GOOD MORNING. WE WILL START THIS
COMMITTEE TODAY. THE PUBLIC
SAFETY COMMITTEE OF THE STATE
ASSEMBLY WILL BEGIN AS A
SUBCOMMITTEE. WE'LL HAVE A
QUORUM YET. FIRST AUTHOR, MR.
KALRA, PLEASE PROCEED. THANK YOU
SO MUCH, MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
AB 2065 WOULD IMPROVE ACCESS TO
CRITICAL CRITICAL CRIMINAL
JUSTICE DATA AND REQUIRE LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO SHARE
PROBATION AND POLICE REPORTS
WITH ATTORNEYS INVESTIGATING A
CALIFORNIA RACIAL JUSTICE ACT
CLAIM. UNDER EXISTING LAW, THE
RJ ALLOWS PETITIONERS TO SEEK
RELIEF BY DEMONSTRATING
STATISTICAL SHOWING OF DISPARATE
TREATMENT BETWEEN SIMILARLY
SITUATED PEOPLE FROM DIFFERENT
RACIAL GROUPS BUT IN THE SAME
COUNTY WHERE THE INDIVIDUAL WAS
SENTENCED. UNFORTUNATELY, THE
INFORMATION NEEDED TO ESTABLISH
AN RJ VIOLATION CAN BE
CHALLENGING TO OBTAIN. THIS IS
PARTLY DUE TO DATA COLLECTION
PRACTICES VARYING BY COUNTY AND
AGENCY, WITH REPORTS ONLY
CONTAINING AGGREGATE INFORMATION
OR BREAKING DOWN OFFENSES INTO
BROAD CATEGORIES THAT DO NOT
PROVIDE THE REQUIRED DETAILS FOR
AN RJ CLAIM. FOR EXAMPLE, WHILE
THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL IS REQUIRED
TO REPORT DATA ON CRIMINAL CASE
DISPOSITIONS, ACCORDING TO THE
RACE AND ETHNICITY OF THE
DEFENDANT, THEY ONLY REPORT
STATEWIDE INFORMATION WHICH DOES
NOT MEET THE COUNTY BY COUNTY
CRITERIA SPECIFIED IN STATUTE.
ADDITIONALLY, WHILE THE RJ
PROVIDES FOR DISCOVERY FROM LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AFTER A
SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE, THIS
PROCESS CAN BE TIME CONSUMING
AND THE RESULTS INCONSISTENT DUE
TO A LACK OF CLARITY IN EXISTING
LAW. FOR EXAMPLE, COURTS HAVE
HELD THAT ACCESS IS LIMITED TO
OAN IS LIMITED TO ONLY RECENT
REPORTS, AND IN ONE CASE, AND IN
ONE CASE, A COUNTY DENIED A
REQUEST TO PROVIDE LAW
ENFORCEMENT RECORDS BECAUSE THE
INFORMATION THE PETITIONER
SOUGHT WAS 11 MONTHS OLD AT THE
TIME. AB 2065 ADDRESSES THESE
ISSUES BY FIRSTLY REQUIRING CDCR
JUDICIAL COUNCIL AND THE DOJ TO
REPORT DISAGGREGATED DATA BY
COUNTY ANNUALLY. SECONDLY THE
BILL WOULD REQUIRE LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO RELEASE
REQUESTED ARREST RECORDS AND
PROBATION REPORTS, REGARDLESS OF
THE DATE THEY WERE PREPARED TO.
A LICENSED ATTORNEY
INVESTIGATING A CLAIM UNDER THE
RJ BY IMPROVING MEANINGFUL DATA
ACCESS AND REMOVING
INSTITUTIONAL BARRIERS. AB 2065
WILL ENSURE LEGITIMATE
STATISTICS BASED RJ CLAIMS CAN
BE BROUGHT IN COURT AND REDUCED
THE BURDEN ON AGENCIES. WITH ME
TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT IS RICK
OWENS WITH THE COMMITTEE ON
REVISION OF THE PENAL CODE.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR,
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS RICK OAN AND I'M A
SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL FOR THE
COMMITTEE ON REVISION OF THE
PENAL CODE. THE PENAL CODE
COMMITTEE IS A STATE ENTITY THAT
WAS CREATED BY THE LEGISLATURE
TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT
ALL ASPECTS OF CRIMINAL LAW IN
CALIFORNIA. THE AB 2065 IS BASED
ON A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE
PENAL CODE COMMITTEE TO EXPAND
ACCESS TO DATA THAT WILL ASSIST
DEFENSE ATTORNEYS, PROSECUTORS,
AND COURTS IN INVESTIGATING AND
RULING ON CLAIMS UNDER THE
RACIAL JUSTICE ACT. THE RACIAL
JUSTICE ACT IS A HISTORIC AND
IMPORTANT EFFORT TO ADDRESS
RACIAL BIAS IN THE CRIMINAL
LEGAL SYSTEM. IT ALLOWS A
CONVICTION OR SENTENCE TO BE
MODIFIED OR EVEN VACATED IF IT
WAS TAINTED BY RACIAL BIAS. THE
PENAL CODE COMMITTEE SPOKE TO
PRACTICE OWNERS ACROSS THE STATE
LAST YEAR, AND LEARNED THAT THEY
HAVE SIGNIFICANT DIFFICULTY
OBTAINING DATA TO EVEN BEGIN TO
BRING THOSE CLAIMS. FOR EXAMPLE,
THE RACIAL JUSTICE ACT REQUIRES
INFORMATION ON SIMILARLY
SITUATED PEOPLE AT THE COUNTY
LEVEL WHO ARE CHARGED WITH,
CONVICTED OF, OR SENTENCED FOR
SIMILAR CONDUCT. BUT EVEN THOUGH
A LOT OF THIS DATA IS COLLECTED
BY VARIOUS AGENCIES, IT IS NOT
REPORTED OUT AT THE NEEDED LEVEL
OF DETAIL. AB 2065 WOULD BEGIN
TO FIX THIS PROBLEM BY TAKING
DATA AND INFORMATION THAT IS
ALREADY COLLECTED BY LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND OTHER STATE
AGENCIES, AND MAKING IT
AVAILABLE AT THE LEVEL OF DETAIL
AND IN A FORMAT THAT COULD BE
MORE EASILY USED FOR RACIAL
JUSTICE ACT CLAIMS. WE HAVE
SPOKEN WITH THE JUDICIAL
COUNCIL, THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, CDCR, AND ARE
CONTINUING TO WORK WITH THEM TO
REFINE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS
BILL AND TO MAKE IT WORKABLE FOR
THEM. WHILE ALSO PROTECTING
PRIVACY INTERESTS. WE EXPECT THE
DATA THIS BILL REQUIRES THIS
AGENCIES TO RELEASE WOULD
ULTIMATELY LESSEN THE HUGE
NUMBER OF REQUESTS THAT THEY ARE
CURRENTLY GETTING FOR SIMILAR
INFORMATION. IN ADDITION, THE
POLICE AND PROBATION REPORTS
ADDRESSED IN THIS BILL ARE
ALREADY LARGELY AVAILABLE UNDER
CURRENT LAW. BUT FOR LIMITED
AMOUNT OF TIME. THIS BILL MAKES
THESE RECORDS AVAILABLE TO
ATTORNEYS WHO SUBMIT SWORN
STATEMENTS SAYING THAT THEY ARE
INVESTIGATE AN RJ CASE, WHICH IS
A NARROW CIRCUMSTANCE. IN SHORT,
AB 2065 WOULD CREATE A BASELINE
OF AGREED UPON DATA THAT
PRACTITIONERS, INCLUDING NOT
JUST DEFENSE ATTORNEYS, BUT ALSO
PROSECUTORS AND JUDGES CAN USE
TO BEGIN TO HEAR THESE CLAIMS
AND DETERMINE WHETHER THEY HAVE
MERIT. THANK YOU. I'D BE HAPPY
TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK
YOU. OTHERS IN SUPPORT. NATASHA
MINSKER SMART JUSTICE CALIFORNIA
IN STRONG SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING,
MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS. MICA
DOKHTOUROFF, SENIOR STAFF
ATTORNEY AT THE ACLU OF NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA. ON BEHALF OF ACLU
CALIFORNIA. ACTION IN STRONG
SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING. MARCO
JORGE, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION AND STRONG SUPPORT,
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, KELLY
WALTERS FROM LEGAL SERVICES FOR
PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN AND ALL
OF US ARE NONE IN STRONG SUPPORT
. GOOD MORNING, GLENN BACKUS FOR
THE ELLA BAKER CENTER FOR HUMAN
RIGHTS, PROUD CO-SPONSOR. AND ON
BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTOR'S
ALLIANCE OF CALIFORNIA IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, CLAIRE SIMONICH, ON
BEHALF OF THE VERA INSTITUTE OF
JUSTICE AND SUPPORT, DANICA
ADAMO ON BEHALF OF INITIATE
JUSTICE PROUD CO-SPONSOR AND
STRONG SUPPORT MELANIE KIM, SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE IN SUPPORT AND ON BEHALF
OF INITIATE JUSTICE ACTION IN
SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING, ALICIA
MONTEIRO WITH JUST ADVOCATE AND
STRONG SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING TO
HANNAH OPPLIGER WITH
CALIFORNIANS UNITED FOR
RESPONSIBLE BUDGET OR CURB AND
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. SEEING NO OPPOSITION
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. SEEING NONE.
WELL, YOU HAD OPPOSITION AND
DIDN'T TESTIFY, SO? SO MAYBE
THEY, YOU'RE ON THE RIGHT TRACK
HERE. YEAH. WORKING. IRON THIS
OUT. I'M PRETTY INTIMIDATING.
SO, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THIS IS.
