Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning. I'd like to call to order this meeting of the Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety. We do not yet have a quorum, so the committee will operate as a subcommittee to hear bills. And without objection, we're gonna hold over file item one AB 2727 to later in the hearing, the request of the author. And so, if without objection, we'll proceed to file into SB 239 and I'll hand the gavel to the Vice Chair.

Alright. As stated, the first bill we will be hearing this morning is SB 239 by Senator Arreguin. Welcome, Senator, to the Public Safety Committee meeting. And, you may present your bill when you're ready.

Well, thank you very much, Mister Vice Chair and committee Members. Appreciate the opportunity to present SB 239. SB 239 will help address threats and intimidation directed to local public officials, particularly election officials.

SB 239 will authorize the court to consider as a factor in aggravation in sentencing a person for making criminal threats that the defendant willfully threatened to commit a crime that would result in the death or great bodily injury of an election officials of a city, county, city and county, or public district, or an elected local agency official.

California law already makes criminal threats to local officials, state officials, judges, already a crime, and allows harsher sentencing when the victim is a certain high level public official.

In recent years, election administration election administrators and local government officials across The US have reported increased threats and harassment and intimidation related to election administration and politically contentious decisions. And certainly, we know of school Board Members and supervisors and council members and mayors who also, face increased criminal threats. I'd say this issue is also very personal to me as the former mayor of Berkeley and somebody who has also faced threats and harassment, while doing my job.

And unfortunately, it's become a new reality in our public discourse in this country, and that's why this bill is so important. SB 239 recognizes that threats against election officials and public officials at the local level are not just attacks on individuals.

They're attacks on the democratic institutions and public services that Californians rely on every single day. This bill promotes public safety, strengthens confidence in our democratic process, and recognizes the unique harm caused when threats are used, to interfere with the functioning of our government. I respectfully ask for an Aye vote. I do not have any witnesses in support.

Okay. Is there anybody else in the audience who would like to come up and express their support for the bill?

Ethan Nagler on behalf of the California Municipal Clerk's Association. We wanna thank the author for working with us and strong support of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Jack Worson from Nossman on behalf of the County Of Monterey in support.

Great. Thank you very much. At this time, we'll take anybody who would like to be a principal witness in opposing the bill. If there are none, anybody who wishes to come up and express that they oppose the bill? If not, I'll bring it back to the dais.

That's me. Great bill. You may close. Respectfully ask for your Aye vote. Thank you.

When the time comes, when we get a quorum, we will, take a vote on that bill. And, and then the next bill, miss Pellerin, you're gonna be up AB 282. Get into position until the Chair gets back. Welcome back, Chair.

It'll take me a little while to go point a to point b these days, so appreciate it. Good morning, Chair and members. Just this year in California and Georgia, conspiracy theorists seeking to undermine long ago certified election results seized and attempted to seize ballots and election records. These actions are abhorrence to state autonomy and authority over elections. But the chaos and threat to our elections would have been even more devastating had these bad actors engaged in this conduct before election results had been certified.

AB 282 seeks to prevent the gravest threat to our elections by preventing any attempts to seize ballots, election records, and certified voting technology before our election results are certified. AB 282 makes clear that interfering with ballots or voting equipment before an election is certified is a serious offense with serious consequences.

Specifically, it will make it a felony to seize, cause, or assist in the seizure of ballots, election records, or certified voting technology before election results are certified by the elections official, punishable up to three years in prison. It further prohibits any person with authority from directing someone in their supervision to do the same, punishable by up to four years in prison.

The federal administration and those seeking to spread lies about our democracy continue to call for interference in elections in ways never before seen in our country's history.

With increasing threats to the integrity of our state administered elections, California must ensure that every lawfully cast vote can be counted and that the will of the voters is respected. And we must be a step ahead of any attempts to undermine our elections. With me to testify in support, I have Beth Malinowski, who's the government relations advocate for SEIU California.

Good morning, Chair and members. Beth Bonowski of SEIU California in proud support of AB 2 a two. SEIU California is committed to safeguarding the right to vote, a right that is currently under active attack at the federal level. These growing threats highlight why California must act now to strengthen California law ahead of the upcoming elections.

Building on the prior election safeguarding bills of this year, both AB 282 Pellerin and SB 259 Wahab are an election protection legislative package, ensuring Californians have the greatest confidence in our election systems.

As noted by the author, this bill would prevent the disruption of election results certification by establishing a new felony, linked to the seizing, assisting, or directing of seizure of election records, ballots, or certified voting technology before election results are certified. In closing, we stand with the legislature in making sure that we have all the new protections and safeguards needed in place to guarantee a free and fair election. Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any other witnesses in support of the bill? We'll invite anyone who would like to express support for AB 282 to please come forward and state your name, organization, and position on the bill. Okay. Seeing no one else come forward, we'll now take up to two principal opposition witnesses to AB 282.

Are there any opposition witnesses? Seeing none, anyone wishing to express opposition to AB 282. Please come forward.

Avi Rodriguez with ACLA Cal Action. Just wanted to register a Tweener position, stating our strong concerns with creating a new crime. We plan to get a letter in later today or sometime shortly. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone wishing to express a position on the bill? Support oppose in between? Okay. I'll bring it back to the dais for any questions or comments.

Vice Chair Seyarto?

Thank you. My first question is how is this different during the bill that we had in the Senate with Senator Cervantes' bill? Because he was specifically kinda doing the same thing and that bill was already off the floor.

Yeah. That was post election. This is prior to the certification of the election results.

Have we had any instant instances in California where that has ever occurred?

There have been threats and attempts.

When?

We are hearing threats about it right now. We're hearing that there's efforts afoot to prevent to seize and prevent people from voting and we are trying to protect our voters from anything that can't happen. So we're thinking proactively.

Okay. So so so there's an instance because this is, you know, in fact, one of the the only instance that I know of is actually in court right now and we're waiting for a Supreme Court decision on it.

