SYMBOL PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMITTEES NEEDS ONE MORE
MEMBERS SO WE CAN HAVE A QUORUM.
PREFERABLY A REPUBLICAN MEMBER
WILL SHOW UP SOON.
THAT'S ON THE COMMITTEE
.
SINCE UP PRIVACY'S COMING AT ONE
THIRTY AND WE HAVE A LOT OF
BILLS WE WILL START.
AT THE SUBCOMMITTEE AND MELENDEZ
WANT TO COME AND TESTIFY WE DO
HAVE -- FOR MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE HERE.
SO WE DO HAVE MEMBERS THEY'RE
HERE.
TO THAT YEAH TO SEE.
MISS MELENDEZ AB.
TEN NINETY SIX ITEM NUMBER.
FIFTEEN GOOD MORNING MISTER
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE.
I HAVE A BILL YOU ARE GOING TO
LOVE.
THIS IS THE BEST BILL IN THE
MORNING THAT'S WHERE IT'S GOING
FIRST OKAY.
UNDER CURRENT LAW THE PROCESS TO
OBTAIN A CONCEALED CARRY WEAPON
PERMIT IS NOT IMPLEMENTED
EQUALLY NOR FAIRLY THROUGHOUT
THE ENTIRE STATE.
CURRENTLY COUNTY SHERIFF'S OR
CITY POLICE CHIEFS HAVE FREE
RANGE TO ISSUE CC W'S ON A
DISCRETIONARY BASIS EVEN AFTER
AN INDIVIDUAL HAS PASSED THE
BACKGROUND CHECKS AND MEET ALL
OF THE APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS.
EXISTING CODE LEAVES GOOD CAUSE
AND GOOD MORAL CHARACTER I NEED
TO FIND.
MORE THAN FORTY STATES INCLUDING
WASHINGTON AND OREGON HAVE MOVED
TO A SHALL ISSUE PROCESS WHEN
ISSUING CCW TO CITIZENS WHO
PASSED THE STRICT BACKGROUND
CHECK IN MEDIA PERVERT
REQUIREMENTS.
CURRENTLY IN CALIFORNIA CITIZENS
SEEKING TO APPLY FOR CCW FACED
UNCERTAINTY AND CONFUSION
THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS WHICH IS
ALREADY LONG AND EXPENSIVE.
AND FURTHERMORE INDIVIDUALS WHO
ARE NOT CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS BUT
REGULARLY COMMUTE HERE FOR
FAMILY TRAVELS ARE FOR BUSINESS.
THERE ARE BARRED FROM MEETING
APPLYING FROM APARTMENT SIMPLY
BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIVE IN THE
STATE.
THE A MISSION A DEFINING GOOD
CLAUSE IN THE PENAL CODE HAS
RESULTED IN THE UNEQUAL
APPLICATION OF THE LAW ARE IN
DENIAL ARBITRARY DENIAL BY THE
WAY OF CCW PERMITS TO
CALIFORNIANS.
IN FACT DEPENDING ON THE COUNTY
IN WHICH ONE RESIDES IN
INDIVIDUAL COULD BE DENIED THEIR
REQUEST FOR CCW DESPITE PASSING
ALL THE REQUIREMENTS DESPITE
PASSING THE BACKGROUND CHECKS
SIMPLY BECAUSE THAT PARTICULARLY.
PARTICULAR ISSUING OFFICIAL.
DOESN'T LIKE TO ISSUE THEM.
THIS BILL AB TEN NINETY SIX
MAKES CALIFORNIA SHALL ISSUE
STATE AND DEFINES THE TERM GOOD
BECAUSE IN THE PENAL CODE IN
ORDER TO MAKE CLEAR THE
REQUIREMENTS. FOR CCW PERMIT
APPLICANTS GOOD BECAUSE WILL
INCLUDE SELF DEFENSE DEFENDING
THE LIFE OF ANOTHER OR
PREVENTING CRIME IN WHICH HUMAN
LIFE IS THREATENED.
BY FURTHER CLARIFYING GOOD
BECAUSE THIS BILL WILL MAKE
ISSUING C. C. W.'S UNIFORM AND
MUCH EASIER THROUGHOUT THE STATE.
WITH THAT I HAVE WITH ME TO
WITNESSES TODAY BILL YOUNG WHO
IS THE PRESIDENT OF RIVERSIDE
COUNTY SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION AND
NIKKI STALLARD WHO IS A MEMBER
OF THE PINK PISTOLS WHICH IS A
GAY GUN RIGHTS.
ORGANIZATION AND I WILL --
ASKING MALT LADIES FIRST NIKKI
WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO FIRST SURE
ABSOLUTELY.
THANK YOU LADIES AND GENTLEMEN
AND I JUST REALLY HAVE A FEW
WORDS HERE TO SAY.
SELF DEFENSE IS A FUNDAMENTAL
HUMAN RIGHT.
THAT'S WHAT THIS BILLS ABOUT
IT'S ALSO ABOUT EQUALITY UNDER
THE LAW.
THE SUPREME COURT.
IN HELLER DID RULE IN FACT THAT
SELF DEFENSE IS THE CORE OF THIS
OF THE SECOND MA'AM TO CORE
RIGHT.
AND THE SUPREME COURT RULED IN
TWO THOUSAND WELL AS ACTUALLY
BAKARE RULING FROM A
MASSACHUSETTS CASE ITANO VERSES
MASSACHUSETTS FOR MASSACHUSETTS
CONVICTED A HOMELESS WOMAN.
OF CARRYING AN ELECTRIC STUN GUN
BECAUSE THEY CLAIM TO WASN'T
COVERED BY THE SECOND AMENDMENT
WHILE THE US SUPREME COURT WHY
THEY DIDN'T TAKE THE CASE EIGHT
TWO ZERO THEY VACATED.
SO WHAT DOES THIS SAY SELF
DEFENSE DOES APPLY OUTSIDE THE
HOME AND THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS
OUTSIDE THE HOME THEY IMPLY.
DOES APPLY.
YES THERE'S ALWAYS A BALANCE
BETWEEN.
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND PUBLIC
SAFETY I SHALL ISSUES CCW SYSTEM
DOES BALANCE BUT IT MUST BE
EQUAL UNDER THE LAW ARTICLE ONE
SECTION SEVEN BE OF OUR STATE
CONSTITUTION SAYS GNOSIS INNER
CLASSICISTS INS.
SHALL BE GRANTED A PRIVILEGE AND
IMMUNITY THAT'S NOT DONE EQUAL
BASIS.
EQUAL ACROSS THE BOARD.
NOW REALIZE THAT THE SHALL ISSUE
HAVE WAS ENACTED IN NINETEEN
TWENTY THREE AT A TIME WHEN
AMERICA WAS A VERY RACES COUNTRY
AND THE LAW HAD A RACES INTENT.
THIS MODEST REFORMER CALIFORNIA
LAW WILL BRING OUR CURRENT SHE
SHE W. LAWS IN COMPLIANCE WITH
THE QUALITY OF THE LAW.
EQUALITY IN THE LAW DOESN'T SAY
EQUAL FOR SOME RIGHTS IT'S EQUAL
FOR ALL RIGHTS AND OUR RIGHT TO
SELF DEFENSE WITH OUR WRITER
SELF DEFENSE.
ALL RIGHT IS ILLUSIONARY.
I CHOOSE NOT TO LIVE MY LIFE IN
FEAR BUT I'M A REALIST I'M IN
THE WORST DEMOGRAPHIC MANY MY
MEMBERS ARE IN THE WORST
DEMOGRAPHICS OF BEING VICTIMS OF
VIOLENCE MAY TIMES FACING
MULTIPLE ATTACKERS.
HAND GUNS ARE THE MOST EFFECTIVE
PERSONAL SELF DEFENSE TOOL IF AN
INDIVIDUAL PASSES A PASS
BACKGROUND CHECKS TAKES
APPROPRIATE TRAINING.
CCW SYSTEMS ACROSS THE COUNTRY
HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO BE A
REASONABLE BALANCE BETWEEN.
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND PUBLIC
SAFETY CCW HOLDERS ACROSS THE
COUNTRY OVERALL OR THE MOST LAW
BUYING DEMOGRAPHIC.
YES THERE'S A FEW OUT LIARS BUT
HOLDING.
I JYJ PORTION OF THE POPULATION
STRIPPING THEM OF THEIR FOOD
RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE FOR THE
ACTIONS OF FEW IS SOMETHING.
THAT ONLY IN AUTHORITARIAN
FASCIST WOULD DO THANK YOU FOR
YOUR TIME.
AND JUST HOPE FOR ME THANK YOU
FOR YOUR TESTIMONY I WANT TO GO
AHEAD AND ESTABLISH A QUORUM.
JONES SAWYER HERE LACKEY
[inaudible]
BAUER-KAHAN [inaudible]
DEEP [inaudible]
KAMLAGER-DOVE.
QUIRK HERE SANTIAGO [inaudible]
WICKS.
QUORUM PRESENT AND OFF CALENDAR
ON ITEM NUMBER ONE AB TWO SEVEN
SIX FRIEDMAN POLL BY COMMITTEE
ITEM NUMBER FIVE AB EIGHT EIGHT
FOUR MELENDEZ POLL BY AUTHOR.
ITEM NUMBER NINE AB NINE SEVEN
FOUR COOLEY POLL BY AUTHOR AND
ITEM NUMBER ELEVEN AB TEN
SEVENTY ONE LA MONDE FULL BY
AUTHOR.
ON A PROPOSED CONSENT CALENDAR
WE HAVE ITEM NUMBER TWELVE AB
TEN SEVENTY THREE RUBIO --
IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT SHELTER
SENATE OF LOCATIONS -- I NUMBER
SEVENTEEN AB. ELEVEN TWENTY NINE
CHAU CHOW STALKING.
ITEM NUMBER TWENTY TWO A. B.
TWELVE SIXTY ONE JONES SAWYER
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES NARCOTICS
REGISTRY.
ITEM NUMBER TWENTY THREE A. B.
TWELVE NINETY TWO BAR QUE IN
FIREARMS ITEM NUMBER TWENTY FOUR
AB TWELVE NINETY SIX GONZALEZ --
TAX RECOVERY IN THE UNDERGROUND
ECONOMY CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT
PROGRAM.
I DON'T KNOW BUT TWENTY SIX AB
THIRTEEN SEVENTY TWO GRAYSON
EMPLOYERS PROHIBITED DISCLOSURE
OF INFORMATION ARREST OR DETAIN
CAPTION.
A DETENTION IS THERE A MOTION.
TO APPROVE THE CONSENT SOME OF
JONES SAWYER AYE TENSER I LACKEY
LACKEY I BAUER-KAHAN.
BAUER-KAHAN I DEEP KAMLAGER-DOVE.
KAMLAGER-DOVE I QUIRK.
QUIRK AYE SANTIAGO WICKS WICKS I
CONSENT CALENDAR IS ADOPTED AND
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE SO
JUST WHILE WE HAD MEMBERS HERE I
JUST WANTED.
SOME OF THAT BUSINESS OUT OF THE
WAY SO THERE ANY OTHER.
MEMBERS IN SUPPORT.
WE HAVE ANOTHER WITNESS IN THE
WOODS I'M SORRY.
BUT YOUR STAFF OF GO AHEAD.
OUR GOOD MORNING LADIES GERMAN.
IT IS WITH GREAT HONOR TO BE
HERE TO BE ABLE TO REPRESENT THE
FOUR THOUSAND PLUS MEMBERS OF
THE RIVERSIDE SHERIFF'S
ASSOCIATION AS THEIR PRESIDENT.
WE'RE HERE IN SUPPORT OF THIS
BILL.
WE BELIEVE THIS BILL IS VERY
IMPORTANT. FOR A MAGNITUDE
REASONS ONE OF THEM IS IT
ENHANCES THE PUBLIC SAFETY OUT
THERE IT'S VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT TO BE
EVERYWHERE.
AND WHAT I FOUND IN MY SEVENTEEN
YEARS AS BEING A POLICE OFFICER.
I FOUND THAT I'VE GONE TO CRIMES
WHERE PEOPLE'S LIVES WERE SAVED
AND AND CRIMES WERE PREVENTED
BECAUSE PEOPLE WERE LAWFULLY
CARRYING A CCW.
MYSELF AND SEVERAL OF MY
PARTNERS A TOWN ALMOST ALL MY
PARTNERS OF FOUND THAT.
CCW HOLDERS ARE AMONGST THE MOST
LAW ABIDING CITIZENS OUT THERE.
AND THEY FOLLOW THE LAW.
THE PROBLEM THAT WE RUN INTO
WHEN IT'S A GOOD CAUSES ALLOWS
AN ELECTED OFFICIAL USE IT AS A
BARGAINING CHIP FOR PEOPLE TO
DONATE WHICH WE FOUND OUT AND
RIVERSIDE COUNTY THIS LAST
ELECTION CYCLE.
AND IT TAKES AWAY PUTS PEOPLE'S
LIVES IN DANGER ESPECIALLY WHEN
YOU'RE FROM COUNTIES THAT ARE.
RULE IN NATURE AND HAVE LONG
DISTANCES TO TRAVEL. FOR CITIZEN
TO BE ABLE.
TO USE THEIR THEIR RIGHTS
AFFORDED TO THEM AND BE ABLE TO
PROTECT THEIR LIVES OTHER
NEIGHBORS LIVES AND MAKES OUR
JOBS -- THAT MUCH EASIER.
SO WE JUST WANT TO COME IN AND
SHOW OUR SUPPORT.
IN SUPPORT OF THIS AND WOULD
LIKE TO SEE THE SHALL ISSUE --
AS OPPOSED TO A GOOD COSTS.
OKAY THANK YOU NOT ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
GOOD MORNING MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE FOR THE RECORD
DâN READ WITH NATIONAL RIFLE
ASSOCIATION ALSO HERE FOR GUN
OWNERS A CALIFORNIA IN
CALIFORNIA RIFLE AND PISTOL
ASSOCIATION.
WHEN I THINK THE ASSEMBLY WOMAN
FOR BRINGING THIS BILL TO
ADDRESS THE INEQUITABLE NATURE
CALIFORNIA CCW LAWS THIS IS A
GREAT PIECE OF LEGISLATION IN
YOUR JUROR -- SUPPORT TODAY
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU SIR ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
OKAY -- ANY OTHER WITNESSES
OPPOSITION A WITNESS IN
OPPOSITION.
SEEING NINE ARE ANY QUESTIONS
ABOUT [inaudible]
OKAY. SEVEN QUICK BAY AREA
STUDENT ACTIVISTS ALSO ON BEHALF
OF THE BRADY CAMPAIGN.
WHO IS ADVOCATE NOT BE HERE
RIGHT NOW IN OPPOSITION
[inaudible]
THANK YOU. FOR IF ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
CHARLES HARVEY WITH THE LEGAL
CALIFORNIA CITIES -- OUR BOARD
HAS YET TO TAKE AN OFFICIAL
POSITION ON THIS BILL BUT IN
SENDING IT THROUGH THE POLICY
COMMITTEE PROCESS -- WE HAVE
MEMBERS AT A VERY STRONG
CONCERNS ABOUT REMOVING THE
DISCRETION OF A MUNICIPAL POLICE
CHIEFS TO TO ISSUE THESE -- CCW
PERMITS -- BUT UNTIL THEN -- WE
DO NOT OFFICIAL POSITION AT THIS
TIME.
THANK YOU MISTER HARVEY.
WHO USED TO WORK IN MY OFFICE?
NOW HAS MORE POWER MORE MONEY SO
THAT'S GOOD DAY.
ARE ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS OF MR LACKEY.
YEAH I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE
PARTICULAR WHAT MR SHE TALKED
ABOUT -- HE INDICATED THAT
DEMOGRAPHIC -- AND I WOULD LIKE
TO ASK A ARE YOU REFERRING TO
LGBT Q..
YES OKAY SO IF I COULD ASK YOU.
WHAT DOES NOT MEAN ABLE TO CARRY
CONCEALED -- WEAPON UNIQUELY HOW
HOW DOES IT UNIQUELY IMPACT THAT
COMMUNITY OR THAT DEMOGRAPHIC
YOU REFER.
TO OR DOES IT.
WELL.
IT'S A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.
PLEASE BEAR IN MIND THAT WE ARE
DISPROPORTIONATELY HIGHER.
NO VICTIMS OF VIOLENT CRIME
OFTEN INVOLVING MULTIPLE
OFFENDERS BOTH THE FEDERAL AND
STATE GOVERNMENTS HAVE PASSED
HATE CRIME LEGISLATION THERE'S A
NOTE.
AIDS IRREFUTABLE THAT WE HAVE
ISSUES THAT WHEN YOU'RE FACING
MULTIPLE ATTACKERS WHEN CRITICAL
SECONDS COUNT.
YOU DON'T SB DIALING YOUR PHONE
WILL WORK THINGS LIKE MASON
PEPPER SPRAY WILL NOT DETER
VIOLENT ATTACKERS SPECIALLY IF
THEY'RE ARMED WITH CLUBS OR
KNIVES OR WHATEVER.
AND THE VICTIMS OF HATE CRIME
ATTACKS.
MANY ARE.
WHILE MANY DON'T GET KILLED
MAYOR SERIOUSLY INJURED THEY
HAVE PHYSICAL INJURIES AND YOU
HAVE SCARS BECAUSE YOU'RE
WALKING DOWN AND YOU'RE JUST.
DOING YOUR OWN THING AND MIND
YOUR OWN BUSINESS AND YOU JUST
GET.
BAM YOU GET ATTACKED AND IT'S A
FIREARM G. AT WILL IT GIVES YOU
A FIGHTING CHANCE OF YOUR FACING
TWO THREE OR MORE ATTACKERS A
FIREARM.
IS A SIGNIFICANT DETERRENT
BECAUSE WE FACING THAT MANY TYPE
ATTACKS THAT TYPE OF ATTACK.
YOUR LIFE IS IN DANGER YOU ARE
AT HIGH RISK OF GREAT BODILY
HARM.
AND A FIRE A FIREARM IS A AS THE
LATE ANTONE SCALIA SAID IT IS
THE QUINTESSENTIAL SELF DEFENSE
TOOL.
WE JUST WANT EQUALITY ALONG WITH
WE JUST WE JUST WANT TO BE ABLE
TO PROTECT OUR LIVES IT'S REALLY
THAT SIMPLE [inaudible]
THANK YOU.
ARE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
YOU MAY CLOSE.
MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE THE LEGISLATION BEFORE
YOU TODAY A POLL TO SECOND
AMENDMENT AND IT ALSO ENFORCES
WHAT WAS WRITTEN IN THE UNITED
STATES DECLARATION OF
INDEPENDENCE THAT WE HOLD THESE
TRUTHS TO BE SELF EVIDENT.
THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL
THAT THEY ARE ENDOWED BY THEIR
CREATOR WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE
RIGHTS.
UNDER CURRENT LAW CALIFORNIANS
MUST PASS A RIGOROUS BACKGROUND
CHECK INCOMPLETE NUMEROUS HOURS
OF SAFETY TRAINING REQUIREMENTS
AND CAN STILL BE DENIED A
CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT.
SIMPLY BECAUSE OF WHO THEY ARE
OR WHERE THEY LIVE FURTHERMORE
IF THE DOJ IS DOING THEIR JOB
AND TAKING GUNS OUT OF THE HANDS
OF CRIMINALS THE DENIAL CCW
SHOULD NOT BE A CONCERN.
SHARES CAN DETERMINE WHETHER
SOMEONE HAS GOOD CAUSE TO
RECEIVE A CCW PERMIT BUT THE
INTERPRETATION OF GOOD CAUSE HAS
BEEN INCONSISTENTLY APPLIED
ACROSS OUR FIFTY EIGHT COUNTIES.
IN TWO THOUSAND FIFTEEN
SACRAMENTO COUNTY ISSUED SIX
THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED TWENTY
FOUR PERMITS WHILE AT THE SAME
TIME LOS ANGELES COUNTY ISSUED
FOUR HUNDRED NINETY FOUR IN SAN
FRANCISCO ISSUED.
FOR AS YOU ARE WELL AWARE MISTER
CHAIR LOS ANGELES COUNTY IS TEN
TIMES THE SIZE OF SACRAMENTO
COUNTY AND FOUR TIMES THE SIZE
OF SAN FRANCISCO.
AB TEN NINETY SIX GUARANTEES
THAT IF A CITIZEN PASSES THE
STRINGENT BACKGROUND CHECK
COMPLETES THE NECESSARY FIREARM
SAFETY TRAINING REQUIREMENTS IN
IS DEEMED TO HAVE GOOD CAUSING
GOOD MORAL CHARACTER.
THE SHALL BE ISSUED A CONCEALED
CARRY PERMIT.
EVERY LAW ABIDING CITIZEN NO
MATTER THEIR RACE RELIGION
SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR POLITICAL
PARTY AFFILIATION HAS THE RIGHT
TO DEFEND THEMSELVES WITH A
CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT.
THIS BILL WILL REVISE A GOOD
CAUSE SHARES PROVISION OF
CURRENT LAW TO INCLUDE THE NEED
FOR SELF DEFENSE DEFENDING THE
LIFE OF ANOTHER.
OR PREVENTING CRIME IN WHICH
HUMAN LIFE IS THREATENED AND
ADDITIONALLY THIS BILL WOULD
ALSO GREAT INDIVIDUALS LIVING
OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA THE
ABILITY APPLY FOR CCW PERMIT
UNDER SHERIFF'S DISCRETION THERE
IS NO REASON TO DENY SOMEONE.
THIS TYPE OF PERMIT SIMPLY
BECAUSE OF WHERE THEY LIVE OR
BECAUSE YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT
PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE GUNS IT'S A
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.
THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE WHO ARE
IN DURING HARM OUT THERE BECAUSE
THEY CAN'T DEFEND THEMSELVES IF
THEY'VE PROVEN THEMSELVES IF
THEY HAVE MET THE CONDITIONS A
THEY'VE GONE THROUGH THE
TRAINING IF THEY PAID THEIR
MONEY.
THE IT SHOULD BE A SHALL ISSUE
STATE WITH THAT I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR I ABOUT.
THANK YOU -- I KNOW WE WE'VE
TRAVELED THIS ROAD BEFORE --
MANY TIMES MANY TIMES -- AND IT.
AND UNTIL OF THE EXISTING SYSTEM
THAT WE HAVE -- SHOWS THAT.
AND I'M NOT DISAGREEING WITH
EITHER THE SHERIFF'S OR ARE YOU
WITNESSED AT THAT THERE MAY BE
FLAWS IN IT BUT THERE'S ONE
THING WE DO KNOW -- THE EXISTING
SYSTEM HAS HAD AN UNBELIEVABLE
SUCCESS RATE AS FAR AS MAKING
SURE KEEP GUNS OUT OF THE HANDS
OF THE WRONG PEOPLE.
AND AS WE ALL KNOW WE CAN'T SAY
THAT A LOT ABOUT A LOT OF
LEGISLATION THAT WE DO AND WE
SPECIALLY CAN'T SAY THAT ABOUT A
LOT OF PUBLIC SAFETY.
LAWS THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE AND
UNFORTUNATELY I HAVE TO SAY NO
REALLY BASED ON SUCCESS OF THE
EXISTING CALIFORNIA CCW
REGULATION.
THERE MAY BE GOOD REASONS WHY
EACH ONE OUTSIDE OF POLITICAL.
AND MAYBE.
SOME PREJUDICES TOWARDS CERTAIN
GROUP -- THERE MAY BE SOME VERY
GOOD REASONS THAT I DON'T KNOW
ABOUT WHY SACRAMENTO MAY GIVE
OUT MORE SO THAN LA OR OTHER
PLACES OR SAN FRANCISCO.
BUT I'D SOMEONE AB POLITICS BUT
AT THE END OF THE DAY -- DAVID
VERY GOOD AT MAKING SURE THAT --
THE EXISTING CCW SYSTEM HAS BEEN
VERY VERY SUCCESSFUL SO WITH
THAT UNFORTUNATE HAVE TO
RECOMMEND AN OVER [inaudible]
ISABEL.
ON AB TEN NINETY SIX THE MOTION
IS TO PASS TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE JONES SAWYER.
JONES SAWYER NO LACKEY.
LACKEY I BAUER-KAHAN YOU THERE
K. HAD NO DEEP.
DEEP I KAMLAGER-DOVE.
KAMLAGER-DOVE NO QUIRK.
QUIRK NOW SANTIAGO WICKS NO
WEEKS NOW.
I'M SORRY THE MEASURE FAILS
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THANK
YOU.
AND I WANT TO ANNOUNCE THAT --
ITEM NUMBER TEN AB TEN SIXTY
FOUR MORE OUT SU CHI HAS BEEN
PULLED BY THE AUTHOR
[inaudible]
NOW.
TO MR FONT -- BILL NUMBER --
FIVE SIX NINE ITEM NUMBER.
TWO WHAT EVERY YEAR REDDING
MISBACH BUT THANK YOU MISTER
CHAIR MEMBERS.
AB FIVE SIX NINE ADDRESS IS A
GROWING PROBLEM OF INDIVIDUALS
KNOWINGLY REPORTING A FALSE
ACTIVE SHOOTER UNDER CURRENT LAW.
IT IS A CRIMES REPORT THAT THERE
IS AN EMERGENCY KNOWING THAT THE
REPORT IS FAKE WHAT IS COMMONLY
KNOWN AS SWATTING IS WHEN
INDIVIDUAL KNOWINGLY REPORTS AN
EMERGENCY WITH THE INTENTION OF
DRAWING HEAVY POLICE PRESENCE OR
SWAP.
ACCORDING TO FBI ESTIMATES
THERE'S ROUGHLY AROUND FOUR
HUNDRED SWATTING CASES THAT
OCCUR ANNUALLY NATIONWIDE.
THESE INSTANCES UNFORTUNATELY
HIT CLOSE TO HOME.
THIS PAST YEAR TWO SEPARATE
FALSE ACTIVITY REPORTS OCCURRED
AT HOSPITALS AND COMMUNITIES
THAT I REPRESENT.
KERN COUNTY A BIGGER SO LAW%
ENFORCEMENT RESPONDED IN A
TIMELY MANNER AND CLEARED BOTH
REPORTS THEY WORKED ALONGSIDE
HOSPITAL PERSONNEL TO ENSURE THE
SAFETY OF PATIENTS AND THE
COMMUNITY AT LARGE. ONE OF THE
HOSPITAL PATIENTS WERE INJURED
OR HURT THIS IS AN INCREDIBLE
DRAIN ON VERY LIMITED LAW
ENFORCEMENT RESOURCES.
BUT IT ALSO PUT PATIENTS AND
MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS IN A VERY
DRAMATIC SITUATIONS.
THESE FALSE INCIDENCES REQUIRING
HEAVY POLICE PRESENCE.
OR VITAL EMERGENCY RESOURCES
AWAY FROM OTHER POSSIBLE
EMERGENCIES.
THIS BILL CREATES GREATER
DETERRENCE FOR INDIVIDUAL TO
FALSELY REPORT ACTIVE SHOOTER
REPORTING FALSE EMERGENCIES
ESPECIALLY THOSE INVOLVING AN
ACTIVE SHOOTER.
MUST BE TREATED WITH THE
APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF SERIOUSNESS
THE SERIOUSNESS.
THIS BILL HAS BROAD SUPPORT FROM
THE CALIFORNIA HOSPICE
ASSOCIATION AND VARIOUS LAW
ENFORCEMENT GROUPS INCLUDING THE
CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS
ASSOCIATION CALIFORNIA STATE
SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT AND CALIFORNIA
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION.
WITH ME TO TESTIFY TODAY IN
SUPPORT IS THAT THE IS AMERICAN
CAGES RETURNEE AND BRUCE PETERS
PRESIDENT AND CEO OF BOTH
DOWNTOWN AND SOUTHWEST MERCY
GOOD MORNING MISTER CHAIRMAN THE
MORNING AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE -- MY NAME IS CINDY
ZIMMER AND I'M KERN COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY I'M HERE TODAY
TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT SOME OF THE
EXPERIENCES THAT WE HAVE HAD IN
KERN COUNTY.
AND TO ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORTIVE
AB.
FIVE SIX NINE IN DECEMBER OF
TWENTY SEVENTEEN A MAN CAME TO
BAKERSFIELD HEART HOSPITAL.
WITH A RIFLE AND FIRED FIVE
SHOTS INTO THE GLASS DOORS OF
THE BUILDING NGUYEN INSIDE.
AND TERRORIZE -- SOME OF THE
PEOPLE INSIDE AND IT COST FEAR
NOT ONLY IN THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY
BUT ALSO FEAR IN THE MEDICAL
COMMUNITY.
JUST A FEW MONTHS LATER IN
AUGUST OF TWENTY EIGHTEEN I WAS
ABOUT SIX MONTHS LATER THERE WAS
AN ACTIVE SHOOTER CALL.
A RECEIPT BY THE BAKERSFIELD
MERCY HOSPITAL.
ALL AVAILABLE OFFICERS LEFT WHAT
THEY WERE DOING WENT THERE
RUSHED TO THEIR TO THE SCENE.
AND SPENT FOUR HOURS TRYING TO
CLEAR THE HOSPITAL DETERMINE
WHAT HAPPENED AND THEY
DETERMINED IT WAS A HOAX AND THE
CALL CAME FROM WAS WITHIN THE
HOSPITAL.
LESS THAN SIX MONTHS LATER FOUR
MONTHS LATER.
IN DECEMBER OF TWENTY EIGHTEEN
THERE WAS ANOTHER REPORT OF AN
ACTIVE SHOOTER THIS TIME.
AT BAKERSFIELD MERCY -- SKEWS ME
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL A HUGE
HOSPITAL AGAIN ALL AVAILABLE
FIREFIGHTERS FIRST RESPONDERS
PEACE OFFICERS.
CONVERGED UPON THE HOSPITAL IT
TOOK SIX HOURS. TO GO -- PLACE
BY PLACE TO TRY TO DETERMINE
WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS TRULY
IN AN ACTIVE SHOOTER -- AFTER
THIS LONG INVESTIGATION IT WAS
DETERMINED THAT THE PERSON WHO
CALLED IN THE HOAX.
WAS A PERSON THAT WAS ALSO
IMPERSONATING A PEACE OFFICER
INSIDE THE HOSPITAL.
HE ADMITTED THAT HE WAS THE ONE
THAT HAD CALLED IN THE HOAX.
A SIX MONTHS BEFORE AND ALSO
DONE ANOTHER ONE IN BETWEEN --
THESE INCIDENTS -- WHETHER A
HOAX OR IS -- WHETHER OF OF
REPORT OF A AN ACTIVE SHOOTER IS
A HOAX A REAL THE PSYCHOLOGICAL
EFFECTS TO VICTIMS.
OF PEOPLE IN THE HOSPITAL PEOPLE
IN THE COMMUNITY WHO WERE ON
LOCKDOWN IT IT IS SEVERE WE
TEACH IN OUR NATION FOR STUDENTS
TO RUN AND HIDE AND FIGHT IN OUR
COMMUNITIES ARE ON EDGE.
I ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT FOR THIS
BILL -- THIS BILL WOULD
MODERNIZE MODERNIZE OUR LOSS TO
RECOGNIZE THAT INTENTIONAL NOT
ACCIDENTAL BUT INTENTIONAL FALSE
REPORTS OF ACTOR SHOOTERS SHOULD
BE APPROPRIATELY PUNISHED.
AND UNDER APPROPRIATE
CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD BE PUNISHED
AS FELONIES -- HANDLING THIS
TYPE OF OFFENSE IS JUST TOO
SERIOUS TO TREAT IT AS A
MISDEMEANOR.
THIS BILL WOULD MAKE THIS A
WOBBLE -- NOT STATE PRISON AB
ELIGIBLE BUT A WAFFLER.
IT COULD BE A FELONY OR A
MISDEMEANOR.
AND IT WOULD GIVE US THE
OPPORTUNITY IN LAW ENFORCEMENT
IN THE COURTS TO TAKE EACH
OFFENDER ON A CASE BY CASE BE
BASIS AND FASHION A SENTENCE.
THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO THE
DEFENDER OF THE OFFENDER A BE A
DETERRENT AND PROTECT THE PUBLIC.
WE WITH SOME FELONY TEETH CORD
WITH A COMBINATION OF JAIL AND
MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT.
DRUG TREATMENT.
AND WITH THE ONE ON ONE
PROBATION OFFICER HELP THIS
OFFENDER SO THEY WOULDN'T DO IT
AGAIN BECAUSE THIS OFFENDER --
THAT WE DID HAD IN THIS CASE DID
THIS THREE TIMES. THREE TIMES SO
I REALLY WANT TO THANK YOU ALL
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND FOR
LISTENING TO WHAT HAPPENED TO US
DOWN IN KERN COUNTY.
AND ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT ON THIS
BILL THANK YOU SO MUCH.
THANK YOU OR ANY OTHER WITNESSES
IN SUPPORT OF A GOOD MORNING MY
NAME IS BRUCE PETERS PRESIDENT
CEO OF MERCY HOSPITALS AND
BAKERSFIELD.
ON BEHALF OF DIGNITY HEALTH ONE
IS THIRTY TWO HOSPITALS IN
CALIFORNIA I'M HERE IN SUPPORT
OF AB.
FIVE SIXTY NINE THANK YOU MEMBER
FONG FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP.
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE FOR
THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY.
DIGNITY HEALTH'S MISSION IS TO
PROVIDE HIGH QUALITY
COMPASSIONATE AFFORDABLE HEALTH
CARE SERVICES AND THAT INCLUDES.
PROTECTING OUR PATIENTS STAFF
AND VISITORS FROM HARM.
WE HAVE SAFETY SECURITY
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PROTOCOLS
IN PLACE TO DELIVER ON THAT
PROMISE.
AND WE TAKE SERIOUSLY OUR
RESPONSIBILITY TO STEWARD WELL
THE PRECIOUS HEALTH CARE
RESOURCES ENTRUSTED TO US.
AT A TIME WHEN PEOPLE ARE AT
THEIR MOST VULNERABLE.
AND HOSPITALS ARE DOING THEIR
VERY BEST TO KEEP THE DOORS OPEN
TO EVERYONE IN NEED WE MUST DO
ALL WE CAN TO DETER SWATTING.
FROM OCCURRING AND COMMUNITIES.
THE FALSE ACTIVE SHOOTER REPORTS
THAT PLAYED OUT LAST YEAR TO
OVER HOSPITALS WITHIN FOUR
MONTHS TIME OF ONE ANOTHER A
TESTAMENT TO WHY.
IT IS A MIRACLE NO ONE DIED.
PEOPLE WERE SHELTERED IN PLACE
FOR HOURS.
PREVENTED FROM MOVING TO
OPERATING ROOMS OTHER PROCEDURAL
AREAS AND EVEN PATIENT ROOMS.
PHYSICIANS AND OTHER CRITICAL
STAFF MEMBERS WERE PREVENTED
FROM ENTERING THE HOSPITAL'S. TO
DELIVER POTENTIALLY LIFE SAVING
TREATMENT.
SO THE THREAT TO THE LIVES OF
OUR PATIENTS IS VERY REAL.
BOTH END INCIDENTS TOOK A
COMBINED NINE TO TEN HOURS UNTIL
OUR HOSPITALS WERE CLEARED.
THAT ALSO TRANSLATES TO
THOUSANDS OF STAFF HOURS AND
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
CONSUMED.
IMAGINE THE TRAUMA AND STRESS
AND DOOR DURING THOSE DAYS AND
WEEKS FOLLOWING.
AND LET'S NOT FORGET THE
REPUTATIONAL IMPACT HOSPITALS.
PEOPLE MUST NOT FEEL AFRAID TO
GO TO HOSPITALS TO GET THE CARE
THEY NEED WHEN THEY NEED IT.
THE TWO INCIDENTS TOOK SOMETHING
FROM US AS A COMMUNITY.
TIME THAT SENSE OF SECURITY AND
COMMUNITY TRUST.
AS WELL AS PRECIOUS RESOURCES
THAT COULD HAVE BEEN OTHERWISE.
BEEN DEPLOYED FOR THEIR TRUE
INTENDED PURPOSES. FOR THESE
REASONS I ASK FOR YOUR AYE VOTE
ON SB FIVE SIXTY NINE THANK YOU.
THANK YOU SIR ARE THERE ANY
OTHER WITNESSES AND SUPPORT.
MEMBERS JONATHON FELDMAN
CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS
ASSOCIATION SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
RENDON UP ON BEHALF OF THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF IN
SUPPORT.
THE MORNING CHRISTINE WARD WITH
CRIME VICTIMS ACTION ALLIANCE
AND CITIZENS.
CITIZENS FOR LAW AND ORDER
SUPPORT THANK YOU.
MORNING MR TURN MEMBERS CHORUS
ALSO ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
STATE SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS
LARRY MORSE BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION
IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
ARE THERE ANY WITNESSES
OPPOSITION
.
GOOD MORNING LADIES GOOD MORNING.
TWO ONE A COOPER SOCIALITE --
GOOD MORNING -- CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION
OPPOSES -- AB FIVE SIX NINE I'M
MARGOT GEORGE -- AB FIVE SIX
NINE IS UNNECESSARY THIS CONDUCT
IS ALREADY PROHIBITED BY LAW ALL.
OF THEIR VARIOUS SECTIONS OF ONE
FORTY EIGHT POINT -- BAD EITHER
PROHIBIT REPORTING OR CAUSING
ANY REPORT TO ME MADE.
THAT AN EMERGENCY SITUATION
EXIST ON A SOME OF THE SECTIONS
ARE ALREADY A ONE YEAR
MISDEMEANOR.
OTHER SECTIONS OF PROHIBIT
FILING A POLICE REPORT FALSELY.
ON ADDITIONALLY THE ACTUAL
LANGUAGE OF AB.
FIVE SIXTY NINE IS VAGUE AS SAYS
AN ACTIVE SHOOTER SITUATION IS
UNDER WAY.
IT'S OVER BROAD AND THEN IT'S
DEFINED TO MEAN IN -- REPORT OF
GUNFIRE AND ANY POPULATED PLACE
IN ANY REPORT OF A PERSON
SHOOTING FIRE ARM IN IN THE
POPULATED PLACE WELL I LIVE IN
OAKLAND.
AND EVERY NEW YEAR'S EVE THERE
ARE LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE.
ON SHOOTING FIRE ARMS OFF.
AND WE'VE NOW HAD AN INFLUX OF
PEOPLE FROM SAN FRANCISCO WE'RE
NOT USED TO THAT.
AND IF THEY REPORT THIS OF WHAT
THEY'VE BEEN BE LIABLE FOR
PROSECUTION BECAUSE THEY'RE
SAYING IT IS AN EMERGENCY
SITUATION BUT IN FACT IS
ACTUALLY AN URBAN ANNOYANCE --
THE PROVISION FOR FINANCIAL
LIABILITY FOR THE COST OF THE
EMERGENCY RESPONSE WITHOUT ANY
PROVISION REGARDING TO ABILITY
TO PAY MOST LIKELY
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
UNDER TIM CITY INDIANA AND THEN
THE CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL
CASE PEOPLE V. TWAIN US.
BECAUSE IT'S SIMPLY PUNISHES --
SOMEONE FOR BEING POOR.
