Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

All right, we are meeting today in room 2200 of the O Street building. The Senate Committee on Public Safety has begun just for a couple quick announcements. We have 21 bills on the calendar. AB 2419 by Assemblymember Gipson, has been pulled from today's agenda by the author. Two bills are on consent.

AB 2807 by assemblymember Villapodwa and AB 3083 by assemblymember Lackey. In this Committee, the author will present their Bill at the podium. Witnesses will testify at the microphone outside the well. 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 in opposition testify. We will all, we will take all additional support and opposition. Me toos. State your name, organization, on whether or not you support or oppose to keep our busy hearing going.

If you are a me too, please be lined up and ready to go again. We have 21 bills on the calendar. We take authors as they arrive to be as efficient as possible. And with that, I'm going to ask for a roll call to see if we can establish quorum.

[Roll Call]

So we have a quorum and now we are going to be waiting for authors. We have a motion by Senator Sehardo for moving the consent calendar. Can we get a roll call, please?

[Roll Call]

All right, consent's on call and we're asking for authors to show up. All right, file number seven, AB 2064 by Assemblymember Joan Sawyer, will be presented by Senator Bradford.

Thank you, Madam Chair. 2064 will establish a community violence interdiction grant program. The Bill is among 14 priorities identified by the legislative Black Caucus as it relates to their reparations package. This Bill would administer the California Health and Human Services Agency, would be administered by.

I should say, and would ensure funding for community driven solutions to decrease violence in our schools and neighborhoods as opposed to incarceration. The funds will be secured through appropriations of the savings from any future prison closures within the state.

By allocating resources to these preventative initiatives, we reduce incarceration even further and focus the finding on solutions to crime beyond incarceration of the most vulnerable and underserved populations.

2064 allows the true real rehabilitation through putting an emphasis on community and victims impacted, gives them a voice, and reduces expenditures accrued on imprisonment which has not been shown to reduce recidivism. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Do you have any witnesses? Thank you. Can we get our support witnesses, Madam.

Chair and Members, Paul Yoder, on behalf of the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry in support.

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

Good morning. Jennifer Roe with capital advocacy on behalf of the County of Los Angeles, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any Oppo lead opposition thing done? Me too's opposition seeing none. Moving it to Members. Senator Seyarto.

My only concern with this Bill is that if you visit the prison system and look at some of the programs they're trying to do to rehabilitate and educate and get people ready to come back into society and reduce recidivism, this money could be used for that because those facilities are wholly inadequate.

And I would rather see the money and the savings either be split. So some of it goes to the education outside, but also to bring the facilities that we are currently lacking within the system up to speed so that they can be effective in trying to achieve what we're trying to achieve with the people that are incarcerated.

I appreciate wanting to stop it beforehand, but I also would like us to have bills that will take in mind both of what we're trying to achieve and what the goals are, because this leaves one of those goals behind.

And I know there is a dire need for funding within the prisons to create the facilities and programs that they desperately want to use. So I will not be supporting today.

Would you make a courtesy motion so it can be on file?

I'll make a courtesy motion so we can get it on file.

Thank you. So we have a courtesy motion by Senator Seharto. Would you like to close?

Yes. And this is preventative. We're trying to stop it on the front end versus addressing it on the back end, which is we do in our prison system. And despite the billions of dollars that are being allocated for rehabilitation, it's failing miserably, as we all know.

So to continue to throw good money after a bad into a bad situation clearly hasn't produced the results that we want. We're trying to, again, do it on the front end to prevent folks from going to prison, prevent folks from needing to be rehabilitated once incarcerated. So on that note, I respect last Friday vote.

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

Item seven, AB 2064. Joan Sawyer motion is do passed to appropriations.[Roll Call]

[Roll call]

That bill is on call. AB 3241, by Assembly Member Pacheco, if you would like to present there. Whenever you're ready.

Good morning. Is it on? Okay, perfect. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. I would like to start by thanking the Committee staff for all their hard work on this bill. I will be accepting the Committee's amendments.

AB 3241 sets clear and comprehensive statewide standards for law enforcement K-9 programs with the goal of uniformity, accountability, and excellence in the use of police K-9s throughout California.

This bill will ensure that all law enforcement personnel are safely deploying K-9s and prioritizing the safety of the public and K-9 handlers, making California a leader on this issue. With me today to testify, are representatives from the California Police Chiefs Association and the Police Officers Research. I can't even speak.

I ran over here. And the Police Officers Research Association of California.

Two minutes, buddy.

I'll be quick. Chair Members Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association. K-9s are an important tool. They provide awareness that otherwise, without them, officers would not have the opportunity to detect certain threats that would have been Undetermined. With their sense of smell, hearing, they provide opportunities for time, distance, and space which give, you know, sorry chances to de-escalate the situation.

Statistics show in overwhelming cases, the deployment of a K-9 results in surrender or lawful compliance in over 90% of the situations that they're actually utilized in. Use of force instances, while rare, do occur, and there's always room to do better.

This bill will improve the programs by standardizing guidelines, certifying training, and requiring uniform reporting requirements across the state. We thank the Committee for their work on this one, the consultant for the work on the amendments, and we ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do you have your next witness?

I'll give a me too on behalf of PORAC, who's not here.

Okay. And then do we have any lead opposition? Lead opposition first. All right. So we have. Okay, no worries.

Thank you very much for your time today. My name is Chris Burbank. I am the former Police Chief in Salt Lake City, Utah, Vice President of the Major City Chiefs Organization, and President of the National Executive Institute. We should consider the fact that this bill lacks legal standard.

At a minimum, AB 3241 should be amended to include that prohibits K-9 use for resisting or threatening. That limits K-9s to only situation where a person is suspected of a felony involving threats of serious bodily injury or death, and prohibits the use of K-9s for crowd controls, especially crowd control.

This has been the standard across the country for 25 years. The IACP recommends that K-9s should not be used, especially not K-9s, that their reaction is to bite.

There are lots of opportunities for K-9s, police dogs that are trained to apprehend as well as to detect, in which their response is not a biting mechanism but a barking mechanism or a chasing mechanism. These amendments are reasonable amendments and really are the bare necessity.

In my experience as a police chief going back 15, 16 years, we changed the standard by which we used police K-9s in which their response was to bite individuals.

One it is a bad look for policing, but if you imagine the impact of another teaching an animal to bite a human being, especially in circumstances that don't rise to the necessity of this level of use of force, good policy is generated out of legislative bodies creating rules and standards by which the police operate, and then the police adhering to those legal standards that are set forth.

I urge you to vote no on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Christy Lopez and for over a decade I was a deputy chief in the U.S. DOJ Civil Rights Division, where I led police misconduct investigations of law enforcement agencies, and I now teach courses on policing and criminal procedure at Georgetown Law.

While I support legislation in this area, I am compelled to testify against in opposition to AB 3241. Because this bill, alone or in combination with 2042, fails to set clear and strict limitations on the use of police dogs.

My experience reviewing K-9 practices across the country has made clear that without clear legislative limits, AB 3241 will allow California law enforcement agencies to continue using police dogs to inflict unnecessary harm on people posing no threat to officers or others suspected of only minor crimes or no crimes at all, or in a mental health crisis.

In short, AB 3241 completely fails to address the life altering harms that brought police dogs into the legislative spotlight in the first place. Any bill passed by this Legislature that seeks to regulate the use of police dogs must have explicit statutory minimums.

At a minimum, K-9 deployment should be limited to situations where the individual is suspected of having committed a violent felony. The use is proportional to the imminent threat and where lesser force has been found, tried, has been tried, or found to be infeasible.

Lastly, while data collection analysis regarding K-9 use is critically important, the bill's data collection requirements will fail to produce the data needed for future policymaking.

The bill should be amended to require that law enforcement agencies be required to report on, among other data, accidental bites by K-9s, the reasons for and outcomes of K-9 deployments, and the cost of maintaining k nine programs, including the cost in officer time and in legal settlements.

Without this information, the Legislature, police departments, and the public will not have the information needed to make informed, rational decisions about using K-9s for force. Without explicit strict statutory standards, AB 3241 will do more harm than good, inviting unjustifiable uses of police dogs to continue, but now with a stamp of approval from the Legislature.

For these reasons, I urge the Committee to vote no on AB 3241. Thank you.

Me toos either in support or in opposition. State your name, your organization, and whether you support or oppose.

Garrett Hamilton with the California District Attorneys Association. We support.

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

Good morning. Jennifer Roe with Capital Advocacy, on behalf of the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs, the California Statewide Law Enforcement Association, the California Fraternal Order of Police, the Long Beach Police Officers Association, Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs Association, and the San Bernardino County Employee Benefit Association, all in support. Thank you.

George Parampathu, on behalf of ACLU California Action, Asian Law Alliance, and the National Police Accountability Project, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Leslie Caldwell, Houston, for the California Public Defenders Association and the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, in opposition.

Madam Chair and members, Dan Felizzatto on behalf of the Crime Victims Alliance in support.

Roxana Gonzalez, Initiate Justice, in opposition.

Katrina Reese, with Initiate Justice in respectful opposition.

Yolanda Navaretti with. I'm an outside organizer with Initiate Justice, and we respectfully oppose. Sorry.

Thank you. Any other speakers that would like to oppose this or support this bill? Seeing none, we're going to move to members of the Committee. Seeing no. Senator Bradford.

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm grappling with this measure because I know the history of why dogs were first utilized in law enforcement and it was due to slavery and then pursuing runaway slaves. And when you look at the data, most of the folks who are mauled by police dogs are people of color.

As an individual who is a dog lover, who spent 20 years of my life training German shepherds, Schutzen, which is a discipline of tracking obedience and protection, many of those individuals side-by-side were police officers. And I heard the stories of how they let their dogs loose on individuals and laughed as they mauled individuals.

So, do we need to rein this in? Yes. But again, I have to echo the concerns that the police chief stated as to when dogs should be deployed and it shouldn't be for a biting process.

We just saw just a few months ago, not here in California, but I forgot the state where you clearly saw an individual stop roadside. The guy was complying and one of the officers released a dog.

And that dog began to maul this individual so badly that even the officers were screaming, saying bring the dog back, retrieve the dog back. So, I think it needs to be some more guidelines. And I'm pretty sure a friend of mine who is now retired from LAPD. I would like to know the question.

What happens if the dog, you release a dog and that dog is injured? What is the response of an officer if that happens?

What happens if the dog is injured?

Yes.

I can.

How do police officers respond if the dog is injured?

I can have my witness testify as to that.

Yeah, I'll say after every incident, there's a review and an analysis. If the dog is injured or if there's any kind of excessive force or any type of abuse that occurs, unlawful, there's a review. The dog's pulled off, retrained, reevaluated, reassessed before they're actually put back into the field.

