FOUR WILL BEGIN AS A
SUBCOMMITTEE. GOOD MORNING.
WELCOME TO THE ASSEMBLY PUBLIC
SAFETY COMMITTEE. UM BEFORE I
BEGIN. UM ALL WITNESSES ARE
WITNESS TESTIMONY WILL BE IN
PERSON. THERE WILL BE NO PHONE
TESTIMONY OPTION FOR THIS
HEARING. YOU CAN FIND
INFORMATION ON THE COMMITTEE'S
WEBSITE ASSEMBLY DOT CA.GOV
BACKSLASH COMMITTEES. UM. I
GUESS WE DON'T HAVE A QUORUM YET
, SO WE'LL BEGIN AT THE
SUBCOMMITTEE. UM, AND THE FIRST
ONE UP IS ITEM NUMBER 10 JAMES
RAMOS A. B FOR SIX TO HAVE A
SEAT. MR RAHMAN'S.
THANK YOU. WELL, THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MAYBE 462 IS
A FOLLOW UP TO A V 16 28 THAT
LAST SESSION WE SUCCESSFULLY GOT
IN FRONT OF THE GOVERNOR FOR
SIGNATURE DEALING WITH SOCIAL
MEDIA PLATFORM SELLING, UM,
FENTANYL OVER THE INTERNET.
TODAY IN FRONT OF YOU IS A B 462
AND THIS WOULD CREATE A PILOT
PROGRAM IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING FOR
COUNTIES AND THEIR SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT TO TAP INTO GRANTS TO
FORM FENTANYL OVERDOSE RESPONSE
TEAMS. FENTANYL HAS BECOME A
SCOURGE IN OUR COMMUNITIES
TAKING LIVES. UNIVERSALLY OFTEN
LEAVING FAMILIES IN PAIN. TOO
OFTEN, WE LOSE OUR LOVED ONES TO
ADDICTION AND OVERDOSES WITHOUT
REALIZING THEY ARE SUFFERING
FROM ADDICTION. AND MENTAL
ILLNESS. MAYBE 462 WOULD GIVE
LAW ENFORCEMENT THE ABILITY TO
CREATE OVERDOSE RESPONSE TEAMS
WHOSE SO PURPOSE IS TO
INVESTIGATE THOSE DEATHS AND
FIND THE CAUSE, ESPECIALLY THE
CAUSE THAT INCLUDES JUVENILE'S
AND MULTIPLE VICTIMS. OUR GOAL
IS TO GET FENTANYL OUT OF OUR
COMMUNITIES AND TO SAVE THE
LIVES OF THOSE WHO ARE MOST
VULNERABLE. WITH ME TODAY IS
STEVE FILSON. FROM VICTIMS OF
ILLICIT DRUGS. STEVE IS A
RETIRED SAN MARTINO POLICE
OFFICER. BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY,
STEVE LOST A CHILD TOO FAT, NOT
ALSO WITH ME IS SAMMARTINO
COUNTY SHERIFF SHANNON DYCUS,
WHO HAS BEEN A CRITICAL PARTNER
IN SAN MARTINO COUNTY, COMBATING
FENTANYL THROUGH THEIR EXISTING
OVERDOSE RESPONSE TEAM. MR
CHAIR. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO
BITE IT UP ANY WAY YOU LIKE TWO
MINUTES APIECE, OR WHY CAN USE
FOUR AND ONLY MR CHAIR WILL MAKE
IT QUICK. GOOD MORNING. GOOD
MORNING. I APPRECIATE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE AND SHOW
MY SUPPORT FOR ASSEMBLY BILL 4
62. MY NAME IS SHANNON DYCUS AND
I'M HONORED TO BE THE SHERIFF OF
SAN MARTINO COUNTY, WHICH
ENCOMPASSES APPROXIMATELY 4000
LAW ENFORCEMENT PROFESSIONALS
AND TWO MILLION RESIDENTS.
DECEMBER DINO COUNTY IS ONE OF
THE LARGEST COUNTIES IN THE
NATION THAT COVERS 2100 SQUARE
MILES AND LAND RANGING FROM
URBAN AREAS LIKE ONTARIO TO THE
MOUNTAINS LIKE LAKE ARROWHEAD
AND RURAL DESERT AREAS LIKE
JOSHUA TREE MAYBE 4 62 WOULD
CREATE A GRANT PROGRAM FOR
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT TO
IMPLEMENT AN OVERDOSE RESPONSE
TEAM TO INVESTIGATE DEATHS AND
NON FATAL OVERDOSES INVOLVING
JUVENILES AND MULTIPLE VICTIMS.
AND THESE PARTICIPATING COUNTIES
. WE WOULD SEND ANNUAL REPORTS
TO THE ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE
ON FENTANYL, OPIATE ADDICTION
AND OVERDOSE PREVENTION. IN
FEBRUARY OF 2021. OUR DEPARTMENT
CREATED AN OVERDOSE RESPONSE
TEAM, WHICH CONSISTS OF TWO
ROTATING TEAMS OF NARCOTICS
INVESTIGATORS. THE TEAM IS ON
CALL 24 7 TO RESPOND TO FENTANYL
RELATED OVERDOSE DEATHS. THIS
LEGISLATION WOULD GIVE US
ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL RESOURCES
TO GROW THE OVERDOSE RESPONSE
TEAM. AS THE SHERIFF. I'M
CONSTANTLY IN COMMUNICATION WITH
MY PEERS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
, WHERE ARE ALL SEEING
SIGNIFICANT SPIKES AND OVERDOSES
SPECIFICALLY WITH FENTANYL, AND
I THINK THIS BILL CAN
POTENTIALLY HELP OUR
COMMUNITIES. THANK YOU NOT KNOW
THAT THEY ARE INGESTING THE
CONCENTRATION OF THE SUBSTANCE,
CAUSING A MASSIVE SPIKE AND
OVERDOSE AND OVERDOSE DEATHS
THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA IN 2022,
WE SEE HIS 23 £2300 OF COCAINE
£4800 OF METHAMPHETAMINE £250 OF
HEROIN AND £723 OF FENTANYL IN
THE FORM OF 3.2 MILLION PILLS.
WE SEIZED OVER £8000 OF
INCREDIBLY HARMFUL DRUGS IN ONE
YEAR ALONE. SINCE 2020 IN SAN
MARTINO COUNTY. WE'VE SEEN 862
DEATHS DUE TO FENTANYL. FENTANYL
IS HIGHLY POTENT. AND AS A
DEADLY DOSE CAN BE AS LITTLE AS
TWO MG. THAT'S 50 TIMES MORE
POWERFUL THAN HEROIN. SADLY, THE
PROFESSOR PROLIFERATION OF
FENTANYL IN MY COUNTY AND THEN
THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY HAS BEEN
HEARTBREAKING IN 2021, OR
OVERDOSE RESPONSE TEAM CAME IN
CONTACT WITH THE 17 YEAR OLD
GIRL NAMED SERENITY WHO
ULTIMATELY SUCCUMBED TO FENTANYL
OVERDOSE IN 2022. OUR
INVESTIGATORS FOUND JOURNALS
ABOUT HER STRUGGLES WITH
ADDICTION AND RECOVERY WITH
THOSE FAMILIES AND FRIENDS THAT
SHE LOST TO OTHER SUBSTANCES.
THE CARTEL RUN CRIMINAL
ENTERPRISES ARE TRYING TO PROFIT
OFF THE ADDICTIVE NATURE OF
FENTANYL AND THE NEED TO UTILIZE
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES LIKE A B 4.
26 WILL HELP US CONTINUE TO
CRACK DOWN ON THOSE CRIMINAL
ORGANIZATIONS TO CONCLUDE I WANT
TO THANK THE COMMITTEE AND
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S RAMOS FOR
ALLOWING ME TO COME UP AND
TESTIFY ON BEHALF OF 84 26. I
WOULD URGE THE COMMITTEE TO PASS
THIS CRITICAL MEASURE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING.
THANK YOU. CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE THIS PAST SUNDAY
MARKED WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN
JESSICA'S 33RD BIRTHDAY. CENTER
DEATH IN JANUARY 2020. MY FAMILY
AND THOUSANDS OF OTHERS HAVE
SADLY BEEN PUT INTO THE POSITION
OF BEING EDUCATED TO THE GRIM
REALITY OF ILLICIT FENTANYL. OUR
COUNTRY AND ITS LAWMAKERS ARE
FINALLY BEGINNING TO DIGEST THE
FACT THAT FENTANYL CHANGES
EVERYTHING. IT IS AN ILLICIT
DRUG. MORE APPROPRIATELY, A
POISON THAT IS FOREVER CHANGED
THE LANDSCAPE OF WHAT WE ONCE
UNDERSTOOD THE BLACK MARKET DRUG
TRADE TO BEAT IN UNDERSTANDING
THIS, WE MUST REALIZE THE NEED
TO DEVELOP ALTERNATIVE
STRATEGIES. IN DEALING WITH IT.
FENTANYL IS ITS OWN EVIL ANIMAL,
NECESSITATING A TARGETED
INVESTIGATIVE APPROACH. DOING SO
WOULD PROVIDE THE ABILITY TO
ESTABLISH THE MANUFACTURING AND
DISTRIBUTION METHODS EMPLOYED BY
CRIMINAL ORGANIZATIONS AND, MOST
IMPORTANTLY, GATHER IMPORTANT
DATA TO ASSIST IN IDENTIFYING
WHO AND HOW THIS POISON IS
IMPACTING CALIFORNIANS,
PARTICULARLY THE MOST VULNERABLE
SEGMENT OF OUR POPULATION. OUR
YOUTH UNTIL WE ARE FULLY
KNOWLEDGEABLE OF ITS IMPACT.
THROUGH THOROUGH INVESTIGATIVE
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS. WE
WILL NOT BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD
WITH EFFECTIVE SOCIETAL
STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS THE
SOLUTION. MAYBE 4 62
ACCOMPLISHES THAT GOAL. WE LOOK
FORWARD AND WORKING TOGETHER IN
ADDRESSING THIS ILLICIT FENTANYL
SCOURGE, ENDANGERING OUR
COMMUNITIES. MY FAMILY AND
THOUSANDS OF OTHERS. THANK YOU
FOR PROVIDING US THE OPPORTUNITY
TO SPEAK TO YOU SOMETHING RAMOS
FOR HIS EFFORTS AND THE
LEGISLATURE IN ITS TOTALITY. WE
URGE YOUR I VOTE ON THIS
IMPORTANT LEGISLATION AND THANK
YOU FOR LISTENING. THANK YOU.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM WITNESSES
AND SUPPORT. ANY WITNESSES AND
SUPPORT THEN WE'LL HEAR FROM
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION. ANY
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION. WELL,
THIS MAY BE A REALLY GOOD DAY.
UM WE'LL NOW BRING IT BACK TO
COMMITTEE MEMBERS OR ANY
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. LOOK TO
THE RIGHT BECAUSE THERE'S NO ONE
TO MY LEFT. YES, I HAD ONE
QUESTION. UM CAN YOU DESCRIBE
THE DIFFERENCE IN SORT OF
RESPONSE TIMES THAT THIS SIDE OF
FUNDING WOULD GIVE YOU COMPARED
TO SORT OF OTHER HEALTH BASED
APPROACHES. MY ASSUMPTION IS AND
ALL OF THIS IS THAT YOU KNOW
YOU'VE GOT CHANNEL OVERDOSE AND
REALLY ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE
NEED TO BE. FOCUSING ON IS HOW
DO WE GET? UM. THE FRENCH AND
DRUG TO THE TO THE PERSON WHO'S
USED THAT AS QUICKLY AS
POSSIBLE. AND I ASSUME THAT THIS
WOULD ALLOW YOU TO HAVE VERY
QUICK RESPONSE TIMES IS THAT UM
, PART OF WHAT'S BEHIND THIS.
THAT IS PART OF IT, BUT REALLY
IS THE COMPLEXITY OF THE
INVESTIGATION, SO OVERDOSES CAN
TRADITIONALLY JUST BE HANDLED AS
AN OVERDOSE THAT SOMEBODY
WILLINGLY USED SOMETHING THAT
CAUSED THEIR DEATH. FENTANYL IS
A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SPOKEN
EARLIER. IT'S A POISON, AND SO
WHERE YOU'RE ACTUALLY
INVESTIGATE THESE, IT'S
EQUIVALENT ON THE LEVEL OF LIKE
A HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION,
BACKTRACKING WHERE THEY GOT IT
FROM AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE
IN TERMS OF SPEED OF RESPONSE.
OUR FIRST RESPONDERS DO HAVE
NARCAN AND THOSE THINGS
AVAILABLE NOT ONLY IN OUR JAILS
BUT ALSO OUT THERE ON THE
STREETS TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT
ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSE.
IMMEDIATELY THIS RESPONSE THAT
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, AS IT
RELATES TO THIS BILL IS REALLY
FUNDING AND HANDLING THESE VERY
COMPLEX INVESTIGATIONS. AS YOU
CAN IMAGINE. WE MENTIONED AS
PART OF THE TESTIMONY. SOCIAL
MEDIA PLAYS INTO THIS
BACKTRACKING SEARCH WARRANTS,
AND A NUMBER OF THOSE THINGS ARE
VERY COMPLEX IN TERMS OF THE
TIME. THANK YOU. YES, THIS WILL
TELL YOU. I JUST WANT TO THANK
THE AUTHOR FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD AND, UH, ADDRESSING IT
AS A POISONING, AS OPPOSED TO
WHAT WERE YOU KEEP HEATING WITH
HEARING WHICH IS OVERDOSING, AND
THIS IS A DRUG THAT'S IN OUR
COMMUNITY THAT'S KILLING
200,000,200 PEOPLE A DAY AND
IT'S NOT OVERDOSES. IT IS
LITERALLY POISONING OUR BABIES.
UM SO ONE OF THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD AND I WILL
BE SUPPORTING THANK YOU. YOU.
MAY YOU MAY CLOSE. BUT THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR. THANK YOU TO THE
TESTIMONY. THANK YOU FOR THE
QUESTIONS. UM THIS IS A CHANCE
TO BE, UM MORE PROACTIVE TO THE
SITUATION. UM, CERTAINLY, UM THE
DRUGS OF FENTANYL AND THEN A
POISONING A MENTAL HEALTH.
HOWEVER YOU WANT TO DEEM IT, BUT
IT NEEDS TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF
REACTION FROM THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA TO ENSURE THAT PEOPLE
AND FAMILIES UNDERSTAND THAT
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S ON THE
TOP OF OUR RADAR HERE IN THE
STATE CAPITAL I ASK FOR YOUR
VOTE UP. WE DON'T HAVE A QUORUM
YET. AS SOON AS WE DO, WE'LL
TAKE IT UP. UM I'M GONNA LET YOU
KNOW THAT ONE OF THE CHANGES
THAT WE MADE WHICH GOT ME TO A
SUPPORT IS THAT WHATEVER
FINDINGS YOU HAVE, WHATEVER YOU
WILL COME BACK TO THIS COMMITTEE
THIS COMMITTEE. I BELIEVE THE
MAJORITY OF MEMBERS THAT
ESPECIALLY BELIEVE THAT THIS IS
THE PUBLIC HEALTH. BUT
NECESSARILY CRIMINALIZING PEOPLE
BUT A PUBLIC HEALTH PROBLEM. AND
THIS INFORMATION WE WOULD LIKE
TO USE TO ADDRESS IT IN A PUBLIC
HEALTH. UM SOLUTION AND
HOPEFULLY THE INFORMATION YOU
GIVE US WILL HELP US NARROW
FOCUS LIKE A LASER AND HOW WE
CAN HELP. STOP THIS. UM BECAUSE
AT SOME POINT WE'RE GOING TO
HAVE TO JOIN TOGETHER. TO GET
RID OF IT INSTEAD OF LIKE THIS,
OKAY? SINCE WE HAVE A QUORUM
WILL WILL TAKE IT UP. THANK YOU,
MR RAMOS. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR.
THANK YOU MEMBERS.
BUT YOU HIDE IT. ITEM NUMBER
EIGHT. MR JACKSON. A B 443.
UNTIL YOU GOOD MORNING. GOOD
MORNING. GOOD MORNING, SIR. GOOD
MORNING, SIR. NICE TIE YOU BEGIN
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. WELL,
GOOD MORNING CHAIR MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. I AM EXCITED TO
BE ABLE TO PRESENT THIS BILL A B
443. UM. IN APRIL OF 2022, THE
STATE AUDITOR COMPLETED A REPORT
FINDING SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
THAT SOME OF OUR CALIFORNIA
PEACE OFFICERS HAVE ENGAGED IN
BIASED CONDUCT. EITHER IN THEIR
ON DUTY. INTERACTIONS WITH
INDIVIDUALS OR ONLINE THROUGH
THEIR SOCIAL MEDIA POST. THE
AUDIT SAMPLE WAS QUITE LARGE.
INVOLVING FIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES. THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION. THE LOS ANGELES
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. THERE IS
SAN BERNARDINO POLICE DEPARTMENT
, THE SAN JOSE POLICE DEPARTMENT
AND THE STOCKTON POLICE
DEPARTMENT. AMONG OTHER THINGS,
THE STATE AUDITOR ADVISED THE
STATE LEGISLATURE TO ADDRESS
BIAS. BY ADOPTING A STATEWIDE
AND UNIFORM DEFINITION OF BIASED
OFFICER CONDUCT. AND FORCED AND
FOR STATEWIDE PROTOCOLS BE
DEVELOPED TO SCREEN OFFICER
APPLICANTS FOR ANY BIAS SHOWN IN
ONLINE POST. 84 43 ADOPTS BOTH
OF THESE SUGGESTIONS AND
REQUIRES POST TO ESTABLISH A
DEFINITION OF BIAS CONDUCT. AND
SAID STATEWIDE PROTOCOLS FOR
OFFICER APPLICANT SCREENINGS.
FOR ONLINE POST. UM A B 443 WILL
REQUIRE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
TO APPLY THIS DEFINITION TO ANY
INVESTIGATION INTO A BIASED
RELATED COMPLAINT OR AN INCIDENT
THAT INVOLVES POSSIBLE
INDICATIONS OF OFFICER BIASED.
IMPORTANTLY A B 443 FURTHER
STRENGTHENS AND COMPLEMENTS THE
IMPORTANT WORK THIS COMMITTEE
AND LEGISLATURE HAS ALREADY DONE
TO BRING EQUITY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY TO PEACE OFFICER
INTERACTIONS. UM I WANT TO THANK
THE STATE AUDITOR FOR THEIR
IMPORTANT WORK ON THIS ISSUE AND
FOR PROVIDING THE DATA AND
NARRATIVE TO THE UNFORTUNATE
TRUTH THAT MANY OF US HAVE KNOWN
AND SUFFERED FOR GENERATIONS.
AND I'M HAPPY TO HAVE HERE. BOB
HARRIS FROM THE STATE ORDERS
OFFICE AS WELL. YES SIR. YOU
HAVE FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS BOB HARRIS
WITH THE STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE
WHERE I'M, AN ACTING DEPUTY
STATE AUDITOR. UM AS A MATTER OF
PRACTICE, OUR OFFICE DOESN'T
TAKE A FORMAL POSITION EITHER
FOR OR AGAINST BILLS. BUT THIS
MORNING, I'LL OUTLINE FOR THE
COMMITTEE HOW A B 443 ADDRESSES
TWO OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS WE
MADE IN A RECENT AUDIT REPORT.
RELATED TO HOW WELL LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES WERE
SAFEGUARDING AGAINST BIASED
CONDUCT BY THEIR OFFICERS, AS
THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER ALREADY
INDICATED THE FIRST
RECOMMENDATION THIS BILL WOULD
ADDRESS RELATES TO THE ADOPTION
OF A STANDARDIZED UNIFORM
STATEWIDE DEFINITION FOR WHAT IT
MEANS FOR AN OFFICER TO ACT IN A
BIASED MANNER WE REVIEWED FOR
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
DURING THIS AUDIT AND FOUND THAT
NONE OF THEM HAD A COMMON
STANDARDIZED DEFINITION OR
UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IT MEANT
FOR AN OFFICER'S BEHAVIOR TO
HAVE BEEN INFLUENCED BY BIAS. WE
ALSO TOOK A LOOK AT A SELECTION
OF MISCONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS
DURING WHICH THERE WERE
REASONABLE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
INFLUENCE OF BIAS ON AN
OFFICER'S BEHAVIOR, AND WE FOUND
SEVERAL WEAKNESSES WITH THE WAY
THAT THOSE DEPARTMENTS
APPROACHED, INVESTIGATING OR NOT
INVESTIGATING THOSE POTENTIAL
SIGNS OF BIAS. FOR INSTANCE, WE
FOUND THAT THE DEPARTMENTS WERE
OVERLY RELIANT ON OFFICERS
EXPLANATIONS FOR THEIR BEHAVIOR.
THEY OVERLOOKED SIGNS OF
POSSIBLE IMPLICIT BIASES AND
FOCUS INSTEAD ON MORE OVERT OR
EXPLICIT SIGNS OF BIAS. AND THEY
FAILED TO CONSIDER THE
REASONABLE APPEARANCE OF AN
OFFICER'S CONDUCT. UM INSTEAD
RELYING ON THE OFFICERS
EXPLANATIONS FOR WHY THEY
BEHAVED IN THE MANNER THEY DID.
SO OUR RECOMMENDATION IN THIS
AREA WAS FOR THE STATE TO ADOPT
A COMMON DEFINITION THAT WOULD
BE REQUIRED TO BE USED BY LAW
ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS WHEN
THEY CONDUCT SUCH INVESTIGATIONS
AND ALSO FELT IT IMPORTANT THAT
THAT DEFINITION ADDRESSED THE
WEAKNESS AS WE SAW IN THE
APPROACHES BEING TAKEN BY THE
DEPARTMENTS WE REVIEWED THE
SECOND RECOMMENDATION THIS BILL
WOULD ADDRESS RELATES TO SOCIAL
MEDIA SCREENINGS DURING THE
PEACE OFFICER CANDIDATE HIRING
PROCESS. THESE SCREENINGS COULD
BE POTENTIALLY BENEFICIAL TO LAW
ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS AS THEY
TRY TO IDENTIFY CANDIDATES THAT
ARE SUITABLE FOR THE ROLE OF A
PEACE OFFICER. INDIVIDUAL SOCIAL
MEDIA ACTIVITIES CAN SOMETIMES
REVEAL BIASES THAT THEY
POTENTIALLY HOLD, SUCH AS
THROUGH THE PROMOTION OF
NEGATIVE STEREOTYPES OR THE
PROMOTION OF THOSE STEREOTYPES
ONLINE. UM WE, IN FACT DID OUR
OWN SOCIAL MEDIA REVIEW OF A
SELECTION OF OFFICERS AND FOUND
THAT SOME OFFICERS HAD IN FACT
BEEN PROMOTING NEGATIVE
STEREOTYPES OR HATEFUL SPEECH
ONLINE. SO IT REVEALED THE
POTENTIAL VALUE OF SUCH A
SCREENING. AND ALTHOUGH ALL THE
DEPARTMENTS WE REVIEWED WERE
CONDUCTING SOME MEASURE OF
SOCIAL MEDIA SCREENING DURING
THEIR APPLICATION PROCESS, THE
SPAN AND SCOPE OF THOSE WERE
VARIED. AND IT WASN'T ALWAYS
CLEAR TO US FROM REVIEWING THE
RECORDS THAT THEY MAINTAINED
WHAT EXACTLY IT WAS THAT THEY
WERE LOOKING FOR. SO WE FELT IT
BENEFICIAL THAT POSED TO BE
TASKED WITH DEVELOPING GUIDANCE
FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS
FOR HOW TO CONDUCT AN EFFECTIVE
SOCIAL MEDIA SCREENING DURING
THE APPLICANT HIRING PROCESS SO
THAT THEY CAN BE ASSURED THAT
THEY ARE TAKING THE BEST
POSSIBLE APPROACH TO IDENTIFYING
POTENTIAL BIASES BEFORE A
CANDIDATE IS HIRED AS A PEACE
OFFICER. WOULD THAT WOULD BE
HAPPY TO TAKE ANY OF THE
COMMITTEE'S QUESTIONS. THANK YOU
. UM ARE THERE ANY OTHER
WITNESSES AND SUPPORT GOT. TO
GOOD MORNING, MARCO GEORGE ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION AND
SUPPORT. JIM LINDBERG, ON BEHALF
OF THE FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON
LEGISLATION OF CALIFORNIA AND
THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
SOCIAL WORKERS, CALIFORNIA
CHAPTER IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
NOT ANY WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION. ANY WITNESSES ON
OPPOSITION GOING TWICE. THE
WITNESS OPPOSITION THREE TIMES.
NOW WE'RE BRINGING BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR ANY
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. BEING
NONE, HUH? TO GET INTO YOUR
HANDS. SO LET'S CAN I DO SOME
HOUSEKEEPING REAL QUICK. LET'S
ESTABLISH A QUORUM AND THEN
APPROVED THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
SECRETARY CALLED THE ROLL ON
SAWYER HERE IS BANTA, BRIAN.
LACKEY ORTEGA SANTIAGO. ZABAR
HERE FOR MR PRESIDENT. WE HAVE
THE FOLLOWING PROPOSED CONSENT
CALENDAR ITEMS. I DON'T NUMBER 6
84 TO 3 MAIENSCHEIN DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, MISSING PERSONS I
REMEMBER 7 84 42 VALLAPUDUA
STATE SUMMARY CRIMINAL HISTORY
INFORMATION I DON'T KNOW WHICH
12 84 79 BLANCO RUBIO
ALTERNATIVE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
PROGRAM WITH AN URGENCY CLAUSE.
AND I DON'T KNOW, BUT 14 85 OH,
A PETRI NORTH PROBATION,
ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES. 2ND 2ND.
THAT'S CALLED ROLE. JOHN SAWYER
. I COLONIES. BANTER BANTER. I,
BRIAN. BLACKIE BLACKIE. I ORTEGA
ORTEGA EYES SANTIAGO ZABAR. AYE.
CAN SAVE COLLEGE ADOPTED AND I'M
JUST GONNA GO. MADAM MISS POTTER
FIRST BUT I WANT TO JUST THANK
THE AUTHOR FOR BRINGING FORWARD
THIS VERY COMMON SENSE PIECE OF
LEGISLATION. I THINK WE WERE
STRUCK BY THE FACT THAT THERE
HADN'T BEEN A DEFINITION OF BIAS
PREVIOUSLY OFFERED AND SO JUST
TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT KIND OF
BASELINE THAT CAN BE, YOU KNOW,
AT EARLY AND UNIFORMLY APPLIED
IS INCREDIBLY CRITICAL. IN
ADDITION TO THE OPPORTUNITY FOR
ADDITIONAL TRAINING AND SUPPORT
, WHICH I THINK AS YOU SHARED,
PROMOTES STRONGER COMMITMENT AND
TRANSPARENCY AND RELATIONSHIP
AND TRUST BETWEEN OUR LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND THE
PUBLIC. SO THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD BASED ON A
VERY STRONG AUDITOR'S REPORT SO
GOOD GOVERNANCE AND I WILL BE
MOVING THE WELL. THANK YOU,
ROBERT. SO THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD. I
WAS ALSO SURPRISED THAT THERE
WASN'T A STATEWIDE STANDARD AND
THINK THAT THIS IS REALLY EXCUSE
ME REALLY IMPORTANT. I DID HAVE
ONE QUESTION AND WHICH I
COULDN'T TELL FROM THE BILL
ANALYSIS, AND THAT'S WHETHER
IMMIGRATION STATUS IS ONE OF THE
CRITERION THAT EXTENDS PROTECTED
STATUS IN THE BILL. AND IF IT
ISN'T WHETHER THAT BE SOMETHING
YOU'D BE WILLING TO SORT OF LOOK
AT UM, ALTHOUGH WE JUST, UM,
MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE JUST
DEALING WITH THE DEFINITION AS A
WHOLE. UM I DID NOT LOOK AT
PARTICULAR GROUPS THAT IT MIGHT
UH, WARRANT TO ALSO LOOK AT BUT
I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO MAKING
SURE THAT YOUR CONCERNS ARE ARE
INCLUDED, AND I'M STRONGLY
SUPPORTIVE OF THE THANK YOU, DID
YOU THANK YOU. YOU MAY CLOSE.
THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. UM
OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE,
UH, BILLS THAT WHENEVER WE SEE
AN ISSUE THAT ARISES, WE WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE ADDRESS IT AS
QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. UM AND SO
HAPPY TO BE HERE TO INTRODUCE
THIS BILL, AND I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR AN I VOTE. AND I ALSO
WANT TO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD. SO SOMEONE FROM
LOS ANGELES COUNTY WHERE THERE'S
A SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR NOW
THAT'S LOOKING INTO L, A SHERIFF
GANGS AND FERRETING OUT THAT WE
KNOW THERE IS SOME BIAS AMONG
HOPEFULLY, A VERY SMALL SECTOR
OF LAW ENFORCEMENT. AND SO IT'S
REALLY GOOD THAT WE'RE STOPPING
AT THE BEGINNING INSTEAD OF
WAITING TO FESTERS AND
METASTASIZE ITSELF THROUGHOUT
THE DEPARTMENT ARE ALSO SUGGEST,
UH RIVERSIDE COUNTY IS NOW.
BEING LOOKED AT BY THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS, AND THERE MAY BE
SOME SOME METHODOLOGY OR SOME
THINGS THAT THEY'RE USING THAT
MAYBE HELP YOU. TO DO IT ON THE
FRONT END TO FERRET IT OUT. THEY
MAY COME UP WITH SOME THINGS
THAT SAY, HEY, IF WE HAD DONE
THIS EARLIER WE WOULDN'T HAVE
FOUND PROBLEMS LATER. SO I WOULD
SUGGEST LOOK AT US ATTORNEY
GENERAL BOUNCES INVESTIGATION OF
, UH DR RIVERSIDE COUNTY
SHERIFF. THAT WHEN YOU OUT
SECOND SECRETARY CALLED THE ROLE
. AND MAYBE 443 BY SEVEN MEN.
REJECTION JACKSON. EXCUSE ME.
THE MOTION IS DUE PASTOR, THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. JOHN
SAWYER. I ALANIS BONTA. I BRIAN.
BLACKIE BLACKIE. I ORTEGA ORTEGA
I SANTIAGO ZIPPER. SUPER AYE.
THE MEASURE PASSED US. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU HAVE TWO ITEMS.
ITEM NUMBER TWO AND FOUR.
HOLDING A B TO A OH, AND A B
304.
SO HE SIGNED IN. THINGS HERE AT
SUNNYSIDE, THEN. WHEN WHENEVER
YOU'RE READY. OKAY. THANK YOU,
MR CHAIR. AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT ASSEMBLY BILL 2 80,
CALIFORNIA MANDELA ACT ON
SOLITARY CONFINEMENT. YEARS OF
RESEARCH CONTINUE TO CONFIRM
THAT SOLITARY CONFINEMENT CAUSES
DEEP PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL
HARM, BUT IT REMAINS COMMON IN
JAILS, PRISONS AND DETENTION
FACILITIES ACROSS CALIFORNIA.
THE CONSENSUS AMONG MENTAL
HEALTH EXPERTS, HUMAN RIGHTS
ORGANIZATIONS AND THE UNITED
NATIONS IS THAT PROLONGED
SOLITARY CONFINEMENT AMOUNTS TO
TORTURE IN 2016, THE NATIONAL
COMMISSION ON CORRECTIONAL
HEALTHCARE STATED THAT A PERIOD
OF CONFINEMENT BEYOND 15
CONSECUTIVE DAYS IS INHUMANE,
DEGRADING TREATMENT AND HARMFUL
TO AN INDIVIDUAL'S HEALTH. THE
LACK OF HUMAN CONTACT AND
ENDLESS MONOTONY CAUSES DEEP
DEPRESSION, PARANOIA AND SOME
EVEN SUFFER HALLUCINATIONS.
OTHERS EXPERIENCE LARGE
FLUCTUATIONS AND WAIT AND
CHRONIC PAIN. AND DUE TO ITS
EXTREMELY RESTRICTIVE
CONDITIONS, CHRONIC HEALTH
CONDITIONS EITHER GO UNTREATED
OR MISTREATED. 82 80 PROVIDES
DEFINITION OF WHAT CONSTITUTES
SOLITARY CONFINEMENT ACROSS ALL
FACILITIES IN CALIFORNIA. IN
ALIGNMENT WITH THE U. N. MANDELA
RULES AND IMPOSES LIMITS ON HOW
IT CAN BE USED. ADDITIONALLY
THIS BILL WILL PROHIBIT THE USE
OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT FOR
VULNERABLE POPULATIONS SUCH AS
PREGNANT WOMEN, AND THOSE WERE
SERIOUS MENTAL AND PHYSICAL
DISABILITIES. TO STATE. THE
OBVIOUS PEOPLE WHO NEED
SPECIALIZED CARE SHOULD NOT BE
LOCKED UP IN A ROOM THE SIZE OF
A KING SIZE BED AND WITHOUT
ACCESS TO SERVICES THAT THEY
NEED. ALTHOUGH THE MANDELA ACT
AS CLEAR, SOME CONTINUE TO
MISUNDERSTAND WHAT IT ACTUALLY
DOES, SO I WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT
TO BE VERY CLEAR ON WHAT IT DOES
AND DOES NOT DO. THIS BILL DOES
SET OF DEFINED LIMIT ON HOW LONG
AN INDIVIDUAL CAN BE SUBJECTED
TO PROLONGED ISOLATION WITHOUT
HUMAN CONTACT AND CONFINED
INSIDE OF A CELL. THIS BILL DOES
NOT ELIMINATE THE ABILITY OF A
FACILITY TO HOLD SOMEONE IN AN
INDIVIDUAL CELL, EITHER BECAUSE
THEY NEED PROTECTION OR BECAUSE
THEY MAY POSE A THREAT TO
OTHERS. AND FINALLY, THIS BILL
PROVIDES DISTINCT ALTERNATIVES
TO 23 HOUR LOCKDOWN, WHICH ONLY
SERVED TO PERPETUATE CYCLES OF
VIOLENCE. IN 2015, CALIFORNIA
AGREED TO ABIDE BY THE ACTUAL
AGREEMENT. THE HISTORIC
SETTLEMENT, THE LIMITED HOW CDCR
COULD USE SOLITARY CONFINEMENT
AND PROHIBITED THE DEPARTMENT.
FROM USING IT ON INCARCERATED
PEOPLE INDEFINITELY. THE
MONITORING OF THIS AGREEMENT HAS
BEEN EXTENDED REPEATEDLY.
BECAUSE THE FEDERAL COURT FOUND
THAT CDCR WAS EFFECTIVELY
FRUSTRATING THE PURPOSE. OF THE
SETTLEMENT BY USING AN ACCURATE
AND FABRICATED CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION TO CONTINUE SENDING
INDIVIDUALS TO SOLITARY
CONFINEMENT. THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN CLEAR OVER
THE PAST EIGHT YEARS THAT THE
FAILURE TO LIVE UP TO THE OSCAR
AGREEMENT IS JUST UNACCEPTABLE.
MANY TIMES WE LIKE TO BOAST A
CALIFORNIA AS CALIFORNIA GOES,
SO GOES THE NATION. BUT WE ARE
BEHIND IN SETTING CLEAR
STANDARDS ON THE USE OF SOLITARY
CONFINEMENT. SEVERAL STATES,
INCLUDING NEW YORK AND COLORADO
, HAVE ALREADY TAKEN THIS
CRITICAL STEP. CALIFORNIA MUST
JOIN THESE STATES AND THE
INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY SAID
WELL DEFINED STANDARDS AND
LIMITS ON THE USE OF SOLITARY
CONFINEMENT. JUST BEGINS BY
RECOGNIZING THAT PROLONGED
SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IS TORTURE
AND SETTING UNIFORMS CONSISTENT
LIMITS ON HOW SOLITARY
CONFINEMENT IS USED. HERE TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF A B 2 80
IS JASON TORO, WHO WILL SPEAK ON
THE IMPACT SOLITARY CONFINEMENT
HAS HAD ON HIS LIFE AND MARGOT
MILITANT MARKET MENDELSSOHN.
WITH PRISON LAW OFFICE TO
TESTIFY AS WELL. GOOD MORNING.
GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS JASON
TORO. I'M THE CHIEF PROGRAM
OFFICER FOR NONPROFIT IN THE IN
THE EAST BAY. I'M RESPONSIBLE
FOR OUR COMMUNITY SUPPORT AND
ADVOCACY BRANCH, WHICH IS IT'S
FIVE DEPARTMENTS 18 DIFFERENT
PROGRAMS OVER 100 DIFFERENT
STAFF. UM, I'M A FORMER SCHOOL
BOARD MEMBER. IN FACT, I WAS THE
FIRST LATINO SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER
IN A DISTRICT THAT WAS 48%
LATINO AT THE TIME. UM BUT THE
FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT I'M
PROBABLY NOT SUPPOSED TO BE
HERE. UM AS A YOUNGSTER, I WENT
FROM FOSTER CARE TO JUVENILE
HALL TO THE BOYS RANCH TO COUNTY
JAIL TO STATE PRISON AT THE AGE
OF 19. UM AND AT THE AGE OF 20.
I WAS GIVEN AN INDETERMINATE
SECURITY HOUSING UNIT TERMS. SO
IN INDETERMINATE SHU TERM, WHICH
BASICALLY MEANS THAT UM I WOULD
ALWAYS BE IN THE SHOE ANYTIME
THAT I WAS IN PRISON. UM AND
THIS WASN'T DONE FOR COMMITTING
ANY ACT OF VIOLENCE. THIS WAS
DONE BECAUSE I WAS IDENTIFIED BY
, UH BY SOMEONE ELSE AS A AS A
GANG MEMBER AS A PRISON GANG
MEMBER, UM AND FOR ME AT THE
TIME. THE ONLY WAY ADDED THE
SHOE. WAS FOR ME TO TELL ON
ANOTHER INMATE WHICH WOULD
BASICALLY REPLACED THEM, YOU
KNOW, IT WOULD BE REPLACING MY
BED IN THE SHOE WITH THEM. UM OR
DYING OR PAROLING. LUCKILY, I
PEROTE UM SO HERE I WAS, YOU
KNOW, 20 YEARS OLD. UM A COUPLE
OF YEARS FROM ADOLESCENCE, YOU
KNOW, A COUPLE YEARS FROM BEING
A TEENAGER AND I HAD ALREADY
BEEN IN THE SHOE FOR ALMOST TWO
YEARS. UM TO SAY I WAS
DEPRESSED. UM IS AN
UNDERSTATEMENT. YOU KNOW, I'M
SURE THAT EVERYBODY IS FAMILIAR
WITH THE WITH THE TERM
TRANSITIONAL AGE YOUTH, AND
THAT'S WHAT I WAS AT THAT TIME,
AND I'M NOT AS SPECIALIST
UNDERTAKE A BRAIN BY BY ANY
SENSE OF THE MATTER, BUT I KNOW
ABSOLUTELY AND POSITIVELY IN MY
LIFE THAT UH, BEING IN THE SHOE
FOR TWO YEARS AS A TRANSITIONAL
AGE, YOUTH HAD EXTREME LONG TERM
NEGATIVE EFFECTS. UM YOU KNOW,
IN IN MY IN MY LIFE AND MY IN MY
MENTAL HEALTH AND MY DEPRESSION
, UM AND THIS WAS BECAUSE OF
ONGOING ISOLATION AND SENSORY
DEPRIVATION. I DON'T KNOW IF
ANYBODY CAN IMAGINE BEING YOU
KNOW, IN A PLACE THE SIZE OF A
KING SIZED BED FOR YEARS UPON
YEARS AT A TIME, WHICH IS WHAT
WHAT? WHAT HAPPENS. UM AND AGAIN
, YOU KNOW, TO SAY I WAS
DEPRESSED IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT.
I HAD CONSTANT SUICIDAL
IDEATION. UM I FELT HOPELESS. UM
I WAS IN A CONSTANT STATE OF
PARANOIA. UM THIS DEEP
DEPRESSION FOLLOWED ME FOR YEARS
AND YEARS AND YEARS. IT DIDN'T
STOP. ONCE I LEFT THE SHOE I
PAROLED FROM PELICAN BAY STATE
PRISON FOR THE LAST TIME IN ON
SEPTEMBER. 14TH AND 98. SO YOU
KNOW, IT'S BEEN 25 YEARS. UM AND
I THINK ABOUT THE SHOE EVERY
SINGLE DAY. YOU KNOW, IT'S A
PART OF MY IDENTITY, RIGHT? LIKE
WHEN I TALK TO PEOPLE.
INEVITABLY INEVITABLY IT COMES
UP THAT I WAS, YOU KNOW, IN THE
SHOE THAT I WAS IN PRISON. UM
AND YOU KNOW, AND HERE IT IS 25
YEARS LATER, AND IT'S A IT'S A
CONSTANT UM, SORT OF BACKDROP TO
MY LIFE. UM ON ON A DAILY BASIS
, AND I'M AND I'M GLAD TO BE
HERE IN SUPPORT OF THIS BILL TO
STOP THIS INHUMANE TREATMENT OF
HUMAN BEINGS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. YES. GOOD MORNING CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS MARGO
MENDELSSOHN, AND I AM THE LEGAL
DIRECTOR OF THE PRISON LAW
OFFICE, A NONPROFIT LAW FIRM
THAT ADVOCATES ON BEHALF OF
INCARCERATED PEOPLE. WE ARE PART
OF A COALITION OF COSPONSORS
SUPPORTING A B 2 80. OUR DECADES
OF ADVOCACY ON THIS ISSUE HAVE
LED US TO CONCLUDE THAT A
COMPREHENSIVE LEGISLATIVE
SOLUTION IS NEEDED TO LIMIT THE
USE OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN
CALIFORNIA'S JAILS, PRISONS AND
IMMIGRATION DETENTION CENTERS.
OUR ORGANIZATION REPRESENTS OVER
100,000 PEOPLE IN JAILS AND
PRISONS ACROSS THE STATE. OUR
LAWSUITS ENSURE THAT PEOPLE HAVE
ACCESS TO ADEQUATE MEDICAL AND
MENTAL HEALTH CARE AND HUMANE
CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT AND
THAT PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
HAVE ACCESS EQUAL ACCESS TO
PRISON AND JAIL PROGRAMS. WE
FIGHT TO CURB ABUSES OF
INCARCERATED PEOPLE AND TO
REDUCE RATES OF INCARCERATION
ACROSS THE STATE. AS PART OF OUR
WORK, MY COLLEAGUES AND I SPEND
A GREAT DEAL OF TIME INSIDE
CALIFORNIA JAILS AND PRISONS. WE
HAVE EXTENSIVE CONTACT WITH OUR
CLIENTS, AND WE CONDUCT REGULAR
SITE VISITS AND FACILITIES
THROUGHOUT THE STATE. SOLITARY
CONFINEMENT IS AN ISSUE OF MAJOR
CONCERN TO OUR OFFICE AND TO OUR
CLIENTS. THROUGHOUT THE STATE.
WE SEE UNPRINCIPLED, EXCESSIVE
AND HARMFUL USE OF SOLITARY
CONFINEMENT. PEOPLE ACROSS THE
STATE ROUTINELY SPEND UPWARDS OF
23 HOURS A DAY LOCKED IN
CONCRETE CELLS WITH LITTLE TO
OCCUPY THEIR MINDS. MANY OF OUR
CLIENTS GET OUT AS LITTLE AS 15
MINUTES A DAY DURING WHICH THEY
HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN TAKING A
SHOWER OR CALLING IT LOVED.
BEFORE THEY RETURN TO THEIR LOCK
CELLS. AS MR TORO DESCRIBED OUR
CLIENTS IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT
EXPERIENCE RACING THOUGHTS,
PARANOIA, DEPRESSION.
UNCONTROLLABLE WEEPING. THEY
TELL US THEY HAVE BOUTS OF
ANGER. DIFFICULTY WITH MOOD
CONTROL AND PROFOUND
DISORIENTATION AS A RESULT OF
THE SENSORY DEPRIVATION. THESE
HARMS OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT
ARE WELL ESTABLISHED INCIDENTS
OF SUICIDE AND SELF HARM OR
VASTLY HIGHER IN SOLITARY
CONFINEMENT UNITS. MANY OF THE
MENTAL HEALTH IMPACTS OF
SOLITARY CONFINEMENT ARE
PERMANENT, IMPACTING NOT ONLY A
PERSON'S EXPERIENCE WHILE IN
SOLITARY CONFINEMENT, BUT UPON
RELEASED TO THE GENERAL
POPULATION AND THEN TO THE
COMMUNITY. MANY PEOPLE IN
SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN THIS
STATE ARE THERE BECAUSE THEY
BREAK MINOR DISCIPLINARY RULES.
IN THE STATE PRISON SYSTEM.
SOMEBODY CAN BE IN SOLITARY
CONFINEMENT FOR TWO YEARS FOR
THE OFFENSE OF SPITTING. AND IN
COUNTY JAILS. PEOPLE ARE
ROUTINELY THERE BECAUSE WITHOUT
NOTICE OF WHY THEY'RE THERE, OR
HOW LONG THEY WILL REMAIN. WE
HAVE WORKED WITH CORRECTIONAL
SYSTEMS TO REFORM THE USE OF
SOLITARY CONFINEMENT BEGIN TO
WRAP UP AND THROW JUST TO
EMPHASIZE THAT THIS BILL DOES
NOT PREVENT ANYONE BAIT FROM
BEING HELD IN A SINGLE CELL OR
APART FROM THE GENERAL
POPULATION. IT'S SIMPLY
PROHIBITS THE USE OF A PRACTICE
KNOWN TO CONSTITUTE TORTURE,
WHICH HAS NO PLACE IN THIS
STATE. THANKS FOR YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU. OR ANY OTHER
WITNESSES AND SUPPORT. THIS WAY.
NAME AND ORGANIZATION, PLEASE.
GOOD MORNING CHAIR AND MEMBERS
ERIC HARRIS, DISABILITY RIGHTS,
CALIFORNIA AND STRONG SUPPORT.
GOOD MORNING CHAIR AND MEMBERS
LITTLE WITH CALIFORNIA'S FOR
SAFETY AND JUSTICE AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. DANICA ROAD, ARMEL ON
BEHALF OF LAWYERS COMMITTEE FOR
CIVIL RIGHTS, THE TRANSFORMATIVE
IN PRISON WORK GROUP AND THE
GROUP TRAINING INSTITUTE. MARCO
GEORGE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION, AND STRONG SUPPORT
THAT THE CALIFORNIA MANDELA ACT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. MY NAME IS ALEXA
CULTURAL, AND I'M AN INTERN WITH
THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF
CALIFORNIA AND WE ARE IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. JIM LINDBERG
FOR THE FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON
LEGISLATION OF CALIFORNIA
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL
WORKERS, CALIFORNIA CHAPTER. AND
THE CALIFORNIA CATHOLIC
CONFERENCE OAN SUPPORT. GOOD
MORNING, GLENN BACCHUS FOR THE
ELEVATOR CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
AND SUPPORT. NATASHA MINSTER.
SMART JUSTICE CALIFORNIANS
SUPPORT. JACKIE GONZALEZ ON
BEHALF OF CO SPONSORS. IMMIGRANT
DEFENSE ADVOCATES CALIFORNIA
COLLABORATIVE FOR IMMIGRANT
JUSTICE CALIFORNIA FAMILIES
AGAINST SOLITARY CONFINEMENT AND
UNDERGROUND SCHOLARS AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. NOW. ARE
THERE ANY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION? TO HAVE I GUESS WE
HAVE TWO SEATS. BRING THE MIC
OVER OR SHARE IT. OKAY. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS COREY SALTILLO ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
SHERIFFSASSOCIATION RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED TO THE BILL. AS WE WERE
LAST YEAR. THIS WOULD SEVERELY
RESTRICT THE USE OF SEGREGATED
CONFINEMENT. UM AS A GENERAL
MATTER, WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT
IMPOSING THOSE THESE SIGNIFICANT
MANDATES AND STATUTE, UM WE FEEL
IT'S THE ROLE OF THE BORDER,
STATE AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS
TO SET MINIMUM STANDARDS. THAT'S
THEIR STATUTORY CHARGE. FOR
CUSTODIAL FACILITIES AND
ADOPTING AND REVISING THESE
MINIMUM STANDARDS IS AN ONGOING
PROCESS THAT THE BOARD
UNDERTAKES WITH STAKEHOLDERS
FROM ALL PERSPECTIVES, CUSTODIAL
PROFESSIONALS ADVOCATES, AND IT
ALLOWS FOR EVOLUTION AND
REFINEMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
WITHOUT THE BURDEN OF HAVING TO
AMEND STATUTE EVERY TIME THE
CHANGES NEEDED. UM THE B S C C
PRACTITIONERS WHO ARE
RESPONSIBLE FOR SUPERVISION, AND
THE ADVOCATES WHO PARTICIPATE IN
THIS PROCESS ARE BEST SITUATED
TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS ABOUT
BEST PRACTICES AND FACILITY
STANDARDS. BUT ALSO AND MORE
SPECIFICALLY, THE RESTRICTIONS
IN THE BILL ITSELF PRECLUDE MANY
OFFENDERS FROM BEING CONFINED IN
A WAY THAT MEETS THE BILLS,
DEFINITIONS THAT DESIGNATED
POPULATION TERM, WHICH IS THE
TRIGGER FOR MANY OF THE
RESTRICTIONS ANYONE UNDER 26
YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER THAN 59
PREGNANT OR IN THE FIRST EIGHT
WEEKS, POSTPARTUM RECOVERY. UM
IT WILL ALSO VERY LIKELY
ELIMINATE THE USE OF SEGREGATED
CONFINEMENT. UM IN A LOT OF
SITUATIONS, INCLUDING
REPLACEMENT IS NECESSARY FOR THE
SAFETY OF THE FACILITY OR
INDIVIDUAL INCARCERATED PERSONS
THEMSELVES. I WOULD POINT TO
ACCOUNT MATTERS ARTICLE FROM
LAST YEAR ON THE PREVIOUS
VERSION OF THE BILL, MAYBE 26
32. WERE FORMER INCARCERATED
PERSON SPOKE TO THE NEED TO BE
ABLE TO SEPARATE CERTAIN
INCARCERATED PERSONS FROM
OTHERS. IN THE FACILITY AND THE
LIKELY OUTCOMES IF THAT OPTION
WERE UNAVAILABLE, SO FOR ALL
THESE REASONS, WERE OPPOSED TO
THE BILL AND RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU, SIR.
GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR MEMBERS.
RYAN, CHAIRMAN WITH THE
RIVERSIDE SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION
, ALSO WITH THE MONTEREY COUNTY
DEPUTY SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION,
PLASTIC COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFF
ASSOCIATION. ALL IN OPPOSITION
TO THE BILL, LINE, OUR THOUGHTS
AND PERSPECTIVES WITH MR SELLS,
SELLS COMMENTS AND JUST WANT TO
HIGHLIGHT A COUPLE OF THINGS
HERE. BRIEFLY UM, NOBODY UNDER
THE AGE OF 26, REGARDLESS OF
BEHAVIOR OR RISK OF HARM TO
THEMSELVES OR OTHERS. CAN BE PUT
IN SOLITARY. NOBODY OVER THE AGE
OF 59, REGARDLESS OF BEHAVIORAL
RISK OF HARM TO SELF OR OTHERS
CAN BE PUT IN SOLITARY. WHAT ARE
WE GOING TO DO WITH THESE
PEOPLE? UM TEMPORARY INMATES
SEGREGATED CONFINEMENT IS BANNED
. THERE'S NO EXCEPTIONS, EVEN
FOR THEIR OWN SAFETY. THAT
DOESN'T SEEM TO MAKE A LOT OF
SENSE TO US. WE NEED THAT
FLEXIBILITY. WE CAN LOOK AT TIME
LINKS. UM, BUT THE MANDATE IN
THIS BILL WITH THE 15 DAYS
SEEING THEM MATE STABS OF CELL
MATE. OKAY THEN HE GETS SOLITARY
FOR 15 DAYS AND SAYS, HEY, WHEN
YOU LET ME OUT, I'M GOING TO
STAB SOMEBODY ELSE. THERE'S
NOTHING IN THIS BILL THAT
PERMITS US TO LOCK THEM UP. AWAY
FROM OTHER FOLKS AFTER THAT. WE
HAVE TO LET THEM OUT AFTER 15
DAYS. AND THEY CAN KEEP DOING
THAT OVER AND OVER.
THEORETICALLY, UNDER THIS BILL
UNTIL THEY HIT THAT 45 DAY CAP,
AND THEN THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN
DO TO ISOLATE THEM FROM THE REST
OF THE INMATES IN THE PRISONS,
WHETHER JAILS SO THESE ARE AMONG
MANY OF OUR CONCERNS WE HAVE
WITH THE BILL, UM, DEFINING
SOLITARY AS TORTURE, BUT ONLY
DEFINING IT AS TORTURE FOR SOME
INMATES, NOT OTHERS. SO FOR SOME
INMATES IT'S NOT OKAY TO TORTURE
UNDER THIS BILL, BUT FOR OTHERS
IT IS. WE FIND THAT A BIT
CHALLENGING AS WELL. SO FOR
THESE, AND MANY OTHER REASONS
WERE REMAIN OPPOSED TO THE BILL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UM THOSE
WHO OPPOSED THE BILL NAME AND
ORGANIZATION. CHAIR AND MEMBERS
DANIEL SANCHEZ ON BEHALF OF THE
CHIEF PROBATION OFFICERS OF
CALIFORNIA OPPOSED UNLESS
AMENDED SPECIFICALLY DUE TO
EXISTING REGULATIONS AND
STATUTES PERTAINING TO JUVENILE
FACILITIES. WE LOOK FORWARD TO
MORE CONVERSATIONS AND
APPRECIATED THE CONVERSATION
THIS FAR. THANK YOU. MR CHAIRMAN
AND MEMBERS GAVIN MCCUE, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION, WERE ALSO OPPOSED.
THANK YOU. MR CHAIR MEMBERS
BRANDON UP ON BEHALF OF SHERIFF
ROBERT LUNA, LOS ANGELES COUNTY
OPEN TO THE DIALOGUE A DEEPER
STUDY, BUT UNFORTUNATELY HAVE TO
OPPOSE THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIRMAN,
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ALBERTO
TORRICO ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
COALITION. PROBATION
ORGANIZATIONS HAVE CONVERSATION
WITH THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE. WE
BELIEVE THAT THE EXISTING
STATUTES AND REGULATIONS FOR
JUVENILES IN COUNTY FACILITIES
ARE ACTUALLY MORE ARE BETTER FOR
THE JUVENILES. AND WHAT'S IN THE
BILL. NOW? THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, SHARON COMMITTEE HOLY
DELEON FOR THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT SHERIFF
CHAD BIANCO. WE ARE ALSO OPEN TO
DISCUSSIONS, BUT UNFORTUNATELY
WE HAVE TO OPPOSE THE BILL AT
THIS TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ANY WHAT ELSE IN OPPOSITION?
WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE
MEMBERS FOR QUESTIONS OR OH, MR
BRIAN IS HERE. HOW YOU DOING, MR
BRIAN? GOOD MORNING AGAIN.
TRYING TO LAY LOW. FIRST. I WANT
TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR BRINGING
THIS BILL FORWARD AGAIN. IT
SHOULDN'T HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN
BROUGHT FORWARD AGAIN BECAUSE IT
SHOULD HAVE BEEN SIGNED INTO LAW
LAST YEAR, BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR
PUSH YOUR EFFORT. I WANT TO
THANK THE WITNESS FOR BEING HERE
AND SHARING YOUR TRUE UM HONEST
, THOUGHTFUL TESTIMONY AND THE
LIFE THAT YOU'VE LIVED OF
SERVICE THESE LAST 25 YEARS AND
BEYOND. I JUST HEARD A BUNCH OF
INTERESTING THINGS. TORTURE FOR
SOME, NOT TORTURE FOR OTHERS.
