Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

Are we on TV? Yeah. I'd like to call this meeting of the Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety to order. We do not yet have a quorum, but we will begin our hearing as a subcommittee to begin bill presentations. And at the request of the Chair of the Assembly Public Safety Committee, I've agreed to take up, his bills, file item six, and file item seven first, in our hearing agenda.

So we'll now proceed to file item six AB 1546 by Assemblymember Schultz. And good morning.

Shall we?

Alright. Well, thank you very much, Mister Chair and senators. I am pleased to present Assembly Bill 1546 this morning, which strengthens accountability and restrictions for repeat DUI offenders with the aim of deterring future drinking and driving incidents.

We all know that California has a problem. The state has seen an over 50% increase in alcohol related roadway deaths over the course of the past decade.

An increase more than twice as steep as the rest of the country. With over thirteen hundred deaths annually due to drunk driving incidents. Now under current law, a third DUI conviction within ten years may only be charged as a misdemeanor with some exceptions accounted for by the law, such as if you were to seriously injure someone. Reporting from DMV has found that nearly forty percent of drivers with at least three prior DUI offenses who were arrested in 2005 continue to receive subsequent DUI convictions.

AB 1546 aims to achieve to remedy a serious problem in the state in the following manner.

It would strengthen the law and bring it more in line with other states by number one, providing prosecutors with the option of prosecuting a third DUI offense within ten years as a wobbler, meaning it could be charged as a misdemeanor or as a felony, something not currently allowed by law.

And number two, requiring a fifth DUI offense within ten years to be prosecuted as a felony. Number three, the bill would also increase the required ignition interlock device or IID for short installation car breathalyzer that prevents a vehicle from starting if alcohol is detected, and the bill would increase that from three to four years for those convicted of five or more DUIs in a ten year period.

And lastly, the bill would increase the license revocation period from four to five years for those convicted of five or more DUIs in a ten year period.

In closing, Mister Chair, we are losing far too many lives on our roads to drunk driving, and we are crossing attempting to cross in the in the vehicle that is a B1546. The partisan divide and trying to identify solutions to make our community safer. With that, I respectfully ask your aye vote.

And with me to testify in support of the bill today is Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association.

Thank you very much. Before we go to Mister Feldman, just to summarize, our public testimony, procedure for today's hearing. Each author has identified up to two principal witnesses in support of the bill, and they will each have two minutes to address the committee on the bill.

Then we will invite anyone else who'd like to add me to testimony, meaning state your name, organization, and position on the bill. Your testimony is limited only to stating your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Then we'll take two opposition witnesses, then invite any opposition speakers to come forward. With that, Mister Feldman.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association. I wanna start by saying I sincerely appreciate the body of legislation working through both houses on the DUI reform this year. I worked on DUI issues for ten years that I've been with the police chiefs, and to see such a concerted effort after having met so many family members who've lost loved ones to DUI accidents, especially due to repeat offenders is, it's it's really moving and encouraging.

I won't get into too much, of what the Chair the other Chair has already outlined in the bill in terms of the policy, but I will say increased penalties are not just there, you know, for punishment's sake. They're there to ensure that the repeat offenders who have made a series of bad decisions are actually held accountable in a way that gives them an opportunity to be rehabilitated.

You know, if the shorter sentences, if the repeat offenses in the the short time that they're doing doesn't actually get them to change their behavior, we clearly need higher levels of intervention. And we've all done a lot of work over the last ten years to increase, rehabilitated programs in our jails, in our prisons, milestone credits that they can earn through achievements.

So this is an effort to actually try and help somebody who's clearly in need of help in making better decisions, protecting our roads. And for those reasons, we're in strong support. Ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Mister Chair, any other principal witness in support?

That's it for this morning, Mister Chair.

I invite anyone else who'd like to express your support for AB 1546. If you can please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Mister Chair, my member is Randy Perry on behalf of PORAC in support.

Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 1546?

On behalf of the League of California Cities in support. Thank you.

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

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

Good morning. Rhonda Campbell with Mothers Against Drunk Driving. I'm here in strong support.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 1546?

Seeing no one else approached the microphone, we'll now take up to two principal opposition witnesses to AB 1546. Are there any opposition witnesses present?

If you can please sit up here.

Hello, everyone. Good morning. My name is Esther Mendez. I'm a deputy public defender in LA County and also a member of Local 148, and we oppose this bill. So this bill is making the law more strict for the people that we represent.

I represent people that are indigent, usually the most vulnerable, neglected people in LA County that struggle with serious mental health issues and lack of resources. Right now, what this bill is trying to do is that it's trying to criminalize mental health even further. Right now, what's unique about DUI charges is that there isn't a mental health diversion option that is often available for other charges.

And, I believe that that's something that should not keep getting ignored by the people in enacting the laws. And the reason for that is because there's a direct correlation between the behavior and people that commit DUIs more than once.

In the DSM five, there is a recognized disorder called substance use disorder, and it's still kind of astonishing that we don't have a mental health diversion option, for these charges. And the reason why I believe it's very important is because, when we're able to address the mental health issue that's at hand in these cases, we're able to prevent more conduct like this and we're able to provide a safer community for everyone.

What this does is just repeating the same cycle that everybody has been doing when it comes to enacting DUI laws, which is punish them more in hopes that they would change, but we already know that that hasn't been working. I do believe that, you know, the efforts being made are honorable. Right?

And I feel that the motivation should go towards actual recidivism and not just locking people away hoping that when they get out of jail that they have changed, because those kind of miracles just don't exist in jail. So one thing that I really wanna highlight is

Please wrap up your comments.

Yes. The undocumented community that would be impacted in this in this law. Justice requires foreseeable consequences for all communities and California has already recognized that the law does not impact all communities equally. The undocumented community does not have the same level of access to health care, that is required to make sure that, people don't keep offending this way.

And also, I just want, this to be highlighted that the DUI classes that people take and going to jail does not mean that they're gonna get the health services that these people need to make sure that they don't keep drinking and driving.

Thank you. Are there any other principal opposition witnesses? Now is there anyone wishing to provide me to testimony in opposition to AB 1546?

Good morning. Liz Blum Gutierrez on behalf of Debt Free Justice California in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defender's Office. Good morning. We are in respectful opposition unless amended. Thank you.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU Cal Action in strong opposition.

Good morning. Emily Harris on behalf of Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition in opposition.

Matt Sosna on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office in opposition unless amended to get rid of increases in criminal penalties. Thank you.

Is anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 1546?

Seeing no one approach the microphone, I'll bring it back to the dais for any questions or comments. Vice Chair Seyarto.

Thank you very much. I wanna thank the author for trying to tackle this issue because the drunk driving issue is is becoming more and more prevalent out there. Obviously, what we're doing isn't working and including sometimes the first time offenders. Most of the ones I know get to go to get to go to counseling. They are having their issue addressed, and if other issues are are are come to light while they're addressing the alcoholism issue, they are also can be referred to mental health services.

That doesn't mean they always get it because sometimes we make those optional. And, most people, choose not to option for that. They do the minimum and then they go back out there and then they repeat, whatever offense they've been doing. In this case, drunk drivers are a danger to public safety. They're a danger to our kids.

They're a danger to our teenagers. They're in danger for and some of them are teenagers, and we treat those differently. This is third offense. This is a third offense. If you haven't figured it out after three offenses, after and and you're doing you're drunk driving again three times, then, it is it's time, for them to you to take a time out.

And when you're in custody, whether it's for a hundred twenty days, sixteen months, two or three years, depending upon what the judge determines, that is the opportunity for you to have all of the above addressed so that you can no longer you don't no longer have to be a public safety risk. You know, that's one thing to try to treat somebody and get them out of the thing.

But when they are a public safety risk, when you have people that are getting killed walking across the street, minding their own business, because somebody is drunk or high or whatever it is, they're impaired, there is no more excuse for that. We're sick and tired of watching people die. I was sick and tired of watching people die week after week after week with nothing nothing happening to help somebody.

Sometimes incarceration is helping them. Sometimes what the what people have asked for Prop 36 is helping people break the cycle that you're talking about. So, this is something this is an approach, that we need to start taking, because what we've been doing, like I said, isn't been working. And, I think people are fed up. You know, it is heartbreaking.

It is heartbreaking to hear some of the testimony or when you know people that are being killed every day by irresponsible drinking, irresponsible driving. And, and it's high time we do something about it and stop and stop making excuses, when people are not when people are not seeking the real hope that they need and they refuse to do so. That means we have to make them do so. Otherwise, they will never get better.

So, with that, I'd be more than happy to support your bill, when we have a quorum.

Okay. Thank you. We do not yet have a quorum, so any chance that motion, when we establish a quorum, I'm gonna turn it back over to the author close.

Well, thank you very much. I just wanna make two very brief points. I do wanna thank the opposition witness for her testimony today, and I think that there were some good points made and some common ground to be found. I don't believe we're doing all that we can do in terms of a treatment focused approach, especially for first time offenders. I'm a believer that diversion is a tool that can work.

I've seen it work. And I think that to the extent we can make and should make more investments to ensure that we don't have repeat offenders in our system. I share that goal and that commitment that they held in their hearts. But I just wanna close with saying I do echo, some of the comments made by our Vice Chair and that this bill is trying to take a more narrow approach. We are looking at repeat offenders, and I agree with the opposition witness.

And so far as these are people that have an illness. They need help. I've seen it in my own family. But with that said, when you've had five DUI convictions in ten years, I don't know what else to do other than do everything in my power to take you off the roads that you're not a danger to others. And that's what this bill is trying to do.

So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote, Mister Chair and colleagues.

Very much, Assemblymember. We don't have a quorum. We'll entertain a motion when we accept your quorum. So we'll proceed now to file item seven, AB 1595.

Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm pleased to present Assembly Bill 1595 this morning, which strengthens California's criminal legal system by ensuring that courts can correct wrongful convictions while preserving appropriate judicial discretion. Over the course of the past decade, California's post-conviction statutes governing habeas corpus and motions to vacate have been amended several times, in many instances creating conflicting burdens of proof and inconsistent, often unclear standards for evaluating wrongful conviction claims.

As a result, similarly situated individuals are often treated differently depending on the court or county in which they reside. In addition, courts expend significant resources litigating procedural disputes, and credible wrongful conviction claims are often delayed or never heard at all.

