GOOD MORNING. WELCOME TO THE ASSEMBLY
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE HEARING.
UM. I WOULD ASK FOR QUORUM,
EXCEPT I'M THE ONLY DEMOCRAT
HERE SO I'M SORRY, MR WEBER.
THANK YOU FOR NOT LEAVING ME BY
MYSELF. UM MR LACKEYS, LAUGHING
. IT UM. SO UM, I THINK I'M
SUPPOSED TO READ A BUNCH OF
STUFF. ALL WITNESS TESTIMONY
WILL BE IN PERSON. I REPEAT ALL
WITNESS TESTIMONY WILL BE IN
PERSON. THERE WILL BE NO PHONE
TESTIMONY OPTION FOR THIS
HEARING. YOU CAN FIND MORE
INFORMATION ON THE COMMITTEE'S
WEBSITE AT ASSEMBLY DOT CA.GOV.
BACKSLASH COMMITTEES. I GUESS WE
CAN BEGIN. UH, WELL, REAL QUICK
HOUSEKEEPING. UM WHAT'S OFF
CALENDAR TODAY? ESPECIALLY IF
YOU'RE HERE. UM BOTH WERE PULLED
BY THEIR AUTHOR. UM ITEM NUMBER
4 18 97 RODRIGUEZ PULLED BY
AUTHOR ITEM NUMBER EIGHT BAR CAR
ON PULLED BY THE AUTHOR. AND I
DON'T HAVE THE LIST OF WHO WHO
ARE THESE LISTS OF WHO SIGNED IT
AND HOPE IT IS. AH! WE'RE DOING
THIS AND SIGN IN ORDER. MR WARD
SIGNED IN FIRST, MR. HOOVER,
ALMOST SO WE'RE GONNA START AS A
SUBCOMMITTEE WON'T BE ABLE TO
VOTE UNTIL WE GET A QUORUM. IF
WE DO, WE MAY STOP ESTABLISH A
QUORUM VOTE ON YOUR ITEM. SO MR
WARD WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. ITEM
A B 78 WARD GRAND JURIES. THANK
YOU, MR. YEAH. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS GOOD TO BE
WITH YOU THIS MORNING. A B 78 IS
A REINTRODUCTION OF A BILL THIS
COMMITTEE HEARD LAST YEAR AND I
WANT TO THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE
REALLY GOOD QUESTIONS AND
PROGRESS THAT WE MADE. IT IS THE
FIRST STEP TO DIVERSIFYING GRAND
JURIES IN CALIFORNIA TO ENSURE
THAT THEY'RE TRULY
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
CONSTITUENTS THAT WE SERVE.
GRAND JURIES HAVE THE POWER TO
ACT AS A WATCHDOG FOR SOME
MEMBER OR MOST CONSEQUENTIAL
LOCAL AGENCIES AND OFFICIALS.
AND FORTUNATELY THE TIME
COMMITMENT AND LOW COMPENSATION
RATE FOR THE GRAND JURY SERVICE
EFFECTIVELY BAR MOST
CALIFORNIANS FROM SERVING,
ESPECIALLY THOSE FROM THAT
DISADVANTAGE AND LOW INCOME
COMMUNITIES. YOU'LL SEE FROM
YOUR ANALYSIS THAT IN 2001 WAS
THE LAST TIME BY STATUTE THAT
THE GRAND JURY RATE WAS SET AT
$15 PER DAY. TO IMMEDIATELY
ADDRESS THESE DISCREPANCIES. 78
MAKES THREE CHANGES TO THE GRAND
JURY SELECTION PROCESS. FIRST IT
WOULD REQUIRE ADDITIONAL
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA TO BE COLLECTED
DURING THE COUNTY GRAND JURY
SELECTION PROCESS FOR THE
PURPOSE OF YEARLY REPORTS TO THE
DIGITAL COUNSEL. SECOND IT WOULD
RAISE THE PER DIEM RATE FOR
GRAND JURORS TO MAKE A SERVICE A
MORE VIABLE OPTION FOR LOWER
INCOME INDIVIDUALS. AND THIRD,
IT WOULD PROVIDE EDUCATION TO
POTENTIAL JURORS, INCLUDING
INFORMATION ON HOW TO BECOME A
GRANDEUR DURING THE TRIAL JURY
SUMMONS THAT WE ALL GET IN THE
MAIL FOR WITNESSES. I HAVE BEEN
SUPPORT CYNTHIA CASTILLO WITH
THE WESTERN CENTER ON LAW AND
POVERTY AND I WOULD RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU.
YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU
. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS CYNTHIA
CASTILLO, NIMA POLICY ADVOCATE
FOR WESTERN CENTER ON LAW AND
POVERTY. WESTERN CENTERS, THE
STATE OLDEST AND LARGEST LEGAL
AID SUPPORT CENTER, WITH THE
GOAL OF ENDING POVERTY
THROUGHOUT THROUGH THE LENS OF
ECONOMIC AND RACIAL JUSTICE.
WE'RE PROUD TO SUPPORT A B 78,
WHICH WILL ENSURE THAT
DIVERSIFICATION OF GRAND JURIES
IN CALIFORNIA SO THAT THEY ARE
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE STATE'S
POPULATION. A KEY COMPONENT OF
THAT IS ALSO ENSURING THAT
JURORS ARE FAIRLY COMPENSATED
WITH THE END GOAL OF MAKING
GRAND JURY DUTY MORE ACCESSIBLE
FOR CALIFORNIA'S WITH LOW
INCOMES. CALIFORNIA'S GRAND JURY
PROCESS IS DRIVEN BY EVERYDAY
CALIFORNIANS WHO VOLUNTEERED
THEIR TIME TO SERVE AND ENSURE
THAT THEIR LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS
RESPONSIVE AND FAIR TO THEIR
COMMUNITY. GRAND JURIES PERFORM
TWO PRIMARY ROLES WHICH TO
EVALUATE THE VALIDITY OF CHARGES
BEING BROUGHT BY A PROSECUTOR
AND THE OTHERS TO INQUIRE INTO
AND INVESTIGATE THE OPERATIONS
OF COUNTY AGENCIES AND OFFICIALS
. IN THIS LATTER FUNCTION GRAND
JURIES ACT AS A CRITICAL
WATCHDOG TO A CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENTS, SUCH AS SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT IN DETENTION
FACILITIES. TWO INSTITUTIONS
THAT HISTORICALLY INVOLVED THE
DETENTION AND PROSECUTION OF LOW
INCOME PEOPLE OF COLOR.
ADDITIONALLY THEY OVERSEE THE
ISSUING OF CRIMINAL INDICTMENTS
AND INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF
PUBLIC CORRUPTION. UNFORTUNATELY
CALIFORNIA'S DEEP RACIAL
DISPARITIES AND ACCESS TO
JUSTICE AND INCOME AND WEALTH
HAVE RESULTED IN A GOLF
OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE OF
COLOR TO SERVE THEIR CIVIL DUTY.
THESE CHANGES, IN OUR VIEW ARE
NECESSARY FROM A RACIAL JUSTICE
AND EQUITY PERSPECTIVE. JURIES
PLAY A CRITICAL ROLE IN THE
LIVES OF CALIFORNIANS INVOLVED
IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM,
DISPROPORTIONATELY PEOPLE OF
COLOR AND THOSE LIVING IN
POVERTY AND WHO ARE OVER
POLICED, DIVERSE AND
REPRESENTATIVE JURY WILL ALSO
BUILD THE PUBLIC'S TRUST AND
CONFIDENCE IN OUR COURTS. MAYBE
78 MAKES THE NECESSARY CHANGES
TO PROVIDE EQUAL ACCESS TO GRAND
JURY SERVICE. AND WE URGE AND I
VOTE. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK
YOU. NOW OPEN IT UP ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT. YOU CAN
COME TO THE MICROPHONE, NAME AND
ORGANIZATION. GOOD MORNING.
LESLIE CALDWELL, HOUSTON IN
SUPPORT ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION, AND ALSO ON BEHALF
OF MYSELF AS A FORMER CIVIL
GRAND JURY MEMBER. THANK YOU.
NATASHA AND SCORE A HAT ON
BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTOR'S
ALLIANCE OF CALIFORNIA AND
SUPPORT GOOD MORNING, ED LITTLE
ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIANS FOR
SAFETY AND JUSTICE AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. AND NOW WE'RE HERE
FOR WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. WELCOME. YOU HAVE
FIVE MINUTES. TWO OF US. YOU
BOTH HAVE FIVE MINUTES ANYWAY.
YOU WANT TO SPLIT IT UP? THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS. I'M CAITLIN DEAN,
LEGISLATIVE ADVOCATE WITH THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES REPRESENTING ALL 58
COUNTIES. REGRETTABLY, WE ARE
OPPOSED TO MAYBE 78 UNLESS IT IS
AMENDED. MY COMMENTS TODAY ARE
MADE ON BEHALF OF C SACK THE
URBAN COUNTIES OF CALIFORNIA AND
THE RURAL COUNTY REPRESENTATIVES
OF CALIFORNIA. WHERE REGRETTABLY
OPPOSED UNLESS THIS MEASURE IS
AMENDED TO FULLY ADDRESS THE
CONSIDERABLE COSTS IT WOULD
IMPOSE ON COUNTY GOVERNMENTS
WHILE WE APPRECIATE AND
ENCOURAGE INCREASED DIVERSITY,
THIS BILL WOULD ADD UNBUDGETED
COSTS TO COUNTY BUDGETS. OUR LOW
END ESTIMATE IS ABOUT $16.9
MILLION OF NEW AND UNANTICIPATED
COUNTY GENERAL FUND COSTS.
SPECIFICALLY IF THE AMOUNT IS
RAISED FROM $15 A DAY TO THE 70%
OF THE COUNTY MEDIAN DAILY
INCOME, IT WOULD LIKELY COST LOS
ANGELES COUNTY AN ADDITIONAL
760,000 MERCED COUNTY ABOUT
200,000 AND STANISLAS ALMOST
230,000 JUST TO PROVIDE A FEW
EXAMPLES. I WILL STRESS THAT
THIS IS A SUPER CONSERVATIVE
ESTIMATE, AND THE NUMBERS WERE
CALCULATED BASED OFF OF THE
BUREAU OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
DATA. COSTS CAN BE CONSIDERABLY
HIGHER THAN THIS, GIVEN THAT OUR
ESTIMATES REFLECT A CONSERVATIVE
PROJECTION OF THE NUMBER OF
MEETINGS PER COUNTY, AND I'LL
ALSO NOTE THAT THESE ESTIMATES
ASSUME THAT THE BILL LANGUAGE
DOES NOT EXPAND THE NUMBER OF
DAYS THAT THE STIPEND APPLIES,
AND IT ALSO ASSUMES THAT THE
NUMBER OF GRAND JURY MEETINGS
WILL REMAIN STATIC. OUR ESTIMATE
IS BASED ON INFORMATION REPORTED
BY COUNTIES ON CIVIL GRAND
JURIES ONLY, ALTHOUGH THE BILL
WOULD ALSO APPLY TO CRIMINAL
GRAND JURIES. IN MOST COUNTIES
PER CAPITA REVENUES HAVE NEVER
RECOVERED FROM THE RAVAGES OF
THE GREAT RECESSION IN REAL
DOLLARS, AND SO, THEREFORE WE
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE
PROVISIONS IN SECTION TWO OF THE
BILL PROVIDING FOR INCREASED
COMPENSATION BE AMENDED TO APPLY
ONLY IN THE YEARS OF THE STATE
BUDGET HAS PROVIDED A SUFFICIENT
APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE PURPOSE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
MY NAME IS KAREN JAR. I'M HERE
REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA
GRAND JURORS ASSOCIATION. CG J
IS A FIVE OH ONE C THREE
NONPROFIT THAT'S BEEN PROVIDING
TRAINING TO GRAND JURORS FOR
ALMOST TWO DECADES. WE TRAIN
OVER 1100 GRAND JURORS EACH YEAR
AND OUR TEAMS OF TRAINERS
PRESENT THESE TRAININGS AT 19
SEPARATE VENUES. WE ALSO CONDUCT
MICCOLI TRAINING FOR THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS AND THE
COUNTY COUNCILS WHO PROVIDE
CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES TO THE
GRAND JURY. I'M A FORMER COUNTY
COUNCIL MYSELF HAVING HELD THE
POSITION OF SHASTA COUNTY
GRANDEUR. EXCUSE ME, SHASTA
COUNTY COUNCIL FOR 17 YEARS
BEFORE I RETIRED. EVERY ONE OF
OUR MEMBERS IS A VOLUNTEER. WE
DO THIS WORK WITHOUT PAY BECAUSE
WE BELIEVE THAT CIVIL GRAND
JURIES ARE THE MOST ARE ONE OF
THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAYS TO
PROMOTE GOOD GOVERNMENT. AT THE
LOCAL LEVEL. WE RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED A B 78 UNLESS IT'S FULLY
STATE FUNDED. WE BELIEVE THE
BILL WOULD IMPERIL THE ABILITY
OF CIVIL GRAND JURIES TO DO
THEIR JOB TO ACT AS THE WATCHDOG
OVER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS EACH
YEAR. THESE GRAND JURIES
COLLECTIVELY ISSUE ABOUT 350
REPORTS CONCERNING LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS SUCH AS COUNTIES,
SCHOOL DISTRICTS, DISTRICTS AND
CITIES. THESE REPORTS CAN REVEAL
FINANCIAL IRREGULARITIES. POOR
BUSINESS PRACTICES, VIOLATIONS
OF THE LAW AND OCCASIONALLY
OFFICIAL CORRUPTION. BUT OF
COURSE, THEY CAN ALSO REVEAL
WHEN LOCAL ENTITIES ARE DOING
PARTICULARLY GOOD JOB. BUT
IMPORTANTLY, NO OTHER
INSTITUTION IS CHARGED WITH A
ROUTINE INVESTIGATION INTO THESE
LOCAL ENTITIES. THIS OVERSIGHT
IS ESSENTIAL TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY WITHOUT THE LOCAL
COUNTY GRAND JURY, MANY
GOVERNMENTAL PROBLEMS WOULD
NEVER COME TO LIGHT. WE AGREE
THAT THE MINIMUM UH PER DIEM OF
$15, AS IT APPEARS IN THE LAW
TODAY IS TOO LOW BUT RAISING THE
PER DIEM TO THE AMOUNTS THAT ARE
REFLECTED IN THIS BILL WOULD
HAVE SIGNIFICANT UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES, ACCORDING TO THE
DATA COMPILED BY C SAC. UNDER
THIS BILL, THE PER DIEM WOULD
INCREASE TREMENDOUSLY AND IT
WOULD VARY COUNTY TO COUNTY FROM
ABOUT $99 TO $443. PER COUNTY.
THE MEDIAN WOULD BE ABOUT $150.
