Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Quorum has been established. I'd like to give a couple of items for just announcements. We have 25 bills on the calendar today. Six bills are on consent. Those bills are AB 2531 by Assemblymember Bryan. AB 1954, by Assemblymember Alanis. AB 1972, by Assemblymember Alanis. AB 2176 by Assemblymember Berman.

AB 2730 by Assemblymember Lackey, and AB 2985 by Assemblymember Hart. I do want to highlight before we do have Bill presentations just for everyone to understand. We will have the Assembly Members speak at this lectern and me toos and lead witness, in opposition or in support, speak at that lectern.

Witnesses, lead witnesses will only have two minutes to speak each speaker, and then we will have a series of me too. Me too speakers should announce their name, their organization, and only whether they support or oppose one of the bills.

And another thing that we just want to announce again is that the retail theft bills will be heard in Committee today in order overall. AB 1779, by Assemblymember Irwin. AB 1794, by Assemblymember McCarty. AB 1802, by Jones-Sawyer. Assemblymember Jones-Sawyer. AB 1960, by Assemblymember Soria. AB 2943 by Assemblymember Zbur. AB 3209, by Assemblymember Berman.

We will be hearing these measures first before we move on to the rest of the agenda. Assuming that the authors are present, these bills are being expedited through the process and will be heard in Senate Appropriations Committee next week. In order to avoid any delays, Committee amendments will be adopted in Senate appropriations.

These amendments will add in an urgency clause so that they may take effect immediately upon approval of the Governor, and an inoperability clause so that if the proposed initiative, titled the Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction act is approved by voters in the November election. With that said, I would actually like to take up items on consent first. Do I have a motion? Senator Bradford moves consent. Can we get a roll call?

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Now we're gonna move on to our very first Bill. AB 1779 by Assemblymember Irwin. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, chair and Members. I'm pleased to present AB 1779, which returns authority to district attorneys to join charges from multiple counties in one trial when prosecuting organized retail theft rings operating across multiple jurisdiction, jurisdictions. The bill is part of the Assembly's California Together Against Retail Crime package of bills.

Organized retail theft continues to plague our communities and its resulting financial impacts burdens not only retailers, but also the average family trying to purchase goods.

While I am proud to have revived this ability to join charges from multiple jurisdictions for the Attorney General in 2022, we have heard from the CHP at the Little Hoover Commission and from the retailers that there are more multi-jurisdictional cases than the Department of Justice is willing to take on.

Meaning now is the appropriate time to revive this tool for district attorneys. I would like to introduce my primary witness, Michelle Michelin from, Rachel Michelin, from the California Retailers Association.

Thank you.

Senator Wahab, Members of the Senate Public Safety Committee. My name is Rachel Michelin. I'm the President and CEO of the California Retailers Association here in strong support of Assembly Bill 1779.

We've all seen the videos, individuals walking into a store and clearing out a shelf full of products into a garbage bag, and riding out on a bike.

Or what about the thieves taking essential items like baby formula, crossing county lines to steal from multiple stores while threatening retail employees, knowing it would be more difficult to prosecute to the full extent of the law because prosecutors currently lack the authority for multi-jurisdictional prosecutions.

Retailers, retail employees, and California customers are frustrated with seeing retail theft and organized retail crime happening all around them. We must give our law enforcement and local prosecutors the tools they need to address these sophisticated crime rings and hold these enterprises accountable for their criminal activity.

California prosecutors effectively utilized cross-jurisdictional charging between 2019 and 2021, and while in 2022 the state allowed for the Attorney General the ability to continue prosecuting with this tool, the unfortunate fact is retail theft is so rampant that in order to deter it from increasing and ensure our businesses, employees, and customers are safe from criminal activity, we need to restore the ability of cross-jurisdictional charging to our district attorneys.

Through collaboration among the Department of Justice, district attorneys, and retailers across the state, I'm confident we can begin to tackle the growth of retail theft ORC and begin to see safer retail environments throughout the state.

This bill builds on a number of legislative proposals as part of the bipartisan legislative retail theft package that taken comprehensively could have meaningful impacts on stopping the growing threat of retail theft and organized retail crime in California and sends a signal that the conversation around the issue of holding repeat offenders accountable for their criminal behavior is changing.

AB 1779 ensures Californians that we will not allow criminals to circumvent the law by crossing county lines to avoid accountability for their criminal actions. For those reasons, I request your aye vote.

Thank you. Do you have any other lead witnesses? Okay, do we have lead opposition? Seeing no lead opposition, we're going to move on to. Oh okay. Wait lead. Okay. So are you lead opposition?

Yes, your honor.

Okay. Two minutes, please.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Wahab and Members of the Public Safety Committee. My name is Sujung Kim. I'm a deputy public defender at the San Francisco Public Defender's office, providing respectful opposition to AB 1779, which would allow consolidation of theft charges occurring in different counties into a single trial if the district attorneys in all involved jurisdictions agree.

Retail theft panic was spread by highly publicized false statements by retailers that have since been retracted. California needs evidence-based solutions grounded in credible information. As a public defender, I know that theft is an act of desperation, and efforts to curb theft must address root causes, including investing and meeting California's basic needs and housing.

AB 1779 does none of this and will lead to prosecutorial overreach, unjust convictions, and a huge expense to California's taxpayers.

1779 would allow for consolidation of theft charges from different jurisdictions, even if the prosecutor in the county in which the offense allegedly occurred has already determined that the charges are not appropriate, are not in the interest of justice, or where the change of venue would harm the interests of victims, witnesses, and defendants.

Giving local prosecutors the final say over charging decisions makes sense because, one, a local prosecutor can consistently determine what charges, if any, are appropriate in their jurisdiction. Two, forcing victims, witnesses, and defendants to travel out of county can threaten their employment and ability to care for their families.

And three, California residents understandably rely on their local elected DAs to handle alleged crimes that happen in their jurisdiction. District attorneys are elected countywide to reflect the priorities of their constituents and their communities. There is no justification for disregarding the will of one's, one county's voters based on the biases and policies of another.

Thank you. Thank you. We're going to move on to me toos. Me toos. Again, state your name, your organization, that you support or oppose. We like to do this part pretty quickly.

Brandon Epp on behalf of the Los Angeles County Sheriff in support. Thank you.

Go ahead.

Good morning. Elizabeth Espinosa on behalf of the Board of Supervisors and the County of Ventura, in support. Thank you.

Ethan Nagler on behalf of the cities of Carlsbad, Corona, Merced, Rancho Palos Verdes, in support of the bill in print. Thank you.

Jolena Voorhis on behalf of the League of California Cities, in support

Chair and Members, Cassandra Mar, on behalf of the town of Apple Valley, in strong support.

Nicole Wordelman on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors in support.

Madison Dwelly-Pigozzo with Political Solutions on behalf of Target Corporation, in support.

Good morning. Brenda Bass with the California Chamber of Commerce in support. Thank you.

Priscilla Quiroz here on behalf of the City of Beverly Hills, in support.

Austin Duel, on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association. We support the bill language in print, but we'll respectfully oppose the bill if it's amended to include the poison pill, rendering it inoperable if the voters approve it.

Thank you. Just either support or oppose.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff's Association, California Narcotic Officers Association, California Reserve Peace Officers, and the Peace Officer Associations of Arcadia, Burbank, Claremont, Corona, Culver City, Fullerton, Murrieta, Newport, Nevada, Palos Verdes, Pomona, Riverside, and Upland, and the Deputy Sheriff's Association of Placer County.

While we support the bill, we are also strongly opposed to the proposed amendments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate it. Again, I just want to make it very clear on me toos. State your name, the organization you're representing, and again, support or oppose the bill. No details. Thank you. We're going to move on to Committee Members if they would like to add anything. Senator Seyarto.

Yeah, I'll provide the details. So, and this goes for all of the retail theft bills that we have, is that this is bipartisan. What was introduced is something that we all support.

One of the speakers mentioned they had seen, we've all seen the videos for multiple years, and yet the efforts over those multiple years to address it with many bills that look just like these have been rebuffed over and over again. Most of them would die in public safety committees, either in the Senate or the Assembly.

Now we have these bills. We're all in agreement that they would be a giant step in helping out our retail theft issue and some of the crime issues brought about by the lack of recognizing that there are some shortcomings with one of the propositions that most of these are based on, on trying to address, tying this to.

And finally, people got sick and tired of it, and now they have a ballot proposition that at the last minute, we decided to tie all of these to hey, if you guys vote for that, we're not going to let you do this stuff. That's called political games.

When we bring up all of these four months before an election, instead of addressing this over the years like we have been trying to do desperately, some of us on both sides of the aisle.

I've heard bills on both sides of the aisle for the last three years get killed over and over that are trying to address this stuff.

So, in the last few days, we've been introduced to this concept that we're going to have the immediate, I mean, making this a 27-vote issue so that we can immediately invoke these things, and that would be great, but telling us that we're going to take it all away if you dare vote for this proposition coming up, which is going to repeal Prop. 47, which started this mess. We've had the opportunity to address it, and we have not done it.

And so now that's what's going to happen, is it's going to go to the, it's going to go to the voters and they're going to speak, and if they say yes, we'll wipe the slate clean, and we can start over.

But a lot of the start over is going to be a lot of these bills that should be allowed to be put in place. And if there's a conflict, just like we've always done before, if there is a conflict down the road, we'll go ahead and address it at that time.

We do that with bills all the time. We're doing cleanup language on bills two years ago that was introduced, knowing that there's going to be some issues. Well, if there are some conflicting issues about any of these bills should be passing, then we'll take care of it at the time. To tie this to Prop. 47.

The repeal of Prop 47 in the fall is a political gimmick. It's a game, and I don't think we should be playing it.

I don't think we should be taking these really good bills and tying this anchor to it to try to tell people that, hey, if you vote for this, you know, we're going to take all this away from you.

And the other part of this I'm concerned about is what's to say in January when we reconvene a new session. We're not going to repeal every single one of these if 47 fails, if the repeal of Prop. 47 fails. So, this makes it very difficult.

I want to vote for these, but if it has those amendments in it, I'm going to be laying off until the dust settles on this, and we get it to the floor or Appropriations.

So my question, I don't know if the author knows this, but it was kind of mentioned, are those amendments applying to all of these now? Have these been amended to include that language?

The amendments, if the amendments are taken, they will be taken in Appropriations. This is so, you said this is a good bill without.

I know it is.

So, now you can vote for it because the amendments aren't in there.

Yeah, but they're going to be taken up in Appropriations. We should know this ahead of time. They're going to be taken up in Appropriations. Appropriations, for all of you that don't attend that, and I sit on works a little bit different. There's not a whole lot of, it speaks to the fiscal aspects of it.

So, you're not going to talk about the policy then. So, that's a great place to take this up. So, my opinion is this process, what has happened now is crap. And so, I'm going to be laying off until it is figured out.

If it comes up in Appropriations, I will vote no on this because we don't need games. We need to protect our retailers. We need to do that now. That's a great idea, but tying this to that in the vote in November and holding people hostage on that, that's ridiculous.

So, I really appreciate the people who worked hard and agreed to take these up, but now that we're playing last-minute games, I'm going to be laying off. So, thank you.