The dog is injured by the assailant that you're released onto. How do you respond to that? Same way attacking an officer. How would you respond?

I mean, every incident is going to be dynamic, and it's going to be dependent upon the level of force that's being used against. You know, there are bodies of law that regulate what type of force can be used.

We went through a year-and-a-half-long debate here about the use of force requirements for deploying any type of use of force, including a K-9. So, all of that is applicable here. Proportional force is required. It must be serious. It must meet the threat that's being presented.

You can't just use, you know, overwhelming force against somebody if they're not actually presenting that level of threat or threatened resistance. So, all of that is in play. It's in place. You know, I would disagree slightly with the comments that were made. There are those standards.

We spent a long time developing those standards that do apply to the use of canines, and we all agreed to what was set forth both in statute and in policy and training. This is now specific to the use of the canines. So, it's getting even more detailed and more granular on these exact type of programs.

So again, there are a comprehensive regulations already in place. We're doing more now.

We've got a companion bill that we've worked, you know, with throughout the course of the last year and a half to make sure that that proportional force requirement, while it's not in our bill, you're going to hear it presented by the second bill that's going to be here looking like right after ours.

So, all of that is what we're trying to address here. And we did have a legal standard that we tried to figure out in the scope of this bill. Unfortunately, we, you know, opted to remove it because we couldn't quite get there.

But the legal standard that is in place right now for any use of force still applies for the use of force on the K-9s, including, again, the proportional force requirements that you cannot use excessive force against, you know, a lower level of force that is unnecessary.

I appreciate that.

And I know this is more anecdotal, but I've heard from friends of mine were in law enforcement, a scenario that they were in one time, they released a dog in a garage, and they heard the dog yelp, and they knew the dog had been injured, and they decided right there that person wasn't coming out that garage alive, and they killed that person.

The dog wasn't killed, but the fact that you attacked the dog, they looked at as attack on officer, which he is an officer. The dog is an officer. But it shouldn't require someone to lose their life over injuring a dog, and that person lost their life.

And I can make a comment as to that. Understand the question at first, but I think every case is case by case, and most incidents, I haven't heard of any such incident where someone has killed another person because they have attacked the dog. And that's actually not in this bill.

This bill is just to set statewide standards as to the deployment of canines. I appreciate your comments. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Seyarto.

Thank you very much. And thank you for your bill. I know there's been attempts to address some of the issues regarding police dogs over the last couple of years. And, you know, the use of police dogs for anybody that works in public safety or has been in public safety over the last 30 years can tell you that it has evolved.

The dogs are highly skilled and trained, and that doesn't mean there's not room for more. And I think your bill addresses that by creating the very standards and also, you know, with the training requirements that fit today's world. The dogs are extremely useful.

I've, you know, when we're speaking about anecdotal stories, I didn't listen to somebody else who listened to somebody else. I've actually been able to see the results of incidents that don't have dogs versus incidents where the dogs were utilized.

And while it may have created a, you know, the use of the dog actually de-escalated a situation or situations that I've been in, and it's also resulted in way less injuries for the person that was trying to be apprehended but hiding, and they did have weapons. And so, you know, all these different incidents that happen.

Yeah, you know, things happen when you're using any tool. When you're driving your police vehicle incidents happen. It is a tool, and it is a valuable tool. Dog's ability to smell and locate somebody that's hiding can prevent an officer from being ambushed and shot, and that's why they deploy them in those situations.

Not to say that we could use more training, and I like that your bill focuses on that as opposed to talking about the history of dogs way back 150 years ago and saying that that's a reason for us not to use them at all. I think they're valuable.

As sad as it is, you know, when a dog gets shot, which we have had, in fact, we had one in Paris that got shot and killed, and it didn't result in, you know, other people getting killed, sometimes it does.

And because those people remain, remain a threat, and they continue to threaten at a lethal force, and so lethal force is used to take them down. So all of these anecdotal stories, they're here, they're on both sides.

But at the end of the day, for public safety purposes, we have to find an area where we do have, we do are able to use these police dogs, and we need to enable them to be used as safely as possible. But understanding that they're just like anything else, you know, there's going to be bad incidents.

And for those that are accidentally bitten, there are certainly recourses that compensate people when that happens. And that's the legal part of it. So, it's not like they bite somebody and nothing happens and they go on. But, you know, I'd rather, I've treated both. I'd rather treat a dog bite than a bullet wound.

And because I can tell you in almost 99% of the cases, the bullet wound is a lot more lethal. Thank you.

Thank you, senator.

Thank you. Considering that we have two K-9 bills and both authors in this hearing room today, I do want to highlight a couple of things. One, I want to thank you as the author for accepting the Committee amendments. I do know both bills have amendments given to the authors, which I believe both have accepted.

I want to say that from the outset, this Committee does deeply care about this particular issue. And I agree that, you know, we do need more parameters and standards for the use of K-9s when it comes to law enforcement and their duties on the job.

I will say personally, I'm not a big fan of using animals in any circumstance for, I'm not a big fan of zoos or aquariums or things like that. I just don't believe that that should be part of an animal's life.

But at the same time, I do want to highlight, as a city council member, we've had a number of different K-9 issues that have come up in our city, in my previous city. And one of the concerns that I've always had was the fact that oftentimes the K-9 goes after the wrong person, number one.

Number two is the fact that the damage of a K-9 bite does result in nerve damage. It also creates a lot of fear. For example, there are some cultures that just genuinely do not like animals. They do not necessarily. There's a fear of dogs.

Some people believe it's an outside animal, and they are able to get into places that obviously human beings can't get into as quickly.

So, for example, if the example about a garage and so forth, if the animal were to go into the wrong person's garage, if that person was afraid of dogs, if that person felt like they were defending themselves. Right? There's a lot of concerns there as to what is appropriate.

When should a canine be released and what it should be utilized for? Obviously, when we go into an airport and we see canines that are either sniffing for bombs or drugs or anything like that, you know, that makes sense. The handler is holding it.

But we also see a lot of videos on social media that clearly show that officers are not fully trained in utilizing an animal. More specifically, pulling the animal off an individual after they are being attacked. Right? At the end of the day, it is an animal. Right?

Number two, we've also seen a significant number of videos that show an officer potentially abusing a dog as well, either leaving it in a vehicle that has overheated and that animal has died, or even just abuse, because that's how they believe that they can get the dog back in line.

So, I think that there's a significant amount of concern, and rightfully so, as we are dealing with, again, a creature that cannot also advocate for themselves. So, we are talking about animals and the work that they do and so forth, and at the end of the day, also people's lives as well as the animal's life.

So, I agree that it is crucial that police receive the proper training and that law enforcement agencies publish data regarding the use of K-9s. I also think that we should try to force. We should, you know, take a look at a solution on something that is important as use of force standard with limited time to negotiate before our last hearing.

This is our last hearing, and the fact that, you know, the multiple sides that have talked about this issue have not come to some solid agreement as to what does this look like moving forward. Again, people's lives are at stake.

I am deeply concerned about the animal as well, and just a tool that we have been utilizing without any real standards there. Right? So I am concerned about that. I'm hoping that both authors work with each other as well as the advocacy groups on both sides of this discussion.

The Committee amendments removing that standard and delaying the bill's other requirements reflect the Committee's desire that the proponents and opponents of this bill continue negotiating next year to find a workable compromise regarding that legal standard.

My staff obviously clearly wants to help in this regard, and at that point, I just want to say that this is a clarification of removing the standard doesn't mean that no use of force standard will apply to police K-9s, simply that the use of force standard developed in case law will continue to govern for the time being.

With that, I would ask you to close and we can move forward.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to present my K-9 bill. I am committed to working with the author of the companion bill. We have been working together since the on the Assembly side. We are continuing to work together, and so I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? Senator Seyarto moves the bill.

Item 21, AB 3241, Pacheco. Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll cal]

That bill's on call. Thank you. Thank you. Next we have Assemblymember Jackson. Assemblymember Jackson will be presenting file item, well, two file item three, the AB 1799.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. AB 1799 will amend the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting act to remove the reporting requirement of General neglect for mandated reporters. The current definition of General neglect is overly broad and incorporates situations that are screened out by Child Protection Agency hotline workers at a high rate.

The removal of the General neglect is an official recommendation of the Child Welfare Council of California in which I am a member and as a mandated reporter and as a former mandated reporter, as a social worker reporter.

This also makes sure that reporting requirements will lower the rate of screened out and unsubstantiated calls to enable resources to be redirected to substantiated cases of abuse and severe neglect, and even more importantly, reduce the harm and trauma to children's families and communities.

Amending this to remove General neglect from mandated reporting requirements would not prohibit mandated reporters from reporting General neglect if they determine a child is a substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness. Further, California must ensure that mandated reporters are adequately trained and community resources are available and accessible to support the implementation of this amendment.

The Child Welfare Council has a series of recommendations, of which this is only one to begin this process of changing how mandated reporting is done in California.

So, we don't see the huge disparities that exist when it comes to reporting based upon racial and ethnic data, and to ensure that the overly taxed system is able to focus on not those issues that are more subjective and can lead to some really bad outcomes that we've seen over the last few decades.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Do you have any witnesses?

I do not.

All right. Since we have no lead witnesses, we'll move on to lead opposition seeing none lead opposition. Okay.

Good morning. Eileen Kabanski with the County Welfare Directors Association. I want to say I agree with everything the author just said on this Bill.

We are Members of the mandated reporting to community supporting task force that made a series of recommendations, including the one in this Bill, to work together to support the overall goals of supporting children and family in their communities and reducing unnecessary child welfare involvement, as well as reducing disparities in the child welfare system.

Our concern with this Bill and why we haven't opposed unless amended on it, is that this change alone to the General neglect reporting will not have the intended effect of reducing calls to child welfare without two other task force recommendations. We believe that need to be enacted concurrently and are critical to the success of this Bill.

First, the training of mandated reporters must be updated and importantly, standardized to explain the new policy and responsibilities under it. If all mandated reporters don't understand it and aren't trained consistently on how to apply it, there will be confusion and the default will be to report.

And second, the liability standards for mandated report must be updated if mandated reporters and attorneys who advise them fear prosecution or civil liability. This leads to fear based decision making that will continue to lead to overreporting as the default.

So, we ask that the Bill be amended to incorporate those two provisions consistent with the task force recommendation and delay implementation of this particular change to the reporting requirement to July 1, 2026, while the training and liability changes are implemented.

We want to see the changes proposed by this Bill succeed, but we do not think it is as effectively accomplished in a piecemeal fashion. And thank you for the opportunity to present.

