GOOD WE WILL BEGIN AND START
TODAY'S PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
HEARING. WE WILL START THIS
COMMITTEE HEARING AS A SUB
COMMITTEE. UM WE WILL NOT
ESTABLISH A REQUIREMENT FOR A
FEW MOMENTS. WE WILL START TO
BEGIN AS A SUBCOMITTEE. UH,
FIRST OFF, WE ARE GOING TO BEGIN
WITH SOME HOUSE KEEPING ITEMS
THE, UH, BILLS THAT WERE OFF THE
CALENDAR TODAY, SO WE HAVE TWO A
B 1800, JOHN SAWYER AND A B 1848
DAVIES. THEY ARE BOTH. ONE WAS
JOHN SAWYER PULLED BY THE AUTHOR
DAVIES PULLED BY THE COMMITTEE.
UM, SECONDLY, WE WILL, UM WE
HAVE A CONSENT CALENDAR, BUT
THAT WE WILL ACT A BIT LATER
WHEN WE HAVE A QUORUM. SO WE
WILL PROCEED WITH WE HAVE, UH,
12 THREE 456 BILLS TO BE HEARD
TODAY AND WE WILL, UH, START AND
FILE. I'M SORRY AND SIGN AN
ORDER, AND THE FIRST AUTHOR IS
ASSEMBLY MEMBER LOW A B 2766,
AND HE'LL BE JOINED BY SOME
MEMBER DIXON. GOOD MORNING.
CHAIR AND COLLEAGUES. A LOT OF
WELCOME. I AM DIXON. THIS BILL.
TO ENSURE THAT PUBLIC DAVIES.
OK, I ACCESS. RIGHT? THESE
CREDIT INFORMATION. NÓ.
I THINK HE HAD RIGHT NOW.
APOLOGIES THAT WAS ME, SO THAT
WAS SO AMAZING, BUT WE'LL START
OVER. BRIEFLY YOU CAN RECAP
START AGAIN. STILL LOOK, THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, MR CHAIR AND
COLLEAGUES FOR ALLOWING ME TO
PRESENT WITH OUR JOINT AUTHOR
ASSEMBLY BILL 2766 TO HELP
ENSURE PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY AND
KEEPING OUR COMMUNITY SAFE. UH,
THIS BILL PREVIOUSLY BEEN
INTRODUCED WITH SOME OF OUR
DIXON BUT ALSO WAS INSPIRED BY
AN INCIDENT THAT HAPPENED IN THE
CITY OF SAN JOSE IN THE DISTRICT
THAT I REPRESENT IN WHICH MY
BROTHER AND HIS PARTNER, UH,
WERE SHOT AT IN THE LINE OF
DUTY. SHE WAS, UNFORTUNATELY HIT
, UH, AND WAS THE FIRST FEMALE
POLICE OFFICER IN THE HISTORY OF
SAN JOSE TO BE HIT AND INJURED
IN THE LINE OF DUTY FOR THE CITY
OF SAN JOSE. UH, OF COURSE, THIS
BILL HELPS TO ENSURE
TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
AND HELPING ENSURE THAT WE'RE
KEEPING OUR COMMUNITY SAFE. UH,
I ALSO LIKE TO MENTION THAT OUR
OFFICE HAS OUR OFFICES HAVE BEEN
WORKING WITH A POTENTIAL
OPPOSITION FROM THOSE WHO HAVE
ISSUES LAST YEAR TO HELP ADDRESS
THESE ISSUES OF STAYING NEUTRAL.
AND WILL CONTINUE TO ADDRESS
THESE ISSUES SHOULD THIS BILL
MOVE FORWARD IN JUDICIARY?
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR OUR VOTE.
I'LL TURN OVER TO SOMEONE WHEN
DIXON ALSO FOR ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS. GOOD MORNING, MISTER
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. I'M PROUD TO
BE HERE TODAY TO PRESENT
ALONGSIDE ASSEMBLY MEMBER LOW.
WE HAVE WORKED DILIGENTLY WITH
ALL STAKEHOLDERS AND CONTINUE TO
BRING BACK A B 15, WHICH IS WHAT
I INTRODUCED LAST YEAR, AND I'M
PLEASED TO, UH, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
LOWE HAS BROUGHT IT FORWARD THIS
YEAR. THIS BILL HAS TAKEN
AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS THE
CONCERNS THAT WERE DISCUSSED
DURING THE HEARING LAST YEAR. WE
CONTINUE TO MEET WITH OPPOSITION
TO ENSURE A 2766 ADDRESSES OUR
INTENT, WHILE APPROPRIATE
PROTECTIONS FOR MISUSE. THIS
BILL IS CRITICAL TO PROVIDE MORE
TRANSPARENCY AS IT RELATES TO
EARLY RELEASE CREDITS FOR
INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS YOU
WILL RECALL TWO YEARS AGO NEXT
MONTH, SIX PEOPLE WERE MURDERED
IN A MASS KILLING SEVERAL BLOCKS
FROM THIS CAPITOL BUILDING. ONE
MONTH AFTER THESE MURDERS, THREE
PEOPLE WERE EACH CHARGED WITH
THREE COUNTS OF MURDER OF THE
GROUP. ONE INDIVIDUAL WAS A
FELON IN POSSESSION OF A FIREARM
AND A MACHINE GUN. POLICE HE
FIRED HIS GUN AT LEAST 28 TIMES
DURING THE SHOOTING. CORRECT, UH
, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION LATER CONFIRMED
THAT HE WAS RELEASED FROM PRISON
A LITTLE OVER A MONTH BEFORE THE
SHOOTING, ONLY TO HAVE SERVED
SLIGHTLY MORE THAN HALF OF HIS
SENTENCE ONLY 5.5 YEARS OUT OF A
10 YEAR SENTENCE. THE PEOPLE OF
CALIFORNIA DESERVE TO KNOW WHY
INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS ARE
RELEASED EARLY BY THE DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION BEFORE THEIR
SENTENCE. RELEASE DATE. èC B S¼
NEWS SACRA. I WAS SEEKING TO
UNDERSTAND HOW A DEFENDANT IN A
GANG RELATED MULTIPLE HOMICIDE
CASE WAS ABLE TO BE RELEASED SO
EARLY, SUBMITTED A PUBLIC
RECORDS ACT REQUEST. èC Dð èC
R RESPONDED BY DENYING THE NEWS
STATION'S REQUEST, ARGUING THAT
CREDIT EARNING INFORMATION WAS
CONFIDENTIAL. THE PEOPLE OF
CALIFORNIA DESERVE TRANSPARENCY.
IT IS ONLY FAIR, A B 2766 OFFERS
A REMEDY TO THIS LACK OF
TRANSPARENCY BY AMENDING THE
PUBLIC RECORDS ACT. TO PROVIDE
THAT THE CALCULATION OF A PRISON
INMATE'S RELEASE DATE AND A
SUMMARY OF HOW THE INMATE EARNED
ANY RELEASE CREDITS IS NOT
CONFIDENTIAL AND IS PUBLIC
RECORD SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE.
WHEN AN INCARCERATED PERSON
SERVES A FRACTION OF THEIR
SENTENCE IMPOSED BY THE JUDGE.
THE PUBLIC IS ENTITLED TO KNOW
WHY THAT IS THE CASE AND JUST TO
BE CLEAR BECAUSE THIS CAME UP
LAST YEAR NÓ PERSONAL HIPAA
RELATION RELATED INFORMATION IS
SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE. IS ALL
QUANTIFIABLE DATA RELATED TO
EDUCATIONAL CREDITS, VOCATIONAL
CREDITS AND, UH LIVE PERFORMING,
UH, BEHAVIOR, PERFORMING ISSUES,
NOTHING TO DO WITH HIPAA AND
PRIVACY RELATED MEDICAL
INFORMATION. I AM PROUD TO SIT
ALONGSIDE MY COLLEAGUE WHO HAS
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH THIS
POLICY. AND IT IS SO IMPORTANT
TO MANY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU BEFORE. UH, YOU BEGIN
WITH, UM, ESTABLISH A QUORUM AND
TAKE THE ROLE. MCCARTY HERE,
ALANIS LACKEY WHEN REYES TING.
WILSON ZIPPER IS PRESENT. THANK
YOU. QUORUM MR PRESIDENT. UH, UH
, SUPPORT WE HAVE FIVE MINUTES
TO SHARE WITH YOUR SUPPORT SIDE.
PLEASE PROCEED. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING CHAIR MEMBERS, JONATHAN
FELDMAN WITH ARC STRATEGIES ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA POLICE
CHIEFS ASSOCIATION IN STRONG
SUPPORT. UH I WANNA STATE FROM
THE OUTSET THAT IT IS NOT THE
GOAL OF THIS LEGISLATION TO
DISCOURAGE ANYONE FROM
PARTICIPATING IN REHABILITATIVE
SERVICES. IT IS NOT THE GOAL TO
PUT ANYONE IN HARM'S WAY BY
EXPOSING THEIR PERSONAL
INFORMATION OR WHETHER OR NOT
THEY WERE AN INFORMANT. WE KNOW
WE'VE HEARD THOSE CONCERNS. YOU
KNOW, THE GOAL HERE IS REALLY,
UH, IT'S ABOUT GOOD GOVERNANCE.
IT'S ABOUT OVERSIGHT. IT'S ABOUT
UNDERSTANDING THESE DECISIONS
THAT ARE BEING MADE. THAT,
FRANKLY WHEN THEY, UH, MISTAKES
ARE MADE PEOPLE LOSE THEIR LIVES
, AND WE'VE SEEN TOO MANY
EXAMPLES WITH INDIVIDUALS
MENTIONED IN THESE TWO STORIES,
BUT OTHER ONES IN POLICE
OFFICERS THAT HAVE BEEN KILLED
BY OFFENDERS WHO WERE RELEASED
EARLY, UH, IN SOME CASES, YEARS
OFF THEIR SENTENCES, AND WE
CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHY. BECAUSE WE
DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THAT
INFORMATION. UH DECISIONS THAT
ARE THIS CRITICAL. THIS
IMPORTANT REQUIRE A LEVEL OF
OVERSIGHT, NOT JUST FROM THE
PUBLIC, BUT FROM YOU ALL AND
FROM THE LEGISLATURE AND FROM
THE LAWMAKERS TO UNDERSTAND
WHAT'S WHAT'S NOT, AND, FRANKLY,
YOU KNOW, THESE ARE LIFE AND
DEATH DECISIONS THAT ARE BEING
MADE. IN THESE CASES. IT'S NOT A
TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF, UH, I'D
SAY, UH, MISTAKES THAT ARE BEING
MADE, BUT WHEN THEY DO OCCUR, UH
THE CONSEQUENCES ARE SEVERE, SO
WE THINK THIS IS A STEP IN THE
RIGHT DIRECTION AND WILL HELP US
BETTER UNDERSTAND? UH HOW THESE
CREDITS ARE BEING AWARDED WHAT
PROGRAMS ARE EFFECTIVE, WHICH
ONES ARE NOT SO WE CAN MAKE
BETTER DECISIONS MOVING FORWARD.
SO B, BUT THANK YOU, UH, WITNESS
IN IN SUPPORT, PLEASE LINE HERE
AND SAY YOUR ORGANIZATION AND
POSITION. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, MR CHAIR MEMBERS COURT
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
STATE SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION IN
SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR.
I REMEMBER IS JULIAN VÀ ON
BEHALF OF LE AT CALIFORNIA
CITIES IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. WE
HAVE OPPOSITION. NÓ TESTIMONY TO
STAND AT GARMA ON BEHALF OF
INITIATE JUST AS OPPOSED UNLESS
AMENDED. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING
, MARCO GEORGE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION. UM WE'RE A TWEENER
AND, UH, LOOK FORWARD TO FURTHER
NEGOTIATIONS SO WE CAN REACH UH,
A NEUTRAL POSITION, OK? THANK
YOU. THANK YOU QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS,
MR ZER. UM, SO I WAS HOPING THAT
THAT, UM MR LOWE OR DAVIES COULD
RESPOND TO ONE OF THE ASSERTIONS
IN THE A èC LU LETTER, WHICH IS
THAT INCARCERATED PEOPLE SUBJECT
TO, UM THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
RECORDS ACT IS LIKELY TO
DISCOURAGE INCARCERATED PEOPLE
FROM TAKING ADVANTAGE OF
PROGRAMMING POTENTIALLY DUE TO
STIGMATIZING, INCLUDING DRUG AND
ALCOHOL TREATMENT. SEX OFFENDER
TREATMENT, PARENTING CLASSES,
MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT. UH, FOR
FEAR THAT PARTICIPATION WILL
BECOME PUBLIC AND WILL BE USED
AGAINST THEM WONDERING, DOES
THAT THE BILL CONTINUE TO DO
THAT. YOU SAID THAT IT EXCLUDES
HIPAA, BUT IT DOESN'T. I MEAN,
WHAT? WHAT IS THE CONTEXT AND
HOW ELABORATE ARE THE SUMMARIES?
I JUST, UM ACKNOWLEDGE ALSO THAT
, UM, A èC Ó U REMOVED. UH,
THAT LETTER SPECIFICALLY AS
WE'RE ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF
PRIVACY, WE KNOW THAT THIS ALSO
SHOULD THIS LEAVE ALSO BE
ADDRESSED IN JUDICIARY AS IT IS
DOUBLE REFERRED. BUT UH, WE
ACKNOWLEDGE, ALSO IN
CONVERSATION WITH THE CHAIR, UH,
LAST WEEK THAT HAD THE INTENT TO
ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS
THAT MIGHT EXIST. INTI THAT UP.
I HAD ONE OTHER QUICK QUESTION.
I AM WONDERING IF THE PERSON WHO
INITIATE JUSTICE COULD COME UP
AND JUST TELL ME WHAT THE
AMENDMENTS ARE THAT YOU'RE
SEEKING. I WASN'T ONE OF THE
CONVERSATIONS. I DON'T HAVE THEM
HANDY WITH ME RIGHT NOW. UM BUT
I KNOW THAT GREG INITIATE
JUSTICE HAS BEEN IN THE
CONVERSATION WITH BOTH THE
AUTHORS OFFICES, AND IT'S JUST
ASKING FOR FURTHER PRIVACY
COVERAGE, POTENTIALLY CARVING
OUT CERTAIN KINDS OF PROGRAMS
FROM BEING ELIGIBLE. UM BUT I
DON'T HAVE THE FULL COPY OF THEM
HERE WITH ME TODAY.
UNFORTUNATELY, MR LAW. I ASSUME
YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THOSE ARE
AND YOU'RE CONTINUING TO WORK ON
THE CERTAINLY OK, THANK YOU AND
VERY, VERY RECEPTIVE AND NÓ. OK?
NÓ OTHER QUESTIONS. THAT WAS MY,
UH, COMMENT IS THAT WE DIDN'T
UNDERSTAND WHAT EXACTLY THEY
WERE LOOKING FOR. SO HOPEFULLY,
YOU CAN CONTINUE TO ENGAGE. WE
HAVE A MOTION MOTION. A SECOND
MINISTER LANI IS THE SECOND BY
SO MANY MEMBER W, UM, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER, YOU MAY CLOSE. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR OUR VOTE WANT TO ALSO
ACKNOWLEDGE THE HARD WORK OF MY
COLLEAGUE AS WELL? AND, UM
APPRECIATE THE CONSIDERATION.
ALL RIGHTY. THANK YOU. PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. AN A B 2766 BY A
MLO. THE MOTION IS DUE PASS TO
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. MCCARTY
MCCARTY, I ALANIS ALANIS, I
LACKEY LACKEY I WHEN I REYES.
WILSON ZABER ZER. I ALL RIGHT.
THE MEASURE PASSES NEXT WE HAVE
MR LOWENTHAL VIA PUDLO OR OUR
KING. ALL RIGHT. MR VÀ COME ON
UP. ITEM NUMBER NINE. YES ITEM
NUMBER NINE A B 2336. RIGHT? ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU. CHAIR MEMBERS.
I'D LIKE TO START BY THANKING
THE CHAIR AND COMMITTEE STAFF
ARE WORKING ON WITH OUR OFFICE
AND REFRAINING THE LANGUAGE. UH
AND I WILL BE ACCEPTING
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS TODAY TO
CONTINUE MY EFFORTS FROM LAST
YEAR. I'M PROUD TO PRESENT A B
2336 TODAY TO CONTINUE
PRIORITIZING THE HEALTH AND
SAFETY OF CALIFORNIANS. THE
FEDERAL CRISIS HAS HAD A
DESTRUCTIVE IMPACT ON OUR
SOCIETY. THE UNLAWFUL USE OF
THIS SUBSTANCE HAS RESULTED IN
COUNTLESS DEATHS AND PRESENTS AN
IMMENSE DANGER TO OUR
COMMUNITIES. AS A PRODUCT OF THE
OF THE OF THE DRUG TRAFFICKING.
WE HAVE CONSISTENTLY SEEN
POSSESSION OF BOTH LOADED
FIREARMS, ALONG WITH LETHAL
AMOUNT OF FENTANYL. THE
COMBINATION OF THESE TWO POSE IN
THE EVENT EVEN GREATER THREAT TO
THE PUBLIC LAW ENFORCEMENT AND
FIRST RESPONDERS. FENTANYL IS 50
TIMES MORE DANGEROUS THAN HEROIN
. IT IS NOW MENTIONED IN THE
CURRENT STATE. A B 20 THREE. 36
IS A COMMON SENSE MEASURE THAT
SIMPLY PROVIDES LEVEL A LEVEL.
PLAYING FIELD ON THE IN LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND LETHAL
SUBSTANCE. WITH ME TODAY TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF THIS
MEASURE AS CINDY DA SILVA FROM
THE SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND RHONDA
MANNING FROM A MAJOR MOVEMENT.
GOOD MORNING. CINDY DA SILVA,
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND I'LL KEEP
MY COMMENTS BRIEF. BUT I WOULD
LIKE TO POINT OUT AS SOME ONE
ITEM OF OPPOSITION TO THIS
MEASURE HAS BEEN, UM THE 234
TRIAD OF STATE PRISON. I WANT TO
POINT OUT THAT PROBATION IS
ELIGIBLE FOR THIS OFFENSE. IN
FACT, A LOT OF OFFENDERS DO GET
PROBATION FOR IT. SO UM, KEEPING
MY COMMENTS BRIEF. I WOULD LIKE
TO READ A SUPPORT LETTER FROM
ONE OF THE VICTIM. ON A JURY
TRIAL I HAD HE COULD NOT BE HERE
THIS MORNING BECAUSE HE'S ILL,
BUT HE WROTE A LETTER TO YOU
ALL, AND IT WAS A CASE INVOLVING
FENTANYL AND MANY, MANY, MANY
LOADED, UH, INOPERABLE FIREARMS,
IN FACT, ONE THAT WAS SHOT AT
HIM DURING A ROAD RAGE INCIDENT.
THE JURY ACQUITTED ON THAT
PORTION, BUT THEY CONVICTED ON
THE 11 THREE 70.1 AS WELL AS
FENTANYL CHARGES, AND THAT
OFFENDER IS DUE TO GET OUT ANY
DAY. NOW THANKS TO, UM PROP 57
AND CREDITS, HE WRITES. MY NAME
IS RAMIZ HADDAD AND I AM A
VICTIM OF GUN VIOLENCE. I AM ONE
OF COUNTLESS VICTIMS. BUT UNLIKE
SOME OTHERS, I HAPPEN TO SURVIVE
UP UNTIL MY CLOSE ENCOUNTER WITH
DEATH. I NEVER THOUGHT MUCH OF
GUNS. IF ANYTHING, I THOUGHT
GUNS WERE INTRIGUING AS I SPENT
THE MAJORITY OF MY CHILDHOOD
CONSUMING MEDIA THAT BRANDISHED
THEM. THE BOMBASTIC EXCITEMENT
AND BRAVADO THAT A GUN
REPRESENTED THROUGH MY FAVORITE
PROTAGONISTS ONLY PROJECTED AN
IDEALIZED AS AN ADULT. MY EYES
ARE OPEN A GUN NOW REPRESENTS A
CRYING MOTHER, TRAUMATIZED
CHILDREN, GORE AND SQUANDER. TO
ME. GUNS ARE ONLY PRACTICAL IN A
VOLATILE SOCIETY, NOT THE
PROGRESSING AND CIVIL SOCIETY
WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE TODAY.