Would any other Member like to speak on this particular item? Senator Skinner?

Thank you, Chair. Author, I appreciate your bringing this to us. And just in response, obviously, our colleague, Assembly Member Seyarto, feels passionate about this. However, I think there's unfortunately games that are played by many parties to try to get support for their particular activities.

And if we look at the initiative he's referencing, it has little to nothing to do with retail theft. And yet it's going to be or going to be.

It is now being presented as if it's a solution, when in fact, the bills that we have, not only the bill that's being presented now by Assembly Member Irwin, but many more in the package are, will really get at the heart of dealing with the problem of retail theft. And the retailers appreciate that.

The retailers are clear that these bills are more important. And so, this is a very important message to send to the proponents that you cannot use phony messaging when you, in terms of trying to present something, do not use phony messaging. And with that, I will move this bill.

Thank you. I specifically also just want to highlight as part of the Legislature's effort to tackle the issue around retail theft and fentanyl, both houses are coordinating to move our respective packages quickly through the legislative process with the hopes of getting these 14 bills on the governor's desk before recess, and more importantly, to take effect immediately, which is exactly what the public wants.

I do also want to highlight that, you know, representatives from the retailers have spoken in support. So, I do appreciate that and their effort working with us to ensure that we have an appropriate and balanced policy package that can be, you know, very much focused on evidence-based practices.

And I will say that I have sat on, for example, the Fentanyl Working Group on the Senate for over nine months, speaking to stakeholders, law enforcement, DAs, and health experts, to really tackle some of the problems that we are seeing in our society.

So, specifically, to ensure that we appropriately advance these priorities, both houses will be adding amendments. It was stated earlier in the beginning of this meeting in Appropriations Committee to these bills to include the urgency clause and an operative clause should the initiative that is circulating, you know, move forward.

We do believe that these bills actually do focus on the issues that are confronting the retailers, the small mom-and-pop shops, and much more. So, I just wanted to highlight that. Of course, the Senate, as well as I'm sure the Assembly, is more than happy to work with all stakeholders.

So, I would like you to close, and we can move on.

All right. Thank you very much. Just really quickly to answer from the other opposition, a couple of points that were brought up. First of all, as I mentioned before, the AG has had this ability for the last two years with a bill that we did, and they are overwhelmed right now.

So, it is important to bring DAs into the equation. And we did take an amendment to require the permission of local DAs when you do this cross-jurisdictional prosecution. So, we've been listening to the opposition on both sides, and with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Skinner. Can we get a roll call vote?

AB 1779. Motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll call]

That bill is on call.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

We're going to move on to AB 1794 by Assembly Member McCarty.

Good morning. Thank you. So, I can go over to our Assembly Public Safety Committee in a second and hear some of your bills. This, again, is part of our package. And to address the Senator from the Inland Empire. This is an as is bill. It doesn't have the inoperable language, and that's for another day.

But today is this bill. And so, we all are trying to address this issue of retail theft. I see it loud and clear in my district. And I'm struck by the issue that we hear a lot from the big box retailers.

You know, the Targets, the Walmarts and the organized retail theft, the companies that are owned by, you know, Wall Street entities, but the Main Street stores, the grocers that are owned by families and families that work 100 hours a week and they're impacted, and sometimes it's a death by 1000 cuts.

And I really think that we need to focus on helping our smaller retailers as well as our larger retailers. And so, this again is part of the package of bills here today, essentially does two things. It clarifies along with the companion bill from the Speaker and Mister Zbur in a few seconds about aggregation, allow us and law enforcement to focus on crimes of multiple victims and multiple venues.

And then secondly, streamlines the process for reporting shoplifting incidents directly to prosecutors from retailers based upon a Yolo County model. We'll hear from in a second called the California FastPass.

This innovative approach here across the river in Yolo County has served as a great approach, allowing more collaboration directly from retailers, shop owners and the DAs to bring about more swift action and focus on accountability. Again, this is a bipartisan bill and respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Do you have any lead witnesses? If the lead witness would like to present at this lectern, you will be timed at two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning. My name is Preston Schaub. I'm a Deputy District Attorney in Yolo County and I'm the lead attorney overseeing our FastPass program. Thank you for this opportunity to discuss FastPass, which allows retailers to directly file and report theft to our office without relying on a law enforcement response.

We developed this model back in 2023 to address trends that we noticed throughout the state, including underreporting, limited law enforcement response, and prosecutors not having the complete information necessary at the time of filing. By allowing the retailers to refer cases directly to our office, we're providing them with a pathway, prioritize their most prolific offenders.

We have granted our retail partners the ability to upload their reports and evidence directly to our case management system, just as if law enforcement was doing it. These referrals are then forwarded to law enforcement so they can properly track the data of the theft occurring in their jurisdictions.

We have criteria for which offenses qualify for a FastPass referral, and once the referral is received by office, our attorneys review the case of charging. If we file it, it proceeds through the criminal justice system the same way any traditional case would. From August 2023 to date, we've received 65 FastPass referrals relating to 75 subjects.

These referrals total just under $165,000 worth of stolen goods, and so far, we resolved 18 cases with a total value of about $70,000 worth of stolen goods. We believe that this model, when paired with traditional reporting, is an efficient use of resources that reduces delays and holds people accountable for the full extent of their conduct.

And again, thank you for your time, and if there's any questions, I can answer them.

Thank you. Do we have any other lead witnesses? Seeing none, we're going to move on to. Lead witness?

Opposition.

Opposition. Yes. Two minutes.

Thank you. Leslie Caldwell Houston, a volunteer with the California Public Defenders Association along with the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, in respectful opposition to AB 1794. We always must be vigilant when discussing streamlining the criminal system. We cannot roll over constitutional rights in the name of making things easier for the system.

This bill, if a county adopted such a program, would permit retailers and no one else to have direct access to district attorneys and submit cases to be filed that have not been investigated by law enforcement. This aspect of the bill is not only unfair, but would raise potential conflicts of interest for district attorneys.

It would permit retailers with significant means to pressure DAs to file cases and create a two-tiered system of justice where powerful retailers may submit cases for prosecution that are not fully investigated. It would also provide special treatment to retailers that no one else in the criminal system has.

This bill inaccurately describes that it is declarative of existing law. It is not. Existing law requires proof that an individual specifically intended to permanently deprive the owner of property. The law is clear. A theft is not committed without proof of specific intent.

This bill appears to suggest that theft could be committed if a person impulsively, without specific intent, commits a theft. This is simply not the law. Sensational claims about organized retail theft running rampant have been debunked, and data shows that retail theft is not rising statewide. We must respond to our problems, community concerns, and local businesses.

Thank you. Two minutes.

With real.

Thank you. Lead opposition. Anybody else?

Two minutes.

Yes.

Good morning. My name is Kelly Walters. I'm a Staff Attorney with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, and I've come here today to respectfully oppose AB 1794. Like so many other societal panics, retail theft panic has been fueled by highly publicized and later retracted statements by major retailers.

For instance, the National Retail Federation once claimed that organized retail theft was responsible for nearly half of all inventory losses in 2021, a statement they later admitted was based on incorrect data. Similarly, the California Retailers Association has acknowledged the lack of comprehensive, reliable data on theft.

Claims by corporations like Walgreens and Target about closing stores due to retail theft have been contradicted by evidence showing they kept other nearby stores with higher incidents of crime open, suggesting financial struggles rather than theft as the primary reason for closures.

The bill permits counties to establish programs allowing retailers to report shoplifting incidents directly to the county District Attorney through an online portal until January 1st, 2030, a pipeline that is not provided to victims of physical or sexual violence.

This provision raises significant concerns about the potential for biased reporting, lack of oversight, which could lead to wrongful prosecutions and further strain on the criminal justice system. Increased penalties for low-level offenses like shoplifting will disproportionately affect communities already targeted by systematic racism, mainly Black and brown individuals.

In San Francisco, Black people are significantly more likely to experience the use of force by police, be arrested, booked into jail, and convicted of crimes compared to white individuals. Such policies exacerbate racial disparities and contribute to mass incarceration moving us further from achieving equitable justice.

AB 1794 codifies that the District Attorney can combine the value of multiple thefts, even unrelated ones, to meet the $950 threshold for a felony charge. One of the primary factors considered is whether the defendant used a single method to commit these thefts.

Given the limited ways property can be taken from a store, this criterion.

Thank you. Two minutes is done. We're going to move on to me too, both in support or opposition. State your name, your organization, and whether you support or oppose.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of initiate justice and Vera Institute of Justice in opposition.

Thank you.

Becca Cramer Mowder on behalf of ACLU California Action in opposition.

Sarah Pollo Moo with the California Retailers Association in support.

Priscilla Quiroz here on behalf of the City of Beverly Hills in support.

Jolena Voorhis on behalf of the League of California Cities in support.

Ethan Nageler, on behalf of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, in support of the bill in print.

Good morning. Brenda Bass with the California Chamber of Commerce in support.

Cassandra Mar with the City of Downey and the town of Apple Valley in support.

Dan Felizzatto with the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office in support.

Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff's Association, narcotic officers, and the other POAs and DSAs previously stated in support but opposed to the operability.

Appreciate it.

That's our position just on those things.

Thank you.

Jim Lindburg, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, opposed.

Jeronimo Aguilar here on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children as well as All of Us or None in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. We're going to move on to Members of the Committee.

I'll speak on one thing.

Okay. Senator Seyarto.

Thank you. And thank you for carrying this particular bill. It is a very good bill as it is printed right now. And my comments from before still stand. We saw a very similar bill to this two years ago. I think I was one of the only ones to vote for it, and then it got killed.

So, I'm glad to see it back in a form that will be helpful to retailers. But again, I'm going to be holding off until we get this the entire bill with all the amendments in Appropriations. Thank you.

Thank you. Other Members? Seeing none. Would you like to close?

Yeah. Thank you. Ask for your aye vote. But I just wanted to address just one quick issue. It's been stated that it's uncertain how much retail theft we have, especially related to our big box retailers. And I have no problem defending our big box retailers, and it's an issue for everybody.

But I just want to tell you a quick little story. A few weeks ago, I went to my district. It was a hot night. I wanted to pull over and get, literally, a Gatorade going to a community meeting. It was at the Rio Linda market on Rio Linda Boulevard, about 3 miles from here.

And I asked the guy, you know, is this your store? He says, yeah. He said, I work here 100 hours a week, so it's his store. And I said, you know, this thing, retail theft, how often do you see it? And he said, every day. Every day.

The notion about hyping, he didn't know I was an Assembly Member. I just started chatting with this guy, and I said, what do you do? And he looked over here behind his counter, and he had a baseball bat over there. And he said, it depends. That's not a solution. So, this is an.

This is a thing that impacts all of our communities. And I care about our big box retailers, but these little stores that have huge impact on them, I care a lot about them, too. And so, we need to have fair and balanced solutions that answer the call. And I think this is what we did just here in this bill. And respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Do I have a motion? Senator Bradford moves the bill. Let's do a roll call.