ACCORDING TO THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, THE PER DIEM IS
REQUIRED ONLY FOR PLENARY
SESSIONS WHEN THE ENTIRE JURY
MEETS. PLENARY IS USUALLY LAST
AN HOUR OR TWO AND EACH GRAND
JURY ON AVERAGE MEETS IN PLENARY
SESSION 2 TO 4 TIMES PER MONTH
HOWEVER, THE GREAT MAJORITY OF
THE GRAND JURY'S CIVIL WATCHDOG
ACTIVITIES DON'T OCCUR AT THE
PLENARY. GRAND JURIES DIVIDE
THEMSELVES INTO THE COMMITTEES,
AND IT'S AT THE COMMITTEE LEVEL
WHERE MOST OF THE WORK IS
ACTUALLY DONE. MOST JURORS WORK
15 TO 25 HOURS PER WEEK AND
ALMOST ALL THAT TIME OR THE
GREAT MAJORITY OF THAT TIME IS
SPENT ON THESE COMMITTEES
ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE TO CONDUCT
THE INVESTIGATIONS AND WRITE THE
REPORT. THE INVESTIGATIONS
INCLUDE INTERVIEWS, SITE VISITS
AND OTHER COMMITTEE WORK.
CURRENTLY THE LAW ALLOWS
COUNTIES TO ADOPT ORDINANCES
THAT CAN INCREASE THE DOLLAR
AMOUNT OF THE STATUTORY PER
DIEM. AND OR APPLY THE PODIUM TO
OTHER GRAND JURY ACTIVITIES,
INCLUDING THESE NECESSARY
COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES, AND ABOUT
40% OF THE COUNTIES HAVE DONE SO
MANY HAVE INCREASED THE PER DIEM
TO 20 TO $25 STILL QUESTIONABLY,
UH, APPROPRIATE. AND WE
UNDERSTAND THAT MOST OF THE
COUNTIES PAY THE PER DIEM NOT
JUST FOR THE PLENARY, BUT ALSO
FOR ANY DAY A JUROR ATTENDS ONE
OF THESE COMMITTEE MEETINGS OR
ACTIVITIES. BECAUSE OF THE
COUNTY'S BEING STRAPPED FOR
MONEY. IT IS A CONCERN TO US
THAT THEY MAY CHOOSE TO REPEAL
THESE ORDINANCES AND GO BACK TO
THE POINT WHERE THEY'RE ONLY
PAYING FOR THE PLENARY SESSIONS
, WHICH TAKE PLACE 2 TO 4 TIMES
PER MONTH. BUT THIS COMMITTEE
ACTIVITIES ARE ESSENTIAL MINUTES
ARE UP. WRAP UP PLEASE ESSENTIAL
TO PROPER AND THOROUGH
INVESTIGATION AND IF THE GRAND
JURORS ARE PAID NOTHING FOR
THEIR COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES,
FEWER OF THESE ACTIVITIES WILL
TAKE PLACE AND WE BELIEVE THAT
THIS WILL IMPAIR GOVERNMENT
OVERSIGHT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TIME. THANK YOU. AND OR ANY
OTHER WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER WITNESSES
AND OPPOSITION? CNN WILL BRING
IT BACK TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR
ANY QUESTIONS. COMMENTS, MR
WEBER. SO SOMEBODY MEMBER WORD I
WANT TO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
THIS. I THINK IT'S REALLY AN
IMPORTANT BILL, AND I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
ACTUALLY HAVE DIVERSITY IN GRAND
JURIES. I DID HAVE ONE QUESTION
ABOUT THE BILL, AND THAT IS ON
THE DATA COLLECTION. IT DIDN'T
LOOK TO ME LIKE DATA IS BEING
COLLECTED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION
AND GENDER IDENTITY UNDER THE
BILL, AS YOU KNOW, L G B T Q.
PLUS PEOPLE, HOWEVER,
REPRESENTED IN THE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM AND MAKING SURE
THAT WE HAVE DIVERSE GRAND
JURIES. ALSO UM IT'S IMPORTANT
THAT THAT EXTEND TO THE LGBTQ
PLUS COMMUNITY. I DO THINK THE
BILL WOULD BENEFIT LGBTQ PLUS
GRAND JURORS SO PLAN ON
SUPPORTING IT, BUT I WAS
WONDERING IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN
WHETHER YOU'D BE OPEN TO
INCLUDING SO G DATA AS PART OF
THE FINAL BILL, AND AS IT MOVES
THROUGH THE PROCESS. THANK YOU.
SOME MEMBERS OF OUR ABSOLUTELY
I'M OPEN TO THAT WILL BE HAPPY
TO WORK ON THAT AND WITH YOU FOR
POSSIBLE FUTURE AMENDMENTS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS. YOU MAY
CLOSE. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS REALLY APPRECIATE THIS
HEARING TODAY AND, YOU KNOW, I
HEARD. I THINK A LOT OF
AGREEMENT WITH THOSE IN
OPPOSITION THAT THE INSTITUTION
IS IMPORTANT THAT THERE ARE SOME
CHALLENGES WITH THE STRUCTURES
THAT WE HAVE TODAY THAT NEED
IMPROVEMENTS, AND I'M HAPPY TO
WORK ON THE BUDGET ISSUES DURING
FISCAL COMMITTEE. I RESPECTFULLY
ASK YOUR I VOTE. OKAY AND WE
DON'T HAVE A QUORUM YET SINCE WE
DO WILL VOTE ON IT, BUT I ALSO
WANT TO REMIND MEMBERS,
ESPECIALLY NEW MEMBERS TO THE
COMMITTEE. UM, THIS IS A POLICY.
COMMITTEE NOT THE FISCAL
COMMITTEE. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WARD
WILL HAVE THAT CHALLENGE. WHEN
HE GOES THROUGH APPROPRIATIONS.
AND THE OPPOSITION THEN CAN MAKE
THEIR THEIR THEIR STATEMENTS
THEN BECAUSE THAT'S THE
APPROPRIATE PLACE WHERE IT
SHOULD BE. COMING FROM LOCAL
GOVERNMENT. THEY HAVE DEFINITELY
HAVE A POINT AND WE DO AS A
STATE GOVERNMENT. WE SHOULDN'T
BE DOING UNFUNDED MANDATES DOWN
ON PEOPLE, SO HOPEFULLY WE CAN
WORK OUT SOMETHING SO THAT WE
DON'T CASH STRAPPED LOCAL
MUNICIPALITIES, SO I, BUT I
TRUST SOMEBODY. MEMBER WARD WILL
WORK HARD ON THAT TO MAKE THAT
HAPPEN. AND I THINK THE CHAIR OF
BUDGET SO FIVE IS HERE. SO UH,
NOT HERE RIGHT NOW, BUT, UH, SHE
MAY HAVE A HAND IN HELPING YOU
GET THERE, TOO. SO WITH THAT.
THANK YOU. AND AS SOON AS WE
HAVE A QUORUM WORLD WILL RETURN
TO THE MEASURE. THANK YOU. NOW
MR CONNELLY, YOU'RE RIGHT. I'M
SORRY, MR HOOVER. I'M SORRY,
HOOVER. I'M SORRY. I APOLOGIZE.
SIGN IN ORDER. I CAN'T READ
EARLY IN THE MORNING. I HAVEN'T
HAD MY COFFEE. HAVE A CORNER. WE
DO HAVE A POEM NOW. SECRETARY
CALLED THE ROLE. JOHN SAWYER
HERE. BANTA. BRIAN LACKEY,
ORTEGA SANTIAGO ZIPPER. ALL
THOSE PRESENT, LET'S TAKE UP THE
ITEM. TAKE UP THE CONSENT
GALLERY. JUST POSITIVE. NO
WORRIES. TAKE CARE OF SOME
HOUSEKEEPING ON THE PROPOSED
CONSENT CALENDARS. WE HAVE FOUR
ITEMS. ITEM NUMBER FOUR A B 253
MAIENSCHEIN CHILD DEATH
INVESTIGATIONS REVIEW TEAMS ITEM
NUMBER SEVEN A B 271 QUIRK-SILVA
HOMELESS DEATH REVIEW COMMITTEES
. ITEM NUMBER NINE A. B 303
DAVIES FIREARMS PROHIBITED
PERSONS ITEM NUMBER 10. 83 13,
VINCE BOND CORRECTIONS
NOTIFICATIONS. IS THERE A MOTION
TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSED CONSENT
CALENDAR? SECRETARY CALLED THE
ROLE. AND THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
JOHN SAWYER, JOHN SAWYER. I
ALANIS ALANIS, I BANTA. BRIAN
LACKEY, A LACKEY. I ORTEGA
ORTEGA I SANTIAGO. ZIPPER
ZIPPER? AYE. CONSENT CALENDARS
ADOPTED LOOKING GOOD LIKE WE'RE
GOING TO DO. GET THROUGH THIS
FAIRLY QUICKLY, UM MR HOOVER
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY, ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR. ONE 75
HOOVER'S SHOPLIFTING AND PETTY
REPEAT CRIMES. WONDERFUL. CAN
EVERYONE HEAR ME? YES THANK YOU
, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS. I
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT ASSEMBLY BILL 75 TO YOU
. THIS BILL WOULD PROVIDE A
COMMON SENSE CHANGE TO
PROPOSITION 47 BY RESTORING
PENALTIES FOR SERIAL THEFT
DEFENDERS WHO HAVE MULTIPLE
THEFT RELATED CONVICTIONS. I
WANT TO START OUT BY THANKING
THE CHAIR AND THE CHP FOR THEIR
CONTINUED EFFORTS TO COMBAT
ORGANIZED RETAIL THEFT. I KNOW
THIS HAS BEEN A PRIORITY FOR
THIS COMMITTEE. AND THIS IS
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT WORK THAT
THAT MUST CONTINUE THAT SAID. I
ALSO URGED THAT MORE WORK NEEDS
TO BE DONE TO HELP OUR SMALL
BUSINESS OWNERS AND RESIDENTS
WHO ARE BEING IMPACTED BY RISING
RETAIL THEFT ON A SMALLER SCALE
IN THEIR COMMUNITIES AS WELL. AT
THE HEART OF THE PROBLEM, IN MY
VIEW IS A LACK OF
ACCOUNTABILITY. AND OUR CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM DUE TO CHANGES
FROM PROPOSITION 47. WHEN YOU
CALL SOMETHING A CRIME, BUT THEN
REMOVE ALL CONSEQUENCES FOR THAT
CRIME. IT BECOMES A CRIME IN
NAME ONLY. I WOULD ARGUE THAT A
CRIME IN NAME ONLY IS NO LONGER
A CRIME. WHEN WE COMMUNITY
COMMUNICATE TO THE PUBLIC THAT
THERE WILL BE NO CONSEQUENCES
FOR CERTAIN ACTIONS THAT SOCIETY
DEEMS UNACCEPTABLE. WE CAN
EXPECT TO SEE AN INCREASE IN THE
FREQUENCY OF THOSE ACTIONS NOW.
OPPONENTS OF THIS BILL WILL
ARGUE THAT THE STATISTICS SIMPLY
DO NOT SUPPORT THESE CONCLUSIONS
. BUT WHEN YOU EFFECTIVELY
DECRIMINALIZED THE CRIME, THAT
ACTION WILL NO LONGER BE
REPORTED. AS SUCH. WHY WOULD A
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER REPORTED
CRIME THAT THEY KNOW WILL NOT BE
PROSECUTED. THIS IS AN ONGOING
ISSUE THAT ONE OF MY WITNESSES
WILL DISCUSS AND FURTHER DETAILS
WELL. SOMETHING ELSE THAT THIS
STATISTICS DO NOT SHOW ARE THE
THOUSANDS OF STORIES FROM
COMMUNITIES ACROSS OUR STATE
FROM SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS FROM
RESIDENTS IN EACH OF OUR
COMMUNITIES, AND I'M SURE ALL OF
OUR OFFICES HAVE HEARD FROM FROM
THEIR CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE OR
FROM RESIDENTS WHO SAY THAT
RETAIL THEFT CAR BREAK INS.
THESE TYPES OF CRIMES HAVE NEVER
BEEN WORSE. WE NEED TO ASK
OURSELVES WHY. TODAY. I BROUGHT
TWO OF MY CONSTITUENTS WITH ME,
BECAUSE, UM, I WANT YOU TO HEAR
HOW THIS IS ACTUALLY IMPACTING
OUR COMMUNITIES ON THE GROUND,
NOT JUST IN THEORY, BUT IN
REALITY. WITH ME TODAY TO MY
RIGHT IS THE MAYOR OF THE CITY
OF FOLSOM. ROSARIO RODRIGUEZ,
WHO IS ALSO A SMALL BUSINESS
OWNER IN OUR COMMUNITY, AND THEN
NEXT TO HER IS FORMER SACRAMENTO
COUNTY SHERIFF JOHN MCGINNESS,
WHO WILL BE SHARING SOME
TESTIMONY FROM A PUBLIC SAFETY
PERSPECTIVE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. YOU'RE BOTH WELCOME. YOU
BOTH HAVE FIVE MINUTES TOTAL.
WHATEVER WAY YOU WANT TO SHARE
IT. OKAY SO IS THIS OKAY? WELL
GOOD MORNING CHAIR AND MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS
ROSARIO RODRIGUEZ. I AM A LOCAL
RESTAURANT OWNER IN HISTORIC
FOLSOM AND SERVE AS THE CITY'S
MAYOR. ONE DOES NOT NEED TO GO
FAR TO HEAR THE IMPACT OF SHOP
FLIPPING HAS DONE IN OUR
COMMUNITIES. I CAN JUST TALK TO
MANAGERS FROM ULTA DICK'S
SPORTING GOODS VICTORIA'S SECRET
ANOTHER MAJOR REAL TELLERS,
DEATHS ARE RAMPANT. THE FOLSOM
POLICE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE
SEVERAL TIMES A WEEK TO
INVESTIGATE THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
OF STEPS PROP 47 DAMAGED THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. THE
THREAT OF JAIL IS NO LONGER A
DETERRENT. THESE NOW GO TO
BUSINESSES WITH SHOPPING LIST.
THERE IS NO CONCERN ABOUT
STEALING BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT
THEY WON'T GO TO JAIL IN 2021
FULL SOME BUSINESSES EXPERIENCE
AT 1.4 MILLION IN LOSSES AND
353,000 IN SHOPLIFTING ALONE.
THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY NEEDS OUR
GOVERNMENT TO CREATE LAWS THAT
PROTECT BUSINESSES. IT IS LAWS
LIKE PROPERTY, SEVEN THAT MAKE
IT TOUGH TO DO BUSINESS IN
CALIFORNIA BECAUSE OF THE LACK
OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND I WILL
TURN IT OVER TEMPERATURE, MR
MCGINNIS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MR CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS APPRECIATE
YOUR TIME VERY MUCH AND A COUPLE
OF OBSERVATIONS. FIRST OF ALL,
AS MR HOOVER ELUDED, A LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IS NOT AS
INCLINED TO REPORT SOMETHING
WHEN HE BELIEVES THERE'S NO
CONSEQUENCES TO FOLLOW THAT WILL
NOT PRODUCE ANYTHING. BUT
PERHAPS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT, THE
GENERAL PUBLIC VICTIMS OF CRIME
ARE NOT REPORTING BECAUSE THE
PREVAILING BELIEF IS NOTHING
WILL COME OF THAT THAT
PREVAILING BELIEF EXISTS AMONG
THE RETAIL COMMUNITY AMONG
SOCIETY AT LARGE AS WELL,
FRANKLY AS THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
COMMUNITY AND THOSE WHO ARE
INCLINED TO OFFEND SO THERE'S NO
DOUBT THAT I RECOGNIZE VERY MUCH
THE FACT THAT THIS IS AN ADVERSE
IMPACT WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE
LAST EIGHT YEARS NOW, NINE YEARS
ALMOST AS A RESULT OF
PROPOSITION, 47 THE IMPACT ON
RETAIL BUSINESS ON THE CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE ON PEOPLE WANTING TO
JUST LIVE THEIR LIFE AND PURSUE
THEIR INTERESTS AND GO OUT,
AMONG OTHERS, BECAUSE THERE'S A
SENSE OF FEAR THAT EXISTS, BUT I
THINK THERE'S A KIND OF A LOST
AND FORGOTTEN PART OR COMPONENT
AND THAT IS THOSE OFFENDERS
THEMSELVES. AND YOU MIGHT BE
SURPRISED TO HEAR THAT I'M A 40
YEAR LAW ENFORCEMENT GUY. AH BUT
THE UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES THAT
WE TALK SO MUCH ABOUT ARE REAL.
THAT'S A VERY REAL PART OF THE
PROBLEM WE HAVE TODAY AND TO
HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE INCLINED TO
STEP OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF
ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR VERY EARLY
IN THEIR LIVES AND COMMIT THAT
WILL BE GENERALLY THINK OF AS AS
AS MINOR CRIMES AND NOT FEEL THE
CONSEQUENCES FOR THAT. I THINK
FORESEEABLY AND PREDICTABLY PUT
SOMEONE A PATH. AND WAS THERE A
LIKELY TO ENGAGE IN MORE SERIOUS
KINDS OF CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT?
AND SO IT'S A DISSERVICE TO
THEM. IT'S DESSERT, THIS SERVICE
TO EVERYBODY. IT IT HAS, I THINK
REALLY, TRULY DAMAGED CONFIDENCE
IN THE SYSTEM, SO I APPRECIATE
THIS BILL VERY MUCH DURING THE
COURSE OF MY LAW ENFORCEMENT
CAREER. I HAD OCCASION TO MAKE
ARREST FOR VIOLATION OF PENAL
CODE SECTION 666 PETTY THEFT
WITH A PRIOR I TESTIFIED ON MANY
SHOPLIFT CASES. I NEVER
TESTIFIED ON A FELONY
PROSECUTION FOR 666 BECAUSE THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS HAVE THE
DISCRETION TO DEAL WITH THOSE
APPROPRIATELY AND DID SO. BUT
IT'S MY BELIEF AND I DON'T HAVE
ANY HARD EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT
THIS, BUT I THINK IT'S LOGICAL
AND LEGITIMATE OBSERVATION THAT
PEOPLE WHO FEARED THAT
CONSEQUENCE OF A FELONY
PROSECUTION FOR ADDITIONAL THEFT
CRIMES WILL MODIFY THEIR
BEHAVIOR, AND THERE'S ALSO
OPPORTUNITIES THAT THAT I THINK
COULD BE INTRODUCED ALONG THE
LINES OF REDIRECTING THEM IN A
MORE POSITIVE WAY. APPRECIATE
YOUR TIME VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT? GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR
COREY SOESILO ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE SHERIFF'S
ASSOCIATION IN SPORT. THANK YOU,
CORY. NAME AND ORGANIZATION.
THANK YOU. KIM STONE STONE
ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT. RICHARD
HEILER. I LIVE IN FOLSOM. I'M IN
SUPPORT. CAN I READ A STATEMENT?
NAME IT OR THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, AUDREY WROTE A CHECK
FROM CRUZ STRATEGIES ON BEHALF
OF THE ORANGE COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER WITNESSES
AND SUPPORT. NOW WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION. ARE THERE ANY.
EXCUSE ME. COULD YOU ALLOW THEM
TO SIT YEAH. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS ED LITTLE
WITH CALIFORNIANS FOR SAFETY AND
JUSTICE. I COME BEFORE YOU TODAY
AND RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION TO
MAYBE 75. EVERY 75 SIGNALS A
RETURN TO BUILD TOUGH ON CRIME
POLICIES OF THE PAST AND WHAT
UNDERMINED PUBLIC SAFETY BY
INCREASING THE COSTLY AND
COUNTERPRODUCTIVE INCARCERATION
IN STATE PRISON FOR SOME OF THE
LOWEST LEVEL CRIMES AND THE
STATE PENAL CODE. MAYBE 75
PROPOSALS TO MAKE IT EASIER. TO
CHARGE NON VIOLENT CALIFORNIA'S
WITH FELONIES AND GO BACK TO THE
SAME SHORTSIGHTED, TOUGH ON
CRIME MEASURES THAT HAVE FAILED
CALIFORNIA FOR THE PAST THREE
DECADES. IT IS YET ANOTHER
ATTEMPT TO GO DOWN THE PATH OF
CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA VOTERS
HAVE ALREADY NOT ONCE BUT TWICE
REJECTED. REPEALING PARTS OF
PREP 47. WOULD RIDE OUR LOCAL
COMMUNITIES OF HUNDREDS OF
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT PROP 47
WILL SAVE THEM ANNUALLY. THESE
SAVINGS ARE RE ALLOCATED BACK TO
COMMUNITIES FOR PROVEN CRIME
PREVENTION PROGRAMS THAT ADDRESS
THE ROOT CAUSES AND STOP THE
CYCLES OF CRIME. AND THE
GOVERNOR'S 2023 JAN. BUDGET THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE ESTIMATES
A NET GENERAL FUND SAVINGS OF
JUST OVER $100 MILLION FOR PROP
47. TODAY THIS WOULD BRING THE
GRAND TOTAL TO JUST OVER $700
MILLION, OR THREE QUARTERS OF A
BILLION DOLLARS. CONTRARY TO THE
FIELD NARRATIVE THAT HAS BEEN
PERPETUATED ABOUT PROP 47 BY
SOME STAKEHOLDERS, PROP 47 IS
NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR SOME SORT OF
CRIME WAVE. EVEN SOME OF THOSE
WHO HAVE PROPAGATED THIS FALSE
ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN FORCED TO
RETRACT THEIR STATEMENTS. IN AN
ARTICLE ENTITLED, WALGREENS
ADMITS IT MAY HAVE CRIED WOLF
OVER THEFT. MAYBE WE CRIED TOO
MUCH LAST YEAR OR GREEN CFO
JAMES CO. HE SAID DURING THE
COMPANY'S MOST RECENT EARNINGS
CALL ON JANUARY 5TH. NOW THAT
WALGREENS HAS ADMITTED IT MAY
HAVE OVERDONE THINGS WITH ITS
RESPONSE. THE NEXT STEP COULD
INCLUDE CUTTING BACK ON SOME OF
THE IN STORE SECURITY OR HAVING
FEWER PRODUCTS BEHIND PLASTIC
CASINGS. BUT OVERALL, COHEE SAYS
, THAT WALGREENS IS QUITE HAPPY
WITH WHERE WE ARE. FOR THESE
REASONS. WE ARE OPPOSED TO MAYBE
75. WE STRONGLY URGE YOU TO VOTE
NO ON THIS POLICY. GOOD MORNING.
TO THE ENTIRE COMMITTEE. PEOPLE
BEHIND ME. MY NAME IS LESLIE
CALDWELL, HOUSTON I PRACTICE
CRIMINAL DEFENSE FOR NEARLY 40
YEARS AND FOR 10 YEARS AND FOR
THE 10 YEARS BEFORE I RETIRED, I
WAS THE CHIEF DEFENDER
DEPARTMENT, HEAD OF A MID SIZED
PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE. I'M
HERE ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION TO MAYBE
75. ONCE AGAIN WE HAVE AN
ATTEMPT TO INCREASE THE
PENALTIES ON PETTY THEFT IF THE
INDIVIDUAL HAS THREE OR MORE
PETTY PRIOR PETTY THEFT
CONVICTIONS, NO MATTER HOW LONG
AGO THE CONVICTIONS OCCURRED.
MAYBE 75. PROPOSES TO MAKE IT
EASIER TO CHARGE NON VIOLENT
CALIFORNIANS WITH FELONIES AND
PUT THEM IN JAIL FOR MULTIPLE
YEARS. I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THE
FACT THAT A MISDEMEANOR CARRIES
SIX MONTHS IN JAIL. AND IN SOME
SITUATIONS A YEAR IN JAIL. THAT
IS A LONG TIME. IF YOU THINK
ABOUT SOMETHING IN YOUR LIFE
THAT THAT LASTED SIX MONTHS OR A
YEAR, THAT WASN'T GOOD. YOU WILL
KNOW THAT'S A LONG TIME. IF THE
POLICE DON'T REPORT THE CRIMES
TO THE D A. OR IF THE D A.
DOESN'T PROSECUTE. THAT'S THE
PROBLEM, NOT THE SENTENCE.
THERE'S A TALK ABOUT A LACK OF
ACCOUNTABILITY, BUT THE
ACCOUNTABILITY GOES IN MY MIND
TO THE POLICE AND PROSECUTORS
WHO WON'T PROSECUTE THE CRIMES,
THUS LEADING THE PUBLIC TO HAVE
LESS FAITH IN THE SYSTEM. IT'S
NOT THE SENTENCE. IT'S THE LACK
OF HOLDING PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE BY
THE POLICE. AND THE PROSECUTORS.
2014 CALIFORNIA VOTERS
OVERWHELMINGLY FAVORED
PROPOSITION 47, A PROPOSAL THAT
KEPT NONVIOLENT OFFENDERS OUT OF
PRISON AND REDUCE PENALTIES FOR
MINOR DRUG AND THEFT OFFENSES
NOT DISSUADED IN 2020 TOUGH ON
CRIME ADVOCATES TRY IT AGAIN TO
PERSUADE THE PUBLIC TO REPEAL
PROP 47 VIA PROP 20 AGAIN. THE
CALIFORNIA VOTERS REJECTED THE
ATTEMPT TO RETURN TO MASK
INCARCERATION. MAYBE 75 IS
ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO GO DOWN THE
PATH THAT VOTERS OF OUR STATE
HAVE TWICE REJECTED AND GOOD
JUSTICE POLICY DOES NOT SUPPORT
FOR THESE REASONS, WE
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR NO
VOTE ON A B 75. THANK YOU. ARE
THERE ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION? NAME AND
ORGANIZATION. THANK YOU. JIM
LINDBERG ON BEHALF OF THE
FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION
IN CALIFORNIA, ALSO IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. GOOD
MORNING KARMA. NICOLE COX FOR
AXIAL YOU CALIFORNIA ACTION IN
OPPOSITION. DANICA ROAD, ARMEL
ON BEHALF OF INITIATION
OPPOSITION. GOOD MORNING, GLENN
BACCHUS FOR ELLA BAKER CENTER
FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. NOW WE'LL BRING IT
BACK TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR
ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS.
SINGING. FIRST OFF. I'D LIKE TO
THANK ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S HOOVER
FOR BRINGING THIS TO OUR
ATTENTION. UM. WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT CRIMINALS THAT BASICALLY
HAVEN'T LEARNED THEIR LESSONS
FROM WHAT I'M GATHERING AND
SHERIFF AND GUINNESS WHICH YOU
BROUGHT UP AND I QUOTE YOU SAID
NOTHING WILL COME OF THIS IS
WHAT THE, UH THE OWNERS ARE THE
VICTIMS OF THE THEFT HAVE SAID,
UH WHAT DO YOU THINK? WHY DO YOU
THINK THEY WOULD SAY THAT?
NOTHING WOULD COME OF THIS
BECAUSE WE'VE SEEN RAMPANT
EVIDENCE OF THAT REALITY. YOU
HAVE PEOPLE IN REVOLVING DOOR
JUSTICE. PEOPLE ARE NOT
NOTWITHSTANDING WITH THE LAW
CALLS FOR PRESCRIBES FOR
SENTENCING FROM MISDEMEANOR
CRIME. SHOPLIFTERS ARE NOT
SERVING TIME IN CUSTODY AT ALL.
AND SO THAT THE REALITY IS I
THINK EVERYBODY IN THIS ROOM AND
THESE CHAMBERS HAVE SEEN IMAGES
ON TELEVISION OF GRAND SCALE
RETAIL THEFTS. AND WHAT ARE THE
CONSEQUENCES? WHAT BEFALLS THE
PEOPLE WHO ENGAGE IN THAT
ACTIVITY. SO WHAT I ENVISION IS
A YOUNG PERSON. WHO'S STEPPING
OUT OF THE THEY'RE TESTING THE
WATERS FOR THE FIRST TIME IN
THEIR LIFE. THEY FEEL ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING FOR IT. ARE THEY MORE OR
LESS LIKELY TO REOFFEND IN THE
FUTURE? AND THE ANSWER? I THINK
IS OVERWHELMINGLY. YES, I WANT
TO STOP THAT. I WANT TO STOP
THAT PROGRESSION, AND THAT'S WHY
I APPRECIATE MR HOOVER'S BILL.
OKAY THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND
JUST SO YOU GUYS KNOW IN MY
DISTRICT I KNOW IN THE CITY OF
TURLOCK, THEY HAD JUST ARRESTED
SOMEBODY WHO HAD ABOUT 22, OR 23
BENCH WARRANTS INVOLVING
SHOPLIFTING, SO IT CONTINUED AND
CONTINUED GOING BACK TO THE
POINT THAT THE OPPOSITION
BROUGHT UP THAT THE D. A S
OFFICE IS NOT PROSECUTING MOST
OF THESE CRIMES AND THAT FROM
WHAT MY EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN FROM
BEING IN THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE
FOR OVER 20 YEARS IS THAT THEY
HAVE TO TRIAGE JUST LIKE MOST
PEOPLE HAVE TO DO ALSO, AND IF
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GET A
SENTENCE THAT'S GOING TO BE
EQUITABLE TO THE TIME THAT IS
USED BY THE D A S, THEN THEY'RE
NOT GOING TO SPEND THEIR TIME
DOING THAT, WHEREAS THEY'RE
GOING TO SPEND THEIR TIMES MORE
ON HEINOUS CRIMES FELONIES THAT
ARE INVOLVED. UH, ALSO, I'D LIKE
TO BRING UP THAT A LOT OF THE
BUSINESSES IN MY DISTRICT ARE
LEAVING BECAUSE OF PROP 47. I'VE
HEARD THAT FROM THEIR MOUTHS
BECAUSE OF PROP 47 BECAUSE OF
THE CHARGES THAT AREN'T THERE TO
SUBSTANTIATE THE PENALTIES, OR
THE PENALTIES ARE NOT THERE FOR
THE CRIME, SO I'VE ACTUALLY SEEN
PEOPLE WALK OUTSIDE OF LIKE HOME
DEPOT THAT WERE NOT TOUCHED
BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY CAN GET
AWAY WITH IT, AND THAT'S GOING
ON ACROSS CALIFORNIA, AND I
THINK THAT'S WHAT'S TRULY GOING
ON THROUGHOUT OUR STATE. THANK
YOU GUYS. THANK YOU. YAKKING. IF
I COULD JUST ASK MR MCGUINNESS
ONE MORE TIME IF HE WOULD
ELABORATE WHY HE THINKS THAT
THIS MEASURE WOULD SERVE AS A
PREVENTION. TOUR BECAUSE I THINK
THAT'S WHAT WE ALL WANT IS
PREVENTION. AND IF I COULD HAVE
YOU RE ELABORATE WHY? YOU THINK
THIS MIGHT BE A PREVENTATIVE
MEASURE? HAPPY TO MR LUCKY? I
BELIEVE THAT WHEN PEOPLE ARE
CONFRONTED WITH DECISIONS TO
MAKE IF THERE'S A PROFOUND
BELIEF THAT THE CONSEQUENCES FOR
ENGAGING IN CERTAIN HIGH RISK OR
UNLAWFUL BEHAVIOR ARE
SIGNIFICANT, IT MINIMIZES THE
LIKELIHOOD THAT THEY WILL
REOFFEND. I CAN TELL YOU FROM
THE TIME THREE STRIKES AND
YOU'RE OUT PAST I WAS A HOMICIDE
DETECTIVE AT THAT TIME
INTERVIEWING SUSPECTS. AND
WITNESSES TO VARIOUS KINDS OF
CRIMES. THEY KNEW THEIR STRIKE
TALLY BETTER THAN I DID, AND
THEY WERE ABSOLUTELY INFLUENCED
BY THAT, IN TERMS OF THEIR
BEHAVIOR THOSE ASSOCIATED WITH
PEOPLE WHO COMMITTED SERIOUS
EGREGIOUS CRIMES. I THINK THE
EXACT SAME THING IS TRUE HERE AT
THE TIME OF ARREST AT THE TIME
OF CONFRONTATION ON THOSE RARE
OCCASIONS WHEN IT HAPPENS IN
RETAIL THEFT. THE DEFENDANTS.
