Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning, everyone. Welcome back to the Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety. It is our final regularly scheduled meeting of the year, and so I'd like to go a little off script at the beginning. I want to thank all of the staff of this committee, both Democratic and Republican staff for your hard work this year. And just to the members of the public and to all of you here today, a lot of hours go behind the scenes preparing every single bill.

So if you join me in giving our staff a huge round of applause, they certainly have earned it. Okay. With the consent of the Republican consultant, and thank you, sir. While we are still waiting for Mr. Alaniz and Mr. Lackey, we are going to proceed as a subcommittee this morning. I'll begin by mentioning that there are some general rules of conduct, and I'll go over those as we start our hearing today.

These rules that I will go over are made in order to facilitate the goal of conducting a legislative hearing. Please note that as we proceed with witness testimony and public comment, I want to ensure that everyone understands that we have rules in place to ensure that we both maintain order and run a fair and efficient hearing. As a reminder, I will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings. So for example, please don't speak over each other. Each witness will have their sufficient time to address the committee.

Additionally, for those who will be testifying in support or in opposition, in absence of any sort of digital timer, I try to give you a visual sense of how much time you have remaining. This typically means you have about thirty seconds remaining, so that's a cue to get to your final point as quickly as possible, and I will interrupt when you have reached your time.

I apologize in advance for being a bit, stern on those rules, but we have a lot of testimony and a lot of you that wanna address the committee today, and I have to be fair in its application. Lastly, please be aware that violation of any of our rules can subject you to removal or other enforcement actions. Second, to ensure that all measures on the agenda are heard, we have limited witness testimony for this hearing with four minutes total per side for both support and opposition.

So after each of our Senate witnesses present, there will be four minutes allotted for witnesses in support. There will also be four minutes allotted for the two principal witnesses in opposition. For the me-too testimony, as always, we ask that you confine your comment to your name. If you're with an organization today, please let us know that as well. And then you can either say, I support or I oppose, and we'll register all of that in the record.

Once we have a quorum, we will dispense with our consent calendar. I will note that we have one item that is off calendar today. Senate bill 1338 by Senator Jones has been pulled by the author and will not be heard today. Okay. With that said, we have a couple authors with us today.

We will start with Senator Becker to present item number 26. If Senator Becker's ready to go, this will be Senate Bill 493, colleagues. Senator, you can grab either seat. You can begin speaking when you're ready. And as a reminder, your witness or witnesses will have four minutes to address the committee.

Thank you, Chair, members. Today, I'm presenting SB 493, the Wartime Price Gouging Prevention Act. California has some of the strongest anti-price-gouging laws in the nation. They protect consumers during wildfires, earthquakes, floods, pandemics, and other natural disasters. In these circumstances, the Governor can declare a state of emergency that activates price gouging protection and allows the Attorney General to prosecute price gouging behavior.

But there is a problem, and this problem surfaced in a recent oversight hearing that we had in the Senate Energy Committee. The price gouging statute does not explicitly include war or armed conflict as the type of emergency that would activate anti-price-gouging protections. Since President Trump started his illegal war in Iran, the cost of gas and diesel has cost Americans more than $62 billion. Californians alone, it has cost over $3 billion. So over $200 per household in California, and obviously some a lot more.

On the day the conflict in Iran began, the average price of gas in California was $4.64 per gallon. Since then, the average retail price increased to $5.99 per gallon, an increase of a dollar and 35 cents per gallon. And this is not simply due to market factors, it appears. California's Division of Petroleum Market Oversight has identified a persistent and ongoing gap between branded and unbranded gasoline prices, which my team noticed at our oversight hearing.

The difference between branded and unbranded gas in the rest of the country is about 5 cents per gallon. In California, that difference has been a whopping 31 cents per gallon, and that's not right. So what does the Wartime Price Gouging Act do? It simply adds war to the list of emergencies that can activate California's anti-price-gouging laws. It doesn't add new consumer protections.

It just extends the strong ones we already have to another type of emergency. And we know that Californians are struggling with gas and housing and groceries, and we can't control what happens halfway around the world. But we can make sure Californians are protected here at home. A consumer watchdog at our hearing yesterday presented other evidence, more evidence that we can get into, that points to this price gouging effect. And price gouging is wrong, whether it's caused by a wildfire, an earthquake, a pandemic, or war.

California should not become collateral damage in an international conflict. This bill gives Californians the tools to protect consumers when they need it most. I appreciate the work of the Chair and committee staff. I'm happy to accept the committee amendments that clarify the prohibitions and penalties pursuant to this price gouging statute will only take effect for war if the Attorney General finds there is a nexus between the war at issue and price increases, and we may get into that more in the Q and A.

With that, I'll turn it over to my witness, Alexis Sutterman. Thank you.

Great. Thank you so much. Good morning, Chair Schultz, members of the committee. My name is Alexis Sutterman. I'm here representing BrightLine Defense.

We're an environmental justice organization that works directly with working class families in the Tenderloin, Chinatown, South of Market, and the Mission District who are disproportionately burdened by harmful air quality and environmental injustice. These families have the least financial cushion to absorb sudden crises. So when global emergencies trigger price spikes, it really directly destabilizes these vulnerable pocketbooks. Following the Iran War conflict and the blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, average gas prices in California shot up from $4.64 to $5.99 a gallon.

Many Californians, especially those in our working class neighborhoods, cannot simply opt out of driving, and therefore this price spike has become sort of a regressive tax on those who rely on driving to reach jobs, childcare, or medical appointments.

While market volatility is real, recent state assessments reveal that there is an unexplained and unique increase in California gas prices that are driven up by major branded refiners. This points to a deeper issue. Companies may be using global conflict to exploit the situation and raise prices even further, pushing communities to make dangerous trade-offs in their everyday life, such as forgoing groceries, health care, or rent.

California already has a proud history of pioneering consumer protections, from Penal Code Section 396 to creating the Division of Petroleum Market Oversight. Yet an outdated statutory loophole prevents us from activating these anti-price-gouging laws during international conflicts.

SB 493 closes these loopholes, and it ensures the state has the tools to deter predatory pricing and protect consumers during global crises. For these reasons, BrightLine strongly urges your aye vote on this common sense measure that will prevent companies from profiting at our community's expense.

Thank you.

Wonderful. Thank you very much, Senator, for the presentation, and thank you for your testimony. Next, we'll take the me-toos. If you'd like to be heard in support of this bill, you can come forward at this time. There's a microphone right next to Mr. Weber here at the end of the dais. And again, please limit your comment to your name, the organization that you're with, and your position, please.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, members. Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Grishina Mohaveer, California Environmental Voters, in support. Thank you.

Asha Sharma on behalf of Sierra Club California in support. Thank you.

Charles Kontrabecki, insurance advocacy on behalf of Consumer Watchdog, in support.

Wonderful. Thank you all very much. Now we'll take any opposition witnesses. Is there anyone here hoping to testify in opposition to the bill? Okay.

We have two witnesses. Come on down. You can each grab a seat. Your time doesn't begin until you start speaking. And as a reminder, when you have about thirty seconds left between the two of you, I'll give you that visual sign.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Robert Moutrie, California Chamber of Commerce. We are regrettably opposed to SB 493. First, I want to be clear. We do not oppose the bill out of any fondness for present foreign wars, whether undeclared or declared.

As noted by the Senator, California has some of the strongest anti-price-gouging laws in the nation, but that exactly is why our concern about over-triggering them is so significant with this bill. As noted by the Senator substantively, we believe this bill would permit a state of emergency to be declared whenever the United States is in an active operation against any foreign power or even assisting the United Nations.

A few quick examples: we believe that would have included, rather, Bosnia under Clinton, many engagements and wars under Bush and Obama, and many other military actions under Trump. In other words, we are concerned that this would authorize a state of emergency to be declared even when no actual supply emergency exists in California and would permit this on a near ongoing basis. I appreciate the flag of committee amendments to try to tie those things together.

I have not reviewed them, but obviously we'll do so as we go. Keeping it short for time, that is our core concern. We view this as over-triggering potentially in situations where California's economy does not need it, though we are sympathetic to the author's goals. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members. Debra Carlton with the California Apartment Association. We believe the bill affects more than gas prices and could, notwithstanding the amendment. Obviously, the purpose of price gouging, as you know, is to protect consumers when disasters distort the market in extreme and potentially dangerous ways. Military conflicts, as you know, are different from traditional disasters such as fire, floods, and earthquakes, which can immediately threaten California's ability to obtain basic necessities and survive day to day.

In the housing context, long term emergency price caps have serious unintended consequences that can discourage owners from making their units available, limit the ability to account for increased operating costs, and further strain an already tight rental market. The proposed amendment requiring the Attorney General to issue a written opinion does not resolve our concerns. It creates a new procedural step without explaining why it's needed, what problems it solves, and how it would improve enforcement.

If there's a real and direct connection between war and price increases for specific goods and services, existing emergency authority should be clear enough to address it without requiring a separate Attorney General opinion. Relying on the Attorney General's opinion process will politicize what we believe should be a clear legal standard.

The scope of Penal Code 396 should not depend upon a discretionary written opinion issued after a war related emergency is proclaimed. The law should be clear on its face. And for these reasons, we respectfully ask for a no vote today. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you both very much for your testimony. Next, we'll take the me-toos. If you'd also like to be heard in opposition to this bill, please come forward. Name, organization, and position, please.

Good morning, Chair and members. Daniela Garcia-Hernandez with the Western States Petroleum Association in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. Daniela Garcia-Hernandez with the Western States Petroleum Association in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair, members. Skyler D. Wonnacott on behalf of the California Business Properties Association, the Building Owners and Managers Association of California, and NAIOP California in respectful opposition. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning. Elizabeth Esquivel at the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, also in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Elizabeth Esquivel at the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, also in opposition. Thank you.

Okay. Very good. Okay. Very good. There is a lot today.

Senator Becker, I only had one question, but if you'd like to address it in your close, that's perfectly fine. You know, we heard from opposition witnesses some ongoing concern even in spite of the committee amendments. So if there's any response that you'd like the committee to consider, I'd love to hear that in your closing remarks. And with that, I'll now give you a chance to close on the matter.

Yeah. Well, thank you. Thanks for the consideration here today. I guess, specifically, on the opposition concern, I mean, we do feel it's quite clear with the amendments. The bill says that the Attorney General has to find a sufficient nexus between the war at home and increases in the prices of these goods or services.

So we think that's pretty clear. You know, obviously, there's a bit of disagreement. We're happy to; it's a relatively new bill. We're happy to keep talking about that. Obviously, the focus has been oil and gas prices.

And on that score, I will note that since we introduced this bill, President Trump himself has accused the oil companies of price gouging. And I'm told, actually, that Adam Schiff, our Senator, just the other day has now called on Donald Trump to stick to his promise to investigate price gouging. So it sounds like Senator Schiff is concerned as well. So I think there's sufficient nexus.

Consumer Watchdog at our press conference yesterday also presented other evidence that said, in 2025, only two weeks were we a dollar 50 more than the rest of the country.

In 2024, four weeks. This year, already 13 of 25 weeks were a dollar 50 more than the rest of the country. And also, refining margins have doubled since the war started, profit margins. So, with that, we will continue to be in conversations here and we respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Well, thank you very much, Senator. I appreciate the work that's been done on the bill so far, including taking the committee amendment. I understand that doesn't address all of the concerns, but I still appreciate the good faith negotiations that you've at least demonstrated to me to this point. And I will just say to the opposition, I've known Mr. Becker for a few years.