ADDITIONALLY -- WE FEEL THAT AB
FIVE SIXTY NINE IS
DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE CRIME
THAT IT CREATES A FELONY AND I
UNDERSTAND.
HOW HORRIFYING IT MUST HAVE BEEN
TO BE IN A HOSPITAL AND HAVE THE
SITUATION -- ARISE BUT
UNFORTUNATELY GIVEN -- AND
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PERSON
WHO.
COMMITTED THOSE OFFENSES WITH
MENTALLY ILL.
AND I WAS THINKING ABOUT THIS
KNOWS THINKING THAT USUALLY OR
PERHAPS MORE CUSTOMARILY IS
GONNA BE MINORS.
WHO WERE CALLING IN THESE KIND
OF CALLS WHO WERE ON WHO SEE AS
SORT OF AS LIKE THE TWENTY FIRST
CENTURY A TWELVE LEAD?
OF PULLING THE FIRE OUR ALARM AT
YOUR SCHOOL -- AB FIVE SIXTY
NINE IS UNNECESSARY IT
DUPLICATES EXISTING LAW IT
VIOLATES THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT.
ON FINES AND FEES AND WE ASKED
FOR AN OF OF THANK YOU.
YOU.
GOOD MORNING CATHY SURE ON
BEHALF OF THE ACLU OF CALIFORNIA --
I'VE WOULD JUST JOIN IN MY
COLLEAGUES COMMENTS -- AND ALSO
NOTE THAT FELONY PENALTIES ARE
ALREADY OF IT WILL FOR THIS --
BEHAVIOR WHEN -- WHEN THE FALSE
REPORT RESULTS IN GREAT BODILY
INJURY OR DEATH -- AND THAT WE
DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT THE
INCREASE IN PENALTY -- FOR THAT
THAT IS PROPOSED IN THIS BILL
WILL HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL
DETERRENT EFFECT ON ON ON OF
FALSE REPORTS OF ACTIVE SHOOTER --
SITUATIONS WE ASK FOR YOUR NOVA.
THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS.
KIND OF CLARIFICATION.
THE EXAMPLE THAT WAS USED ABOUT
THE NEW YEAR'S EVE SHOOTING.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THAT
WOULD.
BE EVEN CLOSE TO AN EXAMPLE HERE
BECAUSE THAT'S AN ACTUAL COURAGE
WILL BE TAKING PLACE SO IT'S NOT
A FALSE OCCURRENCE.
WELL -- I'M SORRY [inaudible]
SO.
WE HAVE A SITUATION WHERE THIS
IS HAPPENS EVERY NEW YEARS
EVERYBODY WHO LIVES IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD KNOWS THIS HAPPENS
BUT HOW DOES NOT APPLY TO THE
CHANNEL IT BECAUSE IT SAYS.
ON AND IN A REPORT OF GUNFIRE
AND ANY POPULATED PLACE.
ANALYST'S REPORT OF BUT IT'S THE
PEOPLE KNOW IT'S NOT AN
EMERGENCY I KNOW IT'S NOT AN
EMERGENCY MY NEIGHBORS NO IT'S
NOT AN EMERGENCY THEY JUST DON'T
LIKE IT.
SO THE CALLING UP NINE ONE ONE
THE OAKLAND DISPATCHER AND
SAYING.
THERE'S AN ACTIVE SHOOTER HERE
PEOPLE ARE FIRING GUN FIRE AND
THEN HAVING THE POLICE RESPOND --
IS THE EMERGENCE CIRCUMSTANCES
ARE CLEARLY DEBATABLE BUT THE
FACT THAT THIS IS CLEARLY AN
ACTUAL OCCURRENCE MAKES A
COMPLETELY SEPARATE FROM WHAT
THE INTENT OF THIS BILL.
I I DON'T I DON'T THINK IT'S
COMPLETELY AND AN ACCURATE --
ASSESSMENT JUST MY MY VIEW.
RIGHT THANK YOU OR ANY OF COMMON
TO THE STUDIO.
THANK YOU MISTER MISTER AND I
HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE FOR THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY -- MA'AM IT.
IT WAS REYES THAT -- THIS BILL
AB FIVE SIXTY NINE IS DO IS --
WE DONDON OR THERE'S THERE'S A
LOT OF DUPLICATE SEE AND HEAR
WOULD WOULD YOU GIVE THE
COMMITTEE.
A FEW EXAMPLE OF HOW.
OF WHAT IT IS THAT YOU'RE
PROPOSING IS -- CURRENTLY
DIFFERENT -- THAN WHAT WE HAVE
ON THE BOOK.
YES THIS WOULD MAKE IT A FELONY
RATHER THAN A MISDEMEANOR AND
THE SHOOTER IN OUR CASE -- IF
TREATED AS A MISDEMEANOR
OFFENDER WOULD HAVE HAD NO REAL --
SUPERVISION OR TEETH TO THE TO
THE LAW ALL THIS PARTICULAR
OFFENDER HAD SIX PRIOR FELONY
CONVICTIONS WAS IN NOT A
JUVENILE HE WAS FIFTY YEARS OLD.
HOW TO RECORD GOING BACK TO
NINETEEN NINETY ONE AND BY --
PROSECUTING HIM AS A MISDEMEANOR
WHICH WOULD REALLY IT THE
PUNISHMENT DID NOT FIT THE CRIME
OR HIS RECORD NOW WE WOULD TAKE.
EVERY INDIVIDUAL ON A CASE BY
CASE BASIS IF IT WAS A YOUNG
PERSON AND THAT KIND I THINK WE
CAN HANDLE THE CASE IS A
MISDEMEANOR.
BUT THAT'S HOW IT WOULD BE
DIFFERENT -- BUT WE WOULD HAVE A
FELONY PROBATION OFFICER.
OF SUPERVISING THE TREATMENT OF
THIS INDIVIDUAL IF THEY HAD DRUG
PROBLEMS IF THEY HAD MENTAL
HEALTH ISSUES OR IF THEY JUST
LIKE TO COMMIT CRIMES IN THIS
PARTICULAR INSTANCE.
THE FENDER PRETENDED HE WAS A
POLICE OFFICER.
AND WHEN THE POLICE CAME HE
PRETENDED THAT HE WAS A POLICE
OFFICER WAS TRYING TO HELP
PEOPLE EVEN DETAINED PEOPLE SO
SUCH A SERIOUS SERIOUS SITUATION.
THAT -- MISDEMEANOR PUNISHMENT
JUSTICE NOT FIT THE CRIME UNDER
SOME CIRCUMSTANCES [inaudible]
PARKING.
ISN'T IT A SEPARATE CRIME 10% OF
POLICE OFFICERS WAS AND THAT'S
HOW WE WERE ABLE TO GET A FELONY
CONVICTION IN THIS CASE BECAUSE
OTHERWISE HE WOULD HAVE BEEN
TREATED AS A MISDEMEANOR.
THAT IS HOW WE WERE ABLE BECAUSE
OF THAT CRIME WERE ABLE TO DO
THAT BUT NOT ALL.
ACTIVE SHOOTERS PRETEND THEY'RE
POLICE OFFICERS.
RIGHT BUT WHEN YOU WERE TRYING
TO ELEVATE THE CRIME THAT YOU'RE
DISCUSSING YOU'RE USING HIS
IMPERSONATION OF A POLICE
OFFICER WHICH IS A SEPARATE
CRIME WHICH DOES RIGHTS A LEVEL
OF FELONY SO.
I DON'T THINK OVERLAPPING THIS
THAT ON TOP OF THIS CRIME IS
APPROPRIATE GIVEN THAT THAT
CRIME HAS THE APPROPRIATE
PUNISHMENT BUT HE DIDN'T DO THAT
IN EVERY CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE
THREE HE ONLY DID THAT AND ONE
OF THE FIRST TWO HE JUST CALLED
IN A FALSE REPORT OF AN ACTIVE.
SHOOTER WHICH SHUT DOWN THE
HOSPITAL ITSELF AND HE WAS ABLE
TO GAIN THE POLICE OFFICER
INTELLIGENCE EACH TIME BY
WATCHING.
THE HOSPITAL BY MAKING THESE
CALLS FROM INSIDE THE HOSPITAL
ABOUT HOW OUR SWAT.
TEAM ACTUALLY WORKS AND HOW THE
TAKEN SO HE WAS ABLE TO BUILD ON
THAT AND BY THE THIRD TIME HE
THEN IMPERSONATED A PEACE
OFFICER HIMSELF.
AND I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR
FONG AND RIGHT THERE ALREADY WE
ALREADY HAVE THE ABILITY TO
RECEIVE REIMBURSEMENT FOR COSTS
TO EMERGENCY SERVICES THEIR
OTHER STATUTES THAT RATES THAT
THERE IS THE DETERRENCE OF THOSE.
WHAT ARE I'M SURE EXTREME COSTS
IN THE CASE THAT ARE BEING
DESCRIBED HERE FROM THE
PERPETRATOR?
SO CERTAINLY THERE IS THERE
THERE ARE MEANS THE GETS THE
CIVIL AND AND AND RECORD THE
COST I THINK THE THE CRUX OF
THIS BILL IS TO ENSURE.
THAT IF THERE IS A HOAX OR A
FALSE ACTIVE SHOOTER THAT THERE
IS THE THE PROSECUTION ROPE THE
TOOLS FOR THE PROSECUTION SIDE --
SO WHEN WE CAN WORK OUT THE THE
REIMBURSEMENT SIDE BUT THE CRUX
OF THE BILL IS TO ENSURE THAT
THERE IS SOMEHOW.
THE ABILITY TO HAVE -- SOME
FLEXIBILITY AND TO ENSURE THAT
THAT PERSON IS A CAN BE TRIED
UNDER FELONIES INSTEAD OF
MISDEMEANORS.
DOING ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
YOU MAY CLOSE ALL THE SIMPLY SAY
THAT THIS IS A GROWING AND
TROUBLING TREND IN OUR SOCIETY
IS VERY REAL THERE IS CERTAINLY
AN IMPACT ON ALLOW FOR SOME
RESOURCES.
THAT CAN LEAD TO SERIOUS
CONSEQUENCES TO THE PUBLIC -- WE
CERTAINLY I DON'T WISH THIS TO
HAPPEN TO ANY OF THE HOSPITALS
IN YOUR DISTRICT BUT IT HAS
HAPPENED TWICE A IN MINE AND SO
WE SHOULD LEARN FROM THOSE
EXPERIENCES -- WE HAD PATIENTS
ALIVE IS PUT IN JEOPARDY WE HAVE
MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS AND OF
COURSE IT'S NOT UNIQUE TO JUST
HOSPITALS IT COULD APPLY TO ANY
SITUATION ANY PUBLIC EVENTS.
ANY -- AS SCENARIO WHERE -- THIS
COULD BE -- SOMETHING THAT COULD
BE COULD COULD OCCUR AGAIN SO I
JUST SIMPLY ASK THAT WE LEARN
FROM OUR EXPERIENCES AND AND ICE
WAS BUT BASS WHEN I ABOUT.
IN AYE.
AND I THINK WE TALKED I REALLY
TRY TO FIND SOME.
SOME HAVE BEEN MEETING ACTON
FORTUNE I COULD NAY MAY BEEN
PARTLY THE TIME LIMIT AND A
CHURCH RECOMMEND NO NOT BECAUSE
WE DON'T.
UNDERSTAND THE URGENCY BUT JUST
THE COMPLEXITY OF ALL THE EVEN
JUST DESCRIBING A DIFFERENT
SITUATIONS -- IT BECAME
DIFFICULT -- STE SO LET'S.
TAKE.
THEIR MOTION [inaudible] TO GET.
ON EIGHTY FIVE SIXTY NINE THE
MOTION IS TO PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE JONES
SAWYER.
JONES SAWYER NO LACKEY.
LACKEY I BAUER-KAHAN BAUER-KAHAN
NO DEEP.
DEEP I KAMLAGER-DOVE.
QUIRK NOW QUIRK NOW SANTIAGO.
WICKS.
WICKS NOW.
I'M SORRY THAT MEASURE FAILS A
MASS FOR RECONSIDERATION.
YES IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION BY
FROM [inaudible]
UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
THANK YOU HAVE A NEXT WE HAVE
MISTER COOLEY -- AB ELEVEN
TWENTY FIVE AND TWELVE TWENTY
ONE ITEM SIXTEEN AND TWENTY ONE
YES AND A GOOD MORNING.
NUMBER SIXTEEN WITH SOMETHING.
I'M SORRY ITEM SIXTIES ON
CONSENT.
SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO.
ONE OKAY SO WHICH ONE IS ON
CONSENT BUT HOW ELEVEN TWENTY
FIVE IS ON CONSENT.
THANK YOU.
NO [inaudible]
HELLO.
NO IT'S NOT.
I'M SORRY IT'S SECRETARY GAVE
THE WRONG INFORMATION IT IS THAT
SORT OF BILL IT'S RIGHT IN THAT
ZONE.
YEAH SO DO YOU HAVE TO DO BOTH
VERY GOOD I'M.
I I'M SO DISMAYED AT THE MOON.
HER PERCENT MORE BILLS.
GO -- GOOD MORNING MISTER CHAIR
AND COLLEAGUES.
WE GOT A MOTIONS SECOND FLOW
WHICH BELLER DISCUSSING THIS
ELEVEN TWENTY FIVE TWENTY FIVE
ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS STAND I
ACT.
YEAH AND I WILL THIS JUST
CREATES A CERTIFICATION PRO THAT
WOULD BE OPTIONAL BUT STATE
RECOGNIZED.
AND TO RAISE THE STANDARD OF
TRAINING FOR ANIMAL CONTROL
OFFICERS IN CALIFORNIA.
I THINK THIS IS NOW SENATE BILL
COURSE MY DISTRICT.
WHICH IS BOTH URBAN AND RURAL
THERE'S ALL MANNER OF ANIMAL
ISSUES.
YOU KNOW DOG CAT.
OF THOSE SORTS OF ISSUES
RACCOONS COMING OUT OF THE
PARKWAY -- PACK -- JUST ALL
KINDS INCIDENT CATTLE TURKEYS
LAMBS IS EVERYTHING.
SO THIS IS DESIGNED TO TAKE THIS.
THIS ROLE WHICH DOES PLAY AN
IMPORTANT LIFE IS PEOPLE LEAVE
LIVE TOGETHER.
AND RAISE ASTANDARD IT'S
SEVERAL BILL I DID A FEW YEARS
AGO ON CODE FOR SOURCE -- YES.
CODE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS COVER
A BUILDING CODE IDEA THAT WAS
RIGHT SO.
I HAVE HIM RE BRZEZINSKI VERY
BRIEFLY BECAUSE IT'S MOVED AND
SECONDED TEN RIGHT.
GOOD MORNING CHAIRED JONES
SAWYER AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC SAFETY MY
NAME IS HENRY PERCENT SCAM THE
CALIFORNIA ANIMAL WELFARE
ASSOCIATION LEGISLATIVE CHAIR.
OF ALL FROM RECENT MERGER THE
CALIFORNIA ANIMAL CONTROL
DIRECTOR STATE HUMANE
ASSOCIATION STATEWIDE GROUP.
REPRESENT BOTH GOVERNMENT
NONPROFIT AGENCIES -- THIS BILL
WAS -- SOMEONE COOLEY STATED WAS
PATTERNED AFTER CODE ENFORCEMENT
CALIFORNIA CODE ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS ARE ALSO IN SUPPORT.
THERE'S A NEED TO INCREASE THE
PROFESSIONALISM OF ANIMAL
CONTROL OFFICERS LONG OVERDUE A
WORD I HATE TO USE BUT THE DOG
CATCHER DAYS.
ARE LONG GONE THAT'S A DIRTY
WORD IN MY BOOK.
AS AS IS POUND -- OUR ANIMAL
CONTROL OF THE STATEWIDE
INVESTIGATING MULTITUDE OF
ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE
VIOLATIONS AND CRIMES ALONG SIDE
LAW ENFORCEMENT.
WE INVESTIGATE ANIMAL FIGHTING
RINGS PREPARE AND EXECUTE SEARCH
WARRANTS FOR ANIMAL ABUSE
INVESTIGATIONS AND SEES
DANGEROUS DOGS AS WELL AS ISSUE
CITATIONS.
THIS TRAINING WILL ALSO PROTECT
COMMUNITIES AND LIMIT COVERED
GOVERNMENT LIABILITY.
SOME OF YOU MAY REMEMBER
NOVEMBER TWENTY EIGHTH TWENTY
TWELVE IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY
SACRAMENTO COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL
SIR ROY MARKHAM WAS SHOT AND
KILLED ONE ON THE LINE OF DUTY.
BY A HOARDER.
HOPEFULLY THIS TRAINING WOULD
HAVE PREVENTED THIS UNFORTUNATE
ACT -- THERE'S MERGING ANIMAL
CARE TECHNIQUES PROPER LEGAL
PROCEDURES WE BELIEVE WE NEED TO
TRAINING.
AND I'M SURPRISED TWENTY YEARS
AGO WHEN I WORKED IN THE EAST
COAST FLORIDA HAD AS SUCH
LEGISLATION AN ACTUAL LAW.
SO THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO
TESTIFY RESPECTFULLY ASK YOUR
AYE VOTE ON ASSEMBLY MEMBER
COOLIES BILL TO SYSTEM RAISING
THE BAR OF OUR NON DOG CATCHERS
THANKS SO MUCH THANK YOU AGO.
OTHER ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT.
GOOD MORNING GOOD MORNING MISTER
CHAIR MEMBERS ELIZABETH ESPINOSA
ON BEHALF OF THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR
THE REASONS THAT I'VE ALREADY
BEEN ARTICULATED IN SUPPORT
THANK YOU THANK YOU.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER WITNESSES A
SUPPORT.
ANY WITNESS IN OPPOSITION
[inaudible]
HELLO.
EARLY FOR TAKING THE OPPORTUNITY
TO LOOK AT THE TRAINING DIRECTLY
TO THE MIGHT MAYBE IT'LL CLOSER
RIGHT THIS WILL SHOW YOU KNOW
YOU'RE HERE -- FOR TAKING THE
OPPORTUNITY FOR THE TRADING BILL
AND INTERESTED IN [inaudible]
HOWEVER.
I BELIEVE THAT AS A PROPOSED AB
ELEVEN TWENTY FIVE IS SEVERELY
FLAWED. FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS.
IT SHIFTS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
TRAINING TO THE FROM THE AGENCY
TO THE EMPLOYEE.
ON THIS BILL DOES NOT PROVIDE
TRAINING OF NOR DOES IT PROVIDE
INCENTIVES. TO THE EMPLOYER TO
PAY FOR THE TRAINING.
THE BILL ONLY HELPS TO EMPLOY
THEIR EMPLOYER WHEN.
FORCING THE EMPLOYEE TO PAY FOR
THE TRAINING OUT OF THEIR POCKET.
TAKE THEIR OWN TIME MISS WORK
DOES NOT -- BENEFIT THE EMPLOYEE
ONLY THAT THE EMPLOYER BECAUSE
ONLY THE COMPANY OF THE TRAINING
BILLS IS.
FOR A CAL ANIMAL.
ACTOR AND HAS IS PART OF THE
ROUTE OPPOSITION THERE -- THERE
WAS THREE OTHER BILLS FOR
TRAINING -- SB -- TWELVE SEVENTY
EIGHT AB TWO SEVENTY FOUR TO
SEVENTY THREE BACK IN TWO
THOUSAND FOURTEEN CáC.
TO OPPOSED OUR BILL.
OR THE BILLS THAT WERE OUT AND
UNFORTUNATELY NOW THEY'RE PART
OF CAL ANIMAL WHICH IS MERGED
AND THAT THERE.
THIS IS -- A ONE SIDED DEAL.
THEY'RE GOING TO BE GETTING OF
TELLING THE EMPLOYER WHERE YOU
HAVE THE TRAINING AND STUFF POST
IS NOT OFFER.
ANIMAL CONTROL TRAINING THEY
ONLY OFFER IT FOR A LONG FOR
SMITH AND BY THE WAY.
ROY MARKHAM WAS MY SON.
I AM AS A MOTHER.
AND THAT'S FOR ONE REASON WHY --
OPPOSING THIS BILL BECAUSE IT
DOES NOT GIVE THE EMPLOYEE.
THE OPPORTUNITY OF HAVING THEIR
TRAINING PAID FOR AS IT SHOULD
BE ARE YOU HI.
AT A RESTAURANT TODAY I ASKED
THE LADY.
WHO THAT WAS SERVING US DO YOU
HAVE TRAINING FOR YOUR JOB YEAH
SHE HAS TRAINING FOR HER JOB
WHERE IN THE JOB ALLOWS IT TH
THE EMPLOYER PAYS FOR IT?
SHE HAS AT LEAST ONE TRAINING
OUT OF A YEAR.
IF IT REQUIRES MORE TRAINING AND
SHE GETS IT.
AND THE EMPLOYER TRAINS IT IT
BENEFITS THE EMPLOYER AND THE
EMPLOYEE AND IT DOES NOT COME
OUT OF HER POCKET.
IF MY SON HAD TO PAY FOR THIS
TRAINING HE HAD A FAMILY HE
COULDN'T AFFORD IT.
THEREFORE IF HE HAD THE MONEY TO
PAY FOR A BULLET PROOF VEST HE
WOULD HAVE DONE IT.
AFTER HIS DEATH BULLET PROOF
VESTS WERE PROVIDED.
AND THAT WAS A HINDSIGHT.
AND I OPPOSE THIS BILL IF IT WAS
WRITTEN IN A DIFFERENT I WOULD
OF ALL WHOLEHEARTEDLY APPROVE IT.
BECAUSE I SEE THIS BEYOND A
CHAIN EFFECT.
OF ITS EMPLOYEES HAVE TO PAY FOR
THEIR OWN TRAINING YOU'RE GOING
TO HAVE.
OFFICERS OUT THERE DOING.
WHAT THEY SHOULD BE?
DOING SOMETHING ELSE YOU'RE TO
HAVE AN OFFICER OUT THERE DOING
ANIMAL CONTROL TRAINING.
IN PROVIDING FOR ANIMAL CONTROL.
AT WHICH SOME OFFICERS DO BUT
THE THING OF IT IS YOU CAN HAVE
MORE YOU'RE GONNA HAVE AN ANIMAL
CONTROL OFFICE THAT DOES A SEALS
ONLY.
THEY'RE GOING TO BE QUITTING
THEIR JOBS ARE GOING TO GO INTO
MORE ELSE OR SOMEBODY ELSE CAN
PROVIDE YOUR TRAINING WHERE THEY
DON'T HAVE TO HAVE IT OUT OF
POCKET BECAUSE IT BENEFITS THE
AGENCY.
NOT THE EMPLOYEE THANK YOU MA'AM.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION.
YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE IF YOU WANT
NAME ORGANIZATION OR JUST ONE
MINUTE WHATEVER YOU WANT I
MEMBERS SHALL I AM AND
OPPOSITION OF THE BILL SIMPLY I
AGREE FOR THE TRAINING.
BUT I BELIEVE IT NEEDS TO BE
WRITTEN DIFFERENTLY HONESTLY --
CALIFORNIA AND ANIMALS IS --
JOINED TOGETHER BY A CAPTAIN
JACK THEY'VE COME TOGETHER -- AB
ONE ELEVEN TWELVE IS UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICES PRIMARILY
BECAUSE THE ONLY PERSON THAT
WOULD BE PROVIDING THE TRAINING
FOR THE ACO IS WOULD BE KELL
ANIMALS THERE ARE VERY FEW LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.
COLLEGES THE COLLEGES OR
UNIVERSITIES THAT WOULD ALLOW
FOR ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT RELATED
COURSES SO THEY WOULD ONLY HAVE.
THE OPTION TO GO THROUGH CAL
ANIMALS -- THAT'S A MONOPOLY
RIGHT THERE IF YOU'RE FORCED TO
PAY OUT OF POCKET AND TAKE YOUR
OWN TIME TO GO DO THE TRAINING
FOR YOUR JOB.
WE ONLY HAVE ONE PLACE TO GO --
TO THAT'S NOT FAIR.
AND THERE ARE DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS
WHO ENFORCE LOCAL ORDINANCES AND
STATE LAWS AND THE HUMANE
OFFICERS TO ENFORCE ONLY
SPECIFIC STATE LAWS.
BUT CALIFORNIA ANIMALS WANTS TO
DO A STANDARDIZED TRAINING AND
IT DOES NOT FIT -- IN SIMPLE
TERMS BOTH HUMANE OFFICERS AN
ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS AND FOR
STATE LAWS THAT PROTECT ANIMALS
FROM HARM BY PEOPLE BUT HUMANE
OFFICERS DO NOT ENFORCE STATE OR
LOCAL ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCES.
AND SECONDLY ANIMAL CONTROL
OFFICERS AND FOR STATE AND LOCAL
LAWS THAT PROTECT PEOPLE AND
PETS AND ANIMALS FROM HARM BY
ANIMALS.
THE TWENTY TO FORTY OUR INITIAL
TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR ANIMAL
CONTROL OFFICERS ARE IDENTICAL
TO THOSE OF A HUMANE OFFICERS
BUT HAVE A LITTLE TO DO WITH THE
ACO IS WORK YOU [inaudible]
THANK [inaudible]
AT ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS.
BAUER-KAHAN MR COOLEY WE ADDRESS
THE CONCERNS OF THE OPPOSITION
THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO PAY OUT
OF POCKET THERE'S ONLY ONE
PROVIDER WHICH COULD BE
[inaudible]
CONCERNING.
NOT BE DELIGHTED TO SPEAK
BRIEFLY TO THAT -- I THINK THIS
BILL WILL ACTUALLY SET STANDARDS
FOR THIS [inaudible]
FIELD.
AS YOU DO THAT OTHERS WILL FIND
WAYS TO PROVIDE TRAINING I THINK
IT IS.
THIS BILL CHANGES THE
ENVIRONMENT WAS TRAINING WILL
HAPPEN -- THIS TYPE OF BILL
ACTUALLY RAISES THE BAR ON THE
UNITS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
IF THEY HAVE A PROFESSIONAL
OPERATION THEY'RE HARM
PROFESSIONAL PEOPLE.
THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO KIND OF
MOVE IN THIS DIRECTION OF
RAISING YOUR OWN INTERNAL
STANDARDS.
SO THIS THIS APPROACH WHERE YOU
TAKE A WELL RECOGNIZED.
TYPE OF SERVICE PROVIDED THE
LOCAL OVER GOVERNMENT.
RECOGNIZE STANDARDS.
FOR AND CREATE A A
PROFESSIONALIZATION TRACK WILL
START WORKING HIS WAY THROUGH
THE UNITS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
SO THAT THEY THEY WANT TO TRAIN
PEOPLE THEIR CONSTITUENTS WILL
WANT TO TRAIN.
THEY WILL.
YEAH I CAME OUT OF THE CITY I
WAS A FOUNDER OF A CITY I WAS A
LEADER IN THE LEAGUE OF CITIES
FIVE HUNDRED CITIES.
YOU GO TO LEAGUE CONFERENCES AND
THERE'S A LOT OF TALK ABOUT WHAT
IS THE LATEST THE BEST THE
APPROPRIATE TRAINING AT THE
LOCAL LEVEL.
SO THIS IS SORT OF RAISING THE
BAR.
ON THIS -- FIELD [inaudible]
SO.
I I DON'T I'M NOT WHOLLY
PESSIMISTIC THAT YOU WOULDN'T
SEE UNITS A LOCAL GOVERNMENT
STARTED TO ORCHESTRATE THIS
TRAINING.
BECAUSE IT ENDS UP BEING A GAP
IN YOUR PROGRAM IF IF THERE'S
TRAINING AVAILABLE.
IN YOUR ENSURING THAT YOUR
PEOPLE ARE TRAINED.
THEN THAT'S GOING TO COME TO THE
CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY
COUNCIL MEMBERS -- THANK YOU MY
RESPONSE TO THAT GET OUT.
YES MR Là JUST FOR
CLARIFICATION.
DOESN'T THAT TO KIND OF
EXCLUSIVE ARRANGEMENT -- AND
TRAINING CODE ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS ALREADY EXIST ALSO WITH
PRIVATE TO TRAINING YES AND I
HAVE YET TO HEAR PROBLEMS
RELATED TO THAT.
THAT THE A. B. I MEAN PEOPLE
WILL STEP FOR TO PROVIDE THIS
TRADE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
YOU MAY CLOSE MOST GRUELING I
REQUEST AN AYE VOTE THANK YOU
FOR YOUR TIME THIS THANK YOU
SCHOOLEY IN ISN'T I WILL
ACTUALLY I THINK.
IS ONE THOSE WHICH COMES FIRST I
THINK ONCE YOU RAISE THE
STANDARDS I THINK YOU GET.
TO WHAT THESE LADIES ARE TALKING
ABOUT HAVING LOCAL GOVERNMENT
ACTUALLY.
CODIFIES PARTICULAR STANDARDS
AND ALSO -- HAVE LOOKING
DISPARITIES PAPERWORK BECAUSE
ONCE YOU.
YOU BROUGHT THEM UP TO THAT
LEVEL -- DAN DELIVERY REQUIRE
THEM TO DO MORE MORE -- AS A
CONTROL OFFICER IN AN IN MY
EARLIER DAYS ASSISTANT DEPUTY
MAYOR I WAS OVER.
ANIMAL SERVICES.
APARTMENT AND I REMEMBER -- THE
TRAINEE THEY GOT EVEN AT THAT
LEVEL -- WAS PRETTY EXTENSIVE
AND AND AS HE MOVED INTO.
THE NIGHT AND IN SOUTH LA.
WE DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOTTA
COLLISON RACCOONS BUT WE DO HAVE
PEOPLE AND YOU REALLY DO NEED TO
BE TRAINED -- HEAVILY TO BE ABLE
TO DEAL WITH SOME OF THE THE
INCIDENTS AND DANGERS THAT THAT
HAPPENED WITH WITH SOME ANIMALS
IN CERTAIN CERTAIN DISTRICTS SO.
I APPLAUD YOU FOR BRINGING IT UP.
TO A LEVEL WHERE -- DATE.
I MEAN THE LEVEL OF DANGERS
GOTTEN WAY.
IT'S WAY UP NOW AND SO I COMMEND
YOU ON DOING THIS SEARCHERS
RECOMMEND AND I ON A. B. ELEVEN
TWENTY FIVE THE MOTION IS TO
PASS JONES SAWYER -- CANCER I
LACKEY LACKEY I'VE BAUER-KAHAN
BAUER-KAHAN I DEEP.
DEEP I KAMLAGER-DOVE.
QUIRK ALL RIGHT QUIRK I SAN
DIEGO.
SAN DIEGO I WICKS WICKS I THE
MEASURE PASSES VERY GOOD.
NOW ITEM NUMBER.
TWELVE TWENTY ONE CHILDREN'S
ADVOCACY CENTER'S.
RIGHT I AM THRILLED TO BRING THE
U. TWELVE TWENTY ONE WHICH DEALS
WITH CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS.
ON THE IDEA OF A CHILD ADVOCACY
CENTER IS TO CREATE A MULTI
DISCIPLINARY UNIT.
THE SUPPORTS WORK WITH CHILDREN --
AND A PURPOSE THAT REALLY THIS
TYPE OF FOCUS BRING IN A VARIETY
RESOURCE TOGETHER.
IS [inaudible]
TO HELP.
SAFEGUARD THE CHILDREN ENSURE
JUST OUTCOMES AND AVOID
TRAUMATIZING THEM.
AND I DO WANT TO NOTE ACTUALLY
THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS OF RAISED A
HAVE NOTED THAT THERE ARE SOME
PROVISIONAL LAW.
THAT HAVE SOMEWHAT SIMILAR
FUNCTIONS THAT HAVE A HEIGHTENED
LEVEL OF CONFIDENTIALITY USE OF
INFORMATION.
WHICH THEY REGARD AS VERY
SUPPORTIVE OF THE OUTCOME.
SO I DO NOT HAVE THAT
CONFIDENTIALITY AMENDMENT TODAY
BUT ACTUALLY FEEL.
I'M GRATEFUL FOR THEIR RAISING
THAT ISSUE BECAUSE I THINK IT
DOES ALIGNED WITH PURPOSE --
THIS BILL HAS BROAD SUPPORT.
UGH.
CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS BRING
TOGETHER AS A SAY MULTI
DESTROYED TEAM IT'S LAW
ENFORCEMENT CHAU PROTECTION
MEDICAL PERSONNEL.
MENTAL HEALTH PROVIDERS DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS. TO ENSURE THAT IN
RESPONSE TO AN ALLEGATION OF
CHILD ABUSE IS CORD IN AMONG
THESE AGENCIES.
AND THAT IT EEPS THE INTEREST
OF THE CHILD AT THE VANGUARD OF
THAT CONVERSATION THAT
INVESTIGATION.
I I BELIEVE THAT.
THIS APPROACH PUT IN A STRONG
FOCUS ON THE WELL BEING OF
CHILDREN AND PROVIDING SERVICE
WRITERS IT KIND OF THREAD INTO
THAT.
IS SO IMPORTANT FOR KIDS I THINK
HONESTLY IT IS A BASIC FUNCTION
OF GOVERNMENT. TO FOCUS ON
PROBLEMS BUT TO FIND
CONSTRUCTIVE SOLUTIONS OF SO I'M.
ON I KNOW THAT IN THIS TYPE OF
SAID IN THE CHILDREN WILL BE
LESS SUBJECT TO TRAUMA LESSER
BRICK.
TO HER FULL OUTCOMES OF PROMOTE
HEALING -- THIS MODEL IS SEEN BY
THE CONGRESS IS THE PREFERRED
METHOD FOR PURSUING JUSTICE
HEALING FOR VICTIMS OF
TRAFFICKING AND OTHERS CHILD SEX
TRAFFICKING.
IN PARTICULAR.
AND WE DO NOT AT THIS TIME HAVE
A STATUTORY DEFINITION OF A
CHILD CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER --
SO WE DO NOT HAVE MINIMUM
STANDARDS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT
WHICH IS WHAT THIS BILL WILL
PROVIDE -- AND I HAVE WITH ME
TODAY IN SUPPORT.
OF ERIN HARPER A MY LAWYER
COLLEAGUES SHE IS WITH CALICO
CHILD ABUSE JUSTIN INTERVIEWING
IN COORDINATION CENTER.
AND ALLIE LOU WHO IS A BROUGH
SURVIVOR SO I'M GONNA ASK.
MISS HARPER TO JUMP IN AND IT
WILL TURN ALLEY.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME
AND FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF
THE SPELL.
CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER'S
BRING TOGETHER POLICE SOCIAL
WORKERS PROSECUTORS DOCTORS AND
MENTAL HEALTH PROVIDERS TO
INVESTIGATE CHILD ABUSE CASES.
INTERVIEW CHILDREN IN A CHILD
FRIENDLY SETTING AND ENSURE THAT
THE NECESSARY CONNECTIONS ARE
MADE FOR CHILDREN EXPERIENCING
ABUSE.
EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT CHILD --
CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER'S
HAVE SEVERAL BENEFITS CHILDREN
WHO CASES ARE INVESTIGATED
THROUGH A CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY
CENTER ARE FOUR TIMES MORE
LIKELY TO RECEIVE MENTAL HEALTH
TREATMENT FOLLOWING THEIR ABUSE
DISCLOSURE. THREE TIMES MORE
LIKELY TO BE REFERRED TO
APPROPRIATE MEDICAL HEALTHCARE.
AND CASES THAT MOVED INTO THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
FOLLOWING AN INVESTIGATION
COORDINATED THROUGH A CHILDREN'S
ADVOCACY CENTER -- HAVE FASTER
CHARGING DECISIONS AND FASTER
CASE DISPOSITIONS WHICH REDUCES
THE LEVEL OF TRAUMA TO CHILDREN.
FINALLY WHEN CASES ARE
COORDINATED IN THIS MANNER AND
INVESTIGATED THROUGH A
CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER THEY
COST LOCAL COMMUNITIES ON
AVERAGE ONE THIRD LESS THAN
INVESTIGATIONS OF ARE NOT
COORDINATED THREE CHILD.
CHILDREN'S PATH THAT THIS WORK
HAS ON CHILDREN IN CALIFORNIA
AND IN A MINUTE ALLEY WILL TELL
YOU HER FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE
WITH THIS.
AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF CALICO
THE LOCAL CHILDREN'S AT THE
CENTER FOR ALAMEDA COUNTY THAT
SERVE SIX TO SEVEN HUNDRED ABUSE
CHILDREN EVERY YEAR AS YOUNG AS
TWO AND AS OLD AS SEVENTEEN I
CAN TELL YOU FIRST HAND WE
BELIEVE THAT EVERY CHILD.
WHO'S BEEN HURT HAS THE ABILITY
TO HEAL AND RECOVER AND THAT
EVERY OFFENDER WHO HURTS
CHILDREN -- HEY WE CAN HOLD THEM
ACCOUNTABLE AND IT'S ONLY
THROUGH THE SCORED A NEEDED WORK
THAT BRINGS TOGETHER ALL OF THE
EXPERTS DEALING WITH THESE CASES
THAT WE CAN ACHIEVE THESE TWO
OUTCOMES. THIRTY EIGHT STATES
HAVE STATUTES THAT DEFINED WHAT
A CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER
DOES OR BEHIND THE CURVE BECAUSE
WE DOUBT AS A RESULT THERE'S NO
MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR WHAT
PEOPLE HAVE TO ACHIEVE WHEN
THEY'RE WORKING WITH ARGUABLY
OUR MOST VULNERABLE KIDS IN THE
COMMUNITY.
THERE'S ALSO NO CLARITY AS TO
WHAT FOR INVESTIGATORS FOR
CLIENTS FOR FAMILIES FOR JUDGES
FOR PROSECUTORS AS TO WHAT.
A CHILDREN'S ACSI CENTER SHOULD
BE OFFERING AND WHAT SERVICES
THEY SHOULD PROVIDE THIS IS A
SIMPLE BILL BUT IT'LL BE AN
ENORMOUS STEP FORWARD FOR
CALIFORNIA IN ACHIEVING JUSTICE
AND HEALING FOR ABUSED CHILDREN
[inaudible]
THANK YOU [inaudible]
YES [inaudible]
MAY BEGIN.
GOOD MORNING I'M ELLIE LEO.
I GRADUATED FROM DUBLIN HIGH AND
NOW NURSING STUDENT AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO.
I'M ALSO THE FOUNDER OF THE
STUDENT GROUP PLUSHIE SAME TO
COMFORT HEART SORE PATCH.
I FOUND ATTACHED TO HELP
CHILDREN IN CRISES PARTICULARLY --
VICTIMS OF CHILD ABUSE BY
PROVIDING THEM WITH STUFFED
ANIMALS AS COMFORT ITEMS.
OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS WE'VE
COLLECTED OVER TWO THOUSAND
STUFFED ANIMALS MOST OF WHICH
WERE DONATED TO CALICO'S SENT TO
GET TO THE CHILDREN THAT THEY
SERVE.
I STARTED PATCH BECAUSE I WAS A
VICTIM OF CHILD ABUSE AND A
FORMER CLIENT OF CALICO.
WHEN I WAS SEVEN YEARS OLD I WAS
SEXUALLY ABUSED BY A FAMILY
FRIEND?
