Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

All right. The Senate Committee on Public Safety has begun. We are meeting today in Room 2200 of the O Street Building. We have 26 bills on the calendar. I do want to highlight that we have AB 1990 by Assembly Member Wendy Carrillo, which has been pulled from today's agenda.

Ten bills are on consent: AB 1863 by Assembly Member Ramos, AB 2695 by Assembly Member Ramos, AB 2040 by Assembly Member Waldron, AB 2521 by Assembly Waldron, AB 2740 by Assembly Member Waldron, AB 2475 by Assembly Member Haney, AB 2818 by Assembly Member Mathis, AB 2907 by Assembly Member Zbur, AB 2984 by Assembly Member Gipson, AB 3235 by Assembly Member Bryan. In this committee, the author will present their bill from the podium here.

Witnesses will testify from the microphone outside the well over there. Each bill can have two main witnesses in support and two main witnesses in opposition. Each of those witnesses get two minutes each and we will time them. After the main support and opposition testify, we will take additional support and opposition, otherwise known as MeToos.

State your name, organization, and whether you support or oppose to keep our busy hearing going. If you are a MeToo, please be lined up and ready to go. We do take authors as they arrive in order to be as efficient as possible. We need to break a little bit before noon as we have caucus and we would prefer to get this done as soon as possible. So with that, I'll ask for roll to be called to establish a quorum.

[Roll Call].

Thank you. A quorum has been established. I'd like a motion for consent.

Move the consent.

Senator Seyarto moves the consent items. Can we get a roll call?

[Roll Call].

All right, that will--consent will be on call. We're going to move forward with our first presenter, Assembly Member Ta, presenting AB 1856.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. I'd like to thank the committee staff on their work on the analysis as well as working with my office. Would like to start by accepting the committee amendment.

AB 1856 would make misdemeanor for a person who not only created and distributed artificially generated sexual image and video without the depicted individual consent. Artificial intelligence can also be used to create deepfake computer general image and video of people that appear genuine. Deepfake technology has become more widely accessible in recent years.

It can be used to quickly create fake digital content that is so realistic that it is difficult to tell whether it is accurate. Opposition to this bill will state that it may be unconstitutional, but the distribution of AI generate pornographic content of someone without their consent can constitute defamation or portraying someone is a false light brought up which are not protected by the First Amendment. Current law allow individuals to file civil lawsuit.

However, that action is not accessible to most people, especially low-income who don't have the resources to file a civil suit. As many new, innovative technology, artificial intelligence can improve people's lives. However, the effect make it possible to fabricate digital media without consent.

They pose a severe threat to the health, reputation, and financial and mental stability of target individual. I'd like to introduce Marc Berkman with the Organization for Social Media Safety and Garrett Hamilton with California District Attorney. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. You'll have two minutes.

Thank you. Thank you to the Chair, Vice Chair, and all the Members of the Committee for your time and consideration of AB 1856. My name is Marc Berkman. I'm the CEO of the Organization for Social Media Safety, the leading consumer protection organization focused exclusively on social media.

We are proud to sponsor AB 1856, which responds to the new and frightening danger created by deepfake technology, specifically in this case, malicious pornographic deepfakes. As Assembly Member Ta discussed, deepfakes are forged videos created via artificial intelligence, where a person's likeness, including their face and voice, is realistically swapped with someone else's. To be clear, deepfakes look real.

This is not an ability we have seen before outside of Hollywood. And because of this hyperrealism of deepfake technology, we have been deeply concerned by its potential for cyberbullying, harassment, and exploitation. And there is evidence for this concern.

Since the introduction of deepfakes in late 2016, they have already been used extensively to insert women's likenesses into pornographic films without consent. I spoke in front of the Assembly Public Safety Committee back in 2019, sponsoring similar legislation warning about the future harm this technology would cause.

Well, tragically, that harm has now been inflicted on hundreds of thousands, including on Californians, and the harm is growing. In 2016, researchers identified one deepfake pornography video online. In the first three quarters of 2023, over 143,000 new deepfake pornography videos were uploaded to the 40 most used deepfake pornography sites.

Thank you. That's two minutes.

We stand in strong support. Thank you so much.

Next speaker.

Good morning. Garrett Hamilton with the California District Attorneys Association. We are in support of AB 1856. There needs to be criminal consequences for this abhorrent behavior. This is a really good start. Creating as well as distributing these deepfakes will be illegal if this bill becomes law.

In court, these cases should be relatively easy to prove as the evidence will be digital and proving that it was distributed will have a digital trail that we believe is an important--and we believe that this is an important step to deter this conduct. CDAA is in support.

Thank you. Can we have lead opposition witnesses?

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Duke Cooney with ACLU California Action. While we appreciate the potential harms caused by deepfake technology, we fear that AB 1856 improperly restricts lawful speech and runs afoul of the First Amendment. Additionally, we oppose 1856 because we believe it will have a disproportionate impact on young people.

We fear that AB 1856 will result in further criminalization of youth, particularly youth of color, who engage in the prescribed behavior. A recent study found that 73 percent of teenagers 17 or older have been exposed to online pornography. Young people access these materials in a variety of ways, including sharing with one another through social media.

Under 1856, a young person could be convicted of a crime and sentenced to jail if they share deepfake pornography with a peer under the circumstances the bill outlines. While this conduct may be inappropriate and sometimes harmful, sending young people to jail seems overly punitive and counterproductive. For these reasons, we urge an no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other lead opposition? Seeing none, we're going to move on to MeToos. Again, state your name, your organization, whether you support or oppose.

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

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Cory Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriffs' Association, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Shervin Aazami, San Francisco Public Defender's Office, in opposition.

Thank you. Seeing nobody else, we're going to move on to the committee members. Committee members? Senator Seyarto.

Assembly Member Ta, thank you for bringing this measure forward. I disagree with the opponents of this as far as whose rights are being violated, the pretense or the supposition that somehow this is going to disproportionately affect. I've heard that argument so many times, and this particular one, it strikes me as odd. The ability to actually engage and do these, you know, there's a lot of technologically advanced miners out there. All of them have that capability. This permeates districts all over the Southland, in our schools, the schools out in my district.

These are the things when we talk about youth suicide, when they get subjected to this happening to them, these are those spontaneous--we don't know what the hell happened moments for parents, and for us to be more concerned about protecting the rights of somebody who goes through a process, this isn't easy to do.

If you ask me to do something like this, only not even porn--I couldn't do it. I don't have the technological skills to do that nor do I have the time to do it. Somebody has to purposely do this and go after and violate the name and image of somebody for this to occur. So I will be supporting your bill.

I will make a motion, since it is correct, but I appreciate us actually trying to do something about this because it is a scourge, and the people that are engaging it need to understand what a scourge it is and not be defended or made excuses for when they do this stuff. Once people know it's illegal, they better stop. So, you know, again, I appreciate your bringing the bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Since we have a motion, Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Yes. I really appreciate your comment, and I want to thank the committee staff for working with my office. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

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

Item Four: AB 1856. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call].

All right, that bill's on call. Thank you very much. We're next going to have Assembly Member Maienschein present, and I will be handing it over to Senator Seyarto for a little bit.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members. AB 3064 would require manufacturers of firearm safety devices to mark their products with make and model information. Firearm safety devices lock and prevent unauthorized users from discharging a firearm and must be used when a firearm is transferred through a dealer or when transported in sensitive places.

Similar to the handgun roster, the DOJ maintains a roster of laboratory tested, approved firearm safety devices listed by manufacturer, model name, and model number.

However, manufacturers are not required to place the same information on the actual devices, making it next to impossible for law enforcement and consumers to tell one from another, much less an approved device versus an ineffective look alike.

More importantly, if a consumer owns a safety device that has been recalled, is defective, or has a warranty issue, they are unable to identify if their device is affected. This may result in the continued use of an unsafe or ineffective device.

AB 3064 will require firearm safety device manufacturers to place make and model information in a visible location on the product. The bill also requires manufacturers to notify the DOJ in the event of a recall, and it authorizes the department to charge a fee on manufacturers to have their device listed on the roster.

This is a common-sense bill to assist both law enforcement and consumers. I respectfully request your aye vote. And with me to testify and support is Deputy Attorney General Candace Chung and Peter Wold, Assistant Director, Director of the Bureau of Firearms.

All right, well, thank you for testifying this morning. Remember, you do have two minutes, and I will adhere to the Chair's rules. Okay, so I do not get in trouble and suffer.

I will make sure you don't get in trouble. Good morning, senators. My name is Candice Chung. I am a Deputy Attorney General at the California Department of Justice.

And on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is the proud sponsor of AB 3064, we'd like to thank the committee for its very thorough and detailed analysis, as well as to thank Assemblymember Maienschein for authoring this bill to promote the effective safe storage of firearms and to modernize the reporting process.

As the Assemblymember mentioned, current law already requires the use of an approved firearm safety device in certain situations. This bill does not expand or alter when and how these devices are to be used.

It simply requires manufacturers to place, make and model information on their products, just like pretty much every other consumer safety product on the market today. There are over 2300 different models on the DOJ's roster of lab tested approved firearm safety devices.

And of those, approximately 75% have no identifying markings on the outside of the actual device, simply because manufacturers are not required to do so. And so many of these devices look exactly alike. I mean, they're just, a lot of times they're like plain metal, black metal boxes or padlock and cable combinations without markings.

It's pretty much impossible to discern just by looking at it, the make and model. So, this is really, you know, this is also a big consumer safety issue. Like, as mentioned, consumers can't tell if a model is recalled. And that happens. There were seven models recalled in October, another three in February.

You can't tell, like, whether or not your device is actually one of the affected ones. So, you know, and the goal of this bill is really to help people know that the device that they're using is safe and effective.

We're not trying to increase chemical penalties or make it harder for manufacturers to do business, but these devices are designed to prevent unauthorized persons like kids from accessing guns. So, the consequences of annoyingly using a faulty device are high.

Additionally, this bill will modernize the existing processes within the Bureau of Firearms to report certain self-reported firearms transactions, such as the purchase of antiques or when a new resident moves into the state with their guns. Currently, although the DOJ's systems can already accept these reports electronically, the statute states that they must be submitted by mail or -

Thank you.

All right.

That's how she does it.

Sorry, again. We just -

Do we have another?