I understand him to be a very thoughtful and genuine author, and I'm sure that if there is common ground to be found, I take him at his word that he will continue those conversations to attempt to find it.

With that said, at the appropriate time, I will be recommending an aye as amended for today, but we don't yet have a quorum. So we will let you know the outcome, or you can stick around and watch it all day. We'll be here all day. Thank you very much, Senator. Thank you, everyone.

Thank you, Chair.

Okay. And colleagues, just for the record, that was our hearing, referred to us pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.2. We now go back to the bulk of the agenda that remains. I will just note that next in sign-in order is Senator Jones, but I don't see Senator Jones here. So we'll next go with Senator Grayson, who has two bills up.

And assuming that Senator Jones does not show up, I then have Senator Weber Pierson next on deck. Senator Grayson, will you be starting with 10:56 or twelve away? 10:56. Perfect. Alright.

The floor is yours whenever you're ready.

Thank you so much, Mister Chair and esteemed members of the committee. Good morning, by the way. And I would like to first thank the committee for their great work in collaboration with my office. The amendments adopted last week reflected the committee's incredible work to move the bill into a better direction for both my sponsors and the opposition. I would also like to thank the opposition for their willingness to work with my office, on this very important bill.

So I am pleased to present SB 1056, which requires courts to issue protective orders governing the disclosure of sexually explicit material of an adult victim in specified cases. California law mandates strong court oversight over the handling of highly sensitive child sexual abuse material. Courts, not individual attorneys, control the copying and dissemination of such material, and disclosure is tightly regulated.

While child sexual abuse material is appropriately subject to explicit statutory safeguards, no parallel provision expressly requires similar court supervision when the material depicts or involves adult victims. As a result, safeguards may depend on prosecute prosecutorial discretion rather than judicial oversight.

Survivors of sexual violence and privacy based crimes may face a heightened risk of unnecessary copying, transmission, or dissemination of deeply personal material. This undermines a survivor's privacy and public confidence in the judicial system. SB 1056, would extend the proven statutory framework already applied to child sexual abuse material to similarly sensitive material involving adult survivors while preserving defendant's rights to reasonable access necessary to prepare a defense.

Specifically, the bill requires courts in in specified criminal cases to issue a protective order governing the disclosure of sexually explicit material depicting an adult victim with conditions sufficient to safeguard the victim's privacy, prevent unnecessary copying, and ensure defendant's right to a fair trial and meaningful opportunity to participate in their own defense. Recent amendments further outlined the prohibition of disclosure prohibiting parties from disclosing to any person copies of sexually explicit material depicting an adult victim unless permitted to do so by the protective order.

Importantly, the bill also outlines the process for disclosure of materials as is necessary for the preparation of the case, including the defendant. It also provides notification requirements in the instance of any new material for the inclusion of an existing or new protective order. SB 1056 ensures that survivors are afforded meaningful privacy protections through clear and consistent standards. Seeking justice does not have to retraumatize or expose survivors even further. Every survivor deserves privacy, dignity, and the right to control their own narrative.

After me, you'll hear from my support witness whose case is the impetus for this bill. As a former Assembly member who represented Vallejo and a cofounder of a nonprofit serving survivors of violence, I was incredibly moved by their resilience and continued advocacy. In 2015, they became the focus of a shocking case that captured national attention and was later featured in Netflix's America Nightmare documentary. Today, they advocate for trauma informed police, policy and, survivor centered practice, and they train law enforcement agencies nationwide in policing.

For supporting testimony, I am pleased to introduce to this committee, Denise Huskins Quinn and Erin Quinn, doctors of physical therapy survivors, authors, and advocates.

Through the Chair.

Thank you, Senator. And you both have four minutes. Thank you for being here today.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair and committee members. My name is Denise Huskins Quinn. Eleven years ago, I was kidnapped, drugged, raped in fear for my life, and unsure if I'd live to see another day. What followed was not only trauma from the crime itself, but trauma from the system that was supposed to protect me. Like many survivors, I made the incredibly difficult decision to come forward.

I cooperated fully and entrusted the justice system with deeply personal evidence, recordings, private communications, and intimate details of the most terrifying experience of my life, believing it would be handled with care. An added layer of being kidnapped and raped was the assailant's choice to video the violence. He threatened that he would release it on the Internet if I reported to police. He threatened my life and the lives of my loved ones.

His intent was to have complete power and control over me, my body, for the rest of my life.

Months later, when law enforcement arrested him for a different crime, they reported that he kicked clothes a laptop when they entered the home that he imprisoned me in, where they also found lotion, a penis pump, and tissue scattered about. That laptop housed the recordings of him raping me. That footage allowed him to violate me over and over again, reliving the violence with each viewing, which is why it was already sickening to learn that he was able to relive it simply by choosing to represent himself.

But I accepted that that was his legal right. He also had the power to cross examine me at the preliminary hearing after watching me give intimate anatomical details of each of the rapes in a courtroom full of strangers, media, and my family.

He had access to sensitive information around the case that I did not have access to. He even threatened to play the footage in court, and thankfully, there was a protective order in place to prevent him from doing that. But I never imagined that he and his wife, who was working as his paralegal, would be provided copies of that footage, which she was able to have in her home for an extended period of time unsecured.

Knowing it could be copied, shared, or stored without clear limitations, reopen wounds that I had worked for years to heal. It may be questioned whether participating in the justice system meant permanently surrendering my privacy and, again, my body.

That evidence is not just discovery. It is a record of some of the worst moments of people's lives. I believe deeply in due process. I've seen what happens when it fails, but due process and dignity are not in conflict. This bill ensures that when survivors entrust the system with the most intimate record of what happened to them, courts, not chance, set the rules for how that evidence is handled.

California already recognizes that when the material involves children, certain evidence is so sensitive it requires clear judicial guardrails. This bill applies that same principle to equally sensitive material involving adult survivors. Coming forward is already difficult. If doing so means potentially losing control over the most personal evidence of what happened indefinitely, that burden becomes heavier still. Judicial oversight ensures that accountability does not come at the cost of dignity.

For these reasons, I request your aye vote on SB 1056. Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

About forty five seconds. Okay.

Good morning. My name is Aaron Quinn. I'm here at present on SB 1056. In 2015, a man sttalked me and now my now wife, Denise, for over half a year. He later claimed that he's originally targeting me because he believed that I didn't deserve the life I had and he wanted to take away my things.

So he taxes in the middle of the night, took the love of my life and held her captive for two days and raped her twice while recording it. After Dean and I were reunited, she told me through deep visceral sobs of the horror she experienced, I failed to protect her, and I feared she would never heal from such a devastating wound. At the time, police didn't believe us, and the assailant went on to attack two more families until he was caught months later.

Denise healed and demonstrated incredible courage while participating participating in criminal proceedings to ensure that man this man can no longer harm another innocent life. Yet just last year, we learned that he was representing himself during a state case and his now ex wife was provided copies of the footage of the rapes.

We knew that he would have access to BUOM and in that in and of itself was hard to accept, but we understood that was his right. Every single person must have due process. However, we believe that there would be more sensitive and protections handling this.

And I'm gonna pause you right there, sir, but I'm pretty sure you're gonna have a question that'll allow you to finish that statement at the appropriate time. But thank you both very much for your testimony. If I could ask, I I don't know for sure, but we might have an opposition witness. If someone could take that Chair at the appropriate time, that'd be great.

With that, before we get to questions and more back and forth, if there are other me too's who'd like to register a position of support on the bill, please come forward at this time.

You can use this microphone right over here by Mister Weber. And if you're the opposition witnesses, if we have opposition witnesses, you'll be right up after the me too. So please, be prepared.

Bridget Stumpf on behalf of Volare. Proud to support.

Thank you. Brad

Morrow on behalf of the California District Attorney's Association in support.

Erin Sabir, on behalf of the California Family Justice Center Network, proudly, support in support. And thank you to Senator Greeson, and thank you senators.

Thank you all. Do we have any other support positions? Okay. Do we have opposition witnesses? Alright.

I see one. Sir, you can come on down, use either seat, and you have a total time of up to four minutes to address the committee. Your time begins whenever you start to speak.

Thank you. Good morning, Mister Chair and members. Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, Statewide Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Private Practice and work in public defender offices. We were opposed strongly opposed to the bill as it was originally drafted.

We have some remaining concerns that we'd like to continue to engage with the author's office. I do wanna thank the author's office and the proponents for lengthy and numerous conversations on this bill throughout the year. I think it's a much better place. Our concerns, currently, have to do with the obligations of the criminal defense lawyers. We understand the situation, the underlying facts, and the tragic facts of this case.

But what we are concerned about is what will happen with those criminal defense lawyers who are not representing themselves, and when two things two situations. One is the bill says that, the defense has to notify the court in order to potentially trigger a protective order.

It's unclear to us what that procedure and protocol would be for a criminal defense lawyer to notify the court in that instance, and we're concerned that we could accidentally get tripped up a good faith attorney who's trying to follow the law, who's not doesn't fit in the fact pattern of the underlying case, what they're gonna do. So we wanna make sure that procedure and protocol is very specific so that we don't run afoul of the law.

The second piece is what happens when there are images that potentially could fit the definition that are in the public domain.

Will this now inadvertently put a obligation on criminal defense lawyers anytime they see something in public domain to report it to the court? And so that's a little bit of gray area for us. So we'd like to continue to talk about that going forward, just to make it clear, make it a little bit more workable for the criminal defense lawyers. But, again, I really wanna thank the committee and the author and the proponents for engaging and working with me, and others, on this bill.

So we'll continue to engage as the bill moves forward.

Alright. Thank you very much for your testimony, sir. If you'd like to register a me too, an opposition position on the bill, please come forward at this time. Okay. We'll turn it back to the dais.

Colleagues, if if you'll indulge me, I just wanted to give our other witness a chance to finish his statement. So if there's anything else that you would like the committee to know that you didn't have a chance to present, I I'd love to hear it at this time, sir.

Yeah. I can finish it. It's only about thirty more seconds. So I find this this was unacceptable in digital age. I believe more sexual assaults will be recorded.

So I watched my wife, the mother of my two daughters was exploited again. And I know that Denise, I know the importance of supporting and protecting survivors as they as they navigate the legal process because if they don't feel safe, they will not come forward. That's precisely why I'm here. I will not fail, Denise, again. I believe that SB 1056 closes important privacy gap for survivors by fully preserving constitutional right to due process and their right to the accused.

As someone who has felt both the weight of the government power and the pain of retraumatization, I believe strongly in balance due process must be preserved. Survivor's dignity must not be left to chance as b ten fifty six achieves both. And I wanna thank Senator Grayson for champion this this important issue. Thank you. Alright.

Thank you both very much. I'll have some comments at the end, but do either of my colleagues who are present have any questions or comments you'd like to make at this time? No? Okay. I will reserve the balance of my comments for the recommendation, but Senator Grayson, this is your chance to close if there's anything else you'd like the committee to now.