AT SUCH A YOUNG AGE IS HARD FOR
ME TO PROCESS AND UNDERSTAND
WHAT HAPPENED TO ME BUT I KNEW
THAT I HAD BEEN HURT.
I WAS SCARED AND CONFUSED AND
MOST OF ALL IT I DIDN'T WANT TO
TALK TO YOU ABOUT IT.
AFTER WE'VE HAD SUPPORTED THE
CASE TO THE POLICE.
I REMEMBER BEING BROUGHT TO
CALICO.
I MET WITH THEIR KIND AND CARING
STAFF.
THE CALICO TEAM HELP ME FEEL
SAFE AND LOVED WHICH ALLOWED ME
TO OPEN UP TO THEM ABOUT WHAT
HAPPENED TO ME -- THERE A
COMFORTING AND ENCOURAGING AS
EXPLAINED THE SITUATION TO ME
USING TERMS THAT I COULD
UNDERSTAND.
EVEN TO TODAY ELEVEN YEARS LATER
I STILL REMEMBER HOW IT FELT
SITTING.
NOT BEING CO THE CHAIR HUGGING
MY RIGHTLY LARGE TEAL STUFFED
BUNNY AND FINDING THE COURAGE TO
ANSWER THE QUESTIONS POSED TO ME
BY THE CALICO INTERVIEWERS.
LOOKING BACK NOW I REALIZE HOW
FORTUNATE WAS TO HAVE THE
CALCHAS CENTER IN MY COUNTY.
IF IT WASN'T FOR THE TRAIN MULTI
DISCIPLINARY RESPONSE TEAM AT
CALICO I WOULD HAVE BEEN
INTERVIEWED MANY TIMES BY
DIFFERENT AGENCIES FORCED TO
REALLY -- RELIVE EASILY THE
WORST PART OF MY LIFE OVER AND
OVER AGAIN.
HOWEVER MANY VICTIMS OF CHILD
ABUSE ARE NOT AS FORTUNATE AS I
WAS TO HAVE A CALICO CENTER IN
THEIR AREA -- CALCHAS MODEL
NEEDS TO BE REPLICATED IN EVERY
COUNTY OF FOR STATE.
EVERY VICTIM OF CHILD ABUSE
DESERVES TO BE PROTECTED FROM
BEING FURTHER VICTIMIZED BY THE
INVESTOR -- PLASTIC A TORY
PROCESS.
SOMETHING THAT CAN ONLY BE MADE
POSSIBLE THROUGH THE USE OF
MULTI DISCIPLINARY CHILD
ADVOCACY CENTERS LIKE CALICO
THAT'S WHY I URGE YOU.
TO VOTE IN SUPPORT OF AB TWELVE
TWENTY ONE THANK YOU THANK YOU.
OR ANY OTHER WITNESSES A SUPPORT.
NAME AN ORGANIZATION.
HOLLY FARMING CHILDREN'S
ADVOCACY CENTER'S OF CALIFORNIA
HERE IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
CHARLES MY NAME IS NATIONAL
CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW IN SUPPORT
THANK YOU.
ARE ANY WITNESSES OPPOSITION.
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION WE WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR AND HIS STAFF AND THE
SPONSORS FOR WORKING WITH US AND
ONCE THE BILL WAS AMENDED IT WAS
TOO LATE FOR THIS COMMITTEE WE
PLAN TO WITHDRAW OUR OPPOSITION.
SO THANK YOU THANK YOU
[inaudible]
ARE THERE.
ANY OTHER.
WITNESSES ANY QUESTIONS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
SEEING NONE YOU MAY CLOSE MISSED
COOLEY THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME
VERY IMPORTANT SUBJECT AND I
JUST.
WANT TO SAY ON AS A GOVERNMENT
ENTERPRISE I DEFINITELY BELIEVE
IN THE POWER FOCUS.
ARE BELIEVED TACKLE SOMETHING
FOCUS ATTENTION UPON IT MAKE
PROGRESS.
THAT'S WHAT WE TRY TO DO IN THIS
A VERY IMPORTANT HERE TO BE
DOING THAT.
SO I THINK YOU'RE.
I VOTE.
HELLO THANK YOU MISTER COOLEY
FOR THIS BILL WENT THANK YOU
WITNESSES AND ESPECIALLY YOUNG
LADY TO COME HERE -- VERY BRAVE --
TO BE ABLE [inaudible]
TO YOU KNOW.
TELL WHAT'S HAPPENED TO YOU TO A
GROUP OF STRANGERS BASICALLY --
AND SO I COMMEND YOU FOR YOUR
COURAGE FOR BEING HERE TODAY.
AND CHURCH RECOMMENDED I VOTE
AND I SECOND.
AND I CAN ASSURE THE PUBLIC
DEFENDER'S THAT THEY CAN WORK
WITH MISTER COOLEY.
HE IS AN EAGLE SCOUT SO I TRUST
THAT YOU WILL.
HE WILL MAKE YOU WHOLE.
THANK YOU.
ON AB TWELVE TWENTY ONE THE
MOTION IS TO PASS TO THE HUMAN
SERVICES COMMITTEE JONES SAWYER.
CHEN SIR I LACKEY.
LACKEY AYE BARRICADE HAND I
BAUER-KAHAN I DEEP.
DEEP I KAMLAGER-DOVE.
QUIRK.
QUIRK AYE SANTIAGO.
SAN DIEGO I WICKS WICKS I THAT
MEASURE PASSES THANK YOU.
SO I DON'T SEE MISTER STONE.
I DON'T SEE MISTER GIPSON.
DON'T SEE MISTER MEDINA.
I DON'T SEE CRISTINA GARCIA.
MR OBERNOLTE MISS EGGMAN.
I MISSED THE TEEN WHO JUST
WALKED OUT COULD HAVE STARTED
RIGHT.
IT JUST COULD A STARTER RIGHT
NOW.
AND HE SIGNED IN LAST
[inaudible]
HUH
-- WITH -- THE CLOSEST.
JUST GOT A COUPLE ROOM
[inaudible]
IT'S A SO.
WITH THE K. A. B..
NINE TWENTY SEVEN YOU MAY BEGIN
WHICH ONE OF MY MOVIE DEL. NINE
TWENTY SEVEN NINE TWENTY SEVEN
AB NINE TWENTY SEVEN REVISED THE
STATE LAW BY REQUIRING A FINDING
OF A DEPEND DISABILITIES TO PAY
PRIOR TO THE ASSESSMENT OF A
FINER FEE.
IN CALIFORNIA BOTH THE
GOVERNMENT AND PENAL CODE
CONTAINS SECTIONS THAT REQUIRE
COURT TO ASSESS FEES AND FINES
AND CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS.
THESE BONDS ARE ASSESSED WITHOUT
REGARD TO DEFEND HIS ABILITY TO
PAY FUNDS RECEIVED.
BY MONEY FOR AT LEAST FIFTY
DIFFERENT STATE AND LOCAL
PROGRAM TO IDENTIFY BUT IT.
LA OWES OFFICE THIS EFFECTIVELY
CREATES A SYSTEM THAT PUNCH
COURTS STATE GOVERNMENT AND
LOCAL NEEDS ON THE BACKS OF POOR
PEOPLE.
THERE IS OVER TEN BILLION AN
OUTSTANDING FEE AND FIND THAT IN
CALIFORNIA WE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT
WE ARE OVER RELIANCE ON ON
COLLECTIBLES FINES FROM A POOR
DEFENDANTS.
IN RECOGNITION OF THE FACT THAT
THESE HAPPY FINES ARE OFTEN
LEVIED ON THE POOR JUDICIAL
COUNCIL.
FOLLOWING THE WORK DONE BY THE
COMMISSION ON THE FUTURE OF
CALIFORNIA'S COURT SYSTEM HAS
BEEN WORKING ON A PILOT PROGRAM
THAT WOULD ALLOW DEFENDED TO
SEEK REDUCED AWAY FEES FOR
TRAFFIC FIGHTS.
TRAFFIC PIES MAKE UP TWO THIRDS
OF CURRENT ASSESS BINDS.
THE BILL ADDRESSES THE REMAINING
THIRD THE FINES LEVIED AFTER A
MISDEMEANOR OR FELONY THIS BILL
DOES THREE THINGS FIRST ECLIPSE
THE PRESUMPTION OF ABILITY TO
PAY FROM THE DEFENDANT TO THE
PROSECUTION REQUIRE THEM TO SHOW
AN ABILITY TO PAY WHEN.
THAT IS IN QUESTION SECOND
REQUIRE CREATES A PRESUMPTION
THAT THE HOMELESS THOSE ON THOSE
IN NEED.
BASED ASSISTANCE -- THOSE
MEETINGS THOUGH DOES MEETING THE
DEFINITION OF VERY LOW INCOME
AND THOSE SENTENCED TO LENGTHY
SENTENCES ON ARE UNABLE TO PAY.
FINALLY ESTABLISH A SYSTEM OF
FACTORS FOR COURTS TO CONSIDER
WHEN EVALUATING ABILITY TO PAY
INCLUDING WHETHER OR NOT THE
DEFENDANT HAD A PUBLIC DEFENDER.
THIS BILL IS IN LINE WITH RECENT
COURT RULINGS IN THIS AREA THE
SECOND COURT OF APPEALS IN
CALIFORNIA HELL THAT IMPOSING
FINES WITHOUT AN ASSESSMENT OF
ABILITY TO PAY WAS A VIOLATION
OF DUE PROCESS. TO SPRING COURT
ALSO NOTED THAT EXCESSIVE FINES
ARE A THREAT TO CIVIL LIBERTIES
IN A RECENT TIM'S VERSUS INDIANA
CASE THIS IS A PROPER BUILD IT
BALANCES CIVIL LIBERTIES.
COURT.
WORKLOAD AND A FUNDAMENTAL SENSE
OF FAIRNESS MEMBERS I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE WITH ME TODAY AND IS A
BLANK IN HERE IS MARCO GEORGE
FROM THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDER'S OFFICE.
AND WE SUPPORT THIS BILL -- NOT
ONLY DOES IT MAKE FINES AND FEES
AND CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTIONAL IT
ALSO SAVES TIME AND MONEY.
IT IS POINTLESS TO HAVE ON
ABILITY TO PAY HEARING AFTER
ABILITY TO PAY HEARING FOR
PEOPLE WHO ARE HOMELESS --
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC
DEFENDER AND CLEARLY ON
GOVERNMENT THEN THE BENEFITS AND
INDICATE THAT THEY'RE INDIGENT.
SO FOR THOSE REASONS WE ASK THAT
YOU.
YOUR AYE VOTE.
OKAY ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT.
REBEKAH GONZALEZ NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS
CALIFORNIA CHAPTER IN SUPPORT.
CAN SPEND SOME HAVE NEXT IN
CALIFORNIA SUPPORT.
GOOD MORNING EMILY HARRIS OF
ELEVATOR CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
IN SUPPORT.
NOT SURE HERNANDEZ AND WE HAVE
THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS FOR
CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN SUPPORT.
GOOD MORNING GLENN BACCHUS FOR
DRUG POLICY ALLIANCE IN SUPPORT.
KYLE MAGLI HONEST BECAUSE DEAL
WITH COMMUNITY WORKS IN SUPPORT.
AS FUNDING IS WITH ANTI
RECIDIVISM COALITION IN SUPPORT.
AND WHEN SMART JUSTICE
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT.
OKAY ANY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
OKAY QUESTIONS TO COMMITTEE
MEMBERS [inaudible]
ALMONDS.
I GUESS YOU MAY CLOSER RESPECT
LAST FOR THE COMMITTEES I VOTE
[inaudible]
RIVER MOTIONS.
I MOVE THE BILL THIS IS.
CAJUN PROBLEMS SECOND INSTANCE
GOV QUESTION AB NINE TWENTY
SEVEN THE MOTION IS TO PASS TO
THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
JONES SAWYER.
CHEN SIR IRAQI.
LACKEY I BAUER-KAHAN.
DEEP I DEEP I KAMLAGER-DOVE.
QUIRK AYE QUIRK AYE SAN DIEGO.
SAN DIEGO I WICKS HI WICKS I THE
MEASURE PASSES REGULATIONS
[inaudible]
FROM THE THAT WAS A LOT OF THE
THE BILL I DON'T GET THE LOVE.
NO THAT THAT WAS A PROBLEM LAST
WEEK.
POPULAR COMMITTEE -- ITEM NUMBER
FOUR AB EIGHT SEVEN NINE GIPSON
[inaudible]
BOB FIREARMS.
GOOD MORNING MISTER CHAIR AND
MEMBERS THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING
ME TO PRESENT.
ASSEMBLY BILL EIGHT SEVEN NINE
WITH SIX TO CLOSE THE GOALS GUN
LOOPHOLE BY REQUIRING THE STATE
BACKGROUND CHECK FOR PURCHASERS.
OF ON FINISHED OF FRAME AND
RECEIVER.
RECEIVER SKEWS THE LOWER
RECEIVER THEN CAN BE COMPLETED
EASILY BY DRILLING A FEW
REMAINING HOLES INTO THE
UNFINISHED -- METAL SHALE.
IT IS READY FOR A BARREL A
TRIGGER MACHINE STOCK UPPER A
RECEIVER OF FORD TO BE ATTACHED.
NOT TOO LONG AGO.
THERE WAS A SHOOTING.
AND RANCHO OF NORTH CARROLL
SKEWS ME NORTH KALANAUR
CALIFORNIA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
WHERE A MAN MURDERED FIVE PEOPLE
INCLUDING HIS WIFE WITH THE
GOALS GUN.
THIS MAN WAS PROHIBITED FROM
PURCHASING A FIREARM SO HE TOOK
TO THE INTERNET. TO BUY PARTS TO
BUILD HIS OWN GUN.
THIS IS ALSO THE CASE IN SANTA
MONICA IN TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN
WHERE A MAN A TEN TO TO PURCHASE
A FAR ARM BUT WAS NOT ALLOWED.
TO AFTER THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE -- FOUND
HIM TO BE IN ELIGIBLE.
HE THEN RESORTED TO BUILDING HIS
OWN GUN -- WHICH HE USED TO KILL
FIVE PEOPLE.
INJURING SEVERAL OTHERS CURRENT
LAW REQUIRES A BACKGROUND CHECK
FOR BOTH GUN SELLER AND THE
AMMUNITION AND IS BUT YET -- ON
THIS MATTER -- LAW IS SILENCE IN
TERMS OF FIRE.
ARM PARTS THIS BILL INTENDS TO
IMPROVE PUBLIC SAFETY BY
PREVENTING CRIMINALS AND THOSE
WHO SHOULD NOT OTHERWISE POSSESS
THE FAR ARM FROM GAINING ACCESS
WHILE PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF
GUN.
OWNERS WITH ME TO PROVIDE
SUPPORTING TESTIMONY IS AMANDA
WILCOX WHEN THE BRADY CAMPAIGN.
YES GOOD MORNING AMANDA WILCOX
ACTUAR NEW NAME ROLLS OFF THE
TONGUE NOW BRADY CALIFORNIA.
ARE PLEASED TO BE HERE TODAY --
THE PROBLEM OF SELF MANUFACTURED
IN CELLPHONE SAM ASSEMBLE GUNS
VERTICALLY OUT BY PEOPLE WHO ARE
ARE PROHIBITED FROM OWNING
FIREARMS.
IN IN CALIFORNIA IS ESCALATING
PROBLEM WE KNOW THIS FROM NEWS
REPORTS -- YOU KNOW THE STORY AT
THE OF THE SHOOTING IN SANTA
MONICA THE TERRIBLE ONE RANCH
ATTAIN TO HIM -- AND I'M SURE
THERE ARE MANY MORE.
MY OWN PERSONAL -- CONNECTION
WITH THIS ISSUE IS WHEN THAT
PERSON WHO CAME TO INSTALL A NEW
INTERNET SERVICE IN OUR HOUSE
AND HE ALSO HAS A MACHINE SHOP.
AND AS A DRILL PRESS AND HE TOLD
US MY HUSBAND ME THAT.
ALL THE TIME PEOPLE COME WITH
HER I'M FINISH RECEIVER TO HIS
SHOP AND ASK HIM TO COMPLY TO
DRILL THE THE REQUIRED HOLES TO
TURN IT INTO A COMPLETE RECEIVER
THIS IS A PROBLEM -- AS YOU KNOW
THE LEGISLATURE TRIED TO ADDRESS
THIS ISSUE WITH A. B. A FIVE
SEVEN IN.
TWENTY SIXTEEN ARE WHICH
REQUIRES ANYONE WHO HAS
MANUFACTURED OR SOME OF THE
FIREARM TO GET A SERIAL NUMBER
FROM THE DEPARTMENT JUSTICE AND
ALONG WITH THAT THERE WOULD BE A
BACKGROUND CHECK AND RECORD.
THIS BILL GOES FURTHER TO TRY
AND PREVENT -- ACQUISITION OF
THESE PARTS BY PEOPLE WHO ARE
PROHIBITED IN THE FIRST PLACE
THAT IS FAR BETTER.
THIS IS NARROWER THAN LAST
YEAR'S VERSION I KNOW THERE'S
CONCERN ABOUT HOW DO YOU DEFINE
ALL THESE PARTS AND ARE WE
CONCLUDING SPRINGS AND OTHER
THINGS -- SO THIS REALLY --
FOCUSES ON THE KEY ELEMENTS
WHICH IS THE ON FINISH FRAME AND
RECEIVER WHICH IS WHAT IT SHOULD
DO AND IT SETS UP A SYSTEM WHERE
YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO TO A
PRECURSOR PART FENDER. TO
ACQUIRE THESE PASS A BACKGROUND
CHECK INSTANT CHECK I AND SHOW
THAT YOU'RE NOT PROHIBITED
BEFORE YOU ACQUIRE AND THAT IS
OUR GOAL TO MAKE SURE THAT
PEOPLE WHO ARE CONSIDERED.
DANGEROUS BECAUSE OF THEIR
CONDITION OR PAST HISTORY AND
HAVE A FIRE PROHIBITION THAT
INSTEAD THEY CAN MAKE THEIR I IN
THAT SAMPLE THEIR OWN GUNS THAT
IS WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO STOP SO
I URGE YOUR SUPPORT [inaudible]
THANK YOU [inaudible]
EITHER [inaudible]
ANOTHER WITNESS.
CALVIN QUICK BAY AREA STUDENT
ACTIVISTS IN STRONG SUPPORT
THANK YOU.
REBEKAH GONZALEZ VOLUNTEER WITH
THE BRADY CAMPAIGN SACRAMENTO IN
SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
ARE A WITNESS IN SUPPORT ANY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION
[inaudible] ONE I MEAN YOU'RE
SPEAKING DO YOU NEED MORE ROOM.
KATHY WANNA COULD.
FEEL LEFT FIVE SO HOW DO YOU
WANT TO SPLIT IT UP.
OKAY I'LL GET STARTED WELL WE
PLAY MUSICAL CHAIRS HERE -- MR
CHAIRMAN MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE FOR THE RECORD DâN RE
WITH NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION
WERE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL.
I THIS BILL SEEKS TO EXPAND ON
THE THE EXAM AMMUNITION SYSTEM
THAT WE CAN USE FOR BACKGROUND
CHECKS I WAS.
PASSED THROUGH INITIATIVE IN
STATUTE A COUPLE YEARS AGO WE
STILL ACTUALLY HAVE.
DON'T HAVE FINAL RAGS ON THAT WE
DON'T KNOW HOW THAT'S GONNA WORK
IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE
EMPLOYMENT UNTIL JULY FIRST OF
THIS YEAR.
BUT THERE'S STILL A LOT OF
QUESTIONS SURROUNDING THAT
SYSTEM IN IN THIS SEEKS TO
EXPAND ON THAT SYSTEM TO RUN A
BACKGROUND CHECK PORTION -- AND
THERE'S SOME SERIOUS QUESTIONS
ON ON HOW APPS CAN BE USED
BECAUSE OF BIG GETTING TIED INTO
THE NEXT SYSTEM AND SO -- I
THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT
REALLY NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT AND
AND I THINK IT'S PREMATURE TO
EXPAND A SYSTEM THAT.
WE DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GONNA WORK --
FURTHER THIS BILLS INCREDIBLY
VAGUE -- I KNOW THAT IT'S BEEN
TIGHTENED SINCE THE LAST
ITERATION -- BUT IT'S STILL BEGS
THE QUESTION WHEN YOU LOOK AT
SOMETHING LIKE AN UNFINISHED
FRAME AT WHAT POINT DOES A HUNK
OF METAL.
BECOME A FRIEND OR AN ON FINISH
FRAME HOW DO YOU HOW DO YOU
DISTINGUISH THAT -- YOU KNOW
WHAT I WHAT POINT IS A BLOCK AND
A GOING TO FALL UNDER THIS IN
AND HOW IS LAW ENFORCEMENT.
EXACTLY SUPPOSED TO ENFORCE THIS
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PARTS OF
THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THEY DON'T
HAVE UNIQUE SERIAL NUMBERS HOW
ARE YOU GOING TO TELL WHETHER
WAS PURCHASED.
AND TWO THOUSAND THREE OR TWO
THOUSAND NINETEEN I THINK IT
BECOMES AN ENFORCEMENT NIGHTMARE
ALSO THESE ARE PARTS OF THE GUN
SO IS LAW ENFORCEMENT SUPPOSED
TO TAKE APART THE GUN OR THEY'RE
JUST.
EXPECTING TOUGH TO FIND SOMEONE
WITH THE A COUPLE OF THESE
LAYING AROUND YOU KNOW WHEN YOU
LOOK AT FIRE ARMS -- DID THE
ACTUAL FRAME DID IS DETERMINED
TO BE THE FIREARM AND THAT'S
WHERE THE UNIQUE NUMBER IS
THAT'S WORTH YOU'RE GONNA HAVE
THE SERIAL NUMBER -- AND SO
THERE IS A WAY -- TO TO TRACK
THAT -- AND SO I JUST THINK THIS
IS GOING TO BE IN IT FOR SMITH
NIGHTMARE -- I THINK THIS IS
UNNECESSARY AND ALSO WHAT IS
SOMEONE SUPPOSED TO DO IF
THEY'RE OUT OF STATE LET'S SAY
YOU'RE OUT OF STATE AND YOU HAVE
A FARM THAT BREAKS DOWN YOU NEED
TO BUY A PART. TWO TO MAKE IT --
COMPLIANT -- BEFORE YOU COME
BACK IN CALIFORNIA RESPONSE TAKE
PART THAT GUN AND SHIP IT TO A
PRECURSOR PARTS DEALER I MEAN
THIS IS THIS IS.
A LITTLE BIT A LITTLE BIT CRAZY
FOR COMPLIANCE -- I THINK
CRIMINALS ARE GOING TO CONTINUE
TO IGNORE THIS LAW THERE CAN
OPERATE OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM.
AND I I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING
TO RECEIVE ANY PUBLIC SAFETY
BENEFIT WITH THAT ONE OPPOSITION
THANK YOU.
MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS SAMPRAS
REPRESENTING GOVERNMENTS
CALIFORNIA I ECHO MY COLLEAGUES --
COMMENTS HERE OF WITH
DESCRIPTION OF THIS BILL COUPLE
OF THINGS THAT ARE THAT ARE OF
CONCERN TO ME -- IN THE ANALYSIS
HERE TALKSABOUT -- A TRIGGER
PACK OR FIRE CONTROL GROUP FOR
HITLER **** OR A PUBLIC NATIONAL
F. A. N. F. A. L..
STYLE FARM THOSE ARE ALREADY
LEGAL THEY'RE ALREADY A LIVE
BAND UNDER THE THE ASSAULT
WEAPONS BAN OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA SO -- IF SOMEBODY HAS
THOSE IT'S A IT'S ALREADY
ILLEGAL TO TO BE IN IN
POSSESSION OF THOSE -- PEOPLE DO
NOT UNDERSTAND THAT. ONE OF
THESE RECEIVERS THAT CAN BE
TURNED INTO A GUN.
DOESN'T HAVE TO HAVE ANY SHAPE
OR INDENTATIONS OR ANYTHING ON
THE OUTSIDE IT COULD BE A BLOCK.
OF YOUR ALUMINUM OR STEEL.
AND ALL IT IS IS THE INTERNAL
DRILLING.
THAT NOBODY IS GOING TO BE ABLE
TO PREVENT.
YOU CAN HAVE A GUN THAT IS A NAY
ARE.
FIFTEEN BUT IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE
IT IT LOOKS LIKE A BLOCK OF
ALUMINUM ALL OF THE STUFF ON THE
OUTSIDE IS PURELY COSMETIC.
SO WHEN YOU'RE ASKING -- FOR YOU
KNOW MOULDER SHAPE POLYMER FRAME
TO RECEIVERS LIKE IT.
OKAY.
THEY DON'T GET THEM DON'T JUST
DO A LOT OF A LOT OF A STRAIGHT
BLOCK AND THEY DON'T DO ANY OF
THE CONTOURING ON THE OUTSIDE
FOR AESTHETIC PURPOSES.
AT WHAT POINT DOES A BARREL
QUALIFY A BARREL IS A PIPE IT'S
A BLOCK OF A TUBE OF STEEL THAT
STARTS OUT SOLID.
IT IS DRILLED AND THEN RIFLE.
IT HAS NOW BEEN MACHINE.
BUT IT CAN FUNCTION FOR ALMOST
ANY FIREARM OF THAT CALIBER.
I AND SO WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO
START BANNING ALL BARREL BERYL
BLANKS OR OR OR OR ITEMS LIKE
THIS FLATS.
THE FLAT START OUT AS THE BLOCK
A FLAT OF METAL.
NOTHING ON IT.
JUST A YOU CAN GO TO HOME DEPOT
AND BUY PIECES OF METAL THAT YOU
CAN TURN IN THE FIRE -- FARMS
RIGHT NOW SO THIS BILL I I THINK
ISN'T IN IN SEARCH OF OF OF A OF
A A PROBLEM THAT THEY YOU CAN
GET YOUR HANDS AROUND CRIMINALS
ARE CRIMINALS THEY'RE GOING.
TO GET GUNS STEAL GUNS MAKE GUNS
DO WHATEVER THEY CAN AND IS
UNTIL WE START FOCUSING ON THE
CRIMINALS INSTEAD OF THE THE
GUNS THAT THEY CAN MANUFACTURE
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T STOP THEM FROM
DOING THAT.
WE WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE
PROBLEMS WITH THIS CRIMINAL
MISUSE FOR THOSE REASONS AND
OTHERS GUNNERS CALIFORNIA IS IN
OPPOSITION.
OPEN THE QUESTIONS.
TO THANK YOU ARE THERE ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION NAMED
ORGANIZATION THANK YOU GOOD
MORNING MISTER CHAIRMAN MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE CATHOLIC
REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL
SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION
OUTDOOR SPORTS SINCE COALITION A
CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA
SPORTSMAN'S AUDIENCE FIGHT CLUB
INTERNATIONAL ALL IN OPPOSITION
[inaudible]
THANK YOU.
A GENTLEMAN NIKKI'S DOLLAR PINK
PISTOLS.
WE OPPOSE THIS PROHIBITION IT
DIDN'T WORK ON ALCOHOL IT DIDN'T
WORK ON MARIJUANA I KNOW PEOPLE
SAY IT'S EASIER TO HOME BUILD
GUNS FROM SCRATCH.
THEN THE HOME GROW YOUR OWN
MARIJUANA FOCUS ON CRIMINALS
PLEASE GUYS.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU NEXT.
MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS ROY GRIFFITH
ONLY HALF THE CALIFORNIA RIFLE
PISTOL ASSOCIATION WERE IN
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL THANK
THANK YOU.
DEMOCRATS STRONGLY OPPOSED THANK
YOU TIM.
ANY OTHER WITNESSES OPPOSITION
ANY QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS MISTER QUIRK -- SO WE'VE
PASSED A LOT OF VERY GOOD READ
VERY GOOD LEGISLATION.
ON GUIDANCE.
BUT I THINK THAT WE'VE PASSED SO
MUCH.
THAT IT'S GETTING HARD TO FIND
GOOD ADDITIONAL BILLS AND I
THINK THIS BILL HAS A LOT OF
PROBLEMS.
IF IT WERE JUST THE RECEIVER I
COULD SEE IT BUT ALL THESE OTHER
PARTS.
I THINK THE OPPOSITION HAS A LOT
OF GOOD POINTS NOW I I'M GOING
TO MOVE THE BILL NOW -- IF
SOMEONE WILL GIVE ME A SECOND.
AND BUT I'D SUGGEST THAT YOU
REALLY LOOK AT THIS BEFORE IT'S
GOING TO GO TO APPROPRIATIONS IS
LIKELY TO BE VERY EXPENSIVE.
I REALLY THINK YOU DO BE VERY
WELL OFF TO TO NARROW THE BILL.
AND I THINK THERE WAS A COUPLE
OF BILLS HAD BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM
THE COMMITTEE TODAY BECAUSE
THEY'RE NOT FULLY BAKED.
ARM I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE
TO BE MUCH MORE CAREFUL GOING
FORWARD ON OUR GUN BELTS AND I'M
SPECIFICALLY SPEAKING TO THE
EFFORTS AND THE BRADY CAMPAIGN.
I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO
SCRUB THESE BILLS BETTER BECAUSE
WE'VE DONE SO MUCH ALREADY.
AND AGAIN I'M WILLING TO GO THIS
FORWARD TO GIVE YOU A VEHICLE
BUT I'M NOT AT ALL SURE I CAN
VOTE FOR IT ON THE FLOOR.
SO PLEASE THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT
ALL THIS THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS.
YOU MAKE CLOTHES MISTER GIPSON
IF YOU WANT TO ADDRESS SOME OF
THE CONCERNS THAT WERE BROUGHT
UP BY THE OPPOSITION ABSOLUTELY
AND MOST IMPORTANT -- ADDRESSING
CONCERNS INITIAL QUIRK.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MISTER
CHAIRMAN AND CERTAINLY
APPRECIATE -- MEMBER DOT QUIRK
FOR HERE'S COMMENTS AND
CONCERNED I APPRECIATE YOUR
SUPPORT LAST TIME LAST YEAR WHEN
I BROUGHT THIS BILL FORWARD --
GOVERNOR BROWN VETOED THE BILL --
WITH A VETO MESSAGE THAT BILL
WAS -- THE PREVIOUS BILL WAS
BROUGHT THIS IS MUCH NARROWER
TAKING WHAT THE GOVERNOR HAVE
SAID WORKING CLOSER CLOSELY WITH
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND WE
HAVE THIS BILL BEFORE YOU.
TERMS OF SCRUBBING.
YOU KNOW THIS BILL HAS BEEN
SCRUBBED OKAY -- AND WANT TO
CALL TO YOUR ATTENTION TURNED TO
TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN IN SANTA
MONICA AND THEN ALSO -- IN
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA -- WHERE
PEOPLE HAVE LOST THEIR LIVES AS
A RESULT TO GHOST GUNS I ALSO
WANT -- TO POINT OUT THAT IN TWO
THOUSAND SEVENTEEN TO
INDIVIDUALS TO SEPARATE
INDIVIDUALS -- IN THE LOS
ANGELES AREA A HUSBAND A WIFE
WAS BOTH ARRESTED FOR
MANUFACTURING GOES GUNS AND THEY
PLED GUILTY AND THAT ADDS
ANOTHER GERMAN.
IN LOS ANGELES -- IS STILL
AWAITING TRIAL HE WAS ARRESTED
FOR PRODUCING GHOST GUNS AND
ALSO SELLING THESE GOES GUNS TO
THE CRIPS AND THE BLOODS.
THAT'S IN LOS ANGELES SO WE TALK
ABOUT -- IS THIS A GROWING --
ISSUE IT IS A GROWING ISSUE --
IN OUR COUNTRY AND I THINK WE
SIDE IN ARTICULATED -- THESE
PARTICULAR POINTS -- WANNA MAKE
UP OR AT LEAST ADDRESS SOME OF
THE CONCERNS THAT THE OPPOSITION --
THIS HAS A A BACKGROUND CHECK ON
YOU CANNOT TAKE A PIECE OF METAL
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
WILL CLEARLY.
PHOTOGRAPH WHETHER RISK OF
UNFINISHED RECEIVER AND
UNFINISHED FRAME AND RECEIVE IT
LOOKS LIKE ONCE HIS BILL IS
PASSED SO THEY'LL BE NO
AMBIGUITY NO GRAY AREA PEOPLE
VERY CLEAR LONG FORCE WILL BE
VERY CLEAR.
THAT THEY CAN'T TAKE A BLOCK OF
METAL AND ARREST SOMEONE IT'S
ONLY WHEN HIS SPANISH IS WHERE
AN ENEMY IT'S THE PHOTOGRAPH
THAT THE DEPARTMENT JUSTICE WILL
GIVE GUIDANCE.
IT MEETS THAT CRITERIA THEN IT'S
IT'S A PERMISSIBLE ARE NOT
PERMITTED -- AS RELATES -- TO
THE NEW BILL IN THE BILL
LANGUAGE TODAY IN ADDITION TO
THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH US -- IN
THIS LANGUAGE EVEN TO THE POINT
ASKING US.
TO ADD INTO THE BILL THE TRIGGER
PACKAGE THIS IS THE LANGUAGE
THEY ASKED US TO ACTUALLY PUT
INTO THE BILL SO WE DID THAT WE
WORK VERY VERY CLOSELY.
WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE --
ONE OF MY OPPONENTS MADE INDICA
INDICATION REGARDING THIS IS A
NIGHTMARE WITH THE NIGHTMARES OF
FIVE PEOPLE LOST THEIR LIVES THE
NIGHTMARE IS INDIVIDUALS IN TWO
THOUSAND THIRTEEN WHO LOST THEIR
LIVES I'M IN SANTA MONICA.
THAT'S THE REAL NIGHTMARE AND WE
MUST DO SOMETHING ABOUT AND GET
IN FRONT OF THE SITUATION AND SO --
I RESPECTFULLY ASK AN AYE VOTE
AGAIN THIS BILL IS A DIFFERENT
BILL THAT CAME BEFORE THIS BODY --
WE NARROWED THE SCOPE -- AND
THAT BILLS BEFORE TODAY AND
RESPECTFULLY ASK -- FOR AYE VOTE --
WE ARE DAVID WE ARE DAVID.
IN THIS SITUATION AGAINST THE
GOLIATH AND YOUR AYE VOTE
REPRESENT UP THE DAVID -- TWO
ONE THE SENATE STRONG VESTED IN
OUR A AND ALSO A STRONG MESSAGE
TO THOSE WHO WILL SEEK TO CREATE
GHOST GUNS AND DO CATASTROPHIC
DAMAGE TO PEOPLE IN OUR
COMMUNITY.
AND ASK YOU TO STAND UP WITH THE
AYE VOTE I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
THAT THANK YOU.
THANK YOU MISTER GIPSON AND I
WOULD -- TOO ALONG WITH MR QUIRK
OF THE WORK WITH THE DEPARTMENT
JUSTICE BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO
SELL IT TO REALLY HAVE TO
IMPLEMENT THIS ABSOLUTELY IF YOU
CAN GET THEM TO HELP EXPLAIN HOW
THEY ARE GOING TO ADMINISTRATIVE
BECAUSE YOU KNOW THEY HAVEN'T.
I LOVE.
MY ATTORNEY GENERAL BUT THE
DEPARTMENT AS A WHOLE JUST BY
HAVING ALWAYS BEEN VERY GOOD AT
IMPLEMENTING [inaudible]
RETRIEVING -- FIREARMS OFF THE
STREET AND SO THIS IS AN
ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
WHERE?
LOW'S ADDITIONAL BUDGET PUBLIC
SAFETY BUT YOU WERE MORE WILLING
TO GIVE THEM ENOUGH RESOURCES
AND AND MONEY AND THAT THEY NEED
TO MAKE SURE THAT.
IF THIS BILL IS ENACTED.
A WHICH IS A VALID POINT WHETHER
OR NOT THEY'LL BE ABLE TO
IMPLEMENT IT AND SO MAKE SURE
THAT THEY HAVE EVERYTHING.
EVERYTHING THAT THEY NEED.
IN HERE IN THE BILL SO THEY CAN
MOVE FORWARD AND GET THIS DONE
AND AND JUST JUST.
YOU HAVE SOME CLARIFICATION
WHICH I THINK WILL HELP SOME
MEMBERS ON THIS COMMITTEE MOVE
THE FOUR ON THE FLOOR WITH THE
HOPEFULLY ONCE HE GETS OUT HIS
COMMITTEE -- I'M JUST SAYING.
DEFINITELY LOOK AT THAT AND MAKE
SURE IT'S DONE I KNOW YOUR
PASSION PASSION ABOUT IT IS SO --
I DO CHAIRS RECOMMENDED II AND
AND I WANT YOU TO KEEP AN EYE ON
MAKING SURE WE DO THIS THE
CORRECT WAY MISS CHIRLA CHIP
CALLED ROLE.
ON AB EIGHT SEVENTY NINE THE
MOTION IS TO PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE JONES
SAWYER CHEN SIR I LACKEY.
LACKEY NOPE BAUER-KAHAN HI
BAUER-KAHAN I DEEP.
DEEP NO KAMLAGER-DOVE.
QUIRK QUIRK I SAN DIEGO SAN
DIEGO I'D WICKS HI WICKS I THE
MEASURE PASSES THANK YOU THANK
YOU VERY MUCH WAS CHAIR OF
COMMITTEE.
NOW IT MISTER MEDINA.
ITEM NUMBER -- FOR SEVEN BILL
NUMBERS.
NINE SIX FOUR COURT COUNTY JAIL
VISITATIONS.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
TODAY I AM PLEASED TO PRESENT
ASSEMBLY BILL.
NINE SIX FOUR AB NINE SIX FOUR
WILL REQUIRE ALL LOCAL DETENTION
FACILITIES TO OFFER IN PERSON
VISITATION BY THE YEAR.
TWENTY TWENTY FIVE THE BILL
SEEKS TO GIVE INCARCERATED
PEOPLE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
MAINTAIN A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP
WITH THEIR LOVED ONES.
BOTTOM LINE VIDEO VISITS ARE NOT
EQUIVALENT TO IN PERSON VISITS
AND ARE MUCH LESS PREFERRED THAT
IS A MUCH LESS PREFERRED WAY. TO
MAINTAIN CONTACT.
NOWHERE DO WE DESIRE TO TREAT
THOSE WHO ARE INCARCERATED AS
UNDESERVING.
INCARCERATED MEN AND WOMEN
REMAIN BEING.
FATHERS MOTHERS SISTERS BROTHERS
DAUGHTERS SONS AND PARTNERS.
WHILE THERE INCARCERATED.
HUMAN CONNECTIONS CAN OFFER
ACCOUNTABILITY AND MOTIVATION
THAT LEADS TO CHANGE.
ELIMINATING IN PERSON VISITATION
HAS A DRASTIC A NEGATIVE IMPACT
ON FAMILIES PARTICULARLY
CHILDREN.
ALSO ACCORDING TO REPORT BY THE
PRISON POLICY INITIATIVE VIDEO
VISITATION.
IS IS NO WHERE -- AS AFFECTED AS
IN PERSON VISITATION.