If a if a a group decides they want to steal ballots and, you know, you have drop boxes out there And they go out and pull one of those drop boxes and throw it in the back of their vehicle and start taking off down the road and a police officer pulls them over, What police officer has to arrest them

And and take the evidence and they can coordinate. But at that point, are are they guilty of a felony?

Well, I'm not a lawyer here, but I can tell you You're

Neither am I but it doesn't sound.

As a former elections official, we always worked in partnership with our local law enforcement, and we had the ballots guarded whenever whenever they were being transported to make sure that there was not any kind of interference with anybody trying to seize and take those ballots.

But the interference that we're talking about is not it's a third party interference. Well, they're obviously they're already guilty of something just like stealing mail Right.

At the federal mailbox. But the people that have to intervene and catch those people, now they're guilty of according to this. And that's what the the those are the I The when we're when we're trying to create legislation to stave off what are pretty much conspiracy theories about what's going to happen. We'd be here all day, every day until, you know, next until the end of the year or till, you know, the election day, staving off what we think might happen. This isn't happening.

Nobody I have never seen this in my district. I haven't heard any threats of this happening in my district.

So, you know, I I understand the concern, but we already have mechanisms for dealing with people that are stealing ballots or manipulating ballots or doing whatever.

And if we're going to do these kind of laws, we won't be able to move at all Right. Because we'll have so many laws that we don't know that we're gonna be guilty of because somebody thought we were going to do something that's never ever occurred before. Yeah.

So, you know, I I I'm and especially at the last minute, coming in at the last minute with these kind of efforts, these need a whole lot more examination than we're gonna be able to do in one hour before floor starts. And so, you know, this is something if you're you're truly concerned, I would watch the next election and then see if it's something that really does need to be adjudicated through our legislative process.

And and and then, you know, target what it is that is actually happening

Versus what we heard or what somebody made up was gonna happen. Because that's what's happening right now. There's so many things out there, especially on Facebook, you know, you know, that sorry, Facebook, but social media and and stuff that, if we reacted to everything with, every one of those type of things with the law, we'd we'd never go home.

Right.

But and I would disagree with you too. As a farmer county elections official, we absolutely the care of our ballots prior to certification was of the utmost importance. And, yes, we did have people threat to threat to try to intervene with those processes. So this gives that law that those procedures elections officials have in place Yeah. Some teeth and some protection so It did.

Voters can feel confident that their vote will be delivered, counted accurately, and secured.

Did they interfere with it?

There were definitely

There were threats, but nobody really did it.

But why wait for something bad to happen? Let's prevent it from happening.

Alright. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We are on Assembly Bill 282 by Assembly Member Pellerin. Are there any other questions or comments from the committee? Senator Caballero?

Thank you very much. I was gonna ask you to respond to the question because I thought that it's a good question and I think your bill is a really good bill. We need to we have done in California a yeoman's job of protecting the voting system and making sure that only those that are eligible to vote vote.

And, that if you vote that there's integrity in the system so that they get counted, which is why it takes us a long time because we wanna make sure we're we're capturing everybody everybody's ballot that is legally either mailed or brought in. And so I thank you I thank you for the work that that you've done at the elections department, and you have deep knowledge of how the system works.

And I really appreciate that because it makes it a lot easier for those of us that Wanna continue to see this system work. So I thank you for doing this bill. I think it's the right time to do it.

It sends a message to everyone that we value, voting integrity and, and that if there are any actions that are, not appropriate as per the code, who can touch the ballots and what they can do with them and the inability to change votes, it and it's it's important. And so, I'm I'm gonna support your bill today and appreciate you bringing this forward.

Thank you.

And at the appropriate time, I'll make the motion, Mister Chair.

Thank you very much. Thank you also for bringing this bill forward. You know, we have an election in November. So I understand the the time sensitivity of bringing this bill forward at this time. And I'll turn it back over to make a closing statement.

Yeah. I think for the integrity of our elections and the security of our voting systems and to bring our voters into confidence that our elections are conducted accurately and securely, I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you very much. We don't have a quorum. We're waiting for one more member. And, Sergeants, I know you're contacting member offices to make sure we have a quorum. We do need to conclude this hearing by 10:00, so I ask that all members please come to Room 2100 in 1021 O Street so we can establish a quorum and take action.

We now have a quorum. Okay. If we can please call the roll.

[roll call]

Okay. I'll entertain a motion on SB 239 by myself.

So moved.

Moved by Senator Caballero. The motion is due pass the floor. Know that Assemblymembers be concurred in.

So on SB 239, if we can please call a roll.

[roll call]

We'll keep that bill on call. Entertain a motion on AB 282, Pellerin.

Moved the bill.

Moved by Senator Caballero. Thank you.

And the motion is do passed to elections.

Okay. The motion is do passed to elections.

[roll call]

We'll keep that billing call. Thank you.

Okay. Before we proceed to the next bill, just want to check Assemblyman, when are you would you like to proceed at this time? Okay.

So, Assemblymember Nguyen's bill was previously in file order, so we will go back to File Number One, Assembly Bill 2727 by Assemblymember Nguyen. And good morning.

Thank you, Mister Chair and members. I'm back today to talk about AB 2727, following the amendments we took on the Senate floor last Friday. I wanna thank the committee for helping us get this out not too long ago. But also note that during these last few weeks, we pulled everybody aside to be able to get to where we're at today, where most people feel comfortable about.

Since soon—since then—we have worked closely with the administration, Board of Parole hearings, and Department of State Hospital to strengthen the bill and make sure the right safeguards are in place for individuals convicted of serious sexual offenses.

The amendments maintain the requirement that specified serious sex offenders be at least 65 years old, have served at least twenty five years before qualifying for elderly parole. The bill also strengthens the review process for individuals serving life sentences for sexually violent offenses by requiring a sexual dangerousness screening before their parole hearing. The BPH already uses a comprehensive risk assessment to value an individual's overall risk.