I just wanna thank the committee for your tremendous work, opposition for our conversations, and our continued work together. And, Chair, for your for being gracious and allowing our witnesses to be able to fully testify. And, and, with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Well, thank you very much, Senator. And as I said at the beginning, it's always awkward to have to be the one enforcing the rules, but I try to do it as fairly and subtly as I can. I just wanna thank you, sir, for bringing the bill forward. You know, I as a criminal practitioner myself, I prosecuted cases dealing with digital evidence. I think this does fill a gap in existing law.

And to your two witnesses, I just wanna say thank you for your courage and your bravery for being here. I often say in this committee that we are not defined by what has happened to us, but how we respond to it and to see your resilience and your strength as you sit here. You're quite literally changing the law, and I applaud you and I thank you for being here. I know there's more work to do as there always is. You'll have conversations to continue.

But, Senator, at the appropriate time when we have a quorum, you will enjoy an eye recommendation. And to the extent that you'd be interested, I'd be happy to come on as a co author of this bill.

Would be very honored. Thank you so much, Mister Chair.

Thank you very much, Senator. Thank you, everybody.

Well done. Thank you very much.

Colleagues, for the record, that was item number 10. Again, we're waiting on a quorum to have, motions taken. Senator Grayson also has item number 15. This is SB1208. Senator, are you ready to go?

I am, sir. Alright. The floor is yours.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Committee Members. I am proud to present SB128, a bill that will empower our law enforcement agencies to seize and return crypto assets to victims of scams and fraud throughout California. Since the onset of the COVID pandemic, we have entered a new era of Internet enabled crime that is largely perpetrated by transnational criminal organizations. These crimes often originate in Southeast Asia and weaponize our digital platforms to perpetrate scams.

Over the past five years, Californians have reported a cumulative loss of $9,000,000,000 that is with a, b, $9,000,000,000.

And unfortunately, digital assets and crypto are often used as tools to perpetrate this fraud. On the other hand, crypto transactions that occur on the blockchain provide an evidentiary trail that allows law enforcement officials to investigate scams, follow the money, and seize the assets from criminal organizations. This bill allows law enforcement agencies to return those seized assets back to fraud victims even when the assets have been laundered.

I appreciate the extensive discussions that we have had with the Chair and committee staff, and I am very happy to accept amendments that clarify my intent and to make this bill even better. The amendments maintain protections provided by existing law to prevent civil asset forfeiture from being used in alleged drug crimes.

I am very sensitive to those concerns and appreciate the help from the Chair, from committee staff, and from the attorney general's office to ensure that the language in this bill is well crafted to avoid the risk of misuse. Speaking of the AG's office, attorney general Rob Bonta is the sponsor of this bill, and I appreciate his partnership in such an important on such an important issue.

So with me today is Anthony Liu from the AG's office to provide support testimony and Jeremy Seymour, deputy attorney general, cybercrime section, to answer any technical questions through the Chair.

Thank you very much, Senator. Gentlemen, thank you for being here. You have four minutes to address the committee. And as a reminder, as you get close to thirty seconds remaining, I'll give that visual cue so you have a chance to reach your final thought. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll, I'll be much shorter than that. Mister Chair and Members. Anthony Liu, my deputy AG in the office of legislative affairs for AG Rob Bonta, the sponsor of the bill. We wanna thank Senator Grayson for authoring SB120 a, and for his demonstrated long time commitment to combat cryptocurrency fraud and help victims.

We also wanna thank the Chair and the committee staff for working with us to craft a set of amendments that provide appropriate due process protections, focus the scope of the bill, and help reach one of its main objectives, namely to establish an effective way for law enforcement to return already seized digital assets to victims of crypto fraud and crime. As you heard the author describe, the data shows that crypto front cryptocurrency fraud is a serious threat to public safety.

It's only growing worse, and victims of crypto scams are far too often unable to recover their losses and be made whole again. SB128 will provide prosecutors with a much needed tool to seize and return digital financial assets to victims of crypto fraud. At the same time, this also disrupts the ability of scammers to use cryptocurrency for money laundering or engage in other criminal enterprise.

The discussions around SB128 have improved the bill and ensure this is a focused tool with checks and balances, one that provides appropriate due process for innocent owners or claimants to file a verified claim with the court for the return of the seized property.

Under the bill, after all such claims are resolved by final judgment of the court, SB128 provides a mechanism for seized digital assets to be distributed on a prorated basis up to the amount of their actual loss to compensate victims of the fraud. Under the bill, any leftover or undistributed assets are then routed to the state restitution fund exclusively for their purpose of providing victim services, but never to the law enforcement agency that initially seized the property.

So this bill furthers the public policy goal of attempting everything we can as a legislature to help victims of crypto fraud recover, to try to be made whole again. We should not just give up or assume there's nothing we can do for victims just because crypto scammers are often located outside the jurisdiction of California prosecutors.

SB1208 is one way we can keep fighting for these victims who are our families and neighbors. For these reasons, the AG respectfully requests your aye vote for a SB1208.

Thank you. And you have about ninety seconds remaining.

Thank you. Good morning. Jeremy Seymour from the cybercrime section. I'm happy to answer any questions if the committee has any questions regarding the bill.

Okay. Thank you both very much. Don't go anywhere because there might be questions. Next, we'll take the Me Too's. If you'd like to be heard in support of the measure, come forward.

Name, organization, and position, please.

Good morning. Tamar Tokat on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office in support. Thank you.

Chair members, Max Perry on behalf of the California Police Chiefs Association also in support.

Good morning, everyone. Brad Morrow on behalf of the California District Attorney's Association in support.

Alright. Thank you very much. Just final call. Anyone else hoping to be heard in support of the measure? Okay.

Do we have opposition witnesses present today? K. Come on come on down. I see looks like the two of you. So between the two of you, you both can grab a seat here if you like, and you'll have a combined time to between the two of you, four minutes to address the committee.

Oh, I'm sorry. There's three. Okay. So, Sir, with the laptop, are you hoping to testify or simply offer a me too saying

Just a me too in opposition.

Perfect. So if you can just stand by right there, we'll take you in just a moment. First, we'll take the four minute testimony from our opposition witnesses, then you'll be the first one up for me too. So thank you, sir.

So I can stand here.

Whatever you prefer. You can sit and come. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, sir.

Alright. Thank you both. You have four minutes whenever you're ready.

Good morning, Chair and Members. George Parampathu speaking on behalf of ACLU California Action. We are opposed to SB128 unless it is amended to address certain practical and constitutional concerns. The ACLU takes a simple position that if the government wants to take your property, they better be sure you did something wrong. To ensure this, we believe that the government must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt before taking your property.

And for the last decade, the legislature has shared this view, generally requiring the state to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt before property is forfeited to the state. Unfortunately, SB128 goes the opposite direction. In cases where a person cannot submit a claim to recover their own property within thirty days, SB128 would allow the state to take that property based only on a preponderance of the evidence.

To be clear, under this scheme, the state can take your property without ever even charging you for a crime. As noted in the analysis, this raises a whole host of fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, and fourteenth amendment issues.

To highlight just one of these issues, imagine that after thirty one days, a prosecutor takes a person's crypto and distributes it to the alleged victims. Then sixty days later, the prosecutor learns of the alleged fraudster's identity and takes him to court, only for that person's case to be dismissed or for them to be acquitted. What happens then? Does the person get their property back? Who is responsible for chasing down those assets?

And what legal process should be followed for clawing back those assets from the new owners? These questions and the pages of concerns raised in the analysis can be avoiding avoided by sticking to the existing asset forfeiture scheme. I'll end by noting that the issues we are discussing today are the result of a financial asset class that has been advertised as unregulated since its inception. The answer to those problems is the increased regulation of that market, not an after the fact scheme that raises constitutional concerns.

For these reasons, we urge a no vote.

Thank you.

Good morning. Leslie Caldwell-Houston for the California Public Defenders Association. We do appreciate the amendments. However, after review, we must continue to oppose SB128. Unless it's amended to provide guardrails to prevent the abuse of the money laundering statute against unbanked indigent individuals.

Although the goal of combating transnational's fraud and cryptocurrency based money laundering is well intentioned, SB128 inadvertently creates a tool that could be misused against drug users and low level drug dealers and others who are unbanked and use cryptocurrency in place of cash. Yes. This is a common thing. Resulting in more pretrial detention, greater disparity in plea bargaining, and longer sentences for unintended people.

The problem is that the statutory mechanism chosen to address it reaches the conduct far removed from that target and will disproportionately impact economically disadvantaged individuals who do not have access to the banking system and are increasingly using cryptocurrency instead of cash.

For the street level defendant who uses cryptocurrency as a payment substitute, it creates an additional felony charge that has nothing to do with concealment, layering, or the evasion of financial oversight. As public defenders, we represent individuals who are low level drug dealers who may have made six cryptocurrency payments to a supplier over five days, totaling $5,400. They're using cryptocurrency in place of cash. The cryptocurrency was transferred directly from them to their dealer. No financial institution was used.

No concealment structure was employed. There was no layering, no smurfing, no attempt to disguise the origin of the funds. Under existing law strike that. A parallel concern arises involving sex work, particularly online platforms where digital payments are used for discretion or accessibility rather than concealment. The knowing prong of Section one eighty six point one o sub a, which reaches conduct where the actor knows the funds represent the proceeds of criminal activity can plot plausibly reduce the

That's your time.

Thank you. Gotcha.

Sorry. Just as a reminder, if you're testifying, I do try to give that thirty second visual cue, but there might be a question to allow you to to to continue. With that, we're next gonna go to the me too. So, sir, we'll start with you. If you'd also like to be heard in opposition to the bill, please come forward.

Again, your comment should be limited to your name. If you're with an organization, let us know and your position.

Hi. My name is Colin Gallagher. I'm just speaking against myself. And, I'd like to just kind of, say thank you to this gentleman that prior spoke on the issue of the cons some of the constitutional issues with the bill. However

Thank you, sir. I'm very sorry, but the committee rules for the me too testimony only allow us to take, yeah. Yeah. So I understand you oppose the bill and you echo his concerns today.

Thank you. Okay. Colin Gallagher speaking in opposition to this bill. And I wanted to just call out this little section.

Sir, I'm, I'm really sorry. I don't mean to be a bear, but the rules don't allow it. So we only take the two witnesses, but we will register your position of oppose. And perhaps, technically, there could be a question of you, but for purposes right now, we can't take additional testimony.

Oh, there's no additional.

Okay. Unfortunately not.

Alrighty then. Well, bye bye both. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for being here, sir.

One more support.

We have a support. Okay. Come come forward. We'll take that too.

Good morning, Mister Chair. Pardon my tardiness. Rob Wilson, California Credit Union is here in support of the bill. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. And I'm gonna do a final call. Anyone else hoping to be heard in opposition to the bill? Okay.

We'll now turn it back to the dais. Colleagues, are there any questions or comments that you'd like to make at this time? No. Okay. Then I have just a pair well, I, I guess I have one question for DOJ.

I have a comment to make, but for the purposes of the question I would ask, this is, the opposition witnesses have raised some good points about the unique features of this asset. I think they also raise a very good point that it is a relatively unregulated asset. Could you speak to why you feel in your experience, especially you, sir, heading the eCrime section at DOJ, why the bill is necessary and how existing law is inadequate? If you could walk us through that.

Yes. Thank you. First of

all, I'm not the head of the section, but, I appreciate the promotion. I am in the section. That being said, I think one important thing. I was looking at the statistics related to Internet crime and particularly scams. The FBI publishes data every year.