I have the Assistant Director of the Bureau of Firearms, Peter Wald, here to answer any questions you might have.

All right, thank you. All right, at this time, we'll take opposition, lead witnesses in opposition to this bill. Sir, coming up. You have two minutes. I know.

Okay. Mister Chairman, members: AB 3064 annual fee on manufacturers or importers who sell any firearm device listed on the department safety roster will do absolutely nothing for safety. As a matter of fact, we have millions of safety devices that are presently used throughout the State of California, and they are doing just that.

But here the Department of Justice is going to say, "You know what? All of those successful safety devices are now invalid because they haven't paid their fee and been approved by us." And if somebody gets listed on the, on the roster and for some reason they stop manufacturing that safe, that device, and they drop off the roster, everybody who has that device in private use is now in possession of a one that is not declared safe by the State of California.

This is going to put many laws abiding gun owners throughout the State of California into a very precarious decision. The recent amendments regarding voluntary reporting exempted transactions are completely unnecessary, and this serves no crime fighting purpose at all.

Finally, I'd like to point out that the Supreme Court affirmed that the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute in the home. And the Second Amendment elevates above all other interests the right to use arms in defense of hearth and home.

The Heller decision was rooted on the fact that it is not allowed for the Federal Government or state and local governments to require people to keep their guns locked up or disassembled in some manner where they are not immediately available to them for defense in the home. That's what the ruling said.

This bill goes completely contrary to that. And that's why Gun Owners of California, the National Rifle Association, the California Rifle and Pistol Association, are in strong opposition to that. Thank you. Thank you.

All right, at this time, we'll take the me-too's. Anybody in opposition or in favor of the bill can come up. State your name, the organization you represent, whether you support or oppose the bill, simply.

Good morning. My name is Elizabeth Rosemay. And I'm a concerned citizen. I don't think it's appropriate to cosmic charge manufacturers a fee to sell their product here.

Okay, ma'am, are you speaking as a primary witness? I'm sorry. Then I may have jumped the gun, because we are allowing two. And you can speak for two minutes. Go ahead.

Thank you. Anyway, I don't think it's appropriate to charge manufacturers of a product to sell their items here. I also - I'm a two-time violent crime survivor and I live alone with Alexis. And I want to have a gun that's ready to go if my house or me are assaulted. I have a CCW and that's part of how I get along in the world. As far as the actual roster of gun safes, I'm going to place an unnecessary burden on lawful responsible people who already have safes that are working. Fine. Thank you for your time and attention. I oppose this bill.

Thank you, ma'am. And I apologize for skipping over you the first time. Now it's time for the me-too's. This is when people can come up, let me know your name, the organization you represent, and also simply whether you oppose or support the bill. If there are no me-too's, we'll bring it back to the dais for any discussion or questions. We have a motion to move the bill by Bradford. Would you like to close?

Thank you very much, Mister Chair and members, and respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you.

All right, you may call the roll.

Item number 24, AB 3064. Motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call].

Okay, that brings us up to. I have to go search for the file for the next person since we're out of order. Zbur. Assembly Member Zbur. It looks like AB 2917. Yeah. Thank you.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Members. I'm proud to present AB 20917 which is sponsored by Every Town for Gun Safety and the San Francisco City Attorney's Office.

This bill updates and refines California's nation-leading Gun Violence Restraining Order, otherwise known as GVRO law, to draw the civil court's attention to a broader set of factors in a court's analysis of whether temporary access to firearms should be restricted.

According to the California Attorney General's most recent report on hate crimes in California, hate crime events involving racial bias, religious bias, sexual orientation bias, and gender bias all increased between 2021 and 2022.

We have to strengthen our tools to prevent hate-based violence, especially the alarming rates of violence against LGBTQ communities, especially trans women, religious minorities, including people of Jewish and Islamic faith, and minority racial and ethnic communities.

This bill guides the court to consider threats of violence made against groups protected by hate crimes laws and threats of violence to advance political objectives. It also updates various statutes to codify the ability of city and county attorneys pursuing GVROs to access criminal history information.

California's GVR law created a civil legal process through which law enforcement, concerned family members, and other designated individuals may request a court order may requested a court granting order temporarily restricting a person's access to firearms and ammunition when there's evidence that the person poses a significant risk of harm to themselves or to others.

In the decades since the law was passed, GVROs have become one of the most effective tools available for preventing certain types of gun violence before it occurs. By promptly and temporarily removing firearms from a person at risk of harming others or themselves, GVROs can be particularly useful for preventing mass shootings and suicide.

Our most vulnerable communities deserve protection, including protection from gun violence. California courts must stay alert to the importance of considering threats of hate-based violence and threats of political violence when temporarily restricting access to guns, thereby preventing needless deaths and potentially saving innocent lives.

When the warning signs are there and we see someone threaten violence because of hate or extremist ideology, we must use the tools necessary to prevent tragedy. I ask your vote, your aye vote at the appropriate time. And with me today is Rebekah Krell, Director of Policy and Legislative Affairs from the San Francisco Attorney's Office.

Thank you for coming today. And you have two minutes.

Great.

Thank you.

Good morning, Members of the Senate Public Safety Committee. I'm Rebekah Krell here representing San Francisco City Attorney David Chu. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on AB 2917 today.

The San Francisco City Attorney's Office appreciates Assembly Member Zbur's leadership on this important bill and is grateful to partner with Every Town for Gun Safety on this legislation. As you all know, impactful laws require effective implementation and enforcement.

As legal counsel to their local law enforcement agencies, California city attorneys and county counsel are on the front lines of implementing gun violence restraining orders, which are civil orders within the authority of our offices.

Sections one through three of AB 2917 are a narrowly scoped update to the law to facilitate GVRO implementation by streamlining the ability of city attorneys and county councils to access criminal history information as part of their work partnering with local law enforcement to file and process GVRO petitions.

Including criminal history information is critical to a successful GVRO petition. The San Francisco City Attorney's office first began seeking GVROs on behalf of the San Francisco Police Department in 2019. Through our office's outreach with gun safety advocacy organizations and local law enforcement the number of GVROs sought by our office and the number of firearms seized pursuant to GVROs have increased steadily

In San Francisco, the city attorney's office is involved in every single GVRO sought by the SFPD, and coordinated partnership is critical to our success. AB 20917 also has the unanimous support of the California Civil Prosecutors Coalition.

The coalition serves many of the largest city attorney and county council's offices in California, representing millions of residents in our jurisdictions. Improving public safety laws geared towards preventing gun violence, such as GVROs, is a top legislative priority for us this year.

The coalition is chaired by San Diego City Attorney Mara Elliott, who has been recognized as a national leader in gun violence restraining orders. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any other lead witnesses in support? If there are no others, then we will take lead witnesses in opposition. Are there any lead witnesses in opposition? Welcome. We know the drill. We got two minutes.

Mister Chairman. This legislation is very problematic, given that violent speech, although very detestable, is not by any means considered objective. It depends on who's doing the deciding as to what constitutes violent speech. Like it or not, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, even if it's ugly.

Without question, the definition of verbal or written threats against violence is extremely subjective regarding the advancement of a political agenda. I mean, by a lot of standards, displaying the American flag is considered violent. That is an issue. That is a problem. You know, the mere fact that gun violence restraining orders have been issued.

There is no scientific methodology to prove that they are effective in preventing any sort of violent crime. It's not possible. It's like saying we're going to end car accidents because we're not going to let anybody drive. It just doesn't make any sense.

Also, the gun violence restraining orders were recently the topic of the United States Supreme Court case in Rahimi versus the United States. In this case, the court said that there has to be a legal finding in order to justify domestic violence restraining orders. What is a legal finding?

That means that both sides of the of the case are listened to before they can do a restraining order. And it is temporary. They also discussed that red flag laws or gun violence restraining orders will be dealt with in future cases.

For those reasons, Gun Owners of California, the California Rifle and Pistol Association and the National Rifle Association are strongly in opposition to this bill. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony this morning. Is there anybody else as a lead opposition witness? You're a lead opposition witness? You have two minutes.

Good morning. I'm Elizabeth Rose May. I'm a concerned citizen. Pardon me. One of the difficulties with GVROs is that they could be motivated and pursued simply on the basis of gossip. Not necessarily any hard facts. And that is problematic. So, thank you. And I oppose this bill.

Thank you for your testimony.

Mister Chairman. Sam Paredes, for the record, I'm the one who's doing the testimony. I neglected to mention my name in both both bills that I've testified. Thank you.

Thank you for clarifying, Sam. Appreciate it. Okay, at this point, we will take the me toos. Anybody in opposition or in favor of this bill can come up to the microphone. State your name, the organization you represent, and whether you oppose or support the bill.

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

Thank you.

Garrett Hamilton with the California District Attorney's Association in support.

Anna Ioakimedes with Los Angeles Unified School District in support.

Duke Cooney, on behalf of ACLU California action. We have no position, but we've conveyed our concerns and thank you for being responsive to us. Thank you.

Diana Honig, volunteer with Moms Demand Action, in strong support.

Bridget Jacobowitz, volunteer with Moms Demand Action and public-school teacher, in strong support.

Susan Burns, volunteer with Moms Demand Action, in strong support.

Yara Judal, volunteer with Moms Demand Action, in strong support.

Amy Siropian, volunteer with Moms Demand Action, in support.

Good morning. Laura Lane with Every Town for Gun Safety in support.

That was.

Seeing no other speakers. We're going to move to members of the Committee. Miss Senator Skinner.

Assembly Member, thank you for bringing the bill. I will move it. I appreciate the bill that was on consent and this one GVROs. I am the author of the original law. Are can be a very effective tool. However, they have been used less than we would hope and they're variety of reasons for that.

Local law enforcement is one of the easier ways to that. If you are aware of someone who is, you have credible evidence of a person who is making threats of violence to themselves or others, then one of the most available ways is to go to local law enforcement.

But our local law enforcement is not always aware or fully understands how to issue them and such or what is needed.

And so, I think your expansion of enabling, giving additional reasons for the issuing of a GVRO, and the expansion of allowing city attorneys or county council to help, I think the more people in roles like that that understand this tool and can assist someone in obtaining it would help make it really effective.

So, I appreciate the bill and like I said, I move it.

Senator, did you make a motion to move? Okay, thank you. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Yes.