AB 1794. Motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll call]

That bill is on call. We're going to move on to AB 1802 by Assembly Member Jones-Sawyer.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, I am proud to present AB 1802, which will eliminate the sunsets on the crime of organized retail theft and the operation of the California Highway Patrol Property Crimes Task Force.

In 2017, I authored AB 1065, which actually created the crime of organized retail theft, which makes it the OG of organized retail theft bills. AB. yes, you're the second OG. AB 1065 also established the California Highway Patrol Property Crimes Task Force, which to date has recovered over 30 million in stolen goods.

This year, I've authored 1802 to eliminate the sunset from my original bill and make the crime of organized retail theft and the California Highway Task Force permanent tools available to the law, to law enforcement in California.

It's been one of the most successful tools we have in dealing with organized retail theft and more important, when we talk about having evidence-based practices, this is what a shining example of what can be done.

Because not only does it go to the root of tackling the criminals' organized retail theft, it also provides off-ramps and diversion programs for people who need it. Unlike the current bill initiative, AB 1802 is part of a package of bills that California needs without regressing to the kind of policy that disproportionately impacted Black and brown communities.

The amendments to this package aim to strike a balance to ensure that California doesn't end up with conflicting outcomes and allow lawmakers to reassess should the ballot initiative pass. AB 1802 will ensure that law enforcement has the necessary means to arrest and prosecute organized retail theft rings and continue to disrupt their life in the Golden State.

I'm proud to continue my legacy of work with this bill and cement and permanently cement the crime of organized retail theft in California. With me to testify in support of the bill is Dan Felizzatto, on behalf of the bill's sponsor, Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascon.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Dan Felizzatto on behalf of Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office. A recent study by the National Retail Federation found that organized retail theft has increased by over 26% since 2021. Contrary to the opinion of some, organized retail theft is not a victimless crime. It harms our community's sense of safety and security while shopping, and it harms local businesses' ability to stay in business.

One of the most important tools we have to combat organized retail theft is our organized retail theft statute, which makes it a wobbler for an organized group of two or more persons to steal goods from a merchant with the intent to sell, exchange, or return the goods for value.

Last year, our office filed over 500 cases using California's organized retail theft statute. The majority of these cases involved multiple defendants. Our office also worked with the Los Angeles County Regional Organized Task force to recover millions of dollars in stolen goods which were returned to the retailers.

In 2020, our office filed 95 criminal cases charging organized retail theft, 78 felonies, and 17 misdemeanors. Last year, that number had increased to 541 cases, 434 felony cases, and 107 misdemeanor filings. Retail theft is a problem that not only affects merchants, but it affects all Californians when their local retail stores are forced to close.

Over 80% of the thefts are common goods. This is why it impacts everybody. We ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Let's move on to another lead witness. Do we have any other lead witnesses, either in support or opposition? Seeing none, we're going to move on to me toos. Me toos again, state your name, your organization, whether you support or oppose, and keep your comments to just those three.

Sarah Pollo Moo, California Retailers Association, in support.

Brenda Bass, California Chamber of Commerce, in support.

Jolena Voorhis, League of California Cities in support.

Madison Dwelley, Political Solutions, on behalf of Target in support.

Cassandra Mar on behalf of the town of Apple Valley, in support.

Ethan Nagler on behalf of the cities of Carlsbad, Merced, Redwood City, and Rancho Palos Verdes in support of the bill in print.

Austin Duel on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, in support of the bill in print and in opposition to the poison pill amendments.

Good morning. Kira Ross on behalf of the City of Stockton in support.

Priscilla Quiroz here on behalf of the City of Beverly Hills, in support

Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff Association, Narcotics, and the previous POAs and DSAs in support of the bill and opposed to the inoperability. Thank you.

Thank you. Following directions. So, we would like to turn the conversation over to Committee Members. Seeing none, please close.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? Senator Bradford moves the bill. Can we get a roll call?

AB 1802 motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll call]

Thank you, Assemblymember. We're gonna move on to Assemblymember Zbur. Assemblymember Zbur is going to present. AB 2943.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Committee Members. I'm proud to serve as a joint author along with Speaker Revis on this Bill. AB 2943. The California Retail Theft Reduction act.

This Bill is a primary component of a broader comprehensive strategy and package of bills that advances balanced effective and meaningful solutions to retail crime and endeavors to preserve criminal justice reforms that have been effected at keeping our communities safe.

We endeavored to achieve consensus wherever possible, and the proposals in this Bill are an outgrowth of the work of the Assembly Select Committee on Retail Theft, which has held two comprehensive hearings featuring a range of expert perspectives and the product of extensive engagement among the speaker's office, the Senate leadership and the governor's office.

End with policy experts and key stakeholders, including retailers, workers, criminal justice reform advocates and law enforcement. At those hearings, we reviewed the facts and figures and we heard that the data is mixed. In some places, shoplifting and overall crime are going down. In other places, it's going up.

We're also seeing more and more stores locking up their inventory and reporting increasing loss related to retail crime. We've heard from retailers and small businesses that retail crime is a very real, ongoing challenge in their stores. We heard from law enforcement about the resources and reforms they need to continue supporting the community.

We learned about diversion programs, how alternatives to incarceration can make a difference in our communities, and that one of the areas we should focus on is preventative measures and enforcement. We heard that the best deterrence is not going back to long prison terms, but instead ensuring a reasonable likelihood of apprehension and meaningful consequences when someone is arrested.

We heard that retail crime is an emotional issue for many of our constituents. Business owners fear for their livelihoods, workers fear for their well being, and Members of the public worry that it may be no longer safe or convenient to frequent their neighborhood stores. The concern and fear in our communities is real, and we must act with urgency. We must also look at the facts and find solutions that will actually work.

We need to make sure that we're pursuing reforms that are effective at targeting retail crime while while avoiding a wholesale rollback of reforms that work to make our communities safer and avoiding imprisoning our most vulnerable people for minor infractions or acts of survival.

All those considerations inform this Bill and the Assembly retails crime package that was announced by the speaker in April. It's important to lay out the key elements of this Bill, each of which can be enacted by the Legislature and signed into law without voter approval. Organized crime rings have caused very real and visible harm in our communities across the state.

So first, AB 2943 places great emphasis on stopping organized crime wings by creating a new crime targeting serial retail thieves, those that engage in repeated specified conduct or possess a quantity of goods inconsistent with personal use and the intent to resell and this and other components advance key recommendations released by the governor's office.

This Bill also more specifically defines how the value of theft, how the value of thefts from different victims can be aggregated to charge grand theft. Notably, the Bill clarifies the law that the intent standard can be met by evidence that the acts involve the same defendants, are substantially similar, and occur within a 90 day period.

AB 2943 also expands the tools for police to arrest for shoplifting and to keep repeat offenders and those committing organized retail crime in custody, while also incorporating guardrails against frivolous or delayed arrests. It protects businesses from having nuisance actions brought against them simply for reporting legitimate retail crime incidents.

And significantly, this Bill helps address the root cause of theft by expanding the use of diversion and rehabilitative programs, offering the opportunity for early discharge if programs are completed.

And again, I want to thank the pro tem, the speaker, the Governor, Members of the Select Committee, Members of the Senate who have been working on companion bills, and all of our stakeholders for their strong engagement over the past many months, and for investing in developing this comprehensive set of proposals that will have a meaningful impact on retail crime. I ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you. Do you have witnesses?

Yes, we do.

Two. Oh, just one? Okay, you will have two minutes.

Thank you Chairman Mohaven, Members of the Senate Public Safety Committee Committee Rachel Michelin, President of the California Retailers Association here in strong support of Assembly Bill 2943.

This Bill demonstrates that the California Legislature has listened to retailers large and small, in addition to Californians across the state, and shows a serious approach to addressing retail theft that is plaguing our communities and putting our employees and stores at risk. This is a significant change in conversations around retail theft that we have not seen for several years in this body.

This comprehensive set of proposals builds on a number of other legislative bills as part of a package that, taken comprehensively, could have meaningful impacts on stopping the growing threat of retail crime and ensures our stores are safe from repeat criminal activity. Our employees have a safe place to work and our customers can shop free from witnessing criminal behavior around them.

This Bill addresses many of the issues the California Retailers Association has advocated for in the past, including providing consequences for repeat offenders and the creation of a new felony for not only serial shoplifting, but also if someone possesses property that was stolen from a retail business, whether or not they committed the act of stealing the property.

This Bill also protects retailers from being cited as a public nuisance by prosecutors for calling law enforcement to respond to retail theft. In addition, it clarifies and simplifies the ability for prosecutors to aggregate up to the $950 threshold. AB 2943 also provides tools for law enforcement to make arrests for misdemeanor shoplifting.

If the officer obtains a sworn witness statement from a person who witnessed the alleged violation, or the officer observed video footage showing the person to be arrested committing the alleged crime, the arrest can be made even if the offense was not committed in the officer's presence.

In addition, suspects can be held if they are caught with large quantities of product with the security tags still on them. In addition to increasing accountability for serial retail theft, this Bill expands the participation in collaborative courts and rehabilitation programs, something the Retailers Association has always been supportive of. Thank you. Is that it? Okay. Thank you. Ask for your aye vote.

I appreciate that. Thank you. We're going to move on to lead opposition witnesses again. Two minutes. Thank you.

Sujung Kim, Deputy Public Defender from the San Francisco Public Defender's Office. Providing respectful opposition to AB 2943 which would increase penalties for possession of stolen goods and shoplifting, as well as increase arrest authority and pretrial detention for retail theft, AB 2943 will not make our communities safer by allowing law enforcement to more easily arrest and detain people.

Years of research show that pretrial detention decreases community safety in the long run. A landmark study of more than 1.5 million cases found that any amount of time in jail beyond 23 hours makes a person more likely to be arrested again in the future. This is because even a short period in jail can result in someone losing their job, their housing, or custody of their children.

When someone is not a threat to public safety or a flight risk, evidence tells us that the safest option is to allow them to await trial within the community, which is less costly and does not contribute to increased recidivism.

While the stated goal of AB 2943 is to go after higher level operators in the retail theft industry, the crime of unlawful deprivation of a retail business opportunity allows the last two years of thefts to to be aggregated for the purpose of reaching the $950 threshold.

If the DA needs to go back two years to achieve the $950 threshold, then they're clearly going after low-level offenders. Lastly, this Bill increases the maximum term of probation on misdemeanor offenses for shoplifting and petit theft from the presumptive one year to a maximum of two years.

Only four years ago, this Legislature passed AB 1950, which reduced the probation length. In most cases, there's no evidence, and lengthening probation again will serve public safety. Rather, increased levels of supervision can lead to increased involvement in the criminal justice system and incarceration based on very minor infractions. I respectfully ask Members of this Committee to vote no on AB 2943. Thank you.

We're going to move on to me, too. Again, please state your lead. Opposition. Two minutes.

We're tweeners. I will be fast. Good morning. Leslie Caldwell Houston. For the California Public Defenders Association. Regarding our concerns, we're seeking amendments to protect our non citizen clients from the harsher consequences of 2943 including deportation, removal and banishment from the United States. We are grateful for continuing discussions with the author and his staff. Thank you.

Thank you. We're going to move on to me twos again in support opposition. Please state your name, your organ, whether you support or oppose.

