal history information will allow us to determine whether additional resources are needed.

These include illegal massage businesses, substandard housing, illegal cannabis cultivation, and violations of alcoholic beverage control laws.

This is a narrowly tailored bill, and we urge your aye vote. Thank you.

That was exactly two minutes. Next speaker. Thank you.

Good job.

Thank you, mister chair and members. My name is Wade Chao, chief attorney of code enforcement for the San Francisco City Attorney's Office. I'm here today, to speak from a practitioner's perspective about how this bill would improve our ability to protect our communities. The public nuisance work of city attorneys and county council often, involves efforts to, stop criminal actors, whether that's in the form of illegal gambling, prostitution, human trafficking, illegal cannabis cultivation.

These cases are often complex and involve repeat actors as well as operations that easily move across jurisdictions.

While we, are authorized to bring actions to address these problems, we currently lack access to the same criminal history information already available in closely related context. As a result, we're often working with an incomplete picture, when assessing risk and identifying patterns, involving these offenders. AB 2,001 provides a modest targeted solution. It allows trained civil prosecutors to access this information when pursuing certain nuisance abatement and red light abatement actions. I would note that this legislation does not significantly expand access to criminal history information.

It does not change our ability to share this information. It does not expand the availability of remedies under these laws. A few case examples illustrate how my office would have benefited from the proposed CLETS access. We recently sued a number of businesses under the red light abatement law for offering illegal gambling. But each of these stores also, was involved in other types of criminality, including the, sale of stolen goods, illegal tobacco products, drug paraphernalia, and so on.

Having an understanding of the players involved could have helped us investigate connections between the offenders, and alert us to the need to potentially craft more targeted injunctive solutions to prevent them from repeating these actions in the future. In in some with access to this information, we can have a better understanding of who we're dealing with as offenders, the scope of their illegal activity, and the relationships, between operators. Thank you, and we request your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Any other witnesses? Okay. We'll now take, me too testimony of anyone's support of AB 2001. Please state your name, organization, position on the bill.

Thank you, mister chair members. Dylan Elliott on behalf of the city and county of San Francisco, as well as San Francisco city attorney David Chu, both in support. Thanks.

Thank you.