Oh, sorry. Senator Seyarto, sorry.

Thank you very much. So, while I am deeply concerned about people who shouldn't be carrying firearms, being able to carry them, in reading this bill, there is a lot of broad categories.

And I'm kind of curious in our efforts in the last three years to keep people out of prison as we broaden these categories, and some of them can be very, very objective, like one of the witnesses stated here, and as we broaden the net to capture people into this GVR, that turns them into a prohibited person if they do have a gun.

And that can lead to state or federal crime charges, criminal charges, which puts them in jail. So, what happened to our concern about putting people in jail for people that are like really doing crimes?

Now we're looking at people that may have or have been interpreted by somebody to have threatened an action that might not even be a crime. So, where's that line? Where's that line for this bill?

So, interestingly enough, I was actually thinking about this bill related to an incident that happened in my district just this weekend. You may have heard about a so-called protest outside a synagogue in the Pico Robertson district of my area of my district. It was followed up by online threats that included threats of violence.

And when we got that and when we saw that in our office, we actually we're turning that over to the FBI this morning. We found these out last night. And to the LA city attorneys and to the LAPD now for enforcement.

But, you know, it's, this bill would clearly allow a step that is in addition to a full investigation to take place where these folks could be removed from firearms when we know that there's a very clear threat.

And so, you know, in response to actually one of the comments here, there needs to be evidence of violence. And so, there's very, there's a lot of ways you can show that.

But, you know, especially with the online threats that are happening now, it gives law enforcement an investigation tool and an ability to remove the firearms before people are harmed. And that is a, it is another tool.

It's a tool that is easier, that has a step in between actually doing a full prosecution when someone has actually committed a crime that has resulted in violence.

Right. Well, the criminal threat itself is already a crime, so they can be arrested for that. But are we prepared?

But it's also, you know, criminal threat that's more diffuse where you basically, I mean, I have constituents who raised this with me, with my office, and they don't know who the specific target is. It's the kind of, it is a signal of domestic terrorism that's around the corner.

And this would give law enforcement a tool to at least actually say, see if they've end up, if they've got firearms and remove them.

Right. And then we can put them in jail?

Well, the, no, you would, you would end up, you would have those other tools to investigate on those other pieces. But this would allow GVROs to be issued as an additional protective measure.

Yeah. So, as an additional protective measure, though, if they are. Basically, you're casting this net and you're going to put more people in jail, which is counterintuitive to these efforts that I've been listening to for the last three years to put less people in jail.

So, I actually do want the people to go to jail that violate laws, but I don't want people caught in a subjective net to, you know, to be also swept up into this and create even more of an excuse not to have, you know, more people out of jail. So, anyway, I will not be supporting this bill.

I think that's pretty obvious by now. I think it's too broad and it needs to be narrowed so that we know who we're arresting, and it needs to have some follow-up. If we arrest somebody and they break that law, those prohibited persons, well, they need to go to jail and we're not doing that either. So, I'm not quite sure how this translates into safer public. So, thank you.

Madam Chair, may I respond to that?

Yes. The way it translates into safer public is that it gives law enforcement more tools to prevent people from actually being hurt.

Yes.

And that is the important thing behind GVROs, and it's one of the tools that we do to try to prevent additional crimes that result in violence and hurting people.

Would you like to close?

With that, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Skinner.

Item number 22, AB 2917. Motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll call]

That motion is. I mean, that bill is on call.

Thank you very much.

I'm gonna lift consent.

Current vote is three to zero. [Roll call]

All right, that's still on call. And then can we also lift file number 24?

AB 3064, item number 24. Motion is do passed to Appropriations. Current vote is one to one. [Roll call]

Item number 24.

Maienschein.

3064.

Maienschein, firearms.

Skinner aye.

All right, that bill is on call as well. We're going to move on to Assembly Member Ramos.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators, today I am presenting AB 2138 which would create a three-year pilot project within the Department of Justice granting qualified tribes peace officer status. And I also want to accept the Committee amendments.

Missing and murdered indigenous persons in Indian land has something that's been plaguing for generations of those that go missing, and the lack of investigations by law enforcement into their disappearance that ultimately ends up many times in homicides.

Homicides that still aren't being investigated properly, where California still sits as number five of all states in the nation of not investigating crimes against Native American people on Indian reservations. We have had many roundtables on this issue.

One where we heard stories from a young Yurok woman who talked about her personal accounts that told her personal stories in order to make sure that people truly understood the plight of what is truly going on and happening to California's first people who struggled to recount her own family history and the traumatic past experience due to public Law 280, a law that was implemented in 1953 that basically stripped federal Indian reservations of the right to protect themselves.

And this law, Public Law 280, in 1953, was not created to protect Native American people. It was created to protect non natives from Indian people from on the reservations. This program today will administer under the Department of Justice and run for three years as a pilot program.

This Bill is part of California's first people longstanding efforts to address the missing and murdered indigenous person crisis here in the State of California. Tribal policing in California carries a dark history, a history that we must begin to shed light on and bring forward that traumatic historical experience that has plagued California's first people.

With the passage of public Law 280, the state essentially washed their hands of policing tribal reservations on federal lands. One of the top recommendations of tribal groups throughout the state and tribal leaders is to grant peace officer status as other states in the United States have done.

With me to testify today is Chairman Joe James of the Yurok Tribe and the sponsors of the Bill and Gage Hansen with Yurok Tribal Court to answer any technical questions.

Thank you. You'll have two minutes.

Gage Hansen, Associate General Counsel for the Yurok Tribe. The Yurok Tribe sponsored this Bill in large part because we believe wholeheartedly in this effort. The Yurok tribe has entered an agreement with the counties of Del Norte and Humboldt to deputize Yurok Tribal Police under California's existing laws. But that is solely at the whim of the local sheriffs.

That could go away at any moment and it doesn't represent a unified policy of California, simply localized whims. And that's not something that protects the General public. The Yurok tribes relationship with the counties is good, but that doesn't translate to tribes all across the state.

State as representative Ramos said, public Law 280 was a Bill presented by California legislatures to the US Congress that allowed the State of California to take the Federal Government's responsibility to regulate criminal activity on reservations by non-members and put that solely on the State of California.

And then California washed its hands of doing nearly anything on tribal reservations for an extended period of time. At the same time, California passed laws that the indentured Indian children to the age of majority, which at the time was in the late twenties, early thirties.

This activity over time created a period of lawlessness on reservations on the part of the state, not of tribes. Tribal law enforcement has continued to maintain its traditional roots from the beginning of time immemorial to present. It enforces the laws of the tribe against the people that has the jurisdiction to do that. Unfortunately, non-members don't apply.

Non-members can purchase land on reservations, they can conduct business on reservations. And yet tribal courts, tribal law enforcement, do not have jurisdiction to govern their activities. Thank you.

Do you have any other speaker? Yes, Madam Chair, we have Chairman Joe James of the Yurok Tribal Nation.

Good morning. My name is Joseph James, Chairman of the Yurok Tribe, in strong support of the foster care Bill. As Gage mentioned, a little bit of highlights there.

I just want to make sure you. Sorry. On the right Bill, the peace officer status Bill. Thank you. That is correct. I support foster care use too.

I got up real early this morning coming from ceremony down here. So I apologize for that. You know, we have a law enforcement, tribal law enforcement up there. We've been working in collaboration with partnership with Humboldt and Delmark county addressing our law enforcement crisis and also our MMIP crisis there. And again, this Bill goes hand in hand.

Collectively we're very rural and isolated. The need for the peace officer status for our tribal police is much needed. You know, 20 years, we couldn't have this conversation. We weren't there yet.

We've come a long way and we've still got a long way yet to go yet in the State of California and with our tribal police and getting them peace officer status over here to support that Bill. This addresses a number of things on and off the reservation. And this also highlights in your case the partnership that we created with Sheriff Huntsel there of Humboldt County who are in support of this Bill, too.

And again, we are here to ask for your support for this Bill to not only help with our local jurisdiction, public Law 280, but also the MMP crisis that we're having at home in real time. Again, apologize for the two bills mixed up. I got up very early this morning to make this five hour drive. No worries. So it was very important for me to be here and I'm sorry I'm a little late. But again, thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any lead opposition witnesses? Lead opposition. All right, we're going to go to me twos. State your name, your organization, whether you support or oppose.

Madam Chair Scott Govenar on behalf of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians in support. Thank you.

Okay. Anybody else seeing? None. We're going to move on to Members of the Committee. We have Senator Seyardo that has moved the Bill. I do appreciate you taking the amendment. I just want to make it very clear I support the work that you've done historically within the needs of the Native American tribes and so forth, especially the feather alert previously. I do just want to highlight, at least for me, I am concerned. I would like to see more representation from the tribes that don't have federal recognition.

Number 1 and 2, some of the smaller tribes in my district, we do have a smaller tribe that has been struggling to get some recognition and so forth. I just want to at least be a little bit more inclusive. So I appreciate the effort. Again, Senator Skinner, did you have anything.

Thank you for bringing the Bill. These obviously are issues that have been long time problems that I don't think the Legislature would necessarily have been insensitive to. But not having the relationships has not brought forward solutions.

And given where many of our tribes are located, there is really very little other peace officer or sworn law enforcement in the area to assist in dealing with these issues like our missing and missing and murdered individuals, tribal individuals.

So extending this ability for tribal officers to be able to really enforce the law on the lands is important because there's not a lot of other support. So. And I share the chairs, in a way. I would like to see it, in effect, broader, but I realize that it's the beginning. So it's okay. We'll start this way. But I appreciate your bringing it. Thank you so much.

And again, I think we're just trying to echo that those tribes that don't have all the resources should be, as you know, brought together and included as much as possible. So we do have a motion. Would you like to close?

Well, thank you so much for that. And I want to thank Joe James, making the trip down here from ceremonial areas that are taking place here today representing the largest tribe in the State of California. PL 280 is a federal law, so that deals with the federal component here in the State of California.

We do continue to move forward on other areas as far as education. That encompasses everyone in the State of California. This is a Bill that's drastically needed to start moving forward in the healing and the protection of California's first people. I ask for your aye vote.

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

Item number six, AB 2138. Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call]. That Bill is out.

Thank you. I'd like to lift the call on consent.

Current vote is four to zero. Wiener? Wiener, aye.

All right, consents out. Let's move on with the next items.

