Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning. I'd like to call to order this meeting of the Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety for Tuesday, 06/16/2026. We do have a quorum. So if the committee's assistant, please call the roll

[Roll Call]

File item one AB 1568 by Assemblymember Alanis has been pulled and will not be reset for a later hearing per the author. File item 10 AB 1810 by Berman has been pulled and will be heard next week. File item 11 AB 1816 by Davies has been pulled by the author and will be heard next week. File item 13 AB 1927, Krell has been pulled and will also be heard next week. And file item 14 AB 1889 has been pulled and will be heard next week.

The following bills are on the consent calendar file item two AB 1645, Mark Gonzalez. File item four AB 1688 Carrillo. File item eight AB 1759 El Hawari. File item nine, AB 1778, Patterson. File item 12, AB 1825, Krell.

File item 15, AB 2018, Ramos. File item 17, AB 2147, Shiavo. And file item 18, AB 2720 Shiavo. I'm issuing a motion on the consent calendar. Move. Moved by Senator Caballero. We can please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We'll keep the consent calendar on call. So we'll now proceed to our first bill presentation. File item three, Assembly bill 1662 by Assembly member Wilson. Good morning. And if there are any principal witnesses, you're welcome to join us here at the table. And good morning. Whenever you're ready to present.

Good morning, mister chair and, senators. I'm pleased to present AB 1662, a bill that would require a court granting diversion to a defendant to direct prosecuting attorneys to forward a notice of an arrest or incident to the DMV in order for them to assign points through their administrative process.

According to CalMatters, series of articles titled License to Kill, since 2019, roughly 400 drivers accused of causing a fatal crash went on to receive another ticket, get into another collision or both after the date they were involved in deadly collisions. Additionally, reporters identified about 400 cases in which the driver's convictions weren't listed on their driving records largely because the courts did not report that information to the DMV. Under the misdemeanor diversion program, people charged with vehicular manslaughter are able to keep the case off their record.

The series goes on to state that about three dozen drivers have avoided a vehicular manslaughter convention conviction through misdemeanor diversion programs. While these programs are important tools for judges to carry out discretion based upon the details of the specific case and whether the incident rises to criminal behavior, it doesn't preclude the fact that a point accessible offense or even a deadly collision occurred. This is why I've introduced AB 1662 to resolve this loophole.

This will ensure potentially dangerous drivers will continue to be held civilly accountable through the DMV for behavior that endangers Californians regardless of whether they are diverted from criminal charges. It is also important to note that points are not a part of one's criminal history and are not permanent in nature.

While I recognize that points on the record does carry consequences in the form of higher insurance rates or even the loss of a driver's license after the accumulation of four points in a twelve month period. However, it is also the primary civil administrative tool we have to ensure we are tracking drivers behavior and keeping potentially dangerous drivers accountable for their driving.

I would now like to introduce my witnesses, Jonathan Feldman on behalf of the California Police Chiefs Association and Justin Flanslaw on behalf of Safe California Roads Coalition.

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

Yeah. Good morning, chair and members. Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association in support of AB 1662. As the author had stated, driving points on your record are a critical civil tool to make sure that we're addressing the dangerous driving behavior.

You know, the use of diversion is important for rehabilitation and addressing the criminal side of the offense, but we have to make sure that we're also at the same time holding drivers accountable for the dangerous decisions that they make behind the wheel because those have very, very real consequences.

And I think through the articles of CALMATTERS and the press conferences we've seen year in and year out on this issue, families are destroyed in some of these more serious events. Lives are lost. We have to do everything that we can to make sure that we're we're holding folks accountable for that specific decision that they made that cost somebody so so much.

And what we did realize is that there is some loopholes in the in the processing of information, sharing of information about points and driving behavior. So, you know, this bill does ensure that we're we're closing some of those loopholes and making very specific requirements that even law enforcement shares with the DMV and the courts the appropriate information so that they can do their job.

For that reason, we're in strong support and ask for your aye vote.

Good morning, mister chair. Justin Fanza on behalf of the Safe California Roads Coalition. You'll be seeing a lot of us this year. There's a number of bills coming over. We've seen a a great large number of bills introduced after the CALmatters article last year kind of really shown how desperately we're in need to reform how we're punishing people who are either driving drunk or doing a multiple, driving infractions on our roads.

And really appreciate the author for bringing this forward. I guess the analogy I would use is I could leave here today, run a stop sign, get a ticket, get points, and that's my punishment. But if I get diverted from that, none of that happens. So it seems like a very fair and reasonable point. And again, to mister Feldman's point about this is our civil remedy, that's exactly what it is.

It's not interfering with the criminal procedures of of how a diversion program works. We appreciate your support this morning. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll now take me to testimony in support of AB 1662. Anyone wishing to express support for the bill. Please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Good morning. Iria Repitan on behalf of triple a Northern California in support. Thank you.

So, chair members, Jolina Voorhis on behalf of the League of California Cities in support.

Good morning. Ivy Fitzpatrick on behalf of the California District Attorney's Association and Riverside County District Attorney's Office in support.

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

Mister chairman, members, Dan Felizzatto on behalf of Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office in support.

Thank you very much. Unless there's anyone else wishing to express support for AB 1662, we'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to the bill. Are there any opposition witnesses Seeing Okay. Okay.

Simran Carr with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, respectfully opposed.

Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 1662? So you know and also bring it back to the days for questions or comments. And first, I wanna thank the assembly member for this bill. I think it's a very important bill.

It's part of a package of legislation in both houses to improve road safety and address the issue of reckless and impaired driving. Beginning of the year, Senator Cortesi, chair of the Senate Transportation Committee, and myself as chair of public safety held an informational hearing on the issue of reckless driving, impaired driving, and road safety. And we had the director of the Department of Motor Vehicles present at the hearing about their department's enforcement of impaired driving laws.

And clearly, the reporting in CALMATTERS illustrates that the department has not done a good job of investigating reckless driving.

And we've seen tragic consequences of people after multiple incidents of reckless driving who have killed people. And so I think this bill is really about making sure that DMV gets the information that they're able to take action early in the process so that we don't lose more lives on our roadways in California. So I wanna thank you for bringing this bill forward.

You know.

Okay.

You said it well.

Any other questions or comments?

I think you framed the the argument for this bill very well. Oh.

Oh. I'll entertain a motion on the bill.

I'll move it.

Okay. Moved by Vice Chair Seyarto. Thank you. Unless there's any other questions or comments, I'll turn it back over to Assembly Wilson to close.

Thank you, mister chair. As you noted, this is a part of a larger, package to address, reckless and impaired driving behaviors. We know that driving is a privilege, not a right, and every single driver must be held accountable for dangerous driving decisions. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote on this important bill to ensure continued accountability and safety on our roads.

Thank you very much. We have a motion by Vice Chair Seyarto. The committee assistant can please call the roll.

AB 6 AB 1662 Wilson. The motion is do passed to transportation. Arreguin.

Aye.

Arreguin, aye. Seyarto. Aye. Seyarto, aye. Caballero.

Aye. Cortesi. Aye. Cortesi, aye. Perez.

Weiner.

We'll keep that phone call. Thank you. Okay. We are gonna wait for another author to appear. So we'll recess the committee for five minutes.

Okay. We're gonna reconvene the Senate public safety committee hearing, and proceed now to our next bill presentation, file item five, AB 1741 by Assembly member Pacheco. Good morning. And whenever you're ready, assembly member, you may present on your bill.

Thank you. And good morning, mister chair and senators. I am pleased to present AB 1741, which addresses a gap in state law to ensure that sexual battery committed during a residential break in may be appropriately prosecuted. Thank you to the committee, for your thoughtful work on this bill. We are happy to accept the committee amendments that better align the bill with its intentions.

Under current California law, felony sexual battery committed during a home invasion is generally limited to cases involving unlawful restraint or victims under the age of 15. This means that a perpetrator who breaks into a home and sexually touches a sleeping victim with no intent to steal steal or commit another felony may face only misdemeanor charges. While prosecutors may attempt to pursue other felony charges in some cases, the legal burdens and technical limitations often make that path difficult and uncertain.

Existing laws like penal code section two twenty do not apply here. While that statue may provide felony consequences for offenses like rape or sodomy, narrow definitions often prevented from being applied to cases of sexual battery.

Breaking into a home to commit a sexual offense represents a serious invasion of personal safety and privacy. The violation extends far beyond the physical act. It shatters a fundamental sense of safety and security. AB 1741 ensures that California law recognizes the gravity of this crime by allowing it to be charged as a wobbler. This bill is about closing a loophole and ensuring that prosecutors and courts have the necessary discretion to scale the legal response to the specific acts of the case.

Victims of residential sexual batteries should not be sidelined by outdated misdemeanor only standards. Here with us today to testify, our chief deputy district attorney William Robinson with the Riverside County District Attorney's Office and Aaron Harper, director of victim services of the Napa County District Attorney's Office. They are also here to answer any technical questions.

Great. Thank you very much. Welcome. You each have two minutes to present on the bill.

Thank you. Good morning, mister chair and members. My name is William Robinson, and I'm a chief deputy district attorney with the Riverside County District Attorney's Office. I'm here today in support of AB 1741. Is that better?

Okay. Thank you. First, I would like to thank the committee and committee staff for their thoughtful review of this bill and for the proposed amendments. We appreciate the concerns that were raised, and we believe the amendments appropriately clarify the scope of the measure while preserving its purpose. AB 1741 addresses a narrow gap in California law.

California already treats certain sex offenses more seriously when they occur after an offender enters a residence without consent. For example, indecent exposure and annoying or molesting a child may be charged as a felony wobbler when committed in connection with an unlawful residential entry. AB 1741 simply extends that same principle to sexual battery. A person's home should be their sanctuary. When an offender unlawfully enters that protected space and commits a sexual battery, the harm is greater than the touching alone.

It is a violation not only of the victim's body, but it's coupled with an invasion of the victim's most private and secure environment. Our office encountered this exact situation. A woman was asleep in her bedroom when her husband, with her husband, when an unknown man entered their apartment through a sliding glass door. She awoke to find the intruder rubbing her buttocks. Yet, because the facts did not establish the elements required for felony offense, that conduct could only be charged as a misdemeanor sexual battery.

Some have suggested that penal code section two twenty addresses this conduct. In some cases, it does. However, section two twenty requires proof that the defendant intended to commit rape, sodomy, oral copulation, or another enumerated felony sex offense. Many residential sexual batteries do not rise to that level, even though they remain deeply invasive and traumatic. AB 1741 does not create a new crime and does not change the definition of sexual battery.

It simply ensures that sexual battery committed during an unlawful residential intrusion may be treated with the seriousness it deserves. And for those reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good morning, mister chair and members. My name is Erin Harper, and I'm a victim advocate speaking today in support of AB 1741 on behalf of crime victims and survivors. For victims, sexual battery is never a minor violation. When it occurs after someone has unlawfully entered a person's home, that harm extends far beyond the physical act itself. Survivors often describe this experience as one of the most terrifying moments of their lives.

Imagine waking up in the middle of the night to find a stranger in your bedroom or realizing that someone has entered the place where you and your family should feel the safest and commits a sexual battery against you. Even after the offender is gone, many victims continue to live with fear, anxiety, sleep disturbances, and a profound loss of security. As a victim advocate, I frequently hear survivors of this type of crime say that they no longer feel safe in their own homes.

They check locks repeatedly, leave lights on, have trouble sleeping, and sometimes move altogether because of the lingering impact of this type of trauma. Their home, which should be a safe haven, becomes a place of fear.

Current law recognizes the heightened danger of harm of home intrusions for offenses such as indecent exposure and child molestation. However, there remains a gap in the law when an offender enters a home without consent and commits a sexual battery that does not meet the other elements of another felony offense. AB 1741 closes that gap by allowing prosecutors and courts the discretion to treat these offenses as either misdemeanors or felonies depending on the facts of the case.

It simply recognizes that violating someone's bodily autonomy after unlawfully entering their home is a more serious offense that warrants greater accountability. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 1741.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Will not take me to testimony in support of AB 1741. If you can please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Good morning. Ivy Fitzpatrick on behalf of the California District Attorney's Association and Riverside County District Attorney's Office in support.

Dan Felizzato on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office in support.

Bernie Ojeda on behalf of sheriff Robert Luna, LA County Sheriff's Department in support. Thank you.

Good morning, mister chair and members. Corey Salzo on behalf of the California State Sheriffs Association in support.

Morning. Ryan Sherman with the California Narcotic Officers and Riverside Sheriffs Association and the Crime Victims Alliance in support.

Thank you very much. Unless there's anyone else wishing to express support for AB 1741, we'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to the bill.

Good morning. Am I on? Am I on now? Now? There we go. Okay. Good morning. Leslie Caldwell Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in respectful opposition. Before my retirement, I worked in indigent defense for nearly forty years.

Twenty seven years in Contra Costa County and another twelve to thirteen in Solano County, ultimately running the Solano County office as chief defender. I'm also the co chair for the California Public Defenders Association Committee on Legislation. As public defenders who represent 80 to 90% of all criminal defendants in California, we are in a unique overview of the charging of criminal offenses. The bill sponsors claim there is a loophole in the law. There is not.

There are myriad ways to criminally charge the behavior targeted in this bill, many list it in your committee's own analysis. Under the scenario offered by the bill sponsors, an assailant breaks into a victim's home is sleep who is sleeping and sexually touches the victim. Individuals who do this are charged every day by prosecutors in California with violations of penal code section two twenty or other of the listed, offenses that currently exist in the penal code. It is also frequently charged as attempted rape.

I tried a felony case with facts such as the sponsors early in my career, some thirty years ago.

That's how long this very behavior has, that has been charged exists under the law. AB 1741 is overbroad, casting too large a net, and this fact does create a new crime. A misdemeanor battery can include relatively minor conduct, including an unwanted kiss or attempted to grind while dancing. In a very common scenario for young adults, a person will attend a party at the home of a person they don't know along with a group of friends.

If later there is misdemeanor battery, such as I had just discussed, it could be charged as a felony simply because it incurred occurred inside a house and the owner did not expressly consent to the person being in the house.

For these reasons, we respectfully request your no vote. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Good morning chair and assembled members. My name is Mary Ray. I'm an attorney with the Los Angeles County Public Defender's Office, the largest and oldest criminal defense firm in the nation. I'm also an at large board member with Local one forty eight and represent the 600 plus attorneys with that office. Every day, we go into the largest court system in California and the nation, and we represent your constituents who have been accused of crimes.

Every day, we defend the constitutional rights of Angelenos. I am here today to strongly urge you to vote nay on AB 1741. This is an unnecessary addition to our penal code. The scenario offered by the district attorney's office is already covered by existing law. Firstly, if an individual wrongfully enters into the dwelling place of another with the intent to commit any type of crime, misdemeanor, or felonious, they can be charged with a first degree burglary.

If a person is present, as would be necessary for a sexual battery, that crime would be alleged as a violent felony strike pursuant to penal code section 667.5. A crime that carries par far more punishment than the non strike opposed in the bill.

While penal code section 459 does not require sex offender registration, penal code section 290.006 gives the judge discretionary power to add sex offender registration to any crime if the defendant committed the crime as a result of sexual compulsion or for the purposes of sexual gratification. I agree with the California Public Defenders Association. This bill is overbroad and will potentially over criminalize the described conduct.

That's why I urge you to vote nay on AB 1741.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition AB 1741? Could please approach the microphone and state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU California Action in strong opposition.

Samilia Rogers on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in opposition.

Thank you very much. Is anyone else wishing to express opposition to the bill? Seeing no one come forward, I'll bring it back to the committee. Just to summarize, the committee amendments the author accepted limit the bill only to apply to conduct that occurs while trespassing inside the dwelling structure where there is a heightened expectation of privacy.

I think as was referenced in some of the opposition letters, you could be an uninvited guest to a party and then and then commit some, you know, commit the the offensive behavior later on and then or even just be outside of the of of the actual dwelling structure and could potentially be in violation.

This this modifies the language of the bill to to I think the intent of the bill which is if you unlawfully enter a dwelling and, you know, engage in this type of of prohibit conduct, that's when the violation would would apply.

That is correct.

Okay. Any questions or comments from members of the committee? Vice Chair Seyarto.

Thank you. So some confusion in in in in the type of offenses here. When somebody breaks into a house but doesn't take anything, that's a trespass. It's not not correct.

It it could be a trespass. It could also be a burglary if there's a felonious intent when entering the the residence.

Right. And a lot of times if if, you know, like in the case of an indigent person breaking into a house and then just laying down the couch and going to sleep because they thought it was their house.

That's often charged as a trespass because it'd be difficult to prove felonious intent.

Right. So there's there's some discretion about what you're charging people with.

Absolutely.

Yeah. So in in this case, what we're trying to do is is somebody that breaks in, usually well, it doesn't have to be at night, I guess. And and approaches somebody who is unaware that they're there initially and and touches them, yeah, that person needs to needs to have some consequences.

And and I think that's what this bill is trying to do is is ensure that there are some stiffer consequences in in some of the cases where current law doesn't allow for, you know, a full sexual assault or anything like that because what they were they were just standing above them and and then touch their butt. I I feel sorry for somebody breaks into my house and does that.

I think that they whatever they get charged with would be a whole lot better for them. That's ridiculous. So anyway, yeah, if they're breaking into the house, there's no excuse for that. And and we've we've got to send better messages that it's time to stop making excuses for for people that have that kind of behavior followed by because you don't you don't know what their intent is until they actually do something sometimes.

And so it's hard to to to to guess what somebody's intent was and and prosecute that.

It's like you have to wait until they do something and and then you get to to to do something about it. This is more proactive. This this ensures that somebody that's breaking into a house and and is behavior is is driven by his compulsions or her compulsions to to assault somebody no matter how grave the assault is or how minor the assault might be, it's still an assault.

And, they shouldn't be there in the first place, and that message can be sent by a judge who can look at the circumstances. So I think this is a really good bill.

I appreciate you bringing it. And I'll be supporting your bill today. With that, I'll go ahead and move the bill.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from committee members? Okay. I'll turn it back over to the author to close.

Thank you and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Thank you. We have a motion by Vice Chair Seyarto. The committee assistant can please call the roll.

AB 1741 Pacheco. Motion is do passed as amended to appropriations. Arreguin? Aye. Arreguin, aye. Seyarto? Aye. Seyarto aye. Caballero? Cortese? Aye. Cortese aye. Perez? Wiener?

We'll keep that bill on call for absent members. Thank you very much.

Ok we will wait for another author to arrive. We'll recess the committee until that time.

And we'll now proceed to file item 23 AB 2760 by Assembly member Sharp- Collins.

Good morning. And whenever you're ready, Assembly member, you may present on AB 2760.

Thank you so much, Senator. Alright. Good morning, chair and members. Today, I'm here to present assembly bill 2760, a bill that allows but does not require counties that already have an office of inspector general to expand the OIG's oversight to include probation departments and animal control. Assembly bill 2760 strengthens oversight of of local public safety systems.

By broadening the OIG's jurisdiction, the bill promotes transparency, accountability, and and also, deals with consistent standards across agencies that play a critical role in the community safety and well-being. Traditionally, the OIGs have focused on law enforcement entities such as police and sheriff's departments, reflecting long standing concerns around the use of force, misconduct, and also public trust. Public safety extends beyond traditional policing. Probation departments, supervise individuals in the community, including youth and adults, and play a central role in the rehabilitation and recidivism.

At the same time, animal control agencies are increasingly on the front lines of public health and and also safety.

They respond to issues such as dangerous animals, neglect, and disease risk. Counties are currently responsible for for overseeing these particular departments. But unfortunately, in my county, San Diego County, the board lacks the the capacity to effectively fulfill this particular duty.

This is why I brought forth this bill that simply allows the county that has an OIG to to task the OIG with oversight of probation and animal control while reporting back to the county that exercises the same final oversight say that it does currently. This is not a new oversight, and I will state that again.

This is not a new oversight as mentioned by opposition, but rather a tool to allow counties to effectively do their jobs when they are unable to do so from a capacity standpoint. With me to present is Eric Henderson with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights.

But before Eric presents, if the chair will allow, I would like to read a letter of support from my county supervisor, Monica Montgomery Stepp, who was unable to to obviously travel up to date to this hearing, to speak on their behalf as she is a proud, cosponsor.

Certainly.

Thank you so much. Alright. It says, as vice chair of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors district four, I am writing to express my strong support for assembly bill 2760. This bill includes the probation and county animal control departments under the jurisdiction of an office of inspector general.

Although the probation and animal control departments are under the direct purview of the board supervisors, allowing the office of the inspector general to have oversight over these departments would be another much needed tool to ensure that public safety is achieved in a transparent, fair, and equitable manner.

My often my office often receives complaints from parents of youth who are in the detention facilities and from animal rights animal rights activists regarding perceived wrongdoings within our local animal control, and we do not have the ability nor capacity to investigate every complaint on our own. Allowing the office of the inspector general to have this broader jurisdiction would greatly relieve this burden, particularly at a time when San Diego's probation department is still under state investigation and complaints are numerous.

While our local citizens law enforcement review board, CLERB, has the authority to investigate probation, CLERB is often required to to summarily dismiss those cases because they are unable to access records. Moreover, CLERB may only investigate if a if a if a complaint is filed while the inspector general has the ability to to, to conduct his own audits and inspections or or conduct an investigation on his own, initiative. And for these reasons, I respectfully ask for your overall support and aye vote for AB 2760.

Thank you so much.

Thank you so much for your time. Signed vice chair of the county board of supervisors, Monica Montgomery Stepp.

Great.

Thank you very much. You have two minutes to address the committee on the bill.

Thank you. Good morning, chair and members. Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, proudly based in Oakland in support of AB 2760. AB 2760 is a thoughtful and common sense measure to support counties performing their required oversight duties. At its core, AB 2760 is about accountability, transparency, and increasing the public's trust in agencies that wield significant power over their lives.

Across the state, we see a need for oversight of probation departments. Some of the alarming instances that we've recently heard are, abuse and neglect of individuals and agencies care, a lack of transparency about agency policies and accountability when these policies are not followed. And, further, many departments are experiencing severe staffing shortages, and there are many more examples to share about probation and animal control departments. Even if the state were not facing an avalanche of reported abuses and mistreatment, counties are already required to oversee probation departments.

AB 2760 provides them with a valuable opportunity to carry out that function by by allowing, not requiring counties with an office of an of an inspector general to move the oversight of probation and animal control to the OIG that then reports to the county.

For counties that find that they lack the capacity to fulfill their duties due to resource constraints or capacity issues, they now have a tool to do just that instead of failing to deliver the oversight the public deserves. It is said that Sunshine Sunshine is said to be the best disinfectant. If so, AB 2760 is a critical bill to ensure public trust and probation and animal control departments. For these reasons, we respectfully, urge your yes votes.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to express support for AB 2760? Seeing no one approach the microphone, we'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to AB 2760.

Good morning, chair and members. Danielle Sanchez on behalf of the chief probation officers of California here today in respectful opposition to AB 2760. While county probation department serve the counties in which they operate, they're also governed by a broad and expansive body of state laws ensuring both consistency and interoperability. These things require extra care with new laws authorizing individual counties to implement standalone oversight to ensure that these practices are not in conflict with or duplicative of authority held by other entities.

For example, if there are differing directives from two entities at the state or local levels, how do you ensure the reconciliation of those in a way that does not actually impede the very things being sought by both entities or impeding of services?

Additionally, this bill has implications around record sharing, confidentiality, and other things that must align with existing law. There is significant, authority and inspection obligations currently covering probation and juvenile facilities. That includes the Board of State and Community Corrections, juvenile justice commissions, ombudsperson, grand juries, the courts, departments of public health, fire marshal, environmental health, and others. I wanna be very clear. We are not in any way opposed to transparency, oversight, or or the communication that's necessary for, the delivery of important services that probation provides.

But we do believe those things already exist at a very extensive level, both state and local, and we are concerned about the fact of adding a singular entity at the local level that there are complexities that have to be accounted for about how we ensure that all of these entities, all of these structures, all of these frameworks work together in a way that is meaningfully providing the services and moving things forward.

So again, we believe that everything being sought in this bill is already an existing law. We're certainly not opposed to the notion of of, again, having things in place that look at these processes, but believe that is already covered. So for those reasons, CPAC is opposed today, and I would just add that I have been asked by a colleague to communicate Porak's opposition to the bill as well. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, members, Paul Yoder on behalf of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors also in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any other, opposition witnesses?

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to express opposition AB 2760? Seeing no one approach the microphone, I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions, comments, or emotions. Senator Cortese?

Yes. So just just a question. I came in support of the bill. My understanding to the author, my understanding is that the bill is basically enabling legislation to allow a county board of supervisors if they so choose to to bring on an OIG, an inspector general or an office of inspector general. Is that correct?

That is correct.

We're not mandating

Correct.

That on on any county or board of supervisors if we approve the bill.

That is that is absolutely correct.

And I I I would just say I appreciate the comments of CPAC and, you know, the the opposition I having spent a dozen years on the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, I feel like the board can, you know, weigh this out, weigh out the concerns that you that you brought forward and probably make a better decision locally depending on what's going on. Probably might be a lot of counties that don't have the need, the budget, or the the willingness to go down that path.

And then we had things like we had in Santa Clara County some years ago, you know, with somebody murdered in the jails where on that side of the equation, we decided probably against my vote at the time, but we decided as a majority of the board to to bring in somebody, you know, to do that kind of oversight, you know, to try to wade through all the recommendations for straightening things out.

So I I can imagine out of 58 counties, 57 other ones would have never done that or had to do it. So I I kinda see it as a local decision making opportunity and I'm not I think with charter counties, they may be already able to do this know, even without the legislation.

Thank you. Vice Chair Seyarto?

I'm not sure. It does seem to me it doesn't hurt to have the legislation in place. So I'm happy to move I'm happy to move the bill if it's timely to do that.

A clarification on on on this particular bill and what it does. So are you suggesting that right now that the OIG four say they have one appointed for the sheriff's, they add more departments to that particular OIG. Is that what this does? Because I would think they would already have the capacity to assign an individual to each one of those things if they wanted to.

No. This is not adding another department to them. So this is this is basically the county itself in order for them to, be able to move forward and provide, additional supports and oversights to the probation and to, and to the animal control. They don't have the actual capacity and they don't have the ability to move forward. They're asking, can we establish an OIG office within the county office?

So our our our current county does not have that. So this is something that is separate. Our current county is trying to establish that so that way they can now spread this across and have two other departments that that will be created. So we're creating a brand new department.

K. Because it says it's currently limited to the oversight of the sheriff. They don't have one for the sheriff.

You wanna go into it?

We'd have to get back to you on that. I'm not sure if San Diego County has a sheriff's oversight commission.

Yeah. Because they they're they're in the process of making that, and this is where the office is coming from. We need to continue to make it. We had a bill last year that already did within one portion and went out with this one. It's going to allow us to move forward with the other with the other portion of it. Right.

Okay.

All this is gonna be created and this is the one step to continue to move forward with.

But is it is this one OIG for all of these or is it separate? Because I don't I don't

Yeah. It is it is supposed to be for all.

Because the inspector general needs to be focused on the department of which it like, if we have an inspector general for the high speed rail, I would not have the inspector general for the high speed rail be an inspector general for let's add on Caltrans. No. They'd have to be separate. And and and if this gives them the authority to combine all these into one

This is gonna give them the authority combined on it.

Oh, okay. Thank you. I appreciate you asking or answering the question.

Okay. We have a motion by Senator Cortezi. I'll turn it back over you to close.

Oh, thank you. So in in closing, we do put trust in our counties to oversee the operations of our county department. And the the, you know, the the public itself depends on the effect of oversight. And unfortunately, sometimes counties, they're not equipped to carry out these particular functions. And so this particular bill will allow an, an, another voluntary pathway to make good on the promise to the public of, truly effective oversight.

So when doing so, twenty seven sixty will improve law enforcement but also strengthen public trust. So with that, I do respectfully ask for an aye vote on 2760.

Thank you very much. We have a motion by Senator Cortesi. If the committee assistant can please call the roll.

AB 2760 Sharp Collins. Motion is do passed to local government. Arreguin?

Aye.

Arreguin, aye. Seyarto? No. Seyarto, no. Caballero?

Cortese?

Aye.

Cortese, aye. Perez Weiner.

Okay. We'll keep that bell and call for absent members.

Thank you so much for your time.

Okay. We'll now proceed to file item seven AB 1753 by Assembly Member Stefani. I understand that Assembly Member Wicks also wanted you to present her bill. I know you have a press conference. So I can present the Wicks bill for if you would like.

I I think I can do it. Okay. I think we'll have time. Thank you, though.

Okay. So, whenever you're ready, you may begin on AB 1753. Okay.

Thank you, chair and colleagues. And first, I would like to thank the chair and this Committee for your thoughtful work on this bill and to let you know that I will be accepting the Committee Amendment, so thank you for that. Today, I'm presenting AB 1753. It's called the Survivor Pathways to Safety Act.

And I I come to this bill as a former prosecutor, someone who's been at the gun violence prevention movement for twenty seven years since Columbine, the person in San Francisco who created the, Mayor's Office of Victims' Rights, and also the daughter of a domestic violence survivor who was in a domestic violence relationship with my former stepdad for forty one years.

So I come to this bill with a lot of experience, not just, legal experience, but also a lot of passion for making sure that our restraining order system is working, for those who need protection. Because our restraining orders issued by our courts can't just be pieces of paper. They have to be, something with teeth that actually provides the protection that we're promising them. A survivor, goes through the difficult process and sometimes, dangerous process of seeking a restraining order when they don't feel safe.

And they usually come to that process after a very long time.

It's not the first time. It's after many times of not feeling safe and turning to the court system and turning to law enforcement for protection. They follow the rules. They show up in court. They take the steps that the law requires.

And when the order is granted, they believe they are finally safe. Yet, in many cases, the person who threatened them still has access to a firearm, and the danger remains. We know that people who are legally required to surrender their firearms do not always do so. And in one investigation, only one out of every 25 armed abusers provided proof that they had turned in their guns as required by law. And that is not just a compliance issue.

It's a public safety failure that puts lives at risk. Just two years ago, a couple who had gone to court to extend a restraining order were targeted and killed by the very person they were seeking protection from. They had done everything the law asked of them, yet the system failed them. That tragedy is a painful reminder that a protective order must be more than a promise on paper. It must be backed by a system that works every single time.

That is what AB 1753 is designed to do. Our protective order system must work. Hard stop. End of story. This bill closes critical gaps in how protective orders are enforced and how firearms are kept out of the hands of people who pose a threat to others.

First, it strengthens firearm prohibitions for individuals who have demonstrated dangerous behavior, including those convicted of hate crimes or criminal threats against schools, houses of worship, or medical facilities. When someone targets a community or makes credible threats of violence, we should not allow them easy access to weapons. That should be common sense.

Second, it improves coordination between courts and the law and law enforcement so that when a protective order is issued, there is a clear and reliable process to determine whether the restrained person has firearms and whether those firearms have been properly surrendered. Third, it makes the system more accessible and safer for survivors by allowing remote court appearances, strengthening enforcement of protective orders issued by tribal courts and other states, and ensuring that victims are promptly notified when protections are put in place on their behalf.

Taken together, these changes make our protective order system more consistent, more accountable, and more focused on safety. At its core, this bill is about closing the gap between what the law promises and what survivors actually experience. A restraining order should never create a false sense of security. It should provide real protection backed by real enforcement. Because when someone finally takes that courageous step of asking for help, the system has a responsibility to respond with action.

Every survivor deserves to live free of fear. Every family deserves to know that the law will protect them, and every community deserves to be safe from preventable gun violence. AB 1753 moves us closer to that goal. And with me today is Ethan Murray from Giffords.

Great. Good morning. You have two, two minutes to present on the bill.

Chair Arreguin, vice chair Seyarto, and members of the committee. My name is Ethan Murray, and I'm a state policy attorney with Giffords, the organized gun violence prevention organization founded by former congresswoman Gabby Giffords. In 2023, nearly 290,000 protection orders were reported to the California Department of Justice. They're one of the most important legal tools available for public safety. For the past several years, the California state legislature has worked to improve implementation of these life saving measures.

And I wanna situate this bill in that effort. One by one, the laws this body has passed have brought new innovations and consistency to how fire relinquishment processes handled regardless of which type of protection order a person seeks. Since 2021, the legislature has created a consistent process for relinquishment that involves a referral to local prosecutors if a fail, a person fails to relinquish their firearms and create a standard policy for service of protection orders.

AB 1753 takes the next step by ensuring prosecutors have a policy in place for processing these cases of non compliance. You'd be surprised, but sometimes something as simple as sending it to the wrong email has prevented the implementation of these orders.

Many authors have expanded remote hearing access in protection order cases because of what assembly member pointed out. That case in San Diego is a prime example. AB 1753 takes the final step to allow remote hearings for all restraining order cases, including workplace violence and school violence restraining orders. The legislature has recently created new offenses related to firearms, including threats to schools. AB 1753 makes the firearm prohibition consistent with similar similarly situated laws.

AB 3083 by Assembly member Lackey required judges to check California's automated firearm protection order in domestic violence cases. AB 1753 gives us judges authority in all protection order cases. Say all this to demonstrate that AB 1753 and its many lengthy provisions represent a capstone project of sorts. This body has moved forward over the last decade. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 1753? If you can please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Mister chair, members, Paul Yoder on behalf of the city and county of San Francisco in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Chair and members, Tim Madden representing the California Chapter for the American College of Emergency Physicians in support. Thank you.

Mister chairman, members, Dan Filizato on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office and the Crime Victims Alliance in support.

Morning, Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association, strong support. Thanks.

Thank you. Unless there's anyone else wishing to express support for AB 1753, we'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to the bill.

Good morning, mister chair and members. My name is Adam Wilson. I'm here on behalf of gun owners of America, gun owners of California. I'm also authorized to speak on behalf of the California Rifle and Pistol Association. We respectfully oppose AB 1753.

This bill continues California's trend of expanding the use and consequences of restraining orders while providing insufficient attention to due process protections for the accused. A restraining order is a serious legal tool, and when it carries consequences such as losing constitutional rights, the importance of due process should increase, not decrease. AB 1753 expands enforcement mechanisms and firearm related consequences while further normalizing one side of proceedings where an individual may lose rights before having a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

The question is not whether genuine threat should be addressed. They should.

The question is whether fundamental rights should be restricted before the facts have been fully examined and tested through due process. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for a no vote on AB 1753.

Thank you very much. Are there any other opposition witnesses? Anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 1753?

Clay Kimberling, National Rifle Association in opposition.

Thank you. Unless there's anyone else wishing to express opposition to the bill, bring it back to the committee for any questions, comments, or a motion.

I have a question.

Vice Chair Ciaruto.

So thank you very much for your bill and and and also your efforts in this arena because something has to be done to prevent these incidents become be from becoming violent. We can't just wait around for them to happen and then react to it after the fact.

And so something one of the witnesses just said kind of struck a chord with me as far as and can I ask the witness a question through the when you you you're talking about taking the the gun away before they've been heard or whatever their their cases heard? Because the the I think the the benefit of a restraining order is immediately recognizing that there is a problem. And and taking immediate action to make sure that it doesn't escalate.

And that may require the removal of a gun until the thing the the thing is adjudicated, the the issue is adjudicated correctly. Are you suggesting that they should keep their gun until that happens? Because that's how a lot of people get killed. That that concerns me a lot.

A 100%. The concern isn't whether or not there is a concern whether or not those types of people have access to firearms. Our concern is whether or not those allegations are credible and the due process rights that are negated through these processes of acquiring their firearms before they have an opportunity to be meaningfully heard.

And if but if the because the urgency of the issue is what concerns me. Is and it and it seems safer to me to be able to remove that. And then if they're found that they're the they're kind of baseless or there's not a threat, that they have those rights restored back to them. That restoration process, is that a long process or is that simply a matter of them determining, hey, this was, you know, your your rights are restored immediately after it's adjudicated?

No. The process can take a while. So that's our problem with it.

And a question for the author. How do we land at five years? Either one of you instead of or we landed at ten years. Why ten years not five years or a shorter amount of time? That is still five years a long time.

You've probably pretty much figured out what's happening with with the relationship between two people like that within that span of time. So why why prolong it? Or is there a way of doing five years and then having it reevaluated and doing five more?

Through the chair, thank you, Senator. And we worked with the Department of Justice and Giffords to come up with that, and I'll turn that over to the witness to answer.

Yes. So the the ten year window is something that is already existing in California law. AB 1753 doesn't touch that. It adds some violations to that already existing law to get kind of these things similarly situated all in the same place. So the the school threats is a good example that was passed last year wasn't included in that.

As far as that wide ten years over over five years or three years or whatever the the mark is. I'm not familiar with the exact California legislative history. It was before my time. But there is developmental reasons for the length of time actually does increase recidivism Right. Decreases those kind of things.

Right. Okay. That because that that is the only part I have I struggle with a little bit is that, you know, once we've determined that there's an issue, you know, people either progress down that or they just they separate and they're gone into the wind. And and and then this has to follow them for ten years. I I think there's a second amendment right there that comes into question.

And so I would rather see that not be ten years, but have it a five year. And if there's still an issue at five years, then you can extend it for whatever you need to extend it for. But it just seems a little bit harsh for something that winds up not even needing a restraining order given the time.

You don't know at the beginning, but after a couple of three years, you probably do know whether this is an an ongoing threat or not, and whether it's worth depriving somebody of their rights for the next eight years after you've determined that really isn't a threat. But

If if I may.

Okay. Okay. Yeah.

So one of the things that we added is violation of a protection order. So that is someone that has become prohibited Right. Got a protection order against them and then proceeded to continue to have firearms Showing that they don't really have an appreciation for the danger or the law. In that regard, it's admittedly on the harsher side because they've already decided that they wanna ignore the law for the the initial period of the

Alright. Appreciate your answers. Thank you.

Senator Cortesci.

Thank you, mister chair. I have a couple real quick comments and and a question. First of all, I do I I wanna sort of empathize with Senator Sarato's comments about the five and ten years. I just I I'm fine going with the ten years today, and I understand you're you're trying to bring things into uniformity.

I I think the reality is it is very much a case by case decision and people I've met who've had past convictions for domestic violence who then trying to purchase a gun, you know, sort of under the table or asking friends where they can get one and so forth.

I mean, those are the kind of case by case circumstances that you want ten, fifteen, twenty, you know. And, you know, and then there's there's others that I I think and I I who knows the number, you know, that if you could take them up on a on a relook after five years or maybe that's a different bill at a different time to take a look at it.

Just know that with firearms penalties, you know, given the the tragedies we see all the time, it's very difficult to reassess something like a five or ten year limitation once it's in statute. I mean, very difficult to pull that back. I I think people query with me, you know, what where I'm at on these kind of issues, particularly with my commitment to the second amendment and I chair co chair the outdoor caucus here and I I come from a little different place than some members.

But the one thing that is very consistent for me, with this bill is I I believe all of our attention should be, moved away from some of the very nuanced hardware distinctions that we make about clips and ammunition and so forth. They should really be focused on getting guns out of the hands of of people who who don't who shouldn't have them at all. And and felons are a very obvious category. DV violators are a very obvious category.

A few years ago, as a county supervisor, I met up with two members of the DOJ whose responsibility it was to go door to door and, and follow-up, to to remove firearms from folks that shouldn't have felons particularly.

And and they told me in some cases, they had mental health information. I'm not sure how they get that. That's another story. But what what was troubling was when I asked them, you know, how many officers they had, And they said, this is it. Two of us for the entire Bay Area, San Francisco Bay Area.

I mean, that's the next thing that needs to be done. And this is I commend the author for bringing this forward. I think the next thing is, you know, to put some resources behind this and your and your prior bill that's cited in the analysis really put some resources into it because first of all, we probably shouldn't be sending DOJ officers out one at a time going door to door to take guns away from armed people. They they should be going out in cohorts.

And and secondly, you need a lot of cohorts.

I would say just to cover our nine county area, given what's going on on a day to day basis. So so thank you for bringing it forward. The question I had was, can you could you just kind of enumerate a little bit more? We touched upon some of the misdemeanor expansion, if you will. I I just I couldn't find it anywhere in one place, and I think it's kinda spread out throughout the analysis.

I don't know if you if the witness can just lay that out for us in in in points. Just whatever they are. I don't want you to be redundant at all. Just

I'll do my best. It it is admittedly a lengthy bill. There's a lot of lengthy statutes that this bill touched. So apologies for all of you that had to read that. The main two are school threats, the the law that passed last year and then violations of protection orders.

So those are the existing protection orders in place if you maintain your firearms despite the prohibition having a restraining order against you, those are the main ones that have been added to the ten year prohibition. Alright. And then to to your earlier point, the apps personnel that go and inspect you, I couldn't agree more. That is a problem.

One of the benefits of solving these things on the front end, with strong relinquishment procedures, all these things are they decrease the pressure on that team and and on the back end issue of people maintaining their firearms despite being prohibited.

Alright. I'm I'm satisfied with that. Thank you, mister chair. I don't know if we have a motion on the bill. I'd be happy to move it.

Maybe somebody else already did.

We do not, and I'll recognize that motion. Thank you. So I'll turn it back over to close.

Thank you, chair, and thank you for the thoughtful discussion, colleagues. I I appreciate it.

And I I just wanna say in with regard to the five to ten years and what may seem like a burden on the abuser to maybe not get his bun guns back, within five years, I can tell you it's a relief to the victims who've been pistol whipped, who've been beaten with a gun, who've had a gun held to their head in front of their two year old, who have had a gun laying on the nightstand or in the glove compartment, as they drive, as they feel threatened.

These are real cases where people's lives are in danger. This is not just taking someone's guns away for no reason.

These present real public safety threats, not just to the family involved, not just to the victim, but to society as a whole when you look at the underlying causes of mass shootings in our country began with domestic violence. These are real cases. So when I think five to ten years, I'm not burdened by the ten year limitation because I know what these cases are all about.

And I also wanna say to the NRA's opposition, I welcome it because I know I'm on the right side of things when you have an organization who completely refuses background checks on all gun sales at the national level after twenty first graders and six educators are shot at Sandy Hook, I welcome their opposition because I know I'm not on the right side of history. So with that, I was directly asked for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. I just wanna clarify, the committee amendments which the author Dix accepts, just wanna clarify that the amendments do not address at this time the conflict with assembly bill 1659 Rogers as reference in the analysis Section 10, the bill remains unamended. So with that, if the committee assistant please call the roll.

AB 1753 Stephanie, motion is to pass as amended to judiciary committee. Adagun? Aye. Aye. Searto?

Not voting. Searto not voting. Cavallero Cortese?

Aye.

Cortese, aye. Perez Weiner.

Keep that bill on call for absent members. Thank you. And then Assemblywoman Stephanie, I believe you're presenting AB 1743.

Thank you, Chair. I am. Okay. Today, I'm presenting AB 1743 on behalf of Assembly Member Wiggs. AB 1743 allows California cities, counties, and state agencies to request firearm trace data from the Department of Justice.

The bill also allows the University of California, California State University, and specified nonprofit universities to access firearm trace data for research and public policy purposes. Firearm trace data is is exactly what it sounds like. It helps trace the path of a firearm for the manufacturer or importer to a licensed firearms dealer and ultimately to the firearms original purchaser. The California Department of Justice maintains this information through its automated firearms system, which contains trace data on crime guns recovered through the state.

These are firearms recovered by law enforcement after being used in a crime, suspected of being used in a crime, or possessed unlawfully.

This data is a powerful public safety tool. It helps identify trafficking networks, uncover uncover patterns in the sources of crime guns, and gives policy makers and researchers better information about how firearms move through our communities. Under existing law, DOJ may already share trace data with local law enforcement as part of active investigations, and previous legislation authorized data sharing with the California Firearm Violence Research Center at UC Davis. California has already invested significant resources in collecting this information.

AB 1743 simply allows trusted government and research partners to put that data to greater use.

Better information leads to better policy, and better policy helps us prevent violence before it begins, before it happens. With me today to testify in support is Rebecca Marcus on behalf of Brady, the sponsor of this bill.

Thank you. You have two minutes to present on the bill.

Good morning, chair and members. Rebecca Marcus on behalf of the Brady Campaign, the sponsors of AB 1743. Every gun recovered on California Street starts somewhere and the overwhelmingly overwhelming majority have their origins in the legal marketplace. Understanding how guns, particularly those that have been diverted from legal commerce to the underground market, make their way to crime scenes is essential to crafting evidence based and life saving solutions to America's gun violence epidemic. Trace data is key to this story.

In 2000, ATF conducted their last public nationwide analysis on crime gun tracing. The analysis showed that about 5% of gun dealers are responsible for about 90% of recovered crime guns. In 2003, the T Hart Amendment was added to the annual federal appropriations bill. And because of ATF's interpretation of the amendment, policymakers, academics, and the general public no longer have any visibility into how crime guns flood into their communities or which gun dealers supply them. California is in a unique situation.

As the assembly member stated, Cal DOJ's automated firearm system currently contains a database with information on all crime guns recovered in California. Since this data is obtained and may maintained by Cal DOJ, it is outside the restrictions set by the Federal Government. The bill is simple. It explicitly gives DOJ the authority to share this key data to localities and specified academic institutions upon request. Researchers can use trace and recovery statistics to understand illegal firearms markets.

They can gauge whether state and local policies successfully reduce the flow of illegal guns, evaluate supply side interventions and regulatory compliance, and can even predict which specific guns and transactions are at extreme risk of being diverted into criminals' hands. Local leaders can use these insights to create evidence based policies, such as increased oversight of local gun dealers or direct community violence intervention and public health resources to the areas most affected.

California has invested in a system that ensures it has access to this vital data, and it is important that all levels of government can utilize it to keep their constituents safe. I respectfully ask request an aye vote on this important bill. I've also been asked to voice support of the bill for the Consumer Protection Policy Center at the University of San Diego School of Law.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 1743? If you can please approach the microphone, state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Peter Gerfine on behalf of Giffords and Giffords gun owners for safety and strong support of seventeen forty three.

Thank you.

Niccolo DeLuca on behalf of the cities of Oakland and Emeryville in support.

Thank you. Okay. Anyone else wishing to express support for AB 1743? Seeing no one else approached the microphone, I'll take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to the bill.

Mister chair, members of the committee, thank you. My name is Clay Kimberling. I'm the California state director for the National Rifle Association. Here today to testify in respectful opposition to Assembly Bill 1743. Policies that expand access to firearm related data sets, particularly paired, when paired with requirements that the information be delivered in formats designed for research analysis, risk creating expansive data ecosystems.

Such data sets can be used to draw conclusions about lawful gun owners, retailers, and firearm activities in specific communities. This raises significant concerns regarding privacy, government overreach, and the potential misuse of sensitive firearm related information. These concerns are not theoretical. California's firearm data sharing policies have already been the subject of significant litigation regarding the privacy rights of gun owners. Expanding the scope and accessibility of these datasets further compounds those concerns and risks chilling the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right.

Public safety is not advanced by expanding bureaucratic data pipelines or by turning law enforcement investigative records into political research data sets. For those reasons, we respectfully request that this committee reject AB 1743.

Good morning, chair members. Again, my name is Adam Wilson. I'm here on behalf of Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners of California. I'm also I'm also authorized to speak on behalf of the California Rifle and Pistol Association. We respectfully oppose AB 1743.

This bill dramatically expands access to firearm trace data and dealer specific information based on the assumption that trace data can be used to identify irresponsible firearm dealers. But a firearm trace does not establish wrongdoing and identifies where a firearm was originally sold, does not establish it that a dealer violated the law, participated in trafficking, or had any involvement in a subsequent crime. Firearms may be stolen, illegally transferred, or criminally misused years after a lawful sale.

Yet, AB 1743 encourages the use of trace data to publicly associate lawful dealers with criminal activity based solely on the actions of third parties. We do not hold car dealerships responsible when a vehicle is later used in a DUI, and we should not imply wrongdoing by Firearm dealers simply because a Firearm they lawfully sold was later recovered by law enforcement.

An estimated 500 legitimate and lawful gun dealers have closed their doors in California over the last five years due to over regulation and increased costs. Using trace data to demonize legitimate businesses will only compound that issue. California's focus should be on the criminal who misuses the firearm, the trafficker who supplied it, or the straw purchaser who illegally acquired it. Not on expanding access to data that can be used to stigmatize lawful businesses that follow the law. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for a no vote.

Thank you very much. Is anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 1743? Seeing no one approach the microphone, I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments or a motion. Pass the pass the gavel over

to you. Give it

a courtesy.

Okay. Alright.

So moved by Vice Chair Seyarto. I'll turn it back with the author to close.

Thank you. I think I'll just respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. We have a motion. If the committee is sitting, please call the roll.

AB 1743 Wicks. Motion is do passed to appropriations. Adegaine? Aye. Againe, aye.

Searto?

No.

Searto, no. Caballero Cortezi Perez Wiener.

We'll keep that bell on call for reps and members. Thank you. Okay. I saw some of Rick Gibson, but I think he stepped out. So we're gonna go to assembly member Bauer Kehan, who has two bills to present today.

And those are AB 2164 and AB 2664. So we'll start with the file in '19 AB 2164. Good morning. Good morning.

Thank you, mister chair and members of the committee. I wanna start by thanking the committee staff for your hard work and your analysis as always. Here to present 2164, the Care Without Fear Act. I know we all understand the threat posed to legally protected health care by the federal administration and foreign states, and many states have criminalized abortion access. And just this year, we saw Louisiana attempt to extradite a California abortion health care provider.

Luckily, the shield laws we had put into place worked, and that provider could safely stay here in California, then be extradited and charged criminally with an act that is legal here in California. But we must look to the future and make sure the California providers are protected against threats such of extradition, not on a case by case basis, but just protected.

17 other states already protect providers in the way this bill will protect them, and California is taking this step today to ensure that we commit to protecting abortion care and the providers that serve us every day and giving it to us. With me today, support is Alyssa Scherer, doctor of nursing practice, an advanced practice registered nurse, a women's health care nurse practitioner, and medical consultant, the abortion coalition for telemedicine.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Sounds good.

Thank you for having me. My name is Alyssa Shearer. I'm a doctorally prepared advanced practice nurse practitioner who provides full scope women's health healthcare. I've been practicing for over twelve years and in the state of California for four years. I'm a medical consultant to the sponsor of AB 2164 which is the abortion coalition for telemedicine as well as the medical director for Hey Jane, a leading telehealth medication abortion provider.

My name

I moved back to California from Ohio because of the abortion bans in Ohio and California's role in protecting abortion access. I'm a women's health provider and know that access to abortion should not be blocked by anyone regardless of where a patient lives. In today's post Roe environment, many patients in Ohio, California, and across the country rely on telemedicine medication abortion to get the care that they so desperately need.

The providers performing this care, many of whom are shield law providers, are an essential part of the Fragile Reproductive Health Care System. While some states work to ban care and target patients and providers, shield providers take on great personal risk to ensure patients can access the critical health care that they need.

I provide health care in California because I know my state will always protect health care access. AB 2,164, the Care Without Fear Act, is the next step in protecting this care. The bill strengthens our existing shield laws by prohibiting future governors from honoring extradition requests for providers who assist with Reproductive Health Care Services that are legal in California. It will also ensure reciprocal protections for SHIELD providers traveling to California from other SHIELD states.

Protecting providers from prosecution should not rely on shifting political winds or a single person's decision.

By removing discretionary authority in these circumstances, the bill ensures that California healthcare providers cannot be arrested or extradited to states seeking to criminalize this care. This is a crucial problem and I strongly urge you to support the passage of AB 2164. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony. At this time, we'll take anybody who Me Too's up at the mic. State your name, organization you represent, and your support for the bill.

Good morning. Angela Pontus on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California in support.

Good morning. Chris Bollinger on behalf of the Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine Access, in support. Thank you.

Tim Madden representing the California chapter for the American College of Emergency Physicians, in support.

Catherine Squire on behalf of the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls in support.

Simran Carr with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in support.

Jennifer Robles with Health Access California in support.

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

Kaya Clark on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support.

Thank you very much. At this time, if there are there any primary witnesses in opposition that wish to, present, may come up, sir? You have two minutes.

Chair members, my name is Greg Burtt with the California Family Council, and I'm here in opposition to AB 2164. This bill builds a wall around two things California refuses to look at honestly. First, what the bill calls gender affirming care, we call sex rejecting procedures. We're talking about puberty blockers and cross sex hormones and surgeries on minors.

This year, the US Department of Health and Human Services released a peer reviewed evidence review finding that evidence for benefit is low and evidence for harm is significant.

England, Sweden, Finland, Norway have all pulled back for the same reason. The human cost is in the courtroom. In January, a New York jury awarded $2,000,000 to a young woman whose doctors approved a double mastectomy at age 16 without the with without meeting standards of care. Here in California, Chloe Cole is suing Kaiser for the same harm. AB 2164 extends legal cover to the very providers who are now being held liable.

Second, abortion. California no longer has an ultrasound requirement and has expanded male oral chemical abortions with no in person doctor appointment. An analysis of over eight hundred and sixty thousand cases found a serious adverse event rate far higher than the label reports. So I have a simple question to ask. Why is safety never the thing we are worried about here?

Look at those who are sa look at those you are sacrificing to protect abortion and gender ideology. Please consider that those who see themselves as heroes are the last to see the harm. Finally, this bill raises serious full faith and credit concerns. Your only your own analysis admits as much, but you are plowing ahead anyway, knowing you'll be sued for violating the US Constitution. I encourage you to reconsider.

Please oppose AB 2164. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Is there anybody else that would like to come to the mic and express their opposition to the bill? If not, we'll bring it back to the dais. Any comments, questions?

Move the bill.

We have a motion to move the bill. You may close.

Thank you. Respectfully, I ask your aye vote on behalf of all

of our health care providers.

Alright. Thank you very much. We have a motion by Chair Adekein. Ahead and call the roll.

AB 2164 Bauer Kehan. Motion is do passed to judiciary committee. Adeghin? Aye. Adeghin, aye.

Searto? No. Searto, no. Caballero, Cortesi, Perez, Weiner.

Alright. That bill will be held open.

Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you for joining us. I will now proceed to file item 20, assembly bill 2664. And whenever you're ready, you may present on AB 2664.

Thank you, mister chair and members. I wanna thank committee staff again for their work on this bill and the many conversations we've had, as well as the chair. I'm here to present AB 2664, the Safe Worship Zone Act, a bill that ensures that all people can attend their place of worship without fear or harassment. This is a bill that is a priority of the legislative Jewish caucus because frankly, this is our lives every day when we show up to worship in our synagogues.

When I drop my kids off at Sunday school, I drive through a gate that I have to have a clicker for.

On the other side is an armed guard, and my kids' doors have been replaced in case an active shooter comes in. This is what it means to worship in a synagogue in 2026. This should feel and when I was growing up, my synagogue was my second home. It was one of the places I felt most safe. And yet today, we live in a world that is divided, full of hate, not just of the Jewish community.

I'm just speaking of my own lived experience where houses of worship no longer feel as safe as they should. And we have seen here in California that people who are entering their synagogues or mosques, churches, other places of worship, as they enter, they are surrounded. They are yelled at. They're often trying to enter to pray, to pick up their kids at Sunday school or preschool or whatever is happening inside the facility. And so this bill is incredibly simple.

It actually is, takes a narrow approach that is more protective of the first amendment than a buffer zone. It says you can be within a 100 feet of the place of worship. But within that 100 feet, you can't come within eight feet of the person entering or exiting. As I walk into my place of worship, I get a little bubble. It's like kindergarten where you get your your space, your personal space.

So you can walk in. People can express their first amendment opinions, but I get to walk in and out without fear, intimidation, or harassment. So with that, I will turn it over to my witnesses. With me here today in support, are a representative from Jewish California and the Anti Defamation League Western Division. Whoever wants to go first.

Okay. Whoever like to go first. You have two minutes to present on the bill.

Thank you. Good morning. I'm Robert Treston. I am the vice president of the Anti Defamation League for the Western Division. ADL is a century old anti hate organization with five offices across the state of California.

And I'm pleased to be here today to testify in support of safe worship zones to protect congregants across the state of California. Assembly bill 2664 has one simple goal, to ensure that people of all faiths have the freedom to worship without fear. This bill does not ban peaceful political expression and protest, but rather is intended to ensure that worshipers can safely exercise their right to pray while protecting the freedom of speech and assembly.

Additionally, it provides law enforcement with guidelines on how to protect worshipers. Across the country, individuals seeking to pray in houses of worship are becoming the targets of harassment and intimidation interfering with their free right to exercise their right to exercise.

Last year, ADL tracked 817 antisemitic incidents across the state of California. Ninety of those were people who were targeting synagogues inter and interfering with people's rights. According to a polling conducted by Ipsos, there is broad support amongst Californians for safe worship zones with 66% of Californians supporting supporting it. Additionally, nearly nine in 10 Californians reject allowing protesters to prevent people from attending worship services at houses of worship.

A B 2664 is modeled off of protections that have been upheld by the constitution and the United States Supreme Court.

This approach is consistent with efforts in other jurisdictions across the country. The right to free exercise and the right to free speech can operate simultaneously without conflict, and AB 2664 seeks to accomplish this balance. Thank you for your consideration.

Good morning, chair and members. I'm Miller Salzman, director of policy and partnerships at Jewish California, formerly JPAC. Representing over 40 leading Jewish community organizations across the state, Jewish California serves as our community's unified voice in Sacramento advocating on behalf of Jewish concerns and broadly shared values including working to combat hunger, poverty, climate change, and expanding access to health care and to support vulnerable communities. AB 2664 is a solution to a growing problem, violent protests outside houses of worship.

On December 3 at Wilshire Boulevard Temple in Los Angeles, there was an interfaith gathering of Jews and Korean Americans, leaders in their communities.

Outside the synagogue were violent protesters shouting antisemitic slurs and even lighting smoke bombs. The synagogue houses a preschool, an elementary school, a social services center, and of course, religious services. People approaching and leaving the synagogue were harassed and did not feel safe. People could not access their place of prayer, and parents could not reach their children. This is one of many examples of a disturbing trend of increased protests at synagogues.

According to the American Jewish community, 26% of Jews do not feel safe at Jewish institutions. And this doesn't just impact our community. We have a large diverse interfaith coalition in support of this bill including Muslim, Sikh, Baha'i, Christian, Armenian, African American, Korean, and Hindu organizations all united in our need to protect two parallel first amendment protections. Our sacred rights to free speech and to worship. The goal here is for no one to be harassed or threatened when entering a house of worship.

We have laws for obstruction and trespassing, but the gap we're trying to fill is stopping people from feeling unable to access their place of worship altogether. We respectfully ask for your eye vote on AB 262664.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is anyone else wishing to express support for AB 2664?

Thank you, mister chairman. Cliff Berg here in behalf of both Jewish California, formerly JAPAC, and 53 additional Jewish organizations in California in support of this legislation.

Here for thirty years after American Jewish Committee of Northern California, American Jewish Committee of Los Angeles, the Anti Defamation League, the Bay Area Center to Counter Anti Semitism, the Bay Area Jewish Coalition of Education and Advocacy, Hadassah, Beverly Hills Synagogue, Hillel of San Diego, Jewish Community Relations Council and Federation of San Luis Obispo, the Board of Rabbis of Southern California, the JCRC of the Bay Area, the JCRC of Long Beach, the Jewish Community Relations Council of Sacramento, the Contra Costa Jewish Democrats. Sorry.

A very long list of organizations in support.

Jewish Center for Justice, Jewish Family Services of San Diego, Jewish Family Services of the Desert, Jewish Democratic Coalition of the Bay Area, Jewish and Family and Children's Services of San Francisco, The Peninsula, Marin, and Sonoma Counties, Jewish Family Services of Silicon Valley, Jewish Federation of the Bay Area, Jewish Family and Community Services East Bay, Jewish Family Services Los Angeles, Jewish Federation of Los Angeles, the Jewish Federation of Grand Greater Santa Barbara, the Jewish Silicon Valley, Jewish Federation of Orange County, the National Council of Jewish Women, Jewish Federation of the Desert, Northern California Jewish Labor Committee, Oakland Jewish Alliance, Jewish Federation of San Diego, Jewish Federation of the Greater San Gabriel and Pomona Valleys, Palo Alto Jewish Alliance, Jewish Federation of Ventura County, San Francisco Jews in School.

Northern California stand with us. Valley Beth Shalom. I could continue, but, I think you all get the point that this bill is supported by the mainstream Jewish community of California. We urge your support.

Thank you.

Thank you. So anyone else wishing to express support for AB 2664? Seeing no one else approach the microphone, will not take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to the bill.

Alright. Chair members, my name is Albert Rodriguez. I'm a ledge advocate with ACLU Cal Action. The ACLU advocates for the principle that free expression for ourselves requires free expression for others even if we vehemently disagree. The US Supreme Court emphasized that public ways and sidewalks occupy a special position in terms of the first amendment protection because of their historic roles as sites for discussion and debate.

AB 2664 undermines this long standing democratic practice by restricting speech within 100 feet of places of religious worship, which would needlessly include our public sidewalks and in many places even a person's private residence or commercial property. And McCollum v Coakley, the Supreme Court ruled that the Massachusetts 35 foot buffer zone constituted an extreme step of closing of substantial portion of a traditional public forum to all speakers.

The court made clear that buffer zones including those with floating buffers around specific locations within public fora, satisfy the First Amendment only if the government has compiled a substantial record justifying the need for such a buffer zone. And even if the government can establish a sufficient record of problems at a place of religious worship, it would still need to demonstrate that it attempted to employ other more narrowly tailored methods to address them without success.

For instance, if there's a record of people being harassed or assaulted near their place of worship, the government would need to show that it has attempted to enforce generic criminal statutes without success.

Even then, the government would need to pursue alternative means such as an injunction without success before justifying a buffer zone of of any kind. Beyond this issue, the further refinement of what constitutes content based regulation on speech and Reed v Townham Gilbert, we believe strict scrutiny would apply to this proposal and be ruled unconstitutional. Ultimately, we have an existing framework of laws with the Federal and California face acts to prevent the issues that proponents of this bill are citing.

And as mentioned in this committee's analysis, there are multiple statutes that restrict a person's behavior outside a place of worship, including one we discussed last year at SB 19. Therefore, this seems to be an issue of enforcement and does not justify violating rights safeguarded by the first amendment.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge a no vote on AB 2664. Thank you.

Good morning, mister chair and members of the committee. My name is Usama Muqaddem, and I'm the legislative and government affairs director for the Council on American Islamic Relations California here in respectful opposition. As an organization representing a community that has disproportionately faced surveillance, intimidation, and violence directed at our mosques, especially in the past twenty five years, we deeply understand the compelling interest in protecting places of worship. Ensuring the safety of congregants is paramount, and we recognize the very real fears that drive this legislation.

However, this bill in its current form aims to achieve that by sacrificing our fundamental right to free speech.

In addition to the several the severe constitutional flaws of this bill my colleague from the ACLU just outlined, the chilling effect this will have on civic engagement, especially during an incredibly fraught political climate today is concerning. Places of worship are not solely spaces for prayer. They frequently host highly political events, commercial activities, and public policy discussions.

By establishing this 100 foot buffer zone with criminal penalties for simply passing a leaflet or engaging in oral protest, this bill can easily be weaponized to shield institutions from lawful public dissent when they step into the political arena. Silencing dissent and shrinking our traditional public public forums is a dangerous precedence to set to set.

When peaceful pro protests devolve into violence or intimidation, the solution is not to categorical categorically silence everyone. It's to enforce the laws that we currently have. And California already possesses robust criminal statutes prohibiting threats, harassment, obstruction, and vandalism. We have the State FACE Act, comprehensive hate crimes laws, and strict penalties for threatening congregants. Addressing bad actors is ultimately an enforcement issue, not a lack of legislation, and we simply need to effectively enforce existing laws.

We've been in communication with the author's office and look forward to continuing the conversation, and have shared amendments regarding, reducing the buffer zones, the distance starting buffer zones, the starting point for buffer zones, limiting the, the buffer zones to hours of religious services, you know, not including public forums, etcetera. So we look forward to continuing the conversation with the author's office, but for now, we must respectfully oppose the bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 2664? If you can please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Hi. My name is Musa. I am a District 16 constituent, and I want to express my respectful opposition to AB 2664. Thank you.

Leslie Caldwell, Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in opposition and less amendment amended, and we are looking forward to further conversations.

Mary Ray with Local one forty eight, the Los Angeles Public Defender's Union, in opposition to the bill.

Samehlia Rogers on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in respectful opposition.

Jim Lindberg on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California in respectful opposition.

Good morning, chair and members. Patricia Rucker with the California Teachers Association in respectful opposition to the bill.

Okay. Thank you very much. I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments. Vice Chair Ciarca.

So, thank you for your bill. I get where it's trying to go, and, and I'm understanding why. And it's sad that we have to have a bill, that tries to rein in, not free speech, but what people think is free speech. What people think is free speech has turned into, borderline riot. It's turned into, people intimidating others into thinking that they're they're not secure, they're they're in danger.

And, you know, and unfortunately, this is what it takes. If whether you're free speeching within a 100 feet of the religion, you still get the free speech. You can yell at people from a 100 feet away. You don't need to be in their face. You don't need to be waving signs practically hitting them, making it look like you're going to hit them, throwing things, maybe not at them, but at their feet.

That's not protest. That's not peaceful protest. Peaceful protest, nobody the the line has blurred. And unfortunately, because of that, now we have to have bills that come out that that help define that a little bit better. You know, when when you go on a freeway and and people walk on the freeway and and start blocking the road, that's not a peaceful protest.

That is violating the rights of people that are trying to go live their lives. And so this is a compromise between two of our sacred rights. The right to protest and the right to practice your religion and and and and and I don't see it as unnecessary. I find it necessary now. And it and it makes it it upsets me that it is while,

but

a lot of them are not. And they're there to intimidate people, not protest. And with and because of that, it forces us to to support bills like this. And so with that, I'll I'll go ahead and move the bill.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. I wanna thank the author for this bill. It's unacceptable that you and your family should be afraid to go worship your religion in California. And I will be supporting the bill today. But I do wanna just touch on something we talked about Yesterday, which is the definition of place of religious worship, which isn't just the entrance and exit of the actual religious institution or where there's educational activities or other other religious activities occurring.

But also the parking lot entrances, the driveway, the driveway entrances, and that just expands that 100 foot zone. And really what, you know, what we're trying to do with this bill is to balance people's right to exercise their constitutional right to to practice their their faith of choice without fear of intimidation or violence. That is a right that we must protect in the state, but also the right of people to engage in expressive conduct and and for the first amendment activity.

And so, you know, as this bill moves forward, really wanna, you know, encourage you to take a look at that definition of place of religious worship, which is much more expansive than some other legislation that exists and give consideration to, you know, whether the driveway entrance should be included or the the parking lot entrance. Because that actually expands the the space in which people can participate in expressive conduct while also, protecting people's right to be able to safely enter and exit a place of worship.

Because once again, it's about that balancing act. But once again, you know, this doesn't prohibit somebody from holding a sign within a 100 feet. It's just you can't just come so close to a person as they're entering or exiting that religious institution. And really making sure that people can enter and exit without fear of harassment or intimidation or things escalating. There are statues on the books that deal with violence or threats.

This is dealing with just making sure people can safely worship in California without fear of intimidation or harassment so that people can practice whatever religion of their choosing in the state. So I think I think you for bringing this bill forward. I do have an eye recommendation. I'll turn over you to close.

Thank you, mister chairman. I should have said that in my opening. I'm not on top of my game after being on the floor till midnight last night. For the senators that don't know, we got out very late last night. They're turning on the budget.

But, yes, thank you for raising that, and we did have that conversation. And I'll note that I had a similar conversation with Senator Caballero and committed to her

as well to continue to work

on that. So we will do that as it moves if it moves out of the committee today. But I wanna thank you both for your comments. I also wish I didn't have to do this bill. As I mentioned, this bill wasn't on the books when I was growing up, and I worshiped safely and always felt at home in my synagogue.

And I will just note, and I said it in assembly judiciary, but I'll say it again. Despite the fact that the ACLU continues to come into committee after committee and say that the state doesn't have an interest in this and never has yet to acknowledge the antisemitism, the hate, what is happening to our community. I sincerely believe that not just for my own community as a state have a significant interest in moving this legislation forward, but for all communities of faith.

And so with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. I believe we have a motion By vice chair Ciarato. That committee assistant can please call the roll.

AB 2664, Bauer Kehan. Motion is do passed to appropriations. Aragin?

Aragin, aye. Seiarato? Aye. Seiarato? Aye.

Aye.

Caballero? Cortesi Perez. Weiner.

We'll keep that bell and call for reps and members. Thank you all very much. Okay. I see that the judiciary chairman here, will now proceed to file item 16, AB 2122 by Assemblymember Calra. And whenever you're ready, you may present on the bill.

Thank you, mister chair. AB 2122 prohibits the issuance of a bench warrant if the underlying offense is a vehicle code infraction and for non vehicle code infraction allows for a non custodial warrant to be issued. California courts process over 3,000,000 infractions each year. These minor offenses include traffic violations that are punishable by a fine and do not require a court appearance if the ticket is paid.

If a person fails to appear in court or pay a citation, a bench warrant for arrest can be issued, effectively converting an otherwise non jailable offense into incarceration.

Research has shown that alternatives such as improved notices and reminders are more effective than warrants at generating timely court appearances and payments. Additionally, at least 12 counties including Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, and Santa Barbara have reportedly already stopped issuing bench warrants and infraction cases without evidence of a reduction in compliance. Throughout this process, amendments have helped strike an appropriate balance of preserving accountability measures while also ensuring that people are not needlessly incarcerated for non jailable infractions simply because they cannot afford a fine.

Because of that work, the California District Attorneys Association and the Child Support Directors Association of California are neutral. Lastly, I'd like to address concerns of this bill result in individuals disregarding infraction offenses.

As aptly explained in the analysis, individuals are still civilly liable for these offenses and court imposed debt will continue to be collected through methods like wage garnishment and bank levies. This bill has received bipartisan support, and I'm happy to have here to testify in support Marco Duncan, Ronald Elder Freeman policy fellow at legal services for prisoners with children, a member of all of us or none, and Rebecca Miller, senior attorney with the Western Center on Law and Poverty.

Great. Good morning. Whoever would like to begin, you have two minutes to present on the bill.

Good afternoon, chairman Adegin and the committee members. My name is Marco Duncan. I'm a policy fellow at Legal Services for Prisons with Children and a member of All of Us or None. I mean, I'm here in strong support of AB 2122 because I still live with psychological scars caused by repeated arrest for bench warrants stemming from infractions. Between the ages of 17 and 30, I was trapped in the cycle of pretextual policing and criminalization for being poor.

During that time, I was routinely profiled and stopped for driving. Those stops oftentimes resulted in me being issued citations for minor infractions. Since I didn't have stable housing during that time, I usually miss the notices telling me when to appear in court. Without stable housing, a job, family support, though those tickets were not a mere inconvenience for me. They they were in a possibility.

I was struggling. I couldn't pay for them. So in good faith, I initially tried to engage the system. I I went to court whenever I had the resources to do so. But when I couldn't pay, the court dates were continued and the period to pay, the fees were extended.

Again, the problem was that I couldn't pay, and I had trouble keeping up with the growing number of court dates. If I miss a court date, a bench warrant would be issued for failing to appear, and I would then face additional fines in jail time. Those trips to jail often resulted in me losing cars, clothes, relationships, and my ability to keep get or keep a job.

All this take took a devastating toll on my my mental well-being and just repeatedly losing any any stability I had managed to create. And fines, bench warrants, nor the jail time did anything to help me fix a a windshield or replace a tire.

They they just pushed me further into a hole and fostered a deep distrust of the system. And I believe that using the legal system to punish people for what they don't have, it it I I don't think that aligns with American values. And based on that, I respectfully request your support for AB 2122 to ensure that no one else have to live in fear for being poor.

Good morning, honorable committee members. Western Speth Center is a proud sponsor of AB 2122, which seeks to end a wasteful and outdated practice that criminalizes poverty and increases the likelihood of law enforcement or ICE involvement for people with low level citations. Treating infractions differently than other offenses realizes, recognizes the proportionality in our criminal system. Using the full force of arrest and detention for minor violations, waste resources, traumatizes individuals unnecessarily, and undermines public trust in law enforcement.

Infractions are monetary sanctions and should be enforced accordingly.

Current law provides for, ways to ensure accountability when people do not resolve their infraction tickets, including using county collection offices and the franchise tax board's, court ordered debt program. Importantly, the penal code also allows for collection to begin as soon as the deadline to appear on or pay the ticket has passed, regardless of whether the person goes to court or the ticket has been adjudicated.

People are also motivated to pay because unresolved infractions can appear on background checks and because you can be charged late fees, including a $100 civil assessment. Happily, as an advocate, I've seen California move away from the use of infraction bench warrants. In response to public records act requests, more than a dozen dozen counties reported that they don't use warrants.

This is common sense. Bench warrants are an ineffective at resolving

cases and waste

significant law enforcement resources for low level monetary violations that could law enforcement resources for low level monetary violations that could be spent elsewhere. Where they are still used, bench warrants caused outsized harm to black and brown Californians who are exponentially more likely to be arrested on bench warrants. They can escalate a low level ticket to encounter with police or ICE that can have profound impacts on a person's life. Now is the time to end this ineffective and antiquated tool of the mass incarceration era. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is anyone else wishing to express support for AB 2122? If you can please state your name, organization, or city you're from, and position on the bill.

Good morning, chair. I'm Tramiel Watson with Disability Rights California withstanding support of AB 2122. Thank you. Thank you.

Leslie Caldwell, Houston for the California Public Defender's Association in support.

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

Hien Wen with legal services for prisoners with children, in strong support.

Nedrick Miller, all of us in Nunn Sacramento, strong support.

Mary Ray with Local one forty eight, the Los Angeles Public Defenders Union, in strong support. Sorry. Bernice Singh, proud cosponsor with legal services for prisoners of children in support. Liz Blum Gutierrez on behalf of Vera California in strong support.

Shivani Nishar on behalf of Drug Policy Alliance in support, also registering support for Community Works.

Good morning. Marshall on the line on behalf of the ACLU California Action in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning, Ed Little, on behalf of California for Safety and Justice, and a proud cosponsor in support. Thank you.

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

Good morning, chair and members. Cleo Blutenthal with the California Community Foundation in strong support.

Danny Kendall Kaiser on behalf of the National Consumer Law Center in strong support.

Christopher Lopez on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in strong support.

Good morning. Natalie Spivak with Housing California in strong support. Raneesha Rakser on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice in support.

Thank you very much. I'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to the bill.

Thank you, mister chair and members. Corey Salazar on behalf of the California State Sheriffs Association. Regretfully in opposition to the bill. And understanding the amendments that have been taken, thus far by the author, we remain opposed. If a person fails to appear in court, existing law generally allows a warrant to issue for the person's arrest.

And this bill would eliminate the authority to hold that person in custody if they are arrested in compliance with such a warrant, if the underlying offense is an infraction. We fear this removes an important tool that encourages people who have been cited for infraction violations to appear in court or otherwise resolve their cases. The bill sends the message that it's acceptable to fail to appear in court even after having promised to do so.

We understand there may be valid reasons why a particular person may not be able to pay a fine on a particular violation, but the answer is not to eliminate the ability of a court to compel the person's attendance in every case with a meaningful sanction like a custodial term. The state has enacted numerous amnesty programs over the last several years and this bill goes too far in trying to address the stated problem.

And candidly, the the other options that were cited as by proponents is ways to compel conformity with or compliance with the sanctions are are are not gonna work if if a person doesn't pay a fine. That's the sort of precut condition we find that underlies what we're talking about. And so threatening a person with more fines or fees or garnishment doesn't seem to be necessarily likely to be compelling, if a person's refusing or unable to put a fine in the first place.

So taking away this tool, which again is optional, we think is, problematic. So for those reasons, we ask for your no vote.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 2122? Seeing no one else approach the microphone, I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments. Okay. Motion by Senator Cortese.

Thank you. Unless there's any further discussion, I'll turn it back over the author to close.

I wanna thank, the chair and staff for the work on this with with our staff, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. We have a motion by Senator Cortese. If the committee is the second, please call the roll.

AB 2122, calra. Motion is do passed to appropriations. Araghen?

Aye.

Araghen, aye. Seo Arto? No. Seo Arto, no. Caballero?

Cortesi?

Cortesi, aye. Perez, Weiner.

Aye.

We'll keep that bill on call for absent members. Thank you very much. Okay. I think we have one more bill presentation from Assemblymember Gibson. Ask the sergeants if you can please call his office.

And also called apps I know Senator Wien is sharing elections, but I don't believe the other members have conflicts. If you can please call their offices to ask them to attend, because we're gonna we're gonna close out the hearing after. We're in recess.

Okay. We're gonna reconvene the Senate Public Safety Committee hearing and proceed to our last bill, which is bottom 22 AB 2339 by Assemblymember Gibson. And whenever you're ready, Assemblymember, you may present on the bill.

Thank you very much, mister mister chairman and members. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 2,339. I wanna start off by thanking your committee staff and yourself for working with my team in order to strengthen this bill and make it better. Assembly Bill 2339 updates the reporting requirements and process for mental health holes that triggers firearm prohibition.

Currently, the mental health facilities must report an individual to the Department of Justice within twenty four hours of a involuntary hold so that the law enforcement can ensure that those individuals don't have access to firearms.

However, at the time of the admission, the facility often have incomplete or wrong identifying information for that individual. Existing law does not does not clearly identify what information must be reported which leads to gaps, inconsistencies and incomplete records. These gaps have real consequences if the information is wrong or missing or prohibited. Individual may not be flagged when attempting to purchase a firearm. In addition, mental health facilities are not required to update reports and titles to the Department of Justice when they obtain new information.

Assembly bill 2330 nines improve the reporting process for mental health host by requiring the mental health staff to report key identifying information like name like full names, date of birth, and identifying, number. It also requires facilities to update the Department of Justice when they get new informations. Assembly bill 2330 nines improve accuracy and strengthens accountabilities to help ensure these firearm prohibition works, as intended.

With me to supply and provide supporting testimony and any technical assistance in support of Assembly Bill 2339 is the deputy attorney general who will self introduce and thank her for being here. Please.

Good morning, mister chair, senators. My name is Candace Chung, and I'm a deputy attorney general with California Department of Justice appearing on behalf of attorney general Rob Bonta, who's proud to sponsor this bill. And thanks assembly member Gibson for his leadership on this issue. Roughly 219,000 firearm prohibiting mental health holds are reported to the DOJ each year.

The DOJ is then tasked with entering these individuals as firearm prohibited in our systems to ensure that they are flagged if they attempt to purchase a firearm and that existing firearms are relinquished.

But these background checks only work if the information is complete and accurate. As the assembly member mentioned, there are a number of reasons why, there's vagueness within the reporting obligation statutes that's led to incomplete and inconsistent reporting. For example, we get placeholder names like John Doe or just simply initials being entered in instead of actual full names. Their data entry errors that results in names being misspelled, name order being transposed.

And then in addition, sometimes sometimes you'll have you might you might get a name and date of birth.

Sometimes you might not get more than that, you know, such as ethnicity or anything else that would help us identify. So with that kind of information, it makes it very difficult to maintain this database and you know, make sure the appropriate people are flagged. Furthermore, there's no obligation for existing facilities to update or correct those entries. Even though often times after the initial twenty four hours, we'll get more information about the person's identity. There's no obligation to actually update what they've reported.

So as a result, prohibited individuals may not get flagged. This bill will improve accuracy and consistency in reporting. It clarifies what information needs to be reported, who's responsible for reporting it, and creates additional safeguards against errors by requiring supporting documentation. It provides clear guidance to the our hospitals on their reporting obligations. It's provides clear guidance on what notification must be provided to patients and strengthens confidentiality laws regarding information reported.

Preventing access to firearms by people suffering from a mental health crisis protects both the community and the individual. And which is why it's critical of the data shared between the facilities and the DOJ is accurate and timely. And I thank you and request your support.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 2339? Seeing no one else approach the microphone, is there any opposition witnesses to a B2339? Seeing no one come forward, I'll bring it back to the committee for questions, comments, or motion. Moved by Senator Cortese.

Thank you very much. Any questions or comments from members of the committee on the bill? Seeing none, I'll turn it back over to Close.

Thank you very much. This is a simple bill as the witness. I wanna thank the attorney general, and the deputy attorney general for being here. This is a a simple bill, but has a lot of significant consequences. We're just trying to correct something to making sure that, one, identification, and information is corrected, in the files moving forward.

So I respectfully ask what I vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. We have a motion by Senator Cortesi. If the committee assistant can please call the roll.

Roll. AB 2339 Gibson. Motion is depass to appropriations. Adegaine?

Adegaine? Aye. Seoarto? Aye. Cortese?

Aye.

Aye. Cortese? Aye. Cortese? Aye.

Perez Weiner.

Keep that bill and call for absent members. Thank you very much. Okay. We are waiting for members to arrive. But why don't we lift the call on bills so Senator Cortese can record his votes.

And then you you don't have to wait here for everyone else to show up. So why don't we start with I think the Senator voted on the consent calendar. Correct? So whatever bills the Senator is not recorded as vote on.

[Roll Call]

We'll keep that bill and call for absent members.