YOU KNOW, MR. CHAIR, I
APPRECIATE YOU. THIS IS MY
FOURTH BILL. EVERY YEAR WE'RE
LEARNING WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE
TO MAKE IT MORE EFFICIENT, MORE
COST EFFECTIVE, AND ALLOW FOR
THE INTENTION OF IT TO BE
FOLLOWED THROUGH ON IN, IN
EVERYDAY PRACTICE. AND SO WITH
THAT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE. OKAY WE DON'T HAVE A
QUORUM YET, BUT WE WILL TAKE
NOTE OF THE TESTIMONY AND THE
PRESENTATION AND PROCEED A BIT
LATER. THANK YOU
.
OKAY MR.
OKAY. ASSEMBLY MEMBER, PLEASE
PROCEED. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
AND MEMBERS, I'M HERE TODAY TO
PRESENT AB 2576, WHICH SIMPLY
ADDS ATTEMPTED MURDER TO THE
LIST OF CRIMES IN ELIGIBLE FOR A
MENTAL HEALTH DIVERSION. THE
COMMITTEE BROUGHT UP LEGITIMATE
CONCERNS WHICH WE APPRECIATE.
AND I WANT TO SAY, MR. CHAIR, I
REALLY APPRECIATE THE COMMITTEE
STAFF AND WORKING WITH MY OFFICE
ON THIS. WE'VE HAD SUCH FRUITFUL
CONVERSATIONS THAT CONTINUE AND
HAVE BEEN REALLY, REALLY
HELPFUL, AND WE WILL ABSOLUTELY
CONTINUE THOSE CONVERSATIONS,
AND ENSURE THAT WE FIND A
WORKABLE SOLUTION AND WILL KEEP
WORKING WITH COMMITTEE STAFF TO
ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS
THAT WERE BROUGHT UP, NOT ONLY
BY THE COMMITTEE STAFF, BUT ALSO
BY SOME OF THE MEMBERS AS WELL.
CURRENTLY, SOMEONE WHO ATTEMPTS
BUT DOES NOT ACTUALLY KILL
SOMEONE, ANOTHER PERSON CAN BE
GRANTED DIVERSION FOR MENTAL
HEALTH AND, MENTAL HEALTH
TREATMENT IF ELIGIBLE. UPON
COMPLETING A MENTAL HEALTH
TREATMENT PROGRAM, THEY'RE
RELEASED BACK INTO THE COMMUNITY
WITH MINIMAL COURT SUPERVISION,
WHICH CAN LEAD TO THE
EXPUNGEMENT OF THEIR CRIMINAL
RECORDS. THE VICTIMS RECEIVE NO
PROTECTION OR ASSURANCE THEY
WILL BE FREE FROM FURTHER
VICTIMIZATION. CURRENT LAWS HAVE
RIGHTFULLY IDENTIFIED CERTAIN
CRIMES AS TOO DANGEROUS TO
RECEIVE MENTAL HEALTH DIVERSIONS
SUCH AS MURDER, VOLUNTARY
MANSLAUGHTER, AND SPECIFIC SEX
OFFENSES. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN MURDER AND ATTEMPTED
MURDER IS WHETHER OR NOT THE
VICTIM SURVIVES. AB 2576 ENSURES
THAT INDIVIDUALS COMMITTING
ATTEMPTED MURDER ARE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS
HERE TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT. AND
THE SPONSOR OF THIS BILL IS
SACRAMENTO COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY TIM HÌ AND MISS ROBERTA
SANCHEZ. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. GO AHEAD. GOOD MORNING.
FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS, I
WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE AND
THANK, ASSEMBLY MEMBER STEPHANIE
NGUYEN FOR AUTHORING THIS BILL.
I ALSO WANT TO EXTEND MY
APPRECIATION TO THE STAFF FOR
THE COMMITTEE. I KNOW THAT
THERE'S A LOT OF HARD WORK AND
CONVERSATIONS THAT GO BACK AND
FORTH TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS,
AND I WANT TO ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE
THAT WE WILL CONTINUE TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE WORK WITH THE
COMMITTEE, THE STAFF AND EVEN
THE OPPOSITION AS WELL, AND MOST
DEFINITELY THE OPPOSITION TO
BRING FORWARD A BILL THAT IS
VERY PRECISE IN WHAT WE'RE
TRYING TO DO. FIRST AND
FOREMOST, I DO BELIEVE THAT
THOSE THAT ARE SUFFERING FROM
MENTAL HEALTH, SHOULD BE TREATED
DIFFERENTLY UNDER THE LAW, THAT
WE SHOULD RECOGNIZE THOSE
CONCERNS AND MAKE SURE THAT OUR
SYSTEM OF JUSTICE IS EQUITABLE
TO ALL. BUT AT THE SAME TIME,
THAT MUST BE BALANCED WITH
PUBLIC SAFETY, AND WE ARE ASKING
AND WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF AB 2576
TO CARVE OUT A VERY NARROW AND
SPECIFIC EXCEPTION AS IT RELATES
TO ATTEMPTED MURDER. AND
ATTEMPTED MURDER IS A UNIQUE
CRIME IN THE LAW, IN THE SENSE
THAT IT DOES REQUIRE AN INTENT
TO KILL. UNLIKE SECOND DEGREE
MURDER, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE
AN INTENT TO KILL, AND AN
ATTEMPTED MURDER DOES SO, THERE
ARE CERTAIN PROTECTIONS AFFORDED
THERE, AND I WILL TELL YOU THAT
WE RECENTLY HAD AN INDIVIDUAL,
THAT WENT THROUGH AND WAS
GRANTED, MENTAL HEALTH DIVERSION
FOR, FOR, FOR, ATTEMPTING TO
KILL SOMEONE, A NEIGHBOR. AND LO
AND BEHOLD, THAT INDIVIDUAL THEN
WENT AND COMMITTED A MURDER IN
ANOTHER COUNTY AND DISMEMBERED
THE VICTIM IN THAT CASE. SO WE
ARE CONCERNED THAT ATTEMPTED
MURDER IS ONE OF THOSE CRIMES
THAT IS SO INHERENTLY DANGEROUS,
AND INVOLVES SUCH VIOLENCE THAT
WE ARE ASKING FOR A VERY
SPECIFIC EXCEPTION, ADDITIONALLY
, THERE ARE CONCERNS IN REGARDS
TO WHETHER OR NOT WE WOULD OVER
APPLY OR HAVE, SO MANY CASES
THAT THERE WOULD BE, EXEMPTION
AFTER EXEMPTION. SO LAST YEAR,
MY OFFICE, SACRAMENTO DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, WE RECEIVED
ABOUT 36,000 CASES WHERE A
REQUEST WAS MADE TO FILE
CHARGES. OF THOSE 36,000 CASES,
WE ONLY FILED LESS THAN 9000
FELONY CASES OF THOSE 9000
FELONY CASES, THERE WERE ONLY 44
ATTEMPTED MURDER CHARGES THAT
WERE FILED. 44. SO WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT A VERY SPECIFIC
AND LOW NUMBER HERE, BUT THOSE
INDIVIDUALS PRESENT THE MOST
DANGER TO PUBLIC SAFETY. AND I
WOULD TODAY LIKE TO PRESENT YOU
AND INTRODUCE YOU TO ROBERTA,
WHO IS A SURVIVOR. AND SHE CAN
TELL HER STORY AND HER SUPPORT
OF THIS LEGISLATION. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING. ON DECEMBER 23RD,
2013, MY HUSBAND TRIED TO KILL
ME. HE STABBED ME SIX TIMES WITH
A BUTCHER KNIFE AND STRANGLED ME
. HE DESCRIBED IN DETAIL HOW
MUCH HE WAS ENJOYING WATCHING ME
DIE. I'M HERE TODAY SPEAKING TO
YOU NOT BECAUSE HE CHANGED HIS
MIND ABOUT KILLING ME. HE DID
HIS VERY BEST TO FOLLOW THROUGH
WITH HIS INTENT. ONE OF THE
KNIFE WOUNDS SEVERED MY LEFT
RADIAL ARTERY. HE DID NOT STOP
TRYING TO STAB ME. I STOPPED HIM
FROM TRYING TO STAB ME BY
GRABBING HIS ARM AND PUSHING HIM
DOWN. I KNOW FIRST AID, SO I
SHOVED MY WRIST INTO MY BODY TO
TRY AND SLOW THE BLEEDING AS
MUCH AS I COULD. I THREW MYSELF
AT HIM AND STRUGGLED TO STAY
ALIVE. HE NEVER STOPPED TRYING
TO STAB ME. WHEN I MANAGED TO
WRESTLE THE KNIFE AWAY, HE
STARTED TO TRY TO STRANGLE ME.
HE DRAGGED ME INTO THE HALLWAY
AND I MANAGED TO GRAB THE BIG
MAGLITE FLASHLIGHT IN THE
ENTRYWAY. I DEFENDED MYSELF,
STRIKING HIM IN THE HEAD. HE
LOST CONSCIOUSNESS AND I
STUMBLED OUTSIDE INTO THE
NEIGHBOR NEXT DOOR WHO CALLED
THE POLICE. WHEN POLICE AND
PARAMEDICS ARRIVED, I WAS
IMMEDIATELY TAKEN TO THE UC
DAVIS MED CENTER, A LEVEL ONE
TRAUMA CENTER. IT'S THREE MILES
FROM MY HOME, AND IT'S A GOOD
THING, TOO. I'D LOST ABOUT TWO
LITERS OF BLOOD AND BLACKED OUT
TWICE ON THE WAY TO THE HOSPITAL
. I'M ALIVE BECAUSE I FOUGHT
BACK. I KNEW HOW TO ADMINISTER
FIRST AID TO MYSELF. I WAS LUCKY
THERE WAS A FLASHLIGHT IN THE
HALLWAY, AND I WAS FORTUNATE
ENOUGH TO LIVE THREE MILES FROM
A LEVEL ONE TRAUMA CENTER. I
WOULDN'T BE ALIVE IF ANY ONE OF
THOSE THINGS WASN'T TRUE. AND IT
MAKES ME SAD TO THINK THAT
SOMEONE LIKE MY HUSBAND COULD
BENEFIT FROM THE CURRENT LAW
SIMPLY BECAUSE SOMEONE LIKE ME
REFUSED TO GIVE UP, OR THEY WERE
KNOWLEDGEABLE, OR LUCKY, OR
LIVED IN THE RIGHT NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ATTEMPTED
MURDER AND MURDER IS A FINE LINE
THE OFFENDER TRULY INTENDS TO
KILL THEIR VICTIM. THEY ARE
MURDERERS IN THEIR MINDS, BUT
THWARTED BY CIRCUMSTANCE. PLEASE
RECOGNIZE THAT AB 2576 WILL
PRIORITIZE PUBLIC SAFETY AND
APPROPRIATELY CATEGORIZE AS
ATTEMPTED MURDER IN TERMS OF
INELIGIBILITY FOR MENTAL HEALTH
DIVERSION. THANK YOU. OTHERS IN
SUPPORT, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
JARED MOSS, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS,
SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING, RACHELLE
BEARDSLEY ON BEHALF OF CD-R IN
SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING, MR.