Item number four, AB 1856. Motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Current vote is two to zero. Skinner? Skinner, aye. Wiener? Wiener, aye.

All right, that bill's out four to zero.

Item 22, AB 2917. The motion is do pass to appropriations. Current vote is three to one. Wiener? Wiener, aye.

All right, that bill's out as well.

Item 24, AB 3064. Motion was do passed to appropriations. Current vote is three to one. Wiener? Wiener, aye.

Four to one. That bills out as well. All right, we're going to move on to Assemblymember Wicks, who will be presenting file item number three, AB 1252.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members. In 2022, Attorney General Rob Bonta established the Office of Gun Violence Prevention within the California Department of Justice. AB 1252 codifies that office into statute, also establishes a Commission to end gun violence, which, upon further appropriation, will be tasked with issuing a public report identifying top priorities to improve implementation, coordination, and effectiveness of gun violence prevention focused laws and programs. California has enacted more gun safety legislation than any other state.

As a result, we have the 7th lowest gun death rate in the country. We also have a homicide rate that's 33% lower than the national average. This gun safety legislation that we have enacted also ensures that we have a responsibility to ensure robust and effective implementation of our many vital laws and programs.

In September of last year, President Biden established the first ever White House office of Gun Violence Prevention. The top recommendation of that office, that office's safer states agenda, is that each state establish their own gun violence prevention office as well.

Creation of a complimentary Commission to end gun violence will foster more coordination across different state and local agencies and cement the California office's central role in advising policymakers response to this complex problem. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And you have no witnesses, correct? No. All right, I will ask for any lead, support. None. Lead opposition? None. All right, me toos. None. Great. We're going to move on Senator spill. All right. I do really appreciate, assemblymember, you bringing this forward.

I was actually at that first convening that the Vice President held, and it is the largest convening that the Biden Harris Administration had on record so far, and this is very much needed, so I will ask you to close.

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right, we have a motion by Senator Skinner.

Item number three. AB 1252. Motion is do passed to Appropriations. [Roll Call]. All right, that bill's on call.

Fastest Bill I've ever presented.

Thank you. We're gonna move on to Assemblymember Flora. Thank you. Assemblymember Flora is gonna present item number eight, AB 1892.

Thank you very much, Senator and colleagues. AB 1892 expands the authority of judges to issue and law enforcement agencies seek court ordered authorization, wiretapping, and interception of electronic communications related to felony child pornography-related crimes. This Bill gives law enforcement agencies a greater ability to investigate and prosecute these crimes and disrupt child pornography rings faster. This Bill has no no votes and respectfully asked for your ayevote.

Thank you. Do you have any witnesses?

I don't think so.

All right, we're going to just do this for formalities. Lead support, witnesses seeing none. Lead opposition witnesses seeing none. Me toos seeing none. We're going to move on to Committee Members. Move. The Bill has been done by Senator Seyarto. Sorry. He, you know, kind of threw me off.

Did I miss?

We moved on. But if you would like to make a comment.

Corey Salzilo on behalf of California State Sheriff Association support.

Thank you. We have a motion. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, so we have a motion by Senator Seyarto, item 8 1892. Motion is do pass to the Floor. [Roll Call]

Definitely. All right, Assembly Members, if you guys would like to come down to room 2200, you have a job to do. If staff is here, please text your Assembly Members.

All right. We have Assemblymember Wilson presenting file number two, AB 628.

Madam Chair. Senators, I'm pleased to present Assembly Bill 628, a companion Bill to ACA 8, a measure that, if passed by the Legislature and approved, voters would remove the exception in our state constitution that currently allows for involuntary servitude.

Contingent upon the passage and approval of ACA 8, AB 628 requires the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, also known as CDCR, to create a voluntary work program. Further, it clarifies that CDCR and local jurisdictions set compensation for incarcerated individuals in state prison facilities and local jails, respectively. This measure.

This measure would allow Californians the opportunity to vote to amend Article 1, Section 6, of the state constitution, to prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude without exception. If ACA 8 is approved by voters, it will end the practice of involuntary servitude, which is the rule that have allowed California State prison to use forced labor.

Madam Chair, if you have me for personal privilege, take a moment. Yesterday in our office, we lost a former fellow named Aldo Garcia, who was excited to be able to work on ACA 8 as the pinnacle of his early career. And just moments ago, we were reminded of that before coming in here.

So emotions is, this is a powerful, historic moment for our state, and knowing that a young life was lost, who could be sharing in the revelry of this bill passing? Alright, thank you for that.

Now, by removing the long standing exception for punishment of a crime and explicitly prohibiting slavery and involuntary servitude, it would fundamentally change the nature of work within our state prisons.

For the first time in our state history, this bill would require the work assignments for incarcerated individuals to be voluntary and they would not be subject to discipline for refusing a work assignment, allowing for granted participation in rehabilitative services, and helping to restore dignity and bodily autonomy to incarcerated individuals.

Incarcerated people have long faced cruel treatment for any work absences. This includes solitary confinement, denial of phone calls and family visits, and limiting participation in rehabilitative programs and disciplinary write ups that result in longer prison terms. Such punishment or threats of such punishments are often issued even when absences are due to illness or injuries sustained through work.

The current practice of forced labor does not prepare incarcerated people for success upon reentry and often prevents participation in rehabilitative services. This bill clarifies implementation of ACA 8 and has no opposition. With that, I'll respectfully ask for your aye vote because we do not have witnesses today.

Okay, so we have no lead witnesses. Do we have lead opposition? All right. We're going to move on to me too's. State your name, your organization, whether or not you support.

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

Good morning. My name is Katina Perry. I'm with, It's Not Okay, Moms for Change, and we strongly support this Bill.

Thank you.

Shervin Aazami, Initiate Justice Action in support.

Ruth Sileidi, concerned citizen in strong support.

Alicia Montero, Choice Advocate in strong support.

My name is Kerry Arzate. I'm system impacted and I have a couple of me toos as well, Empowering Women Impacted by Incarceration, felony elimination murder project. IJ Member. I'm a Member of IJ Action and I'm also an outside organizer with initiate justice and prison from the inside out. And I thank you for supporting this bill.

Thank you. Can we have the Assembly Member come forward just so we have it lined up, sergeants, if you guys would like to tell her that. All right, continue with the me toos, please.

Good morning. Yolanda Navarrete, on behalf of Initiate Justice, Initiate Justice Action, felony murder elimination project and families united to end LWOP in strong support. Thank you.

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

Michelle Giles, concerned citizen, strong support.

All right, seeing no other speakers, we're going to move on to Members of the Committee. I'll go ahead.

Hi, Rochelle, concerned citizen and also with SC justice, and I'm in support.

Thank you. Okay.

Katrina Reyes with Initiate Justice in strong support.

All right. No other me toos. All right, we're gonna move to Committee Members. Senator Seyarto,

Question about funding for this. Where do you propose the funding would come from?

So this particular funding, I mean, this particular bill doesn't require funding in that traditional sense of the term. It does nothing to change the current program. It just makes it from shall to voluntary. So that has no real direct impact on, I think, when it comes to funding.

So it doesn't have a minimum wage.

No, it does not address wages in any way. And it also notes within the section that it does not address minimum wage. So that would be a separate, that would have to be a separate bill. It does direct it that minimum wage, unless.

Let me go specifically to that language, but it speaks to, that directs the minimum wage to be set by state law or local ordinance as it relates to incarcerated individuals, and that otherwise the compensation is set by the secretary or local locals when it comes to their county or city jails.

And so if the minimum wage is what it is today, then it has no impact there's no cost to the state in any additional way. But they do set the rest of the compensation, which is, you know, wage is a component of compensation. And so they set that unless the state speaks to it.

And right now, the state is silent on that subject. And there is a study bill that was presented by Assemblymember Cotta, but there has been no change to wages as it relates to incarcerated individuals.

Okay. Were there any studies done to determine how much participation they might have for voluntary work versus work thats assigned and paid a minimum wage or whatever?

Say that again.

In other words, would they have any voluntary work? I mean, would people volunteer to work or would they have to find somebody, something, some other way of paying for that, like hiring civilians to come in and work and thereby increasing the cost of running the prison?

Yeah. So there's a lot of work programs, and some relate to the operations of the prison and some do not. In this regard, the incentives are. Right. They currently use, like, early, the credit. Yeah, those type of, those are the types of incentives that they use related to work.

And so, like I said, this bill just moves it from a requirement to voluntary. What it specifically is intended to do is right now, because involuntary servitude within our constitution has that exception for punishment of a crime.

It allows great latitude for CDCR to prioritize working, which is currently done in Section 27, over rehabilitative programs or over being sick and things of that nature. So what this really does is reverses that. It makes it voluntary.

And so I think CDCR still maintains full control for the operations of their prison, and they get the authority to be able to develop a program that addresses whatever those needs are to keep a healthy and safe operation of a prison.

Understood. I'm just kind of a little concerned about how you determine whether somebody is voluntary.

I mean, there's a lot of things that are voluntary, and a lot of people call it being voluntold and how you're going to differentiate and what that leads to if there is a dispute about whether, hey, they're making me do this or not, whether that becomes a violation that we wind up having to pay for through a civil justice system.

So what I would say is that one CDCR has, you know, wide latitude to be able to address any concerns that they may have, and our bill allows that to happen. Secondly, I would say that there are way more incarcerated persons than there are actually work. Right.

And so if an inmate or incarcerated person has, feels that they do not want to do that, particularly there is someone else who may be willing to. And so I don't think we'll run into that issue. It would be different if it was over subscribed or prescribed program, but it is not.

And so I think that that will be able to be addressed by CDCR, and we give them the latitude to be able to address that. We do not hinder them in any way, which is something that has been of concern in talk about how much control to give to CDCR.

But we allow them to maintain discretion among what a voluntary work program looks like as long as they don't venture into slavery in any form, which results in involuntary servitude, forced labor and to servitude, things of that nature.

Understood, and I understand all of those concerns, and they're well founded. My concern is that we already are taking a system, the rehabilitation system, and straining it already with cuts, and yet we're looking at programs that have huge potential to increase costs within the prison. So that's my concern about this bill and others.