And I was looking at 2015. And in 2015, we had scams. They were a problem. There was a lot of Internet crime. About one percent of it was cryptocurrency cases.

Now over half of it involves cryptocurrency. And that is because it is relatively unregulated. It is instantaneous. It is worldwide. It lends itself to the ability for these transnational criminal organizations to reach out into homes, convince people to send money instantaneously, and then it is gone.

And so the nature of the technology lends itself to these crimes, which is why they are expanding at the rate that they are. It is also relatively impossible for a state or local agency to reach into a country where there may be local cooperation, where there may be local corruption, and get out a transnational organization to drag an individual back to California to put them in the defendant's Chair.

And I think that's one part of the issue with the ACLU's position on this particular bill is the reality is we cannot prosecute these people not because we cannot prove crimes, but because we cannot get them into court. So we cannot do anything via one eighty six point one one or one eighty six point three, the existing criminal forfeiture statutes that require a criminal conviction.

And I think with respect to that, I also wanted to point out that the ACLU's position, I think, demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of California law regarding stolen property because it focuses on asset forfeiture, which in California is limited to drug crimes.

And in a drug crime, the drugs are the contraband. There is money involved. There is money that is transacted, but the government seizes that as a matter of policy. And so creating a beyond a reasonable doubt standard only hurts the government. When you have a stolen property crime, that money belonged to a victim of crime.

It did not belong to a drug dealer. It is not being taken by the government from the criminal because it was the criminal's property. It is being taken to return to victims. It originated somewhere. And so when we have a stolen car and we can't prosecute the car thief beyond a reasonable doubt, we don't say, we can't prosecute the car thief beyond a reasonable doubt.

But we believe your car is stolen. In fact, it's registered to the victim, but we're gonna give it back to the car thief. That is not how California law works regarding stolen property. This statute is entirely consistent with California law regarding stolen property. Existing law has a preponderance of the evidence standard regarding stolen property.

That is the way that the government denies the return of stolen property. And in this case, as result of the amendments that have been made here, these seizures focus on stolen fungible property. And so I think it is entirely consistent with California law and due process.

Well, thank you for the answer. I have absolutely no authority or power to promote you, but I thought you did very well for for what it's worth. Thank you. Just out of fairness, you did invoke the, the, the arguments made by the ACLU representative. So in fairness, if there's anything that you'd like the committee to know in response, I'd love to hear that.

Yeah. One thing I would just highlight is that in a lot of these comments, I think we all understand this, is that we're dealing with crimes or assets that are outside The United States' jurisdiction or especially outside California's jurisdiction. There's nothing we can do to get around that problem. I think inherent to all of this is obviously the car example that is inside California. We cannot say the same for these digital assets.

The other thing I would mention is that recently, chief justice Roberts said something along the lines of the world might have changed, but the constitution has not changed. I think that is clear here. Again, our position is that if the government wants to take your property, they should be sure that you did something wrong. And while current law might be that in a criminal case, it's a preponderous standard, we still believe that the standard should be beyond a reasonable doubt.

Okay. Thank you both very much for the back and forth, colleagues. Does that raise any other questions or concerns? Okay. Senator Grayson, this is your chance to close.

Thank you, Mister Chair. And please know, as Chair and committee members, I don't take this subject lightly at all. With the massive amount of losses that have been taking place, growing in number every year, I have gone through in the past several years multiple informational hearings that involve numerous hours of testimony from FBI to secret service to banks to victims, a victim in my own district that has lost over $700,000 of her life savings and and now lives without any recovery whatsoever.

I, I just think if we have a way and an opportunity to legally, ethically, and rightfully seize digital assets and get that back to the victim. That is one of the most righteous things we can do.

So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Well, thank you very much, Senator. I will be recommending an Aye, and I have a very brief, comment I'd like to add to it. I do really appreciate the comments and the testimony provided by the opposition witnesses. I think what ultimately moved me on the issue is that while we can argue that perhaps the standard should be higher, this bill does conform, at least as I understand it, with existing law.

Senator, I wanna thank you especially because you engaged with this committee in the spirit of good faith and collaboration, and we had a lot of back and forth.

And I think it's safe to say my recommendation might be a little outside my comfort zone. I know you're a little bit outside yours. But that is exactly how the process should work. And I appreciate your your spirit of dialogue and truly in the way that I wanted to understand your concerns, you listened to mine and you heard those concerns. And the last thing I would say before I, I do, just again reiterate that it's an I recommendation.

You know, it is often brought to my attention that as Chair of this committee, you know, what is the proper role? I would argue, as Chair of the committee, the role isn't just to run a meeting, and it isn't just to rubber stamp pieces of legislation.

As the only person on this day, as at least to my knowledge, who's actually prosecuted cases, My job is to be the subject matter expert for the Assembly and to scrutinize every piece of legislation to improve it where I can and to suggest other routes to, maybe pursue in future years. You answered that call. You worked very well with me, sir.

And so, I appreciate all of that work behind the scenes. I know there's more conversations that still need to be had, but I think that this does safeguard public safety. I think it's a step in the right direction, and I will be recommending an eye at the appropriate time. With that, we still don't have a quorum. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Dispense with items as soon as we're we have a quorum.

Thank you.

Okay. I, I'm gonna read the sign in order, but I will mention Senator Weber Pearson is up next. But these are the authors that I have had signed in so far this morning, and we'll take them in the order in which they appear. We have Senator Jones presenting SB356. After Senator Weber Pearson, we have Senator Archuleta with two items, SB907 and SB1157.

We also have seen senators Blakespeare, Senator Cervantes, Senator Ashby, and Senator Grove. So if you would like to have your bill heard, you can start making your way down to Room 126 because after Senator Weber-Pierson, I don't see anyone else. Senator, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Chair. Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to present SB 874. I do accept the committee amendment and thank the committee staff and Chair for helping us find a path forward in this bill. SB 874 strengthens oversight and standardization of behavioral health treatment services in Medi Cal.

Behavioral health treatment services include applied behavioral sciences analysis, commonly referred to as ABA treatment, and other behavioral interventions that prevent or reduce behaviors that interfere with learning and social interaction most commonly for children diagnosed with autism.

Recently, utilization of ABA services has grown significantly in both Medi Cal and the commercial market here in California and across the nation. Some of the growth is by design, by the legislature. We've passed many bills to reduce barriers that family face in accessing ABA services and to ensure that children could access behavioral health treatment early when it can be most beneficial.

However, as a result, a referral for behavioral health treatment services is simpler than a referral for many other Medi Cal specialty services, and many of these providers do not have the same licensing requirements as for most other Medi Cal services. Also, because not all these providers are licensed health care providers, we also have providers working extensively with children who have not had any background checked as a part of their licensing or certification requirements.

The amendments worked out with this committee was specified that the Department of Health Care Services must ensure that all employees of these providers must be provided must be subject to a state and national background check. The amendment would also direct a stakeholder group to evaluate the feasibility of an FBI fingerprint based background check-in the near future and require a report to the legislature on whether any additional changes are required to implement this type of background check.

So as of now, SB 874 requires DHCS to take the following actions to evaluate and improve Medi Cal's behavioral health treatment services, requiring the background check for all employees of BHT providers providing Medi Cal services, convening its stakeholder work group to advise on standards for BHT services, issue and maintain clear clinical guidance for BHT services based on stakeholder input and federal guidance, and report to the legislature on BHT utilization and recommendations.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote, and with me today is Rachel Blucher, counsel for the, California Association for Behavior Analysis. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. Rachel Blucher, counsel for the California Association for Behavior Analysis or CalABA, here in support of SB 874. CalABA is the Professional Membership Association representing over 31,000 practitioners of behavior analysis in California. Our members provide behavior analysis services or ABA services across a range of settings, including homes, schools, clinics, and community environments.

This bill creates a deliberate multi stakeholder process to evaluate how behavioral health treatment like applied behavior analysis is implemented in the medical program, specifically looking at credentialing, documentation, and authorization requirements.

It also requires a background check for all providers making this requirement consistent statewide. We recognize the importance of implementing clear and enforceable safety measures within behavioral health services to protect the individuals we serve, particularly children and individuals with disabilities. We appreciate the thoughtful approach that this bill sets forth to ensure that we are protecting individuals receiving ABA services while ensuring appropriate access to care.

While they're they are critical providers in many settings, Behavior analysts are not currently licensed in California, so a statewide background check via a licensing body does not exist. While many provider organizations conduct employer background checks, this legislation will ensure there is consistent statewide standard.

This legislation will promote employer accountability, strengthen public trust, and most importantly, enhance consumer protection. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator, for the presentation, and thank you, ma'am, for your testimony. Next, we'll take the Me Too's. If you'd like to be heard in support of the bill, you can use the microphone here by Mister Weber at this time. Okay. Do we have any opposition witnesses here?

Okay. Is there anyone else hoping to register a position on the bill whatsoever? Okay. We'll turn it back to the dais, unless doctor Sharp Collins has any questions or comments, which doesn't seem to be the case. Senator, I will give you a chance to close if you'd like.

Thank you. Respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB 874.

Well, thank you, Senator Weber Pearson. I appreciate you bringing the bill forward. I think it is good public policy, and at the appropriate time, it will enjoy the eye recommendation as soon as we establish a quorum.

Thank you.

We'll be sure to let you know the outcome.

Thank you.

Okay. Public service announcement at this time. We have nine members of this committee. If you are not already here, please make your way at your earliest convenience so that we can establish a quorum and start dispensing with our items of business for today. We are prepared to proceed as a subcommittee.

However, we're in need of Senate authors. So I'm gonna read off the following names. If you work for one of these senators, if you could please have them come to Room 126 so we can hear their bill, that would be appreciated. I am waiting to hear from Senator Jones, Senator Archuleta, Senator Smallwood Cuevas, Senator Blake Spear, Senator Cervantes, Senator Ashby, and Senator Grove. If you're here and would like to have your bill heard, please come to Room 126.

Excuse me, everyone. If I can have your attention, please. Thank you very much. I'll let you get back to speaking in one moment. This is a second call out to the senators and Senate leadership.

We have a hallway full of people here to talk about a number of bills. We have witnesses that need to catch flight, so I am asking the following authors to please report to Room 126. Please report as soon as possible senators Jones, Archuleta, Smallwood Cuevas, Blake Spear, Cervantes, Ashby, or Jones. Oh, I'm sorry. Senator Stern, are you ready to go?

Yes, sir. Okay. The, the savior, the lion of the Senate, and Senator Stern, come on down. Thank you very much for being on time. It is appreciated by the committee.

Senator Stern, I believe you'll be presenting s B1266. Is that right? I am indeed. Okay, sir. Whenever you're ready, I see you have your witnesses available.

And just as a reminder, they will have a combined total time of four minutes to address the committee, and I like to give this visual cue as you approach the thirty second mark so they can finish their final thought. With that, Senator, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Before I begin, I I just wanna thank the committee and accept the the amendments. The amendments will clarify that the the definition of value does not express does not include the cost of labor, but does clarify it includes equipment that was damaged and destroyed and the taking or carrying away of copper wire. We know there's still questions for some of our cities about exactly how that'll work on the public infrastructure, but we'll we'll we'll stay on that issue going forward.