CHAIR. MEMBERS RYAN SHERMAN WITH
RIVERSIDE SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION
AND THE OTHER POA'S AND DSA'S
LISTED IN THE ANALYSIS AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
WE HAVE OPPOSITION. PLEASE COME
FORWARD. WE NEED ONE OF THOSE
CHAIRS. JUST ONE.
FIRST. YEAH. OKAY GOOD MORNING.
GOOD MORNING EVERYONE, MY NAME
IS MATT SOTO ROSEN. I'M WITH THE
SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE, I'VE BEEN A PUBLIC
DEFENDER IN CALIFORNIA FOR OVER
25 YEARS, WE'RE IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION TO YOUR TO YOUR BILL.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER NGUYEN, DOCTOR
GEORGE WOODS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY HAS
SAID THAT THE THREE LARGEST
MENTAL HEALTH FACILITIES IN THE
UNITED STATES ARE RIKERS ISLAND
IN NEW YORK, THE COOK COUNTY
JAIL AND THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
JAIL. THE REALITY IS THAT PUBLIC
SAFETY DEMANDS THAT WE TREAT
MENTAL HEALTH AS A PUBLIC HEALTH
ISSUE AND NOT CONTINUE TO OVER
CRIMINALIZE THOSE WHO ARE
SUFFERING FROM MENTAL ILLNESS.
WE SHOULD BE EXPANDING PROGRAMS
LIKE MENTAL HEALTH DIVERSION AND
OTHER PROGRAMS OUTSIDE THE
CRIMINAL COURT SYSTEM. AS A
TRIAL ATTORNEY, I CAN TELL YOU
THAT THE LEGAL LINE BETWEEN
ASSAULTIVE CRIMES AND ATTEMPTED
MURDER IS ACTUALLY VERY BLURRY.
IT SHOULD BE NOTED AT THE OUTSET
THAT ATTEMPTED MURDER THAT IS
NOT PREMEDITATED CARRIES A
DETERMINATE SENTENCE OF FIVE,
SEVEN, OR NINE YEARS, AND THIS
PROPOSED AMENDMENT DOES NOT
DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THOSE TWO
CRIMES UNDER THIS PROPOSED
AMENDMENT, IF AN 18 YEAR OLD
EXPERIENCING THEIR FIRST MENTAL
HEALTH EPISODE WERE TO BE
INVOLVED IN AN ASSAULT, THEY
COULD BE CHARGED WITH ATTEMPTED
MURDER AND A JUDGE WOULD BE
UNABLE TO USE THEIR DISCRETION
TO ORDER TREATMENT. MOREOVER,
THE AMENDMENT WOULD CREATE AN
INCENTIVE FOR PROSECUTORS TO
OVERCHARGE ATTEMPTED MURDER IN
ORDER TO DENY FOLKS A CHANCE AT
MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT. IN
FACT, IF A PERSON WERE CHARGED
WITH ATTEMPTED MURDER, WERE TO
QUALIFY FOR MENTAL HEALTH
DIVERSION UNDER ALL OF THE
GUIDELINES THAT ARE IN THE
STATUTE, THERE IS A BONA FIDE
QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THEY
WOULD EVEN BE GUILTY UNDER THE
LAW, BECAUSE THEY WERE LIKELY
UNAWARE OF WHAT THEY WERE DOING.
MOREOVER, IT IS NOT UNCOMMON FOR
SUCH CLIENTS TO SUFFER
POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER
DUE TO THE HISTORIES OF SEVERE
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND OTHER
ABUSES. INSTEAD OF HAVING LONG,
EXPENSIVE JURY TRIALS, WE SHOULD
SIMPLY GET THE PERSON THE MENTAL
HEALTH SERVICES THAT THEY NEED.
OFTEN, WHEN FAMILIES OF THOSE
WHO ARE SUFFERING FROM MENTAL
ILLNESS ARE NOT EVEN AWARE OF
THE EXTENT OF THE ILLNESS, NOR
DO THEY HAVE ADEQUATE ACCESS TO
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES UNTIL
THINGS REACH A CRISIS POINT,
SUCH AS A VIOLENT INCIDENT.
IMAGINE A MOTHER COMING TO COURT
BEGGING FOR HER 18 YEAR OLD TO
GET THE TREATMENT HE NEEDS. ONLY
TO BE TOLD THAT HE IS
STATUTORILY INELIGIBLE FOR
TREATMENT BASED ON THE STATE'S
DECISION TO CHARGE HIM WITH
ATTEMPTED MURDER. ULTIMATELY THE
QUESTION IS THIS DO WE WANT TO
STRIP JUDGES OF DISCRETION TO
GRANT MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT AS
A PRACTITIONER IN COURT, I CAN
TELL YOU THAT JUDGES CAREFULLY
AND THOUGHTFULLY EXAMINE WHICH
PERSONS GET ACCEPTED INTO THE
PROGRAM AND THERE ARE MANY
GUARDRAILS THAT COULD RENDER
SOMEBODY UNSUITABLE FOR MENTAL
HEALTH DIVERSION. PERSONALLY,
I'VE HAD JUDGES BOTH ACCEPT AND
DENY MY PETITIONS FOR CLIENTS
WHO ARE ACCUSED OF VIOLENT ACTS
BECAUSE MENTAL HEALTH DIVERSION
PROVIDES AN INCENTIVE TO SEEK
TREATMENT. I'VE HAD MANY CLIENTS
SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE MENTAL
HEALTH DIVERSION, IDENTIFYING
MENTAL HEALTH AS A PUBLIC HEALTH
ISSUE AND PROVIDING INDIVIDUALS
AND THEIR FAMILIES WITH
TREATMENT AND RESOURCES ARE AN
IMPERATIVE TO BUILDING HEALTHIER
AND MORE PRODUCTIVE COMMUNITIES.
WE ASK YOU PLEASE, NOT TO TAKE
JUDGES DISCRETION AWAY IN THIS
CONTEXT. FOR THESE REASONS, WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR A NO VOTE.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. CLAIRE FROM THE VERA
INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION AS WELL. I
WANT TO BEGIN BY THANKING THE
WITNESS FOR HER BRAVE TESTIMONY
TODAY. AND I ALSO WANT TO SAY
THAT VERA TAKES VERY SERIOUSLY
SAFETY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN OUR
COMMUNITIES. AND THAT IS
PRECISELY WHY WE OPPOSE THIS
BILL. IT'S BEEN OUR EXPERIENCE
IN WORKING ON MENTAL HEALTH
DIVERSION PROGRAMS ACROSS THE
COUNTRY THAT DIVERSION PROTECTS
COMMUNITY SAFETY AND PROVIDES
FOR JUSTICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY
FOR INDIVIDUALS IN OUR
COMMUNITIES. DIVERSION MAY NOT
BE SUITABLE IN MANY CASES
CHARGED AS AN ATTEMPTED MURDER.
THE EXCLUSION AT ISSUE IN THIS
BILL BUT REMOVING THE DISCRETION
FOR JUDGES, IS A STEP BACKWARDS
FOR CALIFORNIA, IT'S A STEP
BACKWARDS FOR SAFETY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY. AND AS THE
COMMITTEE Kò, THE COMMITTEE
STAFF NOTES, IT ELIMINATES MUCH
NEEDED FLEXIBILITY AND
DISCRETION. THE BILL IS NOT
NECESSARY BECAUSE THE STATUTE
ALREADY HAS RIGOROUS SCREEN
FACTORS. UNDER PENAL CODE
1,000.36 TO PROTECT PUBLIC
SAFETY, THE JUDGE MUST FIND THAT
THE PERSON DIVERTED DOES NOT
PRESENT AN UNREASONABLE RISK TO
PUBLIC SAFETY. THAT'S A
STATUTORY FACTOR IN THIS
DIVERSION STATUTE ALREADY. AND
SECOND, JUDGES MUST CONSIDER THE
POSITION OF THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY. WE KNOW THAT JUDGES
ARE DOING THAT VERY CAREFULLY
WITH RESPECT TO MENTAL HEALTH
DIVERSION IN LOS ANGELES, WHERE
MY OFFICE IS BASED, ONLY 5% OF
CASES THAT ARE STATUTORILY
ELIGIBLE FOR MENTAL HEALTH
DIVERSION ARE ACCEPTED INTO THIS
PROGRAM THAT PROMOTES COMMUNITY
SAFETY. RESEARCH SHOWS THAT
DIVERSION REDUCES RECIDIVISM,
WHICH KEEPS US ALL SAFER. FOR
EXAMPLE, IN LOS ANGELES, 95% OF
DIVERSION PARTICIPANTS THROUGH
2023 HAVE AVOIDED ANY FORM OF
FUTURE CONTACT WITH THE CRIMINAL
SYSTEM, AND THE RE-ARREST RATE
FOR THE SAME POPULATION IN
ORDINARY NON DIVERSION COURT IS
DOUBLE. IT'S FOR THESE REASONS
THAT THE RESEARCH MAKES CLEAR
THAT MENTAL HEALTH DIVERSION
PROMOTES SAFETY AND IS THE RIGHT
AND JUST THING TO DO. FOR THOSE
REASONS, WE OPPOSE THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. OTHERS IN OPPOSITION.