Please allow me to give a brief example. Let's assume that a person convicted of a serious crime maintains their innocence, and years later, new evidence emerges, such as previously unavailable records or information contradicting key trial facts that could not have been discovered earlier. Just go with me for a moment and make that assumption.

Under current law, whether a court can meaningfully consider this new evidence may depend on which post-conviction statute applies, whether the person is still in custody, or whether procedural rules bar the claim altogether. In some cases, courts apply different legal standards to similar claims or deny review without ever reaching the merits of the claim.

The point that I'm trying to make is there is a great need to create a more consistent statewide framework to promote equal treatment and predictable outcomes across all 58 counties of California.

AB 1595 seeks to achieve this by clarifying the court's authority to order discovery after an order to show cause, allowing courts to reach the merits of otherwise procedurally barred claims when new applicable evidence emerges, requiring courts to explain decisions rejecting prosecutorial concessions on a factual or legal basis for relief, and both clarifying and streamlining access to essential services to support people upon exoneration and release.

The point that I'm trying to make, colleagues, is that this bill is important because Californians deserve judicial decisions grounded in merit and due process. I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and with me to testify, pinch hitting today, in fact, is Natasha Minsker with Smart Justice California.

Okay. I'll now turn over to Ms. Minsker.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California. AB 1595 is sponsored by the California Innocence Network, a collection of four organizations that work to free innocent people who have been wrongfully convicted. This bill is based on their years of experience. Under current law, the standards used for challenging a wrongful conviction vary based on the kind of evidence in the case. This makes no sense.

It leads to confusion. It leads to years of litigation around what procedural rules to apply. AB 1595 corrects this problem, creating a single set of procedural rules to apply in all cases. Judges retain full discretion and will be the ultimate deciders as to whether the evidence shows that a wrongful conviction has been proven. We've heard concerns that this bill will lead to relitigation of old cases.

That is not true. What leads to the relitigation of old cases is the mistakes we made. We are all human. We will always make mistakes. As hard as we try to always get it right, we will occasionally send innocent people to prison.

Imagine if it was you or your child who had been wrongfully sentenced to life in prison or even death. This bill puts the focus where it should be. Instead of spending years litigating procedures, we will focus on finding the truth. The truth is what we all need for public safety, and the truth is what victims seek. They want to know that the right person has been convicted and that no one else will be subject to the harm they faced.

We urge an aye vote on this bill as a fair process to correct the mistakes we make. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Unless there are any other principal witnesses in support, we'll now invite anyone wishing to express support for AB 1595. You can please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

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

Good morning. Glenn Backes for Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support.

Liz Blum Gutierrez on behalf of the LA County Public Defenders Union Local 148 in support.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU Cal Action in proud support.

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

Elizabeth Kim on behalf of Initiate Justice in support.

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

Good morning. Emily Harris on behalf of Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition in support.

Capri Walker with California for Safety and Justice in support.

Good morning. Grace Glazer on behalf of the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence in support.

Okay. Thank you very much. We'll now take up to two principal opposition witnesses to AB 1595.

Hi. Good morning, Chair, committee members. My name is Ivy Fitzpatrick. I'm a chief deputy district attorney in Riverside County. On behalf of the California District Attorney's Association and the Riverside County District Attorney's Office, we respectfully oppose this measure.

I've been an attorney for twenty eight years, and for much of that time, I am a dork. I specialized in habeas corpus law and post conviction matters, previously with the attorney general's office and then later with the Riverside County District Attorney's office. And it goes without saying habeas law is extraordinarily complex. It has deep historical underpinnings, jurisprudence that actually stretches back to the Magna Carta, and later enshrined in American law and then our California penal code at the time of the state's founding.

It has great importance to a free and just society.

I agree with Ms. Minsker. I'm a firm believer in the court's ability to fashion appropriate relief in habeas matters, including granting new trials and freeing the innocent. But it's important to remember, as we're considering this bill, that habeas corpus is generally a post-conviction remedy, and this bill attempts to merge pre-conviction remedies with post-conviction ones, which are vastly different for good reason.

And it attempts to use standards in other areas of jurisprudence and put them into habeas law, and that's going to actually unnecessarily impede our judiciary's ability to exercise their discretion as well. And it's unclear to me the problem that the bill is actually trying to fix.

The current habeas standards are very clear. They have a 150 of interpretive California case law. They've evolved based on our society's progress or sometimes it's lack thereof. And the courts have indeed granted new trials and free the innocent. I myself, our office has agreed to such relief including freeing the innocent under those standards.

And the new standards, while the goal is consistency, and that's a laudable goal, it's actually going to accomplish the opposite of that. It's going to upend that much established post-conviction jurisprudence, muddy the law for our courts, with really no discernible benefit to the defendants. Like I mentioned, they're getting this relief all the time in our courts. And I want to touch upon the courts lastly. The caseload of our courts, our courts are struggling at the moment.

I'm sure, this committee has heard that many times, and the California Supreme Court laid it out in the decision last week that I encourage all of you to read in in j o. There have been vast changes in the law over the last several years that have bombarded our already overburdened courts. And if this bill passes, the courts, especially our superior courts, which are very much struggling, will be the ones that are affected because they are the gatekeepers of habeas corpus.

And every defendant who already had his claims evaluated by the courts under the previous standards is going to get another bite at the apple. And really, the question I have to ask is, is the juice worth the squeeze here?

So I think

Yes. So for those reasons, I respectfully ask for a no vote. Thank you.

Please wrap up your comments.

Are there any other principal opposition witnesses seeing no one come forward? Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 1595? Seeing no one come forward, I'll bring it back to the dais for any questions or comments. Senator Caballero run Assembly bill 1595 by Assembly Schultz. Seeing no questions or comments, so I'll turn it back for the author to close.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I will be brief, but I want to sincerely appreciate the testimony again of our opposition witness. Look, as a prosecutor who tried many cases over the years, I just wanted to drive home one point. Well, first of all, two points I'll say. I appreciate the comments in CDAA's letter, which even acknowledges that trying to standardize and have one approach is a laudable goal.

I won't repeat myself, but as I outlined in my opening comments, there is a lot of discrepancy under existing statute. And trying to have one uniform approach to provide more clarity is an achievable goal, one that we should all strive for. The standard that the bill seeks to impose would require a petitioner, someone seeking habeas relief, to establish a reasonable probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.

And as someone who tried cases, and I think that any good prosecutor worth their weight in salt would probably agree, that's the thing that keeps me up at night. Could I have gotten it wrong? The standard that this bill seeks to achieve to implement is fair. It is reasonable. It is grounded in fact. I'll note that it's already embodied in penal code section one four seven three point five. It's a standard the prejudice standard that we apply in Strickland versus Washington.

It's a standard that applies in almost every ineffective assistance of counsel claim adjudicated not just in the state, but in the country. So I bring all that up to say that this bill is about procedural fairness. The justice system gets it right much more often than it gets it wrong.

But when there is a claim that someone is serving time for a crime that they did not commit, we have got to have procedural safeguards like AB 1595 to ensure that someone does not serve a day in custody longer for a crime that they did not commit than absolutely possible. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote today, and I'll just close with noting that while CDAA remains opposed, as always, my door is open.

We look forward to working with them. And to the extent that common ground can be found, we will endeavor to do just that. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. We don't yet have a quorum, so we're entering a motion when we establish quorum. And with that, I'll see you very soon.

Yes. You will. Thank you all very much.

So just a few announcements as we proceed to our next bill. First, I'd like to ask that the sergeants call absent members so we can establish a quorum and ask that all members please come to Capitol Room 112 so we can establish a quorum and conduct business. Just a few announcements. Item number 28, AB 2108 by assembler Richard Collins has been pulled and will be heard next week.

And the consent calendar consists of file item one, AB 277 by Alanis. File File item eight, AB 1615 by Nguyen. File item 12, AB 2337 by Lackey. File item 14, AB 2204 Gabriel. And file item 25, AB 191994 by Alvarez. We'll entertain a motion on the consent counter when we establish quorum.

So with that, we'd like to proceed to our next bill and file order. File item two AB 292 by Assembly member Patterson. And if there are any principal witnesses, they're welcome to join us at this time at the table.

Thank you, Mister Mister Chair and members or senators. Sorry about that. Appreciate the, opportunity this morning. I I'm here to present AB 292, which is I think this I've been a legislator now for four years, and I think this is the fourth year I've had this bill and the first time I had the opportunity to present it in the Senate. Originally, this bill started as a a bill to penalize to make felony domestic violence a violent felony.

And after many years of negotiations, we settled at the very last minute with Mister Schultz on amendments to to make, sort of create a time out, for those individuals convicted with multiple felonies of, domestic violence. And the, you know, the bill lays out actually, pretty nicely, I think, what what what kind of crime we're talking about and and multiple offenses. And it says, a person who willfully inflicts corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition.

So these are really some of the worst cases of of domestic violence. And we're just saying, hey, look, if you commit this on on multiple occasions, that there must be a mandatory, jail sentence.

And as we know, study after study shows individuals convicted of, domestic violence, unfortunately, have a a pattern of of much more, even violent crimes in that. The San Francisco Chronicle pointed out that almost every individual with a who has committed a mass shooting actually has a has a history of felony domestic violence. Of course, that doesn't mean that everybody who commits felony domestic violence is going to have a mass shooting incident, thank God.

But but what it does show is it shows a pattern that the the propensity of these individuals to commit more violent crimes is something that happens. But again, this isn't somebody who's just done it once.

It's a person who's done it multiple times, and we're just trying to create somewhat of a time out. So I have with me Corey Salzillo from the California State Sheriffs Association to testify in support of this measure.

Hey. Thank you very much. Good morning.

Morning, Mister Chair and members. Corey Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriffs Association, proud to sponsor AB 292, and the author did a fantastic job of laying out sort of the etymology of how we got here today, started three or four years ago. We ultimately still think that there is a deficiency in as much as this very serious and violent crime arguments and the discussions about why that is, or isn't the case.

And again, as the author said, there were quite a bit of negotiations and discussions, and let's find a place where we can move something forward. That recognizes, the violence that's inherent in in what we're talking about here.

And again, just to be clear, we're talking about someone, who commits an act as described by the author. And and it has to be within seven years of a qualifying prior felony conviction. So again, not someone who makes a one time mistake. Not someone who, you know, fit of rage type of thing. This is repeated behavior.

