GOOD MORNING. WE WILL CALL THIS
HEARING TO ORDER. WE WILL START
AS A SUBCOMMITTEE. JUST THE VICE
CHAIR AND I. SO WE WON'T TAKE
ANY ACTION JUST YET. SO FIRST OF
ALL, WE'RE GOING TO LIST THE
BILLS THAT ARE PULLED OFF THE
CALENDAR FOR TODAY. WE THEY WERE
THEY WERE NOT UPDATED. THEY WERE
UPDATED. THEY WERE UPDATED. BUT
I'LL JUST LIST THEM ONCE AGAIN
FOR THE RECORD, AB 2296 VÆ
VALLAPUDUA AB 2391 VINCE FONG AB
2470 JOE PATTERSON AB 2603. LO
AB 2604. LO AB 2790. PACHECO AB
2823 JOE PATTERSON AB 2824.
MCCARTY AB 2850. RODRIGUEZ AB
2964. HART AB 3032. HOOVER AB
3071. PATTERSON AND AB THREE
3231. VÆ VALLAPUDUA. AGAIN,
THESE BILLS WILL NOT BE HEARD
TODAY NOR TOMORROW, SO THEY'RE
OFF THE CALENDAR. AND WITH THAT
WE WILL PROCEED WITH THE REGULAR
BUSINESS. OUR FIRST AUTHOR THAT
SIGNED IN HERE THIS MORNING IS
MISS ADDIS. PLEASE COME UP. 82
295 AB 2295. WHEN YOU'RE READY.
I TOOK YOUR PENCIL. YES. PLEASE
PROCEED. THANK YOU. CHAIR I SURE
APPRECIATE YOU GETTING US
STARTED EARLY TODAY. I'M HERE TO
PRESENT AB 2295, THE CHILD SEX
ABUSE JUSTICE ACT THAT REMOVES
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR
CRIMINAL CASES INVOLVING THE
SEXUAL ABUSE OF A MINOR,
ALLOWING TWO MAIN THINGS. ONE,
FOR SURVIVORS TO SEEK JUSTICE
AND TWO, THE OPPORTUNITY FOR
REPEAT CHILD SEX OFFENDERS TO BE
STOPPED. I WANT TO THANK OUR
WITNESSES WHO ARE BRAVELY
JOINING US AND HAVE DRIVEN GREAT
DISTANCES TO BE WITH US TODAY. I
ALSO WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO
ALL SURVIVORS AND THEIR FAMILIES
WHO FIGHT THIS BATTLE DAILY.
SOME OF THEM ARE ABLE TO SPEAK
OUT, BUT SOME OF THEM CANNOT,
AND WE KNOW THAT THEY'RE IN THIS
FIGHT WITH US NO MATTER WHAT. I
WANT TO THANK THE FORMER
OPPOSITION WHO HELPED MAKE THIS
LEGISLATION BETTER, AS WELL AS
COMMITTEE STAFF AND MY OWN STAFF
FOR THEIR TIRELESS WORK. AND TO
BE CLEAR, I DO ACCEPT THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS. SO A
LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND AND
CHILD SEX ABUSE OCCURS ACROSS
ALL SOCIETAL GROUPS AND WITH ALL
TYPES OF INSTITUTIONS. ACTIONS.
STUDIES SHOW THAT AT LEAST 1 IN
5 GIRLS AND 1 IN 13 BOYS ARE
SEXUALLY ABUSED AS CHILDREN, AND
TRAUMA FROM CHILD SEX ABUSE
AFFECTS SURVIVORS THROUGHOUT
THEIR LIVES, INCLUDING DISRUPTED
NEURODEVELOPMENT, PTSD,
INCREASED RISK OF ALCOHOLISM,
DRUG ADDICTION, DEPRESSION, AND
FAMILIAL OR RELATIONSHIP ISSUES.
UNLIKE OTHER CRIMES, THE
TENDENCY TO COMMIT CHILD SEX
ABUSE DOES NOT DECREASE
SIGNIFICANTLY IN FREQUENCY OR
SEVERITY AS OFFENDERS AGE. SOME
CHILD SEX PREDATORS ABUSE A HIGH
NUMBER OF VICTIMS AND CONTINUE
ABUSING CHILDREN WELL INTO THEIR
ELDERLY YEARS. ONE STUDY FOUND
THAT OF CHILD SEX OFFENDERS, 30%
HAD TEN OR MORE VICTIMS AND 55%
REPORTED THAT THEIR OFFENSES
BECAME MORE SERIOUS OVER TIME.
ADDITIONALLY, WHEN CHILD SEX
ABUSE ABUSERS ARE NOT CONVICTED,
THEY ARE NOT ADDED TO THE SEX
OFFENDER REGISTRY, WHICH LEAVES
THEM FREE TO ACCESS PAID AND
VOLUNTEER POSITIONS THAT PUT
THEM IN CLOSE CONTACT WITH THE
VERY PEOPLE THEY SHOULD BE AWAY
FROM, WHICH ARE CHILDREN. SO WE
HAVE A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS,
WHICH IS AN ARBITRARY DEADLINE
FOR PROSECUTING CHILD SEX ABUSE.
AND THAT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
IS BOTH UNFAIRLY SHORT. IT ALSO
PREVENTS ACCESS TO JUSTICE, AND
IT CAN ALLOW REPEAT CHILD SEX
OFFENDERS CONTINUED ACCESS TO
CHILDREN. CURRENTLY, THE STATUTE
OF LIMITATIONS FOR CHILD SEX
ABUSE IS BY A PERSON'S 40TH
BIRTHDAY. HOWEVER, OVER HALF OF
SURVIVORS DON'T COME FORWARD
UNTIL 50 OR AFTERWARDS. ONE
STUDY SHOWED THAT THE MAJORITY
OF SURVIVORS COME FORWARD
BETWEEN 50 AND 70 YEARS OLD, AND
SOME DON'T COME FORWARD UNTIL
THEY'RE BETWEEN 70 AND 90, AND
THERE'S COMPLEX REASONS FOR THIS
THAT INCLUDE TRAUMA, INABILITY
TO RECOGNIZE THAT ABUSE HAPPENED
UNTIL MUCH LATER, SHAME AND
SELF-BLAME, FEAR OR REAL EXCUSE
ME? FEAR OF REAL OR PERCEIVED
RETRIBUTION OR NOT BEING
BELIEVED. STIGMA LACK OF TRUSTED
ADULTS AND NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES
OF DISCLOSURE SUCH AS LOSING
RELATIONSHIPS OR FURTHER
VICTIMIZATION. THE REALITY IS
THAT THE STATUTES OF LIMITATION
FOR CHILD SEXUAL, SEXUAL ABUSE
ARE ARBITRARY AND UNFAIR. THEY
SILENCE SURVIVORS THEY PRESENT,
PREVENT SURVIVORS FROM SEEKING
JUSTICE, AND THEY CAN LEAVE
OTHER CHILDREN VULNERABLE TO
OFFENDERS, SOMETIMES FOR YEARS.
SO AB 2295 CREATES A SOLUTION BY
REMOVING THE DEADLINE BY WHICH A
CHILD SEX ABUSE SURVIVOR MUST
COME FORWARD, ALLOWING THEM,
REGARDLESS OF AGE, TO SEEK
JUSTICE AND POSSIBLY PREVENTING
REPEAT SEX ABUSERS FROM FUTURE
VICTIMIZATION. OFTEN, THIS BILL
DOES APPLY PROSPECTIVELY,
MEANING ONLY TO FUTURE CASES OF
CHILD SEX ABUSE THAT OCCUR
BEGINNING JANUARY 1ST, 2025, OR
IN CASES WHERE THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS HAS NOT RUN OF THAT
DATE. I DO WANT TO SAY THANK YOU
AGAIN TO THE FORMER OPPOSITION
FOR WORKING WITH US TO CRAFT
AMENDMENTS THAT ADD THREE
IMPORTANT REQUIREMENTS. THE
CRIME MUST INVOLVE SUBSTANTIAL
SEXUAL CONDUCT AS DEFINED IN
CURRENT LAW. THERE MUST BE
INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE THAT
CLEARLY AND CONVINCINGLY
CORROBORATES THE SURVIVOR'S
ALLEGATION, AND THE CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT MUST BE FILED WITHIN
ONE YEAR OF THE DATE OF THE
REPORT. THIS. THESE AMENDMENTS
HAVE MOVED MUCH OF THE
OPPOSITION TO NEUTRAL, AND WE
HAVE TWO WITNESSES HERE TODAY.
DEANNA HAMPTON, MOTHER OF TREVOR
MARTIN, AS WELL AS BRITTANY
BARBER, A SURVIVOR AND ADVOCATE
FROM MY DISTRICT. SO I WANT TO
TURN IT OVER TO OUR WITNESSES
FOR THEIR STORIES. THANK YOU.
YOU HAVE TWO WITNESSES, TWO
MINUTES EACH. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN. AND MEMBERS. MY NAME
IS DEANNA HAMPTON. I'M HERE
TODAY TO EXPRESS MY STRONG
SUPPORT OF AB 2295 TO ELIMINATE
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR
CRIMINAL CASES OF CHILD SEXUAL
ASSAULT. MY SON, TREVOR MARTIN,
WAS A VICTIM OF SEXUAL ABUSE BY
A PRIEST AT THE AGE OF TEN. AND
I'M HERE TO ADVOCATE ON BEHALF
OF ALL CHILDREN OF SEXUAL ABUSE.
I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT THIS
LEGISLATIVE CHANGE IS CRUCIAL TO
ENSURE JUSTICE FOR SURVIVORS,
AND HOLDING PERPETRATORS
ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR
UNSPEAKABLE ACTIONS. I'VE
WITNESSED FIRSTHAND THE IMMENSE
CHALLENGES SURVIVORS OF CHILD
SEXUAL ASSAULT FACE IN COMING
FORWARD WITH JUSTICE. THE TRAUMA
INFLICTED UPON VICTIMS OF SUCH
ABUSE OFTEN LEAVES DEEP
EMOTIONAL SCARS THAT CAN TAKE
YEARS, IF NOT DECADES, TO
CONFRONT AND PROCESS. MANY
SURVIVORS STRUGGLE WITH THE
FEELING OF SHAME, GUILT, AND
FEAR OF RETALIATION, MAKING IT
INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT TO DISCLOSE
THEIR ABUSE AND PURSUE LEGAL
ACTION. MY SON, TREVOR MARTIN,
DID CONFRONT THE PRIEST, THE
ABUSER, AND IT WAS ONLY AFTER
TREVOR'S ATTEMPTED SUICIDE THAT
I LEARNED ABOUT THIS ABUSE BY
FATHER MICHAEL KELLY, A PRIEST
FROM THE STOCKTON DIOCESE. HAD I
NOT LEARNED ABOUT THE ABUSE AND
PURSUED JUSTICE FOR MY SON, I
TRULY DON'T KNOW IF OR WHEN
TREVOR WOULD HAVE BEEN READY TO
CONFRONT THE PRIEST, AND I WILL
NEVER KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS AS
MY SON PASSED AWAY IN 2016,
ELIMINATING THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS WILL GET DANGEROUS
PREDATORS AWAY FROM OUR MOST
VULNERABLE POPULATION, OUR
CHILDREN. IT WILL ALSO HELP
IDENTIFY INSTITUTIONS THAT HAVE
FACILITATED THE ABUSE OF OUR
CHILDREN. RESEARCH HAS SHOWN
THAT THE AVERAGE AGE IN WHICH A
SURVIVOR OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE
COMES FORWARD IS OFTEN WELL INTO
ADULTHOOD, IN THEIR 50S AND
LATER, SHOULD NEVER, EVER HAVE
THE HOPE OF ESCAPING PUNISHMENT
SIMPLY BECAUSE THEIR VICTIMS
WERE UNABLE TO COME FORWARD WITH
AN WITHIN AN ARBITRARY TIME
FRAME DICTATED BY LAW. AB 218,
PASSED IN 2019, GAVE SEXUAL
ABUSE VICTIMS ANOTHER
OPPORTUNITY TO COME FORWARD. IT
CREATED A THREE YEAR WINDOW
WHERE THE VICTIMS, WHO WERE
PREVIOUSLY BARRED FROM FILING BY
CALIFORNIA'S LAW, WERE ABLE TO
SEEK DAMAGES FROM SEXUAL ABUSE.
THIS DEMONSTRATES THE THERE WERE
HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF VICTIMS
THAT CAME FORWARD IN THAT
WINDOW. THIS DEMONSTRATES THE
URGENT NEED TO ELIMINATE THE
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TO ENSURE
THAT VICTIMS OF THESE CRIMES ARE
NOT DENIED JUSTICE. SOME ARGUE
THAT EVIDENCE DEGRADES WITH
TIME. VICTIMS OF TRAUMA LIKE
CHILD RAPE DO NOT FORGET THE
DETAILS. AT THE AGE OF 58, I CAN
RECALL EVERY DETAIL OF A
BABYSITTER THAT MOLESTED ME AT
THE AGE OF EIGHT. I HAVE
REMEMBERED FOR 50 YEARS. IN
CONCLUSION, I URGE YOU TO
SUPPORT AB 2295 AND ADVOCATE FOR
THE REMOVAL OF THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS FOR CRIMINAL CASES
OF CHILD SEXUAL ASSAULT. BY
DOING SO, WE CAN SEND A POWERFUL
MESSAGE THAT SURVIVORS VOICES
WILL BE HEARD, PERPETRATORS WILL
BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE, AND JUSTICE
WILL PREVAIL. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU. YOU HAVE A
LITTLE OVER A MINUTE. GOOD
MORNING. MY NAME IS BRITTANY
BARBER. I AM A SURVIVOR OF
CHILDHOOD SEXUAL ABUSE AND MY
ABUSER WAS MY BIOLOGICAL FATHER,
HE WAS ARRESTED IN 2019 WHEN
ANOTHER CHILD HAD COME FORWARD
DURING AN INVESTIGATION. HIS
PHYSICAL ABUSE LASTED THROUGH
CHILDHOOD, BUT THE MENTAL
HORRORS THAT HE PUT ME THROUGH
LAST UNTIL HE WAS ARRESTED IN
2019. AS A SURVIVOR, I CAN TELL
YOU A FEW THINGS. SHE'S RIGHT.
WE DO FEEL SHAME. WE DO FEEL
THAT OUR VOICES DON'T MATTER. WE
FEEL THAT NOBODY WILL CARE
ENOUGH OR THAT IT WON'T MATTER
ENOUGH TO TAKE OUT THAT ONE
PREDATOR. BUT LIKE THEY SAID,
THERE'S NEVER JUST ONE PREDATOR,
OR THERE'S NEVER JUST ONE
VICTIM. THERE'S ALWAYS MULTIPLES
. WITH EVERYONE OF THE PREDATORS
THAT I'VE EVER HEARD OF. AND WE
SHOULDN'T BE SILENCED BY
ANYTHING THAT BY A LAW THAT IS
ARBITRARY AND IT TAKES US LONGER
TO PROCESS BECAUSE A LOT OF THE
TIMES WE ARE TRYING TO PROCESS
THINGS, YOU'RE EXPECTING
CHILDREN TO PROCESS THESE THINGS
WHEN THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE THE
FACULTIES TO UNDERSTAND THAT A
LOT OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE
HAPPENED TO THEM WERE WRONG. WE
DON'T HAVE SUPPORT. WE HAVE
SECRETS. WE HAVE TO KEEP THINGS
HIDDEN, AND WE HAVE TO MAINTAIN
A FACADE TO EVERYBODY AROUND US
THAT EVERYTHING IS OKAY, AND
THERE SHOULD NEVER BE A TIMELINE
ON A CHILD BEING ABLE TO COME
FORWARD AND SAY THAT WHAT
HAPPENED WAS NOT OKAY. THERE
SHOULD NEVER BE A TIMELINE ON
OUR CHILDREN'S FUTURES AND THEIR
EMOTIONS AND THEIR MENTAL STATES
. OKAY, THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TESTIMONY, OTHERS IN SUPPORT,
PLEASE COME FORWARD.
MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS, MY NAME
IS DAVID BUNN. I'M A VOLUNTEER
WITH THE SURVIVORS. SURE. HOLD
ON ONE SECOND. ARE YOU FOR
SUPPORT? YES. I'M GONNA HAVE YOU
GO UP TO THAT MICROPHONE RIGHT
THERE. I JUST NEED YOUR NAME,
YOUR ORGANIZATION, AND OBVIOUSLY
YOU'RE HERE FOR SUPPORT. AND IF
THERE'S ANY OTHERS, PLEASE LINE
UP AS WELL. DAVID BOWEN, WITH
SURVIVORS NETWORK OF THOSE
ABUSED BY PRIESTS AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. ALL RIGHT.
SEEING NO OTHERS ANY IN
OPPOSITION IN. SO PLEASE COME UP
. GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MEMBERS. IGNACIO HERNANDEZ, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ATTORNEYS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
STATEWIDE ASSOCIATION OF
CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS, WE
WERE OPPOSED. I WANT TO THANK
THE AUTHOR AND THE COMMITTEE FOR
THE AMENDMENTS WE'RE REVIEWING
THEM. WE MAY HAVE A COUPLE OF
SUGGESTIONS, GOING FORWARD. SO
LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING
COLLABORATIVELY, AS BILL MOVES
FORWARD. THANK YOU. ANY OTHERS
SEEING? NO OTHERS TURNING TO
COMMITTEE, MR. NGUYEN. THANK YOU
SIR. I WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR
FOR BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD
AND THANK YOU BOTH FOR COMING
OUT AND SHARING YOUR STORY. I
KNOW THAT THAT WASN'T EASY. YOU
KNOW, AND I KNOW THAT THERE ARE
MANY MORE JUST LIKE YOU THAT ARE
OUT THERE. BUT BEING SO BRAVE
AND SHARING THIS STORY AND
LETTING OTHERS KNOW THAT THERE
IS SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO BE
DONE AND THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO
LIVE WITH THIS FOR THE REST OF
THEIR LIFE. I HAVE TWO LITTLE
GIRLS, AND SO WHEN I HEAR YOUR
STORY, IT MAKES ME THINK OF MY
LITTLE GIRLS AS WELL TOO. BUT
IT'S NOT JUST LITTLE GIRLS.
THERE ARE BOYS THAT THIS
HAPPENED TO. ADULT. I MEAN, YOU
KNOW, IT RUNS THE GAMUT. BUT,
BEING SO BRAVE AND SHARING YOUR
STORY THAT I KNOW MANY, MANY
OTHERS ARE NOT WILLING TO OR NOT
READY TO OR STILL FEEL THAT
SHAME OR THAT THEY'RE AT FAULT,
YOU REALLY ARE A ROLE MODEL FOR
OTHERS THAT ARE GOING THROUGH
THIS THAT REALLY NEED TO COME
OUT, BECAUSE I'VE MET OTHER
INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE SHARED
STORIES LIKE THIS WITH ME. AND I
KNOW SOMETIMES IT JUST LIFTS
THIS WHOLE ENTIRE WEIGHT OFF OF
THEM. JUST TO BE ABLE TO TALK
ABOUT IT AND, AND SHARE THE
TRAUMA THAT HAPPENED TO THEM. SO
I WANT TO THANK YOU AGAIN FOR,
BRINGING THIS FORWARD. AND WHEN
THE TIME IS APPROPRIATE, I WILL
SUPPORT THIS BILL. THANK YOU. SO
WE'RE STILL OPERATING AS A
SUBCOMMITTEE. OTHERWISE I'M SURE
WE WOULD HAVE A I'D BE MOVING OR
SHE'D BE MOVING AND I'D BE
SECONDING AS WELL, TO THE
SURVIVORS, THANK YOU FOR COMING
FORWARD, AS A PRIOR CRIMES
AGAINST CHILDREN'S DETECTIVE
WITH THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND
WORKING WITH MANY SURVIVORS,
VICTIMS AND, HEARING THEIR CRIES
FOR HELP AND TRYING TO BE A
VOICE FOR THEM IS SOMETHING I
TRY AND CONTINUE HERE AS WELL.
AND GLAD TO SEE THAT MY
COLLEAGUES AS WELL ARE DOING
THIS ALSO. SO I APPRECIATE YOU
FOR BEING HERE. I THANK YOU, THE
AUTHOR, FOR HAVING THIS AND IF
YOU WANT TO CLOSE, YOU CAN CLOSE
. WELL, I WANT TO SAY FIRST AND
FOREMOST, THANK YOU TO OUR
WITNESSES. WE ALL KNOW HOW
CHALLENGING IT IS TO SHARE YOUR
STORY AND TRAVEL GREAT DISTANCES
TO DO SO. AND I THINK IT SPEAKS
TO HOW IMPORTANT THIS ISSUE IS,
AB 2295 WILL END THE ARBITRARY
TIME LIMIT ON WHEN JUSTICE CAN
BE SOUGHT. IT WILL MAKE A
TREMENDOUS DIFFERENCE FOR
SURVIVORS, FOR CHILDREN, FOR
THEIR FAMILIES ACROSS
CALIFORNIA, BY ALLOWING
SURVIVORS TO SEEK JUSTICE AND
HEALING, BY PROTECTING CHILDREN
FROM REPEAT SEX ABUSERS, AND BY
ELEVATING SURVIVORS VOICES TO
REDUCE THE STIGMA AROUND CHILD
SEXUAL ABUSE. SO WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
WE'LL MOVE FORWARD NEXT. THANK
YOU GUYS FOR COMING.
25, 19 AND 36. WE'RE GOING TO
START WITH 2519 WITH MR.
MAIENSCHEIN. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, MR. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS
UNDER CURRENT LAW, PENAL CODE
SECTION 29805 PRESCRIBES A
NUMBER OF MISDEMEANOR OFFENSES
THAT, UPON CONVICTION, PROHIBIT
A PERSON FROM POSSESSING A
FIREARM FOR A PERIOD OF TEN
YEARS. SOME OF THESE OFFENSES
INCLUDE THREATENING PUBLIC
OFFICIALS, ASSAULT AND CHILD
ABUSE. HOWEVER IF A DEFENDANT IS
CHARGED WITH ONE OF THESE CRIMES
AND IS GRANTED MISDEMEANOR
DIVERSION, THERE IS NO BAN ON
FIREARM POSSESSION. AB 2519
PROHIBITS A DEFENDANT WHO
RECEIVES MISDEMEANOR DIVERSION
FOR A CRIME LISTED IN PENAL CODE
SECTION 29805 FROM POSSESSING A
FIREARM UNTIL THEY HAVE
SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED DIVERSION
. THANK YOU. AND I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU.
ANY WITNESSES HERE IN SUPPORT?
NAME AN ORGANIZATION, PLEASE.
GOOD MORNING, SASHA HOROWITZ,
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
IVY FITZPATRICK, CALIFORNIA DA'S
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. ANY OTHERS IN SUPPORT?
SEEING NO OTHER ANY OPPOSITION.
ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE FOR
OPPOSITION, COMMITTEE. MISS
REYES, ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY SHE
MAY HAVE QUESTIONS. THIS IS ON
25, 19. ORIGINALLY NUMBER ITEM
SIX.
WROTE. IS IT ACCURATE THAT THE
BILL NOW TAKES AWAY JUDICIAL
DISCRETION? THAT WAS. WELL THAT
IT TAKES AWAY JUDICIAL
DISCRETION. I DON'T BELIEVE IT
TAKES AWAY JUDICIAL DISCRETION.
IN ALL CASES, IT WOULD BE UNDER
THE SAME LAW AS OTHER, GUN
SURRENDER PROGRAMS, EXCEPT THIS
TIME IT ADDS DIVERSION TO THAT.
YEAH. AND I JUST CONFIRMED IT
DOES NOT TAKE AWAY JUDICIAL
DISCRETION. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU
. YOU MAY CLOSE. THANK YOU. AND
I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST. AND I
VOTE AS SOON AS WE, GET A
QUORUM, WE WILL DO THAT. WE'LL
MOVE TO YOUR NEXT ONE, HAVE HERE
AB 3064. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
AND MEMBERS, AB 3064 WOULD
REQUIRE MANUFACTURERS OF FIREARM
SAFETY DEVICES TO MARK THEIR
PRODUCTS WITH MAKE AND MODEL
INFORMATION, FIRE ARM SAFETY
DEVICES LOCK AND PREVENT
UNAUTHORIZED USERS FROM
DISCHARGING A FIREARM. SAFETY
DEVICES MUST BE USED WHEN A
FIREARM IS TRANSFERRED THROUGH A
DEALER OR WHEN TRANSPORTED IN
SENSITIVE PLACES. THE DOG. THE
DOJ MAINTAINS A ROSTER OF
LABORATORY TESTED, APPROVED
FIREARM SAFETY DEVICES LISTED BY
MANUFACTURER, MODEL NAME, AND
MODEL NUMBER. HOWEVER,
MANUFACTURERS ARE NOT REQUIRED
TO PLACE THIS SAME INFORMATION
ON THE ACTUAL DEVICES, MAKING IT
NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE FOR LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND CONSUMERS TO
TELL ONE FROM ANOTHER, MUCH LESS
AN APPROVED DEVICE, VERSUS AN
INEFFECTIVE LOOK ALIKE. MORE
IMPORTANTLY, IF A CONSUMER OWNS
A SAFETY DEVICE THAT HAS BEEN
RECALLED, IS DEFECTIVE, OR HAS A
WARRANTY ISSUE, THEY ARE UNABLE
TO IDENTIFY IF THEIR PARTICULAR
DEVICE IS AFFECTED. THIS MAY
RESULT IN THE CONTINUED USE OF
AN UNSAFE OR INEFFECTIVE DEVICE.
AB 3064 WILL REQUIRE A FIREARM
SAFETY DEVICE MANUFACTURERS TO
PLACE, MAKE AND MODEL
INFORMATION IN A VISIBLE
LOCATION ON THE PRODUCT. THE
BILL ALSO REQUIRES MANUFACTURERS
TO NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE IN THE EVENT OF A
RECALL, AND IT AUTHORIZES THE
DEPARTMENT TO CHARGE A FEE ON
MANUFACTURERS TO HAVE THEIR
DEVICE LISTED ON THE ROSTER.
THIS IS A COMMON SENSE BILL TO
ASSIST BOTH LAW ENFORCEMENT AND
CONSUMERS. I RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST YOUR AYE VOTE AND WITH
ME TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT IS
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL CANDICE
CHUNG. THANK YOU. YOU BOTH BE
TESTIFYING, I'M. WELL, I EITHER
WAY, YOU GUYS GOT FIVE MINUTES
TOGETHER. OKAY. GOOD MORNING,
MR. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, MY NAME
IS CANDICE CHUNG. I'M A DEPUTY
ATTORNEY GENERAL WITH THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, WHICH IS THE PROUD
SPONSOR OF AB 3064, I'M JOINED
BY OUR BUREAU OF FIREARMS
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, PETER WALD,
WHO WILL BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER
ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS THAT THE
COMMITTEE MIGHT HAVE. ON BEHALF
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, I'D
LIKE TO THANK ASSEMBLY MEMBER
MAIENSCHEIN FOR AUTHORING THIS
BILL TO PROMOTE THE EFFECTIVE,
SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS AND TO
MODERNIZE THE REPORTING PROCESS.
AS THE MEMBER MENTIONED, CURRENT
LAW ALREADY REQUIRES THE USE OF
DOJ APPROVED FIREARM SAFETY
DEVICE IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES,
AND IT'S LIKELY THAT THE NEED
FOR SUCH DEVICES WILL CONTINUE
TO GROW. BUT RIGHT NOW, THERE
ARE OVER 2300 DIFFERENT MODELS
ON THE DOJ'S ROSTER, AND OF
THOSE, APPROXIMATELY 75% DO NOT
HAVE ANY MARKINGS ON THEM ON THE
ACTUAL DEVICE. AND THAT'S
BECAUSE MANUFACTURERS ARE NOT
REQUIRED TO DO SO. AND A LOT OF
THESE DEVICES LOOK EXACTLY LIKE
WITHOUT MARKINGS. IT'S NEARLY
IMPOSSIBLE FOR BOTH LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND
CONSUMERS TO TELL JUST BY
LOOKING AT THE ITEM. IF IT
MATCHES ONE OF THE MODELS ON THE
ROSTER AND THUS LEGALLY
COMPLIANT. AND THIS IS REALLY A
CONSUMER SAFETY ISSUE AS WELL.
RECALLS DO HAPPEN, THERE WERE
SEVERAL MODELS THAT WERE
RECALLED BY THE US CONSUMER
PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION IN
OCTOBER AND THEN ANOTHER THREE
IN JUST IN FEBRUARY. SO THESE
DEVICES ARE DESIGNED TO PREVENT
UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO DEADLY
WEAPONS. MAYBE IT'S, YOU KNOW,
PERHAPS BY CURIOUS CHILDREN,
PERHAPS IT'S BY THIEVES. SO THE
CONSEQUENCES OF UNKNOWINGLY
USING A FAULTY DEVICE ARE
SERIOUS. AND POSSIBLY TRAGIC,
REGARDING CONCERNS THAT WERE
RAISED BY THE OPPOSITION, I WILL
NOTE THAT THIS BILL DOES NOT
EXPAND AND OR ALTER WHEN AND HOW
AN APPROVED DEVICE IS TO BE
USED, NOR DOES IT REQUIRE
MANUFACTURERS TO MAKE ANY OTHER
CHANGES TO THEIR DEVICES. IT
SIMPLY REQUIRES MANUFACTURERS TO
BEGIN PLACING MAKE AND MODEL
INFORMATION ON THEIR PRODUCTS.
JUST LIKE MOST OTHER CONSUMER
DEVICES ON THE MARKET TODAY,
THIS BILL WILL IMPOSE AN ANNUAL
FEE ON MANUFACTURERS FOR EACH
FSD MODEL PLACED ON THE ROSTER.
THIS IS SIMILAR TO THE FEE
THAT'S CHARGED TO PLACE PRODUCTS
ON THE HANDGUN ROSTER. THE FEE
WILL BE TIED TO AND CANNOT
EXCEED THE DOJ'S COST TO
MAINTAIN THE ROSTER. THIS IS A
REASONABLE FEE. IT'S NOT. IT'S
UNLIKELY TO CREATE A BURDEN ON
MANUFACTURERS, JUST FOR
REFERENCE, MANUFACTURERS PAY AN
ANNUAL FEE OF $200 FOR EACH
MODEL PLACED ON THE HANDGUN
ROSTER. ADDITIONALLY, THIS BILL
WILL MODERNIZE THE EXISTING
PROCESS FOR REPORTING CERTAIN
FIREARM TRANSACTIONS, SUCH AS
THE PURCHASE OF ANTIQUES AND
CURIOS, OR WHEN A NEW RESIDENT
MOVES INTO THE STATE BRINGING
THEIR GUNS WITH THEM. EVEN
THOUGH THE DOJ'S COMPUTER
SYSTEMS CAN CURRENTLY ACCEPT
THESE REPORTS ELECTRONICALLY,
EXISTING LAW SPECIFICALLY
DIRECTS THAT THE FORMS BE
SUBMITTED TO THE DOJ BY MAIL OR
DELIVERED IN PERSON, AND THEN.
WHICH MEANS THAT THIS
INFORMATION MUST THEN BE
MANUALLY INPUTTED INTO THE
SYSTEM AND TRANSFERRED INTO THE
DATABASES. THIS BILL WILL SIMPLY
UPDATE THE STATUTE TO MAKE CLEAR
THAT ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION IS AN
ADDITIONAL OPTION FOR SUBMITTING
THESE FORMS, WHICH WILL BE
EASIER AND MORE EFFICIENT FOR
BOTH APPLICANTS AND FOR THE DOJ
STAFF. I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME
AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. GOOD. OKAY
ANY OTHERS IN SUPPORT, PLEASE.
COME UP, GIVE ME YOUR NAME AND
ORGANIZATION. THÀNH OKAY. SEEING
NONE, ANY OPPOSITION, PLEASE
COME UP TO THE TABLE. YOU'LL
HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE, SAM PEREZ,
REPRESENTING GUN OWNERS OF
CALIFORNIA. I'D LIKE TO POINT
OUT A COUPLE OF THINGS RIGHT OFF
THE TOP. MANDATORY. MANDATORY
STORAGE OF GUNS IN THE HOME IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. IT WAS
DECLARED SO IN, HELLER VERSUS
WASHINGTON, D.C, IN 2008. AND
THEN TWO YEARS LATER, IN 2010,
THE SUPREME COURT CAME BACK AND
SAID, THIS IS SO IMPORTANT THAT
THIS ALSO APPLIES TO STATE AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. YOU CANNOT
MAKE MANDATE SAFE STORAGE. NOW
THAT IS THE BACKGROUND. AND
ULTIMATELY WE WILL FIND OUT IN
COURT. YES, THERE WAS ONE CASE
THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE
SUPREME COURT, AND THE SUPREME
COURT DECIDED NOT TO TAKE IT
BECAUSE IT WAS NOT THE RIGHT
CASE, SECONDLY, THIS, MANDATING
OF A CERTIFIED, FIREARM SAFETY
EQUIPMENT, LOCKS, WHATEVER YOU
WANT TO CALL IT, PUTS THE LAW
ABIDING CITIZEN IN PERIL,
BECAUSE IF A MANUFACTURER,
EITHER DROPS OFF THE LIST FOR
WHATEVER REASON, THEY NO LONGER
MAKE THAT MODEL OF LOCK, IT'S
BECOME OBSOLETE. THEY HAVE NEW
MODELS AND THERE ARE MILLIONS OF
THESE IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. NOW SO LAW ABIDING
CITIZENS ARE USING UNAPPROVED
LOCKS. IF SOMETHING WERE TO
HAPPEN, THEY WOULD BE CHARGED
WITH A CRIME OF HAVING, THEIR
FIREARMS STORED WITHIN
CALIFORNIA. NOT APPROVED SAFETY
DEVICE. THAT IS A BIG ISSUE. AND
WITH REGARDS TO THE COST TO
MANUFACTURERS, IT'S OBVIOUS THAT
THOSE PEOPLE WHO MAKE COMMENTS
THAT THIS IS NOT A BIG COST,
EVERYTHING IS A BIG COST. AND
THIS WILL INCREMENTALLY DROP OFF
THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ON THE LOWER
END OF THE ECONOMIC SPECTRUM,
FROM BEING ABLE TO AFFORD TO
DEFEND THEMSELVES IN THEIR HOMES
AND PROTECT THEIR HOMES WITH
WHATEVER MEANS THEY BELIEVE IS
NECESSARY TO DO SO. NOW,
ACCIDENTS IN THE HOME IS A VERY
RARE OCCURRENCE IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. IT REALLY IS. AND
THE NUMBER OF DEATHS THAT OCCUR
BECAUSE OF, YOU KNOW, ACCESS TO
FIREARMS BY UNAUTHORIZED PEOPLE
IN THE HOMES IS VERY SMALL. BUT
THIS IS PUTTING MILLIONS OF
LAWFUL GUN OWNERS IN HARM'S WAY
BECAUSE IF FOR WHATEVER REASON,
I POINTED OUT THEIR LOCKS AND
THIS DOESN'T EVEN ADDRESS THE
ISSUE OF SAFES, SAFES ARE NOT
INCLUDED IN THIS THING. IF THEY
FALL OFF THE LIST, THESE PEOPLE
ARE NOW, BASICALLY SETTING
THEMSELVES UP FOR, CRIMINAL
CHARGES. IF SOMETHING WERE TO
HAPPEN, HEAVEN FORBID, FOR THOSE
REASONS, THE NATIONAL RIFLE
ASSOCIATION AND OTHER PRO-GUN
ORGANIZATIONS ARE, IN OPPOSITION
TO THIS BILL. NOW, WE ARE THE
ONES WHO PROMOTE FIREARM SAFETY
IN THE HOME MORE THAN ANYONE IN
THE COUNTRY. AND HERE IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DOES NOT
HAVE A VERY GOOD RECORD OF
ENFORCING ARMING THE GENERAL
PUBLIC OF WHAT THE LAWS ARE.
THEY DON'T SEND OUT NOTICES TO
ALL GUN OWNERS AS TO WHAT THEY
MIGHT DO. SO HOW ARE PEOPLE TO
KNOW ANY OF THIS STUFF? THIS
BILL IS COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY.
IT WILL PUT LAW ABIDING CITIZENS
IN HARM'S WAY. AND BOTTOM LINE,
MANDATORY GOVERNMENT IMPOSED
SAFE STORAGE IN THE HOME OR
LOCKED UP, STORAGE IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. IF ANYBODY HAS ANY
QUESTIONS, I'D BE HAPPY TO
ANSWER. THANK YOU. ANY OTHERS IN
OPPOSITION, PLEASE STEP UP.
NAME? ORGANIZATION RICK TRAVIS,
CALIFORNIA RIFLE PISTOL
ASSOCIATION, SAFARI CLUB
INTERNATIONAL. WE OPPOSE. MY
NAME IS ELIZABETH ROSE. MAY, I
HAVE A CCW AND I HUNT AND I'M
OPPOSED. THANK YOU. ANY OTHERS
IN OPPOSED? NO. OTHERS IN
OPPOSITION. SEEING. NONE.
COMMITTEE. ANY QUESTIONS? NO
QUESTIONS. YOU MAY CLOSE. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS, RESPECTFULLY REQUEST
AN. I VOTE. GREAT. WE'RE STILL
IN A SUBCOMMITTEE, AND WE'LL GET
BACK TO YOU ON THAT. THANK YOU
FOR COMING IN. LOOKS LIKE I HAVE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, ASSEMBLYWOMAN
MISS DAVIES, IF YOU WANT TO COME
UP, WE HAVE ITEM NUMBER TEN AB
2406. IT'S ALL YOURS. 2406.
RIGHT. 2518 OH 2518. WE CAN DO
THAT. FIRST YOU WANT TO DO THAT
ONE FIRST. YOU GOT IT. 2518.
ITEM NUMBER 12. THANK YOU.
ALRIGHTY THANK YOU, MR. VICE
CHAIR. TODAY I'M HERE TO PRESENT
AB 2518. I FIRST WANT TO THANK
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR WORKING WITH
MY STAFF AND STAKEHOLDERS ON
THIS MEASURE. UNDER CURRENT LAW,
IF AN ADULT IS CONVICTED OF A
FELON, FELONY OFFENSE SUCH AS
MURDER UPON THE RELEASE AS A
CONDITION OF THEIR RELEASE, THEY
ARE PROHIBITED FROM OWNING OR
POSSESSING A FIREARM FOR LIFE.