YEAH, THE 15 DAYS. FOR CHILDREN
. WE CAN'T USE CHILDREN. WE
CAN'T DO OUR ELDERS. WE CAN DO
15 DAYS FOR FOLKS IN THE MIDDLE.
I THINK WE SHOULDN'T USE
SOLITARY AT ALL. I THINK ALL OF
IT IS TORTURED, BUT THIS MATCHES
THE U. N RECOMMENDATIONS RIGHT
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN
NAMED AFTER NELSON MANDELA. IT'S
THE MANDELA ACT. UM. IT'S
INTERESTING THAT WE HEARD THAT
THE BORDER, STATE AND COMMUNITY
CORRECTIONS SHOULD BE SETTING
THESE GUIDELINES FROM THE SAME
PEOPLE WHO OPPOSED TO PUBLIC
HEALTH AND MENTAL HEALTH EXPERTS
ON THE BOARD OF STATE AND
COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS. THERE'S A
LOT OF WORK THAT WE NEED TO DO
IN THIS SPACE. BUT IT'S WORK
THAT THE AUTHOR HAS BEEN DOING
FOR MANY YEARS. THIS IS AN
IMPORTANT BILL. WE MOVED IT OUT
OF COMMITTEE LAST YEAR. WE GOT
IT TO THE GOVERNOR'S DOES LAST
YEAR, WE SHOULD SEND IT RIGHT
BACK THERE AND HOPE THAT IT
BECOMES LAW THIS TIME. THANK YOU
TO THE AUTHOR FOR BRINGING IT
BACK. OKAY WITH YOU LIKE IT.
YEAH I THINK I HAVE. THE
OBVIOUS. QUESTION IS, HOW HAVE
YOU ADDRESSED? THE GOVERNOR'S
PREVIOUSLY EXPRESSED VIDEO
CONCERNS IN THIS ITERATION. I
APPRECIATE THE QUESTION. LET ME
JUST PREFACE MY COMMENTS BY
SAYING THAT A LOT OF THE
TESTIMONY THAT SAYS HOW
CHALLENGING THIS IS GOING TO BE
AND NO CHANGES ABSENT SOME LEVEL
OF ADJUSTMENT AND MAKING IT
WORK. BUT WHEN YOU LOOK ACROSS
THE COUNTRY, I LOVE TO BE ABLE
TO SIT HERE AND SAY THAT THIS IS
THE FIRST TIME THIS IS THE FIRST
IN THE NATION BILL THAT IS GOING
TO DO SOMETHING THAT'S VERY
IMPORTANT IN ALLIANCE WITH
INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS, AND
THAT CALIFORNIA IS THE FIRST
STATE IN THE UNION TO IMPOSE
THESE TYPE OF STANDARDS, BUT
IT'S NOT SO WHATEVER OUR
CONCERNS ABOUT IMPLEMENTATION,
WE HAVE NEW YORK, NEW JERSEY,
COLORADO AND A HOST OF OTHER
STATES TO LOOK AT TO SAY, HOW
DID YOU DO IT? HOW ARE YOU ABLE
TO THEN TRANSITION TO THE VERY
SAME STANDARDS THAT WERE
PROPOSING IN THIS LEGISLATION.
NOW ALSO HAVING SAID THAT WE ARE
OPERATING UNDER. AN AGREEMENT
FROM 2015 THAT BASICALLY SAID,
DO THE VERY SAME THING. AND WHAT
WAS REPRESENTED IN THE
PRESENTATION. I RESPECTFULLY UM
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT. IS THAT UNDER
THE OSCAR AGREEMENT YES, CDCR
AND OTHERS HAD IMPLEMENTED WHAT
THE COURT SAID TO DO, WHICH IS
NO DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE ARE
PROPOSING. HERE IN SPECIFIC
TERMS. THEN WE WOULDN'T BE HERE
WITH THE BILL. THIS BILL WOULD
NOT BE NECESSARY. THAT'S EIGHT
YEARS AGO. WE'RE NOT ONLY THE
STAKEHOLDER, THE FEDERAL COURT
HAS INTERVENED AND SAID GET IT
DONE. AS RECENTLY AS WHAT 2020
21. SO IT SUGGESTS THAT THERE IS
A NOW NEED AS YOUR ANALYSIS IN
YOUR REPORT STATES FOR
LEGISLATIVE GUIDELINES. AND AN
INTERVENTION IF YOU WILL. AND SO
THE FOCUS, I THINK THIS TIME
IT'S REALLY JUST A PARADIGM
SHIFT FOR THIS COMMITTEE FOR THE
LEGISLATURE THAT ACTUALLY MOVED
THE BILL TO THE GOVERNOR, BUT
ALSO FOR THE ALL OF THE
STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED. THAT WE
ARE NOT PUTTING FORWARD
SOMETHING BRAND NEW. NUMBER ONE
AND NUMBER TWO. THE COURTS EIGHT
YEARS AGO TOLD US TO START
MOVING IN THIS DIRECTION. AND
THERE WAS PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITY
FOR THOSE STANDARDS TO BE
ESTABLISHED BY CDCR, WHICH THEY
WERE NOT TO THE EXTENT THAT IT
ADDRESSED THE KIND OF CONCERNS
THAT THE COURT IDENTIFIED. AND
SUPPORTING THE AGREEMENT. SO
THAT'S MY BEST ANSWER. TO YOU.
THAT IT IS NOT. BRAND NEW OTHER
STATES HAVE IMPLEMENTED. AND I
THINK THAT CALIFORNIA CAN
CERTAINLY DO THE SAME. YEAH
BANTER. THANK THE AUTHOR FOR
BRINGING FORWARD THIS BILL, AND
I'M PROUD TO CO AUTHOR THIS BILL
ALONGSIDE WITH YOU AND I REALLY
APPRECIATE YOUR FRAMING AROUND
THE PARADIGM SHIFT THAT WE NEED
TO HAPPEN WITHIN OUR CARCEL
SYSTEM. I JUST BELIED KIND OF
VERY NOTABLY, AH INDICATED THAT
WE NEED SUCH A PARADIGM SHIFT
WHEN WE HAVE WITNESSES. COMING
UP HERE. AND USING TERMS LIKE
THESE PEOPLE TO TALK ABOUT. THIS
MAN RIGHT HERE. WHO HAS BEEN.
SOMEBODY WHO CLEARLY TALKED
ABOUT THE PTSD THAT HE HAS HAD
TO OVERCOME. WHILE HE WAS
INCARCERATED IN OUR STATE
SYSTEM. THESE PEOPLE ARE THE
ONES WHO END UP COMING OUT. AND
MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO ACTUALLY ADDRESS
OUR OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE OUR
COMMUNITIES THRIVE. SO I JUST
WANT TO PUT THAT OUT THERE THAT
95% OF THE THESE PEOPLE ACTUALLY
COME OUT. WHAT KIND OF CONDITION
DO WE WANT THEM TO COME OUT AND
WHAT AND HOW ARE WE CONTRIBUTING
TO THEIR OVERALL MENTAL HEALTH
WHILE THEY ARE IN OUR SYSTEM?
MOVE THE BILL. YOU MAY CLOSE IT.
I'D LIKE TO THANK THE COMMITTEE
FOR GIVING A AGAIN SERIOUS
CONSIDERATION TO THIS
LEGISLATION. THIS IS NOT A CHRIS
HOLDEN BILL. THIS IS A BILL
THAT'S DESIGNED TO DO SOMETHING
THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN PLACE
LONG TIME AGO. WE'RE JUST
MEETING THE MOMENT BASED ON WHAT
WE HAVE BEEN BROUGHT BY OUR
SPONSORS. AND I THINK THE
COURAGE OF EVERY SPONSOR EVERY
PERSON WHO HAS SAT IN THIS CHAIR
LAST YEAR AND THIS YEAR, MR
TORRES THIS YEAR AT THIS MOMENT
TO BE TRUTHFUL. TO BE HONEST TO
BE ABLE TO SPEAK ABOUT THINGS
THAT HE CONTINUES TO DEAL WITH
BECAUSE OF AN ENVIRONMENT IN
WHICH HE WAS PUT IN TO HAVE TO
SURVIVE. AND SO I JUST, UM
WITHOUT FURTHER COMMENTS ABOUT
IT, I JUST THINK IT'S AN
IMPORTANT BILL. IT'S IMPORTANT
TIME AND I DO. APPRECIATE THE
COMMITTEE'S CONSIDERATION. I
RESPECT FOR THE LAST THREE. I
VOTE. I ALSO WANT TO THANK YOU
FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD. IT IS
AN IMPORTANT DISCUSSION. UM AND
I KNOW YOU ARE AND THEY JUST PUT
THE OPPOSITION. I KNOW YOU'RE
MORE WILLING TO WORK WITH THEM.
OR COMING UP WITH SOMETHING THAT
THAT CAN MEET BOTH REQUIREMENTS.
OBVIOUSLY, SAFETY OF THE
OFFICERS, BUT ALSO SAFETY OF
PEOPLE ARE WHO ARE INCARCERATED.
UM I KNOW THAT BECAUSE I HAD A
SIMILAR BILL. WHICH WAS HELD IN
APPROPRIATIONS. NOT HELD BUT WAS
CHANGED IN APPROPRIATIONS. UM,
TO INCREASE. SOLITARY
CONFINEMENT. FROM WHAT I WANTED
IT TO BE. AND SO I KNOW YOU HAVE
AN OPEN MIND. LET ME JUST WE
DISAGREE. I DO KNOW YOU HAVE AN
OPEN MIND. UM ABOUT THIS, UM.
AND I KNOW YOU. YOU'RE VERY
SERIOUS ABOUT GETTING THIS DONE
, AND IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO
YOU. AND SO I OBVIOUSLY, I'M
GOING. TO I RECOMMEND THAT WE
MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS. UM BUT
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING WE NEED
TO UNDERSTAND THAT AS
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BANTER IS
SAYING. WE'VE GOT TO LOOK AT
PEOPLE ARE INCARCERATED AS HUMAN
BEINGS. NOT AS THINGS NOT AS
ANIMALS. NOT AS ENCOURAGE A BLE
NOT AS NEVER BEING ABLE TO BE
REHABILITATED BECAUSE THAT'S
WHAT SOLITARY CONFINEMENT KIND
OF SAYS. IT'S NOT EVEN TIME OUT.
IT IS. WE JUST GOING TO THROW
YOU AWAY? AND JUST LOCK YOU UP.
SOMETIMES THAT IS USED AS A
PUNISHMENT. NOT NECESSARILY AS
SAFETY. SAFETY I GET SAFETY
ISN'T AND IT'S A REAL THING. BUT
WHEN THEY ANNOUNCED HEARING A
LOT ABOUT SAFETY BUT ALSO WHEN
MY BILL WAS GOING THROUGH, IT
WAS ABOUT LOCKING THEM UP. AND
MAKING SURE THEY DON'T CAUSE
PROBLEMS SO. WHEN I ASKED WHEN
YOU HAVE THEM IN SOLITARY
CONFINEMENT. WHAT KIND OF MENTAL
HEALTH PROFESSIONALS COME FROM
THE LAW ENFORCEMENT? I GOT
NOTHING. NOT THEY JUST WANT TO
PUT HIM IN A CELL. AND HOPE THE
PROBLEM WILL GO AWAY, AND THAT'S
NOT AN APPROPRIATE WAY TO HANDLE
REHABILITATION IN ANY WAY, SHAPE
OR FORM. SO I WOULD SUGGEST THE
PEOPLE WHO OPPOSE TO COME TO YOU
WITH WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN YOU
WHEN YOU HAVE SOMEBODY IN
SOLITARY CONFINEMENT. I THINK
YOU HAVE A BETTER ARGUMENT THAT
YOU SAY WHILE THEY'RE IN
SOLITARY CONFINEMENT WE'RE GOING
TO PROVIDE MENTAL HEALTH,
SUBSTANCE ABUSE FOR ENTERPRISE
THIS THAT THEY'RE NOT JUST IN A
CELL. UM BY THEMSELVES TO
INCREASE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE
THAT ULTIMATELY BECOME PART OF
THE MENTAL HEALTH FACILITY OF
NOT ONLY CDCR, BUT THE JAILS,
WHICH IN L, A COUNTY, OUR
COUNTY. IS THE LARGEST MENTAL
HEALTH FACILITY. PROBABLY IN THE
COUNTRY. BECAUSE WE'RE NOT
ADDRESSING THE PROBLEMS OF
MENTAL HEALTH. IN FACT, WE'RE
INCREASING IT. SO AGAIN, I THANK
YOU FOR JOINING US. GOOD. ON A B
2 80 BY A SEVEN MEMBER HOLDING
THE MOTION IS PASSED TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. JOHN
SAWYER SAWYER I LONNIE'S NOT
VOTING, NOT VOTING BONTA BONTA.
I BRIAN, BRIAN, I LACKEY LACKEY
. NO ORTEGA ORTEGA EYES
SANTIAGO. ZILBER. ZIPPER? AYE.
THAT MEASURE PASSES. NOW YOUR
NEXT ITEM. I DON'T KNOW BEFORE A
B THREE OR FOUR HOLDING THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT MAYBE 304. TODAY I'M
HERE TO TALK ABOUT DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE IS SERIOUS AND
TERRIFYING REALITY MANY LIVE
WITH EVERY DAY. CALIFORNIA HAS A
SYSTEM. IN PLACE TO ADDRESS
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WITH OUR
BATTERERS INTERVENTION PROGRAMS.
WHICH ARE OVERSEEN BY COUNTY
PROBATION DEPARTMENTS. HOWEVER
ACCORDING TO THE STATE AUDITOR,
NEARLY HALF OF OFFENDERS DO NOT
EVEN COMPLETE THESE PROGRAMS.
MORE ALARMINGLY. IT WAS REVEALED
THAT SOME PROBATION DEPARTMENTS
DID NOT REPORT PROBATION
VIOLATIONS TO THE COURT,
INCLUDING WHEN OFFENDERS
VIOLATED PROTECTIVE ORDERS.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SYSTEM
FALLING SHORT IN DELIVERING WHAT
IT WAS MEANT TO. REHABILITATION
AND ACCOUNTABILITY. OUR SYSTEM
NEEDS RESTRUCTURING, AND I'M
HERE TO PROPOSE LEGISLATION THAT
WILL DO JUST THAT. MAYBE 304
ADDRESSES THESE SHORTCOMINGS BY
ESTABLISHING BETTER OVERSIGHT
STANDARDS AND EFFORT TO REDUCE
RECIDIVISM AND INCREASE OVERALL
EDUCATION WITHIN OUR SYSTEM.
UNDER A B 304. THE APPROVAL AND
RENEWABLE RESPONSIBILITIES OF
THE BATTER'S INTERVENTION
PROGRAMS WILL BE TRANSFERRED TO
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
OVERSIGHT WILL PROVIDE
CONSISTENCY IN CURRICULUM AND
THE LOCAL AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. IN
ADDITION TO THIS, A BROADER
PICTURE OF AN OFFENDER'S
BACKGROUND WILL BE TAKEN INTO
CONSIDERATION WHEN DETERMINING
THE MOST EFFECTIVE PROGRAM FOR
THEM. CRUCIALLY 83 OR FOUR WHERE
REQUIRE OUR PROBATION VIOLATIONS
TO BE REPORTED TO THE COURT
WITHIN SEVEN BUSINESS DAYS.
ADDITIONALLY THIS BILL SETS
TRAINING GUIDELINES FOR ALL
PARTIES INVOLVED IN DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE INCIDENTS, INCLUDING
JUDGES. TOGETHER THESE
PROVISIONS WILL MAKE FOR NEWLY
BOLSTERED AND MORE EDUCATED
SYSTEM FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE,
INTERVENTION AND PREVENTION.
WITH THIS SAID, I'VE HEARD THE
CONCERNS RAISED BY THE
OPPOSITION AND STAKEHOLDERS AND
LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUE THE
CONVERSATION TO DETERMINE THE
MOST EFFECTIVE WAYS TO IMPLEMENT
A HIGHER STANDARD OF DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE PREVENTION. HERE WITH
ME TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF A B
THREE OR FOUR IS TWO INITIAL
AFRAID. PRESIDENT OF THE
SHEPHERDS DOOR, DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE, RESOURCE AND EDUCATION
CENTER AS WELL AS ETHAN RARICK.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE LITTLE
HOOVER COMMISSION. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES. UH, TOTAL
FOR BOTH. SPEAKERS. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU ALL FOR
ALLOWING ME TO COME BEFORE YOU
TODAY TO EXPRESS THE IMPORTANCE
OF PASSING 83 04. MY NAME IS
TONY JOE FRIDAY. I AM A DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE SURVIVOR, AND I'M ALSO
THE PRESIDENT AT SHEPHERD STORE
, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RESOURCES
AND EDUCATION EDUCATION CENTER
IN PASADENA, CALIFORNIA. LEAVING
AN ABUSER IS THE MOST DANGEROUS
TIME FOR A VICTIM OF DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE AFTER YEARS OF
SUFFERING IN A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
RELATIONSHIP, FINALLY BUILT UP
THE NERVE TO FLEE MY ABUSER. BUT
LITTLE DID I KNOW THAT WOULD BE
THE BEGINNING OF CONTINUED
ABUSE. BY PERPETRATOR WAS
ORDERED TO COMPLETE A 52 WEEK
BATTERIES PROGRAM. LATER IT WAS
REVEALED THAT HE HAD NEVER
ACTUALLY ATTENDED 52 WEEKS.
BETTERS CLASS. INSTEAD HE PAID A
PROGRAM PROVIDER TO GIVE HIM A
LETTER OF COMPLETION, WHICH
HELPS TO EXPLAIN WHY HIS
BEHAVIOR PERSISTENT. MY
EXPERIENCE AS A VICTIM LED TO
IMPLEMENT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
SHEPHERDS DOOR 52 WEEKS PATTERNS
INTERVENTION PROGRAM. FROM 2017
. TODAY WE HAVE SUCCESSFULLY
GRADUATED 549 PARTICIPANTS WITH
LESS THAN 10 INDIVIDUALS. WE
TURN INTO JAIL FOR DOMESTIC
ABUSE. THAT LEAVES US WITH THE
2% RECIDIVISM RATE. THIS PROVES
THAT BETTERS INTERVENTION CAN BE
EFFECTIVE IF PROGRAMS ARE
COMPLIANT AND BATTERIES
PARTICIPATE. OVERSIGHT AND
RESTRUCTURING WILL DECREASE THE
CHANCES OF PERPETRATORS FINDING
LOOPHOLES THAT ALLOW THEM TO
BYPASS THE SYSTEM BY PAYING
NONCOMPLIANT PROGRAM PROVIDERS
TO GIVE THEM LETTERS OF
COMPLETION WITHOUT ATTENDING THE
PROGRAM. AND IT WILL HELP TO
ENSURE PERPETRATORS ARE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE IN ALL JUDICIAL
SECTORS, WHICH WILL OVERALL
DECREASE REPEATED ACTS OF
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. I STRONGLY
BELIEVE THAT IF MY ABUSER HAVE
PROPERLY ATTENDED A BATTERERS
INTERVENTION PROGRAM AND
SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED THAT
BATTERIES PROGRAM MYSELF AND MY
DAUGHTER WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
REVICTIMIZED. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
IS A SERIOUS PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE
THAT IMPACTS SURVIVAL'S ON A
SERIES ON THE PHYSICAL AND
MENTAL SCALE. WHILE THE EFFECTS
OF VIOLENCE CAN BE DEVASTATING,
THEY ARE PREVENTABLE. BY
IMPLEMENTING A B THREE OR FOUR.
WE WILL BE TAKING A GIANT STEP
IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION TO OFFER
PROPER EDUCATION AND REFORM. TWO
BATTERS. WITH PROPER OVERSIGHT
AND RESTRUCTURING FOR THE
BATTERIES PROGRAM. WE CAN HELP
DECREASE THE AMOUNT OF VIOLENCE
IN OUR COMMUNITIES. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
ETHAN RARICK AND THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE LITTLE HOOVER
COMMISSION. I WILL BE BRIEF
KINDS END OF THE TIME LIMIT IN
2020 AND 2021. THE COMMISSION
CONDUCTED AN EXTENSIVE SERIES OF
HEARINGS ON INTIMATE PARTNER
VIOLENCE AND THE STATE'S
RESPONSE TO IT. WE ISSUED TWO
REPORTS TO RECOMMEND CHANGES IN
STATE POLICY AND PROGRAMMING. WE
LOOKED AT, AMONG MANY OTHER
TOPICS, BETTER INTERVENTION
PROGRAMS, AND WE FOUND THAT
THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL VARIATION
IN PROGRAM QUALITY, WHICH CAN
PREVENT PRESENTS SIGNIFICANT
CHALLENGES FOR PARTICIPANTS AND
FOR THE PROGRAM IN ENSURING
REHABILITATION. FOR EXAMPLE, THE
PROGRAMS OFTEN FAILED TO TAKE
INTO ACCOUNT THE AVAILABILITY OF
AH, CLASSES FOR THE FOR THE
BATTERERS, GEOGRAPHIC DISTANCE
PARTICIPANTS. WORK SCHEDULES ARE
OFTEN NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT.
THE PROGRAM FEE CAN PRESENT A
DIFFICULT CHALLENGE FOR SOME
PEOPLE. NO TAXPAYER FUNDS GO TO
THESE PROGRAMS PARTICIPANTS PAY
FOR THE PROGRAM THEMSELVES.
UNFORTUNATELY IN SOME CASES,
THEY MAY PAY FOR A LETTER, WHICH
SUGGESTS THEY COMPLETED IT WHEN
THEY DID NOT. BUT THEY PAY FOR
THE PROGRAM THEMSELVES. IF THEY
CANNOT PAY, THEY CAN BE RETURNED
TO JAIL FOR VIOLATING PROBATION
. WHEN THEY ARE RELEASED FROM
JAIL. THEY GO RIGHT BACK TO
PAYING THOSE FEES. THE
COMMISSION REACHED SEVERAL MADE
SEVERAL RECOMMENDATIONS WITH
REGARD TO BETTER INTERVENTIONS
PROGRAMS. AMONG THEM THAT THE
STATE SHOULD REVIEW THESE
PROGRAMS TO EVALUATE WHETHER
THEY ACTUALLY FACILITATE
REHABILITATION THAT THE STATE
SHOULD BEGIN A PROCESS TO
DETERMINE HOW TO CREATE A SUITE
OF TRAUMA, INFORMED SERVICES.
AND FINALLY THAT ALL THAT THE
STATE TAKES STEPS TO ENSURE THAT
ALL BATTERERS HAVE ACCESS. ALL
OFFENDERS HAVE ACCESS TO
REHABILITATIVE SERVICES,
REGARDLESS OF THE ABILITY TO PAY
. WE BELIEVE THIS BILL ADVANCES
MANY OF THOSE GOALS. AND
THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST
YOUR I VOTE. THANK YOU ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT? NAME AND
ORGANIZATION, PLEASE. MARCO
GEORGIA, CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION AND
SUPPORT THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING
, KAREN MEMBERS JOSHUA OBEY,
I'LL BE HAPPY TO CALIFORNIA
ATTORNEYS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE
AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF
EVA SIMON ON BEHALF OF THE
JUDICIAL COUNCIL. WE HAVE NO
POSITION AT THIS TIME BUT HAVE
BEEN ENGAGED IN PRODUCTIVE
DISCUSSIONS WITH THE AUTHOR'S
OFFICE AND LOOK FORWARD TO
CONTINUING THOSE. THANK YOU.
NEXT, ANY WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. WELCOME
Ó. OPPOSITION. CALIFORNIA
PARTNERSHIPS AND THE ALLIANCE
FOR BOYS AND MEN OF COLOR. UM WE
DO APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR'S
INTENT BEHIND THE BILL. I THINK
WHERE WE DISAGREE IS THAT WHILE
WE DO AGREE THAT THERE NEEDS TO
BE STATEWIDE OVERSIGHT, WE
DISAGREE ON THE TYPE OF ENTITY.
WE DON'T THINK IT SHOULD FALL
UNDER THE DOJ, BUT RATHER UNDER
THE JURISDICTION OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
AGAIN, WE LOOK FORWARD TO
CONTINUED CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
AUTHOR'S OFFICE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN MEMBERS,
DANIEL SANCHEZ ON BEHALF OF THE
CHIEF PROBATION OFFICERS OF
CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING LESS
AMENDED TO MAYBE THREE OR FOUR
IS AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN, AND I
DO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND THANK
THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER IN HIS
OFFICE FOR THE PRODUCTIVE
CONVERSATIONS WE'VE HAD THANK
YOU FOR THE OTHER SPEAKERS
TESTIMONY TODAY. I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT TO JUST NOTE UM AT THE
START THAT OUR OPPOSITION IS NOT
REFLECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT WE
DO NOT THINK THAT CHANGES ARE
NOT NEEDED. AS IT PERTAINS TO
THESE PROGRAMS WERE VERY MUCH
SHARE THE SAME DESIRE THE SAME
GOALS AROUND. HOW DO WE MAKE
SURE THAT THE CORE ROOT CAUSES
OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE ARE
ADDRESSED IN A WAY THAT PROTECTS
VICTIMS? UM AND MITIGATING
UNINTENDED IMPACTS BY KIND OF
HOW SOME OF THESE PROGRAMS AND
THE APPROACHES ARE STRUCTURED?
IT'S FOR THESE REASONS THAT IN
2018 C PARK, ALONG WITH THE
COUNTIES HAD CO SPONSORED A B 3
72 BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S STONE AT
THE TIME. THAT SET UP THE PILOT
PROGRAM TO LOOK AT HOW WE MORE
EFFECTIVELY, UM, ESTABLISHED
CURRICULUM AND, UH AND, UH,
ENGAGEMENT IN THESE PROGRAMS
AGAIN WITH THE GOAL OF REDUCING,
UH, VICTIMS AND VIOLENCE AND AS
EVIDENCED BY THE CONVERSATION
EARLIER TODAY, THERE IS A BILL
TODAY A B 4 79 ON CALENDAR THAT
WOULD EXTEND THAT PILOT PROGRAM
. SO THIS HAS BEEN AN ISSUE THAT
SEA PARK HAS WORKED ON FOR A
NUMBER OF YEARS, CARES VERY
DEEPLY ABOUT AND WE'RE CERTAINLY
COMMITTED TO THE CONVERSATIONS
ON THIS BILL. ABOUT HOW, UM HOW
TO BEST APPROACH AGAIN. SOME OF
THESE ROOT CAUSES, BUT WE ARE
CONCERNED ABOUT THE CHANGE OF
CERTIFYING AND APPROVING THESE
PROGRAMS AND SPECIFICALLY ON
POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS THAT
MAY RESULT IN THE LOCAL DELIVERY
OF SERVICES BY FOR KATING THAT
FROM THE IMPLEMENTATION AND
DELIVERY OF THOSE PROGRAMS. WE
DO THINK THERE ARE VERY
IMPORTANT CONVERSATIONS TAKING
PLACE AROUND. HOW DO WE GET TO
THE SHARED VALUES AND WHAT
PROGRAMMATIC CHANGES ARE REALLY
NEEDED IN THESE PROGRAMS TO
ADDRESS? UM I THINK THE GOALS
UNDERLYING THIS BILL AGAIN THE
QUESTION, I THINK, UM, UM BEFORE
US IS, IS WHAT IS THE BEST
APPROACH TO ADDRESS? WHAT IS
UNDERLYING, UM, THE GOALS OF
THIS BILL? UM SO THINGS, FOR
EXAMPLE, SUCH AS YOU KNOW HOW TO
STRENGTHEN PROCESSES ON PROGRAM
ACCOUNTABILITY REPORTING
VIOLATIONS PROGRAM COMPLETION.
