Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

Alright. Good morning, everyone. Welcome back to the Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety. I'll begin with a few housekeeping items. First and foremost, we'll be proceeding as a subcommittee this morning until we establish a quorum.

I wanna thank our, Republican chief consultant. I'm aware that both members of the committee are not yet here. They're in other engagements, so they'll be here as soon as possible, and appreciate your agreement to to move forward so we can get started this morning. Second, I'd like to remind everyone that there are some general rules of conduct, and I'll go over those before we start our hearing today.

Please note that in order to facilitate the goal of conducting a legislative hearing and as we move forward with witness and public comment, I want to ensure that everyone understands that the Assembly has rules to ensure that we maintain order and run a fair and efficient hearing.

Specifically, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings. I typically give a warning before we get to that point, and we won't get to that point this morning. But if we do, please be aware that violations of these rules can subject you to removal or other enforcement actions.

Second, as a reminder to ensure that all measures on the agenda are heard, we will we have limited witness testimony for this hearing with four minutes total per side for support and opposition. Next, though we don't have a quorum, I will read the off calendar items, meaning that these items will not be heard today.

We have item number nine, Senate bill 115 by Senator Perez that has been pulled by the author. We have item number 13, Senate bill 128 by Senator Grayson pulled by the author. We have item number 18, Senate bill 1266 by Senator Stern, pulled by the author. And lastly, we have item 22, Senate Bill 1338 by Senator Jones, also pulled by the author. Once we have a quorum, we will dispense with our proposed consent calendar.

And as a reminder, we're hearing today's measures in sign and order. Authors will have five minutes to present, and then your witnesses in support will have four minutes as will the opposition witnesses, and I'll be keeping track of time right over here. So with that, let's go ahead and dive in. First up in sign in order, I see we have item number five by Senator Becker. This is Senate bill 1009 followed by, Senator Gomez Rez.

Good morning, Chair members. SB 1009 is a, common sense reform that updates, the outdated model to reflect a current model to reflect better what we know today about brain science, public safety, and fiscal responsibility. For too long, California's juvenile justice system has relied on putting youth in cells as our first response to youth behavior rather than our last resort. And data shows young people with existing behavioral mental health problems often deteriorate in detention, not improve.

Detention disrupts education, severs family ties, counterintuitively increases the risk of future legal trouble.

This bill ensures no youth remains detained unnecessarily by mandating that a court shall not order minor to juvenile hall unless it makes a specific finding that a less restrictive alternative is unsuitable. That, of course, it can easily do, by determining, say, the home life is is unstable or by determining that a crime is too is considered too severe. Many ways to do that.

By prioritizing community based alternatives such as counseling supervision, we're investing solutions that reduce recidivism and save taxpayer dollars, brings transparency to our courtrooms and accountability to our justice system, ensuring every child is given a fair chance to succeed within our community. This bill stops treating our children like criminals in training and starts treating them like the future of our state.

Here with me today to to testify is Eric Arias with the Yolo County Public Defender's Office.

Good morning, Mister Chair and members. My name is Eric Arias, and I'm a Yolo I'm a youth defender at the Yolo County Public Defender's Office and a member of the California Youth Defender Center's legislative committee, a cosponsor of this bill. Youth arrests and detention rates have fallen substantially over time. That progress is encouraging and reflects the hard work of many people across the juvenile legal system. But lower numbers do not end the conversation. They make the remaining cases more important to get right.

And the data shows that there's still work to do. In 2024, nearly 11,000 youth were detained in secure facilities. Even under the broadest possible assumption that every youth arrested for a violent felony was detained, those arrests can account for no more than 59% of pre adjudication detentions. That means that nearly 41% of detained youth were not arrested for a violent felony. And that matters because detention is not a harmless intervention.

It carries well documented harms. It can traumatize youth, disrupt education and employment outcomes, and increase the likelihood of continued involvement in the justice system. SB 1009 does not eliminate detention. It does not remove judicial discretion to order detention. What it does is ensures that detention is used only when necessary, and it does those it makes sure that those decisions are explained and revisited.

And it does so by addressing three key points. The first part of the bill addresses when detention is initially ordered. Over fifty years ago, the California Supreme Court made clear that detention is the exception, not the rule. SB 1009 reinforces that principle. It does not create a presumption of release, and it does not limit the court's authority to order detention when necessary.

What it does is provide a clear standard. It does not change the standard. It requires that detention be paid based on an immediate and urgent necessity to protect the youth and others, a standard that already exists within the welfare and institutions code. It also requires the court to determine that no less restrictive alternative is suitable before determining the tent before ordering detention in the juvenile hall. Courts already consider alternatives.

This bill simply ensures that that analysis is stated on the record. The bill uses the word suitable intentionally because what is suitable in one county may not be suitable in another. It's a contextual standard. The second bill second part of the bill addresses whether detention should continue. Currently, a youth on electronic monitoring who is at home is entitled to periodic reviews, but a youth who is confined to the juvenile hall is not.

That distinction is difficult to justify. Juvenile hall is a more restrictive intervention and creates greater harms. If we revisit less restrictive intervention, it follows that we should revisit less restrictive or more restrictive ones as well. SB 1009 addresses this in a practical way. It allows the issue of continued attention to be raised by the parties who are already appearing before the courts.

The intent is not to create additional hearings, but to revisit detention at an existing court date. Detention decisions are based on the facts that can change, risks can decrease, services can become available, and placements can open. And when they do, the system should be able to respond. The need for continued detention should be justified, not presumed. The final part of the bill addresses dispositional commitments and placements.

Under current law, the court must find that no less restrictive alternative disposition is suitable before ordering the most restrictive placement, but that requirement does not apply to commitments at the juvenile hall, ranch, or camp. SB 1009 addresses this. It does not restrict the court's ability to order those order those placements when they're appropriate. It simply ensures that the court is considering the alternatives and explaining those decisions before it does so.

It provides the court with factors to consider, but does not limit the court when when considering whether those dispositions are appropriate.

And

I'm sorry that that's your time, but thank you. And stick around because there might be questions or chances to add that last thought back in. Senator, before we go on, just wanna confirm we'll be accepting the committee amendments today.

Yes. Thank you.

I will be accepting amendments.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you very much, sir. Do you have any other oh, I'm sorry. You you used your four minutes. That's correct. Okay.

So next, we'll take the Me Too's. If you'd like to register a position of support on this bill, please come forward at this time. Name, organization, and your position, please.

Gwen Gunheim, Holt Consulting on behalf of Smart Justice California in support.

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

Elizabeth Lashley Haines from Public Defender Union one forty eight in Los Angeles in support.

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

Similia Rogers on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in support.

Jay Vasquez on behalf of Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice, proud cosponsor, strong support. Thank you.

Colin Ford on behalf of Fresh Life lines for youth, cosponsor and strong support, also on on behalf of over 80 listed supporters. Thank you.

Good morning. Keely O'Brien with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in strong support.

Good morning. Hien Nguyen from legal services for prisoners with children in support.

Jonathan Laba, California Youth Defender Center, proud cosponsor in support.

Wonderful. Thank you all very much. Do we have anyone here hoping to testify in opposition? Okay. We have one.

I come on forward. You can use either microphone. And once you begin to speak, you'll have four minutes to address the committee.

Good morning, Mister Chair and members. Libby Sanchez on behalf of the chief probation officers of California in opposition to this measure. I, you know, wanna point to the testimony, by the, support witness as illustration of the dramatic difference in interpretation that support and opposition has in the, underlying policy outlined in the measure and what the impact would be at the local level.

And the reason why I wanna start with that is because if you have two people sitting here before you saying that the bill does wildly different things, imagine what is gonna happen in courts across the state when courts are being mandated to have their discretion significantly limited within what is written in this bill.

And the significant limitation under this bill is to obligate a court to not detain a juvenile accused of the most serious and violent 707 B offenses before it, including rape, murder, kidnapping, etcetera, unless they find the other alternative for community placement to be unsuitable.

There is no clarity about what unsuitability means or any limitations imposed on suitability. Would a court find that placement of a juvenile accused in the home where his sibling victim resides unsuitable? Different courts may differ. Would a court because under juvenile law as opposed to adult criminal law, the courts have significantly limited options before them for placement. They can only place them in the home, or they can have the, juvenile deemed to be, you know, in the child welfare services system.

As we all know, the child welfare services system is enormously overburdened and is facing additional burdens, based on HR 1. So the question before you is not just one of whether or not this is good public policy, which, again, we would point to the fact that the data bears out that, detention is not the first line of defense for juveniles.

We have seen a 70% decrease in the number of detentions, and those that are detained now post 823 and post a series of both prior and subsequent changes before the legislature and in practice of the courts and probation show that those that are detained now are those that are accused of serious and violent offenses. The time frame to make a determination about unsuitability is so limited, so prescriptive. Thank you.

Oh, sorry. So limited, so prescriptive that we are deeply and gravely concerned that the courts will in fact have their discretion taken from them, and that there will be very unsafe choices made. Not just for those that are acute not just for those that are, you know, in the community into which these, juvenile accused, again, of the most serious and violent offenses will be overturned, but also for the juveniles themselves.

If probation and the court do not have the adequate amount of time to make a determination about where a suitable placement is, it is very likely that those juveniles will be placed in unsafe conditions, which is the exact opposite of what the author and sponsors want to see happen. For those reasons, we are opposed to this measure.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. And next, we'll take the Me Too's in opposition. Come on down.

Mister Chair and members, Cliff Casate on behalf of the California Judges Association and the juvenile court judges of California. Thank you.

Chair members, Max Perry on behalf of the California Police Chiefs Association, also in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning, Mister Chair members. Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California in a respectful opposition. Thank you.

Apologies, Mister Chair. Ed Little on behalf of Californians for safety and justice and strong support.

Okay. We'll take that as well. Thank you all. A final call if anyone wants to register a position on the bill. Otherwise, we'll turn it back to me, just me.

If you're a member of the committee and you wanna come down and join me at Room 126, we are eagerly waiting for you. We have coffee and water and tea if you need it. Senator Becker just to facilitate some conversation, just so you all know, we won't be able to take a motion yet.

We'll have to wait for the quorum. But Senator Becker, several points raised by the opposition in their testimony. Is there any response you'd like the committee to consider?