HOWEVER, THE SAME CONDITION DOES
NOT APPLY TO A MINOR CONVICTED
OF THE SAME CRIME UPON THE
RELEASE. AS LONG AS THEY ARE
OVER 30, THEY MAY WALK INTO A
FIREARM STORE AND BEGIN THE
PROCESS OF ATTEMPTING TO
PURCHASE A FIREARM. AB 2518 IS A
COMMON SENSE AND NARROW BILL TO
SAY THAT ANY MINOR CONVICTED OF
THREE HEINOUS CRIMES MURDER OR
ATTEMPTED MURDER OR MANSLAUGHTER
IS SUBJECT TO THE SAME LIFETIME
BAN AS AN ADULT. AS NOTED IN
THIS TERRIFIC ANALYSIS FOR THIS
BILL, THIS TYPE OF PROPOSED
PROHIBITION FOR A MINOR WAS
DEEMED COMPLETELY CONSTITUTIONAL
AND PEOPLE VERSUS VILLA, WHEREIN
THE COURTS HELD A JUVENILE
SECOND AMENDMENT'S RIGHTS WERE
NOT INFRINGED BY A FIREARM
PROHIBITION. ACCORDING TO THE
LOS ANGELES TIMES, APPROXIMATELY
14% OF ALL VIOLENT CRIMES IN
BOTH ORANGE COUNTY AND SAN DIEGO
COUNTIES WHERE I REPRESENT
INVOLVED THE USE OF A FIREARM.
MORE MUST BE DONE TO ENSURE
CRIMINALS ARE NOT FINDING WAYS
TO CAUSE MORE TURMOIL FOR OUR
NEIGHBORHOODS. THIS TYPE OF
POLICY PROPOSAL HAS VERY
IMPLICATIONS AS RECENT TRAGEDIES
AND THE SCENARIO HAS OCCURRED
HERE IN CALIFORNIA. IN DECEMBER
OF 2023, A FRESNO COUNTY 14 YEAR
OLD KILLED HIS PARENTS AND
ATTEMPTED TO KILL HIS YOUNGER
SISTER AS WELL. IF AND WHEN HE
IS CONVICTED OF THESE CRIMES AT
THE AGE OF 30 AND UPON RELEASE,
HE WILL BE ABLE TO PURCHASE A
FIREARM. WE CANNOT LET
INDIVIDUALS LIKE HIM OWN
FIREARMS AGAIN. MEMBERS, I
FIRMLY BELIEVE IN SECOND
CHANCES. I BELIEVE PEOPLE CAN
REFORM THEMSELVES AND AFTER
THEIR INCARCERATION, GO ON TO
LIVE FULL LIVES AND PRODUCTIVE
LIVES FOR THEIR COMMUNITIES.
HOWEVER, THERE IS NOTHING THAT
SAYS A PERSON CONVICTED OF A
CRIME LIKE MURDER NEEDS TO OWN A
FIREARM TO LIVE A PRODUCTIVE
LIFE. AFTER THEIR RELEASE.
AGAIN, THIS TYPE OF PROHIBITION
ALREADY APPLIES TO ADULTS. THERE
IS NO REASON SOMEONE WHO IS 17
AND COMMITS MURDER SHOULD BE
ABLE TO OWN A FIREARM AGAIN,
WHILE SOMEONE WHO IS 18 WILL NOT
BE ABLE TO. THIS IS A COMMON
SENSE CHANGE IN THE LAW TO HELP
GET GUNS OUT OF THE HANDS OF
CRIMINALS AND OFF OUR STREETS
WITH ME HERE TODAY TO TESTIFY IS
IN SUPPORT. IS BRADLEY
SCHOENBERG FROM THE ORANGE
COUNTY DA'S OFFICE. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. YOU HAVE TWO
MINUTES PER WITNESS TO
WITNESSES. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS
BRADLEY SHANE CLAIBORNE. I'M A
SENIOR DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
FOR THE ORANGE COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. AGAIN, I'M
BOTH HUMBLED AND HONORED TO
SPEAK BEFORE YOU ALL TODAY IN
SUPPORT OF ASSEMBLY BILL 2518.
I'D LIKE TO THANK MEMBER LORI
DAVIES FOR AUTHORING THIS BILL.
THERE'S A LOOPHOLE IN OUR SYSTEM
THAT WOULD ALLOW A PERSON WHO'S
COMMITTED MURDER TO LEGALLY OWN
A FIREARM. THIS BILL WOULD CLOSE
THAT LOOPHOLE. THERE HAS BEEN A
CLEAR PREFERENCE IN THE
LEGISLATURE AND IN THE COURTS TO
TREAT MINORS IN JUVENILE COURT
RATHER THAN CRIMINAL COURT, EVEN
WHEN THOSE CRIMES RESULT IN
TAKING SOMEONE'S LIFE, SUCH AS
MURDER. ONE OF THE MANY
BYPRODUCTS OF THIS SHIFT IS THAT
THOSE FOUND TO HAVE COMMITTED
MURDER WOULD BE ABLE TO OWN
FIREARMS AFTER THE AGE OF 30.
THIS IS TRUE REGARDLESS OF HOW
HEINOUS AND VIOLENT THEIR CRIMES
MAY HAVE BEEN. THIS CERTAINLY
COULD NOT BE THE INTENT OF SUCH
A SHIFT, AND MUST BE RESOLVED
WHEN LOOKING AT THE PEOPLE
AFFECTED BY THIS BILL, WE ARE
NOT TALKING ABOUT MINORS WHO HAD
YOUTHFUL INDISCRETION. WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT MURDERERS, THOSE
FOUND BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
TO HAVE KILLED OR ATTEMPTED TO
KILL ANOTHER HUMAN BEING.
CURRENTLY LEGISLATION IS ALREADY
IN PLACE TO PROHIBIT FIREARMS
FROM THOSE FOR THOSE ADULTS
DEEMED UNFIT AND DANGEROUS. THIS
BILL IS NARROWLY TAILORED TO
ADDRESS THE OWNERSHIP OF
FIREARMS BY THOSE THAT ARE A
DANGER TO SOCIETY. IN THE MOST
EXTREME WAYS. THE BILL IS
DRAFTED IN SUCH A WAY THAT DOES
NOT HAVE A BROAD, SWEEPING
EFFECT, BUT IS FOCUSED ON THOSE
CRIMES THAT ARE THAT ARE A
DIRECT THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY,
MURDER, ATTEMPTED MURDER,
MANSLAUGHTER. THESE ARE ALL
CRIMES IN WHICH THE PERPETRATOR
HAS SHOWN A DISREGARD FOR HUMAN
LIFE, AND AS SUCH, THAT PERSON
CANNOT BE TRUSTED TO OWN A
FIREARM. A FIREARM IN THE WRONG
HANDS CAN BE DEADLY. AB 2518 IS
A STEP TOWARD PREVENTING THAT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT
WITNESS OKAY. THANK YOU. OTHERS
IN SUPPORT, PLEASE LINE UP AND
STATE YOUR NAME AND POSITION
ONLY. RICK TRAVIS ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA RIFLE PISTOL
ASSOCIATION, GUN OWNERS OF
CALIFORNIA, WE SUPPORT. IVIE
FITZPATRICK, CALIFORNIA DA'S
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT. MY NAME
IS ELIZABETH ROSEMAY. I'M A TWO
TIME VIOLENT CRIME SURVIVOR AND
I AM IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION, PLEASE COME FORWARD
.
YOU HAVE FOUR MINUTES TOTAL. TWO
MINUTES PER WITNESS. THANK YOU,
GOOD MORNING. MARGO GEORGE, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION AND THE
PACIFIC JUVENILE DEFENDER CENTER
, THIS ERODES THE PROGRESS THAT
THE LEGISLATURE HAS MADE
REGARDING RECORD SEALING FOR
YOUTH. THE CURRENT LAW WAS A
CAREFUL BALANCING OF THE
COMPETING INTERESTS, AND THERE
IS NO DATA SHOWING A NEED TO
CHANGE THE LAW AT THIS POINT.
ONE THING THAT'S, IS IMPORTANT
TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IS
OVERCHARGING OF ASSAULTS AS
ATTEMPTED MURDERS IN JUVENILE
COURT. THERE IS NO RIGHT TO A
JURY TRIAL WHERE MANY OF THESE
CHARGES COULD NOT BE PROVED.
THERE ARE DUE TO BE ADJUDICATED
BY A COURT WITHOUT A JURY, WHICH
TAKES INTO ACCOUNT
REHABILITATION IN WHAT IS A
QUASI CIVIL CRIMINAL PROCEEDING.
THE CURRENT BAN ON FIREARMS TO
AGE 30 RECOGNIZES BOTH BRAIN
SCIENCE AND ADOLESCENT BRAIN
DEVELOPMENT. THE LASTING
CONSEQUENCES OF RECORDS NOT
BEING SEALED AFFECTS SOMEONE'S
EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION AND
HOUSING, AND PARTICULARLY
SALIENT IS NOTED IN THE ANALYSIS
IS THE ISSUE OF WHETHER SUCH A
BAN ON FIREARM POSSESSION IS
CONSTITUTIONAL, BASED ON A CIVIL
PROCEEDING, AND THIS IS AN ISSUE
THAT IS CURRENTLY BEFORE THE
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. SO
I THINK IT BEHOOVES THIS
COMMITTEE TO WAIT ON THE
RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT, WHICH IS
REVIEWING VIEWING THE CASE OF
RAHIMI VERSUS UNITED STATES,
WHICH IS RELATED TO THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF CIVIL
PROHIBITIONS ON FIREARMS
OWNERSHIP. ALTHOUGH THE RAHIMI
CASE DEALS WITH DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDERS, THE
INQUIRY PRINCIPALLY REVOLVES
AROUND PROHIBITING FIREARM
POSSESSION BASED ON A CIVIL
PROCEEDING. IT IS UNCLEAR AS TO
WHETHER THIS RESTRICTION IS THE
TYPE CONTEMPLATED BY THE FRAMERS
OF THE CONSTITUTION, BUT GIVEN
THE STANDARD EXPRESSED BY BRUEN,
WHICH LARGELY ABANDONED THE
EXISTING LEGAL STANDARDS FOR
OTHER BILL OF RIGHTS VIOLATIONS,
IT IS STRANGE AND ITS
APPLICATION LITIGATION, IF THIS
BILL IS PASSED, IS INEVITABLE.
INEVITABLE WE RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR NO VOTE. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. NEXT WITNESS A LITTLE
OVER A MINUTE. GOOD MORNING, MR.
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS. MICAH
DOKHTOUROFF. I'M A SENIOR STAFF
ATTORNEY AT THE ACLU OF NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA HERE TODAY ON BEHALF
OF ACLU CALIFORNIA ACTION IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. WE
RECOGNIZE THE TERRIBLE TRAGEDIES
THAT RESULT FROM GUN VIOLENCE.
BUT WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS
BILL MEANINGFULLY ADDRESSES
THOSE ISSUES. YOUTHFUL MISTAKES
DO NOT AND SHOULD NOT FOREVER
DEFINE OR LIMIT A YOUNG PERSON'S
LIFE. CURRENT LAW ALLOWS A BAN
ON POSSESSION OR USE OF A
FIREARM UNTIL THE AGE OF 30.
THIS IS CERTAINLY A SUFFICIENT
COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCE. ANY
ILLEGAL USE OR POSSESSION OF A
FIREARM AFTER THE AGE OF 30 IS
STILL PUNISHABLE AS A CRIME, BUT
THE PUNISHMENT PUNISHMENT SHOULD
NOT BE MADE HARSHER BECAUSE OF
YOUTHFUL MISTAKES. YOUTH WHO ARE
ADJUDICATED IN JUVENILE COURT
MUST HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE
PAST THEIR JUVENILE RECORDS,
RATHER THAN FACE LIFELONG
COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES. FOR
THESE REASONS, WE ARE IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK YOU
. THANK YOU OTHERS IN SUPPORT.
PLEASE I'M SORRY. THERE'S AN
OPPOSITION. PLEASE COME FORWARD.
MELANIE KIM, SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE AND
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. GOOD
MORNING, HENRY ORTIZ. ALL OF US
IN SACRAMENTO IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. MISS REYES. OKAY I
REALLY APPRECIATE I APPRECIATE
THE ANALYSIS PROVIDED BY THE
COMMITTEE. I THINK IT PUTS
THINGS INTO PERSPECTIVE OF WE
ARE TALKING ABOUT A JUVENILE. I
THINK THAT THE LAWS ARE VERY
DIFFERENT WHEN WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT A JUVENILE, THOUGH, AS WAS
MENTIONED, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A
JUVENILE JUVENILE WHO COMMITTED
A VERY SERIOUS CRIME, MURDER.
YOU'VE ALSO INCLUDED TWO OTHERS,
BUT VERY SPECIFICALLY MURDER IN
IN THE ANALYSIS, IT TALKS ABOUT
THE FACT THAT CALIFORNIA
REALIZES YOUTHFUL INDISCRETION
AND MISTAKES SHOULD NOT HAVE
ETERNAL CONSEQUENCES. BUT WHAT
WE'RE SAYING HERE IS THAT THEY
SHOULD. YOUTH WHO ARE
ADJUDICATED IN JUVENILE COURT
MUST HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE
PAST THEIR JUVENILE RECORDS,
RATHER THAN FACE LIFELONG
COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES. WE'RE
SAYING WE NO LONGER BELIEVE THAT
, ALSO, IT SAYS THAT, AND
SOMETHING THAT WAS MENTIONED, I
THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER
THAT WHEN A YOUTH IS A JUVENILE
IS ADJUDICATED, THERE IS NO
JURY, THERE'S NO JURY OF THEIR
PEERS. IT THEY THEY ARE
ADJUDICATED BY A JUDGE.
EVERYTHING IS HANDLED VERY
DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE OF
CALIFORNIA LAWS. THE WAY WE HAVE
TREATED JUVENILES THROUGHOUT THE
YEARS AND WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE
SOMETHING SHOULD THE BILL MOVE
FORWARD AND WE'RE CHANGING THE
LAWS AS TO THOSE JUVENILES. AND
WE ARE NOW SAYING NO, NOW YOU
WILL HAVE NOT JUST A, A
PROHIBITION FROM, FROM OWNING
AND POSSESSING A FIREARM UNTIL
THE AGE OF 30. NOW WE'RE SAYING
YOU WERE GOING TO YOU WEREN'T
ADJUDICATED AS AN ADULT, BUT YOU
WILL NOW SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES
AS AN ADULT. ANOTHER PART OF THE
OF THE BILL ALSO, AS I
UNDERSTAND, IS TO AMEND THE
WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE TO
PROHIBIT THE SEALING OF THE
JUVENILE RECORD. IS THAT
ACCURATE? GO AHEAD.
ASSEMBLYMEMBERS. IS IT'S
ACCURATE ONLY AS IT RELATES TO
76, WHICH WOULD BE THE
DESTRUCTION. THE SEALING AND
DESTRUCTION OF THOSE RECORDS.
I'M SORRY. CAN YOU PUT THE MIC?
YES, MA'AM. IT WOULD ONLY RELATE
TO THE DESTRUCTION OF THOSE
RECORDS. SO SHOULD THIS BILL GO
INTO EFFECT, YOU'D STILL HAVE
THE SEALING OPTION UNDER 781.
BUT LAW ENFORCEMENT WOULD HAVE
ACCESS. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
WOULD HAVE ACCESS, WHICH WOULD
BE NECESSARY TO PREVENT SOMEONE
FROM BEING ABLE TO WALK INTO AN
OUTDOOR STORE AND BUY A FIREARM
AT 30, WHEN THOSE BACKGROUND
CHECKS ARE RUN, DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE LAW ENFORCEMENT WOULD
HAVE ACCESS TO THAT. SO YOU'D
STILL HAVE NOTHING IN THIS
PROHIBITS SEALING OF THOSE
JUVENILE RECORDS. IT IT
PROHIBITS SEALING AND
DESTRUCTION UNDER 786, WHICH
STOPS THE DESTRUCTION OF THOSE
RECORDS. MISS REYES, CAN WE JUST
STOP REAL QUICK AND JUST TAKE
THE ROLL SO WE CAN ESTABLISH A
QUORUM? PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
MCCARTY ALANIZ, LACKEY. NGUYEN
HERE. REYES. HERE. TÍNH WILSON.
ZUBER QUORUM IS PRESENT. YEAH.
PLEASE CONTINUE. SO I DO WANT TO
BE SURE THAT I DO UNDERSTAND.
THEN IT IN THE ARGUMENT IN
SUPPORT CALIFORNIA DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S ASSOCIATION SAYS THAT
THAT IT WOULD ALSO AMEND THE
WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE,
SECTION 786 TO PROHIBIT THE
SEALING OF JUVENILE RECORDS FOR
YOUTH WHO HAVE SUSTAINED
PETITIONS FOR CRIMES LISTED IN
THE SUBDIVISION, WHICH ARE THE
THREE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
HERE. CORRECT? YES, MA'AM. YES,
MA'AM. IT WOULD UNDER 786, BUT
NOTHING PROHIBITS SEALING UNDER
781, WHICH IS A WHICH IS A
DIFFERENT SECTION. OKAY. IT 786
ALLOWS FOR THE SEALING AND
DESTRUCTION AND SO YOU WOULDN'T
YOU WOULDN'T NEED TO DESTROY
THOSE RECORDS. THEY'D STILL BE
THEY'D STILL EXIST. VERY GOOD.
IS THERE THERE WAS A COMMENT
MADE ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE
IS NO DATA SHOWING THE NEED TO
CHANGE THE LAW. IS THERE DATA?
NO, MA'AM. THERE THERE WOULDN'T
BE DATA. BECAUSE IF THE EASY WAY
TO PUT IT IS THAT THIS TREND IN
TERMS OF IN THE PAST. SO YOU
HAVE TO LOOK AT IT HISTORICALLY
IN THE PAST, THERE'S BEEN THE
OPPORTUNITY TO DIRECT FILE
JUVENILES INTO ADULT COURT OR A
MUCH EASIER PATH TO 707 THOSE
JUVENILES INTO ADULT COURT. SO
ONLY OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS OR
SO, WE'VE SEEN A LARGE NUMBER OF
MINORS WHO COMMITTED MURDER,
ATTEMPTED MURDER, MANSLAUGHTER
BE UTILIZED IN THE JUVENILE
COURT. AND THE REASON THAT'S
IMPORTANT IS BECAUSE THAT'S SO
YOU SAY FIVE YEARS. THAT WOULD
PUT SOMEONE, LET'S SAY THEY'RE
17, FIVE YEARS AGO, THEY'RE
STILL IN THEIR 20S. YOU WOULDN'T
HAVE HIT THAT 30 YEAR MARK. SO
TO THE IDEA THAT THERE'S NOT
ENOUGH DATA, I THINK THE POINT
OF THIS BILL IS WE DON'T WANT TO
HAVE TO WAIT FOR THAT 17 YEAR
OLD MURDERER TO WALK INTO A
STORE WHEN THEY'RE 30 AND BUY A
GUN WITHOUT HAVING SOME TYPE OF
FLAG FOR DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
SO THERE THERE WOULDN'T BE DATA
YET, BECAUSE THIS THIS IS TO
PREVENT A PROBLEM FROM
HAPPENING. I THINK WHEN WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT DATA, I WOULD
IMAGINE THAT IT IS SHOWING
SOMEONE WHO HAD BEEN CONVICTED
OF MURDER BEFORE AND AFTER 30
HAS NOW COMMITTED MURDER AGAIN.
SO. RIGHT. WELL, I CAN TELL YOU,
I HAVE DEFENDANTS IN OUR IN OUR
OFFICE WHO WE ARE PROSECUTING.
WE'RE PROSECUTING, GENTLEMEN
RIGHT NOW WHO IS PREVIOUSLY
CONVICTED OF MURDER AND JUST
RECENTLY COMMITTED ANOTHER
MURDER. I MEAN, WE HAVE PEOPLE
WHO HAVE COMMITTED MURDER, WHO
HAVE GOTTEN RELEASED AND THEN
COMMITTED ANOTHER MURDER. THAT
THE TRICK THAT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT IS WE'RE IN UNFAMILIAR
TERRITORY BECAUSE ONLY IN THE
LAST FEW YEARS HAVE WE SEEN
THOSE MURDERS BE MINORS TREATED
IN THE JUVENILE COURTS. AND THEN
THEIR RELEASE DATE WOULD BE WHEN
THEY'RE 25, AND THEN WE DON'T
HAVE DATA AFTER THAT BECAUSE WE
HAVEN'T HIT THAT MARK YET IN
BROAD, IN BROAD NUMBERS. IF YOUR
QUESTION TO ME IS, AM I SEEING
PEOPLE WHO HAVE COMMITTED MURDER
OR MURDER AGAIN, YES, WE HAVE
DEFENDANTS WHO HAVE COMMITTED
MURDER AND MURDER AGAIN, THERE'S
NO THERE'S NO QUESTION FOR THAT.
I DON'T HAVE DATA IN FRONT OF ME
THAT WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, THIS
MANY PEOPLE WHO COMMITTED MURDER
WHEN THEY'RE 17 THEN GOT OUT AND
COMMITTED MURDER AGAIN, WE
HAVEN'T LOOKED FAR, FAR ENOUGH
BACK TO SAY HOW OLD WERE THEY
WHEN THEY COMMITTED THAT FIRST
MURDER, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. IT
DOES, BUT IT TELLS ME ALSO THERE
IS NO DATA THEN AS OF NOW.
THEY'RE ANECDOTAL. YOU'RE ABLE
TO BECAUSE BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN
INVOLVED, YOU CAN GIVE US
EXAMPLES. BUT I'M TALKING
SPECIFICALLY WHERE WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT JUVENILES WHO HAD BEEN
ADJUDICATED AS JUVENILES RATHER
THAN TRIED AS ADULTS. YES,
MA'AM. BECAUSE THAT HASN'T COME
YET. RIGHT. SO WHAT'S GOING TO
HAPPEN IS IN A FEW IN A FEW
YEARS FROM NOW, WE'RE GOING TO
SEE THE RECKONING OF THIS.
RIGHT? WE'RE GOING TO SEE THESE
JUVENILES WHO HIT 25, AND
THEY'RE BEING RELEASED ON THOSE
HOMICIDES OR WHO HIT 30 AND NOW
CAN LEGALLY OWN A FIREARM WITH
RECORDS BEING DESTROYED. SO THAT
HASN'T HAPPENED YET. WE HAVEN'T
SEEN THAT BECAUSE JUST THE
TIMING ISSUE HASN'T HAPPENED.
BUT I CAN TELL YOU, TWO WEEKS
AGO I WATCHED A VIDEO WHERE A 17
YEAR OLD BECKONED OVER A YOUNG
MAN ON A BICYCLE. THAT YOUNG MAN
CAME OVER COMPLETELY UNAWARE
THAT HE HAD A GUN, THAT THE
SUSPECT, THE MINOR, HAD A GUN
BEHIND HIS BACK PULLS OUT A GUN,
FIRES MULTIPLE SHOTS FROM FEET
AWAY INTO THIS KID'S ABDOMEN. IN
13 YEARS FROM NOW, THAT 17 YEAR
OLD MURDERER. WELL LET ME BACK
UP A TENT. MURDER. THE VICTIM
SURVIVED. NOT FOR LACK OF
TRYING. IN 13 YEARS FROM NOW,
THAT SHOOTER WILL BE ABLE TO
WALK INTO A TURNER'S OR AN
OUTDOORSMAN TYPE STORE AND JUST
BUY A GUN. I GUESS OUR POINT IS,
WE DON'T WANT THAT TO BE ABLE TO
HAPPEN. I UNDERSTAND THE IDEA
THAT WE WANT TO REHABILITATE. WE
WANT MINORS TO BE ABLE TO MOVE
ON. THAT'S WHY THIS BILL IS
NARROWLY TAILORED. IT IS
NARROWLY TAILORED TO THE THOSE
LIMITED INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE
SHOWN A DISREGARD AND
WILLINGNESS TO TAKE HUMAN LIFE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
THANK YOU, MR. ALANIZ. JUST REAL
QUICK. OPPOSITION TO BROUGHT UP
SOME POINTS. I WAS HOPING YOU
CAN GIVE US A LITTLE BIT MORE
INTO THAT. I'M SORRY. I WAS
HOPING YOU CAN GIVE US A LITTLE
BIT MORE REBUTTAL ON THAT, ON
THE OPPOSITION THAT THEY HAD
EARLIER. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
MAYBE ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS
ALREADY, I BELIEVE SO. AGAIN
WHEN I DISAGREE WITH THE CONCEPT
THAT THERE'S NO CEILING ALLOWED
AT ALL, 781 STILL DOES ALLOW FOR
CEILING. IT JUST ALLOWS US TO
KEEP THOSE RECORDS OF PEOPLE WHO
HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OR BEEN
FOUND TRUE TO BE, HAVE COMMITTED
MURDER ATTEMPT, MURDER,
MANSLAUGHTER, TO BE IN THE
REALM. THE OTHER THING I WANTED
TO POINT OUT WOULD BE WE DID
ADDRESS THE NUMBERS IN TERMS OF
IT NOT BEING RIGHT BECAUSE OF
THE TIMING AND THE SHIFT THAT
THIS BODY IN OUR STATE HAS TAKEN
AS RELATES TO JUVENILES. I DO
WANT TO ADDRESS ONE THING IN
TERMS OF OVERCHARGING. THE IDEA
THAT IT WAS IT WAS PUT OUT THERE
, AS IF THE PROSECUTORS WOULD
OVERCHARGE AN ASSAULT WITH A
DEADLY WEAPON. AND THEREFORE
THIS IS GOING TO THIS BILL WOULD
UNDULY COVER, IN ESSENCE, WHAT
WOULD BE A 245 OR AN ASSAULT
WITH A DEADLY WEAPON AND WRAP IT
INTO THE ATTEMPT MURDER
CATEGORY. I WANT TO REMIND THIS
BODY THAT AS THIS BODY ALREADY
KNOWS IN THE JUVENILE COURT,
IT'S STILL PROOF BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT. I'VE. I'VE
PERSONALLY DONE, ALMOST TWO
DOZEN COURT TRIALS IN THE
JUVENILE SYSTEM. I HAD A SERIOUS
AND VIOLENT FELONY CASELOAD. SO
MY SPECIALTY WAS THE, THE
VIOLENT OFFENDERS. AND I DID IT
IN JUVENILE COURT. I CALLED
WITNESSES, THEY WERE UNDER OATH,
EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED. WE HAD
TO COMPLY WITH THE RULES OF
EVIDENCE, AND A COURT HAD TO
FIND BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
THAT THIS MINOR DID IN FACT
COMMIT MURDER ATTEMPT, MURDER OR
MANSLAUGHTER. AND SO I WOULD
CERTAINLY PUSH BACK ON THIS IDEA
THAT THIS WOULD ALLOW SOME TYPE
OF OVERCHARGING AND ABUSE BY
PROSECUTORS, PROSECUTION
AGENCIES THROUGHOUT THE STATE.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. OKAY.
THANK YOU. FURTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS? SEEING NONE. DO WE
HAVE A MOTION? A MOTION A
SECOND? YOU MAY CLOSE. THANK YOU
. JUST A QUICK COMMENT IN
REGARDS TO, THE OPPOSITION. WHEN
WE'RE SAYING YOUTHFUL MISTAKES,
YOUTH MISTAKES ARE SHOPLIFTING,
STEALING SOMETHING, IT'S NOT
MURDER. I DON'T LOOK AT A
YOUTHFUL MISTAKE AS BEING MURDER
OR ATTEMPTED MURDER. AND AGAIN,
THIS IS A VERY NARROW BILL, BILL
THAT WE'RE PUTTING IN THERE. AND
I THINK WE SEE HOW MANY TIMES WE
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE
PROTECTING BOTH THE VICTIM AS
WELL AS THE PERSON GETTING OUT
THERE. SO I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL ON AB 2518 BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER DAVIS. THE MOTION
IS DUE PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY I MARTI I ALANIS ALANIS
I LACKEY. NGUYEN NGUYEN I REYES
REYES NOT VOTING TÍNH WILSON I
WILSON I ZUBIATE. ZABIR NOT
VOTING THAT THE MEASURE IS ON
CALL. NEXT MEASURE. NEXT ITEM IS
AB 2406 OKAY. THE BILL SECOND.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS,
TODAY I'M HERE TO PRESENT AB
2406. I FIRST WANT TO THANK
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR WORKING WITH
MY STAFF AND STAKEHOLDERS ON
THIS MEASURE FROM MY TIME UP
HERE, I HAVE WATCHED THE
COMMITTEE DO THE RIGHT THING
WHEN IT COMES TO PROTECTING
MINORS AND ENSURING ADULTS WHO
USED THEM FOR NEFARIOUS PURPOSES
ARE HELD ACCOUNTABLE UNDER
CURRENT LAW, DEPENDING ON THE
AMOUNT OF GOODS STOLEN, THEFT IS
EITHER A MISDEMEANOR, PETTY
THEFT, OR AN ALTERNATE FELONY.
MISDEMEANOR GRAND THEFT. THEFT
IS GRAND THEFT WHEN THE AMOUNT
STOLEN EXCEEDS $950. HOWEVER,
THERE IS NO STANDALONE CRIME OR
PUNISHMENT IF AN ADULT CAUSES,
EMPLOYS, OR USES A MINOR TO
COMMIT AN ACT OF SHOPLIFTING,
PETTY THEFT, OR ORGANIZED RETAIL
THEFT, AB 2406 IS A COMMON SENSE
MEASURE TO GIVE THE COURT,
PROSECUTOR AND PROSECUTOR THE
DISCRETION TO CHANGE AN ADULT
CONVICTED OF DOING THIS WITH
EITHER A MISDEMEANOR OR A
FELONY. BEFORE I BEGIN
EXPLAINING WHY THIS BILL IS
NEEDED, I WANT TO RECAP WHAT THE
BILL IN PRINT IS AND WHERE WE
CAME FROM. WHILE WORKING WITH
COMMITTEE STAFF, WE AMENDED THE
BILL VIA THE FOLLOWING. WE
ELIMINATED THE PROBATION
SECTION. WE ADDED LANGUAGE
CLARIFYING THIS WOULDN'T APPLY
TO MINORS WHO COERCE OTHER
MINORS TO VIOLATE THIS SECTION.
WE ELIMINATED THE TWO, FOUR, AND
SIX LANGUAGE FOR THE HIGHER
THEFT RELATED OFFENSE I.E. GRAND
THEFT, BURGLARY, ETC. WE
ELIMINATED THE SENTENCING TO BE
IN STATE PRISON AND INSTEAD
CHOOSE COUNTY JAIL. WE DO,
HOWEVER, KEEP THE ABILITY FOR A
VIOLATION OF THIS NEW SECTION TO
BE CHARGED AS A WOBBLER. MEMBERS
I DO NOT NEED TO SIT HERE AND
TELL YOU THE OBVIOUS FACT
ORGANIZED RETAIL THEFT RINGS ARE
OUT OF CONTROL. IN FEBRUARY
ALONE, THE LOS ANGELES DISTRICT
ATTORNEY ANNOUNCED THAT IN 2023,
OVER 200 CASES OF ORGANIZED
RETAIL THEFT WERE FILED WITH HIS
OFFICE. SINCE ITS RECENT
CREATION, THE CHP ORGANIZED
RETAIL THEFT TASK FORCE HAS BEEN
INVOLVED IN MORE THAN 2300
INVESTIGATIONS LEADING TO THE
ARREST OF MORE THAN 2200
SUSPECTS AND THE RECOVERY OF
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF STOLEN
GOODS VALUED AT MORE THAN $41
MILLION. MEMBERS. THIS ISN'T
JUST A BILL ABOUT CRIME, IT'S A
BILL ABOUT JUSTICE FOR THE
THOUSANDS OF MOM AND POP SHOPS
WHO HAVE HAD THEIR LIVELIHOOD
DESTROYED BY THEIR THIEVES. IT'S
A BILL TO PROTECT CONSUMERS.
CONSTITUENTS COME UP TO ME ALL
THE TIME AND TELL ME HOW SICK
THEY ARE OF GOING TO THEIR LOCAL
SUPERMARKET OR CONVENIENCE
STORE, AND MORE ITEMS ARE LOCKED
AWAY BEHIND A GLASS SHELF.
ADULTS WHO USE MINORS DO THEIR
DIRTY WORK SHOULD HAVE EXTRA
PENALTIES PLACED UPON THEM.
THERE ARE KNOWINGLY PUTTING THE
LIVES OF THE MINORS AT RISK AND
LEADING THEM DOWN A PATH OF
ILLEGAL BEHAVIOR. I'LL END WITH
SAYING THIS BILL HAS THE SUPPORT
FROM MAJOR LAW ENFORCEMENT
GROUPS, FROM OUR BUSINESS GROUPS
AND OUR LEAGUE OF CITIES BECAUSE
EVERYONE KNOWS THE STATUS QUO
ISN'T WORKING WITH ME HERE. TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT IS BRADLEY
SCHULENBERG FROM THE ORANGE
COUNTY DA'S OFFICE, THE SPONSOR
OF THE BILL. I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. TWO
MINUTES PER WITNESS, FOUR
MINUTES TOTAL. THANK YOU, MY
NAME IS STILL BRADLEY SHANE
LEVIN, AND I'M A SENIOR DEPUTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE ORANGE
COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE. AND THANK YOU AGAIN FOR
ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK BEFORE THIS
BODY. AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO
THANK, MEMBER LORI DAVIES FOR
AUTHORING THIS BILL. BILL, 2406
MINORS THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA ARE
BEING USED BY THIEVES AS
INSTRUMENTALITIES OF CRIME. WHEN
A MINOR IS EMPLOYED OR PERSUADED
BY AN ADULT TO COMMIT CRIME, THE
ADULT HAS TAKEN PERFECT
ADVANTAGE OF THE SYSTEM. IF THE
MINOR STEALS FOR AN ADULT
CRIMINAL AND GETS CAUGHT, THE
MINOR GETS VERY LITTLE
CONSEQUENCE. IF THE MINOR
DOESN'T GET CAUGHT, THE ADULT
CRIMINAL GETS PAID. THIS IS A
WIN WIN SITUATION. THESE THIEVES
UNDERSTAND OUR LIMITATIONS ON
PROSECUTING MINORS AND ARE
TAKING FULL ADVANTAGE IN OUR
COUNTY. WE HAVE SEEN THE
EMPLOYMENT AND RECRUITMENT OF
MINORS TO COMMIT THEFT BY GANG
MEMBERS, ORGANIZED CRIME GROUPS
AND EVEN THEIR OWN FAMILIES.
MINORS MAKE THE PERFECT TOOL IN
COMMITTING WIDESPREAD THEFT AND
WE MUST DISCOURAGE THIS ALARMING
AND DAMAGING TREND. I DO WANT TO
TAKE A MOMENT TO ADDRESS
CONCERNS. I'VE HEARD A NUMBER OF
TIMES IN THIS ROOM THAT THE IDEA
OF A DETERRENT IS JUST, OR
PUNISHMENT FOR A DETERRENT IS
DOES NOT WORK. I WOULD ONLY PUSH
BACK ON THE CONCEPT OF I LIKE
THIS BODY TO FOCUS ON CRIME AS
IT RELATES TO A BUSINESS MODEL.
IN MY EXPERIENCE, WHERE I'VE
SEEN CRIMINALS WHO USE CRIME AS
A PROFIT MAKING ENTERPRISE,
PUNISHMENT DOES WORK BECAUSE
WHAT THEY DO IS THEY GO THROUGH
A PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE. THEY
WILL LOOK TO THE CRIMES THAT ARE
THE SOFTEST TARGETS AND HAVE THE
LOWEST RISK FOR COMMITTING THAT
CRIME, BECAUSE THE IDEA IS A
COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS FOR THEM.
WHILE OFTEN SEEN ONLY AS A
PROPERTY CRIME, THEFT IS
MISLABELED AS A LOW LEVEL CRIME.
HOWEVER, THE IMPACT OF THEFT CAN
BE AND HAS BEEN DEVASTATING.
THIS DEVASTATION RESULTS IN
PRICES GOING UP, BUSINESSES
GOING UNDER, AND EMPLOYEES
EITHER LOSING THEIR JOBS DUE TO
BUSINESS CLOSURE OR BEING AFRAID
TO WALK INTO WORK. ADDITIONALLY,
WHEN A MINOR IS USED AS A TOOL
FOR THEFT, THE RESULTS CAN ALSO
BE DAMAGING FOR THE MINOR. THE
MINOR WILL LEARN THAT THEFT CAN
BE THEIR WAY OF LIFE. THEY ARE
TRAINED THAT THERE ARE LITTLE
CONSEQUENCES FOR A CRIMINAL
BEHAVIOR, AND THEY ARE PUSHED
FURTHER AWAY FROM A LIFE OF GOOD
AND TOWARDS A LIFE OF CRIME.
AGAIN, ALSO, IN READING THE
ANALYSIS, I WANT TO ADDRESS A
CONCERN. I APPRECIATE THIS WAS
ADDRESSED IN THE ANALYSIS. THE
IDEA THAT THIS BILL WOULD ROPE
IN, SAY, A SINGLE MOM WHO USES
HER HER MINOR TO FEED, PUT FOOD
IN THEIR BELLY, IN ESSENCE,
STEAL A LOAF OF BREAD. I CAN
SAY, FIRST OF ALL, IN 17 YEARS
OF DOING THIS, I'VE NEVER SEEN
I'VE JUST NEVER SEEN THAT
HAPPEN. THAT'S NOT A THING IN MY
IN MY COUNTY. I'VE NEVER SEEN
SOMEONE BE PROSECUTED FOR TRYING
TO PUT FOOD IN THEIR BELLY. WHAT
I CAN TELL YOU IS WHAT I AM
SEEING. AND BY THE WAY, TO GET
THERE, YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE A
PERFECT SCENARIO OF THAT MOM
WILLING TO STEAL TO LITERALLY
EAT, THEN NOT ONLY WILLING TO
STEAL, BUT THEN UTILIZE THE
CHILD TO MAKE THAT THEFT HAPPEN.
AND THEN ON TOP OF IT, YOU'D
HAVE TO HAVE A PROSECUTOR WHO'D
BE WILLING TO FILE AS A FELONY.