ENHANCING EVIDENCE BASED
CURRICULUM. THOSE ARE ALL KEY
PIECES THAT WE THINK ARE
REFERENCED IN THIS BILL, AND
CERTAINLY WE HOPE TO SPEND MORE
TIME IN. HOW CAN WE ADDRESS
THOSE AND POTENTIALLY LOOKING AT
DOING THAT, WITHIN SOME OF THE
CURRENT LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE IN
PLACE? SO UM, UH, FOR A NUMBER
OF REASONS WERE OPPOSED UNLESS
AMENDED TO SOME OF THE SPECIFIC
PROVISIONS IN THE BILL AND THE
SPECIFIC APPROACH. BUT CERTAINLY
LOOK FORWARD TO MORE
CONVERSATIONS. UM ON THIS BILL,
AND HOW BEST TO AGAIN. UM UH,
MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE
STRENGTHENING AND ENHANCING, UH
, BOTH THE PROGRAMS, THE PROGRAM
DELIVERY AND ULTIMATELY WITH THE
GOAL OF PROTECTING VICTIMS AND
REDUCING RECIDIVISM. THANK YOU
FOR THE TIME. THANK YOU. OR ANY
OTHER WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION.
OKAY SEE NONE AND BRING IT BACK
TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR. I APPRECIATE YOUR
CONCERNS ON THE OPPOSITION AND I
TO HAVE THOSE. ALSO THOSE ARE MY
QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE ALSO AS A
PRIOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE,
DETECTIVE, I HAD MANY VICTIMS
THAT I WORKED WITH, AND
UNFORTUNATELY HAD FILES OVER AND
OVER AGAIN, AND I ALSO SEE THE
VALUE IN MAKING SURE AND
ASSURING THAT THE VICTIM DOESN'T
BECOME A VICTIM AGAIN AND MAKING
SURE THAT THE PROGRAMS ARE THERE
IN PLACE. MY CONCERNS ARE WITH
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. UH,
HAVING THAT RESPONSIBILITY WHEN
. WHEN OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES
THAT I HAVE, I DON'T SEE HOW
THEY ARE ABLE TO HANDLE THAT AND
HAVE THE STAFFING ON IT. SO I'M
HOPING THE AUTHOR ALSO WILL BE
WORKING WITH THAT AS WELL AND
I'LL BE IN FAVOR OF THAT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. ALMOST LACKING.
YEAH, I JUST WANT TO SAY FIRST
OF ALL, I THINK THAT ALTHOUGH
NOT PERFECT, I DO BELIEVE THAT
DOJ IS NOT IDEAL, BUT IT SEEMS
LIKE THE BEST OPTION OUT THERE.
UM AND THE STATE AUDITORS
INDICATED SOME VERY, VERY
IMPORTANT CIRCUMSTANCES. THAT
AND CLEARLY CLEARLY SUPPORTING
THE FACT THAT STATUS QUO IS
CURRENTLY UNACCEPTABLE FOR
VICTIMS. WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING
BETTER. AND I BELIEVE THIS DOES
THAT. SO I'M PROUD TO CO AUTHOR
OF THIS. THANK YOU. IN THE
OTHER. WITH THAT YOU MAY CLOSE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I WOULD
SAY THAT CONVERSATIONS WILL
CONTINUE. I THINK WE WANT WE ALL
ARE SHARING THE SAME, UM,
BASELINE GOAL OF TRYING TO MAKE
SURE THAT VICTIMS ARE NOT
REVICTIMIZED AND THAT THE SYSTEM
WORKS AND WE LOOKED AT
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH INITIALLY.
BUT WE PAUSE BECAUSE COMING OUT
OF THE PANDEMIC, WE WEREN'T SURE
EXACTLY WHAT UM HOW BEST THEY
WOULD BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD IN
THIS AREA. BUT WE CERTAINLY ARE
OPEN TO CONTINUE TO HAVE SOME
THOUGHTS AROUND WHAT THAT MIGHT
REPRESENT, AS AN ALTERNATIVE, UM
I APPRECIATE, UH, THE ADVICE
YEARS. SUPPORT AND THE COMMITTEE
SUPPORT AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD
GOING TO RECOMMEND THAT THE
COMMITTEE APPROVED IT. THIS THE
THING TO BE A REOCCURRING THEME.
AH, WHETHER NOT LAW ENFORCEMENT.
PUBLIC HEALTH PROFESSIONALS
SHOULD BE IN CHARGE. OF. KIND OF
THE SOCIAL ILLS THAT WE'RE GOING
THROUGH RIGHT NOW. I THINK IT'S
GOING TO BE AN ONGOING YOU
HAPPEN TO BE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE
OF IT RIGHT NOW. THE IRONY OF IT
IS YOU CAN HAVE LAW ENFORCEMENT.
PROFESSIONAL SAME IT SHOULD GO
TO PUBLIC HEALTH. SO UH, I THINK
WE'RE STRUGGLING WITH IT ON BOTH
SIDES. MAYBE WE NEED TO AMP. UP.
OR GIVE MORE RESOURCES TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, SO
THEY ARE ABLE TO HANDLE THIS
BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THERE IS A
PUSH TOWARDS THAT. AND I
UNDERSTAND YOUR RETICENCE, BUT
MAYBE PART OF THIS DISCUSSION.
HOW DO WE GIVE THEM THE
RESOURCES TO HANDLE? NOT ONLY
THIS, BUT HOMELESSNESS? WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT MENTAL HEALTH.
DRUG ADDICTION, ALL THE THINGS
THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
PROBLEMATIC NOW WE KIND OF WANT
TO PUT IT ON PUBLIC HEALTH. SO
MAYBE WE DO NEED TO HAVE THAT'S
NOT FOR YOUR YOU AND YOUR BILL,
BUT I'M JUST SAYING IT'S COMING.
OKAY. THANK YOU. YES. 83 04 BY
SOME MEMBER HOLDING THE MOTION
IS PASSED TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. JOHN SAWYER, JOHN
SAWYER. I ELONIS. AYE BANTA. I,
BRIAN. BRIAN I LACKING BLACKIE.
I ORTEGA SANTIAGO. SUPER SUPER.
AYE. THAT MEASURE PASSES. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU NOW HAVE ITEMS
NINE AND 15 MR. TING A B 449 AND
A B 600. THANK YOU, MR TING.
THAT'S A SHARP TIÂU GOT ON I YOU
KNOW, I GOT THE MEMO ON PURPLE.
UH IF IT'S OKAY WITH THE CHAIR
LIKE TO START WITH MAYBE 449 YES
. WHENEVER YOU'RE READY, LET ME
JUST THANK THE CHAIR OF THE
COMMITTEE FOR ALL THE WORK THEY
DID ON THE HELPING US WITH THIS
BILL LAST YEAR, WE'RE BRINGING
IT BACK. UM MAYBE 449 REQUIRES
LAW ENFORCEMENT INTEREST IS TO
ADOPT A HATE CRIMES POLICY AND
FOLLOW SPECIFIC GUIDELINES WERE
WORKING WITH POST TO ENSURE THAT
EVERY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY HAS
A POLICY ON HATE CRIMES.
UNFORTUNATELY YOU SEE HE CRIMES
NOT BEING REPORTED IN CERTAIN
JURISDICTIONS LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE
, SAN BERNARDINO AND RIVERSIDE.
IT'S NOT BECAUSE HATE CRIMES ARE
COMMITTED IN THOSE COUNTIES. FOR
WHATEVER REASON THEY ARE,
THEY'RE NOT BEING REPORTED OR
NOT BEING TAKEN DOWN IN THE
COUNTIES THAT THEY ARE BEING
REPORTED. WE SAW SEARCH IN HATE
CRIMES IN SAN FRANCISCO,
ESPECIALLY AROUND API
COMMUNITIES. THEY WENT UP 56% IN
2021 IN L. A. THEY INCREASED
173% UNFORTUNATELY WHY, UM,
WHILE THERE WASN'T AS BIG A JUMP
, THE LARGEST COMMUNITY FACING
CAPE CRIMES STILL IN THE STATE
IS STILL AFRICAN AMERICANS. SO
WE DO BELIEVE THAT THIS MAKES
COMPLETE SENSE THAT EVERY SINGLE
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY WORKING
WITH POST SHOULD HAVE A UNIFORM
HATE CRIMES POLICY WITHOUT TURN
OVER TO MY WITNESS. GREG HERE,
REPRESENTING THE ARC OF
CALIFORNIA AND UNITED THROUGH
FAULTY UH, THE FIRST OF ALL, WE
ARE ONE OF THE SPONSORS OF THE
BILL, AND WHAT I THINK WAS
INCREASED, CONTINUING LEADERSHIP
ON A CRIMES. THERE IS A LARGE
BODY OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH GOING
BACK DECADES NOW THAT SHOWS THAT
THESE KINDS OF POLICIES SOME
KIND, SOMETIMES CALLED
GUIDELINES, SOMETIMES CALLED
PROTOCOLS, SOMETIMES CALLED
GENERAL ORDERS MAKE A
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN HOW
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS CARRY
OUT THEIR JOBS. HERE IN
CALIFORNIA. THERE WAS A
UNIVERSITY KILLERS CALIFORNIA
STUDY THAT LOOKS AT HATE CRIMES
POLICIES IN PARTICULAR. AND
FOUND THAT AGENCIES WITH
POLICIES TENDED TO REPORT HATE
CRIMES ABOUT 25% MORE THAN THAN
COMPARABLE SIZE AGENCIES AND
OTHER JURISDICTIONS. AND THAT'S
TRUE WHETHER OR NOT THAT NO
MATTER HOW ADEQUATE OR
INADEQUATE POLICY WAS AS THE
POLICIES HAVE BECOME MORE
ADEQUATE AS THIS BILL AND OTHER
BILLS THAT JUST LET US PASS
RECENTLY EXPAND AND STRENGTHEN
THE POLICIES. WE CAN EXPECT THAT
THIS BILL WILL HAVE A
SIGNIFICANT EFFECT PROTECTING
PEOPLE WITH EIGHT CRIMES FROM
ALL THE VARIOUS COMMUNITIES AND
WE VERY MUCH SUPPORT THE BILL.
THANK YOU. AND ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT. SHE GOES.
THERE WE GO. GOOD MORNING, MR
CHAIR MEMBERS, ELIZABETH
ESPINOSA ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY LIVING
NETWORK. ALSO IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. MR MR CHAIRMAN
AND MEMBERS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH
. I'M KEITH UMEMOTO WITH
CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE FOR RETIRED
AMERICANS AND, UH, ACTUALLY. UH
HUH. SON OF A WHOLE FAMILY THAT
WERE INTERNED DURING WORLD WAR
TWO. SO YOU CAN IMAGINE THE
EVOLUTION OF HATE CRIMES. AND
THIS IS THAT GIANT STEP FORWARD
THAT WE SO DEARLY NEED ASKED FOR
YOUR I SUPPORT. THANK YOU, MR
YAMAMOTO. ANY WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION. WELCOME. HAVE A
SEAT. I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT
OUR OPPOSITION IS NARROWLY
TAILORED HERE. I'M ALICIA BERRY
. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
ASSOCIATION. UM THE C D. A
OPPOSES THIS. JUST A LITTLE WE
WHAT WE'RE HOPING FOR IS A
NARROWER DEFINITION OF A STATE
AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN. MAYBE 449
WOULD APPLY TO MANY SPECIALIZED
STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES,
INCLUDING THINGS LIKE THE
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL
AGENCY CONTRACTOR, STATE
LICENSING BOARD. HORSE RACING
BOARD INVESTIGATIONS IN THAT
TYPE OF THING, UM, WE BELIEVE
THAT IT WOULD PUT AN UNNECESSARY
BURDEN OPERATIONAL BURDEN ON
THESE AGENCIES AND POTENTIALLY
DO A DISSERVICE TO VICTIMS. BY
CAUSING DUPLICATION OF
INVESTIGATIVE STEPS AND
CONFUSION AROUND THE PROCESS OF
REPORTING HATE CRIMES. IF 84 49
WERE AMENDED TO NARROW THE
DEFINITION TO APPLY TO YOUR
FIRST RESPONSE AGENCIES. WE
WOULD OBVIOUSLY WITHDRAW OUR
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ANY OTHER WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION. SEEING THAT WILL
BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE
MEMBERS IN THE HARBOR. ASSEMBLY
RETAINING. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
BRINGING THIS. I KNOW YOU HAVE
BEEN A LEADER IN FOCUSING ON
HATE CRIMES FOR YOUR ENTIRE
TENURE IN THE LEGISLATURE AND
WANT TO APPLAUD YOU FOR DOING
THIS. I JUST HAD ONE QUESTION,
WHICH I ASSUME IS INCLUDED IN
HERE, BUT I COULDN'T FIND IT IN
THE BILL. ANALYSIS UM OR THE
TEXT OF THE BILL AND THAT I
ASSUME THAT GENDER IDENTITY IS
INCLUDED WITHIN THE DEFINITION
OF HATE CRIME. IT'S NOT LISTED
SPECIFICALLY IN THE BILL
ANALYSIS OR IN THE TEXT FROM
WHAT I CAN TELL, SO I HAVE TO GO
BACK AND DOUBLE CHECK THAT WE
DON'T I DON'T THINK WE CHANGED
THE DEFINITION OF HATE CRIMES. I
THINK WE WERE JUST TRYING TO
FIGURE OUT HOW TO UH, PROPERLY
REPORTED. SO IF IT WAS IN THE
DEAF IN IN THE IF IT'S IN THE
CURRENT DEFINITION, IT WOULD BE
IN THERE, BUT WE DID NOT. ADD OR
CHANGE THE DEFINITION. OUR OUR
GOAL WAS REALLY JUST AROUND. UH,
THE PROPER REPORTING OF THAT. SO
I HAVE TO GO BACK AND DOUBLE
CHECK. IF IT'S NOT. I MEAN, IF
IT'S NOT IN THE DEFINITION, I
KNOW GENDER LOOKS LIKE IT'S
INCLUDED. UM GREG WAS GONNA
ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. YES
DEFINITION. THE CURRENT LAW
DEFINITION OF GENDER INCLUDES
GENDER IDENTITY. EXPLICITLY AND
WOULD THE REPORTING. I THINK,
THOUGH IT'S IMPORTANT, THOUGH,
THAT THE REPORTING NOT INCLUDE
HATE CRIMES BASED ON GENDER. UM
AND NOT DISAGGREGATE. UH, CRIMES
BASED ON GENDER IDENTITY. IT'S I
THINK, YOU KNOW, WITH THE RISE
OF, UM, HATE CRIMES AGAINST
TRANSGENDER PEOPLE, PEOPLE THAT
ARE NON BINARY. IT'S IMPORTANT
THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT AND SO I
KNOW YOU SUPPORT THIS, BUT I
JUST WOULD LIKE TO ASK TO MAKE
SURE THAT IT'S INCLUDED IN THE
BILL. YEAH, WE'VE BEEN WORKING.
WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH POST
TOO. FIGURE OUT WHAT A BEST
PRACTICES SO AS WE GO THROUGH
OUR DISCUSSION, HAPPY TO MAKE
SURE WE HIGHLIGHT THAT
PARTICULAR SHIP, BUT WHAT WE'VE
BEEN DOING IS THE STANDARD WE'VE
BEEN LOOKING AT. WHICH WAS ONE
OF THE, UM WE'RE JUST SEEN AS A
PRETTY GOOD STANDARD WAS A
STANDARD IN L A, UM AND SO TO
TRY TO USE THAT TO WORK WITH
POST TO SEE IF WE CAN GET THAT
ADOPTED STATEWIDE, BUT WE'LL
MAKE SURE WE HIGHLIGHT THAT
ISSUE AS WELL. I MEAN, I THINK
YOU KNOW, DATA COLLECTION HAS
BEEN LIKE ONE OF THE KEY
CHALLENGES THAT THE LGBTQ PLUS
COMMUNITY HAS DONE, AND I'VE
SEEN A LOT OF STANDARDS THAT ARE
OUT THERE THAT DO NOT INCLUDE
THAT WE'VE BEEN HAVING PROBLEMS
WITH THAT IN THE HEALTHCARE
FIELD AND OTHERS SO IT WOULD
JUST ASK THAT THAT BE
SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED. THANK YOU
. ABSOLUTELY. I THINK WE
APPRECIATE YOU FOR BRINGING IT
UP. UM AND AGAIN, THAT'S ONE OF
THE REASONS WE'RE DOING THIS
BILL BECAUSE DATA COLLECTION IN
THIS AREA IS, UH NOT THERE. IT'S
VERY DIFFICULT. IT'S HARD TO
TALK ABOUT HATE OR EVEN HATE
CRIMES OR HATE INCIDENTS WHEN WE
CAN'T GET ANY KIND OF
INFORMATION, SO APPRECIATE THAT.
YES, RESPONDED. THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING FORWARD THIS BILL. UH,
UM DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THERE
SHOULD BE ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY THAT SHOULD BE EXEMPT
FROM CREATING A HATE CRIME
POLICY. UH I DON'T THINK THERE
SHOULD BE ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT.
YOU SEE, NOW I APPRECIATE WHAT
THE ASSOCIATION BROUGHT UP IN
TERMS OF WHAT THE WHAT THE
AGENCY SHOULD BE DEFINED AS BUT
NO, I DON'T THINK THAT I THINK
EVERY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
SHOULD HAVE A HATE CRIMES
POLICY. I AGREE. MOVE THE BILL.
AFTER THE MORE QUESTIONS YOU
MAKE CLOTHES, MR. T JUST RESPECT
I DON'T THANK YOU. CHAIR
RECOMMENDS AND I VOTE SECRETARY
CALLED A ROLE. ON A B 449 BY
SOME MEMBER TEAM. THE MOTION IS
THAT YOU PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. SAWYER
JOHN SAWYER. I ELONIS ALANIS. I
BONTA I, BRIAN. BRIAN I, BLACKIE
BLACKIE. I ORTEGA ORTEGA EYES
SANTIAGO ZIPPER ZIPPER. AYE. THE
MEASURE PASSES NOW YOU'RE A B
600. YEAH. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR.
A B 600 IS AN UPDATE FROM A
PREVIOUS BILL. I DID, UH, REALLY
ALLOWING UM, BOTH D A S, UH,
WORKING WITH JUDGES TO LOOK AT
OPPORTUNITIES FOR RE SENTENCING
. IT'S BEEN, YOU KNOW, VERY
SUCCESSFUL. I WAS REALLY PROUD.
UM STAND IN SAN DIEGO A COUPLE
YEARS AGO WITH THE SAN DIEGO D A
AND HAVING A CASE BE RE SENT AND
HEAVILY INDIVIDUAL BE SET FREE
IMMEDIATELY, WHICH WAS JUST
WONDERFUL TO SEE OCCUR. UM WE
NOTICED AS THIS BILL AS OUR BILL
WAS IMPLEMENTED. THERE ARE A
COUPLE OF GAPS, UM AROUND EQUITY
AND DUE PROCESS, AND SO JUST
THIS A B 600 CLARIFY SOME OF
THOSE WHO ONE IS EXPANDING
JUDICIAL AUTHORITY. RECALL
SENSES AT ANY TIME VERSUS 120
DAYS PROVIDES JUDICIAL
DISCRETION TO OPPOSE JUDGMENTS
UNLESS SER RELATED OR LESSER
INCLUDED OFFENSES WITHOUT
NEEDING THE D. A TO SIGN OFF,
EXPENSIVE LIST OF FACTORS FOR
JUDGES TO CONSIDER REQUIRES
JUDGES TO NOTIFY PETITIONERS OF
THEIR RIGHT TO APPEAL. A DENIAL
ENSURES THE STANDARD APPLIED,
UM, REFLECTS THE PAROLE HEARING
STANDARD. THE PERSON THE PERSON
POSES A CURRENT UNREASONABLE
RISK TO PUBLIC SAFETY WITH THAT
WILL TURN OVER TO MY TWO
WITNESSES. WE HAVE JUDGE
LOWENTHAL. WE HAVE NATASHA,
MINISTER WITH THE PROSECUTION
ALLIANCE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SO, ESSENTIALLY, WHAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT IS WHAT HAPPENS
WHEN I'M CDCR WORKS. WHAT
HAPPENS WHEN REHABILITATIVE
PROGRAMMING WORKS SHOULD A JUDGE
WHO IMPOSED SENTENCE HAVE THE
DISCRETION TO BE ABLE TO REVISIT
HIS OR HER SENTENCE? UM IN THE
ANSWER IS YES. AND, UM
INCARCERATING PEOPLE FOR LONGER
THAN NECESSARY VIOLATES THE
BASIC TENANTS, UM, UPON WHICH
THIS NATION WAS FOUNDED, WHICH
IS LIBERTY AND HUMAN DIGNITY. SO
YES, WHEN A PERSON NO LONGER
POSES A RISK TO PUBLIC SAFETY, A
JUDGE SHOULD BE ABLE TO REVISIT
HIS OR HER SENTENCE. IN GENERAL
COURTS ARE EQUIPPED TO RESOLVE
BACKWARD LOOKING EVENTS LIKE
TRIALS WITH ABSOLUTE PRECISION.
BUT SENTENCING DETERMINATIONS
REQUIRED A FORWARD LOOKING
PREDICTION OF AN OFFENDER'S
LIKELIHOOD TO RECITE OF EIGHT
AND THOSE ARE MUCH MORE
DIFFICULT FOR JUDGES TO GET
RIGHT. UM THE DIFFICULTY IS
COMPOUNDED BY THE FACT THAT
SENTENCES OFTEN DON'T AGE
GRACEFULLY. THE PASSAGE OF TIME
COULD DRAMATICALLY IMPACT THE
APPROPRIATENESS OR LACK THEREOF
OF A SENTENCE, AND THAT OCCURS
FOR SEVERAL REASONS. ONE
PREDICTING RECIDIVISM TODAY IS,
UM, MIGHT NOT BE CONSISTENT WITH
THE STATE OF PREDICTION. SCIENCE
UM, AT A LATER POINT IN TIME, UM
SECOND SOCIETAL PERSPECTIVES ON
PUNISHMENT EVOLVED. THIRD
EVIDENCE OFTEN EMERGES AFTER WE
SENTENCE IN OFFENDER OF AN
INMATE'S REHABILITATED CHARACTER
, AND FOUR JUDGES SOMETIMES GET
IT WRONG AT INITIAL SENTENCING.
AND I HAVE A CASE THAT WAS
RECENTLY IN MY COURT THAT
ILLUSTRATES THIS PHENOMENON THAT
THE CASE WAS AN INMATE NAMED
DAVID COULSON. THE GENTLEMAN WAS
, UM, BORN TO AN ADDICTED SEX
WORKER WHO WAS 16 YEARS OLD WHEN
SHE GAVE BIRTH TO HIM, AND HE
WAS BORN WITH FETAL ALCOHOL
SYNDROME AND SCHIZOPHRENIA HE
WAS GIVEN UP FOR ADOPTION IS
ADOPTED FAMILY PHYSICALLY AND
SEXUALLY ABUSED HIM AND LEFT HIS
MENTAL ILLNESS UNTREATED. OF
COURSE, AS A TEEN, HE SELF
TREATED HIS TRAUMA. AND MENTAL
ILLNESS WITH DRUGS AND NOT
SURPRISINGLY BECAME HOMELESS. UM
AND ENGAGED IN THEFT RELATED
CRIMES TO SURVIVE NONE OF HIS
OFFENSES EVER INVOLVED ANY KIND
OF PHYSICAL INJURY TO ANYONE.
ITS FINAL OFFENSE WAS TAKING $14
AND CHANGE FROM SOMEONE'S GARAGE
. HE WAS SENTENCED TO 35 YEARS
TO LIFE. I BECAME AWARE OF HIS
CASE AFTER 20 YEARS AT THAT
POINT CDCR HAD BEEN PROVIDING
HIM FOR DECADES WITH HIS
MEDICATION IS MENTAL ILLNESS
STABILIZED, AND HE WAS IN A
FABULOUS PLACE. HE COMPLETED HIS
HIS C FILE. REFLECTED OVER 100
COMMENDATIONS FOR, AMONG OTHER
THINGS, SERVING AS A FACILITATOR
FOR NONVIOLENT CONFLICT
RESOLUTION CLASSES, REMODELING A
GUARD SHACK. TRAINING INMATES ON
SHOP SAFETY, DONATING HYGIENE
PROJECTS TO HOMELESS BAY AREA
CHILDREN INSTALLING A NEW FLOOR
IN THE PRISON CHAPEL, SERVING AS
A TEACHER'S ASSISTANT, ETCETERA,
ETCETERA. IT WAS ABUNDANTLY
CLEAR. I THINK WE WOULD ALL
AGREE THAT CONTINUED
INCARCERATION WAS NOT IN THE
INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, BUT I
LACKED DISCRETION TO REVISIT HIS
SENTENCE. THIS BILL WILL CHANGE
THAT, AND IT WILL CORRECT THAT
INJUSTICE. MY BELIEF IS THAT THE
LEGISLATURE SHOULD CONVERGE.
JUDGES WOULD DISCRETION TO
REVIEW ALL SENTENCES. THIS BILL
, HOWEVER, AS FAR MORE MODEST
THIS BILL SOLELY CONFERS JUDGES
WITH DISCRETION TO REVIEW PASSED
SENTENCES IN INSTANCES WERE
SENTENCED IN LAW. SENTENCING
LAWS HAVE BEEN CHANGED BY YOU
SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORIGINAL
SENTENCE BEING IMPOSED. UM AND
LASTLY, I JUST WANTED TO POINT
OUT THAT, UM THE COURT RESOURCES
REQUIRED TO ENGAGE IN A RE
SENTENCING HEARING ARE MINIMAL.
IT TAKES A MATTER OF MINUTES. IT
TAKES MINUTES TO REVIEW AN
ORIGINAL SENTENCING TRANSCRIPT,
A PROBATION DEPARTMENT REPORT
AND TO HOLD A HEARING. UM AND
THE MINIMAL THE NOMINAL COST IS
FAR OFF SET BY THE MORAL AND
FINANCIAL VALUE TO THE STATE. IN
CORRECTING UNJUST SENTENCES.
NATASHA INSTAGRAM, BUT HALF OF
THE PROSECUTOR'S ALLIANCE OF
CALIFORNIA SPONSOR HERE FOR
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS
URGING YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER
IN SUPPORT. MARGO GEORGE, ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION AND
SUPPORT THANK YOU. AND LITTLE ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA'S FOR
SAFETY AND JUSTICE AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. DEANNA CORRODE ARMEL
ON BEHALF OF INITIATE JUSTICE IN
THE SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC
DEFENDER AND SUPPORT GOOD
MORNING, CARMEN OR COLD COCKS. A
C L U CALIFORNIA ACTION AND
SUPPORT. JIM LINDBERG FRIENDS
COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION IN
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. IGNACIO
HERNANDEZ ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS FOR
CRIMINAL JUSTICE STATEWIDE
ASSOCIATION OF DEFENSE LAWYERS
AND SUPPORT. GOING BACK AS ELLA
BAKER CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU ANY WITNESSES
IN OPPOSITION? SEEING ONE. GOOD
MORNING, ALICIA BERRIEN, UM,
HERE ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION
PUT THE MIC CLOSEST WE CAN
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSES ASSEMBLY
BILL 600. THE BILL MODIFIES
PENAL CODE SECTION 1172.1, WHICH
REQUIRES D A OR ATTORNEY GENERAL
ASSENT FOR A COURT TO RE
SENTENCE WITHIN 120 DAYS OF THE
COMMITMENT. THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THIS BILL WOULD REMOVE THAT
ALLOWING A CORD ON ITS OWN
MOTION AT ANY TIME, EVEN AFTER
THE TIME PERIOD RECALL AND RE
SENTENCE OF SENTENCING LAWS AT
THE TIME. HAVE BEEN CHANGED. WE
BELIEVE THIS MAY VIOLATE
MARCIE'S LAW. BECAUSE IT
EXPLICITLY INDICATES THAT
VICTIMS ARE ENTITLED TO FINALITY
IN THEIR CRIMINAL CASE. THAT'S
ARTICLE ONE SECTION 28 A SIX IN
THIS CASE, THERE WOULD BE NO
FINALITY AND JUDGMENTS WERE FOR
VICTIMS. AND THIS WOULD APPLY TO
CASES THAT ARE LONG SENSE FINAL
AND WHEN APPEALS ARE EXHAUSTED.