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of Initiate Justice and Vera Institute of Justice in respectful opposition.

Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff's Association, the other law enforcement associations in support of the Bill, but opposed to the inoperability. Thank you.

Chair Members. Carlos Gutierrez here, on behalf of the California Groceries Association, in support.

Julianne Broyles, on behalf of the California Cities. We actually have a supportive amended position on this one. Thank you.

Good morning. Brenda Bass with the California Chamber of Commerce in support. Thank you.

Ethan Nagler, on behalf of the cities of Corona, Merced, Redwood City, Rancho Palos Verde, in support of the Bill in print.

On behalf of the City of Beverly Hills, in support.

Becca Cramer Mowder, on behalf of ACLU, California Action and respectful opposition.

All right, we're going to move the conversation to Members of the Committee. Seeing no conversation, would you like to close?

Yes. Just one thing in response to one of the opponents, where they basically said that the aggregation goes back two years. That period of time is 90 days. So that is incorrect. And in closing, I just want to say that this Bill is intended to advance balanced, effective and meaningful solutions. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do I have a motion? Senator Bradford moves the Bill. Can we get a roll call vote, please?

AB 2943. The motion is do passed to Appropriations. [Roll Call]. That bill's on call. Thank you.

I'm prepared to present Assemblymembers Soria's Bill at the appropriate time.

Perfect. Let's do it right now. So Assemblymember Zbur is going to present AB 1960 by Assemblymember Soria.

Chair and Members AB 19. I'm here to present this Bill on behalf of Assemblymember Soria. AB 1960 restores an important tool for law enforcement to combat retail theft and keep our communities safe. The Bill expands criminal penalties for theft. It bolsters police and prosecutor tools to combat theft, and it helps take down those who profit from smash and grabs and retail theft.

Specifically, the Bill reinstates a tiered sentencing enhancement system if the value of stolen or damaged property is exceptionally high. This is something that is really important to many of our small businesses and our retailers who have basically experienced high degrees of property crime in their stores. In addition to the thefts, the sentence enhancement tiers are as follows.

An additional one year if the value of the property exceeds 50,000 an additional two years if the value of the property exceeds 200,000 an additional three years if the property value exceeds 1 million an additional four years if the property value exceeds 3 million and an additional year beyond the terms above for every additional $3 million in property value.

This Bill ensures the punishment matches the crime and holds individuals who steal large amounts accountable. Enhanced penalties to hold accountable those who take advantage of and victimize our neighbors will deter others from following the same path and harming our communities. With me today to testify in support of AB 1960 is Rachel Michelin from the California Region Retailers Association. Thank you. You have two minutes.

Hello. I'm just going to start. Across the state, California consumers have seen products locked up or in some cases, products not even sold in stores. They've seen retail theft happen before their own eyes. Everyone seems to have a retail theft story. What's worse, the level of violence we are seeing in the destruction of property criminals are using.

There are hundreds of videos of retail stores, large and small, being destroyed by thieves run out of the stores with stolen products. AB 1960 goes after these egregious acts.

Individuals who are in the Commission or attempted Commission of a felony, or a person is receiving stolen property charged as a felony, they know they are engaging in criminal behavior and as such should be held accountable with enhanced consequences.

This Bill sends a clear message that this type of violent behavior will no longer be tolerated in California and signals that this Legislature will put the safety of our communities and that of law abiding Californians above those who choose to commit crimes that not only put our employees and customers at risk, but also destroy property and livelihoods of the businesses across the state.

This Bill builds on several other legislative proposals as part of the bipartisan retail theft package that, taken comprehensively, could have meaningful impacts on deterring the growing threat of retail theft and organized retail crime in California, and sends a signal that individuals who damage or destroy property in the Commission or attempted Commission of a felony will face new sentencing enhancements in California. For those reasons, I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Anybody that's lead support seeing none lead opposition. Two minutes.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of Initiate Justice in the Vera Institute of Justice in opposition to AB 1960 and any other Bill that seeks to create a new sentence enhancement in the State of California, there are already over 100 enhancements in the Penal code.

As noted in the analysis, approximately 70% of the prison population has at least one sentence enhancement applied to their sentence. The proponents of AB 1960 state that this Bill is necessary to hold people committing smash and grabs accountable. AB 1960 won't lead to greater accountability.

It will simply add additional time to somebody's sentence who's already been convicted and sentenced to a term of incarceration. Also, the Bill doesn't apply only to retail thefts, but property damage committed during any Commission of a felony or attempted Commission of a felony mean the impact of the Bill goes far beyond the stated purpose.

I also just want to note that the Legislature has been moving in the opposite direction as what AB 1960 is proposing, trying to remove or reduce the impact of sentence enhancements since they've been proven to be a driver of mass incarceration.

And in a moment where the Legislature is negotiating with the Administration around reducing the costs of our prison system, AB 1960 moves us in exactly the opposite direction. I urge no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Lead opposition good morning.

Leslie Caldwell, Houston for the California Public Defenders Association and the San Francisco Public Defenders Office in opposition. California Public Defenders Association recognizes the public concern over retail theft. However, AB 1960 is an unnecessary and misguided effort to address the problem.

Under current law, felony statutes for grand theft and vandalism already provide for lengthy prison sentences for the taking and or destruction of high dollar property amounts. The Legislature has in recent years repealed many sentencing enhancements and expanded the ability of judges to strike their implementation. Nonetheless, based on recent studies, the use of sentencing enhancements remains robust.

AB 1960 would be a step backward from the progress we've made in reducing mass incarceration because AB 1960 seeks to punish conduct that's already adequately addressed under current law and thus needlessly contributes to mass incarceration for nonviolent offenses. On behalf of CPDA and the San Francisco public defender's office, we urge you. No vote.

Thank you. We're going to move on. To me, two's in support and opposition. Again, state your name your and whether or not you support or oppose, and we're going to move quickly through this. Please.

Becca Cramer Mowder on behalf of ACLU California Action in respectful opposition.

Cassandra Mar on behalf of the town of Apple Valley in strong support.

Tatiana Lewis on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in strong opposition.

Good morning. Kira Rosoff on behalf of the City of Stockton, in support.

Alyssa Moore All of Us or None in opposition.

Ethan Naegler on behalf of the cities of Merced and Rancho Palos Verdes, in support of the Bill in print.

Lawrence Cox on behalf of LSPC, opposition.

Julianne Broyles, League of California Cities, in support.

Brenda Bass with the California Chamber of Commerce in support.

Madison Dwelley with political solutions on behalf of Target in support.

Brandon Epp on behalf of the Los Angeles County Sheriff, in support.

Priscilla Kudos here on behalf of the City of Beverly Hills, in support.

Yolanda Naveretti on behalf of Felony Murder Elimination Project, in opposition,

Carrie Arzati with FTIO as well as families impacted by incarceration in strong opposition.

Ronnie Aguilar here on behalf All of Us or None in opposition. Thank you.

Jim Lindbergh, Friends Committee on Legislation of California opposed.

Austin Duel, on behalf of California District Attorneys Association, in support of the Bill in print and in opposition to proposed amendments.

Ryan Sherman at the Riverside Sheriff's Association, narcotic officers, the other POAs and DSAs in support of the Bill that opposed to the inoperability. Thank you.

Kelly Walters, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in strong opposition.

Thank you. Seeing no other speakers, Committee Members seeing none. Would you like to close?

Just that this is part of the retail crime package, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you. Do I have a motion? We're not going to be able to do a roll call until we have somebody making a motion. So this is on hold for a second. You know what?

I'll give a courtesy motion. Thank you

Senator Seyarto makes a courtesy motion. Can we get a roll call? AB 1960. The motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Thank you. That bill's on call. Appreciate it, Senator. We're going to move on to Assemblymember Berman. Assemblymember Berman is going to be presenting 3209. Assembly Bill.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Senators. AB 3209 will provide a new enforcement tool that will keep stores and workers safe from the rise of retail crime. In recent years, rates of retail theft and robbery have risen in California, and this affects both our communities and our businesses. AB 3209 would not only address retail theft, but also the issues of vandalism within the stores, as well as battery and assaults on the employees working in retail.

This bill would authorize a court to impose a retail crime restraining order for up to two years for theft, vandalism, or battery on an employee within the store, and importantly, AB 3209 would require the court to consider whether the individual resides in a food desert where the affected store is the only location for necessities such as food or medicine, and encourages diversion programs for any violation of the restraining order.

Respectfully ask for an aye vote, and here with me is Rachel Michelin with the California Retailers Association and Brenda Bass with the California Chamber of Commerce, who will be, I'm sure, as brief as possible.

I will be very brief.

Thank you very much.

The safety of retail employees and customers is our top priority and too often, retail employees or customers have been put in harm's way due to repeat retail theft offenders. AB 3209 would provide a new enforcement tool that will keep stores and workers safe from repeat retail criminal activity.

The introduction of the retail theft restraining orders presents a proactive and effective approach to combating this growing issue. By enabling retailers to obtain civil restraining orders against habitual offenders, this legislation empowers businesses to protect themselves and deter potential thieves from engaging in criminal activities.

The California Retailers Association urges the support of AB 3209 and the establishment of the retail theft restraining orders. By doing so, we can take meaningful steps towards safeguarding our local businesses, protecting the livelihoods of hard working employees, and promote a safer and more prosperous retail shopping environment for all.

Thank you. Two minutes.

Good morning, Chair and Members. I'm Brenda Bass with the California Chamber of Commerce, the largest broad-based business advocate to state government in California. From our big retailers to our local mom-and-pop storefronts, California businesses are hurting because of an increase in retail crimes, particularly organized retail theft.

Recent trends in retail theft and commercial robbery are concerning and shows that California must do more to protect our businesses. In 2022, the Bay Area experienced the largest increases in shoplifting rates, and across California, we saw a rise in commercial burglaries, with some counties experiencing over a 50 percent increase compared to rates in 2019.

AB 3209 would authorize a court to impose a retail crime restraining order for up to two years for theft, vandalism, or battery on an employee within the store upon conviction or following two or more citations. This would provide a necessary tool for law enforcement to protect our businesses in California and to curb the trend of increasing retail crime in our state. It's for these reasons that we strongly support AB 3209 and respectfully urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. We're going to move on to lead opposition. You get two minutes.

Sujung Kim, Deputy Public Defender with the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, providing respectful opposition to AB 3029, which would create a harmful new process whereby attorneys representing large retailers could seek a two-year retail theft restraining order for petty theft or vandalism.

Such an order could also be sought merely if someone has been arrested but not convicted of such an offense twice, which will represent an unconstitutional punishment for someone who has not even been found guilty. Prosecutors and retail stores have historically combated theft, using theft or trespass charges.

These tools are still available, and they're more than sufficient for theft and vandalism offenses. Courts can impose probation conditions after someone has been convicted of a theft offense tailored to the unique facts and circumstances of the conviction and/or defendant.

For offenses involving violence against retail workers, the harmed employee still has all the rights available to them as a crime victim, and the person committing the harm could be charged with assault, battery, or other fitting charge. AB 3209 also creates an environment in which more Black, brown and poor Californians will be harmed in retail stores.