Yeah. I appreciate the the comments. I think it just, unfortunately, Kinda overly dramatized the situation. I mean, I think the fact here is that there's no equivalent to a bail hearing for youth. Right?

So adults come, there's a bail hearing, and there's a standard, right, that we all know. And there is no standard for when youth come for the

first time and appear before the judge. That's really what this bill originally tried to do, was say, hey. We shouldn't have a lesser standard a more severe standard, essentially, for youth than we do for adults. And that part, guys, you got taken from the bill.

And so we feel, you know, what's left is certainly from the I imagine for the strength of the opposition, I would think, even more reasonable, which basically just says that in that hearing, which already happens, that they consider the least restrictive alternative.

And we know this happens today. Right? That is the work of operation officers. They're evaluating the situation. And and if they find that it's an unsuitable situation, which they already examined today, if they find if the judge feels that that's a severe crime and does not feel that that a least restrictive option merit is merit in the situation, they can decide that.

So we feel we very much retain discretion. It's been imperative for us in the process, and that's what I would reply. But maybe a quick comment from my witness as well.

Yes, your honor. So one thing I would like to point out is that when a youth already appears before the juvenile court at its initial detention hearing, the presumption is released. That is present law. This does not change that. When we talk about whether the term suitability will limit judicial discretion, limiting judicial discretion would mean we've defined it to mean a specific type of thing.

We have not done that. And we have not done that because the bill is designed to give the judge flexibility and understand that what's suitable in one county may not be suitable in another county. And the judge will have the ability to decide whether or not there's actually a suitable alternative that's that can be honored in that county. This bill does not alter timelines. It does not say things have to happen more quickly or less quickly.

So this bill merely works within the existing framework and does not change any of those points.

Thank you. Well, there's no one else to pose a question to. Senator Becker, would you like to close? And then I'll get my recommendation on the record and get we'll have to wait for a quorum to make a motion, but your opportunity to close, Senator.

Yeah. Thank you. We look forward to continue working with the judges with probation going forward. Again, we do accept the amendments.

I've been working working hard on this bill. We feel that some counties are doing a great job with this. We're just looking to really standardize, across the state. And, with that, I'll respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Well, thank you, Senator Becker. I will be recommending an aye at the appropriate time, and I wanna thank you for bringing the bill forward. I want to especially and publicly acknowledge you working with our staff to add back in as a factor in consideration, protection of property when determining whether a minor should be detained. And I just wanted to offer a quick public comment on why we insisted on that.

As you, mentioned in your comments, existing law requires the court to find that detention is reasonably necessary for the protection of another person or property.

Your bill, as I understand, would change that standard to immediate and urgent necessity, and it also removes originally removed consideration of the protection of property. While the protection of property might bring to mind crimes such as retail theft, there are other more serious property offenses such as residential burglary, vandalism, and arson that I would argue might justify detention in certain limited circumstances.

Point I'm trying to make is that the committee amendment in our view is aimed at not tying the hands of courts in making those appropriate determinations when supported by the facts. And I trust that with the higher standard in your bill, the court would only use that as a reason for detention when truly necessary.

I also wanna thank you for, in our private conversations and on staff level, your commitment to continuing to work with the opposition, such as the juvenile court judges of California to address some of their remaining concerns as you move forward, hopefully, to the appropriations committee.

So I will be recommending an aye at the appropriate time. We can't yet take a motion, so thank you all very much for being here today, and we'll let you know the outcome.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Next, we have Senator Gomez Reyes presenting Senate Bill 1130. This is item number 10 on our agenda, and the floor is all yours whenever you're ready to begin.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Chair for the opportunity to present SB 1130. SB 1130 updates California's Privacy Law to address the rapid rise of wearable recording technology such as smart glasses. Unlike smartphones or handheld cameras, these devices are often designed to lock or to look like ordinary prescription glasses or fashion accessories.

Making it significantly more difficult for bystanders to know when audio or video recording is taking place. While some argue that phones can already record, the reality is different. When someone pulls out a phone and points it at you, it's obvious.

Smart glasses are designed to be different. They're designed to be discreet, allowing recording to happen without people realizing it. For example, a TikTok influencer influencer reported feeling uneasy after discovering her aesthetician was wearing Meta A Glasses in the middle of a Brazilian wax. Leaving her unsure whether she was being recorded. In other cases, women have been secretly filmed by strangers using smart glasses without their knowledge or consent, only to later find the footage posted online generating misogynistic comments and profit.

SB 1130 establishes clear common sense guardrails.

It prohibits recording with wearable recording devices in areas of business where individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy without explicit consent. It prohibits the manufacturer sale and use of technology designed to bypass recording indicator requirements. Violations can be charged as a misdemeanor, punishable by up to $1,500 fines, and up to one year in jail.

This bill does not ban technology. It ensures that innovation continues while reinforcing core principles of consent, transparency, and individual dignity in an era of rapidly evolving surveillance technology. With me today is Justin Brookman on behalf of Consumer Reports.

Thank you very much. Justin Brookman with Consumer Reports in support of SB 1130, which replaced reasonable restrictions on the use of wearable cameras to see securely record California citizens in sensitive locations without their permission. Last year, 404 Media reported on online influencers recording employees and massage parlors filming their reactions upon being sexually propositioned.

Earlier this year, Wired published a story called 'The Rise of the Ray Ban Meta Creep' which which describe men using meta glasses to record women as they're being harassed. Meta cameras include a small LED light that is meant to indicate an interaction is being recorded.

Many people don't know what the light means. They notice it at all. Moreover, many companies sell cheap defeat location technologies on sites like Amazon to cover up the light and film secretly.

SB 1130 would put into place common sense protections around the use of this invasive technology. It would require the users of wearable cameras get consent before filming in commercially in commercial spaces where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, like massage parlors and gym changing rooms.

We'd also prohibit people from disabling recording indicators on wearable cameras or from selling such defeat technologies to others. Arguably, these technologies should require stronger protections such as, requiring an indicator for non obvious cameras, or limitations on the use of facial recognition technology, but this the protection set in place by SB 1130 are excellent and needed start. And for that reason, we urge your aye vote at the appropriate time.

Next, we'll take the Me Too's in support of the bill. Come forward with your name, organization, and position, please.

George Paramoathu on behalf of Oakland Privacy in support. Thank you.

Mister Chair, members. Sarah Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions in support. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you all very much. Do we have anyone here hoping to testify in opposition?

Okay. We do.

Come on down. You got two microphones. Pick your favorite, and you have four minutes to address the committee. Your time doesn't start until you begin to speak.

Alright. Thank you, Mister Chair and members. Dylan Hoffman on behalf of TechNet. I've also been asked to register opposition on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. We are respectfully opposed to SB 1130.

And first, I wanna just state that we completely agree with the intent of the bill to penalize the misuse of of this technology. We believe further clarification needs to be added as to how the liability could potentially apply to a business rather than the individual.

At the end of the day, a person who misuses a wearable device or tampers with its features should be the one held responsible for those actions, not the business that created the product.

But based on our conversations with the author's office, based on our conversations with the committee, we're optimistic about being able to resolve that that concern with a narrow clarification, and look forward to continuing those conversations. So appreciate your time. Thank you.

Well, thank you. That sounds like very promising news. But before we get there, I will take Me Too's. If you also wanna be heard in opposition to the bill, come forward at this time.

We have one or two. Come on down.

Marlon Lara with the California Restaurant Association. Wanna appreciate the member and her staff for helping us work through some concerns. We've outlined those in the coalition letter for a lot of the devices that are used in the restaurant and hospitality industry. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone else hoping to register a position on the bill?

Seeing none, we'll turn it back to me.

Oh, I'm sorry. Assemblymember Nguyen with us. Yes.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Thank you so much for bringing this bill forward. I completely agree with you with these new glasses that we've seen become so popular. And when I'm in conversations with an individual, I have to look for the light when I know that they're wearing one of those devices that I wanna know if our conversation is being recorded or not. Because sometimes you wanna have a private conversation with an individual.

And the worst that can happen is that it's being recorded and suddenly it's played out there. And I'm okay with folks recording, but I wanna know ahead of time if we're having a one on one conversation or if we are, you know, just in any place. And I understand now that people have their phones and they can record at any time, but in certain situations, then it is one of those, like you had mentioned earlier, the massage parlor or getting waxed or whatnot.

Those are inappropriate areas to have them recorded unless the client has consented to it. Right?

But in some cases, they don't even know that it's happening. My question is, as opposition has stated, one of the areas in which I'm not clear on is that I do see in restaurants, they do wear the head devices when they need to let them know, you know, table six needs whatnot. It's helped instead of in the past, before we would yell it out or we'd have the walkie talkies, and and everybody would hear it.

But now they've got the devices and their headset. And you see it also in fast food restaurants.

Unfortunately, I love fast food restaurants. Right? And so every single fast food restaurant that has gone through that I've gone through wear it. And so I just wanna know if the intent of the bill is to also include them in this as well too.

It was a recent opposition, and we were happy to have that conversation with them. This is not with the intent of the bill.

That's okay.

Just as hearing aids, we heard from the Hearing Aid Association. That was not the intent of the bill. And I think it is important to hear from opposition, because we can't think of all of these areas and to see if it is, if it was part of our intent, then we let them know. But for those, that was absolutely not the intent.

We're working on that.

Thank you. Yes. I think the bill is excellent. I think it protects many of us in those situation. But I think, like you said, the intent wasn't to exclude folks with hearing aids or or whatnot.

And as this bill moves forward, there are other areas in which I think we didn't think of or you didn't think of. And so if, I could ask that you would work moving forward in exempting those devices that are used at restaurants, fast food industries, or whatnot. So that way, we can continue to have a nice meal without having everybody have their walkie talkies in here about whatever's happening in the kitchen or on the, you know, the dining room or whatnot.

I'd really appreciate that. But I think the bill is absolutely wonderful, and I'd be supporting it today with the intent of the exemption of that.

And you have my commitment, and we will continue to work with them.

Thank you so much. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you, Assemblymember. Sorry I missed you there. With that, seeing no one else present with a question. Senator, would you like to close?