FOR CONTEXT. MY ATTACKER WAS A
COMPLETE STRANGER. IT TOOK ONLY
A SECOND OR TWO FOR THREE
GUNSHOTS TO BLAZE BY ME WHAT WAS
CONVENIENT FOR MY ATTACKER WAS
HELD FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE.
THERE'S NOTHING ONE CAN FEEL
THROUGH WATCHING TV READING A
STATISTIC OR, IRONICALLY, EVEN
READING THIS LETTER TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT IT FEELS LIKE TO
HAVE ENDURED WHAT I DID.
COUNTLESS NIGHTS GONE AND
SLIPPED DEATHLY PAINS CHURNING
IN MY STOMACH AT THE THOUGHT OF
WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN AND A
PARANOIA THAT FOREVER PLAGUES ME
WHEN I GO OUTSIDE. I THINK
BECAUSE MOST OF THEM ARE DEAD.
HERE I STAND AN EXAMPLE AND A
VOICE CRYING OUT FOR CHANGE. I
DO NOT BELIEVE GUNS ARE USEFUL
TOOLS. I DO NOT THINK GUNS SAVE
LIVES. I DO NOT THINK GUNS SERVE
ANY OTHER PURPOSE BUT TO
EFFICIENTLY KILL THE CONCEPT OF
GUNS IS ANTIQUATED AND HOLDS NÓ
PLACE FOR A SOCIETY MEANT TO
UPHOLD ITS INTEGRITY THROUGH
COMMUNICATION AND CIVILITY. I
KNOW THIS FIRSTHAND IS MY
ATTACKER FOUND IT FASTER TO PULL
THE TRIGGER THAN TO USE THEIR
WORDS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU. YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES
LEFT ON YOUR SIDE AND SUPPORT.
PLEASE GO AHEAD. AND I'M JUST
GONNA READ KIND OF WHAT I WROTE
FROM YOU, TOO. AS I STAY ON
TASK. MY NAME IS RHONDA MANNING.
AND I AM SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. I
HAVE FORMED AN ORGANIZATION
CALLED A MAJOR MOVEMENT IN HONOR
OF MY SON. MY SON MAJOR WAS 17.
AND ON OCTOBER 3RD LAST YEAR, MY
SON TOOK UP WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS
A PERCOCET PILL THAT WAS LACED
WITH FENTANYL. MY SON WAS DUE TO
GRADUATE THIS YEAR FROM THE
SENIOR IN HIGH SCHOOL, AND HE
WON'T HE WON'T BE ABLE TO GO TO
HIS PROM OR ANY OF THIS. WE HAD
NÓ IDEA THAT FENTANYL. WAS JUST
IT'S JUST RAPPING AND JUST
TAKING OVER OUR COMMUNITIES AND
IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND AS A
PARENT. MY HUSBAND AND I HAVE
MADE IT OUR LIFE'S MISSION TO
TRY TO HELP SAVE OTHER KIDS FROM
THIS DANGEROUS DRUG AND EDUCATE
PARENTS. UH, BEEN SPEAKING WITH
DE DISTRICT ATTORNEY CINDY AT
DIFFERENT SCHOOLS. MY SON'S, UH,
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL AND HIS HIGH
SCHOOL. UM AND WE JUST ASKED TO
WE ARE IN HONOR OF SUPPORTING
THIS BILL TO HELP PROTECT OUR
YOUNG PEOPLE'S LIFE. MY SON
MAJOR'S LIFE MATTER, ALL LIVES
MATTER. AND WE WANNA FIGHT THIS
FENTANYL IN A MAJOR WAY. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. OTHERS
IN SUPPORT, PLEASE LINE UP STATE
CARE ORGANIZATION AND POSITION.
MEMBER IS JONATHAN FELDMAN WITH
THE CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS
ASSOCIATION. STRONG SUPPORT THE
FRANKLIN RHODA DAVIS HERE TO
SUPPORT DANNY AND RHONDA MANNING
IN A MAJOR MOVEMENT. COREY SO A
LITTLE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT. DÂN
MANNING, FATHER OF MAJOR
MANNING. I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THE
MAJOR MOVEMENT. GOOD MORNING, MR
CHAIR MEMBERS. RYAN CHAIR OF THE
RIVERSIDE SHERIFF ASSOCIATION,
CALIFORNIA NARCOTIC OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION AND A NUMBER OF
LOCAL P Ó A S¼ AND Dð S¼ A S¼
IN SUPPORT OF THE MEASURE. THANK
YOU. SHANA ALI. I'M SUPPORTING
THE MAJOR MOVEMENT AND I'M MAJOR
SISTER. SCOTTY GARDEN SUPPORT
MAJOR MOVEMENT ON MEASURES
UNCLE. CARLA POSADA IN SUPPORT
OF THE FIELD AND SUPPORT OF
RWANDA AND DANNY AND AS A MOTHER
OF A 10 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER. I
WANT SOMETHING TO BE DONE. THANK
YOU. DO WE HAVE WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION? PLEASE COME FORWARD.
GOOD MORNING. LINEBACKERS FOR
THE YELLOW BAKER CENTER FOR
HUMAN RIGHTS. THE BAKER CENTER
IS A RACIAL AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE
GROUP BASED IN OAKLAND,
CALIFORNIA. IT'S EASY TO
CONSIDER THIS BILL AS AN UPDATE
OF EXISTING LAW. IT'S EASY TO
SAY, WHY DON'T WE ADD FENTANYL
TO EXISTING LAW? THEY REMAIN.
COM COMMITTEE THAT POSSESSION OF
A SMALL AMOUNT OF A CONTROLLED
SUBSTANCE FOR PERSONAL USE AS A
MISDEMEANOR. AND POSSESSION OF A
FIREARM IS LEGAL. SO WHY DO WE
HAVE AN EXISTING LAW THAT SAYS
THAT A MISDEMEANOR PLUS A LEGAL
ACTION IS NOW A FELONY WITH FOUR
YEARS IN STATE PRISON? THAT
DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. AND
BEFORE WE CONSIDER EXPANDING
THAT SECTION, WE SHOULD CONSIDER
WHETHER THE UNDERLYING SECTION
SHOULD BE REFORMED FIRST. THIS
UNDERLYING SECTION WAS
IMPLEMENTED IN 1989 SIGNED BY
GOVERNOR DUKE MÀ. WAS AMENDED IN
1996 AMENDED BY PETE WILSON. IN
THIS SECTION, THERE'S NÓ WEIGHT
THRESHOLD. SO WE'RE NOT TALKING
ABOUT ANYTHING BUT ONE PILL.
WE'RE NOT GONNA TALK ABOUT FIVE
PILLS, 10 PILLS. WE'RE NOT
TALKING ABOUT STASH HOUSES.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT DEALERS.
ONE PILL. PLUS ONE GUN. NOW
EQUALS FOUR YEARS IN STATE
PRISON. THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE,
AND IT SHOULDN'T BE EXPANDED
WITHOUT REFORM. THERE'S NÓ
REQUIREMENT THAT THE GUN BE IN
THE HAND OF THE PERSON. THAT IT
BE BRANDISH THAT IT BE USED
INAPPROPRIATELY THAT IT BE A
GHOST GUN. THAT WOULD BE AN
ILLEGAL GUN. IT JUST HAS TO BE A
GUN IN THE HOUSE IN THE VEHICLE
OR ON THEIR PERSON. SO LITERALLY
, YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO SUPPORT
ONE PILL IN THE BATHROOM. ONE
GUN IN THE CLOSET FOUR YEARS IN
STATE PRISON. THAT EXAMPLE OF
ONE SMALL AMOUNT OF DRUGS IN THE
BATHROOM, AND ONE GUN IN THE
CLOSET IS SPECIFIC. THAT'S WHAT
THE CALIFORNIA STATE APPELLATE
COURT HELD UP. A DEFENDANT
SURRENDERED TO A WARRANT IN THE
LIVING ROOM PEACEFULLY,
ACCORDING TO COURT RECORDS. IN
THE BACK BATHROOM. LAW
ENFORCEMENT FOUND 7 G OF
METHAMPHETAMINE CONSISTENT WITH
PERSONAL USE IN A PILL BOTTLE.
AND THEY FOUND ONE GUN LOADED IN
THE CLOSET IN A LOCKED BOX
LOADED IN THE SENSE THAT THE
CLIP WAS FULL, BUT THEY, UH,
CHAMBER WASN'T THOUGH IT WAS
LOCKED, LAW ENFORCEMENT WAS ABLE
TO OPEN IT WITHOUT A KEY.
THEREFORE ACCORDING TO
CALIFORNIA STATE LAW, AS IT SITS
TODAY, IT WAS ACCESSIBLE AND
OPERABLE. THAT'S WHAT THE
APPELLATE COURT HELD UP BECAUSE
THAT'S THE LAW IS GIVEN TO US
FROM THE WILSON AND DUKE MÀ ERA.
WHICH ALSO IS KNOWN AS THE
HEIGHT OF MASS INCARCERATION AND
THE DRUG WAR. SO AFTER 25 YEARS
OF THESE LAWS ON THE BOOKS,
THERE'S NÓ EVIDENCE THAT THEY
REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE. THERE'S NÓ
EVIDENCE THAT THEY REDUCED THE
AVAILABILITY OF DRUGS. DRUGS ARE
MORE PLENTIFUL, CHEAPER AND
STRONGER THAN EVER BEFORE. THIS
LAW DOESN'T WORK. IT SHOULD NOT
BE EXPANDED ON. THERE'S ALSO
PLENTY OF EVIDENCE IN THE 40
YEARS OF THE DRUG WAR THAT WE
HURT FAMILIES. WHEN WE GIVE
THEIR MOMS, DADS AND OTHERS LONG
SENTENCES IN STATE PRISON WHEN
YOU TAKE SOMEONE OUT OF THE
FAMILY AND THEN FORCE THE FAMILY
TO SEND THEM MONEY TO SUPPORT
THEM, SO THEY CAN WHILE THEY'RE
IN PRISON THAT HURTS THE FAMILY
AND BECAUSE WE OVER CONCENTRATE
THESE PENALTIES IN SPECIFIC
COMMUNITIES, LOW INCOME
COMMUNITIES, MAINLY BLACK
COMMUNITIES, LATINO COMMUNITIES,
INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES THAT
GUARANTEES THE INTERGENERATIONAL
TRANSFER OF THE OF POVERTY. FOR
THOSE FAMILIES AND FOR THOSE
COMMUNITIES THAT SHOULD BE
CONSIDERED WHENEVER YOU'RE ASKED
TO EXPAND A LONG PRISON PENALTY.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MARK Ó
GEORGE FOR THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION AND
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THIS BILL
IS NOT ABOUT DRUG SALES. LET'S
NOT ADD ANOTHER LAW
DISPROPORTIONATELY INCREASING
THE INCARCERATION OF BLACK AND
BROWN PEOPLE. ALL THE LAW TAKES
IS A PERSON PERHAPS ADDICTED
WITH KNOWLEDGE OF ONE PILL
CONTAINING FENTANYL AND ONE GUN
IN THE HOUSEHOLD. THE BILL DOES
NOT REQUIRE KNOWLEDGE THAT THE
GUN IS LOADED, INOPERABLE. AN
ADDICTED INDIVIDUAL COULD HAVE A
ROOMMATE OR A FAMILY MEMBER WHO
WAS A SECURITY GUARD OR EVEN A
POLICE OFFICER WHO LEGALLY OWNS
A GUN AND HAS SAFELY LOCKED UP.
AND BE FOUND GUILTY OF THIS
OFFENSE. THIS BILL WOULD ENSURE
THAT OTHERWISE LAW ABIDING
CITIZENS ADDICTED INDIVIDUALS,
FAMILY FRIENDS WOULD NOT BE
ELIGIBLE FOR DRUG DIVERSION. LET
ME REPEAT THAT. ADDICTED
INDIVIDUAL WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE
FOR DRUG DIVERSION UNDER
SUBSECTION Dð OF THIS BILL.
DEALS AND DAVID. THEY WOULD NOT
BE ELIGIBLE FOR TREATMENT IN THE
COMMUNITY. INSTEAD THE
INDIVIDUAL WOULD GO TO STATE
PRISON WITH VIOLENT OFFENDERS
FOR 23 OR FOUR YEARS. ALMOST 40
YEARS AGO, I STARTED MY CAREER.
IN OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA AS HIS
DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER. I HAVE
SEEN BLACK AND BROWN
INDIVIDUALS. GO TO PRISON DURING
THE HEIGHT OF THE WAR ON DRUGS
FOR POSSESSION OF CRACK COCAINE.
ONE OR TWO ROCKS. I SAW THEM GO
TO PRISON, SUFFERING FROM
POVERTY FOR SELLING ONE OR TWO
ROCKS TO SUPPORT THEIR HABIT OR
THEIR FAMILY. I SAW THE
EXPANSION OF JAILS AND PRISONS
AS THE PRISON INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
EXPANDED WE CANNOT INCARCERATE
OUR WAY OUT OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH
CRISIS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
NÓ VOTE. THANK YOU KNOW THERE'S
AN OPPOSITION, PLEASE STATE YOUR
NAME AND POSITION ONLY. GOOD
MORNING, MR CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS
MICA DOCTOR OFF WITH THE A. èC
LU OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA HERE
TODAY ON BEHALF OF A èC LU,
CALIFORNIA ACTION IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. GOOD MORNING, ALICIA
MONTERO, UH, WITH CALIFORNIANS
UNITED FOR RESPONSIBLE BUDGET IN
OPPOSITION. OUT DEJA GREEN FROM
THE ELLA BAKER CENTER FOR HUMAN
RIGHTS AND STRONG OPPOSITION TO
THIS BILL. DÂN ON BEHALF OF
INITI, HÌ JUSTICE AND THE SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC VES OFFICE AND
IN OPPOSITION. GOOD MORNING AT
ONLY MARIE LADD HERE ON BEHALF
OF LEGAL SERVICES FOR PRISONERS
WITH CHILDREN. ALL OF US ARE
NONE IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.
MEAN NOT OF A COMPOST FROM S¼ E
JUSTICE GROUP IN STRONG
OPPOSITION. RIGHT THAT'S IT
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. I CAN MAKE
THIS QUICK. AH! UH, CAN YOU? CAN
YOU PLEASE ANSWER SOME OF THE
QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE FOR THAT?
THE OPPOSITION BROUGHT UP AS FAR
AS, UH POSSESSION OF JUST THE
ONE GUN. UH, ALSO, I THINK
OPPOSITION ALSO SAID IT'S LEGAL
TO POSSESS A GUN. IS THAT ALSO
THE BILL ALSO COVER THAT IS IT
LIKE A FELON IN POSSESSION OF A
GUN? WHAT CAN YOU ELABORATE MORE
ON THAT NÓ FELON IN POSSESSION
OF GUN OF A GUN WOULD BE
PUNISHABLE UNDER ANOTHER STATUTE
, AND THERE'S VARIOUS WAYS THAT
IN OTHERWISE LEGAL GUN CAN BE
MADE ILLEGAL, FOR EXAMPLE, THE
WAY THAT IT'S UM THE WAY THAT
IT'S HOUSED, WHETHER IT'S AROUND
CHILDREN, WHETHER OR NOT IT'S IN
THE TRUNK OF THE CAR, WHETHER OR
NOT IT'S LOADED, UM AND INSIDE
THE WHETHER OR NOT IT'S STOLEN,
AND IN THIS CASE, WHETHER OR NOT
YOU SIMULTANEOUSLY POSSESS IT
WITH WITH ALONG WITH THESE
CERTAIN SIX BIG AND WE'RE HOPING
TO MAKE IT SEVEN BIG DRUGS, UM
IN IN TERMS OF RESPECTFULLY, THE
ARGUMENT THAT ONE PILL AND A
LOADED OPERABLE GUN THAT BELONGS
TO A SECURITY GUARD IS GONNA PUT
YOU IN PRISON FOR FOUR YEARS.
THAT IS WILDLY UNLIKELY TO
HAPPEN BECAUSE PEOPLE WITH UM
PEOPLE THAT THAT HAVE A AAA
LAWFUL REASON TO HAVE THAT GUN
ARE GONNA LIKE WE HAVE IT LOCKED
AWAY OUTSIDE OF THE POSSESSION
OF THE PERSON AND THAT WOULD BE
A CATEGORICAL DEFENSE TO THE
PERSON WHO POSSESSES THAT GUN AS
A SECURITY GUARD THEM SAYING I
DIDN'T HAVE IT FOR READY READILY
AVAILABLE FOR, UM, UH, DEFENSIVE
OR OFFENSIVE USE. I DIDN'T KNOW
ABOUT THE DRUGS BEING PRESENT
THEY'D BE FOUND NOT GUILTY.
THEY'D LIKELY NOT BE CHARGED
WITH REGARD TO THE CONCERN
UNDERSTANDABLE ABOUT LOCKING UP
RACIAL MINORITIES.
UNFORTUNATELY, MAJOR IS DEAD. UM
AND MY OWN COUSIN WHO IS AN
INCARCERATED INDIVIDUAL DUE TO
DRUGS, AND I'M NOT TALKING A B
109. I'M TALKING PRISON. SHE'S
ON A PAROLE VIOLATION RIGHT NOW
BECAUSE OF HER ADDICTION, SO
WE'VE GOT A WHITE PERSON LOCKED
UP FOR METHAMPHETAMINE. ONE OF
THESE BIG SIX CRIMES, SO THIS IS
AAA LAW THAT APPLIES ACROSS THE
BOARD. NÓ MATTER WHAT YOUR RACE
IS, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER OTHER
QUESTIONS AS WELL. THANK YOU. I
WANNA GET INTO THE BROUGHT UP
THE LOADED BOX, BUT WE'RE ABLE
TO GET INTO ARE YOU FAMILIAR
WITH IT? I'M SORRY. WHAT'S THAT?
INTO A LOADED BOX WITH THE GUN.
ARE YOU ABLE TO ELABORATE ON
THAT OR EVEN THE DEFENSE ON THAT
BEING ABLE TO GET TO IT WITHOUT
IT BEING LOCKED, I BELIEVE IS,
OH, SURE, THE DEFINITION
PURSUANT TO BOTH THE STATUTE AS
WELL AS CASE LAW IS IT'S GOT TO
BE READILY AVAILABLE FOR
OFFENSIVE OR DEFENSIVE USE. THAT
IMPLIES A KNOWLEDGE ELEMENT THAT
YOU ESSENTIALLY HAVE IT IN ORDER
TO PROTECT YOUR STASH. AND
YOU'RE WILLING TO DEPLOY IT IF
SOMEBODY TRIES TO COME TAKE THAT
VALUABLE DRUG FROM YOU, UM OR
ANY OTHER REASON, SO IF IT'S IT,
IT IT ON THE FACTS. THE JURY IS
GOING TO NEED TO DECIDE WHETHER
OR NOT THEY HAVE IT READILY
AVAILABLE OR NOT, UM, IF IT'S
LOCKED IN THE BACK OF A TRUNK
AND YOU INSIDE YOUR YOU KNOW,
3000 SQUARE FOOT MANSION,
PROBABLY LESS LIKELY THAT YOU'LL
BE CONVICTED OF IT. UM, BUT IF
IT'S HIDDEN IN YOUR OVEN, WHICH
I'VE SEEN, UM AND SOMEBODY DOES
A GANG SHOOTING ON YOUR HOUSE
AND POLICE ISSUE A SEARCH
WARRANT ON YOUR RESIDENCE AND
THEY FIND ALL KINDS OF DRUGS AND
THEY'RE NOT LOADED OPERABLE GUN
INSIDE THAT OVEN. I WOULD ARGUE
TO THE JURY THAT THAT'S READILY
AVAILABLE. IT DEPENDS ON THE
FACTS. ACTUALLY THE CASE LAW
INDICATES SOMETHING DIFFERENT. I
THINK WE HAVE A WOULD YOU GO,
BUT LET HIM FINISH HIS
QUESTIONING. HOLD ON A SECOND.
LET ME JUST MAKE ONE MORE
COMMENT, BECAUSE I GOTTA GO TO
ANOTHER COMMITTEE. UH, WE TALKED
ABOUT HURTING FAMILIES FROM THE
OPPOSITION AND I'M I'M SURE
YOU'RE REFERRING TO THOSE THAT
ARE MAKING THE OFFENSE? UH,
DON'T FORGET. WE ALSO HAVE
VICTIMS OUT THERE THAT ALSO HAVE
HUMAN RIGHTS AS WELL. AND I
THINK THAT'S WE'RE ALSO HERE TO
TALK ABOUT AND ALSO THE MERE
POINT THAT WAS BROUGHT UP AS FAR
AS BEING IN POSSESSION OF A
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE FROM BACK
IN THE DAY. OBVIOUSLY AS WE'VE
BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS AND
CONTINUE TO TALK ABOUT THIS
FENTANYL SHOULD NOT BE COMPARED
TO THESE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES
LIKE COCAINE AND HEROIN AND
METH, COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TYPE
OF DRUG. WE'VE SAID THAT MANY
TIMES IS A POISON, UH, AS A
SUPERVISOR OUT ON PATROL. I HAD
TO WORRY ABOUT MY DEPUTIES BEING
OUT THERE. UH, WHEN THERE WAS AN
OVERDOSE WITH FENTANYL BECAUSE
MY DEPUTIES COULD BE KILLED JUST
BY INHALING IT TOUCHING IT. I
COULDN'T THAT COULDN'T HAPPEN
WITH COCAINE. THAT COULDN'T
HAPPEN WITH HEROIN OR OR METH.
SO WE'RE TALKING A DIFFERENT
DRUG. SO DON'T DO COMPARED TO
THE APPLES AND ORANGES PART AND
I MOVED THE BILL. DID YOU HAVE A
QUESTION FOR THE OPPOSITION? YOU
DO NOT OK, MR Z. SO THE PROBLEMS
THAT I HAVE WITH THIS BILL ARE I
THINK TWOFOLD ONE IS DOES
APPLIES NOT ONLY TO PEOPLE WHO
ARE HAVE A QUANTITY AVAILABLE
FOR SALE, BUT IT APPLIES TO
PEOPLE THAT MAY HAVE VERY SMALL
QUANTITIES. ONLY FOR PERSONAL
USE. IS THAT ACCURATE? YEAH YES,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, UM, SHAVES. IT
IS ACCURATE, HOWEVER, IN MY
EXPERIENCE AND I UNDERSTAND THAT
DISCRETION MAY BE AN ISSUE FOR
THIS COMMITTEE. BUT WE DO HAVE
DISCRETION ON WHEN WE CHARGE IT.
WE'RE FAR MORE LIKELY TO SEEK A
CONVICTION ON THAT COUNT. IF THE
PERSON IS A SELLER, AND IF THEY
HAVE A SMALL PERSONAL USE AMOUNT
, UM, THEY ARE ALWAYS ELIGIBLE
FOR THE PROBATION. UM
SECONDARILY, THERE'S BEING QUITE
FRANK. THE WAY THAT THIS TENDS
TO WORK IS WE'LL CHARGE THE 11 3
70.1 WHEN THEY HAVE A SMALL
AMOUNT OF THE DRUG, BUT WE HAVE
OTHER EVIDENCE THAT THEY'RE
PROBABLY SELLING, BUT WE CAN'T
GET THEM CONVICTED ON SALES. NÓ
NARCOTICS EXPERT IS GOING TO
WANT TO SAY THAT LET'S SAY A AAA
FOURTH OR A, UM, A 16TH OF AN
OUNCE, ALTHOUGH SOME ARE GONNA
LOOK AT THAT AND SAY THAT'S A
LOT OF FENTANYL. THERE COULD
KILL A LOT OF PEOPLE, BUT THAT
1/16 OF AN OUNCE WITHOUT BEING
COUPLED WITH PEO SHEETS. UM, UH
UH UH. WITNESSING A HAND TO HAND
TRANSACTION PREVIOUS, UH UM,
SURVEILLANCE THAT THEY'RE NOT
WILLING TO DISCLOSE BASED ON
CONFIDENTIALITY. WE KNOW THE
PERSON SELLING. WE CAUGHT THEM
WITH A CERTAIN AMOUNT, AND WE
CAUGHT THEM WITH A LOADED
OPERABLE FIREARM. WE HAVE
CONCERNS ABOUT THEM SO THAT
WE'RE GONNA CHARGE THEM WITH IT.
YEAH. I MEAN, II, I THINK I
MEAN, SO FIRST OF ALL, I MEAN, I
SUPPORTED THE AUTHOR'S PRIOR
BILLS THAT HAVE FOCUSED ON UM,
MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE SORT OF
TAKING FENTANYL OFF THE STREET
FOR SALES. AND I THINK THAT THAT
IS SOMETHING THAT IS A REALLY
IMPORTANT FOCUS OF WHAT WE
SHOULD BE DOING FOR FENTANYL.
THIS BILL, THOUGH I THINK WHAT
IT DOES, IS IT PROVIDES. HARSH
PENALTIES FOR A PERSON WHO
ACTUALLY HAS FENTANYL IN HIS OR
HER OR THEIR POSSESSION IN A
VERY SMALL QUANTITY FOR PERSONAL
USE. AND IF THEY HAVE A FIREARM
SOME PLACE IN THE HOUSE, AND I'M
LOOKING AT THE LANGUAGE OF THE
BILL, AND IT SAYS ARMED WITH
MEANS HAVING AVAILABLE FOR
IMMEDIATE OR OFFENSIVE OR
DEFENSIVE USE, SO THAT COULD BE
SOME PLACE IN THE HOUSE THAT
THERE'S A THAT THERE'S A GUN.
SOMEONE WHO HAS A ONE PILL.
PERSONAL USE, AND THEN THAT
PERSON IS CONVICTED IS NOT
ELIGIBLE FOR DIVERSION OR
DEFERRED ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. SO
YOU HAVE SOMEONE WHO MAY HAVE A
DRUG ADDICTION AND THE THING WE
WANT MOST IS NOT TO PUT THEM IN
PRISON FOR FOUR YEARS, BUT TO
GET THEM INTO A DIVERSION AND A
TREATMENT PROGRAM AND FOR THAT
THOSE PEOPLE THIS BILL MAKES IT
IMPOSSIBLE TO DO THAT. SO THAT'S
WHY I DON'T YOU KNOW, I AM VERY,
VERY SUPPORTIVE. BILLS. THAT ARE
FOCUSED ON GETTING FENTANYL OFF
THE STREET AND FENTANYL IN
QUANTITIES THAT ARE THEREFORE
SALES AND WHEN PEOPLE ARE
ACTUALLY HAVE KNOWLEDGE THAT
SOMETHING IS SPENT AND ALL AND
THAT THEY BASICALLY ARE PUTTING
IT IN THE YOU KNOW, ON THE
STREET AND MAKING THAT AVAILABLE
TO KIDS AND PEOPLE WHO HAVE NÓ
KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
BUT THIS BILL WELL, I THINK IT'S
REALLY WELL INTENTIONED. SEEMS
LIKE IT GOES IN EXACTLY THE
OPPOSITE DIRECTION OF WHAT WE
WANT TO DO. IT'S BASICALLY
TAKING SOMEONE WHO IS A DRUG
ADDICT WHO MAY HAVE A DRUG
ADDICTION WHO NEEDS TREATMENT
AND HAS A VERY SMALL QUANTITY, A
QUANTITY. THAT'S NOT EVEN AN
AMOUNT THAT WOULD BE NECESSARILY
LIKELY TO BE FOR SALE AND THEN
SAYS WE'RE GONNA PUT YOU IN
PRISON FOR FOUR YEARS AND YOU'RE
NOT ELIGIBLE FOR ANY KIND OF
DRUG TREATMENT OR DIVERSION
PROGRAM. WHICH SEEMS LIKE IT IS
THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT WE
WANT TO DO. IT'S JUST BASICALLY
FILLING OUR PRISONS RATHER THAN
TREATING PEOPLE. IF THIS WAS
ABOUT SALES. AND QUANTITIES OF
SALES. YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT
IT HAD A GUN? I WOULD. BASICALLY
YOU KNOW, I WOULD BE MUCH MORE
OPEN MINDED ABOUT IT, BUT THAT'S
NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. SO HAVE
SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS ABOUT THE
BILL. THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME
THE TIME MR CHAIR. THANK YOU, MR
LACKEY. YEAH. I RESPECTFULLY
DISAGREE WITH THAT ASSESSMENT. I
THINK THAT, UM ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT WE TRY TO DO AS LEGISLATORS
IS PROTECT THE INNOCENT FROM
UNNECESSARY THREATS. AND FOR US
TO TRY TO SAY THAT, UH THESE.
THIS IS TARGETED TOWARDS
INDIVIDUAL USERS, I THINK IS
UNFAIR BECAUSE THE TOPIC THAT
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS FENTANYL.
FENTANYL IS WAY DIFFERENT THAN
ANY OTHER NARCOTICS THAT WE'RE,
UH, ON THE MARKET. TODAY IT
TAKES SUCH A MINISCULE AMOUNT.
TO BE DEADLY. A MINISCULE AMOUNT
, AND SO THESE POOR PEOPLE THAT
HAVE ADDICTION TO FENTANYL UM
THEIR CHANCE OF SURVIVAL OVER
THE LONG HAUL IS GOING TO BE
VERY, VERY DIM IN ALL TRUTH, AND
IT'S A VERY SMALL PART OF THE
POPULATION. UM AND I DO THINK
SPECIAL CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE
TAKEN FOR THOSE IN PERSONAL USE.
BUT LET'S LET'S BE HONEST ABOUT
THE REALITY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
HERE AND THE BALANCE THAT WE ARE
EXPECTED TO, UH, TO CONSIDER
WHEN WE'RE PASSING LEGISLATION.
I'M I'M VERY PROUD OF THE FACT
THAT BECAUSE YOU HAVE TWO DEADLY
THREATS THAT ARE INARGUABLE AND
I'M ALMOST ENTERTAINED BY THE
CONVERSION OF SOME OF OUR, UH
COLLEAGUES THAT BECOME SECOND
AMENDMENT PEOPLE, UM FOR JUST A
MOMENT. AND I. I DON'T THINK
THAT THAT'S A REALITY. I REALLY
DON'T I, I THINK PEOPLE THAT ARE
CARRYING FENTANYL AND HAVE A
LOADED WEAPON. ARE EXTREMELY
DANGEROUS AND THEY ARE OUT TO
KILL. AND WE SHOULD DO
EVERYTHING WE CAN TO PREVENT
THAT. AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO BE
CONSIDERED A CO-AUTHOR FOR THIS
MEASURE. YOU. OK UM, I JUST WANT
TO TRY TO BRIDGE THESE TWO
STATEMENTS BECAUSE YOU KNOW
WE'RE TRYING TO BRING BALANCE TO
THESE ISSUES SO WE DON'T WANT
TO. IMPACT AND LOCK AWAY. PEOPLE
WHO ARE LIKE ADDICTION AND SMALL
QUANTITIES FOR PERSONAL USE. BUT
ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS WAS MADE
AND I'LL GIVE YOU ONE MORE TIME
TO HELP CONVINCE US IS THAT
THERE'S DISCRETION BASED UPON
THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE Dð
A. AND OF COURSE, THE JUDGE AND
THE JURY AND EVALUATING THIS, SO
CAN YOU ONE MORE TIME TRY TO
CONVINCE US THAT THERE IS
ADEQUATE DISCRETION HERE TO
ENSURE THAT WE DON'T UNFAIRLY
FOCUS ON PEOPLE WHO ARE
SUFFERING FROM ADDICTION, BUT
CONVERSELY, FOCUS ON PEOPLE THAT
HAVE POSSESSION WITH THE SOLE
PURPOSE OF TRAFFICKING THAT
PRODUCT. THANK YOU CHAIR AND I
WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE ASSEMBLY
MEMBER CHÁVEZ. IT'S TRUE HE HAS
SUPPORTED THESE MEASURES,
PARTICULARLY WHEN THEY'RE AIMED
AT THE AT THE HIGHER LEVEL
DEALERS. I WANT TO ASSUAGE ANY
CONCERNS ABOUT THE LACK OF
ACCESS TO DEFERRED ENTRY OF
JUDGMENT. THAT'S A TERM OF ART
THAT IS PARTICULARLY REFERRING
TO PENAL CODE SECTION 1000. THAT
PARTICULAR FORM. IT'S NOT SAYING
THEY'RE INELIGIBLE FOR TREATMENT
. IT'S SAYING THEY'RE UN
INELIGIBLE TO HAVE THEIR THEIR,
UM, CONVICTION DISMISSED AFTER
THEY GO THROUGH A CERTAIN
PROGRAM. THEY'RE ALWAYS ELIGIBLE
FOR PROGRAMMING, WHETHER ON
PROBATION OR EVEN AT THE STATE
PRISON. UM ALSO THE CONCERN
ABOUT ONE PILL AND ONE GUN. IN
ALL HONESTY. I'VE EVEN ASKED A
NARCOTICS EXPERT ON THE STAND,
AND HE RESPONDED UNDER OATH. WE
NEVER SEE THAT BECAUSE THE
TRULY, UM SIMPLY ADDIC LOW LEVEL
USER WHO IS JUST DOWN AND OUT
AND USING FOUR TIMES A DAY TO
SUPPORT THEIR HABIT. THEY CAN'T
AFFORD A GUN. THEY'LL HAWK THAT
GUN IN ORDER TO GET THEIR NEXT
$8 PILL AND IN TERMS OF
DISCRETION. I DON'T KNOW THAT I
CAN SATISFY THIS BODY WITHOUT
COMING TO YOU WITH STATISTICS.
WHAT I CAN TELL YOU THAT WE HAVE
ALL ENACTED RECENTLY. THE RACIAL
JUSTICE ACT, UH, DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICES ARE ENACTING
RACE BLIND CHARGING. WE'RE DOING
ALL THAT WE CAN TO TRY TO MAKE
SURE THAT ANY BIAS THAT WE'RE
UNCONSCIOUS OF DOES NOT LEAK
INTO OUR CHARGING DECISIONS. SO
WE LOOK JUST AT THE FACTS. AND
IF QUITE FRANKLY, WE'RE ALL TOO
BUSY TO GO AFTER AN 11 THREE
70.1 FOR SOMEBODY THAT WE DON'T
HAVE PRIOR INFORMATION BASED ON
THEIR RAP SHEET BASED ON WHAT
THE NARCOTICS OFFICERS KNOW, BUT
AREN'T AT LIBERTY TO DISCLOSE
BECAUSE IT'S CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMANTS INVOLVED IS NOT
TECHNICALLY A DEALER. WE DON'T
HAVE TIME TO GO AFTER THAT
PERSON. UM I HOPE THAT SATISFIES
YOU. IF IT DOESN'T. MAYBE I CAN
WORK IN FUTURE YEARS WITH YOU TO
SATISFY YOU ON DISCRETIONARY
ROOM. BUT SOMETIMES DISCRETION
IS GOOD BECAUSE WE CAN TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT THOSE THINGS LIKE
FAIRNESS. IN THIS CASE, WHAT
CONCERNS YOU IS THE RACE ASPECT
AND WE'RE WORKING ON THAT. OK
THANK YOU. UM DO WE HAVE A
MOTION A MOTION TO SECOND, MR
LÀ, MR. LACKIE, THE SECOND, UM
NÓ MORE QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. NONE MR. THANK YOU.
THANKS FOR HAVING THIS
DISCUSSION. I MEAN, THIS IS A
LAST YEAR, WE PASSED A GREAT
BILL THAT DOES WILL ADD TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE PUT HELP FOLKS THAT
REALLY DO NEED THE REHAB. UM I'M
A SOCIAL WORKER. YOU KNOW,
THAT'S THAT'S WHERE MY DEGREE IS
IN, AND I AM FOR ABOUT MAKING
SURE THAT WE DO HELP PEOPLE, BUT
WE'RE IN A CRISIS. AND IF WE DO
NOT SEE IT, JUST DRIVE AROUND
YOUR COMMUNITIES, I CAN DRIVE
AROUND THROUGHOUT THE STATE AND
YOU'LL SEE IT. IT'S EVERYWHERE.
UM AT AT THE END OF THE DAY.
THEM ON AGAIN. I MEAN, AND A
DRUG DEALER JUST DO NOT BELONG
IN THE STREETS. IT JUST DOESN'T
IT'S KILLING OUR COMMUNITIES.
I'M IT'S TO A POINT WHERE UH, I
HEARD IT FROM, UH UH, ASSEMBLY
OF M. AND IS THAT DON'T EVEN
WANT TO TOUCH THIS BECAUSE IT'S
THAT CONTAGIOUS. IT'S 50 TIMES
MORE POTENT THAN ANY OTHER ANY.
I DON'T EVEN WANT TO SAY THE
WORD DRUG BECAUSE IT'S POISON.
AND IT'S KILLING OUR COMMUNITY.
SO THIS BILL IS A SOUND AND A
NECESSARY COMMITMENT TO CLOSE
THE GAP IN OUR HEALTH AND SAFETY
CODE. IT WILL WORK TO REDUCE THE
ONGOING HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKS
ACROSS OUR STATES. AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN I VOTE.
THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION TO
SECOND. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. ON
A B 20, THREE 36 BISON ASSEMBLY
MEMBER PU DRAW THE MOTION IS TO
PASS AS AMENDED TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY MCCARTY, I, ALANIS
ALANIS, I LUCKY LUCKY I WIN WHEN
I REYES TING TING I WILSON ZER.
Z ARE NOT VOTING. MEASURE PASSES
NEXT MEASURE, MR LOWENTHAL.
SO THIS. RIGHT? OK? NUMBER 10
ITEM NUMBER 10 JUST LOW AND A B
2420. PLEASE PROCEED. THANK YOU,
MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS. GOOD
MORNING. I AM PLEASED TO PRESENT
A B 2420. WHICH ALLOWS
INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE BEEN
CONVICTED OF LOW LEVEL CRIMES.
AND WHOSE RECORDS HAVE BEEN
EXPUNGED TO ALSO BE ELIGIBLE TO
HAVE THEIR RECORDS SEALED. RIGHT
NOW. CONVICTIONS EXCEPT FOR
VACATED CONVICTIONS CANNOT BE
SEALED. THEY CAN ONLY BE
EXPUNGED. AN EXPUNGEMENT AND
CEILING ARE, HOWEVER SIMILAR IN
FACT, IN MANY STATES, THE TERMS
CEILING AND EXPUNGEMENT ARE USED
INTERCHANGEABLY. IF GRANTED
EXPUNGEMENT THROUGH THE COURT. A
PERSON'S GUILTY PLEA IS
WITHDRAWN. THE CASE IS DISMISSED
AND THEY'RE ABLE TO LEAVE THEIR
ENCOUNTER WITH THE JUSTICE
SYSTEM WITHOUT A CONVICTION. IN
CALIFORNIA BEFORE THE DIGITAL
AGE. AN EXPUNGEMENT IN PRACTICE
WAS AS GOOD AS A CEILING.
HOWEVER NOW CRIMINAL HISTORY
PROVIDERS ARE ABLE TO ACCESS
EXPUNGED RECORDS AND MAKE THEM
EASILY AVAILABLE FOR THE PUBLIC
TO SEE. EVEN WHEN THE COURTS
HAVE DEEMED THAT AN INDIVIDUAL
SHOULD NÓ LONGER BE PENALIZED IN
THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM FOR THE LOW
LEVEL MISDEMEANOR THAT HAS SINCE
BEEN DISMISSED. THROUGH THE
PUBLIC'S ACCESS OF THEIR
EXPUNGED RECORD. THEY'RE STILL
PENALIZED IN EVERYDAY LIFE. WHAT
THIS BILL DOES IS SIMPLY ALLOW
FOR LOW LEVEL CONVICTIONS THAT
HAVE ALREADY BEEN DISMISSED AND
FORGIVEN BY THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM
TO BE ELIGIBLE TO BE SEALED AT
THE COURT'S DISCRETION. A
CRIMINAL CONVICTION CARRIES WITH
IT A LOSS OF CIVIL RIGHTS,
PUBLIC BENEFITS, EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITIES, HOUSING
ELIGIBILITY AND THE FREEDOM TO
LIVE AND WORK WITHOUT
RESTRICTION. THESE SANCTIONS AND
DISQUALIFICATIONS CAUSE LONG
LASTING EFFECTS NOT JUST TO THE
INDIVIDUAL BUT TO THE ENTIRE
COMMUNITY. BECAUSE WHEN PEOPLE
ARE DISENFRANCHISED FROM WORK,
SCHOOL, FAMILY LIFE AND CIVIC
PART PARTICIPATION, THE OVERALL
HEALTH OF THE COMMUNITY DECLINES
THE ONLY WAY TO TRULY PROTECT
AGAINST IN DISENFRANCHISEMENT IS
TO SEAL THOSE RECORDS. I'M
PLEASED TO BE JOINED BY MR
LITTLE ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIANS
FOR SAFETY AND JUSTICE, WHO IS
HERE TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF
THIS BILL. THANK YOU. PLEASE
PROCEED. GOOD MORNING CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS ED LITTLE.
AND I'M A GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
MANAGER WITH CALIFORNIA'S FOR
SAFETY AND JUSTICE, AND WE ARE
IN STRONG SUPPORT OF A B 2420.
IN CALIFORNIA. ROUGHLY 8 MILLION
RESIDENTS HAVE CRIMINAL
CONVICTIONS ON THEIR RECORDS,
HAMPERING THEIR ABILITY TO FIND
WORK AND HOUSING INTO SECURE
PROFESSIONAL LICENSING AND IN
CERTAIN AREAS EVEN TO ADOPT
THEIR OWN RELATIVES. MILLIONS
HAVE OWED ARRESTS ON THEIR
RECORDS THAT HAVE NEVER RESULTED
IN CONVICTIONS BUT REMAIN
OBSTACLES TO EMPLOYMENT.
COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES OF EVEN
A MINOR ARREST CAN THUS HAVE
RIPPLE EFFECTS THROUGHOUT A
PERSON'S PER PERSONAL AND
ECONOMIC LIFE, EVEN IF THEY ARE
NEVER CHARGED OR CONVICTED.
RECORDS ARE SERIOUS BARRIERS TO
SUCCESSFUL REENTRY AND COME AT A
COST OF $20.8 BILLION TO
CALIFORNIA'S ECONOMY. STUDIES
SHOW THAT THE LACK OF ACCESS TO
EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING OR
PRIMARY FACTORS THAT DRIVE
INDIVIDUALS TO REOFFEND AS A
RESULT, BARRIERS TO CRIMINAL
RECORD RELIEF REDUCED THE
LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESSFUL REENTRY
AND HARM PUBLIC SAFETY. A B 2420
SEEKS TO ADDRESS THIS BY
ALLOWING INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE
BEEN CONVICTED OF LOW LEVEL
MISDEMEANOR CRIMES AND WHOSE
RECORDS HAVE BEEN EXPUNGED TO BE
ALSO ELIGIBLE TO HAVE THEIR
RECORDS SEALED. PEOPLE ARE OFTEN
PEOPLE OFTENTIMES MAKE THE
ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTIONS THAT LOW
LEVEL MISDEMEANOR CONVICTIONS
HAVE LITTLE EFFECT ON A PERSON'S
OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE. HOWEVER
THIS IS FAR FROM THE TRUTH.
MISDEMEANOR CONVICTIONS CAN
PERMANENTLY TARNISH YOUR
PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL
REPUTATION AFFECTING YOUR
RELATIONSHIPS AND FUTURE CAREER
OPPORTUNITIES. WHILE EXPUNGEMENT
IS GRANTED BY A COURT CAN CAUSE
A GUILTY PLEA TO BE WITHDRAWN
AND A CASE DISMISSED.
DISENFRANCHISEMENT IS STILL VERY
REAL AND LIKELY IN THE DIGITAL
AGE AND EXPUNGE RECORDS ARE
EASILY ACCESSED BY THE PUBLIC.
CURRENTLY PEOPLE WHO HAVE THEIR
CONVICTIONS DISMISSED ARE
ELIGIBLE FOR THEIR RECORDS TO BE
EXPUNGED BUT NOT SEALED. A B
2420 CLARIFIES THAT A DISMISSED
CONVICTION IS ALSO ELIGIBLE TO
BE SEALED. RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
IVO. THANK YOU. THANK YOU ANY
OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT?
MARCO GEORGE TO THE CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION AND
SUPPORT THANK YOU. ALICIA
BENAVIDEZ ON BEHALF OF INITIATE
JUSTICE AND STRONG SUPPORT.
AUDACIA GREEN ON BEHALF OF THE
ELLA BAKER CENTER FOR HUMAN
RIGHTS AND STRONG SUPPORT OF
THIS BILL. ALICIA MONTERO WITH
CALIFORNIA'S UNITED FOR
RESPONSIBLE BUDGET AND STRONG
SUPPORT. MICA DOCTOR OFF WITH
THE CLU OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
HERE ON BEHALF OF A èC LU
CALIFORNIA ACTION AND STRONG
SUPPORT. HØI HERE ON BEHALF OF
LEGAL SERVICES FOR PRISONERS
WITH CHILDREN. ALL OF US ARE
KNOWN IN STRONG SUPPORT. SHOOT
TOMORROW ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA
ATTORNEYS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE
AND SUPPORT MORNING. CHRIS
LAWSON ARC, ANTI RECIDIVISM
COALITION SUPPORT. DO WE HAVE
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION? PLEASE
COME FORWARD. NAN QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS,
MR ZUBER. I WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR FOR BRINGING THIS BILL. I
THINK IT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT
ONE. I JUST HAD A QUESTION
ABOUT, UM, SO WHEN I WAS IN MY
PRIOR ROLE, UH, HAD MANY CASES
OF PEOPLE WHO HAD HAD, UM, DRUG
CHARGES WHO, UM, THEN LATER WENT
THROUGH PROBATION. PART OF THE
TERMS OF THE PROBATION WERE THAT
IF THEY FINISHED IT, THEY WOULD
HAVE THEIR THE POTENTIAL TO HAVE
THE CHARGES EXPUNGED FROM THE
RECORD. AND THEN, UM, THEY WERE
EXPUNGED, BUT BECAUSE THEY WERE
EMBEDDED IN CRIMINAL RECORDS.
THEY WERE IN CRIMINAL REPORTING
DATABASES, AND THEY WERE NEVER
ABLE TO ACTUALLY NOT HAVE THAT
PART OF WHAT AN EMPLOYER WOULD
LOOK AT OR WHAT? SOMEONE WHO
THEY'RE RENTING AN APARTMENT.
DOES THIS BILL DO ANYTHING TO
PREVENT REPORTING AGENCIES FROM
PICKING UP THOSE RECORDS AND
REPORTING THEM? I'M JUST CURIOUS
I. I APPRECIATE THAT, UH,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, AND IT
PRECISELY ADDRESSES THAT SO ONCE
THE RECORD IS SEALED, THEN THEY
WOULD THOSE AGENCIES WOULD NOT
HAVE ACCESS THAT ANY LONGER. I
WOULD, UH, LIKE TO TAKE THE
LIBERTY IN ANSWERING THIS
QUESTION TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL
THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS UNDERSTAND
THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT WOULD STILL
HAVE ACCESS TO THIS. THIS IS NOT
PREVENT LAW ENFORCEMENT FROM NOT
HAVING ACCESS TO THOSE RECORDS
IN ITS INVESTIGATE INVESTIGATIVE
WORK. I. I GUESS THE ONE LAST
THING IS, IS THERE ANY IS THERE
ANY PENALTY OR REPERCUSSION FROM
? I MEAN THE FOLKS THAT WERE
SORT OF THE CULPRITS. USE A BIT
OF A CHARGED TERM TENDED TO BE
THESE REPORTING THESE PRIVATE
REPORTING AGENCIES THAT WOULD
ACTUALLY GO THROUGH COURT
RECORDS AND THEN REPORT STUFF
EVEN THOUGH IT WAS CLEAR THAT
THE RECORDS HAD BEEN EXPUNGED
BECAUSE IT WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW,
RECORD YOU GO THROUGH THE WHOLE
CRIMINAL RECORD, YOU KNOW, THEN
EXPUNGEMENT AND THAT'S PART OF
THE RECORD, AND I JUST REPORT
THE WHOLE THING. SO IT WOULD
REPORT AN EXPUNGEMENT, BUT
THAT'S AN EMPLOYER WOULD SEE THE
WHOLE RECORD. SO IS THERE
ANYTHING THAT WOULD PREVENT THAT
THERE WOULD BE ANY REPERCUSSIONS
FROM A PRIVATE COMPANY GOING
THROUGH COURT RECORDS AND THEN
REPORTING IT NONETHELESS, I
THINK I THINK THAT THERE THERE
EXISTS NÓ SUCH PENALTY AT THIS
TIME. WHICH IS WHY THE BILL
ADDRESSES THIS. YOU KNOW THIS
VERY LOOPHOLE AND, UH, TO MAKE
SURE THAT THE SPIRIT OF WHAT UH,
THE COURT IS ASKING FOR IS
IMPLEMENTED. I THINK WE WOULD
NEED FURTHER LEGISLATION TO
ADDRESS THAT ISSUE. THANK YOU
FOR BRINGING THE BILL. I THINK
IT'S A GREAT BILL AND I'M FULLY
SUPPORTIVE OF IT. THANK YOU. SO
MAY BE W. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. I
WANT TO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD IN MY PRIOR LIFE.
UM I RAN EXPUNGEMENT PROGRAMS,
AND I WOULD SAY THAT THAT WAS
PROBABLY ONE OF MY MOST FAVORITE
THING TO DO. JUST BECAUSE IT WAS
INDIVIDUALS THAT MADE MISTAKES
AND THEY'RE TRYING TO CHANGE
THEIR LIFE TURN THEIR LIFE
AROUND, AND THIS WAS ALWAYS A
BARRIER AND TO BE ABLE TO HELP
THEM GET THIS EXPUNGED AND THEN
WATCH THEM WALK BACK IN AND SAY
THAT BECAUSE YOU ASSISTED US, I
WAS ABLE TO GET A JOB. I'M ABLE
TO RAISE MY FAMILY. I'M TO DO
ALL THESE THINGS THAT I NEVER
THOUGHT I'D BE ABLE TO DO. AND
SO, UM, I MOVED THIS BILL. THANK
YOU FOR BRINGING THE SUPPORT AND
REALLY, UM THANK YOU. OK WITH
MOTION AND A SECOND. I HAVE
SOMETHING I WOULD LIKE MR
LACKEY. YEAH, THANK YOU. EXCUSE
ME, I. I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS
HAS A LAUDABLE INTENT. BUT UH,
AN HONEST ASSESSMENT OF OUR
CURRENT CONDITION NEEDS TO BE
CONSIDERED. BECAUSE WE HAVE SOME
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS THAT DON'T
FOLLOW UP ON LEGITIMATE ARRESTS.
I THINK THAT IS A PROBLEM WITH
OUR SYSTEM. THAT'S A REALITY.
AND SO, THEREFORE ARRESTS ARE
OFTEN THE ONLY THING THAT WE
HAVE TO CONSIDER IN A PERSON'S
HISTORY. UH, FOR EXAMPLE, I
MEAN, IMAGINE HIRING A BANK
TELLER WHO WAS ARRESTED FOR
EMBEZZLEMENT. I THINK THAT'S
PROBLEMATIC. AND I THINK THERE
ARE SOME CONSIDERATIONS THAT I
HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT. UM BECAUSE
NOT ALL ARRESTS THAT DON'T LEAD
TO CONVICTIONS ARE INDICATIONS
OF IMPROPER ARREST. AND SO
THAT'S MY CONCERN. AND SO I'M
NOT PREPARED TO SUPPORT IT THIS
TIME. BUT I, I DO THINK WHAT
YOU'RE TRYING TO DO IS A LOT OF
ALL I. I WISH WE COULD TIGHTEN
THIS UP IN THE LAST PE PIECES.
WHAT'S A LOW LEVEL CRIME? THAT'S
A PRETTY BROAD. DEFINITION I
MEAN, THINK ABOUT THIS. WE HAVE
THE TERM VIOLENT FELONIES. IT
DOESN'T COVER THE RAPE. OF AN
UNCONSCIOUS PERSON, WHICH TO ME
IS QUITE VIOLENT. SO I I'M
WORRIED ABOUT THESE BROAD
DEFINITIONS. THAT'S MY OTHER
CONCERN, MR LACKEY. FIRST OF ALL
, II, I CAN'T RESPOND TO THIS
WITHOUT FIRST, UH, THANKING YOU
FOR ALL YOUR SERVICE IN LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGING
THE CREDIBILITY THAT YOU BRING
WHEN YOU'RE ASKING THESE
QUESTIONS AND THE TRANSPARENCY
BY WHICH YOUR THOUGHT PROCESS IS
GOING THROUGH. SO THANK YOU FOR
THAT IN ADVANCE. UH I THINK BY
WAY, UH, TO GIVE, UH, COLOR TO
THIS SITUATION. THERE ARE 95,000
PEOPLE THAT ARE CURRENTLY
SERVING IN èC Dð èC R RIGHT
NOW. NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM
WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR THIS.
ANYBODY WHO HAS EVER SERVED TIME
IN PRISON WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE
FOR THIS WHATSOEVER. WE WERE
TALKING ABOUT VERY LOW LEVEL
MISDEMEANORS AND PEOPLE WHO HAVE
TRIED TO GET THEIR LIVES ON
TRACK THAT ARE IMPEDED THEIR
ABILITY TO GET A PLACE TO LIVE A
PLACE. UH, THE ABILITY TO GET A
JOB AND WHAT THIS LENDS ITSELF
TO IS ACTUALLY MAKING US LESS
SAFE WHEN SOMEBODY IS UNABLE TO
GO ON WITH THEIR LIVES. IT
PUSHES THEM BACK. I DON'T KNOW
IF YOU WANTED TO. COME ANY
FURTHER ON THIS. NÓ I. I THINK
YOU YOU YOU HIT IT RIGHT ON THE
HEAD. YOU KNOW THIS? LEGISLATION
IS DESIGNED FOR A VERY PRECISE.
GROUP OF PEOPLE. BUT A GROUP OF
PEOPLE WHOM THE COURT HAS
ALREADY DEEMED ELIGIBLE TO HAVE
THEIR RECORDS EXPUNGED. SO THE
COURT HAS ALREADY LOOKED AT
THESE FOLKS AND MADE A
DETERMINATION THAT THEY WERE NOT
A RISK TO PUBLIC SAFETY. AND SO
GOING, TAKING THE NEXT STEP TO
SEAL THOSE RECORDS WOULD NOT
RISK PUBLIC SAFETY. THE COURT
HAS ALREADY EXPUNGED THESE
RECORDS. IT SIMPLY SEALING THEM.
YEAH, OK. THANK YOU, MR ALANI.
THANK YOU, ARTHUR FOR BRINGING
THIS BILL BEFORE US. I ALSO
WANTED TO SAY I APPRECIATE YOU
MAINTAINING LAW ENFORCEMENT'S
ACCESS TO THESE UM BASICALLY
CASES COURT CASES, BUT I JUST
WANT TO. I WANT TO GET A LITTLE
BIT. I KNOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
LOW LEVEL MISDEMEANORS. BUT I
WANNA SAY THERE'S ALSO FELONIES.
SOME FELONIES, INCLUDING IN THE
IN THIS IF THEY SUCCESSFULLY
COMPLETE PROBATION. CAN WE
ELABORATE ON THAT? UH, FELONIES
DO NOT APPLY TO THIS
LEGISLATION. OK? WE NEED TO LOOK
AT UNDER 12 0 THREE 0.4 THE
PENAL CODE AS WELL. UH, THAT
INCLUDES SOME FELONIES AS WELL.
UH, FURTHER WORK ON THAT. BUT I
WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR AGAIN
AT LEAST CUTTING LAW ENFORCEMENT
OUT OF THAT PART. THANK YOU. WE
HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND. UH, YOU
MAY CLOSE, MR LO RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE. THANK YOU.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. AN EB 2420
BY SUMMER. REMEMBER LOWENTHAL.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY MCCARTY, I ALANIS
ALANIS, NOT VOTING LACKEY NOT
VOTING. LACKEY NOT VOTING WIN
WIN. I REYES Kò TING A WILSON.
ZIPPER ZIPPER. I MEASURES ON
CALLING ONE MORE VOTE, MR
LOWENTHAL, UH, NEXT MEASURE, MR
FLORA EB 1898. GOOD MORNING,
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. UH, THANKS
AGAIN. TODAY I'M GONNA PRESENT A
B 1898. A B 1898 WOULD ADD.
CONVICTED CHILD SEX PREDATORS
WHO COMMIT A NONVIOLENT FELONY
INVOLVING A DEPICTION.
POSSESSION. AND USE OF MATERIAL
DEPICTING A MINOR ENGAGING IN
SEXUAL CONDUCT TO THE LIST OF
FELONIES THAT MAKE A CRIMINAL'S
INELIGIBLE FOR EARLY RELEASE
CREDITS AGAINST THEIR PRISON
SENTENCE UNDER CURRENT LAW.
EARLY REES CREDITS MAY NOT BE
GET MAY NOT BE EARNED FOR
INDIVIDUALS CONVICTED OF A CRIME
, SUCH AS LOOTED LAS ACTS ON A
CHILD UNDER THE AGE OF 14 YEARS
OLD BY USE OF FORCE, VIOLENCE,
DURESS, MALICE OR FEAR. AND
CONTINUE SEXUAL ABUSE OF A
CHILD. MAYBE 1898 WOULD MAKE
CONVICTED FELONS WHO EXPLOIT AND
PREY ON INNOCENT CHILDREN BY THE
DISTRIBUTION, POSSESSION AND USE
OF CHILD INELIGIBLE FOR EARLY
RELEASE CREDITS, AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN I VOTE.
THANK YOU. YOU HAVE WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT. NÓ YOU'RE THE STAR
WITNESS. DO WE HAVE INDIVIDUALS
WISHING TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT?
SIGN UP. DO WE HAVE WITNESSES OR
OPPOSITION WHO WANTS TO COME
FORWARD AND TESTIFY?
PLEASE BEGIN. YOU HAVE FIVE
MINUTES TO SPLIT AMONGST
YOURSELVES. THANK YOU, UH, MARCO
GEORGE FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. UM IT
APPEARS A B 1898 IS AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL ATTEMPT TO ROLL
BACK èC Dð èC RS AUTHORITY
UNDER PROP 57 THE PUBLIC SAFETY
AND REHABILITATION ACT OF 2016,
WHICH CALIFORNIA VOTERS
OVERWHELMINGLY PASSED TO AWARD
CREDITS TO NONVIOLENT OFFENDERS.
UH, AS DISCUSSED IN THE ANALYSIS
, EVEN JUDICIAL CRITICS SUCH AS
JUSTICE CHIN HAVE CONCLUDED THAT
PROP 57 PLACE ABILITY TO AWARD
CREDITS AND èC Dð èC R'S
HANDS. ON A MORE PRACTICAL LEVEL
, THERE ARE THREE BENEFITS OF
CREDITS. BETTER BEHAVIOR. LOWER
COST AND SAFER COMMUNITIES.
UNDER PROP 57 èC Dð èC R HAS
INCENTIVIZED INCARCERATED PEOPLE
TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR
OWN REHABILITATION BY PROVIDING
CREDIT EARNING OPPORTUNITIES FOR
SUSTAINED GOOD BEHAVIOR AS WELL
AS IN PRISON PROGRAM AND
ACTIVITIES, PARTICIPATION AND
THAT IS FROM THE èC Dð èC R
WEBSITE. GOOD TIME CREDITS ARE
AWARDED IN 32 STATES. WHILE
EARNED TIME CREDITS ARE
AVAILABLE IN 37 STATES. MANY
STATES AWARD BOTH TYPES OF
SENTENCING CREDITS. A RECENT
INTERNATIONAL JUST JOURNAL OF
LAW, CRIME AND JUSTICE, WHICH,
UM, DID ANOTHER ANALYSIS OF A
NUMBER OF STUDIES FOUND THAT IN
HIGH RISK GROUPS OF INCARCERATED
MEN, THERE WAS LESS MISBEHAVIOR
AND A CONSIDERABLE DECREASE IN
ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR WITH
CREDITS. THIS TRANSLATES INTO
LOWER COST AND THE LOWER COST
ARE REALIZED IN TWO DIFFERENT
WAYS. UM ONE IT REQUIRES LESS.
MON SPENT ON SECURITY IN PRISON.
AND TWO LOWER COSTS DUE TO
SHORTER PRISON STAYS, WHICH IS
PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT GIVEN OUR
OVERWHELMING BUDGET DEFICIT THIS
YEAR. SAY FOR COMMUNITIES ARE
ALSO A BENEFIT. A 2021 STUDY FOR
THE CENTER OF EVIDENCE BASED
CORRECTIONS. UM, LOOKING,
PARTICULARLY AT CALIFORNIA. THE
COW PIA, WHICH IS A CALIFORNIA
PRISON INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION.
FOUND THAT PEOPLE WHO WORKED IN
THE PRISON INDUSTRIES HAD LOWER
RECIDIVISM RATES. AND THAT EVEN
LOWER RATES OF RECIDIVISM WERE,
UM, FOUND WITH PEOPLE WHO TOOK
CAREER TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
WHICH IS ONE PART OF P. UH èC
P, UH, AND THEY TEACH SKILLS
RANGING FROM COMPUTER CODING
CONSTRUCTION, OPTICAL CARE,
DIVING, METAL FABRICATION AND
COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN. SO IN
CONCLUSION, UM, A B 1898. WOULD
MAKE PRISONS AND THE COMMUNITY
MORE DANGEROUS, SO WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR NÓ
VOTE. DANNY GO ARM ON BEHALF OF
INITIATE JUSTICE, ALSO IN
OPPOSITION. I WON'T REPEAT A LOT
OF THE NUMBERS THAT MARGOT
ALREADY SHARED, BUT JUST WANT TO
NOTE CLEARLY NONE OF US THAT ARE
IN OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL
CONDONE THE KIND OF BEHAVIOR
THAT THIS BILL IS SEEKING TO
TARGET. IT'S A DIFFERENCE OF
OPINION ABOUT HOW WE ACTUALLY
RESPOND TO THAT KIND OF HARM
WHEN IT'S CAUSED AND A REAL GOAL
TO STOP THAT HARM FROM EVER
HAPPENING AGAIN, AND PUNISHMENT
AND INCARCERATION IS ONE ASPECT
OF WHAT WE DO IN SOCIETY. BUT
ACCOUNTABILITY IS A DIFFERENT
COMPONENT FOR ENCOURAGING PEOPLE
TO REALLY DIVE DEEP AND
UNDERSTAND WHY IT WAS THEY
CAUSED A SPECIFIC KIND OF HARM.
REALLY TRYING TO GET TO THE
BOTTOM OF THAT AND ENSURE THAT
IT DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN. THAT IS
WHAT PEOPLE DO IN THESE KINDS OF
PROGRAMS. UM THE FOLKS THAT EARN
RIGHT REHABILITATIVE ACHIEVEMENT
CREDITS, ACCORDING TO èC, Dð,
èC R'S MOST RECENT RECIDIVISM
REPORT HAVE A 50% LOWER
RECIDIVISM RATE THAN PEOPLE WHO
DON'T UM, AND THE TRUTH IS THE
VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE EVER
INCARCERATED ARE GOING TO COME
HOME SOME DAY AND SO WE WANT
THEM TO RETURN WITH A LOT MORE
INSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR
WHAT BROUGHT THEM THERE TO BEGIN
WITH. I REALLY WOULD ENCOURAGE
THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER IF HE HASN'T
BEEN INSIDE TO SEE SOME OF THESE
PROGRAMS AND ACTION TO COME. I'M
HAPPY TO FACILITATE A VISIT LIKE
THAT. I THINK WHEN YOU SEE IT
HAPPENING, YOU GET A BETTER
SENSE OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT, AND WHY WE WANT TO
ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO ENTER THOSE
SPACES. UM, SO I URGE A NÓ VOTE.
THANK YOU. UH, THANK YOU. WE
HAVE OTHERS IN OPPOSITION. I
KNOW WE'RE GONNA ALLOW YOU IN A
SECOND. THERE'S AN OPPOSITION.
PLEASE COME FORWARD. TIME WITH
THE ELLA BAKER CENTER FOR HUMAN
RIGHTS AND OPPOSITION. MÐI, A
DOCTOR OFF WITH THE A èC LU OF
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA HERE ON
BEHALF OF A èC LU, CALIFORNIA
ACTION AND OPPOSITION. ALICIA
MONTERO, CALIFORNIA'S UNITED FOR
RESPONSIBLE BUDGET, STRONG
OPPOSITION. CAMPOS WITH S¼ èC
JUSTICE GROUP AND STRONG
OPPOSITION. JANET HUGHES OF
BESSIE JUSTICE GROUP AND STRONG
OPPOSITION. MCKAY HAS SUGGESTED
STRONGLY OPPOSE. OK THANK YOU.
VERY ALLOW A SUPPORT TO COME UP.
WE MISSED IT. YEAH APOLOGIES
FOR, UH, GETTING OUT OF TURN
HERE BOUNCING AROUND THIS
MORNING, UH, JONATHAN FILM IN
CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT. OK DO WE
HAVE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS? I'LL START
WITH ONE, MR FLORE. I KNOW
YOU'RE THE MAIN WITNESS. AND UM
MY UNDERSTANDING IS YOUR
BACKGROUND IS YOU'RE NOT
ATTORNEY. YOU'RE AAA RANCHER, A
FIREFIGHTER AND A BODYBUILDER.
BUT UM, I WANTED TO ASK YOU IF
YOU WANTED TO, UM RESPOND TO THE
CONCERN THAT THIS IS AN ISSUE
THAT THE VOTERS PASSED, AND
THERE'S A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
WITH THIS WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING,
AND THEREFORE THE LEGISLATURE
WOULD HAVE SOME LIMITATIONS ON
ON MAKING SUCH AN ALTERATION TO
CREDIT POLICY. YEAH, I CAN
CERTAINLY RESPOND NOW OR IN THE
CLOSING. IF THERE'S OTHER
QUESTIONS, BECAUSE I DO WANT TO
ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS OF
OUR OPPOSITION AS WELL. SO THIS
WHEN I. I ACTUALLY JUST HAVE A
COMMENT. NOT NECESSARILY A
QUESTION THAT, UM I HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY. I DON'T EVEN KNOW
IF I WANNA CALL IT AN
OPPORTUNITY. BUT UM, SHERIFF JIM
COOPER TOOK ME OUT IN A, UM UH,
A HOME WHERE WE FOUND AN
INDIVIDUAL WHO HAD VIDEOS OF
CHILD, AND IT WAS NOT JUST A FEW
. IT WASN'T JUST HUNDREDS, BUT
IT WAS THOUSANDS. THOUSANDS OF
THEM. UM AND NOT ONLY WAS HE
KEEPING THEM IN THE HOME, BUT HE
WAS ALSO SELLING IT, SHARING IT
IN A DISTRIBUTOR OF IT, UM, COME
TO FIND OUT. NOT ONLY WAS HE
CREATING SOME OF THESE VIDEO BUT
HE ALSO ACTED OUT IN SOME
CHILDREN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
WERE A VICTIM OF IT AS A MOTHER.
YOU DON'T EVER NOT SEE THAT
AFTER YOU'VE SEEN THAT ALREADY
BEFORE I WENT HOME THAT NIGHT
AND I HUGGED MY KIDS REAL TIGHT.
THIS CAN HAPPEN TO ANY CHILDREN
ANY OF OUR KIDS OUT THERE. II I
DON'T BELIEVE THESE FOLKS
DESERVE TO BE ABLE TO DO
ANYTHING TO GET CREDITS TO BE
RELEASED OUT IN PRISON AND JAIL.
THERE AREN'T CHILDREN IN THERE.
THERE AREN'T VIDEOS IN THERE FOR
YOU TO ENTERTAIN YOUR FETISH OR
WHATEVER IT IS THAT YOU HAVE,
AND THEY MAY BE ON GOOD BEHAVIOR
BECAUSE WHAT THEY WERE PUT IN
THERE FOR WAS BECAUSE OF WHAT
THEY DID TO CHILDREN TO KIDS TO
BABIES. AND SO, OF COURSE,
THEY'RE GONNA WORK TO GET THE
CREDITS TO BE ABLE TO RELEASE
OUT THERE. BUT IT'S WHEN THEY
ARE RELEASED OUT THERE IN THE
COMMUNITY AND THE PUBLIC IN YOUR
HOMES IN SCHOOLS AND
NEIGHBORHOODS THAT THEY MAY THEN
DO WHAT WE THEM. IN THERE FOR
AGAIN. AND SO I I'M VERY
SUPPORTIVE OF THIS BILL. I
CANNOT OR GIVING THESE
INDIVIDUALS ANY OPPORTUNITY TO
BE RELEASED OUT IN THE COMMUNITY
TO THEN. AND CONTINUE THIS AGAIN
IN THEIR PATH. THANK YOU. UH,
THANK YOU, MR TING. AND THEN MR
ALANIS. THANKS, I. I DID HAVE
SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE AUTHOR
FOR OPPOSITION AS WELL, UM WE
DEFINITELY WANT TO DO EVERYTHING
POSSIBLE TO STOP CHILD. UH, TO
STOP THESE ACTS FROM HAPPENING.
UM I GUESS MY QUESTION TO THE
AUTHOR IS HOW DOES TAKING AWAY
THE REHABILITATIVE CREDITS
ACTUALLY HELP US STOP THIS? KIND
OF BEHAVIOR. THAT'S MY, UM
THAT'S MY QUESTION RIGHT NOW.
UM, IN IN WORKING WITH THE, UM,
THE TASK FORCE. WE HAVE FIVE
TASK FORCES TO DEAL WITH THIS UP
AND DOWN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AND WORKING WITH THE INDIVIDUALS
THAT DEAL WITH ON A DAILY BASIS.
THE LONGER THAT WE CAN KEEP
FOLKS. SERVING OUT THEIR THEIR
THEIR TIME. THE MORE
OPPORTUNITIES WE HAVE FOR
REHABILITATION, AND I MY
COLLEAGUE STEP IN TO WIN
MENTIONED THIS BY CUTTING THEIR
STAYS SHORT. THESE FOLKS ARE
INCREDIBLY CHALLENGING. AN
INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE TO RE
REHABILITATE. THIS IS A VERY
MUCH A SIGNIFICANT MENTAL HEALTH
ISSUE, IN MY OPINION TO DO THIS
RIGHT, SO RE RELEASING THEM BACK
INTO THE COMMUNITY. I DO NOT
UNDERSTAND HOW THAT MAKES OUR
COMMUNITY SAFER. UM, THESE FOLKS
ARE, UM REALLY, REALLY TOUGH TO
DEAL WITH AND I WOULD JUST SAY.
RELEASING SOMEBODY EARLY. ON THE
PROGRAMS THAT THEY NEEDED AND
ARE MANDATORY MANDATED TO GO TO
RIGHT WHILE THEY'RE IN PRISON.
WE NEED TO STICK WITH THAT. WE
NEED TO GET HIM ALL THE HELP WE
CAN WHILE THEY'RE INCARCERATED,
SO WHEN THEY DO YOU KNOW, SERVE
THEIR TIME THEY CAN BE RELEASED
AND ARE ACTUALLY VALUABLE
MEMBERS OF SOCIETY HOPEFULLY,
ONCE AGAIN SO I GUESS THE
QUESTION IS, IS THAT AND I AGREE
WITH YOU? I THINK THIS IS A
MENTAL HEALTH ISSUE. WE
OBVIOUSLY I THINK THAT'S THE KEY
PIECE OF IT. UM AND SO ARE YOU
SAYING THAT IF THEY EARN
CREDITS, THEY WON'T AT THE
PROPER TREATMENT BECAUSE THEY'RE
GETTING THE LEAST LESS LIKELY.
IT'S JUST THE OR HOW. OH, SORRY.
LET ME ASK A DIFFERENT WAY. HOW
HOW CAN WE ENSURE THEY'RE
GETTING THE TREATMENT? THEY NEED
BEFORE THEY GETTING RELEASED. I
THINK THAT'S FOR THE FOLKS THAT
RUN THESE PROGRAMS WITHIN THE
SYSTEM, RIGHT? I THINK THAT'S UP
TO THEM LIKE I'M NOT A MENTAL
HEALTH PROFESSIONAL AS IT DEALS
WITH, YOU KNOW, CHILD AND SEX
TRAFFICKING THOSE TYPES OF
THINGS, BUT THERE ARE AND I
THINK YOU KNOW AT SOME POINT TO
HAVE SOMEBODY WHEN WE
REINTRODUCE SOMEBODY INTO
SOCIETY TO MAKE SURE WHEN WE
TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WORK
PROGRAMS, RIGHT? I'M A HUGE FAN
OF REHABILITATION PROGRAMS. I
SUPPORT THOSE FOR A VERY LONG
TIME. ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES
TO THE STATE. CAL FIRE THE FIRE
CREWS ALL OF THOSE THINGS, BUT
THIS IS A VERY DIFFERENT BEAST
THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH HERE.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS AND I.
I WILL ADDRESS A LITTLE BIT MORE
OF THIS IN MY CLOTHES ON WHY
THIS? I'M SO PASSIONATE ABOUT
THIS ISSUE, BUT IT IS SOMETHING
THAT I DO TRUST THE MEN AND
WOMEN THAT WORK IN THIS FIELD.
WHEN THEY SAY SOMEBODY'S
REHABILITATED. I TRUST THEM
BECAUSE THEY ARE THE EXPERTS,
BUT THEY NEED THE TIME AND THE
EXPERTISE TO ACTUALLY GET THAT
TRAINING THAT THEY NEED. SO IS
THERE A WAY TO HAVE THIS BECAUSE
RIGHT NOW, ALL YOU'RE DOING IS
TAKING SOMETHING AWAY. IS THERE
A WAY TO ADD BACK IN THE PART
THAT I THINK YOU AND I BOTH
AGREE ON AROUND THE MENTAL
HEALTH PIECE RIGHT TO MAKE SURE
THAT THEY'RE GETTING BECAUSE
BECAUSE IF YOU IF YOU'RE CLOSING
THIS ONE DOOR THAT ALL ALL
YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT YOU CAN'T
YOU CAN'T WORK TO GET
REHABILITATED RIGHT FOR THIS ONE
SEGMENT OF FOLKS, BUT AT THE
SAME TIME YOU'RE NOT ENSURING
THAT THEY IMPROVING THEIR
SITUATIONS. HOW DO WE YOU KNOW,
AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN
ABOUT THE EARLY RELEASE, BUT HOW
DO WE HAVE IT SO THAT YOU KNOW
THEY'RE THEY'RE THEY ARE NOT
GETTING OUT BEFORE THEY'RE
GETTING THE HELP. HOW DO YOU
ENSURE THAT THEY THEY GET THE
HELP, I GUESS. A GREAT QUESTION,
AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING
THAT MAYBE IN A DIFFERENT
CONVERSATION OR PIECE OF
LEGISLATION WE CAN ADDRESS. YOU
KNOW THIS RIGHT HERE. WE REALLY
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN THEY
ARE SENTENCED THAT THEY ARE NOT
RELEASED. BEFORE THEY ARE
ABSOLUTELY READY. AND IF YOU ARE
A JUDGE SEES FIT TO PUT YOU IN
FOR HOWEVER LONG WHEN YOU HEAR
ABOUT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT
THESE FOLKS HAVE DONE TO OUR
KIDS. I AGREE WITH THE ASSEMBLY
WOMAN. UM, THEY DO NOT DESERVE
EARLY RELEASE. THEY SIMPLY DON'T
I MEAN, AND I AM GONNA GO INTO
THAT A LITTLE BIT IN MY CLOTHES
AS WELL. YEAH, I'VE JUST
ENCOURAGE YOU JUST TO THINK
ABOUT IT, UM, IT IT'S SORT OF
HOW HOW YOU CAN STILL ACCOMPLISH
SORT OF WHAT? UM YOU KNOW, I
THINK ULTIMATELY WHAT YOU WANT
TO DO IS WE WANT TO STOP THIS
BEHAVIOR FROM HAPPENING AND WE
KNOW THAT THE ONLY WAY TO REALLY
DO THAT IS TO ADDRESS YOU KNOW
SOME BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, MENTAL
HEALTH ISSUES. SO WITHOUT
ADDRESSING THAT, UM YEAH, THAT'S
THE CHALLENGE. UNDERSTAND. THANK
YOU, MR ALANI AND MR ZER. SO I
JUST WANNA ADDRESS A LITTLE BIT
OF THE QUESTION THAT, UH, SO WE
REMEMBER TING WAS TALKING ABOUT,
UH, I'M NOT A MENTAL HEALTH, UH,
PERSON AS WELL, BUT THE WAY I
LOOK AT THIS, AND THIS IS WHY I
LOOK AT A LOT OF THE BILLS THAT
WE'RE WORKING ON WHERE WE'RE
RELEASING PEOPLE EARLY IS, LET'S
JUST SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, I GIVE
THEM A YEAR IN JAIL OR PRISON.
WHATEVER IT IS, IT'S GONNA TAKE
A YEAR. THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE
FIGURING OUT TO REHABILITATE
THEM. BUT WHEN I'M LETTING THEM
OUT AT SIX MONTHS OR FIVE
MONTHS, WHAT SERVICE DID I DID
DO TO THEM? WHAT? HOW DID I HELP
PREPARE THEM? TO RE ENTER INTO
SOCIETY. I DIDN'T I TOOK THE
TIME AWAY. AND ANOTHER THING I
WANNA I WANNA DISCUSS. I DON'T
THINK MANY PEOPLE HERE HAVE
WORKED IN CUSTODY SETTING THAT I
HAVE. I'VE RELEASED PEOPLE OUT
INTO THE PUBLIC FROM JAIL,
SIGNED OFF ON THEM SO THEY CAN
GO OUT AND BE ALONG. WITH THEIR
FAMILY AND THEIR NEIGHBORS. GOOD
TIME. THE EARNED TIME CREDIT IS
ALREADY FACTORED INTO THEIR
SENTENCE. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT
IS SUPPOSED TO BE ALLOWED TO BE
TAKEN AWAY FROM THEM IF THEY
DON'T EARN IT, UH, THAT THAT'S
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE WE'RE MISSING
HERE. UH, IF THEY DON'T GO
THROUGH THE REHABILITATION
PROCESS IF THEY DON'T GO THROUGH
THEIR CLASSES IF THEY DON'T DO
WHAT OTHER INMATES ARE DOING TO
HELP KEEP THEIR SENTENCE WHERE
THEY ARE, THAT'S WHERE THAT TIME
IS TAKEN AWAY. BUT WE'RE NOT
DOING THAT WE'RE AUTOMATICALLY
GIVING IT TO THEM AND
CALCULATING THAT INTO THEIR
SENTENCE AS SOMETHING THAT NOT
MANY PEOPLE WOULD KNOW. UNLESS
YOU ACTUALLY WORKED IN THE
FACILITIES. AND THEN TO ALSO
TALK ABOUT THE, UH THE WHOLE
REASON WE'RE HERE. I THINK I'M
THE ONLY ONE HERE THAT CAN
ACTUALLY SAY THAT I'VE
INTERVIEWED MANY, MANY, MANY UH,
PEOPLE FOR, UH, CHILD ABUSE FOR
CHILD HAVING TO GO THROUGH THOSE
VIDEOS, HAVING TO SEE ALL THAT
THAT TERRIBLE STUFF THAT HAPPENS
IN OUR SOCIETY AND IT'S A
SICKNESS. UH, I DON'T EVER SEE
THEM REHABILITATING FROM THAT.
AND SO IF KEEPING THEM AWAY FROM
OUR PUBLIC, KEEPING THEM AWAY
FROM OUR YOUNG PEOPLE IS WHAT WE
NEED TO DO, AND THAT'S WHAT WHAT
THIS BILL DOES. THAT'S THAT'S
WHAT I'M TOTALLY FOR AND AGAIN.
TO THE POINT TO THE AUTHOR'S,
UH, THAT WAS MAKING THAT HE WAS
MAKING WAS KEEP THEM IN THERE AS
LONG AS THEY HAVE US FOR THEIR
SENTENCE. WORK ON THE
REHABILITATION. MAYBE THAT WILL
HELP I. I HIGHLY DOUBT IT, UH,
FOR MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE
DEALING WITH AND WORKING ON
CONVICTIONS WITH THEM. UH, BUT
THAT'S THAT'S HOW IT IS. AND THE
OTHER THING I WANNA TALK ABOUT
IS THE OVERWHELMING BUDGET
DEFICIT THAT WAS BROUGHT UP I. I
DON'T THINK THAT HAS TO DO WITH
THE PRISONS. UH, WE TALKED ABOUT
THIS AND MANY OTHER THINGS THAT
HAS TO DO WITH THE THEFT GOING
ON. PEOPLE LEAVING CALIFORNIA.
UH, TAX IS NOT BEING PAID. SO
ALL THAT FACTORS INTO IT AS
WELL. WE CAN'T JUST SAY IT'S
BECAUSE OF THE PRISONS. ARE
CLOSE WITH THAT. THANK YOU, MR
THANK YOU, MISTER ZER. SO SORRY.
IT SAYS THAT IT PROHIBITS
CUSTODY CREDITS FOR ANY PERSON
CONVICTED OF ALL OF THESE THINGS
. OBVIOUSLY I YOU KNOW, I AGREE
THAT WE NEED TO TREAT IS
HORRENDOUS CRIMES INVOLVING KIDS
IN A DIFFERENT WAY THAN WE DO
OTHERS. AND SO, UM, I DO. LOOK
AT IT IN A DIFFERENT WAY. I
THINK THE QUESTION TWO
QUESTIONS. ONE IS, UM YOU KNOW,
LOOKING AT WHAT THE EXISTING LAW
PROVIDES. IT'S NOT LIKE MANY OF
THESE CRIMES HAVE SUPER LONG
PRISON SENTENCES TO BEGIN WITH.
UM BUT THE QUESTION IS, DOES
THIS PROHIBIT CREDIT FOR
REHABILITATIVE. IN TERMS OF GOOD
BEHAVIOR CREDIT. I SORT OF AGREE
WITH YOU, I. I THINK THAT JUST
YOU KNOW IF SOMEONE HAS A UM, A
MENTAL ILLNESS THAT RESULTS IN
THESE HORRENDOUS ACTIVITIES
INVOLVING KIDS. I'D RATHER KEEP
THEM IN PRISON AS LONG AS WE
POSSIBLY CAN, UNLESS THERE'S
SOME GOOD EVIDENCE THAT THERE'S
BEEN SOME REHABILITATION. AND SO
THE QUESTION I HAVE ABOUT THE
BILL IS DOES THIS PREVENT SOME
KIND OF EARLY RELEASE WHEN THERE
IS REHABILITATION, OR IS IT JUST
ALL GOOD CREDIT ONE AND THEN
SECOND IF YOU COULD ADDRESS, I
THINK THE CHAIR'S QUESTION ABOUT
, UM WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS
PERMISSIBLE. UM, BASED ON PROP
57. UH IF THERE'S ANY OTHER I
CAN JUST CLOSE AS WELL. IF
THAT'S NÓ. WE HAD MORE
QUESTIONS. MORE QUESTIONS NOT
DONE YET, BUT HE HAD ANOTHER
QUESTION. BESIDES THE SAME, MR I
ABSOLUTELY RESPECT. YOU KNOW
YOUR POSITION AND KNOW TO MY, UM
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT EARLY RELEASE
, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. AND
I'M GLAD THAT YOU BROUGHT IT UP
BECAUSE IT IS REMARKABLE HOW
SHORT THESE SENTENCES ARE
ALREADY UNLESS THERE IS
PRODUCTION. BY JUST POSSESSION
AND DISTRIBUTION. IS MINIMAL AT
BEST. UNLESS YOU'RE ACTUALLY
PRODUCING CONTENT, RIGHT? AND I
THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE
SHOULD HONESTLY LOOK INTO AS A
STATE. UM, AT SOME POINT AS
WELL. UM IT IS NOT TO MY
KNOWLEDGE IN THIS BILL THE WAY
THAT WE INTENDED THIS TO BUILD
TO BE WRITTEN THAT IF YOU GO FOR
SIX MONTHS OR WHATEVER THAT THAT
IS RIGHT. YOU'RE GOING TO SERVE
ALL SIX MONTHS OF THAT, AND IT
WAS MY HOPE, AND IT WOULD BE MY
PRAYER THAT DURING THAT TIME WE
HAD ENOUGH COUNSELORS THAT MADE
SURE THAT YOU AS A HUMAN BEING
ARE GETTING ALL OF THE HELP YOU
CAN POSSIBLY GET IN THAT TIME
FRAME. AND SO THERE IS NÓ
DISTINCTION FOR ME LIKE WHETHER
IT'S UM IF YOU'RE GOING TO LIKE
TO THERAPY OR COUNSELING,
THERE'S NÓ EARLY RELEASE CREDITS
FOR THAT. THAT IS NOT FACTORED
IN. UM, WHAT YOUR SENTENCE IS,
IS WHAT YOU'RE STAYING FOR. ONE
QUICK QUESTION. YES WOULD YOU BE
OPEN TO WORKING WITH THE
OPPOSITION ON REFINING THIS SO
THAT IF THERE'S REHABILITATION
UM ACTIVITIES OCCURRING WHILE
THEY'RE IN PRISON THAT THERE
WOULD BE SOME AMOUNT OF ABILITY
TO GIVE CREDIT FOR THAT. AS
OPPOSED TO JUST GOOD BEHAVIOR.
CREDIT ABSOLUTELY. I THINK IT
GOES BACK TO WHAT WE SAID WITH.
UM YOU KNOW SOME OF OUR TEAM
THAT IF THE MEN AND WOMEN THAT
DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE LIKE WITH
THESE INDIVIDUALS, RIGHT IF THEY
ARE OK WITH THIS IS A VERY
DIFFERENT THING THAN WORK.
RELEASE CREDITS RIGHT OR WE'RE
NOT TEACHING SOMEBODY HOW TO RUN
A LATHE. I MEAN, THAT'S NOT
THAT'S VERY DIFFERENT. SO, YES,
TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION I WOULD
BE OK, I'LL HAVE SOME QUESTIONS
AT THE END, TOO. BUT MR LACKEY
YEAH. I JUST HAVE JUST A COUPLE
OF REMARKS NÓ NÓ REAL QUESTIONS.
THE UNIQUE UGLINESS IN THIS
CONSIDERED OFFENSE. AS A VERY
UNCOMFORTABLE CONVERSATION FOR
ALL OF US. AND I THINK WHAT'S IN
ARGUABLE IS THESE PEOPLE NEED
HELP. AND THEY NEED, UH, IN A IN
A VERY DESPERATE WAY, BECAUSE IF
THEY REOFFEND THEY'RE PART OF
OUR POPULATION THAT'S IN
JEOPARDY. IS OUR MOST PRECIOUS
COMMODITY, OUR CHILDREN, SO AND
I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY
ARGUMENT ABOUT THAT. BUT I THINK
WHAT IS MORE LIKELY TO TAKE
PLACE AS ANY. IF THERE'S ANY
HOPE FOR REHABILITATION, IT'S
MORE LIKELY WHEN THEY'RE
ISOLATED. AND THEY'RE NOT
TEMPTED WITH ALL THESE OTHER
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT FREEDOM
AFFORDS. SO I. I BELIEVE THAT
THIS BILL IS FOCUSED ON REALITY.
AND BENEFIT. TO NOT JUST THE
POTENTIAL RE OFFENSE. BUT TO THE
PERSON WHO HAS THIS TROUBLE AND
I. I THINK THAT IT STRIKES THE
BALANCE THAT SOCIETY WOULD WANT
AND SO IT CLEARLY HAS MY
SUPPORT. UH, DO WE HAVE A MOTION
. WE HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND. MR
F. I'M I'M I'M TORN ON THIS THIS
MEASURE. UM, I, I DO THINK THAT
THAT THAT, UM, CREDITS ARE A
GOOD THING IN OUR STATE PRISON
SYSTEM TO HELP MANAGE 95,000
INMATES AND HAVE, YOU KNOW
BETTER BEHAVIOR, AND I KNOW OUR
PRISON GUARDS HAVE LONG LONG
TALKED ABOUT THAT. UM AND I ALSO
THINK I. I SUPPORTED THE MEASURE
57 BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT'S
GOOD FOR POLITICIANS TO BE
SENDING GUIDELINES. IT'S TOO
MUCH OF THE EMOTION AND HAVING
THE PROFESSIONALS. UM UH, WORK
ON THIS. UM YOU KNOW, THESE ARE
VERY SERIOUS OFFENSES. AND UM,
YOU KNOW, I'M NOT A FORMER LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER LIKE OUR TWO
COLLEAGUES OVER HERE AND SEE
HORRIFIC STUFF. I DIDN'T GO OUT
WITH SOME MEMBER WHEN WITH OUR
SHERIFF AND SEE SOME OF THESE
THINGS FIRSTHAND, BUT YOU KNOW,
I'M A LIKE YOU A GIRL, DAD, AND
I THINK ABOUT OUR OUR YOUTH AND
OUR KIDS, AND IT'S JUST, YOU
KNOW. WEARS ON ME. SO UM, I BUT
I, I AM. UM I AM GONNA SUPPORT
THIS. I DO SUPPORT IT. AND ONE
THING I AM, UM INTERESTED IN IS
THAT THE QUESTIONS THAT MISTER
TING ALLUDED TO AND THEN OUR
COLLEAGUE, MR ABER AS FAR AS
WORKING AND LOOKING AT NOT JUST
I CONCUR. GETTING CREDITS FOR,
YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, MOPPING AND
NOT GETTING IN FIGHTS. YOU KNOW
WHAT? HOW DOES THAT MAKE YOU A
BETTER PERSON WHEN YOU WHEN YOU
GET OUT, BUT SOME OF THE
SPECIFIC STUFF WITH MENTAL
HEALTH AND THESE OTHER ISSUES. I
THINK THAT'S WHY WE'RE HAVING
PEOPLE IN IN THE FIRST PLACE
BECAUSE EVENTUALLY THESE PEOPLE
ARE ELIGIBLE FOR RELEASE WHETHER
OR NOT THEY GET CREDITS FOR
OTHER THINGS OR NOT. THAT'S A
GOOD QUESTION. UM BUT I, I WILL
ASK YOU TO ENGAGE WITH, UH, LAST
STILL ON THESE ISSUES AS YOU AS
YOU MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT I DO
SUPPORT THIS MEASURE. WE HAVE A
MOTION IN A SECOND BY MR LACKEY.
MR. UH, YOU MAY CLOSE. HONESTLY
THANK YOU SO MUCH CHAIR FOR YOUR
COMMENTS. I REALLY DO APPRECIATE
TO THE OPPOSITION. THERE'S NOT A
SINGLE PERSON, UM, THAT HAS
CONCERNS ABOUT THIS BILL. YOUR
CONCERNS ARE NOT ROOTED AND YOU
WANT BAD THINGS HAPPENING, AND I
UNDERSTAND THIS VERY MUCH RIGHT.
UM I ALSO HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO
GO ON THE SAME STING WITH, UH,
SOME OF THEM TO WIN. AND IT WAS
ABSOLUTELY LIFE CHANGING. AND
WHEN YOU SEE THE IMAGES THAT WE
SAW THAT DAY. UM I DIDN'T SLEEP.
VERY WELL FOR A FEW WEEKS, AND
THE MEN AND WOMEN THAT S¼ ON
THESE TASK FORCE TO DEAL WITH
THIS UP AND DOWN THE STATE. IN
MY OPINION, SOME OF THE VERY
UNSUNG HEROES IN LAW ENFORCEMENT
THAT IS A VERY, VERY SPECIAL
PERSON THAT CAN MENTALLY DEAL
WITH THAT, AND I THINK THAT THAT
IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO
ADDRESS. BUT I DO JUST I'M JUST
GOING TO CUT MY COMMENTS. UM,
SHORT, UM, SHE THANK YOU. UH,
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT. A
HAPPY AND LOOK FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH THE COMMITTEE. UM
AS THIS MOVES FORWARD TO ADDRESS
THESE ISSUES, BECAUSE I DO THINK
THERE IS A BALANCE HERE. UM AND
IF WE TRULY CARE ABOUT OUR
COMMUNITIES, KEEPING OUR
COMMUNITIES SAFE, WE NEED TO
PROTECT OUR KIDS. BUT WE ALSO
NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE MEN
AND WOMEN WHEN WE RELEASE THEM
THAT THEY ARE BACK IN THEIR
COMMUNITIES THAT THEY ARE SAFE
AS WELL. AND I THINK THAT IS
ULTIMATELY ALL OF OUR GOAL AT
THIS, UH, IN THIS COMMITTEE, AND
CERTAINLY MINE AND RESPECT LAST
YEAR I VOTE THANK YOU. THE
MOTION TO SECOND. PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL. ON A B 1898 BY SIMMA
MEMBER FLORA. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. MCCARTY MCCARTY, I,
ALANIS ALANIS, I LACKEY LACKEY.
I WIN. WIN. I REYES TING. A
WILSON. WILSON IER ZIPPER. I
THANK YOU. THE MEASURE PASSES
NEXT MEASURE, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
BOWER KHAN ITEM 12 A B 2527.
JUST HAPPENS. TOO MANY DICKS.
GOOD, MORE ELSE. CHAIR LEFT.
HØI. HOW ARE YOU? OH, MY GOSH.
DO YOU WANT TO SIT HERE? I THINK
WE NEED A MOTION A SECOND RIGHT
AWAY. I MEAN, I BROUGHT THE
CUTEST WITNESS. THERE'S NÓ
QUESTION ABOUT IT WHO MOVES THE
BILL. SHE WANTED TO BE HERE SO
BAD AND SO SORRY. SHE WOULD NOT
GO WITH ANYBODY. SHE IS SO CUTE.
OK UM, THANK YOU, MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. I'M HERE TO PRESENT A B
2527, WHICH WILL SUPPORT THE
PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH OF
PREGNANT PEOPLE WHO ARE
INCARCERATED BY ENSURING THAT
THEY HAVE ACCESS TO BASIC
NECESSITY AND SAFE ENVIRONMENTS
ARE A RECENT REPORT FROM THE A
èC LU ON REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH IN
CALIFORNIA'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE
SYSTEM FOUND THE INCARCERATED
PEOPLE ARE NOT RECEIVING
ADEQUATE AMOUNTS OF HEALTHY FOOD
DURING THEIR PREG. THE SAME
REPORT FOUND THAT IN SOME
CALIFORNIA JAILS, THE WATER
QUALITY WAS SO POOR IT WAS OFTEN
BROWN AND PEOPLE WERE UNABLE TO
CONSUME IT. IT IS CRITICAL FOR
BOTH THE DEVELOPMENT AND HEALTH
OF THE PARENT AND CHILD. THEY'VE
ACCESS TO NOURISHING FOOD AND
CLEAN WATER. THESE ARE BASIC
NECESSITIES THAT INCARCERATED
PEOPLE MUST HAVE WHEN THEY ARE
PREGNANT. A B 2527 WILL RAISE
THE NUTRITION STANDARDS FOR
INCARCERATED PREGNANT PEOPLE AND
ENSURE THAT THEY ARE PROVIDED
WITH AT LEAST 120 OUNCES OF
CLEAN WATER EACH DAY SEEMS
BASIC. AND THE BILL ALSO WILL
PROHIBIT THE USE OF SOLITARY
CONFINEMENT ON PREGNANT PEOPLE.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE
EXPERIENCE OF SOLITARY
CONFINEMENT CAN BE EXTREMELY
DAMAGING AND CAN CAUSE ACUTE
STRESS, WHICH IS PARTICULARLY
DANGEROUS DURING PREGNANCY.
MAYBE 2527 MAKES PROGRESS TOWARD
ENSURING THAT ALL PREGNANT
PEOPLE ARE TREATED WITH DIGNITY
AND RECEIVE THE NECESSARY
PRENATAL CARE WHILE IN OUR
CARCERAL SYSTEM WITH ME TODAY IN
SUPPORT OF THIS IS STEPHANIE
FLORES FROM THE S¼ E JUSTICE
GROUP AND PARADISE, OAKLEY.
THANK YOU. YOU BOTH HAVE FIVE
MINUTES. UM, GOOD MORNING. MY
NAME IS STEPHANIE FLORES AND S¼.
E, JUSTICE GROUP LEADER. AS
JUSTICE GROUP IS A NATIONAL
NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION THAT
HARNESSES THE COLLECTIVE POWER
OF WOMEN WITH INCARCERATED LOVED
ONES TO END MASS INCARCERATIONS
TO COMMUNITIES. SO I'M HERE IN
STRONG SUPPORT OF A B 2527,
BECAUSE I KNOW FIRST HAND THE
IMPORTANCE OF THIS BILL. UM I'M
A FORMER INCARCERATED PERSON AND
I WAS PREGNANT AT THE TIME OF MY
INCARCERATION. I SPENT MONTHS AT
ELWOOD CORRECTIONAL FACILITY. IT
WAS MY FIRST TIME BEING
INCARCERATED AND MY FIRST TIME
BEING PREGNANT. UM, I FEARED FOR
MY BABY'S HEALTH. EVERY SINGLE
MINUTE I WAS INSIDE. UM, THE
FOOD WAS UNHEALTHY. IT WAS
HORRENDOUS. EVERYBODY KNEW NOT
TO EAT THE MEAT. THE MILK WAS
SPOILED. AND EVERY NOW AND THEN,
IF I WAS LUCKY ENOUGH, I'D BE
ABLE TO SECURE AN APPLE. I'M
ALSO LIVED OFF OF PEANUT BUTTER
AND JELLY SANDWICHES WHICH MET
MY CALORIC NEEDS, BUT DEFINITELY
NOT MY NUTRITIONAL NEEDS. UM
TRYING TO STAY HYDRATED WAS
NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE, AND ALL THAT
WAS AVAILABLE WAS AN OVERFLOWING
WATER FOUNTAIN WITH THE ROTTEN
SPROUT THAT HAD PHYSICAL DEBRIS
FLOATING IN IT AND A FOUL ORDER
THAT CAME FROM IT. UM I WOULD BE
SO THIRSTY THAT AFTER BRUSHING
MY TEETH, I WOULD S¼ I WOULD SIP
A SINK OF THE SINK WATER JUST TO
JUST HOPING IT WOULD ALLEVIATE
MY THIRST. I KNEW THAT THE WATER
WAS NOT SAFE TO DRINK, AND I
WORRY THAT IT WOULD MAKE ME OR
MY BABY SICK. MY STRESS LEVELS
WERE THROUGH THE ROOF THE ENTIRE
TIME. I FEARED SO DEEPLY FOR MY
UNBORN CHILD'S HEALTH AND SAFETY
THAT I TOOK A PLEA DEAL KNOWING
THAT I WAS INNOCENT. THESE ARE
THE SACRIFICES WE AS PARENTS
MAKE FOR OUR CHILDREN, SO
SHORTLY AFTER I WAS RELEASED. I
LEARNED THAT I HAD DEVELOPED
PLACENTA PREVIA, WHICH IS A
CONDITION THAT CAUSES YOUR
PLACENTA TO RIP FROM YOUR
STOMACH LINING, PREVENTING THE
FETUS FROM GETTING OXYGEN AND
THAT CAUSES HEAVY BLEEDING. UM,
I ALSO FOUND OUT THAT I SUFFERED
FROM POLYHYDRAMNIOS IN A 36
WEEKS I WAS RUSHED TO THE ER FOR
AN EMERGENCY èC SECTION. ALL
COMPLICATIONS LIKELY CAUSED BY
THE EXTREME AMOUNT OF STRESS AND
THE UNHEALTHY CONDITIONS THAT I
ENDURED WHILE AT ELMWOOD. NOBODY
SHOULD HAVE TO ENDURE THESE TYPE
OF PREVENTABLE SITUATIONS,
ESPECIALLY PEOPLE WHO HAVE
INCREASED HEALTH VULNERABILITIES
LIKE A PREGNANCY. THIS BILL IS
BY MEETING THE BASIC NEEDS OF
PEOPLE WHO ARE PREGNANT AND
HEALTH TO ENSURE THAT CHILDREN
HAVE A SAFER AND HEALTHIER START
TO LIFE. I STRONGLY ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT OF A B 527. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. GOOD MORNING CHAIR AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS PERRIS OAKLEY. I'M AN SS
E SISTER AND A FELLOW WITH THE
SOLE POLICY INSTITUTE. I'M
PROVIDING MY TESTIMONY AS AN
EXPERT WITNESS WITH THE
POSITIONALITY AS A BLACK BIRTH
WORKER IN COMMUNITY ORGANIZER.
I'M SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF A B
2527 TO ENSURE THAT INCARCERATED
BIRTHING INDIVIDUALS HAVE THEIR
RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS PROTECTED IN
AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE THERE'S
LIMITED AUTONOMY. I'VE BEEN A
FULL SPECTRUM BIRTH WORKER SINCE
2021 PRIMARILY FOCUSED ON THE
BIRTHING JUSTICE EXPERIENCE AND
ITS IMPACT. BLACK WOMEN. I'VE
SEEN FIRSTHAND THE IMPACTS OF
HAVING AN ADVOCATE SUPPORT YOUR
RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS MAKE A HUGE
DIFFERENCE IN THE BIRTHING
EXPERIENCE. IT IS CRUCIAL FOR
BIRTHING PEOPLE TO GET ADEQUATE
WATER FOR HYPER HYDRATION AND
ACCESS TO ALL FOOD GROUPS TO
SUPPORT PROPER NOURISHMENT FOR
HEALTH AND SAFETY FOR BOTH
HUMANS INADEQUATE ACCESS TO
THESE INCREASE THE RISK OF
PRETERM BIRTH, LOW BIRTH RATE
AND MISCARRIAGE IS ALSO
IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT
RACIALLY A PRESS. RACIAL GROUPS
HAVE HIGHER RATES OF POSTPARTUM
DEPRESSION AND STRESS DUE TO THE
LACK OF CARE AND SUPPORT AFTER
THE BABY IS BORN, MAKING
PLACEMENT IN SOLITARY
CONFINEMENT, ESPECIALLY HARMFUL
DUE TO THE LONG STANDING IMPACTS
ON MENTAL AND PHYSICAL WELL
BEING A B 2527 MEETS THE
INTERSECTIONS OF HARM THAT
BIRTHING PEOPLE ARE FACING AND
SO LIKE TRYING TO BRING THEIR
CHILD EARTH OUTSIDE OUTSIDE OF
JAILS AND PRISONS, WOMEN ARE
EXPERIENCING A MATERNAL CARE
DESERT DUE TO THE LACK OF
HOSPITALS, OFFERING LABOR AND,
UM, DELIVERY SERVICES. THIS BILL
ENSURES THAT WOMEN INSIDE GET
THEIR BASIC HUMAN NEEDS. IN THE
PRISON POLICY INITIATIVE REPORTS
THAT U S¼ IS THE FIRST, UM,
INCARCERATED OF WOMEN IN A TOTAL
OF 100 AND 91,000. WOMEN AND
GIRLS ARE INCARCERATED IN THESE
FACILITIES, AND HALF OF THEM ARE
INCARCERATED IN LOCAL JAILS. OF
THAT 84,000 WOMEN INCARCERATED
IN LOCAL JAILS HAVE NOT BEEN
CONVICTED OF A CRIME AND ARE
AWAITING TRIAL OVER 3000 WOMEN
WERE PREGNANT WHEN THEY WENT TO
PRISON IN 86 68% OF THESE WOMEN
HAVE NÓ HEALTH CARE AT THE TIME,
AND OVER HALF OF THEM ONLY
RECEIVED PRET. CARE IN PRISON. I
URGE THE COMMUNITY TO VOTE AND
SUPPORT OF A B 2527 AND THANK
YOU FOR LISTENING TO MY
TESTIMONY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT? PLEASE
STEP UP. MARGO GEORGE AND THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. DANIEL ON BEHALF OF
INITIATE JUSTICE AND PROUD
SUPPORT. STEPHANIE SHAW ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA. LATINAS
FOR REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. BETTY MCKAY
AS JUSTICE GROUP STRONGLY
OPPOSED. SO. I'M SORRY. YOU GET
A DO OVER, OK? CAN WE DO LIKE A
REWIND, REWIND, REWIND. MY TRUE
IDENTITY. BETTY MCKAY S¼ E
JUSTICE GROUP, BUT I'M LIKE
20,000% STRONGLY FOR THIS FOR
THANK YOU. TRAN ELLA BAKER
CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, STRONG
SUPPORT. THE LADY AS HE JUSTICE
GROUP STRONGLY SUPPORT AND LET
ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA'S FOR
SAFETY AND JUSTICE AND STRONG
SUPPORT. BE NOT ABOUT CAMPOS AS
HE JUSTICE GROUP IN STRONG
SUPPORT. CHRIS LAWSON. ANTI
RECIDIVISM COALITION STRONG
SUPPORT. JACK CASTELLO, MEMBER
OF THE ANTI REID COALITION,
STRONG SUPPORT. MARK SANDERS.
MEMBER OF THE ANTI RECIDIVISM
COALITION AND MISSING OUR MINDS
AND STRONG SUPPORT. MO YOU HERE
ON BEHALF OF LEGAL SERVICES FOR
PRISONERS AND CHILDREN AND VERY
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. MORNING
HENRY ORTIZ ON BEHALF OF LEGAL
SERVICES FOR PRISONERS WITH
CHILDREN AND THE SACRAMENT. ALL
OF US AND UN CHAPTER AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. R, èC GREEN
JUSTICE GROUP AND SOLE POLICY,
FELLOW STRONG SUPPORT. JANET
HUGHES, S¼ E JUSTICE GROUP, AND
SO IS POLICY INSTITUTE STRONGLY
SUPPORT JIM LINDBERG FRIENDS
COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. UH, LINDA
WARNER WITH THE CALIFORNIA
CATHOLIC CONFERENCE IN STRONG
SUPPORT. OLIVIA CHRISTIAN WITH
JUSTICE GROUP AND STRONG
SUPPORT. SO IT MCDONALD WOULD
JUST SEE JUSTICE GROUP STRONGLY
SUPPORT. ONLY SEE BENAVIDEZ ON
BEHALF OF DRUG POLICY ALLIANCE
AND STRONG SUPPORT AND AS A
MENTOR TO THE POLICE POLICY
INSTITUTE'S TEAM RUNNING THIS
BILL. COULD BE PRESIDED WITH THE
CALIFORNIA PSYCHIATRIC
TECHNICIANS ASSOCIATION AND
SUPPORT THANK YOU, UH, ANYONE IN
OPPOSITION? PLEASE STEP UP. MY
YEAH. WORK. YEAH. FIVE MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR MEMBERS,
ALTHOUGH I'M NOT SURE THIS WAS
EVER A FAIR FIGHT. IT CERTAINLY
ISN'T NOW. I DON'T KNOW HOW I
CAN COMPETE. UM YOU THOUGHT THE
VOTE WOULD WORK? RESPECTFULLY
HERE IN IN OPPOSITION TO A B
2527. LOOK JUST TO BE CLEAR.
WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO ENSURING
THAT PREGNANT PERSONS HAVE WATER
AND NUTRITION. SO LET'S JUST GET
THAT OFF OUR CHESTS AND OUT OF
THE DEBATE IMMEDIATELY. OUR
ISSUE WITH THOSE PORTIONS OF THE
BILL ARE MORE PROCEDURAL
SPECIFICALLY, THAT SHOULD BE
DEALT WITH VIA REGULATION TITLE
15 OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF
REGULATIONS. EXCUSE ME, ALREADY
REQUIRES PREGNANT PEOPLE TO BE
PROVIDED A BALANCED, NUTRITIOUS
DIET APPROVED BY A DOCTOR AND
PROVIDES THAT THEY SHALL RECEIVE
TWO EXTRA EIGHT OUNCE CARTONS OF
MILK OR A CALCIUM SUPPLEMENT. IF
LACTOSE INTOLERANT TO EXTRA
SERVINGS OF FRESH FRUIT, TWO
EXTRA SERVINGS OF FRESH
VEGETABLES DAILY. THE REGULATION
ALSO ALLOWS A PHYSICIAN TO ORDER
ADDITIONAL NUTRIENTS AS
NECESSARY. UM AND THAT'S JUST
THE HIGHLIGHT. I'M NOT SAYING
RIGHT OR WRONG, BUT WHAT'S THE
IS THERE? SCIENCE ON 100 AND 20
OUNCES OF WATER? THE ANALYSIS
POINTS OUT 84 TO 96 OUNCES OF
WATER IS THE RECOMMENDATION OF
THE GROUP SHOULD WE PUT IN THE
STATUTE 120 OUNCES IF THAT'S THE
EVEN IF THAT'S THE SCIENCE TODAY
, WHAT'S THE SCIENCE TOMORROW?
IS THAT REALLY WHAT WE NEED TO
DO HERE? SO THAT'S OUR ISSUE
WITH THOSE PORTIONS OF THE BILL
AGAIN, MORE PROCEDURAL MORE ON
THE POLICY THAT WE OBJECT TO THE
BLANKET RESTRICTION ON THE USE
OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT OR
RESTRICTIVE HOUSING UNITS, UM,
FOR PREGNANT PERSONS FOR THE
ENTIRETY OF THEIR PREGNANCY,
PLUS 12 WEEKS, POST MORTEM
POSTPARTUM. OR ANY NUMBER OF
SITUATIONS, UH, WHERE THESE
TYPES OF HOUSING ASSIGNMENTS MAY
BE THE MOST APPROPRIATE AND SAFE
FOR THE PERSON. OTHER INMATES
STAFF. UM, BUT THIS BILL JUST
SAYS YOU CAN NEVER USE IT. IF
THE PERSON'S PREGNANT OR 12
WEEKS POSTPARTUM WITHOUT REGARD
TO SECURITY WITHOUT REGARD TO
SAFETY OF THE PERSON WHO WOULD
BE PUT IN THE RESTRICTIVE
HOUSING UNIT WITHOUT REGARD TO
THE FACILITY OVER ALL WHAT'S
GOING ON IN THAT FACILITY AGAIN.
IT'S JUST A BLANKET BÀN, UH,
WITHOUT ANY DISCRETION OR
FLEXIBILITY WHATSOEVER. SO FOR
THOSE REASONS. WE ARE
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. UH, TO
THIS, BILL. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ANYONE ELSE IN OPPOSITION?
PLEASE STEP UP. ALL RIGHT, WE'LL
TURN IT TO COMMITTEE. MR. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR. THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD AND
THANK YOU FOR TESTIFYING. I HAD
NÓ IDEA THAT WAS HAPPENING TO
PREGNANT WOMEN, UM, INCARCERATED
AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NÓ
EXCUSE FOR THAT. UM YOU KNOW
THEY DESERVE THE BEST NUTRITION
UH, THE BEST, UH, WATER ALL OF
THAT, BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT A
PERSON GROWING INSIDE THEIR
BELLY. IF THERE'S NÓ FUNDING FOR
THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TRY
TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE THAT
WORK. I AM 1000% SUPPORTIVE OF
THAT. MY ONLY CONCERN IS, UM,
THE SOLITARY CONFINEMENT. IF YOU
I REMEMBER WHEN I WAS PREGNANT
TWICE. I WASN'T FEARFUL OF
MYSELF. BUT THE FOLKS AROUND ME
RIGHT AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS
THAT SOMETIMES IF YOU ARE, UM IN
A POSITION WHERE IT'S A THREAT
TO YOUR BABY OR YOURSELF, THAT
MAY BE BEING IN SOLITARY
CONFINEMENT IS A GOOD THING
BECAUSE YOU'RE PROTECTING
YOURSELF FROM THOSE AROUND YOU
AND THE BABY AS WELL TOO. AND I.
I WANTED TO KNOW IF MAYBE YOU
CAN SPEAK ON THAT AND WHY THAT'S
BEING TAKEN AWAY. I SO I SEE IT.
COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. I SEE IT
AS IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO KEEP
YOU SAFE IN THE BABY SAFE. FROM
THOSE AROUND YOU, BUT NOT SURE
IF THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE
DIFFERENT. THAT'S IN THIS, BILL.
YEAH THANK YOU AND I. I
APPRECIATE YOU, UM, AS SOMEONE
WHO'S CARRIED THROUGH THREE
CHILDREN TO TERM 100 AND 20
OUNCES OF WATER ISN'T TOO MUCH
AS WE KNOW IT'S REALLY HARD TO
KEEP YOURSELF HYDRATED WHEN YOU
ARE FEEDING TWO PEOPLE AT ONCE,
SO I THINK, EVEN IF IT'S A
LITTLE EXTRA WATER NOT A WASTED
EXPENSE. SO I THINK THAT THE
WATER AND MEAL REQUIREMENTS I
HOPE THAT WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT
ON THAT FOR SURE. UM I ALSO
WOULD SAY THAT, UM YES. THIS
COULD HAVE BEEN DONE BY
REGULATION, AND IT WASN'T SO
HERE WE ARE, UM AND THEN, BUT ON
THE POINT ON SOLITARY
CONFINEMENT, AND THE ANALYSIS
REALLY DOES TOUCH ON THIS, BUT,
UM, HAPPY TO SHARE MORE
INFORMATION BECAUSE WE HAVE IT.
THEY'RE INCREDIBLE STUDIES ON
THE HARM. TO PREGNANT PEOPLE
WHEN THEY ARE IN SOLITARY
CONFINEMENT. IT IS INCREDIBLY
STRESSFUL TO BE ISOLATED IN THAT
WAY, AND YOU HEARD THAT THE
PSYCHIATRIC TECHNICIANS WHO WORK
IN OUR PRISONS WERE HERE TODAY
BECAUSE THEY SEE IT. THEY SEE
HOW HARMFUL THAT IS. AND SO FOR
SOMEONE WHO IS, UM AND WE KNOW
THE CORTISOL LEVELS AND STRESS
AND THIS WAS CITED IN THE
ANALYSIS DO AFFECT THE
PREGNANCY. THEY DO AFFECT THE
GROWING FETUS, AND SO IT IS
REALLY CRITICAL THAT WE PROVIDE
SAFE AND HEALTHY CONDITIONS AND
THAT SOLITARY IS INCONSISTENT
WITH THAT. UM AND I WILL SAY
THAT WE HAVE NOT HEARD FROM
ANYBODY. UM, AND MANY PREGNANT
PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN
INCARCERATED SUPPORT THIS BILL
BECAUSE THEY DON'T FEEL LIKE
THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN SAFER IN
SOLITARY CONFINEMENT. BUT IF
SOMEONE FELT THAT WAY, WE WOULD
OBVIOUSLY BE OPEN TO HEARING
THAT, AND THE FOCUS OF THIS BILL
IS ABSOLUTELY ENSURING WHAT IS
SAFEST FOR OUR PREGNANT,
INCARCERATED FOLKS AND FOR THE
GROWING STYLE THAT WILL ONE DAY
BE WITH US SO. NÓ MR TING. NÓ
MISS WILSON. THANK YOU TO THE
AUTHOR TO BRING THIS BILL
FORWARD. WHEN WE THINK ABOUT, UM
THE AMOUNT OF RESOURCES THAT WE
HAVE TO GIVE TO CHILDREN ONCE
THEY ENTER THIS WORLD, UM, AND
TO MAKE UP FOR THE HARMS THAT
COULD HAVE HAPPENED TO THEM
WHILE EVEN THEY WERE BEING
CARRIED. I THINK THAT'S PART OF
WHY THIS BILL IS EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT. UM BECAUSE, UH,
THERE'S ALREADY UM THINGS
STACKED AGAINST A CHILD THAT IS
BORN OF SOMEONE WHO'S
INCARCERATED WHILE IN PRISON OR
EVEN POST BEING OUT AND SO TO
ENSURE THAT THEY HAVE THE
HEALTHIEST OF ENVIRONMENTS, EVEN
IF THEY'RE, UH, PARENT COULD BE
COULDN'T BE IN THE HEALTHY
ENVIRONMENT IS EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT. UM THE ONLY CONCERN
THAT I HAD WHEN READING IT
BECAUSE I DO UNDERSTAND SOLITARY
CONFINEMENT AND VERY MUCH
CONCERNED ABOUT THAT AND HAVE,
YOU KNOW, SUPPORTING OTHER BILLS
RELATED TO, UM REDUCING THAT FOR
ALL IS THERE RESTRICTIVE HOUSING
, UM, IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO
PROVIDE SAFETY FOR SOMEONE I AM
NOT THAT FAMILIAR WITH
RESTRICTIVE HOUSING UNITS. UM,
BUT IT DOES SPECIFICALLY CALL
THOSE OUT AS DISTINCT AND
SEPARATE FROM SOLITARY, AND SO
THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING TO
CONSIDER GOING FORWARD OF. IS IT
THE SAME AND IS THAT SHOULD THAT
BE SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED IN
THERE, BUT NOT FAMILIAR WITH IT.
SO JUST AS AN FY, I, UM BUT
OTHERWISE I'D LIKE TO MAKE, UH,
TO MOVE THE BILL. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MISS. DID YOU WANNA
ANSWER ANY OF THOSE COMMENTS?
UM, CLOSING. YEAH, I ANYONE
ELSE? SHAY. ALL RIGHT. I WOULD
LIKE TO BRING OUT A FEW THINGS.
UH, I'M I'M VERY CONCERNED WITH
YOUR STATE THAT YOU HAD IN THE
FACILITIES. UH, WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT THE WATER NOT BEING SAFE
TO DRINK. UH, YOU WERE TALKING
ABOUT THE DRINKING FOUNTAIN, OR
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THAT WATER
WAS NOT SAFE AT ALL. NOT AT ALL.
AND IS THAT JUST IS THAT YOUR
PERSONAL BELIEFS OR IS THERE
LIKE A STUDY THAT WAS MADE THAT
SAID, THIS WATER IS NOT
DRINKABLE. WAS IT? SOMETHING
THEY LIKE WERE HANDING OUT WATER
BOTTLES FOR WHEN I WHEN I WAS
THERE. IT WAS A VERY STRONG
FEELING. AND AFTER YOU TASTE IT,
YOU JUST KNOW IT'S NOT EVEN NOT
EVEN AFTER LIKE DRINKING IT FROM
THE FAUCET. AFTER BRUSHING MY
TEETH. I FELT COMFORTABLE, BUT I
FELT LIKE IT'S SOMETHING I
NEEDED TO DO. AND YOU KNOW WHEN
I STARTED WORKING ON THIS BILL
IT. THERE'S ACTUALLY BEEN SO
MANY STUDIES THAT HAVE CAME
ACROSS THAT ACTUALLY. TALK ABOUT
HOW CONTAMINATED THE WATER IS
AND HOW MANY CONTAMINANTS ARE
ACTUALLY FOUND IN THE WATER.
SUPPLY IT YOU KNOW, THERE'S SO
MUCH THERE'S ACTUALLY A BILL
THAT HAD PASSED WHERE THERE HAS
TO BE, YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE IT'S
LIKE A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT TO HAVE
ACCESS TO FREE CLEAN WATER FOR
EVERYBODY IN CALIFORNIA, BUT
THAT BILL DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY
ANY INCARCERATION LIKE FACILITY
SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WORRIED
ME AS WELL, AFTER LIKE,
REALIZING HOW BAD THE WATER WAS
INSIDE, AND I WAS LIKE, OK, WHY
HASN'T THERE BEEN DONE ANYTHING
DONE? THERE IS ACTUALLY A LOT OF
LIKE, UH, REPORTS THAT I FOUND
ABOUT LAWSUITS COMING FROM
VARIOUS PARTS OF CALIFORNIA.
WHERE UM PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY
DYING, YOU KNOW, AND THE PEOPLE
ARE ARE HAVING TO FILE LAWSUITS
AGAINST, YOU KNOW FACILITIES
BECAUSE THEY'RE LOSING THEIR
LIVES TO THESE YOU KNOW, TO
HAVING A DRINK THIS WATER THAT
THEY'RE INSIDE, YOU KNOW, AND
IT'S ACTUALLY REALLY SAD. OKAY.
AND IF I MAY, MISTER, SO I CITED
THE A èC LU DID DO A STUDY THAT
SHOWED THAT THERE WAS, UM WATER
WAS NOT SAFE. JUST I'M I'M
ASSUMING THE WATER IS NOT SAFE
FOR THE WHOLE COMMUNITY BECAUSE
THE SAME PIPE THAT'S GOING TO
THE FACILITY THE SAME ONE THAT'S
GOING TO THE COMMUNITY. THERE'S
NÓ SEPARATE WATER SUPPLY GOING
TO THE BUT I BELIEVE THERE'S
ALSO PIPE ISSUES WITHIN THE
INSTITUTIONS THEMSELVES. IF I'M
CORRECT, OK? AND THEN FOR THE
OPPOSITION. YOU WERE TALKING
ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THE PREGNANT
PERSON. UH, IF YOU CAN ELABORATE
ON THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR. YEAH I MEAN, I, I
THINK, UH, ASSEMBLY MEMBER,
WILSON POINTED OUT. THERE'S A
DISTINCTION IN THE BILL BETWEEN
SOLITARY CONFINEMENT AND
RESTRICTIVE HOUSING UNIT AND IN
EITHER SITUATION, IT MAY BE THE
CASE AS YOU KNOW, SOMEONE WHO'S
WORKED IN A CUSTODIAL
ENVIRONMENT THAT THERE MAY NEED
TO BE, UH, A PLACEMENT OF A
PERSON WHO IS PREGNANT. YOU KNOW
, IN AN ENVIRONMENT THAT IS
CONSIDERED SOLITARY CONFINEMENT
OR THAT IS CONSIDERED A
RESTRICTIVE HOUSING UNIT THAT
MAY BE FOR THE SAFETY OF THE
PREGNANT PERSON. AND IT MAY BE
FOR THE SAFETY OF SOMEONE ELSE.
JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE PREGNANT
DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN'T HAVE ILL
INTENTIONS AND BREAK THE RULES.
I MEAN, I AGAIN I. I UNDERSTAND.
UM THE ASSERTIONS ABOUT THE
SCIENCE AND THE IMPACT OF
SOLITARY CONFINEMENT, UM,
ESPECIALLY ON SORT OF THE MENTAL
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH STATUS OF
SOMEONE, UH, WHO'S PREGNANT? I
I'M I'M NOT ARGUING THAT JUST
LIKE I'M NOT ARGUING THAT 120
OUNCES IS THE WRONG NUMBER. I'M
SAYING PUTTING IT IN STATUTE IS
THE WRONG APPROACH. WHAT I'M
SAYING ON THE SOLITARY
CONFINEMENT OR RESTRICTIVE. IS
YOU PUT IN STATUTE A BLANKET
BÀN. NEVER A PERSON IS PREGNANT.
ONCE THAT PREGNANCY IS DETECTED
SIX WEEKS, EIGHT WEEKS, 10 WEEKS
, WHATEVER FROM THAT POINT UNTIL
12 WEEKS, POSTPARTUM YOU CAN YOU
SIMPLY CANNOT PUT THAT PERSON IN
A SOLITARY CONFINEMENT SETTING
OR RESTRICTIVE HOUSING SETTING,
IRRESPECTIVE OF ANYTHING ELSE
THAT MAY BE GOING ON IN THE
FACILITY OR WITH THAT PERSON OR
OTHER INCARCERATED PERSONS.
THAT'S OUR CONCERN. THANK YOU.
GO AHEAD, MR REEVES. THANK YOU.
MY APOLOGIES FOR ARRIVING LATE.
I THINK IN GENERAL, THE BILL IS
VERY IMPORTANT TO PROTECT A
PREGNANT WOMAN. BUT I ABSOLUTELY
AGREE AS I WAS READING IT. MY
ONLY CONCERN WAS THAT IF WE HAVE
A COMPLETE BÀN I WOULD IMAGINE
THERE WOULD BE SOME
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT FOR THE
PROTECTION OF THAT PREGNANT
WOMAN, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A
SOME WAY TO GET AROUND A
COMPLETE BÀN. AND I WOULD ASK
THAT THAT THAT DIALOGUE CONTINUE
. MAY I? MAY I, MRS. YES THANK
YOU. YES NÓ AND I HEAR WHAT
YOU'RE SAYING. AND I ABSOLUTELY
AM COMMITTED TO THAT. AND
PERHAPS WE COULD LOOK AT A WAY
TO PARTNER WITH THE PSYCHIATRIC
TECHNICIANS AND FACILITY OR
SOMEONE TO MAKE SURE WE'RE
PROTECTING THE PREGNANT PERSON
IN THERE. FULL CAPACITY. SO
HAVEN'T HAD THOSE CONVERSATIONS,
BUT HAPPY TO HAVE THEM GO FOR
IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR
ZUBER. I JUST WANT TO DITTO MY
COLLEAGUES. UH UH, COMMENTS
IMMEDIATELY. THANKS. THANK YOU.
ANY OTHERS. OK SO I JUST I'LL
SUMMARIZE EVERYTHING UP HERE. UH
SO OBVIOUSLY I HAVE THE SAME
CONCERNS THAT THE SHERIFF'S
ASSOCIATION HAS AS WELL, UH,
PUTTING THESE RESTRICTIONS ON
THERE. UH YOU KNOW, WE IMAGINE
IN OUR HEADS THAT A PREGNANT
PERSON IS SOMEBODY WHO'S CLEAN,
NOT OFF DRUGS AND IS, YOU KNOW
THE STORYBOOK KIND OF PREGNANCY.
BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE THAT
I'VE SEEN, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE
TALKING A PREGNANT WOMAN THAT'S
IN CUSTODY. UH, THAT DOESN'T
JUST HAPPEN TO NORMAL. PREGNANT
PREGNANCY ARE PEOPLE IN
PREGNANCY. UH SO SOMETIMES I
KNOW THAT SOMETIMES FOR THE
PROTECTION THAT THAT THAT MAY
NEED TO HAPPEN AS WELL AND THEN
YOU ALSO HAVE GANG ISSUES. MAYBE
SOMEBODY IS WANTING TO GO AFTER
HIM, BECAUSE, UH, SHE'S PREGNANT
WITH SOMEBODY ELSE'S BABY, AND
THEY DON'T WANT THAT. IT IT.
THAT'S THE REALITY OF IT. UH THE
OTHER THING OR THE OTHER ISSUE I
MAY HAVE IS, UH, WITH THE WATER
GOING BACK TO THE WATER. IS
THERE AN ENFORCEMENT I WOULD
HAVE I WHAT IF WE CAN'T PROVE
THE 120 OR WHATEVER WAS GIVEN TO
HIM IS THAT IS THAT SOMETHING
THAT'S FACTORED IN THE BILL AS
WELL? AND UH, THESE ARE JUST
QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE OR
MAY HAVE TO WORK ON LATER ON.
I'M THANKFUL THAT YOU SAID
YOU'RE GONNA BE WORKING WITH THE
OPPOSITION. AND UH, I. I LOOK
FORWARD TO SEEING THE FURTHER
OUTCOME ON THIS. SO WITH THAT
YOU MAY ANSWER AND YOU MAY
CLOSE. THANK YOU, MR YES, I
THINK THAT WE ALL SHARE THE SAME
GOAL SITTING HERE TODAY, WHICH
IS TO ENSURE THAT PREGNANT
PEOPLE ARE PROTECTED RIGHT THAT
THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO CONTROL
THEIR OWN REPRODUCTIVE LIVES BY
GIVING THEIR, UM YOU KNOW,
BODIES, THE HEALTHY NUTRITION
THAT THEY NEED BY ENSURING THAT
THEY ARE HEALTHY AND SAFE AND
THAT WE'RE NOT PUTTING THEM IN
EXTREME. ISOLATION WHICH IS TO
BE CLEAR A FORM OF TORTURE. SO
UM, YOU KNOW, I HEAR WHAT THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ARE SAYING
ABOUT ENSURING THAT WE'RE
PROTECTING PEOPLE, UM, WHEN
NEEDED, AND I THINK THAT'S
CRITICAL BECAUSE AGAIN, I THINK
WE ALL SHARE THE SAME GOAL,
WHICH IS TO PROTECT THESE
PEOPLE. UM IN ALL SETTINGS. AND
SO WITH THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M
COMMITTED TO MAKING SURE THAT
WE, UM FURTHER REFINE THE BILL
TO ENSURE THAT IT IS AS
PROTECTIVE AS POSSIBLE SO THAT
WE CAN ALL FEEL GOOD ABOUT THE
WORK WE'RE DOING. AND WITH THAT,
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN I
VOTE. THANK YOU AND I NEED A
SECOND. OH, SECOND SORRY. SORRY.
OH, YEAH, NOT THAT KIND OF
SECOND. OK, WE HAVE A MOTION IN
A SECOND. GO AND TAKE A ROLL ON
A B 2527 BY ISA MEMBER BARACK
HAND. THE MOTION IS TO PASS TO
THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY ALANIS ALANIS, I LACKEY.
LACKING NOT VOTING, WHEN I REYES
REYES, I TING TING I WILSON
WILSON. I ZIPPER ZIPPER. I OH,
EXCUSE ME, AS SOME OF THEM ARE
ARDY ON 2527 MCCARTY. I.
MR TING WILL PRESENT FOR
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BRANDON, SPEAKER
EMERITUS.
PLEASE BEGIN. THANK YOU, UH,
HAPPY TO PRESENT. UH, MAYBE 2546
ON BEHALF OF SPEAKER MEREDITH
RENDON, UH, THE BILL BROADS THE
DEFINITION OF MILITARY WEAPON TO
ENSURE LONG RANGE ACOUSTIC
DEVICES ARE SUBJECT TO
CALIFORNIA'S PUBLIC REVIEW AND
TRANSPARENCY PROTOCOL FOR
ACQUIRING MILITARY GRADE WEAPONS
. THE TRADEMARK TERM LR A Dð FOR
A LONG RANGE ACOUSTIC DEVICE IS
EXCLUSIVELY MANUFACTURED BY THE
SAN DIEGO BASED UH, GENESIS IN
UH, THIS MEANS OTHER
MANUFACTURERS WHO PRODUCE
SIMILAR TECHNOLOGY UNDER
DIFFERENT NAMES MIGHT CIRCUMVENT
THE PRE-APPROVAL PROCESS
REQUIRED FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES TO PURCHASE SUCH
DEVICES. A B 2546 AIMS TO USE
GENERIC TERMS, INSTEAD ENSURING
THAT ALL MANUFACTURERS OF
SIMILAR TECHNOLOGIES UNDERGO THE
LOCAL CITY COUNCIL ON BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS APPROVAL PROCESS FOR
THE ACQUISITION AND USE OF THE
WEAPON. THE PROCESS ENSURES A
LOCAL COMMUNITY HAS THE
OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN ON THE
LOCAL POLICE ACQUIRING THESE
WEAPONS AND THEIR USE.
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR I VOTE ON A
B 2546. I ALSO HAVE OBED FRANCO
WITH GENETICIST CORPORATION. YES
GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. THANK YOU FOR
THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY TO
SUPPORT A B. UH, 2546 AGAIN. MY
NAME IS ED FRANK WITH PUBLIC
POLICY ADVOCATES HERE ON BEHALF
OF GENESIS. UH, WE SUPPORT A B
2546. AND WE JUST WANNA THANK
SPEAKER MEREDITH RENAN, THE
AUTHOR FOR HIS LEADERSHIP AND
APPRECIATE THE COMMITTEE'S
CONSIDERATION OF OUR SUPPORT FOR
THIS, BILL. THANK YOU, THANK YOU
AND OTHERS IN SUPPORT. AND
OPPOSITION. PLEASE COME FORWARD.
QUESTIONS COMMENTS. WE HAVE A
MOTION TO SECOND, SO THEM WHEN
SOME MEMBER WILSON QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS,
MR LACKEY YEAH, THERE. THERE'S A
PORTION OF THIS BILL THAT I HAVE
DEEP CONCERNS OVER AND THE
DEFINITION OF, UH PORTABLE
ACOUSTIC HAILING DEVICES. I DO
KNOW THAT THERE ARE DEVICES THAT
ARE DESIGNED TO BE A FORM OF A
WEAPON, BUT THEY'RE ALSO
DEVICES. THAT MAY FALL INTO THIS
DESCRIPTION THAT, UH, I HAVE TWO
IN MY HANDS HERE THAT ARE USED
TO COMMUNICATE THEIR PUBLIC
ADDRESS DEVICES. THESE HAPPEN TO
BE TWO OF THOSE DEVICES THAT MAY
FALL UNDER THAT DEFINITION, AND
I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S THE
INTENT OF THE LANGUAGE THAT I
WOULD CERTAINLY HOPE NOT. BUT I
WOULD ASK THAT, UH, THAT BE
LOOKED AT A LITTLE CLOSER AND
TIGHTENED UP SO THAT, UH,
COMMUNICATION DEVICES WOULD NOT
BE CONSIDERED UNDER THIS
PROVISION. I CAN CAN'T SPEAK FOR
THE AUTHOR. BUT THAT SEEMS LIKE
A VERY REASONABLE REQUEST, WHICH
I'LL COMMUNICATE BACK TO THE
SPEAKER MEREDITH JUST TO MAKE IT
CLEAR. THAT'S WHY I'M NOT IN A
POSITION TO SUPPORT IT UNTIL
THAT THAT'S CLARIFIED. OK? NÓ
MORE QUESTIONS. WE HAVE A MOTION
TO SECOND. WE LIKE TO CLOSE. UH,
RESPECT FOR OUR VOTE. OK, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. AND MAYBE 2546 BY
A CREON. THE MOTION IS DUE PASS.
MCCARTY MCCARTY I ALANIS LACKEY
LACKEY NOT VOTING WHEN? WHEN I
REYES REYES, I TING TING I
WILSON WILSON. I ZIPPER ZIPPER.
I THANK YOU. A MEASURE PASSES.
WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK NOW AND
DO THE CONSENT CALENDAR. SO
MOVED. WE HAVE A MOTION IN A
SECOND FROM MR LACKEY AND MS
REYES, THE PROPOSED CONSENT
CALENDAR A 1959 GRAYSON, A B
2040 WALDRON A B 2120 CHEN A B
20 THREE 07 DAVIES A B THREE A B
20 THREE 21 ORTEGA A B 2475 HAY
A B, 2541 BAINES AND A B 2740
WALDRON HAVE A MOTION. SECOND
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON THE
CONSENT CALENDAR. MCCARTY
MCCARTY, I ALANIS ALANIS, I
LACKEY LACKEY I WHEN I REYES
REYES I TING TING I WILSON
WILSON. I ZIPPER ZIPPER. I
CONSENT COUNTERS ADOPTED. WE'RE
GOING TO GO THROUGH AND DO ANY
ADD ONS AND LIFTING OF CALLS AND
VOTE CHANGES. MADAM SECRETARY
PLEASE GO THROUGH ALL THE
MEASURES. A B 1800 ITEM NUMBER
ONE WAS PULLED BY THE AUTHOR.
ITEM NUMBER 2 1848 WAS PULLED BY
COMMITTEE ITEM NUMBER THREE A B
1898 BY SOME MEMBER FLORA REYES.
WHERE IT'S NOT VOTING. ITEM
NUMBER FOUR A B 1959 WAS ON
CONSENT ITEM NUMBER FIVE, A B
2040 WAS ON CONSENT ITEM NUMBER
SIX, A B 2120 WAS ON CONSENT.
ITEM NUMBER SEVEN. A B 23 07 WAS
ON CONSENT ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, A
B 2321 WAS ON CONSENT ITEM
NUMBER NINE A B 2336 BY èC
MEMBER VÀ PUDU REYES. REYES I,
WILSON WILSON. I THAT MEASURE
HAD PREVIOUSLY PASSED. ITEM
NUMBER 10 A B 2420. THIS MEASURE
WAS ON CALL BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
LOWENTHAL REYES. REYES. I
WILSON. WILSON I THAT MEASURE
PASSES ITEM 11 A B 2475 WAS ON
CONSENT ITEM NUMBER 12, A B 2527
HAS BEEN DISPENSED WITH ITEM
NUMBER 13 A B 2541 WAS ON
CONSENT ITEM 14 A B 2546 BY A
SUMMER ME BRANDON! ALANIS
ALANIS. I ITEM NUMBER 15 A B
2740 WAS ON CONSENT ITEM NUMBER
16 A B 2766 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
LOW REYES. YEAH, THAT'S THE ONE
I'LL COME BACK TO YOU, MISS
REYES. UM ASSEMBLY MEMBER TING.
I WILSON. WILSON. I. I.
ON A B 2766 REYES. REYES EYE
THAT CONCLUDES THE HEARING WILL
ADJOURN.