The new sexual dangerousness screening adds information specifically focused on sexual risk and whether the individual may qualify as a sexually violent predator. The hearing would consider both the comprehensive risk assessment and the sexual dangerousness screening when deciding whether someone is suitable for parole.

If parole is granted, the individual is immediately referred to the existing sexual violent predator screening process. If that screening determines they are likely to qualify as a sexually violent predator, they refer to the Department of State Hospitals for a full SVP evaluation. Another important piece of this bill is also requires additional training for BPH commissioners and deputy commissioners on sex offenders' behavior, risk, and treatment.

Members, these amendments are about making sure we have a thorough process in place and they have the information they need before making these difficult decisions. These are not ordinary parole cases.

They involve individuals convicted of some of the most serious sexual offenses in our state. I appreciate the work of the administration, BPH, DHS, and committee staff in helping us get the language right. With me here today to answer any technical questions is Denise Halstead, who is the Deputy District Attorney with the Sacramento County DA's Office. She's also on the Sexual Violent Predator Committee for CDAA.

Mister Chair and members, I know that we talked earlier about the concerns about the 180 days, and I'd like to turn it over for Ms. Denise so that she can explain a little bit about it and clarify a little bit more as we have more discussions around it.

And you may proceed. You have two minutes.

Thank you, Senators, for hearing me today. I have been doing this for 12 years, practicing as—doing trials, as well as reviewing them as a Supervisor of the SVP unit in our office. The critical thing about SVP review before it gets to our office is there's a significant deadline that ends the process of getting treatment to the most seriously deranged individuals who literally think that—that there's no pill for these people. This is something where you have to get them treatment. The treatment starts when they get into the SVP process.

That can't happen the day they parole. After they parole, we lose jurisdiction. So, when we're looking at the time frame that it takes to review them before their parole date, the Department of State Hospitals, after receiving a review from the Board of Parole, has to appoint doctors. They appoint two doctors from their in-house panel. Then, if those two doctors do not agree, it goes to a secondary panel for two additional doctors to review.

We are talking in our packets of over 700 pages of documents including medical, including CDCR, including the crime reports, etcetera, that must be reviewed. And when we're looking at the reports that are written, the reports, at a minimum, are 35 to 75 pages, depending on the individual and the number of crimes.

So, when we're looking at trying to get treatment for these people, it's imperative that we review whether or not they actually meet criteria, not putting an arbitrary deadline on somebody to force them to get it done in a short period of time and to be able to thoroughly look at their background, make an assessment whether or not they are going to and likely to have a volitional and emotional—lack emotional and volitional control of their sexual violent predatory impulses. So, it's a very lengthy process.

And so, to cut that short because a parole date that was arbitrarily selected after the time frame of an indeterminate sentence, which is not known when they're gonna get that grant of parole, limits the ability for us to get the most violent offenders, who are likely to reoffend, to get treatment.

And this should be, like, noted. It's the three to four percent of sexual offenders. We're not talking the entire population. We're talking three to four percent of the people who even make it to this point. So, I'd like the youth senators to consider that we are really trying to make sure that these people are given treatment and are able to be safely released to the community and not reoffend.

Okay. Thank you. Do you have any other support witnesses?

No. She would be the only one testifying.

Okay. So, we'll now invite anyone who would like to express support for AB 2727 to please come forward. Please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

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

Good morning. Kathleen Cady. I'm the Director of the Bureau of Victim Services for the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, which is also over the Parole Division, in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Corey Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriffs' Association, in support.

Good morning, Chair and members. Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association, in support.

Morning, Mister Chair and members. Ryan Sherman with the California Narcotic Officers and the Riverside Sheriffs' Association, in support.

Audrey Ratajczak, on behalf of the Orange County District Attorney, in support.

Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to express support for AB 2727? Seeing no one else come forward, we'll now take up to two opposition witnesses, if there are any opposition witnesses.

Okay. Seeing none. Anyone wishing to express opposition to AB 2727?

Javier Rodriguez with ACLU California Action in strong opposition.

Okay. Anyone else wishing to express opposition? AB 2727. Going once, going twice. Okay.

We will close testimony. Bring it back to the committee, if I may. I'd like to begin the discussion. So

Thank you, Assembly for our conversation at the beginning of this hearing. I wasn't aware that the bill was amended until last night.

And so, I appreciate the opportunity to connect with you about the concern I expressed around. Extending the period beyond 45 days which somebody could be held in custody. And I, you know, did request that you consider taking an amendment to revert to the existing state law, which is 45 days.

And so my questions relate to that particular issue. So to the witness in support of the bill, why 180 days? So the default under state law is 45 days. Why do you need 180 days?

Thank you. That's a really good question. When we look at the current law when the 45 days was enacted, it was because we had a determinate sentence. So we knew the sentence date. Oftentimes, we have to ask, the CDCR when we give them our petition and in order to produce, please do not parole them because we have to have them arraigned on the petition before the parole date.

And so that 45 days was to help when CDCR does a recalculation because they're walking out the door, how much time they actually have credits for. As an example, the last SBP I filed, he had, an RVR that happened just before his parole date. And the CDCR decided to give him credit on that parole violation or on his RVR violation.

So we thought we were gonna get an extra twenty days because they said the the RVR would get him an extra 20 days and they waived that 20 days. So that 45 days is to ensure when you have that deadline coming up quickly to kind of protect that little bubble from when the reports are done and sent to our office, we file and we get them to us.

The reason for the 180 days is that when you are an indeterminately sentenced person, you are not guaranteed a parole. Right? You're it goes before the parole board and they can say yes or no. So once they say yes, we have to start the process to try and get all the ducks in a row. And at some point, the en banc can grant, the parole before that process is done if we don't have that safeguard.