This is calculated behavior. This is someone who has already been adjudicated to the level of felony punishment to say you have you have violated the laws of the state. You have hurt somebody so badly that we are sending you away with a felony conviction, and now within seven years, you come back and do it again. We think this is a very modest change in the whole scheme of things. The author talked about where this came from and how much he worked with the Assembly committee.

And and candidly, as we are gonna hear from the opposition, we suspect I'm not sure we really under or I understand, what we're talking about. That it's that this is incomplete. You know, not every bill can solve every problem and not every bill can take every approach.

But as the analysis correctly points out, there are complimentary efforts out there, whether that's the enforcement of existing law being appropriated or considered being appropriated, to kind of create a a holistic approach to how we, in the state of California, deal with this very pernicious crime. And and I don't know how survivors of domestic violence are gonna suffer accountable for longer periods of time.

If nothing else, we're keeping them away from the people that they have abused. And so for those reasons, Mister Chair, respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll now invite anyone like to express support for AB 292 to please come forward.

Good morning, Mister Chair. Danielle Sanchez on behalf of the chief probation officers of California in support.

Thank you.

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

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

Cliff Wilson on behalf of the city and county of San Francisco in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay. Unless there's anyone else wishing to express support for a B292, we will now take up to two principal opposition witnesses to the bill.

Thank you very much. Okay. Unless there's anyone else wishing to express support for a B292, we will now take up to two principal opposition witnesses to the bill.

So we're taking two opposition witnesses, and the opposition need must have submitted a letter in the portal prior to today's hearing. You're welcome to add me too testimony when we invite others to come up and express their opposition to the bill.

But each witness will have two minutes since we would like to begin.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. I'm Grace Glaser. And on behalf of the California Partnership End Domestic Violence, we strongly oppose AB 292. The bill will have negative and long lasting consequences and will not help survivors of domestic violence or their families.

AB 292 has been framed as a way to prevent domestic violence, but it will not do so. Slightly longer prison sentences will not have any significant deterring effect and effective domestic violence prevention is not rooted in incarcerating individuals. Instead, it looks like educating people in communities about healthy relationships, the signs of abuse, consent, and providing resources when there are concerns. AB 292 also contributes to an already bloated CDCR budget and diverts state funding away from survivors.

While it's the job of the Appropriations to highlight costs of this bill, looking at the Assembly Appropriations analysis, the average annual cost to incarcerate one person in a state prison is a $136,000. Now consider applying this to every individual who'd be incarcerated for two, four or five years.

The increased expenditure required by this bill would take place at a time that domestic violence program funding remains flat. Despite the increased number of individuals reaching out for support. While programs plan for budget cuts that will result in unanswered calls for help and fewer shelter beds, this bill would instead dump valuable state resources into an already well funded prison system.

In a recent report released by the Blue Shield of California Foundation, 79% of California based survivors of domestic violence shared that having an affordable, safe place to live was the most important thing to their healing compared to the 23% that said having their partner sent to jail was important for their healing. There is a pathway forward to preventing domestic violence in California, and it requires long term sustainable investments in violence prevention, education, and supportive services, not increasing mandatory minimum sentencing.

For all the reasons outlined, we respectfully request your no vote today.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Chair, members, staff. My name is Claudia Gonzalez. I'm a senior program associate at Vera California, a local initiative of the Vera Institute of Justice. We are a national research, policy organization working to build safe communities. As an indigenous survivor of domestic violence and an advocate for criminal survivors, I'm here today to strongly oppose Assembly bill 292 by Assembly member Patterson.

Well, AB 292 is framed as a measure to prevent domestic violence and hold people accountable. It will do neither. Instead, AB 292 will expand punishment that risk deepening the criminalization of domestic violence survivors who are often arrested for acts connected to self defense or survival. When I was a young adult, my then partner beat and kidnapped me at knife point forcing me to go on a crime spree. I knew he was going to kill me because he had tried before.

Determined not to become another missing and murdered indigenous woman, I had to comply with him until I could find an escape. But when I finally did, by flagging down police, my nightmare continued. Despite being physically injured and visibly traumatized, police ignored my pleas for help. Instead, I was arrested and booked into jail. I struggled to understand how someone almost took my life, yet I was being punished for it.

I wish I could say that my experience was an isolated one, but it is not. For years, lawmakers have ignored the voices of survivors, especially women of color, while passing policies in our name and increasing punishment in ways that hurt rather than keep us safe. Survivors of domestic violence are often arrested and persecuted, prosecuted for defending themselves against an abusive partner. This is one of the reason women's arrest and incarceration rates have skyrocketed across the country.

My path to healing did not come from knowing my perpetrator was in jail.

Incarceration did not address the root causes that led to his abuse. My healing came from being treated with dignity and respect and being recognized as survivor, not as a criminal. It came from receiving resources and opportunities to help me thrive. If California wants to support survivors of domestic violence, the Senate should begin by listening to survivors like me who are often forgotten. As a criminalized survivor, I urge you to please not risk criminalizing more women.

Please vote no on AB 292. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll now invite anyone who would like to express opposition to AB 292 to please come forward to state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

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

Thank you.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California in opposition.

Jim Lindbergh, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, oppose.

Capri Walker with Californians for Safety and Justice in opposition.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU Cal Action in strong opposition.

Bernice Singh with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in strong opposition.

Nedrick Miller, All of Us in North Sacramento, strong opposition.

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

Good morning. Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, respectfully oppose. I've also been asked to, register opposition for Futures Without Violence, Stronghearted Native Women's Coalition, DeafHope, Family Violence Law Center, and the Humboldt Domestic Violence Services. Thank you.

Emily Harris on behalf of Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition in opposition.

Elizabeth Kim on behalf of Initiate Justice in opposition.

Deputy public defender Esther Mendez on behalf of Local 148 Union in opposition.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. I'll bring it back to the dais for any questions or comments on AB 292. Okay.

Unless there's any questions or comments on the bill. Senator Cortese?

Yeah. The I just wanna state my concern about the bill. I'm not gonna be supporting it today. And, you know, having practice in this area, my own experience is that once a person is put on probation for an initial charge, You know, typically, there there's a seven year period where a violation of probation, you know, brings them back in for just about anything that's constitutes not obeying the law, which is pretty severe, when you're practicing day in and day out in in the courts.

You see that, for just about anything, including a traffic stop.

The one who represented an individual who was accused of stealing a hammer and was brought back in on a violation of probation and, extradited in from another state just because of that. But moreover, we have judicial discretion that oftentimes pre sentences individuals on that first charge, so that it really takes away, you know, much in the way this bill would do the judicial discretion later to automatically send somebody to state prison for for that same violation, the same kind of violation I just described.

So I don't wanna add on any more severity to, you know, what is already, I think, a pretty a pretty full, you know, box of of of tools, so to speak, that the judges are using. I think they are are pretty aggressive at times about, you know, making sure that people are set up to go to state prison if there's a re offense. And I just don't think we need anything else at this time.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Unless there are any other questions or comments from the committee, I'll turn it back for the author to make a closing statement.

Great. Thank you, Mister Chair. Just to address a couple of points and and appreciate that. Those comments, Senator, I just wanna be clear. We're not talking about violations of probation here where people aren't gonna be sent back to state prison for for for that.

We're talking about repeat offenders of felony domestic violence only within a seven year period. So an individual who commits felony domestic violence and within seven years does it again. And I and I truly understand and and recognize the concerns from from the primary witnesses and opposition, which have, rather than concerns with my bill, seem to have concerns with systemic issues and the criminal justice.

I agree we should spend more money on programs to prevent felony domestic violence just as I agree that we should spend more money for people not smoke cigarettes. But at the end of the day, with all the billions and billions of dollars that we spend on preventing, people from smoking cigarettes, we continue to have people smoking cigarettes despite everyone being aware of the consequences of such actions.

And so and there are consequences to that. Just as if you go out and commit two felony domestic violence, corporal injury causing a traumatic condition upon the victim two times within seven years, that you should have a a slightly enhanced criminal penalty. You know, as as mentioned, this was the result of a lot of work and negotiations and obviously in a different house and so there's a there's a reason why we have two houses.

But, you know, we we decided to choose a a modest approach to this to this issue for the worst offenders out there that are committing felony domestic violence on multiple occasions. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much, Assembly member. We don't have a quorum, but when we accept your quorum, we're gonna take a motion on the bill.

Great. Thank you.

Okay. I see we have Assemblymember Laurie Davies here. So we'll proceed out of file order to file item 17, Assembly Bill 1816.

Good morning.

I need to present. I need to present to your book.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senators, today I'm here to present AB 1816. I first want to thank committee staff for working with my staff and stakeholders on this bill. I will be accepting the committee's amendments. Senators, in 2020, the Legislature passed AB 1950 that capped most probation terms to either one year for misdemeanors or two years for felonies.

However, except for narrow circumstances, that measure provided no judicial discretion for a judge to extend terms for individuals who need to complete further rehabilitation. AB 1816 says that if a person on probation for a sex offense hasn't finished their required treatment programs, a court may extend their probation for up to one year. That gives the individual more time to complete the necessary classes while remaining under court supervision.

But I want to stress, this one-year extension only happens if the court finds it's absolutely necessary for the individual. This is not a mandate or requirement.

There has to be a court finding this is beneficial to that person. I also would like to highlight that since leaving the Assembly, the bill has also garnered the official support of the California Sex Offender Management Board, which in part develops recommendations to improve management practices for those individuals. Their official support means they believe there is merit to passing AB 1816. Senators, at the heart of this issue is making sure those on probation receive the treatment and rehabilitation.

They need to become productive members of their communities post-probation without artificial and rigid timelines. This bill has received no 'no' votes.

And with that, Mr. Chair, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. With me here today is Danielle Sanchez on behalf of the Chief Probation Officers of California.

Thank you very much. Good morning.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Danielle Sanchez on behalf of the Chief Probation Officers of California, pleased to sponsor AB 1816. By way of background, in 2020 Assembly Bill 1950 set the maximum term of probation for misdemeanors at one year, two years for felonies. This arbitrary cap moved away from a truly evidence-based, treatment-focused, time-completion model to a focus on an arbitrary time cap on probation terms.

What we're looking to do with this bill is really narrowly focused on sex offenders and the role treatment plays in their recidivism and lowering risk levels once they are back in the community.