NATASHA MINSKER SMART JUSTICE
CALIFORNIA IN OPPOSITION. KELLI
WALTERS LEGAL SERVICES FOR
PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN AND ALL
OF US ARE NONE IN STRONG
OPPOSITION. DANNIKA ON BEHALF OF
NHS AND LA DIFENSA AND
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. MICAH
DOCTOROFF, SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY
WITH THE ACLU OF NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA ON BEHALF OF ACLU
CALIFORNIA ACTION AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. MARCO GEORGE, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION AND
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK YOU
, MELANIE KIM, SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE AND
INITIATE JUST AN ON BEHALF OF
INITIATE JUSTICE ACTION IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. ALICIA.
WITH CALIFORNIANS UNITED FOR
RESPONSIBLE BUDGET AND
OPPOSITION SAN FRANCISCO. THANK
YOU. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MISTER
ALANIS. THANK YOU, MISTER CHAIR.
I WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR
THE BILL AND ALSO THE DA FOR
COMING AND ALSO YOUR VICTIM. I
BACK THERE, THANK YOU FOR BEING
HERE. VERY COURAGEOUS OF YOU TO
BE HERE AND TO RELIVE THAT IN A
SENSE. SO THANK YOU, FOR THE DA,
IF YOU COULD MAYBE RESPOND TO
SOME OF THE OPPOSITION THAT WHAT
IS YOUR POINT ON THAT? SO ONE OF
THE ISSUES THAT WE'RE FACING IN
TERMS OF BOOTS ON THE GROUND, IN
TERMS OF THE MENTAL HEALTH
DIVERSION, WHAT WE'RE FINDING IS
THAT THE APPELLATE COURT
DECISIONS AND OUR JUDGES,
BECAUSE OF THE STANDARD IN WHICH
THEY'RE REVIEWING THE MENTAL
HEALTH DIVERSION THAT THAT A LOT
OF JUDGES, AT LEAST IN OUR
COUNTY, ARE, GRANTING IT, AND
THEY FEEL AS IF THAT THEY REALLY
DON'T HAVE AS MUCH DISCRETION. I
THINK THAT SOME OF THE OTHER
COUNTIES MAY FEEL AND SO THIS IS
A PARTICULAR CASE, AND WE USE
OUR DISCRETION IN TERMS OF OUR
FILING. IT'S A VERY LIMITED
NUMBER OF CASES WHERE WE DO FILE
WITH ATTEMPTED MURDER. AND WHEN
WE LOOK AT IT, ATTEMPTED MURDER
IS WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION AND
ETHICAL OBLIGATION TO ONLY FILE
CASES IN WHICH THE EVIDENCE IS
THERE. ONE OF THE UNIQUE THINGS
ABOUT IT IS, AND AS A FORMER
TRIAL LAWYER, BECAUSE I DON'T
GET IN THE COURTROOM ANYMORE, IS
THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE INTENT
TO KILL, JUST ASSAULTING
SOMEBODY ISN'T GOING TO SUFFICE.
YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE INTENT TO
KILL. AND THAT'S WHAT SEPARATES
ATTEMPTED MURDER FROM SECOND
DEGREE MURDER, AND SO THERE ARE
WITHIN THE LAW CERTAIN
SAFEGUARDS AND, AND GUARDRAILS,
THAT WE HAVE THERE. BUT THIS IS
TO PREVENT INDIVIDUALS WHO WHO,
HAVE COMMITTED ATTEMPTED MURDER
FROM GETTING MENTAL HEALTH
DIVERSION. AND IF YOU GO BACK,
EVEN WHEN THE LAW WAS ORIGINALLY
PROPOSED, MENTAL HEALTH
DIVERSION, THERE WAS A
PROVISION, I BELIEVE, IN THE
PREVIOUS LAW THAT WAS MORE
EXPANSIVE, HAD EVEN MORE CASES
THAT WERE EXCLUDED, THAN THEY
ARE NOW. AND SO THIS IS JUST, I
THINK, A COMMON SENSE APPROACH
AT A VERY NARROW AREA. AND I
AGREE. THANK YOU FOR THAT
EXPLANATION. I'LL BE SUPPORTING
THIS. THANK YOU. WE DON'T HAVE
A, A QUORUM YET TO TAKE, A VOTE.
AND I GUESS YOU CAN CLOSE IN A
SECOND, BUT LET ME JUST GO BACK
AND TALK ABOUT THE OVERALL
ISSUE. SO I DO SUPPORT THIS. I
WILL I WILL VOTE FOR IT, WHEN WE
DO HAVE A QUORUM AND I THINK,
LIKE WE'RE DOING IN THIS
COMMITTEE THIS YEAR, WE'RE
TRYING TO STRIKE A BALANCE AND
WE SUPPORT DIVERSION. AND I KNOW
WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME TALKING
WITH OUR WITH OUR STAFF ON THIS,
BUT HAVING A BLANKET PROHIBITION
VERSUS MORE, A NUANCED APPROACH
TO MAKE SURE IT'S APPROPRIATE IS
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH.
SO MAYBE GO BACK AND TRY TO
ANSWER THIS ONE MORE TIME FOR
OUR DA. HOW HOW WOULD YOU
RESPOND TO HAVING A BLANKET
PROHIBITION THEN DOESN'T GIVE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO, WHEN IT IS
APPROPRIATE TO UTILIZE IT. WHEN
YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE LAW, WHAT
IT DOES DO IS THERE ARE CERTAIN
CATEGORIES OF CRIMES THAT THERE
IS A BLANKET PROHIBITION,
WHETHER IT'S MURDER, WHETHER
IT'S THE SEX CRIMES, FOR EXAMPLE
, WHETHER IT'S CRIMES WHERE YOU
HAVE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
. BUT REALLY THE ONLY DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN ATTEMPTED MURDER AND
MURDER IS THE FACT THAT YOU WERE
CLOSE TO A HOSPITAL OF TREATMENT
AND SO THERE THE LAW DOES
REQUIRE THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN
CRIMES WHERE THERE IS LESS
DISCRETION FROM THE COURT, BUT
WE ARE OPEN TO EXPLORING
DIFFERENT POSSIBILITIES AND
GUARDRAILS ON IT. BUT I THINK
THAT THIS IS A TYPE OF CRIME
THAT THAT IS SO DANGEROUS TO
PUBLIC SAFETY THAT IT DOES
WARRANT AN EXCEPTION, AND THERE
ARE MANY OTHER CRIMES THAT DON'T
WARRANT THE EXCEPTION. AND WE
SHOULD LOOK AT IT AND THE COURT
SHOULD HAVE DISCRETION, ON IT.
BUT THIS IS A VERY PARTICULAR
NARROW AREA. AND THEN THE FOLLOW
UP IS SO. SO FOR YOU, IS THE
ISSUE MORE THE ACTUAL CRIME AND
THE FACTS OF THE CRIME, OR THAT
THE INDIVIDUAL MAY NOT BE 100% A
CATEGORY FOR DIVERSION AND MAY
NOT BE QUALIFIED FOR THEIR
MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION AND
MAYBE NOT NECESSARILY A POOR
CHOICE OF WORDS? FAKING IT, BUT,
YOU KNOW, NOT PROPERLY
EVALUATED, THAT MEETS THE TEST
OF A DIVERSION. AND WHEN YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF THE
CRIME ITSELF, IS VERY DANGEROUS
AND A THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY.
BUT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT OTHER
GUARDRAILS, YOU DO HAVE
DEFENSES, WHETHER IT'S THE
COMPETENCY, WHETHER IT'S A
MENTAL DEFENSE AS WELL, THAT CAN
REALLY DO AN ASSESSMENT ON IT,
SO THERE THERE ARE WITHIN THE
LAW GUARDRAILS FOR THOSE WHO ARE
COMMITTING THESE CRIMES, THAT
ARE AFFORDED TO THEM, THAT
PROVIDES THE COURT THE
DISCRETION TO LOOK AT IT AND A
VALID DEFENSE. IT LOOKS LIKE YOU
WANTED TO RESPOND TO THAT. I'LL
GIVE YOU A SHOT. SORRY THANK
YOU. THE DIVERSION STATUTE AS
WRITTEN, HAS SUFFICIENT
GUARDRAILS THAT PROTECT AGAINST
COMMUNITY SAFETY. THERE ARE
CLEAR STATUTORY FACTORS THAT
JUDGES MUST CONSIDER IN TERMS OF
WHAT PROMOTES SAFETY, INCLUDING
THAT THE JUDGE IS NOT PERMITTED
TO GIVE DIVERSION, MENTAL HEALTH
DIVERSION IF THE PERSON POSES AN
UNREASONABLE RISK TO PUBLIC
SAFETY. I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD
THAT IF THE QUESTION IS, AS
MISTER HÌ BROUGHT UP, JUDGES MAY
NOT KNOW WHERE THEIR HOW TO
EXERCISE THEIR DISCRETION. LIKE
WE AMENDED PENAL CODE SECTION
1385 REGARDING ENHANCEMENTS,
EXTRA GUIDANCE COULD BE GIVEN TO
JUDGES ABOUT HOW TO EXERCISE
THEIR DISCRETION WITH CERTAIN
CRIMES LIKE ATTEMPTED MURDER.