Until we actually have a better plan for CDCR overall, that includes all of the above, and we have the funding necessary to do it, I'm a little leery about adding on to those costs. Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other members of the committee? All right, I just want to say that until we actually push for change, which I appreciate you trying to do with this bill, we're not going to see change. And we know that, especially with systemic issues that have been lasting for decades, if not centuries.

So thank you for this timely effort. Senator Skinner.

No, go ahead. It's fine. I will move the Bill. I appreciate you're bringing it forward. I think that the fact that this is in our constitution is abhorrent and that we should get rid of it. I would like to just be able to get rid of it in our constitution in a clean way.

But I do appreciate that there are other considerations that have come forward to that might make that more difficult. But I think just on the face of it, California should not have in its constitution the ability to enslave anyone. So I support the Bill. But again, I think it would be great if we could do it, just eliminate it anyway,

I want to add that I know that this has been attempted before, and obviously we have not seen it actually move across the finish line. So I'm hoping that this will be a little bit different.

I do just want to recommend for you is that when you are talking about it with other members as it moves along, is that making it very clear what is allowed after this bill would pass.

The fact that, you know, when we go to Norway and we talk about, you know, developing good neighbors, we talk about them having the options of either working or educating themselves. And so people are going to have the question, so what do they do? Right.

So, with that, I'll ask you to close, and we can have a vote.

Thank you. And so I appreciate the discussion and the concerns. And as this bill has navigated over the last 18 months through the legislative session, we've sought to address those type of concerns, including congresswoman. Now, Congresswoman Kamlager-Dove did the same thing when she had presented this in the previous legislation session.

And so what we have attempted to do is make sure that we have our value statement and our constitution correctly that removes involuntary servitude, exception, and then at the same time, create a companion bill that actually removes that type of language, which is a requirement language to work out of the sections as it relates to how CDCR operates, and then also putting guardrails around their ability to operate a healthy and safe prison.

And I think we've struck that balance in this companion bill. This companion bill would not go forward if, for whatever reason, ACA eight fails at the ballot box.

I look forward to the continuing the discussions as we navigate the rest of the legislative process over a day as we hit towards the deadline and talking with my colleagues to ensure that we are able to make a strong value statement and at the same time, do what's necessary to ensure that our prisons operate in a health and safety, health and safe manner.

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, please?

Item number two, AB 628. Motion is due pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right, that bill's on call. Thank you, assemblymember. Thank you. We're gonna move on to Assemblymember Davies, please, who will be presenting file number 15, AB 2308.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Today I'm here to present AB 2308. I first want to thank Committee staff for working with my staff and stakeholders on this measure. Under current law, victims of domestic violence and other sexual offenses can petition a court for protective order from their abuser. These orders usually last around 10 years.

However, data showed that, unfortunately, during and after the pandemic, there's been a rise in domestic violence cases. According to Harvard Gazette, violent domestic violent cases in 2021 and 2022 rose between 25 and 33%, depending on the severity of the case. Members. AB 2308 is a common sense and narrow measure to increase the time amount of protective from 10 to 15 years.

In the case of the worst type of domestic violent crime, the ones that involve corporal injury and leaves the victim in a traumatic condition, these are victims that are physically beaten so severely they require immediate medical attention and oftentimes require stays in hospitals.

While an additional five years may not seem like a lot, this is a valuable time a victim can use to recover from their trauma, as well as raise their children away from a partner or spouse who poses an immediate threat to them.

This Bill is sponsored by the Conference of California Bar Association and has support from major law enforcement groups as well as the California partnership and domestic violence. With me here to testify and answer any questions is Michael Fern from the CCBA. On behalf of the victims who cannot be here today, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. You're gonna have two minutes.

All right. Good morning. My name is Michael Fern and I'm here on behalf of the Conference of California Bar Associations, which is the sponsor of AB 2308. AB 2308 helps address the disconnect between a domestic violence restraining order issued by a family court, which can issue a permanent order, versus a restraining order issued by a criminal court following domestic violence conviction pursuant to 273.5, which is capped at no more than 10 years and cannot be renewed regardless of the facts.

Unlike family court, a criminal court affords defendants significantly greater due process protections, including the right to counsel, the right to trial by jury, and the right to have any charges proven beyond real doubt, beyond reasonable doubt by a jury.

These rights don't exist for civil defendants, who again can obtain permanent orders in family court, and also defendants in family court, must hire an attorney and cannot get one, or must represent themselves for domestic violence survivors who participate in a criminal case all the way through conviction, whose situations and unique fact patterns warrant a court finding a restraining order beyond 10 years.

These survivors must file, under current law, a restraining order on their own in civil court against the defendant suing and serving them on their own, and this poses imposes unnecessary risks, costs and burdens to everyone.

As amended, AB 2308 would allow criminal court to issue a dv restraining order that can last up to 15 years instead of 10 years when a court again finds that the longer duration is warranted by the factual circumstances.

While this doesn't fully resolve the discrepancy between civil courts and criminal courts, it is a significant step forward that will save judicial resources, provide for greater peace of mind and improve public safety outcomes. I just want to end with a quote from Professor Jane Stover, who's the Director of the DV Clinic at UC Irvine School of Law.

From her law review article entitled enjoining abuse the case for indefinite dv protection orders, she noted the following quote, social scientists have found that lengthier orders produce more substantial safety outcomes. Multiple studies have now found a correlation between the duration of the protective order and the survivors safety, which researchers have described as a dose response relationship. According to the duration of the civil protection order, maintaining the court's protection over time is key. Thank you.

Appreciate it. Do we have any other lead support witnesses seeing none, we're going to move on. To lead opposition witnesses seeing none, we're going to move on. To me twos, state your name your and whether you support. Let's, let's speed it up, guys.

Garrett Hamilton with the California District Attorneys Association we support.

Eric Henderson on behalf of Californians United for Responsible Budget [Curb] in opposition.

Duke Cooney on behalf of ACLU, California action in opposition.

Leslie Caldwell, Houston for the California Public Defenders Association. I just want to make it clear we have with drawn our opposition. Thank you.

Corey Salzilo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association support.

Thank you. All right, seeing no other speakers, we're going to move on to Members of the Committee. Committee Members. Senator Seyarto moves the Bill. Senator Skinner, question.

This includes the amendment for the discretionary hearing.

There's no amendments on this Bill. Ah, okay. That's what CACJ wants.

Okay. Okay. I didn't realize whether there was or not. It was in my notes. Okay.

Would you like to provide any clarifying comments, Mister Fern?

Yes. So I was made aware that there may be a request by an entity to expressly include within the law the ability to terminate or modify an order, a protective order. I can say with certainty, because I've seen it, that that already exists as a matter of course within the court, the court's own inherent powers.

They can, a court that issues an order can always modify it, can terminate it either side, whether it's the person bringing the order, the DA's office that brought the order, or obtained the order, or even the defendant that's under the order. They can appear in court to ask that it be removed or modified if that's the issue.

So, number one, I think that there is a slight disagreement on that. I just want to highlight that. And you don't have to answer any further, but we would like a clarifying amendment as this moves forward to appropes, and we're hoping that you would take that very clear amendment.

It certainly will.

Okay. And we have commitment from the author, and our Committee will continue to work with you. And again, we have a motion by Senator Cellardo. Senator Skinner, did you have any other comments? All right, seeing that you have and will take the amendment, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Yeah, we said appropriate.

We can do it.

Item 15, AB 2308. Motion is due pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right, so that bill's on call. We're going to move on to Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan, who will be presenting two bills, but she will start with file item 10, AB 2021.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators, I'm proud to present AB 2021. This is a bill that came out of a conversation I was having with teenagers in my own community who were describing how many kids were using the new tobacco product, ZYN. Which, for those that don't know, is a tobacco product you place under your lip.

It's the new chew. It dissolves, it is full of tobacco, obviously addictive and carcinogenic. And I was perplexed. How did all of these kids have access to this tobacco product? Which, by the way, is flavored. In California all of that seemed to be against the law.

And what we started to learn upon researching this was that the cost of the fines if you sell to youth are so minor in the law right now, $200, that it is just the cost of doing business. And so our local stores are selling to minors, addicting them, and they are being harmed.

And so this bill is very simple. It raises the fines so that it is no longer the cost of doing business to cause addiction and harm to our children. With me here today to support the bill is Tami Dillon, a local principal for Liberty High Continuation High School.

Thank you. Thank you, Senate Members. My name is Tami Dillon. I've been in education and public education for 40 years, site administrator for 31 years, the last 13 years as a school site principal. And I have seen an incredible increase in students who are vaping and tobacco use within the schools.

Before coming here, I contacted my colleagues, and they are seeing the same thing. They said, no longer is the issue, fighting. No longer is the issue, gangs. It's drug use. It's tobacco use. It's prevalent. In the bathroom students meet 15 to 20 kids at a time.

So kids who want to use the bathrooms often can't get in there. At Lodi High School alone, first semester, the smoke detector went off 40 times in the semester.

One day it went off four times in one day. Which means the entire school has to be evacuated. Which affects testing, which affects all kinds of things that have a domino ripple effect that is negative for students. National Disease Center for Control says that tobacco is the number one contributor for preventable diseases.

And we're having students at the middle school level, ages 12 and 13, it has increased about 500%. The suspensions that are happening for tobacco and vape related issues, it is prevalent within the schools and it has become a very big issue with addictions for our kids.

We're seeing anxiety levels go up, all kinds of repercussions that come from tobacco use and it is very easy to get. I remember 15 years ago, 20 years ago, ABC, Alcoholic Beverage Control used to do sting operations for places that sold alcoholic beverages. There's nothing that happens now.

In the past, those places of established, those businesses were given kind of a frown by the local adults seeing that they were selling to, to minors. Now that's nothing. It's nothing for tobacco use and tobacco buys for minors to be happening. Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other lead, support witnesses? Seeing none. Lead opposition witnesses? Seeing none. #MeToo's.

Garrett Hamilton with the California District Attorneys Association, we support.

Joe Saenz with the County Health Executive Association, representing local health departments in support.

Thank you. Seeing no other speakers, we're going to move on to Committee Member, Senator Seyarto. I know you want to say something.

I have a question. Do we do studies on where a majority of these kids are getting their tobacco?

Since it is difficult if they go into a store, most of the stores I see do card or require some ID, what happens is the 25 year old who decides to make a business goes in and buys up a bunch of this stuff and they're the ones who actually sell it to these kids in high school, but there's nothing here for them.