Thank you. Any other lead opposition? Seeing none. Can we just get me twos? Whether you support or oppose the Bill.

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

Ann Quirk, Children's Law Center of California in support.

All right, we're going to move to Members of Committee, Committee Members seeing none. Would you like to close?

Sure. I appreciate the opposition's statements. I totally agree. We have a whole lot more recommendations, and it's my intent to continue to work through those. Just to be honest.

We know we're in a fiscal situation, and when you start trying to do training and creating curriculum and doing websites and all that stuff, number one, who knows when that website is going to be done?

But I think overall it's more appropriate to do those other items through the budget process and which I intend to do next year. But the idea is that we've got to change this. We know this has been a problem for such a long time, and we're going to get the job done.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? We have a courtesy motion by Senator Seyarto.

Item three, AB 1799. Jackson. Motion is do pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

That bill's on call. Our next Bill will be presented by Assemblymember Jackson, file number four, AB 2042.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, AB 2042 is part of the companion legislation to ensure that California has its first ever statewide standards when it comes to the use of police K9.

This has been a very thoughtful, and I would say various rigorous conversations that we've had, really discussing line by line what should be in these bills, to making sure that everyone knows that this is intended to be a very balanced approach, but to also make sure that we move forward.

It is just simply not acceptable for California not to have statewide guidelines for all of law enforcement to be able to follow. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And I just want to make it clear. Do you accept the Committee amendments?

I accept the Committee amendments.

Thank you. Do we have lead witnesses? Seeing none. Lead opposition.

Thank you. Again, just to restate, my name is Chris Burbank, and I am a retired Police Chief. I won't go through my resume as to what I've done before, but I think it's important this morning to discuss a few things that have been brought up or mentioned.

One is the fact that most policy across the nation and in California prohibits the deployment of a canine on a barricaded or armed suspect that's going to potentially harm the canine, and so this does not alleviate the burden of a police officer. In fact, it's not even taking the place because policy prohibits that.

So we are reserving the use of a canine not for the most serious and dangerous situations in which an officer encounters, but those that are at a lesser standard. And again, when that lesser standard is vague or unclear, we are leaving that to the decision of the officer.

The other thing that I think is important is animals, no matter how well trained, make mistakes. They have a mind of their own, they are unpredictable, and while I will absolutely agree these are amazingly trained individual animals, they do make mistakes. One of the things that I think is important is an apprehension dog, their reward, how they are trained, is to bite.

So biting an individual is the reward. Biting a human being is the reward that the animal gets for performing adequately. And I think that's important when we think about what is the purpose of policing, and as we look and we start down the road, I believe the same amendments that I spoke of should be in place, especially crowd control.

But as we look and we consider what is the role of policing in our society today and why are we experiencing what we are experiencing, it is because we have a crisis of legitimacy taking place here. Legitimacy is not found in 'trust us, we'll tell you what's best for you,' legitimacy is found in good, solid bodies such as this: making decisions, outlining guidelines, good, common sense guidelines that meet the needs of all involved, that are realistically, and I encourage you to vote against this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, again. My name is still Christy Lopez, and for over a decade, I was Deputy Chief in the U.S. Department of Justice, as I said, and I teach at Georgetown Law. While many California law enforcement agencies do not use dogs for force at all, in some, the option of using canines to inflict serious harm on people who have committed only minor violations has become normalized. And this is in part because the Fourth Amendment case law that has been developed in this area provides insufficient guidance.

Legislation does provide the best opportunity to hit the reset button on this normalized abuse and to create consistent, detailed, and strict limitations for when canines may and may not deployed. Unfortunately, I'm compelled to testify against AB 2042 because the standard it would set at the state level is worse than that of many police agencies, including agencies in California. Most anachronistically, the bill permits the use of police canines for crowd control. This should be completely off the table.

The United States Department of Justice has stated that canines are inappropriate for crowd control, and just last year, in a letter to the Assembly Public Safety Committee, California police departments expressed agreement with a section of the bill that sought to prohibit the use of canines for any form of crowd control.

This legislation should directly prohibit the use of crowd control and not leave it to POST to do whatever they see fit. AB 2042 also allows canines to bite people based on a threat of resistance. I am unaware of any court decision or statute permitting use of force in this manner.

Just two weeks ago, the United States Department of Justice found that the Phoenix Police Department, which, like California is in the Ninth Circuit, had a pattern of using unreasonable force, in part because officers were trained to use force against speculative threats of resistance. In the same vein, this bill's overly permissive language invites the use of excessive force.

Lastly, the bill's language allowing deployment where proportional to the seriousness of the offense, does not provide clear guidance. Based upon my decades of reviewing canine practices, I can assure you that to prevent the abusive use of canines, it is necessary to set out clear restrictions. At a minimum, police canines should only be deployed if the suspect has committed a violent felony. The use is proportional to the imminent threat unless the force is not feasible. Thank you.

Thank you. We're going to move on to support or opposition MeToos.

Lesli Caldwell-Houston for the California Public Defenders Association, in opposition; also the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, in opposition.

George Parampathu, on behalf of ACLU California Action, the National Police Accountability Project, and Asian Law Alliance. We have an opposed unless amendment position. Thank you.

All right, seeing no other speakers. Senator Seyarto? All right. I do want to make it very clear that the committee amendments include a prohibition on the use of canines for crowd control. So that is a clearly stated point. So, Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Yes. Obviously, when you're dealing with issues like this is very complicated, and that's why we've been trying to make sure that, again, the goal of these two pieces of legislation is to have a balanced approach and to make progress and to address this issue that we've seen in the data.

You know, I really think that also, this doesn't prohibit POST from continuingly looking and revising these policies into the future if we see there's some other things that need to be addressed, but in talking with those who are supporting or opposing this bill, it just seemed to me that no one really had much trust in about anything to be able to come to a consensus, which is why POST exists, and I think that this is a reasonable start.

There's no secret how I feel and how I've had a previous bill that was definitely more aggressive, but simply doing nothing, I think, is overly permissive as well. And so, you know, respectfully ask for an aye vote and we're going to continue to look at this and do the best we can for the people of California.

Thank you. And again, I know you were here when I mentioned my other comments, so I'm hoping that we have something on the table for next year. I do appreciate your work and the comments still stand for me. Do we have a courtesy motion?

Yes. Courtesy move.

We have a courtesy motion by Senator Seyarto. Can we get a roll call?

Item Four: AB 2042: Jackson. Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call].

So that bill's on call. Thank you. All right, we're going to move on to file item number two by Assemblymember Bryan, AB 544.

Good morning, Madam Chair.

Good morning.

And Senator Seyarto. Here to present AB 544, which created a pilot program to improve voter participation in California, specifically in jails. People who are incarcerated in jails across California still legally maintain their right to vote. Over three-quarters of people who are incarcerated in our jails are there pretrial.

The problem is we don't facilitate elections in jails very well. Some counties have vote-by-mail programs to facilitate voting in jails. However, statistics indicate that incarcerated people, a group overwhelmingly compromised of low-income communities of color, still experience significant barriers to voting and accessing voter education materials, which results in lower overall voter turnout.

AB 544 will create a pilot program that will provide grants to three counties to improve voting access for people who are incarcerated in local jails. It will require the pilot counties to establish a location where incarcerated people can vote, return their completed vote by mail ballot, update their voter registration, and conditionally register to vote.

The pilot program will bring us closer to the kind of parity we're seeing in other states across the country. Just recently, the entire State of Colorado turned every single jail into a polling place.

We've also seen this kind of local jail facilities turning into polling places in Washington, DC, Cook County, Will County in Illinois, Harris County, Texas, so on and so on. This Bill takes us closer to a democracy that includes everybody. Here to testify and support is Tom Tran, the architect of this Bill for many, many reasons.

From the Ella Baker Center.

Thank you. You'll have two minutes.

Thank you. My name is Tom Tran, policy consultant with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. When democracy works, it works really well. An example of when it worked really well was one of my good friends, Marcus, who I was incarcerated with. And he shared with me a rare occurrence that happened in county jail.

A kind correctional officer volunteered during his shift to make sure that everybody in the pod that he was incarcerated and knew that they had the right to vote. And his officer was also willing to volunteer to make sure that they casted the ballot. And Marcus, at this time, had never voted before.

He didn't know if he was eligible to vote. He didn't know the issues that he was going to be voting on. But when he saw line by line, the issues that affected his mother, that affected his children, that affected his family, he, for the first time ever, transformed his relationship to the community.

For the first time ever, he felt like he had a stake in the community. And I shared this in the Assembly, and I'll share it here. The day that Marcus voted for the first time in county jail was the day that Marcus left the gang life in county jail.

The day that he voted and casted his first ballot in county jail was the day that he recommitted to being a father in spite of his incarceration. The day he casted his ballot in county jail, democracy worked.

So AB 544 is about taking this rare instance of transformation in democracy and replicating that experience, expanding that experience and not relying on one kind officer, but relying on us as Californians to say that the transformative power of democracy needs to be accessible to everyone, especially the black and brown communities hat overrepresent our incarcerated population.

So I implore you to please pass AB 544.

Thank you. Do you have any other lead witnesses seeing? None. Can we get lead opposition? There is none. Thank you. Can we get metoos?

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

Antoinette Ratcliffe with Initiate Justice, proud cosponsors in strong support. And I also have the proxy of giving the support of League of Women Voters California. Thank you.

Thank you.

Panorea Avdis, on behalf of the California Community Foundation, in strong support.

Yadi Younse with Oakland Privacy in support.

Barbara Chavez with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in strong support.

Tatiana Lewis with the Ella Baker Center in strong support. Thank you.

Ed Little on behalf of Californians for Safety and Justice in support.

George Parampathu on behalf of ACLU California Action and Disability Rights California. Thank you, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Bernice Singh Rogers, an outside organizer for Initiate Justice and Inmate Family Council of Salinas Valley, I strongly support.

Rosa Ortez Lucero. I strongly support.

Thank you.

Laura Laurios outside organizer for Initiate Justice. Strongly support.

Mark East Mason, California Environmental Voters in support. Thanks.

Debray Sanders, Catalyst California. Strong support.

Thank you. All right, moving on to Members of the Committee, Committee Members, Senator Seyarto has a question.

Quick question. So when they register vote, are they voting in the city that they're in or the county that they're in, or are they voting in the county they came from? In other words, if they're housed in Murrieta, but they're kept at a prison system up here in Folsom. Are they registering for Folsom or Murrieta?

So it is in the county. This is only for county jails, which are located in the county where you live and where you are. I would love to restore voting rights for folks who are in prison that would have their vote counted.

In other words, like, it's an absentee voter type situation.

It is. You are voting from where you're from.

And that's what this does or it does not...