THANK YOU. THERE COULD ALSO BE A
DISTINCTION, AGAIN, BETWEEN
PREMEDITATED ATTEMPTED MURDER,
WHICH CARRIES A LIFE SENTENCE,
AND, THE NON PREMEDITATED TYPE.
AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO WORK
WITH COMMITTEE STAFF OR OTHERS
ON CRAFTING SOME OF THOSE
GUARDRAILS BASED ON, OTHER
STATUTES AND OTHER STATES THAT
WE'RE FAMILIAR WITH. PERFECT
WELL, THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO FOR
ME TO FINISH BEFORE I LET THE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER CLOSE, IS YOUR
OFFER TO KEEP ENGAGING WITH US,
WITH THE COMMITTEE AND WITH THE
STAKEHOLDERS TO FIND AN
APPROPRIATE BALANCE. SO THANK
YOU FOR WORKING WITH THIS. SO I
WILL BE SUPPORTING WHEN WE HAVE
A QUORUM. YOU MAY CLOSE. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. I THINK YOU
HEARD EARLIER I DID MENTION THAT
WE'VE HAD SOME VERY FRUITFUL
CONVERSATIONS AND IT'S ONGOING
WITH BOTH MY TEAM AND THE
COMMITTEE STAFF. BUT YOU ALSO
HEARD THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY SAY
AS WELL, TOO, THAT WE WANT TO
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH NOT JUST
THE COMMITTEE STAFF, BUT ALSO
OPPOSITION IN FINDING A REALLY
BALANCED APPROACH TO THIS AND
CLARIFYING SOME AREAS THAT WAS
MENTIONED EARLIER AS WELL, TO
WHEN THE TIME IS APPROPRIATE. I
ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. OKAY, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
PAPPERT. MEMBERS. THIS 26 OR
MAYBE 26, 92. WHAT NUMBER WAS IT
? IT'S ON THE SECOND PAGE. SO
YEAH. FOR MORE ON THIS ONE,
OKAY. NÓ HOPPER
.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS, I'D LIKE TO START BY
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS, AND MANY THANKS TO
THE CHAIR AND HIS TEAM FOR
WORKING SO CLOSELY WITH ME TO
GET TO A RESOLUTION ON THIS
BILL. AB 2692 WILL ENSURE THE
CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS WHO ARE
DEEMED INCOMPETENT TO STAND
TRIAL, RECEIVE THE FULL BENEFITS
OF THEIR MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT
WHEN THEY GO INTO MENTAL HEALTH
DIVERSION. HOW DOES THIS WORK?
COURTS ARE AUTHORIZED TO FIND
CERTAIN DEFENDANTS WHO HAVE BEEN
DEEMED INCOMPETENT TO STAND
TRIAL, ELIGIBLE FOR DIVERSION.
THÀNH. THESE PARTICIPANTS ARE
MOST OFTEN INDIVIDUALS DIAGNOSED
WITH SCHIZOPHRENIA,
SCHIZOAFFECTIVE DISORDER, OR
BIPOLAR DISORDER WHO HAVE BEEN
FOUND INCOMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL
FOR FELONY CHARGES. THE SOLE
PURPOSE OF THE PROGRAM IS TO
PROVIDE MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT
FOR THE DEFENDANT, NOT TO
PREPARE THEM FOR FUTURE
PROSECUTION AND BRING THEM BACK
TO COMPETENCY. WE CURRENTLY
STATUTE LIMITS THE AVAILABLE
TREATMENT PERIOD TO TWO YEARS,
AND A COURT MAY DISMISS THE
CHARGES WHEN THEY ARE SATISFIED
THAT A DEFENDANT HAS
SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED TREATMENT
AND HAS A PLAN IN PLACE FOR LONG
TERME MENTAL HEALTH CARE.
HOWEVER OUR STATUTE DOES NOT
CLEARLY ADDRESS WHEN THE TWO
YEAR TREATMENT LIMIT BEGINS,
WHICH HAS LED TO THE CLOCK
STARTING AT THE DETERMINATION OF
INCOMPETENCE AND NOT THE
COMMENCEMENT OF TREATMENT.
AGAIN, THE CLOCK HAS BEEN
STARTING AT THE DETERMINATION OF
INCOMPETENCE AND NOT THE
COMMENCEMENT OF TREATMENT,
BECAUSE IT CAN TAKE A FEW MONTHS
FOR A DEFENDANT TO ENTER
DIVERSION. THIS CRITICAL
TREATMENT IS OFTEN MUCH SHORTER
THAN INTENDED BY LAW. AB 2692
WOULD CLARIFY THAT THE TWO YEAR
PERIOD OF TREATMENT AFFORDED TO
THESE DEFENDANTS BEGINS AT THE
TIME, TREATMENT ACTUALLY
COMMENCES. THIS CLARIFICATION
WILL GUARANTEE THAT DIVERTED
DEFENDANTS RECEIVE THE BENEFIT
OF A FULL TWO YEARS OF MENTAL
HEALTH TREATMENT TO ENSURE THEIR
LONG TERME STABILITY AND IMPROVE
PUBLIC SAFETY. HERE WITH ME TO
TESTIFY TODAY IS RACHELLE
BEARDSLEY ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
ASSOCIATION AND ASSISTANT DEPUTY
DA, OR ASSISTANT DA, ASSISTANT
CHIEF ASSISTANT CHIEF IN THE
SACRAMENTO DA'S OFFICE. AND MISS
KENO HOPPER, PLEASE PROCEED.
GOOD MORNING, HONORABLE CHAIR
AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY NAME
IS RACHELLE BEARDSLEY. I'M AN
ASSISTANT CHIEF DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY,
AND I'M HERE REPRESENTING CD-R.
LIKE MANY COUNTIES, OUR COUNTY
HAS A MENTAL HEALTH AND
COLLABORATIVE COURT UNITS, WHICH
INCLUDE FOLKS THAT ARE
INCOMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL OR
IST. I SEE SUCH PROMISE IN THIS
COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMS. WE HAVE
MENTAL HEALTH COURT, VETERANS
COURT, DRUG COURTS AND THE
DIVERSION COURTS TO BREAK THE
CYCLE OF CRIMINALIZATION AND
INCARCERATION ON THE OTHER HAND,
I SEE SO MUCH MORE THAT WE THAT
CAN BE DONE AND SO MANY LOST
OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE SEVERELY
MENTALLY ILL AND HOMELESS
POPULATION. HONESTLY, IT'S NOT
EASY TO SEE THESE MISSED
OPPORTUNITIES DAY IN AND DAY
OUT. AND THIS WAS THE IMPETUS
FOR THIS BILL IST DIVERSION IS A
NECESSARY AND IMPORTANT
INTERVENTION FOR THIS VULNERABLE
POPULATION. BUT I ALSO
WHOLEHEARTEDLY BELIEVE THAT WE
NEED TO IMPLEMENT THE
LEGISLATIVE CHANGES ENVISIONED
BY AB 2692, IN ORDER TO ACTUALLY
EFFECTUATE THE VERY INTENT OF
THIS PROGRAM, THAT IS, TO
PROVIDE LONG TERME MENTAL HEALTH
STABILITY FOR ALL IST DIVERSION
PARTICIPANTS. IT'S IMPORTANT TO
NOTE THAT THE PURPOSE OF IST
DIVERSION IS NOT THE RESTORATION
OF COMPETENCY FOR FUTURE
PROSECUTION. RATHER, THE PURPOSE
IS LONG TERME PSYCHIATRIC
STABILIZATION. WHEN SOMEONE IS
ACCEPTED INTO DIVERSION, WE ALL
AGREE THAT THESE DIVERSION
PARTICIPANTS WILL NEVER BE
PROSECUTED FOR THE CHARGED
CRIMES, SO LONG AS THEY CONTINUE
TO PROGRESS. THE CRIMINAL CASE
IS ULTIMATELY DISMISSED. THE
ARREST IS DEEMED NEVER TO HAVE
OCCURRED, AND THE RECORDS ARE
SEALED. THE DIVERSION PROGRAM
DOES NOT INCLUDE COMPETENCY
CURRICULUM AND HAS NO COMMITMENT
OR CUSTODY TIME. AS PART OF THE
TREATMENT PLAN. RATHER,
PARTICIPANTS ARE DIVERTED FROM
DEPARTMENT OF STATE HOSPITAL
COMMITMENTS AND ARE INSTEAD
TREATED IN A VARIETY OF
COMMUNITY BASED PROGRAMS AND
PROVIDED SUPPORTIVE WRAPAROUND
SERVICES SUCH AS APPROPRIATE
HOUSING, INTENSIVE CASE
MANAGEMENT AND TREATMENT. THE
PURPOSE OF IST DIVERSION IS TO
HELP THE SEVERELY MENTALLY ILL
TO GET THEM OFF THE STREETS
WHERE THEY FACE BECOMING VICTIMS
THEMSELVES, AND TO AVOID FURTHER
INVOLVEMENT IN THE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM. WE OUGHT TO BE
GIVING THEM EVERY SHOT TO REACH
THIS POINT, AND THAT INCLUDES
THE FULL TWO YEARS OF MENTAL
HEALTH TREATMENT AS PROVIDED BY
LAW. IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE
THAT UNDER AB 2692, THE COURT
WILL RETAIN ITS DISCRETION
REGARDING WHICH PARTICIPANTS ARE
BEST SUITED FOR DIVERSION IN THE
TREATMENT PLAN LENGTH AND
WHETHER OR NOT TO GRANT CREDIT
FOR TREATMENT PERFORMED PRIOR TO
ENTERING DIVERSION. NOTHING IN
THIS BILL DISTURBS THE
DISCRETION AFFORDED TO OUR
JUDICIARY, BUT IT DOES AFFORD
OUR COLLABORATIVE COURT TEAMS
THE GREATEST EXTENT OF TIME. IN
ORDER TO PROVIDE THIS TREATMENT
TO OUR PARTICIPANTS, WE NEED TWO
YEARS, TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE
THE DIVERSION TREATMENT BEGINS
TO GIVE OURSELVES AND THESE
PARTICIPANTS A FIGHTING CHANCE.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU,
MY NAME IS ELIZABETH KENO
HOPPER. I RESIDE IN CARMICHAEL,
CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU. HONORABLE
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. I'M HERE
TODAY TO SUPPORT MEASURE AB
2692. I'M SPEAKING NOT ONLY FOR
MYSELF, BUT ON BEHALF OF PHASE
ME, WHICH IS A SACRAMENTO
FAMILY. ADVOCATES OF INDIVIDUALS
WITH SERIOUS MENTAL ILLNESS, AS
WELL AS MANY MEMBERS OF THE
FOLLOWING GROUPS THE COALITION
FOR CARE, TRACKING THE TRAGEDIES
, THE GRAVE DISABILITY WORKGROUP
OF GREATER LOS ANGELES COUNTY,
AND THE ALAMEDA FAMILY,
ADVOCATES OF SERIOUS MENTAL
ILLNESS, AND OVER 20 INDIVIDUAL
ADVOCATES THROUGHOUT THE STATE.