And once the en banc, which can have their hearing at any point between the time that it is granted and the time of, I believe, it's a hundred and twenty days out for their, time frame, then the that person is paroled as soon as the en banc agrees. So then we don't have any more time left. So that 180 days is an up to. It's just a safeguard. It's not we will keep you an extra 180.

It's we wanna have a little cushion to make sure that if we now have somebody, which is, like I said, not the the vast majority of sex offenders, it is just a small percentage. If we're gonna have that person suddenly looking at being released on parole, we need to get everything done. And in the event we have a split opinion, we need to have that extra time.

There's been times when I had to file where I get a phone call from the CD or from DSH saying, we have two split opinion. We have a split opinion.

We have two new doctors. They agree. He paroles in two days. We don't have the reports. They're still writing them.

So you need to figure out how you're gonna file because you have to have the reports in hand to file and get them to your county in two days. So that is what that is there for is to just give us that extra cushion for the fact that the process doesn't start until he's granted parole.

Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that background. You know, I take very seriously issue of holding somebody in custody longer than is needed. And so that I think underlies the concern that I expressed.

But I do understand the, you know, the need for some greater degree of flexibility. And so, you know, this if this bill moves out today, it goes to the Appropriations Committee and then on the floor and just would like you to really think about is a 180 days is that, you know, could there be, you know, some consideration of a shorter time period?

Because I really, I'm concerned about somebody being held in custody longer and then needed and not having the ability to be granted parole. So I just want to raise that, raise that issue for your consideration. State law is 45 days already.

So this would be a change a substantial change to the time period in which somebody would remain in custody. But the other amendments that have been put forward, I understand were the result of consultation with the administration on implementation of the bill that we had advanced just a couple months ago. You know, with respect to the age and the period in which somebody would be eligible for elder parole.

And I did support that bill, and I do support moving this bill forward today. I just wanna raise that that issue on the record.

Yep. May I add one more thing?

Sure.

So in regards to the180 days, with the determinant sentence the process because you are known a a definitive parole is happening on this date. His EPRD is set. So, the process starts six months before. So I believe that the 180 days was based on that. The idea that we're it it could take six months to do we want this process to start six months before.

So I believe that that was why the 180 days and why it's not a definitive. You are gonna use that 180 days. It's more of a gap to catch the parts that we talked about before where we're trying to get all of the doctors evaluations. And so that was what I believe that the number was.

Yeah. I mean, if you know, if you allow for up to a certain period.

Right. Correct.

That may be the default. And so that that's why I'm raising the the issues.

Correct.

And Mister, I completely understand. I think for us, it's just that little cushion in it. Like you said, maybe there's an opportunity to be able to negotiate. Maybe it's not all of that. I just want us to be able to not run out of days.

And it's very rare that this would come up because we had a long conversation about this. But just in case it does, it's not automatic. It's just if it's needed in a situation where there is an agreement or there's the screening isn't all completely done yet. We've added some more screening in this just to be able to protect everybody that's involved in this. And so it may take a little bit longer, and that's all we're asking for.

But I wanna tell you, I do understand your concern. I do. But I wanted at least the committee to understand because I don't think you're the only one that hasn't had the chance to see this. This all came at the last minute. I know we've been on the floor until late into the evenings, and so I wanted at least to be able to have everybody understand why it's there.

We just didn't throw it in there. There's a reasoning behind it, and we can definitely have more conversation about whether or not that makes you comfortable or if there's a lesser amount or whatnot. We just wanna make sure there's enough time in place for us to be able to complete this entire process and not run out of days.

Thank you. Senator Caballero?

I appreciate the discussion because I had the same issue. And I also appreciate the explanation as to why it was amended despite the fact we passed it and it's coming back. I generally don't like last minute amends because there's more to them than you sometimes think. But I'm wondering, my concern was the same as the chairs, which is that, you don't wanna be holding people beyond their release date.

But I'm also very appreciative of what the bill is trying to do, which is to set up the a framework where you're really making an analysis of whether this individual should be, whether we should be looking to see whether they're they continue to remain a danger to the community because that's really what people wanna know is, yes, you've paid your time, but are you upon release gonna be a danger?

And, have you taken a program that provides some degree of surety as much as we can ever assure that human behavior is safe? Some kind of assurance to the public. And I'm wondering if and this is I'm not suggesting you change your bill right now, but we ought to be looking at the parole process. So that when they give a date, it's enough time to be able to do this assessment. So you're not actually holding them beyond the time that gets set.

They they figure the time in with the parole date, number 1. And number 2 is, I know that a lot of the mechanics of an individual in prison is all paper. And I know we've moved to an electronic system so that you can get information faster from one place to the other. But I'm wondering if this is an issue of process.

Well, whether we need to invest in the infrastructure so that everybody can get in and look at what's happening with a particular individual and how many days and what they need to do rather than waiting for for phone calls and files to be transmitted, those kinds of things.

It would would that help solve for some of this? And I don't know. And then thirdly, in the end, I'm gonna vote for your bill today because I think it, it's really important. But do we have the capacity to well, for now, I just lost my thought train of thought. This is what happens when we're here until 08:00 and then we're back at eight in the morning.

Shoot. Yeah. I might I just totally forgot. And it was it was in line with making sure that the system is operating the way it should and you can get materials and information to the right place and it's it's a mechanics type of

Sounds like a idea for a bill next year.

The question you had regarding paper versus electronic? A lot of these cases come from us to us, I'm sorry, from convictions that happened many years ago, right? And so trying to get the police reports and the probation reports and any other investigation that was done regarding this person. And it's not just the criminal offense that they commit when they are now sentenced to state prison on the crime.

It includes other prior things. So for example, one of my cases ha at 12 he shot his mom because he didn't like the consequences. At 13, he raped a girl when he ran away from his group home. At 14, six months later, he stabbed and raped another girl when he was out on the streets.