THEN ON TOP OF IT, YOU'D HAVE TO
HAVE A JUDGE BE WILLING TO MAKE
SURE THAT THAT FELONY WENT
THROUGH AND NOT 17, BE IT TO A
MISDEMEANOR, AND SO ON. WHAT WE
ARE SEEING INSTEAD IS WE ARE
SEEING THAT THIS IS A TACTIC
USED BY CRIMINALS. I'VE SPOKEN
TO DEFENDANTS, I'VE SPOKEN TO
MINORS, I'VE SPOKEN TO SHOP
OWNERS, MINOR ARE IN FACT BEING
USED AS A TOOL AND A DETERRENT
FOR CRIMINALS. USING MINORS TO
COMMIT CRIME MUST BE IN PLACE.
AB 2406 WILL NOT ONLY ASSIST IN
FIGHTING BACK AGAINST WIDESPREAD
THEFT PLAGUING CALIFORNIA, BUT
IT WILL ALSO HELP PROTECT MINORS
AND DETER THEM FROM USING THE
MINORS AS TOOLS OF THEIR TRADE.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. YOUR
PARTNER ONLY HAS 20S, SO OKAY,
WE'RE ALL GOOD THEN, OTHERS IN
SUPPORT. MR. CHAIR MEMBERS.
JOLINA VORCE, ON BEHALF OF THE
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES IN
SUPPORT OF. JARED KILO HERE FOR
THE UNITED CANNABIS BUSINESS
ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTING
HUNDREDS OF CANNABIS RETAILERS
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
OPPOSITION. PLEASE COME FORWARD
.
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR, AND
MEMBERS. MICAH DOKHTOUROFF,
SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY AT THE
ACLU OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA,
HERE ON BEHALF OF ACLU
CALIFORNIA ACTION IN REGRETFUL
OPPOSITION. THIS BILL CREATES A
NEW CRIME WITH INCREASED
PENALTIES FOR CONDUCT THAT IS
ALREADY CRIMINALIZED UNDER
EXISTING LAW. AS WE HAVE SEEN
TIME AND TIME AGAIN, INCREASING
PENALTIES FOR CONDUCT THAT IS
ALREADY PUNISHABLE DOES NOT
DETER CRIME. IN THIS CASE, IT
WILL SERVE ONLY TO FURTHER CROWD
OUR JAILS AND TO FURTHER
CRIMINALIZE YOUNG PEOPLE. AB
2406 WOULD CREATE A NEW CRIME
SUBJECT TO INCARCERATION, OF 1
TO 3 YEARS, FOR PERSUADING A
MINOR TO ENGAGE IN A THEFT
RELATED OFFENSE. CURRENT LAW
ALREADY ADDRESSES THIS CONDUCT.
PENAL CODE SECTION 31 PROVIDES
THAT ALL PERSONS COUNSELING,
ADVISING, OR ENCOURAGING
CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF 14 TO
COMMIT ANY CRIME ARE PRINCIPALS
IN ANY CRIME SO COMMITTED,
MEANING THAT THE PERSON CAN BE
TREATED AS THOUGH THEY
THEMSELVES COMMITTED THE CRIME.
THE SAME IS TRUE OF ANYONE WHO
ADVISES AND ENCOURAGES ANY
PERSON, REGARDLESS OF AGE, TO
COMMIT A CRIME. THIS APPLIES TO
BOTH MISDEMEANORS AND FELONIES.
PENAL CODE SECTION 272 MAKES IT
A MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE BY UP
TO ONE YEAR. IF A PERSON CAUSES
OR TENDS TO CAUSE OR ENCOURAGE A
YOUNG PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 18
TO COMMIT A CRIME, EVEN IF THE
PERSON DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN
THE CRIME THEMSELVES, THERE IS
NO INDICATION THAT EXISTING LAW
IS INSUFFICIENT. WE ARE LIKEWISE
NOT AWARE OF ANY INFORMATION OR
DATA THAT SUGGESTS THAT THERE IS
A RISING TREND AMONG ADULTS,
ENTICING MINORS TO STEAL.
RATHER, THE MOST LIKELY SCENARIO
IS THAT THIS BILL WOULD BE USED
TO PROSECUTE MINORS WHO STEAL
WITH OTHER MINORS. THIS IS THE
LAST THING CALIFORNIA SHOULD BE
DOING. FOR ALL OF THESE REASONS,
WE'RE IN REGRETFUL OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. NEXT WITNESS. GOOD
MORNING. GLENN BACCHUS, FOR THE
ELLA BAKER CENTER FOR HUMAN
RIGHTS. THE BILL IS OVERLY BROAD
AND OVERLY PUNITIVE. THE ACTIONS
DESCRIBED BY THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY BY, MY COLLEAGUE FROM
ACLU AND THE ONES THAT I WILL
DESCRIBE ARE ALREADY CRIMES WITH
SEVERE PENALTIES. WE DON'T NEED
A NEW STATUTE THAT SAYS IF A
PERSON IS 18 OR 19 AND GOES
JOYRIDING WITH A PEER WHO'S A
COUPLE YEARS OLDER THAN THEM,
THAT THEY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO A
FELONY AND THREE YEARS IN JAIL.
WE DON'T NEED A NEW STATUTE THAT
SAYS IF AN 18 YEAR OLD
ENCOURAGES A 17 YEAR OLD TO
STEAL $10 WORTH OF SOCKS OR
BOXERS, THAT THE 18 YEAR OLD OR
19 YEAR OLD WOULD GO TO JAIL FOR
THREE YEARS? WE CERTAINLY DON'T
NEED A NEW STATUTE THAT SAYS IF
A PARENT AND CHILD GOES INTO A
STORE TO STEAL FOOD, BABY
FORMULA, HYGIENE PRODUCTS, THAT
THAT PARENT CAN BE SENT TO JAIL
FOR THREE YEARS. THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS DON'T NEED ANOTHER
LEVER. THEY DON'T NEED ANOTHER
HAMMER TO FORCE YOUNG ADULTS OR
LOW INCOME PARENTS INTO
ACCEPTING UNJUST PLEA DEALS
WHERE THEY'RE SENT TO COUNTY
JAIL OR SOMETIMES PRISON
SEPARATED FROM THEIR FAMILIES,
SEPARATED FROM THEIR JOBS,
SEPARATED FROM THEIR APARTMENTS
WITH NO PLAN AFTERWARDS TO
PREVENT THEM FROM JOINING THE
TENS OF THOUSANDS OF HOMELESS
PEOPLE IN CALIFORNIA ON OUR
STREETS. FELONY PENALTIES FOR
BEING POOR EXACERBATE AND
ACCELERATE THE DOWNWARD SPIRAL
INTO HOMELESSNESS, AND ENSURE
THE INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSFER
OF POVERTY IN FAMILIES,
PARTICULARLY BLACK, LATINO AND
INDIGENOUS FAMILIES IN
CALIFORNIA. WE RESPECTFULLY URGE
A NO VOTE. THANK YOU. OTHERS IN
OPPOSITION NATASHA MINSKER SMART
JUSTICE CALIFORNIA AND STRONG
OPPOSITION. MARLENA MERCADO,
POLICY MANAGER ON COMMON LAW,
STRONG OPPOSITION. JOANNE
SCHEER, FELONY MURDER
ELIMINATION PROJECT IN STRONG
OPPOSITION. ADRIANA GRIFFITH,
WITH INITIATE JUSTICE AND STRONG
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. TOM TRAN,
ELLA BAKER, CENTER FOR THE HUMAN
RIGHTS, STRONG OPPOSITION. HENRY
ORTIZ, ALL OF US IN SACRAMENTO.
OPPOSITION KELLY WALTERS, STAFF
ATTORNEY WITH LEGAL SERVICES FOR
PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN AND
STRONG OPPOSITION. TANA OPPLIGER
WITH CALIFORNIANS UNITED FOR
RESPONSIBLE BUDGET OR CURB AND
STRONG OPPOSITION. MORGAN ZAMORA
FROM THE ELLA BAKER CENTER FOR
HUMAN RIGHTS, IN OPPOSITION.
LISA BORGESON, ELLA BAKER CENTER
FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, STRONG
OPPOSITION. MARCO GEORGE FROM
THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION AND OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. MELANIE KIM, SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE AND OPPOSITION. AND ON
BEHALF OF INITIATE JUSTICE
ACTION IN OPPOSITION. IGNACIO
HERNANDEZ, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS. FOR
CRIMINAL JUSTICE, THE STATEWIDE
ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE
LAWYERS AND OPPOSITION. GARCIA
RESENDEZ WITH THE CENTER ON
JUVENILE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
AND ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA
ALLIANCE FOR YOUTH AND COMMUNITY
JUSTICE AND OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MR. ZUBIATE,
SO I WANTED TO SORT OF ASK THE
AUTHOR AND THE WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT WHAT DATA IS OUT THERE
THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT THE
EXISTING LAW WHICH WAS
ARTICULATED IS NOT WORKING. I'M.
THERE WASN'T ANYTHING THAT WAS
CITED IN ANY OF THE STAFF
REPORTS. I MEAN, WHAT IS YOU
KNOW, YOU SAY THAT YOU, THAT
YOU'VE NEVER SEEN CIRCUMSTANCES
WHERE, YOU KNOW, EITHER AN ADULT
OR A CHILD IS EVER, ARE COMING
THROUGH ACTUALLY STEALING. SOME
SMALL AMOUNT A LOAF OF BREAD OR
A SANDWICH BECAUSE THEY'RE
HUNGRY, BUT IN FACT, THIS BILL
DOES EXACTLY THAT. IT ALLOWS
PEOPLE TO BE CHARGED FOR. A
FELONY AND PUT IN PRISON FOR UP
TO THREE YEARS FOR THESE VERY
MINOR ACTIVITIES, AND SO I'M
JUST WONDERING WHAT WHAT DATA
THAT YOU'RE RELYING ON TO
JUSTIFY THE NEED FOR THIS BILL.
OKAY FIRST, I, I'D LIKE TO
ADDRESS YOUR COMMENTS BACKWARDS,
I WOULD DISAGREE WITH YOU,
RESPECTFULLY, THAT IT'S A MINOR
CRIME. THE CRIME ISN'T THAT
WE'RE LOOKING AT ISN'T JUST THE
USE OF THE ISN'T THE THEFT
ITSELF. IT'S THE IDEA OF USING A
MINOR FOR COMMITTING THAT THEFT.
AND SO I WANT TO POINT THAT OUT,
LIKE THE FOCUS IS ON THE
CRIMINAL INTENT ON THE DEFENDANT
IN THIS SITUATION WOULD BE THE
PERSON WHO IS UTILIZING THE
MINOR AS A TOOL. AND THEN IN
TERMS OF DATA, WE DON'T WE DON'T
STAT DATA IN TERMS OF, OKAY, THE
AGE OF THIS DEFENDANT VERSUS THE
AGE OF THIS DEFENDANT. WHAT I
CAN TELL YOU IS OVER THE LAST
TWO YEARS, I SPENT MY ALMOST
SEVEN DAYS A WEEK, QUITE
HONESTLY, IN THIS FIELD OF
RETAIL THEFT AND CRIME, IN
TALKING WITH MINORS DEFENDANTS,
WHETHER IT'S RESIDENTIAL
BURGLARIES, RETAIL THEFT, ETC,
JUST THEFT CRIMES IN GENERAL AND
ACROSS THE BOARD, WHAT WE'RE
SEEING, WHAT LAW ENFORCEMENT IS
TELLING ME, WHAT JUVENILE COURTS
ARE TELLING ME AND WHAT
RETAILERS ARE TELLING ME IS
THEY'RE SEEING AN INFLUX OF
MINORS. AND THE MINORS THAT
WE'RE SEEING ARE NOT THE MINORS.
WHERE WE'RE SEEING THE, YOU
KNOW, A COUPLE KIDS STEAL A
CANDY BAR, AND IT'S A 19 YEAR
OLD AND A 17 YEAR OLD STEAL A
CANDY BAR. WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS
THE EMPLOYMENT OF MINORS
SPECIFICALLY SOUGHT OUT,
RECRUITED AND SENT IN BY
PROFESSIONAL THIEVES. BUT YOU
DON'T HAVE ANY DATA. I MEAN,
THIS IS JUST ALL I MEAN, CORRECT
. WHERE WHERE'S THE WHERE'S THE
DATA, CORRECT. I DO NOT HAVE THE
NUMBERS TO BE ABLE TO TELL YOU.
THIS IS HOW MANY ADULTS WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT. WHAT I CAN TELL
YOU IS WE'VE SEEN THIS IS A
PROBLEM AND QUITE FRANKLY, THE
EXCITEMENT ON AS A PROSECUTOR
FOR ME IN THIS BILL IS NOT THE
IDEA THAT I WANT TO PUT MORE
PEOPLE IN PRISON, IT'S THAT I
WANT TO DETER THE BUSINESS MODEL
OF THEFT AND UTILIZING MINORS,
BECAUSE I DO NOT WANT THEM TO
COMMIT THAT LIFE OF CRIME. BUT
YOU ALREADY HAVE TOOLS TO DO
THAT. I MEAN, THERE WAS JUST THE
STAFF REPORT IDENTIFIED AS A
WHOLE HOST OF TOOLS THAT SEEM TO
BE COMMENSURATE WITH THE KIND OF
UNDERLYING ACTIVITY AND YOU'VE
GOT THOSE TOOLS ALREADY. I MEAN,
I MEAN, YOU WANT THE TOOL TO BE
ABLE TO PUT SOMEONE IN PRISON
FOR THREE YEARS FOR STEALING A
SANDWICH, A MOTHER ASKING A
CHILD TO STEAL A SANDWICH WOULD
ALLOW YOU TO PUT SOMEONE TO
CHARGE SOMEONE WITH A FELONY AND
PUT THEM IN PRISON FOR UP TO
THREE YEARS. WELL, FIRST OF ALL,
I DON'T I NO, I DO NOT WANT A
TOOL TO PUT A MOTHER WHO'S. BUT
YOU'RE ASKING FOR THAT TOOL.
THAT'S WHAT THIS BILL DOES. NO
I'M NOT. AND IN FACT, EVEN IN
THE THREE YEAR SCENARIO NÓ THAT
THAT IS IN FACT, WHAT THE BILL
DOES. AND I WANT TO ASK THE
AUTHOR, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE
ARE A NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS THAT
THE COMMITTEE STAFF ASKED FOR TO
TRY TO FOCUS THIS BILL MORE, AND
I WAS WONDERING WHY THOSE WERE
NOT ACCEPTED. AND ACTUALLY WE
DID ACCEPT ALL OF THEM EXCEPT
THE LAST ONE. AND ONE I WOULD
LIKE TO JUST SAY IS, THE CONCERN
ABOUT MINORS, YOU KNOW, WORKING
WITH MINORS. AND WE, WE ADDED
THE LANGUAGE CLARIFYING THAT
THIS WOULD NOT APPLY TO MINORS
WHO CURSE OTHER MINORS TO
VIOLATE THIS SECTION. SO WE TOOK
FOUR OF THE FIVE. AND AGAIN,
THAT FIFTH ONE BASICALLY WOULD
MAKE IT A WOBBLER. THEY'D HAVE
AN OPPORTUNITY TO DECIDE IF THEY
WOULD BE A MISDEMEANOR OR IF IT
WOULD BE A FELONY. IT DOESN'T
MAKE IT A FELONY. YOU HAVE THE
DISCRETION OF THE COURTS TO
DECIDE THAT. AND ALSO, FROM WHAT
I BELIEVE, A MISDEMEANOR IS IN
THREE YEARS, IT'S ONE YEAR IN
COUNTY JAIL. YEAH. OKAY. I THINK
I'VE YOU KNOW, I ACTUALLY THINK
THAT THIS IS A BILL THAT IS JUST
WAY, WAY OVERBROAD. I MEAN, THE
ABILITY TO LITERALLY PUT SOMEONE
IN JAIL FOR YOU KNOW, A HOMELESS
FAMILY WHERE A MOTHER AND A
CHILD STEAL A SANDWICH FROM A
CONVENIENCE STORE WOULD RESULT
IN THE MOTHER GOING TO PRISON,
POTENTIALLY FOR UP TO THREE
YEARS. AND TO ME, THAT JUST
SEEMS WAY OVERBROAD. AND I THINK
YOU'VE GOT SIGNIFICANT TOOLS TO
ADDRESS THOSE SITUATIONS, I
THINK IS ARTICULATED BOTH IN THE
STAFF REPORT AND AS THE
OPPONENTS ARTICULATED. SO I'LL
BE, NOT I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE
TO SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. SOME MEMBER
WILSON. THANK YOU, THANK YOU TO
MY COLLEAGUE FOR ANSWERING, FOR
ASKING QUITE A BIT OF THE
QUESTIONS THAT I WANTED TO ASK.
SO I'M GOING TO ASK A FOLLOW UP
RELATED TO YOUR RESPONSE AND
THEN A NEW ONE, SO IN FOLLOWING
UP, YOU SAID THAT THIS BILL YOU
SAID YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY DESIRE
FOR A MOTHER OR FATHER, A
PARENT, TO ENTRAP A PARENT INTO
THIS PARTICULAR LAW, BUT CAN YOU
AGREE THAT THIS ALLOWS A DA TO
DO THAT? NOT WHETHER IT'S
DESIRED OR FRUITFUL, BUT JUST
DOES THIS LANGUAGE ALLOW SOMEONE
TO DO THAT? IS THERE A
HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO IN WHICH A
PROSECUTOR COULD, IN THEORY,
PROSECUTE A PARENT FOR A STATE
PRISON SENTENCE FOR THEFT? YES,
THAT THE LIKELIHOOD MIGHT BE
DIFFERENT, BUT I'M JUST OKAY, GO
AHEAD. I WOULD PUSH BACK. FIRST
OF ALL, I DON'T I WOULDN'T IT'S
NOT THREE YEARS BECAUSE TO GET
TO THREE YEARS AS THIS BODY
KNOWS YOU'D HAVE, THAT'S AN
AGGRAVATING TIME. AND TO GET TO
THE AGGRAVATING TIME, THAT WOULD
HAVE TO BE SOME FACTS THAT PLEAD
AND PROVE THE JUSTIFICATION TO
JUSTIFY THE UPPER TÂM. SO THIS
THE, THE, YOU KNOW, LOW LEVEL
INSIGNIFICANT CRIMINAL
BACKGROUND, CRIMINAL THEFT, ETC,
IT REALLY YOU'RE TALKING AND I
KNOW THAT MAY NOT MAKE A
DIFFERENCE TO YOU, BUT YOU'RE
REALLY TALKING TO TWO YEAR MAX.
AND AGAIN, I DO THINK THE
REALITY. SO YES, THAT COULD IN
THEORY HAPPEN. BUT THE REALITY
WHICH IS WHAT HE WAS GETTING TO
AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I
UNDERSTOOD THAT IT'S LIKELY NOT
THE DESIRED AS CHILD NEGLIGENCE.
THERE'S OTHER THINGS YOU CAN
FOCUS ON AND NOT THIS, BUT IT
DOES ALLOW FOR THAT. AND THEN
THE FOLLOW UP QUESTION I HAD IS
BASED ON YOUR TESTIMONY, YOU
WERE TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S
HAPPENING NOW, ALTHOUGH YOU
DIDN'T HAVE DATA. AND I ASSUMED,
I'M GOING TO TAKE YOU AT YOUR
WORD THAT THE WAY WE CLASSIFY
CERTAIN CRIMES, THE DATA DOESN'T
EXIST IN THAT WAY. SO YOU ARE
TALKING ANECDOTALLY WHAT YOU'RE
HEARING FROM OTHERS, BUT ISN'T
IT, TRUE IN THAT ANECDOTAL
BECAUSE I READ THE NEWSPAPER AND
WATCH NEWS ON TV THAT THE YOUTH
WHO ARE INVOLVED IN SOME OF
THESE CRIMINAL THEFT RINGS ARE
TECHNICALLY EMPLOYED BY THE
PERSON WHO'S OVER THE AGE OF 18.
SO THEY'RE GIVING THEM RESOURCES
TO ACTUALLY COMMIT THESE CRIMES.
AREN'T THEY PRIMARILY THAT OR
NO. WAIT, SO I'M NOT SURE I
UNDERSTAND. CAN YOU REPEAT THE
QUESTION SAYING ADULTS ARE USING
YOUTH TO COMMIT THESE RETAIL
THEFT CRIMES? YES. RIGHT. YES.
AND IS IT NOT TRUE BASED ON
ANECDOTALLY YOU'RE USING
ANECDOTAL. I'M SAYING ANECDOTAL
FROM NEWS AND NEWSPAPER THAT THE
KIDS ARE GETTING MONEY TO BE
ABLE TO DO THESE CRIMES. YES. SO
IT DEPENDS. RIGHT. SO THE GROUPS
THAT WE'VE SEEN AND EVEN I
REFERENCED FAMILIAL USE OF KIDS,
RIGHT. SO THE FAMILIES WHERE THE
MOM OR DAD ARE USING THE MINORS,
EVEN IN THOSE SITUATIONS, WE
HAVEN'T SEEN IT FROM A POVERTY
STANDPOINT. IN FACT, WE'VE
LOOKED BACK AT THEM AND THEY
HAVE CARS THAT ARE A LOT MORE
EXPENSIVE THAN MINE, WHICH ISN'T
SAYING MUCH, BUT LIKE NICE HOMES
OR NICE CARS, NICE THINGS, THAT
KIND OF THING. BUT YEAH, WHAT
WE'LL HAVE IS YOU'LL HAVE A
FENCE. WHO WILL PUT OUT A
REQUEST? THE ADULT WILL THEN
START RECRUITING MINORS TO GO
INTO THE STORE BECAUSE THEY KNOW
THE CHALLENGES IN TERMS OF
HANDLING THE MINOR CASES, AND
THEY WILL SEND THOSE KIDS IN. SO
THEY MAY STEAL, SAY, $1,000
WORTH OF NIKE SHOES. THOSE KIDS
COME OUT HÌ THEY ACTUALLY KEEP
THE TENT. THEY TEND TO KEEP IT
UNDER 950. BUT THEY'LL KEEP IT
UNDER $950. THEY'LL STEAL THOSE
NIKE SHOES, AND THEN THEY'LL GET
A CUT OR SOME MONEY. AND AGAIN,
ANECDOTALLY TO YOUR POINT. SO I
SUPPOSE, YES, THOSE KIDS ARE
EARNING MONEY. BUT WHEN WE'VE
LOOKED AT THOSE BACKGROUNDS OF
THOSE MINORS, WE'RE NOT SEEING
THEM. I MEAN, WE'RE SEEING AGAIN
, FLASHY WATCHES, FLASHY CARS,
AIRBNBS, $20,000 A MONTH,
AIRBNBS. I MEAN, WE'RE WE'RE NOT
SEEING IT. I'M NOT SAYING IT
DOESN'T HAPPEN. I WANT TO BE
VERY CLEAR. I'M NOT SAYING THAT
THERE AREN'T PEOPLE IN POVERTY
WHO ARE UTILIZING THIS. WHAT I'M
SAYING IS THE ORGANIZED CRIMINAL
THEFT GROUPS ARE WITHOUT
QUESTION, EXPLOITING MINORS
BECAUSE OF OUR INABILITY TO TALK
TO THEM, TO PROSECUTE THEM, ETC.
BUT YOU'RE THERE. THERE ARE
RECEIVING I'M SAYING, BECAUSE
YOU THE BILL IS VERY BROAD AND
VIRTUE OF PROMOTE EMPLOYEE USE,
PERSUADE, INDUCE OR COERCE
VERSUS TRYING TO FIND AN AVENUE
WHERE YOU'RE BREAKING THAT UP BY
USING THOSE THAT ARE THAT
BASICALLY ARE EMPLOYING MINORS,
AND USING THAT TO BE A DIFFERENT
ASPECT THAN THE OTHERS. AND SO I
WAS JUST WONDERING THE
BACKGROUND ON THAT OF WHAT IF
YOU WERE TRYING TO TARGET THAT
PARTICULAR GROUP, WOULD THERE BE
A LESS BROAD WAY TO DO IT? BUT
THAT WAS THAT WAS WHAT I WAS
GOING WITH, TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND. DID I ANSWER YOU
ANSWERED, YOU ANSWERED MY
QUESTION. I THINK WE'RE GOOD.
MR. ZIPPER? YES. GO BACK. SO I'M
I'M INTIMATELY AWARE OF ALL THE
DATA RELATED TO RETAIL THEFT AND
MET WITH ALMOST EVERY
STAKEHOLDER RELATED TO RETAIL
THEFT, AND HAVE NEVER ONCE BEEN
FLAGGED THAT ONE OF THE PRIMARY
REASONS IS ONE OF THE PRIMARY
PROBLEMS THAT'S HAPPENING ON
RETAIL THEFT WAS THAT THE
BASICALLY THAT THE CRIME RINGS
ARE USING KIDS. NOW, I DON'T
DOUBT THAT THAT HAPPENS
SOMETIMES, BUT THAT IS NOT ONE
OF THE KEY THINGS THAT CAME OUT
OF ANY LIKE LITERALLY ANY OF THE
MEETINGS, THE HEARINGS THAT
WE'VE HAD ON THAT. NOT ONCE DID
ANYONE RAISE THAT. I WILL POINT
OUT THAT IN THE PACKAGE OF BILLS
THAT WAS APPROVED BY THIS
COMMITTEE, THERE WILL BE
REQUIREMENTS FOR RETAILERS TO
ACTUALLY REPORT DATA AND I THINK
THERE WILL BE DATA THAT WILL
SHOW AT A LATER PERIOD OF TIME
WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS AN ISSUE.
SO, I JUST, YOU KNOW, THE FACT
THAT YOU'RE SAYING THIS IS
HAPPENING, IT'S ANECDOTAL, BUT
FRANKLY, THIS WAS NEVER RAISED
BY ANY OF THE MAJOR STAKEHOLDERS
ABOUT THE THIS ISSUE. WITH
RESPECT TO KIDS. SO THANK YOU.
SO, MEMBER REYES, ACTUALLY, THIS
MR. CHAIR, THE QUESTIONS HAVE
ALREADY BEEN ASKED. AND I
APPRECIATE THE RESPONSES. I ONE
THING, IF I MAY, THE BILL TALKS
ABOUT, THAT IT'S A CRIME TO
PROMOTE, EMPLOY, USE, PERSUADE,
INDUCE OR COERCIVE MINOR IN THE
ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF BUSINESS
SAYS THAT THEY SUPPORT THE
ROBUST PENALTIES UNDER YOUR BILL
FOR THOSE WHO RECRUIT ORGANIZED,
SUPERVISED, DIRECT MANAGER,
FINANCE ANOTHER TO ACT IN
CONCERT WITH ANOTHER TO STEAL. I
KNOW THAT THIS COMMITTEE, HERE
AND IN THE SENATE AND ALSO THE
ADMINISTRATION HAVE TAKEN THIS
SERIOUSLY WHEN WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT NOT JUST RETAIL THEFT, BUT
ORGANIZED CRIME IN RETAIL THEFT.
I MEAN, THIS IS SOMETHING VERY
SERIOUS. AND IN FACT, THERE ARE
A NUMBER OF BILLS THAT HAVE COME
THROUGH THIS COMMITTEE THAT WE
ALL HAVE VOTED IN FAVOR OF, I
THINK THE, THE, THE COMMENT HAS
ALREADY BEEN MADE, AND I AND I
KNOW THAT I'M REPEATING, BUT
IT'S SO OVERLY BROAD THE WAY
THAT IT'S THAT THE WAY THE BILL
IS STATED. IT DOES CAUSE
CONCERN, WE THE COMET HAS BEEN
MADE ABOUT ALL OF THE, THE LAWS
THAT WE HAVE ON THE, ON THE
BOOKS ALREADY THAT PROVIDE THE
TOOLS THAT ARE NECESSARY TO, TO,
TO CONVICT, THOSE WHO ARE
INVOLVED IN ORGANIZED CRIME, IS
THERE MORE THAT CAN BE DONE?
WELL, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE
NEED TO DO IS FIGURE OUT WHAT
MORE NEEDS TO BE DONE. BECAUSE
ORGANIZED CRIME, RETAIL THEFT IS
ONE OF THE I THINK THE BIGGEST
PROBLEM HERE IS OPPOSED TO THE,
THE EVERYTHING IS A PROBLEM. BUT
AS OPPOSED TO THE MINORS, THE
STEALING OR THE PARENT WHO WAS
HAVING THEIR CHILD STEAL,
STANOWITSCH OR SOMETHING, BUT
THE ORGANIZED RETAIL THEFT IS A
SERIOUS ISSUE. AND I IT HAS BEEN
STATED IN THE PAST, I'M VERY
PROUD OF THE WORK THAT THE
COMMITTEE HAS BEEN DOING IN
TRYING TO ADDRESS THAT AND
GETTING THOSE BILLS OVER TO THE
SENATE, I BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE
BILL IS WRITTEN AND BECAUSE IT
IS SO OVERLY BROAD, I'M NOT
GOING TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT IT
TODAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. WE HAVE
A MOTION AND A SECOND YOU MAY
CLOSE. THANK YOU. AND I
APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. AND I
KNOW MYSELF WORKING ON RETAIL
THEFT. AND I SAY THANK YOU FOR
THE BILLS YOU GUYS HAVE PASSED
THROUGH. AND I YOU KNOW, I DON'T
WANT THE MISSING INTERPRETATION
OF THIS BECAUSE OF KNOWING
RETAIL THEFT. THIS BILL REALLY
WAS THERE TO PROTECT THE MINORS.
THESE MINORS ARE BEING USED TO
DO THE DIRTY WORK OF THESE
RINGLEADERS. AND THAT'S WHAT
THIS IS FOCUSED ON BECAUSE WE
DON'T WANT THEM CONTINUING THIS
CIRCLE, THIS CHAIN WHERE THEY
BECOME AN ADULT KNOWING THAT,
HEY, I CAN GET AWAY WITH THIS.
AND THEN BRINGING MORE MINORS
IN. THIS BILL IS SPECIFIC,
REALLY FOCUSING ON KEEPING OUR
OUR KIDS, ESPECIALLY THE MOST
VULNERABLE FOSTER KIDS, A LOWER
INCOME KIDS, SAFE AND NOT HAVING
THE COERCE, YOU KNOW, AND USING
THEM. THAT'S WHAT THIS WAS
ABOUT. IT WASN'T ABOUT, YOU
KNOW, TAKING, YOU KNOW, TAKING A
MOM THAT, YOU KNOW, GETS A LOAF
OF BREAD OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
FIRST OF ALL, OBVIOUSLY IT'S A
MISDEMEANOR. BUT SECOND OF ALL,
THAT WAS THE LAST THING THAT I
WOULD EVER DO. AND I THINK
KNOWING ME, YOU KNOW, THAT
WASN'T THERE THERE. IT REALLY IS
PROTECTING OUR MINORS. AND THAT
IS MY MAIN GOAL HERE. AND I
APPRECIATE THAT. BUT I THINK WE
PROBABLY NEED TO GET SOME STATS
BECAUSE THESE WERE NOT MADE UP.
YOU KNOW, THE ATTORNEY HERE SEES
THESE KIDS, THEY TALK TO THEM.
THEY KNOW THAT THEY ARE BEING
USED. AND SO WE NEED TO START
GETTING DATA IN THERE. BUT I
THINK THE FIRST PRIORITY IS THAT
WE TAKE CARE OF THE MINORS THAT
ARE BEING USED. AND WE DON'T
JUST ASSUME THAT THIS ISN'T
HAPPENING BECAUSE IT IS. AND
THAT IS MY FIRST PRIORITY. SO I
REALLY APPRECIATE IT. I
APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK, FOR, A
CONSIDERATION, A COURTESY VOTE
TO MOVE FORWARD. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU, THANK YOU FOR YOUR
PRESENTATION. WE HAVE A MOTION A
SECOND. I WILL NOTE THAT THIS
WAS A BILL THAT WE TOOK VERY
SERIOUSLY. WE DIDN'T VOTE ON IT
A FEW WEEKS AGO. WE PULLED IT
BECAUSE WE WANTED TO KEEP
TALKING WITH YOU AND WORKING ON
IT, BECAUSE IT IS A BIG TOPIC
AND AS OUR MEMBER FROM WEST
HOLLYWOOD SAID, WHO'S WORKING
WITH US ON THE SELECT COMMITTEE,
THIS IS A BIG, BIG, BIG TOPIC.
AND I WILL NOTE THAT WHEN I
FIRST GOT THIS ASSIGNMENT A FEW
DAYS LATER, I READ IN THE
CHRONICLE THERE WAS SOME GIRL IN
THE SAN FRANCISCO SOUTH SAN
FRANCISCO WHO WAS FOUND, WHO WAS
14. I HAVE 15 YEAR OLD, AND SHE
HAD LIKE $40,000 OF GOODS WITH
HER, SO SHE PROBABLY WASN'T
DOING IT ALONE. AND SHE PROBABLY
HAD SOMEBODY HELPING WITH HER,
PROBABLY WAS AN ADULT. AND SO I
THINK THAT THOSE ARE ISSUES WE
NEED TO ADDRESS. BUT IS THIS THE
REMEDY THAT WILL JUST TACKLE
THAT? I DON'T THINK SO. AND I
THINK IT DOES OPEN UP OTHER
PARAMETERS. AND WE DO HAVE OTHER
LAWS. WE LAY OUT. AND PLUS THERE
IS DISCRETION. THIS IS A
WOBBLER. SO IN THESE CASES WE
THINK THERE IS OPPORTUNITY FOR
THAT DISCRETION TO BE UTILIZED,
THEREFORE I'M NOT SUPPORTING
THIS. THANK YOU FOR ENGAGING
WITH US. AND PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ON AB 2406 BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER DAVIES. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. MCCARTY NÓ MCCARTY.
NØ ALANIZ. LACKEY NGUYEN REYES.
REYES NOT VOTING. TING WILSON.
WILSON NÓ ZUBER. ZUBER. NO THAT
MEASURE FAILS. NEXT MEASURE. MR.
THANK YOU
.
OKAY. WE HAVE A COUPLE OF BILLS
FOR YOU, WHICH I'M NHIÀU START
WITH. WE'LL START WITH. LET'S GO
WITH AB 720 2788.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR.
AND COLLEAGUES, FOR ALLOWING ME
TO PRESENT ASSEMBLY BILL 2788,
ON AUGUST 16TH OF 2023. I WAS
HERE IN THE STATE CAPITOL AND
RECEIVED ONE OF THE MOST
DISTURBING CALLS OF MY LIFE IN
WHICH, I WAS NOTIFIED THAT THERE
WAS A SHOOTING, AN OFFICER
INVOLVED SHOOTING IN THE CITY OF
SAN JOSE IN MY DISTRICT, AND
THEN SUBSEQUENTLY WAS MADE AWARE
THAT IT WAS MY BROTHER AND HIS
PARTNER THAT WERE SHOT AT. MY
BROTHER'S PARTNER WAS HIT, AND
SHE WAS THE FIRST POLICE
OFFICER, FEMALE POLICE OFFICER
TO BE HIT IN THE LINE OF DUTY IN
THE HISTORY OF THE CITY OF SAN
JOSE. MY BROTHER WOULD BE HERE
TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT, BUT HE
CAN NOT BE HERE BECAUSE OF THE
TRAUMA THAT HE HAS ENDURED. AND
THIS IS, OF COURSE, AN
EXPERIENCE NOT UNIQUE TO HIM,
BUT SO MANY OTHERS. THIS BILL,
OF COURSE, ATTEMPTS TO BE
RESPONSIVE TO THIS ISSUE AT
HAND, AND MAKING SURE THAT WE
ARE KEEPING OUR COMMUNITY SAFE
AND ADDRESSING THESE ISSUES AT
HAND, AND MAKING SURE THAT SUCH
REPEAT OFFENDERS ARE, TAKEN INTO
ACCOUNT, AND INDIVIDUALS WITH
SERIOUS CRIMES AND REPEAT
FIREARM CHARGES, WE ADDRESS
THESE ISSUES IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AND WE'RE TAKING THE
RIGHT STEPS TO ADDRESS THESE
ISSUES AS WELL. WITH ME TODAY IS
JONATHAN FELDMAN WITH THE
SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION TO HELP
ANSWER ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS
AS WELL. AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AYE VOTE IN CONSIDERATION.
THANK YOU. CHAIR MEMBERS. GOOD
MORNING, JONATHAN FELDMAN,
CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS
ASSOCIATION, IN STRONG SUPPORT
OF AB 2788, WHICH GETS AT A
PRIORITY ISSUE FOR POLICE CHIEFS
ACROSS THE STATE. AND I WANT TO
HIGHLIGHT THAT, WHETHER IT'S
RETAIL THEFT, GANG CRIMES OR
VIOLENT OFFENDERS, REPEAT
OFFENDERS WHO ARE THE PRIMARY
DRIVERS OF CRIME IN OUR STATE,
THE SMALL PROPORTION OF THE
POPULATION WHO COMMIT A MAJORITY
OF THE CRIME. THAT IS A HUGE
PROBLEM FOR THE CHIEFS
ASSOCIATION. AND WHERE WE ARE
LOOKING FOR STRENGTH IN OUR LAWS
TO ADDRESS THAT POPULATION.
THÀNH IN THIS CASE, WE ARE
FOCUSING ON REPEAT OFFENDERS WHO
HAVE SHOWN A PATTERN OF
RECKLESSNESS AND DISREGARD FOR
OUR LAWS AND FOR THE SAFETY OF
OTHERS. THOSE WHO WERE ALREADY
PROHIBITED FROM OWNING A
FIREARM, COMMITTING ANOTHER
CRIME WITH THE USE OF A FIREARM,
AB 2788 ALSO, DOESN'T MANDATE
ANY NEW PENALTIES OR
ENHANCEMENTS, BUT RATHER
PRESERVES JUDICIAL DISCRETION BY
ALLOWING FLEXIBILITY AND
DICTATING TO OUR JUDGES WHAT
FACTORS THEY SHOULD CONSIDER.