AND I'M HAPPY TO PROVIDE A LIST
OF THOSE NAMES TO THE COMMITTEE.
FOR ME, AB 2692 HAS PERSONAL AND
URGENT RELEVANCE. I SPEAK FROM
THE PERSPECTIVE OF A FAMILY
SUPPORTER FOR OUR DAUGHTER, WHO
IS STILL INCOMPETENT TO STAND
TRIAL AFTER 22 OF 24 ALLOWED
MONTHS. SHE IS TOO ILL FROM
UNMANAGED PSYCHOSIS SYMPTOMS
STEMMING FROM SCHIZOAFFECTIVE
DISORDER, CO-OCCURRING WITH
EPILEPSY AND SUBSTANCE USE
DISORDER TO SPEAK FOR HERSELF.
SHE IS 35 YEARS OLD THIS MONTH
AND TRIED DILIGENTLY FOR 15
YEARS TO GAIN AND SUSTAIN
RECOVERY, REMISSION AND
REJUVENATION. MY DAUGHTER'S
BRAIN IS INTERRUPTED BY
PARANOIA, DELUSIONS, DEPRESSION,
CYCLING WITH MANIA AND LOOPING
THOUGHTS WITH NO ABILITY TO
CONCENTRATE OR BELIEVE.
INFORMATION FROM COMPETENCY
TRAINING. SHE IS A PERFECT
CANDIDATE FOR DIVERSION, WHERE
THE GOAL IS TREATMENT AND
STABILITY, NOT RESTORATION AND
COMPETENCY. AND IN FACT, SHE WAS
OFFERED AND ACCEPTED INTO FELONY
INCOMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL OR
FIST COMMUNITY RESTORATION
DIVERSION PROGRAM AND TREATMENT
BEGAN. THIS PROGRAM
UNFORTUNATELY DID NOT PROVIDE
ENOUGH TREATMENT AND SAFE
HOUSING WITH ADEQUATE SUPPORTS
FOR HER TO SUCCEED. SHE COULD
NOT FOLLOW PROPER PROGRAM
DIRECTIVES, AND EVEN AFTER THE
MINIMAL JAIL MENTAL HEALTH AND
EPILEPSY MEDICATIONS WERE
BEGINNING TO HELP HER BRAIN TO
STABILIZE, SHE STILL FALTERED.
SHE LIMPED ALONG FOR 12 MORE
MONTHS IN THE COMMUNITY
DIVERSION PROGRAM, WHOSE
PSYCHIATRIST LOWERED HER
ANTIPSYCHOTIC MEDICATIONS AT HER
REQUEST. WITHIN SEVERAL WEEKS,
HER MENTAL HEALTH DETERIORATED,
AND THOUGH THE DIVERSION PROGRAM
PSYCHIATRIST AND CASEWORKERS
OBSERVED THIS, THE PSYCHIATRIST
HAD NO AUTHORITY TO INCREASE TO
THE MORE EFFECTIVE AND BRAIN
SAVING DOSE OF THE MEDICATION.
BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT YET WELL
ENOUGH TO CONSENT TO MORE
MEDICATION IN THIS SCENARIO IS
UNFORTUNATELY NOT UNCOMMON FOR
PEOPLE STRIVING FOR THE LIFE
THEY WANT, YET IT CREATES
RELAPSE AND THUS EXTENDS
TREATMENT TIMES. MY DAUGHTER
DESERVES INTENSIVE AND EFFECTIVE
TREATMENT TO RETURN HER BRAIN TO
ITS ABILITY TO THINK, TO FOCUS
AND TO PROCESS INFORMATION AND
REGAIN THE ABILITY TO MAKE
HEALTHY CHOICES. THIS IS WHY I
BELIEVE THE FOCUS FOR INMATES
WHO ARE DEEMED INCOMPETENT TO
STAND TRIAL OR IST, NEED TO BE
ENGAGED IN EFFECTIVE, SUSTAINED
TREATMENT FOR UP TO THE TWO YEAR
LEGAL DURATION THAT BEGINS
COUNTING ON THE FIRST DAY THE
TREATMENT IS ACTUALLY DELIVERED,
AND GAINING AND RETAINING
REMISSION OF BRAIN ILLNESSES
INCLUDE THAT INCLUDE PSYCHOSIS
SYMPTOMS IS NOT ALWAYS EASY FOR
PEOPLE WITH THESE TREATABLE
CONDITIONS. THE CORRECT PLACE TO
GET WELL IS NOT IN A CELL
DIVERSION, AND COMMUNITIES CAN
WORK WHEN PROGRAMS ARE DESIGNED
TO BE TWO WAY RESPONSIVE TO
SYMPTOMS THAT RESPOND WELL TO
MEDICATIONS AND NON-MEDICATION
SUPPORTS, THIS BILL WILL ENSURE
THE LEGAL MAXIMUM TIME LIMIT
STARTS ON THE DAY. TREATMENT
BEGINS. FAMILIES LIKE MINE
ADVOCATE FOR A ROBUST MENTAL
HEALTH TREATMENT SYSTEM WITH AN
UNBROKEN CONTINUUM OF CARE, EVEN
WHEN IT INCLUDES A TEMPORARY AND
LOCAL INVOLUNTARY STAY IN A
HOSPITAL, FOLLOWED BY LOCAL
SUPPORTS TO STABILIZE IN THE
COMMUNITY. IN THE MODEL KNOWN AS
HOUSING THAT HEALS NOW THE TIME
LIMIT OF TWO YEARS TO BRING MY
DAUGHTER TO COMPETENCY ENDS IN
LESS THAN EIGHT WEEKS, AT WHICH
POINT HIGHLY IMPAIRED BY HER
UNMANAGED SYMPTOMS, SHE WILL
LIKELY BE EXITED TO THE STREETS
WITH NO RESOURCES. IF WE ARE
SERIOUS ABOUT REDUCING
RECIDIVISM, ENSURING THE SAFETY
OF COMMUNITIES AND MAKING A
DIFFERENCE IN THE LIVES OF
PEOPLE WITH SERIOUS MENTAL
ILLNESS, AND OKOROCHA ILLNESSES
WHO ARE FOUND TO BE INCOMPETENT
TO STAND TRIAL. WE NEED TO
PROVIDE FOR THE FULL AMOUNT OF
TREATMENT WITHIN THAT DURATION,
BEGINNING ONCE ACTUAL TREATMENT
STARTS. FOR MY DAUGHTER AND
THOUSANDS OF OTHERS LIKE HER, I
SUPPORT MEASURE AB 2692. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU OTHERS IN
SUPPORT, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
CINDY DASILVA, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. OPPOSITION OH, ONE MORE
SUPPORT. PLEASE COME FORWARD.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. RYAN
SHERMAN WITH THE RIVERSIDE
SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION AND
SUPPORT, THANK YOU. OPPOSITION,
PLEASE COME FORWARD. I THINK WE
NEED TO HAVE ONE OF THOSE SEATS.
ARE THE YOU ROCHELLE OR SOMEONE
NEEDS TO STEP UP? YES, I AM I
MOVIE. YEAH. WE NEED ONE OF THE
SEATS. WE NEED TWO DOWN HERE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. DOWN WITH MY
MIC. GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR.
AND MEMBERS OR JUST MR. CHAIR,
AT THIS POINT, MICAH DOCTOROFF,
SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY AT THE
ACLU OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA,
HERE ON BEHALF OF ACLU
CALIFORNIA ACTION AS WELL,
BEFORE I START, I WANTED TO JUST
ASK FOR SOME CLARIFICATION. I
KNOW THE AUTHOR SAID THAT THERE
WERE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, BUT I
DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE SEEN
THOSE. SO I WAS WONDERING, WE'LL
PASS THEM, BUT MAYBE I CAN ASK
THE AUTHOR TO SUMMARIZE THE MORE
THAN 30 MONTHS. YEAH, AS A
MATTER OF FACT, IT'S ONLY THREE
SENTENCES. IF YOU ALLOW ME TO GO
AHEAD, THAT MIGHT BE THE MOST
HELPFUL. THANK YOU. THIS IS IN,
SUBPART THREE, AND IT SAYS AS
FOLLOWS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
TIME SPENT WAITING TO ENTER
TREATMENT IN COMBINATION WITH
THE PERIOD OF DIVERSION EXCEED
30 MONTHS, OR THE MAXIMUM TERMS
OF IMPRISONMENT PROVIDED BY LAW
FOR THE MOST SERIOUS OFFENSE
CHARGED, WHICHEVER IS SHORTER.