And then at 19, when he was released from CYA, he raped one woman and tried to kill her, and then he raped another woman and she jumped from his van and landed on her head and couldn't testify.

So those are the reports we're needing because he continued to get out because he got determinate sentences and he ended up his last conviction was for a violation of penal code section 290 for not registering. So what we're looking at for his sex offenses involves years and years and years which is why they are in that top three to four. They're the ones that continuously re offend because they can't control their emotional and volitional impulses towards individuals, whether it's children or women or even men.

So that is somewhat of why that process takes so long is to get those. And I routinely receive I've gotten in touch with the Board of Parole and have them email me requests whenever they have somebody they think might qualify, please email me.

And I am starting the process as soon as you're starting your investigation to get those police reports, probation reports, etcetera. So we have that communication, at least my county does. And I'm trying to get other counties too. And next week, I'm at a conference down in Southern California for CDAA, and I'm gonna say that to all of them. We need to have our agencies working with the Board of Parole so that we can ensure we have everything started immediately.

And DSH is so good about getting them to us immediately.

I'm sorry to interrupt. I just wanna make sure that we can get to other member questions. Senator Caballero?

Thank you.

Senator Cortese.

Yeah. I don't I don't really have questions. I may have general questions as to how we got to this point, but that's it's too late for that. I I'm just kind of flabbergasted that we're coming into a a broken CDCR system with the kind of issues that you're talking about, and we're not front loading, as you just described, what's really needed. We're not writing a bill that comes in and re requires that you have those reports ahead of time.

The slippery slope it's beyond a slippery slope to say that when someone has been deemed eligible for release, hard stop. This is the date they walk out. And we essentially, here at the state level, start tinkering with the constitution of The United States, the constitution of the State of California, and say, yeah. Just kidding. We're gonna hold you a little bit longer because we didn't get our shit done in time.

Not you. All these other people that you're talking about. Most other carceral systems, you know, penal systems in the world have this work being done all the way every week, every day, for every year that that person is incarcerated so that you know who's prepared for release and who isn't. The person you described, I if I was on a parole board, I'd I'm pretty sure I would vote not to release him. It's particularly without rehabilitation.

As a criminal defense attorney, I had a case one time of a sex offender. I didn't know the case is gonna be a sex offense case because it was a violation of probation for supposedly stealing a hammer at work. We got in there and was told, oh, no. We have a stalking situatio and perhaps worse. And the judge said, look.

There my the disposition is gonna be San Quentin Prison, CDCR, with zero rehabilitation, zero rehabilitation. It's sentencing. I told the judge he's gonna come back to this county and reoffend in this county again. You absolutely must incorporate in the sentencing rehabilitation before that parole date comes up. And he said, I know he's gonna reoffend and I'm not gonna do that.

This is a system that we're dealing with.

So to come in and put a band aid on the back end of a situation that's that screwed up, and say, you know, we're gonna just start for various different crimes or for various different statuses, by the way, including undocumented immigrants, hold them beyond a release date for a broken taillight or whatever the case may be because we have not really done the work, you know, to get them where they need to be to deal with them, to rehabilitate them, or to make that assessment.

And you can't tell me after that testimony, colleagues, including my colleagues from the other side of the aisle, that the work has been done to make a determination if that person should be released. We're being told that the need for the bill is because we haven't done the work to make the determination. So where's the bill that forces we have the power as a state legislature to make to write a law to make that determination.

CDCR works for us. We don't work for them. You know, it's just a tail wagging the dog here to add another metaphor. So I'm not critical of the author who I know to be a good legislator. I am certainly not critical of the agenda, which is without rehabilitation, these folks should not be released.

And in many cases with rehabilitation, they're gonna fail to qualify to be released. I'm fine with that. I'm good with that. But I just think that we're coming in from the wrong side of the equation trying to balance it. And for that reason, I'm not gonna be able to support it. I appreciate you giving me the time, Chair.

Vice Chair Seyarto.

Thank you very much. So, this is one of those issues for me, that is a we need to get it right. We don't necessarily have to get it done right now as far as, the what we're talking about is making sure that somebody is fit to go out. We did not put them in jail. They put themselves in jail.

And they've been in prison for a long time, especially when you're talking about sexually violent predators. Yeah. The system's kinda screwed up on the, on the back end if this is what's happening. But if that's if this is what we need to do right now to protect us between now and when we do present that legislation to make sure that, this is all done before their proposed parole date, that's fine.

I would rather error on that side because it is not the fault of the next victim of this person that that person is in prison and has been in prison for a long time and is finally gonna get out because we've decided to lighten up, on their being 60, 65 or older, whatever it is.

And that's no fault of the next victim at all. We have a duty to protect the next victim. And the next victim is only protected if we make damn sure that the sexually violent predator predator is not going to reoffend when they get out. And if that system right now takes six months or 180 days longer, that's what it is.

I invite, I you know, I'll be on board with anybody who wants to fix the other part of the problem, but I'm not gonna ignore that part or ignore this part because that part hasn't been addressed.

So, so I will be supporting your bill. I'll move the bill right now and

Okay. Thank you very much. Was there any other questions or comments from the Committee on AB 2727?

I'll just close, and say that, you know, I think part of also what is driving the extension of time in which somebody would be held in custody is we're putting in place a lot of new requirements, in terms of, you know, reports, and reports are due, and certain criteria that and I think those are all good things to help implement the policy that we adopted or recommended several months ago. And I understand that this is the outcome discussions with the administration on implementation.

But I just want to once again reiterate, you know, my request that the author do, you know, take into consideration the issue in, you know, in Section six of the bill, and there's 6601.3, subsection b, in terms of the 180 period, because and I agree with Senator Cortese. You said it perfectly. Like, it's very clear that there are serious problems in terms of how the system works, Which is why you brought forward the bill to begin with.

That's right.

With the fact that certain dangerous sexually bond predators were granted parole.