As many of you may know, in LA, we we have many challenges, but keeping the lights on on our streets and having it be safe to be a dad walking your kids at sundown in the middle of the city is is increasingly a harrowing experience when you're in the dark and when you look down and you see all the concrete ripped up and all kinds of equipment that I don't even know what it's called strewn everywhere, and the lights are off for blocks on end.

We have an issue not just with infrastructure, but we found an issue with the way the law is written itself that wasn't properly valuing that infrastructure. If you're just assessing, say, the raw scrap value of that theft, it really doesn't account for the full impact it's having, not just on our community, but on taxpayers.

In our city alone in in Los Angeles, it's it's costing us over a $100,000,000 to to do the retrofit, and that's just on the public street lighting, not to mention telecommunications infrastructure, broadband, and the like. And so we think that it's time for taxpayers to stop shouldering this bill and that the the the prime rings that are exploiting this hole in our law need to be need to have that loophole closed, and we think it's gonna make a big difference.

We know there are a lot of other things that have to happen too, and so we're excited about infrastructure upgrades and and modernization, things like going on solar, getting maybe out of, just a a single point of failure on our system.

But, we also needed to deal with public safety aspects. So I would respectfully ask for your aye vote, to get get this additional tool in our tool belt and broad range of support around. But today, we have Yolanda Benson and Jolene Navuris with League of Cities and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good morning, Chair members. Yolanda Benson representing US Telecom, the Broadband Association representing the largest to the very smallest of telecommunication broadband providers. We wanna thank the author for SB 1266. Our members provide California communities across the state with the connectivity they need to thrive in today's world. SB 1266 is an important bill, not just for telecommunication providers, but important for every California community struggling with the adverse impacts and rising repair costs.

One of the biggest hindrances to our company's abilities to provide Californians with connectivity they want and need is the pervasive and increasing crisis of copper theft. The most severely impacted area with these crimes is LA County. However, the real impact of these thefts, the actual cost to repair, and the cost of downtime can be far more severe than many of us realize. But the single while the single theft may involve only a few $100 worth of copper, sometimes more than that, sometimes it's thousands.

Downtime, we can the consequences are much more than that.

Even minor theft causes major service disruptions and create repair costs ranging from tens and thousands of millions of dollars for municipalities and telecommunication providers. These thefts can knock out streetlights, disable transit system, and most importantly, disrupt communication services for 911 important calls. Schools, businesses, and residential communities are also impacted severely. We commend Senator Stern for recognizing the seriousness of this growing problem. These crimes have become a crisis in California, and they continue to increase in both frequency and severity.

We work regularly with local law enforcement coordinating efforts with the attorney general's office and deploying our own security technology and patrol teams, but this is not enough. The state we did a study from June 2024 to June 2025, all the telecommunications company throughout the nation. And what we found for just telecommunication disruption was over six almost 16,000 incidences. Out of those 16,000, 6,000 happened here in California. Something is wrong.

This graph shows you that it's California and every other state is very, very small. Something must change. We ask for your aye vote on SB 1266.

Okay. Mister Chair and members, Julianna Voorhees on behalf of lead California cities, proud to be in support of twelve sixty six. As you've heard, metal theft has been a costly issue for cities across California, severely impacting critical infrastructure such as street lights, fire hydrants, and electric electrical vehicle charging stations. And thieves often target public assets due to the high value of precious metal.

There are several examples and multiple jurisdictions of metal theft including very recently just in June, Monterey County fee thieves stole a Monterey County $50,000 worth of metal and agricultural operations in that county.

Sacramento has had repeated thefts in their their transit operations. And in Contra Costa County, there was an outage that that shut down Lima 1 for about a week in 2024. The city of Richmond has is spending $5,000,000 to replace all their street lights because they're all out in downtown. So this is a significant financial burden that mostly falls on taxpayers, local governments, and utility providers.

And we very much appreciate this bill that clarifies, the value of the property and addresses this different problem, that is causing harm to our constituents and help local governments to repair this infrastructure to ensure our residents have access to vital services.

So we urge your support for this bill. Thank you.

Wonderful. Thank you very much, Senator, and to both of you for your testimony today. Next, we'll take the Me Too's in support. Come on down. Name, organization, and position, please.

Good morning, Chair members. Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association in support. Thank you, Chair members.

Jonathan Arambo on behalf of CTIA, the trade association for the wireless industry, and also filling in on behalf of Cal Broadband, both in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Amir Johnson, open AT and T, in support.

Faith Conley with Weinaman Group on behalf of Electrify America in support.

Good morning. Tamara Toka on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office in support. Good morning. Kelly McMillan on behalf of the California Water Association in support.

Good morning. Brad Marle on behalf of the California District Attorney's Association in support.

Alright. Thank you all very much. Do we have any opposition witnesses present today? Okay. Seems like we have two.

Great. Come on down. Oh, thank you all so much for, shuffling the chairs there. Alright. You two know the drill.

Four minutes whenever you're ready.

Tell us one more time what the drill is. Good morning. Leslie Caldwell Houston for the California Public Defender's Office Association in opposition to SB 1266. SB 1266 introduces a novel way of calculating fair market value, creating significant costs for trial courts, public defenders, and prosecutors by turning many misdemeanor petty thefts into felony offenses, necessitating full blown jury trials. We acknowledge that copper theft has been a problem.

The problem, however, is not how it's prosecuted against persons accused of stealing the copper, nor is the problem proposition 47. Rather, the problem is the anemic prosecution of the resellers, the scrap dealers who receive the copper. If there were no market for stolen copper, the conclusion is obvious. The state should be focusing attention on the scrap dealers who deal in obviously stolen property. SB 1266 takes a very unusual step to determine the value of stolen property.

The valuation method in this bill proposed that this bill proposes is actually how restitution is calculated. Restitution is not limited to the value of the stolen copper. It can include the cost of repair, whatever is reasonable to make the copper owner whole. SB 1266 serves to inflate value well beyond the actual value of the stolen property for purposes of filing an allegation by the prosecution. We and the California courts reject that. The value is as specified by CalCRM 18 o one, how much the stolen copper wire would sell for in an open market, not how much it would sell at sell for at a scrapyard. The effect of changing the definition of value in SB 1266 proposed amendment of penal code section four eighty seven j is to inflate numerous, and most acts can be prosecuted as misdemeanors, turning them into essentially mandatory felonies.

Such overcharging will lead to many more jury trials with significant attendant cost to courts, prosecutors, and indigent defense providers. We also note there's another charging mechanism available, a a violation of penal code section five ninety four, vandalism. The threshold value for felony vandalism filing is only $400 versus 950 for the theft crime this bill is trying to amend.

If a prosecutor charges vandalism, then the cost of the damage to the property, which is what this bill adds, is already an element of what the prosecution must prove. For these reasons, we request your no vote.

Good morning, Chair members. George Prampton speaking on behalf of ACLU California Action in opposition to SB 1266. I agree with the sponsors that copper theft can have disruptive impacts. I also agree with the sponsors that the current system is not preventing these thefts, but the solution is not to simply double down on an ineffective carceral approach. We already criminalize copper theft by an individual or a group.

Felony copper theft is punishable by up to three years in prison. If multiple petty thefts occur in one mine with one plan, thefts can be aggregated into a felony charge. Moreover, if any of the thefts occur in concert with others, each person is liable for the full sentence under our aiding and abetting statutes. And yet, these thefts still happen because criminalization will not solve this problem. SB 1266's approach will convert nearly every copper theft into a felony.

These increased punishments will not make victims whole, and as the Federal Department of Justice has noted, this also will not deter future thefts. Importantly, we must also keep in mind the fiscal cost of increased incarceration. If a person is sentenced to three years in LA County Jail under this bill, instead of six months under the current law, that will cost LA County an extra $225,000. To put that into perspective, that is enough to purchase 50,000 pounds of high quality copper wire.

Instead of throwing millions of dollars into the expected partial approach, we encourage the state to invest in something new such as a licensing regime for recycling companies.

For these reasons, we urge A NO vote Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have any me too's? Thank you. If if you can just state state your name or the your organization and your position.

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

Thank you.

Good morning. Marisol Alvarez on behalf of the LA County Public Defender's Office. I oppose.

Good morning. Claudia Sesenia with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in opposition.

Good morning, Claudia Gonzales on behalf of your California in strong opposition. Thank you.

Anyone else? Do we have any betweeners? Okay. Hearing and seeing none, I am the member here. I don't have any comments.

The only thing that I can say is that there is an an iRECO as proposed to be amended for the Chair. With that, would you like to provide closing?

Yes. Thank you, Assemblymember. I I just wanna appreciate the testimony of the opposition and and and just say that we're hoping that that we can have some discussions based on their their recent amendments to the bill and how that might change the valuation. And I I think we also I wanted to pledge today that I intend to embrace the Gonzalez vehicle moving on the Senate side.

And whenever I get a chance to sign on as coauthor to that, because I I do think there are there are systemic issues as well.

When you're, you know, when you're you have a $2,000 jackhammer and you're going out in the middle of the night with a crew of four people to to to do, large scale theft operations very different than the kind of petty theft, I think, that we were concerned about over criminalizing in Prop 47. But I think the intent here is really getting at that same systemic issue.

So I'll just commit to having some sit downs before, you know, this thing is off to the races and really thinking that through with you. And I also wanna just make a commitment that with our friends in the cities, especially on for the public infrastructure projects where there may be some concerns from labor about being devalued, quote unquote, I I think those are also resolvable issues, but I did wanna say to state on the record that we're gonna keep talking to them as well.

But, do accept the amendments.

Appreciate your your Ireco and, ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. At this time, we do not have a quorum, but but once we have a quorum, then we'll go ahead and take up the vote. Thank you so much. Next, we will have Senator Cervantes. You have two bills. Before the pro Yes, ma'am.

Which bill would you like to present first? Thirteen seventy nine or fourteen eighteen.

If I may, madam Chair, begin with thirteen seventy nine. Okay. And I

have my two witnesses It's okay. Joining us as well. Thank you. Alright. Alright.

If I may begin. You you can start whenever

Thank you for allowing me to present Senate Bill 1379, which separates the Riverside County Sheriff and Coroner into independent offices and establishes an independent medical examiner. I've accepted amendments that address employee transition concerns. These amendments ensure affected employees retain their bargaining rights, union representation, seniority, retirement status, compensation, and other employment protections while preserving the bill's core purpose. SB 1379 is a targeted response to a broken system in my home county of Riverside. Its purpose is simple.

you're ready.

When someone dies in custody, families and the public deserve an independent investigation, timely answers, and the truth. The need for reform is well documented. A 2024 CALmatters investigation reported that forty five people died in Riverside County jails between January 2021 and 2024, calling them among the state's deadliest jails. A 2025 New York Times investigation found Riverside County jails was the second deadliest in the nation from 2020 to 2023. The current structure creates an inherent conflict of interest.

The same department responsible for operating the jail is also responsible for determining the cause of death when someone dies in its custody. The results are alarming. Between 2011 and 2022, Riverside County recorded two hundred and twenty six in custody deaths. Although Riverside County has about 6% of California's population, it accounted for roughly 10% of the states in custody deaths during that period. We also see troubling disparities.