SO THERE ARE GUARDRAILS SUCH
THAT YOU WOULD NEVER GO BEYOND
30 MONTHS TO INCLUDE CORRECT
TIME CUSTODY AS WELL AS
TREATMENT. YES, THANK YOU. CLOCK
STARTS AT THE BEGINNING. GO
AHEAD, SO THANK YOU FOR THAT,
AND WE WILL CERTAINLY REVIEW
THE, THE AMENDMENTS, BUT, BUT
BASED ON WHAT'S BEEN DESCRIBED,
WE STILL REMAIN IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. WE APPRECIATE THE
CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'VE HAD
WITH THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE, AND
THE SPONSORS AND THEIR EFFORTS
TO NARROW THE BILL. BUT
UNFORTUNATELY, AS I SAID, WE
REMAIN OPPOSED. THE ACLU OF
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA HAS BEEN
ENGAGED IN LITIGATION AGAINST
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ON
BEHALF OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN
DECLARED INCOMPETENT TO STAND
TRIAL AND SUBJECTED TO PROLONGED
DETENTION IN COUNTY JAILS.
CALIFORNIA COURTS HAVE AFFIRMED
THAT CALIFORNIA VIOLATES THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF
INDIVIDUALS BY LEAVING THEM IN
JAIL WITHOUT ACCESS TO TREATMENT
AND WITH THEIR CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS STALLED, THE CURRENT
MENTAL HEALTH DIVERSION PROGRAM,
THE CURRENT MENTAL HEALTH
DIVERSION PROCESS HELPS TO
ALLEVIATE THE BACKLOG OF
INDIVIDUALS AWAITING TREATMENT,
ENSURING THAT THIS VULNERABLE
POPULATION IS CONNECTED WITH
COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES AS
QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
UNFORTUNATELY, HOWEVER, AB 2692
GOES IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION
INSTEAD INCREASING THE
LIKELIHOOD OF UNDUE CONFINEMENT
FOR THOSE SUFFERING FROM MENTAL
ILLNESS. BY REQUIRING THAT THE
TERME OF DIVERSION BEGIN ON THE
DATE THE PERSON ENTERS
TREATMENT, AS OPPOSED TO THE
DATE THE COURT FINDS THE PERSON
ELIGIBLE FOR TREATMENT. IN MANY
COUNTIES, THE PERIOD BETWEEN
THESE TWO DATES CAN BE QUITE
LENGTHY, LEAVING INDIVIDUALS
WITH SEVERE MENTAL ILLNESS TO
LANGUISH IN JAIL WITHOUT
MEANINGFUL TREATMENT FOR MONTHS
ON END. THIS DELAY IS NOT THE
FAULT OF THOSE FOUND INCOMPETENT
TO STAND TRIAL, AND THE LACK OF
DIVERSION RESOURCES SHOULD NOT
FALL ON THEIR BACKS. WE HAVE
BEEN LITIGATING THESE ISSUES
SINCE 2015. WE HAVE SEEN THE
IMPACT OF PROLONGED DETENTION ON
PEOPLE WITH SERIOUS MENTAL
ILLNESS, PEOPLE WITH SERIOUS
MENTAL ILLNESS, DECOMPENSATE IN
JAIL. MANY DIE, EXPERIENCE ABUSE
OR OTHERWISE DETERIORATE. IT IS
NOT HUMANE TO KEEP THESE MEMBERS
OF OUR COMMUNITIES IN JAIL
WITHOUT MEANINGFUL TREATMENT. IT
IS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL TO DO SO
GIVEN THE EXISTING DEFICIENCIES
WITH THE IST SYSTEM. WE URGE THE
COMMITTEE TO DECLINE TO CREATE
ANOTHER ONE. FOR THESE REASONS,
WE ASK YOU TO VOTE NO ON THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
MARGO GEORGE, FOR THE CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION, IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THÀNH, I
WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR AND THE
SPONSORS FOR THE CONVERSATION
AND THE COMMITTEE, I JUST WANT
TO START BY SAYING THAT, THE I
CGRTS IS NOT TO GET PEOPLE OFF
THE STREET, BUT IT'S FOR
SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE
WHO ARE SO MENTALLY ILL AND ARE
CHARGED WITH A CRIMINAL OFFENSE
THAT THEY'RE INCOMPETENT TO
STAND TRIAL, WHICH IS A VERY
HIGH STANDARD. AND AS MR. ROFF
SAID, THE THIS WHOLE CONCEPT IS
TO ALLEVIATE THE BACKLOG FOR THE
STATE MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM. THE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE HOSPITALS
AND THE VÀ. IF WE STILL HAD
CAPACITY AT THE STATE HOSPITALS,
THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE WHO
PROBABLY WOULD BETTER BENEFIT
FROM TREATMENT THERE. BUT IT'S A
VERY EXPENSIVE AND LIMITED
RESOURCE. SO MENTAL HEALTH
DIVERSION WAS CREATED TO GET
INDIVIDUALS OUT OF THE JAIL
WHERE THEY GET NO OR LIMITED
TREATMENT AND GET THEM INTO
COMMUNITY BASED PROGRAMS. IF
THEY WERE SAFE TO BE TREATED IN
THE COMMUNITY. THAT'S A BIG
CAVEAT. SO, IN TERMS OF WHAT
THIS BILL DOES, UNFORTUNATELY,
IS BECAUSE OF LIMITED RESOURCES
AND RESOURCES THAT VARY
DRAMATICALLY FROM COUNTY TO
COUNTY, PEOPLE WILL BE WAITING
IN COUNTY JAILS WITHOUT
TREATMENT FOR LONG PERIODS OF
TIME. ALL OVER THE STATE. AND SO
YOU MIGHT HAVE BETTER ACCESS IN
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY OR ALAMEDA
COUNTY, LIMITED ACCESS OR NO
ACCESS IN ANY NUMBER OF SMALLER
OR MEDIUM SIZED COUNTIES. SO
THIS IS THE SORT OF THE OPPOSITE
OF WHAT THE, MENTAL HEALTH
DIVERSION COMPONENT OF
INCOMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL
SOUGHT TO DO. THANK YOU. SO
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND WE ASK
YOU TO REJECT, 2962 AS CURRENTLY
WRITTEN. WE'RE HAPPY TO CONTINUE
WORKING WITH THE AUTHOR AND THE
COMMITTEE, WE APPRECIATE THE
PROGRESS SO FAR. THANK YOU.
OTHERS IN OPPOSITION, PLEASE
COME FORWARD. MELANIE KIM, SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE. WE REMAIN OPPOSED, BUT
WILL REVIEW THE NEW AMENDMENTS.
KELLY WALTERS FROM LEGAL
SERVICES FOR PRISONERS WITH
CHILDREN. AND ALL OF US ARE
NONE. WE'RE ALSO LOOKING FORWARD
TO REVIEWING THE AMENDMENTS. BUT
AT THIS POINT, OPPOSITION.
ALICIA CALIFORNIANS UNITED FOR A
RESPONSIBLE BUDGET. OPPOSITION'S
THANK YOU. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS. THAT WAS
A JOKE. THAT'S JUST ME, YES, SO
I DO, I DO SUPPORT THIS MEASURE.
AND WE WORKED, FOR A FEW WEEKS
WITH, WITH THE AUTHOR AND TRIED
TO COME UP WITH A BALANCE
SIMILAR TO THE LAST POLICY, YOU
KNOW, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
THIS STRIKES AN APPROPRIATE
BALANCE AND SERVES ITS PURPOSE
AND HELPS PEOPLE. I LIKE THE
QUOTE EARLIER SAID, YOU KNOW,
NOT CELLS WANT TO GET WELL. AND
SO, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T HAVE
SOMEBODY WAIT AND WAITING AND
WAITING AND NEVER GET THEIR
TREATMENT. AND THE TIME RUNS OUT
AND THEY GO ON THE FLIP SIDE,
BUT, CONVERSELY, WE DON'T WANT
PEOPLE TO HAVE TO, YOU KNOW,
DOUBLE, DOUBLE THEIR POTENTIAL
ACCOUNTABILITY IN THEIR SENTENCE
. SO WE TRY TO STRIKE A BALANCE
HERE. AND I SUPPORT THIS, AND I
KNOW YOU'RE CONTINUING TO ENGAGE
, AND I ASSUME THAT YOU'LL
CONTINUE TO, TO TALK TO THE
OPPOSITION ABOUT THEIR IDEAS.
AND WE TAKE A MOTION HERE. BUT
YOU CAN CERTAINLY MAKE YOUR
CLOTHES RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIRMAN. I WANT TO THANK
YOUR COMMITTEE, ESPECIALLY THOSE
THAT HAD TO PITCH IT AT THE LAST
MOMENT. SO I APPRECIATE THAT,
YEAH, I THINK FOR ME PERSONALLY,
I THINK THAT IT'S A LITTLE BIT
OF A TRAGEDY TO KEEP FOCUSING ON
WHAT IS MINIMAL ADDITIONAL, TIME
, AND WE'RE REALLY FOCUSED ON
QUANTITY RATHER THAN QUALITY.
AND THIS BILL IS ABOUT QUALITY.
AND IT'S ABOUT ENSURING THAT
WHAT WE KNOW IS THE BEST WAY TO
HELP PEOPLE WHO ARE SUFFERING
FROM MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES IS TO
TRY TO HELP THEM IN MENTAL
HEALTH DIVERSION. SO THE FACT
THAT WE WOULD BE SACRIFICING
FULL MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT OF
24 MONTHS IN RETURN FOR A SMALL
QUANTITY OF TIME IN ORDER TO GET
PEOPLE SITUATED IS REALLY TRAGIC
TO ME. I THINK IT'S THE BEST WAY
TO HELP THOSE IN NEED. I ALSO
THINK IT'S THE BEST WAY OF
ENSURING PUBLIC SAFETY IN THE
END RUN. SO I REALLY WANT TO
THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR MOVING
THIS BILL ALONG. THANK YOU.