AB 1816 would establish an appropriate pathway for the courts to extend probation up to an additional year to complete their treatment. And as noted by the author, this is to complete their currently statutorily mandated, state-certified sex offender treatment program, which is already in statute. So that kind of treatment model already exists. And this bill authorizes the court and does not mandate that extension.

Research is clear that meaningful participation and completion of programs are central to reducing risk, promoting accountability, and fostering protective factors that lead to long-term safety. Treatment is a central mechanism for reducing risk, and therefore treatment completion is all the more important. This bill ensures that courts can align those supervision and treatment timelines with the needs of the individuals. The ultimate goal here is to lower the risk level for those convicted of sex offenses that, again, already have requirements to complete state-mandated treatment.

So for those reasons, we ask for your aye vote today.

Thank you very much. Anyone wishing to express support for AB 1816, please come forward.

Mr. Chair, members, Randy Perry on behalf of PORAC in support.

Mr. Chairman, members, Dan Filizado on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office and the Crime Victims Alliance in support.

Good morning. Ivy Fitzpatrick, California District Attorneys Association, and the Riverside County District Attorney's Office in support.

Mr. Chair and Senators, Cory Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriffs' Association in support.

Thank you very much. We'll now invite up to two opposition witnesses to testify on the bill for two minutes each.

Good morning. My name is Tracy Olsen. I'm the Chief Public Defender of Yolo County, and I'm speaking on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. I noticed the author said she accepted some amendments. I'm going to trust that my comments are all still relevant based on that.

But the bill does not promote public safety. AB 1816 suggests that individuals who have been deemed suitable for community supervision somehow remain a threat to public safety until they complete treatment and programming. However, probation is discretionary. No judge will ever put somebody on probation unless they've already made a determination that they are not a threat and do not pose an unacceptable risk to the community. That's why probation is granted in the first place.

The bill is problematic because of the subjective nature of it. What do substantially complete probation' or 'treatment' mean? Different probation officers, treatment providers, and courts can reach different conclusions, leading to inconsistent outcomes across California. The bill is unnecessary. If someone is willfully refusing treatment despite having the means and opportunity to participate, existing law has remedies. If someone's willfully choosing not to participate, probation can seek revocation, and then revocation tolls the time for probation to end.

And the bill is costly. Treatment delays can and do occur for a lot of reasons that are outside of any individual's control. Treatment programs have wait lists. Some programs are unavailable. Individuals can lack transportation, childcare, insurance coverage, and financial means to pay for treatment.

Extending probation because programming remains unfinished risks punishing people for systemic shortcomings without fixing those barriers. What the bill will do is create more opportunities for technical violations. The longer someone remains on probation, the greater chance they will miss an appointment, arrive late, or violate a condition that has nothing to do with public safety. Those technical violations lead to incarceration even when no new crime has occurred. Research and experience tell us that people who are going to willfully violate do so early.

Longer probation terms mostly punish poverty, instability, and technical noncompliance. If California wants people to complete treatment, California should invest in expanding access to treatment, not extending probation. And for those reasons, I urge a no vote. Thank you very much.

Good morning, Chair, members, and staff. Glenn Backes on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in respectful opposition to AB 1816. In 2020, Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill 1950, limiting probation to no more than two years for a felony conviction and one year for a misdemeanor conviction, with specific exceptions.

These time limits were put in place based on research demonstrating that probation services, such as mental health care and addiction treatment, are most effective in the first eighteen months of supervision, and that overly long probation periods are expensive and ineffectual. The central premise of this bill, however, is that probation should be extended when a person has not completed required programming.

The problem with that logic is that the failure to complete programming is not always a reflection of unwillingness or willful noncompliance by the person on probation. Individuals frequently encounter barriers that are beyond their control. Extending probation because treatment or programming remains unfinished risks penalizing individuals for systemic shortcomings rather than fixing the system itself.

If additional programming is needed, the most effective solution is to create access to treatment and services during the probation period that's already authorized by law, rather than extending court supervision, incurring greater costs for the probation department, courts, jails, and the family of the defendant. Importantly, extended probation impacts every aspect of a person's life and their families.

Probation requirements make it difficult for many people to keep a job, maintain housing, education, and more. Violations, even trivial ones, may lead to incarceration, creating serious hardships for the individuals and their families, including loss of job, housing, or both. Our state has been moving toward a probation system grounded in evidence and the efficient use of limited resources. This bill, however, represents a costly step away from those reasonable and practical reforms. For those reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll invite anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 1816 to please come forward, state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Cal action in strong opposition.

The Public Defender, Esther Mendez, on behalf of Local 148 Union in opposition.

Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association in opposition. We appreciate the amendments and would like an opportunity to review them.

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

Thank you very much. Unless there are any other members of the public wishing to express support for AB 1816, I'll bring it back to the dais for any questions or

comments from committee members. Senator Cavier.

Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to ask a few questions. So, I think the my biggest concern and, I thought, Senator Cortese, you know, talked in the prior bill about probation and, some of the risks involved in probation. The risk being the the myriad of of opportunities to violate that are outside of your control. And a lot of it comes back to poverty, just not having the resources.

Everything costs. Being on probation costs, there's a fine, there's a we'll be dealing with forfeiture fees that we put, penalties. The classes, if you don't have good transportation, that becomes an issue. So here's what here's here's part of the challenge is that any of the programs, Well, let me ask the the in regards to the to the mandated program and I had it written down here somewhere, what it's called. Is that program longer than a year?

It it can be at times. And that is part of, you know, the the when you look at kind of how CASOM I'm sorry. Through the Chair. When you look at kind of how CASOM has structured completion of the programs, right, it is looking at their criminogenic needs and the factors involved in different things. So by when AB 1915 kind of arbitrarily cut term short, programs can at times go beyond that two years.

And so we are trying to, because this bill really because research notes and shows that there's a direct correlation between successful completion of these programs and the treatment model for sex offenses in lowering recidivism and risk of re offense, that that is a place where it felt appropriate to allow the the court to extend.

You know, I I would note that I think all of the things that the opposition shared about challenges that our clients can face, we understand that, you know, probation, for example, has developed mobile probation centers to go out to unhoused communities to try to reach and connect with people so they're not missing their court dates. There's graduated sanctions, you know, and and things that look at violations. We don't want to use detention as the first and only resort for violations.

And really for us, the this bill is not about that.

It's about the treat treatment component. We want to see people staying in their programs, working that, getting there, removing those barriers. And there's a whole host of things that happen on behalf of probation with our clients to help them be successful in that. So, you know, I think the the the extension of

I appreciate that. I'm I've got a bunch more, so I'd like to be able to make sure I understand. So so, I agree. So let me just say that I think, it's important to focus on, recidivism and the the the the hope that what we've done in putting people on probation is gonna be successful. We think we all want that.

And for good tested models, we ought to be utilizing them as much as possible. The challenge is is not all counties have the same capacity and not all programs start when somebody's ready to start and can accommodate the timeline that we're talking about. So I wanna make sure we're I'm supportive of taking the time that's required. But I also wanna make sure that, number one, we're not saying you're in violation of probation because you haven't completed your class, and the person's going, wait.

I started when I could, and I'm doing the best I can.

And then they sit in jail, and they lose their job, or they miss more classes, and they have to start all over again. So so I'm I'm looking at it a system that's not punitive for, that allows the extension, not to be viewed as a violation of probation that ends up counting against them. So they go back into jail and pay a higher fine, that kind of thing, if they've been cooperating. And the the the authority to help this individual is in the county's hands.

It's it's in the county's probation department.

It's in the county's DA. It's in the county's maybe public defender. And so, the court ought to be authorized to prioritize mental health services that are consistent with the program or that can help the individual get through the program in a much more expedited manner. So that we're not using, oh, we can't do it, so we're gonna have extend probation. So so I guess my my thing is is I want to be able to support the bill today.

I think it it, it's important for these programs to be efficacious. The public has an expectation that if we go in this direction, it's going to work and I want to make sure that we're not setting up all these barriers so that then we violate people, we take them into custody. You know, there's nothing worse than working towards a success and then have someone pick you up and and throw you in jail and then have to show up in court in chains.

And so I'm I'm I'm looking for that at least an an explanation of how we don't do any of that in this bill. And if we need to make sure that there's amends in the next committee that they get made so that for for myself, in order to be able to be supportive, I need to make sure that those are the things we're we're dealing with.

May I through the Chair? I appreciate that, Senator. The we're not changing any of the existing mechanisms or discretion that the court has in these in these cases. So right now, whether if a violation occurred, you know, even prior to program completion, those mechanisms already exist to bring that to for the court, and they can determine kind of how to handle that.

So we're not taking what is already on the table off the table, so to speak, by, by saying that if if there is something that that, the courts can still handle that.

What we were we're looking to do with this bill too is is not draft the court aspect in such a prescriptive way that didn't allow for the flexibility for them to look at is is time on probation needed. There there is many people are not gonna complete treatment following probation. And so the court can look at those totality of circumstances and look at the factors of when did they start it?

Has it been kind of a willful not going, or have they meaningfully been trying to get there, but there there's other barriers. So nothing in this bill is changing the ability to court to look at those things, and and changing the mechanisms that already exist for how these kind of cases are handled.

But we do know the treatment has a direct correlation to successful outcomes post probation, and so that transitionary period is really critical.

So for that, I don't have a problem with it. It's it's the mechanics, and the mechanics become really important. So I will support the bill today. By by the time it gets to the floor, I I'm not sure because, what you wanted to do is to set up some certainty so all the courts are dealing with it consistently, and I'm not sure that's gonna happen in this kind of scenario.

We are trying to move to a system where we have an opportunity for people to get treatment and to be well in whatever the situation that got them in trouble.

And and if arbitrarily they can be dragged into court and and their income affected, which would then influences their housing and everything else that goes with it, I'm not sure I think that that's a that's a good idea. The alternative is that probation expires and they can they continue doing the program or they don't.

And I wanna make sure that if the program is really that important, which I think it is, that there are some protections for the individual that's that's made every effort to to do the program, but can't get through it in time. And and I appreciate the honesty about so the program could be longer for some individuals than others. It's I've just seen too many people who start paying for a program, get halfway through, can't afford to finish paying, and have to start it all over again.

And that's just unacceptable. It's very discouraging. People don't feel that the system works. So thank you, Mister Chair, for your indulgence.