From 2005 to 2024, forty three percent of those who died in custody were Latino compared to thirty two percent statewide. Young adults are also overrepresented with significantly higher shares of deaths among individuals ages 25 to 44 than the state average. These are not just statistics. Behind every number is a family waiting for answers that too often never come. Many are left questioning investigative findings and forced to seek justice through the courts.

Over the past decade, Riverside County taxpayers have paid nearly a $100,000,000 in settlements related to in custody debts, a cost that is reflects a deeper systemic failure. This issue this issue has been examined by CalMatters, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, while the county has issued its own report asking the county to evaluate the very system under its scrutiny. Quite simply, that is asking the fox to guard the hen house. Community organizations, including, the Riverside Sheriff's Accountability Coalition have called for structural reform.

SB 1379 answers that call by requiring Riverside County to establish an independent medical examiner that separates the sheriff in the corner functions and improves reporting transparency in surrounding in custody deaths.

This is not a radical proposal. It is a proven model. Counties, including Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Ventura, operate independent medical examiner systems, while Fresno, Sacramento, San Mateo have separate court sheriff and coroner offices. An independent medical examiner strengthens public trust, it removes conflict of interest, and helps ensure objective medical informed investigations that can identify systemic failures and help prevent future deaths. We cannot accept the status quo.

This bill ensures that when someone dies in custody, their death is not investigated by the same agency responsible for their care. We owe families the truth. We owe our communities transparency and accountability, and we owe taxpayers a system that they can trust. Joining me today to testify is Lisa Matusz, the mother of Richard Matusz, who tragically died while in custody at the Riverside County Jail. She's also an advocate with the Riverside Accountability Sheriff's Coalition.

We also have doctor Nicholas Shapiro, associate professor at UCLA and coauthor of audit comparing county audits of sheriff corner structural and operational shortcomings who could answer any technical questions.

Are you witnesses here? Alright. If your witnesses can make their way, you'll each have two minutes. So four minutes total. Right?

So you have four minutes total, wherever you choose to use them, and you're free to start whenever you're ready. Oh, that's okay. Hi.

My name is Lisa Matusz, mother of Richard Matusz junior. I support SB 1379, and supporting the sheriff in corner is essential for independent death investigation and restoring public's trust. It's deeply personal, and it's difficult for me to speak at this time. I respectfully ask for if she if my attorney can say the rest of what I was

Yes. That's fine. Thank you.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Denise Gastelum. And since 2022, I have represented 14 families who have lost their child, their son, or daughters within the Riverside County Jails. I am Lisa Matusz's attorney, but I stand here as her advocate. I was also the attorney who was able to cross examine sheriff Bianco in February 2026, just months ago, where I point blank asked him whether he had any medical training, any forensic training, and he, in no uncertain terms, said no.

That is an important testimony under penalty of perjury because the pathologist who conducted the autopsy of Mister Solis testified that his death was a suicide. Sheriff Bianco called it an accident. And when asked point blank, doctor Pena, during this trial what he thought of that, he said it made no sense whatsoever. And I bring this up because this has been a pattern since sheriff Bianco has entered office. He'd entered office in 2019.

In 2020, we have Jamal Brown's death, which you all have been apprised of, also was one of one of Bianco's cover ups. And we ask that this is an important step to ensure transparency, to ensure accountability, and to ensure that this conflict no longer exists within Riverside. Thank you.

You still have two more minutes.

Good morning. My name is Nick Shapiro. I'm an associate professor at UCLA with a doctorate in medical anthropology. And for the past six years, I've been studying the medical legal death investigation system here in California. I appear today in support of SB 1379.

The public health benefits of this bill extend far beyond the crisis in Riverside's jails. Drug overdose deaths in Coroner counties are four times more likely to go unclassified. Coroner's misclassify one in six suicides. Forensic pathologists in coroner's offices attest to being pressured to change the causes of death at nearly five times the rate as medical examiners. The most important issue to forensic pathologists is their medical independence.

And the clearest path to expanding that independence is to follow the rest of the country, which mostly replaced this outdated sheriff coroner system by the nineteen nineties. From identification of novel infectious diseases to injury prevention in our children, medical examiners outperform sheriff of corners when it comes to public health, and public health is public safety. Last year, colleagues and I requested death records from those who died in Riverside Sheriff custody from 2011 to 2024.

We requested this data both from the Sheriff's Corner office and from the California DOJ. The Riverside Sheriff's Corner identified less than half as many deaths as the California DOJ.

They failed to account for a hundred and forty one deceased people, Hundred and forty one. Not only are some people wholly disappeared from their records, but others are gravely miscounted. For example, Mario Solis, as one was mentioned earlier, died in Riverside County Jail in 2022 after repeatedly announcing that he would kill himself with a pencil.

That's the time. If you would like to just quickly wrap it up.

The county has repeatedly failed to rein in this out of control system. The state needs to step step in. The evidence supports SB 1379.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. Okay. You guys are already lined up. Alright. If if you could please state your name, the organization, and your position, I would appreciate that.

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

James King with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support.

Lizzie Beukin with Smart Justice California in support.

Shivani Neshar on behalf of Drug Policy Alliance in strong support. Katarina Sayeli, Community Works support.

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

Good morning. Shane Levine on behalf of

the Fraternal Order of Police and the Sheriff Employee Benefit Association of San Bernardino County. Just wanna once again reiterate, we have removed our opposition. We are now neutral. Wanna thank, the author. Thank you.

Candace Chavez, felony murder elimination project in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone else? Okay. Do we have any registered opposition that's gonna provide testimony? K.

We have one. Okay. Alright. You will have four minutes. You're welcome to start.

Good morning. Thank you for having me. My name is Julio De Leon. I'm a lieutenant with the Riverside County Sheriff's Office. Before we discuss the merits of the bill by the way, we're in opposition.

Before we discuss the merits of the bill, there's a threshold question that we need to address. Why Riverside County? The bill's constitutional justification rests on Riverside County facing a unique problem, but the data does not support that. The data shows that the same trends exist in our neighboring counties and also statewide.

It is not unique to Riverside County, so we believe that the author and the sponsors have not met their threshold that your the constitutional threshold singling out and targeting one particular county over the others for this legislation.

San Bernardino County, for example, San Diego County, for example, Los Angeles County, for example, as well as the California state prison systems have all seen increases in in custody deaths. This is not unique to Riverside County. Furthermore, legislation was passed last year, AB 1108, that addresses this particular issue. We are now in the process of, seeking out medical examiners to examine our, in custody deaths. This has already been done.

This will frustrate that process and force us to either cancel those contracts, those existing contracts, or, modify those existing contracts with those outside medical examiners, because we are trying to comply with AB 118 already. This is this also overrides local control. Riverside County Board of Supervisors have already addressed this issue last year through an extensive study, and they have concluded that this is not in the best interest of our county.

This is not in the best interest of the sheriff's office, and the, merits of the allegations against us are unfounded. Also, there's an allegation that, there was a $100,000,000 settlement.

But in the analysis itself, there's also discrepancy, to where it mentions $20,000,000. So is it a 100,000,000 or 20,000,000? We don't know. The author has not presented those facts accurately. So we we, based on those reasons, we are in opposition, and we request that the committee vote no on this bill.

Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have anyone else who would like to provide, testimony? Thank you. Just please provide your name, the organization, and your position.

Good morning. Usha Muchler on behalf of the California State Sheriffs Association in opposition.

Thank you. Is there anyone else? Any betweeners? Okay. Coming back to me, just wanted to give the author the opportunity to respond to some of the things that were stated by the opposition.

One being that based on your information, you haven't been able to respond to to not meeting the constitutional threshold, but also them saying that this is overriding local control. If you can just clarify a couple of those points for me, I would really appreciate it.

There have been many counties who have already shown that this model is proven. I've highlighted those counties in my opening remarks. The data shows why we cannot accept the status quo, and we are asking for accountability and transparency. And the taxpayers are also asking for the same given the massive amount of settlements that continue to come from the issues that we continue seeing arising out of this current model.

I'm sorry. It looks like we have someone.

Yeah. Thank you. Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff's Association. Wanted to thank the author for meeting with us and discussing the bill, and we've been able to remove our opposition.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you very much for that.

We wanna give you the opportunity to provide closing, but the one thing that I did also want to say is that the Chair itself is doing is is recommending IRECO. This is something that's also deeply connected to me, something personal to me as I have lost one of my cousins. I will say his name, Kevin Mills. He passed away while in custody in the San Diego County Jail. Still looking for answers.

And so this is another way of making sure that families are getting the truth. So I'm grateful that you have been able to bring forth this bill. I would like to come on board to support this bill, as well as a coauthor. And I'll give you the opportunity to close, but once we, officially establish quorum, then we'll be able to take up this bill and call for a vote. I'll give you opportunity to close.

I want to, just thank the organizations on the ground who have elevated this issue, who all the families that are willing to step up and share their stories because I know that is difficult, and being able to create the policy change that we need to see. I'm grateful for Lisa Matus who is here, who has joined us today, all the way from Riverside County, to see the change that we need to see and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. And to your witness, thank you so much for sharing your story. We really do appreciate that. Alright. We will move to your next bill.

Thank you. This is fourteen eighteen.

Thank you for the opportunity to present Assembly bill 1418 today. As we know, our election systems in California have been under attack. This is why earlier this year, the legislature approved and governor Newsom signed into law Senate Bill 73, which bolstered California's defenses against interference in our elections in time for the June 2 statewide primary. Senate bill 1418 is a follow-up to Senate Bill 73, which is sponsored by the California attorney general's office, attorney general Rob Bonta.

March of this year, Versailles County sheriff seized more than 600,000 voted ballots from last year's special election on Proposition 50 from the Riverside County registrar of voters in a sham investigation driven by extremist conservative conspiracy groups.

At the time, existing state law was clear that after the certification of election results, the chain of custody of voted ballots must remain intact even if there is an ongoing investigation, meaning those ballots must remain in the custody of the relevant county registrar. This is to protect evidentiary value of those ballots for future investigations or audits. If the chain of custody is broken, there is no guarantee that the ballots have not been tampered with or altered.

They can no longer be used for future litigation or challenges. In response, seven SB 73 made it a felony.

To remove voted ballots from the custody of a county registrar, it also provided the secretary of state, the attorney general, and the relevant county registrars with the civil remedy against the seizure of those ballots from county registrars. However, in April, a group of press organizations, including CalMatters, successfully petitioned a court to unseal the warrant Sheriff Bianco obtained. They found that in addition to voted ballots, those warrants authorized the seizure of other election records from the Riverside County Register of Voters.

Unfortunately, these additional records would not be covered by the protections provided under Senate Bill 73. That is where SB 1418, would extend the protections in SB 73 to other forms of election records records beyond voted ballots, including voting systems.

The same concerns over chain of custody extend to these records as well. The chain of custody must be maintained to protect their evidentiary value for future investigations and audits. The bill will also make it a felony to remove additional forms of election records, including voting systems from the custody of a county registrar. It would also provide the secretary of state attorney general and the relevant county registrar with the same civil remedies that was provided under s p 73. This also has an urgency clause added.

So once it is signed into law by the governor, its provisions will be in place for the November gubernatorial election and beyond. Here with me to testify is a sponsor of the bill, with attorney general Rob Bonta's office, who, witness who could self identify.

Thank you. You have a total of four minutes combined.