IT WOULD ALLOW THE COURTS TO
IMPOSE AN UNCHARGED LESSER
RELATED OFFENSE WITHOUT THE
CONSENT OF THE PROSECUTOR OR A
G. CURRENT CALIFORNIA LAW DOES
NOT PERMIT AN UNCHARGED LESSER
RELATED OFFENSE UNLESS AGREED
UPON BY BOTH PARTIES, AND THAT'S
PEOPLE. PEOPLE WORKS IN 1998
CASE 19 CALLUP 4TH 108, AND THAT
WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT THIS
VIOLATES THE SEPARATION OF
POWERS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
HEARING THAT AND JUST BRIEFLY
RESPOND. THE JUDGE. I WAS GONNA
ASK JUDGE LOAN COULD RESPOND
RIGHT? AND THAT SINCE I MY
FORMER SEAT MATE WAS A LOW AND
THOUGHT. WOW PERMITTED. GO
AHEAD. VERY BRIEFLY. IT DOESN'T
IMPLICATE FINALITY OF JUDGMENT.
IT ONLY IMPLICATE FINALITY OF
SENTENCE, AND THAT'S A VERY
DISTINCTIVE DIFFERENCE. UM,
THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU. UM. NOW
ANY OTHER WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION SEEING THAT WILL
BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. ANY YEAH, THIS IS A
THIS IS A REALLY GREAT BILL. I'M
SURPRISED. IT'S TAKEN US THIS
LONG TO DO IT. UM LIKE THE
JUDGE, I WOULD SAY THIS IS
MODEST. I THINK WHEN WE CHANGE
THE LAWS, WE'VE CHANGED THE
SENTENCES HERE IN THE CAPITAL.
THEY SHOULD BE RETROACTIVE AND
APPLIED TO ANYONE WHO'S EVER
BEEN CHARGED WITH JUST
INHERENTLY SO, TAKING THIS
MODEST STEP TO GIVE THE JUDGE'S
DISCRETION TO REVIEW THEIR OWN
SENTENCES. IT'S SMART. IF YOU'RE
LOOKING FOR CO AUTHORS, I'M
HAPPY TO JOIN. THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING IT. THANK YOU ANYONE
ELSE? WITH THAT YOU MAKE MAKE
CLOTHES. DID YOU ASK THEM? OKAY
YOU MAY CLOSE DISRESPECT THAT
SURVIVOR CARE IF RECOMMENDED. I
AND I'M ALSO GRATEFUL YOU'RE
DOING THIS AND WE DO NEED TO
GIVE JUDGES MORE DISCRETION.
WE'VE COME A LONG WAY FROM 10
YEARS AGO TO HER. WE CAN
ACTUALLY SAY, LET'S GIVE JUDGES
MORE DISCRETION. SO I'M HAPPY
THAT WE'RE THERE. THERE NOW
JUDGE. EMOTION AND THE SECOND
WAS THE BILL. SECOND WE HAVE A
SECOND. OKAY? WE GOT. AND MAYBE
600 BY A SEVEN MEMBER TEAM. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASSED TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. JOHN
SAWYER, I ALANIS ALANIS. NO
BANTA, I BRIAN BRIAN LACKEY.
LUCKY NO ORTEGA ORTEGA I
SANTIAGO ZIPPER ZIPPER. I THANK
YOU, PASTOR. THANK YOU. WE NOW
HAVE ITEM NUMBER THREE. REBECCA
BAUER-KAHAN. BABY 301. BODY
ARMOR. FISH. HE DIDN'T HEAR YOU,
SIR. BUT I THINK YOU'RE JUST
SAYING GO AHEAD. UM THANK YOU,
MR CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS ACTUALLY
WANT TO START BY THINKING
COMMITTEE STAFF. I KNOW YOU HAVE
A LOT OF BILLS, AND YOU WORKED
VERY HARD ON THEM, AND I WANT TO
THANK YOU. THIS COMMITTEE DOES A
LOT, SO THANK YOU, MR CHAIR AND
STAFF. AH I'M HERE TO PRESENT A
B 301, WHICH ALLOWS ACCORD TO
CONSIDER ACQUISITION OF BODY
ARMOR WERE CONSIDERING A GUN
VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDER BODY
ARMOR HAS INCREASINGLY BECOME
THE GO TO ACCESSORY FOR MASS
SHOOTERS, ENABLING THEM TO
PROLONG THEIR ATTACKS AGAINST
OUR COMMUNITIES AND MAKING IT
HARDER FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT TO
DEESCALATE WITH 21, MASS
SHOOTERS WEARING BODY ARMOR
DURING THEIR ATTACKS, INCLUDING
THE RECENT MASS SHOOTING IN
BUFFALO, NEW YORK, AS WELL AS
PREVIOUS ATTACKS SUCH AS SAN
BERNARDINO AND ARORA. IT'S CLEAR
THAT WE NEED TO PLAY SOME
GUARDRAILS AROUND BODY ARMOR.
ADDITIONALLY IN MAY OF 2022, THE
SAN JOSE POLICE DEPARTMENT
REPORTED AN INDIVIDUAL HAVING
POSSESSION OF TACTICAL BODY
ARMOR, ALONG WITH ASSAULT STYLE
RIFLES AND HUNDREDS OF ROUNDS OF
AMMUNITION AFTER OBTAINING A GUN
VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDER BODY
ARMOR ALONE MAY NOT BE
INDICATIVE OF VIOLENCE AND THE
NEED FOR A GUN VIOLENCE
RESTRAINING ORDER, BUT IT'S
HIGHLY RELEVANT PERSON ALSO
PURCHASED GUNS OR AMMUNITION.
WITHIN THE SIX MONTHS OF THE G R
G V ROO REQUEST WITH ME TODAY,
AND SUPPORT IS CRYSTAL ALITO
HOPE I PRONOUNCE YOUR NAME RIGHT
COUNSEL FOR EVERY TOWN FOR GUN
SAFETY. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS CRYSTAL
OPAL OTTO. VERY CLOSE, VERY
CLOSE. AND I SERVE AS POLICY
COUNCIL FOR EVERY TOWN FOR GUN
SAFETY, TOGETHER WITH MOMS
DEMAND ACTION AND STUDENTS
DEMAND ACTION WHERE THE LARGEST
GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION
ORGANIZATION IN THE NATION AND
WE'RE GRATEFUL TO ASSEMBLY VAPOR
BARRIER CAN FOR BRINGING THIS
BILL FORWARD. ORGANIZATION IS
SPONSORING A B 301 A BILL WHICH
WOULD UPDATE CALIFORNIA'S
LANDMARK GUN VIOLENCE
RESTRAINING ORDER LAW TO INCLUDE
THE ACQUISITION OF BODY ARMOR ON
THE LIST OF FACTORS THE COURT
MAY CONSIDER IN DETERMINING
WHETHER GROUNDS EXIST TO ISSUE
AN EX PARTY GUN VIOLENCE
RESTRAINING ORDER. AS WE SAW IN
HORRIFIC TRAGEDIES LIKE THE TOP
SUPERMARKET SHOOTING IN BUFFALO
LAST YEAR IN THE SAN BERNARDINO
SHOOTING RIGHT HERE IN
CALIFORNIA IN 2015, MASS.
SHOOTERS ARE INCREASINGLY
PUTTING ON BODY ARMOR TO PROLONG
THEIR DEADLY RAMPAGE IS BODY
ARMOR IS A SPECIAL TYPE OF
EQUIPMENT THAT ENABLES A SHOOTER
TO INFLICT GREATER INJURY AND
DEATH BY MAKING IT MORE
DIFFICULT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT TO
DISARM THEM. IT HAS BECOME AN
INCREASINGLY COMMON ACCESSORY
WORN BY EXTREMISTS AND PEOPLE
INTENT ON TERRORIZING
COMMUNITIES. BODY ARMOR IS
PRIMARY PURPOSE IS TO PROVIDE A
DEFENSIVE BARRIER TO ONE'S BODY
WHILE IN THE LINE OF FIRE. BY NO
MEANS IS THE ACQUISITION OF BODY
ARMOR, ALWAYS REFLECTIVE OF
INTENT TO COMMIT CRIMES OR
SPECIFICALLY MASS SHOOTINGS.
HOWEVER WHEN A CIVILIAN
PURCHASES BODY ARMOR INDICATING
THEY ANTICIPATE BEING IN A
CIRCUMSTANCE REQUIRING
PROTECTION FROM BULLETS, AND
THERE IS OTHER EVIDENCE OF
VIOLENT BEHAVIOR OR THREATS
LEADING TO A GUN VIOLENCE
RESTRAINING ORDER PETITION
COURTS SHOULD BE ATTUNED TO THE
FULL CONSTELLATION OF RISK
FACTORS PRESENTED BY ITS NATURE
PENAL CODE SECTION, 18155 ASKS
COURTS TO CONSIDER A HOLISTIC
SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES IN
DETERMINING WHETHER TO ISSUE AN
EX PARTY GUN VIOLENCE
RESTRAINING ORDER. THIS BILL
MERELY SEEKS TO DRAW THE COURT'S
ATTENTION TO ANOTHER RELEVANT
RISK FACTOR ONE WHICH COULD TIP
THE SCALES IN FAVOR OF MORE
ACCURATELY IDENTIFYING
INDIVIDUALS WHO MAY BE PLANNING
DEADLY RAMPAGE IS OR GUN
VIOLENCE MOTIVATED BY EXTREMIST
IDEOLOGY. WE ASK FOR YOUR VOTE
ON A B 301? THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT? ARE THERE
ANY WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION?
SEEING NONE WILL BRING IT BACK
TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS. COMMENTS.
OH THE BURDENS MR LACKEY. I
LIVED THE BUILDING. THANK YOU
SECOND. SECOND BUT YOU HAVE
SOMETHING SAME AS LACKING. I DO.
I DO BELIEVE THAT EXCUSE ME. THE
PURCHASE OF BODY ARMOR FOR SELF
DEFENSE AND PROTECTION IS BOTH
COMPLETELY JUSTIFIABLE ALMOST IN
EVERY INSTANCE ALSO ENTIRELY
BENIGN. UM TO ALLOW THE MIRROR
PURCHASE OF THIS LIFE SAVING
EQUIPMENT. TO BE THE BASIS FOR
AN EMERGENCY GUN VIOLENCE
RESTRAINING ORDER, I BELIEVE IS
WRONG, UNFAIR AND MISGUIDED. UM
I DON'T MEAN TO SOUND PACIFYING.
I JUST REALLY AM. FRUSTRATED BY
THIS. PROPOSAL BECAUSE I BELIEVE
UNDER THIS BILL, FOR EXAMPLE, IF
A PERSON WERE TO PURCHASE BODY
ARMOR FOR AN UPCOMING HUNTING
TRIP ANYONE FROM THEIR SPOUSE.
THEIR COWORKER COULD USE THAT
SIMPLE FACT AS A BASIS FOR THEIR
CASE. AND THE NEXT PARTY
HEARING. AND THAT PERSON WOULD
HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO GIVE UP.
THEIR LEGAL FIREARMS AND
AMMUNITION FOR THE DURATION OF
THAT. EMERGENCY GUN VIOLENCE,
RESTRAINING ORDER OR ELSE BE
CRIMINALLY LIABLE. I DON'T
BELIEVE THAT THAT'S JUSTICE. AND
IT'S CERTAINLY NOT THE ANSWER TO
STOPPING MASS SHOOTINGS. UM I
DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS MAKES
HER OUR STATE ANY SAFER. AND I
BELIEVE IT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO
CRIMINALIZE. LEGAL GUN OWNERS,
SO I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS. THANK
YOU, MR LACKING. I JUST WANTED
TO, UH AS THE AUTHOR TO ADDRESS
THAT CONSIDERATION. IN MY
ESTIMATION, IT'S ONE OF MANY
FACTORS THAT CAN BE TAKEN INTO
ACCOUNT FOR THE GUN VIOLENCE,
RESTRAINING ORDER, AND I JUST
ALSO WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR
FOR WORKING ON THIS BILL, AND I
KNOW THAT YOU HAVE A DESIRE TO
MAKE SURE THAT YOU BRING FORWARD
BILLS THAT ARE MEANINGFUL THAT
HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR
ADVANCINGJUSTICE AND SO ONE.
THANK YOU. I'M YOUR AMENDMENTS
TO THIS. MAY I, MR. CHAIR? YEAH
THANK YOU. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
BONTA. UM YES, AS YOU POINTED
OUT, THERE'S A LIST OF FACTORS.
THIS WOULD BE ONE OF THEM, WHICH
HAD A WHOLE CONVERSATION IN THIS
COMMITTEE ABOUT JUDICIAL
DISCRETION. THE SAME WOULD
OBVIOUSLY APPLY HERE. A JUDGE
NEEDS TO GRANT THE EXPERTISE,
VIOLENCE, RESTRAINING ORDERS. SO
I IMAGINE IF YOU HAD NO OTHER
FACTORS, IT WOULD BE INCREDIBLY
UNLIKELY THAT A COURT WOULD
GRANT SUCH AN ORDER. IF YOU ANY
OTHERS. WITH THAT YOU MAKE
CLOTHES. THANK YOU AGAIN TO THE
COMMITTEE AND MEMBERS AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK YOUR IBOOK AND
AGAIN. I WANT TO THANK YOU KNOW,
IT'S BEEN DIFFICULT. WE WENT
THROUGH SEVERAL ITERATIONS OF
THIS. UM THEN HOPEFULLY WE'VE
LANDED IN A PLACE THAT WE CAN
MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS. SO THAT
CHEERED RECOMMEND ME AND I ON A
B 301 BY SOME REMEMBER ABOUT
BAUER-KAHAN. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. JOHN SAWYER. JOHN
SAWYER. I ALANIS ALANIS. NO
BONTA. I BRIAN. BLACKIE BLACKIE.
NO, ORTEGA. ORTEGA EYES SANTIAGO
SANTIAGO EYES BERT ZILBER. AYE.
THAT MEASURE PASSES. THANK YOU.
NOW WE HAVE ITEM NUMBER ONE JOB,
PATTERSON A B 2 TO 9.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WHENEVER YOU'RE
READY. ALL RIGHT, PERFECT.
GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS HERE TODAY TO PRESENT A
B 2 TO 9. UM FIRST I WANT TO
START OFF BY MAKING CLEAR MY
INTENTIONS IN INTRODUCING THIS
BILL. UM AS THOSE OF US WHO'VE
BEEN AROUND FOR A WHILE IN THIS
REGION WERE FAMILIAR WITH THE
SMILEY MARTIN, MASS SHOOTING
THAT WAS IN SACRAMENTO AND IT
REALLY ROCKED THE CAPITAL
COMMUNITY. A B 2 TO 9 WAS THE
LAW THAN THAT SHOOTING. MASS
SHOOTING WOULD NOT HAVE
HAPPENED, AND WE'D HAVE SIX
PEOPLE STILL ALIVE TODAY. WHEN I
INITIALLY INTRODUCED THIS BILL,
I WANTED TO PICK THE MOST AGREE
GIS CRIMES THAT I CONSIDERED
VIOLENT AND PROPOSED LEGISLATION
TO HAVE THEM CONSIDERED VIOLENT
FELONIES. SO THIS BILL INCLUDES
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, SEXUAL
ASSAULT AND HUMAN TRAFFICKING OF
A SEXUAL NATURE. I WOULD LIKE TO
EMPHASIZE THAT THE BILL DEALS
WITH HUMAN TRAFFICKING ONLY OF A
SEXUAL NATURE BECAUSE THE
ANALYSIS ON PAGE ONE SEEMS TO
INDICATE THAT IT IS ALL HUMAN
TRAFFICKING, WHICH IT IS NOT AND
I KNOW THAT THIS COMMITTEE HAS
CONSIDERED LEGISLATION LIKE THAT
IN THE PAST, AND I LISTENED TO
WHAT COMMITTEE MEMBERS SAY AND
MAKE MY BILLS. UH, ACCORDING TO
THAT. AFTER INTRODUCTION. IT WAS
A PIECE IN THE SAN FRANCISCO SAN
FRANCISCO CHRONICLE THAT RAISE
ISSUES THAT I HONESTLY HAD NOT
THOUGHT OF. I LEARNED FROM THE
ARTICLE HOW GUN VIOLENCE AND
MASS SHOOTINGS ARE CONNECTED TO
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. SINCE THIS
TIME, I'VE BECOME MORE EDUCATED
ON THIS TOPIC. PEOPLE IN THIS
BUILDING ON BOTH SIDES OF THE
AISLE. HAVE REACHED OUT TO ME TO
EXPRESS INTEREST IN MY BILL, AND
WHEN IT PASSES OUT OF COMMITTEE,
I EXPECT TO ADD CO AUTHORS. MY
GOAL OF A B 2 TO 9 IN ITS
CURRENT FORM, HAS EVOLVED TO
TACKLING THE PROBLEM OF GUN
VIOLENCE FROM A DIFFERENT ANGLE
BY CLASSIFYING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
AS A VIOLENT CRIME AND
INCREASING PENALTIES FOR THE
WORST AND MOST DANGEROUS
OFFENDER. I DON'T WANT TO REHASH
STATISTICS ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
, WHICH ARE SCARY TO SAY THE
LEAST. AND WE KNOW IT'S
PREVALENT IN SOCIETY. BUT LET'S
TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE
INFORMATION ON HOW DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE IS CONNECTED TO MASS
SHOOTINGS. BETWEEN 2014 AND 2019
OVER TWO THIRDS OF ALL MASS
SHOOTINGS, AN EVENT WHERE FOUR
PEOPLE DIED NOT INCLUDING THE
PERPETRATOR. THE SHOOTER EITHER
HAD A HISTORY OF DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE OR KILLED AT LEAST ONE
PARTNER OR FAMILY MEMBER, WHILE
MASS SHOOTINGS ONLY ACCOUNT FOR
1% OF FIREARM HOMICIDES, IT IS
CLEAR THAT THE MOST LIKELY
PEOPLE TO COMMIT MASS SHOOTINGS
ARE THOSE THAT COMMIT DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE. SO WHAT MY BILL DOES
IS MAKE FELONY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
A VIOLENT FELONY. MISDEMEANOR
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, WHICH IS A
CRIME SUCH AS DOMESTIC BATTERY.
SUCH AS PUSHING SOMEONE AWAY,
OFTEN WITH NO SIGNS OF PHYSICAL
INJURY. FELONY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
IS VIOLENCE, RESULTING IN BODILY
INJURY. THERE'S ALSO A FELONY
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WITH GREAT
BODILY INJURY, WHICH ACTUALLY IS
A VIOLENT FELONY. BROKEN BONES,
CONCUSSIONS, GUNSHOT WOUNDS OR
BURNS. BUT WILL YOU HEAR ABOUT
IN A LITTLE BIT? IN THE CASE OF
SMILEY MARTIN IS THAT WAS NOT
FELONY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WITH
GREAT BODILY INJURY. BUT WHAT IS
UNBELIEVABLE IS THAT A PARTNER
CAN BE A CONSTANT VICTIM OF
ABUSE AND AS LONG AS THERE ARE
NO BROKEN BONES OR GUNSHOT
WOUNDS, OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE
SYSTEM DOES NOT CONSIDER IT A
VIOLENT FELONY. AS I MENTIONED.
MY BILL ALSO INCLUDES HUMAN
TRAFFICKING OF A SEXUAL VARIETY
. AND JUST WITHIN THE LAST FEW
DAYS, THERE WAS A MAJOR STAYING
HERE IN SACRAMENTO. YOU'LL READ.
A LOT OF CONVICTIONS OF THIS
CRIME CAN LEAD TO SENSES UP TO
OR SENTENCES. MAYBE AND USUALLY,
THEY'RE LONG SENTENCES THAT THEY
CAN POTENTIALLY BE CONVICTED
UNDER CURRENT LAW. BUT WOMEN CAN
BE TRAFFICKED INTO THE SEX
TRADES, AND THERE'S AN EXTREMELY
WIDE LATITUDE OF PENALTIES BUT
NOT CONSIDERED VIOLENT. BUT WHY
DO THESE NEED TO BE CONSIDERED
VIOLENT? BENNETT FELONIES YOU
ASK, BECAUSE UNDER PROPOSITION
57, SINCE THESE CRIMES ARE
CONSIDERED NON VIOLENT. THOSE
WHO TRAFFIC OTHERS FOR SEX AND
THOSE WHO THAT INFLICT INJURY ON
THEIR PARTNERS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR
PRE SENSING CREDITS AND EARLY
RELEASE PROGRAMS. SO ONE OF
THESE 5 10 15 YEAR, SENTENCES
WILL BE DRAMATICALLY LOWER. IT'S
ALL COMES TOGETHER IN THE CASE
OF SMILEY MARTIN, WHO COMMITTED
THE MASS SHOOTING RIGHT DOWN THE
STREET AND SIX PEOPLE DIED HAD
PRIOR CONVICTIONS OF VIOLENT
ATTACKS ON HIS GIRLFRIEND AND
ENCOURAGE HIS GIRLFRIEND TO WORK
AS A PROSTITUTE. BUT BECAUSE IN
NEITHER OF THESE CRIMES WERE
CONSIDERED VIOLENT. HE SPENT
LESS THAN HALF OF HIS 10 YEAR
SENTENCE AND WENT ON TO KILL SIX
PEOPLE. LET ME READ YOU AN
EXCERPT ABOUT HIM. THIS IS FROM
THE SACRAMENTO DISTRICT ATTORNEY
. LESS THAN SIX MONTHS LATER,
INMATE MARTIN FORCIBLY ENTERED
HIS GIRLFRIEND'S RESIDENTS. HE
LOCATED HER HIDING IN HER
BEDROOM CLOSET AND HIT HER
REPEATEDLY WITH A CLOSED FIST ON
THE FACE, HEAD AND BODY CAUSING
VISIBLE INJURIES. HE THEN
DRAGGED HER OUT OF THE HOME BY
HER HAIR TO AN AWAITING CAR.
AFTER HE PUT HER IN THE CAR. HE
ASSAULTED HER WITH A BELT. THE
VICTIM HAD BEEN WORKING AS A
PROSTITUTE AND THAT INMATE
MARTIN HAD BEEN ASSISTING AND
ENCOURAGING HER TO BE A
PROSTITUTE. ACCORDING TO TEXT
MESSAGES FROM THEM. MARTIN
PLEADED GUILTY TO TWO FELONY
ASSAULT CHARGES FOR A 10 YEAR
PRISON SENTENCE. ARE LAWS
CONSIDERED THIS KIND OF VIOLENCE
TO BE A VIOLENT FELONY. AT LEAST
SIX PEOPLE WOULD BE ALIVE RIGHT
HERE IN SACRAMENTO, AND THIS IS
JUST ONE CASE. UNFORTUNATELY
THIS CASE WILL GO DOWN AS ONE OF
THE STATISTICS THAT THE STUDY
REFERENCE TODAY I HAVE ALICIA
BARRY FROM THE ORANGE COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO
TESTIFY AND SUPPORT OF THE BILL.
GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU. CHAIR
AND THE STUDENT DISTINGUISHED
CRANIUM. EDINBURGH MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS ALICIA BERRY AND I'M
HERE ON BEHALF. OF THE ORANGE
COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE AND THE CALIFORNIA
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION
TO URGE A YES VOTE ON A B 2 TO
9. C D. A IS PLEASED TO SUPPORT
YOUR MEASURE THAT WOULD ADD
SEVERAL FORMS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT
, AS WELL AS HUMAN TRAFFICKING
AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE TO
CALIFORNIA'S LIST OF VIOLENT
OFFENSES IN PENAL CODE SECTION
667.5. FOR TOO LONG. THE LAW HAS
MINIMIZED THE VIOLENT NATURE OF
SEXUAL ASSAULTS, RAPE, SODOMY.
ORAL COPULATION AND PENETRATION
IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE
VICTIMS RESISTANCE WAS OVERCOME
BY ANY MEANS, OTHER THAN BRUHTH
, BRUTE FORCE OR THREATS OF RUTH
BRUTE FOREST. THIS IS LEFT
VICTIMS WHO WERE DRUGGED OR
ATTACKED BY A PERSON'S IN A
POSITION OF POWER. TO ENDURE A
LESSER FORM OF JUSTICE THAN
VICTIMS WHO EXPERIENCED PHYSICAL
FORCE OR THREAT OF PHYSICAL
FORCE. ONE EXAMPLE OF THIS IS
ANDREW LUSTER. WHO DRUGGED
MULTIPLE WOMEN INTO A STATE OF
UNCONSCIOUSNESS BEFORE
COMMITTING GRIEVOUS RAPES AND
OTHER SEXUAL ASSAULTS, OFTEN ON
VIDEOTAPE. LESTER'S VICTIMS WERE
IN GRAVE PERIL DUE TO THE AMOUNT
OF POTENTIALLY LETHAL DRUGS HE
ADMINISTERED, BUT BECAUSE HIS
VICTIMS WERE UNCONSCIOUS HIS
CRIMES WERE CONSIDERED NON
VIOLENT. A B 2 TO 9 WOULD ALSO
INCLUDE THE SEXUAL TRAFFICKING
OF HUMAN BEINGS AND DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE, CAUSING INJURY TO THE
LIST OF VIOLENT OFFENSES. BOTH
OF THESE CRIMES
DISPROPORTIONATELY IN DANGER,
WOMEN AND CHILDREN. AND THEIR
ADDITION TO THE LIST OF VIOLENT
FELONIES WILL HELP SECURE
JUSTICE AND ULTIMATELY, SAFETY.
FOR THOSE ROLES, VULNERABLE
VICTIMS. UM AND WE BELIEVE THIS
IS A COMMON SENSE MEASURE THAT
WOULD RECOGNIZE THE VIOLENCE
PERPETRATED. BY MEANS OTHER THAN
BRUTAL FORCE. FOR THESE REASONS,
CDVA SUPPORTS A B 2 TO 9 AND
APPRECIATES VERY MUCH YOUR
ATTENTION. TO THIS IMPORTANT
ISSUE. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY
OTHER WITNESSES? IN SUPPORT.
GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR MEMBERS
COREY SALTILLO ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE
SHERIFFSASSOCIATION SPORT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. GREG BURKE
WITH THE CALIFORNIA FAMILY
COUNSEL AND SUPPORT THANK YOU.
SOFIA LAURIE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
FAMILY COUNSEL AND SUPPORT.
PESTER BRANDON CAMPBELL FACE
BAPTIST CHURCH WHEATLAND,
CALIFORNIA AND NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA DIRECTOR OF THE
CALIFORNIA CAPITAL CONNECTION
FOR BAPTIST CHURCHES AND SUPPORT
THANK YOU, SIR. ARE THERE ANY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION?
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, MR
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
CARMEN NICOLE COX, DIRECTOR OF
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS AT A C L U
CALIFORNIA ACTION, AND WE ARE
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED TO 80 TO 29
, WHICH INTENDS TO RATCHET UP
THE PUNISHMENT FOR SEXUAL
ASSAULT, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND
HUMAN TRAFFICKING BY RELYING ON
INCREASED PUNISHMENT RATHER THAN
COMMUNITY INVESTMENT. A C L U
DOES NOT DISPUTE THAT THOSE WHO
COMMIT RAPE SHOULD BE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE, AS INDICATED IN THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS OF THIS BILL
. ALL FORMS OF RAPE ARE
CURRENTLY A SERIOUS FELONY AND
SEXUAL ASSAULT CONVICTION IS A
FELONY. EXCUSE ME. RAPE SEXUAL
ASSAULT SEEMS TO BE MORE
APPROPRIATE RAPE CONVICTION IS A
FELONY PUNISHABLE BY UP TO EIGHT
YEARS IN PRISON PUNISHMENT FOR
HUMAN TRAFFICKING FOR THE
PURPOSE OF SPECIAL FOR THE
PURPOSE OF SPECIFIED SEXUAL
CONDUCT IS AFTER 20 YEARS AND
CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE EVEN THAT DOESN'T
INVOLVE GREAT BODILY INJURY OR
UP TO FOUR YEARS. EACH OF THESE
PENALTIES CAN BE ENHANCED UNDER
CURRENT LAW. TO INCLUDE
SIGNIFICANT ADDITIONAL TIME IN
PRISON. AND WHILE MORE TIME IN
PRISON WILL RESPOND TO OUR RAGE.