What are we doing about that part of it? Because that's the majority part of it. I don't think hammering businesses and corporations with the know or should have known clause is actually going to make a dent in this problem.

And in fact it'll make the current situation even worse where you have individuals going out and not only that, but they're buying it for whatever it costs in the store. They got to make a markup so they go out and they sell it for even more.

And because the kids know that they shouldn't be buying it and if they go to the store, what happens? I mean, where are we doing to take care of that part of it?

So, I just want to point out that to your point, of the businesses you go into that are responsibly carding, that's a complete defense to this. So those folks would obviously not be hammered, which is all we ask of folks, is to card individuals and ensure they're of majority age.

And I have to say this is, I am not by any means somebody who says that I have every solution to every problem. This is a step in the right direction. If you have a bill to address the secondary problem, I'd happily support that. Senator.

No, because that would involve having an individual be held accountable. And accountability here is not going to prison or anything like that, not getting arrested, not having a record, all of those things. So we are not going to reel that in.

We're going to go after corporations, businesses, retailers, or wholesalers, doing a known or should have known clause that is actually part of our PAGA problems, too. People look for those and they turn into lawsuits. And that increases the cost of doing business, which increases the cost to all of us.

This Bill is going after the wrong people. The people that are causing the problem that this principle is talking about are their peers and the people that are attached to that are older, that are buying this and then reselling it for a markup price. So because of that, I'm not going to be supporting this bill.

They already have fines in place. But if we want to do individuals, I would be more than happy to entertain bills that would do that. I just don't want to waste my time.

Thank you, Senator.

That people will not support.

Thank you. I do just want to highlight in this Committee, in the last year and a half, we have increased penalties for those that violate the law. We have held people accountable. We have also had not only restorative bills that have come through this Committee that we have supported as well as punitive bills.

We have been as fair as possible. I would ask for a motion and also ask Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate the effort to really want to protect our kids at every turn. It's obviously a priority for, hopefully, all of us at this Committee. And so I would ask for an aye vote for everyone who puts our kids first.

Thank you. Do I have a motion? Senator Skinner?

I will move the bill, and each individual who sells or each person that sells is an individual. And this bill would hold those people accountable to uphold our law. And I think those communities that want to help make their.

We've already seen with our flavored tobacco and some of the other products' laws we've had that many of our local communities have taken an active role in enforcing. And I think we went similarly here. And this allows for our local communities to do so. So, I am happy to support it and move it.

Thank you. Thank you. We have a motion on the table by Senator Skinner.

Item number 10, AB 2021 motion is do passed to appropriations. [Roll Call]

That bill's on call. Assemblymember, would you like to present your next Bill, file number 11, AB 2527?

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, I'm presenting AB 2527 which supports the physical and mental health of incarcerated pregnant people by ensuring they have access to basic necessities and a safe environment. AB 2527 does three primary things. It codifies nutrition standards for incarcerated pregnant people.

It ensures they are provided with at least 120oz of cleaned bottled water each day, which the opposition may, as previously argue, is too much water for a pregnant person. But for anyone here who's been pregnant, you will know there's no such thing. And it prohibits the use of some solitary confinement during pregnancy and postpartum.

A report from the ACLU discussed the harms that are happening to pregnant people in our carceral system. It's unacceptable. And these are the bare minimums to protect these women and the children that they will have with me today. In support of this are Angelica Sanchez from the ESSIE Justice Group and Duke Cooney with ACLU action. Two minutes.

Good afternoon, Senator Wahab and Members of the public safety community. My name is Angelica Sanchez. I'm with the ESSIE Justice Group. I'm here to let you guys know my story. In 2004, I was incarcerated. I was incarcerated for, like, over a year. The majority of my pregnancy, I was in Allen County.

The only water that I ever drank was from the faucet in my cell. So it wasn't bottled. It wasn't, um. You couldn't buy any canteen. Um, it tasted dirty. Um, there was no. I didn't get to see the Doctor. You know, I had an e. I was anemic. I needed iron. My. You know, the food there sucked.

So, um, the only water that, you know, that was there, you know, for us, was just the one for the faucet. See, I also had little Doctor visits, although I didn't go to solitary confinement when I was pregnant. I did go, you know, other times. And you know what? I didn't get no visits. You get no commissary.

You. You're actually just talking to yourself, you know, in a room, four walls. You actually go crazy up in there, pretty much. You can't get no visits. I cannot imagine anybody being pregnant and actually being in solitary confinement. I mean, that would harm the baby, that will harm yourself, your mental state, everything.

So with that being said, AB 2527 will have deterred the experience, me and what I went through. And the people that are pregnant, people that are incarcerated people, face being treated with dignity and receiving better prenatal care and adequate nutrition. Also, this Bill will also. If it. Were to be in place.

But, you know, my baby also came out with a lot of, like, she just came out with illnesses that she still suffers from it today. You know, her immune system is really Low, really down. So, I mean, this Bill will really help us, you know, pregnant people to get a better prenatal care in there.

Water is like an essential to us, you know, and it sucks, you know, we don't get anything. You know, it's that water is nasty in LA, you know. So I would like for you guys to support this Bill. I urge you guys to vote to support AB 2527. Please help us make progress towards guaranteeing that pregnant people are treated with dignity and receive necessary prenatal care. Thank you.

And I'll also have the me too line up again. We like to go through that quickly, but please go ahead.

Duke Cooney, on behalf of ACLU California Action, AB 2527 will support the health and dignity of pregnant people incarcerated in our state by ensuring clean water, nutritious meals and the freedom from the inhumane practice of solitary confinement.

In 2016, the ACLU's of Northern and Southern California published a report, Reproductive Health Behind Bars in California, that analyzed information obtained through Public Records Act requests from a diverse sample of over five different county jails. The report found that the jails were putting people's health at risk by denying, delaying, and ignoring crucial reproductive health care.

Findings from the 2016 report helped lay the foundation for the passage of California's Reproductive Dignity for Incarcerated People Act in 2020. This act expanded reproductive and pregnancy-related health protections in California jails and state prisons. ACLU California action continues to work on implementing California's Reproductive Dignity for Incarcerated People Act.

That, AB 2527 is a crucial expansion of that law necessary to protect incarcerated pregnant and postpartum people. Incarcerated individuals face harsh conditions, including extreme levels of high stress, exposure to violence and abuse, and substandard healthcare. These can leave devastating impacts. These can have devastating impacts on both the health of the mother and their pregnancies.

In particular, pregnant individuals in California prisons and county detention facilities remain subjective to the extreme stress of solitary confinement, which can lead to prolonged psychological distress that can have severe harm. The isolation that happens from solitary confinement can result in pregnancy complications and affect the development of the fetus.

Furthermore, the use of restrictive housing can cause delays in addressing pregnancy complications, highlighting a systemic challenge within the California carceral system. For these reasons, we are proud to support and ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Can we get lead opposition?

Good morning, Madam Chair Members. Cory Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, in opposition to the Bill. We're not opposed to incarcerated pregnant persons having access to nutrition or water. I'm not sure what the author was referring to in terms of the opposition saying that 120oz is too much.

We've never opined on an amount or the propriety of 110oz versus 130oz. In fact, that goes to our argument, which is it shouldn't be put into statute. These sorts of things, as they are currently, should be addressed in the regulations that govern the state and local correctional systems.

It's more appropriate than doing so in statute because the regulations are constantly updated by stakeholders on all sides and experts who actually work with and implement these issues and have some expertise.

Further, our main concern with the Bill is the blanket restriction on the use of solitary confinement or restrictive housing unit assignments for pregnant persons for the entirety of their pregnancy plus 12 weeks postpartum without any sort of recognition of any particular circumstances in any particular case.

There are any number of situations where these types of housing assignments may be the most appropriate and safe for the person, other inmates, and staff, but this Bill creates an outright ban on their use without regard to the specifics of any potential scenario. So for those reasons, we are in opposition to the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other lead opposition thing? None. We're going to move on. To me twos. State your name, your organization, whether you support or oppose.

Shervin Azami on behalf of Initiate Justice Action and the San Francisco Public Defender's Office in strong support.

Carrie Arzate I'm system impacted and I also support families impacted by consolatory confinement.

Whether you support or oppose.

And I support the Bill and have some me too as well. Empowering women impacted by incarceration, felony murder Elimination Project, and initiate justice action supporting the Bill. Thank you.

Yolanda Navaretti with Initiate Justice, Initiate Justice Action, Felony Murder Elimination Project, and Families United to end LWAP in strong support. Thank you.

Rochelle Hill, member-led with ESSIE Justice and I support the Bill. Me too.

Katrina Reese with Initiate Justice in support.

Minerva Campos with ESSIE Justice Group in strong support.

Stephanie Flores, member leader with ESSIE Justice Group from Merced, California, and I'm in strong support.

Ruth Salady with SC Justice Group, Sacramento in strong support.

Katina Perry from it's not okay moms for change and ESSIE Justice Group in strong support for this Bill.

My name is Charise Griffin. I'm a member-led ESSIE Justice Group in strong support.

My name is Roxana Gonzalez on behalf of La Familia Lopez and Ruben Aguirre, initiate justice action in strong support.

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

Good morning. Michelle Giles, ESSIE Justice Group in strong support.

Leslie Caldwell, Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in support. Good morning. Lizzie Buchan with Smart Justice California in support.

Good morning. Annalise Ismoro with Young Women's Freedom Center in strong support.

Alicia Montero would just advocate in strong support.

Laura Laurios, outside organizer for Initiate Justice, strong support.

Good morning. I'm Bernice Singh Rogers with I'm an outside organizer with Initiate Justice I strongly support.

Eric Henderson on behalf of Vera California in support.

All right, seeing no other Members willing to speak, we're going to move on to Committee Members.

Senator Skinner, I will move the Bill. I appreciate your doing this. There have been many we've had to do statutes we should not have to do, like statutes around not shackling of pregnant people while they're in labor and various other that just from a medical perspective, make no sense.

This is apologies to the sheriffs, but I don't understand why there would be opposition. And I also think why we have to put this in statute and why it is not our practice mystifies me, but I will move the Bill.

Thank you so much. Thank you.

Would you like to close?