Good afternoon. Tiffany Brokaw, deputy attorney general here on behalf of attorney general Rob Bonta. We'd like to thank Senator Cervantes for carrying this important piece of legislation. SB 1418 protects sensitive election documents and equipment for being seized and removed from the physical custody of election officials. California law currently provides protections for voted ballots by narrowly limiting their use and by requiring that elections officials always maintain physical custody over the voted ballots.

However, election administration increasingly relies on a broader range of records, equipment, and certified voting technologies that may be necessary to investigate allegations of election misconduct, resolve election contests, or preserve evidence during criminal prosecution of an election crime.

SB 1418 would address these concerns by extending an existing prohibition in state law or removing on removing voted ballots from the custody of local election officials to any record or document that must be preserved by elections officials under law, certified voting technologies and electronic data, and any other election material or equipment necessary to conduct an election. SB 1418 is an important tool to ensure the integrity of our electoral processes, and for these reasons, we respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. That was it. Anyone else?

And this is my colleague here to answer questions.

Good morning, members. Deputy attorney general Malcolm Brudegum from the government law section. Just available to answer any questions about the bill. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. Do we have anyone else who would like to to add on as a supporter of the bill? If so, please please make your way to the mic. No?

Okay. Do we have any opposition? Any registered opposition? Alright. Hearing and seeing none.

Do we have any betweeners? Okay. Alright. I'm gonna bring it back to you, Senator. If you would like to go ahead and prepare to provide a closing.

I appreciate the support from the attorney general and his staff and would ask for an aye vote when appropriate.

Alright. Thank you. Once again, once we establish quorum, we will be able to pick up the bill to officially vote on the bill. For this particular bill as well, the Chair definitely has an Ireco as proposed to be amended, for your for for the agreement, and we will take it up once we get quorum. Thank you so much.

Alright. Next, we will have Senator Blake Spear. And alright. As we are continue to move forward, We're still looking for other authors to make their way to the room. Alright.

So but I'll call them out shortly. How are you doing, Senator? Alright. You you were free to start whenever you're ready. And do do you mind if I have a prop that we have had at other committees? Thank you. It is approved. Thank you. This is nitrous oxide that you can buy in the convenience store.

Okay. Thank you, Chair and colleagues. I'm here to present SB936, and I thank the committee for your hard work. I would like to begin by accepting the committee's amendments. SB 936 takes a measured approach to address the rise of nitrous oxide misuse in California.

Nitrous oxide, which is in this container here, is a colorless, odorless gas with an addictiveness similar to crack cocaine that poses serious public health safety and waste management concerns. It's also become a popular recreational drug. Between 2021 and 2023, about one in twenty people across The United States reported using nitrous oxide recreationally, and nitrous oxide related deaths have increased a shocking five hundred and seventy eight percent since 2010.

Improper inhalation is known to cause dizziness, impaired brain function, loss of motor control, asphyxia or death, and repeated exposure has been linked to long term neurologic damage. While nitrous oxide has legitimate uses in controlled settings, such as in dental offices, bakeries, and automotive shops, use outside of these environments create significant risks.

Large tanks, some larger than fire extinguishers, are labeled for, quote, culinary use and widely available through retail shops and online marketplaces, often marketed with flavored varieties and branding that appeals to young consumers. This one that we have right here is watermelon flavored. This is not something your dentist is gonna be buying in the liquor store before you go to the dentist. Driving under the influence of nitrous oxide can impair drivers and cause accidents.

One such incident in my district involved a father falling asleep behind the wheel after consuming nitrous and crashing into a fence.

He then the father threw the canister threw a canister of nitrous oxide under his car, grabbed his two children ages two and four, and fled from the vehicle. These incidences are particularly concerning because nitrous oxide does not appear on traditional breathalyzers or breath or drug tests. It's difficult for law enforcement to detect impairment or enforce current law. That's why when they have to find the canisters to know to test for it. In addition, discarded canisters are hazardous and expensive to recycle.

Pressurized canisters can explode during collection, damaging equipment, and endangering workers. Disposal is also remarkably expensive. This costs $34 to buy, but it costs between 60 and $100 to recycle. And because it's an addictive substance, users aren't using one canister and tossing it. They're going through 20 or 30 at a time, increasing disposal costs exponentially.

For example, our local district attorney recently seized two pallets of these canisters from a single location that cost upwards of 300,000 for the agency to dispose of. For all of these reasons, several California counties and cities have already restricted the retail sale of nitrous oxide tanks, including Orange County, which I represent. SB 936 builds on these local efforts by establishing a clear statewide standard.

Specifically, SB 936 would prohibit the retail sale of nitrous oxide containers larger than eight grams while preserving legitimate uses. Importantly, the bill does not ban nitrous oxide outright and does not affect standard eight gram whipped cream chargers that are commonly used in call in coffee shops.

SB 936 also does not create new possession crimes. Instead, it focuses on restricting the sale and distribution of high risk products using civil penalties and regulatory tools rather than criminalization. We've taken a series of amendments to address some of the opposition concerns, moving the bill into the health and safety code, and making clear that local governments can continue to adopt and enforce stronger restrictions.

By targeting the specific products most commonly associated with misuse, the bill aims to reduce youth access, prevent impaired driving incidents, and protect workers in California's waste management system. With me today in support, I have Mister James Fontaine, chief of the Menjivar narcotics division with the San Diego District Attorneys.

Good morning, members of the committee. My name is James Fontaine. I am the chief of the major narcotics division at the San Diego County district attorney's office, and our district attorney, Summer Stephan, is a proud cosponsor of Senate bill 936. What I'd like to do with the time that I have with you is share with you what we're seeing in San Diego County in terms of the harm that's being caused in our county, but it's undoubtedly happening throughout the state of California.

Those who misuse nitrous oxide, they suffer from a number of possible injuries, including hypoxic brain injuries, nerve damage, degeneration of the spine, and in rare cases, paralysis, and even death.

Information that I obtained from our local partners in public health shows that in San Diego County in just the last two years, emergency department visits increased by 400% that those visits that are related to nitrous oxide use. Those involving spinal cord injuries tripled. And the harm from nitrous oxide is not limited to just the direct users. I examined every adult case that came through our office that was prosecuted between 2015 and 2025 where nitrous oxide with the was either charged or was meaningfully involved.

We had a total of one hundred and eighteen cases.

Seventy four of those case cases happened just in 2025. That's sixty three percent of our nitrous oxide cases over a ten year span happening just last year. And you've heard, the the case of the the father losing consciousness crashing into the fence and grabbing his two children ages two and four. The cases go on and on.

They include a young man losing control of his car, speeding down a local highway, crashing, and ending and taking the life of a 17 year old passenger to, crash on a local freeway that would take the life of both the 19 year old driver and the 25 year old police officer who responded to the scene.

And the common denominator in so many of the cases I reviewed were these large tanks of flavored nitrous oxide. These are real events with real people suffering significant, sometimes fatal consequences. SB 936 seeks to intervene before tragedy strikes, and it does that in a measured way. It preserves legitimate medical, dental, industrial, automotive uses for nitrous oxide while focusing on what's causing all the harm. And that's these large volume flavored cylinders being sold out of our smoke shops, convenience stores, and online.

So we wanna thank Senator Blake Spear, commend her for her leadership on this issue. We also want to urge respectfully, an aye vote from this committee. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Alright. So we have anyone else who would like to add on who was in support. Please state your name, affiliation, and your position. Thank you.

Thank you. And good morning. Brad Morrow on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Kelly McMillan on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics, California in strong support.

Kelly Brooks on behalf of the boards of supervisors of Santa Clara and Santa Barbara Counties as well as the Urban Counties Caucus here in support.

Morning. Lindsey Goldhorn on behalf of the Resource Recovery Coalition of California in support.

John Kennedy with the Rural County representatives of California and also on behalf of the National Stewardship Action Council, proud cosponsors. Thank you.

Hello. Jennifer Levy, California resident, victim, advocate, mother, and strong

support. Nice.

Susanna Gill, California resident, in support.

Good morning. Amy Jenkins on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, proud cosponsor, and also, California Cannabis Operators Association in support.

Julianna Boris on behalf of League of California City is in support, and I was also asked to waive the support of Californians Against Waste who are also in support of this bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Nadia Musharian Binderup on behalf of San Diego County Sheriff Kelly Martinez in support.

Good morning. Zach Flowers with the Health Officers Association of California in support. Thank you.

Morning, madam Chair. Ryan Sherman with California Narcotic Officers Association in support along with the Police Officer Associations all listed in the analysis.

Sharon Hughes, California citizen in support.

Good morning. Tamar Topat on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office in support.

Jack Werson from Nossman on behalf of the city of Ventura in support.

Good morning. Dane Hutchings on behalf of the city of Carlsbad in support.

Good morning. Cassandra Moore on behalf of the town of Apple Valley in support.

Noah Melroe on behalf of Rethink Waste in support. Thanks.

Thank you. Was there anyone else who would like to register their support? Okay. Do we have any register opposition? Alright.

Alright. You will have four minutes, and please start whenever you're ready.

Morning, Chair and members. George Brampton speaking on behalf of ACLU California Action. Before I get started, can I get a summary of what the amendments were? My main question is if the four infractions are still in the bill. They aren't. Okay. We are opposed to SB 936 unless it is amended to take a regulatory approach. The intent behind SB 936 is to prohibit retailers from selling certain nitrous oxide products. Unfortunately, thiS Bill's approach is to create four new crimes that apply directly to individuals, not retailers. In other words, SB 936 creates new criminal liability for individual consumers for the wrongs committed by businesses.

For example, if a retailer sells a consumer a nine gram container of nitrous oxide and the individual then gives that container to a friend outside the store, both the business and the consumer may be guilty of the crime a crime under this bill. But in that case, the individual likely would have no way of knowing that their action was illegal. Moreover, they likely would presume that it was legal for them to hand over to a friend something they had just purchased at the store without problems.

This concern is true of each of the four new crimes created by SB 936. Somewhat symbolic of this mismatch between the bill's intent and the bill's approach is the fact that the word retailer and distributor appear in the definition section of the bill, but are not used anywhere else in the bill.

To correct this mismatch, we strongly urge the legislature to to amend SB 936 so that it directly regulateS Businesses. For example, California's approach to regulating flavored tobacco products imposes civil fines and retail license consequences for businesses that fail to comply with the regulatory framework. Whereas most of the sponsor's comments were about retailers, the proper avenue for the intent of SB 936 is direct regulation of those retailers, not criminalization of individuals.

For these reasons, we are to no vote on SB 936 as currently written. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to also register the opposition? If so, please come to the mic. Okay. Any betweeners?

Alright. So I will, prepare to turn this back over to Senator Blake Spear. Would you be able to respond to the opposition's comments in regards to the amendments that they are proposing?

Do you mind if my witness Sure.

As I as I understand, the the main point of the opposition is to focus on retailer and the claim that the bill is seeking penalties against persons. And it's my understanding that the persons as as drafted includes the retailer and the licensing provisions of obviously include the retailers. It's important that the legislation and the bill actually continue to directly apply to persons and including individuals who would sell or distribute.

And the analogy that's being given that this is should be fall in line with how we handle tobacco sales. I frankly don't feel it's respectfully, it's inappropriate analogy.

