Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

Okay. Good morning. I'd like to call to order this meeting of the Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety. Welcome, to our hearing. We have 43 bills on our agenda today, and a number of bills on the consent calendar.

Let me read off the consent calendar at this time. Item number two, AB 1586 Ramos. Item number three, AB 1681 Ramos. Item number six, AB 501 Papan. Item number 10, AB 1572 Alanis.

And AB 1612 Alanis. Item 15, AB 1689 Quirk Silva. Item 20, AB 2502 Pellerin. Item 22, AB 1912 Hadwick. Item 23, AB 1913 Soria. Item 39 a B2761 Petrie Norris. And item 42 AB 2684 by Nguyen. We do not yet have a quorum. So we will operate as a subcommittee. And just an announcement as we begin today's hearing.

On each bill, the author has designated two principal witnesses to speak in support of the bill. So they will each have two minutes to address the committee on the bill. After that, we will allow, members of the public to come forward and state their name, their organization, or what city they're from, and their position in support and opposition in the bill. We will not be able to take any additional testimony, but we thank you for being here today. After that, we'll take two principal opposition witnesses.

The opposition witnesses must have submitted a letter to the committee prior to our hearing to be officially recognized as opposition witnesses. And then after that, we'll open up for any of the members of the public who wanna express their opposition to the bill. Once again, name, organization, and position on the bill. So with that, we'll begin with our bill presentations in consultation with we have kind of agreed on an order for the first presentations. Assemblymember Arambula has to go back to his district.

So, without objection, we'll go first to his bill, which is, AB 2605. Oh, an Assembly member. Sorry. It's a little different here in the Senate. And whenever you're ready, you may present on AB 2605.

Thank you, Mister Chair and senators, for the opportunity to present on Assembly Bill 2605 today. And I'll accept the committee amendments, which are adding Chair Araugene as a co author to this bill. California's long standing issues in providing public defense to individuals accused of crimes has a real cost on the state's poorest and most under resourced counties.

Though the Sixth Amendment enshrines the right to counsel for defendants in criminal prosecution, the state does not currently collect data on how public defense is provided at the local level. This has created a system where many defendants have never even met the, defender, the their attorneys, and have not had, an opportunity to investigate the accusations which are made against them.

AB 2605 addresses this issue by establishing reporting requirements on the nature of public defense services provided across the state. Most other states appropriate significant funding for public defense services, and California is an outlier in shifting this responsibility to the local level. This bill is a necessary first step in understanding the scope of this issue. Here to testify in support is Scott Bailey, retired Fresno County Public Defender.

And sir, if you can present from the table. Sorry. Yeah. The authors present from the podium and the witnesses present from the table.

Thank you.

You have two minutes.

Good morning. The sixth amendment of the United States Constitution doesn't just guarantee the right to an someone accused of a crime for rich people. It applies to indigent poor people as well. If you were arrested in a California county, you would be brought into a courtroom and you would see where, the in custody people are sitting and the out of custody people are sitting. A courtroom would look like a room like this. You would see a judge and you

could tell who the lawyers are. You could tell the lawyers are busy. And as you're facing charges on this crime, your questions are, is this lawyer gonna talk to me? Is this lawyer gonna have the time to read the police reports? Is the lawyer gonna be able to visit me in the jail and and listen to my side of the story?

The answer to these questions about whether a lawyer is able to do these things is how busy that lawyer is. How many cases is that lawyer carrying? If there are too many cases, those lawyers cannot do the job. This bill is just asking for data. So you can tell if somebody has too many cases, they can't be efficient.

It's just about numbers. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 2605? Please come forward and state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

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

Good morning. Liz Blum Gutierrez on behalf of Smart Justice California in strong support.

Good morning. Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support.

Good morning. Joanne Sheer on behalf of Felony Murder Elimination Project in strong support.

Thank you. Any other support witnesses? Are you a support witness? Okay.

Susan Bustamantes, with, California Coalition of Women Prisoners, in support.

Thank you. Unless there's any other support witnesses, we'll now take up to two opposition winners. I think there was only one opposition letter from the Fresno County Board of Supervisors. Is there any opposition witnesses? Seeing no one, I'll bring it back to the dais for any questions or comments.

No comments. We don't have a quorum yet. So Thank you. Turn it back over to the office close.

Present and respectfully ask for an aye vote when it's appropriate.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. Who's

who's who wants to go next? Okay. Calosa? Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. I just-- I wanna-- I know that the authors have been coordinating the order, 'cause we typically take measures in file order, but we're working with everyone's schedules so we'll now proceed to the next item, Item 13: AB 1650 by Assembly Member Caloza.

Thank you, Chair and members of the committee. Thank you as well to my colleagues for their grace in allowing me to present next. I'm here to present AB 1650 this morning. Thank you as well to the committee consultant, staff, and my principal co-author, Assembly Member Liz Ortega, for their partnership and thoughtful work on this bill. AB 1650 is about safety, transparency, and accountability.

Since the summer of 2025, enforcement activities by ICE have intensified across our state from Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, and San Francisco. These operations have raised serious concerns about oversight and safety. We have seen growing concern on the use of unmarked rental vehicles in enforcement operations that involved arrest, detention, and transport of members of our community. When vehicles used by government agencies lack proper identification, it becomes difficult for the public to distinguish between legitimate law enforcement and bad actors.

Additionally, this invites potential abuses of power in government given the absence of transparency or accountability in how these vehicles are being used. These practices create not just confusion, but fear--fear for the public and fear for those who are being illegally faced with governmental force and violence. At the same time, rental car companies are finding themselves at the center of this issue.

Their vehicles are being used in these operations without notification or consistent standards for safety and identification. AB 1650 delivers a necessary and urgent step to safeguard our communities and restore trust in the leaders who are meant to serve and protect them. This bill also ensures that any privately owned vehicle rented or leased to a governmental agency for purposes of enforcement is clearly identifiable with decals.

It also establishes enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance and accountability. With that, I'm proud to be joined by Diana Escamilla, State Policy Coordinator with the Central American Resource Center, also known as CARECEN, and Monica Madrid, State Policy Advocate, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, also known as CHIRLA; will testify to the importance of this measure. And for technical assistance, I have Noel Calvillo, attorney at law.

Okay. Thank you very much. Whoever would like to begin. And sir, you're just here for questions?

So we only take two witnesses. Okay.

That's correct.

Awesome. Well, good afternoon--or good morning--Chair and members. My name is Diana Escamilla, Policy Coordinator with the Central American Resource Center. We are the largest Central American immigrant-- we are the largest Central American immigrant-- No. We're right. Okay.

Anyways, here today in support of AB 1650, a bill that would require certain disclosures when rented vehicles are being used by law enforcement by having them display a temporary decal showcasing the agency name and logo. June 6th marked one year since the immigration raids became more routine and visible in our state, with the first raid kicking off at our CARECEN Day Labor Center.

Since then, our day labor center has been attacked several more times, each raid causing more fear and separating families. However, Operation Trojan Horse has been the most violent raid so far. This attack took place on August 6th when a rented Penske car pulled into the parking lot of Home Depot, where our day labor center is located, and border agents in full military gear jumped out in the back of the box truck. There were 16 arrests made that day. Dehumanizing tactics were used, such as tear gas, rubber bullets, and violent physical force.

I have spoken directly to impacted community members and they've told me about the stress that their body experiences weeks after because of the fear, and immigration enforcement does not belong in our communities and they should have the responsibility to self-identify themselves and the vehicles that they are using, even if the vehicles are rented. By having law enforcement label their rented vehicles, we can help community members better protect themselves. For these reasons, CARECEN is asking your support for AB 1650. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Monica Madrid. I'm a state policy advocate with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, CHIRLA. I am here today in support of AB 1650 by Assembly Member Caloza. For many immigrant families, seeing individuals arrive in unmarked vehicles and conduct enforcement actions can be confusing and frightening.

People are often left wondering who's carrying out the action and whether they're actually interacting with law enforcement. That uncertainty can create fear, mistrust, and unnecessary tension during an already stressful situation. For example, in LA last year, community members reported multiple incidents where individuals in unmarked SUVs approached homes, leading residents to believe they were being targeted by unknown actors rather than law enforcement, prompting some families to avoid answering their doors or calling for help out of fear.

These concerns have become increasingly common over the past year as immigrant communities have experienced heightened immigration enforcement activity, including large-scale operations in Los Angeles. Through the LA Rapid Response Network, we regularly hear from community members who are unsure whether individuals conducting enforcement are law enforcement officers because they have arrived in unmarked or difficult-to-identify vehicles.

AB 1650 is a simple transparency measure that helps address that concern by requiring rental vehicles used by law enforcement for arrests, detentions, or transportation of individuals to display temporary identification showing the agency operating the vehicle. AB 1650 provides a simple safeguard to ensure that community members can identify the agency conducting an enforcement action. That clarity can help reduce confusion and fear while promoting greater accountability and public trust. Thank you, and we hope-- we request your aye vote on AB 1650.

Thank you so very much. Anyone else wishing to express support for AB 1650? If you can please approach the microphone and state your name, organization, and position on the bill. We have a long agenda, so people can quickly line up. If you wanna offer testimony, we'd appreciate it.

Good morning. Eric Henderson, on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in proud support.

Joanne Scheer, Felony Murder Elimination Project, in support.

Susan Bustamante, CCWP, in strong support.

Thank you all so very much. We'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Corey Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriffs' Association, here in opposition to the bill unless it's amended to exempt local law enforcement from the bill. The bill acknowledges-- we know what it does. It acknowledges, though, that its provisions would create a security problem that burdens law enforcement agencies and attempts to address that notion by exempting several situations from the bill's reach.

Unfortunately, there are other scenarios that are not excluded that create problems: cars used by local officers that are engaged in plain clothes operations. The plain clothes exception right now does not apply to anyone but the enumerated state officers listed in the bill. There also might be a car driven by the elected sheriff himself or herself.

Obviously, the indications of this bill focus on federal immigration authorities and their own practices, which we're not defending, and this is a number-- one of a number of bills that attempts to regulate federal practices and at the same time implicate state and local law enforcement, and as we've seen with bills already enacted during this session, it's not uncommon for courts to eliminate those bills' application to federal entities, leaving the measures to only apply to state and local agencies.

So again, we get left holding the bag for something we're not doing and for problems that we haven't created. This bill doesn't apply to leased vehicles--I'm not really sure why I'm not advocating for such--and then the indemnification provisions by law enforcement for the rental car companies are problematic for us too. So for those reasons, we'd ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members, Randy Perry, on behalf of PORAC. We also have oppose unless amended for many of the same reasons that the Sheriffs talked about. We appreciate-- we've been working with the author's office. We have a couple more amendments and definitions we're seeking, so we'll continue that work if the bill moves. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Okay. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 1650? Seeing no one approach the microphone, I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments. Vice Chair Seyarto.

All right. Thank you very much, and-- yeah. I need to explore a little bit. Okay. So on the local and state agency side, I understand this bill is really, really aimed at immigration and federal authorities, but unfortunately, you drag in local and state agencies. The opponents have talked about that. I've seen this in action.

What do you do when a department-- and they have gang task force, they have drug task force, they have child smuggling task force, they have regular smuggling task force, they have prostitution task force, all these different task forces. If they have a label on their car, then they're ineffective because it kinda goes back to if people know that the law enforcement's watching them, they're not going to do what they're been doing.

So, you have a lot of amendments, but I don't think your amendments can cover everything. Sometimes you-- the law enforcement agencies rent different cars so they can surveil. The-- and if they're in a neighborhood, in a car that looks like a police car, they're in danger. They can't do their job, and that creates public safety risk for all the people that are involved in doing their job.