I think it's a common sense bill taking care of something new that we're having to deal with. And with that, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you, Senator. I agree with your comments. Loved the discussion today, and I will recommend an aye at the appropriate time. We'll let you know the outcome.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Colleagues, next we have, I see Senator Blakespear is with us today to present, SB 99. Colleagues, this is item number one on your agenda.

Senator, whenever you're ready. You can present and any witnesses in support will have four minutes to address the committee after you speak.

Thank you, Chair.

Of course.

Okay. Good morning, Chair and colleagues. I represent Camp Pendleton in the 38 Senate District, and I'm pleased to author SB 99, which is sponsored by the US Department of Defense and the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls.

SB 99 would strengthen protections for military families by requiring courts and law enforcement to recognize and improve coordinated responses to military protective orders in cases of domestic violence. Military protective orders or MPOs are similar to civil restraining orders.

They provide protection on and off base, but presently there are gaps in coverage and understanding between civil and military authorities. Civilian courts may not understand the complexities of military legal issues, and they don't have clarity about an MPO about whether an MPO is admissible in a petition for a domestic violence restraining order.

This bill makes it clear that judges are allowed to use their discretion to consider the full context of the alleged abuse by considering an MPO involving the same parties and behavior. SB 99 also bridges the gap between military and civilian systems outside the courtroom. MPOs apply off base, but civilian law enforcement officers can't enforce them.

To illustrate the problem, here's what happened to a military spouse protected by an MPO when she moved off base to escape her abuser. The abuser started stalking her, and the spouse repeatedly called 911, but local police did not notify the military, leaving a critical gap in protection.

SB 99 closes that gap by establishing a clear process for communication between civilian law enforcement and military authorities. Under SB 99, the local police would notify the military where appropriate action could be taken to stop the continued abuse.

Finally, SB 99 allows law enforcement agencies to enter an MOU with the military, outlining roles and responsibilities regarding communication and responding to potential violations of civil restraining orders on base and MPOs off base.

SB 99 Ensures domestic violence survivors are not left unprotected simply because their abuse crosses jurisdictional lines. With me today in support, I have Kelli Douglas on behalf of the Department of Defense.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Kelli May Douglas, and I represent the Department of Defense here as a proud sponsor of SB 99. Providing some context on why this bill is so critical to the safety of our military community in California, which includes more than 238,000 military members and nearly 89,000 military spouses.

While the military has robust programs to address domestic abuse, critical protection gaps exist between military installations and civilian law enforcement in the courts. This is particularly relevant because approximately 75% of military families live off the installation.

In civilian communities where military authority is appropriately limited, leaving victims of domestic violence vulnerable to jurisdictional gaps. Military protective orders are essential for ensuring the safety of victims on base and providing military commanders with the mill, with the ability to limit contact and access to firearms, but they are not a substitute for legally recognized civilian orders.

And they cannot be enforced by civilian authorities, which is why we recommend that victims that are protected under MPO also risk seek civilian relief.

Victims, especially those new to the state, face hurdles in getting the civilian protection they need. In short, SB 99 creates a comprehensive framework for the state and the military to work together ensuring patterns of abuse are recognized by courts and that communication lines between law enforcement are clear.

This bill will empower victims, deter offenders, and increase the safety and the readiness of our military families.

Currently, 14 states, including California have an are actually currently, 14 states have enacted this initiative, and 12 states including California are currently considering it. Thank you for your consideration of this critical legislation and I stand by to answer any questions you might have.

Wonderful. Thank you for the presentation and for your testimony today. Next, we'll take the me too's. If you'd like to be heard in support of the bill, come on down.

Good morning, Chair and members. Moira Topp here on behalf of San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria in support.

Morning, Mister Chair. Ryan Sherman, Riverside Sheriff's Association and the other police officer groups in the analysis in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Veronica Badillo representing Navy Region Southwest and on behalf of the Military Services in California in support. Thank you.

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

Wonderful. Thank you all very much. Next, do we have any opposition witnesses today?

Okay. I see one.

Come on down. You know the drill. You'll have four minutes once you begin to speak.

Good morning, Chair members. George Parampathu on behalf of ACLU California Action. Despite recent amendments moving SB 99 in the right direction, we continue to have an opposed unless amended position due to fundamental due process concerns around military protective orders.

As noted by the battered women's project, the Senate public safety analysis, these and the Senate judiciary analysis, military protective orders are issued with little to no due process for the subject of the order.

The decision to impose an MPO is made by a commanding officer, not a judge.

And the decision may be made without notice to the subject and without any opportunity for the subject to present evidence against the claims underlying the MPO. I must also note that the DOD official has echoed this sentiment. In the Senate Judiciary Committee, they told the committee, quote, it is correct that there is no due process or notice required, end quote.

Further, as noted in the Senate Public Safety Committee analysis, MPOs do not satisfy the requirements under federal law to enjoy full faith or credit in our courts. And as noted in the Senate judiciary analysis, MPOs do not satisfy the requirements under state law to enjoy interjurisdictional recognition in our courts.

This is due to the lack of due process. We should not compound these concerns by telling our courts to weigh MPOs and state proceedings. Of course, it is important to take survivors seriously. But the difference between an MPO as evidence and other forms of evidence is that an MPO is a government edict. And when the government declares that you have done something wrong, we believe that due process protections must apply.

We recognize the need to continue find to find ways to address domestic violence, but we must do so in balance with due process. I'll note that we have no issue with the cross communication portion of the bill. But as currently written, we urge a no vote on SB 99. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Is there anyone else you'd like to register in opposition position?

Okay. We'll turn it back to the dais. Now it is just me again.

Senator, I just would be curious if you or your witness have any response to the testimony that we just heard from opposition.

Yeah. Well, may would you like to go first?

Sure. Yeah.

Yes. So we are completely as a representative of Department of Defense, and that was my quote, we are fully transparent about the fact that MPOs are not issued under any sort of due process standard that the state has. This is within the Department of Defense.

It is a matter of national security for commanders to have the authority to protect victims that are on base, recognizing that MPOs do not apply off base, and we are not in any way asking or insisting or in any way trying to direct that the civilian law enforcement would enforce an MPO. We understand that that is not appropriate or even the intent of an MPO.

What we want is to be able to empower judges to be able to recognize and acknowledge and be able to consider patterns of abuse that might not other be otherwise be evident on except for the presence of an MPO that has been issued. So we're just asking that the courts be authorized explicitly to consider MPOs when they are determining whether to issue a temporary restraining order or not.

We don't believe that current law forbids or exempts MPOs explicitly from evidence in a temporary restraining order proceeding, but we have heard that some judges are somewhat hesitant without that explicit authority. So that's what we are trying to accomplish.

Okay. Thank you. Oh, Senator, please.

I'll just quickly add. I mean, I think the reality is that this is being considered as possibly relevant. It's not determinative. It's not binding. It's the fact that there is a military restraining order is something that a civilian judge could consider as relevant.

So to me, you know, considering something is not is not violating due process. It's creating the entire picture so that a judge can make a decision. And then the second part of it, to have civilian law enforcement circle back to notify military, the military law enforcement, if they have a reason to believe that a person was involved in a domestic violence incident.

You know, this accounts for the reality that we have people who are moving from base to base across a career, and they don't have necessarily a long time with the civilian law enforcement in that one city. So if they move to a new state, you know, it there needs to be a fuller picture of what's happening with this family or with this incident or the person.

So I think this proposal does actually strike the right balance between, protecting due process rights, but also working within the reality of a mobile workforce that the military has. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Just wanna quickly check-in. Assemblymember Gonzales, I don't know if you have any questions, but we're on item one, SB 99. Do you have any questions before I give the Senator a chance to close?

No. Thank you.

Okay. Senator, would you like to make a brief close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Well, I will recommend an aye. I do appreciate the conversation today, and I just wanna make one point in response to the opposition. The reason I am comfortable with this bill is because it still vests the court with the discretion to make that determination. I'll be very candid.

If I were a, if I were a judicial officer, I don't know how much weight I would give an MPO for the very reasons that you just stated on the record. However, I also agree with the testimony of the witness in support. I think to arguably, to a degree, this is a a restatement of existing law. And at the end of the day, I do trust the judicial officer.

I believe that we should vest them with all relevant facts and allow them to make the determination.

So in that instance, given all those considerations, I will recommend an aye at the appropriate time. However, we'll have to wait on a committee to do all of that. So thank you very much everybody for being here.

And next, I see we have Senator Gonzales with us.

Are you ready to go, Senator?

I'm Wonderful. Okay. So colleagues, this is Senate bill 937. This is item number two on your agenda, and whenever you're ready Senator, you can begin and your witnesses or witness and support will have four minutes to address the committee after you have presented.

Good morning, Mister Chair and members member. I'm here today to present Senate bill 937, which will restrict law enforcement's use of Flashbang devices for crowd control and ban the use of Flashbangs and explosive breaching charges for immigration enforcement. According to a report by the Physicians for Human Rights, Flashbang devices are military grade explosive pyrotechnic devices meant to disperse and disorient enemy combatants. They provide a form of combustion accompanied by a blinding light and a loud bang.

Though classified as less lethal, flashbangs do cause life altering injuries to both protesters, law enforcement, and the general public.

In one case last year, a Los Angeles artist attending a protest was hit with a law enforcement deployed flashbang. The device fragmented on impact resulting in the permanent amputation of one of his fingers. Unfortunately, excessive use force, of force is a problem at all levels of law enforcement. In the last year, specifically, federal authorities have relied on egregious tactics for immigration enforcement, soaking fear and distrust in the communities that I represent.

In my district in Huntington Park, border patrol agents used a high power explosive breaching charge to blow the door and windows off a home where a mother and her two small children were directly inside.

SB 937 will protect those types of families and citizens and officers alike by adding flashbang devices to the already existing restrictions on the use of tear gas and kinetic, energy projectiles, like rubber bullets and beanbag rounds. And any officer using flashbangs will be required to undergo proper training on their use, and any deployment of the devices on Californians will need to be publicly reported within sixty days.

Nine thirty seven will also ban the use of flashbangs and explosive breaching charges for any immigration enforcement purposes. This bill does not ban law enforcement from using these devices under objectively reasonable standards or when there is an objectively dangerous and unlawful situation and does not restrict their use outside of crowd control and immigration enforcement settings. With me to testify in support is Cleo Blumenthal blue- Bluth- Bluth- Bluthenthal. I'm so sorry.