THERE BEEN REPORTS OF
MALFUNCTIONS DELAYS AND FREEZES
WITH VIDEO VISITATIONS.
SOME HAVE INDICATED THAT IS A
WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY.
WHERE TRADITIONAL TELECOMS LIKE
EIGHTEEN T. AND VERIZON FOCUS ON
THE CONSUMER EXPERIENCE?
IT IS EVIDENT THAT THESE
COMPANIES CONTRACT WITH LOCAL
CONTROL FACILITIES FOCUS ONLY ON
THE FACILITIES AND NOT WHETHER
IT WAS A POSITIVE EXPERIENCE.
FOR THOSE USING THAT METHOD OF
VISITATION.
WITH ME TODAY ARE TWO WITNESSES
IN SUPPORT.
RABBI SUZANNE SINGER AND LEASE.
LIZZY MOTION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THERE ARE TWO BASIC PRINCIPLES
IN JUDAISM THE GUIDE HOW WE
TREAT HUMAN BEINGS.
AND I THINK THIS APPLIES TO
OTHER RELIGIONS AS WELL THE
FIRST IS THAT WE ARE ALL CREATED
BUT CELLUM ELLO HE MADE IN GOD'S
IMAGE.
THE SECOND IS TO SHOE Và.
WHICH IS OFTEN TRANSLATED AS
REPENTANCE BUT WHICH REALLY
MEANS RETURN.
THE IDEA IS THAT IF AND WHEN WE
VEER OFF THE RIGHT PATH --
ALWAYS ABLE TO COME BACK TO
RETURN.
SO BASED ON THESE VALUES AS A
RABBI I BELIEVE THAT IT IS OUR
JOB AS A SOCIETY. TO RE
INTEGRATE OFFENDERS BACK INTO
SOCIETY SO THAT THEY CAN BECOME
PRODUCTIVE MEMBERS AND
RESPONSIBLE MEMBERS OF THE
COMMUNITY.
SO I WAS HORRIFIED TO LEARN THAT
THE NEW COUNTY JAIL IN INDIO IN
RIVERSIDE COUNTY.
WAS BUILT WITH NO IN PERSON
VISITS BUT ONLY VIDEO CALLS.
THIS IS DE HUMANIZING FOR THOSE
WHO ARE INCARCERATED.
CONTACT WITH FAMILY AND FRIENDS
IS ABSOLUTELY KEY TO
REHABILITATION.
STUDIES HAVE CONSISTENTLY FOUND
THE PRISONERS TO MAINTAIN CLOSE
CONTACT WITH THEIR FAMILY
MEMBERS WHILE INCARCERATED.
HAVE BETTER POST RELEASE
OUTCOMES AND LOWER RECIDIVISM
RATES.
ADDITIONALLY VIDEOTAPING
TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES HAVE COME
UNDER CRITICISM FOR CHARGING
HIGH FEES.
AND FOR PROVIDING POOR QUALITY
VIDEO CONNECTIONS.
VIDEO CAN BE INCREASED
INCREDIBLY COSTLY NOT JUST FOR
THE INMATE BUT FOR THE LOVED
ONES AS WELL.
THE COST OF THE VIDEO CALL CAN
BE AS MUCH AS A DOLLAR A MINUTE.
ACCORDING TO THE PRISON POLICY
INITIATIVE.
AND THE PEOPLE PAYING FOR THESE
CALLS ARE THOSE WHO ARE LEAST
LIKELY TO AFFORD IT.
FURTHERMORE ES ASSEMBLY MEMBER
OF MEDINA HAS NOTED VIDEO
TECHNOLOGY OFTEN DISCONNECTS AND
OUR JOBS AND SKIPS DURING THE
CALL MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO
FOCUS.
AND THERE IS ANOTHER CRUCIAL
ISSUE.
THE CHILDREN OF THOSE
INCARCERATED ARE ALREADY
SUFFERING FROM THE TRAUMA OF
BEING SEPARATED FROM THEIR
PARENTS.
VIDEO CALLS ONLY PRESENT A
FURTHER BARRIER TO THESE
CHILDREN MAINTAINING A CLOSE
CONNECTION WITH THEIR PARENTS.
THE BIBLE MAKES IT VERY CLEAR
THAT THE BOND OF LIFE BETWEEN A
PARENT AND CHILD EVEN AMONG
ANIMALS IS STRONG.
AND SACRED.
THE ARGUMENT THE JAIL TIME IS
SHORTER THAN PRISON TIME SO CAN
BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY NO LONGER
HOLDS.
EVER SINCE REALIGNMENT MORE
PEOPLE ARE SERVING TIME IN
COUNTY JAILS AND FOR LONGER
PERIODS THAN BEFORE.
WITH ONE MILLION PEOPLE
PRESENTLY SERVING IN CALIFORNIA
JAILS.
THIS IS AN ENORMOUS POPULATION
WE ARE PROPOSING TO DE HUMANIZE
AND THEIR PEOPLE WERE GOING TO
COME BACK INTO THE COMMUNITY.
IF WE INSIST ON VIDEO CALLS
RATHER THAN IN PERSON VISITS.
WILL BE FORWARDING EFFORTS TO
UNITE OFFENDERS WITH THEIR
FAMILIES.
AND THEIR ABILITY TO REINTEGRATE
INTO SOCIETY.
I APPLAUD ASSEMBLY MEMBER MEDINA
IS INTRODUCTION OF EIGHTY NINE
SIXTY FOUR WHICH REQUIRES
CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES TO
PROVIDE IN PERSON VISITATIONS.
VIDEO CALL SHOULD SERVE AS A
SUPPLEMENT NOT AS A SUBSTITUTE
FOR IN PERSON FOR VISITATIONS.
AB NINE SIXTY FOUR WILL
STRENGTHEN FAMILY CONNECTIONS
BETWEEN CARS RATED PEOPLE.
AND THEIR LOVED ONES.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU YES GOOD MORNING
LIZZIE BEACON WITH ACLU OF
CALIFORNIA WE ARE ALSO HERE IN
SUPPORT OF AB.
NINE SIX FOUR I THIS BILL WOULD
ADDRESS A VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM
THAT WE HAVE IN OUR STATE THAT A
NUMBER OF JAILS DENY
INCARCERATED PEOPLE AND THEIR
FAMILIES OPPORTUNITY. FOR
MEANINGFUL VISITATION WHICH
MEANS THAT THE ONLY WAY THAT
PEOPLE IN THESE JAILS CAN SEE
THEIR LOVED ONES IS THERE A
VIDEO SCREEN.
THIS WOULD BE BAD ENOUGH IF IT
WAS FACE TIME OR SKYPE BUT AS
WE'VE HEARD FROM.
A MISTER BAD MEDINA AND AND THE
RABBI THAT.
THEY SYSTEMS ARE FAR WORSE AND
THAT'S WHY THE RESEARCH HAS
SHOWN THAT NGUYEN JAILS
ELIMINATE IN PERSON VISITATION
REPLACE THEM WITH VIDEO CALLS.
THAT THE NUMBER OF THE SO CALLED
VISITS GOES DOWN PEOPLE ARE LESS
LIKELY TO DO VIDEO CALLS AND
THEY WERE TO DO VISITATION.
AND DEPART THE DEPARTMENT
ADDRESSES THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS SHOWN
THAT IN THAT VISITATION IS
CRITICAL FOR PRESERVING FAMILY
STABILITY -- IN SUPPORTING
SUCCESSFUL REENTRY THIS HAS NOT
BEEN SHOWN FOR VIDEO VISITATION --
IN FACT NGUYEN JAILS HAVE
ELIMINATED IMPORTS VISITATION
REPLACEABLE VIDEO CALLS --
DISCIPLINARY INFRACTIONS -- GO
UP CONTRABAND GOES UP.
ON IT SO IT IT HAS BEEN A
SERIOUS PROBLEM WHERE IT HAS
TAKEN PLACE.
THIS BILL.
IS ULTIMATELY ABOUT RESPECTING
THE HUMANITY AND DIGNITY OF
INCARCERATED PEOPLE IN THEIR AND
THEIR FAMILIES INCARCERATED
PEOPLE HAVE CHILDREN THEY HAVE
BROTHERS AND SISTERS THEY HAVE
SPOUSES THEY ARE THEMSELVES
CHILDREN OF OTHER PEOPLE -- AND
PROHIBITING THEM AND THEIR LOVED
ONES FROM SEEING EACH OTHER IN
PERSON FOR YEARS AND OFTEN AT
SOMETIMES MORE THAN MORE THAN
TEN YEARS -- PEOPLE ARE
INCARCERATED IN COUNTY JAILS
THESE DAYS I IS IS IN HUMANE.
MOST OF OUR JAILS PROVIDE IN
PERSON VISITATION.
ALL OF OUR PRISONS PROVIDE IN
PERSON VISITATION AND EVEN
CONTACT VISITATION OUR STATE
PRESENCE SO IT IS CLEARLY
SOMETHING THAT -- THAT MOST OF
OUR CORRECTIONAL SYSTEMS HAVE
RECOGNIZE IS CRITICAL.
AB SIX NINE SIXTY FOUR SETS A
VERY REASONABLE TIMELINE FOR
THOSE DEALS THAT DO NOT PROVIDE
IN PERSON VISITATION.
ADD TO TO TO COME UP INTO
COMPLIANCE IT'S UNTIL TWENTY
TWENTY FIVE MANY OF THE JAILS
THAT DO NOT CURRENTLY PROVIDING
PERSON VISITATION HAVE IN THE
PAST AND CAN.
WE CONTINUE TO HAVE CAPACITY TO
DO SO SO -- WE THINK THAT THIS
IS A VERY.
SUCH REASONABLE TIME LINE IS
VERY CRITICAL BILL ENDS FOR
THOSE REASONS WE ARE IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT NAME AN ORGANIZATION.
JIM LIMBURG ON BEHALF OF THE
FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION
CALIFORNIA -- WE CO SPONSORED A
PREVIOUS VERSION OF THIS BILL
THAT THIS COMMITTEE PASSED SO I
WANT TO THANK THE ASSEMBLY
MEMBER. FOR BRINGING THIS ISSUE
BACK VERY QUICKLY I'LL JUST SAY
THAT WHEN THE LEGISLATIVE VOTED
FOR REALIGNMENT AND TO FIND NEW
JAIL CONSTRUCTION THEY WEREN'T
ANTICIPATING THAT WOULD WE DOING
AWAY WITH IN PERSON VISITATION
THANK YOU.
MARCO GEORGE FROM THE CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION IN
SUPPORT THANK YOU THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING GOING BACK AS FOR
DRUG POLICY ALLIANCE AND FOR THE
ELEVATOR CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
IN SUPPORT.
GOOD MORNING DOMINIQUE NON FOR
THE CHILDREN'S DEFENSE FUND
CALIFORNIA IN STRONG SUPPORT.
YOU.
MORNING ERIC ANDERSON FOR
INITIATE JUSTICE STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
KYLE MOTHER KIANA SIXTY WITH ME
WORKS IN STRONG SUPPORT THANK
YOU.
IT'S NOT YOUR HERNANDEZ I'M HALF
THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS FOR
CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN SUPPORT
THANK YOU.
ANY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION
.
GOOD MORNING MISTER CHAIR VICE
CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE GOOD MORNING JOHN
MCMAHON FROM SAN BERNADINO
COUNTY.
I UNDERSTAND THE REASON THAT
MISTER MEDINA BROUGHT THIS
FORWARD.
I BELIEVE WE DEALT WITH THIS
ISSUE A COUPLE YEARS BACK.
AND ULTIMATELY THE BORDER STATE
COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS CAME UP
WITH NEW REGULATIONS.
THAT IN ESSENCE PROHIBITED ANY
NEW FACILITIES FROM BEING BUILT
THAT DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING OTHER
THAN IN PERSON VISITATION.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF FACILITIES
IN OUR STATE ONE OF WHICH IN OUR
COUNTY.
THAT HAS SOLELY VIDEO VISITATION.
THAT FACILITY WAS BUILT USING A.
B. NINE HUNDRED MONEY.
APPROVED BY THE STATE BOARD OF A
BORDER STATE AND COMMUNITY
CORRECTIONS AS WELL AS THE LOCAL.
FACILITIES THAT ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION IN OUR COUNTY AND
AT THE STATE LEVEL.
DONE WITH GRANT FUNDING.
WAS ALLOWED TO HAVE VIDEO
VISITATION ONLY AT THE TIME IT
WAS A BILL. FOR US TO CHANGE
THAT ONE FACILITY AND TO IN
PERSON VISITATION.
WILL BE A HUGE PROBLEM FOR US.
NONE OF ROOM ON THAT SITE TO
BUILD A SEPARATE BUILDING.
THERE'S NOT ENOUGH ROOM WITHIN
THE EXISTING WALLS TO FACILITATE.
IN PERSON VISITATION.
THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE PURCHASE
OF PROPERTY.
CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING OFF
SITE.
AND THE ONGOING COSTS WHICH
WOULD BE INEXPENSIVE IN THE
BEGINNING COMPARED TO THE
ONGOING COST.
OF TRANSPORTING INMATES BACK AND
FORTH TO THAT FACILITY FOR
VISITATION.
AND I'VE HEARD SOME DISCUSSIONS
ABOUT VIDEO VISITATION AND THE
QUALITY OF THIS I'M NOT SURE OF
WHAT -- OTHER FOLKS ARE USING
FOR VENDORS BUT IN OUR FACILITY
IT WORKS WELL.
WE HAVE VERY FEW COMPLAINTS ON
OCCASION THE SYSTEM JUST GOES
DOWN LIKE ANY OTHER SYSTEM WOULD.
VERY RARE AND WHEN THAT OCCURS
WE ALLOW ADDITIONAL TIME. FOR
VISITING ONCE THE SYSTEMS BACK
UP.
THANK YOU THANK YOU.
MEASURE MEMBERS COURCELLES ALONG
WE HAVE THE CALIFORNIA STATE
SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION --
REGRETTABLY HERE IN OPPOSITION --
SURE MCMAHON SAID -- THERE'S
BEEN SIGNIFICANT DISCUSSION AND
DEBATE OVER THIS ISSUE OF VIDEO
VISITATION TO COME BEFORE THIS
COMMITTEE -- GOVERNOR IN FACT --
VETOED A BILL SB ELEVEN FIFTY
SEVEN AND TWENTY SIXTEEN THAT
WOULD HAVE ADDRESSED A NUMBER OF
THESE ISSUES AND IN FACT WAS
SIMILAR IN CONCEPT -- IN IN THE
WAKE OF THAT VETO THE GOVERNOR
DIRECTED -- THE BOARD AND
STAKEHOLDERS TO COME TOGETHER
AND TRY TO FIND A SOLUTION OR TO
ADDRESS THIS ISSUE OF IN PERSON
VERSUS VIDEO VISITATION.
AND IN THE SEVENTEEN EIGHTEEN
STATE BUDGET THERE WAS A
CAREFULLY NEGOTIATED COMPROMISE --
IT IT INCLUDED A NUMBER OF
THINGS ANY NEW PROJECT WITH
RELINQUISH SHELL FUNDS HAD TO
INCLUDE -- IN PERSON VISITATION
THERE WAS A PROHIBITION -- ON
CONVERTING -- FROM IN PERSON
VIDEO VISITATION TO VIDEO
VISITATION ONLY -- AFTER JANUARY
FIRST TWENTY SEVENTEEN SO EVEN
RETROACTIVE TO THE BUDGET
AGREEMENT -- THERE WAS A
LANGUAGE THAT SAID YOU CAN'T
CHANGE YOU CAN'T CHARGE FOR ON
SITE VISITATION WHETHER IT'S
OFFERED IN PERSON OR THROUGH A
VIDEO -- AND THAT IF YOU OFFER
REMOTE VISITATION THAT THE FIRST
HOUR OF REMOTE VISITATION HAS TO
BE FREE EACH WEEK -- AGAIN THIS
WAS A COMPROMISE TO AVOID THE
TYPES OF HUGE CRUSHING MANDATES
THAT SHERIFF MCMAHON SPOKE ABOUT
IT JUST ONE FACILITY BUT THERE
ARE COUNTIES AROUND THE STATE.
WHO BUILT THEIR FACILITIES WITH
STATE MONEY WHEN IT WAS
APPROPRIATE AND WHEN IT WAS
PERMITTED AT THE TIME -- TO HAVE
VIDEO VISITATION ONLY FOR THE
COMMUNITY NEEDS -- AND FRANKLY
THE COUNTIES WERE FOLLOWING THE
LAW AT THE TIME AND AND THIS
BILL AND PRAYER EFFORTS TO MOVE
THE GOAL POSTS AND SAY.
YOU KNOW WE SAID THIS WAS OK
THEN BUT BUT NOW WE'RE GOING TO
GO BACK AND CHANGE IT AND AND IN
DOING SO IMPOSE MASSIVE COST
MANDATES -- ON COUNTIES AROUND
THE STATE THIS BILL
UNFORTUNATELY TOSSES THAT
CAREFULLY NEGOTIATED COMPROMISE
ASIDE -- AND CHANGE THE RULES
AFTER THE FACT AND SO FOR THOSE
REASONS WE RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE
THE BILL.
THANK YOU I DO ANY WITNESS IN
OPPOSITION HERE MISTER MEMBERS
BOATBUILDER ON BEHALF OF THE
COUNTY SAN BUT YOU KNOW ALSO NO.
OPPOSITION.
WHERE MISTER RYAN SHERMAN WITH
THE RIVERSIDE SHERIFF'S
ASSOCIATION OPPOSITION THANK YOU?
GOOD MORNING ELIZABETH HAS BEEN --
SOME BEHALF OF THE URBAN
COUNTIES OF CALIFORNIA AND THE
WORLD COUNTY REPRESENTATIVES OF
CALIFORNIA ALSO IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU.
AUDREY RETIRED CHECK ON BEHALF
OF SAN MATEO COUNTY -- AND I
JUST WANTED TO KNOW WE HAVE AN
OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED POSITION
AND WE'RE SEEKING STATE FUNDING
BECAUSE IT WOULD COST IN EXCESS
OF A MILLION DOLLARS.
THANK YOU.
KAREN LAYING ON THE OF THE
STANISLAUS COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS IN OPPOSITION.
GOOD MORNING CHAIR MEMBERS
BENICIA **** ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES IN OPPOSITION THANK YOU.
THANK YOU.
ARE ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION ANY QUESTIONS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR OF YOU BE
DOING THIS THANK YOU THANK YOU
MISTER CHAIR -- OBVIOUSLY WE'VE
HEARD FROM SEVERAL OF THE ABOUT
THE COST OF THIS AND THAT
SOMETHING WE NEED TO TAKE INTO
CONSIDERATION I KNOW
APPROPRIATIONS -- WILL BE
LOOKING LONG AND HARD AT BUT AT
THIS POINT THE QUESTION BEFORE
US IS PUBLIC SAFETY AND YOU KNOW
I THINK I AM.
THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT WE KNOW
THAT.
THIS KIND OF THING REDUCES
RECIDIVISM AND THAT SHOULD BE
THE GOAL OF THIS COMMITTEE
BECAUSE IT MAKES OUR COMMUNITY
SAFER IT IMPROVES OUTCOMES.
AND AND IN THE END TO REDUCE
COSTS BECAUSE IT MEANS LESS
PEOPLE ARE BEING HELD IN OUR
PRISONS AND SO FROM THAT
PERSPECTIVE ABSOLUTELY SUPPORTED
I LOOK.
TO APPROPRIATIONS TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE HAVE THE FUNDING. TO
GIVE YOU WHAT YOU NEED IN ORDER
TO ACCOMPLISH THIS.
THANK YOU MISTER QUIRK.
I'M GOING TO MOVE THE BELL.
ALL RIGHT SO.
LOOK THIS IS OPPOSED NOT ONLY BY
THE SHERIFF'S WHO.
OFTEN OPPOSE THINGS BECAUSE OF
COST BUT SAN MATTEO COUNTY IN
THE URBAN COUNTIES.
AND THEY'RE RIGHT THIS IS MUCH
TOO COSTLY WITHOUT STATE AID.
AGAIN I AGREE WITH -- ASSEMBLY
MEMBER -- RIP.
REBECCA BAUER-KAHAN -- THEN.
A HUNDRED QUE HA.
IT'S QUE HAN OKAY HAND SORRY QUE
HAN.
ALL RIGHT -- YOU KNOW IF YOUR
KIDS END UP WITH FOR LAST NAMES
THANK ABOUT EIGHT EIGHT I'M
SORRYI'M SO I RESEMBLE THAT
REMARK.
MAY THEY HAVE SUCH PROBLEMS --
YES MAY THEY HAVE SAYS BROWN'S --
TALKING ABOUT BIRDS -- I WOULD
SUGGEST MAKING THIS A TO YOUR
BILL AND WORKING ON THE BUDGET
PROCESS.
BECAUSE WITHOUT THAT THIS JUST
DIES AND APPROPRIATIONS -- THEY
LOOK NOT ONLY AT ST COSTS BUT
THEY ALSO LOOK AT LOCAL COSTS
AND THIS IS JUST JYJ -- AND I
HONESTLY THINK THAT THE GOVERNOR.
AND I CERTAINLY ARE ASSEMBLY AND
SENATE -- BUDGET CHAIRS.
WOULD APPRECIATE -- THIS
APPROACH.
BUT I REALLY THINK IT'S GONNA --
BUDGET -- ASK IN THE BUDGET
APPROPRIATIONS FOR THIS REALLY
TO MAKE IT INTO LAW AGAIN I AM
SUPPORTING THE BILL TODAY
BECAUSE IT IS THE RIGHT CONCEPT
THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY WOMAN WICKS THANK YOU --
THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE EASY
TO USE USE THE WORD IN HUMANE
WHICH I THINK IS THE RIGHT WAY
TO DESCRIBE THIS AND I THINK --
YOU KNOW THE WAY THAT WE REDUCE
RECIDIVISM IS THAT FOLKS CAN GO
BACK TO THE COMMUNITY AND HAVE A
FULL CONNECTION WITH THEIR
FAMILY AND THEIR FRIENDS AND
THEIR LOVED ONES AND SO I THINK
THAT IS THE GOAL.
DO YOU ALL HAVE A SENSE AND I
GET THERE'S A COST COMPONENT
NEEDS TO BE FIGURED OUT BUT WE
DO HAVE TO RIGHT SOME WRONGS OF
OUR PREDECESSORS IN TERMS OF THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE ISSUES THAT WE
HAVE IN THE STATE.
AND THERE ARE MANY -- DO YOU ALL
HAVE A SENSE OF HOW MANY PEOPLE
THIS ACTUALLY IMPACTS ON A DAY
TO DAY.
YES WE DO HAVE THE NUMBER OF
FACILITIES THAT ONLY HAVE -- A
VIDEO VISITS HANG ON ONE SECOND.
FIND THAT NUMBER.
IT IS FIFTEEN COUNTIES -- AND
TWENTY TWO SEPARATE FACILITIES
THAT ONLY ALLOW FOR VIDEO VISITS
GOT IT OKAY SO SIGNIFICANT
NUMBER OF PEOPLE.
YES YEAH OKAY I THINK I'LL
DEFINITELY BE SUPPORTING THE
BILL AND THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
IT [inaudible]
OKAY NEAR.
KAMLAGER-DOVE -- THANK YOU
ASSEMBLY MEMBER MEDINA FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD AND THANK
YOU FOR THE ROBUST CONVERSATION
I TO WILL BE -- SUPPORTING THIS
BILL I THINK THE CONCEPT IS
IMPORTANT AND I THINK THE FACT
THAT WE'RE HAVING THESE KINDS OF
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THIS BILL.
AFFIRMS FOR ME THAT WE SHOULD BE
TALKING ABOUT HOW WE REIMAGINE
INCARCERATION IN THE KINDS OF
FACILITIES IN WHICH WE ARE
PUTTING PEOPLE -- IT IS
CERTAINLY OKAY AND I THINK IT IS
ACCURATE FOR US TO COME BACK AND
SAY WE MADE SOME MISTAKES AND WE
HAVE TO GO ABOUT CORRECTING THEM.
I ALSO THINK THAT WE NEED TO
STOP THINKING IN BINARY
PROPOSITIONS IN THIS BILL
AFFORDS BOTH HANDS AS OPPOSED TO
EITHER ORDERS.
AND WHICH WASN'T MENTIONED IS
YOU KNOW -- ONLY HAVING VIDEO
CONFERENCING OR NOT ALLOWING IN
PERSON ALSO IMPACTS THE ABILITY
FOR FOLKS TO MEET WITH COUNSEL
AND I CERTAINLY THINK WE NEED TO
BE FINDING MORE WAYS TO
ENCOURAGE THAT TO HAPPEN SO
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD.
AND I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS
BILL MISTER CHAIR.
THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER COMMENT.
YOU MAY CLOSE MISTER MEDINA WELL
FIRST OF ALL I I WANT TO THANK
MY COLLEAGUES FOR WHAT I THINK
IS A VERY ENLIGHTENED --
CONVERSATION AND AS CHAIR OF A
ANOTHER POLICY COMMITTEE I I
RESPECT THE CONVERSATION THAT
THAT WHAT WE SHOULD DO HEARING
COMMITTEE IS TO TALK ABOUT
PUBLIC POLICY.
AND THEN AS WE MOVE FORWARD LET
IS TALK ABOUT THE CLASS.
I THANK YOU AB EIGHT NINE SIXTY
FOUR WILL CERTAINLY HELP
STRENGTHEN FAMILY CONNECTIONS
BETWEEN -- INCARCERATED AND
DETAIN PERSONS AND THEIR LOVED
ONES BY ENSURING THAT VIDEO OF
VISITATION IS ONLY A SUPPLEMENT
AND NOT -- REPLACEMENT FOR IN
PERSON VISITATION.
I THANK MY WITNESSES HERE -- I
THANK OF RABBI SINGER FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD TO ME.
AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU OF AND YOU KNOW I I
DON'T.
CD ROM WITH THE WITH THE BAR
CARE JONES SAWYER MERITS BUT
THAT'S A WHOLE NOTHER DISCUSSION --
THAT'S FOR ANOTHER COMMITTEE
MISS AS FOR ANOTHER COMMITTEE.
SO I I IN MY PREVIOUS LIFE
ALWAYS DIRECTOR REAL ESTATE AND
SO I I ALSO SIT ON BUDGET SO.
FIVE SO THIS WHOLE QUESTION OF
CAN WE PAY FOR IT I DO BELIEVE
WE SHOULD VOICED.
THESE COSTS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AND AND SO I ON THE OTHER END OF
THE SUPPORT OF GETTING YOU MONEY
BUT ALSO WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE
TO WORK WITH YOU.
TO RECONFIGURE OR TO FIGURE OUT
HOW.
TO DO THE ADDITIONAL SPACE AS
CHEAPLY AS POSSIBLE OR AN
EXPENSIVE HE GOING TO BE CHEAP
BUT IT'S AN EXPENSIVE POSSIBLE
AND THERE'S A WAY. TO DO IT
WHERE IT DOESN'T BECOME COST
PROHIBITIVE -- WE DOCTOR BY
ADDITIONAL LAND AND ALL THAT SO
I WOULD LOVE TO BE IN THAT
DISCUSSION.
IN THAT OTHER COMMITTEE -- THE
THE PEOPLE THAT WE MET THAT ARE
INCARCERATED ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT THEY TALK ABOUT ALL THE
TIME IS GETTING BACK TO THEIR
FAMILIES AND THOSE IN PERSON --
VISITATIONS ARE THE SOMETIMES
THE ONLY LIFELINE TO THE OUTSIDE --
YOU YOU HEAR THEM. ONE IN MAY
AFTER THE OTHER OVER AND OVER
WILL SAY.
I'M TRYING TO GET HOME TO MY
FAMILY TO MY CHILDREN TO TO
SOMEBODY ON THE OUTSIDE WHO'S
DOING THE RIGHT THING.
AND SO THAT'S WHY THESE THIS IS
SO IMPORTANT TO US AND WE WE
NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE NOT
ONLY MOVE IT FORWARD -- FROM A
POLICY STANDPOINT BUT WE ALSO
WORK WITH YOU SO WE DON'T BURDEN.
THE COUNTIES THAT AT YOUR LEVEL
AND SO THE SHARES RECOMMEND I
WITH YOU KNOWING THAT.
WILL WORK WITH YOU ON THE OTHER
SIDE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T.
COST YOU OUT OF EXISTENCE OKAY.
ON A. B. NINE SIXTY FOR THE
MOTION IS TO PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE JONES
SAWYER.
HI JOHN SIR I LACKEY.
LACKEY NO BAUER-KAHAN.
BAUER-KAHAN I DEEP.
DEEP I KAMLAGER-DOVE HI
KAMLAGER-DOVE AYE QUIRK AYE
QUIRK AYE SANTIAGO.
WICKS FIVE WEEKS I THE MEASURE
PASSES THANK YOU YOU.
NOW WE HAVE MR MCCARTY
[inaudible]
WHO'S HERE.
BUT CAME IN LAST BUT SINCE HE'S
HERE HE GETS TO GO NEXT.
BETTER BE LIKE OKAY CRISTINA
GARCIA OBERNOLTE EGGMAN KILEY
AND TING.
MR MCCARTY JUST JUMPED IN FRONT
OF YOU YOU NEED TO GET DOWN HERE
THEY WERE HERE.
YEAH SO WHAT'S BILLION ME TO GO
FIRST MISTER CHAIR -- THE
NUMERICAL ORDER I DON'T NUMBER
ELEVEN NO ADAM NUMBER LOW YET
ELEVEN EIGHTY FIVE ITEM NUMBER
TWENTY AND THEN YOU DO TWELVE
NINETY SEVEN ITEM NUMBER.
TWENTY FIVE THANK YOU -- I HAVE
BEFORE ME AB ELEVEN EIGHTY FIVE
IT'S IS A BILL WHAT'S WILL
CLARIFY THE ROLE OF A SHERIFF'S
OVERSIGHT BOARD.
AS WE KNOW THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN A BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
COUNTY BUT A SUPERVISING A
SHERIFF IS UNIQUE.
THEY'RE BOTH INDEPENDENTLY
ELECTED -- THIS UNIQUE STRUCTURE
HAS CAUSED SOME CONFUSION ABOUT
THE FUNCTIONS OF OVERSIGHT.
OVERSIGHT OF LOCAL POLICE
DEPARTMENTS HAS LONG BEEN
ESTABLISHED AND AS A RESULT IN
POSITIVE CHANGES IN CITIES.
LIKE SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE NOW
SACRAMENTO AT THE SAME CAN
ALWAYS BE SAID WITH SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT OVERSIGHT BOARDS HERE
IN SACRAMENTO THE PAST YEAR AND
A HALF WE HAD A WELL PUBLICIZED
CONFLICT.
IN LAW BETWEEN OUR SHERIFF AND
OUR COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OVER THE ROLE OF OUR INSPECTOR
GENERAL.
LA IN OTHER VERY COUNTIES HAD
OTHER CONFLICTS.
IN THIS BILL ATTEMPT TO CLARIFY
WHAT THESE BODIES CAN DO AND THE
ISSUE TO IS IN SOME OF THESE
JURISDICTIONS LIKE YOUR
JURISDICTION LA IN SACRAMENTO.
ON A CORPORATE AREAS WITH THE
SHERIFF DEPARTMENT LITERALLY IS
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
OVER ONE MILLION PEOPLE IN LA
COUNTY AND OVER SIX HUNDRED
THOUSAND PEOPLE HERE IN
SACRAMENTO -- STATEWIDE 39% OF
SWORN OFFICERS WORK FOR A COUNTY
SHERIFF -- AS WE KNOW DISTRUST
AND LAW ENFORCEMENT IN
COMMUNITIES IS AT ALL TIME HIGH
IN TRANSPARENCY AND OVERSIGHT IS
NEEDED -- THIS BILL WILL WILL
CLARIFY AND CODIFY A COURT
DECISION FOR THE NINETIES THAT
SHERIFF OVERSIGHT BOARDS -- CAN
BE ROBUST AND HAVE ENOUGH
AUTHORITY AND ISSUE SUBPOENAS TO
PROVIDE A TRANSPARENCY
INFORMATION OVER THE OVERSIGHT
OF THESE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENTS
ACROSS CALIFORNIA.
I WITH ME IS THE ACLU OF
CALIFORNIA.
THANK YOU GOOD MORNING LIZZY
BEACON WITH THE ACLU OF
CALIFORNIA -- HERE IN SUPPORT OF
THIS SPEECH AB ELEVEN EIGHTY
FIVE THIS BILL RATE OVERSIGHT
BOARDS AND APPOINT INSPECTORS
GENERAL TO OVERSEE SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENTS.
AND ALSO CLARIFIES THOSE
OVERSIGHT ENTITIES CAN BE IN
DOUBT A SUBPOENA POWER SO THAT
THEY CAN MAKE MEANING FULLY
PERFORM THAT OVERSIGHT.
IT ALSO CLARIFIES THAT IF AN
OVERSIGHT ENTITY IS CONDUCTING A
PARALLEL INVESTIGATION THAT THAT
INVESTIGATION SHOULD NOT BE
CONSTRUED AS OBSTRUCTION AS IT
OCCASIONALLY -- MISTAKENLY HAS
BEEN CURRENTLY BECAUSE THIS IS
NOT EXPLICIT IN THE STATUTE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WHO
ACCORDING TO THE CALIFORNIA
SUPREME COURT HAVE A STATUTORY
DUTY TO SUPERVISE THE CONDUCT OF
SHERIFF'S -- OFTEN DO NOT FEEL
EMPOWERED TO ACTUALLY OBTAIN THE
INFORMATION THAT'S NECESSARY FOR
THAT SUPERVISION NOR DO THE
OVERSIGHT ENTITIES -- THEY
ESTABLISHED.
SO IF YOU EXAMPLES FROM LOS
ANGELES WHERE THERE'S BEEN A LOT
OF CONFUSION OVER WHETHER THE
BOARD COULD GRANT OVERSIGHT TO
ITS AS CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT
COMMISSION -- THEY HAVE BEEN THE
CEO SEE HAS BEEN TRYING TO DEAL
WITH SOME OF THE MANY PROBLEMS
IN OUR COUNTY JAILS -- ONE OF
THE COMMISSIONERS ASKED FOR A
RECORD OF COMPLAINTS FROM THE
PEOPLE TO BE DETAINED IN THE
JAIL THE SHERIFF REFUSED TO
PRODUCE THAT RECORD.
THE COMMISSION ALSO ASKED TO SEE
THE POLICY ON INCARCERATED
PEOPLE WHO ARE BREAST FEEDING
AGAIN THE SHERIFF REFUSED TO
PROVIDE THAT TO THEM.
MANY OF YOU MAY ALSO BE AWARE OF
THE THE SO CALLED CLICKS OR
WITHIN THE LA SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENTS WHERE THE SHERIFF'S
DEPUTIES REWARDED EACH OTHER AND
ENCOURAGE EACH OTHER TO USE
EXCESSIVE FORCE AND TO SHOOT
PEOPLE -- THE COMMISSION
REQUESTED DOCUMENTS REFLECTING
LA ESTEVES MANAGEMENT ALLEY ESTY
MANAGEMENT'S KNOWLEDGE OF AND
INTENDS TO ADDRESS THESE CLICKS
AFTER A VERY LONG DELAY LA ESTY
PRODUCED A SINGLE NON RESPONSIVE
REPORT.
THAT WAS MERELY ABOUT STREET
GANGS WAS NOT ABOUT THAT THE
GANGS WITHIN THE LA SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT DEPUTIES -- AND THEN
OF COURSE RIGHT HERE AND
SACRAMENTO SHARE OF JONES LOCKED
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OUT OF THE
ALL SHARES FACILITIES BECAUSE
ODD BECAUSE INSPECTOR GENERAL
HAD RELEASED A REPORT THAT WAS
CRITICAL OF ONE OF THE HOMICIDES
BY THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT --
THERE WAS CONFUSION BY THE BOY
ABOUT WHAT IF ANYTHING THEY
COULD DO ABOUT THIS -- ENSURE OF
JONES DID NOT HELP BY MAKING A
SERIES OF PREPOSTEROUS COMMENTS
TO THE PRESS AND IN AND BEFORE
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WHERE
HE CLEARLY DID NOT UNDERSTAND
CURRENT LAW -- HE THOUGHT HE WAS
NOT SUBJECT TO ANY OVERSIGHT
WHATSOEVER SO.
SHERIFFS.
ARE NOT ONLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
WELFARE OF ABOUT 700-007-5000
INCARCERATED PEOPLE IN OUR JAILS
BUT THEY ALSO PATROLLER FOR OUR
STREETS THEY USE FORCE THEY
SOMETIMES USE DEADLY FORCE.
ON AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ARE
REQUIRED BY LAW TO THIS
SUPERVISE THEIR CONDUCT.
BUT THE OVERSIGHT BODIES THAT
THEY ARE CREATING I INCLUDING
CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARDS AND
INSPECTORS GENERAL CANNOT
FULFILL THEIR MISSION -- IN A
MEANINGFUL MANNER WITHOUT TIMELY
AND COMPLETE ACCESS TO ALL
RELEVANT INFORMATION THIS DOES
NOT FORCE BOARDS TO DO ANYTHING
THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO DO IT
MAKES THEIR AUTHORITY CLEAR SO
REMOVES ANY BARRIERS THAT THEY
MIGHT.
BE SAYING.
THE OPPOSITION -- SAYS IN HIS
LETTER THAT THIS BILL IS
UNNECESSARY BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY
LAW -- WERE MERELY TRYING TO
CLARIFY THAT LAW AND IT'S CLEAR
FROM THE SITUATION IN SACRAMENTO
AND THE LOS ANGELES THAT
CLARIFICATION IS NECESSARY --
BOAT WE AGREE THIS ISN'T
BREAKING NEW GROUND THIS WON'T
RESULT IN OVER REACH -- WERE
TRIP TRYING TO MERELY MAKE IT
CLEAR THAT BOARDS CAN PROVIDE
MEANINGFUL OVERSIGHT IF THEY
CHOOSE TO DO SO. SEVEN WE ASK
FOR YOUR SUPPORT THANK YOU THANK
YOU.
MISTER CHAIRMAN FOR SIGNAL SIR
HERNANDEZ ON BEHALF THE
CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS FOR
CRIMINAL JUSTICE.
STATEWIDE ASSOCIATION OF CORAL
OFFENSE ATTORNEYS IN PRIVATE
PRACTICE AND ALSO WORKING PUBLIC
DEFENDEROFFICES WE ARE HERE IN
SUPPORT.
JUST BRIEFLY I WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR FOR BRINGING THIS BILL
FORWARD -- WHAT WE'VE SEEN --
THROUGHOUT THE STATE IS AN ON
GOING ON ON LONG TERM FIGHT --
IN VARIETY OF JURISDICTIONS OVER
THIS ISSUE -- I'VE BEEN INVOLVED
WITH IT I KNOW MEMBERS OF OUR
ASSOCIATION BEEN INVOLVED WITH
THESE FIGHTS.