So how do you propose to cover every instance that a law enforcement agency--a local law enforcement agency--would have when they're trying to do their job? And sometimes those surveillance teams, they wind up having to arrest somebody and detain them so they don't get away. So how do you-- how are you gonna manage that with this bill?

Well first, thank you so much, Senator, for your thoughtful comments. I really appreciate it. I know, you know, how thoughtful you are when it comes to just public safety issues in general. And thanks to the opposition. Appreciate your comments here today. You know, I think for us, you know, this bill is about securing trust with the community. It's also about protecting our actual law enforcement who are out in the community. This is already happening now. People are scared to do anything.

This fear is completely destabilizing a lot of our neighborhoods because a lot of the unmarked vehicles that approach many of our centers, especially day labor centers like I have in my district, literally just get so scared when any unmarked vehicle that looks like a government or law enforcement car approaches them.

And so this is, you know, a bill not whether or not enforcement happens but how it happens. It's a simple bill. It tells law enforcement agencies to put a decal outside of their cars, and for the instances that, you know, you identified with these specific task forces, we've been working with the opposition on making sure that, you know, we include some of their concerns in the different ways that you've identified and they've identified.

They've only just shared some of those amendments, so we're working through them and are committed to making sure that we don't compromise some of those operations. And at the same time, when I'm out in the community doing something as simple as a Fourth of July parade, we slap a magnet decal on my car.

It's not too much to ask, and if it's something that's actually impeding enforcement, then that's something that can be removed, but those are issues that we need to work through. We wanna make sure that both our state and local law enforcement are safe by not being confused for being ICE, and that our communities, when these cars are in their community, they actually know who they are because this is becoming such a common practice.

As you heard from one of my witnesses, Operation Trojan Horse was something that happened in Los Angeles when ICE rented a rental car vehicle, went to a day labor center, and acted as if they were going to hire those workers only to pop out of the truck. This is being used in really terrifying ways.

Right now, I'm just exploring the local part. I'm talking about, you have two police officers--

Right.

--that are involved in a gang unit thing, and sometimes those are not polite gangs.

Sure.

We're talking cartel people and stuff like that. You have a marked car, they're sitting there. They're gonna get a bullet in the head before they can move. That's the kind of stuff that I'm concerned about on the local level. We haven't-- I haven't asked any questions about the federal part yet because there's a whole different issue with the federal thing.

So from the local level, how do you protect those officers if you're telling them they have to mark their car and put identification on their car of who they are? Because the bad people will get them if that's what we're gonna do and then we won't have any law enforcement present in neighborhoods that desperately are trying to have some law enforcement presence so that they can be safe, so that they can walk down a street not controlled by a cartel or a gang or drug dealers or prostitution rings. So that's my concern about that. So-- and I don't know that there's a really good answer for that.

So let's move on to the federal part. The Supremacy Clause has protected this over and over and over, and my concern about your federal approach to this is that it's going to cost us money in court to do something we already know we cannot do. Yes, it is a statement. It is a statement that we don't like your tactics. It is a statement that we wish we could do this different. We have a different approach to immigration. Whatever that statement is, it doesn't get past the Supremacy Clause, and so we're really just-- like I said, we're just spending money that we don't really have to send a statement that's already been made. So those are the problems I have with your bill, and I'll give this back to the chair. Thank you.

Well, thank you very much. I do support your bill. I have an aye recommendation. When we have a quorum, we'll entertain a motion on the bill, but I would encourage you to continue to, you know, work with opposition, particularly around the issues around how it'd impact local law enforcement and making sure undercover operations and situations where you want to ensure that law enforcement can operate safely that those considerations are being thought through.

And so, you know, the next step for this bill if it moves out today is the Appropriations Committee, and definitely appreciate your continued engagement with opposition. I know that-- I think we can land, but I do think this bill addresses an important issue, which-- and it does get to trust, trust between communities and law enforcement. So I'll turn it back over to you to close.

Thank you so much, Senator, and Senator Seyarto as well for your thoughtful comments. Really appreciate it. In close, I don't know if-- did you wanna say something?

Yes. Thank you, Assembly Member. So just to address the concerns--

I believe we don't go to witnesses in--

Okay.

--closing statements.

He was gonna respond. But--

That's okay. I mean, I'm just providing my feedback to the author. If this bill moves out today, I support the bill. I have an aye recommendation.

Okay. I know you have a long agenda.

I'm always trying to balance, you know, addressing federal enforcement with also making sure that we're ensuring that local law enforcement can be done effectively, so.

Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Chair. This bill was thoughtfully crafted to include some of the concerns that you have. I know there's more work to do, including exemptions and how we can continue to partner and work with law enforcement. You know, we wrote this bill with them in mind, and so, I just respectfully ask for your aye vote so we can continue to protect our communities. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We don't have a quorum. We'll entertain a motion when we have a quorum. I wanna thank the witnesses for joining us today, and once again, I have an aye recommendation on this bill. Okay. Is-- there's a lot of authors who are here, but there was a conversation that happened at the beginning of the hearing to let three authors go first because of their schedule impacts, and so we're gonna go to Zbur next.

Thank you so much. And I actually wanna thank Assemblymember Stephanie and Banta who both agreed to next up on each other. So thanks to both of them as well. And thank you, Mister Chair and members. I'm proud today to present AB 1930 sponsored by Attorney General Rob Bonta and Equality California, which will defend health care access and enforce California's protected health activity laws for all those who provide and receive care in California.

California has long been a place where people can access the health care they need and live authentically, safely, and with dignity. But across the country, we're seeing a coordinated effort to roll that back. Efforts to intimidate patients, to target providers, to attack abortion and gender affirming care. Care that simply allows people to live as who they truly are. And, we have already seen the consequences of those efforts right here in California.

Last year, the US Department of Justice issued a subpoena to Children's Hospital Los Angeles seeking information that could identify thousands, literally thousands of transgender youth receiving care. Care they receive with the support of their families and of and with the support of their doctors. That action didn't just raise alarms. It had real consequences.

It put privacy and safety at risk, and it contributed to the closure of the hospital center for trans youth health and development, cutting off access to care for young people who need it most.

That's just unacceptable. No one should have to fear that seeking lawful medical care in California could put their privacy or safety at risk. AB 1930 will protect patients and providers by requiring business entities in California to notify the office of the California attorney general if they intend to respond to a subpoena regarding legally protected health care activity. This bill also gives the attorney general the authority to both intervene and counsel the entity who received the subpoena and to enforce the provisions of the bill.

Let's be clear, California will not and cannot buckle under threats meant to intimidate our communities.

We we are going to stand firm on the side of patient privacy, dignity, and access to care. We need we are going to protect our providers, and we're going to make sure that California remains a safe haven for those who need it. My office is working with the hospital cessation, children's hospitals, and other concerned stakeholders on some amendments that will address their concerns while maintaining the integrity of this bill.

Because we have run out of time in the policy committees, those will be finalized over the recess in consultation with your committee and with the Judiciary Committee, and we've spoken to Senator Omberg about that. And we will take we will be taking those additional amendments during the appropriations committee.

Members, I ask for I vote at the appropriate time. With me today in support of the bill are Alice Kessler on behalf of equality California, and Tiffany Brokaw, Deputy Attorney General in the Office of the Legislative Affairs. Also, we have Deputy Attorney General David Huska who's who's will be available to ask answer technical questions.

Great. Good morning. Good morning. And you may proceed.

Thank you, Mister Chair and members. Good morning. Alice Kessler. I'm here on behalf of Equality California. We are a cosponsor of the bill.

We're asking for your support. I want you just for a second to put your shoe put yourself in the shoes of someone who doesn't even know that their personal medical records are being released to a potentially hostile outside government. That's what we're talking about here. This bill is about giving those patients notice. It's a procedural safeguard.

So that before that happens, they at least have some notice of that. It also is giving the attorney general some tools to intervene. Because again, we're talking about patients seeking lawful health care in California, and and worrying for their their privacy and their safety in the course of doing that. The Assembly member articulated the climate that we're in. Our community is under attack.

No no two ways about it. We're under attack. That's playing out on multiple levels. It's playing out in the US Supreme Court. This bill is about protecting lawful healthcare in California and taking a stand.

And so we we ask the committee to support this, and we appreciate the work of the Department of Justice in crafting good policy here. We'll continue to do that and work with the opposition. So would ask for your eye vote.

Thank you. Hi.

Good morning, Chair and members. Tiffany Brokaw, deputy attorney general in the office of legislative affairs here on behalf of attorney general Rob Bonta, and he'd like to thank Assembly member Burr for carrying this important piece of legislation. AB 1930 strengthens protections for patients receiving reproductive care as well as the providers that serve them. It requires certain California business entities to notify the California attorney general before responding to a specified request for information related to abortion or gender affirming care.

It it also authorizes the AG to intervene to prevent the improper disclosures from happening in the first place.

Recent actions by federal and out of state officials have raised concerns about attempts to obtain private medical information or prosecute individuals involved in reproductive health care. Without strong safeguards, subpoenas, investigations, and other legal demands may be used to circumvent California law and undermine the rights of patients and providers. AB 1930 provides our office the opportunity to intervene and prevent this from happening in order to protect the privacy of patients and providers. And for these reasons, we respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 1930? Please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Kim Stone on behalf of the California Children's Hospital Association. Kind of a tweener, but very grateful for the author and the sponsors communications and and working with us, and thank you. Bye bye.

Javier Rodriguez, registering support for Electronic Frontier Foundation and Oakland Privacy.

Thank you.

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

Ryan Morimune, on behalf of the Los Angeles County in support.

Thank you very much. Unless there are any other support witnesses, we'll now take up to two principal opposition witnesses.

Rochelle Connor, legislative liaison concerned women for America. AB 1930 undermines the rights of victims seeking justice and restitution. It allows those who have caused bodily injury and harm to avoid prosecution. This bill impedes law enforcement's ability to investigate serious crimes involving minors. These impediments can delay or obstruct justice for the victims and their families.

This bill will create a labyrinth of confusing requirements and mandates for businesses. It interferes with legally established processes and forces businesses to choose between complying with California state statute or obeying by, federal law. AB 1930 raises significant constitutional concerns.

It lays the groundwork for potential violations of federal law 18 USC section 13 I mean, thirty one eighty two and article four section two clause two of The US constitution which states, a person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime who shall flee from justice and be found in another state shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which they fled be delivered up to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.

Those broad jurisdictional reach of AB 1930 seeks to invalidate legal processes, violate the constitution, harbor criminals, and deny justice to the victims and their families.

We respectfully ask for a no vote.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition, to AB 1930?

Good morning. Chris Schultz with the California Bankers Association. We continue working productively with the author and the Department of Justice on the bill, but did just wanna take a minute to explain the burden. If you're a business and you receive a subpoena or a request from any party, not just a government party, you'll need to go back to that party and say, hey. Is this about legally protected health care activity?

It turns every document request, every subpoena into a three step process back and forth. There's gonna be one bank receives a million subpoenas a year. A lot of these are about real estate transactions, bankruptcies, DIY divorces. It turns every document request into a back and forth that places a pretty big obligation on on the private sector in order to try to find these, subpoenas that are actually are about legally protected health care activity.

We continue working productively with the author and sponsor, but just want to flag that for the record.

Thank you. And you're the second principal opposition witnesses. Any other speakers name, organization, and position on the bill? Matthew Ward, our duty. Opposed.

Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no one else come forward or bring back to the dais. Any questions or comments? If not, we do not yet have a quorum, so I'll chip back over to close.

Thank you again. I just wanna thank our our our sponsors of Quality California and attorney general Rob Bonta for their close for their work on this. Again, we will have some additional amendments which we'll do through appropriations committee working carefully with the attorney general's office to make sure that this is something that is legally sound and that is gonna protect our patients and our providers here in California. So with that, I respectfully ask for it and I vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you. And we are taking the judiciary committee amendments in our committee which apply the provisions of the bill only when abortion or gender affirming health care services are legally protected health care activities secure by the constitutional laws of California.

So Yes. And Aye, of course, I I accept those.

Thank you.

Yes. Thank you very much.

Okay. Thank you all for joining us. We'll go next to Assemblymember Stephanie and then Bonta.

Hi.

Good morning. Good morning. And we're get which, bill would you like to start with? Four fifty eight or 11?

Yes. 458.

Okay. We're gonna start with, AB 458. If there are any principal witnesses, you're welcome to join us here. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair members. I wanna start off by, letting this committee know I accept the committee amendment, so thank you for that. Today, I'm presenting AB 458, the Firearm Procurement Act. A few years ago, I read a report from the Brady campaign that quite frankly shocked me. It found that more than 90 law enforcement agencies across California had purchased firearms and equipment from gun dealers that had repeatedly violated federal gun laws.

This includes not performing background checks, selling to straw purchasers, not keeping necessary paperwork on file that, our law enforcement needs to, track, those that would traffic in guns. And these weren't just, technical paperwork mistakes. They were, mistakes that created a lot of, situations that were dangerous for public safety, yet taxpayer dollars continue to flow to these bad actors.

When I was serving on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, I believed we could do better and actually passed a law there that, made sure San Francisco's law enforcement agencies were purchasing firearms only from responsible vendors that follow federal law. And because this is a really simple principle, I believe taxpayer dollars should reward responsible businesses, not those with the history of breaking the very laws designed to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

AB 458 brings that same common sense approach to the state. Each year, California spends millions of dollars purchasing firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories for state law enforcement agencies. Yet today, there is no statewide framework to help agencies evaluate whether the vendors they buy from have a history of complying with firearm laws or engaging in responsible business practices. This bill doesn't go as far as I want it to,

but it does something. It directs the Department of General Services in consultation with the Department of Justice to develop model procurement guidelines so that state agencies have the tools they need to make informed purchasing decisions. When the state of California purchases firearms with taxpayer dollars, we have a responsibility to ensure those dollars never end up in the hands of firearm dealers with the history of breaking the law.

And today, I am joined by Jonathan Feldman on behalf of the California Police Chiefs Association and Dylan Elliott on behalf of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

Good morning. You just have two minutes to address the committee.

Yep. Morning, Chair and members. Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association in support of Assembly Bill 458. We do believe that the state coming up with guidelines and identifying responsible vendors will help the locals making their decisions as well because at the end of the day, taxpayer dollars should support responsible vendors. Those that are are maintaining the safe transfer of firearms, not just to our law enforcement agencies, but the public as well.

Illegal guns remain a significant public safety threat in 2023. We recovered and traced more than 56,000 firearms connected to crimes in California, which demonstrates that those firearms are still making it the way in the hands of criminals. The consequences are incredibly severe. We see those firearms used in the homicides, deaths of officers, other violent crimes. We've done some progress in the space, but clearly we need to do more.

And we think that helping to identify those responsible vendors, will just serve the state and our local agencies. And for that reason, we are in support.

Thank you. Good morning, Mister Chair members. Dylan Elliott here today on behalf of San Francisco County Board of Supervisors. Just wanna begin by thanking the author for her leadership on this issue going back to her time with the boards of supervisors in San Francisco. It's a very straightforward measure.

Understanding you've got agenda today. I don't need to belabor the point here. I think this is a really common sense effort in doing something meaningful that could change state law in a productive way, consistent with our values. And for that reason, San Francisco board of supervisors ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 458? If you can please state your name, organization, or city you're from, and position.

Christina Kendari, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, in strong support.

Thank you.

Sarah Berger, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in in America, San Francisco in support.

Thank you. Charles Allen expressing support on behalf of Every town for gun safety. Thank you.

Thank you.

Julie Chapman, volunteer with NorCal Gun Violence Prevention in support.

Mary Duplat with NorCal Gun Violence Prevention, gun violence survivor in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 458? Seeing no one come forward without take up to two principal opposition witnesses to AB 458. Are there any opposition witnesses to AB 458? Okay.

I know, there are people outside. If you're outside and wish to speak in opposition to AB 458, please enter the hearing room. Okay. Seeing no one come forward, I'll bring it back to the days for questions or comments. No comments.

Thank you Assemblymember for this bill. Just to clarify the amendment that, we're making this committee are to cross references existing definition in the in the state law of firearm accessory.

That is correct.

So thank you for working with our our committee staff, and I strongly support this bill. And I'll turn it back over to make a closing statement.

Thank you. I respectfully ask for an aye vote when it's time.

Okay. And we'll now proceed to our the next bill by a similar Stefani AB 1588. And, if there are any, principal witnesses for AB 1588, you're welcome to address here at this table.

Thank you, Chair. Today, I'm presenting, AB 1588, which deals with those sideshows you hear so much about, and the street takeovers that have been blocking intersections and harming communities across California. These events do more than just disrupt traffic. They put residents, small businesses, and first responders at risk, especially when emergency vehicles cannot get through as we have seen when the Bay Bridge was completely shut down a while back.

Since February of last year, enhanced enforcement efforts in the East Bay have led to the seizure of more than 100 illegal guns at sideshows, underscoring how quickly these gatherings can escalate from just reckless behavior into serious threats to human life.

Fichos in Hayward just two months ago saw over 50 cars destroying an intersection with a stolen car violently slamming into spectators. After the stolen car crashed into a truck, swarms of people then began destroying the car. Three weeks ago in San Jose, more spectators were hit by spinning cars in a sideshow at the Capitol Square Mall. After the sideshow, the San Jose Police Department told communities they couldn't perform large scale enforcement, leaving offenders without accountability and victims without justice.

And that's what we hear from our law enforcement up and down the state about trying to enforce these illegal sideshows that are wreaking havoc in our communities.

It's why I'm bringing forward AB 1588 today to help curb these illegal events and create a penalty structure that makes sense for these dangerous activities. Despite steps taken by cities in the state, enforcement has not kept pace with how these events operate today, leaving officers without clear authority to intervene early and leaving communities frustrated when the same dangerous behavior continues to occur over and over again.

AB 1588 closes key enforcement gaps by updating state law to reflect how they operate today, including adding motorcycles and dirt bikes to the sideshow framework so officers can take action when unlicensed vehicles are used to block streets and perform dangerous stunts. This bill also strengthens accountability by aligning penalties for sideshows with those already in place for speed contests. Together, these changes give law enforcement the tools they need to respond effectively and to protect our communities.

Amendments to AB 1588 significantly narrowed its scope, which has resulted in the removal of significant statewide opposition, groups, including the California Public Defender's Association, Smart Justice, La Defensea, Oakland Privacy, and the Justice to Jobs Coalition. Here with me today is Carl Nicita with government affairs manager with the San Francisco Police Department and Christian Nunez with Streets Are for Everyone.

And good morning. We each have two minutes to address the committee on the bill.

Good morning, Mister Chair, members. I am Carl Nicita, government affairs manager for the San Francisco Police Department. I'm here today on behalf of the department to speak in support of AB 1588 by Assembly member Stefani, which addresses the growing problem of illegal sides sideshows and street races throughout California, including the San Francisco Bay Area. As the a member Assembly member said, these events are not simply traffic violations.

They often involve coordinated blockages of intersections, roadways, freeway ramps, and other transportation infrastructure, while drivers engage in dangerous stunts, exhibitions of speed, reckless driving, and other unlawful activity.

AB 1588 modernizes California's sideshow laws by providing greater clarity regarding types of vehicles commonly involved in these events. It updates the definition of a sideshow to better reflect how these gatherings occur today and aligns penalties for dangerous sideshow related exhibition of speed offenses with existing penalties for street racing. For the San Francisco Police Department, the impacts of sideshows extend well beyond the participants. They disrupt neighborhoods through excessive noise, property damage, and prolonged roadway closures.

They create dangerous conditions for pedestrians, bystanders, and motorists, and can impede emergency vehicles responding to calls for service.

Our officers and command staff regularly hear from residents and business owners concerned about the frequency of these events and the risks that they create. Officers also report that sideshows have evolved in recent years. We increasingly see motorcycles, dirt bikes, ATVs, and other off highway vehicles participating alongside traditional vehicles, as well as increasingly organized activity coordinated through social media. AB 1588 is a measured proposal that provides law enforcement with clearer tools to address conduct that threatens public safety.

On behalf of the San Francisco Police Department, we thank Assemblymember Stefani for her work on this issue, and we respectfully urge your aye vote.

Thank you.

Mister Chair, members of the committee, good morning. My name is Christian Nunez. I'm here representing Streets Are For Everyone. We are a nonprofit based in Southern California working on road safety issues across the state. We are also one of the bills' sponsors.

To start, I'd like to begin with a number and that's 288. That's the number of street takeovers that CHP was aware of that occurred in LA County alone just in the last six months. That's an average of 1.5 per day. In truth, most of those happen between Thursday and Saturday. Near my own campus, illegal street takeovers are taking place.

They take place in the same intersections and roads that me and my peers use to walk to school night and day. LA County Department of Public Works reported that these takeovers cost the county hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in infrastructure damage, and the cost to multiple agencies across the county is far higher. But let's not just look at numbers. Let's look at how this affects people.

Streets are for everyone is currently engaged in a study of the impact of street takeovers on businesses and community members in where they happen.

While I can't give you final data, I can say that these incidents impact physical and mental health issues and economic and socio economic facts far beyond the intersection where they take place. But again, let's not just talk about stats, but about people. One example of the toll street takeovers is Raymond.

On the 19th of February, 27 year old Raymond Olivares was crossing the road in front of his newly purchased home with his high school sweetheart and new fiancee, Maria Rivas Cruz, 27, when he was hit by a person leaving a street takeover doing almost 70 miles an hour. Raymond died at that scene, and his fiancee suffered serious injuries but survived.

On behalf of Raymond, Maria, and so many others whose lives are impacted by street takeovers, we respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 1588. Thank you.

Thank you. Is anyone else wishing express support for AB 1588?

Clifton Wilson on behalf of mayor Daniel Lurry proud sponsor of the bill as well as the city and county of San Francisco and the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors all in strong support. Thank you. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members, Andrew Gantley here on behalf of the City of Beverly Hills in support and the California City Transportation Initiative also in support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members, Tim Chang for the Auto Club of Southern California urging your support. Thank you.

Good morning. Iria Rapitan on behalf of AAA Northern California in support.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

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

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to express support for AB 1588? Seeing no one can forward, we'll now take up to two principal opposition witnesses. AB 1588.

Chair members, name's Aubrey Rodriguez, alleged advocate of the ACLU Cal Action. While we commend the author, for her commitment to public safety and amending this build down from initial approach presented in Assembly Public Safety, we continue to have strong issues with this proposal. There's a strong inclination from policy makers to deter crime by expanding and increasing crimes. In fact, higher fines do not deter behavior that is social, impulsive, or collective.

Instead, financial penalties of the scale fall most heavily on people that are low income, deepening cycles of poverty, and punishment that does not, does nothing to improve public safety.

Rather than ineffective carceral solutions, California should focus on environmental and community based prevention to address the issue of sideshows. Oakland's Department of Transportation has begun installing bollards, steel plates, and curb extensions to disrupt intersections commonly used for sideshows. And nearby residents have already report reported a decrease in activity. Roadway design, youth engagement, and investment in community based programming are evidence based strategies that promote safety without exacerbating inequality and racial disparities in the criminal legal system.

Given the lack of this approach and this proposal, we respectfully urge your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Is anyone else wishing express support for AB 1588? Opposition. Thank you. Sorry.

Eric Henderson On behalf of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office and, respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Elizabeth Kim on behalf of Initiate Justice and respectful opposition.

Sofia Newhouse-Brown on behalf of Local one hundred and forty eight, the California or the Los Angeles Public Defenders Union in opposition.

Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 1588? Seeing no one come forward, I'll bring it back to the dais. Vice Chair Seyarto.

Thank you very much, and thank you for the bill. I know as new issues evolve, there's always a process of what we do to go and, try to address them. I I think everybody is aware there's some, really, fun films out there, that, Kinda highlight this kind of of stuff. And then we have a public that starts to mimic that, not realizing that well, maybe realizing that the movies are one thing and real life is another.

And the real life consequences of what we're doing are sometimes really devastating. As far as the disproportionate effects and and how it affects people that are struggling to afford anything, The cars, if you looked at some of these street takeovers, number one, they are not just people that are poor. In fact, a lot of those cars are are pretty substantial as far as the costs for the modifications. And that's one of the things that they're showing off out there.

If they can spend 20 grand modifying their vehicles so that they can go do this type of activity, certainly they can afford the fine.

Having cities have to put up bollards, Those are not cheap. Those are expensive, and they're also disruptive. If you're gonna have to shut down intersections every weekend because that intersection becomes subject to people who can't behave themselves, that means the people that can behave themselves are also inconvenienced as well. And those are the people picking up the tab to do all this nonsense. But what we need to do is hold the people that are doing this accountable.

It's kind of a newer area, Like I said, we haven't had this in fact if they didn't do it, we wouldn't have to be here. She wouldn't be carrying this bill. She'd probably have added another bill somewhere else. It might be very helpful. But but here we are.

And so I supported this in transportation for all of those reasons. I don't think that there are any unreasonable consequences from a legal perspective for somebody who chooses to engage in this, But I think from a public safety standpoint, we better do something because if we do nothing or we continue to make excuses for people that don't want to follow the law or act in a safe manner or disrupt neighborhoods, then then we will have chaos out there.

And then if no if the law enforcement isn't gonna be able to do anything, well, people are gonna start doing something, then there's more chaos. So with that, get back to the Chair. Thank you again for your bill. Will be supporting it when it comes up.

Thank you very much, Assemblymember, for bringing this bill forward. I strongly support it. If you are taking further amendments and appropriations, I would love to be added as a co author. As a resident of Oakland, this is a serious issue in the community that I live in and represent. I know it's an issue across the Bay in San Francisco.

Yes. We need to design our roadways, to reduce, traffic violence and to improve traffic safety. How do you design the Bay Bridge to mitigate the side shows? It was crazy that there was a coordinated effort to shut down the Bay Bridge, which had a huge disruptive impact on people's lives who were trying to get across the Bay. And so we need to send a strong message that this kind of conduct is not acceptable.

It does, it has safety consequences. People have been killed And it's unacceptable. There is no legitimate reason why people should engage in a sideshow. So thank you for bringing the bill forward. And if you'd like to close.

Well, thank you, Chair and vice Chair. Your words are music to my ears. You said everything I would say in my close. So when it's time, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. Thank you. We don't have a quorum. We'll entertain a motion at the appropriate time. Okay.

Next and file order is Assembly Member Bonta. And I know Assembly Member Bonta has two bills. Would should we just proceed with the first bill and file order, Assemblymember?

Yes. Thank you. Okay. AB 910.

Okay. We'll we'll move now to file item seven AB 910 by Assemblymember Bonta.

Well, good afternoon, Chair and committee members. I am once again presenting the Survivors Act because we must find another path to supporting survivors other than criminalization. Organizations and survivors themselves have expressed the critical need for expanding legal protections and resources for survivors of violence and exploitation. AB 910 is fundamentally about listening to survivors and ensuring our justice system does the same. It recognizes that many individuals who have been arrested or incarcerated are not simply offenders, but survivors of profound violence and exploitation.

We cannot claim to value public safety while simultaneously criminalizing the very individuals who most urgently need protection. AB 910 acknowledges the realities of trauma and offers survivors a pathway toward justice and healing rather than continued harm.

AB 910 expands legal protections and vicarature relief for survivors of human trafficking, intimate partner violence, and sexual violence by allowing survivors to present their experiences of be of abuse as an affirmative defense, expanding access to vakure to relief so survivors can petition to vacate convictions resulting from abuse and victimization, thereby removing significant barriers to housing, employment, and other essential resources. This bill provides procedural relief. I wanna be clear when I say this, there must be judicial review when petitioning for vakriture.

The petition is evaluated on its individual merits and establishment of a tie directly tied to the survivors' victimization. Survivors deserve our compassion, not further incarceration. Historically, the criminal justice system has disproportionately penalized individuals who adopted survival strategies in response to severe abuse and exploitation. This legislation represents a commitment to protecting women. Women of color, particularly black and Latina survivors, are disproportionately impacted by the criminalization of their survival strategies.

California wouldn't be alone. Georgia, Louisiana, Nebraska, Wyoming, and New York allow for a vaguiture for survivors for all offenses, and Oklahoma, South Carolina, Wisconsin, and Wyoming allow for an affirmative defense for survivors for all offenses. Many of these legislations passed with bipartisan auth othership and support. A national survivor study conducted by the Polaris Institute showed us a grim reality. Ninety percent of human trafficking victims are criminalized while being trafficked.

This bill is proudly supported by survivor advocacy organizations, public defenders, and trauma informed legal scholars and leaders in restorative justice. With me here today to testify, and I wanna thank her again for testifying in both are Susan Bustamante, a courageous survivor who will share her personal experience with criminalization directly linked to her victimization. Thank you, Susan, for coming up again this year and sharing your story. And Maddie Boyd, staff attorney at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center.

Hi. Good morning. Whoever would like to begin.

Thank you.

Panel, my name is Susan Bustamante. I was raised in the Hispanic culture of what happens in the house stays in the house. At the age of 12, my father, started molesting me and it continued to the age of 18. I finally told my brother about the abuse. He says, don't worry, sis.

I'll take care of it. When he came back, he said, go home. He'll never touch you again, and he never did. At 19, I met Steven, my husband. When we met, I didn't know he was a Vietnam vet or that he was raised in a domestic violence household.

The first time he hurt me, my husband dragged me in the bathroom, threw me around. He kept me isolated from my family and only allowed me out of the house twice a year for Christmas and my birthday. In the six years I was married, he threatened to kill my sister and my mom. He said they would have accidents. It was torturous.

When I was pregnant with my first daughter, he literally dragged me through the house. He was constantly hitting me. He would have flashbacks in Vietnam, and I would wake up with him choking me. I had permanent damage in my neck, my head, and all from all the beatings. I became pregnant again in 1980, and he forced me to have an abortion.

That was my turning point. I wanted him out of my life, but he threatened to kidnap my daughters if I ever left. So I reached out to my brother once again. And again, he told me, don't worry, sis. I'll take care of it.

The idea that he would kill Steven never occurred to me. Later, he called me to say that Steven was dead. He threatened to call the police and say I planned it. He blackmailed me for Steven's insurance. I was afraid of having my daughters taken from me, so I gave in.

I was only 24 years old. A few years later, my brother died and someone who knew told the detective that I killed Steven. When I went to trial, nothing was allowed about the molestation, nothing about the domestic violence. Anytime I tried to speak upon my full life experience, it was struck from the court record. After only a two day trial and no chance to tell my story, I was convicted for murder.

I did not commit and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. So at 32 years old, I had never been in trouble, but I was sentenced to die in prison. My daughters were eight and 11. I missed their weddings, the birth of their children, my grandkids. I lost my parents and my sister while in prison for three decades.

If AB 19 existed as law then, I would have been able to share my story. Maybe I would not have been able to access affirmative defense or get a different sentence. Or even if not thank you, I would have been able to speak my words to share what happened to me and what happened to my husband.

When living three decades incarcerated, I come across many, many survivors of abuse and control, and they weren't lifers, a lot of them, but they were still stuck with the sentence that they got and were forced to do. Thankfully, I was granted clemency in 2017.

I went to parole board and came home in 2018. I'm a survivor of domestic violence, a survivor of child molestation, and a survivor of the California prison system who is horrific and abusive and controlling and violent. And I'm an advocate for victims and survivors who should have the chance to tell their stories in court. I'm here to strong support this bill, AB 910.

Thank you so very much.

Good morning, Chairman Aragane and committee members. My name is Maddie Boyd. I'm an attorney at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center. I have represented non citizens in deportation proceedings and seen the extreme consequences that criminal convictions cause to immigrant survivors. This law helps all survivors, including non citizen survivors repair the harm caused by unjust criminalization, which is especially important during these times.

Survivors often spend years battling charges they were coerced into committing. Many have no chance to even present evidence about the violence they endured, as with Miss Bustamante here with me. Often survivors plead guilty just to avoid prolonged legal battles. As a result, they endure at lengthy prison sentences and are separated from their families. After incarceration, immigrant survivors are subjected to double punishment in the form of ICE detention and deportation.

That's why AB 910 is so important. This bill expands the availability to petition for vacateure or to raise an affirmative defense in court to all charges except murder. Currently, California's law draws an arbitrary line between charges classified as violent or nonviolent when it comes to these remedies, excluding survivors who are charged from certain offenses from the opportunity to share their full stories in court. This distinction ignores the reality that victims are too often coerced into committing crimes under duress and often through extreme violence.

By limiting relief to certain crimes, existing law fails to protect these survivors and punishes them for their own victimization.

AB 910 removes this arbitrary distinction, ensuring survivors have a chance to present evidence about what happened to them and to clear their records of convictions when they can prove that those convictions were the direct result of their victimization. To those who argue that these laws will allow dangerous individuals to avoid criminal liability, I wanna be clear that both the vacatur and the affirmative defense are extremely difficult to attain.

Survivors must meet a high burden of proof, and prosecutors have the opportunity to oppose the petitions in court. Ultimately, it's up to the judges and juries to determine whether a survivor meets the, like, legal criteria. For these reasons, I strongly urge this committee to support AB 910.

Thank you. Thank you very much. So anyone else wishing to express support for AB 910? If you can please approach the microphone, state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Capri Walker with Californians for Safety and Justice, also Crimes of Rever Speak, proud cosponsors in support.

Thank you.

Daphne Ghazani on behalf of the National Center for Youth Law in support.

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

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office, cosponsor and proud support.

Leila Chappell, Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking, proud cosponsor, proud support. Thank you.

Riley Harmon with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center in strong support.

Ed Little on behalf of crime survivor speak in support.

Malcolm Rooks on behalf of California Safety and Justice in support.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists in support. Thank you.

Hi. Rodriguez with ACLU Cal Action and proud support.

Elizabeth Kim on behalf of Initiate Justice in support.

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

Good morning. Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support.

Liz Blum Gutierrez on behalf of Debt Free Justice California. Vierra California also register registering, support on behalf of Smart Justice California. Thank you.

Joanne Sheer, behalf of felony murder elimination project in proud support.

Thank you very much. We'll now take up to two principal opposition witnesses to, AB 910.

One more in strong support. Laura O'Connor with Compassionate California and Inside Circle in the New Healing Home. Thank you.

Once again, we'll invite any opposition witnesses to AB 910.

Good morning, Honorable Chair and Members. Chief Deputy Ivy Fitzpatrick with the Riverside County District Attorney's Office here in opposition for CDAA as well as my own office. While we appreciate and share the author's commitment to survivors of human trafficking, we must remain opposed to this particular bill. Three main reasons.

This bill as amended would expand the statutes to violent crimes, the most serious violent offenses in California. It would prohibit crime victims who were victims of those crimes from collecting restitution where the relief is granted. And it would expand existing affirmative defenses to apply to the most violent crimes in California, again, excluding some murders.

So the current relief positions, provisions provide that individuals arrested or convicted of nonviolent offenses while they were a victim of human trafficking or intimate partner violence or sexual violence can petition the court for relief. Importantly though, currently both provisions exclude the most violent offenders. Under this bill, relief would apply to all violent offenses with the exception of some murders, but felony murder would still be eligible, as would rape, child molest, kidnapping, and others.

Second, if the relief is granted under this bill, quite concerningly, AB 910 would require that any victim restitution order be vacated, which is further revictimization for individuals who have already lost so much. And it requires that the arrest or conviction be deemed to have never occurred, with all those records sealed, effectively wiping these highly violent crimes from the record.

And finally, the bill expands existing limited affirmative defenses to apply to the most violent crimes. That means the affirmative defenses would apply, like I said again, to the most violent crimes in our society, felony murder, rape, child molest, kidnapping, and many others. So because this bill mandates such a drastic action, expanding relief to violent offenders, and negatively impacts victims rights in this state, CDAA respectfully ask for a no vote.

Thank you. Are there any other opposition witnesses to AB 910? See no one come forward. I'll bring back the dais for any questions or comments. Seeing none. I'll turn it back over the author to close.

Well, thank you. I wanna just share that some facts that I think we need to hold really in mind. 74% of incarcerated women convicted of murder or manslaughter experienced intimate partner violence in the year before their incarceration. Approximately 50-60% of US sex trafficking survivors first experienced exploitation as minors. What about the victims in front of us?

What about the survivors in front of us? AB 910 is a second chance bill, a dignity bill. Survivors should not spend their lives praying for abuse they endured. Granting survivors meaningful legal relief can break cycles of violence of poverty, allowing survivors to access critical resources such as housing, employment, and healing. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Thank you for joining us. Thank you very much for being here and telling your very powerful story of your courage and for all that you're doing to help other victims as well. So thank you.

Okay. We will transition to the next bill, which is file item eight AB 2624 by Assembly member Bonta.

Good morning, Chair and members. This is the sixth time presenting this bill in committees and policy committees, so, we'll just keep that in mind. Thank you to the committee and Chair for working with my office on this bill. I accept the committee amendments and want to thank the committee for being able to codify the amendments that, we sought to, have a part of this process from the very beginning.

Eighty two thousand six hundred and twenty four, the Safe at Work Act, expands California's Safe at Home program to include immigrant service providers, their employees, and volunteers.

This program allows participants to use a substitute address designated by the Secretary of State, keeping their home, work, and school addresses out of public records, while still allowing them to safely receive mail and legal documents throughout the state. And if through the State, individuals who provide vital immigrant support services, including legal aid, humanitarian relief, case management, and advocacy, are facing targeted harassment. This is not hypothetical.

Advocates and workers are receiving death threats being targeted at courthouses and facing coordinated online docs and campaigns, even facing this vitriol at home. These threats have risen sharply in 2025 and are expected to continue due to the current political climate.

At the same time, personal information is increasingly easy to access. Data brokers collect and sell information from public records, and social media can allow individuals to piece together identifying details. This makes it easier for bad actors to threaten or harm those who are simply doing their jobs. Advocates in California report being doxxed of staff for staff and volunteers at immigration legal aid organizations coordinated death threats against survivors service providers, anti immigrant vigilante activity directed at organizations by name and address of their employees and volunteers.

Since since since its inception nearly thirty years ago, the Safe at Home program has protected thousands of victims of stalking and domestic violence victims, along with Reproductive Healthcare workers.

The confidentiality program protection program is simple. It provides participants with a substitute address to shield their real addresses, requires the Secretary of State to act as an intermediary for mail and legal service, forwarding documents within a short time frame, keeping individuals, participants home, work, and school addresses confidential and protected from public disclosure. This bill is very straightforward. Here to testify are Monica Madrid with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights.

Monica is also an immigrant economic justice fellow with the Solis Policy Institute with the Women's Foundation of California and Karen Stout on behalf of Power California Action.

Alright. Thank you for being here today. You each have two minutes.

Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Monica Madrid. I'm a state policy advocate with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, or CHIRLA and an immigrant economic justice fellow with the Solis Policy Institute at the Women's Foundation. I'm here as a proud cosponsor of AB 2624 by Assemblymember Bonta. AB 2624 expands California's safe at home program to include immigrant serving organizations and workers who face growing threats because of the communities that we serve.

For organizations like CHERLA, these threats are not theoretical. We have experienced incidences where individuals followed staff into our Sacramento and San Bernardino offices because of the work we do supporting immigrant communities. At our LA offices, individuals have been followed, multiple times now, by followed staff into the building and attempted to access our restricted areas. Our in tech lines have received threatening messages and individuals have even shown up at the home of a family member of our executive director looking for her.

These incidences are occurring during a heightened time of hostility toward immigrants and the organizations that serve them.

As immigrate as immigrant serving organizations continue to provide legal services, know your rights education, rapid response, and humanitarian assist assistance, staff are increasingly concerned about their personal information, and it could be used to harass and intimidate or harm them and their families. AB 2624 provides a practical proven solution by allowing eligible individuals to participate in the safe at home program. This bill helps protect home address information while preserving public accountability and transparency.

No one should have to choose between serving their community and protecting their family's safety. California has long recognized that certain individuals face elevated risk because of their work and immigrant serving organizations deserve access to these same protections.

Thank you and we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Chair and member or good morning, Chair and members. Karen Stout here on behalf of Power California Action. The permission I'd like to read the testimony of Bruce Sosa Martinez, fellow with the Solis Policy Institute, co sponsors of the bill, as well as the senior policy strategist with Power California Action. Power California Action serves young people and working families with deep roots in immigrant communities across the state.

As the daughter of immigrants and as someone who works closely with other organizations, many have become increasingly concerned with the safety of their staff, volunteers, and community leaders.

To echo the comments of my fellow speaker, these concerns are not hypothetical. In the past year, Power California Action Board members have been targeted and doxed for the work that they do in their communities. We've had to become more intentional about protecting the privacy and security of our staff, our youth leaders, and even the staff of our partner organizations, which diverts time, energy, and resources away from our core work. And we aren't the only organization taking these precautionary measures.

We're also concerned about the message that sends the next generation of immigrant immigration advocates, attorneys, organizers, and service providers.

We work closely with young people who want to pursue careers in public service and community advocacy. When these people see people being harassed, threatened, or doxxed simply for helping immigrant communities access services and exercise their rights, these careers began to feel unsafe and unattainable. Privacy is not an abstract issue. For many people, it is what allows them to continue showing up for their communities without worrying that they or their families will become targets.

It's what allows immigrant communities to feel safe seeking the resources that they need.

For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 2624. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll invite anyone else wishing to express support for AB 2624 to please approach the microphone and state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Good morning, Chair and members. Jessica Hay with AFSCME California in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair members. Cleo Bluthenthal on behalf of the California Community Foundation in strong support.

Good morning, Chair members. It's Samu Alqaddim with the California chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning, Mister Chair members. Cameron Sasai with the California Immigrant Policy Center in strong support. Thank you.

Mike Harold, with the Women's Foundation of California. I'm the mentor to this team, And I'm also here in support with the Asian Americans Advancing Justice Justice of Southern California in Childhood Poverty, Unidus US, Mission Economic Development Agency, and CRAC. And we are Janai Bode.

Thank you. Good morning. Saundra Poole on behalf of Western Center for law and poverty in support.

Good morning. Kylie Lindeli on behalf of Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California in support.

Malcolm Rooks on behalf of California Safety and Justice and support.

Good morning. Ed Little on behalf of crime survivors speak in support.

Good morning, Buenos Dias. Israel Via with the California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice in strong support. Thank you.

Josh Cobo, Noreza Casa, proud support.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to express support for AB 2624?

Coalition to abolish slavery and trafficking in support.

Thank you very much. Soon, no one else come forward. We'll now take up to two principal opposition witnesses to the bill.

Opposition?

Yes. And you each have a few minutes to address the committee. Ladies first.

You have to press the button.

Sorry. It's my first time. I'd like the record to be noted that it does smell like fish in here. Don't know what's going on, but there's a smelly funny in here. So the Stop Nick Shirley Act, also known as AB 2624, is a horrible bill, and it's important that we understand what's actually happening.

First of all, the narrative that these fraudsters who have stolen millions of dollars from American families are being harassed, doxed, and threatened quite the opposite. The people who are exposing the fraud.

If you can please direct your testimony.

Oh, yeah. Yeah. Sorry about that.

Committee, you're speaking to the committee. Yes, sir. So Can please exercise some decorum in the manner in which you're addressing.

A little more respectful. Yes, sir. So the narrative that has been presented today is extremely false. People such as Nick Shirley and other investigative journalists who have exposed this fraud, millions of dollars stolen from American families. They're the ones being threatened, harassed, and doxxed.

There are these mafias that work hand in hand with these corrupt nonprofits and organizations, and, they have followed me home as well. So, you know, when it comes to people trying to figure out why they're being harassed, maybe it's because the millions of dollars they've stolen from American families. They they don't have a guilty conscience, which means they probably don't have a soul. This bill only came about after the millions of dollars of fraud was exposed. This bill didn't come about beforehand.

It came afterwards. It's important that we understand the chronological order of things in the sequence of events, as well as the, you know, blatant conflict of interest that's happening behind the scenes. We don't need to get into too much pillow talk about all that. Nick Shirley is a young American patriot. He's a hero.

He came to California to expose the fraud and corruption, which is just like Minnesota happening in our state as well. And instead of California leaders thanking him and actually solving the problem and addressing the corruption and fraud, which is as widespread as it is rampant, I've been to the Amazon Rainforest, New Orleans. I've been to every swamp around the bend. This Sacramento swamp needs a good training. We, the People, expect our California leaders to be open and honest.

We demand transparency. We don't want our leaders covering their tracks or their trails because they built a house, a car built on corruption and fraud. Attacking the truth is is extremely harmful for our republic. Sir, if

you can please step up your comments, we'd appreciate it.

Yes, sir. We, the people demand that you guys do everything in your power to stop this bill. It is an attack on freedom of speech and freedom of the press. And our founding fathers, as well as the American people are watching you and everything you do. And I sincerely hope that you would hold these fraudsters accountable.

This is not an attack on an on immigrants. I love people of all races and religions. This is about fraud and corruption. This is not about what race or religion you are. The millions of dollars that were stolen were stolen from Democrat and Republican families.

Thank you. Yes, ma'am.

Didn't matter what side of the aisle you were on.

Hi. Tara Thornton, Freedom Angels. I wasn't prepared to speak today, but, I feel like I need to. Again, always against hate against any people, immigrants, citizens, whoever they are. But this bill reads like something else.

And and so I wanna talk about some of the details like, you know, the this bill attacks, like standard investigative techniques, which is like public videotaping of government contracted facilities. And in the last couple years when it's been exposed, like widespread fraud in the hospice, welfare, health services, education. It has shocked America because these are public funds. And so I think there needs to be a way to get at protecting people, but also going after the bad actors.

We talked about bad actors, actors but there are bad actors. This fraud has been exposed and and it needs to be protected. The bill goes very into the intent to harm. It goes over very harsh penalties for intent to harm. Intent to harm will be brought is broadly gonna be interpreted by the courts could include going against someone's reputation or hurting their finances. Well, if you're exposing someone who is perpetrating fraud, that still does hurt the reputation and their finances.

And so how do we get at the people wanna see the when they saw these exposes, they wanted to see, you know, our electives of every party work to stop this. We can always stop hate too, but we've got to stop the bad actors on the fraud.

Thank you very much. Okay. We'll invite anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 2624 to please approach the microphone. If you can state your name, organization, or what city you're from, your position on the bill.

Leslie Sawyer, Mountain Top Media, independent journalist, and strong opposition.

Thank you.

Jordan Brace, political commentator in opposition.

Lynette Pergorban with California Family Law Naked Truth, and I am in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. So anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 2624? Once again, any opposition witnesses seeing no one come forward, I'll bring it back to the dais for questions and comments. Thank you.

Vice Chair of the year.

Thank you. So we all let's just address the elephant in the room. We all know what this is about and and and what generated the interest in doing a bill like this. And even though that, you know, we've questioned the the manner of of the presentation. The points of the presentation by both of the opponents kind of get to the heart of the matter.

This was instigated because a person went out who, whether you think he has press credentials or not, discovered some interesting goings on both in a different state and then in our state as well. And, and that has actually led to, the uncovering of, a substantial amount of fraud. If we are going to do this bill, who is going to address those issues? Because otherwise, we would still not be addressing those issues.

If those had not been uncovered by a person that under this bill is gonna be quashed in their efforts to do whatever their job is, whether they they feel that they are a self appointed person.

But when I'm looking at the the language that says harassment, what constitutes harassment? Is that what we get every day when we walk down the street and people are shoving things in our face? We don't consider that harassment. That's part of the job.

If you are taking billions of dollars or millions of dollars from the taxpayers in in an effort to do something that we think, you know, whether it's childcare or or whatever services it is, and it's not being directed that way, we're supposed to have means for us to be able to address that.

And yet, we've discovered that those means are failing us. So that's my concern with this is where it's generated from. It's generated from and trying to quash the activities that have led to some questions about how well our money is being spent. And absent that, I don't know who's going to take the mantle. Because I certainly don't have time to go out and investigate all these things myself.

So these investigative reporters, whatever you would like to call them, seem to be touching a nerve. And this bill is an example of that nerve. And that's what I'm concerned about. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you very much for bringing this bill forward. And I do have an eye recommendation. So we do not have quorum. So when we accept your quorum relation to the motion on the bill, but I turn it back over to make a closing statement.

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that. And for the record, because I really, really, respect you greatly, Senator. I wanna make sure that you haven't fallen privy to misinformation and disinformation and are not actually indicating anything related to what generated interest because that would assume that you are, making you're making assumptions about what generated interest in this bill. And to be quite honest, that is

Excuse me. We we don't allow witnesses to record the authors. If if you cannot if you cannot I'm

telling them. She's attacking me, and I don't need that. Okay. I was very polite.

Let's let's just let's have some decorum here. So, sir, if you can just technically, all the all the witnesses don't need to sit here anymore because we've heard your testimonies that people can please take their seats at this time. Okay. Thank you.

The what actually generated interest in this bill was a mischaracterization from, the dais. What generated interest in this bill was far before Nick Shirley actually ever videoed anything in the state of California. This video this, bill was generated the interest that was generated from this bill came from immigrant service providers being attacked. It came from people showing up at their houses and homes and attacking them. That is what generated the interest for this bill.

Many many many months before that. So the chronology that was offered by the opposition is factually incorrect. You can actually check the record on that. This bill is about ensuring that people are able to participate in a thirty year old program in the state of California, adding immigrant service providers to be able to do that. And I wanna be clear that this does nothing at all to silence investigative journalism.

People still have the ability to investigate organizations, to look at public records, to be able to look at nonprofit financial disclosures, to be able to have all accountability mechanisms available to them because all of us care about ensuring that the programs and grants that we offer to everybody are actually instituted with great fidelity. This has been a long journey. Six different committee hearings that we've gone through. Members of my staff, providers who have testified before here being attacked, members of this legislature being attacked.

So forgive me if I speak with passion about this piece of legislation.

It is time now for us to be able to focus on what the actual issue is. Please don't mischaracterize that. The actual issue that we are focusing on is ensuring that members have the ability of our community, have the ability to be protected. With that, I respectfully request your aye vote.

Okay. Thank you very much, Assembly Member. Once again, we don't have a quorum at this time, so we're entering a motion on the bill when we establish a quorum. And thank you. So we have a number of authors here.

We do take measures in file order. And I do see Assemblymember Ramos and he is item number one. I know Mister Lackey have been waiting very patiently. I see Assemblymember Patel here. I think she is before you Mister Lackey.

So I leave it to both of you to work out an arrangement if you'd like to let another Member go beforehand. But we'll go to Assembly Member Ramos at this time. Okay. And we'll proceed on to file item one, AB 31 by Assembly Member Ramos. Good morning.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Today, I'm presenting AB 31, which is another part of a long standing efforts to address the missing and murdered indigenous persons crisis in California. Public law 280 was enacted that stripped seven states of their true policing authority on tribal lands. California is one of those states.

As I have highlighted during my time in the legislature, our state is home to the most Native American population and Alaska Natives in the country yet has the fifth highest number of missing and murdered indigenous person's cases. This is a crisis that affects many tribal families that have had a loved one gone missing and hasn't even been investigated.

Just last year, we were able to establish the Tribal Police Pilot Program, which grants tribal law enforcement officers state peace officer authority through a program. However, this program is set to expire in 2029. Although this program is a big step towards addressing this crisis, participants must undergo a rigorous process to fulfill the conditions of the program. This means a tribe with limited resources to ensure compliance must decide between extensive workload for a program that is set to expire or they can choose to divert resources elsewhere, being unable to participate in this groundbreaking program.

With an ever increasing level of missing and murdered indigenous persons cases throughout the state and not enough local or state resources being allocated to protect tribal communities, we leave them feeling disregarded. We must show to tribes that the state is fully committed and ready to invest in long term projects rather than short term programs. With these considerations, AB 31 would do two things.

First, we would make the Tribal Police Program permanent, allowing for the necessary timing to ensure our tribal partners and Department of Justice get their program running efficiently and can do the work it has set out to achieve. Secondly, we would establish the missing and murdered indigenous persons task force here in the state of California.

This task force has long been an idea that has yet to be fully realized. And today, we have a chance to make it become reality in the state of California. The task force will be coordinated by our state police, the California Highway Patrol, in coordination with the Department of Justice to enhance statewide coordination investigations.

Implementing these policies will bring much needed solutions and tools to help address the missing and murdered indigenous persons crisis in our state and really honor California's first people. With me to testify in support of the bill today is Chairman Joe James of the Yurok Tribe, the largest tribe in the state of California.

Thank you very much, Assembly Member. Good morning.

Good morning. My name's Joe James, Chairman of the Yurok Tribe. Thank you, Chairman and committee, for allowing me here to testify on this important matter. On behalf of the Yurok Tribe, I am here today to express our support and sponsorship for AB 31. The Yurok Tribe believe this bill helps helps us to tackle the murdered and missing indigenous people's crisis head on.

AB 31 would make the pilot project, as Assembly Member Ramos mentioned, more permanent, highlighting to tribes that the state is fully ready to invest long term stand and by a partner in addressing this crisis. This bill would also established the murdered and missing indigenous persons task force, as Assembly Member Ramos mentioned.

Again, it is the right message to send for the state of California to tackle this ongoing crisis that's near and dear to all of us first peoples here at home in the state of California. Ultimately, this bill is about empowering tribal government and showcasing to tribal nations the state's full commitment to addressing the crisis with long term solutions instead of short term ones. We strongly support AB 31, and I thank you for your consideration and respectfully request a yes vote.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 31? If you can please approach the microphone to state your name, organization, and position.

Good morning. Marcos Aguilar, Executive Director of Tzicatl Community Development Corporation in Los Angeles. I'm an advisor to the Gabrielino-Shoshone Nation here to express support for AB 31. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, Members. Chris Lindstrom, California Tribal Business Alliance. We're in support. And also, Wilton Rancheria is in support.

Raymond C. Hitchcock, tribal council member, Wilton Rancheria, federally recognized tribe right here in Sacramento, California. I am in support of AB 31 for creating the MMIP and the tribal police fund. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 31?

Good morning. Don Brown. I am in support. Wilton Rancheria. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Unless there's anyone else wishing to express support for a AB 31, we'll take any opposition witnesses. Are there any opposition witnesses? Seeing no one come forward, I'll bring it back the day as for any questions or comments from the committee. Okay.

Strongly support the bill. Thank you very much, Assemblyman, for bringing this forward. And I'll turn it back over you to make a closing statement.

Well, thank you, so much, for that. And thank you for your ongoing support, of these issues to California's first people. I ask for your aye vote when the time's appropriate.

Thank you very much. Okay. We'll now proceed to our next bill and file order. And we'll proceed to filing 25 AB 1959 by Senator Patel.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Good morning, and good morning, members. Thank you for the opportunity to present AB 1959. This bill seeks to close a loophole in the law related to a school shooting in San Diego County. You will hear from witness testimony of the real pain and impact that was caused by the school shooting in 2001 at Santana High School, which ended the lives of two fellow students and caused injury to 11 other students, one teacher, and one campus security officer.

This individual was sentenced to prison after his guilty plea. However, because of a loophole in the law, he was able to file for resentencing in a jurisdiction that didn't even try him, even after being denied parole months before his resentencing motion. AB 1959 simply seeks to ensure that my community continues to feel safe and that convicted individuals are held accountable for their actions until they are successfully rehabilitated. I urge your aye vote today at the appropriate time.

With me to testify today are Deputy District Attorney Nicole Roth and Kristen Marie Dare, a survivor of the Santana shooting.

Hi. Good morning.

Chair and committee members.

Can't hear you. Sorry. Make sure the mic is on.

Is that on?

Yes. Should be working.

Oh, okay.

Thank you, Chair and committee members, for this opportunity. And thank you also Assemblymember Patel for your thoughtful work on this bill. My name is Nicole Roth. I'm a deputy district attorney with the San Diego County District Attorney's office. And on behalf of my office, we are in strong support of this bill.

AB 1959 is a necessary correction to protect public safety and restore the trust that victims and communities have in our justice system. This bill does not eliminate 1170D resentencing. It restores judicial discretion within that process. And that is a crucial component of resentencing. It was a component that was initially, contemplated by this legislature when they created penal code Section 1170D.

The intent was clear that judges would determine eligibility and then hold a full and thoughtful resentencing hearing at which they would carefully weigh youth rehabilitation and remorse before reducing any sentence. It was meant to be a thoughtful individualized and, safe approach to resentencing. But today, that two step process has collapsed.

And in effect, once a petitioner is found eligible, that case transfers back to juvenile court where the determination is made based on that person's age at the time of their commission of the offense and not on rehabilitation, public safety, or risk. If the offender was 16 at the time of the offense, release is automatic, a judge has no opportunity and no discretion to consider any factors that were initially cons intended to be considered at a resentencing hearing.

And this is even in the most extreme cases. This is not just a hypothetical, but it is something that in our county we see in reality.

I apologize. If you can please wrap up your comment.

Yes. Absolutely. In the Santana High School shooting case, while he was just found to be unsafe for release, he faces, mandatory release because he was 15 at the time of the shooting. AB 1959 restores what the legislature always intended. That is judicial discretion, a balanced process, and true consideration of both youthfulness and public safety.

I urge your aye vote when the time is right to protect our communities and reaffirm the integrity and the justice system. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Hi. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair and members. I appreciate being able to address you during gun violence awareness month. My name is Kristen Dare. My husband and I are survivors of the shooting at Santana High School on 03/05/2001, and we still proudly call Santee our home. Although the events of that day continue to shape our family decisions.

When our children aged into the ninth grade, we made the difficult decision to send them both to Santana's neighboring rival high school, unwilling to spend several more years walking the campus where our lives were forever changed. Now, I fear in all new ways, thinking what it could mean to potentially lose my life's most important work, our children. The effects of the Santana shooting are still claiming casualties.

A classmate who was murdered, Randy Gordon, lost more than just his own future as his mother was found living in a homeless encampment just a few miles from Santana. Her life devastated by the loss of her son, still in and out of temporary housing to this day.

Another classmate, Tommy Millsap, took his own life on the anniversary of the shooting back in 2020, specifically citing the shooting in his suicide letter. I'm here today to ask that justice remain balanced. Randy and Brian were never afforded the opportunity to live the lives that were taken from them and us as victims never have the chance to be free from the mental, emotional, and physical wounds we carry.

People who have committed the most violent crimes as teenagers should not so easily be relieved of the consequences of their actions and are still deserving of the carrying out of their original sentencing. However, when they bring a petition for resentencing, their cases are held in a juvenile court even though these courts have long lost jurisdiction over these folks.

This can often result in their early release through resentencing even after a parole board has deemed them unsuitable. AB 50 AB 1959 closes this loophole, restores discretion to the court, and ensures these offenders who have aged out of juvenile systems can then be resentenced appropriately in adult court. I respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time on AB 1959, and I thank you for your time.

Thank you so very much, and thank you for joining us today. Also, is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 1959?

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

Thank you.

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

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

Thank you very much. Is anyone else wishing to express support for AB 1959? Seeing no one come forward, will not take up to two principal opposition witnesses to AB 1959. And then you each have two minutes.

Mister chairman and members of the committee, thank you. My name is Marissa Harris, and I appear before you today as a professor and clinic director at Loyola Law School's Center for Juvenile Law and Policy. I have firsthand experience with, youth offender resentencing, and I am also the parent of a young child. And like everyone here, I'm horrified by the thought of a school shooting. As a parent, I understand the instinct to act.

But as a lawyer and professor, I believe good policy requires us to ask hard questions and demand evidence before changing the law. That's what I asked you to do today. Who will this bill affect? The answer is we don't know. AB 1959 was introduced in response to one horrific crime committed by a 15 year old nearly twenty five years ago, and nothing I say diminishes the suffering of the victims and their families.

But this bill might not even affect the very case that inspired it. We don't know how many individuals are eligible to return to juvenile court, what offenses they committed, or how many would ultimately be transferred back to juvenile court. What we do know is that most of those people did not commit school shootings or multiple murders, and some are serving sentences for non homicide offenses, yet they too would be subject to transfer. That's why we don't make state policy based on one single case.

Second, how much will this bill cost taxpayers?

Again, we don't know. You're being asked to make a life altering decision affecting an unknown population and unknown fiscal cost. Transfer hearings are the most resource intensive proceedings in juvenile court and are often followed by lengthy adult proceedings, yet we have no meaningful estimate on how much it will cost. Finally, what evidence justifies undoing SB 1391? None has been presented.

Six years ago, this legislature prohibited the transfer of 14 and 15 year olds because decades of brain science, and the Supreme Court has recognized that children that age are fundamentally different from adults and don't belong in adult prisons. Legislature also recognized stark racial disparities in the transfer process, and data shows that black youth are 30 times more likely to be transferred than white youth. AB 1959 offers no reason to believe those disparities won't continue. So what has changed?

Not the science, not the evidence, not public safety.

No evidence has shown that keeping 14 and 15 year olds in the juvenile system has harmed public safety. So before you vote to expand one of the harshest mechanisms in our justice system, I urge you to demand evidence. I respectfully ask for your no vote on AB 1959.

My name is Steven Christopher Johnson. Mister chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak. At 14 years old, I committed a horrible crime. I deserve the consequences to transition from juvenile halls to America's worst jail in Los Angeles County and to the maximum maximum security facility in prisons that I stayed at until I was 16 as till from 16 until I was released. Excuse me.

I deserved everything that came, if not more. During my sentence, two things, however, changed, the law and myself. The law changed from proposition 21, which opened the doors to warehouse juveniles to prop 57 and SB 1391, where California recognized that science has shown that 14 and 15 year olds are not ready for adult systems, and they are capable of significant change. And I can prove that. With no hope or purpose, I saw education.

I obtained my AA degree, developed emotional intelligence, educated others in prison, and ultimately, I analyzed my body of work, good and bad. And I internalized it not to understand, but to know that I was changed for the people that I had hurt. My actions were noticed. Mister Varghese, an educator who worked inside of CDCR, he wrote a observation about me. He described me as patient and kind, terms that were never described about me at 14.

Those two documents were the reason SB 1391 allowed me to stand here in front of you today instead of sitting in the cell. Today, I'm being trained at Columbia University in technology. I have a home and a family. I live a life I've never thought I could, but it's that fear that Mister Sun, Steven Johnson at 37, would protect him, and that's facts. But six years ago, y'all created a bill that allowed me to be here today.

And, you know, it's hard to say if I should be here, but miss Judge Amy Carter took a gamble on me because y'all got it right, and she's proud of that. I asked y'all to please vote because you could be stopping another child like me who didn't know, who was going through something emotional and just had to figure it out. Thank you. I apologize if I went too long.

No. Thank you very much. Okay. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 1959?

Jim Lindbergh on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California. We strongly oppose this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office in opposition.

Abba Rodriguez with ACLU Cal Action in strong opposition.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 1959?

Huey Nguyen of legal services of prisoners of children in opposition.

Thank you. Okay. Unless there anyone else wishing to express opposition AB 1959, I'll bring it back to the dais for any questions or comments. Ron, Senator AB 1959 by Assemblymember Patel. Okay.

Seeing no questions or comments, we do not yet have a quorum as well. I'll turn it back over you to make a closing statement.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I would like to just bring back to the members of this committee that this is a simple bill to close a loophole to restore judicial discretion. In our resentencing cases, when we have situations where parole is denied and then there's an automatic turn to release, this is a clear loophole for community members trying to ensure that they restore their safety as victims in the community. These crimes are horrific when they're mass shootings.

And we need to make sure that our communities can feel safe our community members can feel safe in their communities.

So at the appropriate time, I would ask for an aye vote, respectively. Thank you. Thank

Thank you you very much. Thank you all for joining us today. Continuing in file order, Mr. Lackey, we will get to you. Other authors keep coming in who are ahead of you in file order. We're gonna go to file item 32, AB 2235 by Assembly Member Pacheco. Whenever you're ready, Assembly Member, you may present.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators. Today, I am here to present AB 2235, the Judicial Home Security Act. I'd like to start by thanking the committee and I will be accepting the committee amendments. Violence and threats against judges have risen sharply with thousands of incidents reported in recent years and a significant increase since 2015. As a result, many judges and their families fear for their safety.

At the same time, judges' home addresses remain easily accessible through public records and online databases, creating a direct pathway for bad actors to locate them and their families. Existing privacy protections in California are insufficient to protect to prevent the widespread dissemination of this sensitive information, particularly when it originates from government sources. This gap leaves judges exposed to targeted harassment, intimidation, and potential violence at their homes.

AB 2235 allows judges to use an alternate mailing address in public records while preserving legitimate access for business, legal, and law enforcement purposes. This approach strikes a careful balance between transparency and safety, ensuring public records remain functional without compromising personal security. Given escalating threats and vulnerabilities, AB 2235 is a necessary measured step to protect the judiciary and uphold the integrity of the justice system. With me today to testify in support is Cliff Costa on behalf of the California Judges Association.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Cliff Costa today on behalf of the California Judges Association. I would like to thank the committee and the committee consultant for working with us on this language. This is an issue that the California Judges Association has been working on for over 25 years.

About 25 plus years ago, the California Judges Association participated on an attorney general task force that was looking at vulnerabilities out there for elected officials including judges. At that time, we were able to accomplish a number of things coming out of that AG task force except for property records.

Since then, technology and the work of Assemblywoman and the Judges Association have been really focused on trying to see what we can do about cracking this nut on property records. We believe AB 2235 is that attempt. It is modeled after the Safe at Home Program but entirely different because it is focused on judges and trying to protect their home addresses without them having to flee.

That is the fundamental difference between the Safe at Home Program. We have been and continue to work with stakeholders, both local government stakeholders, the assessors and recorders, as well as the real estate industry, as well as the data brokers and others who need access to this information. With that, I respectfully request your aye vote and I'm available to answer any specific questions, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much. Is anyone else wishing to express support for AB 2235? There any additional support witnesses for AB 2235? Okay. Seeing no one come forward, we'll now take up to two principal opposition witnesses to AB 2235. Are there any opposition witnesses? Seeing no one come forward. Bring back to the dais for any questions or comments. Seeing no Members wishing to speak, thank you for bringing this bill forward. It's very important. I have an aye recommendation. Turn back over to close.

Thank you. And thank you for this opportunity to present this bill. I respectfully ask for your aye vote when appropriate.

Thank you very much. Okay. Mr. Lackey, we're gonna go to you now. File item 34, AB 2304, and then we'll go to Mr. Gipson after. So we are now gonna proceed to file item 34, AB 2304. There any principal witnesses in support, if you can please join us here. And whenever you're ready, Assembly Member, you may present on.

Alright. Well, thank you. I appreciate it, Mr. Chair. And now we actually have Members. So it's good to see that you have more than one here. This bill, AB 2304, is known as Gabriel's Law. And it clarifies that when a child requires immediate emergency care in an emergency situation, the social workers must have a child seen by the appropriate medical professionals.

This bill additionally clarifies with existing law that social workers must be held accountable for falsifying reports. As you may know, since I became a legislator, I've been trying to pass legislation revolving around this horrific child abuse case of Gabriel Fernandez. He was an eight year old boy who was tortured and killed by his own mother and her boyfriend.

In this case, the social workers involved failed to take the necessary precautions needed to protect him. Even though they were called out to see him multiple times for various injuries, his body chart was only updated once with a bruise on his bottom, preventing any further investigation from being seen by a medical professional. Additionally, various social workers that he was assigned backdated and falsified records.

When this case was closed a month before he was killed, one social worker changed the date to be March instead of April in order to not be held responsible for visits to the family in his final month. The four social workers in his in Gabriel's case were charged with one count of child abuse and one count of falsifying public records.

But, unfortunately, all charges were dismissed in 2020. The death of Gabriel Fernandez has served as a wake up call to focus our collective conscious on the systematic failure to protect innocent children. This tragedy revealed that there are many cracks within the child welfare system that malign the interests of these children. This bill, AB 2304, makes a necessary change and clarifies in current law to help prevent any more cases like Gabriel.

This bill requires that if a child appears to be in need of immediate emergency care that the social worker call to the case and must have the child evaluated further. Additionally, AB 2304 clarifies that social workers who willfully and knowingly steal, remove, hide, destroy, damage, deface, or change or falsify records will be charged with these offenses. Senators, this is my 12th and final year as an Assembly Member. It's also the 7th year I've tried running legislation to correct this horrific wrong.

It means a lot to me and those with me that have made an eight hour journey up to Sacramento for all these years attempting to prevent this type of heartache that they've experienced. I have with me today Gabriel's aunt, Emily Carranza, and Dan Felizzatto with the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office to testify.

Thank you very much. Good morning.

My name is Emily Carranza, and I am here today in memory of Gabriel Fernandez, Anthony Avalos, and Noah Cuatro. A question was asked, why is Gabriel's Law necessary? The answer is clear. Gabriel's Law is necessary because children cannot protect themselves. When a child is being abused, neglected, or suffering in silence, they rely on adults and the systems designed to protect them to step in before it is too late.

Sadly, California has witnessed the devastating consequences when those protections fail. Gabriel Fernandez was only eight years old when he was tortured and murdered despite numerous reports of abuse. Anthony Avalos was 10 years old when he died after enduring horrific abuse and repeated warning signs that should have triggered stronger intervention. Noah Cuatro was just four years old when his young life was cut short after concerns about his safety had been raised. These children had names.

They had dreams. They had futures. Most importantly, they deserved to be protected. Gabriel's Law is necessary because the lessons learned from these tragedies must lead to action. It is about strengthening accountability, improving communication, ensuring thorough investigations, and making child safety the highest priority.

It is about preventing warning signs from being overlooked and ensuring that cries for help are met with immediate action. This legislation is not about politics. It is about protecting children. It is about making sure that the stories of Gabriel, Anthony, and Noah become catalyst for change rather than just headlines that fade with time. We cannot bring these boys back, but we can honor their lives by building a stronger child welfare system that responds quickly, acts decisively, and puts children first.

I ask you to support Gabriel's Law so that future children have the protection that Gabriel, Anthony, and Noah deserved but never received. Their voices were silenced, but ours do not have to be. Thank you for your time, your compassion, and your commitment to protecting California's children. Let the legacy of Gabriel Fernandez, Anthony Avalos, and Noah Cuatro be one of the lasting change and stronger protections for every child in our state.

Thank you so very much, and thank you for joining us this morning. Sir.

Mr. Chairman, Members, Dan Felizzatto on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office. I'm not gonna repeat what has already been said, except to the fact that law enforcement officers, when we are investigating these cases, we hear over and over again if only this child had been seen by a medical professional that maybe, you know, something would have been done and we don't wind up with these horrific cases that are just tragedies.

This bill will help ensure that by requiring that the children are taken to medical care, not merely authorizing that they are taken for medical care. This bill also clarifies the government code. In the prosecution of Gabriel Fernandez, we did charge the social workers with destroying evidence. The court of appeal did not find that the individuals didn't destroy the evidence.

They found that they were charged under the wrong code section. And by the time that had been discovered, it was too late to refile charges. So we're amend government code 6201 to clarify for DAs in the future that if you have one of these tragic cases and the social worker is not a court officer, they can be charged under government code section 6201, not 6200.

The, at least in Los Angeles County, I'm sure it's probably the same in other counties. We have social workers. Some are considered court officers and would be appropriate to charge under Section 6200, but the vast majority are not considered court officers and therefore cannot be prosecuted under that code section. This bill just simply clarifies what the proper code sections are for any future case that arises. We ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 2304? Seeing no one come forward, we'll take up to two principal opposition witnesses to AB 2304.

Yes. Hi. Michael Hefty. I am an attorney with Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers. We do oppose this bill only to the extent that it extent that it does not require felony prosecution for social workers who have committed these acts. We certainly view the bill as furthering a noble goal, specifically to protect children by imposing penalties and specifying penalties for social workers that are alleged to have falsified records as it were here. We do think that the goal of this bill is quite an important one.

But the actual effect of the bill can be particularly minimal where the bill does not actually amend the code section in a way that would allow prosecution specifically for the felony. We do believe that the felony conviction should be the appropriate punishment for particularly the social workers in this case who committed these acts. The 6201 section, however, does allow for misdemeanor convictions, and that's something that, although the felony, or excuse me.

Although the acts may be charged as a felony, the judge would have the discretion necessarily not to impose a felony term. The bill should have necessarily amended 6200, which was the original code section that the prosecutors attempted to use to charge the social workers in this case. Or alternatively, the bill should aim to alter government code 24000 to specifically list county child welfare social workers as officers to permit that, excuse me, corresponding felony conviction.

We are asking that if this committee does consider the bill, that the committee alter the bill to specifically amend 6200 to include social workers as officers or government code Section 24000 to do the same to require felony conviction for these types of acts, especially in cases where child death is concerned. But even in all cases, falsifying of an official record related to child welfare should be pursued under felony conviction through Section 6200. Thank you.

Okay. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 2304? If so, please approach the microphone, state your name, organization, and position on the bill. Seeing no one else come forward. I bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments. Vice Chair Seyarto.

Yeah. I just wanna thank the author for bringing this and having such and persevering on this issue for so long. You know, this isn't the usual case where people are concerned about the punishment. And as you know, these are people that are paid to do a job. And when you're falsifying information, when you're back dating and doing things like that, you know you're doing it.

You know you're doing something wrong. And if you know what the consequences are, and you did it and you do it anyway, then you get to accept for the consequences. And, you know, in this particular case, there were a lot of a lot of issues that fell through the cracks along the way. And it resulted in a horrific death of this young man.

He was out in Lancaster, I believe. Right? Yeah. That's an area that I used to cover. In fact, it happened in the district I used to cover. So it's sad when when that happens and somehow our safety net fails. And when it fails, we need to address that. And that's what your bill is trying to do, and I appreciate it. So, anyway, when time comes, I'll be supporting.

Thank you very much. I'll turn it back over to you, Assembly Member, to make a closing statement.

Yeah. I'll just tell you, this problem is real. And currently, this is not just a one off. Fortunately, the dramatic nature of the way that this child was tortured, it was very dramatic and somewhat unique. However, the fact that children are being killed by their parents is almost unthinkable, but it it has happened at least five times since I've been in office.

Five times. Fact is we currently have a case that's being heard by a friend of mine where the child has no advocates in this court trial except my friend that's listening to the horrific circumstances surrounding these children who need advocates. And when we have staff people and people respond that show irresponsible behavior, we need to address that in the way that it deserves to be addressed. And that's all this bill does. And so I hope when it comes time that you will consider that and act on their behalf.

Great. Thank you very much. Thank you all for joining us today. We don't have a quorum, so we'll entertain the motion when we establish quorum. Thank you, sir.

Okay. Proceeding in file order. I see Assembler Addis here. So we'll go now to file item nine AB 1539. And whenever you're ready, Assembly member, you may present on AB 1539.

Thank you so much, Mister Chair. We're here for AB 1539, the Protect Our Democracy Act. And, just to preserve your time I know you have a long day. I'm gonna tighten up my comments. But the gist is that this bill would strengthen critical constitutional safeguards by making it a crime under penalty of perjury to place a candidate for vice president or president on the ballot who is ineligible due to constitutional term limits.

Many folks ask why would we need something like this when we already have a constitution and, term limits are dictated by the twenty second Amendment. But what we know is that we have a president in office who is trying to push on every legal mechanism we have and who has said they desire to rewrite the rules, are selling merch to rewrite the rules, and has quite the base and a following who's interested in rewriting the rules to allow them to stay in a third term.

The bill would simply add this penalty of perjury and, an extra layer of defense to protect our elections, which we feel is critically important. With us today to testify in support is Genesis Gonzales, alleged director of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis, who we all know, served as ambassador when Orban came to rise and has a very unique perspective on why democracy needs strengthening.

Great. Thank you very much. Good morning.

Good morning. I think still. Thank you, Chair and member. My name is Genesis Gonzales, legislative director for California Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis. The Lieutenant Governor is proud to sponsor AB 1539 and wants to commend the author for introducing this measure.

The bill is deeply personal to the Lieutenant Governor. As US ambassador to Hungary, she witnessed firsthand the rise of Viktor Orban, a leader who systematically dismantled a burgeoning democracy by ignoring customs, norms, judicial orders, and con con constitutional constraints. She has seen that same pattern here at home. When leaders openly disregard the safeguards that protect our system of government, democracy itself becomes vulnerable. AB 1539 addresses that vulnerability.

It simply requires a representative of a political party to certify under penalty of perjury that their presidential and vice presidential nominees meet the constitutional eligibility requirements under the 20 amendment of the United States Constitution. These are not abstract rules. They are safeguards put in place to protect our democracy from the concentration of power and to ensure that no one, no matter how powerful, stands above the constitution. For generations, term limits and eligibility requirements have preserved the stability and peaceful transfer of power that defines American democracy.

But when those boundaries are openly questioned, it creates uncertainty and erodes public trust in the very foundation of our democracy.

And Fifth AB 1539 does not change who can run for office. It simply reinforces the rules we already have and ensures the integrity of California's ballot. The peaceful section of power has been a cornerstone of our national identity for nearly two hundred and fifty years. We can no longer assume it will be respected without vigilance. This bill is about drawing a firm line and reaffirming that our constitution still matters.

We respectfully request your support for AB 1539. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay. We'll now invite anyone else wishing to express support for AB 1539 to please come forward and state your name, organization, or city you're from, and position on the bill.

The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors in support.

Thank you very much. Are there any other support witnesses for AB 1539? Seeing no one come forward, are there any opposition witnesses to AB 1539? Seeing no one come forward to bring it back to the day as for any questions or comments. Okay.

Thank you for bringing this bill forward. I have an eye recommendation. I'll turn over you to close.

Thank you so much. I respectfully ask for your eye vote at the appropriate time.

Great. Thank you very much. Okay. Just give me one second as we transition.

Great. Thank you very much. Okay. Just give me one second as we transition.

I have to go present bills in the capital.

So I'm gonna hand the gavel over the vice Chair. And it looks like next in file order is item 14 AB 1664 by Jackson.

Alright. Welcome Assemblymember Jackson. You have AB 1664. You may begin when you're ready.

Okay. Well, I thought I was gonna have people testify, but they might be somewhere lost in the hallway. This is AB 1664, which would require a local agency, political subdivision, or elections official to provide notice to the secretary of state and the attorney general no later than one day after becoming aware of any warrant subpoena or active law enforcement investigation pertaining to any election records or voting systems under their custody. Thank the Lord.

With me today to testify is deputy attorney general Tiffany Brokaw.

And for technical questions, deputy attorney general Malcolm, Brodigame, here to testify.

Alright. Well, much to the relief of the author, you are here. So, you have two minutes. So if you could do that and stick to that timeline, I appreciate it. We have a lot of bills to hear today. Thank you.

Okay, Will do. And thank you. No one's ever said that. Good morning, Chair and members.

Tiffany Brokaw, deputy attorney general here on behalf of attorney general Rob Bonta. And we'd like to thank Assembly member Jackson for carrying this important bill. AB 1664 is designed to improve the tools available to the attorney general to promptly mitigate any damage associated with the improper search and seizure of election materials. The threat of interference in California's electoral system is increasing. Heightening this threat, local and federal law enforcement have sought to search and seize election materials nationwide.