Yes. I think I just want to say that nothing in the Bill stops the sheriffs from exceeding the 120oz. So we're just putting a floor in. If they want to regulate that. There is more. We welcome that, but this is really the bare minimum to protect pregnant women, and there are soon to be children. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

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

Item number 11, AB 2527. Motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Bill's one call.

Thank you.

Committee. Sergeants, can we make sure that we are calling Assembly Members staffers? If you guys can call your Assembly Members. Assemblymember Kalra, Carillo, Gabriel, Haney, Papan, and Friedman, please.

[Background]

[Roll Call]

That's my favorite thing to do. Just to wait.

All right, Assembly Member Haney will be presenting his bill, file number 18, AB 2629. Jumped on you before you got out the door, right?

Wow, good timing. Thank you, Madam Chair. AB 2629 will close a loophole in existing law that allows people who are deemed mentally incompetent to stand trial to purchase and buy guns. This is already the law when it comes to people who are deemed mentally incompetent to stand trial for felony trials. Yet if somebody is found to be so in a misdemeanor trial, that is not passed on to our database in a way that ensures that they should not be able to purchase a firearm. This is already the case in federal law and in federal courts.

If you are deemed mentally incompetent to stand trial, you should not be able to purchase a gun. That is dangerous to you, it's dangerous to the community, and this is a simple, common sense law that will close a loophole and protect public safety. With me today in support of the bill is Mayra Morales, Assistant Director from the Bureau of Firearms, and Candice Chung, a Deputy Attorney General from the California Department of Justice.

Thank you. You'll have two minutes.

Okay. Good morning, Madam Chair and Senators. Again, we'd like to thank Assembly Member Haney for authoring this bill. Again, this bill just simply closes what appears to be an unintended loophole in the law. Existing state law already bans individuals found incompetent to stand trial in virtually every situation. Felony cases.

It's a misdemeanor from federal court or a misdemeanor from another state. It's also a prohibitor under federal law. So it's inexplicably that a finding of incompetence in a misdemeanor case from this state doesn't trigger the same sort of firearm prohibition. And because it's not a state prohibitor, DOJ never receives this information from the courts, which would allow us to block individuals from passing background checks to acquire guns, nor do we have the authority to remove firearms from these individuals.

Unfortunately, this has resulted in dangerous situations where defendants have remained in possession of firearms after they're found mentally incompetent to stand trial, including for offenses that involved violence or misuse of a weapon. I do want to take a second to address some of the opposition's concerns. The goal of this bill is to ensure that someone who is found incompetent to stand trial and attempts to purchase a firearm, that they're prohibited from doing so. It's not our goal to expose people to additional prosecutions or to lead to additional arrests.

We've had some productive conversations with the ACLU and discussions on how maybe best to clarify the intent of this bill. But, you know, we recognize that the majority of people suffering from mental illness are not violent. And it's our hope that law enforcement prosecutors would consider mental capacity and only sparingly prosecute these if there is a violation.

But we also recognize that mental incompetency findings only occur in cases involving fairly severe impairments that would typically indicate that the individual cannot be expected to safely possess a firearm or comply with state gun laws and responsibilities.

And unlike in felony cases where a defendant is held and treated, the majority of these misdemeanor cases, the individuals just released without treatment or supervision, but retaining their access to firearms. So this bill shores up the safety net in California, and we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Next speaker.

I have the Assistant Director here, and she's available to just answer questions if you need.

Okay, perfect. No other lead witnesses? All right, we're going to move on to lead opposition. Seeing none, we're going to move on to me too's.

Madam Chair Members, Dan Felizzatto on behalf of Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office In support.

ACLU California Action. We are opposed unless amended, but we appreciate the conversations and look forward to continuing those as we move forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other speakers? Seeing none. Members of the Committee? Can I get a motion? Thank you. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Skinner.

Item 18, AB 2629, Haney. Motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right, that bill's on call. Thank you. Assembly Member Kalra, Papan, and Friedman, and Gabriel.

Let's lift the calls for Senator Wiener.

[Roll Call]

That bill's out.

[Roll Call]

That bills out four to one

[Roll Call]

That bill's out four to zero.

[Roll Call]

That bill's out 5-0.

Do we have all the Senators on all the bills so far? . Let's lift the call for Senator Seyarto. File item number 18.

[Roll Call]

That bill's on call.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, AB 3088 seeks to articulate the standard by which procedural barriers can be overcome by innocent individuals attempting to secure their release from prison through habeas corpus petitions. This is not, this is not about people who are just going into the criminal justice system.

This is about people who are currently incarcerated and new evidence comes up that can prove their innocence. And it's about the standard by which we allow a judge to hear that evidence and have a retrial in the absence of a existing, in the absence of a statute. Under existing case law.

The procedural barriers of timeliness and successive petition considerations often bar incarcerated people from having their claims heard by a court, even when new evidence of innocence is available because of new technology, witness changing their minds, that sort of thing.

This Bill would allow for habeas petitions implicating a wrongful conviction to be evaluated on their merits rather than immediately being dismissed based on procedural grounds.

Can you imagine how frustrating that would be if you're someone in prison who were told, hey, we do think you're innocent, but because, because too much time has passed, we can't give you a new trial? Importantly, the court would still have discretion whether there should be a hearing based on the merits of the case.

AB 3088 simply articulates a standard by which the court can overcome timeliness and successiveness. This will bring innocence claims more in line with other states and with federal court standards.

I'm committed to addressing the concern raised by opposition regarding the one juror not convicting the petitioner in light of new evidence, thus continuing to work in good faith should this Bill pass out of Committee today. Testifying in support this morning is Jasmine Harris, Director, policy with the California Innocence Coalition. Thank you. You have two minutes.

Good morning, Committee Members, Chair and staff. As Assembly Member, Friedman said. My name is Jasmine Harris and I'm the policy Director for the California Innocence Coalition. We're proud sponsors of AB 3088. Assembly Member Friedman did an excellent job describing the need for the Bill and the solution AB 3088 offers.

I will just add that the result of the current system is incarcerated. Innocent people are barred from habeas petition consideration due to procedural barriers that keep them in prison, not because they don't have evidence of innocence, but because here in California we rely on case law, which sets an incredibly high standard.

Currently, if the petitioner is filing a successive or untimely petition and they cannot prove that the evidence in their petition completely undermines the prosecution's case and points unerringly to innocence, which is almost an impossible standard. Their claim will be dismissed before the court can look at the merits in the petition.

This standard is not only the highest standard in the country, but it is also higher than the standard required to reverse a conviction here in California since 2016. We are simply asking to bring the procedural bar standard in line with the standard used to reverse a conviction.

Many of you on this Committee are champions of innocent, and we appreciate this. And I know you already know this, but I would be remiss not to say every moment spent wrongfully convicted is a grave injustice. In my experience, working with people who are innocent and incarcerated, every day that passes while they're wrongfully incarcerated is excruciating.

Each day is a day without their families, another birthday celebrated without them, another funeral missed. Every day is another day they're suffering a cruel punishment not meant for them. This Bill helps bring justice to the wrongfully incarcerated. I respectfully ask for your I vote thank you.

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

Thank you. Garrett Hamilton with the California District Attorneys Association. We oppose this Bill. This Bill would create a mandate for courts to disregard longstanding rules that require habeas corpus petitioners to file new claims in a timely manner and prohibit repetitive attempts to raise previously rejected claims.

These procedural rules already permit a court to hear a petition that is unduly delayed or successive if the court finds that the claims raised would show a fundamental miscarriage of justice.

AB 3088, however, would mandate the court hear an otherwise barred petition based on a finding that a single juror would, for any reason not have convicted the defendant. It would also permit a court to ignore abusive use of writ petitions.

Such abuses include repeated petitions raising the same claims or repetitive petitions, each raising only part of a claim, even though the entirety of the information was known at the time of filing the original writ. Abuses also include using a writ to raise issues that have already been decided on their merits.

Under this Bill, AB 3088, a petitioner could file multiple petitions raising the same claim even if a court has already determined the claim is without merit. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other opposition witnesses seeing? None. Me toos, both in support and opposition. Please state your name, your organization and whether or not you support or oppose.

Glenn Bacchus, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support thank you.

Shervin Aazami, on behalf of Initiated Justice Action and the San Francisco Public Defender's office in support.

Thank you appreciate the speed.

Kerry Arzate, with Prison from the Inside Out. Community organizer, also with Initiate Justice, Initiate Justice Action. And I have a couple of me toos empowering women impacted by incarceration as well as felony murder elimination project in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Yolanda Navarretti, representing Initiate Justice, Initiate Justice Action. Felony Murder Elimination Project, Families United to End LWOP in strong support.

Thank you.

Leslie Caldwell Houston, for the California Public Defenders Association in support. I'm sorry, I can't talk fast.

Eric Henderson, on behalf of Smart Justice California in support.

Duke Cooney, on behalf of ACLU California Action. Thank you.

Appreciate that. Thank you, Members on the Committee, would you guys like to speak? Seeing none. Would you like to close?

Just the court still has discretion on whether or not they want to open a case. This is just saying that procedural, sort of a somewhat arbitrary procedural ground should not stop someone if there's real evidence that they are innocent from a court deciding whether they want to hear the case.

Thank you. And I want to make it very clear. Assembly Member, do you accept the Committee's amendments? Yes. Yes. All right, perfect. Do we have a motion? Do we have a motion, guys? Thank you. Senator Wiener moves the bill. Can we get a roll call, please?

[Roll Call]

All right, that bill's on call. Thank you, Assemblymember, we have Assemblymember Kalra presenting file item number one. AB 459.

Thank you, Madam Chair. AB 459 would make implementation fixes to the Racial and Identity Profiling Act that would improve the final data sets overall quality and facilitate better public access to the information. In 2015, the Legislature passed AB 953, which established RIPA to eliminate racial and identity profiling by law enforcement.

Under existing law, reporting agencies such as local law enforcement and the CHP are required to report data on police stops to the DOJ annually.

However, following the completion of the 2023 RIPA data reporting period, 14% of reporting agencies submitted incomplete submissions or data with errors that could not be remedied before transmittal to the RIpA board for their analysis and annual report.

Additionally, while the statute requires all RIPA data to be publicly available and specifies that law enforcement agencies are responsible for ensuring personally identifiable information of the individual stopped or the officers involved are not reported, PII is still being included in the open text data fields.