The more proper analogy in my opinion is one that we do with alcohol, for example. If you sell alcohol, for example, in the state of California to a person that you know is already intoxicated, that's a misdemeanor offense. And that goes directly to the person selling and the business can be held responsible for it. Why is that a difference? I think the main difference is because of the immediate risk of harm that nitrous oxide presents.

We regulate tobacco sales because of the long term effects that may have on our youth. Nitrous oxide is not like that. We have individuals inhaling the first time getting behind the wheel of a car crashing and taking a life. We have immediate effects on brain function, nerve function that accumulates over time. This is not in the avenue in the arena of of tobacco.

We're looking at at infractions here, and so, it's important. The focus is on retailers, but we shouldn't insulate knowing bad actors who are knowingly selling nitrous oxide to to individuals.

Thank you. Alright. Since there's

no other committee members here at this time, that was the question that that I wanted to have you clarify based on the opposition. Please note that our Chair definitely he has an an iRECO as proposed from the amendment. And at this time, I will turn it back over to you to provide closing statements. But once we do have a quorum, we will be able to take up the official vote.

Okay. Thank you. I I very much appreciate the committee's consideration of this bill. This is a real problem and threat to individuals, to families, to public safety, and we need to do better. And and this is a very reasoned approach.

So having the threat of a store losing their license, you know, that's a real threat for them. And so we need to to all parts of this bill to continue, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. Alright. Alright. Next, we will have Senator Ashby presenting Senate Bill 1111. Good luck.

Thank you. Okay. Senator Ashby, you are able to start whenever you are ready. Thank you so much. You're welcome.

I'll give you a moment.

I'm old and I can't see, so I have to find my glasses before I can start. Okay. Thank you so much, colleagues. Thanks for having us. We'll try to move through this and and keep you going.

I know you have a lengthy agenda today. I am here to present SB 1111. This is an artificial intelligence abuse protection act. Since 2019, the creation of artificial intelligence generated deep fakes has risen by over 500%. About 98% of these date fakes consist of AI generated pornography, and over 9,500 websites have been found with such content.

Of the deep fake videos found on these sites, over 95% feature women who did not consent to their creation. The lack of a comprehensive legal framework to address the nonconsensual creation of deep fake content is dangerous, and it leaves victims with no remedy. SB 1111 establishes violations in the right of publicity law and false impersonation law to create clear legal standing for victims and hold AI users accountable.

The bill expands liability for a very specific set of instances when someone uses another person's voice or likeness to create a digital replica without their consent. SB 1111 is sponsored by Paris Hilton's 11:11 Media company and supported by SAG-AFTRA, the California Federation of Labor Unions, and Common Sense Media among others.

They have with me today some incredible testimony. Amanda Simmons, Special Education and School Injury Lawyer, and Lousanne Bouchard, a student and advocate, will share her story with you today. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. So you guys you guys will have a total of four minutes combined.

Chair and members of the committee, my name is Amanda Simmons. I'm a Special Education and School Injury Lawyer and - just pull it closer. Sorry.

My name is Amanda Simmons. I'm a Special Education and School Injury Lawyer in Orange County, California. A growing part of my practice is something I never trained for and never wanted, representing students and children whose faces have been stolen, digitally undressed, and turned into sexual images that follow them through school and online. I stand in strong support of SB 1111.

I want you to know what it is like to sit across from a student and her parents and tell them that the law is not yet built for what happened to her.

I see this happen far too often, and the harm is devastating. Research reported by California's own Department of Justice found that ninety three percent of victims suffered significant emotional distress, and more than half had suicidal thoughts after these images were shared. When that student comes to me, I am left stitching together a remedy from statutes written for a world that no longer exists. The cause of action don't quite fit together.

The guidance is unclear, and every hour I spend arguing about whether the law even applies is an hour that child waits for justice that may never come.

SB 1111 fills that gap. It makes clear that a person's voice or likeness includes a digital replica under California's Right of Private Publicity Law, and that using a digital replica to impersonate someone is false impersonation under our criminal code. It gives these students clear legal standing, real remedies, and offenders clear accountability. Our children cannot wait for the technology to slow down. The law has to catch up now.

I respectfully urge your aye vote on this issue. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Lousanne Bouchard, and I'm a freshman at Mira Costa High School in Manhattan Beach. It happened in November during my last year of middle school. I was in my bed around 10PM when one of my friends texting me sending a video recording of a fake TikTok account that was named "Manhattan Beach Middle School Sexy Girls." The video generated by an AI was showing me with a male sex in my mouth.

As I kept watching the rest of the video, my feelings were pure anger. I saw that 50 people had already viewed the video, and I knew that the number would increase overnight. Afterwards, I sent a direct message to the account begging them to remove the video. The owner refused, saying that everyone at the school would find it funny. I didn't know what to do.

I felt alone. I could have talked to my parents, but I was so humiliated that I didn't want them to see me with the male sex in my mouth even if it was fake. I texted my two older brothers for advice. I was terrified to go to school and have to face laughter. I barely slept that night, and when I woke up, my parents were already gone for work.

I felt alone once again. I checked one more time to see how many people had viewed the video, and it had tripled. I started to cry. When I arrived at school, my friends asked me if I was okay. I didn't know what to say and I didn't want to cry in front of everyone.

I spent the day with my hood over my head to feel safe, and I felt embarrassed feeling eyes all over me. My heart dropped when I walked into the locker room for PE. Everyone was talking about it. The owners of the account were taking pride of what they did, motioning oral sex to me in front of everyone. I didn't go see the counselor because I didn't want any adult to be involved and look like a snitch.

When I got home, I was exhausted, but I took the courage to talk to my dad. After feeling ashamed, I suddenly felt relieved. All this happened more than a year ago, but to me, it still feels like it's going on. Maybe because no one has been punished. I don't know how many people have seen that video and how many people still have the video, but I'm scared that one day the video will come back to me.

The only thing I know is that I want to help and use my terrible experience to make sure no other kids will have to go through the same pain and same emotional distress as I went through. Thank you.

Thank you so much for sharing your story. I'm very sorry that that happened to you. Do we have anyone else who would like to add on in support? If so, please make your way to the mic. Thank you. Please be sure to state your name, your affiliation, and your position.

Stephanie Jimenez, on behalf of the Chamber of Progress, in support.

Good morning. Omar Lazard with the California Federation of Labor Unions in support.

Thank you. Do we have any registered opposition? Okay. Any betweeners? Alright.

Thank you. The Chair has a aye recall for this bill to be moving forward. Once we establish for a quorum, we will take up the bill at that particular time, But, I would like to give you the opportunity to close. And once again, just thank your witnesses for being here, excuse me, and sharing your overall story. And I'll turn it back over to you to be able to provide closing remarks.

Thank you. Thank you for chairing as well. Thank you everyone for hearing us out. Obviously, extraordinary, compelling testimony here from a young woman who should have no reason to be in this capital with us over the summer break. She should have no reason to share this story.

She did nothing to deserve to have to stand in this spotlight, and yet here she is bravely using what happened to her to try to protect another generation of young girls, our daughters. And I appreciate her, and I hope she understands the power and strength of her voice in this moment. And I thank Paris Hilton for engaging this group of young women and bringing them along to stand up for each other.

At the right time, I hope that I will receive the aye vote of members of this committee. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

Alright. We will now be moving to Senator Umberg to hear Senate bill 884.

Thank you, madam Chair. And thanks also to Chair Schultz and miss Mary Kennedy. Just when you thought you could leave, they pulled you back in. What this bill does is this bill is designed to protect the integrity of our elections. Specifically, it's designed to address the issue of law enforcement in polling places.

It's it's amazing that I'm here. It's it's amazing that this experience has come full circle for me. The catalyst for me to first run for office way back in 1990 was an event that happened in 1988 in polling places in the district I now represent where people were dressed as police officers that were placed there for the purpose of intimidating, in particular, Latinos exercising their right to vote with big signs saying non citizens may not vote and asking for proof of citizenship.

That so incensed me that I decided to run against the person who was a beneficiary of that effort and and ultimately won that election by a narrow margin. And here we are today where the president of The United States is threatening to threatening to interfere with with our elections.

So this simply says that, for example, that within a 100 feet of polling place, that law enforcement can only be there for very certain specified purposes. And it also allows the county supervisors to expand that space to 200 yards if necessary or 200 feet rather if necessary, and it expands voting hours. President has threatened mail delivery.

It also allows for, as the Supreme Court now has indicated, for counting of of votes after the election day, but may also expand those number of days if the president continues to decide to interfere with our election. And with that, I asked for an aye vote.

I am my witness, and that's it.

Alright. Is there is there anyone else who would like to register their support? If selfies come to the microphone, state your name, affiliation, and your position.

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

Kelly Brooks on behalf of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors here in support.

Oma Lazarda with the California Federation of Labor Unions in support.

Thank you. Was there anyone else? Okay. Do we have any registered opposition?

Wrong opposition. Right?

Yes. Wrong opposition. Did you want registered opposition?

Yes.

Okay. Alright. You will have four minutes.

Let me

start whenever you're ready.

Thank you.

Chair and member. Yeah. One. One and one. Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association in very respectful opposition. Understanding the goal of the bill, I think we still have some concerns about limitations on legitimate police enforcement in and around the polling sites. I think there's also concerns about how this proposes to create an interaction between state and local law enforcement and federal officers in these situations.

We've expressed those concerns to the author's office. We'll continue to work with him and his staff over the coming months to make sure that the the goals set by this bill are achieved, but in a way that doesn't jeopardize some of the law enforce operations we're concerned about. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Do we have anyone else who like to register their position? If so, name affiliation and position.

Good morning. Usha Muchler on behalf of the California State Sheriffs Association. Respectful opposition. Thank you.

Kawasoo with California Community Foundation. Support?

I'm sorry. Can you come back and say that one more time, please?

Kawasoo with the California Community Foundation in support.

Thank you. Do we have anyone else who would like to register their opposition? Any betweeners? Okay. I'm just gonna bring it back over to Senator Umberg.

But one quick question is just, would you be able to continue to respond to the concerns from opposition regarding the limitation concerns, but also how you are working with them to find some type of common ground.

So and and I have deep respect for the the chiefs as well as the sheriffs, and and I understand their concern. This puts law enforcement in a delicate place because here we are, where we've got someone who's threatened our elections. We even have a sheriff in California who's seized ballots, what I believe is the flimsy flimsiest of evidence, who's demonstrated that that they will and can interfere with elections. And so this law is designed to, to preclude that.

I have confidence in, our state and local law enforcement officials in terms of being able to execute the law that they will continue to keep, you know so, for example, if there's a violent crime committed within a 100 feet of a polling place, they certainly can go in and and arrest the perpetrator.

But we also want reports, and and we wanna know if there's federal officials that are intimidating voters. By way, just their very presence might do so. So we wanna know about that. I will continue to work with the chiefs to see if we can't fashion some way to thread this needle where, I I believe that they also don't want, any interference in the polling place, and and try to arrive at some solution. But for now, I would urge an aye vote.

Thank you. Once we establish quorum, we will be able to take up the the official vote for this particular bill. Please note that the Chair is an IREC, but once we get quorum, then we'll be able to take up the official vote.

Thank you, madam Chair.

so much for sending.

Thank you

Thank you all. Thanks.

Thanks, honey. Sorry we came.

Alright.

We are still calling out authors. Can I