That's right.

Who should not have been granted parole.

And it's part of the reason why we had committee bill SB 1446. That's also seeking to address the this particular issue as well. So I thank you for bringing this legislation forward to address a very serious issue because at the end of the day, it's making sure we have a system that is flagging these offenders and making sure that we determine whether they are suitable to be paroled and released back into society, so that they don't reoffend and cause harm to our community.

That's correct.

But I also take very seriously people's constitutional rights and people, you know, being held in a carceral setting for longer than may be necessary. I understand the desire to have flexibility.

And so once again, just want to reiterate my request that you give further consideration of that particular issue. With that, I'll turn it back over to your close.

Thank you, Mister Chair. First, yes, we will consider your request for sure and understanding that. I know, members, I wanna thank you again for letting us come before you with these amendments. I will say that of all the bills that I've worked on, I've never had an opportunity to bring everybody to the table and have such great conversation around this. I wish we weren't coming here to talk about this bill.

I wish this wasn't the case. I wish there wasn't an opportunity for us to because there shouldn't be. Right? And as Senator Cortese mentioned, a lot of this should have been in place a long time ago. Many of these folks should never have been granted parole knowing what their history is.

But here we are today, and here we are trying to find a way where we can protect the children, where we can put things in place so that way we don't miss the mark. So that way somebody isn't granted parole when they shouldn't have been. So that way there are screenings and evaluations in place which aren't in place, and that's what this bill does exactly. We have to stop playing the blame game.

Many of these cases, well, two or three, have come from my region here, which is why I really took to heart that we needed to do something.

It's not gonna be the end of it. They're gonna be coming to your district as well too. This is just the beginning, which is why we get to do this, and we get to do it as best as we can to protect the children. And that we get to do this in a way where we're not gonna blame anybody else. I don't wanna blame the administration.

I don't wanna blame the board parole. I don't wanna blame the Department of State Hospitals anymore. I wanna put a bill together, policies together, where we can bring everybody together and everybody agrees on when an individual who is a violent sexual offender is eligible, should be eligible, can be eligible, should even be considered eligible for parole. And that's what this bill does. And this may not be perfect.

We may be back. I'm not saying that this is perfect by any means. I'm just saying that we need to start somewhere and we need to do something, and that's what this bill is about. And with that, members, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much, Assemblymember. Thank you to our witness. We have a motion by Vice Chair Seyarto, which the motion is pursuant to Senate rule 2910. The measure be re referred to appropriations.

AB 2727 the motion is pursuant to Senate Rule 2910 that the measure be re reffered to appropriations.

[roll call]

Okay. That bill is out.

Thank you.

Thank you. Five to one. We have one more bill, left, which is, AB 2760 by Semler Sharp Collins. Good morning. Alright.

And whenever you're ready, you may present.

Alright. Thank you. Alright. Good morning, Chair and senators. I would like to begin by addressing the amendments that is outlined in the committee analysis.

Due to the timing, we were unable to amend the bill in this particular committee, but we plan to take amendments to the next committee provided that the bill, does move past public safety. I am proud of the work that we have done in such a short amount of time, to where we have over 20 co authors within both houses, who have signed on to help support this bill.

I am pleased to present Assembly Bill 2760, a bill that protects public health and safety by prohibiting federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies from purchasing, possessing, or using electric shock gloves and other sustainable, similar wearable, conductible well conducted energy devices. Electric shock gloves are an emergency use of force technology that is being marketed as a solution to the overuse of excessive force. However, the reality is that this technology has not been widely evaluated for its safety or public health impacts.

Because the weapon is built into a glove, officers can administer repeated electrical shocks during a single physical encounter. Sadly, this misuse has already resulted in someone losing their life after reportedly being shocked by the gloves while in police custody in Kentucky. Even scarier, school resource officers, they were in Nebraska, are now carrying these gloves despite clear guidance that they should not be used on children.

They just recently had a school board meeting where the community came out to let the school board know, hey, we do not want the school district to utilize these gloves. Just last week, members of the House Committee on Homeland Security sent the letter to the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security urging him to halt the department's plan to invest $20,000,000 towards purchasing shock gloves.

The letter cited ICE history of misusing tools that are deemed less lethal in ways that often result in serious injury or death. Committee leaders also then caution that training programs have rushed officers through the proper use of force and the overall instructions and making them unprepared for the new technology.

Furthermore, Amnesty, the international, has documented the use of of electric shock devices as instruments of torture and has recommended that government cease use of the decommission and destroy any stockpiles of such prohibited electric shock gloves weapons. While the gloves are not currently being used in California, waiting for a tragedy to act, in my personal opinion, and so many others, would be something that California cannot handle.

Imagine your family, your friends and loved ones or even yourself being incapacitated by federal, state or local law enforcement who does not have the necessary training to ensure that you don't suffer from adverse health effects due to being shocked.

That is why this bill is so important. Assembly bill 2760 draws a clear line. Public safety technology must be must be proven to be safe, accountable, and especially before it's gonna be deployed and not after someone is killed or seriously injured. Here with me today to testify as far as my witnesses in support are Ana Yali Martin from legislative advocate with the California Immigrant Policy Center and Monica Madrid with Cheryl with with Charla.

Thank you so much.

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

Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Anayeli Martin with the California Immigrant Policy Center. We're in strong support of AB 2760 because this bill is critical to upholding the safety and security of all Californians. Every person deserves to be treated with dignity regardless of immigration status, race, language, or contact with the criminal legal system. Our communities deserve safety, especially when interacting with any government official.

However, mass immigration rates and arrests have undermined public safety and torn thousands of California families apart, terrorized neighborhoods, and destroyed trust between communities and government. Excessive use of force such as taser gloves or electroshock gloves by any law enforcement agency makes Californians less safe. These new devices would endanger the health and safety of Californians and heighten the fear immigrant families are experiencing currently during the Trump administration's dangerous mass deportation campaign.

We are actively seeing ICE agents threatening to use these electric shock devices in future immigration arrests and raids, which would only further harm our urban communities here in California. All Californians should be able to call for help and access emergency services from any and all government agencies without the fear of excessive use of force.

California must take immediate action to ban law enforcement agencies in our state from using wearable electric shock devices and prohibit our local and state resources for purchasing these dangerous and unnecessary devices. For these reasons, CAPC urges you to support AB 2760 and protect the safety and rights of all Californians. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Monica Madrid. I'm a state policy advocate with Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights CHERLA here in support of AB 2760 by Assemblymember Sharp Collins. This past year has been really hard for immigrant communities. We've seen it all, heavily armed mass federal agents showing up in neighborhoods, at job sites, outside court houses, etcetera.

These are places that people used to feel safe. That alone has caused a level of fear that this state has not seen before. And now, there's a real possibility that someone could be made to wear a device that lets an officer deliver an electric shock to them remotely. Unlike a taser that delivers full body and compact incapacitation, these wearable gloves deliver intense localized pain, overwhelming the target, forcing them to do nothing but comply.

That's especially frightening for people caught up in immigration enforcement, folks who are already restrained, already separated from their families, being moved to a detention facility, often without a lawyer anywhere in sight.

This kind of device just gives somebody another way to inflict pain on a person who has no real ability to push back. We shouldn't wait until this happens to somebody before we act. AB 2760 gets ahead of it, banning these devices for California law enforcement, stopping the state money from buying them, and requiring agencies to update their use of force policies to match.

At a time when so many of our neighbors are scared, this is a chance for California to say clearly, there are still limits here and everyone in this state has a right to basic dignity and safety. We respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Okay. We'll invite anyone else who'd like to express support for AB 2760 to please come forward. State your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Good morning. Glenn Backes for Drug Policy Alliance in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Beth Monowski, the CEO of California in support.

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

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair members. Tamir Watson with Disability Rights California in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Nedrick Miller, All of Us and None, Sacramento, strong support.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACV California Action and Proud Support, also registering strong support for Smart Justice California.

Yesenia Robancho with NCHOP poverty in California in support, also registering the Western Center on Non Poverty. Thank you.

Morning, Chair and members. Marie Lopez with the California Nurses Association in support.

Morning. Bernice Singh with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, and All of Us are in in support.

Good morning. Chloe Irmosillo with the California Immigrant Policy Center in strong support, also registering support for the Immigrant Legal Resource Center.

Good morning. Angela Chavez with Courage California in strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice in support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Alex Lee, joint author, proud support.

Thank you.

Also got last minute support from the Southeast Asia Resource Action Center. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 2760? Seeing no one else come forward, we'll now invite, two opposition witnesses. And if you can just move over a seat, that'd be great.

I get there. Get it.

Yeah. So we can accommodate the opposition. Thank you. And whoever would like to begin, you have two minutes.

Good morning, Mister Chair members. Corey Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriffs Association, in opposition to this bill that went into print, four or five days ago. We're grateful the committee is fixing the drafting problem with this bill. That said, we're still opposed. By restricting when and under what conditions an officer may use certain tools, their response to a particular situation may end up being guided by choices about practices that feel acceptable or unacceptable to some.

Instead of what measure is actually most appropriate in the context of the event and when force options are removed from the spectrum of permissible responses, the ability to deescalate a situation becomes more difficult. The witnesses talked about excessive use of force. It's already illegal and against law enforcement agency policy irrespective of the method with which the force is delivered. Also, let's be clear what we're talking about. This bill's focus on federal immigration authorities and their enforcement practices.

And while we don't condone or defend them, this is one of a number of measures that attempt to regulate those federal practices but at the same time implicate state and local law enforcement. We've already seen with bills enacted during this session, it's not uncommon for courts to eliminate those bills application to federal entities. It's not a complicated legal question. Thereby leaving the measures to only apply to state or local agencies.

So we know this is bad policy from a California law enforcement perspective, and it's really only gonna be a message to the feds that's gonna fail the land.

Will only end up burdening California law enforcement and creating officer safety issues. So for those reasons, we ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association. And respectful but very strong opposition, this would be the first time that California has outright banned any technology. And it's doing so in an emerging technology that as the author had noted has not been evaluated. We don't know that it's fundamentally unsafe.

We don't know that it won't in future years become a valuable safe tool. And I don't think anyone can say that a SWAT officer or a highly trained officer specialized in a specific situation could not, use this tech technology, safely, to their benefit and to the benefit of the public. It is less lethal.

I wanna follow-up with what my colleague had mentioned, you know, the courts have actually come out in the ninth circuit earlier this April and said that California does not have ability to regulate federal operations. They've already struck down one law that was passed last year that we actually worked on good faith on, but in those decisions made it very clear that this is this type of restriction is not going to be applicable to the federal agents that are out there that are source of the problem.

It is going to apply to California law enforcement. We can regulate. We can set safeguards. We can set restrictions. We have the strongest use of force laws in the nation.

The example from Kentucky, that individual was shocked 40 times, including a sustained shock of over ninety seconds. That is not per standards. That is not lawful in California law. That is excessive force. That is the problem.

It is not necessarily the technology itself. If school resource officers are using this against kids, easy ban that. Right? We can set restrictions. If the technology is still emerging, you know, we did with facial recognition.

We set a moratorium for a year. Said we're gonna evaluate this before we actually, decide how to regulate it and allow California law enforcement to use it. An indefinite outright ban because the federal officers are of concern, is not the appropriate policy in this situation or any situation. We can do better than that, and, again, we respectfully oppose this measure.

Thank you. Is anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 2760?

Chair members are very, very bad.

Porak, opposition.

Morning, Mister Chair members. Ryan Sherman with California Narcotic Officers, Riverside Sheriff's Association, and the other law enforcement groups in the analysis in opposition. Thank you.

Bernie Ojeda, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department in opposition.

Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition?

Apologies. Mario Guerrero. California Faculty Association support. Sorry.

Okay. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to Assembly Bill 2760? Seeing no one come forward, I'll bring it back to the days for questions or comments. Vice Chair Seyarto. Thank you.

I have an issue with eliminating, especially new technology that's meant to do less lethal, approaches to getting people under control before they hurt themselves or they hurt other people. And, I think the opposition has pointed out that, you know, they haven't really even studied these yet to find out. You may find out that in 20 instances where normally lethal options wind up getting used, this may have saved five people in those 20. We don't know.

And, you know, this is very similar to the the the shock gun that they use, the shock gun.

Only those things they send out prongs and you have to do you have to hit and the prongs have to stick. In this case, they are actually have to have their hand on somebody and that somebody is probably fighting like mad, to get loose, get away, grab a gun, do whatever it is. But whatever it is, they need to be, hopefully less than lethal so that they can be brought under control. And that saves their lives.

And it also saves police officer lives, and it can save bystander bystander lives.

So I think it's premature. I certainly don't think we should be dealing with this issue at 10:15 when I'm supposed to be on the floor of session. At the end of session, these are the kind of bills that drive me nuts at the end of session because they need a lot more vetting. And they also need a lot more research done before we start outright banning, types of what they're trying to do is respond to complaints about a lethal incident.

And and doing this is like I said, from a federal immigration standpoint, it makes zero zero difference in what they're doing whatsoever because we do not have that jurisdiction.

I don't wanna Handcuff our local police. I don't want to handcuff our sheriffs or our state or CHP. They need the tools to get the job done as safely as possible. Doesn't mean nobody would ever die from it because people have underlying medical problems sometimes. They need to take that into consideration when they're getting themselves in a situation where somebody actually has to use something like this to get them under control.

Okay. Thank you. Mindful that, it's 10:15 and we need to go to the Senate floor or entertain a motion on the bill. Moved by Senate press. Thank you.

Senator Caballero.

Appreciate you, bringing this bill forward, and I appreciate the comments, that have been made. Let me tell you what I think the, the issue is as far as I'm concerned is that this device started off in the wrong hands. It's just the bottom line. I've been appalled and depressed and angry at the way that immigration has approached their job.

And I think it's leaked into everything that goes on in terms of public safety despite what public safety has tried to do for years to do community policing.

And so the difficulty is that we see this device. We know nothing about it. And so number 1 is I'm assuming we're not talking about tasers in this bill. And I mean, it's a short bill, so it's easy to read and to get through it. But, so number 1.

And number 2 is I really do think we need to study how it operates, whether it's got any applicability in the future. Given the standards that California has in regards to de escalation, it is not de escalation to use this this glove on someone. I'm sorry, but that's never been the case.

I there may be some scenario that's that's way out there, but that I would hate to see it being used on a regular basis as a way to be able to get cooperation. It's not how you get cooperation.

The tasers, you can do it from a distance. And that's a benefit because we ask police officers to deescalate and remove themselves from dangerous situations if it's possible. But so I'm gonna support the bill today, but what I think would have been helpful is to say that California will study that this particular device and it's a ban right now until we have information about what it can do and if it's got any applicability at all.

Because like my good friend, Senator Seyarto, there may be instances where where this becomes a less lethal alternative. We'd like to get guns to not be necessary.

And especially in some of our smaller communities where people know each other and we want there to be good community policing. So thank you for jumping on this and I was appalled to see these being used. And they were they were being used and people were screaming.

Okay.

Unless there any other questions or comments, just in closing, I will be supporting the bill today. I do think Senator Caballero's comment about studying this and having a report back to the legislature on this less lethal tool would be helpful. So we can evaluate whether this ban should be permanent or we should entertain some other restrictions on it. When I looked at this bill, I wasn't focused on federal immigration authorities. I was concerned about local law enforcement using this tool.

And I don't have a law enforcement background, but I was the mayor of a local community. And I know that, you know, law enforcement, at least in my community, had many tools, less lethal tools to use. They can use pepper spray. They can use tear gas. They can use rubber, rubber foam rounds.

They can use tasers. There's a there's a continuum of less lethal tools and tactics that law enforcement have. And so the question is, should they be able to use these gloves? I don't think they should personally, and that's why I support the bill. I'll turn it over to you to close.

Thank you. As I previously stated in my opening that we will continue should the bill be able to move out of public safety, we will be happy to continue further discussion for amendments to be taken up through the appropriations committee. But just to put it simply, our communities cannot afford to wait for a new session for us to take up something such as this, and or the right moment. Technology, as we know, it moves very fast.

And because it moved fast, in my personal opinion, we have to start moving faster.

And so, the time is to act is gonna be literally right now. And because of that, I do, respectfully ask for your aye vote. I know that it was a short turnaround, but this is something that I felt strongly about that we need to start to look into. And I will continue to work with our opposition to see what else we can do to find some type of middle ground as we move forward. But I do respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senate pres. The motion is to pass the committee on appropriations. Please call the roll.

Aye.

Okay. AB 2,760 motion do pass to appropriations. Arreguin?

Arreguin, aye.

Nope.

Seyarto?

Seyarto, no. Caviaro? Aye.

Aye.

Cortese, Aye. Perez?

Caviaro, Aye. Cortese?

Aye.

Perez, Aye. Weiner?

Weiner, Aye.

Aye.

Okay. That bill's out in a vote of 5-1. Let's open the—let's open the roll on the remaining bills. File Item One, AB 2727, Nguyen. I think that bill is out. File Item 2, AB 239.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out in a vote of 6-0 and File Item 3, AB 282.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out on a vote of 5-1. That completes our agenda. The Senate Committee on Public Safety is now adjourned.