GOOD MORNING. WE WILL CALL THIS
COMMITTEE HEARING TO ORDER WE
WILL ESTABLISH A QUORUM FIRST.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. MCCARTY.
HERE, ALANIS. LACKEY. WHEN
REYES. WILSON. ZIPPER. OK CO
PRESIDENT. WE DO HAVE A CONSENT
CALENDAR, WITH FIVE ITEMS
PROPOSED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR
, LOOKING FOR A MOTION ON THE
CONSENT CALENDAR. MR ZABER
MOVES. ASSEMBLY MEMBER WINS
SECONDS PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
AND THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
MCCARTY MCCARTY, I, ALANIS
ALANIS, I LACKEY WHEN I REYES
TING TING I WILSON ZER. ZIPPER
EYE. CONSENT CALENDAR IS ADOPTED
. UH WE HAVE ONE ITEM PULLED
FROM THE CALENDAR TODAY. THAT'S
A B 18. 96 BY DIXON PULLED BY
THE AUTHOR.
OK THANK YOU. WE'RE GONNA
PROCEED WITH ASSEMBLY MEMBER
FLORA. WE'RE THE FIRST ITEM.
ITEM NUMBER FIVE. ALL RIGHT.
GOOD MORNING. CHAIR MEMBERS WANT
TO THANK THE STAFF FOR THEIR
HARD WORK IN THE CHAIR ON THIS
BILL, BUT TODAY I'M PRESENTING A
B 1892. CURRENT LAW DOES NOT
ALLOW COURTS TO ISSUE AN ORDER
AUTHORIZING THE INTERCEPTION OF
ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS. IF
THE JUDGE FINDS THAT THERE IS
PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE IN
INDIVIDUAL IS COMMITTING A CHILD
SEX EXPLOITATION WHEN LAW
ENFORCEMENT EXECUTES A SEARCH
WARRANT, A CHILD PREDATOR
BECOMES AWARE OF OTHER CRIMES
BEING COMMITTED BY THE OTHER
INDIVIDUALS VIA ELECTRONIC
COMMUNICATIONS. THEY ARE UNABLE
TO USE THE SAME PROCESS FOR
CHILD EXPLOITATION. A B 9 1892
WOULD ALLOW CHILD, EXPLOITATION
AND RELATED CRIMES TO THE LIST
OF ELIGIBLE TIMES WERE
AUTHORIZING THE INTERCEPTION OF
ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION OF
CHILD PREDATORS. IF THE JUDGE
FINDS OR BELIEVES THERE'S
PROBABLE CAUSE AND RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR AN EYE VOTE. THANK YOU.
I HAVE WITNESSES. NÓ WITNESSES.
YOU'RE THE STAR WITNESS. WE HAVE
ANYBODY HERE TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT? MR. PATTERSON WILL SAY
SOME WORDS. EXCELLENT. I LOVE
THAT. I'M NOT SURE THAT HELPS
YOU OR HURTS YOU, BUT THAT'S A
FAIR POINT. YES. DON'T WANT TO
BREAK THIS MR CHAIR. GOOD
MORNING, MR CHAIR MEMBERS, COREY
CILLA ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION SUPPORT THANK YOU.
OTHER WITNESSES AND SUPPORT
SEEING NONE ANY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION. NÓ QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
MR ALANIS. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR.
I WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD TO
US. AND I'M NOT ALREADY A
CO-AUTHOR. PLEASE MAKE ME A
CO-AUTHOR AND I MOVE THE BILL.
NÓ FURTHER QUESTIONS. WE HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND. MY SOLO
MEMBER WIN. YOU WISH TO CLOSE,
RESPECTFUL AND I VOTE. OK, THANK
YOU. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. ON A
B 1892. BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER FLORA
. THE MOTION IS TO PASS AS
AMENDED TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. MCCARTY MCCARTY, I,
ALANIS ALANIS, I LACKEY WHEN I
REYES TEAM. WILSON. ZIPPER
ZIPPER EYE. MEASURE IS ON CALL.
NEXT AUTHOR MR PATTERSON. THREE.
MR RODRIGUEZ. REQUESTING THE B
THREE. ITEM NUMBER 2 80 1809.
ITEM NUMBER 2 1809. MR.
RODRIGUEZ, PLEASE BEGIN. THANK
YOU, MISTER. CHAIR MEMBERS.
THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT A B 1809,
WHICH WOULD MAKE IT IN
INCARCERATE A PERSON CONVICTED
OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER OF A
PEACE OFFICER INELIGIBLE FOR A
REDUCED SENTENCE UNDER THE
GENERAL RESENTENCING STATUTE.
BEFORE I BEGIN. I WOULD LIKE TO
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR AND YOUR
STAFF ARE WORKING WITH MY TEAM
AND ME ON A COMPROMISE TO
ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS
RAISED BY THE OPPOSITION. THAT
BEING SAID, I WOULD LIKE TO
ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS, WHICH WOULD STILL
ALLOW AN INCARCERATED PERSON TO
BE ELIGIBLE FOR RECALL AND
RESENTENCING. IF THERE IS
EVIDENCE THERE, CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED IN THE
PROCEEDINGS RELATED TO THE
CONVICTION OR IF THERE IS
EVIDENCE THAT UNDERMINES THE
INTEGRITY OF THE UNDERLYING
CONVICTION. LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS HAVE ONE OF THE MOST
DANGEROUS, DEMANDING AND
DIFFICULT JOBS IN THIS NATION.
THERE IS THEIR PERSONAL SAFETY
TO SERVE AND PROTECT THE PUBLIC
DAILY. ACCORDING TO THE FBI,
FELONY MURDERS OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS REACHED A
20 YEAR HIGH WHEN 73 OFFICERS
ACROSS THE UNITED STATES WERE
KILLED IN THE LINE OF DUTY IN
2021. LAST YEAR, CALIFORNIA LOST
SEVEN LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
IN THE LINE OF DUTY FOR THOSE
DEATHS WERE DUE TO GUNFIRE FROM
THE SUSPECT. THEIR TRAGIC DEATHS
ARE UNACCEPTABLE. EXISTING LAW
ALREADY PROHIBITS INCARCERATED
PERSONS CONVICTED OF FIRST
DEGREE MURDER FROM OTHER FORMS
OF RELEASE, SUCH AS COMPASSION,
RELEASE OR MEDICAL PAROLE.
COMPASSIONATE RELEASE ALLOWS A
COURT TO RE RECALL AN
INCARCERATED PERSON SENTENCE IF
THAT INDIVIDUAL IS PERMANENTLY
MEDICALLY. INCAS INCAPACITATED
AND HAS A SERIOUS ILLNESS WITH
THE END OF LIFE TRAJECTORY.
MEDICAL PRO ALLOWS THE BOARD OF
PUBLIC PAROLE HEARINGS TO PAROLE
INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE
PERMANENTLY INCAPACITATED BY A
MEDICAL CONDITION TO A LICENSED
HEALTH CARE FACILITY THAT MAY
SERVE THEIR MEDICAL AND HOUSING
NEEDS. UNLIKE COMPASSIONATE,
RELEASE, INCARCERATED PERSONS
WHO ARE MEDICALLY PAROLED,
REMAIN UNDER THE SUPERVISION AND
CONDITIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION. AND RETURNED TO
THE CDCR FACILITY ONCE THEIR
HEALTH IMPROVES. SO WHILE
EXISTING LAW MAKES OFFENDERS WHO
ARE FRAIL AND ARGUABLY LESS
LIKELY TO COMMIT A CRIME
INELIGIBLE FOR THESE TWO FORMS
OF RELIEF AN OFFENDER COULD
STILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR A REDUCED
SENTENCE UNDER THE GENERAL
RESENTENCING STATUTE. THIS BILL
WOULD CLOSE A LOOPHOLE TO ALLOW
WITH STATE LAW, WHICH ALREADY
RECOGNIZES THAT MURDERING A
PEACE OFFICER IS NÓ ORDINARY
CRIME AND THAT OFFENDERS SHOULD
NOT BENEFIT FROM CERTAIN FORMS
OF RELIEF WITH THAT, I WILL TURN
IT OVER TO MY WITNESS AND
SUPPORT CINDY DESILVA OF THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION.
GOOD MORNING DISTINGUISHED
MEMBERS. IT'S GOOD TO BE BACK
AGAIN THIS YEAR. UM YES, I'M
CINDY DA SILVA I'M A DEPUTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN SAN JOAQUIN
COUNTY. AND I'M HERE TO REGISTER
SUPPORT ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION
IN RECENT YEARS FOR VARIOUS
REASONS, WE HAVE SEEN A BIT OF
DEPARTURE, UM, AT LEAST FROM THE
PERSPECTIVE OF THE OFFICERS IN
TERMS OF OUR ELECTED BODIES,
LENDING THEM THEIR SUPPORT.
WE'VE UNFORTUNATELY WITNESSED
LOTS OF OFFICERS LEAVE THE
VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS. SAN
FRANCISCO IN PARTICULAR, UM VERY
HIGHLY TRAINED, HIGHLY QUALIFIED
AND WELL EDUCATED OFFICERS
ACTUALLY LEAVING THE DEPARTMENT
FOR VARIOUS REASONS, NOT THE
LEAST OF WHICH IS FEELING THERE
THAT THEY'RE NOT SUPPORT. BY THE
LAWS. UM RECENTLY, JUST IN LAST
WEEK'S ELECTION. SAN FRANCISCO
IN PARTICULAR, VOTED TO ROLL
BACK SOME OF THOSE RULES IN
ORDER TO GIVE MORE PROTECTION
AND A BIT MORE FREEDOM TO THE
OFFICERS IN ORDER TO PROTECT
THEIR CITIZENS AND, UH, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER RODRIGUEZ'S BILL HERE,
1809 REPRESENTS JUST A SMALL
SLIVER OF GIVING THEM A LITTLE
BIT MORE SUPPORT A LITTLE BIT OF
A RETURN TO THEM FEELING LIKE
THEY ARE SUPPORTED AND VALUED. I
KNOW THAT WHEN I WAS A LITTLE
GIRL, I WOULD WITH MY PARENTS
RIDE AROUND AT THE VARIOUS
FREEWAYS. SEE FREEWAYS NAMED
AFTER OFFICERS WITH ALL DUE
RESPECT. SOME OF THOSE NAMES
WERE MORE IN LINE WITH OTHER
PEOPLE'S GENERATIONS THAN MINE.
HOWEVER THESE DAYS, THE NAMES
I'M SEEING ARE FREQUENT AND
THEY'RE EVERYWHERE AND THEIR
NAMES THAT ARE RECOGNIZED FROM
THE NEWS OF JUST A FEW MONTHS
BEFORE, SO WE'RE SEEING LOTS OF
OFFICERS BEING MURDERED AND IT'S
GREAT THAT WE RECOGNIZE THEIR
NAMES ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD,
BUT FAR MORE BETTER IF WE CAN
OFFER THEIR FAMILIES, THE, UM
THE EMOTIONAL SUPPORT OF KNOWING
THAT THE SENTENCES FOR THEIR
PERPETRATORS ARE MORE SOLID AND
NOT SOMETHING THAT'S GONNA BE
SUBJECT TO CONTINUOUS, UH,
APPLICATIONS FOR REDUCTION. NOW
WE CAN HAVE GOOD, HEARTFELT
POLICY DEBATES ON WHETHER OR NOT
THE DEATH PENALTY OR SOMETHING
LIKE THAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR
THESE MOST HEINOUS OF CRIMES
AGAINST OUR CITIZENRY. BUT THIS
IS NOT EVEN THAT THIS IS JUST
OFFERING SOME PEACE AND QUIET
FOR THE FAMILY MEMBERS AS WELL
AS THOSE PEACE OFFICERS NOW WHO
KNOW THAT THEY DO FACE THIS
POTENTIALLY IN THEIR FUTURE. SO
EVEN WITH THESE AMENDMENTS, WE
ARE HAPPY TO SUPPORT THIS. SURE.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER WITNESSES.
IN SUPPORT. PLEASE LINE UP. NAME
AFFILIATION POSITION ONLY CHAIR
MEMBERS, JONATHAN FELDMAN WITH
THE CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT. MR CHAIR
MEMBERS, COREY SOZ ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA STATE SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT. MORNING,
MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS ANDRAS
RAMIREZ ON BEHALF OF THE MAYOR
OF THE CITY OF TURLOCK IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. OPPOSITION.
PLEASE COME FORWARD. IN THE
AUDIENCE. I'VE COME FIVE.
WHEREVER YOU LIKE. YOU HAVE FIVE
MINUTES IN IN COMBINATION. HOW
ARE YOU LIKE TO DIVVY IT UP? OR
A TERRIFIC I'LL. I'LL START US
OFF. UH, MY NAME IS RACHEL STOER
. AND I'M A CASE IN MITIGATION
SPECIALIST WITH THE FREEDOM
PROJECT, WHICH IS A HOLISTIC
LEGAL TEAM, UH, OUT OF THE SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE THAT FOCUSES SPECIFICALLY
ON POST-CONVICTION
REPRESENTATION. UH THIS
LEGISLATURE HAS PASSED SEVERAL
LAWS IN RECENT YEARS TO ALLOW
FOR A SECOND LOOK AT CERTAIN
SENTENCES AFTER A SIGNIFICANT
PERIOD OF TIME HAS PASSED TO
CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT
ADDITIONAL INCARCERATION HAS
ACTUALLY BECOME
COUNTERPRODUCTIVE, GIVEN A
PERSON'S DEMONSTRATED
REHABILITATION AND THE COST OF
INCARCERATION, UH, BOTH BOTH
FISCAL AND HUMAN. UH, AS A
PRACTITIONER, I CAN ATTEST THAT
THAT THOSE ARE DEEMED THAT THOSE
THE FEW THAT ARE DEEMED
APPROPRIATE FOR DISCRETIONARY
RESENTENCING ARE THE FOLKS WHO
HAVE SERVED DECADES OF
INCARCERATION WHO'VE DONE
EXCEPTIONAL AMOUNTS OF
PROGRAMMING WHO'VE SHOWN, UH,
PERSONAL RESPECT, PERSONAL
RESPECT FOR ALL PEOPLE FOR RULES
FOR LAWS, AND ARE THE PEOPLE
WHO'VE CRAFTED DETAILED RE ENTRY
PLANS THAT IDENTIFY HOUSING
SERVICES, EMPLOYMENT, UH, AND
COMMUNITY SUPPORT. UH, ANY
RESTRICTION ON SYSTEM INITIATED
RESENTENCING IS ABSOLUTELY
CONTRADICTORY TO ITS PUR.
PURPOSE UH, AS IT'S DESIGNED IN
THE FIRST PLACE FOR THE VERY
RARE INSTANCE WHERE THE SYSTEM
ITSELF. IS THAT A SENTENCE HAS
BECOME UNJUST. UH, UNDER
EXISTING LAW, THE ONLY WAY THAT
THAT AN INDIVIDUAL CAN EVEN BE
REITTER FOR CONSENT FOR
RESENTENCING IS IF A JUDGE A
PROSECUTOR OR èC, Dð èC R
INITIATES THE PROCESS. UH, SO
THIS MEANS THAT THE ONLY WAY ANY
RE RESENTENCING CAN BE INITIATED
, UH, IS IF IT HAS ALREADY BEEN
THOROUGHLY EXAMINED BY LAW
ENFORCEMENT OR THE JUDICIARY,
AND THESE ARE THE YOU KNOW, THE
VERY PEOPLE THAT WE TRUST AS A
PUBLIC SAFETY EXPERTS, UH, ONCE
INITIATED, UH, RESENTENCING.
ONLY HAPPEN IF A JUDGE AGREES,
AND A JUDGE CAN ONLY DECIDE ON A
PETITION AFTER THE VICTIM, UH OR
OR NEXT OF KIN HAS HAD, UM THE
OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. UH, IN
FACT, MOST S¼ SYSTEM INITIATED
RESENTENCING PETITIONS, UH,
PROCEED BECAUSE A VICTIM OR THE
VICTIM'S FAMILY ARE ACTUALLY
THERE IN AGREEMENT, UH OR HAVE
EXPLICITLY DEFERRED, UH, DECIDED
TO DEFER TO THE COURTS. UH, LAST
RESENTENCING DOESN'T NECESSARILY
MEAN RELEASE. UH IN THE MOST
SERIOUS CASES, IT'S ACTUALLY
MORE LIKELY TO MEAN AN EARLY
TURN AT THE PAROLE BOARD, OR, UM
, MODIFYING A SENTENCE FROM THE
DEATH PENALTY TO LIFE WITHOUT
THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE. UH IN
CONCLUSION TRUE JUSTICE HERE,
UH, MEANS EACH CASE IS
CONSIDERED ON ITS MERITS. UH,
SYSTEM INITIATED. RESENTENCING
IS A UNIQUE TOOL THAT WE NEED TO
ENSURE, UH, THAT WE CAN ADDRESS
UNFORESEEABLE INDIVIDUAL
CIRCUMSTANCES AND SENTENCES THAT
THEMSELVES HAVE BECOME HARMFUL.
RIGHT? MY NAME IS TOM TRANS. YES
TO TRAN, POLICY CONSULTANT WITH
THE ELLA BAKER CENTER FOR HUMAN
RIGHTS, AND WE RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSE THIS BILL CASES NEED TO
CONTINUE TO BE REVIEWED UNDER
INDIVIDUAL MERIT. WHEN THE
LEGISLATURE CARVES OUT GROUPS,
IT UNDERMINES THE CENTRAL TENET
OF JUSTICE, INDIVIDUALIZED
JUSTICE AND JURISPRUDENCE AND
BEING A FORMERLY INCARCERATED
PERSON WHO SPENT 10 YEARS
INCARCERATED. I CAN TELL YOU HOW
OPPORTUNITIES LIKE 1172 CREATED
AND TRANSFORMED A BETTER
CALIFORNIA. SYSTEM AND I CAN
TELL YOU HOW CATEGORICAL
EXEMPTIONS LIKE THIS ONE
CONTINUES TO UNDERMINE THE
PROGRESS THAT WE ARE MAKING. I
REMEMBER BEING ON A VIOLENT
LEVEL THREE PRISON YARD AND
THERE WAS NÓ PROGRAMS. THERE WAS
LIFE FIRST, THERE WAS NOTHING
BUT PEOPLE WITH LIFE SENSES, AND
THEY TRULY BELIEVE THE ONLY WAY
THEY WERE LEAVING PRISON WAS IN
A PINE BOX. AND SO, YES, THERE
WAS DRUGS ON THE YARD. THERE WAS
VIOLENCE ON THE YARD. BUT
SOMETHING WEIRD HAPPENED IN 2014
IN 2014. I SAW A LIFE FOR GET
RELEASED FROM PRISON. AND YOU
HAD TO BE THERE TO UNDERSTAND
WHAT HOPE DOES TO A PRISON YARD.
GANG MEMBERS BEGAN TO LEAVE
THEIR GANGS. THEY STARTED UP
SELF HELP PROGRAMS. I SAW WHITE
SUPREMACISTS START TAKING
PROGRAMS WHERE PEOPLE OF COLOR
AND THEN LEAVE THEIR BIGOTED
IDEOLOGIES BECAUSE THERE WERE SO
MOVED BY THE TRANSFORMATIVE
POWER OF HOPE ON A PRISON YARD.
AND I ALSO SEEN THE FLIP SIDE OF
WHEN CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS HAS
HARMED OUR POPULATION ON THE
INSIDE. I'VE SEEN ONE OF OUR
LEADERS ARE INCARCERATED LEADERS
CRUMBLED SPIRAL AND FALL WHEN
HIS CASE WAS CATEGORICALLY
EXEMPTED AND EXCLUDED FROM BEING
RESENTENCED. HE WENT FROM A
ROBUST LEADER ON THE INSIDE,
ENCOURAGING OTHERS TO
REHABILITATE TAKE PROGRAMS AND
CHANGE THEMSELVES TO BECOME A
SHELL OF A HUMAN BEING, BECAUSE
ALL HOPE WAS FROM HIM. AND WHEN
THAT HOPE WAS STRIPPED FROM HIM
THAT WAS STRIPPED FROM US ON THE
INSIDE. PEOPLE ON THE INSIDE,
WOULD STRIP OF LEADER THAT WE
DESPERATELY NEEDED. AND I'LL
CLOSE BY SAYING THAT I WAS
SENTENCED RESENTENCED THROUGH
1172. THAT MEANS THAT I HAD TO
GET MY CASE REVIEWED FOR TWO
YEARS BEFORE. FINALLY THEY
BROUGHT IN IN FRONT OF A JUDGE
TO BE REVIEWED AGAIN. AND THEN
FINALLY, I WAS RELEASED TODAY.
I'M A FATHER OF TWO BEAUTIFUL
CHILDREN. I'M A SMALL BUSINESS
OWNER WHO PAYS TAXES. AND I'M A
PROUD ADVOCATE. BUT THAT'S
POSSIBLE BECAUSE OF
OPPORTUNITIES LIKE 1172. SO I
ENCOURAGE YOU TO PLEASE DO NOT
PASS THIS BILL. EVEN WITH THOSE
EXEMPTIONS, SO THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. PLEASE LINE UP FOR YOUR,
UH, SUPPORT STATEMENTS. THANK
YOU ON BEHALF OF INITIATE
JUSTICE AND OPPOSITION. PARTNER.
MARGO GEORGE, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. JIM LINDBERG, ON BEHALF OF
THE FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON
LEGISLATION IN CALIFORNIA ALSO
OPPOSED. MELANIE KI¾M, SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE IN OPPOSITION AND ON
BEHALF OF THE FOLLOWING
ORGANIZATIONS IN OPPOSITION
CALIFORNIANS UNITED FOR A
RESPONSIBLE BUDGET COMMUNITIES
UNITED FOR RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
AND UNCOMMON LAW. BARBARA CHÁVEZ
ON BEHALF OF ELLA BAKER CENTER
FOR HUMAN RIGHTS. A BOTH GOOD
MORNING. MY NAME IS HALEY.
LITTLE I OPPOSE THIS BILL
REPRESENTING STANDING UP FOR
RACIAL JUSTICE BAY AREA IN
CALIFORNIA'S UNITED FOR A
RESPONSIBLE BUDGET. THANK YOU.
ERIC HENDERSON ON BEHALF OF A
èC LU, CALIFORNIA ACTION IN
OPPOSITION. OK, THAT'S IT
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MR LACKEY.
YEAH, THANK YOU. FIRST OF ALL I
WOULD LIKE TO SAY, UH TO THE
AUTHOR THAT I WOULD LIKE TO BE A
CO-AUTHOR ON THIS PARTICULAR
MEASURE. UM IT'S DIFFERENT WHEN
YOU HAVE PEOPLE THAT YOU'VE
WORKED WITH THAT ACTUALLY. FALL
INTO THIS CATEGORY. AS A VICTIM.
AND I THINK WE'RE VERY QUICK. A
GHOST VICTIMS. IN OUR PUBLIC
POLICY. AND YOU KNOW,
RECONSIDERATION. IS REASONABLE
IN MANY CASES. BUT IN THIS
SITUATION THE VICTIM STATUS GETS
NÓ RECONSIDERATION. THEY'RE
GONE. THEIR FAMILIES. NÓ LONGER
GET THE ASSOCIATION. OF THEIR
FAMILY MEMBER, AND IT WAS A
WILLFUL ACT. A WILLFUL ACT THAT
STOLE THEM. AND I THINK THAT.
WHEN WE CONSIDER JUSTICE. PLEASE
TRY TO REMEMBER THAT LADY
JUSTICE HAS TWO SIDES. NOT JUST
ONE. AND THE IMBALANCE. AND ARE
CONSIDERATION OFTEN. GOES TO THE
SIDE OF FORGIVENESS. AND I'M NOT
SAYING THAT FORGIVENESS. IS NOT
CALLED FOR. BUT THE WAY THAT
FORGIVENESS IS OFFERED MATTERS.
AND IN THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE
WHEN A COURT COMES AT A DECISION
AFTER A LONG, PAINFUL TRIAL.
THAT DECISION SHOULD STAND WITH
THIS KIND OF FINALITY TO THE
VICTIM. AND I STRONGLY AS YOU'D
AT LEAST THINK ABOUT THE
VICTIMS. WHEN YOU CONSIDER THIS
PROPOSAL, BECAUSE, UH, IT'S VERY
TRAGIC AND IT'S VERY, VERY, VERY
REAL AND THEIR CONSEQUENCE NEVER
GETS TO BE RECONSIDERED. THANK
YOU. MR Z. UM SO THE THING THAT
I AM STRUGGLING WITH IS THE FACT
THAT THIS DOESN'T GIVE A JUDGE
OR EVEN MORE THAN ONE JUDGE.
INABILITY TO RECONSIDER EVEN
WHEN JUSTICE DEMANDS IT. UM SO
THE QUESTION I HAVE IS WHAT'S
THE PROBLEM? WE'RE TRYING TO FIX
. UM HOW MANY TIMES HAVE WE
ACTUALLY HAD A RECONSIDERATION
OCCUR? WHERE UM, IT WAS CLEARLY
AN ERROR BECAUSE PERHAPS YOU HAD
A LENIENT JUDGE THAT WASN'T
TAKING INTO ACCOUNT. UH THE RISK
TO SOCIETY AND TO THE VICTIMS.
UM HOW OFTEN IS THIS OCCURRING?
I ACTUALLY LIKE THE AUTHOR. AND
ACTUALLY, UH, THE FOLKS THAT ARE
POSING THIS TO ANSWER THAT, IF
POSSIBLE. WITH THAT SAID RIGHT
NOW, CURRENTLY THERE'S ONLY ONE
INDIVIDUAL INCARCERATED
CURRENTLY, RIGHT NOW, AS OF, UH
NOVEMBER. 30TH 2023, ONLY ONE
INDIVIDUAL'S CAR IS CURRENTLY
INCARCERATED FOR FIRST DEGREE
MURDER OF PEACE OFFICERS. SO
THAT SHOULD TELL YOU THE
POPULATION. WE'RE LOOKING AT
ONLY ONE CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW, SO
ALL I WANT TO DO IS I CHOOSE
THIS LEGISLATION TO CLOSE THE
LOOPHOLE THAT LINE WITH STATE
EXISTING, UH, CLAUSE SO VERY,
VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE OF FOLKS
THIS WOULD AFFECT AND REALLY
THAT HASN'T BEEN AN ISSUE YET,
BUT I JUST WANTED TO PUT
SOMETHING ON THE BOOKS NOW, IN
CASE THEY WERE TO COME UP IN THE
FUTURE DATE THAT THERE IS
EXISTING LAW THAT KIND OF
CLOSES. LOOPHOLE. YOU KNOW, I
THINK THE THING THAT'S HARD IS
OBVIOUSLY I DO BELIEVE THAT YOU
KNOW WHEN PEACE OFFICERS PUT
THEIR LIVES ON THE LINE. THAT'S
A RISK THAT IS DIFFERENT. ON THE
OTHER HAND. AND JUST VERY
CONCERNED ABOUT THE PRECEDENT
THIS SETS BECAUSE I GENERALLY WE
SHOULD BE. RELYING ON JUDGES TO
MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT'S IN
THE BEST INTERESTS OF ACHIEVING
JUSTICE, AND THIS IS RUNNING
COUNTER TO THAT. UM, AND I DON'T
SORT OF SEE HOW THE IT'S JUST
RUNNING COUNTERED THAT, UM AND I
DON'T SORT OF SEE THAT THERE IS
A HUGE PROBLEM HERE THAT WE'RE
TRYING TO FIX. SETTING A
PRECEDENT THAT OPENS THIS UP FOR
A LOT OF OTHER CASES THAT ARE
GOING TO BE DIFFICULT, SO I'M I
JUST GOT TO SAY I'M REALLY
STRUGGLING WITH THIS. AND I HOPE
WITH THAT SAID THAT THAT WAS
PART OF THE REASON WHY THEY
ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE'S
RECOMMENDATIONS. WHICH WOULD SAY
WHAT SAYS, UH, THE AMENDMENTS
WERE STILL ALLOWED IN
INCARCERATED PERSON TO BE
ELIGIBLE FOR RECALL AND
RESENTENCING IF THERE'S EVIDENCE
THAT THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
WERE VIOLATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS
RELATED TO THEIR CONVICTION, SO
HOPEFULLY THAT WOULD BE A LITTLE
BIT MORE COMFORTING TO FOLKS
THAT MAY BE STRUGGLING THAT
THEY'RE STILL THAT OPTION IS
AVAILABLE OUT THERE IF IT COMES
OUT FORWARD RIGHT THAT THERE IS
ISSUES. WITH THAT PARTICULAR
CASE. UH, CAN I ADD SOMETHING?
UM I WOULD JUST ADD THAT YOU
KNOW, DISCRETIONARY SYSTEM
INITIATED. RESENTENCING IS
SPECIFIC IS THE LAST RESORT. UM
THERE ARE ALREADY MECHANISMS OR
VEHICLES FOR PEOPLE TO BE
RESENTENCED. IF THEY'RE, UM YOU
KNOW IF THERE WAS NEW EVIDENCE
OR IT WAS DEEMED
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, UH AND SO THIS
IS FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T WOULDN'T
FALL UNDER THAT UMBRELLA. UM AND
THERE'S NÓ EVIDENCE THAT THAT
THIS LAW IS BEING ABUSED OR HAS
BEEN ABUSED. SO I THINK THAT
EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID OF THIS
IS, UH, SOLVING A PROBLEM THAT
DOESN'T EXIST WOULD UH, YEAH,
OUR ARGUMENT. UM QUESTIONS. DO
YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THIS ONE?
SHE WANTS TO ANSWER ON MY PRIOR
QUESTIONS. IF THAT'S OK, MR
CHAIR MICA DOCTOR OFF ON BEHALF
OF A èC LU CALIFORNIA ACTION. I
JUST WANTED TO SPEAK TO TWO
THINGS VERY QUICKLY, UM ONE JUST
WITH RESPECT TO WHAT THE AUTHOR
JUST STATED THIS WOULD ACTUALLY
APPLY TO MORE THAN ONE PERSON.
THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE PERSON
IN, UM CARER. CURRENTLY WHO THIS
WOULD APPLY TO, INCLUDING PEOPLE
WHO HAVE BEEN CONVICTED UNDER
THE FELONY MURDER STATUTE. UM
AND THEN JUST SORT OF
REITERATING WHAT? MY COLLEAGUE
SAID THE DECISIONS TO RESENTENCE
SOMEBODY COME AFTER A VERY, VERY
LENGTHY PROCESS. SO TO YOUR
QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THIS HAS
BEEN APPLIED, UM ERRONEOUSLY,
THERE'S A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF
CONSIDERATION THAT GO INTO THESE
CASES. AND UM, AS MY COLLEAGUE
SAID, YOU KNOW, THE UM VICTIM'S
FAMILY MEMBERS ARE OFTEN VERY
INVOLVED. THERE ARE A LOT OF
WORK BEING DONE AROUND HOME
PLANNING AND CONSIDERING THE
PERSON'S ENTIRE UM, RECORD WHILE
INCARCERATED. SO THESE ARE NOT
DECISIONS THAT ARE REACHED
LIGHTLY. AND SO I THINK FOR THAT
REASON, UM THERE IS A LOT OF
ASSURANCE THAT THESE THESE
DECISIONS ARE BEING MADE WITH A
LOT OF, UM, CONSIDERATION
BRIEFLY. I THINK YOU WANT TO
ADDRESS THIS AND WE NEED TO MOVE
ON. THANK YOU. THE ASSEMBLY
MEMBERS. UH, COMMENTS ARE WELL
TAKEN. I WOULD POINT OUT THAT
THERE'S ALWAYS THE OPTION OF A
PARDON BY THE GOVERNOR IN THE
EVENT THAT IT DIDN'T FALL INTO
ONE OF THE OTHER EXISTING
CATEGORIES. FOR A RECALL OR
RESENTENCE OR SOMETHING LIKE
THAT. AND THOSE THINGS DO HAPPEN
AND I WOULD JUST DOVETAIL OFF OF
WHAT ASSEMBLY MEMBER LACKEY SAID
ABOUT THE FINALITY. WHEN WHEN,
WHEN YOU KEEP GETTING CALLS
EVERY YEAR THAT IT'S BACK ON
CALENDAR FOR SOMETHING THESE
PEOPLE CAN NEVER REST. THANK YOU
FOR THE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MR
LANICE AND MR Tð. SO, UH, ONE OF
THE BIG, HUGE PROBLEMS THAT WAS
BROUGHT UP THAT HAS NOT BEEN
ADDRESSED AS, UH, THE DETERRENCE
OF KILLING LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS USED TO BE DEATH
PENALTY. DEATH PENALTY HAS BEEN
TAKEN OFF THAT TABLE. I KNOW YOU
MENTIONED EARLIER THAT DEATH
PENALTY CAN BE DROPPED DOWN TO
UM, LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE, BUT
THAT'S THE WAY IT IS IN
CALIFORNIA. NOW, THAT'S
SOMETHING THAT WE'RE NOT TALKING
ABOUT. SO THIS BILL DOES JUST
HELP A LITTLE BIT WITH THAT
DETERRENCE. UH I. I HAVE A
FRIEND OF MINE WHO WAS A MAYOR
IN MY DISTRICT IN TURLOCK. I'M
SURE THEY CAME UP FOR SUPPORT.
UH, 19 YEARS AGO, SHE WAS A COP
IN RICHMOND AND SOMEBODY TOOK
AIM OVER HER MARK PATROL CAR
WITH AN A Kò 47. AND THANKFULLY,
THE TRIGGER. IT DIDN'T WORK WHEN
THEY PULLED IT, AND THAT PERSON
WAS GIVEN 32 YEARS AND WAS JUST
RELEASED LAST YEAR, DOING ONLY
19 YEARS. AS YOU GUYS MAY KNOW,
I WAS A FORMER LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER. I RETIRED IN JULY. I
HAVE A SON WHO'S A DEPUTY AS
WELL. AND I HAVE MANY FRIENDS
WHO ARE ALSO IN LAW ENFORCEMENT.
UH, IT'S REALLY HARD TO RECRUIT
YOUNG OFFICERS RIGHT NOW,
ESPECIALLY KNOWING THAT
BASICALLY, THE LAWS OR THE
GOVERNMENT DON'T HAVE THEIR BACK
THAT IF THEY DO, LOSE THEIR
LIFE, THEIR LIVES IN THE LINE OF
DUTY THAT IT DOESN'T MATTER SO
MUCH, UH, TAKING A LIFE OF AN
OFFICER IS A VERY HEINOUS CRIME.
UH TO TAKE AAA PEACEKEEPER'S
LIFE IS HUGE AND I. I THINK THIS
THIS BILL JUST SHOWS JUST A
LITTLE BIT OF THE GRATITUDE AND
RESPECT I THINK LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS NEED TO RECEIVE FOR
THIS. AND UH, WE WERE WE WERE
TALKED ABOUT UNDERMINING AND
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HOPE. UH,
AND I GET THAT FOR THOSE
INCARCERATED, BUT WHEN THEY TAKE
THOSE SENTENCES, THEY KNOW THAT
THAT'S THEIR SENTENCE, AND
THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE GETTING FOR
THE CRIME THAT THEY RECEIVED.
AND THOSE SENTENCES. DON'T JUST
COME EASY, LIKE WAS MENTIONED
HERE. THESE THESE TRIALS GO FOR
A LONG TIME, AND THEY DON'T JUST
COME UP WITH THESE ARBITRARY
YEARS OF TIME THEY HAVE TO DO IN
PRISON, SO TO UNDERMINE. I THINK
WE'RE UNDERMINING THE VICTIMS
AND THEIR FAMILIES. I I'VE HAD
WELL OVER 10 OF MY FRIENDS WHOSE
NAMES OVER THERE ON THAT WALL
ACROSS THE STREET AND THEIR
FAMILIES. JUSTICE WAS KNOWING
THAT THE PERSON THAT DID IT GOT
THAT TIME IN PRISON AND KEPT THE
PUBLIC SAFE FROM THAT PERSON AND
LETTING THEM OUT EARLIER AGAIN.
JUST UNDERMINES THAT. SO TO THE
AUTHOR, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
THIS. I WOULD LIKE TO CO-AUTHOR
THIS AND I WOULD MOVE THE BILL.
MOST OF THE SECOND MR TING.
THANK YOU FIRST, I THINK AS A
COMMITTEE WE ALL STAND IN
WANTING TO SUPPORT OUR PEACE
OFFICERS. WE THINK ABSOLUTELY. I
AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE FROM
MODES, SO THIS IS ABSOLUTELY A
HEINOUS CRIME. UM HAVING SAID
THAT GOING BACK TO, UM YOU KNOW,
MY COLLEAGUE FROM L A'S COMMENTS
OR QUESTIONS? UM THIS. IS UM II.
I THINK THERE'S A
MISCHARACTERIZATION OF THIS AS A
AS A LOOPHOLE. SO AGAIN, THE
RESENTENCING PROCESS IS CARRIED
OUT ONLY BY LAW ENFORCEMENT.
RIGHT IT'S BY èC Dð èC R. IT'S
BY THE PROSECUTORS, AND IT IS,
UM BY THE JUDGES, SO II. I AM
CURIOUS WHY YOU KNOW, FOR THE
PROPONENTS. WHY IN PARTICULAR
YOUR SINGLING OUT THIS ONE
PARTICULAR CRIME. THERE'S
ANOTHER THERE MANY OTHER, YOU
KNOW HORRIBLE THINGS THAT ARE
DONE OUT THERE, UH, TO REALLY
FORBID A SECOND LOOK FROM AGAIN.
THE VERY PEOPLE WHO ARE INVOLVED
IN THAT, UH PARTICULAR
PROSECUTION OR THAT
INCARCERATION. MR RODRIGUEZ OR
YOUR WITNESS WOULD LIKE TO
ANSWER. OH I BELIEVE IT'S AN
AUTHOR SPONSORED BILL. SO I
WOULD HATE TO SPEAK FOR THE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER. BUT I REALLY
IT'S JUST ONE WAY TO ADDRESS
THIS ISSUE MOVING FORWARD
BECAUSE IF WE DON'T HAVE
ANYTHING IN STATE NOW SAY
SOMETHING HAPPENS DOWN THE LINE
FIVE YEARS FROM NOW OR SOMETHING
THAT THIS NOW BECOMES AN ISSUE,
AND SOMEBODY IS RELEASED FROM
PRISON WHEN THEY WERE CONVICTED
OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER OF A
PEACE OFFICER. AND JUST TRYING
TO TAKE, UH, APPROACH AT IT. NOW
VERSUS HAVING SOMETHING COME UP
IN THE FUTURE THAT WE SHOULD
HAVE REALLY LOOKED AT THIS IN
THE YEARS IN THE PAST. AND
REALLY, ONCE AGAIN, IT PROBABLY
ONLY A VERY SMALL POPULATION OF
INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS. AND
ONCE AGAIN, IT'S A MURDER OF A
PEACE OFFICER DOING THEIR JOB,
RIGHT. THAT'S ALL WE'RE LOOKING
AT. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ANY
OTHER TYPES OF CASES OTHER THAN
ONE WHEN YOU TAKE SOMEONE'S LIFE
THAT'S TO PROTECT OUR LIVES AND
THE SAFETY OF THE STATE AND
WITHOUT SPEAKING FOR THE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, I WOULD SAY IN
TERMS OF WHY THE AUTHOR HAS
CHOSEN THIS, UM I THINK WE IN
CRIMINAL JUSTICE HAVE REALIZED
THAT THERE'S A DEFINITE
PERCEPTION THAT THE P THE
PENDULUM SWUNG TOO FAR. TRYING
TO, UM, SOLVE OUR ROLE IN THAT
BY TAKING MEASURED MEASURES IF
YOU WILL, AND THIS IS ONE OF
THOSE SMALLER MEASURES THAT
DOESN'T ADD A NEW CRIME. IT
DOESN'T ADD, UM EXTRA TIME. IT
DOESN'T CHANGE IT TO THE DEATH
PENALTY. IT JUST TAKES ONE
LITTLE ASPECT WHERE POLICE
OFFICERS ARE FEELING INCREDIBLY
VULNERABLE AND ARE LEAVING THE
DEPARTMENTS AND SOMETIMES
LEAVING THE STATE. I KNOW FROM
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, UM, THAT
THIS WOULD BE A NEWSPAPER
HEADLINE THAT WOULD LET THEM
KNOW YOUR LEGISLATURE CARES
ABOUT YOU. AND SO I'D SUBMIT.
THANK YOU. FOR THE QUESTIONS.
NONE. MR RODRIGUEZ. I'D LIKE TO
CLOSE ONCE AGAIN. I WANT TO
THANK EVERYBODY FOR THE
COMMITTEE AND THE CHAIRMAN FOR
THE WORK YOU'VE DONE IN OUR
STRUCK YOU ASK FOR I VOTE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU HAVE A MOTION TO
SECOND. MR LACK, MISTER LANA,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. ON MAY 18
Ó NINE BY MISS ASSEMBLY MEMBER
RODRIGUEZ, THE MOTION IS TO PASS
AS AMENDED. MCCARTY MCCARTY, I,
ALAN, ALAN, I LACKEY LACKY I
WHEN I REYES REYES. I TING TING
I WILSON. ZIPPER. A EYE. AS YOU
PASSES NEXT AUTHOR MR PATTERSON.
ADDRESS.
IS THAT ONE MEASURE HERE TODAY?
MR PATTERSON, PLEASE PROCEED.
YES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, UM
GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. I'M PLEASED TO PRESENT
A B 2035 ALSO WANT TO NOTE UH
SHARE THIS BILL BE AMENDED IN
THE FUTURE. MR ALANIS WILL BE
ADDED AS A JOINT AUTHOR. UM I
WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR WHAT MY
BILL DOES BECAUSE IT'S PRETTY
SIMPLE. ACTUALLY IT DOESN'T
PREVENT THE STATE FROM
CONTINUING TO RELEASE SEXUALLY
VIOLENT PREDATORS. AND I KNOW
THERE ARE DIFFERENT OPINIONS ON
THAT. BUT THIS BILL DOES NOT DO
THAT THEY CAN CONTINUE TO FIND
SUITABLE HOUSING. UM FOR THESE
OFFENDERS, ALL A B 2035 DOES IS
DEFINE WHAT QUALIFIED HOUSING IS
WHEN IT COMES TO VIOLENT
PREDATORS. IN SHORT, IT
EFFECTIVELY BANS THE PLACEMENT
OF S¼ VÆ P S¼ IN HOTELS. IT'S AS
SIMPLE AS THAT. WHY DO WE NEED
THIS FOR TWO REASONS? ONE A VERY
POOR TRACK RECORD OF SUCCESS
WITH 75% OF TRANSIENT RELEASES
BEING REHOSPITALIZED OR REVOKED
AND TWO BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT THE
STATES, EXPERTS SAY. FROM
CALIFORNIA SEX OFFENDER
MANAGEMENT BOARD IN THEIR
JANUARY 2023 REPORT TO THE
INITIAL HIGH RISK SPENDER AND S¼
VÆ P TASK FORCE IN 2006. THEY
ALL SAY TRANSIENT RELEASES DO
NOT WORK. F S¼ VÆ P S¼ IN HOTELS
IS A HUGE FAILURE. THIS IS WHAT
THE DATA SAYS. IT DOESN'T WORK
FOR THE PUBLIC AND IT DOESN'T
WORK FOR THE OFFENDER, EITHER.
IT'S LOSE LOSE IF WE WANT S¼ VÆ
P S¼ TO BE SUCCESSFULLY AND
PROPERLY REINTEGRATED INTO
SOCIETY. CALIFORNIA OUGHT TO SET
THEM UP FOR SUCCESS. TRANSIENT
RELEASE IS NOT IT. THE ANALYSIS
POINTS OUT STRICT MONITORING. I
BELIEVE IT. BUT THE BAD NEWS IS,
THESE INDIVIDUALS ARE GOING BACK
TO THE HOSPITAL BECAUSE,
ACCORDING TO THE CALIFORNIA SEX
FENDER MANAGEMENT BOARD'S 2023
REPORT, WHICH IS RIGHT HERE, 75%
OF TRANSIENT PARTICIPANTS WERE
RESIZED OR REVOKED, QUOTE
UNQUOTE DUE TO SERIOUS
VIOLATIONS. WHO IS THAT GOOD
FOR? LET ME QUOTE FROM THEM
TRANSIENT S¼ VÆ P CONDITIONAL,
REPLACE PLACEMENTS ARE
INCONSISTENT WITH EVIDENCE BASED
BEST PRACTICE GUIDELINES AND
SHOULD BE AVOIDED. SEX OFFENDER
MANAGEMENT BOARD INCLUDES PUBLIC
DEFENDERS LAW ENFORCEMENT CITY
OFFICIAL APPOINTMENTS BY THE
SPEAKER AND GOVERNOR, ET CETERA.
THESE ARE THEIR WORDS, NOT MINE,
BUT IT ISN'T POSSIBLE TO
PROPERLY MONITOR IN A HOTEL. LET
ME EXPLAIN IN A HOTEL OR HIGH
DENSITY SETTING, GP S¼ CAN'T
PICK THE FLOOR IN WHICH THE SVP
IS LOCATED. JUST LOOK AT YOUR
IPHONES. FIND MY FRIEND APP. IF
WE WERE TRACKING EACH OTHER, WE
CAN SEE WE'RE ALL LOCATED IN
THIS BUILDING. BUT WE CAN'T SEE
WHAT FLOOR WE'RE ON. I'LL DEFER
TO MY WITNESSES TO ELABORATE,
BUT THE ONE THING THAT STRUCK ME
WAS THIS IN THE CASE OF FOR THE
S¼ VÆ P BEING RELEASED INTO MY
COMMUNITY, THE S¼ VÆ P STATED TO
THE JUDGE THAT IF THE
LEGISLATURE WANTED TO PROHIBIT
SVP'S FROM BEING RELEASED ON
TRANSIENT STATUS, THE
LEGISLATURE WOULD PROHIBIT IT IN
2006. I ACTUALLY WORKED AS A
LEGISLATIVE STAFFER FOR THE CO
CHAIRMAN OF THE HIGH RISK SEX
SPENDER AND SEXUALLY VIOLENT
OFFENDER TASK FORCE. THIS
BIPARTISAN TASK FORCE, WHICH
INCLUDED MEMBERS FROM BOTH
PARTIES, MEMBERS OF VARIOUS
ADMINISTRATIVE SEAS, INCLUDING
DEPARTMENT OF STATE HOSPITALS.
èC Dð, èC, R LAW ENFORCEMENT
VICTIMS PROBATION, LOCAL
GOVERNMENT AND ALSO
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE OFFENDERS
THEMSELVES. THEY PUT INTO REPORT
THE FOLLOWING LINE BECAUSE THE
S¼ VÆ P HAD NÓ PLACE TO LIVE.
THIS WAS, IN ESSENCE, A HOMELESS
RELEASE. HOMELESS RELEASES CAUSE
AN UNACCEPTABLE AND UNNECESSARY
RISK TO THE PUBLIC BECAUSE THE
INDIVIDUAL CANNOT BE PROPERLY
SUPERVISED, AND MANY OF THE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF RELEASE
CANNOT BE ENFORCED, SUCH AS GP
S¼ MONITORING. IN ASSOCIATIONS
WITH OTHER FELONS. THE TASK
FORCE BELIEVES THAT THE RELEASE
OF ANY S¼ VÆ P WITHOUT A HOME
INTO THE COMMUNITY CREATES AN
UNACCEPTABLY HIGH RISK TO THE
PUBLIC AND THE S¼ VÆ P. IN SHORT
, A B 20 THREE FIVE IS
CONTINUATION OF A RECOMMENDATION
FROM THE BODY THAT CREATED A LOT
OF THE LAW SURROUNDING SV P
RELEASES WITH THE PRIMARY
PURPOSE OF KEEPING EVERYONE SAFE
WITH ME. I HAVE, UH, THE MAYOR
OF THE FINE CITY OF ROSEVILLE,
BRUCE HOW TO SHOW AND ALSO, UH,
DISTRICT ATTORNEY MORGAN GUYER
FROM PLASTER COUNTY. GOOD
MORNING CHAIR MCCARTY AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON
BRUCE A. SHELL, THE MAYOR OF THE
CITY OF ROSEVILLE, A CITY A
THRIVING FULL SERVICE CITY OF
100 AND 58,000 JUST 30 MILES
EAST OF HERE, AND I'M PLEASED TO
BE HERE THIS MORNING IN SUPPORT
OF ASSEMBLY BILL 2035 AS MEMBER.
PATTERSON HAS DETAILED. THIS IS
BILL WITH VERY LIMITED, UH AND
BUT CRITICALLY IMPORTANT PURPOSE
BASED ON THE SITUATION ROOSEVELT
EXPERIENCED RECENTLY WITH THE
PROPOSED RELEASE OF A SEXUALLY
VIOLENT PREDATOR. COMMUNITY WE
BELIEVE THE CHANGE IN THIS BILL
IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO
ENSURE CLARITY TO THE COMMUNITY
TO THE COURTS TO THE STATE
DEPARTMENT OF HOSPITALS, LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND EQUALLY THE
INDIVIDUAL REGARDING WHAT IS
ALLOWED AS AN APPROPRIATE LIVING
ENVIRONMENT AND THE LOCATION OF
THAT ENVIRONMENT. SPECIFICALLY
THE BILL WOULD PROHIBIT THE
STATE DEPARTMENT OF HOSPITALS
FROM PLACING A PERSON WHO'S BEEN
CONDITIONALLY RELEASED IN THE
COMMUNITY. IF THE PERSON DOES
NOT HAVE HOUSING THAT'S A
QUALIFIED, DWELL. UNIT EARLIER,
THE STATE HOUSING DEPARTMENT OF
HO HOSPITALS PROPOSED TO RELEASE
A TRANSIENT INTO OUR COMMUNITY
IN A PARKED R VÆ, OR MOTOR
VEHICLE, WHICH IS A VIOLATION OF
OUR MUNICIPAL CODE. UH,
FURTHERMORE, THE OUR MUNICIPAL
CODE MAKES IT ILLEGAL TO CAMP ON
PUBLIC PROPERTY, EVEN IF WITHIN
A TRAILER MOTORHOME, R VÆ, OR
MOTOR VEHICLE. PUBLIC PROPERTY
INCLUDES STREETS, PARKS. E, èC,
MS CREEK BEDS AND OPEN SPACES.
SUBSEQUENTLY THE PROPOSED
RELEASE OF THIS INDIVIDUAL
AUTOMATICALLY VIOLATED THE
CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE IF YOU ARE
PLACED WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS
ULTIMATELY, THE ISSUES CREATED A
GREAT DEAL OF UNCERTAINTY. AND
IF YOU CAN IMAGINE A GREAT DEAL
OF CONSTERNATION IN OUR
COMMUNITY IF, ON THE OTHER HAND,
THERE WAS CLARITY AS PROPOSED BY
A B 2035 REGARDING A DWELLING
FOR THE PROPOSED VIOLET PREDATOR
IN THE FUTURE, IT WOULD DIMINISH
SOME OF THAT UNCERTAINTY. NEVER
ALL OF IT, BUT SOME OF IT FOR
SURE. THIS IS NOT TO SAY THIS
WOULD ELIMINATE THE CONCERNS
THAT IT CAN CREATE. HOWEVER
HAVING GREATER CLARITY WILL
ENSURE THAT ALL PARTIES WHO ARE
IMPACTED HAVE THE PROPOSED
ACTION. WHO WHO ARE IMPACTED BY
THE PROPOSED ACTION WILL HAVE A
PROFOUND UNDERSTANDING OF THE
PLAN AND POTENTIAL OUTCOME.
FURTHERMORE GREATER CLARITY WILL
ENSURE THAT A PLAN IS BEING
DEVELOPED FOR THE RELEASE OF A
SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATOR. THE
PLAN WILL BE PROPERLY DEFINED TO
ENSURE IT DOESN'T CONFLICT WITH
A LOCAL WITH A LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS, MUNICIPAL CODE OR
WITH THE RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS
OF THE PENAL CODE IN CLOSING THE
PLACEMENT OF THE SEXUALLY
VIOLENT PREDATOR IS A HIGHLY
CHARGED SITUATION THAN MORE
TIMES THAN NOT WILL CREATE
CONCERNS FOR COMMUNITIES
WHENEVER AND WHEREVER THEY
HAPPEN. THE ELIMINATION OF THE
AMBIGUITY AND UNCERTAINTY IS
BENEFICIAL TO ALL OF THOSE
INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS. IT
CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE BEEN
BENEFICIAL TO THE SITUATION OUR
CITY ENCOUNTERED SUBSEQUENTLY.
CITY ROSEVILLE. RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR STRONG SUPPORT OF A B
2035. THANK YOU NEXT WITNESS.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME
IS MORGAN GUY. I'M THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY FOR PLASTER COUNTY.
I'LL BE BRIEF. I THINK MOST OF
THE CONCERNS HAVE BEEN ALREADY
ADDRESSED. I WILL JUST ADD THAT
A B 2035 DOES NOT SEEK TO
PREVENT THE RELEASE OF SEXUALLY
VIOLENT PREDATORS BUT TO ENSURE
THEIR SUCCESS BY PROVIDING THEM
SECURE AND STABLE HOUSING
LIBERTY, THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE
HEALTH STATE HOSPITALS AS WELL
AS THE JUDGES IN THESE
PROCEEDINGS HAVE ALL ECHOED THE
SAME THING THAT THE TRANSIENT
HOUSING IS NOT WHAT WAS DESIGNED
UNDER THE S¼ VÆ P LAW. THE ONLY
MEASURE OF SUCCESS IS TO KEEP
THEM OUT OF THE STATE. HOSPITAL
AND TO KEEP OUR COMMUNITY SAFE
AND TRANSIENT HOUSING, EITHER IN
TRAILERS OR MOTELS SIMPLY
DOESN'T DO THAT. THE FAILURE
RATE REFLECTS THAT AND A B 2035
SEEKS TO PROVIDE THAT SECURE AND
STABLE HOUSING TO BOTH GUARANTEE
PUBLIC SAFETY AS WELL AS SETTING
OUR S¼ VÆ P S¼ UP FOR SUCCESS
RATHER THAN A SIMPLE RETURN BACK
TO THE STATE HOSPITAL WITH THAT,
I JUST ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WITNESSES
PLEASE LET UP IN ON THE SIDE AND
STATE YOUR POSITION. MR CHAIR
MEMBERS, COREY CELLO ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION IN SPORT. CINDY DA
SILVA ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT.
STEPHANIE HERRERA, ON BEHALF OF
THE E AND R PROJECT, AND THE B
Tð S¼ COMMISSION AND SUPPORT
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION. PLEASE
COME FORWARD.
OK, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO
SPLIT AMONGST YOURSELF. UM, I
THINK YOU SHOULD GO FIRST. GOOD
MORNING CHAIR AND MEMBERS
DIANICA ROAR, TESTIFYING ON
BEHALF OF ROOT AND REBOUND, BUT
ALSO IN MY PERSONAL CAPACITY AS
THE DAUGHTER OF A SURVIVOR OF A
VIOLENT CRIME. UM THE MAN WHO
RAPED MY MOM IN 1981 IS
CURRENTLY CIVILLY COMMITTED AS A
SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATOR CO
HOLDING THE STATE HOSPITAL. UM
COMPLETELY AGREE WITH SO MANY
THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN SAID HERE
AROUND NEEDING TO HAVE SUITABLE
PLACEMENTS FOR PEOPLE IF THEY
ARE CONDITIONALLY RELEASED, I
JUST AM NOT UNDERSTANDING HOW
FURTHER LIMITING AVAILABLE
HOUSING FOR PEOPLE ACTUALLY
SOLVES THAT PROBLEM AND BASED ON
WATCHING THIS EFFORT UNFOLD OVER
THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. IT
SEEMS TO ME AS THOUGH MANY
RESOURCES THAT HAVE BEEN DEVOTED
TO CHANGING STATE LAW TO PREVENT
A COUPLE OF PEOPLE FROM BEING
PLACED IN THE COMMUNITY COULD
HAVE BEEN SPENT ON ACTUALLY
TRYING TO CREATE OR FIND OR
SECURE APPROPRIATE HOUSING FOR A
PERSON WHO IS CONDITIONALLY
RELEASED. WHICH IT I THINK,
ACCORDING TO, UM THE ANALYSIS IS
LIKE 20. PEOPLE UM, THE TRUTH
IS, YOU KNOW WHEN SOMEBODY IS
CIVILLY COMMITTED THEIR ABILITY
TO EVER BE RELEASED FROM THAT IS
VERY LOW. I HAVE TALKED TO THE
ATTORNEYS THAT REPRESENT THE MAN
WHO HARMED MY MOTHER ABOUT THIS
AND THEY THINK IT'S VERY
UNLIKELY THAT THAT WILL EVER
HAPPEN FOR HIM. BUT IF IT DOES,
I CAN ALSO GUARANTEE YOU THAT MY
MOTHER AND MANY PEOPLE LIKE HER
WOULD BE MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE
KNOWING THAT THAT PERSON HAD A
STABLE AND SECURE PLACE TO LIVE
AND A COMMUNITY THAT WAS DEVOTED
TO MAKING SURE THAT THEY WERE
ABLE TO DO WELL UPON RELEASE AND
ACTUALLY FELT CONNECTED TO
PEOPLE AND AS THOUGH THEY HAD
SUPPORT IN NOT FALLING BACK INTO
HARMFUL BEHAVIOR. WHEN WE PASS
POLICIES LIKE THIS THAT CREATE
EFFECTIVELY SOCIAL PARIAHS. WHAT
INCENTIVE IS THERE TO TRY TO
LIVE A DIFFERENT KIND OF A LIFE
WHEN PEOPLE ARE HOPELESS?
THERE'S JUST REALLY NÓ REASON TO
TRY TO DO WELL AND BE A PART OF
YOUR COMMUNITY. IT SENDS A
STRONG MESSAGE THAT WE JUST WANT
TO ERASE PEOPLE. THAT'S NOT THE
SOCIETY THAT WE ARE LIVING IN.
WE DON'T GET TO DO THAT. SO I
OPPOSE THIS BEING THE SOLUTION
AND ENCOURAGE THOSE WHO ARE THE
PROPONENTS OF THIS TO DEVOTE THE
TIME AND ENERGY SPENT ON PASSING
THIS BILL TO ACTUALLY FINDING A
SUITABLE PLACE FOR THE PERSON
WHO WAS CONDITIONALLY RELEASED.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MARCO
GEORGE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION. UM A B 2035 IS
DESIGNED TO MAKE IT EVEN HARDER
TO PLACE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE
BEEN FOUND BY A COURT TO BE SAFE
UNDER SUPERVISION FOR RE RELEASE
INTO THE COMMUNITY. AND YOU
COULD NOT KEEP SOMEONE IN JAIL
FOR TWO YEARS PAST THEIR RELEASE
DATE. YOU COULD NOT KEEP SOMEONE
IN JAIL OR PRISON FOR TWO YEARS
PAST THEIR RELEASE DATE, THE
PERSON WHOSE SITUATION IS THE
GENESIS OF THIS BILL WAS ORDERED
RELEASED TWO YEARS AGO. THEY DID
A HOUSING SEARCH IN PLASTER
COUNTY COULD NOT FIND HOUSING
AND TRY TO RELEASE THE AND TO
AMADOR COUNTY THAT PROVOKED SUCH
AN UPROAR THAT THAT WAS
RESCINDED AND THEY'VE BEEN
TRYING TO PLACE THE PERSON AND
PLASTER COUNTY THE SAME, UM SEX
OFFENDER MANAGEMENT BOARD
REPORT. THAT THE AUTHOR IS
QUOTING FROM HAD A NUMBER OF
RECOMMENDATIONS TO TRY TO MAKE
THIS SITUATION BETTER, BECAUSE,
UM, AS NOTED IN THAT REPORT, IT
WAS IN 1922 REPORT. THIS LAW WAS
ENACTED IN 1996. 1000 PEOPLE
HAVE BEEN COMMITTED. ONLY 54
HAVE EVER BEEN RELEASED. AND
PART OF THAT IS BECAUSE THERE IS
AN INABILITY TO FIND HOUSING.
TWO YEARS AGO, THE LEGISLATURE
PASSED S¼ B 1034 AND AN EFFORT
TO BRING TOGETHER ALL OF THE
STAKEHOLDERS. LAW ENFORCEMENT,
THE Dð S¼. EVERYONE. THE DEFENSE
COUNSEL AND HAVE A COLLABORATIVE
PROCESS TO FIND HOUSING.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE THAT HAS NOT
BEEN FORTHCOMING. INSTEAD WHAT
HAS HAPPENED IS ALL TOO OFTEN.
LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE
PROSECUTION HAVE SOUGHT TO BLOCK
OR REJECT VARIOUS HOUSING. SO
ANOTHER RECOMMENDATION BESIDES
ASKING FOR COLLABORATION WAS TO
REGULATE COMMUNITY NOTIFICATION
ALL TOO OFTEN. THEY REQUIRED
STATUTORY COMMUNITY NOTIFICATION
IS USED AS AN OPPORTUNITY BY LAW
ENFORCEMENT TO INCITE FEAR IN
THE COMMUNITY. ARE TOO OFTEN.
PROSECUTION OFFICES AND LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS HAVE
PROMINENTLY PLACED ON THEIR
FACEBOOK PAGES. INFORMATION
ABOUT THE IMPENDING RELEASE OF A
PERSON WHO HAS BEEN DEEMED SAFE
TO BE RELEASED INTO THE
COMMUNITY UNDER SUPERVISION.
THAT HAS RESULTED IN THIS
PARTICULAR CASE OF LANDLORDS WHO
HAD SAID THAT THEY WERE WILLING
TO PROVIDE HOUSING. BEING THEN
REVOKING THEIR OFFERS. IT
RESULTED IN THE COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, UM, OBJECTING TO
ANY PLACEMENT AND PRESSURING LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND THE PROSECUTION
TO PREVENT PLACEMENT IN THE
COUNTY. WE'RE ASKING THAT THE
COLLABORATIVE PROCESS AND THIS
IS WHAT S¼ B 1034 THAT WAS
PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE JUST
TWO YEARS AGO ASKED IS THAT AN
AGENCY? OF THE COUNTY. HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES PROBATION
PEOPLE WHO REGULARLY WORK WITH
PAROLE HELP FIND HOUSING FOR
PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN DEEMED SAFE
TO RELEASE IN THE COMMUNITY. AND
THAT THIS PROCESS ACTUALLY BE
GIVEN A CHANCE TO WORK. YOU HAVE
TO WRAP IT UP. THANK YOU. OK,
RATHER THAN FURTHER NARROWING
THIS BECAUSE IF THE U S¼ SUPREME
COURT HAS SAID THAT IF THERE.
PEOPLE ARE BEING HELD WHEN
THEY'RE NÓ LONGER, DANGEROUS.
THEN THE WHOLE COMMITMENT SCHEME
BECOMES UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THANK
YOU. SO WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR NÓ VOTE. THANK YOU FURTHER
IN OPPOSITION, PLEASE LINE UP.
STATE YOUR POSITION. MORNING
CHAIR MEMBERS HAD ONLY YOU OUT
HERE ON BEHALF OF LEGAL SERVICES
FOR PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN
REPRESENTING ALL OF US OR NONE
AND OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, BARBARA CHÁVEZ ON
BEHALF OF ELLA BAKER CENTER FOR
HUMAN RIGHTS IN FULL OPPOSITION.
ERIC ANDERSON ON BEHALF OF A èC
LU, CALIFORNIA ACTION AND
INITIATE JUSTICE IN OPPOSITION.
MELANIE KIMS. SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE IN
OPPOSITION. A LITTLE WAS SHOWING
UP FOR RACIAL JUSTICE BAY AREA
IN CALIFORNIA'S UNITED FOR A
RESPONSIBLE BUDGET AND STRONG
OPPOSITION. SURE, MORE WITH
CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS FOR
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND OPPOSITION.
ALICIA MONTERO, CALIFORNIA IS
UNITED FOR A RESPONSIBLE BUDGET
AND STRONG OPPOSITION. THANK YOU
KNOW THERE ARE WITNESSES,
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ASSEMBLY
MEMBER WIN. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR.
UM AND THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD. I JUST HAVE A FEW
QUESTIONS AND CLARIFICATION SO
AS AS WAS STATED EARLIER. THESE
INDIVIDUAL AND THE WAY I READ IT
, AND THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT,
THESE INDIVIDUALS HAVE SERVED
THEIR TIME AND THEY ARE
CONDITIONALLY RELEASED. DEAN'S
SAFE TO BE RELEASED. THEY HAVE
TO GO SOMEWHERE. AND IF WE'RE
SEEING THAT THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED
TO BE RELEASED AND WE'RE HOLDING
THEM IN THAT DEFEATS THE PURPOSE
OF THEM BEING RELEASED OUT THERE
IN THE COMMUNITY, SO I'M NOT
QUITE UNDERSTANDING EXACTLY.
WHERE YOU'RE THINKING THAT WE
WOULD PUT THEM OR WHERE WE WOULD
HOLD THEM WHEN THEY HAVE, IN
FACT SERVED THEIR SENTENCINGS
AND THEIR TERMS, AND THEY'VE
RECEIVED RESOURCES AND SERVICES
AND WHATNOT. AND THEY CONTINUE,
UM, TO HAVE THE COUNSELING. UM
UH, YOU KNOW, I. I UNDERSTAND.
WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I. I DO AND
I'VE WORKED WITH MANY EX
OFFENDERS, OR I'M SORRY MANY
THAT WERE FORMALLY INCARCERATED.
IN MY PAST LIFE IN IN MY JOB FOR
DECADES. AND THE ONE THING THEY
NEED IS HOUSING. AND IF WE DON'T
PROVIDE THAT FOR THEM, THEN IT
DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF HELPING
THEM GET BACK INTO THE COMMUNITY
AGAIN. WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND
IS THAT IF THEY ARE DEEMED SAFE
TO BE RELEASED INTO THE
COMMUNITY. AND THEY'VE DONE
THEIR TIME. I GUESS I DON'T
UNDERSTAND EXACTLY. WHERE YOU
THINK THEY SHOULD GO OR WHERE WE
SHOULD PUT THEM WHEN THERE IS A
SHORTAGE OF HOUSING ALL ACROSS
THE STATE. UM AND I WANNA THANK
THE WITNESSES FOR BEING HERE.
BUT YOU'VE GOT THE MAYOR OF ROS
ROY. AND YOU'VE GOT THE Dð A
FROM PLASTER COUNTY. IT SEEMS
LIKE IT'S REALLY JUST YOU KNOW,
YOU'RE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT YOUR
DISTRICT HERE. UM, THIS IS ALL
OVER THE PLACE, RIGHT? AND WE
NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT AS WAS
SAID EARLIER. WE COLLABORATE AND
WE AND WE PARTNER IN THIS THING
WE TRY TO FIGURE THIS OUT, SO
I'M NOT SURE IF ONE YOU CAN
ADDRESS SOME OF THE THINGS THAT
WERE SAID EARLIER BUT ALSO
ANSWER SOME OF THE QUESTIONS
HERE. YOU KNOW, UM WHAT? WELL,
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND YEAH,
UM, WE LET THAT DISTRICT
ATTORNEY RESPOND. BUT I, I DO
WANNA SAY SOMETHING, UM UM THIS
LEGISLATION. DOES NOT PREVENT
THE RELEASE OF INDIVIDUALS. UH I
THINK WE CAN. UH, WE MIGHT MAYBE
, UH, PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM HAVE A
DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE ON WHETHER
OR NOT UH, YOU KNOW, SOME OF
THESE RELEASES SHOULD HAPPEN.
BUT THERE HAVE BEEN
CONSTITUTIONAL RULINGS AND
THINGS LIKE THAT THAT SAY THEY
AREN'T ENTITLED, BUT JUST TO
CLARIFY THESE INDIVIDUALS ARE
NOT NOT ENTIRELY DEEMED READY TO
BE RELEASED. THEY'RE ON
CONDITIONAL RELEASE WITH
SUPERVISION. PUTTING THEM IN A
HOTEL. THE DATA ACTUALLY SAYS IT
DOES NOT WORK. I AGREE. WE NEED
TO FIND SUITABLE HOUSING FOR
THEM IN THESE HOTELS DO NOT
PROVIDE THAT SUITABLE HOUSING
WAS 75% OF THEM BEING REVOKED OR
REHOSPITALIZED. SO WE'RE
ACTUALLY GIVING THEM CONDITIONS
IN WHICH NOT ONLY ARE THEY
UNSAFE, UM TO THE PUBLIC, BUT
THEY'RE BEING REHOSPITALIZED
BECAUSE THEY'RE PUT IN A
SITUATION THAT'S NOT GOOD FOR
THEM. SO I WANNA TURN TO THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY. I WAS GOING
TO MAKE TWO POINTS AND ASSEMBLY
MEMBER PATTERSON MADE THE FIRST
ONE. THEY ARE RELEASED. AND
DEEMED SAFE BY VIRTUE OF THE
ASSUMPTION THAT THEY WILL ADHERE
TO THE CONDITIONS THAT THEY ARE
GIVEN AND STABLE. HOUSING IS THE
MOST IMPORTANT OF THOSE
CONDITIONS. IT'S HARDER TO TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF SERVICES AND
CONTINUE YOUR TREATMENT. WHEN
YOUR HOUSING IS UNSTABLE WHEN
YOU'RE IN A HOTEL, OR YOU'RE IN
A TRAILER THAT HAS TO BE MOVED
AROUND OVER AND OVER MOST OF THE
TIME. THOSE ARE IN RURAL AREAS
THAT DON'T COMPLY WITH GP S¼
REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE THE SERVICE
IS BAD THINGS LIKE LOGISTICS
THAT THAT AFFECT IT. UM SO IN
THAT HOUSING IS UNSTABLE. THEY
ARE NÓ LONGER CONSIDERED SAFE,
AND THAT'S WHY SO MANY
ULTIMATELY VIOLATE THE TERMS.
THE SECOND POINT I WILL TAKE A
LITTLE BIT OF EXCEPTION WITH MY
PUBLIC DEFENDER COLLEAGUE. WE
ARE VERY COLLABORATIVE IN THIS
PROCESS THAT IS ALSO OCCURRING.
1034 REQUIRES US TO HAVE ROBUST
PARTICIPATION WITH ALL OF OUR
STAKEHOLDERS. WE COLLABORATE
WITH OUR PUBLIC DEFENDER WHO IS
REPRESENTING THE SEXUALLY
VIOLENT PREDATOR, AND THIS IS
STATEWIDE. UH, WE ARE TRYING TO
FIND HOUSING, BUT BUT IT DOESN'T
WORK WHEN THEY ARE IN. SECURE
UNSTABLE HOUSING LIKE HOTEL
ROOMS. THEY VIOLATE AN
INORDINATE RATE AND IT JUST
DOESN'T WORK. AND THEN THEY
DON'T GET TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF
THE SERVICES THAT WILL ONE DAY
ENABLE THEM TO BE ABLE TO BE
UNSUPERVISED AND PRODUCTIVE
MEMBERS OF SOCIETY AS WELL AS
ENSURING THAT OUR COMMUNITY IS
SAFE, SO IT'S THE STABILITY OF
THE HOUSING. THAT IS THE
FOUNDATION OF THAT DECISION TO
RENDER THEM SAFE, ASSUMING THEY
COMPLY WITH THE REST OF THE
CONDITION. THANK YOU. OK, SORRY.
SO THEN I GUESS SO WHAT? WHAT IS
THE ANSWER? I MEAN, IF YOU'RE
COMING UP WITH THIS WHAT ARE
YOU? WHAT ARE YOU SUGGESTING
THAT THEY STAY WHERE THEY'RE, I
MEAN IT. THERE ARE CONDITIONALLY
RELEASED AND NOW WE'RE HOLDING
THEM BACK. I GUESS JUST, UM, A
COUPLE YEARS AGO, IT'S BEEN
REFERENCED. ALREADY THERE IS
LEGISLATION TO PUT TOGETHER A
HOUSING COMMITTEE WITHIN THE
COMMUNITIES AND BY THE WAY, I
WANNA SAY I TAKE EXCEPTION TO
HOW THIS PROCESS WORKS. BECAUSE
THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE
HOSPITALS ZOOMS IN FROM
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA FOR THESE
HOUSING COMMITTEE MEETINGS LIKE
THEY SHOULD GO TO THE ACTUAL OR
THE PEOPLE ARE, UM, SO I HAVE A
CONCERN WITH THAT PROCESS, AND
WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AT THAT A
LOT, BECAUSE IF YOU REALLY WANT
IN THE PROCESS. THEY SHOULD
COLLABORATE. UM BUT SO I'VE PUT
A LOT OF THOUGHT INTO THAT. BUT
A LOT OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN
THE REPORT THAT I HAD REFERENCED
AND HAS BEEN REFERENCED OTHER
TIMES. WE'VE WE'VE ACTUALLY DONE
A LOT OF THEM. AND SO WE HAVE
THIS ISSUE. LOOK I'VE SEEN I'VE
BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS NOW. I
THINK THIS IS MY 18TH YEAR THAT
I'VE SEEN THESE SORT OF THINGS
FROM 2006 TO NOW. EVERY SINGLE
TIME. AN S¼ VÆ P IS RELEASED ALL
54 OF THOSE, UM I GUESS THAT'S
THE NUMBER AND BY THE WAY, THE
NUMBER TICKING UP IN A IN A
MAJOR WAY IN THE COMING YEARS.
UM THE, UM THERE. THERE'S ALWAYS
OPPOSITION. THERE'S BUILT IN
OPPOSITION. BUT IF WE'RE GOING
TO ALLOW THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE
HOSPITALS AND LIBERTY HEALTH
CARE TO RELEASE INTO A HOUSING
THAT'S THAT'S NOT WORKING. I
MEAN, THAT'S ACTUALLY WHAT THE
DATA SAYS. THEN THAT'S GONNA BE
THE EASY OUT FOR A LOT OF THESE.
IT'S BEING PROPOSED MORE MORE
AND MORE. IT WAS ONE PERSON I
THINK IN 2013, AND NOW IT'S
THERE ARE SEVERAL MORE OF THESE
BEING RELEASED. SO I MEAN, IF
THERE ARE OTHER SUGGESTIONS ON
HOW WE FIND SUITABLE HOUSING, I
DO HAVE A BIG CONCERN WITH IF
THEY COULDN FIND SUITABLE
HOUSING IN PLASTER COUNTY. RIGHT
WHERE THERE ARE A LAND AND
THINGS LIKE THAT. WE CANNOT
INCENTIVIZE THEM TO FIND WHERE
WE KNOW THEY GO. THE DATA SAYS
THEY'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO THE
HOSPITAL THAT DOESN'T YOU KNOW
THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME.
SO IF THE IF THE DEPARTMENT OF
STATE HOSPITAL SAID, HEY, THIS
IS HOW WE'RE GOING TO SUPERVISE
THEM IN A HOTEL ROOM AND MAKE
SURE WE CAN TELL WHERE THEY'RE
AT AND GET DO THOSE THINGS, BUT
THAT'S NOT WHAT'S HAPPENING.
THREE QUARTERS OF THEM ARE
FAILING AND BEING SENT BACK. AND
CAN I RESPOND? BRIEFLY TO YOU
BRIEFLY. YOUR YOUR QUESTION
ABOUT WHAT TO DO. THE ANSWER IS
LIBERTY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF
STATE HOSPITALS HAS TO DO MORE
TO COLLABORATE WITH THE
STAKEHOLDERS. IN EACH COUNTY. WE
HAVE SUGGESTED PROPERTIES. WE'VE
ASKED WHAT THEIR METRICS ARE TO
TRY AND DETERMINE SUITABLE
PROPERTIES AND WE HIT A WALL.
THEY THEY HAVEN'T BEEN
TRANSPARENT ON WHAT THEY DO TO
FIND PROPERTIES AND WE SEND
SUGGESTIONS THAT END UP GOING
NOWHERE. SO THE PROBLEM IS,
LIBERTY NEEDS TO WORK HARDER TO
FIND APPROPRIATE HOUSING FOR
THESE PEOPLE WERE A WE. WE'RE
WILLING AND ARE TRYING TO HELP.
BUT WE CAN'T HELP AS MUCH AS WE
CAN BECAUSE OF A LACK OF
TRANSPARENCY ON THE PART OF
LIBERTY AND THE DEPARTMENT OF
STATE HOSPITALS. THANK YOU. WE
HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS. WE HAVE
QUESTIONS FROM ASSEMBLY MEMBERS
AND NEXT, ALAN, MR ZUBER. AND
WILSON. OH, I THOUGHT YOU SAID
NÓ. OK OK. SORRY WE'LL GO BACK
ON THE LIST. WE HAD REYES ZER,
ALANIS WILSON. AND POPULAR
TODAY. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. I
WANT TO COMMENT ON FOLLOWING UP
WITH MY CLIENT, MY COLLEAGUE
FROM SACRAMENTO. THAT IN ORDER
TO BE RELEASED BOTH THE DIRECTOR
AND THE COURT MUST DETERMINE
THAT THE INDIVIDUAL IS NOT A
DANGER TO OTHERS AND WILL
TRANSITION THE INDIVIDUAL TO A
CONDITIONAL RELEASE FOR AT LEAST
ONE YEAR. UM IN YOUR IN THE
AUTHOR'S STATEMENT, IT SAYS. I
BELIEVE THAT THE STATE HAS AN
OBLIGATION TO FIND A LAWFUL AND
SUITABLE PLACEMENT THAT DOES NOT
JEOPARDIZE THE SAFETY OF THE
PUBLIC. MY FIRST QUESTION IS
THERE ALSO A BUDGET REQUEST
ASSOCIATED WITH THIS, UH TO FIND
SUITABLE PLACEMENT. THERE'S
EXISTING LITERALLY TENS OF
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT GO TO
FUND THESE PLACEMENTS. I DON'T I
DON'T KNOW THE EXACT NUMBER OF
WHAT THAT IS. BUT THERE ISN'T A
BUDGET REQUEST ASSOCIATED WITH
THIS RIGHT NOW. THE COMMENT WAS
THAT ONLY, UM AT THE AT THE 1000
COMMITTED ONLY 54 HAVE BEEN
RELEASED. THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S
FROM THE SAME REPORT THAT, UM
THE MEMBER WAS QUOTING EARLIER.
THE CALIFORNIA SEX OFFENDER
MANAGEMENT BOARD. THERE ARE A
NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE
IN THE PIPELINE. I FORGET THE
NUMBER, BUT THEY HAVE SOME OF
THE SAME ISSUES THAT THEY'RE
FACING OBSTACLES FINDING HOUSING
FOR THEM STATEWIDE. AND SO, UM,
THIS WOULD FURTHER THIS
LEGISLATION WOULD FURTHER IMPEDE
THAT EFFORT, AND IT'S ONLY AFTER
YOU KNOW, MULTIPLE ATTEMPTS AND
MULTIPLE REJECTIONS THAT PEOPLE
ARE BEING RELEASED, UM,
TRANSIENT TO THE COMMUNITY, I
THINK, UM, THERE'S IN THE
ANALYSIS KSI IS, UM, ONE CASE.
BUT IT'S RARE. AND IT HAS BEEN
ONLY AFTER. UM THE JUDGE HAS
BEEN UNABLE TO APPROVE ANY OTHER
HOUSING BECAUSE OF OBJECTIONS
FROM THE COMMUNITY. THANK YOU,
THE, UM, SEXUALLY VIOLENT
PREDATOR ACT. ACCORDING TO OUR
ANALYSIS, WAS DESIGNED TO
ACCOMPLISH THE DUAL GOALS OF
PROTECTING THE PUBLIC BY
CONFINING VIOLENT SEXUAL
PREDATORS LIKELY TO REOFFEND AND
PROVIDING TREATMENT TO THOSE
OFFENDERS. AH! KNOWING THAT IT'S
BOTH THE COURT. AND THE DIRECTOR
THAT RECOMMENDS THE RELEASE THAN
WHAT WE ARE SAYING. IS THAT THE
GOAL OF THIS PARTICULAR ACT IS
MET ONCE THE DIRECTOR AND THE
COURT SAY THEY'RE READY FOR
CONDITIONAL RELEASE. AM I
FOLLOWING THIS CORRECTLY? THERE
IS A, UH, DECISION MADE AND THAT
THEY ARE READY FOR RELEASE.
THAT'S THAT'S CORRECT. THEN I
HAVE I HAVE SOME CONCERNS, I
THINK ALONG THE LINES OF MY
COLLEAGUE FROM SACRAMENTO UM,
BUT ONE IS SOMETIMES FROM WHAT I
HAVE READ, THEY ARE UNABLE TO
FIND HOUSING. UH, BECAUSE OF, UH
BECAUSE A COMMUNITY DOESN'T WANT
THEM THERE. THE OTHER IS AN
ISSUE OF POVERTY. THEY CAN'T
AFFORD TO FIND HOUSING. UH AND
I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT ASPECT
OF IT. BUT THE OTHER QUESTION
THAT IS ASKED, IS, ARE WE
DENYING LOOKING AT THE 14TH
AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION?
ARE WE DENYING EQUAL PROTECTION
FOR SOMEBODY WHO HAS SERVED THE
SENTENCE AS REQUIRED BY THE LAW?
UH, THEY'RE NOW ELIGIBLE FOR A
CONDITIONAL RELEASE. ARE WE
DENYING THEM EQUAL PROTECTION?
AND ALSO ARE WE DENYING THAT
EQUAL PROTECTION, DENYING THEM
LIFE AND LIBERTY, UM, WITHOUT
DUE PROCESS. BECAUSE ALL WE ARE
SAYING IS HE DID NOT GET
HOUSING. YOU DON'T GET RELEASED
WITHOUT THERE BEING DUE PROCESS.
WHAT WAS WHAT DID THE STATE DO
TO HELP THEM WITH? FIND THE
HOUSING AND AS I READ EARLIER
FROM THE AUTHOR'S STATEMENT THAT
YOU BELIEVE THE STATE, IT IS A
STATE STATE'S OBLIGATION TO FIND
LAWFUL AND SUITABLE PLACEMENT.
SO THAT TRYING TO FIND THAT
BALANCE, I. I ALSO AM HAVING
ISSUES WITH WHAT WE DO AT THIS
POINT. ARE WE SAYING YOU'RE NOT
ABLE TO YOU WON'T BE RELEASED.
AND ARE WE TAKING THEIR LIBERTY
AWAY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS? WELL
THANKS. UM I APPRECIATE THAT. UH
YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T EXPECT, UH UM
TOTAL, UH, DISCUSSION ON
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW TODAY, BUT I
EXPECTED THE QUESTION COME TO
COME UP. UM ONE THING I WANNA
SAY IS THAT, UH, IN TERMS OF,
UH, A POINT YOU BROUGHT UP AND,
UH, THE ABILITY TO PAY FOR THE
HOUSING. THE STATE PAYS A LOT OF
MONEY FOR THE HOUSING. UM AND SO
THAT THAT REALLY WOULDN'T BE A
CONCERN, BUT, UH, I ALWAYS GO
BACK TO WHAT MY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY SAID. WHICH IN THIS
HOUSING COMMITTEE, THEY ARE
ENGAGED IN A PROCESS WHERE
THEY'VE OFFERED LOCATIONS. UM
AND SO OBVIOUSLY, I THINK THE
DETAILS OF WHAT THOSE HOMES LOOK
, THAT'S CLOSED SESSION
SITUATION, RIGHT. SO I DON'T
KNOW EXACTLY AND HE PROBABLY
CAN'T DISCLOSE EXACTLY WHAT
HAPPENED IN THAT PARTICULAR
PROCESS OR WHY THE STATE DID IT.
UM, BUT THAT'S WHAT THE PROCESS
DOES FOR A LOT OF THE CONCERNS
THAT MIGHT BE RAISED BY THE
COMMUNITY, BUT BY LAW, THEY'RE
REQUIRED TO WORK WITH THE STATE
TO HELP FIND SUITABLE HOUSING.
AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
IN THIS CASE, SO WITH 54 PEOPLE
BEING RELEASED, AT LEAST 12 OF
THEM HAVE BEEN RELEASED ON
TRANSIENT STATUS. THAT'S ALMOST
A QUARTER, YOU KNOW, AND SO
WE'RE TALK. WE'RE NOT TALKING
ACTUALLY SMALL NUMBERS. WE'RE
TALKING AT SIGNIFICANT PORTION
AND OUT OF THAT QUARTER 75% OF
THEM ARE BEING ARE BEING
REHOSPITALIZED. SO 75% OF 12. IS
THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? CORRECT
CORRECT? AND BUT AS THERE ARE A
LOT MORE ON THE I THINK THERE
WERE 40 SOMETHING I CAN'T
REMEMBER. BUT THERE ARE A LOT
MORE CURRENTLY, UH, IN THAT
PROCESS, AND IF A QUARTER OF
THOSE GO OUT AND THEN 75% GO
BACK TO BE BACK TO BE CREATING
MORE VICTIMS THAT'S CONCERNED,
BUT ALSO IT'S IN ALL OF OUR
INTERESTS THAT THIS INDIVIDUAL
DOES NOT. IT IN HIS OR HER BEST
INTERESTS THAT THEY DON'T GET RE
HOSPITALIZED. AND THAT WE FIND
SUITABLE HOUSING AND THE DATA IS
SAYING THIS IS NOT SUITABLE AND
I'M OPEN TO SUGGESTIONS ON
FINDING MORE SUITABLE HOUSING.
BUT I FEEL LIKE WE'RE GIVING THE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE HOSPITALS AN
EASY OUTLET. IF THEY'RE GIVING
25% WHEN YOU HAVE A DISTRICT
ATTORNEY RIGHT HERE WHO'S SAYING
WE'RE OFFERING LOCATIONS, BUT
WE'RE STILL GONNA RECOMMEND
TRANSIENT RELEASE. SO THAT'S
THAT'S THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE.
WE'RE RECOMMENDING PLACES AND
THEY'RE STILL SAYING DO
TRANSIENT RELEASE. YOU. THANK
YOU, MR ZER, MR ALANIS, MR
WILSON, SO I HAVE SORT OF TWO
QUESTIONS THAT SORT OF CUT IN
DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS. TO ME, THE
FOLKS THAT ARE BEING RELEASED.
THEY ARE NOT BEING
UNCONDITIONALLY RELEASED. IT'S
THEY'RE BEING RELEASED. IF THEY
ARE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN BOTH
SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT, SO TO
ME, THAT'S SORT OF THE CORE
ISSUE. SO WHEN WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT TRANSIENT RELEASE WHAT
DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? ARE PEOPLE
BEING RELEASED TO KNOW HOUSING
AT ALL? OR ARE THEY BEING
RELEASED TO UM, SOME KIND OF
TRANSITIONAL HOUSING. YEAH IT'S
LARGELY BEEN HOTELS. UM BUT
THERE HAVE BEEN INSTANCES IN
WHICH THEY HAVE A TRAILER AND
THEY'RE MOVING IT AROUND, OR
THEY'RE MOVING THEM TO HOTELS
AND TRAILERS. AND IT'S BEEN KIND
OF A MISHMASH OF WHAT'S GOING ON
. AND IF YOU'RE MOVING AROUND A
TRAILER AND THEN GOING TO A
HOTEL, MAYBE BACK TO ANOTHER
TRAILER AGAIN. I MEAN, IT'S
SUITABLE HOUSING. YOU KNOW,
THAT'S YEAH, I THINK FROM MY
PERSPECTIVE, THE ISSUE SHOULD
REALLY BE YOU KNOW, UM, I MEAN,
IT'S A THIS IS ABOUT PROTECTING
THE PUBLIC AND THE KEY. IS
WHETHER SOMEONE CAN BE RELEASED
AND STILL ENGAGE IN SUPERVISION
AND TREATMENT. AND I THINK THE
PROBLEM THAT I HAVE WITH THE
BILL IS THAT ASSUMING THAT
CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF HOUSING
ARE AUTOMATICALLY UNSUITABLE. UM
AND WHEN I LOOK AT MY AREA A LOT
OF THE HOUSING THAT IS BEING
USED FOR FOLKS THAT ARE IN HOUSE
NOW WOULD FALL INTO THE
CATEGORIES OF WHICH YOU ARE
CATEGORICALLY PROHIBITING ACROSS
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. SO I
MEAN, I. I WOULD BE SYMPATHETIC
TO THIS BILL. IF IT WAS
SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF TO
COME FROM FROM WHERE THEY ARE
NOW TO BECOME UNHOUSED. UM AND
WE HAD MORE CRITERION THAT THE
JUDGE HAD TO CONSIDER ABOUT
WHETHER OR NOT THE WHERE THEY
ARE BEING RELEASED, ALLOWS THEM
TO BE SUPERVISED AND TREATED. IF
THAT WAS THE FOCUS OF THIS WOULD
BE FULLY SUPPORTIVE OF IT. BUT
WHAT WHAT WHAT? WHAT THE BILL
SEEMS LIKE IS THAT BECAUSE THEY
ARE WORRIED THAT IN SOME
CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THEY'RE
BEING RELEASED, YOU CAN'T
SUPERVISE AND TREAT ADEQUATELY.
YOUR YOU'RE JUST ELIMINATING
WHOLE CATEGORIES OF HOUSING,
WHICH MAKES IT TO ME HARDER TO
HOUSE. THESE PEOPLE THAT ARE
COMING OUT. SO ON THE ONE HAND,
I AGREE WITH YOU THAT, UM I
DON'T THINK IT'S
UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO HOLD SOMEONE
IF YOU CAN'T MOVE THEM INTO A
SITUATION WHERE THEY CAN BE
SUPERVISED AND TREATED, BUT ON
THE OTHER HAND, I ALSO DON'T
THINK THAT AND ELIMINATING WHOLE
CATEGORIES OF POTENTIAL HOUSING
WITHOUT A CASE BY CASE ANALYSIS
BY SOMEONE IS THE APPROPRIATE
WAY TO GO. SO I DON'T KNOW IF
YOU WANNA RESPOND TO THAT, OR IF
YOU WANT TO RESPOND. UM I WILL
WANNA RESPOND, BUT LOOKS LIKE
SHE HAS SOMETHING TO SAY. THANK
YOU. UM YEAH, I WANTED TO POINT
OUT THAT I THINK THERE'S A LOT
OF COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS
THAT ARE PROVIDING REENTRY
HOUSING AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES
TO PEOPLE ACROSS THE STATE
CURRENTLY, AND OFTENTIMES THOSE
ARE KIND OF LIKE SUPPORTIVE
HOUSING GROUP HOMES WHERE THERE
MAY BE MULTIPLE PEOPLE LIVING IN
A COMMUNITY TOGETHER, WHICH
PROVIDES A LOT OF SUPPORT FOR
FOLKS IN THIS BILL WOULD MAKE IT
SO THAT PEOPLE COULDN'T GO INTO
A RANCH TREE HOUSE LIKE THAT.
AVERAGE DAD THAT, UM, REQUIRING
A SINGLE STRUCTURE THAT IS ONLY
FOR A SINGLE FAMILY, IN FACT,
RULE OUT A LOT OF HOUSING. UM,
IN EVERY URBAN AREA. UM REAL
QUICK, THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE
HOSPITALS IS NOT GOING TO BE
RELEASING PEOPLE TO GROUP HOMES
ALREADY. THAT'S NOT GONNA
HAPPEN. SO THAT THAT'S THE
PROBLEM. DO WE GET TO BOTH YOUR
QUESTIONS, MR. OK, THANK YOU,
UH, NEXT, MR ALANI. THANK YOU,
MR CHAIR. I AGREE WITH YOU ON
THAT WE CAN HAVE THEM ALL IN ONE
BUILDING. I THINK THAT WOULD
MAKE IT EASIER FOR THE
SUPERVISOR AS WELL TO HAVE THEM
ALL UNDER ONE ROOF, BUT I THINK
MOST OF MY QUESTIONS WERE
ALREADY ANSWERED BY SOME OF MY
COLLEAGUES. THANK YOU FOR ASKING
THOSE, UH, I THINK THE BIGGEST
PROBLEM THAT WE HAD WITH PART OF
IT IS THE SENTENCING. UH, CAN
YOU GIVE US A LITTLE BIT MORE
INSIGHT, EVEN FOR MYSELF WHEN
THEY ARE BEING DEEMED TO BE
RELEASED UNDER SUPERVISION, LIKE
HOW MUCH TIME OF THEIR ACTUAL
SENTENCES STILL LEFT? IT IS ONE
OF MY BIG BIG BIG QUESTIONS ON
THAT AS WELL, IF WE KNOW THAT
YOU WANT ME TO RESPOND? I THINK
THE Dð A. I WAS A 20 ANSWER.
THEY'VE COMPLETED THEIR SENTENCE
AT THAT POINT, REGARDLESS OF
WHATEVER THEIR SENTENCE IS MINUS
WHATEVER CREDITS THEY GET. THEY
HAVE COMPLETED THEIR SENTENCE.
SO WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THEIR
RELEASE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION,
THEY'RE EVALUATED UNDER THE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE HOSPITAL. I
THINK THAT'S SO WE'RE I THINK
IT'S WHERE WE'RE GOING WITH
THAT, RIGHT? OK, AND, UM
EARLIER. YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT
MONEY LIKE DO WE HAVE LIKE A
FIXED AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT'S
GIVEN PER HOUSEHOLD OR LIKE, CAN
YOU GUYS GIVE US AN IDEA ON THAT
A LOT OF MONEY COULD BE
DIFFERENT FOR OTHER PEOPLE. YEAH
UM, I'M I'M SURE THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY HAS EXAMPLES, BUT THE
ONES THAT I'VE SEEN THROUGHOUT
THE STATE ARE WAY WAY ABOVE
MARKET RATE. UM 9000 A MONTH.
8000 I THINK. YEAH, WE RECENTLY
SECURED TENTATIVE HOUSING FOR
ONE OF OUR SEXUALLY VIOLENT
PREDATORS AT A AT A $7000 A
MONTH RATE JUST TO JUST TO KEEP
THE PROPERTY SECURE. SO LIBERTY
HAS LITERALLY SAID MONEY ISN'T
AN OBJECT TO TRY AND SECURE THE
HOUSING. THE PROBLEM IS THE
HOUSING THAT THEY'RE FINDING IS
INADEQUATE. I DON'T SEE HOW
WE'RE BEING GOOD STEWARDS OF
MONEY BY DOING THAT, UM GO BACK
TO THE ONE BUILDING WHERE
EVERYBODY'S IN. NÓ FURTHER
QUESTION. SO I WANNA SAY
THINKING REAL QUICK. SORRY MR.
IS IT OK? LET'S LET'S MOVE ON.
OK, UH, YOU CAN GO BACK TO YOUR
CLOTHES, OK? UM THANK YOU. FIRST
OF ALL TO MY COLLEAGUES. I
APPRECIATED THE QUESTIONS THAT
YOU'VE ASKED SO FAR. SOME OF
THEM WERE IN MY OWN MIND AS I
WAS REVIEWING THIS BILL, AND SO
THANK YOU FOR ASKING THOSE
QUESTIONS AND UM, AND THE ROBUST
DISCUSSION THAT OCCURRED BECAUSE
OF THEM. UM YOU KNOW, I THINK
WHAT'S VERY APPARENT IS THAT WE
ALL AGREE THAT, UM, SEXUALLY
VIOLENT PREDATORS ON CONDITIONAL
RELEASE CAN STILL POSE A DANGER.
EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE DEEMED SAFE.
THEY STILL COULD BE AN ISSUE. UM
WHICH IS WHY, UH, THERE'S AT
TIMES RE HOSPITALIZED. I HAVE
TWO FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS THAT I
DIDN'T UM ONE WAS A FOLLOW UP
AND ONE BOTH ARE FOLLOW UP. I'M
SORRY FROM THE DISCUSSION THAT
HAPPENED BEFORE AND ONE IS TO.
UM MR Dð A. YOU NOTED THAT, UM
THERE. UH, THERE'S NOT
APPROPRIATE HOUSING, USE THE
PHRASING, APPROPRIATE HOUSING,
AND I WONDERED WHAT IS THERE
APPROPRIATE HOUSING IN PLASTER
COUNTY THAT YOU SEE IT ALL? AND
THEN YOU NOTED THAT, UM,
POTENTIALLY DURING A CLOSED
SESSION, I GUESS CONVERSATION
THAT YOU OFFERED HOUSING AND IT
WAS REJECTED, NOTING THAT YOU
CAN'T EX EXPLAIN WHY IT WAS
DIRECTED. COULD YOU TALK A
LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WHAT YOU
BELIEVE IS APPROPRIATE HOUSING
FOR A SEXUALLY VIOLENT UH,
SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN DEEMED A
SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATOR.
CERTAINLY AND I THINK
APPROPRIATE HOUSING IS SOMETHING
THAT ALLOWS THE SEXUALLY VIOLENT
PREDATOR TO ENGAGE IN ALL OF THE
SERVICES. THE TREATMENT OPTIONS,
THE SUPERVISION ALL OF THE
THINGS THAT THE DECISION TO
RELEASE ARE BASED ON THAT
SOMEONE ENGAGES IN THE PROCESS
TO REHABILITATE AND NOT REOFFEND
, SOMETHING THAT GUARANTEES THAT
IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO DO THAT
IN A HOTEL ROOM JUST BY THE VERY
NATURE OF THE OF THE MOTELS AND
HOTELS THAT LIBERTY HAS
SUGGESTED OVER THE YEARS TO
PLACE THESE PEOPLE IN ARE
USUALLY HAVE TRIGGERS AND SORT
OF TEMPTATIONS THAT ARE LURING
PEOPLE TO FAIL. UM THEY THEY
DON'T ALLOW FOR THE KIND OF
ENVIRONMENT THAT WILL ALLOW
SOMEONE TO FOCUS ON THE ON THE
TREATMENT REGIMEN THAT THEY NEED
TO, AND THAT'S WHY SOME SORT OF
FIXED RESIDENCE. UH AND THAT'S
WHY WE'VE ENCOURAGED LIBERTY TO
LOOK AT ALL OF THE PROPERTY
OWNERS WHO HAVE PROPERTIES FOR
RENT TO SECURE THOSE BECAUSE
WE'VE SEEN IN THE DATA THAT THAT
WHEN PEOPLE ARE RELEASED TO
THOSE MOTELS, THEY THEY FAIL
MORE THAN THEY DON'T AND THEY
FELL BECAUSE YOU YOU NOTED THAT
IT'S THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
SOMETHING THAT'S FIXED VERSUS
TEMPORARY IS THAT THE PRIMARY
REASON THAT THEY CAN'T RECEIVE
THE SUPERVISION AND TAKE THE
TREATMENTS AND STUFF BECAUSE
THEY'RE IN A TEMPORARY LOCATION
VERSUS A FIXED LOCATION, I. I
THINK THAT'S A LARGE FACTOR, THE
FACT THAT PEOPLE AREN'T IN A
PARTICULAR PLACE LONG ENOUGH. SO
WHEN YOU'RE MOVING SOMEONE
AROUND, IT MAKES IT MUCH MORE
DIFFICULT TO STAY WITHIN THE
BOUNDS OF YOUR TREATMENT AND
FOLLOW THROUGH IF YOU'RE IN A
PLACE WHERE THERE ARE LOTS OF
PEOPLE WHO ARE COMING AND GOING
AT ALL TIMES, SOMETIMES HOURLY
OR DAILY, UM, THAT MIGHT AFFECT
YOUR ABILITY TO FOLLOW THROUGH
WITH YOUR TREATMENT. THOSE
BECOME OBSTACLES, AND WE FIND
THAT THOSE WHO ARE IN THOSE
ENVIRONMENTS FAIL MORE THAN THEY
DON'T. UM SO IT IT'S NOT. AND I
WISH WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY, UH,
THAT WAS DISCUSSED EARLIER IN IN
GROUP HOMES AND SUPPORTIVE
SERVICES, BUT UNFORTUNATELY,
THOSE HAVE NOT BEEN PURSUED BY
LIBERTY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF
STATE HOSPITALS AS APPROPRIATE
HOUSING. WE HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE
TO EVALUATE THOSE. IF THEY WERE
PRESENTED, WE COULD VET THEM.
BUT IN THE MEANTIME, WE SIMPLY
GET THE RESPONSE THAT WE WANT TO
PUT THEM IN A HOTEL INSTEAD, AND
THAT ALLOWS AS ASSEMBLY MEMBER,
PATTERSON SAID EARLIER. IT
ALLOWS LIBERTY SORT OF OFF THE
HOOK TO SAY WE'RE JUST GONNA GO
WITH A HOTEL INSTEAD OF WORKING
HARDER TO FIND SOMETHING THAT
MIGHT BE MORE APPROPRIATE FOR
THEIR CHILDREN. HOW MANY HAVE
BEEN RELEASED IN PLASTER COUNTY
IN PLASTER COUNTY OVER THE LAST
WE'VE HAD A HANDFUL OF THE LAST
10 YEARS IS A HANDFUL FIVE
BECAUSE I HAVE FIVE FINGERS. WE
HAVE ONE CURRENTLY PENDING. WE
HAD 12 YEARS AGO. UH AND THEN WE
HAD ONE A FEW YEARS BEFORE THAT.
I THINK THE THREE IN THE LAST
THREE IN THE LAST PROBABLY 5 TO
7 YEARS. WE HAVE I THINK ABOUT
30 PENDING RELEASE IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE HOSPITALS
RIGHT NOW, UH, AND FOR PLASTER
COUNTY ALONE NÓ NÓ 30 STATEWIDE.
I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR BECAUSE
I WAS ASKING YOUR EXPERTISE AS
WELL. I'M NOT GONNA SPEAK TO
YOUR EXPERTISE. RIGHT? YOU ARE
THE OFFICIAL IN PLASTER COUNTY.
SO I WAS SPEAKING TO PLASTER
COUNTY. SO IN PLASTER COUNTY IN
THE LAST 10 YEARS, YOU'VE HAD
APPROXIMATELY THREE INDIVIDUALS
BE RELEASED AT VARIOUS TIMES,
NOT ALL AT THE SAME TIME AND
THAT YOU EXPECT WITHIN THE 30
REMAINING. THERE IS SOMEONE WHO
IS GOING TO BE RELEASED TO
PLASTER COUNTY. I EXPECT THERE
TO BE TO BE NOT ONLY SOMEONE
FROM PLASTER COUNTY BUT ALSO NOT
INCLUDED IN THOSE NUMBERS OR THE
AMOUNT OF TIMES THAT OUR COUNTY
HAS CONTACTED TO RECEIVE ONE IF
HOUSING CAN'T BE LOCATED, AS WAS
MENTIONED EARLIER. FOR AMADOR
COUNTY, OFTENTIMES RIGHT IF
COUNTIES ARE EXHAUST THEIR
EFFORTS THEY TRY AND PLACE IN
OTHER COUNTIES, AND WE HAVE BEEN
BOTH THE RECEIVING COUNTY AND,
UH, AS WAS MENTIONED EARLIER. AT
ONE POINT, THE IDEA WAS TO
POLICE OUR PARTICULAR PERSON IN
ANOTHER COUNTY, SO THERE'S SORT
OF CROSS COUNTY ISSUES AS WELL.
TO SUMMARIZE YOUR TESTIMONY OF
IN RESPONSE TO MY QUESTION IS
THAT THE PRIMARY FOCUS IS THE
TEMPORARY NATURE OF THE HOUSING.
UM, AND THE FACT THAT NOT ONLY
IS IT TEMPORARY FOR THE
INDIVIDUAL, THERE ARE OTHERS
COMING AND GOING THAT IT'S A
TEMPORARY NATURE. SO TEMPORARY
NATURE ON BOTH SIDES IS THE
ISSUE THAT YOU'RE FINDING, UM
THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER, I
YOU NOTED THAT 75% OF THE 12
WERE REHOSPITALIZED SO 99 MARIE
HOSPITALIZED WHERE THEY ALL
REHOSPITALIZED SPECIFICALLY AS
IT RELATED TO THE TEMPORARY
NATURE. DO YOU HAVE THAT DETAIL
OF WHY THEY WERE WERE THE
REASONS FOR WE HAVE
REHOSPITALIZATION I? I HAVEN'T,
UH, GONE TO THE INDIVIDUAL.
BASIS LIKE THAT. UM BUT THEY DID
SAY IN THE REPORT THAT THEY WERE
ALL SERIOUS VIOLATIONS. OK, BUT
YOU DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS THIS.
THOSE SERIOUS VIOLATIONS WERE
SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THEM AND
IN THEIR HOUSING, UM, SITUATION.
I DID NOT LOOK AT THAT CORRECT.
AND OF THE NINE THAT WE WERE
REHOSPITALIZED WERE ANY OF THE
THREE THAT WERE NOTED THAT LIVED
IN PLASTER COUNTY WHERE YOU
REPRESENT I WE HAVEN'T HAD A
TRANSIENT RELEASE BEFORE OR
HAPPILY. NOT A TRANSIENT RELEASE
. NÓ PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN
REHOSPITALIZED AFTER RELEASE
HAVE ALL BEEN TRANSIENT RELEASED
. SO YOU'RE DRAWING THE
CORRELATION BETWEEN THE TWO AND
JUST AND JUST JUST SO I'M UH,
SPECIFICALLY, CLA. I KNOW. I
SAID, TOO. WHEN THIS LAST ONE
JUST IN GENERAL, YOUR BILL
PROPOSES THAT, UH THE 10 FT IS
NECESSARY. TO STOP TEMPORARY
HOUSING. UM BUT THE 10 FT
EXCLUDES NOT JUST TEMPORARY
HOUSING. IT ALSO INCLUDES PER
PERMANENT HOUSING, SO IT DOESN'T
MAKE A DISTINCTION OF TEMPORARY
HOUSING. WHICH THE TESTIMONY
THAT YOU GAVE IN THE OPENING AND
THEN THE TESTIMONY JUST FROM THE
Dð A Ó èC TALKS ABOUT THE
TEMPORARY NATURE. SO YOU'RE 10
FT, UM, CAN BE PERMANENT HOUSING
THAT'S WITHIN 10 FT. AS WELL,
RIGHT? IS IT? DOES IT DRAW THAT
DISTINCTION? THAT I'M NOT SEEING
SURE IT IT WHAT THE LANGUAGE
SAYS, IS 10 FT FROM A ANOTHER
DWELLING INTENDED FOR INHABITED
UH, INHABITATION PEOPLE TO LIVE
SO IT COULD BE AN APARTMENT. BUT
THESE ARE FOR AGAIN, UM,
SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATORS. UH
NOT YOU'RE CORRECT. THEY WOULD
NOT BE ABLE TO LIVE IN AN
APARTMENT AS WELL, BUT IT
DOESN'T NECESSARILY RESTRICT AS
A SIDE NOTE THE GROUP HOME
SITUATION BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE
A DWELLING, UM, ON ON THAT
FACILITY, SO WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT WHERE THERE'S ONE
INDIVIDUAL IN A FACILITY THAT
MIGHT BE LIVING NEXT DOOR TO YOU
KNOW YOU. I IN AN APARTMENT.
RIGHT WHICH WHICH, UM, THERE'S
LOTS OF PEOPLE LIVING NEXT TO US
THAT WE MIGHT NOT LIKE THAT
MIGHT NOT BE IDENTIFIED. A LOT
OF THOSE TOO, YOU KNOW, LIVE
NEXT DOOR TO ME. SO I, I WILL
SAY AS A AS A PERSON WHO, UM,
JUST AS A SIDE NOTE BASED ON
YOUR COMMENT OF PEOPLE LIVING
NEXT DOOR AS A PERSON WHO HAS
BEEN THE SUBJECT OF ABUSE AS A
CHILD, UM, ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS
BY DIFFERENT PEOPLE, NONE OF
THEM WERE IDENTIFIED AS SEXUALLY
VIOLENT PREDATORS. SO WE DO HAVE
TO BE CAREFUL RECOGNIZING THE
THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING
IN OUR COMMUNITIES, APARTMENTS.
UM, HOTELS WHO ARE NOT
IDENTIFIED AND WHO DON'T HAVE
TREATMENT OR RESOURCES OR ANY OF
THAT NATURE WHO ARE ACTUALLY
PREDATORS. TRUE PREDATORS. AND
SO I JUST WANNA NOTE THAT YOU
KNOW THEY IF THEY IF THEY
ACTUALLY HAVE SERVICES AROUND
THEM THAT THEY'RE THE AMOUNT OF
PEOPLE THAT ABUSE PEOPLE THE
AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THAT ABUSE
CHILDREN ARE NEVER EVER INCLUDED
IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.
AND THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE THAT
ABUSE AND NOT THEN PEOPLE WHO
HAVE BEEN CAUGHT AND SO WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT 54 INDIVIDUALS WHO
THEY NEED STABLE HOUSING TO
ENSURE THAT THEY'RE NOT REHAB,
UM, HOSPITALIZED AND I
ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT STABLE
HOUSING IT HOW WE GET THERE,
THOUGH, AND SO I REALLY AM
CONCERNED ABOUT THE 10 FT
REQUIREMENT AND REDUCING THE
NEED FOR THEM TO GET STABILITY
RECOGNIZING WE CANNOT HOLD THEM
FOREVER. IF THEY'VE GONE
THROUGH, UM THERE. UH, IF
THEY'VE GOT A CONDITIONAL
RELEASE, WHICH, UM, THEY'RE
ALLOWED TO IN THE PEOPLE ARE
MAKING DECISIONS THAT ALLOWED
THEM TO AS WELL AS THE FACT THAT
APPROPRIATE HOUSING IF IT IS
REJECTED. IT'S THE PEOPLE WHO
ARE MAKING THOSE SAME DECISIONS.
UM UH, THAT ARE ARE THEY'RE
REJECTING THAT WHAT? WHAT
SOMEONE MIGHT QUALIFY PROP
APPROPRIATE HOUSING. BUT I JUST
WANNA MAKE NOTE THAT WHEN WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE LIVING IN A
COMMUNITY THERE ARE SO MANY
PEOPLE WHO DO HARM WHO DO HARM
WHO ARE NEVER WITHIN OUR SYSTEM.
THANK YOU, UH, CHAIR FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE. I KNOW.
WE HAVE TO MOVE ON. MR Z HAS A
BRIEF QUESTION. MAYBE YOU CAN
ANSWER THE QUESTION. YOU CLOSE,
POTENTIALLY KID JUST GAVE ME 10.
MORE MINUTES TO TALK NÓ IN YOUR
CLOTHES WE'RE GONNA HOPEFULLY DO
I THINK ASSEMBLY MEMBER WILSON
ALREADY SORT OF ASKED. I MEAN,
THE PROBLEM I HAVE WITH THE BILL
IS THIS 10 FT AND THE FACT THAT
IT WOULD SEEM TO EXCLUDE HOUSING
OPTIONS FOR THESE PEOPLE THAT
COULD ACTUALLY BE INTENDED TO
PROVIDE GREATER SUPERVISION? AND
TREATMENT FOR THEM. UH SO IT
SEEMS LIKE WE'VE GOT BLANKET
RULES IN THE BILL THAT RUN THAT
COULD BE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO
THE FOCUS OF WHAT THE RELEASE
SHOULD BE, WHICH IS WHETHER OR
NOT THEY CAN PARTICIPATE IN
TREATMENT AND SUPERVISION.
THAT'S ALL I'LL SAY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION.
MOTION. THE MOTION TO SECOND
I'LL LET YOU CLOSE IN A SECOND.
BUT, UM I THINK YOU'RE RAISING
AN ISSUE. BUT THERE'S IMPERFECT
SOLUTIONS HERE AND THE RIGID
REMEDY WITH THE APARTMENTS. I'M
THINKING WHAT IF YOU'RE A DENSE
AREA? YOU KNOW, IT'S GONNA BE
NOTHING IN SACRAMENTO. WE'RE ALL
GONNA GO TO ROSEVILLE, WHERE
THERE'S MORE LAND AND DISTANCE,
AND SO II. I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE
AFTER. BUT, UM I AM NOT QUITE
CONVINCED RIGHT NOW, BUT I'LL
GIVE YOU THE CHANCE IN YOUR
CLOTHES TO WOW. US. MR PATTERSON
. HEY, IT'S COMING. IT'S COMING.
UM SO PLEASE, WE'LL SEE. WELL
YOU KNOW, THIS IS AN ISSUE. I'D
BE HAPPY TO CONTINUE TO WORK ON
BY THE WAY. UM BUT ONE THING I
DO WANNA SAY IS, UM, JUST IN
TERMS OF HOW RIDICULOUS AND I
THINK FIRST OF ALL, I WANNA
ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR POINT. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER WILSON. I MEAN, THERE ARE
PREDATORS OUT THERE, UM AND
SEXUALLY VIOLENT. CREDITORS IT
IT'S UNBELIEVABLE TO SAY, BUT
THAT IS THOSE THOSE ARE VERY,
VERY BAD INDIVIDUALS ROLLED BY
THE STATE IN THEIR AND THAT'S
WHY WE NEED TO GIVE THEM THE
SERVICES TO MAKE SURE THEY DON'T
DO IT AGAIN. THIS INDIVIDUAL EM
PIRE COUNTY. I REALLY DIDN'T
WANT TO MAKE IT ABOUT
INDIVIDUALS. BUT THIS IS THIS IS
HOW CRAZY THINGS ARE HAPPENING
AT THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE
HOSPITALS THAT I THINK NEEDS TO
BE PUT ON RECORD. THIS
INDIVIDUAL WAS ALREADY
REHOSPITALIZED WAS ALREADY
REHOSPITALIZED MANY YEARS AGO,
AND THEY'RE STILL RECOMMENDING
GIVING THIS INDIVIDUAL PLACEMENT
THAT IS PROVEN THAT'S NOT
WORKING. IT'S NOT WORKING RIGHT
HERE. SO MAYBE WE NEED ANOTHER
SOLUTION TO HELP GUIDE THEM IN
THAT, BUT THE FACT THAT THEY'RE
WILLING TO PUT A PERSON WHO
ALREADY REOFFENDED BACK ONTO
HOUSING THAT DOESN'T WORK IS
TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. IN MY
OPINION, SO, UM, ANYWAYS, I'LL
JUST LEAVE THAT WITH MY CLOSING
REMARKS, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO
80 VOTE. IT SOUNDS LIKE OK. WE
HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND. PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. ON MAYBE 2035 BY
SOME MEMBER JOE PATTERSON. THE
MOTION IS TO PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY MCCARTY, NOT VOTING.
ALANIS! ALANIS, I LACKEY LACKEY.
I WHEN, WHEN NOT VOTING REYES.
REY IS NOT VOTING TING. NOT
VOTING. WILSON. WILSON, NOT
VOTING ZIPPER. ZIPPER, NOT
VOTING. THANK YOU. THAT'S RECON
TO NOTHING PASSES. ARE YOU
ASKING FOR RECONSIDERATION? OH,
YES. PLEASE GIVE ME
RECONSIDERATION, SIR. THANK YOU.
THERE'S NÓ OBJECTION. BY BY WITH
UNANIMOUS CONSENT, WE WILL GRANT
RECONSIDERATION VERY MUCH. THANK
YOU, EVERYBODY. OK, WHO IS NEXT?
YOU GUYS DECIDE AMONGST
YOURSELF. MR JACKSON'S COMING
FORWARD YOU GO. OK, PLEASE
PROCEED, MR JACKSON. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH, UH, MR CHAIR. UM, I'M
PLEASED TO PRESENT A B 1877.
EVERY A B 77. I WOULD FIRST LIKE
TO THANK THE CHAIR AND FOR HIS
CONSIDERATION ON THIS BILL AS
THIS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED I
ALSO APPRECIATE THE HARD WORK OF
YOUR STAFF AND HELPING US TO GET
TO THIS POINT, UH, IN THE
PROCESS. WHEN I FIRST AUTHOR,
UH, PRESENTED THIS BILL UM YOU
KNOW, YOU UNCOVER A LOT OF OTHER
COMPLEXITIES THAT BEGIN TO ARISE
, BUT I'M I'M HAPPY THAT, UH, WE
HAVE BEGUN TO, UH, WORK THROUGH
THOSE A B 1877 IS ABOUT ENSURING
THAT OUR YOUTH CAN THRIVE AND
THAT THERE WILL NOT BE UH, AND
THAT THEIR CHILDHOOD BEHAVIOR
WILL NOT POSE BEHAVIOR. UH,
BARRIERS TO BEING SELF
SUFFICIENT. THIS BILL IS TRULY
ABOUT FAIR AND RESTORATIVE
JUSTICE. UH, THE WELL BEING OF
OUR YOUTH IS INSTRUMENTAL TO A
THRIVING STATE. AND THAT
INCLUDES AIDING THEM AND SEALING
NON FELONY CRIMINAL RECORDS. TO
ENSURE A BLANK SLATE AND
ENABLING THEM TO THRIVE WHEN
ENTERING ADULTHOOD. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN I VOTE.
THANK YOU ANY WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT? YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
OUR ARRAY OF MENDOZA FROM THE
PACIFIC JUVENILE DEFENDERS
CENTER IN SUPPORT OF ASSEMBLY
BILL 1877. IS THERE ANYBODY WHO
WANTS TO GIVE TESTIMONY OR WE
CAN DO THE ME TOOS? ALL RIGHT.
ANYBODY ELSE WITH ME, TOO? JUST
WANNA AND SUPPORT HE'S COMING UP
TO MIKE. GOOD MORNING MEMBERS.
DANIEL SANCHEZ ON BEHALF OF THE
CHIEF PROBATION OFFICERS OF
CALIFORNIA. I JUST WANT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE ARE
CURRENTLY REVIEWING THE
AMENDMENTS IN THE ANALYSIS. UM
AND SO WE DO NOT HAVE A POSITION
AT THIS TIME, BUT I DO JUST WANT
TO NOTE THAT WE HAVE WORKED
EARNESTLY ON THESE ISSUES. UM,
OVER THE MANY YEARS TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE ARE ABLE TO REMOVE
BARRIERS FOR YOUTH. BUT THERE
ARE VERY IMPORTANT, UM MECHANICS
AND PROCESSES AROUND HOW THIS
TAKES PLACE THAT WE ARE ACTIVELY
ENGAGING WITH THE AUTHOR'S
OFFICE ON. UH SO JUST WANTED TO
NOTE THAT AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO
MORE CONVERSATIONS. THANK YOU. I
GAVE YOU THE FIVE MINUTES FOR
THAT ONE. MARCO GEORGE ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION AND
SUPPORT THANK YOU. DIANA WROTE
ON BEHALF OF INITIATE JUSTICE,
LAW AND ROOT AND REBOUND AND
SUPPORT. AND LITTLE ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIANS FOR SAFETY AND
JUSTICE AND SUPPORT. JIM
LINDBERGH FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON
LEGISLATION IN CALIFORNIA IN
SUPPORT. GERONIMO AGUILAR HERE
ON BEHALF OF LEGAL SERVICES FOR
PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN. ALL OF
US ARE KNOWN IN STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. ERIC HENDERSON ON
BEHALF OF A èC LU, CALIFORNIA
ACTION AND SUPPORT THANK YOU
ANYBODY ELSE FOR SUPPORT? ALL
RIGHT. ANYONE FROM OUR
OPPOSITION? PLEASE COME UP TO
THE TABLE. I WANT CALL ME TWICE.
ALL RIGHT. SEE YOU. THEN WE'LL
GO TO COMMITTEE COMMITTEE. ANY
QUESTIONS? GOT OF THE BILL. ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE
COMMITTEE. OK MR JACKSON, YOU
MAY CLOSE. THAT'S HOW I ROLL. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN I VOTE.
OK, PLEASE TAKE A ROLL. ON A B
1877 BY SOME MEMBER REJECTION.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS TO THE AS
AMENDED TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. MCCARTY ALANIS ALANIS
, NOT VOTING LACKY LACKY NOT
VOTING WHEN I REYES REYES I TING
TING I WILSON WILSON, I ZER THAT
MEASURES ON CALL NEEDS AY
MEASURES ON CALL JUST WAITING
FOR THEM TO COME BACK AND SAY,
THAT'S HOW YOU ROLL. THANK YOU.
WHO'S NEXT? SUPPORT. A B 2021
MEMBER OF OUR Kò. IT'S ALL YOURS
. THANK YOU, MR VICE CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. I WANT TO START BY
THANKING COMMITTEE STAFF FOR
THEIR HARD WORK IN FINDING A
PATH FORWARD ON THIS BILL AND
YOUR ASSISTANCE IN DRAFTING THE
AMENDMENTS. UM I'LL BE ACCEPTING
THE COMMITTEE'S PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS TODAY, AND, UM, THIS
BILL REALLY CAME OUT OF A
CONVERSATION I WAS HAVING, UM,
WITH A BUNCH OF TEENS IN MY OWN
COMMUNITY ABOUT THE RAMPANT RISE
OF NOW, NOT JUST VAPING IN OUR
SCHOOLS, BUT ALSO ZENS, WHICH
ARE POUCHES. TOBACCO THAT ARE
THEY'RE USING IN THEIR LIP AND
THAT, UM, DISINTEGRATE. UNLIKE
CHU, THEY DON'T HAVE TO SPIT SO
THEY CAN BE USING THESE TOBACCO
POUCHES IN THE CLASSROOM WITH NÓ
ONE NOTICING THEM. AND AS I WAS
HAVING THIS CONVERSATION WITH
THE TEENS, I SAID, HOW ARE THEY
GETTING THIS? AND NONE OF THEM
SEEMED TO KNOW. AND SO AS I DOVE
INTO WHAT IS HAPPENING IN OUR
BACKYARD I, I READ THE REPORTS
THAT THE RISE IN TOBACCO USAGE
FOR THOSE UNDER 18 IS INCREDIBLY
ON THE RISE. AND WHEN WE LOOKED
AT THE PENALTIES THAT ARE
CURRENTLY BEING ASSESSED TO
THOSE SELLING TOBACCO TO OUR
YOUTH, IT WAS INC. LOW AND AS
SOMEONE WHO USED TO DO, UM,
REGULATORY LAW AND CRIMINAL LAW.
I KNEW THAT YOU CANNOT MAKE
PENALTIES. THE COST OF DOING
BUSINESS IS INCREDIBLY LUCRATIVE
BUSINESS AND IF IT'S JUST THE
COST OF DOING BUSINESS, THEY'RE
GOING TO SELL TOBACCO TO OUR
KIDS, HARMING THEM, COSTING THEM
THEIR HEALTH AND SAFETY. AND SO
THIS BILL REALLY GETS IT,
ENSURING THAT OUR KIDS ARE SAFE
IN OUR COMMUNITIES AND THAT
PEOPLE ARE NOT SELLING THEM
ILLEGAL TOBACCO WITH ME TODAY IN
SUPPORT IS OUR CINDY DE SILVA, A
NARCOTICS PROSECUTOR FROM SAN
JOAQUIN COUNTY, Dð, A S¼ OFFICE
AND TA DYLAN, A LOCAL PRINCIPAL
FOR LIBERTY HIGH CONTINUATION
HIGH SCHOOL. THANK YOU SO MUCH
FOR THAT. FIVE MINUTES. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING AGAIN.
EVERYBODY, UM SO I AM A
NARCOTICS PROSECUTOR AND PART OF
WHAT I DO IS EVERY WEEK MULTIPLE
TIMES A WEEK. IN FACT, THAT'S
HOW I MET MISS DYLAN. UM I GET
TO GO AROUND TO OUR LOCAL
SCHOOLS AND TALK TO THEM ABOUT
THE DANGERS OF FENTANYL
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ALL THE WAY
THROUGH COLLEGE, AND IT'S BEEN
AMAZING LEARNING FROM THESE KIDS
, BUT IT'S EVEN MORE AMAZING
TALKING TO THE EDUCATORS BECAUSE
THEY ARE TELLING ME THAT, UM
KIDS AS YOUNG AS THIRD GRADE ARE
NOW SMOKING AND VAPING ON CAMPUS
. UM AND I'M II. I SO MUCH
APPRECIATE YOU ALLOWING TO COME
AND PARTICIPATE IN GOVERNMENT
AND I HAVE MY NIECES HERE. 3RD
AND 5TH GRADE WHO ARE WATCHING
US ALL PARTICIPATE, AND IT'S
JUST AMAZING TO ME TO THINK THAT
SOMEBODY AS YOUNG AS THIRD GRADE
THAT LOOKS THAT TINY, UM IS
BEING PREYED UPON BY THESE
BUSINESSES THAT ARE SELLING AND
NOT REALLY CARING WHO THEY SELL
TO THE EQUITY IMPACT OF
SOMETHING LIKE THAT IS
INCREDIBLE. THE YOUNGER WE START
SMOKING THE YOUNGER WE START
ENGAGING THESE ACTIVITIES. UM
THE LESS HEALTHY OBVIOUSLY, WE
WILL BE UM, I THINK THE MEASURE
INCREASING THE FINES IS
APPROPRIATE. GIVEN THE LEVEL OF
INFLATION WE'VE HAD. I LOVE THE
STATEMENT ABOUT. WE CAN'T HAVE
PENALTIES BEING THE COST OF
DOING BUSINESS AS A NARCOTICS
PROSECUTOR. I AGREE WITH THAT
VERY MUCH, BUT WE'VE GOT SOME
AMAZING ON THE GROUND. UM,
INFORMATION FROM MISS DYLAN, A
CONTINUATION HIGH SCHOOL
PRINCIPAL, AND I'D LOVE TO HEAR
FROM HER AS WELL. GOOD MORNING
MEMBERS AND CHAIR. UH, MY NAME
IS TAMMY DILLON AND I'VE BEEN A
PUBLIC EDUCATOR IN PUBLIC
SCHOOLS FOR THIS IS MY 40TH YEAR
, 30 YEARS AS A SCHOOL SITE
ADMINISTRATOR THIS YEAR,
PRINCIPAL LIBERTY CONTINUATION
HIGH SCHOOL AND I WILL SAY IN
ALL MY YEARS, ADDICTION AND A IS
AT AN ALL TIME HIGH WITH OUR
YOUTH. UM YESTERDAY I SURVEYED
MY FELLOW ADMINISTRATORS BECAUSE
I DIDN'T WANT TO JUST COME FROM
MY OWN VIEWPOINT, WHICH HAS VERY
, VERY STRONG VIEWPOINTS AS FAR
AS VAPING IN SCHOOLS AND WHAT A
HIGH RATE THAT IS, UM AND ALL MY
ADMINISTRATORS WITHOUT A DOUBT I
HAD EMAILS BACK THAT SAID.
FIGHTING AND GANGS ARE NÓ LONGER
. THE BIG ISSUE IT'S ALL VAPING.
WE HAVE 15 TO 20 KIDS
CONGREGATING IN THE BATHROOMS
THAT ARE VAPING IN BATHROOMS IN
SOME OF THE SCHOOLS THAT HAVE,
UM, HIGHLY, YOU KNOW, SENSITIVE
FIRE ALARMS LAST YEAR, FIRST
SEMESTER, LODI HIGH SCHOOL HAD
40 FIRE ALARMS GO OFF JUST IN
THE FIRST SEMESTER IN ONE DAY,
FOUR TIMES, WHICH MEANS YOU HAVE
TO EVACUATE THE WHOLE SCHOOL. SO
THIS IS NOT ONLY AFFECTING KIDS
WHO ARE ÁP BUT KIDS WHO ARE NON
VAPORS, WHICH THAT IS ACTUALLY A
SMALL NUMBER THESE DAYS. UM,
THAT AFFECTS STATE TESTING. UM A
P TESTING WHEN ANY OF THOSE
KINDS OF THINGS HAPPEN DURING,
UH, A TESTING CONTROL PROCESS.
YOU HAVE TO SUB SUBMIT
IRREGULARITIES. UM IT BECOMES A
BIG DEAL. SO UH, MY MIDDLE
SCHOOL PRINCIPAL COLLEAGUES HAVE
ALSO SAID THAT THAT PROBABLY
DOUBLE TO TRIPLE THE SUSPENSIONS
THIS YEAR ON VAPING FOR STUDENTS
WHO ARE 12 AND 13, MY MIDDLE
SCHOOL PRINCIPAL AT MILLS, WOOD
SAID. I HAD TH I'VE HAD 30.
SUSPENSION SO FAR THIS YEAR.
NORMALLY IT'S NEVER BEEN MORE
THAN ABOUT 10, SO IT'S REALLY
GROWING WITH THE YOUNGER KIDS.
UM I KNOW AT THE HIGH SCHOOLS,
IT'S RAMPANT AND KIDS THAT DO
WANT TO USE THE BATHROOM. DON'T
EVEN GO BECAUSE IT'S SO FILLED
WITH KIDS WHO ARE VAPING. AND OF
COURSE, IT'S A PLACE WHERE KIDS
CAN HAVE PRIVACY. YOU CAN'T
REALLY SUPERVISE THAT TOO. WELL
WHEN THEY'RE GOING IN THERE IN
THEIR PRIVATE STALLS, UM AND I
JUST SEE IT AS A GROWING PROBLEM
. KIDS IT'S SO ACCESSIBLE. IN
FACT, YESTERDAY, I EMAILED A
FRIEND TO SAY I WOULD BE MISSING
A MEETING THIS MORNING. AND I
TOLD HER WHAT I WAS DOING AND
SHE SAID, OH, WOW, SHE SAID.
THAT'S GREAT. SHE SAYS. YOU KNOW
WHAT LITTLE DID I KNOW I WAS
FOLLOWING MY DAUGHTER ON HER
LOCATOR. UM AND I THOUGHT SHE
WAS AT SPICE AND RICE GETTING
FOOD AND SHE WAS NEXT DOOR AT
GET LIT, AND SHE WAS EASILY ABLE
TO, UM, BUY VAPES THERE, SHE
SAID. I HAD NÓ IDEA IT WAS SO
ACCESSIBLE AND FREE FOR KIDS TO
PURCHASE. SO RIGHT NOW THERE'S
JUST A SLAP ON THE HAND FOR
ANYBODY THAT SELLS TO THESE
YOUNG PEOPLE, AND IT REALLY
NEEDS TO BE SOMETHING THAT'S A
BIGGER DEAL. I REMEMBER 15 YEARS
AGO WHEN A B èC WHICH IS, UH
LIKE BEVERAGE AND CONTROL WAS
TARGETING, UM, LIQUOR STORES AND
STARTING TO DO STINGS AND ONCE
THAT BECAME A COMMUNITY KNOWN
THING, THOSE THOSE LIQUOR SALES
REALLY DROPPED FOR THE YOUNG
PEOPLE. WE DON'T SEE THAT TOO
MUCH IN SCHOOLS ALCOHOL ANYMORE.
IT'S ALL THE VAPING. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. UH, DO WE HAVE ANYONE
ELSE IN THE ROOM IN SUPPORT?
PLEASE COME UP TO THE MIC NAME
AND ASSOCIATIONS. GOOD MORNING
MEMBERS. JOE SIGNS ON BEHALF OF
THE COUNTY HEALTH EXECUTIVES
ASSOCIATION REPRESENTING LOCAL
HEALTH DEPARTMENTS IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? OK DO
YOU HAVE ANYONE FOR OPPOSITION?
ANYONE IN OPPOSITION? PLEASE
COME UP TO THE TABLE. ONLY ONCE.
GOT TO MOVE IN A SECOND. AND ANY
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE MR
LACKEY. YEAH, I THINK THIS IS A
EXCUSE ME. AN IMPORTANT BILL.
THAT UH, DESERVES SUPPORT.
HOWEVER I WOULD ASK YOU TO
CONSIDER INCLUDING ZEN POUCHES.
IT'S NOT. IT'S NOT ARTICULATED
HERE. THEY ARE VERY, VERY, VERY
BIG AMONGST THE YOUNG PEOPLE.
AND I THINK THEY'RE EVERY BIT AS
ADDICTIVE AND, UH, PROBLEMATIC,
SO I WOULD JUST ASK THAT YOU
CONSIDER INCLUDING THEM BEFORE
IT GETS TO THE FLOOR. ABSOLUTELY
I MY READING IS THAT IT IS, BUT
WE'LL DOUBLE CHECK BECAUSE I
AGREE. SO THANK YOU, MR LACKING
MISS WILSON. I JUST HAD A FOLLOW
UP TO THE, UM THE LETTER OF
OPPOSITION WHERE IT TALKED ABOUT
THE SMALL BUSINESS AND VIOLATION
OF Kò. DID YOU RESOLVE THAT OR
SEEKING TO RESOLVE THAT ISSUE IN
TERMS OF BUSINESSES AFTER THE
FACT WHO MIGHT BE SELLING TO AN
ADULT? AND THEN THAT PERSON IS
SELLING THE KIDS? I THINK THEY
WERE STILL LIABLE AS I
UNDERSTOOD IT OR NÓ. SO IF THE
STORE ITSELF SELLS TO AN ADULT,
THE STORE WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR
THIS. OK SO IT'S ONLY IF THEY
DIRECTLY IS THE SELLER. AWESOME.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
ALRIGHT. UH, JUST WANNA SAY
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS
BILL. UH, STUDENTS. THANK YOU
FOR ALSO COMING TO SEE HOW THIS
PROCESS WORKS. SO THANK YOU FOR
ATTENDING THIS, UH YOU KNOW, WE
SPEND A LOT OF TIME CUTTING THE
SUPPLY WITH OTHER BIG DRUGS, AND
WE DON'T ALWAYS THINK ABOUT
TOBACCO PRODUCTS OR NICOTINE AND
STUFF LIKE THAT. SO THANK YOU
FOR LOOKING OUT FOR OUR STUDENTS
AND OUR YOUTH AND OUR FUTURE
LEADERS. I UH, BACK IN THE DAY
ALMOST 30 YEARS AGO, I USED TO
BE ONE OF THOSE DECOY BUYERS
THAT WOULD COME IN AND BUY THAT.
I MEAN, I HOW LONG AGO I STARTED
MY CAREER DOING THAT KIND OF
STUFF. UH, AND IT WAS, UH YOU
KNOW THEY THEY START TO HAND THE
PRODUCT OVER TO YOU AND YOU HAND
THEM THE MONEY AND YOU'RE LIKE,
OH, THIS PERSON'S GONNA GET A
TICKET OR GET BUSTED IN A LITTLE
BIT SO, BUT THAT'S ALL PART OF
IT. AND YES, SALES DID GO DOWN
WHEN THAT HAPPENED. SO
DETERRENCE IS A BIG THING. UH,
IN IN EVERY LITTLE ASPECT WE CAN
GET IT IN. SO THANK YOU FOR
DOING THAT. AND YOU MAY CLOSE
RESPECT. THEY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. THANK YOU. RIGHT. TAKE THE
ROLE ON A B 2021 BY THE MEMBER
BAUER KHAN. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS AS AMENDED TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY ALAN, ALAN, I LACKEY
LACKY I WHEN, WHEN I REYES REYES
I TING TING I. WILSON WILSON, I
ZER ZIPPER. I THAT MAJOR PASSES.
THANK YOU. MR BRIAN FIRST HAPPY
BIRTHDAY, MR LACKEY. THANK YOU.
THAT THE RECORD STATE.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR AND
COLLEAGUES. I'M PROUD TO PRESENT
A B 1986 A BILL THAT WILL BRING
TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
TO THE PRACTICE OF BOOK BANNING
IN PRISONS. ACCESS TO KNOWLEDGE
IS ESSENTIAL FOR REHABILITATION,
AND IT HELPS PEOPLE REINTEGRATE
INTO SOCIETY. WITHIN OUR STATE
PRISONS. HOWEVER THE BOOKS
CURRENTLY BANNED SEEM TO BE
DISPROPORTIONATELY WRITTEN BY
BLACK AUTHORS AND OTHER AUTHORS
OF COLOR. èC Dð èC R BANS
BOOKS THEY DEEM NOT TO BE IN THE
PENOLOGICAL INTEREST OF THE
STATE, BUT WITH GREAT
INCONSISTENCY. LAST YEAR, THE
CALIFORNIA REPARATIONS TASK
FORCE RECOMMENDED ADDRESSING THE
ISSUE OF PRISON BOOK BANS IN
THEIR REPORT RECOGNIZING THAT
èC Dð èC R S¼ BOOK BÀN
CONTAINED MANY CREATIVE WORKS
WRITTEN BY BLACK, UH AND OTHER
AUTHORS OF COLOR. SOME NOTABLE
EXAMPLES OF BANNED BOOKS THAT
ARE EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL IN
NATURE INCLUDE THE MIRIAM
WEBSTER VISUAL DICTIONARY. FRIDA
KAHLO. THE PAINTINGS THE KITE
RUNNER. LADY GAGA BORN TO BE
FREE. PRISONER IN THE GARDEN,
WHICH WAS WRITTEN BY NELSON
MANDELA. WHO WAS A
TRANSFORMATIVE, FORMERLY
INCARCERATED ACTIVIST ELECTED
SOUTH AFRICA'S PRESIDENT IN THE
19 NINETIES. SHOCKINGLY SOME
NOTABLE BOOKS YOU CAN READ IN A
CALIFORNIA PRISON OR MEIN KAMPF.
BUT ADOLF HITLER. VIRTUALLY ANY
BOOK RELATED TO THE Kò Kò Kò,
FOR EXAMPLE, THE KLANSMEN A
HISTORICAL ROMANCE OF THE KU
KLUX KLAN. A B 1986 BRINGS
NEEDED TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY WHEN NECESSARY.
THIS BILL WILL REQUIRE THE
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR èC Dð
èC OVERSIGHT. èC Dð èC R
OVERSIGHT TO POST THE
CENTRALIZED LIST OF DISAPPROVED
PUBLICATIONS ON THEIR STATE
WEBSITE. THE POSTING WILL BRING
TRANSPARENCY TO WHAT BOOK èC Dð
èC R HAS DEEMED NECESSARY TO
BÀN FOR INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS
. DESPITE THEIR LITERARY VALUE.
MAYBE 1986 ALSO REQUIRES èC Dð
èC R TO REMOVE A PUBLICATION
FROM THE BANNED LIST IF THE
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
DETERMINES THAT THERE IS
INADEQUATE EVIDENCE JUSTIFYING
ITS INCLUSION ON THE LIST IN THE
FIRST PLACE. BOOKS ARE MORE THAN
JUST SOURCES OF INFORMATION.
THEY'RE TOOLS FOR EMPOWERMENT
FOR REHABILITATION FOR
TRANSFORMATION, AND THEY'RE
INVALUABLE TO ALL PEOPLE. GIVE
TESTIMONY WITH ME TODAY I'M
JOINED BY SHAKUR WHO HAS LIVED
EXPERIENCE, UH, WITH OUR BOOK
BANNING IN THE STATE PRISON
SYSTEM. YES. GOOD MORNING, MR
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
TOMMY ROSS. I GO BY SHAKUR. IT
MEANS GRATEFUL, APPRECIATIVE,
THANKFUL, AND I STRIVE TO LIVE
BY THESE CHARACTERISTICS
THROUGHOUT MY LIFE. I WAS
RELEASED FROM SAN QUENTIN ON
APRIL 27TH 19. I MEAN 2022 AT
THE SERVING 37 YEARS. I'M
CURRENTLY EMPLOYED, UH, WITH
GRIP TRAINING INSTITUTE GRIP IS
AN ACRONYM, WHICH MEANS GUIDE
AND RAGE AND THE POWER IT'S A
NONPROFIT THAT FACILITATES A
REHABILITATIVE CURRICULUM IN
SEVEN CALIFORNIA PRISONS. ARE
FACILITATE THE GRIP PROGRAM IN
BOTH SAN QUENTIN AND SOLEDAD
PRISONS. TODAY I'M TESTIFYING ON
BEHALF OF GRIP. AND I'M HERE IN
HONOR OF THE PEOPLE OF HORNED.
AND WE SUPPORT A B 1986. FOR ME
AS A FORMERLY INCARCERATED
PERSON, HAVING ACCESS TO BOOKS
OVERALL, ALLOW ME TO NOT ONLY
STIMULATE MY MIND
INTELLECTUALLY. BUT TO LEARN AND
GROW SUBSTANTIALLY AS A RESULT.
WHILE INCARCERATED. I CANNOT
UNDERSTAND AND STILL CAN'T
UNDERSTAND HOW, FOR INSTANCE,
BOOKS BY JOYCE JACKSON WERE
BANNED FROM STATE PRISONS, BUT
B¢O BOOKS BY HITLER WEREN'T
INCARCERATED PERSONS CAN READ
AND REFLECT ON HITLER'S RADICAL,
UH, RADICAL IDEOLOGY ABOUT
RACIAL SUPERIORITY. AND LEARN
HOW HE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR
STARTING WORLD WAR I AND
INITIATING THE HOLOCAUST. YEAH.
GEORGE JACKSON'S BOOK, SOLEDAD
BROTHER. A BOOK OF PERSONAL
LETTERS TO HIS FAMILY AND
FRIENDS IS BANNED. THERE ARE NÓ
INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMMIT
VIOLENCE OR START A REVOLUTION.
I HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO READ
THIS BOOK WHILE I WAS
INCARCERATED. AND WAS UNAWARE OF
ANY BÀN IN PLACE ON THE BOOK AT
THAT POINT IT WAS SUCH AN
INTERESTING READ FOR ME
INTELLECTUALLY BECAUSE I CAN
RELATE TO HIS PERSPECTIVE. AND
HIS PERSPECTIVE ENCOURAGED ME TO
LEARN AND MAKE POSITIVE DIS
DIFFERENCES IN THE LIVES OF
OTHERS. I ENCOURAGE YOU TO READ
IT AND SEE FOR YOURSELF. SINCE
THEN, I'M AWARE THAT THE BOOK
HAS BEEN PLACED ON èC Dð èC R
S¼ BANNED BOOKS LIST. AND NÓ
PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN PUNISHED
JUST FOR HAVING IT. TO CONCLUDE
I UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR SOME
BOOKS, RESTRICTIONS IN REGARDS
TO SAFETY AND SECURITY OF STATE
PRISON INSTITUTIONS. BUT THE BÀN
OF BOOK SIMPLY BECAUSE A PERSON
HAS A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE THAN
A MAINSTREAM. SEEMS LIKE TOIAN
IS TO ME. THERE IS A NEED FOR
TRANSPARENCY REGARDING WHAT
BOOKS ARE BANNED. AND WHY. I
STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO VOTE
IN SUPPORT OF A B 1986. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND
CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. AND
YOU WANNA SUPPORT PLEASE COME
UP, MIKE. NAME AN ORGANIZATION.
DANNIKA ROAR ON BEHALF OF
INITIATE JUSTICE, PROUD SPONSOR
OF A B 1986 ALSO REGISTERING
SUPPORT ON BEHALF OF LAW DEFENSA
LAWYERS COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL
RIGHTS OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY
AREA AND ROOT AND REBOUND.
MARGOT GEORGE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION, AND SUPPORT THANK
YOU. MELANIE KI¾M SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE IN
SUPPORT. AND LITTLE ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIANS FOR SAFETY AND
JUSTICE AND SUPPORT. I'M FAITH
LEE WITH ASIAN AMERICANS
ADVANCING JUSTICE, SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA WERE IN SUPPORT. TIME
Tð WITH THE ELLA BAKER CENTER
FOR HUMAN RIGHTS WE SUPPORT
BARBARA CHÁVEZ ELLA BAKER
CENTER, AND WE SUPPORT. HERE ON
BEHALF OF LEGAL SERVICES OR
PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN. ALSO,
ALL OF US ARE NON IN STRONG
SUPPORT. JIM LINDBERGH FRIENDS
COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION IN
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. ALICIA
CALIFORNIA IT'S UNITED FOR
RESPONSIBLE BUDGET AND STRONG
SUPPORT. FELIPE A. KELLY WITH
THE ELLA BAKER CENTER. I LIVE IN
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA IN FULL
SUPPORT. HAYLEY LITTLE
CALIFORNIANS UNITED FOR A
RESPONSIBLE BUDGET AND SHOWING
UP FOR RACIAL JUSTICE BAY AREA
IN STRONG SUPPORT. KENNETH
HARTMAN, UH, TRANSFORMATIVE IN
PRISON WORK GROUP AND FORMALLY
INCARCERATED AUTHOR STRONGLY IN
FAVOR OF THIS BILL. ERIC
HENDERSON ON BEHALF OF A èC LU,
CALIFORNIA ACTION AND SUPPORT
THANK YOU. ANYBODY IN
OPPOSITION. SEEING NONE
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MISS REYES.
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS BILL
FORWARD. SOMETIMES WE DON'T
REALIZE THE HARM WE'RE CAUSING.
BY SOME RULE. WE PUT TOGETHER
THIS LIST OF AND BOOKS. I
APPRECIATE THE REPARATIONS
COMMISSION LOOKING INTO THIS AND
RECOMMENDING THIS. I TAKE THAT
AS A MOTION. MOVE THE BILL
MOTION THE SECOND FROM MR REYES,
MISS W. MISS WILSON. THANK YOU
TO THE AUTHOR. UM AND THANK YOU
TO MY COLLEAGUE FOR NOTING AS A
PART OF THE REPARATIONS
COMMITTEE AND THIS, YOU KNOW,
JUST TO BE CLEAR AS A PART OF,
UM THE REPARATIONS, UH, PACKAGE
AND INITIATIVE THAT THE
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE BLACK
CAUCUS HAS PUT FORWARD AND
PRIMARILY BECAUSE WE SEE THAT,
UM WITHIN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE
SYSTEM THAT BLACK AND BROWN
FOLKS AND PARTICULARLY BLACK
CALIFORNIANS ARE DIS
PROFESSIONALLY IMPACTED. AND SO
THERE ARE SPACES WITHIN
REPARATIONS AS WE LOOK TO RIGHT
THE WRONGS OF THE PAST, WE BEEN
ASSURING THAT, UM, WITHIN OUR
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM REFORMS
ARE IN PLACE TO REHABILITATE AND
TO BRING THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN,
UM, WITHIN THAT SYSTEM TO BRING
THEM TO A PLACE OF WHOLENESS.
AND SO I THINK PART OF THAT IS
THROUGH LITERATURE, AND I KNOW
THAT'S WHY IT'S A PRIORITY OF
THE BLACK CAUCUS. AND SO, UM, I
JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU AN
OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON WHY
YOU THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT TO
THE REPARATIONS WORK THAT WE'RE
DOING AS A CAUCUS. THANK YOU.
UH, THANK YOU FOR THAT FOR THAT
QUESTION. CHAIR WILSON. THIS IS
A CRITICALLY IMPORTANT FOR THAT
REPARATIONS WORK BECAUSE WE KNOW
A DISPROPORTIONATE AMOUNT OF
PEOPLE WHO ARE INCARCERATED. UH,
ARE BLACK. UM ARE DESCENDANTS OF
SLAVERY AND IN CALIFORNIA'S
AFTERLIVES AND PARTICIPATION IN
SLAVERY. THERE ARE ALSO PEOPLE
WHO HAVE BEEN OFTEN LET DOWN BY
CALIFORNIA'S EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM.
UH AND THE OVERLAP BETWEEN, UM
POOR EDUCATION OUTCOMES AND THE
LIKELIHOOD OF INCARCERATION.
THERE ARE COUNTLESS EXAMPLES OF
FOLKS WHO WERE INCARCERATED WHO
FREED THEIR MIND LONG BEFORE
THEY FREED THEIR BODY BY
LEARNING, UH, ABOUT THE WORLD,
THEIR PLACE IN IT AND HOW TO BE
A STRONGER AND BETTER
FUNCTIONING MEMBER OF SOCIETY
WHILE READING WHILE THEY
INCARCERATED THE IDEA THAT WE
WOULD BÀN BOOKS THAT SPEAK VERY
CLEARLY TO THAT POWER OF
TRANSFORMATION AND PROVIDE BOTH
THE SOCIAL AND CULTURAL TOOLS
NEEDED FOR PEOPLE TO GROW IN
THAT WAY, I THINK IS A
DISSERVICE FOR ALL CALIFORNIANS,
NOT JUST THE FOLKS WHO ARE
INCARCERATED, AND I THINK IT HAS
A RELATIVE NEGATIVE PUBLIC
SAFETY IMPACT AS WELL. UH, THE
GOAL OF OUR PENAL SYSTEM IS TO,
UM HELP FOLKS REHABILITATE AND
REINTEGRATE REFORM. UH,
REIMAGINE THEMSELVES AS PART OF
A LARGE CONSTRUCT IN SOCIETY AND
THAT'S WHAT ALLOWING ACCESS TO
LITERATURE DOES, AND THAT'S WHY
WE NEED THIS ACCOUNTABILITY AND
THIS TRANSPARENCY. THANK YOU, MR
LANE. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. FIRST
OFF. CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR
REHABILITATION. THANK YOU. GOOD
JOB. UH SPEAKING OF TRANSPARENCY
JUST ALSO WANT TO BRING UP AND
JUST SO THE COMMITTEE IS ALSO
AWARE THE BOOKS THAT ARE ON THIS
LIST THAT HAVE BEEN BANNED AND
CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, AR, UH,
ARE BOOKS THAT HAVE TRIED TO
COME IN AND THAT'S WHY THEY'RE
BANNED. FOR WHATEVER REASON THEY
WERE. AND II. I AGREE ON THE
TRANSPARENCY I WOULD LIKE TO
KNOW. I SEE PAGES ARE LISTED ON
HERE FOR SPECIFIC WHY, BUT THERE
THERE ARE SOME SOME, UH, SOME
BOOKS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP ON
LIKE HITLER. MAYBE NOBODY'S
TRIED TO SEND IT IN YET, UH,
THAT THAT'S WHY IT'S PROBABLY
NOT ON THERE BECAUSE I GUARANTEE
THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE BANNED
LIST ALSO FOR SOME OF THE STUFF
THAT'S STATED IN THERE. UH
ACTUALLY, YOU HAVE THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL ON HERE. UH, EVERY
EVERYTHING I'M ASSUMING YOU'VE
TALKED WITH THEM. ARE THEY GOING
TO BE ABLE TO? THIS IS A BIG
TASK. AND UH, I I'M SUPPORTIVE
OF THIS BILL. JUST SO YOU KNOW,
BUT THESE ARE JUST INTERNAL
QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE ALSO TO
TRY AND HELP AS WELL. BUT TO, UH
JUST LET EVERYBODY KNOW THAT
THERE THERE'S GONNA BE A LOT
MORE BOOKS ON HERE. I'M SURE
THEY JUST DON'T HAVE SOMEBODY
THAT'S ABLE TO GO THROUGH EVERY
SINGLE ONE AND SOME OF THESE
BOOKS. IF YOU WERE TO GET THEM
IN PRINT, THEY'RE GONNA BE
EXPENSIVE. UH SO THAT'S ANOTHER
THING TO THINK ABOUT. ALL YOURS.
YEAH. NÓ I. I HAVE ABSOLUTELY
SPOKEN WITH HER. UM SHE AND I
HAVE MET ABOUT THIS BILL, AND I
THINK HE RAISED UP A COUPLE OF
GOOD POINTS. ONE I THINK THE
COST OF LITERATURE IS PROBABLY
NOT MY FAVORITE POINT THAT YOU
BROUGHT UP BECAUSE I THINK
INVESTING IN EDUCATION IS
SOMETHING WE HAVE TO DO ACROSS
THE BOARD EVERYWHERE ALL THE
TIME IN A DOWN BUDGET, AND, UH,
AND A GOOD BUDGET. UM UH, WE
ALSO CRAFTED THIS BILL BEING
MINDFUL OF THE WORKLOAD AND THE
CAPACITY AND THE COST RELATED TO
IT. THIS BILL DOES NOT REQUIRE
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL TO REVIEW
EVERY BOOK ON THE BÀN LIST. UH,
IT ONLY EMPOWERS THEM WITH THE
AUTHORITY TO REVIEW BOOKS AS
NEEDED AND DECIDE WHETHER, UH,
THEY ARE NOT IN THE PENOLOGICAL
INTEREST, UH OR OR THEIR BANNING
IS JUSTIFIED. AND SO I IMAGINE
THAT IS IN LINE WITH THE DUTIES
ALREADY BY THE OFFICE OF THE
INSPECTOR GENERAL. IN FACT, IF
SOMEBODY INCARCERATED OR
OTHERWISE WERE TO PUT IN A
REQUEST TO THE Ó IG TO LOOK AT
THIS, I THINK, IN ADDITION TO
OFFICER BRUTALITY AND THE OTHER
THINGS THE OFFICE ALREADY DOES.
THAT OVERSIGHT SEEMS TO FIT
PERFECTLY IN THAT PURVIEW. AND
SO I, I, UH I THINK THIS IS ALSO
IMPORTANT FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC
IN CALIFORNIA. TO YOUR POINT
ABOUT BRINGING BOOKS IN, UM I'M
A FAMILY MEMBER OF SOMEBODY
WHO'S BEEN INCARCERATED, RIGHT
IF I WANTED TO BRING, UH, MY
LITTLE BROTHER, UM, BETWEEN THE
WORLD AND ME BY TA NESI, COATES
OR NELSON MANDELA'S BOOK OR OR
ANY OF THESE WORKS THAT I THINK
WOULD HAVE A POWERFUL,
TRANSFORMATIVE EFFECT. UH, ON
HIS BOTH KNOWLEDGE, ENRICHMENT,
BUT SENSE OF SELF AND PURPOSE IN
THE WORLD. UH, I'D LIKE TO KNOW
IN ADVANCE WHETHER I COULD BRING
THAT OR WHETHER THAT'S BEEN BEEN
BANNED, AND THE FACT THAT THE
CURRENT IS OPAQUE AND COMPLETELY
DISCRETIONARY, AND BEHIND CLOSED
DOORS IS NOT IN THE INTEREST OF
ALL CALIFORNIANS. OK THANK YOU.
NÓ FURTHER QUESTIONS WE HAVE.
EXCUSE ME. MY ONLY CONCERN IS
THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE. IF
SOMEONE CHALLENGES THIS LIST,
EVEN THE WHOLE LIST DOES NOT
MEAN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS TO
GO THROUGH. THE WHOLE LIST,
WHICH WOULD INCLUDE AN
INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF, UH, EFFORT
AND GOING THROUGH IS REALLY
SILLY NÓ. THAT'S A THAT'S A
GREAT QUESTION AND IT IT MAKES
ME REALLY PROUD OF MY TEAM AND I
FOR TAKING THE TIME TO CRAFT
THIS IN A REALLY THOUGHTFUL WAY.
THIS LEAVES THE DISCRETION TO
REVIEW THE BANNED LIST SOLELY AT
THE DISCRETION OF THE OFFICE OF
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL. THEY GET
A LOT OF REQUESTS TO DO A LOT OF
THINGS. UM THEY ARE EMPOWERED
TO, UH, DECIDE HOW DEEP THEY
LOOK INTO THIS LIST. AT WHAT
TIMES THEY LOOK INTO THIS LIST.
THEY MAY GET MANY REQUESTS, BUT
IT IS IT IS AT THEIR DISCRETION.
AND I IMAGINE THE REQUEST THAT
THEY SEEM TO GET MOST F. WILL BE
THE ONES THAT THEY DECIDE TO
PRIORITIZE. UH A REVIEW ON IF
THEY SO CHOOSE, AND THEN THEY
ALSO MAKE THE FINAL
DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THE
BOOK SEEMS TO BE JUSTIFIED OR
NOT. OK, THANK YOU. A MOTION IS
SECOND, YOU MAY CLOSE. THANK
YOU. FOR ALL THE QUESTIONS AND
COMMENTS TODAY, I THINK IN
CALIFORNIA WE DON'T BÀN
KNOWLEDGE. WE DON'T BÀN IT FOR
OUR YOUNG PEOPLE WHO ARE IN
SCHOOLS AND WE DON'T BÀN IT FOR
OUR FOLKS WHO ARE INCARCERATED
WHO WERE LET DOWN BY THOSE VERY
SAME SCHOOLS. UH, IT IS
IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE
ACCESS TO THE KIND OF LITERATURE
THAT ALLOWS THEM TO BECOME
BETTER PEOPLE, UH, AND TRANSFORM
THEIR LIVES AND BECOME A
POSITIVE IMPACT ON OUR COMMUNITY
. THIS BILL BRINGS, UH,
TRANSPARENCY TO A PROCESS THAT
IS CURRENTLY DONE IN THE DARK,
AND IT BRINGS ACCOUNTABILITY
THAT ALLOWS FOR EVERY
CALIFORNIAN. NOT JUST FOLKS WHO
ARE INCARCERATED TO UNDERSTAND
THIS PROCESS, UH, AND TO BE
INFORMED ABOUT HOW WE SHARE
KNOWLEDGE AMONGST EACH OTHER,
AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
EYE VOTE. OK, THANK YOU. MOTION
A SECOND. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
ON A B 1986 BY SOME OF MCBRIEN.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY MCCARTY, I ALANIS ALANIS
, I LACKEY LACKEY I WHEN I REYES
REYES I TING TING I WILSON
WILSON IER ZER I THAT'S HOW WE
ROLL. THANK YOU. MEASURE PASSES.
NEXT STEP, MR. REGGIE JONES
SAWYER, CHAIR EMERITUS. PLEASE
PROCEED. LIKE THAT. HOW YOU
DOING? THANK YOU, MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS I PRESENT TO YOU A B
2280, WHICH WILL ENSURE THAT
INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS IN
COUNTY JAILS HAVE ACCESS TO
CONFIDENTIAL CALLS WITH THEIR
ATTORNEYS, ALTHOUGH THE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION HAVE POLICIES IN
PLACE TO PROTECT ACCESS TO LEGAL
COUNSEL AND STATE FACILITIES,
THERE'S LITTLE CONSISTENCY AMONG
LOCAL JURISDICTIONS. SOME
DISTRICTS HAVE BEEN REPORTED TO
ONLY PERMIT CONFIDENTIAL MAIL
AND IN PERSON VISITS, WHICH
PROHIBITS ATTORNEYS FROM
DETECTIVE DEFENDING THEIR
CLIENTS. THIS BILL WILL ALIGN
COUNTY JAILS WITH STATE POLICY
BY REQUIRING THAT INCARCERATED
INDIVIDUALS ARE GIVEN AT A
MINIMUM, A 30 MINUTE
CONFIDENTIAL PHONE CALL WITH
THEIR ATTORNEYS ONCE PER MONTH.
CASE. WITH ME IS DÂN MESMER ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION TO SPEAK
IN SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR
AND COMMITTEE MY FIRST TIME. UM,
THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME. I'M
DÂN. MESSER. UM SPEAKING IN
SUPPORT OF 20,280. I DID WRITE
SOMETHING. HOWEVER I THINK MY
ANECDOTAL EXPERIENCE IS MORE
IMPORTANT IN THIS CATEGORY. I'VE
BEEN LUCKY IN MY CAREER. I'VE
BEEN ABLE TO WORK IN THREE
COUNTIES AS A PUBLIC DEFENDER.
I'M CURRENTLY IN NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA. BUT PRIOR TO THAT,
FOR 10 YEARS, I WAS IN SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY, AND PRIOR TO
THAT IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY IS A
PUBLIC DEFENDER. IN ALL THESE
DIFFERENT COUNTIES, UM IN
SPEAKING TO THIS PARTICULAR
CIRCUMSTANCE. THE ISSUE IS
THERE'S ASYMMETRICAL APPLICATION
OF GIVING INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE
INCARCERATED IN COUNTY JAIL
ACCESS TO COUNSEL AND
CONFIDENTIAL CALLS. YOU TAKE A
COUNTY LIKE SAN BERNARDINO,
WHICH IS SPRAWLING. THERE ARE
JAILS HOURS AWAY FROM OTHER
JAILS, AND THERE'S THREE JAILS
IN THE COUNTY. THERE'S ONE IN
RANCH CUCAMONGA. THERE IS ONE
OUT IN A CENTRAL, WHICH IS SAN
BERNARDINO, ONE IN GLEN HELEN.
AND THEN ONE ALL THE WAY UP IN
VICTORVILLE, THE ABILITY FOR A
LAWYER TO GET OUT TO HAVE THOSE
CONFIDENTIAL VISITS IS TRUNCATED
BY THAT DISTANCE AS SUCH HAVING
THE ABILITY TO HAVE ONE
TELEPHONE CALL, WHICH IS
CONFIDENTIAL FOR 30 MINUTES IN
ANY GIVEN MONTH IS A VERY SMALL
PRICE TO PAY AND THE
CIRCUMSTANCE WITH THE COUNTY
JAILS, ALLOWING IT IF THEY'RE UP
AND RUNNING AND HAVE THE ABILITY
THEY ARE ALREADY ABLE TO DO SO,
SO. ANY IDEA THAT THIS IS
SOMEHOW BURDENSOME ON THE COUNTY
JAIL IS NOT A REALISTIC VIEW.
SIMILARLY IN RIVERSIDE, THEY
HAVE JAILS OUT IN MURRIETA. THEY
HAVE JAILS IN CENTRAL THEY HAVE
JAILS IN ALL OF THESE ARE
SEPARATED BY 45 TO AN HOUR IN
SOME INSTANCES, WHEREAS NOW I'M
IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA. I CAN
WALK ACROSS THE STREET TO THE
JAIL AND IT'S EASY TO GET THERE
AND COMMUNICATE WITH INDIVIDUALS
. BUT I THINK UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES GIVEN THE
ASYMMETRICAL PERFORMANCE ON
COUNTIES MANDATING THIS LIKE YOU
WOULD IN STATE PRISON. AT A
COUNTY JAIL LEVEL IS IMPORTANT
TO INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE SEEKING
JUSTICE AND SEEKING ADEQUATE
COUNSEL, SO I'M GLAD TO BE IN
SUPPORT OF 2280 THANK YOU FOR
THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON IT.
THANK YOU ANY OTHERS IN SUPPORT
OF THIS MEASURE? PLEASE COME
FORWARD.
MARCO GEORGE, ALSO ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION, AND SUPPORT.
IGNACIO HERNANDEZ ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS FOR
CRIMINAL JUSTICE STATEWIDE
ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE
LAWYERS AND PRIVATE PRACTICE AND
PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICES IN
SUPPORT. FELIPE A. KELLY ON
BEHALF OF THE ELLA BAKER CENTER
IN FULL SUPPORT. BARBARA CHÁVEZ
ON BEHALF OF THE ELLA BAKER
CENTER, FULL SUPPORT. HAYLEY
LITTLE ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIANS
UNITED FOR A RESPONSIBLE BUDGET
AND SHOWING UP FOR RACIAL
JUSTICE BAY AREA IN FULL
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ALICIA
MONTANA, ALICIA MONTERO,
CALIFORNIA'S UNITED FOR
RESPONSIBLE BUDGET, FULL
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. WE HAVE
OPPOSITION. PLEASE COME FORWARD.
GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR MEMBERS,
COREY SALIL ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION. UNFORTUNATELY IN
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL, SO THEY
CAN HEAR YOU. YOU WANT THEM TO
HEAR ME? FAIR ENOUGH. FAIR
ENOUGH FAIR PLAY. UM SO THE
WITNESS TALKED ABOUT PROCEDURES
IN PLACE. THERE ARE ALREADY
SYSTEMS IN PLACE THAT ALLOW
INMATES TO HAVE ACCESS TO PHONE
CALLS AND VISITATION AS WELL AS
OTHER CORRESPONDENCE THAT CAN BE
USED TO COMMUNICATE WITH COUNSEL
MANDATING AN ADDITIONAL CALL FOR
EVERY INMATE ONCE PER MONTH. PER
CASE WILL REPRESENT A
SIGNIFICANT DRAIN ON RESOURCES.
UM, AS IT RELATES TO THE
PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE TO MAKE
THESE CALLS AVAILABLE AGAIN TO
EVERY INMATE ONCE PER MONTH PER
CASE. REMEMBER THERE'S A KEY
DISTINCTION BETWEEN STATE
PRISONS AND COUNTY JAILS,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT
REALIGNMENT HAS HAPPENED. IS
THAT THE JAIL POPULATION IS MUCH
MORE TRANSIENT AND WHAT THAT
MEANS IS PEOPLE IN PRISON. THEY
DON'T COME AND GO AS MUCH AS
THEY DO IN JAILS. PEOPLE ARE
GETTING RELEASED AND ADMITTED TO
JAILS EVERY DAY IN PRETTY
SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS. SO YOU KNOW
1000 PEOPLE IN A JAIL VERSUS
1000 PEOPLE IN PRISON THAT'S
GONNA REPRESENT MANY MORE PEOPLE
AND THEREFORE CASES AND PHONE
CALLS. SO THAT'S A KEY
DISTINCTION ON WHY THIS IS NOT
JUST A WILL WE DO IT IN PRISON,
SO LET'S DO IT IN THE JAILS. UM
AGAIN THIS JUST BECAUSE IT
HAPPENS FOR THE PRISONS DOESN'T
MEAN IT MAKES SENSE FOR THE
JAILS. AND DESPITE THE EXAMPLES
ABOUT SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY AND
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, WHICH ARE BIG
COUNTIES THAT HAVE MULTIPLE
JAILS THAT ARE SPREAD OUT, WHICH
IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S A BIG COUNTY
WITH ONE JAIL AT ONE EXTREME END
, AND THEN ALL THE DEFENSE
COUNSELS ON THIS END OF THE JAIL
, BUT IT'S MUCH MORE LIKELY IN A
COUNTY SITUATION THAT AN INMATE
WHO IS IN A COUNTY JAIL IS
LIKELY IN A CLOSER PROXIMITY TO
THEIR COUNSEL THAN A PERSON WHO
IS NOW IN STATE PRISON BECAUSE
THERE'S NOT NECESSARILY ANY SORT
OF CONNECTION TO WHERE A PERSON
IS HOUSED IN STATE PRISON, THEY
MIGHT HAVE HAD THEIR CASE
ADJUDICATED RIVERSIDE COUNTY AND
THEY MAY BE SERVING THEIR
SENTENCE IN LASSEN COUNTY AT
SUSANVILLE. RIGHT SO THAT'S
THAT'S WHY THERE'S A DISTINCTION
BETWEEN PRISONS AND JAILS AGAIN
IN THIS REGARD, UM, HAVING
ATTORNEYS PHYSICALLY. BE PRESENT
ALLOWS FOR JAIL PERSONNEL TO VET
WHO THOSE PEOPLE ARE. THERE'S
VERY DIFFICULT TO ASCERTAIN WITH
CERTAINTY THAT A PERSON IS AN
ATTORNEY OR THE INMATES ATTORNEY
JUST OVER THE PHONE. UM, THE
FACT THAT PRISON HOUSING
ASSIGNMENTS ARE NOT CLOSE TO THE
COUNTY. THIS WAS CITED BY THE
SPONSORS OF A B 3040 THREE,
WHICH THE AUTHOR CARRIED AS WELL
IN 2020 THAT CREATED THIS
REQUIREMENT FOR PRISONS. THE
OTHER DIFFERENCE IS THE STATE
WILL PAY FOR THESE GUARANTEED
PHONE CALLS IN PRISONS, IF, IF
YOU THE LEGISLATURE TELL èC Dð
èC R TO PROVIDE THESE CALLS,
AND THE GOVERNOR AGREES AND
SIGNS THE BILL THEN èC Dð èC R
IS ON THE HOOK TO PAY FOR THOSE
AND THAT'S STATE BUDGET MONEY.
IF YOU IMPOSE THIS REQUIREMENT
ON COUNTY JAILS THAN THE
COUNTIES WILL HAVE TO FIGURE OUT
HOW TO PAY FOR IT, UH, WITH ONLY
THE FLEETING PROMISE OF AN S¼ B
90, YOU KNOW, REIMBURSEMENT
PROCESS WHICH, IF WE'RE LUCKY,
WE'LL SEE 10 CENTS ON THE DOLLAR
FIVE YEARS FROM NOW. SO UM AND
AGAIN THE REASON THE PARALLELS
BEING DRAWN BETWEEN THIS AND THE
REQUIREMENT BECAUSE NOW COUNTY
JAILS HOUSE MANY MORE FELONS
SENTENCED FELONS, PEOPLE WHO
WOULD HAVE BEEN IN PRISON BUT
FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE REALIGNMENT
IS BECAUSE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE.
REALIGNMENT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. MANY OTHERS IN OPPOSITION.
PLEASE COME FORWARD QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
THIS WAY. THANK YOU. AND THANK
YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. I. I DO
AGREE THAT, UM THERE NEEDS TO BE
SOME THINGS IN PLACE. AND I
WANNA THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD BECAUSE I DO AGREE
THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE TIME FOR
FOLKS TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THESE
CONVERSATIONS, WHETHER IT'S
PRISON OR JAIL TIME TO ALIGN IT
WITH STATE PRISON. I UNDERSTAND
THAT, BUT I'D ASK THAT YOU WORK
WITH OPPOSITION ON TRYING TO
FIGURE OUT WHAT THE
INFRASTRUCTURE LOOKS LIKE, UM,
BECAUSE IT DOES SEEM THAT IT'S
GOING TO BE A HEAVY LIFT. AND
NOT ALL COUNTIES ARE THE SAME.
AND THE FUNDING INFRASTRUCTURE
FOR EVERY COUNTY IS DIFFERENT.
SO I HOPE THAT, UM, YOU WOULD
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH HIM ON
TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THIS
WOULD WORK. AND IT DEFINITELY
WILL. UM, AS AS YOU KNOW, THIS
IS THE POLICY COMMITTEE AND, UH,
WANT IT GOES TO I BELIEVE A
PROBES. THAT IS WHERE WE'RE
GOING TO HAVE TO COME UP WITH
THE ENTIRE INFRASTRUCTURE. UM,
WHETHER IT BE, UH, PAID FOR AND
NOT OF PAY PAY FOR AND THEN
OBVIOUSLY THE REASON WHY WE'RE
DOING THAT IS THAT THERE'S AN
ÁP, YOU KNOW, IN ADEQUACY IN
SOME DISTRICTS IN SOME AREAS,
AND WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO MAKE
SURE THAT EVERYBODY IS ABLE TO
DO THAT. AND SO I YOU'RE
BRINGING A VALID POINT. THE
OPPOSITION BRING A VALID POINT.
AND THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS
I'M GONNA HAVE TO WORK REALLY
HARD TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS
THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY
IMPLEMENT THIS. THANK YOU. SO
MEMBER, WILSON THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. UM I MY APOLOGIES TO A
PHYSICIAN FOR MISSING PORTION OF
THE TESTIMONY. YOU MAY HAVE
ADDRESSED THIS. SO UM PLEASE
EXCUSE ME. IF YOU DID JUST UM,
RECALLING FROM THE BILL ANALYSIS
THAT WAS PUT FORTH BY THE
COMMITTEE, UM, TALKING ABOUT
THAT THERE CURRENTLY EXISTS.
INFRASTRUCTURE AS I UNDERSTAND
IT, UM DEPENDING ON THE COUNTY,
BUT BASICALLY, INMATES ARE
ALLOWED TO USE THE PHONE. TO
TALK WITH COUNSEL AND THAT CALL
BY VIRTUE OF IT BEING LIKE COS
CAN'T BE RECORDED AND THINGS OF
THAT NATURE CURRENTLY AND IS AND
WHEN THEY'RE MAKING THAT CALL.
THEY DON'T DO IT IN PRIVACY, AND
IN THIS BILL IS ASKING TO DO THE
PRIVACY IS THAT THE CONCERN OF
THE COST OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND
ALL OF THE YOU KNOW THE
OPPOSITION IS IT ALREADY EXISTS
SO THEY DON'T NEED THE EXTRA
PROTECTION. I THINK THROUGH THE
CHAIR. THE OPPOSITION IS YES.
THE PHONE CAN BE USED. YES IT
WOULD BE RECORDED. SO I SUSPECT
THAT'S A CONCERN OF PROPONENTS.
I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR THEM,
BUT THAT THAT THAT DOESN'T
PROVIDE THE PRIVACY OF OTHER
WE'RE CORRECT. I'M JUST SAYING
FROM THE OPPOSITE. I'M TALKING
ABOUT YOUR OPINION THAT YOU YOU
THAT THE AND STANDING IN THE
OPPOSITION PLACE THAT YOU THAT
IT ALREADY, THEY ALREADY CAN
ACCESS THEIR ATTORNEY VIA PHONE.
YES THEY CAN CALL THEIR MOTHER.
THEY CAN CALL THEIR ATTORNEY.
THEY CAN CALL THE CORNER STORE.
THEY CAN CALL WHOMEVER THEY
LIKE. THAT CALL IS NOT PRIVATE.
I'M JUST I UNDERSTAND, UM, ALSO
NOTING THAT DID YOU ADDRESS IT?
BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S LANGUAGE
THAT SAYS THAT IN IN THE
OPPOSITION. I WASN'T SURE IF YOU
SAID IT BEFORE I CAME IN THE
ROOM THAT, UM, MANDATING AN
ADDITIONAL CALL. WOULD BE AN
ISSUE. UM AND I COULD YOU
ELABORATE WHY? MANDATING BECAUSE
I, I THOUGHT THE LANGUAGE THAT
AT LEAST ONE CALL AND THE
VIEWPOINT OF YOURS IT'S
MANDATING AN ADDITIONAL CALL. SO
I WONDERED WHAT THE, UM COULD
YOU ELABORATE WHAT YOU MEAN BY
THAT? SURE, THE BILL MANDATES. A
PHONE CALL ABOVE AND BEYOND THE
PHONE AVAILABILITY THAT
CURRENTLY EXISTS. FOR INMATES,
SO THAT WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL
CALL. SO THIS DOESN'T COUNT AND
IN FACT, THE COMMITTEE'S
PROPOSED LANGUAGE MAKES IT EVEN
CLEARER THAT THE PHONE CALL
GUARANTEED BY THIS BILL IS NOT
TO BE USED TO SUPPLANT ANY
EXISTING COMMUNICATIONS. THAT
CURRENTLY EXIST. SO IN ADDITION
TO ALL OF THE PHONE CALLS THAT
AN INMATE MAY CURRENTLY MAKE
THIS BILL WOULD GUARANTEE AT
LEAST ONE ADDITIONAL 30 MINUTE
CALL PER MONTH PER CASE, ABOVE
AND BEYOND EVERY OTHER PHONE
CALL THAT AN INMATE CAN MAKE
TODAY. SO NOT ABOVE AND BEYOND.
EVERY NOT AS IT RELATES TO A, UM
THEIR COUNSEL, JUST IN GENERAL,
LIKE WHETHER THEY CALL THEIR
MOTHER, WHOEVER THEY THEY HAVE
THIS ONE CALLED AND THAT'S WHY
YOUR VIEWPOINT IS IT'S AN
ADDITIONAL CALL, BECAUSE IT'S A
MINIMUM AND THEN ALL THE OTHER
CALLS THEY MAKE. AND THERE'S NOT
CAPACITY. IF YOU HAVE 100 PEOPLE
IN YOUR PRISON, YOU DON'T HAVE
CAPACITY TO BE ABLE TO WITH THE
EXISTING STRUCTURE. OR GAIL. I
SHOULD SAY NOT PRISON, BUT YOU
DON'T HAVE THERE MIGHT NOT BE
CAPACITY FOR ADDITIONAL PHONE
CALLS. I MEAN FOR THAT CALL,
PLUS ALL THE OTHER PHONE CALLS
THEY GET TO MAKE CORRECT. I
THINK I UNDERSTAND. RACE. I JUST
WANT TO SAY I APPRECIATE THE
INLAND EMPIRE'S REPRESENTATION
HERE FROM BOTH SAN BERNARDINO
AND RIVERSIDE. AND I ABSOLUTELY
APPRECIATE THIS. FOR THE FIRST
TIME I'VE EVER SEEN IN A
COMMITTEE. SO THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THAT, UH, I APPRECIATE
THE COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION AND
THOSE IN FAVOR, BUT MY MAIN
COMMENT HAD TO DO WITH THE FACT
THAT THE IE IS REPRESENTED.
THANK YOU. AND WITH THAT, I WILL
MOVE THE BILL. THANK YOU. I HAVE
A MOTION AND A SECOND, UH, VICE
CHAIR. LAS THANK YOU, MR CHAIR,
SO I JUST HAVE A FEW CONCERNS
THAT I WANNA BRING UP ABOUT THE
BILL, AS YOU GUYS MAY KNOW,
AGAIN WORKED IN LAW ENFORCEMENT.
CORRECTIONAL SETTING WAS ONE OF
THEM AS WELL. AND AS THE
OPPOSITION ARE BROUGHT UP A JAIL
IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN A
PRISON. WE HAVE SO MANY WORKING
PARTS MAKING SURE TITLE 15 TITLE
22 SHOWERS, CLOTHING, BEDDING,
EVERYTHING'S CHANGED AND IS ON A
SCHEDULE. UH, SOME OF THE THINGS
I WANNA BRING UP AS FAR AS, UH,
THE DEPUTIES IN THE JAILS,
KNOWING HOW MANY CASES THEY
HAVE, AND AS A DEPUTY, I NEVER
KNEW HOW MANY CASES THEY HAD IN
COURT. THAT'S WHAT THEY TOOK
CARE OF IN COURT AND THEN THE
OTHER THING, AND FOR THE AUTHOR,
MAYBE YOU GUYS WANNA IDENTIFY
THIS, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S
IN YOUR LANGUAGE OR NOT, UH, IT
SAYS PER CASE PER MONTH. ARE ARE
THEY A VICTIM IN IT? ARE THEY A
WITNESS IN IT OR THEY DEFENDANT
IN IT? UH, SOME CASES ARE SEEN
AS BEING PART OF ONE CASE AND
NOT THE OTHER. SO THAT'S THAT'S
ANOTHER ISSUE THAT I'D BRING UP
AND THEN ON TOP OF IT IS BY
MANDATING THIS WHO'S GONNA BE IN
CHARGE OF ENFORCING THIS? WHAT
HAPPENS IF I DON'T GET MY ONE
PHONE CALL? BECAUSE OF MY CASE?
WHAT HAPPENS THEN? NOW TO THESE
AGENCIES GET SUED FOR SOMETHING
THEY DIDN'T REALLY KNOW. I WELL,
I DIDN'T KNOW HE HAD A CASE. UH
W, WHERE DOES THAT COME FROM?
ALSO THESE ARE JUST ALL
QUESTIONS THAT I'M BRINGING UP
RIGHT NOW, UH, THAT I'M THINKING
OF AS WE'RE TALKING, AND, UH I
SEE THE DIFFICULTIES. OBVIOUSLY
THE OPPOSITION BROUGHT UP. UH,
IT'S A LITTLE EASIER IN PRISON
BECAUSE THEY'VE ALREADY WORKED
ON THOSE CASES AND THOSE CASES
THEY'RE THERE FOR AND HOPEFULLY
THEY'RE NOT GETTING ANY MORE
UNLESS THEY'RE DOING SOMETHING
IN THE FACILITIES. BUT THAT'S
THAT'S A BIG DIFFERENCE. AND
SOMETIMES YOU GET DEFENDANTS
THAT HAVE BAILED OUT OR RELEASED
ON THEIR OWN RECOGNISANCE. Ó R.
THERE WE GO, AND THEY MAY GET
ANOTHER CASE. BUT I DIDN'T KNOW
THAT I THOUGHT THEY WERE BACK
HERE ON THE OTHER CASE THAT THEY
WERE ON ORIGINALLY SO THAT I SEE
A LOT. A BIG TROUBLES COMING UP
WITH THAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
THAT YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR
COMMENT, OK? YES NÓ QUESTIONS.
II I HAVE A QUESTION FOR OUR OUR
OPPOSITION. SO MY UNDERSTANDING
IS THE MAJORITY OF THE CALLS
THAT PEOPLE WOULD MAKE AS AN
INMATE IN COUNTY JAIL WOULD BE
TO FAMILY MEMBERS WAY MORE THAN
TO THEIR ATTORNEYS. PROBABLY
CORRECT FAMILY AND FRIENDS. YOU
THINK PRESUME THAT'S THE CASE.
BUT I CAN'T. I CAN'T POINT TO
DATA THAT INDICATE, UH,
ANECDOTALLY, I SUSPECT THAT'S
RIGHT IN COUNCIL MAY HAVE
THOUGHTS, BUT I'M SURE I
PROBABLY ASSUME THAT IS SO I
WOULD. AND SO IF THEY'RE ALREADY
MAKING THESE THE THESE CALLS,
AND IT'S JUST THE PRIVACY MAYBE
YOU COULD PAINT US A PICTURE. AS
FAR AS WHAT WOULD HAVE TO
HAPPEN. YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE
ANOTHER A ROOM YOU CONVERT. YOU
HAVE TO HAVE PEOPLE, TWO PEOPLE
STAFFING. SO WHAT'S THE BURDEN
THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ARTICULATE
TO US? AS FAR AS THE CHANGE?
SURE THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. UM SO
THE FIRST ACCOUNT IS TYPICALLY
THE PHONES, UM, ARE AVAILABLE TO
INMATES DURING CERTAIN TIMES. SO
THERE'S PHONE TIME AND YOU CAN
GO MAKE YOUR CALLS. IF YOU WANT
TO MAKE CALLS, AND IF NOT, YOU
DON'T HAVE TO. THERE'S NÓ
GUARANTEE THERE IS A GUARANTEED
TIME AVAILABLE, BUT THERE'S NÓ
GUARANTEE THAT SAY, OK, YOU
KNOW, MR MCCARTY, YOU HERE? THIS
IS THE TIME FOR YOUR CALL. GO
MAKE YOUR CALL. RIGHT. SO THAT'S
THAT'S NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO.
THE PRIVACY OSTENSIBLY IS THAT
YOU KNOW THERE ARE DIFFERENT
SPACES FOR AND I'LL DRAW THE
DISTINCTION BETWEEN IN PERSON
VISITATION, SO THERE IS MORE
PRIVACY GENERALLY AFFORDED TO AN
ATTORNEY. VISIT WITH A CLIENT.
UH, A DEFENDANT OR OR AN INMATE.
UM, SO OSTENSIBLY, IF IT'S A
CONFIDENTIAL CALL, THIS COULD
NOT BE ACCOMMODATED WITH THE
MOST OF THE MOST, IF NOT ALL, OF
THE EXISTING PHONE
INFRASTRUCTURE, WHICH IS
TYPICALLY A PHONE OUT IN THE
GENERAL AREAS, RIGHT? UM WE
HAVEN'T TALKED AT ALL ABOUT
TABLETS. A LOT OF JAIL
FACILITIES HAVE TABLETS THAT
ALLOW FOR SOME FORM OF
COMMUNICATION. WHETHER IT'S A
VIDEO CALL OR EMAIL AGAIN THAT
COULD BE USED FOR FAMILY THAT
COULD BE USED FOR COUNSEL. UM SO
IT'S AGAIN. IT'S THE IT'S THE
INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE PRIVACY
REQUIREMENT OF THE
CONFIDENTIALITY REQUIREMENT.
IT'S THE INFRASTRUCTURE TIED TO
AVAILABILITY OF THE PHONES
BECAUSE YOU ALREADY HAVE
SIGNIFICANT DRAW ON THE PHONE
TIME AND THE NUMBER OF PHONES
THAT EXIST TODAY AND BY SAYING,
OK, THESE, YOU KNOW, 500 INMATES
SAY THESE 500 INMATES ARE ALL
GOING TO GET ONE CALL PER MONTH
PER CASE, SO THAT'S 15,000
MINUTES OF PHONE CALLS MAXIMUM
PER MONTH IF EACH INMATE ONLY
HAS ONE CASE AND ONLY AVAILS
THEMSELVES OF THAT ONE PHONE
CALL, SO THAT HAS TO BE
ACCOMMODATED WITH ALL OF THE
OTHER PHONE CALLS, OR IF THERE
CAN'T BE ACCOMMODATED WITH THE
PHONE CALLS, THEN YOU'VE GOT TO
HAVE NEW PHONES. YOU'VE GOT TO
HAVE NEW SPACE FOR THOSE PHONES
TO BE LOCATED. YOU GOTTA HAVE
STAFF WHO CAN MOVE THE INMATES
AROUND TO THOSE PHONES, BECAUSE
IF AGAIN IF IT'S A CONFIDENTIAL
AREA OR A PRIVACY SETTING, IT
WON'T BE. JUST GO IN THE DAY
ROOM AND MAKE YOUR CALLS YOU'RE
GONNA HAVE THERE THERE'LL BE A
ROOM JUST LIKE THERE'S AN
ATTORNEY VISITING ROOM THAT A
DEPUTY OR TWO OR A CORRECTIONAL
OFFICER OR TWO WILL HAVE TO
ACCOMPANY THAT PERSON. STAND BY.
OK, THANK YOU AND AS AS THE
CHAIR, MEREDITH NOTED, THIS IS
THE POLICY COMMITTEE AND SO SOME
OF THESE FISCAL ISSUES WILL BE
EVALUATED. PRESUMING THIS BILL
MOVES FORWARD. UH, SOME MEMBER
YOU MAY CLOSE. THESE ARE REALLY
GOOD QUESTIONS, THINGS I'M GONNA
HAVE TO WORK THROUGH. UM JUST
LIKE TO SAY THAT THAT, UH, I
DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT TABLETS. UM I
THINK WITH TECHNOLOGY, UH, WE
COULD GET THROUGH A LOT OF THIS.
IF WE REALLY PUT OUR HEADS
TOGETHER ON THE BUDGET SIDE TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN GET THIS
DONE. BUT MOST IMPORTANT
PRIVACY. UM WHEN YOU ARE
ARRESTED, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO
REMAIN SILENT. YOU ARE RIGHT TO
HAVE COUNSEL AND THAT DOESN'T
MEAN COUNSEL THAT OTHER PEOPLE
CAN HEAR. IT'S ABOUT HAVING THAT
CONFIDENTIALITY TO BE ABLE TO
TALK TO YOUR COUNSEL FREELY AND
TO, UH TO EXPLAIN WHAT THE
PROBLEMS ARE OR WHAT YOU NEED TO
BE ABLE TO HAVE YOUR DEFENSE
WITHOUT OTHERS LISTENING IN IF
THERE'S A WAY TO HAVE PRIVATE
CONVERSATIONS, EVEN ON THE PHONE
IF WE COULD DO THAT, UM, AGAIN,
THIS IS NOT THE, UM THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE WHERE
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO EXPLAIN
ALL THIS, BUT FROM A POLICY
STANDPOINT, I THINK WE'RE PRETTY
SOLID THAT WE REALLY NEED TO
MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE HAS THE
RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND THE RIGHT
TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THAT
COUNSEL FREELY. OK, THANK YOU.
UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR CLOSE. WE
HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND. PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. ON A B 2280 BY
èC MEMBER JOAN SAWYER. THE
MOTION IS TO PASS AS AMENDED TO
THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY MCCARTY, I ALANIS
ALANIS, NOT VOTING LACKEY. LAING
NOT VOTING WHEN I REYES REYES, I
TING TING I WILSON WILSON IBER
ZER. I THE MEASURE PASSES NEXT
MEASURE. ASSEMBLY MEMBER SANCHEZ
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I REMEMBER
THREE A B 1874. OK? THANK YOU,
MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS. I WILL BE
ACCEPTING TODAY'S COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS AND I WANT TO THANK
THE COMMITTEE STAFF AND
STAKEHOLDERS FOR WORKING WITH US
ON THIS MEASURE. A B 1874 IS A
REASONABLE MEASURE THAT WILL
PROVIDE JUDGES MORE DISCRETION
TO ENHANCE PENALTIES FOR
CONVICTED CRIMINALS WHO
REPEATEDLY RECORD MINORS IN
INTIMATE SETTINGS. AS THE MOTHER
OF A YOUNG KID. I CAN TELL YOU,
NOTHING IS MORE IMPORTANT TO A
PARENT THAN THEIR CHILD'S
SAFETY. AND MY HEART SINKS WHEN
I HEAR ABOUT THE CASES INVOLVING
YOUNG CHILDREN BEING SECRETLY
RECORDED WHEN YOU'RE WHEN
THEY'RE TRYING TO USE THE
BATHROOM OR CHANGING A LOCKER
ROOM. IT IS ABSOLUTELY VILE THAT
PEOPLE DO THIS. THAT'S WHY I WAS
SHOCKED WHEN THE ORANGE COUNTY
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT CAME TO ME
TO DISCUSS HOW PEOPLE IN OUR
COMMUNITY AND AROUND THE STATE
WERE CONTINUALLY BEING PUT IN
JEOPARDY OF BEING SEXUALLY
VICTIMIZED BY CONVICTED
CRIMINALS WHO ARE RENT
REENTERING OUR COMMUNITIES
WITHOUT BEING FULLY
REHABILITATED OR FULLY COMING TO
TERMS WITH THE NATURE OF THEIR
CRIME. THE PUNISHMENT FOR
SECRETLY RECORDING A MINOR IN AN
INTIMATE SETTING IS A
MISDEMEANOR WITH A FINE OF NÓ
MORE THAN $2000, OR LESS THAN A
YEAR IN COUNTY JAIL. THE
PUNISHMENT FOR THAT INDIVIDUAL
IF THEY DO IT A SECOND TIME. IS
THE SAME. THE PUNISHMENT IF THEY
DO IT A 3RD 4TH FIFTH TIME. IS
THE SAME. TO ME, THAT'S
UNACCEPTABLE. THAT'S WHY I
INTRODUCED A B 1874 TO ENSURE
THAT REPEAT OFFENSE OF RECORDING
MINORS IN INTIMATE SETTINGS IS
TREATED SERIOUSLY AND THAT
JUDGES HAVE ADDITIONAL TOOLS TO
REMOVE THESE CRIMINALS FROM OUR
COMMUNITIES SO THAT THEY MAY
HAVE SUFFICIENT TIME TO
REHABILITATE. THAT IS A COMMON
SENSE APPROACH THAT STRIKES A
FAIR BALANCE BETWEEN ENSURING
COMMUNITY SAFETY AND
REHABILITATING REPEAT OFFENDERS.
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE ON THIS MEASURE AND
TESTIFYING WITH ME TODAY IS
CAPTAIN RACHEL. A PACKET.
CORRECT WITH ME, UH, FROM THE
ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT. GOOD MORNING TO THE
COUNCIL. MY NAME IS CAPTAIN
RACHEL PUCKETT AS THE CAPTAIN OF
THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS
BUREAU WITH THE ORANGE COUNTY
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. I OVERSEE
A STELLAR TEAM OF OVER 60
PROFESSIONALS WHO HANDLE COMPLEX
AND SENSITIVE CASES RANGING FROM
CYBERCRIMES TO HOMICIDE CASES TO
CASES WHERE CHILDREN ARE THE
VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT. IT IS
MY HONOR TO SPEAK TO YOU TODAY
ABOUT ASSEMBLY BILL 1874 AS A AS
PROPOSED BY ASSEMBLYWOMAN
SANCHEZ. WE ARE SO APPRECIATIVE
THAT ASSEMBLY WOMAN, SANCHEZ HAS
SHED LIGHT ON THIS MUCH NEEDED
CHANGE. CURRENTLY CALIFORNIA
PEDAL CODE 647 JULIET THREE
MAKES IT A MISDEMEANOR TO
SECRETLY RECORD ANOTHER
IDENTIFIABLE PERSON WHO MAY BE
IN A STATE OF FULL OR PARTIAL
UNDRESS IN AN AREA WHERE A
PERSON HAS A REASONABLE
EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY.
CURRENTLY THERE ARE NÓ
ADDITIONAL CONSEQUENCES FOR
THOSE WHO REPEATEDLY COMMIT THIS
CRIME. IN MY OPINION AND
EXPERIENCE. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY
UNACCEPTABLE. ALMOST ALL ASPECTS
OF THE PENAL CODE HAVE CARVE
OUTS FOR MINORS AND HAVE GREATER
PENALTIES FOR SUCH WHICH
ACKNOWLEDGES THAT OUR CHILDREN
ARE MORE VULNERABLE. ARE MORE
EASILY EXPLOITED. AND ULTIMATELY
SUFFER EVEN GREATER, IRREPARABLE
MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL HARM
BECAUSE OF CHILDHOOD
VICTIMIZATION. WE BELIEVE THAT A
1874 WILL FIX THIS PROBLEM. A B
1874 WOULD ALLOW A PERSON
CONVICTED OF A SECOND OR
SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE OF P èC 647
JULIET, THREE TO FACE A FELONY
PUNISHMENT. WE STRONGLY FEEL
THAT AN INCREASE IN PUNISHMENT
FOR A SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT
OFFENSE WOULD ACT AS A DETERRENT
AND SUFFICIENT JUSTICE FOR
VICTIMS WOULD ALSO BE ACHIEVED.
IDEALLY, PREVENTION OF THIS
CRIME WOULD BE THE ULTIMATE
GOAL. IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE
THAT AS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPS AND
DEVICES TO RECORD BECOME EASIER
TO CONCEAL, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT
THE LAW RECOGNIZE THE IMPACT TO
THOSE WHO ARE VICTIMS OF BEING
SECRETLY RECORDED. IN THE PAST
YEAR. THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL
CASES THAT ILLUSTRATE ILLUSTRATE
THIS NEED FOR CHANGE IN OUR
COUNTY. AND I'D LIKE TO MENTION
A CASE OF A 61 YEAR OLD SUSPECT
WHO WAS ARRESTED IN 2023 AFTER
BEING CAUGHT SECRETLY TAKING
VIDEOS OF THE LOCAL SHOPPING
AREA. THE INDIVIDUAL HAS A
HISTORY OF COMMITTING THIS AND
OTHER CRIMES VIOLATING A
PERSON'S PRIVACY. THE
INDIVIDUAL'S PAST CONVICTIONS
INCLUDE A FELONY SENTENCE FOR
POSSESSION OF CHILD SEX ABUSE
MATERIALS AND PREVIOUS
CONVICTIONS OF CALIFORNIA PENAL
CODE 647 JULIET. HAD THE
PROPOSED LAW BEEN IN PLACE, THE
INDIVIDUAL COULD HAVE FACED A
MORE SIGNIFICANT CONSEQUENCE FOR
HIS ACTIONS. ANOTHER CASE IS
ANOTHER 60 YEAR OLD ORANGE
COUNTY MAN THAT WAS CAUGHT IN
2020 THREE WITH OVER 500 VIDEOS
FOUND ON HIS PHONE. THE SUSPECT
HAD THREE SIMILAR ARRESTS OVER
THE PAST 10 YEARS FOR SIMILAR
CONDUCT. HAD THE PROPOSED CHANGE
IN LAW BEEN IN PLACE, THERE'S A
LIKELIHOOD THAT HE WOULD HAVE
BEEN SERVING A SENTENCE,
PREVENTING HIM FROM COMMITTING
THIS OFFENSE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
OUR CHILDREN ARE ESPECIALLY
VULNERABLE AND WE MUST PROTECT
THEM. ADVANCES IN TECHNOLOGY
HAVE MADE IT MUCH EASIER TO
MANIPULATE PHOTOS, SEND THEM TO
OTHERS OR POST THEM TO INTERNET
SITES. IN AN INSTANT, AN
INNOCENT VICTIM LOSES THEIR
PRIVACY AND FACES THE WELL KNOWN
TRAUMA ASSOCIATED WITH THESE
VERY PERSONAL VIOLATIONS. IN
CLOSING A B 1874 IS AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR THE LEGISLATURE
TO PROVIDE JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS
AND SEND A STRONG MESSAGE THAT
THOSE WHO VICTIMIZE OTHERS IN
VIOLATE ONE'S PRIVACY WILL BE
MET. WITH CONSEQUENCE. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU OTHERS IN
SUPPORT. PLEASE COME FORWARD.
CINDY DE SILVA ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT.
LIEUTENANT JULIA DE LEÓN, ON
BEHALF OF, UH RIVERSIDE COUNTY
SHERIFF CHAD BIANCO IN SUPPORT.
PASTOR BRANDON CAMPBELL WITH
CALIFORNIA BAPTIST FOR BIBLICAL
VALUES AND SUPPORT. MR CHAIR
MEMBERS, COREY SAUZ, ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. WE HAVE OUR POSITION.
PLEASE COME FORWARD. MARCO
GEORGE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION. WE WANT TO THANK
THE AUTHOR. I BELIEVE SHE'S
TAKING THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
AND WE'RE REVIEWING THEM. AS OF
NOW, WE'RE STILL OPPOSED. BUT
THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND THANK
YOU TO THE COMMITTEE. THANK YOU.
IGNACIO HERNANDEZ ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY FOR
CRIMINAL JUSTICE. UH, WE ARE IN
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL. I WANT
TO THANK THE AUTHOR AND THE
COMMITTEE FOR THE WORK ON THE
AMENDMENTS. IT DOES ADDRESS A
MAJOR PIECE OF OUR CONCERN,
WHICH WAS, UM INDIVIDUALS WILL
BE PROSECUTED WHO ARE UNDER 18,
SO WE ARE REVIEWING THEM. WE'LL
TALK TO WE MAY HAVE SOME
SUGGESTIONS GOING FORWARD. UM
BUT HAPPY TO ENGAGE AND HAVE
THAT CONVERSATION ALSO WANNA
POINT OUT? UM, VERY QUICKLY THAT
YOU KNOW A LOT OF THE CONCERNS
THAT WERE BROUGHT UP IN SUPPORT
OF THE BILL. THERE ARE OTHER
CRIMES THAT ALREADY CAN BE
CHARGED LIKE FOR THE POSTING OF
THE PICTURES, SO WE WANNA JUST
MAKE SURE THIS BILL IS REALLY
JUST FOCUSED ON WHERE IT SHOULD
BE, BUT WE'LL CONTINUE THE
CONVERSATION. THANK YOU FOR THE
AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU. MELANIE
KI¾M SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC
DEFENDERS OFFICE IN OPPOSITION
AS WRITTEN, BUT WE WILL REVIEW
THE AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU. OK?
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MR LACKEY.
YES, SIR. EXCUSE ME. CERTAINLY
THIS IS A, UH VERY AWKWARD SET
OF CIRCUMSTANCES TO EVEN
CONSIDER TO EVEN THINK ABOUT THE
PREVALENCE OF THIS PROBLEM. BUT
IT IS WE HAVE A VERY HIGH
PROFILE CASE THAT'S BEING
DISCUSSED IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
RIGHT NOW, WHERE THERE'S TWO
PLACES OF SCHOOL. AND UH AND
ARGUABLY, UH, THIS OFFENSE IS AN
AFFRONT AGAINST INNOCENCE. AND I
THINK THAT WE AS POLICY MAKERS
NEED TO ADMIT THAT NÓ. I AM
SURPRISED THAT THE OPPOSITION
DIDN'T BRING UP THE ARGUMENT
ABOUT DETERRENCE THAT, UH,
BECAUSE THERE'S SOME DIFFERING
OPINIONS ON WHETHER THIS WOULD
ACTUALLY DETER. BUT IT IT'S MY
OPINION. WHETHER IT'S A
DETERRENCE OR NOT. IT'S ABOUT
MAKING A CHILD. FEEL LIKE THE
STATE WILL PROTECT THEM WHEN
SOMEONE VIOLATES THEM IN THIS
SERIOUS WAY. SO I THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD AND, UH,
IT CERTAINLY DESERVES MY
SUPPORT. OK? MR ALANI. CAPTAIN
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.
GREAT JOB AS A PRIOR CRIMES
AGAINST CHILDREN'S DETECTIVE AS
WELL, UH, THIS IS, UH, NEAR AND
DEAR TO MY HEART AS WELL. UH,
JUST EARLIER. WE WERE TALKING
ABOUT DETERRENCE AND ADDING, UH,
MORE, UH, MORE TO A SENTENCE,
UH, TO DETER THAT AS WELL AND I.
I SEE YOU'RE DOING THAT JUST IN
LINE WITH THEM AND ALSO WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHOR FOR WORKING
WITH THE OPPOSITION. IT SOUNDS
LIKE YOU GUYS ARE WORKING REALLY
HARD TO GET THIS BILL THROUGH.
SO THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT, AND
I MOVED THE BILL. THANK YOU.
MOTION OF SECONDS. THE MEMBER
BARRES. I AGREE WITH MY
COLLEAGUE THAT IT IS SO
IMPORTANT TO PROTECT THE
INNOCENCE OF OUR YOUNGEST
CHILDREN, AND I APPRECIATE THAT
YOU HAVE TALKED ABOUT, UM
CONTINUING CONVERSATION WITH
OPPOSITION, BUT PROTECTING OUR
YOUNGEST IS KEY HERE. AND I
THANK YOU FOR THAT. THANK YOU.
SO WITH THE AMENDMENTS, I THINK
THAT WE NARROWED IT AND BROUGHT
MORE, UH, BALANCE TO THIS. I DO
SUPPORT THIS. WE LIKE TO CLOSE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION OF THIS MEASURE. I
BELIEVE IT IS VITAL TO HELP
PROTECT OUR CHILDREN FROM BEING
UNNECESSARILY VICTIMIZED BY
REPEAT SEXUAL OFFENDERS. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. OK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
ON A B 1874 BY S¼ SANCHEZ. THE
MOTION IS TO PASS AS AMENDED TO
THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY MCCARTY, I ELAN ELAN. I
LACKEY LACKEY I WHEN I REYES
REYES I TING TING I WILSON
WILSON, I ZER ZER. I MEASURE
PASSES. OUR FINAL AUTHORS ARE
COMMITTEE MEMBER ASSEMBLY MEMBER
REYES. HM?
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR MEMBERS. I
PRESENT A B 1956 A BILL THAT
MAKES CLEAR THE THAT SUPPORTING
VICTIMS OF CRIME IS A PRIORITY
OF CALIFORNIA. THIS BILL
ACCOMPLISHES THIS BY COMMITTING
TO BACKFILL FUNDING FOR CRITICAL
SERVICES, INCLUDING PROGRAMS
THAT FUND RAPE CRISIS CENTERS,
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ASSISTANCE
AND CHILD ABUSE IF FEDERAL
FUNDING DIPS BELOW 10% OF WHAT
WAS ALLOCATED IN PREVIOUS YEARS.
THE VICTIMS OF CRIME ACT, ALSO
KNOWN AS VOCA, WAS CREATED BY
CONGRESS 40 YEARS AGO TO PROVIDE
FEDERAL SUPPORT TO STATE AND
LOCAL PROGRAMS THAT ASSIST
VICTIMS OF CRIME. FACILITATED
THROUGH THE CRIME VICTIM PROGRAM
OR FUND. THIS IS THE LARGEST
FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCE FOR
VICTIM SERVICE PROVIDERS IN THE
UNITED STATES. RECENTLY THE
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES RELEASED
LANGUAGE FOR A BILL WHICH
INCLUDED VOCA FUNDING.
INDICATING A CUT OF OVER $620
MILLION TO CRIME VICTIM SERVICES
NATIONWIDE, WHICH WE ESTIMATE
WILL BE A DECREASE OF 155
MILLION HERE IN CALIFORNIA. THIS
WILL UNDOUBTEDLY DEVASTATE LOCAL
PROVIDERS ABILITY TO SERVE CRIME
VICTIMS BY EITHER INCREASING
WAIT TIMES AND OTHER BARRIERS TO
THESE CRITICAL SERVICES OR
FORCING SOME OF THE
ORGANIZATIONS TO FACILITATE
THESE PROGRAMS TO CLOSE THEIR
DOORS INDEFINITELY. THERE ARE A
NUMBER OF SERVICES THAT HAVE
BEEN PROVIDED BY VOCA. HOUSING.
VIOLENCE SURVIVORS AND THEIR
CHILDREN, INCLUDING MORE THAN
350,000 EMERGENCY SHELTER NIGHTS
, PROVIDING TRANSITIONAL HOUSING
OVER 180,000 TIMES AND
SUPPORTING THOUSANDS OF
INDIVIDUALS WITH HOUSING NEEDS.
SERVICES FOR OVER 46,000
INDIVIDUALS EXPERIENCING SEXUAL
VIOLENCE SERVED BY THE
CALIFORNIA RAPE CRISIS CENTER.
CULTURALLY APPROPRIATE VICTIM
SERVICES FOR APPROXIMATELY
42,000 UNSERVED AND UNDERSERVED
SURVIVORS OF CRIME. IN ADDITION
TO MORE THAN 4000, CHILD AND
YOUTH, SURVIVORS OF CRIME FROM
UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES. WE
CANNOT LEAVE BEHIND OUR VICTIMS
OF CRIME HERE IN CALIFORNIA JUST
BECAUSE FUNDING HAS BEEN
REDUCED. TODAY TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. I HAVE
MICHELLE KATES, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF PARTNERS AGAINST
VIOLENCE IN SAN BERNARDINO, AND
HOLLY FLEMING, PROGRAM DIRECTOR
FOR THE CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY
CENTER OF CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU.
PLEASE PROCEED. GOOD MORNING TO
MCCARTY AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS MICHELLE KATES, AND I
AM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
PARTNERS AGAINST VIOLENCE. A
NONPROFIT IN THE INLAND EMPIRE
SUPPORTING SURVIVORS OF SEXUAL
ASSAULT. FOR OVER 50 YEARS, OUR
SMALL STAFF HAS ANSWERED CALLS
DAY OR NIGHT FOR THOUSANDS OF
VICTIMS OF SEXUAL VIOLENCE. WE
PROVIDE FREE COUNSELING, MEDICAL
AND LEGAL ACCOMPANIMENT AND
REFERRALS TO OTHER COMMUNITY
BASED ORGANIZATIONS TO ANYONE
WHO WALKS THROUGH OUR DOORS.
WITH THE STEADY DECLINE IN CRIME
VICTIM FUNDING. MY PROGRAM MUST
PREPARE FOR THE WORST. A B 1956,
AUTHORED BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
REYES WILL CREATE A MECHANISM
FOR THE STATE TO BACKFILL THE
FEDERAL GAP IN CRIME VICTIM
SERVICES WHEN FUNDING LEVELS
DROP BY 10% OR MORE EACH YEAR.
THIS BILL IS CRITICALLY
IMPORTANT TO ENSURING THE
STABILITY AND LONGEVITY OF THESE
LIFE SAVING PROGRAMS. SHOULD A B
1956 NOT PASS PARTNERS AGAINST
VIOLENCE WILL LIKELY BE FORCED
TO CLOSE OUR SATELLITE OFFICE IN
THE VICTORVILLE AREA SUPPORTING
THE UNDERSERVED REGION OF THE
HIGH DESERT AREA. A GROWING AREA
WITH A FEW RESOURCES AND
SIGNIFICANT BARRIERS TO
ACCESSING THEM. VICTIMS IN THE
FURTHEST PART OF THIS AREA
CURRENTLY HAVE TO TRAVEL UPWARDS
OF THREE HOURS IN THE IMMEDIATE
AFTERMATH OF A SEXUAL ASSAULT
JUST TO RECEIVE A FORENSIC EXAM.
CLOSING THIS OFFICE WILL ONLY
FURTHER THE DISTANT SURVIVORS
FACE ACCESSING LIFE SAVING
SERVICES WHILE RECOVERING FROM
TRAUMA. PARTNERS AGAINST
VIOLENCE IS JUST ONE OF 400
CRIME VICTIM SERVICE PROVIDERS
ACROSS THE STATE WHO ARE FACING
THE HARSH REALITY OF DRASTIC
FUNDING CUTS IF THE STATE DOES
NOT ACT. WITHOUT ADVOCATES,
SURVIVORS ARE FAR LESS LIKELY TO
RECEIVE THE CRITICAL CARE AND
SUPPORT THEY NEED AND DESERVE.
AT A TIME WHEN CALIFORNIA IS
GRAPPLING WITH HOW TO SUPPORT
VICTIMS OF CRIME. A B 1956 IS
THE SOLUTION. THESE FUNDS WILL
DIRECTLY SUPPORT SURVIVORS ON
THEIR UNIQUE KILLING JOURNEYS
AND ENSURE CALIFORNIA'S SURVIVOR
SAFETY NET STAYS INTACT. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TIME. I
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR I
VOTE. THANK YOU. THANKS.
WITNESS. GOOD MORNING. UH, MY
NAME IS HOLLY FLEMING. AND, AS
MENTIONED I'M THE PROGRAM
DIRECTOR FOR CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY
CENTERS OF CALIFORNIA. PRIOR TO
THAT I WAS A FORENSIC
INTERVIEWER AT A CHILDREN'S
ADVOCACY CENTER IN ALAMEDA
COUNTY FOR 7.5 YEARS. NOW
CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTERS,
ALSO CALLED èC, A èC S¼ ARE
THE FIRST STOP INTO AN
INVESTIGATION OF CHILD ABUSE.
WHEN THERE'S AN ALLEGATION THE
CHILD CAN GO TO A èC A èC,
WHERE THEY'LL TALK WITH THE
TRAINED FORENSIC INTERVIEWER WHO
GETS THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN A
NON LEADING, DEVELOPMENTALLY
APPROPRIATE WAY. THEN A TEAM OF
PROFESSIONALS, INCLUDING LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, èC P, S¼,
WORKERS, PROSECUTORS, VICTIM
ADVOCATES AND MORE CAN WORK
TOGETHER TO DECIDE WHAT'S IN THE
BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD AND
FOR KEEPING THE COMMUNITY SAFE.
ADDITIONALLY CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY
CENTERS PROVIDE SERVICES FOR THE
CAREGIVERS OF THESE CHILDREN
CONNECTING THEM WITH MENTAL
HEALTH AS WELL AS MEDICAL
TREATMENT, FORENSIC TREATMENT
AND OTHER SERVICES SO THAT THEY
CAN START ON THE ROAD TO
HEALING. CæA IS THE ONLY SOURCE
OF FUNDING FOR CHILDREN'S
ADVOCACY CENTERS IN THE STATE.
FOR MANY OF OUR CENTERS, IT
MAKES UP 80 TO 100% OF THEIR
BUDGETS. AND LIKE MANY OF THE
OTHER CRIME VICTIM SERVICE
PROVIDERS LOSING THIS FUNDING
MEANS DRASTICALLY REDUCING THE
SERVICES OR EVEN CLOSING THEIR
DOORS. NOW WITHOUT A èC, A èC
AGENCIES THAT INVESTIGATE THESE
ALLEGATIONS ARE LESS LIKELY TO
COORDINATE PERPETRATORS MAY BE
TIPPED OFF COMMUNITIES ARE LESS
SAFE. CAREGIVERS GET LESS
SUPPORT SERVICES AND CHILDREN
HAVE TO TALK ABOUT THE WORST
MOMENTS OF THEIR LIFE OVER AND
OVER AGAIN WITH UNTRAINED
PROFESSIONALS. IS OFTEN LEADS TO
RECANTATION. NOT BECAUSE THE
ABUSE DIDN'T HAPPEN, BUT BECAUSE
IT'S TOO HARD TO GET JUSTICE IN
HEALING IN AN UNORGANIZED
SYSTEM. A B 1956 HELPS TO ENSURE
THAT THIS WON'T HAPPEN BY
CREATING THIS BACKFILL. WE
SUPPORT THE VICTIM SERVICE
PROGRAMS AND THE SURVIVORS WHO
RELY ON THEM. EVERYONE WHO
SURVIVES A CRIME. CHILD OR ADULT
DESERVES HELP. AND A B 1956 GOES
A LONG WAY TOWARDS THAT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. OTHERS IN
SUPPORT, PLEASE COME UP. NATASHA
MINSK. SMART JUSTICE CALIFORNIA
A PRIORITY SUPPORT CALMLY WITH
THE VITAMIN GROUP ON BEHALF OF
THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, AS
WELL AS COSPONSOR VALERIE U S¼
IN THE 64 RAPE CRISIS CENTERS
THAT THEY SERVE STRONG SUPPORT.
MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS DÂN FOR LOSS
ON BEHALF OF THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE IN SUPPORT. AND LITTLE ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA FOR SAFETY
AND JUSTICE AND CRIME SURVIVORS
FOR SAFETY AND JUSTICE AND
SUPPORT. MAGALI IS THE GAL ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
PARTNERSHIP. 10 DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE REPRESENTING OVER 1000
ADVOCATES, ORGANIZATIONS AND
ALLIED GROUPS THROUGHOUT THE
STATE, AS WELL AS THE CULTURALLY
RESPONSIVE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
NETWORK. THE L GB Tð Q CENTER OF
LONG BEACH, THE A AL GB Tð
CENTER, AND CULTURALLY SPECIFIC
SERVICE PROVIDERS ACROSS THE
STATE AND SUPPORT GOOD MORNING.
GLENN BACK IS FOR THE
PROSECUTORS ALLIANCE OF
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. DIANICA
ROAR ON BEHALF OF INITIATE
JUSTICE AND LAW, DEFENSE AND
SUPPORT. CINDY DA SILVA ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION IN
SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING, LIZZIE
KANA HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
COUNTIES OF FRESNO, MADERA, KERN
AND SAN JOAQUIN IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. MELANIE KI¾M SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE IN SUPPORT. RYAN MORE UNI
WITH CALIFORNIA STATE
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, ALSO ON
BEHALF OF THE URBAN COUNTIES OF
CALIFORNIA AND RURAL COUNTY
REPRESENTATIVES, CALIFORNIA IN
SUPPORT. COREY SILLA ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION SPORT. JIM LINDBERGH
FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION
IN CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT BETH
HASSETT, èC E Ó OF WEAVE
SERVING SACRAMENTO COUNTY AND
SUPPORT HALEY LITTLE IN SUPPORT
WITH CALIFORNIANS FOR U UNITED
FOR A RESPONSIBLE BUDGET AND
SHOWING UP FOR RACIAL JUSTICE
BAY AREA. ALICIA MONTERO,
CALIFORNIA UNITED FOR
RESPONSIBLE BUDGET AND SUPPORT.
ERIC HENDERSON, A èC LU
CALIFORNIA ACTION AND SUPPORT
DARIA, THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR
YOUTH LAW AND STRONG SUPPORT. OK
THANK YOU, I. I DON'T THINK SO.
BUT DO WE HAVE ANY OPPOSITION?
SAYING NONE. DO I HAVE A MOTION?
SO MOVE FROM MW SECOND BY MR Z,
UM OH, YES, WILSON. JUST ONE
QUESTION. JUST SO I UNDERSTAND.
UM, THE 10% DROP, UH, IN
COMPARISON TO THE PRIOR YEAR. SO
IF IN THE SECOND YEAR THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONTINUES TO
DROP THE PROGRAM IS IT JUST
THERE'S NOT THE MAKEUP OF THAT.
IT'S JUST THE ORIGINAL 10. IT
SHOULD BE. EVERY YEAR CREATES A
LINE SO EVERY YEAR SO IF IT'S
10% 1 YEAR, AND THEN THE NEXT
YEAR THEY DROP IN ANOTHER 10%
THEN THE STATE WOULD IS SUPPOSED
TO SUPPLEMENT 20% FROM THE TWO
PREVIOUS YEARS IS THAT THE
THOUGHT PROCESS IT'S FROM THE
PREVIOUS YEAR, JUST ONLY THE
PREVIOUS YEAR. OK, THANK YOU.
OK? MR LACKEY JUST REAL QUICKLY.
I WANTED TO SAY THAT I DO SIT ON
THE BUDGET SUB SIX. AND UH, THIS
MAY SERVE AS AN AUGMENTATION TO
OUR BUDGET PROCESS. AT LEAST I'M
CERTAINLY HOPE SO BECAUSE WE ARE
FACING SIGNIFICANT REDUCTIONS IN
THIS THESE VERY, UH, AREAS THAT
YOU'RE TRYING TO PROTECT. UH,
THEY'RE VERY MUCH ARE UNDER
ASSAULT. AND UH, I DON'T KNOW
HOW THEY'RE GONNA SURVIVE, BUT
WE'LL DO OUR BEST. BUT THIS IS
CERTAINLY A HELP. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. VICE CHAIR, ALAN.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. AH! FOR THE
AUTHOR. THIS IS VERY FITTING
BILL FOR US TO HAVE AT THE END,
AND, UH, I THINK IT'S GREAT TO
SEE THOSE THAT WERE IN
OPPOSITION AND SUPPORT
THROUGHOUT THIS HEARING ALL
COMING UP FOR THIS ONE BILL, SO
THAT'S THAT'S GREAT TO SEE US
ALL COME TOGETHER FOR THE
VICTIMS. UH, ALSO JUST LOOKING
AT THE LETTERS OF SUPPORT OVER
100 AND 25 I. I THINK I COUNTED
IF NOT MORE COMING, AND I WAS
HAPPY AND PROUD TO SEE ONE OF
THEM WITH THE STANNIS FAMILY
JUSTICE CENTER, WHERE I USED TO
BE A FORENSIC INTERVIEWER. ALSO
THERE SO VERY PROUD OF THAT, AND
, UH, ALSO THANKFUL TO BE A
CO-AUTHOR WITH THIS ONE AS WELL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YOU MAY
CLOSE SOME MEMBER THANK YOU. I
THINK IT'S SO IMPORTANT THAT IF
OUR VICTIMS ARE AT RISK OF
HAVING THEIR BENEFITS REDUCED.
WE DO HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO
TRY TO HELP THAT I DO WANNA
THANK MY OVER 15 CO AUTHORS. UH,
SOME OF YOU ARE MEMBERS OF THIS
VERY COMMITTEE AND THANK YOU FOR
THAT, AND I WILL CONTINUE TO MY
CONVERSATIONS WITH OUR BUDGET
CHAIR ASSEMBLY MEMBER GABRIEL
AND OUR SUB SIX CHAIR ASSEMBLY
MEMBER RAMOS AS WE PUT TOGETHER,
UH, THE COALITION OF ADVOCATES,
UM, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO
PROTECT OUR VICTIMS. AND WITH
THAT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR I VOTE. EXCELLENT. THANK
YOU. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. AND A
1956 BY SOME REYES. THE MOTION
IS TO PASS TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. MCCARTY MCCARTY, I,
ALAN, ALAN, I LACKY LACKY I WHEN
, WHEN I REYES REYES I TING TING
I WILSON WILSON. I ZER ZIPPER I
THAT MEASURE PASSES. THANK YOU.
WE'RE GONNA GO BACK AND, UH DO
ADD ONS AND LIFT THE CALL IN A
COUPLE OF MEASURES. ONE MEASURE.
ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER LACKEY. LACKEY
EYE REYES. REYES I, WILSON
WILSON. I ITEM NUMBER ONE A B
1788 WAS ON CONSENT. ITEM NUMBER
TWO A B 18 Ó NINE BY A SEVEN
MEMBER, RODRIGUEZ WILSON WILSON.
I THAT MEASURE PASSES A B 1874
HAS BEEN DISPENSED WITH ITEM
NUMBER FOUR. A B 1877 BY SOME
MEMBER JACKSON. THIS MEASURE WAS
ON CALL MCCARTY MCCARTY, I ZER
ZIPPER I THAT MEASURE PASSES.
ITEM NUMBER FIVE A B 1892 BY
SEMI MEMBERM FLORA. THIS MEASURE
WAS ON CALL LACKEY LACKEY. I
REYES THAT LEFT. TING. ON
ASSEMBLY BILL 1892 BY YEMMA
MEMBER FLORA TING. SO I TING A.
REYES REYES. I, WILSON WILSON I
THAT MEASURE PASSES ITEM NUMBER
SIX, A. B 1896 WAS PULLED BY THE
AUTHOR. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, A B
1956 HAS BEEN DISPENSED WITH
ITEM NUMBER EIGHT A B 1982 HAS
WAS ON CONSENT ITEM NUMBER NINE,
A B 1986 HAS BEEN DISPENSED WITH
ITEM NUMBER 10, A B 2018 WAS ON
CONSENT ITEM NUMBER 11 A B 2021
BY SOME MEMBER BAR KHAN MCCARTY.
MCCARTHY. I ITEM NUMBER 12 HAS
BEEN DISPENSED WITH ITEM NUMBER
13 WAS ON CONSENT. A 2055 ITEM
NUMBER 14 A B 2267 WAS ON
CONSENT AND ITEM 2280 HAS BEEN
DISPENSED WITH OK, THANK YOU.
THAT CONCLUDES THIS HEARING. WE
WILL ADJOURN. THANK YOU.