THE SUSPECTS ARE VERY LIKELY TO
SAY YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING TO ME.
THEY CITE PROPOSITION 47. THEY
KNOW THAT IT WILL NOT FEEL THE
CONSEQUENCES. THAT'S OBVIOUSLY
NOT GOOD FOR ALL THE OTHER
PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED GROUPS OF
PEOPLE RETAIL THE GENERAL PUBLIC
AT LARGE THE PUBLIC COFFERS
QUITE FRANKLY, WHEN THOSE THOSE
TAKING IT TAKING OF THE OF THAT
MERCHANDISE DOESN'T INVOLVE THE
AN OPPORTUNITY TO GENERATE
RETAIL THAT SALES TAX BUT IT'S
ALSO THE OFFENDERS THEMSELVES.
AND I THINK ALL OF US HAVE AN
OBLIGATION TO ENSURE TO THE
GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE THAT
THEY DON'T REOFFEND THAT THEY
GET ON A PATH TO A BETTER LIFE.
AND THIS DOES NOT DO THIS BILL
OFFERS THAT PROP 47 HAS NOT AND
I APPRECIATE THAT REMARK BECAUSE
I THINK UM, WE GET CAUGHT UP IN
THE OLD, TIRED ARGUMENT ABOUT
WHEN THEY'RE WHEN THEY'RE
ACTUALLY WAS A TIME WHEN WE MAY
HAVE OVER PENALIZED, BUT WHAT
THIS BILL ADDRESSES THESE REPEAT
OFFENDERS REPEAT. SO THESE
PEOPLE HAVE NO INCENTIVE TO
STOP. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING
TO ADDRESS. AS THE REPEAT
OFFENDERS. AND. I WOULD THINK
THAT EVERYBODY HERE IN THE SENSE
OF FAIRNESS AND ESPECIALLY THE
RETAIL. IT'S GOTTEN TO THE POINT
TO WHERE, AS MR MCGUINNESS HAS
INDICATED THAT, UH THEY DON'T
BELIEVE MANY OF THESE PEOPLE
DON'T BELIEVE THERE ARE ANY
CONSEQUENCES. AND SO THEY'RE
INCENTIVIZED TO ENGAGE IN THIS
BEHAVIOR. I WILL TELL YOU THAT I
HAVE ONE OF MY, UM CHILDREN WHO
HAVE THEY'RE NOT CHILDREN.
THEY'RE YOUNG ADULTS NOW, UH,
ACTUALLY WORKED IN THE RETAIL.
AND THEY WERE ADVISED BY THEIR
MANAGER THAT WHEN THEY SAW
SOMEBODY ENGAGED IN THEFT, THERE
WERE NOT EVEN TO BRING ATTENTION
TO IT. THAT IS WHAT'S HAPPENING
. THIS IS REALITY. AND I DON'T
THINK THAT ANYBODY ON THIS DIET
FEELS THAT THAT'S ACCEPTABLE.
LEAST I HOPE NOT. BECAUSE OF IF
SO, OUR SOCIETY IS DOOMED. UM
AND WE NEED TO HAVE SOME MEASURE
OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND SOME
MEASURE OF PREVENTION. I THINK
THAT THAT'S A REASONABLE REQUEST
, AND THAT'S WHY I'M SUPPORTING
THIS BILL. THANK YOU. BRIAN.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR,
RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH MY
COLLEAGUES. UM THE REASON PEOPLE
COMMIT PETTY THEFTS IS BECAUSE
OF POVERTY. THE REASON THEY
CONTINUE TO REPEAT PETTY THEFT
IS BECAUSE THEY ARE STILL POOR
BECAUSE WE LIVE IN A STATE THAT
HAS A BIFURCATED SENSE OF
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, AND THERE
ARE FAR TOO MANY PEOPLE WHO ARE
LEFT OUT AND THAT'S BEEN
EXACERBATED BY THE PANDEMIC. I
WAS READING THAT WALGREENS
ARTICLE WHILE I WAS SITTING UP
HERE. HOPING SOMEBODY WOULD
BRING IT UP. WE THINK WE OVER
BLEW IT LAST YEAR. WE THINK WE
WENT TOO HARD. WE THINK WE WERE
CRYING TOO LOUD. BECAUSE
EVERYTHING STABILIZED AND THIS
IS COMPLETELY NEGLIGIBLE FOR US.
THE MOST COMPELLING PART OF THE
WITNESS'S TESTIMONY THAT I HEARD
EARLIER STARTED WITH THE WORDS I
DON'T HAVE ANY HARD EVIDENCE TO
SUPPORT WHAT I'M ABOUT TO SAY.
AND THEN WENT ON TO TALK ABOUT A
YOUNG PERSON COMMITTING PETTY
THEFT. AND THAT WE SHOULD HIT
THEM HARD SO THEY DON'T GO DOWN
THAT SLIPPERY SLOPE. I CAN
PROMISE YOU. YOU HIT THEM HARD
AS A YOUNG PERSON. THAT SLOPE
HAS BEEN SOLIDIFIED FOREVER.
PROP 47 HAS SAVED OUR STATE $700
MILLION THAT HAVE BEEN
REINVESTED INTO YOUTH
PROGRAMMING REINVESTED INTO
PREVENTION WORK REINVESTED INTO
VICTIMS SERVICES. WE STILL
TRIGGER A FELONY IF YOU STILL
OVER $1000 OF GOODS. WHICH MEANS
YOU CAN TRIGGER A FELONY 100
TIMES BEFORE YOU MATCH THE
AMOUNT WE WILL SPEND TO
INCARCERATE YOU FOR ONE YEAR.
THE RESOURCES OF THE STATE COULD
BE BETTER SERVED ALLEVIATING
POVERTY, CLOSING THE GAP IN
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY NOT GOING
BACK DOWN. THE ROAD OF MASS
INCARCERATION THAT WE'VE BEEN
DOWN FOR MANY DECADES. I CAN'T
VOTE FOR THIS. YES. I TELL YOU.
GOOD MORNING. THANKS FOR BEING
HERE TODAY. YOU KEEP MENTIONING
THE WORD CONSEQUENCES AND
HITTING THEM HARD. SO CAN YOU
EXPLAIN TO ME IN YOUR WORLD AND
WHAT YOU'VE SEEN? WHAT DOES THAT
MEAN CONSEQUENCES AND HITTING
THEM HARD. THAT MEANS IF A
PERSON COMMITS A THEFT OF THE
FIRST TIME AND THEY'RE INCLINED
TO DO IT AGAIN. THEY HAVE A
DECISION TO MAKE. IF THEY RE
OFFEND IN A SIMILAR FASHION, AND
THEN DO IT AGAIN, BY THE WAY,
BECAUSE THIS ACTUALLY CALLS FOR
THREE SUCH ACTS OF BEHAVIOR,
THEY WILL FEEL SIGNIFICANT
CONSEQUENCES FOR THAT, NOT
UNLIKE OTHER FORMS OF PUNISHMENT
. PEOPLE GENERALLY COMPLY WITH
THE SPEED LIMIT BECAUSE THEY
DON'T WANT TO COSTLY TICKET.
GENERAL PEOPLE RESIST THE
TEMPTATION TO DO CERTAIN THINGS
IN LIFE BECAUSE THERE ARE
CONSEQUENCES. AND I THINK THIS
IS NO DIFFERENT. TO IMPOSE
CONSEQUENCES ON PEOPLE WHEN THEY
DO BAD THINGS. THEY TAKE
PROPERTY FROM SOMEBODY ELSE. AND
WITH DUE RESPECT TO MR BRIAN, I
HAVE EVER ARRESTED A LOT OF
SHOPLIFTERS IN MY CAREER. I
DON'T REMEMBER EVER ARRESTING A
SINGLE PERSON FOR STEALING FOOD
. NOT ONCE EVER MAKE UP WAS THE
MOST COMMONLY STOLEN MERCHANDISE
. THAT'S NOT AN ACT OF BORN OUT
OF POVERTY. THAT'S SOMETHING
THAT A PERSONAL WANTS THAT
SOMEBODY ELSE HAS, AND THEY'RE
GOING TO TAKE IT. AND I
UNDERSTAND THAT I UNDERSTAND
THAT THERE THAT DOESN'T MEAN
THEY'RE A HARDENED CRIMINAL.
THEY SHOULDN'T BE TREATED
ACCORDINGLY. BUT WHEN YOU HAVE
REPEAT OFFENSES OF THAT NATURE,
AND THEY DON'T GET THE MESSAGE
WE HAVE AS A SOCIETY HAVE
COLLECTIVELY DONE THEM A
DISSERVICE. I CAN TELL YOU GOING
BACK TO MR LACKEYS, FORMER LIFE
AS A YOUNG PERSON MYSELF. VERY
YOUNG PERSON. I WAS ONE ONCE. I
WAS A CHRONIC HABITUAL TRAFFIC
VIOLATOR. I GOT TWO CITATIONS
WITHIN A PERIOD OF A WEEK AND
HAD TO GO SEE THE TRAFFIC COURT
COMMISSIONER WITH MY MOTHER. SHE
WAS SO PROUD AND I SAY
SARCASTICALLY, BUT THAT
COMMISSIONER TOLD ME I'M GONNA
GIVE YOU A BREAK. BUT IF YOU
COME THROUGH THAT DOOR AGAIN,
YOU'RE GONNA GET YOU'RE GONNA
WIND UP IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU
GET ANOTHER VIOLATION, YOU'RE
GONNA GO FROM 0 TO 3. AND GUESS
WHAT? THAT HAD A PROFOUND IMPACT
ON THE WAY I BEHAVED ON THE ROAD
THEREAFTER, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE
OTHER PEOPLE HAVE THE BENEFIT OF
THAT PHILOSOPHY AND NOT REOFFEND
AND NOT PUT THEMSELVES ON A PATH
TO A LIFE THAT IS NOT REWARDING
, NOT GRATIFYING AND NOT GOOD
FOR THEM OR THOSE AROUND THEM.
THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE YOUR
RESPONSE. ALTHOUGH YOU WERE
TALKING TO MY COLLEAGUES ON THE
OTHER SIDE, I ASKED THE QUESTION
. UM SO AGAIN. WHAT DO YOU SAY,
HITTING THEM HARD? WHAT DO YOU
MEAN? IMPOSING A CONSEQUENCE
THAT THAT DETERS THEM FROM
SIMILAR BEHAVIOR IN THE FUTURE.
I DON'T MEAN PHYSICALLY HITTING
THEM. OBVIOUSLY, I MEAN
INPUTTING A CONSEQUENCE IN THEIR
PATH. THAT WILL HAVE AN IMPACT
ON HOW THEY CHOOSE TO BEHAVE.
THANK YOU. I WILL BE VOTING NOW.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS. MR HOOVER,
REMEMBER? WHO ARE YOU? ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE
THE SPIRITED DEBATE AND AGAIN
THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THIS
BILL. I THINK TO GET IT BACK TO
KIND OF WHY I BROUGHT THE BILL
FORWARD. YOU KNOW, FIRST OF ALL
TO MIKE, UM ASSEMBLY MEMBER
BRIAN. YOU KNOW, I CERTAINLY
WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT NO ONE
HERE IS SUGGESTING THAT A SIMPLE
, YOU KNOW PETTY THEFT CRIME
SHOULD YOU KNOW WE SHOULD LOCK
SOMEONE UP AND THROW AWAY THE
KEY. THAT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT
SOMETHING THAT WORKS. I WILL,
YOU KNOW, SAY THAT RIGHT NOW,
RIGHT ON THIS DIET, SO I AM NOT
. THAT IS NOT WHAT WE ARE
ADVOCATING FOR, UM, THAT BEING
SAID, I ALSO THINK THAT A SYSTEM
WHERE IN REALITY, AND THE
REALITY ON THE GROUND IS THAT
THERE ARE NO CONSEQUENCES OF ANY
KIND. UM UH, CERTAINLY NOT ONES
THAT ARE ABLE TO REALLY BE
PROSECUTED. I THINK THAT IT'S
IMPORTANT THAT WE STRIKE A
BETTER BALANCE THAN WE CURRENTLY
HAVE TODAY. SO I DO APPRECIATE
YOUR COMMENTS, AND I CERTAINLY
WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR THAT I
AM REALLY JUST SEEKING A BETTER
BALANCE THAN YOU KNOW THE STATUS
CORNER PROP 47 TO THE POINT
ABOUT WALGREENS. YOU KNOW, I
WANT TO KIND OF BRING THIS BACK
TO WHY I BROUGHT THE BILL
FORWARD, YOU KNOW, WITH ALL DUE
RESPECT TO WALGREENS, WALGREENS
, YOU KNOW PROBABLY HAS A I CAN
PROBABLY TAKE A LARGER HIT, I
GUESS FINANCIALLY FROM SOME OF
THE SOME OF THESE CRIMES. THE
REASON I INTRODUCED THIS BILL
WAS REALLY TO HELP OUR SMALL
BUSINESSES AND ARE AND JUST OUR
RESIDENTS. UM YOU KNOW, I HEAR
YOU KNOW, MY COMMUNITY IS MADE
UP OF A LOT OF SMALLER RETAILERS
. A LOT OF SMALLER BUSINESSES
THAT ARE IMPACTED BY BY THEFT,
AND THEY ARE NOT IN THE POSITION
LIKE WALGREENS, MAYBE WHERE THEY
CAN REALLY ABSORB THIS LARGE
AMOUNT OF THEFT. THE MAYOR FROM
FOLSOM EARLIER THE MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS IN THEFT OUR COMMUNITY
EXPERIENCES EVERY YEAR. THAT IS
A PROBLEM FOR OUR BUSINESS
OWNERS. I'M NOT I'M NOT EVEN
HERE TALKING ABOUT THE BIG
COMPANIES, ALTHOUGH I KNOW THEY
ARE IMPACTED, TOO, BUT ARE SMALL
BUSINESS OWNERS. REALLY NEED OUR
HELP FROM MY VIEWPOINT AND SO
JUST TO CLOSE, UM, YOU KNOW, I
THINK SOMEONE IN THE OPPOSITION
TALKED ABOUT THE VOTERS, AND I
THINK THAT WAS HELPFUL. SO LET'S
TALK ABOUT THE VOTERS, ACCORDING
TO A RECENT èC BERKELEY TIMES
SORRY, U C. BERKELEY L A TIMES
POLL. NEARLY 60% OF VOTERS IN
CALIFORNIA SAY THEY WANT TO SEE
CHANGES TO PROP 47 A B 75. THIS
BILL GIVES THEM THE OPPORTUNITY
THAT OPPORTUNITY. ALL WE ARE
ASKING IS THAT VOTERS GET THE
OPPORTUNITY TO DECIDE THIS AND
SEE IF THIS CHANGE IS SOMETHING
THAT THEY WANT. THE VOTERS HAVE
MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT THE
STATUS QUO WAS NOT WORKING.