Okay. Thank you very much. We do have a quorum at this time, so I will ask the committee assistant to please call the roll.

Aragin? Here. Aragin here. Say Arto. Caballero?

Caballero here. Cortesi? Here. Cortesi here. Perez.

Weiner. Perez. Weiner here.

Okay. Thank you very much. AB 1816 at this time? Senator Cortese?

I agree, with the comments largely, if not a 100%, with, with my colleague, that were just made.

I I'm I'm not seeing amendments that I'm not trying to talk you into doing anything with your vote, but I don't see amendments that would do the things that I would need to see in terms of I think you do need to be more prescriptive with the flexibility if you're gonna do something like this in in you know, more prescriptive with the flexibility in the bill to give direction, you know, for speedy resolution in these situations.

And I don't think it's has anything to do with the intention here or, the particular statute here. But, again, consistent with my prior remarks about today about violation of probation, you know, there's no there's no speedy trial requirement constitutional requirement to get that individual back in front of a judge on a VOP. So the you know, what my colleague was talking about, you know, somebody just, you know, bay basically being brought in, booked, potentially shackled.

And then I I don't know if she elaborated on the next step, you know, enough to my satisfaction, honestly, to sit and sit and sit and sit, have grandchildren born. I've had that situation before as as as defense counsel and and not and still be sitting in a jail cell, you know, waiting for a violation of probation hearing. And it's not that the probation itself mechanism didn't work in the sense that, okay, maybe this person arrest was made and they were taken into custody.

But from that point on, the system is really pretty broken in my opinion. So it it makes me as a legislature not wanna support, you know, any anything that's going to sort of ratify or affirm the way we're we're generally, you know, handling probations.

And again, that's maybe a different that's a different bill perhaps. But you know, we're we're trying to use it for this bill, a mechanism that has a lot of problems. Just a lot of problems. And especially when you think about like in Santa Clara County when I left there, how many problems we had with the jail system that we were trying to correct. Well, I won't get into all that.

That's not part of this. But, but a majority of our incarcerated in the county jail at the time, were dual diagnosed. Addiction and mental health issues. Again, where I agree with my colleague is, you know, you if if rehabilitation hasn't been really prescribed and isn't working, there's fault on on on both sides with that. Certainly, if an addict can't get into recovery or someone who's bipolar is is not, you know, is not is not responding well, you know, to to treatment.

We release them, You know, predict it's very predictive at that point that there's gonna be recidivism, which means someone's gonna get hurt, and we bring them back on probation and have them sit there for months. I mean, these situations are going on over and over and over again.

So I don't want people to get hurt, but I think legislation that that really starts to hold our own systems accountable for for making sure that folks are identified properly before release as to whether or not they've, you know, had the opportunity in their particular case to to to respond to treatment and a health a health care system that shouldn't be on a criminal platform, but but but should be should have the opportunity, you know, to to succeed.

And, again, that's not the fault of the author of this bill. It's it's just an overarching concern that I have that's, you know, getting in the way of me supporting the bill.

So I pretty obviously, I'm open to responses, miss Mister Chair, but that's that's where I stand on it.

Okay.

If if I may respond? Thank thank you, Mister Chair. I I just wanna bring it back to where we started and just remind everyone that these probations, these are targeted, specifically target offenders who are required to register sex offenders under Section two Ninety, and were granted probation. That includes serious and violent and violent sex offenses, including rape. And so we are talking about sex offenses in regards to probation and making sure that they have treatment.

And so as we were talking, this is the judge has that opportunity. If someone's really not trying to get treatment and they're denying it when they're in there, that judge would have that opportunity. Again, it would be no more for a year, but again, these are serious sexual violent crimes we're talking about. And there's a difference there, a big difference. And I think we also owe it to the victims out there.

The victims have have gone through this to know that the person that has done the offense to them that they are getting treatment and so that they have that sense of knowing that people are getting well with that opportunity.

Okay. Thank you. We are on AB 1816.

I'll move the bill. Okay.

Moved by vice Chair Ciarto. Thank you. Unless there's any other questions or comments, I'll turn it back for the author to make a closing statement.

I I appreciate the questions and the concerns. And, you know, that's something we can definitely work with the courts because you're right, not one size fits all, and they all have their different systems. But again, I do wanna remind the committee that the members that this is force violent sexual offenders that have gone on to the sex offender file. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And just to clarify the amendment that was made removes text that specifies sex offender registration was ordered as a condition of probation. It's a clarifying amendment. So we have a motion by vice Chair Ciarto. If the committee assistant can please call the roll.

Maybe 1816 Davies. Motion is do passed as amended to appropriations. Aragin? Aye. Aragin, aye.

seyarto? Aye. seyarto, aye Caballero? Caballero, aye Cortesi? No voting.

Cortesi not voting Perez. Weiner? No. Weiner, no.

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

Thank you, Mister Chair.

Okay. I'm gonna go to the local government and try and get that form done.

Well, before you go, into a motion on the consent calendar. Oh, moved by Senator Caballero. And consent consists of file item one AB 277 alanis, file item eight AB 1615 new end, file item 12 AB 2337 lackey, file item fourteen AB 2204 Gabriel, and file item twenty five AB 1994 Alvarez. Committee assistant could please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. We'll keep consent on call for our absent member. As we proceed with our agenda, we do take measures in file order as was notes noted on the agenda. And I do see that Assembly member Avila Farias is here, and so we'll proceed to file a nine AB 1624. So a witness is in support?

No? Not here. Thank you.

K. And, I know we have a packed hearing room and we have people outside, and so people enter and exit. If you can try to close the door because it creates a lot of noise in here and makes it difficult for us to hear the speakers. So, Assemblymember, whenever you're ready to present, you may present on AB 1627.

Thank you, Mister speaker and members. I'm pleased to present AB 1627, the MELT ICE Act of 2026. AB 1627 ensures that immigration enforcement personnel are disqualified from becoming a peace officer in California if they have committed misconduct in their prior roles. California deserves the best qualified, best trained people in law enforcement agencies. And frankly, I want my kids or anyone counting on people who flaunt the rule of the law.

This bill is about restoring public trust and holding federal law enforcement to the same standards as any other peace officer in California. Public service requires integrity, restraint, and respect. When those values are abandoned and public trust is broken and entire communities are put at risk.

AB 1627 tells Californians that we want our communities to be safe and policed by people who are committed to the fall to following the law. Testifying with me in support, is Tracy Olsen on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association.

She have two minutes to present on the phone.

Thank you. Good morning. I'm here in support of AB 1627. This bill really is about public trust, professionalism, and equal standards for everyone exercising law enforcement authority.

In my twenty eight years as a public defender, I have seen firsthand the importance of professionalism, well trained law enforcement officers who treat people with dignity and respect regardless of how they look, where they come from, or what language they speak. As public defenders, we see the real world consequences when immigration enforcement practices include racial profiling, disregard for due process, and treatment that undermines the dignity of vulnerable individuals and families.

When people are targeted because of their appearance, their accent, or their immigration status, trust does break down, and these concerns are not hypothetical. Federal courts have recently found that immigration enforcement practices likely violated constitutional protections by relying on racial profiling and denying individuals meaningful access to counsel. ICE and the Department of Homeland Security have been repeatedly accused of targeting individuals without legal basis.

The resulting fear forces many people to live in the shadows, afraid to go to work, afraid to send their children to school, and afraid to seek help from law enforcement when they need it the most. We all know that peace offers officers wield, extraordinary authority and power, ensuring that those who hold such positions are properly trained and willing to demonstrate integrity as a matter of statewide concern and moral clarity, AB 1627 advances those values.

The bill makes a simple, important clarification to existing law and ensures that misconduct committed while perform working in immigration is considered when an individual seeks employment with a California law enforcement agency. This bill isn't about immigration policy. It's about ensuring everyone who exercises law enforcement authority is held to the same professional standards regardless of which agency issued that badge. And so I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 1627? If you can please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Mister Chair and Senators, Adam Kegelan on behalf of California LULAC in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 1627?

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

Thank you very much. Seeing no one else approached the microphone, we'll now take up the two principal opposition witnesses to the bill. Are there any opposition witnesses?

Seeing no one come forward, I'll bring it back to the dias for any questions or comments or motion. Moved by Senator Caballero.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any other questions or comments on the bill?

Thank you very much for bringing this bill forward, and I'll turn over to close.

Thank you, Chair and members. I just respectfully ask for an aye vote.

We have a motion by Senator Caballero. If the committee says you can please call the roll.

AB 1627 Avila Farias, motion is due passed to the appropriations.

[roll call]

Okay. We'll keep that bill on call for absent Members. Thank you very much. I see we have Assembly Member Krell here, so we'll proceed to the two bills that she'll be presenting today, and we'll start first with file item 18, AB 1854. And if there are any principal witnesses here outside who are gonna testify in support of AB 1854, you're welcome to join the Assembly Member here at the table.

I believe there are, but I can go ahead and get started. Good morning, Senators. Thanks for having me today. I am pleased to present Assembly Bill 1854, which is a simple law shielding medical procedures from disclosures. After Roe versus Wade got overturned with the decision of Dobbs, states around the country started passing various abortion bans, some so aggressive that they allowed states that they allowed states such as Texas and Louisiana to reach across their borders into the borders of California.

In response, California and eight other states enacted shield laws, shielding patients and providers from those types of persecutions and prosecutions and investigations from other states. Fast forward to right now, 1854 fortifies our current shield laws by ensuring that no extradition order that hasn't been signed by the governor will allow for an arrest of an individual based on an out of state extradition attempt. The other piece of this, make sure that our shield laws also apply to financial service companies that are doing business in California and could be subpoenaed for information about protected health care activities.

If those companies do wanna give over information, they will require they'll be required to have an affidavit accompanying the subpoena or arrest warrant just stating that it does not involve protected activity. And protected activities defined under California law as legal health care activity that's lawful in California. Access to abortion, obviously, and gender affirming care. With me... Alright. I'm alone at the altar here. But this bill is sponsored by the Attorney General's Office, also supported by Planned Parenthood. Happy to answer any questions and respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you very much, Assembly Member. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 1854?

Good morning. Glenn Backes for Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support.

Chao Jun Liu, Electronic Frontier Foundation, in support.

Thank you very much.

Andi Liebenbaum, County of Los Angeles, in support.

Martin Radosevich on behalf of Reproductive Freedom for All California in support.

Matthew Ward advocating for More Mastectomies for Minors in support. Thank you.

Okay. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 1854? Seeing no one come forward, we'll now take up to two principal opposition witnesses to AB 1854. Please, you're welcome to sit here. And you'll have two minutes each to address the committee.

Good morning. My name is Lisa Disbrow, and I'm with Our Duty. Under this bill, medical providers can perform sex rejecting interventions on children without any fear of retribution. Medical providers can violate their own state's laws, sterilize children, circumvent parents, and watch their bank accounts grow, finding refuge in California. This bill ensures that when a child is taken across state lines and given irreversible medical intervention, no one can find out who did it, how it happened, or prove it in court.

While California's AG shields the providers who did it. This bill violates a myriad of laws as detailed in Our Duty's opposition. It will also place at risk the billions of dollars California receives from the feds through the Violent Crime Control Act and the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. We have informed our many new friends in the federal administration about this bill. This is not an idle threat.

Our groups are behind California's Title IX claims, the Mirabelli versus Bonta, and AB 1955 cases, as well as the newly announced FTC investigation into the WPATH. Parents never forget, and parents never forgive those who harmed their children. Even the former president of GLAAD, Herndon Graddick, recognizes the harm to children.

Graddick, who personally transformed that organization from an LGB group into a transgender advocacy machine, admitted when discussing sex rejecting intervention for children, we should completely stop doing anything that might harm children, even if it means we admit that we got something really wrong, and my understand is that we have. One of the main architects of the trans movement is confessing it harms children, and your answer is to shield the people harming them. Please vote no.

You have two minutes as well to present on the bill.

Thank you, Chair and members. My name is Leandra Wells with the California Family Council. AB 1854 turns California into a legal fortress for the abortion and gender transition industry. Punishing any Californian who cooperates with any another state's lawful investigation even when the activity happened outside our borders. This is a sweeping attempt to export a culture of death while shielding those who harm children and take innocent life.

This bill doesn't protect, it punishes. Any person or entity in California that complies with the lawful subpoena from another state could face fines of $10,000 to $15,000 from our own attorney general. That is not health care protection. It is compelled obstruction of justice. And who pays the price?

Families and children. A newly released finished study tracking more than 2,000 adolescents found that severe psychiatric problems were already high before these interventions and did not improve after medical gen gender treatments. In fact, mental health disorders remained elevated or worsened over time. These findings should give every member pause. The evidence is increasingly clear.

These sex rejecting procedures do not resolve underlying distress. They often deepen it. AB 1854 doubles down anyway, shielding these interventions from scrutiny and accountability even across state lines. It tells providers no matter what harm is done, California will protect you, and it tells parents in other states, California will obstruct your efforts to protect your own children. This bill also puts California organizations, including ministries, nonprofits, and businesses in an impossible position.

Obey another state's lawful order and be punished here or refuse and face consequences there. That is coercion. Members, this bill is not about care. It is about control. It elevates ideology about evidence, politics above parents, and power above the rule of law.

For the sake of children, families, and true justice, we respectfully urge a no vote on AB 1854. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 1854?

We're in support. We'll wait.

Okay. We already did the support testimony, but I do have an IRAC on the bill. But if you'd like to add anything, you're certainly welcome to.

Thank you. Tiffany Brokaw, Deputy Attorney General, here on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta. We are proud to sponsor this measure, and we thank Assembly member Maggy Krell for authoring this piece of legislation. This bill clarifies and expands California shield laws to protect patients, health care providers, and others involved in reproductive health care and gender affirming care. That is legal in California.

Since California shield laws took effect, anti abortion states have increased efforts to investigate and prosecute California providers. And some states have tried to extradite or take adverse legal action against California doctors. AB 1854 addresses these issues by expanding shield law coverage to more California businesses and individuals who receive legal demands. And it also clarifies that law enforcement cannot arrest someone if the governor refuses an extradition request.

As legal landscape continues to shift nationwide, AB 1854 ensures California will remain a safe haven for those seeking and providing reproductive health care. And for these reasons, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to 18 AB 1854?

Seeing no one else come forward, I'll bring it back to the dais for questions, comments, or motion.

Alright. Thank you. First of all, I move the bill. I wanna thank the author for standing up for, for health care access and for members of our community who are being criminalized in other states. We have they're threatening to put doctors in prison.

They're threatening to take kids away from their parents. They're threatening to put parents in prison because they support their trans kids. It's really it's sort of fascist level stuff in terms of the government. From from a movement that claims that it wants government to take its hands off of people, it is they're advocating to have government completely control what families do to as they claim that they wanna let families make decisions.

They don't they claim to support parental rights, but they only support parental rights when the parents are doing what they want.

So it's really about about control. And we need to be clear here. In California, the age of consent for the vast majority of physical health care is 18, unless you're emancipated. And so these young people who are receiving, any kind of physical gender affirming care in California, and I suspect in pretty much every state, unless they're emancipated, are doing it with the consent and the support of their parents, in consultation with a medical provider.

And the idea that government would get involved and criminalize, these folks is disgusting.

And California has a responsibility to stand up and say we're not going to, unless the US constitution mandates us to do it, we're not gonna be party to anything having to do with those laws, and we're not gonna enforce those laws, whether it's the state or whether it's local law enforcement. So that's what this bill is about. It's strengthening our existing shield and sanctuary laws for these families.

And it's you know, and we continue to see a propaganda, campaign, which is, you know, there's an entire movement dedicated to spreading propaganda that trans people don't exist, that trans people need to be eliminated, and erased, and California should not be party to it. So I move the bill.

Are there any other questions or comments from members of the committee?

If not, I'll check back over the author to make a closing statement.

Thank you, Senator Wiener for your comments. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Motion by Senator Wiener. The committee assistant, please call the roll.

AB 1854 Krell. Motion is do passed to Judiciary Committee.

[roll call]

Okay. We'll keep that bill on call for absent members. Thank you very much. And we have one more bill by Assemblymember Krell, which is file item 19, AB 1927. Okay. Thank you. And, Assemblymember, whenever you're ready, you may present on the bill.

Good morning again, senators. Proud to present you with Assembly Bill 1927 this morning. This is an important bill that seeks to prevent a pernicious practice of con artists basically scamming people, the families of people who have been arrested.

While we have a licensing system that involves licensed bail agents, we also have people with no licenses at all who are getting arrest records and then reaching out to family members, loved ones, associates of people who have been arrested and pretending to be able to get them out of jail. This is a pernicious form of fraud.

It preys on extremely vulnerable people who may be in a panic knowing that a loved one is behind bars. Assembly Bill 1927 carves out a specific, new penal code section that deals specifically with this and criminalizes anybody who impersonates and fraudulently seeks to solicit bail. I also wanna really thank the committee for their work on this bill. Staff has been extremely helpful. I accept the amendments.

And with me to testify here today is David Quintana.

Thank you, Chairman Arreguin and members of the committee. David Quintana with the California Bail Agents Association. Today, we're proud to be the sponsors of the Bail Consumer Protection Act. Let me just give you a scenario. Your child, your spouse, your parent has been arrested.

It's the middle of the night. You don't know the system. You don't know the law. All you know is you believe someone you love is in trouble, and you need to get them out now. And this is the moment that the predators, that the assemblywoman referenced, are exploiting.

Across California, scammers are cold calling and texting families, impersonating licensed bail agents and law enforcement, using professional sounding business names, fake websites, spoof phone numbers designed to look completely legitimate. Families are handing over thousands of dollars because they are desperate to save their loved ones. And then nothing happens, no bond is ever posted, their loved one stays in custody, and the scammer disappears. Often, this fraud is perpetrated even when no one has been arrested.

They're simply making the entire scenario up to simply capitalize on the fear.

The distress of having a loved one in jail has weaponized these frauds—fraudsters—and they're making millions of dollars in California off of this fear. Making millions of dollars in California off of this fear. AB 1927 is the first step in trying to fix this. It criminalizes the willful impersonation of a licensed bail agent for the purpose of solicitation through phone calls, texts, emails, robocalls, and in person contact. It closes the gap that has left California families unprotected, and I respectfully urge your aye vote.

Much...are you also testifying on the bill?

Yes. Mr. chairman and members, Carl London, here on behalf of the Golden State Bail Agents Association, also Lexington National Insurance Corporation, a surety that writes bail policies. We're strongly in support of the bill. We thank Assemblymember Krell for pushing this forward. We hope this is part of a—an important first step in a dialogue that we wanna continue to have about the actions in this space.

We've also seen some other things that this bill doesn't necessarily address, but where some of the folks that David described are reaching out to family members and others without permission of the person who's arrested. And that often is a practice that that person does not wanna see. That's not necessarily covered by this bill. It's a little bit ambiguous right now whether that's a practice that's illegal or not.

We may wanna have an ongoing dialogue about that as well, but this is a very important first step to head off bad practices in the space that, frankly, don't do much more than just give bail a bad, you know, black eye over something that we don't deserve.

So, we appreciate the bill and urge your support for it. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 1927? If you can please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Topo Padilla, California licensed bail agent for forty-two years, representing the Golden State Bail Agents Association and the Professional Bail Agents of The United States. We would ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Any other "me too" testimony in support of the bill?

Maddie Hyatt, California civil liberties advocacy in support.

Thank you very much. Okay. We'll now take up to two principal opposition witnesses to AB 1927, if there are any opposition witnesses in the room. Seeing no opposition, I'll bring it back to the days for any questions, comments, or a motion. Okay.

Moved by Senator Caballero. Thank you very much. And just to summarize the amendments, and really wanna thank the author for working with our committee and the sponsors as well on on the bill. It strikes the the bill language that was in print, and instead creates a misdemeanor for soliciting bail while falsely impersonating a bail agent. And I think this is a very important bill, to protect families at a time when their family, is impacted by, somebody who's been arrested, and to create a fair process.

So with that, I'll turn it back to the author of two clips.

Thank you. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Have a motion by Senator Caballero that can be assisted to please call the roll.

AB 1927, Carl, motion is do passed as amended to judiciary committee. Adagun. Aye. Agun, aye. Sayarto Caballero?

Aye. Caballero, aye. Cortesi Perez Weiner? Aye. Weiner, aye.

Okay. We'll keep that bill on call for absent members. As I had announced earlier in the hearing, we, do not take measures in sign an order; we take them in file order.

And so, I, I, Assemblymember Zbur, Assemblymember Ta is before you in file order, and so, we'll go to file item 20, AB 1872, by Assemblymember Ta, and then we'll go to Assemblymember Zbur after. Thank you

Good morning, Chair and member of the committee. I'm here today to present AB 1872, a measure to protect innocent victim from increasingly irreverent act of swatting. I want to begin by thanking the Chair for his support and collaboration on this bill to verify that this bill strengthen, assist in law, and ensure that victim get restoration that they need. Swatting is a fact of making a false claim of an emergency in order to cause a massive emergency response.

It's often result in a SWAT team being sent to a location thinking there's a bomb threat, active shooter, or hostage situation.

This can put innocent people in harm way, and they work with equal resources away from real emergency. Swatting has increased dramatically in recent years, where we have seen school and public figure targeted, including our old lieutenant governor. Swatting account for 64% of all violent incident in school and has increased 546% from 2018 to 2023. This bill is supported by dosing of school district to out of state.

AB 1872 ensure that swatting is treated as a crime it is by penalizing repeat offenders with a warbler offense.

AB 1872, we ensure that victims are compensated for any property damage, such as the damage of their front door during emergency responses. I'm honored to introduce my witnesses, Matty Hyatt with California's Civil Liberty, Ava Cassidy, and Nick Bishop with Sacramento County Sheriff's Office, who wrote this...on this matter. This bill has bipartisan support, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Mr. Chair and members, Matty Hyatt on behalf of California Civil Liberties Advocacies. I was—proud sponsor of AB 1872. Swatting is not merely a false report. It is the weaponization of emergency response against an innocent person. When someone knowingly makes a false report, they are trying to induce the government to send armed officers into someone's home, school, workplace, or house of worship.

That can mean forced entry, detention, property damage, search and seizure, trauma, and sometimes death. That is why we view this as a civil liberties bill. The Fourth Amendment draws a firm line at the entrance to the home. A swatter manufactures the appearance of exigent circumstances and tricks the government into crossing that line against an innocent person. And once officers are inside, the plain view doctrine can apply.

So, the innocent target's privacy rights, property rights, and security are compromised, even though they did nothing wrong. This bill also makes sense from a state sovereignty perspective. Many serious swatting cases are prosecuted federally, but California should not have to depend on federal priorities, federal resources, or the Federal Government's charging decisions to protect Californians.

If California's leadership is concerned about selective enforcement of federal law or the politicization of federal agencies, then California should give its own prosecutors and courts a careful state law tool to deter repeat adult swatting. We feel AB 1872 is narrow.

It does not make a first offense a felony. It does not use juvenile conduct as a felony predicate. It applies only to adult repeat offenders and gives prosecutors and courts a wobbler option when the conduct is serious, but no one has yet been killed or seriously injured. Current law generally waits until death or great bodily injury occurs before felony liability is available under the core False Emergency Reporting Statute. We should not have to wait for another tragedy before repeating adult swatting with the seriousness it deserves.

We respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Next, please.

Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Nicholas Bishop. I'm here as an individual to support Assembly Bill 1872 based on my professional experience and my training. I hold a master's degree in Emergency Services Administration from California State Long Beach, where I offered a thesis on swatting. I've also worked as a law enforcement dispatcher for twelve years.

I'm currently serving as a training officer and a tactical dispatcher. When I testified on this issue last year, I spoke about the danger swatting creates for victims, first responders, schools, businesses, and the public. Since then, the threat has continued to evolve. Swatting is no longer just a false report; it is increasingly supported by technology.

The National Association of Attorney Generals has warned that emerging technology is making these threats more convincing, more targeted, and easier to carry out. In the last year, California has seen multiple swatting incidents involving high profile places, such as Sacramento State University, the Auburn Airport, high schools in Alameda, the Central Valley and other places, Disneyland that's supposed to be the happiest place on earth, and the San Francisco Zoo.

One argument I've heard against bills like this is that we should focus on preventing the crime rather than increasing punishment. I agree that prevention is a better goal, but based on my academic experience and professional experience, there is no tool, training method, or technology that can prevent swatting. We can and should train first responders to recognize and mitigate swatting incidents, but training alone is not enough.

California needs a clear legal deterrent that reflects the seriousness of repeat swatting incidents. AB 1872 does that. It sends a clear message that repeatedly weaponizing the emergency response system against California will be treated as the public's—the serious public safety threat it is. With that, I ask for your aye vote on this. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay. I believe that completes witness testimony, so I'll invite anyone else wishing to express support for AB 1872 to please come forward.

Morning, Chair and members. Ivy Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the California District Attorney's Office and the Riverside County—I'm sorry, the California District Attorneys Association and the Riverside County District Attorney's Office—in support.

Michelle Rubalcava with Nielsen Merksemer, on behalf of the Orange County Fire Authority, in support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, Corey Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriffs Association, in support.

Thank you very much. Okay. I'll invite up to two principal opposition witnesses just to testify on AB 1872. And you each have two minutes to address the committee on the bill.

Okay. Good morning, everyone. My name is Esther Mendez.

I'm a Deputy Public Defender in LA County, and on behalf of the Local 148 Union, we urge that you consider that we are opposing this bill. So, right now, we do have laws that already make this conduct a possible felony. What this law would do is that it would expose conduct that is generally considered low-level conduct in our current criminal justice system to conviction, and it would disproportionately impact the disability community and the undocumented community.

So many times, people that make these kind of reports, they are suffering with a cognitive disability that could be addressed by professionals.

I believe that exposing them to a felony is going to go against the recidivism that could happen in their lives if we address the issue at hand. It can impact their housing, employment, licensure opportunities because of a felony record, and so, this should be considered when exposing people to minor conduct to a felony conviction because it can impact their future. And as far as the undocumented community goes, a conviction can risk families being separated.

Under the California Constitution, there is an observation that is required by legislators and attorneys. We need to see how this law impacts the person being charged, and there is a penal code that we cite to—when I practice as an attorney, where we have prosecutors considered a fact of collateral consequences for the undocumented people, because the punishment that they face because of a felony record goes far beyond what a citizen gets exposed to with a felony record.

For example, they can face being deported or vulnerable to ICE. And again, like I said, in a worst-case scenario, they can be separated by their families for conduct that is very minor, that could already be addressed with a felony under different charges. Thank you.

Good morning. Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. I would echo many of the comments of my colleague that creating a wobbler for this offense is both ineffective and harmful. For one thing, as she's pointed out, many of the people who will be prosecuted will be mentally ill, and incarceration, many times, exacerbates the symptoms of mental illness. And then, I think there's another whole group of people who are doing this for, let's say, political reasons.

And some of you on the committee may have been the victims of that. I don't know. Certainly, some people in our community have experienced it, and it's not very—a nice experience, to put it frankly. But this, it will not—I think the central fallacy in the proponents' argument is that somehow, this will be a deterrent.

And the research has shown repeatedly by many different institutions, including the National Institute of Justice, that laws and policies designed to deter crime by focusing on increasing penalties are ineffective because most people don't know about the sanctions of specific crimes.

The other thing that it's pointed out in the analysis is that this is inconsistent with existing California law. Even calling 911 is a hate crime, is a misdemeanor, and so, I do not think that this is necessary. I think that it is misguided, although well intentioned, public policy, and we respectfully ask for your no vote.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to the bill?

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California, opposed.

Thank you.

Glenn Backes, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, opposed.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU Cal Action, in strong opposition.

Hi. David Bullock, SB Alliance. We are actually in support. Thank you.

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

Thank you very much. Okay. I'll bring back to the committee for any questions or comments. Senator Caballero.

So, I understand the, the opposition's position. I, I, you know, this is one of those things where it seems innocuous. Or let me put it to you this way. When I was a kid, which was a million years ago, this would have just been a prank. Going up and ringing people's doorbells and running, making prank calls on telephone.

But this is, this is really crossed the line beyond a prank. And it's crossed the line because, well, first of all, I appreciate that this is adults that we're talking about. And second, that it, it is an emergency response with armed officers. And whenever armed officers rush to a scene because they've been told something terrible horrible is happening, and I expect this will be, the swatting will—is more much more serious in terms of the allegations than, than a reporting of a false crime elsewhere is.

It's dangerous. It's dangerous. It's, it's usually schools. It's churches. It's places where people go and expect to be safe. And so, I'm—I'll move the bill today.

I, I think this is really important. And, and the fact that there are options, there, there are things that can, can happen, in terms of mental health services and those kinds of things, I, I just feel like we gotta, we gotta get a handle on the situation because it's become a, it's become way too, too common. So, move the bill.

Senator Caballero. Any other questions or comments from members of the committee? If not, I'll turn it back over to the author to make a closing statement.

I really thank you for your support, and I respectfully ask your aye vote.

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

[Roll Call]

Okay. We'll keep that bill on call for absent members. Thank you very much. In discussion with several authors, we do need to proceed, at this time, to file item 29, B 2217, by Assemblymember Zbur. I believe there's somebody here who has an, an accommodation we need to, we need to make.

And so, Assembly member, the principal witnesses, you're welcome to join him here at the table. And whenever you're ready to present, you may proceed.

Thank you, Mister Chair, members. I'm proud today to present AB 2217 sponsored by the Drug Policy Alliance and Californians for Safety and Justice, which will allow the law enforcement assisted diversion program renamed alternatives to arrest to continue connecting California's most vulnerable residents to critical services and expand the program throughout the state. Too often, poverty is criminalized and individuals who are simply seeking to provide for their basic needs are incarcerated. However, incarceration does not address the root causes of crime.

In fact, it often only exacerbates the underlying issues of poverty, instability, lack of access to resources, and lack of housing that contribute to crime.

Established in 2017, the law enforcement assisted diversion program, otherwise known as LEED, allows law enforcement officers to refer someone to a case manager for immediate crisis services instead of making an arrest. The program focuses on individuals with low level, repeat offenses where the underlying issue is often homelessness, mental health needs, or substance use. These referrals are voluntary, are made at the officer's discretion, and connect people to housing, health care, mental health support, and substance use treatment when appropriate.

An evaluation of the LEAD program found that it not only reduced recidivism and lowered crime, but also successfully connected participants to housing services and nonjudgmental individualized help. AB 2217 will rename the program as alternatives to arrest and will add petty theft, second degree burglary, and trespass to the list of offenses eligible for the referral through the program.

The bill also will allow local jurisdictions the flexibility to add additional offenses if agreed upon by local law enforcement and the public health leadership. We can't arrest our way out of poverty, mental health challenges, or addiction. AB 2217 recognizes that simple truth and instead expands this research backed successful program, which consent which connects vulnerable individuals to housing, health care, and mental health support, and substance use treatment. Members, I ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time.

And with me today in support of the bill is Greg Gardner, California state director for the Drug Policy Alliance.

Great. Thank you very much. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. Greg Gardner on behalf of the Drug Policy Alliance. We're proud to sponsor along with Californians for Safety and Justice, AB 2217. I wanna thank the author for his leadership on this bill. This legislation builds on a prior grant program operated by the board of state and community corrections referred to as law enforcement assisted diversion or LEED, which is renamed in the bill as alternatives to arrest.

The program gives communities a way to constructively address certain low level offenses that often recur largely because of unmet complex needs, including those related to substance use disorder, mental illness, and poverty. It does so by allowing law enforcement officers to connect people with such needs who are at risk of arrest with case managers, expanding connections to care and stability, and reducing costly and harmful arrests.

What's particularly unique is that it brings together key stakeholders in the community, including law enforcement, community based service providers, and public health agencies to collaboratively work on addressing those unmet needs that contribute to public disorder. The LEAD program, which was piloted and funded in the twenty sixteen seventeen budget has been especially impactful in Los Angeles, where the program has been highly successful and may be nearing capacity.

This bill and accompanying budget action would expand services and cover jurisdictions in Los Angeles County and allow the development and evaluation of alternatives to arrest programs in other parts of the state as well.

An evaluation of the pilot in Los Angeles by the CSU Long Beach School of Criminology found that twelve months after implementation in LA, similarly situated persons who were not referred to the program had felony arrest rates significantly higher, two and a half times higher than lead participants, and misdemeanor rates that were higher that were a hundred and fifty percent higher.

The commission on revision of the penal code recommended expanding the eligible offenses that would qualify an individual to be referred to the program, which is what this bill would do, along with allowing local jurisdictions to identify other low low level offenses as the author indicated, if there's agreement between prosecutors, law enforcement, and public health leadership.

This is a narrow bill that but it's an important reauthorization and amendment to the successful pilot, which is reducing arrests, providing people with the help they need, and it is truly health centered. We thank you and respectfully urge your support.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 2217? If you can please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

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

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Trammell. I'm with Disability Rights California in support of the bill.

Thank you very much.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California in strong support.

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

Chet Hewitt with the California Community Foundation in support.

Margo George, California Public Defenders Association in support. Thank you.

Deputy public defender, Estetra Mendez from LA County Public Defender's Office, on behalf of Local one forty eight in support.

Thank you.

Shivani Neshar, Drug Policy Alliance registering support on behalf of National Alliance End Homelessness, COURAGE California, and CareFirst Coalition comprising 34 organizations across California.

Katarina Sayali, Community Works West in support.

Liz Blum Gutierrez on behalf of Bureau of California in support.

Glenn Backus, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in support.

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

Elizabeth Kim on behalf of initiate justice in support.

Bernie Singh with legal services for prisoners with children in support.

Marco Duncan on behalf of all of us and none, we support.

Emily Harris on behalf of Sister Warriors in support.

Hi. Leticia Garcia with the California Retailers Association also in support. Thank you.

Ellie with SE Justice Group, in support.

Okay. Thank you very much. Is there any, opposition witnesses present in the room who would like to give testimony? Seeing no one come forward, I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions, comments, or motion. Senator Caballero.

Appreciate you bringing this bill forward. I think it's it's really important alternative, and I move the bill.

Thank you very much. Any other questions or comments? Thank you very much, Assemblymember, for bringing this bill forward. I strongly support it, and I'll turn it back over to close.

I'd say, you know, this is one of the things that we always say we wanna do when we're dealing with folks that are homeless, are experiencing mental illness or substance use. It's really about not criminalizing them, but connecting them to service. And this is a a program that has, as we said, has been already implemented. It's been implemented successfully. It's had amazing success in terms of the data and the statistics.

This would allow it to be expanded in terms of the kinds of offenses that are subject and would expand it throughout the state and, of course, subject to the budget request, which we'll be dealing with as part of the budget the the baby budget bill. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

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

AB 2217 our motion is do passed to appropriations. Adegin?

Aye.

Adegin, aye. Searto Caballero Caballero, aye Cortesi Perez Wiener. Aye. Weiner, Aye.

Okay. We'll keep that bill on call for absent members. I have to go vote in the local government committee across the street. And so, Senator Caballero, would you be able to Chair my absence, and I'll come back immediately after? And I think Assemblymember Brian is next with his three bills.

Assemblymember Brian. Okay. What's

fifteen thirty seven.

I I became the Chair, so let me get myself organized now.

Never have a problem with you as Chair.

Where am I? Okay. Yes.

Why don't we start with, AB 1537?

Thank you, Madam Chair, and colleagues. I'm pleased to present AB 1537. It's our no second jobs with ICE Act. This bill closes a loophole in state law that allows for officers to moonlight for immigration enforcement. Before I begin, I first wanna thank the committee consultants for the amendments.

I will be accepting the amendments. And although he just walked out of the room, I wanna thank the Chair for being on the phone with me till 08:30 last night to make sure that we landed this, correctly. Immigration officers operate with too much unchecked power and no real transparency or accountability, especially right now. Civil rights have been repeatedly violated by ICE. We've seen too many Americans killed.

We saw Alex Sprague murdered. We saw the murder of Renee Goode, and we saw the murder of Keith Porter Junior by an off duty ICE agent. And many more have died in ICE custody due to this lack of accountability. Many victims' families are still waiting for the justice they deserve. Today, there's an inconsistency in state law.

While officers can't collaborate in many ways with ICE while working their shift, there's no policy stopping them from taking a second job or moonlighting with immigration enforcement. If you sign up to protect the people during the day, then I don't think you should be able to kidnap and terrorize people from those same communities at night.

Our review of more than 55 police department policies and procedure manuals has not identified a single public policy that explicitly prohibits secondary employment with employers engaging in federal immigration enforcement.

This silence creates the loophole for moonlighting as ICE agents even as the state tells residents that our state and local police are not in the business of deportation. AB 1537 is straightforward.

It will ensure officers stick to their obligation of serving the community and prevent any loophole that allows officers to moonlight a second job with immigration enforcement. With me to testify is Kimberly Wu, a Community Organizer with Services Immigrant Rights and Education Network, and Bruno Huizar, Supervising Policy Manager with the California Immigrant Policy Center.

Welcome.

Hi, everyone. I'm Kimberly Wu. I'm a Community Organizer from Services Immigrant Rights Education Network, also known as SIREN. Thank you for having me today. Our organization serves our immigrant and refugee communities around the Bay Area and Central Valley.

We're a proud cosponsor of AB 1537 and a proud member of the ICE Out of California Coalition. California already places many restrictions on secondary employment by law enforcement officers, but there is no state law preventing officers from taking a side job working as an ICE agent or contractor. This must change, and it must change now. ICE and the Trump administration's attacks on our communities are relentless. We're seeing more ICE abductions in our communities.

And the threat of mass immigration enforcement hits closer to my home in the Bay Area with ICE seeking a potential processing center in Gilroy and a detention center in Dublin. More detention space in the Bay Area will mean more violent family separations and kidnappings of our immigrant loved ones in our communities.

It would be a severe breach of public trust for a local officer to get paid from our tax dollars during the day and then clock in to a second shift deportation agent to rest and separate the same communities, especially when these same families are struggling to make ends meet after losing their breadwinner to this deportation machine, and especially when these families are already being terrorized by their already massive immigration detention fleet.

It would be another severe breach of public trust for a local officer to draw a salary from our local tax dollars during the day and then turn around and walk a second shift from an immigration detention center where people are subject to severe medical neglect, filthy water, rotten food, and abuse.

With these imminent threats of detention expansion in the Bay Area, the harmful mass raids in Central Valley and LA, and the deadly conditions in the eight detention centers in California, our local police officers who have sworn to protect our communities should not become the same agents who are terrorizing the same communities.

I'm sorry. I need you to wrap up.

I'm just about to. Yeah. Without AB 1537, we have no way to prevent this kind of moonlight and no way to even know how much this is happening. We need transparency and accountability right now, and respectfully urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Hello, madam Chair and members and staff. My name is Bruno. We side with the California Immigrant Policy Center, a proud cosponsor of the AB1537 alongside the ICE out of California Coalition. Last September, CBS Sacramento reported on a large scale ICE advertising blitz, seeking to recruit local law enforcement officers to be deportation agents. The ads which aired right here in Sacramento, denigrated California's pro immigrant policies and offered incentives such as $50,000 signing bonus.

At the same time, ICE had a budget of about $85,000,000,000. A Meteor Meteoric spike, as NPR put it from previous years. Just last month, ICE got another $70,000,000,000 with the B Dollars. The Trump administration has already enlisted hundreds of local and state agencies nationwide in its mass deportation campaign by deputizing local and state law enforcement officers to be ICE agents.

With these tens of billions at its disposal, ICE will continue to try and aggressively recruit local and state law enforcement officers in California to carry out raids and abductions of our families and our neighbors. Transparency about what is happening. And despite the historic protections we passed here in California, there's a troubling loophole in state law.

While the practice of secondary employment is highly regulate by law enforcement officers, is highly regulated in our state, there is nothing in state law that prevents state and local law enforcement officers to take secondary employment or moonlight as ICE or deportation agents.

Common sense solution, which creates a simple, clear, standard for a specified state and local officers, such as police and sheriffs, secondary employment that involves engaging in, arresting, detaining, transporting, or deporting individuals will not be allowed. The face of ICE mass raise and deportation campaign, we urgently need to pass AB 1537 for the sake of transparency and accountability. Recent amendments have been taken to streamline this and we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Testimony in support.

Go ahead.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California in support.

Thank you.

Chet Hewitt, California Community Foundation in support.

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

Thank you.

Shivani Nishar, on behalf of Drug Policy Alliance in support.

Thank you.

Savannah Jorgensen with the League of Women Voters of California, in support.

Thank you.