AND TYPICALLY IT COMES DOWN TO
YOU KNOW REALLY TRYING TO
PROVIDE SOME SOME TRUST AND SOME
ACCOUNTABILITY -- SO THAT THE
PUBLIC HAS CONFIDENCE -- WHEN
THERE ARE YOU KNOW USES OF
EXCESSIVE FORCE OF DEADLY FORCE?
ARE THEY NEED TO BE INVESTIGATED
THE PUBLIC HAS TO FEEL CONFIDENT
THAT THERE IS AN INDEPENDENT
BODY LOOKING AT THIS AND THAT
THEY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO
REALLY DELVE INTO THE ISSUES --
TOO OFTEN OTHER BEEN
JURISDICTIONS THAT HAVE CREATED
BODIES A DON'T HAVE SUBPOENA
POWER DON'T HAVE -- THE ABILITY
TO REALLY GET INTO THE ISSUES
AND BRING WITNESSES AND GATHER
INFORMATION AS DESCRIBED BY THE
PRIOR WITNESS.
IN AT THE END OF THE DAY WHEN
THE DECISION IS MADE ON WHETHER
OR NOT TO PROSECUTE -- AN
OFFICER CORD SURE STEP IN THIS
INSTANCE -- THE V. PUBLIC LOSES
CONFIDENCE WHEN THEY KNOW THAT
THE SUPPOSEDLY INDEPENDENT BODY
LACKS THIS SUBPOENA POWER LACKS
THE ABILITY REALLY INVESTIGATE.
THE ISSUE SO REALLY THIS IS
ABOUT LAYING OUT SOME GROUNDWORK
THAT IF A COUNTY DECIDES TO GO.
THIS DIRECTION THAT THERE'S
LEAST A GOOD FRAMEWORK THAT THE
LEGISLATURE IS ESTABLISHING MADE
CLEAR WHERE THE COUNTIES CAN GO
AND SHOULD GO.
AND I THINK THAT WILL HELP THE
DEBATES -- AT THE LOCAL LEVEL
BECAUSE KEEP IN MIND THESE ARE
ALWAYS DEBATES HIGHLY
CONTENTIOUS AND EVEN WITH THIS
BILL IT WILL REMAIN HIGHLY
CONTENTIOUS BUT AT THE VERY
LEAST.
WE'LL HAVE SOME CLARITY AND
CERTAINTY AS TO WHAT THE
AUTHORITY IS OF COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS.
AND A DIRECTION THAT THEY CAN GO
TO HELP RESOLVE THIS ISSUE FOR
THOSE REASONS WE ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
OR ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT.
MARCO GEORGE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT
[inaudible]
THANK YOU.
ANY WITNESSES OPPOSITION
[inaudible]
COR.
MORE MATURE MEMBERS COURSE THOSE
A LITTLE BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION RESPECTFULLY -- IN
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL -- WE GOT
A SNEAK PREVIEW FROM -- THE
PROPONENTS BUT WE DO BELIEVE
THIS BILL IS UNNECESSARY SEVERAL
COUNTIES HAVE ALREADY --
UNDERTAKEN THE TYPES OF ADOPTION
OF OVERSIGHT THE BILL
CONTEMPLATES WHETHER IN THE FORM
OF A CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT BOARD OR
AN INSPECTOR GENERAL -- TO THE
QUESTION OF SUBPOENA POWER
COUNTY COUNCILS HAVE SUBPOENA
POWER.
GRAND JURIES HAVE SUBPOENA POWER
IF THERE'S AN INVESTIGATION THE
NEEDS TO TAKE PLACE.
IF IT'S A CRIMINAL MATTER
DISTRICT ATTORNEY HAS SUBPOENA
POWER SO THE NOTION THAT NOBODY
CAN COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS OR TESTIMONY OR
WITNESSES -- IS IS I THINK IN
CORRECT AND AND FRANKLY THE
ANALYSIS POINT SOUTHERLY
SOMEBODY IN A ENTITIES -- AT
ISSUE HERE ALREADY HAVE THE
ABILITY -- TO BE GIVEN THAT
SUBPOENA POWER LOCALLY AND SO --
WE ARE OBJECTION IS TO PUTTING
THIS EXPRESS OF FORTY AND
STATURE WHEN IT ALREADY EXISTS --
IT'S GOING TO CREATE UNDUE
PRESSURE ON COUNTY GOVERNMENTS
TO CREATE THIS TYPE OF
RELATIONSHIP -- WHERE IT IS
SPECIALLY COUNTIES WHERE THERE
ISN'T A PERCEIVED ISSUE BUT
COUNTIES ARE GOING TO BE
EXPECTED OR PRESSURED TO ENGAGE
IN THIS TYPE OF OVERSIGHT -- ONE
IS NOT DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE
BOARD BUT THEY'RE SUCCUMBING TO
POLITICAL PRESSURES AND SO FOR
THOSE REASONS RESPECTFULLY ASK
YOU KNOW ABOUT.
THANK YOU THANK YOU ARE THERE
ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS.
MR LACKEY MISS COME LOOK AT THE
REST QUIRK IN [inaudible]
OKAY OKAY.
THE FIRST OF ALL I WOULD THE I
WOULD SAY CERTAINLY -- PUBLIC
TRUST TO SOMETHING THAT WE NEED
TO WORK TOWARD.
TOWARD BUILDING -- AND IN MANY
PARTS OF OUR STATE.
BUT THEY'RE ALSO MANY PARTS OF
OUR STATE WERE.
THE PUBLIC TRUST IS VERY SOUND.
AND I THINK THAT -- USING THIS
KIND OF AS A STATE MANDATE IS
NOT ONLY UNNECESSARY.
BUT I THINK IN MANY ASPECTS.
IT DISREGARDS THE VOICE VOICE TO
THE VOTERS BECAUSE THE VOTERS
ACTUALLY SELECTION ERRORS.
AND I I THINK THAT.
MAYBE WE SHOULD CONSIDER IT AN
OVERSIGHT BOARD FOR THE
LEGISLATURE.
THAT MANAGING THOUGHT MAYBE WE
SHOULD DO THAT.
THAT'S ALL I GOT.
COME UNDER THE Q. I WAS
WONDERING I HAVE -- TWO
QUESTIONS THE FIRST IS HOW WOULD
THIS OVERSIGHT BOARD WORK IN
CONJUNCTION WITH -- BOARDS OF
SUPERVISORS AND ALSO WITH --
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICES I'M
ASKING BECAUSE I WANT TO KNOW IF
THERE WOULD BE SOME AUTHORITY
OVER LAST.
AND THEN MY SECOND QUESTION IS
HOW WOULD THIS BOARD -- BE
DIFFERENT FROM -- SHERIFF
OVERSIGHT COMMISSIONS SO FOR
EXAMPLE IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY WE
HAVE AGE -- LA COUNTY SHERIFF'S
OVERSIGHT COMMISSION SO IF YOU
COULD JUST SORT OF SHARE THE
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WHAT THE
BOARD.
WOULD HAVE AUTHORITY OVER AND
WHAT THE COMMISSION WOULD HAVE
AUTHORITY OF CHERYL ALL START IN
TURN OVER TO OUR WITNESS SO IT
WOULDN'T CREATE ANY NEW ENTITY
JUST CLARIFY WHAT THEY CAN DO.
FOR EXAMPLE IN IN LA THEY
WEREN'T ALWAYS GETTING THE
INFORMATION THAT THEY WERE
REQUESTING SO THIS WOULD GIVE
THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE
SOME TYPE OF SUBPOENA.
POWER TO GET THE INFORMATION
HERE IN SACRAMENTO WE HAD ENTITY.
AND THERE IT'S ESSENTIALLY SHUT
OUT.
BY OUR LOCAL SHERIFF BECAUSE YOU
DON'T REALLY LIKE THE OVERSIGHT
AND OUR COUNTY COUNCIL ISSUED A
MEMO WHICH WAS -- MUDDY IS IS A
NICE DEFINITION.
AND THAT WAS THE IMPETUS FOR
COMING HERE TO HAVE SOME
CLARIFICATION AS FAR AS WHAT
THESE ENTITIES CAN DO AS FAR AS
LOCAL DA'S -- YOU KNOW THEY
THERE WILL IF THERE'S EVER AN
ISSUE AN INVESTIGATION THAT WILL
GO ON THERE.
I CAN CURRENT PATH INDEPENDENT
AND WOULD HAVE NO IMPACT ON
THEIR ON THEIR LINE OF WORK.
YEAH AND I'LL JUST ADD THAT --
THIS SAID THE THE BOARD WOULD BE
APPOINTING THESE COMMISSIONS AS
THEY DID THE CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT
COMMISSION IN LOS ANGELES AND SO
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT -- CIVIL
REVIEW BOARDS OR COMMISSIONS
LIKE THE C. O. C. IN LA -- OR
INSPECTOR GENERAL SO THOSE ARE --
THAT THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE
TRYING TO ADDRESS.
SO GRANTING MORE AUTHORITY TO
EXISTING ONES OR CREATING
OPPORTUNITY FOR ONCE TO BE
DEVELOPED IF YOU DON'T HAVE ONE
RIGHT AND AND THAT OPPORTUNITY
DOES EXIST THEY THEY CERTAINLY
CAN INPUT APPOINT.
THAT THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO
MEANINGFULLY PROVIDE OVERSIGHT.
THANK YOU OF FIFTY FOUR I THINK
THEY'RE TOO MANY COUNTY ELECTED
OFFICES -- I WOULD BE QUITE
HAPPY IF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS WAS THE ONLY ELECTED
OFFICE IN THE COUNTY.
WHEN YOU HAVE AN ASSESSOR AND
SHERIFF IN THE REST OF IT?
IT JUST SPREADS OUT AUTHORITY IN
SUCH A WAY YOU'RE NEVER QUITE
SURE WHO TO GO.
TO HOWEVER I'M NOT PLANNING TO
PUT UP CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE.
SO WE'RE LEFT WITH SPLIT THE
STORY.
SHERIFF SAYING -- YOU CAN'T TELL
ME TO DO THIS -- THE COUNTY AT
LEAST IN MY COUNTY REALLY
DEPENDS UPON THE BUDGET -- TO IT
TO INFLUENCE WHAT THE SHERIFF
DOES HE WILL COMPLAIN GREATLY IN
THE PAPERS ABOUT WHAT GOES ON
IT'S JUST A MESS BUT ANYWAY.
GETTING BACK TO THAT I DO
SUPPORT.
ON OVERSIGHT BOARD HAVING
SUBPOENA POWER MY MAIN CONCERN
PARTICULARLY FOR GENERAL LAW
COUNTY SAID TEND TO BE SMALL --
AND WOULD LIKELY TO HAVE A
COMMITTEE THAT'S NOT WELL
STAFFED MY CONCERN IS JUST
HAVING A GROUP OF CIVILIANS.
VOTE TO HAVE A SUBPOENA AND THEN
THAT BE ISSUED WITHOUT -- BACK
UP FROM SAY COUNTY COUNCIL.
AND I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD IS
YOUR BILL GOES FORWARD -- TO
TAKE A LOOK AT THIS BECAUSE IT'S
ONE THING TO ISSUE A SUBPOENA
AND IT'S ANOTHER THING FOR IT --
TOO FOR A JUDGE TO SUPPORT IT.
I THINK THAT YOU YOU SHOULD HAVE
SOMETHING IN THIS BILL.
THAT REQUIRES THAT THIS GO
THROUGH.
THE COUTY COUNCIL OFFICE MUCH
LIKE WE GO THROUGH SAY -- TO
HAVE OUR LEGISLATION LOOKED AT
BY LEDGE COUNCIL -- BECAUSE
OTHERWISE I'M WORRIED YOU'RE
GONNA GET SUBPOENAS WHICH MIGHT
NOT HOLD UP IN COURT -- SO I
THINK THAT WOULD BE A VERY
IMPORTANT ADDITION TO YOUR BILL.
AND IF YOU'RE WILLING TO TAKE A
LOOK AT IT I'M CERTAINLY GLAD TO
SUPPORT YOUR BILL TODAY.
WE WILLING TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT.
YEAH I THINK THAT'S A GOOD
SUGGESTION AND YOU KNOW THERE
ARE SMALL CITIES THAT HAVE --
THESE OVERSIGHT BODIES AND YOU
KNOW THEY ARE ABLE TO DO IT
WITHOUT HAVING THE STAFFING AND
OVERSIGHT SO I WHEN WHEN IT.
JUST THAT DISMISS AT A SMALLER
COUNTY THAT HAS THIS ENTITY BUT
I THINK WHAT YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT IS SOMETHING THAT
CERTAINLY WILL CONSIDER GOING.
FOR OKAY THANK YOU THEN I MOVED
TO BAIL OUT.
YES MISS WORKS.
SO I THINK YOU KNOW MOST PEOPLE
AGREE SUCCESSFUL POLICING IS
BUILT ON TRUST ANYTHING CAN FAR
TOO MANY OF OUR COMMUNITIES THAT
TRUST IS LOST -- AND I THINK
OVERSIGHT OF SHERIFF IS A
CRITICAL COMPONENT TO REALLY
ENHANCING -- PUBLIC SAFETY IN
OUR COMMUNITIES -- ALL BE
SUPPORTING THE BILL TODAY BUT
JUST TO KIND OF PIGGY BACK ON AS
A MEMBER AT COME WATER DIVES.
QUESTION SO IS IT THAT YOU KNOW
YOU HAD MENTIONED SIR THAT SOME
CAN MANY COUNTIES ALREADY HAVE
AN OVERSIGHT BOARD.
THAT WOULD THEN MEAN THAT MANY
COUNTIES DON'T I ASSUME SO WITH
THIS THIS WOULD CREATE KIND OF
LIKE A FLOOR.
AND IF COUNTIES HAVE KIND OF
MORE AGGRESSIVE OVERSIGHT THEY
COULD STILL IT HERE TO THAT BUT
IT CREATES A FLOOR FOR THE STATE
SO THAT ALL.
SHERIFF'S OFFICES ARE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE IS THAT KIND OF WAY
TO THINK ABOUT IT.
I'M SO ACT ACTUALLY NO IT
DOESN'T REQUIRE ANY ANY COUNTIES
COULD TO CREATE AN OVERSIGHT
BOARD -- ALL BOARDS OF
SUPERVISORS ARE REQUIRED TO
OVERSEE AND THEIR SHARE THE
CONDUCT OF THEIR SHARES -- BUT
IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THEM TO
CREATE AND AN INDEPENDENT ENTITY
IT WILL IT JUST MERELY.
LARA FIGHTS THAT THEY CAN DO SO
AND THAT THOSE ENTITIES.
THANK YOU AND SO I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT NOTED THAT SOME
COUNTIES ARE DONE THIS THROUGH
THE ELECTORATE SOME OF THAN THIS
TO THE COUNTY OARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND THERE'S A LITTLE
BIT OF CONFUSION AS FAR AS WHAT
THEY CAN AND CAN'T DO AND SO --
THIS WOULD WOULD CLARIFY AND
CODIFY WHAT THEY'RE ABLE TO DO
THIS OVERSIGHT.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU ARE THERE ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
YOU MAY CLOSE MISSED MCCARTY.
YEAH I THINK THIS IS A A
NECESSARY STEP BY I RESPECT THE
OPPOSITION FROM OUR SERVICE
ASSOCIATION BUT ONE THING THAT
THEY SAID IT'S IT'S UNNECESSARY
THE ARE YOU CAN DO IT SO MY
QUESTION IS WHAT'S THE PROBLEM.
OF CODIFYING WHAT THEY CAN DO AS
A WHOLE AND ALSO THE NOTION OF
OTHERS -- YOU KNOW OVERSIGHT IS
A BAD THING WE ALL KNOW THAT
SUNSHINE IS THE BEST
DISINFECTANT.
AND HAVING MORE ENTITIES GOING
AND LOOKING AT THESE ENTITIES --
CAN BRING ABOUT MORE PUBLIC
TRUST WHICH WE DESPERATELY NEED
IN OUR POLICING PRACTICES IN TWO
THOUSAND NINETEEN AND BEYOND ASK
THE RIGHT THOUGH.
THANK YOU END UP.
WITH SOMEONE THAT FROM LA COUNTY --
SOMEONE THAT MY MAYBE I SHOULD
BE THE ONLY AFRICAN AMERICAN AT
THAT ENDORSED THE PRESIDENT'S
CHAIR RIGHT NOW.
AND I PROBABLY GET MORE CALLS
AND EVER WANTED TO IN MY LIFE --
BUT I'VE ALSO HAD DISCUSSIONS
WITH THE SHERIFF THAT WE HAVE
NOW.
THEN THE DISCUSSION I HAD BEFORE
IN DISCUSSION I'M HAVING NOW IT
SEEMS LIKE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
TWO DIFFERENT THINGS SO HAVING
GUIDELINES VERY IMPORTANT.
EVEN NOW THERE'S THERE'S EVEN A
DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT
THE SHERIFF CAN HIRE WHO WE ONCE
AND FOR FIRE WE WANT SO WHO CAN
FIRE THAT PERSON AND WE DO NEEDS
SOME SOME CLARITY.
ON THAT -- ESPECIALLY SINCE
EVERYONE SEEMS TO BE AN ELECTED
OFFICIAL.
OF THE THE WORST THING WE COULD
HAVE RIGHT NOW AND IN THE COUNTY
OF LOS ANGELES WHICH MAY HAPPEN
IS A RECALL WHICH CALLS EVEN
MOVE FURTHER.
CONFUSION BECAUSE THE BOARD
DOESN'T LIKE TO SHARE OF DOING
AND VICE VERSA AND SO I I
APPLAUD YOU ON TRYING.
TO FIND EACH DIFFERENT AREA SO
THAT -- AT LEAST PEOPLE KNOW
FROM OF FLOOR WHAT IS EXPECTED
FROM FROM EACH ENTITY AND THE
CHAIR IS RECOMMENDING AND AND I
BECAUSE WE WE I KNOW IN LA
COUNTY WE DEFINITELY NEED
[inaudible]
SOME HELP.
I AB ELEVEN EIGHTY FIVE THE
MOTION IS TO PASS JONES SAWYER
OPTIONS ARE I LACKEY.
LACKEY NELL BARRICADE HAND.
BAUER-KAHAN I DEEP [inaudible]
KAMLAGER-DOVE.
KAMLAGER-DOVE I QUIRK.
QUIRK AYE SANTIAGO.
WICKS FIVE WEEKS I THE MEASURE
PASSES THANK YOU.
AND YOU HAVE ANOTHER ONE MISTER
MCCARTY. ZERO TWELVE NINETY
SEVEN OKAY.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR THANKS
FOR ALLOWING ME TO PRESENT AB
TWELVE NINETY SEVEN RELATED TO
CONCEALED WEAPON PERMITS AND THE
FINANCING OF I KNOW THIS IS THE
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE BUT
LITERALLY THIS BILL.
SHOULD BE HEARD AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE AND IT'S
IT'S A LOCAL GOVERNMENT
FINANCING ISSUE IT'S NOT A
PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE.
THIS BILL IS NOT ABOUT WHO CAN
APPLY FOR IS THE C. W.'S ON
ABOUT THE REQUIREMENTS ON ABOUT
WHO CAN ISSUE THEM.
OR ANY SUBSTANCE JAMES IS THE
LAW IT'S SIMPLY INSURES THAT
FEES CHARGED BY A SHARE FOR
POLICE FOR ISSUING A CCW.
ADEQUATELY COVER THE COST LIKE
WHEN YOU GO AND GET A MARRIAGE
LICENSE A BUILDING PERMIT IT
SHOULD BE BORNE UPON THE USER
YEAH GETTING THAT PERMITS.
AND SO THIS IS REALLY A LOCAL
GOVERNMENT ISSUE HERE IN
SACRAMENTO -- WE'VE HAD THIS IS
YOUR LAST FEW YEARS EVERY YEAR --
WE HAVE TO DIP IN THE COUNTY
BUDGET BY ANYWHERE BETWEEN THREE
HUNDRED THOUSAND HALF A MILLION
DOLLARS BECAUSE OF INADEQUATE
FEES. FOR OUR C. C. W.'S WE HAD
THIS DEBATE TWO YEARS AGO.
WE ASK THAT THE STATE AUDITOR
LOOKING IN THIS ISSUE TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE WERE ON TO
SOMETHING THAT WAS AN IMPORTANT
ISSUE TO BE ADDRESSED -- SHE DID
SOME WORK IN TWENTY SEVENTEEN
AND REVIEWED CEASE W. POLICIES
IN THE COUNTIES OF SACRAMENTO
SAN DIEGO AND LA.
AND FOUND THAT BESIDES COST OVER
RUNS -- SOME COUNTIES COULDN'T
EVEN ACCOUNT OF THE THAT THEY
CHARGE TOO MUCH OR NOT ENOUGH.
A FURTHER ARE EXAMPLES OF
SHERIFFS AND IT ENTITIES NOT
BEING ABLE TO DO OVERSIGHT TO
MAKE SURE PEOPLE WAS THE CW'S --
ARE ARE WARRANTED.
I THIS IS A FRIGHTENING STORY
BUT RIGHT ACROSS FROM THE
CAPITOL HERE FIVE YEARS AGO
THERE WAS AN INDIVIDUAL WITH THE
CCW WHO WAS HOLED UP IN THE HIGH
IT.
WITH AN ARSENAL OF FIREARMS AND
AMMUNITION AND HE WANTED TO DO
HARM TO GOVERNMENT AND THAT WAS
THE SOLE ISSUE IS OBVIOUSLY
MENTALLY UNSTABLE LAW
ENFORCEMENT ABLE TO TO DEAL WITH
THE ISSUE BECAUSE THE
HOUSEKEEPING STAFF ALERTED.
THE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT AND WENT
TO GO FIND ITS INDIVIDUAL AND
BROUGHT HIM BACK AND WERE ABLE
TO TAKE CARE THE SITUATION.
BUT IT JUST SHOWS THAT SOMETIMES
INDIVIDUALS WHO GETS THE C. W.'S
AREN'T PROPERLY THAT IT DOES NOT
AND IF SUFFICIENT OVERSIGHT IN
LARGE PART BECAUSE WE DON'T
CHARGE ADEQUATE FEES.
AT THIS WILL HELP MAKE SURE THAT --
WE DO THAT AND MAKE SURE THE
TAXPAYERS A GENERAL FUND
TAXPAYERS AREN'T SUBSIDIZING THE
ISSUANCE OF CCW PERMITS I WITH
ME HERE TODAY OUR REPRESENT HIM
FOR A SUPERVISOR PATRICK KENNEDY.
AND AMANDA WILCOX WITH THE
CALIFORNIA CHAPTER OF THE BRADY
CAMPAIGN [inaudible]
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH AS THE
SETTLEMENT MENTION I'M HERE ON
BEHALF OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY
SUPERVISOR PATRICK KENNEDY AND
GOING TO READ A BRIEF STATEMENT
FROM HIM.
DEAR CHAIR JONES SAWYER AND
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
MEMBERS I WANT TO START BY
THANKING YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME
TO HEAR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
PERSPECTIVE ON THIS ISSUE.
I AM FIRMLY SUPPORTIVE OF
ASSEMBLY BILL TWELVE NINETY
SEVEN MY SUPPORT IS NOT BASED ON
MY FEELINGS ABOUT GUNS ARE
CONCEALED CARRY WEAPONS PERMITS
THEMSELVES FROM THE FISCAL
IMPACT THIS HAS ON LOCAL
GOVERNMENT.
DO THE FACT THE CURRENT LAW
PROVIDES NO GUIDANCE ON HOW MUCH
TO CHARGE FOR AN APPLICATION FEE
THOSE ISSUING CCW PERMITS ARE
ALLOWED TO CHARGE FEES THAT ARE
INSUFFICIENT FOR COVERING THE
COST.
OF ISSUING OVERSEEING THE
PERMITS IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY
THIS COST APPROXIMATELY TWO
HUNDRED AND FORTY THOUSAND
DOLLARS OF TAXPAYER MONEY TO
FUND THE LAST FISCAL YEAR WE
HAVE DATA.
FOR AS I'M SURE YOU ARE WELL
AWARE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS HAVE
STILL NOT RECOVERED FROM THE
GREAT RECESSION AND ARE
STRUGGLING WITH A NUMBER OF
PRESSING ISSUES SUCH AS
HOMELESSNESS.
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AN AGING
INFRASTRUCTURE.
IT SHOULD BE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
PRIORITY TO FIND SOLUTIONS TO
THESE ISSUES RATHER THAN
SUBSIDIZE THOSE WHO WISH TO
OBTAIN A CCW PERMIT.
THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR TIME
AND CONSIDERATION OF THIS BILL
THANK YOU.
YES.
AMANDA WILCOX WITH BRADY
CALIFORNIA A MANY OF OUR CHAPTER
MEMBERS AND IN PARTICULAR ARE
SACRAMENTO CHAPTER -- FIND IT
VERY TROUBLING THAT AND
JURISDICTIONS.
WHERE THE FEE FOR CCW LICENSES
NOT COVER THE COSTS THE FUNDS
ARE DIVERTED FROM OTHER LOCAL
PROGRAMS AND SERVICES IN A
JURISDICTION?
AND THOSE ARE DIVERTED FUNDS ARE
SUBSIDIZING.
THE ISSUANCE ENFORCEMENT OF CCW
PERMITS.
NO SINCE THE ENACTMENT OF PROP.
THIRTEEN WHEN WAS THAT.
NINETEEN SEVENTY EIGHT
CALIFORNIA HAS OVER TIME ADOPTED
A FEE FOR SERVICE RECEIVE MODEL
AND WITH THE EXCEPTION OF BASIC
SERVICES AND AS THE ASSEMBLY
MEMBER MENTION OF FEES LEVIED ON
ALMOST EVERYTHING.
AND WE DO NOT SEE WHY CARRYING A
LOADED HITTING GUN WHICH IS A
PRIVILEGE NOT A RIGHT.
OF WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE
SAME STANDARD IN PARTICULAR WHAT
WE FIND DISTURBING IS UNDER
CURRENT LAW THERE'S A MAXIMUM
FEE THAT CAN BE CHARGE OF
HUNDRED DOLLARS.
DOES NOT WHICH DOES NOT COVER
THE COST AND IT'S NOT JUST
ISSUING THE PERMIT.
BUT AGAIN THE OVERSIGHT AND
ENFORCEMENT THAT PERMANENT -- SO
WE SUPPORT THIS BILL NATURAL
URGE YOUR SUPPORT THANK YOU
THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
ME WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION
.
MISTER CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE FOR THE RECORD
DâN RE WITH NATIONAL RIFLE
ASSOCIATION -- HERE IN
OPPOSITION YOU YOU HEARD -- FROM.
THIS WOMAN MCCARTY THIS IS A
LOCAL ISSUE AND AND I THINK THAT
IT STEMS FROM THAT -- YOU'LL
NOTICE THAT THERE'S NO LAW
ENFORCEMENT HERE THE ISSUING
AUTHORITIES HERE REQUESTING THIS
BILL TODAY -- THERE ARE
PARAMETERS IN LAW THAT LAY OUT --
THE EXISTING CCW PERMIT SCHEME
AND HOW IT CAN BE INCREASED
UNDER THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX --
I THINK THERE'S SOME ISSUES WITH --
LATEST BILLS WRITTEN --
DIMENSIONS ENFORCEMENT I THINK
THAT'S VERY VAGUE WHAT DOES THAT
MEAN DOES THAT MEAN.
JUST PUTTING IN -- INTO PLACE
THE LICENSES I MEAN -- REVOKING
LICENSE OR DOES THAT MEAN.
ANYTHING COULD THIS BE USED TO
BE DISCRIMINATORY TO PRICE
PEOPLE OUT OF THE MARKET OF
BEING ABLE.
TO APPLY FOR AND GET A CCW I
THINK THAT -- THE THE EASIEST
THING IN THE MOST LOGICAL THING
IF YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT COSTS
IT'S ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS THAT
IS WHAT BOXES DOWN.
LET'S LOOK AT EXTENDING THE
PERMIT OUT TO FOUR YEARS LET'S
DOUBLE THAT COULD POTENTIALLY --
CUT OUR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS IN
HALF WE KNOW THE CCW HOLDERS ARE
ARE VETTED -- WITH BACKGROUND
CHECKS THERE'S TRAINING
REQUIREMENTS THERE'S A LIVE
SCANNED THERE'S A LOT OF PROCESS
TO GO THROUGH IT AND RIGHT NOW
CALIFORNIA HAS ONE OF THE
SHORTEST THE RATIONS FOR CCW
PERMITS IN THE COUNTRY MOST
STATES.
HAVE PERMITS THERE FOR FIVE
YEARS.
THESE ARE ARE THE MOST LAW
ABIDING CITIZENS OUT THERE AND
THEY'RE CONSTANTLY MONITOR IN
THESE PERMITS A REVOKED IF
THERE'S ANY SORT OF DISQUALIFIER
THAT.
UP SO LET LET'S EXPLORE THAT I
THINK THAT WOULD BE A GREAT --
APPROACH TO REDUCE THESE COSTS
BY LOOKING AT A FOUR FIVE YEAR
PERMIT WHICH IS WORKING GREAT
AND OTHER PLACES IN THE COUNTRY
WITH THAT WERE IN OPPOSITION
THANK YOU.
THANK CHAIRMAN MEMBER SAMPRAS
REPRESENT GUN OWNERS CALIFORNIA
AND AS THE GOVERNOR A STATED IN
HIS VETO MESSAGE OF THE PRIOR
BILL.
THAT THIS THIS IS -- COME UP AS
A A BASICALLY A LOCAL COUNTY
BEEF BETWEEN THE ASSEMBLY MEN
AND AND AND THE ELECTED SHERIFF --
THE AS YOU POINTED OUT EARLIER
TODAY MISTER CHAIRMAN THE CCW
PROGRAM IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA IS WORKING.
YOUR WORDS IS WORKING FINE IT'S
IT'S IT'S IT'S WORKING -- IT'S
DOING A GOOD JOB.
NOW.
EVERY SHERIFF EVERY CHIEF OF
POLICE THAT ISSUES A CCW HAS TO
DO THE SAME THING THEY HAVE TO
CONDUCT.
THE SAME BACKGROUND CHECKS THAT
ARE ACTUALLY CONDUCTED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE -- THEY
HAVE TO CHECK THE THIS IS THE
ONLY THING OTHER THAN FARMS THAT
CAN BE USED TO PAYING THE
FEDERAL NICS SYSTEM THE NATIONAL
CRIMINAL.
IN A INFORMATION SYSTEM -- AND
AND ALL OF THE LOCAL AND STATE
DATABASES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH
WITH THE YOU KNOW THEM.
ON A PERSON'S ABILITY TO TO TO
GET A GUN IT IS.
AS WAS POINTED OUT TO ME BY A
FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE FARMS
BUREAU.
THE MOST EXTENSIVE BACKGROUND
CHECK THAT THE TAKES PLACE NOW
THE VAST MAJORITY OF OF COUNTIES.
THEY DO IT WITH A HUNDRED
DOLLARS OR LESS AS A MATTER OF
FACT THE HUNDRED DOLLARS HIS
GUMS.
IS A IS A AN ENCOURAGEMENT FOR
THEM TO BE ABLE TO TO TO HAVE A
STREAMLINED SYSTEM THAT WORKS.
AND THE PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING.
IT'S WORKING.
THE WE WE ARE NOT HAVING ISSUES.
AND IT IS NOT A MAJORITY OR EVEN.
BUT MAYBE A HANDFUL OF COUNTIES
THAT ARE SPENDING ACTUALLY MORE
THAN A HUNDRED DOLLARS.
AND IN TALKING WITH SOME OF THE
SHERIFF'S.
THEY THEY THEY MIGHT SPEND A
LITTLE MORE THAN AND THEY STILL
TAKE SOME OF THE THE BUDGET THAT
THEY ONSPENT DID NOT SPEND THE
RETURN IT BACK TO THE COUNTY --
SO THEY'RE DOING A GOOD JOB OF
BALANCING EVERYTHING THE
LEGISLATURE DOES THIS ALL THE
TIME BALANCE IS THESE FUNDS THAT
FUNDS THEY BORROW FROM YOUR TO
USE YOUR WE'RE VERY FAMILIAR
WITH THAT.
DRAWS FUNDS ARE ARE BORROWED TO
TO TO DO THINGS THAT HAVE
NOTHING TO DO WITH WITH THE THE
DROSS ACTIVITIES AND AND ON AND
ON AND ON THIS BILL IS
[inaudible]
TOTALLY UNNECESSARY AND AND AND
WE YOU KNOW WE FIND AT THAT --
WE HOPE THAT YOU WILL AGREE AND
BOTH THIS BILL DOWN THANK YOU.
THANK YOU ARE THERE ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
WHEN STRUCTURE MEMBERS CHARLES
HARVEY ON BEHALF OF LEAGUE
CALIFORNIA CITIES -- AGAIN WE
DON'T HAVE AN OFFICIAL POSITION
ON THIS BILL BUT A LOT OF OUR
MEMBERS CITIES I HAVE CONCERNS
ABOUT -- THE MANDATE --
PRESCRIBING THIS BILL ON THE
FLIP SIDE WE APPRECIATE THE
ASSEMBLY MEMBERS -- PROPOSED
CHANGE TO REMOVE THE ONE HUNDRED
DOLLAR CAP ON FEES FOR CITIES
RECOUP THEIR REASONABLE COSTS OF
ISSUING THE CCW PERMITS THANK
YOU.
MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS ROY GRIFFITH
ON BEHALF THE CALIFORNIA RIFLE
AND PISTOL ASSOCIATION WE STAND
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL THANK
YOU THANK YOU.
DEMOCRATS STRONGLY OPPOSED THANK
YOU.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS MISTER QUIRK -- SO.
I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE BILL BUT
I DON'T THINK IT'S PERFECT BUT
THEN AGAIN NO BILL EVER IS -- SO
HERE MY CONCERNS -- IF YOU LIFT
THE LIMIT ALTOGETHER THERE COULD
BE A COUNTY SAY IN OUR IT'S
GOING TO BE A THOUSAND DOLLARS
IS A BACKBOARD.
AS A BACKROOM WAY TO JUST
PREVENT C. C. W.'S.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S
APPROPRIATE I WOULD FEEL MORE
COMFORTABLE WITH LIFTING THE
LIMIT FROM A HUNDRED TO TWO
FIFTY AND THEN ADJUSTING FOR
INFLATION -- I DO THINK THAT
THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN UPPER
LIMIT -- WE HAVE THE SECOND
AMENDMENT WELL I DON'T AGREE
WITH IT WE HAVE IT AM I AND I
JUST THINK THAT THERE SHOULD BE
SOME SORT OF THE LIMIT -- IF.
THE LEAGUE OF CITIES IS CAN I'M
CONCERNED ALSO -- IS IT THE
COUNTY OR THE SHERIFF THAT SETS
THE FEE. FOR THE CC W..
WELL IT'S BASED UPON STATE LAW
OF COURSE WITH THAT THE MAXIMAL
OUT AND THEN THERE'S THAT THE AT
THE BACKGROUND CHECK FOR THE
PERMIT JUSTICE -- AND ITS THE
IT'S THE COUNTY SHERIFF'S WHO
ARE USUALLY THE OVERSEERS NOT
NOT CITIES YEAH BUT THE
TYPICALLY PROCESS WHAT THE FEE
SHOULD BE IT'S A MAX OF A
HUNDRED IT CAN BE LAST.
WHO DECIDES WHAT THAT FEE IS
WHETHER IT'S SAID AT THE MAX IS
IT?
SAID AT ONE DOLLAR AND FIFTY
DOLLARS WHO -- SETS THAT NUMBER
I THINK IT VARIES.
SHE I BELIEVE THIS IS THE CHAIR
OF ANY.
IT IS THE SHERIFF.
ALL RIGHT WELL THEN I UNDERSTAND
MORE YOUR BILL -- I STILL THINK
THERE SHOULD BE A LIMIT --
APPROPRIATE WOULD BE SOMETHING
LIKE TWO FIFTY WITH SAID
COLLATION ADJUSTER.
AGAIN I JUST I THINK WE WANT TO
BE CAREFUL ABOUT THAT.
BUT I CAN UNDERSTAND ALSO WHITES
THE SHERIFF.
IF IT'S A SURE IF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS I THINK THEY CAN
WORRY ABOUT THEIR OWN.
BUDGET BUT IF IT IS THE SHERIFFS
AND I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT TO HAVE
SOMETHING THAT SAYS THAT THE CAR
SHOULD BE RECOVERED.
YES AND AND THANK YOU IT'S
COMING BACK TO ME NOW ARE NO
GOOD ANY SUPERVISORS NOT HERE
AND HE WOULD REMIND ME THAT LAST
YEAR THE COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ATTEMPTED TO ADJUST
THE FEE AND THEY COULD NOT
BECAUSE IT WAS SET.
BY THE SHARE WHICH IS WHY.
THEY ARE THE WITNESS TALKED
ABOUT HOW SOME COUNTY THAT'S NOT
AN ISSUE WILL IN SACRAMENTO
COUNTY.
THIS THIS THIS PAST YEAR IS A
FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLAR
DEBT OTHER GENERAL FUND TO
SUBSIDIZE THIS AND THAT'S YOU
COULD USE THAT MONEY TO HIRE
THREE MORE.
SHERIFF'S DEPUTIES PATROLLING
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD SIR OUR OTHER
PROGRAMS THAT ARE OUT THERE AND
SO THE IT DICK THE THE COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WHO HAD WHO
WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE'S FULL
RECOVERY.
HAVE THEIR HANDS TIED YEAH AND
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT
SOMETHING AROUND TWO HUNDRED
FORTY DOLLARS -- WOULD BE WHAT
DOES SACRAMENTO NEEDS TO RECOVER.
FOR ODD THAT AND I JUST DON'T
WANT IT TO GO TO MUCH HIGHER
THAN THAT THAT'S A CONCERN I
HAVE YEAH AND I THINK THAT'S A
LEGITIMATE ISSUE WE DON'T WANT
TO HAVE THESE FEES AT FIVE
THOUSAND DOLLARS RIGHT -- SO
THAT'S AN EX AND ACCESSIBLE ONLY
FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE EXTREMELY
WEALTHY BUT EVERYTHING IS NOT
JUST -- THE FEES IT'S MAKING
SURE THAT INDIVIDUALS.
OUR OUR YOU KNOW OUR APPROPRIATE
TO HAVE THESE IN -- ABSOLUTELY
AND SO THAT'S AN IMPORTANT FACT
AS WELL I TOLD YOU ABOUT THE
INSANE STORY OF AN INDIVIDUAL.
THERE'S ANOTHER MAN WHO WENT
DROVE TO ADD A CCW DROVE TO THE
LOCAL NIGHTCLUB IN SAN FRANCISCO
SHOT A GUY RIGHT AND HEAD IN THE
STREET.
ANOTHER GUY WHO WAS SELLING
DRUGS AND WEAPONS ONLINE ON
CRAIG'S LIST HERE IN SACRAMENTO
SO THERE ARE INDIVIDUALS WHO
SLIPPED THROUGH THE CRACKS
MAJORITY PEOPLE PROBABLY ARE LAW
ABIDING CITIZENS BUT WE NEED TO
MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE HAVE THIS.
RARE PRIVILEGE TO HAVE A
CONCEALED WEAPON ARE ARE ARE
SAFE AND ARE ON OUR AT THE
LEGITIMATE USE OF THIS -- OF
THIS -- EXCEPTION OKAY MOVE THE
BELL [inaudible]
WOULD.
YES MISS COME LATER YEAH SO I
ALSO HAVE A QUESTION I ECHO SOME
OF THE CONCERNS OF MISTER QUIRK
AYE TO AGREE WITH YOU I THINK
THIS IS A FEW CONVERSATION AND
NOT A POLICY CONVERSATION I MEAN
ANECDOTES.
ARE -- DISTURBING BUT THIS BILL
DEALS WITH -- FEES AND SO.
AN EIGHT CAN YOU EXPAND ON IF
THIS IS KIND OF AN END RUN
AROUND ROGUE SHARE OF
DEPARTMENTS -- WHO ARE NOT MAYBE
DOING WHAT?
THEY SHOULD BE DOING AND THEN
HOW ARE WE DEFINING REASONABLE
COST AND WHY NOT LOOK AT THE
ACTUAL COST VERSES REASONABLE
I'M AND I'M JUST TRYING TO
FIGURE OUT HOW THAT IS DEFINED
IN IN A WAY THAT.
IS REASONABLE.
WELL OUT I THINK ALL AND TO THE
SECOND POINT FIRST.
WE WE LOOK AT THE SAME ISSUES
TWO YEARS AGO THREE YEARS AGO
MAYBE ON THAT SIDE.
ACTUAL COSTS AND HAVING A
CAPTAIN SO WE'LL CONTINUE TO
LOOK AT THIS TO MAKE SURE THE
FOCUS OF THIS IS NOT TO SET THE
MATTER PRICE.
PRICE ALLOWED BUT TO MAKE SURE
THAT IT IT'S THAT COST RECOVERY.
LIKE MOST LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND
SERVICES ARE DAIS.
AND WE ASK THE STATE AUDITOR TO
LOOK AT THREE COUNTIES COUPLE
YEARS AGO THEY LOOKED AT LA
COUNTY SAN DIEGO IN SACRAMENTO
AND THEY CAME BACK.
SAYING IT WASN'T JUST A LOCAL AS
SHE WASN'T THE BEEF BETWEEN
SACRAMENTO.
AND ADVOCATES WHO WANTED TO MAKE
SURE THIS IS COVERED THIS WAS A
STATEWIDE PROBLEM WE DIDN'T HAVE
SYSTEMS IN PLACE TO MAKE SURE
THERE WAS THERE WAS.
THERE WAS OPPORTUNITY FOR
RECOVERY AND SOME OF THE
SHERIFF'S CAME BACK AND SAID WE
CAN'T WE LIKE TO CHARGE MORE BUT
OUR HANDS ARE TIED A LITTLE BIT
SO I THINK THIS IS -- CLARIFIES --
WHAT THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
SHOULD BE TO MAKE SURE THERE'S
ADEQUATE COST RECOVERY?
BUT WE WILL I THINK TAKE INTO
CONSIDERATION.
BOTH THE SUGGESTION FROM YOU AND
ASSEMBLY MEMBER QUIRK TO MAKE
SURE THAT.
WE TIED IT DOWN TO THE THAT
NUMBER IS ACCURATE.
THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL BECAUSE
WHEN I ALSO HEAR COST RECOVERY
IT REMINDS ME OF THE
CONVERSATION COUNTIES WERE
HAVING AROUND US CIVIL ASSET
FORFEITURE.
AND THEY WERE TAKING FOLKS AS
PROPERTY BECAUSE THEY WERE
OOKING AT COST RECOVERY SO I
JUST WENT THANK YOU FOR
CONTINUING.
BUT THAT YOU'RE CLOSE.
ASK FOR YOUR EITHER THANK YOU
THANK YOU BUT CHECK HER TEARS
WRECKING I HAVE SAME CONCERNS AS
SOMEONE WHO HELPED.
ENACT THE CANNABIS LAWS.
WHERE WE NOW HAVE -- MOST OF THE
CAMERAS PEOPLE SHOUTING AND
SCREAMING THE GOVERNMENT'S
CHARGING HIM TOO MUCH MONEY --
WE GOT TO BE REALLY CONCERNED
ABOUT COST RECOVERY.
ESPECIALLY WHEN.
GOVERNOR EACH INDIVIDUAL ENTITY --
MAY ACTUALLY GO TO A THOUSAND
DOLLARS TO GET THEIR COST
RECOVERY IN YOU CAN'T.
YOU CAN FIND OUT HOW TO GET THAT
HIGHWAY ANOTHER COUNTY THE TWO
HUNDRED TWENTY FIFTY SO WE
SHOULD BE YOU GOT A LOOK AT
MAKING SURE WE DON'T HAVE ANY.
ROGUE GROUPS -- FOR ME SO I'M
NOT TOTALLY APRIL JUST WAS NOT A
BUDGET ISSUE DISS FOR ME THIS IS
A BINDING PEAS KIND OF ALLOWING
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. TO TO TO SET.
A NUMBER AND THAT'S A POLICY
ISSUE WHERE THEY CAN SET THAT
NUMBERS OF CHAIRS RECOMMENDING
AND I AB TWELVE NINETY SEVEN THE
MOTION IS TO PASS JONES SAWYER.
TO ANSWER I LACKEY [inaudible]
BAUER-KAHAN [inaudible]
DEEP [inaudible]
KAMLAGER-DOVE.
QUIRK AYE QUIRK AYE SANTIAGO.
WICKS.
WICKS I THAT MEASURE ON CALL
WITH SOME MEMBERS AT OTHER
COMMITTEES MAKING PRESENTATIONS
SO THANK YOU.
NEXT WE HAVE MISTER STONE.
MUST BE FINISHED.
WITH JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
WE DID WE GOT DONE FASTER THAN
YOU DID YES YOU DID.
THAT'S NOT ALWAYS THE CASE BUT
NOT THAT IT'S A CONTEST THANK
YOU.
FOR MISTER CHAIR MEMBERS HEARING.
EIGHTY NINE SIXTY FIVE FOR THOSE
WHO ARE INCARCERATED THE CREDIT
EARNING PROCESS IS.
A WAY TO ENSURE PEOPLE GET INTO
THE REHABILITATIVE PROGRAMS THAT
WE WANT THEM TO DO AND WE'VE
BEEN SETTING UP A STRUCTURE.
THAT PROVIDES HOPE FOR THOSE
INSIDE. TO WANT TO DO THE THE
WORK THAT WE WE EXPECT THEM TO
DO THAT THEY NEED TO DO.
IN ORDER TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM
GET BACK INTO OUR COMMUNITIES IN
APPROPRIATE WAYS THAT'S WHAT
THEIR CREDIT EARNING PROGRAM IS
SUPPOSED TO DO.
THERE'S A BIT OF AN ISSUE
HOWEVER BECAUSE WE HAVE A COUPLE
OF CATEGORIES ELDERLY PRO PAROLE.
AND THOSE WHO MEET THE YOUTH
OFFENDER PRO REQUIREMENTS.
THE WAY THAT CREDITS ARE
CALCULATED IS NOT NECESSARILY
CONSISTENT UNDER PROP.
FIFTY SEVEN SOMEONE WHO IS
ELIGIBLE FOR THE YOUTH OFFENDER
PAROLE OR THE ELDERLY PAROLE
THOSE CREDITS DON'T FOLD INTO.
THE WAY WE ALLOCATE CREDITS IN A
PREDICTABLE WAY.
THIS BILL IS REALLY TRYING TO
CHANGE THAT AND WE'RE WORKING
VERY CLOSELY WITH CDC ARE TO
LOOK AT THEIR PROCESSES AND
TAYLOR THIS SO THAT.
SOMEONE WHO HAS THE ABILITY TO
TAKEADVANTAGE OF CREDITS EITHER
AS A YOUTH OFFENDER OR AS AN L.
NUMBER OF WHO IS.
BEN IN PRISON FOR IT WAS OVER
THE AGE OF SIXTY BETTER PRISON
FOR OVER TWENTY FIVE YEARS.
THAT THEY CAN THEN TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF THE CREDIT SYSTEM
NOW THIS IS NOT AS THE
OPPOSITION IS RAISED SOME
CONCERNS A MATTER OF LETTING
PEOPLE OUT OF PRISON EARLY IT'S
A MATTER OF ENSURING THAT PEOPLE
CAN GET TO A PAROLE DATE.
AND HAVE INCENTIVES TO GET TO A
PAROLE DATE AND MAKE THE BEST
POSSIBLE CASE THEY TEND TO THAT
PAROLE BOARD.
THAT'S WHY THOSE CREDITS ARE
IMPORTANT.
THOSE WERE THAT'S HOW THOSE
THOSE INCENTIVES WORK FOR
INMATES ON THE INSIDE.
SO THIS IS AN IMPORTANT BILL
CLEANING UP THE PERSPECTIVE
UNDER PROPERTY SEVEN A NUMBER
THAT CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN
RECENT MADE RECENTLY SO THAT WE
CAN HAVE.
A CONSISTENT APPLICATION OF
CREDITS ACROSS THE BOARD AND
GIVE PEOPLE ON THE INSIDE THE
INSIDE IS THE WAY WE WOULD LIKE
TO STRUCTURE THEM.
WITH THAT I ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTES I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF
MEMBERS HERE SPONSORS WHO ARE
SUPPORTING THE BILL.
AND I APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT.
GOOD MORNING MEMBERS MY NAME IS
TYAN OF ARGUS ADMIT I'M THE
FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
OF INITIATE JUSTICE AN
ORGANIZATION THAT WORKS TO AND
MASS INCARCERATION BY ACTIVATING
THE POWER OF THOSE WHO ARE
DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY IT.
WE'RE PROUD CO SPONSOR EIGHTY
NINE SIXTY FIVE FOR MANY REASONS
BUT I'LL HIGHLIGHT THREE THIS
MORNING.
WIND CALIFORNIA SENTENCING LAWS
ARE EXTREMELY HARSH AND THEY
REMOVE HOPE FROM PEOPLE'S LIVES
EVEN WITH RELIEF UNDER YOUTH
OFFENDER OR ELDER PAROLE TWENTY
FIVE YEARS AS A VERY LONG TIME.
THE SENSE OF HOPELESSNESS OR THE
THOUGHT OF DYING IN PRISON MAKES
PEOPLE MORE LIKELY TO MAKE
HARMFUL CHOICES THAT THREATEN
THE SAFETY OF THE INSTITUTION
AND PERPETUATE CYCLES OF TRAUMA
AND VIOLENCE. TO THIS BILL IS
NOT ABOUT EARLY RELEASE BUT
ABOUT A HEARING AND A CHANCE TO
PROVE ONESELF READY FOR PAROLE.
ALL CREDIT MUST BE EARNED
THROUGH THE COMPLETION OF
EDUCATION ON REHABILITATIVE AND
SELF HELP PROGRAMS.
AND MOST PEOPLE WILL NOT BE
RELEASED AS CDC ARE ONLY FIND
17220% OF PEOPLE SUITABLE FOR
PAROLE EVERY YEAR.
THIS BILL ONE MINUTE WILL MERELY
ACT AS AN INCENTIVE FOR PEOPLE
TO INVEST THE TIME AND WORK
NECESSARY TO BE SUCCESSFUL
MEMBERS OF SOCIETY.
AND THREE INCREASING INCENTIVES
FOR POSITIVE PROGRAMMING WILL
REDUCE RECIDIVISM A TWENTY
TWELVE CDC OUR REPORT FOUND THE
COLLEGE GRADUATES HAD A 5%
RECIDIVISM RATE COMPARED TO A
MATCH COMPARISON GROUP THAT HAD
A 21% RECIDIVISM RATE.
A TWENTY EIGHTEEN INITIATE
JUSTICE SURVEY FOUND THAT 80% OF
PEOPLE WITH YOU DEFENDER
HEARINGS ARE PARTICIPATING IN
REHABILITATIVE PROGRAMS AND 70%
OF THEM ARE IN SCHOOL.
PROVING THAT THEY ARE MOTIVATED
TO TURN THEIR LIVES AROUND AND
DESERVE A CHANCE TO COME HOME
SOONER.
THE PROP FIFTY SEVEN REGULATION
SHOULD HAVE INCLUDED PEOPLE
ELIGIBLE FOR YOUTH OFFENDER AN
ELDERLY PAROLE BUT
TECHNICALITIES AND HOW THOSE
LAWS WERE WRITTEN MADE IT SO THE
ADMINISTRATION BELIEVES THAT
THEY COULD NOT INCLUDE THEM IN
CREDITS.
THIS BILL WILL CORRECT THAT AND
WOULD PRESENT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
US TO BEGIN TO END OUR ADDICTION
TO PUNISHMENT AND FOCUS ON
SOLUTIONS THAT ACTUALLY MAKE OUR
COMMUNITIES SAFER I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR AYE THOSE
[inaudible]
NEXT WITNESS.
THE MORNING CHAIR MEMBERS MY
NAME IS RICHARD MORALIS AND I'M
A MEMBER OF INITIATE JUSTICE
THIS IS MY FIRST OPPORTUNITY TO
ADVOCATE OUTSIDE OF THE PRISON
GATES.
SINCE BEEN RELEASED JUST TWELVE
DAYS AGO.
I WAS IN PRISON FOR TWENTY YEARS
SEVEN MONTHS AND TWENTY ONE DAYS.
I WAS SINCE THE TWENTY FIVE
YEARS TO LIFE AT THE AGE OF
TWENTY AT THAT TIME I COULDN'T
FATHOM THE OPPORTUNITY FOR
FREEDOM.
BUT HERE I AM.
AFTER NEARLY A YEAR IN I KNEW I
NEEDED TO CHANGE.
AT THE END OF NINETEEN NINETY
NINE WITH THE HELP OF GOD AND
FAMILY I EMBARKED ON A NEW PATH.
I STARTED LIVING RESPONSIBLY AND
NEVER RECEIVED A RULES VIOLATION
WHILE INCARCERATED.
I EARNED A BACHELOR'S OF SCIENCE
DEGREE AND BECAME ONE OF SEVEN
TO RECEIVE SENATORIAL
RECOGNITION AS A STATE CERTIFIED
ALCOHOL AND DRUG COUNSELOR
SPONSORED BY THE CROP
ORGANIZATION.
IN ADDITION I HEAVILY
PARTICIPATED IN SELF HELP
REHABILITATIVE PROGRAMMING.
PROP FIFTY SEVEN ALLOWED FOR ME
TO GET TO MY PAROLE BOARD
HEARING NINE MONTHS EARLY.
BUT I WAS NOT ALLOWED TO EARN
ANY TIME OFF OF MY YOUTH
OFFENDER PAROLE DATE.
SENATE BILLS.
TWO SIXTY TO SIXTY ONE AB
THIRTEEN AWAIT.
AND PROPERTY SEVEN CREATED HOPE
FOR MANY OF MY INCARCERATED
FRIENDS WHO COULDN'T SEE A LIGHT
AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL.
BUT THERE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE
STILL INSIDE WHO ARE WORKING
EXTREMELY HARD TO BETTER
THEMSELVES WITH NO HOPE OF
COMING HOME ANYTIME SOONER. FOR
EXAMPLE MY BEST FRIEND TAKE
GREAT.
HAS BEEN IN PRISON FOR NINETEEN
YEARS HE'S THE HARDEST WORKING
MAN I KNOW.
HE JUST COMPLETED HIS MASTER'S
DEGREE.
AND LEADS MANY SELF HELP GROUPS.
BUT BECAUSE OF EXISTING LAW ALL
CREDIT HE EARNS WILL COME OFF OF
HIS ORIGINAL SENTENCE OF FORTY
YEARS TO LIFE.
NOT HIS YOUTH OFFENDER PAROLE
DATE OF TWENTY FIVE YEARS.
IF AB NINE SIXTY FIVE PASSES HE
COULD GO TO BOARD SOONER.
AND HAVE THE CHANCE TO BE
RECOGNIZED FOR HIS HARD WORK AS
I WAS [inaudible]
I'M FORTUNATE.
THAT I WAS ABLE TO EARN TIME OFF
MY CENTER.
UNFORTUNATELY THERE ARE MANY
PEOPLE WHO WORK JUST AS HARD AS
I DID.
BUT THERE BUT THEY HAVE TO
REMAIN IN PRISON.
U. DEFENDER LIKE TED WILL
EVENTUALLY GET OUT OF PRISON.
AND I BELIEVE THE PUBLIC WOULD
PREFER.
IF THEY'RE RELEASED A FEW YEARS
EARLIER BECAUSE THEY WORK EXTRA
HARD TO EARN THEIR FREEDOM
THROUGH A GREAT COMMITMENT TO
THEIR OWN REHABILITATION.
I RESPECTFULLY URGE YOUR AYE
VOTE FOR A. B. NINE SIXTY FIVE
THANK YOU THANK YOU ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT NAME AN
ORGANIZATION.
MARCO GEORGE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT.
KATHY SURE ACLU OF CALIFORNIA IN
SUPPORT.
MY SECOND DOLLS WITH THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL
WORKERS IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
HELLO GOOD MORNING MY NAME IS
CHRISTINE BOYD WITH INITIATE
JUSTICE AND I SUPPORT.
JASMINE A MEN'S NATIONAL CENTER
FOR YOUTH LAW IN SUPPORT.
ON A MAN IN PRISON AT THE KID
AND SINCE NUMBER OF TATIAN ABOVE
FIFTY SEVEN CITY SAY ARE HAS
DONE A GREAT JOB SO SUPPORT THIS
BILL THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING DOMINIQUE NOW FOR
THE CHILDREN'S DEFENSE FUND
CALIFORNIANS STRONG SUPPORT
[inaudible]
THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING IT WOULD LITTLE
WITH THE CALIFORNIANS FOR SAFETY
AND JUSTICE IN SUPPORT.
ESPANA IS A PROUD CO SPONSOR
THIS BILL IN STRONG SUPPORT.
GOING BACK A CELL A BIGGER
CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IN
SUPPORT.
GOOD MORNING MY NAME IS KATIE
DIXON I'M A POLICY FELLOW ELLIS
PC ALL OF US ARE NONE.
I TO WIN FORTUNATE OFFICE
SOMEBODY TO HAVE MADE IT OUT OF
JAIL I'M FORMALLY INCARCERATED I
WAS LOCKED UP AS A YOUTH.
I CAN ONLY IMAGINE THOSE THAT'S
HOPING IT WORKING HARD FOR
RELEASE DATE I FULLY SUPPORT
THIS BILL WHEN I EXPERT YOUR
SUPPORT AS WELL THANK YOU.
FUNDING CROWDY POLICY FELLOW AT
ALL OF US AND NINE LEGAL
SERVICES FOR PRISONERS WITH
CHILDREN IN STRONG SUPPORT THANK
YOU.
THE MORNING MY NAME IS ROLE
MARILYN ROSTEN A WITH THE
CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR WOMEN
PRISONERS WERE PROUD CO SPONSOR
WE STAND IN STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
ERIC ANDERSON POLICY DIRECTOR
AND INITIATE JUSTICE PROUD
BECAUSE SPONSOR.
THANK YOU.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS -- OPPOSITION I'M SORRY.
I JUST GOT BACK TO MY COMMANDER
WHACK RIGHT NOW.
MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS COMMITTEE
LARRY MORSE ON BEHALF THE
CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
ASSOCIATION WE REGRETTABLY ARE
IN OPPOSITION TO ASSEMBLYMAN
STONE'S AB.
NINE SIXTY FIVE AFTER THE
PROFESSOR TO PROPOSITION FIFTY
SEVEN CDC ARE INCREASED CONDUCT
CREDITS AND ADDED CATEGORIES OF
CONDUCT CREDIT.
PRIOR TO PROP FIFTY SEVEN
MURDERS EARNS ZERO CONDUCT
CRITICS PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE
SECTION TWO NINE THREE THREE
POINT.
TWO A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER FOR
EXAMPLE SENTENCE TO TWENTY FEET
FIVE YEARS TO LIFE FOR FIRST
DEGREE MURDER SERVED AN ACTUAL
TWENTY FIVE YEARS BEFORE BEING
ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE.
NOW AFTER PROP FIFTY SEVEN THAT
SAME INMATE EARNS 20% CREDITS
AND MAYBE MORE IF HE OR SHE
EARNS ANY OF THE OTHER EXTRA
CREDIT THAT CDA CDC ARE CREATED.
PROP FIFTY SEVEN CREDITS OF AT
LEAST 20% WILL GET THE INMATE TO
A PAROLE HEARING AT YEAR TWENTY
FIVE YEARS BEFORE PENAL CODE
SECTION THIRTY FIFTY ONE WOULD
MAKE THE DEFENDANT ELIGIBLE FOR
A PAROLE HEARING.
SIMILARLY ELDERLY INMATES ARE
ALSO NOW EARNING AT LEAST 20%
CONDUCT CRITICS FOR THEIR CRIMES
LESS SENTENCED TO DEATH OR LIFE
WITHOUT.
PAROLE IT IS IMPORTANT WE NOT
SHORTEN THE TIME PERIOD
SPECIFIED IN PENAL CODE SECTION
THIRTY FIFTY ONE MPC.
THIRTY FIFTY FIVE BECAUSE
INMATES WHO WERE SENTENCED
CONSECUTIVELY FOR MULTIPLE
MURDERS OR SERIOUS SEX CRIMES
FOR EXAMPLE SHOULD NOT GET A
PAROLE HEARING ANY EARLIER THAN
THEY CAN NOW UNDER THE PROP
FIFTY SEVEN CHANGES.
THE VERY GENEROUS CREDITS
ADOPTED BY CDC ARE PURSUANT TO
PROP FIFTY SEVEN ALREADY PROVIDE
FOR EARLY PAROLE FOR OFFENDERS.
ADDING CONDUCT CREDITS TO THESE
TWO STATUTES NOT ONLY GETS
VIOLENT OFFENDERS AND SEX
OFFENDERS RELEASED EVEN EARLIER.
IT EXACERBATES THE PROBLEM OF
TREATING MULTIPLE CRIME
OFFENDERS THE SAME AS ONE CRIME
OFFENDERS.
WE BELIEVE THE MEMBERS OF THIS
COMMITTEE AGREE THAT A PERSON
WHO COMMITS TO FIRST DEGREE
MURDERS SHOULD FACE A MORE
SIGNIFICANT PUNISHMENT.
THAT A PERSON WHO COMMITS ONE
FIRST DEGREE MURDER.
YET UNDER THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE
OF THIS BILL A PERSON WHO
COMMITS TO FIRST DEGREE MURDERS.
AND IS SENTENCED TO FIFTY YEARS
TO LIFE WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR
PAROLE HEARING AT YOUR TWENTY
THE SAME AS A DEFENDANT
SENTENCED FOR ONE MURDER.
SIMILARLY THE BILL CREATES
INEQUITIES BASED ON THE AGE OF
THE OFFENDER AT THE TIME OF THE
CRIME.
UNDER EXISTING LAW A THIRTY YEAR
OLD DEFENDANT CURRENTLY
SENTENCED TO FIFTY YEARS TO LIFE
OR A FIFTY YEAR DETERMINANT
SENTENCE FOR FORCIBLE SEX CRIMES.
AT AGE THIRTY WOULD BE ELIGIBLE
FOR PAROLE AT THE FORTY YEAR
MARK WHEN HE OR SHE IS SEVENTY
YEARS OLD IF HE OR SHE EARNS A
20% CONDUCT CREDITS.
AS CURRENTLY WORDED AB NINE
SIXTY FIVE WOULD GET THE SAME
SEX OFFENDER TO A PAROLE HEARING
TEN YEARS EARLIER.
HAVING SERVED THIRTY CONTINUOUS
YEARS MORE THAN THE TWENTY FIVE
CONTINUOUS YEARS REQUIRED BY PC.
THREE OH FIVE FIVE CONSEQUENTLY.
DEFENDANTS WHO COMMIT THEIR
CRIMES LATER IN LIFE WILL HAVE A
HUGE ADVANTAGE OVER YOUNGER
OFFENDERS IF CONDUCT CREDITS
APPLIED TO REDUCE THE
REQUIREMENT OF TWENTY FIVE YEARS
OF CONTINUOUS INCARCERATION. FOR
ELDERLY PAROLE.
IN SOME PROPOSITION FIFTY SEVEN
ALREADY CREATED VERY GENEROUS
CREDITS THE PROVIDE FOR EARLY
PAROLE FOR OFFENDERS.
ADDING CONDUCT CREDITS TO PC
THREE OH FIVE ONE AND THREE OH
FIVE FIVE IS THIS BILL PROPOSES.
NOT ONLY GETS VIOLENT OFFENDERS
AND SEX OFFENDERS RELEASED EVEN
EARLIER IT EXACERBATES THE
PROBLEM OF TREATING MULTIPLE
CRIME OFFENDERS THE SAME AS ONE
CRIME OFFENDERS.
AND PERPETUATES THE PC THREE OH
FIVE FIVE INEQUITIES.
THAT ARISE BASED ON THE AGE OF
AN OFFENDER WHEN HE OR SHE IS
SENTENCED FOR THESE REASONS WE
ASK FOR A NO VOTE.
THANK YOU YES SIR GEN MEMBERS
JONATHON FELDMAN WITH THE
CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS
ASSOCIATION -- ECHO THE COMMENTS
OF MY COLLEAGUE BUT I WANTED TO
PROVIDE A LITTLE HISTORICAL
CONTEXT INTO THIS THAT'S
IMPORTANT -- THE POLICE CHIEFS
ASSOCIATION WORKED WITH SENATOR
HANCOCK ON SB TWO SIXTY IN TWO
SIX ONE THE BILL THAT ORIGINALLY
CREATED THE YOUTH OFFENDER
PAROLE PROCESS.
AND IN THE BILL THAT JUMP THAT --
I EXPANDED IT FROM.
EIGHTEEN TO TWENTY THREE YOU
KNOW WE WE LISTENED.
LONG AND HARD TO THE DEBATE
ABOUT YOU KNOW IT HE'S BEING.
YOUNG INDIVIDUALS THAT MAYBE HAD
AND HAD YOU KNOW AT THAT.
TIME TO FULLY UNDERSTAND THE
DECISIONS OF THEIR MAKING WE
SYMPATHIZE WITH THAT AND THAT'S
WHY WE WERE NEUTRAL WHEN THOSE
BILLS WOULD REALLY WENT THROUGH.
THIS PROCESS AND THEN BEFORE YOU
KNOW EVEN A FEW YEARS INTO THE
PROGRAM WE CAN EVALUATE HOW
EFFECTIVE THEY WERE BEING.
WE DECIDED TO JUMP THE AGE FROM.
TWENTY THREE TO TWENTY FIVE AND
NOW WE'RE HERE BACK AGAIN
EXPANDING THE PROGRAM.
NOW THE THIRD TIME WITHOUT
REALLY KIND I THINK ANYONE
UNDERSTANDING HOW IT'S AFFECTED
HOW IT'S BEING USED RIGHT NOW --
THE IMPACT THAT IT'S HAVING ON
THE SYSTEM WE ALSO HAD PROP
FIFTY SEVEN AS THE DA'S NOTED --
THAT IS CREATED ADDITIONAL
CREDIT EARNING OPPORTUNITIES FOR
INDIVIDUALS INCARCERATED -- AT
SOME POINT YOU KNOW WE JUST HAVE
TO ASK OURSELVES THE QUESTION
YOU KNOW WHEN IT WHEN A WE'RE
GONNA STOP HERE I MEAN WE WENT
OUT ON A LIMB. TO SUPPORT YOU
THE FENDER PAROLE -- IN THE
EXPANSION OF THAT ALL THE WAY UP
TO AGE TWENTY THREE AND THEN IT
SEEMS LIKE EVERY TIME THAT YOU
KNOW WE WE MAKE A STEP FORWARD.
YOU KNOW WERE ASKED TO COME BACK
AND GO AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN
AND THAT'S WHERE CONCERN HERE IS
WE'VE WE'VE CONTINUED TO A ROAD.
CONSEQUENCES AT SOME POINT
THAT'S GOING TO HAVE AN IMPACT
ON THE GOOD.
PUBLIC SAFETY OF OUR SOCIETY HI
AND I DON'T THINK WE'VE
EVALUATED THE IMPACT THAT'S ME
ALL THIS REFORMERS HAD IN THE
LAST FIVE TO TEN YEARS.
AND THIS IS JUST CONTINUING.
TO A ROAD THAT SYSTEM OF
ACCOUNTABILITY AND FOR THOSE
CONCERNS WE ARE OPPOSED.
THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION MISTER CHAIRMAN WAS
COURCELLES ALONG BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS.
MR QUIRK.
YEAH FOR ME FIRST OF ALL ARE
MISTER STONE I THINK YOU'RE. ONE
OF OUR BEST LEGISLATORS AND I
VERY MUCH APPRECIATE YOU.
BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD --
FOR THE RECENTLY RELEASED
INCARCERATED PERSON IT'S AMAZING --
YOUR POISE AFTER TWENTY YEARS IN
PRISON COME IN HERE AND SPEAK
I'M EXTREMELY IMPRESSED.
PUTTING PEOPLE IN JAIL AND WHY
DO WE LET THEM OUT.
I DON'T THINK THE SEX OFFENDER
OR A MURDERER IS THINKING WHEN
THEY SHOOT SOMEONE.
SHE WEARS STATE JUST PASSED A
BILL AND IF I TAKE COURSES I CAN
GET OUT IN TWENTY YEARS INSTEAD
OF TWENTY FIVE THAT JUST DOESN'T
HAPPEN.
WHAT THIS DOES DO IS IS IT
ALLOWS THE PAROLE BOARD TO MAKE
A DECISION AT AN EARLIER POINT
IF YOU HAVE SOMEONE LIKE THE
PERSON WHO IS BEFORE ME RIGHT
NOW?
WE DON'T NEED TO KEEP PEOPLE IN
PRISON WE NO LONGER.
POSE A THREAT [inaudible]
AND THAT TO ME IS THE ULTIMATE
OBJECTIVE.
THERE ARE PRISON SHOULD HAVE
WHICH IS TO GET PEOPLE TO THE
POINT WHERE THEY NO LONGER
PRESENT.
HAVE A POSE A THREAT THIS IS A
WAY WHEN SOMEONE DOES
INCORPORATE EXCUSE ME
INCARCERATED. TO GIVE THEM AN
INCENTIVE SO THAT THEY'LL BE
LIKE THE GENTLEMAN BEFORE ME
WHEN THEY GET OUT THANK YOU.
OUR MOVE THE BELL.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS.
NONE OKAY.
YOU MAY CLOSE.
THANK YOU AND I WILL POINT OUT
THE OPPOSITION IS REALLY
ESSENTIALLY RELITIGATE ING THE
THE EXISTING LAW WELL WE'RE
TRYING TO DO HERE IS TAYLOR THE
CREDITS FROM THE YOUTH OFFENDER
PAROLE.
AND THE ELDERLY PAROLE INTO THE
PROP FIFTY SEVEN CDC ARE.
INTERPRETING PROP FIFTY SEVEN A
CITED THAT THEY COULD NOT DO
THAT WE THINK THEY CAN AND
THAT'S WHY WE'RE WORKING VERY
CLOSELY WITH CDC ARE THIS IS NOT
NECESSARILY GOING TO LET PEOPLE
OUT.
EARLIER BECAUSE THEY STILL HAVE
TO GO TO PAROLE I TRUST THAT
PROCESS.
WE WANT TO PROVIDE INCENTIVES
THAT PEOPLE DO THE WORK INSIDE
THAT THEY NEED TO DO IN ORDER TO
MAKE THE BEST CASE BEFORE PAROLE.
THAT TO ME IS WHAT THE SYSTEM IS
SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT HOLDING
PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE GIVING THEM
THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE
ISSUES THEY NEED TO ADDRESS THEN
COME BACK INTO SOCIETY.
WITH THAT I ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE.
THANK YOU AND UP AND AND AT SOME
POINT WE WERE AFTER TRUST TO
SYSTEM WITHIN CDC ARE.
I MEAN I EVEN THAT'S WHY DID THE
AUDIT ON REHABILITATION PROGRAMS
THAT WE CAN GET SOME TYPE OF
EVALUATION I THINK.
ON THE OPPOSITION IS RIGHT WE
NEED TO START LOOKING.
AT ALL THESE PROGRAMS IN ITS
TOTALITY AND HOW IT IMPACTED
COMMUNITY IN.
HOW INDIVIDUALS LIKE THE ONE
THAT CAME TODAY HOW THEY ARE
IMPACTING THE COMMUNITY -- STILL
LOOKING AT THE BAD SIDE OF IT --
I HONESTLY BELIEVE WHEN WE DO
THAT EVALUATION FOR YOU SOME
VERY POSITIVE RESULTS FROM THAT --
AND IT I I'M I'M LOOKING FORWARD
TO THAT DAY WHEN WE LOOK AT ALL
THAT WE'VE DONE -- IN THE LAST
FIVE SIX YEARS -- IN THE SEA
THAT IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY BUT
ALSO THE IMPACT ON INDIVIDUALS
LIKE THIS THE SHERMAN HERE HIS
HIS LIFE AND HOW IT'S CHANGED
THEM.
AND HOW WE'RE BETTER OFF AS A
SOCIETY. FOR FOR DOING THIS AND
YOU'RE RIGHT IT DOESN'T
GUARANTEED IT WHEN THEY GO
BEFORE THE PAROLE BOARD.
THAT THEY WILL BE RELEASED THAT
IS OUR BACKSTOPS AND WE NEED TO
TRUST THAT BACKSTOPS WITH THE
PAROLE HEARING BOARD.
ON THAT DAY NO BECAUSE THEY'RE
INSIDE NOTE TALKING THESE
INDIVIDUALS AND CDC ARE AND DAY --
CCPOA OFFICERS ARE ALL TALKING
THEY KNOW THESE INDIVIDUALS AND
THEY SHOULD KNOW WHO SHOULD AND
SHOULD NOT SHOULD SHOULD NOT GET
OUT.
AND SO.
I RECOMMENDED I AN EIGHTY NINE
SIXTY FIVE THE MOTION IS TO PASS
TO THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
pJONES SAWYER.
CHEN SIR I LACKEY [inaudible]
BAUER-KAHAN [inaudible]
DEEP.
KAMLAGER-DOVE.
KAMLAGER-DOVE I QUIRK.
QUIRK I SANTIAGO.
WICKS HI WICKS I PHONE CALL
NEEDS ONE MORE THANK YOU YOUR OF
CRISTINA [inaudible]
GARCIA.
AB ELEVEN FORTY FIVE ITEM NUMBER.
EIGHTEEN THANK YOU -- CHAIR AND
MEMBERS.
THREE SOME OF YOU HAVE HEARD
THIS BILL MULTIPLE TIMES BEFORE --
AB ELEVEN FORTY FIVE SIMPLIFIES
THE LAUPER MANDATED REPORTERS.
CURRENT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
FOR MANDATED REPORTERS OF CHILD
ABUSE ARE CONFUSING INCONSISTENT
AND DISCRIMINATORY.
THE INTENT OF THE BILL IS TO LIE
REPORTABLE SEXUAL ACTS IN A MORE
CONCISE AND EQUITABLE WAY.
UNDER CURRENT LAW.
A MANDATED REPORTER IS NINETY
TWO REPORT WHEN A MINOR A
SEVENTEEN AND ENGAGES WITH
VOLUNTARY HETEROSEXUAL SEX OF
THE PARTNER THAT IS THE SAME AGE
OF SEVENTEEN HOWEVER IF THOSE
TWO INDIVIDUALS ARE GAY OR
LESBIAN.
AND ARE THE SAME AGE A MANDATED
REPORTERS REQUIRED EVEN IF THE
ACTS ARE VOLUNTARY.
THE CONFUSING AND DISCRIMINATORY
NATURE OF CURRENT LAW ULTIMATELY
LEADS TO MANDATED REPORTERS NOT
REPORTING CERTAIN ACTS.
THIS CREATES AN UNEVEN PLAYING
FIELD FOR ALL MINORS FORTY FIVE
CREATES CLEAR CONSISTENT AND NON
THIS WITH TERRY STANDARDS FOR
MANDATED REPORTERS BY TREATING
ALL CONSENSUAL ACTIVITY.
THE SAME WAY.
THIS BILL DOES NOT CHANGE A LOT
FOR STATUTORY RAPE OR CHILD
ABUSE.
THESE WOULD BE STILL BE REPORTED.
THE MAN THAT A REPORTER WOULD
STILL BE REQUIRED TO DISTINGUISH
THAT THE OUR ACTS THAT THE ACTS
ARE VOLUNTARY.
THE DC OPINION ISSUED IN TWO
THOUSAND FOURTEEN IS DOES THAT
AN OPINION AND IS NOT CHANGED --
Là.
AB ELEVEN FORTY BY CONFORMS THE
STATUTORY LANGUAGE REGARDING THE
DEFINITION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT. TO
THE PRACTICES DESCRIBED IN THE
DC A OPINION.
AB ELEVEN FORTY FIVE ENSURES
THAT OUR YOUTH IS TREATED FAIRLY
AND CLARIFIES MANDATED REPORTERS
MUST REPORT.
WHAT MUST REPORTER AMENITY
BOARDS MUST REPORT AND WHAT
GUIDELINES TO FOLLOW WHEN ISSUE
IN CLINICAL JUDGMENT?
I HAVE WITNESSES HERE WITH ME
TODAY TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF
THE BILL I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
AN AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU ANYWAY WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT NAME AN ORGANIZATION
[inaudible]
SIR.
GEORGE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT.
MY SECOND ALSO AT THE NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS
AND SUPPORT.
AMANDA LEVY CALIFORNIA
PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION OUR
MEMBERS PSYCHOLOGISTS ARE
MANDATED REPORTERS HAVE ALWAYS
FELT THAT THE STATUTE HAS BEEN
DISCRIMINATORY AND WE THINK THAT
SOMETHING MEMBER FOR INTRODUCING
THIS BILL IN STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
ANY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
SEE A NUN ANY QUESTIONS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS OF COMMENTS
YES ARCADE.
SO CAN YOU JUST ONE
CLARIFICATION ON THE STATE OF
ALIVE TODAY SO SEXUAL
PENETRATION BETWEEN THESE AGE
GROUPS.
IS NOT MANDATED REPORTING THAT
IRAN IS MUTU SEVENTEEN YEAR OLDS
AND IT WAS A CONSENSUAL
VOLUNTARY -- ENGAGEMENT WE DO
NOT NEED TO REPORT THAT.
BUT IF ONLY IF IT'S HETEROSEXUAL
IF IT'S THE SAME SEVENTEEN YEAR
OLDSBUT THEY'RE GAY.
I HAVE TO REPORT THAT I GOT IT
VOLUNTARY CONSENSUAL IN THIS AGE
GROUP.
SO AS I READ THE BILL THOUGH I
AM IF IT'S A TWENTY YEAR OLDS
AND A SIXTEEN YEAR OLD AS WELL.
THERE WOULD BE NO NEED TO
REPORTS THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE
THE SAME AGE RIGHT UNDER YOUR
BILL.
RIGHT NOW ALL OF THEIR
HETEROSEXUAL I DON'T NEED TO
REPORT THAT NOW EITHER.
OKAY.
IF THERE IS ABUSE AGAIN IT'S
BACK TO THE CLINICAL JUDGMENT.
ABOUT THAT AS THE DAUGHTER HAD
BEEN WITH THESE WITH THESE FOLKS
BUT MY BILL DOESN'T CHANGE THE
AGE GROUP WHICH IS SAYING THAT
IT BETH.
GARY STRAIGHT WE SHOULD BE.
IN THIS THING.
GOT IT.
THANK YOU.
MOVE THE BELL.
YOU MAY CLOSE I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE SHOWS
RECOMMENDED I VOTE.
ON AB ELEVEN FORTY FIVE THE
MOTION IS TO PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE JONES
SAWYER -- DANCER I LACKEY.
BAUER-KAHAN [inaudible]
DEEP.
KAMLAGER-DOVE HI KAMLAGER-DOVE I
QUIRK.
WORK I SANTIAGO.
WICKS HI WICKS I WHAT.
THAT'S ON CALL FOR COMPANIES ONE
NEEDS ONE MORE [inaudible]
MR [inaudible]
TEAM.
AB TEN SEVENTY SIX ITEM NUMBER.
THIRTEEN THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR --
WE'RE HERE TO PRESENT AB TEN
SEVENTY SIX WHICH WOULD OPEN THE
DOORS.
TO MILLIONS OF CALIFORNIANS WHO
ARE FACING EMPLOYMENT AND
HOUSING BARRIERS BY AUTOMATING.
THE PROCESS OF CLEARING IN A
RASTER CRIMINAL RECORD FOR
ELIGIBLE.
INDIVIDUALS.
WE ESTIMATE ABOUT EIGHT MILLION
CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS WHO WHO ARE
CURRENTLY HAVE.
CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS AND AS YOU
KNOW -- MANY PEOPLE WHO HAVE
TOTAL CONVICTIONS HAVE
DIFFICULTY GETTING EMPLOYMENT
GETTING HOUSING -- REALLY BY
CLEARING IN EXPANDING THE
RECORDS THAT THEY ALREADY
ELIGIBLE TO HAVE EXPLAINED TO
REALLY -- OPENS UP THE PATHWAY
TO EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING --
LAST YEAR WE INTRODUCED AB --
TWENTY FOUR THIRTY EIGHT WHICH
ASKED THE COURTS TO PROACTIVELY
DO THERE'S THAT STOP YOUR TO BE
PROSPEROUS BUT AT THIS YEAR WE
ARE REQUIRING THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO CREATE
A DATABASE THE DATABASE WOULD
THEN BE CIRCULATED TO THE FIFTY
EIGHT COUNTY COURTS.
IN THE COURTS WOULD MERELY BE
JUST BE ASKED TO WITHHOLD THE
RECORDS OF THOSE FOLKS WITHIN
THE DATABASE WE THINK THIS IS A
MUCH MORE [inaudible]
COST.
SORT OF A COSTLY.
LESS COSTLY SOLUTION AND WOULD
ENCOURAGE YOU -- TO PASSED THIS
BILL AGAIN I HAVE TWO WITNESSES
HERE.
A BRICK HOUSE THEN TO SPEAK ON
A. B. TEN SEVENTY SIX THANK YOU.
THANK YOU.
HELLO MAX ABA WITH THE SAN
FRANCISCO DISKETTES HERNIAS
OFFICE FIRST AND FOREMOST JUST
WANNA THANK ASSEMBLY MEMBER TING --
FOR BRINGING THIS MEASURE --
THIS IS REALLY A LANDMARK
CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM
INITIATIVE THERE ARE.
AT LEAST TWO MILLION PEOPLE IN
CALIFORNIA WHO HAVE A CRIMINAL
CONVICTION THAT ARE CURRENTLY
ELIGIBLE TO HAVE THAT RECORD.
I CLEARED -- THERE'S MILLIONS
MORE WHO HAVE AN ARREST ON THE
RECORD THAT COULD ALSO BE
CLEARED -- MANY PEOPLE DON'T
SEEK THAT RELIEF -- THEY HAVE TO
KNOW ABOUT IT THEY HAVE TO GO
GET AN ATTORNEY OFTEN TO TO
ACTUALLY GET THE RELIEF -- DONE
THAT CAN BE EXPENSIVE -- ENDS
THAT CAN BE A HINDRANCE TO
EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING AND THAT
HAS.
IMPACTS ON PUBLIC SAFETY --
PEOPLE WHO ARE THERE IN A
PRIMARY DRIVERS OF RECIDIVISM
OUR LACK OF ACCESS TO HOUSING
EMPLOYMENT AND SO THIS IS.
AS MUCH A BILL ABOUT EQUITY AS
IT IS BUT PUBLIC SAFETY WHEN WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK YOUR AB.
GOOD MORNING I BELIEVE IF IT'S
STILL -- MORNING TIME GOOD
MORNING.
MY NAME IS KATIE DIXON -- A
POLICY FELLOW WITH LEGAL
SERVICES FOR PRISONERS WITH
CHILDREN AND ALL OF US ARE NONE.
AND I AM HERE TODAY IN
SOLIDARITY WITH CALIFORNIA'S FOR
SAFETY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
I FIRST WANT TO PAYING ASSEMBLY
MEMBER TEAMS OFFICE AND SF --
DISTRICT ATTORNEY GASKELL'S
OFFICE FOR COMING TOGETHER AND
REALLY PUT IN THIS PIECE OF
LEGISLATION TOGETHER THIS IS
VERY IMPORTANT TO ME.
AND AS HE SAID I BELIEVE THIS
CAN BE GROUND BREAKING A
TRANSFORMATIVE FOR THE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE REFORM LANDSCAPE.
I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE A LITTLE
BIT ABOUT MY EXPERIENCE WILL
CLEAN SLATE CLINICS AN
EXPUNGEMENT PROCESS.
OBVIOUSLY ON FORMALLY
INCARCERATED.
SINCE TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN I
HAVE BEEN ON A ROLLER COASTER
RIDE.
TRYING TO RE ESTABLISH MYSELF
BACK INTO SOCIETY.
AS A RESULT OF OUR CRIMINAL
HISTORY I HAVE BEEN RELEGATED TO
LOW WAGE LABOR JOBS.
EVEN THOUGH I HOLD A COMMERCIAL
DRIVER'S LICENSE.
I HAVE BEEN HOMELESS UNABLE --
TO FOR RAIN IN A BAY AREA IN
UNAFRAID TO APPLY FOR ROOM
SHEARS BECAUSE I'M AFRAID
THEY'LL RUN A BACKGROUND CHECK.
WHEN I FIRST HEARD ABOUT AN
EXPUNGEMENT CLINIC IN SAN
FRANCISCO I IMMEDIATELY APPLY TO
IT?
AS SOON AS I KNEW IT WAS
AVAILABLE THAT PROCESS TOOK ME A
WHOLE YEAR.
THE PROCESS WAS [inaudible]
HELLO.
IT WAS IT WAS VERY COMPLICATED
AND QUITE FRANKLY WAS PRETTY
RIDICULOUS.
IN TWO THOUSAND EIGHTEEN I MOVED
ON TO APPLY TO SOLANO COUNTY.
THAT TOOK ME SIX MONTHS AND NO
SIX MONTHS I LOST ANOTHER JOB I
WAS GOING BACK AND FORTH TO
COURT CASES IN FAIRFIELD.
I ALSO LOST MY SHELTER BAY WHICH
I WAS ALREADY HOMELESS I LOST MY
SHELTER BE IT AS A RESULT OF
TRYING TO SPEND A NIGHT.
IN THE LAY ALSO I COULD BE
CLOSER TO FAIRFIELD IN ORDER TO
GIVE BACK AND FORTH TO COURT.
IN ALL THIS WAS GOING ON WHILE I
WAS.
STILL TRYING TO KEEP UP WITH
THIS PROCESS.
I'M HERE TODAY AS A POLICY
FELLOW.
BECAUSE PASSED AN A. B. TEN
SEVENTY SIX I BELIEVE IS A STEP
IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION FOR
CALIFORNIA.
OPPOSITION FORTY SEVEN AS WE
KNOW I DON'T KNOW SOME MAY NOT
KNOW HAS A WENT IS JUST THE
WINDOW PERIOD FOR US TO GO AHEAD
AND GET WHATEVER WHATEVER WE CAN
GET RE CLASSIFIED AND THINGS
LIKE THAT.
THAT PERIOD ENDS INTO A TWO
THOUSAND TWENTY TWO AS HE SAID.
YOU HAVE TO KNOW ABOUT IT IN
THIS PROCESS TOOK ME OVER A YEAR
CLOSE TO TWO YEARS I CAN ONLY
IMAGINE FOR THE FOLKS THAT DOES
NOT HAVE COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS
BECAUSE IT HELPED MY PROCESS.
THIS THIS WOULD THIS BILL.
WOULD GIVE CALIFORNIA'S LIKE
MYSELF THE FREEDOM TO FOCUS ON
MOVING FORWARD.
AND AMBIENT SSR COMMUNITIES
WHILE NOT BE A SIDE TRACKED IN
DISMAY HOMELESSNESS IN JOB
INSTABILITY WHICH QUITE FRANKLY
JUST CONTINUES TO TRY ME IN A
CYCLE OF POVERTY.
PEOPLE DESERVES A CHANCE TO
OVERCOME THE MISTAKES OF THEIR
PASS AND WE SHOULD BE GIVEN HIM
EVERY CHANCE TO DO SO AND MAKE
IT AND NOT GOING OUT OF OUR WAY
TO MAKE IT AS HARD AS POSSIBLE.
AGAIN I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY
FOR THIS I URGE AYE VOTE ON THIS
THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST
IMPORTANT BILLS TO ME THIS YEAR
I FEEL LIKE THIS BILL HAS THE
POTENTIAL. TO IMPACT.
AGAIN I DON'T HAVE THE NUMBERS
SOMEONE SAY SOMETHING CLOSE TO
TWO MILLION FOLKS HERE IN
CALIFORNIA.
SO I URGE AYE VOTE AND THANK YOU
FOR LET MY VOICE BE HEARD TODAY
I REALLY APPRECIATED THANK YOU.
IN THE OTHER [inaudible]
IN SUPPORT.
NAME AN ORGANIZATION.
MARCO GEORGE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
KATHY SURE ACLU OF CALIFORNIA
AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
CAN MORE YOU W. IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
MORE SECONDS ALSO NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS IN
SUPPORT.
JIM WINBERG ON BEHALF OF THE
FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT.
KYLE MOSLEY OSCAR STEEL WITH
COMMUNITY WORKS IN SUPPORT.
NOT HERNANDEZ AND HAVE THE
CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS FOR
CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU ANY -- ANY WITNESSES
IN.
GOOD.
EDWARD LITTLE CALIFORNIA'S FOR
SAFETY AND JUSTICE AND CO
SPONSOR OF THE BILL AND STRONG
SUPPORT.
THANK YOU ANYWAY THIS IS
OPPOSITION.
GOOD MORNING MISTER CHAIR
MEMBERS WHO SHALL MUCH THERE ON
BEHALF THE CALIFORNIA LAW
ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION A
WRECKER SUPERVISORS RESPECTFULLY
IN OPPOSITION AS WERE I'M SURE
HOW THIS.
LEGISLATION -- WILL AFFECT ALL
THE FOUR HUNDRED LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES LOCALLY AND HOW IDEA TO
AUTOMATE THEIR SYSTEMS TO MAKE
SURE THAT THOSEWHO ARE ELIGIBLE
WERE ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO DO THIS --
SO WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT HOW
THIS LOGISTICS OF THIS IS GOING
TO WORK THAT WERE WILLING TO
CONTINUE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
AUTHORS OFFICE.
AND AS OF RIGHT NOW ESPECIALLY
OPPOSE THANK YOU.
THANK YOU.
OR ANY OTHER WITNESS IN
OPPOSITION.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS MISTER QUIRK -- FIRST
I'LL MOVE THE BELL.
ALL RIGHT I THINK THE RECORDS
CLERKS ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
AS CHAIR OF BUDGET IS THERE
SOMETHING YOU CAN DO BECAUSE
WE'RE GOING TO NEED A LOT MORE
RECORD CLERKS I THINK. TO FOLLOW
THROUGH ON THIS WOULD YOU CARE
TO COMMENT.
SURE NOT ABOUT TURN OVER THE
DA'S OFFICE BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN
TALKING TO Y. DOJ.
AGAIN THE IDEA IS ASKING DOJ TO
PUT TOGETHER -- THE DATABASE OF
ALL THE MILLIONS OF NAMES AND
THEN BY HAVING A CENTRALIZED.
DATABASE WHICH WILL BE UPDATED.
AND KEPT UP TO DATE THE STATE
LEVEL THAT DATABASE WILL THEN BE
CIRCULATED TO ALL THE DIFFERENT
COUNTIES.
SO AGAIN THE COUNTIES WILL
REALLY HAVE TO AUTOMATE ANYTHING
THEY WOULD JUST NEED TO BE ABLE
TO REFERENCE THE DATABASE AND
THEN.
BE ABLE TO NOT RELEASE THE
INFORMATION ONCE THOSE
BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE PEOPLE ARE
CALLING ABOUT SPECIFIC PEOPLE SO.
HOW HOW THEY WANT TO TAKE THAT
INFORMATION THEY'RE RECEIVING
FROM THE STATE?
AND DO SOMETHING WITH THE
RECORDS IS REALLY UP TO THEM BUT
ALL WERE TO ASK THEM IS NOT TO
RELEASE THE INFORMATION THAT
THEY HAVE.
AND I WOULD SAID I'M SORRY.
THE PROFESSOR -- I WOULD SAY
ACTUALLY THAT COURT SIX CROSS
THE STATE ARE ALREADY DOING THIS
ARE ALREADY DECIDING WHICH
RECORDS TO RELEASE IN WHICH
RECORDS TO NOT RELEASE -- THIS
WOULD THROUGH THE CURRENT DOJ
DATABASE OR BE AN ALGORITHM THAT
WOULD BE APPLIED SO WOULD BE A
COMPUTER PROGRAM WHICH WOULD
LOOK AT BASICALLY.
ASSESS ELIGIBILITY WHICH IS THE
CURRENT ELIGIBILITY UNDER
CURRENT LAW AND IT WOULD
AUTOMATE THE SYSTEM OF WHO IS
ELIGIBLE AND WHO'S NOT.
THE PEOPLE WHO ARE DETERMINED TO
BE ELIGIBLE BY THIS COMPUTER
PROGRAM WOULD.
THERE BY HAS RECORD CLEARANCE
RELIEF GRANTED AUTOMATICALLY
INSTEAD OF GOING TO A PETITION
BASED PROCESS WHICH REQUIRES THE
COURT TO HEAR THIS AND TO MAKE A
DETERMINATION WHICH IS.
A DE FACTO EFFECTIVELY IT
HAPPENS ALMOST AUTOMATICALLY IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE BUT IT'S
BASICALLY JUST.
IF THEY MEET THE ELIGIBILITY
REQUIREMENT THE COURT GRANTED SO
THIS WE BELIEVE ACTUALLY WILL IN
THE LONG TERM ACTUALLY REDUCE
COSTS BY.
USING COMPUTERS TO DO WHAT WHAT
IS RIGHT NOW A VERY ONEROUS
HUMAN PROCESS -- AND THEN A
NOTIFICATION WILL GO FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO THE
COUNTY COURTS AND THEN THEY'LL
JUST DO WHAT THEY CURRENTLY DO
THEY LOOK AT WHICH RECORDS THEY
CAN AND THEY CAN'T PROVIDE.
TO THE PERSON REQUESTING RECORDS --
AND THEN YOU KNOW OF MARIA MCKEE
WHO'S A PRINCIPAL ANALYST AT OUR
OFFICE IS VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE
DOJ DATABASES AND WHAT
INFORMATION IS AND IS NOT.
ABLE TO BE AUTOMATED -- AND SHE
HAS REALLY BEEN DOING A
PHENOMENAL JOB TO TO PUT
TOGETHER SOME MORE ELIGIBILITY
REQUIRE SOME MORE TO DICTATE
MORE CLEARLY TO THE DOJ.
BASED ON WHAT IS IN THEIR
DATABASE WHAT CAN AND CANNOT BE
AUTOMATED SO WE'VE WE'VE GONE
THROUGH THIS TO TRY TO MAKE IT
AS LITTLE.
AS LITTLE AS LEAST ONEROUS AS
POSSIBLE IN THE DOJ AND EVERYONE
ELSE.
COOL.
JUST. ONE ONE QUICK POINT TO ADD
JUST UNDERSTAND WHY WHY IT'S SO
IMPORTANT IS.
RIGHT NOW WE ESTIMATE THE COST
TO EVERY INDIVIDUAL WHO'S
PURSUING EXPUNGEMENT IS ABOUT
THIRTY SEVEN HUNDRED DOLLARS.
IF YOU THINK ABOUT HOW WE
FAMILIES DON'T EVEN HAVE FIVE
HUNDRED DOLLARS IN THEIR SAVINGS
ACCOUNT.
THEY'RE NEVER GOING TO PURSUE
EXPUNGEMENT AND THEN IF THEY
NEVER PURSUE EXPUNGEMENT AGAIN.
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GET HOUSING
AND EMPLOYMENT SO THEY END UP ON
THE CAO WORKS ROLES IN ABOUT CAL
FRESH ROLLS TO THERE'S A LOT OF
MONEY AT STAKE FROM THE STATE
POINT OF VIEW.
AN AUTOMATED RECORD SYSTEM -- IS
PRESUMED TO COSTS ABOUT FOUR
CENTS PER RECORD IN COMPARISON
TO THIRTY SEVEN DOLLARS
[inaudible]
OKAY.
ALL RIGHT THANK YOU I JUST IF I
COULD JUST FOLLOW UP WITH A
STATE -- SO AGAIN I WAS HOMELESS
AND POOR THE ONLY REASON I WAS
ABLE TO GET THE PROCESS IS
BECAUSE I HAD COMMUNITY HELP
WITHOUT THAT COMMUNITY HELP.
I WOULD NOT HAVE PURSUED THIS
PROCESS BECAUSE IT DOES COST
UPWARDS OF THIRTY SEVEN HUNDRED
DOLLARS.
AND ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS YOU MAY CLOSE
MR TASTERS BUT FAST FIVE A JUDGE
RECOMMENDED AYE VOTE CALL THE
ROLL.
ON AB TEN SEVENTY SIX THE MOTION
IS TO PASS TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE JONES SAWYER --
ACTIONS ARE AYE LACKEY.
BAUER-KAHAN BAUER-KAHAN I DEEP
[inaudible]
KAMLAGER-DOVE.
KAMLAGER-DOVE I QUIRK.
QUIRK AYE SANTIAGO.
WICKS HI WICKS I THANK YOU.
THE MEASURE PASSED.
MR OBERNOLTE YOUR NEXT ELEVEN
FORTY SEVEN ITEM NUMBER.
NINETEEN THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE IN
TWO THOUSAND FIFTEEN A. B. NINE
FIFTY THREE IMPOSED A
REQUIREMENT ON LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES IN CALIFORNIA. TO FILE
A REPORT AFTER CONDUCTING A STOP
AND THE LEGISLATIVE LEGISLATION --
DEFINED A STOP AS A CONSENSUAL
OR NON CONSENSUAL SEARCH OF A
PERSON'S -- EITHER BODY OR
PROPERTY HOWEVER THE LEGISLATION
WAS AMBIGUOUS ON WHETHER OR NOT
A STOP INCLUDED A CALL FOR
SERVICE IN OTHER WORDS -- A
RESPONSE TO EMERGENCY RESPONSE
TO A MEDICAL SITUATION THE
AUTHOR STATED THAT -- THAT WAS
NOT THE INTENT TO INCLUDE THAT
SO THIS BILL AB ELEVEN FORTY
SEVEN CLARIFIES THAT THE
REQUIREMENT TO FOLLOW THE FILE
OF THOSE REPORTS -- IS NOT
TRIGGERED MERELY BY A CALL FOR
SERVICE -- THEY HAVE TO SAY THAT --
THE REASON BEHIND THIS BILL IS
THAT THOSE REPORTS THAT ARE
FILED ARE NOT FREE THEY COST A
SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TIME.
AND ALTHOUGH I RECOGNIZE THE
REASONING BEHIND THE REQUIREMENT
FOR THE REPORTS -- I DON'T I
THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US AS A
SOCIETY TO STRIKE A BALANCE
BETWEEN THE THINGS THAT REQUIRE
THAT DO GOOD IN THE THINGS THAT
REQUIRE THAT DO NOT.
SO I WITH ME TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL IS SHERIFF
JOHN MCMAHON OF SAN MEDINA
COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT.
GOOD AFTERNOON THANK YOU FOR
GIVING US THE OPPORTUNITY TO
SHARE JUST A BIT.
I'M ONE OF THE LARGE AGENCIES IN
THE STATE THAT IMPLEMENTED THEM
NINE FIFTY THREE PROCESS IN JULY
OF TWO THOUSAND EIGHTEEN PUT IT
IN CONTEXT.
WE HANDLE ABOUT AN ABOUT A
MILLION CALLS FOR SERVICE
ANNUALLY IN OUR DEPARTMENT AND
ABOUT 30% OF THOSE ARE
DISPATCHED IN THE OTHER. 770%
ARE THOSE THAT ARE ARE CALLED IN
BY SOMEBODY THAT IS REPORTING A
CRIME. 30% ARE THOSE THAT ARE
SELF INITIATED BY OUR FOLKS
WHETHER BE -- TRAFFIC STOPS OR
ST OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE.
OUT OF THAT NUMBER OF CALLS FOR
SERVICE THUS FAR WE'RE
ANTICIPATING THAT WE WILL HANDLE
OR WE WILL PREPARE ABOUT A
HUNDRED AND TWENTY THOUSAND WITH
THE FORMS.
THIS YEAR.
SO THOSE PRIMARILY OR FOR THOSE
SELF INITIATED CALLS FOR SERVICE
ABOUT 20% OF THOSE AT THIS POINT.
ARE THOSE THAT ARE DISPATCHED SO.
DISPATCH CALLS WOULD BE MAYBE
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASE WHERE OUR
DEPUTY SHERIFFS WOULD SHOW UP TO
A CALL FOR SERVICE AT A DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE.
AT A HOUSE WHERE THERE WAS
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND AND FOR
EXAMPLE WHEN WE FIRST GET THERE
WE DETAIN EVERYBODY AND TRY TO
FIGURE OUT WHO'S RESPONSIBLE AND
DO SOME SEARCHING TO MAKE SURE
THAT NOBODY HAS ANY WEAPONS.
I GUESS IT'S A DYNAMIC SITUATION.
THAT TRIGGERS A FORM WHEN WE DO
THE SEARCH AT AT AT A DISPATCHED
CALL FOR SERVICE.
SO.
THAT IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO
ELIMINATE IN THIS PARTICULAR
CASE BECAUSE OUR DEPUTY SHERIFFS
HAVE NO DISCRETION WHEN THEY
RESPOND TO A DISPATCH CALL FOR
SERVICE.
AS I JUST DESCRIBED.
IT APPEARS BASED ON THE NUMBERS
THUS FAR THAT IT'S TAKING ABOUT
EIGHT FULL TIME EQUIVALENCY
DEPUTY SHERIFFS AND LOST
PRODUCTIVITY TO FILL OUT THOSE
FORMS THAT WE'VE.
COMPLETED THUS FAR THIS YEAR.
ALONG WITH THE AUDITING PORTION
OF THAT.
THAT'S AN IMPORTANT COMPONENT AS
WELL BECAUSE PART OF THE Là
TALKS ABOUT NO UNIQUE
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION SHALL BE
INCLUDED IN THE REFORM.
AND NO PERSONAL IDENTIFYING
INFORMATION SHOULD BE INCLUDED
IN THE RIVER FORM ONE PREPARED
BY OUR OFFICERS.
SOLELY OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO
MAKE SURE THAT INFORMATION IS IS
NOT IN THAT FORM IN THE OPEN
TEXT.
WE'VE BEEN AUDITING ALL OF THOSE
FORMS AND IT TAKES AS YOU CAN
IMAGINE A PERIOD OF TIME FOR OUR
FOLKS TO LOOK AT EVERY SINGLE
ONE OF THOSE TO MAKE SURE
THERE'S NO.
UNIQUE IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
OR PERSONAL IDENTIFYING
INFORMATION IN THOSE THREE
NARRATIVE BOXES THAT ARE
INCLUDED.
IN THE FORM THAT WE'RE IN THE
PROCESS OF USING.
SO BY THE ELIMINATION OF THE
REQUIREMENT FOR DISPATCH CALLS
FOR SERVICE IN GOING BACK TO
JUST THE SELF INITIATED ACTIVITY
WERE OUR FOLKS HAVE THE TRUE
DISCRETION.
WOULD SAVE ABOUT TWO FULL TIME
EQUIVALENCY IN LOST PRODUCTIVITY
AND WORK SO TWO DEPUTY SHERIFFS
IN ESSENCE WOULD BE FREED UP TO
DO OTHER THINGS.
THEREFORE FREEING UP SOME FOLKS
AND SAVE US SOME MONEY AND WE'VE
HEARD A LOT.
TALKED ABOUT ALREADY THIS
MORNING IN THIS COMMITTEE ABOUT
SAVING MONEY KEEPING COPS ON THE
STREET SO ANY HELP IN THIS
DIRECTION WOULD BE GREATLY
APPRECIATED.
THANK YOU YES SIR.
MISTER MEMBERS BOATBUILDER ON
BEHALF OF THE COUNTY SAN MARINO
AND WE ARE IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT.
THE TERM MEMBER SEAN UNDER WITH
THE CALIFORNIA PEACE OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION SUPPORT.
THANK YOU SIR.
THIS IS YOUR MEMBERS CHORUS ALSO
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
STATE SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
SUPPORT THANK YOU MISTER CELLS
HILL.
AS CHAIR ARRANGEMENT WITH THE
RIVERSIDE SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION
IN SUPPORT THANK YOU MISTER
CHAIRMAN.
ANY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
GOOD AFTERNOON THAT LIZZIE
BEACON WHAT THE ACLU OF
CALIFORNIA I'M PERSONALLY WE ARE
HERE RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION TO AB.
ELEVEN FORTY SEVEN ON THE GOAL
OF THE RACE ONE IDENTITY
PROFILING ACT WAS TO ENSURE THAT
THERE'S EQUAL JUSTICE AND
FAIRNESS IN OUR POLICING SYSTEM
AND THAT REQUIRES COLLECTING AND
REPORTING BASIC INFORMATION.
ABOUT LAW ENFORCEMENT STOPS
REGARDLESS OF HOW THOSE STOCKS
WERE INITIATED -- I DO WANT TO
PUSH BACK AGAINST THIS CLEAR AT
THIS -- CHARACTERIZATION THAT
THIS IS THAT AB ELEVEN FORTY
SEVEN WOULD BE A CLARIFICATION
OF THE LAW -- THAT IS NOT THE
CASE THE REP ABOARD.
I DISCUSS THIS ISSUE OF WHETHER
TO INCLUDE CALLS FOR SERVICE
EXTENSIVELY.
AND ULTIMATELY DECIDED THAT IT
WOULD THAT EXCLUDING CALLS FOR
SERVICE WOULD BE TOO BIG OF A
CARVE OUT IT WOULD BE OVERLY
BROAD IT WOULD NOT BE INCLUDING
THE TYPE TO STOPS THAT.
ARE MEANT TO BE INCLUDED IN THIS.
AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
LIKEWISE IN THE REGULATIONS
AGREED WITH THAT SPECIFIED THAT
CALLS FOR SERVICE WOULD BE
INCLUDED IN THE BILL AND AS A CO
SPONSOR OF AB NINE FIVE THREE
WAS ABSOLUTELY THE WITHIN THE
INTENT OF OUR BILL -- SO WHAT
THIS WOULD DO WAS IT IS OVERRIDE
A DECISION THAT WAS MADE
DELIBERATELY BY THE RIVER BOARD
AND BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THERE'S EVEN A SUBCOMMITTEE OF
THE REPORT THAT IS DIVERT
DEVOTED TO CALLS FOR SERVICE SO
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY.
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE BOARD --
AND I THINK THAT AB ONE FORTY
SEVEN IS ALSO -- THEY'RE THERE
TO MISCONCEPTIONS HERE SO THE
FIRST IS THAT BECAUSE IN
OFFICERS RESPONDING TO A CALL
FOR SERVICE THAT THERE IS NO
ROOM FOR DISCRETION.
SO YES THEY HAVE TO RESPOND TO
THE CALL FOR SERVICE BUT THE IS
THIS.
REPORT DOES NOT REQUIRED
DOCUMENTATION OF EVERY ROUTINE
CALLS FOR SERVICE IT IS ONLY
WHEN A CALL FOR SERVICE IS
EXTENDED. TO INCLUDE A STOP --
AND AT THAT POINT THERE
ABSOLUTELY IS DISCRETION BY AN
OFFICER AND SO IF.
IF I WERE TO CALL IN A BURGLARY
AN OFFICER COMES I AM ACTUALLY I
AM FREE TO GO BUT THE IF THE
OFFICER STOPS ONE OF MY
NEIGHBORS WALKING BY.
THAT IS WITHIN THEIR DISCRETION
AND THAT IS A STOP AND SHOULD
AND IS A PROPERLY -- CONSIDER TO
STOP.
AND SOMEONE CALLS THE POLICE TO
SAY THAT THEY THINK THAT THERE'S
A DRUG DEAL GOING ON IN THEIR
NEIGHBORHOOD AND OFFICER A
RESPONSE THAT SITUATION AND STOP
SOME OF THE PEOPLE WALKING BY.
THEY THEY HAVE DISCRETION AND IN
DOING THAT AND THAT ABSOLUTELY
NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED.
I HAVE THE SECOND.
CONCERN IS THAT IF.
THERE'S THIS IDEA THAT IT
BECAUSE IN OFFICERS RESPONDING
TO THIS CALL FOR SERVICE THAT
THEY ARE NOT -- IN THAT BECAUSE
THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE THEIR
DISCRETION WHETHER RESPOND OR
NOT THAT IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE
INCLUDED SO -- IN ADDITION TO
WHAT I JUST WENT THROUGH ABOUT
THE DISCUSSION THAT THEY
ACTUALLY DO HAVE THERE IS.
BIAS IN PEOPLE WHO ARE CALLING
POLICE THAT IS SOMETHING THAT
THE REP ABOARD HAS RECOGNIZED
THAT IS WHY THEY DESIGNATED THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CALLS FOR
SERVICE TO FOCUS ON WHAT IS
CALLED BIAS BY PROXY.
AND SO THAT IS WHERE STE YOU
KNOW WE HAVE SEEN THIS IN THE
NEWS RECENTLY WHERE PEOPLE CALL
THE POLICE.
ON PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY HAVE A
DISTRUST OF OF PEOPLE THAT RACE
OF PEOPLE WITHOUT APPEARANCE
ETCETERA AND THAT IS
UNFORTUNATELY AN IMPORTANT
SOURCE OF BIAS IN OUR POLICING
SYSTEM AS AN IMPORTANT.
CONTRIBUTOR TO THE RACIAL
DISPARITIES THAT WE HAVE IN OUR
SYSTEM AND SO RIVER WAS NOT JUST
ABOUT -- BIAS BY OFFICERS IS
ABOUT BIAS IN THE ENTIRE SYSTEM
OF POLICING -- AND THAT A COUPLE
POINTS I WANT TO MAKE ABOUT SOME
OF THE ARGUMENTS THAT WE HEARD
BEFORE SO ONE IS -- ABOUT THE
BURDEN BECAUSE IT'S THAT SUCH A
HIGH VOLUME OF OF CALLS ARE OF
STOPS THAT ARE IN RESPONSE TO
CALLS FOR SERVICE.
THIS AS WAS DISCUSSED BY THE
RIVER BOARD THIS IS EXACTLY WHY
THIS NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED
BECAUSE THIS IS AN IMPORTANT WAY
THAT COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND
POLICE INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER.
AND SAID ABSOLUTELY NEEDS TO BE
INCLUDED A FOR GOING TO HAVE A
COMPREHENSIVE VIEW OF HOW OUR
SYSTEM IS BIASED -- AND SECOND --
AS I SAID BEFORE THIS DOES NOT
INCLUDE ALL CALLS FOR SERVICE IT
IS ONLY WHEN THEY'RE EXTENDED
AND A STOP TAKES PLACE.
SO -- WE THINK THAT THIS IS
BECAUSE FOR INCLUDING BECAUSE
OUR SERVICE IS ABSOLUTELY WITHIN
THE INTENT OF AB -- NINE FIVE
THREE AND IS A VERY VERY
IMPORTANT FOR UNDERSTANDING BY
CENTER SYSTEM.
SEVEN WE ARE IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU ARE THERE ANY OTHER.
MEMBERS ANYONE ELSE IN
OPPOSITION.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS.
I HAVE ONE YES.
I THINK MY MY FRUSTRATION
BECAUSE OF THIS DISCRETIONARY
[inaudible]
DISCUSSION.
SO LET ME JUST CLARIFY WITH YOU.
WHEN AN OFFICER GETS CALLED
[inaudible]
TO A CIRCUMSTANCE.
AND THEY ARRIVE ON SCENE.
AND THEY WITNESSED WHAT THEY
WERE CALLED. TO WITNESS YOU SAY
THAT THEY HAVE DISCRETION TO
DISMISS THAT.
I KNOW THAT'S NOT WHAT I MEANT
AND SO IT SEEMS LIKE THEY HAVE
AN OBLIGATION TO ACT NO YES
RIGHT AND ABSOLUTELY AND TO
RESPOND TO TO A CALL FOR SERVICE.
AND IF IT'S A SITUATION LIKE
WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING AND THAT
THAT IS GOING TO BE SHOWN IN THE
ANALYSIS AND SO IT'S NOT.
IT IS SO SO I THINK THAT THAT
WILL BE ROUGH REFLECTED I THINK
THIS IS WHAT HE'S GETTING AT
THOSE THERE'S REALLY NOT.
DISCRETION TO ACT THERE HAD TO
CALL THE SERVICE AND THEIR
VALIDATING WHAT THEY WERE CALLED
TO THAT'S NOT A BLACK A
PROACTIVE ENCOUNTER OF ANY SORT.
AND THAT'S WHAT I THINK WE NEED
TO BE MONDAY TRAINERS BECAUSE
THOSE PROACTIVE CAUGHT CONTACTS.
THIS IS AN OBLIGATION TO ACT AND
I DON'T THINK THAT INCLUDES
DISCRETION.
AND SO SOMETIMES A OFTEN AN
OFFICER WILL WITNESS SOMETHING
AND THEN WILL ACT ON THAT --
SOMETIMES AN OFFICER.
HAS NOT WAS WITNESSED IT IS
RESPONDING TO SOMETHING THAT THE
CALLER HAS WITNESSED AND THEN
THEY DO HAVE DISCRETION WITH ARE
FROM MONCTON TO STOP -- I MEAN
THIS IS.
IT.
IT IS INDICATED WHEN A STOP IS
IN RESPONSE TO A CALL FOR
SERVICE THAT IS PART OF THE
DOCUMENTATION AND SO THOSE CAN
BE EVALUATED SEPARATELY FROM
OTHER.
OTHER STOPS FOR THE DISAGREEMENT
IS ON THE SLOW AS WHY IS THAT IN
PART OF THE DOCUMENTATION
BECAUSE THERE'S AN EXPECTATION
THERE.
IT'S NOT DISCRETIONARY SO I
THINK WE JUST DISAGREE ON THE
NEED TO DOCUMENT THAT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS [inaudible]
BECKHAM.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THE PART
OF OVER DOCUMENTING IS WHAT
HAPPENS ABOUT STOP AS WELL RIGHT
WHETHER RASTER KERR'S HOW FAR IS
GONE AND THERE COULD BE
DIFFERENCES IN HOW WE'RE
TREATING FOLKS IN THOSE STOPS
AND NOT MIGHT BE IN.
THAT WOULD BE THE IMPORTANCE OF
DOCUMENTING AND I UNDERSTAND
THAT CORRECTLY.
YES THAT'S CORRECT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
YOU MAY CLOSE MISSED OBERNOLTE I
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR I'D LIKE
TO RESPOND A COUPLE A COUPLE OF
THE POINTS MADE BY THE
OPPOSITION RESPECTFULLY.
THE LAW.
AB NINE FIFTY THREE DOES NOT SAY
THAT.
US RECALLS FOR SERVICER STOPS IN
THE AUTHOR HAS SAID THAT THAT
WAS NOT THE INTENTION.
THE REPORT DOES NOT.
RIGHT STATE LAW THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL DOES NOT RIGHT STATE LAW
WE'VE RIGHT STATE LAW.
AND SO I THINK WE HAVE AN
OBLIGATION TO CLARIFY.
IF THIS IS A A QUESTION BEFORE
US WHETHER OR NOT THOSE CALLS
FOR STOPS.
ARE ALL CALLS FOR SERVICE ARE
INDEED STOPS.
AND I I WANNA PUSH BACK ON
SOMETHING ELSE HAS BEEN SAID
WHICH IS THAT.
OF THE THESE RIPPER PORTS.
CAN BE USED TO TRY AND IDENTIFY
BIAS IN CALLS FOR SERVICE THE
INITIATION OF THOSE CALLS FOR
SERVICE AND I REALLY DISAGREE
WITH THAT BECAUSE THE OFFICER
THAT RESPONSE IS THE ONE WRITING
THE REPORT NOT THE PERSON WHO
MADE THE CALL.
IF THE PERSON THAT MADE THE CALL
WAS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE
INFORMATION AND MAYBE THAT WOULD
GO TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT
THE MOTIVATION BEHIND --
COLLECTING THESE REPORTS WHAT
THE OFFICERS ARE NOT THE ONES
INITIATING THIS THEY HAVE NO
DISCRETION OVER THAT SO.
I THINK WE NEED TO BALANCE THE
COST OF WHAT WE'RE ASKING OUR
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFERS TO
OFFICERS TO DO AGAINST THE
POTENTIAL GOOD THAT WERE TRUCK
TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH.
AND I THINK THAT THAT CALCULUS
IS DIFFERENT ON CALLS FOR
SERVICE THEN ON STOPS THAT THE
OFFICERS THEMSELVES INITIATE AND
YOU HEARD -- SHARE MCMAHON
TESTIFIED THAT THIS IS COSTING
JUST ONE COUNTY IN CALIFORNIA.
THE EQUIVALENT OF TWO FULL TIME
DEPUTIES EVERY YEAR.
I AM NOT THE WHOLE ROOF -- JUST
JUST THE THE RESPONSE TO CALLS
FOR SERVICE I SUBMIT THAT THAT
IS NOT A GOOD TRADE OFF AND NOT
A GOOD USE OF OUR OFFICERS TIME
SO I'D RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AN
AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU END UP.
LET ME JUST GIVE YOU ONE MORE
PERSPECTIVE JUST FROM -- FROM
FROM MY FROM MY NOSE JUST JUST.
SOMEONE THAT'S BEEN AT THE END.
OF A CALL AND I I FIND IT.
FOUND IT.
JUST A LITTLE DISTURBING THAT
SEEM LIKE EVERY CALL THAT WOULD
STOP BY LAW ENFORCEMENT.
THERE WERE THERE WERE
INDIVIDUALS THAT COMMITTED A
CRIME TO LOOK A LOT LIKE ME.
AND WHEN I A COUPLE TIMES WHERE
I'VE GONE BACK TO CHECK.
WE COULDN'T FIND A CALL.
THAT IT WAS EVER MADE FOR THAT
THERE WAS ANY SUSPICIOUS PERSON
IN THE AREA SO I FIND THESE
CALLS OR DOCUMENTING THIS REALLY
REALLY IMPORTANT.
SO THAT NOT ONLY WE CAN FERRET
OUT ANY INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE
BIAS.
BUT IF THE DEPARTMENT AS A WHOLE
MAY HAVE BIAS.
WE CAN FIND THAT OUT TOO AND
THAT'S WHY IT'S SO IMPORTANT TO
DOCUMENT SO WE CAN FERRET OUT
INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE --
UNNECESSARY BY OF BIASES KILL
BIASES.
IN A LAWSUIT FROM SHOOTING
SOMEONE.
WILL PALE IN COMPARISON TO WHAT
YOU'RE PAYING. TO DOCUMENT IT
JUST ONE LAWSUIT COULD
ULTIMATELY WIPE OUT A WHOLE
COUNTY IF THE HIGH END OF
LAWSUIT.
AND SO IF YOU TALK ABOUT COST
BENEFIT ANALYSIS -- I I WOULD
SAY -- ELIMINATING LAW
ENFORCEMENT INDIVIDUALS LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND I I WILL
CONTINUE TO SAY THIS OVER AND
OVER AGAIN I THINK THAT NUMBER'S
CLOSER ONE PERSON I GET BEAT UP
ABOUT IT.
THEN.
I BELIEVE 99% ARE TRYING TO DO
THE RIGHT THING.
BUT THAT ONE PERSON REALLY
REALLY -- IS PROBLEMATIC AT 1%
COULD BE VERY VERY VERY COSTLY
AND WE NEED TO COME OUT AS
QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE AS SOON AS
POSSIBLE BUT WE ALSO NEED THE
DATA. TO PROVE THAT AND SO
UNFORTUNATELY I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR A NO VOTE.
IS THERE A MOTION [inaudible]
LOW.
ON A. B. ELEVEN FORTY SEVEN THE
MOTION IS TO PASS JONES SAWYER.
CHEN SERRANO LACKEY.
LACKEY FIVE BAUER-KAHAN.
BAUER-KAHAN NO DEEP.
DEEP I KAMLAGER-DOVE.
CAN GENERAL OF NOW QUIRK.
CANNELLA SANTIAGO.
SANTIAGO NO WICKS WICKS NOW.
SORRY THAT MEASURE FAILS.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR
[inaudible]
MS EGGMAN.
AB TEN SEVENTY SEVEN ITEM NUMBER
[inaudible]
FOURTEEN SECOND.
I THANK YOU I SEE EVERYBODY
TODAY.
I AM HERE TO PRESENT AB TEN
SEVENTY SEVEN WHICH SIX WITH
INCENTIVIZE COLLABORATIVE COURT
PARTICIPATION.
BY ADDRESSING ONE OF THE MOST
CRIPPLING BARRIERS DEFENDANTS
FACE WHEN TRYING TO RE INTEGRATE
THEIR COMMUNITIES.
THAT BEING EXCESSIVE DEBT --
CLUB OF COURTS PROVIDE SOLID.
RESULTS LOWER RECIDIVISM RATES
IN MY COUNTY WE HAVE A THRIVING
COLLABORATIVE COURT -- COMMUNITY
AND WE SEE 20% THAT THE
REDUCTION IN RECIDIVISM AS WELL
AS SAVING ABOUT TEN THOUSAND
DOLLARS.
PER PERSON THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO
SERVE -- BECAUSE NOW IT
SOMETIMES -- TO GO TO JAIL SOME
MEMBERS ARE SOME PEOPLE ARE
DOING THAT VERSUS CHOOSING TO GO
TO THE CLUB OF COURT SO WHAT
WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THE JUDGES IN
THIS IS THE ABILITY.
TO ADD NINETEEN THE BASE FINE
BUT HAVE SOME DISCRETION IN THE
PILOT BUT FINDS THAT CAN OCCUR
TO GET PEOPLE RE INTEGRATED AND
AN END TO TAKE AWAY SOME OF THE
OBSTACLES.
THAT CONFRONT THEM THAT MIGHT
MAKE.
JAIL AN EASIER PATH WHEN WE KNOW
THAT GETTING EVERYTHING CLEANED
UP AND BACK ON TRACK IS THE WAY
TO GO -- I'M VERY HONORED EVERY
YEAR EVERY COUPLE YEARS US
SOMEBODY FROM THE GEORGE SCHOOL
LAW HAS AN IDEA FOR A BILL THAT
THEY'VE BEEN WORKING ON I HIRED
ONE OF MY STAFF WHO CAME TO ME A
COUPLE YEARS AGO WITH AN IDEA
AND THIS YEAR WE HAVE -- THIS IS
ANOTHER BILL THAT SOME STUDENTS
GOT TOGETHER AND SAY HOW CAN WE
BETTER HELP US SERVE THE JUSTICE
FOR EVERYBODY.
IS WHEN THE IDEAS THEY CAME UP
WITH -- SO WITH ME TODAY AS WE
TRY TO INJECT JUSTICE AND
DIGNITY INTO THE SYSTEM IS MARGO
GEORGE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION.
AND STEVEN MAIER FROM THE
MCGEORGE SCHOOL OF LAW.
YOU GO FIRST [inaudible]
THE THANK YOU TO THE CHAIR AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE -- AS
ASSEMBLY MEMBER EGGMAN SAID MY
NAME IS STEVEN MYERS I'M A
STUDENT AT MCGEORGE SCHOOL OF
LAW.
I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
SCHOOLS COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES
HOMELESS ADVOCACY PROJECT IN
SUPPORT OF AB -- TEN SEVENTY
SEVEN OF THE PROJECT SUPPORTS AB
TEN SEVENTY SEVEN BECAUSE MANY
OF OUR CLIENTS WITH A HISTORY OF
INVOLVEMENT WITH THE CAN OF
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.
ARE -- HINDERED BY SUBSTANTIAL
DEBT FROM PRIOR OFFENSES.
THIS DEBT IS.
A BARRIER TO THEIR SUCCESSFUL
REINTEGRATION BACK INTO THE
COMMUNITY AFTER THEY HAVE
COMPLETED A COLLABORATIVE COURT
PROGRAM.
PRACTICALLY THIS THAT MAKES
EXPUNGEMENT OF THEIR CRIMINAL
RECORDS IMPOSSIBLE MAKING IT
HARDER TO FIND EMPLOYMENT AND
HOUSING.
AND EMOTIONALLY THE CONSTANT
STRESS FROM DEBT COLLECTION --
FROM DEBT COLLECTORS SEEKING
PAYMENT CAN OVERWHELM SOMEONE --
AND ACTUALLY UNTO THE PROGRESS
THE PARTICIPANT MADE DURING THE
COLLABORATIVE COURT PROCESS.
SO WHILE COLLABORATIVE COURTS
CONTINUE TO BE EFFECTIVE IN
REDUCING COSTS AND RECIDIVISM
RATES FOR THE COUNTIES THAT THAT
USE THEM.
THE COURTS POT THE THE COURTS
POSITIVE IMPACTS WILL BE EVEN
MORE SUBSTANTIAL IF PARTICIPANTS
ARE POWER TO GRADUATE FROM THE
PROGRAM.
ABLE TO CONCENTRATE ON THE LIFE
AHEAD RATHER THAN BEING DRAGGED
DOWN BY THEIR PAST MISTAKES.
AB TEN SEVENTY SEVEN HELPS
PEOPLE WHO ARE ACTIVELY WORKING
ON OVERCOMING ADDICTION AND
ADDRESSING MENTAL HEALTH
PROBLEMS THROUGH COURT
SUPERVISED TREATMENT BY REDUCING
A SIGNIFICANT BARRIER TO THEIR
SUCCESSFUL INTEGRATION.
BACK INTO THEIR COMMUNITIES.
CLS IS HOMELESS ADVOCACY
PROJECTS STRONGLY SUPPORTS A. B.
TEN SEVENTY SEVEN AND ASKS FOR
YOUR AYE VOTE THANK YOU
[inaudible]
THANK YOU.
MARCO GEORGE FROM THE CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE I WAS
DELIGHTED TO BE ASKED TO SPEAK
ON THIS BILL IT IS SO HEARTENING
TO SEE A BILL THAT PRIORITIZES
INCENTIVES.
BECAUSE THIS IS EVIDENCE BASED I
DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A STUDY
YET THAT SHOWS AND THE OVERALL
COLLABORATIVE COURTS HOW THIS
WORKS.
BUT WITH DRUG COURTS THERE'S A
LONG BODY OF EVIDENCE THAT
INCENTIVES WORK.
IN FACT THEY WORK BETTER THAN
SANCTIONS -- SO THAT'S ONE OF
THE THINGS THAT I'M THRILLED
ABOUT AB TEN SEVENTY SEVEN
THERE'S A STUDY FROM THE
NATIONAL DRUG COURT INSTITUTE.
AND IT FOUND IN DRUG TREATMENT
SETTINGS INCENTIVES OR REWARDS
EITHER TANGIBLE OR INTANGIBLE.
THAT POSITIVELY REINFORCE
DESIRED BEHAVIORS ASSOCIATED
WITH THE RECOVERY PROCESS.
AND THE INCENTIVES BRING.
THE BENEFITS OF ABSTINENCE
FORWARD IN TIME INCENTIVES HAVE
BEEN SHOWN TO EFFECTIVELY
INCREASE ABSTINENCE IMPROVE
ATTENDANCE AND MOTIVATE
TREATMENT ADHERENCE.
THERE'S ALSO A MONOGRAPH FROM
THE VIRGINIAN NATIONAL DRUG
COURT INSTITUTE.
IT'S LOCATED IN VIRGINIA IT'S
THE NATIONAL CORD INSTITUTE.
AND SAID MORE VALUABLE REWARDS
ARE MORE EFFECTIVE THAN LESS
VALUABLE REWARDS BECAUSE VALUE
IS DETERMINED BY THE RECIPIENT
DRUG COURT SHOULD ASK
PARTICIPANTS WHAT THEY SHOULD
LIVE.
IN CALIFORNIA YOU CANNOT THINK
OF A BETTER REWARD THAN
RESTORING SOMEONE'S DRIVER'S
LICENSE SO THAT THEY CAN BE
EMPLOYED OR GO TO SCHOOL.
SCHEDULE OF ESCALATING REWARDS
IN WHICH THE VALUE OR NUMBER OF
REWARDS INCREASES SYSTEMICALLY
WAS SUCCESSFULLY LONGER PERIODS
OF GOOD PERFORMANCE AND RESETS
TO ORIGINAL LOW VALUE IF THE
CLIENTS LOOKS UP.
IS MOST EFFECTIVE AB TEN SEVENTY
SEVEN DOES THAT IF THE PERSON
FEELS OUT OF THE COLLABORATIVE
COURT PROGRAM THERE THEN -- HAVE
THE SAME PROBLEMS THEY HAD
BEFORE -- IS SAYS ALSO THE THING
THAT'S REALLY BRILLIANT ABOUT AB
TEN SEVENTY SEVEN IS AND SEND
THEM SHOULD BE DELIVERED
IMMEDIATELY AND THE SETTING
WHERE THE BEHAVIOR CARS.
THE LONGER THE DELAY BETWEEN THE
BEHAVIOR AND RESPONSE THE LESS
EFFECTIVE THE INCENTIVE SO
ANOTHER WORDS GIVING SOME AND AT
THE OUTSET.
OF THE PROGRAM THE REWARDS IS
MORE EFFECTIVE THAN SAYING TWO
YEARS FROM NOW WHEN YOU COMPLETE
THIS COLLABORATIVE PROCESS WE'RE
GOING TO GIVE YOU THE REWARD --
AND THEN A SURPRISINGLY IS SAID
THE STUDY FOUND THAT REWARDING
PARTICIPANTS WERE DOING WELL
ENOUGH ALREADY INTERNALIZED THE
BENEFITS OF BEHAVIORAL CHANGE.
MAY BE LESS EFFECTIVE THAN
FOCUSING ON PARTICIPANTS WHO
NEED FURTHER IMPROVEMENT SO THIS
IS A EVIDENCE BASED.
ON BILL THAT HAS A LOT OF SOLID
RESEARCH BEHIND IT AT THIS POINT
AND WE ASK FOR YOUR AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT.
JIM LIMBURG ON BEHALF OF THE
FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
RESIDENTS ALSO ON BEHALF OF
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL
WORKERS IN SUPPORT THANK YOU
THANK YOU.
HI MISTER CHAIR AND MEMBERS
SERVE AT SIMON MCGEORGE SCHOOL
OF LAW STUDENT AND PART OF
LEGISLATION.
AND PUBLIC POLICY CLINIC HERE ON
BEHALF OF OUR CLIENT GEORGE
COMMUNITY WILL SERVICES HOMELESS
ADVOCACY PROJECT HERE IN SUPPORT
OF AB.
TEN SEVENTY SEVEN THANK YOU.
ANY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
SEEING NONE ANY QUESTIONS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS [inaudible]
YEAH.
I CERTAINLY OF BELIEVE THE
COLLABORATIVE COURTS NEED TO BE
ENCOURAGED ALLOTTED.
BUT REHABILITATION.
THE DIFFICULTY IS BOUNCING
BETWEEN COMPASSION
ACCOUNTABILITY VERY VERY
DIFFICULT.
AND I JUST BELIEVE THAT THERE
ARE WITHOUT GOING INTO A LONG
EXPLANATION THAT THIS.
TELLS A LITTLE. TOO MUCH AGAINST
ACCOUNTABILITY.
AND I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER IS
REALLY -- IT IT'S A VERY VERY
PERPLEXING DIFFICULTY BUT IN
GOOD CONSCIENCE.
PUBLIC SAFETY IS PARAMOUNT FROM
MY PERSPECTIVE INTO THE DUTY
THAT I HAVE ON THIS COUNCIL SO.
THANK YOU.
RIGHT YOU MAY CLOSE THANK YOU
VERY MUCH -- AND I APPRECIATE
YOUR YOUR POSITION MR LACKEY AND
THIS IS THIS BILL WOULD ONLY
DOESN'T AUTOMATICALLY GET RID OF
DEBT THIS GIVES THE JUDGE THE
ABILITY TO EITHER WAVE THAT.
PARTIAL WAY ROLE OBJET.
SERVICE IN LIEU OF PAYMENT --
NOTHING OR A COMBINATION OF THE
ABOVE SO IT DOESN'T JUST LIKE
SAY IT'S ALL GONE -- IT ALSO
DOESN'T JUST SAY YOU GET YOUR
LICENSE BACK BECAUSE WE
UNDERSTAND WORK WITH DMB IS NOT
ALWAYS.
THE EASIEST THING IN THE WORLD --
AMBER A WE'RE OPEN TO OTHER
THINGS BUT THAT'S WHAT IT DOES
IT JUST SAYS THAT THE JUDGE HAS
THE THE ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO DO
SOME OF THESE THINGS IT DOESN'T
SAY ABSOLUTELY MUST -- SO IT'S
BUT CASE BY CASE A PROVIDING
THAT -- THE WAY SO WITH ALL THAT
SAID WE THINK THIS IS A A GREAT
BILL IT TAKES ANOTHER STEP
TOWARDS GETTING PEOPLE BACK ON
TRACK AND RE INTEGRATED SOCIETY
AND WE WOULD ASK FOR YOUR I
THOUGHT.
THAT INCLUDES ACCEPTING THE
COMMITTEE THAT WOULD HAVE TO
INCLUDE THE COMMITTEES
AMENDMENTS AND FURTHER WITH I
THANK THE CHAIR AND THE
COMMITTEE FOR ALL THEIR HARD
WORK ON THIS.
THANK YOU THE DENTURES
RECOMMENDED AYE VOTE WITH THE
AMENDMENT.
ON AB TEN SEVENTY SEVEN THE
MOTION IS TO PASS AS AMENDED TO
THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
JONES SAWYER.
GEN SIR I LACKEY CONFLICTING
INFORMATION -- LACKEY NO
BARRICADE HAND I BAUER-KAHAN I
DEEP [inaudible]
KAMLAGER-DOVE.
QUIRK AYE QUIRK I SAN DIEGO.
SAN DIEGO I WICKS HI WICKS I THE
MEASURE PASSES THANK YOU VERY
MUCH.
AND LAST BUT CERTAINLY LET AT
LEAST MR KILEY A. B. SEVEN EIGHT
SIX ITEM NUMBER [inaudible]
THREE GOOD AFTERNOON.
MOVE THE BILL.
YOU MAY BEGIN.
A GOOD MORNING -- MISTER CHAIR
AND MEMBERS.
ASSEMBLY BILL SEVENTY SIX IS A
VERY IMPORTANT MEASURE TO
COMPLEMENT OTHER MEASURES THAT
THIS -- LEGISLATURE'S TAKEN TO
ADDRESS THE PROBLEM OF HUMAN SEX
TRAFFICKING THE BILL IDENTIFIES
THE MOST EGREGIOUS FORMS OF
HUMAN TRAFFICKING INVOLVING SEX
ACTS AND ADDS THEM TO LIST THE
LIST OF CRIMES THAT ARE
CONSIDERED TO BE A VIOLENT
FELONY.
HUMAN TRAFFICKING IS ONE OF THE
FASTEST GROWING CRIMES IN THE
WORLD AND TODAY'S DON'T
RECOGNIZE THE NEED FOR SOME
STRICTER SENTENCING FOR THE MOST
HORRIFIC HUMAN TRACK BEEN CRIMES.
THAT OCCUR IN OUR STATE.
IN SOME PARTS OF CALIFORNIA
HUMAN TRAFFICKING HAS REACHED
EPIDEMIC PROPORTIONS DUE IN PART
TO OUR COMPLEX ECONOMY AND OTHER
FACTORS.
IN -- 200-016-1000 THREE HUNDRED
THIRTY ONE CASES OF HUMAN
TRAFFICKING REPORTED IN
CALIFORNIA AND OF THOSE CASES
ONE THOUSAND FIFTY ONE WERE SEX
GRAPH IN CASES.
THAT WERE SEX TRAFFICKING CASES
DESPITE THESE ALARMING NUMBERS
DESPITE THE FACT THAT THIS IS A
CRIME WITH VIOLENCE AT ITS CORE.
HUMAN TRAFFICKING CRIMES ARE NOT
CONSIDERED SERIOUS OR VIOLENT
FELONIES UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW.
I THE RECENT CHANGES OTHER
RECENT CHANGES TO THE LAW NOW I
MANY OF THESE PERPETRATORS TO BE
RELEASED AFTER SERVING ONLY HALF
THEIR SENTENCE.
THIS BILL WOULD RECOGNIZE THE
MOST SERIOUS HUMAN TRAFFICKING
OFFENSES AS A VIOLENT FELONY --
AND REQUIRE THAT THEY BE
INCLUDED IN THE SPECIFIED CRIMES
THAT MERIT SPECIAL CONSIDERATION
ON A CALIFORNIA SENTENCING LAW.
I JOINING ME TODAY IS WAS THAT
SUITOR WHO IS A DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY AND IN CHARGE OF THE
SPECIAL VICTIMS UNIT WITH THE EL
DORADO COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE [inaudible]
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU THANK YOU FOR BEING
HERE.
CHAIRING COMMITTEE I I
APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND I AND I
THINK SOMETIMES WHERE WE NEED TO
START WITH THIS IS UNDERSTANDING
WHAT HUMAN TRAFFICKING IS
BECAUSE OFTENTIMES.
PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE THAT IT IT
TAKES IT'S THE MAJORITY OF CASES
WITH HUMAN TRAFFICKING ARE.
STEMMING FROM VICTIMS ARE
PROSTITUTES YOU HAVE WOMEN YOUNG
WOMEN YOUNG MEN BUT THE MAJORITY
OF THEM ARE WOMEN THAT HAVE NO
OTHER WAY TO GO BUT ON TO THE
STREETS THERE BECAUSE THEY START
OUT FROM THE FOSTER HOMES.
THEY ARE WORKING THEIR WAY
THROUGH THEIR SYSTEM BECAUSE OF
THE HORRIBLE CONDITIONS WITHIN
THEIR OWN HOMES THEY AND OUT ON
THE STREET WHERE THEY THEN
BECOME VULNERABLE.
TO A PIMP WHO THEN TURNS INTO A
HUMAN TRAFFICKER SO WHAT IS THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOMEONE THAT
IS SIMPLY PUMPING THEM BECAUSE
THEY WOEFULLY GO INTO WANTING TO
DO THE SEX ACTS. TO THE PERSON
THAT THAT BECOMES HUMAN
TRAFFICKING AND THAT IS.
VIOLENCE FORCE DURESS TO MAKE
THEM DO THE SEX ACTS THAT THEY
DO NOT WISH TO DO THAT THEY DO
NOT WANT TO DO BUT THEY HAVE NO
WAY OUT.
THESE WOMEN ARE BEAT REPEATEDLY
THEY ARE THREATENED THEY ARE --
HURT THEY ARE.
FORCED TO DO THINGS THAT THEY
DON'T WANT TO DO AND IT IS A
REPETITIVE LIFESTYLE THAT THEY
HAVE NO CHOICE.
FOR THE REASON THAT I BRING THIS
UP IS BECAUSE IT IS VIOLENT AT
ITS VERY CORE IT IS VIOLENT SO
WOMEN THAT ARE PROSTITUTES A YOU.
YEARS AGO USED TO SAY OR NOT WE
BUT THEY USED TO BE SO IT'S A
VICTIMLESS CRIME NOBODY CARES
AND I AND I SEE THE GREAT
STRIDES THAT WE'VE MADE.
IN SOCIETY AND IN CALIFORNIA
SPECIFICALLY WITH ALL THE NEW
LAWS TO HELP VICTIMS OF HUMAN
TRAFFICKING BUT WERE NOT ABLE TO
HELP THEM IF WE CAN'T STOP THE
CYCLE SO WHAT'S HAPPENING IS.
IT IN JUST IN THE TWO THOUSAND
FIFTEEN STUDY FROM SAN DIEGO
COUNTY THERE EIGHT THOUSAND
HUMAN TRAFFICKING VICTIMS ONLY
ONE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED EVEN
REPORTED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT
THERE'S A REASON WHY THOSE
NUMBERS ARE SO STAGGERING.
AND IT'S BECAUSE THERE'S A LACK
OF TRUST WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT
THERE'S A LACK OF TRUST WITH
DEALING WITH THE SYSTEM WHY
BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT THE
PERSON THAT HAS THAT CONTROL AND
THAT THEY ARE SO AFRAID OF FOR
THEIR LIVES.
WILL TURN AROUND AND BE RIGHT
BACK OUT ON THE STREET IT TAKES
A LOT OF TIME IT TAKES A LOT OF
A COMMITMENT TO WORK WITH -- THE
THESE WOMEN. TO GET TO KNOW THEM
FOR THEM TO TRUST US AND THEN
ONCE THAT.
TRUST IS RECEIVED.
THEN TO TRY TO PROSECUTE AND
THEY'RE TURNING AROUND AND
COMING RIGHT BACK OUT WITHOUT
HAVING TO SERVE THEIR FIRST
SENTENCES AND THAT IS THE THE
REASON FOR THE NEED FOR THE
SPELL.
WHAT IS HAPPENING IS I'VE HEARD
A LOT OF THINGS TODAY ABOUT
DIFFERENT THINGS OF -- REFORM IN
THE PRISON SYSTEMS AND ALL OF
THAT IS GOOD AND THERE ARE MANY
TYPES OF OTHER -- LAWS AND
PROPOSITIONS WHEN PEOPLE ARE NO
LONGER THREATS OR WHEN THEY HAVE
REFORMED BUT WHAT IS HAPPENING
AND IT IS REPEATEDLY HAPPENING
AND I'M HEARING ABOUT IT UP AND
DOWN THE THE STATE.
AT DIFFERENT CONFERENCES THAT I
ATTEND.
THEY ARE STILL CONTROLLING THEY
THE HUMAN TRAFFICKERS ARE STILL
CONTROLLING THEIR VICTIMS FROM
AND PRESENT THEY ARE STILL
GETTING THAT CONTROL THEY'RE
REACHING OUT TO THEM THEY ARE.
COURSING THAN THEY ARE STILL
HAVING THEM THEY'RE LIVING IN
FEAR AND SO WHY WOULD YOU
COOPERATE WORD ON THE STREET IS
NOTHING'S GOING TO HAPPEN.
MANY LARGER COUNTIES ARE EVEN --
BECAUSE IT DOESN'T.
IT'S VERY HARD TO WIN THE HUMAN
TRAFFICKING CASE IF YOU HAVE ONE
VICTIM BUT IF YOU HAVE TWENTY
THAT IS VERY INVOLVED IN HUMAN
TRAFFICKING.
THERE ARE NO ADDITIONAL
PUNISHMENTS FOR THOSE ADDITIONAL
VICTIMS AS WELL.
SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT WORKS
TELLING A HUMAN TRAFFIC VICTIM
IS.
YES WE ARE SORRY THIS HAPPENED
TO YOU BUT WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU
AS A VIOLENT.
THAT'S THE MESSAGE THAT'S BEING
SENT AT THAT IS NOT ADDED -- TO
IT BE CONSIDERED A VIOLENT
FELONY AS WELL.
SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU.
YES BRIEFLY MISS CHAIR MEMBERS
RYAN CHARMER WITH THE RIVERSIDE
SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION -- I ALSO
WANT TO POINT OUT THAT OPPONENTS
OF THE BILL HAVE ARGUED THAT
CURRENT CRIMINAL PENALTIES ARE
ADEQUATELY.
HARSH AND THEREFORE THERE'S NO
NEED -- TO STRENGTHEN THE
PENALTIES -- ADDITIONALLY THEY
THEY CLAIM THAT THERE'S SHOULD
BE THERE WILL BE NO INCREASE IN
THE DETERRENT EFFECT -- BY
INCREASING -- THAT THESE
PENALTIES AND WE WOULD STRONGLY
DISAGREE WITH THAT -- WE THINK
THAT -- IF SOMEBODY IS CONVICTED
AND IS GOING AWAY FOR A LOT
LONGER -- THEN CURRENTLY --
THERE'S A 1100%.
A SPECIFIC DETERRENTS FOR THAT
ONE INDIVIDUAL.
AND WE WOULD BELIEVE THAT IF
THEY'RE THEY'RE THEY'RE NOT OUT
ON THE STREET ACTIVELY --
ENGAGING -- IN THEIR OTHER
ACTIVITIES THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO
MAKE PHONE CALLS AND THEY MIGHT
BE ABLE TO SEND NOTES BACK AND
FORTH BUT THEY WOULDN'T
PHYSICALLY BE OUT THERE -- BEING
INVOLVED IN THE SAME HORRENDOUS
CRIMES AND FOR THOSE REASONS WE
SUPPORT THE BILL [inaudible]
THANK [inaudible]
ANY PUBLISHING.
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT SEAN UNDER
WHAT THE CALIFORNIA PEACE
OFFICERS ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT
THANK YOU.
ANY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU.
THANKS.
GOOD AFTERNOON.
KATHY SURE ON BEHALF OF THE ACLU
OF CALIFORNIA -- I THINK AGAIN
AND AGAIN THIS COMMITTEE HEARS
TESTIMONY ON BILLS THAT ARE
ABOUT SOME CRIME THAT IS
HAPPENING THAT THAT AND I THINK
THAT WE ALL AGREE THEIR TERRIBLE
CRIMES -- AND THEN THE BILL
LOGICAL ARGUMENT IS THAT BY
INCREASING THE PENALTY FOR THIS
CRIME -- WE WILL SOMEHOW STOP IT
OR AT LEAST PREVENT SOME
INSTANCES OF IT FROM HAPPENING
AND UNFORTUNATELY THAT THAT JUST
ISN'T TRUE WE WE KNOW THAT
INCREASING PENALTIES -- HAS HAS
NO DETERRENT EFFECT AND I THINK
THAT'S ESPECIALLY TRUE WHEN
WE'RE LOOKING AT SOMETHING LIKE
HUMAN TRAFFICKING WHICH IS
ALREADY SEVERELY PUNISHED UNDER
EXISTING LAW THE LOWEST PENALTY
UNDER EXISTING LAW FOR HUMAN
TRAFFICKING.
IS FIVE YEARS IN STATE PRISON --
AND THE PUNISHMENT IN SOME CASES
CAN BE LIFE IN PRISON AND THE
INCREASE PRISON TIME RESULTING
FROM MAKING THIS A VIOLENT
FELONY AND A STRIKE WILL DO
NOTHING TO FURTHER THAT THAT
DETER THE CRIME -- I ALSO WANT
TO POINT OUT THAT THE HUMAN
TRAFFICKING WAS SPECIFICALLY
RAISED IN ARGUMENTS AGAINST PROP
FIFTY SEVEN AS TO WHY THAT THAT
PROPOSITION SHOULD NOT BE
ENACTED.
AND THE VOTERS APPROVED THE
MEASURE HAVING HEARD THOSE
ARGUMENTS THE VOTERS UNDERSTOOD
THAT THE CHOICE THEY WERE MAKING
WAS WHAT WAS NEEDED TO FOR THAT
THIS STATE TO MOVE AWAY FROM
OVER INCARCERATION AND EVER
INCREASING PRISON COSTS.
ON THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD NOT BE
GOING BACK ON THAT CHOICE.
WE ASK FOR YOUR NO VOTE.
MARCO GEORGE FROM THE CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION --
I WOULD ECHO MISS YEARS COMMENTS.
BUT I GUESS SOME ALSO PARTIALLY
PUZZLED BY THIS BECAUSE I'M
HUMAN TRAFFICKING.
OF A MINOR WITH TO REST ON IS A
LIFE SENTENCE IS FIFTEEN TO LIFE.
AND BY DEFINITION OR LAID OUT IN
SIX SIX SEVEN POINT FIVE OF THE
OFFENSES THAT ARE VIOLENT
FELONIES IS ANY OFFENSE THAT IS
PUNISHABLE BY LIFE IN PRISON.
SO THIS THAT PART OF THIS IS
ALREADY -- A VIOLENT FELONYIT'S
ALREADY A STRIKE IT'S NOT AN
ISSUE.
ON THE OTHER PARTS OF OF THE TWO
THIRTY SIX POINT.
ONE WHICH IS -- WHAT THEY SEEK
TO MAKE A VIOLENT FELONY?
IS PUNISHABLE -- EITHER BY FIVE
EIGHT OR TWELVE YEARS IN STATE
PRISON.
OR EIGHTEEN FOURTEEN OR TWENTY
YEARS IN STATE PRISON.
AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY
BODY OF EVIDENCE ANYWHERE THAT
POSITS THAT FURTHER PRISON TIME
IS GOING TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM.
MY HEART GOES OUT TO THE YOUNG
MEN AND WOMEN WHO WERE FORCED
INTO THE SLIGHT.
AND I THINK THAT THE RESOURCES
THAT WOULD BE DEVOTED TO
INCARCERATING MORE PEOPLE NEED
TO BE PUT TOWARDS.
PREVENTION THEY NEED TO THERE
NEEDS TO BE SHELTERS FOR RUN
AWAYS THERE NEED TO BE MENTAL
HEALTH COUNSELING.
THERE NEED TO BE PLACES FOR
CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE TO GO
OVER AND VIEWS OF SITUATIONS --
THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE
THE RESOURCES GO TO SO WE WOULD
ASK FOR YOUR NOTEBOOK THANK YOU.
THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS [inaudible]
HEARING NONE.
YOU MAY CLOSE.
I THANK YOU VERY MUCH I WAS
GRATEFUL -- THE COMMITTEE PASSED
THIS EXACT BILL LAST YEAR AND I
JUST RESPECTFULLY ASK. FOR AN
AYE VOTE AT SEEMS ONE AGREEMENT
THAT ON A THAT TRAFFICKING OF A
MINOR SHOULD BE CONSIDERED
VIOLENT FELONY I THINK IT'S ALSO
A VIOLENT ACT -- WHEN IT'S
TRACKING A PERSON OF ANY AGE --
SO I THANK YOU VERY MUCH THE
COMMITTEE FOR ITS CONSIDERATION.
THANK YOU AND OUT ON
RECONSIDERATION FROM FROM LAST
YEAR OF THE CHAIRS RECOMMENDING
A NO VOTE -- REALLY BECAUSE THE
IMPLICATIONS OF THREE STRIKES
AND JUSTICE DISK.
YES UP HERE RIGHT.
BOTH CAMPS AND HUMAN TRAPPER
TRAFFICKERS I THINK THEY'RE
EQUAL TO HIS LOW ONE FORCE NEAR
THERE BUT THERE'S COMEDY ARTS
WHAT THAT'S THAT'S WITHOUT.
QUESTION -- I THINK TO SOME
EXISTING LAWS THAT WE HAVE.
TAKE CARE OF THAT WILL MOVE THAT
BUT WE REALLY NEED TO GET TO THE
ROOT OF THE PROBLEM OF THE YOUNG
WOMEN AND MEN THAT ARE IN THIS
SITUATION.
WE NEED TO GET THEM HELP.
AND WE NEED TO GET HIM HELP
EARLY EARLIER IN SOONER -- AS I
TALK TO INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE
[inaudible]
IN.
THE BUSINESS OF HUMAN
TRAFFICKING AND THEY TOLD ME
PART OF THE SOLUTION MIGHT BE.
OR SHOULD BE WE LOOKING AT NOT
MAKING IT PROFITABLE FOR THEM
AND THAT MAY BE GOING BACK AND
LOOKING AT AT BANKRUPT EDIE'S
INDIVIDUALS WHO GET INVOLVED IN
THIS AND MAKING IT REALLY HARD
TO MAKE MONEY OFF OF THIS.
IN ADDITION TO MAKING SURE WE
TAKE CARE OF OUR PEOPLE WHO ARE
INVOLVED IN THIS AND SO CHAIR IS
RECOMMENDING A NO VOTE.
ON AB SEVEN EIGHTY SIX THE
MOTION IS TO PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE JONES
SAWYER.
JONES ARE NO LACKEY.
LACKEY I'VE BAUER-KAHAN.
BAUER-KAHAN I DEEP.
DEEP I KAMLAGER-DOVE.
KAMLAGER-DOVE NO QUIRK NO QUIRK
KNOWS SANTIAGO.
SANTIAGO NOT VOTING WICKS NO
WICKS NOW THAT MEASURE.
I'M SORRY MEASURE FAILS
[inaudible]
BUT THAT.
YEAH I MEAN FOR RECONSIDERATION.
WITHOUT OBJECTION.
BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
NATURAL DO ANY ADD ONS OR VOTE
CHANGES.
ITEM NUMBER ONE WAS PULLED.
ITEM NUMBER TWO AB FIVE SIXTY
NINE KAMLAGER-DOVE.
KAMLAGER-DOVE NO SANTIAGO.
NINE I'M SORRY MISS CALENDAR
DEVON RECONSIDERATION NOW.
ON THE BILL BY SIXTY NINE
SANTIAGO NO ON RECONSIDERATION.
HE SAID I ON RECONSIDERATION OF
FIVE SIXTY NINE SAN DIEGO I ITEM
NUMBER THREE HAS.
JUST BEEN DISPENSED WITH.
ITEM NUMBER FOUR AB EIGHT
SEVENTY NINE KAMLAGER-DOVE HAVE.
YES KAMLAGER-DOVE I I DON'T
NUMBER.
NINE I'M SORRY ADAM NUMBER FIVE
WAS PULLED.
ITEM NUMBER SIX AB NINE TWENTY
SEVEN BARRY HAN HI BARRICADE HAD
I KAMLAGER-DOVE [inaudible]
KAMLAGER-DOVE I ITEM NUMBER
SEVEN EIGHTY NINE SIXTY FOUR
SANTIAGO.
SANTIAGO I ITEM NUMBER.
EIGHT AB NINE SIXTY FIVE THIS
MEASURE WAS ON CALL LACKEY NO
LACKEY NOPE BAUER-KAHAN.
BAUER-KAHAN I DEEP.
DEEP NOT VOTING.
SANTIAGO.
SANTIAGO AYE THAT MEASURE PASSES.
I DON'T NUMBER NINE WAS PULLED.
AT A NUMBER TEN WAS PULLED.
ITEM NUMBER ELEVEN WAS PULLED.
ITEM NUMBER TWELVE IS ON CONSENT.
ITEM NUMBER THIRTEEN AB TEN
SEVENTY SIX LACKEY.
LACKEY NO DEEP.
DEEP KNOWS SANTIAGO [inaudible]
YES SIR.
SANTIAGO I AM.
TEN SEVENTY SIX ITEM NUMBER
FOURTEEN AB TEN SEVENTY SEVEN
DEEP.
DEEP NO KAMLAGER-DOVE.
YES KAMLAGER-DOVE I ITEM FIFTEEN
AB TEN NINETY SIX BY MISS
MELENDEZ SANTIAGO [inaudible]
SANTIAGO NO.
I DON'T NUMBER SIXTEEN AB ELEVEN
TWENTY FIVE KAMLAGER-DOVE.
HI KAMLAGER-DOVE I ITEM
SEVENTEEN WAS ON CONSENT.
ITEM EIGHTEEN AB ELEVEN FORTY
FIVE AT THIS MEASURE WAS ON CALL
LACKEY NO.
LACKEY NOTE DEEP [inaudible]
DEEP NOT.
MA'AM I HAVE [inaudible]
OKAY.
DEEP NOT VOTING SANTIAGO.
BY MISS CRISTINA GARCIA.
CRISTINA GARCIA AT ONE THAT
MEASURE PASSES.
I DON'T KNOW YEAH.
YOUR NO NO.
BARRICADE CAM VOTE SHANGE NOT
VOTING TO NOW.
ITEM NUMBER NINETEEN ELEVEN
FORTY SEVEN THAT MEASURE SPEND
DISPENSED WITH.
ITEM NUMBER.
TWENTY AB ELEVEN EIGHTY FIVE
DEEP.
DEEP KNOWS SANTIAGO [inaudible]
SANTIAGO I ITEM TWENTY ONE AB.
TWELVE TWENTY ONE KAMLAGER-DOVE.
HI KAMLAGER-DOVE I ITEM NUMBER
TWENTY TWO THAT MEASURE WAS AND
CONSENT ITEMS TWENTY THREE WAS
ON CONSENT ITEM TWENTY FOUR ON
CONSENT.
ITEM TWENTY FIVE THIS MEASURE
WAS ON CALL A. B. TWELVE NINETY
SEVEN BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER MCCARTY
LACKEY.
LACKEY NOPE BAUER-KAHAN.
BAUER-KAHAN I DEEP.
DEEP NO KAMLAGER-DOVE OF PUTTING.
KAMLAGER-DOVE NOT VOTING
SANTIAGO SAN DIEGO I THAT
MEASURE PASSES.
ITEM NUMBER TWENTY SIX WAS ON
CONSENT.
THANK YOU AN AD IN THE PUBLIC
SAFETY COMMITTEE