THEY'VE MADE IT VERY CLEAR THEY
WANT TO SEE A BETTER BALANCE
MORE ACCOUNTABILITY. AND I THINK
WE OWE IT TO OUR SMALL BUSINESS,
A SMALL BUSINESS COMMUNITY AS
WELL TO PROVIDE THIS AND SO I
THINK WE NEED TO LOOK SERIOUSLY
ABOUT, UM YOU KNOW WHAT THE
VOTERS ARE SAYING, UM, ALMOST 10
YEARS AFTER PROP 47 HAS PASSED
WITHOUT I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
AND I VOTE. THANK YOU. AND, UM.
LET ME TRY TO KIND OF A PRACTICE
FOR YOU BECAUSE YOU'RE YOUR
FRESHMAN LEGISLATOR. UM YOU YOU
WEREN'T HERE WHEN THE GOVERNOR
MYSELF. AND UH AND BEGRUDGINGLY
MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE PUT IN
THE ORGANIZED RETAIL THEFT BILL,
WHICH PASSED WHICH HAS AMAZING
SUCCESS. WHEN UTILIZED AND USED
. LAW ENFORCEMENT AND D A S HAVE
FOUGHT AGAINST IT. UM SO THE
HELP. AND THE $200 MILLION THAT
THIS GOVERNOR PUT IN TO MAKE IT
HAPPEN AND MOVE AND BE
SUCCESSFUL. HAS BEEN THWARTED.
BYE. PASSIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT,
BASICALLY, LAW ENFORCEMENT,
SAYING YOU KNOW WHAT? I'VE
DECIDED? I'M NOT GOING TO DO
THIS LAW. BECAUSE I DON'T FEEL
LIKE IT'S HARD ENOUGH. LET ME
TELL YOU ABOUT HARD ENOUGH. WE
USED TO HANG PEOPLE FOR STEALING
CATTLE. BUT THAT RESONATE WITH
YOU BEFORE A WHILE. THREE
STRIKES. TALK ABOUT
CONSEQUENCES. IT WOULD BE IN
JAIL FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE
AND WE FILL WE FILLED EVERY
PRISON TO OVERCAPACITY. SO THIS
ARGUMENT ABOUT. IF YOU PUT
CONSEQUENCES ON PEOPLE THEY WILL
STOP. THE ONLY CONSEQUENCES WAS
WE INCARCERATED, MORE PEOPLE WHO
LOOK LIKE ME A LOT OF MEMBERS ON
THIS COMMITTEE. THEN WE DID
OTHERS. AND THAT WAS THE
CONSEQUENCES OF THAT. AND SO
THAT ARGUMENT. IT'S PROBLEMATIC
IN THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF
PEOPLE IF YOU WERE ASKED THE
QUESTION. DO YOU WANT TO
INCARCERATE A LOT OF PEOPLE OF
COLOR? THEY WILL SAY NO BUT THE
ULTIMATE DECIDER. BECAUSE WE ARE
YOU KNOW, WE'RE WE'RE LIKE THE
OFFICIALS. WE DO. POLLS. POLLS.
GO UP. GO DOWN. YOU HAVE THE
RIGHT THING. BUT THE ULTIMATE
DECIDER, THOUGH, IS THE VOTE.
AND THE VOTERS AND THE VOTERS
HAVE OVERWHELMINGLY DECIDED THAT
THIS APPROACH PROP 47 IS THE WAY
TO GO. YOU CAN DO A POLL
TOMORROW THE NEXT DAY THE NEXT
DAY. BUT IT'S ABOUT WHAT
ULTIMATELY IS VOTED UPON THAT
MAKES A DIFFERENCE. NOW. I MEAN,
DO WHAT I DID BEFORE BECAUSE I
TOOK A LOT OF HEAT BECAUSE WE
ACTUALLY DID. AND INSTITUTED
FELONIES WITH ORGANIZED RETAIL
THEFT. WE FOUND A WAY TO MOVE ON
THAT. WE PROBABLY NEED TO ALL
SIT DOWN BECAUSE I WANTED TO
REALLY DO WANT TO HELP SMALL
BUSINESSES. WE ARE, WE HAVE TO
DO IT. BUT WE ALL HAVE TO ROW IN
THE SAME BOAT. UM WHEN I HEAR
THAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY SINCE
SOMEONE TO JAIL. FOR
SHOPLIFTING. BUT THEN I HEAR ON
THE OTHER SIDE. THERE ARE NO
CONSEQUENCES. WHAT'S WORTH.
WHERE'S THE WHERE'S THE PROBLEM?
THE PROBLEM HAS TO BE WITH
INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE MADE THE
DECISION THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING
TO PROSECUTE. THEY'RE NOT GOING
TO WHETHER IT'S PROGRESSIVE
PROSECUTORS OR WHETHER IT'S D A
S WHO DON'T LIKE THE PROPERTY.
SEVEN LAWS THAT DON'T WANT TO DO
IT. WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY USING
LAWS. Tð DO WHAT WE NEED TO DO
BRING PEOPLE IN AND DEAL WITH
THEIR POVERTY, DRUG ABUSE. UM
SOME HAVE MENTAL HEALTH
PROBLEMS. TELLING SOMEONE THAT
HAS A MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEM
WHO'S STEALING? THAT THEY'RE
GOING TO UNDERSTAND THEIR
CONSEQUENCES ISN'T SAYING ITSELF
IN THE SAME PROPOSITION ON ITS
MERIT. SO IF WE JUST STOP. AND
TAKE DOWN ALL THE RHETORIC. IT
REALLY START TALKING ABOUT
REHABILITATION AND HOW WE GET
PEOPLE PATH SO THEY DON'T HAVE
TO BE INVOLVED IN THIS ANYMORE.
WE CAN IF WE JUST REALLY FOCUSED
DOWN WITH THE MONEY THAT WE'RE
SAVING. $230 MILLION. WE'RE
GOING TO SAVE FROM CLOSING 10
PRISONS AND PUT THAT MONEY BACK.
AND TO REHABILITATION. AND INTO
MAKING SURE WE CLOSED THE
POVERTY GAP. AND ULTIMATELY IN
THE SCHOOL TO PRISON PIPELINE,
WHICH IS BUT I THINK WE AGREE.
THAT'S THE CRAZY PART. WE AGREE
ON CLOSING THE SCHOOL TO PRISON
PIPELINE. DISAGREE ON THE
METHODOLOGY, BUT WE DO AGREE
THAT WE NEED TO STOP IT. BUT AT
THIS POINT AT SOME TIME, WE'VE
GOT TO WORK TOGETHER. AND WE'VE
GOT TO HAVE LAW ENFORCEMENT AS A
PARTNER IN THIS OR IF THEY DON'T
WANT TO BE A PARTNER OF THIS THE
THOSE CITIZENS OF THIS STATE
WILL CONTINUE TO CREATE LAWS.
THAT THEY'RE NOT GONNA LIKE. BUT
AT THE END OF THE DAY, THEY'RE
GOING TO HAVE TO BECAUSE IT'S
THE LAW AND THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS, NOT LAW DECIDER
OFFICERS. SO I UNDERSTAND WHERE
YOU'RE GOING. I UNDERSTAND YOU
WANT TO DROP THE LEVEL. BUT
LET'S GIVE ME ONE MORE THING. UM
TO ASSUME THAT THAT THIEVES. ARE
ARE NOT VERY SMART. UM JUST
BECAUSE YOU LOWER THE THRESHOLD
THAN ME, THEY DON'T DO WHAT
THEY'RE DOING NOW. JUST KEEP
STEALING UNDER THAT THRESHOLD,
BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT GETTING TO
THE ROOT CAUSES, WHICH IS WHAT
MR BRIAN IS SAYING, GET TO THE
ROOT CAUSES OF WHY THIS IS
HAPPENING. NOT TRYING TO FLAP,
EVERYBODY. FOR DOING SOMETHING,
AND I'LL LEAVE YOU WITH THIS.
LOOK WHEN I WHEN I WOULD FORCE
MY KIDS TO DO SOMETHING THEY
WOULD SCREW IT UP BECAUSE THEY
DIDN'T WANT TO DO IT. AND NO
MATTER HOW MUCH PUNISHMENT I DID
, THEY WOULD CONTINUE TO DO IT
UNTIL THEY DID. I WANT TO DO IT
ANYMORE. AND SO YOU NEED TO
UNDERSTAND HUMAN BEHAVIOR, NOT
FROM A PUNISHMENT STANDPOINT.
BUT TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO
STOP WHAT THE ROOT CAUSES OF IT.
BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY UM
THAT'S THE ONLY WAY WE'RE GOING
TO NOT ONLY STOP THIS, BUT THE
OTHER THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING.
AND CRIME IN THE SOCIETY, AND WE
REALLY SHOULD START THAT
DISCUSSION NOW AND IF YOU'RE
SERIOUS ABOUT THIS, MR HOOVER.
IF YOU WANT TO ENGAGE IN THAT
KIND OF DIALOGUE WHERE WE COME
UP WITH BETTER PROGRAMS TO STOP
ALL OF THIS AND GET PEOPLE OUT
OF POVERTY. I THINK YOU HAVE A
LOT OF WILLING MEMBERS. ON THIS
COMMITTEE READY TO WORK WITH
YOU. UNFORTUNATELY I CAN'T
SUPPORT IT TODAY. BUT I'M GOING
TO LEAVE THE DOOR OPEN BECAUSE
WE DO NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR
SMALL BUSINESS STAY THRIVING.
BUT MOST IMPORTANT THAT WE DON'T
CREATE ANOTHER. PRISON
INDUSTRIAL SYSTEM. BECAUSE THIS
IS JUST A QUICK AND EASY THING
TO DO. SO MOTION TO MOVE THE
ISSUE. MANUFACTURER CALLED THE
ROAD. AND MAYBE 75 BY SOME OF
THEM ARE HOOVER. THE MOTION IS
DUE PASSED THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE JOHN SAWYER SAWYER.
NO, ALANIS. I WANT TO KNOW TO
KNOW BRIAN BRIAN. NO LACKEY A
LACKEY. I ORTEGA ORTEGA. NO
SANTIAGO. ZABAR BURN Ó. I'M
SORRY THEY MEASURED PATH DOESN'T
PASS. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALMOST A
GIFT. I KNOW. UM. MR CONNELLY.
YOU'VE BEEN VERY PATIENT. A B
92. I DON'T NUMBER THREE. DONALD
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. IT'S A PLEASURE TO
BE HERE. I'D LIKE TO BEGIN BY
THANKING THE COMMITTEE AND STAFF
FOR THEIR WORK AND INPUT ON THIS
BILL AND I WILL BE ACCEPTING THE
COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS. MASS
SHOOTINGS ARE AN EPIDEMIC IN THE
UNITED STATES, ACCORDING TO
EVERY TOWN GUN SAFETY. THERE
HAVE BEEN 290 MASS SHOOTINGS IN
THE US AND JUST THE LAST 13
YEARS, RESULTING IN 1626 PEOPLE
SHOT AND KILLED AND AN
ADDITIONAL 1075 PEOPLE. SHOT AND
WOUNDED. THIS TRAGIC EVENTS,
WHICH HAVE RIPPED APART SO MANY
FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES ARE
PART OF THE WIDESPREAD PLAGUE
FIRE RELATED CRIMES IN THE US
AND CALIFORNIA, WHICH WERE
YOU'RE STRUGGLING TO COMBAT THE
NUMBER OF FIREARM HOMICIDES
INCREASED BY AN S STANDING 35%
BETWEEN 2019 AND 2020 THROUGHOUT
THE UNITED STATES, ACCORDING TO
THE CDC, 79% OF ALL HOMICIDES IN
2020 INVOLVED FIREARMS. BODY
ARMOR HAS BECOME A TOOL IN THE
ARSENAL OF MASS MURDERERS. JUST
LAST YEAR AS WE ALL TOO WELL,
NOW AN 18 YEAR OLD MATT SHOOTER
AT A GROCERY STORE IN BUFFALO,
NEW YORK WAR, A PLATE VEST THAT
COULD ABSORB AUTOMATIC WEAPON
FIRE. THE SECURITY GUARD ON DUTY
THAT DAY FIRED AT THE SHOOTER,
BUT THE SHOOTER'S BODY ARMOR
STOPPED THE BULLET. SADLY THE
SECURITY GUARD AARON SALTER JR
WAS KILLED BY THE SHOOTER WHO
WENT ON TO MURDER AND NINE
OTHERS AND WOUNDED THREE MORE.
THIS TREND HAS INCREASED
SIGNIFICANTLY IN RECENT YEARS.