Banko Brown, a 24-year-old, Black, trans man, was shot and killed in San Francisco last April by a Walgreens security guard who accused Brown of shoplifting. I respectfully ask that members of this committee vote no on AB 3209.

Thank you. Lead opposition, two minutes.

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of the Vera Institute of Justice. I echo the concerns raised by my colleague from San Francisco and just want to stress the concerns around racial profiling raised by the bill. Eyewitness testimony has been shown to be incredibly unreliable and especially worsens over cross-racial identifications, increasing the reliability by 50 percent.

So under this bill, we would have employees in retail stores, perhaps that never saw the person for whom the restraining order is applying to trying to identify them, and in the cases of White employees and maybe Black people being present in one of these stores, we think that really risks the wrong people being identified and arrested. Urge a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. MeToos?

Good morning. Kira Ross, on behalf of the City of Stockton, in support of the bill.

Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriffs' Association and the other law enforcement groups in support of the bill, opposed to the inoperability clause. Thank you.

Doris, League of California Cities, in support.

Brandon Epp, on behalf of the Los Angeles County Sheriff, in support.

Cassandra Moore, on behalf of the Town of Apple Valley, in support.

Ethan Nagler, on behalf of the City of Rancho Palos Verde, in support of the bill in print.

Jeronimo Aguliar, here on behalf of All of Us or None, in opposition. Thank you.

Kellie Walters, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, in strong opposition.

Priscilla Quiroz, here on behalf of the City of Beverly Hills, in support.

Henry Ortiz, with All of Us or None, Sacramento Chapter, in strong opposition.

Thank you. We'll move on to committee members. Senator Seyarto.

Thank you. You knew I was going to speak because this is the last of the retail bills. So one of the things--thank you.

Go on.

Mr. Berman, thank you for bringing this, this bill to us as part of this retail package. And I want to make it clear to you and all of the others that we absolutely, I absolutely support many of these approaches to doing something about retail theft.

For those who are promoting the idea, the notion that it doesn't exist, if I didn't see it with my own eyes, I may join you in saying, hey, it might be overblown, but for me to go to four different stores over the last year and be able to witness it happening would be, I mean, those are astronomical odds for me to actually be in a store at the time something is happening and not acknowledging that this is an increase in what's going on.

And I can name the stores if you want, but I'm not going to. But one was a grocery store, one was a convenience store, one was an apparel and sporting goods store, and so yes, it is happening out there, and the bottom line is people are sick and tired of it, regular people out there, because when these thefts are happening, our prices are going up or we wind up having the inconvenience of having less stores to shop at. And that is happening. That's happening in my community. So don't sit here and tell me it's not happening.

It is. So we have to do something about it, and these solutions are great solutions, and if we put them into place today, that's a great thing. The urgency clause will help do that, but I suspect there's an underlying reason for the urgency clause, and I'm a little bit concerned, and we are going to investigate to make sure that if Prop 47, this initiative in the fall fails, whether all of these wind up getting negated by the Proposition itself, because that speaks louder than us passing bills. We can't undo a Proposition.

And having this brought up at the last minute, which is this week, makes us have to wait, check it out, look at the legal, the logistics of what's going to happen in different scenarios, and whether these are at jeopardy from that actually failing. And because then Proposition 47 would stand, and I fear that all of these, I fear that all of these would go away. So, given the last minute finagling, that's why I'm doing not voting today, because I want to investigate it further and have the time to do it.

But I want everybody who is in favor of this package, all of our retailers, all of our citizens, to know that I am absolutely on board with doing something and doing something in this manner to combat retail theft. Sentencing enhancements and things like that, we've eroded those over the years.

Anything Prop 14 didn't cover, we've covered in this legislative body over the last few years. And now we're at a point where people can barely do--I mean--they can do anything, and they are doing anything, and so, given that, you know, I think it's high time, and I am delighted to see this today because I have been frustrated by not seeing it and not being supported when we do try to do something by a majority of the Legislature.

And today we are actually doing something that is going to hold people accountable and rein in that behavior, and if they don't reign in that behavior, there will be consequences for it, and once people start suffering consequences, it doesn't mean we have to go back to throwing everybody in jail, if that's what you think was happening.

But when there are consequences, that will hopefully get us back to at least a normal state where this retail theft isn't bankrupting small businesses and sending and forcing the larger retailers to downsize their operations so that we have less convenient shopping in different areas. So I'm speaking while we wait. So anyway, so I'm just about done.

So thank you again, all of you, for bringing these bills forward. I will again be abstaining, but I will give you a courtesy motion on this so that we can at least get the voting started. And that's it. Thank you.

Thank you. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. Apologies to everyone waiting in B&P for me to come chair that committee hearing. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion by Assembly Member--I mean Senator Seyarto.

AB 3209: motion is: do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call].

All right, that bill's on call. I would like to make an announcement. AB 2309 by Assembly Member Muratsuchi is being pulled from today's hearing by the author. We're going to move on to our other hearing. That means our other--Assembly Member Bryan will be presenting AB 1810. Anytime.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Senator Seyarto. It's good to see you. I'm here to present AB 1810, a Bill that will bring menstrual equity to California State prisons, local jails, and juvenile facilities. For people who menstruate, period products such as menstrual pads and tampons are basic necessities.

State law requires that correctional facilities supply these products to incarcerated women at no cost upon request. However, a 2023 report from the California Attorney General revealed that nearly half of the state's local facilities are non compliant with state mandates regarding menstrual product distribution.

Even worse are the documented cases of CDCR's officers withholding period products as a form of retaliation against incarcerated women who have filed former complaints against them. Nationwide, there have been numerous reports of correctional officers using access to menstrual care and menstrual products to coerce incarcerated women into sexual favors.

These gross abuses of power have created conditions where incarcerated people do not feel comfortable asking for menstrual products, even when they are free of cost, due to that fear that it might lead to coercion, humiliation, or harassment.

These women would rather makeshift pads or tampons out of toilet paper, bedsheets, or put themselves in unsafe and undignified positions of asking correctional officers who have abused them--often a man--for a menstrual product.

In some cases, they are walking around in blood-stained clothes because they run out of their supply of menstrual products and are only allowed to do laundry on certain days.

This lack of timely and adequate access to pads and tampons has led to severe complications such as urinary tract infections, toxic shock syndrome, and, in some cases, hysterectomies for incarcerated people. So while our state currently guarantees free menstrual products, they often come at the price of humiliation and the threat of abuse.

AB 1810 will bring our state closer to the menstrual health equity that other states are seeing that require that menstrual care products are free and readily available for all incarcerated women.

It will also bring our state into parity with several other states, such as the progressive Louisiana, Tennessee, and Florida, all of which do not require their incarcerated people to request these basic necessities from their jailers. Today I have with me Tatiana Lewis from the Ella Baker Center to provide testimony.

Thank you. You're going to have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning. My name is Tatiana Lewis, and I'm an organizer with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. I am here today to strongly support AB 1810, a Bill that ensures incarcerated individuals have ready access to menstrual products without having to request them.

I speak from personal experience, having been both in juvenile detention and county jail. During my time in these facilities, I've had to ask for menstrual products and then endure the indignity of waiting for a guard to bring them whenever they felt like it. This process was not only humiliating, but also physically uncomfortable.

Menstrual health is a basic human need, and being denied timely access to necessary products exacerbates the already challenging circumstances of incarceration. Menstruating individuals deserve to maintain their personal hygiene with dignity, regardless of their incarceration status. AB 1810 addresses this issue by ensuring that menstrual products are readily accessible, reducing the unnecessary burden and stress on those who menstruate.

Passing this Bill is a crucial step toward treating incarcerated individuals with the respect and humanity that they deserve. I urge you to support AB 1810 and help make a meaningful difference in the lives of those who are often overlooked and marginalized. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other lead support? Seeing none. Lead opposition? Seeing none. We'll go to me toos.

Leslie Caldwell Houston for the California Public Defenders Association and the San Francisco Public Defenders Office in support.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of Initiate Justice and the GRIP Training Institute in support.

Alyssa Moore, All of Us or None, in strong support.

Yolanda Navaretti on behalf of Felony Murder Elimination Project, in support.

Whitney Francis with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in support.

Kari Arzate, Prison from the Inside Out and California Impacted Families by Incarceration in strong support.

Becca Cramer Mowder on behalf of ACLU California Action in strong support.

Vanessa Cajina on behalf of the California Academy of Family Physicians in support.

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

Anthony Di Martino on behalf of Californians for Safety and Justice in strong support.

Annie Thomas on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services in support.

Jim Lindburg on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California in strong support.

Jeronimo Aguilar here on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, a proud co-sponsor in support.

Kellie Walters on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, a co-sponsor, proudly supporting.

Minister King of California Prison Focus, strong support.

Lawrence Cox, strong support for All of Us or None.

Thank you. We're going to move to members of the Committee.

I don't have any comments. I'll go ahead. And this is not a courtesy motion, it's just a regular motion.

Oh, thank you. I appreciate that.

Assemblymember Bryan, would you like to close?

Yeah. A number of years ago, when we decided to make menstrual care products free for incarcerated people, the fact that we made it upon request has created the conditions that have allowed for a power dynamic to play out to the detriment of incarcerated people and incarcerated women.

This is our opportunity to change that and make menstrual access, menstrual care access, readily available for our people on the inside. It's a basic human right. It's a basic necessity. This has had bipartisan support. And I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you. And I do believe that this bill should have been on consent. So I really appreciate your work. I appreciate the Senator for making the motion. Can we get a roll call vote?

AB 1810. Motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Wahab? Wahab, aye. Seyarto? Seyarto, aye. Bradford. Skinner. Wiener.

That bill's on a call. Assemblymember, would you like to present AB 2215?

Absolutely. Thank you, Madam Chair. AB 2215 comes out of the experiences that are happening in our communities. Often law enforcement comes into contact with problems on the street that they know are directly poverty related. They are directly care related.

And even the frontline law enforcement officers don't believe that taking this person to a jail will be in the interests of justice, to the betterment of the community or to the betterment of that individual. In fact, in many instances, frontline law enforcement officers would like to not be the person who responds to these kinds of situations.

And I believe in a perfect world, that's the solution, where community based intervention workers and poverty workers are the ones who are intervening in these moments of mental health and other crises on our streets. But that's not what's playing out. What's happening is that law enforcement is the first response.

And in instances where they wouldn't like to take you to jail, we set up programs. In 2017, the LEAD programs, law enforcement assisted diversion programs, that allowed for law enforcement agencies to take you directly to a community based provider to deal with the direct needs that folks have.

What we found, though, is that there are a number of law enforcement agencies and officers who are afraid to use this tool because the penal code doesn't explicitly allow it.

What AB 2215 does, is it codifies in the penal code law enforcement assisted diversion opportunities, where it is on those frontline law enforcement responders, if they choose that in the interest of justice, in the interests of what's best for the community and public safety, to take this person to community based provider to provide the care for the needs that they're experiencing, that they can do that, and that that right to do that is now present in our penal code. To testify in support with me today is Rick Owen from the Penal Code Revision Committee here at the state.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you. Two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Rick Owen. I'm senior staff counsel for the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code. The penal code Committee is a state entity that was created by the Legislature to make recommendations about all aspects of criminal law. Assemblymember Bryan is a Member of the Penal Code Committee.

AB 2215 is based on a recommendation from the Penal Code Committee's most recent annual report. It builds on current law by giving law enforcement a tool they could use if they conclude that taking someone to jail does not improve public safety.

That tool is AB 2215's clear direction to law enforcement that instead of jail, they could take someone to an existing program that will address the root causes of the criminal conduct. This is a type of pre booking diversion that is entirely at the arresting officers discretion, as guided by local departmental policy.

The best example of this type of pre booking diversion is LEAD, an acronym for law enforcement assisted diversion. California funded pilot projects for LEAD in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and each pilot was evaluated by independent researchers.

The researchers concluded that LEAD led to significant drops in new arrests for people in the program compared to similarly situated people not in LEED. Pre booking diversion is most often used for people committing repeat low level offenses who are in immediate need of services.

Almost 90% of all current arrests in California are for misdemeanors and low level felonies, and pre booking diversion would be appropriate for many of these offenses.

While there's nothing in the penal code that prevents law enforcement from undertaking pre booking diversion like LEAD, the Penal Code Committee heard directly from law enforcement in Los Angeles County that a penal code provision specifically authorizing officers to use pre booking diversion through LEAD or other similar programs would empower more officers to use their discretion to divert appropriate cases.

To conclude, the Penal Code Committee recommended what is now AB 2215 because it concluded that it would improve public safety while reducing unnecessary incarceration. Thank you.

We're going to move to lead opposition. Seeing none, we're going to go into me toos.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California in strong support.

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of Initiate Justice and the Vera Institute of Justice in support.

Anthony DiMartino, on behalf of the Californians for Safety and Justice, proud sponsor.

Leslie Caldwell Houston for the California Public Defenders Association and the San Francisco Public Defenders Office in support.

Chair and Members, Dan Felizzatto on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office in support.

Becca Cramer-Mowder, on behalf of ACLU California Action in support.

Yolanda Navaretti, on behalf of Felony Murder Elimination Project in support.

Jeronimo Aguilar on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in support. Thank you.

Kelly Walters, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in strong support.

Priscilla Quiroz here on behalf of the California Faculty Association, California State Association of Psychiatrists in support.

John Drebinger with the Steinberg Institute in support.

Juan Govea, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, strong support.

Alissa Moore, All of Us or None in strong support.

Kari Arzate, Prison from the Inside Out and California Impacted Families in strong support.

Jim Lindberg on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California in support.

Thank you. We're gonna move on to Committee Members. Yes, Senator Seyarto.

So I had a question concerning when you were developing the bill. Yeah, and first, welcome again. When you were developing the bill, was consideration given to how they would determine which CBO was going to be the recipient of?

Because sometimes there's multiple CBOs in an area and they're all kind of competing a little bit for the person so that they can either get their reimbursements for treatment, but also so that they can continue to operate.

I'm a little concerned about the potential for abuse where one CBO is making deals to get all of the patients sent to them and creating that kind of an opportunity. Did you explore that at all when you were doing your bill development? In other words, how are they going to get, how are they going to get distributed?

A formal kind of MOU with the law enforcement agencies around this kind of relationship has to exist. So the suggestion that there would be abuse by that would also be abused by these same law enforcement agencies who have engaged in this relationship.

There are a number of service providers up and down the state that have proven to be effective in various communities.

We did not have the capacity to map out every successful organization up and down the state, but we do trust local jurisdictions, local stakeholders to develop the kind of care networks and continuums of care that allow for folks to get the kind of services, treatment and support that they need based on whatever crises we're seeing on the streets. There's also no money attached to this business.

Usually a lot of CBOs are great at what they do, but they also have to have the clientele to be able to continue to get grants and things like that.

And so the picking and the choosing part of it, I think, enters into the equation a little bit. And so that's one of my concerns with this approach. But since there is nobody else here, I am going to this time give a courtesy motion so that we can vote.

Thank you. I really do appreciate your courtesies today. It allows us to be efficient.

So would you like to close? Absolutely. We are seeing crises play out on our streets. And these crises are directly related to mental health needs, to poverty, needs to substance abuse and treatment needs, needs that you don't find in the criminal legal system, needs that are not alleviated by going to jail.

And even our law enforcement officers know that. And what this does is allow for them to decide when they come into situations where they know this person could have better outcomes in a community based program, that they have the authority, they have the backing of the penal code to take them to that kind of program.

This bill has had bipartisan support thus far. In fact, both former law enforcement officials on our House floor spoke up in support on our house floor of this bill. And that may be the only time in Assembly history that I have that kind of a situation.

But I think it speaks to the comprehensive nature of the approach that we're trying to bring to this work. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Seyarto. Can we get a roll call vote?

AB 2215. Motion is do pass to the floor. Wahab? Wahab, aye. Seyarto? Seyarto, no. Bradford? Skinner? Wiener? That bill's on call.

Thank you. We're gonna move on.

Thanks so much. Madam Chair, happy to present AB 1814 1st. Let me just thank you and the Committee for the Amendments. We're happily taking them.

Right now, we have absolutely no regulations, no protections, no guidelines on facial recognition anywhere in the state, outside of a few cities who have taken the position to ban facial recognition, including my own.

AB 1814 prevents law enforcement from being able to arrest, search or get a warrant approved by a judge when the sole basis for that action is facial recognition match with civil penalties up to $25,000 for violations.

In previous years, I have done legislation to first have a three year moratorium on the banning of facial recognition within body cameras that expired on January 1, 2023 which is why I felt an urgency to do legislation last year to really have the most robust facial recognition guidelines in the entire country.

At this point, there is no state that bans facial recognition software or does not ban the use of facial recognition within law enforcement.

I've always wanted to have a more robust set of guidelines, but unfortunately, we have a number of advocates who will be speaking later who absolutely would not support anything that is not a complete outright ban. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote on AB 1814.

I don't have any witnesses, so can go directly.

Lead opposition. Two minutes.

Good morning. My name is David Robinson. I am an attorney and former police officer with the City of Detroit. I served as legal advisor to the Police Chief and represented officers who were being sued. I have practiced police litigation on both sides for about 38 years.

In 2019, I was contacted by Michael Oliver, who had been arrested for a felony which carried four year term if convicted. Michael became a suspect. After the facial recognition used by the Detroit Police Department sped him out.

The victim captured the actual perpetrator on his cell phone, and a cropped image of that person was run in facial recognition. The detective then did a photo show up and despite other exculpatory evidence, the victim picked Michael. Michael was arrested on a not in custody warrant following a traffic stop in a neighboring suburb.

The warrant request in Michael's case was based entirely on supposed FRT match and a photo lineup. Other than the photo lineup, and the detective did no other investigation. So it's easy to say that it's the officer's fault that he did a poor job or no investigation. But he relied on FRT, believing it must be right.

That's the automation bias that this has been referenced in these sessions. So despite the warning to the officer investigative lead only, that prescription was trumped by the mesmerizing effect of this machine that the officer saw is faster and smarter than he, and it must be right. Interestingly, Michael's case was dismissed.

But the dismissal was on the day of trial, a result of both the prosecutor and the defense lawyer looking at the actual guy that committed the crime and Michael, who was present in court. And it was clear to those folks that Michael wasn't the perpetrator. I'm sorry. Facial recognition.

So it begs the question, why couldn't the detective have seen the same thing? 1814 would not have offered Michael any protection. I'm here in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have another lead opposition? Two minutes.

My name is Matyos Kidane, organizer with the Stop LAPD Spying coalition. We're a community organization based in Skid Row. We fight against LAPD surveillance programs and the technology of surveillance equipment, the acquisition of surveillance technologies with a specific focus on the impact these programs have on poor black and brown LA communities.

FRT has a clear and well reported disparate negative impact on Black community members. Its supporters allege it may be a useful tool for maintaining safety. We would deny that completely. I think even a supporter would concede that the benefits of its application are ambiguous at best.

Whats certain is that this technology misidentifies Black and trans people and will inevitably lead to an encounter between these communities and police. Police interactions are historically violent for Black communities. At best, we endure people bureaucratic, psychological, and financial violence of criminalization. At worst, we lose our lives.

Legislation like AB 1814 doesn't actually end or minimize the dangers I've named. If anything, legislating facial recognition technology in this way normalizes its usage. It inches us toward a codified quote unquote regulated norm where this inherently racist tech is rolled out across the state.

We have plenty of examples of agencies ignoring stronger local regulations, including the City of San Francisco.

A bill as tepid as AB 1814 will be understood as a signal to police agencies, agencies across the state, and the private tech companies that develop these tools that despite the clear dangers posed by facial recognition technology, despite the as of yet imaginary benefits it may have, it is permissible for this technology to move ahead.

Facial recognition technology follows a lineage of technologies developed at the acceptable expense of Black safety and the continued extraction of our community's resources. This bill would facilitate that lineage of violence to the benefit of police and tech companies. We say vote no on AB 1814.

Thank you. We're going to move into me toos, both in support and opposition.

Becca Kramer Matter on behalf of ACLU California Action Access Reproductive Justice, Council on American Islamic Relations California, Gender Justice LA, If One How, Lawyering for Reproductive Justice, Training in Early Abortion for Comprehensive Healthcare, National Immigration Law Center, Parivar Bay Area, Orange County Equality Coalition, San Francisco Black and Jewish Unity Coalition, Black Lives Matter California, Asian Law Alliance, All Family Legal PC, California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice, ORALE, Organizing Rooted in Abolition, Liberation and Empowerment, The Sidewalk Project, Universidad Popular Organization for Identity and Cultural Development, Alliance San Diego and Code Justice and Food Empowerment Project, in opposition.

Dani Kando-Kaiser in opposition Speaking on behalf of Electronic Frontier Foundation, UC Irvine Faculty Association, San Diego Faculty Association. Tech Equity Action, Electronic Privacy Information Center Santa Monica, Democratic Club, Fight for the Future Students Deserve, Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, Team Justice San Diego, Free Speech Coalition, Advocacy for Principled Action in Government, American Atheists, Cancel the Contract AV,1 Consumer Federation of California, Indivisible California State Strong, Indivisible East Bay Indivisible Yolo, La Defensa, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, Secure Justice and Silicon Valley Debug. Thank you.

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

Whitney Francis with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in opposition.

Jolena Voorhis with League of California Cities, in support.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Obed Franco, on behalf of the Asian Law Caucus in respectful opposition.

Chair and Members, Max Perry on behalf of the City of Long Beach and the California Police Chiefs Association in support.

Priscilla Quiroz here on behalf of the California Faculty Association, in support.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Cameron Demetre with Capital Advocacy on behalf of the Security Industry Association in support. Thank you.

Kelly Walters, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in opposition.

Lawrence Cox, All of Us or None in opposition.

Alissa Moore, All of Us or None in opposition.

Jeronimo Aguilar, here on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Yolanda Navaretti, on behalf of Felony Murder Elimination Project, respectful opposition.

Henry Ortiz, with All of Us or None Sacramento chapter in strong opposition, thank you.

Kari Arzate, with prison from the inside out and California impacted families, respectfully, in opposition.

Tanisha Cannon, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in respectful opposition.

Minister King X of California Prison Focus, K.A.G.E Universal Liberate Our Elders, Artivist Autonomous Infrastructure in strong opposition.

All right, seeing nobody else. Committee Members? All right, would you like to close?

Sure. First, let me just agree with opposition that I have significant concerns with facial recognition technology, which is why I've been in a champion in this area.

In terms of what our witness from Detroit talked about, this bill would actually address the issue of potentially false arrests because it forces the law enforcement agencies not to make an arrest based only on facial recognition technology.

In terms of the witness from Los Angeles, again, as of right now, law enforcement agencies in the state do not need any permission from anyone to do anything on facial recognition. Right now, they have complete authority to go ahead to use facial recognition, to use surveillance to any of that.

There is nothing in any state law that actually provides guidance in that particular area. So this actually takes a good first step to really provide some security, to provide some civil rights protections, and to ensure that we take the first step to regulate facial recognition technology. Again, I addressed the issue last year.

I had a much more robust bill of which these same advocates were not willing to work with me to support. This is a very important issue simply because we are seeing facial recognition technology in more and more facets of our lives. I can't even go through the airport without using facial recognition technology. I think it's very important.

This is a very good first step. As many things that we do here, it's the first step. It's not the last step. And I would urge the Committee for an aye vote on AB 1814.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Seyarto. I do just want to highlight that this bill is incredibly important. I would have loved an outright ban as well. I think that this technology needs safeguards. So we have a motion by Senator Seyarto. Can we get a roll call, please?

AB 1814. The motion is do pass as amended to Judiciary Committee. Wahab? Wahab, aye. Seyarto? Seyarto, aye. Bradford? Skinner? Skinner, aye. Wiener?

That bill's on call. Thank you. We have a couple of Members leaving. I want to make it very clear to people that as Members leave, it's not necessarily because we're not trying to hear. We just also have to present bills at other committees, and it's actually across the street.

So we're running around. Our next speaker is Assembly Member Addis. Thank you for being patient. We will be hearing AB 2295 and Senator Skinner will be taking over shortly.

Well, thank you. And it's morning still, it's early morning still. Thank you, chair and Committee Members. Welcome, Senator Skinner. Today I'm here to present AB 2295 the Child Sex Abuse Justice Act, which eliminates the statute of limitations for criminal cases involving the sex abuse of a minor under certain circumstances, which allows survivors to seek justice.

So I want to start by thanking two witnesses that are here. Thank you for your bravery and joining us and all survivors and their families who have either taken their experiences and shared them, taken time to advocate on this issue or in some cases are not available or not able to, and have simply survived such instances.

And we just want to appreciate you as well. As you know, child sex abuse occurs across all societal groups and within all types of institutions. It's more common than you might think. And studies have shown that at least one in five girls and one in 13 boys are sexually abused as children.

Trauma from child sex abuse affects survivors throughout their lives. Survivors often suffer from disrupted neurodevelopment, PTSD, increased use of other negative, excuse me, increased risk of other negative outcomes like alcohol problems, depression, familial and relationship issues.

And unlike other types of offenders, predators of child sex abuse do not significantly decrease their risk of recidivism with the passage of time alone. According to one study, 55% of child sex offenders reported that their offenses actually became more serious over time.

So historically, the statute of limitations, which is an arbitrary deadline for prosecuting crimes, has been unfairly short for child sex abuse, lasting only until somebody's 40th birthday. And this is a problem because for many survivors of child sex abuse, they do suffer in silence for decades and often do not come forward until their mid fifties.

It can take years and years to process what has happened. Many survivors struggle to come forward because of an inability to recognize they were abused, feelings of shame, self blame, fear of blame from others, gender stereotypes, lack of trusted adult, stigma around child sex abuse and very real fear of not being believed.

So, as a result, as I mentioned, over half of survivors first disclose at age 50 or older. With this in mind, it's clear that our short statutes of limitations silence survivors' voices by preventing them from seeking justice and leaving other children vulnerable to sex abuse.

It is an unacceptable tragedy that survivors are unable to hold abusers accountable simply because of an arbitrary clock that has run out. So AB 2295 does one very simple but important thing. It removes the deadline by which child sex assault survivors must come forward to seek justice under circumstances.

So it opens the doors to justice and opens the doors to prevention. And we do have two witnesses here that I'd like to turn this over to. First, Deanna Hampton, mother of Trevor Martin, and then Brittany Barber, survivor and advocate from my district on the central coast.

Good morning, Madam Chair.

Yes, go ahead. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, my name is Deanna Hampton. I'm here today to express my strong support for AB 2295 to eliminate the statute of limitations for criminal cases of child sexual assault.

My son, Trevor Martin, was a victim of sexual abuse by a priest at the age of 10, and I'm here to advocate on behalf of Trevor and all children of sexual abuse. I firmly believe that this legislative change is crucial to ensure justice for survivors and holding perpetrators accountable for their unspeakable actions.

I have witnessed firsthand the immense challenges survivors of sexual assault face in coming forward and seeking justice. The trauma inflicted upon victims of such abuse often leaves deep emotional scars that can take years, if not decades, to confront and process.

Many survivors struggle with feelings of shame, guilt, and fear of retaliation, making it incredibly difficult to disclose their abuse and pursue legal action. My son, Trevor Martin, did confront his abuser. It was only after Trevor's attempted suicide that I learned about his abuse by Father Michael Kelly, a priest from the Stockton diocese.

Had I not learned about the abuse and pursued justice for my son, I truly don't know if or when Trevor would have been ready to confront the priest. I will never know the answer to this as my son passed away in 2016.

Eliminating the statute of limitations will get dangerous predators away from our most vulnerable population, our children. It will also help identify institutions that facilitate the abuse of our children.

We are here to remove the ability for a pedophile to just wait it out for an arbitrary amount of time to pass where they are free from being held accountable. I can imagine the sigh of relief a pedophile has when they know they had made it past the time when a victim could seek justice.

By passing this important bill, victims can take the needed time to find their way to healing injustice. Thank you for your support for AB 2295 and the removal of a statute of limitations of criminal cases of sexual child abuse.

By doing so, we can send a powerful message to survivors that their voices will be heard, perpetrators will be held accountable and justice will prevail. Thank you for your attention in this very important matter.

Thank you. Are there other witnesses in support? You can come to the mic and add your me tos.

Good morning. My name is Brittany. I am a survivor of childhood sexual abuse. My abuser was my biological father. The abuse began before I can remember and it continued in some form or another until he was arrested in 2019. The physical abuse had stopped as I had gotten older, but the psychological abuse lasted long.

Throughout adulthood, I was terrified of him until another young woman came forward with his abuse and I was able to find my voice. As a child, I was repeatedly threatened, beaten, and terrorized into silence.

In the criminal trial against my abuser, there were two other women who had the crimes against them dismissed due to the current statutes, but they still faced him in court in front of a jury and testified to the horrors that he subjected them to his children.

Many times, predators will convince their victims that they are the only ones. Yet in every instance of sexual abuse of a child that I personally know of, there has never been just one victim. The monsters that commit these crimes are master manipulators at breaking their victims and holding them in their silence.

As a survivor, I would like to explain that most of us feel scared. We feel that we will be shamed. We feel like our voices don't matter. We are afraid that we will not be believed or that justice won't be served against our abusers.

We feel so many things that no person, especially no child should ever have to feel. And it takes us longer to work through our issues or come forward because most of the times we are forced to work through these in the dark. We don't have support. We have secrets.

We are changed in critical, life altering ways because of abuse committed by trusted adults during our formative years. Some of us are protecting ourselves, our abusers or other family members, and that doesn't go away when we become adults.

In many cases, those obstacles and those people remain in our lives to some extent, preventing us from feeling free to speak even years later. There should never be a point where enough time has passed that the sexual abuse of any child should ever be forgiven or dismissed.

Telling survivors that it is too late for what happened to them to deserve justice only reaffirms the abusers manipulation to the survivors that their voice doesn't matter and what happened to them doesn't matter, but it should matter to each and every one of us. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you and apologies, you were the second witness, so you were allowed the time. Now everyone else who is a supporter can come and say, yes, we're in support. Just the me toos. All right, so others in support, please come to the mic.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. I'm a volunteer with the survivors network of those abused by priests. We're in strong support of the bill.

Great. Any others in support of the bill? Go ahead.

Members, Dan Felizzatto on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office in support.

Great. Okay. Any others? All right, do we have any key witnesses in opposition? Are there any individuals in opposition who just want to register their opposition?

Lesli Caldwell Houston, for the California Public Defenders Association. I just want to make sure you know we've withdrawn our opposition.

Okay, great. Thank you very much. All right, so we've finished the public testimony part, and I don't have another member to make a comment. Assemblymember, I appreciate the bill.

These are tough subjects because as you point out and as our witnesses have spoken many times, the individual who's abused as a child because of the circumstances or because of either shame or who it is, there's a very strong, especially if it's a trusted, it was a trusted individual.

It doesn't necessarily have to be a family member, just a trusted individual. Then there's a whole apparatus that, in effect, protects that individual and makes it either that the child feels they won't be believed or that they would have no one to turn to to tell.

And so it is not uncommon for a person who experienced this, to not really confront that abuse until they are in adulthood. And I know that for some people that defies logic, but it, in fact, is the case, and it's well documented in research. So I appreciate your bringing the bill.

I don't necessarily like extending statues of limitations in a lot of circumstances, but I think this is a particularly unique one because of the circumstance of the abuse happening in childhood and the kinds of, as I mentioned, the kind of conditions for which a person would not come forward.

And even when you do come forward as an adult, it is a very courageous act because you have survived that long, in effect, burying that information. So, anyway, I'll leave it at that. We can't take a motion yet because there's nobody here to make that motion, but you may close.

Well, thank you so much, Madam Chairwoman. And I would say I agree and often share your concerns in terms of lifting statute of limitations and would just say that, you know, this is a unique and important issue that is actually preventative in nature, in that abusers have said their crimes often get worse and more prevalent over time.

And so if we can remove those folks from having access to children in the future, then it's not just about justice, but it's also about prevention. And the only way to remove access to children is through the criminal court system, because that is the only way that somebody can be on a sex offender registry.

So I want to appreciate the deep thinking that has gone into this, and we've worked a lot with opposition and really removed much of the opposition and the concerns about this bill. So when the time is ready, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thanks so much. And when the time is ready, we will get a motion and move. Thank you. All right, great. Thanks for your presentation. All right, now we will go to Assemblymember Weber to present AB 2681. Go ahead.

Good morning. I want to thank you so much for allowing me to be here. Madam Chair and Members of the Committee, I am here to present AB 2681 and will be accepting the Committee amendments. Advanced robots are enormously beneficial to many industries, including energy conservation, construction, manufacturing, healthcare, and public safety.

These technologies keep people safe by performing dangerous or difficult tasks and helping people do their jobs efficiently. However, as robots have become increasingly accessible to the public, there are recent examples of people mounting dangerous weapons to them, often with the goal of creating a sensational viral social media video.

The misuse of weaponized, remote controlled, or autonomous robots is unethical, poses a serious public safety threat, and damages the public's acceptance of these beneficial technologies in society.

AB 2681 solves this problem by establishing basic guardrails to ensure that advanced robotics are used ethically and safely and fosters public confidence and community support of an important source of innovation in our state. We must alert the public that it is not allowed in California to arm these devices.

The imagery of armed robots walking the streets of California is damaging to the goal of many responsible robotic companies. These devices are being designed to build and assist us. They are not being designed to harm us. It is again time for California to lead the nation and establish prohibition of weaponized robots and drones.

Here today to speak and support is Laura Bennett with the California Advisors, representing the sponsors of this Bill: Boston Dynamics. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair, Mister Chair, and Committee Members. My name is Laura Bennett, here providing testimony on behalf of Boston Dynamics. Boston Dynamics is the proud sponsor of 2681 and thanks Senator Webber for introducing this critical public safety measure, as well as the Chair and the Committee for their work on this Bill.

Boston Dynamics is a company that designs and manufactures the most advanced mobile robots. Since our founding by an MIT Professor and his students over 30 years ago, our vision has been to create general purpose robots that benefit humanity by keeping people safe from harm, increasing productivity at work, and furthering education and safety in our communities.

However, as advanced mobile robots have become increasingly accessible to everyone, we have repeatedly seen examples of people mounting dangerous weapons to robots that are capable of navigating within locations where people live and work, which raises new risks of harm and serious ethical concerns, as well as generating widespread fear and condemnation in the press, government, academia, and communities.

AB 2681 fulfills a crucial vision for the ethical and safe robots in society by prohibiting the manufacture, sale, use, or operation of a robotic device, including a drone that is mounted with a weapon designed to threaten, cause death, incapacitate, or physically injure a person appropriately.

We believe it leaves unaffected military systems and contractors whose development and manufacturing activities are well managed and not an issue. The act also wisely does not prohibit the important work of bomb squads officials who use robots to safely disable suspected explosives while keeping officers safe.

These are operations that protect public safety and that are conducted by experienced, trained professionals. It also permits educational institutions to continue with our BattleBots programs when conducted with safety protections for participants and spectators. In summary, AB 2681 is a balanced focus and effective solution. We need to address real concerns about weaponized robots and will help build public trust in the robotics industry. Please urge your support of AB 2681.

Thank you. Are there— Is there another key witness that you're seeing?

If I may, Madam Chair, they're not able to be here. Can I express their support quickly? AUVSI, DroneDeploy, and Silicon Valley Robotics are also in support of the measure.

Excellent. Anyone else in the room that wants to add on and support? Okay, we don't have any registered opposition, but is there anyone in the room who wants to add on to opposite or not add on, wants to come forward and express their opposition? All right. Seeing none. Assemblymember, I appreciate your Bill.

Because of other committees and my colleagues on the Committee having to present bills in other committees, they're not here at the dais, so we can't take a motion yet, but certainly, you may close.

Well, once again, I want to thank the Committee and the Committee staff for working with my staff to ensure that this is a very responsible, thoughtful Bill. I want to thank the sponsors. We've been working on this since last legislative session. And, you know, it's interesting.

I think it was about a month ago, I was going to speak at a conference in San Diego concerning this, and there was something that had just come on the Internet. Someone has a company where they've taken one of these robots and they've strapped a flamethrower onto them, and they were selling them. And you could just go to the website and buy these robots with a flamethrower.

And, you know, like I said, this Bill is a very, very well thought out, very responsible way to allow for innovation to continue, but to ensure that we are keeping the public safe. As technology advances, we're seeing that a lot of different people are using some very interesting ways not originally intended for the technology.

And we just need to make sure that we are keeping the residents here in California safe. With that, whenever we have enough people here, hopefully, we'll get a motion and respectfully ask for your "aye" vote on AB 2681. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember. When we do have some folks back in the room, we'll entertain a motion as amended. As you indicated, you accepted the Committee's amendments, so thanks very much. Now we will go to Assemblymember Maienschein, and that bill is AB 2739.

And Members, AB 2739 seeks to ensure all guns carried illegally are treated the same under the law. Under current law, carrying a concealed weapon without a permit is a crime and is deemed a public nuisance. The firearm that is illegally carried must be surrendered and destroyed.

However, the same rules do not exist for openly carrying an unloaded handgun in public or carrying a loaded firearm in public AB 2739 declares both of these crimes a nuisance and subjects the firearms to existing surrender and destroy provisions.

Additionally, it applies the same surrender and destroy statutes to firearms used in crimes for which a defendant is granted misdemeanor diversion. AB 2739 focuses solely on the firearm. It does not create a new crime or increase criminal penalties or interfere with the defendant's ability to be granted diversion.

It also does not infringe on the rights of law abiding gun owners as any firearms subject to AB 2739 are firearms that were carried in violation of California law. This Bill is a common sense measure that targets irresponsible gun possession. I respectfully request you aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember, do you have any key witnesses in support? Let us just see if there's anyone in the room who wants to add on in support of this Bill.

The California District Attorneys Association in support.

Great.

Stan Fuzolo on behalf of Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office in support.

All right. Any others in support? All right, let's see if there's any opposition. There's not registered, but if there is anyone in the room with opposition, please come to the mic now. All right, Assemblymember, I think you were in the room when I mentioned most of the Committee Members are off at other committees presenting bills this time of year, so we can't entertain our motion yet, but as soon as we have some folks back, we will, and with that, I'll allow you to vote.

Well, thank you. I guess I'll just ask for your vote then, since we can get it done. One, nothing. But thank you very much, Madam Chair. I respect your request and aye vote.

All right, thanks so much, Assembly Member. And we will entertain that motion when we have folks back in the room. All right. Now, we don't have authors. We'll wait a moment. We still have four bills, four authors, so we'll see if we. Somebody gets here soon. Okay. She's in. She's in. Judith. She's in. Judith.

We have an author. Let's see. On our list, we would go to Miss Waldron first. So, Miss Waldron, do you want to present AB 2624? If you need a few minutes, I could always go to Miss McKinner. Okay, I mean, sorry, Miss Wilson. Assemblymember Waldron. AB 2624.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Committee Members. I'm here to present AB 2624, which is a crucial step taken towards supporting incarcerated individuals during the time of loss of a loved one. Firstly, I want to thank the Committee staff for working with my team on the amendments, which we are accepting.

The passing of a close family member is a difficult time for anyone, particularly so if you are isolated and behind prison gates. Every individual deserves the right to grieve, a need that goes beyond the walls of incarceration and recognizes the humanity of us all.

This bill allows incarcerated individuals to grieve for up to three days with dignity, unburdened from the weight of their work or programmatic duties. During this time, compensation would still be received from this work, alleviating any further worries.

In my visits with many incarcerated individuals in several prisons, I learned that this time of loss, this time of grieving can be one of the most important times for healing, empathy, and understanding.

Many have said that the loss of a mother, a brother, or other close person was the impetus to open the door for positive change in their life. Having access during this time to a counselor or pastor to assist in the experience is very beneficial, but having the time to feel and grieve is necessary.

This bill is an important measure that will change the path forward for many incarcerated individuals. Today, I have Capri Walker with the Anti-Recidivism Coalition joining us to testify in support.

Thank you, Senator Skinner. Good morning, Chair and wonderful Committee staff. Capri Walker, on behalf of the Anti-Recidivism Coalition, we are here today to emphasize the critical need of providing bereavement leave for incarcerated individuals who have lost an immediate family member.

Grieving is a fundamental human experience, and the pain of losing a loved one does not diminish behind prison walls. Incarcerated individuals are already in an environment that exacerbates mental health struggles, and with the compounded grief from the loss of a family member, without adequate space to process, it can lead to severe emotional and psychological consequences.

Bereavement leave offers a vital opportunity for incarcerated individuals to honor their loss, process their grief, and begin healing. By allowing this space, we not only acknowledge their humanity but also support their mental health and rehabilitation. It is our moral duty to ensure that even those who are incarcerated are afforded the basic dignity of grieving their loved ones. We thank the author for bringing this forward, and ask for your "aye" vote thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in support? You can just come to the mic. Go ahead.

Lesli Caldwell Houston, for the California Public Defenders Association, in support.

Anthony DiMartino, on behalf of Californians for Safety and justice and support.

Chris Lodgson, Policy Manager, Anti-Recidivism Coalition, in support.

Kari Arzate, system impacted, and my husband, who has been incarcerated almost two decades, lost his mother and his daughter this year. So, thank you for this bill.

Duke Cooney, on behalf of ACLU California Action, in strong support.

Jack Castello, a Member of the Anti-Recidivism Coalition, strong support. Thank you.

Cassie Scherr, Member of the Anti-Recidivism in strong support.

Frank Abel, on behalf of the Anti-Recidivism Coalition in support.

Kellie Walters, on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in strong support.

John Vasquez, on behalf of Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice in support.

Yolanda Navaretti, on behalf of Felony Murder Elimination Project in strong support. Thank you.

Jesse Clyde Burleson, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and All of Us or None in strong support.

[Unidentified speaker], on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in strong support, thank you.

Jamilia Land, co-founder of the Anti-Violence Safety and Accountability Project in strong support.

Tatiana Lewis, with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in strong support. Thank you.

Tanisha Cannon, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in strong support.

Noe Godino, with legal service for prisoners with children in support.

Lena Din, All of Us or None in strong support.

Robert Bowden, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in strong support.

Alyssa Moore, All of Us or None in strong support.

Henry Ortiz, Legal Serivces for Prisoners with Children and All of Us or None sacramental in strong support.

Gilbert Anthony Murillo, with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in strong support.

Taqwa Bonner, with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and All of Us or None in strong support.

Mavi Hodoglugil, with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in strong support.

Sienna Coburn, with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in support.

Hannah Krenn, with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in strong support.

Minister King X at California Prison Focus, KAGE Universal, in strong support.

Any others in support? All right, do we have any witnesses in opposition to this bill? Okay, seeing none. Assemblymember, I've explained this, but I will do so for you also: our other Committee Members are presenting bills in other committees, so we can't take a motion yet, but as soon as someone returns, we will. And with that, you may close.

Thank you, Madam Chair. AB 2624 will ensure that all incarcerated individuals are provided an opportunity to take time off work and education to properly process and grieve the loss of a loved one. I want to thank the Committee for considering my bill and all those who came to testify and support. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you very much for presenting and bringing the Bill forward. And like I said, we will entertain that. So, Assemblymember Wilson was in the room first, but we do file order, and Miss Papman has arrived, so we will--are you deferring? Okay, great, then. Wonderful. We love that kind of cooperation.

Assemblymember Wilson, then you may present ACA 8.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I appreciate Assemblymember Papan my colleague as a giver. As a giver, I know her to be. I'm pleased to present today California Legislative Black Caucus priority as a part of our reparations package, Assembly Constitutional Amendment, also known as ACA 8, the End Slavery and California Act.

This ACA would allow Californians the opportunity to vote to amend Article one, section six of the state constitution to prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude without exception. Today, slavery takes on the modern form of involuntary servitude, including forced labor in prisons. Slavery is wrong in all forms, and California should be clear in denouncing that in the Constitution.