That is what this does, and that is what I wish we also did at state prisons.

Mm hmm. Okay. Thank you.

All right. Do we have a close from the Assemblymember?

Yes. This Bill received bipartisan support, and the other house has no known opposition. People who are incarcerated have their right to vote. We just don't do it well, we should do it better. Democracy thrives when it includes everybody. I want to thank my witness, Tom Tran, for being here today. Without him, this Bill doesn't exist.

And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Okay, so do we have a courtesy motion?

I'll give a courtesy motion.

You have a courtesy motion by Senator Seyarto. Can we get a roll call vote?

Item number two, AB 544. Bryan. Motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

[Roll Call].

No bipartisan support here. Sorry.

Not yet.

Thank you. We are asking for other authors to show up. 2200. We have a long list. All right, we can lift the call. Let's start from the very top, so Senator Skinner can--you ready? Ready? Let's start with consent.

Consent calendar is currently at three to zero. [Roll Call]. Item Number One: AB 1186. No, we didn't do that one. Sorry. Item Number Two: AB 544: Bryan; motion was do pass to Appropriations. Current vote is one to one. [Roll Call].

That bill's on call.

Item three: AB 1799: Jackson; motion is do pass to Appropriations. Current vote is one to zero. [Roll Call].

That bill's on call.

Item four: AB 2042: Jackson; motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. Current vote is one to zero. Skinner?

Okay. Apologies. I have to ask questions.

This is the Jackson bill. It took amendments.

Okay cuz that was a name change?

It's a do pass as amended to Approps.

So taking the crowd, we took the crowd control out, which is, I think, what you wanted.

They both took amendments. It is complimentary to each other and nothing significant in the sense that next year they have to come back to the table.

All right, let's. Let's keep going. Moving on to item number seven, AB 2064. Joan Sawyer. Motion is do passed to appropriations. Current vote is two to one. Skinner, aye. Skinner, aye. Item number 21, AB 3241. Pacheco. Motion was do pass as amended to appropriations. Current vote is two to zero.

We're coming back.

Okay.

All right, thank you. Now we have file item 18, AB 2959 by Assemblymember Ortega. She will present. I will highlight the fact that we have a couple of Members of the Committee presenting their own bills and serving on other committees, myself included.

I will be stepping out in a little bit as well, and Senator Sayarto will take over. Assemblymember, whenever you're ready.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Senators. Thank you for the opportunity to present AB 2959 before you all today. This Bill directly affects the lives of countless families across our state. Currently, families visiting their loved ones in CDCR facilities are confronted with extraordinarily high food prices.

Additionally, visitors are limited in the amount of money that they can bring into facilities. Families can only bring up to $70 per adult or $40 per child to buy snacks and food items.

The cost of food in these facilities is unregulated, which results in prices that are sometimes two or three times higher than what they would be in a local store. AB 2959 aims to rectify this.

It requires that food prices and prison vending machines align with the average market retail price in the communities where the prisons are located. AB 2959 is a step towards fairness, affordability, and dignity. Witness. Today I have testifying with me, Lawrence Cox with the regional advocacy and organizing associate for legal services.

We also have Jennifer Penrose with the power and Unity fellowship.

Thank you very much, both speakers that are primary witnesses. You have two minutes each. Welcome.

How you guys doing? My name is Lawrence. I am system impacted. I spent 17 years behind the walls enduring incarceration because of my own actions. I'd also like to uplift that rehabilitation is key.

Public safety committees have always agreed that one of the best conduits to helping decrease recidivism is including and uplifting visiting, and that requires removing barriers to visiting. Also, if we want to remove barriers to visiting, we have to look at these visiting rooms.

Our visiting rooms are our conduits to increasing these opportunities for individuals to have moments and to share time with their family and their loved ones. It's difficult to do that when prices are sometimes marked up anywhere from two to 300 to 400, sometimes even 500%.

And we also have to realize that some of these families come from lower economic backgrounds and already single homes that are struggling to make it on the street already as well.

So, what this Bill actually seeks to do is kind of ease the burden and cap the price that vendors are allowed to charge on the food that are in the vending machines.

I think this would go great for helping increase the environment and the likelihood that individuals will be able to afford to come travel and see their loved ones more often than they probably already and I will.

Jennifer, thank you very much. And you have two minutes, ma'am.

Okay, thank you. Hello members. Thank you for hearing me. I'm Jennifer Penrose with Power and Unity Fellowship and I am system impacted today. I'm here to testify on the struggles I personally face in the visiting room with the vending machine and quality and prices and the importance of AB 2959.

If you were out for a weekend with your loved ones at the farmer market and, sorry, you cut a whiff of something that smells good, it's a vendor there selling street Tacos and you find out that the Taco is $10, you are going to probably pass on that and go home and make some food or go somewhere else with better quality prices.

We don't get that opportunity. Unfortunately. Our families are offered gas station quality burgers, burritos, pizzas and chips for the weekend. Weekend in and out. Only the prices are over double than that at the gas station. We aren't allowed to bring food into the prison and we're not offered any other options.

These vendors are monopolizing off of a demographic of people who are already struggling to get by. I'm the mother of two school age children. I am a full time college student and I work less than part time. I'm financially responsible for everything in our family from rent, bills, sports, field trips, necessities, quarterly packages, and visiting.

This weekend, I will have to make a choice to either borrow from my rent money or submit my rent money because temperatures will reach over 105 degrees in Vacaville.

I want to go take my husband out of that hot cement building that will probably reach over 120 degrees and give him some relief from the heat that will cost my family $320 this weekend. And for me only being 20 minutes down the street, that's still a lot.

But there are families that come from far that have to pay almost a whole month's worth of rent just for one weekend to spend with their family.

Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. All right, do we have any lead opposition witnesses? If we don't, we'll take the me too's. Anybody who is in favor or opposing the Bill, please come up. State your name, your opposition or approval, and the organization you represent. Thank you.

Leslie Caldwell Houston. For the California Public Defenders Association in support as well as the San Francisco public office in support.

George Brampthew, on behalf of ACLU, California action in support. Thank you.

Katrina Reese, on behalf of Initiate Justice in support. Barbara Chavez with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support as well as all of us or none. Oakland in support. Good morning. Tatiana Lewis from the Ella Baker center and strong support as well as legal services for prisoners with children. Thank you. And little on behalf of Californians for safety and justice and support.

Bernie Singh Rogers, outside organizer with Initiated justice and Inmate Family Council with Salinas Valley. I strongly support. Laura Larios, outside organizer with initiated justice and I strongly support.

Rosa Ortez Lucero. I strongly support also.

Okay, I thought you were coming up to say that you support, so I was waiting. All right, so we will bring it back to the dice. Any questions? I have a motion. Senator Skinner, I think you're the only one that can make a motion of you.

Sorry, I moved the Bill.

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

I respectfully ask for your. I vote when the time is right.

All right. Will you please call roll item 18, AB 2959. Ortega. Motion is due. Pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Phone call's on call.

I will so that Bill will remain on call.

Thank you.

Miss Sanchez. You're back. We're going to take you next. Come on up. Thank you for your patience and giving you the extra steps. We gave you extra steps today. It's one of those weeks. Yes, all good.

All right, great. This is AB 1978, I believe.

Thank you, Mister chair and Senators, I want to thank the Committee for hearing this Bill. Street racing is an epidemic that has led to the preventable deaths of countless people across California.

California has seen a sharp rise in illegal street racing as street racers take advantage of the highways, parking lots and roads through forcibly blocking cars from using the these roseways. Illegal street racing is not only dangerous, but it often has fatal consequences for participants, pedestrians, commuters, and law enforcement alike.

On January 1, 2024 a 23-year-old woman was killed by a driver who lost control of the vehicle while participating in a sideshow in Stockton, California. This is just one of the countless cases of senseless and preventable deaths from street racing accidents.

Under current law, law enforcement often struggle to effectively curb sideshows and exhibitions of speed as oftentimes, these sideshows just continue in a different intersection with the same participants after law enforcement broke up.

The original event, AB 1978, will allow peace officers to seize a vehicle that blocks a road to facilitate street races without needing to take the owner of the vehicle into custody.

This will ensure that speed exhibitions will not continue in a different location once a street race has been dispersed by peace officers and will keep roads, pedestrians and other drivers safe. This Bill is supported by many groups aiming to protect innocent bystanders, such as Street Racing Kills, the Connor Lynch foundation and SoCal families for safe streets.

Testifying with me today is Lieutenant Brandon Epp with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.

Thank you. As the lead, our lead witness for the Bill.

You have two minutes. Thank you, chair and Members branded up on behalf of Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. This is very timely because over the past three days in Los Angeles, we saw two major street takeover events. Each event saw more than 50 cars block off two different intersections on two different days in Los Angeles.

One of the events caused two vehicles to be burned down. And the other event, which happened yesterday morning at 03:00 a.m. saw a MTA bus being taken over with passengers and it was vandalized completely. Luckily, no passengers were assaulted or battered, but it was.

I'm sure as a bus rider, it would be quite traumatizing to see 50 vehicles surround your bus, begin a sideshow, and then start vandaling, vandalizing the bus that you're in. So it's very timely. We need any deterrent we can get out there. These are popping up every weekend in each one of these shows.

Not only do you have the performers in the show, but you do have these aiders and abettors that are blocking the streets, deterring egress and ingress, primarily preventing law enforcement from entering so we can take action. I would also argue that by towing these vehicles, I think it would fall under the community caretaking doctrine.

Because if we cite this person and give their car back, they're not just going to go home and call it quits. They're most likely going to go out later that day and commit the same crime. And if not that day, they're going to go out the next day and the following weekend.

So I think we would be protecting the community and caretaking the community by making sure this car doesn't or isn't available over the coming days or weeks. So, with that, I support this Bill on behalf of La County sheriff, and we encourage your aye vote. Thank you. Very much.

Thank you, sir. Okay. Any other lead witnesses in support? Okay. Lead witnesses in opposition coming up. You have two minutes each. Thank you.

Hi. Good morning. Chair Members Eric Henderson, on behalf of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area and respectful opposition to AB 1978.

Based in San Francisco, Lawyers Committee is one of the oldest civil rights institutions on the West Coast and works to dismantle systems of oppression and racism and build an equitable and just society. AB 1978 presents serious constitutional concerns, which are noted in detail in this Committee's analysis of the Bill.

Under the Fourth Amendment, a warrant is required to tow a vehicle unless the vehicle falls under a limited number of exceptions to the warrant requirement. The vehicles that would be towed under AB 1978 are not accepted from the warrant requirement.