THE VIOLENCE PROJECT, A
NONPROFIT THAT TRACKS MASS
SHOOTING TRENDS FOUND THAT OF
THE MASS SHOOTERS WHO HAVE WORN
BODY ARMOR OVER THE PAST 40
YEARS. AMONG THE MAJORITY OF
THEM HAVE HAPPENED SINCE 2012
SIMPLY PUT THE WIDESPREAD
AVAILABILITY OF MILITARY GRADE
BODY ARMOR HELPS MATCH SHOOTERS
AND CRIMINALS, KILL MORE PEOPLE
AND PROLONG THE RAMPAGE IS A B
92 IS A SOLUTION TO HELP PROTECT
INNOCENT BYSTANDER, DZI
EMERGENCY PERSONNEL AND PEACE
OFFICERS. UNDER A B 92 ANY
PERSON WHO IS PROHIBITED BY
CALIFORNIA STATUTE FROM
POSSESSING A FIREARM WOULD ALSO
BE PROHIBITED FROM PURCHASING OR
POSSESSING BODY ARMOR. FOR
EXAMPLE, THIS INCLUDES PERSONS
SUBJECT TO A GANG VIOLENCE
RESTRAINING ORDER. PERSONS
CONVICTED OF ASSAULT WITH A
DEADLY WEAPON. ANY PERSON
CONVICTED OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
AND ANY PERSON MAKING THREATS TO
COMMIT A CRIME THAT RESULTS IN
DEATH. FIREARM PROHIBITIONS FOR
CRIMINALS AND CALIFORNIA HAVE
PASSED JUDICIAL SCRUTINY AND THE
RATIONALE BEHIND STOPPING THEM
FROM POSSESSING BODY ARMOR IS
EXACTLY THE SAME. CALIFORNIA HAS
ALREADY FOUND IT PRUDENT AND GET
POLICY TO STOP THESE PEOPLE FROM
OWNING FIREARMS, AND WE SHOULD
BE FURTHERING OUR EFFORTS TO
ENSURE THAT MILITARY GRADE GEAR
IS KEPT OUT OF THE HANDS OF
VIOLENT CRIMINALS. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN EYE BOAT
AND WOULD WELCOME ANY QUESTIONS.
DO YOU HAVE ANY WITNESSES? I
DOUBT OKAY? UM ARE THERE ANY
WITNESSES IN THE AUDIENCE AND
SUPPORT NAME AND ORGANIZATION,
PLEASE. LESLIE CALDWELL, HOUSTON
FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION. WE ARE ARE
WITHDRAWING OUR OPPOSITION WOULD
LIKE TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR
WORKING WITH US. VERY GOOD. ALSO
GOOD FRESHMAN MOVE. THANK YOU
ANY ANY ANY WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION. I MEAN, SOMEONE
TELLS HER BROUGHT A GUN IN HERE
. WE'RE GONNA MR CHAIRMAN OF
MEMBER SAM PAREDES, REPRESENTING
GUN ON HIS CALIFORNIA AS WELL AS
THE CALIFORNIA RIFLE AND PISTOL
ASSOCIATION AND THE NATIONAL
RIFLE ASSOCIATION. UM THIS IS A
VERY INTERESTING SUBJECT THAT IS
WRAPPED. IN CONSTITUTIONAL
ISSUES. I KNOW ONE TIME YOU SAID
WE'RE CALIFORNIA. WE DON'T PAY
TOO MUCH ABOUT CONSTITUTION. WE
DO WHAT WE DO. UM BUT I WANT YOU
TO UNDERSTAND. AND I HOPE THAT
EVERYBODY WILL PAY ATTENTION.
LET'S SEE THAT THIS IS WHAT
YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT WHEN YOU
WERE THINKING ABOUT ORDERING
BODY ARMOR. WHEN THEY ARE A
CRIMINAL IS OUT THERE WITH A
VEST AND THEY'VE GOT ALL THE
MAGAZINES THAT ISN'T BODY ARMOR.
THAT'S BALLISTIC NYLON, AND IT'S
MISNAMED. IT DOESN'T STOP
ANYTHING. AND ALL OF A SUDDEN
BOOM. HE'S WEARING BODY ARMOR.
THIS IS THE BODY ARMOR THAT IS
USED BY MY GRANDCHILDREN.
BECAUSE HERE IN CALIFORNIA,
WHERE WE HAVE THE MOST GUN
CONTROL LAWS OF ANY STATE IN THE
UNION, WE ALSO HAVE THE DUBIOUS
HONOR OF HAVING MORE MASS
SHOOTINGS THAN ANY OTHER STATE,
FAR SURPASSING THOSE TEXAS THAT
DOESN'T HAVE ALL OF THE GUN
CONTROL LAWS. THESE BACKPACKS.
PARENTS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF
PARENTS THAT STATE OF CALIFORNIA
HAVE CHOSEN TO USE PRODUCTS LIKE
THIS PREMIER BODY ARMOR PANEL.
IN THE HORRIBLE EVENT THAT
CHILDREN MIGHT EXPERIENCE EX
SCHOOL SHOOTING, AND THEY HAVE
AT LEAST SOME LEVEL OF
PROTECTION. THIS WILL STOP ANY
SHOTGUN BLAST AND ANY CALIBER OF
HANDGUN. MY GRANDCHILDREN ARE
WORTH IT. WE HAVE THE IMPORT.
KIDS WE HAVE THEM LIKE THIS RTS
BODY ARMOR. FOR GRADE SCHOOL
ELEMENTARY AND PRESCHOOL. THEY
COME IN VARIOUS SIZES. SOMETIMES
THEY ARE INTEGRAL WITH THE
BACKPACKS, AND SOMETIMES THEY
ARE ANSWERS. I HAD MULTIPLE
BALLISTICS, UH, BACKPACK. I MEAN
, THE BODY ARMOR. PEOPLE
CONTACTED ME TO PLEASE LET YOU
KNOW WHAT THE TRUTH IS. HOW
ABOUT STUDENTS AND EVEN MAYBE
SOME OF YOUR STAFF MEMBERS? THIS
IS BODY ARMOR. BY ALL
DEFINITIONS. CHOOSE TO CARRY MY
LAPTOP, MY IPAD. CARRY IT WITH
ME PROVIDES PROTECTION. UP TO
AND INCLUDING A THREE OR WAIT
SOMETHING FAR SURPASSING YOUR.
SO CALLED CALIFORNIA SERVICE
ASSAULT WEAPONS. AND I CAN
PROTECT MY LIFE WITH THIS
STUDENTS IN COLLEGE. WHERE THEY
ARE IN GUN FREE ZONES WHERE THEY
ARE IN, UM THE CRIMINALS BELIEVE
A TARGET RICH ENVIRONMENT. THESE
BILLS WILL STRIP THEM OF THE
ABILITY TO DO THAT. THERE IS AN
ISSUE IN THE WRITTEN TESTIMONY.
WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY HOW THERE ARE
NOW FOUR SUPREME COURT
PRECEDENTS THAT STATE THAT ITEMS
LIKE BODY ARMOR. THAT THAT UNDER
THE PROTECTION OF THE SECOND
AMENDMENT, IT DOES NOT HAVE TO
BE A GUN. IT CAN BE ANYTHING
THAT IS USED BY LAWFUL CITIZENS
IN COMMON USE. TO DEFEND OR OFF
OFFENSIVE PURPOSES FOR
PROTECTION. THAT'S THE LAW OF
THE LAND. AND I WANT TO POSE ONE
OF THE QUESTION THAT I DON'T
KNOW IF THE MEMBERS OF THE BODY
ARE CONSIDERING NOW WE HAVE A
BODY OF LAWS THAT WHEN SOMEBODY
BREAKS THE LAW, WE AND THEY ARE
INCARCERATED. THEY OFTEN TIMES
DON'T MAKE A LOT OF FRIENDS IN
PRISON. AND WHEN THEY COME OUT
THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE A WHOLE LOT
OF FRIENDS, BUT WHEN WE LET HIM
OUT WE DENY THEM, WE PREVENT
THEM FROM PROTECTING THEMSELVES
WITH GUNS, KNIVES, BILLY CLUBS.
OF ANYTHING. THEY CAN'T PROTECT
THEMSELVES. AND NOW WE'RE SAYING
, YOU KNOW WHAT? THANK YOU FOR
SERVING, PAYING YOUR DEBT TO
SOCIETY. YOU CAN GO OUT THERE.
AND EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE A BUNCH
OF NON FRIENDS OUT THERE. YOU
CAN'T EVEN PROTECT YOUR LIFE.
WITH A PIECE OF BODY ARMOR. THAT
IS THIS SIMPLE. AND THIS
CONCEIVABLE AND THIS EFFECT. AND
WE'RE TELLING THAT TO PEOPLE WHO
HAVE PAID THEIR DEBT TO SOCIETY,
OR THEY BEEN LET OUT EARLY FOR
WHATEVER. POLICY REASON THIS
THIS BODY CHOOSES TO DO YOU LET
THEM OUT, BUT THEN YOU GO OUT
THERE AND SAY GOOD LUCK. GOOD
LUCK. I WOULD I WOULD ASK YOU TO
THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT ABOUT THIS
PROJECT. WE DON'T OPPOSE ANY
LAWS THAT SAY IF YOU USE BODY
ARMOR WHILE YOU WERE COMMITTING
A CRIME. YOU'RE GOING TO GET
WHACKED BY THE STATE. WE'RE OKAY
WITH THAT, AND I DON'T MEAN
SHOT. I MEAN, YOU'RE GOING TO BE
CHARGED. YOU'RE GOING TO BE
INCARCERATED. IT IS AN
ADDITIONAL CRIME, AND YOU SHOULD
PAY THE PENALTY FOR THAT. BUT UM
. THESE ITEMS WILL TELL YOU WHAT
ALTHOUGH THANKFUL LEADERS BILL
WAS AMENDED. UM PARENTS MAY NOT
BE CRIMINALS. THERE IS ANOTHER
BILL. THAT'S BEFORE THIS. THAT
WILL BE BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE AT
SOME POINT IN TIME. MY
GRANDCHILDREN WILL BE PUT IN
JEOPARDY. AND I'M TELLING YOU
HERE. THAT IS NOT GOING TO
HAPPEN. SO I ASK YOU TO
CAREFULLY I GET TO COME IN HERE
AND SPEAK BEFORE YOU OFTEN AND
OFTEN TIMES YOU LOOK AT ME AND
THINK LIKE YOU RIGHT WING GUN
NUT COOK. WE DON'T BELIEVE
ANYTHING YOU'RE SAYING. BUT THIS
IS COMMON SENSE. THIS GOES
BEYOND THE RHETORIC. THIS IS THE
ACTUAL PROTECTION OF LIVES. WITH
PASSIVE. PROTECTION, NOT WITH
THE USE OF A GUN. SO I ASKED YOU
AS YOU CONSIDER THESE PIECES OF
LEGISLATION THAT YOU WOULD BE
CAUTIOUS ABOUT THINKING ABOUT
THE IMPACTS. DO YOU KNOW THAT
THIS LEGISLATION OR LEGISLATION
AS IT WAS BEFORE AND THE OTHER
BILL WOULD ACTUALLY PREVENT ALL
MOTORCYCLE? WE ALL SEE
MOTORCYCLE GUYS, I'LL WRAP IT UP
RIGHT NOW, SIR. MOTORCYCLE
PEOPLE WITH ALL OF THE BODY.
IT'S CALLED BODY ARMOR. WHY
BECAUSE IT HAS ALL OF THE
EQUIPMENT MATERIALS THAT IS,
INCLUDING THIS SPEED SKATERS.
ATHLETES RACE CAR DRIVERS, THEIR
EQUIPMENT HAS ALL OF THIS STUFF.
IT'S ALL BODY ARMOR. AND IT'S
ALL DESIGNED TO PREVENT BLUNT
FORCE TRAUMA. THE EQUIVALENT OF
A BULLET SHOT, SO I'M HERE
ASKING YOU TO CAREFULLY CONSIDER
THESE ISSUES AS YOU MOVE ALONG,
AND IF YOU'RE GOING TO AIR AIR
ON THE SIDE OF THE LAW ABIDING
AND THOSE WHO WANT TO PROTECT
THEIR FAMILIES. AND THEIR OWN
LIVES. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I
APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. AND JUST
FOR THE RECORD. UM OPEN
QUESTION. REMEMBER, BANTA. WHO
WAS PRESENTING THE BILL THAT HAS
SOME CONSTITUTIONALITY. AND I
FLIPPED. OKAY. I'M SORRY. NO,
NO, NO. WHEN I SAID. THE
CALIFORNIA I SAID MOST PEOPLE
DON'T BELIEVE THAT CALIFORNIA
DOESN'T FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION
AND I WAS ALLOWING
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S DATA. TO
EXPLAIN WHY HIS BILL FOLLOW THE
CONSTITUTION. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
ROB BANTER WHO'S NOW ATTORNEY
GENERAL, EXPLAIN WHAT HE WAS
DOING. THAT THAT WAS JUST WANT
TO PUT SOME CONTEXT CONTEXT TO
IT. I WOULD NEVER SAY. WE'RE OUT
HERE TRYING TO VIOLATE THE
CONSTITUTION. DELIBERATELY. SO
ARE THERE ANY WITNESSES AND
SUPPORT OPPOSITION. I'M SORRY.
OPPOSITION. HELLO MY NAME IS
OSCAR SORIANO. I AM ALSO A
CALIFORNIA RIFLE PISTOL
ASSOCIATION OR DEMOCRAT. I
REPRESENT PEOPLE OF COLOR GUN
OWNERS, AND I STRICTLY OPPOSED
THIS BILL. THANK YOU, SIR. ANY
OTHER WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION.
BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE
MEMBERS FOR COMMENTS THEY, MR
GOOBER, UM SO I WANT TO THANK
YOU FOR BRINGING THIS BILL. I
THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. AND
UM, YOU KNOW, I WHEN I READ, I
READ THE BILL AND THE OTHER BILL
THAT WAS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE
TODAY. THAT'S BEEN HELD. UM, YOU
KNOW, I WAS THINKING HOW YOU
KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO BE IN A
WORLD WHERE WE ARE MOVING TOWARD
ONE WHERE EVERYONE IS ARMED AND
WHERE EVERYONE NEEDS TO BE
PUTTING THEIR KIDS IN BODY ARMOR
WHEN THEY GO TO SCHOOL, OR WHEN
WE GO TO STARBUCKS OR TO THE
SUPERMARKET OR A MOVIE THEATER.
AND SO I APPLAUD YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD. UM I
DO HAVE TO SAY THAT, UH THAT I
THINK THAT THE BILL WITH THE
AMENDMENTS MOVES IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION, BUT IT DOESN'T GO FAR
ENOUGH. SO I'M HOPING THAT THE
OTHER BILL WILL COME BACK, UH,
WITH EVEN MORE PROTECTIONS THAN
THE ONES THAT ARE INCLUDED IN
THIS BILL. UM YOU KNOW, I READ
EVERYTHING ON BOTH SIDES. I'VE
GOT TO SAY THAT THE ORIGINAL
BILL, WHICH WAS BROADER, MANY OF
THE ARGUMENTS THAT AGAINST IT
WERE ONES THAT ARE USED. BUY
VOTES THAT ARE OPPOSING ANY KIND
OF COMMON SENSE GUN SAFETY
REGULATIONS AND SO I DID NOT
FIND THEM PERSUASIVE. I DO THINK
THE ORIGINAL BILL AND THE
COMPANION BILL NEEDS SOME WORK
IN TERMS OF THE EXCEPTIONS AND
SO, BUT I AM HOPING THAT THOSE
WILL COME BACK. YOU KNOW, GUN
SAFETY ADVOCATES WHO I RESPECT
WE'RE SUPPORTING, AT LEAST THE
OTHER BILL, WHICH WAS
SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO YOURS.
UM AND I JUST THINK THAT THIS
WITH THE AMENDMENTS IS STILL TOO
NARROW AND WOULD LIKE TO SEE A
BILL THAT ACTUALLY INCLUDES A
BROADER RANGE OF PROTECTIONS
AGAINST AGAINST THIS WHEN WE'RE
LOOKING AT MASS SHOOTERS AND A
WORLD WHERE WE'VE GOT SOME FOLKS
THAT ARE USING GUNS AND
POTENTIAL BODY ARMOR FROM ARMED
INSURRECTION, I THINK WE NEED TO
MAKE SURE THAT THAT THAT'S NOT
AVAILABLE TO THOSE KINDS OF
BOOKS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IN
YOUR COMMENTS. I'VE SAID ON MANY
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
HEARINGS. I DON'T THINK I'VE
EVER SEEN ANYBODY, PARTICULARLY
ON THEIR FIRST TIME. COME HERE
WITH NO SUPPORT AND GET A BILL
OUT, SO I WOULDN'T RECOMMEND
THAT IN THE FUTURE, BUT BUT
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS
MEASURE FORWARD TODAY. THANK
YOU. MISS BARTLETT. ONLY THANK
YOU FOR BRINGING FORWARD THIS
BILL. UM MY DISTRICT INCLUDES
OAKLAND, ONE OF THE PLACES THAT
ACTUALLY HAD IN RECENT MONTHS, A
MASS SHOOTING ON A SCHOOL CAMPUS
AND I WAS WITH THE SURVIVORS OF
THAT. MASS SHOOTING THE DAY
AFTER A ROOM FULL OF PARENTS
OLDER. YOU AND EDUCATORS. AND WE
HAD IN THAT CONVERSATION. THE
SECURITY GUARD. S¼ HELP ME HELP
YOU. HELP ME HELP YOU. PLEASE
CONSIDER. HAVING YOUR EDUCATORS
AND YOUR STUDENTS. WHERE BODY
ARMOR AND I SAW THE ABSOLUTE
LOOK OF HORROR. ON THE FACES OF
PARENTS AND EDUCATORS TO THINK
THAT WE WERE IN A REALITY IN A
MOMENT WHERE THAT SEEMED LIKE A
REASONABLE THING. SO I
APPRECIATE THE VERY SPECIFIC.
DESIGNATION OF THIS TO LIMIT THE
. UH POSSESSION OF USE AND
POSSESSION OF BODY ARMOR TO
THOSE WHO WE WOULDN'T WANT TO
HAVE A GUN. UH BECAUSE IT IS THE
REALITY THAT VERY, VERY
UNFORTUNATE REALITY OF THE
MOMENT. THAT PEOPLE ARE
TREATING. IT IS A VIABLE
SOLUTION TO HAVE TO WEAR BODY
ARMOR IN THEIR EVERYDAY LIVES.
IT IS A SAD STATE. THAT WE ARE
IN THIS MOMENT WHEN I THINK BACK
TO MY COLLEAGUES EARLIER
COMMENTED BY WHY IN RETAIL THEFT
SITUATIONS IN HOME DEPOTS AND
WALGREENS AND SMALL BUSINESSES.
PEOPLE ARE JUST TOLD TO JUST
SEND THEIR SEND THE SEND THE
PRODUCT THROUGH. DON'T MAKE A
FUSS ABOUT IT. DON'T CONFRONT. I
DON'T THINK IT'S SO MUCH THAT
THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT WHETHER
OR NOT THERE WILL BE A
CONSEQUENCE. AND WHETHER PEOPLE
WILL BE LOCKED UP. I'M PRETTY
SURE IT'S A CONCERN. THAT THEY
WORRY THAT THERE EMPLOYEES AND
PEOPLE IN THE STORE. WILL HAVE
TO FACE THE BARREL OF A GUN. SO
I APPRECIATE YOU, MR CONNELLY
FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD IN A
VERY TARGETED WAY. AND WITH THAT
I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS BILL
TODAY. FURTHER. THANK YOU, SAM.
REMEMBER BRINGING THIS BILL TO
OUR ATTENTION? AT FIRST I WAS I
WAS AGAINST IT WITH YOUR
AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU FOR ADDING
THOSE IN THERE. AH! TO ECHO OFF
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S VONTAZE
COMMENTS ABOUT THE WORLD THAT
WE'RE LIVING IN TODAY. WE MAY
NOT BE ABLE TO, UM, HAVE GUNS IN
THE HANDS OF OUR CHILDREN, THE
KIND OF THING RIGHT WE NEED TO
FIND A WAY TO PROTECT THEM. SO
TO THE OPPOSITION'S POINT, WHEN
YOU TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE
STILL ABLE TO PROTECT THEMSELVES
, SO I THINK IT'S REASONABLE TO
KEEP THE BODY ARMOR OUT OF THE
HANDS OF THOSE THAT BASICALLY
PROHIBITED FROM POSSESSING
FIREARMS AND. I THINK IT'S MUCH
BETTER WITH THE AMENDMENTS AND
I'LL BE SUPPORTING IT TODAY.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COLORS. YOU
MAKE CLOTHES. THANK YOU CHAIR
AND REALLY APPRECIATE THE
FEEDBACK. THIS WILL BE AN
ONGOING IMPORTANT CONVERSATION,
AS WAS NOTED WITH THE AMENDMENTS
IS SPILL MR DESIGNED TO BE VERY
NARROWLY TAILORED. IT IS NOT
ADDRESSING BACKPACKS IN SCHOOLS.
AND RELATED ISSUES, AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN IBO.
THANK YOU. AND I WANT TO THANK
YOU FOR WORKING WITH COMMITTEES.
WORKING ON SOMETHING. THAT WE'RE
TRYING TO SPLIT THE BABY AND
TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE CAN WE
GET SOMETHING THAT'S PROBABLY
NOT MAKING EVERYBODY TOTALLY
100% HAPPY, BUT WE NEED TO
ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS. SO I THANK
YOU FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD
AND SHARE TO RECOMMEND I VOTE
THEIR EMOTION. MOVE THE BILL.
SECOND. MOTION AND SECOND
SECRETARY CALLED THE ROLE ON A B
92. BUT EXCUSE ME ON A B 92 BY
SEPTEMBER, CALLING THE MOTION IS
DUE PAST AS AMENDED TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. JOAN
SAWYER SAWYER I ALANIS ALANIS, I
BONTA, BRIAN BRIAN LACKEY VOTING
, NOT VOTING. ORTEGA ORTEGA I
SANTIAGO SANTIAGO EYES WERE
ZIPPER. I MEASURE PATH. WE HAVE
ONE LAST MEASURE. THANK YOU GOT
A LOT OF BODY ON WHAT'S THAT? A
LOT OF BODY ARMOR GOOD, SIMILAR
TO THE ONE LIKE FOLLOWING MY
USED WHEN HE WAS A STATE
SENATOR. ALL RIGHT, DR WEBBER.
YOU ARE. WHAT'S THAT? A B 268?
AND ITEM NUMBER SIX WHENEVER
YOU'RE READY, DOCTOR WEB. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. I'M HERE TO PRESENT A B
268, WHICH SEEKS TO ADDRESS THE
DEFICIENCIES IN CALIFORNIA'S
LOCAL DISSENSION FACILITIES
RAISED BY THE CALIFORNIA STATE
AUDITOR OFFICE AND RAISE THE
STANDARD FOR INCARCERATED PEOPLE
. FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES COUNTY
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENTS TO PROVIDE
ADEQUATE MEDICAL CARE FOR
INDIVIDUALS IN THEIR CUSTODY. IN
CALIFORNIA, THE BOARD OF STATE
AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS, ALSO
KNOWN AS THE B. S. C C, WAS
ESTABLISHED IN ITS CURRENT FORM
IN 2012 TO PROVIDE STATEWIDE
COORDINATION AND TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE FOR LOCAL JUSTICE
SYSTEMS. THE BSC C IS TASKED
WITH DEVELOPING MINIMUM
STANDARDS FOR LOCAL DETENTION
FACILITIES AND INSPECTING AND
REPORTING ON FACILITY
COMPLIANCE. B S. C C. ALSO SET
STANDARDS FOR CORRECTIONAL
TRAINING AND ADMINISTERS
FACILITY FUNDINGS AND SEVERAL
GRANT PROGRAMS FOR LOCAL
CORRECTIONS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
ENTITIES IN 2021, THE CALIFORNIA
STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE
INVESTIGATED THE SANTIAGO COUNTY
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AND
DISCOVERED 185 INDIVIDUALS IN
THEIR CUSTODY DIED FROM 2006 TO
2020. MORE DEATHS PER AVERAGE
DAILY POPULATION THAN ANY OTHER
LARGE COUNTY IN THE STATE,
ADDITIONALLY, WITH THE RECENT
DOJ INVESTIGATION INTO RIVERSIDE
COUNTY JAILS FOR THE DEEPLY
CONCERNING ALLEGATIONS RELATING
TO CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT,
EXCESSIVE FORCE AND OTHER
MISCONDUCT THE NEED FOR THIS
BILL IS URGENT. LOCAL ADVOCATES
SUCH AS THE NORTH COUNTY EQUITY
AND JUSTICE COALITION SHOWING UP
FOR RACIAL JUSTICE, THE RACIAL
JUSTICE COALITION OF SAN DIEGO,
THE FAMILIES OF LOVED ONES WHO
HAVE LOST THEIR LIVES AND OTHER
GROUPS HAVE LONG CALLED FOR
ATTENTIONS TO THE DANGEROUS
CONDITIONS AND THE LARGE NUMBER
OF SUICIDES AND OTHER DEATHS,
PARTICULARLY IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY
JAIL FACILITIES. BUT MORE
IMPORTANTLY, MANY COUNTIES
AROUND THE STATE HAVE FACED
LITIGATION IN THE LAST DECADE.
RELATING TO CONDITIONS IN THEIR
COUNTY JAIL'S PRISON LAW OFFICE
ALONE HAS SUCCESSFULLY LITIGATED
CASES RELATED TO JAIL CONDITIONS
AND CASTRO COUNTY COST. ACOSTA
RIVERSIDE FRESNO SANTA BARBARA,
SACRAMENTO, SANTA CLARA AND
SANTA SANDBAR NADINE Ó COUNTIES
, MANY OF WHICH REVOLVED RUN
INADEQUATE ACCESS TO MEDICAL
CARE, INCLUDING MENTAL HEALTH
CARE. 2022 STATE AUDIT FINDINGS
CONFIRMED THAT THE ALREADY
EXTENSIVE PUBLIC RECORD
DOCUMENTING OF THE TRAGIC LOSS
OF LIVES, SYSTEMIC FAILURES AND
INADEQUACY OF OVERSIGHT, OTTER
NOTED THAT QUOTE GIVEN THE
ANNUAL NUMBER OF INCARCERATED
INDIVIDUALS DEATHS IN COUNTY
JAILS ACROSS THE STATE INCREASED
FROM 20 FROM 2006 TO 2020.
IMPROVING THE STATEWIDE
STANDARDS IS ESSENTIAL TO
ENSURING THE HEALTH AND SAFETY
OF INDIVIDUALS IN CUSTODY. IN
ALL COUNTIES, END QUOTE SOME OF
THE POLICY DEFICIENCIES WERE THE
RESULT OF POOR STATEWIDE
CORRECTION STANDARDS DESIGNED
SPECIFICALLY BY THE B. S. C C,
INCLUDING REGULATIONS THAT ALLOW
FOR INSUFFICIENT HEALTH
EVALUATIONS AT INTAKE
INCONSISTENT, FOLLOW UP WITH
MEDICAL CARE AND ADEQUATE SAFETY
CHECKS AND UNNECESSARY DELAYS IN
RESPONSE TO MEDICAL EMERGENCIES.
82 68 CODIFIES NUMEROUS
RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE THE
HEALTH AND SAFETY OF
INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS AND ALL
DETENTION FACILITIES OUTLINED BY
THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE. 268 WILL
REQUIRE THE DSCC TO DEVELOP AND
ADOPT REGULATIONS THAT ALIGN
WITH BEST PRACTICES RELATED TO
ONGOING PERFORMING INTAKE HEALTH
EVALUATIONS. AND SAFETY CHECKS
REQUIRING ONGOING CORRECTIONAL
STAFF TRAINING. IT ALSO ADDS TWO
ADDITIONAL MEMBERS TO THE BOARD,
A LICENSE HEALTHCARE PROVIDER
AND A LICENSED MENTAL HEALTH
CARE PROVIDER. THE NEED TO ADD
THESE TWO MEMBERS IS CRITICAL AS
THEIR EXPERTISE IS CURRENTLY
LACKING ON THE BOARD, AND THE
KNOWLEDGE CAN HELP GUIDE BOTH
THE BOARD TO ESTABLISH PRACTICES
THAT PRIORITIZE AN INDIVIDUAL'S
MENTAL AND PHYSICAL HEALTH. EACH
WOULD BRING THEIR OWN UNIQUE AND
SEPARATE EXPERIENCE TO THE
BOARD. WHICH IS VERY MUCH
LACKING AT THIS POINT. WITH ME
TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF A B 2 68
IS JONATHAN CLAY REPRESENTING
SAN DIEGO COUNTY. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, JONATHAN CLAY
HERE ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY OF
SAN DIEGO AND PLEASED TO BE
SPONSORED WITH ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S,
HOWEVER, ON A B 268 THE STATE
ORDERS REPORT RAISED SERIOUS AND
SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS ABOUT THE
SYSTEMATIC ISSUES WITHIN THE
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT POLICIES
AND PROCEDURES RELATED TO THE
PROVISION OF MENTAL HEALTH CARE
AND THE PERFORMANCE OF VISUAL
CHECKS. THE COUNTY. SAN DIEGO
BELIEVES THAT A MISTAKE AND A
STINT IN JAIL SHOULD NOT COST
ANYONE THEIR LIFE. THE HIGH
COURT NUMBER OF DEATHS IS
HEARTBREAKING. THE COUNTY FULLY
SUPPORTS THE STATE LEGISLATION.
LEGISLATIVE ACTION TO IMPLEMENT
CHANGES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
STATE AUDITOR'S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS. THE COUNTY ALSO
FULLY BELIEVES THAT MAKING
CHANGES AT THE B S. C C IN TERMS
OF HAVING THOSE REPRESENTATIVES
TO PROVIDE THE EXPERTISE ON
MENTAL HEALTH AND SEPARATELY,
HEALTHCARE MAKES SENSE AND THAT
IS THE APPROPRIATE PLACE TO ME
HAVING THOSE DECISIONS MADE. UM
IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE
B S. C. C AS THEY CONTEMPLATE
SOME OF THESE ISSUES ARE MAKING
CHANGES, AND THOSE CHANGES ARE
IN ALIGNMENT WITH WHAT IS BEING
DIRECTED FROM THE POLICIES
CONTAINED WITHIN A B 268.
FINALLY I'LL JUST CLOSE WITH
FROM THE COUNTIES PERSPECTIVE,
THE COUNTY CANNOT DIRECTLY
CHANGE THE POLICIES AND
PROCEDURES OF THE SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT. BUT THE COUNTY IS
WORKING COLLABORATIVE WITH THE
SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF AND, UH
ADMIN STAFF ON STAFFING ISSUES,
PROVIDING MORE FUNDING AND
COORDINATING. AH WORKED BETWEEN
THE DEPARTMENT OF BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH, HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES WITH OUR SHERIFF AND
THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT WITH
THAT I URGE YOUR SUPPORT OF THIS
IMPORTANT MEASURE. THANK YOU.
AND ANY OTHER WITNESSES AND
SUPPORT. NAME AND ORGANIZATION,
PLEASE OSCAR SORIANO FOR
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA AND I
SUPPORT THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING KARMA NICOLE COX ON
BEHALF OF A CEO YOU CALIFORNIA
ACTION IN SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING.
MY NAME IS DANIEL PEREZ AND I
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. GOOD
MORNING. MY NAME IS ANDREW
MELENDEZ. I'M A POLITICAL
SCIENCE MAJOR AT ST MARY'S
COLLEGE OF CALIFORNIA AND I
APPROVE THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
ANY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION. MR
SOUTH YELLOW. HELLO. THANK YOU,
MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS COREY
SOESILO ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE
SHERIFFSASSOCIATION, ARGUABLY IN
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL AGAIN
THIS YEAR. UM, HISTORICALLY,
WE'VE HAD CONCERNS ABOUT GROWING
THE SIZE OF THE BSC. SEE IT'S
ALREADY 13 MEMBERS. WE THINK THE
APPROPRIATE WE THINK THE CURRENT
COMPOSITION IS APPROPRIATE,
ADDING TO IT AND NOTWITHSTANDING
THE IMPORTANCE OF MEDICAL AND
MENTAL HEALTH CARE. WHICH ARE
THE TOPICS THAT THESE TWO NEW
BOARD MEMBERS WOULD OVERSEE OR
HAVE EXPERTISE IN, UM WILL MAKE
IT HARDER FOR THE BODY TO DO ITS
WORK EFFICIENTLY. UM AND IF YOU
DON'T WANT TO TAKE MY WORD FOR
IT, TAKE THE GOVERNOR'S WORD FOR
IT. HE VETOED THIS BILL LAST
YEAR. AND IN HIS WORDS, QUOTE
DSCC HAS HAD A 13 MEMBER BOARD
SINCE 2013. I AM CONCERNED THAT
ADDING TWO MEMBERS UNNECESSARILY
GROWS THE BOARD AND COULD IMPEDE
ITS ABILITY TO TIMELY CARRY OUT
ITS MISSION UNQUOTE WE ALSO
THINK THAT B S C C. IS THE
BETTER PLACE TO MAKE THESE
DECISIONS RATHER THAN TO SET
THESE, UH HIGHER STANDARDS INTO
STATUTE IN TERMS OF CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY, UM, THE BOARD MEMBERS
, PRACTITIONERS, STAKEHOLDERS
WHO PARTICIPATE WITH THE B S. C.
C THERE'S A NEAR CONSTANT REVIEW
OF THE TITLE 15 AND TUNNEL 24
REGULATIONS THAT GOVERN
CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES IN THE
STATE. UM SHERIFFS. INMATE
ADVOCATES STAKEHOLDERS ON ALL
SIDES COME TO THESE MEETINGS
AGAIN. THIS THIS PROCESS IS A
BIENNIAL REVIEW AND REVISION OF
THESE REGULATIONS THAT OVERSEE
EVERYTHING FROM HOW MUCH YARD
TIME THERE IS A NUTRITIONAL
ISSUES. UM. HEALTHCARE ANY
ANYTHING THAT GOES ON IN A
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY? THERE ARE
REGULATIONS THAT DEAL WITH IT IN
THE PRACTITIONERS AND THE
STAKEHOLDERS WHO UM. WHO HAVE
THE BEST EXPERIENCE TO ANSWER
THOSE QUESTIONS AND TO MAKE
THOSE DECISIONS ARE CHARGED WITH
THAT DUTY. BSC SEE ALSO SET
STANDARDS SO THAT ALL FACILITIES
CAN FOLLOW THEM AND NOT
STANDARDS THAT MAYBE ONE OR TWO
OR FIVE OR 10 FACILITIES. UM
COULD FOLLOW BECAUSE THEIR BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS WOULD LIKE THEM
TO FOLLOW. NOT SAYING THAT IN
THE CASE OF SAN DIEGO OR THIS
BILL I'M JUST SAYING THERE ARE
THINGS THAT, UM ADVOCATES ON
BOTH SIDES WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN
THERE. UM THEY ARE DIFFICULT TO
ACCOMPLISH IN THE CONTEXT OF BE
SEC REGULATIONS AND OVERSIGHT
AND. RUNNING OF THE CORRECTIONAL
FACILITIES BECAUSE WE HAVE UM,
CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES IN
NEARLY ALL OF THE 58 COUNTIES,
AND MANY COUNTIES HAVE MULTIPLE
CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES WITHIN
THEM. UM, THE TITLE 15 PROCESS.
GENERALLY RESULTS IN WALL
NEGOTIATED AND ACHIEVABLE
STANDARDS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO
SCRUTINY. REVIEW OF THE EXPERTS
WILL BE ASKED TO IMPLEMENT AND
ABIDE BY THEM. UM PUTTING THESE
STANDARDS INTO STATUTE.
UNNECESSARILY INTERFERES WITH
THIS PROCESS AND PRECLUDES THE B
S. C C AND THOSE THAT IT
OVERSEES FROM BEING NIMBLE WHEN
CHANGES ARE NECESSARY. THE NEED
TO BE A CHANGE BECAUSE THERE'S
SOME BETTER PRACTICE. WE'VE GOT
TO COME BACK HERE AND GET A
WHOLE NEW BILL. SO RESPECTFULLY
, UM, FOR THE REASONS WE STAYED
LAST YEAR, AND THE REASONS FOR
THIS YEAR WERE OPPOSED TO THE
BILL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK
YOU. ANY OTHER. WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL. SEE NONE
WILL BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. MR BRYANT, THE LARGEST
MENTAL HEALTH PROVIDER IN
CALIFORNIA IS THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY JAIL. THE FACT THAT THERE
ARE NOT TWO HEALTHCARE
PROFESSIONALS IN THE B S. C C
MAKES A LOT OF SENSE IF 15
MEMBERS IS TOO LARGE OF A BODY
TO GET BUSINESS DONE IN THE
STATE ASSEMBLY IS IN DEEP
TROUBLE. I THINK THAT'S PLENTY
TO BE NIMBLE. I'VE TOURED
PRISONS WITH DR WEBBER. I'VE
BEEN TO SAN DIEGO JAILS. THIS
WAS A THOUGHTFUL BILL LAST YEAR
. IT'S A THOUGHTFUL BILL THIS
YEAR. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING IT
BACK. THANK YOU. I WANT TO THANK
DR WEBBER FOR BRINGING FORWARD
THIS BILL 10 YEARS AGO, WE WERE
NOT THINKING ABOUT MENTAL HEALTH
IN THE WAY THAT WE ARE NOW WE
KNOW THAT WE'VE SUFFERED THE
CONSEQUENCES OF HAVING
INADEQUATE MENTAL HEALTH,
PARTICULARLY IN OUR JAILS,
PARTICULARLY IN OUR CARCEL
SYSTEM AND 100% OF THE PEOPLE
WHO ARE INCARCERATED. SUFFER
FROM SOME KIND OF MENTAL HEALTH
NEED. THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED
, SO ABSOLUTELY MAKES SENSE TO
BE ABLE TO MOVE THIS FORWARD.
I'LL BE SUPPORTING. THANK YOU.
YES, AND THE OTHER COMMENTS. YOU
MAY CLOSE. THANK YOU, UM, BEFORE
I GET TO MY CLOTHES, I WILL
ADDRESS SOME OF THE OPPOSITION'S
CONCERN. UM I AGREE WITH
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BRIAN. WE ARE
IN TROUBLE IF A 15 MEMBER BODY
CAN'T DO ANYTHING, I WOULD ALSO
POINT OUT THAT AS OF RIGHT NOW,
THE DSCC IS FAILING THE PEOPLE
AT 13 MEMBERS. SO UM, MAYBE
ADDING SOME MORE WILL HELP. BUT
WE ARE IN DISCUSSION WITH THE
GOVERNOR AND I AM MORE THAN
WILLING TO DISCUSS REMOVING SOME
OF THE CURRENT MEMBERS BECAUSE
WE DO HAVE EIGHT WITH ONE
PARTICULAR BACKGROUND, AND WE DO
NEED SOME HELP PROFESSIONALS ON
THERE, SO WE WILL CONTINUE THOSE
DISCUSSIONS. UM THE STANDARDS
THAT WE TALK ABOUT ARE THE
STANDARDS THAT WERE REQUIRED BY
AUDIT AND THEIR BASIC STANDARDS
THAT NEED TO BE DONE IN ORDER TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE SAVING
LIVES FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE
INCARCERATED. BUT IN CLOSING, I
JUST WANT TO REMIND EVERYONE
THAT THERE IS A CRISIS WITH OUR
INCARCERATED PEOPLE DYING BEHIND
BARS, A JAIL SENTENCE CANNOT
REMAIN A DE FACTO DEATH SENTENCE
FOR COMMUNITIES. THESE PEOPLE IN
CUSTODY OUR FAMILY MEMBERS, OUR
BROTHERS OR COUSINS, OUR SISTERS
, OUR MOTHERS, OUR UNCLES, AND
I'M GONNA READ FROM THE AUDIT
REPORT, WHICH I'M SURE WAS WE'VE
ALL READ. NO SINGLE ENTITY HAS
SUFFICIENT OVERSIGHT AUTHORITY
OVER THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT TO
REQUIRE IT TO MAKE MEANINGFUL
CHANGES. ABSENT EXPLICIT
LEGISLATIVE DIRECTION. NEITHER
THE COUNTY BOARD NOR THE STATE
ATTORNEY GENERAL IS WELL
POSITIONED TO COMPEL THE
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT TO
IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
WE INCLUDE IN THIS REPORT. GIVEN
THE ONGOING RISK TO INCARCERATED
INDIVIDUAL SAFETY. WE BELIEVE
THAT THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD
DIRECT THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
TO IMPLEMENT THE CHANGES BELOW
AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS
BILL IS DOING. ITS IMPLEMENTING
THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE
STATE AUDITOR'S REPORT AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU. AND I WANT TO THANK
YOU TWO COMING FROM THE SAME
COUNTY HAS THE LARGEST MENTAL
HEALTH CILIPI. AND IT'S NOT A
MENTAL HEALTH FACILITIES. THE
JAIL UM, WHICH SEEMS TO BE A
REAL PROBLEM. AND QUITE FRANKLY,
IT'S PROBABLY SOMETHING THAT.
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SHOULDN'T
BE RESPONSIBLE FOR A MENTAL
HEALTH FACILITY AND THEN I THINK
WE WOULD BE ON IT. 1000%
AGREEMENT ON THAT. UM. IN FACT,
WITH THE B S, C C AND THE
CHANGING DYNAMICS OF HOW WE'RE
HANDLING THINGS, ESPECIALLY WHEN
IT COMES TO MENTAL HEALTH WITH
HIS HOMELESSNESS OR OR JUST
PEOPLE OUT ON THE STREET OR
DEALING WITH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
AND UM MAYBE WE HAVE TOO MANY
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, AND
MAYBE YOU CAN ADDRESS THAT BY
RECOMMENDING TO THE GOVERNOR
TAKE TOO LONG ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS OFF AND PUT TO MENTAL
HEALTH PROFESSIONALS. IF HIS CAP
IS AT 13 IF HE JUST CAN'T GET
BEYOND THAT NUMBER. MAYBE THAT
MIGHT BE A GOOD SOLUTION THAT
YOU MAY WANT TO SUGGEST SO THAT
WE CAN THEN START HANDLING THAT
POPULATION BECAUSE I THINK THAT
WILL ALSO HELP LAW ENFORCEMENT.
UM AS THEY GET MENTAL HEALTH.
PROFESSIONALS WHO THEN CAN
ADDRESS HOW ARE WE GOING TO
EITHER CREATE A NEW SYSTEM? UH
HUH. OFF BOARD THEM PUT THEM IN
THE COMMUNITY, UM, BASED
ORGANIZATIONS THAT CAN MAYBE
HANDLE THAT. UM BUT AGAIN, WE
GOTTA WE GOTTA CHANGE THE WAY WE
HAVE TO HAVE A PARADIGM SHIFT IN
THE WAY WE HANDLE THIS, AND
WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT BY
DOING THE SAME THING OVER AND
OVER AGAIN. SO I THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD. UM, IT'S
WORTHWHILE DISCUSSION. IT'S
OVERDUE. AND UM, CHAIRS
RECOMMEND IVO. THANK YOU. IS
THERE AN ACTION? I'LL MOVE. IT
MOVED AND SECONDED. ON A B 2 68
BY SOME MEMBER WHETHER THE
MOTION IS DUE PASSED THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE JOHN
SAWYER, JOHN SAWYER, I ELONIS
SNOW BONTA. I BRIAN BRIAN I
LACKEY LACKEY. NO ORTEGA ORTEGA
I SANTIAGO SANTIAGO EYES UBER.
ZIPPER? AYE. THAT MEASURE PASSES
. THANK YOU. NEXT, WE WILL DO
ANY ADD ON AND LOOKED INTO CALLS
AND VOTE CHANGES. MADAM
SECRETARY PLEASE GO THROUGH ALL
THE MEASURES TAKEN UP TODAY. FOR
THE ABSENT MEMBERS. ARE THEY
CONSENT CALENDAR BONTA. HI I
BRIAN BRIAN I SANTIAGO SANTIAGO.
AYE. ITEM NUMBER ONE A. B 75 BY
A SEVEN MEMBER, HOOVER SANTIAGO.
NÓ SANTIAGO NÓ. ITEM NUMBER TWO
A. B 78 BY SEVEN MEMBER AWARD.
THIS MEASURE WAS FOR
PRESENTATION. ONLY. WE NEED
EMOTION, PLEASE. SO MOVED. ON A
B 78 BY SEVEN REWARD. THE MOTION
IS DUE PASSED TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. JOAN
SAWYER, JOHN SAWYER. I ELONIS.
ALRIGHT I BONTA. I BOUGHT AN EYE
BRIAN, BRIAN, I LACKEY LACKEY.
NO ORTEGA. HI I SANTIAGO
SANTIAGO. I ZABAR ZIPPER. I NOW
ALANIS FROM I TO KNOW. WE HAD
THEM. WE HAD THEM. ITEM NUMBER
THREE. A B 92 WAS JUST DISPENSE
WITH ITEM NUMBER FOUR, A. B 97
WAS PULLED BY AUTHOR ITEM NUMBER
5 82 53 WAS ON CONSENT. I DON'T
NUMBER 68 B 268 BY DR WEBBER HAS
BEEN DISPENSED WITH WHAT YOU
MEAN. ITEM NUMBER 7 82 71 WAS ON
CONSENT. ITEM 8 83 01 WAS PULLED
BY AUTHOR ITEM NUMBER NINE. A B
303 WAS ON CONSENT AND ITEM
NUMBER 10 83 13 WAS ON CONSENT.
THIS CONCLUDES THE BUSINESS FOR
THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE.