COMMIT ON PUBLIC SAFETY. UM.
YEAH WE'RE GOING TO BEGIN AT THE
SUBCOMMITTEE BECAUSE NOW THE
MEMBERS ARE HERE. AND WE HAVE A
FULL SCHEDULE, SO I WANT TO GET
US STARTED. UM ALL WITNESSES
WILL BE IN PERSON. THERE WILL BE
NO PHONE TESTIMONY OPTION FOR
THIS HEARING. YOU CAN FIND MORE
INFORMATION ON THE COMMITTEE'S
WEBSITE AT ASSEMBLY DOT C A DOT
G O B BATCH LASH COMMITTEES.
LET'S BEGIN WITH SOME
HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S COREY JACKSON
WILL BE SUBBING IN TODAY FOR
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BRIAN. AND OFF
CALENDAR THE FOLLOWING HAVE BEEN
PULLED BY AUTHOR I DON'T NUMBER
TWO A B 79 WEBER ITEM NUMBER
SEVEN EIGHTIES 762 WEEKS. ITEM
NUMBER 11 A B 851 MCCARTHY. I
DON'T NUMBER 12 ¥856. I REMEMBER
23 80 13 80 BERMAN ITEM NUMBER
25 A D 14 97 AMY. I DIDN'T
NUMBER 26 A B 15 OH, SEVEN.
GALLAGHER I DON'T NUMBER 28 A B
FIVE, MAYBE ONE BY BY ONE
GIBSON. REMEMBER 31. A B 178.
MURATSUCHI. AND WE'RE GOING TO
BEGIN AT THE SUBCOMMITTEE. I
HAVE MATH IS PATERSON TING. I
THINK I SEE MR TINKER. MR
MASTERS. PATTERSON, YOU'RE UP,
MR KING.
OKAY THANK YOU. MR CHAIR HERE TO
PRESENT A B 642, WHICH IS OUR
FACIAL RECOGNITION PRIVACY ACT.
AS YOU ARE AWARE, I AUTHORED A
BILL IN 2019 12 15, WHICH WAS A
BAN ON FACIAL RECOGNITION
TECHNOLOGY IN BODY CAMERAS. HE
WAS A THREE YEAR MORATORIUM.
UNFORTUNATELY IN JANUARY, THIS
MORATORIUM EXPIRED DESPITE
EFFORTS FROM SENATOR BRADFORD
LAST YEAR TO GET A SIMILAR BILL.
PAST. THIS YEAR, I CAME BACK
WITH A B 642, WHICH I BELIEVE IS
A BILL, WHICH IS THE MOST ONE OF
THE MOST RESTRICTIVE BILLS
AROUND FACIAL RECOGNITION
TECHNOLOGY. UM IN THE ENTIRE
COUNTRY. THIS BILL IN PARTICULAR
LIMITS THE AUTHORIZATION THAT
USE OF FACIAL RECOGNITION
TECHNOLOGY TO FELONIES. IT HAS
THE HIGHEST SETTING THE HIGHEST
TECHNOLOGICAL SETTINGS TO MAKE
SURE THAT THE RECOGNITION IS AT
THE HIGHEST LEVEL AT 98% IT ALSO
REQUIRES THAT THERE IS A UH FOR
ARREST. IT ALSO REQUIRES THE
FACT THAT UH, YOU CANNOT STOP
ANYBODY BECAUSE OF FACIAL
RECOGNITION ALSO PROTECTS ALL
ARE PROTECTED CLASSES. IT ALSO
PROTECTS OUR CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS IN TERMS OF FREE SPEECH,
ENSURING THAT WE CAN PRACTICE
THAT I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE
COMMITTEE AND THE AMENDMENTS
THAT THE COMMITTEE WORKED WITH
US ON. WE TOOK AMENDMENTS TO
CLARIFY IMMIGRATION TO MAKE SURE
THAT THERE IS NO COORDINATION
WITHIN THE IMMIGRATION AGENCY,
UM, ENSURED THAT PEOPLE CAN
CONTINUE TO GET ABORTION CARE
WITHOUT WORRYING ABOUT AND AS
WELL AS GENDER AFFIRMING CARE
WITHOUT BEING WORRIED ABOUT
FACIAL RECOGNITION SOFTWARE
BEING USED. IT ALSO LIMITS THE
DATABASES THAT CAN BE USED THAT
ONLY THESE ARE ALLOW ENFORCEMENT
DATABASES THAT ONLY LAW
ENFORCEMENT HAS ACCESS TO IT
ALSO NARROWS THE ELIGIBLE AMOUNT
OF CRIMES AND PROVIDES A
SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF OVERSIGHT
AND ACCOUNTABILITY. AS AS YOU
ALSO KNOW. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
WILSON IS CARRYING A BILL WHICH
THIS COMMITTEE PASSED, WHICH IS
SIMILAR TO THE BILL THAT I
AUTHORED IN 2019. THIS BILL IS
NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THAT BOTH
BILLS CAN COULD BE PASSED INTO
LAW WITHOUT ANY CONFLICT. ALSO
IN ADDITION, BUT WE ALSO HAVE NO
STATE PREEMPTION. SO THEY HAVE
ANY LOCAL JURISDICTIONS, WHETHER
IT'S UM, THE CITY OF L. A CITY
OF SANTA MONICA CITY OF BERKLEY
. ANY OF THOSE CITIES WANT TO
BAN FACIAL RECOGNITION SUCH AS
THE SUCH AS WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN
MY CITY IN SAN FRANCISCO THAT
COULD OCCUR AS WELL. SO WITH
THAT, RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
I VOTE ON A B 642. THANK YOU
WITNESSES. YEP FIVE MINUTES.
SHE'S MY STAFF PERSON. OKAY. WE
HAVE NO WITNESSES, NO WITNESSES.
UM ARE THERE ANY OTHER WITNESSES
IN SUPPORT OF MR TING'S BILLS?
THAT'S 64 TO I DON'T KNOW.
BEFORE. SEEING NONE. AND WE'LL
GO TO THE OPPOSITION. ON.
YES YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES PRETTY
READY. IT'S ON GOOD MORNING
CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS CARMEN NICOLE COX ON
BEHALF OF A CEO YOU CALIFORNIA
ACTION. I AM HERE IN STRONG
OPPOSITION TO A B 642. WE
APPRECIATE AND ARE THANKFUL FOR
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S TINGS PAST
LEADERSHIP ON THIS ISSUE, WHERE
HE AUTHORED THE BILL TO BAN BODY
CAN FACE SURVEILLANCE FOR THREE
YEARS THIS YEAR. UNFORTUNATELY
86 42 DOES NOT DO THAT, IF IT IS
INTENDED TO STOP THE CIVIL
RIGHTS DISASTER THAT IS
ADMITTEDLY FACE RECOGNITION
SURVEILLANCE. IT UNFORTUNATELY
BACKFIRES. INSTEAD, IT WOULD
EXPAND AND ENTRENCH IT. THE
RECENT AUTHOR. AMENDMENTS DO NOT
ADEQUATELY PROTECT AGAINST
FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE
GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE,
WRONGFUL SEIZURE OR DISSUADE
MISUSE, WHICH IS WHY THE A C L U
AND OVER 50 REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE
. L G B T Q. I RACIAL JUSTICE
AND CIVIL RIGHTS. ORG'S
STATEWIDE STRONGLY OPPOSED THIS
JUSTICE DENIER. BILL. IN THE
CASE OF FACE SURVEILLANCE.
REGULATING IT IS LIKE TRYING TO
BLOCK A CANNONBALL WITH
CARDBOARD REGULATIONS, NO MATTER
HOW WELL INTENTIONED WILL NOT
PROTECT CALIFORNIANS FROM THE
HARMS OF THIS TECHNOLOGY, BUT
EVEN AMONGST REGULATION BASED
APPROACHES, A B 642 STANDS OUT
AS PARTICULARLY PROBLEMATIC. 86
42 IS NOT BETTER THAN NOTHING.
86 42 INVITES A WHOLE LOT OF BAD
SOMETHING. THIS BILL IS A
LEGISLATIVE ENDORSEMENT OF MASS
SPACE SURVEILLANCE. IT
INCENTIVIZES, THE POLICE AND
SURVEILLANCE VENDORS TO
ESTABLISH IN OUR PARKS IN OUR
STREETS IN OUR MALLS AND
COMMUNITIES ANYTIME ALL THE TIME
. REAL TIME FACE SURVEILLANCE.
THIS IS NOT THE STATUS QUO IN
CALIFORNIA, FROM WHICH WE NEED
PROTECTION. THIS IS, HOWEVER,
THE INEVITABLE OUTCOME. OF THIS
LEGISLATIVE INVITATION. THE
STATUS QUO IS THAT BLACK AND
BROWN COMMUNITIES ARE OVER,
POLICED OVER ARRESTED OVER
ABUSED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT ON THE
OTHER SIDE OF A B 64 TO THESE
COMMUNITIES, MY COMMUNITY OUR
COMMUNITIES WILL HAVE THEIR
FACES SCANNED AND TRACKED
BECAUSE AS ALL OF OUR RACIAL
PROFILING DATA SHOWS THEY WILL
ENCOUNTER LAW ENFORCEMENT. JUST
THIS YEAR, RIPPER REPORTED THAT
BLACK INDIVIDUALS WERE
OVERREPRESENTED IN STOPS NOT
LEADING TO ENFORCEMENT.
OVERREPRESENTED IN USE OF FORCE
RELATIVE TO THEIR POPULATION
SHARE HAD THE HIGHEST PROPORTION
OF THEIR STAFFS REPORTED AS
REASONABLE SUSPICION. THE
STANDARD IN THIS BILL AND THE
LOWEST PROPORTION OF THEIR STOPS
REPORTED AS TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS.
LAW ENFORCEMENT IS ALREADY
TREATING COMMUNITIES DIFFERENTLY
, BASED ON RACE AND MAYBE 642
ENDORSES SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY
THAT IS RIGHT FOR ABUSE. THE
SYSTEM EMBRACED BY 86 42 WOULD
MIRROR THE KIND OF CHINESE
GOVERNMENT KIND OF THE CHINESE
GOVERNMENT USES TODAY TO TARGET
AND CONTROL. MARGINALIZED PEOPLE
AND I AM NOT SPECULATING A 2022
GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY REPORT
ON RACIAL DISPARITIES AND POLICE
USE OF S F R T FACIAL
RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY. FOUND
THAT BLACK PEOPLE ARE MORE
POLICE ARE POLICED MORE
PUNITIVELY THAN WHITE PEOPLE
USING FACIAL RECOGNITION
TECHNOLOGY. A B 642 ALSO
THREATENS THOSE SEEKING REFUGE
IN OUR STATE, INCLUDING
IMMIGRANTS AND PEOPLE IN NEED OF
ABORTION AND GENDER FARMING
CARE. THE LANGUAGE IS JUST TOO
NARROW. IT PROVIDES WHY LATITUDE
FOR POLICE TO SHARE INFORMATION
ABOUT WHO PLANS TO SEEK CARE OR
HAVE ALREADY DONE SO AND ARE
TRAVELING WITHIN CALIFORNIA. A B
642 IS NOT BETTER THAN NOTHING.
JUST AS DRINKING BLEACH IS NOT
BETTER THAN NO COVID VACCINE.
THIS BUILDS HARM IS FORESEEABLE
. IT'S SUPPOSED BENEFIT IS
UNFOUNDED, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE
CONSIDER THE RECENT OFFER
AMENDMENTS GRANT BOTH POLICE AND
COMPANIES COMPLETE IMMUNITY FROM
THE FORESEEABLE HARM SO LONG AS
THERE IS SO CALLED AND I QUOTE
GOOD FAITH, DETERMINATION BY LAW
ENFORCEMENT THAT AN OFFICER
THOUGHT THEY WERE FOLLOWING THE
LAW WITH NO SUPPRESSION REMEDY
PROVIDED A B 64 TO PROVIDE
STRONGER PROTECTIONS FOR THE
POLICE, THEN FOR THE PEOPLE
SURVEILLED RESPECTFULLY URGE
YOUR NO VOTE ON THIS JUSTICE
DENY OUR VIEW. YES, SIR. HIS
CHILDREN, LIU WITH THE
ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION,
STRONGER POSITION OF 86 42.
TODAY I SPEAK NOT ONLY FOR THE
FF, BUT FOR ROBERT WILLIAMS, A
BLACK MAN FROM DETROIT WAS
WRONGFULLY ARRESTED BECAUSE OF
FACIAL RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY.
MR WILLIAMS CANNOT JOIN US TODAY
. BUT HIS STORY IN HIS WORDS
WILL BE THE CORE OF MY
TESTIMONY. HE WRITES THREE YEARS
AGO WITH NO EXPLANATION.
OFFICERS HANDCUFFED ME ON MY
FRONT LAWN WHEN MY DISTRESSED
WIFE AND YOUNG DAUGHTERS WATCHED
AT THE DETENTION CENTER OFFICERS
TOOK MY FINGERPRINTS, DNA SAMPLE
AND MUG SHOT. SCARED AND
CONFUSED. I SPENT THE NIGHT ON
THE COLD AND FILTHY CONCRETE
FLOOR OF AN OVERCROWDED CELL.
THE NEXT DAY, PLEASE ACCUSED ME
OF STEALING THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
WORTH OF WATCHES FROM THE STORE.
I HAD NOT VISITED. IN YEARS. I
COULD PROVE I WAS DRIVING HOME
FROM MY JOB 40 MINUTES OUTSIDE
DETROIT AT THE TIME OF THE
ROBBERY, IT DID NOT MATTER.
FACEBOOK CONDITIONS SOFTWARE HAD
MATCHED A BLURRY IMAGE. PORTMAN
THIS STORE'S GRAINY SURVEILLANCE
FOOTAGE TO MY DRIVER'S LICENSE
PHOTO AND A SECURITY CONSULTANT
WHO HAD WATCHED THE VIDEO BUT
WHO HAD NOT SEEN THE SUSPECT IN
PERSON PICKED ME OUT OF A SHODDY
PHOTO LINEUP. EVEN THOUGH THE
POLICE WERE SPECIFICALLY TOLD
THAT FACIAL RECOGNITION RESULTS
WAS NOT A LEAD WAS JUST A LEAD
AND NOT TO BE USED AS A SOLE
BASIS FOR AN ARREST FOR THE
DETECTIVES. IT WAS ENOUGH TO
ARREST ME. A B 642 IS DANGEROUS.
IT WOULD BE A GRAVE MISTAKE TO
ASSUME THAT THIS BILL WILL
PREVENT WHAT HAPPENED TO ME FROM
HAPPENING TO PEOPLE IN
CALIFORNIA. THERE IS NO
ACCEPTABLE STANDARD MS NUMBER OF
MISIDENTIFICATION AND IF THE
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE EMBRACES
THE WIDESPREAD USE OF FACE
RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY, THERE
WILL BE MANY MORE CASES LIKE
MINE. INNOCENT PEOPLE PUT IN
HARM'S WAY AND DAMAGE THAT CAN
NEVER BE UNDONE. AND THEY MAY
NOT BE AS LUCKY AS I WAS TO
AVOID A CONVICTION OR WORSE,
FATAL ENCOUNTER WITH POLICE.
FACE RECOGNITION SOFTWARE IS
FLAWED AND DANGEROUS. NONE OF
THE PROVISIONS IN THIS BILL
ADEQUATELY PROTECT PREVENT
POLICE FROM ABUSING TO
TECHNOLOGY AND ARRESTING SOMEONE
SIMPLY BECAUSE A RACIALLY BIASED
ALGORITHMS SCAN THEIR FACE. THE
ONLY SAFE PATH FORWARD IS A
TOTAL PROHIBITION ON POLICE USE
OF FACEBOOK IGNITION. I STRONGLY
URGE YOU TO PROTECT CALIFORNIANS
FROM MISIDENTIFICATION AND
WRONGFUL ARREST BY VOTING NO ON
86 42. THANK YOU. AND ANY OTHERS
IN OPPOSITION. GOOD MORNING
CHAIR AND MEMBERS ELISA
ARCIDIACONO WITH THE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES WITH THE
RECENT AMENDMENTS, WE WILL BE
REMOVING OUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
BECCA CRAMER MATTER ON BEHALF OF
NATIONAL CENTER FOR LESBIAN
RIGHTS, CALIFORNIA IMMIGRANT
POLICY CENTER, ASIAN LAW,
ALLIANCE. MEDIA JUSTICE TEACH
TRAINING IN EARLY ABORTION FOR
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHCARE, ANTI
POLICE TERROR PROJECT 10TH
AMENDMENT CENTER INDIVISIBLE
CALIFORNIA STATE STRONG
TRANSGENDER GENDER VARIANT,
INTERSEX JUSTICE PROJECT SECURE
JUSTICE FREE SPEECH COALITION.
POSITIVE WOMEN'S NETWORK, SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDERS,
RACIAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE AND
CALIFORNIANS UNITED FOR A
RESPONSIBLE BUDGET CURB ALL IN
OPPOSITION. GOOD MORNING, MARCO
GEORGE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION. WE APPRECIATE THE
AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU TO THE
AUTHOR AND THE COMMITTEE WERE
OPPOSED UNLESS FURTHER AMENDED.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING CHAIR
AND MEMBERS CAMERA DIMITRI ON
BEHALF OF THE SECURITY INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION. WE'RE NOT IN AN
OPPOSED POSITION. WE SUPPORTED
THE INITIAL DRAFT. WE'RE STILL
REVIEWING APPRECIATE THE WORK
THAT THE AUTHOR HAS DONE ON THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. DANICA ROAD,
UM, ON BEHALF OF INITIATE
JUSTICE AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. THAT YOU WILL BRING
IT BACK TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
ANY QUESTIONS? COMMENTS.
QUESTION. SPONSOR. THANK YOU. I
APPRECIATE THE INCREDIBLE WORK
THAT THE AUTHOR HAS DONE ON THIS
BILL AND THE PRIOR LEADERSHIP
THAT YOU'VE HAD AND THE CURRENT
LEADERSHIP THAT YOU'VE HAD ON
THIS INCREDIBLY UM, SENSITIVE
ISSUE. CAN YOU GIVE US A SENSE
OF HOW YOU BELIEVE THIS IS
BETTER THAN THE STATUS QUO?
ABSOLUTELY I THINK APPRECIATE
VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE THAT, UM,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER. UH RIGHT NOW.
UNFORTUNATELY YOU HEARD ABOUT
THIS CASE ABOUT ROBINWOOD,
ROBERT WILLIAMS OR ANY BUDDY
WHO'S BEEN MISIDENTIFIED FROM
FACIAL RECOGNITION. THAT CAN
HAPPEN RIGHT NOW. THAT CAN
HAPPEN RIGHT NOW. THAT'S A FACT.
RIGHT NOW. THERE ARE NO
REGULATIONS ON FACIAL
RECOGNITION AND AGAIN. MY
PREVIOUS BILL WAS ONLY AROUND
RESTRICTING FACIAL RECOGNITION
IN BODY CAMERAS. RIGHT NOW.
EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US CARRIES A
CAMERA. EVERY DAY ON OUR PHONES.
WE HAVE CAMERAS IN FRONT OF
STORES. WE HAVE CAMERAS THAT ARE
IN DRONES. UH THIS PARTICULAR
BILL REGULATES ALL MANNERS OF
FACIAL RECOGNITION SOFTWARE
TECHNOLOGY SO. TOO ABSOLUTELY
MAKE SURE THAT WE TRY TO THE
BEST OF OUR ABILITY NOT TO HAVE
A MISTAKEN IDENTITY. THAT'S WHY
WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY SETTING
AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. THAT'S WHY
WE SAID WE TOOK AN AMENDMENT TO
MAKE SURE THAT TO CLARIFY THIS
IS ONLY FOR FELONIES. IT'S ONLY
FOR THE MOST SEVERE KINDS OF
SITUATIONS. WE WANTED TO MAKE
SURE THAT THERE ARE NO PEACE
THAT PEACE. PEOPLE CAN PROTEST
IN THE STREETS WITHOUT BEING
WORRIED ABOUT BEING FILMED.
WHETHER IT'S A BODY CAMERA,
WHETHER IT'S A DRONE, WHETHER
IT'S YOU KNOW A STOREFRONT
CAMERA WITHOUT BEING FEARFUL
THAT THAT COULD BE USED AGAINST
THEM. WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT
WHETHER IT'S IMMIGRATION STATUS,
GENDER AFFIRMING CARE, ABORTION
CASES, MAKING SURE THAT PEOPLE
CAN EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS IN A
VARIETY OF SITUATIONS AGAIN.
THIS TO ME IS. THE GOAL FOR MY
LEGISLATION IS TO MAKE IT THE
MOST RESTRICTIVE THE MOST
DEFINING JUST CREATE THE
GREATEST NUMBER OF GUARDRAILS ON
THIS TECHNOLOGY IN OUR STATE. I
THINK FOR US TO SAY I COMPLETELY
DISAGREE WITH THE LOGIC THAT WE
SHOULD BETTER OFF BEING. BUT
THAT THAT WE'RE BETTER OFF DOING
NOTHING. IF THAT WERE THE CASE,
I NEED TO FIND ANOTHER JOB.
BECAUSE THEN WHAT AM I DOING
HERE? WHY WHY ARE WE PASSING
LAWS? WHY ARE WE FORWARDING
POLICY? THIS IS ABOUT MAKING
SURE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO THE
BEST WE CAN TO PROTECT 40
MILLION CALIFORNIANS WHO RIGHT
NOW I HAVE ZERO PROTECTION ON
FACIAL RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY
AND FOR ANYBODY TO SAY THAT
THAT'S BETTER THAN ACTUALLY
HAVING REGULATION. I THINK IT'S
FAIRLY IRRESPONSIBLE. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS. CONCERNED. YOU MAKE
CLOTHES. THANK YOU, UM FIRST LET
ME JUST CLOSE BY SAYING THAT I
JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT I'M
CHINESE AMERICAN. I'M NOT
CHINESE. AND I THINK FOR THE A C
L U TO PRESENT AND ESPECIALLY
GIVEN THEIR LONG STRUGGLE WITH
JAPANESE AMERICANS WITH
INTERMENT TO EVEN PRESENT RACE
BAITING LANGUAGE IN THIS
COMMITTEE, I FIND EXTREMELY
OFFENSIVE. SO THAT'S FIRST OFF.
SECOND OFF. WE TALKED ABOUT WHY
WE NEED STANDARDS. WE ABSOLUTELY
ARE IN A SITUATION WHERE THIS
TECHNOLOGY CAN BE USED.
UNFETTERED. COMPLETELY COULD BE
USED FOR ANYTHING FOR ANY
REASON. ANY TIME. THIS PROVIDES
A NUMBER OF GUARDRAILS AND AGAIN
AS WE GO THROUGH. THIS IS THE
FIRST OF MANY COMMITTEES THAT
WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH. WE
CAN MAKE SURE THAT WE WILL
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH OPPOSITION
ADDRESS ANY PARTICULAR CONCERNS.
AT THIS POINT. WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN
ANY SUBSTANTIVE CONCERNS FROM
MOSTLY OPPOSITION, BUT WE'RE
HAPPY TO DO THAT. WE WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS THE BEST
AND MOST RESTRICTIVE.
LEGISLATION IN THE ENTIRE
COUNTRY TO PROTECT ALL 40
MILLION CALIFORNIANS. UH WE WANT
TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE
PENALTIES. THERE ARE PENALTIES
FOR MISUSE. WE PUT CIVIL
PENALTIES IN HERE, SO THERE ARE
CONSEQUENCES. THIS DOES NOT
ENDORSE. FACIAL RECOGNITION
TECHNOLOGY. NOTHING OF THE SORT
. THIS ACTUALLY RESTRICTS FACIAL
RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY, SO TO GO
ON AND SAY THAT THIS ACTUALLY
ENDORSES IT, OR SOMEHOW ALLOWS
THE USE OF IT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT
TRUE. THIS I BELIEVE WILL
ABSOLUTELY MAKE CALIFORNIA
SAFER. IT WILL MAKE LAW
ENFORCEMENT MORE RESPONSIBLE.
AND I THINK THAT THIS WILL, IN
ITS FACT MAKE SURE THAT WHEN
ARREST DO HAPPEN THAT THEY ARE
ACCURATE THAT THEY ARE, IN FACT
DONE WITH CARE AND THAT THERE
ARE PROTECTIONS FOR EVERY
CITIZEN HERE IN CALIFORNIA, BUT
THAT I RESPECT FOR US FOR I VOTE
ON A B 642. OKAY MOTION. OH I'M
SORRY TO STEP SUPPORT. I WAS
WRONG, JOHN SAWYER. ELONIS
BONTA. HERE JACKSON LACKEY,
ORTEGA SANTIAGO. ZIPPER. QUORUM
IS PRESIDENT. LET ME GO THROUGH
THE CONSENT KARMA IF YOU JUST
GIVE ME A FEW MINUTES, UM UNDER
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NUMBER 5
87 09 MAKIN ER TRANSCRIPTS, PRO
PROCEEDINGS EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE
. I DON'T NUMBER SIX A B 75 VOTE
RODRIGUEZ MINISTER. PUBLIC
HEALTH CLOSURE BY LAW
ENFORCEMENT ITEM NUMBER NINE A.
B 798 WEBER FEMALE GENITAL
MUTILATION NUMBER 13 89 45 RAISE
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE EXPUNGEMENT
OF RECORDS I REMEMBER 19 A B 12
91 MCCARTY LAW ENFORCEMENT
SETTLEMENTS AND JUDGMENTS IN
REPORTING. IF THEIR MOTION TO
SECOND CALDERON. AND THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. JOHN SAWYER. I ELONIS
DENISE. I BONTA. BONTA AYE,
JACKSON JACKSON. I LACKEY
LACKEY. I ORTEGA ORTEGA I
SANTIAGO SUBIR. OKAY? ITEM
NUMBER. NUMBER FOUR A B 642 TING
THEIR EMOTION. SOME OF. SO MR
TANG? UM OBVIOUSLY THIS IS
BURIED. VERY IMPORTANT. THE
DISCUSSION THAT WE'RE HAVING, UM
. THE OPPOSITION IS PRODUCTS ARE
REALLY GOOD POINT AND SOME VALID
POINTS THAT, UM THAT I'VE HEARD
FROM MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE
THAT I WANT YOU TO CONSIDER IF
THEY WERE TO GET OUT OF THIS
COMMITTEE UM AS SOMEONE WHO WAS
IDENTIFIED AND RACIAL
RECOGNITION AS A FELON. AS
SOMEONE WHO HAD LAW ENFORCEMENT
SIT WHERE YOU'RE SITTING. TELL
HIM IT TO HIS FACE AND THE
COMMITTEE MEETING THAT HE WAS A
LIAR. THAT HAD NEVER HAPPENED. I
KNOW EXACTLY HOW IT FEELS TO BE
A BLACK MAN BEING TOLD BY LAW
ENFORCEMENT. INTERROGATED AND
TOLD THAT YOU'RE SOMETHING THAT
YOU'RE NOT. IT IS NOT.
COMFORTABLE FEELING. AND I'M
SITTING UP HERE'S CHAIR. AND IT
SCARED ME TO DEATH. AND IT WAS
VERY, VERY, VERY UNCOMFORTABLE.
UM. WE'VE GOT TO TAKE DOWN THE
TEMPERATURE. FROM BOTH SIDES. UM
UNFORTUNATELY, WE WEREN'T ABLE
TO BRING BOTH AUTHORS TOGETHER
BECAUSE IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING
THAT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME
WAY TO GET TO SOMEWHERE. AND SO,
UH, IF IT GETS OUT OF THIS
COMMITTEE, UM I WOULD HOPE YOU
HAVE A COMMITMENT. TO WORKING
WITH THE OPPOSITION. TO COME UP
WITH SOMETHING BECAUSE, UM
WHATEVER WAY PEOPLE VOTE NOW. IT
MAY NOT BE THE SAME AS IT MOVES
FORWARD, AND THAT'S WHY IT'S
REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT, UM, TO
GET SOME CONSENSUS BECAUSE YOU
BOTH HAVE SHARED VALUES. YOU
BOTH. I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU
SAY THIS AGAIN. YOU BOTH I WANT
TO MAKE SURE THEIR RACIAL
RECOGNITION IS NOT ADVERSELY
USED. ON BLACK AND BROWN FOLKS
ON ANYBODY. IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. AND TO THAT MATTER
ANYWHERE IN THIS COUNTRY. YOU
BOTH. I WANT IT. SO YOU BOTH
SHOULD BE WORKING TOWARDS
GETTING US THERE. AND SO IF IT
DOES MAKE IT OUT THIS COMMITTEE
YOU NEED TO KNOW IF THAT'S NOT
HAPPENING. IT COULD IT COULD
JEOPARDIZE EVERYTHING. NOT ONLY
THIS BILL, BUT MR WILSON, MR MS
WILSON'S BILL WE'VE GOT TO COME
TOGETHER AS A BODY. WE'VE GOT TO
SAY THIS AGAIN. WE'VE GOT TO
COME TOGETHER AS A BODY. I
EMPLOY YOU. I BEG YOU, I BESEECH
YOU. TAKE. THE RHETORIC AND THE
TEMPERATURE DOWN. SO THAT WE
CAN. WE CAN PROTECT A LOT OF
PEOPLE. MILLIONS OF PEOPLE. WHO
ARE DEPENDING ON US TO GET
SOMETHING. SOMETHING DONE AROUND
THIS. WHETHER IT'S NOW IT'S NEXT
YEAR, BUT WE NEED TO DO
SOMETHING. THE OLYMPICS IS
COMING. THE SOCCER. ALL THAT'S
COMING AND WE NEED TO HAVE ALL
THE TECHNOLOGY WE NEED. BUT MOST
IMPORTANT, IT'S GOT TO BE GOOD
IF IT'S NOT GOING TO BE GOOD.
THEN WE SHOULDN'T USE IT. AT ALL
IF IT'S GOING TO CAUSE MORE
HAVOC. AND MORE PROBLEMS. WE
SHOULDN'T USE IT, BUT WE NEED TO
YOU KNOW? LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENS
WITH THE BOAT. MAYBE 642 BY SOME
MEMBER TEAM, THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS TO THE PRIVACY AND CONSUMER
PROTECTION COMMITTEE. JOHN
SAWYER GENSLER. AYE ELONIS ALONE
IS NOT VOTING. BONTA AYE,
JACKSON JACKSON. I LACKEY LACKEY
NOT VOTING. ORTEGA ORTEGA I
SANTIAGO. SUBIR MEASURES ON
CALL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. MR CHAIR WORK WITH THE
OPPOSITION.
WE NOW HAVE MR MATHIS ITEM A B
808 ITEM NUMBER 10.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIRMAN. I'M HERE
TODAY TO PRESENT A B 808. THE
PROTECTION OF I DID SURVIVORS OF
RAPE ACT. PROTECTING MEMBERS OF
THE I DID COMMUNITY,
PARTICULARLY CHILDREN WAS VERY
PERSONAL TO ME. THAT'S WHY IT
BREAKS MY HEART THAT CHILDREN
WITH DISABILITIES IN THIS
COUNTRY ARE BEING TARGETED. AT
ARE DISPROPORTIONATELY THE
VICTIMS OF RAPE. ACCORDING TO
THE U. S DEPARTMENT. OF JUSTICE
. DISABLED PEOPLE ARE FOUR TIMES
MORE LIKELY THAN NON DISABLED
PEOPLE. TO BE VICTIMS OF RAPE.
ACCORDING TO THE VIRNA INSTITUTE
OF JUSTICE. STUDY DISABLED
CHILDREN ARE A SHOCKINGLY 4.6
TIMES MORE LIKELY TO BE SEXUALLY
ABUSED AS CHILDREN. THEN THEIR
PEERS. MEMBERS. THIS IS A
CRISIS. BUT WE CAN DO SOMETHING
ABOUT IT. A B. A TO WAIT WILL
INCREASE THE PUNISHMENT FOR
THOSE CONVICTED OF THE RAPE OF
DISABLED CHILDREN FROM A MINIMUM
OF THREE YEARS. TO A MINIMUM OF
SEVEN YEARS. FOR THOSE AGES, 14
TO 17 AND NINE YEARS FOR THOSE
AGES. 3RD 11 TO 13. I HAVE FOUR
MAIN ARGUMENTS FOR A B 808. EACH
OF THEM IS ALONE. SUFFICIENT FOR
AN I VOTE. FIRST ACCORDING TO
THE U. S DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
BLACKS, HISPANICS AND FEMALES
WITH DISABILITIES ARE
DISPROPORTIONATELY THE VICTIMS
OF VIOLENT CRIMES, INCLUDING
SEXUAL ASSAULT AND RAPE. FOR
FEMALES WITH DISABILITIES, THE
RATE OF VIOLENT VICTIMIZATION
WAS. 49.4 PER 1000 COMPARED TO
11.3. FOR 1000 FOR FEMALES
WITHOUT DISABILITIES. FOR
BLACKS, HISPANICS AND PERSONS OF
OTHER RACES, THE RATE OF VIOLENT
VICTIMIZATION FOR PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES WAS AT THE LEAST
TRIPLE THAT OF PERSONS WITHOUT
DISABILITIES. THIS BILL PROTECTS
SOME OF OUR MOST MARGINALIZED,
PARTICULARLY MINORITY CHILDREN
WITH DISABILITIES FROM HEINOUS
CRIMES. MAYBE A TO WAIT.
FURTHERS EQUITY. SECOND THE
MINIMUM OF THREE YEARS
IMPRISONMENT FOR THE RAPE OF A
DISABLED CHILD. IS INSUFFICIENT
RETRIBUTION. THIS BILL POSES A
SIMPLE QUESTION THAT MUST BE
ANSWERED. IS THREE YEARS
IMPRISONMENT FOR THE RAPE OF A
DISABLED CHILD AS YOUNG AS 11
YEARS OF AGE, SUFFICIENT
PUNISHMENT. RAPE OF DISABLED
CHILDREN IS ONE OF THE MOST
DISGUSTING CRIMES IMAGINABLE.
BUT A NO VOTE SAYS A SMALL
PUNISHMENT IS GOOD ENOUGH. LET'S
COMPARE THIS TO ANOTHER LAW. THE
MAXIMUM SENTENCE OF STEALING A
CAR IS THREE YEARS. WHICH IS THE
SAME AS THE MINIMUM SENTENCE FOR
RAPING A DISABLED CHILD. THAT
MEANS CURRENTLY. THE LAW SEES
SOME INSTANCES. THAT THE RAPE OF
A CHILD WITH DISABILITIES IS
MORALLY EQUIVALENT TO STEALING A
CAR. THINK ABOUT THAT. WE CANNOT
HONESTLY BELIEVE. THAT
INFLICTING AND MEASURABLE TRAUMA
UPON A DEFENSELESS CHILD. IT'S
MORALLY EQUIVALENT TO STEALING A
CAR. WE KNOW THAT THE PUNISHMENT
FOR GRANTED RAFT ISN'T TOO HIGH,
SO THE PUNISHMENT FOR RAPE OF A
CHILD WITH DISABILITIES. IT'S
CLEARLY TOO LOW. THIRDLY,
THERE'S EVIDENCE THAT INCREASED
SENTENCES FOR RAPE AND SEXUALLY
ASSAULT CAN DETER CRIME.
ACCORDING TO THE BRITISH JOURNAL
OF CRIMINOLOGY. FOUND IN THE U.
S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. OFFICE
OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS LIBRARY. THE
DETERRENT. EFFECTS OF LONGER
SENTENCES IS STRONGEST FOR RAPE
AND ASSAULT. EVIDENCE SUGGESTS
THAT CRIMINALS RESPOND TO
INCENTIVES AND STRONGER
SANCTIONS TO DETER CRIME. WE
KNOW THAT WE MUST REDUCE THE
RATES OF RAPE AGAINST CHILDREN
WITH DISABILITIES. CREDIBLE
STUDIES INDICATE THAT THIS BILL
WILL HELP ACHIEVE IT. FOURTHLY
CONVICTED SEX OFFENDERS,
INCLUDING THOSE WHO PREY ON
CHILDREN ARE DISPROPORTIONATELY
LIKELY TO REOFFEND. AND DO IT
OFTEN AND QUICKLY. ACCORDING TO
THE BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS
RELEASED SEX OFFENDERS WERE MORE
THAN THREE TIMES MORE LIKELY TO
COMMIT ADDITIONAL ACTS OF RAPE
AND SEXUAL ASSAULT COMPARED TO
OTHER RELEASED PRISONERS.
RESEARCH PUBLISHED IN THE
JOURNAL OF LAW AND HUMAN
BEHAVIOR, ADDITIONALLY FOUND
THAT OVER 30% OF CHILDREN
MOLESTERS STUDIED COMMITTED NEW
SEXUAL OFFENSES. WITH AN AVERAGE
TIME BETWEEN OFFENSES. BEING
ONLY 3.6 YEARS. BUT REMAIN IN
YOUR MIND YOU THAT SENTENCES CAN
BE AS LOW AS ONLY THREE YEARS.
MEANING THAT ANOTHER CHILD IS
LIKELY TO BE RAPED LESS THAN A
YEAR AFTER THE RAPIST IS
RELEASED. THIS BILL WILL KEEP
SERIAL RAPIST OFF THE STREETS.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE ONE FINAL
POINT. IF I MAY. CONCERNS
FAIRNESS AND EQUITY BOTH IN THIS
COMMITTEE. AND UNDER CALIFORNIA
LAW. ON MARCH 14TH. THIS
COMMITTEE UNANIMOUSLY PASSED 84
84 THE SENTENCING ENHANCEMENT
FOR WHITE COLLAR CRIMES. BY OUR
COLLEAGUE ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
GABRIEL. THE RATIONALE MY
COLLEAGUE GAVE TO EARN THIS
COMMITTEE'S UNANIMOUS APPROVAL.
THAT THE PERPETRATORS ARE
PREYING ON SOME OF THE MOST
VULNERABLE. COMMUNITIES. NOBODY.
THERE'S MORE VULNERABLE THAN A
DISABLED CHILD. IF THE NON
MARGINAL CRIME VICTIMS WHO ARE
THE FOCUS OF ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
GABRIEL IS BILL ARE WORTHY OF
OUR PROTECTION. THEN SO ARE THE
DISABLED CHILDREN WHO ARE THE
FOCUS OF MY BILL. THIS VOTE WILL
SEND A MESSAGE TO CALIFORNIANS
ABOUT WHO IS TRULY VALUABLE BY
THIS COMMITTEE. AND PROTECTED BY
OUR LOSS. ALL OF US AGREE THAT
THE VICTIMIZATION OF CHILDREN
WITH DISABILITIES IS A PROBLEM.
AND I HAVE PRESENTED FOR
RATIONAL REASONS. WHY THE
SOLUTION I PUT FORTH WILL
RECTIFY THIS CRISIS. REMEMBERS I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR MY VOTE AT
THIS TIME. I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE
ANGELA HAYES OF THE SAN JOAQUIN
COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE TO ADD HER PERSPECTIVE.
THANK YOU AND GOOD MORNING CHAIR
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. I
AM ANGELA HAYES WITH THE SAN
JOAQUIN COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND I'M
CURRENTLY THE SUPER SUPERVISING
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE
CHILD ABUSE SEXUAL ASSAULT UNIT
. I'M HERE TO SUPPORT A B 808.
SIMPLY BECAUSE IT CREATES PARITY
WHERE IT CURRENTLY DOES NOT
EXIST. NON DEVELOPMENTALLY.
DISABLED CHILDREN, ALL MINORS.
AND PERPETRATORS WHO COMMIT RAPE
AGAINST THOSE MINERS ARE SUBJECT
TO HEIGHTENED. PUNISHMENT
ALREADY IN PENAL CODE TO 64. AS
LONG AS THEY USE VIOLENCE FORCED
DURESS, FEAR OR MENACE WITH A
DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILD.
THEY DO NOT HAVE THE SAME LENS
AS THEIR COUNTERPARTS. TO VIEW
THE WORLD. THEY ARE MORE
TRUSTING OF ADULTS AND AN ADULT
PERPETRATOR WOULD NOT NEED TO
USE THE SAME LEVEL OF FORCE OR
MENACE. THEY SIMPLY GET THE
CHILD TO ACQUIESCE THROUGH
TRICKERY. AND SHOULD WE REWARD
THOSE PERPETRATORS. AND HAVE
THOSE CHILDREN FALL THROUGH THE
CRACKS AND NOT BE ON PAR WITH
THE OTHER MINERS. THAT ARE
ALREADY CURRENTLY PROTECTED BY
THIS EXACT SAME HEIGHTENED LEVEL
OF PUNISHMENT FOR THOSE
PERPETRATORS. I DON'T BELIEVE
THAT WE SHOULD REWARD
PERPETRATORS. THEY SHOULD ALL BE
TREATED THE SAME, PARTICULARLY
THOSE THAT WOULD PREY ON THE
MOST VULNERABLE. THOSE
PERPETRATORS DON'T HAVE TO USE
THE FORCE OR VIOLENCE TO CAJOLE
THEIR VICTIMS INTO PERFORMING
THESE SEX ACTS. THEY SIMPLY CAN
WITH A DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED
. MINOR CONVINCED THEM THAT THIS
IS SOMETHING THEY MAY WANT THAT
IT MAY BE GOOD FOR THEM THAT
THEY SHOULD PARTICIPATE IN THIS
BEHAVIOR, AND I CANNOT THINK
THAT ANYONE WOULD REWARD THAT
BEHAVIOR. WE SIMPLY ARE ASKING
FOR PARITY AMONG ALL CHILDREN
VICTIMS, WHETHER THEY ARE RAPED
BY AN ADULT. HAVING SEX AGAINST
THEIR WILL, THROUGH FORCE FEAR,
MENACE, VIOLENCE OR SOME OTHER
TRICKERY THAT AN ADULT CAN USE
ON A TRUSTING VULNERABLE.
DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILD
WHO DOES NOT KNOW TO WHAT THEY
ARE ACQUIESCING. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU AND THERE ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT? GOOD
MORNING. MR CHAIR, REMEMBERS
COREY CELLS ALONE ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA STATE.
SHERIFFSASSOCIATION SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. KIM STONE STONE
ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU ARE THERE ANY WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION?
YEAH. THE MORNING. GOOD MORNING.
MARCO GEORGE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION, IN OPPOSITION TO A
B 808. UM WE CERTAINLY AGREE
THAT RAPE OF ANY CHILD OR ANYONE
IS, UM YOU KNOW, HORRIBLE
OFFENSE. BUT THIS BILL IS
UNNECESSARY. RAPE OF A CHILD IS
ALREADY PUNISHED HARSHLY. UM.
THE AUTHOR TALKED ABOUT THE
MINIMUM BEING THREE YEARS. IN
FACT, WITHOUT ANY OTHER
CIRCUMSTANCES. THE. IT'S UP TO
EIGHT YEARS AND UNDER 667.6. J
ONE AND TWO, DEPENDING ON THE
FACTS OF THE CASE, THE
PUNISHMENT WOULD BE LIFE WITHOUT
PAROLE ARE 25 YEARS TO LIFE. AND
WE HAVE SEEN REPEATEDLY IN THE
STUDIES. THAT LONGER AND HARSHER
SENTENCES DO NOT DETER CRIME.
BUT RESULT IN MASS
INCARCERATION. AS EARLY AS 2014
, THE LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION.
ADDRESS THE DISCONNECT BETWEEN
SCIENCE AND SENTENCING. AND SAID
THAT PUTTING AWAY OFFENDERS FOR
INCREASINGLY LONGER PERIODS OF
TIME WITH NO EVIDENCE THAT
LENGTHY INCARCERATION BRINGS ANY
PUBLIC BENEFIT. AND THEN WE LOOK
AGAIN AT THE COST OF
INCARCERATION. AT COST,
ACCORDING TO THE LEGISLATIVE
ANALYST'S OFFICE OVER $106,000 A
YEAR AND THAT IS MONEY. BALANCED
ED OF PUTTING PEOPLE IN PRISON
FOR LONGER AND LONGER PERIODS OF
TIME SHOULD BE USED TO PROVIDE
BENEFITS BENEFITS FOR THE
COMMUNITY. BENEFITS FOR THE
VICTIMS. UM BENEFITS THAT AREN'T
OUT THERE COUNSELING. UM HOUSING
EDUCATION. WE NEED TO CHANGE
THIS RAPE CULTURE AND NOT JUST
SEE ONLY PUNISHING PEOPLE MORE
AND MORE AS A SOLUTION TO OUR
PROBLEMS, SO WE RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR A NO VOTE ON A B 808. THANK
YOU. YEAH. GOOD MORNING CHERRY
MEMBERS. CARMEN A CAUCUS AGAIN
DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
FOR A C L U CAL ACTION. AND ALSO
HERE IN RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION TO
THE POLICY APPROACH OF A B 808.
THERE IS NO DISAGREEMENT THAT
RAPE OF A CHILD, PARTICULARLY A
DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILD
IS DREADFUL. UM AND THAT'S WHY
THERE'S ALREADY A CRIMINAL
STATUTORY SCHEME TO PUNISH THAT
CONDUCT. HOWEVER UM THIS BILL
TAKES THE WRONG POLICY APPROACH
BECAUSE OUR INVESTMENTS SHOULD
ACTUALLY BE TO HOLD VICTIMS. TO
HOLD THEM CAREFULLY AND TO HOLD
THEM COMPASSIONATELY. A B 808 IS
, UM, I'M SURE AND ALSO
UNDENIABLY AND EMOTIONAL
EXPRESSION OF THE OUTRAGE THAT
ALL OF SOCIETY FEELS WHEN A
CHILD IS SEXUALLY ASSAULTED. UM
THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE,
BECAUSE, UM BUT BUT AGAIN, IT
TAKES THE WRONG APPROACH. THIS
IS ESPECIALLY TRUE BECAUSE THE
INCREASED PENALTIES SUGGESTED BY
A B EIGHT OH EIGHT OR
RECOMMENDED BY AVIATOR ARE
MANDATORY. THEY LEAVE NO ROOM
FOR THE PROSECUTOR OR JUDGE'S
DISCRETION TO IMPOSE A
PUNISHMENT THAT IS REFLECTIVE OF
INDIVIDUAL CULPABILITY. THAT
INDIVIDUALIZED CONSIDERATION IS
NECESSARY BECAUSE WHILE WE HEARD
DISCUSSION ABOUT ADULTS ENGAGING
IN THIS CONDUCT WHAT WE KNOW IS
THAT THE PERSON WHO CAUSES THE
HARM MAY WELL BE A MINOR AND
COULD BE A MINOR WITH
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES OF
THEIR OWN AND ALSO COULD BE A
MINOR SUFFERING FROM WHO HAS, UM
, EXPERIENCED TRAUMA FROM SEXUAL
ASSAULT. SO TO REMOVE THE
ABILITY TO ENGAGE IN AN
INDIVIDUALIZED INDIVIDUALIZED
CONSIDERATION IS INAPPROPRIATE.
WHAT WILL BE APPROPRIATE WOULD
BE AN EVIDENCE BASED POLICY
APPROACH THAT, FOR EXAMPLE,
COULD INVOLVE MORE VISIBILITY OF
AND FUNDING FOR TRAUMA RECOVERY
CENTERS. SO INSTEAD AS MY
COLLEAGUE MENTIONS A B A B 808
MY MONOPOLIZING FUNDS FOR
FURTHER PUNISHMENT. WE COULD,
FOR EXAMPLE, UM, FOCUS ON TRAUMA
INFORMED CLINICAL CASE
MANAGEMENT. EVIDENCE BASED
INDIVIDUAL GROUP AND FAMILY
PSYCHOTHERAPY, AND THIS IS WHERE
THE SURVIVORS FOR THE VICTIMS
CRISIS INTERVENTION MEDICATION
MANAGEMENT, LEGAL ACT, ADVOCACY
AND ASSISTANCE. HELPING
SURVIVORS FILED POLICE REPORTS
AND ACTIVE ACCESS VICTIM
COMPENSATION FUNDS. FOR THESE
REASONS WE AT A C O U CAL ACTION
BELIEVE THAT A B EIGHT A. B
EIGHT OH EIGHTS PROPOSED USE OF
TAXPAYER DOLLARS TAKES THE WRONG
POLICY APPROACH AND WE ASKED FOR
YOUR NO VOTE. THANK YOU, ANY
OTHERS IN OPPOSITION? ANY OTHER
OPPOSITION. SEEING NONE WILL
BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE
MEMBERS FOR ANY COMMENTS OR MR
LACKEY. OH HI. SORRY. GO AHEAD.
MY NAME IS ANGELA CHAN SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE. WE OPPOSE THANK YOU. I
BELIEVE IT'S YOUR TURN NOW, MR
LACKEY. THANK YOU. WOW. THIS IS
CLEARLY A DISCUSSION. THAT
DESCRIBES AN UNUSUALLY CRUEL
ACT. QUITE FRANKLY, IT'S A
UNIQUE LEVEL OF EVIL. AND, UM. I
DO BELIEVE THAT PENALTIES SHOULD
REFLECT THE EGREGIOUS NATURE. OF
THE ACTIONS NOT ONLY AGAINST THE
VICTIM, BUT AGAINST OUR ENTIRE
SOCIETY. UM THERE WAS SOME.
COMMENTS MADE BY THE OPPOSITION.
ABOUT NEEDING A STUDY. UM I CAN
JUST TELL YOU THAT TO ME. WHY IN
THE WORLD WOULD WE THINK THAT WE
NEED SOME KIND OF VALIDATION? Tð
AFFIRM THE FACT THAT. THERE IS A
MORAL EQUIVALENCE TO STEALING A
CAR ANY LEVEL OF AN AFFRONT
AGAINST THE VICTIM. A SEXUAL
ASSAULT AGAINST THE
DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED. THAT
MORAL EQUIVALENCE IS SO OUT OF
BALANCE COMPLETELY. OBJECTION. I
DON'T CARE. UNDER ANY
CIRCUMSTANCE. AND TO NOT THINK
THAT THAT NEEDS SOME REPAIR. IS
AN AFFRONT. TO SOCIETY. I JUST
HOPE WE'RE NOT SLIPPING TO THAT
POINT. I MEAN, LADY JUSTICE.
ACTS FOR ABOUT ASKS FOR A
BALANCE, WHEN WE THINK AGAINST,
UM THE ACCUSED AND. AND THE
AGGRIEVED AND THIS IS SO OUT OF
BALANCE. AND I THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD. UM,
BECAUSE. IT SHOWS THE INEQUITY.
WE TALK ABOUT EQUITY ALL THE
TIME IN THIS BODY, AND IT'S AN
IMPORTANT GOAL THAT WE SEEK.
THERE'S NO EQUITY AND THAT'S
PENALTY. AND CONSIDERATION TO
THE LEVEL OF EVIL. THAT IS
DEMONSTRATED BY THIS ACTION, AND
I HOPE THAT WE WOULD, UM WE
WOULD SHOW THAT EMOTIONAL
OUTRAGE THAT WAS EXPRESSED BY
AND THE OPPONENTS. UM IT NEEDS
SOME PENALTY VALIDATION. AND
YOUR BILL DOES EXACTLY THAT. SO
I THANK YOU FOR BRINGING IT TO
OUR ATTENTION. THANK YOU. FOR
THE AUTHOR. THIS WAS TO RAISE
THE MINIMUM. CORRECT. YOU'RE
ASKING, OKAY? AH! FOR THE PUBLIC
DEFENDERS. SIDE YOUR YOU WERE
MENTIONING THE EIGHT YEARS AND
UP TO 25 TO LIFE. IS THAT WHERE
YOU TRYING TO MAKE IT A POINT
WITH THAT BEING THE MINIMUM
YOU'RE EXPLAINING THE MAXIMUM.
NO, UM. LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE AND
25 TO LIFE. OR IF THERE ARE
CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES AND
AGGRAVATION. UM THOSE ARE THE
SENTENCING RANGE UNDER 667.
POINT UM, I FORGOT THE BUT IT'S
THE BASICALLY ONE STRIKE
SENTENCING. OKAY. BUT YOU WERE
YOU, WERE YOU BECAUSE I THINK
WE'RE TRYING TO RAISE THE
MINIMUM HERE, AND THAT'S WHAT
THAT HIS POINT IS, AND I THINK
YOU WERE TRYING TO MAKE IT LOOK
LIKE THE MINIMUM WAS EIGHT YEARS
OR 25 TO LIFE AS WELL. I WAS NO
NO IF I SAID THAT I MISSPOKE
ABOUT THE MAXIMUM, AND OF COURSE
, JUDGES USE THEIR DISCRETION TO
LOOK AT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
EACH OFFENSE AND THE POWER
DYNAMICS BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT
AND THE VICTIM WHEN THEY IMPOSE
SENTENCING. OKAY THANK YOU.
AUTHOR. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FOR
THAT? YES IN THAT INSTANCE IT
APPLIES TO THE 25. 25 TO LIFE OF
APPLIES TO 10 YEAR OLDS AND
LOWER BUT WHAT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT SPECIFICALLY IN A V 808 IS
THESE CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES
AS AS MENTIONED THEY DON'T QUITE
UNDERSTAND. SO THIS ISN'T A
FORCED PHYSICAL THAT THIS IS
TRICKERY. THIS IS THE METHODS
THAT ARE BEING USED HERE ARE
DIFFERENT, AND IT DOESN'T QUITE
APPLY. THE SHAME IS WHAT'S BEEN
MENTIONED. BY THE OTHER SIDE
THEY'RE LOOKING AT. THIS IS THE
VIOLENT BEATING OF CHILDREN
VERSUS. USING THESE TRICKERY,
METHODS AND TRICKING THESE
CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES, AND
WE'RE TRYING TO FOCUS ON
CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES HERE.
BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW THEY
DON'T HAVE THE COGNITIVE ABILITY
TO UNDERSTAND THAT AND I THINK
IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE TRULY
LOOK AT THAT. THANK YOU. AND SO
THE OTHER THING I WANT TO BRING
UP, IS IT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT
THE SCHEME OF OR THIS SCHEME OF
HOW WE DO OUR SENTENCING, AND
THEN WE TURN IT TO THE VICTIMS
AND GETTING THEM. THE HELP THAT
THEY NEED AND I DON'T I DON'T
THINK THAT'S WHAT THIS BILL IS
TALKING ABOUT. WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT THE OFFENDER ITSELF. SO
THAT'S THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO
LOOK AT HERE, AND ALSO SOMETHING
THAT WAS BROUGHT UP WAS WE'RE
SAVING HER. IT COSTS $106,000 A
YEAR, I BELIEVE IS WHAT YOU SAID
AS FAR AS INCARCERATING
SOMEBODY. AND THEN LATER ON, YOU
TALKED ABOUT HOW WE NEED TO FIND
WAYS TO USE THAT MONEY TO
BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY AND THE
VICTIMS. WELL, I THINK 106,000
YEAR IS BENEFITING THE COMMUNITY
AND THE VICTIM BY HAVING THEM
PUT AWAY I WAS A CRIMES AGAINST
CHILDREN AS DETECTIVE, AS I'VE
MENTIONED MANY TIMES BEFORE AND
SEEING THESE KINDS OF CRIMES AND
SEEING THAT, AS YOU BROUGHT UP
IN THIS BILL, AND THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL UP THAT THAT
WE DON'T VALUE OUR OUR CHILDREN
OR DISABLED CHILDREN AS MUCH AS
WE SAY WE DO OTHERWISE, WE WOULD
BE RAISING THE MINIMUM ON THIS
AND IT SICKENS ME THAT YOU
BROUGHT UP THE POINT THAT
STEALING A CAR. GETS MORE OF A
PENALTY THAN IT DOES TAKING
ADVANTAGE OF OUR DISABLED AND BY
RAPING THEM AS WELL. SO I WILL
DEFINITELY BE AN EYE ON THIS
ONE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YES,
MR TIGER. UM. FIRST OF ALL, IT'S
A MOTHER. I COMPLETELY
APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE BRINGING
FORWARD TODAY. I AGREE THAT THIS
KIND OF CRIME IS EVIL. UM BUT I
DO HAVE A QUESTION YOU MENTIONED
, UM CHILDREN WITH DISABILITY
AND THE IMMIGRANT COMMUNITY.
HAVE YOU MET WITH THE IMMIGRANT
COMMUNITIES IN YOUR DISTRICT AND
WHAT IS THEIR POSITION ON THIS
BILL? MA'AM I SUPPORT IMMIGRANT
COMMUNITIES. I ACTUALLY SPENT
QUITE A BIT OF TIME. MY DISTRICT
IS A VOTER RIGHTS ACTION SEAT
THAT I WON BY 63.2. UM. WHERE I
GREW UP. I WAS DAVON MATIAS FROM
INSIDE POROS. THE IMMIGRANT
COMMUNITY OF MY FRIENDS, MY
NEIGHBORS. MY FAMILY. I KNOW
THEM WELL, AND THEY SUPPORT
THIS. THERE. SICK AND TIRED. OF
BEING PREYED UPON. AND OUR LAWS
NOT BEING ENOUGH TO DO JUSTICE.
INTERESTING BECAUSE I DID JUST
MEET WITH A GROUP OF IMMIGRANTS.
THEY'RE LIVING YOUR DISTRICT WHO
ARE LIVING IN FEAR OF BEING, UH
UH, KICKED OUT OF THEIR HOMES.
AND MENTIONED TO ME THAT THEY
ATTEMPTED TO MEET WITH YOUR
OFFICE SEVERAL TIMES. BUT WE'RE
NEIGHBOR NEVER ABLE TO EVEN
SPEAK TO YOU. WELL IN GROUPS ALL
OVER TALKING I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR MY ABILITY TO ASK YOU
QUESTIONS. OKAY FOR YOU TO GIVE
ME THE RESPECT AND RESPONSE. SO
I WASN'T FINISHED. I MET WITH
THEM. AND THEY LIVE IN FEAR
EVERY DAY. SO IF WE WANT TO
ADDRESS EVIL, I JUST WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE MEETING
WITH THOSE COMMUNITIES THAT CAME
TO ME. THESE CHILDREN CAME TO ME
AND SPOKE ABOUT LIVING IN FEAR
AND NOT BEING ABLE TO MEET WITH
THEIR REPRESENTATIVES. SO I'M
HOPING THAT MOVING FORWARD YOU
WILL BE HAVING THESE
CONVERSATIONS. I'M HAPPY TO
SHARE WHO THE GROUP IS AND HAPPY
TO BE PART OF THAT CONVERSATION
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MOVE
FORWARD. ABSOLUTELY AND, UH, IN
RESPONSE TO THAT. UH UM. IT'S A
COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TOPIC
MEMBERS. UM CONVERSATIONS ABOUT
HOUSING? NO MR CHAIR, PLEASE, TO
BE ACCUSED OF NOT TALKING TO MY
CONSTITUENTS ON A HOUSING ISSUE
VERSUS A RAPE ISSUE ARE
COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. THEY DON'T
APPRECIATE THAT. OKAY? ANY
OTHER. COMMON. YOU MAY CLOSE.
THANK YOU. MR CHAIR. UM YOU
KNOW, IT'S BROUGHT UP ABOUT THE
THESE STUDIES. AND A LITTLE
HOOVER INSTITUTE STUDY WAS
BROUGHT UP, BUT I THINK AGAIN.
THE VERNON INSTITUTE STUDY.
ABOUT DISABLED CHILDREN. THIS
SHOWS A 4.6 TIMES THAT THESE
CHILDREN ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE
SEXUALLY ABUSED THAN THEIR
PEERS. THAT THE STUDY'S TITLED
HOW SAFE ARE AMERICANS WITH
DISABILITIES. THIS IS A STUDY.
WE SHOULD BE PAYING ATTENTION TO
MORE THAN A LITTLE HOOVER
INSTITUTE STUDY. ANOTHER STUDY
AND WHAT THIS BILL GETS TO AS I
MENTIONED IN 0.3. THERE'S
EVIDENCE THAT INCREASED
SENTENCES FOR RAPE AND SEXUAL
ASSAULT CAN DETOUR CRIME. AND
THIS IS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE. OFFICE OF JUSTICE
PROGRAMS LIBRARY. AND AGAIN IT
STATES MEMBERS. THE DETERRENT
EFFECT OF LONGER SENTENCES. IS
THE STRONGEST FOR RAPE AND
ASSAULT. EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT
CRIMINALS RESPOND TO INCENTIVES
AND STRONGER SANCTIONS. TO THE
ROUTER CRIME. NOW THIS IS FROM
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
VERSUS A LITTLE HOOVER INSTITUTE
STUDY. THE FACT IS, IT IS A
DETERRENT. WE'RE GONNA TALK
ABOUT CONVERSATION ABOUT SAVING
MONEY. IN BETTERING OUR
COMMUNITIES. THIS IS A DETERRENT
MEMBERS. THIS IS HOW WE GET
THESE HEINOUS PEOPLE. TO CURVE
THEIR BEHAVIOR. WITH THAT, MR
CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU. WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT THE RAPE. OF
CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES
MEMBERS. THERE ARE A FEW MORE
HEINOUS CRIMES. WE KNOW WE MUST
DO SOMETHING TO PROTECT THEM. I
PUT FORTH A BILL THAT IS
SUPPORTED BY A REGIONAL CENTERS.
WHO SUPPORT OUR CHILDREN WITH
DISABILITIES. CRIME VICTIMS,
GROUPS, LAW ENFORCEMENT AND
PROSECUTORS WHO DEAL WITH THESE
CASES EVERY SINGLE DAY. THIS
BILL IS SUPPORTED BY THE DATA
AND RESEARCH. IT FURTHERS
EQUITY. SURE SAFETY FOR OUR MOST
MARGINALIZED. AND VULNERABLE.
CHILDREN. CHILDREN WITH
DISABILITIES. MEMBERS I ASK THAT
YOU PROTECT DISABLED CHILDREN.
WHO ARE THE VICTIMS OF RAPE? AND
I ASKED YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND
YOUR I VOTE. THANK YOU. MOTION.
EXACTLY. SO I'M A. I'M GONNA TRY
THIS ONE MORE TIME. WE'RE ONLY
IN OUR SECOND ONE. BUT TRY. I
WOULDN'T TAKE THIS DOWN AND YOUR
OUTRAGE. AT THIS CRIME IS
JUSTIFIED. YOU KNOW THAT? AND,
UM. EVEN THE DEFENDANT. THE
DISABILITY RIGHTS HAVE PUSHED
FOR REPORTING AND INVESTIGATION.
AS WELL AS PREVENTION PROGRAM
DIRECTOR AT THE ROOT CAUSES OF
THESE OFFENSIVE SO I BELIEVE
WE'RE ON BOARD. WITH GETTING TO
THE ROOT CAUSES OF THIS SO WE
CAN STOP IT. I CAN ALMOST
GUARANTEE NOBODY ON THIS
COMMITTEE DISAGREES WITH YOU
THAT THESE ARE HEINOUS ACTS. UM
PROBABLY ON PAR, EVEN WITH
ELDERLY ABUSE OF PEOPLE WHO
COGNITIVELY MAY NOT KNOW WHAT
THEY'RE DOING. I THINK THERE'S A
THERE'S A AND THERE'S A
PHILOSOPHICAL DISAGREEMENT. ON
HOW WE MOVE FORWARD. I WOULD
LIKE I THINK WE CAN. I THINK WE
GET TO SOMETHING. I THINK WE CAN
GET THERE. BUT FIRST I PROBABLY
NEED TO GET ALL SIDES TO KIND OF
TAKE IT DOWN SO WE CAN LOOK AT
THIS OBJECTIVELY. AND COME UP
WITH SOME SOLUTIONS THAT WILL
ULTIMATELY HELP THE DISABLED.
COMMUNITY AS SOMEONE WHO HAS A
RELATIVE WHO'S PHYSICALLY
CHALLENGED. I KNOW THEIR
CHALLENGES. AND I KNOW HOW THIS
SOCIETY TREATS THEM AND IT'S
DIFFICULT. AND SO WE NEED TO
PROVIDE THEM ALL THE
PROTECTIONS. AND THAT WE CAN TO
MAKE SURE THAT, UM THAT THIS
DOESN'T. HAPPENED OVER AND OVER
AGAIN, LIKE TO SEE SOME STUDIES.
BUT MOST IMPORTANT. WHEN WE TALK
ABOUT STUDIES, THERE'S A
DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT
JUDGES. OR GETTING THREE YEARS
VERSUS LIFE WITHOUT POSSIBILITY
OF PAROLE. I WOULD LIKE TO GET
THAT KIND OF DATA FOR ME. JUST
SO THAT WE CAN MAKE AN INFORMED
DECISION. AND, UH, JUDGES ARE.
ACTUALLY GOING AFTER THESE
CRIMINALS. HEINOUS CRIMINALS.
EFFECTIVE WAY BECAUSE I THINK
THAT'S PART OF DISCUSSION. ARE
THE LAWS ON THE BOOKS ALREADY?
THAT'S HANDLING IT. THAT'S TAKEN
CARE OF IT, AND THAT'S AND SO
THAT'S WHERE WE I THINK THAT'S
WHERE THE LINE OF DISAGREEMENT
YES, AND I CAN SEE WHAT THE D A
S OFFICE. UM YES. SO I THINK
WHAT I WILL OFFER IF IT DOESN'T
MAKE IT OUT OF THIS COMMITTEE.
THAT I WILL WORK WITH YOU. I
WILL WORK WITH YOU. I WOULD WORK
WITH THE DISABILITY RIGHTS
COMMUNITY. AND EVEN WORK WITH
THE OPPOSITION. SO THAT WE CAN
DO WHATEVER WE CAN. TO END
DISCOURAGE ON ON ON CALIFORNIA.
IT'S NOT. AND ONE SEGMENT OF
POPULATION. IT IS A SCOURGE FOR
ALL OF US PERIOD. UH THAT WOULD
DO SOMETHING. WE DO SOMETHING
QUICKLY. UM SO WITH THAT, LET'S
TAKE A VOTE. ON A B 808 BY SOME
REMEMBER MATHIS. THE MOTION IS
DUE PASSED THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE JOHN SAWYER, SO YOU'RE
NOT VOTING COLONIES COLONIES I
WANT TO KNOW TO KNOW JACKSON,
BLACKIE. BLACKIE. I ORTEGA OR
TAKEN, NOT VOTING. SANTIAGO
ZILBER. THAT BUILDS ON A CALL.
UM, SOON AS WE GET IT. FOR
EQUITY MEMBERS. UM YOU DON'T
THINK I WOULD ADD? IF IT DOESN'T
MAKE IT OUT OF THIS COMMITTEE.
ARE YOU ASKING FOR
RECONSIDERATION? ABSOLUTELY MR
CHAIR AND I'LL LEAVE THIS STUDY
HERE FOR YOU. AND THEN HOPEFULLY
, WITH THE MEMBERS HERE, THE
MEMBERS COMING IN UM, I CAN TAKE
IT BY OPERATIONS. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIRMAN MEMBERS. THANK YOU.
YEAH. UH HUH. OKAY? AH! DIXON.
OH, MR PATTERSON, ARE YOU IN
HERE? I'M SORRY. OH, DO YOU I
APOLOGIZE, MISS DIXON, MR
PATTERSON. WHAT'S UP NEXT, MR
PATTERSON? 12 AND 60 ITEM NUMBER
17. THANK YOU FOR THAT. I WOKE
UP VERY FAR. WE GET WITH THIS
ONE. HEY ONLY ABOUT 45 MINUTES.
I DID WAKE UP VERY EARLY TO GET
HERE. GO BEFORE LUNCHTIME TODAY
. UM GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. A B 12 60 WILL REQUIRE
ADVANCED NOTIFICATION TO LOCAL
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OF THE CREDIT
CALCULATIONS PRIOR TO THE REAL
RELEASE OF INMATES FROM PRISON.
THE BILL WOULD ALSO REQUIRE THE
NOTIFICATIONS INCLUDE VARIOUS
OTHER COMPONENTS, SUCH AS THE
LENGTH OF THE SENTENCES. I
RECENTLY LISTENED TO YOUR
HEARING ON A SIMILAR BILL BY MY
GOOD FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S DIXON AND I
MADE CHANGES TO MY BILL DUE TO
YOUR COMMENTS ON HER
LEGISLATION. THIS BILL DOES NOT
MAKE CREDIT CALCULATIONS OF
PUBLIC RECORD RECORD. IT SIMPLY
PROVIDES THAT INFO TO DÍAS AND
LAW ENFORCEMENT. PROPOSITION 57
INMATES CAN EARN CREDITS FOR
GOOD CONDUCT EDUCATION AND
REHABILITATION PROGRAMS
DETERMINED BY CDCR. BUT THESE
CALCULATIONS ARE UNKNOWN AND ARE
DONE WITHOUT ANY OVERSIGHT AT
ALL. IN OTHER WORDS, HOW CAN WE
BE SURE THAT AN INMATE IS
SERVING THE PROPER LENGTH OF
TIME, AND THIS INCLUDES
POTENTIALLY SERVING TOO MUCH
TIME WITHOUT ANY THIRD PARTY
VERIFICATION WHATSOEVER? IN MORE
THAN ONE OCCASION, DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS HAVE TOLD ME THAT THEY
HAVE BEEN SURPRISED BY THE
RELEASE OF CERTAIN INMATES HAVE
BEEN UNINFORMED OF THOSE
RELEASES AND THE FORMER INMATE
HAS GONE TO RECEIPT OF EIGHT AND
OFTEN, UH WELL, NOT OFTEN ON
OCCASION, HEINOUS CRIMES. A B 12
60 IS SIMPLY A TRANSPARENCY
MEASURE. IT DOES NOT ADD ON A
SINGLE DAY TO PRISON SENTENCE.
IT DOES NOT PREVENT CDCR FROM
AWARDING ANY CREDITS, AND IT
DEFINITELY DOES NOT CIRCUMVENT
PROPOSITION 57 I HAVE WITH ME,
PLUS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
MORGEN GAYER AND MY GOOD FRIEND
BOOMER BENNETT. YES WHENEVER
YOU'RE READY. GOOD MORNING. NICE
TO SEE YOU, MR. CHAIR FELLOW
MEMBERS, MORGEN GUY OR PLASTER
COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY. THERE
HAS LONG BEEN A DISCONNECT
BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT
SOMEONE IS SENTENCED TO IN COURT
AND THE AMOUNT OF TIME THEY
ACTUALLY SERVE. MOST OF THAT IS
GUIDED BY STATUTE, WITH THE
CREDIT AWARDING AUTHORITY
GRANTED TO CDCR BY PROP 57. WE
HAVE AN ADDITIONAL MYSTERIOUS
WAY THAT INMATES ARE AWARDED
CREDITS. UNLIKE THE NONVIOLENT
PAROLE SYSTEM, WHERE WE ARE
AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE
HOW AN INMATE HAS BEEN ABLE TO
ACHIEVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR
PAROLE UNDER THE CREDIT AWARDING
SYSTEM, THEY ARE GRANTED
SOMEWHAT IN THE DARK. THEIR
MINIMUM ELIGIBLE PAROLE DATE IS
CHANGED, AND INMATES ARE
RELEASED WITHOUT THE VICTIMS
BEING NOTIFIED WITHOUT THE D A S
OFFICE BEING NOTIFIED AND REALLY
US FINDING OUT LATER.
UNFORTUNATELY IN THOSE OCCASIONS
WHEN THEY DO RECIPROCATE THAT
SOMEONE WAS RELEASED EARLY,
THESE ARE RELEASES THAT ARE
CONSIDERED FULL TERM RELEASES
BASED ON THE AWARDING OF
CREDITS. IT'S MYSTERIOUS. IT'S
NOT TRANSPARENT. THERE IS A NEED
FOR THAT, BY CDCR VICTIMS SHOULD
BE ENTITLED AND IN THE SPIRIT OF
ARTICLE ONE SECTION 28 OF THE
CONSTITUTION. THEY'RE ENTITLED
TO HAVE SOME OF THAT
TRANSPARENCY AND THAT NOTICE SO
THERE ARE TWO PROBLEMS. THE
AWARDING OF CREDITS. WE DON'T
KNOW HOW AND WHY THOSE CREDITS
ARE AWARDED. WE DO NOT WANT TO
DISINCENTIVIZE PROGRAMMING AND
REHABILITATIVE MEASURES. WE WANT
THOSE TO OCCUR, BUT VICTIMS AND
FRANKLY, THE COMMUNITY NEED TO
KNOW WHAT THOSE BENCHMARKS ARE.
HOW AND WHY ARE PEOPLE ACHIEVING
THOSE CREDITS? AND TWO WHEN THAT
MINIMUM ELIGIBLE PAROLE DATE IS
ADVANCED, AND SOMEONE IS BEING
RELEASED SIGNIFICANTLY EARLIER
THAN WHAT THEIR SENTENCE WAS.
THERE NEEDS TO BE NOTIFICATION
AND A B 12 60 PROVIDES FOR CDCR
TO MAKE THAT NOTIFICATION TO THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICES SO
THAT WE CAN THEN PREPARE THE
VICTIMS AND SURVIVORS AND NEXT
OF KIN FOR THAT ULTIMATE RELEASE
SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE
SITUATION THAT LITERALLY GAVE
RISE TO MARCIE'S LAW, WHERE
FAMILY MEMBERS SEE AN OFFENDER
IN THE GROCERY STORE OR
SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO THIS
MEASURE SEEKS TO PROVIDE THAT
TRANSPARENCY WITHOUT
DISINCENTIVIZE NG? UH THE
REHABILITATIVE EFFORTS AS WELL
AS PROVIDING MUCH NEEDED NOTICE
SO THAT WE AREN'T SURPRISED. OUR
COMMUNITY ISN'T SURPRISED AND
CDCR. IS TRANSPARENT IN THE WAY
THEY AWARD THESE CREDITS, SO
WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO
BOOMER AND RESPECTFULLY ASKED
FOR AN I VOTE ON A B 12, 60.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ARE YOU
DOING SAWYER? BOOMER BENNETT?
PLASTER COUNTY. UM, I WANNA
FIRST SAY YOU GUYS HAVE, UH
TREMENDOUS JOB, AND I WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT I WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT I'M A RESOURCE TO NOT
ONLY MY BIG BROTHER HERE IN HIM,
BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M A
RESOURCE TO ALL YOU GUYS. I HAVE
A PARTICULAR SKILL SET IN
HISTORY IN THIS, UM BACKGROUND,
SO I WANT TO ADJUST THE
FRAMEWORK OF BIT AND GO TO THE
VICTIM MEAN TO THE INDIVIDUAL
WHO WAS BEING RELEASED FROM
PRISON. I WAS RELEASED FROM
PRISON A COUPLE OF TIMES. AND IF
MY VICTIM, THE PERSON WHO I
VICTIMIZED IF THEY AREN'T AWARE
THAT I'M COMING HOME EARLY, THEN
THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME
THEIR FAMILIES THEMSELVES OR THE
PEOPLE GROUP OF THEY'RE PART OF
WHERE THEY ARE. GANG MEMBER OR
NOT, THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME
TO PROCESS ME COMING HOME.
THERE'S UM YOU HAVE THEY GOT TO
MAKE A MENTAL ADJUSTMENT.
THERE'S FEARS THEIR EMOTIONS.
THERE'S OUTRAGE. THEY HAVE TO BE
ABLE TO PROCESS THAT BEFORE I
COME HOME. REASON BEING IS IF I
COME HOME, I CAME HOME TWO YEARS
EARLY FROM PRISON. THE VICTIM
DIDN'T KNOW I CAME HOME TWO
YEARS EARLIER FROM PRISON, SO
THEY SEE ME AT THE BOWLING ALLEY
AND BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T MADE
AWARE THAT I WAS COMING HOME,
THEY DIDN'T GET THE PROCESS ME
COMING HOME EARLY. THEIR FAMILY
WANTED TO TAKE A VIOLENT ACTION
AGAINST ME. NOW THE PERSON WHO
WAS RELEASED EARLY, NOT BECAUSE
I WANTED TO BE RELEASED EARLY
JUST BECAUSE THE LAWS MADE IT SO
NOW I BECAME VICTIM. WHICH IS
THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF WHAT
WE'RE ACTUALLY TRYING TO DO SO
FROM A PERSON IN FROM AN
INDIVIDUAL PERSPECTIVE, WHO
WANTS TO COME HOME? I WANT TO
MAKE SURE WHEN I COME HOME,
THERE'S AN ENVIRONMENT THAT
HARBORS MY SUCCESS AS OPPOSED TO
ME COMING HOME TO INDIVIDUALS
WHO WERE SURPRISED THAT I CAME
HOME AND THE PERSON WHO WAS
VICTIMIZED, WHETHER IT'S THE
INDIVIDUAL MAN OR A WOMAN WHERE
THERE'S THEIR FATHER, BROTHERS
OR COUSINS OR HIS BROTHER, THE
GANG THAT THEY ARE PART OF
BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO
PROCESS ME COMING HOME. THEY NOW
HAVE TO MAKE, UM NEED YOUR
DECISIONS BASED IN FEAR AND
FRUSTRATION THAT I CAME HOME
EARLY. SO GIVING THEM A HEADS UP
TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY GO TO
THAT BRIGHT MENTAL PROCESS IS
ALL THAT I'M ASKING FOR SO
INDIVIDUALS WHO DO COME HOME
EARLY THAT WE COME HOME INTO AN
ENVIRONMENT THAT HARBORS ARE
SAFETY AND AT HARVARD'S MY
SUCCESS BECAUSE WHAT'S GOING TO
HAPPEN IS IF I'M VICTIMIZED FOR
COMING HOME EARLY, THEN GUESS
WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN. I'M A I'M A
BE, UM, I'M A COMMIT A CRIME.
AND NOW I GOTTA GO BACK TO JAIL.
YOU SHOULD. YOU SHOULD HAVE JUST
KEPT ME FOR THE TWO YEARS THAT I
WAS GOING TO DO. INSTEAD OF
BRINGING ME HOME TO AN
ENVIRONMENT THAT WAS NEGATIVE.
NOW I CAUGHT ANOTHER CASE. OR
NOW I HAVE TO LEAVE THE TOWN
THAT I PAROLED IN BECAUSE. THE
INDIVIDUALS WHO I CAME HOME TO
THE CITY. I CAME HOME TO ONE OF
THE HARBOR ME. I MEAN, ONE OF
THE COMMIT HARM AGAINST ME. NOW
I HAVE TO DITCH TOWN WHICH I MAY
HAVE TO DESPEREAUX WORN OUT FOR
MY ARREST, SO ON AND SO FORTH.
OKAY. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY
OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT? MR
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. COREY SELLS
IT ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
STATE SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION AND
SUPPORT KIM STONE STONE ADVOCACY
ON BEHALF OF HALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT.
STEPHANIE HERRERA ON BEHALF OF
THE E IN OUR PROJECT AND THE BTS
COMMISSION IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU
ARE THERE ANY WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION?
GOOD MORNING CHAIR MEMBERS,
DANICA RIGHT ARM ON BEHALF OF
INITIATE JUSTICE. I WILL KEEP IT
SIMPLE AND SHORT AND JUST SAY A
B 12 60 IS NOT NECESSARY. I'M
NOT GONNA SPEND A LOT OF TIME
GOING THROUGH A CITY STARS.
CREDIT CALCULATIONS WORK BECAUSE
IT'S REALLY COVERED IN THE
ANALYSIS AND CDCR S WEBSITE
PROVIDES PLENTY OF INFORMATION
ABOUT THAT AND HELPFUL FACTS
SECTION. ALSO TODAY, A LOT OF
THE CONVERSATION CENTERED ON
VICTIMS, SURVIVORS AND THEIR
NEED FOR NOTIFICATION THAT
ALREADY EXISTS. THEY NEED TO BE
BETTER EDUCATED BY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS AND OTHERS ABOUT THE
SERVICES CURRENTLY OFFERED
THROUGH CDCR S O V SRS. THEY CAN
SIGN UP FOR NOTIFICATIONS AND BE
NOTIFIED ABOUT THE RELEASE OF
PEOPLE FROM PRISON ALREADY, UM
IT'S YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE SAME
KIND OF BILL AND CONVERSATION WE
KEEP HAVING AROUND PROP 57 CDCR
S AUTHORITY TO DO CREDIT EARNING
AND YES, IT IS COMPLICATED, BUT
IT'S NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO
UNDERSTAND AND THE RESOURCES TO
DO SO ARE AVAILABLE. UM I THINK
I WILL JUST KEEP IT AT THAT. WE
SHOULD BE ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO
BE DOING PROGRAMMING AND
AWARDING THEM CREDITS
ACCORDINGLY. THANK YOU. OKAY ANY
OTHER WITNESSES NOT POSITION.
MARCO GEORGIA ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION. WE APPRECIATE THE
AMENDMENTS WERE STILL OPPOSED AT
THIS TIME. THANK YOU. NO. BRING
IT BACK TO COMMITTEE MEMBER FOR
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. YEP.
I'M JUST CURIOUS RIGHT NOW, WITH
THE OPPOSITION'S POINT, UH, 30.
ARE YOU GUYS ABLE TO SIGN UP FOR
THAT WHAT SHE'S TALKING ABOUT?
SO WHEN INMATES ARE PAROLED,
THERE IS A NOTIFICATION
PROCEDURE FOR VICTIMS TO BE
NOTIFIED WITH THE CREDIT
AWARDING PROVISIONS WITH THE
AUTHORITY OF CDCR. THEY CAN
AWARD CREDITS THAT ADVANCE A
PAROLE DATE TO MAKE THE
INFORMATION. EXCUSE ME THE
RELEASE DATE THAT MAKES THE
INFORMATION ON THE WEBSITE
INACCURATE. UM IT ALSO PUTS A
BURDEN ON THE VICTIMS AND NEXT
OF KIN TO HAVE TO RANDOMLY CHECK
THE WEBSITE TO SEE WHETHER OR
NOT THE RELEASE DATE HAS CHANGED
FOR A PARTICULAR INMATE. SO I
AGREED THERE IS AN ATTEMPT AT
CDCR S WEBSITE TO TRY AND
PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION. IT'S
NOT EFFECTIVE. IT'S NOT USER
FRIENDLY, AND IT DOESN'T
ACCOMPLISH THE GOAL THAT WE'RE
SEEKING TO ACCOMPLISH TODAY,
WHICH IS SPECIFICALLY WITH
REGARD TO THE CREDIT PROVISION,
AND NOT THE PAROLE PROCESS. THE
PAROLE PROCESS IS VERY DIFFERENT
. THIS BILL SEEKS TO BRING THOSE
SORT OF TOGETHER IN HARMONY FOR
AN ADEQUATE NOTIFICATION
PROCESS. THANK YOU. I ALSO KIND
OF SEE THIS BILL, AS UH, AS
WE'VE HAD OTHER BILLS PRESENTED
AND WILL BE PRESENTED TODAY
WHERE WE HAVE OTHER AGENCIES
THAT WILL BE GETTING REPORTED TO
KIND OF KEEP THAT IN CHECK. AS
FAR AS THE BALANCE GOES, SO I
KIND OF SEE THIS BILL. ALSO
BEING THAT AND THANK YOU, SIR.
FOR COMING HERE AND TESTIFYING
AND BEING THE PERSON YOU ARE
TODAY. THANK YOU. ÁP SO THIS
BILL AS I READ THROUGH THE
ACTUAL LANGUAGE, AND THE
ANALYSIS DOESN'T PROHIBIT LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS FROM JUST
CLOSING INFORMATION RECEIVED
FROM CDCR. SO WHILE IT SOUNDS
LIKE YOU ATTEMPTED TO MAKE A
DIFFERENCE, A CHANGE IN THE
LANGUAGE BASED ON UH, WHAT YOU
HEARD IN TERMS OF THE
CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD
REGARDING AN EARLIER BILL. BY
LIMITING AS YOU SAID TO LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS, IT ACTUALLY DOESN'T
SPEAK AT ALL TO WHETHER OR NOT
UH, DISTRICT ATTORNEYS AND LAW
ENFORCEMENT ARE PROHIBITED FROM
PROVIDING THAT INFORMATION TO
THE PUBLIC. WELL WE ARE. YOU
KNOW, I READ THE ANALYSIS AS
WELL. WHICH WE'RE HAPPY TO, YOU
KNOW, CONSIDER SUGGESTIONS ON
THAT. THE ONE THING IS THAT YOU
KNOW, THERE ARE VARIOUS
GOVERNMENT CODES THAT MAKE
THINGS NOT A PUBLIC RECORD. I
WAS LOOKING AT THE PUBLIC
RECORDS ACT, UM IN IN RESPONSE
TO THE ANALYSIS, AND ONE OF THEM
IS THROUGH THE INVESTIGATIONS OR
WHERE THE INFORMATION BECAUSE I
KNOW THERE WAS CONCERNS IN THE
LAST ANALYSIS OF THERE ARE SOME
EXTRAORDINARY CREDITS THAT ARE
AWARDED, UM SOMETIMES AND FOR
THE PROTECTION OF THE INMATE.
YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW WHY THOSE
WERE AWARDED AND SO I TOOK THAT
INTO CONSIDERATION, AND THERE
ARE WHEN THE PRIVACY OF AN
INDIVIDUAL IS, UH, IS
OVERWHELMING TO PROTECT THEM AND
MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE NOT IN
ANY HARM. THEN IT IS EXEMPT FROM
THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT. BUT.
BROAD SWEEPING THE CATEGORY OF
CREDIT IS STILL SOMETHING THAT
WOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE TO
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS AND LAW
ENFORCEMENTS AND BROAD SWEEPING
THAT INFORMATION WOULD BE
ELIGIBLE FOR SHARING. WITH WITH
WHOEVER AT THE DISCRETION OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS. I THINK YOU KNOW.
RIGHT NOW. DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
ARE GIVEN A LOT OF DISK. THEY
HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION THAT,
UM YOU KNOW IS PART OF
INVESTIGATIONS OR PART OF JUST
TRIALS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
THAT AREN'T PUBLIC RECORD. AND
FOR THE REASONS THAT I JUST
DESCRIBED, UM IN IN TERMS OF THE
OVERWHELMING REASON TO KEEP
INFORMATION TO THEMSELVES. UM
THEY DON'T DISCLOSE IT. I MEAN,
THEY ALREADY HAVE ACCESS TO A
LOT OF THIS INFORMATION. BUT
WE'RE TALKING POST CONVICTION
POST SERVING SENTENCE. UH AND
WHERE? ESSENTIALLY SAYING THAT.
WE HAVE AN ABILITY WITH THIS
LEGISLATION, AS YOU DESCRIBED
IT, TO BE ABLE TO ALLOW FOR
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS AND LAW
ENFORCEMENT TO PROVIDE THAT
INFORMATION, WHICH BY THE WAY
WOULD STILL PUT AT RISK THE
SAFETY AND IDENTITY AND THE WORK
THAT PERSON WHO WAS INCARCERATED
WHILE THEY'RE INSIDE IS DOING
AND FOR THAT REASON I REALLY
DON'T SEE ANY DISTINCTION
BETWEEN THIS LEGISLATION AND THE
PRIOR LEGISLATION. OFFERED BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S DIXON. AND FOR
THAT REASON, I WILL BE VOTING.
NO THANK YOU ANYMORE. ANYONE
ELSE IN THE COMMENTS YOU MAKE
CLOSE, MR PATTERSON. WELL THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. YOU KNOW, I
WANTED TO THANK BOOMER FOR HIS
PERSPECTIVE. ACTUALLY, I HADN'T
, UM, CONSIDERED THAT AND YOU
KNOW, I AM CONCERNED ABOUT HIS
ABILITY AND PEOPLE THAT ARE
BEING RELEASED THERE. I WANT
THEM TO BE SUCCESSFUL. I'VE HAD
THESE CONVERSATIONS AND OTHER
COMMITTEES AND HOUSING AND
THINGS LIKE THAT. I WANT PEOPLE
THAT ARE WE ALL HAVE AN INTEREST
IN MAKING SURE WHEN PEOPLE ARE
RELEASED FROM PRISON THAT THEY
ARE SUCCESSFUL, UM AND CAN GET
ON WITH THEIR LIVES AS WELL. AND
UM, I ACTUALLY, UH, I DO
DISAGREE WITH THE OPPONENT OF
THE MEASURE THAT VICTIMS ARE
NOTIFIED. UM AS THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY SAID, YOU KNOW, THAT
DOESN'T ALWAYS HAPPEN. BUT IN
ADDITION, I MEAN, WE ACTUALLY
THIS. THERE WAS AN INSTANCE IN
PLASTER COUNTY. UM, WHERE THIS
HAS TO BECOME A SYSTEMIC THING
OF CDCR TO BE MAKING
NOTIFICATIONS ARE DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS. THERE WAS A CASE IN
PLASTIC COUNTY. WHERE ACTUALLY,
I THINK OUR DISTRICT ATTORNEY
DIDN'T RECEIVE INFORMATION FOR
SIX MONTHS UNTIL THIS
LEGISLATION WAS INTRODUCED, UM
AND THIS INDIVIDUAL WENT OUT AND
ACTUALLY COMMITTED A HEINOUS
CRIME IN THE RESPONSE FROM CDCR
WAS OH, IT WAS HUMAN ERROR. WELL
HUMAN ERROR RESULTED IN A DEATH
AND YOU KNOW, SO ALL I'M NOT
TRYING TO CHANGE THE SENTENCES
OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. AND BY
THE WAY, I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO
WORK WITH THE COMMITTEE ON ON
PROVIDING THIS INFORMATION AND
ALSO SIMILAR MEMBER BONTA ON ON
SECURING THAT INFORMATION TO
MAKE SURE THAT THE INMATES ARE
ARE SAFE AS WELL. WE JUST WANT
TO BRING TRANSPARENCY. TO THE
PROCESS, AND I THINK IT DOES
NEED THAT CHECKS AND BALANCES
THAT CDCR. UM SO WE KNOW AND WE
CAN CREATE POLICIES AND WITH
THAT, I ASK FOR YOUR VOTE. IS
THERE A MOTION? PROMOTION. IS
THERE A SECOND?
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S LACK. HE LEFT
ME HANGING. DON'T SAY THAT,
PLEASE. LAST TIME THAT HAPPENED
, THAT PERSON NEVER CAME BACK. I
HOPE HE DOES. YAHOO UM WELL, LET
ME MAKE SOME COMMENTS. WE CAN
STALL FOR TIME. SO WHAT I WANT
TO THANK YOU. THE THIRD ONE UP
AND YOU YOU KEPT IT AT A NICE
PROFESSIONAL. WE'RE FRIENDS HERE
. CHILL AND I REALLY, REALLY DO
APPRECIATE THAT. AND MR LACKEY
SECONDS. OH CRAZY. THANK YOU.
YEAH. AH! SO THERE'S A COUPLE
THINGS. ONE, UM. I BELIEVE WE
DID OFFER SOME AMENDMENTS CAUSE
I THINK WE WERE IN AGREEMENT ON
SOME THINGS. FOR EXAMPLE, UM
CDCR HAS TO BE A LITTLE MORE
TRANSPARENT. ABOUT WHEN THEY
RELEASE INDIVIDUALS. UM I DO
BELIEVE THEY NEED TO BE MORE
TRANSPARENT ABOUT THE PROGRAMS
AND WHAT THEY DO AND HOW THEY
SERVE AND THEIR THEIR IMPACT. UM
WE DO AFTER ALSO, UM. SOUNDS
UNPROFESSIONAL, BUT YOU'RE NOT.
YOUR MAMA DIDN'T NAME YOU,
BOOMER. WHAT'S YOUR NAME,
MISTER? EXCUSE ME. WHAT'S YOUR
NAME? ERIK BOOMER BENNETT, ERIK
BOOMER BENNING, OK? MR BENNY? UM
. THERE'S A THERE'S A. COOK
THERE'S A TERM IN THE HOOD.
SNITCHES GET STITCHES. I KNOW.
OKAY. AND SO IF INMATES ARE
COOPERATING WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT
, ESPECIALLY, UM, PRISON GUARDS
TO MAKE IT SAFER. I DON'T WANT
THAT INFORMATION BECAUSE IT MAY
RESULT IN THEM GETTING CREDIT SO
THEY CAN GET OUT SO WE DON'T
WANT THEIR LIVES AT STAKE, OR OR
OR THE PLACE TO BECOME A PLACE
WHERE YOU CAN'T YOU CAN'T MANAGE
IT IN A SAFE AND SANITARY HUESO
. WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE SOME
SAFEGUARDS IN THAT PART OF THE
REASON WHY YOU DON'T WANNA DO
THAT. AND THERE IS A CONCERN
ABOUT IF YOU HAVE DRUG ABUSE,
MENTAL HEALTH. THAT YOU MAY NOT
WANT THE WORLD TO KNOW THAT, BUT
YOU DO NEED TO GO GET YOUR
MENTAL HEALTH AND THEN FOR
PEOPLE OF COLOR. TO SAY THAT
YOU'RE BIPOLAR. HAVE SOME KIND
OF MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEM. WE ARE
ADVERSE TO LETTING THE WORLD
KNOW THAT AND AS AND AGAIN AS
YOU KNOW, THEY'RE PROBABLY A LOT
OF PEOPLE ARE INCARCERATED. THAT
NEED THAT KIND OF COUNSELING AND
HELP AND SO WE DON'T WANT TO
DETER THAT. THAT'S THAT'S IT'S
MORE OF THAT THAN ANYTHING ELSE.
UM, MR PATTERSON. I THINK YOU'RE
YOU'RE ON THE RIGHT TRACK. YOU
DON'T HEAR THAT OFTEN FROM ME.
UM I JUST THINK IT COMES UP JUST
A LITTLE SHORT IN THAT WE COULD
BECAUSE I AM CURIOUS WHETHER OR
NOT THESE PROGRAMS WORK. AND
MAYBE IF IT DOESN'T MAKE OUT AS
COMMITTEE, MAYBE THE WAY WE CAN
WORK. TO SHOW THE EFFECTIVENESS
ON THESE PROGRAMS AND EVEN IF
THEY'RE LACKING SOMEWHERE, AND
I, THIS IS WHERE I WOULD NEED
YOUR HELP. UM TO HELP GUIDE US
ON WHAT TO LOOK FOR, AND
PROGRAMS THAT WORK AND DON'T
WORK. SO THAT WE CAN MAKE THEM
BETTER. NOT THAT WE ELIMINATED
AND I'M JUST GONNA BE A FRONT
THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ELIMINATE
PROP 47 OR 57, BUT THEY MAKE IT
BETTER AND MORE EFFECTIVE AND IN
FACT SO I THINK. AGAIN I THINK
YOU'RE ONTO SOMETHING. YOU'RE
ONTO SOMETHING THAT COULD REALLY
BE, UM HELPFUL FOR BOTH SIDES TO
THE MAY ALSO PROVE THAT THERE'S
SOME MAJOR GLITCHES THAT WE MADE
HAVE TO MAKE SOME CHANGES THEN
AND IN THE LAW AND WHAT WE'RE
DOING, BUT WE NEED TO LOOK AT
THOSE PROGRAMS AND SEE WHAT WHAT
REALLY WORKS AGAIN. I THINK THAT
WORKS FOR BOTH SIDES. AND SO IF
IT DOESN'T MAKE IT OUT OF THERE,
MAYBE WE CAN WORK ON SOMETHING
WHERE WE CAN ACTUALLY DIVE INTO
THE PROGRAM BECAUSE I ALSO I
HONESTLY BELIEVE CDCR HAS TO BE
MORE ACCOUNTABLE. AND ESPECIALLY
TRANSPARENT. THAT'S WHAT I'M
HEARING BLEEDING THROUGH. THE
TRANSPARENCY. PART IS NOT IT'S
NOT GOOD. EVEN WITH MY LAST WEEK
WITH MY AMENDMENTS, UM LOOK, MR
MR TING'S BILL, UM 64 TO THE
FIRST VERSION. UM, I WAS. I WAS
A NOTE. I WAS DEFINITELY NO, BUT
HE, UH HE TOOK SOME AMENDMENTS
FROM THIS COMMITTEE, WHICH GOT
ME TO A GOOD PLACE. I BELIEVE WE
GAVE YOU SOME AMENDMENTS. AND IT
DIDN'T WORK OUT. LET'S JUST SAY
THAT DIDN'T WORK OUT. AND SOME
OF IT INVOLVED GIVING NOTICE SIX
MONTHS AHEAD OF TIME, EVEN TO
VICTIMS AND THEIR FAMILIES, SO
THEY THEY HAVE THAT COMFORT
LEVEL SO IT DOESN'T MAKE IT OUT
OF HERE. I THINK WE'RE I THINK
WE'RE THINKING THE SAME THING.
JUST JUST NEED TO TALK ABOUT IT,
MAYBE A LITTLE BIT MORE. BUT
THAT COLORADO ON A B 12 60 BY
SOME MEMBER JOE PATTERSON. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASSED THROUGH THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE JOAN
SAWYER ELONIS. ELONIS AYE, BONTA
BLANTON. NO, JACKSON. LACKEY.
ORTEGA. OR TAKE A NOTE. SANTIAGO
ZIPPER. TEMPERATURES. THE
MEASURES ON CALL, AND I GUESS
YOU WANT THE SAME
RECONSIDERATION, PLEASE
AERATION. AND WITH NO WHEN THE
TIME COMES, OKAY ON THE TIME
COMES TRYING TO KEEP YOUR APRIL
GONE. I GUESS WE SHOULD HAVE A
ROLE IN THIS GROUP NOW. OH,
THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. MS
DIXON. I DON'T KNOW 15 82. I
MEAN, BILL NUMBER 15 82 ITEM
NUMBER 29.
GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING. GOOD
MORNING, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
I'M HERE TODAY TO PRESENT ON
ASSEMBLY BILL 15 82. MAYBE 15 82
WILL REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT THAT
A JUVENILE'S TRIGGERING OFFENSE
, QUALIFYING THEM TO BE
COMMITTED TO A SECURE YOUTH
TREATMENT FACILITY MUST BE THE
MOST RECENT OFFENSE FOR WHICH
THE JUVENILE HAS BEEN
ADJUDICATED. THE LAW WAS WRITTEN
LAW AS WRITTEN, INTERFERES WITH
THE USE OF REHABILITATION WHEN
THEY ARE ADJUDICATED OF
SUBSEQUENT NON QUALIFYING
OFFENSES. WE HAVE MADE IT A GOAL
IN CALIFORNIA TO REFORM THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM TO FOCUS
ON REHABILITATION. HOWEVER THAT
IS NOT THE CASE FOR JUVENILES.
JUDGES SHOULD HAVE PERSPECTIVE
OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHOLE RECORD
, NOT JUST THE LAST CRIME
COMMITTED A B 58 15 82 ALLOWS
JUDGES FLEXIBILITY IN THEIR
DISPOSITION TO TAYLOR. THE
OUTCOME TO BEST FIT THE NEED OF
THE JUVENILE TO HAVE THE HIGHEST
CHANCE. CHANCE OF BEING
SUCCESSFULLY REHABILITATED.
MAYBE 15 82 IS NEEDED TO GET TO
THE TRUE INTENT OF SB 8 23
FOSTERING POSITIVE YOUTH
DEVELOPMENT, PROMOTING PUBLIC
AND COMMUNITY SAFETY AND
OFFERING FAIR AND FLEXIBLE TERMS
OF COMMITMENT. MY PRIMARY EXPERT
WITNESS THIS MORNING TO SPEAK IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL IS JOE
KELLER, DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY. I GOT FIVE MINUTES.
THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU,
CHAIRMAN AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS JOE COLE AND I ME
ORANGE-COUNTY-REGISTER-TOO-SOON-COUNTY-VOTE-CENTERS
. ON BEHALF OF ORANGE COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY TODD SPITZER,
IN THIRD ENTHUSIASTICALLY
ENDORSED A B 15 82 AND ASK FOR
YOUR I VOTE. THE BILLS INTENDED
PURPOSE IS TO ELIMINATE A
NEEDLESS OBSTRUCTION TO YOUTH
WHO HAVE BEEN ADJUDGED WARDS
FROM GETTING THE APPROPRIATE
LEVEL OF SERVICES IN THE MOST
APPROPRIATE SETTING. THE WELFARE
AND INSTITUTIONS CODE MANDATE
THAT ALL PARTIES CONSIDERED THE
BEST INTERESTS OF A SYSTEM
INVOLVED YOUTH AND FACILITATE
THEIR REHABILITATION. HOWEVER,
AS WRITTEN THE WELFARE
INSTITUTIONS CODE CREATES AN
ILLOGICAL ROADBLOCK, NOT JUST
FOR SYSTEM INVOLVED YOUTH BUT
ALSO THE VICTIMS OF CRIME. AND I
VOTE REMOVING 8 75 82 FROM THE
CODE COMPORTS WITH THE INTENT OF
SB 8 23 AND THE JUVENILE JUSTICE
REALIGNMENT OF 2020. FAILURE TO
TAKE THIS ACTION WILL HAVE THE
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF
NEGATIVELY IMPACTING
CALIFORNIA'S YOUTH. IT WILL
PROMOTE NET WIDENING AND
JUVENILE TRANSFER MOTIONS. IT
WILL PREVENT MEANINGFUL AND
SUCCESSFUL REHABILITATION
EFFORTS IN OUR JUVENILE SYSTEM,
AND IT WILL NEGATIVELY IMPACT
VICTIMS. THE LAW IS WRITTEN
WHILE INTENDED TO PREVENT
COMMITMENTS TO THE SECURITY OF
TREATMENT FACILITIES, HAS TWO
MAJOR SENTENCING CONSEQUENCES.
IT INTERFERES WITH THE
ADJUDICATION OF UNSOLVED CRIMES
, AND IT DOES NOT ALLOW FOR THE
MEANINGFUL RESOLUTION OF CRIMES
COMMITTED WHILE A YOUTH IS
COMMITTED TO A SECURITY
TREATMENT FACILITY. THE
ADJUDICATION OF NEW CRIMES OR
OFFENSES, WHICH PREDATE THE
CURRENT COMMITMENT WILL RESULT
IN THE YOUTH BEING EXPELLED FROM
THE SECURITY OF TREATMENT
FACILITY AND THIS IS THE ONLY
PLACE ACCORDING TO DETERMINED
THAT IS SUITABLE FOR A YOUTH TO
RECEIVE THE REHABILITATION
SERVICES FROM OUR STATE. IT IS
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT AND I
VOTE DOES NOT INCREASE YOUTHS
CUSTODIAL COMMITMENTS. IT
PRESERVES THE REHABILITATION
SERVICES THEY'RE CURRENTLY
RECEIVING. A NO VOTE, ON THE
OTHER HAND, WILL INCREASE
TRANSFER MOTIONS TO ADULT COURT
FOR JUVENILES. IT WILL ALSO NOT
AFFORD VICTIMS SUFFICIENT DUE
PROCESS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION. ELIMINATING 8 75.
A TWO FROM THE WELFARE AND
INSTITUTIONS CODE WOULD REMEDY
THIS PROBLEM. IT WOULD AFFORD
VICTIMS THEIR DUE PROCESS AND
PRESERVE YOUTH SERVICES. IN
CONCLUSION IF APPROVED IN ITS
CURRENT FORM, A B 15 82 WOULD
FURTHER THE GOALS OF THE
JUVENILE REHABILITATION BY
MAINTAINING A YOUTH CONTINUITY
OF SERVICES. IT WILL REDUCE NET
WIDENING AND PRESERVE THE RIGHTS
OF VICTIMS. BUT I THINK
IMPORTANTLY TO THIS COMMITTEE,
IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE WHAT 15
82 WILL NOT DO. IT WILL NOT
INCREASE THE NUMBER OF YOUTH
COMMITTED TO SECURE YOUR
TREATMENT FACILITIES. IT WILL
NOT INCREASE THE LENGTH OF
COMMITMENTS. OF YOUTH SERVING
SENTENCES AT SECURITY OF
TREATMENT FACILITIES. IT WILL
NOT PROMOTE NET WIDENING AND IT
WILL NOT INCREASE TRANSFER
MOTIONS. IN MY OPINION, IT WILL
ACTUALLY REDUCE THEM. FOR THESE
REASONS.
ORANGE-COUNTY-REGISTER-TOO-SOON-COUNTY-VOTE-CENTERS
AND SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING CHAIR
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
DANIEL SANCHEZ ON BEHALF OF THE
CHIEF PROBATION OFFICERS OF
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT, AND JUST
BRIEFLY, WE SUPPORT THAT THIS
GENERAL DISCUSSION AROUND HOW WE
ADDRESS INSTANCES OF MULTIPLE
OFFENSES AND ADDRESSING
INSTANCES OF NAME AND
ORGANIZATION, PLEASE. THANK YOU.
CHAIR DANIEL SANCHEZ SEA PARK IN
SUPPORT. KIM STONE STONE
ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, AUDREY
RETIRED CHECK ON BEHALF OF THE
PLASTER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
AND SUPPORT THANK YOU. ANY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION. GOOD
MORNING CHAIR, VICE CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
BROOKE HARRIS. I'M THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE PACIFIC JUVENILE
DEFENDER CENTER. PRIOR TO THAT I
WAS THE DIRECTOR OF THE JUVENILE
JUSTICE CLINIC AT LOYOLA LAW
SCHOOL IN LOS ANGELES, AND I WAS
A PUBLIC DEFENDER IN CONTRA
COSTA COUNTY. TESTIFYING TODAY
IN OPPOSITION TO MAYBE 15 82,
WHICH IS BOTH UNNECESSARY AND
COUNTER TO RECENT AND ONGOING
JUVENILE JUSTICE REALIGNMENT
EFFORTS. FIRST SB 8 23 AND SP 92
DEMONSTRATED CALIFORNIA'S
COMMITMENT TO CHANGING THE
JUVENILE JUSTICE LANDSCAPE BY
CLOSING D. J. J AND TRUSTING OUR
COUNTIES TO SUPPORT YOUTH. THESE
BILLS WERE CRAFTED CAREFULLY AND
COLLABORATIVELY AND PASSED
THROUGH THIS VERY LEGISLATIVE
BODY WITH TWO CRITICAL GOALS IN
MIND. TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF
YOUTH IN LONG TERM DETENTION AND
TO KEEP YOUNG PEOPLE CLOSE TO
THEIR FAMILIES AND HOMES IN
THEIR COUNTIES FOR ULTIMATE
REENTRY BACK INTO THE COMMUNITY.
MAYBE 15 82 WOULD SERVE TO
UNDERMINE AND UNDO THESE VERY
GOALS BY INCREASING THE NUMBER
OF YOUNG PEOPLE ELIGIBLE FOR
LOCAL SECURE YOUTH TREATMENT
FACILITY COMMITMENTS. SECOND
THIS BILL IS UNNECESSARY BECAUSE
THERE'S A VERY SIMPLE SOLUTION
TO THE ISSUE OF WHETHER A YOUTH
IS ELIGIBLE FOR S Y T F THE
PROSECUTION ALWAYS HAS THE
ABILITY TO DISMISS AND
INTERVENING. NON 707 B PETITION
ORDER FOR YOUTH TO BE ELIGIBLE
OR MAINTAIN ELIGIBILITY OR
STATUS IN AN S Y T F PROGRAM.
FOR THE PAST 16 YEARS. THE MOST
RECENT OFFENSE REQUIREMENT HAS
PROTECTED YOU FROM HAVING THEIR
PAST BEHAVIORS BE USED TO IMPOSE
THE MOST SEVERE DISPOSITION IN
THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM,
WHICH WAS FORMERLY D. J. J NOW S
Y T F THE LEGISLATURE HAS
THOROUGHLY CONTEMPLATED THIS
ROLE ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS.
THERE IS NO INACCURACY IN THE
CURRENT CODE THAT NEEDS TO BE
REMEDIED. THIS WAS A DELIBERATE
CHOICE BY THE LEGISLATURE IN
BOTH 2007 AND 2020 2020. 21 DOES
NOT NOW NEED TO BE CHANGED.
THERE IS NO DATA OR EVIDENCE
THAT THE CURRENT SYSTEM PRODUCES
POOR OUTCOMES OR AS COUNTER TO
PUBLIC SAFETY. IT HAS WORKED
JUSTLY FOR 15 YEARS, FUNCTIONING
AS A SAFEGUARD AGAINST WIDENING
THE NUMBER OF YOUNG PEOPLE
COMMITTED TO D. J. J. AND NOW TO
S Y T F THE MOST RECENT OFFENSE
RULE SHOULD CONTINUE TO OPERATE
AS A SAFEGUARD AGAINST WIDENING
THE POOL OF YOUTH ELIGIBLE FOR S
Y T F. IT WAS NEVER THE
INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE TO
EXPAND THE CATEGORY OF PEOPLE
ELIGIBLE FOR S Y T F. AND THAT'S
EXACTLY WHAT THIS BILL WOULD DO.
WE BELIEVE THAT THE FOCUS SHOULD
BE ON IMPROVING PROGRAMMING AND
REHABILITATIVE OPPORTUNITIES FOR
YOUNG PEOPLE IN TFS, NOT
INCREASING THE NUMBERS BY
SEEKING TO MAKE IT EASIER TO
COMMIT MORE YOUTH INTO S. Y T S
WE SPENT WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR NO VOTE ON A B 15 82 THANK
YOU ANY OTHER WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION? DANICA RIGHT ARM ON
BEHALF OF THE SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC DEFENDER. MARCO GEORGE ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION AND
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. JOSHUA DEBATE
WITH THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS
FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. UH WE'LL
BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE
MEMBERS FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS, MR LACKEY. YEAH. I
JUST HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
UM WE TALKED ABOUT S Y T F FOR
PEOPLE WHO ARE LISTENING. DON'T
KNOW THAT STANDS FOR SECURE
YOUTH TREATMENT FACILITY. UM
WILL THIS BILL THIS IS FOR THE
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WITH THIS BILL.
UH IS IT LIKELY TO RESULT IN NET
WIDENING OR, IN OTHER WORDS,
WHAT WILL MORE YOUTH BE
COMMITTED TO THIS S Y T F WHO
ARE OTHERWISE INELIGIBLE. WELL,
LET ME JUST BRIEFLY SAY NO, IT
WILL NOT, AND I'LL LET MR KOHLER
EXPLAINED, BECAUSE HE HAS A
EXPERIENCE TO ANSWER THIS
QUESTION. A WOMAN THANK YOU
PRETTY MEMBER. FUNCTIONALLY IT
WILL NOT RESULT IN THAT WIDENING
. THERE ARE VERY SPECIFIC
PROVISIONS WITHIN 8 75 OF THE
WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE.
ASIDE FROM 8 75 82 THAT WOULD
PRECLUDE COMMITMENT TO THE S. Y
T S ON THE BASIS OF A NON
SERIOUS AND VIOLENT OFFENSE.
LOOKING TO THE CODE.
SPECIFICALLY, 8 75 B ONE
REQUIRES THAT THE COURT COMMIT
THEM ON THE MOST RECENT SERIOUS
OFFENSE, SO A SUBSEQUENT LAW
VIOLATION WHETHER IT BE A
MISDEMEANOR OR A NONVIOLENT
FELONY CANNOT RESULT IN THEIR
COMMITMENT TO SECURE YOUTH
TREATMENT FACILITY. SO TO ANSWER
YOUR QUESTION, NO, IT WILL NOT.
PROMOTE NET WIDENING AND I
THINK, TOO ADD SOMETHING TO THAT
IT ADDITIONALLY WILL NOT
INCREASE THE LENGTH OF
COMMITMENTS FOR YOUTH CURRENTLY
SERVING INCARCERATION SENTENCES
AT THE SECURITY OF TREATMENT
FACILITY. SECTION 8 75 SUB S OF
ONE OF THE WELFARE AND
INSTITUTIONS CODE OUTLINES THAT
A YOUTH COMMITMENT TO THE S Y T
F CANNOT BE EXTENDED FOR NEW
VIOLATIONS, SO IT IS A LEGAL
IMPOSSIBILITY TO INCREASE YOUTHS
COMMITMENTS. ALL THIS IS DOING
IS PRESERVING OUR ABILITY TO
ADJUDICATE OFFENSES THAT OCCUR
WHILE THE YOUTH IS COMMITTED TO
THE SECURITY OF TREATMENT
FACILITY OR OFFENSES THAT ARE
DISCOVERED OR CRIMES THAT ARE
SOLVED THAT PREDATE THEIR
COMMITMENT. OKAY AND FURTHER, IT
WASN'T A SIMILAR RULE IN PLACE
WHEN D. J J EXISTED. YES AND THE
OPPOSITION HIGHLIGHTED THAT THAT
PROVISION WAS 7 33 SUB SEA OF
THE WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS
CODE. BUT I THINK THAT THIS
COMMITTEE AND OUR STATE WOULD
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE D J J
SYSTEM WAS AN ANTIQUATED SYSTEM
AND WAS NOT THE APPROPRIATE WAY
TO REHABILITATE YOUTH IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AND I'M
PROUD TO SEE CALIFORNIA EVOLVING
IN THAT SENSE. SO WITH THAT SAID
THIS WAS A BROKEN RULE. FOR A
BROKEN D. J. J SYSTEM. AND WHILE
THIS COMMITTEE AND A B A 23 AND
AMENDMENT 92 WANTED TO ESTABLISH
PARODY WHEN THEY CREATED THE
COMMITMENT GUIDELINES FOR S Y T
F WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO FIX
SOMETHING THAT WAS WRONG WITH
THE SYSTEM AND THAT WAS MISSED.
SO I'M ASKING THIS COMMITTEE TO
TAKE SOME PROACTIVE APPROACH NOW
TO RECOGNIZE THAT IF WE DO NOT
ELIMINATE 8 75 82. IT WILL
RESULT IN YOUTH BEING EXPELLED
FROM THE S Y T F AND ENSURING
THAT THEY DO NOT GET THE
CONTINUITY OF SERVICES AND
REHABILITATION. THAT S WHY TF IS
SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO
FACILITATE THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO
HEAR THE OPPOSITION'S RESPONSE
TO THAT QUESTION. THANK YOU.
WELL FIRST OF ALL, THERE'S A
PROVISION IN 8 75 E TWO, UM THAT
FOR ANY CONDUCT THAT A YOUNG
PERSON UM. IS THAT HAPPENS WHILE
A YOUNG PERSON IS IN THE S Y T
F. UM, THAT THOSE BEHAVIORS OR
INFRACTIONS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED
BY ALTERNATIVE MEANS. NOT A NEW
CHARGE. UM 8 25 E TWO
SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT THAT CAN
BE GRADUATED SANCTIONS SANCTIONS
ADOPTED BY THE OPERATOR OF THE S
Y T F, UM OR SUBJECT TO ANY OF
THE STANDARDS OF THE FACILITY OR
PROGRAM, SO IT'S SIMPLY, UH
DOESN'T SEEM ACCURATE, THAT THAT
IT WOULD, UM MEAN THAT A YOUNG
PERSON WOULD LOSE ELIGIBILITY OR
THEIR STATUS IN A PROGRAM, UH,
IF THEY WERE TO COMMIT A NEW
OFFENSE THAT THAT THOSE OFFENSES
SHOULD BE HANDLED WITHIN THE
PROGRAM ALREADY SO THAT A YOUNG
PERSON CAN LEARN AND
REHABILITATE FROM THE PROVIDERS
OF THE REHABILITATIVE
PROGRAMMING ITSELF. MM ELONIS.
THANK YOU. SO I'M JUST A LITTLE
CONFUSED, CAUSE I'M HERE. JUST
THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT? YOU'RE IN
THE SAME THING, RIGHT? DO YOU
HAVE A RESPONSE TO THAT AS WELL?
YES THANK YOU. THE OPPOSITION,
UM ARTICULATED THAT THE REMEDY
THAT HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR THE
LAST 16 YEARS I BELIEVE WAS FOR
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS TO DISMISS
PETITIONS OR SIMPLY NOT FILE, UM
, PETITIONS AGAINST YOUTH WHERE
A CASE CAN BE PROVEN BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT. AND
PROSECUTORS IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA HAVE AN ETHICAL
OBLIGATION TO EFFICIENTLY
EFFECTIVELY AND JUDICIOUSLY
PROSECUTE OFFENSES WHERE THERE
ARE RIGHTEOUS VICTIMS OF CRIMES
AND THE REMEDY OF DISMISSING A
CASE DOES NOT COMPORT WITH THE
DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE CONSTITUTION.
SO I DO NOT FIRST AND FOREMOST
BELIEVED THAT THE DISMISSAL OF
THE CASE IS AN APPROPRIATE
REMEDY. BUT WITH RESPECT TO THE
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA. MANY MANY
TIMES SINCE D J. J S EXISTENCE.
AND EVEN NOW, AS WE'VE
MATRICULATED TO THE SECURITY OF
TREATMENT FACILITY TRACK COURTS
HAVE HELD THAT SUBSEQUENT
PETITIONS THAT ARE NOT ELIGIBLE
UNDER THE CURRENT CRITERIA. IF
THEY ARE ADJUDICATED, MAKE THAT
YOUTH NO LONGER ELIGIBLE FOR
COMMITMENT TO THE SECURITY OF
TREATMENT FACILITY AND WHAT'S
IMPORTANT ABOUT THAT IS IF THESE
YOUTH ARE THEN EXPELLED FROM THE
SECURITY OF TREATMENT FACILITY
BASED OFF OF A TECHNICAL
CRITERIA. THEY'RE BEING DEPRIVED
OF ACCESS TO RESOURCES, WHICH IS
THE ONLY PLACE THAT THE COURT
HAS ALREADY DETERMINED. THAT IS
THE HIGHEST PROBABILITY FOR
SUCCESS. AND THAT'S WHAT THIS
BILL AIMS TO AVOID. THANK YOU.
ANYMORE. COMMENTS. YOU MAY
CLOSE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
CHAIR. IF WE ARE TRULY I BELIEVE
IF WE ARE TRULY COMMITTED TO
REHABILITATION OF OUR JUVENILE
OFFENDERS, WE MUST CHANGE HOW WE
ADDRESS YOUTH IN OUR SYSTEM, AND
THIS IS A TECHNICAL CHANGE. BUT
AS YOU'VE HEARD, MR COLOR, SAY,
UH, IS ADDRESSING A WEAKNESS AND
THE EXISTING LINE. MAYBE 15 82
IS A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION
AGAIN. WE ARE ALL FOCUSED ON
REHABILITATION AND ESPECIALLY
FOR THE YOUTH IN OUR COMMUNITIES
SO THAT THEY RETURNED TO THEIR
COMMUNITIES HAVING BEEN
REHABILITATED AND THIS LITTLE
QUIRK IN THE LIVES, PREVENTING
THAT ONE LAST THING. BECAUSE OF
THE LAST CRIME COMMITTED BEING,
UH NOT CONSIDERED OR TO BE
CONSIDERED. IT'S LIKE AN
INDIVIDUAL IS JUDGED JUST ON THE
LAST ACTION. IF WE WERE ALL
JUDGED ON OUR LAST VOTE. IS THAT
REALLY A REFLECTION OF OUR WHOLE
CAREERS? I MEAN, SOMETIMES THOSE
YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE WHOLE TO
GET TO THE REAL, UH, NEED FOR UH
, LOOKING AT THE ENTIRE HISTORY
AND THAT IS WHAT THIS BILL WOULD
DO IS TO MAKE SURE TO ENSURE,
AND MR CALLER HAS THIS DIRECT
EXPERIENCE IN ORANGE COUNTY THAT
THE JUVENILE IS REHABILITATED
CORRECTLY, AND WE'LL RETURN TO
SOCIETY IN A PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY
. AND THAT'S WHY I'VE INTRODUCED
THIS BILL. SO THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU. ENCOURAGE YOUR
I VOTE. THANK YOU. IF THEIR
EMOTION SECOND. METHOD. COLORADO
. AND MAYBE 15 82 BY A SEMI
MEMBER, DIXON. THE MOTION IS
PASSED TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. JOHN SAWYER, JOHN SO
YOU'RE NOT VOTING COLONIES.
ELONIS BONTA VOTING VOTING
JACKSON LUCKY. LUCKY I ORTEGA.
ORTEGA NOT VOTING. SANTIAGO
SUPER MEASURES ON CALL. SO I
WOULD ASK FOR RECONSIDERATION
RESPECTFULLY, IF IT DOESN'T MAKE
IT BETTER. WE DON'T GET ANY IF
NO ONE OBJECTS. YOU SHOULD BE
OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MR ASTLEY. I DON'T REMEMBER 13.
I MEAN, BILL NUMBER 13 78. I
DON'T NUMBER 22. WHICH.
YES, MA'AM. GOOD MORNING, MR
CHAIR MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE
TODAY. I'M HERE TO PRESENT
ASSEMBLY BILL 13 78, WHICH IS
AIMED AT STRENGTHENING THE
ENFORCEMENT OF CRIMINAL
PROTECTIVE ORDERS IN ORDER TO
KEEP VICTIMS SAFE AND HOLD
INDIVIDUALS WHO VIOLATE THE LAW
ACCOUNTABLE. CRIMINAL PROTECTIVE
ORDERS ARE A VITAL TOOL IN
BREAKING THE CYCLE OF VIOLENCE
IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES. AND
ARE ISSUED TO PROTECT VICTIMS
FROM FURTHER HARM AND
HARASSMENT. HOWEVER THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF THESE ORDERS IS
OFTEN UNDERMINED BY THE LACK OF
ENFORCEMENT AND INADEQUATE
PUNISHMENT FOR VIOLATIONS.
COURTS ARE CURRENTLY AUTHORIZED
UNDER PENAL CODE SECTION 1 36.22
ISSUE WHAT IS KNOWN AS A CPO OR
CRIMINAL PROTECTIVE ORDER WHEN
THERE IS GOOD CAUSE BELIEF THAT
HARM TO OR INTIMIDATION OR
DISSUASION OF A VICTIM OR
WITNESS HAS OCCURRED OR IS
REASONABLY LIKE LIKELY TO OCCUR.
UNDER CURRENT LAW, A VIOLATION
OF THIS CRIMINAL PROTECTIVE
ORDER IS PUNISHABLE AS A SIMPLE
MISDEMEANOR CONTEMPT OF COURT
UNDER PENAL CODE SECTION 1 66.
THE WAY. THE WAY THE LAW IS
CURRENTLY WRITTEN, DOES NOT DO
ANYTHING IS NOT MEANINGFULLY
DETER FUTURE CRIMINAL
ACTIVITIES. UM. FOR EXAMPLE, MR
CHAIR, THOSE OF US THAT WORKED
IN THESE CASES, DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE CASES WHEN THE CASES
FILED, IT COULD TAKE MANY MONTHS
OR YEARS TO RESOLVE THE
UNDERLYING CONVICTION. BUT WE
ISSUE THIS CRIMINAL PROTECTIVE
ORDER AT THE BEGINNING OF THE
CASE TO INTERVENE AND, UH,
INTERRUPT THE CYCLE OF VIOLENCE
BECAUSE ANYONE WHO KNOWS
ANYTHING ABOUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
IS THERE'S HIGHS AND LOWS, AND
IT'S A IT'S A NEVER ENDING
CYCLE, AND IN THE NINETIES,
THERE WAS A CHANGE IN THE LAW TO
PROVIDE MORE PROTECTION FOR
THOSE VICTIMS. BUT WHAT'S
HAPPENING NOW IS THAT THOSE
ORDERS ARE BASICALLY MEANINGLESS
BECAUSE THE POLICE SAY THEY'RE
SIMPLE MISDEMEANORS. UM, THEY
DON'T HAVE ANY TEETH TO THEM.
AND AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN,
THEY'RE SIMPLE. THEY'RE TREATED
AS SIMPLE CRIME. THIS LACK OF
DETERRENCE EMBOLDENS OFFENDERS
AND PUTS DOMESTIC VALIUM VIOLENT
VICTIMS AT RISK. ACCORDING TO
THE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
. MOST FEMALE VICTIMS OF
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WERE
PREVIOUSLY VICTIMIZED BY THE
SAME OFFENDER. AT A RATE OF 77%
FOR WOMEN AGED 18 TO 24 76% FOR
AGES 25 TO 34 AN ASTOUNDING 81%
FOR AGES 35 TO 49. WHAT WE'RE
DOING NOW IS NOT WORKING. UM BY
ALLOWING JUDGES THE DISCRETION
TO STRENGTHEN PUNISHMENT FOR
THOSE WHO VIOLATE CPOS. THIS
BILL ON THE HANSE THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF THESE
PROTECTIVE MEASURES AND PROVIDE
VICTIMS WITH MORE SECURITY. UM
THIS BILL REALLY ALL IT DOES. MR
CHAIRS PROVIDE DISCRETION TO THE
JUDGES AND THE PROSECUTORS,
WHERE THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO
FILE THIS AS A FELONY IF NEEDED
, UM, AND IN THEIR DISCRETION.
IT DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT IT BE
FILED A FELONY UNLESS THERE'S A
FIREARM USED IN THE COMMISSION
OF THE VIOLATION. UM. SO I
RESPECTFULLY, UM, ASK MY FELLOW
MEMBERS TO JOIN ME IN SUPPORTING
THIS BIPARTISAN BILL. MY
PRINCIPAL CO AUTHOR IS NOT HERE
TO PRESENT BUT ASSEMBLYMAN
BLANCA RUBIO IS WELL RESPECTED
IN THIS AREA FOR HER EXPERTISE,
AND, UM, I HAVE WITH ME TODAY TO
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT. MS KIM
STONE FROM THE CALIFORNIA
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION
AND NICOLE SENSE WHO IS A VICTIM
HERSELF OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
GOOD MORNING CHAIR AND NUMBERS.
KIM STONE STONE ADVOCACY ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION
IN SUPPORT OF A B 13 78, AS THE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, SAID,
CALIFORNIA HAS LONG RECOGNIZED
THAT INTIMIDATION OF VICTIMS AND
WITNESSES POSES AN UNACCEPTABLE
THREAT TO THE PURSUIT OF
JUSTICE. THIS BILL RECOGNIZES
THAT IN SOME INSTANCES, EVEN A
FIRST TIME VIOLATION OF A
CRIMINAL. UH PROTECTIVE ORDER
COULD BE SUFFICIENTLY UH, STRONG
TO JUSTIFY EITHER PROSECUTION AS
A MISDEMEANOR OR A FELONY. UM
THEREFORE A B 13 78 WOULD ALLOW
VIOLATION TO BE PROSECUTED AS A
WARBLER. IT RECOGNIZES THAT
VIOLATION OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER
WITH A GUN IS WORSE AND WOULD
THEREFORE HAVE THE FILINGS OF
THOSE VIOLATIONS BE FELONIES.
PROTECTING UM ALL VICTIMS AND
ALL WITNESSES IS VITAL TO THE
PURSUIT OF JUSTICE IF PEOPLE ARE
INTIMIDATED OR DISSUADED FROM
PARTICIPATION IN THE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM, IT BECOMES
MEANINGLESS. WE URGE YOUR
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MR CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS. MY NAME
IS NICOLE SENDS AS A VICTIM.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. I STRONGLY
SUPPORT ASSEMBLY BILL 13 78
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BILL IS SALIH,
WHICH HELPS ADD MUCH NEEDED
TEETH TO CRIMINAL PROTECTIVE
ORDERS BY INCREASING PENALTIES
FOR THOSE WHO VIOLATE THEM.
THESE ORDERS ARE ISSUED TO
PROTECT VICTIMS FROM POTENTIAL
HARM OR HARASSMENT BY AN
OFFENDER, HOWEVER, WITHOUT
STRICT ENFORCEMENT AND ARE
ADEQUATE CONSEQUENCES. THEY ARE
JUST USELESS PIECES OF PAPER AND
THE OFFENDER KNOWS IT. BY ALL
ACCOUNTS, I HAD A GOOD CHILDHOOD
WITH SUPPORTIVE PARENTS. I WAS
AFFORDED A GOOD EDUCATION. I
HAVE A SUCCESSFUL CAREER.
DESPITE ALL OF THESE RESOURCES,
I STILL STAND BEFORE YOU A
SURVIVOR OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
IT CAN HAPPEN TO ANYONE. I ASK
YOU TO CLOSE YOUR EYES AND
IMAGINE ESCAPING DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE BY RUNNING OUT OF YOUR
HOME BAREFOOT WITH NOTHING BUT
THE CLOTHES ON YOUR BACK. YOU'RE
CARRYING YOUR FIVE YEAR OLD
CHILD IN YOUR ARMS WHILE
CLUTCHING YOUR OLDEST HAND AND
YOU'RE TERRIFIED THAT YOUR
ABUSER IS GOING TO FOLLOW
THROUGH WITH THE THREAT OF
KILLING YOU. YOU FINALLY GET THE
CURLS, COURAGE TO RUN AND NOT
LOOK BACK. YOU OBTAIN A
PROTECTIVE ORDER. YOU DO
EVERYTHING YOU ARE TOLD TO DO BY
LAW ENFORCEMENT AND VICTIMS
ADVOCATE SERVICES. YOU HAVE THIS
PIECE OF PAPER THAT IS SUPPOSED
TO KEEP YOU SAFE. AND THEN YOUR
ABUSER SHATTERS A WINDOW AND
BREAKS INTO YOUR HOME AGAINST
THE COURT ORDER. YOUR ABUSER
DESTROYS YOUR PERSONAL PROPERTY
PUNCHES. HOLES IN WALLS,
SHATTERS PICTURES AND CROSSES
YOUR FACE OUT OF PHOTOS. YOUR
ABUSER RUNS BEFORE THE POLICE
CAN ARRIVE, SO NO ARREST CAN BE
MADE AND A POLICE REPORT IS
FORWARDED TO THE D. A YOUR
ABUSER CONTINUES TO CONTACT YOU
AGAINST THE ORDER ON THAT LITTLE
PIECE OF PAPER. IT SAYS YOU ARE
SAFE. YOUR ABUSER THREATENS TO
KILL YOU THREATENS TO KIDNAP
YOUR CHILDREN THREATENS TO GET
YOU FIRED FROM YOUR PLACE OF
EMPLOYMENT AND CONTINUOUSLY
STALKS AND HARASSES YOU AGAINST
THE ORDER ON YOUR LITTLE PIECE
OF PAPER THAT SAYS YOU'RE SAFE.
THEN IMAGINE YOUR ABUSER IS
ARRESTED AND CHARGED WITH 15
COUNTS OF VIOLATION OF A
CRIMINAL PROTECTIVE ORDER. YOUR
ABUSER GOES TO JAIL FOR A PRE
FEET. EXCUSE ME. ABUSER GOES TO
JAIL FOR A BRIEF PERIOD. AND
UPON RELEASE WITH PROBATION
TERMS IN PLACE. YOUR ABUSER
CONTINUES TO VIOLATE THE
CRIMINAL PROTECTIVE ORDER. NOW
IMAGINE THIS CYCLE REPEATING
ITSELF FOR 3.5 LONG YEARS.
VIOLATIONS ARREST JAIL THAN
RELEASED, THEN REPEATED
VIOLATIONS, ARREST AND JAIL. IT
HAS BEEN FOUR YEARS SINCE WE
ESCAPED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, AND
TO THIS DAY I STILL LIVE IN A
STATE OF CONSTANT HYPER
AWARENESS, BECAUSE MY LITTLE
PIECE OF PAPER THAT SAYS I'M
SAFE DOES NOT STOP MY ABUSER.
POLICE RECEIVED MORE THAN
164,000 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
RELATED CALLS FOR ASSISTANCE IN
2021, NEARLY 88,000 OF THEM
INVOLVED A WEAPON. THERE WERE
ALSO 72,000 DIVESTMENT. DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE. RESTRAINING ORDERS
FILED THAT FISCAL YEAR. ONCE
FILED, THE PERSON IS OBLIGED TO
TURN OVER THEIR FIREARMS.
HOWEVER THERE ARE NO DATA ON HOW
OFTEN ALLEGED ABUSERS SURRENDER
THEIR WEAPONS AFTER A
RESTRAINING ORDER AND THE STATE
COURT ADMINISTRATION DOESN'T
TRACK SUCH INFORMATION. A B 13
78 ALLOWS VIOLATIONS OF
PROTECTIVE ORDERS TO BE
PROSECUTED AS FELONIES, NOT JUST
MISDEMEANORS AND ALLOWS FOR
FURTHER CONSEQUENCES OF THE
VIOLATION INVOLVES A FIREARM.
MAYBE 13 78 DOESN'T FIX ALL THE
PROBLEMS WITHIN THE SYSTEM. BUT
IT'S A GOOD START, AND IT'S THE
LEAST YOU CAN DO FOR VICTIMS
LIKE US. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME
AND CONSIDERATION OUR SAFETY AND
EVEN OUR LIVES ARE AT STAKE.
THANK YOU ANY OTHER WITNESSES
AND SUPPORT NAME AND
ORGANIZATION. IT WAS CHAIRMAN OF
MEMBERS CARL LONDON ON BEHALF OF
CRIME VICTIMS UNITED AND STRONG
SUPPORT. HELLO MR CHAIRMAN,
MATTHEW RICO ON BEHALF OF THE
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
ASSOCIATION OF SAN DIEGO, AS
WELL AS THE SAN DIEGANS AGAINST
CRIME IN SUPPORT. ALL RIGHT.
WE'LL BRING IT BACK. LET ME NOW
LISTEN TO WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION. SHARP.
GOOD MORNING. AND I'M MARK O
GEORGE, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. I'M SORRY FOR WHAT
YOU WENT THROUGH. I THINK THERE
ARE MANY, MANY PEOPLE, WOMEN AND
MEN WHO HAVE UNDERGONE SIMILAR
EXPERIENCES. AND I DON'T THINK
13 68 IS THE ANSWER. 78 EXCUSE
ME, IS HE ANSWER? UM, FIRST UM
I'M NOT SURPRISED THAT YOU WOULD
CURRENTLY THINK THAT A FELONY IS
UNAVAILABLE TO, UM CHARGE PEOPLE
WHO VIOLATE THIS OFFENSE. BUT IT
SAYS, UM ALREADY. UNDER 13 THAT
A PROTECTIVE ORDER PURSUANT TO
13. I'M SORRY, 1 36.2. UM SAYS
THAT A PROTECTIVE ORDER ISSUED
UNDER THIS SECTION IS PUNISHABLE
AS A SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE UNDER 1
36.1. OR A CONTEMPT OF COURT. A
SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE UNDER
EXISTING 1 36.1. IS ALREADY A
WOBBLER. PUNISHED EITHER BY ONE
YEAR IN COUNTY JAIL OR STATE
PRISON. CAN. UM IF THE
PROSECUTOR ELECTS TO CHARGE IT.
AS A SIMPLE. UM CONTEMPT OF
COURT. THAT IS TRUE. A FIRST
VIOLATION OF THAT WOULD BE A
MISDEMEANOR. BUT IT'S EXISTS
NOW. THIS BEHAVIOR COULD BE
CHARGED AS A FELONY. WHAT THIS
BILL DOES IS TAKE AWAY THE
PROSECUTOR'S DISCRETION TO
CHARGE THIS AS A MIRROR
MISDEMEANOR, AND I SAY MIRROR
MISDEMEANOR MISDEMEANOR IS NOT
WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES. UM CARRIES
SIX MONTHS IN JAIL, POTENTIALLY
UH, PEOPLE WHO ARE SUBJECT TO
CRIMINAL PROTECTIVE ORDERS. UM
HAVE THEIR RIGHT TO BEAR
FIREARMS TAKEN AWAY. THEY'RE
LISTED, UM, AND THEIR RAP SHEETS
THAT THIS IS, UM THAT THEY HAVE
THIS PROTECTIVE ORDER AND IT CAN
AFFECT THEIR HOUSING AND THEIR
EMPLOYMENT. BUT FIRST I JUST
WANT TO SAY THAT IN MANY CASES,
THE PEOPLE WHO ARE THE SUBJECTS
OF THESE PROTECTIVE ORDERS. THIS
IS THEIR FIRST CONTACT WITH THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. AND
THEY MAY BE IN CRISIS. AND UM.
USUALLY A SIMPLE PROTECTIVE
ORDER IS SUFFICIENT. I THINK
PRIME YOU'VE REALLY PINPOINTED.
UM THE ISSUE HERE IS THAT THE
POLICE ARE NOT RESPONDING
APPROPRIATELY TO VIOLATIONS OF
PROTECTIVE ORDERS OR TAKING THEM
SERIOUSLY. AND THE EXAMPLE THAT
, UM, THAT YOU MENTIONED YOU
BASICALLY WERE THE SUBJECT OF A
BURGLARY, WHICH IS A SERIOUS
FELONY. AND SO THE ANSWER. IS TO
USE THE LAW AS IT CURRENTLY
EXIST. AND TO EDUCATE AND TRAIN
THE POLICE. WE RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR NO VOTE ON A B 13 78.
THANK YOU HEARD ANY OTHER
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION? DANICA
RIGHT ARM ON BEHALF OF THE SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER. KARMA
NICOLE COX ON BEHALF OF A CEO
YOU CALIFORNIA ACTION. THANK
YOU. NO BRING IT BACK TO
COMMITTEE MEMBERS CONTINUE.
COMMENTS. MR ALLEN IS MR CHAIR.
JUST REAL QUICK. COULD WE GO
OVER? UH CRIMINAL PROTECTIVE
ORDERS IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE,
RESTRAINING ORDERS. COULD YOU
JUST TELL ME THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THOSE TWO? HMM PLEASE.
IN MY CASE, I OBTAINED A
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ORDER. IT WAS
VIOLATED NUMEROUS TIMES. AFTER
THE CRIMES WERE COMMITTED. I WAS
ISSUED A CRIMINAL PROTECTIVE
ORDER. UM. IN ALL AS RECENTLY AS
OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR, THOSE
CRIMINAL PROTECTIVE ORDER WAS
VIOLATED BECAUSE THE
CONSEQUENCES WERE SUCH BRIEF
STINTS IN JAIL. THERE WAS NO.
THERE WAS NO CONSEQUENCE.
THERE'S NO REASON. FOR MY VIEWS
OR NOT TO FEEL EMBOLDENED TO DO
IT AGAIN. IT WAS. WAS THIS
REFERENCED BY THE DA'S OFFICE?
WAS THERE A GROUP THAT MAYBE
PUSH FOR YOU TO GET ONE OR THE
OTHER? HOW DID THAT GO ABOUT SO
ONCE I CPO ONCE A CRIME IS
CHARTED? SORRY. ONCE THE
PROSECUTION CHARGES SOMEONE WITH
A CRIME, CRIMINAL PROTECTIVE
ORDER CAN BE ISSUED BY THE
CRIMINAL COURT. THANK YOU.
THAT'S RIGHT. MR LUCKY. YEAH I
JUST WANTED TO THANK THE WITNESS
FOR COMING FORWARD. VERY, VERY
SORRY FOR YOUR VERY TROUBLED
EXPERIENCE. BUT YOU GIVE VERY
COMPELLING TESTIMONY AND IT
TAKES GUTS TO DO THAT. SO THANK
YOU FOR YOUR COURAGE AND I WILL
BE SUPPORTING THIS MEASURE.
THANK YOU. AND THE OTHERS. YOU
MAKE CLOTHES, MR SABRY. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR AND JUST TO
RESPOND TO THE OPPOSITION, UM UH
, WHAT THEY'RE REFERRING TO IS A
SUBSTANTIVE WITNESS INTIMIDATION
STATUTE, WHICH IS NOT REALLY
WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.
WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS
A VIOLATION OF A COURT ORDER
THAT'S DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE
VICTIM AND TO INTERRUPT THE
CYCLE OF VIOLENCE, AND RIGHT NOW
, THOSE ORDERS ARE NOT BEING
TAKEN SERIOUSLY, AND THE REASON
THEY'RE NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY IS
BECAUSE THE DEFENDANTS KNOW
THERE ARE A JOKE. IT'S A
MISDEMEANOR. AND I PERSONALLY
EXPERIENCED THIS WHERE I'VE
ISSUED THESE ORDERS AND THE
VICTIMS COME BACK TO ME AND SAY
HE'S SHOWING UP AT MY WORK. HE'S
CALLING ME HE'S SENDING ME TEXT
MESSAGES AND THE POLICE. ALL
THEY CAN DO IS SIDING WITH THE
MISDEMEANOR AND IT HAS NO TEETH
. WHAT THIS WILL ALLOW. THE
POLICE AND PROSECUTORS TO DO IS
WE KNOW THESE GUYS AND IF THEY
ARE PARTICULARLY EGREGIOUS OR
THERE CLEARLY FLAGRANTLY VIOLATE
THIS ORDER. WE CAN HIT THEM WITH
THE FELONY. WE HAVE TO INTERRUPT
THAT VIOLENCE. EARLY ON. I HAD A
DEPUTY IN MY DISTRICT DEPUTY
CORDERO SHOT AND KILLED
RESPONDING TO ONE OF THESE CALLS
WHERE THE WHERE THE WOMAN HAD
MADE MULTIPLE ATTEMPTS TO GET
THESE ORDERS AND WAS WAS NOT
SUCCESSFUL IN INTERRUPTING THE
CYCLE OF VIOLENCE THAT WENT ON
FOR YEARS. THEY GOT IN ANOTHER
ARGUMENT. WHEN THINGS WENT DOWN
. SHE CALLED THE POLICE FOR
HELP. AND THE GUY SHE SHOT THE
POLICE OFFICER. THESE CASES
CONTINUE TO ESCALATE. WE HAVE TO
INTERRUPT THE CYCLE OF VIOLENCE.
SO I IMPLORE THIS COMMITTEE TO,
UM LISTEN TO THIS VICTIM. AND TO
CONSIDER WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO
HERE, WHICH IS TO PROTECT
VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
AND REALLY, THERE'S NO EXCUSE
FOREVER VIOLATING THESE COURT
ORDERS WHEN YOU'VE BEEN CHARGED
, AND THE JUDGE HAS SAID YOU ARE
TO HAVE NO CONTACT, THAT IS
UNAMBIGUOUS. NO CONTACT. YOU
CANNOT CALL THEM TEXT THEM
HARASS THEM, AND THEY DO THAT.
THAT IS A INDICATION OF THEIR
MINDSET, THEIR DISRESPECT FOR
THE LAW AND THEIR INTENTION TO
CONTINUE, UM, VICTIMIZING THEIR
SPOUSE. SO WITH THAT, I ASKED
FOR A VOTE. THANK YOU. MOTION
AND SECOND. THE MOTION SECOND.
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD AND NOT THANK YOU.
WITNESS. THIS IS NOT EASY. UM.
FROM SOMEONE WHO'S COME FROM
HOME WITH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. WHO
WAS THAT FIVE YEAR OLD THAT WAS
RUN SCREAMING. FROM A HOME
BECAUSE OF THE FATHER. WHO WAS
ABUSIVE. UM, IT'S NOT ONLY YOU
IT ALSO IS EMBEDDED IN THE KIDS.
FOR A VERY VERY LONG TIME EVEN
WHEN THEY GET AS OLD AS ME. IT
JUST STAYS WITH YOU. AND IT
NEVER GOES AWAY. AND SO, UM
DEFINITELY FEEL FOR YOU. BUT THE
AND IT BOTHERS ME THAT THAT
EITHER. LAW ENFORCEMENT ISN'T
ACTING ON IT BECAUSE THEY DON'T
THINK THAT THE MISDEMEANORS
ENOUGH BUT I THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS BECAUSE WE
PROBABLY DO NEED TO LOOK AT THIS
FIGURE OUT. WHAT IS REALLY GOING
ON? UM ARE PEOPLE NOT TAKING.
OUR LAWS SERIOUSLY, WHETHER THE
MISDEMEANOR OR NOT, WHETHER OR
NOT THE FIRST STRIKE IS BEING
TAKEN SERIOUSLY. AND, UM UM,
CONCERNED WHETHER OR NOT LOST
FORCE MINT IS ACTUALLY COMING TO
THE RESCUE. UM AND THEN BRING
THE TWO D A S THAT THEY'RE
ACTUALLY PROSECUTING. IT'S LIKE,
REALLY LIKE A LITTLE MORE
INFORMATION. I THINK YOU MAY
HAVE SOMETHING HERE AGAIN, I
SAID. THAT TO ONE OF YOUR
COLLEAGUES THAT YOU MAY BE ON
THE RIGHT TRACK ON SOMETHING. WE
DO NEED TO DELVE IN IT MORE UM,
I HAVE BILL TRYING TO GET MORE
MONEY FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
VICTIMS, SO THEY'RE PROTECTED.
AND MAYBE WE CAN WEAVE THAT INTO
TO SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE,
ESPECIALLY IF THIS DOESN'T GET
OUT OF THIS COMMITTEE. WITH THAT
CALL THE ROLL. ON A B 13 78 BY
SEVEN MEMBER ASALI. THE MOTION
IS PASSED TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE JOHN SAWYER. SO YOU'RE
NOT VOTING ELONIS. DENISE I
BONTA NOT VOTING, JACKSON.
BLACKIE BLACKIE. I ORTEGA. OR
TAKE A NOT VOTING. SANTIAGO
SUPER SUBURBAN, NOT VOTING.
MEASURE FAILS. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
RECONSIDERATION. IF IT DOES FEEL
, AND I APPRECIATE THE CHAIR'S
COMMENT, AND I, AND I KNOW MY
COLLEAGUE, MS. UH RUBIO, UH,
WOULD LOVE TO WORK WITH YOU ON
THIS ISSUE MOVING FORWARD, SO
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. THANK YOU
KNOW OBJECTION WILL GRAB
RECONSIDERATION. LISA. AND WE'LL
DO THIS WITH UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
MR CALL, BRAH. JUST GONNA BE
LONG. I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW
WHAT 32 MAYBE 17 A B 17 26.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. I WANT TO
START BY THANKING YOU AND YOUR
COMMITTEE STAFF WILL WORK WITH
MY OFFICE AND I ACCEPT THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS. A B 17 26
CLARIFIES THAT THE RECORD
CLEANING PROVISIONS ENACTED
UNDER SP 3 57 AND SP 2 39 ARE
WORKABLE FOR IMMIGRATION
PURPOSES. LAST YEAR, AND IN 2017
, THE LEGISLATURE REPEALED AND
DISMISSED FORMER CONVICTIONS FOR
LOITERING WITH INTENT TO COMMIT
PROSTITUTION AND PROSTITUTION
WITH THE PRIOR CONVICTION BY
SOMEONE WHO KNEW THEY HAD HIV
AIDS, HOWEVER, UNDER FEDERAL
LAW, DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS CAN
STILL BE BASED ON A VACATED
CONVICTION UNLESS THE REASON IS
DUE TO A LEGAL OR PROCEDURAL
DEFECT AT THE TIME IT WAS
ENTERED. IN CASES WHERE STATE
LAW DOES NOT EXPLICITLY USE
SPECIFIC LANGUAGE CONVICTION CAN
REMAIN FOR IMMIGRATION PURPOSES,
EVEN THOUGH THE STATE ERASED IT.
AS SUCH, IMMIGRANT POPULATIONS
ARE INADVERTENTLY SUBJECTED TO A
TWO TIERED SYSTEM WHERE THEY
UNFAIRLY FACED ADDITIONAL
CONSEQUENCES, SUCH AS
DEPORTATION FOR CONVICTIONS
BASED ON OUTDATED LAWS AND ARE
DENIED THE RELIEF. THEY ARE
ENTITLED TO A B 17 26 CORRECTS
THIS OVERSIGHT AND ENSURES
EVERYONE HAS FULL ACCESS TO THE
POST CONVICTION RELIEF INTENDED
BY THE LEGISLATURE HERE TO
TESTIFY HIS SUPPORT IS MY NEW
SCANDAL. SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY
AT THE A C L U SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA. GOOD MORNING. MY
NAME IS FIVE MINUTES. GOOD
MORNING. MY NAME IS MINUTI
CANDLE. I'M A SENIOR STAFF
ATTORNEY WITH THE A. C L U OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TESTIFYING
ON BEHALF OF A CELL YOU
CALIFORNIA ACTION AND THE CRIME
SEX WORK CALIFORNIA COALITION,
WHICH IS SPONSORING THIS BILL. A
B 17 26 IS A TECHNICAL FIX TO
ENSURE THAT RECORD CLEARING
PROVISIONS THAT HAVE BEEN
ENACTED IN RECENT YEARS ARE ALSO
ABLE TO BENEFIT PERSONS WITH
IMMIGRATION PROCEEDINGS.
EXISTING LAW PROVIDES
EXPUNGEMENT RELIEF FOR PERSONS
CONVICTED UNDER FORMER PENAL
CODE SECTIONS 653.22 AND 647 F
THE BROAD, SUBJECTIVE NATURE OF
PENAL CODE SECTION 653.22
CREATED OPPORTUNITIES FOR LAW
ENFORCEMENT TO ENGAGE IN
DISCRIMINATORY POLICING. THE
TARGETED BLACK AND BROWN WOMEN
AND MEMBERS OF THE TRANSGENDER
COMMUNITY. CODE SECTION 6 47 F
WAS BASED ON FEAR AND LIMITED
MEDICAL SCIENCE AT THE TIME AND
PENALIZE SEX WORKERS WHO ARE
LIVING WITH HIV. RECOGNIZING THE
PRIOR LAWS DISPARATE IMPACTS ON
VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES. REFORMS
ALLOWED INDIVIDUALS TO VACATE
THEIR CONVICTIONS. HOWEVER THE
LAWS WHICH REPEALED THESE PENAL
CODE SECTIONS DID NOT INCLUDE
LANGUAGE THAT IS NEEDED FOR A
CRIMINAL EXPUNGEMENT TO ASSIST
PERSONS SEEKING IMMIGRATION
RELIEF. MANY SEX WORKERS,
PARTICULARLY IN CALIFORNIA, ARE
SUBJECT TO IMMIGRATION
ENFORCEMENT AND DEPORTATION.
CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS CAN BE A
BART, IMMIGRATION RELIEF AND FOR
IMMIGRATION PURPOSES. A
CONVICTION IS CONSIDERED VACATED
ONLY IF IT WAS ILLEGALLY OR
PROCEDURALLY DEFECTIVE AT THE
TIME, IT WAS ENTERED A B 17 26
SIMPLY CLARIFIES THAT
CONVICTIONS UNDER THE LAWS THAT
WERE REPEALED WERE DEFECTIVE DUE
TO CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR. A B 17
26 ENSURES THAT VULNERABLE
IMMIGRANT POPULATIONS CAN
BENEFIT FROM THE REFORMS THAT
RESULTED FROM REPEALING PENAL
CODE SECTION 647 F AND 653.22 IN
THE SAME WAY THAT WE HAVE
REMOVED THE OTHER CONSEQUENCES
OF PAST CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS. A
B 17 26 CORRECTS A STATUTORY
OVERSIGHT AND EXPLICITLY STATES
THAT VACATUR RELIEF FOR FORMER
PENAL CODE SECTION 653.22 AND
SECTION 647 F ARE LEGALLY
INVALID DUE TO CONSTITUTIONAL
ERROR. FOR THESE REASONS, WE ASK
THAT YOU SUPPORT A B 17 26.
THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE IN
SUPPORT? DANICA RIGHT ARM ON
BEHALF OF INITIATE JUSTICE AND
ELLA BAKER CENTER AND SUPPORT
KARMA NICOLE COX ON BEHALF OF A
C L U CAL ACTION AND ALSO THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT CRAIG
POSTER ON BEHALF OF EQUALITY,
CALIFORNIA AND STRONG SUPPORT.
JOSHUA DU BEI ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS FOR
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND SUPPORT HI
. ANGELA CHAN WITH THE SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE AND STRONG SUPPORT.
ALICIA BENAVIDEZ LEWIS ON BEHALF
OF DRUG POLICY, ALLIANCE AND
IMMIGRANT LEGAL RESOURCE CENTER
AND STRONG SUPPORT. AND LITTLE
ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA'S FOR
SAFETY AND JUSTICE AND SUPPORT.
ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. ANYONE IN
OPPOSITION? KIM STONE STONE
ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
ASSOCIATION. WE HAVE OPPOSED
UNLESS AMENDED POSITION. UM, I
BELIEVE THAT THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS ADDRESS SOME OF THE
DÍAS CONCERNS, MAYBE NOT THEM
ALL WILL CONTINUE TO WORK AND
TALK AS IT GOES THROUGH THE
PROCESS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE IN OPPOSITION.
HEARING AND TURNED TO THE
COMMITTEE. MOVES THE BILL SECOND
I GOTTA IN A SECOND. IF I COULD
JUST ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 6 47 AFTER
THE PENAL CODE IS THAT CORRECT?
FORMER 6 47, OKAY. AND THAT
CHARGE OF 6 47 F THAT WAS
FORMERLY WHAT DO YOU HAVE THAT
ON RECORD AS BEING THAT WAS
CRIMINALIZING ENGAGING IN SEX
WORK WHILE LIVING WITH HIV.
OKAY, NOT PUBLIC INTOXICATION.
NO. OKAY AND 6 47 B OF THE PENAL
CODE B AS IN BOY. THAT WAS NOT
ADDRESSED BY THE BILLS THAT WERE
REPEALED. I JUST I I'VE BEEN IN
LAW ENFORCEMENT QUITE A WHILE.
AND 6 47 F HAS BEEN SOMETHING
THAT I'VE CHARGED PUBLIC
INTOXICATION WITH FOR PEOPLE,
AND I JUST I DON'T WANT US TO BE
MAKING AN ERROR OR ANYTHING LIKE
THAT. MAKING SURE WE HAVE THE
RIGHT PENAL CODE SECTIONS ON
THIS BECAUSE 6 47 B BOY WAS
USUALLY FOR PROSTITUTION. AND 6
47 F WAS PUBLIC INTOXICATION.
SIX IT WAS 6 47 F WITHOUT THE
SUBSECTION F SO I THINK THAT'S
WHAT MAKES IT SO WE JUST NEED TO
MAKE SURE THAT MAKE SURE THAT
THAT'S INDICATED ON THAT AS
WELL. PLEASE. YEAH. WHICH IS
RARE. SO I JUST WANT TO THANK
YOU FOR BRINGING THIS BILL. UM
BUT I THINK THE A C L U AND
THANK THE QUALITY CALIFORNIA.
THE UNDERLYING BILLS WERE PASSED
WHEN I WAS AT EQUALITY,
CALIFORNIA AND WE SUPPORTED THEM
BECAUSE OF THE REALLY IMPORTANT
PRINCIPLE OF MAKING SURE THAT WE
WERE ADDRESSING DISCRIMINATORY
POLICING THAT AFFECTS NOT ONLY
BROWN AND BLACK COMMUNITIES, BUT
TRANSGENDER FOLKS AND ONE OF THE
UNDERLYING BILLS WAS AIMED AT
REALLY ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM OF
DISCRIMINATORY POLICING. UH
THAT'S KNOWN AS WALKING WELL.
TRANS WHERE TRANS WOMEN IN
PARTICULAR OFTEN WERE THE FOCUS
OF POLICING BASED UPON VERY
LIMITED INFORMATION, OFTEN WHEN
THERE WASN'T EVEN SEX WORK
OCCURRING BECAUSE OF THE
PROFILING THAT OCCURS AND SO
THAT UNDERLYING LAW WAS AN
IMPORTANT ONE. IT'S IMPORTANT
THAT I THINK THIS BILL TAKES THE
NEXT STEP AND MAKE SURE THAT
THOSE FOLKS THAT GOT RELIEF
UNDER THOSE BILLS GET THE
IMMIGRATION RELIEF THAT THEY
DESERVE. AND SO I JUST WANT TO
THANK YOU ARE SUPPORTING THESE
BILLS AND WANT TO THANK ALL OF
THE FOLKS THAT WORKED ON THIS.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS
FROM THE COMMITTEE. OKAY. YOU
MAY CLOSE. THANK YOU APPRECIATE
IT. SUMMERS BURROW FOR HIS WORK
ON THIS. I KNOW FOR MANY YEARS
AND NOW AS A COLLEAGUE AND
APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS AND VICE
CHAIRMAN CLARIFICATION AS A
PUBLIC DEFENDER. I DEFINITELY
MEMBER 6 47. IN PARENTHESES AS F
AND SO THANK YOU FOR ASKING THE
CLARIFICATION QUESTION. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR MY VOTE.
YOU TAKE THE ROLE. ON A B 17 26
BY SOME MEMBER CHOLERA. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS AS AMENDED
JOHN SAWYER ELONIS NO SNOW BONTA
. AYE, JACKSON. BLACKIE BLACKIE.
NO, ORTEGA. ORTEGA I SANTIAGO.
ZIPPER. SUPER I CALL. MESSAGE
WILL BE ON CALL WILL GET AHOLD
OF HOUSTON. YOU CAN THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S HEART. YOU'RE
UP. MAYBE 1412. ITEM NUMBER 24.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. VICE
CHAIR, ELONIS. I'M PLEASED TO
PRESENT A B 14 12 TO THE
COMMITTEE TODAY. THIS MICROPHONE
ON I GOTTA GET CLOSER. UH MAYBE
14 12 WILL EXPAND ACCESS TO
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES BY
ALLOWING DEFENDANTS DIAGNOSED
WITH BORDERLINE PERSONALITY
DISORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR
PRETRIAL DIVERSION. CURRENT LAW
PROVIDES DEPENDENCE WITH MENTAL
ILLNESS IS THE ABILITY TO
RECEIVE SERVICES AND CARE
THROUGH PRE CHILD DIVERSION
PROGRAMS. INDIVIDUALS WITH
BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER,
HOWEVER, ARE NOT ELIGIBLE. THIS
EXCLUSION CREATES A BARRIER FOR
PROPER TREATMENT AND PERPETUATES
A HARMFUL STIGMA FOR THOSE
LIVING WITH THE DISORDER. BY
EXPANDING ELIGIBILITY FOR
PRETRIAL DIVERSION PROGRAMS.
MAYBE 14 12 WILL ENSURE
DEFENDANTS RECEIVED THE CRITICAL
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES THEY
NEED. SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL WITH ME TODAY ARE THE
DOCTOR LEANDRA CLARK HARVEY ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA COUNCIL
ON COMMUNITY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
AGENCIES AND HARRY BOROUGH, THE
CEO OF PATH POINT. THANK YOU
BOTH HAVE FIVE MINUTES. ALRIGHT
I'LL BE QUICKER THAN THAT
GREETING SYSTEM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. I'M DR LEANDER CLARK
HARVEY, PSYCHOLOGIST AND THE
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE
CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF COMMUNITY
, BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AGENCIES,
WERE AN ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION
REPRESENTING MENTAL HEALTH AND
SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER AGENCIES
ACROSS THE STATE. AND WE'RE THE
PROUD SPONSOR OF HB 14 12. I
WANT TO THINK OF SOME REMEMBER
HEART GIBSON FOR CHAMPIONING
THIS BILL AND ALSO THE COUNCIL
MISS BIRNLEY FOR THE EXCELLENT
SYNOPSIS OF THE CURRENT RESEARCH
ON THIS ISSUE. FOR REASONS NOT
SUPPORTED BY PSYCHOLOGICAL
SCIENCE. BORDERLINE PERSONALITY
DISORDER IS INCLUDED IN A LIST
OF DIAGNOSES THAT MAKE AN
INDIVIDUAL AND ELIGIBLE FOR PRE
TRIAL DIVERSION, INCLUDING
PEDOPHILIA. THIS IS HIGHLY
PROBLEMATIC AS A PSYCHOLOGIST
WHO HAS TRAINED AND WORKED IN A
VARIETY OF TREATMENT SETTINGS.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO CLARIFY THAT
INDIVIDUALS WITH BORDERLINE
PERSONALITY DISORDER CAN IMPROVE
WITH APPROPRIATE INTERVENTION.
IN ADDITION, WE BELIEVE THAT
INCLUDING THIS DISORDER IN PRE
DRIVE ON THE PRETRIAL DIVERSION
PROGRAM WILL REDUCE THE BACKLOG
IN THE COURTS, LOWER COST OF
INCARCERATION AND REDUCE
RECIDIVISM. WHICH THESE ARE
SAVINGS THAT AS YOU ALL KNOW,
OUR STATE IS IN DESPERATE NEED
OF PEOPLE WITH BORDERLINE
PERSONALITY DISORDER MAKE
IMPORTANT CONTRIBUTIONS TO
SOCIETY, AND THEY DESERVE
EQUITABLE AND JUST TREATMENT AND
COMPASSION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION OF THIS
BILL. HI THANK YOU. MY NAME IS
HARRY BRAWL. I'M THE CEO PATH
POINT OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
AGENCY IN ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
HEARTS DISTRICT. I'M ALSO A
FATHER. MY DAUGHTER. TAYA DIED
WHEN SHE WAS 14 FROM SUICIDE,
AND WE BELIEVE SHE HAD
BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER,
BUT SHE WAS NEVER DIAGNOSED.
BECAUSE OF THIS, THE STIGMA
AROUND BORDERLINE PERSONALITY
DISORDER SO SHE NEVER GOT THE
TREATMENT THAT COULD HAVE SAVED
HER LIFE. I HAVE HERE. A LETTER
FROM A WOMAN NAMED JOANNA FROM
ST LOUIS OBISPO, WHO HAS
BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER
AND WENT THROUGH THE COURT
SYSTEM FOR A MINOR CHARGE, SHE
WROTE. TO US SITTING IN A CELL
WOULD NOT HAVE FIX MY PROBLEMS
PAYING THE CITY A LAWYER AND
FINDS DIDN'T MAKE ME ANY LESS
VIOLENT THERAPY IS THE SINGLE
MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR THAT
CREATED REAL CHANGE IN MY LIFE.
HERE FOR QUICK REASONS TO
SUPPORT THIS BILL. FIRST,
THERE'S NO SCIENTIFIC OR MEDICAL
RATIONALE FOR EXCLUDING BPD.
SECOND THE TWO OTHER CONDITIONS
EXCLUDED ARE ESSENTIALLY DEFINED
BY CRIMINALITY. BPD IS NOT, AND
IT'S NO MORE DANGEROUS THAN THE
CONDITIONS THAT ARE INCLUDED.
THREE BPD IS TREATABLE AND
TREATMENT REDUCES THE RISK OF
RECEIVE. IT IS, UM FOR THE
EXCLUSION OF BPD PERPETUATES
STIGMA AND LIMITS ACCESS TO
CARE. SO I URGE YOU TO SUPPORT A
B 14 12 TO SAVE THE LIVES OF
PEOPLE LIKE MY DAUGHTER, TIA AND
TO END AND REDUCE SUFFERING FOR
PEOPLE LIKE JOANNA. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER
WITNESSES AND SUPPORT. HI MY
NAME IS ANGELA CHAN SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. MARCO GEORGE ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION AND
SUPPORT THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I
DON'T KNOW. GREGORY CRAMER ON
BEHALF OF DISABILITY RIGHTS,
CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT THANK
YOU. ARE THERE ANY WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION? ANY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION. SEEN UM BRING IT
BACK TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMING. WE HAVE
THE MOTION HAVE A SECOND. I
DON'T SEE ANY COMMENTS YOU MAKE
CALLS. I JUST WANT TO THANK DR
CLARK, HARVEY AND MR BRULE FOR
BEING HERE TODAY AND THEY TOLD
THE STORY VERY WELL. AND I
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU
FOR BRINGING THIS TO US, UM
THANK YOU CONVINCED EVERYBODY SO
THIS SHOULD BE SHOULD BE GOOD.
AND UH, DR HARVEY SAY HI TO MY
FORMER EMPLOYEE, ALRIGHT? CALL
THE ROLL. MAYBE 14 12 BY SOME
MEMBER HEART. THE MOTION IS
PASSED TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. JOHN SAWYER JOHNSON.
I ALANIS ALANIS, NOT BOATING.
BONTA BONTA. AYE, JACKSON.
BLACKIE BLACKIE ABSTAIN ORTEGA.
ORTEGA I SANTIAGO. SUPER SUPER.
AYE MEASURES ARE CALLED NEED ONE
MORE. ACTUALLY HAVE MR CARILLO.
REMEMBER? 13. OH, SIX. I MEAN,
BILL NUMBER 13 OH, SIX. I DON'T
NUMBER 20. IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
I ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS AND I AM PROUD TO
PRESENT ASSEMBLY BILL 13. OH,
SIX. HARMONIZING OUR MEASURES
FOR EQUALITY OTHERWISE, THE HOME
ACT THE BILL WILL ENSURE THAT
IMMIGRANT CALIFORNIANS ARE NOT
EXCLUDED FROM RECENT CRIMINAL
JUSTICE AND COMPASSIONATE
RELEASE REFORMS PASSED BY THIS
VERY LEGISLATURE IN RECENT YEARS
, THE LEGISLATURE HAS RECOGNIZED
THAT ARE OVER. INCARCERATION
HURTS OUR STATE AND OUR
COMMUNITIES, AND WE'VE GIVEN
INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE RECEIVED
HARSH SENTENCES AS YOUNG PEOPLE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO EARN PAROLE.
THE LEGISLATURE HAS RECOGNIZED
THAT THERE SHOULD BE AVENUES FOR
THOSE WHO HAVE CONVICTIONS THAT
WERE TAINTED BY RACIAL BIAS OR
THOSE WHO WERE CONVICTED UNDER
STATUES THAT WE HAVE NOW
REFORMED TO HAVE A NEW DAY IN
COURT. THE LEGISLATURE HAS ALSO
RECOGNIZED THE NEED TO GIVE
INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS THAT
DIGNITY TO LIVE OUT THEIR FINAL
DAYS AND MONTHS WITH THEIR LOVED
ONES. AND WITH ADEQUATE ACCESS
TO MEDICAL CARE. AS A STATE. WE
HAVE RECOGNIZED THOSE NEEDS. BUT
IMMIGRANT CALIFORNIANS ARE
ARBITRARILY LEFT OUT FOR NO
OTHER REASON THAN BECAUSE OF
WHERE THEY WERE BORN. AS A STATE
WE HAVE RECOGNIZED THOSE NEEDS.
BUT WHEN IMMIGRANT CALIFORNIA'S
HAVE EARNED RELEASE UNDER THESE
REFORMS RATHER THEN BE UNITED
WITH THEIR FAMILY. OUR STATE
PRISON SYSTEM TURNS THEM OVER TO
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOM
ENFORCEMENT, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS
ICE FOR DOUBLE PUNISHMENT,
INDEFINITE INCARCERATION IN
IMMIGRATION DETENTION, WHICH IS
A SENTENCE THAT WAS NEVER HANDED
OUT HANDED DOWN BY A CRIMINAL
COURT OR A JUDGE. THIS IS AN
ARBITRARY SENTENCE SERVED IN
FACILITIES BEYOND CALIFORNIA
STATE OVERSIGHT, WHERE ABUSES
ARE WELL DOCUMENTED, AND WHEN
THERE IS NO RIGHT TO LEGAL
COUNSEL OR TO BAIL THE HOME ACT
A B 13. OH SIX WILL BRING AN END
TO THE DOUBLE PUNISHMENT OF
IMMIGRANTS WHOSE CONVICTIONS
ALREADY ALIGNED WITH CRIMINAL
JUSTICE REFORM POLICIES SIGNED
INTO LAW. HERE TO TALK MORE
ABOUT THE REFORM FOR THE BILL IS
10 MILLION IMMIGRANT JUSTICE
COORDINATOR WITH THE IT RISE,
AND SANDRA CASTANEDA, WHO IS
CURRENTLY A TRAINEE AT HOMEBOY
INDUSTRIES, BOTH THEIR PERSONAL
TESTIMONIES AND TO WHAT THEY
HAVE EXPERIENCED WITH THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AS WELL AS
IMMIGRATION, CUSTOMS AND FORCE
MINT IS THE VERY REASON WHY
WE'RE MOVING THIS BALL FORWARD.
ANGELA CHAN IS THE ASSISTANT
CHIEF ATTORNEY WITH THE SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE WHO IS ALSO HERE
AVAILABLE. FOR ANY TECHNICAL
QUESTIONS. AND WITH THAT,
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AND I VOTE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WHENEVER
YOU'RE READY. GOOD MORNING CO
CHAIR, JOHN. SORRY AND COMMUNITY
MEMBER. MY NAME IS TIM. WHEN AND
I AM JUSTICE COORDINATOR AT BIT
BRYCE SPACE IN OC. UM MY AFTER
THE VIETNAMESE, THE VIETNAM WAR
, MY FAMILY. FRED FLED VIETNAM
BECAUSE OF PROSECUTION. UH I WAS
A VICTIM OF ABUSE BY A FATHER.
THAT UH, COULDN'T COPE WITH NEW
ENVIRONMENT. UM VOLUME BULLY
BECAUSE I WAS DIFFERENT. UM. I
WASN'T I DIDN'T FAITH SAFE AT
HOME NOR AT IN SCHOOL, SO I TOOK
TO THE STREETS AND FIND
PROTECTION. THE GANG THIS LED ME
TO, UH AGE 20 SOMETHING I TOOK
HIM TO SOMEBODY LIFE. AND. AND
THAT WAS SENT INTO L WA. DURING
MY 23 YEAR. AYE. EXCUSE ME. I'M
SORRY. I TOOK RESPONSIBILITY FOR
MY ACTION. I WANT TO TAKE THIS
ONE FOR MY ACTIONS. SO I TOOK
NUMEROUS OF, UH, SELF HELP
PROGRAM. I EARNED AN A AND A B,
A DEGREE GRADUATE SUMMA CUM
BODY. I JOINED IT PUFFER LIFE,
TOO. TWO TRAINS SHELTER DOCTOR
BECOME SERVICE STUFF FOR BEARING
WITH PTSD. I HAVE A FEW MORE
UNDER MY BELT. PROUD TO SAY, I'M
SORRY. UM BUT THAT'S LED TO MY
COMPUTATION BY GOVERNOR JERRY
BROWN AND MY SUITABILITY FOR
PAROLE. UM WHERE THE COMMITTEE
SAID THAT NOT ONLY I WAS NO
LONGER A THREAT TO SOCIETY BUT
ALSO WAS A ASSETS. UPON MY
RELEASE. AS I WATCH MY PEERS
WALK OUT THE GATE OF FREEDOM. UM
JOINING WITH THEIR FAMILY AND
LOVED ONE. I WAS SHACKLED, UM
HANDCUFFING TRANSFERRED TO
ISTOCK AIRLINE TO DETENTION
CENTER. WHAT'S NEXT 10 MONTHS?
AND, UH, FIGHTING FOR MY FREEDOM
AGAIN. AND NOT KNOW ABOUT WHAT'S
GOING TO GO HOME. IT WAS THE
HEIGHT OF COVID. BUT WITH THE
SUPPORT OF IT. RICE, NOT
COMMUNITY MEMBERS COMMUNITY WAS
ABLE TO BE RELEASED. UH, THIS IS
THE YOU KNOW ME? GOT I'M KIND OF
LOST FOR WORK, BUT. IT WAS
REALLY DISCOURAGED FOR ME. YOU
KNOW MY TRANSFORMATION. YOU KNOW
ME? UH MY PROGRESSION OF MY
TRANSFORMATION AND. AND THIS IS
WHERE THE WHOLE AXIS IS ABOUT.
YOU KNOW, IT'S ABOUT PROTECTING
, YOU KNOW MY PEOPLE LIKE
MYSELF. AH! TWO FOR THAT. THAT
WASN'T BORN HERE AND YOU KNOW
THAT QUALIFY UNDER EXISTING
REFORM REFORM BECAUSE THEY WANT
TO BE PART OF A PRODUCTIVE
MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY. UM FROM
THE DOUBLE PUNISHMENT AND URGED
THE COMMUNITY TO, UH SUPPORT THE
HOME, MAX. AND, UH, THAT'S FAIR
AND JUST THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING
, SHERRY JONES, SAWYER AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
SANDRA CASTANEDA CAME TO THE
UNITED STATES FROM MEXICO AT THE
AGE OF NINE TO LIVE WITH MY AUNT
AND UNCLE FOR A BETTER LIFE DUE
TO FEELING ABANDONED BY MY
PARENTS, MY UNCLE AND MY AUNT
AND UNCLE WORKING HARD AND NOT
HAVING STRUCTURE AT HOME. I
THOUGHT LOVE AND BELONGING
ELSEWHERE AS A YOUNG PERSON
LIVING IN SOUTH CENTRAL L. A. IT
WAS EASY TO GET PRESSURE. INTO
JOINING GANGS. UNFORTUNATELY AT
THE AGE OF 20 YEARS OLD, I GOT
ARRESTED FOR A MURDER. I DIDN'T
COMMIT GOING TO PRISON WITH A 40
YEAR SENTENCE. 40 YEARS TO LIFE
SENTENCE REALLY CHANGED MY LIFE
KNOWING THAT DYING IN PRISON WAS
THE ONLY FUTURE I HAD MADE ME
THINK AND WANT TO CHANGE MY
LIFE. I STARTED GETTING INVOLVED
IN SELF HELP GROUPS AND
EVENTUALLY STARTED FACILITATING
THEM. THEY'RE REALLY GAVE ME A
PURPOSE IN LIFE. I WORKED HARD
THROUGHOUT THE YEAR SO ANNOYING
THAT I WAS A LIFER IN THAT
PRISON WAS THE ONLY LIFE I WOULD
EVER HAVE. BUT A MIRACLE
HAPPENED IN 2021. GOVERNOR
NEWSOM COMMITTED MY SENTENCE AND
I WAS GRANTED A CHANCE TO GO TO
BOARD. MY SENTENCE ALSO GOT
VACATED THROUGH SB 14 37 AND I
GOT RELEASED JULY 27TH 2022, BUT
RATHER THAN URINATING WITH MY
FAMILY, I WAS TRANSFERRED TO
ICE. I WAS SENT TO LUMPKIN,
GEORGIA. LUMPKIN, GEORGIA,
THOUSANDS OF MILES AWAY FROM MY
FAMILY AND SUPPORT SYSTEM. IT
WAS A NIGHTMARE GETTING
TRANSFERRED TWICE. I WAS STILL
BEING TREATED LESS THAN HUMAN,
THE WHITE THE WAY I TREATED NON
. SPEAKING OF NOT ENGLISH
SPEAKING IMMIGRANTS WITH SO
FRUSTRATING AND HEARTBREAKING TO
ME. FORTUNATELY I WAS RELEASED
FROM ICE AUGUST 3RD 2022 AFTER
FIGHTING MY CASE FOR ONE YEAR
AND SIX DAYS, MY LEGAL TEAM AND
COMMUNITY IN COMMUNITY COMMUNITY
WAS ABLE TO GET ME A BOND,
PLEASE. PAST THE HOME AC A. B 13
OH, SIX TO PREVENT ICE FROM
SEPARATING PEOPLE FROM THEIR
FAMILIES, ESPECIALLY WHEN PEOPLE
START TIME AND QUALIFY FOR
REFORMS. GETTING HANDED TWICE
WAS A HEARTBREAKING EXPERIENCE
FOR ME AND MY FAMILY. PLEASE
VOTE YES ON THE HOMEWORK TO
ENSURE EQUAL TREATMENT IN OUR
JUSTICE SYSTEM. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ANY OTHER WITNESSES AND
SUPPORT. NAME AND ORGANIZATION,
PLEASE MARCO GEORGE, ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION AND
SUPPORT THANK YOU. DANICA ROAD
ARM ON BEHALF OF INITIATE
JUSTICE GRIP TRAINING CENTER
TRANSFORMATIVE IN PRISON
WORKGROUP AND ELLA BAKER CENTER.
ANY MORE HERE ON BEHALF OF LEGAL
SERVICES FOR PRISONERS WITH
CHILDREN. ALL OF US ARE KNOWN
PROTOCOLS, SPONSORS AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. BASICALLY
WITH ASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING
JUSTICE, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
WHERE IN STRONG SUPPORT THANK
YOU. JOSHUA TO BE WITH THE
CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS FOR
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND STRONG
SUPPORT. JOHN VASQUEZ ON BEHALF
OF COMMUNITIES IN 1940, STORIES
, JUSTICE, PART CO SPONSOR AND
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. KHLOE
STUCK WITH THE CALIFORNIA
IMMIGRANT POLICY CENTER AND
STRONG SUPPORT. A C L U
CALIFORNIA ACTION CARMEN WILLCOX
ON BEHALF OF THE ORGANIZATION IN
STRONG SUPPORT. ANDREA BOLANOS
SERVICES, IMMIGRANT RIGHTS AND
EDUCATION NETWORK CO SPONSOR AND
STRONG SUPPORT. MILLION SHEETS
FROM IRELAND COLLISION
IMMIGRANTS FOR JUSTICE AND I'M A
BRAZILIAN VOICES ORGANIZERS
SUPPORTING OF THE WHOLE HOLD UP.
CARL TAKEI WITH ASIAN AMERICANS
ADVANCING JUSTICE ASIAN LAW
CAUCUS CO SPONSOR AND STRONG
SUPPORT. MELISSA COZY WITH
CALIFORNIA'S RECEIVED INJUSTICE
AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ESTARÁ
NUNEZ WITH THE ANTI RECIDIVISM
COALITION SOCIAL CHANGES INSIDE
GARDEN PROGRAM IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. HELLO SALVADOR SARMENTO
WITH THE NATIONAL DAY LABOR
ORGANIZING NETWORK AND THE LOAN
WE SUPPORT. HIÆN NGUYEN WITH
ASIAN PRISONER SUPPORT COMMITTEE
IN SUPPORT. UM I ALSO SHARE THE
SUPPORT FROM 18 MILLION RISING.
ALLIANCE FOR BOYS AND MEN OF
COLOR ALLIANCE. SAN DIEGO ÁP. I
RISE. BEND THE ARC ONE ENCINO.
CALIFORNIA COLLABORATIVE FOR
IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CALIFORNIA
COALITION FOR WOMEN'S PRISONERS
, CALIFORNIANS FOR SAFETY AND
JUSTICE CENTER FOR EMPOWERING
REFUGEES AND IMMIGRANTS. CONTRA
COSTA IMMIGRANTS RIGHTS
ALLIANCE. COUNCIL ON IMMIGRANT
UH, COUNCIL ON AMERICAN ISLAMIC
RELATIONS. CALIFORNIA COUNCIL ON
AMERICAN ISLAMIC RELATIONS.
CALIFORNIA COURAGE CALIFORNIA
DROPPED L WOP COALITION FREEDOM
FOR IMMIGRANTS, HARVARD
INSTITUTE FOR IMMIGRANT AND
ECONOMIC JUSTICE, HOME RISE HOME
HOMIES. UNIDOS. HUMAN IMPACT
PARTNER ICE OUT OF MORAN,
INTERFAITH FOR HUMAN INTERFAITH
MOVEMENT FOR HUMAN INTEGRITY,
IMMIGRANT DEFENSE ADVOCATES
LEGAL JUSTICE FOR PRISONERS WITH
CHILDREN. UH, MORRELL HAIR. YOU
NEED US E ACTIVISTS.
ORANGE-COUNTY-REGISTER-TOO-SOON-COUNTY-VOTE-CENTERS
. NETWORK PEOPLE'S BUDGET OC
PRISON YOGA PROJECT. SANTA CRUZ.
BUT RIOS UNIDOS, IRAQ AND
SUBARUS ARE SOLIDARITY. THANK
YOU. ALICIA BENAVIDEZ LEWIS ON
BEHALF OF IMMIGRANT LEGAL
RESOURCE CENTER AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ANY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION. ANY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION. SEEN.
NONE WILL BRING IT BACK TO
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. QUESTIONS
CONCERNED COMMENTS. UH HUH. MR
ZUBER. WE HAVE EMOTION 2ND 2ND,
AND THE PARTY WANTS TO SAY
SOMETHING LIKE I JUST WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHOR AND
PARTICULARLY THE ADVOCATES WHO
ARE HERE IN THE SPACE AND THE
WITNESSES WHO OFFERED TESTIMONY
ABOUT THE REAL LIFE IMPACT OF
PROVIDING A DUAL EQUITY OR
INEQUITABLE CARCEL SYSTEM. AND I
JUST WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR. I
KNOW THAT THIS HAS BEEN MANY
YEARS IN THE MAKING FOR YOU AND
I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THAT. WE
HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY NOW TO RIGHT
, AT LEAST A PART OF THE WRONG
THAT WE HAVE COMMITTED FOR
UNDOCUMENTED. COMMUNITY MEMBERS
. SO THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE
TIME AND BEING HERE WITH HERE
BEING WITH US TODAY. THANK YOU,
MS ORTEGA. I ALSO WANT TO THANK
THE AUTHOR AND THE WITNESSES
TODAY AS AN UNDOCUMENTED
IMMIGRANT MYSELF WHO CAME TO
THIS COUNTRY WHEN I WAS THREE
YEARS OLD, AND MY PARENTS WERE
ABLE TO GET AMNESTY AM NOW
CITIZEN AND SIT HERE AND I'M
REALLY EXCITED AND, YOU KNOW,
SUPPORTIVE OF BEING ABLE TO NOT
JUST SEE YOU AND HAVE A SEAL. I
HAVE A VOICE HAVE A SEAT AT THE
TABLE. BUT ACTUALLY HAVE POLICY
AND LEGISLATION THAT'S GOING TO
MAKE A DIFFERENCE FOR HUNDREDS
OF THOUSANDS AROUND DOCUMENTED
IMMIGRANTS WHO COME HERE LOOKING
FOR A BETTER LIFE AND THAT
AMERICAN DREAM, SO THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. YOUR COMMENTS. YOU
MAKE CLOTHES. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR AND THANK YOU TO THE
COMMITTEE AND ALSO JUST I WANT
TO SAY THANK YOU TO YOUR TO YOUR
TEAM AND THE COMMITTEE AS WELL.
THE COMMITTEE CONSULTANTS FOR
WORKING WITH WITH US TO ENSURE
THAT WE'RE MOVING A PIECE OF
POLICY FORWARD THAT ULTIMATELY
AIMS TO END THE DOUBLE
PUNISHMENT OF IMMIGRANTS ACROSS
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN THERE
THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. THE
BILL DOES NOT CHANGE ANYTHING
RELATED TO SENTENCING ANYTHING
RELATED TO A JUDGE'S DECISION.
IT'S SIMPLY EMPOWERS THE
DEPARTMENT OF PAROLE AND THEIR
DECISION TO SAY WE BELIEVE THIS
INDIVIDUAL SHOULD BE ABLE IS
REHABILITATED AND HAS THE
OPPORTUNITY TO RETURN HOME,
WHETHER THEY ARE A CITIZEN OR
NON CITIZEN OR PERMANENT
RESIDENT OR REFUGEE. WHATEVER
OTHER IMMIGRANT STATUS THEY MAY
HAVE. IN THE LAST 10 YEARS, THE
LEGISLATURE HAS EASED THE PATH
TO PAROLE FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO
RECEIVED CONVICTIONS AS YOUNG
PEOPLE OFFERED RE SENTENCING FOR
CONVICTING CONVICTIONS UNDER THE
FELONY MURDER RULE, UH, CONFIDE
, CODIFIED AND CREATED SEVERAL
PATHS OF COMPASSIONATE RELEASE
AND PROVIDED POST CONVICTION
RELIEF FOR PEOPLE WHO WERE
PROSECUTED WITH CLEAR RACIAL
BIAS. OR HAD NO CONSIDERATION
FOR THEIR STATUS AS SURVIVORS OF
HUMAN TRAFFICKING AND PARTNER
VIOLENCE AND ALL THE POLICIES
THAT THIS LEGISLATURE HAS MOVED
FORWARD. IT WAS NEVER THE INTENT
OF ANYONE. TO EXCLUDE
IMMIGRANTS. THE VERY MERE FACT
THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS IS COLLABORATING
WITH IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT AND
ICE CREATES A DUAL SYSTEM OF
JUSTICE THAT IS INEQUITABLE. IT
IS NOT DEMOCRACY, AND IT IS NOT
THE VALUES OF CALIFORNIA
RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS AND I
VOTE. THANK YOU, OKAY? I WANT TO
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD AND THANK YOU FOR
WORKING WITH OUR COMMITTEE. I
ONCE WE ALL REALIZE WE'RE
WORKING FOR THE SAME THING. IT
BECAME REALLY EASY TO GET TO
WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW, AND I
THINK THE LEGISLATION THAT WE'RE
MOVING FORWARD. UM HAS THE BEST
CHANCE OF PASSING AND GETTING
THROUGH THIS TIME, SO I COMMEND
YOU FOR STICKING WITH IT. AND
MOVING FORWARD CHAIRS
RECOMMENDING I VOTE. ON A B 13
OH, SIX BY CINEMA CARILLO. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS AS AMENDED TO
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE JOHN
SAWYER, ALANIS. HE'S NOT VOTING
BONTA. AYE, JACKSON. BLACKIE
BLACKIE, NOT VOTING. ORTEGA.
ORTEGA I SANTIAGO. ZIPPER. SUPER
I MEASUREMENT CALL NEEDS ONE
MORE. THANK YOU. NEXT WE HAVE.
IT'S IT SAYS MR MAIENSCHEIN. BUT
I DON'T SEE HIM IN HERE. OKAY?
HE'S STILL IN JUDICIARY. SO MR
BAUER CHAOS. YEAH. IN THE SHINY
SHOES. YOU. YEAH. OKAY? WHENEVER
YOU'RE READY, OKAY. THANK YOU,
MR CHAIR, SO WE ARE PRESENTING A
B 16 43. I'M GOING TO BE
INCREDIBLY BRIEF BECAUSE I KNOW
YOU HAVE SO MUCH TO DO TODAY,
BUT THIS BILL IS INCREDIBLY
SIMPLE AND MERELY RAISES THE
AMOUNT OF RESTITUTION THAT IS
APPLICABLE. IF A YOUTH MAY BE
ELIGIBLE FOR DIVERSION PROGRAMS
, AND THIS IS A DECISION THAT IS
MADE AND THEY CURRENTLY OR
INELIGIBLE AND THIS IS THEY
CANNOT HAVE THE DISCRETION TO
GIVE THEM THIS DIVERSION IF THEY
HAVE A RESTITUTION OF $1000 AND
THAT WAS SAID IN THE EIGHTIES
WERE RAISING IT TO 5000 TO MAKE
MORE YOUTH ELIGIBLE FOR THIS
PROGRAM. UM AND WE THINK THAT
IT'S GOOD FOR BOTH. THE YOUTH TO
HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY AS WELL AS
FOR THE FACT THAT THERE'S LESS
RECIDIVISM WHEN THAT HAPPENS,
AND WITH ME TODAY, I HAVE TWO
WITNESSES TO HELP SUPPORT THE
BILL. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS
MYSTERY IN BURUNDI, AND I'M, AN
ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER WITH THE
PACIFIC JUVENILE DEFENDERS
CENTER, P. J. D. C I'M ALSO THE
SUPERVISING ATTORNEY OF THE
JUVENILE DIVISION AT THE SANTA
CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE, AND I'VE BEEN IN THAT
ROLE FOR SIX YEARS. I'M
TESTIFYING TODAY ON BEHALF OF P
. J. D C IS A PROUD SPONSOR OF
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BARRICADE
HANDS, BILL. YOUR YES VOTE TODAY
WILL POSITIVELY IMPACT THOUSANDS
OF CALIFORNIA YOUTH BY MAKING
MORE YOUTH SIMPLY ELIGIBLE FOR
DIVERSION OPPORTUNITIES BY OUR
JUVENILE COURTS AND PROBATION
DEPARTMENTS FOR LOW LEVEL
OFFENSES. CURRENT LAW PRESUMES
USED TO BE INELIGIBLE FOR THESE
DIVERSION PROGRAMS IF THE
RESTITUTION AMOUNT HAPPENS TO BE
$1000 OR MORE. THIS $1000
THRESHOLD HAS NOT BEEN REVISITED
SINCE 1989. GREAT EARTHQUAKE.
SOME 35 YEARS AGO. NOT ONLY IS
THE MONETARY AMOUNT OUTDATED AS
IT FAILS TO ACCOUNT FOR
INFLATION, BUT THINK ABOUT THE
ADVANCEMENTS IN TECHNOLOGY SINCE
THAT TIME TODAY, THE THEFT OF
ANYONE IPHONE AUTOMATICALLY
MAKES THE YOUTH PRESUMPTIVELY
INELIGIBLE FOR DIVERSION. YES
VOTE TODAY WILL HELP ENSURE THAT
OUR JUVENILE LAWS CONTINUE TO
CATCH UP TO THE SCIENCE. WHEN WE
DID RESEARCH INTO WHERE THE
ORIGINAL $1000 THRESHOLD CAME
FROM, WE WERE SURPRISED TO LEARN
THAT THE GOAL WAS IN FACT TO
BRING MORE KIDS INTO THE
JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM BASED ON
THE BELIEF BACK THEN THAT COURT
INVOLVEMENT WOULD HELP KIDS
EARLY ON, EVEN FOR LOW LEVEL.
INFRACTIONS SUCH AS CURFEW
VIOLATIONS AND TRUANCY SO THAT
THEY DO NOT BECOME HABITUAL
CRIMINAL CAREER OFFENDERS. NOW
IN 2023, OF COURSE, WE KNOW
BETTER. WE KNOW THAT YOUTH WHO
COMMIT LOW LEVEL OFFENSES ARE
MORE LIKELY TO SUCCEED WHEN THEY
ARE ACTUALLY DIVERTED OUT OF
FORMAL COURT INVOLVEMENT. SYSTEM
INVOLVEMENT FOR THOSE WHO
ACTUALLY NEED DIVERSION AS AN
INTERVENTION ACTUALLY LEADS TO
RECIDIVISM AND CONTRIBUTES TO
THE PUBLIC SAFETY PROBLEMS.
RAISING THE $1000 THRESHOLD OF
5000 IS A SIMPLE AND COMMON
SENSE CHANGE THAT IS SORELY
NEEDED. IT WILL KEEP OUR
COMMUNITIES SAFER. IT WILL ALSO
OPERATE TO KEEP MORE BLACK AND
BROWN YOUTH ELIGIBLE FOR
DIVERSION OPPORTUNITIES, AS WE
KNOW THAT THE TEND TO
DISPROPORTIONATELY REPRESENTED
IN OUR SYSTEMS, AND IT COMPORTS
WITH MODERN DAY SCIENCE THAT
SAYS, SOMETIMES WITH YOUTH. LESS
IS MORE AGAIN. THIS ONLY OPENS
THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ELIGIBILITY
. JUDGES AND PROBATION
DEPARTMENT STILL NEED TO
DETERMINE IF THE YOUTH IS
SUITABLE, SO THIS IS SIMPLY
ALLOWING THEM TO BE ELIGIBLE.
WITH THAT WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR
SUPPORT FOR OPENING MORE
PATHWAYS FOR OUR YOUTH AND ASK
RESPECTFULLY FOR YOUR YES VOTE.
THANK YOU. HELLO EVERYBODY. MY
NAME IS SOPHIA HARKIS. I AM FROM
SANTA CLARA COUNTY. I HELP RUN A
YOUTH LED NONPROFIT. UM AND I
SAID AS A SENIOR LEADER WITH
THAT ORGANIZATION AND I ADVOCATE
FOR OPPORTUNITY, YOUTH IN MY
COMMUNITY AS I AM AN
OPPORTUNITY, YOUTH MYSELF LIVED
EXPERIENCE. UM I'M HERE TO SPEAK
ON BEHALF OF MY COMMUNITY AND
SUPPORT OF THIS IMPORTANT BILL.
I'M HERE TO REPRESENT THOSE WHO
CANNOT SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.
TODAY I WOULD LIKE TO TELL YOU
ABOUT A FRIEND'S PERSONAL
EXPERIENCE, WHO IS ALSO A YOUTH
LEADER FROM SAN JOSE, AND HIS
EXPERIENCED THE JUVENILE JUSTICE
SYSTEM HIMSELF. HERE IS WHAT HE
WOULD LIKE FOR YOU GUYS TO KNOW
AS YOU CONSIDER THE IMPORTANT
CHANGE FOR YOUTH. INFORMAL
PROBATION MEANT THAT I DIDN'T
GET INCARCERATED. INSTEAD I WAS
INTRODUCED TO BENEFICIAL
COMMUNITY BASED PROGRAMS LIKE
FLIES LAW PROGRAM AND THE
NATIONAL C¢M BATTERIES, NETWORKS
. HOVAN NOBLES, SACRED CIRCLE.
THEY INTRODUCED ME TO A SENSE OF
COMMUNITY. MY COUSIN WHO WAS
DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY FOR
INFORMAL PROBATION DUE TO THE
AMOUNT OF MONEY INVOLVED WITH IN
HIS CASE, NEVER GOT THOSE SAME
OPPORTUNITIES. HE LIKE SO MANY
OTHERS THAT BECAME ENTRENCHED IN
THE SYSTEM SUFFERED TRAUMA AND
STIGMATIZATION COMING OUT WORSE
THAN HOW THEY WERE BEFORE THEY
WENT IN. I HOPE MY SUPPORT OF
THIS BILL, A B 1643 WILL ALLOW
FUTURE YOUTH WALKING THE SAME
STREETS, SURVIVING THE SAME
TRAUMAS AND EXPERIENCING THE
SAME OPPRESSION AS I DID, HOW
THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHANGE WITHIN
OUR COMMUNITIES. RATHER THAN
BEING STIGMATIZED FOR THE REST
OF THEIR LIVES AS WARDS OF THE
STATE. YOU SEE, NO ONE IN THIS
WORLD GETS TO CHOOSE WHERE THEY
ARE BORN, WHO THEIR PARENTS WILL
BE OR WHAT ECONOMIC SITUATION
THEY WILL BE BORN INTO.
UNFORTUNATELY SO MANY YOUTH ARE
NEVER GIVEN A CHANCE IN LIFE
BECAUSE OF THE FACTORS SUCH AS
LACK OF PARENTAL SUPERVISION,
GUIDANCE AND NEGATIVITY. UM,
PEER INFLUENCES. THEY FACE A
VERY INTIMIDATING AND
FRIGHTENING SYSTEM. WHERE IF YOU
MAKE EVEN THE SLIGHTEST MISTAKE,
IT COULD ALTER YOUR FUTURE.
THERE IS AN IMMENSE AMOUNT OF
TRAUMA THAT IS INFLICTED UPON
THE YOUTH WHO ARE PROCESSED
THROUGH THE FORMAL COURT COURT
SYSTEM. IT IS TIME FOR US TO
REFORM THE LAW FROM WHAT IT WAS
TO PROVIDE MORE DIVERSION
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH WHO ARE
STRUGGLING OUT THERE. YOUNG
PEOPLE TAKE RISKS. YOUNG PEOPLE
DO THINGS THAT THEY REGRET AND
YOUNG PEOPLE. SOMETIMES THEY'RE
JUST CAUGHT UP IN THE WRONG
CROWD. AND I DON'T THINK IT IS
FAIR FOR US AS A SOCIETY TO
FORCE OUR YOUNG PEOPLE INTO THE
JUVENILE SYSTEM UNNECESSARILY.
WHETHER YOU STEALS AN IPAD A
LAPTOP, AN ITEM WORTH 2500. IT
SHOULD NOT DICTATE THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DIVERSION AND
FORMAL COURT INVOLVEMENT BECAUSE
THE CONDUCT IS THE SAME. I
ADVOCATE FOR HOPE FOR CHANGE. AS
TUPAC SAID, IF THERE AIN'T NO
HOPE FOR THE YOUTH, THERE AIN'T
NO HOPE FOR THE FUTURE. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT, WE GOTTA TUPAC
NÓI GUARDS AND SUPPORT. DANICA
RIGHT ARM ON BEHALF OF ELLA
BAKER CENTER. MARCO GEORGE ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
LITTLE ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA'S
FOR SAFETY AND JUSTICE AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. NOW ARE
THERE ANY WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION? ANY WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION. WE'LL BRING YOU BACK
TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR ANY
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. YES, MR
BARTON. THANK YOU FIRST. I'D
LIKE TO MOVE THE BILL. THANK YOU
. AND JUST, UH, SHARE THAT I'M.
INCREDIBLY THANKFUL TO THE
AUTHOR FOR BRINGING FORWARD THIS
LEGISLATION AND FURTHER
WITNESSES, PARTICULARLY THOSE
DIRECTLY IMPACTED SHARING YOUR
TESTIMONY ABOUT WHAT IT MEANS
WHEN OUR YOUTH RESTITUTION
SYSTEM IS NOT YOUR TOWARDS
ENSURING THAT WE HAVE ACCESS FOR
EVERY YOUTH. UM THIS BILL IS
VERY MUCH IN ALIGNMENT WITH MY
BILL. A B 11 86, WHICH REALLY
ADDRESSES THE EXISTING SYSTEM OF
YOUTH RESTITUTION AND REALLY
PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US
TO RECOGNIZE THAT WE NEED TO
INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF INFORMAL
ACCESS AND SUPERVISION THAT WE
PROVIDE THROUGH FOR OUR YOUTH IN
THIS, SO I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL
FOR PUTTING THIS FORWARD. AH I
WOULD LOVE TO BE A CO AUTHOR. IF
YOU'RE CONSIDERING CO AUTHORS,
AND WITH THAT THE BILL. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU THERE, MR. OKAY,
MR ALLEN. UH, SO I WAS IN THE
MID NINETIES I WAS INVOLVED ARE
JUVENILE DIVERSION PROGRAM AND
IN MY COUNTY AND I DO BELIEVE IN
GETTING TO THEM EARLY, GETTING
THE RESOURCES THEY NEED TO MAKE
THEM SUCCESSFUL. THEY'RE YOUNG,
THEY MAKE MISTAKES. AND THEY
NEED OUR HELP. AND SO I WAS JUST
WONDERING ON THE PRICE FOR THE
5000 WITH THE, UH WITH MY
CALCULATION WITH THE CONSUMER
PRICE INDEX. IT WAS AROUND 23.
100 OR SO. I JUST WONDER IF YOU
CAN ELABORATE ON THE 5000. YEAH
OF COURSE. UM YEAH, AND WE TRIED
TO DO CALCULATIONS. WELL WE GOT
AS HIGH AS 2700. AND TO YOUR
POINT. IT'S NOT 5000 WITH
INFLATION. INFLATION IS
OBVIOUSLY IMPORTANT PIECE OF
THIS. IT WOULD MORE THAN DOUBLE
WITH INFLATION. UM BUT PART OF
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE IS
AS YOU HEARD FROM THE WITNESS
AND I CAN HAVE HER ELABORATE IF
YOU WANT. THERE'S STILL
DISCRETION HERE, RIGHT? THIS IS
NOT MANDATORY DIVERSION. IT IS
MERELY MAKING IT POSSIBLE FOR
YOUTH TO PARTICIPATE. AND SO WE
REALLY WANTED TO SET THIS AT A
VALUE THAT MADE SENSE THAT
ALLOWED MORE YOUTH INTO THE
VERSION PROGRAMS WHERE PROBATION
RECOMMENDS IT WHERE THE DA DOES
NOT CHARGE WHERE THE JUDGE
ALLOWS IT, AND THAT'S WHAT THIS
DOES. AND SO WE DO. WE DID WANT
TO RAISE IT HIGHER THAN
INFLATION TO INCREASE
OPPORTUNITIES WHERE IT WAS
APPROPRIATE AGAIN. THESE ARE YOU
KNOW ALL THE LEVEL OFFENSES AND
IT'S ONE FACTOR IN DECIDING
WHETHER THEY'RE ELIGIBLE, BUT WE
THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT ONE THAT
WE WANTED TO RAISE. AND SO WE
DID IT AT 5000. BUT, YOU KNOW
OPEN TO CONVERSATIONS ABOUT
THAT, IF IT WERE TO BECOME AN
ISSUE THANK YOU. AND I GUESS I
NEED TO GET FROM HERE WITH THE
TUPAC. OH THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
NOTHING ELSE. YOU MAKE CLOTHES.
THANK YOU. I REALLY APPRECIATE
IT. I ALSO WANT TO THANK OUR
WITNESSES FOR BEING HERE AND FOR
YOU SHARING THE VOICE OF THE
YOUTH WHO WERE IMPACTED BY THIS.
I THINK IT'S SO INCREDIBLY
IMPORTANT THAT WE GIVE YOU A
SECOND CHANCE AND GIVE THEM THE
OPPORTUNITIES TO REHABILITATE
AND BE PART OF THE SOCIETY THAT
WE WANT THEM TO BE. WHICH IS OUR
FUTURE. AND SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I
APPRECIATE THAT VOICE BEING HERE
AND I REQUEST FULLY RESPECT YOUR
I VOTE. THANK YOU. CHAIRS
RECOMMEND I VOTE CALLED THE ROLE
ON A B 16 43 BY SOME MEMBER
BARRICADE HAND, THE MOTION IS
DUE PASSED THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE JOHN SAWYER. ELONIS
ALANIS I BONTA TO JACKSON. LUCKY
LUCKY, NOT VOTING. ORTEGA. OR
TAKE A I SANTIAGO. ZUBER I
MEASURE PASSES. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR. THANK YOU. WE HAVE 20.
MINUTES BEFORE WE RECESS AT
NOON. AND IN ORDER. I HAVE
MAIENSCHEIN HOOVER, GABRIEL
SWIVELS GIBEAU. I DON'T SEE A
MAIENSCHEIN. GOING ONCE GOING
TWICE FORWARD, MR HOOVER, OK?
OKAY? THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. THIS.
CHIEF WHENEVER YOU'RE READY, MR
HOOVER, OK? AH APPRECIATE IT.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR MEMBERS. I
KNOW IT'S ALMOST LUNCHTIME.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY
PRESENTED 17 46. I JUST WANT TO
START BY SAYING I UNDERSTAND. I
UNDERSTAND THE CHAIRS
RECOMMENDATION ON THIS BILL, BUT
I WOULD JUST ASK THAT EVERYONE
KEEP AN OPEN MIND. INCLUDING
YOU, MR CHAIR. I WHEN THIS STORY
WAS SHARED WITH ME, IT WAS
SOMETHING THAT UH, TOLD ME THAT
I NEEDED TO INTRODUCE A BILL ON
THIS TOPIC. UM, THIS BILL IS
VERY SPECIFICALLY TARGETED AT AT
SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED IN MY
DISTRICT, AND SO I REALLY
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT IT FOR YOU TODAY. UM TO
MY RIGHT IS RYAN STRANGE? SHE IS
A CONSTITUENT OF MINE. I MET
RYAN A FEW MONTHS AGO WHEN HE
APPROACHED ME. UM WITH HIS
HEARTBREAKING STORY THAT HE'S
GOING TO SHARE WITH YOU
MOMENTARILY TO SUMMARIZE IN 2019
. RILEY'S STRANGE LOST HER LIFE
AT THE HANDS OF A DAYCARE WORKER
IN MY DISTRICT WHEN SHE WAS JUST
ONE YEAR OLD. RILEY'S FATHER,
RYAN IS HERE BECAUSE HE'S TRYING
TO ADVOCATE FOR ALL KIDS THAT
DIE AT THE HANDS OF A CHILD
ABUSER. UM AND I JUST WANT TO
BRIEFLY BEFORE I TURN IT OVER TO
RYAN SHARE. WHY I BROUGHT THIS
FORWARD. WHY I WROTE IT THE WAY
THAT I DID. I WROTE IT VERY
NARROWLY TO ONLY APPLY IN CASES
WHERE CHILD ABUSE RESULTS IN THE
DEATH OF THE CHILD. SO VERY
SIMPLY A B 17 46 PROHIBITS A
PERSON WHO'S ABUSE CAUSES A
CHILD'S DEATH FROM BEING
ELIGIBLE TO EARN TWO THIRDS OFF
THEIR SENTENCE WHEN
PARTICIPATING IN A FIRE CAMP.
NOW I THINK IT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT. TO CLARIFY WHAT MY
BILL DOES NOT DO. AND I WAS. I
WAS VERY SPECIFIC TO MAKE SURE
IT DID NOT DO THESE THINGS. IT
DOES NOT MAKE A CHANGE TO PROP
57 THAT REQUIRES APPROVAL BY THE
VOTERS. IT DOES NOT RECLASSIFY
THE CRIME IN QUESTION. IT ALSO
DOES NOT ELIMINATE THE ABILITY
FOR THE INMATE TO STILL EARN
EARLY RELEASE CREDITS. AH I AND
SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE THOSE
THREE THINGS VERY, VERY CLEAR. I
ALSO WANT TO COMMEND THE STRANGE
FAMILY FOR THEIR ADVOCACY AND
THEIR WILLINGNESS TO PUT FORWARD
THIS BILL, WHICH WE ARE CALLING
RILEY'S LAW AND HONOR OF RYAN'S
DAUGHTER, UM, THAT PROVIDES MORE
ACCOUNTABILITY WHILE ALSO
RESPECTING AND ACKNOWLEDGING THE
VIEWS OF MANY MEMBERS OF THIS
COMMITTEE. WE DID TRY VERY HARD
TO STRIKE THE RIGHT BALANCE WITH
THIS BILL. AND SO I RESPECTFULLY
URGE YOUR I VOTE AND I WOULD
LIKE TO TURN IT OVER TO MY
WITNESS TO SHARE HIS STORY. GOOD
MORNING, EVERYONE, UM BEFORE I
SEE MY TESTIMONY. I DO WANNA
MAKE SURE BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND
YOU GUYS WANT TO OPPOSE THIS
BILL THAT I WROTE FROM MY
DAUGHTER. AND FOR THE FUTURE OF
CHILDREN. BUT BEFORE YOU DO
THAT, I ASKED YOU TO THINK ABOUT
THREE QUESTIONS. IS IT OKAY TO
STRIKE A CHILD? IS IT
CONSERVATIVE, VIOLENT ACTION? OR
IS IT NON VIOLENCE? IS IT OKAY
TO DO RAPE, BODILY DAMAGE
RESULTING IN THE DEATH? OF A
CHILD. IS IT A VIOLENT ACTION OR
NON VIOLENT ACTION? ALSO. THIS
IS THE LAST QUESTION. I ASK OF
YOU WHEN YOU THINK OF MY STORY
AND WHEN YOU HEAR WHAT I GOT TO
SAY TODAY IF THIS HAPPENED TO
YOU, YOUR CHILD YOUR GRANDCHILD
WHEN YOU'RE HERE WORKING LIKE
EVERY CALIFORNIAN, WOULD YOU
WANT THIS TO HAPPEN TO YOU? AND
ARE YOU OKAY WITH IT? ON
FEBRUARY 6 2019. MY DAUGHTER,
RAILA. FIRST AND FOREMOST, MY
WORLD CHANGED. I GOT A CALL. I
WAS IN HANFORD, CALIFORNIA OVER
THREE HOURS AWAY. I GOT A CALL
FROM MY SISTER IN LAW AND MY
MOTHER IN LAW. TO TELL ME
SOMETHING HAPPENED. MY DAUGHTER.
I DROVE. LUCKILY, MY BROTHER IS
IN THE U. S MILITARY AT THE TIME
HE DROVE ME BACK. I WENT TO UC
DAVIS GOD, ESCORTED BY THE
SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF'S IN
DETECTIVES TO WATCH MY DAUGHTER.
A LOT OF MACHINES. BRAIN DEAD.
BRAIN DEAD. NOW LET'S BACK UP A
LITTLE BIT. HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?
HOW DO WE GET TO THIS? MY WIFE
WENT TO PICK UP MY DAUGHTER FROM
DAYCARE. SHE HAD IT. MY CHILD
BRAIN DEAD. SHE LIFTED HER ARM.
IT FELL DOWN. THEY CALLED RANCHO
CORDOVA FIRE DEPARTMENT, THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT THEY SAID. OH,
THIS IS A SEIZURE THAT'S HAPPENS
TO CHILDREN SOMETIMES. WHEN SHE
WENT INTO THE PARAMEDICS ON THE
WAY TO U. C. DAVIS CHILDREN'S
HOSPITAL. SHE HAD ANOTHER STROKE
, ACTUALLY, SORRY SHE HAD
ANOTHER SEIZURE IN A STROKE. I
ASKED EACH ONE OF EVERY ONE OF
YOU. WHEN DID THE LAST TIME YOU
HEARD OF A CHILD? LESSON. TWO
YEARS OLD HAVING A STROKE. IS
THAT NORMAL? IT'S NOT NORMAL.
NOT IN A TWO YEAR OLD CHILD.
THAT VERY NEXT DAY. LUCKILY
THEY'RE ABLE TO LEAVE HER ON
LIFE SUPPORT. SO OUR FAMILY
KIDNAPPED TO HANG TO SAY BYE.
THAT SAME DAY, ME AND MY WIFE.
HELP MY CHILD. UNTIL SHE WAS HER
HEART TO STOP AND I GOT TO SEE
WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TO HAVE A
LISTEN TO REAL BABY TURNED BLUE.
LIKE MILLIONS OF KIDS THAT GET
INJURED THAT DOT NOT THAT GET
INJURED. THESE ARE THINGS YOU DO
NOT WANT TO SEE. EVER I DID NOT
ENVISION MY LIFE. I'D SEE MY
CHILD WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TO BE
DEAD. SHORTLY AFTER THAT LATER
ON, SHE GOT CHARGED. SHE GOT
ARRESTED. SHE WAS HERE IN
SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL. TWO DAYS
LATER, SHE WENT IN FRONT OF A
JUDGE. SHE AUTOMATICALLY GOT
RELEASED WHILE BEING CHARGED
WITH GREAT BODILY INJURED.
INJURY RESULTING IN DEATH OF A
CHILD. RELEASED. SHORTLY AFTER
THAT. ON APRIL 9TH. 2020. SHE
PLED GUILTY. SHE PLED GUILTY.
ABUSING. AND KILLING OUR CHILD
AND DOING THE GREAT BODILY HARM
THAT RESULTED IN HER DEATH. SHE
PLED GUILTY. BEFORE THE
SENTENCING HEARING, THE
DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND
CORRECTION TWO REVIEWS BEFORE A
JUDGE. TO GIVE A RECOMMENDATION
, THEY SAID, VERY CLEARLY ON
RECORD IN THE DOCUMENT. SHE WAS
A DANGER AND THREAT TO SOCIETY.
THEIR DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
WHO HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF HER
STATED THIS. SHE GOT CHARGED
WITH THIS FOR 10 YEARS. AFTER
THAT HAPPENED, SHE WANTS TO
TRACY DETENTION FACILITY TO BE
TORMENT WHERE SHE'S GONNA GO.
ABOUT PROXIMITY. MONTHS LATER,
SHE WANTED TO CHILL A STATE
PRISON. A COUPLE OF WEEKS LATER
, SHE APPLIED FOR CAL FIRE'S
REHABILITATION PROGRAM. SHE
AUTOMATICALLY WALKED OUT WHEN
INTO A FIRE CAMP. MINIMUM
SECURITY. TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE
SYSTEM. AND A LITTLE OVER A
YEAR, APPROXIMATELY 12 MONTHS
LATER. WALKED OUT OF THERE INTO
REHABILITATION CENTER. TO THIS
DAY. SHE'S RIGHT HERE IN
SACRAMENTO COUNTY.
WHEN PROPOSITION 57 WAS PASSING,
BY THE WAY JUST TO LET YOU KNOW
THIS BILL IS NOT TIED TO
PROPOSITION 57, BUT JUST SORRY.
I'M SORRY. REAL QUICK. I'M SO
SORRY. REAL QUICK IN 2016. IT
WAS DESIGNED TO NOT LET DÍAS
OFFICES GO IN STOCK UPON
CHARTERS UPON CHARTERS. THIS WAS
NOT INTENDED TO HAPPEN. THIS
BILL. I HOPE YOU STRUGGLING
COURAGE TO NOT OPPOSE THIS BILL
. THIS BILL IS SPECIFICALLY
GEARED TOWARDS CHILD DOING GREAT
BODILY DAMAGE RESULTING IN DEATH
OF A CHILD. THANK YOU SO MUCH
FOR YOUR TIME. I'M SORRY I WENT
OVER. EXACTLY. ANY OTHERS IN
FAVOR. IN THE OTHERS IN FAVOR OF
THE BILL. MR HOOPER'S 17 46. I
DON'T NUMBER 34. WAS ANYONE IN
OPPOSITION.
DANICA RIGHT ARM ON BEHALF OF
INITIATE JUSTICE. THERE'S
NOTHING HARDER IN MY JOB. THEN
HEARING A STORY LIKE YOURS AND
HAVING TO COME UP AND SAY THAT
WE DON'T THINK THIS IS THE RIGHT
POLICY CHOICE. I SAT NEXT TO
YOUR WIFE ALL DAY SO FAR, AND I
JUST WANT TO SAY I'M PERSONALLY
COMMITTED TO PROVIDING ANY
SUPPORT AND RESOURCES AND
INFORMATION TO YOU AND YOUR
FAMILY AND COMMUNITY THAT I CAN
ALL OF THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT I
WORK WITH AND ON BEHALF OF AND I
MY PERSONAL COMMITMENT IS TO
REALLY TRY TO END VIOLENCE AND
THINGS LIKE WHAT HAPPENED TO
YOUR DAUGHTER AND YOUR FAMILY
FROM HAPPENING. UM. 17 46 WILL
NOT PREVENT SOMETHING LIKE THAT
FROM HAPPENING AGAIN. AND
BECAUSE OF THAT. OUR POSITION IS
THAT CREATING POLICY BASED ON
BLANKET EXCLUSIONS FOR TYPES OF
CONVICTIONS IS JUST NOT THE
RIGHT WAY TO TRY TO FIX THESE
PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE IN OUR
SOCIETY. AND THEN WE HAVE TO
FIND SOME OTHER WAYS. AND SO WE
ARE OPPOSED BECAUSE WE BELIEVE
THAT PEOPLE THAT ARE CERTAIN
THAT ARE ELIGIBLE FOR FIRE CAMPS
SHOULD BE EARNING CREDITS AT THE
SAME RATE AS EVERYBODY ELSE
SERVING ON THOSE FIRE CAMPS.
I'LL ALSO JUST NOTE I'M FROM
SONOMA COUNTY IN 2017. MANY
PEOPLE IN MY COMMUNITY LOST
HOMES TO FIRES AND MY FAMILY
NEARLY LOST OUR PROPERTY. AND
EVERYBODY IN MY COMMUNITY WHO
LEARNED THAT INCARCERATED
FIREFIGHTERS WERE FIGHTING ON
THEIR BEHALF REALLY WANTED TO
MAKE SURE THAT THOSE PEOPLE
EARNED CREDIT FOR THEIR SERVICE
OF SAVING LIVES AND BUILDINGS.
UM AND SO WITH THAT, I THINK
I'LL JUST CLOSE AND SAY AGAIN.
I'M VERY, VERY SORRY, AND WE
JUST DON'T THINK THIS IS THE
RIGHT SOLUTION TO TRY TO PREVENT
THINGS LIKE THIS FROM HAPPENING
AGAIN. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. THINKING
THAT MR HOOVER CLOSED, OKAY.
THANK YOU. AND UH OH. SORRY.
SORRY. UM MARCO GEORGE UNCAF OF
THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION AND OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. SORRY. CUT OFF
OPPOSITION. ESPANA NEOS ON
BEHALF OF THE ANTI RECIDIVISM,
COALITION AND OPPOSITION. MAYBE
GETTING OUT OF THANK YOU. THANK
YOU AGAIN. UM YOU KNOW, I THINK
I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THAT
YOU KNOW OUR GOAL WITH THIS
BILL, AND WE'RE OPEN TO CONTINUE
WORKING ON IT AS WELL WITH THE
OPPOSITION. IF THERE'S ANOTHER
PATH HERE, AND THERE WERE MANY
OPTIONS THAT WE WERE CONSIDERING
WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT HOW WE
COULD PUT TOGETHER LEGISLATION
THAT WOULD PASS THIS COMMITTEE
THAT WOULD NOT, UM, TREAD ON.
YOU KNOW YOUR PRIORITIES, MR
CHAIR, AND SO WE HAVE BEEN VERY
UH, WE WROTE THIS IN A VERY
SPECIFIC WAY, AND WE'RE VERY
OPEN TO CONTINUING TO WORK ON
RYLANCE LAW TO MAKE IT YOU KNOW,
TO FIX ANY PROBLEMS THAT ARE
THERE, BUT WE DO BELIEVE VERY
STRONGLY. THAT IT IS, IT IS NOT
OKAY. FOR THE PERSON THAT
COMMITTED THIS CRIME. TO HAVE
ACCESS TO THIS SPECIFIC THE
CREDITS IN THIS SPECIFIC PROGRAM
, THEY ANY INDIVIDUAL IN THIS
SITUATION WOULD STILL BE
ELIGIBLE TO EARN, UH, STANDARD
EARLY RELEASE CREDITS. THIS DOES
NOT AFFECT THAT IN ANY WAY IT
ONLY IMPACTS THE SPECIFIC
CREDITS EARNED IN THE FIRE
PROGRAM. AND SO THAT IS WHY WE
KEPT IT VERY SPECIFIC TO THAT
PROGRAM. UM IT UM AND SO, YOU
KNOW, I WOULD JUST I STRONGLY
URGE YOUR YOUR I VOTE. AND IF
THERE'S ANY PATH WORD HERE, WE
WOULD WOULD CERTAINLY APPRECIATE
ANY SUGGESTIONS AS WELL. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. YOU HAVE A
PERSON THE SECOND AND I, TOO
WANT TO OBVIOUSLY, AFTER OUR
CONDOLENCES, BUT ALSO, UM. AS A
FATHER AND A GRANDFATHER UNDER
THAT, WHAT YOU JUST WHAT YOU
JUST DID WAS EXTREMELY
DIFFICULT. I DON'T KNOW IF. I
WAS SITTING IN THE SAME PLACE IF
I COULD COME BEFORE THIS
COMMITTEE AND HAVING BRAVERY.
UM, AND THE STRENGTH. TO BURY
YOUR SOUL TO EVERYBODY. IT'S NOT
EASY TO FLY. YOU'RE A BETTER MAN
THAN I AM. AND I COMMEND YOU FOR
COMING HERE TODAY AND OPEN OUR
EYES TO WHAT HAD HAPPENED. I'M
GOING TO ABSTAIN, SO I'M NOT
GONNA VOTE. NO. AND THEN WE CAN
. IF IT DOESN'T MAKE IT OUT, WE
CAN CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION.
AH! MAINLY BECAUSE I WANT TO
FIGURE OUT A WAY TO EASE YOUR
PAIN. THANK YOU SO MUCH, OKAY?
THANK YOU. YOU DON'T KNOW HOW
MUCH THAT BEATS ME. THANK YOU.
SECRETARY CALLED WRONG ON A B 17
46 BY HIS REMEMBER HOOVER. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASSED TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE, JOHN
SAWYER. NOT PROBABLY, YOU'RE NOT
VOTING COLONIES. BANTA NOT
VOTING, JACKSON. BLACKIE
BLACKIE. I ORTEGA. TAKEN, NOT
VOTING. SANTIAGO ZUBER. SUPER
NOT VOTING. MEASURE DIDN'T PASS
BUT WOULD APPRECIATE
RECONSIDERATION. IF POSSIBLE.
THANK YOU. OBJECTION. THANK YOU
DONE BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT. THANK
YOU AGAIN. THANK YOU FOR BEING
HERE TODAY. THANK YOU FOR
KEEPING RILEY'S LAW AND
HOPEFULLY WE CAN MAKE SURE THIS
IS A STATE POLLING FIGURE OUT A
WAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU NOW.
FIVE MINUTES TO 12, AND I KNOW
IT'S GONNA BE A LONG ONE. SO I'M
GONNA HAVE US RESET AND COME
BACK. AND ONE. 37 ROOM 1 27.
WHICH IS RIGHT ACROSS THE HALL.
SHE TELLS ME WHAT TO SAY. I
THANK YOU FOR COMING BACK TO
RECONVENE THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE
ON PUBLIC SAFETY. UH LET'S SEE,
I HAD MR MAIENSCHEIN, MR
GABRIEL. AND WE HAVE AN AUTHOR
MESSAGE. SZABO. YOU COME UP.
THAT WE PROVIDE YOU A CHAIR, OR
DID WE TURN THE CHAIRS THE WRONG
WAY? THERE'S SOMETHING GOING ON
WHAT'S GOING ON? YEAH. YOU KNOW?
THANK YOU. DO THOSE HERE? UM.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. I REALLY AM
GRATEFUL FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT A B 11 33 TO YOU TODAY
AND REALLY APPRECIATE THE
COMMITTEE STAFF WORK. UM, WE ARE
HAPPY TO ACCEPT THE AMENDMENTS.
MAYBE 11 33 WILL ESTABLISH A
STATEWIDE CURRICULUM FOR
CONCEALED CARRY WEAPONS PERMITS
FOR THE APPLICANTS AND THIS WILL
IMPROVE AND EQUALIZED STANDARDS
TO MAKE OUR COMMUNITIES SAFER.
UM YOU KNOW, THE SUPREME COURT
DECISION THAT HAPPENED LAST YEAR
HAS INCREASED THE DEMAND FOR
CONCEALED CARRY WEAPONS PERMITS
. AND SO THERE'S A REAL NEED FOR
US TO STANDARDIZE THE, UM THE
TRAINING THAT IS SURROUNDING
CONCEALED CARRY AND WHEN MR
GROSSMAN BROUGHT FORWARD THIS
BILL IDEA TO OUR OFFICE, WHO'S A
FORMER POLICE OFFICER HIMSELF
AND CONCEALED CARRY TRAINER. UM
I WAS REALLY SURPRISED TO HEAR
THAT THERE WAS NO STANDARD IN
CALIFORNIA WHEN IT COMES TO
REALLY WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE
TRAINING FOR COOKING, CONCEALED
CARRY WEAPONS. UM WE KNOW THAT
THERE'S UM YOU KNOW SOME OF
THESE TRAININGS. AND BEING
GETTING COFFEE AND HAVING SOME
PANCAKES AND SOMEONE SIGNING OFF
ON YOUR PERMIT. UM AND THAT'S
HOW SOME PEOPLE GET PERMITS
RENEWED OR EVEN PERMITS IN THE
FIRST PLACE RIGHT NOW, AND SO WE
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE
BRINGING FORWARD SOMETHING THAT
WILL BE A CONSISTENT POLICY AND
STANDARDS SO THAT EVERYONE IS
TRAINED ON BOTH THE LAWS SAFE
HANDLING AND ACTUALLY, UM, HAVE
TRAINING, SHOOTING A GUN AND
KNOW HOW TO USE A GUN AS WELL.
IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE HAVING
REALLY SERIOUS PERMIT LIKE THIS
. THERE'S OVER 121,000
CALIFORNIANS THAT HAVE CONCEALED
CARRY WEAPONS PERMITS, AND IT'S
GROWING, UM AND THEN PROPERLY
TAUGHT PERMIT HOLDER CAN CAUSE
INJURY OR EVEN DEATH. WE KNOW
THAT LESS GUNS ON THE STREETS
ARE THE SOLUTION. HOWEVER FOR
THOSE WHO DO OBTAIN A PERMIT TO
CARRY THAT THE STATE MUST ENSURE
THAT WE HAVE PROPERLY TRAINED
INDIVIDUALS. 11 33 DIRECTS THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO DEVELOP
THE STANDARDIZED CURRICULUM AND
MAKE STANDARD MIXED STANDARDS
FREE AND EASY TO ACCESS. THE
BILL SETS A BAR FOR THE SAME FOR
ALL AND ENSURES PROPER TRAINING
, REGARDLESS OF WHERE SOMEONE
LIVES IN CALIFORNIA AND AS I
MENTIONED JOINING ME TODAY IS
FIREARMS INSTRUCTOR AND AUTHOR
OF CONCEALED CARRY WEAPONS IN
CALIFORNIA BOOK THAT HE CREATED
BECAUSE NOTHING EXISTS. UM AND
FORMER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
ROBERT GROSSMAN, WHO'S ALSO HERE
TO TESTIFY. OKAY WHENEVER YOU'RE
READY, FIVE MINUTES, SIR. THANK
YOU. SO MY NAME IS ROBERT GROSS
MINIMUM FIREARMS INSTRUCTOR
PASSED LAW ENFORCEMENT. UM TOP
GUN. THAT MEANS NOTHING EXCEPT
BRAGGING RIGHTS AND AUTHOR OF
AUTHOR OF THIS THIS BOOK. EXCEPT
THE BILL. MAYBE 11 33 DOES NOT
IMPOSE ANYTHING THAT'S REALLY
CONTROVERSIAL OR NEW BARBER'S
VOTERS, BEAUTICIANS REAL ESTATE
AGENTS, CONTRACTORS, EVEN PEOPLE
WHO WANT TO DRIVE A CAR. HAVE TO
TAKE A STEP STATE MANDATED
CURRICULUM AND PASSED THE STATE
MANDATED EXAM, SO THERE'S
NOTHING NEW AND MANY OTHER
STATES INCLUDE THIS. THIS BILL
DOES NOT IMPOSE ANY RESTRICTIONS
ON FIREARM OWNERSHIP. HMM.
THERE'S ALREADY A LAW IN
CALIFORNIA THAT SAYS YOU HAVE TO
TAKE A CLASS. 11, 33 SAYS, YOU
ACTUALLY HAVE TO LEARN SOMETHING
IN THE CLASS. CURRENTLY THERE IS
NO STANDARD STATEWIDE EXAM OF
ANY KIND, AND THERE IS NO
STANDARDIZED CURRICULUM OF ANY
KIND. A CCW PERMIT E MAY HAVE
TAKEN A CLASS IN MODOC COUNTY,
WHERE THEY LEARNED ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING AND THEN THEY'RE FREE TO
CARRY THEIR FIREARMS ANYWHERE
THEY WANT TO IN L. A PARKS,
PLAYGROUNDS ANYWHERE THEY WANT
TO REALLY, WITHOUT ANY TRAINING.
YOU CAN SEE I'VE SHARED WITH YOU
. ONE OF MY PRECONSTRUCTION
SURVEYS THAT I GIVE TO, UH,
APPLICANTS WHEN THEY COME TO MY
CLASS IF THEIR RENEWAL
APPLICANTS, I GIVE THEM THE
SURVEY TO SEE IF THEY ACTUALLY
LEARNED ANYTHING SO WE DON'T
HAVE TO WASTE TIME ON STUFF THEY
ALREADY KNOW. THIS IS VERY
TYPICAL. UM WHAT I SEE WHERE
THEY GET EVERYTHING WRONG. IN
OTHER WORDS, THEY DON'T KNOW.
ANYTHING ANY BASICS AT ALL? THAT
HAVE BEEN GIVEN THEM TO THEM BY
OTHER INSTRUCTORS. SO MY CLASS
TAKES QUITE A LONG TIME.
CALIFORNIA RIGHT NOW IS
UNWITTINGLY INCENTIVIZING
INSTRUCTORS TO OFFER EASY
CLASSES BECAUSE OFFERING EASY
CLASSES IS A GREAT WAY TO
ATTRACT PAYING CUSTOMERS. AND
RIGHT NOW. CALIFORNIA IS ALSO
INCENTIVIZING. APPLICANTS TO
LOOK FOR THOSE EASY INSTRUCTORS
BECAUSE THAT OFFERS THE EASIEST
PATHWAY TO GET ONE OF THESE
COVETED CERTIFICATES OF
COMPLETION. SOME INSTRUCTORS
CLASSES. MY OLD INSTRUCTORS
CLASS, FOR EXAMPLE, CONSISTED OF
NOTHING MORE THAN GOING OUT AND
HAVING COFFEE. I'M GIVING YOU A
COPY OF MY COURSE SYLLABUS,
WHICH IS MUCH BETTER THAN JUST
HAVING COFFEE, BUT IT'S JUST
COVERS THE BASICS. RIGHT NOW.
THE BASICS ARE NOT COVERED.
THERE'S A REASON FOR THAT, FOR
INSTRUCTORS ASSEMBLING
INFORMATION. THAT IS EVIDENCE
BASED. THAT IS VERIFIABLE IS
SUPER DIFFICULT. HARD TO
ASSEMBLE. TIME CONSUMING.
THEY'RE NOT GONNA THEY'RE NOT
GONNA DO THE WORK. THE
INSTRUCTORS. NOW GET THEIR
INFORMATION FROM INTERNET
YOUTUBE VIDEOS. ALRIGHT INFLATED
CLAIMS BY MANUFACTURERS. THAT
THOSE TYPES OF UNRELIABLE
SOURCES. SUBJECTS THAT ARE NOT
COMMONLY TAUGHT IN THESE CLASSES
, BUT I FEEL SHOULD BE INCLUDE
HOW TO INTERFACE WITH LAW
ENFORCEMENT. WHEN IS SHOOTING
JUSTIFIABLE? WHAT TYPES OF
CARTRIDGES OR INAPPROPRIATE FOR
SELF DEFENSE WHY CERTAIN
FIREARMS ARE PROBLEMATIC FOR
SELF DEFENSE. WHEN OUR FIREARMS
NOT THE BEST OPTION FOR SELF
DEFENSE AND MANY OTHER CRITICAL
SUBJECTS, THEN INSTRUCTORS AND
APPLICANTS RIGHT NOW MIGHT FIND
UNPALATABLE, SO THEY'RE NOT
TEACHING THAT I SHOULD REALLY
HAVE NOT HAD TO WRITE THIS BOOK.
I REALLY SHOULDN'T HAVE HAD, I
SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GO TO A
CALIFORNIA STATE WEBSITE CCW DOT
CA.GOV OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT
AND DOWNLOAD A PDF WITH ALL OF
THE. PERTINENT INFORMATION THAT
ANYBODY WHO CARRIES A GUN IN
PUBLIC SHOULD KNOW, BUT THAT
DOESN'T EXIST. I DO HAVE AN
ENDORSEMENT FROM THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT.
THAT'S AWESOME. THEY'RE THE
BIGGEST DEPARTMENT AND IN THE
UNITED STATES. UM I'VE GIVEN YOU
ALSO A MAP THAT SHOWS YOU WHAT
OTHER STATES ARE UP TO AS FAR AS
REQUIRING RICH CURRICULA, AND
THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT FOR YOU.
THANK YOU, SIR. ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT. PRETTY
WITNESSES AND SUPPORT. ANY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION. MOVE IT
HERE, RIGHT. THE CHAIR AROUND ON
THAT SIDE. SORRY. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIRMAN MEMBERS. COREY CELLS.
ILO ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
STATE SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION IN
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL, UM, WITH
RESPECT TO THE AUTHOR, WE THINK
THIS IS A SOLUTION IN SEARCH OF
A PROBLEM. DISCUSSION THUS FAR
AS SEEMED TO INDICATE THAT
THERE'S INADEQUATE TRAINING OR
MAYBE EVEN A LACK OF TRAINING.
THE EXISTING LAW SETS FORTH
MINIMUM LENGTHS FOR THE COURSES
. UM, REQUIRES COURSES TO
INCLUDE, AND I'M READING FROM
THE STATUTE INSTRUCTION ON
FIREARMS SAFETY, FIREARM
HANDLING, SHOOTING TECHNIQUE AND
LAWS REGARDING THE PERMISSIBLE
USE OF A FIREARM. ALL THINGS
IDENTIFIED BY THE AUTHOR AS
WORTHY OF TRAINING, WHICH THEY
ARE IN THEIR IDENTIFIED IN THE
STATUTE. THE LAW REQUIRES THE
COURSE TO INCLUDE LIVE FIRE
SHOOTING EXERCISES ON A FIRING
RANGE, A DEMONSTRATION OF SAFE
HANDLING OF THE FIREARM SHOOTING
PROFICIENCY WITH EACH FIREARM
THAT THE PERSON IS GOING TO BE
LICENSED TO CARRY. UM THE LAW
ALSO REQUIRES LICENSING
AUTHORITY, THE POLICE CHIEF FOR
THE SHERIFF TO ESTABLISH AND
MAKE AVAILABLE PUBLIC THE
STANDARDS IT USES WHEN ISSUING
AH! LICENSES IN REGARDS TO THE
LIVE FIRE SHOOTING EXERCISES,
INCLUDING THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF
ROUNDS THAT ARE FIRED THE
MINIMUM PASSING SCORES FROM
SPECIFIED FIRING DISTANCES. IN
THE END, THE SHERIFF OF THE
LICENSING AUTHORITY HAS TO PUT
HIS OR HER NAME ON THE LICENSE,
AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE
COGNIZANT OF WHAT TRAINING IS
PROVIDED AND THE EXPERTISE AND
THE ABILITY OF A PERSON TO
SAFELY HANDLE A FIREARM AND TO
BE AWARE OF THE LAWS AND THE
PROPRIETY OF WHAT THEY ARE AND
ARE NOT DOING. WE HAVE NOT BEEN
MADE AWARE OF ANY ISSUES THAT
NECESSITATE THIS BILL. THERE'S A
FAIRLY STANDARD SET OF CRITERIA
NOT FAMILIAR WITH ANY INDICATION
THAT THE EXISTING TRAINING IS
RESULTING IN POORLY TRAINED
LICENSEES. UM OR THAT THERE HAVE
BEEN INCIDENTS FROM PEOPLE WHO
ARE ILL TRAINED WHO ARE CARRYING
CCW S, UM IN SOME OF THE
SUPPORTING MATERIALS OF
PROPONENTS POINT TO THE TERRIBLE
MASS SHOOTINGS THAT WE'VE SEEN,
UM AS A REASON TO SUPPORT THIS
BILL, BUT MHM WERE FORCED TO ASK
LIKELY RHETORICALLY, WHICH MASS
SHOOTING WAS PERPETRATED BY A
CCW HOLDER OR A CCW HOLDER WITH
INSUFFICIENT TRAINING. WE
BELIEVE THIS BILL IS OVERLY
BURDENSOME TOWARDS LITTLE
DISCERNIBLE BENEFIT THAT CREATES
COST AND WORKLOAD FOR DOJ, FOR
WHICH THEY ARE UNLIKELY TO BE
FUNDED. FOR THOSE REASONS. WE
ASKED FOR AN OVER. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. MR CHAIR MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE FOR THE RECORD.
DAN REED, WESTERN REGIONAL
DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL RIFLE
ASSOCIATION. I'M ALSO HERE FOR
GUN OWNERS OF CALIFORNIA AND
CALIFORNIA RIFLE AND PISTOL.
TODAY I'LL ECHO THE SENTIMENTS
OF MR CELLS. ILO I THINK HE SAID
IT QUITE ELOQUENTLY. UM WE THINK
THIS IS A SOLUTION IN SEARCH OF
A PROBLEM. WE HAVE NOT
IDENTIFIED ANY PROBLEMS WITH
TRAINING WHEN IT COMES TO CCW
HOLDERS IN THE STATE AND WERE
CONCERNED THAT IF GIVEN, UH IF
THERE IS A STATEWIDE EXAM
REQUIRED, HOW THIS COULD BE
UTILIZED THE BILLS VERY VEGAS TO
THE CONTENT AND HOW THAT COULD
BE DISCRIMINATORY TOWARDS
SOMEONE WHO MIGHT HAVE
CHALLENGES TAKING TESTS,
ETCETERA WITH THE DURATIONS
BETWEEN TESTING AVAILABILITY,
ETCETERA, BUT AGAIN, YOU DON'T
SEE LAW ENFORCEMENT UP HERE
SAYING THAT WE HAVE A PROBLEM
WITH CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT
HOLDERS IN THIS STATE. THAT WERE
IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ANYONE ELSE IN OPPOSITION
TO THE BILL. WHAT ELSE?
OPPOSITION WILL BRING IT BACK TO
THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR ANY
QUESTIONS OR COMMENT. I DID HAVE
A QUESTION AND GOES BACK TO YOU
GUYS, TOO WAS WAS THERE AN ISSUE
WAS THERE. I'M SORRY I CAME IN
LATE. SO I GOT TO MISS THE
BEGINNING OF THIS, BUT WAS THERE
SOMETHING THAT MAY THIS BE A
STANDARDIZED THING ACROSS THE
STATE? YES SO I'M NOT SURE IF
YOU HEARD, UM THE TESTIMONY FROM
UM FROM MY COLLEAGUE HERE, BUT
WE I MEAN, HE BASICALLY SAID
THAT HE GOES IN. WE HAD A
CONVERSATION RIGHT BEFORE THE
HEARING, AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
THE ISSUE THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS.
HE'LL GO IN TO RENEW HIS PERMIT
AND HAVE COFFEE WITH SOMEONE AND
CHAT WITH HIS TRAINER. FOR A
LITTLE BIT, AND THEN THE TRAINER
JUST SIGNS OFF ON HIS PERMIT.
UM, HE ALSO SHARED AND I DON'T
KNOW IF THIS GOT PASSED AROUND.
I THINK MY STAFF MAY HAVE HAD
THESE AND DIDN'T MAKE IT BACK
FOR THE HEARING. BUT UM, THIS IS
A TEST THAT HE DOES WHEN PEOPLE
COME TO HIM FOR TRAINING AND HE
JUST IT'S BASIC INFORMATION
ASKING IF THEY KNOW ANY OF THE
INFORMATION THAT X'S INDICATE
THEY GOT IT WRONG. CORRECT. THEY
GOT LIKE EVERYTHING WRONG, AND
HE SAID THIS IS NORMAL FOR
PEOPLE TO COME TO HIM, WHO
ALREADY HAVE A PERMIT AND ARE
COMING TO RENEW THEIR PERMIT. UM
SO I DON'T THINK THAT A LOT OF
PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE COMING
FORWARD, SAYING WE DON'T KNOW
ENOUGH TO CARRY THIS GUN THAT WE
HAVE. I DON'T THINK THAT PEOPLE
ARE GOING TO OFFER THAT
INFORMATION. BUT YOU CAN'T WITH
ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE
OPPOSITION, YOU CAN'T SAY THAT
WE'RE ALREADY DOING THIS. AND
THEN WE OPPOSE YOU FOR WANTING
TO DO THIS. IF YOU'RE ALREADY
DOING IT, THEN COOL. EVERYBODY'S
FINE, AND IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL.
BUT IF WE'RE NOT ALREADY DOING
THIS IN A WHOLE BUNCH OF AREAS
IN THE STATE, UM AS IS, YOU
KNOW, MENTIONED, UM, HERE TODAY
AND, UM, AND ONE OF THE BIG
DIFFERENCES IS THAT WHILE THERE
ARE THINGS LAID OUT IN THE
CURRENT LAW THAT SAY, YOU KNOW,
YOU SHOULD TRAIN SO LONG ON THIS
AND YOU SHOULD COVER THESE
THINGS. THERE IS NO TEST.
THERE'S NO ACTUAL CHECK TO SEE
IF PEOPLE LEARNED ANY
INFORMATION, ABSORBED ANY
INFORMATION OR GOT THE
INFORMATION THAT THEY WERE
SUPPOSED TO HAVE. AND SO I THINK
ONE OF THE BIG DIFFERENCE IS
THAT THIS DOES IS IT ACTUALLY
HAS A TEST TO SHOW AND VERIFY
THAT THEY ACTUALLY GOT THE
TRAINING THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO
GET. INSTEAD OF COFFEE AND
PANCAKES. COPY ANSWER. ARE YOU
AN INSTRUCTOR? YES. AND THIS IS
YOUR GUYS TEST. SO I CAME UP
WITH THAT TEST SO AS TO AVOID
WASTING TIME WITH RENEWAL
APPLICANTS. IF THEY ALREADY KNEW
STUFF I DIDN'T HAVE TO COVER IT
NOT ONLY HAVE FOUR HOURS TO GET
INFORMATION OUT THE PROBLEM IS,
YOU CAN SEE THAT. APPLICANT
AFTER APPLICANT COMES TO ME FROM
OTHER INSTRUCTORS, AND THEY
HAVEN'T LEARNED EVEN THE BASICS.
WHEN I APPROACHED MY SHERIFF
SHANNON MOON. WITH THIS. THE
ATTITUDE OF THE NEVADA COUNTY
SHERIFF'S OFFICE. THIS MIGHT
EXPLAIN YOUR POSITION. IS THAT
HATE AS LONG AS CCW INSTRUCTORS
ARE BEING THE LAW, WHICH MEANS
THEY HAVE THEIR TICKET FROM THE
FROM THE NRA TAKEN BY TAKING
CLASSES. AH AND AS LONG AS THERE
AS LONG AS THEY'RE TOUCHING ON
THESE THREE OR FOUR SUBJECTS
MENTIONED. WE'RE GOOD. WE DON'T
CARE WHERE WE STAY OUT OF IT. SO
I THINK THAT REALLY EXPLAINS WHY
A LOT OF APPLICANTS ARE NOT
GETTING INFORMATION BECAUSE
INSTRUCTORS ARE NOT FORCED TO
GIVE OUT THAT INFORMATION AND
THERE'S NO CHECKS AND NO CHECKS
AND BALANCES ON THEM AT ALL. AND
SO THIS IS LIKE AS IT SAYS A PRE
INSTRUCTION ERI SURVEYS WITH
THIS ISN'T AN EXAM JUST TRYING
TO HE ALSO WROTE A WHOLE BOOK ON
HOW TO TRAIN ON THIS BECAUSE
THERE WAS NOTHING EXISTING, SO
THIS IS JUST THAT'S JUST TO
CHECK IF PEOPLE ARE COMING IN
FOR TWO TO RENEW THEIR PERMIT,
CONNECT, CORRECT WHERE THEY'RE
SUPPOSED TO ALREADY HAVE A BASIC
UNDERSTANDING AND HAVE GONE
THROUGH A TRAINING TO GET THEIR
INITIAL PERMIT AND THEY'RE
GETTING EVERYTHING WRONG. MR.
CHAIR. I'M SORRY. I'M GOING A
LITTLE IN DEPTH ON THIS, BUT SIR
. WHAT'S YOUR BACKGROUND SO PASS
ON FORCE MINT WORKED RENO, P D
WASHINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S
OFFICE AND TRUCKEE PD. UH TOP
GUN AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, AND
YEAH, BRAG RIGHTS, RIGHT? AND,
UH, I BECAME AN INSTRUCTOR. WHEN
MY INSTRUCTOR I WOULD JUST SIT
DOWN, SHARE A CUP OF COFFEE WITH
ME AND TELL OLD KOREAN WAR
STORIES AND THAT WAS MY CLASS. I
GET OUT OF THE CLASS AND SAY I
DON'T KNOW THE FIRST THING ABOUT
CCW, AND HERE I AM CARRYING THIS
THING AROUND. SO THAT'S WHEN I
STARTED WRITING THE BOOK AND
YOU'RE TEACHING SOMETHING. I'M
JUST LOOKING AT ONE QUESTION
RIGHT NOW. ARE THESE CARTRIDGES
APPROPRIATE FOR CCW QUESTION
MARK NINE MILLIMETER 3 57 10
MILLIMETER 40 CALIBER. WHY OR
WHY NOT? IS THERE SOMETHING IN
THE LAW THAT SAYS THAT BECAUSE I
CAN TELL YOU RIGHT NOW, MY
COLLEAGUES AND I MAY HAVE
DIFFERENT ANSWERS FOR THAT.
SURE, SURE, AND A LOT OF WHAT
SHOULD BE TAUGHT. UM WOULD NOT
BE NECESSARILY CODIFIED IN
STATUTE. UM. THE REASON FOR THAT
IS THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT OF
INFORMATION OUT THERE FOR
SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATIONS TO MAKE
RECOMMENDATIONS. SO, FOR
EXAMPLE, I ASKED THIS QUESTION
BECAUSE 3 57 MAGNUM 10,
MILLIMETER 44 MAGNUM, DIRTY
HARRY GUNS. UH THEY WILL AND YOU
CAN BACK ME UP ON THIS. THOSE
GROUNDS HAVE A TENDENCY TO OVER
PENETRATE. AND CCW IS I TEACH MY
CLASS IS ABOUT ENERGY
MANAGEMENT. HOW MUCH ENERGY
CARRYING IN YOUR CARTRIDGE. AND
HOW DOES THAT ENERGY STOP AN
ATTACKER? SO YOU DON'T NEED TO
CARRY A BAZOOKA. BECAUSE THAT'S
TOO MUCH ENERGY AND YOU'RE GOING
TO BE ENDANGERING THE PUBLIC. SO
I WANT MY APPLICANTS TO
UNDERSTAND. THAT THERE'S SOME
REAL LIABILITY IF YOU WANT TO
CARRY AROUND A 40 CALIBER OR A
10 MILLIMETER THAT HAS REAL
CONSEQUENCES. INSTRUCTORS TEND
TO SHY AWAY FROM THAT. BECAUSE
THEY DON'T WANT TO LOSE CLIENTS
GET GET PEOPLE IN MY CLASS. THEY
WANT TO CARRY A 10 NEW AMIR
APPENDIX STYLE BECAUSE THAT'S
COOL. NO I WANT NOTHING TO DO
WITH THAT. I WANT THEM TO KNOW.
HEY THERE'S SOME LIABILITY WITH
THIS. THAT'S NOT GONNA BE
CODIFIED. IN THE CPC OR THE CBC
. WHAT YOU'RE GOING ON THAT, BUT
THEN YOU CAN ALSO CHANGE THE
BULLET THAT THEY'RE CARRYING OUT
SO THEY COULD DO LIKE A HOLLOW
POINT. OR YOU CAN CARRY A
DIFFERENT KIND OF AMMO THAT
DOESN'T DO THAT AS HOLLOW
POINTS, FOR EXAMPLE, UM MY
RECOMMENDATION IS THAT OUR
POINTS ARE BETTER FOR SELF
DEFENSE. BECAUSE THEY CONTAIN
THE ENERGY. IN THE ATTACKER,
THEY'RE LESS LIKELY TO OVER
PENETRATE COULD STILL BE THE
SAME CALIBER THAT YOU'RE JUST
BEING THE SAME CALIBER BECAUSE I
KNOW THAT I CAN GO ON A PLANE,
WHICH I'VE DONE MANY TIMES AND
CARRY A DIFFERENT BULLET ON
THERE FOR THE ASSIGNMENT THAT I
WAS THERE FOR EXACTLY, JUST
CHANGE IT OUT. SO I CAN STILL
USE THE SAME CALIBER. I JUST
CHANGED THE BULLET THAT I'M
CARRYING. SO I DON'T I DON'T
KNOW IF THAT'S IN DEPTH ON HERE
IS ALSO, BUT I MEAN, I CAN I CAN
TEACH A WHOLE CLASS ON THAT IF
YOU GUYS WANT ON THAT, BUT I
DON'T HAVE TIME. BUT WE ONLY
HAVE SO MUCH SHOT, SO I JUST ONE
OTHER THING WAS THERE SOMETHING
ALSO ABOUT ONLINE CLASSES ON
THIS WELL, ORIGINALLY, WHEN,
WHEN COVID BROKE OUT, UH, I
CONTACTED I'M CERTIFIED TO TEACH
IN SEVEN COUNTIES. AND MOST OF
THE SHERIFFS WERE IN AGREEMENT
THAT I COULD TEACH ZOOM CLASSES
DURING THE HEIGHT OF COVID. BUT
AS SOON AS SOON AS COVID CALMED
DOWN, THE SHERIFF'S OFFICES ALL
CONTACTED ME REQUESTING THAT A
RESUME. PUT A PERSON TO PERSON
CLASSES. OKAY NOW IS THAT FOR
LIKE, BECAUSE THEY GOT TO TURN
THE RIDES AND SHOW WHO THEY ARE
PROVEN. THEY ARE EXACTLY LOOK AT
THEIR I LOOK AT THEIR DRIVER'S
LICENSE TO MAKE SURE THEY SAY
THEY ARE WHO THEY SAY THEY ARE,
AND I ALSO WRITE DOWN THEIR MAKE
MODEL AND SERIAL NUMBERS OF
THEIR FIREARMS BECAUSE THOSE
HAVE TO MATCH CORRECT, OKAY.
THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? YOU MAKE
CLOSE. UM JUST RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU SO MUCH
. AND I THINK, UM I DIDN'T ASK
ANY QUESTIONS BECAUSE I PROBABLY
LEARNED MORE ABOUT BULLETS.
NEVER WANT MY ENTIRE LIFE. UM
BUT BUT THERE IS. THE CONCEPT OF
HAVING ONE REGULATORY
DOCUMENTARY AGENCY, YOUR
TRAINING. UM I THINK IT IS
IMPORTANT BECAUSE WHAT MAYBE
WHAT SHERIFF JIM COOPER MAY
APPROVE AND WHAT SHERIFF LUNA IN
LOS ANGELES, SACRAMENTO. MAYBE
WIDELY DIFFERENT AND WE PROBABLY
NEED TO HAVE SOMETHING
CONSISTENCY, AND I THINK THAT'S
WHAT YOU'RE YEAH, TRYING TO GET
TO AN ISLAND NATION. THE ONE IS
. EVEN THE OPPONENT'S HOPEFULLY
OR NOT. TRYING TO HAVE IT WHERE
WE DON'T HAVE SOME KIND OF
CONSISTENCY. UM THE GREAT THING
ABOUT CCW, WHICH I'VE SAID IN
THIS COMMITTEE UM, ABSOLUTELY
RIGHT. MR STOUT SAID. WE'VE BEEN
LUCKY IN CALIFORNIA OR WE'VE
BEEN FORTUNATE OR WHATEVER
REGULATIONS WE HAVE NOT HAD A
CCW. INCIDENT. AS OF TODAY,
HOPEFULLY. I DON'T JINX IT, AND
SOMETHING HAPPENS TOMORROW. SO
AH! I'M. I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND
WE APPROVE IT BECAUSE I THINK IF
WE ADD MORE TO IT WE CAN MAKE
SURE THAT OUR RECORD STATES SPOT
AS WE'VE BEEN WHEN IT COMES TO
CCW S. I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE
DOING, RIGHT, BUT WE'RE DOING
SOMETHING RIGHT? OKAY? IS THERE
A MOTION? HMM. SECOND CALL THE
ROLL. A B 11 33 BY SOME REMEMBER
SHE IVO. THE MOTION IS TO PASS
AS AMENDED TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. JOHN SAWYER CHEN SO
YOUR EYE ELONIS ANY SNOW BONTA?
I WANT TO I JACKSON JACKSON. I
LACKEY ORTEGA. SANTIAGO ZUBER
ZIPPER I THAT MEASURES ON CALL
ONE MORE. THANK YOU, MR
MAIENSCHEIN. THERE YOU GO. IT'S
JUST A B 12 14 MAIENSCHEIN.
COURT REMOTE TECHNOLOGY. AND UH,
YOU DON'T HAVE TO TELL US ABOUT
BULLETS OR ANYTHING. JUST KNOW.
YEAH, YEAH. YEAH I'LL TELL YOU
ABOUT MY BOOK LATER. WHENEVER
YOU'RE READY. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR AND MEMBERS ASSEMBLY BUILT
12 14 PROVIDES A TWO YEAR SUNSET
EXTENSION ON REMOTE ADULT
CRIMINAL COURT PROCEEDINGS AND
PUTS IN PLACE ADDITIONAL
SAFEGUARDS THAT PROTECT THE
ACCUSED AND PRESERVE THE
INTEGRITY OF THE COURT. DURING
THE COVID 19 PANDEMIC TRIAL
COURTS HAD NO OPTION BUT TO
INSTITUTE REMOTE PROCEEDINGS IN
ORDER TO PROCESS CASES. REMOTE
PROCEEDINGS PROVED BENEFICIAL TO
THE OPERATION OF THE COURTS. THE
EXPERIENCE SHOW THAT WITHOUT
MEANINGFUL SAFEGUARDS, REMOTE
TECHNOLOGY CAN COMPROMISE
CALIFORNIA'S JUSTICE SYSTEM. A B
12 14 INCORPORATES LESSONS
LEARNED OVER THE LAST THREE
YEARS BY ESTABLISHING THOUGHTFUL
PROCEDURAL AND TECHNOLOGY.
TECHNOLOGICAL GUIDELINES FOR THE
USE OF REMOTE TECHNOLOGY. THE
BILL PROHIBITS THE USE OF REMOTE
TECHNOLOGY AND JURY TRIALS BUT
WOULD ALLOW DEFENDANTS TO APPEAR
REMOTELY IF THEY SO CHOOSE FOR
NON CRITICAL PORTIONS OF THE
TRIAL WHERE NO TESTIMONY IS
BEING TAKEN. THE DEFENDANT
CHOOSES TO BE PRESENT IN THE
COURTROOM. THE BILL REQUIRES
COUNSEL THE PROSECUTION AND THE
JUDGE TO BE PRESENT AS WELL. TO
ENSURE THE INTEGRITY OF THE
JUDICIAL SYSTEM AND ACCURACY OF
COURT RECORDS. THE BILL
PROHIBITS THE USE OF REMOTE
PROCEEDINGS IF THERE IS TECH IF
THERE ARE TECHNOLOGICAL
DEFICIENCIES. A B 12 14 IS A
MEASURED APPROACH TO EXTEND
REMOTE CRIMINAL COURT
PROCEEDINGS. I RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST YOUR I VOTE WITH ME
TODAY AND TEST TO TESTIFY AND
SUPPORT OUR MARGO GEORGE ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION AND SANDRA
BARRERA, BARREIRO. WITH S E I U
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY, MARK.
OOPS. SORRY. MARCO GEORGE FOR
THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION, PROUDLY IN SUPPORT
OF A B 12 14. UH WE FOUND THAT
REMOTE PROCEEDINGS CAN BE
BENEFICIAL FOR CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS, BUT ONLY IF THERE
ARE APPROPRIATE GUARDRAILS ARE
IN PLACE TO PROTECT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE
ACCUSED AND THE INTEGRITY OF THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. A B 12
14 WE BELIEVE PROVIDES THOSE
GUARDRAILS. THE PROBLEM IS, AS
WE LEARNED DURING THE LAST THREE
YEARS WITH REMOTE PROCEEDINGS IS
THAT WITHOUT THOSE GUARD RAILS,
REMOTE PROCEEDINGS DEGRADE OR
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AND
EXACERBATE INEQUALITY. THESE
WERE SOME OF THE PROBLEMS WITH
REMOTE PROCEEDINGS. DEFENDANTS
WERE DENIED THEIR RIGHT TO
APPEAR IN PERSON IN A CAPITAL
CASE IN LOS ANGELES. THE JUDGE
DENIED THE DEFENDANT AND HIS
COUNCIL'S DEMAND THAT THE
DEFENDANT BE BROUGHT TO COURT.
THE LACK OF ADEQUATE TECHNOLOGY
EXACERBATED EXISTING ECONOMIC
AND RACIAL DISPARITIES AND
DENIED JUSTICE. A MINOR WAS
SANCTIONED. BY THE COURT OFFICER
WHO ASSUMED THAT THE MINERS
TECHNICAL REMOTE DIFFICULTIES
WERE A SIGN OF DISRESPECT FOR
THE COURT. WITNESSES AND LOS
ANGELES COUNTY AND ELSEWHERE
TESTIFIED FROM THEIR CARS OR
OTHER INAPPROPRIATE LOCATIONS
MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO ADEQUATELY
CROSS EXAMINE AND CONFRONT THE
WITNESSES. AND CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY. AND ELSEWHERE, HACKERS
AND FILTRATION THE REMOTE
PROCEEDINGS IN THE CHAT.
MASQUERADED AS LAWYERS OR COURT
EMPLOYEES DEMANDING MONEY FROM
THE CLIENTS IN THE MIDST OF
HEARINGS. WHEN COURT REPORTERS
SAID THAT THEY COULD NOT
TRANSCRIBE ACCURATELY THE REMOTE
PROCEEDINGS THEY WERE IGNORED.
OR EVEN WORSE FACED RETALIATION.
WE BELIEVE THAT A B 12 14
PROVIDES THOSE GUARDRAILS. IT
PRESERVES THE RIGHT OF THE
ACCUSED TO BE PRESENT BY
REQUIRING THEIR CONSENT IF
THERE'S A REMOTE PROCEEDING. IT
PRESERVES THE CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT TO CROSS EXAMINE AND
CONFRONT THE WITNESSES IN
PERSON. BY PROHIBITING REMOTE
TRIALS OR EVIDENTIARY
PROCEEDINGS. IT PRESERVES THE
RIGHT TO APPEAL BY PREVENTING
ANY REMOTE PROCEEDINGS IF THE
TECHNOLOGY IS INADEQUATE FOR THE
COURT REPORTER TO ACCURATELY
TRANSCRIBE PROCEEDINGS. A B 12
14 APPROPRIATELY RECOGNIZES THAT
OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM IS ABOUT
FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS AND THAT WE
CANNOT SACRIFICE DUE PROCESS FOR
JUDICIAL CONVENIENCE. SO WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR CHAIR AND MEMBER
SANDRA BARREIRO ON BEHALF OF CI
YOU CALIFORNIA. I WANT TO THANK
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S MAIENSCHEIN FOR
AUTHORING THIS BILL, WHICH IS A
PRIORITY FOR OUR MEMBERS. WE
REPRESENT COURT EMPLOYEES AND 32
COUNTIES ACROSS THE STATE, AND
THEY HAVE ALL REPORTED SERIOUS
ONGOING CONCERNS WITH EXISTING
REMOTE PROCEDURES. UH EVEN IF
YOU HAVEN'T PARTICIPATED IN A
REMOTE CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, WE
ARE ALL FAMILIAR WITH THE
TECHNICAL TECHNOLOGICAL
LIMITATIONS OF REMOTE FOR
INTERNET CONNECTIONS. MICROPHONE
ISSUES DISTRACTIONS, ETCETERA
DURING A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING.
THESE INTERRUPTIONS JEOPARDIZE
THE ABILITY OF A COURT REPORTER
TO MAINTAIN AN ACCURATE VERBATIM
RECORD, WHICH IS INTEGRAL TO OUR
JUSTICE SYSTEM. BUT WE ALSO KNOW
THAT REMOTE OFFERS SOME BENEFITS
TO VICTIMS AND THE ACCUSED. SO
THIS BILL, EVERY 12 14
ESTABLISHES THOUGHTFUL
GUIDELINES BASED ON WHAT WE'VE
LEARNED OVER THE PAST THREE
YEARS TO MAKE SURE THAT VICTIMS
THE ACCUSED AND THE INTEGRITY OF
OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM IS PRESERVED
. I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AND I
VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH WITNESSES AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. MITCH STEIGER, WITH
CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION,
ALSO IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
DANICA ROAD. I'M ON BEHALF OF
INITIATE JUSTICE IN THE SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER AND
SUPPORT MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS PAT
MORAN, ERIN READING ASSOCIATES,
REPRESENTING THE ORANGE COUNTY
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, REPRESENT
THE COURT EMPLOYEES AND THE
COUNTY OF ORANGE IN STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
APOLOGIES FORGOT TO ADD. THE
OTHER ORGANIZATION ASKED ME FROM
CALIFORNIA ALSO IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. ANY WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION. THEY NEED ANOTHER
CHAIR. THIS YEAR.
YOU MAY BEGIN FIVE MINUTES, BOTH
TOGETHER. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR
CHAIR MEMBERS ON BEHALF OF THE
JUDICIAL COUNCIL JUDGE LISA
RODRIGUEZ, SAN DIEGO SUPERIOR
COURT AND VICE CHAIR OF THE
JUDICIAL COUNCILS CRIMINAL LAW
ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION TO A B 12
14. THE COUNCIL IS SEEKING
AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD ALIGN TO A
B 12 14 WITH THE EXISTING LAW
FOR CRIMINAL REMOTE PROCEEDINGS
AS ENACTED LAST YEAR BY A B 1
99. THE COUNCIL APPRECIATES THE
AUTHOR'S INTENTION TO EXTEND
AUTHORITY BEYOND JANUARY 1ST
2024 BUT IS CONCERNED THAT IS
CURRENTLY DRAFTED. A B 12 14
WOULD GREATLY LIMIT THE ABILITY
OF ALL THE JUSTICE PARTNERS TO
USE THE REMOTE OPTION, EVEN
MODIFYING REMOTE PROCESSES THAT
HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE FOR DECADES.
INCLUDED AMONG THE COUNCIL.
SERIOUS CONCERNS ARE FIRST. THE
OPTION FOR REMOTE APPEARANCE FOR
OUT OF CUSTODY. DEFENDANTS IS
UNCLEAR, AND MOREOVER, HAS
DRAFTED THE BILL WOULD CURTAIL
THE USE OF REMOTE APPEARANCES BY
BOTH IN AND OUT OF CUSTODY
DEFENDANTS FOR ALMOST ALL
HEARINGS ALSO DRAMATICALLY
REDUCES THE ABILITY OF
PROSECUTORS AND DEFENSE COUNSEL
TO USE REMOTE TECHNOLOGY AND
INJECT UNCERTAINTY INTO WHEN
THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE
PRESENT. THE OVERLY BROAD AND
VAGUE RESTRICTIONS MAY
DISADVANTAGE DEFENDANTS AS THE
BILL PROHIBITS THE USE OF REMOTE
TECHNOLOGY FOR ANY PROCEEDINGS
IN WHICH THERE'S TESTIMONIAL
EVIDENCE BUT DOES NOT DEFINE
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE. THERE IS
ACTUALLY POTENTIAL FOR ALMOST
ANY HEARING TO INVOLVE THE
TAKING OF EVIDENCE. AND IF
YOU'RE HEARING CROSSES INTO
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE, THERE'S NO
GUIDANCE ON HOW THE COURT SHOULD
ADDRESS IT. AND THE POTENTIAL
IMPACT ON BOTH DUE PROCESS AND
SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHTS. THE
PROHIBITION COULD EXTEND TO THE
ENTRY OF EVEN CHANGE OF PLEASE,
OR RE SENTENCING IF THERE'S
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE AT ONE OF
THOSE HEARINGS THE VAGUE
LANGUAGE COULD LEAD TO THE
ELIMINATION OF REMOTE
PROCEEDINGS THAT HAVE BEEN
PERMITTED SINCE 1998 AN OPTION
THAT WE KNOW WORKED BEFORE THE
PANDEMIC, AN OPTION THAT THE
PANDEMIC NECESSITATED EXPANDING
AND AN OPTION THAT HAS RESULTED
IN GREATER ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR
THE USERS OF THE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM. AND PEOPLE ARE
NOT JUST USING IT. THEY LIKE IT.
THE COUNCIL RECEIVED DATA FROM
38 QUARTS ON THE NUMBER OF
CRIMINAL REMOTE PROCEEDINGS AND
ESTIMATES THAT THERE WERE
APPROXIMATELY 422,000 HEARINGS
IN JUST ONE YEAR. AND IN A
SURVEY CONDUCTED BY THE JUDICIAL
COUNCIL OF MORE THAN 60,000
PEOPLE, INCLUDING PARTY'S
ATTORNEYS AND COURT EMPLOYEES,
96% OF THOSE WHO RESPONDED
REPORTED THAT THEY HAD A
POSITIVE EXPERIENCE. MOREOVER,
WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE BILLS,
EXCLUSION OF WITNESS TESTIMONY
FROM REMOTE PROCEEDINGS, WHICH
WE BELIEVE WILL DISADVANTAGE
DEFENDANTS AND IMPACT THEIR
ACCESS TO JUSTICE. FOR EXAMPLE,
REMOTE OPTIONS ALLOW FOR
TESTIMONY FROM NATIONAL EXPERTS
TO PROVE RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
UNDER THE RACIAL JUSTICE ACT,
AND THIS ALLOWS FOR GREATER
ACCESS TO EXPERTS WHO WOULD NOT
OTHERWISE BE AVAILABLE OR WHO
WOULD BE COST PROHIBITIVE TO
HAVE THEM IN PERSON. AND
TESTIMONY OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
EXPERTS WHO ARE NOTABLY IN SHORT
SUPPLY THAT ARE NECESSARY TO THE
DEFENDANT'S CASE AS WELL AS
NEEDED TO TREAT OTHERS IN THEIR
CARE. THE REMOTE OPTION HELPS
PRESERVE ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR
MANY CALIFORNIANS AND VULNERABLE
COURT USERS WHEN THEY WOULD
OTHERWISE LOSE TIME FROM WORK
SCHOOL AND WOULD ENCOURAGE
TRAVEL AND CHILDCARE AND PARKING
COSTS FOR SHORT HEARINGS.
ADDITIONALLY, THE RECENT
AMENDMENTS CONFLICT WITH
LONGSTANDING STATUTORY AND
CONSTITUTIONAL LANGUAGE THAT
ALLOWS PARTICULARLY VULNERABLE
VICTIMS THAT WITNESSES TO APPEAR
REMOTELY, INCLUDING VICTIMS OF
SEX CRIMES VICTIMS THAT ARE 15
YEARS OR YOUNGER VICTIMS WITH
COGNITIVE ELOPEMENT, MENTAL
DISABILITIES AND WITNESSES WHO
ARE ILL. WE ARE CONCERNED ALSO
ABOUT THE MANDATED TECHNOLOGY
STANDARDS ARTICULATING THE BILL.
AS TECHNOLOGY IS CONSTANTLY
CHANGING, AND THERE ARE MULTIPLE
WAYS TO ENSURE REMOTE
PROCEEDINGS ALLOW COURTS TO MEET
APPROPRIATE STANDARDS FOR AUDIO
AND VISUAL PARTICIPATION.
TOGETHER WE THINK WE CAN FOCUS
ON OUTCOMES INSTEAD OF REQUIRING
SPECIFIC TECHNOLOGY THAT MAY
BECOME OBSOLETE. SO IN CLOSING
WHAT WE ARE CURRENTLY OPPOSED.
THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL SUPPORTS
THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF A B 12 14
TO EXTEND AUTHORIZATION FOR
REMOTE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AS
THE COUNCIL HAS SEEN THE MANY
BENEFITS OF GIVING DEFENDANTS
THE OPTION TO PARTICIPATE
REMOTELY IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
AND WANT TO WORK WITH THE AUTHOR
AND LANGUAGE TO ACHIEVE THAT
GOAL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR
CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. I'M ROBERT BROWN. I'M
AN ASSISTANT DISTRICT ERNIE FROM
DECEMBER COUNTY, AND WE SHARE
MANY OF THE CONCERNS THAT THE
JUDICIAL COUNCIL HAS EXPRESSED
HERE. WE RESPECTFULLY MUST
OPPOSE THE BILL BECAUSE WE
BELIEVE THAT IT UNNECESSARILY
CONSTRICTS THE USE OF REMOTE
TESTIMONY THAT IT CREATES AN
INEQUITY IN THE SYSTEM. AND
THERE IS SOME CONCERN OVER A
VAGUENESS IN THE TERM ITSELF OF
RENAULT TECHNOLOGY THAT HAS
ALREADY EXISTED IN THE STATUTE.
WHEN IT COMES TO CONSTRICTING
THE SYSTEM, BOTH THE UNITED
STATES SUPREME COURT IN MARYLAND
VERSUS CRAIG AND CALIFORNIA
APPELLATE COURTS AND PEOPLE
VERSUS POWELL HAVE PERMITTED THE
USE AND FOUND IT TO BE, UM
CONSTITUTIONAL IN THE
APPLICATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
SYSTEM. THIS BILL WOULD NARROW
THAT USE BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT
PERMIT TESTIMONY AT TRIAL. I
DON'T BELIEVE THAT IS NECESSARY.
I DO THINK THAT THE REMOTE
TESTIMONY IS A LAUDABLE GOAL. WE
SHARE MANY OF THE CONCERNS.
ABOUT THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE
ASPECTS OF IT. WE WANT TO ENSURE
THAT ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS
CRIMINAL RIGHTS ARE INSURED
DURING THE PROCESS. WE WANT TO
DO THAT, IN THE CORRECT WAY. WE
THINK THAT THIS BILL WOULD
CREATE AN EQUITY IN THE SENSE
THAT THE PROSECUTION DOES NOT
PLAY A ROLE IN THE USE OF REMOTE
TECHNOLOGY. THE DEFENSE HAS A
SAY THE COURT HAS TO SAY THE
PROSECUTION AND, MORE
IMPORTANTLY, THE VICTIMS DO NOT,
AND THAT IS OUR GREATEST
CONCERN. MY CONCERN ABOUT THE
REMOTE. THE VAGUENESS OF THE
TERM IS REMOTE TECHNOLOGY
ITSELF. FROM WHAT I CAN TELL
THERE IS NO DEFINITION OF THAT
TERM, AND I THINK THAT IS A
CONCERN WHEN WE WANT TO PRESERVE
THE CONFRONTATION. RIGHTS OF THE
DEFENDANT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU OR
ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION. SEEING NONE WILL
BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE FOR
QUESTIONS OR I'M SORRY. BOTHER.
JUST WANTED. UH, THANKS. UH, THE
AUTHOR TO PERHAPS ADDRESS THE
ISSUE OF WITNESS TESTIMONY, NOT
BEING ABLE TO HAPPEN REMOTELY,
PARTICULARLY IN THE IN THE
OPPOSITION'S ASSERTION THAT
PARTICULARLY IN THE INSTANCE OF
PEOPLE WHO HAVE EXPERIENCED, UH
KIND OF VIOLENT, SEXUALLY
VIOLENT CRIMES OR ASSAULTER
RELATED TO THAT WHICH I DON'T
THINK THAT THIS LEGISLATION
DOES. SO PLEASE. YEAH I MEAN TO
YOUR LET ME SEE. I'LL ANSWER IT
TWO WAYS. FIRST OFF. I THINK
THERE'S A NUMBER OF ISSUES WILL
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH JUDICIAL
COUNCIL ON WE HAVE BEEN
APPRECIATIVE THAT THEY'RE
SUPPORTIVE OF THE GOALS AND THE
OBJECTIVES OF THE BILL. UM, BUT
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT DOES
HINDER. THOSE ABILITIES THAT
YOU'VE MENTIONED. I DON'T
BELIEVE THE BILL DOES THAT IF
YOU KNOW WE'LL CONTINUE TO SIT
DOWN WITH HIM IF THEY POINT THAT
OUT TO US THAT IT DOES MORE THAN
I MEAN MORE THAN AMENABLE TO FIX
THAT. THAT WOULD NOT BE THE GOAL
AND OBJECTIVE OF THIS BILL, SO
WE'LL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THEM
ON THE LANGUAGE IF THERE IS SOME
VAGUENESS IN THE LANGUAGE WE'LL
FIX IT. THANK YOU. I'LL MOVE THE
BILL. SECOND DEATH. I WAS. I WAS
A LITTLE CONFUSED BECAUSE IT
SOUNDS LIKE THEY BOTH WERE
ARGUING THE SAME THING THAT YOU
GUYS WERE FOR IT. UH SO COMING
FROM THE COURTHOUSE AS A
SERGEANT, I LOVED REMOTE, LESS
PEOPLE COMING INTO THE
COURTHOUSE THAT MY DEPUTIES HAD
THE SCREEN WERE ABLE TO GET
ATTORNEYS TO ATTEND A LOT OF THE
HEARINGS, WHICH IT WAS HARD TO
DO TO GET AN ATTORNEY INTO A
ROOM, WHICH I GUESS IT'S KIND OF
LIKE GETTING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
INTO COMMITTEE AS WELL. SO WE
HAVE THE SAME PROBLEMS AT THE
COURTHOUSE. UH I DO LIKE TO HEAR
THAT YOU GUYS ARE WORKING WITH
THEM, AND I'M HOPING YOU GUYS DO
CONTINUE, AND I HOPE YOU GUYS
GET ON BOARD AS AS WELL. AND SO
I OBVIOUSLY PORTING THIS, BUT
I'LL BE WATCHING IT AS AS FAR AS
WE GO WHEN WE GO TO THE FLOOR,
BUT I DO SUPPORT THE REMOTE
ACCESS. LET'S USE TECHNOLOGY. WE
HAVE IT. YEAH, THANK YOU. MRS
DILBER. I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE
BILL. I THINK IT'S A GOOD ONE.
OBVIOUSLY I KNOW THAT THESE
ISSUES ARE COMPLICATED ONES. UM
BUT I YOU KNOW WE'RE COMING OUT
OF A PERIOD WHERE WE'VE LEARNED
A LOT ABOUT, UM, BOTH THE
BENEFITS BUT ALSO I THINK THE
COST OF REMOTE PROCEEDINGS AND
MEETINGS YOU KNOW, I'VE ALWAYS
FELT THAT WHEN YOU'RE DEALING
WITH DIFFICULT ISSUES THAT
NOTHING REPLACES FACE TO FACE.
UM ENGAGEMENT, AND I THINK THE
BILL'S AUTHORS AND THE SPONSORS
ARE ACTUALLY TRYING TO FIND THE
RIGHT BALANCE OF, UM, WHEN YOU
ACTUALLY NEED TO HAVE THINGS
HAPPENING IN THE COURTROOM WITH
TESTIMONY PRESENT AND I KNOW
THIS IS COMPLICATED, BUT I TRUST
THE AUTHOR HAS THE RIGHT, UM AND
THE SPONSORS AS WELL AS THE
OPPOSITION, I THINK HAVE THE
RIGHT GOALS. AND SO, UM, YOU
KNOW, I JUST ENCOURAGE YOU TO
WORK MORE TO TRY TO, UM, MOVE
THIS FORWARD, BUT I DO THINK WE
NEED STANDARDS. I MEAN, I DON'T
I WORRY A LITTLE BIT THAT WE'RE
MOVING TO A WORLD WHERE
EVERYTHING BECOMES, IT BECOMES
SO EASY FOR US TO DO THINGS IN A
REMOTE WAY THAT WE LOSE THE
REALLY THE IMPORTANCE OF FACE TO
FACE IN PERSON ENGAGEMENT, AND I
KNOW THAT THAT'S AT LEAST PART
OF WHAT THIS BILL IS INTENDED TO
DO. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS. YOU MAKE
CLOTHES. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR.
AND YOU KNOW, THANK YOU FOR THE
DISCUSSION. I MEAN, THAT'S HOW
DO YOU TAKE THE BENEFITS THAT
WE'VE LEARNED THROUGH THE COVID
19 PANDEMIC, WE LEARNED THERE
WERE SOME THINGS THAT WERE MORE
EFFICIENT BY DOING THEIR OWN.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME TO YOUR
POINT, WE DO NEED TO HAVE
SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE. SO HOW DO
YOU BALANCE THIS NEW TECHNOLOGY
WITH TRADITIONAL SAFEGUARDS
MOVING FORWARD? THIS IS AN
ATTEMPT TO DO THIS. IT'S
OBVIOUSLY YOU KNOW, I'D BE THE
FIRST ONE TO SAY IT'S NOT
PERFECT, BUT I THINK IT IS A
STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE DOING
THINGS YOU KNOW, AS WAS RAISED
THAT MAKE THE SYSTEM TÂM WORK.
UM BUT BUT ALSO PROTECTING
VICTIMS AND DEFENDANTS AND THE
PEOPLE WHO ARE PARTICIPATING
THROUGHOUT THE COURT SYSTEM. SO
THAT'S WHAT THIS IS INTENDED.
YOU WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH
THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL ON THIS,
BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS IS
AN IMPORTANT STEP TOWARDS
ACHIEVING THOSE OBJECTIVES. AND
WITH THAT, I'D ASK FOR YOUR
VOTE. THANK YOU, UM CHEERS
RECOMMENDED. I CALL THE VOTE. ON
A B 12 14 BY SOME REMEMBER
MAIENSCHEIN. THE MOTION IS
PASSED THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE JOHN SAWYER,
CHANCELLOR I ELONIS ELONIS BONTA
. AYE, JACKSON JACKSON. I LACKEY
ORTEGA SANTIAGO. ZIPPER ZIPPER.
I MEASURE PASSES. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR MEMBERS. OKAY? MISS
SANCHEZ. ITEM. NUMBER 33 A B 17
39 THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE
COURSE.
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS. TODAY
I'M PRESENTING A B 17 39, A
MEASURE TO REQUIRE THE OFFICE OF
EMERGENCY SERVICES TO AWARD
FUNDS UPON APPROPRIATION TO UP
TO 11 D A OFFICE IS THAT
EMPLOYEE VERTICAL PROSECUTION
PROGRAMS FOR THE PROSECUTION OF
HUMAN TRAFFICKING CRIMES? HUMAN
TRAFFICKING IS ONE OF THE
FASTEST GROWING CRIMINAL
ENTERPRISES IN THE STATE AND
COUNTRY OVER 72% OF VICTIMS
TRAFFICKED IN THIS COUNTRY ARE
AMERICAN RESIDENTS. CALIFORNIA
IS UNFORTUNATELY, HOME TO THREE
OF THE FBI'S TOP HOTSPOTS FOR
HUMAN TRAFFICKING, INCLUDING L,
A SAN DIEGO AND SAN FRANCISCO
VERTICAL PROSECUTION HAS BEEN
FOUND TO BE INEFFECTIVE VICTIMS
SENATOR APPROACH TO PROSECUTING
HUMAN TRAFFICKING CRIMES
VERTICAL PROSECUTION IS A
STAFFING METHODOLOGY IN WHICH
THE SAME D A UNIT IS ASSIGNED TO
ALL STAGES OF THE CASE. IT
MINIMIZES THE TRAUMA FOR VICTIMS
WHO WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE
CONTINUALLY RELAY THEIR ACCOUNT
TO MULTIPLE DIFFERENT
INDIVIDUALS IN THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. IT ALSO
ALLOWS THE ASSIGNED PROSECUTOR
TO BUILD GREATER EXPERTISE AND
PROSECUTING THE CASE. THIS IS AN
IMPORTANT MEASURE THAT WOULD
HELP COMBAT HUMAN TRAFFICKING
CALIFORNIA BY GIVING OUR LOCAL D
A S THE TOOLS THEY NEED TO
EFFICIENTLY PROSECUTE THIS
HEINOUS CRIME. TESTIFIED WITH ME
TODAY IS CAITLIN CASEY, WHO IS
DEPUTY D A IN THE SAN JOAQUIN
COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON. CHAIR MEMBERS.
THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME CAITLIN
CASEY, AND I'M A WORKING
PROSECUTOR AND ENFORCING WHAT
CAN COUNTY ALSO SUPERVISOR GANG
VIOLENCE SUPPRESSION UNIT AS
WELL AS OUR HUMAN TRAFFICKING
PROSECUTION UNIT. AND ASSEMBLY
PERSON. SANCHEZ IDENTIFIED WHAT
VERTICAL PROSECUTION IS, BUT I
WANT TO EMPHASIZE TO YOU HOW
CRITICAL THAT IS FOR VICTIMS
CENTERED CRIMES SUCH AS HUMAN
TRAFFICKING WHERE WE HAVE SEX
AND LABOR TRAFFICKING VICTIMS.
IT'S WHERE THE SAME PROSECUTORS
ARE HANDLING A CASE FROM ITS
INCEPTION, SOMETIMES PRIOR TO
FINAL FILING. WORKING HAND IN
HAND WITH INVESTIGATORS TO
UNDERSTAND AND IDENTIFY THE
NUANCES IN THESE CRIMES, THE
PARTICULAR CHARITIES OF THE
VICTIMS PERPETRATORS THE TYPE OF
EVIDENCE THIS IS VERY
SPECIALIZED MATERIAL AND VERY
SPECIALIZED SUBJECT MATTER. THAT
DOES NOT BODE WELL FOR A CASE
WHEN THERE ARE MULTIPLE
PROSECUTORS WHO ARE ASSIGNED TO
DIFFERENT STAGES. WHEN WE HAVE
THE SAME PROSECUTOR WHO WAS
WORKING, NOT JUST AT FILING TO
MAKE A DECISION AT ARRANGEMENT
TO MEET WITH THE VICTIMS.
PRELIMINARY HEARING POTENTIALLY
HAVE VICTIMS TESTIFY THROUGH
TRIAL TO PRESENT THE CASE TO A
JURY. WE KNOW THAT WE GET BETTER
OUTCOMES AND WHAT'S MORE, WE
KNOW THAT VICTIMS ARE BETTER
SUPPORTED. HUMAN TRAFFICKING
VICTIMS ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE PER
SE SYSTEMS IMPACTED. THESE ARE
PEOPLE WHO MAY NOT BE IN THIS
COUNTRY WITH PAPERS. THERE ARE
PEOPLE WHO OFTEN HAVE LANGUAGE
BARRIERS. THERE ARE ALSO PEOPLE
WHO HAVE SUFFERED SOUL CRUSHING
TYPES OF TRAUMA. AND TO HAVE TO
RELAY THE PARTICULARITIES OF
THOSE TRAUMAS TO MULTIPLE PEOPLE
WHO ARE STRANGERS IS SOMETHING
THAT DISSUADES MANY OF THEM FROM
PARTICIPATING IN THE PROCESS AND
HINDERS OUR ABILITY AS
PROSECUTORS TO GET IN THE WAY
AND DISRUPT HUMAN TRAFFICKING
AND HELP STOP PERPETRATORS. FROM
PERPETRATING AGAINST THE SAME
VICTIMS OR ADDITIONAL VICTIMS.
THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT IMPACTS
ALL COUNTIES, THERE IS NO COUNTY
IN CALIFORNIA THAT IS UNTOUCHED
BY THE SCOURGE OF HUMAN
TRAFFICKING. IF OFFICES HAVE THE
ABILITY TO DIRECT FUNDS, SO THAT
PROSECUTORS CAN STAFF THESE
CASES FROM THE GROUND UP FROM
INCEPTION TO THE ADJUDICATION OF
A CRIME. THE RELATIONSHIPS WITH
THE VICTIMS WILL BE BETTER
SERVED, AND I THINK THAT
COUNTIES WILL SEE BETTER
OUTCOMES. LASTLY JUST A POINT
ABOUT RETENTION OF PROSECUTORS.
IF THESE ROLES ARE IDENTIFIED IN
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
AND OFFICES ARE ABLE TO SUPPORT
THESE ROLES WHEN THEY WOULD NOT
OTHERWISE BE ABLE TO. I THINK
THAT PROSECUTORS CAN BE
ATTRACTED TO STAY IN THE
PROFESSION AND TO MAKE SURE THAT
THEY DEVELOP THIS EXPERTISE.
THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT? ARE THERE
ANY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION? SEE
NONE BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE.
ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS. THANK
YOU, EVERYONE FOR BRINGING THIS
BILL TO US. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
LEADERSHIP IN THIS AND I ALSO
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY.
SO WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
ALSO IS WHEN I WAS A FORENSIC
INTERVIEW WITH THE CHILD AGAINST
CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN UNIT.
SAME THING. WE DON'T WANT TO
VICTIMIZE THE VICTIM OVER AND
OVER AGAIN HAPPEN TO TELL THEIR
STORY OVER AND OVER AGAIN, SO I
THINK BY THIS BILL. BRINGING OUR
58 COUNTIES TOGETHER IS A GREAT
IDEA AND YOU'RE GOING TO
STRENGTHEN OUR COUNTIES, UH,
WITH THIS AND BENEFIT THE VICTIM
OF ANYBODY THE MOST BECAUSE
THERE'S TRAININGS I'VE SEEN ON
THIS. THERE'S VIDEOS ON THIS OF
WHAT THE VICTIMS HAVE TO GO
THROUGH, OVER AND OVER AGAIN,
AND IT'S. IT'S NOT NECESSARILY
OUR FAULT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO
DO THAT. BUT IT'S JUST TRYING TO
MAKE THE BEST CASE AND BITE.
ALLOWING ONE PROSECUTOR TO DO
THIS IS A GREAT IDEA. SO I WILL
DEFINITELY BE SUPPORTING THIS.
AND IF THIS PASSES I'D LIKE TO
BE CO AUTHOR. THANK YOU ANY MORE
COMMENTS YES. SPONSOR JUST A
QUESTION FOR THE AUTHOR, GIVEN
THE FACT THAT THERE'S ALREADY
VERTICAL PROSECUTION UNITS
ESTABLISHED AND HATE CRIMES,
CHILD ABUSE, DOMESTIC ABUSE AND
REPEAT SEX OFFENDER SEX OFFENDER
, CHILD ABUSE AND MAJOR
NARCOTICS VENDOR. VERTICAL
PROSECUTION PROGRAMS ALREADY IN
PLACE. UH WHY, UH AND THIS IS A
PILOT PROGRAM, RIGHT? CORRECTLY
WITH EXPANDED TO 11 CAMERAS
EXPLAINING TO 11 WHY IS THIS
SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY NEEDS TO
BE A PILOT, AS OPPOSED TO
SOMETHING THAT SHOULD JUST BE IN
THE NORMAL COURSE OF ALREADY
EXISTING BUSINESS. WELL WE SAW
THERE WAS SUCH AN IMPORTANT
ENOUGH TO AS FAR AS FUNDING 11
COUNTIES, BUT I'M HAPPY TO LOOK
INTO THE DETAILS FOR YOU AND GET
BACK TO YOU ON THAT ANSWER. UM
WE JUST FELT THAT IT WAS
IMPORTANT TO BRING A UNIFORM
APPROACH AND SEE WHERE THIS
COULD TAKE US FOR THE STATE. IT
WOULD BE IN ONLY 11 PILOTS, SO
THERE'S NOT A UNIFORM. IT
WOULDN'T BE A UNIFORM APPROACH
WOULD BE IN 11 COUNTIES. RIGHT
SO THAT'S THE INITIAL CORRECT 11
11 COUNTIES. I'M JUST CURIOUS
KIND OF GIVEN THAT PARTICULAR.
SITUATION WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW,
FROM A BROADER PERSPECTIVE FOR
OUR BUDGET. WHY UM. WHY WE WOULD
NEED TO FUND SOMETHING THAT
FEELS LIKE IT SHOULD BE BEING
DONE ALREADY. IT SHOULD
ABSOLUTELY BEING DONE ALREADY.
I'M HAPPY TO LOOK INTO THAT THE
DETAILS AND GET BACK TO YOUR
OFFICE ON THAT. THANKS, HMM.
THIS IS THE HAD A QUESTION AS
WELL. UM I THINK IT'S ALONG THE
SAME LINES AS, UH, MY COLLEAGUE
. BUT COULD YOU RESPOND TO JUST
THE CONCERNS THAT THE SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE HAD SOUNDS LIKE THEY'RE
BASICALLY SAYING THAT YOU DON'T
REALLY NEED THIS BILL TO DO
THIS, SO I'M I'M THAT'S WHAT I'M
SORT OF CONFUSED ABOUT.
ACTUALLY, WE. WE HAVEN'T HAD
SPECIFIC RESPONSES FROM THEY.
THEY'RE DEFENDER'S OFFICE. BUT
I'M HAPPY TO LOOK INTO THOSE
DETAILS AND GET BACK TO YOU ON
THAT. THERE'S A LETTER IN THE
FILE FROM THE SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE. THAT
RAISES SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE
BILL, AND I WAS JUST WONDERING
IF YOU WANTED TO ADDRESS THEM.
I'M HAPPY TO REACH OUT TO YOUR
OFFICE. GET BACK TO YOU ON THAT.
IF YOU MAKE SURE I THINK I CAN
RESPOND TO THAT VERY BRIEFLY,
SOME SO I HAVE A COPY OF THE
LETTER IN FRONT OF ME AND IT
WHAT I WOULD LIKE THE MEMBERS TO
KEEP IN MIND THAT IT'S NOT
FUNDING TO THE EXCLUSION OF ONE
INTEREST AGAINST ANOTHER. THERE
IS A REASON THAT PROSECUTORS
OFFICES ARE FUNDED DIFFERENTLY
THAN PUBLIC DEFENSE. THERE IS
NOT ANOTHER REPRESENTATIVE.
WITHIN EACH COUNTY FOR THE
FILING OF CRIMINAL CHARGES
BROADLY, THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS
FOR INDIGENT DEFENSE. THERE IS
OFTEN AN ALTERNATIVE PUBLIC
DEFENDER'S OFFICE AND SOME
COUNTIES, SO THERE IS NOT AN
INTEREST THAT IS SERVED. TO FUND
THIS VERTICAL PROSECUTION WITHIN
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICES THAT
DISENFRANCHISES PUBLIC
DEFENDER'S OFFICES. AND I DON'T
. I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S A
PARTICULARLY EFFECTIVE
EQUIVALENT IN THIS LETTER. WILL
THIS REQUIRE MORE MONEY THEY
SPENT BY THE STATE TO FUND THESE
11 PROGRAMS AND OR IS IT TAKING
MONEY AWAY THAT'S ALREADY
ALLOCATED. IT WOULD NOT REQUIRE
MORE FUNDING NÓ. AYE. OKAY.
THANK YOU, UH, DID. THE COMMENT
TO GET BACK TO ASK FOR YOUR
VOTE. AND I WOULD BE BACK TO MR
BOND TO THE CHAIR OF PUBLIC
SAFETY BUDGET. ABOUT ANY
FUNDING. AND AS YOU CAN BUT
THEIR EMOTION. CALL FOR THE
VOTE. ON A B 17 39 BY SOME
MEMBER SANCHEZ. THE MOTION IS
DUE PASSED THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE JOHN SAWYER,
CHANCELLOR, I ELONIS UNECE. AYE
BANTA, NOT VOTING, NOT VOTING.
JACKSON JACKSON. I LACKEY
MACKEY. I ORTEGA SANTIAGO.
SUBIR. THEY'RE NOT VOTING THAT
MEASURES DON'T CALL CALL. THANK
YOU. YEAH. AND. MR MCCARTHY'S
NOT HERE. IT'S MR LACKEY OR MISS
BRONSON. AH! YEAH THE BELT.
WELL, I COULD FIND MY NOTES, BUT
I PRESENT THIS BILL TWICE BEFORE
I COULD JUST TALK. UM I WILL
TELL DO THIS IS A DISTRICT BILL.
IT'S A IT'S A IT'S A PILOT
PROJECT WITH TWO OF OUR
COUNTIES. YOU HAVE TWO BILLS. AT
ONE TIME 91 OR 13 61 CONSENT.
ONE BUTTON ON CONTENT, OKAY. I
SORRY ABOUT THAT. I'M CATCHING
UP LONG DAY. YEAH, BUT SO 13 60.
YES SO THIS IS 13 60. AND FOR
THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE WHO ARE NOT
NEW MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. WE
HEARD THIS BEFORE. UM THIS IS
HER LIST A COUPLE OF TIMES. THIS
IS A DISTRICT BILLETS TO COUNTY
PILOT PROJECT WITH SACRAMENTO.
YOLO COUNTY, WHICH WOULD ADDRESS
UM UM, SUBSTANTIVE USE DISORDERS
AS A PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE. TOO
MANY PEOPLE REVOLVING IN AND
OUT. OF OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE
SYSTEM. UM AND REALLY WHEN THEY
COMMIT THEIR CRIME, THE
UNDERLYING REASON THEY COMMIT
THE CRIME IS TO FEED AN
ADDICTION TOO MANY TIMES THEY GO
TO EITHER STATE PRISON OR LONG
TERM SENTENCE IN COUNTY JAIL AND
, UM, COME OUT NEVER HAVING HAD
THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE
UNDERLYING MEDICAL CONDITION,
WHICH IS A SUBSTANCE ABUSE
DISORDER. SO THIS THIS BILL
AFTER SEVERAL YEARS OF WORKING
WITH PARTIES, WHICH I KNOW
RESPECTFULLY HAVE THEIR
PHILOSOPHICAL DISAGREEMENT.
WE'LL HEAR HEAR FROM THAT SIDE
AND A BIT, UM, WILL PROVIDE A
LOCAL PILOT TO PROVIDE AN
ALTERNATIVE IN A NON JAIL OR
PRISON OPTION FOR PEOPLE TO
VOLUNTARILY CHOOSE TO GET
TREATMENT AS OPPOSED TO SERVING
THEIR THEIR ENTIRE SENTENCE.
UPON COMPLETION OF THIS, THE
RECORDS WOULD WILL BE SEALED. WE
ALSO, YOU KNOW, HAVE DRAFTED
THIS. TO MAKE SURE THAT THEIR
UNDERLYING TIME SERVE WOULD BE
LESS THAN THEY WOULD HAVE SERVED
OTHERWISE, IF THEY SERVE THEIR
SENTENCE WITHOUT GOING THROUGH
THIS OPTION. UM WE KNOW THAT THE
CURRENT SYSTEM UM, IS NOT
WORKING. TOO MANY PEOPLE CYCLE
THROUGH THE SYSTEM AND DON'T
ADDRESS THEIR UNDERLYING, UM,
ADDICTION AND TOO MANY FAMILIES
SEE THEIR LOVED ONES JUST
LANGUISH IN JAIL IN PRISON
RATHER THAN GETTING TREATMENT
AGAIN. THIS IS A VOLUNTARY
OPTION. IT'S NOT MANDATORY. THIS
IS A PILOT FOR TWO COUNTIES.
IT'S A 22 YEAR. TWO COUNTY PILOT
AND RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT WITH ME TODAY AGAIN IS
OUR DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
FROM YOLO COUNTY, JONATHAN
RAVEN. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD TO
SEE YOU ALL AGAIN FOR THE THIRD
TIME. JONATHAN RAVEN, UH, CHIEF
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY FROM
YOLO COUNTY. TOO MANY PEOPLE WHO
SUFFER FROM SERIOUS SUBSTANCE
ABUSE DISORDERS ARE GOING TO
PRISONS AND JAILS FOR CRIMES
THAT ARE MOTIVATED BY THEIR
ADDICTION. PRISONS AND JAILS WE
ALL KNOW ARE NOT PLACES WHERE
PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT WELL. GO TO
GET BETTER. PUT IT TO PUT IT
SIMPLY. WHAT'S HAPPENING IN
CALIFORNIA IS NOT WORKING. IT'S
A REVOLVING DOOR AND A B 13 60
PROPOSES A LOCAL TREATMENT
ALTERNATIVES TO PRISON AND JAIL
FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN
CONVICTED OF FELONY LEVEL CRIMES
MOTIVATED BY THEIR SERIOUS
ADDICTION TO DRUGS. BUT WHO
POSED TOO MUCH OF A RISK FOR A
JUDGE TO SIMPLY RELEASE THEM
INTO AN UNSECURED RESIDENTIAL
FACILITY IN THE COMMUNITY. WHERE
THEY CAN SIMPLY WALK AWAY OR
CRAWL OUT A WINDOW ON DAY ONE
AND POTENTIALLY CAUSE MORE HARM
TO THEMSELVES AND OTHERS.
INSTEAD 13 60 ENVISIONS CREATING
A SECURE HOSPITAL LIKE TREATMENT
ENVIRONMENT WITHOUT JAIL BARS,
NO GUARDS, NO GUNS THAT
CONSERVATIVE SANCTUARY FOR
SERIOUSLY ADDICTED FELONY
OFFENDERS WHO VOLUNTARILY CHOOSE
TO TRY LOCAL COMMUNITY BASED
TREATMENT. AND WRAP AROUND
SERVICES AND A SAFE AND SECURE
SETTING, INSTEAD OF MERELY BEING
WAREHOUSED BEHIND BARS, AND WE
CALL THIS POTENTIAL PLACE HOPE,
CALIFORNIA. WHAT ALSO MAKES THIS
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE UNIQUE IS
THAT IT WILL BE DESIGNED IN
STAFF BY TREATMENT PROVIDERS,
AND THEY WILL DECIDE WHO IS AN
APPROPRIATE CANDIDATE AND WHO IS
NOT. AND WHAT THE TREATMENT WILL
LOOK LIKE. FOR THOSE WHO
SUCCESSFULLY CHOOSING COMPLETE
TREATMENT OVER PRISON, THEY WILL
HAVE THEIR CONVICTIONS EXPUNGED.
AND DILATED. GET A CLEAN START
RIGHT HERE AT HOME. ULTIMATELY
MAYBE 13 60 IS A VERY MEASURED
PILOT BILL WITH JUST TWO
COUNTIES THAT IS DESIGNED TO
OFFER A VOLUNTARY TREATMENT
ALTERNATIVE TO THOSE WHO ARE
OTHERWISE ON THEIR WAY TO PRISON
OR JAIL. I WOULD URGE THIS
COMMITTEE TO AGAIN GIVE THIS
PILOT PROGRAM A CHANCE. THANK
YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT? YEAH,
SERIOUSLY. JEFF NEALE,
REPRESENTING YOLO COUNTY, ALSO
IN SUPPORT. ARE THERE ANY
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION?
REMEMBER, SHE COMES IN.
THANK YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES
BETWEEN THE TWO OF YOU. THANK
YOU. UH GOOD AFTERNOON, SARAH
JONES, SAWYER AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS GARY MCCOY
AND I'M VICE PRESIDENT OF POLICY
AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS FOR HEALTH
RATE. 3 60, A STATEWIDE PROVIDER
OF SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER
TREATMENT ON BEHALF OF HEALTH.
RIGHT. 3 60. WE OPPOSE ASSEMBLY
BILL 13 16. AS A SUBSTANCE USE
DISORDER TREATMENT PROVIDER AND
AS SOMEONE WITH LIVED EXPERIENCE
, WHO WAS FORMERLY INCARCERATED
, HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO COMPEL
TREATMENT AND IS IN RECOVERY.
NOW I SPEAK WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE
OF THE PERSISTENT CHALLENGES
FACED BY PEOPLE WITH SUBSTANCE
USE DISORDER. THE URGENCY THAT
THE OVERDOSE CRISIS DESERVES AND
THE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE HARMS OF
THIS PROPOSAL. THIS BILL DOES
NOT CENTER THE EXPERIENCES OR
NEEDS OF INDIVIDUALS WITH
SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER, AND IT
INSTEAD CRIMINALIZES THEM FOR
THEIR ILLNESS. A B 13 60, LIKE
ITS PREVIOUS VERSIONS, IS BASED
ON STIGMA, STEREOTYPES AND THE
FLAWED NOTION THAT INVOLUNTARY
TREATMENT IS DESIRABLE. THE
CHOICE BETWEEN INCARCERATION OR
TREATMENT IS ALWAYS COURSE. OF
COURSE, TREATMENT IS NEITHER
EFFECTIVE NOR ETHICAL. THIS
BLURRING OF THE LINES BETWEEN
KAREN PUNISHMENT RUNS COUNTER TO
THE PRINCIPLE OF FREE AND
INFORMED CONSENT TO TREATMENT
AND UNDERMINES THE GOAL OF
HELPING THOSE IN NEED. LOW
THRESHOLD, EVIDENCE BASED
VOLUNTARY TREATMENT IN THE
COMMUNITY PRODUCES BETTER
OUTCOMES THAN FORCING PEOPLE
INTO TREATMENT AGAINST THEIR
WILL AND A LOCKED FACILITY. THE
MODEL PROPOSED BY ABBY 13. 60 IS
HARMFUL AND WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE
BASED THAT IT IMPROVES TREATMENT
OUTCOMES. QUITE THE CONTRARY,
INVOLUNTARY TREATMENT IS KNOWN
TO DAMAGE THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN PROVIDER AND RECIPIENT
AND FURTHER TRAUMATIZES
INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE OFTEN
EXPERIENCE OF THEIR HARDSHIP.
NOT ONLY DOES THIS NEGATIVELY
IMPACT OUTCOMES OF THAT CURRENT
TREATMENT EPISODE, BUT THIS CAN
ALSO BE ESPECIALLY DANGEROUS
WITH INDIVIDUALS REENTER,
REENTER THE COMMUNITY AND
EXPERIENCE A RETURN TO USE. AS
IS OFTEN THE CASE WITH SUBSTANCE
USE DISORDERS AND AT A TIME
RIGHT NOW, WITH THE FENTANYL
CRISIS DEVASTATING THIS COUNTRY
IS ALMOST CERTAINLY DEATH. ADULT
RESULTING DIMINISHED LIKELIHOOD
OF SUCCESSFUL ENGAGEMENT AND
FUTURE HEALTH SERVICES
ULTIMATELY RAISES THE RISK OF
OVERDOSE. I WANT TO BE VERY
CLEAR. THIS PILOT PROGRAM IS NOT
A NEW PROGRAM. IT MAY SEEM NEW
BECAUSE IT'S BEEN DECADES SINCE
WE STOPPED THIS MODEL OF
TREATMENT BECAUSE IT WAS A
FAILURE. KNOWING THIS WE OPPOSE
A B 13 60. WE RESPECTFULLY URGE
YOU TO VOTE NO ON THIS BILL. YES
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. I'M ALICIA BENAVIDEZ
LOUIS REPRESENTING DRUG POLICY
ALLIANCE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION
THAT ADVOCATES FOR DRUG POLICIES
BASED ON SCIENCE, COMPASSION,
HEALTH AND HUMAN RIGHTS. AND
THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL ATTEMPTS
THIS MEASURE. WE'VE BEEN UP HERE
BEFORE. AND LIKE PREVIOUS
VERSIONS, THIS BILL STILL FAILS
TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS FROM THE
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE. TWO
YEARS AGO, I QUOTE COURSE
TREATMENT FOR SUBSTANCE USE
DISORDER IS NOT THE ANSWER. WE
ARE DEEPLY CONCERNED THAT THIS
BILL, AS IMPLEMENTED WOULD BE AT
RISK OF BEING DONE SO IN A
RACIALLY INEQUITABLE MANNER,
LEADING TO THE UNNECESSARY
INCARCERATION OF BLACK AND BROWN
INDIVIDUALS. ARREST RATES FROM
2020 DEMONSTRATE THAT BLACK AND
LATINOS ARE UNFAIRLY TARGETED
FOR DRUG ARRESTS. LATINOS
CONSISTED OF 42.4% OF ALL FELONY
DRUG ARRESTS AND BLACK AMERICANS
MADE UP 13.3% OF ARREST DESPITE
MAKING UP ONLY 6.5% OF THE STATE
POPULATION. AND AS WE KNOW, FROM
THE 50 YEARS OF ENFORCING THE
WAR ON DRUGS, COMMUNITIES OF
COLOR HAVE BORNE THE BRUNT OF
THIS ENFORCEMENT, LEADING TO
DISPROPORTIONATE FORCE TREATMENT
, LONGER JAIL SENTENCES AND
SOMETIMES FATAL OUTCOMES. 13 60
FORCES THE FALSE BELIEF THAT THE
ONLY WAY PEOPLE CAN ACCESS
SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER TREATMENT
IS THROUGH ARREST AND
PROSECUTION. SENTENCING A PERSON
TO DRUG TREATMENT. INSTEAD A
LOCKED FACILITY IS STILL
CRIMINALIZATION. IT IS NOT
SUPPORTED BY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
. INSTEAD IT IS INEFFECTIVE,
COSTLY AND DANGEROUS. TREATMENT
PROFESSIONALS RECOMMEND MOVING
AWAY FROM MANDATED TREATMENT
TOWARDS EVIDENCE BASED
APPROACHES THAT WORK INCLUDING
LOW BARRIER COMMUNITY DRUG
TREATMENT, OVERDOSE PREVENTION
PROGRAMS AND CULTURALLY
RESPONSIVE OUTREACH AND
COMMUNITY BASED SETTINGS.
RECOVERY IS NOT LINEAR, AND IT
OFTEN INVOLVES SEVERAL RELAPSES
. THEREFORE WE MUST INVEST IN
RESOURCES INTO OUR COMMUNITIES.
THAT FACILITATE TREATMENT
ENROLLMENT ONCE A PERSON IS
READY TO TAKE THE NEXT STEP.
MAYBE 13 60 WOULD DETRACT FROM
THESE EFFORTS AND DIVERT VITAL
RESOURCES THAT COULD BE USED IN
THE COMMUNITY. WE STRONGLY URGE
YOUR NO VOTE. THANK YOU ARE
THERE OTHER WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION? WESLEY SAVER WITH
HEALTH, RIGHT 3 60 ON BEHALF OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO TREATMENT ON
DEMAND COALITION IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. BECAUSE EISEN ON
BEHALF OF THE STATE SUBSTANCE
USES START DISORDER TREATMENT
PROVIDER ASSOCIATION CAN BE
STRONGLY OPPOSED. KARMA NICOLE
COX ON BEHALF OF A CEO YOU CAL
ACTION IN OPPOSITION. MARCO
GEORGE ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION
OPPOSED UNLESS AMENDED. THANK
YOU. YARDARM ON BEHALF OF
INITIATE GESTION, JUSTICE AND
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. WE'LL
BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE
FOR ANY QUESTIONS. PLEASE GO
AHEAD, MR JACKSON. SO I'M TRYING
TO WRAP MY HEAD. UM AROUND WHAT
YOU'RE ATTEMPTING TO DO. SO
THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN
CONVICTED AM I RIGHT, ALREADY
BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME. AND
NOW YOU'RE GIVING THEM AN OPTION
. SINCE YOU'RE CONVICTED. YOU
CAN EITHER STAY IN INCARCERATION
WHERE YOU ARE, OR YOU CAN HAVE
AN OPPORTUNITY. IF YOU QUALIFY
TO GO INTO THIS OTHER TYPE
FACILITY WHERE YOU CAN RISK WORK
ON YOUR ADDICTIONS. SO EITHER
WAY, THEY'RE ALREADY GOING TO BE
INCARCERATED. MY CORRECT IN
THAT. EXACTLY AND I THINK THERE
WAS A BIT OF CONFUSION. THESE
ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE BEING
ARRESTED FOR DRUG OFFENSES AND
MOST RIGHT DIGNITY. YOU KNOW,
DEALING AND SO FORTH ARE NOT
PRISON TIME. THESE ARE, YOU
KNOW, BURGLARY OR LARSON, RE
LARCENY WHERE YOU HAVE A MULTI
YEAR SENTENCE? MM HMM. AND YOU
HAVE AN OPTION. SO THE D A AND
LOOKING AT THE INDIVIDUAL
SENTENCING IF THERE'S A
DETERMINATION THAT THAT THE
CRIMES ARE REALLY COMMITTED TO
FEED YOUR DRUG ADDICTION. YOU
COULD BE OFFERED THIS CHOICE AND
THE INDIVIDUAL COULD COULD
CHOOSE AND SO ARE ARE DESIRE IS
TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO MAKE A CHOICE
TO GO WORK ON THEIR ADDICTION,
AS OPPOSED TO BEING WAREHOUSE IN
A PRISON OR COUNTY JAIL FOR A
COUPLE OF YEARS. MR ZIMMER, SO
IN ALL CASES THAT WOULD BE THIS
CHOICE WOULD BE AFTER A
CONVICTION AND WOULD HAPPEN. IN
THE CONTEXT OF SENTENCING. IS
THAT RIGHT? CORRECT. YEAH THAT'S
CORRECT, SO THE SENTENCE EITHER
THEY WOULD BE SENTENCED OR THE
SENTENCE WOULD BE A STATE PRISON
SENTENCE OR VERY LENGTHY JAIL
SENTENCE, AND IF THAT WERE THE
CASE, THEY WOULD BE GIVEN THE
OPTION TO VOLUNTARILY DECIDED TO
GO INTO THIS SECURE SOFT
FACILITY AS OPPOSED TO GOING TO
PRISON OR JAIL. SO. USE THE
OTHER OTHER OPPORTUNITIES TO
RECEIVE PROBATION IN ORDER TO DO
SUD. YEAH THERE. THERE ARE OTHER
LOWER LEVEL OFFENSES. UH THE
CONFUSION HERE ARE THE PEOPLE
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. ARE NOT
ANKLE BRACELET, FOLKS. THEY'RE
NOT GOING HOME ON PROBATION WITH
AN ANKLE BRACELET. THESE ARE
PEOPLE THAT OTHERWISE WOULD BE
GOING TOO. YOU KNOW, LANCASTER
STATE PRISON. RIVERSIDE COUNTY
JAIL FOR A LENGTHY SENTENCE AND
IF THIS BILL GOES AWAY, THAT'S
STILL WHAT HAPPENED. NOTHING
CHANGED. WE'RE NOT. THIS ISN'T
MASS INCARCERATION, NO NEW
PEOPLE GOING TO JAIL OR PRISON.
THIS FOCUS ON PEOPLE THAT ARE
SENTENCED AND GIVING AN
ALTERNATIVE. MM HMM. AND AGAIN.
IT'S A IT'S A TWO COUNTY
DISTRICT PILOT. IT'S TWO YEARS
SO LOTS OF PEOPLE WOULD SAY THIS
IS NOT GONNA WORK, BUT WELL, A
LOT OF STUFF NOT WORKING OUT
THERE. WE NEED TO TRY THINGS
DIFFERENTLY. THAT'S WHY WE VOTED
UNANIMOUSLY FOR CARE COURTS LAST
YEAR LIKE IT'S A NEW ERA TO
THINK CREATIVELY AND NOT HAVING
THE THREE STRIKES ERA MASS
INCARCERATION, BUT THINGS CAN WE
DO DIFFERENTLY TO SEE TO STOP.
THE CYCLE. GOT IT. THANK YOU.
CAN YOU JUST CLARIFY FOR ME
WHETHER AN INDIVIDUAL CAN BE
OFFERED PROBATION. UH, FOR
PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING THE
SUBSTANCE ABUSE DISORDER.
TREATMENT PROGRAM, PROBATION IN
LIEU. UM, I THINK, LET ME ASK MR
RAYMOND, HELP WITH THAT. YES
THESE ARE NOT FOR PROBATION
CASES. SO IF SOMEONE WAS GOING
TO BE OFFERED PROBATION, THEY
WOULD BE OFFERED PROBATION AND
WITH PROBATION, YOU SOMETIMES
CAN GET SOME JAIL TIME. THESE
ARE FOR INDIVIDUALS THAT WOULD
BE SERVING LENGTHY SENTENCES
THAT WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY
TO TRY THIS PROGRAM. OKAY? I'M
JUST LITERALLY. LOOKING AT THE
BILL HERE. IT SAYS THAT THE
COURT SHALL NOT PLACE THE
DEFENDANT ON PROBATION FOR THE
UNDERLYING OFFENSE. RIGHT
BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE BEING
SENTENCED TO PRISON. SO THERE
WOULDN'T SO WOULD NOT BE A
PROBATION CASE. SO THEY SO THEY
WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO REPLACE ON
PROBATION. BECAUSE THEY BE IN
THIS PROGRAM. WELL. SO. THEY'RE
NOT. YEAH, THEY'RE NOT PLACED ON
. THEY'RE NOT PLACED. IF THERE
I'M SORRY. IF THEY'RE IN THE
PROGRAM, THEY'RE NOT ON
PROBATION, BUT THEY'RE BEING
SUPERVISED BY BY PROBATION,
BECAUSE THERE THEY COULD BE THE
ONES THAT WOULD BE RUNNING THE
FACILITY WITH THE TREATMENT
PROVIDERS. UM SO THEY WOULDN'T
THEY WOULD NOT BE GETTING A
PRISON SENTENCE IF THEY CHOSE
THIS ALTERNATIVE, BUT THEY WOULD
ALSO NOT BE PLACED ON PROBATION
. IF YOU'RE PLACED ON PROBATION
AND YOU VIOLATE PROBATION, THEN
OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN BE THEN
SENTENCED TO PRISON, SO THAT
WOULD NOT BE THE CASE HERE. THE
OPTION WOULD BE REALLY FOR
TREATMENT AND THE IDEA OF BEING
WE'RE TRYING TO SEND LESS PEOPLE
TO SIT STATE PRISON COMPARED TO
HOW MANY WERE SENDING NOW. MR
ZUBER, BUT I GUESS WHAT I'M
CONFUSED ABOUT. ISN'T THIS
HAPPENING AT THE TIME OF
SENTENCING, SO YOU DON'T KNOW
THAT YOU'RE GOING TO PRISON?
NECESSARILY DO YOU? DON'T YOU
HAVE ACTUALLY A RECOMMENDATION
BY THE PROSECUTOR FOR A PRISON
SENTENCE. AND THEN THIS IS
OFFERED AS A POTENTIAL OPTION
AND ISN'T I MEAN, THAT'S IT
SEEMS COERCIVE TO ME AT THAT
POINT. UM I MEAN, IF I KNEW
THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, SOMEONE WAS
GOING TO PRISON. AND IT WAS FOR
A KIND OF UM. YOU KNOW IF IT WAS
FOR A CRIME THAT WAS GOING TO
RESULT IN A LENGTHY PRISON
SENTENCE, AND THE OPTION IS TO
GIVE THAT PERSON AN OPTION TO
SORT OF DEAL WITH THE SUBSTANCE
USE ISSUES IN A YOU KNOW, IN A
FACILITY THAT I THINK IS A
DIFFERENT THING THAN ACTUALLY.
HAVING THIS AS AN OPTION AS PART
OF THE SENTENCING. LET ME ALLOW
THAT. OUR DEPUTY A TO GET IN THE
TECHNICAL THINGS IS HE'S A
PRACTICING ATTORNEY, AND I'M
NOT. BUT MINERS SAYING STILL
TECHNICAL THING WHEN THESE
AREN'T SERIOUS STRIKE OFFENSES,
SO THESE AND THESE ARE YOU KNOW?
TWEENERS BUT, YOU KNOW, NOT 10
YEARS SENTENCE BUT SEVERAL YEAR
SENTENCE LIKE THREE OR FOUR YEAR
SENTENCE, AND SO IT'S NOT LIKE
SOMEONE'S YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT A
MULTI YEAR IN CHOOSING THIS
OPTION. AND THAT'S OUR GOAL NOT
TO COERCE PEOPLE, BUT YOU KNOW
SOMETIMES YOU DON'T CAJOLE LIKE
WHEN YOU HAVE AN INTERVENTION
WITH THE FAMILY MEMBERS LIKE,
HEY, EVERYTHING'S FALLING APART.
IT'S NOT GOING WELL. YOU'RE
YOU'RE HERE. YOU'RE GETTING
SENTENCED BECAUSE YOU HAVE AN
OVER. YOU HAVE THIS ADDICTION,
SO HERE'S AN OPTION TO ADDRESS
YOUR ADDICTION. BY THE WAY,
POTENTIALLY IF YOU DO IT, YOU
WILL. YOU WILL HAVE YOUR CRIMES
. UM, UM WHAT'S THE WORD?
EXPUNGED EXPUNGED AND YOU WILL
SERVE LESS TIME OVERALL, SO IN
OUR EYES, IT'S A WIN WIN WIN.
AND UM, I UNDERSTAND THERE'S
SOME PHILOSOPHY, PHILOSOPHICAL
DIFFERENCES AND SOME OPINIONS ON
THIS, WHETHER OR NOT THAT TRULY
IS VOLUNTARY, BUT OUR EYES YOU
KNOW IT IS A CHOICE. SO AND I
THINK I WOULD LOOK AT IT A
LITTLE DIFFERENTLY, AND I KNOW
IT MIGHT BE SPLITTING HAIRS
HERE, BUT IT'S INCENTIVIZING
SOMEONE TO MAKE A CHOICE TO GET
TREATMENT. UM THIS WOULD NOT BE
AN OFFER FROM THE D A SAYING,
YOU KNOW, YOU CAN CHOOSE DOOR A
OR DOOR BE. IT WOULD BASICALLY
BE A JUDGE SAYING YOU WILL BE
SENTENCED TO STATE PRISON. UM IF
YOU WOULD LIKE TO GO TO THE SOFT
SECURITY FACILITY. UM YOU CAN
AND YOU CAN GET TREATMENT AND I
KNOW FOR ME. I'VE WORKED
EXTENSIVELY IN OUR COLLABORATIVE
COURTS, AND I DON'T WANT TO
ARGUE WITH THE EXPERTS BECAUSE
WE'VE HEARD FROM THE EXPERTS.
I'M NOT A TREATMENT PROVIDER.
BUT WHAT I HAVE SEEN AND MY HAND
I'M IN THE TRENCHES IS
INDIVIDUALS WILL GO INTO OUR
PROGRAMS OFTENTIMES, TO AVOID A
HARSHER OUTCOME, LIKE MAYBE THEY
MIGHT BE GOING TO STATE PRISON
OTHERWISE, AND THEY'RE GOING TO
GO INTO MENTAL HEALTH COURT.
INITIALLY THEY MAY NOT HAVE THAT
INSIGHT THAT WE WOULD WANT AND
THEY MAY NOT BE CHOOSING TO DO
IT BECAUSE THEY WANT TO GET
BETTER. BUT THEN ONCE THEY
ENGAGE, AND AS I SAW IN THE
ANALYSIS HERE BY THIS COMMITTEE
, UM THEY GET TO BE COMFORTABLE
WITH THE TREATMENT PROVIDERS.
THE ANALYSIS TALKED ABOUT THAT,
AND THEN THEY REALIZE IF YOU
HAVE A GOOD PROGRAM, WHICH WE DO
IN YOUR LOCAL COUNTY, THEY
REALIZED THAT THIS IS HELPING,
AND THEN THEY DEVELOP THE
INSIGHT, AND THEN THEY ENGAGE
AND THEN THEY'RE DOING IT
COMPLETELY VOLUNTARILY FOR LACK
OF A BETTER WORD, AND THAT'S
WORKED AND I'M SPEAKING
ANECDOTALLY, BUT MANY, MANY
TIMES THAT I'VE SEEN THAT WORK.
IT'S PRETTY AMAZING TO SEE IT
EVOLVE. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE.
SEEING NONE. DO I HAVE A MOTION?
OH SORRY, MR MCCARTY PROPOSED.
PLEASE I GUESS. WELL, FIRST OF
ALL, I ASK YOU TO SUPPORT THIS
BILL. IT'S A DISTRICT BILL. UM
IT'S TWO COUNTIES FOR TWO YEARS
SINCE WE INTRODUCED THIS BILL
STARTED TALKING, THE OPPOSITION
WERE TAKEN. I THINK 53 OR
SOMETHING. AMENDMENTS SO WE'VE
LISTENED AND ADDRESS SOME
TECHNICAL ISSUES TO MAKE SURE
AND YOU JUST ADDRESSED ONE MORE
ON THE DEBT ON THIS PROBATION
DEFINITIONS. MAKE SURE MAYBE
THERE'LL BE ANOTHER ONE WE
ADDRESS UM I GUESS THE OVERLYING
ISSUES. WHAT'S THE DOWNSIDE
HERE? WHAT'S THE DOWNSIDE? IT'S
A TWO YEAR PILOT FOR TWO
COUNTIES. UM SOMEONE IS NOT
GOING TO GET SENTENCED FOR THREE
OR FOUR YEAR PRISON SENTENCE AND
GO IN THERE AND NOT GET
TREATMENT AND COME OUT. YOU KNOW
BETTER OFF ADDRESSING THEIR
ADDICTION, YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT
THAT'S NOT HAPPENING, BUT
CURRENTLY SO THIS WILL ALLOW
PEOPLE TO MAKE THAT CHOICE. AND
MAYBE SOME ARE JUST GOING TO GO
THERE. SO, YEAH, I'M GONNA DO IT
JUST TO GO THROUGH THE MOTIONS
AND CHECK THE BOXES. BUT MAYBE
IF YOU GET IN THERE AND ADDRESS
THE UNDERLYING SUBSTANCE ABUSE
DISORDER, AND WE CAN STOP THIS
CYCLE THAT WE SEE IN ALL OF OUR
COMMUNITIES, INCLUDING RIGHT
HERE IN OUR CAPITAL CITY, SO
WITH THAT ASKED ME TO WRITE
ABOUT. THANK YOU. I'M GONNA GO
AHEAD AND MAKE THE MOTION. I
MEAN, THIS IS A HARD ONE FOR ME.
I MEAN, I HAD A FAMILY MEMBER
WHO HAD A SUBSTANCE USE PROBLEM
AND WAS CONVICTED OF A DRUG
POSSESSION OFFENSE, AND IT WAS
UM ONLY BECAUSE OF THE COERCION
OF THE COURT SYSTEM THAT HE
ULTIMATELY ENDED GETTING HELP.
AND IT WASN'T THIS KIND OF HELP.
I MEAN, IT WAS REALLY PART OF A
PLEA NEGOTIATION, WHERE HE HAD
TO GO INTO DRUG TREATMENT AND ON
PROBATION, AND ANY SLIP UP WAS
UM, A, YOU KNOW, WAS THREE
FELONY COUNTS, BASICALLY. SO YOU
KNOW, WHEN I LOOK AT THAT, AS
THE WAY THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE
SYSTEM TREATS THAT THIS IS
BETTER, UM, I'M NERVOUS ABOUT
IT, THOUGH, BECAUSE I DO THINK
THAT IT CAN BE YOU KNOW, ABUSED
. UM I'M HOPING IS. IS THERE A
IS THERE? WHAT KIND OF REVIEW
AND ANALYSIS OF THE PILOT
PROGRAM IS GOING TO HAPPEN? YES
AND IN THE IN THE VERSION, I'M
I'M SURE IT'S IN THIS VERSION IN
THE SENATE BECAUSE OF SENATOR
EDMUND. WE PUT IN THERE A
EVALUATION AFTER THE PILOT TO
COME BACK WITH THAT, YEAH. I'M
GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE THE
BILL IF THERE'S A SECOND I'LL
SECOND IT I TO HAVE A FAMILY
MEMBER SUFFERED FOR ADDICTION
RIGHT NOW. AND QUITE HONESTLY,
SOMEWHERE ON THE STREETS RIGHT
NOW. AND UM MAN. THAT ROAD IS
HARD. AND THE PAIN. YOU SEE THEM
GO THROUGH. IT IS. SOMETHING
THAT YOU WOULDN'T WISH ON
ANYBODY. OBVIOUSLY WHAT WE'RE
DOING RIGHT NOW IS NOT WORKING.
AND. I THINK WE THINK THIS IS
WORTH CONTINUING TO DEBATE AND
THIS IS WHAT THIS PROCESS IS
FOR. AND THIS IS NOT THE LAST
TIME THIS IS GOING TO BE VOTED
ON, AND I THINK AS A SOCIETY WE
SHOULD CONTINUE TO DEBATE THIS.
BECAUSE. WE REALLY, REALLY,
REALLY, REALLY GOT TO FIND WHERE
THAT THAT SPOT IS TO TRY TO SAVE
AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE. AND
THE STATUS QUO IS JUST NOT
ACCEPTABLE AT THIS TIME. UH SO I
LOOK FORWARD TO THE CONTINUED
DEBATE. THANK YOU WITH THAT.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. ON A B 13
60 BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S MCCARTY.
THE MOTION IS DUE PASS TO THE
HEALTH COMMITTEE JOHN SAWYER.
COLONIES, BONTA. I WANT TO I
JACKSON JACKSON. I LACKEY
BLACKIE ABSTAIN, ORTEGA.
SANTIAGO. ZIPPER. SIBUR. AYE.
THANK YOU. WE WILL MOVE NOW TO
ITEM NUMBER ER. THAT MEASURES
SORRY THAT MEASURE THAT MEASURES
ON CALL WILL MOVE NOW TO ITEM
NUMBER 27 A B 15 44 BLACKIE.
THANK YOU, MR LACKEY. AND GO
AHEAD WHENEVER YOU'RE READY,
OKAY? THANK YOU, MADAM.
TEMPORARY CHAIR. AH IT'S A
PRIVILEGE TO BE HERE TODAY TO
TALK ABOUT A VERY, VERY
IMPORTANT MEASURE TO ME. AND I
THINK TO OUR SOCIETY ASSEMBLY
BILL 15 44 RESTORES LAW
ENFORCEMENT'S ABILITY TO ENTER
DATA INTO THE CHILD ABUSE.
CENTRAL INDEX, OTHERWISE KNOWN
AS KHAKI. IT ALSO MOVES OVER THE
GRIEVANCE PROCESS FROM THE LOCAL
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. IN THE 19
SIXTIES. THIS DATABASE WAS
ORIGINALLY DEVELOPED. AS A
REFERENCE POINT FOR
INVESTIGATIONS INTO CHILD SAFETY
IN THE 19 EIGHTIES, IT BEGAN TO
BE USED FOR SCREENING PURPOSES
WHEN AUTHORIZING INDIVIDUALS TO
HAVE CLOSE CONTACT WITH
CHILDREN. THIS DUAL PURPOSE
ENCOMPASSED HOW SOCIAL SERVICES
AND LAW ENFORCEMENT PROVIDE
CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES. IN
2007 DUE TO LITIGATION. THE
GRIEVANCE PROCESS WAS DEVELOPED
FOR INDIVIDUALS TO APPEAL THEIR
LISTINGS. THIS MEANT THAT THOSE
WHO ARE FACTUALLY INNOCENT COULD
BE MOVED. I'M SORRY TO BE
REMOVED AND ABSOLVED OF STATE
IMPOSED STIGMAS. IN 2011, THE
LEGISLATURE REMOVED LAW
ENFORCEMENT'S ABILITY TO ENTER
DATA DIRECTLY INTO THIS INDEX.
PROVIDED STANDARDS FOR INCLUSION
AND ORDERED SPECIFIC REMOVALS.
THIS MEANS THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT
HAS TO SEND THEIR REPORTS TO
SOCIAL SERVICES FOR THEM TO
ENTER INTO THIS INDEX. THE JOINT
LEGISLATIVE AUDIT COMMITTEE
APPROVED MY REQUEST. TO REVIEW
THIS INDEX, WHICH UNCOVERED MORE
THAN HALF OF THE REPORTS AT THE
COUNTY LEVEL HAD FAILED TO BE
ENTERED INTO THE STATEWIDE
DATABASE. THIS AUDIT ALSO
PROVIDED THAT THERE WERE 28 DAY
DELAYS FOR ENTRIES, WHICH COULD
ALLOW SOMEONE WHO HAD ABUSED
CHILDREN TO BE APPROVED FOR
SCREENING. IN THE INTERVENING
PERIOD. YOU'RE DOING. THE ACTING
AUDITOR DESCRIBED. THE REPORTING
PROCESS IS CUMBERSOME AND ERROR
PRONE. THEY ALSO SAID THAT THE
UNRELIABILITY OF THE DATABASE
PUTS CHILDREN AT RISK AND THE
FLAWS IN THE DATABASE MEAN THOSE
AGENCIES CANNOT DEPEND ON THE
DIVIDED THE DATABASE TO HELP
PROTECT CHILDREN. THE DOJ HAS
PREVIOUSLY CONCLUDED THAT LAW
ENFORCEMENT REPORTS ARE HELD TO
A HIGHER STANDARD BECAUSE THEY
ARE PREPARED FOR CRIMINAL
INSTEAD OF DEPENDENCY CASES. IT
IS ESSENTIAL TO HAVE THE
INFORMATION IN KHAKI. AN
IMPROVEMENT IN THE QUALITY OF
DATA PROVIDES DECISION MAKERS
WITH THE ACCURATE UP TO DATE AND
RELIABLE INFORMATION SO THAT
THEY CAN MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION
WHEN IT COMES TO CHILD SAFETY.
AFTER WE LOST GABRIEL FERNANDEZ
IN MY DISTRICT, LOS ANGELES
COUNTY LOOKED INWARD TO SEE HOW
WE CAN AVOID SIMILAR TRAGEDIES
WITH THE BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION
THAT SUGGESTED WE NEED TO
IMPROVE THE COORDINATION BETWEEN
SOCIAL SERVICES AND LAW
ENFORCEMENT. SINCE THEN, THE
ANTELOPE VALLEY HAS LOST ANTHONY
AVALOS AND NOAH QUATTRO. WE NEED
TO DO BETTER FOR VULNERABLE
CHILDREN. THIS INDEX KHAKI. AND
OUR SYSTEMS SERVING CHILDREN
HAVE DEVELOPED OVER TIME, AND WE
NEED TO CONTINUOUSLY WORK TO
FILL THE CRACKS. THAT THESE
CASES FALL THROUGH WITH STRENGTH
BASED RESPECT FOR ALL
COMMUNITIES ALSO INCLUDED THE
PROVISION MOVING THE GRIEVANCE
PROCESS OVER TO THE DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND
AND ACKNOWLEDGE CONCERNS RAISED
BY THE OPPOSITION THAT
INDIVIDUALS MAY NOT BE
COMFORTABLE CHALLENGING THEIR
LISTING. WITHIN THE CHAIN OF
COMMAND FOR THE AGENCY, WHERE
THE REPORT ORIGINATED. I'M
COMMITTED TO WORKING WITH THE
GROUPS WHO ARE OPPOSED TO
IMPROVE THE NOTICE AND DUE
PROCESS PROCEDURES ASSOCIATED
WITH KHAKI. I BELIEVE IT'S BEST
FOR A B 15 54 TO MOVE FORWARD
BECAUSE THE STATUS QUO IS
CLEARLY NOT ACCEPTABLE TO ANYONE
. THIS VEHICLE WILL ALLOW US TO
IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF DATA AND
PROVIDE IMPROVEMENTS TO DUE
PROCESS. MY OFFICE HAS BEEN
MEETING WITH THE OPPOSITION WILL
CONTINUE TO DO SO AS WE DEVELOP
AMENDMENTS TO EASE THE CONCERNS.
SITTING TO MY RIGHT. I HAVE
CAPTAIN RICHARD RUIZ TO PROVIDE
TESTIMONY. CAPTAIN RUIZ HAS ROSE
THROUGH THE RANKS INVESTIGATING
CHILD ABUSE AND THE SPECIAL
VICTIMS BUREAU OF THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT. HE HAS BECOME A
RECOGNIZED DESPERATE ON CRIMES
EXPLOITING CHILDREN CURRENTLY
SERVES AS A BOARD MEMBER OF
VARIOUS VICTIM ADVOCATE AND
CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS AS WELL
AS CO CHAIR OF THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY INTERAGENCY COUNCIL ON
CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT. OR
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS I CAN.
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE AND MEMBER
OF THEIR MULTIDISCIPLINARY BOY,
THERE'S JUST A LOT TO READ CHILD
DEATH REVIEW TEAM. WHICH
PROVIDES THE COUNTY WITH LESSONS
LEARNED FROM CHILD FATALITIES
AND NEAR FATALITIES IN ORDER TO
IMPROVE THE SYSTEMS LEVEL
RESPONSE TO THESE DIRE
SITUATIONS, HE HAS AN INTIMATE
KNOWLEDGE OF CHILD ABUSE OF THIS
INDEX THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT,
AND THE REAL WORLD CONSEQUENCES
THAT LACK INFORMATION ON THESE
SENSITIVE INVESTIGATIONS, SO I
LIKE TO LET HIM SPEAK. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS RICHARD RUIZ AND I'M
A CAPTAIN WITH THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
SPECIAL VICTIMS BUREAU. WHICH IS
TEST WITH INVESTIGATING BOTH
PHYSICAL AND SEXUAL ABUSE OF
CHILDREN IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY.
I HAVE BEEN WITH THE SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT FOR OVER 33 YEARS AND
HAVE INVESTIGATED CHILD ABUSE
CASES FOR OVER 20 YEARS ON
BEHALF OF L. A COUNTY SHERIFF
ROBERT LUNA AND I CAN WE SUPPORT
LEGISLATION TO REINSTATE THE
REQUIREMENT THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT
REPORTS SUBSTANTIATED INCIDENTS
OF CHILD ABUSE TO THE CALIFORNIA
CHILD ABUSE CENTRAL INDEX OR
COMMONLY KNOWN AS COCKY.
CURRENTLY COUNTY WELFARE
AGENCIES SUCH AS CHILD
PROTECTION SERVICES, SUBMIT AND
REPORT SUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS
OF CHILD ABUSE TO THE CHILD
ABUSE CENTRAL INDEX WITHIN THE
HOME. THESE AGENCIES INVESTIGATE
THESE CASES WITHIN THE HOME,
HOWEVER, CHILD ABUSE INCIDENTS
OUTSIDE OF THE HOME INVOLVING
INDIVIDUALS WHO WORK AROUND
CHILDREN, SUCH AS DAYCARE
PROVIDERS. TEACHERS. COACHES
PASTORS FREEZE ETCETERA ARE
CURRENTLY NOT REPORTED IN KHAKI.
THIS BASICALLY MEANS THAT A
PERSON WHO WORKS AROUND CHILDREN
WHO COMMIT A CRIME EITHER
PHYSICAL OR SEXUAL ON A CHILD IN
LOS ANGELES COUNTY CAN MOVE TO
ANOTHER COUNTY WITHIN THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, SUCH AS
SACRAMENTO. AND NOT BE
IDENTIFIED AND HELD ACCOUNTABLE
FOR THEIR ACTIONS. ON BEHALF OF
OUR VICTIMS OF CHILD ABUSE. I AM
IN SUPPORT OF ALLOWING LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO REPORT
SUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS OF
CHILD ABUSE OUT OF THE HOME TO
THE CALIFORNIA CHILD ABUSE
CENTRAL INDEX, AND I'M AVAILABLE
FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER WITNESSES
AND SUPPORT ANY WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION.
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY FIVE
MINUTES. SHARED WITH BOTH. YOU
GO FIRST. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY
NAME IS MINUTI CANDLE. I'M A
SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY WITH THE A
. C L U OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA ACTION. WE
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. MAYBE 15
44, WHICH WOULD RESTORE
AUTHORIZATION FOR LAW
ENFORCEMENT TO REPORT INCIDENTS
OF SUSPECTED CHILD ABUSE TO THE
KHAKI. BEING LISTED ON THE KHAKI
HARMS PARENTS BY LIMITING THEIR
OPPORTUNITIES FOR CERTAIN JOBS,
PROFESSIONAL LICENSES OR EVEN
VOLUNTEERING AT THEIR CHILDREN'S
SCHOOL. WE HAVE TWO MAIN
CONCERNS WITH THE BILL. THE
CURRENT SYSTEM FOR PUTTING NAMES
ON THE REGISTRY IS ALREADY
DEEPLY FLAWED AND LEADS TO MANY
MISTAKES, ADDING ANOTHER AVENUE
TO ADD PEOPLE TO KHAKI V LAW
ENFORCEMENT REPORTS WILL CREATE
EVEN FURTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR
IMPROPER NOTICE OR PROBLEMATIC
HEARINGS. AND AS WITH EVERY
OTHER ASPECT OF THE FAMILY
REGULATION SYSTEM, INCREASING
REFERRALS TO KHAKI WILL HAVE A
DISPARATE IMPACT ON PEOPLE OF
COLOR AND PARTICULARLY BLACK AND
INDIGENOUS FAMILIES. IT IS
IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE
KHAKI IS A GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN
INNOCENT SYSTEM AND AGENCY CAN
REFER SOMEONE TO THE KHAKI
BEFORE THERE HAS BEEN A JUDICIAL
DETERMINATION IN THEIR CASE, OR
EVEN WHEN THERE IS NO CASE FILED
. THE AGENCY REFERS SOMEONE TO
THE KHAKI FIRST, AND IT IS ONLY
IF THAT PERSON REQUESTS A
HEARING AND THEY ARE FOUND TO
HAVE BEEN IMPROPERLY ADDED THAT
THEY ARE REMOVED. THE VAST
MAJORITY OF PERSONS PLACED ON
THE KHAKI DO NOT REQUEST FOR
HEARING DATA THAT A C L U
RECEIVED FROM A PUBLIC RECORDS
ACT REQUEST REVEALED THAT ONE
THIRD OF HEARINGS TO CHALLENGE A
KHAKI LISTING RESULTED IN THE
INDIVIDUAL BEING REMOVED FROM
THE KHAKI. THAT IS A PRETTY HIGH
ERROR RATE. FOR MUCH OF THE
HISTORY OF THE PROGRAM. KHAKI
HAD NO SAFEGUARDS TO ENSURE THAT
THE INFORMATION INCLUDED IN THE
DATABASE WAS RELIABLE AND BECAME
THE SUBJECT OF MANY LAWSUITS,
INCLUDING ONE THAT RESULTED IN
LAW ENFORCEMENT BEING REMOVED
FROM BEING ABLE TO REPORT. THE
PROBLEMS CAUSED BY LACK OF
ADEQUATE DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS
WILL BE COMPOUNDED IF LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ARE ALLOWED
TO SUBMIT REPORTS ON TWO KHAKI
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES WHO
HAVE NO EXPERIENCE PROVIDING
NOTICE OF HEARINGS WILL NOW BE
TASKED WITH DOING SO. DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE SURVIVORS WITH CHILDREN
WHO REACHED OUT TO LAW
ENFORCEMENT FOR HELP WILL END UP
ON THE KHAKI AND EVEN GREATER
NUMBERS THAN CURRENTLY, AS MANY
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
ROUTINELY REFER THESE CASES TO
CHILD WELFARE AND WOULD THUS
REFER THEM TO THE KHAKI EVEN
WHEN SURVIVORS ARE ACTIVELY
TAKING STEPS TO PROTECT
THEMSELVES AND THEIR CHILDREN.
THE PROCEDURES PROPOSED AN AB 15
4 ARE NOT ADEQUATE TO PROTECT
THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS AND
WITHOUT THESE ADEQUATE DUE
PROCESS PROTECTIONS, ALLOWING
LAW ENFORCEMENT TO REPORT
INDIVIDUALS TO THE KHAKI
PRESIDENT POSES GRAVE DANGERS TO
THE RIGHTS OF CALIFORNIANS WHO
HAVE NOT BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY
CRIME. FOR THESE REASONS, WE
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. THANK YOU
. YES MARGOT GEORGE ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION. RESPECTFULLY AND
OPPOSITION UNLESS IT'S AMENDED,
AND WE'RE ASKING FOR BASICALLY A
ONE WORD AMENDMENT, AND THAT'S
CHANGE ACTIVE INVESTIGATION TO
COMPLETED INVESTIGATION. THAT'S
IT. THAT'S THE SAME AMENDMENT
THAT WE ASKED FOR TWO OR THREE
YEARS AGO WHEN BRANDON F. WAS
HERE. IT'S THE SAME AMENDMENT
WE'RE SEEKING NOW. SO THE
PROBLEM IS THE HUMPHREYS CASE.
BACK IN 2007 FOUND THAT MANY OF
THE PROBLEMS WITH THE KHAKI
INDEX VIOLATED DUE PROCESS AND
THEY TOOK IT ALL THE WAY TO THE
NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL.
WHICH FOUND THAT THERE WERE
CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS. MY
CLIENTS CANNOT AFFORD A LAWYER
TO TAKE THEIR CASE TO THE NICE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL. AND
WHEN THEY GET THE NOTICE FROM
KHAKI THAT THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO
A GRIEVANCE HEARING. THEY ARE
NOT PROVIDED WITH COUNSEL. THEY
WILL GO TO THE HEARING. AT WHICH
THEY WILL TESTIFY, MISTAKENLY
BELIEVING THAT IT IS COMPLETED.
AND THE ALTHOUGH THE RECORD OF
THE HEARING IS SEALED. THE
INVESTIGATING OFFICER IS
REQUIRED TO BE RIGHT THERE IN
THE ROOM AND THEY WILL BE
LISTENING. AND THEY WILL TAKE
DOWN WHATEVER THE CLIENT
POTENTIAL CLIENT OF MIND SAYS,
AND THEN THAT WILL THEN BECOME A
CHARGE A CRIMINAL CHARGE. ALL
WE'RE ASKING IS THAT THIS ONE
WORD ACTIVE INVESTIGATION BE
REPORTED BE CHANGED TO COMPLETED
AND THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
DOJ FORM ON WHICH THEY'RE ASKED
TO REPORT UM KHAKI. Tð KHAKI NOW
IS SAYS COMPLETED INVESTIGATION.
AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER
COMPLETION OF THE INVESTIGATION.
THAT'S ALL WE'RE ASKING.
RESPECTFULLY ASKED FOR YOUR NO
VOTE UNLESS IT IS AMENDED. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. ANY ANYONE ELSE
IN OPPOSITION. YEAH OPPOSITION
WILL BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE FOR ANY QUESTIONS,
COMMENTS CONCERNS. MR JACKSON,
UH, IS, UM QUESTION FOR THE
AUTHOR. IS THERE A REASON? UM,
ARE YOU OPPOSED TO THAT
AMENDMENT TO CHANGING THAT TO A
COMPLETED BOTH. I HAVE NOT
ACTUALLY HAD THIS CONSIDERATION.
NEITHER. WE'RE CERTAINLY OPEN TO
REVIEW IT. OKAY AND ALSO IN
TERMS OF KHAKI. YEAH, I KNOW.
TRUST ME. I UNDERSTAND CONCERNS
ABOUT ONCE YOU'RE IN THE
DATABASE. HOW HARD IS IT TO GET
YOUR NAME OUT OF THAT? WHAT ARE
ALL THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
FOR HAVING YOUR NAME IN A
DATABASE, RIGHT? SO IS THIS
SOMETHING WHERE AT ONE POINT
THERE'S ALREADY EXISTED? WHERE
KHAKI. IS THERE SOMETHING WHERE
NAMES WERE SUBMITTED TO KHAKI AT
ONE POINT? BUT THEN, AT SOME
POINT IT WAS PROHIBITED. AND NOW
WE'RE TRYING TO PUT IT BACK IN.
OR IS THIS SOMETHING NEW? IN
TERMS OF THE HISTORY OF KHAKI,
SHALL I? YOU CAN TAKE A LETTER
IN THE HUMPHREYS CASE. UM, THESE
PEOPLE, UM, WERE PUT IN THE
DATABASE. UM THEY WENT TO COURT
THEY WERE FOUND THEIR CASE WAS
DISMISSED. IT WAS THEY WERE
FOUND BY THE JUDGE TO BE
FACTUALLY INNOCENT. AND, UM I
THINK. IF I RECALL CPS
INVESTIGATED, THEY WENT BACK AND
TOOK THE PAPERWORK FACTUALLY
INNOCENT BACK TO KHAKI, AND
WE'RE TOLD THERE'S NO WAY TO GET
YOU OUT OF THE DATABASE, AND SO
THEY LITIGATED IT ALL THE WAY UP
THROUGH THE NIGHT CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEAL, WHICH FOUND THAT THE
WHOLE THE PROCESS OF BEING NO
WAY TO GET OUT. WAS VIOLATED DUE
PROCESS, BUT I THINK MAYBE IF I
UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION, I
THINK WHAT THIS IS CHANGING IS
THAT RIGHT NOW ONLY CHILD
WELFARE AGENCIES CAN REPORT
PEOPLE TO THE KHAKI. IN THE PAST
, LAW ENFORCEMENT COULD REPORT
AS WELL. AND THEN THAT WAS TAKEN
AWAY BECAUSE OF ALL THE DUE
PROCESS PROBLEMS, AND NOW THIS
WOULD ADD BACK IN LAW
ENFORCEMENT AS ANOTHER AVENUE TO
ADD NAMES ONTO THE REGISTRY. GOT
IT AND. IF I COULD ADD SOMETHING
THAT WE'RE VERY SENSITIVE TO THE
GRIEVANCE PROCESS. WE'RE VERY
SENSITIVE, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE
TRYING TO TURN THIS BACK. TAKE
IT AWAY FROM ONE FORCE, MINT AND
THE GRIEVANCE PROCESS IN THE
HANDS OF DEPARTMENTS OF JUSTICE.
SO WE HAVE A THIRD PARTY BEING
ABLE TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND MAKE.
MAKE A VERY OBJECTIVE. ANALYSIS
OF WHETHER OR NOT THESE THESE
ALLEGATIONS ARE SUBSTANTIATED.
WE'RE VERY SENSITIVE WITH THIS.
THIS IS NOT MY FIRST ATTEMPT.
OKAY? ATTEMPT. ACTUALLY BRING
THIS FOR TWO. WE HAVE BEEN
WORKING. VERY DILIGENTLY WITH
THE OPPOSITION. AND WE BELIEVE
WE'VE WITH MANY BEEN ABLE TO
SUCCESSFULLY FIND THE MITIGATION
. THAT'S REASONABLE, BUT YOU'VE
GOT TO REMEMBER WHEN YOU LOSE
THREE CHILDREN. IN YOUR DISTRICT
OVER SIX. DURING THIS ENTIRE
PERIOD, WE'VE LOST TRAGICALLY.
THREE YOUNG PEOPLE, UM, THAT
SHOULD BE ALIVE TODAY AND THE
SYSTEM FAILED THEM. THE SYSTEM
FAILED THEM BECAUSE WE ACTUALLY
HAD IN THESE INSTANCES WE HAD
REPORTS OF, UM ABUSE THAT WERE
NOT PROCESSED. THAT HAS TO
CHANGE. WE HAVE TO ACT IN THE
INTEREST OF THESE CHILDREN WHO
ARE LIVING IN MISERY. MHM. AND
THESE PARTICULAR INSTANCES I'M
NOT SAYING IT'S TRUE IN ALL
INSTANCES, BUT THEY WERE NOT
ONLY JUST ABUSED, THEY WERE
TORTURED. AND WE HAVE TO DO A
BETTER JOB OF PROTECTING
CHILDREN, AND THAT'S ALL THIS
BILL TRIES TO DO. AND HOW DOES
PUTTING THEY'RE PUTTING THEM
INTO KHAKI? UM MAKES THEM SAFER.
BECAUSE OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN
IDENTIFIED AS ABUSERS WERE NO
LONGER HAVE THOSE KINDS OF
ASSOCIATIONS THAT MAKE CHILDREN
VULNERABLE TO ABUSE. YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT. SO FOR THE FUTURE
THIS IS FOR GOT IT, OKAY? OKAY?
THANK YOU, ALAN. THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL FORD. UH SO
AS A SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER, I
GOT TO SEE A LOT OF THIS WITH
CPS AND STUFF LIKE THAT. AND SO
IF YOU CAN EXPLAIN A LITTLE MORE
IN DEPTH WITH KHAKI, IS IT IS IT
MORE SOMETHING THAT WE USE IN
COURT? LIKE WHO HAS ACCESS TO
THIS? SOMETHING WAS JUST BROUGHT
UP ON PEOPLE'S BACKGROUNDS FOR
JOBS. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S
PART OF THIS AS WELL. THAT'S A
VERY GOOD QUESTION MANY TIMES TO
CHOOSE FOR BACKGROUND
INVESTIGATIONS. IT'S SAFE. FOR
EXAMPLE, SOMEBODY WANTS TO BE A
COACH Kò. SO IT'S RIGHT NOW AS
IT STANDS, KHAKI REPORTING IS
LIMITED TO INSIDE THE HOME.
THERE'S A BIG DISTINCTION
BETWEEN INSIDE THE HOME AND
OUTSIDE THE HOME WHEN I SAY
OUTSIDE THE HOME I'M TALKING
ABOUT CRIMES THAT HAPPENED. NOT
WITHIN THE HOME, BUT OUTSIDE S¼
APPROACH TO CRIME ON A CHILD
THAT'S NOT BEING REPORTED TO
KHAKI CRIMES THAT ARE COMMITTED
BY PARENTS INSIDE THE HOME.
THOSE ARE REPORTED TO CALCULATE.
UM IF WE HAVE A COACH, JUST LIKE
THE EXAMPLE I BROUGHT UP. UH IF
A COACH COMMITS A CRIME, AND I
THINK I UNDERSTAND YOUR ARGUMENT
BUT THERE'S BEEN CHANGES. I'VE
BEEN WORKING WITH KHAKI FOR OVER
20 YEARS. THERE USED TO BE A
TIME WHEN WE USED TO ENTER UPSON
. STAN SHIH ATED CASES IN THE
KHAKI. WE DON'T DO THAT ANYMORE.
NOW WE WORK WITH SUBSTANTIATED
CASES, CASES THAT HAVE GONE
THROUGH THE COURTS ALREADY HAVE
BEEN SUBMITTED. THANK IT'S SENT
OVER TO KEKE. SO NOW IT CAN GET
TRACKED. SOMEBODY WORKING LIVING
IN L. A COUNTY MOVES OVER TO
SACRAMENTO, AND THERE THEY WERE
IN A Y S A COACH THERE. AND THEY
SUBMIT TO BE A COACH HERE IN
SACRAMENTO. DON'T RUN KHAKI AND
WELL, WAIT A MINUTE HERE. YOU
HAD AN INCIDENT SUBSTANTIATED
INCIDENT. NELLIE COUNTY TELL US
ABOUT THAT. BUT RIGHT NOW IT
STANDS. WE CAN'T TRACK THEM. WE
CANNOT TRACK THEM THROUGHOUT THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA THROUGHOUT
THE 58 COUNTIES. WE CAN'T DO
THAT. AND WHY IS THAT? UH
BECAUSE BACK IN 2012, THERE WAS
AN ISSUE WITH THE HUMPHREYS
CASE. BUT THE THING WITH THE
HUMPHREYS CASE IF I MAY THE
CHILD IN THEIR CASE. TO THE
STATE IS AN IMMANENT THAT THE
INCIDENT HAPPENED. AND THERE IS
A SAYING WITHIN THE D A S OFFICE
JUST BECAUSE WE DON'T FOLLOW THE
CASE DOESN'T MEAN IT NEVER
HAPPENED. JUST IN CASE BECAUSE
WE DON'T FOLLOW THE CASE DOESN'T
MEAN IT DIDN'T HAPPEN BECAUSE WE
DON'T HAVE ENOUGH EVIDENCE. AND
THAT'S THE ISSUE BEHIND
HUMPHRIES. UM SO THE MAIN
CONTEXT, YEARS, BASICALLY. AT
THIS POINT, LOW ENFORCEMENT IS
NOT ALLOWED TO PRESENT CASES TO
KHAKI THAT HAPPENED OUTSIDE OF
THE HOME. IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR
QUESTION, YEAH, AND SO GOING
BACK TO THE BACKGROUND, A LITTLE
CONCERNED THAT SHE SAYS THAT
SOMETIMES PEOPLE ARE GETTING
JOBS BECAUSE THEY'RE BECAUSE OF
THE BACKGROUND. SO SOMEBODY
WHO'S IN KHAKI AS YOU SAID THE
INVESTIGATION HAS ALREADY BEEN
YES, SUBSTANTIATED,
SUBSTANTIATED, OKAY. AND SO THEN
THAT WOULD YEAH, OBVIOUSLY, I
WOULD HOPE PREVENT SOMEBODY FROM
BEING A COACH OR SOMETHING LIKE
THAT. I'M SURE NONE OF US WANT
OUR KIDS TO HAVE A COACH IS IN
THE KHAKI, BUT RIGHT NOW. WE
CAN'T DO THAT. BECAUSE OF THE
2012 DECISION. THAT'S CORRECT.
YES ALRIGHT, RESPOND TO THE
SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE BECAUSE IT
DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT IT BE
SUBSTANTIATED BY A COURT. I
THINK THAT'S THE BIG PROBLEM.
IT'S JUST THAT THE AGENCY
SUBSTANTIATE SIT WHETHER IT'S
THE CHILD WELFARE AGENCY OR IN
THIS CASE, POTENTIALLY LAW
ENFORCEMENT SO THAT DOES NOT
BEING THERE HAS BEEN A JUDICIAL
DETERMINATION AND IN FACT, WHEN
PEOPLE DO CHALLENGE THEIR
LISTING, A THIRD OF THEM ARE
SUCCESSFUL, MEANING THEY SHOULD
NOT HAVE BEEN REPORTED TO.
THERE'S A VERY HIGH ERROR RATE
OF WHAT THE AGENCIES ARE
CLAIMING OR SUBSTANTIATED CASES
CAN PREVENT SOMEONE FROM BEING A
COACH. FROM VOLUNTEERING AT
THEIR CHILDREN'S SCHOOL FROM
GETTING CERTAIN JOBS. IT HAS
VERY SERIOUS IMPLICATIONS FOR
PARENTS AND THEN, OF COURSE FOR
THEIR CHILDREN WHO ARE AFFECTED
AND FROM THOSE THIRD DO WE KNOW
IF THAT WAS BEFORE THEY CHANGED
THE WORDING OR AFTER AFTER THIS
IS FROM A PUBLIC RECORDS ACT
REQUEST THAT WE DID THAT COVERED
FROM 2015 TO 2019. SO BETWEEN
THOSE BETWEEN THOSE THAT'S WHERE
YOU GOT YOUR THIRD. YES YEAH,
DEPENDING ON THE YEAR BETWEEN
29% AND 36. OF THE PEOPLE WHO
REQUESTED KHAKI PROCEEDINGS WERE
SIX CHALLENGES WERE SUCCESSFUL.
OKAY UH, MR LACKEY. ALSO IT'S
CORRECTLY FROM RON. THIS IS MORE
OF LIKE A TOOL. TO HELP US OUT
AND TO HELP US WITH OUR PARTNERS
OR JUSTICE PARTNERS. TO
BASICALLY EITHER FIND OUT MORE
ON CASES SUBSTANTIATE MAYBE
ANOTHER CASE THAT'S GOING ON. OR
CAN YOU ELABORATE MORE ON TO
THAT? OR MAYBE EXIST TO PROTECT
CHILDREN. THAT'S REALLY THE
IMPETUS BEHIND THIS. THE AUDIT
POINTED OUT THE UNRELIABILITY
CURRENTLY AND WE'VE TIGHTENED UP
THAT RELIABILITY THROUGH THIS
PROCESS THROUGH COLLABORATION
THROUGH MULTIPLE AGENCIES AND
MULTIPLE PARTNERS, AND WE
BELIEVE THAT THIS IS THE RIGHT
REMEDY TO ACTUALLY CLEAN THIS UP
SO THAT WE CAN PROTECT CHILDREN
MORE EFFECTIVELY. OKAY, SO I SEE
MORE OF THE RISK VERSUS MADE THE
SCALE HOW YOU LOOK AT IT. I
THINK THE TWO THIRDS I WOULD
THINK I'D BE MORE WITHIN THAT
ONE. THIRD IF I'M GOING TO BE
ABLE TO PROTECT A KID. SO I'LL
BE SUPPORTING US. THANK YOU, MR
JACKSON. CAN WE JUST MAKE SURE
WE EXPLAIN THE TERMS THAT WE'RE
USING? BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WHEN
SOMETHING IS UP, SUBSTANTIATED,
VERSUS SUBSTANTIATED, AND THEN
THERE'S EVEN A STEP AFTER
SUBSTANTIATED AND MY CORRECT CAN
YOU GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS?
BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE I MEAN,
OBVIOUSLY. AND THE HUMAN
SERVICES AROUND. THIS IS
IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THESE
TERMS, SO WE'RE NOT. UNDULY
LABELING THEM SOMETHING RIGHT.
SO CAN WE CONTINUE TO TALK
LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PROCESS AND
WHAT THE FINAL PROCESS IS, IF
SOMETHING IS TOTALLY CONFIRMED
THAT THIS IS AN ABUSE OR
NEGLECT. RIGHT AND YOU JUST TALK
ABOUT THOSE TERMS. WELL I WOULD
JUST SAY FIRST. THE NUMBERS CASE
. YES. I'M SORRY. THE HUMPHREYS
CASE. CRIMINAL CHARGES WERE
FILED AND THE CHILDREN WERE
TAKEN AWAY. AND IT WAS IN THE
COURSE OF THE LITIGATION OVER
GETTING THE CHARGES DISMISSED
AND THEN GETTING A FACTUAL
FINDING OF INNOCENCE THAT THE
CASE WENT UP TO THE NINTH
CIRCUIT BECAUSE THERE WAS NO WAY
TO GET YOUR NAME OFF THE KHAKI
LIST. BUT UM, IN TERMS OF
SUBSTANTIATED, THAT IS A
STANDARD WHERE THERE IS EITHER
SOME EVIDENCE OR MORE LIKELY
THAN NOT, BUT IT IS NOT, UM, THE
STANDARD FOR A CRIMINAL OFFENSE
. IT IS NOT THE CONCLUSION FINAL
FINDING CORRECT CORRECT. OKAY?
AND THE OF COURSE I'M SORRY, BUT
I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT. AND WHICH
IS THE REASON WHY YOU'RE ASKING
FOR THAT TO BE A COMPLETED CASE
, BECAUSE JUST BECAUSE THERE'S A
WHOLE LOT OF THINGS CAN HAPPEN
ONCE SOMETHING IS SUBSTANTIATED
, AND IT DOES NOT ALWAYS LEAD TO
UM, THE FINAL CONCLUSION BEING
THAT THIS PERSON SHOULD NOT BE
AROUND KIDS OR THIS PERSON
SHOULD MAYBE EVEN BE ADDED INTO
KHAKI IN MY CORRECT IN THAT YES
, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS? CONCERNED YOU
MAY CLOSE, MR LACKEY. YEAH, JUST
JUST REAL BRIEFLY AND SUMMARY
THIS THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION
THAT PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY TO
IMPROVE A CRITICAL TOOL IN OUR
CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM. THAT MANY
CONSIDER RIGHT NOW TO BE BROKEN
AND HAVE LITTLE FAITH IN AND
IT'S BEEN A LONG LONG PROJECT
WITH HEAVY COLLABORATION,
INCLUDING THIS COMMITTEE. AND,
UH, I WOULD ASK FOR YOUR
FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION AND
SUPPORT. HMM OKAY, DO, UH I'LL
SECTOR CALL THE ROLL. ON A B 15
EXCUSE ME, MAYBE 15 44 BY SOME
MEMBER LACKEY. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS TO THE PRIVACY AND CONSUMER
PROTECTION COMMITTEE. JOHN
SAWYER JOHNSON. I ELONIS. AYE.
BONTA VOTING FONTANA VOTING.
JACKSON JACKSON, NOT VOTING
LACKEY. I LUCKY I ORTEGA
SANTIAGO. ZIPPER. THEY'RE NOT
VOTING MEASURES ON CALL. I THINK
YOU'RE NEXT SPONSOR.
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. GOOD
EARLY EVENING, MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. I WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS
MY APPRECIATION TO THE COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR THEIR TIME WORKING ON
THIS BILL AS A MEMBER WHO HAS
LED ON REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH
LEGISLATION. I AM PROUD OUR
STATE IS A SAFE HAVEN FOR THOSE
SEEKING REPRODUCTIVE AND GENDER
AFFIRMING CARE. BUT OUR JOB IS
NOT DONE BECAUSE OF THE WIDE USE
OF REVERSE DEMANDS BY LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND OTHER
GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES, PEOPLE
WHO NEED REPRODUCTIVE OR GENDER
OR FARMING CARE ARE VULNERABLE
TO DIGITAL SURVEILLANCE
APPARATUS THAT COULD BE USED
AGAINST THEM. LET ME GO INTO
WHAT REVERSE DEMANDS ARE AND WHY
THEY'RE SO DANGEROUS IN A POST
ROE ERA. NORMAL WARRANTS THAT
COMPLY WITH OUR FOURTH AMENDMENT
PROTECTIONS SEEK INFORMATION
ABOUT A PARTICULAR PERSON THAT
LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS PROBABLE
CAUSE TO BELIEVE MERITS
INVESTIGATION. A REVERSE WARRANT
, ON THE OTHER HAND, SEEKS THE
OPPOSITE THE IDENTITY OF THE
PEOPLE WHO WERE PRESENT AT A
PARTICULAR LOCATION FOR GEO
FENCE DEMANDS OR WHO LOOKED UP A
PARTICULAR TERM IN A SEARCH
ENGINE FOR KEYWORD DEMANDS
SIMPLY BECAUSE OF WHERE THEY
WERE OR WHAT THEY SEARCHED FOR.
TO MAKE THIS CLEARER GEO FENCE
DEMAND CAN COMPEL THE DISCLOSURE
OF MULTIPLE PEOPLE'S IDENTITIES
JUST BECAUSE THEY WERE AT A
PARTICULAR PLACE DURING A
SPECIFIC TIME FRAME, LIKE NEAR A
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CLINIC, FOR
INSTANCE, A KEYWORD DEMAND CAN
COMPEL DISCLOSURE OF THE
IDENTITY OF ANYONE WAS
ENTERTAINED CERTAIN KEY WORDS
INTO A SEARCH ENGINE. LIKE
TRANSGENDER WOMAN HORMONES OR
FOR THE DRUG PROFESSOR PROTON.
IF A CRIME OCCURRED IN THIS AREA
AROUND THE CAPITAL RIGHT NOW,
AND LAW ENFORCEMENT SOUGHT A GEO
FENCE WARRANT OUR PHONES OUR
DATA, OUR PRIVACY COULD BE AT
RISK. WHY BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE
HAPPENED TO BE IN AN AREA WHERE
A CRIME OCCURRED. THAT IS THE
ONLY THING WE DID. A SINGLE
REQUEST CAN COVER THOUSANDS OF
PEOPLE. IN ONE SWEEP ONE DEMAND
ISSUED IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY,
FOR EXAMPLE, ASKED FOR THE
INFORMATION OF EVERYONE WITHIN
THE EQUIVALENT OF 24 FOOTBALL
FIELDS FOR SEVERAL HOURS DURING
A FRIDAY MORNING COMMUTE. THIS
TYPE OF DIGITAL SURVEILLANCE IS
A THREAT TO OUR REPRODUCTIVE
FREEDOMS AND TO VULNERABLE
PEOPLE. SINCE THE REPEAL OF ROE
, WE HAVE SEEN ANTI ABORTION
STATES USE DIGITAL DATA,
INCLUDING FACEBOOK MESSAGES TO
PROSECUTE PEOPLE FOR HAVING
ABORTIONS OR HELPING OTHERS
OBTAIN REPRODUCTIVE CARE. THE
OFFENSE DEMANDS HAVE ALSO BEEN
USED TO TRACK THE LOCATIONS AND
IDENTITIES OF PEOPLE PROTESTING
POLICE VIOLENCE AND COULD BE
USED TO TRACK THE LOCATIONS AND
IDENTITIES OF PEOPLE VISITING
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CLINICS AS
WELL. PEOPLE IN CALIFORNIA HAVE
A FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT TO PRIVACY. A FUNDAMENTAL
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE
PROTECTED AGAINST UNWARRANTED
SEARCH AND SEIZURES, BUT FISHING
EXPEDITIONS FROM REVERSE GEO
FENCE AND REVERSE KEYWORD
DEMANDS UNDERMINE THAT RIGHT?
REVERSE ONES CAN ALSO CHILL THE
EXERCISE OF THE FREEDOM OF
SPEECH ASSOCIATION, RELIGION,
ASSEMBLY MOVEMENT AND THE PRESS.
IT IS THE TIE IT IS THIS TIME
THAT WE MUST TAKE TO ENSURE THAT
THESE TYPES OF WARRANTS ARE
COMPLETELY OFF THE TABLE. A B 7
93 DOES JUST THAT. THANK YOU.
AND AS WITNESSES TODAY, I HAVE
CHAD MARLOW FROM A C L U AND
ALICIA BENAVIDEZ LOWEST LEWIS,
WHO SERVES ON THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF CALIFORNIA, LATINAS
FOR REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE. THANK
YOU. WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. FIVE
MINUTES. THANK YOU, MR CHAIRMAN
AND GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS
CHAD MARLOW AND I AM A SENIOR
POLICY COUNSEL AT THE LOOP WHERE
I FOCUS ON PRIVACY AND
SURVEILLANCE ISSUES. I AM HERE
ON BEHALF OF A C L U CALIFORNIA
ACTION, PROUD SPONSOR OF A B 7
93 A BILL THAT WOULD BAN DRAGNET
REVERSED WARRANTS WHICH PLACE
INNUMERABLE PEOPLE UNDER
CRIMINAL SUSPICION SIMPLY
BECAUSE THEY WERE IN THE WRONG
PLACE OR TYPE THE WRONG PHRASE
AT THE WRONG TIME. DO THE TIME I
WILL LIMIT MY TESTIMONY TO THREE
ISSUES ISSUE ONE REVERSE DEMANDS
OR A TROUBLING 21ST CENTURY
VERSION OF THE GENERAL WARRANT.
AMERICA'S OPPOSITION A GENERAL
WARRANT STATES BACK TO PRE
REVOLUTIONARY WAR TIMES WHEN THE
BRITISH KING USED WRITS OF
ASSISTANCE TO CONDUCT
UNRESTRICTED SEARCHES WITHIN
AREAS OF QUESTIONABLE LOYALTY TO
HIM. BUT SINCE ITS ADOPTION 232
YEARS AGO, THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
HAS PROHIBITED SEARCHES WITHOUT
A WARRANT BASED ON PROBABLE
CAUSE AND PARTICULAR DÍAS TO THE
SUSPECT. A STANDARD REVERSE
DEMANDS DO NOT MEET. THE THREAT
THESE TECHNOLOGICALLY
SUPERCHARGED GENERAL WARRANTS
PRESENT IS REAL AND GROWING. FOR
EXAMPLE, FROM 2018 TO 2020, THE
NUMBER OF REVERSE LOCATION
DEMANDS GOOGLE ALONE RECEIVED
FROM CALIFORNIA JUMPED FROM 209
TO 1909 A STAGGERING TO YOUR
INCREASE OF 813. ISSUE TWO WHILE
REVERSE DEMANDS THREATEN
EVERYONE'S PRIVACY. THEY PRODUCE
INCREASED RISKS FOR CERTAIN
POPULATIONS. IN MOST CASES,
REVERSE WARRANT IDENTIFICATION
MARKS ONLY THE FIRST OF MANY
PRIVACY VIOLATIONS TO FOLLOW.
THIS IS BECAUSE ONCE IDENTIFIED
INVESTIGATORS WILL NEED TO
RELENTLESSLY PRY INTO THAT
PERSON'S LIFE UNTIL THEY CAN
RULE THEM IN OR OUT AS A
CRIMINAL SUSPECT. BUT FALLING
UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF CRIMINAL
SUSPICION MEANS VERY DIFFERENT
THINGS FOR DIFFERENT POPULATIONS
FOR PERSONS OF COLOR, LGBTQ,
PLUS PERSONS OR PERSONS OF
CERTAIN ETHNICITIES, RELIGIONS
OF LOW INCOME OR SEEKING
ABORTION CARE. THIS UNFOUNDED
SUSPICION NOT ONLY THREATENS
THEIR PRIVACY IT THREATENS THEIR
FREEDOM AND EVEN THEIR LIVES
ISSUE. THREE REVERSE DEMANDS ARE
INEFFECTIVE SURVEILLANCE TOOL.
WHEN IT COMES TO IDENTIFYING
CRIMINALS. REVERSE DEMANDS ARE
GOOD AT INCREASING THE SIZE OF
THE HAYSTACK, BUT VERY POOR AT
FINDING THE NEEDLE. IMAGINE A
REVERSE LOCATION. DEMAND SENT TO
GOOGLE IDENTIFIES 150 SUSPECTS
USING THEIR ANDROID PHONES. BUT
WHAT IF THE CRIMINAL HAD AN
IPHONE OR A BURNER PHONE OR NO
PHONE AT ALL? THAT LEAVES LAW
ENFORCEMENT CHASING DOWN 150
DEAD END LEADS WHILE MISSING THE
PERPETRATOR ENTIRELY. WHAT THIS
MEANS IS THAT BANNING REVERSE
WARRANTS WOULD PRODUCE AN
IMPORTANT WIN FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
AND CIVIL LIBERTIES AT VIRTUALLY
NO COST. THANK YOU AND PLEASE
VOTE YES. ON ABC, 7 93. OH
RIGHT. YES THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
ALICIA BENAVIDEZ LEWIS AND I'M
HERE IN SUPPORT OF 7 93
REPRESENT THE ELECTRONIC
FRONTIER FOUNDATION, ONE OF THE
CO SPONSORS, BUT I'M SPEAKING TO
YOU TODAY IN MY CAPACITY AS A
BOARD MEMBER TO CALIFORNIA
LATINAS, REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE.
UM SO SAILOR J IS A STATEWIDE
ORGANIZATION COMMITTED TO
HONORING THE EXPERIENCES AND
LOVE LATINAS AND ADVANCING
REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE WITH AN
INTERSECTIONAL SOCIAL JUSTICE
LENS. SO PEOPLE CAN DECIDE WHEN,
IF AND HOW TO START THEIR
FAMILIES. I'M HERE TO URGE YOUR
SUPPORT FOR LEGISLATION WILL PUT
AN END TO THE USE OF REVERSE
DEMANDS, WHICH WE KNOW UNDERMINE
OUR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY
AND POSE A PARTICULAR THREAT TO
VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES. LATIN
COMMUNITIES ALREADY FACE
SIGNIFICANT BARRIERS TO
ACCESSING HEALTHCARE, INCLUDING
REPRODUCTIVE AND GENDER
AFFIRMING CARE, AND THESE
BARRIERS ARE BEING COMPOUNDED BY
THE INCREASING NUMBER OF ANTI
ABORTION AND ANTI TRANS LAWS
THAT ARE BEING PASSED AROUND THE
COUNTRY. IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT
CALIFORNIA REMAIN A SAFE HAVEN
FOR THOSE SEEKING REPRODUCTIVE
AND GENDER AFFIRMING CARE. THE
USE OF THESE DEMANDS BY LAW
ENFORCEMENT IS AN INVASIVE AND
LIKELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL TACTIC
THAT THREATENS TO EXPOSE
INDIVIDUALS PERSONAL INFORMATION
ABOUT THEIR HEALTH CARE CHOICES.
THIS COULD HAVE A CHILLING
EFFECT ON INDIVIDUALS ACCESS TO
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE, AND WE
SIMPLY CANNOT ALLOW THAT TO
HAPPEN. CALIFORNIA HAS ALREADY
TAKEN STEPS TO LIMIT THE USE OF
REVERSE DEMANDS. BUT WE MUST DO
MORE TO FULLY PROTECT NOT ONLY
CALIFORNIANS, BUT THOSE
TRAVELING TO OBTAIN SERVICES
THAT ARE BEING ELIMINATED IN
THEIR OWN HOME STATES. THIS
LEGISLATION WE ARE URGING TO
SUPPORT WILL END THE USE OF
THESE DEMANDS BY GOVERNMENT
ENTITIES STOP COURT FROM ISSUING
THEM AND ENSURES THAT STRONG
ENFORCEMENT IS ENACTED TO
PROTECT OUR PRIVACY RIGHTS.
ABORTION IS A CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT IN CALIFORNIA, AND WE MUST
DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO ENSURE
ACCESS AND PRIVACY ARE
PROTECTED. IN THE FACE OF
INCREASING NATIONAL ATTACKS ON
REPRODUCTIVE ACCESS AND GENDER
AFFIRMING CARE. WE ARE NEEDING
TO MAKE CLEAR THAT CALIFORNIA IS
AND SHALL REMAIN A SAFE PLACE TO
OBTAIN THE HEALTHCARE. YOU NEED
STRONGLY URGE YOUR I VOTE. THANK
YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHERS IN
SUPPORT? GREG POLLSTER ON BEHALF
OF EQUALITY, CALIFORNIA IN
SUPPORT. HALEY TODAY, EMMA FROM
THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER
FOUNDATION ON BEHALF OF E F. F
IF WHEN, HOW INDIVISIBLE.
CALIFORNIA STATE STRONG OAKLAND
PRIVACY, AMERICAN NURSES
ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA PLANNED
PARENTHOOD AFFILIATES OF
CALIFORNIA AND NARAL PRO CHOICE
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. JOSHUA
DEBATE ON BEHALF OF THE CONSUMER
FEDERATION OF CALIFORNIA. PROUD
COAST ANSWERS OF THE BILL IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. MARCO GEORGE
ON BEHALF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION AND
SUPPORT THANK YOU. ANY WITNESSES
IN OPPOSITION. ANY WITNESSES,
THE OPPOSITION SCENE. NONE BRING
IT BACK TO COMMITTEE FOR ANY
COMMENTS, COMMENTS, CURTIS GREAT
. THIS IS THIS JUST, UH,
CENTERED AROUND ABORTIONS, OR IS
THIS JUST LGBT? Q WHAT IS THIS?
BECAUSE, LIKE I'M SAYING THIS IS
TAKING AWAY AN INVESTIGATIVE
TOOL FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT, IT IS
ACTUALLY CENTER IT. IT DOES NOT
TAKE AWAY A TOOL AND
INVESTIGATIVE TOOL FOR LAW
ENFORCEMENT. IT ENSURES THAT WE
HAVE THE ABILITY TO HAVE LOST
LAW ENFORCEMENT GUIDED BY
SEEKING PROBABLE CAUSE. BEFORE
HAVING ITS SETTING OUT A
BROADCAST NET THAT VIOLATES
PEOPLE'S ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO
HAVE THEIR FOURTH AMENDMENT
RIGHTS PROTECTED, SO LAW
ENFORCEMENT STILL HAS THE
ABILITY TO HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE
TO TEACHERS TO SEEK A WARRANT IN
THE SAME WAY THAT THEY DO FOR
CREATE LOOKING FOR A TELEPHONE
RECORDS FOR UH, FOR OTHER KINDS
OF DIGITAL SURVEILLANCE. IT JUST
IT ENSURES THAT WE'RE NOT
BREAKING THEIR RIGHTS OF EVERY
INDIVIDUAL. I THREW A KEYWORD
SEARCH OR A GEOLOCATION SEARCH.
WHILE WE ARE ALSO OFFERING AND
PROVIDING THE ASSURANCE THAT
OFFICERS HAVE THE ABILITY TO USE
INVESTIGATIVE TOOLS THAT THEY
HAVE AVAILABLE TO THEM. SO I'M
JUST IMAGINING RIGHT NOW. ALEX
AND UNFORTUNATE INCIDENT. MAYBE
THEY BOMBED MAYBE A AN ABORTION
CENTER. AND IN THE INVESTIGATION
, THEY WANT TO BRING UP WHOEVER
LIKE. HEY, LET'S GO GET THAT
ABORTION CENTER. WOULD THEY NOT
BE ABLE TO PUT THAT IN THEIR
SEARCH? THEN NOW BECAUSE OF THIS
BILL, I HOPEFULLY THEY WOULD
HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO BE ABLE
TO SAY SPECIFICALLY THAT THEY
WERE LOOKING FOR A PARTICULAR
INDIVIDUAL AND THAT THEY WOULD
BE ABLE TO. I DID WITH THAT
INDIVIDUAL NAME. THEY WOULD BE
ABLE TO GO AND, UH, CERTAINLY
COMPLETE THE SAME KIND OF
REQUEST WITH SORT SEARCH
WARRANTS TO GET THAT INFORMATION
FROM ABOUT THAT INDIVIDUAL.
EVERYTHING ELSE SHOULD JUST BE
PRETTY MUCH THE SAME. LIKE THE
LAW ENFORCEMENT WANTS TO GET THE
WARRANT GO THROUGH A JUDGE. GET
THE OK, THAT'LL BE OKAY. BUT I'M
JUST I'M I'M TRYING TO SEE IF
THEY ABUSING IT AS SOMETHING
COME UP THAT THAT I'M NOT AWARE
OF HER THAT WE WANT TO BRING UP.
I MEAN, GO AHEAD. BUT YES. SO
THE WAY TO THINK ABOUT THIS IS,
UM TRADITIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
ACTIVITIES RIGHT WHICH WE'VE
DONE FOR 232 YEARS AND HAVE
WORKED RELATIVELY WELL. IF AN
ABORTION CLINIC IS BOMBED, RIGHT
POLICE WILL DO THEIR
INVESTIGATION AND ANYONE OR OR A
GROUP OF PEOPLE AS TO WHOM THEY
CAN DEVELOP PROBABLE CAUSE TO
THINK THAT THEY WERE INVOLVED IN
THE CRIME. THEN THEY CAN GO OUT
AND GET A SEARCH WARRANT AND
THEY CAN LEARN ABOUT WHERE THEY
WERE WHAT THEY ENTERED INTO
DATABASES. YOU CAN DO THE FULL
RANGE OF INVESTIGATORY
ACTIVITIES. WHAT THEY CAN'T DO
IS SAY I WANT YOU TO TELL ME
EVERY PERSON WHO HAPPENED TO BE
WITHIN A MILE OF THAT ABORTION
CLINIC THAT DAY DEVELOPED THAT
FULL LIST OF SUSPECTS AND THEN
JUST START RIFLING THROUGH THEIR
LIVES WITHOUT PARTICULAR RETTY
SO ONCE POLICE LAW ENFORCEMENT
STARTS TO DEVELOP THE CASE AND
GETS TO TRADITIONAL PROBABLE
CAUSE STANDARDS BASED ON
PARTICULARITY AS TO SUSPECT AS A
SUSPECT OR SUSPECTS, THEN THEY
CAN ENGAGE IN THE SAME POLICE
WORK THEY'RE DOING NOW IT'S THE
DRAGNET. YOU KNOW, WITHOUT
SPECIFIC SUSPECTS IN MIND. IT'S
THAT ASPECT THAT WOULD BE
PROHIBITED WHEN HAVING THAT IN
MIND WITH NO SUSPECTS IN TRYING
TO FIGURE OUT LET'S SAY OF THE
40 PEOPLE WITHIN, SAY, THE 100
YARDS OR WHATEVER. WHAT IF I'M
TRYING TO PREVENT ANOTHER CRIME
THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AND I
CAN'T DO THAT. BECAUSE NOW I'M
NOT ALLOWED TO CHECK ON ANY OF
THOSE PEOPLE WITHIN THAT
SPECIFIC SCOPE. RIGHT SO IT'S
ALWAYS A GOAL OF ALL OF OURS TO
PREVENT CRIME, BUT WE HAVE TO
BALANCE THAT GOAL WITH THE GOAL
OF PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS,
CIVIL LIBERTIES ACCESS TO
ABORTION IN GENDER AFFIRMING
CARE, THE CONSTITUTION THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT UNTIL IT'S A
MATTER OF BALANCING IT IN THE
BALANCE THAT OUR NATION IS
STRUCK FOR 232 YEARS IS YOU CAN
TRY TO FIND THOSE PEOPLE TO
PREVENT THE NEXT CRIME, BUT YOU
CAN'T USE THE DRAGNET WARRANT OF
THE BRITISH KING. YOU HAVE TO
USE THE PROBABLE CAUSE WEREN'T
WITH PARTICULARITY OF THE UNITED
STATES. THANK YOU. DANIEL
QUESTIONS CONCERNS GOT A MOTION.
IN THE SECOND. 32 YOU MAKE
CLOTHES? THANK YOU. THIS BILL
DOES NOT DISRUPT THE PRACTICE OF
LAW ENFORCEMENT, USING
INFORMATION ABOUT PEOPLE LIKE
THEIR CELLULAR TOUGH TELEPHONE
NUMBER OR EMAIL ADDRESS TO FIND
OUT THEIR IDENTITY. THIS HAPPENS
WHEN LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
SEEK INFORMATION ABOUT A
CUSTOMER FROM A SERVICE PROVIDER
. THIS BILL DOES NOT RESTRICT
LAW ENFORCEMENT'S ABILITY TO
FIND A PARTICULAR DEVICE IN REAL
TIME. LASTLY THIS BILL DOES NOT
RESTRICT ENFORCEMENT FROM
SEEKING A WARRANT TO SEARCH A
PERSON'S PHONE OR GET A WARRANT
FOR INFORMATION FROM AN
INDIVIDUAL'S PERSONAL GOOGLE
ACCOUNT IF LAW ENFORCEMENT
ENFORCEMENT HAS PROBABLE CAUSE
THAT ACCOUNTS, UH CONTAINS
EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
WHAT THIS BILL DOES PROTECT OUR
FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. TO
PRIVACY AND RIGHT AGAINST
UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE
WITH THAT, I RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST YOUR I VOTE. THANK YOU.
WE HAVE 1ST AND 2ND CHAIRS
RECOMMENDING I DETECTABLE ON A B
7 93 BY SEPTEMBER BONTA. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS TO THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, JOHN
SAWYER. ALRIGHT I ELONIS ELONIS
. AYE, BONTA. JACKSON JACKSON. I
LAKI LAKI ABSTAIN. ORTEGA ORTEGA
ICE SANTIAGO SANTIAGO EYES ZABAR
ZIPPER I THAT MEASURE PASSES.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I THINK.
MR SANTIAGO. WHERE THE HECK IS
MR SANTIAGO? COMMITTEE. ITEM 18
A B 6 12 61 CRIME AND WITNESSED
INFORMANTS. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR
. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO PRESENT ON THE IMMIGRANT
RIGHTS ACT AND, UH, I'LL BE AS
BRIEF AS I CAN, EVEN THOUGH I
WAS VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT THIS
BILL, BUT BASICALLY WHEN I WAS
LOOKING THROUGH AN OP EDS. LAST
YEAR, WE DISCOVERED REALLY
QUICKLY ABOUT WHAT WHAT
PROGRESSIVE DÍAS CAN DO IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO HELP
IMMIGRANTS AND WE DISCOVERED
UPON DIGGING A LITTLE BIT
FURTHER. THAT IT WASN'T A
REPUBLICAN ISSUE WAS IN THE
DEMOCRATIC ISSUE WAS JUST A
HUMANE ISSUE, AND I'LL SET THE
STAGE TO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO
HERE TODAY. WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE
SURE THAT THERE'S ANY VICTIMS OF
CRIME OR ANY ANY ANYBODY WHO WHO
HELPS LINE FORCE MINT IN THE
CAPTURE, THE MOST EGREGIOUS
CRIMES BE PROVIDED CERTIFICATION
FOR A VISA. AND THIS IS WHAT I
MEAN BY. IT'S A KIND OF
BIPARTISAN ISSUE THAT WE'RE
PRESENTING HERE TODAY. UNDER THE
CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, THERE
WAS AN ESQUE VISA THAT WAS SET
UP UNDER THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
. THERE WERE TV SAYS IN U VISAS,
AND THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT LIST
OF VICTIMS OF CRIME OR THOSE
PLACES WHERE, UH, FOLKS WERE
UNDOCUMENTED ARE HELPING, UM,
LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THIS IS
REALLY INTENDED TO KEEP
IMMIGRANTS OUT OF THE SHADOWS
AND HAVE THEM PARTICIPATE.
WITHIN UM WITHIN THE JUDICIAL
SYSTEM, BUT IT'S ALSO THE RIGHT
THING IN THE HUMANE THING TO DO,
BECAUSE ONCE SOMEBODY
PARTICIPATES IN THE SET IN IN
THE SET PROTOCOLS THAT ARE
REQUIRED BY ANY OF THESE VISAS.
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES,
INCLUDING THE A. S R COULD GIVE
A CERTIFICATION PROCESS. IT'S
SORT OF A CERTIFICATION PROCESS
OR CERTIFICATE TO ANY OF THOSE
INDIVIDUALS WHICH THEM ALLOWS
THEM TO GO GET A VISA, AND THIS
IS NOT THE CASE THAT'S HAPPENING
HERE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
AND IN FACT, ALL ACROSS THE
COUNTRY. IT'S NOT HAPPENING. SO
WE'RE SAYING IS IN WHAT WE'RE
SAYING IS, IF SOMEBODY MEETS
THAT STANDARD, LET'S SET UP
CALIFORNIA LAW SO THAT THEY
ACTUALLY SO THEY ACTUALLY MEET
THE STANDARD THAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT HAS ALREADY SET UP
AND ENSURE THAT PEOPLE GET THE
THESE CERTIFICATIONS THAT THEY
NEED IN ORDER TO PRESENT THEIR
CASE BEFORE THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT TO BE ABLE TO GET
THEIR VISA. ONCE THEY GET THEIR
VISA, THEY'D BE ABLE TO APPLY
FOR VISAS FOR THEIR FAMILIES,
AND THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT AND
THAT'S WHY WE PARTNERED UP WITH
D A GASCON TO BE ABLE TO DO
THAT, BECAUSE THEY'RE STARTING
TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS ISSUE IN
LOS ANGELES. IT'S SOMETHING THAT
THEY DISCOVERED SOMETHING THAT
WASN'T DONE IN THE PAST. IT'S
SOMETHING THAT'S NOT DONE ACROSS
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. SO IF
YOU ARE LABOR TRAFFIC, LET'S SAY
FARMWORKERS IF YOU ARE TRAFFIC
FOR SEX. IF YOU'RE TRYING,
THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT LIST IF
YOU GOOGLE REALLY QUICKLY U
VISAS AND WE'RE NOT TAKING
ADVANTAGE OF THAT PROCESS. IT'S
NOT A REPUBLICAN ISSUE AGAIN. I
SAY IT'S NOT A DEMOCRATIC ISSUE.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT WAS SET
BEFORE TWO DIFFERENT PRESIDENCY,
DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT AND A
REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT, IT'S JUST
NOT HAPPENING IN A PERFECT WORLD
. WE'D HAVE COMPREHENSIVE
IMMIGRATION REFORM. BUT THAT'S
NOT HOW THAT HASN'T HAPPENED.
BUT WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY IN
CALIFORNIA BE ABLE TO LINE UP
THE LAWS OF THAT THEY MATCH WHAT
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REQUIRES.
UM AND ALLOW A PERSON TO GET A
CERTIFICATION BECAUSE RIGHT NOW
IT'S PRETTY LOOSELY INTERPRETED.
UM IF A LAW ENFORCEMENT
AUTHORITY DECIDES THAT MAYBE THE
PERSON UM THAT THE PERSONS
OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES SO I
DON'T WANT TO GIVE HIM THE
CERTIFICATE. IF A PERSON IF THE
IF THE CASE HASN'T BEEN CLOSED
AT THAT HASN'T BEEN CONVICTION
IF THEY THINK THAT THEY WON'T BE
ABLE TO GET A VISA. RIGHT NOW.
THAT'S THE STANDARD FOR DENYING
A PERSON'S CERTIFICATION PROCESS
. WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS ADHERE BY
WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
ALREADY SAYS IF THEY QUALIFY,
GIVE THEM A GIVEN THE
CERTIFICATION PROCESS. AND IF
THEY DON'T YOU'RE REQUIRED THEM
TO WRITE WHY THEY GIVE THIS
PERSON CERTIFICATION PROCESS SO
THAT THEY CAN ACTUALLY GET THEIR
VISAS BEFORE THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT. WE'RE NOT EVEN
CHANGED. THEY HAVE TO GET THEIR
VISAS BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THAT
AUTHORITY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
DOES. BUT IT'S A CRITICAL TOOL
THAT IS ABSOLUTELY NEEDED FOR
SOMEBODY TO GET VISA AS WELL AS
THEIR FAMILIES. WE HAVE A
WITNESS HERE TODAY AND I'LL LET
THEM PRESENT AND INTRODUCE
THEMSELVES. RIGHT? MR CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS, DAN FELLAS ARE ON
BEHALF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY WHAT IS SOME
OF THIS IS COMPLETELY CORRECT.
I'VE WORKED IN LAW ENFORCEMENT
FOR OVER 26 YEARS. THAT'S A
POLICE OFFICER AND AS A DISTRICT
ATTORNEY I CAN TELL YOU THAT
BORN IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES ARE
HESITANT TO REPORT CRIMINAL
ACTIVITY TO LAW ENFORCEMENT.
THEY'RE HESITANT TO COOPERATE
WITH POLICE OFFICERS, SHERIFF'S
DEPUTIES PROSECUTORS, HIGHWAY
PATROLMAN BECAUSE THEY DON'T
TRUST THE GOVERNMENT. THEY'RE
AFRAID THAT THE GOVERNMENT COULD
START LOOKING INTO THEIR
IMMIGRATION STATUS OR THE
IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THEIR
FAMILY LOVED ONES, SO THEY UNDER
REPORT CRIME, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE,
SEXUAL ASSAULT TRAFFICKING. THE
WHOLE GAME. THE RESEARCH HAS
SHOWN THAT WHEN WE PULL LAW
ENFORCEMENT WHEN. THE FACT THAT
IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES UNDER
REPORT CRIMES IT AFFECTS NOT
ONLY THE IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES
IN EFFECTS, PUBLIC SAFETY IN THE
LARGER COMMUNITY, AND IT AFFECTS
OFFICER SAFETY AS WELL. IN ORDER
TO TRY AND HELP. BRIDGE THAT GAP
BETWEEN OUR IMMIGRANT
COMMUNITIES AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS SET UP
THE U. T AND S VISA PROGRAMS.
DIFFERENT CRIMES. DIFFERENT
TYPES OF WITNESSES QUALIFIED FOR
DIFFERENT VISAS, BUT THE THREE
PROGRAMS EXIST. WHAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IS TRYING IS THAT LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, THE
CERTIFYING AGENCIES. FREQUENTLY.
REFUSED TO CERTIFY. PARTICULAR
VISA APPLICATION. BASED ON
ERRONEOUS INFORMATION. THEY.
HAVE YOU SEEN PEOPLE THAT IF
YOU'RE NOT PRESENT IN THE UNITED
STATES? THEY SAY, OH, CAN PROVE
YOU CAN CERTIFY THAT VISA THAT'S
NOT TRUE. I NEED THAT PERSON TO
BE MY WITNESSES. THEM OUT HERE.
I CAN'T REPORT WE NEED THAT
DECENT. AH I SAW CASE WHERE AN
INDIVIDUAL LEFT THE MIDDLE NAME
BLANK ON THEIR APPLICATION. AND
IT WAS DO NOT THE PERSON DIDN'T
HAVE LEGAL MIDDLE NECK. THEY
SHOULD HAVE PUT A NUN, BUT THEY
DIDN'T AND SO IT WAS DENIED FOR
THAT REASON. IT WAS CORRECTED
LATER, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE OUT.
THE PROVISION THAT SAYS IF
YOU'RE DENYING AN APPLICATION OR
YOU KNOW WHY CAN'T BE CORRECT?
ALL. THIS BILL DOES IS
CLARIFIED. WHAT THE
RESPONSIBILITIES ARE OF THE
CERTIFYING AGENCIES WHEN WE
CERTIFY ONE OF THESE VISAS. WE
ARE TESTING THE INDIVIDUAL MEETS
THE MINIMUM. REQUIREMENTS FOR
THAT PARTICULAR REASON WHAT THEY
WERE. THE VICTIM OF A S
SPECIFIED CRIME. AND THAT THEY
ARE GREEN TOO, OR WILL BE
COOPERATIVE ENFORCEMENT. THAT IS
ALL THAT THE CERTIFICATION
ATTEST TO IT DOESN'T GRANT THE
PERSON LEGAL STATUS. THAT'S
STILL UP TO THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT. YOUR CRIMINAL
HISTORY. WILL BE COMPLETELY
RELEVANT. TO THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AND WILL PROBABLY
DEPENDING ON WHAT THAT CRIMINAL
HISTORY IS MAY RESULT IN YOUR
BEING DENIED AND VISA. HOWEVER
IT IS IRRELEVANT TO THE
CERTIFYING AGENCY BECAUSE YOU
WERE EITHER A VICTIM OF THE
CRIME OR WITNESSING IT AS RECENT
CASE. OR OR YOU ARE NOT
COOPERATIVE. THAT'S IT. THAT'S
ALL THAT THE CERTIFICATION
PROCESS IT DOES. THE RESEARCH.
WE'VE UNFORTUNATELY HAD
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES. REFUSED TO
CERTIFY. EXACTLY CATIONS FOR
ERRONEOUS REASONS. WE DON'T
THINK THAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT WILL ULTIMATELY
APPROVED THIS APPLICATION, SO
WE'RE NOT GOING TO CERTIFY THAT
IS NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY IS THE
D A. I'M JUST ATTESTING. TO WHAT
HAVE A CERTIFYING AGENCY. JUST
MAKE IT CLEAR. Tð ENFORCEMENT.
WHAT THEIR ACTUAL
RESPONSIBILITIES. WHAT ARE THE
REASONS YOU CAN CERTIFIED? ARE
THE REASONS YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED
TO CONSIDER. FOR THE SP. SAY IF
YOU ARE IF YOU WANT INFORMANT,
ARE YOU ARE YOU GOING TO BE
COOPERATIVE? THAT'S ALL WE'RE
TESTING. WHEN LAW ENFORCEMENT.
SETS UP POLICIES. THAT SHOWS
THAT THEY ARE SYMPATHETIC TO
INTEGRATE COMMUNITIES,
COMMUNITIES ARE MORE LIKELY TO
REPORT CRIMINAL CONDUCT. TO LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND THEN WE CAN
REMOVE THOSE VIOLENT OFFENDERS.
WALMART COMMUNITIES I CAN TELL
YOU IN MY EXPERIENCE.
UNDOCUMENTED POPULATIONS ARE FAR
MORE LAW ABIDING. THEN THE
GENERAL PUBLIC. BECAUSE THEY DO
NOT WANT TO COME INTO CONTACT
WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT, AFRAID OF
IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCE. BUT
BECAUSE OF THAT. MANY ARE AFRAID
TO REPORT THOSE THOSE CRIMES AND
SO. OKAY? THANK YOU ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS CONCERNS? OH, THE
SUPPORT WITNESSES. FOR THE YEAR.
FAITHFULLY WITH ASIAN AMERICANS
ADVANCING JUSTICE, SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA WORD SUPPORT. SANDRA
BARRERA ON BEHALF OF STU,
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. MORE IN
PINELLAS BEHALF OF CHURLA AND
SUPPORT THANK YOU. ANYONE IN
OPPOSITION? SEE NONE. BRING IT
BACK TO COMMITTEE FOR QUESTIONS,
MR LANDIS. I JUST LIKE TO MAKE A
COMMENT THAT YEAH, YOU'RE 100,
RIGHT? UH, UNFORTUNATELY, THE
BRIDGE HASN'T BEEN COMPLETELY
MADE YET ON THAT, AND IT IS
UNDER REPORTED ESPECIALLY
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. UH BEING A
DETECTIVE INVOLVED WITH THAT
THAT WAS VERY UNDER REPORTED AS
WELL. I JUST I'M CURIOUS. IS
THERE AN AREA OF CALIFORNIA?
MAYBE THAT YOU'RE FINDING OUT
WHERE YOU'RE SEEING THE
RESISTANCE? BECAUSE I KNOW WHEN
I WAS AT THE FAMILY JUSTICE
CENTER. THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT
WE DID OFFER TO OUR VICTIMS.
THAT WE HAD A PROGRAM THAT WE
DID THAT WITH. I'M JUST CURIOUS
IF THERE IS AN AREA THAT THERE'S
NO THAT I'M AWARE, OKAY AREA
THAT IS PARTICULARLY WORSE OR
REALLY BETTER THAN OTHERS.
UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S JUST UH, WE
SEE ACROSS THE STATE. BUT
APPLICATIONS BEING DENIED. BASED
ON THIS OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS. YOU MAKE
CLOTHES? RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR MY
VOTE CHAIRS RECORD. MAY I CALL
THE VOTE? LET ME CALL OVERALL.
MAYBE 12 61 BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
SANTIAGO. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASSED TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. JOHN SAWYER,
CHANCELLOR ELONIS ELONIS BONTA,
JACKSON JACKSON. I LACKEY.
LACKEY I ORTEGA ORTEGA I
SANTIAGO SANTIAGO EYES THE
BERBER ZIPPER? AYE. METRO
PASSES. OKAY. THANK YOU.
LOW, EVERYBODY. NEXT. WE HAVE
JOINED SAWYER WITH A B. I'M
SORRY TO HAVE MY GLASSES ON
PIPES. WHAT IS IT? 5 74, WE'RE
GONNA START WITH 5 74 IF YOU
DON'T MIND CHAIR REMEMBER. YOU
WANT MY STRUGGLING ALL DAY OF MY
BEING HERE? THANK YOU. MR VICE
CHAIR MEMBERS PRESENT A B 574,
WHICH PROMOTES GLANCE SAFETY BY
REQUIRING GUN OWNERS TO CONFIRM
THAT THEY ALL THE REGISTERED
FIREARMS IN THEIR POSSESSION AT
THE TIME OF A NEW GUN PURCHASE.
CURRENTLY THERE ARE OVER 9300
AND 93 MILLION GUNS ON BY
CIVILIANS IN THE US, WHICH
ACCOUNTS FOR ALMOST HALF OF THE
WORLD'S COMBINED FIREARMS DATA
COLLECTED FROM 1000 LAW
ENFORCEMENT. IGNATZ EASE IN 36
STATES FOUND THAT MORE THAN
204,000 GUNS WERE STOLEN SINCE
2010 IN CALIFORNIA ALONE,
SENDING 1000 GUNS HAVE BEEN
REPORTED LOST OR STOLEN SINCE
2010. THIS IS A PUBLIC SAFETY
ISSUE, AS MANY FIREARMS ARE NOT
REPORTED MISSING OR STOLEN UNTIL
THEY HAVE BEEN USED IN THE CRIME
. ALSO MANY REPORTED LOST OR
STOLEN GUNS ARE NEVER FOUND OR
RETRIEVE, LIKELY MAKING THEIR
WAY ONTO INTO OUR STATES AND
COUNTRIES IN ORDER TO UPHOLD THE
PUBLIC SAFETY. UM IT IS
IMPERATIVE THAT WE PREVENT
STOLEN AND LOST GUNS FROM
GETTING INTO THE WRONG HANDS IN
THE FIRST PLACE AS SUCH A B 574
CREATES A PROCESS THAT ENSURES
GUN OWNERS KNOW WHERE THEIR GUNS
ARE LOCATED BEFORE THEY BUY A
NEW ONE. IN DOING SO, THIS
COMMON SENSE BILL INSURERS,
REASONABLE GUN OWNERSHIP AND
COMMUNITY SAFETY BY GUARANTEEING
INDIVIDUALS REGULARLY CHECK
CLEAR THAT WEAPONS INTO
INVENTORY OR NOT LOST OR STOLEN.
THANK YOU AND RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU ANY
OTHERS IN SUPPORT? ALRIGHT. ANY
OPPOSITION? OKAY? THANK YOU. YOU
HAVE FIVE MINUTES SO MUCH
MEMBERS THE COMMITTEE. IT'S A
PLEASURE TO GET TO SHARE THE
CHANGING TABLE WITH YOU HERE,
BUT NORMALLY WE'RE ON THE OTHER
SIDE. DAN REED, WESTERN REGIONAL
DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL RIFLE
ASSOCIATION, AND ALSO HERE FOR
GUN OWNERS OF CALIFORNIA. YEAH
YOU'RE TAKING A PICTURE. COME ON
NOW. AND CRP. I UM I WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHORS OFFICE. WE HAD
SOME DIALOGUE ON THIS, AND WE
FEEL LIKE THE BILL LACKS
CLARITY. AND WE WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT, UM IT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE ANSWER
? THAT QUESTION IS NOT
CONTINGENT ON THE OUTCOME OF THE
TRANSFER THE FIREARM. SO WHETHER
YOU MARK YES OR NO, THE
TRANSACTION CAN PROCEED CORRECT.
UM AND IF YEAH, AND WE NEED TO
MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S CLEAR IN
THE BILL BECAUSE IF THE FIREARM
CAN'T GO WITHOUT A YES ANSWER,
YOU HAVE 1/5 AMENDMENT ISSUE FOR
YOUR RIGHT AGAINST SELF
INCRIMINATION BECAUSE PEOPLE
CAN'T BE COMPELLED TO
INCRIMINATE THEMSELVES. IF THEY
ARE IN VIOLATION OF THIS LAW, I
THINK A BETTER STRATEGY TO WOULD
BE TO PROVIDE SOME SORT OF
NOTIFICATION OR LITERATURE. TO
MAKE SURE PEOPLE ARE AWARE OF
REPORTING LOST AND STOLEN
FIREARMS. AND WITH THAT I'M AN
OPPOSITIONAL STANFORD QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, ANY
OTHERS? HERE, YOU KNOW, TURN TO
THE COMMITTEE. WITH THE BILL.
GOTTA MOVE. GOTTA SECOND BY MR
JACKSON. NO OTHER QUESTIONS,
COMMENTS. NO I JUST SAY THAT WE
NEED THE STRONGEST SAFETY LAWS
AND, YOU KNOW, THANK YOU. THANKS
THE AUTHOR FOR DOING THIS? I
THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT BILL AND
JUST WANT TO THANK YOU ON BEHALF
OF PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA AND MY
KIDS. GLADYS MARTIN ON IT. THANK
THE CHAIR FOR HOLDING A HEARING
ABOUT APPS EARLIER IN OUR
SESSION, AND I'M IT'S QUITE
POSSIBLE THAT THE IDEA FOR THIS
BILL CAME FROM THAT SESSION
WHERE WE LEARNED ABOUT HOW ONE
OF THE BIGGEST COMRADE
ENCUMBRANCES TO ACTUALLY BEING
ABLE TO RETRIEVE A WEAPON IS
THAT YOU GOT UP TO SOMEBODY'S
HOUSE. AND THEY SAY SORRY, I
DON'T KNOW WHERE IT IS, YOU KNOW
, OR I LOST IT OR, YOU KNOW THEY
HAVE NO ABILITY TO DO THAT. I
THINK THIS IT FEELS LIKE THIS
LEGISLATION ALLOWS FOR THAT NOT
TO BE SUCH A SUCH AN EASY GO TO
BECAUSE IT PUTS A BACKSTOP INTO
WHEN SOMEONE'S PURCHASING A
FIREARM. THE ABILITY TO
ESSENTIALLY SAY YES, I KNOW
WHERE ALL MY GUNS ARE AT THIS
TIME, SO I'M HOPING THAT THIS
LEGISLATION WILL ACTUALLY HELP
TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF OPEN
CASES RELATED TO APPS RIGHT NOW,
SO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
FORWARD THIS BILL. WELCOME.
RIGHT? YOU MAKE CLOTHES AND I
PLAN TO WORK WITH MY NEW PARTNER
IN THIS EFFORT, UH, TO MAKE SURE
WE GET OVER THE HURDLE OF THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OR ANY OTHER
THINGS THAT YOU BROUGHT UP
BECAUSE THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT
THAT PEOPLE JUST SELF IDENTIFY
IF THERE'S A LOST OR STOLEN, UM,
WEAPONS SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE
THAT DOESN'T FALL IN THE SAME
HAND IN THE WRONG HANDS. AND I
BELIEVE WE'RE JOINED AT THE HIP
HOP ON THAT ON THAT VALUE ISSUE.
I THINK RIGHT THERE. YOU JUST
WON MY MIND ON THAT COMMENT, SO
THANK YOU ON A B 5 74 BY SEVEN
MEMBER JOHN. SORRY THE MOTION IS
DUE PASSED THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE JOHN SAWYER. JOHN
SIRE. I ELONIS ELONIS, MANTA.
MANTA JACKSON JACKSON. I BLACKIE
BLACKIE ABSTAIN. ORTEGA ORTEGA
EYES SANTIAGO. ZIPPER ZIPPER?
AYE. BUT THANK YOU. NO, I HAVE
ONE MORE. I I'M ON A ROLL RIGHT
NOW. MAYBE 10 90 10 90 14 14. AH
VICE CHAIR MEMBERS REPRESENT A B
10 90, WHICH STRENGTHENS
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR PUBLIC SAFETY
BY ARTHRITIS AND THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OF ACCOUNTING TO
REMOVE A SHERIFF FROM OFFICE FOR
CAUSED BY 4TH 5TH VOTE. SHERIFF
HOLD A GREAT DEAL OF POWER OVER
OUR COMMUNITIES, MANAGING OUR
JAILS AND POLICING OUR STREETS.
BUT WHEN THE SHERIFF ABUSES
THEIR POWER IN THE PUBLIC'S
TRUST, OUR TOOLS FOR REAL
ACCOUNTABILITY ARE FEW AND FAR
BETWEEN. UNDER THE CURRENT
SYSTEM, VOTERS MUST WAIT FOR
GRAND JURY TO CONVENE. FOR LEGAL
ACTION BROUGHT OR AUTHORIZED BY
THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL. OR A
RECALL ELECTION TO BE HELD AS
SUCH TO BUILD PROVIDES COUNTIES
WITH A MEANINGFUL TOOL TO REMOVE
A SHERIFF FOR SERIOUS VIOLATIONS
, AND I DO MEAN SERIOUS
VIOLATIONS OF THE PUBLIC TRUST.
MAYBE 10 90 INSURERS DUE PROCESS
BY REQUIRING A SUPERMAJORITY FOR
FIFTH VOTE BY THE COUNTY BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS TO MOVE A SHERIFF
AFTER I HAVE BEEN SERVED WITH A
WRITTEN STATEMENT AND A
REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO BE
HEARD. ADDITIONALLY TWO
REMOVABLE SHERIFF MUST BE FOR
CAUSE ONLY. THAT INCLUDES A
VIOLATION OF ANY LAW RELATED TO
THE BEFORE AND OF A SHERIFF'S
DUTIES, MISAPPROPRIATION OF
PUBLIC FUNDS WELL FOR
FALSIFICATION OF OFFICIAL
STATEMENTS OR DOCUMENTS OF AN
OBSTRUCTION OF AN INVESTIGATION
INTO THE CONDUCT OF A SHARE.
MEMBERS A B 10 90 IS A GOOD
GOVERNANCE MEASURES TO BILL DOES
NOT REQUIRE BOARD TO DO ANYTHING
BUT RATHER EMPOWERS THEM TO
REMOVE AN ELECTED SHERIFF WHEN
THEY VIOLATE THE LAW. SEVERAL
COUNTIES COUNTIES HAVE ADOPTED
SIMILAR MEASURES TO PROVIDE
GREATER SHERIFF OVERSIGHT AND
ACCOUNTABILITY. JUST LAST
NOVEMBER, LOS ANGELES COUNTY
VOTERS WHO WITNESSED ELECTED
SHERIFF IGNORE AND BREAK THE LAW
FOR YEARS. APPROVED MEASURE AID
GRANTING THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AUTHORITY TO REMOVE
AN ELECTED SHERIFF FROM OFFICE
FOR CAUSE THIS BILL SIMPLY
PROVIDES THAT AUTHORITY TO ALL
COUNTIES WITH ME IS DANICA
AROUND, BUTTON DOWN. DARK ROAD,
CARMEL ON BEHALF OF INITIATE
JUSTICE. RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR VOTE. AFTER I GET ALL MY
FELLOW DID IT? HE DIDN'T KNOW TO
PUT IT IN PHONETICS. DANICA YOU
HAVE FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. I
DON'T NEED. I DON'T NEED A FULL
FIVE MINUTES AND IT'S NICE TO
TESTIFY ON BEHALF OF SOMETHING
TODAY. UM HAPPY TO BE SUPPORTING
THE A B 10 90 ALONGSIDE THE
CHAIR HERE, UM, CHAIR COVERED A
LOT OF WHAT I WAS GONNA SAY
AROUND WHAT OPPOSITION CONCERNS
WERE REGARDING INJECTING
POLITICS IN THESE KINDS OF
ELECTIONS. CLEARLY THE LIST OF
FOUR CAUSE ITEMS WOULD PREVENT
THAT ACCOUNTABILITY IS SOMETHING
WE TALK ABOUT IN THIS COMMITTEE
A LOT, BUT USUALLY AROUND
INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE BROKEN A
LAW. VERY LESS OFTEN AROUND
PEOPLE IN POWER, WHO ARE
CREATING HARM FOR LARGE GROUPS
OF PEOPLE, SO MAYBE 10 90 WILL
ENSURE GREATER ACCOUNTABILITIES
FOR SHERIFFS WHO HAVE A LOT OF
POWER AND INFLUENCE OVER THEIR
COMMUNITIES. UM I WILL ALSO JUST
NOTE THAT A 4/5 VOTE IS HIGHER
THAN THE REQUIRED VOTE FOR
IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT. UM
AND FINALLY WE'LL JUST CLOSE
WITH SAYING I THINK THE KINDS OF
SHERIFFS WE WANT TO HAVE IN
THESE ELECTED POSITION SHOULD
LOVE A MEASURE LIKE THIS BECAUSE
ALL IT CAN DO IS FURTHER AND
STILL CONFIDENCE IN THE
ELECTORATE THAT THEY'RE
DISCHARGING THEIR DUTIES.
ETHICALLY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
. ANY OTHERS WANT TO COME UP AND
SUPPORT ALRIGHT HEARING NONE.
OPPOSITION.
FANCY C CAN I USE THE TIME SHE
YIELDED BACK? I'M JUST I'M
KIDDING. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS CORY CELLS ALONG BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL,
RESPECTFULLY TO THE THIS IS NOT
GOOD GOVERNMENT. THIS IS
DISENFRANCHISING VOTERS. UM
EXISTING LAW PERMITS THE VOTERS
TO CHOOSE THEIR SHERIFF AND ALSO
TO VOTE THEM OUT VIA REGULAR
ELECTIONS. IN FACT, LEGISLATION
ADOPTED LAST SESSION MOVES
FUTURE SHERIFF ELECTIONS
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION YEARS
BASED ON THE PROPONENTS, THAT
BILL'S ASSERTIONS THAT DOING SO
WILL INCREASE VOTER ENGAGEMENT.
ADDITIONALLY ELECTED COUNTY
OFFICIALS, INCLUDING THE COUNTY
SHERIFF CAN BE REMOVED FROM
OFFICE BY VOTER RECALL,
IRRESPECTIVE OF THE REASON FOR
THE VOTERS. DISSATISFACTION
ANALYSIS POINTS OUT. THERE ARE
AT LEAST TWO OTHER WAYS ELECTED
COUNTY OFFICERS CAN BE REMOVED
FROM OFFICE. IN ADDITION TO
OPPORTUNITIES FOR OVERSIGHT
PROVIDED TO VOTERS WHO SELECT
THE SHERIFF EVERY FOUR OR SIX
YEARS. IN DETERMINING WHO WILL
SERVICE SHERIFF. THERE IS ALSO
SIGNIFICANT OVERSIGHT OF THE
SHERIFF'S OFFICE, STATE AND
FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS OF JUSTICE.
BORDER STATE COMMUNITY,
CORRECTIONS, STATE AND FEDERAL
COURTS. COUNTY GRAND JURIES
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S CIVILIAN
REVIEW ENTITIES. THEY ALL
EXERCISE OVERSIGHT AUTHORITY
OVER THE OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF.
THE MADE FOR THIS ADDITIONAL
ROUTE TO OUST A DULY ELECTED
PUBLIC OFFICIALS UNCLEAR. WE
ACKNOWLEDGE THE AMENDMENTS
RESOLVED WHAT HAS HERETOFORE
BEEN A LACK OF CLARITY AS TO
WHAT WOULD SUFFICE IS CAUSE FOR
THE PURPOSE OF REMOVAL, BUT
WOULD ARGUE THAT AN ACT THAT
WOULD QUALIFY UNDER THIS
DEFINITION WOULD IN MOST, IF NOT
EVERY CASE, BE VIOLATIVE OF AN
EXISTING CRIMINAL LAW. SO THE
THINGS THAT WERE PUT IN TO
MEASURE A AND L A INTO THIS
BILL. IF THAT'S THE STANDARD. IF
THE SHERIFF DID ONE OF THOSE
THINGS, THE SHERIFF COULD BE
CRIMINALLY PROSECUTED BY THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY OR ATTORNEY
GENERAL TODAY. I DON'T KNOW
WHAT'S MORE IMMEDIATE THAN THAT.
UM ALLOWING FOR MEMBERS OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO ACT AS
JUDGE AND JURY FOR ALLEGED
VIOLATIONS WHEN THOSE CAN BE
CHARGED IN A CRIMINAL COURT, WE
FIND PROBLEMATIC. UM, THIS WELL
, ABSOLUTELY INJECT POLITICS,
ADDITIONALLY, FURTHER INTO THE
WORK DONE BY SHERIFF'S AND
COUNTY SUPERVISORS. SHERIFF'S
MAY ALTER HOW THEY UNDERTAKE THE
OBLIGATIONS THEIR JOB OUT OF
FEAR THAT BOARD MEMBERS MAY
DECIDE, UM THAT THEY DON'T LIKE
HOW THE SHERIFF IS DOING HIS OR
HER JOB, AND, UM, THEY'D BE
PRESSURED TO EXERCISE THAT THE
BOARD COULD BE PRECIOUS PRESSURE
TO EXERCISE THIS AUTHORITY. WHEN
A VOCAL GROUP OF CONSTITUENTS
DECIDE THEY'RE DISSATISFIED WITH
THE SHERIFF. I KNOW IT HAS TO BE
FOR CAUSE BUT AGAIN WHAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT HERE CAN ALREADY
BE ADDRESSED IN A NUMBER OF
DIFFERENT WAYS. THERE'S NO
SIMILAR AUTHORITY FOR ANY OTHER
COUNTY ELECTED OFFICIAL IN THIS
BILL. I'M NOT MAKING THE CASE
FOR SUCH UM BUT TO THE SHERIFF'S
OF CONTINUOUS COUNTIES BE
ALLOWED TO VOTE OUT A COUNTY
SUPERVISOR IF THEY DETERMINE
THAT THEY'VE DONE SOMETHING
WRONG IF THEY VIOLATED STATUTE
OR OBSTRUCTED INVESTIGATION, OR
IF THEY OTHERWISE DETERMINE
THERE IS CAUSE THIS IS A MASSIVE
CHANGE TO COUNTY GOVERNANCE
IGNORES EXISTING PROCESSES IN
FAVOR OF THE PERCEIVED IMMEDIATE
GRATIFICATION OF ONE SET OF
COUNTY ELECTED OFFICIALS BEING
ABLE TO REMOVE ANOTHER. WE ALSO
THINK THIS POSSIBLY RAISES
SEPARATION OF POWERS ISSUE AS
THE COUNTY'S LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
WOULD HOLD AUTHORITY OVER THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH, AND WE ALSO
UNDERSTAND THAT TWO COUNTIES
HAVE THIS AUTHORITY IN SOME
VERSION. SAN BERNARDINO DID IT
SEVERAL YEARS AGO, WHILE SAN
ANGELES DID IT LAST YEAR. UM
THERE WAS A CONSTITUTIONAL
CHALLENGE TO THE SAN BERNARDINO
ORDINANCE. IT WAS NOT SUCCESSFUL
, BUT IT WAS ALSO A CHALLENGE
THAT THE THAT THE ORDINANCE WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS FACE.
AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT WE ALSO
SUSPECT THAT, UM THE USE OF THIS
AUTHORITY SHOULDN'T BE ADOPTED
WOULD BE SUBJECT. AH TO A
CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE,
DEPENDING ON THE BASIS FIRST USE
. SO FOR ALL THESE REASONS WERE
OPPOSED TO MAYBE 10 90. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, ANY OTHERS IN
OPPOSITION? THANK YOU, MR CHAIR
MEMBERS, RYAN SCHWIMMER WITH THE
RIVERSIDE SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION
AND OPPOSITION, ALSO WITH THE
DEPUTY SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION IN
MONTEREY COUNTY AND PLATZER
COUNTY. LIEUTENANT HOLDERS ONLY
ON BEHALF OF THE RIVERSIDE
SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND ELECTED
SHERIFF CHAD BIANCO IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU, ANY
OTHERS? ALL RIGHT, TURN INTO
COMMITTEE COMMENTS, QUESTIONS.
UH HUH. I THINK THIS BILL IS
ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. I THINK WE
ARE SEEING TOO MANY TIMES. THAT
BECAUSE OF OUR POLITICAL CLIMATE
THAT FOR SOMEONE WHO LITERALLY
HAS THE POWER OF WHETHER SOMEONE
LIVES OR DIES OR NOT THESE
ADDITIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY
BECAUSE WE ARE STILL SEEING TOO
MANY OF THE OUR NATIONAL
POLITICS GETTING INVOLVED WITH
MORE LOCAL DECISION MAKING BY
COUNTY SHERIFF AND SO I THINK
THAT WE NEED TO BRING OUR COUNTY
SHERIFF'S MORE IN LINE OF WHAT
POLICE CHIEFS. HAVE HAVE TO GO
TO IN TERMS OF THEIR TYPE OF
OVERSIGHT. UM AND, UH, I MOVE
THIS BILL. ANY OTHERS. ALL
RIGHT, CLOSE. REALLY?
UNFORTUNATELY, UM UH, COMING
FROM L. A COUNTY. UM, WE HAD TO
SUFFER THROUGH UH, SHERIFF. WHO
TOTALLY REFUSED. TO NOT ONLY
WORK WITH LISTEN TO THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS. WHO HAD WHO HAS,
AND STILL HAS, UM FIDUCIARY
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE
DEPARTMENT. AND WHEN AN
INSPECTOR GENERAL WAS PUT IN
PLACE. UH, REFUSED TO MEET WITH
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL. TO THE
POINT WHERE THE VOTERS OF LOS
ANGELES UM HE BASICALLY MADE IT
VERY EASY FOR THE VOTERS IN LOS
ANGELES TO GIVE THAT POWER TO
SEE THAT POWER TO THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS. THERE ARE
INVESTIGATIONS EVEN GOING ON
NOW. WELL IT'S CIVIL RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS WITH SHERIFFS IN
PLACES THAT SOME OF US KNOW THAT
IF IT THEY ARE FOUND, UM THAT
THERE'S SOME SUBSTANTIATED
CHARGES, UM, WAITING UNTIL THE
NEXT ELECTION. THE DAMAGE THAT
COULD OCCUR ON PEOPLE OF COLOR
AND COULD BE TREMENDOUS AS WE
WAIT UNTIL THE NEXT ELECTION FOR
THAT TO HAPPEN, AND SO THAT'S
THIS IS REALLY ABOUT EMPOWERING
THE PEOPLE. OF THE COMMUNITY WHO
REPRESENTED BY UM WERE ALSO
REPRESENTED BY ALL OF THE PEOPLE
IN THE COUNTY, UM, TO MAKE
DECISIONS ON WHAT IS BEST FOR
THE COUNTY AS A WHOLE. UM, WE
DON'T HAVE A DICTATORIAL POWER
IN ANY ONE PERSON AND THAT'S
THAT'S WHY WE BROUGHT THIS.
FORWARD AND I SAY IT UNFORTUNATE
. I JUST FEEL BAD FOR WHAT HAD
HAPPENED IN LOS ANGELES, AND I
FEEL BAD FOR WHAT'S HAPPENING IN
OTHER PLACES. AND UH, THIS BILL
IS REALLY ABOUT EMPOWERING THE
PEOPLE. IN THOSE COUNTIES.
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU. PLEASE TAKE A ROLE.
AND MAYBE 10 90 BY SEVEN MEMBER
JOAN SAWYER. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS AS AMENDED TO THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE. JOHN
SAWYER. I ELONIS ANY SNOW BANTA
? AYE JACKSON JACKSON. I LAKI
LAKI. NO ORTEGA ORTEGA EYES.
SANTIAGO ZABAR. SUPER AYE. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH.
AND HERE HE IS, MR GABRIEL.
RIGHT ON TIME. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR. MY SINCERE POLICIES. I
WAS CHEERING. YOU'RE HEARING
WISEMAN IZZY DAY FOR EVERYBODY.
THAT'S CORRECT. WHENEVER YOU'RE
READY TO GET THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS. I AM
PLEASED TODAY TO PRESENT A B 28,
WHICH WILL IMPOSE IN EXCISE TAX
ON THE SALE OF GUNS AND
AMMUNITION TO FUND SCHOOL SAFETY
MEASURES AND GUN VIOLENCE
PREVENTION PROGRAMS THAT HAVE
PROVEN TO BE SOME OF THE MOST
EFFECTIVE WAYS IN STOPPING GUN
VIOLENCE IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. VIOLENCE IS NOW THE
LEASING CAUSE OF DEATH FOR KIDS
IN THE UNITED STATES, ACCORDING
TO THE CENTER FOR DISEASE
CONTROL, MORE CHILDREN AND TEENS
WERE KILLED BY GUNS IN 2021 THAN
ANY TIME IN THE LAST 20 YEARS.
THERE WERE 48,830 GUN DEATHS OF
AMERICANS IN 2021 THAT IS UP 23%
FROM 2019 AND THE HIGHEST YEARLY
TOTAL ON RECORD. THE FUNDS
GENERATED BY THIS MEASURE WILL
BE ALLOCATED TO THE CALIFORNIA
VIOLENCE INTERVENTION AND
PREVENTION GRANT PROGRAM, WHICH
HAS ALREADY HELPED TO REDUCE THE
RATE OF GUN VIOLENCE IN
CALIFORNIA. FUNDS WILL ALSO BE
ALLOCATED TO EXPAND SCHOOL,
MENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
MEASURES ENHANCED SUPPORT
SERVICES FOR VICTIMS OF FIREARM
VIOLENCE, BOLSTER INVESTIGATIONS
AND CLEARANCE RATES FOR FIREARM
ASSAULTS AND IMPROVE FIREARM
EARLY, WHICH MEANT PROGRAMS TO
BE CLEAR. THIS BILL IS NOT A
PENALTY OR AN EFFORT TO PREVENT
OR DISCOURAGE LAWFUL FIREARM
SALES. RATHER, IT AIMS TO CREATE
A SUSTAINABLE FUNDING SOURCE FOR
PROGRAMS THAT ARE PROVEN TO
REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE AND SAVE
LIVES. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS
THAT CALIFORNIANS ARE COUNTING
ON US TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO
KEEP OUR CHILDREN SAFE FROM MASS
SHOOTINGS AND GUN VIOLENCE. THEY
ARE COUNTING ON US TO EXHAUST
EVERY EFFORT TO ENSURE THAT
THEIR CHILDREN DO NOT LIVE IN
FEAR AT SCHOOL AT HOUSES OF
WORSHIP AT THEIR LOCAL PARK AT
THE MALL AT THIS MOVIE THEATER
OR ANYWHERE ELSE THAT THEY WILL
DO. WHY? BECAUSE OF GUN
VIOLENCE. MAYBE 28 THE PROGRAMS
AND INITIATIVES THAT WILL FUND
ARE ESSENTIAL TO THAT EFFORT.
THIS BILL IS SUPPORTED BY A
COALITION OF GUN SAFETY
ORGANIZATIONS, INCLUDING
GIFFORDS MOMS, DEMAND ACTION,
EVERY TOWN FOR GUN SAFETY AND
MARCH FOR OUR LIVES, AS WELL AS
GROUPS THAT HAVE DONE THE ON THE
GROUND WORK TO STOP GUN VIOLENCE
IN OUR COMMUNITIES AND KNOW JUST
HOW EFFECTIVE THESE PREVENTION
PROGRAMS CAN BE WITH ME TODAY TO
TESTIFY AND SUPPORT IS MICMAC
LIVELY ON BEHALF OF OUR
SPONSORED GIFFORDS AND GABRIEL
GARCIA ON BEHALF OF YOUTH ALIVE
. THANK YOU AND I WOULD
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR I
VOTE. FIVE MINUTES ALTOGETHER.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS MIKE
MCCLELLAND LEE I'M THE POLICY
DIRECTOR OF THE GIFFORDS CENTER
FOR VIOLENCE. INTERVENTION WERE
PART OF GIFFORDS, WHICH IS A
NATIONAL GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION
ORGANIZATION NAMED AFTER FORMER
CONGRESSWOMAN GABBY GIFFORDS,
WHO WAS SHOT IN THE HEAD BACK IN
2011 WHILE HOSTING AN EVENT FOR
CONSTITUENTS. I SPEAK TO YOU
HERE TODAY, NOT JUST AS A
REPRESENTATIVE FROM GIFFORDS BUT
ON BEHALF OF THE DOZENS OF
ORGANIZATIONS, AGENCIES AND
HUNDREDS OF INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE
PART OF OUR CALVET COALITION.
WHICH IS THE AGENT, THE NATION'S
LARGEST STATEWIDE COALITION
DEDICATED TO ADDRESSING
COMMUNITY VIOLENCE. WE WORK WITH
MANY OF YOU HERE IN THE
LEGISLATURE OVER THE LAST FEW
YEARS TO ENSURE THE CREATION AND
EXPANSION OF THE CALIFORNIA
VIOLENCE INTERVENTION AND
PREVENTION PROGRAM, ALSO KNOWN
AS CALVIN. AND OUR COLLECTIVE
TOP PRIORITY THIS YEAR IS THE
PASSAGE OF ASSEMBLY BILL 28.
THERE ARE TWO KEY TRENDS
CONVERGING HERE IN CALIFORNIA
THAT MAKE THIS SUCH A CRITICAL
BILL THIS YEAR. THE FIRST OF
THAT GUN VIOLENCE HAS INCREASED
DRAMATICALLY IN CALIFORNIA SINCE
THE ONSET OF THE COVID 19
PANDEMIC UP NEARLY 40% SINCE
2020 GUN VIOLENCE IS NOW THE
NUMBER ONE KILLER OF YOUNG
PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES. AND
WHILE OUR STATE'S GUN VIOLENCE
RATE IS LOWER THAN THE NATIONAL
AVERAGE, WE'RE STILL LOSING
THOUSANDS OF LIVES AND TENS OF
THOUSANDS MORE INDIVIDUALS ARE
BEING INJURED IN THE STATE EVERY
SINGLE YEAR AND SHOOTINGS THAT
ARE TOTALLY PREVENTABLE AT THE
SAME TIME THAT WE'VE SEEN THIS
HISTORIC INCREASE IN VIOLENCE,
THE GUN INDUSTRY HAS ENJOYED
HISTORIC PROFITABILITY HERE IN
CALIFORNIA AND NATIONALLY. THE
INDUSTRY HAS ENJOYED A TRIPLE
DIGIT GROWTH IN RECENT YEARS AS
FEARS DURING COVID HELPED FUEL
FUEL RECORD GUN SALES IN THE
STATE AND AROUND THE COUNTRY. AT
THE VERY SAME TIME THAT THE GUN
INDUSTRY IS REAPING WINDFALL
PROFITS. CALIFORNIANS ARE PAYING
THE PRICE FOR INCREASED GUN
VIOLENCE, BOTH FIGURATIVELY AND
LITERALLY. A SINGLE HOMICIDE IN
THE STATE COST TAXPAYERS $2.5
MILLION AND OVERALL GUN VIOLENCE
HERE IN CALIFORNIA COST TO $22
BILLION, OF WHICH 1.2 BILLION IS
PAID FOR BY CALIFORNIA TAXPAYERS
EVERY SINGLE YEAR. TO HELP
ADDRESS THIS, A B 28 WOULD PLACE
A MODEST 11% EXCISE TAX ON THE
SALE OF FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION
AND WITH DIRECT THOSE REVENUES
AND ESTIMATED $112 MILLION
ANNUALLY TO THE GUN VIOLENCE
PREVENTION, HEALING AND RECOVERY
FUND, WHICH WOULD FUND A VARIETY
OF LIFE SAVING PROGRAMS,
INCLUDING CALVIN. THIS TAX IS
REASONABLE. IT'S MODEST. IT'S IN
NO WAY DESIGNED TO PREVENT
PEOPLE FROM PURCHASING FIREARMS
OR EXERCISING THEIR SECOND
AMENDMENT RIGHTS HERE IN
CALIFORNIA, WHERE WE WANT TO
DISCOURAGE THE PURCHASE OF A
PRODUCT. WE KNOW HOW TO DO THAT.
THERE'S EXCISE TAXES ON TOBACCO
HERE IN THE STATE AS HIGH AS 60%
THE 11% EXCISE TAX THAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT HERE TODAY. IS IN
LINE WITH THE FEDERAL FIREARM
AND AMMUNITION TAX OF A SIMILAR
AMOUNT THAT HAS BEEN PRAISED AND
SUPPORTED BY THE FIREARM
INDUSTRY, WITH THE NATIONAL
SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION
CELEBRATING THE MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS WHO CREATED THE FEDERAL
EXCISE TAX, CALLING THEM HEROES
OF THE MOST SUCCESSFUL
CONSERVATION MODEL IN THE WORLD
, AND THAT'S BECAUSE THAT
FEDERAL EXCISE TAX IS USED TO
FUND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION
EFFORTS. AND I THINK IF THE GUN
INDUSTRY CAN SUPPORT A TAX
DESIGNED TO PROTECT WILDLIFE.
ALL OF US HERE TODAY, AND THE
INDUSTRY SHOULD BE JUST AS
SUPPORTIVE OF ATTACKS THAT'S
DESIGNED TO PROTECT HUMAN LIFE.
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS BILL
IS DESIGNED TO DO. CREATE STABLE
REVENUE IN THE STATE FOR
PROGRAMS THAT HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO
SAVE LIVES. THE FIREARM INDUSTRY
SELLS PRODUCTS THAT ARE
REGULARLY STOLEN AND DIVERTED TO
ILLEGAL MARKETS AND OTHERWISE
USED TO KILL AND INJURE TENS OF
THOUSANDS OF CALIFORNIANS EVERY
SINGLE YEAR. IT'S MORE THAN
REASONABLE TO ASK THE INDUSTRY
TO PAY A MODEST AMOUNT OF ITS
RECORD PROFITS TO HELP MITIGATE
THE EXTREME HARM THAT IS DONE BY
ITS PRODUCTS. I'LL END BY SAYING
NO OTHER INDUSTRY IS SUBJECT TO
THE SAME PROTECTIONS IN THIS
COUNTRY AS THE FIREARM INDUSTRY
AND CALIFORNIA CAN ONCE AGAIN
LEAD THE NATION WHEN IT COMES TO
PROTECTING OUR PEOPLE FROM
HEALTH FROM PUBLIC HEALTH
THREATS, AS WE'VE DONE WITH
TOBACCO AND OTHER HARMFUL
PRODUCTS. I URGE YOU TO PASS
THIS BILL OUT OF THIS COMMITTEE
AND HAPPY TO HELP ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON CHAIR. VICE CHAIR.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS GABRIEL GARCIA ON THE
POLICY AND ADVOCACY DIRECTOR FOR
YOUR WHOLE LIFE. WE ARE ONE OF
THESE ORGANIZATIONS BASED IN
OAKLAND, WHERE WE DO VIOLENCE,
PREVENTION, INTERVENTION AND
HEALING WORK. AND AS A RECIPIENT
OF THIS CALVET FUNDING, WE ARE
VERY PROUD TO SUPPORT ASSEMBLY
BILL 28. SO MAYBE 28 GOT HERE.
CALVIN GOT HISTORIC FUNDING IN
2021 THAT MONEY JUST AT THE
GROUND IN 2022. SO I'M HERE TO
SHARE ABOUT WHAT THAT IMPACT IS
LOOKED LIKE IN OAKLAND ARE
VIOLENCE INTERRUPTERS WHO USE
THEIR CREDIBILITY, THEIR
RELATIONSHIPS THEIR EXPERTISE
WITH THE COMMUNITY TO PREVENT
VIOLENCE MEDIATED OVER 250
CONFLICTS IN THE COMMUNITY LAST
YEAR. OUR INTERVENTION
SPECIALISTS WHO GOES TO THE
HOSPITAL BEDSIDE, VIOLENTLY
INJURED PATIENTS TO HELP JUMP
START THEIR MENTAL, PHYSICAL AND
EMOTIONAL RECOVERY SUPPORTED
OVER 300 CLIENTS IN OAKLAND LAST
YEAR. CRISIS RESPONDERS WHO
REACH OUT TO AND SUPPORT ALMOST
EVERY SINGLE FAMILY IN OAKLAND
THAT LOSES A LOVED ONE TO GUN
VIOLENCE SUPPORTED OVER 120
FAMILIES LAST YEAR. THIS IS THE
IMPACT OF INCREASING CALVET
FUNDING. UNFORTUNATELY ONCE THIS
CURRENT FUNDING STREAM RUNS OUT
, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S GOING
TO LOOK LIKE TO CONTINUE TO
SUPPORT OUR COWORKERS. THAT IS
WHY WE ARE PROUD TO SUPPORT A B
28 BECAUSE IT WOULD CREATE A
PREDICTABLE SUSTAINABLE FUNDING
STREAM THAT WILL ALLOW US TO
INVEST LONG TERM IN THESE
VIOLENCE PREVENTION
PROFESSIONALS A WORKFORCE
CALIFORNIA DESPERATELY NEEDS TO
BUILD UP. WITH A B 28 WE KNOW
THAT WE CAN COUNT ON HAVING A
LONG TERM STRATEGY FOR THIS
WORK. THAT'S WHY WE'RE URGENTLY
REQUESTING YOUR SUPPORT ON A B
28 LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES OF
COLOR COMMUNITIES, JUST LIKE
MINE IN OAKLAND PAY THE HIGHEST
COST FOR GUN VIOLENCE. 28 WOULD
ALLOW US TO INVEST IN THE SAFETY
OF THOSE COMMUNITIES. THE SAFETY
OF MY COWORKERS WHO ARE PUTTING
THEIR LIVES ON THE LINE EVERY
DAY TO PREVENT VIOLENCE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU ANY OTHER
SUPPORT? CASSANDRA WHETSTONE.
I'M A VOLUNTEER WITH MOMS DEMAND
ACTION AND SUPPORT YOU. DIANA,
HONEY. MOMS DEMAND ACTION,
VOLUNTEER AND SUPPORT. LIZ
RUSSELL. I'M A GUN VIOLENCE
SURVIVOR AND MOM'S MANNED ACTION
VOLUNTEER FROM NAPA AND I URGE
YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU. SABRINA
ALPHIN, A RESIDENT OF SAN
FRANCISCO. MOMS, DEMAND ACTION
VOLUNTEER AND I URGE YOUR
SUPPORT. HI MY NAME IS RON TEBO
. I'M A FIRST YEAR AT U. C DAVIS
AND I'M A VOLUNTEER WITH
STUDENTS DEMAND ACTION FOR GUN
SENSE IN AMERICA AND I URGE YOUR
SUPPORT FOR A B 28. HI BECKY.
REENA I AM A MOMS DEMAND ACTION
VOLUNTEER IN THE BAY AREA, AND I
SUPPORT THIS BILL. HI MARY LOU
ROSETTE Ó FROM YOLO COUNTY MOMS
DEMAND ACTION, FORMER POLICE
OFFICER AND THEN OWNER. I'M
CHRISTINE JUDE. ALL, UH I'M A
GUN VIOLENCE. SURVIVOR AND
SUPPORTER OF MOMS DEMAND ACTION
OF A B 28. THANK YOU. I'M YARD
AT ALL, AND WITH MOMS DEMAND
ACTION VOLUNTEER AND I SUPPORT A
B 28. I'M AMY SYRUPY IN I'M A
VOLUNTEER WITH MOMS DEMAND
ACTION AND I SUPPORT A B 28.
DANNY OFFER WITH EVERY TIME FOR
GUN SAFETY AND STRONG SUPPORT OF
THE BILL. THANK YOU. AND JAMIE
MINOR. WE REPRESENT GIFFORDS
CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE
BUT ALSO WANT TO EXTEND OUR
SUPPORT ON BEHALF OF THE BRADY
CAMPAIGN WHO JUST HAD TO LEAVE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ARE THERE
ANY WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION? OH
YOU'RE SURROUNDED. ALRIGHT. I
GUESS I'LL GO FIRST. MR CHAIR
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE FOR THE
RECORD, DAN REED, WESTERN
REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION, AND
A FEW OF OUR COLLEAGUES CAN BE
HERE SOMETHING TO PUT A FEW MORE
OPPOSITIONS ON THE RECORD US
SPORTSMAN'S ALLIANCE GUN OWNERS
OF CALIFORNIA SEE ARPAIO
NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS
FOUNDATION. CONGRESSIONAL
SPORTSMAN FOUNDATION BLACK BRAND
GROUP, CAL HAWKING CLUB, CAL OR
WETLANDS WATER FELL ASSOCIATION
SAN DIEGO WATERFOWL ASSOCIATION
TO LARRY BASIN, WETLANDS AND A
FEW OTHERS THAT WILL GAINES
REPRESENTS ALL IN OPPOSITION GUN
OWNERS ARE ALREADY SADDLED WITH
A LOT OF TAXES AND FEES. UM AS
IT WAS MENTIONED, THERE'S AN 11%
FEDERAL EXCISE TAX. THERE IS THE
$31.19 GOES TO THE DROSS FEE.
THERE'S A DOLLAR SAFETY ACT THE
THERE'S A $5 ENHANCEMENT FEE.
YOU NEED A $25 FIREARM SAFETY
CERTIFICATE TO PURCHASE FIREARMS
. THERE'S A DOLLAR OR $19,
DEPENDING ON WHETHER YOU HAVE A
REGISTERED GUN IN THE SYSTEM TO
PURCHASE AMMUNITION, INCLUDING
STATE AND LOCAL TAXES. AND JUST
A NOTE ON THE DROSS FEE AS WE'VE
HEARD MANY TIMES THAT GOES TO
FUND SO MANY DIFFERENT DOJ
ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING APPS,
WHICH WAS MENTIONED EARLIER. UM
AND THIS, THIS TAXES PUNITIVE IN
NATURE. IT IS SEPARATING OUT.
GUN OWNERS BECAUSE THEY'RE
EXERCISING A CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT AND THIS IS A MATTER OF
PUBLIC SAFETY AND MATTERS OF
PUBLIC SAFETY SHOULD BE BORNE BY
THE PUBLIC AS A WHOLE. AND, UH,
THERE'S IF YOU LOOK AT THE
BREWING DECISION. WE'RE SEEING A
LOT OF CASES COMING DOWN. THIS
IS GOING TO BE MET WITH THE
LEGAL CHALLENGE. I DON'T THINK
IT'S GOING TO SURVIVE A LEGAL
CHALLENGE, AND IT'S JUST
DISPROPORTIONATELY GOING TO
IMPACT GUN OWNERS. AND IF YOU
LOOK AT THE COSTS, I MEAN, IF
SOMEONE IS A COLLECTOR, FOR
EXAMPLE, RIGHT, THESE ARE NOT
THE PEOPLE THAT ARE IGNORING THE
MANY GUN LAWS THAT ARE ON THE
BOOKS. THEY COULD GO AND BUY
1000 $2000 GUN. YOU'RE TALKING
100 200 PLUS, IN ADDITION TO ALL
THE OTHER FEES THAT ARE THAT ARE
OUT THERE. UM THE MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT CALVIN
PROGRAM IS FULLY FUNDED. I THINK
THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE
SHOULD CONTINUE TO FUND FURTHER
BUDGET AND NOT PUT ON THE BACKS
OF GUN OWNERS WHO ARE SIMPLY
GOING OUT TO EXERCISE AND
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. SOMEONE
WHO MAY BE A COMPETITIVE SHOOTER
WHO IS NOW GOING TO BE SADDLED
WITH MORE AND MORE FEES THAT IS
NOT INVOLVED WITH VIOLENT CRIME.
UM AND WITH THAT ALTERNATE OVER
TO HENLEY, I KNOW WE'RE SHORT ON
TIME HERE, SO THANK YOU, MR
CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE MARK HENLEY WITH THE
CALIFORNIA WATERFOWL ASSOCIATION
, ALSO REPRESENTING TODAY, THE
CALIFORNIA DEAR ASSOCIATION,
ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK FOUNDATION,
CALIFORNIA HAUSSMANN FOR
CONSERVATION, CALIFORNIA BOWMAN
HUNTERS AND THE WILD SHEEP
FOUNDATION VERY QUICKLY. IN OUR
VIEW, THIS BILL WOULD YOU KNOW
UNFAIRLY PENALIZED LAW ABIDING
SPORTSMEN FOR THE CRIMINAL OR
IRRESPONSIBLE ACTS OF OTHERS. AS
UH, MR DAN OVER THERE, SAID
FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION, TAX,
FIREARM AND AMMUNITION TAXES
ALREADY HIGH WHEN CONSIDERING
THE EXISTING PITTMAN ROBERTSON
ACT. EXCISE TAX AND ALL THE
OTHER STATE AND LOCAL TAXES
SALES TAXES. UNDER THIS BILL,
TOTAL TAXES WOULD RISE TO ALMOST
30% WHICH WE BELIEVE IS
EXORBITANT. AS AN EXAMPLE.
SHOTGUN USED FOR DUCK HUNTING
WOULD INCREASE. UM IN MANY CASES
BY ABOUT 150 TO $250, SO THAT'S
DEFINITELY A SIGNIFICANT PRICE
INCREASE AS A WILDLIFE
CONSERVATION GROUP. WE ALSO FEAR
THAT MAYBE 2028 WILL SERVE AS A
FINANCIAL DISINCENTIVE FOR
PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
OUTDOORS. AND BY UH, HUNTING
LICENSES, STAMPS AND TAGS IN
THIS DECREASE WILL THEN
NEGATIVELY IMPACT FUNDING FOR,
UH, PROJECTS TO CONSERVE HABITAT
, GATHER SCIENTIFIC DATA AND
ENFORCE OUR FISHING GAME LAWS.
SO FOR THOSE REASONS, WE URGE
YOUR OPPOSITION THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ARE THERE ANYONE ELSE IN
OPPOSITION? DAMON ALREADY DOING
, MR CHAIRMAN I GREG HERDER ON
BEHALF OF THE NINE CHAPTERS OF
SAFARI CLUB, INTERNATIONAL AND
OPPOSITION FOR ALL THE REASONS
STATED, THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
THAT BRING IT UP ONE MORE ONE
MORE WITH FEW NAMES. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR CHAIR MEMBERS.
RYAN CHAIRMAN OF THE RIVERSIDE
SHERIFFSASSOCIATION OPPOSITION,
ALSO ALONG WITH DEPUTY SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION, MONETARY, COUNTY,
PLASTER COUNTY AND THE POLICE
OFFICER ASSOCIATIONS FROM
CLAREMONT CORONA, POMONA. PALACE
FORTIES NEWPORT BEACH, UPLAND,
SANTA ANA, BURBANK, MARIA
ARCADIA, RIVERSIDE FULLERTON AND
COVER CITY ON OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. AND NOW WE'RE
BRINGING BACHELOR COMMITTEE
MEMBERS FOR ANY MR DAHLBERG. SO
I WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR I
THINK IT REALLY IMPORTANT BILL
AND THE UM AND THE SPONSORS
GIFFORD AND ALSO WANT TO THANK
THE FOLKS THAT ARE SITTING IN
THE AUDIENCE ALL AFTERNOON,
LOOKING AT YOUR T SHIRTS, AND I
THINK WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS
REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT. YOU
KNOW, WE ARE FACING AN EPIDEMIC
OF GUN VIOLENCE ACROSS THE
COUNTRY. I CAN'T GO HOME. ALMOST
ANY DAY NOW WITHOUT SAYING, UM,
INNOCENT PEOPLE BEING SHOT IN
MALLS AND IN SCHOOLS AND EVERY
PUBLIC PLACE AND, UM, AND
FRANKLY, WE NEED TO DO
EVERYTHING WE CAN TO SORT OF
STOP THAT AND FUNDING GUN
VIOLENCE PREVENTION PROGRAMS AS
PART OF THAT, AND SO I THINK
THAT IT'S AN IMPORTANT PROGRAM
THAT WE'RE FUNDING AND I THINK
THAT ASKING GUN OWNERS TO FUND
IT AS AN APPROPRIATE PLACE TO
LOOK FOR THAT FUNDING, SO I JUST
WANT TO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
THIS IMPORTANT, BILL. UM FORWARD
AND I WANT TO THANK GIFFORD FOR
RESPONSE. ORING IT FOLKS FROM
EVERY TALENT AND MOMS, DEMAND
ACTION AND THE BRADY CAMPAIGN
FOR THE WORK THAT YOU DO,
BECAUSE IT IS MORE IMPORTANT
THAN EVER. I THINK ULTIMATELY
WE'RE GOING TO THERE'S GOING TO
BE A TIPPING POINT IN THIS
COUNTRY IS COMING CLOSE. AND I
THINK WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS
MAKING THAT HAPPEN. SO PLEASE
KEEP UP THE WORK ON BEHALF OF MY
KIDS WHO HAVE JOINED YOU, AND
THAT'S AT CERTAIN TIMES. AND SO
I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU ALL.
YES. I WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR
FOR BRINGING FORWARD THIS BILL
AND APPRECIATE THAT GABRIEL
GARCIA FROM YOUTH ALIVE CAME TO
TESTIFY FROM OAKLAND TO REALLY
SPEAK TO THE FACT THAT GUN
VIOLENCE IN OAKLAND, UH IN 2021
WAS AT THE HIGHEST IT'S EVER
BEEN SINCE 2006 EVERY SINGLE
DAY. WE'RE LOSING CHILDREN.
MOTHERS, FATHERS. GRANDPARENTS
ARE FRIENDS TO GUN VIOLENCE, AND
, UH AND I APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR
PUTTING FORWARD SOMETHING THAT
ACTUALLY IS COMMON SENSE GUN
LAW. I'M FINE WITH PEOPLE
EXERCISING THEIR SECOND
AMENDMENT RIGHT TO OWN A GUN
RIGHT NOW ARE THE TAXATION RATE
AS YOU'VE LAID IT OUT FOR
PURCHASING A GUN IS ACTUALLY
LOWER THAN WHAT IT IS TO
PURCHASE CANNABIS. UH SO I
REALLY APPRECIATE YOU MOVING
FORWARD WITH THIS LEGISLATION. I
WILL SUPPORT IT WHOLEHEARTEDLY,
AND I WANT TO ALSO THANK MOMS
DEMAND ACTION AND STUDENTS
DEMAND ACTION WHO HAVE BEEN
SITTING HERE THROUGHOUT THE
ENTIRETY OF THIS VERY, VERY LONG
DAY, MR GABRIEL, YOU WERE
SUPPOSED TO GO FIRST. NOT LAST.
UM UH UH. AND UH, AND WANT TO
APPRECIATE JUST THE FACT THAT
YOU ARE WILLING TO MAKE SURE
THAT, UM THAT YOU KEEP ON
FIGHTING THIS FIGHT FOR US
BECAUSE OUR CHILDREN NEEDED
OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE?
YOU MAKE CLOTHES. YES THANK YOU.
MR CHAIRMAN. I WANT TO THANK
YOUR COMMITTEE FOR THE
THOUGHTFUL ANALYSIS ON A THANK
YOU. I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN A LEADER
ON CALVIN. UM AND HOW WE GOT
HERE. SO I WANNA THANK YOU FOR
THAT. I PARTICULARLY WANT TO
THANK AS ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BONTA
SAID THE INCREDIBLE ACTIVE
ACTIVISTS FROM MOM TO MAN. I AM
PROFOUNDLY GRATEFUL FOR YOUR
ACTIVISM ON SO MANY ISSUES. THE
TO ME. I ALWAYS SAY WHEN YOU
KNOW THAT THERE'S A GROUP OF
FOLKS IN RED SHIRTS BEHIND YOU
THAT'S A GOOD SIGNAL THAT YOU'RE
ON THE RIGHT PATH AND THE FACT
THAT ALL OF YOU HAVE STAYED HERE
ALL DAY THROUGH ALL OF THIS, I
THINK JUST DEMONSTRATES PUBLIC
SENTIMENT. WHAT AN IMPORTANT
ISSUE. THIS IS AND HOW MANY MOMS
AND PARENTS IN PARTICULAR
STUDENTS ARE FED UP WITH THE
FACT THAT YOUNG PEOPLE ARE DYING
IN THIS COUNTRY IN A WAY THAT
THEY DO NOT DIE IN ANY OTHER
COUNTRY. ON THE FACE OF THIS
EARTH, WE HEAR A LOT OF
CONVERSATION ABOUT THE CAUSES OF
GUN VIOLENCE. BUT THE TRUTH IS
THAT THIS IS A UNIQUELY AMERICAN
PHENOMENON. KIDS IN THIS COUNTRY
DIE IN MASS SHOOTINGS IN A WAY
THAT THEY DO NOT DIE IN ANY
OTHER COUNTRY AROUND THE WORLD.
AND WE KNOW THANKS TO THE
INCREDIBLE WORK OF GABRIEL
GARCIA AND HIS COLLEAGUES THAT
THERE ARE SOLUTIONS, THE THINGS
THAT THEY CAN DO PROGRAMS OUT
THERE THAT ARE SAVING THE LIVES
OF PEOPLE, PARTICULARLY IN LOW
INCOME COMMUNITIES, COMMUNITIES
OF COLOR COMMUNITY THAT ARE
DISPROPORTIONATELY BURDENED BY
GUN VIOLENCE. THAT WAS ONE OF
THANK HIM AND MIKE MCCLEAVE. LEE
GIFFORD'S FOR ALL THEIR
INCREDIBLE WORK. UM, LET ME JUST
SAY THIS. THIS IS NOT PUNITIVE.
AS WAS MENTIONED BY THE BY THE
WITNESSES IF WE IMPOSED AN 80%
OR 90% OR 100% TAX ON THE SALE
OF GUNS AND AMMUNITIONS, FIRST
OF ALL, THAT WOULDN'T EVEN CATCH
US UP TO THE COST OF GUN. THE
GUN VIOLENCE IS IMPOSING ON THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BUT WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT A VERY MODEST TAX
HERE THAT WOULD SIMPLY AS AS
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT HUMAN LIFE.
ON THE SAME EQUAL PLAYING FIELD
THAT WE ARE NOW HAVE FOR FUNDING
THERE FOR WILDLIFE, WHICH TO ME
SEEMS ABSOLUTELY ABSOLUTELY
COMMON SENSE AND IN A LOT OF
WAYS, I THINK ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
BONTA POINTED OUT, THE GUN
INDUSTRY HAS BEEN IN AN
ADVANTAGE POSITION. THEY HAVE
NOT BEEN TAXED IN A WAY THAT
ALMOST EVERY OTHER INDUSTRY HAS
BEEN TAXED. SO THEY ARE SITTING
IN A POSITION DESPITE THE HARM
THAT IS BEING IMPOSED IN THE
COST THAT IS BEING IMPOSED ON
COMMUNITIES THROUGHOUT THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA. THEY ARE IN A
SEVERELY ADVANTAGED POSITION,
AND THIS IS A VERY MODEST STEP
TO START TO CORRECT THAT, TOO.
FUND WITH A SUSTAINABLE,
PREDICTABLE SOURCE OF REVENUE
PROGRAMS THAT WILL SAVE LIVES.
SAVE THE LIVES OF YOUNG PEOPLE
IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SAVE
THE LIVES OF PARENTS AND START
TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN
PROTECTING PEOPLE. SO WITH THAT,
I WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AND
I VOTE. MHM. THANK YOU. DO WE
HAVE NEED A SECOND. AND I WANT
TO THANK YOU. MR GABRIEL AND,
UH, I DON'T WANT TO THANK THE
MOMS IN ACTION WAS HERE.
ACTUALLY, I THOUGHT YOU WERE
HERE ON MY DROVES BILLS, SO I
WAS VERY WEAKENED. MAYBE NEXT
TIME. UM. MM HMM. THIS IS
REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT. OH,
WHAT MAKES ME PROUD TO BE IN
CALIFORNIA. UM LIKE YOU HAVE A
BILL. I HAVE A BILL. IF WE WERE
IN TENNESSEE, I WOULD BE KICKED
OUT. THE STATE LEGISLATURE RIGHT
NOW. IN TENNESSEE. YOU CAN'T
EVEN GET THIS FAR. WOULD
LEGISLATION. AND SO WE SHOULD BE
REALLY PROUD ABOUT WHAT WE'RE
DOING HERE IN CALIFORNIA. WE
SHOULD BE REALLY PROUD OF WHAT
YOU'RE DOING WHAT YOU CONTINUE
TO DO FOR THIS, BECAUSE, UM,
EVERYBODY HAS THAT EVERYBODY HAS
FIGHTERS. OR STATE THAT
UNDERSTANDS WHERE WE NEED TO BE.
AND UH AND SO WHENEVER I TALK
ABOUT CALIFORNIA, I TALK ABOUT
IT WITH PRIDE. GOOD I KNOW
OUTSIDE OF OUR BORDERS. NOT
ALWAYS THE SAME. AND SO IT TAKES
A LOT OF COURAGE TO JUST
CONTINUE TO DO THIS. SO I THANK
YOU FOR THE BILL RECOMMENDING I
VOTE. YEAH. ON A B 28 BY SOME
MEMBER GABRIEL. THE MOTION IS
DUE PAST THE REVENUE AND
TAXATION COMMITTEE. JOHN SAWYER
ELONIS ALANIS, NO BAN TO BAN TO
JACKSON JACKSON I LACKEY LACKEY
NOTE. ORTEGA ORTEGA I SANTIAGO
SANTIAGO EYES RUBBER ZIPPER I
PASTORS. THANK YOU. NEXT WE WILL
DO ANY ADD ONS. LIFTING OF
CALLS. ANY VOTE CHANGES. MR
SANTIAGO COMING INTO FLOAT. OH
MADAM SECRETARY. PLEASE GO
THROUGH ALL THE MEASURES TAKEN
UP TODAY. AND THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. SANTIAGO SANTIAGO
EISENBERG ZIPPER, AYE. I DON'T
WANT A B 28 WAS JUST DISPENSE
WITH I DON'T NUMBER TWO, MAYBE
79 WAS PULLED BY THE AUTHOR.
ITEM NUMBER THREE. MAYBE 5 74 BY
JONES ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S JONES
SAWYER. SANTIAGO SANTIAGO AYE.
ITEM NUMBER FOUR A. B 6 30 TO
THIS MEASURE WAS ON CALL BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S TEEN SANTIAGO.
ALRIGHT SANTIAGO EISENBERG. ER I
THAT MEASURE PASSES. I DON'T
NUMBER 5 87 09 WAS DONE CONSENT.
ITEM NUMBER SIX, ABC, 7 50 WAS
ON CONSENT ITEM NUMBER 7 87 62
WAS PULLED BY THE AUTHOR. I
DIDN'T NUMBER 8 87 93 HAS BEEN
DISPENSED WITH ITEM NUMBER 9 87
98 WAS ON CONSENT. ITEM NUMBER
10 A B 808 BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
MATHIS. THIS MEASURE WAS ON CALL
JACKSON JACKSON NOT VOTING.
SANTIAGO SANTIAGO, NOT VOTING
ZILBER. ZEBRA NOT VOTING. THAT
MEASURE FAILS. VOTE FOR
RECONSIDERATION ARE YES AND
VOTE. WE ASKED FOR A NEW UNITED
CONSENT. YES. BY UNANIMOUS
CONSENT WILL BE GRANNY
RECONSIDERATION. THE ABBEY A.
OH, EIGHT. AN ITEM OF EXCUSE ME
. ITEM NUMBER 11 8 58 51 WAS
PULLED BY THE AUTHOR. ITEM
NUMBER 12 88 56 WAS PULLED BY
THE AUTHOR. ITEM NUMBER 13 89 45
WAS ON CONSENT ITEM NUMBER 14 A
B 10 90 SANTIAGO SANTIAGO AYE.
ITEM NUMBER 15. MAYBE 11 33 BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S SHE IVO. THIS
MEASURE WAS ON CALL LACKEY. NO
LACKING NO ORTEGA OR TAKE UP
EYES. SANTIAGO SANTIAGO I THAT
MEASURE PASSES. ITEM NUMBER 16 A
B 12 14 BY SEVEN MEMBER
MAIENSCHEIN LACKEY LACKEY I,
ORTEGA ORTEGA I SANTIAGO
SANTIAGO. AYE. ITEM NUMBER 17 80
12 60 BY OSAMA MEMBER JOE
PATTERSON. THIS MEASURE WAS ON
CALL JACKSON JACKSON. NO LACKEY.
HI I SANTIAGO. SANTIAGO NO
ZIPPER ZABAR NÓ. AND. WE HAVE TO
WRITE THIS OUT GRAND JURY
CONSIDERATION. IF THERE'S NO
OBJECTION BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
ITEM NUMBER 18 80 12 61 HAS BEEN
DISPENSED WITH ITEM NUMBER 1980
12 1991 WAS ON CONSENT ITEM
NUMBER 2013 OH, SIX BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S CARILLO. THIS
MEASURE WAS ON CALL JACKSON
JACKSON. I SANTIAGO SANTIAGO I
THAT MEASURE PASSES ITEM 21 ÁP
13 60 BY A SEVEN MEMBER
MCCARTHY. THIS MEASURE WAS ON
CALL. JOHN SAWYER VOTING SO
YOU'RE NOT VOTING ALL UNEASE.
ELONIS? AYE. OKAY, LACKEY.
ABSTAINED I LACKEY FROM ABSTAIN
, TOO. I ORTEGA ORTEGA I
SANTIAGO 37. NO IT'S IT WAS A B
13 60 BY SEVEN MEMBER CARDI
REGARDING SANTIAGO I THAT
MEASURE NOW PASSES. ITEM NUMBER
2 22 EXCUSE ME, MAYBE 13 78 BY
SOME REMEMBER IS SILLY. JACKSON.
JACKSON NOT VOTING. SANTIAGO
SANTIAGO NOT VOTING. THAT BILL
HAS BEEN ALREADY BEEN GRANTED.
YOU UNANIMOUS. RECONSIDERATION
EXCUSE ME. IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY
ITEM. 23 A B 13 80 WAS PULLED BY
THE AUTHOR. ITEM NUMBER 24 A B
14 12 BY SOME MEMBER HEART. THIS
MEASURE WAS ON CALL JACKSON
JACKSON. I SANTIAGO SANTIAGO I
THAT MEASURE PASSES ITEM 25 80
14 97 WAS PULLED BY THE AUTHOR
ITEM NUMBER 26 80 15 OH, SEVEN,
WAS PULLED BY THE AUTHOR. ITEM
NUMBER 27. MAYBE 15 44 BY SEVEN
MEMBER LACKEY. THIS MEASURE WAS
ON CALL ORTEGA ORTEGA I SANTIAGO
SANTIAGO I THAT MEASURE PASSES.
ITEM 28. MAYBE 15 51 WAS PULLED
BY THE AUTHOR ITEM 29. MAYBE 15
82 BY SEVEN MEMBER DIXON. THIS
MEASURE WAS ON CALL JACKSON.
JACKSON NOT VOTING. SANTIAGO
SANTIAGO, NOT VOTING ZILBER. NOT
VOTING. THAT MEASURE FAILS,
RECONSIDERATION IF THERE'S NO
OBJECTION, OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS
UNANIMOUS CONCERNED. THANK YOU.
43 BY SOME REMEMBER BAUER-KAHAN.
JACKSON JACKSON I SANTIAGO
SANTIAGO. AYE. ITEM. 31 A B 17
OH, EIGHT WAS PULLED BY THE
AUTHOR. ITEM NUMBER 32 A B 17 26
BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S CHOLERA.
THIS MEASURE WAS ON CALL. JOHN
SAWYER. MS KARA? YES SIR. OKAY.
AH! JOHN SAWYER. I JACKSON
JACKSON. I SANTIAGO SANTIAGO I
THAT MEASURE PASSES ITEM 33 A B
17 39 BY SOME MEMBER SANCHEZ.
THIS MEASURE WAS ON CALL ORTEGA
ORTEGA I SANTIAGO. SANTIAGO I
THAT MEASURE PASSES ITEM 34 A B
17 46 BY A SEMI MEMBER, HOOVER
LONNIE'S ELONIS. AYE JACKSON
JACKSON NOT VOTING. SANTIAGO
SANTIAGO NOT VOTING. THAT
MEASURE DID YES, WERE GRANTED
CONSIDERATION. ARE YOU GUYS OKAY
WITH RECONSIDERATION EVERYONE,
OKAY, ALRIGHT. UH, THIS THIS
CONCLUDES THE BUSINESS FOR THE
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE. FOR YOU