Cleo Bluthenthal from the California Community Foundation and doctor Wilma Franco

Select Collaborative, the Southeast LA Collaborative. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

from the

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. I'm Cleo Bluetenthal, and I serve as the policy officer on the California Community Foundation's policy and advocacy team. We are proud to sponsor SB 937. This bill is about a simple but urgent truth. Laws can and must be enforced safely with order and without turning our neighborhoods into war zones.

The use of Flashbang devices has already caused grave harm to residents and terrorize families and children in our neighborhoods. You'll hear some of those examples today. Human Rights Watch documented that Flashbang devices, including those that are addressed in this bill, were among the quote unquote non lethal projectiles that officers fired directly at protesters, journalists, and other observers, often at close range and often without sufficient warning or provocation. The science is unambiguous.

The visual burst from a flashbang is bright enough to cause flash blindness, and the auditory blast is loud enough to cause permanent deafness and inner ear damage.

Many single use devices have cases that fragment upon deflagration, leading to amputations such as the one that we saw in Los Angeles last summer. Devices that are covered under this bill carry an inherent risk of generating shrapnel, combining explosive, chemical, and traumatic injuries that are painful, debilitating, and extraordinarily difficult to treat. In 2011, a US SWAT officer died of internal bleeding after a stun grenade detonated in his own hand.

S B 937 would prohibit the use of these demonstrably dangerous devices for crowd control near school zones, parks, and other areas where children are visibly present, and it would ban their use in immigration enforcement unless used in compliance with the California Values Act. This is not a radical ask.

I wanna acknowledge the work that has been done on this bill and our continued engagement with law enforcement to arrive at a bill that makes meaningful progress, is implementable, and ultimately is a bare minimum of what our children and our communities deserve. We oppose the militarization of our communities, and we support policies that prioritize the safety of residents. Not because we oppose law enforcement, but because we know that more violence, injured children, and terrorized families do not make anyone safer.

We urge your yes vote on SB 937. Thank you.

Good morning. Good morning, Mister Chair and members, and thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of Senate bill 937. My name is doctor Wilma Franco, and I'm the executive director of the Southeast LA Collaborative. In the past year, our select communities have been under a constant threat of violence. The vitriol coming out of the federal administration has trickled down to local levels, fostering distress between our community and law enforcement.

Protesters in SELA exercising their first first amendment right have been repeatedly subjected to unnecessary intimidation. There have been two incidents that we're that we're aware of in SELA in the SELA reading in the in the in the in the in just in the past year. In Maywood, video footage caught an officer throwing a flash bang from a moving car in a park where children were playing while protesters were demonstrating across the street.

In Huntington Park, a mother and her children were directly endangered when border patrol blew the windows and door of her home without just cause. The children were both under the age of seven when this happened.

They should not have experienced the fear of hearing the windows shatter and the door break open of their homes. They should not have to watch a mask RS mask, our men forced their way inside. The trauma of these events are things that the children will need to deal with for the for long term. We can take back what has happened to our seller community with but with SB 937, we can take a step towards preventing it from happening again.

SB 937 places reasonable restrictions on the use of flash bangs and explosive breaching charges.

Restrictions we already have in place for the use of tear gas rubber rubber bullets and, beanbag rounds. Israel will not only well intentioned law enforcement from doing their job, but it will keep our communities safe and protect their ability to stand up for what they believe and without fear of serious harm. Thank you, and I ask for your aye vote in on SB 927.

Wonderful. Thank you for the presentation, Senator, and to both of your witnesses for being here. Next, we'll take the Me Too's in support. Come on down. Name, organization, and position, please.

George Bramthieu on behalf of ACLU California Action, Legal Women Motors, and Oakland Privacy. Thank you. In support.

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

Anala Newton with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support.

Hean Nyguen with legal services for prisoners with children in support.

Ed Little on behalf of Californians for safety and justice and support.

Wonderful. Thank you all very much. Next, we'll take the opposition witnesses. I think we have two on this one. Great.

Come on down. We got two chairs. Between the two of you, you have four minutes to address the committee. Anyone can begin whatever order you like.

Hi. Good morning, Chair and members. Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association, opposing less amended, to the bill in print, but I wanna take time to thank the author, her staff for meeting with the continuously throughout the year even before the bill is introduced to discuss the issue, and their goals.

And I wanna say that we share, I think, a lot of the frustration having seen some of the enforcement actions that have led to the introduction of bills like this, and the stories that the witnesses just told are are damaging to the relationship between California law enforcement and our communities that we've strived so hard to build up over the last decade. There has been many amendments to the bills, and we appreciate all of them to this point.

There's, I think, one lingering issue with the standard currently in the bill for the use of flash bangs, which is actually a deadly force standard. The defendant can serious bodily injury or death is the standard for the use of lethal force. So we don't think it's, measured to use that same standard for the use of less lethal force option. We wanna continue working with the author and sponsors over the coming weeks to try and resolve this issue. We've negotiated the statute earlier, years past.

There's a standard in one of the earlier paragraphs that talks about, you know, objectively reasonable to bring a dangerous situation safely under control. We think that's a more appropriate standard in this case, but we'll continue discussions on this piece as the bill moves forward. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mister Chair and members. Corey Salzillo on behalf of California State Sheriffs Association in opposition to the bill would echo the comments, my colleague regarding, the specific language on the dueling standards, if you will, and the fact that that at the very least should be reconciled. I would also note that the the bill's definition of Flashbang grenades or devices, whatever, these devices that I think we're generally talking about emit sound and light, but generally no physical projectile or shrapnel.

At least they're not designed to do that. The sound and light emitting devices should not be inappropriately characterized in a fashion similar to devices that are actually designed to expel some other item.

And just generally speaking, we had concerns with the the the legislative scheme that brought in the restrictions on use of kinetic energy devices when it was first brought about in terms of legislative sort of guiding of what particular law enforcement tactics should be appropriate in a particular event.

And again, concerned about this in it in as much as it expands that mandate on what specific tactics can and can't be used in, you know, certain situations attempting to legislate around every single very dynamic situation becomes problematic, I think. So for those reasons, we respectfully ask for

your no vote. Thank you.

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

Good morning, Mister chairman. Chairman with California Narcotic Officers and the other groups in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning, chairman and committee. Nadia, I'm with Sherry Anne Bindrup on behalf of San Diego County Sheriff Kelly Martinez, respectfully in opposition.

Good morning, Mister Chair and members. Matthew Siverling on behalf of the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs in opposition. Thank you.

Great. Thank you all. Final call if anyone's hoping to register a position on this bill.

Good morning, Chair. Unfortunately, I missed the support, but I'm here on behalf of initiate justice and support. Thank you.

Alright. Very good. Thank you, everyone. We will turn it back to the dais now. Are there any questions or comments from members of the committee?

Okay. Yes, Mister Lackey. Sorry.

Yeah. I think the opposition clearly indicated I I believe it's the federal actions of some of our law enforcement people that have promoted this concern. And I I think we need to be mindful of the fact that the ninth circuit court ruling just recently has indicated that we cannot regulate the actions of our federal officers has to come from Congress. And I've got the court ruling, but I I don't wanna belabor that point at this juncture.

But but I will say that what we do have control over is our local law enforcement.

This will limit their ability to protect themselves. And I I know that this is not understood by a lot of people, the flashbang grenades, because they are intrusive, but there are very restricted policies that control the actions of officers in in our local agencies. I'm very aware of those, and I do I don't believe that there's any need for this particular piece of legislation because I don't think we have local examples that don't include federal officers.

So I I think that this is unnecessary, so it it won't have my support.

Okay. Thank you, Assembly member. Are there any other comments or questions? No. Senator, perhaps in your close, I I'm just wondering if you had any response to Mister Lackey.

And, actually, I apologize. We have a quorum, which is a hard thing to achieve here, so we're gonna take a pause. Madam secretary, please conduct the role.

Present.

Schultz.

Alanis. Mark Gonzales.

Here.

Haney. Harabedian, Lackey?

Here.

Nguyen?

Here.

Ramos, Sharp-Collins? Here.

Outstanding. We now have a quorum. With that, if you could close, and I if you have any response to Mister Lackey, especially the point about, impact in the community that maybe you've seen or that you're with would love to hear more about that.

I also want to share with you, Mister Chair, I've sent around this picture of my community in Huntington Park. So this is a real life example to, Assembly member Lackey's point. There are no examples. This is one example of border, patrol agents going to a home in Huntington Park where two small children were, sleeping just inside the windowsill, and her door was exploded through. These were US citizens, by the way, during an immigration enforcement action.

But, nonetheless, there are absolutely examples. And as doctor Wilma Franco mentioned as well, we had seen, videos of, and we couldn't decipher whether they were local or federal. I would assume federal agents, but throwing Flashbang grenades arbitrarily into a park in Maywood in Southeast Los Angeles where primarily Latino children play.

I think we can all agree, and I don't wanna put extra burdens on our local law enforcement, but I think we can agree that having, ensuring that there are training standards at the federal and local levels, ensuring that we also have, of course, standards when it comes to children in the presence of of children within 300 feet.

I mean, why would we have to deploy these military grade weapons in our communities when children are around unless there is a life or safety imminent threat to the law enforcement officer, which is depicted in this bill.

And so we're very clear. This also does doesn't just help the public. This helps law enforcement, in my opinion, by ensuring that they're deploying these in a way that doesn't hurt themselves either and gets them into a situation that would, injure, kill them, and or pull put the, law enforcement agency into a litigation because we've seen that back home as well.

We don't want them to get, go through litigation because of these instances, and I would hope that this would narrow that, narrow this, you know, this, option that they have and and tailor it to these specific circumstances.

Well, thank you very much, Senator. Colleagues, I will be recommending an eye. In a moment, I'll call for a motion. I I just wanted to thank the opposition witnesses. I do think that they both raised a reasonable point.

As we've talked about on a staff level, I think it's an open question worth considering whether we would want the state standard to apply for more least lethal use of force such as the use of a firearm as opposed to a less lethal but still very disruptive use of force in the term of Flashbang device.

You have indicated and I know you to be a person of your word, Senator, that you continue to work with them to find common ground, and I think this bill is trending in the right direction. So I will be recommending an eye. And can we get a motion? Thank you.

And a second.

Thank you.

Very good. We have a motion and a second. Let's conduct the roll.

For item two, SB 937 by Senator Elena Gonzalez, the motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz?

Schultz, aye. Alanis? Mark Gonzalez? Aye.

Aye.

Mark Gonzalez, aye.

Haney? Thank you. Harabedian? Lackey?

No.

Lackey? No. Nguyen? Nguyen? Aye.

Ramos? Sharp Collins? Aye. Sharp Collins, aye.

Okay. That measure remains on call. It needs one more. We'll let you know the outcome. And I see our next author is here.

Before we bring her up, however, we'll just, give her a moment. We'll dispense with a few housekeeping items. Colleagues, we need motions on the following items. We'll take them one by one, but, we have heard this morning SB99, the by Blake Spear, that's item one. We've also heard, SB1009, item five by Becker, and, we have also heard SB 1130 by Reyes, item number 10.

Can I get a motion on item one? No. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Let's conduct the roll on that one.

[Roll Call]

K. That bill is out, but we'll let others add on. Next, motion on item five, please. This is by Becker. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Let's conduct the roll.

[Roll Call]

K. That measure remains on call. Last motion, colleagues. Can I get a a motion on item 10 by Reyes? K. We have a motion and a second. Let's conduct the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. That measure remains on call. By the way, Mister Lackey, you say no in a very, like, stern way. I like it. I'm gonna borrow that. For the rare time, I vote no. It's not to be a sentence. No.

No. No. It's very good. Very good. Colleagues, one last item before we get to our Senator who has three items up today.

Let's dispose with the proposed consent calendar. I will just note that we have three items on consent today. We have item number eight, SB 1,100 by Senator Smallwood Cuevas entitled grand juries final reports. We have item number 14, Senate bill 1211 by Senator Gonzales entitled Criminal Procedure Post Conviction Investigation. I'll just note I'd like to should it pass out, be added as a co author on that one.

And we have item number 20, Senate bill 1285 by Senator Durazo, entitled Juvenile Court Procedure. Is there a motion? Thank you. Is there a second? Okay. With a motion on a second, let's conduct the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Consent calendar is adopted. Senator, thank you so much for your patience. I believe you have three items up. Did you wanna go in file order?

I'd actually like to take up SB 1022 first and then 1395 and

Okay. Sounds good.

Awesome.

Colleagues will be starting starting on item number seven. This is SB1022. Senator, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mister Chair, and good morning, members. I'm here today to present SB 1022, which had established the California Multidisciplinary Alliance Stop Trafficking. The task force is designed to strengthen the state's response to human trafficking by bringing together state agencies, local partners, service providers, and survivors to review current policies, identify gaps, and provide recommendations for coordinated survivor informed policies to prevent trafficking, support victims, and address, prosecute prosecution inequities. Human trafficking remains a complex crime in California.

Despite significant state investments, efforts to tackle the issue are often fragmented across agencies and jurisdictions.

As California looks to host major global events, as I know we've all been watching the World Cup this past week, like, we're also expecting the Olympics, as well as the Super Bowl, we know that the problem is only going to become more complicated. SB 1022 builds on existing efforts to create structure or collaboration. The task force will advance a coordinated and survivor informed approach to strengthen California's leadership in the global fight against human trafficking.

Additionally, the task force will not only look at sex trafficking, but also labor and familiar trafficking, taking on a holistic approach to address abuse. Today, to testify in support of the bill is Marjorie Saylor with the California Survivor Coalition.

Thank you. Chair Schultz and members, my name is Marjorie Saylor, and I'm the acting president of the California Survivor Coalition. I'm here today as a statewide survivor led organization dedicated to strengthening California's response to human trafficking and exploitation. Our coalition brings not only lived experience, but decades of professional experience. Our members include attorneys, victim advocates, licensed therapists, educators, researchers, first responders, founders of anti trafficking organizations, and service providers who work alongside survivors every day.

Many of us also bring lived experience across sex trafficking, labor trafficking, familial trafficking, commercial sexual exploitation, online exploitation, domestic violence, addiction, grooming, justice involvement, forced criminality, and other co occurring victimizations. We navigate these systems every day, and we know firsthand that trafficking is not a static crime. It is an adaptive and constantly evolving criminal enterprise. Some in opposition argue that California has already studied trafficking enough and may be an unnecessary cost to the state.

Respectfully, the question is not whether California studied trafficking before, it is whether trafficking has stopped changing, and the answer is no.

Traffickers continue adapting their methods, technology evolves, online recruitment continues to grow and change dramatically, sex tourism is on a new path of expansion in this state, organized criminal networks evolve, and victimization evolves. If traffickers continue adapting, California's response must adapt as well. SB 1022 is not about creating another report. It is about ensuring California's response remains informed, coordinated, accountable, and survivor centered. It helps identify service gaps, emerging trends, and opportunities to improve outcomes for victims across our state.

California maintains ongoing coordination and advisory structures for wildfires, earthquakes, public health emergencies, and domestic violence because those threats continue to evolve. Human trafficking is no different. A threat that continues to evolve requires a response that continues to evolve. I believe lawmakers should consider not only who is speaking today, but also the experiences that are that inform our perspectives. Many of the organizations opposing this bill advocate for policies that normalize or expand commercial sexual exploitation.

The survivors supporting thiS Bill have lived through the consequences of those systems. And we are asking California to learn from those experiences and not ignore them. For the survivors we've not yet identified, the children we have not yet reached, and the community is still struggling to respond, a request I respectfully ask for your aye vote on SB 1022. Thank you, everyone.

Thank you for the presentation, Senator, and thank you for your testimony today. Next, we'll take the me too's in support of the bill, and I will briefly hand the gavel over to my colleague, Assembly member Wynne.

Alright. We'll go ahead and hear from the b twos.

Hi. I'm Brock Campbell from the California Baptist Capital Ministry and on behalf of six California Baptist churches, Ridgewood Heights in Eureka, Faith in Sheridan, American Calvary in American Canyon, New Testament in Hanford, Faith in Atascadero, and Lighthouse in Santa Maria in support.

Good morning. Emily Campbell with the California Baptist Capital Ministry. On behalf of these five California Baptist churches, South Coast in Santa Barbara, Freedom's Way in Santa Clarita, Mountain Avenue in Banning, Solid Rock in Bellflower, Silicon Valley Chinese in Santa Clara in support.

Christine Campbell in support.

Anna Akimedes on behalf of Los Angeles Unified in support.

Good morning. Samantha Arruiza, appearing on behalf of Three Strands Global Foundation, in support.

Atorio Foley, survivor of human trafficking and member of Three Strands Global Foundation, survivor advisory board in strong support. Thank you.

Pastor Brandon Campbell, California Baptist for Biblical Values and pastor of the Faith Baptist Church in Sheridan in support.

Morning. Ryan Sherman with California Narcotic Officers Association and the other peace officer groups in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any others in support? Me too's in support. Seeing none. Opposition.

Do we have anybody in opposition presenting today? Thank you very much. And you both have five minutes. Four minutes.

Good morning, committee members. Sorry. Is this one on? Okay. Good morning.

My name is Elizabeth Lashley Haines. I'm representing the LA County Public Defender Union 148 in opposition of ten twenty two. I'd like to focus on one concern that's informed by my work litigating the California Racial Justice Act. For several years now, I've litigated a challenge involving racial disparities in human trafficking prosecutions.

Through that work, I've seen firsthand how trafficking enforcement raises the difficult question not only about victims, but about who is arrested, who and how they are charged, and how trafficking laws are implied in practice.

SB1022 creates a statewide task force that would make recommendations regarding trafficking policy and prosecution, yet the bill does not require the task force to examine the racial disparities in trafficking enforcement, charging practices, or sentencing outcomes. That omission is significant. California enacted the Racial Justice Act because we recognize that disparities in the criminal legal system can exist even when no individual actor intends them.

Any statewide body charged with evaluating trafficking policy should be required to examine not only how we support victims, but how trafficking laws are enforced. My concern is that task force often begin with the best of intentions, but can default towards recommendations focused on increased enforcement and punishment rather than examining whether or not the existing enforcement and strategies are effective, equitable, and supported by evidence.

Research cited by this committee analysis itself raises concerns that anti trafficking enforcement can often result in trafficking victims being arrested, can conflate trafficking with consensual sex work, and may fail to identify the people that they are intended to help. If the legislator does create a statewide body to guide trafficking policy, racial equity, enforcement outcomes, and the unintended consequences of prosecutions should be part of that conversation from the outset.

At the very least, this task force should include more people from the defense bar and experts on racial disparities in human trafficking prosecution. For that reason, we urge a nay vote by this committee.

Thank you. My name is Maxine Dugan. I'm a currently working prostitute of thirty plus years, and I pretty much plan on working as a prostitute for another thirty plus more. My group is the erotic service providers legal education and research project in San Francisco. We oppose this bill because it does not address forced labor in the sex trade.

It won't stop forced labor in the sex trade, and it won't stop the sex trade. We oppose putting police in charge of our commerce to subject us to the violence of arrest under the guise of rescuing us and renaming us as sex trafficking victims.

The sex worker nation in California, as well as throughout The United States, provide a social safety net for our community by funding it through our own individual acts of prostitution without subjecting anyone to the trauma of being defrauded in a prostitution sting operation and subjected subjecting anyone to the violence of arrest. Our own, your own committee analysis says that the literature review and the public records request found that law enforcement operations identify few sex trafficking victims.

We oppose SB1022 because it's an extension of the xenophobic white supremacy that is the anti prostitution laws.

This Senate Bill 1022 is completely unnecessary. It's a waste of time and fine, public, safety dollars. If you want to address forced labor in our industry, please treat us with respect and come talk to us about what we're doing and what we're seeing, and consider expanding the social safety net that do not include police.

Ten seconds.

And finally, consider repealing the anti prostitution laws so that we can take our rightful place in place in society and enjoy the sunlight, which would be a new public treasure. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony. Next, we'll hear from others in opposition to this bill. If you're in opposition to the bill, please come forward at this time. Okay.

