GOOD MORNING. WE WILL BEGIN
TODAY'S PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
HEARING. WE DON'T HAVE A QUORUM
YET, SO WE'LL START AS A
SUBCOMMITTEE. I CALL THIS
MEETING TO ORDER. WE WOULD LIKE
TO BEGIN WITH SOME HOUSEKEEPING
ITEMS, FIRST, WE HAVE THE BILLS
THAT ARE OFF CALENDAR. THOSE ARE
TWO BILLS PULLED BY THE AUTHOR.
AB 2138 RAMOS AND AB 2209.
SANCHEZ THEN WE HAVE THE CONSENT
CALENDAR, BUT WE WILL WAIT.
DISPENSE WITH THAT ONCE WE HAVE
A QUORUM. OKAY. WE'LL BEGIN WITH
THE ITEM. THIS IS, WE'RE GOING
TO BEGIN FIRST BEFORE THE TWO
AUTHORS HERE. I'M GOING TO
PRESENT OUR FIRST BILL BECAUSE
OF A WITNESS ISSUE. SO MR. VICE
CHAIR. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
START WITH ITEM NUMBER 22, AB
2882.
YEAH MR.
THANK YOU. MR, VICE CHAIR, I'M
PRESENTING TODAY, AB 2882. THE
COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, SPONSORED BY
THE STEINBERG INSTITUTE AND
CALIFORNIANS FOR SAFETY AND
JUSTICE. AND WE HAVE SOME
WITNESS ISSUES. SO THANK YOU FOR
ALLOWING US TO GO FIRST, MR.
VICE CHAIR, THIS BILL ENHANCES
EXISTING PLANNING, REPORTING
PROCESSES FOR COUNTY CORRECTIONS
SYSTEM, DELIVERING A SAFER AND
BETTER CALIFORNIA FOR ALL, THIS
SHARE OF THOSE INCARCERATED IN
CALIFORNIA'S COUNTY JAILS WITH
MENTAL HEALTH, HAS STEADILY
INCREASED IN. RECENT DECADES.
TODAY, 53% OF COUNTY INMATES
HAVE MENTAL HEALTH NEEDS, UP
FROM APPROXIMATELY 20% 15 YEARS
AGO. LOCAL BUDGETS HAVE NOT
ADJUSTED TO MEET ALL OF THE
NEEDS. WITH ITS NEW JAIL
POPULATION. RESEARCH
CONSISTENTLY DEMONSTRATES THAT
ADDRESSING BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
NEEDS NEED TO BE OUR JUSTICE
INVOLVED POPULATION. EXPANDED
UPON HELPING REDUCE RECIDIVISM,
AND IF LOCAL BUDGETS DON'T
REFLECT THESE GROWING HEALTH
NEEDS OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, WE
WILL NOT SEE IMPROVEMENT IN
RECIDIVISM, AND OVERRELIANCE ON
INCARCERATION, WITH US TODAY ARE
TWO WITNESSES FROM THE STEINBERG
INSTITUTE AND THE UC BERKELEY
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY TO TALK
ABOUT THE OVERARCHING ISSUES AND
THE OUTLINE OF THIS PROPOSAL
BEFORE US TODAY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. YOU BOTH
HAVE TWO MINUTES OR CORRECTION.
FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. GREAT.
GOOD MORNING. VICE CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS TARA GAMBOA
EASTMAN WITH THE STEINBERG
INSTITUTE, A PROUD CO-SPONSOR OF
AB 2882. THE GOALS OF PUBLIC
SAFETY REALIGNMENT WERE CLEAR
REDUCE RECIDIVISM AND IMPROVE
THE COST EFFECTIVENESS OF THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM BY
INVESTING IN EVIDENCE BASED
PROGRAMS SUCH AS MENTAL HEALTH
AND SUBSTANCE USE TREATMENT.
WHILE THE RESPONSIBILITIES FOR
CARRYING OUT PUBLIC SAFETY
REALIGNMENT LIE WITH THE
COUNTIES, THE STATE ALSO HAS AN
OBLIGATION TO ENSURE THAT THIS
HISTORIC POLICY IS BEING CARRIED
OUT EFFECTIVELY. SINCE
REALIGNMENT, THE JAIL POPULATION
HAS CHANGED DRAMATICALLY. AS HAS
BEEN MENTIONED, THE NUMBER OF
PEOPLE IN THE COUNTY JAIL WITH
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH NEEDS HAS MORE
THAN DOUBLED. NOW, MORE THAN
HALF OF THE COUNTY JAIL
POPULATION HAS BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
NEEDS MORE THAN A DECADE AFTER
REALIGNMENT, WE ARE FACING BOTH
A VERY DIFFERENT JAIL POPULATION
AND A VERY DIFFERENT BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH FUNDING LANDSCAPE WITH
REFORMS SUCH AS CALAIM AND MOST
RECENTLY, PROPOSITION ONE. AS A
RESULT, WE HAVE CRITICAL GAPS IN
INFORMATION, INCLUDING HOW
PUBLIC SAFETY REALIGNMENT IS
BEING SPENT OVERALL AND WHAT
AMOUNT IS GOING TO BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH SERVICES, HOW THESE
DOLLARS ARE OR COULD BE BRAIDED
WITH OTHER FUNDING SOURCES SUCH
AS USING IT TO DRAW DOWN FEDERAL
MATCHING FUNDS AND ULTIMATELY IN
LINE WITH THE ORIGINAL GOALS OF
PUBLIC SAFETY REALIGNMENT. HOW
INVESTING THESE DOLLARS CAN HELP
MEET THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH NEEDS
OF THE JAIL AND PROBATION
POPULATIONS IN ORDER TO REDUCE
RECIDIVISM. THIS BILL FILLS
THOSE INFORMATION GAPS WHILE
PRESERVING COUNTY INDEPENDENCE.
AB 2082 BRINGS MORE INFORMATION
TO THE TABLE SO THAT COUNTIES
CAN BEST LEVERAGE THEIR LOCAL
RESOURCES TO MEET THEIR LOCAL
NEEDS. IT DOES NOT DICTATE HOW
THEY SPEND THEIR DOLLARS.
IMPORTANTLY, AB 2882 ALSO GIVES
MORE INFORMATION TO THE STATE TO
MEET ITS OBLIGATION OF
UNDERSTANDING THE EFFECT OF THE
REFORM IT ENACTED WITH 1991 AND
2011 REALIGNMENT, THE STATE
SHIFTED SOME OF ITS ROLES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE
COUNTIES, BUT IT DIDN'T ABDICATE
ITS RIGHT OR DUTY TO MONITOR
THIS REFORM. OVER TIME. AB 2882
IS SIMILAR, THOUGH LESS
PRESCRIPTIVE, THAN EXISTING DATA
COLLECTION AND TRANSPARENCY
SYSTEMS. FOR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
AND SOCIAL SERVICE REALIGNMENT.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE CHILD WELFARE
INDICATORS PROJECT THAT LOOKS AT
THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM AB
2882, REPRESENTS MORE
INFORMATION SO THAT COUNTIES AND
THE STATE CAN ENSURE THEY ARE
MEETING THEIR SHARED GOALS UNDER
REALIGNMENT. RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU
.
HI EVERYONE. MY NAME IS MIA
BIRD. I'M AN ASSISTANT RESEARCH
PROFESSOR AT THE GOLDMAN SCHOOL
OF PUBLIC POLICY AT UC BERKELEY,
BEFORE COMING TO BERKELEY, I
SPENT ABOUT SEVEN YEARS AT THE
PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF
CALIFORNIA AS A RESEARCH FELLOW
AND WHILE I WAS AT PIK, I
CONDUCTED A LOT OF RESEARCH ON
THE EFFECTS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
REFORMS ON OUTCOMES IN
CALIFORNIA. TODAY, I WANT TO
TALK TO YOU ABOUT A COUPLE OF
THOSE STUDIES. SO ONE OF THE
PUBLIC SAFETY REALIGNMENT
STUDIES I COAUTHORED WITH REICH
AND GRITTY LOOKS AT THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HOW
COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS
PARTNERSHIPS ALLOCATED THEIR
REALIGNMENT FUNDS AND THE
RECIDIVISM OUTCOMES THEY
EXPERIENCED IN THOSE COUNTIES.
THE STUDY DREW ON THOSE FIRST
YEAR REALIGNMENT PLANS THAT WERE
SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD OF STATE
AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS, WHICH
INCLUDED ALL THE FUNDING
ALLOCATIONS BREAKDOWN. SO A LOT
OF REALLY RICH INFORMATION AS
WELL AS THE KINDS OF PROGRAMS
AND SERVICES THE COUNTIES PLAN
TO USE. SO WE CHARACTERIZE
COUNTIES USING THOSE PLANS AS
EITHER REENTRY FOCUSED OR LAW
ENFORCEMENT FOCUSED. AND WHAT WE
SAW IS THAT THOSE COUNTIES
CHARACTERIZED AS REENTRY
FOCUSED, ALLOCATED ABOUT TWO
TIMES THE AMOUNT OF FUNDS OR THE
SHARE OF THEIR BUDGET TO
PROGRAMS AND SERVICES. AND WHAT
THIS DID IS GIVE US AN
OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESS KIND OF
WHETHER THAT HAD ANY DIFFERENCE,
WHETHER THAT MADE ANY DIFFERENCE
IN OUTCOMES, HOW THEY ALLOCATED
THAT MONEY. AND WHAT WE FOUND IS
THAT PEOPLE WHO WERE RELEASED
FROM POST-RELEASE COMMUNITY
SUPERVISION, THOSE PRCS FOLKS,
WE WERE ABLE TO MATCH THOSE
RELEASED AFTER REALIGNMENT TO
VERY SIMILAR PEOPLE THAT WERE
RELEASED PRIOR TO REALIGNMENT.
AND THEN WE WERE ABLE TO LOOK AT
THE RECIDIVISM OUTCOMES
FOLLOWING REALIGNMENT AND
WHETHER THEY WERE DIFFERENT IN
THOSE REENTRY FOCUSED VERSUS
THOSE LAW ENFORCEMENT COUNTIES.
AND WHAT WE FOUND IS THAT THEY
WERE, IN FACT, DIFFERENT. WE
FOUND THAT RE-ARREST AND
RECONVICTION RATES WERE ABOUT
TWO PERCENTAGE POINTS LOWER FOR
THOSE INDIVIDUALS RELEASED TO
THOSE REENTRY FOCUSED COUNTIES.
SO THOSE COUNTIES THAT SPENT
MORE ON PROGRAMS AND SERVICES
HAD LOWER RE-ARREST AND
RECONVICTION RATES. AND WE DID
THIS ADJUSTING FOR ANY 15
SECONDS. Þ. Þ WRAP UP, WE DID
THIS ADJUSTING FOR ANY
DIFFERENCES IN CHARACTERISTICS
OVER TIME AND ACROSS COUNTIES.
SO I'LL JUST WRAP UP BY SAYING
THAT INFORMATION ON FUNDING IS
REALLY IMPORTANT TO ASSESSING
HOW WE CAN IMPROVE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE OUTCOMES, LOOKING AT
THOSE ALLOCATIONS AND LEARNING
FROM THEM OVER TIME A REALLY
IMPORTANT COMPONENT OF HOW WE
MAKE BETTER EVIDENCE BASED
PRACTICE. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
WE'RE GOING TO PAUSE FOR A
MINUTE. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE
ROLL. WE MIGHT HAVE A QUORUM
NOW. MAKATI ALANIS LACKEY NGUYEN
REYES, TING WILSON ZABIR IS
PRESENT. A QUORUM IS PRESENT.
WE'LL CONTINUE, ANYONE IN
SUPPORT? PLEASE COME UP. NAME AN
ORGANIZATION, PLEASE. DANICA
ADAMO, ON BEHALF OF A NIXON
SMART JUSTICE CALIFORNIA AND
SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING. MARGO.
GEORGE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, DILLON
ELLIOTT, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
PSYCHIATRISTS AND SUPPORT. GOOD
MORNING, GIA TI¾N WITH THE
CALIFORNIA CONSORTIUM OF
ADDICTION PROGRAMS AND
PROFESSIONALS IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. ANTHONY DEMARTINO, ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIANS FOR
SAFETY AND JUSTICE, PROUD TO
CO-SPONSOR. JIM LINDBERG,
FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION
IN CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. TRENT
MURPHY WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF ALCOHOL AND DRUG
PROGRAM EXECUTIVES AND SUPPORT.
KRISSHA RESENDEZ WITH THE CENTER
ON JUVENILE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
AND STRONG SUPPORT. ESTÁ NUNEZ
WITH THE ANTI-RECIDIVISM
COALITION IN STRONG SUPPORT.
GOOD MORNING, ROBERT BOWDEN FROM
LSPC. ALL OF US ARE NONE IN
SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING. THANK
YOU. ANYONE ELSE? OKAY.
OPPOSITION, PLEASE COME UP TO
THE TABLE. YOU HAVE FIVE
MINUTES.
ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT. WELL,
THANK YOU, CHAIR, COMMITTEE AND
STAFF, RYAN MAUMENEE WITH THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES. ALSO, ON BEHALF OF THE
URBAN COUNTIES OF CALIFORNIA,
RURAL COUNTY REPRESENTATIVES OF
CALIFORNIA, HERE IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION TO AB 28, 82 COUNTIES
ARE KEENLY AWARE OF THE RISING
BEHAVIORAL NEEDS WITHIN OUR
COMMUNITIES, WHICH INCLUDES THE
JUSTICE INVOLVED POPULATION, AND
HAVE LONG ADVOCATED FOR
ADDITIONAL AND SUSTAINABLE
FUNDING AND RESOURCES TO PREVENT
INDIVIDUALS FROM COMING INTO
CONTACT WITH THE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM. IN THE FIRST
PLACE, UNFORTUNATELY, WE ARE IN
OPPOSITION TO THE APPROACH AB
2882 IS TAKING, FOR COUNTIES.
THIS BILL CONFLATES THE LARGER
ISSUE OF BEHAVIORAL TREATMENT
WITH A SPECIFIC 2011 REALIGNMENT
POPULATION AND THE SUBSEQUENT
FUNDING STREAM GUARANTEED TO
COUNTIES PURSUANT TO AB 109,
THIS MEASURE APPEARS TO BE
TARGETED AT BEHAVIORAL TREATMENT
NEEDS, AS IF IT'S THE ONLY AND
PRIMARY APPROACH TO ALLEVIATE
ALL PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES. BUT
AGAIN, FOCUSES ON THE REALIGNED
POPULATION, WHICH IS ONLY A
SUBSET OF THOSE IN THE LOCAL
JURISDICTION, AND THEN LASTLY,
THIS BILL DOESN'T ACKNOWLEDGE
BOTH THE MULTIPLE SOURCES OF
REVENUE THAT COUNTIES. MUST
BRAID TO PROVIDE DIRECT
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES IN
AND OUTSIDE COUNTY FACILITIES.
NOR DOES A RECOGNIZED MAJOR
RECENT INITIATIVE THAT ARE AIMED
AT CAPTURING MUCH OF THIS DATA,
AND ALSO AIMED AT THE SAME
INTENDED GOAL. AND SO THIS
INCLUDES IMPLEMENTATION OF CARE
ACT CHALUM JUSTICE INVOLVED
INITIATIVE, OR MOST RECENTLY,
PROPOSITION ONE, WHICH ARE IN
THEIR INFANCY OR HAVE NOT BEGUN
YET, ULTIMATELY, COUNTIES ARE
STRUGGLING TO KEEP UP WITH ALL
THE MANDATES AND ANY ATTEMPTS TO
UNDO THE STRUCTURES GUARANTEED
THROUGH 2011 REALIGNMENT ONLY
MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS CORY
SALZILLO, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION, WITHOUT DENYING THE
ROLE THAT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
ISSUES PLAY, AND TREATMENT PLAY
IN REALIGNMENT OF THE OFFENDERS.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, THIS
BILL ALLEVIATES THESE MATTERS
AND THE ROLE OF NON-GOVERNMENTAL
ENTITIES WITHIN THE REALIGNMENT
CONTRACT CONSTRUCT AND LESSENS
THE FOCUS ON KEY PUBLIC SAFETY
DUTIES LIKE HOUSING AND
SUPERVISION. LET'S BE VERY
CLEAR. THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF
REALIGNMENT, AS TOLD TO YOU BY
THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SITTING UP
HERE WHO NEGOTIATED AND WORKED
ON AND HAVE LIVED UNDER
REALIGNMENT FOR THE BETTER PART
OF 13 YEARS, WAS TO SHIFT THE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR OFFENDERS
FROM STATE SYSTEMS TO THE
COUNTIES AND PROVIDE FUNDING FOR
THOSE KEY TASKS. AND WHILE THIS
BILL PERHAPS DOESN'T MOVE
FUNDING DIRECTLY, THIS CLEARLY
SETS THE STAGE TO REDIRECT MONEY
PROMISED FOR CUSTODIAL AND
SUPERVISORIAL DUTIES TO OTHER
PURPOSES. THE BILL AND THIS
METHODS CONTINUE THE STATE'S
LONG AND FRUSTRATING TRADITION
OF SADDLING COUNTIES WITH FORMER
STATE RESPONSIBILITIES WHILE
TRYING TO MAINTAIN STRICT
CONTROL OVER HOW COUNTIES
IMPLEMENT THE SYSTEMS FOR WHICH
THE STATE HAS SEEN FIT TO
RELINQUISH LIABILITY. IF WE WANT
TO TALK ABOUT ALTERNATIVES OR
WHAT WE NEED TO DO IN THIS
SPACE, THEN MAYBE WE SHOULD TALK
ABOUT OTHER ALTERNATIVES. MAYBE
WE SHOULD TALK ABOUT SENDING
SOME OF THESE FOLKS BACK TO
STATE CARE. THE PRISONS ARE AT
HISTORICALLY LOW POPULATION
RATES. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT
THAT. I KNOW THIS IS ONE BILL,
BUT I THINK WE OUGHT TO HAVE A
REALISTIC RECKONING OF WHAT'S AT
BAR HERE, AS LONG AS COUNTIES,
THOUGH, ARE OBLIGATED TO SERVE
THESE POPULATIONS, ANY EFFORT TO
REDIRECT FUNDS OR TO SET THE
STAGE, THEREFORE, TO REDIRECT
CONTROL, OVERSIGHT, EVEN FOR
PURSUITS AS WORTHY AS IMPROVING
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH OUTCOMES,
IGNORES THE ORIGINAL PURPOSE OF
REALIGNMENT AND THREATENED
PUBLIC SAFETY. GOOD MORNING,
DANIEL SANCHEZ, ON BEHALF OF THE
CHIEF PROBATION OFFICERS OF
CALIFORNIA, RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION TODAY, AND I
APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATIONS
WITH THE MEMBER THUS FAR. THE
ORGANIZATIONS REPRESENTED HERE,
HERE DO SO WITH OUR FIRST HAND
EXPERIENCE OF HAVING SAT WITH
THE STATE, IN TALKING THROUGH
WHAT THIS MASSIVE REALIGNMENT OF
THIS SCOPE WOULD LOOK LIKE AND
WHAT THOSE IMPACTS WOULD BE FOR
PUBLIC SAFETY AND HOW WE BRING
TOGETHER THE LOCALLY RESPONSIVE
RESOURCES NEEDED TO BEST SERVE
THAT POPULATION, THE CHANGES IN
THE CCP MEMBERSHIP PROPOSED IN
THIS BILL, COUPLED WITH THE
CHANGES TO THE PLANS AS WELL AS
THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS, DOES
IN FACT REPRESENT A REDIRECTION
OF PUBLIC SAFETY PLANNING AND
FUNDING THE POPULATION IN WHICH
THE CCP DEVELOPED PLANS FOR
REQUIRES LOCALLY RESPONSIVE,
MULTI-DIMENSIONAL APPROACHES
THAT HAVE TO LOOK AT TREATMENT
AND RESOURCES, AS WELL AS SAFETY
, RISK, CRIMINOGENIC FACTORS,
AND COURT ORDERS TO BALANCE THAT
ACCOUNTABILITY AND
REHABILITATION. ALL OF THESE
FACTORS, IN ADDITION TO
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, IMPACT OUR
ABILITY TO SUPERVISE THESE
POPULATIONS SAFELY AND
SUCCESSFULLY. REPURPOSING THIS
PLANNING PROCESS WILL HAVE THE
IMPACT OF SUBORDINATING PUBLIC
SAFETY TO ONE OF ONLY MANY OF
THE REALIGNED, NEED IS THE ROLE
OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH IS NOT LOST
IN THE FOCUS IN THE JUSTICE
INVOLVED POPULATIONS. WE SERVE
THOSE COLLABORATIVE APPROACHES
ALREADY EXIST AND ARE HAPPENING
LOCALLY, BUT IT'S IMPORTANT TO
RECOGNIZE THAT THE BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH NEEDS OF THE JUSTICE
INVOLVED POPULATION IS ALSO NOT
SINGULARLY CONTAINED IN THE CCP.
FUNDING OR PLANNING, SO WE
REMAIN COMMITTED TO DEVELOPING
LOCAL PLANS THAT ADDRESS ALL OF
THESE MULTITUDE OF SAFETY,
TREATMENT AND REHABILITATIVE
NEEDS. BUT WE MUST NOT DO SO AND
MUST NOT ERODE ONE SERVICE
DELIVERY ASPECT TO MEET ANOTHER.
FOR THOSE REASONS, WE URGE YOUR
NO VOTE TODAY. THAT WAS EXACTLY
FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU GUYS,
ANYONE ELSE IN OPPOSITION,
PLEASE COME FORWARD. NAME AND
ASSOCIATION. ALL RIGHT. SEEING
NONE, WE'LL BRING IT TO THE
COMMITTEE. COMMITTEE? ANY
QUESTIONS? MISS REYES? IT
APPEARS THAT THE BIG ISSUE IS
BRINGING IN MORE PEOPLE,
SPECIFICALLY ON MENTAL HEALTH
AND THE OPPOSITION HAS TO DO
WITH THE REDIRECTING OF THE
FUNDING TO BRING THESE PEOPLE
IN. IS THAT MY UNDERSTANDING,
THROUGH THE CHAIR. MA'AM, THE
BILL FOCUSES ON DISCUSSIONS
ABOUT PLANNING AND WHO'S ON THE
CCP. THE CHALLENGE IS THAT, IT'S
HARD TO IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE
THERE'S ANY GOAL HERE OTHER THAN
WHAT SOME OF THE PROPONENTS HAVE
HAVE WRITTEN ABOUT IN A RECENT
REPORT THAT SAYS WE NEED TO PUT
MORE MONEY INTO BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH. SO WE'RE NOT WE DON'T
DISAGREE WITH THE IMPORTANCE OF
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AND TREATING
SUCH, THE CHALLENGE IS IT'S NOT
JUST AS EASY AS SAYING WE NEED
TO FOCUS MORE ON BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH. THE FUNDING STREAMS THAT
HAVE BEEN WRAPPED UP IN THIS
WERE CAREFULLY CRAFTED OVER
MONTHS, IF NOT YEARS, THERE IS A
VERY TRANSPARENT LOCAL PROCESS,
AND THIS JUST SETS THE STAGE AND
I HATE TO USE I WOULD SAY THIS
IS NOT A SLIPPERY SLOPE
ARGUMENT, BUT IT'S THERE'S NO
OTHER WAY THIS CAN GO. IN OUR
OPINION. YEAH. I THINK THAT THE
CRUX OF IT IS, IS JUST THAT IS
THIS BILL IS REALLY ABOUT
REPORTING OVERSIGHT, GOAL
SETTING AND PLANNING. AND THE
FEAR IS WHAT THE NEXT BILL COULD
BE. BUT THAT'S NOT THE BILL HERE
TODAY. THAT'S THE HYPOTHETICAL
DOWN THE ROAD. WE JUST WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE AN EYES WIDE
OPEN LOOK AT WHAT WE'RE DOING,
WHAT WE'RE SPENDING, AND GOALS
AND OUTCOMES. AND THEN, YOU
KNOW, FUTURE LEGISLATURES CAN
DISCUSS WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DO
NEXT. BUT IT'S ONE BILL AT A
TIME. MR. REYES, DO YOU HAVE ANY
OTHER. THANK YOU. OKAY MR.
NGUYEN THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. SO
JUST TO CLARIFY IN BOTH TO THE
AUTHOR AND TO THE OPPOSITION,
THIS IS REALLY JUST A REPORT.
THERE IS IN NO WAY FUNDING BEING
TAKEN AWAY FROM PUBLIC SAFETY.
IT'S MORE OF JUST A REPORT OUT
TO SEE WHERE WE CAN POSSIBLY
MAKE SOME CHANGES, ADD TO TAKE.
AWAY OR WHATNOT. BUT NO WAY.
TAKING MONEY AWAY FROM PUBLIC
SAFETY, CORRECT? IF THERE EVER
ARE CHANGES, IT WOULD COME BACK
IN ANOTHER BILL, ANOTHER STATE
BUDGET. YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE
FIRST STEP TO TAKE AN EYES WIDE
OPEN LOOK AT THIS SYSTEM. IT
WHAT IT'S DOING, WHAT IT'S
POTENTIALLY LACKING RELATED TO
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AND MOVE
FORWARD FROM THERE. AND THROUGH
THE CHAIR I WOULD JUST SAY I
MEAN, I'LL JUST I'LL SAY TWO
THINGS. ONE, THE PROPONENTS ARE
ASKING FOR MORE DATA, BUT THEY
SEEM TO THINK THEY ALREADY HAVE
A LOT OF DATA TO MAKE THE CASE.
AND THEY CITED A BUNCH OF
STATISTICS IN THEIR OPEN AND
TWO, I WILL JUST READ YOU FROM
THE SPONSORS REPORT A
RECOMMENDATION MANDATING A
PERCENTAGE OF PUBLIC SAFETY
REALIGNMENT FUNDING BE ALLOCATED
TO BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CARE IN
LIGHT OF THE GROWING BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH NEEDS OF CALIFORNIA'S
INCARCERATED POPULATION AND TO
ALIGN WITH THE ORIGINAL INTENT
OF THE LEGISLATION, COUNTIES
SHOULD INCREASE FUNDING FOR
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH. THAT'S THEIR
REPORT. SORRY. ONE MORE
QUESTION. SO ONE OF THE AREAS
WHERE I KIND OF DO TAKE A BIT OF
A PAUSE IS THAT I WANT TO MAKE
SURE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE IN THE
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH WORLD, BECAUSE
THEY'RE WORKING WITH A DIFFERENT
TYPE OF POPULATION, AND THAT THE
TRAINING, THE COLLABORATION, THE
PARTNERSHIP WOULD BE THERE, FROM
FROM WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT
THE PROPOSED IS THAT THIS WOULD
THEN GO TO OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
TO DO THE WORK, TO DO THE MENTAL
HEALTH. IS THAT WHAT I'M
HEARING? BECAUSE JUST BASED OFF
OF WHAT HE READ. YEAH. THANK YOU
FOR THE QUESTION, THE OPPOSITION
RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT
FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGING THE CCP
MAKEUP. IT ADDS TWO ROLES TO THE
KIND OF BROADER ADVISORY BODY
WHICH ARE THE MANAGED CARE PLANS
THAT DO ENHANCED CARE MANAGEMENT
UNDER CALAIM, WHICH PROVIDES
SERVICES TO PEOPLE IN THE JAIL
AND PROBATION POPULATION SO THAT
THEY CAN WORK WITH THE PUBLIC
SAFETY PARTNERS TO MAKE SURE
THAT THEY'RE LEVERAGING
AVAILABLE DOLLARS, AS WELL AS
CBOS WHO DO THESE SERVICES. FOR
THE SAME REASON, THE VOTING
CHANGES ON THE COMMITTEE ARE, IT
ONLY GIVES MORE OF THE SAME
PEOPLE WHO ARE ALREADY THERE
VOTES. RIGHT NOW, THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS CAN CHOOSE WHETHER
THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
SERVICES, MENTAL HEALTH OR SUD
CAN GET A VOTE. THIS WOULD JUST
ALLOW ALL THREE THERE ALREADY
THE EXISTING PARTNERS, BUT THE
COUNTIES WOULD MAINTAIN ALL OF
THE DISCRETION TO CRAFT THEIR
OWN FINANCING PLANS. THEY DON'T
HAVE TO MAKE ANY CHANGES, BUT
JUST REPORT OUT ON HOW THEY'RE
SPENDING THEIR MONEY AND HOW
THEY'RE REDUCING RECIDIVISM. IF
THEIR DAILY JAIL POPULATION IS
GOING DOWN AND WHAT THE
CONNECTIONS TO CARE ARE. SO IT'S
NOT TAKING AWAY WORK FROM OUR
OFFICERS. IT'S NOT ELIMINATING
OFFICERS TAKING AWAY THEIR JOBS,
THEIR POSITIONS IN A WAY, IT'S
MORE OF A PARTNERSHIP AND
COLLABORATION. YES. ADDED ADDED
I, THE WAY I SEE IT, IT ADDED
VALUE ADDED SERVICES, ADDED
RESOURCES. YEAH MAN. THROUGH THE
CHAIR. YEAH. THANK YOU, SO WHILE
A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE IS NOT
CODIFIED OR GUARANTEED, I THINK,
YOU KNOW, WE DO NEED TO PAY
ATTENTION TO THE CLEAR
COMPOSITION CHANGES AND THE
CHAIR OF, IT ENSURES THAT A
CHAIR IS ALSO A COMMUNITY BASED
REPRESENTATIVE, WHICH, AS
CURRENT LAW STANDS, IS THE CHIEF
PROBATION OFFICER WHO IS HELD
ACCOUNTABLE, WHO IS HELD
RESPONSIBLE BY BOTH OUR LOCAL
COUNTY BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS AND
THE PUBLIC. SO I WOULD LIKE TO
NOTE THAT, YEAH, YEAH, I JUST I
WOULD, ECHO THAT STATEMENT AND,
AND I THINK THE KEY PIECES ARE
THE REPURPOSING AND
REPRIORITISATION. SO WHILE THE
BILL MAYBE DOES NOT DIRECTLY SAY
A CERTAIN NUMBER OF DOLLARS WILL
MOVE, IT DOES CHANGE THE MAKEUP
OF THE COMMITTEE AND THE VOTING
MEMBERS. IT MAKES CHANGES TO
WHAT THE GOALS OF REALIGNMENT
ARE. SO IT SHIFTS THAT FROM WHAT
WAS DEVELOPED IN 2011 AND THEN
IT, YOU KNOW, CHANGES SOME OF
THE REPORTING. BUT I THINK THOSE
THINGS KIND OF COMBINED CREATE
THE SCENARIO THAT THIS THIS DOES
REPRESENT AN ACTUAL
REPRIORITISATION OF WHAT THE
ORIGINAL 2011 REALIGNMENT, WAS
CREATED FOR GOOD. YEAH. OKAY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM
COMMITTEE? OKAY. MOVING A
SECOND, YOU MAY CLOSE. THANK
YOU. RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
AYE VOTE. ALL RIGHT. PLEASE TAKE
THE ROLL ON AB 2882 BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER MCCARTY. THE
MOTION IS DUE. PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY MCCARTY I ALANIS NOT
VOTING. ALANIS NOT VOTING.
LACKEY. NGUYEN I NGUYEN I REYES
REYES I TING WILSON ON THE BR
ZIPPER I. THAT MAJOR IS ON CALL.
NEEDS ONE MORE VOTE. WE'LL LET
YOU KNOW.
OKAY.
GREAT. OKAY, MISS. THE MISS
DIXON, LEAVE. THERE SHE IS. MISS
DIXON, ITEM NUMBER THREE. AB
1896.
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND.
MEMBERS. THANK YOU. I'M HERE
TODAY TO PRESENT ASSEMBLY BILL
1896 1898. AB 1896 WERE REMOVED.
THE REQUIREMENT THAT A JUVENILE
IS TRIGGERING OFFENSE,
QUALIFYING THEM TO BE COMMITTED
TO A SECURE YOUTH TREATMENT
FACILITY MUST BE THE MOST RECENT
OFFENSE FOR WHICH THE JUVENILE
HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED. I
INTRODUCED THIS BILL LAST YEAR
AS AB 1582. THE SPONSOR AND I
HAVE WORKED DILIGENTLY WITH
STAKEHOLDERS AND COMMITTEE STAFF
TO ADDRESS CONCERNS. JUDGES
SHOULD HAVE THE PERSPECTIVE OF
THE INDIVIDUAL'S WHOLE RECORD,
NOT JUST THE LAST CRIME
COMMITTED. AB 1582 ALLOWS JUDGES
FLEXIBILITY IN THEIR DISPOSITION
TO TAILOR THE OUTCOME TO BEST
FIT THE NEED OF THE JUVENILE TO
HAVE THE HIGHEST CHANCE OF BEING
REHABILITATED. WE HAVE MADE IT A
GOAL IN CALIFORNIA TO REFORM THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM TO FOCUS
ON REHABILITATION. HOWEVER, THIS
HAS NOT BEEN TRUE FOR JUVENILES.
JUDGES SHOULD HAVE PERSPECTIVE
OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S WHOLE
RECORD, NOT JUST THE LAST CRIME
COMMITTED, IN ORDER TO MORE
FULLY CONSIDER THE JUVENILES
REHABILITATION NEEDS. AB 1582 IS
NEEDED TO GET TO THE TRUE INTENT
OF SB 82 THREE, WHICH IS
FOSTERING WHICH IS FOSTERING
POSITIVE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT,
PROMOTING PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY
SAFETY, AND OFFERING FAIR AND
FLEXIBLE TERMS OF COMMITMENT.
JUDGES SHOULD HAVE THE
PERSPECTIVE OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S
WHOLE RECORD, NOT JUST THE LAST
CRIME COMMITTED. AB 1582 ALLEGES
JUDGES FLEXIBILITY OF THEIR
DISPOSITION. OH, I THINK THAT'S
A REPEAT. SO EXCUSE ME. MY
PRIMARY WITNESS TO SPEAK IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL IS JOE CARR
WITH THE ORANGE COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE,
YOU MAY SPEAK. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, ASSEMBLYWOMAN, AND THANK
YOU. COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS JOE
KOEHLER, AND I AM AN ORANGE
COUNTY DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY.
I'VE BEEN A PROSECUTOR FOR 13
YEARS AND SPECIALIZED IN
JUVENILE LAW FOR OVER HALF OF MY
CAREER. ON BEHALF OF ORANGE
COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY TODD
SPITZER, I ASK YOU FOR YOUR YES
VOTE TODAY. I FIRST APPEARED
BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE IN APRIL
OF 2023, ASKING YOU TO VOTE YES
ON AB 1582 TO REMOVE 875 A2 FROM
THE WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS
CODE. IN THAT TESTIMONY, I
HIGHLIGHTED HOW THE EXISTING
WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE
HAS AN IRRECONCILABLE CONFLICT
WITH THE REHABILITATION OF
YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS. THE
MEANINGFUL ADJUDICATION OF
CRIMINAL CONDUCT, VICTIMS RIGHTS
AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS
STATE. AT THAT TIME, THE BILL
RECEIVED TWO YES VOTES, WITH THE
BALANCE ABSTAINING. FOLLOWING
THAT HEARING, I MET WITH AND
ENGAGED IN COMPREHENSIVE DIALOG
WITH THOSE IN OPPOSITION TO. THE
ORIGINAL BILL WAS BEFORE THIS
COMMITTEE. TODAY IS A
COLLABORATIVE EFFORT AMONGST
JUVENILE JUSTICE STAKEHOLDERS.
AB 1896 NO LONGER SEEKS TO
REMOVE 875 A2 FROM THE WELFARE
AND INSTITUTIONS CODE, RATHER,
IT ATTEMPTS TO EXPAND THE CODE
RELATED TO YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS.
COMMITMENT CRITERIA AND
ELIGIBILITY. DOING SO PRESERVES
THE PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS
COVETED BY THE ORIGINAL BILL'S
OPPONENTS, BUT IT ALSO ALLOWS
FOR THE MEANINGFUL ADJUDICATION
OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT, WHICH
COMPORTS WITH PROSECUTORS
ETHICAL OBLIGATIONS AND THE
CONSTITUTION OF THIS GREAT
STATE. THE ADDITION OF 875 SUB B
SUB THREE TO THE WELFARE AND
INSTITUTIONS CODE RECONCILES THE
ROADBLOCK OF 875 A2 BY CODIFYING
THAT SUBSEQUENT ADJUDICATIONS OF
YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS WILL NOT
INTERFERE WITH THEIR CURRENT
CITF COMMITMENT. IT REINFORCES
EXISTING LAW RELATED TO A
MINOR'S BASELINE PERIOD OF
COMMITMENT AND LOCAL RULE OF
COURT. 5.806, AND OF GREAT
IMPORTANCE TO PROSECUTORS,
VICTIMS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS
WRIT LARGE. IT ALLOWS FOR THE
MEANINGFUL RESOLUTION OF
SUBSEQUENTLY ADJUDICATED
PETITIONS. A FAILURE TO TAKE
THIS ACTION WILL HAVE THE
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, IN MY
OPINION, OF NEGATIVELY IMPACTING
CALIFORNIA'S YOUTH. IT WILL
PROMOTE NET WIDENING AND
JUVENILE TRANSFER MOTIONS. IT
WILL PREVENT THE MEANINGFUL AND
SUCCESSFUL REHABILITATION
EFFORTS IN OUR JUVENILE JUSTICE
SYSTEM, AND WILL NEGATIVELY
IMPACT THE VICTIMS OF CRIME.
CURRENT LAW IS INTENDED TO
PREVENT COMMITMENTS TO SECURE
YOUTH TREATMENT FACILITIES ON
STALE OR PREVIOUS JUVENILE
ADJUDICATIONS, BUT IT SHOULD NOT
BE UTILIZED AS A FUNCTION TO
TURN A BLIND EYE TO CRIMINAL
CONDUCT, WHICH HAS LASTING
IMPACTS. EXISTING LAW INTERFERES
WITH THE ADJUDICATION OF
UNSOLVED CRIMES AND DOES NOT
ALLOW FOR THE RESOLUTION OF
CRIMINAL CONDUCT COMMITTED WHILE
A YOUTH IS AT A SECURE YOUTH
TREATMENT FACILITY. UNDER THE
EXISTING LAW, SHOULD PROSECUTORS
ELECT TO FILE AND ADJUDICATE NEW
PETITIONS FOLLOWING A YOUTH'S
COMMITMENT TO AN CITF THAT
MINORS POTENTIALLY NO LONGER
ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUED
COMMITMENT TO THE ONLY FACILITY
A COURT HAS DEEMED APPROPRIATE
FOR THAT YOUTH AND THEIR
REHABILITATION. THOSE IN
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL HAVE
STATED THAT THEY ARE UNAWARE OF
A JUVENILE BEING EXPELLED FROM
CITF ON THE BASIS OF NEW
PETITIONS, BUT I CAN ASSURE YOU
IT HAS HAPPENED ACROSS THE STATE
AND GOES INTO THE CALCULUS OF
EVERY PROSECUTOR'S FILING
DECISION. THOSE IN OPPOSITION TO
THIS BILL HAVE STATED
PROSECUTORS SHOULD SIMPLY
DISMISS CASES IN ORDER TO
PRESERVE A YOUTH'S COMMITMENT TO
CITF. I HAVE HAD TO DO THAT AS
WELL. BUT WHERE'S THE JUSTICE
FOR THE COMMUNITIES THAT YOU ALL
SERVE IN THAT RESULT? THE CASE,
THE CASES THAT I'M REFERRING TO
ARE NOT LIMITED TO LOW LEVEL
MISDEMEANOR BEHAVIORS OR
INSTITUTIONAL RULES VIOLATIONS.
THEY CAN INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT
LIMITED TO RESIDENTIAL
BURGLARIES, GRAND THEFTS,
POSSESSION OF FIREARMS, SEXUAL
BATTERY, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE,
CHILD ABUSE, SALES OF NARCOTICS,
AND ASSAULT WITH DEADLY WEAPONS.
THE RESOLUTION OF THESE CASES
AND VICTIMS RIGHTS SHOULD NOT BE
WEIGHED AGAINST WHERE A YOUTHFUL
OFFENDER IS BEING REHABILITATED.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD
OPERATE A JUVENILE JUSTICE
SYSTEM WHERE THE MEANINGFUL
REHABILITATION OF A YOUTH CANNOT
BE RECONCILED WITH THE
PRESERVATION OF VICTIMS RIGHTS.
IF APPROVED, AB 1896 WOULD
FURTHER THE GOALS OF THE
JUVENILE JUSTICE REHABILITATION
SYSTEM BY MAINTAINING A YOUTH'S
CONTINUITY OF SERVICES. IT WILL
REDUCE NET WIDENING AND PRESERVE
THE RIGHTS OF VICTIMS OF CRIME.
IMPORTANTLY, THE SIGNIFICANT
AMENDMENTS TWO 1582, PRESENTED
IN 1896, ARTICULATE THAT YOUTH'S
WILL NOT SEE THEIR BASELINE
PERIOD OF COMMITMENTS INCREASE.
IT WILL NOT INCREASE THE NUMBER
OF YOUTH COMMITTED TO CITY F,
AND IT WILL NOT PROMOTE NET
WIDENING FOR THESE REASONS, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU FOR YOUR
YES VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT? PLEASE
STEP UP. NAME AND ASSOCIATION.
THANK YOU. FOR. GOOD MORNING,
CINDY DA SILVA. ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
ASSOCIATION, IN SUPPORT. ALL
RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE? OKAY? ANYONE
IN OPPOSITION? PLEASE COME UP TO
THE TABLE. I DON'T KNOW IF I
HAVE ENOUGH CHAIRS FOR THAT.
YOU'RE ALL GONNA HAVE TO SHARE
FIVE MINUTES. DO WE HAVE 4
MINUTES OR 5 MINUTES? YOU HAVE
FIVE MINUTES. OKAY. THANK YOU.
GO AHEAD. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. I'M GRECIA RESENDEZ
WITH THE CENTER ON JUVENILE AND
CRIMINAL JUSTICE CJ HERE ARE IN
OPPOSITION OF AB 1896. THIS BILL
WILL UNDO SOUND PRECEDENT THAT
DISALLOWS NEW CHARGES TO BE
FILED FOR MINOR 707 B OFFENSES
FOR MINOR NON 707 B OFFENSES. IT
WILL ENTRENCH YOUTH DEEPER IN
THE JUSTICE SYSTEM,
CONTRADICTING JUVENILE
REALIGNMENT. IT PUNISHES YOUTH
FOR RESPONDING TO CONFINEMENT
AND TRAUMATIC LIVING CONDITIONS.
CDJC HAS INVESTIGATED THESE
INHUMANE CONDITIONS AT A
NATIONAL, STATE AND COUNTY LEVEL
. WE HELP ORGANIZE STATEWIDE
NETWORKS TO ADDRESS OUR SERIOUS
CONCERNS ABOUT SAFETY AND CITY
AND JUVENILE HALLS. OUR YOUTH
JUSTICE SYSTEM IS DEEPLY
SHIFTING FROM DECADES RELIANCE
ON DJJ TO A COUNTY BASED
COMMITMENTS IN CITF. THESE
FACILITIES ARE MEANT TO BE
TRAUMA INFORMED AND
REHABILITATIVE. INSTEAD, WE ARE
SEEING PROBLEMS GIVEN THIS RAPID
SHIFT AND EVERY COUNTY THAT
CREATED AN CITF PLACED THEM IN
THEIR JUVENILE HALLS, WHICH ARE
PRISON LIKE AND ARE NOT MEANT
FOR LONG TIME COMMITMENTS, CITF
SHOULD BE PROVIDING INTENSIVE
PROGRAMS AND SERVICES, BUT THEY
ARE NOT. THEY HAVE SIMPLY BECOME
A PLACE WHERE YOUTH ARE DOING
TIME, AND MANY FACILITIES ARE
EXPERIENCING STAFF CALL OUTS AND
VACANCIES AND YOUTH PAY THE
PRICE BY SUFFERING LONG PERIODS
OF ISOLATION. THIS BACKGROUND IS
RELEVANT AS ONE OF OUR PRIMARY
CONCERNS OF AB 1896 IS THAT IT
PROVIDES THE PROSECUTION AN
ABILITY TO FILE CHARGES FOR
BEHAVIORS IN THE HALLS THAT ARE
OFTEN CLOSELY LINKED TO SIDES TO
, CLOSELY LINKED TO LIFE INSIDE
THESE FACILITIES. THESE YOUTH
WILL BE PUNISHED FOR RESPONDING
TO INHUMANE LIVING CONDITIONS.
AND NOW, MORE THAN EVER, YOUTH
NEED THOSE SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE
AS LAST AS LOS ANGELES JUVENILE
HALLS MAKE THE NEWS FOR
HORRENDOUS LIVING CONDITIONS. I
AM HERE TO LET YOU KNOW THAT
THEY ARE NOT UNIQUE. I AM IN
CONSTANT COMMUNICATION WITH
PARTNERS ACROSS THE STATE, AND
WE ARE DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT
THE CONDITIONS INSIDE ALL CITF
FACILITIES AND FOR THAT KXJZ AND
STRONG OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS
ALEJANDRA GUTIERREZ. I'M A
POLICY ATTORNEY WITH THE
NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW,
AND I'M HERE TESTIFYING TODAY IN
STRONG OPPOSITION TO AB 1896, AB
1896 WILL CAUSE HARM TO YOUTH
AND SECURE YOUTH TREATMENT
FACILITIES, ALSO KNOWN AS CITF,
BY ENCOURAGING PROSECUTORS TO
FILE CHARGES AGAINST YOUTH FOR
IN-CUSTODY BEHAVIORS. WHEN THE
LEGISLATURE PASSED SB 92 AND
2021, IT EXPRESSED A CLEAR
PREFERENCE IN WELFARE AND
INSTITUTIONS CODE SECTION 875 Â
TWO THAT IN CUSTODY BEHAVIORS
AND INFRACTIONS THAT DO NOT RISE
TO THE LEVEL OF 707 B OFFENSES
SHALL BE ADDRESSED BY
ALTERNATIVE MEANS. THE
LEGISLATOR MADE CLEAR THAT THEY
SHOULD BE RESOLVED THROUGH
PROBATIONS INTERNAL DISCIPLINARY
PROCESSES AND BY A JUDGE THROUGH
THE STATUTORY SIX MONTH COURT
REVIEW PROCESS. AB 1896 WOULD BE
A GIANT STEP BACKWARD BECAUSE IT
WOULD AUTHORIZE PROSECUTORS TO
FILE CHARGES BASED ON LOW LEVEL
BEHAVIORS. THIS WAS NOT
PERMITTED WHEN THE DIVISION OF
JUVENILE JUSTICE WAS OPENED, AND
IT SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED NOW.
HOW THE LEGISLATURE GOT IT RIGHT
IN 2021. LOW LEVEL BEHAVIORS
SHOULD BE ADDRESSED IN
RESTORATIVE WAYS THAT ADVANCES A
YOUTH'S REHABILITATION. RECENT
AMENDMENTS STATE THAT PRIOR TO
FILING A CRIMINAL CHARGE BASED
ON IN-CUSTODY CONDUCT, THE
PROSECUTION MAY CONSIDER THE
EXTENT TO WHICH THE CONDUCT IS A
MANIFESTATION OF THE NEEDS FOR
WHICH THE YOUTH IS AN CITF, AND
THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE CONDUCT
IS RELATED TO THE NATURE OF THE
IN-CUSTODY ENVIRONMENT.
CONSIDERATION OF THESE FACTORS
BY PROSECUTORS SHOULD BE
MANDATORY, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE
IN CUSTODY ENVIRONMENTS
FREQUENTLY ARE NOT HEALTHY,
SAFE, OR CONDUCIVE TO TRUE
REHABILITATION. THE LEGISLATIVE
INTENT OF REALIGNMENT CAN ONLY
BE PRESERVED IF PROSECUTORS ARE
REQUIRED TO CONSIDER THESE
FACTORS. WE STAND WITH OTHER
ADVOCATES WHO ARE OPPOSED TO
CHANGING THE LONG STANDING RULE
THAT DISALLOWS FURTHER
PROSECUTION OF YOUTH FOR MINOR
BEHAVIORS, WHILE INSECURE YOUTH
TREATMENT FACILITIES. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE IN
OPPOSITION? PLEASE STEP UP. NAME
AN ORGANIZATION. MISTER LACKEY,
YOU MOVE TO BILL A MOTION TO
MOVE A MOTION TO MOVE THE BILL.
COPY. MOVE THE BILL. YOU CAN GO
AND COME UP. NOTED I'LL SECOND
THAT. ROBERT BOULTON, ON BEHALF
OF LSPC. ALL OF US ARE NONE.
STRONGLY. OPPOSITION AMELIA
ROGERS, ELLA BAKER, CENTER FOR
HUMAN RIGHTS, STRONG OPPOSITION.
DANICA. RADAMEL ON BEHALF OF
INITIATE JUSTICE AND LAW DEFENSE
IN OPPOSITION, FELIPE KELLY WITH
THE ELLA BAKER CENTER IN STRONG
OPPOSITION. ANA RAMIREZ AND
BEHALF OF SILICON VALLEY DEBUG
ALSO IN STRONG OPPOSITION. ELLA
CORTEZ WITH SILICON VALLEY
DEBUGS STRONG OPPOSITION. MARGO
GEORGE, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION, IN OPPOSITION,
THANK YOU. SERIOUS COURSE. I
WITH SILICON VALLEY DEBUG IN SAN
MATEO COUNTY. PARTICIPATORY
DEFENSE AND STRONG OPPOSITION.
FOR MANHUNTER, SILICON VALLEY
DEBUG AND STRONG OPPOSITION. Dð
COUNY ON BEHALF OF ACLU
CALIFORNIA ACTION IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. MELISSA WITH SILICON
VALLEY DEBUG AND CALIFORNIA
FAMILIES AGAINST SOLITARY
CONFINEMENT IN STRONG OPPOSITION
. MY NAME IS KERRY ARZATE. I'M
SYSTEM IMPACTED AND I'M A
DIRECTOR WITH PRISON FROM THE
INSIDE OUT. AND I STRONGLY
OPPOSE THIS BILL. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. GOOD MORNING. ALICIA
MONTEIRO. CALIFORNIANS UNITED
FOR RESPONSIBLE BUDGET AND
STRONG OPPOSITION. RAYMOND GÓMEZ
WITH SILICON WITH SILICON VALLEY
DEBUG SYSTEM IMPACTED. AND I NOW
HAVE STRONG OPPOSITION. LORI
VALDEZ WITH SILICON VALLEY DEBUG
STRONG OPPOSITION ON. ALICIA
CHÁVEZ WITH SILICON VALLEY DEBUG
AND WE OPPOSE THIS BILL. RAJIV
WITH SILICON VALLEY DEBUG AND
STRONG OPPOSITION OF THIS BILL.
SHARON WATKINS FROM SILICON
VALLEY DEBUG STRONG OPPOSITION.
CHERISE DOMINGO WITH SILICON
VALLEY DEBUG AND THE CALIFORNIA
PARTICIPATORY DEFENSE NETWORK IN
STRONG OPPOSITION OF THIS BILL.
MELANIE KIM, SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE IN
OPPOSITION. LINA DINH LSPC IN
STRONG POSITION OF THIS BILL.
IGNACIO HERNANDEZ, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS FOR
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHERS OUTSIDE
WAITING FOR OPPOSITION? GOOD.
THANK YOU. COMMITTEE QUESTIONS.
MR. ZUBIATE. SO, THANK YOU FOR
COMING TODAY. I'M SORT OF
PERPLEXED BY WHAT IS DRIVING THE
NEED FOR THIS BILL. YOU KNOW, I
THINK YOU SAID THAT YOU HAVE
TAKEN AMENDMENTS THAT RESULT IN
NO INCREASE IN THE PERIOD OF
CONFINEMENT, THE PURPOSE OF THE
CONFINEMENT IS ABOUT
REHABILITATION. THE CURRENT
SYSTEM ALREADY HAS GOALS AND
PROCEDURES IN PLACE TO, REVIEW
BEHAVIOR TO AND DEAL WITH IT IN
THE FACILITY. THESE ARE LESS
MINOR, CONDUCT THAN WHAT THEY
WERE CONFINED TO THE FACILITY
FOR. SO WHAT'S THE WHOLE POINT
OF THIS? IS IT JUST TO CONTINUE
TO HAVE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
THESE YOUTH IN THE FACILITY? I
DON'T I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT'S
DRIVING THIS. LET ME DEFER TO MY
WITNESS. GO AHEAD SIR. THANK
YOU. ASSEMBLYWOMAN, IN
ADDRESSING THAT ISSUE, I WOULD
LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT THAT
SUBSEQUENT ADJUDICATION ACTIONS
ARE NOT RESERVED FOR LOW LEVEL,
OR INSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS.
OPPOSITION MADE A COMMENT THAT
UNDER 875 SUB F IT WAS FOR
BEHAVIORAL VIOLATIONS AND NON
707 B OFFENSES. THAT IS NOT WHAT
THE CODE SAYS. IT SAYS FOR
BEHAVIORAL ISSUES AND
INSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS IT IS
SILENT AS TO NEW SUBSTANTIVE LAW
VIOLATIONS. I THINK THERE'S A
LOT OF DIALOG BETWEEN
PROSECUTORS AND DEFENSE
ATTORNEYS AS TO WHAT THAT
SPECIFICALLY MEANS. THE CODE WAS
VERY SILENT TO THAT AND HAS LEFT
IT OPEN TO INTERPRETATION, THAT
BEING SAID, THE GOAL OF THE
JUVENILE JUSTICE REALIGNMENT WAS
TO FOSTER POSITIVE YOUTH
DEVELOPMENT AND HAVE TRAUMA
INFORMED CARE FOR THOSE YOUTHS.
SO WHAT'S DRIVING THIS RIGHT NOW
IS THAT UNDER THE EXISTING LAW,
SHOULD A YOUTH HAVE A CASE THAT
IS NOT RESOLVED PRIOR TO THEIR
COMMITMENT TO A SECURE YOUTH
TREATMENT FACILITY? OUR ONLY
REMEDY TO MAINTAIN THEIR
CONTINUITY OF CARE AS A
PROSECUTOR IS TO NOT ADJUDICATE
THAT CASE. AND BY NOT
ADJUDICATE, I MEAN DISMISS
RIGHTEOUS VIOLATION OF THE LAW
TO PRESERVE THEIR COMMITMENT TO
CITF. SO, FRANKLY, A PROSECUTOR
IS MAKING A DECISION OF PUBLIC
SAFETY, VICTIMS RIGHTS AND
REHABILITATION WHEN THEY ARE
DECIDING TO FILE A CHARGE OR
ADJUDICATE IT. ONCE THAT YOUTH
HAS BEEN COMMITTED TO THE SECURE
YOUTH TREATMENT FACILITY. SO THE
PURPOSE OF THIS BILL AND I
APOLOGIZE, IT IS A TECHNICAL FOR
THOSE WHO AREN'T IN THIS
PRACTICE AREA, IS TO RECONCILE
THE FACT THAT YOUTH WHO ARE
COMMITTED TO A SECURE YOUTH
TREATMENT FACILITY WERE SENT
THERE FOR A VERY SPECIFIC
REASON, BECAUSE IT WAS THE ONLY
PLACE WHERE THEY COULD BE
COMMITTED AND RECEIVE THE
INTENDED REHABILITATIVE SERVICES
DESIGNED BY THE COURT. NOW, WHAT
THIS BILL DOES NOT DO IS
INCREASE THE LENGTH OF TIME
THEY'RE COMMITTED TO AN CITF. IN
FACT, IT CODIFIES THAT THAT
BASELINE CANNOT BE INCREASED
BASED OFF OF SUBSEQUENT
ADJUDICATION. SO THEY WILL NOT
BE DOING EXTRA TIME AS A RESULT
OF THIS. SO RESPECTFULLY, IT
INFORMS THE COURT OF A CLEAR
SIGHT PICTURE OF THIS YOUTH'S
CONDUCT, AND THAT CAN MATERIALLY
IMPACT THEIR INDIVIDUAL
REHABILITATION PLAN AND GET THEM
BEFORE THE COURT SOONER THAN
ONCE EVERY SIX MONTHS. AS
CODIFIED UNDER 875. YEAH, BUT
IT'S A IT'S A, YOU KNOW, IT'S A
WHOLE PROCEDURE THAT YOU'RE SORT
OF INTERRUPTING THERE. I MEAN, I
JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE
GOAL OF ALL OF THIS IS. THERE
ALREADY IN THE MOST, RIGOROUS
PROGRAM THERE ALREADY IN A
PROGRAM THAT'S FOCUSED ON
REHABILITATION, THAT'S BEING
REVIEWED EVERY SIX MONTHS, WHAT
IS THE POINT OF IT TO JUST
REALLY, IS IT JUST RETRIBUTION
TO HAVE ANOTHER PROCEEDING SINCE
YOU CAN'T EXTEND THE PERIOD OF
TIME UNDER YOUR LAW? I JUST
DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE POINT
OF THIS THE I MEAN, THESE ARE
YOUTH, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE YOUTH
THAT ARE IN A REHABILITATION
PROGRAM THAT ACTUALLY HAS
PERIODIC REVIEWS OF WHAT'S
HAPPENING, WITHIN THE PROGRAM,
THE POINT I THOUGHT OF THE
PROGRAM WAS, ACCORDING TO WHAT I
READ, WAS THAT YOU'RE GIVING THE
FACILITY AND I, YOU KNOW,
RECOGNIZE THAT THESE FACILITIES
ARE NOT ANYTHING CLOSE TO
PERFECT OR CLOSE TO MEETING THE
OBJECTIVES. BUT THE POINT IS,
YOU'RE I THOUGHT YOU'RE SUPPOSED
TO BE GIVING THE FACILITY THE
PERIOD OF TIME NECESSARY TO TRY
TO REHABILITATE THESE YOUTH. AND
THEN YOU HAVE A ANOTHER
PROCEEDING THAT IS INJECTED IN
THE MIDDLE OF THIS PERIOD, WHERE
THE RESULT IS KEEPING THEM IN
THE SAME FACILITY AND NOT
EXTENDING THE TERMS. SO I JUST
IT JUST SEEMS LIKE A POINTLESS,
A POINTLESS EXERCISE TO ME. I
GUESS THE OTHER THING IS IT
LOOKS LIKE THERE'S CLEARLY
PROVISIONS IN THE LAW TO DEAL
WITH WHAT THE CONDITION IS OF
THAT YOUTH AT THE END OF THE
CONFINEMENT PERIOD. SO, I GUESS
ONE LAST QUESTION IS, I
UNDERSTAND THERE WERE A NUMBER
OF AMENDMENTS THAT THE COMMITTEE
STAFF ASKED YOU TO CONSIDER, AND
I WAS WONDERING, LIKE, WHY THOSE
WERE NOT CONSIDERED AND THOSE
WERE REJECTED. ABSOLUTELY. TO
GET BACK TO ONE QUESTION THAT
YOU FOLLOWED UP ON WITH RESPECT
TO, WHAT'S THE POINT, VICTIMS OF
CRIMES SHOULD NOT BE TOLD THAT
THEIR CASE SHOULD BE DISMISSED
TO PRESERVE THE COMMITMENT OF A
YOUTH TO SECURE YOUTH TREATMENT
FACILITY, I'VE HAD TO HAVE
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE VICTIMS
OF CRIME AND TELL THEM THAT IF
WE ADJUDICATE THIS CASE THAT
MATERIALLY IMPACTED YOUR FAMILY,
THIS YOUTH COULD BE EXPELLED
FROM A SECURE YOUTH TREATMENT
FACILITY. AND THAT IS A PUBLIC
SAFETY CONCERN. THE GOALS OF
JUVENILE JUSTICE ARE THREEFOLD,
AND THEY ARE FUNDAMENTALLY
DIFFERENT THAN THAT OF SUPERIOR
COURT. ADULT PROSECUTIONS.
EVERYONE WHO ENGAGES IN JUVENILE
JUSTICE IS IMBUED WITH A
RESPONSIBILITY UNDER 202 OF THE
WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE TO
LOOK AT PUBLIC SAFETY, AS WELL
AS THE SUCCESSFUL REHABILITATION
OF THE YOUTH AND FINDING TERMS
AND CONDITIONS WHICH WILL
FACILITATE THAT. NOW,
PROSECUTORS AND DEFENSE
ATTORNEYS DISAGREE OVER WHAT IS
IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE
YOUTH, BUT THAT'S THE GOAL. AND
SO I THINK THAT THIS BILL
RECONCILES VICTIMS RIGHTS, WHICH
IS A CORNERSTONE OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, WITH THE DUE PROCESS
RIGHTS OF A MINOR OFFENDER.
YEAH. I ASKED WHAT THE
AMENDMENTS WERE SUGGESTED AND
WHAT WHAT THOSE WERE AND WHY
THEY WERE REJECTED. MY
APOLOGIES, WITH RESPECT TO THE
AMENDMENT. WITH RESPECT TO THE
AMENDMENTS SUGGESTED BY THE
COMMITTEE, I WOULD LIKE TO
HIGHLIGHT THAT THE SECOND
ITERATION OF THIS BILL WAS WAS
ROUND TABLED WITH A PRIMARY
OPPOSITION GROUP, AND WE CAME TO
CONSENSUS ON SOME VERY CLEAR
LANGUAGE THAT PRESERVED THE
INTENT OF 1582, BUT ALSO
PROVIDED SOME EXHORTATIVE
LANGUAGE FOR PROSECUTORS. WHEN
DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT TO FILE
SUBSEQUENT CHARGES BASED OFF OF
IN-CUSTODY CONDUCT. AND IT WAS
CAREFULLY CRAFTED, WITH RESPECT
TO THE WORDS USED AND WHEN THOSE
AMENDMENTS WERE OFFERED TO MY
OFFICE AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN DIXON,
WE RECOGNIZED THAT WE WERE NO
LONGER ABLE TO RECONCILE OUR
POSITION WITH THOSE IN
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL BASED OFF
OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS. WHAT
WERE THEY, SPECIFICALLY, THERE
WAS A CONTEXT OF THE WORD SHOULD
ADMONISHING PROSECUTORS TO MAKE
CERTAIN CONSIDERATION WITH
RESPECT TO FILING SUBSEQUENT
ADJUDICATIONS. AND THE COMMITTEE
ASKED THAT THAT BE CHANGED TO
MAY, WE CONCEDED THAT, TERMS.
BUT THERE WAS ALSO A REQUEST
THAT ANY SUBSEQUENT ADJUDICATION
WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION NOT BE
UTILIZED IN ANY PURPOSE MOVING
FORWARD. AND THAT IS SOMETHING
THAT I THINK CONFLICTS WITH
PROSECUTORS DISCOVERY
OBLIGATIONS, SPECIFICALLY MORAL
TURPITUDE ISSUES, ON FUTURE
CASES AND SOMETHING THAT WE
COULD NOT AGREE TO THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. YES. DO WE HAVE A
MOTION? WE HAVE A MOTION IN A
SECOND, MISS REYES. THANK YOU. I
THE QUESTIONS BY MY COLLEAGUE
ARE VERY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS I
NOTED IN THE AUTHOR'S STATEMENT
THAT YOUR THE PURPOSE OF YOUR
BILL WAS TO COMPORT TO THE
OVERALL SB 23, WHICH SET UP THE,
THE FUNDING FOR THIS AND SET UP
THE CITY AS A FOSTERING POSITIVE
YOUTH DEVELOPMENT, PROMOTING
PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY SAFETY, AND
OFFERING FAIR AND FLEXIBLE TERMS
OF COMMITMENT. THE JUVENILE
JUSTICE REALIGNMENT IN
CALIFORNIA THAT WAS LONG FOUGHT.
WE KNEW THERE WAS SOMETHING
WRONG. WE COULDN'T CONTINUE THE
WAY WE WERE GOING, AND IT WASN'T
UNTIL, AS YOU SAID, 823 THAT WE
FINALLY ALIGN WITH THE
REHABILITATION MISSION OF THE
STATE'S JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM,
WITH TRAUMA INFORMED AND
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE
SERVICES SUPPORTED BY PROGRAMS
OVERSEEN BY THE STATE'S HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY. SO
THIS WAS A LONG PROCESS TO
FINALLY GET US TO WHERE WE ARE
AN IMPERFECT SYSTEM. BUT GOT US
TO WHERE WE ARE. IT SEEMS THAT
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO, IF WE'RE
SAYING THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE
AN INCREASE IN WHATEVER SENTENCE
IS GIVEN, THEN I GO BACK TO THE
QUESTIONS OF MY COLLEAGUE AS TO
WHY. WHY IS THIS BEING
INTRODUCED? INITIALLY I THOUGHT,
BECAUSE YOU'RE RIGHT, NOT ALL OF
US ARE IN THIS SYSTEM. WE DON'T
UNDERSTAND CRIMINAL JUSTICE OR
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE, THE PENAL
CODE OR THIS IS SOMETHING NEW TO
MANY OF US. SO IT REQUIRES MORE
STUDYING ON OUR PART. THE MY
QUESTION THEN FOR ME WAS, WELL,
WHAT HAPPENS IF THAT JUVENILE,
IF THERE IS A DISCIPLINARY ISSUE
WHILE THEY'RE THERE, IF A CRIME
IS COMMITTED WELL, WITHIN THE
VERY TERMS IT SAYS FOR
DISCIPLINARY INFRACTIONS OR
OTHER IN CUSTODY BEHAVIORS, ANY
INFRACTION OR BEHAVIOR SHALL BE
ADDRESSED BY ALTERNATIVE MEANS,
WHICH MAY INCLUDE SYSTEMS, A
SYSTEM OF GRADUATED SANCTIONS
FOR DISCIPLINARY INFRACTIONS
ADOPTED BY THE OPERATOR OF A
SECURE YOUTH TREATMENT FACILITY,
AND SUBJECT TO ANY RELEVANT
STATE STANDARDS OR REGULATIONS
THAT APPLY TO JUVENILE
FACILITIES GENERALLY. SO IF
THERE IS AN ISSUE, IT'S DEALT
WITH THERE AND IT'S ALREADY IN
THE CODE. SO WE'RE TRYING TO
TAKE IT OUT OF THE OPERATORS
PURVIEW. AND WE'RE SAYING NOW WE
WANT TO BE ABLE TO VÌ FILE
ADDITIONAL, CASES AGAINST THESE
JUVENILES. I KNOW THAT THERE WAS
AN ATTEMPT TO ANSWER AS TO WHY
WE NEED THIS PARTICULAR BILL,
WHY WE'RE TRYING TO OPEN THIS
UP. AND I'VE GOT TO TELL YOU
THAT I STILL DO NOT UNDERSTAND.
I KNOW THAT ONE OF THE INITIAL
COMMENTS WAS, AND YOU TALKED
ABOUT IT ALSO, THAT THERE WAS A
MEETING WITH OPPOSITION, YOU'VE
TALKED ABOUT COLLABORATIVE
EFFORT WITH ALL THE OPPOSITION.
I DON'T KNOW WHO THE
COLLABORATION WAS WITH TO BE
ABLE TO COME TO THIS, TO THE
LANGUAGE OF THIS BILL, THE
PURPOSE OF THE BILL IS STILL A
IN MY EYES, IS STILL UNKNOWN. I
DON'T KNOW, YOU TALKED ABOUT THE
VICTIMS, AND CERTAINLY WE WANT
TO BE SURE THAT WE PROTECT OUR
VICTIMS. AND THERE ARE LOTS OF
THINGS THAT WE DO. THERE ARE
LOTS OF CASES THAT ARE DISMISSED
ANYWAY, BY BY OUR DA'S FOR
WHATEVER REASON. THIS IS A
DECISION THAT IS MADE BASED ON A
SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE. SO I'M
GOING TO ASK THE QUESTION AGAIN
THAT MY COLLEAGUE HAS ASKED IS
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS
BILL? WHAT IS IT THAT YOU INTEND
TO, TO MAKE? WHAT IS IT THAT OUR
JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM, NEEDS?
HOW IS IT GOING TO IMPROVE BY
PASSING THIS BILL OR A BILL LIKE
IT? CERTAINLY. AND I'M GOING TO
GO BACK TO, FIRST AND FOREMOST,
THE VICTIMS RIGHTS AND WHEN
PROSECUTORS ARE ADJUDICATING
CASES, ELECTING TO FILE THEM AND
RESOLVE THEM, WE NEED TO ALL BE
MINDFUL OF VICTIMS RIGHTS. IT IS
CODIFIED IN OUR CONSTITUTION AND
DISMISSING THEM IS NOT AN
APPROPRIATE SOLUTION. SO WHAT
I'M ATTEMPTING TO DO, I STOP YOU
FOR A MOMENT. YES. YOU SAY IT'S
NOT AN APPROPRIATE SOLUTION, BUT
IT IS ONE OF THE SOLUTIONS AND
THAT YOU, AS A PROSECUTOR, WILL
MAKE ON ANY NUMBER OF CASES. IS
IT NOT TRUE? THAT IS INCREDIBLY
VAGUE, BECAUSE EVERY CASE IS
DIFFERENT, AND WE HAVE TO LOOK
AT EVERY CASE INDIVIDUALLY ONLY,
FROM ABILITY TO PROVE THE CHARGE
AND WHAT THE JUDICIAL AND
RIGHTEOUS RESULT IS FOR ALL
PARTIES, WITH RESPECT TO WHAT
THIS BILL IS GOING TO ACCOMPLISH
FUNCTIONALLY, IT WILL GET THE
STOP YOU FOR A MOMENT.
CERTAINLY, WHEN YOU'RE MAKING
THAT DECISION BASED UPON WHAT
YOU'RE GOING TO ACCOMPLISH, IF
YOU KNOW THAT BY FILING THOSE
THOSE CHARGES, THAT NOTHING
DIFFERENT IS GOING TO HAPPEN.
AND IN FACT, YOU MAY, YOUR
ACTIONS MAY TAKE THAT JUVENILE
TO A DIFFERENT A DIFFERENT
FACILITY OR SOMETHING THAT THAT
IS DIFFERENT, THEN THAT IS A
DECISION, AN INFORMED DECISION.
YOU MAKE. AND THEN YOU NOTIFY
THE VICTIM. THIS IS WHAT THE
PROBLEM IS. THIS IS THESE ARE
THE FACTORS THAT WE'RE
CONSIDERING IN MAKING OUR
DECISION. AND THIS IS A DECISION
WE'RE MAKING. ABSOLUTELY AND
VERY WELL SAID. ADDITIONAL
THINGS IT IS ATTEMPTING TO
ACCOMPLISH IF A MINOR HAS A
PREVIOUS CASE, LET'S SAY FOR
SEXUAL BATTERY OR SPOUSAL ABUSE
OR PARTNER ABUSE, AND THAT CASE
IS UNADJUDICATED PRIOR TO THEIR
COMMITMENT TO A SECURE YOUTH
TREATMENT FACILITY, THERE IS
CERTAIN TYPES OF TREATMENT
PROGRAMS AVAILABLE TO THAT YOUTH
THAT A COURT SHOULD BE ABLE TO
IMPOSE UPON THEM FOR THEIR
MEANINGFUL REHABILITATION. BUT
WITHOUT THAT ADJUDICATION, I CAN
ASSURE YOU THAT A, A DEFENSE
ATTORNEY WORTH THEIR SALT WILL
OBJECT AND OPPOSE ANY TERMS AND
CONDITIONS RELATED TO SEXUAL
BEHAVIORAL THERAPY OR BATTERERS
TREATMENT PROGRAMS OR SUBSTANCE
ABUSE, UNLESS THEY'RE
ADJUDICATED. AND I FACED THAT
ARGUMENT DAY IN AND DAY OUT IN
MY PRACTICE. AND I THINK THIS IS
GOING TO BE ABLE TO INFORM THE
COURT OF THE CLEAR SCOPE OF
CONDUCT AVAILABLE TO THEM.
ADDITIONALLY, IF CASES ARE
UNABLE TO BE ADJUDICATED, I AM
CONFIDENT THAT WE WILL SEE AN
INCREASED EFFORT IN YOUTH BEING
TRANSFERRED OR ATTEMPTING TO BE
TRANSFERRED TO SUPERIOR COURT
FOR I WOULD SAY THE LESS SEVERE
707 B CASES. THANK YOU. YOU CAN.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER THE DECISION TO
IF YOU HAVE TWO POTENTIAL CASES,
ONE IS A 7 TO 7 B AND ANOTHER IS
SOMETHING ELSE. THEN THE
PROSECUTOR IS GOING TO MAKE A
DECISION ON WHICH ONE TO
PROSECUTE BASED UPON EXISTING
LAW. IS THAT NOT RIGHT? THAT IS
CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
OKAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
QUESTIONING. WE HAVE A MOTION
AND A SECOND, YOU MAY CLOSE US.
THANK YOU, CHAIR, AND THANK YOU,
MEMBERS, I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR AYE VOTE. IT IS A TECHNICAL
BILL, A TECHNICAL MATTER, TO
MAKE SURE THAT THE JUVENILE
INCARCERATED INDIVIDUAL IS GIVEN
THE PROPER REHABILITATION
PROGRAM. MERIDIAN ON THE CASES
THAT HE WAS, ADJUDICATED ON. SO
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.
I MISSED MOST OF THE TESTIMONY,
BUT WE DID OFFER SOME AMENDMENTS
TO YOU. THEY WERE NOT ACCEPTED.
THEREFORE I WOULD BE VOTING.
I'LL BE RECOMMENDING A NO VOTE
ON THIS, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON
AB 1886 BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER DIXON.
THE MOTION IS DUE PASSED.
MCCARTY. NØ MCCARTY. NÓ. ALANIZ.
ALANIZ. AYE LACKEY. LACKEY I
NGUYEN. REYES REYES. NÓ. TING
TING. NO WILSON. ZIPPER. ZIPPER.
NO OKAY. THAT MEASURE FAILS.
THANK YOU. NEXT AUTHOR, MR.
BERMAN. CONSIDERATION NO. MR.
DIXON, YOU WANT TO. YOU WANT A
RECOMMENDATION OR,
RECONSIDERATION? MISS DIXON? I'M
SORRY. WOULD YOU LIKE A
RECONSIDERATION ROLL CALL?
EXCUSE ME, BUT YES. YES OR NO?
WOULD YOU LIKE RECONSIDERATION?
YES, I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT.
THANK YOU. ROLL CALL ON THAT,
REQUEST ON RECONSIDERATION OF AB
1896 MCCARTY NØ MCCARTY. NØ
ALANIS. ALANIS. AYE LAKI LAKI.
AYE NGUYEN. REYES. REYES. NO
TING TING NO WILSON. ZABIR.
ZABIR. NO MR. BERMAN, THANK YOU
FOR YOUR PATIENCE. THAT MOTION
FAILS FOR RECONSIDERATION. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE, MR.
BERMAN. YOU MAY PROCEED. GOOD
MORNING, MR. CHAIR AND
COLLEAGUES. IT'S BEEN A PLEASURE
AND AN HONOR SPENDING QUALITY
TIME WITH YOU HERE. I'D LIKE TO
START BY THANKING THE COMMITTEE
CONSULTANT FOR THEIR WORK ON THE
BILL. AND I AM HAPPY TO ACCEPT
THE AMENDMENTS OUTLINED ON PAGES
FOUR AND FIVE OF THE ANALYSIS,
AS AMENDED. 20 AB 2176 PROHIBITS
JUVENILES WHO ARE DETAINED IN
JUVENILE HALL FROM BEING DENIED
ACCESS TO AN EQUITABLE
EDUCATION. THE BILL AIMS TO
ENSURE INCARCERATED YOUTH ARE
NOT EXCLUDED FROM SCHOOL BECAUSE
OF PUNISHMENTS OR POLICIES
IMPOSED BY OFFICERS AT THE JAIL,
AND THUS DENIED THEIR
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. CHRONIC
ABSENTEEISM SIGNIFICANTLY
HINDERS STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT. A
STUDY FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF
CHICAGO FOUND THAT EACH WEEK OF
ABSENCES PER SEMESTER IN NINTH
GRADE IS CONNECTED TO A MORE
THAN 20% POINT DECLINE IN THE
PROBABILITY OF GRADUATING FROM
HIGH SCHOOL COURT. SCHOOLS RUN
BY COUNTY OFFICES OF EDUCATION
HAVE RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT HIGH
CHRONIC ABSENTEEISM CAUSED BY
INTERVENTIONS AND PUNISHMENTS
IMPOSED BY PEACE OR PROBATION
OFFICERS AT THE JAIL. FOR
EXAMPLE, LAST YEAR, ATTORNEY
GENERAL BONTA FOUND THAT LOS
ANGELES COUNTY JUVENILE HALLS
ROUTINELY FAILED TO TRANSPORT
YOUTH TO SCHOOL. LIKEWISE, IN
2021, THEN ATTORNEY GENERAL
BECERRA FOUND NUMEROUS
INAPPROPRIATE POLICY DECISIONS
AND DELAYS, KEPT STUDENTS OUT OF
SCHOOL. RESEARCH SHOWS THAT
DENYING ACCESS TO EDUCATION
INCREASES RECIDIVISM AND
VIOLENCE IN JUVENILE HALLS, AND
IT IMPEDES YOUTH'S SUCCESSFUL
TRANSITION BACK INTO THE
COMMUNITY. THERE'S A GROWING
CONSENSUS IN CALIFORNIA THAT
EDUCATIONAL HEALTH IS SOCIAL
HEALTH. ACCORDINGLY, WE MUST DO
MORE TO STRENGTHEN THE RIGHTS OF
INCARCERATED CHILDREN TO ACCESS
AND EQUITABLE EDUCATION WITH
THEIR PEERS. THE AMENDMENTS THAT
I ACCEPTED, AS OUTLINED IN THE
ANALYSIS, REMOVES A SIGNIFICANT
PROVISION FROM THE BILL TO
ADDRESS ADDRESS, OPPOSITION
YOUTH LAW CENTER'S CONCERNS, AND
I'M COMMITTED TO CONTINUING
CONVERSATIONS WITH ALL
STAKEHOLDERS TO FURTHER ADDRESS
ANY CONCERNS THAT HAVE COME UP
IN THE LAST 24 HOURS. I
APPRECIATE ALL OF THE
STAKEHOLDERS WHO HAVE ENGAGED
WITH MY OFFICE AND LOOK FORWARD
TO CONTINUING TO WORK ON THE
POLICY. WITH ME TODAY IS DOCTOR
MARY ANN DEWAN, SANTA CLARA
COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF
SCHOOLS, AND MEGAN BEAR,
LEGISLATIVE ADVOCATE FOR THE
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA SCHOOL
ADMINISTRATORS. RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. YOU
HAVE FIVE MINUTES FOR YOUR
WITNESSES COMBINED. PLEASE
BEGIN. GREAT A MOTION A SECOND,
PLEASE. THANK YOU. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE FOR
ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK TODAY. I'M
DOCTOR MARIANNE DEWAN, SANTA
CLARA COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF
SCHOOLS. WE ARE PLEASED TO
CO-SPONSOR ASSEMBLY BILL 2176,
IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE
CALIFORNIA COUNTY SUPERINTEND
CGRTS AND DEEPLY APPRECIATE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BURMAN'S
COMMITMENT TO PROTECTING
INCARCERATED STUDENTS RIGHTS TO
AN EQUITABLE EDUCATION.
UNFORTUNATELY, TOO MANY YOUTH IN
COURT SCHOOLS THROUGHOUT THE
STATE ARE DENIED THIS RIGHT.
MORE THAN A DOZEN COURT SCHOOLS
IN CALIFORNIA HAVE CHRONIC
ABSENTEEISM RATES. HIGHER THAN
25, AND ONE COUNTY. THE CHRONIC
ABSENTEEISM RATE WAS 88, WHICH
MEANS THAT 88% OF STUDENTS WERE
ABSENT MORE THAN 10% OF THEIR
SCHOOL YEAR. EDUCATION IS A
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IN
CALIFORNIA. HOWEVER, MULTIPLE
INVESTIGATIONS AND LAWSUITS
CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE THAT YOUTH
ARE BEING DENIED ACCESS AS A
DISCIPLINE TOOL BY SOME
PROBATION DEPARTMENTS, OFTEN FOR
MINOR INFRACTIONS OR TO PUNISH
ENTIRE CELL BLOCKS. WHEN A
SINGLE YOUTH HAS MISBEHAVED.
EDUCATION IS CRITICAL TO THE
REHABILITATION, WELL-BEING, AND
REINTEGRATION OF INCARCERATED
INDIVIDUALS, ESPECIALLY YOUTH.
RESEARCH SHOWS THAT DENYING
ACCESS TO EDUCATION INCREASES
RECIDIVISM, VIOLENCE, AND
SUICIDAL IDEATION AMONG
INCARCERATED YOUTH. ASSEMBLY
BILL 2176 WOULD ENSURE THAT
EDUCATIONAL ACCESS IS
PRIORITIZED IN JUVENILE
DETENTION FACILITIES, AND THAT
THERE ARE MEANINGFUL AVENUES FOR
YOUTH AND OVERSIGHT AGENCIES TO
SEEK RELIEF WHEN RIGHTS FOR
EDUCATION ARE DENIED. MY
GRATITUDE TO THIS COMMITTEE, THE
ADVOCATES, THE JUVENILE JUSTICE
LAWYERS AND EQUITY GROUPS WHO
HAVE OFFERED AMENDMENTS TO HELP
ENSURE THAT IT ACHIEVES OUR GOAL
OF GUARANTEEING ACCESS TO
EDUCATION FOR YOUTH WHO ARE
INCARCERATED. I URGE YOU TO JOIN
THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY OFFICE OF
EDUCATION AND OUR ALLIES IN
SUPPORTING AB 2176, AND I ASK
FOR YOUR AYE VOTE. HELLO,
COMMITTEE AND MEMBERS MEGAN BEAR
WITH THE ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL
ADMINISTRATORS, REPRESENTING OUR
17,000 MEMBERS, I WON'T REPEAT
THE SENTIMENTS OF THE ASSEMBLY
MEMBER AND THE SUPERINTENDENT,
BUT YOU KNOW A POINT THAT I'D
LIKE TO RAISE IS THAT EDUCATION
IS COMPULSORY IN CALIFORNIA, AND
IT ACTUALLY IS A CRIME FOR
PARENTS. IF THEY DON'T MAKE SURE
THAT THEIR STUDENTS GET TO
SCHOOL. SO, YOU KNOW, WITH THAT
SAME SENTIMENT, WE THINK IT'S
INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT STUDENTS WHO ARE
INCARCERATED ARE, FULLY PRESENT
AND ABLE TO GO TO SCHOOL AS
OFTEN AS POSSIBLE. THEY NEED
THEIR EDUCATION TO SUCCESSFULLY
RETURN HOME. AND WITH THAT, I
WOULD ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. ANY OTHERS IN
SUPPORT? PLEASE LINE UP AND
STATE YOUR ORGANIZATION AND
POSITION ONLY. ALRIGHT. SOMALIA.
ROGERS ELLA BAKER CENTER FOR
HUMAN RIGHTS AND SUPPORT. FELIPE
KELLY WITH THE ELLA BAKER CENTER
IN FULL SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING,
CHAIR AND MEMBERS, DEREK LENNOX,
ON BEHALF OF THE 58 COUNTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS. PROUD
TO SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR
MEMBERS. SAM NASHER, ON BEHALF
OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE
OF EDUCATION AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. ROBERT BROUGHTON, LSPCI.
ALL OF US ARE NONE IN SUPPORT.
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. AARON NIEMELA, ON
BEHALF OF THE COURT, APPOINTED
SPECIAL ADVOCATES ALSO IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. RAYMOND
GOINS, NOT SUPPORTED EDUCATION
OVERALL INCARCERATION EVERY DAY.
GERMAINE HUNTER, SILICON VALLEY
DEBUG I SUPPORT. THANK YOU. DO
WE HAVE OPPOSITION? I'M SORRY,
MARGO GEORGE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION, WE WANT TO THANK
THE AUTHOR FOR WORKING WITH US
AND, WE'RE REVIEWING THE
AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR MEMBERS.
SIMILARLY, NOT NOT IN
OPPOSITION, BUT, SOMEWHAT IN
BETWEEN. DANIEL SANCHEZ WITH THE
CHIEF PROBATION OFFICERS. WE
DON'T HAVE A POSITION ARE
ENGAGED WITH THE AUTHOR ON THIS.
OBVIOUSLY EDUCATIONAL SUPPORTS
FOR OUR YOUTH IN OUR FACILITIES
IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT. AND
THERE'S A WHOLE HOST OF
CONSIDERATIONS AROUND THIS. SO
WE LOOK FORWARD TO REVIEWING THE
AMENDMENTS AND WORKING CLOSELY
TO MAKE SURE THAT YOUTH CAN STAY
MEANINGFULLY ENGAGED IN THEIR
EDUCATIONAL PURSUITS. THANK YOU.
OPPOSITION. YES. PLEASE PROCEED.
GOOD MORNING EVERYONE. MY NAME
IS CHRISTOPHER MIDDLETON. I'M A
STAFF ATTORNEY AT THE YOUTH LAW
CENTER, WE WANT TO START OFF BY
THANKING THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER FOR
ADOPTING OUR AMENDMENT AND
AVERTING THE HARM THAT
POTENTIALLY WOULD HAVE HAPPENED
WITH THE PRIOR HEARING LANGUAGE.
I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE, FIRST
OFF, TO START WHERE WE AGREE,
AND WE AGREE THAT EQUITABLE
EDUCATION FOR YOUNG PEOPLE WHO
ARE IN JUVENILE COURT SCHOOLS IS
A PRIORITY. HOWEVER, I THINK THE
CURRENT LANGUAGE IN THE BILL
FALLS SHORT OF ACTUALLY
FULFILLING THAT PRIORITY. FIRST,
THE WICK 80 59A PROVISION
INCLUDES THE IMMEDIATE THREAT
LANGUAGE THAT'S UTILIZED IN
TITLE 15, SECTION 1370 THAT
GOVERNS THE MINIMUM STANDARDS OF
JUVENILE COURT SCHOOL FACILITY,
OR JUVENILE FACILITIES IN
GENERAL, AND SPECIFICALLY, THAT
IS LANGUAGE THAT WE ARE
ATTEMPTING TO ADDRESS AS PART OF
THE BPHC REVISION PROCESS
BECAUSE OF HOW VAGUE IT IS IN
DETERMINING A SCOPE AND
LIMITATION ON HOW LONG THAT
IMMEDIATE THRUST CAN LAST.
ENCODING THAT LANGUAGE HERE AS A
BILL POTENTIALLY MAKES THAT
PROCESS HARDER. WITH WICK 80
59B, THE USE OF PACKETS APPEARS
TO BE CODIFIED HERE, AND WE JUST
WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT WHILE IT
IS A REALITY THAT IN COURT
SCHOOLS, THE USE OF PACKETS IS A
PRACTICE, WE DON'T WANT IT TO BE
FLAGGED AS A BEST PRACTICE. IT'S
BEEN THE SUBJECT OF NUMEROUS
LITIGATION, INCLUDING BY THE
FEDERAL DOJ AND THEIR STATEMENT
OF INTEREST IN CHARLES F, WHO
SPECIFICALLY HIGHLIGHT THE
PROBLEMS THAT PACKETS POSE AS A
REPLACEMENT FOR EDUCATION.
SPECIFICALLY WITH YOUNG PEOPLE
WHO ARE ENTITLED TO SPECIAL
EDUCATION. AND WE KNOW FROM OUR
REPORT THAT THERE ARE A
DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF YOUNG
PEOPLE WHO ARE ENTITLED TO
SPECIAL EDUCATION IN COURT
SCHOOLS, AND WE DON'T FEEL LIKE
IT'S APPROPRIATE TO IDENTIFY VÌ
PACKETS AS AN APPROPRIATE TOOL
AND RESOURCE TO UTILIZE IN COURT
SCHOOL FACILITIES. WE ALSO JUST
WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT ANOTHER
ISSUE AROUND DISABILITY LAW THAT
NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED IN THIS
BILL, IF IT IS TO GO FORWARD, IS
IN WICK 80 59D THE DEFINITION OF
JUVENILE ISN'T BROAD ENOUGH TO
REFLECT THE FACT THAT YOUTH WHO
ARE ENTITLED TO SPECIAL
EDUCATION IN CALIFORNIA ARE
ENTITLED TO RECEIVE EDUCATION
UNTIL THEIR 22ND BIRTHDAY IF
UNLESS THEY RECEIVE A DIPLOMA.
AND SO THE CUT OFF AGE OF 18
JUST DOESN'T FULLY ENCOMPASS THE
NUMBER OF YOUNG PEOPLE WHO ARE
ACTUALLY INSIDE IN FACILITIES,
WHICH BECOMES INCREASINGLY MORE
COMMON NOW THAT WE'VE CLOSED
AGE. AND THERE ARE POTENTIALLY
OLDER YOUTH WHO ARE STILL
RECEIVING A HIGH SCHOOL
EDUCATION, WHO ARE RECEIVING
SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES AND
FOR THESE REASONS, WE ARE NOT
ABLE TO SUPPORT THE BILL AS IT
STANDS IN ITS CURRENT FORM. BUT
WE WANT TO THANK THE ASSEMBLY
MEMBER FOR PUTTING FORTH THIS
BILL AND ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE.
WE KNOW FROM DOING OUR RESEARCH
THAT THERE IS A NUMBER OF
COMPLICATED FACTORS AND SYSTEMS
THAT ENSURE WHETHER OR NOT YOUNG
PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO ATTEND
SCHOOL. I THINK AT THE END OF
THE DAY, WE ALL AGREE THAT
ACCESS TO EQUITABLE EDUCATION
HAS TO BE A PRIORITY. WE FEEL
LIKE THE CURRENT LANGUAGE
DOESN'T ACCOMPLISH THAT GOAL,
BUT WE LOOK FORWARD TO THE DAY
THAT WE HAVE THAT LANGUAGE IN
FRONT OF US AND WE'RE ABLE TO
SUPPORT IT. BUT TODAY ISN'T THAT
DAY, AND SO WE MUST RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSE. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE
OTHERS IN OPPOSITION? PLEASE
COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR
ORGANIZATION AND POSITION. HI
THERE, RACHEL BHAGWAT, ACLU,
CALIFORNIA ACTION. WE'RE NOT IN
OPPOSITION, BUT WE ARE
REGISTERING, CONCERNS ABOUT THE
BILL AS IN PRINT, WE'VE WORKED
WITH A COALITION OF JUVENILE
JUSTICE ADVOCATES, INCLUDING
FOLKS WHO REPRESENT DIRECTLY
AND, YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE SYSTEM.
WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE
AUTHOR'S OFFICE TO SHARE THOSE
CONCERNS AND APPRECIATE, REALLY
APPRECIATE YOU PUTTING IT
FORWARD AT SUCH AN IMPORTANT
ISSUE. JUST REQUESTS THAT THE
AUTHOR'S OFFICE CONTINUE TO WORK
IN GOOD FAITH WITH ADVOCATES TO
CONTINUE TO, AMEND AND IMPROVE
THIS BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS? YES, MISS
REYES AND MR. LACKEY, I'VE
ALREADY MOVED THE BILL, BUT THE
COMMENTS MADE BY THE OPPOSITION
ARE VERY IMPORTANT COMMENTS. AND
I KNOW THAT THE AUTHOR WILL
CONTINUE TO HAVE THOSE
DISCUSSIONS. YES YEAH. THANK
YOU. I JUST HAVE A VERY SIMPLE
QUESTION. WE HEARD SOME
DISCUSSION ABOUT, ALLOWANCES,
BUT, WOULD, DISEASE OR ILLNESS
QUALIFY AS AN IMMEDIATE THREAT?
I WOULD THINK SO, YES. OKAY.
THANK YOU. IF IT'S A SEVERE
DISEASE THAT THAT IS ACTUALLY OF
COURSE, YOU KNOW. YEAH. LIKE
COVID WAS LIKE COVID WAS. THANK
YOU. I MIGHT STILL BE MIGHT
STILL BE IS CORRECT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR ALANIZ.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, FOR THE
OPPOSITION, YOU BROUGHT UP A
SPECIAL EDUCATION. DO WE HAVE
NUMBERS ON THAT? IF PEOPLE THOSE
THAT ARE INCARCERATED, I COULD
GET THE PERCENTAGES FOR YOU. I
ACTUALLY, OUR ORGANIZATION
WORKED ON A REPORT, I DON'T HAVE
IT IN FRONT OF ME RIGHT NOW, BUT
I KNOW THAT WHILE THERE'S BEEN A
DECREASE IN THE OVERALL NUMBER
OF YOUNG PEOPLE, WE DIDN'T SEE A
PROPORTIONAL DECREASE IN THE
NUMBER OF YOUNG PEOPLE WHO ARE
IDENTIFIED AS STUDENTS WITH
DISABILITIES. AND SO WE KNOW
THAT THERE'S AN
OVERREPRESENTATION AT THE
NATIONAL LEVEL. THE DATA THAT WE
FOUND CONFIRMED THAT THERE WAS
AN OVERREPRESENTATION IN
CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS, BUT I DON'T
HAVE THE RAW NUMBERS FOR THE
SCHOOLS IN FRONT OF ME. BUT I
COULD PULL IT UP. OKAY. I'M JUST
I'M JUST CURIOUS FOR THE AUTHORS
SAKE AND STUFF THAT THAT WAS
BROUGHT UP. I KNOW WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT JUST CALIFORNIA HERE, BUT,
I DON'T KNOW IF THE, MA'AM,
DOCTOR, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO
COMMENT ON THAT. YEAH, JUST
GENERALLY, IN CALIFORNIA, WE
SEE, ABOUT 10 TO 15% OF STUDENTS
ENROLLED IN THE SCHOOLS ACROSS
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT ARE
IDENTIFIED AS HAVING A
DISABILITY AND HAVE AN IEP, I
WOULD ADD THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO
NOTE THAT THE NEEDS ARE ALSO ON
A FULL CONTINUUM, AND THAT A
VERY SMALL NUMBER OF STUDENTS
WOULD ACTUALLY BE ELIGIBLE FOR
SERVICES THROUGH AGE 22. THANK
YOU. I'LL BE SUPPORTING THIS.
THANK YOU. I ALSO THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WHEN THE
OPPOSITION STARTED TO SPEAK,
THEY THANKED YOU FOR TAKING
THEIR AMENDMENT. SO THAT SHOWS
YOUR GOODWILL AND CONTINUED
EFFORT TO WORK ON THIS. WE HAVE
A MOTION A SECOND. I'LL BE
SUPPORTING THIS. NO FURTHER
QUESTIONS. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ON AB 2176 BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER
BERMAN. THE MOTION IS Dð PASS,
AS AMENDED, TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY MCCARTY I ALANIS I
ALANIS I LACKEY I LACKEY I
NGUYEN REYES TING TING I WILSON.
ZIPPER ZIPPER I THANK YOU
COLLEAGUES THAT MEASURE PASSES.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, NEXT
AUTHOR MR. TO. ALONG WITH MR.
ALANIS. OKAY. OH, GOODNESS. IS
THIS THIS IS 609. THIS IS FOR
THE SWATTING ONE, RIGHT? YES.
OKAY YOU WERE TESTIFYING. OKAY,
GREAT. GREAT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
PLEASE BEGIN. THANK YOU. I HAVE
NUMBER 13 AB. GOOD MORNING. SIX
CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. I'M HERE TO PRESENT
AB 2609, A MEASURE TO PROTECT
INNOCENT VICTIMS FROM THE
INCREASINGLY PREVALENT ACT OF
SWATTING. I WANT TO BEGIN BY
THANKING VICE CHAIR ALANIZ FOR
ORDERING THIS BILL, WHICH WILL
BE REFLECTED IN AMENDMENT.
SWATTING IS THE ACT OF MAKING A
FALSE CLAIM OF ASSISTANT
EMERGENCY IN ORDER TO HAVE
POLICE OFFICERS AND OTHER
EMERGENCY RESPONDERS DISPATCHED
IN RESPONSE. IT OFTEN INVOLVES
CLAIM OF EXTREME PERSONAL HARM
OR DURESS, SUCH AS AN ACTIVE
SHOOTER, IN AN EFFORT TO HAVE
POLICE SPECIAL WEAPONS AND
TACTIC, SWAT TEAM AND OTHER LAW
ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL SENT TO A
LOCATION. THIS IS WHERE THE TUM
GETS ITS NAME. WHEN LAW
ENFORCEMENT RESPOND TO A REPORT,
POTENTIAL THREAT, IT OFTEN
INVOLVES THE REDISTRIBUTION OF
PUBLIC RESOURCES AND WHERE THIS
REPORT WAS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT
MAY BREAK DOWN DOORS AND ENTER A
BUILDING. OFTEN PRIVATE
RESIDENTS WERE WEAPONS DRAW.
THIS POSED A SERIOUS THREAT TO
THE SAFETY OF THE INNOCENT
VICTIM OF THE FALSE REPORT.
THESE RESPOND TO FALSE REPORT.
ALSO TAKE CRITICAL RESOURCES
AWAY FROM REAL EMERGENCIES WHERE
LIVES ARE ACTUALLY AT STAKE. WE
HAVE WITNESSED AN INCREASE IN
SWATTING IN RECENT MONTHS,
INCLUDING INCIDENTS WHERE IT HAS
BEEN USED AS A POLITICAL TOOL TO
ATTACK CANDIDATES AND PUBLIC
OFFICIALS. EARLIER THIS YEAR,
OUR ALL CALIFORNIA LIEUTENANT
GOVERNOR WAS SWATTED THIS THIS
INSPIRED ME TO ORDER AB 2609 TO
ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF SWATTING BY
ENSURING THAT THE PENALTIES ARE
APPROPRIATE, AB 2609 WOULD
ADDRESS THE WIDESPREAD SWATTING
ISSUE BY RENTING PROSECUTOR THE
REPRODUCTIVE TO PROSECUTE
SWATTING OFFENDERS. AS MR.
WIENER, OR FELONIES BASED UPON
THE INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THE CASE. AB 2609 WILL ALLOW
DISCRETION IN SENTENCES BASED ON
THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE FACT
REGARDING A SWATTING EVENT.
FURTHERMORE, AB 2609 WILL ENSURE
THAT VICTIM ARE ALSO COMPENSATED
FOR ANY COSTS INCURRED, SUCH AS
DESTRUCTION OF THE FRONT DOOR
AND PROPERTY DUE TO THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT RESPONDING TO
ALLEGED THREAT, ANY PERSON,
INCLUDING PUBLIC SERVANTS, CAN
EASILY BE THE TARGET OF SWATTING
REGARDLESS OF POSITION OR PARTY.
THIS CRIME WASTES PUBLIC
RESOURCES, LEAD TO UNNECESSARY
DAMAGE, AND PUT INNOCENT PEOPLE
DIRECTLY IN HARM'S WAY. ANYONE
OF US OR OUR FAMILIES COULD BE
THE NEXT TARGET OF SWATTING,
SWATTING. IS USED TO NOT ONLY
HARASS OR HURT OTHERS, BUT ALSO
A WEAPON AGAINST POLITICIAN AND
THEIR FAMILIES. SWATTING IS NOT
ONLY A THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY,
BUT IS BEING USED TO ATTACK OUR
DEMOCRACY. I'M HONORED TO
INTRODUCE MY JOY. OTHER
ASSEMBLYMAN JUAN ALANIZ, CINDY
SILVA WITH CALIFORNIA DISTRICT
ATTORNEY ASSOCIATION, AND RYAN
SHERMAN FROM RIVERSIDE SHERIFF
DEPARTMENT. OH, THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, MR. CHAIR. AND MR. VICE
CHAIR, I'M HONORED TO BE HERE TO
SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF ASSEMBLY
MEMBER TO'S MEASURE AND THANK
HIM FOR BRINGING THIS TO OUR
ATTENTION, I UNDERSTAND THERE'S
POLICY DIFFERENCES ON WHETHER OR
NOT THINGS SHOULD BE CHARGED AS
FELONIES, BUT SOMETIMES
MISDEMEANORS JUST AREN'T
COMMENSURATE WITH THE HARM THAT
COULD HAPPEN OR ACTUALLY DOES
HAPPEN. SO THIS MEASURE, GIVES
THAT POSSIBILITY TO PROSECUTORS
AND TO COURTS TO CHARGE IT AS A
FELONY UNDER THE CORRECT
CIRCUMSTANCES. I WOULD POINT OUT
THAT THIS, THIS SWATTING
BUSINESS IS AIMED NOT JUST AT
CIVILIANS. YOU KNOW, IF AN
EX-BOYFRIEND WANTS TO GET
AGAINST AN EX-GIRLFRIEND OR
THERE'S SOME SORT OF, BRAWL
BETWEEN PEOPLE, THEY CAN USE IT
AS, AS, A WAY TO MAKE THEIR
LIVES DIFFICULT, BUT THEY ARE
USING IT AGAINST POLITICIANS ON
BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE. OUR
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, OF COURSE,
MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE ON
CHRISTMAS DAY, RICK SCOTT OF
FLORIDA, VARIOUS OTHER PEOPLE
THAT I'M SURE WE HAVEN'T EVEN
HEARD OF, THE WAY THAT
PROSECUTORS DECIDE. GOOD MORNING
. THE WAY PROSECUTORS DECIDE TO
CHARGE A WOBBLER AS EITHER A
MISDEMEANOR OR A FELONY IS GOING
TO DEPEND ON A NUMBER OF THINGS.
FOR EXAMPLE, WE'LL LOOK AT THE
PERSON'S RAP SHEET. DO THEY HAVE
A NUMBER OF PRIOR ARRESTS,
ESPECIALLY FOR SIMILAR CONDUCT?
Dð ALSO, THE LEVEL OF DANGER
INVOLVED IN THIS CASE, COULD
THIS CASE BASED ON THE TYPE OF
EMERGENCY REPORTED, HAVE CAUSED
TREMENDOUS DAMAGE? AND THIRDLY,
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, WHETHER IT
DID CAUSE THAT TREMENDOUS DAMAGE
, AS AN EXAMPLE OF TREMENDOUS
DAMAGE. AND I CAN LEAVE IT
OBVIOUSLY, TO MR. SHERMAN AND
ASSEMBLY MEMBER ALANIZ TO TALK
ABOUT IT EVEN MORE SO. BUT I
WOULD POINT OUT THE BREONNA
TAYLOR CASE IN KENTUCKY, WHICH
WAS NOT A SWATTING CASE, BUT IT
WAS A CASE OF AN ACTUAL SEARCH
WARRANT. AND THE ARGUMENTS
POINTED OUT ABOUT THE DANGERS
INHERENT IN SERVING SEARCH
WARRANTS IS THAT PEOPLE,
OCCUPANTS ON THE INSIDE, IF THEY
DON'T HEAR THE KNOCKING AND
ANNOUNCING THAT TYPE OF THING,
THEY MAY BE LIABLE TO THINK
THEY'RE BEING ROBBED. GUNS GET
PULLED OUT, GUN BATTLES RESULT,
WHETHER OR NOT THEY THEY THINK
IT'S A ROBBER OR LAW
ENFORCEMENT, PEOPLE BECOME
PANICKED AND THERE'S ALL KINDS
OF REASONS THAT WE HAVE A
SPECIAL WEAPONS AND TACTICS TEAM
IN ORDER TO HELP MAKE THINGS
SAFER, BUT SOMETIMES THINGS GET
ESCALATED. FURTHERMORE, AS
ASSEMBLY MEMBER TO DISCUSSED,
LOTS OF MONEY GETS CHARGED TO
THESE AGENCIES AND I REALIZE I'M
GETTING UP ON MY TIME HERE. SO
I'LL JUST POINT OUT THAT EVEN AS
A FELONY, IT WOULD STILL BE AB
109 ELIGIBLE. IT WOULD STILL BE
PROBATION ELIGIBLE, AND IT STILL
REQUIRES THE SPECIAL INTENT TO
HARASS OR ANNOY. THANK YOU.
OKAY, MR. CHAIR, I'LL MAKE THIS
REAL BRIEF. A LITTLE BIT OF
TIME. YOU KNOW THE RULES, SIR.
YES, SIR, SO I'M HAPPY TO
PRESENT AB 209 WITH OBVIOUSLY
SIMILAR NUMBER TO. I JUST WANT
TO LET YOU GUYS KNOW ABOUT
SWATTING. AS FAR AS MY
EXPERIENCE, IT'S A THING. AND IT
DOESN'T JUST, IT'S A FUNNY THING
FOR SOME KIDS WHO ARE DOING IT
OR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE DOING IT
AND WHATEVER ACTS ARE DOING IT.
BUT YOU GOT TO ALSO REMEMBER,
YOU'RE DISPLACING NEIGHBORHOODS.
I'VE BEEN AT, CALLS WHERE I'VE
HAD TO UNFORTUNATELY, MOVE
PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR HOUSES,
DISPLACING THEM AND THEIR KIDS.
I'VE HAD TO HAVE RESOURCES THAT
WERE COMMITTED TO CERTAIN CITIES
NOW IN RURAL AREAS, INCLUDING
VEHICLES THAT ARE USED FOR
SPECIAL WEAPONS AND TACTICS. AND
SO THIS THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS
ISSUE. IT'S BECOMING MORE
POPULAR, UNFORTUNATELY. AND SO I
ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE THANK YOU
VERY BRIEFLY, MISTER CHAIR
MEMBERS RYAN SHERMAN WITH
RIVERSIDE SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
SUPPORT, ALONG WITH A LOT OF
OTHER, POWS THAT ARE ALL IN THE
ANALYZES, I JUST WANTED TO
MENTION THAT IN THESE SWATTING
INCIDENCES, IF SOMEBODY IS
ACTUALLY HURT AND INJURED, THAT
COULD THEN POTENTIALLY, YOU
KNOW, TRIGGER THAT BECAUSE OR IT
SHOULD, I BELIEVE, TRIGGER THE,
AN EXAMINATION OF WHETHER A
FELONY WOULD BE, ACCEPTABLE AT
THAT TIME. SO WITH THAT, I'D ASK
YOU FOR AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU.
ANY OTHERS IN SUPPORT? PLEASE
LINE UP AND STATE YOUR
ORGANIZATION AND POSITION ONLY.
LIEUTENANT JULIO DELEON WITH THE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF'S
OFFICE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
DIÆN LOZOVSKY WITH THE SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT IN SUPPORT. SORRY,
COREY. SUSILO, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
GOOD TO SEE YOU. THANK YOU.
OPPOSITION PLEASE COME FORWARD.
ANY GROUPS IN OPPOSITION. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT OKAY.
ON BEHALF OF SILICON VALLEY
DEBUG AND STRONG IN OPPOSITION.
NO, WE HAVE OPPOSITION HERE
FIRST. SO YOU CAN JUST WAIT A
SECOND. HI. ARE YOU OKAY? PLEASE
PROCEED. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES
IN BETWEEN YOURSELVES. THANK YOU
. GOOD MORNING. ESTEEMED MEMBERS
OF THE ASSEMBLY PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS ALICIA
MONTEIRO, I'M THE STATEWIDE
COORDINATOR AT CALIFORNIANS
UNITED FOR A RESPONSIBLE BUDGET.
AND I'M HERE TODAY TO VOICE MY
STRONG OPPOSITION TO AB 2609. I
FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT THIS
PROPOSED LEGISLATION IS NOT THE
SOLUTION TO OUR CONCERNS ABOUT
PUBLIC SAFETY. INSTEAD, IT
REPRESENTS A STEP BACKWARD IN
OUR EFFORTS TO BUILD A FAIR AND
HUMANE CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM. I
WOULD LIKE TO START BY
ADDRESSING THE MISGUIDED BELIEF
THAT HARSHER PENALTIES DETER
CRIME RESEARCH SPANNING NUMEROUS
YEARS HAS CONSISTENTLY SHOWN
THAT THE THREAT OF LONG
SENTENCES DOES LITTLE TO PREVENT
INDIVIDUALS FROM ENGAGING IN
CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR. THE SEVERITY
OF A PUNISHMENT IS NOT A
SIGNIFICANT FACTOR IN THE
DECISION MAKING PROCESS. IN
LIGHT OF CALIFORNIA'S CURRENT
BUDGET CRISIS, AB 2609 IS
FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE. IT IS
ESTIMATED THAT THE STATE SPENDS
ROUGHLY $4.5 MILLION EACH DAY TO
INCARCERATE INDIVIDUALS IN
COUNTY JAILS ACROSS THE STATE BY
EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF
CRIMINALIZATION. THIS BILL WOULD
ONLY ADD TO THE STRAIN ON OUR
ALREADY OVERWHELMED CRIMINAL
LEGAL SYSTEM, DIVERTING MUCH
NEEDED RESOURCES AWAY FROM MORE
EFFECTIVE APPROACHES TO
PROMOTING PUBLIC SAFETY AND
ADDRESSING THE ROOT CAUSES OF
CRIME. I WOULD LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT
THE FINDINGS OF A PUBLISHED
ARTICLE BY ELSA CHEN, ASSISTANT
PROFESSOR AT THE DEPARTMENT OF
POLITICAL SCIENCE, SANTA CLARA
UNIVERSITY. HER RESEARCH ON THE
APPLICATION OF CALIFORNIA'S
THREE STRIKES LAW REVEALED
RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISPARITIES,
PARTICULARLY IN CASES INVOLVING
INVOLVING WOBBLER OFFENSES. AS
BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE ARE
DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECTED BY
HARSH SENTENCING POLICIES, WITH
WIDER DISPARITIES IN THE
SENTENCING OF WOBBLER OFFENSES.
COMPARED TO NON WOBBLER'S AB
2609 WILL EXACERBATE THESE
DISPARITIES. FINALLY IT IS
ESSENTIAL TO RECOGNIZE THAT
CALIFORNIA INCARCERATES A HIGHER
PERCENTAGE OF ITS POPULATION
THAN ALMOST ANY DEMOCRATIC
COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. INSTEAD OF
RESORTING TO PUNITIVE MEASURES
THAT ONLY SERVE TO PERPETRATE
CYCLES OF HARM AND
INCARCERATION, WE SHOULD BE
INVESTING IN STRATEGIES THAT
ADDRESS THE UNDERLYING FACTORS
DRIVING CRIME, SUCH AS POVERTY,
INEQUALITY, AND LACK OF ACCESS
TO MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE
ABUSE TREATMENT. IN CONCLUSION,
I URGE YOU TO REJECT AB 2609 AND
INSTEAD FOCUS ON PROVEN
SOLUTIONS THAT ACHIEVE REAL
SAFETY FOR CALIFORNIANS. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU.
TWO MINUTES LEFT. THANK YOU,
MARCO GEORGE, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION, THIS IS NOT NEEDED.
AND IT IS, ALTHOUGH IT'S
ADDRESSED, I THINK, TO THE HIGH
PROFILE POLITICAL CASES THAT WE
READ ABOUT IN THE NEWS,
PRIMARILY, THIS IS AN OFFENSE
THAT'S CREATED, COMMITTED BY
CHILDREN AND TEENAGERS. AND
ACTUALLY, I HAD A PARTY AT MY
HOUSE WHERE THE BORED TEENAGERS
WITH THE ADULT COMPANY, DECIDED
TO CALL THE POLICE AND, YOU
KNOW, SAY THERE WAS AN EMERGENCY
, LUCKILY FOR US, THEY THE
DISPATCHER WAS HAD THE PRESENCE
OF MINE TO CALL BACK AND CHECK
AND SEE IF IT WAS A REAL
EMERGENCY. AND WE WERE ABLE TO,
YOU KNOW, HAVE THEM NOT SEND
ANYONE OUT TO THE HOUSE. SO WE
WERE VERY LUCKY. BUT THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT IS PRIMARILY DONE
BY TEENAGERS AND CHILDREN, IT
SHOULD NOT BE A FELONY, HAVING A
FELONY, WILL NOT STOP OR DETER
PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING IT FOR
POLITICAL PURPOSES. SO WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR NO
VOTE. THANK YOU. ANY OTHERS IN
OPPOSITION, PLEASE LINE UP AND
STATE YOUR ORGANIZATION AND
POSITION ONLY. THERE WE GO. I'M
GOING TO MOVE THIS OVER. THANKS.
DANICA KODAMA, ON BEHALF OF
INITIATE JUSTICE AND SMART
JUSTICE CALIFORNIA IN OPPOSITION
, ANA RAMIREZ ON BEHALF OF
SILICON VALLEY, ALSO IN
OPPOSITION, AMELIA ROGERS, ELLA
BAKER CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IN
OPPOSITION. Dð KUNI, ON BEHALF
OF ACLU CALIFORNIA ACTION IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. FELIPE
KELLY WITH THE ELLA BAKER CENTER
IN FULL OPPOSITION. ASHLEY
CHAMBERS WITH THE ELLA BAKER
CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND FULL
OPPOSITION. LINA DIÆN, LEGAL
SERVICES FOR PRISONERS WITH
CHILDREN IN OPPOSITION. ROBERT
B¢O NELLIS, PC. ALL OF US ARE
NONE IN OPPOSITION. ELLA CORTEZ
WITH SILICON VALLEY DEBUG AND
STRONG OPPOSITION. CRLA SCORZA
WITH SILICON VALLEY DEBUG AND
SAN MATEO COUNTY PARTICIPATORY
DEFENSE IN FULL OPPOSITION.
CHARMAINE HUNTER, SILICON VALLEY
DEBUG, STRONG OPPOSITION.
RAYMOND GOINS, SILICON VALLEY
DEBUG IN STRONG OPPOSITION.
MELANIE KIM, SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE IN
OPPOSITION. IGNACIO HERNANDEZ,
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ATTORNEYS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE
AND OPPOSITION. OKAY. QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. MR. ZUBIATE, SO THANK
YOU FOR, FOR PRESENTING THE BILL
AND FOR THE WITNESSES THAT ARE
HERE, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, WHEN I
LOOKED AT THE STAFF REPORT, ONE
OF THE THINGS THAT JUMPED OUT AT
ME WAS I DIDN'T SEE ANY DATA
THAT INDICATED THAT THERE WAS
LIKE SOME KIND OF INCREASING,
SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES. THERE'S NO
DATA TO LOOK AT WHETHER OR NOT
THIS IS INCREASING. THESE ARE
FAIRLY LOW LEVEL SORT OF
ACTIVITIES. AND I HAVE A, YOU
KNOW, I HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT
ELEVATING WAS ESSENTIALLY A CALL
TO 911 WITH SOME INACCURATE
INFORMATION TO A FELONY CHARGE,
AND, AND ESPECIALLY WITHOUT,
ANYTHING IN THE RECORD THAT
INDICATES THAT THIS IS A HUGE
PROBLEM IN OUR COMMUNITY. I
MEAN, THIS ISN'T LIKE RETAIL
CRIME, WHERE WE CAN WALK INTO A
STORE AND SEE ALL THE CABINETS
LOCKED UP. I MEAN, I'VE HEARD
NOTHING FROM MY CONSTITUENTS OR
ANYONE IN MY COMMUNITY OR LAW
ENFORCEMENT IN MY DISTRICT THAT
I REPRESENT TELLING ME THAT
THEY'RE HAVING HUGE PROBLEMS
WITH PEOPLE CALLING 911 WITH
INFORMATION THAT'S NOT FACTUAL.
SO, ANYWAY, I JUST WONDERING IF
YOU CAN TELL ME, LIKE WHAT? WHAT
KIND OF DATA YOU'RE RELYING ON
TO JUSTIFY A CHANGE IN THE LAW.
AND WHEN I LOOK AT THE LAW
THERE, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE
CONSEQUENCES FOR THIS KIND OF
ACTIVITY. AND THEY THEY BECOME
MORE SIGNIFICANT DEPENDING ON
THE KIND OF FALSE REPORT THAT'S
MADE. IT DOES INCLUDE JAIL TIME
AND FINES, IT SEEMS LIKE EVEN IN
THESE HIGH, HIGH PROFILE
MATTERS, WHICH ARE THE ONES THAT
EVERYONE POINTS TO, THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT CAN USE THOSE TOOLS,
AND THOSE ARE ONES THAT IT WOULD
RESULT IN. I THINK THE PUBLIC
UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT KIND OF
BEHAVIOR IS NOT PERMITTED AND IS
PUNISHABLE. SO, YOU KNOW, WHAT
KIND OF DATA DO YOU HAVE THAT
SHOWS THAT THIS IS SOME BIG
PROBLEM DATA IS NOT SOMETHING I
ACTUALLY HAVE ON THE MATTER, BUT
I WOULD POINT OUT THAT I THINK
THAT IT'S A PROACTIVE MEASURE AS
OPPOSED TO A REACTIVE MEASURE,
TRYING TO GET AHEAD OF A PROBLEM
THAT APPEARS TO BE SPREADING
NATIONWIDE. AND SO IN THAT
RESPECT, I COULD DEFER TO THE
AUTHOR ON THIS, BUT I THINK IT'S
A QUESTION OF SEEING THAT IT IS
STARTING TO HAPPEN AND TRYING TO
MAKE IT SO THAT OUR LEGISLATURE
ALREADY HAS SOMETHING ON THE
BOOKS. FOR IN THE INCREDIBLY
UNFORTUNATE EVENT THAT SOMEBODY
DIES OR SOMETHING VERY, VERY
SIGNIFICANT HAPPENS. I FORGOT
WHAT ELSE I WAS GOING TO SAY ON
THAT, BUT I'LL TURN IT OVER TO
THE AUTHOR AT THAT POINT. YES.
YOU KNOW, I REALLY APPRECIATE
YOUR CONCERNS. I MEAN, LIKE IF
YOU ASK ABOUT OUR DATA, YOU
KNOW, IN CALIFORNIA, YOU KNOW,
WE, YOU KNOW, IN RECENT MONTHS
OR YEARS, I MEAN, WE'RE ALL
AWARE THAT THERE IS NO SECRET
THAT CRIME, YOU KNOW, HAPPENED
EVERYWHERE. AND I THINK THAT
THIS IS ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT,
YOU KNOW, ALL OF US WE HAVE TO
DEAL WITH. AND, YOU KNOW, THE
HIGH ONE OF THE HIGHEST RANKING
POLITICAL PROFILE, YOU KNOW,
THE, YOU KNOW, INVOLVE YOU KNOW,
HAD AN INCIDENT. SO THAT'S WHY,
YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT, THAT
REALLY INSPIRED ME TO INTRODUCE
THE BILL. AND, YOU KNOW, MY JOY,
OTHER, AS SOLOMON ISLANDS, HE'S
ONLY LIKE FORMER, YOU KNOW, LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. SO I THINK
HE UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE. YOU
KNOW, A LOT MORE THAN ME. I JUST
LIKE TO ALLOW THE OPPONENTS TO
RESPOND TO MY QUESTION AND THEN,
THANK YOU. DID YOU WANT TO
ENGAGE? YOU WANT TO REPEAT YOUR
QUESTION, MR. ZEBRA? I WAS I WAS
JUST I WAS JUST COMMENTING THAT
I DIDN'T SEE I DON'T SEE ANY
DATA OUT THERE THAT JUSTIFIES
MAKING CHANGES IN WHAT IS FAIRLY
LOW LEVEL ACTIVITY. AND I JUST
DON'T KNOW. I JUST WANT TO GIVE
YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO JUST TO
COMMENT IF YOU'D LIKE. NEXT ONE.
YEAH, YEAH. I JUST WANT TO SAY
ONE PREPARING FOR TESTIMONY
TODAY. I LOOKED FOR THE DATA,
AND I COULDN'T FIND ANY SHOWING
THAT THERE WAS ANY INCREASE. I
HAVEN'T HEARD OF ANY INCREASE.
SO I DON'T I WOULDN'T KNOW, BUT
IT WAS SOMETHING I LOOKED FOR,
IF I COULD. I RECALL MY TRAIN OF
THOUGHT. NOW AS FOR THE CONCERN
ABOUT JUVENILES, THE JUVENILE
SYSTEM IS MR. KOHLER WAS WAS
TESTIFYING EARLIER THIS MORNING.
HAS FAR DIFFERENT REMEDIES. AND
OF COURSE, JUVENILES HAVE A LOT
OF OPTIONS FOR DIFFERENT
DIVERSION PROGRAMS AND THINGS
LIKE THAT. THEY WOULD NOT BE
GOING TO EITHER COUNTY JAIL OR
TO STATE PRISON OR TO ANY, ANY
OF THESE OTHER. WELL, NOBODY I
UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I DIDN'T
ASK THAT QUESTION. I WAS ASKING
ABOUT THE DATA THAT'S OUT THERE.
SO. OKAY. WELL, I WAS JUST
TRYING TO GIVE THE OPPONENTS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND. THANK
YOU. WAS FIRST. WE ALREADY HAD A
CHANCE WITH YOU. YES. THANK.
YEAH YEAH. YES, I ASK THE CHAIR
FOR ONE OF MY WITNESSES. NO, WE
ALREADY ASKED THE QUESTION FOR
YOU AND FOR THE OPPOSITION. MR.
TING, JUST QUESTION TO THE
OPPOSITION. SO? SO THE BILL, AS
NOW, I BELIEVE, WRITTEN, IS IT
JUST GIVES THE OPTION OF EITHER
A MISDEMEANOR OR FELONY AND JUST
WANTED TO GO THROUGH WHY YOU'RE
OPPOSED TO THE GIVEN THE JUDGES
THAT DISCRETION BECAUSE,
EXISTING. LAW MAKES IT A
MISDEMEANOR UP TO A YEAR IN
COUNTY JAIL AND EXISTING LAW
MAKE ALREADY MAKES IT KNOWING A
FALSE REPORT OF AN EMERGENCY
THAT IS LIKELY TO CAUSE DEATH OR
GREAT BODILY INJURY IS ALREADY A
FELONY. SO THIS IS NOT NECESSARY
. IT'S ALREADY COVERED BY
EXISTING LAW, YOU KNOW, THAT'S
PART OF OUR OPPOSITION THAT THIS
IS REDUNDANT AND UNNECESSARY.
AND THE ANALYSIS ACTUALLY POINTS
OUT IT CONFLICTS WITH EXISTING
LAW. SO THIS IS AMPLE. BE
COVERED. OKAY, BUT WOULD YOU
ALSO, WOULD YOU BE OPPOSED IF IT
WAS EXPANDING MORE? I MEAN,
DEATH AND BODILY INJURY ARE
PRETTY, PRETTY EXTREME. AS
PUBLIC, AS PUBLIC SERVANTS. YOU
SEE WHAT HAPPENED WITH JANUARY
6TH? YOU SEE, WITH PUBLIC
SERVANTS. NOW THERE'S MUCH MORE
HARASSMENT GOING ON, WOULD YOU
BE ALSO OPPOSED IF IT EXPANDED
THAT DEFINITION? I MEAN,
BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, WE'RE
SITTING UP HERE ON THE DAIS. WE
ALL GET DEATH THREATS, THINGS
LIKE THAT. BUT THERE ARE A LOT
OF OTHER CALLS THAT WE GET THAT
ARE NOT DEATH THREATS. I
APPRECIATE THAT THAT IS AN
UNENVIABLE SPOT TO BE IN AT THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION. AND AS A PUBLIC
DEFENDER FOR OVER 30 YEARS, I
TOO RECEIVED THREATS, I JUST
DON'T THINK THAT THIS IS
NECESSARY. THIS IS ALREADY
COVERED. THERE'S NO NEED TO
EXPAND IT. AND THE PARTICULAR
HIGH PROFILE CASES THAT. JACK
SMITH, THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR,
YOU KNOW, ETC, THE JUDGE IN THE
VARIOUS TRUMP CASES, THOSE ARE
NOT, INSTANCES WHERE SOMEONE
WOULD BE DETERRED BY CHANGING
THE LAW. AND THEY THEORETICALLY,
THEY COULD ALREADY BE PROSECUTED
IF THEY WERE HAPPENING IN
CALIFORNIA FOR UNDER EXISTING,
4140 8.3 OF THE PENAL CODE. OKAY
. ALSO, YOU KNOW, RIGHT. RIGHT
NOW THIS RIGHT, RIGHT NOW, THIS
PROVISION COVERS ADULTS AND
CHILDREN. IF THE AUTHOR
RESTRICTED IT TO ADULTS ONLY,
WOULD THAT CHANGE YOUR OPINION
OF THE MATTER? NO I THINK, THAT
THAT WOULD HELP. CERTAINLY THAT
IF IT DID NOT INCLUDE MINORS.
BUT YOU STILL HAVE THE ISSUE OF,
OF, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO SPEAK
INTO THE MICROPHONE. I'M SORRY.
WHAT YOU HAVE TO SPEAK INTO THE
MICROPHONE. YES. I'M SORRY.
CERTAINLY THAT KIND OF AMENDMENT
WOULD BE HELPFUL, BUT YOU STILL
HAVE THE ISSUE THAT THIS IS
ALREADY COVERED. SO. WHY IS THIS
NECESSARY? AND THE ANALYSIS
INDICATES THAT IT WOULD CONFLICT
WITH EXISTING LAW. SO WHY WHY DO
THIS IF IT'S ALREADY SOMETHING
THAT IS COVERED AND WOULD
CONFLICT WITH LAW THAT YOU
ALREADY HAVE. SO BUT YES TO YOUR
QUESTION, AN AMENDMENT
RESTRICTING. IT TO ADULTS ONLY
WOULD DEAL WITH PART OF OUR
OBJECTION, CURB MAY HAVE OTHER
OBJECTIONS THAT WOULD NOT BE
CURED. OKAY, SO JUST GOING BACK
TO THE TO THE AUTHOR AND THE
SUPPORTERS, WAS THERE A REASON
THAT YOU DIDN'T JUST AMEND THE
CURRENT LANGUAGE AS IS, YOU
KNOW, THE OPPOSITION TALKS ABOUT
THAT. THERE ALREADY IS STATUTORY
LANGUAGE IN THERE. YOU COULD
HAVE JUST EXPANDED THAT CURRENT
STATUTORY LANGUAGE. AND ALSO, I
THINK OPPOSITION BROUGHT UP
REALLY GOOD POINTS ABOUT THIS
PRIMARILY HAPPENING WITH
CHILDREN. IS THERE A REASON YOU
DIDN'T SEGREGATE CHILDREN VERSUS
ADULTS? SO YOU WANT TO RESPOND?
NO, NO, I SEE A LOT OF PEOPLE
LOOKING AT EACH OTHER. SO
SOMEONE COULD JUST ANSWER MY
QUESTION. THAT'D BE GREAT. YEAH,
I BELIEVE THAT. MY OFFICE, WE,
WE'RE WILLING TO OPEN FOR ANY
INPUT, BUT I THINK THAT THE
LANGUAGE OF THE BILL IS REALLY.
REYES TENABLE, BECAUSE IF WE
DON'T COME UP WITH ANY, WITH ANY
STANDARD LAW. I MEAN, LIKE IT,
IT CONTINUES TO HAPPEN. AND IN
REALITY THAT EVEN WE LIE OR WE
DO NOT AGREE WITH THE BILL THAT
I INTRODUCED, IT'S GOING TO BE A
BIG CONCERN FOR EVERYONE. BUT
YOU HAVE A CURRENT FELONY
PROVISION IN THE CURRENT
STATUTE. IS THERE A. REASON YOU
DIDN'T JUST CHOOSE TO DO A
SLIGHT EXPANSION OF THAT
LANGUAGE TO COVER SOME OF THESE
SITUATIONS MEANS THAT YOU'RE
TRYING TO DESCRIBE, YOU KNOW,
IT'S BASICALLY YOUR. YOU KNOW,
YOU COULD HAVE TAKEN A SCALPEL
AND NOW YOU'RE JUST KIND OF
GOING WITH THE BAZOOKA. SO I'M
JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY. I
NEED TO LOOK IT. I NEED TO LOOK
AT IT AGAIN. BUT I THINK THAT
RIGHT NOW, I THINK THAT I AGREE
WITH THE LANGUAGE. YES YEAH. SO
I THINK, LOOK, I MEAN, I THINK
OPPOSITION BROUGHT UP, SOME,
SOME VERY EXCELLENT POINTS.
THERE SEEMS TO BE POTENTIAL ROOM
FOR COMPROMISE. I DON'T THINK
THE COMMITTEE, THE COMMITTEE
HEARING IS A TIME FOR THAT, I'M
NOT READY TO SUPPORT. I CANNOT
YOU KNOW, I CAME INTO THIS
HEARING VERY OPEN MINDED, TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT THE SITUATION
IS, BUT I CAN'T SUPPORT THE BILL
AS IS. I THINK YOU HAVE SOME
WORK TO DO. AND I THINK AND I
THINK THERE IS ROOM FOR YOU TO
GET WHAT YOU WANT DONE. EVEN
WITHIN THEIR THEIR ARGUMENTS,
THEY STILL MAY NOT SUPPORT IT.
BUT I THINK IT'D BE A MUCH
SOUNDER ARGUMENT TO SOMEONE LIKE
ME. YEAH, OKAY. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WILSON. THANK
YOU TO THE AUTHOR, FOR BRINGING
THIS BILL FORWARD. I UNDERSTAND,
REALLY YOUR INTENT, THE CONCERNS
THAT I HAVE, WHICH ARE, BASED ON
THE DISCUSSION, I Tê LIKE MY
COLLEAGUE, WERE TRYING TO BE
OPEN MINDED AND CONSIDER
ARGUMENTS FOR, TO SEE IF THERE
WAS A PATHWAY TO SUPPORT. MY
CONCERN GOES TO WHAT WAS NOTICED
IN THE ANALYSIS, WAS A COMMENT
FROM OPPOSITION. THE ELLA BAKER
CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, AND IT
WAS NOTING THAT THE CURRENT LAW
MAKES. AND I'M GOING TO READ
FROM HERE CURRENT LAW MAKES THE
DISTINCTION, BETWEEN THE LEVEL
OF PUNISHMENT CONNECTED TO THE
CRIME SHOULD BE PROPORTIONAL TO
THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE CRIME,
AND THAT THERE ARE TWO LEVELS OF
DISTINCTION CURRENTLY LISTED,
WHEREAS THIS, BY MAKING A
WOBBLER, IS SAYING THAT SOMEONE
WHO DID NOT, THAT DID NOT CAUSE
BODILY HARM COULD BE EQUATED TO
SOMEONE WHO DID, AND. THAT WAS
AT THE DISCRETION OF, THE JUDGE.
AND I'M ALL FOR JUDICIAL
DISCRETION, AND HAVE TIMES
SUPPORTED AND SUPPORTED BILLS
RELATED TO THAT, BUT IN THIS
REGARD THERE IT'S, IT'S TOTALLY
WIPING AWAY THAT DISTINCTION AND
IT SHOULD BE PROPORTIONAL. I
HADN'T HEARD YET YOU ADDRESS OR
THE, THE THOSE IN SUPPORT YOUR
WITNESSES AND SUPPORT ADDRESS
THAT ISSUE OF PROPORTIONALITY
AND WHY WE WOULD TURN THAT
PRINCIPLE ON ITS HEAD AND,
NEGATE THAT AS IT RELATES TO
THIS BILL. AND SO I WAS
WONDERING, GIVING YOU A CHANCE
BEFORE I, FULLY COMMIT TO A NO
OR NOT SUPPORTING. I WANTED TO
HEAR THAT. AND THEN I'LL ADD ON
SOMETHING THAT MY COLLEAGUE
MENTIONED IS YOU KNOW, I THINK
THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY, A
PATHWAY IN TERMS OF, FOR
INSTANCE, PEOPLE DO REPEATED, OF
THIS AND SO THERE'S NOTHING IN
HERE ABOUT NEGATING LIKE, WELL,
FOR REPEAT OFFENDERS, THEN
SAYING, OKAY, NOW YOU'RE RISING,
EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVEN'T CAUSED
HARM, YOU'RE WASTING RESOURCES.
YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING NOW
THAT RISES TO A FELONY. THERE'S
NOTHING LIKE THAT. IT'S JUST
AUTOMATICALLY GIVING IT TO
JUDICIAL DISCRETION. YEAH, I
REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR, COMMENT.
AND I'M WILLING TO TAKE
AMENDMENT FROM THE COMMITTEE. MY
OFFICE REALLY OPENED FOR IT.
YES, I'M WILLING TO TAKE AN
AMENDMENT. YES. AS IT RELATES TO
THAT. OKAY. WAS THERE ANYTHING
FROM THE EXPERTS THAT IN REGARD
TO THAT PART, YES, MADAM CHAIR,
THROUGH THE CHAIR, MADAM MEMBER,
I THINK WITH. THE CURRENT LAW IS
A MISDEMEANOR, REGARDLESS OF THE
MITIGATING FACTORS, I BELIEVE.
AND SO REGARDLESS OF SAY IT
AGAIN, OF THE REGARDLESS OF THE
MITIGATING FACTORS, CORRECT.
OKAY. I BELIEVE THAT CURRENTLY
SWATTING THE MOST IT CAN BE IS A
MISDEMEANOR. NO NO NO NO, IT'S
FELONY IF YOU ESPECIALLY IF YOU
CAUSE BODILY IF IT RESULTS IN
BODILY HARM. SO IF YOU JUST CALL
RIGHT. IF YOU JUST CALL DO IF
YOU JUST MAKE A CALL RIGHT. NO
ONE'S INJURED. THAT IS A
MISDEMEANOR. IF YOU MAKE A CALL
AND SOMEONE IS INJURED, THAT IS
A FELONY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
FOR THE CORRECTION. AND BUT THIS
MAKES IT SO THAT NO MATTER WHAT,
IT COULD BE EITHER ONE. RIGHT.
AND I THINK WHEN I THINK ABOUT
YOUR JUDICIAL DISCRETION, YOU
KNOW, WE DO HAVE BIAS WITHIN OUR
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. WE KNOW
THAT. RIGHT. AND SO WHEN WE'RE
GIVING DISCRETION, ARE WE GOING
TO FIND TRENDS WHERE CERTAIN
PEOPLE WHO DO THINGS A CERTAIN
WAY, ARE THEY TARGETED MORE, APT
TO GET THE FELONY FOR NOT
CAUSING BODILY HARM THAN OTHERS?
AND THAT'S WHAT I'M CONCERNED
ABOUT. AND SO I, I DON'T BASED
ON THIS, I DON'T THINK I WOULD
BE ABLE TO SUPPORT TODAY, BUT I
WOULD, I WOULD TO THE AUTHOR IS
I ENCOURAGE YOU TO STAY IN THIS
SPACE BECAUSE I THINK THERE IS
OPPORTUNITY, TO DEAL WITH WHAT
COULD POTENTIALLY BE PERCEIVED
AS RISING. I DON'T SEE RISING IN
CALIFORNIA, BUT I DO SEE RISING
IN OTHER STATES. AND SO WE DON'T
WANT THAT TO GET TO CALIFORNIA
AND MAKING SURE WE'RE VERY CLEAR
THAT IT'S UNACCEPTABLE. BEALL
AND HAVING PENALTIES RELATED TO
IF YOU'RE DOING IT OFTEN, IF
IT'S A COMMON THING VERSUS
SOMEBODY JUST, A YOUTH ONE TIME
PRANKING. BUT IF IT'S SOMETHING
YOU'RE DOING REGULARLY, THERE
MIGHT BE MORE OPPORTUNITY VERSUS
JUST THOSE TWO SCENARIOS WHERE
IT'S EITHER MISDEMEANOR OR
FELONY FOR THESE RELATED. BUT
THERE MIGHT BE OTHER WAYS, TO
HAVE PUNISHMENT TO BE ABLE TO,
YOU KNOW, PREVENT THIS FROM
HAPPENING IN THE FUTURE. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. OKAY WE HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND. SEEING NO
FURTHER QUESTIONS, I'M NOT
CERTAIN IF I CAN'T SUPPORT THE
BILL RIGHT NOW, BUT I HAVE HEARD
AND I CONCUR WITH SOME OF THE
ISSUES THAT MR. TÍNH ADDRESSED.
SO I'M NOT SURE IF YOU HAVE IT
TODAY, BUT I THINK THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT IF IT DOESN'T
PASS, I WILL SUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION. AND WE CAN TAKE
A LOOK AT WORKING AT THIS, DOWN
THE ROAD. DON'T WANT TO PREJUDGE
THE VOTE RIGHT HERE, BUT I JUST
WANT TO MAKE THAT COMMITMENT A
MOTION TO SECOND. WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE? I WOULD RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR VOTE. YES. OKAY.
THANK YOU. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ON AB 2609 BIAS AMENDMENT TO THE
MOTION IS DUE PASSED TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY NÓ MCCARTY NØ ALANIZ.
LAKI LAKI I NGUYEN REYES. REYES.
NOT VOTING. TING TING. NO.
WILSON. WILSON NOT VOTING.
ZUBER. ZUBER. NO THAT MEASURE,
FAILS I. WOULD YOU LIKE TO ASK
FOR RECONSIDERATION? YES I DO,
YES, WE'LL HAVE A MOTION A
SECOND ON THAT. I MAKE THE
MOTION SECOND BY MR. TING, I
SUPPORT THAT. PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ON RECONSIDERATION OF AB
2609 MCCARTY. MCCARTY I ALANIZ.
LAKI LAKI I NGUYEN REYES. REYES
I TING TING I WILSON. WILSON I
ZUBER. ZUBER I THANK YOU. OKAY.
THAT MEASURE PASSES THAT MOTION
PASSES FOR RECONSIDERATION, NEXT
AUTHOR IS MR. MAIENSCHEIN. WE
HAVE, ITEM NUMBER 17 ON AB 2739.
PLEASE BEGIN. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. IT IS GOOD TO SEE YOU
SITTING THERE. AB 2739 SEEKS TO
ENSURE ALL GUNS CARRIED
ILLEGALLY ARE TREATED THE SAME
UNDER THE LAW. UNDER CURRENT
LAW, CARRYING A CONCEALED WEAPON
WITHOUT A PERMIT IS A CRIME AND
IS DEEMED A PUBLIC NUISANCE. THE
FIREARM THAT IS ILLEGALLY
CARRIED MUST BE SURRENDERED AND
DESTROYED. HOWEVER, THE SAME
RULES DO NOT EXIST FOR OPENLY
CARRYING AN UNLOADED HANDGUN IN
PUBLIC OR CARRYING A LOADED
FIREARM IN PUBLIC. AB 2739
DECLARES BOTH OF THESE CRIMES A
NUISANCE AND SUBJECTS THE
FIREARMS TO EXISTING SURRENDER
AND DESTROY PROVISIONS.
ADDITIONALLY, AB 2739 APPLIES
THE SAME SURRENDER AND DESTROY
STATUTES TO FIREARMS USED IN
CRIMES FOR WHICH A DEFENDANT IS
GRANTED MISDEMEANOR DIVERSION.
AB 2739 FOCUSES SOLELY ON THE
FIREARM. IT DOES NOT CREATE A
NEW CRIME, DOES NOT INCREASE
CRIMINAL PENALTIES, OR INTERFERE
WITH A DEFENDANT'S ABILITY TO BE
GRANTED DIVERSION. IT ALSO DOES
NOT INFRINGE ON THE RIGHTS OF
LAW ABIDING GUN OWNERS, AS ANY
FIREARMS SUBJECTED TO SUBJECT TO
AB 2739 ARE FIREARMS THAT WERE
CARRIED IN VIOLATION OF
CALIFORNIA LAW. THIS BILL IS A
COMMON SENSE MEASURE THAT
TARGETS IRRESPONSIBLE GUN
POSSESSION. I RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU
. SUPPORT, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN AND
MEMBERS. MOYER THANK YOU. MOIRA
TOPP, HERE ON BEHALF OF SAN
DIEGO MAYOR TODD GLORIA AND THE
CITY OF SAN DIEGO AND STRONG
SUPPORT. CINDY DASILVA ON
BEHALF, MOTION A SECOND. OKAY GO
AHEAD. OKAY. ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT, THANK
YOU. SEEING NO OTHERS IN SUPPORT
ANY OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL,
SEEING NO OPPOSITION FROM THE
BILL. THERE WAS A. NO
OPPOSITION. WE HAVE A MOTION AND
A SECOND QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS. COMMENT.
MR. LACKEY. YEAH. MY ONLY
FRUSTRATION WITH THIS PARTICULAR
BILL IS THAT IT REINFORCES THE
FOCUS ON THE INSTRUMENTALITY,
AND IT MAKES IT, IT INFERS THAT
THE GUN IS EVIL, RIGHT? AND IT
ARE WE GOING TO START DOING THIS
FOR VEHICLES THAT ARE USED AS
INSTRUMENTALITY IN A CRIME AND
DESTROYING VEHICLES? I THINK
IT'S A IT'S A DISTRACTION OF THE
FOCUS BEING ON BEHAVIOR AND
THAT'S WHAT WORRIES ME. SO I'M
NOT IN A POSITION I'M NOT GOING
TO VOTE AGAINST THIS BECAUSE I
DON'T REALLY SEE THE HARM OTHER
THAN I THINK IT IT SENDS THE
MESSAGE THAT'S A DISTRACTION.
AND WE NEED TO BE FOCUSED MORE
ON BEHAVIOR INSTEAD OF
INSTRUMENTALITY. SO I WILL NOT
BE IN A POSITION TO SUPPORT IT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR.
ZUBIATE. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
THIS, BILL. I THINK IT'S A GREAT
BILL, IT'S ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT I THINK IS A HALLMARK OF
THE KINDS OF LAWS WE PASS HERE
IN CALIFORNIA, WHICH MAKE ME
FEEL A LOT SAFER, AND WILL, I
THINK MEMBERS OF MY COMMUNITY
WILL FEEL A LOT SAFER ONCE THIS
BILL IS IN EFFECT. AND SO I WANT
TO THANK YOU STRONGLY SUPPORT
IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU HAVE A
MOTION A SECOND. WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE? YEAH. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. YOU KNOW, WE'LL AGREE TO
DISAGREE ON THAT POINT. I THINK
THAT MR. LACKEY RAISED, I THINK
THIS IS THE ONLY THING THIS CAN
DO IS IMPROVE SAFETY. IT'S. WELL
THOUGHT OUT. IT'S COMMON SENSE,
IT DOESN'T IN ANY WAY, I
BELIEVE, CHANGE ULTIMATE
RESPONSIBILITY. BUT I DO THINK
IT CERTAINLY CHANGES THE
PERCENTAGE RISK MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC HAVE ANYTIME THEY GO OUT
IN PUBLIC OF BEING A VICTIM OF
GUN VIOLENCE. SO WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AND I VOTE,
OKAY. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A
MOTION A SECOND, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ON AB 2739 BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER MAIENSCHEIN. THE
MOTION IS Dð PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY. MCCARTY AYE. ALANIZ.
LAKI LAKI. NOT VOTING. NGUYEN.
REYES. REYES. AYE TING TING.
AYE. WILSON AYE. WILSON. AYE.
ZIPPER. ZIPPER. AYE THAT MEASURE
PASSES. THANK YOU, THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIRMAN. NEXT AUTHOR, MR.
GIBSON, WE HAVE TWO MEASURES.
YOUR FIRST WILL BE AB 29, 13,
29, 13 AND 20. 29, 13. IT'S
STILL MORNING. YEAH. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN AND
MEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING
ME TO PRESENT ASSEMBLY BILL
2913, THE CALIFORNIA VÀ HOMICIDE
VICTIM, FAMILY, RIGHTS ACT. THIS
AIMS TO CREATE A PROCEDURE FOR
FAMILY MEMBERS, SPECIFICALLY, A
DESIGNATED PERSON FOR HOMICIDE
VICTIM, TO REQUEST THAT THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT CONDUCTS A REVIEW OF
AN OPEN, UNSEALED BLVD. HOMICIDE
CASE FILED IF THE REVIEW
PROVIDES AN INVESTIGATIVE LEAD,
THEN THE CASE WILL HAVE A FULL
REINVESTIGATION. SOLVING GUN
VIOLENCE. SOLVING GUN CRIMES CAN
BE AN IMPORTANT PART OF
PROVIDING. OR PREVENTING. EXCUSE
ME, PREVENTING GUN VIOLENCE. AND
IT CAN HELP PROVIDE CLOSURE TO
VICTIM'S FAMILY. MANY OF YOU MAY
OR MAY NOT REMEMBER, MY SON, IN
2000, APRIL THE FIFTH, 2005, HE
AND HIS FIANCE WAS WALKING DOWN
THE STREET IN LOS ANGELES,
STOPPED TO TALK TO GARY. GARY
WAS 52 YEARS OF AGE, A DRIVE BY
SHOOTING TOOK PLACE. MY SON WAS
SHOT IN THE BACK TWICE. HIS
FIANCE SHOT IN THE LEG. GARY WHO
WAS SITTING IN THE CAR, WAS
KILLED. ANOTHER MAN WHO WAS
WORKING ON HIS CAR WAS SHOT IN
THE HAND. AND THE REASON WHY I
REFERENCED THAT SITUATION IS
BECAUSE LOS ANGELES POLICE
DEPARTMENT WORKED, QUICKLY,
EXPEDITIOUSLY, AND I WANT TO
THANK BECAUSE ONE, I'M A FORMER
POLICE OFFICER, AND I MAKE NO
QUALMS ABOUT THAT. BUT I ALSO
WANT TO THANK, BECAUSE I WAS AN
ELECTED OFFICIAL, THAT THE
DETECTIVES STAYED ON THAT
PARTICULAR CASE. IT TOOK TWO
YEARS BECAUSE THE INDIVIDUAL
PERPETRATORS, LEFT CALIFORNIA
AND WENT TO THE MIDWEST. BUT IT
WAS THE DETERMINATION OF THE
DETECTIVES WHO STAYED ON THE
CASE AT APPREHENDED, EXTRADITED
THOSE INDIVIDUALS BACK TO
CALIFORNIA WHERE THEY'RE WAITING
TRIAL. I REFER TO THIS, TO THIS,
TO THAT PARTICULAR POINT,
BECAUSE A LOT OF FAMILY MEMBERS
GO THROUGH ANGUISH, DEPRESSION
BECAUSE THEY NEED HOPE. THEY
CANNOT FIND WHO KILLED THEIR
LOVED ONE. AND SO NOT EVERYONE
WILL SERVE AS ELECTED OFFICIAL.
NOT EVERYONE WILL SERVE AS A
FORMER POLICE OFFICER.
CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE CASES
CLEARANCE RATE HOMICIDES HAVE
BEEN AT OR UNDER 65% FOR THE
LAST TEN YEARS, MEANING THAT
OVER A THIRD OF THE HOMICIDES,
GO UNSOLVED STATEWIDE, THE
AVAILABLE DATA TELLS US A
CONSISTENT STORY. CALIFORNIA
NEEDS TO DO MORE TO SOLVE
HOMICIDES, ESPECIALLY IN
COMMUNITIES HIT HARDEST BY GUN
VIOLENCE. GRIEF FAMILIES OFTEN
WANT MORE INFORMATION. THEY WANT
MORE INFORMATION TO GIVE THEM
HOPE ABOUT THE STATUS OF THEIR
LOVED ONE'S CASE. BUT THERE IS
NO UNIFORM PROCESS AROUND, THAT
THE STATE AND THAT, THAT THE
STATE FAMILIES, TO HOLD ON TO
WHEN TRYING TO DEAL WITH AN
UNSOLVED SITUATION WITH THIS
BILL SEEKS TO DO IS SET UP A
PROCESS, A PROCEDURE SO THAT
LOVED ONES WHO HAVE WHO MISS
THEIR LOVED ONES, WHO WAS TAKEN
AWAY FROM THEM, CAN HAVE A
PROCESS THEY CAN LOOK FORWARD TO
AND GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS,
EVEN INCLUDING AND NOT LIMITED
TO EVIDENCE THAT WILL HELP
REOPEN A PARTICULAR CASE THAT
WILL LEAD TO AN ARREST AND A
CONVICTION. AND SO THAT'S WHAT
THIS CASE IS ALL ABOUT. IT'S
ABOUT GIVING HOPE TO THOSE
FAMILIES WHO SUFFER ON A DAILY
BASIS EVERY CHRISTMAS, EVERY
BIRTHDAY, EVERY HOLIDAY. THERE'S
AN EMPTY CHAIR BEING MISSED AT A
HOME GATHERING BECAUSE CLOSURE
IS NOT GIVEN, AND CLOSURE CAN BE
GIVEN. WHEN A CASE IS CONTINUED
TO BE, LOOKED AT, INVESTIGATED,
AND HOPEFULLY LEADS TO AN
APPREHENSION AND ARREST, AND
ALSO A CONVICTION WITH ME TO
PROVIDE SUPPORTING TESTIMONY
WOULD BE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM A
LIVE FROM YOUTH ALIVE AND ALSO,
A BRAVE MOTHER WHO I HAPPEN TO
KNOW, MADDIE SCOTT WITH BRADY
UNITED, WHO WILL TESTIFY. THANK
YOU. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES IN
BETWEEN YOURSELVES. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR MCCARTHY AND
OTHERS, MY NAME IS DENISHA
GRISHAM. I'M 24 YEARS OLD, AND
I'M A VIOLENCE PREVENTION
EDUCATOR FOR TEENS ON TARGET AT
YOUTH ALIVE IN OAKLAND,
CALIFORNIA, A LITTLE BACKGROUND.
MY ROLE IS BASICALLY TO CREATE A
SPACE FOR STUDENTS AND YOUTH IN
OUR COMMUNITY TO TALK ABOUT SOME
OF THE VIOLENCE THAT HAPPENS,
UNFORTUNATELY, TO THEM AND IN
OUR COMMUNITY IS, WE WANT TO
TEACH THEM THAT THEIR THEIR
VOICES DO MATTER AND THEIR
NEGATIVE EXPERIENCES SHOULD
NEVER HOLD THEM BACK. I HAD THE
PRIVILEGE OF BEING A STUDENT FOR
TNT WHILE I WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL,
IN THAT SPACE THAT I WAS
PROVIDED, IS SOMETHING THAT I
WILL NEVER FORGET. IT MADE ME
WANT TO BE AN EXAMPLE THAT YOU
SHOULD AND CAN USE YOUR STORY TO
SPARK CHANGE IN YOUR COMMUNITY,
WHICH IS WHY I'M HERE TODAY IN
SUPPORT OF AB TWO 913, PRIOR TO
JOINING TNT, I LOST MY BROTHER
CHRISTOPHER JONES ON DECEMBER
31ST, 2010, AND UNFORTUNATELY,
MY BROTHER'S KILLERS WERE NEVER
CAUGHT. I'M HERE SPEAKING OUT
TODAY FOR FAMILIES WHO NEVER
RECEIVED JUSTICE. AND THAT'S ALL
THEY WANT. THEY WANT JUSTICE.
COUNTLESS OF TIMES I HAVE HEARD,
MOTHERS, SIBLINGS, NIECES AND
NEPHEWS JUST SPEAKING OUT IN
ANGUISH ABOUT HOW THEY HAVE NO
ANSWERS. THEY'RE WAITING FOR A
PHONE CALL FROM SOMEBODY AND
JUST WANT SOMEBODY TO TALK TO,
TO GET INFORMATION ON HOW THEY
CAN CLOSE THE CASE AND GET
ANSWERS FOR THEIR LOVED ONE, SO
MANY INSTAGRAM POSTS COUNTING UP
THE DAY SINCE THEY'VE HEARD FROM
A DETECTIVE OR HAVE ANY
INFORMATION ON IN GENERAL. AND,
YEAH, THESE EXPERIENCES ARE WHY
I AM IN SUPPORT OF THIS BILL.
THIS BILL WOULD GIVE FAMILIES A
SECOND CHANCE AT POTENTIALLY
GETTING ANSWERS AND FINDING
PEACE AND GETTING CLOSURE. THERE
IS NO HARM IN TAKING A SECOND
LOOK AT A CASE WITH FRESH EYES.
IF IT CAN GIVE LOVED ONES
CLOSURE, THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING
YOU TO SUPPORT THIS BILL, IT
WOULD MEAN A LOT TO FAMILIES
LIKE ME, MYSELF, AND THE YOUTH
THAT I SUPPORT IN OUR
COMMUNITIES. THANK YOU FOR
LISTENING. THANK YOU. NEXT
WITNESS. GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN
MCCARTHY. MY NAME IS, MADDIE
SCOTT. CAN YOU BRING A LITTLE
CLOSER TO THE MIC? SURE. YOU CAN
PULL IT TO YOU. THE MICROPHONE.
THERE YOU GO. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS
MADDIE SCOTT. I AM THE PRESIDENT
OF BRADY CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE
CHAPTER OF BRADY, I COME TO I
CAME TO THE GUN VIOLENCE
MOVEMENT AFTER MY YOUNGEST SON,
GEORGE C SCOTT, WAS SHOT AND
KILLED JULY 17TH, 1996. ONE DAY
BEFORE MY GRANDSON, HIS SIX YEAR
OLD SON. BIRTHDAY. THAT WAS MY
GRANDSON'S BIRTHDAY PRESENT. ME
HAVING TO TELL HIM YOUR DAD HAS
GONE TO HEAVEN. GEORGE IS ONLY
24 AND HE WAS THE FATHER OF TWO
YOUNG BLACK BOYS, NOW BLACK MEN
WHO HAVE HAD TO LIVE WITHOUT
THEIR FATHER AND WHO NOW FATHERS
THEMSELVES. ALMOST 30 YEARS
LATER, THE CASE REMAINS UNSOLVED
. MY STORY, GEORGE'S STORY AND
HIS SON'S STORY ARE NOT UNIQUE
TO MANY FAMILIES IN CALIFORNIA
HAVE LOST THEIR LOVED ONES TO
HOMICIDE, AND FAR TOO MANY,
MOSTLY BLACK AND BROWN FAMILIES
WAIT YEAR AFTER YEAR, NEVER
GETTING ANSWERS, EVEN THOUGH
HAVING CLOSURE IS INCREDIBLY
IMPORTANT FOR HEALING AND
BREAKING CYCLES OF VIOLENCE. I
KNOW BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN
VICTIMIZED OVER AND OVER AGAIN
FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS WITH MY
SON'S CASE. NEVER GETTING A CALL
FROM ANYONE FOR YEARS TO TELL ME
ANYTHING ABOUT MY CASE. I HAVE
TO FIGHT MY WAY THROUGH THIS
UNJUST SYSTEM AS A VICTIM. AB
2913 WILL CHANGE THIS FOR US
MOTHERS, FATHERS AND ALL WHO ARE
IMPACTED. FAMILY MEMBERS OF
MURDERED VICTIMS SHOULD HAVE THE
RIGHT TO REQUEST THE LAW THAT
LAW ENFORCEMENT CONDUCT AN
UNSOLVED HOMICIDE CASE FILE
REVIEW TO DETERMINE WHETHER A
FULL REINVESTIGATION COULD
RESULT IN NEW LEADS. UNDER AB
2913, A NEW LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO
REVIEW AN UNSOLVED HOMICIDE CASE
WHEN THEY RECEIVE A REQUEST FROM
AN IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBER OR A
HOMICIDE VICTIM. THE CASE FILE
REVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED BY A
DIFFERENT PERSON THAN THE
ORIGINAL INVESTIGATOR. TO BRING
A FRESH SET OF EYES TO THE CASE.
IF THE CASE REVIEW DECIDES THAT
REINVESTIGATION OF THE CASE
WOULD RESULT IN PROBATIVE NEW
LEASE, THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY MUST CONDUCT THAT
REINVESTIGATION. MY SON AND MY
FAMILY AND MANY CALIFORNIA'S
FAMILIES DESERVE JUSTICE AND
CLOSURE. THIS BILL WILL WORK TO
MAKE THAT HAPPEN. I KNOW
THOUSANDS OF MOTHERS THAT I SIT
HERE TODAY THAT WAS NOT ABLE TO
BE HERE, THAT I REPRESENT, THAT
SEND MY ORGANIZATION HEALING FOR
OUR FAMILIES AND OUR NATION, AND
THAT SAID, MOTHERS IN CHARGE
ACROSS THIS NATION WHERE OUR
CASES JUST SIT IN A COLD AS A
COLD CASE, THIS SHOULD NOT BE
THIS SHOULD NOT HAPPEN. 2913
WOULD MAKE THE DIFFERENCE. THANK
YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. OTHER
WITNESSES, PLEASE LINE UP ON THE
SIDE AND STATE YOUR POSITION AND
ORGANIZATION ONLY. CASSANDRA
WHETSTONE, VOLUNTEER WITH MOMS
DEMAND ACTION IN SUPPORT DANICA
ADAMO ON BEHALF OF SMART JUSTICE
CALIFORNIA AND STRONG SUPPORT
SARAH WHETSTONE, VOLUNTEER WITH
MOMS DEMAND ACTION IN SUPPORT
ALDERMASTON. VOLUNTEER WITH MOMS
DEMAND ACTION IN SUPPORT GILLIAN
KING, VOLUNTEER AND SURVIVOR
MOMS DEMAND ACTION IN SUPPORT.
TRESSA COOPER, VOLUNTEER MOMS
DEMAND ACTION IN SUPPORT MARY
LOU ROSATO, VOLUNTEER WITH MOMS
DEMAND ACTION IN SUPPORT LORI
HERBERT, VOLUNTEER WITH MOMS
DEMAND ACTION IN SUPPORT CLAIRE
SUNSHINE, VOLUNTEER WITH MOMS
DEMAND ACTION AND SUPPORT IN GUN
VIOLENCE. SURVIVOR. YARA GOODALL
VOLUNTEER WITH MOMS DEMAND
ACTION IN SUPPORT. MARILYN
DYKSTRA, GUN VIOLENCE SURVIVOR.
VOLUNTEER WITH MOMS DEMAND
ACTION IN SUPPORT. SHIRLEY
LEWANDOWSKI, VOLUNTEER WITH MOMS
DEMAND ACTION IN STRONG SUPPORT.
TAMMY SHAW VOLUNTEER WITH MOMS
DEMAND ACTION IN SUPPORT CHERYL
DAVIS, VOLUNTEER WITH MOMS
DEMAND ACTION IN SUPPORT.
SUZANNE LANDER, VOLUNTEER WITH
MOMS DEMAND ACTION STRONG
SUPPORT ALISON LIBERATORE,
VOLUNTEER WITH MOMS DEMAND
ACTION IN SUPPORT DIANA HONIG,
VOLUNTEER WITH MOMS DEMAND
ACTION IN STRONG SUPPORT.
MARYLOU THOMPSON, VOLUNTEER WITH
END GUN VIOLENCE CLUB ROSSMOOR
SUPPORT KATHY MALONEY, VOLUNTEER
AT END GUN VIOLENCE CLUB OF
ROSSMOOR, STRONG SUPPORT. JULIE
CHAPMAN, VOLUNTEER WITH MOMS
DEMAND ACTION IN SUPPORT AMY
SEROPIAN, VOLUNTEER WITH MOMS
DEMAND ACTION IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE
OPPOSITION HERE TODAY? PLEASE
COME FORWARD. YEP.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, CORY SALZILLO, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION,
REGRETFULLY, IN OPPOSITION TO
THIS BILL, CERTAINLY. LET ME SAY
AT THE OUTSET THAT, ENSURING WE
DO OUR UTMOST TO, OBTAIN JUSTICE
FOR VICTIMS IS A TOP PRIORITY OF
LAW ENFORCEMENT, BUT I THINK WE
HAVE TO TALK ABOUT THE LOGISTICS
OF WHAT THIS BILL CONTEMPLATES,
AND SOME OF THE REALITIES OF,
HOW CASES ARE INVESTIGATED AND
HOW RESOURCES ARE PRIORITIZED.
AND, THIS BILL UNFORTUNATELY
CREATES A PRETTY RIGID PROCESS
IN STATUTE WITH LITTLE ROOM FOR
FLEXIBILITY TO ADDRESS THE
PARTICULAR REALITIES OF, A
SPECIFIC CASE OR THE
INVESTIGATING AGENCY, THIS
EFFECTIVELY TRIGGERS AN
AUTOMATIC REVIEW IF A FAMILY
MEMBER OR A SIMILARLY SITUATED
PERSON, FILES AN APPLICATION.
AND NOTWITHSTANDING THE LACK OF
CLARITY OF WHAT A SIMILARLY
SITUATED PERSON MEANS OR REFERS
TO, THIS EFFECTIVELY MOVES A
CASE REVIEW UNDER THIS BILL TO
THE FRONT OF THE LINE, WITHOUT
REGARD TO AVAILABLE STAFF,
FISCAL RESOURCES, AND OTHER LAW
ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES, AND IT
REQUIRES THAT THE REVIEW BE
COMPLETED WITHIN 90 DAYS, WITH
ONLY THE POSSIBILITY OF A SINGLE
45 DAY EXTENSION, AND THERE'S
THE ONLY LIMITATION ON A
REPEATED REVIEW UNDER THIS BILL
WOULD BE THAT IT CAN BE DONE
EVERY FIVE YEARS SUBSEQUENT TO
THE INITIAL CASE REVIEW, IT'S
ALSO WORTH NOTING THAT, AS WAS
MENTIONED, THE BILL SAYS THAT
THE PERSON OR PERSONS WHO
PERFORM THE CASE REVIEW, SHALL
NOT HAVE PREVIOUSLY INVESTIGATED
THE UNDERLYING MURDER. THIS IS
PROBLEMATIC FOR SMALL AGENCIES
WHO MAY NOT HAVE MULTIPLE STAFF
MEMBERS WHO CAN BE ASSIGNED TO
THIS ROLE, AND IT WILL BE
PROBLEMATIC FOR LARGE AGENCIES
WHO MAY HAVE MORE STAFF
RESOURCES, BUT ALL RELEVANT
STAFF MEMBERS MAY HAVE
PARTICIPATED IN THE ORIGINAL
INVESTIGATION. IN SOME FORM OR
FASHION, THE ANALYSIS POINTS OUT
MANY RELEVANT LOGISTICAL ISSUES,
NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH IS THAT
THE TIMING CONTEMPLATED BY THIS
BILL COULD BE EXCEEDINGLY CLOSE
TO WHEN THE ORIGINAL
INVESTIGATION STARTED, OR HAS
SORT OF REACHED A POINT OF, OF,
OF THAT HURDLE OF NOT BEING ABLE
TO PROCEED OR PROCEED
EXPEDITIOUSLY, AND SO FOR, FOR
THOSE REASONS, AND HAPPY TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. BUT
UNFORTUNATELY, WE'RE OPPOSED TO
THE BILL. WE'RE RESPECTFULLY TO
THE AUTHOR AND PROPONENTS. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. OTHERS IN
OPPOSITION. LIEUTENANT JULIO
DELEON, ON BEHALF OF THE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF'S
OFFICE, IN OPPOSITION. OKAY NØ
THEIR MEMBERS IN OPPOSITION, DO
WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS?
ASSEMBLY MEMBER REYES, DO YOU
HAVE A MOTION? THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. TO THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE
LOST FAMILY MEMBERS, THANK YOU
FOR BEING HERE. YOU PROVIDE A
DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE ON THESE
UNSOLVED CRIMES, WITHOUT A
DOUBT, EVERYBODY, EVERY SECOND,
EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE THAT
OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THEIR CASE
CLOSED. TO THE AUTHOR. AND WE
SPOKE BRIEFLY BEFORE I DO HERE
AND ACCEPT THE COMMENTS MADE BY
THE OPPOSITION, REGARDING THE
LOGISTICS OF IT ALL, HAVING
DIFFERENT EYES LOOK AT IT IS A
GOOD THING BECAUSE THEN SOMEBODY
ELSE WHO HAS NOT LOOKED AT IT.
BUT IF IT IS A SMALLER AGENCY,
THEY DON'T HAVE OTHERS TO LOOK
AT IT. SOMETHING TO CONSIDER.
THE TIMELINES ALSO
INVESTIGATIONS AS AS WE KNOW. I
MAY NOT BE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT,
BUT MY SISTER IS RETIRED FROM IT
AND I KNOW IT TAKES A LONG TIME
TO GET THROUGH A PROCESS MÁS
FROM A PERSON OF INTEREST TO
FINALLY MAKING THEM A SUSPECT,
TO MAKE IT, MAKING IT AT SOME
POINT, A COLD CASE FINDING THAT
BALANCE BETWEEN THE TWO, I THINK
IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, THE
OTHER THING THAT WAS MENTIONED,
NOT IN THE TESTIMONY NOW, BUT IN
THE ANALYSIS, IS THAT THE
INFORMATION THAT IS, UNCOVERED
IS THEN PROVIDED TO THE PERSON
WHO'S REQUESTED THAT THIS NEW
REVIEW AND SOME OF THIS IS
INFORMATION THAT WOULD NOT
NORMALLY BE DISCOVERABLE,
THROUGH A, A PUBLIC RECORDS
REVIEW. SO I'M CONCERNED ABOUT
THE INFORMATION BEING GIVEN. I
WILL SUPPORT THIS BILL. I THINK
FAMILIES ABSOLUTELY DESERVE TO
HAVE CLOSURE, AND TO BE GIVEN
THE HOPE TO BE GIVEN THE DIGNITY
THAT THEY DESERVE, TO KNOW THAT
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS BEING
LOOKED AT. BUT THE COMMENTS MADE
BY OPPOSITION, I THINK, ARE
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT IN PUTTING
TOGETHER A BILL THAT IS GOING TO
ACCOMPLISH EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT
TO DO, BUT NOT PROVIDING THE
EXTRA BURDEN THAT CAN'T, CAN'T
BE, CAN'T BE WITHSTOOD BY AN
AGENCY. MADAM CHAIR. YES, MR.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND LET ME
SAY I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS OF
THE ASSEMBLYWOMAN AND ALSO IN
THE OPPOSITION. WE DO HAVE AN
OPPOSITION LETTER, IT'S BEEN
BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION, AND WE
STAND WILLING, READY AND ABLE TO
WORK WITH THE OPPOSITION TO TRY
TO CLOSE THE GAP ON SOME OF THE
ISSUES IN WHICH YOU BROUGHT UP.
I'VE NEVER I'VE NEVER BEEN A
DETECTIVE, SO I DON'T KNOW HOW
TO SPEAK TO THAT, BUT I KNOW
THAT WE IT'S A PARTNERSHIP, AND
I BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE SO MANY
FAMILIES WHO ARE HURTING, JUST
LOOKING FOR BRINGING CLOSURE TO
THESE UNSOLVED, CASES, AND SO
THIS, I BELIEVE, IS A STEP IN
THE RIGHT DIRECTION. AND I'M
OPEN, ENOUGH TO ONE, SIT DOWN AT
THE TABLE WITH YOU AND TRY TO
HAMMER OUT, YOU KNOW, SOME
REASONABLE AMENDMENTS TO THIS
BILL YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT. HI.
MEGAN SIMMONS WITH EVERYTOWN FOR
GUN SAFETY. PROUD SPONSOR OF THE
BILL. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR
COMMENTS, ONE OF OUR INTENTIONS
WITH THIS BILL IS TO ACTUALLY
HELP IMPROVE RELATIONSHIPS
BETWEEN LAW ENFORCEMENT AND
COMMUNITIES THAT ARE MOST
IMPACTED BY GUN VIOLENCE. SO
WITH THAT, WE WOULD LOVE TO SIT
DOWN WITH ALL OF YOU, AND FIND
SOME AMENDMENTS AND VERY, VERY
WELCOME TO THAT. THANK YOU. WE
HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND AND,
MR. MISTER LACKEY. YEAH. I'M
SORRY. I'LL BE VERY, VERY QUICK,
I DO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT WE
ACTUALLY HAVE A BILL ON THE
FLOOR THAT LOOKS LIKE IT HAS A
GOOD CHANCE OF SURVIVING, THAT
HAS A VICTIM FOCUS, REGRETTABLY,
WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH OF THAT.
BUT I'M VERY THANKFUL FOR THAT.
BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT THE
OPPOSITION AS WAS ALSO FORTIFIED
BY MY COLLEAGUE ACROSS THE TABLE
THERE THAT, WE NEED TO FORTIFY
RESOURCES AND THESE SMALLER
AGENCIES, IT'S HARD TO
MANUFACTURE RESOURCES WITH SUCH
A SERIOUS MATTER BECAUSE
EVERYBODY WANTS TO FIND A
SOLUTION, AND THE INTENT IS
NEVER IN QUESTION. SO WE NEED
TO, AS YOU CONTINUE TO PROGRESS
THROUGH WITH THIS, WITH THIS
MEASURE, TRY TO INSTILL SOME
KIND OF, FORTIFICATION OF
RESOURCES IN THESE SMALLER
AGENCIES SO THAT THEY CAN
REALISTICALLY ACCOMPLISH THE
GOAL. I WILL BE SUPPORTING IT,
THOUGH. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK
YOU. YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? YES MR.
CHAIRMAN, I JUST WANTED TO,
RESPOND TO MR. LACKEY'S, CONCERN
. AND, WE'RE OPEN TO CARVE OUTS
OF SMALL AGENCIES MOVING FORWARD
IN THIS BILL. AND THANK YOU VERY
MUCH FOR YOUR COMMENTS. ASSEMBLY
BILL 2913 WILL CREATE A UNIFORM
PROCESS AROUND THE STATE FOR
FAMILIES TO REQUEST FURTHER
REVIEW OF AN UNSOLVED CASE.
ULTIMATELY, THIS BILL WILL
PROVIDE CLARITY, AND CLOSURE OF
THE DEATH OF A LOVED ONE.
SIMILARLY, BILL 2913 IS
SPONSORED BY EVERYTOWN. BRADY
YOUTH ALIVE AND ALSO SUPPORTED
BY MOMS DEMAND ACTION ACTION
SMART JUSTICE, AND SO MANY
OTHERS, INCLUDING AND NOT
LIMITED TO ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN
MY DISTRICT. I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION A
SECOND. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON
A B 2913 BY A MEMBER GIBSON. THE
MOTION IS DUE. PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY. MCCARTY. I ALANIS
LACKEY. LACKEY I NGUYEN REYES
REYES I TÍNH TING I WILSON.
ZEBRA MEASURES ON CALL. NEXT UP
WE HAVE MR. HART, MR. OH, I'M
SORRY, I'M SORRY BUDDY. YEAH.
GOT ALL EXCITED SO THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.
AB 2419, ITEM NUMBER 11. MR.
GIBSON. AGAIN, THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS.
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO
PRESENT ASSEMBLY BILL 2419,
WHICH IS AN EMOTIONAL BILL, THIS
BILL PROVIDES THAT A SEARCH
WARRANT MAY BE ISSUED FOR OR ON
THE BASIS OF COMMUNICATION IN
FURTHERANCE OF A SOLICITATION OF
A MINOR, WE WANT TO SAY CHILD
FOR PROSTITUTION IN THE ISSUANCE
OF A SEARCH WARRANT IS A KEY, IS
A KEY TOOL, USED TO COLLECT
ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE TO HELP
COMBAT HUMAN TRAFFICKING,
ESPECIALLY THE TRAFFICKING OF A
CHILD. THE SEARCH WARRANTS WOULD
BE ONLY USED IF THE EVIDENCE
THAT'S ON A CELL PHONE, OR
COMMUNICATED OR COMMUNICATED
DEVICE HAS MESSAGES PERTAINING
TO HUMAN TRAFFICKING,
COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING THE
POSSIBLE, TRAFFICKING OF OR
SOLICITATION OF A CHILD IS NOT
CURRENTLY LISTED AS A GROUNDS
FOR AN ISSUANCE OF A WARRANT,
NOT GROUNDS FOR AN ISSUANCE OF A
WARRANT. CURRENT LAW PERMITS A
SEARCH WARRANT TO BE ISSUED WHEN
THE PROPERTY OR THINGS BEING
SEIZED CONSTITUTE EVIDENCE SHOWN
THAT A FELONY HAS BEEN
COMMITTED. THE LAW CURRENTLY IS
STRIPPED AWAY. LAW ENFORCEMENT
OF THE SAME INVESTIGATIVE TOOLS.
WHEN INVESTIGATING THE
SOLICITATION OF A MINOR FOR AN
ACT OF PROSTITUTION, A
MISDEMEANOR VIOLATION, ACCORDING
TO THE CALIFORNIA CHILD WELFARE
COUNCIL, STATES HUMAN
TRAFFICKING IS A $32 BILLION
INDUSTRY INVOLVING OVER 100,000
CHILDREN IN THE UNITED STATES.
CHILDREN CONSISTENTLY
CALIFORNIA. EXCUSE ME.
CALIFORNIA CONSISTENTLY RANKED
NUMBER ONE IN THE NATIONS.
RANKED NUMBER ONE IN THE NATION
OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING. CASES
REPORTED TO THE NATIONAL HUMAN
TRAFFICKING HOTLINE, AND
ACCORDING TO THE FBI, THREE OUT
OF THE NATION'S 13 HIGHEST CHILD
PROSTITUTION AREAS ARE AREAS IN
WHICH WE REPRESENT. IT'S LOS
ANGELES, SAN FRANCISCO AND SAN
DIEGO. MEMBERS SERVE OF YOU
REPRESENT THOSE PARTICULAR AREAS
IN YOUR DISTRICT. MY OFFICE HAS
MET WITH THE OPPOSITION, AND WE
ARE PLANNING TO CONTINUE TO HAVE
CONVERSATION MOVING FORWARD ON
STRENGTHENING THIS BILL AND
MAKING THIS BILL BETTER AS WE
MOVE FORWARD. THIS BILL IS NOT I
WANT TO REPEAT, THIS BILL IS NOT
GOING AROUND CURRENT LAW ON THE
PROCESS OF OBTAINING A SEARCH
WARRANT. THIS BILL IS NOT
UNDERSCORE NOT TAKING RESOURCES
AWAY FROM SURVIVORS MEMBERS.
THESE ARE OUR BABIES. THE FUTURE
OF CALIFORNIA. WE NEED TO
PROTECT THEM AT ALL COSTS. ON
JANUARY THE 8TH, 2022 TÊ OAN
DÍAS, A RESIDENT OF THE CITY OF
COMPTON LIVING IN MY DISTRICT 16
YEARS OF AGE, WAS A VICTIM OF
HUMAN TRAFFICKING. HER MOTHER
DID EVERYTHING SHE COULD TO
PROTECT HER CHILD. HER MOTHER
REPORTED WAS A PARAPLEGIC,
PARALYZED FROM THE NECK DOWN.
AGAIN. SHE DID EVERYTHING SHE
COULD TO PROTECT HER CHILD, BUT
YET HER CHILD WAS PULLED INTO
HUMAN TRAFFICKING AT 16 YEARS OF
AGE. HER PIMP, THE PREDATOR, THE
PERSON WHO DID THESE HORRIBLE
THINGS, SHOT TONY IN THE NECK
TWICE, THREW HER BODY OUT ON THE
ON THE, 110 HARBOR FREEWAY IN
LOS ANGELES AT THE MANCHESTER ON
RAMP. LIKE TRASH. LIKE TRASH. A
FEW WEEKS PRIOR, SOMETHING
SIMILAR TO HAPPENED TO ANOTHER
YOUNG LADY. THERE WAS A REWARD
OF $150,000 IN TONY'S CASE, THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA PUT A
$50,000 REWARD. THE COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES PUT ANOTHER $50,000
UP. THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES PUT
UP 110,100. I MEAN, TEN,
$10,000, BRINGING THE TOTAL
$110,000 AS A REWARD FOR THE
ARREST AND THE APPREHENSION OF
HER ASSAILANT BY INSTILLING THIS
BILL, WE CAN ADD TOOLS THAT WILL
HELP APPREHEND AND ARREST, SEX
TRAFFICKERS WHO SEEK TO, DEVOUR
OUR OUR CHILDREN, OUR BABIES.
THIS IS WHY ASSEMBLY BILL 2419
WILL HELP THE CITY OF LOS
ANGELES OFFICE. WHO, CITY
ATTORNEY WHO HAS BOOTS ON THE
GROUND AND WHO HAVE THEIR HANDS
ON THE POST. WE ARE CURRENTLY
POSITIVELY INFLUENCED CHANGE TO
MAKING SURE THAT OUR BABIES, OUR
CHILDREN ARE PROTECTED. I'M
HAPPY TO PRESENT AS A WITNESS IN
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL, THE CITY
ATTORNEY FROM THE CITY OF LOS
ANGELES, HEIDI, FIRST, PHIL
STEIN SOTO, WHO WILL SPEAK IN
SUPPORT AND ADVOCATE ON THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. YOU BOTH HAVE
FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. ASSEMBLY MEMBER,
GOOD MORNING, MEMBERS, AND THANK
YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO TESTIFY
HERE TODAY AND GIVE ME THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT
OF ASSEMBLY BILL 2419. I AM VERY
PROUD TO HAVE WORKED WITH
ASSEMBLY MEMBER GIBSON TO
INTRODUCE THIS CRITICALLY
IMPORTANT TOOL TO OUR LAW
ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS. I WANT TO
EMPHASIZE SOMETHING THAT
ASSEMBLY MEMBER GIBSON SAID.
THIS BILL IS NOT ABOUT CREATING
A NEW CRIME. THIS BILL IS NOT
ABOUT ARRESTING CHILDREN. THIS
BILL IS NOT NOT ABOUT
IMMIGRATION. CONSEQUENCES. UNDER
THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE, WE
ARE ALREADY REQUIRED AS
PROSECUTORS TO TAKE IMMIGRATION
CONSEQUENCES INTO ACCOUNT AND TO
ATTEMPT TO AVOID THEM IN
CHARGING. WHAT THIS BILL DOES IS
IT TAKES SOLICITATION OF A MINOR
AND UTILIZES IT AS A PREVENTION
TOOL FOR TRAFFICKING. TODAY'S
LAW REQUIRES ACTUAL HARM TO THE
CHILD. BEFORE YOU CAN WIND UP
GOING IN FOR A SEARCH WARRANT ON
A FELONY BASIS, THIS BILL WOULD
STOP JUST SHY OF THAT. IT ALLOWS
US TO INTERRUPT THE PIPELINE OF
OFFENDERS TO THE CHILD AND
ALLOWS US TO STEP IN AND PROVE
UP A CASE WITHOUT PUTTING THE
CHILD ON THE STAND, WITHOUT
RETRAUMATIZING, THE ORIGINAL
VICTIM. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO
KNOW ME, YOU KNOW THAT SEX
TRAFFICKING OF OUR CHILDREN,
STARTING WITH THE NOTORIOUS
TRACK, IT'S CALLED A KIDDY
STROLL ALONG THE FIGUEROA
CORRIDOR IN LOS ANGELES HAS BEEN
A PRIORITY FOR ME SINCE I
ASSUMED OFFICE. CALIFORNIA IS AN
EPICENTER, AS I THINK THE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER POINTED OUT, AND
MY CITY JUST A FEW MILES SOUTH
OF CITY HALL, HAS BEEN NOTORIOUS
AS THE MOST TRAFFICKED STROLL
WEST OF THE MISSISSIPPI. LET ME
ALSO SAY THAT OUR CURRENT LAW
DOESN'T MATCH WHAT HAPPENS IN
OUR STREETS. WE HAVE HAD AN
INITIATIVE SINCE LAST JULY. THE
INITIATIVE HAS BEEN FOCUSED ON
DISRUPTING THE JOHN'S, ON
ARRESTING AND BRINGING TO
JUSTICE THE PREDATORS, AND ON
PROVIDING SERVICES AND RESCUING
THE CHILDREN. I AM PROUD TO SAY
THAT BETWEEN JULY AND JANUARY,
MY OFFICE WITH OUR SERVICE
PROVIDERS HELPED 60 MINORS GET
OFF THE FIGUEROA CORRIDOR AND TO
A PLACE OF SAFETY WHERE THEY CAN
HEAL. THIS BILL GIVES US A TOOL
WHERE WE DON'T HAVE TO WAIT FOR
THE HARM TO HAPPEN. WE GO INTO A
JUDGE. IT IS A SCALPEL. IT IS
SURGICAL. THIS ISN'T SUDDENLY
GETTING AN ARREST. THIS DOESN'T
AUTHORIZE THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE
WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT. WE
HAVE TO SIT DOWN AND WE HAVE TO
DO A PROBABLE CAUSE UNDER
PENALTY OF PERJURY. WE HAVE TO
DESCRIBE THE MATERIALS WITH
PARTICULAR K¾T. I READ IN THE
OPPOSITION THAT COMMUNICATIONS
IS TOO BROAD A PHRASE. WELL, IN
ORDER TO GET A SEARCH WARRANT,
YOU HAVE TO DESCRIBE EXACTLY
WHAT YOU'RE GOING AFTER. IT HAS
TO BE A PARTICULAR CELL PHONE
WITH TEXT MESSAGES THAT SHOW THE
THREAT, FORCE, OR COERCION
NECESSARY FOR HUMAN TRAFFICKING.
SO TO GIVE YOU A VERY CONCRETE
EXAMPLE, IF YOU HAVE AN
ENCOUNTER BETWEEN A JOHN OR A
PREDATOR AND A MINOR ON THE
STREET, LAW ENFORCEMENT TODAY
DOESN'T HAVE A TOOL BEYOND
ASKING THE BOTH OF THEM IF WE
CAN SEARCH THEIR PHONES. THERE
IS NO CHILD ON THE STREET WHO IS
MORE AFRAID OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
THAN THEY ARE OF THEIR OWN PIMP.
THERE ARE WAY TOO MANY STORIES
OF OUR KIDS RUNNING AROUND AND
BEING BROUGHT UP, BROUGHT BACK
AND BEAT TO A PULP. AND SO WHAT
THIS DOES IS THAT IT ALLOWS LAW
ENFORCEMENT TO GO INTO COURT AND
APPEAR BEFORE A JUDGE AND
PERSUADE THEM TO LET US LOOK AT
THE TELEPHONE TO SEE IF WE CAN
FIND THE TEXT MESSAGE FOR FRAUD
OR COERCION THAT SAYS, DON'T YOU
DARE ANSWER THIS QUESTION OR
YOU'LL NEVER SEE YOUR FAMILY
ALIVE AGAIN. AND IT IS THAT
EVIDENCE THAT WE NEED IN ORDER
TO CREATE THE CASE FOR FRAUD,
FORCE OR COERCION ON HUMAN
TRAFFICKING. YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE
LEFT, I ACTUALLY WOULD PREFER TO
TAKE YOUR QUESTIONS AND NOT
WASTE YOUR TIME. HOW'S THAT? NØ.
I'LL DEFER. OKAY ANYONE ELSE IN
SUPPORT? PLEASE COME UP TO THE
MIC. NAME ASSOCIATION.
RANDY PERRY WITH AARON REID AND
ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF POREC IN
SUPPORT. RYAN SHERMAN WITH THE
RIVERSIDE SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION,
CALIFORNIA OFFICERS ASSOCIATION,
CALIFORNIA RESERVE PEACE
OFFICERS, DEPUTY SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION, MONTEREY COUNTY AND
PLACER COUNTY, AND THE POWS OF
ARCADIA, BURBANK, CLAREMONT,
CORONA, CULVER CITY, FULLERTON,
MARIETTA, NEWPORT, NOVATO, PALOS
VERDES, POMONA, RIVERSIDE, SANTA
ANA, AND UPLAND ALL IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. CORY SALZILLO, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION, IN SUPPORT
. MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS, ANDREW
ANTWI HERE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY
OF LOS ANGELES, THE LOS ANGELES
CITY COUNCIL TOOK UNANIMOUS
ACTION TO SUPPORT THIS MEASURE.
THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE FOR
SUPPORT? OKAY. SEEING NONE,
OPPOSITION, PLEASE COME UP TO
THE TABLE. YOU WILL HAVE FIVE
MINUTES.
OKAY Ó, WHY DON'T YOU. OKAY.
GOOD AFTERNOON. CHAIR MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS DUKE COONEY. ON
BEHALF OF ACLU CALIFORNIA
ACTION, WE ARE IN OPPOSITION TO
AB 2419. DO YOU LIKE TO THANK
THE AUTHORS OFFICE FOR MEETING
WITH ME AND DISCUSSING SOME OF
OUR ISSUES WITH THE BILL? WHILE
WE ARE SYMPATHETIC TO THE
SPONSOR STATED GOAL OF PURSUING
CHILD SEX TRAFFICKERS, AB 2419
DOES NOT ACCOMPLISH THAT GOAL
AND INSTEAD RAISES PRIVACY
CONCERNS. THE CURRENT LANGUAGE
IS OVERBROAD AND HAS NO
DEFINITION FOR COMMUNICATIONS,
AND WHAT THAT DOES IS IT
POTENTIALLY OPENS UP TO EVERY
PERSON'S CELL PHONE, COMPUTER,
OR OTHER ELECTRONIC DEVICE TO A
SEARCH COVERING WELL MORE THAN
THE COMMUNICATIONS FOUND IN THE
AMENDED STATUTE. SINCE SEX
TRAFFICKING IS A FELONY, THE
POLICE CAN ALREADY SEEK A SEARCH
WARRANT FOR EVIDENCE OF SEX
TRAFFICKING. AB 2419 REPRESENTS
A FURTHER EROSION OF A STATUTE
THAT WAS NARROWLY DRAWN TO
PROTECT CITIZENS PRIVACY. THE
CONTINUED AMENDMENTS TO PENAL
CODE SECTION 1524 ARE AN EXAMPLE
OF HOW A LIMITING SECTION OVER
THE YEARS IS CONTINUALLY
WEAKENED AND EXPANDED BEYOND ITS
ORIGINAL INTENT. FOR THOSE
REASONS, WE ARE IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION OF AB 2419. THANK YOU
. OKAY, NEXT WITNESS MARCO
GEORGE, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION, THÀNH IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION AND WE THANK THE CITY
ATTORNEY AND THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE
FOR MEETING WITH US. WE
CERTAINLY ARE IN SYMPATHY WITH
THEIR GOALS. HOWEVER, IF IN FACT
THEY ARE GOING AFTER HUMAN
TRAFFICKERS, WHICH IS A FELONY
THAT IS ALREADY COVERED AND THAT
IS CAN BE DONE IF THEY IN FACT,
THEY'RE GOING AFTER 647, BE
MISDEMEANORS. THAT LEAVES EITHER
THE MINORS OR THE CUSTOMERS ARE
JOHNS. SO WITH THE MINORS
THREATENING TO TAKE THEIR CELL
PHONES AWAY TO LOOK FOR
EVIDENCE, IS VERY, VERY SCARY
FOR THEM BECAUSE MOST OF THEM
ARE MINORS OR RUNAWAYS OR LGBTQ
PLUS YOUTH WHO HAVE FLED ABUSIVE
HOMES OR HAVE BEEN KICKED OUT OF
THEIR HOMES. AND THE LAST THING
THEY WANT TO DO IS HAVE THE
AUTHORITY TO GO THROUGH THEIR
PHONES LOOKING FOR THEIR
FAMILIES AND THEIR CONTACTS. SO
THIS IF THIS TRYING TO THREATEN
THE JOHNS WITH, WE'RE GOING TO
TAKE YOUR PHONES AND EMBARRASS
YOU. THEY'RE IT IS UNLIKELY THAT
THE CUSTOMERS THAT ARE DRIVING
UP AND DOWN THE STREET ARE GOING
TO BE HAVING TEXT MESSAGES WITH
YOUNG PEOPLE THAT THEY DON'T
EVEN KNOW, SINCE THE TRANSACTION
IS IN PUBLIC. AND TRULY, YOU
KNOW THIS, YOU KNOW, IS A TRAGIC
SITUATION. AND IF SOMEONE WANTS
TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, THEN
INSTEAD OF FURTHER TERRORIZING
THE VICTIMS WITH THE POLICE AND
DRIVING THIS FROM ONE PART OF
TOWN TO ANOTHER PART OF TOWN, OR
TO A DIFFERENT TOWN OR
UNDERGROUND, THEN PROVIDE
SERVICES FOR THEM, PROVIDE
PLACES FOR THEM TO LIVE. MENTAL
HEALTH COUNSELING, SUBSTANCE
ABUSE TREATMENT. ALL OF THESE
ARE THINGS THAT TRULY HELP THE
YOUNG PEOPLE. THERE WAS FOR A
LONG TIME A VERY SUCCESSFUL
PROJECT. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S
STILL IN EXISTENCE. THE LARKIN
STREET PROJECT IN SAN FRANCISCO
THAT PROVIDED RESOURCES TO YOUNG
PEOPLE, I AM FROM OAKLAND AND WE
HAVE THE EXAMPLE, WHICH WAS
HIGHLY PUBLICIZED, BUT PROBABLY
NOT TOTALLY UNIQUE OF A 16 YEAR
OLD, MINOR WHO REPEATEDLY HAD,
SEXUAL CONTACT WITH POLICE
OFFICERS, WHICH RESULTED IN THE
SUICIDE OF ONE OFFICER AND THE
ACTUAL, DISMISSAL OR LEAVING OF
THE CHIEF OF POLICE. SO
ENCOURAGING MORE LAW ENFORCEMENT
IN THIS WAY BY EXPANDING THIS,
SEARCH WARRANT PROVISION IS BOTH
A NEEDED AND HARMFUL. WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR NO
VOTE. THANK YOU. ANY OTHERS IN
OPPOSITION, PLEASE LINE UP.
NAME. POSITION ONLY. MELANIE
KIM, SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC
DEFENDER'S OFFICE IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. KNOW, THERE'S AN
OPPOSITION QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MR.
ZUBIATE. SO I WANT TO THANK MY
COLLEAGUE AND, OUR, LOS ANGELES
CITY COUNCIL WHO, CITY ATTORNEY
WHO I HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR, I
HAD A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS, AND I
HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT
THIS BILL, THE FIRST, I THINK,
IS THE STANDARD SEEMS TO BE VERY
LOOSE. AND SO I'M WONDERING, IT
BASICALLY EXPANDS THE GROUNDS ON
WHICH A SEARCH WARRANT CAN BE
ISSUED TO INCLUDE ONE PROPERTY
OR THINGS TO BE SEIZED CONSIST
OF EVIDENCE THAT TEND TO SHOW
CRIME OF COMMUNICATIONS AND
FURTHERANCE OF SOLICITATION OF A
MINOR. SO WHAT WOULD TRIGGER,
FOR EXAMPLE, SEEKING A SEARCH
WARRANT FROM EITHER A JOHN OR. I
UNDERSTAND THIS INCLUDES MINORS
AS WELL. SO WHAT WOULD WHAT
WOULD BE A FACT PATTERN THAT
WOULD CAUSE YOU TO SEEK A SEARCH
WARRANT OF THAT PERSON'S PHONE?
THE FACT PATTERN ACTUALLY IS
NEITHER THE JOHN. IT'S ACTUALLY
THE PIMP. IF WHAT YOU'RE DOING
IS YOU HAVE A PREDATOR ON THE
STREET WHO IS RUNNING FIVE, SIX,
TEN YOUNG PEOPLE ON A KIDDY
STROLL. THE CONTROL IS IN THE
PHONE. THE CONTROL THAT'S WHY I
SAID THE LEGISLATION DOESN'T
MATCH WHAT WE'RE SEEING. I'M
ASKING FOR SORT OF THE FACTS
THAT YOU WOULD ACTUALLY CONSIDER
WHEN YOU ARE SEEKING A SEARCH
WARRANT. IS IT THE FACT THAT YOU
SEE A PERSON ON THE STREET THAT
YOU BELIEVE IS A JOHN, AND THAT
THERE ARE KIDS AROUND HIM, OR
PEOPLE AROUND? I MEAN, THERE IS
A FACT PATTERN THAT WILL TRIGGER
YOU GETTING A SEARCH WARRANT.
THERE IS A SITUATION ON THE
STREET. THERE IS A SITUATION
WITH A UNDERCOVER OFFICER. WE
HAVE YOUNG OFFICERS WHO ARE IN
THEIR EARLY 20S WHO LOOK LIKE
THEY COULD BE 12, 13, 14. AND IT
IS NOT A CRIME BECAUSE THE
OFFICER IS NOT A MINOR. AT THIS
POINT, WE HAVE SITUATIONS WHERE
WE HAVE REPEAT OFFENDERS.
THERE'S A NUMBER OF
CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE
TELEPHONE, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF
CONTROL OF THE YOUNG PERSON, IS
SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD WANT TO
BE ABLE TO VIEW. WE CANNOT PROVE
HUMAN TRAFFICKING BECAUSE WE
DON'T HAVE FRAUD, COERCION OR
FORCE. WHAT WE HAVE IS A
VOLUNTARY TRANSACTION ON THE
STREET. THE FRAUD, COERCION OR
FORCE IS IN THE TEXT THREAT THAT
IT COMES IN FROM THE PIMP. AND
SO IF THE OFFICER SUSPECTS THAT
THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON, THAT IS
A CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE WE WOULD GO
BEFORE A JUDGE AND WE WOULDN'T
GRAB THE MINOR ON THE STREET, BY
THE WAY, OFF FEDERAL RULE OF
EVIDENCE 1161 PROVIDES THAT YOU
CAN'T USE EVIDENCE OF A
COMMERCIAL SEX ACT AGAINST THE
VICTIM. SO THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE
MINORS OR PROSECUTING THE
MINORS, BUT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO
GO TO COURT AND GET AN ORDER TO
LET US GO TO THE CARRIER AND GET
THE TEXT MESSAGES IN QUESTION SO
THAT WE CAN BUILD A CASE,
ULTIMATELY UP THE FOOD CHAIN
AGAINST THE PREDATOR. I KNOW,
BECAUSE YOU'VE BEEN IN THE, IN
THE NEXUS, THE LGBT COMMUNITY,
THAT YOU'VE HEARD OF THE TERMS
WALKING WHILE TRANS. HAVE YOU
HEARD OF THAT? I HAVE THING. SO
WHAT PREVENTS A PEACE OFFICER
FROM SUSPECTING THAT A TRANS
PERSON WALKING AROUND IS A MINOR
MAY NOT KNOW WHETHER THE MINOR
ADULT AND BASICALLY GOING
THROUGH AND JUST BASICALLY
SAYING, I SEE THAT PERSON, THAT
PERSON'S WALKING ON THE STREET,
I'M GOING TO GET A SEARCH
WARRANT FOR THAT PHONE, BECAUSE
MAYBE THAT PERSON IS BEING SEX
TRAFFICKED. I MEAN, WHERE ARE
THE LIMITATIONS ON WHAT YOU CAN
DO TO INVADE SOMEONE'S PRIVACY?
AND LET ME JUST FINISH. AND I
THINK THE OTHER THING THAT I'M
CONCERNED ABOUT IS REALLY SOME
OF THE POINTS THAT HAVE BEEN
RAISED IN THESE LETTERS, WHICH
ARE LGBTQ PEOPLE, ARE WAY
OVERREPRESENTED IN THE HOMELESS
POPULATION. THEY ARE WAY
OVERREPRESENTED IN, LIVING ON
THE STREET. MANY OF THEM, HAVING
INFORMATION THAT WHERE THEIR
PHONES COULD BE JUST CONFISCATED
AND THEIR LGBTQ STATUS IS NOW
MADE PUBLIC, ALLOWS, I THINK,
LAW ENFORCEMENT TO JUST REALLY
GO AFTER PEOPLE IN THE LGBTQ
COMMUNITY WITHOUT ANY
RESTRICTIONS ON THE LIMITATIONS
ON WHERE YOU CAN GET A SEARCH
WARRANT AND REALLY VIOLATE
PRIVACY RIGHTS. SO, YOU KNOW, I
AM WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGAINST SEX
TRAFFICKING WHOLEHEARTEDLY
AGAINST, I THINK, WHAT YOU'RE
TRYING TO GET TO, I'M JUST LIKE,
REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE FACT
THAT THIS GIVES POLICE VERY,
VERY BROAD AUTHORITY OR LAW
ENFORCEMENT BROAD AUTHORITY TO
SEEK SEARCH WARRANTS THAT INVADE
THE PRIVACY OF A LOT OF PEOPLE
THAT AREN'T DOING ANYTHING. THAT
IS WRONG AND IS NOT VICTIMIZING
THE KIDS. AND I DON'T SEE ANY
PROTECTIONS IN THIS BILL AT ALL.
AND I, YOU KNOW, AND THE OTHER
THING I'M GOING TO SAY IS, I'M
REALLY DISAPPOINTED IN THE CITY
COUNCIL OF LOS ANGELES. I THINK
THE FACT THAT THEY, SUPPORTED
THIS UNANIMOUSLY AS A TESTAMENT
TO THE FACT THAT WE DON'T HAVE A
SINGLE LGBTQ PERSON SERVING ON
THE CITY COUNCIL, AND THIS IS A
REFLECTION OF THAT. IT'S A
HUGELY DISAPPOINTING THING THAT
BASICALLY THESE ISSUES AND THE
IMPACT ON THE LGBT COMMUNITY OF
THINGS LIKE THIS HAVE NOT BEEN
CONSIDERED. AND I DON'T, YOU
KNOW, I KNOW BOTH OF YOU CARE
ABOUT THE LGBTQ COMMUNITY, BUT I
DON'T SORT OF SEE THE
PROTECTIONS THAT I WOULD EXPECT
THERE TO BE TO REALLY RESPECT
THE COMMUNITY AND THE, THE, THE
VULNERABILITY OF WHAT LGBTQ KIDS
GO THROUGH AND THE FACT THAT
THIS COULD BE USED AND I THINK
VERY, VERY HARMFUL WAYS. SO,
ASSEMBLYMAN, MAY I RESPOND TO
THAT? YES, FIRST OF ALL, THANK
YOU. AND I DO SHARE YOUR
CONCERNS FOR ALL OF OUR
COMMUNITIES, BUT ESPECIALLY THE
LGBTQ PLUS COMMUNITY. WE ONLY
HAVE TWO SHELTERS FOR LGBTQ PLUS
YOUTH IN ALL OF THE CITY OF LOS
ANGELES. AND I'VE BEEN WORKING
ON THAT BECAUSE AT THIS POINT,
IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO FIND
PLACES, EVEN FOR KIDS WHO WANT
TO BE RESCUED. I WANT TO GO BACK
TO WHAT IS THE LIMITS. NUMBER
ONE, YOU HAVE TO PROVE PROBABLE
CAUSE. THIS IS NOT SIMPLY YOU
GET TO GO OUT AND ARREST BECAUSE
YOU WOKE UP THIS MORNING AND YOU
SEE SOMEONE WALKING AROUND WHO
YOU WOULD LIKE TO SHAKE DOWN.
YOU HAVE TO GO TO COURT. YOU
HAVE TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE UNDER
PENALTY OF PERJURY. YOU HAVE TO
DESCRIBE THE ITEMS TO BE SEIZED
WITH PARTICULARITY. YOU CANNOT
UTILIZE EVIDENCE THAT ISN'T
WITHIN THE SEARCH WARRANT AS TO
THE PURPOSE OF THE SEARCH
WARRANT. AND SO BY PUTTING THIS
LANGUAGE INTO THE SEARCH WARRANT
STATUTE, WE'RE NOT MODIFYING.
547 B WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING
TO THE CRIME. WE'RE SIMPLY
SAYING WE GET TO GO TO COURT AND
THE INTEREST IN PROTECTING OUR
MINOR KIDS. AND YES, I
UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE A
NUMBER OF MINOR CHILDREN, NOT
JUST LGBTQ PLUS, BUT CHILDREN OF
COLOR. OKAY, CHILDREN ALL OVER
OUR CITY WHO HAVE HAD NEGATIVE
ENCOUNTERS WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT.
BUT LET ME ALSO ASSURE YOU THAT
THEY'VE HAD MANY MORE NEGATIVE
ENCOUNTERS WITH THE PREDATORS
WHO ARE TRAFFICKING THEIR BODIES
ON A DAILY BASIS ALL OVER OUR
STREETS. AND SO THIS IS A TOOL
TO ALLOW US TO INVESTIGATE SO
THAT WE'RE NOT GOING AFTER THE
MINORS. WE'RE NOT GOING AFTER
THE BOTTOMS, OKAY? WE'RE NOT
GOING AFTER THE STREET PIMPS. IT
GIVES US THE TOOL TO GO UP THE
FOOD CHAIN TO GET AT THE
PROFITEERS AND THE PREDATORS.
YEAH, I GUESS I'M SAYING I WANT
OTHER PEOPLE TO HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY, BUT, YOU KNOW, THE,
THE, THE ESTABLISHING PROBABLE
CAUSE IS A VERY SUBJECTIVE
THING. AND WHEN YOU'VE GOT LAW
ENFORCEMENT COMING IN AND
DESCRIBING A SET OF FACTS THAT
DESCRIBED IN ONE WAY CAN SOUND
VERY MUCH LIKE SOME SET OF
CIRCUMSTANCES OCCURRING AND BUT
COULD BE VERY, VERY INNOCENT.
AND, YOU KNOW, THIS BILL DOESN'T
LIMIT THE CELL PHONE RECORDS OF
THE MINORS. IT GOES AFTER BOTH
THE MINORS AND THE ADULTS. DOES
IT? NO, BUT THAT'S WHY I SAID
FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 1161
PREVENTS YOU FROM USING THE
EVIDENCE OF COMMERCIAL SEX
AGAINST A MINOR. YOU CAN'T
INTRODUCE IT AT TRIAL. YOU CAN'T
USE IT AGAINST THE MINORS.
PRIVACY THROUGH THEIR CELL
PHONE. YOU'RE NOT LIMITING. THIS
DOESN'T LIMIT YOUR ABILITY TO
GET THE COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE
MINOR CELL PHONE. NO, IT DOES
NOT. NO, IT DOES NOT. I'M YOU
KNOW, I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE
BILL. I WON'T BE SUPPORTING IT
TODAY. I REALLY APPRECIATE IT. I
HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR BOTH OF
YOU, BUT I THINK THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT'S VERY HARMFUL TO
THE, THE VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES
WHO ARE LIVING ON THE STREET,
INCLUDING LGBTQ PEOPLE, PEOPLE
OF COLOR. I JUST THINK THAT IT
IS A, IT'S A HUGE INVASION OF
THE PRIVACY OF FOLKS THAT ARE,
VERY, VERY, VERY VULNERABLE. AND
I JUST WANT TO, YOU KNOW, THANK
YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY. THANK
YOU. QUESTIONS? FURTHER
QUESTIONS. MISS REYES. THANK
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I THANK MY
COLLEAGUE FROM NORTH HOLLYWOOD,
FOR HIS COMMENTS. THOSE ARE
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT COMMENTS AND
HE WAS VERY SPECIFIC AT THE VERY
BEGINNING AND ASKING FOR THE
FACT PATTERN THAT'S IMPORTANT.
AND I THINK THAT IN DETERMINING
HOW YOU GET A SEARCH WARRANT,
HE'S ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. IT IS
TRYING TO DESCRIBE THIS FACT
PATTERN TO A JUDGE TO SHOW
PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH
WARRANT. I DON'T THINK HIS
QUESTION WAS ANSWERED IN A WAY
THAT, FOR ME WAS SATISFACTORY. I
DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS
SATISFACTORY TO HIM ABOUT THE
FACT PATTERN THAT IS USED WHEN
WE TALK ABOUT OUR OUR YOUTH THAT
WE WANT TO PROTECT THEM, AND YOU
SAY IT'S NOT OUR YOUTH, IT'S NOT
THE, THE, THE YOUNG, THE YOUNG
KIDS, THE YOUNG CHILDREN THAT
WERE AFTER. IT'S THE JOHNS. IT'S
THE HUMAN TRAFFICKERS, BUT THE
EFFECT TO THEM, IS. IT'S MUCH
GREATER THAN IT SHOULD BE. IT'S
OUR FORMER FOSTER YOUTH, OUR
FOSTER YOUTH, OUR LGBTQ YOUTH
THAT ARE MOST AFFECTED WHEN
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HUMAN
TRAFFICKING, ACCORDING TO
STATISTICS THAT WE HEAR OVER AND
OVER AND OVER AGAIN, THE ONE OF
THE COMMENTS THAT WAS, PROVIDED
IN THE ANALYSIS IS THAT A, AN
AMENDMENT THAT COULD BE TAKEN IS
THAT THAT IF THE GOAL IS TO FIND
EVIDENCE AGAINST SEX
TRAFFICKERS, THEN THEN THE
AMENDMENT WOULD BE THAT IT
SHOULD ONLY BE EVIDENCE THAT IN
FURTHERANCE OF SEX TRAFFICKING
OF A PERSON UNDER 18 YEARS OF
AGE. THIS IS ON PAGE SIX, IS
THIS AN AMENDMENT THAT WAS
ACCEPTED? WAS WAS REJECTED, IS
BEING CONSIDERED. LET ME JUST
JUMP IN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
SENATE BILL 1332 BY HOLLY
MITCHELL, CHAPTER, NUMBER 654,
BASICALLY STATES THAT NO MINOR
UNDER 18 CAN BE CHARGED WITH
ANYTHING, THAT THEY, ARE BEING
ACCUSED OF BECAUSE OF THEIR AGE.
AND SO THAT IS ALREADY IN
STATUTE. SO IT'S ALREADY IN LAW
RIGHT NOW. AGAIN, THAT WAS
SENATE BILL 1332. DOES THAT
ANSWER THE QUESTION IF IT IF IT
IS A PROPOSED AMENDMENT, IF YOU
FEEL THAT IT IS ALREADY COVERED,
IS THERE HARM IN INCLUDING IT AS
AN AMENDMENT? NO. LET ME JUST IS
SOMETHING THAT WILL BE
CONSIDERED THEN? YES ABSOLUTELY.
AND WE'RE STILL WE'RE WILLING TO
WORK WITH THE OPPOSITION. AND
WE'VE HEARD CONCERNS FROM THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, ESPECIALLY,
MR. SYBERG, REGARDING THIS. AND
WE WANT OUR INTENT IS TO MAKING
SURE THAT A CELL PHONE AND I
JUST WANTED TO DESCRIBE THIS, A
CELL PHONE THAT'S GIVEN TO A
CHILD FOR PROSTITUTION. THÀNH
THE CHILD DON'T NINE TIMES OUT
OF TEN DOESN'T OWN THE PHONE.
THE PHONE IS GIVEN TO YOU BY THE
PREDATOR OR THE PIMP. SO
THEREFORE, IF LAW ENFORCEMENT
ROSE UP AND ASKED FOR THE PHONE,
SHE OR HE CANNOT SURRENDER
WHAT'S IN THE PHONE AND YOU HAVE
TO SHOW AGAIN, NOT ONLY PROBABLE
CAUSE, THE JUSTIFY ASKING A
MAGISTRATE FOR, FOR A SEARCH
WARRANT TO GO INTO THE PHONE
THAT WOULD CONNECT THE DOTS IN
THE PHONE BASED ON THE
COMMUNICATION THAT LEADS, YOU
KNOW, TO AN ARREST AND TO THE
APPREHENSION. IT SHOWS CLEARLY
THAT THERE'S BEEN COMMUNICATION,
BY THE JOHN OR THE PIMP,
WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT,
WITH THE MINOR CHILD THAT THAT
CLARIFIES THAT CHILD IS BEING
TRAFFICKED. AND I UNDERSTAND IF
I MAY, MR. CHAIR, BUT WE'RE NOT
SAYING THAT IT IS ONLY A SEARCH
WARRANT FOR A PHONE THAT DOES
NOT BELONG TO THAT MINOR. WE'RE
SAYING FOR A CELL PHONE IN THE
POSSESSION OF THAT MINOR TRUE.
SO YOUR EXAMPLE OF THE PIMPS OR
THE JOHNS? THE OWNERSHIP OF THE
PHONE, IF THAT WERE THE ONLY
THING WE'RE LOOKING FOR, THEN
THAT WOULD BE IN THE BILL,
RIGHT? THAT THIS IS LIMITED TO
ONLY A CELL PHONE, FOR WHICH THE
OWNERSHIP IS NOT THAT MINOR
CHILD. THAT'S NOT THAT'S NO,
THAT'S NOT THE LANGUAGE OF THE
BILL, BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW
WHETHER THE PHONE WAS GIFTED
OWNERSHIP IS A VERY TRICKY
CONCEPT. IT IS REALLY THE
LIMITATION WHEN YOU GO INTO THE
PRIVACY CONSIDERATIONS THAT
YOU'RE BOTH CORRECTLY RAISING,
IS THAT YOU HAVE TO SPECIFY THE
TYPE OF INFORMATION THAT YOU'RE
SEEKING AND THE PURPOSE FOR
WHICH YOU'RE SEEKING IT. IT'S
NOT A FISHING EXPEDITION. YOU
DON'T GET TO GRAB A CELL PHONE
AND START CALLING A CHILD'S
PARENTS WHO MAY HAVE KICKED THEM
OUT AND PUT THAT CHILD AT
FURTHER RISK. THAT IS NOT
PERMITTED AS PART OF THE SEARCH
WARRANT, YOU HAVE TO SAY WHAT
YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, WHAT THE
PURPOSE OF IT IS AND HOW YOU'RE
GOING TO USE IT AND WHAT IT IS
THAT YOU INTEND TO SEIZE. AND WE
ARE LOOKING FOR EVIDENCE OF
FRAUD, THREAT OR COERCION OR
TRAFFICKING OR PIMPING OR OR
YOU, YOU KNOW, YOU SOMETIMES A
FACT PATTERN, YOU WILL GET A
DIRECTION ON A PHONE BECAUSE
WE'VE NOW, AS I SAID, WE'VE
RESCUED OVER 60 MINORS. THEY'LL
GET A DIRECTION AND SHOW UP AT
THE CORNER OF GAGE AND FIGUEROA.
THERE'LL BE A YELLOW VOLKSWAGEN.
HE'LL GIVE YOU 100 BUCKS FOR A
SPECIFIED ACT THAT'S IN THE
PHONE. WE GO AND WE SEE THE
YELLOW VOLKSWAGEN. WE CAN'T
REALLY DO ANYTHING ON
SOLICITATION. THERE'S NO HARM
YET. AND WE CAN'T GO GET A
SEARCH WARRANT WITHOUT
UNDERSTANDING WHAT'S IN THE
TELEPHONE. PHONE? WE SEND AN
UNDERCOVER DECOY. OKAY AND A
PIMP. AND THIS HAPPENED
ACTUALLY, TWO LARGE MEN CAME
BEFORE OUR TWO UNDERCOVER AND
SAID, CHOOSE UP AND THREATEN
THEM. OKAY? CAN'T DEAL WITH THE
PIMP BECAUSE OUR UNDERCOVERS
ARE, BY DEFINITION, NOT MINORS.
SO SOLICITATION OF SOMEONE WHO
IS NOT, IN FACT A MINOR IS NOT
EVEN A MISDEMEANOR. IF WE HAD A
BASIS ON WHICH TO GO GET A
SEARCH WARRANT FOR THEIR PHONES,
WE WOULD FIND OTHER
CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THEY MAY
WELL BE TRAFFICKING MINORS. AND
SO IT IS AN INVESTIGATIVE TOOL
THAT, UNLIKE THE LOITERING
STATUTE, DOESN'T TARGET THE
VICTIM. IT IS INTENDED TO GET
INFORMATION ON THE TRAFFICKERS.
WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
GETTING A SEARCH WARRANT, IF I
MAY SAY, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT
A PERIOD OF A WEEK FROM THE
MOMENT THAT YOU DECIDE THAT YOU
NEED TO GET A SEARCH WARRANT,
HOW MUCH TIME ARE WE TALKING
ABOUT? YOU GET INTO A MAGISTRATE
. SORRY. THIS IS TRAVIS AUSTIN
WITH MY OFFICE, WHO ACTUALLY
PROSECUTES THESE CASES. AND,
THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER, THE
SEARCH WARRANTS. OH, SURE. THANK
YOU. CLOSER TO YOU. THANK YOU.
THE SEARCH WARRANT COULD BE
APPLIED FOR IMMEDIATELY BY LAW
ENFORCEMENT, AND EXCUSE ME.
THAT'S WHILE YOU STILL HAVE THE
MINOR. THEY'RE WAITING FOR THE
SEARCH WARRANT TO BE SIGNED BY
THE MAGISTRATE. THE YOU THERE.
THERE ARE INSTANCES IN WHICH
THAT COULD HAPPEN WHEN YOU HAVE
THE MINOR DETAINED FOR
INVESTIGATIVE PURPOSES, AND WE
SEE THAT HAPPEN OFTEN WITH DUIS
DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE WHEN
THERE'S A REFUSAL, A SEARCH
WARRANT COULD BE OBTAINED ALMOST
IMMEDIATELY, WITH RESPECT TO
PROSTITUTION, HOWEVER MANY TIMES
THERE IS NO ARREST INVOLVED AND
THERE'S A CITATION FOR A FUTURE
COURT DATE FOR THE JOHN, AND THE
SEARCH WARRANT COULD ALSO BE
OBTAINED AT A LATER DATE. PRIOR
TO THE JOHN'S, FUTURE COURT DATE
. WHILE THE CASE IS STILL BEING
INVESTIGATED, I WILL TELL YOU MY
BIGGEST ISSUE WITH THIS, AND I
THINK MY COLLEAGUE BEST
DESCRIBED IT, IS THAT IT WOULD
ALLOW POLICE TO SEIZE A VICTIM'S
AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT VICTIMS
WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THOSE
WHO ARE BEING TRAFFICKED A
VICTIM'S PERSONAL PHONE AND
OBTAIN A SEARCH WARRANT TO
OBTAIN TO SWEEP UP ALL THEIR
MESSAGES, PHONE CALLS AND
EMAILS. AND IT IS DESCRIBED IN
THE OPPOSITION, ONE OF THE
OPPOSITION LETTERS IN A FISHING
EXPEDITION FOR EVIDENCE. SINCE
MANY MINOR VICTIMS HAVE FLED
ABUSIVE HOMES OR HAVE BEEN
DISOWNED FOR BEING GAY OR
TRANSSEXUAL TRANSSEXUAL. THESE
SEARCHES COULD PUT THEM AT RISK
OF FURTHER HARM THAT IS, OF
GREAT CONCERN, AND IT IS
SOMETHING THAT I THINK CANNOT BE
TAKEN LIGHTLY. I UNDERSTAND THE
PURPOSE OF THE GOAL OF THE BILL,
BUT I ALSO HAVE TO HAVE TO VOICE
THIS VERY STRONG, CONCERN, THE
WORDS THAT WERE USED FOR
VICTIMIZING AND TERRORIZING THE
VICTIMS. I CAN ABSOLUTELY SEE
HOW THE VICTIMS WOULD FEEL
TERRORIZED OR VICTIMIZED OVER
AND OVER AGAIN BECAUSE OF THIS
PROCESS. IT'S OF GREAT CONCERN
TO ME IF THE BILL DOES GET
THROUGH. IT IS SOMETHING THAT I
WOULD WANT TO SEE CORRECTED
BEFORE WE GET TO THE FLOOR. THIS
HAS TO BE ADDRESSED. IT IS A
SERIOUS ISSUE, WHETHER IT'S A,
ANTICIPATED OR NOT ANTICIPATED.
THIS IS A SERIOUS ISSUE. AND I
WOULD AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE
FROM NORTH HOLLYWOOD ON THAT.
OKAY. THANK YOU. WE HAVE,
ASSEMBLYMEMBER WILSON AND THEN
MR. BERLIN TO GET BACK IN LINE
AND ASSEMBLYMEMBER NGUYEN NØ, I
CAN I SORRY, I RECOGNIZE THAT. I
THINK, MY COLLEAGUE HAD A FOLLOW
UP QUESTION ON THE SAME LINES.
AND SO A LOT OF WHAT, MY
COLLEAGUE HAS SAID I, I SUPPORT
AND AGREE WITH, SO I WON'T
REHASH THAT. AND I THINK YOU
ANSWERED A KEY QUESTION FOR ME
AS IT RELATED TO THE EVIDENCE
BEING CONFINED, TO WHAT YOU'RE
ASKING FOR. I DO THINK THERE, MY
OVERALL CONCERN, WHICH GAVE ME
CAUTION AND I WASN'T SURE WHERE
I WAS GOING TO BE ON THIS BILL
PRIOR TO THE DISCUSSION WAS HOW
BROAD IT WAS AND THE RIGHT TO
PRIVACY, AND A LOT OF TIMES, IN
THE EFFORT TO BE PROACTIVE WHEN
IT COMES TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE, WE
TRAMPLE ON THAT RIGHT? NOT JUST
FOR THE CRIMINALS, BUT FOR
PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT DOING
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, AND
ESPECIALLY WHEN, AS MY COLLEAGUE
STATED, WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THE
LGBTQ PLUS COMMUNITY, AND HOW A
LOT OF TIMES THEY ARE REGARDED,
IN, IN FROM POLICING, FROM, FROM
POLICE OFFICERS OR LAW
ENFORCEMENT IN A VERY OVERSEXED,
REALIZED WAY THAT PUTS THEM IN
THE CATEGORY AS IT RELATES TO,
PROSTITUTION OR THINGS, THINGS
THAT THEY WOULDN'T BE DOING IN
ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. AND SO I
DON'T WANT TO GET THEM CAUGHT UP
INTO THAT, NOR DO I WANT TO
TRAMPLE ON THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE
WHO AREN'T DOING ANYTHING WRONG,
AND IF THERE IS A POSSIBILITY TÊ
ALREADY IN EXISTING LEGISLATION,
AND EXISTING LAWS THAT DEAL WITH
FELONY AND ALLOWING SEARCH
WARRANT FOR THAT, I STILL YET
DON'T UNDERSTAND THE THRESHOLD
NEEDED TO LOWER THE THRESHOLD.
SO LOW AS IT RELATES TO THAT. SO
THAT IS MY CONCERN. AND SO
DEFINITELY, YOU CAN ADDRESS IT
AND THEN I'LL YIELD TO MY
COLLEAGUE. I'M HOPING I CAN
PERSUADE YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER,
BECAUSE A LOT OF THE BREATH THAT
WAS READ INTO THE RECORD IS IN
THE EXISTING LAW. WE DIDN'T
CHANGE A WORD. I MEAN, WHEN THE
PROPERTY OR THINGS TO BE SEIZED,
ETC. ALL WE DID WAS THERE'S AN
EXISTING GROUNDS FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF A SEARCH WARRANT.
AGAIN WITH PROBABLE CAUSE BEFORE
A COURT, BUT IT REQUIRES SEXUAL
EXPLOITATION OR POSSESSION OF
MATTER DEPICTING SEXUAL CONDUCT
OF A PERSON UNDER 18. SO IF THE
CHILD HAS IN FACT BEEN HARMED
AND THERE'S AN ACTUAL SEXUAL ACT
, THAT'S THE BASIS FOR A SEARCH
WARRANT FOR THE COMMUNICATIONS,
ALL WE HAVE DONE IS WE HAVE SAID
WHEN IT IS A MINOR AND THERE IS
THE SOLICITATION BEHAVIOR FROM A
PREDATOR OR A CUSTOMER THERE,
THEN WE WOULD LIKE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO GO TO A SEARCH
WARRANT. WE DIDN'T CHANGE THE
FIRST PART OF THE STATUTE AT ALL
. WE ADDED, PARAGRAPH THREE OF
SUBDIVISION B OF SECTION 647,
WHICH IS LEGALESE FOR
SOLICITATION OF A MINOR FOR
PROSTITUTION IN THROUGH THE
CHAIR. YES QUICK FOLLOW UP ON
THAT. BUT HOW WOULD YOU KNOW
THAT THERE'S BEEN SOLICITATION
OF A MINOR WITHOUT OBTAINING THE
CELL PHONE RECORDS? THE
SOLICITATION IS TYPICALLY
OBSERVABLE ON THE STREET, OR IT
IS WORD SPOKEN TO A DECOY
OFFICER, THERE'S A LOT OF
DIFFERENT INTERACTIONS THAT WILL
TEND TO SHOW SOLICITATION
WITHOUT NECESSARILY RISING TO
THE LEVEL OF THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL
ACT. THANK YOU. MR. ZUBIATE, MR.
ZUBER HAS ONE QUICK FOLLOW UP
QUESTION. THANK YOU. I THINK MY
QUESTIONS WERE ALONG THE LINES
OF WHAT MY COLLEAGUE SAID. BUT,
YOU KNOW, I THINK ONE OF THE
CONCERNS I HAVE IS YOU DESCRIBED
FACT PATTERNS, OBVIOUSLY, WHERE
THIS COULD BE USED AS A TOOL
WHERE YOU'VE GOT A JOHN WHO IS
PREYING ON, ON CHILDREN AND ON
PEOPLE. RIGHT. AND YOU HAVE USED
THE CELL PHONE RECORDS AND IT'S
PROVIDED THE EVIDENCE OF DOING
THAT. THE PROBLEM WITH THE BILL
IS THAT THERE THERE DOESN'T SEEM
TO ME I DON'T SEE ANYTHING THAT
LIMITS THE ABILITY OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT TO USE IT AGAINST
PEOPLE. OTHER THAN THIS, THE
PROBABLE CAUSE STANDARD, WHICH
IS VERY LOOSE AND COULD VERY
EASILY BE MET FOR PEOPLE THAT
ARE LGBTQ, THAT ARE BASICALLY
JUST WALKING AROUND, IT'S A IT
THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF STUDIES
THAT SORT OF SHOW THAT TRANS
WOMEN, ESPECIALLY TRANS WOMEN OF
COLOR, ARE MUCH MORE LIKELY TO
BE ARRESTED FOR SOLICITATION
THÀNH, EVEN IN CASES WHERE THEY
ARE NOT BECAUSE OF SUBJECTIVE
IDEAS THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS
ABOUT WHO THEY ARE AND WHAT
THEY'RE DOING. SO WHAT I WORRY
ABOUT IS THIS DOESN'T SEEM TO
PREVENT A CASE OF, YOU KNOW, YOU
BASICALLY SAID, OKAY, IT'S GOT
TO BE VERY SPECIFIC. IT'S GOT TO
BE I'M LOOKING FOR A PHONE, I'M
LOOKING FOR A PHONE THAT MAY
HAVE EVIDENCE OF COMMUNICATIONS
RELATED TO SOLICITATION. YOU
DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION
UNTIL YOU'VE GOTTEN THE PHONE,
AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE DESCRIBED
SOME SET OF STANDARDS TO
CONVINCE A JUDGE TO ALLOW YOU TO
JUST GRAB THESE KIDS CELL PHONE.
AND SOME OF THEM ARE, WELL, WE
KNOW THAT THAT LGBTQ KIDS AND
LGBT KIDS OF COLOR IN PARTICULAR
AND TRANS KIDS IN PARTICULAR,
ARE OVERREPRESENTED IN THE
HOMELESS POPULATION, ARE MORE
LIKELY TO BE MUCH MORE LIKELY TO
BE PREYED UPON. BUT THOSE FACTS
BY THEMSELVES DOESN'T MEAN THAT
THOSE KIDS ARE NECESSARILY
VICTIMS AND YOU'RE SWEEPING IN
ALL OF THESE FOLKS AND DEPRIVING
THEM OF THEIR PRIVACY. AND I
DON'T SEE ANY SAFEGUARDS IN
THAT. SO, WELL, YOU KNOW, I
REALLY I AGREE THAT THE GOALS
THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO MEET IN
TERMS OF PROTECTING VULNERABLE
KIDS ARE WORTHY ONES. I JUST
THINK THAT THIS IS A HUGE
INVASION OF, OF PRIVACY FOR
PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT ONLY THE
PEOPLE THAT ARE VICTIMS OF THE
PEOPLE YOU'RE TRYING TO PROTECT,
BUT YOU'RE VICTIMIZING KIDS THAT
ARE NOT THOSE VICTIMS BY
BASICALLY GIVING LAW ENFORCEMENT
A TOOL TO COME IN AND TAKE THEIR
PHONES AND VIOLATE THEIR
PRIVACY. WHEN THE WHEN THE
CIRCUMSTANCE ARE SO SUBJECTIVE
AND THERE AREN'T ANY THERE
AREN'T ANY GUARDRAILS IN THIS
LAW. SO THANK YOU. OKAY. I THINK
AS A MORE COMMENTARY THAN A
QUESTION, FURTHER QUESTIONS
HERE. WE MOVE THE BILL A MOTION
AND A SECOND. MR. TING. SO, YEAH
, I'M STRUGGLING WITH THE BILL
BECAUSE OF MY, COLLEAGUES
COMMENTS FROM HOLLYWOOD. I THINK
THAT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK
THERE'S ANYONE UP HERE WHO
DOESN'T WANT TO HELP YOUR OFFICE
GET THE TOOLS THEY NEED TO FIGHT
, SEX TRAFFICKING OF MINORS. I
MEAN, THERE'S NO ONE UP HERE.
WHO'S FOR THAT? THE QUESTION IS,
IS. AND I AND I SEE THE BILL IS
A VERY SIMPLE BILL. IT'S JUST
ADDING THAT LITTLE SECTION TO
THE SEARCH WARRANT. SECTION HOW
AS YOU'RE HEARING THE SORT OF
THE FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMITTEE,
HOW WOULD YOU STRUCTURE SOME OF
THESE GUARDRAILS THAT ARE OF,
YOU KNOW, SIX CONCERN? BECAUSE I
THINK WE'RE ALL WE ALL WANT TO
GIVE YOU THE TOOLS YOU NEED TO
HAVE, TO FIGHT CHILD SEX
TRAFFICKING. WE'RE JUST TRYING
TO I'M STRUGGLING WITH AGAIN,
CHEN JUST THE CONCERNS THAT MY
COLLEAGUE HAS RAISED. I'M HAPPY
TO TAKE SPECIFIC SUGGESTIONS,
BUT I WILL JUST TELL YOU THAT I
THINK THE SAFEGUARDS ARE IN THE
BILL. COMMUNICATIONS IS DEFINED
IN THE PENAL CODE. IF IT WOULD
HELP TO ADD THE WORD ELECTRONIC
IN FRONT OF COMMUNICATIONS SO
THAT IT TIES BACK TO THE
ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS ACT,
THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM. SO THE
GUARDRAILS FOR A SEARCH WARRANT
ARE OUR TIME HONORED TRADITION
FOR DUE PROCESS. THIS IS HOW WE
SEARCH EVERYTHING. IT'S NO
DIFFERENT. IT DOESN'T TARGET
LGBTQ PLUS IT DOESN'T TARGET
HETEROSEXUAL KIDS. IT JUST SAYS
KIDS. WE WANT THE ABILITY TO
PROTECT MINORS. OUR SONS, OUR
DAUGHTERS, OUR CHILDREN. LAST
WEEK, MY OFFICE PROSECUTED A 50
YEAR OLD MAN WHO HAD ACTUALLY
BEEN OUT WITH A 14 YEAR OLD
GIRL. SHE'S NOW IN A PLACE OF
SAFETY. WE WERE ABLE TO CONVICT
THE INDIVIDUAL WITHOUT
RETRAUMATIZING THE CHILD, BUT WE
HAVE TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE TOOLS
TO DO THAT. WE SPECIALIZE IN
VERTICAL PROSECUTION. WE
SPECIALIZE IN CHILD SEX ABUSE.
WE PROTECT MORE LATINA AND
AFRICAN AMERICAN GIRLS ALONG THE
FIGUEROA CORRIDOR THAN ANY OTHER
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY. AND WE
DELIVER THEM TO SERVICE
PROVIDERS. THERE SHOULD BE SOME
LETTERS FROM SERVICE PROVIDERS
IN THE FILE WHO WE WORK WITH
JOURNEY OUT, SISTER, FRIENDS AND
A NUMBER OF OTHER SERVICE
PROVIDERS WHO LOOK AT OUR WORK
AND UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT WE'RE
DOING IS PROTECTING THE KIDS. WE
NEED THIS TOOL IF WE ARE TO
CONTINUE TO BE EFFECTIVE. PLEASE
SO, SO, SO FOR ME, YOU KNOW, I'M
WILLING TO GIVE YOU A COURTESY
VOTE TO GET OUT OF COMMITTEE SO
YOU CAN KEEP WORKING, HOPEFULLY
WITH MY, YOU KNOW, OUR
COLLEAGUE, IN HOPES THAT BY THE
TIME IT REACHES, WHEN IT REACHES
THE FLOOR, BECAUSE THE NEXT
DESTINATION WOULD BE THE FLOOR
THAT THAT, YOU COULD GET THE
BILL INTO A FASHION THAT WE
COULD SUPPORT. I THINK THIS IS,
TOO IMPORTANT AN ISSUE TO SAY.
LET'S JUST PASS ON UNTIL NEXT
YEAR. SO I DO WANT TO GIVE OUR
COLLEAGUE, FROM CARSON A LITTLE
MORE TIME TO WORK ON THE BILL.
AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
TO WORK ON THE BILL TO, YOU
KNOW, TRY TO GET THE GUARDRAILS
THAT I. I'M ALSO VERY CONCERNED
IF I THINK THOSE GUARDRAILS
AREN'T THERE. I THINK THOSE
THOSE CONCERNS AREN'T MET. I
DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD BE ABLE
TO VOTE FOR THE BILL ON THE
FLOOR, OKAY, MR. GIBSON, WE HAVE
A MOTION AND A SECOND WITH SOME,
SUGGESTIONS AND DIRECTIVE TO YOU
TO KEEP WORKING ON THIS. I ALSO
WILL SUPPORT THIS TODAY, AND
ENCOURAGE YOU TO KEEP ENGAGING
WITH THE MEMBERS, EVEN THOUGH
YOU GO STRAIGHT TO THE FLOOR.
FIRST OF ALL, LET ME SAY I'M
SORRY. YES. PLEASE CLOSE. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN AND
MEMBERS. I THANK YOU ALL FOR
YOUR ROBUST THE ROBUST
CONVERSATION AND ON HAVING
DIALOG IN THIS IN THIS MATTER. I
WANT TO THANK THE CITY ATTORNEY
FOR ONE, FOR WORKING
COLLABORATIVELY WITH ME. WE WANT
TO STRENGTHEN THIS BILL. WE WANT
TO MAKE THIS BILL BETTER, THE
CELL PHONE MAY IN FACT BE THE
LIFE SAVER FOR A MINOR CHILD,
AND WHAT IT CONTAINED MAY BE THE
EXAMPLE, THE INFORMATION TO TAKE
THAT CHILD OFF THE STREET FROM
BEING FURTHER VICTIMIZED BY HER
OR HIS. JOHN AND I UNDERSTAND MY
COLLEAGUE FROM WEST HOLLYWOOD,
WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO LGBTQ
PLUS, HAVE BEEN, YOU KNOW,
PERPETRATED HAVE BEEN, YOU KNOW,
USED AND POINTED OUT, SINGLED
OUT A WHOLE NINE YARDS. AND I
HAVE WRITTEN COPIOUS NOTES, SIR,
AND I WILL TAKE I WILL COME TO
YOUR OFFICE AND EACH ONE OF YOUR
OFFICE, AND MAKING SURE THAT
YOUR CONCERNS IS IN FACT,
ADDRESSED IN THIS BILL. BUT I
WOULD ALSO ASK THAT YOU GIVE ME
TIME ENOUGH TO DO THAT, BECAUSE
THIS IS THE VENUE. THIS IS THE
PLACE FOR THAT DIALOG. AND I
HAVE HEARD YOU CLEARLY. WE DON'T
WANT TO VICTIMIZE OTHER PEOPLE
WHO ARE INNOCENT. WE DON'T WANT
TO VICTIMIZE TRANS OR ANYONE
ELSE, BUT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE SAVE LIVES. TIANA, DÍAS.
SHE'S GONE. I CAN'T UNRING THAT
BELL. 16 YEARS OLD AND HER
PARENTS DID EVERYTHING HER
MOTHER DID EVERYTHING SHE COULD
TO TRY TO SAVE HER LIFE. AND THE
JOHN SHOT HER TWICE IN THE NECK
AND THREW HER OUT ON A STREET
LIKE TRASH. I DON'T WANT THAT TO
HAPPEN TO ANY CHILD IN THIS
STATE. CALIFORNIA LEADS THE
NATION WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO
HUMAN SEX TRAFFICKING, BUT WE
MUST DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO
PROTECT OUR CHILDREN. AND THIS,
I BELIEVE, IS A STEP IN THE
RIGHT DIRECTION. WITH YOUR
INPUT, WE CAN MAKE THIS BILL
BETTER AND IT'LL BE SOMETHING
YOU'LL BE PROUD OF ON THE FLOOR.
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR A STRONG
AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A
MOTION A SECOND. PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ON AB 2419 BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER GIBSON. THE
MOTION IS DUE. PASS MCCARTY.
MCCARTY I ALANIS A ALANIS I LAKI
LAKI I NGUYEN NGUYEN I REYES
REYES I TING TING I WILSON.
THANK YOU. TÍNH. EXCUSE ME.
WILSON I ZIPPER ZIPPER. NO.
OKAY, THAT MEASURE PASSES, JUST
TO NOTE, IT IS NOON. WE ARE
GOING TO HEAR ONE MORE BILL. SO
WE THINK IT'S A QUICK BILL. I
DON'T WANT TO JINX THAT, MR.
HART. QUICK, BILL. AND THEN WE
WILL TAKE A BREAK FOR LUNCH AND
OUR CAUCUS LUNCHES RESPECTIVE
DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS AND REPUBLICAN
CAUCUS LUNCH AND RECONVENE AT
130 ACROSS THE HALL IN ROOM 127.
MOVE THE BILL SECOND. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. REAL QUICK, MR. HART,
WE'RE GOING TO ADOPT THE CONSENT
CALENDAR REAL QUICK. YOU CAN
JUST HOLD TIGHT. I HAVE TO READ
THEM ALL. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION
BY MR. ALANIZ ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. A SECOND BY MR. TING.
PROPOSED CONSENT CALENDAR AB
1832. BLANCA RUBIO, AB 1888.
ARAMBULA AB 2621. GABRIEL AB
2730. LACK AB 2759 PETRIE-NORRIS
AB 2818. MATHIS AB, AB 2822.
GABRIEL AB 2833 MIXNER AB 2944
WALDRON AB 2974 DOLLY AB 2985
HART AB 3014 ERWIN AB 3029.
BAINS AB 3042 NGUYEN AND AB
3092. ORTEGA ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR, MCCARTY A MCCARTY I
ALANIS I, ALANIS I, LACKEY A
LACKEY I WHEN I REYES REYES I
TING TING I WILSON WILSON I
ZABIR ZUBER I CONSENT CALENDAR
ADOPTED. THANK YOU MEMBERS. MR.
HART AB 3077 ITEM NUMBER 33.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, I'M
PLEASED TO PRESENT AB 3077.
UNDER CURRENT LAW, JUDGES MAY
CONSIDER A DEFENDANT'S
PSYCHIATRIC DIAGNOSIS WHEN
EVALUATE IF THE DEFENDANT IS
INCOMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL AND
ELIGIBLE FOR MENTAL HEALTH
TREATMENT. DATA SHOWS THAT 2 TO
6% OF THE POPULATION SUFFERS
FROM BORDERLINE PERSONALITY
DISORDER AND IS KNOWN TO BE
TREATABLE WITH A COMBINATION OF
PSYCHOTHERAPY AND MEDICATION.
DESPITE THE AVAILABILITY OF
EFFECTIVE TREATMENT, INDIVIDUALS
WITH BORDERLINE PERSONALITY
DISORDER ARE EXCLUDED FROM THESE
PROVISIONS. THIS EXCLUSION IS
NOT DATA DRIVEN PERPETUATES
HARMFUL STIGMA ABOUT THE
DISORDER, AND LIMITS ACCESS TO
THE NECESSARY MENTAL HEALTH
TREATMENT SO INDIVIDUALS CAN
RECOVER THEIR MENTAL HEALTH. AB
3077 WILL ADD BORDERLINE
PERSONALITY DISORDER TO THE
EXISTING LIST OF PSYCHIATRIC
DIAGNOSIS. THE JUDGES MAY
CONSIDER WHEN EVALUATING IF
DEFENDANTS ARE COMPETENT TO
STAND TRIAL. SPEAKING IN SUPPORT
OF THE BILL WITH ME TODAY IS
HARRY BRUHL, THE CEO OF
PATHPOINT, AND COURTNEY THOMAS,
THE SENIOR MANAGER OF OPERATIONS
AND SPECIAL PROJECTS AT
CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF COMMUNITY
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AGENCIES.
THANK YOU. PLEASE BEGIN. GOOD
AFTERNOON. CHAIR MEMBERS AND
STAFF. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
I'M COURTNEY THOMAS WITH THE
CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF COMMUNITY
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AGENCIES,
WHERE STATEWIDE ADVOCACY HEALTH
SERVICE ORGANIZATION
REPRESENTING MEMBERS. ONE OF WHO
YOU'LL HEAR FROM PROVIDE
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES TO
OVER 1 MILLION CALIFORNIANS AND
GROWING CCBA IS PROUD TO BE A TO
BE THE SPONSOR OF AB 3077. TO
ECHO SOME OF ASSEMBLYMEMBER
HART'S COMMENTS, THE BORDERLINE
PERSONALITY DISORDER, OR BPD,
SHOULD BE CONSIDERED BY LAW IN
THE SAME MANNER AS THE DIAGNOSES
THAT ARE CURRENTLY COVERED,
WHICH INCLUDE BIPOLAR DISORDER,
SCHIZOPHRENIA, SCHIZOAFFECTIVE
DISORDER AND OTHER MENTAL
DISORDERS. BPD IS NO MORE
DANGEROUS THAN THE MENTAL
ILLNESSES PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED.
THE EXCLUSION OF BPD FROM
INCOMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL OR
IST ELIGIBILITY PERPETRATES
HARMFUL STIGMA ABOUT THE
DISORDER, AND LIMITS ACCESS TO
CARE FOR PEOPLE AT HIGH RISK OF
SUICIDE. FOR THIS, WE ASK THE
COMMITTEE TO VOTE AYE AND THANK
YOU FOR ALLOWING ME THE TIME TO
EXPRESS OUR COMMITMENT, AND I'D
LIKE TO TURN IT OVER TO HARRY.
THANK YOU. HI THANKS FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE, CHAIR,
MY NAME IS HARRY BRUHL. I'M CEO
OF PATHPOINT, A BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH AGENCY IN SANTA BARBARA.
AND ASSEMBLY MEMBER HART'S
DISTRICT. I'M ALSO A FATHER, MY
DAUGHTER TIA DIED WHEN SHE WAS
14 OF SUICIDE. WE BELIEVE SHE
HAD BORDERLINE PERSONALITY
DISORDER, BUT SHE NEVER GOT A
DIAGNOSIS BECAUSE OF THE STIGMA
AROUND BORDERLINE PERSONALITY
DISORDER. SO SHE NEVER GOT THE
TREATMENT THAT MIGHT HAVE SAVED
HER LIFE. I HAVE A LETTER HERE
FROM A WOMAN NAMED JOANNA WHO
HAD BORDERLINE PERSONALITY
DISORDER. WENT THROUGH THE
COURT. SHE WROTE. SITTING IN A
CELL WOULD NOT HAVE FIXED MY
PROBLEMS. THERAPY IS THE SINGLE
MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR THAT
CREATED REAL CHANGE IN MY LIFE.
HERE ARE FOUR REASONS TO SUPPORT
THE BILL. THE FIRST IS THERE'S
NO NO SCIENTIFIC OR MEDICAL
RATIONALE FOR EXCLUDING
BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER.
NUMBER TWO, THE TWO OTHER
CONDITIONS THAT ARE EXCLUDED ARE
ESSENTIALLY DEFINED BY
CRIMINALITY. BPD IS NOT, AND IS
NO MORE DANGEROUS THAN THE
CONDITIONS THAT ARE ELIGIBLE.
NUMBER THREE, BPD IS TREATABLE
AND REDUCES THE RISK OF
RECIDIVISM THROUGH TREATMENT AND
NUMBER FOUR, THE EXCLUSION OF
BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER
PERPETUATES STIGMA AND LIMITS
ACCESS TO CARE. LAST YEAR, THIS
COMMITTEE, SUPPORTED AB 1412, A
VERY SIMILAR BILL SPONSORED BY
ASSEMBLY OR AUTHORED BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER HART THAT REMOVED SIMILAR
LANGUAGE FROM THE MENTAL HEALTH
DIVERSION PROGRAM. THE GOVERNOR
SIGNED THAT INTO LAW. THANK YOU,
COMMITTEE FOR SUPPORTING THAT.
WE HOPE NOW, AND I URGE YOU TO
SUPPORT AB 3077 TO HELP SAVE THE
LIVES OF PEOPLE LIKE MY DAUGHTER
TIA, AND TO REDUCE SUFFERING FOR
PEOPLE LIKE JOANNA. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER WITNESSES
IN SUPPORT? PLEASE COME FORWARD.
MARCO. JORGE, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT, THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, MELANIE KIM, SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE IN SUPPORT. IGNACIO
HERNANDEZ, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS FOR
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS. OH,
SORRY. ANY OPPOSITION? THERE'S
NO LISTED OPPOSITION. ANY
OPPOSITION SEEING NONE. WE HAVE
A MOTION A SECOND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS SEEING NONE. WE ALREADY
HAVE THAT. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
REYES AND WILSON ON AB 3077 BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER HART. THE MOTION
IS DUE PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
MCCARTY. MCCARTY I ALANIS LACKEY
NGUYEN NGUYEN I REYES. REYES I
TING TING I WILSON. WILSON I
ZIPPER. THANK YOU. THAT MEASURE
PASSES AND WE WILL RECESS UNTIL
YES ADD ONS BRIEFLY. TO THAT. WE
HAVE TO COME BACK ANYWAY. YEAH
WE'LL COME. WE'RE GOING TO
RECESS. COME BACK 130. THANK YOU
GUYS FOR YOUR PATIENCE. IT WAS.
TIME. SO I'M TOLD I'M. I THINK
THEY. THE PROBLEM IS, IS THAT.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE YOU BACK AT
FIVE. THAT'S GOING TO BE LIKE
FOUR.
OKAY. WE WILL RECONVENE HERE,
FIRST, MEMBER WILL. WE'LL
RECONVENE HERE. THE FIRST MEMBER
WILL BRING UP IS ASSEMBLY MEMBER
BONTA. ITEM 15. ÁP. 27-29 OKAY,
BUT THIS IS GOING TO BE A LONG
ONE. YOU ALL RIGHT WITH THAT?
THE WITNESS IS GOING THROUGH.
OKAY. MR. MR. CARRO KNOW THEY
SWEPT. THEY SWAPPED US NOW. YEAH
ITEM 2930 21. ITEM 29 AB 3021.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. GOOD AFTERNOON, AB 3021
WILL REQUIRE POLICE OFFICERS,
PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS OR
INVESTIGATORS TO CLEARLY
IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AND EXPLAIN
THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS BEING
INTERVIEWED, QUESTIONED OR
INTERROGATE PRIOR TO ENGAGING
WITH THE FAMILY MEMBER OF
SOMEONE WHO'S BEEN KILLED OR
SEVERELY INJURED BY A PEACE
OFFICER IN THE AFTERMATH OF
INCIDENTS INVOLVING POLICE
VIOLENCE, FAMILIES OF THE VICTIM
ARE OFTEN APPROACHED BY
AUTHORITIES UNDER THE GUISE OF
AN INTERVIEW. FAMILY MEMBERS ARE
TOLD TO GO TO THE PRECINCT, NOT
GIVEN INFORMATION ABOUT THE
STATE OF THEIR LOVED ONE, AND
OFTEN LIED TO ABOUT THE INCIDENT
AS THEY ARE INTERROGATED. WHILE
THE FAMILY MEMBER IS DISTRESSED
AND WORRIED FOR THEIR LOVED ONE,
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS USE
THIS OPPORTUNITY TO COERCE
INFORMATION ABOUT THE VICTIM'S
PAST IN ORDER TO PAINT A
NARRATIVE ABOUT THE VICTIM OR
BUILD A CASE AGAINST THEM.
INITIALLY PERCEIVED BY FAMILIES
AS ISOLATED INCIDENTS, IT HAS
COME TO LIGHT THAT THIS PRACTICE
IS A POLICE INTERROGATION TACTIC
PROMOTED BY A PRIVATE ENTITY
NAMED LEXIPOL. LEXAPOL OFFERS
INSTRUCTION TO 95% OF OUR LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ON
TECHNIQUES TO EXTRACT
INFORMATION FROM FAMILIES, WITH
THE AIM OF PROTECTING OFFICERS
FROM LEGAL REPERCUSSIONS AND
CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS. SUCH
TACTICS NOT ONLY INFLICT HARM
UPON THE VICTIM AND THEIR
FAMILY, BUT ALSO ERODE TRUST IN
LAW ENFORCEMENT. THE RELATIVES
OF INDIVIDUALS AFFECTED BY
POLICE VIOLENCE HAVE A
REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF
TRANSPARENCY AND INFORMATION
ABOUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES
SURROUNDING THEIR LOVED ONES
WELFARE WITHOUT ENCOUNTERING,
DECEIVING AND THREATENING
INFORMATION. OPPOSITION MIGHT
SUGGEST THAT RUSHING FAMILIES
THROUGH THESE INTERVIEWS AND
MISREPRESENTING THEIR RIGHTS IS
CRUCIAL FOR OBTAINING HONEST
INFORMATION ABOUT THE VICTIM.
HOWEVER OVER STATEMENTS BY THE
CO-FOUNDER OF LEXIPOL AND
FIRSTHAND STORIES SHARED BY
AFFECTED FAMILIES, AFFECTED
FAMILY MEMBERS VIVIDLY
ILLUSTRATE THAT POLICE OFFICERS
ARE NOT CONDUCTING THESE
INTERROGATIONS TO SOLVE A CRIME.
WE DRAFTED THIS BILL TO BE
NARROW AND STRAIGHTFORWARD WITH
THE ULTIMATE GOAL BEING TO
PROTECT FAMILY, PROTECT VICTIM'S
FAMILY MEMBERS WHO ARE TAKING
ADVANTAGE OF AT A VERY
VULNERABLE TIME BY THIS
UNETHICAL PRACTICE. SO I'M HAPPY
TO WORK WITH ANY OF THE
OPPOSITION WHO WANT TO HELP US
THREAD THE NEEDLE HERE. AB 3021
DOES NOT CREATE ANY NEW RIGHTS,
BUT BY PUTTING IN A FEW MOMENTS
BETWEEN THE INCIDENT AND
INTERROGATION, WE CAN EMPOWER
FAMILIES TO EXERCISE THEIR
RIGHTS IN INTERACTIONS WITH
POLICE OFFICERS WHEN THEY ARE
MOST VULNERABLE. WITH ME TO
PROVIDE SUPPORTING TESTIMONY IS
JIM SHOWMAN WITH SILICON VALLEY
DEBUG AND ED LITTLE WITH
CALIFORNIANS FOR SAFETY AND
JUSTICE. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO SPLIT
AMONG YOUR WITNESSES. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND
MEMBERS OF THE ASSEMBLY, MY NAME
IS JIM SHOWMAN, AND THIS WAS MY
DAUGHTER, DIANA MARIE SHOWMAN,
WHO AT THE AGE OF 19, TÍNH WAS
SHOT AND KILLED BY THE SAN JOSE
POLICE DEPARTMENT OUTSIDE MY
HOME IN SAN JOSE ON AUGUST 14TH,
2014. I ARRIVED THAT DAY AT
AROUND NOON TO FIND DOZENS OF
SQUAD CARS, SQUAD CARS AND
YELLOW TAPE BLOCKING THE STREET.
I WAS STOPPED AND QUESTIONED BY
AN OFFICER WHO SAID A WOMAN FROM
MY HOME CAME OUT WITH A WEAPON
AND WAS SHOT. WHEN I ASK HOW SHE
WAS, I WAS TOLD SHE WAS ON THE
WAY TO THE HOSPITAL. THE OFFICER
SUGGESTED WE GET OUT OF THE HEAT
AND GO TO THE STATION TO CLEAR
THINGS UP TO FIND OUT WHAT
HAPPENED. THINKING AND HOPING
SHE WAS SIMPLY WOUNDED, I
COMPLIED, ASSUMING I WOULD BE
GIVEN ANSWERS ABOUT HER STATUS,
AND WAS TAKEN TO AN
INTERROGATION ROOM AT THE SAN
JOSE POLICE STATION. THE OFFICER
BEGAN RECORDING BASIC
INFORMATION ABOUT ABOUT WHO
DIANA AND I WERE. SHORTLY LATER,
HE WAS CALLED OUT BY A
PLAINCLOTHES OFFICER WHO ALSO
CONFISCATED MY CELL PHONE. I WAS
A LEFT ALONE FOR ABOUT TWO HOURS
WHEN TWO DETECTIVES ARRIVED AND
BEGAN EXTENSIVE INTERROGATION. I
WAS QUESTIONED ABOUT HER MENTAL
HEALTH HISTORY, FAMILY PROBLEMS,
AND ANY SUICIDE ATTEMPTS.
DESPERATE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT HAD
HAPPENED AND HOW SHE WAS DOING,
I ANSWERED EVERY QUESTION AND
REGRETTABLY, SHE SHARED CRISIS
EPISODES THAT OCCURRED DURING
HER LIFE. AFTER ABOUT 25 MINUTES
OF INTENSE QUESTIONING, THEY
ASKED IF DIANA WAS CAPABLE OF
VIOLENT BEHAVIOR. WHEN I VÌ
RESPONDED, IT WAS POSSIBLE. THEY
ABRUPTLY SAID THE QUESTIONING
WAS OVER. I ASKED, IS SHE ALIVE?
AND THEY SAID, I'M SORRY SIR.
NO, SHE IS NOT. DIANA SUFFERED
FROM BIPOLAR DISORDER AND WAS
HAVING A MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS
THAT DAY. LATER WE LEARNED THAT
DIANA WAS NOT, IN FACT WIELDING
A WEAPON, BUT RATHER A CORDLESS
DRILL. THE DECEPTION BY THE
POLICE ON ME ABOUT HER DEATH WAS
PREMEDITATED, AND AS A WAY TO
LEVERAGE INFORMATION FROM ME,
SHE WAS SHOT BY ANOTHER OFFICER
AT A DISTANCE OF LESS THAN 15FT
WITH AN AR 15 RIFLE WITH A SCOPE
, SHE HAD NO CHANCE OF SURVIVAL.
HAD I KNOWN DIANA WAS DYING, I
WOULD HAVE RUSHED TO THE
HOSPITAL AFTER LEARNING OF HER
DEATH. I WOULD NOT HAVE SPOKEN
TO THE POLICE WITHOUT LEGAL
REPRESENTATION. WHEN I DISCUSS
WHAT HAPPENED TO ME IN THE IN
THAT INTERROGATION ROOM WITH
OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS WHO HAD
LOST LOVED ONES TO POLICE, IT
TURNED OUT THIS WITHHOLDING OF
INFORMATION BY POLICE ABOUT THE
DEATH OF A FAMILY MEMBER WAS
COMMON. WE HAD ALL BEEN
MANIPULATED AT A TIME. WE WERE
DESPERATE FOR ANSWERS. PASSING
AB 3021 IS VITALLY IMPORTANT. SO
OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS AND LOVED
ONES OF VICTIMS OF POLICE
VIOLENCE WON'T BE PREYED UPON BY
THIS COURSE OF INTERROGATION
PRACTICE. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING
ME TO SPEAK. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS ED LITTLE AND I'M A
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS MANAGER WITH
CALIFORNIANS FOR SAFETY AND
JUSTICE AND PROUD CO-SPONSOR OF
AB 3021 FAMILY MEMBERS OF
VICTIMS WHO HAVE BEEN SERIOUSLY
INJURED OR KILLED DESERVE
INFORMATION AND SUPPORT AND NOT
MANIPULATION AND COERCION,
REGARDLESS OF WHO CAUSED THE
HARM. BUT IN CALIFORNIA, MANY
SURVIVORS WHOSE FAMILY MEMBERS
ARE INJURED OR KILLED BY LAW
ENFORCEMENT ARE NOT GIVEN THIS
BASIC DIGNITY. THEY ARE INSTEAD
TOO OFTEN DENIED INFORMATION AND
MANIPULATED INTO SHARING
INFORMATION ABOUT THEIR LOVED
ONES PAST, WHILE WORRIED AND NOT
KNOWING IF THEIR FAMILY MEMBER
IS SAFE. THIS PRACTICE IS NO
ACCIDENT, AND LA TIMES
INVESTIGATION FOUND THAT LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ACROSS
CALIFORNIA ARE TRAINED TO
WITHHOLD INFORMATION FROM
WORRIED FAMILY MEMBERS OF
VICTIMS IN ORDER TO EXTRACT
INFORMATION TO MAKE A CASE
AGAINST THE VICTIM WHO HAS BEEN
SERIOUSLY INJURED OR KILLED.
OFFICERS MAY GIVE FAMILY MEMBERS
THE IMPRESSION THAT THEIR LOVED
ONE HAS BEEN ARRESTED OR ACCUSED
OF A CRIME, AND FAMILY MEMBERS
MAY VOLUNTEER INFORMATION THAT
THEY THINK WILL HELP, NOT
KNOWING THAT THEIR LOVED ONE HAS
ACTUALLY BEEN KILLED. THESE
PRACTICES, COMPOUND TRAUMA AND
FRACTURED TRUST. WHEN FAMILY
MEMBERS ARE FINALLY GIVEN THE
DEVASTATING NEWS, NO ONE SHOULD
BE TREATED THIS WAY IN THEIR
MOMENTS OF DEEPEST PAIN AND
VULNERABILITY. AB 3021 PROVIDES
BASIC PROTECTIONS FOR FAMILY
MEMBERS OF VICTIMS OF POLICE
VIOLENCE AND CLARITY FOR
OFFICERS ON HOW TO ADVISE FAMILY
MEMBERS OF THEIR RIGHTS. THIS
BILL WILL REQUIRE OFFICERS TO
CLEARLY IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AND
TO ADVISE FAMILY MEMBERS OF
VICTIMS SERIOUSLY INJURED OR
KILLED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OF
THEIR RIGHTS, INCLUDING THE
RIGHT TO ASK FOR INFORMATION
ABOUT THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS
WELL-BEING OR REFUSE TO ANSWER
QUESTIONS, AND TO SPEAK TO AN
ATTORNEY, ADVOCATE, OR SUPPORT
PERSON. FIRST. THIS BILL WOULD
HELP FAMILY MEMBERS AND VICTIMS
OF POLICE VIOLENCE IN THEIR MOST
VULNERABLE MOMENTS. FOR THESE
REASONS, WE ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE ON AB 3021. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. ANY OTHERS IN
SUPPORT, PLEASE LINE UP ON THE
SIDE. YOUR ORGANIZATION AND
POSITION ONLY. DANICA ADAMO, ON
BEHALF OF INITIATE JUSTICE AND
LAWYERS COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL
RIGHTS OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY
AREA AND STRONG SUPPORT. RAJA OF
SILICON VALLEY, DEBUG AND STRONG
AND URGENT SUPPORT OF THIS BILL.
CECILIA CHÁVEZ WITH SILICON
VALLEY DEBUG AND STRONGLY URGE
YOUR I SUPPORT RAYMOND GÓMEZ OF
SILICON VALLEY DEBUG AND STRONG
SUPPORT. ALICIA CHÁVEZ WITH
SILICON VALLEY DEBUG IN STRONG
SUPPORT. CECILY MORALES,
DAUGHTER OF AUGUSTINE MORALES,
SHOT AND KILLED BY SAC PD 2020.
AND, I SUPPORT. COME ON. ERIKA
NARANJO, DAUGHTER OF JAIME
NARANJO, KILLED BY SAC SHERIFF
DURING A MENTAL HEALTH CALL
SEPTEMBER 28TH, 2022. I WANT TO
SAY THAT HE WAS SHOT WITHIN 23
SECONDS OF ARRIVAL. THANK YOU.
ROXANNE MORALES MOTHER OF
AUGUSTINE MORALES, SHOT AND
KILLED. NOVEMBER 20TH NOVEMBER
14TH, 2020. I STRONGLY SUPPORT
THIS BILL. SERGEANT MORALES,
MARISA. UNITED STATES ARMY,
SISTER OF AUGUSTINE MORALES,
SHOT AND KILLED NOVEMBER 14TH,
2020. AND I STRONGLY SUPPORT
THIS BILL. THANK YOU. DEANNA
SERNA SULLIVAN. MY. I'M AN
IMPACTED MOTHER OF DAVID
SULLIVAN, 19 YEARS OLD, MURDERED
BY BUENA PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT
ON AUGUST 19TH, 2019. I STRONGLY
SUPPORT THIS BILL. MY NAME IS
DERRICK BENSON, MY IMPACTED
BROTHER. MY BROTHER, DARNELL
BENSON, WAS KILLED WHILE IN THE
CUSTODY OF THE SAN FRANCISCO
POLICE DEPARTMENT, NINE YEARS TO
THE DAY, NINE YEARS TO THE DAY
TOMORROW. I STRONGLY SUPPORT
THIS BILL. HI, MY NAME IS LORI
VALDEZ. MY PARTNER, ANTONIO
GUZMAN LOPEZ, WAS KILLED BY SAN
JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY POLICE.
AND I STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS BILL
. HI. MY NAME IS JOSIAH LOPEZ.
MY FATHER WAS ANTONIO GUZMAN
LOPEZ AND HE WAS KILLED. NØ
FEBRUARY 21ST, 2014. AND I
STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS BILL. MY
NAME IS REGINA CARDENAS,
DAUGHTER OF RUDY CARDENAS,
KILLED IN 2004. I STRONGLY
SUPPORT THIS BILL. WE ARE ASKING
THE MOST BASIC, BASIC FROM YOU
GUYS. SERIOUS COURSE I WOULD.
SILICON VALLEY DEBUG AND SAN
MATEO COUNTY PARTICIPATORY
DEFENSE AND STRONG SUPPORT OF
THIS BILL. CORTEZ MORALES FROM
SILICON VALLEY DEBUG I STRONGLY
SUPPORT THIS. MY NAME IS KARINA
GRISWOLD. MY FATHER WAS RUDY
CARDENAS. HE WAS KILLED BY A
CALIFORNIA STATE AGENT IN 2004.
AND I STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS BILL
. MY NAME IS SHARON WATKINS,
MOTHER OF PHILIP WATKINS, WHO
WAS KILLED FEBRUARY 5TH FEBRUARY
11TH, 2015, BY SAN JOSE POLICE
DEPARTMENT DURING A MENTAL
EPISODE. I STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS
BILL. HI, MY NAME IS ROSIE
CHAVEZ, AUNT OF JACOB DOMINGUEZ,
WHO WAS SHOT AND KILLED
SEPTEMBER 15TH, 2017. AND I
STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS BILL.
TREMAINE HUNTER SILICON VALLEY
DEBUG I STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS
BILL. HELLO. LIZ GONZALEZ WITH
SILICON VALLEY DEBUG. AND ON
BEHALF OF THE FAMILIES OF
ANTHONY NUNEZ, JENNIFER VASQUEZ,
JESUS MONTES AND AJ PHILLIPS IN
STRONG SUPPORT OF THIS BILL
SHAREECE DOMINGO WITH SILICON
VALLEY DEBUG AND ALSO ON BEHALF
OF THE FAMILIES OF RICHARD HARPO
MARQUEZ, DEMETRIUS MEECH STANLEY
AND ROBERT SETH CARTER, ALL
KILLED BY SAN JOSE POLICE. WE
SUPPORT THIS BILL. AND ANY
OTHERS IN SUPPORT. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MARGO GEORGE, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION AND
SUPPORT. HELLO, MELISSA FROM
SILICON VALLEY DEBUG IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. èC. JIM LINDBERG,
FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION
IN CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT Dð
COONEY ON BEHALF OF ACLU
CALIFORNIA ACTION IN STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. MELANIE KIM,
SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
AMELIA ROGERS, ELLA BAKER,
CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IN
SUPPORT.
CARLOS WITH THE ELLA BAKER
CENTER AND FULL SUPPORT. ASHLEY
CHAMBERS WITH THE ELLA BAKER
CENTER IN SUPPORT. ANNA RAMIREZ,
ON BEHALF OF SILICON VALLEY,
ALSO IN STRONG SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. OPPOSITION.
PLEASE COME FORWARD IF YOU CAN
VACATE THESE SEATS, PLEASE.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MEMBERS. CORY SALZILLO, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION, IN
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL. SO THE
AUTHOR SAID THE BILL DOESN'T
CONFER OR CREATE ANY NEW RIGHTS
EXCEPT THE LANGUAGE OF THE BILL
SAYS THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS TO
TELL CERTAIN PEOPLE THAT THEY
HAVE CERTAIN RIGHTS UNDER THIS
BILL, SO I'M NOT SURE, HOW WE
SQUARE THAT CIRCLE. BUT, THE
CONCERN HERE IS, AGAIN, THIS, AS
WE SEE IT, CREATION OF NEW
RIGHTS FOR FAMILY MEMBERS, A
TERME THAT'S NOT DEFINED BY THE
BILL, OF PERSONS KILLED OR
SERIOUSLY INJURED BY A PEACE
OFFICER. AND WE'RE CONCERNED
THAT CONFERRING THESE RIGHTS, TO
FAMILY MEMBERS, HOWEVER, THAT
TERME IS DEFINED ULTIMATELY WILL
UNDOUBTEDLY IMPEDE
INVESTIGATIONS AND COULD HINDER
LAW ENFORCEMENT'S ABILITY TO
QUICKLY AND ACCURATELY ASCERTAIN
INFORMATION RELEVANT AND VITAL
TO AN INVESTIGATION AND JUST ONE
EXAMPLE THE BILL CREATES THE
POSSIBILITY OF SITUATIONS WHERE
A FAMILY MEMBER MAY BE KILLED OR
INJURED. ANOTHER FAMILY MEMBER
MAY BE INVOLVED IN AN ALLEGED
CRIMINAL ACT, AND THE 2ND MAY BE
TIED. THIS BILL DOESN'T ACCOUNT
FOR THAT TYPE OF SITUATION AND
CREATES AN UNTENABLE
CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE THE, BY
VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT A
PERSON'S A FAMILY MEMBER OF
SOMEONE KILLED OR INJURED, THAT
PERSON WOULD BE TOLD UNDER THIS
BILL THAT THEY'RE NOT BEING
DETAINED FOR PURPOSES OF
QUESTIONING THEM ABOUT THEIR
DECEASED OR INJURED FAMILY
MEMBER, BUT THEY COULD BE
DETAINED FOR THEIR INVOLVEMENT
IN THE UNDERLYING ACT. IF A
PERSON WERE DETAINED IN THAT
LATTER WAY, THAT NECESSITATES
THE DELIVERY OF MIRANDA RIGHTS,
THEY WOULD RECEIVE THOSE RIGHTS,
BUT THE CLASS OF INDIVIDUALS
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN THIS BILL
ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE MIRANDA
ADMONITION, YOU KNOW, THOSE
RIGHTS COME OUT OF A SUPREME
COURT CASE FROM NEARLY 50 YEARS
AGO THAT'S BEEN LITIGATED OVER
AND OVER AGAIN AND AGAIN. WE
THINK THIS BILL ATTEMPTS TO
CONFER RIGHTS ON PEOPLE WHO ARE
NOT SITUATED IN SOMEONE WHO'S IN
CUSTODY, BEING DETAINED AND
POTENTIALLY SUBJECT TO AN ACTUAL
INTERROGATION. SO FOR THOSE
REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR NO VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR.
MEMBERS RYAN SHERMAN WITH THE
RIVERSIDE SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION
AND THE OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT
ASSOCIATIONS PREVIOUSLY STATED
WERE ALSO IN OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL. AND I JUST CONCUR WITH MY
COLLEAGUE, MR. SASLOW FROM THE
STATE SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION AND
KEEP IT BRIEF THAT WAY. THANK
YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. OTHERS IN
OPPOSITION, PLEASE LINE UP. DA
SILVA, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
ASSOCIATION, IN OPPOSITION.
OKAY. SEEING NO OTHERS QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS, ASSEMBLY MEMBER NGUYEN.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, I, I THINK
IN YOUR REMARKS TO THE AUTHOR
THAT YOU DID MENTION THAT YOU
WOULD WORK WITH OPPOSITION ON
LANGUAGE. I DO ONE OF THE,
TESTIMONY SAID SOMETHING AND IT
REALLY HIT ME AND SHE SAID, JUST
BE SICK. YOU KNOW, SHE JUST AND
I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH THAT. IF
A FAMILY MEMBER WAS KILLED AND I
WAS BEING QUESTIONED, I WOULD
WANT TO KNOW THAT. AND I THINK
WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT YOU WOULD
WANT TO KNOW THAT BEFORE YOU
START POURING EVERYTHING OUT.
BUT I THINK THERE IS A WAY TO
GET THERE. I THINK THERE IS A
WAY FOR US TO BE ABLE TO WORK
OUT SOMETHING WHERE IT'S NOT
IMPEDING ON ANY CURRENT
INVESTIGATION OR WHATNOT, SO
THAT IT DOESN'T IN ANY WAY, AND
I THINK YOU SAID IT EARLIER
ABOUT IF THERE IS ANY CURRENT
INVESTIGATION THAT CONTAINS OR
WHATNOT. BUT BUT I DO FEEL LIKE
AS HUMAN BEINGS, IF WE'RE GOING
TO LOSE A LOVED ONE AND WE'RE
GOING TO BE QUESTIONED AND
WHATNOT, WE SHOULD BE INFORMED
ABOUT THAT BEFORE WE START
POURING OUR INFORMATION OUT. BUT
I WOULD LOVE TO SEE YOU WORK
WITH THE OPPOSITION ON GETTING
TO THAT THAT HAPPY MEDIUM. THANK
YOU. YEAH, I APPRECIATE THAT.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN AND ABSOLUTELY.
AND I THINK THAT THIS, HEARING
WAS, SET IMMEDIATELY AFTER
REASSESSING. A LOT OF THE
LETTERS WERE SUBMITTED DURING
THE RECESS. AND SO I LOOK
FORWARD TO WORKING WITH
OPPOSITION IN TERMS OF SOME OF
THE CONCERNS, SOME OF THE
DEFINITIONS, I AGREE WITH THE
UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE, WHICH I
THINK MOST OF US WOULD AGREE
WITH IS THAT, YOU KNOW, FAMILIES
ARE GOING THROUGH SUCH A
TRAUMATIC EXPERIENCE. YOU KNOW,
THEY'RE IN A VULNERABLE STATE
AND WHAT HAVE YOU, THIS IS NOT
CONFERRING ANY NEW RIGHTS. IT'S
THESE ARE ALL RIGHTS THAT
INDIVIDUALS HAVE HAVE IF THEY'RE
NOT UNDER DETENTION, WHAT HAVE
YOU. NOW WE CAN WORK ON THE I'M
MORE THAN HAPPY TO WORK ON THE
LANGUAGE. IF THERE'S A SENSE OF
OVERLAP WITH MIRANDA, THAT MIGHT
MAKE IT CONFUSING WHERE SOMEONE
MIGHT BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE BEING
DETAINED OR, YOU KNOW, WHAT HAVE
YOU, OR IF THERE'S OTHER
INVESTIGATIONS OCCURRING THAT
ARE RELEVANT, THAT'S UNRELATED
TO THE SITUATION WE HEARD FROM
MR. SHULMAN OR SOME OF THE OTHER
FAMILIES THAT ARE HERE, WE'RE
CLEARLY THOSE THAT QUESTIONING
WASN'T BECAUSE THE FAMILY WAS
UNDER SUSPICION OF ANY CRIMINAL
ACT. I THINK WE THERE'S A
GENERAL I HOPE THERE'S A GENERAL
UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE'RE
TRYING TO GET AT HERE. AND I'M
MORE THAN WILLING TO WORK WITH
OPPOSITION TO TRY TO, AS I
MENTIONED, MY COMMENTS THREAD
THAT NEEDLE WHERE WE CAN SHOW
SOME RESPECT AND DIGNITY TO THE
FAMILIES WHO HAVE HAD LOVED ONES
KILLED OR SERIOUSLY INJURED,
WHILE AT THE SAME TIME ENSURE
THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT, IF THERE
IS A LEGITIMATE PURPOSE OF THEM
DOING AN INVESTIGATION FOR
SOMEONE THAT HAPPENS TO BE A
MEMBER OF THE FAMILY, OR THAT
HAPPENS TO LIVE IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD, WHATEVER IT MIGHT
BE, WE CAN CREATE SOME
DEFINITIONS TO ALLOW FOR THAT
LEGITIMATE INVESTIGATION TO
OCCUR. BUT THE PRACTICE REALLY
IS ABOUT, AS I MENTIONED, KIND
OF HOW LAW ENFORCEMENT IS
TRAINED SPECIFICALLY, TO START
QUESTIONING THE VICTIM'S
FAMILIES, INTENTIONALLY NOT
TELLING THEM WHAT HAPPENED TO
THEIR LOVED ONE. I THINK THOSE
ARE THE KINDS OF PRACTICES I
HOPE WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT WE
WANT TO MOVE AWAY FROM. AND
AGAIN, IF THIS BILL IS ALLOWED
TO MOVE FORWARD, COMMIT TO
CONTINUING TO WORK TO TRY TO
FINE TUNE THE LANGUAGE SO THAT
WE'RE REALLY GETTING TO THE
HEART OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO
ACHIEVE HERE. THANK YOU, MR.
LACKEY. UNLIKE MANY THAT, ARE AT
THIS TABLE, I'VE HAD THE
MISFORTUNE OF NOTIFYING AN
INDIVIDUAL ABOUT THE LOSS OF
LIFE AND THEIR FAMILY. AND I CAN
TELL YOU THAT MY CONCERN ABOUT
THIS BILL IS THAT THESE FAMILY
MEMBERS WILL NOW THINK THE FOCUS
OF THE INVESTIGATION IS
ACCUSATORY AND KIND OF ACCUSES
THEM OF WRONGDOING BY INVOKING
THEIR MIRANDA RIGHTS, BECAUSE
IT'S A CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
THAT ALLOWS THIS, THIS
PRIVILEGE. SO I THINK IT MAY
SEND THE WRONG MESSAGE THAT
THERE'S ACCUSATION OR SOME KIND
OF LATENT SUSPICION THAT THEY'RE
GUILTY OF WRONGDOING. AND SO I
HAVE THAT HESITATION. AND IF I
MAY, MR. CHAIR, I THINK THAT'S A
FAIR POINT. AND I KNOW THAT, YOU
KNOW, KNOWING YOU, I THINK THAT
YOU WOULD ENTER A SITUATION WITH
THIS WITH GREAT RESPECT FOR THE
FAMILIES INVOLVED. I THINK THAT
THE POINT OF THE CONFUSION IS
DEFINITELY SOMETHING THAT I'M
MORE THAN WILLING TO CONTINUE TO
WORK WITH. OPPOSITION ON, SO
THAT IT'S CLEAR THAT, THAT
WHATEVER'S BEING TOLD TO THE
FAMILIES AND SITUATION IS BEING
TOLD TO INFORM THEM, OF WHAT? OF
WHAT ABILITY THEY HAVE TO BE
ABLE TO, TO HAVE THOSE
CONVERSATIONS WITH LAW
ENFORCEMENT OR NOT, BUT NOT
BECAUSE THEY'RE BEING
SPECIFICALLY ACCUSED. AND SO I
THINK THAT THERE IS A WAY TO GET
THERE, THIS IS THE FIRST
HEARING, WE'VE ACCEPT WE'VE SEEN
THE OPPOSITION LETTERS, BUT WE
HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO SIT DOWN
WITH THE OPPOSITION. AND SO I
LOOK FORWARD TO DOING THAT AND
FINDING A WAY TO KIND OF FIND
THAT MIDDLE GROUND. OKAY. THANK
YOU, VICE CHAIR LONI'S. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR, EARLIER, FOR THE
AUTHOR, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT
FAMILY, OR THEY MAY LIVE IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD. I DON'T KNOW IF
YOU JUST MAYBE MISSPOKE. ARE WE
TALKING ABOUT THIS? COULD BE
NEIGHBORS, TOO. OR IS THIS JUST
FAMILY ONLY? YEAH. NO, THIS THIS
IS SPECIFICALLY FAMILY TO FAMILY
MEMBERS. YEAH. OKAY. AND DO WE
HAVE, LIKE, A DEFINED FAMILY?
LIKE, DOES IT IS IT STEP
BROTHERS ONCE REMOVED?
GODFATHER. GODSON. YEAH, I THINK
THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE
CONTINUE TO WORK ON TO FURTHER
DEFINE. OKAY. AND THEN MY OTHER
QUESTION IS GOING TO BE, WHAT IF
THIS IS SAY THIS DOES PASS AND
IT DOES NOT TAKE PLACE? WHAT ARE
THE PENALTIES? THAT'S ANOTHER
THING THAT WILL HAVE TO CONTINUE
TO WORK ON, INCLUDING WORKING
WITH THE COMMITTEE STAFF,
BECAUSE THAT WAS ONE OF THE
PARTS OF THE CONVERSATION THAT
WE HAD WITH COMMITTEE STAFF, AS
WELL AS LIKE WHAT WHAT
ACCOUNTABILITY THERE IS THAT
THESE ARE THIS IS NOT FOLLOWED
THROUGH CLEARLY AS STATED. THIS
IS NOT LIKE A CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATION WHERE THERE CAN BE
CONSEQUENCES ON THE ON THE, IN
THE CRIMINAL COURTS IN TERMS OF
CASES BEING TOSSED OUT OR
EVIDENCE NOT BEING ADMITTED
BECAUSE THEY DON'T GIVE A
MIRANDA WARNING OR SOMETHING.
YEAH, IT'S DIFFERENT THAN THAT.
BUT THERE COULD BE I THINK SOME
OF THE AVENUES WE'VE LOOKED DOWN
ARE POTENTIAL CIVIL PENALTIES
AND WHAT HAVE YOU, BUT THAT'S
SOMETHING WE'RE GOING TO
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH COMMITTEE
STAFF ON AND WORK ON GOING
FORWARD. OKAY. AND I'LL JUST
EXPRESS THE SAME THING. LIKE MY
COLLEAGUE HAD MENTIONED, I ALSO,
UNFORTUNATELY, HAVE GIVEN MANY
FAMILIES THE BAD NEWS THAT THEIR
LOVED ONES ARE NOT RETURNING.
AND THE FIRST THING THAT I WANT
TO DO IS NOT TO START ASKING
THEM QUESTIONS OR GIVE THEM, A
WARNING OR KIND OF, SAYING THAT
I HAVE TO GIVE THEM I'M TOO BUSY
WORRYING ABOUT COMFORTING THEM,
GETTING THEM FAMILY MEMBERS
THERE TO BE WITH THEM AND TO BE
THERE DURING THIS TIME OF GRIEF,
SO I ALSO SEE AN ISSUE WITH THAT
AS WELL THAT'S GOING ON. THANK
YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT. AND I
THINK, AS I SAID, I THINK SOME
OF AT LEAST I'M LUCKY, I THINK
THAT I CAN SEE HOW BOTH OF YOU
MAY APPROACH IT WITH THE REALITY
IS THAT, THE WAY THAT
DEPARTMENTS ARE CURRENTLY BEING
TRAINED, IT'S APPROACHING THAT
SITUATION IN A DIFFERENT WAY,
AND WE WANT TO APPROACH IT WITH
THE RESPECT AND DIGNITY THAT
BOTH OF YOU ALLUDE TO. THANK
YOU. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. WE
HAVE A MOTION ON THE BILL, A
MOTION BY MEMBER NGUYEN, SECOND
BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER ZUBER, MR.
CARILLO, YOU WANT TO CLOSE? I
REALLY APPRECIATE THE
CONVERSATION. LOOK FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH OPPOSITION AND THE
COMMITTEE STAFF GOING FORWARD.
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN I VOTE.
THANK YOU. A MOTION AND SECOND,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON AB 3021
BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER. CALL THE
MOTION IS DUE. PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY. MCCARTY I ELONIS. NO.
ELONIS. NO. LACKEY. LACKEY NOT
VOTING NGUYEN NGUYEN I REYES
TING. WILSON ZIPPER. ZIPPER I IS
ON CALL. THANK YOU. NEXT. AUTHOR
MEMBER. FRIEDMAN.
OKAY. YOU HAVE ITEM 34 AB 3088.
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS AB 3088 SEEKS
TO ARTICULATE THE STANDARD BY
WHICH PROCEDURAL BARRIERS CAN BE
OVERCOME BY INNOCENT INDIVIDUALS
ATTEMPTING TO SECURE THEIR
RELEASE FROM PRISON THROUGH
HABEAS CORPUS PETITIONS. IN
ORDER FOR AN INNOCENT PERSON TO
GET OUT OF PRISON, THEY MUST
FILE A HABEAS CORPUS PETITION TO
CHALLENGE THE LEGALITY OF THEIR
INCARCERATION. THERE ARE A
NUMBER OF PROCEDURAL BARRIERS
THAT PREVENT CLAIMS IN A HABEAS
PETITION FROM BEING CONSIDERED.
IN CALIFORNIA, CASE LAW STATES
THAT A PETITIONER HAS TO BRING
THEIR HABEAS PETITION IN A
TIMELY FASHION, AND THAT COURTS
WILL NOT CONSIDER REPETITIVE
CLAIMS IF DEEMED UNTIMELY OR
SUCCESSFUL. IN THEIR INITIAL
REVIEW OF THE PETITION, THE
JUDGE NEVER HAS TO CONSIDER THE
MERITS OF THE PETITION AT ALL.
THIS MEANS THAT IF AN INNOCENT
PERSON FACES PROCEDURAL BARRIERS
TO THEIR PETITION, THEIR ONLY
REMAINING OPTION IS A SHOWING OF
ACTUAL INNOCENCE, ACTUAL
INNOCENCE AS DEFINED IN
CALIFORNIA CASE LAW, IS AN
INCREDIBLY HIGH STANDARD THAT IS
ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO MEET. IT
HAS NOT BEEN USED AS A STANDARD
TO REVERSE A CONVICTION SINCE
2016. IN CALIFORNIA, IN THE
ABSENCE OF A STATUTE UNDER
EXISTING CASE LAW, THE
PROCEDURAL BARRIERS OF
TIMELINESS AND SUCCESSIVE
PETITION CONSIDERATION OFTEN BAR
INNOCENT PEOPLE FROM HAVING
THEIR CLAIMS CONSIDERED BY A
COURT, EVEN WHEN NEW EVIDENCE OF
INNOCENCE IS ALLEGED IN THEIR
CASE, AB 3088 WOULD ALLOW FOR
HABEAS PETITIONS IMPLICATING A
WRONGFUL CONVICTION TO BE
EVALUATED ON THEIR MERITS.
RATHER THAN IMMEDIATELY BEING
DISMISSED BASED ON PROCEDURAL
GROUNDS. THE COURTS WOULD STILL
HAVE THE DISCRETION AS TO
WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE A
HEARING ON THE MERITS OF THE
CASE. AB 3088 SIMPLY ARTICULATES
A STANDARD BY WHICH THE COURT
CAN EVALUATE IF THE PETITIONER
CAN OVERCOME TIMELINESS AND
EXCESSIVENESS. TO BE CLEAR, THIS
BILL DOES NOT CREATE A NEW
PROCESS. IT ONLY CLARIFIES THE
CURRENT PROCESS AND BRINGS THE
STANDARD FOR REVIEW MORE IN LINE
WITH THE REST OF THE NATION, AND
IN LINE WITH THE STANDARD USED
TO REVERSE A CONVICTION HERE IN
CALIFORNIA. ALREADY, MY OFFICE
HAS HAD PROTECTIVE CONVERSATIONS
WITH THE OPPOSITION REGARDING
THEIR CONCERNS AND I LOOK
FORWARD TO CONTINUING TO WORK IN
GOOD FAITH SHOULD THIS BILL PASS
OUT OF COMMITTEE TODAY. I MEAN,
THE LAST THING WE WANT IS FOR A
JUDGE TO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE'S
NEW EVIDENCE THAT COULD
EXONERATE SOMEBODY BUT SAY,
BECAUSE OF A PROCEDURAL ISSUE,
THIS DIDN'T COME TO ME AT THE
RIGHT TIME. I'M SORRY YOU HAVE
TO REMAIN IN JAIL. THAT SHOULD
NEVER HAPPEN. THAT PERSON SHOULD
HAVE AT LEAST THE ABILITY FOR
THE JUDGE TO HAVE THE DISCRETION
TO SAY, BOY, THIS CHANGES
EVERYTHING. THIS COULD BE REALLY
SIGNIFICANT. LET'S LET'S HEAR
THIS OUT. AND THIS GIVES THEM
THAT THAT DISCRETION. TESTIFYING
IN SUPPORT THIS MORNING IS
JASMINE HARRIS, DIRECTOR OF
POLICY WITH THE CALIFORNIA
INNOCENCE COALITION. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND CHAIR. MY
NAME IS JASMINE HARRIS. AND I'M
WITH THE CALIFORNIA INNOCENCE
COALITION. OUR COALITION
LITIGATES CASES TO BRING
INNOCENT PEOPLE HOME TO THEIR
FAMILIES. AND AS WE DO THAT, WE
LEARN ALONG THE WAYS THE
SYSTEMIC CHANGES THAT WE SHOULD
BE MAKING TO IMPROVE OUR SYSTEM,
TO PREVENT WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS
FROM HAPPENING IN THE FIRST
PLACE, WAYS THAT WE CAN BRING
INNOCENT PEOPLE HOME, AND THEN,
OF COURSE, SUPPORTING THEM ONCE
THEY DO COME HOME. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER FRIEDMAN DID AN EXCELLENT
JOB DESCRIBING THE NEED FOR THE
BILL AND THE SOLUTION. AB 388
OFFERS. I WILL JUST ADD THAT THE
RESULTS OF THE CURRENT SYSTEM IS
INNOCENT. INCARCERATED PEOPLE
ARE BARRED FROM HABEAS PETITION
CONSIDERATION. JUST
CONSIDERATION DUE TO PROCEDURAL
BARRIERS THAT KEEP THEM IN
PRISON, NOT BECAUSE THEY DON'T
HAVE EVIDENCE OF INNOCENCE, BUT
BECAUSE HERE IN CALIFORNIA WE
RELY ON CASE LAW, WHICH SETS AN
INCREDIBLY HIGH STANDARD JUST TO
GET TO THE REVIEW OF THE MERITS.
CURRENTLY, IF THE PETITIONER IS
FILING A SUCCESSIVE OR UNTIMELY
PETITION AND THEY CANNOT PROVE
THAT THE EVIDENCE IN THEIR
PETITION COMPLETELY UNDERMINES
THE PROSECUTION'S CASE AND
POINTS UNERRINGLY TO INNOCENCE,
THEIR CLAIM WILL BE DISMISSED
BEFORE A JUDGE CAN BEFORE A
COURT CAN LOOK AT THE MERITS.
THIS STANDARD IS NOT ONLY ONE OF
THE HIGHEST STANDARDS IN THE
COUNTRY, BUT IT IS ALSO HIGHER
THAN THE STANDARD REQUIRED TO
REVERSE A CONVICTION. HERE IN
CALIFORNIA, WE ARE SIMPLY ASKING
TO BRING THE PROCEDURAL BAR
STANDARD IN LINE WITH THE
STANDARD THAT WE USE TO REVERSE
A CONVICTION. TO BE CLEAR, AS
ASSEMBLYWOMAN FRIEDMAN SAID,
THIS PROCESS ALREADY EXISTS. WE
ARE NOT CREATING A NEW PROCESS,
BUT RATHER CLARIFYING THE
STANDARD JUDGES CAN USE TO ALLOW
SOMEONE TO OVERCOME THESE
PROCEDURAL BARRIERS TO END ON A
HUMAN ELEMENT. I JUST WANT TO
REMIND EVERYBODY THAT EVERY
MOMENT SPENT WRONGFULLY
INCARCERATED IS A GRAVE
INJUSTICE. THE LONGER SOMEONE IS
HELD UNJUSTLY, THE MORE THEY
SUFFER PHYSICALLY, EMOTIONALLY,
AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY. IN MY
EXPERIENCE, WORKING WITH PEOPLE
WHO ARE INNOCENT AND
INCARCERATED EVERY DAY, THEY'RE
WRONGFULLY INCARCERATED IS
EXCRUCIATING. EACH DAY IS A DAY
WITHOUT THEIR FAMILIES. ANOTHER
BIRTHDAY CELEBRATED WITHOUT
THEM, ANOTHER FUNERAL MISSED
EVERY DAY IS ANOTHER DAY.
THEY'RE SUFFERING A CRUEL
PUNISHMENT NOT MEANT FOR THEM.
EVERY DAY IS ANOTHER DAY THAT
THE TRUE PERPETRATOR ROAMS FREE,
POTENTIALLY CAUSING MORE HARM.
THIS BILL HELPS BRING JUSTICE TO
THE WRONGFULLY INCARCERATED. AND
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. ANY OTHERS IN
SUPPORT, PLEASE LINE UP. I THINK
YOU GOT IT. YEAH. YOU CAN DO IT.
HERE WE GO. THANK YOU. DANICA
ADAMO ON BEHALF OF INITIATE
JUSTICE LAW DEFENSE AND SMART
JUSTICE CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT
MARCO JORGE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU, IGNACIO HERNANDEZ, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ATTORNEYS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE
AND SUPPORT. CARRIE ARZATE WITH
PRISON FROM THE INSIDE OUT AND
INITIATE JUSTICE IN STRONG
SUPPORT. MELANIE KIM, SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDERS
OFFICE IN SUPPORT AMELIA ROGERS,
ELLA BAKER CENTER FOR HUMAN
RIGHTS AND SUPPORT. ALICIA
MONTEIRO, CALIFORNIANS UNITED
FOR RESPONSIBLE BUDGET AND
STRONG SUPPORT. FELIPE KELLY
WITH THE ELLA BAKER CENTER AND
FULL SUPPORT. COME ON OUTSIDE.
WITH ME TO THE SUPPORT. THANK
YOU FOR. THANK YOU. ANY
OPPOSITION? ASSOCIATION. OH NO
PROBLEM. CINDY DASILVA, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION,
I'LL BE VERY BRIEF, THE
ASSEMBLYWOMAN IS CORRECT. WE'RE
CURRENTLY IN OPPOSITION, BUT
ENGAGING IN ONGOING PRODUCTIVE
COMMUNICATIONS, AND WE'RE
HOPEFUL WE CAN REACH A
RESOLUTION. THANK YOU. ANY
OTHERS IN OPPOSITION? OKAY.
THANK YOU. SEEING NONE QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. WE HAVE A MOTION A
SECOND, NO COMMENTS NOR
QUESTIONS, YOU MAY CLOSE, JUST I
JUST I WOULD REQUEST ORPHALI
REQUEST AND I VOTE TO WE
CONTINUE TO WORK TO ADDRESS ANY
CONCERNS OF THE OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ON AB 3088 BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER
FRIEDMAN. THE MOTION IS Dð PASS
MCCARTY. MCCARTY I. ALANIZ NO.
ALANIZ. NO. LACKEY LACKEY NOT
VOTING. NGUYEN NGUYEN I TING.
I'M SORRY. REYES TING. WILSON
ZUBER. ZUBER I THANK YOU. OKAY,
THAT MEASURE IS ON CALL. NEXT WE
HAVE ITEM NUMBER TEN, ASSEMBLY
BILL 2215. MR. BRYANT. YES THE
LARCENY. COME ON. TOM GOOD.
PLEASE BEGIN, MR. CHAIR,
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, IT'S GOOD TO
BE WITH YOU HERE TODAY. HERE TO
PRESENT. TOGETHER MY NOTES REAL
QUICK. AB 20 215, YEARS AGO,
JURISDICTIONS ACROSS CALIFORNIA
AND ACROSS THE COUNTRY
ESTABLISHED LEAD PROGRAMS. LAW
ENFORCEMENT, ASSISTED DIVERSION
PROGRAMS, AND WHAT THEY ALLOWED
FOR HERE WAS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT
TO TAKE FOLKS WHO WERE SUFFERING
, SUFFERING FROM BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH ISSUES OR POVERTY RELATED
ISSUES AND CONNECT THEM TO
COMMUNITY BASED ALTERNATIVES
ROOTED IN CARE. IF THEY FELT,
THROUGH THEIR DISCRETION, THAT
BOOKING THEM IN LOCAL LOCK UPS
IN THE COUNTY JAIL WAS NOT IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THROUGH
THE YEARS. THOUGH IN PRACTICE,
WHAT WE FOUND IS MANY LAW
ENFORCEMENT PROFESSIONALS ARE
AFRAID TO USE THIS OPTION
BECAUSE THE PENAL CODE DOESN'T
SPEAK TO IT CLEARLY AND
DIRECTLY, AND TO BE CLEAR, IN A
PERFECT WORLD, I BELIEVE THE
FOLKS WHO ARE ADMINISTERING
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CARE OR
POVERTY RELATED CARE COMMUNITY
AND SUPPORTS SHOULD BE THE FRONT
LINE INTERVENTION WORKERS. BUT
THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENS IN
PRACTICE. OFTEN, OFTEN THE FRONT
LINE PERSON WHO TOUCHES FOLKS IS
LAW ENFORCEMENT. AND FOR THOSE
WHO ARE AFRAID TO TAKE THEM TO
COMMUNITY BASED ALTERNATIVES,
INSTEAD, THEY BOOK THEM. THEY
LOCK THEM UP EVEN WHEN THEY KNOW
BETTER ALTERNATIVES EXIST. THE
REASON, AGAIN, THAT THEY DO THIS
IS BECAUSE THIS IS NOT CLEARLY
ARTICULATED IN THE PENAL CODE.
THAT OPTION, THAT AUTHORITY,
THAT DISCRETION TO TAKE THEM TO
THE SUPPORTIVE SERVICES THAT ARE
, IN MOST NEED AND IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THAT IS THE
IMPETUS FOR THIS BILL, WE WROTE
THIS BILL WITH THE SUPPORT OF
THE COMMITTEE ON THE REVISION OF
THE PENAL CODE, AND WITH ME TO
TESTIFY TODAY IS TOM, AND HIS
LAST NAME IS NOSEWEEK. THANK
YOU, MISTER BRIAN. I'M TOM
NOSOWITZ ON THE LEGAL DIRECTOR
FOR THE COMMITTEE ON REVISION OF
THE PENAL CODE, WHICH IS A STATE
ENTITY THAT WAS CREATED BY THE
LEGISLATURE TO MAKE
RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT ALL
ASPECTS OF CRIMINAL LAW IN THE
STATE, THIS BILL, AS MR. BRIAN
SAID, IS BASED ON A
RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PENAL
CODE COMMITTEE'S MOST RECENT
ANNUAL REPORT. AND IT REALLY IT
ALLOWS POLICE OFFICERS TO
EXERCISE THEIR DISCRETION TO DO
SOMETHING CALLED PRE-BOOKING
DIVERSION. AND THE BEST EXAMPLE
OF THIS IS THE LEAD PROGRAMS
THAT, THAT WERE ALREADY
MENTIONED, THE LEGISLATURE
FUNDED THESE PROGRAMS IN THE
PAST IN SAN FRANCISCO AND LOS
ANGELES. THERE WAS AN
INDEPENDENT EVALUATION DONE ON
THE PROGRAMS AND SHOWED
TREMENDOUS REDUCTIONS IN
RECIDIVISM FOR FOLKS WHO HAD
GONE THROUGH THEM VERSUS FOLKS
WHO HADN'T, AND THIS BILL WOULD
ALLOW POLICE OFFICERS TO HAVE
CLEAR AUTHORIZATION TO CONTINUE
TO USE PROGRAMS LIKE THAT, IT
BUILDS ON EXISTING LAW AND PENAL
CODE SECTION 849, AND AGAIN,
THIS WOULD BE AT THE OFFICER'S
DISCRETION, GUIDED BY LOCAL
POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY. AND
THE COMMITTEE MADE THIS
RECOMMENDATION AFTER CONCLUDING
THAT IT WOULD IMPROVE PUBLIC
SAFETY WHILE ALSO REDUCING
UNNECESSARY INCARCERATION. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER
MEMBERS WISH TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT, PLEASE LINE UP. DANICA
RUDERMAN, DELIVERING SUPPORT ON
BEHALF OF INITIATE JUSTICE VIERA
INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE. SMART
JUSTICE, CALIFORNIA PROSECUTORS
ALLIANCE OF CALIFORNIA LAWYERS
COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS, AND
THE TRANSFORMATIVE IN PRISON
WORK GROUP. ANTHONY DEMARTINO ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIANS FOR
SAFETY AND JUSTICE. PROUD
SPONSOR OF THE BILL. MARGO
GEORGE, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU Dð COONEY ON BEHALF OF ACLU
CALIFORNIA ACTION AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, MOLLY ROBSON
WITH PLANNED PARENTHOOD
AFFILIATES OF CALIFORNIA AND
SUPPORT AMELIA ROGERS, ELLA
BAKER CENTER IN SUPPORT CLIFTON
WILSON ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
PSYCHIATRISTS IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. MELANIE KIM, SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE IN
SUPPORT. ALICIA MONTANA
MONTEIRO, CURB AND SUPPORT.
FELIPE KELLY WITH THE ELLA BAKER
CENTER AND FULL SUPPORT. JOHN
DREBINGER WITH THE STEINBERG
INSTITUTE IN SUPPORT. HENRY
ORTIZ WITH COMMUNITY HEALERS AND
ALL OF US ARE NONE. SACRAMENTO
AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
OPPOSITION. WE HAVE OPPOSITION
TO THIS MEASURE LIKE THAT.
THEY'RE LISTED, BUT THEY'RE NOT
HERE. NO. OKAY MR. ALANIZ, FIRST
OFF, MOVE THE BILL, SECOND, I'LL
SECOND. THERE WE GO. HOW ABOUT
THAT, PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF THAT,
MR. BRIAN, PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF
THIS MONUMENTAL SOMETHING THAT
WAS MENTIONED TODAY IN TESTIMONY
WAS TALKING ABOUT, SOME LAW
ENFORCEMENT BEING AFRAID TO TAKE
THIS AS AN OPTION. AND I THINK
THIS JUST HELPS REINFORCE SOME
OF THEIR DECISION TO DO THAT,
BECAUSE YOU GOT TO REMEMBER,
SOMETIMES WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT
, WELL, NOT SOMETIMES ALL THE
TIME. WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT
LIABILITY. YOU KNOW, WHAT IF I
DID MAYBE TAKE THIS PERSON TO A
TO A CARE HOME AND THEN THEY
WENT OFF ON EVERYBODY AND
STARTED BEATING UP EVERYBODY AND
LIKE, WELL, YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT
THEY WERE ON SOME PSYCHIATRIC
SOMETHING. AND GOT THAT DEPUTY
OR THAT OFFICER IN TROUBLE. SO
REINFORCING IT FROM THE
LEGISLATIVE SIDE ON THIS, I
THINK, REALLY HELPS MAKE THOSE
DECISIONS AND, AND WILL HELP
PEOPLE. SO I, I WOULD LIKE TO
ALSO BE A COAUTHOR IF POSSIBLE.
WOW MAN. SHOWERING YOU WITH LOVE
TODAY. OKAY. MR. LACKEY, I JUST
WANT TO CONGRATULATE THE AUTHOR
FOR REFRESHINGLY SUPPORTABLE
BILL. FINALLY. THANK YOU. IS
THAT A CO AUTHOR, QUESTION.
OKAY. WE CAN'T WE CAN'T TOP
THAT. OH MR. ZUBIATE ATTEMPTED
127 MORE OFTEN. SO, MR. BRIAN,
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BRINGING
THIS BILL. I THINK IT'S
TERRIFIC. I ACTUALLY HAD A
COUPLE QUESTIONS THAT ARE SORT
OF ABOUT WRINKLES, ABOUT HOW
IT'S ADMINISTERED. SO I THINK
THESE LEAD PROGRAMS ARE GREAT. I
THINK WHAT YOU'RE DOING, IN
GIVING, INCENTIVIZING, POLICE TO
USE THESE KINDS OF PROGRAMS IS
REALLY PERFECT. THE QUESTION I
HAD IS, WHAT HAPPENS IN THOSE
JURISDICTIONS THAT DON'T
ACTUALLY HAVE THESE FORMAL LEAD
PROGRAMS? BECAUSE I NOTED THAT
WAS PART OF IN ONE OF THE
LETTERS OR IN THE STAFF REPORT.
AND SO I'M WONDERING WHAT
HAPPENS IN THOSE JURISDICTIONS.
AND THE REASON WHY I'M ASKING IT
IS THAT YOU COULD SORT OF SEE,
IF THERE ISN'T SOME KIND OF
OVERSIGHT OVER THE POLICE THAT
IN SOME JURISDICTIONS IT COULD
BE MISUSED, INCLUDING, YOU KNOW,
IN, IN CASES WHERE YOU MIGHT END
UP HAVING, SORT OF LGBTQ KIDS
BROUGHT INTO RELIGIOUS S, SOCIAL
SERVICE, PROVIDERS, THAT COULD
BE DIFFICULT. SO I'M JUST I
THINK THE BILL IS GREAT,
STRONGLY SUPPORTED. IT'S REALLY
THOSE WRINKLES BECAUSE IT
INCLUDES THE AREAS WITHOUT IT,
THESE FORMAL LEAD PROGRAMS AND
WHAT YOU'RE ENVISIONING THERE
AND WHETHER YOU'RE YOU MIGHT BE
ABLE TO SORT OF FOCUS A LITTLE
BIT ON THE ISSUES THAT I'M
RAISING. NO, ABSOLUTELY. I THINK
THE IMPETUS HERE IS TO BUILD UP
THE COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE,
PARTICULARLY IF LAW ENFORCEMENT
RECOGNIZES THAT THIS IS NOT A
SITUATION WHERE THE CRIMINAL
LEGAL SYSTEM HAS THE SOLUTIONS
AND THE SOLUTIONS ARE BETTER
FOUND IN COMMUNITY. WE'VE GOT TO
MAKE SURE THAT THE CAPACITY
BUILDING THAT'S NEEDED, NEEDED
TO BE DONE IN COMMUNITY MEETS,
THAT NEED. THE GOOD THING ABOUT
THIS BEING PREBOOKING DIVERSION
MEANS THAT THERE'S NO KIND OF
COURT ORDER FOR YOU TO STAY IN
SOME SORT OF RELIGIOUS
INSTITUTION OR SOMETHING LIKE
THAT, TO SEEK, ANY KIND OF CARE.
BUT I THINK THE BROADER THING
YOU'RE TOUCHING ON IS THE KIND
OF OVERSIGHT AND NEGLECT OF OUR
LGBTQ PLUS COMMUNITY AND, AND
KIND OF ALL OF OUR INSTITUTIONAL
DESIGNS. AND I THINK THAT THAT'S
IMPORTANT. AND TO BE MINDFUL OF.
AND I THINK THOSE BROADER
PROBLEMS DEFINITELY STILL EXIST.
BUT THIS BILL DOESN'T EXACERBATE
THOSE. IT JUST POTENTIALLY
HIGHLIGHTS THE FACT THAT AS WE
BUILD UP NEW INFRASTRUCTURE,
WHETHER IT IS OUR CIVIC
INFRASTRUCTURE OR OUR COMMUNITY
INFRASTRUCTURE, WE HAVE TO BE
INCLUSIVE OF EVERYBODY. YEAH, I
THINK I THINK IT'S, YOU KNOW,
IT'S PARTIALLY, I THINK, LGBTQ
STUFF ISSUES. BUT I THINK, I
THINK MY BIGGER QUESTION IS, IS
ABOUT SORT OF OVERSIGHT OF, OF
THE POLICE WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE
THESE LEAD FORMAL PROGRAMS DONE.
I'M JUST WONDERING IF THERE'S
ANYTHING YOU COULD DO IN THE
BILL THAT REQUIRES SOME KIND OF
A FORMAL ADOPTION OF AT LEAST
STANDARDS OR A PROGRAM. SO IN
SOME JURISDICTIONS IT MIGHT NOT
BE MISUSED. YOU KNOW, I GREW UP
IN A VERY RURAL FARM COMMUNITY,
AND I THINK ABOUT SORT OF THE
WAY THE POLICE CONDUCTED
THEMSELVES IN THAT COMMUNITY.
AND IT SORT OF SCARES ME A
LITTLE BIT. IF THERE'S NOT SOME
KIND OF FORMAL OVERSIGHT. SO
THAT'S JUST WONDERING IF YOU
MIGHT THINK ABOUT THAT. WELL,
NOW THAT I'VE GOT TWO NEW
COAUTHORS, I'M HAPPY TO ADD ALL
KINDS OF NEW NÓ. MR. VICE CHAIR,
I THINK YOU HAD A RESPONSE TO
THAT, BUT I THINK I'M OPEN TO
ALL CONVERSATION. BUT I THINK
WHAT WE KNOW RIGHT NOW IS THAT
THE CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM LOCK
UP CAN'T BE OUR ANSWER TO ALL
SOCIAL PROBLEMS. AND I THINK IN
THOSE SPECIAL OCCURRENCES WHERE
LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS ALSO
RECOGNIZED THAT THEY CANNOT BE
AN ANSWER TO A PROBLEM, WE'VE
GOT TO ALLOW THEM THE AUTHORITY
TO SEEK CARE AND SUPPORT. OKAY,
JUST TO CLARIFY, WE'RE NOT
CHANGING ANY VERSION OF THE BILL
RIGHT HERE, JUST HYPOTHETICALS
AS TO THE MOTION. A SECOND WE
HAVE A MOTION A SECOND. I WANT
TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION
TODAY. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO CLOSE? SURE
SORRY ABOUT THAT. NO. RIGHT NOW,
THE CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM IS THE
CATCH ALL FOR ALL OF SOCIETY'S
ILLS. AND THERE ARE MANY, MANY,
MANY, MANY, MANY THINGS THAT THE
CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM CAN'T
IMPROVE THE CONDITIONS OF LIFE
UPON AND CANNOT OR SHOULD NOT BE
USED AS THE REMEDY FOR. THERE
ARE MANY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
SITUATIONS. THERE ARE SITUATIONS
OF ABJECT POVERTY IN WHICH
DIVERTING FOLKS TO COMMUNITY
BASED ALTERNATIVE HAS PROVEN TO
SHOW BETTER RESULTS, BOTH FOR
THE COMMUNITY AND FOR OUR CIVIC
INFRASTRUCTURE. ALL THIS BILL
DOES IS CODIFY THE AUTHORITY FOR
LAW ENFORCEMENT TO DO THAT. WHEN
THEY SEE THAT THAT IS THE
APPROPRIATE RESPONSE TO A CRISIS
THAT THEY ARE SEEING ON THE
STREET, I'M GRATEFUL FOR THE
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT THAT WE'VE
SEEN TODAY, AND I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU
. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. ON AB
2215 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER BRIAN.
THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS MCCARTY.
MCCARTY I ALANIS ALANIS I LAKI
LAKI I NGUYEN NGUYEN I REYES
TING WILSON WILSON I ZEBRA ZEBRA
I. THANK YOU. CONGRATULATIONS
OKAY. PLEASE, PLEASE PROCEED.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER. WE HAVE FILE
NUMBER 36 AB 3127.
MY NOTES SAY GOOD MORNING, BUT
GOOD AFTERNOON. YES. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. I AM HERE TO
PRESENT AB 3127, A BILL THAT
WILL ENSURE SURVIVORS CAN ACCESS
HEALTH CARE SERVICES BY CREATING
A SURVIVOR CENTERED, TRAUMA
INFORMED APPROACH AND LIMIT
NON-CONSENSUAL AND POTENTIALLY
DANGEROUS REFERRALS TO LAW
ENFORCEMENT. WE HAVE SEEN THE
WAYS IN WHICH THE MEDICAL
MANDATED REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
FOR ALL VIOLENT INJURIES HAVE
KEPT SURVIVORS FROM SEEKING
NECESSARY HEALTH CARE IN THE
FIRST PLACE, MADE SURVIVORS FEEL
LIKE THEY COULD NEVER RETURN TO
HEALTH CARE AFTER THEY LEARNED
OF THE REQUIREMENTS, OR MADE
THEM FEEL LIKE THEY COULD NOT
SHARE THE REASON FOR OR EXTENT
OF CERTAIN INJURIES OR HEALTH
ISSUES WITH THEIR PROVIDER. NOT
ONLY DO THESE REQUIREMENTS
CREATE A BARRIER TO HEALTH CARE,
BUT MEDICAL MANDATED REPORTING
TO LAW ENFORCEMENT CAN RESULT IN
THE ESCALATION OF ABUSE, UNDUE
CHILD WELFARE INVOLVEMENT,
SURVIVORS THEMSELVES BEING
CRIMINALIZED, EXPOSURE TO
IMMIGRATION DETENTION OR
DEPORTATION, AND MORE. THIS
COMMITTEE HAS VETOED. THIS.
COMMITTEE HAVE VOTED. SORRY, DID
NOT VETO THIS COMMITTEE HAD HAS
VOTED TO PASS TWO PREVIOUS
VERSIONS OF THIS BILL IN ORDER
TO ADDRESS OPPOSITIONS CONCERNS.
THIS YEAR'S VERSION TAKES A MORE
MODERATE APPROACH BY REQUIRING
THAT ALL LIFE THREATENING
INJURIES, NOT JUST INJURIES FROM
FIREARMS, WOULD STILL BE
REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED. THIS
INCLUDES STAB WOUNDS,
STRANGULATION, AND OTHER
INJURIES. WHERE MEDICAL
ATTENTION IS REQUIRED TO PREVENT
DEATH, WE CRIME THAT EMERGENCY
AND ACUTE CARE HEALTH
PRACTITIONERS HAVE TO OFFER TO
HELP VIOLENTLY INJURED PATIENTS.
REPORT TO THE POLICE, RECEIVE A
MEDICAL EXAM AND ACCESS 24 HOUR
VICTIM ADVOCATE. IF THE PATIENT
WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A REPORT, THE
PROVIDER WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DO
SO ON THEIR BEHALF. WITH ME HERE
TODAY IS ABIGAIL ALVAREZ, WHO
WILL BE READING OUR ORIGINAL
WITNESS STATEMENT THAT WOKE UP
SICK THIS MORNING AND LEAH
KINBERG, A UCSF PROFESSOR ON
INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE
PREVENTION. THANK YOU. YOU HAVE
FIVE MINUTES BETWEEN YOURSELVES.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS ABIGAIL
ALVAREZ, AND I REPRESENT THE
CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE NETWORK. I'M HERE TODAY
TO READ TESTIMONY ON BEHALF OF
PERLA FLORES, WHO IS SICK AND
UNABLE TO JOIN, SHE WRITES MY
NAME IS PERLA FLORES AND I
OVERSEE INTIMATE PARTNER
VIOLENCE, SEXUAL ASSAULT AND
HUMAN TRAFFICKING FOR COMMUNITY
SOLUTIONS IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY.
I'VE WORKED ON THE ANTI GENDER
BASED VIOLENCE FIELD FOR MORE
THAN 25 YEARS, AND HAVE
WITNESSED HOW BROAD REQUIREMENTS
FOR ADULT MEDICAL MANDATED
REPORTING DETERS SURVIVORS FROM
SEEKING MEDICAL MEDICAL CARE DUE
TO FEAR OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
INVOLVEMENT. THIS FEAR IS
AMPLIFIED FOR SURVIVORS WITHOUT
LEGAL STATUS. THIS BILL STILL
REQUIRES PROVIDERS TO REPORT TO
LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR LIFE
THREATENING INJURIES. AND IF THE
SURVIVOR REQUESTS TO REPORT,
SURVIVORS ARE MORE LIKELY TO
REPORT ABUSE CANDIDLY TO
CONFIDENTIAL PROVIDERS. LAST
YEAR, I REVIEWED DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE DANGER ASSESSMENTS
CONDUCTED BY CONFIDENTIAL
ADVOCATES AND FOUND THAT 42% OF
VICTIMS SHARED THAT THEY HAD
BEEN STRANGLED BY THEIR PARTNER
OR EX-PARTNER, BUT ONLY 13% WERE
REPORTED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT.
SOME SURVIVORS WILL EVEN REFUSE
CRITICAL MEDICAL CARE TO AVOID
INVOLVEMENT WITH THE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM. THIS INCLUDES A
SURVIVOR THAT WAS BEATEN BADLY
AND STRANGLED BY HER PARTNER.
SHE URGENTLY NEEDED MEDICAL CARE
BUT FEARED INVOLVING THE POLICE.
IT TOOK THE ADVOCATE DAYS TO
CONVINCE THE SURVIVOR TO
PARTICIPATE IN A FORENSIC
MEDICAL EXAM. I MOST WANT TO
IMPRESS UPON YOU THAT
UNFORTUNATELY, AS DV ADVOCATES
WORKING IN CALIFORNIA, WE
FREQUENTLY SEE SURVIVORS FEELING
FORCED TO DELAY OR FORGO MEDICAL
CARE, WHICH CAN RESULT IN
SERIOUS HARM. AND LONG TERME
INCREASINGLY COMPLEX HEALTH
ISSUES. WITH THIS BILL,
SURVIVORS EXPERIENCED A WIDE
RANGE OF INJURIES, CAN ACCESS
THE SURVIVOR CENTERED HEALTH
CARE THEY DESPERATELY NEED.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT THANK
YOU, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS
DOCTOR LEE KIMBER. I'M A
PROFESSOR OF MEDICINE AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN
FRANCISCO, AND A PHYSICIAN WHO
HAS LED POLICY PROGRAMS AND
RESEARCH ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN
HEALTH CARE FOR OVER 30 YEARS.
I'M HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT THE
IMPORTANCE OF AB 3127, IN
IMPROVING THE SAFETY AND HEALTH
OF PEOPLE SURVIVING DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE IN
CALIFORNIA, MEDICAL MANDATORY
REPORTING DEFERS DV SURVIVORS,
DETERS DV SURVIVORS FROM SEEKING
HEALTH CARE, AND DISCLOSING
VIOLENCE WHEN WE INFORM PATIENTS
ABOUT MANDATORY REPORTING, THEIR
FEAR IS INTENSE, ESPECIALLY FOR
OUR BLACK, BROWN, TRANSGENDER,
AND UNDOCUMENTED PATIENTS. IN
OUR RECENT STUDY AMONGST SAN
FRANCISCO AND OAKLAND EMERGENCY
DEPARTMENT PATIENTS, 46% OF THE
PATIENT RESPONDENTS WHO KNEW A
DV SURVIVOR PERSONALLY STATED
THAT THE SURVIVOR WAS AFRAID OF
SEEKING CARE, AND THAT 39% OF
THOSE WHO WERE AFRAID DID NOT
SEEK CARE. THE MOST COMMON FEAR
WAS THAT THE DOCTOR WOULD REPORT
THEM TO THE POLICE. IN ANOTHER
OF OUR STUDIES, A DV SURVIVOR
DESCRIBED GOING TO THE EMERGENCY
DEPARTMENT REPEATEDLY WITH
INJURIES INCLUDING A BROKEN
WRIST AND A BRUISED FACE. EACH
TIME SHE LEFT BEFORE RECEIVING
ANY MEDICAL CARE. BECAUSE SHE
FEARED THAT A DOCTOR WOULD
REPORT TO THE POLICE. AFTER
SEPARATING FROM HER PARTNER, SHE
FINALLY SHARED HER TRAUMATIC
EXPERIENCES WITH A SOCIAL
WORKER. AND I KEEP THINKING THAT
WITHOUT MANDATORY REPORTING, SHE
MIGHT HAVE FELT SAFE ENOUGH TO
TALK TO THE SOCIAL WORKER. THE
VERY FIRST TIME SHE WAS INJURED
IN A STUDY ON MANDATORY
REPORTING, 83% OF SURVIVORS SAID
IT WAS EITHER HARMFUL OR DID
NOTHING TO IMPROVE THEIR
SITUATION. THE WORLD HEALTH
ORGANIZATION AND THE AMERICAN
MEDICAL ASSOCIATION OPPOSE DV
MANDATORY REPORTING BECAUSE
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IT REDUCES
VIOLENCE AND IT DOES VIOLATE
SURVIVOR AUTONOMY. WITH THIS
BILL, DOMESTIC AND SEXUAL
VIOLENCE SURVIVORS WILL HAVE
GREATER ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE.
EXPANDED OPTIONS FOR SUPPORT AND
A MUCH MORE TRAUMA INFORMED
EXPERIENCE. THE PROVIDER WILL
REPORT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT IF A
PATIENT SAYS IT WOULD BE HELPFUL
. ALL THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM CAN
BETTER IMPROVE THE SAFETY AND
HEALTH OF SURVIVORS AND PREVENT
VIOLENCE. WITHOUT MEDICAL
MANDATORY REPORTING. THANK YOU.
WE HAVE OTHERS IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL. DANICA ROEM, ON BEHALF OF
INITIATE JUSTICE AND STRONG
SUPPORT, ANTHONY DEMARTINO, ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIANS FOR
SAFETY AND JUSTICE AND STRONG
SUPPORT JULIE ROBINSON WITH
PLANNED PARENTHOOD AFFILIATES OF
CALIFORNIA AND STRONG SUPPORT Dð
COONEY ON BEHALF OF ACLU
CALIFORNIA ACTION AND STRONG
SUPPORT MELANIE KIM, SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE IN SUPPORT KATE VAN DER
TAG ON BEHALF OF FUTURES WITHOUT
VIOLENCE, A STRONG CO-SPONSOR
AND THE COMMUNITIES UNITED FOR
RESTORATIVE YOUTH JUSTICE,
PUBLIC COUNSEL, THE COLLECTIVE
HEALING AND TRANSFORMATION
PROJECT, HEALTHY ALTERNATIVES TO
VIOLENT ENVIRONMENTS, HAVEN
RESILIENCE, ORANGE COUNTY,
CENTELLA YOUTH SERVICES,
COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS PROJECT,
SANCTUARY YOUTH LEADERSHIP
INSTITUTE, WOMEN INC OF SAN
FRANCISCO, HEAL TRAFFICKING,
PREVAIL FREE FROM WILD IRIS
FAMILY COUNSELING AND CRISIS
CENTER. FAMILY VIOLENCE LAW
CENTER. GRACE TRAUMA INFORMED
CARE AND SERVICE CORE, THE
FREEDOM TRAIN PROJECT, AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION OF DOCTORS OF
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, YWCA, GOLDEN
GATE, SILICON VALLEY, THE
CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE NETWORK, LOS ANGELES
LGBT CENTER, THE UCI DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE LAW CLINIC, THE
CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP TO END
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, THE COALITION
AGAINST SLAVERY AND TRAFFICKING,
LOS ANGELES, THE ALLIANCE FOR
BOYS AND MEN OF COLOR. THANK YOU
, THANK YOU. WE HAVE OPPOSITION
TO THIS BILL. PLEASE COME
FORWARD. THANK YOU. YEAH, THERE
ARE TWO, SO YOU HAVE TO STEP UP
FOR A SECOND.
OKAY. PLEASE BEGIN. THANK YOU.
CINDY DASILVA, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
ASSOCIATION, THIS ONE IS
GENUINELY TOUGH BECAUSE I VERY
MUCH UNDERSTAND WHAT THE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER IS TRYING TO DO
WITH THIS. AND SHE HAS,
ENLIGHTENED A PROBLEM THAT DOES
EXIST. THERE'S NO DOUBT ON THE
OTHER HAND, AS A SOCIETY, WE'VE
KIND OF DECIDED, AT LEAST IN THE
PAST, THAT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
HARMS NOT JUST THE VICTIM
THEMSELVES. IT'S A GREATER IT'S
A GREATER IMPACT ON SOCIETY.
OFTENTIMES, THE MEMBERS OF THE
HOME, THERE'S GENERATIONAL
VIOLENCE BEING WITNESSED THAT
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BEING SUFFERED
BY THE OTHERS IN THE HOME THEN
BECOMES THE ROOT CAUSE FOR DRUG
ABUSE AND ALCOHOL ABUSE, WHICH
THEN BECOMES THE ROOT CAUSE FOR
THEFT AND MORE VIOLENCE AND MORE
PROBLEMS IN SOCIETY. SO I DO
THINK THAT THESE WARNINGS ARE
NOT THESE WARNINGS, BUT THESE
BUT THESE, SITUATIONS WHERE
THEY'VE GOT TO BE ADVISING THEM
THAT THEY HAVE TO LET LAW
ENFORCEMENT KNOW, IS SOMETHING
THAT WE NEED TO IN ORDER TO
PROTECT THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE
HOUSEHOLD AND OF SOCIETY. AND
SPEAKING OF WARNINGS, I WOULD
POINT OUT TARASOFF WARNINGS,
EVEN THOUGH PEOPLE HAVE BEEN
TALKING WITH THEIR
PSYCHIATRISTS, LET THEM KNOW
MAYBE THEY'RE FEELING SUICIDAL
OR HOMICIDAL. THE DOCTOR STILL
HAS TO LET THEM KNOW THAT THEY
HAVE TO LET LAW ENFORCEMENT
KNOW, AND THAT'S IN ORDER TO
PROTECT THEM AND POTENTIALLY
OTHER PEOPLE AS WELL. AND I
THINK THIS IS A LOT ALONG THE
SAME LINES, I'LL LET MY FRIEND
OVER HERE SPEAK AS TO HER
OPPOSITION, BUT THAT IS WHY I'M
THE CDA IS OPPOSING IT. BUT I DO
UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE. MY NAME IS
HILARY LARKIN. I'M A PHYSICIAN
ASSISTANT AND I'M HERE
REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA
SEXUAL ASSAULT FORENSIC
EXAMINERS ASSOCIATION. I AND THE
GROUP THAT OTHER 200 FOR
FORENSIC EXAMINERS THAT I
REPRESENT BASICALLY ARE IN THE
EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT DELIVERING
TRAUMA INFORMED CARE IN A TEAM
APPROACH, WHICH INCLUDES AN
ADVOCATE, A HEALTH CARE
PROVIDER. AND IF THE PATIENT
WANTS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER,
THE WE ALSO WOULD LIKE TO AMEND
THE, MANDATORY REPORTING LAW FOR
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN CALIFORNIA,
BUT WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A MORE
MEASURED AND NUANCED APPROACH,
THE CURRENT LANGUAGE, AS IT
EXISTS IS TWO SUBJECTIVE. IT'S
TOO VAGUE, AND IT CREATES A LOT
OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES FOR
THE VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE AND FOR
THE PROVIDERS IN THE EMERGENCY
DEPARTMENT WHO ARE TRYING TO
DELIVER TRAUMA INFORMED CARE.
THE BILL LANGUAGE IS WRITTEN FOR
THE PEOPLE WHO DO NOT WANT TO
REPORT. AND FOR NOW, WITH THE
NEW AMENDMENTS FOR THE PEOPLE
WHO ARE MOST SEVERELY INJURED.
BUT IT'S ALL THE PEOPLE IN THE
MIDDLE WHO ARE BASICALLY LEFT TO
NAVIGATE FOR THEMSELVES, TO
ADVOCATE FOR THEMSELVES AND TO
ASK, CAN WE PLEASE GET A
FORENSIC EXAM? SO IT IS CAL
SAFE'S OPINION. INSTEAD OF
HAVING AN OPT IN, WE SHOULD HAVE
AN OPT OUT CHOICE. LET MANDATORY
REPORTING STAY AS IT IS AND GIVE
THE PATIENTS A AN ABILITY OR A
CHOICE TO DECLINE LAW
ENFORCEMENT. WE'VE DONE THIS IN
SEXUAL ASSAULT. THE PATH IS
CLEAR. WE KNOW HOW TO DO IT.
IT'S VERY IMPLEMENTABLE, AND AS
THE LANGUAGE EXISTS RIGHT NOW,
IT'S MUCH TOO CONFUSING. AND IF
IT'S TOO CONFUSING, HEALTH CARE
PROVIDERS WILL JUST THROW UP
THEIR HANDS AND SAY, WE CAN'T DO
IT. WE CAN'T FIGURE IT OUT. AND
UNFORTUNATELY, THE BILL ALSO
INCLUDES SOMETHING THAT SAYS
THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT, I MEAN,
HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS ARE NOT
GOING TO BE HELD CIVILLY OR
CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR EITHER
REPORTING OR NOT REPORTING. SO
BASICALLY, WITH NO INCENTIVE OR
BASICALLY HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS
ARE BEING DISINCENTIVIZED FROM
ENGAGING AND DOING THE RIGHT
THING FOR PATIENTS. SO WE WOULD
LIKE TO SEE MORE AMENDMENTS TO
THIS BILL. THANK YOU, OTHERS IN
OPPOSITION. NO, THANK YOU. MR.
CHAIR, MEMBERS RYAN SHERMAN WITH
THE RIVERSIDE SHERIFF'S
ASSOCIATION IN OPPOSITION, IN
ADDITION TO ALL THE OTHER, PO
AND DSA'S, PREVIOUSLY STATED.
THANK YOU. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER NGUYEN. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND I WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHOR FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD. IT IS A TOUGH
POSITION TO BE IN, YOU KNOW, I
LOOK THROUGH THIS AND I DO LIKE
WHAT SHE HAS TO SAY ABOUT GIVING
THE INDIVIDUAL THE OPPORTUNITY
TO DID YOU SAY OPT OUT OR OPT
IN? BECAUSE IN CERTAIN
COMMUNITIES THEY DO RELY ON LAW
ENFORCEMENT. THEY DO LOOK FOR
THAT AVENUE TO BE ABLE TO SEEK
ASSISTANCE AND COMING FROM,
DECADES OF WORK IN THE IMMIGRANT
COMMUNITY AND SPECIFICALLY THE
REFUGEE API COMMUNITY, YOU KNOW,
LAW ENFORCEMENT WAS ONCE UPON A
TIME ONE THAT WAS A MISTRUST.
BUT THROUGHOUT THE YEARS WE HAVE
EDUCATED THEM THAT LAW
ENFORCEMENT IS THERE TO ASSIST
YOU IN THESE TYPES OF SITUATIONS
. THÀNH. AND I HATE FOR US TO GO
BACK ON THAT FOR THEM TO START
HAVING THAT MISTRUST WHEN I KNOW
NOW THAT THERE ARE DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE ORGANIZATIONS THAT WORK
HEAVILY IN PARTNERSHIP AND
COLLABORATION WITH LAW
ENFORCEMENT TO BE ABLE TO SAVE
THEM AND THEIR FAMILY AND THEIR
CHILDREN. AND SO, I HOPE THAT
YOU'D BE ABLE TO WORK WITH OUR
OPPOSITION AND TRYING TO
STREAMLINE THE LANGUAGE TO
INCLUDE THOSE OPPORTUNITIES IN
THAT OPTION AS WELL, THANK YOU,
ABSOLUTELY. WE'RE WILLING TO
WE'RE OPEN TO TALKING AND
SITTING AND TALKING WITH YOU
GUYS AND WORKING ON THE BILL TO
MAKE IT BETTER. AND I DON'T
THINK IT'S NECESSARILY THAT NON
TRUST OF LAW ENFORCEMENT IS THAT
SOMETIME THESE THINGS ARE
REPORTED AND THE WOMEN GO BACK
HOME AND SO ONCE THEY GO BACK
HOME ARE THE MEN THEY GO BACK
HOME. AND THEN THEY'RE ABUSED
EVEN MORE BECAUSE THEY'VE
REPORTED THAT THEY'VE HAD THE
MANDATORY REPORTING AND THEY GET
HOME. AND THEN THEN THEY'RE,
THEY'RE, THEY'RE ABUSED EVEN
MORE, AS A HEALTH CARE PROVIDER
HERE, I JUST WANT TO MAKE REALLY
CLEAR THAT THIS IS MEDICAL
MANDATORY REPORTING. AND SO THIS
IS THAT I TAKE AN OATH TO DO NO
HARM. I TAKE AN OATH TO DO WHAT
IS RIGHT BY EVERY SINGLE
PATIENT, REGARDLESS OF THEIR
VIEWS OF TRUST, MISTRUST,
REGARDLESS OF WHAT IS HAPPENING.
AND EVERYONE'S SITUATION IS
VERY, VERY COMPLICATED. AND ALL
THIS BILL IS SAYING IS THAT
PEOPLE WOULD BE GIVEN THE CHANCE
TO EXPRESS THEIR WISHES ABOUT
WHAT THEY THINK WOULD HELP MAKE
THEM MOST SAFE, AND THAT WE
WOULD GET THEM ADDITIONAL HELP
BECAUSE WE WOULD BE SAYING THAT
HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS SHOULD
BUILD THESE PARTNERSHIPS WITH
ADVOCACY PROGRAMS, MAKE SURE
THAT THE PATIENT CAN TALK TO AN
ADVOCATE, WHICH I DO ALL THE
TIME ON THE PHONE OR IN PERSON.
AND SO, AGAIN, AND IF SOMEONE
WERE FRIGHTENED TO MAKE A REPORT
FOR THEMSELVES, I WOULD HELP
THEM DO THAT. I HAVE WAITED FOR
THE POLICE FOR HOURS IN A CLINIC
WITH A PATIENT TO TRY AND MAKE
SURE THAT THAT PATIENT COULD
MAKE THE REPORT THAT THEY WANTED
TO MAKE, AND SO WE ARE TRYING TO
DO RIGHT BY EACH PATIENT IN, IN
WHAT THEY THINK WOULD MOST
IMPROVE THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES AND
MOST HELP THEIR SAFETY. AND
THAT'S ALL THIS IS SAYING, IS
THAT WE WOULDN'T FORCE A MEASURE
ON SOMEONE. WE WOULD INSTEAD DO
A PERSONALIZED PLAN WITH THEM,
WHICH COULD INCLUDE LAW
ENFORCEMENT REPORTING, IF THAT'S
WHAT THEY THINK WOULD BE MOST
HELPFUL TO THEM. THANK. YES.
ASSEMBLYMEMBERS. SO, IN REGARDS
TO THAT. SO FOR INSTANCE, YOU
SEE A PATIENT AND YOU KNOW, AS A
PROFESSIONAL THAT THERE IS
PROBABLY SOME DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
OR VIOLENCE, FAMILY VIOLENCE
THAT'S HAPPENING AT HOME, RIGHT,
BUT IF WE PUT THIS IN PLACE AND
YOU'RE NOT MANDATED TO REPORT,
YOU ARE BASICALLY PROBABLY
SENDING THAT PERSON HOME, AND
THAT COULD BE THE LAST TIME YOU
SEE THEM, BECAUSE AND THAT HAS
HAPPENED. RIGHT? THAT HAS
HAPPENED WHERE, INDIVIDUALS WERE
SENT HOME BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T
WANT TO COME FORWARD OR WHATNOT,
AND THEY WEREN'T IN FRONT OF A
MANDATED REPORTER. I MEAN, WE
HEAR ABOUT WE READ ABOUT IT ALL
THE TIME. THERE'S, YOU KNOW,
CALLS OF OFFICERS GOING TO A,
YOU KNOW, A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
SITUATION AND, YOU KNOW, IT
BECOMES VIOLENT WHERE PEOPLE
DIE, RIGHT? OFFICERS, FAMILY
MEMBERS, CHILDREN, RIGHT, OR
WHATNOT. FOR ME, IT'S JUST
SENDING THEM BACK HOME, RIGHT,
AND INTO THAT ENVIRONMENT AGAIN.
AND THAT COULD BE THE LAST TIME
THAT YOU SEE THEM OR THEY SEE
THEIR FAMILY, I, I WOULD SAY
THAT, THIS IS A VERY FRIGHTENING
TOPIC. IT IS A VERY DANGEROUS
TOPIC. RIGHT. SO IT'S A NORMAL
REACTION FOR ALL OF US TO FEEL
VERY FEARFUL ABOUT WHAT IS GOING
TO HAPPEN TO A PERSON. THE POINT
IS, IS THAT WE ARE ACTUALLY NOT
SEEING PEOPLE WHO ARE SUFFERING
SEVERE VIOLENCE AS WE JUST TOLD
IN OUR TESTIMONIES, THEY'RE
ACTUALLY NOT COMING TO THE
HEALTH CARE SETTING BECAUSE THEY
DON'T FEEL SAFE. AND WHEN THEY
DO COME TO THE HEALTH CARE
SETTING, WE CAN HELP THEM WITH
THEIR INJURIES. WE CAN HELP THEM
WITH ALL OF THEIR HEALTH
PROBLEMS. WE CAN CONNECT THEM
PRIVATELY IN A PRIVATE ROOM
WHERE THEIR PARTNER IS NOT
ALLOWED TO COME. WE CAN HELP
CONNECT THEM ON THE PHONE TO AN
ADVOCATE. WE CAN DO MANY THINGS
IF PEOPLE SHOW UP, BUT RIGHT
NOW, ACTUALLY, THIS, THIS LAW AS
IT EXISTS CURRENTLY IS ACTUALLY
DETERRING PEOPLE FROM COMING TO
ME TO GET HELP. AND I WILL SAY
THAT THE LAST TIME I SAW A
SEXUAL ASSAULT SURVIVOR IN
CLINIC AND I TOLD HER THAT I HAD
TO REPORT THE OUTCOME, WAS THAT
SHE NEVER, EVER CAME BACK TO OUR
CLINIC EVER AGAIN AND TOLD ME
THAT I'M NEVER COMING BACK TO
YOUR CLINIC BECAUSE OF WHAT
YOU'RE DOING THAT I DON'T WANT
DONE. SO. SO I AGREE WITH YOU.
IT'S VERY DANGEROUS. AND IT
COULD ALSO BE THAT PEOPLE DON'T
KNOW THAT YOU'RE A MANDATED
REPORTER AND THEY THEY COULD
COME TO YOU AND YOU COULD SEE
THINGS AND YOU WOULD REPORT IT
IN CERTAIN COMMUNITIES. THAT'S
THAT IS THE CASE. AND I SAY THAT
BECAUSE, IN MY DECADES OF WORK
IN THE COMMUNITY, I ACTUALLY HAD
SOMEBODY SLIP ME A NOTE AND
SAID, PLEASE HELP ME. I'M BEING
ABUSED. AND WE DID CONTACT LAW
ENFORCEMENT, AND WE FOUND WAYS
TO, YOU KNOW, SEND THE HUSBAND
OUT INTO THE WAITING ROOM WHILE
WE DID THINGS WITH THE WIFE AND
CALLED LAW ENFORCEMENT TO COME
IN. AND, YOU KNOW, WE FIGURED
OUT A WAY TO DO IT, BUT THAT WAS
BECAUSE I WAS A TRUSTED
MESSENGER IN THE COMMUNITY, AND
THEY KNEW THAT THEY CAN COME TO
ME. RIGHT. AND SO I JUST THINK
IN CERTAIN COMMUNITIES, THERE'S
JUST NO ONE SIZE FITS ALL IN
THIS SITUATION. EXACTLY AND THIS
JUST GIVES PEOPLE CHOICE. CAN I
ADD SOMETHING? SURE I, I
REPRESENT WE DO 7000 EXAMS ON
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS. SO
THEY ARE COMING TO THE EMERGENCY
DEPARTMENT. THEY DO WE DO
ESTABLISH TRUST WITH THEM. SO
THE IDEA THAT NO ONE'S COMING IS
NOT RIGHT, SO IT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT ALSO TO KNOW THAT IN
JACQUELINE CAMPBELL'S STUDY OF
THE PEOPLE, THE OTHER HAT I WEAR
IS A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FATALITY
REVIEW CHAIRMAN FOR ALAMEDA
COUNTY. THE WOMEN WHO WOMEN AND
VICTIMS WHO DIE OF DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE HOMICIDE. ABOUT HALF OF
THEM ARE SEEN IN AN EMERGENCY
DEPARTMENT IN THE 12 MONTHS
BEFORE THEY DIE FOR AN INJURY
SUSTAINED BY THE SAME PERSON WHO
ULTIMATELY KILLED THEM. SO FOR
US, I AGREE WITH YOU TO TURN OUR
BACK ON THEM IN THE EMERGENCY
DEPARTMENT IS, THE OPPOSITE OF
PUBLIC SAFETY. IT IS THE
OPPOSITE OF PROTECTION. SO WHAT?
WHAT AS WHAT? I AS I LISTEN TO
WHAT YOU JUST SAID. YOU JUST
SAID THAT THE WOMEN COME IN TO
EMERGENCY, AND THEN 12 MONTHS
LATER, THEY CAN BE DEAD. BUT
THEY RIGHT NOW IT'S THE WE HAVE
THE MANDATORY REPORTING,
MEDICAL, MANDATORY REPORTING. SO
IT'S NOT NECESSARY KEEPING THE
WOMEN SAFE. BUT I AM WILLING TO
SIT DOWN WITH YOU GUYS AND SEE
IF WE CAN COME TO AN AGREEMENT.
IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE ACTUALLY ON
THE SAME PAGE. YOU'RE SAYING.
WE'RE JUST SAYING THAT WE'RE THE
WOMEN NEED TO OPT IN. YOU'RE
YOU'RE SAYING THEY NEED TO OPT
OUT. SO WE'RE NOT REALLY FAR
FROM COMING TOGETHER. SO I THINK
THAT WE COULD SIT DOWN AND TALK
ABOUT THIS AND COME TO AN
AGREEMENT. THANK YOU. SO
REMEMBER, LACKING. YEAH I, I'D
WANT TO RESPECT FIRST OF ALL,
THE DELICATE NATURE OF THIS THIS
PROBLEM. AND I THINK IN MANY
CASES IT'S A DOUBLE BIND. AND SO
IT'S A VERY, VERY DIFFICULT
THING TO MANAGE. BUT WHEN WE
HAVE A PIECE OF LEGISLATION
THAT'S GOING TO DICTATE OUR
COURSE OF ACTION, WE NEED TO BE
VERY CAUTIOUS. AND I THINK
UNINTENTIONALLY, THIS PARTICULAR
PROPOSAL EMPOWERS THE ABUSER. I
KNOW THAT'S NOT THE INTENTION,
BUT I THINK THAT'S THE RESULT.
AND SO I HAVE GREAT RESERVATION
OF BEING ABLE TO SUPPORT, SEE
SOMETHING, WALK AWAY. SO I'M
JUST REALLY STRUGGLING. OKAY.
THANK YOU, MR. ALANIS. SORRY.
CAN I ASK SOME QUESTIONS THAT
I'M A LITTLE PUZZLED ON? SO
DOCTOR, YOU MENTIONED THAT, WHEN
YOU SEE PATIENTS, YOU'RE NOT
ALWAYS MANDATED OR YOU'RE NOT
CALLING PEOPLE, YOU'RE GIVING
THEM TO A MAYBE LIKE A WOMEN'S
HAVEN OR SOMEBODY, AN ADVOCATE.
THE LAW THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS,
LIKE THE LAW THAT CURRENTLY
EXISTS, IS IF THE PATIENT HAS,
IS BEING SEEN FOR ANY TYPE OF
MEDICAL PROBLEM BY A HEALTH CARE
PROVIDER, AND THEY HAVE AN
INJURY THAT WE EITHER KNOW OR
SUSPECT IS DUE FROM VIOLENCE.
THAT COULD BE ANYTHING FROM A
BRUISE TO A MORE SEVERE INJURY.
WE MUST REPORT THAT INJURY TO
LAW ENFORCEMENT. WE THIS IS A
VERY UNUSUAL LAW IN MOST STATES
ACROSS THIS COUNTRY. IT IS MUCH
MORE SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'RE
PROPOSING. IT IS IT IS THAT YOU
REPORT VERY SEVERE, LIFE
THREATENING INJURIES. WE HAVE A
VERY UNUSUAL STATE. STATE LAW IN
CALIFORNIA. SO WE WOULD BE
NARROWED ING THE REPORTING TO
CONDITIONS THAT ARE LIFE
THREATENING WITHOUT IMMEDIATE
MEDICAL TREATMENT, SO THAT'S
THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO
NARROW IT. AND THEN GOING BACK
TO YOUR COMMENT THAT YOU MADE
ABOUT THE WITHIN THE 12 MONTHS,
WERE THEY REPORTED AT THE TIME
AS WELL, THE STATISTIC IS, FROM
JACQUELINE CAMPBELL OUT OF
BALTIMORE, SO IT'S A NATIONAL
STATISTIC. SO NOT IT'S NOT
SPECIFIC TO CALIFORNIA, BUT IT
WASN'T REPORTED THAT COULD HAVE
BEEN IN MAY, COULD HAVE NOT BEEN
OKAY EITHER WAY, AS A AS A PRIOR
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DETECTIVE,
MOST OF MY SURVIVORS WERE NOT
SELF REPORTED, THEY WERE EITHER
SOMEBODY NOTICED SOMETHING OR IT
WAS A HOSPITAL THAT SAW AN
INJURY OR MADE A REPORT ON THAT.
AND SO I'M ALSO WITH MY
COLLEAGUE OVER HERE WITH US. AND
TO MY LEFT, WITH US WALKING AWAY
FROM THIS. BASICALLY, IT IS
EMPOWERING THE ABUSER. AND IT'S
KIND OF DISHEARTENING A LITTLE
BIT BECAUSE USUALLY THAT'S
THAT'S HOW WE GET OUR VOICE FOR
OUR SURVIVORS. THEY DON'T HAVE
THE COURAGE FOR THE MOST PART,
TO STAND UP FOR IT. AND THEY
NEED SOMEBODY TO STAND UP FOR
THEM IS WHAT THEY NEED. I
CONSTANTLY WAS GETTING PHONE
CALLS FROM MY SURVIVORS WHO WERE
LIVING IN FEAR, BUT THEY ALSO
RECOGNIZED THAT THEY WOULDN'T
HAVE BEEN THERE UNLESS SOME
PEOPLE STOOD UP FOR THEM. IT'S
LIKE US STANDING UP FOR THE
BULLY, YOU KNOW, UP AGAINST THE
BULLY. THAT'S THAT'S WHAT WE'RE
DOING IN THIS SENSE. SO I'M NOT
QUITE THERE YET, BUT I LOOK
FORWARD TO SEEING WHAT ELSE
YOU'RE GOING TO DO WITH THE
BILL. OKAY THANK YOU. SO, MEMBER
REYES. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I
ABSOLUTELY UNDERSTAND WHAT THE
AUTHOR IS TRYING TO DO. AND I
KNOW THAT THE PRIOR TIME THAT
THIS WAS INTRODUCED, WE HAD A
NUMBER OF DISCUSSIONS ABOUT IT.
AND IN THE END, I DID SUPPORT
IT, MY COLLEAGUE FROM SACRAMENTO
HAS BROUGHT UP THE VERY SAME
ISSUES THAT THAT I HAD MENTIONED
BEFORE AND THAT HAVE BEEN
BROUGHT UP HERE. IT WE DO WANT
TO BE SURE THAT ANYONE WHO IS A
VICTIM OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS
PROTECTED. WE WANT THEM TO FEEL
SECURE IN KNOWING THAT THEY CAN
GO TO A HOSPITAL, TO A MEDICAL
FACILITY AND RECEIVE THE
TREATMENT THAT THEY NEED. BUT WE
ALSO RECOGNIZE THE POSITION THAT
THESE HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS HAVE
IN RECOGNIZING EXACTLY WHAT IS
HAPPENING TO THAT VICTIM AND
HELPING THAT VICTIM. I'M
CONCERNED THAT THAT MOST OF THE
LANGUAGE IS, IS, IT IT GIVES
PERMISSION TO, TO, TO, TO HELP
OUT IF THE VICTIM ASKS FOR IT. I
THINK THAT WE TALK ABOUT
INFORMED CONSENT. WE TALKED
ABOUT MAKING AN INFORMED
DECISION. YOU CANNOT MAKE AN
INFORMED DECISION UNTIL YOU KNOW
EVERYTHING ABOUT THE DECISION
YOU'RE MAKING. AND I AM
CONCERNED THAT IF THAT VICTIM
DOESN'T KNOW THE IMPORTANCE OF
HAVING THE CRIME REPORTED TO GET
THEM HELP, IF THEY DON'T KNOW
HOW IMPORTANT THAT IS AND HOW
THERE ARE ORGANIZATIONS THAT CAN
HELP THEM, THAT CONCERNS ME
TREMENDOUSLY, I HEARD FROM YOU
THAT THAT YOU'LL BE WORKING WITH
WITH THE OPPOSITION, THAT THAT'S
IMPORTANT TO ME. I MEAN, THIS
ISN'T THE LAST PLACE THIS THIS
BILL IS GOING TO BE. AND I KNOW
YOU WORK VERY HARD ON YOUR BILLS
AND TRYING TO MAKE THEM THE BEST
THEY CAN. BY THE TIME WE VOTE ON
THEM ON THE FLOOR. I WILL BE
SUPPORTING IT TODAY. BUT BUT
THESE ISSUES HAVE TO BE
ADDRESSED. WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO
PROTECT THAT VICTIM. AND I HEAR
STATISTICS AND QUITE FRANKLY,
I'M HEARING STATISTICS FROM
ORGANIZATIONS THAT WE TRUST AND
THEY'RE BOTH SAYING SOMETHING
DIFFERENT, BOTTOM LINE IS WE
HAVE VICTIMS WE HAVE TO SUPPORT
AND WE HAVE TO PROVIDE
EVERYTHING TO THEM. AND THIS IS
THE ONE PLACE THEY WENT BECAUSE
NOW THEY'RE PHYSICALLY INJURED.
AND WE HAVE TO TAKE THAT MOMENT
AND HELP THEM IN EVERY WAY THAT
WE CAN, BECAUSE THEY MAY NOT
COME TO A MEDICAL FACILITY AGAIN
BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT PHYSICALLY
HURT. SO THIS IS THE ONE
OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SURE THAT
THEY KNOW ALL OF THEIR OPTIONS.
THEY KNOW THEY'RE NOT ALONE AND
THAT THEY CAN BE HELPED. SO THE
WAY THE BILL IS NOW, IF THIS
WERE ON THE FLOOR, OF COURSE I
COULD NOT SUPPORT IT. BUT TODAY
IT'S IN ONE OF THE COMMITTEES.
AND I FEEL THAT, BECAUSE OF YOUR
HARD WORK, THIS DESERVES TO BE
MOVED FORWARD. AND WITH THAT, I
TAKE IT AS A MOTION. YES. MOTION
IN A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND. YES
NO OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS?
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, SOME. WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? YES, THANK
YOU GUYS FOR HEARING THIS BILL
TODAY, I PROMISE THAT I WILL GO
BACK AND WORK ON THIS WITH THESE
YOUNG LADIES, WE JUST WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT OUR DV VICTIMS
ARE TAKEN CARE OF. YOU KNOW, WE
DO KNOW THAT THERE ARE TIMES
WHEN PEOPLE GO TO THE DOCTOR AND
THEY'RE NOT READY. THEY'RE NOT
MOVING OUT. THEY'RE GOING TO GO
TO THE DOCTOR. EVEN IF THEY
REPORT THE GUY, THEY GO AND GET
HIM. HE HE GETS OUT OF JAIL. HE
GOES BACK HOME AND HE BEATS HER
AGAIN. AND SO WE WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE'RE PROTECTING THEM
AND THAT THAT'S REALLY THE
INTENT OF THIS BILL. AND WE WILL
WORK WITH THE OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE. YEAH. THANK YOU. PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL ON AB 3127 BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER MCKENNA. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY. MCCARTY I ALANIS
ALANIS. NOT VOTING. LACKEY.
LACKEY. NOT VOTING. NGUYEN.
NGUYEN NOT VOTING. REYES REYES I
TING TING I WILSON. WILSON I
ZIPPER. ZIPPER I THANK YOU. THAT
MEASURE PASSES. NEXT AUTHOR IS
MR. JONES-SAWYER. MR. PUBLIC
SAFETY CHAIR EMERITUS PROMISE
IT'S GOING TO TAKE ALL OF FIVE
MINUTES. REGGIE PROMISES LOTS OF
THINGS. ITEM 24. THIS IS AB
2923. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, I PRESENT AB 2923,
WHICH ENSURES A PROCEDURALLY
FAIR CIVIL COMPLAINT PROCESS BY
MAKING CRITICAL CHANGES TO THE
WAY IN WHICH COMPLAINTS OF
ALLEGED MISCONDUCT BY LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ARE
HANDLED. THE CIVIL COMPLAINT
PROCESS IS NOT ONLY MEANT TO
SERVE AS A TOOL FOR LAW
ENFORCEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY, BUT
ALSO HELPS INFORM AGENCIES OF
WAYS THEY CAN INFORM THEIR
POLICIES AND PRACTICES. THE
CALIFORNIA RACIAL PROFILING AND
IDENTITY BOARD REPORTED THAT IN
2021, MORE THAN 10,000 CIVIL
THÀNH COMPLAINTS WERE FILED
ALLEGING SOME FORM OF POLICE
ABUSE AND UNLAWFUL CONDUCT. THE
BOARD HAS ALSO REPORTED THAT
COMMUNITY MEMBERS MAY BE MORE
CONCERNED ABOUT RETALIATION OR
OTHER ADVERSE ACTION AGAINST
THEM FROM FILING A COMPLAINT,
RATHER THAN SERVING AS A
MECHANISM FOR ACCOUNTABILITY. A
CIVILIAN COMPLAINT PROCESS MAY
TRIGGER FEAR IN PEOPLE AND SERVE
AS A DETERRENT FOR REPORTS
AGAINST POLICE OFFICERS.
MEMBERS. THE GOAL OF AB 2923 IS
TO ENSURE THAT MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC ARE MORE COMFORTABLE
BRINGING LEGITIMATE CONCERNS
ABOUT POLICE MISCONDUCT FORWARD.
FIRST, THIS BILL REQUIRES THAT
THE CIVILIAN COMPLAINT FORM
ALLOW SOMEONE TO REPORT WHETHER
THE COMPLAINT INVOLVES A
POTENTIAL RACIAL PROFILING
INCIDENT. THE BILL ALSO REQUIRES
THAT THE FORM ALLOW INDIVIDUALS
TO REPORT WHETHER A SPECIFIC
POLICE PRACTICE OR POLICY IS
POTENTIALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR
UNLAWFUL IN ORDER IN ORDER TO
AVOID TO AVOID SOMEONE BEING
PROSECUTED SIMPLY BECAUSE THERE
IS AN HONEST DISAGREEMENT ABOUT
THE DETAILS OF AN INCIDENT, AB
2923 MAKES CLEAR THAT
PROSECUTION CAN TAKE PLACE ONLY
IF THE PERSON MADE A MATERIAL
FALSE STATEMENT AND INTENDED TO
WRONGFULLY ACCUSE AN OFFICER OF
MISCONDUCT, A MISTAKE OVER MINOR
DETAILS OF AN INCIDENT SHOULD
NOT BRING PROSECUTION. THE
STANDARD WE HOLD LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS TO THAT THAT THAT
INTENTIONALLY LIE THE GOAL OF
THE BILL IS TO ALIGN WITH SAME
STANDARD WE HOLD OFFICERS TODAY
WHEN MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS.
LASTLY, THE BILL UPDATES THE
ADVISEMENT INCLUDED INCLUDED IN
THE COMPLAINT FORM TO MAKE CLEAR
THAT PROSECUTION WILL ONLY OCCUR
IF THE PERSON KNOWINGLY AND
INTENTIONALLY FILES A FALSE
COMPLAINT. TOGETHER, THESE
CHANGES AIM TO GIVE COMMUNITY
MEMBERS MORE CONFIDENCE IN THE
COMPLAINT PROCESS AND ENSURE LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES RECEIVE
MORE USEFUL INFORMATION ABOUT
RACIAL PROFILING INCIDENTS, AS
WELL AS POLICIES AND PRACTICES
THAT ARE CAUSING HARM TO THE
COMMUNITY. WITH ME IN SUPPORT OF
THIS BILL IS IGNACIO HERNANDEZ,
ON BEHALF OF THE BILL SPONSOR,
THE CENTER FOR POLICY EQUITY.
THANK YOU. PLEASE PROCEED. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS. IGNACIO
HERNANDEZ, ON BEHALF OF THE
CENTER FOR POLICING EQUITY, I'M
THEIR LEGISLATIVE ADVOCATE. CPE
IS A NATIONAL NONPROFIT
DEDICATED TO ADVANCING EQUITY
AND JUSTICE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
PRACTICES DRIVEN BY DATA
GATHERING AND ANALYSIS. CPE
COLLABORATES WITH COMMUNITY
ORGANIZATIONS AND ALSO LAW
ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES AND
INDIVIDUALS IN CALIFORNIA AND
ACROSS THE COUNTRY TO IDENTIFY
AREAS TO IMPROVE COMMUNITY
POLICE RELATIONS. WE USE
EVIDENCE BASED STRATEGIES TO
REDESIGN PUBLIC SAFETY, BUILD
COMMUNITY TRUST, AND ACHIEVE
RACIAL EQUITY. AND WE ARE THE
PROUD SPONSOR OF AB 2923. AS WAS
DESCRIBED BY THE AUTHOR, ONE OF
THE GOALS OF THIS BILL IS TO
UPDATE PENAL CODE 140 8.6, WHICH
DEALS WITH SOMEBODY FILING A
FALSE CLAIM WITH A POLICE
DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE POLICE
OFFICER, AND THE WAY IT'S
CURRENTLY DRAFTED, I'LL SPEND
SOME TIME ON THAT, THE WAY IT'S
CURRENTLY DRAFTED. CURRENT LAW
IS CURRENTLY DRAFTED. IT'S VERY
BROAD, AND IT COULD BE BASED
UPON A FACT THAT IS NOT MATERIAL
AND WITHOUT CRIMINAL INTENT. AND
REALLY, THAT IS ONE OF THE GOALS
OF THIS PIECE OF THE BILL IS TO
SIMPLY PUT INTO STATUTE A
CRIMINAL INTENT, WHICH IS VERY
COMMON THROUGHOUT THE PENAL
CODE. AND LET ME GIVE YOU A FEW
EXAMPLES IN PENAL CODE SECTION
ONE. OH, LET ME MAKE CLEAR, IS
CRIMINAL INTENT TO GET THE
OFFICER IN TROUBLE. THAT'S HOW
IT'S CURRENTLY DRAFTED, AND
THERE'S KIND OF AN ART FORM TO
DRAFTING STATUTES LIKE THIS.
PENAL CODE 141, FOR EXAMPLE,
SUBDIVISION A SAYS THAT AN
INDIVIDUAL NON POLICE OFFICER
GETS IN TROUBLE FOR
MANUFACTURING EVIDENCE, DIGITAL
IMAGES, IF THEY HAVE THE INTENT
FOR A PERSON TO BE CHARGED WITH
A CRIME OR INTENT FOR IT TO BE
WRONGFULLY PRODUCED IN COURT,
THAT'S SUBDIVISION A, THERE'S
ANOTHER SUBDIVISION THAT SAYS A
PEACE OFFICER WOULD ALSO GET IN
TROUBLE IF THEY HAVE THE
SPECIFIC INTENT THAT THAT
EVIDENCE, BE USED AT A TRIAL, AT
A TRIAL, THERE'S ANOTHER ONE FOR
DAS WHO WITHHOLD EVIDENCE, AND
IT SAYS IF THERE'S SPECIFIC
INTENT THAT PROSECUTOR WITHHELD
THAT EVIDENCE, TO, EITHER
PREVENT SOMEONE FROM BEING FREED
OR TO HAVE SOMEONE CHARGED WITH
A CRIME. SO THERE'S TWO PIECES
TO IT. THERE'S THE CRIMINAL ACT
AND THERE'S THE CRIMINAL INTENT,
AND THERE'S REALLY THE BAD FAITH
THAT'S PART OF IT. AND THAT'S
REALLY CRITICAL. I HAVE TO SAY.
SOME OF THE MEMBER JONES SAWYER,
WORKED ON ONE OF THESE, BACK IN
2015. I ACTUALLY WORKED ON ALL
THREE OF THESE SUBDIVISIONS
SINCE OVER THE YEARS. SO I'M
VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE NEED TO
HAVE BOTH CRIMINAL INTENT AND A
CRIMINAL ACT. SO WE TRY TO DRAFT
IT IN THAT WAY JUST TO MAKE
CLEAR, LET ME JUST CLOSE BY
SAYING, IF WE DON'T HAVE THIS IN
THERE, I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE
THAT'S NOT IN CRIMINAL LAW. WELL
NOT IN THIS, AREA, BUT IN
WORKERS COMP WE HAVE A SIMILAR
STATUTE, WORKERS COMP. I
ACTUALLY, WHEN I WAS AN
ATTORNEY, REPRESENTED SOMEBODY
WHO WAS PROSECUTED FOR FILING A
FALSE CLAIM FOR WORKER'S COMP
WORKER'S COMP FRAUD. HE
COMMITTED AN INJURY THAT HE HAD
ABOUT NINE YEARS PRIOR. HE DID
NOT. IT WAS MATERIAL IN THE
SENSE UNDER LAW, IT WAS
MATERIAL. HE DID NOT THINK IT
WAS RELEVANT BECAUSE IT WASN'T
RELATED TO HIS CURRENT INJURY,
HOWEVER, UNDER THE LAW OF
APPORTIONMENT, WHICH HE KNEW
NOTHING ABOUT, EVERY INJURY IN
HIS LIFE WAS RELEVANT TO THE
OUTCOME. SO HE TECHNICALLY MADE
A FALSE STATEMENT, AND HE
TECHNICALLY MADE THAT FALSE
STATEMENT IN FURTHERANCE OF A
CLAIM. AND SO HE WAS PROSECUTED.
THERE WAS NO BAD FAITH OR
CRIMINAL INTENT REQUIREMENT IN
THAT STATUTE. THAT IS VERY
SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HAVE IN
CURRENT LAW, FOR FILING A FALSE
COMPLAINT AGAINST POLICE
OFFICERS. THIS IS NOT A GOTCHA.
WE'RE NOT TRYING TO GO AFTER
FOLKS AND WE DON'T WANT TO ALLOW
FOLKS TO FILE FALSE CLAIMS
EITHER. WE JUST WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT THEY'RE NOT SCARED
OFF, AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS ARE
NOT AFRAID TO SUBMIT THESE
CLAIMS. SO LOOK FORWARD TO THE
DISCUSSION AND ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS AND ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. OTHERS IN
SUPPORT, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
MARK Þ GEORGE, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. NO OTHER'S
OPPOSITION. PLEASE COME FORWARD.
ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON. CHAIR
AND MEMBERS, JONATHAN FELDMAN
WITH THE CALIFORNIA POLICE
CHIEFS ASSOCIATION. AND RESPECT
FOR ALL POSITION. I UNDERSTAND
THE INTENT BEHIND THE BILL.
OBVIOUSLY, WE DON'T WANT NOT
WANT TO INTIMIDATE OR THREATEN
ANYONE AWAY FROM MAKING A
COMPLAINT, BUT WE DO HAVE
SERIOUS CONCERNS WITH THE WAY
THIS IS DRAFTED, WE ALSO THINK
THAT THE ABILITY FOR A CITIZEN
TO FILE A COMPLAINT AGAINST
OFFICERS, ALREADY A ROBUST
SYSTEM BUILT OUT BOTH AT THE
LOCAL LEVEL AND AT THE STATEWIDE
LEVEL, THROUGH SB TWO
DECERTIFICATION LAW THAT WAS
PASSED SEVERAL YEARS AGO. ANYONE
CAN FILE A COMPLAINT DIRECTLY
WITH POST. IN ADDITION TO FILING
WITH THE LOCAL AGENCY. BUT OUR
MAIN CONCERN REALLY CENTERS
AROUND THE ISSUES AROUND THE
INTENT AS IT'S DRAFTED IN THE
BILL, WHICH IS A VERY NARROW
DRAFTING OF INTENT THAT
REQUIRES, NOT JUST KNOWINGLY,
NOT JUST INTENT, BUT INTENT WITH
SPECIFIC PURPOSE TO PUNISH THE
OFFICER, WHICH DOESN'T INCLUDE,
YOU KNOW, INTENT FOR MATERIAL
GAIN OR OTHER BENEFITS OR
INFORMATION GATHERING OR ANY OF
THE OTHER REASONS THAT SOMEONE
MIGHT NEFARIOUSLY SUBMIT A
COMPLAINT AGAINST THE OFFICER.
WE ALSO HAVE CONCERN WITH THE
SECTION THAT STATES THAT ANY
MATERIAL EVIDENCE UNDER DISPUTE
CANNOT BE USED FOR PROSECUTION.
WHILE MOST OF THESE COMPLAINTS
ARE HE SAID. SHE SAID THEY SAID,
AND THEY WILL BE IN DISPUTE. AND
SO WE FEEL LIKE AS IT'S AS IT'S
WRITTEN, IT'S INCREDIBLY TOO
NARROW AND WOULD ALLOW IN MANY
CASES, SOMEONE TO KNOWINGLY AND
INTENTIONALLY FILE FALSE
COMPLAINTS AGAINST AN OFFICER.
AND FOR THOSE REASONS, WE ASK
FOR A NO VOTE. THANK YOU. OTHERS
IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS.
RYAN. CHAIRMAN OF THE RIVERSIDE
SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION,
CALIFORNIA NARCOTIC OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA RESERVE
PEACE OFFICERS AND NUMBER OF
OTHER POA'S AND DSA'S, ALL IN
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. OTHERS IN
OPPOSITION. SEEING NONE
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER REYES. OH YOUR MIC
DOESN'T WORK. ALL RIGHT. IN THE
OPPOSITION, THE COMMENTS HAD TO
DO WITH INTENT. YOU SAID THAT
THE ONLY THAT WAS ONE OF THE
MAIN ISSUES THAT YOU HAD WITH
THE BILL, IS IT'S THE INTENT TO
CAUSE HARM OR TO GET AN OFFICER
IN TROUBLE. NOT IT DID NOT
INCLUDE THE INTENT OF MATERIAL
GAIN. AND I WOULD IMAGINE, IN
THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
BENEFITING FROM HAVING AN
OFFICER'S, CREDIBILITY
QUESTIONED IN A CASE THAT
SOMEBODY ELSE MAY BE INVOLVED
IN. YEAH. OR POTENTIALLY
INVOLVED IN CIVIL SUITS AGAINST
THE AGENCY AS WELL. HAVE THOSE
AMENDMENTS OR POTENTIAL
AMENDMENTS BEEN PROPOSED,
ACCEPTED, REJECTED? WE HAVEN'T
HAD OUTREACH FROM THE AUTHOR'S
OFFICE. WE HAVEN'T ALSO REACHED
OUT OTHER THAN SUBMITTING AN
OPPOSED LETTER. I DID GO BY AND
SPEAK TO MR. THE AUTHOR'S CHIEF
OF STAFF JUST A SECOND AGO. SO
WE HAVE TALKED NOW, YOU KNOW
IT'S THE PROCESS IS OFTEN, YOU
KNOW, KIND OF EVERYTHING KIND OF
MOVES TOWARDS A BOTTLENECK. SO
YOU KNOW, BUT WE, WE ALL TALK
CONSTANTLY THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.
WE KNOW EACH OTHER. SO SO, THOSE
CONVERSATIONS ARE GOING TO
HAPPEN. OKAY. YOU COMMENTED THAT
THERE'S ALREADY A ROBUST,
PROCESS FOR OFFICER COMPLAINTS.
HAS THAT BEEN CONSIDERED AND
WHY, WHY IS IT THAT YOU BELIEVE
THAT THIS NEW LEGISLATION IS
NEEDED? SURE IF I MAY, MR.
CHAIR, THANK YOU FOR THE
QUESTION. IN PREPARING THIS
BILL, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF
THINGS THAT WE DID. WE SPOKE
WITH COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS,
INDIVIDUALS WHO WORK WITH
INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE POLICE
COMPLAINTS. WE ALSO CONSULTED
WITH THE RIPPLE BOARD, LOOKED AT
THEIR ANNUAL REPORT, AND IN THE
2023 AND 2024 REPORT, THEY
OUTLINED CONCERNS THAT
INDIVIDUALS ARE BEING
DISCOURAGED FROM SUBMITTING,
COMPLAINTS. I THINK THEY TRACKED
ABOUT 10,000 COMPLAINTS FILED
STATEWIDE, THEY NOTED THAT A
NUMBER OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
ENTITIES DID NOT RESPOND TO
THEIR REQUESTS, BUT ALSO THERE
WERE SOME THAT DID NOT RECEIVE
ANY COMPLAINTS. AND SO THERE
WERE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE
RIPPLE BOARD TO MAKE SOME
CHANGES TO BOTH. THE ADVISEMENT
THAT IS ON THE FORM, WHICH
REFLECTS WHAT IS THE UNDERLYING
STATUTE FOR BEING PROSECUTED,
AND SO THEY KIND OF OUTLINED
WHAT THOSE PROBLEMS WERE AND
THAT THERE WAS A NEED TO DO
SOMETHING TO ENCOURAGE MORE
FORTHCOMING, ON BEHALF OF THE
COMMUNITY MEMBERS. SO THAT WAS
ONE OF THE MAIN POINTS THAT WE
USED TO CONSIDER THAT BECAUSE
THE BOARD LOOKED AT ALL OF THIS
DATA, ALSO ADD THERE WAS SOME,
SOME WORDING THAT WAS DONE BY,
BY VILLAGE COUNSEL THAT THAT MAY
IF FOR SOME WORKING THROUGH MAY
HELP ALLAY SOME OF THEIR
CONCERNS AND I'M WILLING TO WORK
WITH THEM. AND I'VE ALSO TOLD
SOME MEMBERS OF THIS, THIS
COMMITTEE THAT I WOULD DO THAT
IN GOOD FAITH TO WORK WITH THEM,
TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T
PROVIDE ANY HARM TO LAW
ENFORCEMENT. THIS IS NOT TO
PROVIDE HARM TO LAW ENFORCEMENT.
AND SO AND I MAY EVEN TRY TO
WORK WITH SOMEONE WHO IS IN LAW
ENFORCEMENT TO HELP ME
ARTICULATE WHAT IS THE BEST
WORDING. IF THIS GETS OUT OF
COMMITTEE, AS WE MOVE FORWARD,
AND I PROMISE THAT IN GOOD FAITH
. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WILSON, THANK
YOU TO THE AUTHOR, I UNDERSTAND
YOUR INTENT AS IT RELATES TO
TRYING TO CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT
WHERE PEOPLE WHO HAVE HAD
ENCOUNTERS WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT,
ARE MORE APT TO TALK ABOUT THOSE
ENCOUNTERS IF THOSE ENCOUNTERS
WERE NEGATIVE, AND SHOULD BE
REPORTED. AND, THAT'S Kò, YOU
KNOW, THE MORE INFORMATION, THE
BETTER TO BE ABLE TO ALLOW,
ESPECIALLY THOSE IN CHARGE,
WHETHER IT BE COUNSEL OR CITY
MANAGERS OR WHOEVER, TO BE ABLE
TO DO WHAT'S APPROPRIATE TO
ENSURE THAT WE HAVE PEOPLE
WITHIN THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
SYSTEM, HAVE THEM BE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE, AND AT THE SAME
TIME WEED OUT THOSE WHO ARE NOT
SERVING THE PUBLIC IN THE WAY
THAT THEY SHOULD. MY CONCERN
ABOUT YOUR BILL, AND WE'VE HAD A
FEW CONVERSATIONS ABOUT IT, IS,
IS HOW BROAD, IT IS AND I THINK
THAT IT COULD, NOT DO REALLY
WHAT WAS INTENDED TO DO, BUT
FOCUS PRIMARILY ON, MAKING IT SO
THAT, THERE REALLY IS NO WAY TO
HOLD ENCOUNTER, YOU KNOW, HOLD
LAW ENFORCEMENT ACCOUNTABLE, THE
FIRST PART OF YOUR, STATEMENT,
THERE'S TWO PARTS TO IT,
BASICALLY, OR A FEW PARTS, BUT
TWO PARTS AS IT RELATES TO THE
FALSE STATEMENT, IT SAYS
KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY
MAKES A FALSE STATEMENT THAT IS
MATERIAL, AND THEN IT GOES INTO
THE INTENTION TO PUNISH A POLICE
OFFICER. I THINK INTENTION, AS
WE KNOW FROM ALL ASPECTS OF
CRIMINAL JUSTICE, IS A REALLY
HARD THING TO, PROVE, AND SO I'M
CONCERNED ABOUT HAVING THAT WORD
IN BOTH SPACES, BUT RECOGNIZING
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE STATEMENT
THAT PEOPLE ARE HAVING TO ATTEST
TO WHEN THEY DO THAT, THAT IT IS
FLAWED IN SOME NATURE BECAUSE IT
IS BROAD, THAT IS BROAD WHERE IT
SAYS, IF YOU MAKE KNOWINGLY MAKE
A FALSE STATEMENT, WHERE THERE
HOW CAN IT CAN BE PROVEN THAT
YOU MIGHT HAVE KNOWN YOU WERE
MAKING A FALSE STATEMENT WHEN
YOU REALLY DID HEAR WHAT YOU
THOUGHT YOU HEARD A POLICE
OFFICER OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT DO,
AND YOU COULD IN SOME WAY. AND
THAT REAL MOMENT BE THINKING
IT'S A VERY CLEAR AND THAT
YOU'RE ACCURATE, BUT THEN LATER
IT LOOKS SO BLATANT THAT IT THAT
THE ONLY WAY THAT THAT, SOMEONE
LOOKING AT THAT REPORT CAN
ASCRIBE IS THAT IT WAS YOU
KNOWINGLY DID IT. AND WE DON'T
WANT THAT. AND SO I THINK THAT,
ADDING IN LANGUAGE AT THE TOP
PART THAT JUST SAYS KNOWINGLY
AND THEN IT'S MATERIAL AND THEN
HAVING THAT TYPE OF LANGUAGE,
THEN THE STATEMENT, IS PROBABLY
SUFFICIENT. I DO AGREE WITH THE
OPPOSITION. THÀNH WHEN IT COMES
TO, DISPUTES. IF IT'S DISPUTED,
IT'S NOT EVIDENCE. WELL, THE
WHOLE THING IS DISPUTED BY
VIRTUE OF ME MAKING A CLAIM. I'M
SURE THE OFFICER OR THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT ON THE OTHER SIDE IS
SAYING I DON'T AGREE. AND SO, IF
THAT IS THE, YOU KNOW, IS THAT
THE BASIS IS, THAT, THAT
DISPUTE, IF THAT'S THE BASIS,
THEN THAT MEANS WE NEVER HAVE
ANY RESOLUTION IN THESE MATTERS.
AND SO, SO, THOSE ARE THE SOME
OF THE THINGS THAT I'M CONCERNED
ABOUT AND, AND, AND TALK TO YOU
ABOUT AND SAID, YOU KNOW, THOSE
ARE THE THINGS THAT I THINK NEED
TO ABSOLUTELY BE ADDRESSED. YOU
KNOW, I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO
SERVE AS A LOCAL LEADER, FOR 12
YEARS PRIOR TO COMING HERE, YOU
KNOW, I, I'VE, I'VE HAD SEVERAL
COMPLAINTS, GIVEN REGARDING OUR
POLICE OFFICERS, SOME OF THEM I
KNEW TO BE FALSE, SOME OF THEM
INCLUDED ME, AND I WASN'T ON
SING OR ANYWHERE NEAR SO THAT,
YOU KNOW. AND SO THERE WAS NO
WAY I COULD BE A PARTY TO THIS,
BUT THEY INCLUDED MY NAME
BECAUSE I WAS EITHER THE MAYOR
OR THE VICE MAYOR. AND SO I WAS
SO, SO CALLED DIRECTING PEOPLE
TO DO THINGS. BUT THAT WAS PART
OF THAT WAS PART OF THAT. THAT
IS KNOWINGLY FALSE, AND SO AND,
AND IN SOME ASPECTS MATERIAL, SO
I JUST THINK THAT THERE'S AN
OPPORTUNITY HERE TO REALLY
NARROW IF YOU'RE TRYING TO
INCREASE GREATER PARTICIPATION.
AND I RECOGNIZE WHERE I LIVE IN
SOLANO COUNTY IS VERY DIFFERENT
FROM WHERE YOU LIVE. AND THE
POLICE OFFICERS ARE LIKELY VERY
DIFFERENT AS WELL, AND SO I, YOU
KNOW, I SO I THINK THERE'S
OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THAT. WE
HAVE A DIVERSE STATE AND WE NEED
TO THINK ABOUT HOW DO WE, HOLD
LAW ENFORCEMENT ACCOUNTABLE AND
AT THE SAME TIME CREATING AN
ATMOSPHERE WHERE MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC FEEL FREE TO BE ABLE TO
COMPLAIN, AND SO I WANT TO I
WANT TO GET THERE WITH YOU. BUT
WHERE IT IS RIGHT NOW, I THINK
IT NEEDS A LOT OF WORK TO
NARROW, NARROW THAT DOWN. AND I
THANK YOU, AND I WILL WORK WITH
YOU TO GET THERE. AND I KNOW WE
ONLY HAD LESS THAN 24 HOURS, YOU
AND I HAVE HAD LESS THAN TWO
HOURS TO DISCUSS THIS. AND LAW
ENFORCEMENT, WE'VE HAD NONE. AND
SO, I'M LOOKING FOR INTRODUCED
FOR A WHILE, SO WE GOTTA. YEAH,
YOU GOTTA WE GOTTA, TALK. OKAY,
IF I COULD JUST. OH, MY,
SUPPORTER WANTED TO JUST REAL
QUICK IF HE COULD. MR. VERY
BRIEFLY, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
THE COMMENTS ON ASSEMBLYWOMAN.
LOOK FORWARD TO THAT DISCUSSION.
I THINK THE KEY IS WE WANT TO
DISTINGUISH BETWEEN A FALSE
STATEMENT THAT'S MATERIAL AND
WAS BROUGHT IN BAD FAITH VERSUS
ONE THAT IT'S AN HONEST
DISAGREEMENT IN THE PERCEPTION
OF WHAT HAPPENED. AND I THINK
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET
THE WORDING JUST RIGHT. THANK
YOU A MOTION A SECOND, MR. VICE
CHAIR. SO I JUST, YOU MENTIONED
THAT PEOPLE WERE DISCOURAGED
MAKING REPORTS. DO THEY
SPECIFICALLY SAY HOW OR WHY THEY
WERE DISCOURAGED? LIKE, WHAT WAS
WHAT WAS THE DISCOURAGED PART?
YEAH NO, NO. GO AHEAD. YOU CAN
START I MEAN, IF, IF YOU'RE IF
YOU'RE AFRICAN AMERICAN AND
YOU'VE HAD A YOU'VE HAD NOT A
VERY GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND THEN SOMETHING
HAPPENS WHERE THAT LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER DOES
SOMETHING THAT IS UNLAWFUL OR
RACIALLY MOTIVATED, YOU'RE NOT
INCLINED TO GO IN TO GO A PLACE
WHERE YOU'VE BEEN PREVIOUSLY
ABUSED OR TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF. IF
YOU'RE LATINO AND YOU'RE YOU'RE
YOU'RE YOU MAY NOT HAVE THE
IMMIGRATION STATUS THAT IS ONE
THAT IS, CONSIDERED ACCEPTABLE,
YOU MAY NOT WANT TO REPORT IT
BECAUSE OF THE INS AND
REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER THINGS,
OR YOU'VE SEEN OTHER PEOPLE OR
YOURSELF HAVE BEEN HARASSED OR
BEEN DEPORTED AT ONE TIME OR
WHATEVER, OR HAVE FAMILY MEMBERS
DEPORTED, YOU MAY NOT BE
INCLINED TO COME IN AND REPORT
ABUSES, THERE HAVE BEEN WOMEN IN
LA WHO HAVE BEEN SEXUALLY
ABUSED, WHO HAVE BEEN RELUCTANT
TO REPORT THOSE SEXUAL ABUSES IN
THE BACK OF POLICE CARS. I MEAN,
WE CAN GO ON AND ON AND ON AND
ON, THE POINT OF THIS IS IF
THOSE THINGS DO HAPPEN, SOMEONE
WILL BE ABLE TO FEEL COMFORTABLE
TO BE ABLE TO REPORT THOSE
THINGS AND ALSO IN THE BILL, I
WANT TO SAY IT SAYS A VERBAL
COMPLAINT IS SUFFICIENT. YEAH.
IF I MAY, MR. CHAIR. YEAH, WE
WERE TRYING TO TRACK SOME OF THE
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE RIPPLE
BOARD, AND THAT'S CERTAINLY
SOMETHING THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT
A LITTLE BIT MORE CLOSELY. WHAT
THAT MEANS, BECAUSE THERE'S NOT
A DEFINITION OF COMPLAINT IN
STATUTE RIGHT NOW. AND SO WE
LOOK TO PUT TOGETHER A
DEFINITION. AND SO CERTAINLY
WILLING TO LOOK AT THAT MORE
CLOSELY OKAY. WELL AS AS A
SUPERVISOR FOR ALMOST 15 YEARS
WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT OUT IN THE
STREETS GETTING MANY COMPLAINTS
THAT I WOULD RECEIVE ALL THE
TIME, I ALWAYS FOUND THAT PEOPLE
FOUND IT REALLY HARD TO PUT IT
ON PAPER AND TO SIGN THEIR NAME
ON IT. THEY BASICALLY JUST
WANTED TO COME AND TELL ME, HEY,
I THINK HE'S, A BAD WORD THEY
WOULD SAY. AND I THINK THAT THE
WAY THEY DID THINGS WAS WRONG,
OBVIOUSLY BODY CAMERA FOOTAGE
CAME INTO PLAY, AND THEN USUALLY
MY COMPLAINTS WENT REALLY,
REALLY LOW BECAUSE THEN I WAS
LIKE, OKAY, LET'S GO LOOK AT THE
VIDEO NOW. AND THEN THEY'RE
LIKE, OH, NO, I'M GOOD, SO BODY
CAMS OBVIOUSLY HELPED IN THE
COMPLAINT SYSTEM FOR ME, BUT
BUT, I WANT TO KNOW IF THERE'S A
BAD SEED AMONGST US. I THINK ANY
PROFESSION EVERYBODY WANTS TO
KNOW. AND THAT WAS PART OF MY
JOB. ALSO TO FIND WHO THEY WERE,
TO MENTOR THEM OR WHATEVER I
NEEDED TO DO TO GET THEM TO
WHERE THEY NEEDED TO BE.
OTHERWISE WE GET RID OF THEM,
SO, I'M NOT THERE WITH THE BILL
RIGHT NOW, BUT, OBVIOUSLY IT
LOOKS LIKE WE'RE WORKING WITH
IT. I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO
SEEING IMPROVEMENTS. OKAY. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION
FROM MR. TING, A SECOND BY MR.
MCCARTHY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS,
MR. JONES-SAWYER? YOU MAY CLOSE,
I DEFINITELY WILL BE WORKING
WITH OPPOSITION AND MEMBERS OF
THIS COMMITTEE, TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE CAN GET IT TO A PLACE
WHERE EVERYBODY IS VERY
COMFORTABLE WITH IT. WITH THAT,
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ON AB 2923 BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER JONES-SAWYER. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATE COMMITTEE MCCARTY.
MCCARTY I ALANIZ. ALANIZ. NOT
VOTING. LACKEY. LACKEY NOT
VOTING. NGUYEN. NGUYEN NOT
VOTING. REYES. REYES. AYE TING
TING. AYE. WILSON. WILSON NOT
VOTING. ZEBRA. WELL. THERE'S
UNCONFIDENT. NO, NO. THAT
MEASURE FAILS. IT'S NOT ENOUGH.
IT'S FOR FOUR. YES, THAT MEASURE
FAILS BECAUSE SHE DID IT. NOT
VOTING. WILSON JUST WALKED OUT.
SHE'S NOT VOTING. THAT MEASURE.
I'M GOING TO ASK FOR SOMETHING.
ASK FOR RECONSIDERATION. THÀNH.
YES, SIR. THE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION, BY MR. LANCE
AND MOTION SECOND BY SECOND,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON
RECONSIDERATION FOR AB 2923
MCCARTY. MCCARTY. AYE ALANIZ.
ALANIZ. AYE. LAKI LAKI. AYE
NGUYEN. NGUYEN. AYE. REYES.
REYES AYE. TING TING AYE. WILSON
ZUBER. PASSES THE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION. PASSES THANK
YOU. NEXT. MEMBERS. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER. BONTA.
ITEM NUMBER 15. THIS IS ASSEMBLY
BILL 2709.
I'LL AMEND THOSE TALKING POINTS
TO SAY GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, AB 2709 IS A
BILL SHAPED BY THE FIRST HAND
EXPERIENCES OF FAMILIES WITH
INCARCERATED, LOVED ONES. IT'S
CRUCIAL TO RECOGNIZE THE
PROFOUND IMPACT THAT MAINTAINING
FAMILY CONNECTIONS HAS ON
INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS, NOT
ONLY FOR THEIR WELL-BEING, BUT
ALSO FOR THEIR SUCCESSFUL
REINTEGRATION INTO SOCIETY UPON
RELEASE. FIRST, AB 2709
PROHIBITS VISITS, DENIAL DUE TO
MINOR OMISSIONS OR INACCURACIES
ON VISITOR APPLICATIONS. SECOND
AB 2709 CODIFIES THREE DAYS OF
IN PRISON VISITATION PER WEEK
ALONGSIDE VIDEO CALLS. THIRD,
THIS BILL PROHIBITS STRIP
SEARCHES OF VISITORS WHILE
PERMITTING USE OF REASONABLE
SCREENING MEASURES LIKE METAL
DETECTORS AND BODY SCANNERS AND
OTHER TYPES OF SCREENING
TECHNOLOGIES. IN ORDER TO STRIKE
A CRUCIAL BALANCE BETWEEN SAFETY
AND DIGNITY FOR BOTH VISITORS,
INCARCERATED PEOPLE AND OUR
OFFICERS. THIS BILL UNDERSCORES
THE IMPORTANCE OF MAINTAINING
FAMILY CONNECTIONS DURING PUBLIC
HEALTH EMERGENCIES, AS
HIGHLIGHTED DURING THE COVID 19
PANDEMIC, ACCORDING TO THE
PRISON POLICY INITIATIVE IN
2008, RESEARCHERS FOUND THAT
AMONG 7000 INDIVIDUALS RELEASED
FROM STATE PRISON IN FLORIDA,
EACH INDIVIDUAL VISITED RECEIVED
DURING EACH INDIVIDUAL VISIT
RECEIVED DURING INCARCERATION
LED TO A 3.8 DECREASE IN THE
ODDS OF TWO YEAR RECIDIVISM.
FURTHERMORE AMONG THOSE WHO
RECEIVED VISITS DURING THEIR
INCARCERATION, FELONY
CONVICTIONS WERE 13% LOWER AND
REVOCATION FOR TECHNICAL PAROLE
VIOLATIONS WERE 25% LOWER
COMPARED TO INDIVIDUALS WHO DID
NOT RECEIVE VISITS. IN OTHER
WORDS, WHEN PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED
TO BE ABLE TO VISIT WITH THEIR
FAMILY AND LOVED ONES, IT WORKS.
MY OFFICE HAS COMMUNICATED WITH
STAKEHOLDERS THAT HAVE REACHED
OUT WITH CONCERNS, AND WE ARE
OPEN TO AMENDMENTS ON THIS BILL
HERE TO TESTIFY TODAY IS
LAWRENCE COX, THE INTERIM
COORDINATOR OF THE COALITION FOR
FAMILY UNITY, AND KERRY ARZATE
FROM PRISON FROM THE INSIDE OUT.
THANK YOU. PLEASE BEGIN. YOU
HAVE FIVE MINUTES AMONGST
YOURSELVES. HOW ARE YOU? MY NAME
IS LAWRENCE COX. THE MEMBER
SAID, I AM INTERIM CFO
COORDINATOR. I'M ALSO REGIONAL
ADVOCACY AND ORGANIZER FOR LSPC
AND ALL OF US ARE NONE, I JUST
WANT TO UPLIFT THAT SINCE WE'RE
HERE IN PUBLIC SAFETY, PUBLIC
SAFETY IS INCREASED WHEN WE
DECREASE RECIDIVISM AND
RECIDIVISM RATES ARE DECREASED.
AS THE MEMBER SAID, WHEN WE
PRIORITIZE AND WE UPLIFT TRUE
REHABILITATION, OUR LEGISLATIVE
BODY AND MANY SEARCHES, I MEAN,
A LOT OF RESEARCH, EXCUSE ME,
HAS SHOWN THAT VISITING IS KEY
TO ENSURING THAT WE DO
REHABILITATE OUR INCARCERATED
POPULATION, I THINK IT IS KEY
THAT WE REMEMBER THAT WE HAVE TO
UPLIFT REMOVING OF BARRIERS, IF
WE BELIEVE VISITING IS TO
OPERATE EFFECTIVELY, WE FOR SURE
MUST REMOVE, BARRIERS THAT ARE
PREVENTING OR CREATING
UNNECESSARY OBSTACLES, WHETHER
THAT'S PROCEDURAL, OPERATIONS,
WHETHER IT'S POLICY, WE ALSO
MUST PREVENT INFRINGEMENT OF
VISITING RESOURCES THAT ARE
NEEDED TO EFFECTIVELY PROVIDE A
TIMELY VISITING OPERATION,
PROTECTING THE DIGNITY AND
HUMANITY AND SAFETY OF THE WOMEN
AND THE CHILDREN THAT FREQUENT
THEIR THEIR LOVED ONES WHILE
INCARCERATED IS ALSO KEY FOR OUR
COMMUNITY, WE SHOULD, I THINK,
ALSO UPLIFT THAT IF WE
PRIORITIZE UTILIZING VISITING AS
A REHABILITATIVE TOOL, THEN
THERE IS NO REASON THAT WE
SHOULD ALLOW IT TO BE USED AS A
PUNISHMENT MECHANISM. CURRENTLY
WE HAVE AA. CURRENTLY WE HAVE,
ANGER MANAGEMENT. CURRENTLY WE
HAVE IN AA. CURRENTLY WE HAVE
VICTIM AWARENESS. THOSE ARE ALL
KEY REHABILITATIVE TOOLS THAT WE
PRIORITIZE, ALLOWING
INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS TO
PARTAKE, BUT WHEN THEY DO GET
INTO MINOR INFRACTIONS THAT DO
NOT PRESENT A GRAVE THREAT AND
SAFETY TO THE SAFETY AND
SECURITY OF INSTITUTION, WE
DON'T TAKE THOSE REHABILITATIVE
TOOLS AWAY FROM THEM. I DON'T
THINK THAT IF WE PRIORITIZE
VISITING, BEING ONE OF THE KEY
REHABILITATIVE TOOLS THAT WE
SHOULD NOT ALLOW, VISITING TO BE
UTILIZED AS A PUNISHMENT AS
WELL. AND I'LL TURN IT TO. ALL
RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON. COMMITTEE
MEMBERS AND CHAIR. MY NAME IS
KERRY ARZATE. I'M SYSTEM
IMPACTED. I AM 1 IN 4 WOMEN WITH
A LOVED ONE IN PRISON. I'M ALSO
A COMMUNITY DIRECTOR WITH PRISON
FROM THE INSIDE OUT. CONTACT
VISITS DURING INCARCERATION PLAY
A VITAL ROLE IN THE SUCCESS OF
POSITIVE PROGRAMING AND
REHABILITATION. THÀNH. MY
HUSBAND IS INCARCERATED AT
PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON FOR
18 YEARS NOW, AND WE MET PRIOR
TO INCARCERATION AND WE HAVE
CHILDREN TOGETHER. I'VE BEEN AN
APPROVED VISITOR WITH CDCR FOR
ALMOST TWO DECADES. OUR SON HAS
BEEN VISITING DAD HIS ENTIRE
LIFE, AND HE'LL BE TURNING 18
YEARS OLD THIS YEAR. AND HE IS
ONE OF 28 CHILDREN WITH A PARENT
IN PRISON, VISITS AND
MAINTAINING BONDS WITH FAMILY
MEANS, BUILDING BRIDGES TOGETHER
AS A FAMILY. MY HUSBAND WAS IN
THE SHU FOR A DECADE AT ONE OF
THE MOST HIGHEST SECURITY
PRISONS IN CALIFORNIA SINCE
HAVING CONTACT VISITATION WITH
HIS FAMILY. HE'S NOW AT A LOWER
LEVEL SECURITY PRISON, AND HE'S
BEEN RIGHT UP FREE FOR MANY
YEARS. WHILE ATTENDING CLASSES
AND POSITIVE PROGRAMING, AND HAS
MAINTAINED AN ESTABLISHED A
RELATIONSHIP AND A BOND NOT ONLY
WITH ME, BUT HIS CHILDREN, HIS
GRANDDAUGHTER, AND AS WELL AS
HIS FAMILY AND COMMUNITY VISITS
HAVE IMPACTED HIM IN THE
FOLLOWING WAYS. HE'S NOW
ELIGIBLE FOR OVERNIGHT FAMILY
VISITATION, WHICH MEANS NIKO CAN
FINALLY SPEND THE NIGHT WITH MOM
AND DAD, ALSO, VISITING MEANS
HE'S ABLE TO BE A DAD TO NIKO
AND A PAPA TO HIS GRANDDAUGHTER.
IT MEANS HIM HELPING THE KIDS
WITH THEIR HOMEWORK, TALKING
WITH THEM ABOUT THEIR NOT ONLY
THEIR STRUGGLES, BUT CELEBRATING
THEIR STRENGTHS. IT MEANS
PLAYING IN THE SNOW. IT MEANS
ENJOYING TIMES. WE'VE SHARED
FACE PAINTING AND PLAYING GAMES
AND CELEBRATING BIRTHDAYS,
HAVING CONTACT VISITS AND THAT
PHYSICAL TOUCH MEANS SO MUCH TO
AUBRIANA TO BE ABLE TO HOLD AND
HUG HER PAPA. AT VISITS TO
MAINTAIN THEIR BOND BETWEEN A
GRANDFATHER AND HIS
GRANDDAUGHTER, HER HEALTH AND
MENTAL WELLNESS IS POSITIVELY
IMPACT. BY VISIT WITH HER VISITS
WITH HER PAPA, SHE GETS GOOD
GRADES. SHE VOLUNTEERS IN HER
COMMUNITY AND HAS RECEIVED A
HELPING HAND AWARD MANY TIMES.
SHE ALSO ATTENDS STATEWIDE
EVENTS AND PEACEFUL PROTEST IN
SUPPORT TO FAMILIES IMPACTED BY
INCARCERATION. AUBRIANA WHEN SHE
VISITING HER PAPA, SHE HAS TO
WEAR CERTAIN CLOTHES. SHE DOES
THE FOLLOWING INCLUDING TAKING
OFF HER SHOES, LIFTING UP HER
HAIR AND THE BACK OF HER HAIR
AND WALKS THROUGH A METAL
DETECTOR EACH TIME BEFORE SHE
VISITS HER PAPA, WE UNDERSTAND
WHAT VISITATION MEANS, AND WE
HOPE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT
PROTECTING WOMEN AND CHILDREN
LIKE AUBRIANA FROM BEING
SUBJECTED TO UNWARRANTED,
UNNECESSARY, INVASIVE, AND
DEGRADING UNCLOTHED BODY
SEARCHES BEFORE BEING ALLOWED TO
VISIT THEIR INCARCERATED LOVED
ONES AND WORKING WITH FAMILIES
STATEWIDE. WE KNOW OFTEN TIMES
WOMEN FEAR RETALIATION FOR
BRINGING THEIR CONCERNS WITH
SEARCHES FORWARD. THIS ATTEMPT
AND APPROACH OF SEARCHES CAN BE
INHUMANE AND DETERS FAMILY
MEMBERS FROM STAYING CONNECTED.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK
YOU FOR PROTECTING OUR WOMEN AND
CHILDREN VISITING THEIR LOVED
ONE IN PRISON. THANK YOU. MOTION
A SECOND. OTHERS IN SUPPORT.
GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. I AM A MEMBER
OF THE SAN FRANCISCO REENTRY
COUNCIL. ALSO, ALL OF US OR NONE
MEMBER. AND I'M ALSO AN
ORGANIZER AT THE ELLA BAKER
CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS. AND
STRONG SUPPORT OF THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. JUST YOUR
NAME, TITLE AND POSITION. I'M
SORRY. MY NAME IS TATIANA LEWIS.
DANICA RADAMEL DELIVERING
SUPPORT ON BEHALF OF ROOT AND
REBOUND THE GRIP TRAINING
INSTITUTE LA DEFENSA INITIATE
JUSTICE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION AND THE
SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDERS
OFFICE. THANK YOU. HI. GOOD
AFTERNOON. SOMALIA ROGERS IN
SUPPORT STRONG SUPPORT ELLA
BAKER CENTER. THANK YOU, ANTHONY
MARTINO ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIANS FOR SAFETY AND
JUSTICE AND STRONG SUPPORT, Dð
COONEY ON BEHALF OF ACLU
CALIFORNIA ACTION. STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. HELLO. I'M
JENNIFER PENROSE WITH POWER AND
UNITY FELLOWSHIP AND STRONG
SUPPORT. AND I'D LIKE TO READ A
LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE
ALSO IN SUPPORT. THE COALITION
OF FAMILY UNITY A NEW WAY OF
LIFE, ALLIANCE FOR BOYS AND MEN
OF COLOR, CALIFORNIA FAMILIES
AGAINST SOLITARY CONFINEMENT,
EMPOWERING WOMEN IMPACTED BY
INCARCERATION, COMMUNITY WORKS,
CHANGES, COMMUNITIES UNITED FOR
RESTORATIVE YOUTH JUSTICE,
JESSE'S PLACE ORGANIZATION. DROP
EL, EAST BAY FAMILY DEFENDERS,
FELONY MURDER ELIMINATION
PROJECT FAMILIES UNITED UNITED
TO END, LUPE. PLACE FOR GRACE
PRISON FROM THE INSIDE OUT
INCORPORATED. SISTERS WARRIORS
AND STARTING OVER INCORPORATED
ASKING FOR AN AYE VOTE. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. MY NAME IS
CAMDEN FUSSELL. I'M PERSONALLY
IMPACTED AND I STRONGLY SUPPORT
THIS BILL. THANK MY NAME IS
ALICIA DAVIS. I'M, DIRECTLY
IMPACTED BY A LOVED ONE
INCARCERATED. AND I STRONGLY
SUPPORT THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
JIM LINDBERG, ON BEHALF OF THE
FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION
OF CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT.
PHILIPPE KELLY WITH THE ELLA
BAKER CENTER AND FULL SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, CLIFTON WILSON, ON
BEHALF OF THE CENTER FOR
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ALYSSA
MOORE, LSPC. ALL OF US ARE NONE
IN FULL SUPPORT. MY NAME IS LINA
DIÆN LSPC AND I'M IN STRONG
SUPPORT. BARBARA CHÁVEZ ELLA
BAKER, CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
AND STRONG SUPPORT. MY NAME IS
HENRY ORTIZ. ON BEHALF OF LSPC
LEGAL SERVICES FOR PRISONERS
WITH CHILDREN. ALL OF US IN
SACRAMENTO AND COMMUNITY HEALERS
AND STRONG SUPPORT. GOOD
EVENING, ROBERT BOUGHTON LSPC.
ALL OF US ARE KNOWN AS STRONG
SUPPORT. GILBERT ANTHONY
MURILLO, LSPC. AND ALL OF US
STRONGLY SUPPORT. OKAY. THANK
YOU. OPPOSITION. WE HAVE
OPPOSITION. YEAH. I THINK WE
HAVE A SEAT OVER HERE. OH. SO
SORRY. YEAH, BUT I'M TEXTING
THEM. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR.
AND MEMBERS. CARILLO SUSILO, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION,
RESPECTFULLY, IN OPPOSITION TO
THE BILL, SHERIFFS UNDERSTAND
THE BENEFITS OF VISITATION FOR
INCARCERATED PERSONS AND THEIR
VISITORS. BUT WE FEAR THIS BILL
GOES TOO FAR IN MANDATING
VISITATION AT THE EXPENSE OF
SEVERAL OTHER IMPORTANT
CONSIDERATIONS, AS WE'VE NOTED
ON PREVIOUS BILLS, BY LIMITING
THE ABILITY TO SUSPEND
VISITATION TO ISSUES RELATED TO
SECURITY, JAIL AUTHORITIES WOULD
BE PROHIBITED FROM CONDITIONING,
VISITATION ON BEHAVIOR AND
DISCIPLINE CONSIDERATIONS. THE
LANGUAGE WOULD ALSO PRECLUDE THE
SUSPENSION OF VISITATION, OF THE
TYPE THAT WAS ADOPTED BY PRISONS
AND MOST JAILS, BECAUSE OF THE
PANDEMIC, WHICH NECESSITATED
LIMITING ACCESS TO AND MOVEMENT
WITHIN CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES,
FUTURE CHALLENGES, LIKE OTHER
PANDEMICS, NATURAL DISASTERS,
AND EVEN LOGISTICAL REALITIES
LIKE POWER OUTAGES, HVAC
BREAKDOWNS, THOSE THINGS WOULD
NOT SUFFICE AS LEGITIMATE
REASONS TO CANCEL VISITATION, BY
GUARANTEEING ACCESS TO
VISITATION THAT CAN ONLY BE
SUSPENDED UNDER SPECIFIC AND
LIKELY RARE CIRCUMSTANCES. AND
AS THE ANALYSIS POINTS OUT, THE
BILL CREATES THE RISK OF COSTLY
LITIGATION. WE'VE BEEN TOLD THE
AUTHOR IS CONSIDERING AMENDING
COUNTY JAILS OUT OF THE BILL
DON'T CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO
SPEAK FOR ANYONE, BUT JUST WANT
TO INFORM THE COMMITTEE THAT
WE'RE AWARE OF THAT
POTENTIALITY, AND BUT IN ITS
CURRENT FORM, WE MUST
RESPECTFULLY REMAIN OPPOSED.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER
ADDITIONAL OPPOSITION? GOOD
AFTERNOON. THIS IS MATT EASLEY
WITH THE CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL
PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION. WE
ARE CURRENTLY OPPOSED TO THE
BILL IN ITS CURRENT FORM.
HOWEVER, I HAVE HAD SOME
DISCUSSIONS WITH THE AUTHOR, AND
SHE'S EXPRESSED HER WILLINGNESS
AND DESIRE TO ADDRESS SOME OF
OUR ISSUES. SO WE'LL HAVE TO SEE
WHERE THAT GOES. MOVING FORWARD.
BUT I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING
WHAT WE CAN DO. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. JUST THE ME TOO. BRIAN
SHERMAN WITH THE RIVERSIDE
SHERIFF'S UP. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. BRIAN SHERMAN WITH THE
RIVERSIDE SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION,
ALSO ON BEHALF OF THE DEPUTY
SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION OF MONTEREY
COUNTY. PLACER COUNTY IN
OPPOSITION, AS CURRENTLY DRAFTED
, AGAIN, WE'VE ALSO SPOKEN WITH
THE AUTHOR, AND WE'RE HOPING
THAT, COUNTIES CAN BE TAKEN OUT
OF THE BILL. THANK YOU. GREAT.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER OPPOSITION?
OKAY, LET'S GO BACK TO THE DÍAS,
SEE IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS FROM
THE COMMITTEE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD, I
THINK I HEARD THAT YOU'LL BE
WORKING WITH OPPOSITION ON SOME
LANGUAGE, RIGHT. YES, WE'LL
CONTINUE TO WORK ON THIS BILL,
AS I ALWAYS DO ON ANY OF MY
LEGISLATION. BUT IN PARTICULAR,
I THINK WE ARE LOOKING TO
CONSIDER REMOVING JAILS FROM THE
BILL, COUNTY JAILS FROM THE
BILL, WHICH WILL NARROW THE
SCOPE TO CDCR. THANK YOU. I JUST
WOULD LIKE TO SAY REAL QUICKLY
THAT, I'M NOT IN A POSITION
CURRENTLY TO SUPPORT IT UNTIL
THAT'S DONE. ONCE THAT'S DONE, I
HAVE A LIKELIHOOD OF CHANGING MY
VOTE ON THE FLOOR. OKAY. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER MISS
REYES? I I DID HAVE A QUESTION.
IN THE ANALYSIS, IT TALKS ABOUT
A NUMBER OF, OF VISITATIONS THAT
ARE RESTRICTED, ONE OF THOSE
PROVIDES THAT WHENEVER A PERSON
IS SENTENCED TO A STATE PRISON
FOR VIOLATING A SPECIFIED SEX
OFFENSE AND THE VICTIM, THE
OFFENSE IS A CHILD UNDER THE AGE
OF 18 YEARS. IT SAYS THE COURT
SHALL PROHIBIT ALL VISITATION
BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE
CHILD VICTIM. THAT STILL STANDS,
CORRECT? YEAH. THIS BILL DOESN'T
IMPACT THAT. YES. THAT'S CORRECT
. THANK YOU. AND THE QUESTIONS
REGARDING THE OPPOSITION THÀNH,
EMERGENCY SITUATIONS, I OTHER
SITUATIONS WHERE SOMETHING HAS
TO BE DONE THAT WOULD NOT BE
COVERED UNDER THE BILL, IS THERE
A MECHANISM SO THAT, THE
REQUIREMENT OF THE BILL CAN BE
OVERRIDDEN? OAN I'M CERTAIN
THAT AS WE HEAD INTO
APPROPRIATIONS, THIS BILL PASSED
OUT OF COMMITTEE, WE CAN ADDRESS
THOSE SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF
NATURAL DISASTER OR EMERGENCY
SITUATIONS THAT WOULD APPLY.
THANK YOU. GREAT. THANK YOU. ANY
OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE
COMMITTEE? WE GOT A MOTION AND A
SECOND. MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL, MISS BOND, YOU
WANT TO CLOSE? THANK YOU SO
MUCH. I WANT TO JUST, HONOR THE
FACT THAT, WE HAD OUR, WITNESSES
COME FROM FAR AND WIDE TO BE
ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS BILL. I
WOULD COMMEND ALL OF THE
COMMITTEE TO SEE A MOVIE MORE
RECENTLY INTRODUCED CALLED
DAUGHTERS. IT TALKED ABOUT IT,
GIRLS LIKE AUBRIANA AND THE TWO
YOUNG WOMEN THAT CAME FORWARD IN
TESTIMONY ABOUT THE COLLATERAL
CONSEQUENCES THAT NOT BEING ABLE
TO VISIT THEIR LOVED ONES AND
HAVE CONTACT VISITS HAS ON NOT
ONLY THE PERSON THAT'S
INCARCERATED, BUT THE FAMILY
MEMBERS, A CHILD LIKE AUBRIANA
WHO GOES FROM, YOU KNOW, 5 TO 18
OR NOT REALLY BEING ABLE TO HAVE
THAT KIND OF CONTINUED CONTACT
IS WHY WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE PASS SOUND LEGISLATION AND
BALANCED LEGISLATION THAT
ENABLES FAMILY CONNECTIONS TO BE
A CRITICAL PART OF THE
REHABILITATE PROCESS FOR PEOPLE
WHO ARE INCARCERATED FOR NOT
ONLY THEMSELVES, BUT THEIR
FAMILY MEMBERS. WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AN AYE VOTE
ON AB 2709 BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER
BONTA. THE MOTION IS DUE PASS TO
THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY ALANIZ. ALANIZ NOT
VOTING. LACKEY LACKEY. NOT
VOTING. WHEN. WHEN I REYES. I'M
SORRY. REYES. I TING TING I
WILSON. ZIBEI FOR A ZIPPER. I
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
OKAY. 17 MINUTES. NEXT. OKAY, SO
HE'S GOING NEXT. SO MEMBER FONG.
ALL RIGHT. YOU READY? I WAIT
TILL YOU SIT DOWN. ITEM NUMBER
FOUR, AB 1978. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. MEMBERS STREET RACING IS
AN EPIDEMIC THAT HAS LED TO THE
PREVENTABLE DEATHS OF COUNTLESS
PEOPLE ACROSS CALIFORNIA,
CALIFORNIA HAS SEEN A SHARP RISE
IN ILLEGAL STREET RACING AS
STREET RACERS TAKE ADVANTAGE OF
HIGHWAYS, PARKING LOTS, ROADS
THROUGH FORCIBLY BLOCKING CARS
FROM USING THE ROADWAYS. ILLEGAL
STREET RACING IS NOT ONLY
DANGEROUS, BUT IT OFTEN HAS
FATAL CONSEQUENCES FOR
PARTICIPANTS. PEDESTRIAN
COMMUTERS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
ALIKE. ON JANUARY FIRST, 2024, A
23 YEAR OLD WOMAN WAS KILLED BY
A DRIVER WHO LOST CONTROL OF THE
VEHICLE WHILE PARTICIPATING IN A
SIDESHOW IN STOCKTON. THIS IS
JUST ONE OF THE COUNTLESS CASES
OF SENSELESS AND PREVENTABLE
DEATHS FROM STREET RACING
ACCIDENTS ACROSS OUR STATE, AND
EVERY SINGLE DAY THERE'S A
HEADLINE AND ARTICLE ABOUT THESE
TRAGEDIES LAW ENFORCEMENT'S
CHALLENGE TO ADDRESS SIDESHOWS
AND EXHIBITIONS OF SPEED IS THAT
OFTENTIMES THESE SIDESHOWS JUST
CONTINUE IN A DIFFERENT
INTERSECTION WITH THE SAME
PARTICIPANTS. AFTER LAW
ENFORCEMENT HAS BROKEN UP. THE
ORIGINAL EVENT IN 2019, AN AB
1407, WHICH REQUIRED VEHICLES TO
BE IMPOUNDED FOR STREET RACING,
PASSED WITH STRONG SUPPORT FROM
MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE. THIS
BILL, AB 1978, WILL ALLOW PEACE
OFFICERS TO SEIZE A VEHICLE THAT
AIDS AND ABETS STREET RACES
WITHOUT TAKING THE OWNER OF THE
VEHICLE INTO CUSTODY. THIS WILL
ENSURE THAT SPEED EXHIBITIONS
WILL NOT CONTINUE IN A DIFFERENT
LOCATION. ONCE A STREET RACE HAS
BEEN DISPERSED BY PEACE OFFICERS
AND WILL KEEP ROADS, PEDESTRIANS
AND OTHER DRIVERS SAFE. THIS
BILL IS SUPPORTED BY MANY GROUPS
AIMING TO PROTECT INNOCENT
BYSTANDERS SUCH AS STREET RACING
KILLS. THE CONTRA LYNCH
FOUNDATION AND SOCAL FAMILIES
FOR STREET SAFE STREETS. JOINING
ME TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF AB
1978 IS ALYSSA SILLY. ON BEHALF
OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AND
CHIEF DARREN GOODMAN FROM THE
SAN BERNARDINO POLICE
DEPARTMENT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE. YOU'RE WELCOME
TO. THANK YOU. ALYSSA SALEHI
HERE TODAY ON BEHALF OF THE CITY
OF BAKERSFIELD, SO THANK YOU FOR
HAVING US, THE CITY OF
BAKERSFIELD HAS SEEN A STEEP
RISE IN RECKLESS DRIVING,
INCLUDING CALLS FOR SERVICE
AROUND THESE, ILLEGAL STREET
RACING EVENTS AND EXHIBITIONS OF
SPEED. AS ILLEGAL STREET RACING
IS INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS AS WE
KNOW IT CAN HAVE FATAL
CONSEQUENCES FOR ANYONE WHO
HAPPENS TO HAVE THE MISFORTUNE
OF BEING IN THE AREA. AND AS
SUCH, THE CITY AND THE
BAKERSFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT
HAVE CONTINUED TO ENGAGE IN NEW
AND INNOVATIVE SPECIAL
ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS TO
ATTEMPT TO DETER THESE
ACTIVITIES. AND IF LAW
ENFORCEMENT IS ABLE TO IMPOUND
THE VEHICLE AND AS THE AUTHOR
SAID, NOT TAKE THE DRIVER. IT IS
AN ADDITIONAL TOOL TO HELP
PREVENT THESE DANGEROUS EVENTS
TO HELP STOP THEM AND NOT ALLOW
THEM TO JUST MERELY MOVE TO
ANOTHER LOCATION. AND SO IN AN
EFFORT TO PROTECT PEDESTRIANS,
COMMUTERS, BYSTANDERS, THE CITY
OF BAKERSFIELD REALLY FEELS THAT
WE NEED TO EXPLORE ALL SOLUTIONS
TO PREVENT SIDESHOWS FROM
SPREADING OR STARTING IN THE
FIRST PLACE, AND URGES FOR YOUR
EVO. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, AND
MEMBERS, I'M POLICE CHIEF DARREN
GOODMAN FROM THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO, REPRESENTING THE SAN
BERNARDINO POLICE DEPARTMENT,
ITS LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. I'M
ALSO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY POLICE CHIEFS
AND SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION, WHICH
REPRESENTS 2.1 MILLION RESIDENTS
THROUGHOUT SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
. OUR CITY HAS ALSO EXPERIENCED
A STEEP INCREASE IN STREET
RACING, AND THESE SO-CALLED
SIDESHOWS, THIS RECKLESS AND
DANGEROUS ACTIVITY AND DANGERS,
THE LIVES OF OUR COMMUNITY
MEMBERS. IT IMPACTS OUR
BUSINESSES. IT IMPACTS THE
INGRESS AND EGRESS OF COMMUTERS
THAT ARE TRAVELING THROUGHOUT
OUR ROADWAYS. THE SAN BERNARDINO
POLICE DEPARTMENT CONTINUES TO
ENGAGE IN DIFFERENT WAYS TO STOP
THESE DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES. WE
DO ACTIVE ENFORCEMENT, BUT WE
ATTEMPT TO CATCH THOSE INVOLVED
IMPOUND VEHICLES. WE DO
SURVEILLANCE BEFORE AND AFTER
THESE EVENTS TO TRY TO FIND OUT
WHERE THEY MAY POP UP NEXT.
HOWEVER, IN THE PAST FEW MONTHS,
WE'VE STILL HAD INCREASE IN
THESE ACTIVITIES AND THEY BECOME
MORE DANGEROUS. LAW ENFORCEMENT
NEEDS THESE TOOLS WE NEED TOOLS
LIKE AB 1978 BECAUSE IT WILL
HELP US GET RID OF THESE
SIDESHOWS BY HOLDING PEOPLE MORE
ACCOUNTABLE AND TAKING THEIR
VEHICLES AWAY WITHOUT US HAVING
TO RESORT TO ARREST. I KNOW THIS
IS IMPORTANT TO OUR CITY. IT'S
IMPORTANT TO CITIES THROUGHOUT
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS
THERE'S BEEN DEATHS THROUGHOUT
THE STATE ASSOCIATED WITH THESE
EVENTS. AND RIGHT NOW, WITHOUT
HAVING THIS TOOL, WE HAVE TO
RESORT TO GETTING CONVICTIONS IN
ORDER TO HAVE VEHICLES TAKEN
AWAY AND HOLD PEOPLE
ACCOUNTABLE. SO I ENCOURAGE THE
COMMITTEE TO SUPPORT THIS BILL.
I THINK THAT IT WILL GIVE US A
TOOL THAT WOULD GO A LONG WAY IN
KEEPING OUR COMMUNITY SAFE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK
YOU. ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT?
YEP. CHAIR MEMBERS JONATHAN
FELDMAN, CALIFORNIA POLICE
CHIEFS ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. DIÆN LOZOVSKY SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT IN SUPPORT CARILLO ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT
CLIFTON WILSON ON BEHALF OF THE
SPECIALTY EQUIPMENT MARKET
ASSOCIATION, IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT? ALL
RIGHT, OPPOSITION, PLEASE COME
TO THE TABLE. YOU COULD STAY
THERE. YOU CAN GO BACK UP. OKAY.
GOOD AFTERNOON. YEAH. FIVE
MINUTES. OH THANK YOU, DANICA
ADAMO, ON BEHALF OF LAWYERS
COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA.
HELLO, APPRECIATE THAT. THE BILL
SEEKS TO NOT ARREST PEOPLE THAT
ARE PRESENT AT SIDESHOWS OR
RACES. THE PROBLEM IS TWOFOLD,
REALLY. ONE, THE BILL IS VERY
CLEARLY UNCONSTITU AND WILL
ABSOLUTELY LEAD TO LITIGATION
AND IMMENSE COSTS AS A RESULT.
AND SECONDLY, AGAIN, WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO ARE
PRESENT AT A SIDESHOW, NOT
PEOPLE WHO ARE DRIVING AT A
SIDESHOW. AND THE CAR CAN BE
TAKEN SIMPLY BECAUSE SOMEBODY IS
PRESENT. THE FIRST THING THAT
CAME TO MIND WHEN I READ THIS
BILL WERE MANY PEOPLE THAT WE
REPRESENT, THE LAWYERS COMMITTEE
FOR CIVIL RIGHTS, WHERE I USED
TO WORK, HAVE HAD THEIR CARS
TOWED BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD
TO PAY PARKING TICKETS OR FOR
OTHER REASONS. AND THEN THEIR
LIVES COMPLETELY FALL APART. AND
I CAN IMAGINE A YOUTH WHO IS
USING THEIR PARENTS CAR PRESENT
AT ONE OF THESE EVENTS. THE CAR
IS THEN TOWED. THE FAMILY CANNOT
AFFORD TO GET IT OUT. THE MOTHER
CAN NO LONGER GO TO WORK. THEY
LOSE THEIR HOUSING, BECOME
HOMELESS. RIGHT? JUST THE CYCLE
THAT WE SEE THAT HAPPENS WHEN
PEOPLE LOSE THEIR VEHICLES, SO I
THINK THE AGAIN, I APPRECIATE
THAT THE BILL DOESN'T SEEK TO
ARREST PEOPLE PRESENT AT
SIDESHOWS AND IS TRYING TO FIND
OTHER SOLUTIONS TO AN ADMITTEDLY
A COMPLICATED ISSUE TO TRY TO
SOLVE. PERHAPS CREATING MORE
SPACES FOR PEOPLE TO LEGALLY
ENGAGE IN STREET RACING OR CAR
SHOWS, I GUESS THAT WOULD BE AN
ISSUE FOR ASSEMBLY MEMBER
WILSON'S COMMITTEE TO FIGURE
OUT. PROBABLY. BUT, AS IT'S
CURRENTLY DRAFTED, BECAUSE IT IS
VERY BROAD AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL,
WE URGE A NO VOTE. THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE IN OPPOSITION?
PLEASE COME UP. GIVE YOUR NAME.
SOMALIA ROGERS. ELLA BAKER
CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IN
OPPOSITION Dð CðC ON BEHALF OF
ACLU CALIFORNIA ACTION
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. PHILIPPE
KELLY ELLA BAKER, CENTER, IN
OPPOSITION. TATIANA LEWIS,
ORGANIZER WITH THE ELLA BAKER
CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND
STRONG OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE IN OPPOSITION? OKAY.
COMMITTEE, MR. LACKEY? YEAH. I
HAVE VERY STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT
THIS PARTICULAR BILL BECAUSE
I'VE ACTUALLY BEEN AT THE SCENE
OF A TRAGEDY WHERE THERE WAS A
SPEED CONTEST THAT ENDED IN THE
NEEDLESS LOSS OF LIFE. AND, THAT
IMPACTS YOU. YOU DON'T FORGET
THAT STUFF. AND I CAN TELL YOU
THAT, I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS
A COURSE OF ACTION WITHOUT A
TRIAL, BUT THIS IS HOW WE GET
GOOD CASE LAW. SOMETIMES IT
NEEDS TO GO TO OUR COURT SYSTEM
AND BE EVALUATED AND HEARD AND
LISTENED TO. BECAUSE I CAN TELL
YOU THAT, THERE CERTAINLY IS A
PREVENTION TOOL TO KEEP THEM
FROM REPEATING. SECONDLY, THOSE
CARS MEAN MORE TO THEM THAN
THEIR FREEDOM, I PROMISE YOU
THAT. SO IT WILL HAVE A MESSAGE
SENDING IMPACT THAT I THINK IS
VERY, VERY POWERFUL. AND, I, I
EVEN THINK IT SERVES AS A
PREVENTIVE MEASURE. BUT PEOPLE
KNOW THAT THEY MIGHT LOSE THEIR
CAR. THEY MAY BE LESS LIKELY TO
ENGAGE IN THE SPEED CONTEST. SO
I THINK THAT THIS IS WELCOMED
AND I APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR'S
INTENT FOR BRINGING IT FORWARD.
THANK YOU. LET ME ALSO JUST ADD
THAT THE BILL IS VERY NARROWLY
FOCUSED ON AIDING AND ABETTING,
WHICH IS DEFINED, WHICH REQUIRES
FOR A VEHICLE TO BE BLOCKING A
ROADWAY OR OBSTRUCTING TRAFFIC
IN PARTICIPATING IN A SIDESHOW.
SHOULD WE TAKE OVER? THIS BILL
DOES NOT ALLOW FOR ANYONE TO BE
TOWING ANY VEHICLE IN THE AREA
JUST BECAUSE IT'S IN THE AREA,
AND WE'RE HAPPY TO CLARIFY THAT
AND TRANSPORTATION IN IN THE
NEXT COMMITTEE, TRANSPORTATION
COMMITTEE. SO THIS IS VERY
NARROWLY FOCUSED AND LET ME JUST
ALSO ADD THAT EXISTING LAW DOES
ALLOW FOR PEACE OFFICERS TO DO
IMPOUNDMENTS WHERE A VEHICLE IS
UNATTENDED ON A BRIDGE WHEN
THEY'RE BLOCKING A VIADUCT OR
CAUSEWAY OR TUNNEL, THERE IS
OTHER THERE ARE THERE ARE
EXAMPLES ALREADY IN EXISTING LAW
THAT ALLOWS FOR THIS TO OCCUR.
WE'RE APPLYING THAT EXISTING
AUTHORITY TO SAY THAT IF SOMEONE
WERE TO BLOCK MULTIPLE
INTERSECTIONS TO ALLOW A STREET
TO TAKE OVER, TO TAKE PLACE, OR
TO BLOCK, INTERSECTIONS OR
FREEWAYS OR BRIDGES TO PREVENT
LAW ENFORCEMENT FROM RESPONDING,
THAT IS CLEARLY AIDING AND
ABETTING A STREET RACE OR A
STREET TAKEOVER. AND THAT'S WHAT
WE'RE TRYING TO, TO FOCUS ON IS
THOSE CARS, NOT EVERY CAR IN AN
AREA, BUT THOSE CARS
SPECIFICALLY WHAT LAW
ENFORCEMENT HAS IDENTIFIED AS
BLOCKING AN INTERSECTION OR A
ROAD OR A FREEWAY OR HIGHWAY.
IMAGINE A CAR BLOCKING THE 405.
SO ALLOW A STREET RACE TO TAKE
OVER THAT. I THINK IF YOU ARE
AIDING AND ABETTING IN THAT
SITUATION OR THE BAY BRIDGE,
THAT THAT SHOULD BE THERE SHOULD
BE AN IMPOUNDMENT TOWING
SITUATION. THANK YOU, MR. ZUBER.
SO THE WAY I READ IT, IT THE
AIDING AND ABETTING AS YOU'VE
DESCRIBED, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE
IT'S THAT NARROW, IT LOOKS TO ME
LIKE YOU CAN IN TOW THE CAR IF
YOU BELIEVE SOMEONE WAS AIDING
AND ABETTING, WHICH COULD BE, I
THINK, CHEERING ON. IT COULD BE.
IT DOESN'T. THE WAY I'M LOOKING
AT YOUR BILL, IT DOESN'T REQUIRE
THAT. IT'S ONLY BE THINGS THAT
YOU CAN NORMALLY TOW AND IMPOUND
A CAR FOR, LIKE, YOU KNOW,
PARKING IN A TOW ZONE OR PARKING
IN AN EMERGENCY ZONE. I MEAN,
THOSE ARE THINGS THAT I THINK
ARE COMMON IN LAW WHERE, YOU
KNOW THAT THE PRESENCE OF THE
VEHICLE ITSELF IS THE EVIDENCE
OF THE VIOLATION. THIS SEEMS
LIKE IT'S MUCH BROADER THAN
THAT, AND ALLOWS A POLICE
OFFICER TO BASICALLY TOW A CAR
THAT MAY JUST BE PARKED IN THE
VICINITY, IF YOU BELIEVE OR
SOMEONE ASSERTS THAT THE PERSON
WAS AIDING AND ABETTING IN THE
STREET RACING. AND SO WHEN YOU
SEPARATE THE TOWING OF THE CAR
FROM THE FACT THAT YOU DON'T
EVEN HAVE TO IDENTIFY THE PERSON
ANYMORE AND YOU DON'T, YOU KNOW
THAT THE PERSON THAT IS
PARTICIPATING IN THE AIDING AND
ABETTING IS LIKE THOSE ARE
SEPARATE MATTERS. I THINK IT
LEADS TO ME TO BE CONCERNED
ABOUT THE THINGS THAT I THINK
THE OPPONENTS ARE RAISING, WHICH
IS THIS. THIS IS A VERY BLUNT
TOOL WITH VERY FEW GUARDRAILS
AROUND IT THAT COULD HAVE A
HORRIBLE IMPACT ON THE LIVES OF
PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY LOW INCOME
PEOPLE WHO RELY ON A CAR. THEY
MAY HAVE A KID WHO MAY BE OUT
WATCHING ONE OF THESE RACES, THE
CARS IN THE AREA. THE CAR GETS
IMPOUNDED AND IS CONFISCATED.
AND WHAT ARE WHAT ARE THE I
GUESS, ONE OF THE WHAT IS THE
METHOD FOR GETTING THE CAR BACK?
SO THE TÂM AIDING, ABETTING A
DEFERRED TO MY LAW ENFORCEMENT
COLLEAGUES HERE IS VERY SPECIFIC
. THERE'S A LEGAL DEFINITION TO
AIDING AND ABETTING. IT'S NOT
JUST BEING PARKED AT A GAS
STATION NEXT TO A STREET RACE.
IT'S ACTUALLY PARTICIPATED IN,
IN A IN A SUBSTANTIAL WAY, SO I
THINK AND WE'RE HAPPY TO
CLARIFY, I'VE TALKED TO OTHER
MEMBERS AND I'M HAPPY TO, TO
WORK WITH YOU TO NARROW THAT OR
PUT GUARDRAILS TO CLARIFY WHAT
AIDING AND ABETTING IS. BUT
AIDING AND ABETTING HAS A
SPECIFIC DEFINITION IN THE LEGAL
IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION. YES, IF
I MAY, FOR IT TO BE AIDING AND
ABETTING THE ACTIVITY HAS TO BE
ILLEGAL IN THE FIRST PLACE.
WHICH STREET RACING IS? SO LET'S
START WITH THAT PREMISE. THERE'S
NOTHING LEGAL ABOUT WHAT'S GOING
ON. SO THOSE PEOPLE WHO WOULD
SHOW UP TO AN ILLEGAL EVENT
INVOLVE THEMSELVES BY FURTHER
ING THAT EVENT THROUGH BLOCKING
TRAFFIC AND IMPEDING THE INGRESS
AND EGRESS OF OTHERS WHO ARE
JUST TRYING TO GET TO WORK OR
TRYING TO GET HOME. AND THEY'VE
TAKEN OVER AN INTERSECTION.
THOSE PEOPLE ARE ACTIVE
PARTICIPANT IN A CRIME. SO THE
POINTS YOU'RE MAKING ARE WELL
UNDERSTOOD. YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO
INTENT TO IMPACT LIVES OF THOSE
WHO ARE, YOU KNOW, UNDERSERVED
OR UNDERPRIVILEGED. HOWEVER,
THERE'S A DISTINCT DECISION
THAT'S BEEN MADE IN THE DECISION
THAT THEY'VE MADE IS TO COMMIT A
CRIME. AND I THINK THAT THERE
HAS TO BE ACCOUNTABILITY BECAUSE
OF THE LIVES THAT THEY'RE
IMPACTING, THE SAFETY THAT
THEY'RE JEOPARDIZING, AND THE
IMPACT THAT IS HAVING TO ALL OF
OUR COMMUNITIES IS AIDING AND
ABETTING A GROUP OF PEOPLE
STANDING ON THE SIDELINES OF THE
RACE WITH THEIR CAR IN THE
VICINITY, CHEERING IT ON. IS
THAT NOT AIDING AND ABETTING?
THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE AN
INDICATION THAT THEY ARE
BLOCKING TRAFFIC, THAT THEY'RE
THEY'RE IN SOME WAY, SHAPE OR
FORM AIDING THE EVENT FROM
TAKING OR TO TAKE PLACE. NOT
SIMPLY BEING A SPECTATOR. SO I,
PENAL CODE 31 IS THE CALIFORNIA
STATUTE THAT THAT THAT ADDRESSES
AIDING AND ABETTING. IS THAT
CORRECT? AND I THINK WHAT THAT
IS SAYS IS THAT AIDING AND
ABETTING IS ENCOURAGING,
FACILITATING OR AIDING IN THE
COMMISSION OF THE CRIMINAL ACT.
SO WOULD SOMEONE ISN'T SOMEONE
CHEERING ON THE SIDELINE
ENCOURAGING IT? AND THEY'RE
HAVING THEIR CAR PARKED NEARBY.
SO ANYONE THAT'S LIKE NOT SO A
GROUP OF KIDS SIMPLY CHEERING IT
ON? WELL IT'S ENCOURAGING. YOU
SAID THAT'S A LEGAL DEFINITION,
ENCOURAGING BY BY MEANS OF LIKE
GO, GO, GO. ISN'T THAT
ENCOURAGING? WELL, I IF YOU IF
YOU'RE BLOCKING TRAFFIC, IF
YOU'RE ALLOWING THE EVENT TO
TAKE PLACE BY PREVENTING
EMERGENCY RESPONDERS FROM
ARRIVING, BY PREVENTING OTHER
PEOPLE FROM BEING ABLE TO GO
ABOUT THEIR WAY, THAT'S THAT'S
THE ENCOURAGING OF THE EVENT
THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. AND I
BELIEVE THAT THAT'S WHAT THE
PENAL CODE IS, IS DESCRIBING.
AND IF WE NEED TO I MEAN, IF WE
NEED TO SPECIFY THAT, THEN WE'RE
HAPPY TO DO THAT. IT'S GOING TO
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE. AND SO
WE'RE HAPPY TO ADD AMENDMENTS AT
THAT POINT, THIS IS FOR OUR
FOCUS OF THE BILL IS CERTAINLY
NOT TO ENCOMPASS EVERYBODY OR
ANY VEHICLE IN THE AREA. IT IS
SPECIFICALLY FOR THOSE VEHICLES
WHO ARE BLOCKING A ROADWAY OR
OBSTRUCTING TRAFFIC, EITHER TO
PREVENT FROM SOMEONE FROM
LEAVING OR ENTERING THE AREA, OR
TO PREVENT LAW ENFORCEMENT FROM
ENTERING THE FACILITY TO
DISPERSE, THE IF YOU TALK TO
MANY OF THE CITY COUNCILS AND
THE BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS ACROSS
THE STATE, WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT
OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT RESOURCES
ARE VERY ARE VERY SPREAD THIN.
SO FOR THEM TO HAVE TO, TO
IMPOUND OR TOW A VEHICLE, THEY
HAVE TO ARREST THAT INDIVIDUAL.
AND THIS SITUATION, WE'RE TRYING
TO FIND THAT BALANCE. SAY, LOOK,
WE'LL TAKE THE VEHICLE SO THAT
THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO TO THE
NEXT INTERSECTION AND DO
SOMETHING AGAIN. BUT YOU DON'T,
THOUGH, RIGHT? I MEAN, YOU CAN
TOW A CAR. I'VE HAD MY CAR TOWED
BECAUSE HOPEFULLY NOT FOR
PARTICIPATING IN SIDESHOW, NOT
FOR PARTICIPATING A SIDESHOW. I
IT'S NOT MY IT'S NOT MY GIG, BUT
, BUT I'VE HAD MY CAR TOWED
WHERE, YOU KNOW, I WAS IN A, IN
A PARKING AREA AND I WENT PAST
THE TIME PERIOD AND I DIDN'T
REALIZE THE TIME PERIOD, AND IT
WAS TOWED. YOU KNOW, I THINK
THAT'S A DIFFERENT SITUATION.
AND I ALSO THINK IT IS A
DIFFERENT SITUATION IF YOU ARE
ACTUALLY IN LANES BLOCKING
TRAFFIC WITH A WITH A CAR
SIDEWAYS AND ENCOURAGING OR
AIDING AND ABETTING IN THAT WAY.
BUT WHEN I LOOK AT YOUR
LANGUAGE, THAT'S NOT WHAT IT
SAYS. IT SAYS AIDING AND
ABETTING, WHICH HAS THIS BROADER
LEGAL DEFINITION. AND I THINK
THAT THERE'S A LOT THAT FALLS
WITHIN THAT THAT IS NOT JUST
BLOCKING THE TRAFFIC. AND WE'RE
HAPPY TO, PUT IN THAT
SPECIFICATION. AND I THINK WHAT
YOU JUST OUTLINED IS ACTUALLY A
ONE OF THE EXAMPLES THAT
ADDRESSES THE CONSTITUTIONALITY
ARGUMENT IN THE, IN THE, IN THE
ANALYSIS, WHICH IS THAT OR UNDER
EXISTING LAW, THERE ARE
AUTHORITIES THAT ARE ALLOWED TO
TOW WITHOUT ABOUT, A WARRANT.
YEAH. BUT I THINK THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE IS
BASICALLY WHEN YOU SEVER THE
PERSON FROM THE, THE
CONFISCATION OF THE VEHICLE AND
THE AND THE VEHICLE'S PRESENCE
IN AND OF ITSELF IS NOT IS NOT,
EVIDENCE OF A VIOLATION OF THE
LAW. SURE. I MEAN, THOSE ARE
SEPARATE THINGS. AND I THINK
THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT YOU'RE
CONFISCATING PROPERTY THAT IN
AND OF ITSELF, YOU KNOW, TAKING
ASIDE WHERE THE VEHICLE IS
BLOCKING THE TRAFFIC, BLOCKING
THE BRIDGE OR THAT SITUATION,
BUT A VEHICLE BEING IN THE
VICINITY OF SOMEONE WHO'S
ENCOURAGING THE ACTIVITY, THAT
IS SOMETHING I THINK DOES HAVE
SIGNIFICANT CONSTITUTIONAL. AND
I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GOING
. I THINK WE'RE I THINK WE'RE
WE'RE KIND OF IN THE SAME PLACE.
BUT THAT'S WHERE THE 80
EMBEDDING DEFINITION IS VERY
IMPORTANT, WHICH IS WE'RE NOT
LOOKING AT EVERYBODY WHO'S IN
THE VICINITY JUST BECAUSE
THEY'RE IN THE VICINITY. IT'S
ACTUALLY THE ACTIVE
PARTICIPATION IN IN ALLOWING A
STREET TAKEOVER OR A SIDESHOW TO
, TO OCCUR AND, AND HAPPY TO, TO
WORK WITH YOU IN, IN THE
COMMITTEE TO FINE TUNE THAT. BUT
I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING
TO FOCUS ON. IT'S NOT EVERYBODY
JUST WILLY NILLY IN AN AREA.
IT'S ACTUALLY THOSE
PARTICIPATING AND PREVENTING
RESPONSE. AND FROM LAW
ENFORCEMENT PEACE OFFICERS. I
GUESS I'LL STOP NOW. BUT THE
AIDING AND ABETTING LANGUAGE IS
VERY, VERY, VERY BROAD AND
INCLUDES THIS LANGUAGE.
ENCOURAGING AND ENCOURAGING IS A
LOT, A LOT OF A LOT FALLS WITHIN
THAT. SO YOU KNOW, IT BASICALLY
THAT THAT AIDING AND ABETTING
LANGUAGE, THOSE TWO PRONGS
THERE, THAT'S WHAT MAKES ME VERY
THERE'S ACTUALLY THREE PRONGS I
SEE THE THIRD. THE THIRD ONE
ACTUALLY ADDRESSES EXACTLY WHAT
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH THE
POINT YOU GUYS ARE MAKING. THE
THIRD ONE ACTUALLY SAYS
OBSTRUCTING OR PLACING A
BARRICADE UPON A HIGHWAY OR OFF
STREET PARKING FACILITY. THAT'S
THE PART WHERE THEY GET TO DO
THAT. SO IT'S NOT SOMEBODY WHO'S
PARKED SOMEWHERE SAFELY,
CORRECTLY, LEGALLY. IT'S THE
PERSON WHO'S ACTUALLY USING THE
VEHICLE FOR A BARRICADE OR
OBSTRUCTING. THAT'S THAT'S THE
THIRD PILLAR OF THIS. BUT YOU
CAN DO ANY ONE OF THOSE THREE.
NO, IT'S THERE'S AND ON THAT, ON
B LOOK AT B, IT SAYS AND. YEAH.
IT'S EITHER RIGHT. IF YOU LOOK
AT B IT'S AIDING OR ABETTING IN
AN EXHIBITION OF SPEED AND C
OBSTRUCTING ALLOWS A POLICE
OFFICER TO DO IT. IF THEY'RE
THIS, IF THEY'RE DOING THIS AND
IF THEY'RE DOING THIS. SO I
DON'T KNOW. DID YOU WANT TO.
YES. I GOT TO GO BACK TO THE
BILL. CAN I POINT OUT ONE THING
WHICH IS IN SUBSECTION THREE OF
THE ANALYSIS MAKES VERY CLEAR
THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
ALREADY HAVE THE CLEAR AUTHORITY
TO DO THAT VERY THING. IF CARS
ARE BLOCKING A STREET OR
ENGAGING IN AN ILLEGAL ACTIVITY,
THEY CAN TAKE THAT CAR UNDER THE
VEHICULAR COMMUNITY CARETAKING
DOCTRINE. SO I WOULD DIRECT
FOLKS TO THAT SECTION IF THAT IS
THE INTENT OF THIS BILL. THAT IS
ALREADY THE LAW, AND I'M NOT
SURE THAT THE BILL IS NEEDED.
ANYTHING ELSE? MR. THE BILL. MR.
REYES, YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? YES.
SECOND, FROM MR. LACKEY. FIRST,
I WANT TO PERSONAL POINT A
PRIVILEGE. I'D LIKE TO WELCOME
CHIEF GOODMAN HERE TO OUR,
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE, CHIEF
OF SAN BERNARDINO CITY, ONE OF
THE CITIES THAT I REPRESENT, A
PORTION OF IT. I REPRESENT, SOME
OF THE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ASKED
. I IT THE QUESTION THE FIRST
ONE THAT CAME TO ME WAS THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY WAS SEIZURE
WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. AND I THINK
THAT WILL BE AN ISSUE MOVING
FORWARD. NO MATTER WHAT IT WILL
IT WILL BE TRIED. AND PERHAPS,
AS MY COLLEAGUE HAS SAID, MAYBE
THAT IS WHAT IS NEEDED. BUT I
DON'T THINK THERE'S A QUESTION
THAT THERE IS AN ISSUE REGARDING
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY, DOES IT
IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT
EXISTING LAW ALREADY PUNISHES
THOSE WHO AID AND ABET SPEED
CONTEST AND EXHIBITIONS OF
SPEED. IS THAT CORRECT? THERE
ARE. YOU CAN'T ARREST SOMEBODY
FOR AIDING AND ABETTING. YES.
RIGHT NOW, FOR PARTICIPATING.
FOR PARTICIPATING DIRECTLY INTO
NØ, FOR AIDING AND ABETTING
VEHICLE CODES, FOR 40,000 POINT
C BCD D EXISTING LAW ALREADY
ALSO PUNISHES THOSE WHO AID IN
THE BED SPEED CONTEST AND
EXHIBITIONS OF SPEED. IS THAT
THAT BETTER YET? WELL, IF YOU'RE
READING IT. YES THAT'S WHAT. ALL
RIGHT SO THEN MY QUESTION IS, IF
YOU ARREST SOMEBODY FOR AIDING
AND ABETTING AT THAT MOMENT, YOU
CAN IMPOUND THEIR CAR. ALSO, I
WOULD ASSUME. NO, IT WELL, IT
WOULD DEPEND. AND THE TAKING OF
A VEHICLE FOR AN ARREST, WOULD
ONLY BE APPLICABLE IF THE
VEHICLE IS BEING TAKEN BECAUSE
IT'S BEING STORED, AND THERE'S
NO OTHER PERSON THAT CAN TAKE
THAT VEHICLE, FOR THE INDIVIDUAL
BEING ARRESTED OR THE PERSON HAS
A LICENSE THAT'S EXPIRED FOR
MORE THAN SIX MONTHS OR
REGISTRATION. I'M SORRY. THAT'S
THAT'S EXPIRED FOR MORE THAN SIX
MONTHS, HOWEVER, THE POINT I
WANT TO MAKE IS THAT WHEN WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT THE CHANGES IN
THIS BILL, IT'S EXPRESSLY
ALLOWING FOR THE VEHICLE TO BE
TOWED FOR SIX MONTHS, WHICH IS
TO DISCOURAGE THIS BEHAVIOR. SO
THIS ISN'T A REGULAR TOW OR AN
IMPOUND FOR A MINOR VEHICLE
INFRACTION, THIS IS THIS IS TO
SEND A MESSAGE THAT THIS IS A
DANGEROUS ACTIVITY. THIS IS AN
ACTIVITY. THAT'S THAT NEEDS TO
BE DISCOURAGED FROM ALL OF OUR
COMMUNITIES AND TO STOP THIS
ILLEGAL ACTIVITY BY MAKING A
CONSEQUENCE, THE LOSS OF A
VEHICLE FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD
OF TIME. THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.
AND MY COLLEAGUE MADE A COMMENT,
THIS IS THOSE CARS MEAN MORE TO
THEM THAN THEIR FREEDOM. AND IF
IT IS THEIR OWN CAR THAT THEY
PURCHASED WITH THEIR OWN MONEY
AND THEY'VE BEEN WORKING ON IT
AND FIXING IT UP, PERHAPS THAT'S
TRUE. BUT IF IT'S HER PARENT'S
CAR, I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT
THAT. AND WHAT? THAT WAS ONE OF
THE COMMENTS THAT WAS MADE. THEY
THEY LOSE THE CAR AND WHEN THEY
LOSE THE CAR, THE PARENTS NOW
DON'T HAVE TRANSPORTATION TO GET
TO WORK, THE PARENTS MAY OR MAY
NOT KNOW THAT THE CHILD TOOK THE
VEHICLE. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE
TAKING OF THAT VEHICLE UNDER
THAT CIRCUMSTANCE AS WELL. MAY I
JUST JUST SAY THAT THE WHAT THE
WHAT THE CHIEF SAID AT THE VERY
OUTSET IS ALSO IMPORTANT, WHICH
IS THEY ARE ENGAGING IN AN
ILLEGAL ACTIVITY THAT MEAN
STREET RACING AND SIDESHOWS AND
STREET TAKEOVERS ARE THEY'RE NOT
PROMISED, THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED.
AND SO IF SOMEONE WAS ENGAGING
IN ILLEGAL ACTIVITY, WHETHER IT
WAS THEIR CAR OR SOMEONE ELSE'S
CAR, I MEAN, THERE HAS TO BE
SOME CONSEQUENCE TO THAT. BUT
BUT WHAT I JUST READ IS THAT
THERE CAN BE CONSEQUENCE. THEY
CAN BE ARRESTED FOR THAT. SO
THAT WOULD BE THE CONSEQUENCE
FOR THAT INDIVIDUAL. AIDING AND
ABETTING THE LAW ALREADY
PROVIDES TO FOR THE OPPORTUNITY
TO ARREST THAT PERSON, FOR
AIDING AND ABETTING. I KNOW IT'S
A SERIOUS PROBLEM IN SAN
BERNARDINO. IT IS AN ISSUE THAT
NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. AND I
RECOGNIZE THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO
BE CREATIVE IN A WAY THAT THAT'S
MORE THAN WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN
DONE TO TRY TO STOP THAT AND TO
SAVE LIVES. I RECOGNIZE THAT,
BUT TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE
BEST WAY TO DO THIS WITHOUT
WITHOUT TAKING SOMEBODY'S
PROPERTY AND WHETHER IT'S
BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHO THE
OWNER IS, WE DON'T KNOW IF IT'S
A PARENT'S OR BORROWED CAR OR
WHAT HAVE YOU, THE OTHER IS THAT
WHAT WE'RE DOING IS THAT WE'RE
IMPOUNDING A PERSON'S VEHICLE
FOR AIDING AND ABETTING IN THIS
SPEED CONTEST OR EXHIBITION OF
SPEED WITHOUT BOOKING THE PERSON
FIRST. SO YOU'RE NOT BOOKING
THEM INTO CUSTODY, BUT YOU'RE
TAKING THEIR VEHICLE THAT YOU'RE
IMPOUNDING THE VEHICLE FOR AN
EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME. YOU CAN
ALREADY BOOK THEM, AND THAT IS
GOING TO BE A PUNISHMENT FOR
AIDING AND ABETTING. AND OF
COURSE, THAT HAS TO BE YOU HAVE
TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF
THAT. SO IF THE LAW ALREADY
PROVIDES FOR AN ARREST OF
SOMEONE WHO IS AIDING AND
ABETTING IN A SPEED CONTEST OR
AN EXHIBITION OF SPEED, AND IF
THEY ARE ARRESTED, ONE OF THE
CONSEQUENCES OF THAT ARREST CAN
ALSO MEAN THE IMPOUNDING OF THE
CAR. IF NOBODY ELSE CAN DRIVE
IT, WHY DO WE NEED TO IMPOUND
THE CAR WITHOUT EVEN TAKING THAT
PERSON INTO CUSTODY? WELL,
THERE'S SEVERAL ANSWERS TO THAT
QUESTION. ONE IS WHEN WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT AN ARREST FOR A
VEHICLE CODE VIOLATION, IT WOULD
BE A CITATION IN MOST CASES. SO
THE PERSON WOULD BE CITE
RELEASED, UNLESS UNLESS THERE'S
A FELONY INVOLVED IN AT THIS
CURRENT STATE, THERE'S NOT VERY
MANY THINGS THAT WILL RESULT IN,
IN INCARCERATION BEYOND A
CITATION. SO THE POINT OF THE
BILL IS TO DISCOURAGE STREET
RACING. IF THE PERSON IS CITED
AND RELEASED AND THEIR VEHICLE
REMAINS IN THEIR POSSESSION,
THEY JUST GO TO THE NEXT
INTERSECTION OR TO THE NEXT CITY
AND DO THIS AGAIN THE NEXT NIGHT
AND THE NEXT NIGHT. AND THAT'S
WHAT WE'RE SEEING, I THINK. I
THINK WE'RE LOSING SIGHT OF THE
POINT. THE POINT IS TO
DISCOURAGE THIS ACTIVITY AND IF
PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO KEEP THEIR
VEHICLES AND GO TO THE NEXT
INTERSECTION AND DO THIS AGAIN,
THEN ALL THE CITATIONS THAT WE
ISSUE AND WE ISSUE A LOT, WE
ISSUE A LOT WHEN WE GO OUT THERE
AND BREAK THESE UP, IT IS NOT
GOING TO STOP THIS ACTIVITY IN
OUR STREETS AND OUR COMMUNITIES
WILL NOT BE SAFER. SO OFTENTIMES
WE TALK ABOUT, AN ESCALATION OF
FIRST OFFENSE. NOT A PROBLEM.
SECOND OFFENSE. ALL RIGHT. THIS
IS WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.
THIRD, NOW WE IMPOUND YOUR CAR.
BUT HERE WE'RE SAYING YOU'RE
AIDING, ABETTING AND AIDING AND
ABETTING. YOU'RE NOT EVEN GOING
TO GET A CITE CITATION FOR THAT.
YOU'RE SIMPLY GOING TO HAVE YOUR
CAR IMPOUNDED. THERE'S IT'S,
THAT IS WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED
HERE. IS THAT MY READING OF IT?
I ACTUALLY SEE THAT AS A
PERMISSION. I WOULD RATHER THEM
NOT GET A CITATION AND HAVE
THEIR CAR. YEAH, I THINK THAT'S
WHAT WE'RE I THINK THAT'S WHAT
WE'RE TRYING TO SAY IS THAT, I
MEAN, YOU'RE SAYING THAT WE HAVE
I MEAN, AS I GUESS IF THE
POSITION YOU'RE TRYING TO TAKE
IS THAT WE HAVE TO ARREST THEM
AND THEN AND THEN ONCE WE ARREST
THEM, WE CAN TAKE THEIR CAR AWAY
VERSUS MAYBE WE DON'T ARREST
THEM, AND MAYBE WE JUST TAKE
THEIR CAR AWAY, THAT'S WHAT
WE'RE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING
TO SAY. I MEAN, IF THE POSITION
OF THIS PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
IS THAT WE HAVE TO ARREST THEM,
THEN I'M HAPPY TO ADD THAT
AMENDMENT INTO THIS BILL. BUT
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN
DO. RIGHT. BUT BUT THE QUESTION
IS WE'RE TRYING TO REVERSE IT.
WE'RE TRYING TO REVERSE IT. I'M
SORRY. IT'S AT THE DISCRETION OF
THE OF THE OFFICER. IT ISN'T
THAT SOMEBODY SAYS THAT YOU
CANNOT BOOK THEM. THE ARRESTING
OFFICER, AT THEIR DISCRETION,
CAN EITHER BOOK THEM OR NOT BOOK
THEM. IS THAT CORRECT? FOR
AIDING AND ABETTING AS AS A
CRIME? IT'S A MISDEMEANOR. BUT
YES, IT'S BEING A MISDEMEANOR.
IT'S A CITATION. IT'S A IT'S ONE
OF THOSE THINGS WHERE IN OUR
COUNTY JAILS, BECAUSE OF
CAPACITY AND BECAUSE OF THE
PRIORITY FOR, FOR FELONY,
CRIMINALS, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF
APPETITE OR THE ABILITY TO HOLD
MISDEMEANOR ARREST FOR VERY
LONG. SO THEY ARE SITE RELEASED
IN THE ANALYSIS, IT TALKS ABOUT
THE FACT THAT WE ARE PUNISHING A
PERSON THROUGH THE SEIZURE OF
THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT THEIR
FIRST BEING A CONVICTION FOR THE
OFFENSE. SO THE DECISION IS
MADE. YOU'RE AIDING AND ABETTING
, BASICALLY WE'RE JUDGE AND
JURY. YOU'RE TAKING YOUR CAR AND
IT'S GOING TO BE FOR AN EXTENDED
PERIOD OF TIME. PERSON HAS NOT
BEEN CONVICTED OF AIDING AND
ABETTING. IT IS BECAUSE OF A
DECISION THAT WAS MADE. BUT NOT
SUFFICIENT TO ARREST OR EVEN TO,
TO CITE. SO I THINK THAT'S WHY
IN MY OPENING, I REFERENCED AB
1407, WHICH WAS PASSED BY ONE OF
OUR COLLEAGUES AND PASSED THIS
COMMITTEE THAT THAT REQUIRED
VEHICLES TO BE IMPOUNDED FOR
STREET RACING, SO, I MEAN, THIS
THIS BILL IS, IS TO TAKE A MORE
BALANCED APPROACH IS TO SAY
WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THE VEHICLE
AND SEIZE IT. IF IT'S AIDING AND
ABETTING A STREET RACE WITH
WITHOUT TAKING THE INDIVIDUAL
INTO CUSTODY. THE OTHER THING IS
THAT ONCE THE CAR IS IMPOUNDED,
THEN YOU ALSO ARE ALLOWED TO
CONDUCT A SEARCH OF THE VEHICLE
WITHOUT A WARRANT. AT THAT
POINT, LOCKED PORTIONS,
EVERYTHING ELSE OF THE VEHICLE,
ISN'T THAT CORRECT? IF I CAN
ANSWER THAT ONE REAL QUICK, JUST
FOR TIME, THAT'S AN INVENTORY OF
THE VEHICLE REGARDLESS. THAT'S
ALSO THAT'S GOING TO BE AN
INVENTORY OF THE VEHICLE. GO
AHEAD, CHIEF, IF YOU WANT TO
ELABORATE. YES. WHAT YOU'RE
DESCRIBING IS AN INVENTORY
SEARCH THAT'S REQUIRED. ACTUALLY
SO THAT WE CAN ENSURE THAT
WHATEVER'S IN THE VEHICLE AT THE
TIME WE TAKE POSSESSION OF IT IS
ACCOUNTED FOR, SO THAT THERE CAN
BE NO CLAIMS LATER THAT
SOMETHING WAS IN THE VEHICLE
THAT WAS NOT MY LAST QUESTION,
AND I APPRECIATE THE INDULGENCE
OF THE COMMITTEE. AND THE CHAIR
IS IF A VEHICLE IS BLOCKING A
STREET. ISN'T THERE ALREADY A?
YOU CAN LEGALLY HAVE THAT CAR
IMPOUNDED ALREADY, ISN'T THAT
CORRECT? YES, MA'AM. BUT AGAIN,
GOING BACK TO THE AUTHOR'S
INTENDED PURPOSE, THIS IS
BLOCKING AN INTERSECTION OR
BLOCKING A STREET FOR THE
PURPOSES OF ENCOURAGING STREET
RACING. THIS IS NOT, YOU KNOW,
SOMEONE WHO APPARENTLY PARKED
THEIR CAR. THIS IS PARKING THEIR
CAR IN A PARTICULAR WAY TO
ENCOURAGE CRIMINAL ACT, I THINK.
I THINK THAT THAT DISTINCTION
MUST BE MADE BECAUSE THIS IS A
LOT DIFFERENT THAN JUST SOMEONE
BLOCKING A DRIVEWAY OR BLOCKING
TRAFFIC. UNINTENDED AS SOMEONE
WHO RECENTLY WENT ON A RIDE
ALONG WITH WITH A TRAFFIC
OPERATION IN BAKERSFIELD, AND
THESE ARE VERY ORGANIZED
OPERATIONS, 50 TO 300 VEHICLES
ARE ENGAGED IN A, A SIDESHOW, A
STREET TAKEOVER. THERE ARE
SPOTTERS, THERE ARE CARS THAT
ARE PARKED IN ADVANCE INTO BLOCK
INTERSECTIONS, TO PREVENT LAW
ENFORCEMENT FROM RESPONDING. AND
SO, YOU KNOW, TO HAVE, YOU KNOW,
YOU KNOW, TEN, TEN POLICE CARS
RESPOND TO THAT TYPE OF SCENE,
YOU KNOW, AND THEN TO BE ABLE TO
DETAIN AND ARREST AND THAT THE
RESOURCES ARE SPREAD THIN. SO
THIS IS THE TOOL IS TO INSTEAD
OF, YOU KNOW, HAVING TO ARREST
EVERYBODY IN THAT SITUATION IS
TO IS TO GIVE THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT THE TOOL TO, TO
SEIZE THE CAR, ESPECIALLY THOSE
WHO ARE THEY INTERACT WITH FIRST
TRYING TO RESPOND TO WHAT WE'RE
DOING IS THAT WE'RE THEN GETTING
A BUNCH OF TOW TRUCKS HIRING A
BUNCH OF TOW TRUCKS TO COME.
WELL, HAVING THEM WELL, THAT'S
WHAT HAPPENS NOW WHEN THESE
OPERATIONS OCCUR, WHETHER IT'S A
COORDINATED OPERATION WITH THE
CHP AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
THEY ARE WORKING WITH THESE
OPERATIONS, BRINGING TOW TRUCKS
WITH THEM. IF THEY IF NECESSARY.
SO TO CLEAR THE CLEAR THE ROAD
TO GET TO THE TO THE SCENE, I
WILL SAY THAT I KNOW THIS IS A
SERIOUS ISSUE AND IT NEEDS TO BE
ADDRESSED, AND WE HAVE TO FIND
LOTS OF WAYS TO ADDRESS IT. I'M
STILL CONCERNED ABOUT THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THIS, AND
LOTS OF OTHER ISSUES. HOWEVER,
THE ISSUE IS SO SERIOUS. PLUS I
HAVE MY CHIEF HERE, AND I KNOW
THAT, MR. FONG, THAT YOU WILL
WORK WITH THE OPPOSITION TO TRY
TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO PUT THE
GUARDRAILS THAT ARE NECESSARY
BECAUSE THEY'RE MISSING THEY'RE
ABSOLUTELY MISSING HERE. AND TO
JUST TAKE SOMEBODY'S IMPOUND,
SOMEBODY'S CAR, AND FOR A PERIOD
OF TIME, BECAUSE WE THINK THAT'S
THE BEST WAY TO STOP THIS. WHAT
I THINK THERE HAS TO BE A BETTER
WAY. BUT I DO KNOW IT'S A
SERIOUS ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE
ADDRESSED. AND WITH THAT, I, I
WILL BE VOTING FOR IT TODAY. BUT
I DO RESERVE MY RIGHT TO REVISIT
IT WHEN IT COMES TO THE FLOOR,
CERTAINLY APPRECIATE YOUR
COMMENTS AND THE INSIGHTS, AND
TO YOU AND TO MY COLLEAGUE FROM
LÀ, WORKED ON THIS, A NUMBER OF
BILLS WITH SENATOR GABRIEL AND
MYSELF WITH AB THREE, HAVE
WORKED WITH THE OPPOSITION,
TRIED TO CREATE PATHWAYS TO FOR
THOSE OF OTHER IF FOR IF FOR
EMPLOYMENT OR SCHOOLING. WE HAVE
MADE THOSE CHANGES AND
AMENDMENTS TO OTHER BILLS. HAPPY
TO ADD GUARDRAILS TO THE AIDING
AND ABETTING PROVISIONS, SO, YES
, HAPPY TO WORK WITH THE
OPPOSITION HAVE DONE THAT IN THE
PAST, HISTORICALLY ON ALL THESE
BILLS. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE? OKAY
AUTHOR. YOU MAY CLOSE I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE
. ALL RIGHT. JUST IN CLOSING, I
JUST WANT TO END THIS. NOW THAT
I GET THE FAIR SPOT RIGHT NOW, I
LOOK AT THIS AS A PART OF
ESCALATION OF PUNISHMENT. I
THINK WE'RE TAKING A STEP BACK,
WHICH IS OKAY. I THINK THAT'S A
GREAT WAY OF YOU DOING THAT. AND
AS FAR AS TOW TRUCKS, AS FAR AS
IT GOES, WHEN WE DO TWO, WE DO,
WHEN ARRESTS ARE MADE AND THERE
ARE TOW TRUCKS THAT COME IN,
PEOPLE WHO STILL HAVE NOT HAVE
GONE THROUGH THEIR DUE PROCESS
STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH A TOW
TRUCK COMPANY TO GET THEIR CARS
OUT, AS ADDRESSED EARLIER. I'M
SURE, MR. ZUBER HAD TO GO
THROUGH A TOW TRUCK COMPANY,
EVEN THOUGH HE WASN'T FOUND
GUILTY OR NOT, IT STILL HAD TO
GO THROUGH IT. SO THAT'S
SOMETHING THAT'S A NORMAL
PROCESS THAT WE DO WITH THAT, DO
I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND?
PLEASE TAKE A ROLE ON HB 1978 BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER VINCE FONG. THE
MOTION IS DUE. PASS TO THE
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY. ALL UNEASE I ALANIS I
LAKI LAKI I NGUYEN NGUYEN I
REYES I REYES I TING TING NOT
VOTING WILSON. ZIPPER NOT
VOTING. ZIPPER NOT VOTING. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. MISS ITEM FIVE.
NIO ONE BY A LOT. ITEM NUMBER
FIVE AB 2099. THANK YOU, MR.
FONG. REAL QUICK. I'M SORRY, MR.
IF IT DOES FELL, ARE YOU GOING
TO ASK FOR RECONSIDERATION? IF
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE OKAY?
THANK YOU. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, WE ARE HERE TO
PRESENT AB 2099, WHICH IS A
REALLY SIMPLE MEASURE THAT
PROTECTS PATIENTS AND PROVIDERS
AT OUR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH
CLINICS. AND THIS IS A
CONTINUATION OF A BILL THAT WAS
PASSED A FEW YEARS AGO, STARTED
WITH THE FACE ACT BEFORE ANY OF
US WERE HERE. AND WE UPDATED A
FEW YEARS AGO TO BRING IT INTO
THE MODERN TIMES AND DEAL WITH
SOME OF THE HARASSMENT THAT WAS
HAPPENING TO OUR PATIENTS AND
OUR PROVIDERS AT OUR CLINICS
HERE IN CALIFORNIA ON THE
INTERNET. AND SINCE THAT TIME,
WITH THE FALL OF ROE, WE'VE SEEN
ONLY AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER
OF PEOPLE SHOWING UP TO HARASS
THE PATIENTS AND THE PROVIDERS,
PROVIDING THE CRITICAL CARE THAT
HAPPENS INSIDE OF OUR
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CLINICS. AND
I HOPE THE PRIOR BILL DID GET
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT. AND I THINK
THAT WAS IN PART BECAUSE WE
COULD ALL AGREE THAT NO MATTER
WHAT ONE IS DOING, THEY HAVE A
RIGHT TO BE SAFE. WHETHER YOU
AGREE WITH THE ACTIVITY
HAPPENING INSIDE THAT BUILDING
OR NOT, WE ALL HAVE A RIGHT TO
BE SAFE AS WE ACCESS HEALTH
CARE. AND SO WITH THAT, I WILL
TURN IT OVER TO MY WITNESSES,
AND WITH ME, I HAVE CHRISTINE
CHRISTIAN GARCIA, VICE
PRESIDENT, PUBLIC AFFAIRS WITH
PLANNED PARENTHOOD. NO THAT'S
NOT WHO I HAVE. NOR-CAL. OH
YEAH. AND KIRSTEN CROWLEY BRUNT,
A PATIENT ESCORT WITH PLANNED
PARENTHOOD. MARMONTE. ALL RIGHT.
YOU BOTH HAVE FIVE MINUTES. FIVE
MINUTES TOTAL BETWEEN THE TOTAL.
HOW DO I TURN THIS ON? OKAY.
OKAY. SORRY. GOOD AFTERNOON,
CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS KIRSTEN CROWLEY BRUNT. I
HAVE BEEN A VOLUNTEER FOR
PLANNED PARENTHOOD SINCE 2016
AND BECAME A, EXCUSE ME, A
CLINIC PATIENT ESCORT IN OCTOBER
OF 2022. WHEN THE PROGRAM
RESUMED POST COVID AND POST
DOBBS DECISION. SINCE THEN, I'VE
WITNESSED THE LENGTHS TO WHICH
CLINIC PROTESTERS WILL GO TO
HARASS, TORMENT AND INTIMIDATE
CLINIC PATIENTS, STAFF AND
VOLUNTEERS. IT IS THE PRIMARY
GOAL OF PROTESTERS TO DETER
PATIENTS FROM RECEIVING ANY KIND
OF SERVICES AT PLANNED
PARENTHOOD, AND THEY MORE OFTEN
THAN NOT TEST THE BOUNDARIES OF
THE FACE ACT IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE
THAT GOAL. AS SUCH, I HAVE SEEN
PATIENTS SUBJECTED TO A BARRAGE
OF INFLAMMATORY VERBAL TAUNTS
FOR THEIR PERSONAL CHOICES. ON A
DAY WHEN I WAS VOLUNTEERING, I
SAW A REGULAR PROTESTER ENGAGE
WITH A PATIENT AND HER
GRANDMOTHER. AS SOON AS SHE
EXITED HER CAR IN AN ATTEMPT TO
ENTER THE ENTER THE CLINIC, HE
BEGAN TO ENGAGE WITH HER IN AN
ATTEMPT TO DELAY HER PROGRESS.
HE USED MALICIOUSLY PROVOCATIVE
LANGUAGE, CALLING HER NAMES AND
INSULTING HER RELIGIOUS BELIEFS,
HOPING FOR A RESPONSE EITHER IN
THE FORM OF SUBMISSION OR IN
SEARCH OF A HEATED CLASH TO FEED
HIS MYOPIC NARRATIVE THAT HIS
FELLOW PROTESTER COULD THEN
RECORD ON HIS GOPRO DEVICE. THIS
INCIDENT CAUSED THE PATIENT TO
FEEL SO INSECURE AND ESCALATED
TO HER NEEDING TWO SUPPORT
PEOPLE TO ENTER THE HEALTH
CENTER. I HAVE ALSO SEEN CLINIC
STAFF SIMPLY LEAVING THE HEALTH
CENTER BE SCREAMED AT AND CALLED
MALICIOUS NAMES. I, ALONG WITH
MY FELLOW ESCORTS, HAVE BEEN
SUBJECTED TO A CONTINUOUS STREAM
OF NAME CALLING, HATEFUL SPEECH
ABOUT WHO WE ARE AND OUR BELIEFS
IN AN ATTEMPT TO DISTRACT US
FROM HELPING PATIENTS ENTERING
THE CLINIC, PROTESTERS OFTEN TRY
TO INTIMIDATE US USING THESE
TACTICS ON ONE OCCASION, I
ARRIVED AT THE HEALTH CENTER AND
A PROTESTER WAS DRIVING IN
BEHIND ME. HE TOOK NOTE OF MY
CAR AND HE PHOTOGRAPHED MY
LICENSE PLATE WITH MY COLLEGE
ALUMNI FRAME ON IT FOR THE NEXT
HOUR, HE PROCEEDED TO LECTURE,
HARASS, AND THREATEN ME USING
THAT INFORMATION AS AMMUNITION.
AT THE END OF MY SHIFT, HE HAD
LEFT SEVERAL OF HIS
INFORMATIONAL PAMPHLETS ON MY
CAR WINDSHIELD. THAT INCIDENT
HAS CAUSED ME TO NOW BE EXTRA
CAUTIOUS OF WHO IS DRIVING
BEHIND ME AS I ARRIVE, OR LEAVE,
OUT OF CONCERN FOR MY FAMILY AS
A PATIENT ESCORT, I EXPECT TO BE
INSULTED, TAUNTED AND BULLIED BY
MANY OF THEM. WE ARE TRAINED TO
IGNORE AND ABSORB THOSE
REACTIONS TO PROTECT THE
PATIENTS. HOWEVER PATIENTS OFTEN
ARRIVE NOT PREPARED FOR THIS
TYPE OF SCENARIO. THEY OFTEN ASK
ME, ARE THEY ALWAYS HERE? WHY
ARE THEY ALLOWED TO DO OR SAY
THESE THINGS? AND CAN WE DO
ANYTHING ABOUT IT? THE FIRST
QUESTION IS EASY TO ANSWER. THE
OTHER QUESTIONS ARE FRUSTRATING
BECAUSE THE RESPONSE PUTS THE
RIGHTS OF PROTESTERS ABOVE THE
RIGHTS OF THE PATIENTS SEEKING
ACCESS TO REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH
CARE. IT IS NOT FREEDOM OF
ACCESS WHEN PATIENTS MUST ENDURE
A GANTLET OF HARASSMENT, BECAUSE
THE LAW'S REPERCUSSIONS ALLOW
FOR TOO MANY GRAY AREAS FOR THE
PROTESTERS TO HIDE BEHIND. WE
NEED MORE CONCRETE CONSEQUENCES
TO HELP THESE PATIENTS, AND FOR
THAT REASON, I'M PROUD TO BE
HERE IN SUPPORT OF AB 2099.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON.
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS CHRISTIAN
GARCIA, VICE PRESIDENT OF
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS AND
COMMUNICATIONS FOR PLANNED
PARENTHOOD NORTHERN CALIFORNIA.
AT NORCAL, WE SERVE 20 COUNTIES
WITH 17 HEALTH CENTERS AND WHAT
HAS BEEN SEEN IN THE LAST YEAR
AND A HALF SINCE ROE GOT
OVERTURNED IS DEFINITELY AN
INCREASE OF PROTESTER ACTIVITY.
THESE ARE NO LONGER JUST
PEACEFUL PROTESTERS WHO ARE
TRYING TO DETER PATIENTS FROM
COMING IN. THESE ARE MORE
POLITICAL AGENTS. THESE ARE
PEOPLE WHO ARE REALLY LOOKING TO
DISRUPT SERVICES TO MAKE SURE
THAT PATIENTS AND STAFF FEEL
UNCOMFORTABLE. AND WE'VE BEEN
WORKING WITH LOCAL JURISDICTIONS
TO ATTEMPT TO FIX THOSE THINGS
LOCALLY. BUT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT
NOW WE LOOK AT THE FACE ACT AND
THAT WE INCREASE PENALTIES SO
THAT PEOPLE CAN REALLY BE
DETERRED FROM CONTINUING TO COME
BACK, YOU KNOW, DON'T BE FOOLED
BY THIS CLOTH OF BEING A, YOU
KNOW, SIMPLY EXPRESSING PEOPLE'S
FREEDOM OF SPEECH. THAT'S NO
LONGER THE CASE. YOU KNOW, I
THINK THERE'S BEEN A LITTLE BIT
OF A MISCONCEPTION AROUND THAT
AGAINST THESE PROTESTERS.
THEY'VE USED THAT AS A WAY TO
PROTECT THEMSELVES. BUT THESE
ARE PEOPLE WHO MEAN TO DO HARM.
AND SO REALLY, THIS IS A TIME
NOW, GIVEN THIS POLITICAL
ELECTION THAT'S COMING UP, GIVEN
THE ISSUE BEING FRONT AND CENTER
NATIONALLY. SO WE LOOK FORWARD
TO YOUR SUPPORT ON THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. OKAY. WE HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND OKAY. ANY
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT? OF
CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU. MOLLY
ROBSON OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD.
AFFILIATES OF CALIFORNIA. WE'RE
THE SPONSOR AND STRONG SUPPORT.
I ALSO WANTED TO ISSUE SUPPORT
ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN
COLLEGE OF OB GYN'S DISTRICT
NINE. THANK YOU. OKAY THANK YOU.
NO OTHER. NO OTHER SUPPORT.
NOBODY OUTSIDE? I DON'T THINK SO
. VÌ NOT OPPOSITION. NO
OPPOSITION QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MR.
ZUBIATE, I JUST WANT TO THANK
THE AUTHOR FOR BRINGING THE
BILL, AND I ALSO THANK THE FOLKS
FROM PLANNED PARENTHOOD. I AM
HONORED TO SERVE ON THE PLANNED
PARENTHOOD BOARD OF LOS ANGELES.
I KNOW HOW IMPORTANT THE HEALTH
CARE YOU PROVIDE IS AND HOW
OFTEN YOU'RE DOING SO UNDER
THREAT AND DANGER. I KNOW THE
JUST THE SECURITY PROTOCOLS THAT
ARE IN PLACE AT PLANNED
PARENTHOOD LOS ANGELES AND
REALLY WHAT MANY OF THE WOMEN
AND PEOPLE WHO GET THEIR HEALTH
CARE ENDURE IN ORDER TO JUST BE
THERE. AND THE KINDS OF THREATS
AND THE RISK OF VIOLENCE. AND SO
I THINK THIS IS A REALLY NEEDED
BILL. I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL
FOR BRINGING IT FORWARD. THANK
YOU. I JUST WANTED TO THAT I'M
PROUD TO JOIN AUTHOR OF THIS,
AND I WILL NOTE THE ANALYSIS.
YOU NOTE THAT THE FIRST BILL
THAT WAS INTRODUCED WAS THIS WAS
22 YEARS AGO BY OUR THEN SENATOR
DEBORAH ORTIZ, AND THE PLANNED
PARENTHOOD CLINIC WAS LITERALLY
ACROSS THE STREET HERE IN THE
STATE, CITY PARKING GARAGE AND
MANY INCIDENTS WE WITNESSED
FIRSTHAND. SO THE ISSUE HASN'T
GONE AWAY. AND THIS MERELY
UPDATES IT WITH WHAT'S HAPPENING
WITH TECHNOLOGY OF TODAY. AND SO
IT'S AN IMPORTANT STEP. AND
THANK YOU FOR PUSHING THIS
FORWARD. AND WE HAVE A MOTION.
AND SECOND, AND RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR HER TO CLOSE AND OAN. YEAH.
THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO
REITERATE MY GRATITUDE TO THE
PROVIDERS WHO DO THIS EVERY DAY,
TO THE VOLUNTEERS WHO HELP THE
PATIENTS GET THIS CARE. AND WITH
THAT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR.
BUT YES, CALL THE ROLL ON AB
2099 BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER
BAUER-KAHAN. THE MOTION IS DUE.
PASS TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. MCCARTY. MCCARTY. I
ALANIZ. ALANIZ I LACKEY. LACKEY
I NGUYEN NGUYEN I REYES REYES I
TING TING I WILSON I WILSON I
ZIPPER ZIPPER I MEASURE PASSES
OKAY. NEXT AUTHOR. MR. STALEY,
PLEASE. NO STEPPED OUTSIDE. IT
WAS VERY SALIENT. YEAH HE WAS
NOT HERE. TING HE'S NOT HERE FOR
30 MINUTES. HE'S HERE. YEAH,
HE'S GOT A 430 MEETING. SO DO I.
SO WE ALREADY WENT. YEAH. NO
HE'S GOING TO PRESENT. YEAH YEAH
. WE SAW HIM. THIS IS THE THING.
NO, NO NO NO. YEAH. SORRY FOR
THE CONFUSION. THIS IS. CAN I
HANG OUT HERE ANYWAY? WHAT ARE
YOU DOING? WHAT'S YOU. YES.
OKAY. YEAH. I'LL JUST WITH
MICROPHONE. ALL RIGHT. VERY
GOOD. YEAH. YOU'RE GOOD OKAY.
OKAY. VERY GOOD. YEAH OKAY.
THANK YOU. OKAY. READY? PLEASE
BEGIN. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR
AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS. I'M HERE
TO PRESENT ASSEMBLY BILL 3037,
WHICH AIMS TO RESTORE THE
JUDICIAL DISCRETION IN THE
APPLICATION OF THE FIREARM
SENTENCING ENHANCEMENT. AS WE
ARE ALL AWARE, FIREARM RELATED
VIOLENCE CONTINUES TO PLAGUE
CALIFORNIA, WHERE FIREARM
RELATED HOMICIDES HAVE INCREASED
28% DURING THE 2013 TO 2022
PERIOD. OF THE HOMICIDES IN
2020, WHERE A WEAPON WAS
IDENTIFIED, 73% INVOLVED A
FIREARM MAKING FIREARM AS THE
MOST COMMON MURDER WEAPON BY A
LARGE MARGIN. TRAGICALLY, A
CALIFORNIAN IS KILLED BY A GUN
EVERY THREE HOURS, AND IT COSTS
THE STATE APPROXIMATELY $18
BILLION A YEAR FOR THE DETENTION
INVESTIGATION. I'M SORRY.
DETECTION INVESTIGATION AND
MEDICAL EXPENSES FOR GUN RELATED
INJURIES LAST YEAR. MR. CHAIR, I
PRESENTED ASSEMBLY BILL 328
BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE, WHICH
WOULD HAVE RESTORED THE
MANDATORY APPLICATION OF THE USE
OF A GUN. AND YOU'RE DONE, AS
THEY CALL IT, FIREARM
ENHANCEMENT, REMOVING THE
JUDICIAL DISCRETION GRANTED BY
SB 620. THIS BILL THIS YEAR IS
DIFFERENT. AB 3037 WILL MAKE
EXISTING PROVISIONS OF THE PENAL
CODE SECTION 1385, I'M SORRY,
WHAT THIS BILL DOES, MR. CHAIR,
IS IT'S GOING TO RESTORE
DISCRETION TO JUDGES. WHAT I
HEARD FROM THE COMMITTEE LAST
YEAR IS THEY WANTED JUDGES TO BE
ABLE TO MAKE INDIVIDUALIZED
DETERMINATIONS ON WHETHER A
FIREARM ENHANCEMENT IS, IS
APPROPRIATE OR NOT. THE PROBLEM
IS THAT SB 81, WHICH WAS ENACTED
IN 2021, SPECIFICALLY ELIMINATED
OR REDUCED JUDICIAL DISCRETION,
AND WHEN SENTENCING ENHANCEMENTS
ARE DISMISSED SPECIFICALLY, WHAT
THAT BILL REQUIRED WAS THAT THE
APPLICATION OF THE HANDS, IF THE
APPLICATION OF THE ENHANCEMENT
COULD RESULT IN A SENTENCE OF
OVER 20 YEARS, THE ENHANCEMENT
MUST BE DISMISSED. SO WE REALLY
DON'T HAVE AN ENHANCEMENT IN
CALIFORNIA ANYMORE. THE WAY THE
ENHANCEMENT WORKS IS IF YOU USE
A GUN, IF YOU POSSESS A GUN IN
THE COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS
FELONY, YOU GET AN ADDITIONAL
TEN YEARS ADDED TO YOUR
SENTENCE. IF YOU USE THE GUN,
YOU GET 20 YEARS IF YOU
DISCHARGE THE GUN, YOU GET 25 TO
LIFE. SO WHEN THIS LEGISLATURE
PASSED THAT 2021 BILL, ANY CASE
IN WHICH A PERSON COULD GET 20
YEARS OR MORE, WHICH IS THE
LARGE MAJORITY OF SENTENCING
ENHANCEMENT, THE JUDGE HAD TO
DISMISS THE ENHANCEMENT. SO WE
REALLY DON'T HAVE A FIREARM
ENHANCEMENT ANYMORE. WHAT THAT
MEANS IS THAT A DEFENDANT WHO
DISCHARGED OR INFLICTS GREAT
BODILY HARM OR DEATH WITH A
FIREARM WILL AUTOMATICALLY HAVE
THEIR ENHANCEMENT DISMISSED
UNDER CURRENT LAW, BECAUSE THIS
WOULD ALWAYS RESULT IN A
SENTENCE OF OVER 20 YEARS. AND
JUST SO WE KNOW WHAT TYPE OF
CRIMES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT,
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MURDER,
KIDNAPING, RAPE, LEWD ACTS ON A
CHILD, ETC. THESE ARE THE TYPES
OF UNSPEAKABLE AND HORRENDOUS
FELONIES THAT DEFENDANTS HAVE
BEEN CONVICTED OF. YET THIS YET
WILL NOT RECEIVE THE FIREARM
ENHANCEMENT, I WANT TO HUMANIZE
THIS A LITTLE BIT, BECAUSE OFTEN
WE TALK ABOUT STATS AND WE DON'T
REALLY TALK ENOUGH ABOUT PEOPLE.
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THIS IS IVAN.
HE'S A THREE YEAR OLD. HE WAS
SHOT AND MURDERED BY HIS MOM'S
BOYFRIEND IN SANTA CLARA,
FEBRUARY 2024. WHY SHOULDN'T THE
CRIMINAL WHO KILLED THIS BOY GET
THE LONGEST POSSIBLE SENTENCE?
WHY SHOULDN'T THERE BE A STRONG
DETERRENCE FOR PEOPLE WHO WOULD
DARE TO USE A GUN AGAINST AN
INNOCENT PERSON? CRIME IS OUT OF
CONTROL. HERE'S ANOTHER EXAMPLE.
WE HAVE ARMED ROBBERIES
HAPPENING ALL OVER THE STATE.
THIS IS A YOGURT SHOP IN GARDEN
GROVE. GUN VIOLENCE IS UP
BECAUSE PEOPLE DO NOT FEAR THE
CONSEQUENCES OF USING THEM. AND
OUR SYSTEM LACKS THE ABILITY TO
INCARCERATE THEM FOR SIGNIFICANT
PERIODS OF TIME, WE SHOULD TRUST
THE JUDGES TO MAKE THE
INDIVIDUALIZED DETERMINATIONS.
NOW, I'M GOING TO LET THE
SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT SPEAK, AND
I REALLY HOPE THAT THE COMMITTEE
WILL ENGAGE WITH THEM AND TALK
TO THEM, FIRST UP, AS I WANT TO
INTRODUCE, SAN BERNARDINO CHIEF
OF POLICE DARREN GOODMAN TO
SPEAK FROM HIS PERSPECTIVE OF
BEING IN LAW ENFORCEMENT ON THE
GROUND. THANK YOU. YEAH. FIVE
MINUTES COMBINED WITH YOUR PANEL
HERE. OKAY, GOOD AFTERNOON
AGAIN, MR. CHAIR AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS, AGAIN, I'M DARREN
GOODMAN, THE CHIEF OF POLICE FOR
THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. AND
I'M HERE TO REPRESENT THE SAN
BERNARDINO POLICE DEPARTMENT,
THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY POLICE
CHIEFS AND SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION,
WHICH AGAIN REPRESENTS 2.1
MILLION RESIDENTS THROUGHOUT OUR
COUNTY. I'M HERE TODAY IN
SUPPORT OF ASSEMBLY BILL 30, 37,
BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A
CRITICAL PUBLIC SAFETY BILL THAT
SEEKS TO RESTORE THE FIREARM
RELATED SENTENCING ENHANCEMENT
THAT WAS ALL BUT ELIMINATED
UNDER SB 81. AS SOMEONE WITH
MORE THAN THREE DECADES IN LAW
ENFORCEMENT EXPERIENCE, I'M
DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS BILL
AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS. I
BELIEVE STRONGLY IN REDEMPTION.
I TRULY BELIEVE IN SECOND
CHANCES, I PRACTICE A HOLISTIC
APPROACH TO POLICING. HOWEVER, I
DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THAT
ABSOLVES US. AND THAT MEANS ALL
OF US FROM OUR PROFESSIONAL,
MORAL AND LEGAL OBLIGATION TO
PROTECT THE INNOCENT FROM THOSE
WHO ARE WILLING AND COMMITTED TO
COMMITTING VIOLENCE AND EVIL
AGAINST THEM. PRISON IS NOT THE
ONLY ANSWER, HOWEVER, IT SHOULD
NOT BE KEPT OUT OF THE EQUATION.
WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE
WHO ARE WILLING TO TAKE A GUN,
PUT IT IN SOMEONE ELSE'S FACE
AND PULL THE TRIGGER, THE
FIREARM ENHANCEMENT ENSURES THAT
LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PROSECUTORS
CAN KEEP CRIMINALS WHO COMMIT
VIOLENT FELONIES WITH A FIREARM
OFF THE STREETS AND AWAY FROM
OUR COMMUNITIES FOR AS LONG AS
POSSIBLE. WHILE THEY PAY THE
CONSEQUENCES FOR THEIR HEINOUS
AND BRUTAL CRIMES. AFTER
SENTENCING GUIDELINES WERE
UPDATED BY THIS LEGISLATURE IN
2021, THE MOST SERIOUS
APPLICATIONS OF THE FIREARM
ENHANCEMENT HAS BEEN SEVERELY
CURTAILED AND ELIMINATED IN THE
MOST SERIOUS INSTANCES. THIS HAS
FUNDAMENTALLY UPENDED OUR PUBLIC
SAFETY SYSTEM AND NOW ALLOWS FOR
THE WORST OFFENDERS TO
AUTOMATICALLY ESCAPE THIS
ENHANCEMENT AND SERVE REDUCED
SENTENCES, AND MOST LIKELY AND
MOST OFTEN RETURN TO OUR
COMMUNITIES AND COMMIT FURTHER
CRIMES. AS THE POLICE CHIEF FOR
A MAJOR CITY, ONE THAT I'M HAPPY
TO SEE MISS REYES REPRESENT IN
2022 AND 2023, WE HAD NINE TÊ,
SEVEN ROBBERIES, 36 HOMICIDES,
20 CARJACKINGS, AND THREE RAPES
THAT WOULD HAVE QUALIFIED FOR
FIREARM ENHANCEMENTS. SO THESE
AREN'T JUST HYPOTHETICALS. THESE
ARE REAL INSTANCES WHERE PEOPLE
ARE ESCAPING THE PROPER
PUNISHMENT THAT THEY DESERVE FOR
THESE HEINOUS CRIMES. AB 3037
WILL RETURN DISCRETION TO JUDGES
WITH RESPECT TO FIREARM PENALTY
ENHANCEMENTS, THEREBY ALLOWING
EACH CASE TO BE EVALUATED ON ITS
OWN MERITS. THIS SHOULD BE A
PARTICULAR CONCERN TO ALL OF US,
BECAUSE ENHANCEMENTS FOR
RELEVANT VIOLENT OFFENSES THAT
INVOLVE THE USE OF FIREARM ARE
NECESSARY, BECAUSE I THINK WE
ALL BELIEVE THAT FIREARM CRIMES
SHOULD BE CURTAILED. CURRENT
LEGISLATION HAS RESTRICTED
JUDGES ABILITY TO ENHANCE
SENTENCING FOR SUCH OFFENSES,
EFFECTIVELY TYING THEIR HANDS
AND WHEN FACED WITH THESE
VIOLENT OFFENDERS, THEY HAVE NO
ALTERNATIVE BUT TO RELEASE THEM.
THIS IS A COMMON SENSE PROPOSAL
THAT ALIGNS WITH CALIFORNIA'S
GOAL OF REDUCING GUN RELATED
VIOLENCE, AND I RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST YOUR SUPPORT FOR AB
3037. OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU HAVE
A MINUTE AND A HALF LEFT. THANK
YOU. I AM WHO HE SAID. I AM
CURRENT LAW CONTAINS A
SIGNIFICANT DRAFTING FLAW THAT
THIS BILL WOULD CORRECT. AND
I'LL LIMIT MY COMMENTS TO THAT.
THAT FLAW. PENAL CODE SECTION
1385, SUBDIVISION C, CURRENTLY
SAYS THAT THE COURT MUST DISMISS
AND ENHANCEMENT IF THE
ENHANCEMENT COULD RESULT IN A
SENTENCE OVER 20 YEARS, BUT 12
OR 22.53 ITSELF IS A 10 TO 20
LIFE OFFENSE. SO THAT NEARLY
ALWAYS REQUIRES ITS DISMISSAL.
FOR EXAMPLE, TAKE CARJACKING
PENAL CODE SECTION 215. IT IS
A359 OFFENSE THREE YEARS, FIVE
YEARS OR NINE YEARS AT A GUN TO
THAT AND A 12 AND 22.53
SUBDIVISION B IF THEY MERELY USE
THE GUN, THAT'S AN ADDITIONAL
TEN YEARS. OKAY. BUT IF THEY
DISCHARGE THE GUN, THAT'S AN
ADDITIONAL 20. IF THEY COMMIT A
GREAT BODILY INJURY OR DEATH,
THAT'S AN ADDITIONAL 25 TO LIFE.
SO ANY TIME A PERSON COMMITS ONE
OF THESE ENUMERATED CRIMES, SUCH
AS CARJACKING AND DISCHARGES THE
GUN, THE 122.53 IS RENDERED
MOOT. IT WOULDN'T WORK. THANK
YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. WELL DONE.
OTHERS IN SUPPORT. CORY
SALZILLO, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION, IN SUPPORT. DELYLAH
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT IN SUPPORT. BRIAN
SHERMAN, RIVERSIDE SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA NARCOTIC
OFFICERS AND CALIFORNIA RESERVE
PEACE OFFICERS IN SUPPORT, ALONG
WITH THE OTHER POWS AND SAU.
THANK YOU. NO ONE ELSE IN
SUPPORT. OPPOSITION. PLEASE COME
FORWARD
.
THANK YOU. CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS. SORRY. MY NAME IS DUKE
COONEY. ON BEHALF OF ACLU
CALIFORNIA ACTION, WE ARE IN
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL. THIS
BILL SEEKS TO CARVE OUT AN
EXEMPTION FOR ENHANCEMENTS
REGARDING THE USE OF FIREARM,
WHICH WE'VE HEARD ABOUT TODAY.
BUT IT IS IN OUR OPINION THAT
THERE IS NO POLICY REASON TO
MAKE SUCH A DISTINCTION. AND FOR
US, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE
PROVIDE JUDGES WITH CONSISTENT
GUIDELINES REGARDING THE
APPLICATION OF ENHANCEMENTS.
UNDER CURRENT LAW, JUDGES ARE
NOT COMPELLED TO DISMISS THESE
ENHANCEMENTS, BUT HAVE THE
DISCRETION TO DO SO WHEN THEY
TRULY BELIEVE IT IS IN THE
FURTHERANCE OF JUSTICE TO DO SO.
THIS WAS AFFIRMED ALSO, AS WE
HEARD UNDER SB 81 BY SENATOR
SKINNER. BASED ON THE
RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE COMMITTEE
ON THE REVISION OF THE PENAL
CODE, WHICH PROVIDED EXPLICIT
DIRECTION TO COURTS REGARDING
DISMISSAL OF ENHANCEMENTS IN THE
FURTHERANCE OF JUSTICE,
PROVIDING GUIDELINES TO COURTS
TO FOLLOW IN MAKING THOSE
DECISIONS. SB 81 WAS DESIGNED TO
PROVIDE MORE CLARITY AND
UNIFORMITY IN SENTENCING AND TO
ADDRESS PERVASIVE RACIAL
DISPARITY IN SENTENCING. WE FEAR
THAT AB 3037 GOES IN THE
OPPOSITE DIRECTION AND WILL
SERVE ONLY TO EXACERBATE SUCH
DISPARITIES. WE FEEL THAT JUDGES
SHOULD RETAIN THE JUDICIAL
DISCRETION OUTLINED IN SB 81,
AND FOR THOSE REASONS, WE'RE IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, DANICA DANIEL,
ON BEHALF OF INITIATE JUSTICE, I
WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT UNDER THE
CURRENT LAW, JUDGES CAN
ABSOLUTELY STILL APPLY THESE
ENHANCEMENT S WHEN THEY BELIEVE
THAT THERE'S A SERIOUS RISK TO
PUBLIC SAFETY. IT IS CORRECT.
THE LANGUAGE IN C ONE OF 1385
SAYS THAT UNLESS THE COURT FINDS
THAT THE DISMISSAL OF THE
ENHANCEMENT WOULD ENDANGER
PUBLIC SAFETY. SO IT FEELS LIKE
THAT'S BEEN MISSED IN THIS
CONVERSATION TODAY, YOU KNOW,
ADDITIONALLY, PAGE FOUR OF THE
ANALYSIS SHOWS HOW MANY
ENHANCEMENTS HAVE STILL BEEN
APPLIED UNDER SB 81. THERE'S
STILL A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF
ENHANCEMENTS BEING APPLIED. AND
I UNDERSTAND GUN VIOLENCE IS A
VERY SERIOUS ISSUE IN THE UNITED
STATES. MANY BILLS HEARD HEARD
IN THIS COMMITTEE TODAY ON THE
ISSUE TRYING TO SOLVE THE ISSUE.
I DO THINK IT'S NOTABLE THAT ALL
OF THE GROUPS THAT I THINK MANY
OF US LOOK TO FOR THE EXPERTISE
AROUND ENDING GUN VIOLENCE, ARE
NOT PRESENT AND ARE NOT
SUPPORTING THIS BILL TODAY.
BRADY, GIFFORDS, EVERYTOWN, MOMS
DEMAND ACTION. THOSE ARE THE
PEOPLE THAT ARE DIRECTLY
IMPACTED BY GUN VIOLENCE, NONE
OF WHOM ARE PRESENT, SO AND I
FINALLY WOULD JUST END WITH THE
AUTHOR'S STATEMENT FOR THE NEED
OF THE BILL IN THE ANALYSIS SAYS
THAT WITH HUNDREDS OF GUN LAWS
ON THE BOOKS, CALIFORNIA STILL
HAS A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE THAT
COULD ALSO BE READ AS THE EXACT
REASON WE DON'T NEED THIS BILL.
IF THAT WAS THE SOLUTION TO THIS
PROBLEM, WE WOULD HAVE SOLVED IT
BY NOW. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE
THAT REALLY HIGH PENALTIES IN
THE FORM OF GUN ENHANCEMENTS
WOULD DETER ANY MORE CRIMES, AND
IT IS NOT ACCURATE TO IMPLY THAT
UNDER SB 81, JUDGES HAVE TO LET
PEOPLE GO BECAUSE THEY USE GUNS.
THIS IS ABOUT ENHANCEMENTS, SO
THEY CAN STILL ABSOLUTELY BE
CHARGED WITH MURDER OR MANY
OTHER FELONIES THAT EXIST IN THE
PENAL CODE. THIS IS ABOUT
ENHANCEMENTS. JUDGES CAN
ABSOLUTELY STILL APPLY THEM, I
URGE YOUR NO VOTE. MR. CHAIR,
PAGE TWO. YEAH. OH, I JUST
WANTED A SECOND. YEAH, YEAH. OH,
SORRY. WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU.
OKAY. YOU CLOSE ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION OF
CALIFORNIANS FOR SAFETY AND
JUSTICE, A SMART JUSTICE
CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION AND THE
SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDERS
IN RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. AMELIA ROGERS, ELLA BAKER
CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IN
STRONG OPPOSITION. FELIPE KELLY,
ELLA BAKER, CENTER, FULL
OPPOSITION. BARBARA CHÁVEZ, ELLA
BAKER, CENTER, OPPOSITION. OKAY
NO OTHERS IN OPPOSITION. DO WE
HAVE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS? MR. LACKEY?
YEAH, CERTAINLY. I'D LIKE TO ASK
THE GOOD CHIEF A QUESTION. SOME
OPPONENTS OF FIREARM
ENHANCEMENTS SAY THAT THOSE
ENHANCEMENTS HAVE A
DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACT ON
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR. AND I'D
JUST LIKE TO HEAR WHAT YOUR
RESPONSE IS TO THOSE CLAIMS. AS
A PERSON OF COLOR YOURSELF.
WELL, I, I WHOLEHEARTEDLY HAVE
THE SAME CONCERNS. YOU KNOW, I
THINK WE ALL SHOULD WHEN WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT
COULD BE PERCEIVED AS A
DISPARITY. HOWEVER I THINK THAT
ONE DISPARITY THAT WE FAIL TO
TALK ABOUT IS THE FACT THAT MORE
BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE ARE DYING
FROM GUN VIOLENCE THAN ANY OTHER
GROUP, AND I CAN SPEAK
SPECIFICALLY TO MY CITY IN SAN
BERNARDINO ALONE, 90, 90% OF OUR
VIOLENT CRIME VICTIMS ARE BLACK
AND HISPANIC, AND EQUALLY 90% OF
OUR NAMED SUSPECTS NAMED SUSPECT
ARE BLACK OR HISPANIC. SO THIS
IS A DISTURBING NUMBER THAT
REPRESENTS, ALMOST AN EXCLUSIVE
DEMOGRAPHIC THAT WE SHOULD BE
CONCERNED ABOUT. I THINK THAT
I'M CONCERNED MORE ABOUT BLACK
AND BROWN PEOPLE ENDING UP IN
THE GRAVE, THAN I AM ABOUT
HAVING THEM BE INCARCERATED FOR
A CRIME THAT THEY COMMITTED. I
THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE
CONCERNED ABOUT PUNISHMENT AND
PUNISHMENT THAT COULD END UP
SAVING LIVES EVENTUALLY. AND
THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE WE'RE
DOING. WE'RE WE'RE ALLOWING
PEOPLE TO DIE ON THE STREETS.
WE'RE ALLOWING PEOPLE TO BE
KILLED ON THE STREETS AND WE'RE
PROTECTING THE VERY PEOPLE WHO
ARE DOING IT. THANK YOU SIR.
OKAY ASSEMBLY MEMBER REYES. THE
COMMENT MADE BY THE OPPOSITION
IS THAT JUDGES CAN STILL USE
ENHANCEMENTS. YES OR NO? IS THAT
TRUE? NO IT'S NOT TRUE. IN FACT,
PAGE TWO OF YOUR COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS, PARAGRAPH SEVEN,
SUBSECTION C, I DIRECT YOUR
ATTENTION THERE TO THE MIDDLE OF
THE PAGE. I DIDN'T WRITE THIS.
COMMITTEE WROTE IT. APPLICATION
OF THE ENHANCED. THIS IS WHEN
THE JUDGE IS REQUIRED TO DISMISS
THE ENHANCEMENT. THEY DO NOT
HAVE DISCRETION. IT SAYS QUOTE
APPLICATION OF THE ENHANCEMENT
COULD RESULT IN A SENTENCE OF
OVER 20 YEARS, IN WHICH CASE THE
ENHANCEMENT SHALL SHALL BE
DISMISSED. AND IF YOU LOOK AT
WHAT'S HAPPENED SINCE THAT BILL
PASSED ON PAGE FOUR, JUDGES WHO
HAD DISCRETION BEFORE, THEY'VE
HAD DISCRETION, I THINK, FOR,
ALMOST A DECADE NOW, THEY WERE
IMPOSING THE SENTENCE IN ABOUT
6000, OR THE ENHANCEMENT ABOUT
6000 CASES AFTER THIS BILL
PASSED, THE SENTENCE
ENHANCEMENTS DROPPED TO 1000. SO
THEY DROPPED. I ON. I WANT TO
STOP YOU FOR JUST A SECOND. SURE
THE DATE RANGE IS THREE YEARS.
IT'S 2015, 2016, 2017. SO THAT'S
6000 FOR THREE YEARS. 2018,
2019, 2020 AND 2021. THAT'S FOUR
YEARS FOR THE OTHER 6000. SO WE
HAVE TO MAKE DO THE MATH THERE
ALSO. BUT IF YOU LOOK AT 2023,
YOU HAVE 1228 ENHANCEMENTS. SO
YOU SAY THEY CANNOT USE
ENHANCEMENTS ANYMORE. AND YET
THE VERY TABLE YOU'RE USING SAYS
THAT IN 2023, THERE WERE 1228
ENHANCEMENTS. THEY CAN ONLY USE.
SO I WANT TO ASK THE QUESTION
AGAIN BECAUSE IT IS AN IMPORTANT
QUESTION. YES. AND I THINK IT
DESERVES AN HONEST ANSWER. CAN A
JUDGE STILL USE ENHANCEMENTS
THIS TODAY? NOT WHEN THE
SENTENCE IS 20 YEARS OR MORE
WITHOUT QUALIFYING IT. I'LL ASK
IT AGAIN. I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU
THE BENEFIT OF GIVING AN ANSWER
TO THIS. CAN A JUDGE STILL USE
ENHANCEMENTS TODAY? NOT WHEN A
CRIMINAL DISCHARGES A GUN. I'D
LIKE TO ASK THE OPPOSITION. YEAH
COUNTY JUDGE STILL USE
ENHANCEMENTS TODAY? YES. THANK
YOU. AND THAT IS BORNE OUT IN
THE TABLE AT PAGE FOUR THAT THE
AUTHOR WAS REFERRING TO. THANK
YOU. YEAH, I WANT TO GO INTO
THIS AGAIN. SO MAYBE WE CAN HAVE
YOUR OTHER WITNESS. YES. HELP US
SETTLE A SCORE HERE. YES THERE
ARE. WE'RE SEEING THE SAME
QUARTER AND SOME ARE ARGUING
TAIL, SOME ARE ARGUING HEAD. SO
YEAH, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT
JUDGE DOESN'T HAVE TO DO IT, BUT
THEY STILL COULD, AS
ASSEMBLYMEMBER REYES IS ALLUDING
TO. UNFORTUNATELY THE WAY IT WAS
WRITTEN, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS
A DRAFTING ERROR OR WHAT THE
PROBLEM WAS, BUT IT HAS THESE
QUITE FRANKLY, VERY REASONABLE
INTERESTS OF JUSTICE. PARAGRAPHS
IN IT. THAT IS THE CURRENT LAW,
FOR EXAMPLE, THIS, THIS OR THIS,
THESE ARE, THESE WOULD BE
INTERESTS OF JUSTICE. I CAN'T
REMEMBER RIGHT NOW WHAT THEY ARE
BUT THOSE THINGS. BUT THEN IN
SUBDIVISION C, IT SAYS, BUT IF
THE SENTENCE IS 20 YEARS OR
MORE, MUST OR SHALL IS ACTUALLY
THE WORD. I THINK THAT MIGHT
HAVE BEEN A DRAFTING ERROR. AND
EVEN IF IT WASN'T A DRAFTING
ERROR IN PRACTICE BASED UPON THE
TABLE, IT STILL HAPPENING. SO
HOW CAN YOU ALLUDE THAT IT'S NOT
BEING ABLE TO BE UTILIZED WHEN
THE NUMBERS? SO OTHERWISE I'M
NOT FAMILIAR WITH THIS TABLE. I
DIDN'T GET TO OKAY, THE CURRENT
YEAR. LOOK AT THE DATES AS
ASSEMBLYMEMBER NOTED, THESE
THESE RANGES, I DON'T KNOW IT
COULD BE AN INSTANCE OF THE IS
IT FOR TEN YEAR SENTENCES, BUT
IT ALSO MAY BE THAT THE JUDGE IN
THOSE PARTICULAR CASES READS THE
LAW DIFFERENTLY, BUT IT'S
CERTAINLY AMBIGUOUS THE WAY I
READ IT AND THE WAY IT SEEMS TO
BE IN THE CLEAR LANGUAGE IS YOU
SHALL DISMISS IT. AND I DON'T
KNOW IF THESE JUDGES ARE GETTING
IT WRONG OR WHAT, BUT YEAH, I'M
A FORMER DA. I HAD A QUESTION.
YEAH. HERE. FURTHER, YOU CAN
FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR, THE
WITNESSES OR THE AUTHOR. IT
SEEMS LIKE THERE'S, SOME YOU
MIGHT PLEASE. YES SORRY. IT
SEEMS LIKE. AND I THINK THE
CHAIR WAS TRYING TO HELP US GET
THERE, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THERE
ARE SOME MISCOMMUNICATION OR
MISS ERROR. THERE'S NO. I'D LIKE
I'D LIKE TO RESPOND. THERE IS NO
MISCOMMUNICATION. I'M NOT SURE
IF SHE HAS A QUESTION FOR YOU.
IF SHE HAS A QUESTION, YES. GO
AHEAD. WAIT A SECOND. I'M NOT
SURE IF SHE HAS A QUESTION. IF
SHE DOES, YOU CAN ANSWER IT. IF
NOT, YOU CAN SPEAK AGAIN AND
YOU'RE CLOSE. DO YOU HAVE A
QUESTION FOR MR. NO, THAT WAS
JUST A COMMENT. AND YOU CAN
DEFINITELY ADDRESS IT. SURE.
JUST IN THIS CONVERSATION HERE,
IT SEEMED, UNCLEAR. OKAY, MR.
ZUBIATE, I JUST HAVE A
STATEMENT. I MEAN, THE THING
THAT IS COMPELLING FOR ME IS
THAT NONE OF THE BRADY CAMPAIGN,
GIFFORD CAMPAIGN, EVERYTOWN FOR
GUN VIOLENCE OR MOMS DEMAND
ACTION ARE HERE TODAY,
ADVOCATING FOR THIS BILL. AND
THAT IS VERY TELLING FOR ME.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, DO WE HAVE
A MOTION? SECOND, WE HAVE A
MOTION. AND A SECOND, DO WE HAVE
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FOR THE AUTHOR OF THE
WITNESSES, SEEING NONE. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER. YOU MAY CLOSE. NO. MY
TIME NOW TO CLOSE. YOU MAY
CLOSE. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. THE
RULES. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I
WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR. THERE IS
NO MISCOMMUNICATION. THERE'S NO
CONFUSION. IT'S A VERY SIMPLE
ENHANCEMENT. IF YOU HAVE A GUN
ON YOU WHEN YOU COMMIT A CRIME,
YOU GET TEN YEARS ADDED TO YOUR
SENTENCE. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN
YOU WALK INTO A 7-ELEVEN AND YOU
AND YOU ROB THE PLACE, AS LONG
AS YOU DIDN'T PULL THE GUN OUT,
YOU GET TEN YEARS. SO YES, IN
THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE
ENHANCEMENT MAY STILL BE APPLIED
BECAUSE YOU'RE ONLY GOING TO GET
TWO YEARS FOR THE ROBBERY AND
YOU GET TEN YEARS. YOUR SENTENCE
IS BELOW 20 YEARS. WHAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT HERE IS WHEN YOU
USE THE GUN, WHEN YOU ARE, OR
WHERE IS THE GUN WHEN YOU'RE
THIS GUY AND YOU'RE POINTING THE
GUN, YOU TAKE IT OUT. YOU'RE
USING IT IN THE COMMISSION OF
THE CRIME. THIS IS WHAT GETS YOU
20 YEARS. THIS RIGHT NOW, A
JUDGE CANNOT IMPOSE THE FIREARM
ENHANCEMENT FOR THIS INDIVIDUAL
RIGHT HERE. HE'S GOING TO GET
TWO YEARS AND HE'S GOING TO BE
BACK OUT ON THE STREET. SO I
JUST DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN IN
GOOD CONSCIENCE SIT HERE AND SAY
THAT THESE LAWS DON'T HAVE AN
EFFECT IN OUR COMMUNITY. THIS
GUY SHOULD NOT BE OUT WALKING
AROUND AFTER TWO YEARS. HE
SHOULD BE BEHIND A CELL FOR 20
YEARS. ANYONE WHO'S GOT THE
AUDACITY TO PULL OUT A GUN IN
THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME NEEDS
TO GO TO A JAIL CELL FOR 20
YEARS. THAT'S WHAT THIS BILL IS.
I DON'T WANT TO PLAY WORD GAMES
HERE. I THINK THE OPPOSITION
KNOWS WHAT THE LAW IS. I THINK
THEY'RE MISREPRESENTING IT ON
PURPOSE. IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE TWO
OF YOUR OWN COMMITTEE ANALYSIS
IN BLACK AND WHITE, IT SAYS
RIGHT THERE THE ENHANCEMENT HAS
TO BE DISMISSED. SUBSECTION C
THERE IS NO CONFUSION. SO THE
STATS THAT ARE IN HERE WHERE
THERE'S STILL A THOUSAND
ENHANCEMENTS BEING APPLIED,
THOSE ARE FOR CASES WHERE
THEY'RE SERVING SUBSTANTIALLY
LESS THAN 20 YEARS. THEY'RE
SERVING TEN YEARS OR 12 YEARS.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE MAIN
CRIMES HERE WHERE THEY'RE USING
THE GUN. THERE NEEDS TO BE A
SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES FOR THAT.
AND I DON'T CARE IF THESE OTHER
GROUPS AREN'T HERE. BRADY MOMS
DEMAND ACTION. THESE. THESE ARE
FAKE LEFTIST GROUPS WHO REALLY
ARE JUST INTERESTED IN
CURTAILING LAW ABIDING CITIZENS
FIREARMS. THAT'S MY OPINION. I
CAN SAY IT. AND SO I DON'T
REALLY CARE. I CARE ABOUT
PROTECTING PEOPLE, INNOCENT
PEOPLE IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA WHO ARE BEING GUNNED
DOWN EVERY DAY BY VIOLENT
CRIMINALS, PEOPLE THAT THIS
POLICE CHIEF HERE HAS TO GO OUT
AND NOTIFY THEIR FAMILIES WHEN
THEY GET KILLED. AND WHAT ARE WE
DOING ABOUT IT? SO WE CAN PLAY
WORD GAMES. BUT I REALLY IMPLORE
THE COMMITTEE TO VOTE YES ON
THIS. RESTORE JUDICIAL
DISCRETION. WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID
OF? LET THE JUDGES MAKE THE
RIGHT DECISION. THIS BILL DOES
NOT REQUIRE THE ENHANCEMENT TO
BE APPLIED. IT REMOVES THE
HANDCUFFS FROM THE JUDGE'S SO
THEY CAN APPLY THE ENHANCEMENT
ON AN INDIVIDUALIZED
DETERMINATION. THAT IS MY ASK TO
THIS COMMITTEE, MR. CHAIR. AND
WITH THAT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. WE
HAVE A MOTION A SECOND, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL ON AB 3037 BY SOME
MEMBER SEALY. THE MOTION IS DUE.
PASS TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. MCCARTY NOT VOTING.
MCCARTY NOT VOTING. ALANIZ
ALANIZ. AYE. LAKI LAKI. AYE.
NGUYEN NGUYEN NOT VOTING. REYES
REYES. NOT VOTING. TING WILSON.
WILSON. NÓ. ZUBIATE ZURBANO.
THAT MEASURE FAILS. THE MEASURE
FAILS. ASK FOR RECONSIDERATION.
MR. CHIRLA WILL HAVE A REQUEST.
YES. MOTION SECONDED. MOTION,
MOTION. AND SECOND, FOR
RECONSIDERATION. MR. LANIS. MR.
LACKEY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON
RECONSIDERATION FOR AB 3037
MCCARTY. NO. MCCARTY NO. ALANIZ.
ALANIZ I LACKEY. LACKEY AYE.
NGUYEN. NGUYEN. AYE. REYES NO.
REYES. NO. TING. WILSON NO.
WILSON. NO. ZEBRA. ZEBRA. NO.
THAT MOTION FAILS. THAT MOTION
FAILS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. ASSEMBLY MEMBER, NEXT
AUTHOR. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MR.
REYES PRESENT FOR MR. HANEY
RIGHT NOW.
A.B. 2142. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. YOU
ARE PRESENTING THE ONE ITEM
NUMBER. IS IT ITEM NUMBER SEVEN
2142. I HAVE NUMBER SEVEN AB
2142. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS, AB 2142 BY MR. HANEY
ESTABLISHES A PILOT PROGRAM IN
THE CALIFORNIA PRISON SYSTEM
THAT WOULD PROVIDE REGULAR
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH THERAPY TO
INCARCERATED PEOPLE WHO ARE
SEEKING CARE IN ORDER TO PREVENT
INMATE SUICIDE. CALIFORNIA STATE
PRISONERS ARE COMMITTING
SUICIDE, AND AT AN EXCEEDINGLY
HIGH RATE, MORE THAN 200 INMATES
KILLED THEMSELVES OVER THE LAST
EIGHT YEARS, AND MANY OF THEM
ARE COMMITTING SUICIDE AS A
RESULT OF THEIR TRAUMA.
POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER,
ADDICTION, OR DEPRESSION THAT IS
INTENSIFIED DUE TO THEIR TIME IN
PRISON. THE EXCEEDINGLY HIGH
RATE OF INMATE SUICIDES HAS EVEN
MADE CALIFORNIA OPEN TO A
POTENTIAL $40 MILLION FINE FROM
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, BUT
CURRENTLY, THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION ONLY PROVIDES
THERAPY TO INMATES WHO ARE
CLASSIFIED AS HAVING A SEVERE
MENTAL HEALTH DISORDER. IN ORDER
TO BE CLASSIFIED, YOU MUST BE
PRESCRIBED MEDICATION. ONLY
ABOUT 30,000 INCARCERATED PEOPLE
FALL INTO THAT. THAT
CLASSIFICATION. APPROXIMATELY
67,000 INCARCERATED CALIFORNIANS
DO NOT FALL INTO THAT
CLASSIFICATION, MAKING THEM
INELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH SUPPORT AND LEAVING THEM
UNABLE TO PROCESS TRAUMA. WORK
ON ADDICTION, AND ADDRESS OTHER
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH ISSUES THAT
MAY LEAD TO SELF-HARM OR SUICIDE
. PEOPLE THAT ARE INCARCERATED
CAN EXPERIENCE SIGNIFICANT
TRAUMA WHILE THEY ARE IN PRISON,
REQUIRING THEM TO BE CLASSIFIED
AS HAVING A SEVERE MENTAL HEALTH
DISORDER. PRIOR TO SEEING A
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH THERAPIST DOES
NOT PROMOTE REHABILITATION FOR
THESE INDIVIDUALS. IT IS WELL
KNOWN THAT MOST PEOPLE WITH
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH ISSUES
STRONGLY BENEFIT FROM THERAPY BY
CONSISTENTLY OFFERING BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH THERAPY TO INCARCERATED
PEOPLE SEEKING CARE, WHO ARE
ARGUABLY THE ONES WHO CAN
BENEFIT THE MOST. WE CAN
EFFECTIVELY PREVENT INMATE
SUICIDE. WITH ME TODAY TO
TESTIFY ARE ESTEBAN NUNEZ,
SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE
ANTI-RECIDIVISM COALITION, AND
ANGELA BLANCHARD ON BEHALF OF
THE NIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPISTS.
CGRTS. GOOD MORNING OR GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS
ESTEBAN NUNEZ. I AM A SENIOR VP
WITH ACTUM AND ALSO A MEMBER OF
THE ANTI-RECIDIVISM COALITION.
AB 2142 HOLDS PROFOUND
SIGNIFICANCE FOR ME, DRAWING
FROM BOTH PERSONAL EXPERIENCES
AND INSIGHTS GLEANED FROM THOSE
CURRENTLY INCARCERATED WHO FACE
ONGOING HARDSHIPS. WHEN I FIRST
ENTERED THE PRISON SYSTEM AT THE
AGE OF 21, I WAS CONFRONTED WITH
A STARK REALITY AND AN UNFAIR
SET OF SITUATIONS. IT WAS A
JOURNEY MARKED BY ACCOUNTABILITY
FOR MY ACTIONS AND GRAPPLING
WITH THE HARM I CAUSED MY
COMMUNITY. MOREOVER, I WAS
COMPELLED TO CONFRONT THE
UNDERLYING TRAUMAS THAT HAD
CONTRIBUTED TO MY DESTRUCTIVE
PATH. STRUGGLING WITH CULTURAL
SHOCK AND EMOTIONAL NUMBNESS, I
FOUND MYSELF BATTLING
DEPRESSION. EVENTUALLY I WAS
CLASSIFIED AS TRIPLE CMS, A
DESIGNATION RESERVED FOR
INDIVIDUALS GRAPPLING WITH
MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES, GRANTING
ME ACCESS TO VITAL MENTAL HEALTH
RESOURCES SUCH AS THERAPY AND
THERAPY. I BEGAN THE ARDUOUS
JOURNEY OF UNRAVELING MY
CHILDHOOD TRAUMAS, PARTICULARLY
THE PROFOUND IMPACT OF BEING
MOLESTED AT THE AGE OF SIX.
CONFRONTING THESE PAINFUL
MEMORIES SHED LIGHT ON THE
MOTIVATIONS BEHIND MY PAST
NEGATIVE BEHAVIORS. IT BECAME
EVIDENT THAT MY ACTIONS WERE IN
PART, DRIVEN BY A SUBCONSCIOUS
ATTEMPT TO COMPENSATE FOR MY
INABILITY TO PROTECT MYSELF AS A
VULNERABLE CHILD, WHILE
ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THIS DOES NOT
ABSOLVE ME OF MY RESPONSIBILITY,
OF MY ACTIONS, IT UNDERSCORES
THE CRITICAL ROLE THAT THERAPY
HAD IN MY REHABILITATIVE
JOURNEY. MOREOVER OVER
DISCUSSIONS WITH FELLOW
INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS
REVEALED A STARTLING PREVALENCE
OF SIMILAR CHILDHOOD TRAUMAS,
OFTEN NORMALIZED OR LEFT
UNADDRESSED. THE ESSENCE OF THIS
BILL LIES IN ITS COMMITMENT TO
PROVIDING ESSENTIAL THERAPEUTIC
CARE TO THOSE WHO MAY NOT FIT
WITHIN THE EXISTING
CLASSIFICATIONS OF THE PRISON
SYSTEM. IT RECOGNIZES THE
INHERENT STIGMA SURROUNDING
MENTAL HEALTH CARE WITHIN PRISON
WALLS, BOTH AMONG THE POPULATION
AND THE STAFF. MANY OF OUR
REHABILITATIVE PROGRAM
PARTICIPANTS CURRENTLY
INCARCERATED EXPRESS A DIRE NEED
FOR SUPPORT, BUT FEAR THE
CONSEQUENCES OF SEEKING HELP
WITHIN THE CURRENT SYSTEM. UNDER
THIS BILL, INDIVIDUALS SERVING
LIFE SENTENCES WOULD BE AFFORDED
THE OPPORTUNITY TO ACCESS CARE
WITHOUT A FEAR OF ADVERSE
EFFECTS ON THEIR PROSPECTS FOR
FREEDOM. THERAPY SHOULD BE A
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT FOR ALL
INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS,
IRRESPECTIVE OF DIAGNOSTIC
DIAGNOSES. LABELS RESEARCH
DEMONSTRATES THAT INCARCERATED
THÀNH EXACERBATES UNDERLYING
TRAUMAS AND THE PROVISION OF
THERAPEUTIC SUPPORT CAN EMPOWER
INDIVIDUALS TO DEVELOP HEALTHY
COPING MECHANISMS ESSENTIAL FOR
SUCCESSFUL REENTRY INTO SOCIETY.
BY AFFORDING THESE OPPORTUNITIES
FOR HEALING, WERE NOT WE WILL
NOT ONLY FOSTER AN INDIVIDUAL'S
REHABILITATION, BUT ALSO PROMOTE
SAFER COMMUNITIES BY EQUIPPING
INDIVIDUALS WITH THE TOOLS TO
NAVIGATE THE CHALLENGES OF
REINTEGRATION INTO SOCIETY.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. NEXT
WITNESS. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR.
CHAIR, AND MEMBERS, ANGELA
BLANCHARD, REPRESENTING THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPISTS,
36,000 THERAPISTS STATEWIDE AND
LMFT CURRENTLY PRACTICE IN ALL
SETTINGS RANGING FROM CLINICS TO
HOSPITALS TO COUNTIES TO, OF
COURSE, WORKING WITH THOSE THAT
ARE IN OUR INCARCERATION SYSTEM.
I JUST WANT TO UNDERSCORE THAT,
YOU KNOW, AS A PROUD CO-SPONSOR
OF THE BILL, WE COME AT THIS
BILL FROM THE FOCUS OF WHEN WE
ADDRESS SYSTEMS OF TRAUMA, WE'RE
NOT JUST BENEFITING THE PERSON
WHO IS RECEIVING THE THERAPY.
WE'RE BENEFITING THEIR FAMILIES.
WE'RE BENEFITING SOCIETY. WE'RE
BENEFITING A LOT OF PEOPLE. AND,
YOU KNOW, WE ALSO WERE ASKED ON
BEHALF OF JONATHAN FELDMAN AND
THE CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS
ASSOCIATION TO RELAY HIS
SUPPORT. HE HAD TO GO, BUT HE
ASKED US TO RELAY THOSE SUPPORT.
SO WITH THAT, I'LL I'LL PAUSE.
AND WE'RE HERE FOR QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION AND
A SECOND. ANY OTHERS IN SUPPORT
PLEASE LINE UP. YEAH HOW DO YOU
TURN IT OFF? DANICA ADAMO, ON
BEHALF OF INITIATE JUSTICE AND
THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT ANTHONY
DEMARTINO ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIANS FOR SAFETY AND
JUSTICE AND STRONG SUPPORT DANNY
COLE, ON BEHALF OF MENTAL HEALTH
AMERICA OF CALIFORNIA. PROUD
CO-SPONSOR IN SUPPORT ALSO ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA YOUTH
EMPOWERMENT NETWORK, IN SUPPORT.
MATTHEW EASLEY WITH THE
CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE
OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, ALSO IN
SUPPORT. CLIFTON WILSON ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
ASSOCIATION OF PSYCHIATRISTS, IN
SUPPORT. TRENT MURPHY WITH THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
ALCOHOL AND DRUG PROGRAM
EXECUTIVES IN SUPPORT. ANY IN
OPPOSITION SEEING NO OPPOSITION
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. SEEING NONE.
WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND. WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR AYE VOTE ON BEHALF
OF ASSEMBLY MEMBER HANEY. THANK
YOU. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON AB
2142 BY MR. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
HANEY. THE MOTION IS Dð PASSED
TO THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY MCCARTY I ALANIS ALANIS
I LACKEY. LACKEY I NGUYEN NGUYEN
I REYES I REYES I TING WILSON I
WILSON I ZIPPER ZIPPER I THAT
MEASURE PASSES. THE LAST MEASURE
IS FOR MR. TING. HE'S ON HIS WAY
BACK. OH, YEAH. WE HAVE TO MAKE
THAT. OH, YEAH. LET'S DO THE. I
KNOW, RIGHT, THAT'S WHAT I'M
THINKING. I GOT. IT BEGINNING.
THE CONSENT CALENDAR HAS BEEN
DISPENSED WITH. ITEM NUMBER ONE,
AB 1832 WAS ON CONSENT. ITEM
TWO, AB 1888 WAS ON CONSENT.
ITEM NUMBER THREE, AB 1896, BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER DIXON NGUYEN ON
NGUYEN NOT VOTING, WILSON ON NO
MA'AM. THIS IS FOR AB 1896, ITEM
NUMBER THREE BY MISS DIXON. THIS
OKAY? YES. NOT NOT VOTING. AND
ON THE RECONSIDERATION FOR THE
RECORD, I. I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY.
I HAVE TO CALL MISS NGUYEN FIRST
ON RECONSIDERATION. MISS NGUYEN
FOR AB 1896. YES. NO NGUYEN NØ
AND WILSON. WILSON. NO LET'S DO
A TIME OUT THAT WE CAN DO IT ALL
AT ONCE. BECAUSE MR. TÍNH WANTS
TO ADD ON AS WELL. CORRECT, LAST
BILL, MR. TING. GOOD. I'M GLAD.
I'M GLAD I'M GOING LAST BECAUSE
I HAVE A 30 MINUTE PRESENTATION.
EXCELLENT SO DO I, WITH SOME
FOOTNOTES. MY WITNESS ONLY HAS
FIVE MINUTES, BUT I HAVE A 30
MINUTE PRESENTATION, AB 2483
FOLLOWS THE COMMITTEE ON
REVISION OF THE PENAL CODE'S
RECOMMENDATIONS TO SET STATEWIDE
GUIDELINES ENSURING EFFICIENT
AND EQUITABLE RESENTENCING
PROCEDURES. AS DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS, THE BOARD OF PAROLE
HEARINGS, THE CDCR SECRETARY AND
JUDGES HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO
REFER PEOPLE BACK TO COURT FOR A
SECOND LOOK AT THEIR SENTENCES
OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS, THIS
HAS BEEN FREQUENTLY USED, AND
WE'VE ACTUALLY SEEN A NUMBER OF
IMPLEMENTATION BARRIERS, AND SO
WHAT WE'VE SEEN IS A NUMBER OF
IMPLEMENTATION BARRIERS. THERE
ARE NO GENERAL PROCEDURES TO
FOLLOW FOR RESENTENCING IN EACH
NEW REFORM COMES WITH ITS OWN
DISTINCT RULES RESULTING IN WIDE
VARIATION IN EFFICIENCY ACROSS
THE STATE IN HOW THE
RESENTENCING CASES ARE HANDLED.
THIS HELPS GIVE THIS BILL HELPS
GIVES COURTS STANDARDIZED
GUIDELINES, CREATING CONSISTENCY
ACROSS THE STATE AND THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESENTENCING
LAWS. I HAVE TOM NOSOWITZ DID I
SAY THAT RIGHT? EXCUSE ME, WITH
THE COMMITTEE ON THE REVISION OF
THE PENAL CODE, RESPECTFULLY.
BROUGH. OKAY. THANK YOU. I'M TOM
NOSOWITZ, DIRECTOR OR LEGAL
DIRECTOR OF THE PENAL CODE
COMMITTEE, WHICH MAKES
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE
LEGISLATURE ON ALL ASPECTS OF
CRIMINAL LAW IN THE STATE. THIS
BILL IS BASED ON ONE OF OUR
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM OUR MOST
RECENT REPORT. AS MR. TING SAID,
WE'VE BEEN PASSING RESENTENCING
LAWS FOR MORE THAN A DECADE.
SOMETIMES THOSE LAWS HAVE THEIR
OWN PROCEDURES, SOMETIMES THEY
DON'T ADDRESS IMPORTANT THINGS.
AND SINCE LAWYERS ARE INVOLVED,
THERE'S LOTS OF TIME WASTED
BEFORE GETTING TO THE MERITS OF
EACH RESENTENCING. SO WITH THE
PENAL CODE COMMITTEE DID, IS IT
SURVEYED PRACTITIONERS, COURT
CASES AND PRIOR ACTS OF THE
LEGISLATURE? FIGURED OUT WHAT
WOULD MAKE SENSE TO HAVE AS
DEFAULT RULES FOR PROCEDURE FOR
THESE RESENTENCING PUT THEM ALL
IN ONE PLACE, AND THAT IS THE
BASIS OF THE BILL HERE TODAY. SO
THESE ARE JUST DEFAULTS. IF
THERE'S A MORE SPECIFIC LAW
ALREADY ON THE BOOKS THAT WOULD
APPLY IN THAT SITUATION. AND IF
A NEW RESENTENCING LAW IS PASSED
IN THE LEGISLATURE DECIDES WE
WANT TO DO A DIFFERENT
PROCEDURAL THING, THAT COULD
HAPPEN. SO THIS IS JUST DEFAULTS
LIKE WE HAVE IN EVERY OTHER PART
OF THE CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM,
AND I ALSO WANT TO MENTION IT
ALSO DIRECTS THE PRISON SYSTEM,
CDCR, TO MAKE GIVING RECORDS TO
INCARCERATED PEOPLE FOR THESE
RESENTENCING RESENTENCING
EASIER, WHICH EVERYONE WILL TELL
YOU CAN OFTEN BE A MAJOR
ROADBLOCK. AND GETTING THESE
THINGS DONE EFFICIENTLY. SO THE
PENAL CODE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED
THIS TO MAKE THINGS MORE
EFFICIENT AND FOCUSED ON THE
MERITS OF RESENTENCING, AND NOT
COLLATERAL OR SIDE ISSUES. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. ANY OTHERS IN
SUPPORT? DANICA ROADABLE ON
BEHALF OF INITIATE JUSTICE SMART
JUSTICE CALIFORNIA AND THE
PROSECUTORS ALLIANCE OF
CALIFORNIA AND STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, ANTHONY DEMARTINO, ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIANS FOR
SAFETY AND JUSTICE AND STRONG
SUPPORT, MARGIE LEE SAMSON
ADVISORS, ON BEHALF OF FAM OR
FAMILIES AGAINST MANDATORY
MINIMUMS AND STRONG SUPPORT
SAMUEL ROGERS, ELLA BAKER CENTER
FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IN STRONG
SUPPORT FELIPE KELLY AND FULL
SUPPORT ELLA BAKER CENTER.
IGNACIO HERNANDEZ, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS FOR
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND THE
SUPPORT. GOOD EVENING, TATIANA
LEWIS, WITH THE ELLA BAKER
CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. OPPOSITION. PLEASE COME
FORWARD.
CINDY DASILVA ON BEHALF OF CD-R.
LUCKILY GIVING GIVEN ASSEMBLY
MEMBER TING'S STATURE ON THIS
COMMITTEE. MY OPPOSITION IS A
SOFT ONE. I'VE BEEN TOLD TO
CONVEY THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE,
CD-R BELIEVES THIS BILL
UNNECESSARILY COMPLICATES THE
LAW BECAUSE THE POST-CONVICTION
STATUTES HAVE PROCEDURES
ATTACHED ALREADY. BUT WE ARE
ENGAGED IN TALKS WITH THE
SPONSORS AND THE AUTHORS THAT
HAVE BEEN PRODUCTIVE SO FAR, AND
WE APPRECIATE THEIR WILLINGNESS
TO WORK WITH US. OKAY. THANK YOU
. ANY OTHERS IN OPPOSITION?
SEEING NONE, DO WE HAVE A MOTION
, A SECOND, A MOTION A SECOND?
NGUYEN AND REYES, QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS
SEEING NONE. I'D LIKE TO CLOSE.
IT'S GOOD TO GO LAST. AGAIN,
REALLY APPRECIATE THE
OPPOSITION'S COMMENTS. AND
AGAIN, OUR GOAL IS TO CLARIFY
THINGS, NOT TO CONFUSE THINGS.
SO WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH
THEM RESPECTFULLY. ASK FOR AYE,
VOTE ON AB 2483. GREAT. THANK
YOU. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON AB
2483 BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER TING. THE
MOTION IS DUE. PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY. MCCARTY I ALANIS ALANIS
I LAKI LAKI I NGUYEN NGUYEN I
REYES REYES I TING TING I WILSON
WILSON I ZIPPER ZIPPER I. OKAY,
THE MEASURE PASSES. WE'RE GOING
TO JUST DO IT ONE TIME THROUGH
ALL THE ADD ONS. YES. NEXT WE'LL
DO ADD ONS, LIFTING THE CALLS
AND VOTE CHANGES. MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE GO THROUGH THE
LIST IN ORDER. ITEM ONE AB 1832
WAS ON CONSENT. ITEM NUMBER TWO,
AB 1888 WAS ON CONSENT. ITEM
NUMBER THREE, AB 1896. THIS
MEASURE HAS BEEN DISPENSED WITH
ITEM NUMBER FOUR AB 1978 BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER VINCE FONG. THIS
MEASURE WAS ON CALL. MCCARTY Ã
MCCARTY. I WILL THÀNH WILSON NOT
VOTING. THAT MEASURE PASSES.
ITEM NUMBER FIVE AB 2099 HAS
BEEN DISPENSED WITH. ITEM NUMBER
SIX, AB 2138, WAS PULLED BY THE
AUTHOR. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN AB
2142. TING TING I. ITEM NUMBER
EIGHT AB 2176 I'M SORRY, I'M
SORRY. ITEM NUMBER EIGHT AB
2176. WHEN NGUYEN I REYES REYES
I WILSON WILSON I ITEM NUMBER
NINE AB 2209 WAS PULLED BY THE
AUTHOR. ITEM NUMBER TEN AB 2215
BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER BRIAN REYES
REYES I WILSON. I'M SORRY, TING
TING I SORRY ABOUT THAT. IT'S
BEEN A LONG DAY. ITEM NUMBER 11
AB 2419 HAS BEEN DISPENSED WITH.
ITEM NUMBER 12 AB 2483 HAS BEEN
DISPENSED WITH. ITEM NUMBER 13,
AB 2609 ALANIS ALANIS I NGUYEN
NGUYEN NOT VOTING ON
RECONSIDERATION ALANIS ALANIS I.
WHEN NGUYEN I. ITEM NUMBER 14 AB
2621 WAS ON CONSENT. ITEM NUMBER
15 AB 2709. THIS MEASURE WAS ON
CALL. THIS IS BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
BONTA MCCARTY. MCCARTY I WILSON.
WILSON I THAT MEASURE PASSES
ITEM NUMBER 16 AB 2730 WAS ON
CONSENT. ITEM NUMBER 17 AB 2739
BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER MAIENSCHEIN
ALANIS ALANIS I WIN, I WIN I.
ITEM NUMBER 18 AB 2759 WAS ON
CONSENT ITEM 19 AB 2818 WAS ON
CONSENT. ITEM NUMBER 20 AB 2822
WAS ON CONSENT. ITEM 21 AB 2833
WAS ON CONSENT. ITEM 22 AB 2882
BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER MCCARTY. THIS
MEASURE WAS ON CALL. LACKEY
LACKEY NØ TING TING I WILSON.
WILSON I THAT MEASURE PASSES.
ITEM 23 AB 2913 BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER GIBSON. THIS MEASURE WAS
ON CALL. ALANIS ALANIS NOT
VOTING NGUYEN NGUYEN AYE. WILSON
. 2913 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER GIBSON
. IS THAT FIVE MONTHS ALREADY?
IT'S GOOD EITHER WAY, BY THE
WAY. OKAY, I JUST WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT I. YEAH, OKAY. I'M
TRYING TO REMEMBER WHAT IT WAS.
THAT'S ALL RIGHT. ON 2913, MISS
WILSON, I ZABIR ZIPPER I THAT
MEASURE NOW PASSES. ITEM 24 AB
2923 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER JONES.
SAWYER. ZIPPER ZIPPER. NOT
VOTING. WILSON ON
RECONSIDERATION. THÀNH FOR MR.
JONES. SAWYER AYE. ZIPPER.
ZIPPER I ITEM NUMBER 25 AB 2944.
THIS MEASURE WAS ON CONSENT.
ITEM 26 AB 2974 WAS ON CONSENT.
ITEM 27 AB 2985 WAS ON CONSENT.
ITEM 28, AB 3014 WAS ON CONSENT.
ITEM 29 AB 3021 BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER KALRA. THIS MEASURE WAS
ON CALL REYES REYES I TING TING
I WILSON WILSON I THAT MEASURE
NOW PASSES ITEM 30 AB 20. EXCUSE
ME AB 3029 WAS ON CONSENT. ITEM
31 AB 3037 TING 3037. YES. BY
MR. EASILY TING NO. ON
RECONSIDERATION. NO. TING. NO.
ON RECONSIDERATION. ON ITEM 32
AB 3042 WAS ON CONSENT. ITEM 33
AB 3077 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER HEART
ALANIS. ALANIS. NOT VOTING LAKI
LAKI NOT VOTING ZABIR. ZIPPER I
ITEM 34 AB 3088 BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER FRIEDMAN. THIS MEASURE
WAS ON CALL REYES. REYES AYE
TING TING AYE. WILSON. WILSON.
AYE THAT MEASURE NOW PASSES.
ITEM 35 AB 3092 WAS ON CONSENT.
ITEM 36 AB 3127 BY MISS MCKENNA
HAS ALREADY BEEN DISPENSED WITH.
OKAY THANK YOU. WELL DONE. YEAH,
YEAH. THANK YOU. THIS CONCLUDES
OUR HEARING. WE ARE ADJOURNED
.
STAFF.
AND.