This is despite training and technical assistance from the DOJ and has led to much of this information being unavailable to the public due to privacy concerns. AB 459 addresses these issues by first updating the annual submission deadline from April 1 to March 1 to allow the DOJ more time to resolve errors.

Additionally, the Bill Incentivizes reporting agencies to meet existing deadlines with minimal errors or, at a minimum, work with the DOJ by increasing the reporting frequency to twice annually for agencies that fail to comply.

Lastly, the bill would address concerns related to the misreporting of PII in open text and narrative fields by establishing a process for researchers to apply for full access to this information under a confidentiality agreement modeled after existing disclosure processes for information related to firearms and criminal history.

Other requesters seeking access to the open text and narrative fields must file a PRA request through the respective law enforcement agency reporting law enforcement reporting agency, which would then be responsible for redacting any PII included in those fields.

With me to testify and support is Candice Chung, Legislative Advocate with the Department of Justice, and Damon Brown, special Assistant Attorney General, who is available to answer technical questions.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair, I'm Candice Chung. On behalf of the sponsor, Attorney General Rob Bonta, we'd like to thank the Committee for their detailed analysis and Assemblymember Kalra for his authorship of this bill. The DOJ realized that we needed this Bill during our implementation of RIPA.

While we would have liked to have introduced this bill earlier, we had to wait on the 2023 data to ensure that the proposed changes to the statute were evidence based and tailored to our findings. So this bill, before you, was informed by two years of full statewide data reporting, with the last reporting period ending in April 1.

But to establish a sense of scale, we have over 500 law enforcement agencies statewide that began reporting RIPA data to DOJ two years ago, with more than 4.7 million stops collected just for 2023 alone.

These implementation fixes are necessary to allow DOJ the opportunity to work with reporting agencies to rectify errors and to ensure that the subset of open text fields in the RIPA dataset are truly publicly available, as the law requires, and to make the RIPA data available for educational, research and advocacy purposes. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Otherwise, we respectfully ask for your aye vote so the letter and intent of the RIPA data collection and access to data is fully realized. If you have any specific questions, I have with me our special assistant Attorney General Damon Brown, who advises on civil rights matters.

Thank you. We'll move on to lead opposition. Two minutes.

Two minutes. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Members Corey Salzilo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, respectfully in opposition to the bill, we have and will continue to meet with the sponsors. In fact, we're meeting with them later today. But a couple of discrete issues.

The bill fails to define the terms reporting issues and unresolved errors, meaning the criteria that would be used by the AG to determine that an agency must increase the frequency of its reporting. As a clear.

It's also possible that whatever issues trigger the AG to decide that more frequent reporting is needed to remedy those reporting issues or unresolved errors would not necessarily be resolved by more frequent reporting. So we're not sort of clear on it just sort of feels like a penalty box for those who have issues with their reporting.

Additionally, this removes responsibility to disclose information about publicly the information that's made public by statute from the AG's office and places it solely with the reporting agency. And this provision, along with the bill's other requirements, will result in increased cost for and demand more resources from local law enforcement agencies.

I understand DOJ doesn't want to report these things, so they're shifting the responsibility to local agencies in this bill. So for those reasons, we're respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other lead opposition seeing none, we're going to move on to me too's. Seeing none, we're going to move on to Committee Members seeing no comments. Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Can I get a motion, please? Could I get a motion, please? Thank you. Senator Wiener moves the Bill.

Item number one. AB 459, Kalra. Motion is do passed to Judiciary Committee. [Roll Call]

That bill's on call. I appreciate it. Thank you. Assemblymember Papan, would you like to present. Thank you. AB 2692 file item number 19 by Assemblymember Papan.

Good morning. Good morning. Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. I'd like to start by saying I'll accept the Committee's amendments. Thank you. Thank you. And I'm grateful to you, Madam Chair, and your Committee staff for working so closely with my office to get this bill in a better form.

AB 2692 is about ensuring that defendants in diversion get all the mental health treatment they need. By way of background, courts are authorized to find certain incompetent defendants eligible for diversion. These participants are most often individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia, schizophrenic disorder or bipolar disorder who've been found incompetent to stand trial for felony charges.

The sole purpose of the program is to provide mental health treatment for the defendant, not prepare them to be returned to competency and to stand trial and be prosecuted.

Current statute limits the availability treatment period to two years, but does not clearly address when the two year treatment time begins, which has led to the clock starting at the determination of incompetence and not the commencement of treatment.

Because it can take a few months for a defendant to enter, to enter into diversion, this critical treatment that's really owed to the defendant is often much Shorter than intended by law.

AB 2692 as proposed to be amended, would allow courts to add up to four months to the diversion period to ensure that promising treatment isn't cut short. This will guarantee that diverted defendants receive the full benefit of their mental health treatment to ensure their long term stability and at the same time improve public safety.

Here to testify with me today is Miss Kristen Allison. On behalf of the California. No, I think Kaino Hopper is here. That's who's here to testify. One. We got one. Sorry, my notes were not updated.

No worries, two minutes, please.

Thank you. Thank you. Honorable chair and Members, I'm here today to support measure AB 2692. I'm speaking not only for myself, but on behalf of Phase Me? of Sacramento, which is family advocates of individuals for serious mental illness and many other mental health advocacy groups. I'm happy to provide a list to the Committee.

For me, AB 26 has 2692 has personal and urgent relevance. I speak from the perspective of a family supporter for our daughter who has been involved with the incompetent to stand trial programs. She is too ill from unmanaged psychosis, symptoms stemming from schizoaffective disorder, co occurring with epilepsy and substance use disorder.

To speak for herself, she is 35 years old and has tried diligently for 15 years to gain and sustain recovery, remission and rejuvenation. My daughter's brain is interrupted by paranoia, delusions, depression, cycling with mania and looping thoughts.

With no ability to concentrate or believe information from competency training, she is a perfect candidate for diversion where the goal is treatment and stability, not restoration and competency. My daughter deserves intensive and effective treatment to return her brain to its ability to think, to focus, to process information and to regain ability to make healthy choices.

This is why I believe the focus for inmates who are deemed incompetent to stand trial. Istanbul need to be engaged in effective, sustained treatment with the ability of the court to continue treatment for up to four months in order for the clients like my daughter to progress.

Gaining and retaining remission of brain illnesses that include psychosis symptoms is not always easy for people with these treatable conditions. The correct place to get well is not in a cell. Diversion in communities can work when programs are designed to be two way responsive systems, two symptoms that respond well to medications and non medication supports.

This bill will ensure these vulnerable individuals receive the maximum amount of treatment as AB 2692 allows.

Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate it. Seeing no other lead witnesses, we're going to move on to lead opposition.

Thank you, chair Member Duke Cooney on behalf of ACLU California Action we appreciate the continued conversations with the author's office, but we remain in respectful opposition to the bills written AB 2692. We feel this bill creates inequities and raises due process and equal protection concerns.

Under AB 2692 individuals may serve drastically different terms of diversion based solely on the county's available resources, disproportionately impacting those who live under under resourced communities.

By limiting statutory guardrails, AB 2692 perpetuates existing treatment delays in 2018, the Legislature passed AB 1810, a bill which served courts which granted courts the discretion to divert severely mentally ill persons from jails and into treatment.

Prior to AB 1810, courts had few options for those suffering from severe mental illness absent a conviction, AB 1810 created a sea of change in California's criminal legal system, offering pre plea deal opportunities for individuals to receive treatment in lieu of incarceration.

Unfortunately, AB 2692 increases the likelihood of undue confinement for those suffering from mental illness by reversing course and limiting the court's discretion to order that the term of diversion began on the date the court finds the person eligible as opposed to the date the person enters treatment. We're hopeful for continued conversations, but we remain in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Other opposition

Leslie Caldwell Houston for the California Public Defenders Association I was reflecting back yesterday when I was preparing my notes, thinking about being on the front page of my local newspaper, the Contra Costa Times, at that time, 35 years ago, worrying about how long it took for my clients, my ist clients, to get into the hospital.

This is just going on and on and on. It only was recently that there were limits placed on how long a person could be sitting in jail waiting to get to the hospital.

The amendment does not change our position because AB 2692 increases the likelihood of undue confinement for those suffering still increases that time for those suffering from mental illness by allowing additional time and extending time limits. This increase in time would perpetuate existing treatment delays, which are already a problem in all counties.

For example, in Riverside County, individuals may be in custody for more than six months after an order granting diversion, but prior to admission to treatment, even in well resourced counties like Alameda County, people have to wait two or three months for a bed. It is not a matter of more time. It is a matter of resources.

AB 2692 creates inequities within and across county lines that raise due process and equal protection concerns. Individuals may serve dramatically different terms of diversion based solely on any given county's available resources, disproportionately impacting persons of color and those who live in under resourced communities.

Further, it runs the risk of disincentivizing those facing lesser sentences to agree to lengthier periods of diversion. We know that jail is no place for the mentally ill. Thank you.

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

Garrett Hamilton, with the California District Attorneys Association in support.

Shervin Aazami, Initiate Justice Action and the San Francisco Public Defender's Office in opposition.

Thank you.

Eric Henderson, on behalf of California United for a Responsible Budget and Vera California, in opposition.

Yolanda Navarrete, on behalf of Initiate Justice, Initiate Justice Action, felony murder elimination project and families united to end LWOP in opposition.

Thank you.

Kerry Arzate, system impacted and also speaking on behalf of California families impacted by incarceration in strong support. And me toos, as well as empowering women impacted by incarceration.

Thank you. Seeing no other speakers, committee members? Seeing none. Would you like to close?

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I just would like to close by saying this. This bill gives those with the greatest need, the greatest opportunity for the fullest amount of treatment. We have asked for data that would say this would enhance incarceration. We've never gotten any of it.

And I would remind those in opposition that mental health diversion consists of many things. Some of it is inpatient, some of it is you go to a halfway house and some of it is outpatient treatment. So those 24 months can consist of any number of ways that we are getting people help.

So with that respectful request an aye vote.

Thank you and do we have a motion? Senator Wiener moves the bill. Can we get a roll call, please?

Item 19, AB 2692 Papan, motion is do passed as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right, that bill's on call. We're gonna have Assembly Member Gabriel present the final bill, file item 16, AB 2432 and thank you to your staff who's been patiently waiting. Thank you.