THESE ARE, SIMILAR PROVISIONS
THAT WE'VE SEEN IN A LOT OF
CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM BILLS
WHERE WE OUTLINED THE, FACTORS
THAT WE WANT JUDGES TO CONSIDER,
WHETHER IT'S MENTAL HEALTH,
HOMELESSNESS, PRIOR MILITARY
USE, WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE
VICTIMS OF ABUSE THEMSELVES. WE
DON'T NECESSARILY DICTATE
EXACTLY WHAT THE PENALTIES ARE,
BUT WE DO OUTLINE FOR JUDGES THE
CRITERIA THAT WE EXPECT THEM TO
CONSIDER AND GIVE GREAT WEIGHT
TOWARDS, YOU KNOW, IT ALSO,
RELIES HEAVILY ON REHABILITATION
PROGRAMS THAT WE'VE STOOD UP
WITHIN OUR, STATE PRISONS AND
COUNTY JAILS UTILIZING THOSE
PROGRAMS IN THESE CASES TO MAKE
SURE THAT THOSE WHO HAVE CLEARLY
SHOWN REPETITIVE BEHAVIOR ARE
GIVEN, PROGRAMS THAT WILL HELP
HOPEFULLY LOWER OUR RECIDIVISM
RATES ACROSS THE STATE, AND FOR
THOSE REASONS, WE ARE IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF THIS MEASURE. AND
THANK THE AUTHOR. THANK YOU.
OTHERS IN SUPPORT, PLEASE COME
FORWARD. IVY FITZPATRICK,
CALIFORNIA DA'S ASSOCIATION AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. OPPOSITION.
PLEASE COME FORWARD
.
PLEASE PROCEED. YOU HAVE TWO
MINUTES EACH. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. CHAIR. I'M KENNETH HARTMAN,
ADVOCACY DIRECTOR FOR
TRANSFORMATIVE PROGRAMING.
WORKS. WE REPRESENT 99 COMMUNITY
BASED ORGANIZATIONS THAT RUN
REHABILITATIVE PROGRAMS IN EVERY
CALIFORNIA PRISON. I SERVED 38
YEARS IN THE PRISON SYSTEM. I
WAS COMMUTED FROM A LIFE WITHOUT
PAROLE SENTENCE, IN LARGE PART
DUE TO REHABILITATIVE WORK. I
DID. I TOOK SOME OF THE PROGRAMS
WE NOW REPRESENT. I FACILITATE
SOME OF THE PROGRAMS WE NOW
REPRESENT. I EVEN HELPED TO
CREATE A COUPLE OF THE PROGRAMS
WE NOW REPRESENT. WE OPPOSED
THIS BILL FOR THE FOLLOWING
REASONS. WE BELIEVE THAT THIS
BILL FUNDAMENTALLY
MISUNDERSTANDS THE
REHABILITATIVE PROCESS IN WAYS
THAT COULD HARM THE FORWARD
PROGRESS WE'VE SEEN. I KNOW THE
REHABILITATIVE PROGRAMS REQUIRE
SEVERAL COMPONENTS TO BE
SUCCESSFUL. THERE NEEDS TO BE
TRUST IN THE PROCESS, KNOWING
THAT EVERYONE IN THE ROOM IS
MOVING IN THE SAME DIRECTION SO
THAT PARTICIPANTS DO NOT FEEL
ALONE. SAFETY CONFIDENTIALITY,
AND UNITY OF PURPOSE ARE ALSO
ESSENTIAL. PARTICIPANTS IN
REHABILITATIVE PROGRAMS OFTEN
REVEAL THEIR WORST MOMENTS
PROFOUNDLY, OPENING THEMSELVES
UP TO VULNERABILITY. MOST
IMPORTANTLY, THEY MUST BE
VOLUNTARY, INTRODUCING A
COMPULSORY COMPONENT INTO A
PROGRAM VIOLATES THAT VOLUNTARY
QUALITY AND THREATENS TO UPEND
THE NECESSARY UNITY. IT
COMPROMISES EXISTING PROGRAMS
AND CREATES AN ADDITIONAL BURDEN
ON THE STATE THAT, FROM OUR OWN
LIVED EXPERIENCE, WE KNOW WILL
BE MINIMALLY SUCCESSFUL AT BEST,
WE THINK WE'RE FALLING INTO THE
TRAP. THAT PRESUMES THE STATE
CAN DECIDE WHAT PROGRAMS WORK
BEST FOR PEOPLE BASED ON AN
OFFENSE TYPE, WHICH HAS
HISTORICALLY PROVEN INEFFECTIVE.
THIS MOVES AWAY FROM THE
PROGRESS TOWARD COMMUNITY BASED
SOLUTIONS AND BACK TOWARD THE
FAILED POLICIES THAT FACILITATED
MASS INCARCERATION. I KNOW THAT
REHABILITATION WORKS BECAUSE
I'VE SEEN IT WORK ON THOUSANDS
OF PEOPLE AND FRANKLY, ON ME. I
WOULD NOT BE HERE TODAY WITHOUT
THE BENEFIT OF THE MANY HOURS OF
REHABILITATIVE PROGRAM THAT I
WAS FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO
PARTICIPATE IN OVER THE DECADES
OF MY IMPRISONMENT,
PARTICIPATING IN THAT WAS
VOLUNTARY ON MY PART. FOR THESE
REASONS, WE STAND IN OPPOSITION
TO THIS BILL. THANK YOU. NEXT
SPEAKER. MARCO GEORGE FOR
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. I WANT TO RECOGNIZE
THE TRAUMA THAT ASSEMBLY MEMBER
LOWE'S FAMILY AND HIS, BROTHER'S
PARTNER SUFFERED. I YOU KNOW,
I'M REALLY SORRY FOR THAT.
UNFORTUNATELY THIS BILL IS
PROBLEMATIC FOR TWO REASONS,
ONE, RESEARCH SHOWS THAT LONGER
SENTENCES DO NOT DETER CRIME,
AND TWO, THE ACTUAL WAY THE BILL
IS CONSTRUCTED, IT RUNS AFOUL OF
BOTH THE US CONSTITUTION AND THE
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, THE
SUPPORT THAT, ANALOGIZED IT TO
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORMS
THAT GIVE WEIGHT TO VARIOUS
FACTORS AND STRIKING
ENHANCEMENTS OR SENTENCING. AND
THIS ATTEMPTS TO DO THE
OPPOSITE, WHICH IS GIVE GREAT
WEIGHT TO, AN AGGRAVATED TERME
WHICH RUNS AFOUL OF US SUPREME
COURT PRECEDENT IN APPRENDI,
WHICH SAYS ANYTHING THAT GOES
BEYOND THE MINIMUM SENTENCE HAS
TO BE SUBMITTED TO A JURY THAT A
JUDGE CANNOT DO THAT ALONE. THEN
THE SECOND PROBLEM IS THE
ATTEMPT TO ABROGATE PROP 57
CREDITS AND VERY RECENTLY, EVEN
THE DISSENT IN THE CALIFORNIA
SUPREME COURT, JUSTICE CHEN SAID
THAT, IT REMAINS AN OPEN
QUESTION WHETHER THE VOTERS HAVE
NOW TAKEN THAT AUTHORITY AWAY
FROM THE LEGISLATURE AND GIVEN
IT TO THE EXECUTIVE. SO THERE
ARE TWO SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS
WITH THE WAY THIS BILL IS
CRAFTED. IT IS MOST LIKELY
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND WILL LEAD
TO EXTENSIVE LITIGATION FOR
THOSE REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSE AND ASK FOR YOUR NO VOTE.
THANK YOU. OTHERS IN OPPOSITION
NATASHA MINSKER SMART JUSTICE
CALIFORNIA AGAIN, WITH DEEP
RESPECT TO ASSEMBLYMEMBER LOW
AND HIS FAMILY, WE REMAIN
OPPOSED UNLESS AMENDED. ADRIANA
GRIFFITH WITH INITIATE JUSTICE
AND OPPOSITION. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. MELANIE KIM, SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDERS
OFFICE RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION.
RESPECTFULLY, JOANNE SCHEER, ON
BEHALF OF FELONY MURDER
ELIMINATION PROJECT IN STRONG
OPPOSITION. MARLENA MERCADO WITH
UNCOMMON LAW AND STRONG
OPPOSITION. TANA OPPLIGER WITH
CALIFORNIANS UNITED FOR
RESPONSIBLE BUDGET OR CURB IN
OPPOSITION MICAH DOCTOROFF,
STAFF ATTORNEY WITH THE ACLU OF
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA ON BEHALF OF
ACLU CALIFORNIA ACTION IN
REGRETFUL OPPOSITION WITH
RESPECT TO ASSEMBLY MEMBER LOW
AND HIS FAMILY. HIÆN ORTEZ WITH
ALL OF US IN LEGAL SERVICES FOR
PRISONERS FOR CHILDREN IN
OPPOSITION ON. LINA DIÆN LSPC
AND ALL OF US ARE NONE IN
OPPOSITION. KELLY WALTERS, STAFF
ATTORNEY WITH LEGAL SERVICES FOR
PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN AND
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. QUESTIONS. COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER WILSON. THANK YOU. I
HAVE, TWO QUESTIONS, ONE FOR THE
AUTHOR AND THEN A FOLLOW UP
BASED ON THE TESTIMONY. SO THE
FIRST QUESTION FOR THE AUTHOR,
THANK YOU. YOU KNOW, AND,
DEFINITELY, EXTEND, YOU KNOW, MY
APPRECIATION TO, YOU KNOW, YOUR
FAMILY FOR THEIR SERVICE, AND
RECOGNIZE, THEM BEING IN HARM'S
WAY AND HOW DEVASTATING THAT CAN
BE AND THE TRAUMA THAT IS
EXPERIENCED THROUGH THAT, SO I
EXTEND MY LOVE AND APPRECIATION
TO YOUR FAMILY, NOTING THAT,
PART OF THIS IS ENHANCEMENTS.
AND WE DEFINITELY HAVE A
PATCHWORK OF ENHANCEMENT LAWS
HERE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
I WAS CONFUSED BY THE LANGUAGE
IN YOUR BILL, THE LANGUAGE AS IT
RELATES TO THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS, WHAT IT ACTUALLY DOES,
DOES IT MAKE THINGS BETTER OR
WORSE THAN IN TERMS OF THE
LENGTH ENHANCEMENT? IS IT LONGER
OR SHORTER THAN, WHAT CURRENTLY
EXISTS IN LAW TODAY? COULD YOU
PROVIDE CLARITY TO THAT? THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. ASSEMBLY. WHEN
THE QUESTION WAS, AS YOU
SUMMARIZE THE QUESTION ABOUT,
YOUR BELIEF THAT THIS WAS AN
ENHANCEMENT, IN THE BILL
SPECIFICALLY ON SECTION B,
CLEARLY OUTLINES THAT THIS
SECTION SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED
AN ENHANCEMENT. SO IT'S CLEARLY
SPECIFIES THAT, SO MIGHT THERE
BE, CONFUSION ON, THE SPECIFICS
HERE OR MAYBE, PERHAPS THERE'S
THAT, AN AREA THAT I MIGHT BE
ABLE TO HELP HONE IN ON. OKAY.
SO YOU SO YOU SAID, AND I'M
TRYING TO LOOK IT UP AT THE SAME
TIME. SO YOU SAID IN SECTION B,
IT SAID IT'S NOT CONSIDERED
ENHANCEMENT. CORRECT. THE
SECTION SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED
ENHANCEMENT, BUT IT DOES BY
DEFINITION ENHANCE. ISN'T IT AN
INCREASED PENALTY OR ARE YOU
SAYING IT'S REQUIRING THE UPPER
LIMIT. BUT IT ADDS ADDITIONAL
COMPONENTS? DOES IT NOT? SO AS
I'M READING THE BILL WITH YOU
HERE, SPECIFICALLY THAT A COURT
MAY USE JUDICIAL DISCRETION IS
STILL INTACT. MAY VERSUS SHALL,
AND AGAIN IN THE SECTION 23 IS
SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED AN
ENHANCEMENT. SO AGAIN, IN
ATTEMPTING TO ANSWER THE
QUESTION ABOUT MAINTAINING THE
JUDICIAL DISCRETION IS STILL
INTACT, WITH THE LANGUAGE, VERY
SPECIFICALLY ON THOSE TWO
ELEMENTS. AND IT DOES HAVE THE,
WHEN IT LOOKING AT PROBATION,
THAT DOES GET CONVERTED TO A
CHAU. RIGHT. SHALL BE FOR
DURATION OF FIVE YEARS. YES.
PROBATION. THE SITUATION AT
HAND. SOMEONE IS AGAIN TO
PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CONTEXT. AS
YOU CAN APPRECIATE, IF THERE IS
AN INCIDENT IN YOUR DISTRICT, WE
ARE HERE TO HELP ADDRESS THESE
ISSUES AT HAND AND CRAFTING
LEGISLATION TO PREVENT SUCH A
CIRCUMSTANCE FROM OCCURRING IN
THE FUTURE WAS IMPORTANT, WHILE
ALSO MAINTAINING THE DIRECTION
AND INTEGRITY OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA NOT TO OVER
INCARCERATE. SO THIS IN ESSENCE,
PRESENTED BEFORE YOU IN
PARTNERSHIP AND WORK WITH THE
WITH THIS COMMITTEE AND THE
COMMITTEE STAFF, ATTEMPTS TO
ADDRESS THE ISSUE AND
MAINTAINING THE OPPORTUNITY TO,
RETAIN THE JUDICIAL DISCRETION
AT HAND, BUT PROVIDE FOR AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR GREATER
PUNISHMENT, GREATER
ACCOUNTABILITY, K¾T THE
INDIVIDUAL AT HAND. FOR EXAMPLE,
IN THIS CASE, ALREADY, WAS
POSSESSING A FIREARM, SO SHOULD
NOT HAVE BEEN POSSESSING A
FIREARM. AND SO THE SECOND
CRIME, WHILE POSSESSING THAT
FIREARM, WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO
ADDRESS THAT ISSUE THAT ALREADY
WITH THE FIRST CASE THAT WAS NOT
PREVENTATIVE ENOUGH. AND SO
THESE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH
WE WANT TO, OUTLINE THE CRITERIA
TO ADDRESS THAT INDIVIDUAL UNDER
THIS CIRCUMSTANCE. OKAY. THANK
YOU FOR THAT RESPONSE. IT'S A
GREAT SEGUE TO MY QUESTION TO
THE OPPOSITION. YOU TALKED ABOUT
THAT THAT, PUTTING IT IN THE
HANDS OF THE LEGISLATURE OR THE
STATE OVERALL INTO THE
REHABILITATION AND
REHABILITATION OF A PERSON, BUT
AS THE AUTHOR NOTED, THIS IS NOT
THE FIRST TIME THIS PERSON HAS
USED A FIREARM IN THE COMMISSION
OF A CRIME. THEY'VE ACTUALLY
USED IT IN A WAY THAT ACTUALLY
REQUIRED, I THINK IT WAS THE TEN
YEARS. RIGHT, OR 20 YEAR
ENHANCEMENT ON A POTENTIALLY,
AND SO WHY WOULD THEN IF THEY'RE
ALLOWED TO, IF THEY ARE FREE AND
DO ANOTHER CRIME, WHY WOULDN'T
YOU WANT GREATER? I DON'T KNOW
WHAT TO CALL IT NOW AND GREATER
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE AUTHOR.
THANK YOU. AND AGAIN, TO MR.
LOTH, YOUR FAMILY, WITH RESPECT,
I THINK WHAT REALLY WHAT I'M
SAYING IS, IS IF YOU INTRODUCE A
COMPULSORY COMPONENT TO TAKING
PROGRAMS, WHICH I THINK THIS
BILL DOES INTRODUCE A COMPULSORY
COMPONENT PRIOR TO BEING ABLE TO
EARN GOOD TIME OFF OF YOUR
SENTENCE. I THINK THAT UPENDS
THE IDEA OF PARTICIPATION AND
REHABILITATIVE PROGRAM. IT KIND
OF HAS TO BE VOLUNTARY BECAUSE
IF IT'S NOT VOLUNTARY REALLY,
YOU JUST HAVE PEOPLE SITTING IN
A ROOM RIGHT? YOU WANT PEOPLE
COMING TO A PROGRAM BECAUSE THEY
WANT TO BE IN A PROGRAM. AND
LIKE I SAY, I WAS IN PRISON FOR
38 YEARS AND I HAVE BEEN IN
PLACES WHERE THERE WERE SORT OF
COMPULSORY THINGS. THEY DON'T
HAVE THE SAME IMPACT. THEY DON'T
HAVE THE SAME EFFECT. OUR MEMBER
ORGANIZATIONS ARE ALL BASICALLY
REHABILITATIVE. PROGRAM
PROVIDERS WOULD WANT THE PEOPLE
IN THEIR CLASSES, THE PROGRAMS,
WHATEVER THEY ARE, ARE PEOPLE
THERE BECAUSE THEY WANT TO BE
THERE. AND YOU'RE GOING TO GET A
LOT MORE OUT OF SOMETHING IF
PEOPLE ARE THERE BECAUSE THEY
WANT TO BE THERE. SO I THINK
THAT'S FUNDAMENTALLY WHAT I'M
SAYING, IN THIS PARTICULAR BILL
AND NOTES THAT, IN ORDER TO EARN
GOOD CREDITS, RIGHT, YOU HAVE TO
HAVE BEEN A PART OF THAT
PROGRAM. SO YOU SO THEY COULD IS
IT COMPULSORY? I THOUGHT THEY
COULDN'T DO IT, BUT THEY
COULDN'T GET GOOD CREDITS
WITHOUT IT. WELL, I MEAN, I
THINK THAT'S DE FACTO
COMPULSORY. OKAY. SOUNDS SOUNDS
GOOD. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. I THINK THAT'S IT FOR
NOW. THANK YOU, MR. ZUBIATE. I'M
NOT GOING TO ASK ALL THE
QUESTIONS. I KNOW THAT YOU
PROBABLY ANSWERED THEM. I
APOLOGIZE. I HAD TO GET OUT AND
VOTE IN ANOTHER COMMITTEE. THAT
WAS ENDING, I JUST HAD ONE
QUESTION ABOUT THE, I HAD A
NUMBER, BUT THE ONE THAT IS THE
MOST IMPORTANT IS, THE ISSUE OF
THE NO CLEAR END DATE ON THE
PROGRAM. AND HAVING THE CREDITS
NOT EARNED UNTIL THE COMPLETION
AND PROVIDING DISINCENTIVES TO
GOING INTO PROGRAMS. IS THERE A
WAY OF ADDRESSING THAT ISSUE IN
YOUR BILL WHERE YOU COULD, WEAR
A PROGRAM THAT IS ACTUALLY SORT
OF ONGOING WITHOUT A SPECIFIC
COMPLETION DATE? YOU COULD
ADDRESS THAT SO THAT YOU DON'T
END UP HAVING DISINCENTIVES TO
GOING INTO PROGRAMS THAT MAY BE
ONGOING, BECAUSE THAT SEEMS TO
ME LIKE A BIG DISINCENTIVE TO GO
INTO PROGRAMS. AND OF COURSE,
YOU KNOW, WE WANT PEOPLE TO DO
THAT. IF I MIGHT, TO THE CHAIR.
MR. FELDMAN MIGHT BE ABLE TO
ANSWER THIS. YEAH. I'D FIRST
WANT TO SAY I AGREE THAT
VOLUNTARY PROGRAMS ARE ALWAYS
GOING TO BE MORE EFFECTIVE,
ALWAYS, SO THAT'S THAT'S
SOMETHING THAT WE ALL KIND OF
AGREE ON AS A COMMON GROUND. BUT
IN, IN CERTAIN CASES WHERE WE
SEE REPETITIVE BEHAVIOR, WHICH
WAS THE, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE
DECIDING FACTOR IN THIS
INSTANCE, AND ONE OF THE
PROBLEMS THAT WE SEE ACROSS THE
STATE IS THE REPETITIVE BEHAVIOR
THAT'S NOT CHANGING, LACK OF
PARTICIPATION IN SOME PROGRAMING
OR REALLY STRUCTURED PROGRAMING,
IS CAUSAL IN SOMEONE'S
CONTINUED, ILLEGAL BEHAVIOR. AND
SO THE GOAL HERE IS TO IDENTIFY
A SMALL GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS WHO
HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO, DISPLAY A
PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR THAT'S
CAUSING SEVERE DAMAGE AND HARM.
AND THEN IN THOSE CASES,
ACTUALLY TRYING TO OUTLINE THE
PROGRAMING SPECIFICALLY SO THAT
WE REALLY ARE FOCUSING IN AND,
YOU KNOW, TRYING TO CREATE
SOMEWHAT OF A BALANCE BETWEEN
MANDATED PROGRAM AND VOLUNTARY
PROGRAM, I THINK THERE
ABSOLUTELY IS A BALANCE THAT WE
CAN TRY AND CREATE. I MEAN,
AGAIN, FULLY ACKNOWLEDGING THAT
THE VOLUNTARY PROGRAMS ARE MORE
EFFECTIVE, BUT, YOU KNOW, IF
SOMEONE'S NOT GOING TO COMPLETE
PROGRAMS, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO
TAKE THAT STEP ON THEIR OWN. AND
THEY'VE SHOWN REPETITIVE,
ILLEGAL BEHAVIOR. SOMETIMES
THERE HAS TO BE SOME
INTERVENTION AT SOME POINT. SO I
THINK FINDING THE BALANCE
BETWEEN THE TWO WOULD BE THE
GOAL. AND ABSOLUTELY HAPPY TO
KIND OF WORK TOWARDS A BETTER
BALANCE THERE. IF THE LANGUAGE
DOESN'T QUITE, ACCOMPLISH THAT
RIGHT NOW. SO I ASSUME YOU'D BE
WORKING, YOU'D BE OPEN TO
WORKING WITH THE OPPOSITION ON
IDENTIFYING PROGRAMS WITH A
COMPLETION POINT, SO THAT THE
ISSUE OF EARNING CREDITS IS NOT,
YOU KNOW, IS NOT ELIMINATED FOR
PEOPLE ENTERING ENTERING
PROGRAMS. THAT'S CORRECT. YES.
HAVE BEEN COMMITTED TO DO SO.
SHOULD THIS LEAVE THIS COMMITTEE
TODAY? THANK YOU. BACK TO
ASSEMBLYMEMBER WILSON. OKAY. I
THINK I FIGURED OUT MY QUESTION
ON ANNOUNCEMENTS, SO YOU READ,
SECTION A, B OR ITEM B, AND IN
THAT SECTION IT SAYS, AS YOU
NOTED, SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED
AN ENHANCEMENT FOR THE PURPOSES
OF SUBDIVISION C OF SECTION
1385. AND IN REFERENCE TO THAT
SECTION, THIS MEANS THAT THE
JUDGE DOES NOT HAVE DISCRETION
TO DISMISS THIS ENHANCEMENT. IS
THAT IS THAT HOW YOU UNDERSTAND
IT, I'M SORRY, MR. WATTS, WHICH
SECTION ARE YOU READING? SO YOU
YOU READ B AND I'M LOOKING AT I
THINK IT'S LINE 23. RIGHT. YOU
READ THAT AT THE BEGINNING
SAYING HOW IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS
IT SHOULD NOT BE A CONSIDERED AN
ENHANCEMENT, AND I'M SAYING AS
IT RELATES TO THE SUBDIVISION C
OF SECTION 1385, REMOVES THE
JUDICIAL DISCRETION, SO IT
CANNOT BE DISMISSED IN ANY WAY.
SO THERE IS NO DISCRETION FOR
THE JUDGE TO ADJUST ANY OF THIS.
IT IS A IT IS A CHAU VERSUS YOUR
COMMENT EARLIER VERSUS A MAY,
MR. FELDMAN. YEAH, YEAH. I'LL
HELP OUT A LITTLE BIT. OKAY.
THANK YOU. WE'RE GETTING REAL
TECHNICAL AND I WAS ASKING I
GOTCHA I GOTCHA. NO, NO. AND I'M
SORRY. YOU KNOW, SOME OF THIS
LANGUAGE WAS WORKED OUT WITH THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS, OKAY.
ASSOCIATION SO I'M NOT AS VERSED
IN THE LAW AS THEY ARE, BUT WHAT
I CAN TRY AND HELP OUT WITH IS
IT'S NOT AN ENHANCEMENT. IT'S
GIVING THE JUDGE FACTORS TO
CONSIDER AND CHOOSING THE UPPER
TERME. RIGHT. MOST OF OUR OUR
CRIMINAL CRIMINAL TERMS EITHER
HAVE A LOW TERME AND MID TERME
AND A HIGH. THIS IS SAYING IF
SOMEONE HAS REPETITIVELY
COMMITTED, YOU KNOW, DANGEROUS
BEHAVIOR IN THIS CASE, BEING A
FELON PROHIBITED FROM USING A
FIREARM, WHO COMMITS ANOTHER
FELONY WITH A FIREARM, THE JUDGE
SHALL CONSIDER THOSE FACTORS AND
GIVING THE UPPER TERME NOT AN
ENHANCEMENT, JUST THE UPPER OF
THE TRIAD. RIGHT? NOT AND NOT
AND NOT AND NOT MANDATING THAT
THEY DO IT, BUT SAYING THESE ARE
THE FACTORS YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER
FOR THE PROVISION BELOW IS
MAKING IT CLEAR THAT THIS IS NOT
AN ENHANCEMENT. THAT'S NOT WHAT
WE'RE LOOKING FOR. WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT THE TRIAD. AND JUST SAYING
THE JUDGE SHALL CONSIDER THESE
FACTORS, WHICH AGAIN, WE'VE
REQUIRED JUDGES TO CONSIDER
FACTORS IN OTHER INSTANCES, IN
CHOOSING THE UPPER TERME. RIGHT.
BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT SUBSECTION
SUBDIVISION C OF SECTION 1385,
BY REFERENCING THAT IT, IT
ALLOWS IT TAKES AWAY THE JUDGE'S
ABILITY TO DISMISS, DISMISS IT.
AND I THINK AT THE BEGINNING OF
YOUR TESTIMONY, YOU NOTED,
JUDICIAL DISCRETION. AND SO I
THINK THAT'S FOR ME IS WHAT'S
IMPORTANT TO MAINTAIN. I THINK
THERE IS A RECOGNITION THAT IF
SOMEONE HAS COMMITTED A CRIME
AND BECAUSE OF THAT, CRIME HAS
LIMITATIONS WHEN THEY GO BACK
OUT INTO THE WORLD AND THEN THEY
AGAIN COMMIT ANOTHER CRIME
AGAINST THOSE LIMITATIONS, THERE
SHOULD BE AN ABILITY FOR THE
JUDGE TO TAKE INTO, TO CARE FOR
THAT, TO CARRY WEIGHT. AND
BECAUSE OF THAT WEIGHT, THEY
COULD GO TO THE FAR END OF THEIR
ABILITY. THE FIRST TIME AROUND,
SO TO SPEAK, IS WHERE I THINK
YOU SAY YOU'RE GOING. BUT I WANT
THEM TO KEEP THAT DISCRETION.
AND SO IF THERE'S LANGUAGE IN
HERE THAT REMOVES THAT
DISCRETION OF THE JUDGE AND GETS
US INTO THE CHAU VERSUS MAY,
THAT IS VERY CONCERNING TO ME.
AND ALSO THE CONVERSATION THAT
YOU WERE HAVING WITH THAT, WE
STARTED AND THAT YOU HAD WITH
OUR COLLEAGUE FROM WEST
HOLLYWOOD, WOULD, IN TERMS OF,
MAKING SURE YOU'RE IDENTIFYING
PROGRAMS THAT CLOSE ENDED. SO
IT'S NOT A FOREVER AND YOU'RE
NEVER EARNING GOOD CREDITS AND
THINGS OF THAT NATURE IS REALLY
IMPORTANT. AND SO, GIVEN, YOU
KNOW, NOT ONLY THE SACRIFICE OF
YOUR BROTHER, BUT JUST THE
RECOGNITION THÀNH THAT, NOT JUST
POLICE OFFICERS ARE IN HARM'S
WAY, REGULAR COMMUNITY MEMBERS
ARE IN HARM'S WAY. WHEN SOMEONE
CHOOSES TO USE A GUN, THAT IS
NOT ALLOWABLE, AND FOCUSING ON
PUBLIC SAFETY, YOU KNOW, I, I AM
WILLING TO, LET YOU CONTINUE TO
WORK ON IT, BUT RESERVING THE
RIGHT THAT IF ON THE FLOOR,
THERE'S NOT THAT JUDICIAL
DISCRETION. IT'S NOT JUST MAY
BUT CHAU, AND THAT YOU HAVEN'T
WORKED OUT PROGRAMS RECOGNIZING
THAT WE HAVE AS A LEGISLATURE
CREATED OPPORTUNITIES FOR
REHABILITATION AND RESTORATION
IN OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM,
THEN IT WOULDN'T BE SOMETHING I
WOULD SUPPORT, BUT I'M WILLING
TO LET YOU TAKE THAT AS A
MOTION. YEP. OKAY WE HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND. NO, YOU
HAVE MR. ZUBIATE REAL QUICK.
YEAH, I JUST, I'M SORT OF
COMPLETELY ALIGNED WITH MY
COLLEAGUE FROM NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA, AND WILLING TO MOVE
THIS FORWARD TODAY TO ALLOW YOU.
BUT I THINK WITH THE WITH THE
HOPE THAT WITH BOTH OF THESE
ISSUES AND THE DISCRETION THAT
YOU'LL WORK WITH THE OPPONENTS
TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE JUDGE
DOESN'T HAVE TO IMPOSE THE THREE
YEAR, THAT IT'S JUST A MANDATORY
THAT HE CONSIDER THIS FACTOR, HE
OR SHE OR THEY CONSIDER THIS
FACTOR, AND WITH THAT, I THINK
I'M ALIGNED WITH MY COLLEAGUE.
THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION AND
A SECOND, MR. ELIAS. THANK YOU.
CHAIR, JUST ONE HOOK THAT I'M
STUCK ON RIGHT NOW IS THE
JUDGE'S DISCRETION WITH THE
UPPER TÂM FOR BOTH EXISTING
PREEXISTING. AND THEN THIS ONE
IS. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S
GOING TO BE ADDRESSED, OR IS
THAT SOMETHING THAT WILL BE
WORKED ON, HAPPY TO CONTINUE TO
ADDRESS IT AS PART OF THE
CONVERSATION EARLIER, SHOULD
THIS BILL PASS THIS COMMITTEE?
OKAY, OKAY. YOU MAY CLOSE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR A VOTE.
THANK YOU. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ON AB 2788 BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER LO.
THE MOTION IS DUE PASSED TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY MCCARTY I ALANIS ALANIS.
I LACKEY. NGUYEN REYES. TING.
WILSON. WILSON I ZIPPER ZIPPER I
MEASURES ON CALL. YOU HAVE ONE
MORE MEASURE RIGHT AND THEN ONE
ON CONSENT SO AB 3094. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH COLLEAGUES, FOR
ALLOWING ME TO PRESENT THE
SECOND BILL, WHICH IS ASSEMBLY
BILL 3094, AS THIS COMMITTEE
WELL KNOWS, NO STRANGER TO THESE
ISSUES WHEN IT COMES TO
SURVIVOR'S RIGHTS, PREVIOUSLY
ADVOCATING AND PASSING LAWS
ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF THE
STANFORD RAPE CASE RAPE KIT
BACKLOG AND NON-CONSENSUAL
DRUGGING, THIS BILL BEFORE US IS
DIRECT RESPONSE TO A NUMBER OF
ISSUES THAT WE'VE HEARD FROM
SURVIVORS THROUGHOUT THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, WITH RESPECT TO
ROOFING, THE TERME THAT REFERS
TO THE ACT OF SECRETLY
ADMINISTERING DRUGS, IN SOCIAL
SETTINGS WITHOUT CONSENT. THE
TRAGIC REALITY IS THAT MANY
VICTIMS DO NOT COME FORTH AND
HAS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT, AND
PROVIDED GREATER EVIDENCE TO
ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, AND
UTILIZING STATISTICS AND DATA
POINTS AND KEEPING OUR COMMUNITY
SAFE, I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AYE
VOTE AND I'LL TURN IT BACK TO
YOU. THANK YOU. SUPPORT YEAH.
MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
JONATHAN FELDMAN, AGAIN WITH THE
CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS
ASSOCIATION, NO OFFICIAL
POSITION ON THE BILL, BUT WE
HAVE WORKED WITH THE
ASSEMBLYMEMBER ON PREVIOUS
EFFORTS IN THIS SPACE AND
SIMILAR ISSUES, AND WOULD SAY
THAT THIS IS ABSOLUTELY,
COVERING A LOOPHOLE, THAT WE
THINK IS, ALLOWED FOR A LACK OF
PENALTIES AND CONSEQUENCES IN
AREAS THAT ABSOLUTELY DESERVE
IT. AND SO FOR THAT REASON, WE
ARE, LOOKING TO SUPPORT THE
BILL. AND AS IT MOVES OUT OF THE
COMMITTEE, OTHERS IN SUPPORT
PLEASE COME FORWARD SEEING NONE
OPPOSITION.
OKAY. DO YOU WANT ME TO. I CAN
DO THAT. OKAY I'LL START. YES.
MARCO. GEORGE, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION. AGAIN AND
RESPECTFUL OF POSITION, AS NOTED
IN THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS, THIS
BILL IS UNNECESSARY AND
REDUNDANT. IT'S UNNECESSARY
BECAUSE THERE ARE AT LEAST SIX
FELONY PUNISHMENTS ALREADY
RANGING FROM 16 MONTHS TO SIX
YEARS IN COUNTY JAIL OR STATE
PRISON. DEALING WITH THIS AREA
VERY QUICKLY, 11 THREE 50.5%
THÀNH OF GHB AND KETAMINE. THE
OTHER DRUGS THAT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT WITH INTENT TO COMMIT
SEXUAL ASSAULT AS A FELONY,
THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT HEALTH
AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 11,
THREE, SEVEN, SEVEN AND 11 352,
WHICH PROHIBIT ADMINISTERING ANY
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE. SCHEDULE
CLASSIFIED IN SCHEDULE THREE, 4
OR 5, WHICH IS NOT A NARCOTIC
DRUG WHICH INCLUDES ROOFIES,
GHB, AND KETAMINE, ADMINISTERING
ANY OF THESE SUBSTANCES NOW
PUNISHABLE BY INCARCERATION IN
THE COUNTY JAIL FOR UP TO 4 OR 5
YEARS, PC 347 PUNISHES WILLFULLY
MINGLING ANY POISON OR HARMFUL
SUBSTANCE WITH FOOD, DRINK,
MEDICINE OR PHARMACEUTICAL
PRODUCT. STATE PRISON TWO, 4 OR
5 YEARS. CASE LAW HAS FOUND THAT
ROOFIES AND KETAMINE, GBH AND
GBL ARE CAPABLE OF DESTROYING
LIFE. THAT'S THAT'S A POISON. SO
THEY'RE COVERED UNDER THAT, A
SENTENCE ENHANCEMENT OF 3 TO 6
YEARS CAN BE IMPOSED IF THE
PERSON SUFFERS GREAT BODILY
INJURY, I COULD GO ON AND ON,
BUT THERE IT'S VERY ADEQUATELY
ALREADY COVERED. AND FOR THOSE
REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR NO VOTE. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS. MICAH
DOCTOROFF, SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY
AT THE ACLU OF NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA, HERE TODAY ON BEHALF
OF ACLU CALIFORNIA ACTION IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION, WE
APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR'S GOAL OF
PROTECTING PEOPLE FROM THE HARMS
OF NON-CONSENSUAL ADMINISTRATION
OF THESE SUBSTANCES. BUT LIKE MY
COLLEAGUE, WE BELIEVE EXISTING
LAW ALREADY MORE THAN ADEQUATELY
ADDRESSES THESE HARMS, IN
ADDITION TO THE STATUTES THAT MY
COLLEAGUE NAMED, THERE ARE
ADDITIONAL STATUTES A PERSON WHO
COMMITS ENUMERATED SEXUAL
OFFENSES, WHO ADMINISTER A
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE TO THE
VICTIM IN THE COMMISSION OF THAT
OFFENSE, CAN BE PUNISHED BY 15
YEARS TO LIFE, THERE ARE
ADDITIONAL, CODE SECTIONS IN AS,
AS MY COLLEAGUE MENTIONED. AND,
AGAIN, WITHOUT MINIMIZING THE
POTENTIAL HARMS HERE WE THINK
THAT EXISTING LAW ALREADY
ADDRESSES THIS ISSUE AND THAT TO
THE EXTENT THAT EXISTING LAW
DOES NOT CREATE A DETERRENT
EFFECT, CREATING A NEW PENALTY
ISN'T GOING TO SERVE AS A
GREATER DETERRENT, AND LASTLY,
WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS AN
INTEREST IN COLLECTING DATA ON
THIS ISSUE, IF THAT IS THE GOAL
OF, OF THIS BILL IS TO COLLECT
DATA. THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO DO
THAT WITHOUT CREATING AN
ADDITIONAL UNNECESSARY OFFENSE,
SO WE WOULD ENCOURAGE THE AUTHOR
AND THE LEGISLATURE TO THINK
ABOUT SORT OF NON-PUNITIVE WAYS
TO COLLECT DATA, IF THAT IS
INDEED THE OVERARCHING GOAL HERE
TO REALLY UNDERSTAND BETTER THE
PROBLEM UNDERLYING, THIS
LEGISLATION. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
THANK YOU. OTHERS IN OPPOSITION.
IGNACIO HERNANDEZ, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS FOR
CRIMINAL JUSTICE, FOR THE
REASONS ALREADY STATED IN
OPPOSITION. MELANIE KIM, SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE AND OPPOSITION. LISA
BORGESON ELLA BAKER, CENTER FOR
HUMAN RIGHTS STRONG OPPOSITION.
MORGAN ZAMORA, ELLA BAKER,
CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. ASSEMBLYMEMBER WILSON,
I JUST ASK THAT YOU RESPOND TO
THE OPPOSITION IN REGARD TO THE
WE ALREADY DO THIS, RIGHT.
THERE'S ALREADY, WAYS TO HANDLE
THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH, AND I WOULD ACTUALLY
ASK THE OPPOSITION, SO
PERPLEXED, ACTUALLY, ABOUT THE
OPPOSITION BECAUSE I WOULD HAVE
UNDERSTANDING THAT THE BILL AND
PRINT THE BILL SPECIFICALLY
WOULD MAKE THIS CRIME A
MISDEMEANOR. AND I DON'T KNOW IF
THE OPPOSITION WAS AWARE OF
THAT. THEY TALKED ABOUT BEING IN
FELONIES. YES. AND SO I WOULD
ASSUME IN THEORY THAT IF THERE
WAS A CONCERN ABOUT THE
PENALTIES, THIS IS ACTUALLY
LESSENING THE PENALTIES, CALLING
A SPECIFIC SECTION, SO PERHAPS
JUST GIVEN ALSO THE FLURRY OF
INFORMATION IN THIS PERIOD OF
TIME, PERHAPS AMENDMENTS WERE
NOT MADE READILY AVAILABLE TO
OPPOSITION. BUT AGAIN, THE BILL
IN PRINT SPECIFICALLY, CALLS OUT
THIS EXPLICIT, EXPLICIT SECTION
REGARDLESS OF INTENT. AND AGAIN,
TO, ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF DATA
POINTS, AS WELL AS CLARIFYING AS
A MISDEMEANOR SPECIFICALLY. THE
MOTION A SECOND, A SECOND. MR.
LUNNEY'S, MY CONCERNS WITH THIS
BILL ARE. AND I'M SURE THIS MAY
BE AN OVERSIGHT, MAYBE SOMETHING
YOU'RE ALREADY WORKING ON AS FAR
AS, PARAMEDICS OR MEDICAL
PROFESSIONS WHO ARE DOING THEIR
JOBS. HAS THAT BEEN ADDRESSED
ALREADY, I IT HAS NOT. SO THANK
YOU FOR THE REMINDER. YES. TO
ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF MEDICAL
PROFESSIONALS, FIRST RESPONDERS
AND PROVIDING THAT SHOULD THIS
BILL MOVE OUT, PUTTING THAT AS
WELL INTO EXEMPT THEM. THANK
YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU A MOTION A
SECOND. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
OH. EXCUSE ME. YOU'D LIKE TO
CLOSE. I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR VOTE TO PROTECT EVERYDAY
INDIVIDUALS. THANK YOU. OKAY
LET'S CALL THE ROLL ON AB 384 BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER LOWE. THE MOTION
IS DUE. PASS AS AMENDED TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY MCCARTY I ALANIS ALANIS
I LACKEY. NGUYEN NGUYEN I REYES
TING. WILSON I WILSON I ZUBER
MEASURES ON CALLING ONE MORE
VOTE. MR. JONES SAWYER. YES. SO
YOU'RE PULLING, ONE BILL, TWO
BILLS. 2456 AND 2923 MR. VOTE
ONLY. SO YOU JUST HAVE ONE BILL
BEFORE US. AB 2136. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR, I'M HERE TO PRESENT
MY LAST BILL IN PUBLIC SAFETY AS
A MEMBER OF THIS ESTEEMED BODY,
I WOULD SAY LAST, WHEN I'M
LOOKING AT GREG PAGAN, WHO I
STARTED IN THE ASSEMBLY WITH
BACK AGAIN. SO YOU NEVER KNOW.
YOU MAY NEVER COME. YOU KNOW,
WHEN YOU COME BACK HOME AGAIN. I
PRESENT AB 2136, WHICH CLARIFIES
THE LEGALITY OF ASSESSING AND
PROVIDING DRUG CHECKING SERVICES
IN CALIFORNIA. THE MOST
EFFECTIVE WAY TO ADDRESS THE
PRESENCE OF FENTANYL AND OTHER
ANALOGS IS TRAINING, TRAINING,
TRAINING. THE DRUG SUPPLY IS
THROUGH THE EVIDENCE BASED
HEALTH AND HARM REDUCTION
APPROACHES. INCREASED ACCESS TO
NARCAN NARCAN TRAINING FENTANYL
STRIPS HELP PREVENT DRUG
OVERDOSES AND ARE KEEPING PEOPLE
SAFE, SAFE AND ALIVE. DRUG
TESTING IS SIMPLY ANOTHER
IMPORTANT TOOL AT OUR DISPOSAL.
TODAY, RESEARCHERS AND COMMUNITY
BASED ORGANIZATIONS THROUGHOUT
THE STATE ARE OFFERING TO
ANALYZE ALL, ANALYZE SMALL
SAMPLES OF DRUGS TO REVEAL THEIR
COMPONENTS, INCLUDING ANY TRACES
OF FENTANYL THEY ARE CHECKING
FOR CONTAMINATED DRUGS IN AREAS
WITH THE MOST VULNERABLE
POPULATIONS, LIKE IN MY
DISTRICT, SKID ROW AND LOS
ANGELES, PARTICULARLY THIS,
WHERE TECHNICALLY THIS SERVICE
IS ILLEGAL. ALTHOUGH DRUG
TRAFFICKING EQUIPMENT AND
TESTING ARE PERMITTED IN
CALIFORNIA, THE STATE'S DRUG
PARAPHERNALIA AND POSSESSION
LAWS PROHIBIT DRUG TESTING AND
ANALYZING FOR SUBSTANCE USERS
PROGRAMS THAT ARE HELPING PEOPLE
MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS ABOUT
THEIR HEALTH ARE CURRENTLY
OPERATING UNDER A LEGAL GRAY
AREA. AB 2136 ADDRESSES THE GAPS
IN STATE LAW TO ENCOURAGE MORE
CITIES TO OFFER DRUG CHECKING
SERVICES IN PARTNERSHIP WITH
COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS,
RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS, AND STATE
AND LOCAL PUBLIC HEALTH
DEPARTMENTS. THIS BILL ALSO
PROVIDES LEGAL, CRIMINAL, AND
ADMINISTRATIVE PROTECTIONS FOR
BOTH THE DRUG CHECKING SERVICE
PROVIDERS AND THE PARTICIPANTS.
THE INTENT IS FOR THE
PROTECTIONS OF AB 2136 TO APPLY
ONCE THE INDIVIDUAL IS AT THE
TESTING FACILITY, IT IS NOT TO
GET. THIS IS NOT A GET OUT OF
JAIL FREE CARD. I UNDERSTAND
THIS PROVISION IS A CONCERN AND
I AM COMMITTED TO WORK ON
CLARIFYING LANGUAGE AS THE BILL
MOVES FORWARD. MEMBERS. IT CAN
TAKE IT CAN TAKE LESS THAN TEN
MINUTES TO REVEAL VITAL
INFORMATION ABOUT THE CONTENTS
OF THE SUBSTANCE PEOPLE CAN
CONSUME. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY
TO SAVE LIVES. LET'S MAKE THAT
ILLEGAL WITH ME IN SUPPORT OF
THIS BILL. LET'S NOT MAKE THIS
ILLEGAL, WITH ME TO IN SUPPORT
OF THIS BILL IS DOCTOR CHELSEA
SCHOBER. THANK YOU. PLEASE
PROCEED, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I'D LIKE TO THANK CHAIR MCCARTY
AND VICE CHAIR ALANIZ FOR HAVING
ME HERE TODAY, MY NAME IS
CHELSEA SCHOBER. I'M AN
EPIDEMIOLOGIST AND ASSISTANT
PROFESSOR IN RESIDENCE AT THE
UCLA DAVID GEFFEN SCHOOL OF
MEDICINE. TODAY, I REPRESENT
MYSELF AS AN INDIVIDUAL, AND I
DO NOT SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA OR ANY
OTHER ORGANIZATION FOR NEARLY A
DECADE, I HAVE CONDUCTED PUBLIC
HEALTH RESEARCH ON SUBSTANCE USE
DISORDERS, OVERDOSE, AND
INFECTIOUS DISEASES BASED ON MY
OWN EXPERTISE, I VIEW CONTROLLED
SUBSTANCES TESTING OR
COLLOQUIALLY, DRUG CHECKING AS
AN IMPORTANT PART OF HOW WE CAN
CURB OVERDOSE DEATHS IN
CALIFORNIA, ASSEMBLY MEMBER JOAN
SAWYER'S BILL CLARIFIES THE
LEGALITY OF ACCESSING AND
PROVIDING DRUG CHECKING SERVICES
AND PROVIDES ESSENTIAL
PROTECTIONS FOR PROGRAM
PROVIDERS AND PARTICIPANTS SO
THAT WE CAN IMPLEMENT THEM AT
SCALE. SINCE JANUARY 2023, I
HAVE BEEN THE PRINCIPAL
INVESTIGATOR OF DRUG CHECKING
LOS ANGELES, A STUDY THAT
PERFORMS CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES
TESTING IN PARTNERSHIP WITH
SYRINGE SERVICES PROGRAMS. WE
SET UP A TABLE IN A COMMUNITY
SPACE AND PARTICIPANTS WHO HAVE
SOMETHING THEY WANT TO TEST
BRING A SMALL ABOUT THE SIZE OF
A GRAIN OF RICE SAMPLE. WE USE A
PORTABLE SPECTROMETER AND TEST
STRIPS TO IDENTIFY THE PRIMARY
COMPONENTS OF THE SAMPLE. I WANT
TO NOTE THAT WE ARE NOT DOING
QUANTITATIVE TESTING TO DESCRIBE
PURITY, BUT WE ARE IDENTIFYING
THE MAIN COMPONENTS IN A
QUALITATIVE WAY. SO RESEARCH HAS
SHOWN THAT BEING ABLE TO TELL
PEOPLE WHAT IS IN THEIR
SUBSTANCES CAN EMPOWER THEM TO
PREVENT OVERDOSE BY EITHER
CHOOSING NOT TO USE THE
SUBSTANCE OR TO USE IT IN A
DIFFERENT WAY, SUCH AS INGESTING
IT SLOWER. ONE LIFE SAVING
SCENARIO IS, OF COURSE, FINDING
FENTANYL OR OTHER STRONG
SYNTHETIC DRUGS IN A PILL OR
POWDER THAT THE INDIVIDUAL
BELIEVED WAS SOMETHING ELSE. OUR
QUALITATIVE DATA ALSO SHOW THAT
BY OFFERING DRUG CHECKING IN A
NON-JUDGMENTAL WAY, WE HAVE BEEN
ABLE TO BUILD RELATIONSHIPS AND
HELP PARTICIPANTS ENGAGE IN
OTHER SERVICES, INCLUDING
TREATMENT FOR SUBSTANCE USE
DISORDERS, HIV TESTING,
PREVENTION AND TREATMENT,
HOUSING CASE MANAGEMENT, GENERAL
MEDICAL CARE, AND OF COURSE,
NALOXONE AND OTHER OVERDOSE
PREVENTION SUPPLIES. FINALLY,
HEALTH DEPARTMENTS AND OTHER
PUBLIC SAFETY AGENCIES ARE
REALLY INTERESTED IN DRUG
CHECKING BECAUSE IT CAN PROVIDE
MORE TIMELY AND ROBUST
INFORMATION ABOUT THE DRUG
SUPPLY THAN OTHER SOURCES LIKE
POST MORTEM TOXICOLOGY, WHICH
CAN TAKE WEEKS OR MONTHS, OR LAW
ENFORCEMENT SEIZURES, WHICH ARE
RARELY SHARED WITH THE PUBLIC.
REAL TIME DATA CAN DRIVE FASTER
COMMUNITY RESPONSE A YEAR AGO,
WHEN WE FIRST IDENTIFIED THE
VETERINARY TRANQUILIZER XYLAZINE
IN HEROIN SAMPLES IN ONE PART OF
LOS ANGELES, WE IMMEDIATELY
NOTIFIED THE PUBLIC HEALTH
DEPARTMENT AND OUR COMMUNITY
PARTNERS TOGETHER, WE MOBILIZED
TO GET XYLAZINE TEST STRIPS OUT
INTO THE COMMUNITY, MAKE
EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS IN ENGLISH
AND SPANISH, AND PROVIDE
GUIDANCE TO CLINICIANS ABOUT
TREATING PATIENTS WHO USE
XYLAZINE. OUR WORK SO FAR HAS
BEEN LEGAL BECAUSE WE DO IT IN
THE CONTEXT OF SYRINGE SERVICES,
PROGRAMS, BUT OUR REACH HAS BEEN
LIMITED DUE TO THE ISSUES THAT
THIS BILL CLARIFIES. SOME PEOPLE
HAVE UNDERSTANDABLY BEEN
HESITANT TO PARTICIPATE BECAUSE
THEY ARE AFRAID OF GETTING
ARRESTED FOR POSSESSION OF THE
SUBSTANCE THAT THEY WANT TO GET
TESTED WITH THE TOXIC ILLICIT
DRUG SUPPLY. ANYONE WHO USES
DRUGS, WHETHER THAT'S TAKING A
PILL FROM A FRIEND ONE TIME
EXPERIMENTING, PARTYING OR DAILY
USE IS AT RISK OF AN OVERDOSE.
BUT NOT EVERYONE WHO USES DRUGS
GOES TO A SYRINGE. SERVICES
PROGRAM. THIS BILL WOULD REMOVE
THESE BARRIERS AND MAKE IT CLEAR
THAT OUR FIRST PRIORITY IS
HELPING PEOPLE STAY SAFE. WE,
AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS LIKE US,
COULD SCALE UP DRUG CHECKING TO
REACH MORE PEOPLE AND
COMMUNITIES THAT WOULD HELP US
KEEP MORE INDIVIDUALS SAFE AND
GAIN A MORE COMPLETE INSIGHT
INTO THE ILLICIT DRUG SUPPLY.
NOW IS THE TIME TO ADOPT THESE
MEASURES. IN A TRAGIC EXAMPLE OF
TRADITIONAL DATA ARRIVING TOO
LATE, FAR TOO MANY CALIFORNIANS,
INCLUDING MANY YOUNG PEOPLE,
DIED BEFORE WE COLLECTIVELY
UNDERSTOOD THE THREAT OF
COUNTERFEIT PRESSED PILLS. MORE
THAN ONCE I'VE HAD THE GRIM TASK
OF LEADING A NALOXONE TRAINING
AT A HIGH SCHOOL AS AN ALL
SCHOOL ASSEMBLY, BECAUSE A
STUDENT HAD DIED AFTER USING
WHAT THEY THOUGHT WAS A
PRESCRIPTION PILL, BUT TURNED
OUT TO BE FENTANYL. WRAP IT UP.
IT IS MY HOPE, THAT
COMPREHENSIVE DRUG CHECKING CAN
HELP US UNDERSTAND THE ILLICIT
DRUG SUPPLY TO GET AHEAD OF THE
NEXT WAVE. AND I RESPECTFULLY
ASK YOU TO THANK YOU. OTHERS IN
SUPPORT JUST NEED YOUR NAME AND
POSITION ONLY. MELANIE KIM, SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE IN SUPPORT AND ON BEHALF
OF INITIATE JUSTICE ACTION IN
SUPPORT. MARCO JORGE, ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION AND
SUPPORT. GLENN BACCUS, ELLA
BAKER CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
AND SUPPORT. JOANNE SCHEER,
FELONY ELIMINATION PROJECT IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ADRIANA
GRIFFITH, STATEWIDE ADVOCACY
MANAGER WITH INITIATE JUSTICE
AND SUPPORT. MARINA QUINTANILLA.
AND I'M PROVIDING ME TOOS ON
BEHALF OF SUPPORTING
ORGANIZATIONS THAT COULD NOT BE
HERE. GLIDE TOPICS THE GUBBIO
PROJECT, SAN LUIS OBISPO
BANGERS, SYRINGE EXCHANGE AND
OVERDOSE PREVENTION PROGRAM, PRC
BLACK LEADERSHIP COUNCIL,
COMMUNITY HEALTH PROJECT, LOS
ANGELES YOUNG WOMEN'S FREEDOM
CENTER, PARTICIPATORY DEFENSE OF
INLAND EMPIRE, LA, THE SIDEWALK
PROJECT, AND ANY POSITIVE CHANGE
. MY NAME IS TÔI DOE AND I AM
PROVIDING METOOS AS WELL ON
BEHALF OF THOSE SUPPORTING, THE
SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS WHO
COULD NOT BE HERE AS WELL, FACE
TO FACE, SONOMA COUNTY AIDS
NETWORK, TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
HOMELESS HEALTH CARE, LOS
ANGELES HEALTHRIGHT 360
DELIVERING INNOVATION IN SUPPORT
OF HOUSING SAFER INSIDE
COALITION TREATMENT AND DEMAND
COALITION. BIENESTAR HUMAN
SERVICES, INLAND EMPIRE HARM
REDUCTION, HARM REDUCTION
COALITION OF SAN DIEGO THANK YOU
. MARLENA MERCADO, ON BEHALF OF
UNCOMMON LAW AND STRONG SUPPORT,
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON,
CLAIRE SIMONICH VERA, INSTITUTE
OF JUSTICE SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, ALICIA MONTERO,
CALIFORNIANS UNITED FOR
RESPONSIBLE BUDGET AND STRONG
SUPPORT. JEANETTE, ON BEHALF OF
DRUG POLICY ALLIANCE, AS A
CO-SPONSOR AND IN STRONG SUPPORT
, ISABEL LOPEZ WITH THE
COLLECTIVE AND STRONG SUPPORT,
AS WELL AS, SAN FRANCISCO
COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER,
NATIONAL HARM REDUCTION
COALITION, HUMBOLDT AREA CENTER
FOR HARM REDUCTION, SAN
FRANCISCO PRETRIAL DIVERSION
PROGRAM, HIV EDUCATION AND
PREVENTION PROJECT OF ALAMEDA
COUNTY, UP NORTH HARM REDUCTION
AND HEP C, SAN FRANCISCO,
CALIFORNIA. SYRINGE EXCHANGE
PROGRAMS. COALITION BEING ALIVE
AND FRESNO NEEDLE EXCHANGE
PROGRAM. THANK YOU. HI HENRY
ORTIZ, WITH LEGAL SERVICES FOR
PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN. AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OF US IN
SACRAMENTO AND, COMMUNITY
HEALERS AND STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. LINA DIÆN
LSPC. AND ALL OF US ARE NONE IN
STRONG SUPPORT. KELLY WALTERS,
STAFF ATTORNEY WITH LEGAL
SERVICES FOR PRISONERS WITH
CHILDREN AND STRONG SUPPORT. ED
LITTLE, ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIANS FOR SAFETY AND
JUSTICE AND SUPPORT. MICAH
DOCTOROFF, SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY
AT THE ACLU OF NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA ON BEHALF OF ACLU
CALIFORNIA ACTION AND SUPPORT
DANIELA ALVARENGA ON BEHALF OF
THE SALAS POLICY INSTITUTE AND
SUPPORT. MIKE CARROLL, RETIRED
POLICY DIRECTOR FOR THE WESTERN
CENTER ON LAW AND POVERTY, IN
SUPPORT GIANTS FAN NATASHA
MINSKER SMART JUSTICE
CALIFORNIANS SUPPORT DANIKA
RHODIUM ON BEHALF OF LA DEFENSE
AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
OPPOSITION FOR SUPPORT. YEAH.
COME IN. SUPPORT. ALYSSA. MORE.
ALL OF US ARE NONE IN FULL
SUPPORT. JOANNA WILLIAMS IN
SUPPORT. LSPC GILBERT, ANTHONY
MURILLO, LSPC AND ALL OF US
STRONGLY SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
OPPOSITION. THERE IS. SEEING NO
OPPOSITION QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS, A MOTION
AND A SECOND. QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS? SEEING NONE. I'D LIKE
TO CLOSE MR. JONES-SAWYER. THANK
YOU. AND, REALLY, THIS. THERE
WAS A LOT OF CONCERN ABOUT
INDIVIDUALS, ESPECIALLY IN
SUBURBAN COMMUNITIES, WHO ARE
ORDERING PILLS TO STAY UP ALL
NIGHT. YOUNG STUDENTS. AND THEY
ENDED UP BEING POISONED BY
FENTANYL, THIS HOPEFULLY THIS
WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM
NOT ONLY TO SEEK DRUG
INFORMATION, TO GET OFF THE
DRUGS, BUT ALSO THEY CAN TEST IT
BEFORE WE HAVE THAT UNFORTUNATE
THING OF THEM DYING FROM
FENTANYL AND OTHER DRUGS. SO I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE
THANK YOU. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ON AB 2136 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
JONES SAWYER. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASSED TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. MCCARTY MCCARTY I
ALANIS LACKEY NGUYEN NGUYEN I
REYES REYES I TÍNH WILSON.
WILSON I ZIPPER. ZIPPER I OKAY.
THANK YOU. BEFORE OUR NEXT
AUTHOR, WE'RE GOING TO DISPENSE
WITH THE CONSENT CALENDAR. WE
I'M GOING TO READ THE ITEMS FROM
THE CONSENT CALENDAR AB 1863
RAMOS AB 2020 BONTA AB 2521
WALDRON AB 2544 LO AB 2695 RAMOS
AB 2710 LACKEY AB 2878. GABRIEL
AB 2907. BURR AB 3108 JONES
SAWYER AB 3222 WILSON AND AB
3235 BRYANT. WE HAVE A MOTION A
SECOND FROM MISS WILSON AND MR.
ZUBIATE. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON
THE CONSENT CALENDAR. MCCARTY
MCCARTY I ALANIZ, LACKEY. NGUYEN
NGUYEN I REYES REYES I TÍNH
WILSON. WILSON I ZIPPER. ZIPPER
I OKAY. CONSENT CALENDAR IS
ADOPTED. OUR NEXT MEASURE IS
ASSEMBLY MEMBER PETRIE-NORRIS
AND THAT IS AB 2210. GOOD
MORNING. GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. I'M HERE TO PRESENT
AB 2010, WHICH RELATES TO
IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICES. I
WANT TO THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR,
FOR YOUR ENGAGEMENT ON THIS BILL
AND FOR YOUR STAFF'S WORK ON THE
MEASURE. AS DISCUSSED, I WILL BE
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS, AS YOU AND I HAVE
DISCUSSED, GIVEN THE,
COMMITTEE'S VOLUME OF WORK AND
SOME OF THE LAST MINUTE, BACK
AND FORTH ON THE BILL, IN A
COUPLE OF PLACES, THERE ARE SOME
TECHNICAL CLARIFICATIONS THAT
WILL NEED TO BE MADE TO ENSURE
THAT THE LANGUAGE THAT COMES OUT
OF THE COMMITTEE IN PRINT
REFLECTS THE SPIRIT OF OUR
AGREEMENT. AND I CERTAINLY WILL
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH YOU AND
COMMITTEE STAFF TO ENSURE THAT
THAT THAT HAPPENS AND, THAT WE
DELIVER ON OUR SHARED COMMITMENT
TO STOPPING DRUNK DRIVING
TRAGEDIES WITH A THOUGHTFUL AND
COMMON SENSE APPROACH, SO WITH
THAT, EACH AND EVERY DAY, DRUNK
DRIVERS KILLED 37 PEOPLE IN THE
UNITED STATES. THAT'S ONE LIFE
LOST EVERY 39 MINUTES. AB 2210
IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO STOP
THESE TRAGEDIES BEFORE THEY
START, AB 2210, AS IT WILL BE
AMENDED, WILL EXTEND THE SUNSET
ON THE STATE'S EXISTING PROGRAM
THAT REQUIRES REPEAT DUI
OFFENDERS TO INSTALL AN IGNITION
INTERLOCK DEVICE, A
BREATHALYZER. THE BILL WILL ALSO
ESTABLISH A PILOT PROGRAM IN
FIVE COUNTIES FOR FIRST TIME DUI
OFFENDERS. THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT
THAT WE KNOW THIS PROGRAM WORKS.
35 STATES ACROSS THE COUNTRY
HAVE IMPLEMENTED A LAW THAT
REQUIRES A BREATHALYZER FOR
FIRST TIME OFFENDERS. THESE
STATES HAVE SEEN A DECREASE IN
DUI, DUI RELATED, DEATHS AND
ACCIDENTS. AB 2210 IS A COMMON
SENSE APPROACH THAT WILL SAVE
LIVES. I AM PLEASED TO BE JOINED
TODAY BY SONYA SATCHELL FROM THE
SACRAMENTO DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE AND RHONDA MCDANIEL FROM
MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING. I
AM ALSO JOINED TODAY BY KELLY
CARR AND HER DAUGHTER ANGEL,
WITH KELLY AND ANGEL'S
PERMISSION, WE WILL BE, AMENDING
THE BILL TO CALL THIS BILL
ANGEL'S LAW IN HONOR OF ANGEL.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. PLEASE
PROCEED. YOU HAVE FOUR MINUTES
AMONGST ALL OF YOU. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS SONIA
SATCHELL. I'M A DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY WITH THE SACRAMENTO
COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE, AND I HAVE BEEN A
PROSECUTOR FOR 17 YEARS UNDER.
THE MOST DIFFICULT PART OF MY
JOB IS NOT THE TRIAL ITSELF, BUT
IT IS SITTING DOWN WITH THE
FAMILIES, EXPLAINING TO THEM THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, LOOKING
THEM IN THE EYE AND HAVING TO
WALK WITH THEM THROUGH THEIR
PAIN. UNDOUBTEDLY DUIS AND DUI,
VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER CASES ARE
PROBABLY THE MOST DIFFICULT
CRIMES TO WALK FAMILIES THROUGH,
BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONLY CRIMES
THAT ARE 100% PREVENTABLE. THEY
ARE THE ONLY CRIMES THAT DO NOT
NEED TO OCCUR. CURRENTLY,
CALIFORNIA LAW MANDATES IGNITION
INTERLOCKS DEVICE FOR ONLY
REPEAT OFFENDERS, WHILE FIRST
TIME OFFENDERS FACE A CHOICE
BETWEEN INSTALLATION AND LICENSE
SUSPENSION. THÀNH. WELL, WE KNOW
THAT DRIVING WITHOUT A VALID
LICENSE OCCURS ON A DAILY BASIS.
DRUNK DRIVING DEATHS IN
CALIFORNIA HAVE SOARED BY 53%
SINCE 2019. IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY
ALONE, WE HAVE FILED 70 CASES
RELATED TO VEHICULAR
MANSLAUGHTER DEATHS, DUE TO
DUIS. THAT IS, 70 LIVES THAT WE
COULD HAVE SAVED, 18 OF THOSE
ALONE LAST YEAR. BUT THAT NUMBER
DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR VICTIMS
LIKE KELLY, WHO HAVE KELLY AND
HER DAUGHTER ANGEL, WHO HAVE
BEEN THEIR LIVES HAVE NOT BEEN
LOST, BUT HAVE BEEN DEEPLY
IMPACTED BY THE EFFECTS OF
DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE. AB
2210 IS NOT ABOUT PUNISHMENT. IT
IS FOR PROTECTION AND PREVENTION
OF INNOCENT LIVES THAT FAMILIES
ARE TORN APART AT. A DMV STUDY
REVEALED THAT AN INTERLOCK
IGNITION DEVICE YIELDS A 74%
REDUCTION IN DUI RECIDIVISM. I
ASK YOU TO PLEASE STAND AND
PROTECT LIVES, PROTECT LIVES
THAT DO NOT NEED TO BE IMPACTED
BY AN ENTIRELY PREVENTABLE CLASS
OF CRIMES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ARE WE GOING TO. SURE. OKAY HI,
I'M KELLY, AND THIS IS MY
DAUGHTER, ANGEL. WE'RE HERE
TODAY TO BE THE VOICE FOR THE
VOICELESS ANGEL. WHEN SHE WAS 16
YEARS OLD, WAS WALKING HER DOG
IN HER NEIGHBORHOOD AND WAS RAN
OVER BY A DRUNK DRIVER. SHE WAS
LEFT THERE TO DIE AND. AND
SOMETIME LATER, A GOOD SAMARITAN
FOUND HER, NUMEROUS
HOSPITALIZATIONS AND NUMEROUS
SURGERIES, ANGEL HAS SUFFERED A
SEVERE TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY,
AND SHE'S COMPLETELY PARALYZED.
SHE'S, SHE CANNOT TALK. SHE HER
BRAIN FORGETS TO SWALLOW, SO SHE
CHOKES ON HER SALIVA NUMEROUS
TIMES A DAY. SHE, HAS BEEN
DRAMATIC, HIGHLY AFFECTED BY
DRUNK DRIVING. AND AT 16 YEARS
OLD, SHE GOT HER LIFE BASICALLY
TAKEN AWAY. AND THIS IS HER FOR
THE REST OF HER LIFE. SO WHAT
I'M ASKING FOR IS AB 2210 TO BE
PASSED. BECAUSE IF THIS DEVICE
WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED IN
THIS DRUNK DRIVER'S CAR, THIS
COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED. SO SO
I THANK YOU FOR THE PROGRESS ON
THIS BILL. BUT LET'S KEEP ALL OF
CALIFORNIA ROADS SAFE. THANK YOU
FOR, PASSING ON ANGEL'S LAW.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. MY NAME IS RONDA
CAMPBELL. I AM THE CALIFORNIA
MANAGER OF VICTIM SERVICES FOR
MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING,
THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME HAVE
THIS MOMENT THIS MORNING, I JUST
WANT TO SHARE WITH YOU THAT,
THIS IS MY BABY SISTER, IRENE.
IRENE WAS KILLED 256 DAYS AFTER
MY ORGANIZATION WAS FOUNDED BY A
FOUR TIME REPEAT OFFENDER, DRUNK
DRIVER, WHO ULTIMATELY ENDED UP
SPENDING 18 MONTHS IN JAIL. BUT
THE REAL THING IS, IF HE WOULD
HAVE HAD THIS DEVICE IN HIS CAR,
THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN ONE MORE
LINE OF PREVENTION TO PREVENT MY
FAMILY WHAT GO THROUGH WHAT THEY
WENT THROUGH. I'M HERE TO
SUPPORT THIS BILL AND WHAT I
REALLY WANT TO SAY ABOUT IT IS
I'M VERY HAPPY WITH THE PROGRESS
WE'RE MAKING AND THE FIVE
COUNTIES THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE
COVERING IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA WITH THIS ALL
OFFENDER IGNITION INTERLOCK
DEVICE. BUT DRUNK DRIVING IS NOT
A COUNTY PROBLEM. DRUNK DRIVING
IS A STATE PROBLEM. IT IS A
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
PROBLEM. MY HOPE IS THAT WHEN
THESE PILOT RESULTS START COMING
IN AND WE SEE THAT THIS IS AN
EFFECTIVE TOOL THAT YOU WILL ALL
UNDERSTAND THE MAGNITUDE OF HOW
BADLY THIS IS NEEDED. AND I HOPE
IN THE MEANTIME, NONE OF YOU ARE
HANDED YOUR BABY SHOES LIKE MY
PARENTS WERE. AT THE END OF THE
DAY, I URGE YOU TO PLEASE PASS
THIS AND MOVE FORWARD, MAKING
THIS A STATEWIDE BILL
EVENTUALLY. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. OTHERS IN SUPPORT. MR.
CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS, MIKE KNUDSON,
ON BEHALF OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB
OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, AA
STRONG SUPPORT. MR. CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS. BEVERLY, YOU ON BEHALF
OF AA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND
STRONG SUPPORT. HI. MY NAME IS
BRENDA LOPEZ. I'M A SURVIVOR AND
MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING
ADVOCATE VOLUNTEER ADVOCATE. AND
I'M IN STRONG SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. OKAY. HELLO. MY NAME IS
BONNIE MASTERS. I'M A MOTHER OF
A SURVIVOR. I'M VICTIM ADVOCATE
WITH MADD. AND WE I STRONGLY
SUPPORT THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
IVY FITZPATRICK, CALIFORNIA DA'S
ASSOCIATION, RIVERSIDE COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. OPPOSITION MORE
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. YEAH. SORRY
ABOUT THAT, CHAIR MEMBERS
JONATHAN FELDMAN, CALIFORNIA
POLICE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
OTHERS IN SUPPORT. SEEING NONE.
OPPOSITION. PLEASE COME FORWARD.
YES. CAN YOU ONE OF YOU TWO ON
THE END. STEP UP THE DA
REPRESENTATIVE FROM SAC COUNTY,
USE THESE TWO CHAIRS. PLEASE
COME FORWARD AND SIT DOWN. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING. YOU HAVE FOUR
MINUTES FOR OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING. BRANDON
GREEN, POLICY DIRECTOR FOR THE
WESTERN CENTER ON LAW AND
POVERTY. THANK YOU. WHILE,
ADVANCING ROAD SAFETY IS NOTABLE
IN STOPPING FATALITIES IS ALSO
VERY IMPORTANT, THIS BILL WOULD
ACTUALLY DO NEITHER. SO FIRST,
WE KNOW THAT THERE'S RACIAL
DISPARITIES THAT EXIST, BLACK
AND BROWN FOLKS ARE
OVERREPRESENTED IN DUI STOPS AND
ARRESTS, DESPITE THERE BEING NO
EVIDENCE OF HIGHER USAGE RATES,
CURRENTLY, THERE'S NO
ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM FOR THE
EXISTING ABILITY TO PAY PROGRAM.
SO WHILE COMPANIES,
MANUFACTURERS CAN BE FINED FOR
UP TO $1,000, WE DON'T HAVE ANY
EVIDENCE THAT THAT'S ACTUALLY
HAPPENING. THE ACLU OF SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA PUT FORTH A REPORT
THAT SURVEYED SEVEN STATE
LICENSED PROGRAMS AND 45 OUT OF
55 PROGRAMS THAT FOUND THAT THEY
VIOLATE STATE LAW BY LIMITING
ACCESS BASED ON ABILITY TO PAY.
IN ADDITION, THE STATEWIDE PILOT
THAT WAS ADVANCED, AB 91, FOUND
THAT THERE WAS NO IMPACT ON
RECIDIVISM DIFFERENT THAN
NON-PARTICIPANT COUNTIES. THE
ANALYSIS THAT'S PROVIDED, ALSO
DEMONSTRATES THAT, FATALITIES
ARE ACTUALLY INCREASED. THAT IS,
ON PAGE FOUR OF THE ANALYSIS
THAT IN FACT, IT NEITHER,
LIMITS, MORE UNSAFE DRIVING, BUT
IT ACTUALLY IS A CONTRIBUTOR TO
UNSAFE DRIVING. AND BECAUSE
TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT AND ECONOMIC
GAPS ARE RACIALIZED, THE
SIGNIFICANT FINES AND FEES AND
THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT PAYING
FOR LOW INCOME BLACK AND BROWN
CALIFORNIANS, INCLUDING
INDEFINITE LICENSE SUSPENSIONS,
IS A REAL RISK UNDER THIS BILL?
IT'S QUESTIONABLE WHETHER OR NOT
MANDATORY EID'S IMPACT EITHER
RECIDIVISM OR FATALITIES, THE
CURRENT, AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL
THAT SOUGHT TO HAVE THE ABILITY
TO PAY PROVISIONS IN THE BILL
DON'T GO FAR ENOUGH AS AN
EXAMPLE, THE ABILITY TO PAY
PROCESS UNDER AB 2544 AND AB
503, WHICH WERE THE PARKING
PAYMENT PLAN, ABILITY TO PAY
BILLS, UTILIZE, UTILIZE
GOVERNMENT CODE. SORRY, UTILIZE
GOVERNMENT CODE 68632, WHICH
WOULD WIDEN THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE
WHO ARE ABLE TO GET ABILITY TO
PAY PROVISIONS. AND AS I SAID,
THERE'S ACTUALLY NO, THERE IS NO
STUDIES THAT HAVE BEEN DONE
ABOUT HOW THE MANUFACTURERS ARE
BEING FINED FOR NOT OFFERING
THESE PROGRAMS. AND WE KNOW THAT
MOST OF THEM ARE OUT OF
COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW
ALREADY. SO WHILE WE AGREE THAT
MAKING THE ROAD SAFER FOR
EVERYBODY SHOULD BE THE GOAL OF
EVERYONE, THIS BILL WOULD NOT
ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISH THAT TASK.
AND THAT IS VERY CLEAR FROM THE
ANALYSIS IN THE REPORT. THANK
YOU. YOU HAVE ABOUT A MINUTE
LEFT. YOU OKAY? YES THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS. IGNACIO
HERNANDEZ, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS FOR
CRIMINAL JUSTICE, STATEWIDE
ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE
LAWYERS, WE ARE IN OPPOSITION.
WE ARE REVIEWING THE AMENDMENTS.
I THINK THEY DO MAKE SOME
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE BILL, LET ME
JUST SAY THIS. I HAVE
NEGOTIATED, AND, IDE BILLS HERE
IN THIS, CAPITOL FOR A NUMBER OF
YEARS. WE WERE THE ONES THAT
STRUCK THE DEAL TO ALLOW FOR, A
PILOT ORIGINALLY. WHAT WE HAVE
FOUND IN THE DMV STUDIES SHOW
AGAIN AND AGAIN IS THAT ONE,
RECIDIVISM RATES AMONGST DUI
OFFENDERS IS VERY SMALL. LESS
ABOUT 4% OF FIRST TIME OFFENDERS
WILL REOFFEND WITHIN THE FIRST
YEAR, AND YET IMPOSITION OF IDES
ON EVERYONE RUNS COUNTER TO
THOSE STATISTICS. DUIS ARE ONE
OF THE ONLY OFFENSES THAT CAN BE
THE MOST TRAGIC INCIDENT, BUT
ALSO COULD CAPTURE SOMEBODY WHO
A ONE TIME MISJUDGMENT ON HOW
MUCH THEY DRANK. AND THAT IS
WHAT WE'VE BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT
AS WAS STATED, ABOUT 53%
PURSUANT TO THE LAST DMV
NUMBERS, 53% OF DUI ARRESTS ARE
LATINOS IN CALIFORNIA, SO WE
HAVE TO LOOK AT THE BECAUSE OF
THE LOWER INCOME, THE COST
IMPLICATIONS, MULTIPLE FAMILY
MEMBERS, MULTIGENERATIONAL,
LIVING TOGETHER, IT JUST CREATES
A WHOLE LOT OF PROBLEMS WHEN
REALLY 95% OF OFFENDERS WILL NOT
REOFFEND WITHIN THE FIRST YEAR.
THAT'S WHY WE THINK THAT
DISCRETION IS IMPORTANT. WE
UNDERSTAND THE PILOT IS SHORTER,
WE'RE HAPPY TO SUGGEST ANY
AMENDMENTS GOING FORWARD AS WE
GO THROUGH THESE AMENDMENTS. IF
THE BILL MOVES FORWARD, WE'LL
ALWAYS BE IN COMMUNICATION WITH
THE AUTHOR ON SOME SUGGESTIONS
THAT WE'RE REALLY LOOKING AT.
SO, FOR THOSE REASONS, WE'RE IN
OPPOSITION RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU.
OTHERS IN OPPOSITION COME
FORWARD. MARCO. JORGE, ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION, WE
APPRECIATE THE AMENDMENTS BUT
REMAIN IN OPPOSITION AT THIS
TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
MELANIE KIM, SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE WILL
REVIEW THE AMENDMENTS BUT REMAIN
IN OPPOSITION AT THIS TIME. Dð
COONEY WITH ACLU CALIFORNIA
ACTION AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. GALGIANI
REBOUND. WE HAVE AN OPPOSED
UNLESS AMENDED. WE'LL REVIEW THE
AMENDMENTS AND WE LOOK FORWARD
TO WORKING WITH THE AUTHOR'S
OFFICE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
NORTHEAST WITH ALL OF US. BASED
ON ALL THE REPORTS I'M GETTING
FROM, THE COMMUNITY OF SOUTH
SACRAMENTO, HYPER CRIMINALIZING
PEOPLE WITH DUIS, WE OPPOSE.
GOOD MORNING. KELLY WALTERS,
STAFF ATTORNEY WITH LEGAL
SERVICES FOR PRISONERS WITH
CHILDREN. WE'LL REVIEW THE
AMENDMENTS AS WELL, BUT STAND IN
OPPOSITION AT THIS TIME. THANK
YOU. NO MORE OPPOSITION
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. CHISELBOROUGH
MISS WILSON, SO THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL. I'VE HEARD,
QUITE A BIT OF SUPPORT FOR, FROM
MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING
STREETS FOR ALL HOST OF PEOPLE
IN MY DISTRICT. AND SO I THINK
IT'S A GOOD BILL, APPRECIATE
THAT YOU'VE TAKEN SOME
AMENDMENTS. I JUST HAD A COUPLE
QUESTIONS ABOUT, SOME THINGS YOU
MIGHT LOOK AT AS IT MOVES
FORWARD, SO THE FIRST ONE IS,
AND I THINK THE, THE THING THAT,
YOU KNOW, IS THE MOST VALID
CLAIM IS REALLY THE IMPACT ON
INDIGENT AND POOR FOLKS THAT ARE
IN THE PROGRAM. AND I'M JUST
WONDERING, I DIDN'T HAVE A
CHANCE TO STUDY THIS AS MUCH AS
I WANTED TO LAST NIGHT, BUT I'M
WONDERING WHAT'S IN THE BILL OR
IF YOU CAN DO MORE TO REQUIRE
THE VENDORS TO PROVIDE. IS IT
ALREADY IN THE BILL THAT THE
VENDORS ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE
THIS TO LOW INCOME PEOPLE? YES
IT IS. SO, JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR
ABOUT HOW MUCH THIS ACTUALLY
COSTS. SO, THERE IS A SLIDING
SCALE WHERE THE VENDOR WILL PAY
UP TO 90% OF THE COST. SO THE
COST IS ANYWHERE FROM $3 A DAY
AT A AT THE TOP, TOP END TO
$0.30 A DAY ON THE SLIDING
SCALE, $0.30, IN THE PILOT
COUNTIES, WE'VE ACTUALLY RAISED
THAT SUBSIDY FURTHER, HAPPY TO,
YOU KNOW, WALK THROUGH THE
SPECIFICS OF THAT IF YOU WANT ME
TO RIGHT NOW, AND WE'VE ALSO
HAVE ENHANCED THE REQUIREMENTS
THAT SERVICE PROVIDERS, ENSURE
THAT PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT SUBSIDY
OPTIONS AND HOW TO APPLY FOR
THEM, BUT I JUST WANT TO PUT
THIS IN CONTEXT. LIKE THE
OPPOSITION IS SITTING HERE
ARGUING ABOUT $0.30 A DAY WHEN
WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAVE
PEOPLE'S LIVES AND PREVENT
TRAGEDIES FROM HAPPENING. SO THE
BILL DOES, THOUGH, CURRENTLY
REQUIRE THE SUBSIDIES TO OCCUR.
YES. IT DOES. THAT IS IN THE
BILL. YES IT IS, AND THEN I
THINK THE SECOND THING IS JUST A
IS A COMMENT. WERE THERE ANY
AMENDMENTS TAKEN TO THE LENGTH
FOR THE FIRST TIME OFFENDERS.
BECAUSE I AM, YOU KNOW,
OBVIOUSLY WHEN YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT SECOND AND THIRD TIME
OFFENDERS THAT THE DEVICE IS
ACTUALLY PROTECTIVE OF THE
PUBLIC AND SO I'M WONDERING
WHETHER OR NOT FOR THE FIRST
TIME OFFENDERS, WHETHER THE 12
MONTHS IS A NECESSARY PERIOD.
AND FOR ME, IT SORT OF JUST GOES
TO REALLY THE IMPACT OF THE COST
ON LOWER INCOME COMMUNITIES. AND
I GUESS IN IN TERMS OF THE
QUESTION OF, IS THAT A NECESSARY
PERIOD, I GUESS THAT DEPENDS ON
WHETHER OR NOT YOU BELIEVE OF
THE SPURIOUS STATISTICS THAT THE
OPPOSITION JUST OFFERED OR IF
YOU BELIEVE THE STATISTICS AS
REPORTED BY THE CALIFORNIA DMV.
SO THE CALIFORNIA DMV ANALYSIS
IS THAT THESE DEVICES LOWER
RECIDIVISM BY 74. AND ADD
TRAFFIC DATA, SUPPORTS THE FACT
THAT ONE THIRD, ONE THIRD OF DUI
RELATED ARRESTS ARE PEOPLE WHO
ARE REPEAT OFFENDERS. SO THE
OPPOSITION THÀNH I ACTUALLY I
FIND THE ARGUMENTS APPALLING AND
THE OPPOSITION'S ASSERTION THAT
THIS IS NOT NECESSARY Kò I FIND
INCREDIBLY OFFENSIVE AND REALLY
KIND OF HORRIFYING. OKAY. YEAH.
SO I GUESS WHAT I WOULD SORT OF
SAY IS I SORT OF AGREE THAT IF
THIS IS SORT OF A SECOND TIME,
YOU KNOW, A SECOND TIME OFFENSE
OR A THIRD TIME OFFENSE,
OBVIOUSLY. I THINK THE LENGTH OF
TIME IS JUSTIFIED BECAUSE IT IS
ACTUALLY PROTECTING THE PUBLIC,
YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR
THIS TODAY ANYWAY, BUT I GUESS I
WOULD LOOK AT FOR THE FIRST TIME
OFFENDERS, I WOULD LOOK WHAT'S
AN APPROPRIATE PERIOD OF TIME
WHERE THE APPROPRIATE PERIOD OF
TIME IS THAT LONG AND I JUST
WOULD ASK YOU TO LOOK AT THAT AS
WE MOVE THROUGH THE. OKAY. THANK
YOU. POINT TAKEN. AND APPRECIATE
THAT. THANK YOU. SO, MEMBER
WILSON, THANK YOU. I HAVE A
FOLLOW UP QUESTION TO THE
EXCHANGE PREVIOUSLY, AND THEN
ONE OF MY OWN, IN TERMS OF AND I
GET THE STATISTICS, BUT THERE
WAS A STATISTIC GIVING THE
NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT REOFFEND.
AND SO YOU DISAGREED WITH THE
NUMBER THAT REOFFEND AFTER THE
FIRST TIME. AND WHAT WAS BECAUSE
YOURS WERE AROUND RECIDIVISM? I
THINK THERE PERHAPS I'M NOT. SO
I'M TALKING ABOUT THE FIRST. SO
HOW MANY PEOPLE WHO THE FIRST
TIME GET A DUI? ONE ONLY ONE
THIRD OF DUI RELATED ARRESTS ARE
PREVIOUS OFFENDERS. OKAY, I
UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THAT'S I
DON'T THINK THAT STILL ANSWERS
THE QUESTION OF HOW MANY PEOPLE
WHO COMMITTED DUI OFFENSE
ACTUALLY COMMIT A SECOND TIME.
THOSE ONE THIRD. THAT'S WHAT I
MEAN. LIKE A PREVIOUS. SO ONE
THIRD OF SO AND MAKE SURE I MAKE
SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING THE
STATISTICS AS I UNDERSTAND THAT
YOU'RE SAYING IF I TAKE A YEAR'S
WORTH OF DUI ARRESTS, ONE THIRD
OF THOSE ARRESTS ARE REPEAT
OFFENDERS. THE I, I DON'T KNOW,
I SEE THAT THE DISTINCTION. I'M
NOT SURE IF IT'S WITHIN THE
FIRST 12 MONTHS OR BEYOND.
RIGHT. SO I'M ASKING HOW MANY
PEOPLE HOW MANY PEOPLE REOFFEND
WITHIN A 12 MONTH WINDOW. THAT'S
YOUR QUESTION. I'M JUST ASKING
HOW MANY PEOPLE RE-OFFEND. LIKE
SO IF I IF I HAD A DUI OFFENSE,
HOW HOW OFTEN AM I LIKELY TO
HAVE A SECOND ONE THIRD? OH,
OKAY. SO ONE THIRD OF ARRESTS.
THANK YOU. YES. DIFFERENT MATH.
AND IT LOOKS LIKE MAYBE THE
OPPOSITION. YOU SAID IT IN YOUR
TESTIMONY. I'M JUST TRYING TO
FIND OUT IF THAT'S ACCURATE
BECAUSE YOU HAD SAID IT AND I
THOUGHT SHE TOOK EXCEPTION WITH
YOUR STATEMENT. SO I WAS JUST
TRYING TO SAY WHAT THE. I WAS
TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT THE
ACCURATE IF I'M A FIRST TIME
OFFENDER, THE STATISTICS SAY I'M
LIKELY TO REOFFEND. WHAT IS THE
PERCENT OF THAT? DOES ANYBODY
KNOW IF I MAY, IF I MAY RESPOND,
YES, THROUGH THE CHAIR. THANK
YOU FOR THE QUESTION, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER I WAS REFERENCING AND I
PULLED IT UP HERE, BEST I CAN,
THE ANNUAL REPORT FROM THE DMV,
THE 20 2022 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE
CALIFORNIA DUI MANAGEMENT
INFORMATION SYSTEM. AND
UNFORTUNATELY, I READ THIS EVERY
YEAR, THE STATISTICS FOR A FIRST
TIME OFFENDER WHO RE-OFFENDS
WITHIN 12 MONTHS IS RIGHT AROUND
4, AND THAT HAS BEEN FAIRLY
STEADY FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS,
FOR AT LEAST THE LAST DECADE
THAT I'VE BEEN NOT LIFETIME, BUT
JUST WITHIN THE NEXT 12 MONTHS,
WITHIN THE NEXT 12 MONTHS IS
ABOUT 4. AND I RECONFIRM THAT
BEFORE I TESTIFIED, BECAUSE I
DON'T LIKE PUTTING OUT
INACCURATE INFORMATION, I CAN
TELL YOU OFF OF MEMORY, I
BELIEVE LIFETIME, IF I'M NOT
MISTAKEN, IS CLOSER TO 20. BUT I
COULD BE MISSED THAT I'M JUST
PULLING OUT OFF OF MEMORY. OKAY,
OVER LIFETIME. BUT FIRST 12
MONTHS IS ABOUT 4% AND I HAVE
THAT TESTIMONY IS WHEN THEN THE
TIME PERIOD FOR THIS BILL SAYS
YOU WOULD GET AN ID WITHIN 12
MONTHS. THAT PERIOD ONLY 4% OF
FIRST TIME OFFENDERS. ACCORDING
TO THAT, ACCORDING TO THE
LIFETIME, IT'S SOMEWHERE OVER
20. AND MAYBE THERE'S SOME OTHER
STATISTICS, IF I MAY. YEAH, SO
EVERYTHING THAT I QUOTED OR THAT
I STATED IN MY TESTIMONY IS BOTH
IN THE I'M JUST ASKING VERY
SPECIFICALLY. SO IT'S BOTH IN
THE ANALYSIS. BUT ALSO, SEVERAL
WEEKS AGO, I TESTIFIED BEFORE
THE PENAL CODE REVISION
COMMITTEE, AND THAT REPORT IS
SELF, SAYS, AND I QUOTE, THE
FIRST YEAR DUI RE-OFFENSE RATE
FOR PEOPLE ARRESTED. THIS IS
FROM 2019 AND CONVICTED OF THE
FIRST DUI WAS 3.7, COMPARED TO
7.6% IN 1990, THE FIRST YEAR
RE-OFFENSE RATE FOR PEOPLE
CONVICTED OF THEIR SECOND DUI
WAS 5.4. AGAIN, THIS IS FROM THE
STAFF MEMORANDUM FOR THE MODEL.
THANK YOU SIR. YEAH THANK YOU. I
APPRECIATE, AND OF COURSE WE
HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING HOW MANY
TIMES A BREATHALYZER WOULD STOP
SOMEONE'S CAR FROM STARTING
BECAUSE THIS IS JUST THE
OFFENDERS WHO HAVE BEEN ARRESTED
TWICE. RIGHT? BUT WE I MEAN,
YES, TO BE HONEST, THOUGH,
THAT'S ALL WE DEAL WITH IN THE
LEGISLATURE, RIGHT? IS DATA AND
ALL THAT BECAUSE, I HAVE STRONG
FEELINGS ABOUT DIFFERENT CRIMES
AND, YOU KNOW, AND DUI IS ONE OF
THEM, YOU KNOW, I HAD A VERY
DEAR FRIEND LOST HER BROTHER, TO
DUI, WHO I GREW UP WITH. YOU
KNOW, AND SO GET IT STRONG
FEELINGS ABOUT IT. BUT WE DEAL
IN, YOU KNOW, THE FACTS. AND SO
I THINK GIVEN THE FACT THAT,
WITHIN IT'S BEEN PRETTY
CONSISTENT AS IT SHOWS FROM SOME
OF THE DATA AND WHAT WAS SHOWN
IN THE ANALYSIS ABOUT IT, THAT A
FIRST TIME OFFENDER, IS WITHIN
THAT 12 MONTH PERIOD, WHICH
YOU'RE REQUIRING. THIS IS 4%
SEEMS TO BE THAT, I AGREE WITH
MY COLLEAGUE THAT I THINK YOU
NEED TO THAT NUMBER NEEDS TO BE
ADJUSTED, THERE NEEDS TO BE A
DISTINCTION BETWEEN SOMEONE
WHO'S A FIRST TIME FENDER AND
ALL OF THE REST, BECAUSE I DO
THINK THERE DOES NEED TO BE A
LEVEL OF ACCOUNTABILITY. TO SHOW
THE GRAVITY OF WHAT YOU'RE DOING
WHEN YOU. BECAUSE TO ME, DUI IS
A VERY SELFISH CRIME BECAUSE
THERE ESPECIALLY IN TODAY'S AGE,
BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY
OPTIONS TO GET TO WHERE YOU NEED
TO GO. AT ALL DIFFERENT HOURS OF
THE DAY. SO IT'S VERY SELFISH.
AND SO I DO THINK THERE HAS TO
BE ACCOUNTABILITY. SO JUST IN
THAT FOLLOW UP. SO THE QUESTION
I DID HAVE THOUGH IS, COMING
INTO HERE WAS THE INCONSISTENCY
IN THE PILOTS ON WHETHER IT WAS
EFFECTIVE OR NOT. AND SO THAT
WAS BROUGHT UP BY OPPOSITION.
AND SO I WANTED TO HEAR FROM YOU
. AND IT WAS ALSO IT WAS PUT IN
THE ANALYSIS. SO I WANTED TO
HEAR FROM YOU, I DON'T THINK YOU
ADDRESSED IT IN YOUR TESTIMONY.
THE INCONSISTENCIES AND THE,
PILOT PROGRAMS, BECAUSE THIS IS
ONCE AGAIN ANOTHER PILOT PILOT
PROGRAM. AND I GUESS ON, I WOULD
JUST SAY AT A 30,000 FOOT LEVEL.
AND WHILE WE CERTAINLY DO OUR
BEST TO DIG INTO THE GRANULARITY
OF THE DATA, AND I APPRECIATE
THAT THAT YOU AND I ARE ALWAYS
ON THE SAME PAGE ON THAT FRONT
AT A 30,000 FOOT LEVEL IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA OVER THE
LAST FIVE YEARS, WE HAVE SEEN
DUI, DUI RELATED DEATHS GO UP IN
THE 35 STATES IN THE COUNTRY
WHERE THEY HAVE IMPLEMENTED
PROGRAMS REQUIRING IDS FOR ALL
OFFENDERS. THEY'VE SEEN
FATALITIES AND ACCIDENTS GO
DOWN. AND THAT, TO ME, IS THE
MOST COMPELLING REASON THAT,
THIS BILL IS A COMMON SENSE
SOLUTION. AND, YOU KNOW, AT THE
DIRECTION OF THE CHAIR, WE HAVE
NARROWED IT TO BE A FIVE COUNTY
PILOT PROGRAM SO WE CAN CONTINUE
TO TRACK THAT DATA AND COLLECT
THAT DATA WITHIN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, BUT I FIND THE
EVIDENCE ACROSS THE NATION VERY,
VERY COMPELLING. SOUNDS GOOD.
WELL, I'LL SUPPORT YOUR BILL
TODAY. AND I THINK THAT YOU
SHOULD, DEFINITELY IN LINE WITH
THE COMMENTS MADE BY MY
COLLEAGUE, WORK ON THAT FIRST
TIME OFFENDERS. I THINK THERE
SHOULD BE THAT DISTINCTION FROM
FIRST TO SECOND, BUT ALSO
REALIZING THE GRAVITY OF THE,
YOU KNOW, CRIME. YEAH. THANK
YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER LACKEY.
YEAH, I JUST HAVE A SUGGESTION
FOR TECHNICAL CIRCUMSTANCE THAT
EXISTS CURRENTLY YOU HAVE THE
SUNSET THAT NEEDS TO BE EXTENDED
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE SUNSET DATE
JULY 1ST, 2030. AND YOU HAVE THE
REPORT THAT NEEDS TO BE
COMPLETED BY JANUARY 1ST, 2031.
SO THAT NEEDS TO BE ALIGNED
PROPERLY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
I WILL BE COMPLETELY SUPPORTING
THIS. THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER. AND A MOTION, MR. LACKEY
A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY
FURTHER QUESTIONS? SO MEMBER
REYES. I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE
ANGEL AND HER MOTHER, THANK YOU
FOR COMING TO TESTIFY. BECAUSE
OFTENTIMES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
SOMETHING THAT'S HAPPENING. WE
FORGET THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO
ARE AFFECTED. YEAH. ALSO, MISS
CAMPBELL, THANK YOU FOR SHARING
YOUR STORY AS WELL. THIS IS
ALWAYS IMPORTANT. AND I THINK
TRYING TO FIND, AS MY COLLEAGUES
HAVE STATED, TRYING TO FIND A
WAY TO STOP IT IS SELFISH. I HAD
NOT HEARD THAT PHRASE, ON THIS
ONE, BUT IT IS ABSOLUTELY
SELFISH AND TRYING TO FIND THE
BEST WAY IN EVALUATING IT. I
LOOKED AT THE DMV, REVIEW Tê
AFTER THE PILOTS, AND IT WAS IT
WAS A MIXED REVIEW. IF THE DATA
WERE ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN, IT
WOULD BE SO EASY TO JUST SAY,
IT'S WORKED. WE'VE GOT IT. WE'VE
GOT TO CONTINUE WITH IT. BUT WE
HAVE MIXED REVIEWS. I APPRECIATE
, MY COLLEAGUE FOR AUTHORING
THIS, TRYING TO MOVE IN, IN, IN
THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND TRYING
TO FIND A WAY TO, TO, TO STOP
THE SELFISH BEHAVIOR, BUT ALSO
AS LEGISLATORS MAKING SURE THAT
WE'RE BASING IT ON DATA, MAKING
SURE THAT AS WE MOVE FORWARD,
IT'S NOT JUST WHAT WE FEEL
BECAUSE OF ONE CASE OR TWO
CASES, IT IS BECAUSE THE DATA
CALLS FOR IT, I WILL BE
SUPPORTING IT TODAY. I'M NOT
GOING TO REPEAT WHAT MY
COLLEAGUES HAVE SAID, BUT I
THINK THEIR COMMENTS ARE
COMMENTS THAT ARE WELL TAKEN. I
APPRECIATE THE NEGOTIATIONS WITH
OUR CHAIR ON, TRYING TO NARROW
IT SO THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD,
AT LEAST AS OPPOSED TO FIGHT AS
OPPOSED TO STOPPING IT, SO I
APPRECIATE THAT TREMENDOUSLY,
AND AGAIN, ANGEL, I WANT TO
THANK YOU FOR COMING TO TESTIFY,
BEING HERE WITH YOUR MOTHER.
THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION AND
A SECOND I TO SUPPORT THIS BILL.
AND YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR IN
YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER, THAT YOU DID WORK WITH
THE COMMITTEE AND A FEW THINGS.
ONE, WE MADE A PILOT TO FIVE
COUNTIES AND SOME BIG COUNTIES.
AND SO WE'RE GOING TO GET A BIG
SWATH OF CALIFORNIA TO WORK THIS
OUT AND TEST IT OUT AND HAVE A
REPORT BACK WITH THE APPROPRIATE
TIMELINE. BUT ALSO WE DO LOOK AT
HOW THIS IMPACTS INDIVIDUALS
WITHOUT RESOURCES. SO WE DO
CONTINUE THAT AND EXTEND AND
DEEPEN THE SUBSIDY FOR
INDIVIDUALS. I KNOW WE'RE STILL
WORKING ON THAT, AND THAT IS IN
MOTION, AND I DID ALSO WANT TO
THANK THE FAMILIES THAT
TESTIFIED, AND THE MAD,
REPRESENTATIVES WHO I BELIEVE
ARE FROM MY DISTRICT HERE. SO
THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING
TODAY AND FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.
AND WITH THAT, WE'LL BE
SUPPORTING THIS BILL. I'LL BE
SUPPORTING YOU MAY CLOSE. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND I, TOO, JUST
WANT TO OFFER MY HEARTFELT
THANKS, TO KELLY, TO ANGEL, TO
RHONDA, TO ALL OF THE ADVOCATES
WHO JOINED US TODAY AND WERE
WILLING TO SHARE THEIR STORIES
AS TO KEEP OUR KIDS AND OUR
FAMILIES SAFE, I APPRECIATE ALL
OF THE CONVERSATION WITH MY
COLLEAGUES AND, AND APPRECIATE,
YOUR FOCUS ON DATA DRIVEN
POLICY, AB 2210 IS COMMON SENSE,
THIS MEASURE WILL MAKE OUR ROADS
SAFER, THIS MEASURE WILL SAVE
LIVES. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR
SUPPORT, AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON AB
2210 BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER
PETRIE-NORRIS. THE MOTION IS TO
PASS, AS AMENDED. MCCARTY. AYE.
MCCARTY. AYE ALANIS. ALANIS.
AYE. LACKEY A LACKEY. AYE.
NGUYEN. NGUYEN. AYE. REYES
REYES. AYE. TING. WILSON WILSON.
AYE. ZIPPER. ZIPPER. AYE THIS
MEASURE PASSES OUR NEXT AUTHOR
IS. THANK YOU. HOLD ON ONE
SECOND. WAIT WAIT. ONE. ONE
QUICK SECOND.
GREAT. GO BUT. MAHANEY AGREED
THAT I CAN GO ON AFTER. I THINK.
I. TEN. OKAY. GOOD JOB. ALL
RIGHT. I OKAY. THANK YOU, MR.
GIBSON. AB 2094. SECOND. OKAY.
THANK YOU. MR. CHAIRMAN AND
MEMBERS. AS I CAME TO THE
OFFICE, WAS UP AT 4:00 THIS
MORNING DOING SOMETHING THAT WAS
MOST DIFFICULT AND PERSONAL TO
ME AND MY FAMILY. AND I SIT HERE
, CERTAINLY ON PINS AND NEEDLES,
OPENING UP SOME, REMOVING A SCAB
THAT HAS BEEN SO PAINFUL FOR NOT
ONLY ME, BUT ALSO MY FAMILY. I
WANT TO SAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH
FOR ALLOWING ME TO PRESENT
ASSEMBLY BILL 2984. IT'S KNOWN
AS DIAZ'S LAW. THIS BILL AIMS TO
REMOVE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION
. CHARGING SOMEONE IN A VEHICLE
HIT AND RUN. THIS BILL WOULD
PROVIDE LAW ENFORCEMENT
ADDITIONAL TIMES TO HOLD THOSE
WHO COMMIT THESE CRIMES AND FLEE
THE SCENE OF THE ACCIDENT
ACCOUNTABLE. CURRENT LAW
PROHIBITS A CRIME, A CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT FROM BEING FILED AFTER
SIX YEARS FOR THE COMMISSION OF
A CRIME OF HIT AND RUN. IN 2021,
THERE WAS 2872 FATALITIES FROM
HIT AND RUN DRIVERS. ACCORDING
TO THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION. THAT IS AN
INCREASE OF 11% FROM 2020, WHICH
WAS. 2596 FATALITIES. MEMBERS IN
LOS ANGELES ALONE, DATA SHOWS
THAT ONLY 1 IN 5 HIT AND RUN
CASES ARE SOLVED. THERE ARE AN
AVERAGE OF 40,000 HIT AND RUN
COLLISIONS IN LOS ANGELES YEARLY
, AND THOSE 40,000 HIT AND RUNS
8000 RESULTS IN INJURIES OR
DEATH. THESE ARE 8000 BABIES.
SOME ONES BABIES, FAMILY
MEMBERS, FRIENDS WHO HAVE DIED
YEARS. WITH MOST OF THESE CASES
BEING UNSOLVED, WE CAN DO BETTER
. BACK IN 2015, I CARRIED
ASSEMBLY BILL 835 THAT TOLLS
THAT TOLLS WAS TO THE TOTAL AT
THAT TIME WAS 2049 FATALITIES A
YEAR. AB 835 IS NOW WHAT IS IN
LAW CURRENTLY TODAY, WHICH THE
STATUTE OF LIMITATION IS AT SIX
YEARS FOR A HIT AND RUN MURDER.
THIS ISSUE BEFORE YOU TODAY IS
ABSOLUTELY THE REASON WHY I'M
HERE. THIS IS THE REASON WHY I
RAN FOR PUBLIC OFFICE TO THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY. YES,
THERE'S OTHER THINGS, BUT THOSE
OTHER THINGS ARE TWO, THREE,
FOUR AND FIVE. AND SO ON. THE
NUMBER ONE REASON WHY I RAN FOR
THE STATE ASSEMBLY IS BECAUSE
WHEN I FOUND OUT THAT WE HAD A
STATUTE OF LIMITATION FOR THREE
YEARS, THAT SOMEONE CAN KILL
SOMEONE AND FLEE FOR THREE YEARS
AND THEN EMERGE, AND WE COULDN'T
DO A THING ABOUT IT, WE COULDN'T
PROSECUTE THEM FOR MURDER. A HIT
AND RUN. I RAN TO MAKE A
DIFFERENCE. I SOUGHT TO CHANGE
THE LAW BECAUSE 35 YEARS AGO, ON
MARCH 18TH, 1989, WHERE WERE YOU
ON MARCH 18TH, 1989? IN THE
EVENING, OUR SON WAS KILLED AND
I WEAR HIS SHIRT TODAY, IN HONOR
AND MEMORY OF DON'S, WHO WAS AT
HOME WITH A GODMOTHER. MY WIFE
THEN WAS THE GIRLFRIEND. SHE
WENT BECAUSE SHE HAD A FLAT TIRE
AND A TRIP AWAY WAS OUTSIDE THE
FRONT DOOR ACROSS THE STREET
FIXING A FLAT TIRE. HOW MANY OF
YOUR CHILDREN, EVERY TIME THEY
SEE YOU, THEY GET JOY. MOMMY,
MOMMY, DADDY, DADDY! WELL, HE
BROKE OUT THE HOUSE, BUT BEFORE
HE BROKE OUT THE HOUSE, HE
ALWAYS HAD A BEAR. IT WAS CALLED
FIVE-O. IT'S A CARTOON
CHARACTER. IT'S A IT'S A MOUSE.
HE DROPPED THAT, RAN OUTSIDE THE
DOOR AND HE SAW HIS MOMMY ACROSS
THE STREET, AND HE RAN. MOMMY,
MOMMY! THAT WAS THE LAST WORDS
SHE HEARD. HE RAN OUT IN THE
MIDDLE OF THE STREET AND WAS
STRUCK BY A CADILLAC. A WOMAN
ABOUT FIVE SIX AFRICAN AMERICAN
DRIVING SOMEWHERE, A LATE MODEL
CADILLAC. BETWEEN 1974 AND 1985.
WHITE OR LIGHT BROWN IN COLOR.
SHE GOT OUT OF THE CAR SHE WENT
TO, WHERE HIS BODY LAID
LIFELESS. SHE GOT BACK IN HER
CAR AND TOOK OFF. THE TOW TRUCK
DRIVER TRIED TO CATCH HER BUT
WAS UNABLE. THAT'S THE NARRATIVE
THAT WE DEAL WITH EACH AND EVERY
DAY. SHE WENT NORTHBOUND ON
VENICE AVENUE TOWARDS GAGE IN
LOS ANGELES IN THE UNITED STATES
. THERE ARE HIT AND RUN CRASHES
EVERY 43 SECONDS. WHILE WE'RE
HERE TODAY, SOMEONE IS LOSING
THEIR LIFE DUE TO A HIT AND RUN
IN THIS COUNTRY. BETWEEN 4 TO 5
TO SIX PEOPLE ARE DYING RIGHT
NOW. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE
LAW THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT IS
GIVEN THE ABILITY TO PROSECUTE
THESE CASES AND PROVIDE LEGAL
RECOURSE FOR THE FAMILIES WHO
THESE INDIVIDUALS HAVE SHATTERED
THEIR LIVES. LET ME SAY THIS.
MEMBERS EVERY CHRISTMAS WE BUY
TWO CHRISTMAS TREES, ONE FOR THE
CEMETERY WHERE HE WILL FOREVER
REST AND ONE FOR OUR HOME. EVERY
BIRTHDAY, EVERY CELEBRATION. IT
IS NEVER THE SAME. I ACTUALLY
WONDER WOULD HE HAVE GROWN UP TO
FALL IN LOVE, TO HAVE CHILDREN,
TO GO INTO SPORTS LIKE THE OTHER
TWO SONS I HAVE SHATTERED AND
CHANGED OUR ENTIRE LIVES AS A
RESULT. WHY SHOULD WE PUT A
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON MURDER
WHEN THE GOLDEN STATE RAPIST WHO
MURDERED MANY WOMEN AND KILLED
MANY WOMEN, IT TOOK US 35 YEARS
TO CATCH HIM AND TO BRING HIM TO
JUSTICE. BUT WE WILL PUT A
STATUTE OF LIMITATION ON SOMEONE
BEING KILLED IN THE STREETS, AND
THAT PERSON FLEEING TO ANOTHER
STATE AND WAITING AND COMING
BACK AND RESUMING LIFE AS NORMAL
. THAT SHOULD NOT BE. CALIFORNIA
IS BETTER THAN THAT. AND I'M
ASKING YOU TO PLEASE HELP ME
MAKE A DIFFERENCE WITH ME. IS
RHONDA CAMPBELL FROM MOMS MOTHER
AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING TO
TESTIFY. THANK YOU. YOU HAVE
FOUR MINUTES. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. GOOD MORNING, THANK YOU
FOR ALLOWING ME THIS TIME, TO
SPEAK TO YOU REGARDING THIS VERY
IMPORTANT MEASURE THAT HAS
AFFECTED SO MANY LIVES, AS IN
MR. GIBSON'S, MATT BELIEVES THAT
ALL IMPAIRED DRIVING VIOLATIONS
RESULTING IN DEATH OR SERIOUSLY
BODILY INJURY, AS WELL AS
LEAVING THE SCENE OF A CRASH,
SHOULD BE FELONIES. THE
PENALTIES FOR THESE OFFENSES
SHOULD BE EQUAL. MATT SUPPORTS
AB 2984 AS THE MEASURE CLOSES.
LOOPHOLES IN THE HIT AND RUN LAW
AB 2984 ALLOWS FOR CHANGES
CHARGES IN HIT AND RUN CASES TO
BE CHARGED AGAINST THE PERSON
AFTER THE CURRENT SIX YEAR
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. ON A
PERSONAL NOTE, YOU ALL JUST MET
ANGEL RENTERIA. ANGEL RENTERIA
WAS NOT ONLY HIT BY AN IMPAIRED
DRIVER, THAT DRIVER ALSO FLED
THE SCENE. THIS IS HOW ANGEL WAS
LEFT AFTER THAT CRASH. IF IT HAD
NOT BEEN FOR THE GREAT DETECTIVE
WORK AND THE PROGRESS AND
ANALYSIS OF DNA IN OUR SOCIETY
TODAY, ANGELS KILLER WOULD ALSO
STILL BE FREE. I URGE YOU TO
TAKE THIS INTO CONSIDERATION AND
PASS AND CLOSE THIS LOOPHOLE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OTHERS IN
SUPPORT. CHAIR AND MEMBERS
JONATHAN FELDMAN, CALIFORNIA
POLICE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION
APOLOGIES OUR OUR LETTER WAS NOT
IN FOR THE ANALYSIS BUT WE ARE
IN SUPPORT. ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
HELLO, I'M BONNIE MASTERS. I'M A
MOTHER OF A GIRL WHO WAS VERY,
VERY BADLY INJURED BY A DRUNK
DRIVER THAT FLED THE SCENE. HAD
IT NOT BEEN FOR THE YOUNG PEOPLE
WITH HER, SHE WOULD HAVE DIED
AND HE LEFT. THANK YOU. I
STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. HI, MY NAME IS BRENDA
LOPEZ AND I'M HERE IN SUPPORT OF
THIS BILL AS WELL. THERE ARE
MANY OTHER OF MY COLLEAGUES THAT
HAVE EXPERIENCED A HIT AND RUN.
AND SO I STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. ANYONE IN
OPPOSITION
?
I JUST REALIZED THAT. MARCO.
JORGE. HERE. AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION OPPOSE,
UNLESS AMENDED. MY HEART GOES
OUT TO YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
GIBSON. I DON'T THINK ANYTHING
WE DO HERE CAN EVER BRING YOUR
CHILD BACK. AND I WANT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT PAIN. AND AS
YOU NOTED IN 2015, YOU CAME AND
ASKED THAT THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS BE EXTENDED. AND AT
THAT TIME, WE AGREED THAT IT
WOULD BE EXTENDED FOR SIX YEARS,
CONSISTENT WITH THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS FOR VEHICULAR
MANSLAUGHTER, AND WHICH CASE LAW
HAS SAID IS A SUFFICIENT TIME
LIMITATION GIVEN THAT A PERSON
CAN BE GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF
HIT AND RUN, EVEN THOUGH THE
PERSON WAS NOT AT FAULT FOR THE
UNDERLYING ACCIDENT? IN THIS
CASE, I UNDERSTAND THAT OUR
COALITION ALSO OFFERED YOU
AMENDMENTS OF TOLLING FOR THE
TIME THAT THE PERSON WAS OUT OF
STATE AND WOULD HAVE WORKED WITH
YOU AND ARE STILL EAGER TO WORK
WITH YOU TO TRY TO REACH SOME
AMENDMENTS THAT ARE CONSISTENT
WITH THIS KIND OF AMENDMENTS
THAT WERE, ACCEPTED BY MEMBER
ADDIS ON 2295. THERE IS A POLICY
PURPOSE TO THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS, AND IT'S AN
IMPORTANT FUNCTION. IT'S THE
AVOIDANCE OF PREJUDICE TO BOTH
THE PEOPLE AND THE DEFENDANT
RESULTING FROM THE LOSS OF
EVIDENCE WITH THE PASSAGE OF
TIME AS WELL AS THE RESPECT FOR
THE RIGHT FOR A SPEEDY TRIAL.
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS
DESIGNED TO PROTECT ALL OF US
FROM HAVING TO DEFEND OURSELVES
AGAINST CHARGES WHEN THE BASIC
FACTS MAY HAVE BECOME OBSCURED
BY THE PASSAGE OF TIME, AND TO
MINIMIZE THE DANGER OF OFFICIAL
PUNISHMENT BECAUSE OF ACTS AND
THE FAR DISTANT PAST AND SUCH A
TIME LIMIT HAVING A STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS ALSO HAS A SALUTARY
EFFECT ON THE POLICE AND THE
INVESTIGATORS. BECAUSE AS
INSTEAD OF JUST LETTING A CASE
LIE FALLOW, THEY MUST
INVESTIGATE IT. THEY CAN'T JUST
PUT IT ON THE BACK BURNER. SO
AGAIN, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR A
NO VOTE UNLESS IT'S AMENDED.
WE'RE WE'RE MORE THAN HAPPY TO
TRY TO WORK OUT SOMETHING WITH
YOU TO, YOU KNOW, ADDRESS THE
ISSUES WHERE YOU TALK ABOUT
SOMEONE BEING OUT OF THE STATE
FOR POTENTIAL, CORROBORATE
EVIDENCE, THOSE KIND OF THINGS
THAT ARE IN THE OTHER EXTENSIONS
OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. SO
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS
I'M SORRY ABOUT 30S. OKAY
IGNACIO HERNANDEZ, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS FOR
CRIMINAL JUSTICE, I JUST, SAME
SIMILAR REMARKS AS THE PRIOR
WITNESS. SINCE I HAVE 30S. LET
ME JUST SAY A POINT OF PERSONAL
PRIVILEGE. I'M A LOBBYIST, BUT
I'M A FATHER. I'M ALSO A FORMER
CRIMINAL CRIMINAL DEFENSE
LAWYER. THESE ARE TRAGEDIES THAT
WE DEAL WITH. THESE ARE REALLY
TOUGH POLICY DECISIONS. AND WHEN
I WAS A CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER,
IT WAS REALLY TOUGH, ON ALL
SIDES. AND SO I UNDERSTAND THAT
I THINK THERE ARE SOME
AMENDMENTS THAT CAN BE TAKEN TO
THIS BILL, BUT THERE ARE
CRITICAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES THAT
WE HAVE TO ENSURE AND PROTECT,
EVEN IN THE FACE OF TRAGEDIES.
AND THAT'S WHAT MAKES OUR LEGAL
SYSTEM SO GREAT, BUT ALSO SO
VERY DIFFICULT WHEN THERE ARE
TRAGEDIES THAT HAPPEN. SO WE
SUPPORT CDA'S COMMENTS ABOUT
SOME POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS GOING
FORWARD AND WOULD BE HAPPY TO BE
PART OF THE CONVERSATION. THANK
YOU. THERE'S AN OPPOSITION.
PLEASE COME FORWARD. NATASHA
MINSKER SMART JUSTICE CALIFORNIA
. OUR DEEPEST SYMPATHIES TO
ASSEMBLYMEMBER GIBSON AND HIS
FAMILY. RESPECT FULLY OPPOSE
UNLESS AMENDED. ALICIA WITH
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE. I'M SORRY.
KELLY WALTERS WITH LEGAL
SERVICES FOR PRISONERS WITH
CHILDREN. RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE
UNLESS AMENDED. IN LEGAL
SERVICES FOR PRISONERS WITH
CHILDREN. RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE
THIS AMENDMENT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. MELANIE KIM, SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE, UNLESS
AMENDED. THANK YOU. JOANNE
SHERER, FELONY MURDER
ELIMINATION PROJECT,
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE UNLESS
AMENDED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MR. LANCE.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
OBVIOUSLY GRATITUDE TOWARDS THE
AUTHOR AND OUR CONDOLENCES, I
JUST DON'T WANT, THERE TO BE ANY
ISSUES OR THOUGHTS THAT IF THERE
IS NO STATUTE OF LIMITATION,
THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT IS NOT
GOING TO WORK AS HARD TO FIND
JUSTICE. WE HAVE MURDERS ALL THE
TIME THAT DO NOT HAVE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS. YET THERE ARE STILL
DETECTIVES OUT THERE STILL
WORKING THE CASES. SO JUST
BECAUSE THERE'S NO STATUTE PUT
ON THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT
WOULD BE PUT ON THE BACK BURNER.
I'LL MAKE THAT CLEAR. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. MEMBER REYES. IT'S
ALWAYS MORE DIFFICULT WHEN WE
KNOW THAT WE HAVE COME HERE FOR
A PARTICULAR REASON. AND TRYING
TO FIND JUSTICE AND AS THE YEARS
GO BY THAT THE JUSTICE SEEMS TO
JUST MOVE AWAY FURTHER AND
FURTHER AWAY FROM US. I
APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS FROM
THE, THE OPPOSITION OAN ABOUT
TOLLING THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS WHEN SOMEONE HAS
WILLFULLY LEFT THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA TO AVOID BEING
PROSECUTED. AND IN OUR
DISCUSSIONS, YOU MADE A GREAT
POINT. IF THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS IS THREE YEARS,
YOU'VE CAUSED A CRIME AND YOU
KNOW YOU CAN COME BACK TO THE
REST OF YOUR FAMILY AFTER THREE
YEARS, STAY AWAY FOR THREE
YEARS, COME BACK AND RESUME YOUR
YOUR LIFE. EVEN THOUGH YOU'VE
DEVASTATED THE LIFE OF SOMEBODY
ELSE. I THINK A THE OFFER THAT
PARTICULAR OFFER IS ONE THAT
THAT I HOPE THAT YOU WILL
SERIOUSLY CONSIDER, SHOULD
SHOULD THE BILL MOVE FORWARD. I
DO HAVE SERIOUS ISSUES, AND I'VE
SHARED WITH YOU ABOUT HAVING NO
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, ON THIS.
AND I THINK THAT FOR THE REASONS
DISCUSSED IN THE ANALYSIS AS TO
WHY WE DO NEED STATE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS ON THESE, WHY WE
NEED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. BUT
FOR TODAY, IN LIGHT OF YOUR
TESTIMONY, I'M GOING TO SUPPORT
THE BILL. AND, I ASK THAT YOU
YOU LOOK TO THE CONVERSATIONS
THAT ARE AT LEAST THE, THE, THE
OFFERS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE HERE,
TO TRY TO ACTUALLY BRING BRING
THE, THE, THE BILL LANGUAGE TO
SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO BE
SUPPORTED BY EVERYONE. IT'S A
TOUGH ONE TO SUPPORT IN GENERAL.
IT'S AN EASY ONE TO SUPPORT
BECAUSE I KNOW THIS IS VERY
PERSONAL TO YOU, AND WITH THAT I
WOULD MOVE THE BILL. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, ASSEMBLYMEMBER
WILSON. THEN ZUBIATE, THANK YOU
TO THE AUTHOR FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND
I WASN'T HERE FOR THE TESTIMONY.
MY APOLOGIES. I HAD TO STEP OUT,
BUT JUST FROM PREVIOUS
CONVERSATIONS ON THIS ISSUE AND
HAVING HER DO TESTIFY IN OTHER
ASPECTS AND BRINGING IT UP ON
THE FLOOR, AND AS WELL AS
PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS, I KNOW
THIS IS A PAINFUL EXPERIENCE.
THIS WAS AND STILL CONTINUES TO
BE A PAINFUL EXPERIENCE FOR YOUR
FAMILY. AND, AND I'M VERY
SYMPATHETIC TO THAT. AND I KNOW
THIS THE THIS APPROACH COMES
FROM WANTING TO SEE CHANGE,
THROUGH OUR CONVERSATION IS
ALLOWED ME TO DO SOME MY OWN
EDUCATION OPPORTUNITIES TO
REALLY UNDERSTAND, THE STATUTE
OF LIMITATIONS, AND WHY IT
EXISTED AND HOW I FEEL ABOUT IT,
AND SO, SO FOR ME, THE OFFER OF
ALLOWING TOLLING FOR OUT OF
STATE, WHEN PEOPLE FLEE THE
STATE, WHICH ALLOWS, I GUESS
ANOTHER IT GETS TO EIGHT YEARS,
WHICH IS BEYOND THE SIX YEARS,
BECAUSE I DO RECOGNIZE THAT,
YOU'VE COME BEFORE THIS BODY
BEFORE AND GOT THE DOUBLE THE
TIME FOR THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS. I THINK IS, IS, A
REASONABLE OFFER. AND IT ALLOWS
US TO UPHOLD THE FACT THAT
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXISTS
FOR A REASON, BUT AT THE SAME
TIME BALANCES THAT WHEN PEOPLE
ARE INTENTIONALLY TRYING TO
EVADE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, IT
ALLOWS FOR THAT ACCOUNTABILITY,
AND SO WITH THAT, YOU KNOW, I
SUPPORT THAT AMENDMENT. I KNOW
IT'S ONE THAT YOU HAVE NOT TAKEN
PREVIOUSLY, AND NOT ASKING YOU
TO TAKE IT HERE TODAY, BECAUSE
THAT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE, BUT
RECOGNIZING MY ULTIMATE SUPPORT,
IF IT MAKES OUT THIS COMMITTEE
IS CONTINGENT UPON THAT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, MR. ZUBIATE, SO
I JUST WANT TO. SO FIRST OF ALL,
YOU KNOW, I CAN'T, YOU KNOW,
IMAGINE WHAT YOU'RE HAVE GONE
THROUGH ALL THESE YEARS, YOU
KNOW, I WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO
IS A RIGHTEOUS CAUSE, AND, YOU
KNOW, APPRECIATED THE TIME YOU
TOOK WITH ME IN MY OFFICE THIS
WEEK, AND, AND BUT I, YOU KNOW,
WHEN I LOOK AT THE ISSUE OF
EXTENDING THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATION INDEFINITELY, I THINK
ABOUT THE REASONS FOR THE
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, AND THAT
IS THAT YOU HAVE TRIALS IN A
RELATIVELY SPEEDY TIME. THE
LONGER THE PERIOD OF TIME
EXTENDS, THE MORE LIKELY THE
EVIDENCE IS IN FRESH, AND THE
HIGHER THE LIKELIHOOD IS THAT
YOU END UP CONVICTING PEOPLE
THAT ARE NOT GUILTY. AND SO I
BALANCE THAT AGAINST THE CASE
WHERE WE KNOW SOMEONE IS OUT
DOING SOMETHING TO EVADE ARREST
AND JUST LEAVES THE STATE, WHICH
IS, I THINK, THE EXAMPLE THAT,
IS JUST ONE OF THE ONES THAT YOU
RAISED. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I
THINK, YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO
SUPPORT THIS TODAY BECAUSE, YOU
KNOW, I WANT YOU TO CONTINUE
WORKING ON THE BILL, AND I'D
LIKE YOU TO SORT OF THINK ABOUT
I THINK THE COMMENTS HERE, I
THINK WE HAVE TO LOOK AT SORT OF
HAVING A LEGAL SYSTEM WHERE THE
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, WHERE
WE'RE LOOKING AT SORT OF WHAT'S
COMPARABLE TO OTHER THINGS THAT
ARE ALSO SIMILAR. AND SO, YOU
KNOW, WHEN I THINK ABOUT THIS
AND HAVING NO STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS FOR THIS, THEN I
START ASKING, OKAY, WELL, WHAT
ARE ALL THE OTHER THINGS WHERE
WE HAVE NO STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS AND THEN YOU GET TO
A POINT WHERE YOU START THINKING
ABOUT, OKAY, WELL, WHAT'S THE
IMPACT OF HAVING NO STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS ON SO MANY CRIMES
WHERE WE'RE ACTUALLY HAVING
TRIALS THAT ARE FAR DISTANT FROM
THE TIME THAT THEY TOOK PLACE?
SO I WOULD YOU KNOW, ENCOURAGE
YOU TO THINK ABOUT WORKING WITH
THE OPPOSITION, ABOUT, YOU KNOW,
TOLLING, FOR PERIODS WHEN THE
STATE AND, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE
OTHER CONCERNS THAT YOU'VE
RAISED. I'M GOING TO SUPPORT
THIS TODAY, BUT ENCOURAGE YOU TO
CONTINUE WORKING WITH THE
OPPOSITION. OKAY. SEEING NO
FURTHER QUESTIONS, I SUPPORT
THIS MEASURE TODAY, MR. GIBSON.
THANK YOU. I KNOW IT'S A TOUGH
ISSUE FOR YOU. YOU THOUGHT ABOUT
IT, AND YOU'RE STRETCHING ON
YOUR PROPOSAL, AND I THINK IT IS
A STRETCH, BUT IT'S A RIGHTEOUS
ONE, AND I SUPPORT IT. I KNOW
YOU'RE GOING TO KEEP ENGAGING ON
THIS AS WE GO THROUGH THE
PROCESS. SO WITH THAT, YOU MAY
CLOSE. I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU
VERY MUCH FOR THE DISCUSSION TO
MY COLLEAGUES, FOR YOUR YOUR
INPUT AND FOR THE OPPOSITION. I
CERTAINLY MEANT NO DISRESPECT,
NOT LOOKING AT YOU OR THOSE WHO
TESTIFIED IN OPPOSITION. THERE'S
A, YOU KNOW, I THINK ABOUT HOW
TO GET AWAY WITH MURDER, AND
THIS IS A WAY TO GET AWAY WITH
MURDER, NO MATTER IF YOU TOLL IT
OR NOT, WILL CERTAINLY LOOK AT
WHAT THE OPPOSITION AND WHAT WAS
INDICATED BY MY COLLEAGUES
ALREADY, IF WE WOULD HAVE TOLD
MURDER, THEN THIS GUY WOULD NOT
BE IN JAIL TODAY. COULD NOT BE
IN PRISON. THE GOLDEN GATE, YOU
KNOW, RAPIST, 40 PEOPLE, TEN
PEOPLE, WOMEN RAPED AND KILLED,
WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE STATUTE
OF LIMITATION, YOU KNOW, THERE
IS NO STATUTE OF LIMITATION IN
TERMS OF HOW I FEEL WITH THE
WITH THE, YOU KNOW, WE RELEASED
OUR I MEAN, OUR CHILDREN, AND
THESE CHILDREN, YOU KNOW, HE
DIED PREMATURELY. HAD SHE STAYED
HAD SHE STAYED, SHE WOULD HAVE
BEEN FOUND NOT RESPONSIBLE
BECAUSE HE RAN OUT IN THE MIDDLE
OF THE STREET. HE WOULDN'T SHE
WOULDN'T HAVE NO CHARGES WOULD
HAVE BEEN LEVELED. BUT THE
PEOPLE WHO HIT SOMEONE AND RUN
AND RUN TO EVADE BEING MADE
ACCOUNTABLE FOR WHAT THEY'VE
DONE LIE. LETTING SOMEONE LIE IN
THE STREET LIKE AN ANIMAL. AND I
DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN ENVISION
THAT, BUT SHE WENT, GOT OUT OF
HER CAR AND SHE SAW HIS BODY
LIFELESS. AND THEN SHE JUMPED
BACK IN THE CAR. SHE TOOK OFF.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF SHE'S STILL
ALIVE OR IF SHE COULD STILL BE
HIDING OUT, BUT I KNOW THAT IF
SHE WAS TO EMERGE TODAY, WE
COULDN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT
SHE DID 35 YEARS AGO. AND THIS
BILL IS NOT FOR ME, BUT IT'S
ABOUT THOSE WHO WILL ENCOUNTER
SOMEONE LOSING THEIR LIVES AND
THEIR FAMILY DUE TO A HIT AND
RUN. WE WANT CLOSURE, VÀ. WE
WANT CLOSURE. AND I'M ASKING FOR
CLOSURE FOR ALL OF US IN THIS
SPACE, BY REMOVING THIS. AND I
WOULD CERTAINLY AGAIN, IT DIDN'T
FALL ON DEAF EARS, WITH THE
OPPOSITION AND MY COLLEAGUE
SHARING WITH ME, ABOUT YOU KNOW,
THE POTENTIAL AMENDMENT, WE'LL
LOOK AT THAT. BUT IT DOESN'T DO
A THING TO BRING HIM BACK TO US
OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THANK
YOU. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON AB
2984 BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER GIBSON.
THE MOTION IS DUE PASSED TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY. MCCARTY I ALANIS I
ALANIS I LAKI LAKI I NGUYEN
NGUYEN I REYES REYES I TÍNH
WILSON WILSON I ZABIR ZIPPER I
THANK YOU THE MEASURE PASSES
NEXT. MR. MURATSUCHI.
HB 2309. THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR.
YES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR.
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. I FIRST OF ALL, I
WANT TO THANK MR. HANEY FOR
BEING SUCH A GENTLEMAN AND
LETTING ME GO AHEAD OF HIM IN
THE SIGNING ORDER, I AM HERE TO
PRESENT ASSEMBLY BILL 2309 TO
PROVIDE PARITY BETWEEN CHARTER
LAW, CITIES AND GENERAL LAW
CITIES, TO ALLOW GENERAL LAW
CITIES TO DO WHAT? CHARTER?
CHARTER CITIES ALREADY ARE ABLE
TO DO, WHICH IS TO PROSECUTE
STATE LAW MISDEMEANOR CRIMES.
THIS IS A LOCAL CONTROL PUBLIC
SAFETY MEASURE, WHICH IS WHY THE
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES JUST
RECENTLY CAME OUT IN SUPPORT OF
THIS MEASURE. AGAIN CHEN, WE
JUST WANT TO GIVE GENERAL LAW
CITIES WHAT CHARTER LAW CITIES
ALREADY ARE ABLE TO DO TO HAVE
THAT OPTION, TO HAVE THAT TOOL,
YOU KNOW, TO, YOU KNOW, HIRE THE
CITY PROSECUTORS TO BE ABLE TO
PROSECUTE THEIR OWN STATE LAW
MISDEMEANORS WITH ME, TO SUPPORT
THIS MEASURE IS THE MAYOR OF
MANHATTAN BEACH, WHICH, THE CITY
OF MANHATTAN BEACH IS THE
SPONSOR OF THIS BILL, AS WELL AS
THE POLICE CHIEF OF THE MAYOR OF
MANHATTAN BEACH. MAYOR JOE
FRANKLIN AND CHIEF RACHEL
JOHNSON. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
YOU BOTH WILL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
OH, ACTUALLY. GOOD AFTERNOON,
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
JOE FRANKLIN. EXCUSE ME. I AM
THE MAYOR OF MANHATTAN BEACH,
AND WE'RE SPONSORS OF AB 2309.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
SHARE A LOCAL PERSPECTIVE OF
THIS CRITICAL SAFETY ISSUE AS
MAYOR. IT IS ONE OF MY PRIMARY
RESPONSIBILITIES TO ENSURE OUR
COMMUNITY IS PROVIDED ADEQUATE
PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES AT THE
LOCAL LEVEL. WE ARE DIRECTLY
CHARGED WITH MANAGING AND
OVERSEEING OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT
AND THE PUBLIC SAFETY TEAMS. OUR
CONSTITUENTS DEPEND UPON OUR
CONSTITUENTS. EXPECT THESE
SAFETY SERVICES TO PROVIDE FOR
THEIR PROTECTION FROM NOT ONLY
VIOLENT AND SERIOUS CRIMES, BUT
FROM HARASSMENT, ABUSE AND
QUALITY OF LIFE CRIMES.
UNFORTUNATELY, IN OUR CITY AND
MANY OTHERS ACROSS OUR REGION,
WE ARE UNABLE TO MEET THE PUBLIC
SAFETY EXPECTATIONS OF OUR
COMMUNITY BECAUSE OF OUR LIMITED
POWER. WHILE WE SET PRIORITIES
FOR CITY POLICE, WE HAVE ZERO
CONTROL OVER WHAT CRIMES ARE
ULTIMATELY ULTIMATELY PROSECUTED
AND WHICH ONES ARE NOT. AND Kò
TO PUBLIC SAFETY IS ENSURING
THAT THERE ARE SUFFICIENT
CONSEQUENCES TO DETER OR TO
DETER ILLEGAL BEHAVIOR. IN LOS
ANGELES COUNTY, THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY HAS UNILATERALLY
DIRECTED HIS DEPUTY ATTORNEYS
NOT TO PROSECUTE MANY OFFENSES
CRIMINALIZED BY THE STATE. THESE
INCLUDE, AMONG OTHERS, TRESPASS,
DISTURBING THE PEACE, CRIMINAL
THREATS, DRUG POSSESSION,
RESISTING ARREST AND PUBLIC
INTOXICATION. AND WHILE CHARTER
CITIES HAVE AN ABILITY TO ALLOW
THEIR CITY ATTORNEY TO PROSECUTE
ANY MISDEMEANOR, A GENERAL LAW
CITY DOES NOT HAVE THAT
AUTHORITY WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WHO HAS
ROUTINELY ROUTINELY DENIED OUR
REQUESTS. THERE ARE REASONS WHY
THESE ARE THE REASONS WHY WE ARE
SPONSORING AB 2309 TO PROVIDE
THE ABILITY FOR LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS TO FULFILL THEIR
RESPONSIBILITY ON BEHALF OF THE
PEOPLE DEPENDING UPON US. FOR
THOSE REASONS, I RESPECTFULLY AM
ASKING FOR YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS RACHEL
JOHNSON AND I HAVE THE GREAT
HONOR OF BEING THE CHIEF OF
POLICE FOR THE MANHATTAN BEACH
POLICE DEPARTMENT. I'M ALSO A
MEMBER OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
POLICE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION, WHO
FULLY SUPPORTS ASSEMBLY BILL
2309. I'M GRATEFUL TO BE BEFORE
YOU AND HAVE THE CHANCE TO
EXPLAIN THE NEED FOR AB 2309 AND
THE IMPACTS BEING FELT IN CITIES
THROUGHOUT LOS ANGELES COUNTY.
AS THE POLICE CHIEF, IT'S MY
PRIMARY DUTY TO PROTECT THE
PEOPLE IN MY COMMUNITY, AND IT'S
ALSO MY RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE
OUR OFFICERS ARE JUDICIOUS IN
SITUATIONS THAT REQUIRE THEIR
INTERVENTION. THERE ARE ALWAYS
MUST BE A BALANCE BETWEEN
ENFORCEMENT AND CONSEQUENCES
THAT MATCH THE CRIMES BEING
COMMITTED. BUT BUT WHEN THERE
ARE ZERO CONSEQUENCES TO ILLEGAL
BEHAVIOR, IT CAN CREATE AN
IMBALANCE THAT JEOPARDIZES OUR
ABILITY TO PROTECT PEOPLE. THIS
IS WHAT ASSEMBLY BILL 2309 IS
REALLY ABOUT. FROM MY STANDPOINT
, PROTECTING PEOPLE IN MANHATTAN
BEACH, ABOUT 20% OF OUR CASES
LAST YEAR WERE REJECTED OR NOT
FILED BECAUSE THEY WERE 20% OF
OUR MISDEMEANOR CASES WERE
REJECTED. OVER HALF OF THOSE
CASES WERE FOR PUBLIC
INTOXICATION. AND THIS IS
SIGNIFICANT TO US IN MANHATTAN
BEACH AS BECAUSE 20% OF THOSE
ARRESTS WERE ATTRIBUTED TO ONE
PERSON IN OUR COMMUNITY, AS WE
WEREN'T ABLE TO GET ANY FILINGS
ON THE EARLY ARRESTS, THIS
PERSON WENT ON TO ENGAGE IN A
VARIETY OF BIZARRE BEHAVIOR,
OFTEN DUE TO HIS INTOXICATION
LEVEL. THAT CAUSED ONE OF OUR
LOCAL RESTAURANT SERVERS TO HAVE
TO OBTAIN A CIVIL RESTRAINING
ORDER, AS SHE FELT UNSAFE
BECAUSE OF THE UNWANTED
ATTENTION AND BIZARRE BEHAVIOR.
AND AS SHE WAS OFTEN AT THE
RESTAURANT AT NIGHT AFTER
CLOSING, SHE FELT UNSAFE WALKING
TO HER CAR BECAUSE THIS PERSON'S
BEHAVIOR AND WE WEREN'T ABLE TO
HELP. AND AS A POLICE CHIEF,
THAT'S NOT A SITUATION I AM
COMFORTABLE BEING IN WHERE I
FEEL POWERLESS TO HELP SOMEONE
WHO CLEARLY NEEDS OUR ASSISTANCE
. ASSEMBLY BILL 2309 WILL HELP
ENSURE THAT WE CAN MEET THE
NEEDS OF OUR COMMUNITIES BY
ADDRESSING THE ILLEGAL BEHAVIOR
THAT'S CAUSING SIGNIFICANT HARM.
TO BE CLEAR, OUR GOAL IS NOT TO
INCARCERATE INDIVIDUALS FOR
MINOR CRIMES. OUR CITY USES
DIVERSION AND REHABILITATIVE
PROGRAMS TO PROVIDE
OPPORTUNITIES TO CORRECT
BEHAVIOR WITHOUT RELYING ON
PENALTIES ALONE. BUT THESE
ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMS ARE ONLY
EFFECTIVE WHEN THERE ARE SET
CONSEQUENCES IN PLACE.
OTHERWISE, THERE IS LITTLE TO NO
INCENTIVE FOR HABITUAL OFFENDER
TO COMMIT TO CHANGE. FOR THESE
REASONS, I ALSO RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU
CHIEF. ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT?
PLEASE STEP UP TO THE MIC NAME
ORGANIZATION. YES. JULIANA.
BORIS, ON BEHALF OF THE LEAGUE
OF CALIFORNIA CITIES IN SUPPORT,
WE DID SEND IN A LATE LETTER OF
SUPPORT. OUR BOARD JUST ADOPTED
THE SUPPORT POSITION ON FRIDAY,
SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ERIC
JOHNSON, ON BEHALF OF THE CITIES
OF AVALON AND STANTON IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE
IN SUPPORT HEARING? NO. OTHERS
ANY OPPOSITION. PLEASE COME UP
TO THE TABLE. YOU'LL HAVE FIVE
MINUTES TO SHARE. THANK YOU.
VICE CHAIR AND MEMBERS. Dð.
COONEY WITH ACLU CALIFORNIA
ACTION FIRST, EXISTING LAW
PERMITS A CITY ATTORNEY TO
PROSECUTE MISDEMEANOR OFFENSES
ARISING OUT OF A VIOLATION OF
STATE LAW, BUT ONLY WITH THE
CONSENT OF THE COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY. WE BELIEVE THE CURRENT
ARRANGEMENT STRIKES THE CORRECT
BALANCE, LEAVING DECISIONS ABOUT
WHETHER AND HOW TO PROSECUTE
STATE MISDEMEANORS. CARRYING
COUNTY JAIL TIME TO ONE COUNTY
AGENCY. THIS AVOIDS INCONSISTENT
CHARGING PRACTICES AND POLICIES
BETWEEN AGENCIES AND LIMITS
CHARGING DISPARITIES BASED ON
THE LOCATION OF AN ALLEGED
CRIME. SECOND, GIVEN RACIAL AND
ECONOMIC DISPARITIES THAT EXIST
ACROSS COUNTIES, PARTICULARLY
BETWEEN URBAN, SUBURBAN, AND
RURAL AREAS WITHIN THE SAME
COUNTY, WE FEAR DIVERGENT
CHARGING PRACTICES BETWEEN
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S AND CITY'S
ATTORNEY'S COULD HAVE
DISCRIMINATORY RESULTS. WITH
LOWER INCOME BLACK AND BROWN
DEFENDANTS WHO LIVE IN INNER
CITIES BEING PROSECUTED
DIFFERENTLY THAN THEIR WEALTHIER
WHITE COUNTERPARTS WHO LIVE IN
OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTY.
LASTLY, BECAUSE STATE
MISDEMEANORS CARRY, BECAUSE
STATE MISDEMEANOR OFFENSES CARRY
POSSIBLE INCARCERATION IN COUNTY
JAILS AND OR OR THROUGH COUNTY
PROBATION SUPERVISION, WE
BELIEVE THAT AUTHORIZATION TO
PROSECUTE SUCH OFFENSES SHOULD
REMAIN A COUNTY RESPONSIBILITY.
WHEN A DISTRICT ATTORNEY HAS
DETERMINED THAT THE PROSECUTION
IS NOT WARRANTED, THAT DECISION
SHOULD NOT BE OVERRIDDEN BY THE
CITY ATTORNEY FOR THOSE REASONS,
WE REMAIN IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. MARCO
GEORGE, FOR THE CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION, IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. UNLESS
THE BILL IS AMENDED TO REQUIRE
THE EITHER THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
OR THE COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS TO CONSENT TO CITY
ATTORNEYS PROSECUTING
MISDEMEANORS. IN CALIFORNIA,
CHARTER VERSUS GENERAL LAW
CITIES IS ESTIMATED THAT 108 TO
125 OUT OF CALIFORNIA IS 478.
CITIES ARE CHARTER CITIES, AND
TYPICALLY THE CHARTER CITIES ARE
LARGER CITIES THAT. THEIR
CHARTERS HAVE ALLOWED THEM TO
PROSECUTE MISDEMEANORS. THE
CHARTERS ARE VOTER APPROVED
GENERAL LAW CITIES, AS IT
CURRENTLY STANDS, HAS BEEN
NOTED, CAN ONLY PROSECUTE
MISDEMEANORS IF THE DA CONSENTS.
AND WE'RE SUGGESTING THAT A
COMMON SENSE AMENDMENT WOULD BE
EITHER CONSENT OF THE DA OR THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND I WOULD
ECHO THE CONCERNS THAT MY
COLLEAGUE FROM THE ACLU HAS
NOTED. BUT ALSO, THIS HAS THE
POTENTIAL TO WREAK HAVOC WITH
COUNTY BUDGETS, BECAUSE THERE
ARE, AT LEAST THREE DIFFERENT
DEPARTMENTS THAT ARE COUNTYWIDE
DEPARTMENTS THAT WOULD BE
IMPACTED BY GENERAL LAW. CITIES,
WILLY NILLY PROSECUTING
MISDEMEANORS, AND THAT WOULD BE
THE JAIL. AND THAT COULD LEAD TO
POTENTIAL JAIL OVERCROWDING,
WHICH WOULD LEAD TO EITHER, A
LAWSUIT WITH, OR THE JAIL HAVING
OR THE SHERIFF AND THE COUNTY
HAVING TO EXPEND RESOURCES TO
BUILD AN ADDITIONAL JAIL. SO WE
SEE ALREADY IN MANY COUNTIES IN
CALIFORNIA, THE LARGER COUNTIES,
THEIR FEDERAL CONSENT DECREES
THAT ARE, GOVERNING THE CAPACITY
LIMITATIONS OF THE JAIL. SO
POTENTIALLY, THIS PROPOSAL BEALL
WOULD ALLOW A FURTHER BURDEN ON
THE CAPACITY OF THE JAIL.
THERE'S ALSO THE PROBATION
DEPARTMENT, IF MISDEMEANANTS
WERE PLACED ON PROBATION, THIS
WOULD BE ENTAIL HIRING MORE
PROBATION OFFICERS AT COUNTY
EXPENSE. AND THEN FINALLY,
PUBLIC DEFENDERS. SOMEONE HAS TO
PROVIDE INDIGENT CRIMINAL
DEFENSE, AND THAT'S GOING TO BE
A COUNTY EXPENSE. SO THIS THESE
ARE ALL BUDGET ITEMS THAT COULD,
IMPACT THE ENTIRE COUNTY AND THE
COUNTY VOTERS SHOULD BE IN, OR
THEIR REPRESENTATIVES SHOULD BE
INVOLVED IN DETERMINING WHETHER
OR NOT TO ALLOW CITY GENERAL LAW
CITIES TO PROSECUTE, SO WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR NO
VOTE UNLESS IT'S AMENDED. THANK
YOU. ANY OTHERS IN OPPOSITION,
PLEASE STEP UP TO THE MIC. NAME
AN ORGANIZATION, PLEASE. KELLY
WALTERS LEGAL SERVICES FOR
PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN AND
STRONG OPPOSITION. HENRY ORTIZ,
LEGAL SERVICES FOR PRISONERS
WITH CHILDREN. ALL OF US IN THE
SACRAMENTO CHAPTER AND
OPPOSITION. MELANIE KIM, SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE, IN OPPOSITION AND ON
BEHALF OF INITIATE JUSTICE
ACTION IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.
ANY OTHERS? SEEING NONE, WE'LL
MOVE TO THE COMMITTEE, MISS
WILSON. THANK YOU. I HAVE, ONE
QUESTION, BUT I ALSO HAVE A
FOLLOW UP QUESTION FROM,
SOMETHING THE OPPOSITION BROUGHT
UP IN REGARD TO THE BUDGET ITEM.
SO, IS IT THIS IS JUST FOR
LEARNING PURPOSES, I GUESS. SO
ARE THE DA'S TAKE INTO
CONSIDERATION THEIR ABILITY TO
PROVIDE PROBATION, HAVE THEM IN
JAIL AND ALL THAT AS THEY
CONSIDER WHETHER TO ACTUALLY
PROSECUTE OR THAT MISDEMEANORS.
I IN COUNTIES THAT DO NOT HAVE
CITY ATTORNEYS PROSECUTING
MISDEMEANOR WAS FOR EXAMPLE, I'M
FROM ALAMEDA COUNTY, RIGHT. THE
OAKLAND CITY ATTORNEY DOES NOT
PROSECUTE PROSECUTE
MISDEMEANORS. RIGHT, AND
DECIDING WHO TO PROSECUTE AND
WHICH CRIMES TO PROSECUTE, THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY DOES TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT COUNTY RESOURCES BECAUSE
EVEN THOUGH THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY IS DIRECTLY ELECTED BY
THE VOTERS, THEIR BUDGET IS
CONTROLLED BY THE COUNTY BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS. SO THAT THE I
THINK IN THE ANALYSIS USED THE
RESOURCE QUESTION. SO THAT'S
WHAT YOU'RE BRINGING UP WHEN YOU
SAY BUDGET? YES ITEMS. IS THE DA
DETERMINING WHETHER, IT'S THE
WHATEVER THE CRIME IS, IS
SUFFICIENT RELATED TO THE
RESOURCES THEY'RE GOING TO
EXPEND? I THINK THAT'S ONE
CONSIDERATION. THÀNH. I THINK
THERE ARE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
THAT, WERE RAISED BY MY
COLLEAGUE FROM THE ACLU IN TERMS
OF, YOU KNOW, DOING MAKE A
POLICY DETERMINATION, THÀNH,
THAT WE WANT TO EXPEND THE
LIMITED RESOURCES WE HAVE ON
VIOLENT CRIME. HUM ALSO, I IT
STRIKES ME THAT SOME OF THESE
NUISANCE, OFFENSES THAT THE
MAYOR HAS POINTED OUT PROBABLY
COULD BE DEALT WITH BY WAY OF
CITY ORDINANCE, BUT, I DON'T
KNOW WHAT THE CITY ORDINANCES
ARE OF HAVING BEEN A MAYOR. IT'S
NOT THAT EASY, AS YOU SAY, MOST
OF THEM ARE MISDEMEANORS, I
DON'T KNOW, AND THEN THE DA
DOESN'T PROSECUTE, AND THEN IT
KEEPS HAPPENING. YEAH, SO TO THE
TO THE WHAT? THE QUESTION I HAD
COMING IN HERE WAS, THE QUESTION
OF ACCOUNTABILITY. SO WHEN I
CONSIDER A DA, THEY ARE DIRECTLY
ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE, IF THE
PEOPLE FIND THAT THAT DA IS TOO
HARSH OR TOO LENIENT, THEY CAN
RECALL THE DA. THEY CAN DO ALL
THOSE THINGS. HOWEVER, AS CITY
ATTORNEY IS NOT DIRECTLY ELECTED
BY THE PEOPLE, THEY GET THEIR
GUIDANCE, THROUGH THE CITY
COUNCIL OR THE CITY MANAGER,
ALTHOUGH THE CITY COUNCIL ARE
DIRECTLY ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE,
YOU KNOW, EVERY COUNCIL HAS ITS
OWN UNIQUE PERSONALITY AND
RESPONDS TO DIFFERENT WHIMS, AND
IT IS, ALTHOUGH IT IS AN OPTION
TO RECALL, IT IS HARDER, AND YOU
WOULD SAY YOU TYPICALLY RECALL
OVER OTHER ISSUES NOT DIRECTLY
RELATED TO WHETHER THE CITY
ATTORNEY PROSECUTED OR DIDN'T
PROSECUTE MISDEMEANORS. AND SO
HOW DO YOU FACTOR IN THAT
ACCOUNTABILITY FEATURE OF, YOU
KNOW, THIS PERSON IS NOT
DIRECTLY ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE,
THERE, YOU KNOW, APPOINTED BY
EITHER A COUNCIL OR DIRECTLY
HIRED BY A CITY MANAGER. OKAY
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, SO I
THINK LA COUNTY IS A PERFECT
EXAMPLE. LÀ COUNTY, LA COUNTY
HAS 10 MILLION PEOPLE. IT'S
BIGGER THAN 43 STATES IN THE
COUNTRY, SO AS WE'VE SEEN, I
MEAN, THERE HAVE BEEN I MEAN,
THIS IS NOT A BILL THAT IS
ATTACKING ANY PARTICULAR
DISTRICT ATTORNEY. I WANT TO
MAKE THAT CLEAR ON THE RECORD.
BUT, YOU KNOW, LOS ANGELES
COUNTY, WE HAVE SEEN A SITUATION
WHERE THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL
ATTEMPTS TO TRY TO RECALL THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUT JUST
GIVEN THE SHEER SIZE AND THE
SHEER DIVERSITY OF LOS ANGELES
COUNTY, THOSE MEASURES HAVE
FAILED. BUT I WANT TO EMPHASIZE,
YOU KNOW, A FACT THAT GOES
DIRECTLY AGAINST WHAT THE
OPPONENTS ARGUED, WHICH YOU
KNOW, WHERE, AGAIN, LOS ANGELES
COUNTY IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE. LOS
ANGELES COUNTY, ABOUT 50% OF ITS
POPULATION IS ALREADY PROSECUTED
BY CITY ATTORNEYS. THE CITY OF
LOS ANGELES, THE CITY OF LONG
BEACH. THEY PROSECUTE THEIR OWN
STATE LAW MISDEMEANORS AND TO SO
TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, SOMEHOW
ALLOWING CITIES TO PROSECUTE
THEIR OWN CRIMES IS GOING TO,
YOU KNOW, HAVE A
DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACT ON, YOU
KNOW, LOW INCOME BLACK AND BROWN
COMMUNITIES IS JUST NOT
SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS. AND LOS
ANGELES COUNTY, BOTH. FOR YOUR
QUESTION AS TO THE
ACCOUNTABILITY IN TERMS OF THE
SHEER SIZE, YOU KNOW, THE
DIFFICULTY, YOU KNOW, AND THE
DIVERSITY OF THE COUNTY TO BE
ABLE TO RECALL OR HOLD A
DISTRICT ATTORNEY ACCOUNTABLE IS
A TREMENDOUS CHALLENGE. AND
NUMBER TWO, AGAIN, THIS IS WE'RE
NOT PROPOSING ANYTHING NEW
BECAUSE BIG CITIES LIKE LOS
ANGELES AND LONG BEACH, YOU
KNOW, ARE READY TO DO THIS.
WE'RE JUST WE JUST WANT TO
EXTEND THAT OPTION THAT TOOL TO
CITIES. LET ME ALSO EMPHASIZE,
YOU KNOW, ALTHOUGH THIS, YOU
KNOW, THE MAYOR OF MANHATTAN
BEACH MAY MAY DISAGREE WITH ME
ON THIS, BUT THIS WOULD ALSO
ALLOW CITIES TO BE MORE
PROGRESSIVE THAN THEIR DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS. IF YOU HAVE A
CONSERVATIVE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
AND YOU HAVE A CITY THAT, FOR
EXAMPLE, THE CHIEF OF MANHATTAN
BEACH, A GREAT GAVE A GREAT
EXAMPLE IF THEY IF THEIR LOCAL
PRIORITY, YOU KNOW, IT'S A BEACH
CITY. AND SO WE HAVE A, A
VIBRANT, DOWNTOWN PIER COMMUNITY
WITH A LOT OF BARS. YOU KNOW, IF
THEY WANTED TO CRACK DOWN ON,
YOU KNOW, ON THIS REPEAT, YOU
KNOW, YOU KNOW, DRUNK, PUBLIC
INTOXICATION OF OFFENDERS, THE
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH ACTUALLY
CAN TAKE THOSE KIND OF CASES OFF
OF THE DOCKET FROM THE LA COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. LET
THEM FOCUS ON THE MORE SERIOUS
CRIMES. AND THE CITY OF
MANHATTAN BEACH, YOU KNOW, HAS
THE RESOURCES TO BE ABLE TO
PROVIDE MORE DIVERSION. YOU
KNOW, PROGRAMS LIKE THE CHIEF OF
POLICE SAID THIS IS NOT AN
EFFORT TO LOCK UP MORE PEOPLE.
THIS IS A THIS IS A BILL THAT
WILL GIVE LOCAL CITIES THE
FLEXIBILITY TO ADDRESS THEIR OWN
PRIORITIES IN THEIR LOCAL
COMMUNITIES. PARITY BETWEEN
CHARTER CITIES AND GENERAL LAW
CITIES. AND THEN ONE LAST FOLLOW
UP QUESTION. IS THE RIGHT
ABSOLUTE IN THE SENSE THAT JUST
AS, CITIES CAN GIVE PERMISSION
TO THEIR CITY ATTORNEY, ONE CAN
THEY WITH THE LANGUAGE AND THE
LAW, TAKE IT AWAY AND THEN TWO,
CAN THEY NARROW IN ANY WAY,
SHAPE OR FORM THE TYPE OF, OF,
CRIMES THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY
CAN PROSECUTE, VERSUS NOT? IS
THERE ANY CONTROL? WE TALK ABOUT
LOCAL CONTROL IN THE BEGINNING
OF THE THING. IS, THERE ANY
VARIATION OR IT'S AN ABSOLUTE
YOU EITHER ALLOW IT OR YOU DON'T
ALLOW IT. WELL AS AS A FORMER,
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AS WELL
AS A FORMER DEPUTY PUBLIC
DEFENDER IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY,
YOU KNOW, I KNOW, NUMBER ONE,
THAT PROSECUTORS HAVE ENORMOUS
DISCRETION IN TERMS OF, WHAT
CASES TO FILE, WHAT CHARGES TO
FILE, WHAT WHAT PENALTIES TO
REQUEST, BUT I KNOW WHEN I WAS A
DEPUTY, WHEN A LOS ANGELES
COUNTY DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER,
THOSE CASES WERE PROSECUTED BY.
NO, I'M TALKING ABOUT. SO THIS
IS ALLOWING CITIES TO, LET THEIR
THE CITIES MAKE THE DECISION
WHETHER THEIR CITY ATTORNEY CAN
PROSECUTE MISDEMEANOR HOURS, IN
THE DETAILED LANGUAGE OF THE
BILL, DOES IT ALLOW THEM TO TAKE
AWAY THAT RIGHT AS WELL. AND
THEN TWO, DOES IT ALLOW IT TO
NARROW IT OF ONLY CERTAIN TYPES
OF MISDEMEANORS VERSUS OTHERS?
THERE'S NOTHING IN THE BILL THAT
WOULD, RESTRICT OR ENCOURAGE,
YOU KNOW, PROSECUTORIAL
DISCRETION THAT THAT IS UP TO
THE DISCRETION OF THE PROSECUTOR
TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE
CHARGES AND THE APPROPRIATE
PENALTIES BASED ON THE FACTS OF
EACH CASE. SO THERE'S NOTHING IN
THE BILL THAT WOULD TAKE AWAY
THE DISCRETION OF PROSECUTORS
THAT CAN THE CITY ATTORNEY. OKAY
AND THEN THE THAT CAN THE CITY
WITHDRAW, THE ABILITY FOR THEIR
CITY ATTORNEY TO PROSECUTE
MISDEMEANORS. SO RIGHT NOW THEY
HAVE NO PERMISSION. RIGHT. AND
THIS IS GIVING CITIES
PERMISSION. SO IT'S NOT
AUTOMATIC. NOT EVERY CITY
ATTORNEY GETS IT. IT'S ONLY IF
THE COUNCIL SAYS THE CITY
ATTORNEY HAS THAT AUTHORITY
WITHIN THE LANGUAGE. DOES IT
ALLOW THE CITY TO WITHDRAW THAT
FROM THEIR CITY ATTORNEY AS
WELL? A GOOD QUESTION. MY
UNDERSTANDING OF THE EXISTING
LAW IS THAT IF THE CITY IS NOT
PROSECUTING THEIR OWN
MISDEMEANORS, THEN BY DEFAULT,
THE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY,
PROSECUTES THE CASE, WOULD BE
HAPPY TO WORK WITH THIS
COMMITTEE TO CLARIFY THAT, BUT
THAT IS THE INTENT OF THE BILL.
CAN I ADD ON TO THAT? I'LL ASK
THE CHAIR IF YOU GO AHEAD. YES.
NO OKAY. I WOULD JUST SAY THAT
IF THE IF THE LAW ALLOWS THE
CITY TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION
WHETHER THEY WANT THEIR CITY
ATTORNEY TO HAVE THIS POWER,
THEN IT SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE
LANGUAGE THAT THE CITY COULD
DETERMINE TO WITHDRAW THAT
POWER. THAT SHOULD BE CLEAR IF
THIS GOES FORWARD. SO THERE
SHOULD BE AN ON AND OFF. BECAUSE
IF NOT, THEN THAT'S A PRETTY.
LIKE I SAID, THE DA HAS THE
AUTHORITY ALREADY. AND THEN HE'S
THEY'RE NOT HE THEY ARE
ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE. AND
THE PEOPLE CAN RECALL OR NOT.
BUT THIS IS A NEW AUTHORITY TO
CITIES. A CITY SHOULD BE ABLE TO
SAY, YEAH, WE LIKE THIS. AND IF
THEY FIND THAT THIS IS NOT
WORKING FOR OUR CITY, THEY
SHOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE THAT
POWER BACK. ABSOLUTELY. I MEAN
THAT THAT'S THE INTENT OF THIS
BILL. AND SO WE'LL WORK WITH YOU
AND THE COMMITTEE TO CLARIFY
THAT, TO MAKE SURE THAT CITIES
HAVE THAT POWER TO NOT ONLY OPT
IN, BUT ALSO TO OPT OUT. THANK
YOU, MISS WILSON. MISS REYES,
THANK YOU. AS A FOLLOW UP, THE
BILL LANGUAGE DOES SAY THAT
BASICALLY ONCE IF THIS PASSES,
GOVERNOR SIGNS IT, IT IS
PROVIDED THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF
THE CITY PASSES AN ORDINANCE
GRANTING THIS PROSECUTORIAL,
PROSECUTORIAL AUTHORITY TO THE
CITY ATTORNEY. SO IT'S AS I READ
IT, IT IS ONE AND DONE. YOU THEY
THEY AUTHORIZE ON PAGE TWO, LINE
18 AND 19, ONCE THEY HAVE PASSED
THIS ORDINANCE, THEN THE CITY
ATTORNEY, THEN CAN DECIDE WHICH
BILLS, WHICH MISDEMEANORS THEY
WANT TO PROSECUTE AND WHICH
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO PROSECUTE.
THEY THEY, AS IT'S WRITTEN, THEY
NO LONGER ANSWER TO ANYBODY AND
TO THE POINT TO MY COLLEAGUES
POINT EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT
IF THE CITY ATTORNEY, NO
JUDGMENT ON ANY CITY ATTORNEY,
NO JUDGMENT ON ANY ANY COUNTY DA
BUT IF THE CITY ATTORNEY AT THAT
POINT THEN DECIDES WHICH ONES IT
IS VERY SELECTIVE ABOUT WHICH OF
THE MISDEMEANORS HE OR SHE IS
GOING TO PROSECUTE, BUT THAT
DOESN'T SERVE THE PUBLIC BEST
INTEREST, TO HAVE SOMEBODY JUST
MAKE THAT DECISION WITHOUT ANY
OVERSIGHT FROM ANYONE, THE
COMMENT BY MY COLLEAGUE, OUR
DISTRICT ATTORNEY IS ELECTED. SO
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY DOES
ANSWER TO THE PEOPLE THEY ARE
REPRESENTING, WHEREAS THE CITY
ATTORNEY DOES NOT. AND YOU
WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT
THAT? YES. THANK YOU, MISS
REYES, FOR YOUR QUESTION. SO I,
I YOU KNOW, THERE ARE CITIES
THAT THAT, CITY ATTORNEYS AND
CITY PROSECUTORS WOULD BE
ACCOUNTABLE TO THE MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL AS AS THE ELECTED
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CITY, IF
THE, THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL,
PASSES AN ORDINANCE TO, TO GIVE
THE PROSECUTORIAL AUTHORITY TO
THEIR CITY ATTORNEY'S, TO THEIR
CITY PROSECUTOR, THEN IT WOULD
BE THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
THAT WOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.
BUT IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, THE,
THE DAY TO DAY CASE BY CASE,
PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION, YOU
KNOW, THAT WOULD BE DECIDED BY
THE PROSECUTORS, JUST LIKE
CURRENTLY, YOU KNOW, THE, THE
CITY ATTORNEYS IN LOS ANGELES OR
LONG BEACH, BUT IT WOULDN'T BE
UP TO THE PROSECUTOR BECAUSE THE
PROSECUTOR IS THE DA NÓ HERE. IT
WOULD GIVE AGAIN, JUST LIKE IN
THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, THE
STATE LAW MISDEMEANORS ARE
PROSECUTED BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. CORRECT. BUT
THE PROSECUTOR THAT ANSWERS TO
THE PEOPLE, THERE'S ONLY ONE
PROSECUTOR HERE. THE CITY
ATTORNEY IS CITY SELECTING WHICH
OF THE MISDEMEANORS THEY'RE
GOING TO PROSECUTE. AND IN
LOOKING AT THE ARGUMENT IN
SUPPORT, IT'S TALKING ABOUT
PUBLIC SAFETY AND FOSTERING
ECONOMIC PROSPERITY, IT I'M NOT
SURE WHICH MISDEMEANORS IT IS
THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT
ARE GOING TO BE PROSECUTED, AND
AGAIN, I GO BACK TO THE SAME
COMMENT ABOUT BEING SELECTIVE
ABOUT ABOUT WHICH MR. WIENERS,
THAT CITY ATTORNEY, IS GOING TO
SELECT TO PROSECUTE. SO IF THE
DA DECIDES NOT TO PROSECUTE A
PARTICULAR MISDEMEANOR OR
PARTICULAR GROUP OF
MISDEMEANORS, BECAUSE IN THE
WHOLE SCHEME OF THINGS, IT MAY
NOT BE THE MOST IMPORTANT. THE
CITY ATTORNEY THEN IF THE BILL
PASSES AND IT PROVIDED THE CITY
GIVES THEM THE AUTHORITY WOULD
THEN BE ABLE TO DECIDE WHICH
MISDEMEANORS TO PROSECUTE AT
THAT POINT, IS THAT CORRECT? I
ACTUALLY I'M NOT SURE I
UNDERSTAND YOU. I MEAN, TAKE,
FOR EXAMPLE, THE CITY OF THE
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, THE CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DECIDES HOW TO
WHAT CASES TO PROSECUTE, SO THEY
ARE NOT ACCOUNTABLE TO THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF LOS ANGELES
COUNTY, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE OF THE CITY OF LOS
ANGELES DETERMINES THEIR OWN
PROSECUTOR POLICIES. CORRECT.
DOES THAT SO? SO, YEAH, I'M NOT
SURE I UNDERSTAND. THEY GET TO
SELECT WHAT THEY WHICH CASES
THEY PROSECUTE. THAT IS CORRECT.
THAT THAT IS WITHIN THE, THE
DISCRETION OF THE PROSECUTOR
FOR, I BELIEVE THE MAYOR MAY,
MAY HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD. YES.
THANK YOU. THROUGH YES. THANK
YOU. SO OUR CITY COUNCIL ONLY
HAS THE AUTHORITY TO HIRE AND
FIRE TWO PEOPLE. AND, YOU KNOW,
ON THE CITY STAFF. AND THAT'S
THE CITY MANAGER AND THE AND THE
CITY ATTORNEY. SO AS THE ELECTED
OFFICIALS, WE WOULD BE
ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PUBLIC FOR
ANYTHING THAT THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY IS DOING INCORRECTLY OR
AT LEAST THE CITY ATTORNEY. YOU
MEAN A CITY ATTORNEY? YEAH
THAT'S THE CITY ATTORNEY IS
DOING INCORRECTLY OR NOT IN
FAVOR WITH THE PUBLIC. AND THEY
COULD BRING THOSE ISSUES TO CITY
COUNCIL. WELL, THERE WAS A
QUESTION EARLIER, THAT YOU
WANTED TO RESPOND TO, AND I
WANTED TO GIVE YOU THE
OPPORTUNITY THROUGH THE CHAIR.
THANK YOU. SO I WAS JUST GOING
TO SAY THERE'S AN ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S OPINION, WHICH TALKS
ABOUT A CHARTER CITY, WHETHER OR
NOT THEY COULD THEN RELINQUISH
THE ABILITY TO PROSECUTE
MISDEMEANOR DÍAS. AND THEY HAD A
CITY ATTORNEY AND THEY CHOSE TO
DO THAT. AND THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL AND THE CITY ATTORNEY
PROTESTED, AND THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S OPINION LOOKED AT THE
TERMS OF THE CHARTER AND THE
POWERS THAT WERE GIVEN TO THE
CITY COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR IN
THE CHARTER, AND WHETHER OR NOT
THE VOTERS WHO HAD APPROVED THE
CHARTER HAD GIVEN THEM THAT
AUTHORITY. SO IN A GENERAL LAW
CITY, SINCE THERE'S NO CHARTER,
I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT WOULD
WORK. THE OTHER DIFFERENCE WITH,
PERHAPS, YOU KNOW, THE SCENARIO
THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WHERE
YOU CAN FIRE THE CITY ATTORNEY
IS IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT
THE CITY ATTORNEY OF LOS ANGELES
IS ELECTED, I BELIEVE, AND
CERTAINLY THAT IS THE CASE WITH
THE CITY ATTORNEY OF OAKLAND,
EVEN THOUGH THEY DON'T PROSECUTE
MR. COOPER. SO I DON'T KNOW IF
THAT'S TRUE IN GENERAL OF LARGER
CITIES, THEY HAVE AN ELECTED
POSITION. SO THE PERSON IS
DIRECTLY ACCOUNTABLE TO THE
VOTERS RATHER THAN BEING, AS YOU
INDICATED, AND GOT ELICITED
THROUGH THE QUESTIONING, JUST
ACCOUNTABLE TO THE MAYOR OR THE
COUNCIL. IS THAT A FAIR
QUESTION? IS THE L.A. CITY
ATTORNEY ELECTED OR. YES OKAY,
AND THEN ONE COMMENT THAT WAS
MADE IS, WHO IS GOING TO DEFEND
THE DEFENDANT IN THOSE CASES, AS
I DID WHEN I WAS A DEPUTY PUBLIC
DEFENDER, I DEFENDED THE
DEFENDANTS THAT THAT WAS
PROSECUTED BY THE LOS ANGELES
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. VERY
GOOD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON. ONE QUICK
QUESTION TO FOLLOW UP. QUICK
QUESTION OR ONE COMMENT AND ONE,
FOLLOW UP QUESTION. I DO THINK
IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT
THE BILL IS EXPLICIT THAT THE,
CITY CAN GIVE, THE AUTHORITY TO
THE CITY, ATTORNEY AND CAN ALSO
TAKE THAT AUTHORITY AWAY AS A
WHOLE. I DON'T THINK WE CAN RELY
ON THE CITY ATTORNEY, BEING, AS
I MOST CITIES HAVE, WHERE YOU
CAN DIRECTLY HIRE JUST THE CITY
MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY,
BECAUSE THEN THAT CITY ATTORNEY
COULD SUE FOR CAUSE. BECAUSE
THEY COULD SAY THAT THEY WERE
PROSECUTING PEOPLE WHO SHOULD
HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED AND THE
POLITICAL WHIMS OF THE COUNCIL
FIRED THEM BECAUSE THEY WERE
DOING THE WORK OF THE PEOPLE.
AND ALL THAT, THAT KIND OF
STUFF. AND IT COULD BE SEEN LIKE
YOU'RE JUST TARGETING ONE
PARTICULAR PERSON OR NOT. AND SO
IF YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO
JUST TAKE AWAY THE RIGHT
ALTOGETHER, THAT'S A LONG PUBLIC
PROCESS. AND SO THAT MEANS IT
MUST BE A GRIEVOUS IN SOME WAY
THAT IT DOESN'T WORK, EGREGIOUS
IN SOME WAY THAT IT DOESN'T WORK
FOR YOUR CITY. AND SO, YOU KNOW,
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO ME. I,
YOU KNOW, I THINK GIVING THE
HANDS OF LOCAL CONTROL IS GOOD,
AND IN THIS REGARD, TO DEAL
WITH, THE LOW LEVEL MISDEMEANORS
, I FIND IN MOST MY OWN COUNTY
AND OTHER COUNTIES, THERE'S NOT
ENOUGH RESOURCES TO DEAL WITH IT
JUST TO PROSECUTE, NOT FORGET
THE PUBLIC DEFENDER AND JAIL AND
ALL THAT. JUST TO PROSECUTE. AND
THIS ALLOWS TO DEAL WITH THESE
TYPE OF CRIMES THAT COULD BE
NUISANCE AND CAN ALLEVIATE SOME
OF THE ILLS SOCIAL ILLS THAT WE
SEE IN OUR COMMUNITY. SO I'M
GOING TO SUPPORT IT TODAY. BUT,
CONTINGENT FOR FUTURE ON THAT
PARTICULAR PIECE THAT IT NEEDS
TO BE EXPLICIT THAT THEY GET THE
RIGHT TO GIVE, BUT THEY ALSO
HAVE THE EXPLICIT RIGHT TO TAKE
AWAY. THANK YOU. I DON'T KNOW IF
THERE'S A MOTION, BUT I'LL MAKE
THE MOTION. SO MOVED. SECOND,
MR. ZUBIATE. SO, I, I AGREE WITH
MY COLLEAGUE'S COMMENTS ABOUT
TAKING IT AWAY. I I'M, I DON'T
HAVE A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH THIS
BILL. I DO THINK THAT, GENERAL
LAW CITIES AND CHARTER LAW
CITIES SHOULD ACTUALLY HAVE
ESSENTIALLY THE SAME ABILITY TO
DECIDE WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO
PRIORITIZE THINGS IN THEIR
JURISDICTIONS. AND I THINK PART
OF THAT IS SORT OF, YOU KNOW,
COMING FROM LOS ANGELES, WHERE
OUR COUNTY IS JUST SO LARGE, AND
WHERE THE PROSECUTORIAL
RESOURCES ARE SO LIMITED. AND,
THIS DOES GIVE LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS AN ABILITY THAT I
THINK ARE IS COMPARABLE TO WHAT
HAPPENS IN THE CHARTER LAW
CITIES WHERE THE, THE NATURE OF
THE PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION IS
SUBJECT TO IS ANSWERABLE TO
ELECTED OFFICIALS IN THE
JURISDICTION. I KNOW IN LOS
ANGELES, THE CITY ATTORNEY IS
ELECTED. IN LONG BEACH. YOU HAVE
A CITY ATTORNEY AND A CITY
PROSECUTOR WHO ARE BOTH ELECTED.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE ARE
CHARTER CITIES THAT ACTUALLY
HAVE APPOINTED CITY. SANTA
MONICA, SANTA MONICA. I DON'T
KNOW THAT THAT IS THAT ARE THEY
A CHARTER LAW CITY? I KNOW THAT
IN TORRANCE, WE HAVE A CITY
PROSECUTOR WHO IS NOT ELECTED.
YEAH, YEAH. SO I, I JUST, YOU
KNOW, IN, IN THINKING THROUGH, I
THINK SOME OF THE WHAT WE GO
THROUGH HERE A LOT ON LOOKING AT
WHETHER OR NOT CERTAIN KINDS OF
THINGS SHOULD BE FELONIES VERSUS
MISDEMEANORS. A LOT OF THE A LOT
OF THE REASON WHY THOSE BILLS
ARE BROUGHT IS BECAUSE THERE IS
LACK OF RESOURCES AT THE LOCAL
LEVEL TO PROSECUTE MISDEMEANORS.
AND IF WE HAD MORE RESOURCES,
THERE, AND IF CITIES WERE HAD
THE ABILITY TO DO THAT, I THINK
THERE WOULD BE LESS PRESSURE TO
ACTUALLY MAKE LOTS OF THINGS,
FELONIES WITH LONG JAIL
SENTENCES ATTACHED TO THEM. SO,
BECAUSE OF THAT, AND I THINK
WITH, YOU KNOW, SHARING THE
CONCERNS THAT MY COLLEAGUE JUST
RAISED, PREPARED TO SUPPORT THE
BILL TODAY. THANK YOU. OKAY MR.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I ALSO
HAVE THE SAME CONCERNS, JUST TO
BE HONEST, I WAS JUST IN THIS
HEARING FROM A NO TO A NOT
VOTING TO I BELIEVE THAT YOU
WILL BE WORKING ON THIS AND, YOU
AND I USUALLY PRETTY MUCH ALIGN
ON MOST THINGS. AND SO THANK YOU
FOR DOING THAT. SO I WILL BE
SUPPORTING THIS AS WELL. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. YOU MAY CLOSE,
OUT OF RESPECT TO MR. HANEY'S
TIME, I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR I
VOTE. SHE'S GOT SOME TIME TO.
YES THE SCOREKEEPERS GOT TO COME
BACK. YES, FOR A MOTION IS
SECOND. HE CLOSED. PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL ON AB 2309 BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER MURATSUCHI. THE MOTION IS
Dð PASS MCCARTY. MCCARTY. I
ALANIS ALANIS I LACKEY. NOT
VOTING. LACKEY NOT VOTING.
NGUYEN NGUYEN I REYES REYES I
TING. WILSON WILSON I ZUBER.
ZUBER I THAT MEASURE PASSES.
OKAY. THANK YOU. JUST AN
ANNOUNCEMENT. WE'RE GOING TO
WE'RE GOING TO HEAR ONE MORE
BILL, MR. HANEY'S BILL. AND
THAT'S IT FOR TODAY. WE HAVE TO
LIFT THE CALLS ON THE OTHER
BILLS AND THEN TURN THE
COMMITTEE OVER FOR THE NEXT
COMMITTEE AT 130. SO HANEY'S
BILL WILL BE THE LAST BILL
TODAY. THANK YOU. I WILL BE
QUICK. READY OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS, IN AN EFFORT TO COMBAT
EVER RISING GUN VIOLENCE, AB
2629 WILL CLOSE A LOOPHOLE IN
EXISTING LAW THAT ALLOWS PEOPLE
WHO ARE DEEMED MENTALLY
INCOMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL TO
PURCHASE AND BUY GUNS. COMPARED
TO OTHER HIGH INCOME COUNTRIES,
THE UNITED STATES HAS STOOD OUT
AS THE ONLY COUNTRY WITH
PERSISTENT PROBLEM OF GUN
VIOLENCE. PEOPLE IN THE UNITED
STATES ARE 25 TIMES MORE LIKELY
TO BE KILLED IN A GUN HOMICIDE
THAN THOSE LIVING IN OTHER HIGH
INCOME COUNTRIES. SINCE 2014,
CALIFORNIA HAS HAD MORE THAN
12,000 GUN HOMICIDES. IF A COURT
FINDS AN INDIVIDUAL TO BE
MENTALLY INCOMPETENT DURING A
FELONY CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, THE
PERSON IS BANNED FROM BUYING OR
OWNING FIREARMS UNTIL THE COURT
RESTORES THEIR RIGHTS. FEDERAL
LAW ALREADY BANS THE POSSESSION
OF FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION FOR
PEOPLE WHO HAVE FOUND TO BE IN
DANGER TO THEMSELVES OR OTHERS,
OR WHO HAVE BEEN DEEMED MENTALLY
INCOMPETENT. THIS FIREARM BAN
ALSO APPLIES TO INDIVIDUALS
FOUND MENTALLY INCOMPETENT TO
STAND TRIAL DURING MISDEMEANOR
PROCEEDINGS IN FEDERAL COURT.
HOWEVER STATE LAW ONLY TRIGGERS
A FIREARM BAN IN FELONY CRIMINAL
CASES, INCLUDING THOSE WHERE
INDIVIDUALS ARE FOUND TO BE
MENTALLY INCOMPETENT,
INDIVIDUALS DEEMED MENTALLY
INCOMPETENT IN MISDEMEANOR CASES
IN STATE COURT CONTINUE TO
RETAIN THEIR FIREARM RIGHTS.
ADDITIONALLY THESE FINDINGS AND
DECISIONS ARE NOT BEING REPORTED
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
GUN VIOLENCE IS A PREVENTABLE
TRAGEDY AFFECTING OUR
COMMUNITIES, AND THIS BILL WILL
HELP TO KEEP ALL CALIFORNIANS
SAFE BY CLARIFYING THAT FIREARM
BANS APPLY. IN ANY CASE WHERE A
PERSON IS FOUND MENTALLY
INCOMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL,
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE
UNDERLYING CHARGE IS A FELONY OR
MISDEMEANOR. WITH ME TODAY IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL IS MICHAEL
REDDING, A SPECIAL ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL FROM THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR.
CHAIR, AND HONORABLE MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE, MICHAEL REDDING,
SPECIAL ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL FROM THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. I'M HERE
ON BEHALF OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL AND SPONSORSHIP OF THIS
BILL AS THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER
STATED, THIS BILL IS REALLY
ABOUT TWO THINGS PUBLIC SAFETY
AND CLOSING A LOOPHOLE, TO BE
CLEAR, THE VAST MAJORITY OF
PEOPLE WHO SUFFER FROM MENTAL
ILLNESS ARE NOT VIOLENT.
HOWEVER, THIS BILL ADDRESSES A
VERY NARROW SUBSET SUBSET OF
INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE BEEN
ACCUSED OF A MISDEMEANOR AND
FOUND INCOMPETENT TO STAND
TRIAL. A GUN VIOLENCE IS NOT A
MONOLITH. THERE ARE LOTS OF
DIFFERENT TYPES OF GUN VIOLENCE.
THIS ADDRESSES ONE VERY NARROW
CIRCUMSTANCE AND THE GOAL OF THE
BILL IS TO ADD AN INCREASING
NUMBER OF LAYERS TO ENSURE THAT
WE'RE CATCHING EVERY INSTANCE.
SECOND, THIS BILL IS INTENDED TO
CLOSE A LOOPHOLE. IT'S THE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER STATED,
CURRENTLY, INDIVIDUALS FOUND
INCOMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL ARE
FEDERALLY PROHIBITED FROM
POSSESSING A FIREARM, BUT THEY
ARE NOT PROHIBITED UNDER STATE
LAW. AND THIS MEANS, ONE, THAT
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DOES
NOT RECEIVE THAT INFORMATION
FROM THE LOCAL COURTS AND CANNOT
PUT IT INTO OUR SYSTEM SO THAT
IF SOMEBODY ATTEMPTS TO PURCHASE
A FIREARM, THEY WILL BE
PROHIBITED FROM DOING SO, AND
TWO, IT MEANS THAT STATE AND
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ARE NOT
ABLE TO SUPPORT EXCUSE ME TO
ENFORCE THAT LAW. MEANING IF A
STATE OFFICER GOES AND FINDS
FINDS SOMEBODY HAS BEEN FOUND
INCOMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL, THAT
OFFICER WOULD NEED TO GO GET A
FEDERAL OFFICER TO RETRIEVE THE
FIREARM, JUST TO BRIEFLY ADDRESS
, SOME, SOME OPPOSITION. WE'VE
HAD SOME PRODUCTIVE
CONVERSATIONS. THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S GOAL HERE, THE
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S GOAL HERE, AS I
UNDERSTAND IT, IS REALLY TO
ENSURE THAT IF SOMEBODY WHO'S
FOUND INCOMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL
FOR A MISDEMEANOR GOES AND
ATTEMPTS TO PURCHASE A FIREARM,
THAT THEY ARE PROHIBITED FROM,
FROM DOING SO, THE GOAL IS NOT
TO, ADD PENALTIES AND INCREASE,
INCARCERATION. THÀNH THE HOPE IS
THAT THESE WILL BE SPARINGLY
PROSECUTED, BUT THAT THEY WILL
EFFECTIVELY PREVENT PEOPLE FROM
GOING AND OBTAINING A FIREARM
WHERE NOW THEY ARE PROHIBITED,
BUT MAY BE ABLE TO GO AND DO
THAT. SO WE WILL CONTINUE OUR
CONVERSATIONS WITH THOSE
OPPOSITION TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY
WAY TO MINIMIZE, ANY PUNISHMENT
FOR FOLKS WHO, WHO VIOLATE THIS
INADVERTENTLY, AND WITH THAT, I
WELCOME YOUR QUESTIONS. OKAY
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER WITNESSES
IN SUPPORT? MR. CHAIR, MEMBER
SYLVIA SALAS CHAU HERE ON BEHALF
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS
MICAH DOKHTOUROFF, ON BEHALF OF
THE ACLU OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
AND ACLU CALIFORNIA ACTION, IN
THE INTEREST OF YOUR TIME, I
WILL I WILL STAY HERE AND TRY TO
MAKE THIS SHORT. WE HAVE OPPOSED
THIS BILL UNLESS AMENDED, AS MR.
REDDING SAID, WE'VE HAD SOME
REALLY GOOD CONVERSATIONS WITH
THE SPONSOR AND THE AUTHOR'S
OFFICE, AND WE ARE HOPING THAT
THERE MAY BE SOME AMENDMENTS IN
THE FUTURE THAT WILL HELP TO
ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS. OUR
CONCERNS, NAMELY, BEING THAT WE
DON'T WANT, PARTICULAR PEOPLE
WITH MENTAL ILLNESS, BUT REALLY
ANYBODY TO BE FURTHER PROSECUTED
FOR, VIOLATING ANY OF THE
PROHIBITIONS, ESTABLISHED UNDER
THE BILL. AND SO WE WILL
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THEM AND,
AND HOPE THAT WE ARE ABLE TO
REACH A COMPROMISE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. MELANIE KIM, SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE. WE SHARE SIMILAR
CONCERNS AND WILL CONTINUE
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE AUTHOR
AND SPONSORS. THANK YOU. SO YOU
KNOW, THERE'S AN OPPOSITION
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS SEEING NONE.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
SO NICE. YOU DID IT TWICE OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. YOU MAY CLOSE. THANK
YOU. RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
VOTE. OKAY. THANK YOU. PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL ON AB 2629 BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER HANEY. THE MOTION
IS DUE. PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY HI, MARTI I ALANIS
ALANIS. I LAKI LAKI I NGUYEN
NGUYEN I REYES TING TING I
WILSON WILSON I ZEBRA ZIPPER I.
THAT MEASURE PASSES. WE'LL GO
THROUGH AND DO ADD ONS. LIFT THE
CALLS AND TAKE UP SOME MEASURES
THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE A QUORUM FOR
EARLIER IN THE DAY. HOW SHOULD
WE BEGIN FROM THE BEGINNING?
I'LL GO AHEAD. WE'LL START FROM
THE BEGINNING. SO WE HAVE
EVERYBODY HERE ABOUT ANY
MEASURES NOT TAKING. YES, YES
AND ANY MEASURES NOT TAKEN UP
TODAY. WE WILL, WE WILL ADJOURN
FOR THE DAY AND COME BACK
TOMORROW. WE DON'T HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK TODAY,
SO WE'LL COME BACK TOMORROW
MORNING AT 9 A.M, 127 IN ROOM
127 ACROSS THE HALL. WHAT BILL
WAS IT? YOU WAIT FOR ME TO GO
THROUGH IT. OKAY? THANK YOU. ON
THE. I'LL JUST GO THROUGH THERE.
OKAY. ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
ALANIS. ALANIS I LACKEY I LACKEY
I TING TING I. AB 1863 WAS ON
CONSENT AB 2020 WAS ON CONSENT.
ITEM EXCUSE ME. AB 2065 HAS BEEN
PUT OVER UNTIL TOMORROW. AB 2136
BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER JONES SAWYER,
ALANIS, ALANIS I LACKEY. NOT
VOTING. LACKEY NOT VOTING. TING
TING I. ITEM NUMBER FIVE AB 21.
EXCUSE ME. IT'S NOT ITEM NUMBER
FIVE ANYMORE. AB 2160 BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER MCKENNA HAS BEEN
PUT OVER UNTIL TOMORROW'S
HEARING. AB 2178 HAS BEEN PUT
OVER UNTIL TOMORROW'S HEARING.
AB 2210 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
PETRIE-NORRIS TING TING. I ITEM
NUMBER EIGHT AB 2295. THIS
MEASURE WAS FOR TESTIMONY ONLY.
IT WAS TAKEN AS A SUBCOMMITTEE.
IS THERE A MOTION? MOTION SO
SECOND, THIS BILL HAS BEEN
PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. AB
2295 BY MEMBER ADDIS. THE MOTION
IS DUE PASS AS AMENDED, TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY. MCCARTY I ALANIS ALANIS
I LACKEY. LACKEY. I NGUYEN
NGUYEN I REYES REYES I TING TING
I WILSON WILSON I ZEBRA ZIPPER I
THAT MEASURE PASSES ITEM. EXCUSE
ME AB 2296 WAS PULLED AB 2309 BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER MURATSUCHI TING
TING I AB 2391 WAS PULLED AB
2406 BY MISS DAVIES. ALANIS
ALANIS I LACKEY A LACKEY I
NGUYEN NGUYEN NOT VOTING TING
TING NOT VOTING. MAKING A VOTE.
CHANGE FROM NO TO NOT VOTING
WILSON. VOTE CHANGE NO TO NOT
VOTING. ITEM. EXCUSE ME AB 2456
WAS PULLED AB 2470 WAS PULLED AB
2518 BY MISS DAVIES. THIS
MEASURE WAS ON CALL. LACKEY I
LACKEY I TING TING I THAT
MEASURE NOW PASSES. ITEM NUMBER
SIX AB 2519 BY SENATOR MEMBER
MAIENSCHEIN. THIS MEASURE WAS
TESTIMONY ONLY THIS MORNING. IS
THERE A MOTION SO MOVED? THIS
MEASURE HAS BEEN PROPERLY MOVED
AND SECONDED ON AB 2519. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY. MCCARTY I ALANIS ALANIS
I LACKEY. LACKEY I NGUYEN NGUYEN
I REYES REYES I TING TING I
WILSON WILSON I ZEBRA ZIPPER I
AB 2521 VÌ WAS ON CONSENT AB
2544 WAS ON CONSENT. AB 2576 IS
BEING HELD OVER TOWARD
TOMORROW'S HEARING. AB 2603 WAS
PULLED. AB 2604 WAS PULLED. AB
2629 BY MR. HANEY. MISS REYES AB
2629 BY MR. HANEY. HI MISS REYES
I. IT'S NOT THE BILL HE WANTED
TO CHANGE ON RIGHT. IT'S NOT THE
BILL HE WANTS TO CHANGE ON
THERE. OKAY. MR. ZIPPER. ZIPPER,
YOU HAD A VOTE CHANGE YOU WANT
TO SWITCH ONE FROM? YES WAS IT
MR. HAINESVILLE? NO. OKAY AB
2692 HAS BEEN HELD OVER FOR
TOMORROW'S HEARING. AB 2695 WAS
ON CONSENT. AB 2710 WAS ON
CONSENT. AB 2788 BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER LOWE. THIS MEASURE WAS ON
CALL. LACKEY A LACKEY I NGUYEN
NGUYEN. I REYES. MR. TÍNH ON AB
2788 BY MR. LOWE. I HAVE NOT
ANNOUNCED THE VOTE YET. THIS
MEASURE WAS ON CALL, AS IT
STANDS NOW, THIS MEASURE PASSES
WITH WITH WITH THE WITH MISS
NGUYEN AND MR. LACKEY VOTING. IT
HAS NOT BEEN. YOU'RE GOING TO GO
WITH NOT MR. OKAY. ON AB 2788 BY
MR. LO TING NOT VOTING MISS
REYES NOT VOTING THAT MEASURE
PASSES. YEA YES ON AB 2790 WAS
PULLED AB 2823 WAS PULLED AB
2024 WAS PULLED, AB 2846 HAS
BEEN HELD OVER FOR TOMORROW'S
HEARING ON AB 2850 WAS PULLED.
AB 2878 WAS ON CONSENT. AB 2907
WAS ON CONSENT. AB 2917 HAS BEEN
HELD OVER FOR TOMORROW'S
HEARING. AB 2964 WAS PULLED. AB
2984 BY MR. GIBSON TING. IT IS
ALREADY PASSED, SIR TING NOT
VOTING ON AB 2984. AB 3032 WAS
PULLED AB 3064 BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER MAIENSCHEIN. THIS MEASURE
WAS HEARD FOR TESTIMONY ONLY
THIS MORNING. IS THERE A MOTION
ON. AB 3064 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
MAIENSCHEIN. THANK YOU. PROPERLY
MOVED AND SECONDED ON AB 3064 BY
SOME MEMBER MAIENSCHEIN. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS AS AMENDED TO
THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY. MCCARTY I ALANIS ALANIS
. NO. LACKEY. NO. LACKEY. NO.
WHEN. WHEN I REYES REYES I TING
TING I WILSON. WILSON I ZIPPER
ZIPPER I AB 3071 WAS PULLED AB
3094 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER LOWE.
THIS MEASURE WAS ON CALL. LACKEY
LACKEY I REYES. OKAY. MR. TING
ON AB 3094 TING I ZIPPER. AB
3094 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER LOWE.
ZIPPER I. REYES ON AB 3094. I AB
3108 WAS ON CONSENT. AB 3222 WAS
ON CONSENT. AB 3231 WAS PULLED.
AB 3235 WAS ON CONSENT. AB 2609.
THIS MEASURE IS FOR VOTE ONLY.
IS THERE A MOTION? MOTION
SECOND. ON AB 2609 BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER TO THE MOTION IS Dð PASS
AS AMENDED TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. MCCARTY A MCCARTY I
ALANIS ALANIS I LACKEY A LACKEY
I NGUYEN WHEN I REYES REYES I
TING TING I WILSON WILSON I
ZIPPER ZIPPER I THAT MEASURE
PASSES MR. ZIPPER ONE ONE VOTE
CHANGE FOR YOU, MR. REYES. HE
PULLED IT. HE PULLED IT. AND THE
VOTE.
I DON'T WELL, FIRST OF ALL,
WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO YOU.
MISS REYES, DID YOU HAVE A VOTE
CHANGE? 2406 24 OH, THAT WAS THE
DATE. SO, LADIES, YOU'RE A NO ON
THAT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
.
CHANGE THAT.
ON AB 2406. VOTE CHANGE. ZIPPER
NO TO NOT VOTING. AND MCCARTY.
NO TO NOT VOTING ON 24 SIX.
MCCARTY. NO TO NOT VOTING. ON.
THAT. VOTE CHANGE ON 2518.
ZIPPER. NOT VOTING TO I. OKAY.
THANK YOU. WITH THAT, WE WILL
ADJOURN. WE'LL RECONVENE
TOMORROW MORNING, 9 A.M, ROOM
127.