Courts have made it clear that even if cities are following a state law, if the underlying tow violates the constitution, cities can be held liable for their actions. This Bill will undoubtedly expose cities to resource intensive litigation and costly liability while encouraging them to violate their citizens most fundamental rights. Furthermore, AB 1978 creates the potential for misuse.

As currently written, AB 1978 does not require individuals to have used their vehicle in a sideshow or street race for it to be impounded. Allowing officers the discretion to impound the vehicles of individuals who are not actively participating in the sideshow or street race raises the risk of discriminatory or inequitable policing.

Losing a vehicle to an impound is extremely harmful to low income and working people and can have a cascade of negative consequences. There are better approaches to addressing street takeovers that do not infringe upon an individual's constitutional rights or require the impound of vehicles. For these reasons, lawyers Committee requested no vote on AB 1978.

Thank you very much. Are you also a lead witness? Then? You have two minutes. Thank you.

Hi. Good morning. I'm Yadi with Oakland Privacy, a coalition that focuses on regulation and guardrails. In the interest of privacy protection, civil rights and community consent, we are respectfully in opposition to AB 1978. In our view, the Bill violates the Fourth Amendment.

Warrantless impoundments of vehicles are generally prohibited by the Fourth Amendment, with narrow exemptions related to the passability of roads. AB 19708's terminology of aiding and abetting a speed contest is far broader than that which is allowed.

In addition, by authorizing impoundments even when the driver is not taken into custody, AB 1978 allows impoundments that fall far short of a probable cost standard. So for that, we ask that you oppose this Bill.

Thank you very much. Okay. At this time, we will take me too's anybody who is in support or opposing the Bill, just come up. State your opposition or support and the organization you represent.

Mister chair Members Paul Yoder, on behalf of the Specialty Equipment Market Association, in support of the Bill. Thank you.

Mister Chairman Members Victoria Rodriguez with Nielsen Marks on behalf of the City of Visalia and support.

Morning. Graciela Chong with Hernandez Strategy Group. On behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice in respectful opposition.

George Parampathu on behalf of ACLU, California action in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Keeley O'Brien with Western center on Law and poverty and respectful opposition.

Looks like we're out of speaker, so at this time we'll bring it back to the dais for questions or motion. If you want to make a motion. You want to make a courtesy motion? I did like five of them. No, because then you won't give it back. Give her the gavel for a minute.

Is there a motion on this Bill? I'll make a motion. All right. AB 1978 has been moved by Senator Seyarto.

And I have a couple comments.

When you're done, I will just comment that I can appreciate that the difficulty of having streets blocked. However, the impact of impounding a vehicle is quite severe, and I am not sure that that's the only answer to this problem. So, I'll turn it over now to Senator Seyarto for his comments.

Thank you very much. Obviously, I will be supporting your Bill today. The impact of having your vehicle impounded is very severe, and I feel bad for people who make that choice for themselves. The police officers are not making that choice for anybody. We are not making that choice for anybody.

The persons that are making the choice to have their car impounded are the people who decide to ignore law and decent society and go out and have street races that do result in deaths of innocent people and also disturbing the peace. The little donuts and things at the intersections that happen at all times of the night.

The police need something better than just a slap on the hand for those that are engaging in this. And it's becoming a bigger and bigger problem. So I think the best solution for people who don't want their car to be impounded or suffer the consequences of that is to not engage in the activity.

That's, I think, personal responsibility here would enable somebody to escape any of the laws that are meant for people who do break laws. And I think a lot of times we don't even think about that anymore. We're just trying to think of the consequences for people who insist on breaking laws and so with that. zero, that's right.

I'm not running this show. You're running this show. Back to you.

Yes, we have a motion. Please roll call on. Sorry. oh, apologies. Apologies, please. You may close.

Thank you. AB 1978 is a reasonable measure that will provide law enforcement with a practical tool for deterring sideshows across the state. Through allowing peace officers to impound vehicles without taking a person into custody, they will be able to hamstring additional speed exhibitions and save countless lives. I respectfully ask for your. I vote.

All right, we'll now have our roll call on that vote. Item number six, AB 1978. Sanchez motion is do pass to appropriations. Wahab se aarto se arto. Aye. Bradford, Skinner, Wiener.

All right, that Bill is going to stay on call. It has one vote now, but we will have our absent Members when they return. We'll open the roll again. There you go.

Thank you. Right now. Because when we are, especially at this time of year, we're doing first come, first serve, and apparently I have Baines. Assemblymember Baines first, Assembly Member Bauer Cahan second, Assembly Member Berman Third, and Assembly Member Bonta Fourth. Does that sound right to you guys?

Okay, because I didn't observe who came in first, so it's on your honor. Okay, Miss Baines, why don't you come on up? This will be. This will be AB 3029.

Thank you, Chair. Earlier this year, the committee passed SB 1502 to schedule xylazine, which is also known as tranq. AB 3029 would also similarly propose a scheduled xylazine consistent with federal scheduling proposals. AB 3029 would also make test strips available to determine if a substance has been adulterated with xylazine and empower CDPH to make test strips available as we see other adulterants emerge.

Importantly, both 1502 and 3029 protect legitimate veterinary uses of xylazine, which is especially important in large animal medicine, as there are few, if any, other alternative medications available. AB 3029 is supported by law enforcement and veterinarians and is also consistent with the Governor's call late last year to make xylazine a scheduled drug. With me in support today--oh, good. You made it.

Dr. Bains.

Is Director of Regulatory Affairs for the California Veterinary Medical Association, Dr. Grant Miller.

Thank you, Dr. Bains.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Thank you, Senate Public Safety Committee Members, for hearing this very important bill today, and also thank you to Dr. Bains for bringing forward this important measure. The California Veterinary Medical Association is in strong support of AB 3029 because it makes aggressive moves to protect the public from xylazine diversion and abuse while balancing the need for veterinarians to maintain access to this important drug, primarily use in livestock, horses, and wildlife species.

I actually am a horse veterinarian, so I use xylazine on a routine basis. It's commonly used for sedation and pain control in very large animals, and it enables us to perform procedures on them safely that otherwise would really result in a danger to both them and us.

It's easily ranked among one of the ten most important drugs that we use on livestock and horses, and I myself will use it in about 75 percent of my routine appointments. It provides excellent, quick, and predictable sedation and pain control in just about 45 to 60 seconds, and I will commonly use it in emergencies. I use it to calm these horses down so that I can then, you know, sew up a wound that they have. I do dental work with them using this drug. The risk to me if I did not have this drug available would be something I don't want to imagine.

So I'm happy to give you any other examples, if you'd like, about how we use it in practice, but suffice it to say, we are skilled in handling controlled drugs. This drug has no purpose other than to be used in veterinary medicine. It has no place anywhere else other than for use in livestock. So bringing it back, AB 3029 will align California law with federal legislation that's currently in motion to make xylazine a Schedule III controlled substance on the federal DEA list.

But it does so, AB 3829 skillfully does so, by incorporating language that ensures that we can continue to utilize this drug to keep our patients safe and us safe, while keeping it out of the hands of people who don't need to have it. Thank you for your consideration. I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and I'm happy to address any questions you may have.

Thank you very much. Do we have any other lead witnesses in support of the bill? If not, we'll take lead opposition. If there is no lead opposition, we'll take the MeToos for support or opposition at this time. Come on up, state your name, the organization you represent, and whether you support or oppose the bill.

Hi. George Parampathu, on behalf of ACLU California Action, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Not just opposition, but respectful opposition.

Appreciate that.

Anyone else? All right, we'll bring it back to the dais for any questions. A motion?

Motion? Courtesy motion?

I will move the bill.

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

Sure. Thank you so much. As the first and only addiction specialist in the Legislature, this is something that I have been working on for a very, very long time. When it comes to xylazine, specifically, this time last year, I warned California of the emergence of xylazine that was hitting Pennsylvania and other areas.

I actually worked with the Pennsylvania Public Health Department to strengthen the protocols that were needed to be placed right away. Screening and testing is really important. One of the biggest issues right now on controlling Tranq is the fact that we're not screening for it. We really have no idea how prevalent it is in our society right now.

We learn about fentanyl, which is opioid based. Xylazine is not opioid based. So we need to effectively start working on antidotes to help in overdose cases where Narcan cannot be used to reverse overdoses of Tranq. This is an ongoing drug crisis that America faces. I fear every year and year there's going to be a new emerging drug.

We really need to work hard on controlling our emerging drugs and making sure that we're keeping up with testing. This bill allows CDPH to be able to start testing and get a heads up on the new emerging drugs and research that we need to make proper antidotes and proper screening so we know how to effectively combat drugs.

Like I said, as a physician and the first and only addiction specialist in the Legislature, this is something I've worked on for a very long time. And I look forward to implementing this and other protocols in the State of California.

Great. Thank you very much. And I didn't check to see you were accepting the amendments.

Yes.

Yes. So the amendments are being accepted. And I also didn't get to say I really, really appreciate you using your expertise to tackle some of these issues, because a lot of times we don't even understand what we're trying to tackle. And you do. And so I appreciate your bill. We'll be supporting it today.

Thank you.

Item 19, AB 3029, Bains. Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right. That bill will stay on call with one vote. Hopefully more to come. All right, next up we have Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan. Welcome.

Thank you.

Like you're doing AB 2099.

I am. And thank you for pronouncing my name right. It doesn't happen a lot around here, so appreciate it. Thank you. I want to thank the Chair, even in her absentia and the Members of the Committee for their work on this. I'll start by saying I accept Committee amendments.

AB 2099 protects reproductive health patients and providers by providing an update to the penalties for harassment and a violation of patients privacy. Since Roe v. Wade was overturned, we've seen an increase in the number of people harassing and threatening those accessing fundamental health care here in California.

And although I did an update to the face act prior to that time, this update is needed to ensure that those that are expressing their rights and accessing that healthcare are safe in that environment.

So hopefully, we all agree that no matter what is happening within clinics, that the safety of everybody in our community is of the utmost importance, which is really the focus of this piece of legislation.

With me here today are Molly Robson, Vice President of Government Affairs with Planned Parenthood Norcal and Kiersten Crowley Brunt, a patient escort with Planned Parenthood Mar Monte.

All right, welcome to the primary witnesses in support of the bill. You have two minutes each. Come on up. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Kiersten Crowley Brunt. I've been a volunteer with Planned Parenthood since 2016 and became a clinic patient escort in October of 2022 when the program resumed post Covid and post ops decision. Since then, I have witnessed the lengths to which clinic protestors will go to to harass, torment, and intimidate clinic patients, staff, and volunteers.

It is the primary goal of protesters to deter and ultimately block patients from receiving any kind of services at Planned Parenthood, and they more often than not test the boundaries of the Face Act to achieve the goal. As such, I have seen patients subjected to a barrage of inflammatory verbal taunts and harassment for their personal choices.

On a day I was volunteering, I saw a regular protester engage with a patient and her grandmother. As soon as the patient exited her car in an attempt to enter the clinic, he began to engage with her in an attempt to delay her progress.

He used maliciously provocative language, calling her names and insulting her religious beliefs, hoping for a response either in the form of submission or in search of a heated clash to feed his myopic narrative that his fellow protester could then record on his GoPro device.

This incident caused the patient to feel so insecure and escalated to her needing two support people to enter the health center. I have also seen clinic staff simply leaving the health center to be screamed at and called malicious names.

I, along with my fellow escorts, have been subjected to a continuous stream of name calling and hateful speech about who we are and our beliefs in attempts to distract us from helping the patients. Protesters often try to intimidate us using these tactics.

On one occasion, I arrived at the health center and a protester was driving in behind me. He took note of my car, and he photographed my license plate with my college alumni frame on it. For the next hour, he proceeded to lecture, harass, and threaten me, using that information as ammunition.

At the end of my shift, he had left several informational pamphlets on my car windshield. That incident has caused me to be extra cautious of who is driving behind me as I arrive or leave, out of concern for myself and my family.

Since presenting testimony on the Face Act to a different Committee in the State Assembly only a few months ago, I have seen this type of flagrant behavior on behalf of the clinic protesters increase at an alarming rate. They have become more emboldened and determined in their efforts to intimidate and harass patients through their increasingly elevated abusive tactics.

Despite city codes and regulations, they are finding loopholes and testing the boundaries of legal limits to achieve their agenda, which is simply to deny people their legal rights to reproductive health care. They scream and shout. They physically test the property line when they confront.

Thank you, ma'am. I gave you extra time, even. Didn't mean to, but I actually did.

Thank you. I'm proud to be here.

I appreciate your comments. Next up, she used up about half. I'll give you your full two minutes.

No worries. Good morning. Thank you. Molly Robeson with Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. AB 2099 narrowly updates penalties for just violations of the Face Act, which is much needed to protect access to care for patients in California without fear.

I want to thank the Committee for their work on this bill and the author for her continued leadership in this issue area and respectfully urge your support today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. You got us right back on track. So at this time, any lead opposition witnesses, if you could come to the microphone. If not, then we will take the me-toos. Anybody who is opposing or supporting the bill may come up and state your name, your organization, and your support or opposition.

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

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

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

Genesis Gonzalez, on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Lenny Kounalakis, in support. Thank you.

George Parampathu, on behalf of ACLU California Action, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Sanjida Nahar, here on behalf of the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls, in support.

Ryan Spencer, on behalf of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, District Nine, in support.

Okay, thank you very much, everybody. That brings it back to the dais.

I move the bill and appreciate the author bringing it.

Thank you, Senator.

All right, we have a motion to approve the bill by Senator Skinner. Would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you, Members. I just want to thank the escort who is here today, Ms. Crowley, who shows up every day to protect patients. The right to access comprehensive health care is something that we as a state, prioritize every day. And abortion is a piece of that. And I want to thank her for her leadership and all of you for supporting this bill to make sure we protect those patients and providers.

All right, so we will bring it back to the dais. I'm sorry. We'll bring it back for a roll call.

Item nine, AB 2099, Bauer-Kahan. Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay. That vote--that bill will remain on call. How's that? All right, next up, we have a very patient Mr. Berman.

Thank you. There's no place I'd rather be. Thank you, Senator Seyarto, and Senators. And Senator Skinner. I would be. I would like to begin by thanking the Committee staff for their work on this Bill. I will be accepting the Committee's amendments. AB 1962 would strengthen California's law against revenge porn by closing the loopholes in the current law that may allow individuals to distribute private sexual images of another person without their consent.

Revenge porn is the abhorrent crime where a person intentionally distributes an intimate image, knowing that it will cause serious emotional distress to the person in the image. This most often happens when a person texts, emails, or posts an intimate photo or video as retaliation following a bitter breakup between partners. With the prevalence of social media media, revenge porn is becoming more rampant.

From 2016 to 2020, incidents of revenge porn have doubled, with one in 12 individuals having reported being a victim of revenge porn. A study found that 93% of victims of revenge porn suffered significant emotional distress, 51% had suicidal thoughts, and 49% stated that they had been stalked or harassed online by users who saw their image. Unfortunately, the impetus for this Bill was a revenge porn case in Santa Clara County.

I represent a part of Santa Clara County, where someone was left without justice due to our current laws. This shows the urgency and need to close this loophole. AB 1962 would provide a narrow fix in the statute to ensure that victims of revenge porn are adequately protected in California. And here with me is Julia Schon, a Deputy District Attorney with the Santa Clara County Office of the District Attorney. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much to the witness. We have two minutes.

Perfect. Thank you. Good morning, Committee Members. My name is Julia Schon and I'm a Deputy District Attorney with the Santa Clara District Attorney's Office and a Member of the California District Attorneys Association. And I am here testifying in support of AB 1962 will strengthen the protections of revenge porn victims by closing the loopholes in the existing statute.

Revenge porn is an invasive crime that largely victimizes women, often in the context of domestic violence. With the growing advancements in technology and social media comes new ways for perpetrators to commit the crime. And through a simple click of a button, perpetrators now have a global audience, leading to even more devastating effects on victims. And yet, perpetrators can still exploit the existing loopholes in this statute. One of these loopholes was taken advantage of in a recent case in Santa Clara County.

A quick Google search of the woman's name revealed an intimate video of her whose title had her full name, place of employment, and where she lived. A video she did not know was even taken or existed, and the perpetrator was her ex husband. Under the existing law, the crime of revenge porn is ambiguous as to whether it applies to intimate images taken without the victim's knowledge or consent, an ambiguity that ultimately led the woman's ex husband to escape criminal prosecution.

Because if someone doesn't know if a video was recorded or even existed, how can there be an agreement or understanding that it shall remain private? And to this day, this woman still lives in fear that her family, friends, and employers will one day discover this video. A video that still remains online to this day. Revenge porn has evolved beyond the typical girl sends boy photo, and it's time for the law to catch up. And we appreciate this Committee's help and effectuating this change with your recent amendments.

Thank you. All right, do we have any other lead witnesses in favor of the Bill? If not, we'll take lead opposition. If there is no lead opposition, we'll take the 'Me Toos' in favor of or in opposition of the Bill, please come forward. State your name, the organization you represent, whether you support or oppose the Bill.

Garrett Hamilton with CDAA. Just in case there is any doubt, based on what the testimony just was, we support.

Thank you. Anyone else? If there is nobody else, we'll bring it back to the dais for discussion or motion.

I move the Bill.

We have a motion to move the Bill by Senator Skinner. Mister Berman, would you like to close?

I appreciate the conversations, appreciate my witness coming up to testify and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right, so we'll bring it back for a vote. Item number five, AB 1962 by Berman. Motion was due passed as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call].

All right. That Bill will remain on call. Thank you. Next up, we have Assemblymember Bonta and I believe you have two bills, correct? You have like three? Yeah. Would you like to sit at the table, Assemblymember? Great. All right. Which of the Bills would you like to do first?

Can I begin with Joan Sawyer, AB 3108? You may. Thank you, sir.

Whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Chair and Members, on behalf of Assemblymember Joan Sawyer, I would like to start by thanking the Committee staff for their work on this Bill and on his behalf. I accept the Committee amendments.

AB 3108 will give victims of predatory mortgage lending a chance to achieve justice by clarifying that lenders who deceive and misguide consumers are committing mortgage fraud. For most of these people, their only asset and source of equity is their home.

Predatory mortgages not only drain their home equity, but can also lead to increased debt, lower credit scores, and ultimately housing insecurity. Unfortunately, the vast majority of these cases go unprosecuted.

AB 3108 will clarify that a broker or loan originator is committing mortgage fraud if they cause a borrower to sign a commercial loan or bridge loan with knowledge that the loan is inappropriate for the borrower.

This will specifically highlight the needs to address these cases and make it easier for district attorneys to prosecute predatory brokers so that victims of predatory lending can achieve justice.

With me to testify in support of this Bill are Robert Harrell, on behalf of the Bill sponsor, the Consumer Federation of California, and Syl Vossler, a consumer attorney with experience in predatory lending cases.

All right, thank you very much for coming today. You have two minutes to present and your primary witness in support, correct.

Thank you very much, Mister. Vice Chair and Members of the Committee, Robert Horrell, Executive Director of the Consumer Federation of California. We're the sponsor of this measure. This measure represents a coalition between consumer organizations and law enforcement to crack down on predatory brokering fraud.

Long story short, I'd like to thank the Committee for working with us on clarifying the penal code section of the Bill. We really appreciate that effort. We think it's going to be very helpful.

The scam that's been happening the past few years is for folks who are under some sort of financial duress and potentially at risk of losing their home. And again, that's disproportionately Low and moderate income people in communities of color. Once the notice of default goes out, that becomes essentially as a public document, a lead generator for fraud.

And the fraud we've been seeing the last few years takes two particular forms. One is where you flip over a consumer from their residential product into a commercial product. The purpose being to evade consumer protection laws that cover the residential area, but not so much the commercial area.

The other way we see it is through bridge loans, but there's not another purchase of property on the other end of it. So this will help us and help law enforcement, the public prosecutors, crack down on this. Also, it will help folks in the private side who have been running into the problem.

Which is the immediate question is, did the consumers sign the paperwork, even if the paperwork was fraudulent by design and intended to defraud the consumer who did not know what they were signing? In some cases, all kinds of language challenges and others. So we urgent. I vote and appreciate very much the coalition.

I'm also proxied on behalf of Crime Victims alliance, which was not listed in the analysis, but which also supports the Bill. Thank you.

Very good. Thank you very much. Are you another lead witness in support? Yes, I am. You have two minutes.

Good morning. My name is Sylvsler. I'm the owner of the Wassler Law firm, and I exclusively litigate predatory lending and wrongful foreclosure lawsuits leading up to and in the wake of the financial crisis, California and the Federal Governments passed predatory lending prohibitions that apply largely to consumer loans. And those prohibitions mostly do not apply to commercial loans.

So brokers and lenders who are intending to prey on a borrower will intentionally cause the borrower to sign a commercial loan document, even if that document is unsuitable. A recent client I took is 79 years old. She's an immigrant widow who only speaks Farsi.

She makes $2,000 a month, and her broker steered her into a loan that required her to pay $1.4 million in one year. They charged her $150,000 in fees. And when she defaulted, because, of course she defaulted, she couldn't afford the loan, the default interest rate went up to 25%.

This would have been illegal if it were a consumer loan. But of course, she signed a commercial loan document, which she didn't understand. I've had other clients in a couple years that client lost hundreds of thousands of dollars of equity.

I've had another client who was steered into four of those loans in four years and she lost her life savings in home equity. These amendments are intended to clarify that this is mortgage fraud so that the DAs can do something about this and help these victims. We urgently vote. Thank you.

Thank you. I appreciate your testimony. At this time, we'll take any opposition. Lead opposition witnesses. We have two minutes.

Thank you. Thank you Mister Vice Chair Members Indira Mcdonald, on behalf of the California Mortgage Bankers Association, we continue a position of concern. We appreciate the amendments noted in the analysis and the author accepting the amendments and the intent to clarify the language.

However, our concerns remain because we continue to believe that current law covers the conduct described in the new proposed mortgage fraud criminal provisions added by subdivision B.

Existing law already provides broad applicability and imposes criminal liability for deliberately facilitating a misstatement, misrepresentation or omission during the mortgage lending process with the intention that it be relied on by a mortgage lender, borrower or any other party to the mortgage lending process.

California bankers and mortgage bankers supported enactment of Penal Code section 532 F as a tool to attack fraud in the mortgage process that victimized lenders, investors and borrowers. We remain supportive of robust prosecution in this area, but we believe section 532 F already provides a means to attack the conduct that this Bill seeks to address.

So thank you for allowing me to make comments.

Thank you very much for your comments this morning. Okay. At this time I'll take anybody, any of the me too. S anybody in support or opposition to the Bill, please come forward. State your name. That organization you represent, whether you support or you oppose.

Garrett Hamilton with CDAA in support.

Okay. It looks like that exhausts the line of people that are coming up to speak. We'll bring it back to the dais for a motion or a comments.

I moved the Bill. Appreciate your presenting it on behalf of the author.

It's a good Bill. So we have a motion by Senator Skinner. Would you like to close?

Thank you on behalf of Senator Assemblymember Joan Sawyer. We wish you well.

I respectfully request and I vote thank you very much and you may call roll item eight, AB 3108. Joan Sawyer motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right, that Bill will remain on call. All right. Do you want to tackle AB 1186 first? Thank you, Senator. Let's go to that.

Again. Good afternoon or good morning. I would like to express my appreciation to your Committee staff for their time working on this Bill.

Overdose the last 18 months I authored this Bill because our current youth restitution system doesn't work. Under current state law, judges order youth to pay two types of direct restitution or monetary compensation to a person who has experienced loss or injury due to a young person's actions.

Restitution fines monetary penalties ranging from $100 to $1,000 ordered against any youth adjudicated or person convicted of a crime, regardless if they caused harm. Each year, around 15,000 youth in California are ordered to pay restitution fines. These fines range from $100 to $1000 per adjudication.

Any portion of these fines that are collected go to the state restitution Fund, not Crime Survivors. Once ordered to pay restitution, youth and their families are subject to unforgiving collection practices and irreversible collateral consequences, including negative credit impacts, bank levies, and even property liens.

These young people and their families are often struggling economically and are often survivors of harm themselves. Restitution fines not only cause economic hardship for many families, it can also strain critical family relationships, creating stress and strife between parents and their children at a time when they need the most support.

Additionally, studies show that monetary sanctions against youth and their families increase the likelihood of recidivism or that a youth will cause harm in the future. The likelihood increases with each additional dollar assessed. Youth restitution debt is also expensive to collect because system involved youth and families simply cannot afford to pay.

Public Records Act requests reveal that counties spend $1.22 to recoup each dollar of youth restitution fine debt. To add to this most restitution fine debt older than three years will likely never be paid, regardless of the collection method. On top of the burdens families face with these restitution fines, youth face other iniquities in our current restitution system.

For example, when youth are held joint and severely liable for harm caused, a young person may satisfy their portion of the debt and still face paying well beyond their share of living the rest of their lives with this debt and collateral consequences.

AB 1186 the repair realizing equity while promoting accountability and impactful Relief act helps make our restitution system work more equitably. AB 1186 does the following. First it eliminates youth restitution fines.

It also vacates old and therefore largely uncollectible, restitution fine debt, ends wage and trust account to garnishment for youth restitution, clarifies loss calculations for property repair or replacement for youth restitution orders and ends, joint and several liability for youth codefendants. AB 1186 makes our restitution system work better for youth and their families. Thank you.

And as witnesses with me today, I have Xochitl Larios with courage and Delaney Green with a policy advocacy clinic at Berkeley Law.

All right, thank you witnesses, for appearing this morning. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, Public Safety Committee. My name is Xochitl Larios. I'm a juvenile justice coordinator for Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice. We are a proud co-sponsor of AB 1186. I have been in and out of the delinquency and dependency system since I was 12 years old.

In 2017, I faced one of my longest lockups where I was incarcerated for 200 plus days in Alameda County's Juvenile Justice Center. I was released into transitional housing under Assembly Bill 12. I had just turned 18. I did not have support from my family.

I did not have a Social Security card, a birth certificate, a car, a license, or guidance from probation on reentry. I also suffered from PTSD. On top of this, I was ordered to pay $3,000 in restitution and restitution fines and the various restitution-related fees and surcharges for the harm that I have caused.

When you receive a Bill for court debt, each additional dollar counts, and restitution fines and fees make it much more difficult to stay afloat, meet the restitution order obligations, and achieve rehabilitation. If my restitution-related debt was not paid, it would have negatively impacted my credit.

It is rare for young people to stay out of the juvenile system with such extreme burdens put on them, and not only made the restitution monthly payments because I put my education on hold, worked more hours, and received an honorarium which was immediately garnished. We know that the system isn't working for kids and isn't working for survivors.

AB 1186 is a step towards creating a more constructive and sustainable system of youth restitution in California by reducing the counterproductive economic burdens on youth and families who are largely unable to pay.

While we still have more and lots to do to address the restitution system, I kindly ask for your support on this Bill and impact in an impactful Bill as a first key step. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next witness.

Good morning. Thank you to Members of the Committee. My name is Delaney Green. I'm with the UC Berkeley Policy Advocacy Clinic at the Berkeley Law School.

I am here to provide any technical support on this Bill I know it can be a little bit tricky, but I want to be respectful of everyone's time this morning, so just want to defer to if there's any questions and otherwise give back the time to the Committee. Thank you.

Thank you very much. All right, at this time, we'll take any opposition witnesses. Anybody opposing this Bill would like to come up and speak as a primary witness. If not, then we'll go to me toos. Come on up.

State your name, organization you represent, whether you support or oppose the Bill

With the chair's indulgement, I'd like to read off a list of organizations who are in support.

Read quickly. Thank you.

Yes, thank you. The Maven Collaborative, Freedom for Youth, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, All of Us or None, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights San Francisco, Invisible California, Stay Strong, CAYCJ, Communities United for Restorative Justice, San Francisco Financial Justice Project, Root and Rebound, Empowering Women Impacted by Incarceration, Restoring Hope California, East Bay Community Law Center, University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law, Homeless Advocacy Clinic, California's United for Responsible Budget, Western center on Law and Poverty, the Rubicon Programs, Ella Baker Center, Universidad Populara, San Francisco Financial Justice Project, ACLU California Action, Santa Cruz Barrios Unidos, Sutters Policy Research, Community Works, Underground Scholars Initiative at UC Berkeley, Young Women's Freedom Center, Rise, United Corps Alliance, the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, CareFirst California, Fresh Life Loans for Youth, Fresno Barrios Unidos, the Unity Council, Dignity and Power Now, Surge Bay Area,

Hayward Burns Institute, the Chat Project, National Consumer Law Center, La Defencia, Safe Return Project, Debt Collaborative, Dignity and Power Now, and finally Californians for Safety and Justice, proud co sponsor. Thank you.

Thank you. I bet that covers everybody so thank you all no, come on up

Didn't catch us. Antoinette Ratcliffe with Initiate Justice, proud co-sponsors in support, thank you.

Keely O'Brien with Western Center on Law and Poverty in strong support.

Garrett Hamilton with CDAA with the recent amends we are removing our opposition and going neutral.

Eric Henderson on behalf of Smart Justice California in support.

Lawrence Cox on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and All of Us or None in support.

Tatiana Lewis with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in strong support thank you

Barbara Chavez with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in Support

Jennifer Penrose with Power and Unity and Directly Impacted in full support

Laura Larios with Initiate Justice in strong support

Rosa Ortez Lucero, I support.

Rico Lopez on the behalf of the community, fully support.

Bernice Singh Rogers, outside organizer with Initiate Justice and Inmate Family Council at Salinas Valley. I strongly support.

Henry Ortiz with Legal Services for Prisoners With Children and All of Us or None Sacramento in strong support. Thank you.

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

Okay, we will bring it back to the Dais for discussion or a motion.

I move the Bill and appreciate this important Bill and thank you for bringing it to us.

Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Thank you. I think this Bill very aptly recognizes that our youth restitution system is broken and allows us to be able to put our useful and very important county dollars towards ensuring that we're creating a path for both meaningful accountability and healing for those who are impacted.

As well as ensuring that we have an opportunity to not burden youth with the debt that comes with debt that they cannot afford and that continues to be harmful. With that, I respectfully request your aye vote.

Very good, thank you. And we'll go ahead and call roll.

Item number one, AB 1186 Bonta. Motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Alright, that Bill will remain on call. That brings us to your last Bill. AB 2709. Assemblymember, go ahead when you're ready.

Thank you Senator and Members, I want to thank the Committee staff for their work on this Bill. I do accept the Committee amendments that have been presented. AB 2709 is shaped by the first hand experiences of families with incarcerated loved ones. It's crucial to recognize the profound impact that maintaining a family connection has on an incarcerated individual, not only for their well being, but also for the successful reintegration into our society upon release, as well as the importance that it has on their loved ones who are left behind.

Firstly, AB 2709 prohibits visits denial due to minor omissions or inaccuracies on visitor applications. Secondly, AB 2709 codifies three days of in person visitation per week alongside video calls. Thirdly, this Bill prohibits strip searches of minors with certain exceptions. And finally, this Bill establishes guidelines for using reasonable screening in the case of probable cause for a search, such as metal detectors, body scanners and other types of available screening technologies for visitors before a strip search.

This Bill underscores the importance of maintaining family connections during public health emergencies, as highlighted during the Covid-19 pandemic. My office has communicated with stakeholders who have reached out with concerns and we are actively continuing to work with CCPOA and CDCR. AB 2709 is vital for preserving family connections for incarcerated individuals. Here to testify today is Lawrence Cox, the Regional Advocacy and Organizing Associate and Interim Coordinator of the Coalition for Family Unity, and Heather O'Malley an organizer with FUEL.

Same drill as before. You got two minutes. Thank you.

Not two and a half?

No, I only gave that to one person.

Okay. Well, as the Member said, this Bill is imperative. Like I said earlier, removing barriers for visiting for those that are incarcerated and their loved ones is key to decreasing recidivism and helping rehabilitate those that are incarcerated. It is important for families to be able to come visit. So that starts with the visiting application. If there are necessary barriers in that application that serve no pedological interest, I do believe that we all should agree that they should be removed.

That includes the process when individuals come to visit their loved ones. We do not believe there should be unnecessary, inhumane, degrading processes that are placed and utilized as barriers just because of reasonable suspicion in order to do so. And I'm speaking of strip searching women and children.

Which has become a practice that we want as a population and as a community to kind of wrangle in and remove a barrier that's a necessary hindrance to individuals feeling comfortable and feeling dignified when they come visit their loved ones. And I want to close with saying visiting is key to rehabilitation. I wouldn't be who I am now. I wouldn't be where I was at where I am now if I had not had access to my family, if I had not been able to spend weekends with them.

I've spent 17 years of the last 19 years of my life incarcerated, and I come home as a finished, not unfinished, should I say rehabilitative individual who organizes and coordinates all eight of our active chapters of all of us throughout the states and coordinates 30 other nonprofit organization and advocacy work. So I think I say all that just to say I'm proof that rehabilitation exists and that visiting is key and imperative to rehabilitation.

Great. Thank you very much for your testimony this morning. Next person. Come on up, you have two minutes.

Good morning. Thank you, Chair and Committee Members, for allowing me the opportunity to speak this morning in strong support of AB 2709, as amended on June 19 of this year. My name is Heather O'Malley, and my loved one has been incarcerated in CDCR for over 30 years. I am speaking to you as a visitor who is subjected to an unwarranted and improper CDCR strip search, an experience that was humiliating, degrading, dehumanizing, and extremely traumatic.

CDCR's updated strip search policy makes it easier for CDCR to subject other visitors, including women, children, elderly and visitors with disabilities to the same trauma, humiliation and dehumanization I experienced. Visitors are told that a consent to a strip search is voluntary. However, if we refuse to submit to a strip search, our visit will be denied and we won't be allowed to visit our loved one.

The policy also allows CDCR to make future visits conditioned upon our willingness to submit to a strip search for an indefinite period of time. Imagine having to consent to a TSA strip search at the airport in order to pass through and board your flight because something as simple as a button on your pants or a clasp on your bra set off the metal detector. Well, this is what's happening currently to visitors, including children.

Due to CDCR's visitor strip search policy. No one should ever have to consent to be. To being humiliated and dehumanized as a condition to visit their loved one, especially given the importance of visiting and its positive impact on rehabilitation. Studies show, and I personally know, visiting builds bonds and strengthens family unity. I grew up the child of an incarcerated parent and visits were a lifeline to my father and to me. Visiting also has been proven to encourage prosocial behavior, decrease recidivism, and increase public safety.

Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate your testimony this morning. Okay, next up, we have 'Me Toos'. Those that are in favor or opposed. Oh, did I do opposition yet? I did not do opposition yet. So lead witnesses in opposition at this time. Come on up. You have two minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Matt Easley with the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, here in opposition. I would like to state that a number of provisions in this Bill are very positive. And we do strongly support increased access to visitation whenever possible because of a number of the reasons and explanations already mentioned.

And there have been a number of amendments on this Bill. All of them have been positive. Unfortunately, we're still not quite there yet with number of issues. The first being the very narrow list of reasons why an inmate can have - can be restricted on visitation. And the not being able to use any disciplinary actions for anything outside of the actual visiting room is problematic. Now, there's a whole host of rule violations that I think should not be used to limit visitation.

But there are a number that would, we think, increase the risk and safety concerns to not just other inmates, but the visitors as well, our staff in the visitation room. So, for example, because it didn't happen in the visitation room, if an inmate was to commit an act of violence on the way to visitation or an hour prior to visitation, that person clearly at this moment is not in a steady state of mind to create a safe environment for all those around them.

According to this Bill, we would not be able to restrict any visitation. And I think that's one issue that could be resolved fairly simply by enabling, which this Bill still prevents enabling maybe that a visitor can have, be restricted to non contact visits instead of contact visits. But a larger issue like that is a major concern for us. I think it creates safety issues for everyone.

All right. Thank you very much. That's your two minutes. Anyone else would like to come up as a lead witness in opposition? If not, we'll have the 'Me Toos' like I started before and then stopped. Sorry about that.

Lesli Caldwell-Houston, for the California Public Defenders Association and the San Francisco Public Defenders Office in support.

Yadi Younse with Oakland Privacy, in support. We didn't get a letter in due to time constraints.

Barbara Chavez on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support. Thank you.

No.

No list. No list. Ed Little. Ed Little on behalf of Californians for Safety and Justice in strong support.

I asked the same thing. Eric Henderson on behalf of Grip Training Institute in support.

Katrina Reese on behalf of Initiate Justice in strong support.

Jennifer Penrose with Power in Unity and directly impacted in full support.

Laura Larios with Initiate Justice in strong support.

Hola. Rico Lopez on behalf of community, strongly support.

Bernice Singh Rogers, outside organizer with Initiate Justice and Inmate Family Council at Salinas Valley State Prison, strongly support.

Rosa Ortez Lucero, as a mother of an incarcerated son in Salinas State Prison, I strongly support on this.

Good morning. Henry Ortiz for Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, in Sacramento, All of Us or None Chapter, and Community Healers in strong support. Thank you.

All right, we'll bring it back to the dais. Do we have a motion on this bill?

I move the bill, though. I have to go to Approps., so I will make it the motion and then I'll come back.

Thank you very much. And with that, I just have a couple comments. You know, one of the problems we're having in our prisons, as you know, is it just seems we can't get a handle on the rampant drug use.

So, have you had any conversations with CDCR and other prison systems that would, you know, the county prisons and our county jails that would be affected by your bill? And, you know, if we're going to do these restrictions and how do we stop people from smuggling drugs in if they can't check to see if they have drugs?

And that's a big problem. I know our newspapers in our area like to make a huge ordeal when unfortunately an inmate may die from a drug overdose overnight. You know, the guards aren't there 24/7 to watch them and they get the drug somehow, usually from visitation, we don't know.

You know, sometimes it could be internal, but how do we address that, given these restrictions without it going up? And because I know during COVID that number of drug ODs in prison went way down and they didn't have any visitors. So, there's that problem.

And that's something that I'm always concerned about because I'd like the prison population to be able to be rehabilitated and returned, not in a body bag. And so, have you run across those questions and how have you addressed those?

Thank you, Senator. And I appreciate the ability to have additional dialogue with you. I appreciated serving with you on the Assembly of Public Safety for several years. We've had a lot of conversations with CDCR, I think, on this, and I also did serve as the budget sub. chair for public safety last year.

And the data that we reviewed essentially showed that during COVID there was an increase in the number of the amount of contraband that was coming through. And that was at a time when there was no family contact visits happening. So, I agree with you that our.

That there is contraband freely coming into our prisons and we need to do something about that because we don't want people OD'ing, we don't want to continue rampant drug use and drug abuse in our prison system. That's not why they exist.

I don't believe that the, that the impact of family visitations is what is believed to be in the media and kind of out there. The data actually controverts that belief.

At the end of the day, we do need to make sure that our prison guards and our incarcerated people are safe and that they have an opportunity to be able to rehabilitate. Using family visitation as a means to punitively engage an incarcerated person is not the answer to providing that kind of safety.

This bill essentially ensures that we have an ability to be measured in ensuring that public safety, and we will continue to have conversations with CCPOA and CDCR to strike that right balance. But what we do know right now is that is far too.

Leaning far too much towards a punitive response and taking away the opportunity to use family contact and family visitation as a means to rehabilitate.

And I started this journey out working on this bill because I was talking to a lot of families who had people who were incarcerated and who were struggling because they were seeing the ties with their family members who were inside being frayed and seeing their family members being lost to them and feeling the loss of that as if somebody had died because they weren't able to maintain that connection or because that connection was uncertain.

They could show up to prison expecting to be able to be visited, travel long distance to be able to do that, and then be told at the drop of a dime, you can't see the person that you traveled all this way and waited to be able to see. That's not okay either. So, this.

And then I got a chance to talk to people who were inside and recognized how incredibly important it was for them while they were waiting years and years for basic programming and rehabilitative support, to have the one thing that is sure to be able to make sure that they have a way to be able to connect, and that is through family visitation and family contacts.

So, I understand the balance of this notion of broader safety. I also understand that we cannot sacrifice the rehabilitative power for both the people who are incarcerated and the people who are waiting and loving their incarcerated brothers and sisters and fathers and uncles and mothers who are outside of the system.

So. I will use that as my close.

I was just going to say, you want to use that as your close?

I will absolutely use that as my close. I appreciate the question and the opportunity Senator.

All right, thank you very much. We'll bring it back for a vote.

Item 16, AB 2709, Bonta. Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll call]

Okay. That bill will remain on call, and I don't have any other, Muratsuchi. Oh, would you like to come up and be the sole? I can't give you a motion, but I can listen to your, your bill. Yeah, I wish I could, but I can't. All right, Mister Muratsuchi, this is AB 2309. You may begin when you're ready.

Enter the room. Thank you very much, Vice Chair Seyarto. This is a Bill, Assembly Bill 2309, that originally was proposing to allow General law cities the same opportunity that charter cities have to be able to prosecute state law misdemeanors.

Since then, I've engaged in very good discussions with the chair of this Committee and with Members of this Committee, and I have substantially amended this Bill to limit the prosecutors, the city prosecutors of General law cities, to be able to prosecute cases only in collaborative justice courts.

As this Committee well knows, collaborative justice courts are known as problem solver courts, and in particular, the main proponent of this Bill, the City of Manhattan Beach. In my district, their interest is to be able to have a more proactive approach to deal with their local homeless population, the homeless courts.

We're going to have an opportunity to hear not only from the chief of police of Manhattan Beach, Chief Rachel Johnson, but also our neighboring Redondo Beach, city attorney, Michael Webb, where in Redondo, they have demonstrated tremendous success in reducing their homeless population, using the homeless courts not to punish poverty, not to criminalize poverty, but to provide.

To use the criminal courts as an opportunity to provide wraparound services to help support and get the unhoused back on their feet, using the opportunity of the minor, low level state law misdemeanor offenses that bring them involved in the criminal justice system.

So with that, with your permission, Vice Chair, I'd like to call Chief Johnson and City Attorney Michael Webb to testify at the witness table. Great.