IT WILL NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF
MAKING SURVIVORS HOLE. RAPE
HUMAN TRAFFICKING AND DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE. SURVIVORS NEED DESERVE
TO BE BELIEVED TO HAVE THEIR
CASES SOLVED AND TO BE TREATED
WITH COMPASSION AND PROVIDED THE
SERVICES NEEDED TO ADDRESS
TRAUMA AND HARM. SURVIVORS
SHOULD BE EMPOWERED, NOT
EMPLOYED AS JUSTIFICATION TO
UNDERMINE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE WILL
OF THE VOTERS MOST RECENTLY AS
EXPRESSED IN NOVEMBER, 2020 WHEN
THEY REJECTED PROPOSITION 20. WE
UNDERSTAND THAT ADDING THE
SPECIFIED CRIMES TO THE LIST OF
STRIKE OFFENSES WILL HAVE THE
IMPACT WILL IMPACT CREDIT
EARNING INSIDE OF PRISON,
LIMITING THE ABILITY TO EARN
RELEASE BASED ON DEMONSTRATED
COMMITMENT TO SELF IMPROVEMENT
AND REHABILITATION. HOWEVER
REHABILITATION IS PRECISELY THE
OUTCOME WE WANT FROM
INCARCERATION. OTHERWISE, WE'RE
SIMPLY WAREHOUSING INDIVIDUALS.
NOTABLY CALIFORNIA ALREADY
LOCKED UP A HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF
ITS PEOPLE THAN ALMOST ANY
DEMOCRACY ON EARTH. AND WHILE
PRISON OVERCROWDING HAS NOT MADE
OUR COMMUNITIES SAFER, IT DOES
RESULT IN INHUMANE PRISON
CONDITIONS COST TAXPAYERS
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. STYMIES
REHABILITATION EXPANDS THE
BUDGET AND FOOTPRINT OF THE
PRISON INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX,
MONOPOLIZES RESOURCES THAT WOULD
BE BETTER USED TO INVEST IN OUR
COMMUNITIES. IN WAYS THAT WOULD
IMPROVE HOLISTIC HEALTH AND
CREATE COMMUNITY PROSPERITY.
CONSEQUENTLY WE ASK FOR YOUR NO
VOTE ON A B 2 TO 9. THANK YOU.
HI MY NAME IS MARCO GEORGE AND
I'M FROM THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION. I WOULD
ECHO THE COMMENTS OF MY
COLLEAGUE FROM THE A C L U UM WE
ARE IN OPPOSITION TO A B 2 TO 9.
AND OF COURSE, ALTHOUGH WE ARE
OPPOSED TO HUMAN TRAFFICKING OF
MINORS OR ADULTS AND DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE. WE BELIEVE THAT
INCREASING PENALTIES IS A FAILED
POLICY. THAT HAS NEITHER
DETERRED CRIME NOR PREVENTED
FUTURE VICTIMS. A B 2 TO 9 DOES
NOTHING TO SOLVE THE UNDERLYING
PROBLEMS IN OUR SOCIETY, WHICH
LEAD TO SEX TRAFFICKING OR
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. AND WE HAVE
RESEARCH NOW AND THAT TELLS US
WHAT WE NEED TO DO. AND I'M
GOING TO REPEAT SOME OF WHAT I
SAID LAST YEAR WHEN THIS BILL
WAS HERE, A SIMILAR VERSION YOU
HAD LAST YEAR. UM AND FORMACION
ALLOW HEARING. ON SEX
TRAFFICKING, AND YOU HAD THE USC
GOLD SCHOOL OF LAW RESEARCHERS.
AFTER THE INFORMATIONAL HEARING.
WHOSE STUDY FOUND THAT THE
UNITED STATES OVER RELIED ON LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND ATTRIBUTE
RETRIBUTIVE CRIMINAL JUSTICE
APPROACH TO ADDRESS COMPLEX
SOCIETAL ISSUES, BUT INSTEAD
REQUIRE NUANCE AND UNDERSTANDING
OF TRAUMA, RACE AND POVERTY.
THEY SAID EFFECTIVE ANTI
TRAFFICKING EFFORTS ARE MOVING
AWAY FROM SUPPORT FOR USE OF
OPERATIONS, FOCUSING INSTEAD ON
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT. PUBLIC
HEALTH AND HARM REDUCTION.
STRATEGIES AND INVESTING IN
POVERTY RELIEF, ANTI
DISCRIMINATION INITIATIVES AND
OPPORTUNITIES FOR EDUCATION AND
EMPLOYMENT AND THOSE
RECOMMENDATIONS, AND THAT
RESEARCH ALSO APPLIES TO
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. THEIR
RECOMMENDATIONS, MOST NOTABLY
WERE SUPPORT COMMUNITY AND
PUBLIC HEALTH APPROACHES TO
IDENTIFY VICTIMS AND TRAFFICKERS
OUTSIDE OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE
SYSTEM. REDIRECT FUNDING TO
EVIDENCE BASED VICTIM
IDENTIFICATION METHODS THAT ARE
MORE EFFECTIVE AND LESS HARMFUL
TO VICTIMS. AND TO THE EXTENT
THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS
CONTINUE IMPLEMENT STRICT
POLICIES AND TRAININGS. THAT
INCREASED THE EFFICACY OF VICTIM
IDENTIFICATION OR MINUTE
DEVISING TRAUMA TO VICTIMS.
INCREASE THE TRANSPARENCY TO
SUPPORT MORE EFFECTIVE
OVERSIGHT. STRENGTHEN PREVENTION
EFFORTS THAT REDUCE THE
VULNERABILITY OF POTENTIAL
VICTIMS. INCREASE. SERVICES
AVAILABLE TO VICTIMS AND
SYSTEMICALLY OFFER COMPREHENSIVE
SERVICES TO EVERY SUSPECTED
VICTIM. IMPROVE COMMUNICATION
BETWEEN NONPROFITS SERVICE
PROVIDERS. PROSECUTORS AND OTHER
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES,
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS AND SEX
WORKERS. AND I WOULD JUST SAY
TODAY TO WRAP IT UP. THANK YOU
IS THAT TODAY IS EQUAL PAY DAY.
TODAY IS THE DAY IN WHICH WOMEN
FINALLY MAKE AS MUCH MONEY AS
MEN DO. FOR AT THE BEGINNING OF
THE YEAR. AND ONE OF THE ISSUES
IS THE QUALITY. THE EQUALITY OF
WOMEN WILL REALLY HELP CHANGE
THE SITUATION AND LEAD TO FEWER
VICTIMS. FOR THOSE REASONS. WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR NO
VOTE ON A B TWO B NINE. THANK
YOU ANY OTHER OTHER WITNESSES
AND OPPOSITION NAME AND
ORGANIZATION, PLEASE. ROCK ULI,
LOS ANGELES, DEPENDENCY, LAWYERS
AND OPPOSITION. GLENN BECK IS
ELLA BAKER CENTER FOR HUMAN
RIGHTS STRONGLY OPPOSED. DANICA
ROAD, ARMEL INITIATE JUSTICE IN
THE SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC
DEFENDER AND OPPOSITION. JOSHUA
TUBE, CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS FOR
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND OPPOSITION
. JIM LINDBERG FRIENDS COMMITTEE
ON LEGISLATION OF CALIFORNIA
OPPOSED THANK YOU. BRING IT BACK
TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR ANY
COMMENTS. YES, MR BLACKIE. FIRST
OF ALL, THANK YOU. FOR THIS, UH,
THIS MEASURE. UM YOU KNOW, SEX
OFFENDERS ARE UNIQUELY
THREATENING. AND TO DENY THAT IS
TO DENY THE FACT. AND I DON'T
CARE WHAT STUDY? I DON'T CARE.
WHAT ARE THE KIND OF
JUSTIFICATION IS EXPRESSED THAT
IS A FACT. AND WHAT SEEMS TO BE
THE PREVALENT TREND. IN MY
OBSERVATION THE LAST SEVERAL
YEARS. IS THE VICTIM
CONSIDERATION APPEARS TO
BECOMING ABANDONED. AND WHY IN
THE WORLD WHAT OFFENSES LIKE
RAPE. ANOTHER SEXUAL ASSAULT OF
AN UNCONSCIOUS VICTIM OR RAPE,
ANOTHER SEXUAL ASSAULT OF A
VICTIM WHO WAS TOO DRUGGED OR
INTOXICATED TO GIVE VALID
CONSENT. WHY IN THE WORLD ARE
THOSE NOT CONSIDERED VIOLENT? IT
DEFIES LOGIC TO ME. AND SO THIS
IS JUST A COMMON SENSE. PLEA.
FOR VICTIMS. SO I'M CLEARLY. IN
SUPPORT. IF I'M NOT A CO AUTHOR,
I NEED TO BE THANK YOU COMMENT.
YEAH, THE BIRD. HASN'T WAITED IN
HERE. BUT YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE
PROBLEMS I HAVE WITH THIS BILL
IS THERE'S A LOT OF PLAYS WITH
YOU KNOW, USE OF WORDS, UH, YOU
KNOW, RELATED TO VIOLENCE, AND
IT LEADS TO THE IMPRESSION THAT
WE DON'T HAVE STRONG AND HARSH
PENALTIES. FOR CRIMES RELATED TO
SEXUAL ASSAULT. UM I LOOKED AT
THE BILL ANALYSIS AND THERE'S I
THINK THREE PAGES OF VERY HARSH
PENALTIES THAT ARE ALREADY IN
PLACE, AND, UM, YOU WOULD THINK
FROM THE BILL ANALYSIS THAT NONE
OF THAT IS IN PLACE, INCLUDING
AND THIS WAS ACTUALLY NEWS TO
ME. THE ONE STRIKE SEX LAW,
WHICH PROVIDES 15 YEARS TO LIFE
IMPRISONMENT. FOR BASICALLY RAPE
WITH ANY AGGRAVATING WITH A
WHOLE HOST OF AGGRAVATING. UM,
FACTORS SO UM TO ME. UM THE
PROBLEM I HAVE WITH THIS BILL IS
IT LEADS TO THE INCORRECT
IMPRESSION THAT THE THAT THERE
ARE NO PENALTIES FOR WHAT YOU
DESCRIBED AS BEING THE MOST
HEINOUS CRIMES OUT THERE. THERE
ARE EXTREME PENALTIES OUT THERE
. ANYTHING THAT I THINK IS A
VIOLENT ACT. UM NOT ONLY ARE
THERE THE UNDERLYING PENALTIES
THAT I THINK THE WITNESSES
TALKED ABOUT, BUT IN MOST OF
THOSE CASES, THERE'S GOING TO BE
AGGRAVATING PENALTIES THAT ARE
ADDED. ON TOP OF THAT, AND MOST
DEFENDANTS ARE FACING VERY, VERY
HIGH POTENTIAL PENALTIES. SO I
DON'T THINK THIS IS NEEDED. I
DON'T THINK I DON'T APPRECIATE.
UM THE YOU KNOW, BRINGING THESE
KINDS OF BILLS FORWARD THAT
LEADS TO FALSE IMPRESSIONS ABOUT
, UM, ABOUT THE PENALTIES THAT
ARE OUT THERE AND, UM AND LEAVE
THE IMPRESSION THAT FOLKS THAT
ARE COMMITTING VIOLENT ACTS. UM
AND VIOLENT SEXUAL ACTS ARE, UM
, YOU KNOW, SORT OF GETTING OFF
SCOT FREE, SO I WON'T BE
SUPPORTING THIS BILL TODAY.
THANK YOU. NO MORE COMMENT. MR.
YES UH, WOULD YOU HAVE ANYTHING
TO COME BACK ON HIS ANSWER OR
REPLY TO THOSE? YEAH I MEAN,
WELL, THANK YOU FOR THOSE
COMMENTS AND THANK YOU FOR
ASKING THAT YEAH, I THINK THE
REALITY IS THAT YOU KNOW, AS I
MENTIONED IN MY STATEMENT IS A
LOT OF THE THREE PAGES. FIRST OF
ALL, A LOT OF THE PAGES ARE NOT
A LOT. SOME OF THEM ARE NOT
RELEVANT BECAUSE IT'S TALKING
ABOUT IF SOMETHING IS ACTUALLY
CHARGED WITH A VIOLENT CRIME,
FOR EXAMPLE, WITH THE GREAT
BODILY INJURY EXAMPLE. BUT I
JUST GAVE AN EXAMPLE OF A
VARIOUS HEINOUS CRIME THAT
OCCURRED RIGHT HERE LOCALLY. UM,
WHERE THAT PERSON MIGHT HAVE
BEEN ELIGIBLE FOR UP TO, BUT THE
FACT IS, THIS PERSON WAS
CONVICTED FOR 10 YEARS GOT OUT
IN LESS THAN FIVE AND THEN JUST
WENT OUT AND COMMITTED A MASS
SHOOTING RIGHT HERE IN TOWN, AND
THE DATA DOES ACTUALLY SHOW THAT
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PEOPLE
CONVICTED OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
ARE THE MOST LIKELY PEOPLE TO
COMMIT. UH UM, MASS SHOOTINGS.
AND SO I THINK, AS WE TALKED
ABOUT WAYS THAT WE'RE GOING TO
PREVENT MASS SHOOTINGS AND
THINGS LIKE THAT, THE ONLY THING
WE'RE TAUGHT WE'RE ONLY TALKING
ABOUT ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER SIDE
OF THE EQUATION. IT'S BEEN A
CONSTANT FIGHT IN THIS BUILDING
FOR AS LONG AS I'VE BEEN AROUND,
WHICH HAS BEEN 20 YEARS NOW. AND
IT'S THE SAME ARGUMENT NOTHING
EVER CHANGES IN THE STATE LEVEL
OR THE NATIONAL LEVEL. SO I'M
BRINGING A PROPOSAL HERE. WHERE
YES, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT PEOPLE
ARE CHARGED FOR A LONG TIME WHO
COMMIT VIOLENT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
, BUT THAT IS NOT ACTUALLY THAT
IS NOT WHAT'S HAPPENING AND I
GAVE A VERY PUBLIC EXAMPLE OF
THAT NOT OCCURRING, AND I THINK
FOR SOMEBODY THAT'S GOING TO
DRAG A WOMAN OUT BY HER HAIR.
BEAT HER WITH A BELT AND PUNCH
HER IN THE FACE. I DO THINK THAT
THAT IS A VIOLENT CRIME AND
SHOULD BE CHARGED AS SUCH. YES,
MR BRYANT. SO WHAT'S APPROPRIATE
CHARGES AS A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
CHARGE. YOU GET SENTENCED TO 10
YEARS YOU SERVED FIVE. COME ON.
IF 10 THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO
SHOOTING 15 NO SHOOTING 20 NO
SHOOTING JUST LIFE. DRAG YOU
OUT, HIT YOU WITH A BELT LIFE IN
PRISON FOREVER. AH JUST I'M JUST
TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT
ARGUMENT YOU'RE MAKING HERE.
WELL, YOU KNOW, WITH PROPOSITION
, 57 YOU RELEASE YOUR YOU GET
YOUR RELEASE DATE FROM PRISON
THE DAY YOU WALK INTO PRISON.
THE DAY YOU WALK INTO PRISON,
YOU GET YOUR RELEASE DATE NOW AS
OF THE NEW REGULATIONS FROM CDCR
REHABILITATION IS NOT A PART OF
THAT MUCH TIME. SHOULD THAT
PERSON HAVE HAD TO NOT THEN
COMMIT A MASS SHOOTING SINCE
THAT'S THE CRUX OF YOUR ARGUMENT
WASN'T LONG ENOUGH. I'M
WONDERING WHAT IS THE
APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF TIME SINCE
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? YOU KNOW
THIS SPECIFIC CASE. UH I CAN
GUARANTEE YOU THAT THIS WOULD
NOT HAVE BEEN PERFORMED IN
SACRAMENTO. THIS THESE SIX LIVES
WOULD STILL BE HERE. IF HE HAD
DONE 10 YEARS. CORRECT YEAH,
100% THAT'S ABSOLUTELY LUDICROUS
. UH AND, UH, I WILL BE VOTING
NO AS WELL. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER
COMMENTS. YOU MAKE CLOTHES, MR
PATTERSON? SURE WELL, THANK YOU
SO MUCH. UM, YOU KNOW, I JUST
WANT TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE SOME
OF THE STATEMENTS THAT WERE MADE
BY THE OPPOSITION HERE. UM UH,
IN ALMOST EVERY PUBLIC SAFETY
BILL AND OPPOSITION. I'VE SEEN
COMMENTS ABOUT THIS ISN'T GOING
TO DETER CRIME. WE'LL SURELY
THIS WOULD DETER CRIME. SURELY
WE KNOW THAT SMILEY MARTIN WOULD
NOT HAVE BEEN OUT OF PRISON. WE
KNOW THAT HE WOULD NOT HAVE
COMMITTED A MASS SHOOTING. AND
SO, YEAH, IT DOESN'T BRING THE
VICTIMS WHOLE IF THIS LAW WERE
TO PASS. IF THIS LAW WAS THE LAW
TWO YEARS AGO, THERE WOULD BE NO
VICTIMS. AND SO I THINK IT'S
ALSO THIS. THIS WOULD HAVE
PREVENTED THE FUTURE CRIMES AND
ALSO I WANT TO CORRECT WE DON'T
CURRENTLY HAVE WE, MR CHAIRMAN.
WE SIT IN IN BUDGET SUB FIVE
WE'VE HAD NOW TWO DAYS,
UNFORTUNATELY, HAD TO MISS
YESTERDAY'S HEARING. THANKS TO,
UH YOU KNOW OTHER HEARINGS THAT
WERE GOING ON THAT DAY, AND I'M
SORRY I MISSED IT. BUT WE'VE
HEARD THE TESTIMONY FROM THE L A
O THAT WE DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE
PRISON OVERCROWDING, AND I THINK
IT'S A MISSTATEMENT READ 100 AND
5% OF THE POPULATION WHEN I
START AND WORKING HERE WE WERE
OVER 150. AND PEOPLE WERE ON
BUCKS. THAT IS NOT THE CASE
ANYMORE. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
CLOSING PRISONS, AND I THINK WE
HAVE TO STOP WITH THE SAME OLD
RHETORIC. I AM 100% IN SUPPORT
OF REHABILITATION PROGRAMS.
LET'S FUND THEM. LET'S WORK
TOGETHER. LET'S DO IT. I'M ON
THAT COMMITTEE. I'D BE HAPPY TO
WORK WITH YOU. BUT ALSO IF WE
CAN DETER MASS SHOOTINGS, WE CAN
DETER SOMEBODY FROM GRABBING
THEIR PARTNER OUT FROM THEIR CAR
AND PUNCHING HER IN THE FACE AND
BEATING HER WITH A BELT. AND
ACTUALLY HOLD THAT PERSON
ACCOUNTABLE SO THEY DON'T
SUBSEQUENTLY COMMIT A MASS
SHOOTING. I'M ALL FOR IT. AND I
HOPE YOU ARE, TOO. I ASK FOR
YOUR VOTE. AND SO I YOU SAID
SOMETHING, AND I JUST WANT YOU
TO JUST KIND OF UNDERSTAND, UM
WOULD YOU KIND OF PROPOSING?
BACK TO THE FUTURE KIND OF
THING. WHERE WE DID THREE
STRIKES. THAT'S HOW WE GOT TO
OVERCROWDING IN THE PRISONS.
THAT'S HOW WE FILLED IT WITH
BLACK AND BROWN FOLK. UM AND
WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING IS A BACK
TO THE FUTURE KIND OF THING LIKE
IF WE JUST LOCK PEOPLE UP.
PARLIAMENT VERY LONG PERIOD OF
TIME. THEN THEY WON'T COMMIT.
YOU'RE RIGHT. IT WON'T COMMIT.
AS MY COLLEAGUE SAID, MAYBE FOR
THE FIVE YEARS, SO IT'S 10
YEARS. THE 25. SO IF THEY COME
OUT AFTER 10 YEARS, YOU WILL BE
BACK HERE TO SAY YOU NEED TO
KEEP HIM HERE FOR 15 YEARS FOR
20 YEARS. THAT IS NOT THE
SOLUTION. THAT'S KIND OF WHAT
YOUR BILL IS SAYING. THE LONGER
YOU LOCK PEOPLE UP. IT WILL BE
ELIMINATED. NO IT MAY DELAY IT
BECAUSE INSIDE THE PRISON IF YOU
DON'T GIVE PROPER REHABILITATION
PROGRAMS, WHICH WE AGREE ON,
THEN THAT PERSON WILL JUST
RECOMMIT. THAT OFFENSE WHEN THEY
GET OUT OR TO BE BETTER
CRIMINALS WHILE THEY'RE IN AND
THEN GET OUT BECAUSE THE SYSTEM
IS CDCR IS BROKEN. AND SO THAT'S
THAT'S THE DILEMMA YOU HAVE
RIGHT NOW. WITH YOUR BILL. IT'S
KIND OF RESUBMITTING. IN A
DIFFERENT. WHICH IS WHAT ONE OF
MY COLLEAGUES SAID YOU'RE GIVEN.
A DIFFERENT LOOK. OR ACROSS THE
WAY YOU'RE PUTTING LIPSTICK ON A
PIG. YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY. IF WE
GO BACK TO THREE STRIKES, WE
WILL STOP ALL CRIME. WE'VE
ALREADY PROVEN THAT DOESN'T WORK
. WE'RE ALREADY PROVEN THAT AND
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO LET
YOU KNOW THE REASON WE CAN
CELEBRATE. THE FACT THAT WE
DON'T HAVE OVERCROWDING IS
BECAUSE WE'VE IMPLEMENTED
STRATEGIES AND POLICIES THAT
WASN'T ABOUT OVER INCARCERATING
BUT DOING MORE REHABILITATION. I
WILL TAKE YOU UP ON THE
CHALLENGE OF HOW DO WE FIX THE
REHABILITATION BECAUSE IT'S LIKE
I'VE SAID BEFORE. IT'S BIG C AND
CORRECTION ON CDCR AND VERY
SMALL T REHABILITATION. AND IF
YOU HAD BEEN AT THAT I'M NOT
GIVING YOU HAVE TO GO TOGETHER.
COMMITTEE HAD BEEN AT THAT
HEARING YESTERDAY. WHERE WE
FOUND OUT THAT 0.7% OF THE
BUDGET FOR CDC ARE IT'S BEEN A
REHABILITATION. 42% HAS BEEN ON
SECURITY. HEY WE DON'T GET ME
STARTED. WE'LL AGREE AGAIN. SO
I'M JUST LETTING YOU KNOW WHAT
WHY THERE'S. FEELING WHAT THE
MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE ON THIS
COMMITTEE THAT THREE STRIKES IS
NOT THE WAY TO GO. AND SO
UNFORTUNATELY I HAVE TO
RECOMMEND NO VOTE BY. DO BELIEVE
YOUR HEART'S IN THE RIGHT PLACE.
SO I APPRECIATE THAT, AND I WAS
GOING TO SAY I LIKE YOUR TIE
TODAY. NORMALLY, IT'S RED, SO
YOU KNOW IS THERE A MOTION? I
KNOW THERE'S A MOTION AND A
SECOND. YES FACTORY CALLED THE
ROLL ON A B 2 TO 9 BISON.
REMEMBER JOE PATTERSON. THE
MOTION IS PASSED TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. JOHN
SAWYER SAWYER. NO COLONIES,
BONTA. BLANTON NO, BRIAN, BRIAN
. NO, LACKEY, BLACKIE. I ORTEGA
OR TAKE A NO SANTIAGO SANTIAGO
KNOWS ALBERT SABARNO. THAT
MEASURE FAILED. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU FOR BRINGING IT FORWARD. MR
GABRIEL. ITEMS NUMBER 11 AND 13
A B 467. AND A B 484. THANK YOU,
MR CHAIR. WHENEVER YOU'RE READY,
WE'RE READY. YOU LOOKING FOR
YOUR WITNESS? I AM OKAY. IF WE
START IN ORDER WITH 467 TO GO
FIRST. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SURE?
ALRIGHT SO THANK YOU, MR CHAIR
AND MEMBERS AND I WANT TO START
BY ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS AND WANT TO THANK YOU
AND YOUR STAFF FOR YOUR
THOUGHTFUL FEEDBACK AND
ASSISTANCE ON THE BELL. I AM
PLEASED TODAY TO PRESENT A B 467
, WHICH WILL CLARIFY WHEN JUDGES
CAN MODIFY NO CONTACT AND
PEACEFUL CONTACT ORDERS IN CASES
OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. CURRENT
STATUTE IN CALIFORNIA CREATES
CONFUSION AS TO WHEN COURTS HAVE
JURISDICTION TO MODIFY THESE
ORDERS, EVEN WHEN BOTH THE
VICTIM AND THE DEFENDANT HAVE
AGREED TO REQUEST A CHANGE. THIS
IS DETRIMENTAL TO ALL PARTIES
INVOLVED. MAYBE 467 NOT ONLY
STRENGTHENS PROTECTIONS FOR
VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WHO
CANNOT CHANGE THE ORDER
THEMSELVES, THEREBY ENDANGERING
THEIR SAFETY, BUT ALSO PROVIDES
AN OPPORTUNITY TO MODIFY ORDERS
TO SUPPORT FAMILIES AND CHILDREN
WHEN COUPLES HAVE RECONCILED AND
MUTUALLY AGREED THAT IN ORDER
SHOULD BE CHANGED. THIS BILL
SUPPORTED BY COALITION OF
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND LEGAL
ORGANIZATIONS. AND WITH ME TODAY
TO TESTIFY AND SUPPORT IS TRACY
T. FOR TILLER, DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY IN THE FAMILY VIOLENCE
UNIT AT THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
THANK YOU AND RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST AND I VOTE. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING AND THANK YOU FOR
YOUR TIME. MY NAME IS TRACY T.
FOR TELLER. I'M A DEPUTY D A IN
SANTA CLARA COUNTY AND I
SUPERVISE THE FAMILY VIOLENCE
UNIT FOR MY OFFICE. I'D LIKE TO
MAKE THREE POINTS IN SUPPORT OF
THIS BILL. THE FIRST IS THAT
THIS IS A SIMPLE, NARROWLY
TAILORED AND SPECIFIC CHANGE.
THAT SIMPLY MAKES IT CLEAR WHAT
MANY JUDGES ALREADY BELIEVE AND
WHAT IS ALREADY POSSIBLE AT
OTHER POINTS IN THE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE PROCESS THAT A
RESTRAINING ORDER CAN BE
MODIFIED BY THE SENTENCING
COURT. WHETHER FROM NO CONTACT
TO PEACEFUL CONTACT OR FROM
PEACEFUL CONTACT TO NO CONTACT
THESE ORDERS UNDER PENAL CODE
SECTION 1 36.2 ARE ALREADY
MODIFIABLE BY THE COURT DURING
THE PENDENCY OF THE CASE AND IF
A DEFENDANT IS PLACED ON
PROBATION THIS BILL SIMPLY MAKES
IT CLEAR THAT THOSE ORDERS MAY
ALSO BE MODIFIED BY THE COURT IF
A DEFENDANT IS SENTENCED TO A
PROBATION, DENIED SENTENCE OR IF
THE DEFENDANT IS SENTENCED TO
PRISON AND LATER RELEASED. IT
SIMPLY CLARIFIES WHAT MANY
COURTS ALREADY BELIEVE AND WHAT
IS POSSIBLE AT OTHER POINTS IN
THE PROCESS. MY SECOND POINT IS
THAT THIS BILL EMPOWERS
SURVIVORS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
TO MAKE NECESSARY CHANGES TO
THEIR PROTECTIVE ORDERS WHEN
CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE A CRIMINAL
PROTECTIVE ORDER UNDER PENAL
CODE SECTION 1 36.2 CAN LAST AS
LONG AS 10 YEARS AFTER THE
PENDENCY OF THE CASE. THAT'S A
LONG TIME. PEOPLE'S
CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE OVER TIME
THEY MAY RECONCILE WITH THE
PERSON WHO IS RESTRAINED BY THE
ORDER. THEY MAY WANT TO MORE
ACTIVELY CO PARENT WITH THAT
PERSON. THEY MAY HAVE AN
AMICABLE RELATIONSHIP WITH THAT
PERSON, AND THEY MAY WANT TO
MODIFY THE TERMS OF THEIR ORDER.
THIS BILL EMPOWERS THEM TO DO
SO. BY THE SAME TOKEN, IF
CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE NEGATIVELY
, AND THE RESTRAINED PERSON
BECOMES A DANGER TO THE DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE SURVIVORS, THEY'RE ABLE
TO RETURN TO COURT AND ASK FOR
MORE PROTECTION. THIS BILL WOULD
EMPOWER THEM TO DO THAT. AND
FINALLY, THIS BILL ALSO PROTECTS
THOSE RESTRAINED BY DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE, RESTRAINING ORDERS THE
DEFENDANTS IN CRIMINAL CASES
RIGHT NOW, IF AN ORDER CANNOT BE
MODIFIED FROM PEACEFUL FROM NO
CONTACT TO PEACEFUL CONTACT OF
VICTIM AND OFFENDER WHO WANT TO
RECONCILE AND BE TOGETHER.
CANNOT DO SO UNDER THE LAW, IN
FACT, THE EXPLICIT DIRECTION FOR
LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTAINED IN THE
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RESTRAINING
ORDER TODAY STATES THAT EVEN IF
THE VICTIM INITIATES CONTACT
WITH THE RESTRAINED PARTY, THE
ORDER MUST BE ENFORCED AND THAT
CONTACT MUST BE PROHIBITED. THIS
BILL WOULD ALLOW MODIFICATIONS
TO PEACEFUL CONTACT, WHICH, BY
THE WAY ARE BY FAR IN MY
EXPERIENCE IN MY OFFICES,
EXPERIENCE ARE BY FAR THE
MAJORITY OF THE REQUESTED
MODIFICATIONS. THIS BILL ALLOWS
THOSE MODIFICATIONS SO THAT THE
RESTRAINED PERSON AND THE
PROTECTED PERSON CAN HAVE
CONTACT WITH EACH OTHER WITHOUT
RISKING AH, THE RESTRAINED
PERSON BEING ARRESTED. SO IN
SOME, THIS IS A SIMPLE,
STRAIGHTFORWARD AND SPECIFIC
AMENDMENT THAT PROTECTS
OFFENDERS EMPOWERS VICTIMS AND
CLARIFIES THE LAW FOR THE COURT.
I REQUEST YOUR I WOULD ASK FOR
YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU. DO WE
HAVE ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT? NATASHA MINSK ARE
PROSECUTORS ALLIANCE OF
CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT. JOSHUA
TO BE, UH, ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS FOR
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND SUPPORT
OKAY, ANY OTHERS? OPPOSITION.
MARCO GEORGE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION. I UNDERSTAND THE
BILLS BEING AMENDED, AND I WANT
TO THANK COMMITTEE STAFF AND THE
AUTHOR WHERE WE'RE MOVING OUR
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ANY OTHERS. QUESTIONS FOR
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. SECOND. MR
GABRIEL, YOU MAKE CLOTHES AND
THAT MAY I JUST ADD THANK YOU
FOR DOING THIS. I WOULD LIKE TO
ALSO BE ADDED AS A CO AUTHOR. IF
I COULD BE THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MR VICE CHAIR. YEAH. I JUST WANT
TO THANK COMMITTEE STAFF FOR
HELPING US TO GET TO A GOOD
PLACE ON THIS. I THINK AS YOU
HEARD, THIS IS A BILL THAT'S
GOING TO BENEFIT ALL INVOLVED IN
THIS PROCESS AND ONE APPRECIATE
THE OPPOSITION FOR WORKING WITH
US, AND WE'RE STRICTLY
REQUESTED. I VOTE. THANK YOU AND
AGAIN AS A PRIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER, THE EXAMPLES THAT YOU
GAVE, UNFORTUNATELY, YOU DO HAVE
THOSE THAT RECONCILE AND
UNFORTUNATELY, THE PAPERWORK
DOES SAY THAT WE HAVE OR WE
SHALL, AND SO THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THAT FORWARD. I BELIEVE
THE CHAIR IS ASKING FOR I VOTE
AND. ON A B 4 67 BY SOME MEMORY
GABRIEL. THE MOTION IS DUE PASS
AS AMENDED. JOAN SAWYER. ELONIS
AYE, BONTA. I BRIAN BRIAN, I
LACKEY A LACKEY. I ORTEGA ORTEGA
I SANTIAGO SANTIAGO ZUBER. AYE.
THE MAJOR PASSES.
CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU. MOVE
TO YOUR NEXT ITEM. SECOND. OKAY?
GO FOR IT. OH, THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MR VICE CHAIR MEMBERS. I AM
PLEASED TODAY TO PRESENT
ASSEMBLY BILL 484, AND I WANT TO
START BY ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS AND I WANT TO TAKE
THE COMMITTEE IN THE CHAIR WHO'S
NOT HERE, BUT HOPEFULLY WE'LL
HEAR THIS AT ONE POINT. I WANT
TO THANK THEM FOR THEIR HELP
WITH THIS BILL. UM AND THEIR
ASSISTANCE AND I ALSO WANT TO
JUST, UM, MAYBE PROVIDE SOME
COMMENTS TO SET SOME CONTEXT FOR
THIS. I COULDN'T HELP BUT
OVERHEAR SOME OF THE PREVIOUS
CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD HAD. I
AM SOMEONE WHO HAS GENERALLY
BEEN VERY, VERY SKEPTICAL OF
SENTENCE ENHANCEMENTS. I THINK
THAT MASS INCARCERATION WAS A
TERRIBLE FAILED EXPERIMENT FOR
THE STATE RESULTED IN THE
WAREHOUSING OF BROWN AND BLACK
MEN AND DID, UM, IRREVERSIBLE
DAMAGE TO MANY OF OUR
COMMUNITIES. AND I WANT TO THANK
THIS COMMITTEE FOR PREVENTING US
FROM GOING BACKWARDS. I KNOW
THERE ARE THOSE THAT WHO HAVE
URGED US THAT WE GO BACKWARDS ON
SOME OF THOSE FAILED POLICIES,
AND I APPRECIATE THE ROLE THAT
THE CHAIR HAS PLAYED. IN
DISMANTLING MASS INCARCERATION
AND ALSO THE ROLE THAT THE STAFF
HAS PLAYED IN PREVENTING US FROM
MOVING BACK TO A SYSTEM THAT WE
KNOW WITH CERTAINTY DID NOT WORK
WHEN I WAS APPROACHED WITH THIS
BILL, UM WHAT? INTRIGUED ME
ABOUT IT. WHERE A NUMBER OF
THINGS UM ONE WAS THAT THIS
PRESENTS A VERY DIFFERENT FACT
PATTERN. I THINK THAT MANY OF
THE OF THE SENTENCING
ENHANCEMENTS THAT WE NORMALLY
WOULD THINK ABOUT OR CONSIDER. I
NOTED THAT THERE'S A VERSION OF
THIS BILL HAD GONE THROUGH THE
LEGISLATURE A FEW YEARS AGO WITH
VIRTUALLY UNANIMOUS BIPARTISAN
SUPPORT AT THE SAME TIME THAT WE
WERE DISMANTLING OTHER
INCENTIVES, HANSE MINTS AND THAT
UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM AS A
RESULT OF SOME COMPLICATIONS,
PENALTIES FOR THE THEFT OF
PROPERTY WORTH MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS. ARE THE SAME AS THE
THEFT OF PROPERTY WORTH WORTH A
FEW $100,000 AND THE FACT
PATTERN THAT PRESENTS ITSELF IN
MANY OF THESE WHITE COLLAR
CRIMES IS THAT WE HAVE FOLKS WHO
ARE SOPHISTICATED WITH A LOT OF
POWER AND A LOT OF RESOURCES
THAT ARE PREYING ON SOME OF OUR
MOST VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES.
SENIORS THE DISABLED THOSE
WITHOUT ENGLISH LANGUAGE SKILLS
, UNDOCUMENTED FOLKS, IMMIGRANT
COMMUNITIES. AND OFTEN, WHAT
HAPPENS IN THESE SITUATIONS IS
THAT PERPETRATORS ARE ABLE TO
STEAL SIGNIFICANT SUMS OF MONEY
THAT CAN FUNDAMENTALLY ALTER
SOMEONE'S LIFE. THEY CAN TAKE A
HOUSE AWAY FROM AN ELDERLY
COUPLE. THEY CAN TAKE AWAY LIFE
SAVINGS AWAY FROM A LOW WAGE
WORKER. AND THESE ARE THINGS
THAT ARE VERY, VERY CHALLENGING
FOR THE VICTIMS TO OVERCOME AND
OFTEN AS I UNDERSTAND IT FROM
FOLKS WITH EXPERIENCE IN THIS
SPACE, THE ENHANCEMENT SERVES A
VERY PARTICULAR ROLE IN THIS
CASE. IT IS AN INCENTIVE FOR
RESTITUTION. IT IS AN INCENTIVE
FOR THE PERPETRATOR OF THE CRIME
TO RETURN THOSE STOLEN FUNDS AND
HAPPENED. ABSENT THAT INCENTIVE
. THERE ARE A LOT OF
PERPETRATORS OF THESE CRIMES
THAT WOULD RATHER HOLD ONTO THE
MONEY THAT THEY'VE STOLEN FROM
PEOPLE. AND THEY WOULD RATHER
KEEP THAT AND THAT WILL LEAVE
THE VICTIMS OF THESE CRIMES IN A
VERY, VERY DAMAGED AND
UNFORTUNATE POSITION, AND I
THINK YOU CAN SEE FROM THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS THAT THIS IS
A SENTENCE ENHANCEMENT. THAT IS,
UM, THAT IS DISCRETIONARY. IT'S
NOT MANDATORY. WHEN WE HAD IT.
IT WAS USED EXTREMELY
INFREQUENTLY, ACTUALLY APPLIED A
HANDFUL OF CASES IN A YEAR AND A
STATE OF 40 MILLION PEOPLE. BUT
I DO THINK BECAUSE IT IS
TARGETED AND BECAUSE IT IS
SURGICAL AND BECAUSE IT PROVIDES
PROSECUTORS WITH THE OPPORTUNITY
TO GO IN THERE AND HAVE THE
LEVERAGE TO GET MONEY BACK FOR
THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN DEFRAUDED BY
VERY, VERY BAD PEOPLE WHO ARE
TARGETING OUR MOST VULNERABLE
COMMUNITIES. TO ME, THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT IS WORTH THINKING
ABOUT DIFFERENTLY THAN A LOT OF
THE SENTENCE ENHANCEMENTS THAT
THIS COMMITTEE HAS THOUGHT ABOUT
AND DONE GOOD WORK ON AND SO
BECAUSE IT IS A CRUCIAL TOOL. UM
I THINK IT'S IT IS IMPORTANT.
THE OTHER TWO COMMENTS I WOULD
ADHERE. UM, ONE OF MY CONCERNS
WITH SENTENCE ENHANCEMENTS HAS
BEEN THE EXTREME RACIAL
DISPARITIES THAT WE HAVE SEEN
WITH THOSE. THIS IS NOT A FACT
PATTERN WITH THOSE TYPICALLY
PRESENT THEMSELVES AND ALSO THAT
SENT AN ENCHANTMENTS CAN BE USED
TO COURT IN A VERY COERCIVE WAY
AGAINST PEOPLE WHO MAY NOT HAVE
ADEQUATE REPRESENTATION AGAINST
PEOPLE WHO MAY NOT HAVE OPTIONS
AGAINST PEOPLE WHO MAY NOT HAVE
WHO HAVE MADE A SPONTANEOUS
DECISION AND WHAT WE HAVE IN
THIS SITUATION BECAUSE PEOPLE
HAVE STOLEN SUCH SIGNIFICANT
MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
. THESE ARE OFTEN SOPHISTICATED
PEOPLE WHO CAN AFFORD TO HIRE
SOPHISTICATED DEFENSE COUNSEL.
UM THEY'RE IN A POSITION TO
DEFEND THEMSELVES. THEY'RE NOT
LIKELY TO BE COERCED INTO
ACCEPTING THIS AND SO AGAIN
BECAUSE THIS SERVES A VERY
SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF HELPING TO
RETURN FUNDS TO THOSE WHO HAVE
BEEN DEVASTATED BY WHITE COLLAR
FRAUD. I WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND WITH ME
TODAY TO TESTIFY AND SUPPORT IS
SHERRY BULLARD, A DEPUTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN THE ELDER
FRAUD UNIT AT THE SANTA CLARA
COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU AND THANK YOU
COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR HAVING ME
I'M REALLY DELIGHTED TO BE HERE
AGAIN. MY NAME IS SHERRY BALLARD
. I'VE BEEN A DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY FOR 36 YEARS SINCE 2007
. AND FOR THE PAST 16 YEARS I'VE
BEEN PROSECUTING EXCLUSIVELY
ELDER FRAUD CASES. THESE ELDER
FRAUD CASES. UM THEY INCLUDE ALL
TYPES OF THEFT, INTERNET SCAMS
AND REAL ESTATE FRAUD.
PERPETRATED AGAINST OUR SENIOR
CITIZENS. THIS BILL ADDRESSES
PENALTIES APPLICABLE TO THE
SOPHISTICATED THIEVE, NOT YOUR
TYPICAL SHOPLIFTER. NOR DO WE
REGULARLY SEE THESE TYPES OF
HUGE DOLLAR CRIMES COMMITTED BY
THOSE SUFFERING FROM DRUG DRUG
ADDICTION DISEASES MOST OFTEN AS
TO THESE HIGH DOLLAR THEFT, IT
PERTAINS TO THE GREEDY, SCHEMING
AND CONTROLLING THIEF. NOW I'VE
PROSECUTED COUNTLESS CASES
INVOLVING ELDERLY VICTIMS
SCAMMED OUT OF THEIR LIFE
SAVINGS DURING THEIR GOLDEN
YEARS. THIS IS AT A TIME WHEN
THEY ARE LESS RESILIENT TO
RECOVER FINANCIALLY. SECTION 1
86.11 APPLIES TO THE COMPLEX AND
SOPHISTICATED THIEF SET ON
PREYING UPON VULNERABLE VICTIMS
IN VARIOUS SORTS OF WAYS.
INTERNET SCAMS SUCH AS THE HELLO
GRANDMA SCAM. AH THE ADVANCED
FEE LOTTO SCAM. THE BUSINESS
EMAIL COMPROMISE SCAM. AND THE
ROMANCE SCAM, ALL OF WHICH
INVOLVE VICTIMS BEING DUPED INTO
SENDING LARGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY
OVER AND OVER AGAIN TO DOMESTIC
MONEY. MULES ENGAGING IN MONEY
LAUNDERING. I ALSO SEE BANKERS
STEALING FROM THEIR ELDERLY
CUSTOMERS. IDENTITY THIEVES GONE
WILD. A CASE OF THE CAREGIVER
WHO OPENED UP NO LESS THAN 10
CREDIT CARDS IN THE NAME OF A
SINGLE RETIRED JUDGE SUFFERING
FROM ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE IN ONE
OF THE MANY BOGUS FORTUNE
TELLING CASES I'VE HANDLED ONE
ELDERLY MAN LOST $900,000 BY
TRICK IN D. C. DISTANT FAMILY
MEMBERS HELPING THEMSELVES TO
GRANDMA'S SAVINGS WHERE SHE
COULD INSTEAD BENEFIT FROM
HEIGHTENED ASSISTANCE WITH HER
MONEY, FRIENDS TAKING ADVANTAGE
OF THOSE WITH ONSET DEMENTIA.
MOST OFTEN, LAW ENFORCEMENT DOES
NOT LEARN OF THESE HUGE LIFE
SAVING THEFTS UNTIL IT'S TOO
LATE, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF
DOLLARS GONE. AND TO A MIDDLE
CLASS WAGE EARNER. SAVINGS OF
JUST $100,000 IS TREMENDOUS
PRIMARY GOAL IN THESE CASES IS
TO MAKE THE VICTIM HOLE. AH AND
HERE WE ARE, MR LACKEY. WE ARE
GIVING VICTIM CONSIDERATION. UM
. MOST OF THE TIME THE MONEY HAS
GONE NOT AVAILABLE FOR SEIZURE.
THESE TWO LIES CLEANING UP THE
LANGUAGE IN 1 86.11. A THREE BY
UNTETHER RING IT FROM THE SUNSET
AT 12 OR 22.6 AND BRINGING BACK
12 OR 22.6 WITH A HIGHER
THRESHOLD AMOUNT. PRESENT THE
OFFENDER, THE PROSPECT OF ACTUAL
PRISON TIME BUT NOT NECESSARILY
ITS IMPOSITION. THIS PRESENTS
THE BEST METHOD PROSECUTORS HAVE
TO OBTAIN RESTITUTION FOR
VICTIMS. YOU MAY ASK, WHY DO WE
NEED 12 OR 22.6? PENAL CODE
SECTION 1 86.11 REQUIRES TWO OR
MORE RELATED FELONIES AND
ADDRESSES A PATTERN OF RELATED
FELONY CONDUCT. BUT NOTHING IN
THE PENAL CODE CURRENTLY
ADDRESSES A SINGLE HIGH DOLLAR
THEFT AMOUNT, SUCH AS ELDER
FRAUD THAT WIPES OUT LIFE
SAVINGS OR EMPLOYEE EMBEZZLEMENT
THAT DESTROYS A SMALL BUSINESS.
I THINK THAT IF YOU WERE TO ASK
PEOPLE IF THEY WOULD RATHER BE
MUGGED IN THE STREET OF VIOLENT
FELONY OR HAVE THEIR LIFE
SAVINGS OR BUSINESS DESTROYED,
YOU MIGHT HEAR THAT MOST PEOPLE
WILL OPT TO BE MUGGED IN THE
STREET BECAUSE THEY COULD
RECOVER FROM BEING ROBBED OF
THEIR PURSE OR WALLET, BUT NOT
FROM A DEVASTATING THEFT PENAL
CODE SECTION 12 OR 22.6 IS
NEEDED. SO THAT JUDGES ARE ABLE
TO IMPOSE AN APPROPRIATE
SENTENCE INSIGNIFICANT. THEFT
CASES THAT DEVASTATE THE VICTIMS
. IN CLOSING, I WOULD LIKE TO
REITERATE ONE THE 1 86.11 A
THREE LOT AS IT STANDS IS
CONFUSING. TWO DEFENDANTS,
PROSECUTORS AND JUDGES BECAUSE
OF THE SUNSETTING OF THE LAW
THAT DETERMINES ITS SENTENCE.
THUS, IT'S NOT EVENLY APPLIED.
TO WHITE COLLAR CRIME IS
SOMETHING THE PUBLIC CARES ABOUT
SOLVING AND THREE THE PROSPECT
OF ACTUAL PRISON TIME NOT
NECESSARILY ITS IMPOSITION. THE
PROSPECT IS THE BEST METHOD
PROSECUTORS HAVE TO OBTAIN
RESTITUTION FOR VICTIMS. THANK
YOU, AND I HOPE YOU SUPPORT THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER
WITNESSES THEN SUPPORT. TINA,
NOR ANY WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION.
YEAH UM, I'M MARGO GEORGE AGAIN
FROM THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION AND
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION TO A B 44.
I THINK IT'S SAFE TO SAY AS A
PUBLIC DEFENDER. I NEVER HAD A
CLIENT WHO STOLE THIS AMOUNT OF
MONEY. EMOTIONALLY IT MAY BE
MORE SATISFYING TO IMPRISON
INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE MOTIVATED BY
GREED RATHER THAN POVERTY OR
DRUG ABUSE OR MENTAL ILLNESS.
BUT I WANT TO SAY IT'S IMPORTANT
TO REALLY JUST STEP BACK AND
LOOK AT THE COSTS AND BENEFITS
IN ORDER TO MAKE A DECISION
ABOUT WHETHER INCREASING
SENTENCES IS AN EFFECTIVE POLICY
DECISION. IN OTHER WORDS, DOES
IT DETER HARM? AND HOW MUCH DOES
IT COST? SO ONE OF THE, UM.
THINGS THAT PROPONENT HAS
POINTED OUT IS THAT THIS IS A
WAY TO GET RESOURCES FROM THE
PERSON WHO HAS COMMITTED THIS
OFFENSE. AND ALREADY AS YOU'LL
READ IN THE ANALYSIS, THERE ARE
A NUMBER OF WAYS IN WHICH THE
ASSETS OF THE PERSON CAN BE
SEIZED. NOT JUST THEIR ASSETS,
BUT ANY RECENT TRANSFER TO A
THIRD PARTY. THAT'S NOT A BONA
FIDE A SALE. SO THOSE METHODS OF
ACTUALLY SEIZING ASSETS ARE MORE
LIKELY ONE TO BE EFFECTIVE. AND
TRYING TO MAKE THE VICTIM HOLE.
AND TO THE PROVISION THAT FOR
DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF WHATEVER IS
STOLEN ARE MORE LIKELY TO DETER.
THEN, UM, PRISON STUDY THAN A
PRISON SENTENCE. IN FACT, THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE UM, WHICH
IS HIGHLIGHTED IN THE ANALYSIS?
FOUND THAT LAW AND POLICIES
DESIGNED TO DETER CRIME BY
FOCUSING MAINLY ON INCREASING
THE SEVERITY OF PUNISHMENT OR
INEFFECTIVE, PARTLY BECAUSE
CRIMINALS KNOW LITTLE ABOUT THE
SANCTIONS FOR SPECIFIC CRIMES.
MORE SEVERE PUNISHMENTS DO NOT
CHASE IN INDIVIDUALS CONVICTED
OF CRIMES AND, UM, PRISONS MAKES
ASTOR BAIT RE OFFENSE. AND THIS
SAME CONCLUSION WAS REACHED BY
THE LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION.
AND 2014. WHICH TALKED ABOUT
THERE IS A DISCONNECT. BETWEEN
THE SCIENCE THAT WE HAVE NOW IN
SENTENCING. THAT PUTTING
PRISONERS PUTTING OFFENDERS AWAY
FOR INCREASINGLY LONGER PERIODS
OF TIME. WITH NO EVIDENCE THAT
LINKED THE INCARCERATION FOR
MANY BRINGS ANY ANY ADDITIONAL
PUBLIC SAFETY BENEFIT. AND THEN
SO AGAINST THAT BACKDROP THAT WE
KNOW THAT THIS IS NOT AN
EFFECTIVE WAY. Tð DETER THIS
COMMENT OF CRIME. YOU HAVE TO
LOOK AT THE COST. ELLA ESTIMATES
THAT IT COST APPROXIMATELY
106,000 PER YEAR TO IMPRISON AN
INDIVIDUAL IN CALIFORNIA. AND
THEN THERE ARE POTENTIAL
ADDITIONAL COST. IF YOU HAVE TO
PROVIDE SOCIAL SERVICES FOR THE
FAMILIES. SO WHAT WE WOULD ARGUE
IS THAT IMPRISONING PEOPLE FOR
LONG PERIODS OF TIME IS WASTE OF
SCARCE RESOURCES, AND WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR NO
VOTE ON A B 44. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. YES. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR
MEMBERS AGNOSIA HERNANDEZ ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ATTORNEYS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE.
IN OPPOSITION STATEWIDE
ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE
LAWYERS, BOTH IN PRIVATE
PRACTICE AND WORK IN PUBLIC
DEFENDER OFFICES. LET ME JUST
ADDRESS A FEW THINGS NUMBER ONE.
A LOT OF THE CASES THAT WERE AND
THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK, BUT A
LOT OF THE CASES THAT WERE
MENTIONED, UM, ARE NOT SINGLE
ACTIVITY THEFTS. I MEAN, SOME OF
THE CASES I MENTIONED THERE ARE
GOING TO BE MULTIPLE. CHARGES
AND OFFENSES THAT COULD BE
BROUGHT AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL.
OFTENTIMES YOU'RE GOING TO GET
THE EMBEZZLEMENT OR THE WHITE
COLLAR ENHANCEMENT THAT ALREADY
EXISTS IN STATUTE. SO A LOT OF
THE CASES THAT THAT ARE BEING
DESCRIBED ALREADY HAVE A LOT OF
PUNISHMENT BEYOND WHAT'S ALREADY
, UM, BEEN ARGUED ABOUT JUST
BEING THEFT. IT'S JUST LIKE ANY
OTHER THEFT OR LOW LEVEL THEFT.
THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY ACCURATE
BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF
OPTIONS ALREADY ON THE TABLE FOR
DÍAS. WE HAVE TO KEEP THAT IN
MIND THE OTHER THING AS FAR AS
WE CAPTURING SOME OF THAT MONEY
THAT WAS ALREADY DESCRIBED AND
GO THROUGH FORFEITURE. THERE ARE
A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS TO GET
THE MONEY BACK. ALREADY ON THE
BOOKS NOW, UM I CAN TELL YOU I
DID TESTIFY. I THINK AGAINST ONE
OF THE EXTENSIONS OF THE OLD LAW
WASN'T AROUND FOR THE VERY FIRST
ONE. UM BUT LET ME POINT OUT
THIS THAT OFTEN GETS OVERLOOKED
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT SINCE
ENHANCEMENTS AND IT'S SOMETHING
I'VE BEEN ARGUING FOR A LONG
TIME WERE ABLE TO FINALLY FIX IT
IN STATUTE, AND THAT IS EVERY
FELONY ON OUR BOOKS NOW ALREADY
AT ALLOWS FOR FLEXIBILITY WHEN
YOU HAVE A CRIME THAT INVOLVES A
HIGH AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT IS AN
AGGRAVATING FACTOR. OKAY THAT
THAT CAN JUSTIFY THE UPPER TERM
. EVERY FELONY HAS THREE
OPTIONS, A LOWER MIDDLE AND
UPPER TERM. AND PURSUANT TO
JUDICIAL COUNCIL AND PURSUANT TO
THE LAW. HIGH DOLLAR AMOUNT CAN
GET SOMEONE TO AN UPPER TERM.
WHEN SOMEONE WHO HAS A LOW
DOLLAR AMOUNT COMMITTED CRIME
WOULD BE MAYBE THE MIDTERM OR
EVEN THE LOW TERM, SO WE ALREADY
HAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY BUILT IN
AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE MAJOR
PROBLEMS WITH SENTENCE
ENHANCEMENTS IS THAT WE WERE
SIMPLY, YOU KNOW, GETTING
EVERYBODY THE UPPER TERM ON THE
NORM AND THEN ADDING THE
SENTENCE ENHANCEMENTS WHICH
RESULTED IN THIS HUGE PRISON
POPULATION. WE FIXED THAT TWO
YEARS AGO NOW WHEN IT CAME TO
AGGRAVATING FACTORS, BUT THAT'S
STILL THERE. THAT FLEXIBILITY IS
STILL THERE FOR THOSE REASONS
WERE OPPOSED. WE UNDERSTAND THE
ISSUE AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS. THANK YOU VERY ANY
OTHER WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION.
THRILL OF BAKER CENTER FOR HUMAN
RIGHTS AND OPPOSITION. YOU NOW
BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE FOR
ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, MR
BRYANT. I DON'T LOVE THIS. UM.
BUT I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE AUTHOR
IS TRYING TO DO. UM. THIS
CONFLICTS WITH MULTIPLE
DIFFERENT VALUES. I HOLD RIGHT.
I'M KIND OF FUNDAMENTALLY
AGAINST SENTENCE ENHANCEMENTS. I
ALSO THINK WITH THE CRIMINAL
LEGAL SYSTEM WE HAVE. WE SHOULD
HAVE EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW
, AND WE JUST ARGUED JUST THE
OTHER DAY AND THIS COMMITTEE FOR
JUDGES TO HAVE THE DISCRETION TO
APPLY AND ENHANCEMENT THAT USED
TO BE MANDATORY THAT WE BROUGHT
DOWN JUST SCRATCHING. YOU'RE
BRINGING THIS UP TO JUDICIAL
DISCRETION, WHICH I APPRECIATE
AS OPPOSED TO TRYING TO MAKE IT
MANDATORY. I THINK THE
OPPOSITION MAKES A GOOD POINT
THAT AT LEAST FOR THE 200. SOME
$1000 RESTITUTION. THE STATE CAN
ALSO JUST PAY THAT VERSUS THE
TWO YEARS OF AVENUE INCARCERATED
AND IT WOULD STILL PENCIL OUT.
SO THAT'S AN INTERESTING THING
TO THINK ABOUT. UM, I TRUST THE
AUTHOR'S MOTIVES AND INTENT AND
WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH THE
OPPOSITION AND TO WORK HARD ON
THIS BILL. I'M NOT GOING TO BE
THE REASON YOU GET HELD IN THE
FIRST COMMITTEE. I WILL BE
SUPPORTING IT TODAY, BUT I HOPE
YOU TAKE THESE COMMENTS VERY
SERIOUS AND WORK WITH FOLKS ALL
THE WAY THROUGH THE PROCESS.
THANK YOU, MS ORTEGA. I WANT TO
ECHO THE CONCERNS OF MY
COLLEAGUE AND I DID SPEAK TO THE
AUTHOR ABOUT THESE CONCERNS. IT
FEELS LIKE A VERY SLIPPERY SLOPE
HERE. WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
ENHANCEMENTS. UH YOU KNOW, WE
CAN'T SAY YES TO SAM AND NO TO
OTHERS. I UNDERSTAND YOUR INTENT
, AND I'M DEFINITELY GONNA I'M
GONNA SUPPORT IT TODAY, BUT I DO
WANT TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO
CONTINUE WORKING WITH THE
OPPOSITION AND OUR OFFICE TO
MAKE SURE THAT, UM WE DON'T GO
BACKWARDS. UM WHICH IS SOMETHING
WE'VE BEEN VERY CONSISTENT WITH
HERE IN THIS COMMITTEE. YES.
JUST HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE
OTHER, AND I APPRECIATE THE
OUTREACH PRIOR TO THIS BELT. CAN
YOU? YOU OFFERED A LOT OF GOOD
EXAMPLES OF THE WAYS IN WHICH
KIND OF IDENTIFYING WHO THE
TYPICAL VICTIM IS AND WHO THE
TYPICAL PERPETRATOR IS WHITE
COLLAR VICTIM. CAN YOU APPLY
THIS TO AH ORGANIZED RETAIL
THEFT. UM I DON'T UM. I'LL LET
I'LL LET THAT I HADN'T THOUGHT
ABOUT IT IN, UM IN THAT CONTEXT
, UM AND I'LL LET I'LL LET THE
WITNESS ANSWER IN A MINUTE.
WOULD IT BE OKAY FOR ME TO
RESPOND TO SOME OF THE POINTS
THAT THE OPPOSITION MADE? IS
THAT APPROPRIATE NOW AT A
DIFFERENT TIME CLOSE AND LET
YOUR WITNESS RESPONSE TO THIS
QUESTION? UM AS FAR AS ORGANIZED
RETAIL THEFT AGAIN IF THE LOSS
IS $275,000, OR MORE THAN YES,
THAT ALLEGATION CAN BE CHARGED
IF THERE'S A PATTERN INVOLVED IF
THE 1 86 83 PASSES AND GETS
CLEANED UP, UH, THAT CAN BE
ALLEGED AS WELL, UH, AND THE 12
OR 22.6, A ONE. I I DOES NOT
HAVE TO BE IMPOSED, AND AS A
MATTER OF FACT, THE JUDGE CAN
DISMISS IT IF THE JUDGE FEELS
THE CASE, BUT YES, THEY ARE
APPLICABLE TO ANYBODY AND
EVERYBODY. OVER THE THRESHOLD
AMOUNT. I THANK YOU AND I JUST
WANT TO WANT TO THINK THE OTHER
FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD AND
BEING SO THAT FALLEN. I ALSO
WITH ASSEMBLY MEMBER BRIAN AND
MY LEVEL OF AND SOMETHING MEMBER
ORTEGA IN MY LEVEL OF.
SQUEAMISHNESS ABOUT MOVING
FORWARD WITH AN ENHANCEMENT BILL
, BUT I AM ALSO DON'T WANT TO BE
THE REASON WHY THIS GETS HELD UP
AT THIS POINT. I DO THINK THAT
GIVEN THE FIRST YEAR THE TIERED
SYSTEM AROUND 275 K. MIKE MARAT
SOME ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION TO
SEE WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO
CAPTURE THAT CATEGORY OR LEVEL
OF CRIME IN THIS LEGISLATION AND
HOPE THAT YOU'D CONSIDER THAT
YEAH. YOU MAKE CLOTHES. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
YOUR FIRST OF ALL. I JUST WANT
TO APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS FROM
MY COLLEAGUES AND THE
OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE TO HAVE
CONVERSATIONS WITH A LOT OF
FOLKS THAT I DEEPLY RESPECT AND
OFTEN FIND MYSELF ON THE SAME
SIDE WITH AND ALIGNED WITH, AND
SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. I
APPRECIATE THAT. YOU HAVE MY OUR
COMMITMENT THAT WE WILL WORK
VERY, VERY CLOSELY WITH THEM AND
CONTINUE TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS.
I ALSO DEEPLY UNDERSTAND YOUR
SQUEAMISHNESS AND I UNDERSTAND
HOW PEOPLE COULD FIND THEMSELVES
ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THIS,
GIVEN THE HISTORY THAT OUR STATE
HAS BEEN THROUGH AND MR CHAIR
YOU WEREN'T IN THE ROOM, BUT I
WANTED TO COMPLIMENT YOU FOR THE
WORK THAT YOU'VE DONE
DISMANTLING MASS INCARCERATION
AND MAKING SURE THAT OUR, UM
THAT OUR STATE DOESN'T GO
BACKWARDS. AND I ALSO APPRECIATE
YOUR SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. UM
UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS A
VERY, VERY SPECIFIC AND TARGETED
APPLICATION OF THIS. IF I MIGHT.
I JUST WANTED TO RESPOND TO A
FEW POINTS. AH THAT THE
OPPOSITION MADE JUST TO HELP
FOLKS UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT OF
MY THINKING AND HOW I ARRIVED AT
THE CONCLUSION THAT I DID ONE
IS, UM THE RESEARCH CITED ABOUT
THE INEFFECTIVENESS OF LENGTHY
SENTENCES IS SOMETHING THAT I
AGREE WITH, AND I THINK IT
EXPLAINS A LOT OF MY VOTES
AGAINST SENTENCE ENHANCEMENTS. A
LOT OF THE REASONS I FELT
COMFORTABLE PULLING BACK
SENTENCE ENHANCEMENTS ARE NOT
VOTING TO INCREASE THEM BECAUSE
THEY DON'T SERVE THE GENERAL
INTEREST. THEY DON'T SERVE
PUBLIC SAFETY. THEY DON'T SERVE
THE INTERESTS OF PEOPLE IN THIS
STATE. WHAT I WOULD MAYBE
DIFFERENT MY OPINION IS. IS
THERE A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?
OR IS THIS AN EFFECTIVE TOOL?
AND I KNOW THAT, UM TO THE FIRST
POINT THAT WAS MADE ABOUT THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SEIZE ASSETS, AND
THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO THIS. I
NEVER PRACTICED CRIMINAL LAW. SO
I HAVE NOT DONE THIS
SPECIFICALLY. BUT I WAS INVOLVED
IN A NUMBER OF PRO BONO CASES AN
ATTORNEY HELPING TO REPRESENT
FOLKS WHO WERE DEFRAUDED. AND
THE AMOUNT OF EFFORT AND LEGAL
HOURS TO GO BACK AND GET
SOMEBODY'S HOUSE TO GET
SOMEBODY'S LIFE SAVINGS WHEN
THINGS HAVE BEEN MOVED WHEN DEED
OF TRUST HIM AND MOVE YOU ARE
TALKING OFTENTIMES ABOUT LEGAL
BILLS THAT WILL EXCEED THOSE
VALUES, RIGHT. I MEAN, LUCKILY,
THERE WERE BIG FIRMS OUT THERE
THAT ARE WILLING TO DEVOTE, YOU
KNOW A MILLION DOLLARS OF LEGAL
FEES TO AN ELDERLY COUPLE TO GO
RECOVER $200,000 IN LIFE
SAVINGS. SO WHILE THOSE THOSE
OTHER TOOLS EXIST IN THEORY FROM
MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, THEY ARE
OFTEN INSUFFICIENT TO HELP
PROVIDE THE RESTITUTION TO HELP
PROVIDE THE JUSTICE TO GIVE
PEOPLE BACK THEIR LIFE SAVINGS
TO GIVE THEM BACK THEIR FAMILY
HOME. AND THAT'S WHY I THINK
THIS TOOL IS AN APPROPRIATE ONE.
AND WE ALSO HEARD THAT THERE ARE
POTENTIALLY OTHER TOOLS OUT
THERE. BUT YOU HEARD FROM THE
WITNESS ABOUT SPECIFIC FACT
PATTERNS IF IT'S THE FIRST TIME
IF IT'S A PARTICULAR KIND OF
CASE WHERE A LOT OF THOSE OTHER
TOOLS MAY NOT BE AVAILABLE, SO I
APPRECIATE BOTH OF THOSE POINTS
AND I APOLOGIZE FOR BRINGING YOU
A LITTLE BIT OF A HEAD BANGER OF
A BELL. BUT I DO THINK WHEN YOU
LOOK AT THIS ON THE MARGINS,
THERE IS A REALLY GOOD THERE IS
A REALLY GOOD JUSTIFICATION FOR
IT. LET ME MAKE TWO OTHER
POINTS. ONE IS ABOUT COST.
CERTAINLY THERE'S A COST FOR
INCARCERATION, OFTENTIMES MOST
OF THE TIME NOT JUSTIFIED. BUT
THERE'S ALSO A COST TO SOCIETY
TO THE TAXPAYER AND TO
INDIVIDUALS WHEN A COUPLE IS
DEPRIVED OF THEIR LIFE SAVINGS
AND END UP ON PUBLIC BENEFITS
WHEN PEOPLE ARE DEPRIVED OF
THEIR PLACE TO LIVE AND MAY END
UP HOMELESS, SO THERE IS THERE
ARE COSTS ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS
LEISURE THAT I THINK ARE WORTH
CONSIDERING AND AGAIN. WE'VE
SAID THIS OVER AND OVER AND OVER
AGAIN, THE POINT HERE. THE POINT
OF THIS BILL IS NOT TO PUT
PEOPLE IN JAIL FOR A LONGER
AMOUNT OF TIME. IT IS NOT ABOUT
SOME EMOTIONAL SATISFACTION.
IT'S NOT BECAUSE WE BELIEVE LONG
PRISON SENTENCES ARE A GOOD
THING. IT IS BECAUSE WE WANT TO
GIVE PROSECUTORS THE TOOL TO
HELP PEOPLE GET THEIR MONEY
BACK. AND THE FINAL THING THAT
I'LL SHARE IN TERMS OF MY
OVERALL PERSPECTIVE, WITH ALL OF
THIS WE HAVE ON THIS SIDE OF THE
TABLE. UM DEFENSE ATTORNEYS AND
I THINK THEY PLAY AN
EXCEPTIONALLY IMPORTANT ROLE IN
OUR CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM. UM
AND THEY TAKE THE PERSPECTIVE
THE DEFENDANT, I OFTEN LOOK AT
THESE QUESTIONS. THE QUESTION IS
WHO IS POWERFUL AND WHO IS
VULNERABLE. AND HOW DO WE
ACHIEVE JUSTICE FOR OUR MOST
VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES? AND I
THINK IN THIS SITUATION WHICH
YOU HAVE IS THAT YOU HAVE
POWERFUL DEFENDANTS THAT ARE
EXPLODING ARE MOST VULNERABLE
COMMUNITIES AND THAT IS WHY I
THINK THAT WE HAVE A SYSTEM THAT
HAS NOT PROVIDED ENOUGH TOOLS TO
SUPPORT THOSE VULNERABLE
COMMUNITIES AND TONIGHT SUPPORT
THEM. AND SO WITH THAT, UM I
FELT COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. AND
SO WITH THAT I WOULD
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AND I VOTE.
OKAY, SO, UM JUST FOR JUST IN
GENERAL FOR ANYBODY LISTENING.
UM BUT YOU HAVE SQUEAMISH. A
CONCERN. I'M JUST GONNA LET THIS
GO. BUT I'M GOING TO BE WATCHING
THIS BILL. SO THAT'S THREE OUT
OF EIGHT, SO YOU WERE
PRECARIOUSLY. I DON'T WANT TO
LOSE THOSE THREE OTHER WAYS. YOU
LOSE THE WHOLE THING. SO I HAVE
THIS THING THAT I SAY. DON'T
TALKED PAST THE YES. UM PROBABLY
SHOULD WATCH STRAIGHT TO BECAUSE
A COUPLE OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
WERE GIVING ME THE EYE AND SO
HOPEFULLY, I BELIEVE WE SHOULD
GET THIS OUT. I THINK HE WILL. I
THINK PART OF WHY PEOPLE HAVE
EXPRESSED CONCERN. BUT ARE
WILLING TO LET THIS MOVE FORWARD
IS BECAUSE OF YOU. BECAUSE THEY
TRUST YOU ELECTRICITY. YOU'RE
GOING TO DO THE RIGHT THING, AND
I THINK THAT'S WHAT WHAT YOU'RE
HEARING RIGHT NOW, SO I WOULD
SAY WORK VERY HARD. WITH PEOPLE
WHO HAVE CONCERNS. I WON'T EVEN
CALL THEM. OPPOSITION PEOPLE
HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE BILL SO
THEY CAN GET TO A PLACE. I KNOW
WE WORKED REAL HARD TO GET YOU
EVEN TO HEAR. UM BUT IT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT. UM AS YOU MOVE
FORWARD TO GET TO THAT PLACE. I
APPRECIATE THAT. YOU HAVE MY
FIRM COMMITMENT TO DO THAT.
OKAY. THANK YOU. AND MAYBE 4 84
BY SOME REMEMBER GABRIEL. THE
MOTION IS DUE PAST AS AMENDED TO
THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
JOHN SAWYER. JOHN SAWYER. I
ALANIS ALANIS. I BONTA I BRIAN.
BRIAN I LAKI LAKI. AYE ORTEGA OR
TAKE A I SANTIAGO SANTIAGO. THE
BURR SUPER. AYE. THAT MEASURE
PASSED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. CALLED A B 3 91. SO
YEAH. DID YOU HEAR THAT? MR
CHAIR? KEEP IT SHORT. Tð. BOTH
HAVE A WITNESS. HOPEFULLY. AH,
THERE YOU GO. GOOD MORNING CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. I PRESENT A B 391,
WHICH SEEKS TO ADDRESS THE
HARASSMENT ENABLED BY ANONYMOUS
CHILD ABUSE REPORTING SYSTEM.
THIS BILL WOULD REQUIRE ANYONE
WHO SEEKS A REPORT. OF CHILD
ABUSE OR NEGLECT TO LEAVE THEIR
NAME AND PHONE NUMBER. IN DOING
SO IT WILL DETER THOSE WHO SEEK
TO INTENTIONALLY MAKE FALSE
REPORTS UNDER 83 91 ALL
REPORTERS, PERSONAL INFORMATION
WILL BE KEPT STRICTLY
CONFIDENTIAL IN ORDER TO PROTECT
BOTH VICTIMS AND REPORTERS.
UNFORTUNATELY THE ANONYMOUS
REPORTING SYSTEM HAS BEEN
WEAPONIZED AND USED AGAINST THE
VERY INDIVIDUALS IT WAS MEANT TO
PROTECT. THERE ARE COUNTLESS
STORIES OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
ABUSERS, MAKING FALSE REPORTS IN
ORDER TO GET REVENGE ON THEIR
PARTNERS. THESE FALSE REPORTS
TRIGGER INTRUSIVE AND
FRIGHTENING INVESTIGATIONS.
ADDITIONALLY RESEARCH HAS SHOWN
THAT ANONYMOUS REPORTS THAT
PROPORTIONATELY AFFECT LOW
INCOME PEOPLE OF COLOR AS
MINORITY PARENTS ARE MORE LIKELY
TO RECEIVE HIGHER LEVELS OF
STATE INTERVENTION FOLLOWING A
REPORT 83 91 WILL DETER FALSE
REPORTING BY REQUIRING REPORTERS
TO LEAVE THEIR NAME AND PHONE
NUMBER AND CONFIDENTIALITY
PROTECTIONS WILL ENSURE THAT
ANYONE WITH A VALID CONCERN WILL
BE ABLE TO FOLLOW REPORT WITH
COMPETENCE AND DOING SO THIS
BILL WILL PROTECT THE MOST
VULNERABLE CALIFORNIANS FROM
UNNECESSARY SUFFERING ALLOWED
CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES TO
FOCUS RESOURCES ON ACTUAL CASES
OF CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT WITH
ME, BROOKE JULIE ON BEHALF OF
THE BILL SPONSOR, THE LOS
ANGELES DEPENDENCY, ATTORNEYS
LAWYERS RESPECTFULLY ASK THREE I
VOTE GOOD MORNING, MR VICE CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. MY NAME IS BROOKE
HUGHLEY. I'M A SUPERVISING
ATTORNEY AT LOS ANGELES
DEPENDENCY LAWYERS FOR THE
LARGEST FAMILY DEFENSE FIRM IN
THE IN THE COUNTRY, AND WE
REPRESENT APPROXIMATELY 20,000
PARENTS ON ANY GIVEN DAY IN THE
JUVENILE DEPENDENCY COURT SYSTEM
. WE'RE PLEASED TO SPONSOR A B 3
91, WHICH ENDS THE HARMFUL
PRACTICE OF ANONYMOUS REPORTING
IN THE FAMILY REGULATION SYSTEM.
AND WOULD PREVENT UNDUE HARM TO
INNOCENT FAMILIES. CURRENTLY ALL
MANDATED REPORTERS ARE REQUIRED
TO PROVIDE THEIR NAME AND
CONTACT INFORMATION AND THAT HAS
KEPT CONFIDENTIAL. BUT UNLIKE
MANDATED REPORTERS, LAY PEOPLE
ARE NOT CURRENTLY REQUIRED TO
PROVIDE ANY IDENTIFYING
INFORMATION WHATSOEVER. AS THE
CHAIR NOTED, OFTEN ABUSIVE
PARTNERS WERE ARE MAKING FALSE
ANONYMOUS REPORTS TO GAIN
LEVERAGE IN A CUSTODY DISPUTE
WITH THEIR EX PARTNER. THESE
PERPETRATORS KNOW THAT ALL THEY
NEED TO DO IS LEAVE ONE OR TWO
FALSE TIPS AND THEN THERE GRAB
FOR CUSTODY IS UNDERWAY. THIS
ALSO IS A PRACTICE USED BY
LANDLORDS TRYING TO EVICT
TENANTS THEY DON'T LIKE WITHOUT
GOING THROUGH THE PROPER
EVICTION PROCEDURES. UH, THESE
MALICIOUS REPORTS DO TRIGGER
INVESTIGATIONS, WHICH CAN BE
INCREDIBLY TERRIFYING AND
DAMAGING FOR THE CHILDREN. UH IN
THEIR EYES, THEIR HOME IS
INVADED BY STRANGERS. THEY'RE
ASKING THEM STRANGE QUESTIONS.
THEY ARE SAYING THAT THEY MIGHT
BE TAKEN FROM THERE, THE ONLY
HOME THEY'VE EVER KNOWN. AH! AND
THEY'RE TERRIFIED. ALSO, THE
PARENTS LIVE IN FEAR THAT AT ANY
MOMENT A SOCIAL WORKER COULD
COME IN AND TAKE THEIR CHILD
INTO FOSTER CARE WITHOUT ANY
REAL VALID CLAIM OF ABUSE OR
NEGLECT. AND SADLY, THIS DOES
HAVE A GREATER IMPACT ON
FAMILIES OF COLOR. FOR EXAMPLE,
IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, BLACK
CHILDREN ARE 3.6 TIMES MORE
LIKELY TO BE SUBJECTED TO A
CHILD WELFARE INVESTIGATION THAN
WHITE CHILDREN. AH! WE CAN REST
ASSURED THAT ALL REPORTERS
INFORMATION WILL STILL BE KEPT
CONFIDENTIAL. JUST AS IT IS
TODAY WITH MANDATED REPORTERS IN
THAT PART OF THE STATUTE WILL
NOT CHANGE. WE SHOULD STEP IN TO
PROTECT THESE FAMILIES FROM
FURTHER VICTIMIZATION AND
PREVENT RESOURCES FROM BEING
DIVERTED FROM CHILDREN WHO
REALLY DO NEED GOVERNMENTAL AND
INTERVENTION. AND FOR THOSE
REASONS WE ASK FOR YOUR VOTE ON
83 91. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY
OTHERS IN THE AUDIENCE HERE FOR
SUPPORT? ALL RIGHT HERE AND NOW
IN THE OPPOSITION. ALRIGHT,
HARRY, NONE COMMITTEE. YES
QUESTIONS HAVE A COMMENT REAL
QUICKLY. I, UH. I'M HIGHLY
CONNECTED TO A CHILD ABUSE
ISSUES. HAVING IN MY DISTRICT
THREE VERY TRAGIC. SET OF
CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE WE HAD LOSS
OF LIFE. AND IN MY OPINION. OF
COURSE, FALSE REPORTING WAS
TOXIC. AND THE DETRIMENT TO OUR
OUR PROCESS OF FAIRNESS. BUT
STRONGER INVESTIGATIVE PRACTICES
NEED TO BE THE FOCUS. NOT
REMOVING CONFIDENTIALITY BECAUSE
I THINK WHAT IT WILL DO. HAS
DISCOURAGED THE REPORTING OF
LEGITIMATE CONCERNS. SO I'LL
JUST BE LAYING OFF ON THIS ONE.
SURE YOU CAN CLOSE, OKAY? AND
THANK YOU AND I WELL AWARE OF
THE CONCERN OF MR LACKEY, I
THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT
MADE ME MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS.
AS AND I KNOW, I'VE BEEN HIGHLY
CRITICAL OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ON A
LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS. BUT I
THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT LAW
ENFORCEMENT HAS THAT IS ALMOST
LIKE SACRED. LET'S JUST THINK OF
LIKE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT THAT
THAT DOESN'T LEAK OUT. THAT
YOU'VE BEEN VERY GOOD. YOUR
PROFESSION HAS BEEN VERY GOOD
AND ENSURING NOT ONLY THE
CONFIDENTIALITY OF THAT PERSON'S
IDENTITY BUT EVEN WITH FELLOW
OFFICERS. YOU MAY NOT EVEN SHARE
THAT INFORMATION BECAUSE YOU
KNOW HOW IMPORTANT IT IS. TO
MAINTAIN THAT PERSON'S ANONYMITY
. AND SO I TRUST THAT LAW
ENFORCEMENT WILL BE ABLE TO KEEP
THINGS CONFIDENTIAL, AND THAT WE
WILL ENCOURAGE EVEN MORE PEOPLE.
UM TO CONTINUE TO REPORT THIS
BUT HOPEFULLY WE'LL BE
DISCOURAGED INDIVIDUALS WHO LIKE
TO DO FALSE REPORTING THAT THAT
WILL CURB THAT, AND SO I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE
AND AS ALWAYS, MR LACK OF
RESPECT. WHAT YOU'RE WHAT YOU'RE
SAYING. AND IF YOU HAVE ANY
IDEAS TO TIGHTEN IT UP. EVEN
MORE, SO I I'M FULLY OPEN FOR
THAT. IF I MAY JUST GUESSES THE
VICE CHAIR, ADDING SOME COMMENTS
THAT AS WELL, IT DOES ALSO TAKE
AWAY THE TIME AND RESOURCES THAT
LAW ENFORCEMENT IS BEING USED TO
WORK ON THOSE FALSE CALLS. SO
I'VE HAD PLENTY OF THOSE AND
SEEING THOSE ALSO IN THE COURT
SYSTEM AS WELL, SO THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THAT TO ATTENTION. CAN
I MOVE MY OWN BILL? OKAY HAS
BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. YES AND
BEFORE YOU EVERYBODY LOOKED AT
ONE ANOTHER FOR SOMETHING LIKE.
OF COURSE, MAYBE 3 91 BY SOME
REMEMBER JOHN SAWYER. THE MOTION
IS DUE PASSED THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE JOHN SAWYER. JOHN SER.
AYE ELONIS. AYE BONTA, BRIAN.
BRIAN I LACKEY LUCKY ABSTAIN.
ORTEGA ORTEGA I SANTIAGO
SANTIAGO EYES THE BURR. ER, I.
THE MAJOR PASSES. THANK YOU.
THAT'S WHAT WE'LL DO ANY ADD ONS
, LIFTING OF CALLS, MOTIONS AND
VOTE CHANGES. SECRETARY PLEASE
GO THROUGH ALL THE MEASURES
TAKEN UP TODAY, TOO. CERTAINLY
IF I COULD JUST START WITH THE
OTHER ONES, PLEASE. THANK YOU.
APOLOGIES ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. ALA NI'S. CHINESE I
BRIAN, BRIAN I SANTIAGO
SANTIAGO. AYE. ITEM NUMBER 1 82
TO 9 HAS BEEN DISPENSED WITH
ITEM NUMBER 2 82 80 BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S HOLDEN
SANTIAGO. SANTIAGO. AYE. ITEM
NUMBER THREE, MAYBE 301 BY SOME
MEMBER BAUER-KAHAN. BRIAN BRIAN,
I. ITEM NUMBER FOUR A B 304 BY
SEVEN MEMBER HOLDEN ORTEGA.
ORTEGA I SANTIAGO SANTIAGO. AYE.
ITEM NUMBER 5 83 91 WAS JUST
DISPENSED WITH ITEM NUMBER 6 84
23 WAS ON CONSENT. ITEM NUMBER
SEVEN A. B 442 WITH ONE CONSENT.
ITEM NUMBER EIGHT A B 443 BY A
SEVEN MEMBER, JACKSON. ALANIS
ALANIS, I, BRIAN BRIAN I.
SANTIAGO SANTIAGO. AYE. I DON'T
NUMBER 9 84 49 BY A SEVEN MEMBER
TING SANTIAGO SANTIAGO. AYE.
ITEM NUMBER 10 84 62 BY SOME
RAMOS, MR LACKEY IT WAS A BELT.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? THANK YOU,
MR SANTIAGO ON A B 462 BY SEVEN
MEMBER RAMOS, THE MOTION IS TO
PASS AS AMENDED TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. JOAN
SAWYER. JOHN SAWYER. I ELONIS
ELONIS. I WANT BANTA, I, BRIAN
BRIAN, NOT VOTING LACKEY LACKEY.
I ORTEGA. ORTEGA I SANTIAGO
SANTIAGO EYES RUBBER ZIPPER I
THAT MEASURE PASSES. ITEM 11 84
67 BY SEVEN MEMBER GABRIEL JOHN
SAWYER. AYE. ITEM NUMBER 12 84
79 WAS ON CONSENT. ITEM 13 84 84
HAS BEEN DISPENSED WITH ITEM 14
85 08 WAS ON CONSENT. AND ITEM
15, MAYBE 600 BY OSAMA MEMBER
TEAM SANTIAGO. SANTIAGO I AND
WITH THAT THIS CONCLUDES
BUSINESS FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMITTEE.