GOOD MORNING. WE WILL START
TODAY'S PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
HEARING. WE DON'T HAVE A QUORUM
YET, SO WE'LL START AS A AS A
SUBCOMMITTEE. EXCUSE ME.
ANNOUNCE WE DO WANT TO ANNOUNCE.
WE DO WANT TO ANNOUNCE THE BILLS
PULLED OFF CALENDAR FOR TODAY.
ITEM NUMBER NINE, AB 2210
PETRIE-NORRIS AB 20. ITEM 20 AB
2691 QUIRK-SILVA. ITEM 21 AB
2692 PAPIN AND ITEM 23 AB 2782
PATTERSON, PLEASE COME UP.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER SORIA. WE'LL
HAVE YOU GO FIRST. SO WE HAVE
FOR YOU. AB 3171. GOOD MORNING.
ITEM 27. PLEASE PROCEED. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS, LET
ME BEGIN BY ACCEPTING THE
COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS,
REFLECTED IN THE ANALYSIS, IN
2023, AROUND 62,000 POUNDS OF
FENTANYL SMUGGLED INTO
CALIFORNIA WERE CONFISCATED BY
AUTHORITIES, THAT'S AN AMOUNT
THAT, ACCORDING TO GOVERNOR
NEWSOM, IS ENOUGH TO POTENTIALLY
KILL THE GLOBAL POPULATION
NEARLY TWICE OVER. TO SAY THAT
CALIFORNIA HAS A FENTANYL
PROBLEM IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT. WE
HAVE A CRISIS IN FRONT OF US
THAT IS DEADLIER THAN ANY OF THE
OTHER DRUG EPIDEMICS WE'VE SEEN.
FENTANYL POISONING IS THE NUMBER
ONE KILLER FOR INDIVIDUALS AGES
18 TO 45. TOO MANY PARENTS HAVE
LOST THEIR CHILDREN, AND MANY
MORE WILL LOSE THEM. IF WE DON'T
DO MORE TO COMBAT THIS CRISIS.
FENTANYL IS 50 TIMES MORE
POWERFUL THAN HEROIN AND JUST
TWO MILLIGRAMS IS CONSIDERED A
LETHAL DOSE AND CAN KILL AN
INDIVIDUAL. NATIONWIDE, OVER 150
PEOPLE DIE EVERY DAY FROM
FENTANYL OVERDOSES IN THE THREE
COUNTIES I REPRESENT FRESNO,
MADERA, MERCED. THERE HAVE BEEN
OVER 130 DEATHS LINKED TO
FENTANYL IN 2021 ALONE. IN MY
COMMUNITIES, LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT IS TRYING TO DO
EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO COMBAT
THIS CRISIS, INCLUDING DOING
EDUCATION, AWARENESS AND
PREVENTION WORK. THIS IS NOT
ENOUGH. THEIR HANDS ARE TIED. AB
3171 WILL GIVE LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT THE TOOLS. THE TOOLS
NEEDED, INCREASED PENALTIES TO
HOLD DRUG TRAFFICKERS
ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE FENTANYL
OVERDOSES AND DEATHS IN OUR
COMMUNITY. UNDER THE BILL,
FENTANYL DRUG DEALERS FACE
INCREASED JAIL SENTENCES RANGING
FROM 4 TO 13 YEARS. THE
INCREASED PENALTIES REFLECT
GOVERNOR NEWSOM'S CALLS TO HOLD
WHAT HE CALLED THE POISON
PEDDLERS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE
SPIKE IN FENTANYL OVERDOSES,
POISONINGS AND DEATH. THIS IS A
MORE APPROPRIATE PUNISHMENT FOR
FENTANYL DRUG DEALERS, GIVEN HOW
DEADLY A SMALL AMOUNT IS. WHILE
I SUPPORT INVESTING IN AWARENESS
AND DRUG ADDICTION AND
PREVENTION PROGRAMS, INCLUDING
ACCESS TO NARCAN AND REMOVING
BARRIERS TO HARM REDUCTION
STRATEGIES LIKE TESTING STRIPS.
I ALSO KNOW WE CANNOT EDUCATE OR
TREAT DEAD PEOPLE, AND THAT IS
WHAT FENTANYL IS DOING IN OUR
COMMUNITIES. TOO MANY PARENTS
HAVE LOST THEIR CHILDREN DUE TO
THE FEDERAL LAWS, SO WE MUST
PROVIDE OUR LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS THE TOOLS
THEY NEED TO GO AFTER THOSE
DANGEROUS DRUG DEALERS WHO DEAL
THIS DEADLY DRUG. SO WITH WITH
ME HERE TODAY TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT OF AB 3171, IS JULIANA
BORIS FROM THE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES AND THEN ALSO
COREY SALIZZO FROM THE
CALIFORNIA STATE SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION. THANK YOU. YOU HAVE
FIVE MINUTES BETWEEN YOUR PANEL,
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR.
MEMBERS, MY NAME IS JULIAN.
BORIS. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES IN
SUPPORT OF AB 3171. WE WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHOR FOR INTRODUCING
THIS IMPORTANT MEASURE, WHICH WE
BELIEVE WILL PROVIDE LAW
ENFORCEMENT WITH ANOTHER WAY TO
FIGHT THIS DEADLY DRUG. ONE OF
THE TOP PRIORITIES FOR CAL
CITIES IN 2024 IS TO ADDRESS THE
FENTANYL CRISIS. THIS CONTINUES
THE WORK WE DID LAST YEAR IN
SUPPORT OF MANY LEGISLATIVE AND
ADMINISTRATIVE EFFORTS,
INCLUDING INCREASE INCREASING
THE AMOUNT OF NALOXONE, OR
NARCAN EDUCATION EFFORTS AND
OTHER PREVENTION ACTIVITIES.
WHILE SOME PROGRESS HAS BEEN
MADE TO ADDRESS THE FENTANYL
CRISIS, CITIES ARE STILL SEEING
TRAGIC DEATHS IN THEIR
COMMUNITIES JUST IN 2024. FOR
EXAMPLE, THE CITY AND COUNTY OF
SAN FRANCISCO HAS SEEN 45 DEATHS
SINCE JANUARY. SACRAMENTO COUNTY
HAS EXPERIENCED 50 DEATHS FROM
FENTANYL IN 2024, AND THE CITY
OF SAN DIEGO EXPERIENCED 410
DEATHS FROM FENTANYL IN 2023.
LOCAL COMMUNITIES EXPERIENCED
THE REALITIES OF THE OPIOID
EPIDEMIC EPIDEMIC EACH DAY
THROUGH THE INCREASING TOLL ON
FAMILIES, FIRST RESPONDERS,
EDUCATORS, CHILD WELFARE
AGENCIES, CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICIALS, HEALTH
PROFESSIONALS AND COMMUNITY
ORGANIZATIONS. AMONG OTHERS. AB
31, 31, 71 WILL PROVIDE LAW
ENFORCEMENT WITH ANOTHER TOOL TO
CRACK DOWN ON THESE DRUG DEALERS
WHO ARE PROFITING FROM THIS USE.
USING THIS DEADLY PRODUCT IN OUR
COMMUNITIES, SPECIFICALLY, THIS
BILL WOULD INCREASE PENALTIES
FOR SELLING, DISTRIBUTING OR
TRAFFICKING OF FENTANYL, IF THE
AMOUNT OF FENTANYL WEIGHS MORE
THAN 28.35G, WE BELIEVE THIS
WOULD, CRACK DOWN ON THESE DRUG
DEALERS AND HELP PROVIDE FOR
SAFER COMMUNITIES. FOR THESE
REASONS, WE'RE PLEASED TO
SUPPORT AB 3171, AND WE URGE THE
COMMITTEE TO VOTE YES ON THIS
IMPORTANT MEASURE. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. CORY SALZILLO, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION, IN SUPPORT
OF THE BILL. I THINK THE AUTHOR
AND MISS FLORES SUMMED IT UP
PRETTY WELL. SO IN THE INTEREST
OF TIME, I'LL JUST MAKE A COUPLE
OF NOTES. ONE, I THINK THIS BILL
REFLECTS THE REALITY OF HOW
DANGEROUS, COMPARATIVELY SMALL
AMOUNTS OF FENTANYL CAN BE WHEN
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT FENTANYL AS
IT RELATES TO OTHER DANGEROUS
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES, THE
AMOUNTS HAVE TO HAVE TO MATTER.
AND THEY AND THE STATUTE HAS TO
REFLECT THE SEVERITY, AND THE
DANGER THAT, THAT FENTANYL
CAUSES. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
TRAFFICKING OFFENSES HERE, THESE
ARE NOT, THESE ARE NOT JUST
USERS, OBVIOUSLY. AND THE
COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS TO,
PRESERVE SOME CONTINUITY WITH
THE COMMITTEE'S WORK ON FENTANYL
THIS YEAR, THE BILL INCLUDES THE
LANGUAGE THAT THE PERSON, KNEW
THAT THE SUBSTANCE, WAS OR
CONTAINED FENTANYL, AND THAT
THAT TAKES AWAY, YOU KNOW, SOME
OF THE CONCERN THAT. WELL, I
THOUGHT I WAS SELLING A PERCOCET
AND REALLY IT WAS FENTANYL OR
SOMETHING LIKE THAT, SO WE THINK
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT TOOL IN THE
TOOLBOX, WE THINK THIS HELPS
WITH AN ADEQUATE REFLECTION OF
THE DANGER THAT FENTANYL IS
BRINGING. AND WE RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. OTHERS IN SUPPORT, MR.
CHAIRMAN MEMBERS, RANDY PERRY
WITH AARON REED AND ASSOCIATES,
ON BEHALF OF PORAC AND HIGHWAY
PATROL. AND HE'S IN SUPPORT RYAN
SHERMAN WITH, RIVERSIDE SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA NARCOTIC
OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, AND LET ME
RUN THROUGH THE LIST REALLY
QUICK FOR THE FIRST TIME AND
ONLY TIME TODAY, CALIFORNIA
RESERVE PEACE OFFICERS,
CALIFORNIA COALITION OF SCHOOL
SAFETY PROFESSIONALS, DEPUTY
SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION, MONTEREY
AND PLACER COUNTIES, AND THE
POLICE OFFICER ASSOCIATIONS OF
ARCADIA, BURBANK, CLAREMONT,
CORONA, CULVER CITY, FULLERTON,
MURRIETA, NEWPORT BEACH, NEVADA,
PALOS VERDES, POMONA, RIVERSIDE,
SANTA ANA, AND UPLAND ALL IN
SUPPORT. THANKS THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, IVY FITZPATRICK,
CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
ASSOCIATION, RIVERSIDE COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SEEING
OTHERS IN SUPPORT OPPOSITION
THÀNH, PLEASE COME FORWARD. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS, WE
HAVE ANOTHER WITNESS WHO'S
RUNNING OVER FROM THE PARKING
LOT, SO HOPEFULLY SOMEONE ELSE
WILL JOIN ME MOMENTARILY. GOOD
MORNING. MY NAME IS TINA VARGAS.
I'M THE FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF INITIATE JUSTICE
ACTION. HERE TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO AB 3171, BUT ALSO
SPEAKING AS A PERSON WHO'S BEEN
DIRECTLY HARMED BY THE OPIOID
CRISIS, I WAS 17 YEARS OLD THE
FIRST TIME THAT MY MOM
OVERDOSED. I REMEMBER HEARING MY
FATHER SCREAM HER NAME AS HE
FRANTICALLY PERFORMED CPR AND
CRIED OVER HER MOTIONLESS BODY.
THE PARAMEDICS WERE ABLE TO
REVIVE HER THAT TIME, BUT I
NEVER RECOVERED FROM THE TRAUMA
OF BELIEVING THAT I HAD
WITNESSED HER DEATH. IN THE TEN
YEARS THAT FOLLOWED, MY MOM
WOULD OVERDOSE THREE MORE TIMES.
OUR FAMILY TRIED OUR BEST TO GET
THE CARE THAT SHE NEEDED, BUT
THERE WAS NO REHABILITATION
CENTERS AVAILABLE FOR LOW INCOME
PEOPLE WHO FELT THAT SHE FELT
SAFE OR COMFORTABLE GOING TO.
SHE WOULD SAY THAT ALL THE REHAB
CENTERS FELT LIKE JAIL. INDEED,
THE ONLY TIME SHE EVER HAD
ACCESS TO REHAB WAS COURT
ORDERED. AFTER SHE WAS ARRESTED,
THE LAST TIME SHE OVERDOSED, I
WAS 27. SHE WOULD NEVER WAKE UP,
BUT SHE DIDN'T PASS AWAY EITHER.
SHE SEIZED FOR SEVERAL HOURS,
CUTTING OFF CIRCULATION TO HER
BRAIN, RESULTING IN HER
PERMANENT VEGETATIVE STATE. FOR
THE LAST EIGHT AND A HALF YEARS,
MY MOTHER HAS BEEN CONFINED TO A
HOSPITAL BED, UNABLE TO MOVE,
UNABLE TO TALK, UNABLE TO
RECOGNIZE WHEN HER FAMILY IS
THERE. SHE WILL NEVER RECOVER. I
UNDERSTAND MORE CLOSELY THAN
MOST THE DEVASTATING IMPACTS OF
THE OPIOID CRISIS. HOWEVER,
VICTIMS AND SURVIVORS ARE OFTEN
PAINTED AS A MONOLITH WHO WILL
ONLY BE SATISFIED WITH INCREASED
CRIMINAL PENALTIES. THIS IS NOT
THE CASE. IN FACT, A SURVEY
CONDUCTED BY CRIME SURVIVORS
SPEAK FOUND THAT 73% OF VICTIMS
FAVOR INVESTMENT IN DRUG
TREATMENT OVER INCARCERATION
LEGISLATION LIKE AB 3171 CANNOT
BRING MY MOM BACK, NOR WOULD IT
HAVE PREVENTED HER OVERDOSE. IT
WILL MERELY INCARCERATE MORE
PEOPLE, BLOATING OUR PRISON
SYSTEM AND WASTING PRECIOUS
RESOURCES THAT WOULD BE BETTER
USED. ENSURING THAT LOW INCOME
CALIFORNIANS STRUGGLING WITH
SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER HAVE
ACCESS TO FREE NON CARCERAL
EFFECTIVE TREATMENT. I URGE YOUR
NØ NO VOTE ON AB 3171. THANK YOU
, THANK YOU. OTHERS IN
OPPOSITION IN. GOOD MORNING
MARGO GEORGE, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION, IN OPPOSITION.
OAN. THANK YOU, MELANIE KIM,
SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE AND STRONG OPPOSITION.
ASHLEY CHAMBERS WITH THE ELLA
BAKER CENTER IN STRONG
OPPOSITION. KELLY WALTERS STAFF
ATTORNEY WITH LEGAL SERVICES FOR
PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN IN
STRONG OPPOSITION. FELIPE KELLY
WITH THE ELLA BAKER CENTER AND
FULL OPPOSITION. LAWRENCE COX,
LSPC AND ALL OF US ARE NONE.
OPPOSITION AND LITTLE ON BEHALF
OF CALIFORNIANS FOR SAFETY AND
JUSTICE AND VERA INSTITUTE FOR
JUSTICE IN OPPOSITION. JOANNA
WILLIAMS, WITH STRONG OPPOSITION
WITH I'M SORRY WITH LSPC WITH
STRONG OPPOSITION. GILBERT
MURILLO LSPC AND ALL OF US ARE
NONE OPPOSITION WABOWDEN LSPC,
ALL OF US ARE NONE. STRONGLY
OPPOSITION. JUAN FLORES WITH THE
ELLA BAKER CENTER. STRONG
OPPOSITION. DUKE COONEY, ON
BEHALF OF ACLU CALIFORNIA ACTION
AND RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. TONIGHT'S STATE DIRECTOR
FOR DRUG POLICY ALLIANCE IN
STRONG OPPOSITION. ANGEL RICE
WITH EMPOWERING WOMEN IMPACTED
BY INCARCERATION AND STRONG
OPPOSITION. ABIGAIL SALEEM FROM
EMPOWERING WOMEN IMPACTED BY
INCARCERATION AND STRONG
OPPOSITION. EMILY WONDER FROM
SISTER WARRIORS FREEDOM
COALITION IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. SEEING NO MORE
OPPOSITION QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS. BEFORE
WE DO THAT, WE WANT TO ESTABLISH
A QUORUM REAL QUICK. MCCARTY
HERE, ALANIS HERE. LACKEY HERE.
NGUYEN REYES TÍNH WILSON.
ZUBIATE OKAY. THANK YOU. WE HAVE
A QUORUM. SO QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS, MR. LACKEY? YEAH.
FIRST OF ALL, LET ME JUST SAY
THANK YOU FOR ADDRESSING A VERY
IMPORTANT TOPIC AND, I WOULD
LIKE TO BE A COAUTHOR TO YOUR
MEASURE HERE. AND I JUST HAVE A
CURIOSITY QUESTION. HAS THERE
BEEN ANY COLLABORATION WITH
ASSEMBLY MEMBER JIM PATTERSON?
BECAUSE HE HAD A PROPOSAL THAT'S
VERY, VERY SIMILAR? YES HE IS
ACTUALLY A JOINT AUTHOR. OKAY.
THANK YOU. MR. ZUBIATE AND MR.
LUNNEY'S, SO I WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR FOR BRINGING THIS
IMPORTANT BILL, I HAVE A
QUESTION ABOUT SOME OF THE
DETAILS ON THE LENGTH OF, THE
ADDITIONAL PENALTIES COMPARED TO
EXISTING LAW, SO, I VOTED LAST
YEAR FOR TO, FOR THE VÆ
VALLAPUDUA BILL. AND THE REASON
WHY I DID THAT WAS BECAUSE
BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS
FOCUSING ON, REALLY SORT OF THE
FOLKS THAT ARE MAKING THE
DECISIONS TO PUT THESE THINGS
OUT IN THE STREETS AND, AND I
THINK HAD A DEMARCATION BETWEEN
THOSE, THOSE FOLKS AND FOLKS
THAT ARE, MAYBE, YOU KNOW, MAY
NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THEIR
DEALING IN FENTANYL AND HAD
SMALL QUANTITIES. AND SO, YOU
KNOW, GENERALLY THE, YOU KNOW,
MOST OF THE STUDIES SHOW THAT
INCREASING THE LENGTH OF
PENALTIES ON ALMOST ANY KIND OF
CRIME, DOESN'T REALLY RESULT IN
DETERRENCE. IT'S REALLY THE
LIKELIHOOD YOU'RE GOING TO GET
CAUGHT AND THE LIKELIHOOD THAT
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A, THAT
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A, A
PENALTY. SO SO I UNDERSTAND THAT
THE 28.3 IS IT .8.35. WHERE DID
THAT COME FROM. WHERE HOW DID
THAT HOW WAS THAT ARRIVED AT
VERSUS THE ONE KILOGRAM THAT WAS
IN THE VÆ BILL? I THINK FOR US,
WHAT, IS IMPORTANT IS TO ENSURE
THAT THE PUNISHMENT THAT WE ARE
TRYING TO, INCREASE, IS
COMMENSURATE WITH THE DANGER OF
THE DRUG. AND SO I THINK FOR US,
REALIZING THAT SUCH A SMALL
AMOUNT CAN KILL SOMEONE, I THINK
FOR US IS IMPORTANT IN, IN
MAKING THAT DIFFERENCE, IN
MAKING SURE THAT FOLKS
UNDERSTAND AND THAT THEY'RE
GOING TO BE HELD TO A HIGHER
STANDARD, AND HAVE A HIGHER
PUNISHMENT, GIVEN THE FACT THAT
THIS DRUG IS MUCH MORE DANGEROUS
THAN COCAINE OR SOME OTHER TYPE
OF DRUG, WHICH WE'VE DEALT WITH
IN THE PAST. YEAH. I MEAN, I
DON'T HAVE A PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUE
ABOUT SORT OF REDUCING THE
QUANTITIES TO THE EXTENT THAT,
WHEN YOU ACTUALLY TREAT FENTANYL
IN THE SAME WAY YOU DO HEROIN OR
COCAINE, THAT YOU KNOW, THAT IT
IS MUCH MORE DANGEROUS. AND SO
SMALLER QUANTITIES, YOU KNOW,
PERHAPS ARE RESULTED IN
EQUIVALENT THRESHOLD, RIGHT, IN
TERMS OF THE PUNISHMENT. SO SO
WHAT DOES YOUR BILL WITH THE VÀ
BILL WITH ONE KILOGRAM,
ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOU'RE DOING.
AND I THINK WHAT ASSEMBLY MEMBER
PATTERSON WAS DOING WAS THEY
WERE EQUATING THE 28 .53. GRAMS
TO THE ONE KILOGRAM STANDARD
THAT WE HAD BEFORE. UNDER
CURRENT LAW. UNDER CURRENT LAW,
YOU WOULD HAVE HAD AN UNDERLYING
PENALTY. PLUS THEN THESE
PENALTY, THE PENALTY ENHANCEMENT
OF THREE YEARS. SO WITH YOUR
BILL, WHAT DOES THAT DO WITH THE
UNDERLYING PENALTY. AND THE
PENALTY ENHANCEMENT FROM THE VÀ
BILL AT 28.35? CORY, DO YOU WANT
TO MAYBE. SURE, THROUGH THE
CHAIR, ASSEMBLY MEMBER I THINK
AS YOU AS YOU NOTED AND AS THE
AUTHOR NOTED, THAT DISTINCTION
BETWEEN THE QUANTITY
ENHANCEMENTS THAT, MR. WAS BILL
ADDRESSED LAST YEAR START AT
THAT ONE KILOGRAM, THIS 28.35G,
THIS ONE OUNCE. RIGHT? I MEAN,
THAT'S THE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT HERE, IT DOES
REFLECT THE DANGER. AND IT IS,
IT IS THAT BASE CRIME. SO,
OSTENSIBLY THERE'S STILL THOSE
ENHANCEMENTS EXIST, FOR THE
EXCESSIVELY LARGE QUANTITIES. SO
I THINK WHAT I HEAR YOU ASKING
IS THE, THE SORT OF HOW THE HOW
BASE TÂM AND AN ENHANCEMENT OR
AN ENHANCED BASE TERME COEXIST
IS THAT IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE
GETTING AT? SORRY. SO, SO I SO
WHAT THIS WOULD DO FOR 28G. WHAT
WOULD IT DO TO THE BASE TO THE
BASE PENALTY. SO IT WOULD IT
WOULD SPECIFY THAT IF YOU'RE, IF
YOU POSSESS FOR SALE, THEN IT'S
THEN THERE'S ONE SET OF
PENALTIES IF YOU TRANSPORT SELL,
FURNISH, GIVE AWAY, THERE'S A
SECOND TRIAD, AND THEN IF AGAIN
Ã INTER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION,
THERE'S ANOTHER TRIAD. SO THAT'S
THE AS, AS I UNDERSTAND I'M
SORRY, DON'T HAVE A COPY OF THE
BILL IN FRONT OF ME, BUT BUT MY
UNDERSTANDING IS IT IT IT SETS
THAT BASE TERME BASED FOR THOSE
FOR THOSE SPECIFIC TRAFFICKING
RELATED OFFENSES AT THOSE HIGHER
TRIADS THAN WHAT EXISTS UNDER
CURRENT LAW, UNDER 11 THREE, 51,
11, THREE, 52 AND WHAT ARE
THOSE? I MEAN, WHAT IS IT UNDER
CURRENT LAW FOR 28G? WHAT WOULD
IT BE FOR THOSE THREE THINGS?
AND THEN WHAT IT IS UNDER THIS?
I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT
THE BASE IS. THEN I ASSUME IF WE
IF THE PATTERSON BILL DOES NOT
GET OUT OF COMMITTEE, YOU WOULD
THE ENHANCEMENTS WOULD BE THE
SAME AS YOU WOULD UNDER THE VÆ
VALLAPUDUA BILL. SO THE
ENHANCEMENTS WOULD START AT ONE
KILOGRAM. IS THAT RIGHT? THE
QUANTITY ENHANCEMENTS? YES. ARE
IN STATUTE AND THOSE START AT
ONE KILOGRAM, WHICH AS YOU
NOTED, IS AN EXCESSIVE OR AS HAS
BEEN NOTED, IS AN EXCESSIVE
AMOUNT OF FENTANYL, ESPECIALLY,
COMPARATIVELY SPEAKING, TO THE
OTHER CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES. SO
YES. SO THE POSSESSION FOR SALE,
AGAIN THROUGH THE CHAIR, THE
POSSESSION FOR SALE WOULD GO
FROM TWO, 3 OR 4 YEAR TRIAD TO
FOUR OR 5 OR 6, AND THEN THE
TRANSPORTATION SELLING WOULD GO
FROM THREE, SIX, 9 TO 7, 8 OR 9.
AND THEN, TRANSPORTATION TO A
NONCONTIGUOUS COUNTY WOULD GO
FROM THREE, SIX, 9 TO 7, 10 OR
13. AND JUST TO NOTE, MR. THE
PATTERSON BILLS PULLED TODAY AND
WON'T BE HEARD THIS YEAR. SO
THIS IS THE THIS IS THE BILL
WE'RE HEARING. GOT IT. OKAY.
GREAT. OKAY. I THINK YOU'VE
ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, MR. LANCE.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, JUST REAL
QUICK, JUST WANT TO POINT OUT AS
FAR AS USES AND GRAMS, USUALLY
LIKE ONE TENTH OF A GRAM WOULD
BE LIKE A USE THAT WE WOULD HAVE
FOR, FOR FENTANYL. SO THAT'S
ESSENTIALLY IF I MEAN, I'M NOT A
MATHEMATICIAN, BUT THAT'S LIKE
300 USES, WITH YOUR 28.35G. JUST
TO GIVE YOU GUYS AN IDEA OF WHAT
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, IS DON'T
THINK THAT'S JUST ONE USE RIGHT
THERE. I MEAN, THAT WOULD THAT
WOULD KILL TONS OF PEOPLE RIGHT
THERE, BUT THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS AS WELL, FOR THE
OPPOSITION. YOU WERE TALKING
ABOUT HOW YOUR MOM, FELT OR DID
NOT GET THE HELP THAT SHE
NEEDED, WAS THAT ORDERED OR IS
THAT VOLUNTEERED TO THE POINT
THAT I WAS TRYING TO CONVEY, AND
THAT IS THAT I THINK THAT
SOMETHING THAT THIS BODY OFTEN
MISSES THE MARK ON IS WE WANT TO
NITPICK AND SAY, LET'S, YOU
KNOW, INCREASE THE
CRIMINALIZATION HERE. LET'S ADD
A, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE YEARS HERE
AND THERE. BUT THE POINT IS THAT
FAMILIES WHO ARE SUFFERING FROM
THIS ACTUALLY NEED MORE NON
CARCERAL RESOURCES IN THE
COMMUNITY, AND PARTICULARLY FOR
PEOPLE WHO ARE LOW INCOME, MOST
OF THE REHABILITATION CENTERS
THAT ARE AVAILABLE ARE EITHER
COURT ORDERED OR EVEN IF THEY'RE
NOT COURT ORDERED, THEY FEEL
CARCERAL. THERE'S A TREATMENT
CENTER THAT'S ACTUALLY VERY
CLOSE TO OUR HOUSE, THE PEOPLE
DON'T WANT TO GO TO BECAUSE
THEY'RE CONTINUOUSLY IN LOCKED
FACILITIES AND WE DON'T HAVE
ACCESS TO THE NICER FACILITIES,
LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE MALIBU REHAB
CENTERS THAT HAVE MUCH HIGHER,
EFFECTIVENESS RATES. IN FACT,
AFTER MY MOM WAS ARRESTED AND
WAS SENTENCED TO COURT ORDERED
REHABILITATION, SHE WAS SENT TO
A FACILITY THAT ONLY HAD A 3%
SUCCESS RATE. SO THE POINT
OVERALL THAT I'M TRYING TO
CONVEY HERE IS THAT I UNDERSTAND
WE ALL WANT TO ADDRESS THE
FENTANYL CRISIS. I WANT TO
ADDRESS THAT. BUT I THINK
SOLUTIONS LIKE THIS ARE MISSING
THE MARK. AND WHAT WE REALLY
NEED TO DO IN A MEANINGFUL WAY
IS INVEST IN, IN, IN NON
CARCERAL COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS. SO
THE FACILITY YOU WERE TALKING
ABOUT THAT I ONLY HAD A 3%
SUCCESS RATE WAS WHERE THOSE
PEOPLE WITH COURT ORDERED. WERE
THEY ALLOWED TO LEAVE AS THEY
WANTED TO? NO OKAY, I DON'T HAVE
ANYTHING FURTHER OTHER THAN JUST
AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR DOING THIS.
OBVIOUSLY, WE'VE BROUGHT THIS
UP. FENTANYL IS A BIG PROBLEM, I
FEEL THAT, IN MY OPINION, AND MY
PROFESSIONAL OLD CAREER, PEOPLE
DON'T VOLUNTEER TO USUALLY JUST
GO TO REHAB. USUALLY IT HAS TO
BE COURT ORDERED. THAT DOES HELP
IT. I'VE SEEN PEOPLE BE
SUCCESSFUL WITH IT IN DRUG
COURT, PROP 36 COURT MYSELF,
WHERE PEOPLE ACTUALLY THANKED ME
WHEN I'VE ARRESTED THEM AND THEY
GOT THE HELP THEY NEEDED. SO I
THINK THIS WILL HELP THEM AS
WELL, AND IT WILL GET THEM THE
TREATMENT THAT THEY NEEDED. SO
THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLYMAN REYES. I THINK AS AS
MY COLLEAGUE HAS STATED, THERE'S
NO QUESTION THERE'S MORE THAT
NEEDS TO BE DONE. I APPRECIATE
NOT ONLY WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE
IN THE ASSEMBLY, BUT ALSO IN THE
SENATE. THEY HAVE, THERE ARE A
NUMBER OF BILLS THAT ARE COMING
OUR WAY, SPECIFICALLY DEALING
WITH FENTANYL, AS THEY'VE TAKEN
THE LEAD ON THAT PARTICULAR
ISSUE, WHILE WE'VE TAKEN THE
LEAD ON RETAIL CRIME, SO TO
SPEAK, AND I APPRECIATE MY
COLLEAGUES QUESTIONS. IT APPEARS
AS THOUGH IT IS AN ENHANCEMENT
OVER AN ENHANCEMENT. AND THAT
WAS MY CONCERN WITH THIS, AS WAS
NOTED IN, IN THE, IN THE
ANALYSIS, WE'RE IN THE MIDST OF
A TRAGIC INCREASE IN DRUG
OVERDOSE DEATHS. AND WE ALL
RECOGNIZE THAT. AND WE KNOW
FENTANYL IS SOMETHING THAT WHEN
YOU LOOK AT THE INCREASE FROM
THAT, SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE
. BUT I WANT TO MORE
SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS YOU. I WANT
TO APPRECIATE SO MUCH THAT YOU
CAME HERE TO TALK ABOUT
SOMETHING THAT IS SO PERSONAL
FOR YOURSELF OFF THE FACT THAT
YOUR MOTHER, YOU SAW YOUR MOTHER
AS A YOUNG WOMAN, YOU WERE A
YOUNG WOMAN, THAT YOU SEE YOUR
MOTHER GO THROUGH WHAT SHE DID,
AND KNOWING THAT WHAT YOU WANTED
MORE FOR HER IS TO FOR HER TO
GET HELP AND TO KNOW THAT THE
SYSTEM FAILED HER. AND NOW YOUR
MOTHER IS IN A VEGETATIVE STATE
AND WE HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
THERE IS SO MUCH MORE THAT WE
CAN DO. I WILL SOMETIMES WE TALK
ABOUT OTHER BILLS THAT THAT ARE
PENDING. I HAVE A BILL THAT WILL
REQUIRE, THAT WILL TAKE AWAY THE
NEED FOR PRE-AUTHORIZATION WHEN
THE TREATMENT NEEDS TO BE
PROVIDED, WHEN SOMEBODY LEAVES
THE EMERGENCY ROOM AFTER THEY'VE
COME IN FOR AN OVERDOSE, BECAUSE
YOU GO IN FOR AN OVERDOSE,
YOU'RE GIVEN A PRESCRIPTION AND
NOW YOU NEED PRE-AUTHORIZED
THÀNH YOU DON'T GET IT, YOU THEN
GO BACK INTO THE SAME THING AND
THEN YOU'RE BACK INTO THE
EMERGENCY ROOM. THE ALTHOUGH I
DO HAVE ISSUES WITH THE BILL AS
IT IS WRITTEN NOW, I KNOW THE
CHAIR IS AN AYE RECO. I WILL
FOLLOW THE CHAIR ON THIS, BUT I
HOPE THAT THERE ARE GOING TO BE
OTHER AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL,
I'M GLAD THAT, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
PATTERSON'S BILL IS NOT GOING TO
COME FORWARD THIS YEAR. SO IT'S
GOING TO BE YOUR BILL THAT WE'RE
GOING TO BE LOOKING AT. BUT BUT
I DO THINK THAT, AS IT APPEARS
AS ITS ENHANCEMENT OVER
ENHANCEMENT AND I DON'T THINK
THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING
TO DO, IF WE KNOW THAT STUDIES
SHOW THAT THE PENALTIES, AS MY
COLLEAGUE HAS SAID, IT'S NOT THE
PENALTIES THAT ARE GOING TO
RESULT IN THE DETERRENCE. IT'S
WE, NOT THE INCREASE IN
PENALTIES. WE HAVE THE PENALTIES
. WE HAVE TO WE HAVE TO FIGURE
OUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO DEAL WITH
THIS CRISIS, THANK YOU FOR
PRESENTING IT TO US, THOUGH.
THANK YOU BRIEFLY BACK TO MR.
ZUBIATE. I JUST WANT TO SORT OF
FOLLOW UP ON MY COLLEAGUE'S
COMMENTS. I MEAN, I'M ALSO GOING
TO FOLLOW THE CHAIR'S LEAD
TODAY, BUT I WHEN I LOOK AT THE
LEVEL OF THE INCREASES IN THE
PENALTIES, IT JUST IT JUST SEEMS
LIKE THERE'S SORT OF TWO DEEP
WHEN YOU START ADDING EVERYTHING
UP WITH THE POTENTIAL, WITH THE
ENHANCEMENTS, ESPECIALLY GIVEN,
YOU KNOW, WE WANT THERE TO BE A
STRONG PENALTY. WE WANT THERE TO
BE ENOUGH OF A PENALTY TO DETER
IT. BUT AT SOME POINT WE GO FROM
THREE YEARS TO SEVEN OR 8 OR 9
YEARS. ALL YOU'RE REALLY DOING
IS YOU'RE PUTTING PEOPLE IN
PRISON FOR LONGER PERIODS OF
TIME. AND NOT INCREASING THE
DETERRENCE. SO I'M HOPING THAT
THE AUTHOR WILL CONTINUE WORKING
WITH, WITH THE OPPONENTS AND
REALLY TAKE A STRONG LOOK AT
WHETHER OR NOT THE PENALTY
LEVELS ARE REALLY NECESSARY TO
PROVIDE DETERRENCE. SO THANK YOU
. OKAY. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A
MOTION. DO WE HAVE A MOTION. AND
A SECOND PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
OH I'M SORRY I WAS GOING TO SAY
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BUT I'LL
KEEP IT SHORT. I ASKED FOR A
YES. THANK YOU. ON AB 3171 BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER SORIA. THE MOTION
IS DUE PASS AS AMENDED TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY MCCARTY I ALANIS ALANIS
I LACKEY. LACKEY I NGUYEN REYES
REYES I TÍNH WILSON. ZIPPER.
ZIPPER I THANK YOU. THAT MEASURE
PASSES NEXT AUTHOR IS ASSEMBLY
MEMBER BONTA. SO WHICH IS THE
ONE?
A PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE IN SAN
FRANCISCO, 68. OKAY. PLEASE
PROCEED. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR
AND MEMBERS, I WOULD LIKE TO
EXPRESS MY APPRECIATION TO YOUR
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR THEIR TIME
WORKING ON THIS BILL. I AUTHORED
THIS BILL BECAUSE AB 2354,
BECAUSE I HEARD ALL OF THE CALLS
LAST YEAR TO SUPPORT SURVIVORS
OF VIOLENCE AND PROVIDE THEM
WITH THE RESOURCES THAT THEY
NEED. AND THE MANY CONVERSATIONS
I HAD WITH ORGANIZATIONS WHO
SERVE SURVIVORS AND WITH
SURVIVORS DIRECTLY. I HEARD
EXPANDING BAKER RELIEF WAS A
CRUCIAL NEED. CURRENTLY,
CALIFORNIA LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE
AN OPPORTUNITY FOR VACANCY
RELIEF FOR ALL SURVIVORS OF
HUMAN TRAFFICKING, DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE, AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE,
AND DUE TO BIASES IN OUR LEGAL
SYSTEM BLACK, BROWN, IMMIGRANT,
INDIGENOUS, QUEER AND
TRANSGENDER CALIFORNIANS ARE
DISPROPORTIONATELY HARMED BY
LAWS THAT EXCLUDE CERTAIN
CONVICTIONS. EVERY PERSON
DESERVES THE OPPORTUNITY TO LIVE
FREE OF TRAUMA AND VIOLENCE, AND
TO RECEIVE PROTECTION, HEALING
AND CARE WHEN THEY ARE VICTIMS
OF VIOLENCE, VICTIMS OF INTIMATE
PARTNER VIOLENCE, HUMAN
TRAFFICKING AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE
NEED PROTECTION, HEALING, AND
CARE FOR REBUILDING THEIR LIVES,
NOT CRIMINALIZATION AND
PUNISHMENT FROM CALIFORNIA'S
LEGAL SYSTEM, WHICH DOES NOT
CONSISTENTLY CONSIDER RELEVANT
INFORMATION ABOUT VICTIMIZATION.
ACCORDING TO JANUARY 2023,
NATIONAL SURVIVOR SURVEY, 90% OF
HUMAN TRAFFICKING VICTIMS WHO
HAD BEEN ARRESTED REPORTED THAT
ALL, OR AT LEAST SOME OF THEIR
CRIMINAL RECORDS WERE A RESULT
OF THEIR TRAFFICKING
VICTIMIZATION. I'M UPLIFTING
THESE DATA POINTS. THIS DATA
POINT AND OTHERS BECAUSE
UNFORTUNATELY, THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS DIDN'T REALLY TALK
ABOUT THE IMPACT AND THE
BENEFITS OF LIFTING VACATUR FOR
SURVIVORS IN THAT SAME STUDY OF
THOSE SURVIVORS WHO REPORTED
HAVING A CRIMINAL RECORD, 69%
REPORTED THAT THEIR RECORD
PREVENTED THEM FROM GETTING OR
KEEPING A JOB. 59% OF THEM
REPORTED THEIR RECORDS AFFECTED
THEIR ABILITY TO GET GOOD, SAFE
HOUSING AND 63% REPORTED THAT IF
AFFECTED THEIR ABILITY TO
RECEIVE EDUCATION, TRAINING OR
PROFESSIONAL LICENSE WAS
IMPACTED. AB 2234 TAKES A
FOCUSED APPROACH AND ENSURES
THAT ALL SURVIVORS CAN PETITION
THE COURT TO VACATE OR REMOVE A
SENTENCE RESULTING FROM THEIR
ABUSE AND VICTIMIZATION. IT DOES
THIS BY PROVIDING JUDICIAL
DISCRETION TO WEIGH WHETHER OR
NOT THE DEFENDANT, THE VICTIM
HAS MET A STANDARD OF CLEAR AND
CONVINCING EVIDENCE. THIS RELIEF
CRITICALLY REMOVES ROADBLOCKS TO
ACCESSING ESSENTIAL RESOURCES
SUCH AS HOUSING, JOB TRAINING,
AND EMPLOYMENT. AB 2354 IS AN
ESSENTIAL BILL THAT ALLOWS US TO
TREAT ALL SURVIVORS OF VIOLENCE
EQUALLY. THANK YOU. AND WITH ME
TODAY TO TALK MORE ABOUT THE
SURVIVOR CENTERED BILL THAT THIS
IS AS PHOEBE NIELSEN, WHO IS A
MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY AGAINST
SEXUAL HARM CASH ADVISORY BOARD,
AND MAUREEN KILDEE FROM THE SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
CLEAN SLATE UNIT. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES
AMONGST YOURSELVES. MY NAME IS
PHOEBE NELSON. I AM A SURVIVOR
OF EXPLOITATION AND HUMAN
TRAFFICKING. I AM HERE TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF AB 2354.
THIS BILL IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE
IT WOULD ALLOW ME AND OTHERS
LIKE ME MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR
BETTER AND GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT,
SAFE AND SECURE HOUSING, AND
OVERALL BETTER QUALITY OF LIFE
FOR US AND OUR FAMILIES. WHEN I
WAS 23, I WAS CONVICTED OF
ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON.
THE LIFE THAT I WAS LIVING WAS
VERY UNSAFE AND I WAS AROUND
VERY UNSAFE PEOPLE. DURING THIS
TIME OF MY LIFE, I WAS BEING SEX
TRAFFICKED BY SEVERAL DIFFERENT
TRAFFICKERS. I WAS FORCED BY MY
TRAFFICKERS TO HAVE SEX FOR
MONEY. MONEY THAT I NEVER GOT AT
COURT. THE JUDGE RECOGNIZED THAT
HUMAN TRAFFICKING PLAYED A VERY
SIGNIFICANT AND DEVASTATING ROLE
IN THE EVENTS THAT LED TO MY
CONVICTION, BECAUSE THE JUDGE
RECOGNIZED ME AS A VICTIM OF
HUMAN TRAFFICKING, THE JUDGE
DIVERTED ME TO COMMUNITIES
AGAINST SEXUAL HARM. ALSO KNOWN
AS CASH PROGRAM AND
ORGANIZATION, IN SACRAMENTO.
THIS PROGRAM SAVED MY LIFE IN
MANY WAYS. AFTER GOING THROUGH
CASH, I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO
THINGS I AM SO PROUD OF,
INCLUDING BECOMING A MOTHER TO
MY SON, WORKING WITH PEOPLE I'VE
NEVER HAVE. I WOULD HAVE NEVER.
ON THE SURVIVOR ADVISORY COUNCIL
AND LIVING A LIFE FREE OF
VIOLENCE AND ABUSE THROUGH CASH,
I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO WORK ON AND
PUBLISH A REPORT WITH OTHER
SURVIVORS SHOWING THE SCOPE OF
HUMAN TRAFFICKING IN SACRAMENTO,
THE FIRST REPORT OF ITS KIND, AS
WELL AS OTHER PUBLICATIONS THAT
HIGHLIGHT HOW FOLKS LIKE ME ARE
IMPACTED BY HUMAN TRAFFICKING.
BUT EVEN SO, I AM STILL FACING
THE UNDUE BURDEN OF CARRYING A
CRIMINAL RECORD THAT PREVENTS ME
FROM PURSUING THE TYPE OF LIFE
THAT I AM CAPABLE AND DESERVING
OF LIVING. FOR EXAMPLE, I SIT
BEFORE YOU TODAY BECAUSE I AM
NOT ABLE TO GO TO WORK BECAUSE
OF CHANGES MADE BY THE COMPANY I
WORK FOR. MY EMPLOYER HAD TO DO
ANOTHER ROUND OF BACKGROUND
CHECKS. MINES IS THE ONLY ONE
THAT HAS NOT PASSED. IT IS
HEARTBREAKING TO THINK THAT I
MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO GO BACK TO
WORK. I WANT TO WORK TO EARN A
LIVING, TO PROVIDE FOR MY SON.
MAYBE IT IS A BLESSING THAT I
COULDN'T WORK TODAY, BUT I CAN
SIT HERE AND ADVOCATE ON BEHALF
OF THIS BILL, THIS BILL IS SO
IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE PEOPLE
THAT WILL BENEFIT ARE LIKE ME.
SURVIVORS THAT ARE TRYING TO
REBUILD THEIR LIVES AFTER YEARS
OF ABUSE. I APPRECIATE ALL THAT
HAS BEEN GIVEN TO ME, ALL THAT I
HAVE MADE HAPPEN, AND I WANT TO
BE ABLE TO CONTINUE MOVING
FORWARD. I URGE YOU TO VOTE AYE
ON TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. PHOEBE ALL
SURVIVORS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING,
SEXUAL VIOLENCE AND DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE SHOULD BE TREATED
EQUALLY BY OUR LEGAL SYSTEM
BECAUSE ALL SURVIVORS HAVE THE
RIGHT TO SAFE AND STABLE LIVES.
SURVIVORS WITH FELONY
CONVICTIONS FACE MANY OBSTACLES
TO RECEIVING BASIC NECESSITIES.
AS PHOEBE HAS EXPLAINED TO US AT
THE PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE, WE
ASSIST CLIENTS WITH PUTTING THE
TRAUMA OF THEIR PAST BEHIND THEM
SO THAT THEY CAN GET JOBS AND
PARTICIPATE FULLY IN SOCIETY
WITHOUT THE BARRIER OF THEIR
CONVICTION, BUT ALSO WITHOUT THE
STIGMA OF THEIR CONVICTION
FOLLOWING THROUGHOUT THE REST OF
THEIR LIVES, ONE OF OUR CLIENTS
ENTERED FOSTER CARE AT 13 YEARS
OLD. SHE RAN AWAY FROM FOSTER
CARE AND ENDED UP BEING
TRAFFICKED BY SOMEONE WHO FIRST
TREATED HER WELL AND THEN C¢M
CONTROLLED HER BY ABUSE AND
VIOLENCE. SHE ENDED UP WITH
PROSTITUTION, IN DRUG AND THEFT
CHARGES, AND AFTER THAT, SHE DID
THE HARD WORK TO SEPARATE
HERSELF FROM HER TRAFFICKER. SHE
USED ALL THE RESOURCES AVAILABLE
TO HER AS SHE AGED OUT OF FOSTER
CARE AND ENDED UP WITH AN
ASSOCIATE'S DEGREE, BUT SHE
STILL HAD BARRIERS TO MOVING HER
LIFE FORWARD, SHE WAS ABLE TO
GET A VOCANTUR UNDER THE CURRENT
VERSION OF THE BILL BECAUSE OF
THE NATURE OF HER CRIMES AND SHE
WORKS IN A COUNTY HEALTH
DEPARTMENT SERVING THE COMMUNITY
IN WHICH SHE LIVES. AS SHE
DESERVES THIS TO BE FREE FROM
HER PAST, EVEN IF SHE HAD
COMMITTED MORE SERIOUS CRIMES.
FUTURE APPLICATIONS WILL GO
THROUGH A SERIOUS REVIEW. EVEN
UNDER THE CHANGES IN THE BILL
FOR SURVIVOR TO OBTAIN VACATUR
RELIEF. UNDER THE PROPOSED
CHANGES IN THE BILL, THEY STILL
MUST PROVE THAT THEY WERE A
VICTIM OF TRAFFICKING OR
VIOLENCE, AND THAT THE ARREST OR
CONVICTION WAS A RESULT OF THAT
TRAFFICKING OR OTHER KIND OF
VICTIMIZATION. THE BURDEN OF
PROOF REMAINS ON THE SURVIVOR TO
PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT
THESE CLAIMS, THEY HAVE TO
PRESENT EVIDENCE, SUCH AS THEIR
OWN DECLARATION, THÀNH,
DECLARATIONS OF WITNESSES AND
OTHERS. OFFICIAL RECORDS OR
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE ABUSER,
ETC. FURTHER, THE SURVIVOR MUST
STILL ESTABLISH THESE CLAIMS BY
CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE,
WHICH IS A VERY, VERY HIGH
STANDARD OF PROOF. IF IT IS, THE
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE THAT THE STATE
NEEDS TO TAKE A CHILD AWAY FROM
ITS PARENT OR GUARDIAN EXTREMELY
HIGH, THE ONLY HIGHER STANDARD
IS PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE
DOUBT WHICH WE USE IN CRIMINAL
JURY TRIALS. AB 2354 OPENS THE
VACATUR PROCESS TO ALL SURVIVORS
SO THAT THEY WILL HAVE AN EQUAL
OPPORTUNITY TO PETITION THE
COURT FOR VACATUR RELIEF. AND I
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOUR
YES VOTE ON THIS BILL. THANK
YOU. OTHERS IN SUPPORT. IT'S
ALREADY ON. OKAY GOOD MORNING,
CHAIR AND COMMITTEE, APRIL
GRAYSON FROM ASSIST THE WORD
FREEDOM COALITION. PROUD
CO-SPONSOR OF THIS BILL. MARCO
GEORGE, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT. Dð
COONEY ON BEHALF OF ACLU
CALIFORNIA ACTION IN STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, MELANIE KIM,
SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE, CO-SPONSOR OF THE BILL.
KELLY WALTERS, STAFF ATTORNEY
WITH LEGAL SERVICES FOR
PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN AND
STRONG SUPPORT. ASHLEY CHAMBERS
WITH THE ELLA BAKER CENTER AND
STRONG SUPPORT. MARLENA MERCADO,
ON BEHALF OF UNCOMMON LAW.
STRONG SUPPORT. JUAN FLORES WITH
ELLA BAKER, CENTER STRONG
SUPPORT. LAWRENCE COX WITH LSPC
AND ALL OF US ARE NOT A STRONG
SUPPORTER. JOANNA WILLIAMS WITH
LSPC STRONG SUPPORT. FELIPE
KELLY WITH THE ELLA BAKER CENTER
AND STRONG SUPPORT. ED LITTLE,
ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIANS FOR
SAFETY AND JUSTICE AND CRIME,
SURVIVORS FOR SAFETY AND JUSTICE
AND PROUD CO-SPONSOR AND SUPPORT
. LINA DIN, LEGAL SERVICES FOR
PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN IN
STRONG SUPPORT. GIL, RANDY
MURILLO, LSPC AND STRONG SUPPORT
EMILY WUNDER ON BEHALF OF THE
ALLIANCE FOR CHILDREN'S RIGHTS,
ALIANZA BUEN VECINO CHILDREN'S
DEFENSE FUND, CALIFORNIA
COMMUNITIES UNITED FOR
RESTORATIVE YOUTH, JUSTICE,
COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES OF EAST
PALO ALTO, INLAND COALITION FOR
IMMIGRANT JUSTICE, JUSTICE AT
LAST, MESSAGING FOR SUCCESS,
PARENTING FOR LIBERATION, AND
SHARED HOPE INTERNATIONAL AND
STRONG SUPPORT. LEE LACHAPELLE
COALITION TO ABOLISH SLAVERY AND
TRAFFICKING IN THE CALIFORNIA
PARTNERSHIP TO END DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE AS PROUD CO-SPONSORS
AND IN STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU
. ROBERT BOWDEN LSPC. ALL OF US
ARE NONE. STRONG SUPPORT. ANGEL
RICE AND I'M GOING TO MENTION A
FEW METERS WITH EMPOWERING WOMEN
IMPACTED BY INCARCERATION.
JESSIE'S PLACE ORGANIZATION IN
PRISON FROM THE INSIDE OUT.
RESTORING HOPE, CALIFORNIA AND
THE PARALLEL CHANGE PROJECT.
THANK YOU. ABBY SELIM AND WITH
EMPOWERING WOMEN IMPACTED BY
INCARCERATION AND STRONG SUPPORT
. HI, MY NAME IS ERIN MCCALL.
I'M WITH UNDERGROUND SCHOLARS
INITIATIVE AT UC BERKELEY AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. JONATHAN
GOLDSTEIN ATTORNEY, TOTALLY.
AGAIN AGAINST THIS SITUATION,
BUT COMPLETELY IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. SEEING NO OTHERS IN
SUPPORT, WE HAVE OPPOSITION TO
THIS BILL. PLEASE COME FORWARD.
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS
RYAN SHERMAN OF THE RIVERSIDE
SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION, AND THE
OTHER GROUPS THAT I MENTIONED
EARLIER, IN OPPOSITION, I
APOLOGIZE FOR GETTING OUR LETTER
IN LATE, BUT I DID WANT TO,
REFERENCE A FEW THINGS THAT ARE
IN THE BILL THAT WE HAVE SOME
CONCERNS WITH CURRENT LAW
REQUIRES THAT ANY VACANT YOU'RE
UNDER THESE PROVISIONS IS
REQUIRED TO BE CONDUCTED. IF
IT'S WITHIN THE BEST INTERESTS
OF JUSTICE. THIS BILL STRIKES
THAT PROVISION FROM LAW FOR
BOTH, THE CODE SECTIONS THAT ARE
BEING IMPLICATED HERE. SO THAT'S
DEFINITELY A PROBLEM. CURRENT
LAW ALSO PROVIDES THAT THIS
VOCANTUR RELIEF IS LIMITED ONLY
TO MISDEMEANORS OR TO I'M SORRY,
TO NONVIOLENT OFFENSES. AND THIS
EXPANDS IT TO ANY FELONY RAPE,
MURDER, ROBBERY, ANYTHING WOULD
BE ALLOWED UNDER THIS BILL, AND
THAT'S ANOTHER CONCERN FOR US,
THERE'S ALSO A DRAFTING CONCERN
THAT WE HAVE, SECTIONS ONE AND
SECTION TWO, SUBSECTION D STATES
THAT IF THERE'S NO OPPOSITION
FROM THE PROSECUTOR, THE COURT
SHALL DEEM THE PETITION
UNOPPOSED AND SHALL GRANT
PETITION, GRANT THE PETITION AND
ISSUE ORDER OF NATURE. IT SEEMS
PRETTY CLEAR CUT. HOWEVER,
SECTION F, SUBSECTION F OF
SECTION ONE AND TWO SAYS THAT IF
THE COURT OTHERWISE DEEMS IT
NECESSARY, IT SHALL SCHEDULE A
HEARING ON THE PETITION, EVEN
WITHOUT OPPOSITION. SO IT SEEMS
LIKE THEY'RE SAYING IT'S A
MANDATE IN ONE SECTION. AND THEN
IT'S, POSSIBLE OR PERMISSIBLE IN
ANOTHER. AND LASTLY, WE'RE
CONCERNED WITH ALL THE MANDATES
IN THE BILL AND THE REMOVAL OF
JUDICIAL DISCRETION. JUDICIAL
DISCRETION IS TAKEN AWAY, FROM
THESE JUDGES, REQUIRING COURTS
TO HEAR ALL CASES WHEN THE
VACATUR PETITION IS OPPOSED. IT
ALSO MANDATES COURT TO ISSUE
VACATUR IF NO TIMELY OPPOSITION
IS FILED BY THE PROSECUTION,
THERE IS NO DISCRETION. IT ALSO
MANDATES. VACATUR FOR ALL
TRAFFIC, INTIMATE PARTNER
VIOLENCE OR SEXUAL VIOLENCE.
PETITIONERS IF THE CRIME IS A
RESULT BUT NOT A DIRECT RESULT
OF TRAFFICKING, AND IT MANDATES,
VACATUR IF THAT CLEAR AND
CONVINCING STANDARD IS MET,
REGARDLESS OF THE INTERESTS OF
JUSTICE, LASTLY, AFTER
CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE
EVIDENCE PRESENTED, THE COURTS
ARE PROHIBITED FROM CONSIDERING
AGAIN, WHETHER VACATING THE
ARREST AND CONVICTION IS IN THE
BEST INTERESTS OF JUSTICE. SO
FOR THESE AND OTHER REASONS, WE
REMAIN STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE
BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
OTHERS IN OPPOSITION. SEEING
NONE. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER WILSON. WELL, GOOD.
AFTER. NO, IT'S NOT AFTERNOON. I
THINK THAT'S WISHFUL THINKING.
GOOD MORNING, THANK YOU TO THE
AUTHOR FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD. I KNOW THERE WAS LOTS
OF DISCUSSION LAST YEAR ABOUT
HUMAN TRAFFICKING, ABOUT, THE
IMPACT THAT THAT HAS ON THE
ACTUAL VICTIMS AND MAKING SURE
THERE'S PROTECTION THERE. SO
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD. I DO HAVE A FOLLOW A
FEW FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS AS IT
RELATES TO WHAT I READ IN THE
OPPOSITION LETTER. AND THEN ALSO
WHAT WAS BROUGHT UP HERE TODAY,
AND THE BILLS AND THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS AND NOTES, ON ITEM
NUMBER FOUR, IT SAYS REQUIRES
THE COURT ISSUE AN ORDER OF
VACATUR IF THE APPLICABLE
APPLICABLE PROSECUTORIAL AGENCY
DOES NOT FILE AN OPPOSITION TO
THE PETITION. WHAT WHAT DOES
THAT MEAN? SO IF THE PROSECUTOR
FILES AN OPPOSITION, WHAT
HAPPENS? SO THIS ESSENTIALLY
REQUIRES, A PETITION TO BE HEARD
FOR A PETITIONER TO HAVE THEIR
DAY IN COURT, IT ABSOLUTELY DOES
NOT REMOVE JUDICIAL DISCRETION
BEYOND THAT, BECAUSE THE JUDGE
AT THAT POINT GETS TO HEAR BY A
VERY HIGH STANDARD AND MAKE A
DETERMINATION OF WHETHER OR NOT
THE PETITIONER, BY CLEAR AND
CONVINCING EVIDENCE, HAS, HAS
PROVIDED ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO BE
ABLE TO, GRANT THAT VACATUR THAT
IS THE COURT'S THAT IS AT THE
COURT'S DISCRETION, THIS BILL
REALLY CREATES AN OPPORTUNITY
FOR PEOPLE LIKE NOT ONLY MISS
NELSON WHO PRESENTED HERE, BUT
PEOPLE LIKE MARISSA ALEXANDER,
WHO DEFENDED HER LIFE FROM
ABUSIVE, FROM AN ABUSIVE HUSBAND
BY FIRING ONE WARNING SHOT THAT
CAUSED NO PHYSICAL HARM. SHE WAS
TARGETED BY A RACIST SMEAR
CAMPAIGN. TÍNH, AND THIS IS A
CASE IN FLORIDA BY A FLORIDA
STATE ATTORNEY, ANGELA COREY,
DESIGNED TO FRAME HER AS AN
ANGRY BLACK WOMAN, BUT NEVER AS
A VICTIM OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
SHE WAS PROSECUTED AND SENTENCED
TO A MANDATORY MINIMUM OF 20
YEARS IN PRISON. OR PEOPLE LIKE
KAI PETERSON, WHO WAS TOLD THAT
HE IS A TRANS MAN, WAS NOT A
BELIEVABLE VICTIM OF RAPE. AFTER
DEFENDING HIMSELF AGAINST A
BRUTAL SEXUAL ASSAULT AND HE WAS
BULLIED INTO SIGNING A PLEA DEAL
OF 20 YEARS IN PRISON. THIS
GIVES PEOPLE LIKE MISS NELSON,
MARISSA ALEXANDER, KAI PETERSON
AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THEIR DAY
IN COURT WITH A PETITION BY BY
HAVING THE COURT GRANT THE
PETITION, THE JUDICIAL
DISCRETION, THEN HAS TO MAKE A
DETERMINATION OF CLEAR AND
CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT IS A
VERY HIGH STANDARD FOR
PETITIONERS TO HAVE TO MEET, IT
PUTS THE BURDEN ON THE ON THE
PETITIONER TO MEET THAT
STANDARD. AND THE JUDGE CAN
GRANT OR DENY THAT PETITION FOR
VACATUR THIS ALLOWS THEM TO BE
ABLE TO DO THAT. AND SO IF
THERE'S NO OPPOSITION THÀNH
FROM, THE PROSECUTOR, THEN THE
JUDGE WOULD BE REQUIRED, THOUGH
TO DO IT. RIGHT. IT REQUIRES THE
JUDGE TO HEAR A PETITION. YES
PROCEDURALLY, TO HEAR THE
PETITION. OKAY I THOUGHT IT SAYS
ISSUE, BUT WHICH IS OKAY. I'M
FINE WITH THAT. BUT I WAS JUST
WONDERING ABOUT THE OPPOSITION
PART. AND THEN LAST BUT NOT
LEAST, CURRENT LAW ALLOWS FOR IT
TO BE VACATED FOR THESE OTHER
TYPES OF, VACATIONS. IT ALLOWS
THE VACATION, BUT STILL REQUIRES
FINANCIAL RESTITUTION. SO THIS
WOULD SAY, NO, NO FINANCIAL
RESTITUTION AT ALL. AND SO I WAS
WONDERING, BECAUSE THERE IS SOME
TYPE OF VICTIM THAT AT THAT
POINT, THROUGH THE COURT
PROCESS, DECIDED THAT THEY
NEEDED REST, TUITION, WHY WE
WOULD THEN TAKE THAT COMPLETELY,
COMPLETELY OUT AND THAT WOULD BE
VACATED AS WELL. SO I WAS JUST
WONDERING, THOUGHT PROCESS ON
THAT. YEAH. SO IF A SURVIVOR'S
APPLICATION IS GRANTED, WHICH IS
ESSENTIALLY SAYING, THAT THE,
THE THEY'VE MET CLEAR AND THE
CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE,
THAT'S IT. ESSENTIALLY IT
REMOVES THE, THE, THE CONVICTION
FROM THEIR CRIMINAL RECORD. IT
ESSENTIALLY SAYS THAT THERE'S
NEW EVIDENCE TO ESSENTIALLY TO,
TO SHOW THAT THIS CASE SHOULD
HAVE BEEN, SHOULD HAVE BEEN
TREATED DIFFERENTLY, AT THE
FIRST CONVICTION. SO WITH THAT,
IF WE'RE REQUIRING THE
PETITIONER TO CONTINUE TO PAY
RESTITUTION, THEN THAT'S NOT
REALLY SERVING JUSTICE. IT'S
HAVING SOMEBODY ESSENTIALLY PAY
FOR A CONTINUE TO OFFER A
RESTITUTION FOR A CRIME THAT HAS
NOW BEEN DEEMED THROUGH CLEAR
AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE. WAS NOT
A CRIME. OKAY. I SEE THE,
VACATING PRIOR SENTENCING AS IT
RELATES TO, THOSE THAT
EXPERIENCE HUMAN TRAFFICKING,
YOU KNOW, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ALL
OF THOSE KIND OF THINGS, SEXUAL
VIOLENCE, AND THE EXISTING LAW,
IT NOTES THAT, THERE'S BASICALLY
SOME TYPE OF OVERRIDING EVIDENCE
THAT SAYS THAT IT WAS A DIRECT
RELATE TO THAT INCIDENT, AND
THAT'S WHY THEY COMMITTED THE
CRIME. BUT THERE WAS STILL
SOMEONE WHO WAS HARMED. AND
THAT'S WHY ORIGINALLY WE IT
DIDN'T RELIEVE, THE FINANCIAL
ALL RESTITUTION BURDEN AND SO
EXPANDING IT I THINK IS FINE. MY
ONLY CONCERN IS ABOUT THAT
FINANCIAL RESTITUTION BURDEN ON
THAT EXISTED IN THE ORIGINAL
LANGUAGE THAT, I DON'T KNOW IF
THAT'S THE SAME FOR ME, BECAUSE
THERE IS SOMEONE WAS HARMED,
TYPICALLY IT'S NOT THE PERSON
WHO WAS DOING THE HARM. THAT'S
WHY THERE THAT USUALLY THAT
FINANCIAL AS I UNDERSTAND IT,
THAT THAT FINANCIAL RESTITUTION
IS RELATED TO SOMEONE EXTERNAL
WHO ACTUALLY DIDN'T DO THE HARM,
BUT SOMEBODY WHO WAS HARMED,
ABSENT OF THE PERSON WHO
INFLICTED THE HARM ON THE PERSON
WHO'S DOING THE HARM. AND SO,
IT'S CONCERNING A LITTLE BIT
CONCERNING THAT PART, NOT ENOUGH
FOR ME TO, NOT TO NOT SUPPORT
THIS TODAY BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND
THE INTENT, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING
TO THINK ABOUT, BECAUSE THERE IS
A HARM RELATED TO SOMEONE.
SOMEONE WAS HARMED AND, AND TO
IT'S ONE THING TO SAY THAT THE
SENTENCE IS NO LONGER VALID, BUT
IT'S ANOTHER THING TO SAY THAT
THAT PERSON SHOULD SHOULDN'T
EXPERIENCE RESTITUTION JUST
BECAUSE THE PERSON WHO
VICTIMIZED THEM WAS VICTIMIZED
THEMSELVES. AND THAT'S HOW I
UNDERSTAND THE ORIGINAL LAW, BUT
THAT WOULD BE MY ONLY CONCERN.
BUT, DEFINITELY HAPPY TO SUPPORT
THE BILL, AND WE'LL MAKE THE
MOTION. THANK YOU. SO MEMBERS
EVER. SO THANK YOU, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER, FOR BRINGING THIS BILL.
I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT ONE. I
WILL BE SUPPORTING IT TODAY, AND
I THINK IT IS, YOU KNOW,
NECESSARY FOR US TO DO MORE TO
PROTECT VICTIMS. I DO HAVE, A
COUPLE CONCERNS ABOUT THE
DETAILS OF IT THAT I'M HOPING
YOU'LL CONTINUE TO, TO WORK ON.
AND THEY RELATE SPECIFICALLY TO.
TWO 36.14 G, AND THAT'S THE AREA
WHERE YOU SORT OF CHANGE THE
WHERE IT'S PROPOSED TO CHANGE
THE STANDARD FROM, REQUIRING,
THREE, THREE ITEMS, WHICH WOULD
BE THAT THE PETITIONER WAS A
VICTIM OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING. THE
BEFORE IT WAS A VICTIM. SECOND,
THAT THE ARREST OR CONVICTION
WAS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE HUMAN
TRAFFICKING. AND THEN THE THIRD,
THAT IT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST
OF JUSTICE, TAKING OUT THE
DIRECT AND THE BEST INTEREST OF
JUSTICE. AND THEN ON TOP OF
THAT, MAKING IT MANDATORY THAT,
THAT THE THAT THE VACATUR TAKE
PLACE WOULD ALLOW FOR EXAMPLE,
EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE TO PROVE IT
WITH CLEAR AND CONVINCING
EVIDENCE, YOU WOULD HAVE TO
PROVE CLEAR AND CONVINCING
EVIDENCE THAT HUMAN TRAFFICKING
OCCURRED BY THIS TO THE VICTIM.
AND THAT, I THINK, COULD BE IT'S
SORT OF EASY TO PROVE, WELL,
YEAH, BUT BUT BUT BUT IT IS. AND
THEN THE SECOND IS THAT IT IS A
RESULT OF A HUMAN TRAFFICKING,
WHICH COULD MEAN THAT YOU
ACTUALLY HAVE SOMEONE WHO IS
BASICALLY IN A POSITION WHERE A
LOT OF CRIMES OCCURRED AND YOU
COULD HAVE, FOR EXAMPLE, SORT OF
A MURDERER THAT IS BASICALLY
MEETS A SORT OF A LOWER
STANDARD, AND THEN THE JUDGE
DOESN'T HAVE DISCRETION BECAUSE
THE BEST INTEREST OF JUSTICE IS
TAKEN OUT, DOESN'T HAVE THE
DISCRETION TO NOT VACATE IN
THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES. SO I JUST
JUST TO CLARIFY, THE JUDGE DOES
HAVE DISCRETION TO VACATE OR NOT
VACATE. WHAT THEY DON'T HAVE
DISCRETION AROUND IS HEARING THE
PETITION. THEY STILL NEED TO
THEY STILL NEED TO BE ABLE TO
MEET THE, TO THEY STILL WILL
MAKE USE THEIR DISCRETION TO
MAKE A DECISION AROUND WHETHER
OR NOT THE, THE, THE PLAINTIFF
OR SORRY, THE PETITIONER BROUGHT
FORWARD A CLEAR AND CONVINCING
EVIDENCE. SO AT THE ULTIMATELY,
THE JUDGE DOES HAVE THE ABILITY
TO DO THAT. SO GEE, WHEN I READ
G IT SAYS, AFTER CONSIDERING THE
TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE
PRESENTED, THE COURT SHALL
VACATE THE CONVICTION AND THE
ARREST AND ISSUE AN ORDER IF IT
FINDS BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING. SO
THAT'S THAT IS THAT'S MANDATORY,
I THINK, UNLESS YOU'VE CHANGED
IT IN THE AMENDMENTS, IT'S I
HAVE NOT. DO YOU, I THINK IT'S
SORT OF A SEMANTICS. THE JUDGE
HAS DISCRETION UNDER THE JUDGE'S
, JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE
SITUATION, THEY WOULD HAVE
DISCRETION TO DETERMINE WHETHER
THE PERSON WAS TRAFFICKED AND
WHETHER THAT CRIME WAS A RESULT
OF THEIR BEING TRAFFICKED. SO
IT'S NOT TYING THEIR HANDS IN
THAT WAY. BUT THIS LAW, JUST
LIKE MANY OTHER OR SEVERAL OTHER
VACATUR LAWS, PENAL CODE SECTION
TEN, 16.85 AND 1470 3.7 SAY THAT
ONCE YOU HAVE MET THIS VERY HIGH
STANDARD, THAT THE LAW REQUIRES
THE JUDGE CAN'T, FOR REASONS
OUTSIDE OF THE STATUTE, DECIDE
TO DENY YOU THAT RELIEF WHEN YOU
HAVE COMPLIED WITH ALL THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW IS WHAT
IS, I BELIEVE, WHAT THE QUESTION
YOU WERE ASKING. OKAY. YEAH. I'M
NOT GOING TO GO BACK AND FORTH
ON THIS. I MEAN, I SUPPORT THE
BILL. I THINK IT'S GOOD THAT
IT'S EXPANDING THE VICTIMS, THAT
IT'S APPLICABLE TO. I THINK IT'S
GOOD THAT IT'S EXPANDING THE,
YOU KNOW, THE VIOLATION PERSONS
THAT ARE SUBJECT TO IT. I THINK
ALL OF THOSE REALLY MOVE IN THE
RIGHT DIRECTION AND PROVIDE MUCH
GREATER RELIEF TO VICTIMS. I
STILL DO, I THINK, THINK I'M
NERVOUS ABOUT THE DISCRETION OF
THE JUDGE, GIVEN THAT LANGUAGE
IN G AND THE REMOVAL OF THE BEST
INTERESTS OF THE OF SERVING THE
BEST INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND
JUST WOULD ASK YOU TO THINK
ABOUT THAT MORE. SO THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. SO, MEMBER REYES.
YES. MY COLLEAGUES HAVE HAVE
SHARED THE CONCERNS THAT I HAVE.
ALSO, I THINK THAT AS IT IS
WRITTEN, IT DOES TAKE AWAY THE
DISCRETION OR JUDICIAL
DISCRETION. AND BUT I'M HEARING
YOU SAY THAT THAT IS NOT THE
INTENT. SO I THINK THAT YOUR
LANGUAGE, AS YOU'RE SHARING WITH
US, MAY BE DIFFERENT FROM THE
WAY IT IS WRITTEN. SO I THINK
MAKING SURE THAT IT IS IT IS
WRITTEN THE WAY YOU DO INTEND IT
TO BE, I WANT TO THANK YOU, MISS
NELSON, FOR COMING AND SHARING,
YOU SAY MAYBE IT IS A BLESSING
THAT YOU DON'T HAVE A JOB, THAT
WE ALL LOOK AT THE BEST SIDE OF
THINGS, RIGHT, BUT THE FACT THAT
THAT YOU CONTINUE TO BE
VICTIMIZED, TODAY IS NOT. OKAY.
SO I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT
THAT ASSEMBLY MEMBER BONTA HAS
PRESENTED THIS BILL TO TRY TO
CORRECT THAT, IT IS IMPORTANT
THAT THAT WE FIGURE OUT WAYS TO
CORRECT IT, BUT, THAT DISCRETION
THÀNH TAKEN AWAY FROM THE JUDGE,
I THINK, IS A VERY, IT'S AN
ISSUE OF CONCERN. I WILL SUPPORT
THE BILL, AS MY COLLEAGUES HAVE
STATED ALSO. BUT THAT PARTICULAR
PART, I THINK, YOUR INTENT AS
YOU'RE STATING HERE, MAY BE
DIFFERENT THAN THE WAY IT'S
WRITTEN. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A
SECOND? YES FURTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
SEEING NONE. YOU MAY CLOSE.
THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO NOTE
THAT GEORGIA, LOUISIANA,
NEBRASKA, NEW YORK, WYOMING
ALLOW FOR VACATUR WITH NO
EXCLUSIONS BASED ON OFFENSE,
THUS TREATING ALL SURVIVORS
EQUALLY. GEORGIA A FAR MORE
CONSERVATIVE STATE THAN OURS,
PASSED IN 2020, PROVIDES BAKER
TIÂU RELIEF FOR ALL CRIMES, WITH
NO EXCEPTION FOR HUMAN
TRAFFICKING SURVIVORS. THIS BILL
WAS SIGNED BY A REPUBLICAN
GOVERNOR. THE LEAD AUTHOR AND
COAUTHORS ARE ALSO REPUBLICAN.
IN WYOMING, SIMILARLY, LED BY
REPUBLICAN OFFICER AUTHORS,
WYOMING PASSED A BILL WITH
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT THAT BROADLY
DECLARES THAT A VICTIM SHOULD
NOT BE CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR
ACTS THAT OCCURRED DURING THEIR
TRAFFICKING IN NEBRASKA AS WELL.
CALIFORNIA WOULD ACTUALLY BE
JOINING A LIST OF VERY
CONSERVATIVE STATES IN PROVIDING
THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A PETITION
TO BE GRANTED FOR VACATUR. I
BELIEVE THAT THE JUDICIAL
DISCRETION IS SQUARELY IN PLACE
BECAUSE THE JUDGE CAN STILL
HEAR, AND REQUIRES A
PREPONDERANCE, A CLEAR AND
CONVINCING EVIDENCE TO ENSURE
THAT THIS VACATUR IS GRANTED.
SHOULD IT BE, I APPRECIATE MY
COLLEAGUES, CONCERNS AND WILL
CERTAINLY MAKE SURE THAT THE
DRAFTING OF THE LANGUAGE, IN 22,
36, 14.14 G, ENSURES AND
CLARIFIES THAT, ABSOLUTELY. THIS
BILL IS VERY IMPORTANT TO ME. MY
COMMUNITY, AND TO ALL SURVIVORS,
BECAUSE IT PROVIDES NECESSARY
RELIEF. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE AN
AMAZING COALITION OF CO-SPONSORS
AND SUPPORTERS OF THIS BILL FROM
ACROSS THE STATE. I ASK YOU TO
LISTEN TO THEM TODAY AND URGE
YOU TO VOTE AYE ON THIS CRITICAL
PIECE OF LEGISLATION. THANK YOU.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON AB 2354
BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER BONTA. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTHY K¾T MCCARTY I. ALANIZ.
LACKEY LACKEY. NOT VOTING. WHEN
I REYES REYES I TÍNH WILSON.
WILSON I ZIPPER. ZIPPER I THAT
MEASURE PASSES. THANK YOU, NEXT
MEASURE. ASSEMBLY MEMBER. TOP
ITEM NUMBER TWO AB 1856. RIGHT.
Dð. ITEM NUMBER TWO, FIRST.
THANK YOU, CHAIR. AND MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE, SO I'M GOING TO
SPEAK ON AB 1856. FIRST, I'D
LIKE TO THANK THE COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR THEIR WORK ON THE
ANALYSIS AND FOR WORKING WITH MY
OFFICE. AND I'D LIKE ALSO TO
THANK MY I WANT TO THANK MY JOY,
ARTHUR SALOMON, EVEN LO, FOR HIS
LEADERSHIP AND COLLABORATION ON
THIS LEGISLATION. AB 1856 WOULD
MAKE A MEAT MISDEMEANOR FOR A
PERSON TO KNOWINGLY DESTROY BIÂU
ARTIFICIALLY GENERATE SEXUAL
IMAGE AND VIDEO OF AND IDENTIFY
B¢O PERSON WITHOUT THAT PERSON
CONSENT, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
PROGRAMING OR AI IS A USEFUL
TOOL IN THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCE.
HOWEVER, IT CAN ALSO BE USED TO
CREATE DEEPFAKE COMPUTER
GENERATED IMAGE AND VIDEO OF
PEOPLE THAT APPEAR GENUINE.
DEEPFAKE TECHNOLOGY HAS BECOME
MORE WIDELY ACCESSIBLE IN RECENT
YEARS, AND CAN BE USED TO
QUICKLY CREATE FAKE DIGITAL
CONTENT THAT IS REALISTIC, THAT
IS DIFFICULT TO TELL IF IT IS
REAL OR NOT. IMAGE OF AN
INNOCENT PERSON ARE ON THE
INTERNET PERMANENTLY AND CAN
DESTROY A VICTIM'S LIFE. IT IS
VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE
THAT THE IMAGES ARE NOT REAL.
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL WILL
STAY THAT THIS BILL MAY BE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I'D LIKE TO
SAY THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT
DOES NOT PROTECT SOMEONE FOR
DESTROYING OTHER PERSON'S
REPUTATION, REPUTATION AND
WELL-BEING. ANOTHER ARGUMENT
THAT THE OPPOSITION IS MAKING IS
THAT IS THE UNNECESSARY THREE AS
ASSISTANT LAW ALLOWS FOR CIVIL
LAWSUITS TO BE FILED. AND THIS I
AGREE WITH THAT ASSISTANT LAW
DOES ALLOW INDIVIDUALS TO TAKE
CIVIL LAWSUITS. HOWEVER, THAT
ACTION IS NOT ACCESSIBLE TO MOST
PEOPLE, PARTICULARLY LOW INCOME
PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE THE LARGE
RESOURCES REQUIRED TO FILE A
CIVIL LAWSUIT. AND WITH A NEW,
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY,
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE CAN
IMPROVE PEOPLE'S LIVES. HOWEVER,
THE EFFECT IS POSSIBLE TO
FABRICATE HARMFUL DIGITAL MEDIA
WITHOUT CONSENT. THEY POSE A
SERIOUS THREAT TO THE HEALTH,
REPUTATION, AND FINANCIAL AND
MENTAL STABILITY TO TARGET
INDIVIDUALS. NEW YORK PASSED A
SIMILAR LAW LAST YEAR, BUT I
BELIEVE THAT CALIFORNIA SHOULD
BE THE FOREFRONT OF THIS ISSUE.
AND IVY FITZPATRICK WITH
CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
ASSOCIATION WILL BE MY WITNESS.
GOOD MORNING. HONORABLE CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. MY NAME IS IVY
FITZPATRICK. I'M A MANAGING
DEPUTY DA IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY
AND ALSO A MEMBER OF THE
CALIFORNIA DA'S ASSOCIATION. I'M
TESTIFYING IN SUPPORT OF THIS
LEGISLATION. AS THIS COMMITTEE
IS AWARE, AI OR ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE HAS REALLY
PROLIFERATED, PROLIFERATED IN
RECENT YEARS, AND IT IS
CERTAINLY A USEFUL TOOL, BUT IT
HAS THE POTENTIAL, AS WE'RE
SEEING, FOR NEGATIVE
APPLICATIONS AND THE LAW AND ALL
OF US ARE SORT OF CATCHING UP TO
THIS UNFORTUNATE REALITY,
SPECIFICALLY AI IN THIS CONTEXT,
IT CAN BE USED TO CREATE WHAT
ARE CALLED DEEP FAKE COMPUTER
GENERATED IMAGES AND VIDEOS OF
PEOPLE THAT APPEAR ABSOLUTELY
GENUINE. THESE IMAGES CAN BE
CREATED VERY CHEAPLY, VERY
QUICKLY, AND WITH THE USE OF THE
INTERNET, UNFORTUNATELY
PROLIFERATED AND DISTRIBUTED
NEARLY INSTANTANEOUS VÆ. INDEED,
THERE'S RECENTLY AN INCREASING
ONLINE TREND OF POSTING PHOTOS
AND VIDEOS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE
WITHOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE OR
CONSENT. WE CAN ALL IMAGINE THE
LONG TERME CONSEQUENCES OF THOSE
ACTIONS. THE IMAGES ARE SO
REALISTIC, IT'S NEARLY
IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE PERSON
DEPICTED TO PROVE THAT IT'S NOT
THEM, AND THAT THE IMAGES ARE
PROLIFERATED SO QUICKLY AND SO
WIDELY ONLINE THAT IT CAN
LITERALLY THE DISTRIBUTION OF
THEM ONLINE COULD LITERALLY RUIN
A PERSON'S LIFE AND THEIR
REPUTATION. IT CAN RUIN THEIR
FINANCIAL WELL-BEING, AND
CERTAINLY IT CAN VERY MUCH
IMPACT THEIR MENTAL HEALTH,
CAUSING LASTING TRAUMA AND
DISTRESS. AS WE ALL KNOW, ONCE
SOMETHING IS OUT THERE ON THE
INTERNET, IT IS VERY HARD TO
HAVE IT REMOVED, OFTEN THESE
VICTIMS ARE YOUNG PEOPLE, AND
WITH THEIR LIVES FULLY AHEAD OF
THEM. SO THE LAW ALREADY
APPROPRIATELY CRIMINALIZES
REVENGE, AS THIS COMMITTEE IS
AWARE. BUT THERE IS A GAP FOR AI
GENERATED, WHICH IS EQUALLY
DESTRUCTIVE TO A VICTIM'S LIFE,
ALSO, THIS COMMITTEE IS WHERE,
AS ASSEMBLYMAN TODD MENTIONED,
THAT AN AB 602. IN 2019, THE LAW
CREATED A CIVIL CAUSE OF ACTION
FOR THE CREATION AND
DISTRIBUTION OF UNAUTHORIZED AI
IMAGES. BUT THE PROBLEM IS, NOT
ALL VICTIMS HAVE THE MEANS OR
KNOWLEDGE TO GO FILE A CIVIL
CASE AGAINST SOMEONE. OAN,
LEGISLATION IS CERTAINLY TAKING
STEPS IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION IN
THIS AREA. IN REVENGE, BUT MORE
MUST BE DONE TO PROTECT VICTIMS
AND RECOGNIZE THIS AI TECHNOLOGY
AND TO HOPEFULLY DETER THIS
BEHAVIOR. AND I THINK ASSEMBLY
MEMBERS TOR AND LO FOR AUTHORING
THE IMPORTANT BILL IT IS
ASSEMBLYMAN TOM MENTIONED IT
WOULD MAKE IT A MISDEMEANOR FOR
A PERSON TO KNOWINGLY DISTRIBUTE
WITHOUT THE DEPICTED
INDIVIDUAL'S CONSENT. AI
GENERATED SEXUAL IMAGES THAT
APPEAR AUTHENTIC TO A REASONABLE
OBSERVER. WHILE THE CREATION OF
THE IMAGES IS DISTURBING IN AND
OF ITSELF, IT'S IMPORTANT TO
NOTE THAT THIS BILL ONLY
CRIMINALIZES THE DISTRIBUTION.
THE ACT, WHICH CAUSES THE
GREATEST EXCUSE ME AND LASTING
HARM TO VICTIMS, AND THAT KIND
OF DISTRIBUTION IS NOT PROTECTED
BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT,
RESPECTFULLY, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA DA'S ASSOCIATION AND
THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY, MIKE HESTRIN, I ASK
FOR YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU.
MOVING TO ME TWO COMMENTS. NAME,
ORGANIZATION AND POSITION. MADAM
CHAIR MEMBERS, RANDY PERRY, ON
BEHALF OF PERAK IN SUPPORT. ARE
THERE ANY OTHERS? RYAN SHERMAN
WITH THE RIVERSIDE SHERIFF'S
ASSOCIATION AND THE OTHER POE
AND DSA'S IN SUPPORT. MADAM
CHAIR MEMBERS CORY SALZILLO, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION AND
SUPPORT. RAY GRANDOFF ON BEHALF
OF THE ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. NOW MOVING ON TO ARE THERE,
PRIMARY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION?
ARE THERE ANY. ALL RIGHT. YOU
HAVE FIVE MINUTES BETWEEN THE
TWO OF YOU AT YOUR CONVENIENCE.
THANK YOU. OKAY GOOD MORNING,
WELL, WE APPRECIATE IT, THE
POTENTIAL HARMS THAT CAN BE
CAUSED BY DEEPFAKE TECHNOLOGY.
WE DO HAVE CONCERNS AND FEARS
THAT THIS IMPROPERLY RESTRICTS
LAWFUL SPEECH AND RAISES SEVERAL
FIRST AMENDMENT CONCERNS, THE
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS THAT
ARE MOST RELEVANT HERE ARE THAT
EVEN FALSE SPEECH AGAINST A
PUBLIC FIGURE SUCH AS A
POLITICIAN, CANNOT BE PROHIBITED
UNLESS THE PLAINTIFF CAN SHOW BY
CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE
THAT THE SPEAKER ACTED WITH
ACTUAL MALICE. UNDER THE BILL IS
CURRENTLY WRITTEN, SOMEONE WHO
DISTRIBUTES A DEEPFAKE DEPICTION
OF A POLITICIAN WHO DISTRIBUTED
THE DEEPFAKE BUT BELIEVED IT WAS
AUTHENTIC WOULD BE SUBJECT TO
CRIMINAL PENALTIES. LASTLY, WE
FEAR THAT AB 1856 WILL RESULT IN
FURTHER CRIMINALIZATION OF OUR
YOUTH, PARTICULARLY YOUTH OF
COLOR, WHO ENGAGE IN THE
PRESCRIBED BEHAVIOR. A RECENT
STUDY FOUND THAT 73% OF
TEENAGERS 17 OR OLDER HAD BEEN
EXPOSED TO ONLINE. YOUNG PEOPLE
ACCESS IN A VARIETY OF WAYS,
INCLUDING BY SHARING IT WITH ONE
ANOTHER THROUGH SOCIAL MEDIA
UNDER AB 1856, A YOUNG PERSON
COULD BE CONVICTED OF A CRIME
AND SENTENCED TO JAIL IF THEY
SHARE DEEPFAKE WITH A PEER,
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OUTLINED
IN THIS BILL. WHILE THIS CONDUCT
MAY BE VERY WELL, MAY BE
INAPPROPRIATE AND SOMETIMES
HARMFUL, SENDING YOUNG PEOPLE TO
JAIL APPEARS OVERLY PUNITIVE AND
COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO THE GOALS.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING AGAIN,
MARGO GEORGE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION. AB 1856 IS NOT
NECESSARY. IT'S NOT NARROWLY
TAILORED, AND IT DOES NOT
ADDRESS A COMPELLING GOVERNMENT
INTEREST. THERE ALREADY EXISTS A
CIVIL CAUSE OF ACTION TO ADDRESS
THIS ISSUE OF DEEP FAKE SEXUAL
ACTIVITY. IT WAS ENACTED IN
2019, MERELY FOUR YEARS AGO.
THERE'S BEEN NO EVIDENCE,
NEWSPAPER ARTICLES OR ANYTHING
TO PRESENTED TO SHOW THAT IT'S
NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESSING THIS
ISSUE. CRIMINAL STATUTES ARE NOT
THE ANSWER TO EVERY PROBLEM. AS,
MR. CONEY SAID, IT'S NOT
NARROWLY TAILORED TO ADDRESS THE
ISSUE OF MALICIOUSNESS AND MOST
IMPORTANTLY, IT RUNS AFOUL OF
THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND WOULD BE
FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE
IT SINGLES OUT A PARTICULAR
CATEGORY OF SPEECH DEEP FAKES.
AND THEN, BECAUSE OF ITS
CONTEXT, CONTENT, IT BANS IT, OR
IN THIS CASE CRIMINALIZES IT.
AND AS EMBARRASSED SAYING OR
HURTFUL OR, AS SEXUAL ACTIVITY
BEING POSTED ON THE INTERNET MAY
BE COURTS HAVE ALLOWED THIS THIS
KIND OF BAN ONLY WHEN THERE IS A
COMPELLING GOVERNMENT INTEREST
OR REASON. FOR EXAMPLE, COURTS
HAVE FOUND THAT PROHIBITING OR
BANNING CHILD MEETS THAT
STANDARD BECAUSE THERE IS A
LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT INTEREST
IN SAFEGUARDING THE PHYSICAL AND
PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING OF
MINORS. COURTS HAVE NOT ACCORDED
GOVERNMENT ATTEMPTS TO BAN
DEPICTIONS OF SEXUAL ACTIVITY OF
ADULTS. THE SAME LEVEL OF
DEFERENCE IS. WE. FOR THOSE
REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR NO VOTE. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. ANYONE ELSE IN OPPOSITION?
PLEASE COME UP. STATE YOUR NAME,
GROUP AND OPPOSITION MELANIE
KIM, SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC
DEFENDER'S OFFICE AND OPPOSITION
. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE
HEARING? NONE. WE'LL BRING IT
BACK TO COMMITTEE. COMMITTEE?
ANY QUESTIONS? MISS REYES? SEEMS
LIKE JUST LAST WEEK WE SAW. WE
HEARD A SIMILAR BILL FROM
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BERMAN. AND HE
HAD A YOUNG WOMAN WHO HAD BEEN
THE VICTIM OF THIS ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE, WE SUPPORTED IT,
SUPPORTED THAT BILL LAST WEEK. I
WILL SUPPORT YOUR BILL TODAY,
BUT I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO IF
IT'S DUPLICATIVE OF WHAT WE'RE
ALREADY SEEING COME THROUGH,
THERE REALLY IS NO NEED. SO YOU
MAY WANT TO TALK TO ASSEMBLY
MEMBER BERMAN ABOUT HIS BILL.
ALSO, I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.
THANK YOU. MR. ZUBIATE. I THINK
SHE Þ. SO, THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THE BILL. I ACTUALLY DO
THINK THERE IS A NEED FOR A
BILL, A BILL LIKE THIS. BUT I DO
HAVE CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED
IN THE ACLU LETTER. I LOOKED AT
THIS CAREFULLY. I DO THINK THAT
IT RUNS AFOUL OF THE
CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T
THINK THAT WITH RESPECT TO
PUBLIC FIGURES THAT IT MEETS THE
STANDARDS, SO, AND I THINK IT
WOULD IT WOULD CHILL, YOU KNOW,
SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT KNOW THAT
THE THAT THE AI DEPICTIONS ARE
FAKE AND ACTUALLY USES THAT
AGAINST A PUBLIC FIGURE, IN THE
CONTEXT OF, ISSUES THAT ARE THAT
THAT PUBLIC FIGURE IS MAKING
DECISIONS ON, IT DOESN'T SORT OF
MEET THE STANDARDS THAT HAVE
ACTUALLY BEEN PRESCRIBED BY THE
COURT IN THAT. SO I'M HOPING I'M
GONNA SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY AS
WELL, BECAUSE I THINK THE
UNDERLYING ISSUE IS SOMETHING
THAT WE NEED TO DEAL WITH. I
THINK WHEN THESE, YOU KNOW, AI
IS PROGRESSING RAPIDLY, I THINK
WE HAVE TO GET AHEAD OF IT, I
THINK IT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT
WE'VE DONE WITH, WITH REVENGE,
AND I THINK BUT I THINK WHEN YOU
GET TO THE AREA OF PUBLIC
OFFICIALS AND THE CASE LAW OUT
THERE, I AGREE WITH THE ACLU
THAT IT DOESN'T MEET
CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS. AND I
HOPE YOU WILL WORK WITH THEM TO,
TO WORK ON REVISING THE BILL.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WILSON, MEMBER
WILSON. THANK YOU, WE'LL BE
SUPPORTING THE BILL TODAY. AND
JUST, ECHOING SOME OF THE
REMARKS FROM MY COLLEAGUES AND
ADDING IN THE COMMENTS AROUND
UNDERAGE DISTRIBUTION, AND
MAKING SURE WE'RE NOT TARGETING
OR CRIMINALIZING OUR YOUTH, AND
MAYBE HAVING DIFFERENT TYPES OF,
BECAUSE THEY SHOULDN'T BE DOING
IT EITHER. RIGHT AND WE WANT
PEOPLE TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE
FOR THEIR ACTIONS. AND SO MAYBE
CONSIDERING SOMETHING MORE OF
THEIR UNDERAGE, IT'S PROBATION
OR SOMETHING. NOT ACTUAL JAIL
TIME. SO BUT THANK YOU. THANK
YOU I'LL MOVE THE BILL. THANK
YOU. SO MEMBER WE HAVE A MOTION
AND A SECOND SOME MEMBER ELONIS.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, AS ONE OF
MY COLLEAGUES HAD ALREADY
MENTIONED, YES, WE HAD A BRAVE
YOUNG LADY THAT CAME FORWARD AND
DID TALK ABOUT A CRIME THAT WE
PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE THOUGHT
ABOUT BEING A THING WHEN WE WERE
GROWING UP. AND SO I'M VERY
HAPPY THAT WE ARE TRYING TO GET
AHEAD OF THIS AND, WORK ON
POLICY NOW BEFORE IT GETS,
REALLY OUT OF CONTROL. SO WITH
THAT, I WILL SECOND. THANK YOU.
YES WE HAVE A MOTION AND A
SECOND AND A SECOND. SEEING NO
MORE QUESTIONS, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE MR. TODD, I REALLY DO.
I REALLY WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
YOUR SUPPORT AND I UNDERSTAND
YOUR CONCERNS. AND MY OFFICE. WE
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH ANY
ORGANIZATION WHO HAD A CONCERN,
AND I HUMBLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ON AB 1856 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER TO
THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY HØI MCCARTY. AYE ALANIZ
I. ALANIZ, AYE. LACKEY NGUYEN
OAN. REYES. REYES. AYE TING
TING AYE. WILSON WILK AYE. ZABIR
ZUBER I THANK YOU. THAT MEASURE
PASSES. NEXT MEASURE. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER DAVIES OH TWO SECOND
BILL. MR. TODD Þ. THANK YOU,
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, AB 2547 WILL ENSURE
THAT HOMELESS PEOPLE WHO ARE
TRIED BY COLLABORATIVE COURT
WILL RECEIVE THE PROPER CARE
THEY NEED TO START A NEW LIFE.
AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A HUGE
HOMELESS CRISIS IN CALIFORNIA.
MILLIONS OF PEOPLE ON THE STREET
WITHOUT THEIR BASIC NEED. AND
ONE OF THESE BASIC NEED IS
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES.
ACCORDING TO STUDIES DONE BY
NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF MENTAL
ILLNESS, MORE THAN TWO THIRDS OF
HOMELESS PEOPLE IN CALIFORNIA
HAVE A PREVALENT MENTAL HEALTH
DISORDER, WHILE ONLY A THIRD OF
THOSE HAVE RECEIVED ANY MENTAL
HEALTH TREATMENT. ONLY 6% HAVE
ACCESS TO ANY ADDICTION RECOVERY
TREATMENT. EVEN THOUGH THE
MAJORITY OF HOMELESS PEOPLE
STRUGGLE WITH ADDICTION. UNDER
CURRENT LAW, THE STATE USE
COLLABORATIVE COURT TO ENSURE
THAT HOMELESS PEOPLE GET THE
RIGHT MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
THEY NEED TO START A NEW CHAPTER
IN LIFE. THESE COLLABORATIVE
COURTS ARE DESIGNED NOT TO
INCARCERATE PEOPLE, BUT TO HELP
THEM GET THE MENTAL HEALTH
SERVICES THEY NEED. THIS COURT
AIMS TO ADDRESS THE ROOT OF
THEIR PROBLEM AND DIRECT THEM TO
PROPER TREATMENT. INDIVIDUALS
WHO GO TO THIS COURT ARE
STATISTICALLY LESS LIKELY TO
REOFFEND. HOWEVER, CURRENT LAW
SAYS THAT IF A COLLABORATIVE
COURT FINDS THAT A PERSON IS NOT
MENTALLY WELL ENOUGH TO STAND
TRIAL, THE COURT CAN DISMISS ALL
CHARGES AND JUDGE THROW THE
PERSON BACK OUT ON THE STREET
WITHOUT ANY PROPER CARE. THIS IS
DONE NOT FOR DUE PROCESS REASON,
BUT BECAUSE IT IS NOT EASY TO
HELP THEM. WITHOUT A PROPER
SERVICES THAT, COLLABORATIVE
COURT CAN PROVIDE, THESE PEOPLE
HAVE NO MEANS OF RECOVERING AND
START A NEW LIFE. I SEE THIS NOT
ONLY AS HUMAN RIGHTS PROBLEM,
BUT AS OUR DUTY TO HELP THEM. AB
2547 WOULD STRIKE OUT THAT
OPTION TO THROW HOMELESS PEOPLE
OUT, AND WOULD REQUIRE THE
COLLABORATIVE COURT TO DO THE
JOB AND HELP HOMELESS PEOPLE GET
THE CARE THEY NEED. THESE ARE
THE PEOPLE WHO NEED HELP, AND WE
CAN GIVE IT TO THEM. THIS BILL
WILL ALLOW A PARTY TO THE
PROCEEDING TO REQUEST A REVIEW
SESSION OF THE DEFENDANT.
COMPETENT AB 2547 WOULD REDUCE
RE SYMBOLISM AS HOMELESS PEOPLE
HAVE A HIGHER CHANCE OF RE
OFFENDING. HELPING HOMELESS
PEOPLE IS MORE COST EFFECTIVE
THAN THROWING THEM BACK OUT ON
THE STREET WHERE THEY WILL
LIKELY RE-OFFEND AND WILL
EVENTUALLY BE INCARCERATED.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME
AND CONSIDERATION. ON MY HONOR
TO INTRODUCE ALISON RALPH FROM
DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE AND
TAMMY FROM E PLUS R PROJECT. THE
ABILITY THIS ISSUE WILL SHED
SOME MORE LIGHT ON WHY THIS BILL
IS MORE IMPORTANT. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS ALISON
ROCHE. I'M A DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY,
AND I HANDLE ALL OF THE
INCOMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL
DIVERSION CASES AS WELL AS OUR
MILITARY TREATMENT COURT IN
RIVERSIDE COUNTY. ANYONE WORKING
IN MY FIELD KNOWS THAT
HOMELESSNESS AND SEVERE MENTAL
ILLNESS ARE CONNECTED, AND
CERTAINLY Kò HOMELESSNESS,
SEVERE MENTAL ILLNESS AND THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM ARE
INEXTRICABLY LINKED. AND WE ALSO
ALL KNOW THAT SUCH A SMALL
PERCENTAGE OF OUR HOMELESS
POPULATION IS TAKING ADVANTAGE
OF THE MENTAL HEALTH AND
SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT THAT
IS AVAILABLE TO THEM, AND THAT
THEY ARE ENTITLED TO AND IN THE
COURTS. WHEN A INCOMPETENT
INDIVIDUAL, BECAUSE OF MENTAL
ILLNESS IS CHARGED WITH A
MISDEMEANOR, THINGS LIKE
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, VANDALISM,
DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE, OUR
COURTS ARE DISMISSING THOSE
CASES UNDER PENAL CODE SECTION
1370. THEY'RE DISMISSED WITHOUT
MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT,
DISMISSED WITHOUT MEDICATION
MANAGEMENT, SUBSTANCE ABUSE
TREATMENT OR ANY OF THE TOOLS TO
ESTABLISH LONG TERME PSYCHIATRIC
STABILIZATION, WHICH SHOULD BE
THE GOAL OF ALL COLLABORATIVE
COURTS. DOES THAT SEEM
COMPASSIONATE TO RELEASE THESE
HOMELESS AND INCOMPETENT
INDIVIDUALS TO THE STREETS,
WITHOUT THE TOOLS TO MANAGE
THEIR SEVERE MENTAL ILLNESS,
THEY MOST CERTAINLY ARE GOING TO
BE VICTIMIZED AND OR COMMIT A
NEW CRIME THAT'S GOING TO LAND
THEM RIGHT BACK IN THE SYSTEM
WHERE THEY CAME. IT'S NOT FAIR
TO THE VICTIMS AND THE
COMMUNITIES. NO ONE BENEFITS
FROM THESE DISMISSALS. WE HAVE
TO STOP MAKING THE LEGAL OUTCOME
THE PRIORITY OF THESE STATUTES
AND MAKING THE PERSON THE
PRIORITY OF THESE STATUTES. OUR
COLLABORATIVE COURTS ARE
EQUIPPED WITH MANY TOOLS TO
HANDLE AND HELP THESE
INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INCOMPETENT
AND INFLICTED WITH SUCH SEVERE
MENTAL ILLNESS. WE HAVE HOMELESS
COURTS, CARE COURTS, DRUG
TREATMENT COURTS. THAT IS THE
SOLUTION. WE NEED TO HELP THESE
INDIVIDUALS SO THAT WE STOP THE
REVOLVING DOOR OF THE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM AND PROTECT OUR
COMMUNITIES. THANK YOU FOR
LISTENING. THANK YOU. HELLO. MY
NAME IS TAMMY AND I'M WITH THE
EMPOWER AND RESILIENCE PROJECT.
I'M HERE TODAY TO TALK ABOUT AN
IMPORTANT ROLE THAT THE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM PLAYS OR SHOULD
PLAY WHEN IT COMES TO THE
WELL-BEING OF THOSE WHO SUFFER
FROM MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES AND
SUBSTANCE USE DISORDERS, AND
CANNOT SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. MY
SITUATION IS A BIT DIFFERENT,
BUT DOES PARALLEL THE INTENT OF
THIS BILL. MY SON SUFFERS FROM A
SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER. HE WAS
CLEAN FOR ALMOST TWO AND A HALF
YEARS BECAUSE HE WAS HELD
ACCOUNTABLE IN SEPTEMBER OF
2021, HE RELAPSED AND QUICKLY
FOUND FENTANYL. THIS WAS A GAME
CHANGER FOR THE FIRST TIME IN
HIS LIFE, HE CUT OFF ALL CONTACT
WITH FRIENDS, FAMILY AND LOVED
ONES AND MADE HIS WAY TO SAN
FRANCISCO TO LIVE HOMELESS DUE
TO THE EASY ACCESS TO FENTANYL,
THE OPEN DRUG MARKET AND ZERO
CONSEQUENCES OF THE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM, I WAS FORCED TO
FILE A MISSING PERSONS REPORTS
EVERY 4 TO 6 WEEKS JUST TO KNOW
IF HE WAS STILL ALIVE. I QUICKLY
LEARNED THAT I WAS ABLE TO TRACK
HIM WITHIN THE CRIMINAL COURT
SYSTEM ONLINE, IN MULTIPLE
COUNTIES, DUE TO THE NUMBER OF
TIMES HE WAS CITED AND RELEASED.
HE HAD MULTIPLE CHARGES FOR DRUG
POSSESSION, PARAPHERNALIA, AND
PETTY THEFT. HE HAD OVER 30 CITE
AND RELEASES THAT I KNOW OF, AND
OVER 20 FAILURES TO APPEAR. HE
NEVER ONCE APPEARED IN COURT ON
HIS OWN. IN THE END, ALL
RESULTED IN ZERO CONSEQUENCES
AND ZERO SERVICES FOR HIS DRUG
ADDICTION. HE WAS SIMPLY LET GO
WITH TIME SERVED. FOR THE COUPLE
OF DAYS HE WOULD SPEND IN JAIL.
HE HAD NO REASON TO STOP. I
RECEIVED PAPERWORK IN THE MAIL
FOR AT LEAST SIX OVERDOSES,
WHERE HE WAS TAKEN TO THE
HOSPITAL AND BROUGHT BACK TO
LIFE. SORRY HE STILL COULDN'T
STOP ON HIS OWN. FAST FORWARD TO
NOVEMBER 2ND, 2023, WHERE HE WAS
CAUGHT STEALING A LITTLE OVER
$1,000 FROM TARGET, WHICH WAS
NOW CONSIDERED A FELONY. HE WAS
ULTIMATELY SENTENCED TO STATE
PRISON, WHERE I WAS TOLD HE
WOULD BE EVALUATED AT A
RECEPTION CENTER AND SENT TO A
PRISON THAT COULD HELP PROVIDE
HIM WITH SERVICES HE SO
DESPERATELY NEEDED. I HAD HOPE
HE WAS TRANSFERRED TO AVENAL
STATE PRISON A FEW MONTHS AGO,
WHERE HE CURRENTLY SITS ON A
WAITLIST TO RECEIVE DRUG
TREATMENT. HE STILL RECEIVED NO
SERVICES. THE SYSTEM HAS ONCE
AGAIN FAILED. THIS COULD HAVE
ALL BEEN PREVENTED HAD THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM STEPPED
IN WHILE HE WAS COMMITTING
MISDEMEANORS. FOR THE PREVIOUS
TWO YEARS, HELD HIM ACCOUNTABLE,
AND OFFERED HIM TREATMENT AND
SERVICES IN LIEU OF JAIL TIME
RATHER THAN DOING NOTHING. WE
NEED TO DO BETTER AND HELP THOSE
WHO SUFFER FROM MENTAL HEALTH
ISSUES AND SUBSTANCE USE
DISORDERS. THE ISSUES AND
CHALLENGES ARE VERY SIMILAR.
THANK YOU. OTHERS IN SUPPORT.
SEEING NO OTHERS IN SUPPORT.
OPPOSITION JUST COME FORWARD.
CAN YOU SCOOT OVER ONE SEAT?
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. YOU HAVE FIVE
MINUTES, MARGO GEORGE FOR THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION, I WANT TO SAY THAT
I'M SORRY ABOUT YOUR SON. I
DON'T THINK THAT HE WOULD HAVE
FIT UNDER THE PARAMETERS OF THIS
BILL. THIS BILL APPLIES ONLY TO
PEOPLE WHO ARE SO MENTALLY ILL
THAT THEY'RE INCOMPETENT TO
STAND TRIAL, WHICH IS VERY HIGH
STANDARD, I DO WANT TO ADDRESS,
WHAT IS HAPPENING, THOUGH, AS
RECENTLY AS 2022, THE UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
FOUND THAT LA COUNTY WAS
IMPRISONING AN AVERAGE OF 5700
PEOPLE A DAY, MAINLY PEOPLE,
PEOPLE OF COLOR WITH MENTAL
ILLNESS, AS THEIR CONDITIONS
WERE HORRIFIC, AND THESE ARE
PEOPLE WHO MANY OF THEM WHO WERE
INCOMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL, THEY
WERE ALLOWED OUT OF THEIR CELLS
A FEW HOURS A DAY WHERE THEY
WERE SHACKLED TO TABLES. THEY
WERE WEARING GOWNS THAT WERE
TEAR PROOF SO THEY WOULD NOT
COMMIT SUICIDE. SOME OF THEM
SMEARED FECES ON THE WALLS OF
THEIR CELLS. PEOPLES WERE
SCREAMING, PACING BACK AND
FORTH. THEIR CELLS WERE
OVERFLOWING WITH GARBAGE. MOST
OF THESE PEOPLE, 50, 700 PEOPLE
A DAY, WERE NOT GETTING ANY KIND
OF MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT IN
THE JAIL. A 2020 REPORT BY THE
WELL RESPECTED RAND CORPORATION
FOUND THAT MORE THAN 60% OF
THESE INDIVIDUALS COULD BE
DIVERTED FROM COUNTY JAIL, AND
THAT'S WHAT MISDEMEANOR MENTAL
HEALTH DIVERSION FOR IST SOUGHT
TO DO. AND IT'S A PROCESS WHERE
IF SOMEONE IS INCOMPETENT TO
STAND TRIAL, THEY MEET THAT
HEAVY, THAT HIGH STANDARD, THEN
THE JUDGE CAN DIVERT THEM INTO
MENTAL HEALTH DIVERSION. IF THEY
DON'T QUALIFY FOR THAT, THEN
THERE'S ASSISTED OUTPATIENT
TREATMENT. LAURA'S LAW THAT THIS
LEGISLATURE PASSED AND THEN MOST
RECENTLY THERE'S CARE COURT,
WHICH HAS JUST BEING IMPLEMENTED
IN LA COUNTY. AND MOST OF THE
STATE NOW. SO THE COURTS ARE NOT
ABANDONING PEOPLE. THEY'RE NOT
SENDING PEOPLE WILLY NILLY OUT
ONTO THE STREETS TO RE-OFFEND OR
TO BE WITHOUT TREATMENT. THIS,
THAT IS ONLY THE LAST RESORT.
AND AGAIN, THIS IS JUST LOW
LEVEL OFFENSES AND PEOPLE WHO
ARE MENTALLY INCOMPETENT TO
STAND TRIAL. I WANT TO SAY THAT
THIS BILL AB 2547, IS AN ATTEMPT
TO KEEP PEOPLE IN THE JAILS IN
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, THEY ARE
WAITING MISDEMEANORS 6 TO 7
MONTHS BEFORE THEY CAN FIND
MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT BEDS. WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR NO
VOTE. THANK YOU. YOU HAVE ABOUT
A MINUTE AND A HALF. SORRY. GOOD
MORNING. MY NAME IS ROBERTO
EVANGELIST. I'M A DEPUTY PUBLIC
DEFENDER IN SAN FRANCISCO
COUNTY. I'VE BEEN A PUBLIC
DEFENDER FOR 23 YEARS, AND I'VE
HAD THE PRIVILEGE AND BURDEN OF
THE LAST, THE HEAVY BURDEN IN
THE LAST FIVE YEARS ARE WORKING
IN THE MENTAL HEALTH UNIT,
SPECIFICALLY WITH LPS
CONSERVATORSHIPS CARE, COURT
ASSISTED OUTPATIENT TREATMENT
AND MENTAL HEALTH DIVERSION
THÀNH THIS THIS PROPOSED
LEGISLATION, ONE PRESUMES THAT
THE THOUSANDS OF PROSECUTORS,
PUBLIC DEFENDERS AND JUDGES ARE
NOT DOING THEIR JOB. WHEN WE GET
INITIAL REPORTS OF INCOMPETENCE,
REPORTS INDICATING THE PERSON'S
INCOMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL
REPORTS ARE COMPREHENSIVES. THE
VERY FEW PSYCHOLOGISTS OR
PSYCHIATRISTS WHO ARE ON PANELS
TO CONDUCT THESE EVALUATIONS ARE
INSTRUCTED TO CONSIDER WHETHER
CLIENTS WOULD BENEFIT FROM OTHER
PROGRAMS, THIS LEGISLATION
DOESN'T PROVIDE ANY SAFEGUARDS
TO DO A REDO OVER. IT PRESUMES
THAT THE INITIAL REPORT WAS
SOMEHOW WAS FLAWED, IT PRESUMES
THAT SOMEHOW CHAU SOMETHING
HAPPENED, BETWEEN THE TIME THE
COURT RECEIVED THE REPORT AND
ORDER A REFERRAL TO A PROGRAM OR
FOUND THAT THERE WERE NOT
SUITABLE TO, SOMETHING HAPPENED,
IT IS NO JUSTIFICATION. DO YOU
THINK THE BILL HAS NO STUDIES OR
ANY EVIDENCE THAT WOULD INDICATE
THAT THERE WOULD BE ANY
DIFFERENT RESULTS? WHAT DOES
THIS COST? IT'S GOING TO COST US
A LOT OF MONEY. IT'S GOING TO
COST US MONEY AND HOLDING PEOPLE
IN JAIL. IT'S GOING TO COST US
MONEY. IN APPOINTING NEW EXPERTS
TO DO REEVALUATIONS, IT'S GOING
TO ADD ADDITIONAL COST IN
LITIGATION, THIS THIS BILL IS
FLAWED, AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE
YOU TO REJECT IT AND INSTEAD
FOCUS ON SERVICES AND PROVIDING
THINGS THAT ACTUALLY HELP. THANK
YOU. FUNNELS THANK YOU. GAVE YOU
AN EXTRA MINUTE. THANK YOU.
OTHERS IN OPPOSITION, PLEASE
COME FORWARD. MELANIE KIM, SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE IN OPPOSITION. FELIPE
KELLY WITH THE ELLA BAKER CENTER
IN FULL OPPOSITION. Dð COONEY
WITH ACLU IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. ASHLEY CHAMBERS WITH THE
ELLA BAKER CENTER IN OPPOSITION.
JUAN FLORES WITH THE ELLA BAKER
CENTER OPPOSITION IN. MICHELLE
MAXWELL UNDERGROUND SCHOLARS
INITIATIVE AT UC BERKELEY IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. SEEING NO
OTHER OPPOSITION THÀNH QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. ASSEMBLY MEMBER WILSON.
THANK YOU TO THE AUTHOR. UNDER
DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND YOUR
INTENT AND I DON'T BELIEVE I'M
THERE YET IN SUPPORTING, BUT
I'VE HAD A FEW FOLLOW UP
QUESTIONS, SO AS I UNDERSTAND
IT, THIS BILL WOULD REQUIRE THEM
TO HOLD A HEARING, NOT JUST
DISMISS, SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO
HOLD A HEARING, BUT THEN IT
WOULD TAKE AWAY THEIR RIGHT TO,
AT THE END OF THAT HEARING,
STILL DISMISS IT. YEAH, I'D LIKE
TO RESPOND. SO BASICALLY, THE
INTENT OF THE BILL THAT, WE HAVE
THE OPTION FOR THE COURT TO
PROVIDE THE, MENTAL HEALTH
TREATMENT, FOR HOMELESS, A
PERSON WHO IS MENTALLY
INCOMPETENT TO STAND FOR ANY
TRIAL, SO I THINK THAT WE
UNDERSTAND THE HOMELESS CRISIS
IS NOT ONE OF THE MAJOR CONCERN
FOR EVERYONE WHO LIVES IN
CALIFORNIA. YEAH. HUM YEAH. AND
I BUT I THINK IT'S BROADER THAN
HOMELESS. I THINK IT'S ANYONE
WITH THE MENTAL HEALTH ISSUE,
AND THEIR ABILITY TO, IF THEY'RE
SO, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT
WORD IS, BUT BASICALLY THEY'VE
MET THAT STANDARD OF BEING
INCOMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL,
WHICH IS PRETTY HUGE STANDARD,
AND SAYING THAT THAT PERSON
DEFINITELY NEEDS SUPPORT. THEN
WHAT ARE THE AVENUES OF SUPPORT?
AND THEN WE DO HAVE A RIGHT TO
DUE PROCESS. AND SO BEING ABLE
TO EVEN IF YOU REQUIRE. SO I
THINK I WAS FINE WITH MAYBE IF
IT WAS JUST A REQUIREMENT THAT
THERE WAS AN ACTUAL PROCEEDING
VERSUS AUTOMATIC DISMISS, BUT
THEN YOU TAKE AWAY THAT RIGHT TO
DISMISS IF NEED BE. AND I'M
SENSITIVE TO THIS. I RECENTLY
WENT TO A, A RETAIL CENTER ON
THIS PAST THURSDAY TO, DO A TOUR
AND TO SEE THE IMPACTS OF RETAIL
THEFT, BUT WAS WHAT WAS REALLY
INTERESTING IS IN CONVERSATIONS
WITH THE MANAGERS AND EMPLOYEES,
ALTHOUGH THERE IS AN ISSUE OF
RETAIL THEFT, THERE WAS A
GREATER ISSUE OF THREATS AND
HARASSMENT FROM PEOPLE WHO WERE
MENTALLY ILL, WHO WEREN'T WHO
DIDN'T SUBSEQUENTLY STEAL
SOMETHING. BUT MAYBE THREW
SOMETHING OR WAS JUST, YOU KNOW,
HARASSING AND, AND, COMMITTING
WHAT COULD BE CONSIDERED MR.
MEANER OFFENSES. BUT EVEN IF
THEY WERE ARRESTED, WHICH THERE
WAS AN ISSUE OF POLICE RESPONSE,
THEY WOULD BE BACK LATER THAT
DAY OR THE NEXT DAY. SO I AM
REALLY LOOKING FOR, VEHICLES TO
BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE
THAT PEOPLE ARE EXPERIENCING.
THE PEOPLE ARE AFRAID TO GO TO
GROCERY TO RETAILS FOR THAT. BUT
I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE WAY
I THINK THIS MIGHT BE TOO HARD
OF A HAMMER, SO TO SPEAK, AND I
THINK THERE MIGHT BE A LIGHTER
OPPORTUNITY OF, YOU CAN'T JUST
DISMISS WITHOUT DOING THAT EXTRA
VERY PUBLIC STEP OF OR VERY OPEN
STEP OF MAKING SURE YOU'VE
EXHAUSTED ALL THE REMEDIES. AND
THEN IF YOU'VE EXHAUSTED ALL THE
REMEDIES AND ARE NOT ELIGIBLE,
THEN DISMISSING BECAUSE THERE IS
THIS DUE PROCESS THING WHICH IS
FUNDAMENTAL TO OUR INVOLVEMENT
IN THE, IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE
SYSTEM. AND SO I THINK THE
HAMMER MIGHT BE TOO HEAVY, BUT I
GET WHERE YOU'RE TRYING TO GO
AND, SO I'M GOING TO HOLD OFF
TODAY, BUT, IF YOU GET THERE, I
MIGHT BE THERE WITH YOU. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. WELL, IF I MAY
ADD, THE. I DON'T THINK SHE HAD
A QUESTION FOR YOU. OKAY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER ZABIR. THANK YOU
FOR, FOR BRINGING THE BILL. I
THINK I SHARE A LOT OF THE
CONCERNS THAT MY COLLEAGUE HERE
HAS. YOU KNOW, IN PARTICULAR,
THIS ISSUE OF NOT BEING ABLE TO
DISMISS AT ALL WHEN I LOOK AT
WHAT THE BILL DOES, IT REQUIRES
THE COURT IF A PERSON IS FOUND
INELIGIBLE FOR DIVERSION TO
DETERMINE WHETHER ONE OF THESE
FOUR THINGS ARE AVAILABLE. AND
SO KHÓ ORDER MODIFICATION OF A
TREATMENT PLAN, REFER THE
DEFENDANT TO OUTPATIENT
TREATMENT, REFERRED DEFENDANT TO
CONSERVATIVE PROCEEDINGS, AND TO
REFER THE DEFENDANT OR TO THE
CARE PROGRAM. I WANTED TO ASK
MISS GEORGE, OR THE OTHER
WITNESS. ARE ONE OF THOSE
OPTIONS ALWAYS AVAILABLE IN A
SHORT PERIOD OF TIME? I THINK
THAT, I CAN SPEAK TO MY
COLLEAGUE WHO'S ACTUALLY IN THE
TRENCHES IS BETTER ABLE TO
ANSWER THAT SO I CAN SPEAK FOR,
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY AND A
LITTLE BIT FOR PLACER COUNTY. SO
WHEN WE GET THE EVALUATION FROM
THE ALIENIST, THEY WILL ALWAYS
MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AS TO
WHETHER PROGRAMS IS A CLIENT OR
INMATE MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR, AND
THE COURT DECIDES WHETHER TO
REFER THEM TO THOSE PROGRAMS OR
NOT. WE DO HAVE A HEARING. WE
HEAR WE HAVE A REPORT. THERE'S A
PROSECUTOR THERE TO ADVOCATE FOR
OR AGAINST A REFERRAL TO A
PROGRAM. BUT, BUT BUT IF SOMEONE
BUT IF THERE ISN'T A PROGRAM,
THAT IS IF NONE OF THOSE OPTIONS
ARE AVAILABLE. I MEAN, WHAT I
HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT IS IF NONE
OF THOSE OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE,
THEN THE DEFENDANT IS SORT OF IN
A, YOU KNOW, WHAT HAPPENS. ARE
THEY JUST HELD IN PRISON WITHOUT
A TRIAL FOR A LONG PERIOD OF
TIME? YES. AND THAT'S WHAT
HAPPENS FREQUENTLY IN SAN
FRANCISCO AND OTHER COUNTIES.
THE LINGERING CUSTODY, WAITING
FOR SOME PROGRAM TO APPEAR OR
SOME JUDGES WILL HOLD CLIENTS IN
CUSTODY UNTIL THEY'RE MAXED OUT
WHERE THEY'VE SERVED THEIR FULL
SENTENCE. AND ONLY THEN WILL
THEY RELEASE THEM AND DISMISS
THE CHARGES. THERE'S NOT A
OVERFLOW OF JUDGES DISMISSING
MISDEMEANOR CHARGES WHEN THE
CLIENTS ARE FOUND INCOMPETENT.
THAT DOESN'T REALLY HAPPEN. I
MEAN, I, I SORT OF SHARE THE
CONCERNS OF MY COLLEAGUE THAT
SORT OF TAKING AWAY THE ABILITY
FOR A JUDGE TO HAVE THE
DISCRETION FOR THE DISMISSAL,
ESPECIALLY IN CASES, WAS I THINK
WHAT'S GOOD ABOUT THE BILL IS
REQUIRING THAT THE JUDGE
CONSIDER ALL OF THESE THINGS. IF
DIVERSION IS TO TRY TO GET
PEOPLE INTO SOMETHING THAT WILL
HELP THEM. BUT IF THERE'S
NOTHING AVAILABLE, AND I THINK
THAT'S TRUE IN MANY CASES, PARTS
OF THE STATE THEN TAKING AWAY
THE ABILITY TO DISMISS
COMPLETELY TO ME JUST SEEMS LIKE
IT'S TOO FAR. SO, I DON'T THINK
I'M GOING TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT
THIS TODAY, AND, AND BUT, YOU
KNOW, I ENCOURAGE YOU TO THINK
ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THIS COULD
BE TIGHTENED UP. SO THANK YOU.
MAY I JUST SAY ONE THING? I
THINK THAT, THE CARE COURT IS
ONLY NOW BEING IMPLEMENTED
STATEWIDE, SO THERE WILL BE MORE
TREATMENT OPPORTUNITIES. BUT
AGAIN, IF THERE ARE, THERE'S
NOTHING FOR SOMEONE. YOU CAN'T
JUST HOLD THEM, BECAUSE THEY'RE
MENTALLY ILL. ANY FURTHER? ALL
RIGHT. FOR THE DA, IF YOU COULD
ALSO, I KNOW YOU WANTED TO
ANSWER A QUESTION. I'LL LET YOU
GET TO THAT THEN. I HAVE A
QUESTION FOR YOU. THANK YOU, I
THINK WE NEED TO DRAW A
DISTINCTION. A LOT OF THE
QUESTIONS I'M HEARING ADDRESS
KIND OF ARE FELONY LEVEL
INCOMPETENT PEOPLE, AT LEAST IN
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, ARE
MISDEMEANORS. THE LARGE MAJORITY
ARE NOT IN CUSTODY AT ALL.
PENDING THIS ASSESSMENT OF
INCOMPETENCE, IT'S OUR FELONY.
CERTAINLY ARE. THERE ARE NO BAIL
SUSPENDED PROCEEDINGS. THEY'RE
IN CUSTODY. SO I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT WE SEE THAT
DISTINCTION. THÀNH. OF COURSE,
THERE'S ALWAYS THE COMMITMENT
CLOCK. WE'RE WORKING AGAINST.
RIGHT? A TWO YEAR FELONY CLOCK
FOR RESTORATION OF COMPETENCY,
ONE YEARS FOR A MISDEMEANOR. IF
WE DON'T ACHIEVE COMPETENCY IN
THAT PERIOD OF TIME, OF COURSE,
THE COURT IS LEFT IN THAT
DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO
DISMISS THAT CASE. BUT
PRACTICALLY, AT LEAST AT LEAST
IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, WHAT'S
HAPPENING IS THE MISDEMEANORS.
THOSE WHO HAVE MISDEMEANORS, WHO
AREN'T ATTACHED TO A FELONY
CASE, THEY ARE BEING DISMISSED,
LEAVING ON THE TABLE THE VAST
VARIETY OF RESOURCES WE HAVE AT
OUR DISPOSAL THAT MIGHT BE ABLE
TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE FOR THEM.
AND RETURNING THESE INCOMPETENT
PEOPLE WITH NO EFFORT TO RESTORE
THEIR COMPETENCY AND TREAT THEM,
RETURNING THEM RIGHT BACK TO THE
STREETS WHERE THEY CAME FROM.
THANK YOU FOR EXPLAINING THAT.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY,
I'LL JUST, END WITH, TO THE
AUTHOR. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
THIS. OH. MR. TING HAS A
QUESTION. JUST GOING BACK TO THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY. SO SO THEN,
YOU YOU MENTIONED THESE
MISDEMEANOR CASES GET DISMISSED.
IS IT BECAUSE THE JUDGES, IS IT
BECAUSE A LACK OF SERVICES IN
THE COUNTY AND THE JUDGES DON'T
HAVE A PLACE TO SIT? I MEAN,
WHAT I MEAN, YOU COULD TELL THE
JUDGES TO CONSIDER THESE
SERVICES, BUT WHY DO YOU WHY DO
YOU THINK THEY'RE GETTING
DISMISSED RIGHT NOW? THE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE HOSPITALS
HAS A LONG WAIT LIST, IT'S
GETTING MUCH BETTER.
EXPONENTIALLY BETTER, BUT THAT'S
PART OF IT. IS AS THE PERSON
CHARGED WITH A MISDEMEANOR IS ON
THE WAIT LIST. IF THEY'RE NOT
PLACED IN THAT PERIOD OF TIME, I
THINK THE COURTS DO, TAKE TOO
MUCH TIME MAKING THE REFERRALS
FOR INVESTIGATING WHETHER OR NOT
THESE SERVICES COULD BENEFIT
THEM. THAT SHOULD BE THE FIRST
PRIORITY, IN MY OPINION, BUT
THAT THE CLOCK FOR COMMITMENT,
THE ONE YEAR IS WHAT WE'RE UP
AGAINST, RIGHT. AND THAT'S WHAT
CAUSES THE COURT TO HAVE TO MAKE
THAT DECISION IN THE BACK END TO
DISMISS THE CASE. A POINT OF
CLARIFICATION, BUT I'M STILL I'M
SO SORRY. GO AHEAD. YEAH. IT'S
NOT YOU GET TO CALL WHEN YOU GET
TO SPEAK WHEN YOU'RE CALLED ON.
SO THIS IS HOW WE DO THINGS IN
THE COMMITTEE. RIGHT. BUT MY
RECOLLECTION, BUT JUST GOING
BACK TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY.
SO SO AGAIN, IF THE WAIT LIST IS
LONG AND LET'S SAY THE BILL IS
IN EFFECT, HOW HOW WOULD THE
BILL CHANGE? WHAT HAPPENS?
WOULDN'T THEY JUST BE HELD
LONGER IN JAIL? THE CODE SECTION
AS IT CURRENTLY IS CONSTRUCTED
DOES NOT LAY A ROAD MAP FOR YOU
MUST DO A, B, C, D E RIGHT
FIRST. RIGHT. YEAH. THE COURT
COULD AS IT'S CURRENTLY
CONSTRUCTED, JUMP STRAIGHT TO
THE DISMISSAL. YEAH AND THAT
OFTEN IS HOW IT'S HAPPENING AS A
BOOTS ON THE GROUND PRACTICE.
WIENER BECAUSE OF LACK OF
RESOURCES. OF COURSE. AND I
THINK YOU'RE NOT HEARING ANY
OPPOSITION FROM THE COMMITTEE TO
SAY, HEY, YOU SHOULD GO THROUGH
AND CONSIDER THESE 4 OR 5
THINGS. I THINK WE ALL FEEL VERY
SUPPORTIVE. I THINK THE QUESTION
IS, IS WHY ARE YOU TAKING THAT
AUTHORITY OF THE DISMISSAL AWAY?
WELL, I THINK IF IT WOULD
ASSUAGE THE COMMITTEE'S, THE
COMMITTEE'S CONCERNS, ENSURING
THAT THE JUDICIARY ACTUALLY GOES
THROUGH THE LITANY OF CHOICES
BEFORE THEY EVEN CONSIDER
DUMPING A CRIMINAL CASE IS WHAT
NEEDS TO HAPPEN. CERTAINLY YEAH.
I MEAN, AT LEAST FOR ME, I
WOULDN'T HAVE, OPPOSITION WITH
THAT. I WOULD BE CURIOUS AS TO
WHAT THE OPPOSITION WOULD THINK
ABOUT THAT. SO I BELIEVE THAT
THE, PROSECUTOR IS MIXING UP
MISDEMEANORS AND FELONIES.
MISDEMEANORS DO NOT GET SENT TO
THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE
HOSPITALS. THERE'S NO PROVISION
FOR THEM TO DO THAT. THEY'RE NOT
ON THE WAIT LIST. THIS BILL IS
ONLY APPLY TO MISDEMEANORS.
YEAH. ISTS. SO WHAT DO WHAT
HAPPENS TO MISDEMEANORS THEN? I
BELIEVE MY COLLEAGUE FROM SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE CAN TELL YOU CLEARLY. SO.
SO IN SAN CISCO THE COURTS CAN
DO, APPOINTED GNARLINESS TO DO
BOTH EVERYTHING AT ONCE.
DETERMINE WHETHER YOU'RE
INCOMPETENT AND WHETHER THEY
QUALIFY FOR ANY OF THESE
ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMS. AND LIKE I
MENTIONED EARLIER, WE DO WE DO
MAKE THOSE REFERRALS. SOMETIMES
WE CAN'T PLACE THE CLIENTS
BECAUSE THERE'S NO FACILITIES TO
TAKE THEM. THERE'S A LACK OF
SERVICES THERE. YES, SIR, YES,
SO THEY LINGER IN JAIL AND SAN
FRANCISCO UNTIL THEY'RE MAXED
OUT AND THEN THEY DISMISSAL
SOMETIMES. NOT ALWAYS. WELL, I
THINK THE BILL YOU KNOW, MY ONE
OF MY CONCERNS WITH THE BILL IS
THERE IS THIS ASSUMPTION THAT
SOMEHOW THERE ARE ALL THESE
EMPTY SERVICE SLOTS AND THEY
JUST AREN'T BEING FILLED. THAT'S
INCORRECT, FOR US. AND I'M SORRY
, MA'AM, TO HEAR ABOUT YOUR
SON'S SITUATION IN SAN FRANCISCO
, AND THAT. BUT IT'S SORT OF
LIKE THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, WE
HAVE AN ISSUE. WE ONLY HAVE SO
MANY SLOTS AVAILABLE. WE ONLY
HAVE SO MANY SERVICES AVAILABLE.
SO THAT'S ONE OF THE CHALLENGES,
RIGHT? IT'S LIKE THIS, AGAIN, I
DON'T I WOULDN'T HAVE AN ISSUE
OF SAYING, HEY, JUDGE, PLEASE
CONSIDER ALL THESE THINGS. BUT
EVEN IF THEY LOOK AT ALL THESE
THINGS AND IT'S LIKE FULL, FULL,
FULL, FULL, IT'S ONE OF THE
CHALLENGES THAT WE FACE. IT'S
NOT THAT IT'S NOT THAT WE HAVE
THESE EMPTY SLOTS AND NO ONE'S
FILLING THEM UP. RIGHT. THAT'S
THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING FOR OUR
CITY IN SAN FRANCISCO. VERY
TRUE. YEAH SO, OKAY, I THINK AT
THIS POINT, I THINK THIS IT'S
CLEAR THIS BILL STILL NEEDS,
NEEDS SOME WORK. I THINK I
PERSONALLY REALLY APPRECIATE
THIS. THIS THOUGHT PROCESS AND
REALLY TRYING TO, MAKE SURE THAT
ANY JUDGE IS REALLY LOOKING AT A
VARIETY OF TREATMENT OPTIONS.
FIRST, I THINK I COMPLETELY
SUPPORT THAT. I THINK THE WAY
THE BILL'S AS CONSTRUCTED TODAY,
I DON'T KNOW THAT I COULD
SUPPORT THAT RIGHT NOW, BUT I
REALLY DO APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR
FOR, YOU KNOW, TAKING A SHOT.
AND I THINK CALLING ATTENTION TO
THIS ISSUE, I THINK IT'S I THINK
YOU'RE DEFINITELY ON THE RIGHT
TRACK. THANK YOU. MR. CHANG. ANY
OTHERS FROM COMMITTEE? OKAY.
AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
THIS BILL FORWARD TO US, I'M
GOING TO BE MOVING THE BILL, AND
IT LOOKS OBVIOUSLY LIKE OUR
COLLEAGUES ARE ALMOST THERE WITH
YOU, BUT WE'LL GET SOME WORK,
AND I NEED A SECOND, SECOND
HEARING, A SECOND. ARE YOU READY
TO CLOSE? OH I HUMBLY ASK FOR
YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU. PLEASE
TAKE THE ROLL ON AB 2547 BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER TO THE MOTION IS
DUE. PASS TO THE APPROPRIATE
COMMITTEE. MCCARTY ALANIZ.
ALANIZ, A LACKEY. LACKEY I
NGUYEN REYES TING TING. NOT
VOTING. WILSON. ZIPPER ZIPPER.
NOT VOTING THAT MEASURES ON CALL
. THE MEASURE IS GOING TO BE ON
CALL IF NEED BE. WOULD YOU BE
REQUESTING A RECONSIDERATION?
YES THANK YOU, THANK YOU. WE'LL
MAKE NOTE OF THAT.
NEXT WE HAVE ITEM NUMBER 11 AB
2308. MISS DAVIES. MOVE THE BILL
.
GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. MR. VICE CHAIR MEMBERS,
TODAY I'M HERE TO PRESENT AB
2308. I FIRST WANT TO THANK
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR WORKING WITH
MY STAFF AND STAKEHOLDERS ON
THIS MEASURE. I WILL BE
ACCEPTING THE PROPOSED
COMMITMENT COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS.
UNDER CURRENT LAW, VICTIMS OF
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND OTHER
SEXUAL OFFENSES CAN PETITION A
COURT FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
FORM FOR THEIR FROM THEIR
ABUSER. THESE ORDERS USUALLY
LAST AROUND TEN YEARS. HOWEVER
DATA SHOWED THAT UNFORTUNATELY,
DURING AND AFTER THE PANDEMIC,
THERE HAS BEEN A RISE IN
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES.
ACCORDING TO THE HARVARD
GAZETTE, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES
IN 2021 AND 2022 ROSE BETWEEN 25
AND 33, DEPENDING ON THE
SEVERITY OF THE CASE. MEMBERS AB
2308 IS A COMMON SENSE AND
NARROW MEASURE TO INCREASE THE
TIME AMOUNT OF A PROTECTIVE FROM
10 TO 15 YEARS. IN THE CASE OF A
WORST TYPE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
CRIME, THE ONE THAT INVOLVES
CORPORAL INJURY AND LEAVES THE
VICTIM IN A TRAUMATIC CONDITION.
THESE ARE VICTIMS THAT ARE
PHYSICALLY BEATEN SO SEVERELY
THEY REQUIRE IMMEDIATE MEDICAL.
MEDICAL ATTENTION OFTENTIMES
REQUIRES STAYS IN THE HOSPITAL.
WHILE AN ADDITIONAL FIVE YEARS
MAY NOT SEEM LIKE A LOT, THIS IS
A VALUABLE TIME A VICTIM COULD
USE TO RECOVER FROM THEIR
TRAUMA. AS WELL AS RAISE THEIR
CHILDREN AWAY FROM A PARTNER OR
SPOUSE WHO POSED AN IMMEDIATE
THREAT TO THEM. THE BILL IS
SPONSORED BY THE CONFERENCE OF
CALIFORNIA BAR ASSOCIATION AND
HAS SUPPORT FROM MAJOR LAW
ENFORCEMENT GROUPS, AS WELL AS
THE CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP TO
END DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. WITH ME
HERE TO TESTIFY AND ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS IS MICHAEL FERN FROM
QUBA ON BEHALF OF THE VICTIMS
WHO CANNOT BE HERE TODAY, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. MICHAEL, YOU
HAVE FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS MICHAEL
FERN AND I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF
THE CONFERENCE OF CALIFORNIA BAR
ASSOCIATIONS, AB TWO 308 WILL
HELP ADDRESS THE DISCONNECT
BETWEEN THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
RESTRAINING ORDER ISSUED BY A
FAMILY COURT, WHICH CAN BE FOR A
PERMANENT DURATION VERSUS A
RESTRAINING ORDER ISSUED BY A
CRIMINAL COURT FOLLOWING
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CONVICTION
PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE SECTION
270 3.5, WHICH IS CAPPED UNDER
CURRENT LAW AT NO MORE THAN TEN
YEARS AND CANNOT BE RENEWED
REGARDLESS OF THE FACTS. UNLIKE
FAMILY COURT, CRIMINAL COURTS
AFFORD DEFENDANTS SIGNIFICANTLY
GREATER DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS.
THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL,
THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY THAT
MUST REACH A UNANIMOUS VERDICT.
THEY HAVE THE RIGHT AGAINST
SELF-INCRIMINATION AND THE RIGHT
TO HAVE THE CHARGE OF DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE PROVEN BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT. THESE RIGHTS
DON'T EXIST FOR CIVIL DEFENDANTS
AND FAMILY COURTS, WHERE A
DEFENDANT WHO CANNOT AFFORD AN
ATTORNEY MUST REPRESENT
THEMSELVES CAN BE REQUIRED BY
THE COURT TO TESTIFY AND HAVE NO
RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL AND WHERE
THE FACTS ARE DECIDED BY THE
COURT BASED ON A PREPONDERANCE
OF THE EVIDENCE. BUT FOR
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS WHO
PARTICIPATE IN A CRIMINAL CASE
ALL THE WAY THROUGH CONVICTION,
WHOSE FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES
WARRANT A RESTRAINING ORDER THAT
WILL NOT SIMPLY LAPSE IN TEN
YEARS, THESE SURVIVORS MUST FILE
A SEPARATE CIVIL ACTION AGAINST
THE DEFENDANT, SUING THEM AND
SERVING THEM ON THEIR OWN. THIS
IMPOSES UNNECESSARY COSTS,
BURDENS AND RISKS FOR EVERYONE.
AS AMENDED, AB 2008 WOULD ALLOW
A CRIMINAL COURT TO ISSUE A
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RESTRAINING
ORDER THAT CAN LAST UP TO 15
YEARS INSTEAD OF TEN YEARS. WHEN
A COURT FINDS THAT A LONGER
DURATION IS WARRANTED BY THE
FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES. WHILE
THIS DOES NOT FULLY RESOLVE THE
DISCREPANCY BETWEEN CIVIL COURTS
AND CRIMINAL COURTS IN THE
ISSUANCE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS,
IT IS A SIGNIFICANT STEP FORWARD
THAT WILL SAVE JUDICIAL
RESOURCES, PROVIDE FOR GREATER
PEACE OF MIND, AND IMPROVE
PUBLIC SAFETY OUTCOMES. AND I'D
LIKE TO ADDRESS THREE SPECIFIC
POINTS ABOUT RESTRAINING ORDERS.
FIRST, WHAT DOES IT TAKE FOR
THERE TO BE A VIOLATION UNDER
THE LAW AS DESCRIBED UNDER
KALTIM 2701, THE CRIMINAL
INSTRUCTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF
RESTRAINING ORDERS, THE
RESTRAINED PERSON MUST HAVE
ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE ORDER,
MUST ENGAGE IN THE PROHIBITED
ACTION, AND MUST DO SO WILLINGLY
OR INTENTIONALLY. THE
DEFENDANT'S KNOWLEDGE AND STATE
OF MIND AT THE TIME OF THE ACT
MUST BE PROVEN BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT AND AN ACT THAT
IS NEITHER INTENTIONAL NOR
WILLFUL. VIOLATION OF AN ORDER
IS NOT A CRIME. SECOND, CAN
RESTRAINING ORDERS, INCLUDING
PERMANENT ONES, BE CHANGED AFTER
THEY'RE ISSUED? THE ANSWER IS
YES. THE ISSUING COURT CAN
ALWAYS SHORTEN THE ORDER'S
DURATION, MODIFIES CONDITIONS,
AND EVEN TERMINATE THE ORDER ON
ITS OWN MOTION, OR AT THE
REQUEST OF A PARTY BASED ON
CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES. FOR
EXAMPLE, CALIFORNIA RULE OF
COURT 5.445 CALLS FOR FAMILY
COURTS AND CRIMINAL COURTS TO
COMMUNICATE WHENEVER THERE ARE
OVERLAPPING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
AND OR CHILD CUSTODY ORDERS TO
ENSURE THAT THEY DO NOT
CONFLICT, AND TO MAKE
MODIFICATIONS AS NEEDED. AND
THEN THIRD, DOES THE DURATION OF
A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RESTRAINING
ORDER ACTUALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE
TO PUBLIC SAFETY? THE ANSWER IS
YES. WHILE EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE
IS UNIQUE, STUDIES HAVE SHOWN
THAT THERE IS A POSITIVE
CORRELATION BETWEEN THE DURATION
OF THE ORDER AND SURVIVOR
SAFETY, AND IN THIS REGARD, I
WOULD REFER THE COMMITTEE TO THE
EXPERTISE AND SCHOLARSHIP OF
PROFESSOR JANE STOVER, WHO
SERVES AS THE DIRECTOR OF THE
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CLINIC AT UC
IRVINE SCHOOL OF LAW. IN HER LAW
REVIEW ARTICLE ENTITLED
ENJOINING ABUSE THE CASE FOR
INDEFINITE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
PROTECTION ORDERS, PROFESSOR
STOVER NOTED THE FOLLOWING QUOTE
. SOCIAL SCIENTISTS HAVE FOUND
THAT LENGTHIER ORDERS PRODUCE
MORE SUBSTANTIAL SAFETY
OUTCOMES. MULTIPLE STUDIES HAVE
NOW FOUND A CORRELATION BETWEEN
THE DURATION OF THE PROTECTION
ORDER AND THE SURVIVOR'S SAFETY,
WHICH RESEARCHERS HAVE DESCRIBED
AS A DOSE RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP.
ACCORDING TO THE DURATION OF THE
CIVIL PROTECTION ORDER,
MAINTAINING THE COURT'S
PROTECTION OVER TIME. THEREFORE
IS KEY TO SIGNIFICANTLY
INCREASING OR SIGNIFICANTLY
DECREASING FUTURE VIOLENCE AND
SUSTAINING AN END TO ALL FORMS
OF ABUSE. BECAUSE AB TWO 308, AS
AMENDED, WILL SAVE JUDICIAL
RESOURCES, PROVIDE FOR GREATER
PEACE OF MIND, AND IMPROVE
PUBLIC SAFETY OUTCOMES. WE URGE
YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT?
PLEASE STEP UP. NAME AN
ORGANIZATION.
MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS CORY
SALZILLO, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION, IN SUPPORT. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
JARED MOSS, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS IN
SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING, RAY GRAND
GULF IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL ON
BEHALF OF THE ORANGE COUNTY
SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT. THANKS
HEIDI FITZPATRICK, CALIFORNIA
DA'S ASSOCIATION, RIVERSIDE
COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE
IN SUPPORT? ALL RIGHT. SEEING
NONE OPPOSITION, PLEASE COME TO
THE TABLE.
THANK YOU. YOU'LL HAVE FIVE
MINUTES. I'LL BE RATHER QUICK,
MY NAME IS KELLY WALTERS. I'M A
STAFF ATTORNEY WITH LEGAL
SERVICES FOR PRISONERS WITH
CHILDREN, I CAME HERE PREPARED
TO OPPOSE THIS BILL, WITH
REMARKS REGARDING THE JUSTICE,
REHABILITATION AND
PROPORTIONALITY CONCERNS OF ANY
TYPE OF PERMANENT PROTECTIVE
ORDER. HOWEVER, IT CAME TO OUR
ATTENTION THIS MORNING THAT THE
AUTHOR HAS AMENDED THE BILL TO A
15 YEAR PROTECTIVE ORDER RATHER
THAN A PERMANENT AND WE WOULD
LIKE TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
REVIEW THE AMENDMENTS. GREAT
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE
IN OPPOSITION? PLEASE STEP UP.
NAME AN ORGANIZATION AND YOUR
POSITION. MARCO GEORGE, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION, I WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHOR AND THE
COMMITTEE FOR WORKING AND
AMENDING THE BILL. WE'RE
REVIEWING THE AMENDMENTS AND MAY
BE ABLE TO WITHDRAW OUR OUR
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU AGAIN.
PHILIPPE KELLY WITH THE ELLA
BAKER CENTER AND FOR OPPOSITION,
Dð COONEY WITH ACLU CALIFORNIA
ACTION, CURRENTLY IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. ASHLEY CHAMBERS WITH
THE ELLA BAKER CENTER IN FULL
OPPOSITION. MARLENA MERCADO WITH
UNCOMMON LAW IN OPPOSITION. JUAN
FLORES WITH ELLA BAKER, CENTER,
IN OPPOSITION. MELANIE KIM, SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.
SEEING NO OTHERS, I'LL BRING IT
TO COMMITTEE. ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE? ALL
RIGHT. HEARING NONE. NO. ZIPPER
SO I HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT
THE BILL, BUT I AM, APPRECIATIVE
OF THE AUTHORS, WORKING WITH THE
OPPOSITION. AND IN ORDER TO
ALLOW THAT TO CONTINUE, I'LL GO
AHEAD. AND UNDERSTANDING THAT
THE CHAIR IS RECOMMENDING AN
I'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE THE BILL.
THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER? ALL
RIGHT. I'D LIKE TO JUST MAKE
SOME COMMENTS. AS A PRIOR
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DETECTIVE, AND
FOR THOSE OUT THERE WHO ARE
SURVIVORS, I, I'M THANKFUL FOR
THE AUTHOR, FOR BRINGING THAT TO
ALLOW THEM A LITTLE MORE,
FEELING SAFE OUT IN THE
ENVIRONMENT, AT LEAST ANOTHER
FIVE YEARS. SO THANK YOU FOR
DOING THAT. AND I'LL LET YOU
CLOSE, RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE, AND I WILL SECOND IT.
PLEASE TAKE ROLL ON AB 2308 BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER DAVIS. THE MOTION
IS DUE PASS, AS AMENDED, TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY ALANIS. ALANIS. AYE.
LACKEY NGUYEN REYES. TÍNH TING.
AYE. WILSON. ZIP HER ZIPPER. AYE
THAT MAJORS ON COLONY TWO MORE.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
MISS ORTEGA, IF YOU WOULD NOT
MIND. ITEM NUMBER 25, AB 2959.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS, FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT AB 209 59 BEFORE YOU ALL
TODAY. THIS BILL DIRECTLY
AFFECTS THE LIVES OF COUNTLESS
OF FAMILIES ACROSS OUR STATE.
CURRENTLY FAMILIES VISITING
THEIR LOVED ONES IN THE CDCR
FACILITIES ARE CONFRONTED WITH
EXTRAORDINARILY HIGH FOOD
PRICES. ADDITIONALLY, VISITORS
ARE LIMITED IN THE AMOUNT OF
MONEY THEY CAN BRING INTO A
FACILITY. VÆ FAMILIES CAN ONLY
BRING UP TO $70 PER ADULT AND
$40 PER CHILD TO BUY SNACKS AND
FOOD ITEMS, WHILE THE AMOUNT OF
MONEY A VISITOR CAN BRING IS
REGULATED, THE COST OF FOOD IN
THESE FACILITIES IS UNREGULATED,
WHICH RESULTS IN PRICES THAT ARE
SOMETIMES 2 TO 3 TIMES HIGHER
THAN WHAT THEY WOULD PAY AT A
LOCAL STORE. IMAGINE THE BURDEN
THIS PLACES ON FAMILIES WHO
OFTEN TRAVEL LONG DISTANCES JUST
TO SPEND PRECIOUS AMOUNT OF TIME
WITH THEIR LOVED ONES. AB 259
AIMS TO RECTIFY THIS. IT
REQUIRES THAT FOOD PRICES IN
PRISON VENDING MACHINES ALIGN
WITH THE AVERAGE MARKET. RETAIL
PRICE IN THE COMMUNITY WHERE THE
PRISON IS LOCATED. THIS WILL
SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THE
FINANCIAL STRAIN ON THESE
FAMILIES. VISITING A LOVED ONE
IN PRISON CAN BE DISTRESSING
EXPERIENCE, AND THE LAST THING
FAMILIES NEED TO WORRY ABOUT IS
FOOD INSECURITY, FOOD QUALITY
AND THE PRICES. AB 259 IS A STEP
TOWARDS FAIRNESS, AFFORDABILITY
AND DIGNITY. TODAY, WITH ME IN
SUPPORT IS LAWRENCE COX WITH THE
REGIONAL ADVOCACY AND ANGEL
RICE, THE FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF EMPOWERING WOMEN
IMPACTED BY INCARCERATION.
THÀNH. GOOD MORNING. YOU TWO GET
FIVE MINUTES TOGETHER. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, HUMBLED TO BE
HERE BEFORE YOU GUYS HEARING
THIS, BILL, AS YOU SAID, MY NAME
IS LAWRENCE COX. I AM THE
REGIONAL ADVOCACY AND ORGANIZING
ASSOCIATE OF LSPC, ALSO LEAD, OF
COALITION THAT'S SUPPORTING THIS
BILL. THIS BILL IS A SIMPLE
REMOVAL OF BARRIERS TO WHAT I
FEEL IS ONE OF OUR MOST
IMPORTANT TOOLS FOR
REHABILITATION, WHICH IS
VISITING, I WANT TO NOTE THAT
FOR SURE, CDCR VISITING ROOMS
ARE THE CONDUIT TO BUILDING AND
RESTORING, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY
BONDS. SO I BELIEVE, THEREFORE,
THAT MEANS THAT ENVIRONMENT WE
CREATE FOR VISITING IS JUST AS
VALUABLE. THAT'S WHY WE FELT IT
WAS IMPORTANT TO ENSURE THAT THE
SIX HOURS A DAY THAT ARE SPENT
CREATING UPLIFTING MOMENTS. AND
FOR SOME, THAT'S DIFFICULT
BECAUSE WHEN YOU'RE WORRIED
ABOUT THE QUALITY OR WHETHER YOU
HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO FEED YOUR
YOUR FAMILY AND OR YOUR
INCARCERATED LOVED ONE, IT
BECOMES A STRAIN AND A STRESS.
THIS BILL SEEKS TO REDUCE THE
AMOUNT AND THE RATE THAT SPOILED
FOOD IS PROVIDED TO VISITORS, IT
SEEKS TO ENCOURAGE THE ADDITION
OF HEALTHIER CHOICES AND PREVENT
THE PRICE GOUGING THAT SOMETIMES
CAN BE AS HIGH AS ANYWHERE FROM
300 TO 500% MARKUP. WE AGREE
THAT, OF COURSE, THAT NOT ALL
VENDORS ARE BAD ACTORS, BUT FOR
YEARS, FAMILIES HAVE BEEN
SUBJECTED TO A FEW BAD ACTORS,
MAYBE MORE THAN WE WOULD LIKE,
AND WITHOUT ANY REPRIEVE FROM
CDCR OR DR. WE WOULD LIKE TO
NOTE THAT WE DO HAVE A MIN
LANGUAGE THAT WE ARE WORKING ON
THAT ADDRESSES SOME OF THE
VENDORS CONCERNS, AND WE ALSO
HAVE BEEN IN COMMUNICATION WITH
VENDOR REPRESENTATIVES AS WELL
AS CDCR, AND REMAIN COMMITTED TO
OPENLY COMMUNICATING WITH ALL
STAKEHOLDERS, LASTLY, I WOULD
LIKE TO NOTE I AM SYSTEM
IMPACTED. I SPENT THE LAST 17
YEARS, THE 18 YEARS OF MY LIFE
INCARCERATED. I BELIEVE THAT I
AM A TRUTH AND PRODUCT OF
REHABILITATION AND STAND AS A
TESTAMENT TO WHAT PROVIDING
EFFECTIVE VISITING PROGRAMS WILL
ACTUALLY DO. IN THE 14 MONTHS
THAT I'VE BEEN HOME, I'VE
SUCCESSFULLY DISCHARGED PAROLE.
I NOW COORDINATE ALL EIGHT OF
OUR ALL OF US IN NUN CHAPTERS
THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. I ALSO COORDINATE
AND LEAD OUR CSU COALITIONS MADE
UP OF OVER 30 OTHER NONPROFIT
ORGS. I SAY ALL THAT TO POINT
OUT REHABILITATION IS POSSIBLE,
AND WE NEED TO FEEL COMFORTABLE
BETTING ON CREATING AN EFFECTIVE
VISITING ENVIRONMENT AND THE
RESULTS THAT IT CAN PRODUCE.
ANGEL THANK YOU. SECOND MOVED
AND SECOND. AND YOU HAVE 2.5
MINUTES OKAY. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. GOOD MORNING. HONORABLE
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. THANK
YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK
TODAY. MY NAME IS ANGEL RICE. I
AM THE I'M A CONSTITUENT OF
DISTRICT 50 AND ALSO CO-FOUNDER
OF EMPOWERING WOMEN IMPACTED BY
INCARCERATION, WHICH IS A 500
AND 1C3 NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION
DEDICATED TO ASSISTING FAMILIES
THROUGH THE INTRICATE PATHS OF
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM BY
WAY OF OFFERING COMPREHENSIVE
SUPPORT, RESOURCES, REFERRALS
AND ADVOCACY TO FAMILIES AND
THEIR IMPACTED LOVED ONES
TOWARDS THEIR JOURNEY TO
REHABILITATION. I, ALONG WITH MY
CO-FOUNDER, HAVE BOTH BEEN
DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY IMPACTED
BY INCARCERATION. I AM HERE
ASKING FOR YOUR SUPPORT AS I
SHARE WITH YOU THE COST.
FAMILIES, INCLUDING MYSELF, BEAR
WHEN SUPPORTING OUR INCARCERATED
LOVED ONE. WE CARRY THE WEIGHT
OF RESTITUTION, CANTEEN,
QUARTERLY PACKAGES, FAMILY
VISITS, FOOD SALES, TRAVEL FOR
VISITS WHICH INCLUDES FLIGHTS,
HOTELS AND UNFORTUNATELY, HIGH
COST FOOD ITEMS AVAILABLE FOR
PURCHASE THROUGH VENDING
MACHINES AND THROUGH THE VENDOR
DIRECTLY. THE AVERAGE COST SPENT
ANNUALLY TO SUPPORT SUPPORT A
LOVED ONE CAN RANGE FROM 20,000
TO 25,000, AND OFTEN THEN
CREATES FINANCIAL STRAIN WHILE
UNFORTUNATELY THE COST IS
UNBEARABLE, WE SHOW UP AND WE
PROVIDE SUPPORT. SINCE 2018, THE
NEED FOR QUALITY FRESH FOOD
ITEMS AND PRICE REDUCTION OR
MARKUP CAPPING AND VENDING ISN'T
A NEW REQUEST. OUR STATEWIDE
INMATE FAMILY COUNCIL AND LOCAL
FAMILY COUNCILS HAVE BROUGHT
THESE CONCERNS TO CDCR AND WHILE
IN AN IN AN ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE
THE ISSUE, IT WAS DECIDED THAT
FAMILIES WOULD BE ALLOWED TO
BRING $70 PER VISITING ADULT AND
$40 PER VISITING CHILD TO
PURCHASE FOOD ITEMS, WHICH STILL
ISN'T ENOUGH. AND WITH THE
INCREASE OF ALLOWABLE AMOUNT OF
FUNDS TO BRING, WE UNFORTUNATELY
WERE FACED WITH AN INCREASED
PRICE IN THE FOOD ITEMS. AND
AGAIN, WE FIND OURSELVES HAVING
THE SAME CONVERSATION. IT'S NOT
UNCOMMON TO SEE MOTHERS OR
PARENTS AT TABLES WHO CAN, WHO
CAN ONLY AFFORD TO BUY FOOD FOR
THEIR LOVED ONE AND THEIR
CHILDREN. IN SOME INSTANCES,
THEY MAY NOT. THEY MAY NOT BE
ABLE TO PURCHASE ANY FOOD AT ALL
IN ADDITION TO ADDRESSING
PRICING CONCERNS, WE URGE
SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS,
PARTICULARLY IN FOOD QUALITY AND
SAFETY MONITORING. THIS COMES
AFTER REPORTS OF FAMILY
SUFFERING FROM FOOD POISONING,
THE SALE OF EXPIRED ITEMS IN
VENDING MACHINES AND A LACK OF
NUTRITIOUS CHOICES FOR
INDIVIDUALS WITH DIETARY
RESTRICTIONS AND OR ALLERGIES.
BOTH MY HUSBAND AND I FACE
DIETARY CHALLENGES MINE DUE TO
ALLERGIES AND DIABETES AND HIS
DUE TO PLANT BASED DIET, LEAVING
US WITH LIMITED OPTIONS.
TYPICALLY, WE HE WILL END UP
SETTLING WITH A GRILLED CHEESE
SANDWICH OR A CHEESE PIZZA IF
AVAILABLE WITH CANDY CHIPS JUST
TO SUSTAIN US DURING A FIVE HOUR
VISIT. WHILE I HAVE A BOTTLE OF
WATER AND MAYBE A BAG OF CHIPS
BECAUSE THE FOOD OPTIONS ARE NOT
AVAILABLE FOR ME. THESE. THIS
LEGISLATION IS NOT JUST ABOUT
FOOD. WE ARE NOT ASKING TO
INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF ALLOWABLE
FUNDS TO BE BROUGHT IN. IT'S
ABOUT MAINTAINING THE DIGNITY
AND RESPECT FOR FAMILIES,
FACILITATING HEALING AND
SUPPORT, WHICH ARE FUNDAMENTAL
TO THE REINTEGRATION PROCESS.
THEREFORE, I URGE FOR YOUR
SUPPORT FOR AB 2959 TO REDUCE
THE FINANCIAL BURDEN ON FAMILIES
AND SUPPORT OUR LOVED ONES TO
RETURN TO OUR COMMUNITIES. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT? THANK YOU.
MARGO, GEORGIA, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT, THANK
YOU. TIÂU NHÀ VARGAS AND THE
JUSTICE, ACTION AND SUPPORT
PHILIPPE KELLY WITH THE ELLA
BAKER CENTER AND SUPPORT DENISE
AGUILAR, FREEDOM ANGELS IN
SUPPORT TARA THORNTON, FREEDOM
ANGELS IN SUPPORT. KELLY
WALTERS, LEGAL SERVICES FOR
PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN. PROUD
CO-SPONSOR OF THIS BILL. JUAN
FLORES WITH THE ELLA BAKER
CENTER AND STRONG SUPPORT.
JOANNA WILLIAMS WITH LSPC IN
SUPPORT. GILBERT ANTHONY
MURILLO, LSPC. ANALYSIS. NONE
STRONG SUPPORT AND LITTLE ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIANS FOR
SAFETY AND JUSTICE AND SUPPORT
MARLAYNA MERCADO ON BEHALF OF
UNCOMMON LAW. STRONG SUPPORT.
LINA DIÆN, LEGAL SERVICES FOR
PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN. ALL OF
US ARE NONE IN STRONG SUPPORT.
ROBERT BOWDEN LSPC. ALL OF US
ARE NONE. STRONG SUPPORT.
JENNIFER PENROSE WITH POWER AND
UNITY FELLOWSHIP IN STRONG
SUPPORT. AND I ALSO WOULD LIKE
TO READ A LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS
ALSO IN SUPPORT THE COALITION
FOR FAMILY UNITY, THE A NEW WAY
OF LIFE ALLIANCE FOR BOYS AND
MEN OF COLOR. CALIFORNIA
FAMILIES AGAINST SOLITARY
CONFINEMENT EMPOWERING WOMEN
IMPACTED BY INCARCERATION, THÀNH
COMMUNITY WORKS CHANGES,
COMMUNITIES UNITED FOR
RESTORATIVE YOUTH JUSTICE,
JESSE'S PLACE ORGANIZATION.
DROP. LUPE EAST BAY FAMILY
DEFENDERS, FELONY MURDER
ELIMINATION PROJECT. FAMILIES
UNITED TO END. LUPE, PLACE FOR
GRACE PRISON FROM THE INSIDE OUT
INCORPORATED. SISTER SISTER
WARRIORS AND STARTING OVER
INCORPORATED. THANK YOU, AARON
GRIMALDO AND EMPOWERING WOMEN
AND STRONG SUPPORT. ANTOINETTE
RATCLIFF WITH AN HGH, JUSTICE
AND STRONG SUPPORT. ABIGAIL
SALEMME EMPOWERING WOMEN
IMPACTED BY INCARCERATION AND
TWO OTHER ORGANIZATIONS IN
SUPPORT THE CHANGE PARALLEL
PROJECT AND RESTORING HOPE,
CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU. Dð COONEY
ON BEHALF OF ACLU CALIFORNIA
ACTION IN STRONG SUPPORT. THANK
YOU, ASHLEY CHAMBERS WITH THE
ELLA BAKER CENTER AND STRONG
SUPPORT. SUE KIM WITH UNCOMMON
LAW AND STRONG SUPPORT. AARON
MCCALL WITH THE UNDERGROUND
SCHOLARS INITIATIVE AT UC
BERKELEY IN SUPPORT. CHAU
MAXWELL WITH THE UNDERGROUND
SCHOLARS AT UC BERKELEY IN
STRONG SUPPORT. MELANIE KIM, SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE IN SUPPORT. WE HAVE
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL. WHICH
WAY DO I LOOK? HI, HI. MY NAME
IS MAX DUARTE. I'M A BLIND
ENTREPRENEUR IN THE
RANDOLPH-SHEPPARD PROGRAM,
RANDOLPH-SHEPPARD PROGRAM IS A
IS A THERE'S RANDOLPH-SHEPPARD
ACT THAT THAT, THAT IT IT
PROVIDES A PRIORITY FOR THE
BLIND TO RUN VENDING MACHINES IN
STATE AND FEDERAL, LOCATIONS.
I'VE BEEN THE VENDOR AT
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTION FOR MEN
AND CALIFORNIA INSTITUTION FOR
WOMEN FOR 22 YEARS NOW. AND I'M
VERY PROUD OF MY BUSINESS, AND I
AND I LOVE MY CUSTOMERS AS WELL,
I STARTED LOSING MY EYESIGHT AT
21 YEARS OLD. AND, YOU KNOW, IT
WAS IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT, IT
HAPPENED ABRUPTLY IN A TIME SPAN
OF ABOUT A MONTH. I COULDN'T
DRIVE OR READ AND IT'S STILL
DIFFICULT. BUT AT THAT TIME, I
WAS A I WAS WORRIED THAT I
WOULDN'T HAVE A JOB, A LIFE, A
WIFE, YOU KNOW, LIKE, WHAT DID I
HAVE TO OFFER, A FAMILY, BUT BUT
THIS PROGRAM CAME AND, AND IT'S
BEEN IT'S BEEN WONDERFUL. MY
WIFE AND I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO
AFFORD A HOME, AND PROVIDE A
NURTURING ENVIRONMENT FOR OUR
TWO CHILDREN. AND, YOU KNOW, I,
I'VE WORKED EVERY WEEKEND FOR
THE 22 YEARS I'VE BEEN THERE.
AND EVERY CHRISTMAS, NEW YEAR'S,
4TH OF JULY, YOU KNOW, I SAID
GOODBYE TO MY CHILDREN, AND I
WENT TO WORK TO FILL THE VENDING
MACHINES. AND I'M NOT I'M NOT
MAD ABOUT THAT. I'M PROUD OF IT,
I TAUGHT MY KIDS A REALLY GOOD
WORK ETHIC. YOU KNOW, I SELL,
VEGETARIAN ITEMS. MY SON'S
VEGETARIAN. I SELL FRESH FRUIT,
I SELL SALADS, AND. AND I THINK
I DO A VERY GOOD JOB. I'M PROUD
OF MY BUSINESS. THERE MAY BE A
FEW BAD APPLES OUT THERE THAT
THAT NEED TO BE WORKED WITH. AND
WORKED ON THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT
OF REHABILITATION. AND WE ARE
WORKING ON THOSE FOLKS THROUGH A
LOWER LEVEL. ON THE PERMIT LEVEL
THROUGH CONTRACTS IS WHERE WE
SHOULD HANDLE THESE THINGS AND
NOT THROUGH LEGISLATION. THERE
ARE 33, STATE PRISONS OR WE'RE
OVER 20 VENDORS, BLIND VENDORS
OUT THERE, AND WE SHOULDN'T ALL
BE PROSECUTED FOR THE ACTS OF A
COUPLE, I, I BELIEVE THAT,
THROUGH THROUGH THE PERMIT LEVEL
AND WITH WITH WITH THE
COLLABORATION OF THE VENDORS AND
THE, YOU KNOW, THE ACTUAL STATE,
SOME STAKEHOLDERS, SOME OTHER
STAKEHOLDERS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN
QUITE AT THE TABLE. THE WAY THIS
BILL IS WRITTEN, IT'S GOING TO
BE DEVASTATING ON A LOT OF BLIND
VENDORS. IT'S IN RURAL AREAS.
IT'S ALREADY DIFFICULT ENOUGH TO
FIND WORKERS. IT'S DIFFICULT TO
GET CLEARANCES FOR WORKERS.
SOMETIMES TAKES US AN AVERAGE OF
THREE MONTHS TO GET CLEARANCES
FOR OUR EMPLOYEES TO GET IN
THERE AND, AND IT CREATES THERE
THERE ARE MANY OTHER HARDSHIPS
FOR THE VINE VENDORS TO GET THIS
JOB DONE. AND UNFORTUNATELY, THE
PANDEMIC HIT FOR TWO YEARS.
VISITING WAS CLOSED DOWN. THERE
WAS NO VISITING. WE STILL HAD
OUR STADIUM EXPENSES FOR
WAREHOUSES, FOR TRUCKS, FOR
EMPLOYEES, FOR ELECTRICITY, AT
OUR WAREHOUSES, AND WE ENDURED
THOSE FOR THOSE TWO YEARS. AND
WHEN WE CAME BACK, WOW,
INFLATION REALLY HIT ALL OF US.
AND, FRUIT THAT I USED TO SELL
FOR $2.25 IS NOW COSTING ME
$2.15. SO I BELIEVE IT WAS A
SHOCK THAT ALL MY PRICES WENT
UP, BUT ALL THE PRICES WENT UP
ON ALL OF US FOR EVERYTHING WE
SELL. IF I REMAINED AT THE
PRICES I WAS AT, I WOULD HAVE
GONE OUT OF BUSINESS IN THE
FIRST. YOU KNOW, WEEK. BUT
UNFORTUNATELY WE HAD TO RAISE
OUR PRICES. RAISING OUR PRICES
ISN'T FUN. YOU KNOW, I'VE
STRESSED OUT MANY NIGHTS OVER
IT, YOU KNOW, HOW AM I GOING TO
EXPLAIN THIS? WHAT AM I GOING TO
SAY? AND YOU KNOW, WHEN I HAVE
TO RAISE MY PRICES, IT'S NOT TO
MAKE MORE MONEY, BUT IT'S TO
STAY AT THE SAME RATE WE RAISE
THEM WHEN THINGS GO UP ON US.
THE DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION
OVERSEES OUR PROGRAM AND WE HAVE
BUSINESS CONSULTANTS THAT, THAT
HELP US WITH OVERSEEING THE
EVERYDAY BUSINESS PRACTICES. AND
OUR FOOD COST PERCENTAGE IS A
PART OF THAT. WE PAY 6% OF OUR
PROFITS BACK TO THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA TO ADMINISTER THE
PROGRAM. AND SO THEY SCRUTINIZE,
WHERE THAT MONEY IS BECAUSE IT
IS OFF THE PROFIT, NOT THE
GROSS. SO THEY HAVE STANDARDS
THAT ARE ALREADY SET THAT THAT
SHOULD BE ADHERED TO. AND MAYBE
A BETTER LINE OF COMMUNICATION
WOULD, WOULD BE IS WHAT'S NEEDED
AND NOT A LAW. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. YOU HAVE, LESS THAN A
MINUTE LEFT. NO PROBLEM.
JENNIFER ROWE WITH CAPITAL
ADVOCACY. WE REPRESENT THE
CALIFORNIA AUTOMATIC VENDORS
COUNCIL. MAX IS A MEMBER. SO
JUST HERE TO, YOU KNOW, BE WITH
HIM AND JUST LET YOU ALL KNOW
THAT WE ARE WORKING WITH THE
AUTHOR AND THE PROPONENTS OF THE
BILL AND APPRECIATE THE
CONVERSATION THAT WE'VE HAD THUS
FAR. WE KNOW THAT THERE'S
LANGUAGE FORTHCOMING, AND
FURTHER CONVERSATIONS TO BE HAD.
SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OTHERS
IN OPPOSITION. NO SEEING NONE,
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND,
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MR. LANCE, I
WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR THE
BILL. I ALSO WANT TO
CONGRATULATE YOUR WITNESS ON HIS
REHABILITATION AS WELL.
CONGRATULATIONS ON THAT.
OBVIOUSLY, IT'S COSTLY TO
FAMILIES, BOTH EMOTIONAL AND
FINANCIALLY. AND I UNFORTUNATELY
SEE THAT BURDEN WHEN,
UNFORTUNATE, DECISIONS ARE MADE
AND CONSEQUENCES. UNFORTUNATELY,
I ALSO HAVE TO BE PAID FORWARD,
BUT IT'S ALSO INTERESTING TO
HEAR THE OTHER SIDE AS WELL WITH
YOUR FAMILY AS WELL. AND I, I
WANT TO SAY THAT WE ALL FEEL THE
PAIN WITH YOU AS WELL.
OBVIOUSLY, WITH INFLATION GOING
STATEWIDE AND IN AFFECTING ALL
OF US. SO THANK YOU, THANK YOU
TO THE AUTHOR FOR WORKING WITH
THE OPPOSITION AS WELL. I WILL
BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS. AND THANK
YOU AGAIN. THANK YOU, WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE. OKAY. THANK
YOU. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON AB
2959 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER ORTEGA.
THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY. MCCARTY. I LAS LAS I
LAKI LAKI. NOT VOTING. NGUYEN
REYES. TÍNH TING I WILSON Z BURR
. YOUR MEASURE IS ON CALL. NEXT.
AUTHOR IS ASSEMBLY MEMBER.
DIXON. ITEM NUMBER THREE AB
1931.
GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING.
PLEASE PROCEED. GOOD MORNING.
AND, MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
THANK YOU FOR, ALLOWING ME TODAY
TO PRESENT ASSEMBLY BILL 1931,
AB 1931, ALSO KNOWN AS CAYLEE'S
LAW, WILL ALLOW A JUDGE THE
DISCRETION TO ISSUE A LIFETIME
INJUNCTION AGAINST A DEFENDANT
AT THE TIME OF SENTENCING FOR A
SERIOUS FELONY, A VIOLENT
FELONY, OR A FELONY SEX OFFENSE.
CURRENTLY THE LAW ALLOWS FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS OR
PROTECTIVE ORDERS IN CRIMINAL
COURT. HOWEVER, IN CIVIL COURT,
A JUDGE DOES HAVE THE DISCRETION
TO ALLOW A LIFETIME RESTRAINING
ORDER FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
CASES, RATHER THAN FILING A
SEPARATE CASE IN CIVIL COURT.
CAYLEE'S LAW ALLOWS THE
PROTECTIVE ORDER TO BE ATTACHED
TO THE CONVICTION. CALIFORNIA'S
VIOLENT CRIME RATE IS UP 13.5%
COMPARED TO PRE-COVID NUMBERS IN
2019. THIS NUMBER INDICATES
POTENTIALLY THOUSANDS OF CRIME
VICTIMS THAT CONTINUE TO FEAR
FOR THEIR SAFETY, IF NOT UNDER
COURT PROTECTION. THIS BILL IS
CRITICAL TO ENSURE THAT WE ARE
PROTECTING THE VULNERABLE
MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY FROM
RETALIATION, CONTINUE VIOLENCE,
STALKING AND HARASSMENT FROM
THEIR PERPETRATORS. UNDER
CURRENT LAW, SURVIVORS MUST
REPEATEDLY FACE THEIR ABUSERS
OVER AND OVER AGAIN IN COURT
PROCEEDINGS TO GET BASIC
PROTECTIONS. THIS CREATES
UNNECESSARY AND REPEATED TRAUMA
FOR SURVIVORS. IN A FEW MOMENTS,
I WILL TURN THE MICROPHONE OVER
TO KAYLEE KOZAK, FOR WHOM THIS
BILL IS NAMED. KAYLEE
SUCCESSFULLY PASSED THIS BILL,
THIS SAME BILL INTO LAW, AND
WITH BIPARTISAN SUPPORT IN
ARIZONA AND WISCONSIN IN 2021,
AND IS TIRELESSLY WORKING TO
PROTECT VICTIMS ACROSS THE
NATION. THE POLICY IS CURRENTLY
WORKING THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE
PROCESS IN MISSOURI AND
INITIATED AN INITIATIVE IN
ADDITION TO BEING INTRODUCED
HERE IN CALIFORNIA. IN THE YEAR
FOLLOWING PASSAGE OF CAYLEE'S
LAW IN ARIZONA, OVER A THOUSAND
VICTIMS RECEIVED LIFETIME
PROTECTIONS FROM THEIR
PERPETRATORS. MY PRIMARY WITNESS
TODAY IS KAYLEE KOZAK, FOR WHOM
THE BILL IS NAMED AFTER. SHE
WILL BE FOLLOWED BY KRISTI VON
WALDBURG, A RESIDENT OF ORANGE
COUNTY WHO CONNECTED KAYLEE AND
ME OVER A YEAR AGO. KAYLEE YEAH,
FIVE MINUTES AMONGST YOUR PANEL
HERE. GOOD MORNING MEMBERS.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
BE HERE. AND THANK YOU TO
ASSEMBLYWOMAN DIXON FOR
SPONSORING THIS BILL. I AM
KAYLEE KOZAK. I AM A SURVIVOR OF
CHILDHOOD SEXUAL ABUSE AND THE
NAMESAKE BEHIND CAYLEE'S LAW, A
COMPLETE BIPARTISAN INITIATIVE
THAT HAS GAINED NATIONWIDE
SUPPORT AND RECOGNITION. THIS
LAW HAS BEEN SUCCESSFULLY
ENACTED WITH THE BACKING OF BOTH
DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN LEADERS.
PLEASE DO NOT LET CALIFORNIA BE
THE FIRST STATE IN THE NATION TO
DENY VICTIMS THIS LIFETIME
PROTECTION. ARE YOU AWARE THAT
IN 2023, CALIFORNIA RANKED AS
THE NUMBER ONE STATE FOR
REPORTED RAPES? THERE WERE
18,116 REPORTED RAPES? RAPE IS
THE LEAST COMMON OF THE SEXUAL
OFFENSES. CAN YOU IMAGINE HOW
MANY OTHER SEXUAL CRIMES WERE
COMMITTED? THERE IS NO CONFLICT
BETWEEN PROTECTING VICTIMS AND
PURSUING CRIMINAL JUSTICE
REFORM. IT IS POSSIBLE TO
ACHIEVE BOTH GOALS
SIMULTANEOUSLY BY PROVIDING
FLEXIBILITY WITHIN THE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM TO UPHOLD VICTIM
RIGHTS, WHILE ADDRESSING THE
NEED FOR REFORM. IMPLEMENTING A
LAW THAT ONLY PREVENTS CONVICTED
PERPETRATORS FROM CONTACTING
THEIR VICTIM IS NOT CRUEL AND
UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT. HOWEVER
DENYING VICTIMS PROTECTION THAT
FROM THE PROTECTION THAT THEY
DESERVE AND ONLY SERVES TO
REVICTIMIZE THEM THAT IS CRUELTY
THAT CANNOT BE IGNORED. THE
CURRENT LAW ONLY ALLOWING AN
ORDER OF PROTECTION FOR UP TO
TEN YEARS, ONLY PROLONGS A
VICTIM'S SUFFERING AND EXPANDING
AN ADDITIONAL FIVE YEARS IS NOT
COMFORTING. ADDITIONALLY HAVING
TO CONTINUALLY GO THROUGH THE
PROCESS EVERY 10 OR 15 YEARS IS
BURDENSOME FOR EVERY PARTY
INVOLVED, INCLUDING THE ALREADY
OVERWHELMED COURTS. EXTENDING
THE LENGTH OF PROTECTION FOR
VICTIMS IS NOT A MATTER OF
CONSTITUTIONALITY. IT ALLOWS A
JUDGE'S DISCRETION AT THE TIME
OF SENTENCING. THIS ALSO STAYS
SAVES THE STATE TIME AND MONEY.
THIS APPROACH CONSIDERS THE
WELL-BEING OF VICTIMS, ENSURING
THAT THEY ARE SHIELDED FROM
FURTHER HARM AND POTENTIALLY
OFFERING OTHER OPPORTUNITIES FOR
REFORM FOR THE PERPETRATOR. IF
YOU CHOOSE TO VOTE AGAINST THIS
BILL OR ABSTAIN, PLEASE DO NOT
OFFER EXPLANATIONS OR APOLOGIZE
TO ME. INSTEAD, I HOPE THAT YOU
CAN FIND IT IN YOUR HEART TO
APOLOGIZE TO EVERY VICTIM YOU'RE
FAILING TO PROTECT IN THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA. IT'S NOT TOO LATE
TO VOTE YES IN SUPPORTING
VICTIMS AND PROVIDING THEM THIS
NEEDED PROTECTION. PLEASE PASS
THIS BILL THROUGH COMMITTEE AND
ALLOW FOR A FURTHER DISCUSSION
ON THE FLOOR WITH YOUR
COLLEAGUES. A VOTE AGAINST THIS
BILL EXPOSES WHERE YOU STAND AND
THAT PROTECTING VICTIMS IS NOT
ON YOUR PRIORITY LIST. YOU'LL BE
PLAYING A DIRECT ROLE IN LAYING
THE PAVEMENT FOR THEM TO
CONTINUALLY BE REVICTIMIZED AND
RETRAUMATIZED, AND YOU'LL BE
REMEMBERED AS THE REASON THAT
CALIFORNIA DENIES VICTIMS THIS
ESSENTIAL PROTECTION. THÀNH. IF
YOU CHOOSE TO DENY VICTIMS THIS
PROTECTION, VICTIMS WILL
CONTINUALLY SUFFER AS A
CONSEQUENCE OF YOUR DECISIONS
TODAY. IF YOU CAN REST AT LATE
AT NIGHT WITH THAT, THEN SO BE
IT. BUT KNOW THIS REGARDLESS OF
THE OUTCOME TODAY, I WILL NEVER
STOP FIGHTING FOR VICTIMS AND
SURVIVORS BECAUSE YOU STILL
MATTER. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
NEXT WITNESS. OKAY, I'M GOING TO
HOLD MY SHEET UP BECAUSE I READ
BETTER THAT WAY, HELLO. MY NAME
IS CHRISTY VON WALDBURG. I'M AN
OC RESIDENT. I'M A WIFE. I'M A
MOTHER. I'M A SURVIVOR OF
CHILDHOOD SEXUAL ABUSE. I KNOW
FIRSTHAND THE IMPACT PHYSICALLY,
MENTALLY, SPIRITUALLY,
EMOTIONALLY, AND FINANCIALLY
THAT TRAUMA TAKES ON A PERSON
AND THEIR LOVED ONES AND IT IT
STILL AFFECTS MY FAMILY LIFE. ON
MARCH 29TH, 2024, PRESIDENT
BIDEN PROCLAIMED APRIL AS
NATIONAL SEXUAL ASSAULT AND
AWARENESS AND PREVENTION MONTH.
AND I QUOTE HIM SEXUAL VIOLENCE
AFFECTS EVERY COMMUNITY IN THIS
NATION, LEAVING MILLIONS OF
AMERICANS, OUR NEIGHBORS,
FRIENDS, COLLEAGUES AND LOVED
ONES SCARRED. FOR MANY
SURVIVORS, HEALING CAN TAKE
YEARS, AND FOR SOME, THE PAIN
NEVER HEALS COMPLETELY. WE
RECOMMIT TO STANDING WITH
SURVIVORS, HOLDING PERPETRATORS
ACCOUNTABLE, AND BRINGING AN END
TO THE CULTURE THAT HAS ALLOWED
SEXUAL ASSAULT TO OCCUR FOR FAR
TOO LONG. END QUOTE. IN MARCH OF
2019, MY IDENTICAL TWIN SISTER
AND I FACED OUR CHILDHOOD SEX
ABUSER IN COURT. AFTER OVER 35
YEARS SINCE HE TOOK OUR
INNOCENCE AT THE AGE OF SEVEN,
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PREVENTED
US FROM SEEKING LEGAL RECOURSE.
WE DID ASSIST THE PROSECUTION
AND HE IS CURRENTLY SERVING 30
TO 60 YEARS IN PRISON. HE FROM
MY CHILDHOOD TRAUMA WAS NOT EASY
RIGHT NOW I FEEL LIKE THE NINE
YEAR OLD GIRL STANDING HERE. AND
WHEN YOU ARE READING LOOKING AT
YOUR CELL PHONE, IT MAKES ME
FEEL LIKE YOU DON'T CARE. MR.
MCCARTY. EXCUSE ME, I MET
CAYLEE, I'M ACTUALLY USING MY
PERSONAL PAIN FOR A VOICE FOR
OTHERS. I MET CAYLEE THREE YEARS
AGO, AND I KNEW IMMEDIATELY THAT
CALIFORNIA NEEDED THIS LAW. IT
GIVES MUCH NEEDED AND OVERDUE
SUPPORT TO VICTIMS THAT
SURVIVORS TO THE SURVIVORS, AND
ADDING A LEVEL OF PROTECTION FOR
THEIR HEALING AND JUSTICE. LIKE
OUR PRESIDENT, WE WANT TO SEE AN
INCREASE IN LEGAL ADVOCACY FOR
VICTIMS SO THAT WE CAN SWING
THAT PENDULUM BACK, BALANCE THE
JUSTICE PROCESS INDEFINITELY FOR
THE GOOD OF ALL OF OUR
COMMUNITIES. EVERY 68 SECONDS,
ANOTHER AMERICAN IS SEXUALLY
ASSAULTED, AND EVERY EIGHT
MINUTES THAT VICTIM IS A CHILD
ARE YOU A PARENT? YES. THIS BILL
SURVIVOR SUPPORTS VICTIMS AND
HOLDS THOSE WHO VIOLENTLY AND
HEINOUSLY SEXUALLY ABUSE
ACCOUNTABLE. NOT EVERYONE HAS A
STRONG SUPPORT SYSTEM. WHEN THEY
REPORT ABUSE. IF THESE VICTIMS
ARE BRAVE ENOUGH TO STEP INTO A
COURTROOM TO FACE THEIR
PERPETRATOR OR GO THROUGH THE
LEGAL PROCESS, LET'S OFFER THEM
LIFELONG PROTECTION AND SAFETY
SO THEY CAN STEP INTO THEIR OWN
SOVEREIGN HEALING AND THEN SERVE
THEIR COMMUNITIES. WE HAVE A
CHANCE TODAY TO UNIFY FOR GOOD
OF ALL OF CALIFORNIA. I URGE YOU
TO VOTE YES ON AB 1988 1931. I
WILL BE WILL I BE ABLE TO SHARE
WITH THE PRESS OTHER VICTIMS AND
SURVIVORS ORGANIZATIONS THAT
THIS COMMITTEE CHOSE TO STAND
WITH WOMEN, CHILDREN AND
VICTIMS? OR WILL YOU CHOOSE
CRIMINALS? SEEMS LIKE AN EASY
CHOICE FOR ME. PLEASE VOTE YES.
A VOTE YES MEANS THIS BILL WILL
GIVE VICTIMS VOICES AND THEY
MATTER, AND THEY WILL DESERVE
THE FULL FLOOR VOTE. A
DISCUSSION FOR YOUR COLLEAGUES
ON THE FLOOR. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. OTHERS IN SUPPORT. RAY
GRANOFF, ON BEHALF OF THE ORANGE
COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT IN
PROUD SUPPORT. IVY FITZPATRICK,
CALIFORNIA DA'S ASSOCIATION.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY MIKE HESTRIN
IN SUPPORT. DENISE AGUILAR,
FREEDOM ANGELS IN SUPPORT. TARA
THORNTON, FREEDOM ANGELS IN
SUPPORT. COURTNEY GRAY IS
REPRESENTING MOM ARMY IN
SUPPORT. ANABEL VELASQUEZ WITH
THE EMPOWER AND RESILIENCE
PROJECT IN SUPPORT TAMMY MORGAN
WITH EMPOWER AND RESILIENCE
PROJECT AND SUPPORT MISTER
CHAIRMAN MEMBERS CORY SALZILLO
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
STATE SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION IN
SUPPORT. OKAY, THANK YOU.
OPPOSITION. PLEASE COME FORWARD
.
OKAY MARGO. GEORGE ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION, FIRST I WANT TO SAY
TO BOTH OF YOU I'M REALLY SORRY
FOR WHAT YOU WENT THROUGH,
CERTAINLY. HEARTBREAKING,
HOWEVER, THIS BILL IS MUCH, MUCH
BROADER THAN SEXUAL ASSAULT
VICTIMS, IN THE ANALYSIS, YOU'LL
NOTE THAT THIS ACTUALLY APPLIES
TO OVER 80 DIFFERENT CRIMES, OF
SERIOUS AND VIOLENT FELONIES IN
THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE. AND
THEY INCLUDE A LOT OF OFFENSES
WHERE THE, THE PERPETRATOR AND
THE VICTIM ARE STRANGERS, HAVE
HAD NO PRIOR CONTACT OR
OPPORTUNISTIC OFFENSES SUCH AS
ROBBERY AND CARJACKING, IT IT IN
ORDER TO, TO ISSUE A STAY AWAY
ORDER, WHICH THIS WOULD BE, YOU
WOULD THEN HAVE TO PROVIDE THEM
THE INDIVIDUAL WHO COMMITTED THE
OFFENSE WITH BOTH THE NAME AND
THE AREA WHERE THE VICTIM LIVED,
IN ORDER TO HAVE A PROHIBITION.
SO YOU WOULD BE GIVING THEM
INFORMATION THEY WOULDN'T
OTHERWISE HAVE ABOUT THE PERSON,
ALSO, THIS WOULD APPLY
RETROACTIVELY AND WHAT IT WOULD
DO, AS SORT OF NOTED IN THE
ANALYSIS, IS BASICALLY CREATE A
LOGJAM IN THE COURTS OF
MISDEMEANOR CONTEMPT CITATIONS
AS, WITH TYING UP COURTROOMS,
PROSECUTORS AND DEFENSE LAWYERS,
LITIGATING THESE ISSUES AND
WASTING MONEY, THE RESULTING
JAIL SENTENCES COULD LEAD TO
MORE PEOPLE BEING INCARCERATED
AND ADDITIONAL EXPENSE. THERE
ARE A LIFETIME IMPACTS ON THE
INDIVIDUALS AND THEIR FAMILIES,
YOUTH WHO COMMITTED THESE
OFFENSES WOULD NOT HAVE A CHANCE
TO REHABILITATE AND BECOME
PRODUCTIVE CITIZENS BECAUSE
THEIR OPPORTUNITY FOR EDUCATION
AND EMPLOYMENT WOULD BE
FORECLOSED, CAUSED BY A LIFETIME
STAY AWAY ORDER AND A ROBBERY,
ADULT INDIVIDUALS WOULD BE
BANNED FROM LIVING IN CERTAIN
AREAS, AND FOR NON-CITIZENS,
THAT COULD LEAD TO DEPORTATION
ACTION. SO WE RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR NO VOTE. AND I TURN IT
OVER NOW TO MY COLLEAGUE FROM
SAN FRANCISCO. THANK YOU, MY
NAME IS MAUREEN KILDEE. I'M A
DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER AT THE
SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER,
OFFICE. AND THANK YOU FOR COMING
AND SHARE YOUR STORIES. I KNOW
THAT CANNOT BE EASY, WE DO, HEAR
WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, AND WE
UNDERSTAND THE AUTHOR'S INTENT
BEHIND THE BILL AND THE HEART
THAT COMES, THAT COMES, THAT
CAUSED THIS TO BE BE BEFORE THIS
COMMITTEE, AND WE APPRECIATE THE
CONVERSATIONS THAT OUR OFFICES
HAD THAT, THAT HAVE BEEN ONGOING
REGARDING THIS BILL. THAT BEING
SAID, TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM
LENGTH OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER
FROM TEN YEARS TO PERMANENT IS A
VERY DRASTIC INCREASE, DRASTIC
CHANGES IN THE LAW SHOULD BE
BACKED UP BY HARD DATA, STRONG
EVIDENCE THAT MAKING THIS CHANGE
WILL PREVENT VIOLENCE AND ABUSE
WHILE MAINTAINING DUE PROCESS
AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE TO
SAFELY REENTER SOCIETY. I HAVE
NOT SEEN EVIDENCE THAT THIS
PARTICULAR CONFIGURATION, THIS
PARTICULAR VERY DRASTIC,
PROPOSAL HAS WILL HAVE A SAFETY
IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY OR
VICTIMS OF CRIME, THE COVERED,
AS MY COLLEAGUE SAID, THE
COVERED CRIMES ARE EVERYTHING
UNDER, PENAL CODE SECTION 667.5
AND 1190 2.7, WHICH IS DOZENS
AND DOZENS AND DOZENS OF CRIMES,
SOME THAT ARE NOT MANY THAT ARE
NOT, WHERE THE VICTIM IS SORT
OF, SELECTED. IT'S NOT A
PERSONAL, VICTIMIZATION NOT TO
DISCOUNT IT OR TO, YOU KNOW,
MAKE LIGHT OF IT, BUT IT'S NOT
SOMETHING WHERE NECESSARILY A
PROTECTIVE ORDER OF ANY LENGTH
IS GOING TO HAVE EFFECT ON THE
ON THE, CONVICT PERSON'S FUTURE
CONDUCT, FOR EXAMPLE, A YOUNG
PERSON CAN BE CONVICTED OF
CARJACKING OR ROBBERY IN THEIR
LATE TEENS OR EARLY 20S AND HAVE
A, LIFETIME PROTECTIVE ORDER
PLACED ON THEM AS A RESULT OF
THAT CRIME, GIVEN WHAT WE KNOW
NOW ABOUT JUVENILE BRAIN
DEVELOPMENT, YOUNG ADULT BRAIN
DEVELOPMENT, THIS IS ESPECIALLY,
CONCERNING, THIS YOUNG PERSON
COULD COULD MOVE PAST THAT,
RECOMMIT THEM, COMMIT THEMSELVES
TO REHABILITATION AND STILL,
WHEN THEY ARE LOOKING FOR
EMPLOYMENT, APPLYING FOR A LOAN
OR LOOKING AT OTHER
OPPORTUNITIES, THE LIFETIME
PROTECTIVE ORDER COULD SHOW UP
IN GOOGLE RESULTS, IN PUBLIC
RECORD RESULTS, OR IN OTHER
RECORD SEARCHES AND PREVENT THEM
FROM BEING A FULL PARTICIPATING
MEMBER IN SOCIETY, WHICH IS WHAT
WE WOULD HOPE WOULD COME OUT OF,
WOULD BE THE RESULT OF ANY
PUNISHMENT FOLLOWING A
CONVICTION. WOW. WHILE OH WAIT A
SECOND. SORRY WHILE VICTIMS CAN
PETITION THE COURT UNDER THIS
PROPOSED BILL TO REMOVE THESE
COURT ORDERS, THEY UNDERSTAND WE
PROVIDE LITTLE INCENTIVE FOR
VICTIMS TO DO SO. TO HAVE THAT
ORDER REVOKED, SETTING A MAXIMUM
LENGTH FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
WOULD ENSURE THAT INDIVIDUALS
HAVE JUDICIAL REVIEW OF EXISTING
ORDERS, HAVE NOTICE OF CHANGES
IN ANY PROHIBITED LOCATIONS THAT
MAY COME UNDER THAT ORDER, AND
ALLOWS AN END DATE FOR ORDERS
THAT NO LONGER SERVE A PURPOSE,
AND THUS I RESPECTFULLY,
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR NO
VOTE. THANK YOU. OTHERS IN
OPPOSITION, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
MELANIE KIM, SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE AND
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION, PHILIPPE
KELLY WITH THE ELLA BAKER
CENTER, RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION.
Dð COONEY WITH ACLU CALIFORNIA
ACTION DESPITE OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. JUAN FLORES WITH THE ELLA
BAKER CENTER. RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. KELLY WALTERS, LEGAL
SERVICES FOR PRISONERS WITH
CHILDREN, RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION.
MARLENA MERCADO, UNCOMMON LAW,
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION LAWRENCE
COX, ALL OF US ARE NONE.
OPPOSITION LINA DIÆN LSPC
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. JOANNA
WILLIAMS, LSPC. RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. GILBERT ANTHONY
MURILLO, LSPC. RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. ROBERT BOWDEN, LSPC.
ALL OF US ARE NON RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. MELENDEZ, SMART
JUSTICE. CALIFORNIA. RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. OKAY. SEEING NO MORE
OPPOSITION QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MISTER
LACKEY. YEAH, FIRST OF ALL, I
HAVE A QUESTION. DOES, THIS BILL
APPLY TO JUVENILES? DOES IT
APPLY TO JUVENILES? NOT
NECESSARILY. NO. THEY'RE JUST
ADULTS. I BELIEVE ONLY IF THEY
WERE TRIED AS AN ADULT. OKAY
THANK YOU FOR THAT
CLARIFICATION. I I WOULD JUST
LIKE EVERYBODY TO, TRY TO
BALANCE YOUR THOUGHTS RELATING
TO, THE RECOVERY OF VICTIMS IN
THESE KINDS OF OFFENSES. THEY
DESERVE PERMANENT RELIEF FROM
RE-ENGAGEMENT WITH THESE TYPES
OF OFFENDERS, IN MY OPINION. AND
I DO WE REALLY NEED CONFIRMING
STUDIES TO VALIDATE THE TRAUMA
FELT BY VICTIMS? I THINK THE
BRAVE, TESTIMONY OFFERED BY THE
WITNESSES, IF YOU DIDN'T FEEL
SOMETHING, YOU'RE DIFFERENT THAN
ME, I I'M THANKFUL THAT I DIDN'T
HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT KIND OF,
TORTURE, LACK OF A BETTER TERMS,
AND I THINK THIS IS THE LEAST WE
CAN DO IS OFFER THIS KIND OF
RELIEF FROM RE-ENGAGEMENT WITH,
THE PERSON THAT INFLICTED THAT
KIND OF TRAUMA AND, I'M IN FULL
SUPPORT OF THIS, AND I ADMIRE
YOUR COURAGE FOR COMING TODAY.
THANK YOU. MR. ZUBIATE, SO I
WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR HER
FOCUS ON, PROTECTING VICTIMS, I
DO THINK THAT THIS IS SOMETHING
THAT IS JUST WAY OVERLY BROAD,
IT APPLIES TO VÀ, NOT THE KINDS
OF THINGS THAT YOU NOT ONLY THE
KINDS OF THINGS THAT YOU'RE
RAISING AS THE EXAMPLES, BUT
THINGS LIKE BURGLARY OF AN
INHABITED DWELLING, ARSON,
ROBBERY OR BANK ROBBERY,
CARJACKING. I MEAN, THERE'S LOTS
OF THINGS THAT WOULD, YOU KNOW,
THAT I CAN'T EVEN IMAGINE WHAT
THE CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD BE TO
REQUIRE PROTECTIVE ORDERS TO
HAVE EVEN LIMITED AMOUNTS, LET
ALONE LIFETIME PROTECTIVE
ORDERS. SO I JUST THINK THIS IS,
JUST NEEDS A LOT OF WORK AND
REFINEMENT. AND SO I WON'T BE
ABLE I APPRECIATE YOUR YOUR
FOCUS ON THIS, BUT I WON'T BE
ABLE TO SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY.
SO THANK YOU, MR. LONNIS. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. SO I WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHOR FOR BRINGING
THIS BILL FORWARD. OBVIOUSLY,
FOR THE WITNESSES AS WELL. I'M
SORRY YOU GUYS HAD TO ENDURE
THAT AS A PRIOR CRIMES AGAINST
CHILDREN'S DETECTIVE,
INTERVIEWING, BEING A FORENSIC
INTERVIEWER, MY JOB AS A
FORENSIC INTERVIEWER IS TO MAKE
SURE THAT I GOT ALL THE
INFORMATION, NOT ONLY FROM THE
VICTIM, BUT FROM THE PERSON
RESPONSIBLE TO MAKE SURE THAT MY
VICTIM DID NOT HAVE TO RELIVE
WHAT THEY WENT THROUGH TO GET
THEIR. AND I SEE THAT'S WHAT
THIS BILL IS DOING RIGHT HERE
WITH THE LIFETIME, RESTRAINING
ORDER THAT WE'RE GETTING,
BECAUSE THEY DO LIKE TO
REVICTIMIZE. THEY DO LIKE TO
REHEAR IT. I'VE SEEN IT
SOMETIMES WHERE THE RESPONSIBLE
HAS GOT TO BE THE ATTORNEY. AND
GOT TO ASK THE RESPONSIBLE OR
THE SURVIVOR, THE QUESTIONS
THAT, IT'S JUST SICKENING
LISTENING TO THEM, TRYING TO
RELIVE IT AND THEN AND THEN
GETTING JOY OUT OF THAT, AND
AGAIN, WE FORGET ABOUT OUR
VICTIMS, THAT THE TESTIMONIES
THAT I HEAR FROM THE OPPOSITION,
NOT ONE THING DID I HEAR THAT
HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE
VICTIMS. NOT ONE THING, ABOUT
THE PERPETRATOR REENTERING, INTO
SOCIETY. THEY'RE ALREADY DOING
THAT. THEY JUST WON'T HAVE
ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE VICTIM,
IS WHAT THEY DO. AND WHEN WE'RE
BROUGHT, BRING UP STUFF ABOUT
THEM BEING STRANGERS. THEN LET
THEM STAY STRANGERS AND LET THE
COURTS SAY, LET THEM STAY
STRANGERS. BUT WE'RE NOT LOOKING
AT IT THAT WAY. I SEE IT WAS
ALREADY ADDRESSED ABOUT
JUVENILES. THAT IS WRONG, IF
THEY'RE TRIED AS AN ADULT, THIS
BILL DOES COVER THAT. SO WE
DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT
JUVENILES AND RUINING THEIR
LIVES. AS SAID EARLIER. AND THEN
BEING BANDED IN AREA, IF THEY
DID DO SOMETHING, THAT THAT
AGAIN IS OUR CONSEQUENCES. THOSE
ARE CONSEQUENCES TO THEIR
CHOICES. THIS IS A BIG WORLD.
THEY CAN GO ANYWHERE THEY WANT.
AFTER THAT, AND SO THAT'S,
THAT'S WHAT I THINK THEY SHOULD
DO. I'M OBVIOUSLY IN VERY STRONG
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL, I KNOW
JUST EARLIER WE LISTENED TO A
BILL WITH ANOTHER MEMBER IN
REGARDS TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE,
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS USUALLY,
FOR THE MOST PART, KNOWN BY THE
SURVIVOR. AND THIS IS WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT THOSE THAT MAY NOT
BE KNOWN BY THE SURVIVOR. AND
NOW WE'RE WE'RE WE'RE DEBATING
THIS, I'LL BE AN OBVIOUSLY
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU AGAIN
FOR COMING UP HERE. NO FURTHER
QUESTIONS, MR. CHAIR. NO MORE
QUESTIONS. COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. DO WE HAVE A
MOTION? MOVE THE BILL, A MOTION,
A SECOND, YOU MAY CLOSE. THANK
YOU. CHAIR AND I JUST WANT TO
COMMENT JUST ON THE
CLARIFICATION ON THE LIST OF
CRIMES THAT IT'S JUDICIAL
DISCRETION. THE JUDGE WILL BE
MAKING THE FINAL THE ULTIMATE
DECISION ON WHETHER THE
PERMANENT RESTRAINING ORDER IS
GRANTED. AND IT IS DEPENDENT
UPON THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE
VICTIM. THE LIKELIHOOD OF
CONTINUING HARM TO THE VICTIM,
AND THE CURRENT RESTRAINING
ORDER ISSUED BY THE CIVIL
CRIMINAL COURT. SO IF IT'S A
CARJACKING AND THERE'S NO
CURRENT RESTRAINING ORDER, THEN
IT'S NOT EVEN ELIGIBLE FOR THIS.
BUT OUR EMPHASIS IS ON SEXUAL
CRIMES, AND THAT IS WHAT WE'RE
REALLY FOCUSED ON TODAY. AND I
WANT TO THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING
KAYLEE AND CHRISTY TO HAVE THIS
SPACE TO SHARE THEIR THEIR
TRAUMATIC EXPERIENCE CASES.
UNLESS ANYBODY HAS BEEN IN THEIR
SHOES, IT'S HARD TO BE
JUDGMENTAL. AND FOR THEM TO EVEN
COME AND HAVE THIS KIND OF
PRESENTATION IS TRAUMATIC.
CAYLEE'S LAW IS CRITICAL TO
ENSURING THAT OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM
PROVIDES NECESSARY PROTECTIONS
TO VICTIMS AND SURVIVORS OF SOME
OF THE MOST HEINOUS CRIMES IS
THE NECESSITY OF THIS BILL IS
COMPELLING FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME
IN CALIFORNIA, AND REFLECTED IN
THE OVERWHELMING BIPARTISAN
SUPPORT IT RECEIVED IN ARIZONA
AND WISCONSIN AND MISSOURI. I
WANT TO THANK YOU AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE IN THIS VERY IMPORTANT
STATEMENT TO PRIMARILY WOMEN IN
IN CALIFORNIA WHO HAVE BEEN
VICTIMIZED AS CHILDREN, THÀNH
AND ARE HERE TODAY AS ADULTS,
CONTINUING THIS TRAUMATIC
DISCUSSION SO THAT THEY MAY BE
PROTECTED AGAINST FURTHER
VICTIMIZATION AND TRAUMATIC
EXPERIENCES BY A PERPETRATOR OF
THE MOST HEINOUS SEXUAL CRIMES.
JUST THINK ABOUT THAT. IF
CALIFORNIA WANTS TO PROTECT
PRIMARILY, WOMEN COULD BE MEN
AND WOMEN, AND THAT DOES HAPPEN.
SO I DON'T WANT TO EXCLUDE A MAN
IN THIS DISCUSSION. MEN OR
WOMEN, FROM SEXUAL CRIMES WHERE
THEY HAVE TO COME BACK IN COURT
AND FACE THE PERPETRATOR SITTING
AND LOOKING AT THEM. YEARS
AFTER. WHY SUBJECT A VICTIM TO
THAT TRAUMATIC EXPERIENCE? THIS
WILL SEND A POWERFUL MESSAGE TO
ALL CALIFORNIANS THAT WE, AS A
LEGISLATURE, PROTECT VICTIMS OF
SEXUAL CRIMES, PRIMARILY SEXUAL
CRIMES. IF THERE IS AN
INTERACTION BETWEEN THE VICTIM
AND THE PERPETRATOR OF ANY
CRIME, BUT PRIMARILY SEXUAL
CRIMES, AND I'M GRATEFUL FOR
YOUR AND RESPECTFUL OF YOUR
SUPPORT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
THANK YOU, ASSEMBLY MEMBER. I
APPRECIATE YOUR YOUR
PRESENTATION AND YOUR ADVOCACY.
AND I THANK YOUR THE BRAVE
WITNESSES FOR COMING UP HERE. I
DID READ YOUR STORY IN BETWEEN
YOUR TESTIMONY AND THIS IS AN
IMPORTANT ISSUE AND A TOUGH
ISSUE. BUT THANKFULLY WE WERE
ABLE TO WORK ON ANOTHER BILL, A
COMPANION BILL ABOUT AN HOUR
AGO, WHICH WE DID NARROW. I
THINK IT BRINGS ABOUT MORE
BALANCE IN THE PROPOSAL. WE HAVE
HERE TODAY. SO WITH THAT, THAT'S
NOT REALLY RIGHT. I SURE I'M
SORRY YOU HAD YOUR OPPORTUNITY
TO PRESENT THIS IS THE THIS IS
THE CLOSE. NOW, WE HAVE A MOTION
A SECOND. I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS
IN LARGE PART BECAUSE WE, I
THINK, FOCUSED ON A BETTER
APPROACH ABOUT AN HOUR AGO WITH
YOUR COLLEAGUE FROM ORANGE
COUNTY WITH HER BILL. AND WE
OFFERED SOME OF THE SAME
AMENDMENTS TO YOU TO NARROW THE
BILL, TO NOT HAVE IT SO BROAD,
TO HAVE A MORE, I THINK,
APPROPRIATE, EXTENSION OF THE
PROTECTIVE ORDER THAT WAS NOT
ACCEPTED BY YOU FOR YOUR
PROPOSAL. THEREFORE SAU, I CAN'T
SUPPORT THIS MEASURE. BUT THE
FLIP SIDE, WE DO HAVE ANOTHER
MEASURE THAT'S GOING THROUGH THE
PROCESS, AND I ENCOURAGE YOU TO
WORK WITH YOUR COLLEAGUE FROM
ORANGE COUNTY AND TRY TO
INCORPORATE SOME OF YOUR IDEAS
AND YOUR VISION GOING FORWARD.
SO WITH THAT, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. ON AB 1931, BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER DIXON, THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. MCCARTY MCCARTY. NØ.
ALANIZ. ALANIZ AYE. LAKI LAKI.
AYE. NGUYEN. NGUYEN AYE. REYES.
TÍNH WILSON. ZEBRA. ZEBRA NO.
THAT MR. SONG CALL. YOUR MEASURE
IS ON CALL. AND THE MEMBER.
RUBIO, PLEASE COME FORWARD
.
I'LL JUST START. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, FOR ALLOWING
ME TO PRESENT AB 2382 RELATING
TO DISORDERLY CONDUCT. I WANT TO
BEGIN BY ACCEPTING THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS TO THE MEASURE, WHICH
WOULD PERMIT A JUDGE TO CONSIDER
THE ENHANCEMENTS OF DISORDERLY
CONDUCT OFFENSES RELATING TO
SOLICITING PROSTITUTION AS
EITHER A MISDEMEANOR OR A FELONY
FOR REPEAT OFFENDERS. I ALSO
WANT TO THANK THE CHAIR AND YOUR
STAFF, FOR THE WORK TO ENSURE
THIS MEASURE MEETS THE INTENDED,
GOAL. THIS COMMITTEE KNOWS ALL
TOO WELL THE IMPACTS OF HUMAN
TRAFFICKING, THE IMPACTS HUMAN
TRAFFICKING HAS HAD ON OUR
COMMUNITIES. TRAFFICKING COMES
IN MANY FORMS. HOWEVER SEX
TRAFFICKING IS AMONG THE MOST
HEINOUS. THE HIGH MARKET DEMAND
FOR PROSTITUTION FROM
SOLICITATION, I'M SORRY, FROM
PROSTITUTES, FROM SOLICITORS AND
CLIENTS, COUPLED WITH THE USE OF
FORCE, COERCION AND INTIMIDATION
CAUSE VICTIMS TO FEEL TRAPPED
WITH NO ALTERNATIVES AND NO WAY
OUT. THESE VICTIMS OFTEN COME
FROM DISADVANTAGED BLACK AND
BROWN COMMUNITIES AND IN MANY
CASES ARE MINORS. CALIFORNIA HAS
FAILED TO PROVIDE STRONG
DETERRENCE FOR SOLICITING
PROSTITUTION, THUS ALLOWING THE
ILLICIT MARKET TO OPERATE
UNIMPEDED. UNDER CURRENT LAW,
SOLICITATION OF A PROSTITUTE IS
A MISDEMEANOR REGARDLESS OF THE
NATURE OF THE OFFENSE OR WHETHER
THE PERPETRATOR IS A FIRST TIME
OR A REPEAT OFFENDER. BUT BY
ALLOWING BUT NOT MANDATING AN
ENHANCED PUNISHMENT, THIS BILL
WILL ENSURE THAT THE PUNISHMENT
MEETS THE CRIME AND THAT THE
MORE HEINOUS OFFENSES ARE DEALT
WITH ACCORDINGLY. OUR INTENT
WITH THIS MEASURE IS CLEAR WE
ARE NOT LOOKING TO CRIMINALIZE
SEX WORKERS, RATHER, THE REPEAT
OFFENDERS THAT SUPPORT AND
PROLIFERATE AN INDUSTRY PLAGUED
BY ABUSE. WE INTRODUCED THIS
MEASURE WITH NARROW AND DIRECTED
INTENT, WHICH WE THOUGHT WE GOT
CORRECT CONSIDERING THE WEEKS WE
WENT WITHOUT ANY OPPOSITION. I
AM COMMITTED TO ENSURING THE
BILL BEFORE YOU IS TARGETED TO
JOHN DOE'S BY WORKING WITH BOTH
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE AND THE
OPPOSITION, AS WE APPROACH THE
FLOOR HERE TO TESTIFY IS
SERGEANT NATE GIEGERICH OF THE
SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF'S
OFFICE, SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
BUREAU. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING.
THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME. I'D
FIRST LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR
CONSIDERING US AS AS PART OF
THIS BILL, TO COLLABORATE WITH
AND AS ON BEHALF OF SHERIFF
COOPER, HE SENDS HIS, HIS
APPRECIATION, IN THE RECENT
COUPLE OF YEARS, WE HAVE SEEN A
SPIKE IN HUMAN TRAFFICKING,
ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO
STREET LEVEL PROSTITUTION. WHAT
WE HAVE SEEN, THOUGH, MORE
IMPORTANTLY, IS THE, BLATANT,
ACTS OF PERPETRATORS WHO
ACTUALLY, TRAFFIC THESE VICTIMS
AND ALSO BUY THE VICTIMS AS
WELL, WHAT WE'VE SEEN MORE
RECENTLY, THOUGH, IS A ALMOST A
DRIVE THROUGH EFFECT OF MANY OF
OUR STREETS WHERE PROSTITUTION
IS TAKING PLACE, WHERE THE MEN
DO NOT CARE AND DO NOT HAVE ANY
SORT OF FEAR OF ANY CONSEQUENCES
AT ALL. THOSE CONSEQUENCES RIGHT
NOW ARE A TICKET, WHEN YOU
SPEED, WHEN YOU DRIVE THROUGH A
STOP SIGN AND GET PULLED OVER BY
A POLICE OFFICER, YOU GET THE
EXACT SAME TICKET THAT YOU WOULD
IF YOU WERE TO BUY A HUMAN BEING
FOR SEXUAL PURPOSES, THIS IS A
LITTLE BIT DISTURBING ON
MULTIPLE LEVELS, BECAUSE I
CONSIDER A TICKET AS SOMETHING
THAT WOULD BE A LIFE ALTERING
DECISION. MOST OF THESE
PERPETRATORS DO NOT FEEL THAT
SAME WAY, AND MOST OF THE DA'S
THAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY
COMPLETELY TURN A BLIND EYE TO
IT AND DO NOT FILE CHARGES ON
IT, WHAT WE'RE SEEING, THOUGH,
IS A RISE IN THIS. WE RECENTLY
CONDUCTED MULTIPLE OPERATIONS,
INCLUDING UNDERCOVER OPERATIONS,
WHERE, OUR DETECTIVES POSTED ON
SEX BUYER WEBSITES WHAT THEY
WERE ABLE TO FIND IS THAT WITHIN
A 12 HOUR PERIOD OF TIME, WE HAD
OVER 94 PEOPLE SOLICIT OUR
UNDERCOVER DETECTIVES FOR SEXUAL
PURPOSES, THIS WAS A LITTLE BIT
DISTURBING BECAUSE MULTIPLE
MULTIPLE OF THEM WOULD ASK FOR
DIFFERENT SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS OF
THAT. THEY WERE ACTUALLY THERE
FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUYING OR
SELLING SEX, WE'VE SEEN A RISE
IN THE, TRAFFICKERS AS WELL,
WITH A WITH VERY LIMITED, FEAR
OF ENFORCEMENT BECAUSE THEY DO
NOT BELIEVE THAT THEY CAN BE
REALLY CAUGHT BECAUSE OF THE
TRAFFICKERS OR THE TRAFFICKED
VICTIMS BEING PROTECTIVE OVER
THEIR TRAFFICKERS, SO IN OUR
OPERATIONS, WE'VE RUN OVER THE
LAST YEAR, WE HAVE SEEN A RISE
IN THESE MEN, SPECIFICALLY MEN
IN OUR JURISDICTION, WHERE THEY
HAVE, AGAIN, BEEN STOPPED, BEEN
GIVEN A TICKET AND THEN RELEASED
ON THEIR OWN RECOGNIZANCE WITH
THE PROMISE TO APPEAR. A VERY
DIMINISHING NUMBER OF THEM HAVE
ACTUALLY HAD TO GO STAND TRIAL
AT COURT AT ALL. AND NO ONE EVER
REALLY KNOWS THAT THEY'VE BEEN
STOPPED. FOR THOSE WE SEE AS AN
IMPORTANT WAY TO KIND OF COMBAT
THIS IS TO MAKE IT A SERIOUS
OFFENSE ON THE SECOND, THIRD,
FOURTH TIME, BECAUSE THERE IS NO
FEAR AT ALL FROM THESE
INDIVIDUALS WHO BUY SEX FROM
THESE, THESE WOMEN, AND IT IS
BECOMING A PROBLEM, RIGHT NOW,
THE LICENSE LIFE EXPECTANCY FOR
ONE OF THESE FEMALE, TRAFFICKED
VICTIMS IS ABOUT SEVEN YEARS.
EITHER DRUGS WILL WILL KILL THEM
FROM AN OVERDOSE, THEY'LL BE
MURDERED, OR THEY'LL ESCAPE THE
LIFE AFTER BEING CONTACTED. SO
MANY TIMES BY LAW ENFORCEMENT,
BY NON-GOVERNMENTAL
ORGANIZATIONS WHO WILL GIVE THEM
THE SHOT THAT THEY NEED TO
ACTUALLY IMPROVE THEIR LIVES, WE
ARE SEEING A AN EPIDEMIC, IF YOU
WILL, OF PEOPLE WHO ARE
SUFFERING FROM THIS AND IT'S NOT
BEING ADDRESSED. AND WE NEED
HELP, THE STREETS NEED HELP AND
WE SEE THIS AS A POSSIBLE WAY TO
COMBAT WHAT IS HAPPENING DAY IN,
DAY OUT FROM THESE FROM THESE
SEX BUYERS. I APPRECIATE YOUR
TIME. OKAY. THANK YOU. OTHERS IN
SUPPORT, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS. RANDY PERRY,
ON BEHALF OF PERAK IN SUPPORT.
OPPOSITION. PLEASE COME FORWARD
.
PLEASE PROCEED. YOU HAVE FIVE
MINUTES. Dð COONEY WITH ACLU
CALIFORNIA ACTION AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. APOLOGIES FOR NOT
GETTING IN OUR LETTER. WE WERE
UNDER THE MISTAKEN, ASSUMPTION
THE BILL WAS PULLED TODAY OR WE
WOULD HAVE A LITTLE MORE TIME TO
HAVE THOUGHTFUL DISCUSSIONS, BUT
THANK YOU FOR YOUR STAFF FOR
COORDINATING WITH US AS WELL,
FIRST, WHILE WHILE PEOPLE OF ALL
RACES AND ECONOMIC BACKGROUNDS,
LOW INCOME PEOPLE OF COLOR AND
SORRY AT FIRST, WHILE PEOPLE OF
ALL RACES AND ECONOMIC
BACKGROUNDS, ARE CHARGED UNDER
THESE CRIMES, LOW INCOME FOLKS
OF COLOR ARE TYPICALLY THE ONES
WHO ARE ARRESTED, CHARGED, AND
CONVICTED. RECENT DATA SHOWS
THAT INCREDIBLE RACIAL
DISPARITIES EXIST IN ARRESTS AND
PROSECUTIONS FOR PURCHASING SEX
WORK UNDER PENAL CODE 647, BE
THE CODE AT ISSUE, SECOND,
INCREASING SENTENCES FOR PEOPLE
WHO PURCHASE SEX WORK WILL NOT
MAKE SEX WORKERS OR THOSE WHO
ARE TRAFFICKED SAFER. IN FACT,
IT WILL MAKE THEM LESS SAFE.
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL HAS
CRITICIZED THIS APPROACH,
EMPHASIZING THAT IT MAKES SEX
WORKERS FEEL PRESSURED TO VISIT
CUSTOMERS HOMES SO THAT BUYERS
CAN AVOID THE POLICE ALTOGETHER.
IN OTHER WORDS, IT GIVES SEX
WORKERS LESS CONTROL AND FORCES
THEM INTO POSITIONS WHERE THEY
MAY HAVE THEIR SAFETY
COMPROMISED. LASTLY Kò
CALIFORNIA, LIKE THE REST OF THE
COUNTRY, HAS A SHAMEFUL HISTORY
OF USING SOLICITATION LAWS LIKE
THIS ONE TO POLICE GAY MEN'S
SEXUAL ACTIVITY. EVEN AFTER
LAWRENCE V TEXAS, THE US SUPREME
COURT CASE FINDING
UNCONSTITUTIONAL A TEXAS LAW
THAT BANNED HOMOSEXUAL ADULTS
FROM ENGAGING IN CONSENSUAL
SEXUAL ACTS, POLICE DEPARTMENTS
IN CALIFORNIA CONTINUE TO
REGULARLY TARGET AND ARREST GAY
MEN ON CHARGES OF SOLICITATION
AND OTHER OFFENSES, SUCH AS
LEWDNESS. CALIFORNIA DATA SHOWS
THAT LGBTQ PEOPLE IN MANY
COMMUNITIES ARE ALSO SIMPLY MORE
FREQUENTLY STOPPED BY POLICE
THAN NON LGBTQ PEOPLE.
DISPROPORTION ENFORCEMENT IS
OFTEN FUELED BY PURPOSEFUL AND
IMPLICIT BIAS THAT UNFORTUNATELY
EXISTS AND IS RAMPANT THROUGHOUT
CALIFORNIA. FOR THESE REASONS,
WE ARE RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED TO
THE MEASURE AS WRITTEN TODAY.
AND WITH ME IS MARGO WITH KBPA.
FOR ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS THAT
THE COMMITTEE MAY HAVE. THANK
YOU, MARGO. GEORGE, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION, I WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR, AND HER STAFF AND THE
COMMITTEE FOR THE AMENDMENTS.
UNFORTUNATELY WE'RE STILL
OPPOSED TO THE BILL. AND THERE
ARE TWO REASONS. ONE, IT'S BASED
ON A FLAWED NORDIC MODEL, WHICH
IS IN EFFECT IN SCANDINAVIAN
COUNTRIES, WHICH ACTUALLY
DECRIMINALIZED, THE SEX WORKERS.
AND WE DON'T HAVE THAT HERE. AND
IMPORTING THAT MODEL INTO THE
UNITED STATES WITHOUT DOING
THAT, WILL, AS MY COLLEAGUE
SAID, MAKE SEX WORKERS LIVES
MORE RISKY AND DANGEROUS, THE
SECOND THING IS THE, RACIAL
DISPARITY THAT MY COLLEAGUE
POINTED OUT. I WOULD ALSO SAY
IT'S A SOCIOECONOMIC DISPARITY,
BECAUSE PEOPLE WHO WHO, HAVE
MEANS DO NOT PURCHASE SEX ON THE
STREET. THEY PURCHASE IT IN
HOTELS AND CLUBS ONLINE. SO THIS
BILL WAS SPECIFICALLY TARGETED
AT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ON THE
STREET. THANK YOU AND ASK FOR
YOUR NO VOTE. THANK YOU. OTHERS
IN OPPOSITION. MELANIE KIM, SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE IN OPPOSITION. PHILIPPE
KELLY WITH THE ELLA BAKER CENTER
AND STRONG OPPOSITION. ERIN
MCCALL WITH THE UNDERGROUND
SCHOLARS INITIATIVE AT UC
BERKELEY AND STRONG OPPOSITION.
JUAN FLORES WITH THE ELLA BAKER
CENTER, OPPOSITION. MICHELLE
MAXWELL, THE UNDERGROUND
SCHOLARS INITIATIVE AT UC
BERKELEY IN OPPOSITION. MARLENA
MERCADO WITH UNCOMMON LAW AND
OPPOSITION. PHIL MELENDEZ MÀ
JUSTICE, CALIFORNIA IN
OPPOSITION. KELLY WALTERS, WITH
LEGAL SERVICES FOR PRISONERS
WITH CHILDREN AND STRONG
OPPOSITION. SUE KIM, UNCOMMON
LAW AND OPPOSITION ROBERT
BOWDEN, ALL OF US LSPC IN
OPPOSITION. GILBERT ANTHONY
MURILLO, LSPC AND ALL OF US ARE
NONE IN STRONG OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. NO FURTHER OPPOSITION
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. SO, MEMBER
WILSON, THANK YOU TO THE, THANK
YOU TO THE AUTHOR, DEFINITELY
UNDERSTAND YOUR, INTENT. I HAD A
FOLLOW UP QUESTION. I KNOW WE
HAD CONVERSATIONS, AND I JUST
WANTED TO MAKE SURE, THAT MY
UNDERSTANDING WAS CORRECT. THERE
IS AN AMENDMENT IN HERE, THAT
THAT A NEW AMENDMENT THAT WASN'T
IN THE PRINT BEFOREHAND, BUT I
DON'T SEE AN AMENDMENT THAT
CHANGES, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
SOMEONE WHO SOLICITS AND SOMEONE
WHO ENGAGES. AND I THOUGHT THE
PURPOSE OF THIS BILL WAS FOCUSED
PRIMARILY ON THE PERSON WHO
SOLICITED IT AND NOT THE PERSON
WHO ENGAGES MEANING, THE SEX
WORKER. YES. AND THAT WAS PART
OF THE DISCUSSION. I THINK THAT
WAS THE UNINTENDED I THINK WHEN
IT WENT INTO PRINT THAT WAS, PUT
IN THERE. AND THAT'S WHY I'VE
BEEN WORKING THROUGH THE
COMMITTEE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE,
WE ARE VERY SPECIFIC AS TO, THE
SOLICITORS, NOT THE TO CHANGE
THAT WORD FROM ENGAGEMENT TO
SPECIFICALLY THOSE WHO SOLICIT,
SEX. AND SO WE'RE STILL WORKING
WITH THE COMMITTEE, THEY'VE BEEN
AMAZING AT, HELPING US WORK
THROUGH THIS, BUT I AM COMMITTED
TO WORKING CONTINUE WORKING ON
IT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE A
CLEAR AS TO THE INTENT, AS I
STATED LAST NIGHT, THE INTENT IS
NEVER TO CRIMINALIZE THE
VICTIMS. I CONSIDER THEM
VICTIMS. I'VE DONE A LOT OF
WORK, IN, FOR CHILDREN AND
FOSTER YOUTH IN THIS SPACE WHERE
THEY'RE BEING VICTIMIZED. AND
SO, AGAIN, THE INTENT IS NOT TO
VICTIMIZE REVICTIMIZE ALREADY,
THOSE FOLKS THAT ARE IN THAT
SITUATION, THIS IS SPECIFICALLY
FOR THE JOHN DOE'S, FOR AFTER
MULTIPLE OFFENSES. I THINK PART
OF THE DISCUSSION IS HOW MANY
YOU KNOW, WE SAID MORE THAN TWO.
WE CAN SAY THREE. FOUR. THAT'S
THE PART THAT WE'RE STILL TRYING
TO NARROW, BUT AGAIN, THE INTENT
IS SPECIFICALLY FOR THE JOHN
DOE'S. THEY CONTINUE TO, TO DO
THIS BECAUSE AGAIN, YOU KNOW,
THE SEX WORKERS ARE VICTIMS, IN
MY OPINION. AND I THINK WE ALL
CAN AGREE THAT THEY'RE THERE,
SOME OF THEM ARE BEING COERCED.
SOME OF THEM ARE, YOU KNOW,
BEING THREATENED. AND SO WE
DON'T WANT TO FURTHER, ADD TO
THEIR THEIR, YOU KNOW, THE
SITUATION THAT THEY'RE GOING
THROUGH. OKAY. SO THE BILL AND
PRINT NOW AND THE AMENDED THE
INITIAL AMENDED VERSION DOESN'T
HAVE THAT. BUT YOUR COMMITMENT
IS THAT ABSOLUTELY WHAT WHAT
FINALLY GETS INTO PRINT, BEFORE
THE FLOOR WOULD BE, WOULD
EXCLUDE THE BASICALLY THE SEX
WORKER. YES. AND IF IT DOES NOT
GET INTO PRINT, I WILL PULL THE
BILL MYSELF JUST SO THAT WE'RE
CLEAR, BECAUSE MY INTENT IS
ABSOLUTELY TO, YOU KNOW, HOLD
THE JOHN DOE'S ACCOUNTABLE AND
NOT REVICTIMIZE. SO IF, YOU
KNOW, FOR WHATEVER REASON, WE
CAN'T GET THAT AMENDMENT, I WILL
PULL THE BILL MYSELF. THAT IS MY
COMMITMENT. THAT'S WHY I'M
WORKING CLOSELY WITH THE
COMMITTEE TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT
THAT WE PUT THAT IN PRINT. AND
YOU'RE ALSO WORKING WITH THE
COMMITTEE ON THE NUMBER OF
OFFENSES LIKE THAT'S THAT'S
WHERE THE DISCUSSION HAS BEEN
GOING IS, YOU KNOW, TWO IS TWO,
ENOUGH IS THREE. YOU KNOW, WHERE
IS THAT THAT NUMBER THAT WE, YOU
KNOW, WE SHOULD COME TO. OKAY.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER ZUBER. SO THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL, I HAVE VERY,
VERY SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT IT
FOR, I THINK THE REASONS THAT
THE OPPOSITION STATED. I DO ALSO
WANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT WE SPOKE
THIS MORNING AND YOU MADE THE
SAME COMMITMENTS TO ME ABOUT,
TRYING TO REFINE THE BILL,
BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT I HAVE
SUCH RESPECT FOR YOU. AND I KNOW
THAT YOU ARE A CHAMPION OF THE
LGBTQ PLUS COMMUNITY, I'M GOING
TO VOTE TO, CONTINUE THIS, TO
ALLOW YOU TO CONTINUE TO HAVE
CONVERSATIONS TO REFINE IT, BUT
I DO HAVE I'M PESSIMISTIC, GIVEN
ABOUT THE ABILITY TO SORT OF DO
THAT AND DIFFERENTIATE THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SEX
WORKER AND THE JOHNS, BUT I DO
WANT TO GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY
TO TRY TO. ABSOLUTELY. AND I,
YOU KNOW, I DID HEAR WHAT YOU
SAID. AND AGAIN, THE INTENT IS
TO PROTECT MORE VICTIMS AND HOW
WE DO THAT IS STILL, YOU KNOW,
DEPENDING ON FURTHER
CONVERSATIONS. I APPRECIATE
THAT. BUT AGAIN, KNOW THAT MY
COMMITMENT IS TO PROTECT THE
VICTIMS IN THIS CASE. AND I
BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE ALL
VICTIMS. ALL OF THEM ARE
VICTIMS, YOU KNOW, FOR DIFFERENT
CIRCUMSTANCES. SOME WERE MORE,
OF COURSE. SOME OF THEM ARE
MADE. YOU KNOW, SOME OF THESE
VICTIMS ARE MADE TO BELIEVE THAT
THIS IS THE ONLY OPTION, THAT
THEY HAVE. AND SO I'M VERY, VERY
AWARE OF, OF THE CONSEQUENCE IF
WE DON'T GET THIS RIGHT. AND
AGAIN, MY COMMITMENT IS IF WE
CAN'T COME TO AN AGREEMENT, I
WILL DEFINITELY PULL THE BILL
MYSELF. I'LL HOPE THAT YOU'LL
MAYBE REACH OUT AND WORK WITH,
BOTH THE ACLU AND EQUALITY
CALIFORNIA ON THIS, AND I MEAN,
I'LL BE LOOKING TO THOSE TWO
GROUPS TO HELP ME UNDERSTAND
WHETHER OR NOT THIS BILL IS
ADDRESSES THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE
BEEN RAISED. SO THANK YOU, THANK
YOU, THANK YOU, MR. LACKEY.
YEAH. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO
CLARIFY SOMETHING BECAUSE IT
SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A BLUR,
BETWEEN TÍNH THE SEX WORKER
VERSUS THE JOHN AND, CALIFORNIA
LAW. 647 OF THE PENAL CODE,
SECTION B, ONE, TWO AND THREE
MAKE CLEAR DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN
THE JOHN AND THE SEX WORKER AND
EVEN THE JOHN VERSUS A JUVENILE
SEX PERSON. AND SO THIS BILL
CLEARLY FOCUSES ON THE JOHNS
THAT IS VERY CLEAR. YOU MADE
THAT VERY, VERY CLEAR. AND I, I
THINK IT DESERVES TO BE
EXPLAINED FROM SOMEBODY WHO HAS
AN OBJECTIVE PERSPECTIVE ON THIS
MATTER. AND YOU'RE TO BE
CONGRATULATED ON, GOING AFTER
THE JOHNS THERE. THE BIG PROBLEM
IN THIS INDUSTRY. SO I SUPPORT
THIS BILL. AND THANK YOU FOR
HAVING THE GUTS TO ADDRESS IT.
THANK YOU. MR. ZUBIATE FOLLOW UP
QUESTION. YEAH, I JUST I HAVE
GREAT RESPECT FOR MY COLLEAGUE
HERE, BUT, THE WAY I READ THIS,
I DON'T THINK THAT IT DOES GO
ONLY AFTER THE JOHN. SO I HOPE
THAT I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM THAT
YOU THAT YOU ARE CONTINUING TO
ABSOLUTELY WORK ON THIS AND
UNDERSTAND THAT THE BILL AND
PRINT THAT WE'RE SEEING,
REQUIRES FURTHER WORK TO TIGHTEN
IT UP. SO YES. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. YES. AND NO FURTHER
QUESTIONS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION
SECOND, A SECOND BEFORE YOU
CLOSE, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY I'M
NOT AN ATTORNEY, A FORMER LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND BRAND NEW UP
HERE. AS YOU KNOW. SO MY
UNDERSTANDING THAT HOW THE LAW
WORKS WITH SOLICITATION, YOUR
INTENT IS YOU WANT TO GO AFTER
THE JOHN OR IT'S NOT ALWAYS THAT
GENDER, OF COURSE, GOING AFTER.
BUT JOHN OR JANE. JANE BUT THE
BUYER. BUT THE SOLICITATION
WORKS SUCH AS OUR SACRAMENTO
SHERIFF'S DEPUTY HERE. SOMETIMES
IF THERE'S AN UNDERCOVER AND
THEY GO AND TALK TO SOMEBODY, IT
CAN BE REVERSED. THE DEFINITION
OF SOLICITATION. SO YOUR INTENT
IS TO GO AFTER THE BUYER. BUYER.
BUT YOU SAID YOU'LL PULL THE
BILL BACK OR DROP IT. BUT IT'S
MORE THAN JUST THAT COMMITMENT.
I THINK THERE'S SOME UNDERLYING
ISSUES IN THE LAW WHICH WE NEED
TO FOCUS ON TO MAKE SURE WE
DON'T HAVE THE UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCE OF. YES. SO. SO YES,
I THINK WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO
IS, YOU KNOW, THE SEX WORKERS
ARE SOLICITING, YOU KNOW, ARE
SAYING, HEY, COME OVER HERE. I
UNDERSTAND THAT. AND SO THAT'S
WHAT YOUR GUIDANCE AND YOUR
HELP, I THINK WE CAN MAKE THAT
CLEAR THAT IT'S SPECIFICALLY FOR
THE, THE OFFENDERS, NOT THE SEX
WORKERS. WELL, NOT JUST
SOLICITING. LIKE IF THERE'S AN
UNDERCOVER OFFICER, IT GOES UP
TO THE WORKER AND STARTS THE
CONVERSATION. THEN THAT THERE'S
IT'S THE OPPOSITE. SOMETIMES IN
THE INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW
ANYWAY, WE HAVEN'T. BUT YOU'LL
CONTINUE TO WORK. ABSOLUTELY.
AND I LOOK TO YOUR DIRECTION AND
TO YOUR COMMITTEE'S DIRECTION
FOR, FOR THAT SPECIFIC LANGUAGE.
SINCE I AM A TEACHER, NOT A
POLICE OFFICER OR AN ATTORNEY AS
WELL. YES, SIR. YOU MAY CLOSE.
WE CAN TAKE THAT AS YOUR CLOSE
RIGHT THERE. ABSOLUTELY. WITH
ALL THAT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
AN AYE VOTE. OKAY. THANK YOU. WE
HAVE A MOTION A SECOND, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL ON AB 2382 BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER BLANCA RUBIO. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY MCCARTY I ALANIS ALANIS
I LACKEY. LACKEY I NGUYEN REYES
TÍNH WILSON. WILSON I ZEBRA.
ZIPPER I KNOW YEAH THAT MEASURE
PASSES. THANK YOU. ACTUALLY,
JUST TWO LEFT. IT'S JUST CHOLERA
AND ME AND ME. OH, SURE. NO
WITNESSES, BUT. ALL RIGHTY.
YOU'RE ON THE CHAIR. DANGEROUS
DANGEROUS. DID YOU KNOW BETTER?
YES WELL, IN THE INTEREST OF
TIME AND OUR LUNCH, I'M GOING TO
KEEP THE AGENDA GOING AND
PROCEED. BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY
WITNESSES FOR EITHER, BILL. BUT.
YEAH WE'RE JUST GOING TO ROLL
WITH IT. AND, CHAIR, THIS WILL
BE ON ITEM NUMBER SIX, AB 20
106. YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. YES
THANK YOU, I APOLOGIZE. ITEM
NUMBER 19, AB 2673. OKAY WHICH
ONE DO YOU WANT FIRST? THAT ONE
2673 2673. ITEM 19. THANK YOU.
THIS IS A, DISTRICT BILL HERE,
FOR ME IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY, PUT
FORWARD BY OUR CHIEF OF POLICE,
KATHY LESTER, AND OUR DISTRICT
ATTORNEY, TI¾N HÌ, WHO AREN'T
HERE WITH US TODAY. AND AN
AMAZING NONPROFIT CALLED BROTHER
TO BROTHER. YOU KNOW, THIS
COMMITTEE HAS TAKEN A LOT OF
WORK OVER THE YEARS ON REDUCING
GUN VIOLENCE. ONE OF THE
INNOVATIVE APPROACHES THROUGH
THE GRANT PROGRAMS, THE VIOLENCE
INTERVENTION PROGRAMS OF IT
PROGRAMS THAT MAKE A BIG
DIFFERENCE IN OUR COMMUNITIES.
THIS TAKES ONE OF THE RECIPIENTS
HERE AND WORKS WITH YOUTH WHO
ARE ARRESTED FOR A FIREARM
OFFENSE, AND IT WOULD HAVE THEM
DO A VIOLENCE INTERVENTION
PROGRAM. AS FAR AS AS PART OF
THEIR TERMS OF PROBATION. AND
AGAIN, THIS WOULD BE A FIVE YEAR
PILOT HERE IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY.
AND WITH THAT, RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU. ANY
OTHERS IN SUPPORT PLEASE STEP
UP. NAME ORGANIZATION. POSITION.
SEEING. NONE ANY IN OPPOSITION,
PLEASE COME UP. WE HAVE ONE.
PLEASE HAVE A SEAT. YOU'LL HAVE
FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU.
MEMBERS, DUKE COONEY, ON BEHALF
OF ACLU CALIFORNIA ACTION IN
OPPOSITION. RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. SIR. WE UNDERSTAND
THAT THIS BILL IS INTENDED TO
ENCOURAGE A PERSON TO COMPLETE A
DRUG PROGRAM IN AN EFFORT TO
TACKLE THEIR ADDICTION. HOWEVER,
WE HAVE CONCERNS. THIS IS THE
OTHER BILL. THIS IS THE FIREARM
BILL, SO SORRY. APOLOGIES, SIR.
LOTS OF OPPOSITION. YOU'RE GOOD.
ANYONE ELSE IN OPPOSITION?
PLEASE COME UP. STATE YOUR NAME.
I HAVE A MOVE. IN A SECOND, MISS
MARGO. GO AHEAD, THANK YOU.
MARGO GEORGE. FOR THE CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION. WE
DON'T HAVE AN OFFICIAL POSITION.
WE'RE WIENER, BUT WE HAVE
EXPRESSED OUR CONCERNS TO THE
AUTHOR AND WOULD WELCOME A
DIALOG AS WELL AS THE JUVENILE
DEFENDERS, I BELIEVE. THANK YOU.
SEEING NO OTHERS, COMMITTEE
COMMENTS. QUESTIONS. SEEING NONE
. THANK YOU TO THE AUTHOR FOR
BRINGING THIS. I WILL OBVIOUSLY
BE IN SUPPORT AS WELL. AND YOU
CAN CLOSE. THANK YOU. ASK FOR
YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU. PLEASE
TAKE THE ROLE ON ASSEMBLY BILL
2673 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER MCCARTY.
THE MOTION IS DUE PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY MCCARTY I ALANIS I
ALANIS I LACKEY I LACKEY I
NGUYEN REYES TING WILSON WILSON
I ZEBRA ZEBRA I CHAIR THAT
MEASURE PASSES WE'LL NOW MOVE TO
ITEM NUMBER SIX AB 20 106. THANK
YOU, MR. VICE CHAIR, THIS BILL
ADJUSTS PROBATION TERMS FOR
INDIVIDUALS CONVICTED OF A
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE OFFENSE.
AND CONVERSELY, GOING THROUGH
THEIR DRUG TREATMENT PROGRAM.
TWO YEARS AGO, WE ADJUSTED THE
LAW RELATED TO PROBATION TERMS
AND HAD A CAP OF TWO YEARS. I
SUPPORTED THAT. I THINK ONE OF
THE SHORTCOMING THINGS THAT
WE'VE DISCOVERED IS INDIVIDUALS
GOING THROUGH THEIR DRUG
TREATMENT PROGRAM SOMETIMES CAN
LEAVE BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE
THE PUSH ANYMORE TO KEEP THEM
THERE. AND WE KNOW THAT PEOPLE
ON PAROLE, ONLY TWO AND FIVE
TODAY COMPLETE THEIR, THEIR,
THEIR PROGRAMS FOR DRUG
TREATMENT AND PEOPLE LEAVING THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. NEARLY
50% OF FORMERLY INCARCERATED AND
DRUG OFFENDERS ARE RECONVICTED
OR REARRESTED. AND WE GRAPPLE
WITH THESE ISSUES OF DRUGS AND
FENTANYL AND ADDICTION AND, YOU
KNOW, THE SWIRLING IMPACTS OF
OUR, OF OUR UNHOUSED POPULATION,
WE NEED TO REALIZE THAT WE NEED
TO FOCUS ON MAKING SURE PEOPLE
STAY IN THEIR TREATMENT
PROGRAMS. AND THIS DOES JUST
THAT. AND WITH ME TODAY IS A
REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE
CALIFORNIA FOR PROBATION
OFFICERS. AND RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR I VOTE. THANK YOU.
YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
DANIELLE SANCHEZ, ON BEHALF OF
THE CHIEF PROBATION OFFICERS OF
CALIFORNIA. VERY PLEASED TO
SUPPORT THIS MEASURE AND THE
APPROACH OUTLINED IN THE BILL,
AS THE CHAIR HAD STATED, THE
APPROACH OUTLINED IN THIS BILL
REALLY LOOKS AT RESTORING BOTH
THE ACCOUNTABILITY AND TREATMENT
MEASURES, WHILE ALSO MAKING SURE
THAT WE'RE BRINGING TOGETHER
TOGETHER THE COLLABORATIVE AND
MEANINGFUL SUPPORTS TO HELP
TRANSITION SOMEBODY THROUGH
TREATMENT, BUT IN A WAY THAT
ALSO RECOGNIZES THE APPROPRIATE
AMOUNT OF TIME THAT IS NEEDED TO
COMPLETE THOSE PROGRAMS AND
SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE THOSE
PROGRAMS, DRUG COURTS AND
TREATMENT, RESEARCH BASED
PROGRAMS REALLY STRIKE THIS
CRUCIAL BALANCE BETWEEN CURBING
THE CYCLE OF RECIDIVISM AND ALSO
BRINGING TO BEAR THE TREATMENT
RESOURCES NECESSARY TO EFFECT
LASTING AND MEANINGFUL CHANGE.
THESE SPECIALIZED TYPE COURTS
INTERTWINE JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT,
COLLABORATIVE ENGAGEMENT, AND
DEDICATED SUBSTANCE USE
TREATMENT SERVICES WITH
INTENSIVE SUPERVISION, AND
IMPORTANTLY, ARE OFFERING AN
ALTERNATIVE TO INCARCERATION TO
MAKE SURE THAT, AGAIN, WE'RE
BALANCING THOSE THINGS, KEEPING
SOMEBODY IN THE COMMUNITY
WORKING TOWARDS, EDUCATION,
EMPLOYMENT AND ALL OF THE THINGS
THAT WE WANT TO SEE THEM
ENGAGING IN. SO I WILL SAY THIS
BILL, FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, IS
REFLECTIVE OF MANY OF THE THINGS
THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS PUT
INTO PLACE AND IS WORKING ON
REGARDING BALANCE OF
ACCOUNTABILITY AND TREATMENT,
ABILITY FOR INDIVIDUALIZED
RESPONSES, FOR ADDRESSING
TREATMENT AND SAFETY NEEDS, AND
INCENTIVIZING SUCCESSFUL,
PROGRAM COMPLETION. SO FOR THOSE
REASONS, CPUC IS PLEASED TO
SUPPORT THIS MEASURE AND LOOKS
FORWARD TO CONTINUING TO WORK
WITH THE AUTHOR ON IT. THANK
YOU. ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT?
PLEASE STEP UP. NAME
ORGANIZATION. ALL RIGHT. SEEING
NONE. OPPOSITION. IS THIS THE
ONE YOU WANT TO COME UP TO? GOT
YOU. THANK YOU. YOU BOTH WILL BE
SHARING FIVE MINUTES. GO AHEAD.
THANK YOU. Dð COONEY WITH ACLU
CALIFORNIA ACTION IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION TO AB TWO 106, WE
UNDERSTAND THAT THIS BILL IS
INTENDED TO ENCOURAGE A PERSON
TO COMPLETE A DRUG PROGRAM IN AN
EFFORT TO TACKLE THEIR
ADDICTION. HOWEVER, WE HAVE
CONCERNS THAT THE APPROACH OF
ADDING NEW CONDITIONS, NEW
CONDITIONS TO PROBATION TERMS
WON'T BE EFFECTIVE, LARGELY DUE
TO MANY EXISTING BARRIERS TO
ACCESSING QUALITY. SUBSTANCE
ABUSE TREATMENT, WHICH
UNFORTUNATELY, THIS BILL DOES
NOT ADDRESS OR IMPROVE.
PROBATION IS OFTEN A LANDMINE
WHERE ANY MISSTEP OR TECHNICAL
VIOLATION CAN RESULT IN A
LENGTHY PRISON SENTENCE. WE HAVE
CONCERNS THAT A PERSON COULD
ACTUALLY END UP SPENDING MORE
TIME IN JAIL AS A CONSEQUENCE OF
ONE OF THOSE VIOLATIONS THAN
THEY WOULD IF THEY DIDN'T
PARTICIPATE IN A DIVERSION
PROGRAM. FORCED TREATMENT IS NOT
THE MOST EFFECTIVE SOLUTION TO
SUBSTANCE ABUSE. RATHER, GREATER
INVESTMENT IN ACCESSIBLE QUALITY
TREATMENT WOULD MAKE A MORE
EFFECTIVE APPROACH TO ULTIMATELY
ADDRESSING THE UNDERLYING ISSUE,
WHICH IS THE SUBSTANCE ABUSE.
AND FOR THOSE REASONS, WE'RE IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. KELLY WALTERS, STAFF
ATTORNEY WITH LEGAL SERVICES FOR
PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN. WE ARE
HERE OPPOSING 2106, RESPECTFULLY
, AS HAS BEEN MADE, HAS BEEN
EXPRESSED TO ASSEMBLY MEMBER
MCCARTY. THIS BILL UNDOES THE
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES THAT WERE
MADE IN 2020 THROUGH AB 1950.
TELLINGLY, THE BILL WOULD ALSO
DIRECT A COURT TO REDUCE THE
PERIOD OF PROBATION IF THE
DEFENDANT SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETES
A COURT MANDATED DRUG TREATMENT
PROGRAM. THIS BILL APPEARS TO
TAKE A MISGUIDED APPROACH TO
PUSH INDIVIDUALS INTO COMPLETING
DRUG TREATMENT PROGRAMS BY
OFFERING INCENTIVES TO REDUCE
PROBATIONARY PERIODS AND
THREATENING INCARCERATION.
HOWEVER, COMPELLING INDIVIDUALS
INTO TREATMENT UNDER DURESS,
WHETHER THROUGH LEGAL MANDATES
OR EXTERNAL PRESSURES, HAS
CONSISTENTLY PROVEN TO BE AN
INEFFECTIVE STRATEGY IN THE LONG
TUM MANAGEMENT OF SUBSTANCE
ABUSE. SUBSTANCE USE DISORDERS
RESEARCH INDICATES THAT
TREATMENT OUTCOMES ARE
SUBSTANTIALLY BETTER WHEN THE
INDIVIDUAL ENGAGES VOLUNTARILY
MOTIVATED BY A PERSONAL DESIRE
FOR CHANGE, RATHER THAN COERCION
CAUSED TREATMENT OFTEN RESULTS
IN LOWER ENGAGEMENT RATES,
HIGHER RELAPSE PROBABILITY, AND
A GENERAL SENSE OF RESENTMENT
AND RESISTANCE AMONG
PARTICIPANTS. THIS IS NOT ONLY
COUNTERPRODUCTIVE, BUT CAN ALSO
EXACERBATE THE FEELINGS OF
HELPLESSNESS AND STIGMA THAT
MANY STRUGGLING WITH ADDICTION
ALREADY FACE. SECONDLY,
INDIVIDUALS ON PROBATION ARE
ONLY ORDERED TO PARTICIPATE IN
AA OR NA PROGRAMS WHICH DO NOT
PROVIDE ACCESS TO EFFECTIVE
SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT. IT IS
WELL DOCUMENTED THAT MANAGING AN
ADDICTION TO OPIOIDS THROUGH AA
OR NA MEETINGS ALONE IS UNLIKELY
TO BE SUCCESSFUL. INSTEAD OF
INCREASING PROBATION,
SUPERVISION, WHICH IS COSTLY AND
CAN LEAD TO CRUEL AND DANGEROUS
PERIODS OF INCARCERATION IN
COUNTY JAILS, WE SHOULD FOCUS ON
PROVIDING EVIDENCE BASED
TREATMENTS THAT CAN LEAD TO LONG
TUM RECOVERY AND IMPROVE
OUTCOMES FOR INDIVIDUALS
STRUGGLING WITH ADDICTION. IF WE
ARE TRULY HERE FOR PUBLIC
SAFETY, WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE
THAT DECADES OF CRIMINALIZING
PEOPLE HAS PROVEN INEFFECTIVE TO
REACHING THAT GOAL. WE ADVOCATE
FOR POLICIES THAT SUPPORT AN
INDIVIDUAL'S AUTONOMY AND
ENCOURAGE VOLUNTARY
PARTICIPATION IN HIGH QUALITY
TREATMENT PROGRAMS. THIS
APPROACH IS GROUNDED IN A
COMPASSIONATE UNDERSTANDING OF
ADDICTION AS A MEDICAL CONDITION
AND NOT A MORAL FAILING. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE
ELSE IN OPPOSITION? PLEASE STEP
UP. NAME. ORGANIZATION. POSITION
. PHÐ MELENDEZ WITH SMART
JUSTICE CALIFORNIA IN OPPOSITION
. MARCO. JORGE. I WOULD THANK
THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE FOR THE
CONVERSATION. UNFORTUNATELY,
WE'RE IN RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. TIÂU NHÀ VARGAS,
INITIATE JUSTICE ACTION IN
OPPOSITION. MELANIE KIM, SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE IN RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION.
PHILIPPE KELLY, DE LA BECKER,
CENTER, RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION.
MICHELLE MAXWELL, THE
UNDERGROUND SCHOLARS INITIATIVE
AT UC BERKELEY IN OPPOSITION.
ERIN MCCALL, THE UNDERGROUND
SCHOLARS INITIATIVE AT UC
BERKELEY IN OPPOSITION. JUAN
FLORES WITH THE ELLA BAKER
CENTER AND RESPECT FOR
OPPOSITION. LAWRENCE COX LSPC.
ALL OF US ARE NONE. RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION JOANNA WILLIAMS WITH
LSPC RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION.
GILBERT ANTHONY MURILLO, LSPC
ANALYSIS NONE. RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. LINA DIÆN LSPC. AND
ALL OF US ARE NONE IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. SO JEANETTE
CITIPATI, ON BEHALF OF DRUG
POLICY ALLIANCE, ALSO IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. ROBERT
BEAUDOIN LSPC ALL OF US ARE NONE
IN RESPECT FOR OUR POSITION.
THANK YOU. WE'LL TURN IT TO THE
COMMITTEE. ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS? MISS WILSON? THANK YOU
TO THE AUTHOR, YOU KNOW, I THINK
PERSONALLY, IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL, BECAUSE IT ONLY IT ONLY
INCREASES IT BY ONE YEAR, TO
ALLOW FOR AN OPPORTUNITY IN
TERMS OF PROBATION. SO IT'S NOT
AN INCREASED SENTENCE IN TERMS
OF BEING INCARCERATED, BUT IN
TERMS OF HAVING OVERSIGHT TO BE
ABLE TO HELP RESTORE, PEOPLE
BACK TO, YOU KNOW, HAVING A
REALLY PRODUCTIVE AND FRUITFUL
LIFE WHERE THEY'RE NOT, IN THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM ANYMORE.
YOU KNOW, I HAVE A SIMILAR BILL.
AB 3222 IN TERMS OF
INCENTIVIZING DRUG TREATMENT
PROGRAM COMPLETION, AND SO I,
YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY THAT GETS
THROUGH AND MARRYING THESE TWO
IN THE SENSE OF THAT. BECAUSE
ONE THING I LIKE ABOUT THIS
BILL, IT ALLOWS THAT IF YOU
COMPLETE IT, THEN IT CAN BE
REDUCED DOWN. SO IT'S NOT
MANDATORY FOR, ADDING THAT
ADDITIONAL YEAR. THAT ADDITIONAL
YEAR COULD BE REMOVED AS I
UNDERSTAND IT, IF THEY,
SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE A COURT
MANDATED DRUG TREATMENT PROGRAM.
IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. COOL.
BEANS? YES AND SO, WITH THAT,
I'LL SUPPORT THE BILL AND MAKE
THE MOTION AS WELL. THANK YOU. I
GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND. MR.
ZUBIATE. SO, I WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR FOR BRINGING THIS BILL, I
MEAN, THIS IS ONE OF THE AREAS
WHERE, YOU KNOW, I HAVE SOME
DEPARTURE FROM OUR FRIENDS THAT
ARE IN THE OPPOSITION, AND IT'S
BECAUSE OF SOME PERSONAL
EXPERIENCE. I HAD A FAMILY
MEMBER WHO, FOR MANY YEARS
SUFFERED FROM A METH ADDICTION
WHO REFUSED TO GET TREATMENT,
ULTIMATELY WAS ARRESTED IN
ARIZONA, AND THE, HIS PROBATION
WAS NEGOTIATED A PLEA AGREEMENT
WHICH REQUIRED HIM TO GO INTO
DIVERSION INTO A TREATMENT
PROGRAM FOR A TWO YEAR PERIOD OF
TIME. IT WAS TRANSFERRED TO LOS
ANGELES, WHERE HE WHERE THE
FAMILY MEMBER LIVED. AND, I
THINK THE ONE THING I WILL SAY
IS PROBATION IS HORRIBLE. AND IT
NEEDS TO BE REALLY REFORMED
BECAUSE AS I SEE, I KNOW THAT
PART OF THE OPPOSITION TO THIS
IS THE CONCERN ABOUT HOW
PROBATION IS ADMINISTERED, YOU
KNOW, WHERE IN THAT FAMILY
MEMBER'S CASE THEY WERE TRYING
TO SUPPORT HIS ABILITY TO SORT
OF STAY IN THE PROGRAM THROUGH
THE REPORTING. BUT I'VE GOT TO
SAY, IF IT HADN'T BEEN FOR THAT,
I DON'T THINK HE EVER WOULD HAVE
GOTTEN INTO THE TREATMENT THAT
HE NEEDED. IT WAS THE PROBATION
WHERE HE HAD TO CHECK IN AND
ACTUALLY DO DRUG TESTS OVER
PERIODS OF TIME. PERIODICALLY
THAT, I THINK, GAVE HIM THE
INCENTIVE TO STAY IN TREATMENT.
AND I THINK IT REALLY DID.
CHANGE HIS LIFE IN A WAY THAT HE
HAD NEVER, BEEN ABLE TO BEFORE.
SO, I DO THINK THAT SOME OF THE,
YOU KNOW, THE, THE POINT OF THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AND
MOVING INTO DIVERSION IS TO
REALLY GIVE PEOPLE INCENTIVES TO
VOLUNTARILY, GO INTO TREATMENT,
AND, BUT BUT I THINK PEOPLE SORT
OF NEED THAT NUDGE AT TIMES. AND
IF THIS WAS A CASE WHERE WE
WERE, INCREASING PROBATION BY
LONG PERIODS OF TIME, I WOULD
PROBABLY TAKE A BIG PAUSE. BUT I
THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS
TAILORED TO TRY TO MAKE SURE
THAT PEOPLE GET INTO TREATMENT,
HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO ACTUALLY
COMPLETE THE TREATMENT THAT THEY
NEED IN ORDER TO TURN THEIR
LIVES AROUND. SO WITH THAT, I
JUST WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR,
FOR BRINGING THE BILL. I DO
THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT ONE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER. MR. TANG. THANK YOU. I
WAS JUST, JUST TO COME BACK ON.
THANK YOU. JUST TO ECHO MY
COLLEAGUES COMMENTS FROM
HOLLYWOOD, JUST TO GO BACK TO
OPPOSITION. I MEAN, I, I AGREE
WITH YOU THAT THE IDEAL
SITUATION IS IN PROBABLY THE
BEST RESULT. SOMEONE GOES
VOLUNTARILY. SOMEONE DETERMINES
THAT THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT TO
DO. I THINK MY COLLEAGUE, FROM
HOLLYWOOD JUST ARTICULATED WHY
THAT'S NOT ALWAYS THE SITUATION.
SO AS POLICY MAKERS, WE STRUGGLE
WITH FINDING FINDING THIS
BALANCE BETWEEN, ENCOURAGING,
NUDGING, PUSHING, YOU KNOW, WHAT
TO DO, BECAUSE OTHERWISE WE'RE
LEFT WITH THIS PROBLEM, FRANKLY,
ON OUR STREETS. SO I GUESS I
HEAR THE CONSTANT OPPOSITION TO
SAY, HEY, YOU KNOW, TREATMENT,
TREATMENT, TREATMENT. SO YOU
HAVE A BILL TRYING TO PUSH
SOMEONE INTO TREATMENT, I GUESS.
WHAT WOULD YOU SUPPORT? IT'S
CLEAR YOU DON'T WANT TO. YOU'RE
NOT SUPPORTING THIS PROPOSAL.
BUT I DON'T HEAR FROM, YOU KNOW,
THE LITANY OF OPPOSITION, WHAT
YOU WOULD SUPPORT IN THIS IN
THIS COMMITTEE VERSUS, YOU KNOW,
BECAUSE WE HEAR ALL THESE BILLS
AND GENERALLY AGAINST, AGAINST,
AGAINST. BUT WHAT WOULD YOU
SUPPORT? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT
WE'RE DEALING WITH AS POLICY
MAKERS. BECAUSE OTHERWISE ARE
NOT DOING ANYTHING. WE SEE THE
SITUATION ON THE STREETS. IS
THAT A QUESTION I HAVE TO ASK?
THAT IS A QUESTION OKAY. YES.
JUST CONFIRMING, YEAH. WELL I
DON'T I GUESS I DON'T HAVE A
BLACK AND WHITE ANSWER FOR YOU,
BUT MY CONCERN REMAINS THAT IT
IS A COERCED TREATMENT. AND THAT
PERSON WILL BE IN TREATMENT
AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN. IF
THE STUDIES ARE CORRECT. SO WHAT
I WOULD SUGGEST, WITHOUT HAVING
SOMETHING LAID OUT FOR YOU,
WOULD BE A OPPORTUNITY TO GET
INTO TREATMENT IN A MORE,
AGREEABLE WAY AND NOT COERCION,
FOR PROBATION OR, OR
INCARCERATION. BUT I GUESS
GETTING INTO TREATMENT IN A MORE
AGREEABLE WAY JUST SAYS THAT
UNTIL THAT PERSON COMES TO THAT
CONCLUSION ON, YOU KNOW,
THEMSELVES THAT THAT THAT WOULD
BE THE IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT WOULD
BE THE ONLY SITUATION THAT YOU
COULD SUPPORT. WELL, IF I'M
SPEAKING FRANKLY, I GUESS THAT'S
TRUE. YES, THE REALITY IS I JUST
DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S REALLY
GOING TO GET THE TREATMENT THEY
NEED UNLESS THEY'RE PREPARED TO
DO IT. AND I GUESS FOR, FOR US
AS POLICYMAKERS, THEN THE, THE
CHALLENGES IS THEN WE ARE LEFT
WITH THIS POLICY ALTERNATIVE OF
HAVING, A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE
WITH SUBSTANCE ABUSE, MENTAL
HEALTH ISSUES ON OUR STREETS.
AND THAT'S NOT THAT'S NOT A
THAT'S NOT FAIR, AS AN
ALTERNATIVE EITHER, I SEE OUR
CHAIR WANTING TO LEAN IN AND SAY
SOMETHING. NO, NO. DID I? YOU
LOOK LIKE YOU WANTED TO JUST
KIND OF SAY SOMETHING WHICH
YOU'RE HAPPY TO DO. YEAH. WELL,
YEAH, YOU KIND OF SAID IT. AND.
LOOK, THE STATUS QUO IS NOT
WORKING. NO, I COULD TAKE A TIME
OUT RIGHT NOW AND GO ON A WALK
TO K STREET MALL AND GIVE YOU 25
EXAMPLES IN FIVE MINUTES. AS FAR
AS WHY IT'S NOT WORKING, AND
THIS IS NOT DRACONIAN AS, AS, AS
WE HEARD OVER HERE. EXTENDS IT
BY, BY A YEAR. AND, YOU KNOW, MY
WITNESS WASN'T HERE TODAY, BUT
HE, HE WAS HERE LAST YEAR WHEN
HE HAD MY THIS BILL ON A SIMILAR
TOPIC. AND HE WOULD SAY, JUST
LIKE THE STORY HERE WITH, WITH
THE COUSIN IN ARIZONA IS LIKE,
BUT FOR THIS BEING NUDGED AND
CAJOLED, WHATEVER YOU CALL IT,
HE'D BE DEAD. AND TO SAY IT
DOESN'T WORK LIKE WHEN FAMILY
MEMBERS HAVE INTERVENTIONS,
THAT'S WHAT THEY DO. THEY BRING
SOMEONE IN THE ROOM AND THEY
KIND OF NUDGE THEM. SO THE WHOLE
VOLUNTARY THING IS NOT CERTAINLY
WORKING. IT'S NOT A PANACEA, AND
WE NEED TO DO MUCH MORE TO GET
PEOPLE INTO TREATMENT. AND THIS
IS A BALANCED APPROACH THAT DOES
JUST THAT. I AGREE WITH YOU. AND
I THINK IT'S, YOU KNOW, IN AN
IDEAL SITUATION OF COURSE PEOPLE
WOULD VOLUNTEER, BUT WE ARE
DEFINITELY WE DEFINITELY DO NOT
SEE IN FRONT OF US AN IDEAL
SITUATION. WE SEE A SITUATION
THAT'S FAIRLY DRASTIC THAT WE AS
POLICY MAKERS, NEED TO FIND
SOLUTIONS AND TRY TO, HOPE THAT
THESE SOLUTIONS WILL WORK. AND
THAT'S ALL. AND THAT'S ALL WE
COULD DO FROM HERE AND TRY TO
TRY OUR BEST. SO WITH THAT, I'M
HAPPY TO SUPPORT THIS BILL.
THANK YOU, MR. CHANG. IS THAT A
MOVE? Ó WITH THE BILL, PLEASE.
SECOND, MR. LACKEY, YOU HAVE
QUESTIONS? JUST MORE MORE
CLARIFICATION. IT DOESN'T SEEM
TO ME, THAT YOUR PROPOSAL FORCES
ANYBODY INTO THIS TREATMENT. IT
GIVES THESE PEOPLE MORE TIME,
AND THE JUDGE ENCOURAGES THEM TO
GO FORWARD WITH THIS DRUG
TREATMENT. NO. NO ONE IS.
THERE'S NO COERCIVE NATURE THAT
I CAN SEE IN THIS PROPOSAL. AND
SO I THINK PEOPLE NEED TO BE
ENCOURAGED AND THEY DO NEED TO
BE PUSHED. I THINK THAT'S HUMAN
NATURE. THAT'S JUST HUMAN
NATURE. NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE,
WHERE, WHEN WE'RE WHEN WE'RE
PUSHED, WE'RE MORE LIKELY TO BE
SUCCESSFUL. SO THIS IS A VERY
THOUGHTFUL MEASURE THAT I'M
PROUD TO SUPPORT. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS FOR COMMITTEE? I THANK
THE AUTHOR. OBVIOUSLY, A PUSH IS
NEEDED AND PEOPLE DO NEED TO BE
HELD ACCOUNTABLE. AND I THANK
YOU FOR THIS. BILL. WITH THAT, I
HAVE A SECOND. OH, YOU WANT TO
CLOSE? YEAH. THANK YOU, YOU KNOW
, JUST LIKE THIS COMMITTEE, WE
TRY TO BRING ABOUT BALANCE AND
NOT GO TOO FAR. SO TWO THINGS
CAN BE TRUE. THERE IS A, YOU
KNOW, SCARLET LETTER HANGING
AROUND PEOPLE'S NECKS WHEN THEY
HAVE TOO LONG A PROBATION AND
PAROLE TERMS. AND WE REFORM THAT
WITH PAROLE REINTEGRATION
CREDITS, REDUCING THE TERMS OF
PROBATION. BUT THIS IS SOMETHING
THE FLIP SIDE THAT WE KNOW THAT
PEOPLE GOING THROUGH DRUG
TREATMENT, YOU KNOW, NEED TO
HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLETE
THAT PROGRAM, AND SO THIS IS, I
THINK, AN APPROPRIATE ADJUSTMENT
TO THAT POLICY THAT WE, ADOPTED
A FEW YEARS AGO AND NOT FULLY
REPEALING THAT. AND WITH THAT, I
ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. AND I AGREE WITH
THAT. AND ALSO KEEP IN MIND
JUDGES CAN ALSO, REDUCE THE
PROBATION PERIOD IF IT'S IF THEY
MAKE THEM. WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED
TO BE DOING. SO KEEP THAT IN
MIND AS WELL. THANK YOU. PLEASE
TAKE A ROLL ON AB 2106 BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER MCCARTY. THE
MOTION IS TO PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY A MCCARTY. AYE. ALANIZ.
ALANIZ AYE. LAKI LAKI. AYE.
NGUYEN REYES. REYES. AYE. TING
TING AYE. WILSON. WILSON. AYE.
ZABIR ZABIR. AYE. NEXT, WE HAVE
ITEM NUMBER EIGHT. AB 2168.
CHOLERA THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS I'D LIKE TO
START BY THANKING THE COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR THEIR WORK ON THIS
BILL, AND I WILL BE ACCEPTING
THE COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS. AB
2168 WOULD REQUIRE A COURT TO
DISMISS LOW LEVEL, VICTIMLESS
MISDEMEANORS AGAINST INDIVIDUALS
ALREADY SENTENCED TO STATE
PRISON. EXISTING LAW PERMITS THE
COURTS TO DISMISS CERTAIN
VEHICLE RELATED MISDEMEANORS
FOLLOWING A FELONY PRISON
SENTENCE. HOWEVER, THIS
DISMISSAL PROCESS DOES NOT
EXTEND BEYOND THE VEHICLE CODE,
LEAVING THOUSANDS OF OTHER
DEFENDANTS ALREADY SENTENCED TO
PRISON. SINGING, SITTING IN
COUNTY JAIL AND STILL BEING
TRANSPORTED TO COURT FOR
HEARINGS ON OPEN MISDEMEANOR
CASES THAT WILL NOT ULTIMATELY
INCREASE THEIR SENTENCE. IN FACT
, MANY TIMES FROM PERSONAL
EXPERIENCE, I'VE SEEN IT. MOST
OF THE TIME THEY GET DISMISSED,
THE INEFFICIENT PROCESS HAS
CREATED INCONSISTENT SENTENCING
PRACTICES AND NEEDLESS ONGOING
COSTS. I DO LITTLE TO IMPROVE
PUBLIC SAFETY. AB 2168 IS
NARROWLY DRAFTED TO ENSURE THE
MISDEMEANORS ELIGIBLE TO BE
DISMISSED. UNDER THIS BILL ARE
TRULY VICTIMLESS. THIS MEANS
MISDEMEANORS THAT CAN BE CHARGED
AS FELONIES INVOLVING THAT
INVOLVE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE,
REQUIRE SEX OFFENDER
REGISTRATION, OR INVOLVE AN
ACTUAL LOSS TO A VICTIM ARE ALL
EXCLUDED. THIS BILL WILL RESULT
IN SIGNIFICANT COST SAVINGS,
PRESERVE COURT RESOURCES, AND
ALLOW INDIVIDUALS TO BEGIN
SERVING THEIR SENTENCE AND
ACCESS REHABILITATED PROGRAMS
WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY. WITH ME
TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT IS NICK
STEWART, N WITH THE OFFICE OF
THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY PUBLIC
DEFENDER. THANK YOU, MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE, AB 2168 IS A COST
SAVINGS BILL THAT ADDRESSES AN
INEFFICIENCY IN THE CURRENT
SYSTEM BY CODIFYING COMMON
CRIMINAL COURT PRACTICE UNDER
OUR EXISTING SYSTEM. THANK YOU
SIR, ROUGHLY 3% OF DEFENDANTS
SENTENCED TO STATE PRISON ON A
FELONY HAVE THEIR TRANSFER TO
STATE PRISON DELAYED BECAUSE
THEY HAVE A SEPARATE UNRESOLVED
MISDEMEANOR CASE, TYPICALLY A
MINOR DRUG OR MUNICIPAL CODE
OFFENSE. THIS IS NOT FREE. WE'RE
PAYING FOR THIS FOR THEM TO SIT
IN COUNTY JAIL WAITING FOR THIS
MISDEMEANOR TO BE DISMISSED
UNDER CURRENT LAW, BECAUSE THE
PURSUIT OF A MINOR MISDEMEANOR
CASE WHEN AN OFFENDER IS GOING
TO STATE PRISON NUMBER ONE DOES
NOT ADD TIME TO DEFENDANT'S
SENTENCE. NUMBER TWO IS EXPENSE,
AND NUMBER THREE DIVERTS SCARCE
JUDICIAL DEFENSE AND
PROSECUTORIAL RESOURCES AWAY
FROM SIGNIFICANT CASES.
CALIFORNIA LAW ALREADY MANDATES
THE DISMISSAL OF VEHICLE CODE
MISDEMEANORS WHEN THE DEFENDANT
HAS BEEN SENTENCED TO STATE
PRISON. THE PROBLEM IS, IS THAT
THE EXISTING MISDEMEANOR
DISMISSAL LAW ONLY ADDRESSES
VEHICLE CODE MISDEMEANORS, NOT
MINOR OFFENSES, APPEARING IN
OTHER SECTIONS OF THE CRIMINAL
CODE. IN THE PAST THREE WEEKS
ALONE, I PERSONALLY HAVE HAD TWO
EXPERIENCES WITH THIS THAT I
WANTED TO SHARE QUICKLY WITH THE
COMMITTEE LAST WEEK, EVEN THOUGH
THE DEFENDANT WAS ALREADY
SERVING A LIFE SENTENCE IN STATE
PRISON, A PROSECUTOR MYSELF, A
BAILIFF AND A COURT REPORTER ALL
HAD TO GO TO COURT TO DEAL WITH
A 20 YEAR OLD DISTURBING THE
PEACE INFRACTION. MAXIMUM FINE,
$100. RIGHT? THAT'S WHERE WE'RE
SPENDING OUR TIME. BECAUSE THE
LAW HAS NOT BEEN AMENDED TO
REFLECT REALITY THAT WE NO
LONGER NEED TO PURSUE THAT
PARTICULAR CASE. TWO WEEKS
BEFORE THAT, THE FOUR OF US, THE
SAME FOUR PEOPLE, WERE GETTING
COURT REQUIRED TO APPEAR ON A 15
YEAR OLD MISDEMEANOR DRUG
POSSESSION CASE. THERE, THE
DEFENDANT HAD BEEN HELD
ACCOUNTABLE. SHE'D BEEN SENT TO
PRISON ON HER FELONY FOR TEN
YEARS, AND NOBODY HAD CAUGHT THE
FACT THAT SHE HAD THIS
OUTSTANDING PIPE CASE, INSTEAD
OF BEING PAROLED TO OHIO, BACK
TO HER FAMILY AFTER HER
REHABILITATION, SHE STAYED IN
CUSTODY FOR AN ADDITIONAL TWO
MONTHS AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE UNTIL
THE COURT SYSTEM GOT AROUND TO
DISMISSING HER CASE. AB 2168
ADDRESSES THIS GAP IN THE SYSTEM
BY EXPANDING THE EXISTING
MISDEMEANOR DISMISSAL LAW TO
COVER SOME MISDEMEANORS WHEN THE
DEFENDANT IS ALREADY GOING TO
STATE PRISON OR HAS ALREADY GONE
TO STATE PRISON. IMPORTANTLY
2168 DOES NOT REQUIRE THE
DISMISSAL TO ANY CASE WHERE AN
ACTUAL VICTIM IS OWED
RESTITUTION, THE OFFENSE
REQUIRES REGISTRATION OR
INVOLVES ANY FORM OF DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE, OR THE OFFENSE COULD
HAVE BEEN CHARGED AT
PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION AS A
FELONY BECAUSE IT'S PRACTICAL,
EFFICIENT, MIRRORS EXISTING
PRACTICE, AND ENSURES JUDICIAL
RESOURCES ARE SPENT WHERE THEY
SHOULD BE SPENT. ON BEHALF OF
CPA, WE URGE YOUR SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. ANY OTHER WE HAVE ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT? MARCO.
JORGE, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT. TIÂU
NHÀ VARGAS. INITIATE JUSTICE,
ACTION AND SUPPORT MELANIE KIM,
SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE IN SUPPORT. AND LITTLE ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIANS FOR
SAFETY AND JUSTICE AND SUPPORT.
FOR MELENDEZ MÀ JUSTICE,
CALIFORNIA. IN SUPPORT Dð COONEY
ON BEHALF OF ACLU. STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. LAWRENCE
COX, ON BEHALF OF LSPC. ALL OF
US ARE IN SUPPORT. MARLENA
MERCADO ON BEHALF OF UNCOMMON
LAW SUPPORT KELLY WALTERS ON
BEHALF OF LEGAL SERVICES FOR
PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN. SUPPORT
LINA DIN LSPC IN STRONG SUPPORT.
JOANNA WILLIAMS WITH LSPC STRONG
SUPPORT. GILBERT ANTHONY
MURILLO, LSPC AND ALL OF US
STRONGLY SUPPORT ANTOINETTE
RATCLIFFE WITH INITIATE JUSTICE
IN STRONG SUPPORT. DO WE HAVE
ANY PRIMARY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION?
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MEMBERS. CORY SALZILLO, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION, FIRST, IN
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL, WE
APPRECIATE THE AUTHORS AND THE
COMMITTEE'S WORK TO REMOVE THE
365 DAY, JAIL TIME PROVISION
FROM THE BILL, THAT'S, AGAIN, WE
REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.
UNFORTUNATELY, WHAT'S LEFT IN
THE BILL. GIVES CERTAIN CONVICTS
A PASS FOR LIABILITY FOR NON
FELONY OFFENSES SIMPLY BY VIRTUE
OF THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE
ALREADY BEEN SENTENCED FOR A
FELONY CRIME, SO MISDEMEANORS
CONSOLIDATED IN A SINGLE CASE
WITH ONE OR MORE FELONIES COULD
STILL BE ADJUDICATED AS THE
ANALYSIS POINTS OUT. BUT THIS
BILL REQUIRES THE DISMISSAL. IF
THERE ARE PENDING CHARGES, AND
IT'S NOT ENTIRELY CLEAR THAT IT
ONLY RELATES TO PENDING CHARGES
AT THE TIME, THE PERSON IS
BASICALLY ON THEIR WAY TO STATE
PRISON OR COUNTY JAIL FOR A
FELONY. SO, IN OTHER WORDS, AND
I THINK THE WITNESS POINTED THIS
OUT, THERE'S A SITUATION WHERE
SOMEBODY WHO COULD ALREADY BE IN
PRISON OR COUNTY JAIL FOR A
FELONY, WHO COMMITS AN OFFENSE
NOT DISQUALIFIED BY THIS BILL'S
LANGUAGE, THAT THEY WOULD
BASICALLY THAT WOULD BE TOSSED
OUT. THERE WOULD BE THERE WOULD
BE NO CONSEQUENCE FOR THAT, SO
THAT THAT OBVIOUSLY CREATES
CONCERN FOR US. THE REALITY IS
THAT PENAL CODE SECTION 1385
GIVES THE BENCH BROAD AUTHORITY
TO DISMISS AN ACTION IF THE
JUDGE DESIRES ON THE JUDGE'S OWN
MOTION. OKAY, SO THERE'S ALREADY
A MECHANISM FOR THIS TO HAPPEN,
INCLUDING IN THE AND I'M NOT
SURE WHY THE COURT DIDN'T DO
THAT IN THE CASE THAT THE
WITNESS REFERENCED, AND I WOULD
ALSO NOTE THAT I THINK THAT,
OTHERS HAVE NOTED THAT THE
EXEMPTIONS IN THE BILL, WHILE
ATTEMPTING TO CREATE A BILL THAT
CAN BE SAID TO ONLY ADDRESS
VICTIM, SO-CALLED VICTIMLESS
CRIMES, THERE'S SOME
DISTINCTIONS. I THINK THAT THAT
HOW THE EXEMPTIONS MAY WORK,
THAT, THAT THEY ACTUALLY MAY BE
ILLUSORY IN SOME CASES. SO
SPECIFICALLY, NO ONE'S ENTITLED
TO RESTITUTION, THAT RESTITUTION
HAS TO BE ORDERED BY A COURT. SO
THE STATUTE SAYS, YOU KNOW,
CERTAIN VICTIMS, IF ORDERED BY A
COURT, ARE ENTITLED TO
RESTITUTION. BUT IF THE PERSON
IS NOT ADJUDICATED FOR THE
OFFENSE, THAT COULD TRIGGER THE
RESTITUTION, THEN IT'S HARD TO
SORT OF FIGURE OUT HOW THAT
TAUTOLOGY WOULD HAPPEN IF YOU'RE
NOT ACTUALLY CONVICTED. YOU'RE
NOT YOU DON'T BECOME LIABLE FOR
THE RESTITUTION. SIMILARLY,
WHILE THERE ARE OFFENSES THAT
ARE LISTED IN PENAL CODE SECTION
290 THAT REQUIRE SEX OFFENDER
REGISTRATION, EXISTING LAW ALSO
ALLOWS A COURT TO ORDER SEX
OFFENDER REGISTRATION BASED ON
AN OFFENSE THAT, WHILE IT MAY
NOT BE LISTED IN PENAL CODE
SECTION 290, AS ALWAYS,
REQUIRING REGISTRATION, AGAIN,
THE COURT CAN LOOK AT A CASE AND
DECIDE THAT IT'S, FOR LACK OF A
BETTER TERMS, SEXUALLY MOTIVATED
AND ORDER REGISTRATION IN THAT
CASE. BUT AGAIN, THAT THAT WOULD
NOT BE KNOWN UNLESS, THE, THE
CASE IS ACTUALLY HEARD BY A
COURT. SO AGAIN, APPRECIATION TO
THE AUTHOR FOR NARROWING THE
BILL AS IT'S HEARD TODAY. BUT
UNFORTUNATELY WE REMAIN IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU, ANY OTHER
WITNESSES? COMPETITION ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION
?
OKAY. NOW MOVING ON TO. ARE
THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS? SEEING NONE,
I DON'T RECALL IF THERE WAS A
MOTION. OH, I DID, I MADE IT.
ALL RIGHT. THERE IS A MOTION AND
A SECOND WITH THAT. OH, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE THE ASTRONAUT
VOTE? ALL RIGHT, MADAM SECRETARY
, ON AB 2168 BY MEMBER KALRA,
THE MOTION IS DUE PASS, AS
AMENDED, TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. MAKATI ALANIS. LAKI
LAKI. NO WHEN REYES REYES I TING
TING I WILSON I WILSON I ZUBIR
THAT. THAT MEASURES ON CALL. DO
WE WANT TO DO THAT BEFORE OUR
BREAK? OKAY OKAY. THAT'S GOOD.
MOVING ON TO CONSENT CALENDAR
FOR MEMBERS, TO ADD ON, WE
HAVEN'T DONE CONSENT YET. RIGHT.
HAVE NOT DONE IT. OH, WE HAVEN'T
DONE IT AT ALL WITH THAT. YEAH,
YEAH. ALL RIGHT. WELL, WE'RE
GOING TO DO CONSENT CALENDAR.
NOW WE HAVE ITEM ONE AB 1839
ALANIS, ITEM FOUR AB 1954 ALANIS
AB FIVE AB 2036 JO PATTERSON AB
SEVEN AB 2138 RAMOS Ã. ITEM TEN
AB 2279 CERVANTES. NUMBER 12 AB
2310 HART. ITEM 13 AB 2030 32
CONNOLLY. ITEM 16 AB 2478 RAMOS.
ITEM 18 AB 2624 WALDRON. ITEM 22
AB 2763 AZALEE. ITEM 24 AB 2842.
PAPAN AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST,
ITEM 26 AB 3083 LACCAY MOTION
AND SECOND MOVED SECOND, SO
MOVED BY REYES, SECONDED BY
TING. MADAM SECRETARY, ON THE
CONSENT CALENDAR, MCCARTY,
ALANIS. LAKI LAKI. AYE. NGUYEN.
REYES. REYES AYE. TING TING.
AYE. WILK SEN AYE. WILSON. AYE.
ZUBER CONSENT CALENDARS ON CALL.
CONSENT CALENDAR IS ON CALL.
WAITING FOR MEMBERS. DO YOU WANT
TO DO ANY OTHER BILLS BEFORE WE
BREAK FOR, YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT,
BECAUSE WE ARE, WE HAVE ANY
MORE? WE DO NOT HAVE ANY MORE
BILLS TO BE HEARD. AND IT IS
JUST MEMBERS ADDING ON. WE WILL
GO THROUGH A FIRST SET AND
CALLING ALL MEMBERS TO RETURN TO
PUBLIC SAFETY PRIOR TO GOING TO
CAUCUS. SO THAT WE CAN CLOSE OUT
THIS HEARING. SO WE'LL GO WITH
THE ONES THAT WE HAVE NOW. AND
THEN AS A REMINDER, IF WE COULD,
FOR THOSE STAFF MEMBERS WHO ARE
WATCHING THIS, HEARING OF YOUR
MEMBERS, REMIND THEM TO PLEASE
RETURN TO PUBLIC SAFETY PRIOR TO
GOING TO CAUCUS TO ENSURE WE CAN
CLOSE OUT THIS HEARING TIMELY.
THANK YOU, MISS WILSON. ITEM ONE
AB 1839 WAS ON CONSENT. ITEM
NUMBER TWO, AB 1856 BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER TO LACKEY. A LACKEY I.
ITEM NUMBER THREE AB 1931 BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER DIXON REYES.
REYES NOT VOTING. TING TING. NOT
VOTING. WILSON NOT VOTING.
WILSON. NOT VOTING. THAT MEASURE
FAILS. YES, WE ASK FOR
RECONSIDERATION FOR SOME MEMBER.
DIXON'S. YES. IS THAT A MOTION?
YES IT IS. IS THERE A SECOND?
ALL RIGHT. THERE IS NOT A
SECOND. SO THAT MOTION DIES FOR
LACK OF A SECOND. ITEM NUMBER
FOUR, AB 1954 WAS ON CONSENT.
ITEM NUMBER FIVE, AB 2036 WAS ON
CONSENT. ITEM NUMBER SIX, AB
2106. WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR
MEMBERS. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN AB
2138 WAS ON CONSENT. ITEM NUMBER
EIGHT, AB 2168 WAS JUST
DISPENSED WITH AND WE ARE STILL
WAITING FOR MEMBERS. ITEM NUMBER
NINE AB 2210 WAS PULLED BY THE
COMMITTEE. ITEM NUMBER TEN AB
2279 WAS ON CONSENT. ITEM NUMBER
11 AB 2308 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
DAVIES. THIS MEASURE WAS ON CALL
. MCCARTY, LACKEY. LACKEY I
NGUYEN. REYES. REYES I WILSON I
WILSON I THAT MEASURE NOW PASSES
ITEM NUMBER 12 AB 2310 WAS ON
CONSENT. ITEM NUMBER 13 AB 2332
WAS ON CONSENT. ITEM NUMBER 14
AB 2354 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER BONTA
ALANIS TING TING I. ITEM NUMBER
15 AB 2382 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
BLANCO RUBIO NGUYEN REYES REYES
I TING TING. NOT VOTING ITEM
NUMBER 16 AB 2478 WAS ON
CONSENT. ITEM NUMBER 17 AB 2347
BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER TO THIS
MEASURE WAS ON CALL. MCCARTY
WHEN REYES REYES NOT VOTING.
WILSON NOT VOTING. WILSON NOT
VOTING. THAT MEASURE FAILS. THE
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. IS
THERE A SECOND? NO SECOND. THAT
MOTION DIES FOR LACK A SECOND,
ANY ITEM? NUMBER 18 AB 2624 WAS
ON CONSENT. ITEM NUMBER 19 AB
2673, BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
MCCARTY. WHEN REYES. ITEM NUMBER
19 AB 2673 REYES I TING TING I.
ITEM NUMBER 20. AB 2691 WAS
PULLED BY THE AUTHOR. ITEM 21 AB
2692 WAS PULLED BY COMMITTEE.
ITEM 22 AB 2763 WAS ON CONSENT.
ITEM 23 AB 2782 WAS PULLED BY
THE AUTHOR. ITEM 24 AB 2842 WAS
ON CONSENT. ITEM NUMBER 25 AB
2959 BY MISS ORTEGA. THIS
MEASURE IS ON CALL REYES. REYES
I WILSON I WILSON I ZUBIATE.
THAT MEASURE PASSES. ITEM 26 AB
3083 BY MR. LACKEY WAS ON
CONSENT. ITEM 27 AB 3171 BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER SORIA. WHEN TING
. ALREADY PASSED. NÓ. TING NOT
VOTING WILSON I WILSON I WE ARE
STILL WAITING FOR ABSENT MEMBERS
. AS A REMINDER TO STAFF, PLEASE
FIND YOUR MEMBERS AND BRING THEM
HERE BEFORE CAUCUS. THANK YOU.
OKAY. SOUNDS GOOD. WELL THANK
YOU. YOU FOUND YOUR MEMBERS IN
BNP. WE'LL BE WAITING FOR BNP TO
COMPLETE THEIR DUTIES. OKAY.
THANKS, JOHN. SHE ON OUR WAY
BACK OR HEAD BACK? OKAY. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. OKAY. OKAY.
LIKE, IF YOU CAN STAND LIKE
YOU'RE CLOSER. NO, I KNOW, NO, I
AGREE. YEAH, YEAH. STAND. NO, I
DON'T IT DOESN'T FEEL RIGHT NOW,
BUT I DON'T SEE. NO YOU'RE RIGHT
I ON AB ITEM 27 ON AB 3171
SORIA. MR. TING VOTE CHANGE. NOT
VOTING TO AYE. THANK YOU, MR.
TING. NOT VOTING TO AYE. MISS
WILSON, SHE'S GOT THE GAVEL.
SHE'S GOT TO STICK AROUND FOR
US. JUST FOR A MINUTE. OKAY.
MOVING TO RECESS
.
ALL RIGHT, MR. CHAIRS, RETURN.
GOT A PROBLEM ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR TO MCCARTY. MCCARTY I,
ALANIS, ALANIS, I WIN, I WIN, I
ZIPPER ZIPPER I THE CONSENT
CALENDAR IS ADOPTED. ITEM NUMBER
ONE AB 1839 WAS ON CONSENT. ITEM
NUMBER TWO. AB 1856 BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER TO WHEN? WHEN I. ITEM
NUMBER THREE AB 1931 FAILED.
ITEM NUMBER FOUR AB 1954 WAS ON
CONSENT. ITEM NUMBER FIVE AB
2036 WAS ON CONSENT. ITEM NUMBER
SIX AB 2106 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
MCCARTY. WHEN NGUYEN I. ITEM
NUMBER SEVEN AB 2138, WAS ON
CONSENT. ITEM NUMBER EIGHT AB
2168. THIS MEASURE WAS ON CALL
MCCARTY. MCCARTY. I ALANIS
ALANIS, KNOW WHEN NOT VOTING
ZEBRA. ZEBRA I THAT MEASURE
PASSES. ITEM NUMBER NINE AB 2210
WAS PULLED BY COMMITTEE. ITEM
NUMBER TEN AB 2279 WAS ON
CONSENT. ITEM NUMBER 11 AB 2308
MCCARTY. MCCARTY YEA ON AB 2308
DAVIS DAVIES. MCCARTY. I NGUYEN
NGUYEN I. ITEM NUMBER 12 AB 2310
WAS ON CONSENT. ITEM NUMBER 13
AB 2332 WAS ON CONSENT. ITEM
NUMBER 14 AB 2354 BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER BONTA ALANIS ALANIS. NOT
VOTING. ITEM NUMBER 15 AB 2382
BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER RUBIO NGUYEN
NGUYEN I. ITEM NUMBER 16 AB 2478
WAS ON CONSENT. ITEM NUMBER 17,
AB 2547 HAS BEEN DISPENSED WITH.
ITEM NUMBER 18, AB 2624 WAS ON
CONSENT. ITEM NUMBER 19 AB 2673,
BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER MCCARTY
NGUYEN NGUYEN I, ITEM NUMBER 20,
AB 2691 WAS PULLED BY THE
AUTHOR. ITEM NUMBER 21, AB 2692
WAS PULLED BY COMMITTEE. ITEM
NUMBER 22 AB 27 THREE 2763 WAS
ON CONSENT. ITEM 23 AB 2782 WAS
PULLED BY THE AUTHOR. ITEM 24 AB
2842 WAS ON CONSENT. ITEM NUMBER
25 AB 2959 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
ORTEGA NGUYEN NGUYEN I ZABIR
ZABIR I, ITEM NUMBER 26, AB 3083
WAS ON CONSENT AND ITEM 27, AB
3171 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER SORIA
NGUYEN NGUYEN I. WE ARE
ADJOURNED. THANK YOU GUYS