We'll turn it back to the committee. Are there any questions or comments from members of the committee? Doctor Sharp Collins?

I just wanted to see if the author can come back and, and respond to the opposition in regards to their concerns. Also, particularly as it tends to look at the, the task force itself and then the, the fear of it going back to undo some some of the previous work

that was done. So if you can just respond to opposition, please.

Well, I am yeah. Thank you for that, Assemblywoman, and through the Chair. So I am happy to work with the opposition on any amendments you'd like to offer. I think the intent of this bill is to take a holistic approach. And if we are missing, especially any data collection or how this impacts minority communities, obviously, very open to hearing any suggestions that that the opposition would have.

And then also note that this is a task force. We create task force on issues, across the state to take on really important issues to track years of data to understand how to best approach an issue. Anything that would be proposed would have to go through the legislative process, So it'd still be within our legislator the legislature's purview. So I, I, I, I kinda would refute a a little bit of of the opposition's opposition on on that point.

Anything else, Doctor Sharp-Collins? Okay. The only thing I would just emphasize is I actually had a similar question. So I, I definitely appreciate your willingness to work with the, the opposition. I do see here that you're proposing to have a representative from the California Public Defenders Association.

I think that's good. I, I do think that perhaps you could consider exploring and further conversation additional gubernatorial appointments to ensure that there's more balance on the task force. I think there's some good points raised in those comments. So I'll I'll pause there, but that's the one comment I wanted to add. Does that raise any other questions or comments from other members of the committee?

Okay. Senator, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mister Chair, for working with me on this bill and and again to the opposition. The intent is for this to be a holistic approach, and if we need additional representation, happy to have those conversations. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much, Senator. I have no doubt that you'll continue to engage in those conversations. We'll all be watching as this bill continues its journey. But for today's purpose, I do recommend an Aye. And do we have a motion?

Motion. Through the second. We have a second as well. Let's conduct the roll.

[Roll call]

Okay. That bill is out, but we'll allow others to add on. Thank you everyone for being here and for your testimony today. Senator, I believe you wanted to go to item 16 next. Is that, SB1230?

Sure.

Or did you wanna do the other bill you

The other one should be easier. So let's take on SB 1395. it is, colleagues. This is item 24 on your agenda.

have on?

Thank you, Mister Chair and members of the committee. I'm here to present, Senate Bill 1395, which will allow a judge the discretion to issue a protective order of up to twenty years at the time of sentencing for a felons felony sex offense against a minor. Right now, California law only allows restraining orders that range from four to seven years in length.

This means that survivors have to return to to court over and over, reface their abuser, and relive their trauma just to maintain basic protections. That is unacceptable.

Like with every restraining order, judges must consider the facts before the court, the probability of future violations, and the safety of the victim and their family to determine the length of a protective order. We should not tie their hands by limiting what they deem is necessary for the safety of the victim.

I originally introduced this with language that would have allowed a judge the discretion to issue a lifetime injunctive injunctive order against the defendant at the time of sentencing for a serious felony, a violent felony, or a felony sex offense against a minor. The original language for this bill, Kaylee's Law, has been introduced in Congress, and I was lucky enough to speak in support of the legislation during a congressional judiciary committee on their subcommittee, hearing on the proposal.

During that hearing, it was clear that this is a bipartisan issue, and it is, nationally getting national attention, and it is deeply frustrating that we cannot make this happen in California.

California is falling behind other states and the nation when it comes to this issue. This bill, as currently written, is a step in the right direction. And today, testifying in support of the bill is Catherine Squire from the California Commission on the Status of the Women of of Women and Girls and a cosponsor of the legislation.

Good morning, Mister Chair and committee members. I'm Catherine Squire, legislative analyst with the Commission on the Status of Women and Girls, and I wanna thank the committee for the opportunity to speak as a proud co sponsor of SB 1395. As we know, women who make up half our population continue to face gender based and sexual violence at disproportionately higher rates. A report by the National Sexual Violence Resource Center found that one in five women in The US experience sexual violence in their lifetime.

And one in and one in three of these women are between the ages of 11 and 17 when they first experience it.

It can take tremendous courage and strength for survivors at this age as well as any age to come forward and face their abusers in court. And as further studies show, this can lead to additional trauma, emotional stress, and mental health impacts. It's unimaginable to consider what the longer term impacts are of having to repeatedly appear in court to readjustify their pain, ask for basic protection, and the strain this puts on their ability to heal and move forward.

And yet survivors like Kaylee have been forced to do just that in order to ensure her basic right to feel safe. While we look forward to continuing these conversations about further reducing the burden on survivors spending any extended time going back to court, SB 1395 is an important step in the right direction.

The bill will importantly grant judges the additional discretion to issue protective orders valid for up to twenty years, expanding existing law and restraining defendants from any contact from that victim if the defendant has been convicted of the registerable sex offense involving the person as a minor. This bill importantly gives judges that additional room to consider, not require on a case by case basis if that prolonged extension is warranted, putting their well-being first and reducing the time survivors spend in court.

For these reasons, the commission is proud to be cosponsoring SB 1395 and respectfully asks for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you again, Senator, and thank you very much for your testimony today, ma'am. Next, we'll hear from those also in support. Come on down.

Libby Sanchez on behalf of the chief probation officers of California in support. Thank you.

Matthew Gallagher on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in strong support.

Chair members, Max Perrin, behalf of the California Police Chief Association also in support.

Brock Campbell on behalf of six California Baptist churches, a Ridgewood Heights in Eureka, Faith in Sheridan, Calvary in American Canyon, New Testament in Hanford, Faith in Atascaro, and Lighthouse in Santa Maria in support.

Emily Campbell with the California Baptist Capital Ministry. On behalf of these five Baptist churches, South Coast in Santa Barbara, Freedom's Way in Santa Clarita, Mountain Avenue in Banning, Solid Rock in Bellflower, and Silicon Valley in Chinese in Santa Clara in support.

Christine Campbell in support.

Pastor Brandon Campbell, California Baptist for Biblical Values in support.

Alright. Thank you all very much. Final call, if anyone else wants to be heard in support. Okay. Now we'll take the opposition witnesses. Come on down.

Perfect. And you know the drill, but between the two of you, you'll have four minutes to address the committee.

Good morning. Leslie Caldwell, Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in opposition to SB 1395. While thiS Bill is more tailored than last session's SB 421, it is still unnecessary and imposes potentially decades of a restraining order. The law already provides for a ten year protective order preventing a defendant from having any contact with the victim of a registerable sex offense.

SB 1395 would allow for anyone convicted of a registerable sex offense including, by our reading, some misdemeanor conduct with a minor victim.

For example, an 18 year old convicted of a misdemeanor oral copulation, and that is a possibility, with their 17 year old boyfriend or girlfriend would be subject to a twenty year protective order. Being sub subject to such a protective order has many collateral consequences. It prevents a person from possessing a firearm or to or requires them to relinquish any firearms they own. What if they live on a ranch? What if they're in a hunting family?

Because possessing a firearm is construed as having access to a firearm, the protective order effectively prevents the person from living with a parent, spouse, or adult child who owns a firearm. The twenty year protective order could also prevent our 18 year old from joining the military, becoming a law enforcement officer, working in security, or myriad other professions that have a background check until he's 38 years old.

If our 18 year old wanted to purchase a firearm or perhaps join the military or law enforcement, they would have to track down the victim, get that victim to go back to court to have the protective order lifted as that is the only way to get it done. If the victim moved long ago, lives far away, or doesn't have time to wait in a busy courtroom to ask for relief, it would likely never happen.

The current ten year restraining order is more than adequate to protect protect the victims.

And for these reasons, CBDA requests your no vote.

Thank you. Two minutes.

Good morning, Elizabeth Lashley Haines, LA County Public Defenders Union in opposition of thirteen ninety five. Adding to what my colleague has identified as problematic with this bill, it expands protective orders from 10 to 20 doubling without any evidence that the current system is inadequate. I'd like to focus on three main concerns. First, the bill doesn't demonstrate that the current ten year framework is inadequate. Before doubling the duration of these orders, the legislature should ask a basic basic question.

What evidence shows that victims are currently being left unprotected under the existing law? When the ten year order expires, there's no showing made in the record. Second, thirteen ninety five is premised on the assumption that courts do not already have sufficient authority to protect victims over time. Under existing law, judges already have broad authority to issue criminal protective orders, tailor them to the facts of the case, and extend them if an ongoing risk is shown.

If a victim faces continuing danger, courts already have the tools to provide meaningful and lasting protection.

The question is not whether that exort authority exists. It does. Third, thirteen ninety five shifts the framework away from individualized judicial decision making towards a more fixed legislative presumption. It assumes that a person convicted of a registrable offense involving a minor, even misdemeanors, may be subject to this twenty year restriction regardless of the facts of the offense, the age of the parties, rehabilitation, compliance with court orders, or whether or not any there's been any evidence of continuing risk.

California spent years moving towards individualized assessment in criminal justice.

We recognize that the people present have different levels of risk. The circumstances change over time and that judges are in the best position to evaluate those differences based on current information. We move in the opposite direction with this bill by substituting a broad rule rather than a case by case determination. Victim safety is critically important.

But before extending the duration of these orders, the legislature should require evidence that the existing ten year framework is insufficient and preserve the role of judges in the judicial individualized determination based on the facts before them.

For these reasons, we respectfully request a nay vote.

Thank you both very much for your testimony. Next, we'll take the Me Too's in opposition to the bill. Please come forward at this time.

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

It's Emilia Rogers on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in respectful opposition.

Alright. Thank you both very much. Now we'll turn it back to the dais. Are there questions or comments? Yes.

Mister Lackey.

Yeah. I just excuse me. I want to thank the author for taking some amendments that were sent to her from our public safety consultant. I think it very much strengthened the bill, and we appreciate you working with us.

Thank you, Assembly member. Any other come comments or questions from members of the committee? Okay. Senator, would you like to close?

I just wanna thank, both the Chair and the committee, for working with me on this bill. Just, again, to reiterate, this allows and gives a judge discretion. So if we believe in our justice system, we're just empowering judges to make decisions on sentencing than these protective orders. When they're evaluating how they're evaluating the crime, and it only applies to sentencing for a felony sex offense against a minor.

And I think that what is evident and what is tragic is a seven year old that, you know, is is is raped or sexually assaulted having to come before face their abuser yet again when they're not even a an adult.

And so this is very narrow. I wanna thank you again for, your support of the bill and respectfully ask, an aye vote.

Well, thank you very much, Senator. Colleagues, I am recommending an Aye. I appreciate the, comments from the opposition witnesses. I just wanna emphasize three points. First of all, as the Senator correctly noted, this is limited to offenses convictions for sexual offenses involving a minor victim that requires sex offender registration.

So this is not applicable to all potential crimes that could be committed, but a more narrow subset. Number two, it does retain judicial discretion, which is why I'm comfortable with this bill. I'm a big believer retain judicial discretion, which is why I'm comfortable with this bill. I'm a big believer that the person wearing the black robe should make the call. And lastly, while I do fully understand the concerns raised by the opposition about the impact of potentially opening this up to twenty years.

I do wanna emphasize it is up to twenty years. The court certainly retains discretion to put in place the protective order for a period of time less than twenty years. I know this bill has a longer path to go. I wish you the best of luck, Senator, but I do recommend an eye. Is there a motion?

So moved.

Is there a second? Yes. Okay. With a motion and a second, let's conduct the roll.

For item 24, SB 1395 by Senator Balaguerre. The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz?

Aye.

Schultz, aye. Alanis Gonzalez? Gonzales, aye. Haney, Harabedian, Lackey?

Aye.

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

Okay. That bill remains on call. We'll let you know the outcome as we get more members. Thank you, everybody. And, Senator, I believe you have one more item up today.

This is item number 16, Senate Bill 1230. Are you ready to go forward?

I am ready. You guys are excited to be dealing with me for so many bills today, aren't you?

Oh, you're a frequent flyer. We like that. Alright. Whenever you're ready, Senator.

Let's go.

I wanna start off by thanking the, the Chair and members on the committee. I know I've had several conversations about this bill. I know a lot of members also are experiencing, frankly, not, not just the nuisance, but the safety hazard that is illegal dumping in, in their communities. I will be taking the chair's amendments, and I am gonna say with trepidation, the amendment that is addressing the stacking of violations, I'm gonna let the Chair know that I'm taking the amendment, but I am gonna be working on it additionally to make sure that we get it right.

It was not the intent of my bill to change existing law and other parts of the code, so,o I just wanna note that for the record.

Noted, and thank you.

Illegal dumping is not happening in Beverly Hills. It's not piling up in Brentwood. It's happening in communities that don't have the resources, the political clout, or the access to fight back. In places like my community, the Antelope Valley, Lake Los Angeles, Phelan, Pinion Hills, families are living next to what essentially is open landfills. Not by choice, but because bad actors know that there is no real consequence.

And this isn't just about how it looks, this is about public safety and the quality of life. Illegal dumping contaminates soil and groundwater, attracts vermin, increases wildfire risk, and every time it happens, taxpayers are stuck footing the bill. What's also the—a problem—is that our enforcement tools haven't kept up. The fines meant to deter this behavior haven't been meaningfully—meaningfully updated since 2004, over 20 years ago.

While we took a step in 2022 to increase maximum penalties for large-scale violators, the minimum fines on noncommercial penalties were left untouched.

Those are penalties most often applied in the communities getting hit the hardest. And today, those fines are still far below the actual cost of cleanup. For repeat offenders, that's not a deterrent; t's just the cost of doing business. In my district alone, residents have documented more than 100 unauthorized dump sites across the Antelope Valley from Lake Los Angeles to the Antelope Valley Poppy Reserves.

Some stretch hundreds of acres and go dozens of feet deep. And just recently, a sheriff within our district responding to an illegal dumping incident discovered an abandoned coffin that had been dumped in the desert. Fortunately, it was empty, but it underscores the reality that there are virtually no limits to what people are willing to discard when they believe there are no meaningful consequences.

We've seen over 70 trash-related fires responded to by LA County Fire in just the past couple of years, costing taxpayers in my community over $1,600,000. In 2024, the Apollo Fire, sparked by illegal dump material, burned 800 acres, destroyed a home, and killed several dogs.

I've talked to residents who have had to stay inside their homes because the smoke and the smell of these—from these sites—made it unsafe to go outside. SB 1230 is a targeted fix. It increases fines for second and subsequent violations only. We are not touching first time offenders, and it creates a centralized resource through CalRecycle for local governments to have the tools they need to actually enforce the law to clean this up.

Here to testify in support is John Kennedy from Rural County Representatives of California.

Good good morning. John Kennedy with RCRC here, representing 40 of the state's 58 counties. We're here today to strongly support SB 1230 regarding illegal dumping. Illegal dumping is a serious and pervasive problem in our communities, rural and urban alike. The committee analysis does a really good job pointing out the extent and expense of the problem in our communities—this problem even more acute in rural areas.

And the committee analysis also points out it's far cheaper to break the law and dump it at legal sites than it is to take trash to a landfill where we have environmental safeguards and management protocols in place to deal with the hazards and the pollution that may be in the waste. As the author mentioned, SB 1230 takes a restrained approach to adjust penalties for trashing our communities. It increases penalties for repeat offenses, not the first offense.

It's very difficult to bring an action for a first offense in the first place, one, to catch someone, and two, to bring an action against them.

The bill merely adjust penalties if we happen to catch someone a second time and bring an action against them a second time. The opposition cited in the analysis points out a range of alternatives to prevent illegal dumping. We're doing them all. We've adopted many statewide EPR programs for things from mattresses to paint to batteries. Locals are regularly updating our franchise agreements to add bulky waste pickup opportunities, but those are long term contracts.

We host free drop off events, we fund and do local community cleanup and litter abatement projects, and we're constantly apply—applying—for oversubscribed cleanup grants from CalRecycle. As I mentioned, illegal dumping is a serious and pervasive problem in our communities. I'd like to, to invite the committee to, to work with us to continue finding tools for locals to address illegal dumping. We do support the bill with the amends adopted by the committee today.

I think we do recognize that they leave existing penalties in place for individuals who are dumping illegally. Those penalties were established in 2,004 and are still in need of adjustment. The committee analysis does raise some important concerns about add-on state fees to all of these penalties that are shocking. And so, hope that there's an opportunity to work with the committee in the future to reconcile those and figure out how we can address those individual actions. With that, happy to support the bill today.

Well, thank you very much, Senator. And I'll just briefly note that I appreciate you taking the committee amendments. You have our commitment, as I've discussed, to continue working with you to massage the language to the extent possible, provided that it stays within the spirit of today's amendment, and as I've discussed with you, a similar bill that passed through our committee, AB 2310. But with that in mind, I understand there'll be more work on this issue, and we look forward to doing that with you.

And thank you very much, sir, for your testimony as well. I would just note that the interim is a wonderful opportunity for us to all maybe visit some of those issues that we analyze in the analysis. So, thank you both. Next, we'll take the "me toos." If you'd like to be heard in support of this bill, please come forward at this time.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Dylan Hoffman, on behalf of the Solid Waste Association of North America's Legislative Task Force, in support.

Chair and members, Jael Dentas, on behalf of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, in support.

Okay. Thank you. Final call if anyone wants to be heard in support. Okay. Do we have any opposition witnesses?

We have two. Great. Alright. We have two chairs right here. Come on down.

And between the two of you, you have four minutes to address the committee.

Good morning, Chair and committee members. My name is Hie Yien. I'm a Policy and Campaigns Manager with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and All of Us or None, both organizational members of Debt Free Justice California. We respectfully oppose SB 1230 unless amended.

We share the goal of a cleaner, safer roadways and reducing illegal dumping, however, dramatically increasing fines and penalties, it's unlikely to solve the problem and could cause serious economic harm to vulnerable individuals and small businesses. We have three core concerns. First, research consistently shows that higher fines do little to deter unlawful behavior. In 2024, a study on a legal waste disposal found that excessive penalties can actually be crime-encouraging.

Under this bill, for example, someone who leaves a business vehicle roadside or has two prior convictions can face up to $15,000 per day. If that vehicle contains a used spare tire, the penalty could raise to $30,000 per day unless it's removed. Those penalties are excessive and disproportionate and fail to provide clear definitions around commercial use for small businesses that employ mixed personal and commercial equipment. Second, proven prevention strategies already exist.

Programs such as Contra Costa County's illegal dumping prevention plan uses free disposal recycling services, pickup programs, and product take-back requirements.

These incentive based approaches have demonstrated success in reducing illegal dumping. Finally, we believe modest amendments could reduce unintended harms. We urge the committee to remove individual liability so that commercial—so that commercial entities, not individuals, are responsible for commercial dumping violations and to consider alternatives to fines for qualifying small businesses. We encourage the committee to prioritize prevention over punishment and respectfully ask for your opposition unless amended.

Good morning. Good morning, Chair and members. George Parampathu, speaking on behalf of ACLU California Action. We are opposed to SB 1230 unless it is amended to remove—remove increases in fines for individuals. For—we understand the legislature's desire to address illegal dumping, but increased fines do not deter behavior or backfill city budgets.

For example, take Oakland, which offers some of the worst illegal dumping issues in the state. From 2021 to 2024, the city issued nearly 3,000 fines for illegal dumping but only collected 11% of those fines. The same story repeated last year, when Oakland issued citations totaling around $230,000, but only collected about $20,000. Given the cost to chase down these fines, the city likely lost revenue attempting to address illegal dumping through fines. The legislature should not set every other local budget down this course.

Moreover, while not the intention of the author, the bill likely will lead to increased fines for those experiencing homelessness. And with current law allowing for each day to count as a separate violation, the fines quickly stack up. As noted in the Senate Public Safety analysis, simply leaving a sleeping bag on a sidewalk for three days would lead to nearly $31,000 in fines.

Of course, there would be no way for that person to ever pay those fines, leaving them deeper in poverty and less likely to ever find stable housing. We can avoid all these issues and solve this problem by enacting any of the 22 preventative measures that Contra Costa County has begun implementing, including launching free disposal days, offering more opportunities for bulk waste pickups, creating options for safe disposal of broken down vehicles, and making sure that the public is actually aware of these options.

As the supporters mentioned, some local governments are implementing these options, and the legislature should invest in helping those communities. Because SB 1230 does not take this preventative approach as currently written, we urge a "no" vote. Thank you.

Thank you both for your testimony. Next, we'll hear the "Me Toos" in opposition to the bill. If you'd like to be heard in opposition, come forward at this time, please.

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

Keely O'Brien, with the Western Center on Law and Poverty and proud member of the Debt Free Justice Coalition, in opposition.

Okay. Thank you all very much for your testimony today in our state's capitol. Now I'll turn it back to the committee. Questions or comments? Assemblymember Lackey will start.

Yeah. First of all, let me just say that few people can really understand how disgusting and how prevalent this problem really is. All you people that are opposing this measure, I wish I could take you on a tour and have you actually see it and know how preventable this problem is. These are business people. These are local people who actually have no care for the consequences of their actions.

None. They freely dump because we have a lot of open space. And I think in most, most cases, they do it in a time when it's a period of darkness, and there's very, very little traffic, and it's, it's really unenforceable unless we're able to determine who is actually dumping. And there have been cases where we can actually—been able to follow-up.

And because of the money saved, especially by the toxic dump, the amount of money it costs to do it in a legal way is very prohibitive. And so, there's a very strong incentive to go out and dump in the middle of nowhere, and it's poisoning the earth. It's poisoning the earth. And I'm telling you, a lot of people think because it's open space that it's there's really no harm that's being accomplished. They're wrong.

They're wrong, and I'm telling you that this is not a new problem. This is a problem I've fought my whole time in the legislature. This is my year 12. And I'm telling you, it's very disheartening to be rejected. And people say that, you know, there's no proven disincentive for dumping by increasing penalties.

Those penalties to clean these areas once they come to our attention is also very costly. Very costly and usually to local governments, and they are struggling. And so, it's very, very sad that this is so controversial to actually move forward. And it, the rejection, we're gonna keep coming back because it's not right. It's just not right.

And I, I think if people really understood the gratitude and the degree of disgusting, that you would be on our side. So, I thank you for bringing this forward, and I hope to hell it has a chance to survive.

Thank you very much. Assemblymember Gonzalez.

I wanna thank the Chair for, for our discussions on this issue. I wanna thank the author for bringing this up. I represent Downtown Los Angeles surrounding communities, specifically Boyle Heights, Koreatown. We've all heard it. But I mentioned that just because Meyer is the epicenter of abandoned furniture, construction debris.

Citywide in 2024, there was a 20% increase in complaints, which would—which is about a 114,000 illegal dumping service requests that we received. Through May 2026 from 2021, there's 1,000,000 illegal dumping requests alone through the 311. And so, this is, this is something that's extremely important for me personally because we represent the 5th Port—I represent the 5th Port District in the state, and many folks coming from other parts of the county respectfully dump it off.

Boyle Heights alone is, is—been in the news lately, but it's surrounded by five freeways.

And in addition to the environmental impacts it does have, folks dump their furniture there and expect Caltrans to pick it up and then expect the city to pick it up. And so, it becomes this game between both the city and the state, which we do have to do a better job, which I do agree with you on those pieces of that, but we have to do something now. And they, they choose to come to our area to do that and expect it disappear.

And, ironically, in front of my own apartment building, there's tons of illegal dumping that happens, and then individuals would go by, toss a cigarette or something to that effect, and then it catches fire. And my apartment building actually caught fire as a result of illegal dumping.

And so, this is a constant issue that happens, all and around my neighborhood. So, I just wanna thank the author again for working with the Chair and the committee to make this a bill that we can keep going and to echo Mr. Lackey's words that we hope this bill survives as well. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you both very much. Any further questions or comments from the committee? Okay. Senator, would you like to close?

Just respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Alright. Well, thank you very much, Senator, and I'll be brief. I am recommending an aye, as amended. Appreciate our conversations thus far, and just wanna emphasize that I do hear the points raised by the opposition both in your testimony today and in your letters.

And certainly, if we're talking about individuals, like, there are some points that were raised in the letters that I do think are very fair and spot on. But with the committee amendments, we are talking about repeat offenders, commercial. These are largely for-profit businesses that are intentionally looking the other way and breaking the law. I think that what has been left in this bill that the Senator is now carrying is more than reasonable, so, I do recommend an "aye.".

And if we can get a motion, we'll be ready. Great. And a second? Great. Let's conduct the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. That bill remains on call. We'll let you know the outcome, and I'll see you Monday in Natural Resources, Senator. Alright. Quick programming note before we take up Senator Jones, who will be next.

If I read out your name, you are a Senate author. You have signed in, and you are next. You are on deck after Senator Jones, in this order. We need Senator Durazo, Senator Weiner, and Senator Menjivar, and Senator Strickland. If you get down here, we might be able to take you all before the lunch break.

So, please come to Room 126. Senator Jones, Jones, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mister Chair and members. It's an honor to be here with you in the Assembly today. I'll be presenting SB 1307, which helps victims clear fraudulent or forged real estate documents when a criminal case is resolved through diversion. I'd like to begin by thanking the committee staff and the public defenders association for their engagement on this bill. Under current law, a court may only void a false or forged instrument when a criminal case ends in a conviction or plea.

However, in cases where a defendant is granted diversion, there may never be a conviction or a plea even when all parties agree that the document should be removed from the public record. As a result, victims can be left with fraudulent documents clouding their title and may be forced to pursue costly civil litigation to clear ownership records. SB 1307 provides a narrow solution by allowing a defendant who is granted diversion to stipulate to avoiding of a false or forged instrument.

The bill would allow the court upon motion by the prosecution to issue an order void in the document when the parties agree that the document should be removed from the public record. Joining me today is dip deputy district attorney John Dunn with the San Diego County District Attorney's Office and Riverside County Deputy District Attorney, Marvin Advanto, to testify in support of the bill.

Thank you. We'll each have two minutes to present.

Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Assembly members. Thank you for consideration of of the bill as amended. As considered and noted, my name is John Dunn.

I'm a DA down in San Diego Real Estate Fraud Unit. And we appreciate you offering the bill, and we appreciate working with the Public Defender's Association to find language we could all live with. This bill fills an unintentional gap left by some diversion statutes where no conviction happens. This allows our victims to be made whole, an avenue to void the deeds, while also maintaining and respecting the defendant's due process rights. For that reason, we ask for an aye vote and appreciate your support.

Good morning, members of the committee. Thank you for your consideration of this bill, and thank you, Senator Jones, for sponsoring SB 137. I'm deputy district attorney Marvin Aviento with the Riverside County District Attorney's Office. As a fifteen year real estate civil litigator prior to becoming a prosecutor, I can tell you that quiet title actions, the civil remedy for avoiding fraudulent deeds can be lengthy and expensive.

It can take between two to four years to obtain a judgment and cost between 5,000 to over a $100,000 in attorney's fees.

These types of lawsuits do require an experienced attorney to navigate the process. It's not something that homeowners should do by themselves. The problem, however, is that most people do not have this kind of money, and attorneys will not take this on a contingency basis because homeowners are just seeking a clear title, not get any money. Moreover, because victims ostensibly own the property, homeowners are oftentimes disqualified pro from pro bono legal services. These victims are left in an unimaginable bind.

A stipulation to avoid the fraudulent deed provides a speedier remedy, and in many instances, it will provide them with complete relief from the consequences of the criminal conduct. Passage of this amendment will go a long way to providing victim homeowners with some measure of relief without continued years of suffering or needless expenses incurred to seeking the clear title. With that, I respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any members of the public who'd like to express support of this bill? Please step up. Name and your organization.

Matthew Gallagher on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in strong support.

K. Anybody else in support of this bill? K. Seeing none, are there any members of the public who'd like to express opposition?

It's what?

The Caldwell Houston from the public California Public Defenders Association. We want to make it clear that we are withdrawing our opposition and thank the author for working with us so well.

Thank you so much. Is there anybody else who'd like to provide testimony in opposition to this bill? K. Seeing or hearing none, we'll take it back to the author to close.

Thank you, Mister Chair, and, thank you for members for your attention this morning. SB 137 preserves existing due process protections and does not alter the elements of any criminal offense. It's very targeted, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote this morning.

Oops. So I'm informed that was it. You've got rid of all the opposition.

What would you like us to start over?

No. No. I mean, I Senator Jones, I'm impressed. Maybe you can do this more often. You can make my job.

Following me, and I'm between them and presenting, so I wanna do my best to be efficient.

I'm just buying time because we need more senators here. If you

have any good jokes, they can tell. I'm kidding. You certainly have my eye recommendation. I appreciate your work on this, and godspeed as you continue navigating the Assembly. So it's an eye record.

Do we have a motion? We don't. Is there a motion? Okay. So doctor Sharp Collins is gracefully making the motion.

I will do what I rarely do in second a motion. So we have a motion in a second. Let's conduct the roll.

For item 21, SB 1307 by Senator Jones, the motion is do passed. Schultz?

Aye.

Schultz, aye. Alanis, Gonzalez, Haney, Harabedian, Lackey, Wen, Ramos, Sharp Collins. Sharp Collins, either.

Okay. That measure remains on call. Let you know the outcome. Thanks, everybody. Thank you.

Sorry I missed the briefest presentation in history of this committee. Well done. Okay. As a call out, if you work for Senator Durazo, Weiner, Menjivar, or Strickland, please let them know we have hot coffee waiting for them here, and we're ready for them to present. If you can't make it, I'm happy to present on your behalf.

Please send your file here. I wanna get out of here. I know we all do. If you are not one of those senators and you have an item on calendar today, for example, Senator Stern, please come and sign in so we can get you out of here as well. And lastly, if you're a member of the committee and you have not yet appeared in today's hearing, Mister Haney, please do come on down.

We will stand by until we have an author ready.

We will stand by until we have an author ready.

Alright. I see that, riding in to save the day is Senator Caballero. So thank you so much, Senator. Are you ready to go?

I am.

You are the best. I know I could count on you.

Colleagues, this is item number 11. This is Senate Bill 1173. Senator, once you finish presenting your witnesses and support, we'll have four minutes to address the committee, as will opposing witnesses, and you can begin whenever you're ready.