QUESTION I VOTE YES OKAY. WE'LL
TAKE IT UP WHEN WE GET OTHERS
HERE. THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
MCKENNA, PLEASE COME FORWARD. AB
2160.
SORRY. GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR.
HAPPY DENIM DAY AB 2160 WILL
REQUIRE UPON NOTIFICATION TO A
COURT IN DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF
THEIR CONDITION. PREGNANT PEOPLE
SHOULD BY DEFAULT AVOID
CONFINEMENT UNLESS THE COURT
SPECIFICALLY JUSTIFIES OTHERWISE
ON RECORD. IN 2023, THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
HIGHLIGHTED ONGOING PROBLEMS IN
ITS REPORT ON REPRODUCTIVE
HEALTH CARE ACCESS WITHIN THE
COUNTY JAILS, NOTING WIDESPREAD
NONCOMPLIANCE. THESE CONDITIONS
NOT ONLY ELEVATE THE RISK
ASSOCIATED WITH PREGNANCY AND
THE POSTPARTUM PERIOD, BUT ALSO
DEFY MEDICALLY MEDICAL CONSENSUS
ON THE CRITICAL NATURE OF
MATERNAL AND INFANT HEALTH
DURING PREGNANCY. IN THE 12
MONTHS FOLLOWING THE BIRTH, AS
EMPHASIZED BY AUTHORITIES LIKE
THE CENTER FOR DISEASE AND
CONTROL PREVENTION AND THE
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH,
THE IMMEDIATE SEPARATION OF
NEWBORNS FROM THEIR INCARCERATED
MOTHER WITHIN 24 TO 48 HOURS OF
BIRTH STARKLY CONTRADICTS
RESEARCH ESTABLISHED, SHOWING
THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF AN EARLY
BOND BETWEEN MOTHER AND CHILD.
THESE CONDITIONS UNDERSCORE A
PRESSING NEED FOR A HUMANE
REEVALUATION OF INCARCERATIONS,
IMPACT ON MATERNAL AND INFANT
WELL-BEING. A REPORT BY HUMAN BY
HUMAN IMPACT PARTNERS
CALIFORNIANS UNITED FOR
RESPONSIBLE BUDGET, CALIFORNIA
COALITION FOR WOMEN'S PRISONERS
AND TRANSGENDER GENDER VARIANT
AND INTERSEX JUSTICE PROJECT
FROM 2023, POINTED THAT 25% OF
PEOPLE IN WOMEN'S PRISON IN
CALIFORNIA WERE PREGNANT OR HAD
RECENTLY DELIVERED A BABY, BUT
ONLY 54% OF THOSE PEOPLE
REPORTED THAT THEY RECEIVED ANY
FORM OF PRENATAL CARE. AB 2160
ALLOWS PREGNANT AND POSTPARTUM
PEOPLE TO REQUEST A TEMPORARY
DELAY OF THE COURT'S SENTENCING,
REQUIRING THE COURT TO HOLD A
HEARING TO DETERMINE THE MATTER.
MOREOVER OVER THE BILL REQUIRES
THE COURT TO APPLY THE BILL'S
PRESUMPTION WHEN CONSIDERING
BAIL DIVERSION OR A DEFERRED
ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. THIS MEASURE
WOULD ALSO REQUIRE COUNTY JAILS
AND STATE PRISONS TO OFFER
PREGNANCY TESTS AT THE REQUEST
OF THE DETAINED INDIVIDUAL, AND
TO KEEP THE RESULTS OF THE
PREGNANCY TEST CONFIDENTIAL.
I'LL ALSO LÀ. LOS ANGELES COUNTY
IS ALREADY DOING SOMETHING
SIMILAR TO THIS BILL. PART OF
THE COUNTY HEALTH SERVICES
DEPARTMENT IS THE OFFICES OF
OFFICE OF DIVERSION AND REENTRY,
WHICH HAS A MATERNAL HEALTH
DIVISION. IN THE PAST YEAR AND A
HALF, 582 PREGNANT WOMEN HAVE
BEEN AFFORDED AN ALTERNATIVE TO
INCARCERATION. ONLY THREE HAVE
RECIDIVATED. THIS IS LESS THAN
1. HERE TO TESTIFY. IN SUPPORT
IS CHRISTOPHER LUXON. THAT'S
RIGHT. COMMUNITY ORGANIZER AND
POLICY MANAGER WITH THE
ANTI-RECIDIVISM COALITION AND
THE CO-SPONSOR OF THE BILL.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR
AND MEMBERS, CHRIS LAWSON, AS
MENTIONED WITH THE COALITION FOR
EXCUSE ME, WITH THE
ANTI-RECIDIVISM COALITION ARC,
THE TESTIMONY I'M GOING TO READ
TODAY IS FROM ANGELA ZUNIGA.
GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS ANGELA
ZUNIGA, AND I STAND BEFORE YOU
TODAY TO SHARE MY JOURNEY OF
INCARCERATION, PREGNANCY AND THE
DESPERATE SEARCH FOR COMPASSION
WITHIN A SYSTEM THAT OFTEN
FORGETS OUR HUMANITY. AT THE AGE
OF 18, I WAS INCARCERATED AND
PREGNANT AS THE DAYS PASSED,
SIGNS OF MISCARRIAGE EMERGED AND
PANIC SET IN. I WAS YOUNG,
SCARED, AND DIDN'T WANT TO LOSE
MY BABY. THAT NIGHT I HAD A
MISCARRIAGE. I STOOD, UNABLE TO
LIE DOWN, SCREAMING IN PAIN. NO
ONE CAME TO ASSIST ME. INSTEAD,
I WAS TOLD TO LOWER MY VOICE AS
IF MY PAIN, MY TEARS, MY CRIES
WERE SOMEHOW A BOTHER. I FELT
ABANDONED, NOT JUST BY THE
SYSTEM, BUT BY HUMANITY ITSELF.
MY FEAR WASN'T FOR MY OWN LIFE.
IT WAS FOR THE LIFE OF THE TINY
BABY CHILD AND INFANT WITHIN ME.
NO ONE CHECKED ON ME AFTER THAT
NIGHT. NO ONE KNEW OF MY
MISCARRIAGE. I CARRIED THE
WEIGHT OF LOST SILENTLY, MY
GRIEF HIDDEN. I BATTLED WITH
POSTPARTUM DEPRESSION. I DIDN'T
UNDERSTAND IT THEN. THE
HEAVINESS, THE DARKNESS THAT
CLUNG TO MY SPIRIT. THE LAW
DIDN'T RECOGNIZE MY EMOTIONAL
TURMOIL AND I BECAME ANGRY,
LOST, AND CONTINUED DOWN A
NEGATIVE PATH. FAST FORWARD, I'M
22 YEARS OLD. I'M INCARCERATED,
AND FOUR MONTHS PREGNANT. THERE
WAS NO COMPASSION. I WAS STILL
SHACKLED FROM MY FEET AND HANDS,
MAKING IT HARD TO WALK. I WOULD
BECOME FILLED WITH PANIC AND
ANXIETY WITH THE THOUGHT OF
GIVING BIRTH, KNOWING THAT I
WOULD SEE MY DAUGHTER, AND
WITHIN A FEW MOMENTS SHE WOULD
BE GONE. THE DAY I GAVE BIRTH TO
MY DAUGHTER WAS A BITTERSWEET
MOMENT. IN THAT INSTANT, I VOWED
TO CHANGE MY LIFE. I YEARN TO BE
MORE FOR HER SAKE. BUT THE
REALITY WAS, NO MATTER MY
EFFORT, BONDING AND CONNECTING
WITH MY DAUGHTER WHILE
INCARCERATED WAS UNREALISTIC. I
COULD NOT BECOME THE PARENT I
ASPIRED TO BE. MY DAUGHTER WAS
TORN FROM MY SIDE ONCE AGAIN. I
EXPERIENCED THE LOSS OF A CHILD
WHILE INCARCERATED, I BECAME
DEPRESSED. I RETURNED TO MYSELF.
CELL AND THERE I CRIED. DAYS
BLURRED INTO WEEKS AND SADNESS
CONSUMED ME. I COULDN'T EAT,
COULDN'T SLEEP. RACING THOUGHTS
HAUNTED ME. I WAS JUST ANOTHER
INMATE. MY EMOTIONAL TURMOIL,
TOIL AND TURMOIL INVISIBLE. I
LONGED TO CONNECT WITH MY
DAUGHTER. I REQUESTED
VISITATIONS, BUT THEY WERE
DENIED. INSTEAD AN OFFER
EMERGED. IF I PROVIDED
INFORMATION ABOUT OTHER CRIMES,
I COULD HAVE A BRIEF 15 MINUTE
VISIT WITH MY DAUGHTER. IN THAT
MOMENT, MY HEART SHATTERED. I
UNDERSTOOD AT THAT POINT I
WOULDN'T GET TO HOLD MY DAUGHTER
AGAIN. I WANTED COMPASSION,
UNDERSTANDING AND THE CHANCE TO
BE A MOTHER. TODAY MY NINE YEAR
OLD DAUGHTER RESENTS ME. SHE
EXPRESSES HER ANGER WHEN WE
TALK, STATING HER FEAR OF NOT
KNOWING ME ENOUGH. IF AB 2160
HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED DURING MY
FIRST PREGNANCY, I BELIEVE THE
OUTCOME OF MY LIFE COULD HAVE
BEEN DIFFERENT. AB 2160 IS A
BEACON OF HOPE. IT IS NOT MERELY
LEGISLACIÓN, IT IS INVESTMENTS
IN A BRIGHTER, MORE SECURE
FUTURE. AB 2160 RECOGNIZES THAT
INCARCERATED MOTHERS DESERVE
MORE. IT ENSURES NO WOMAN FACES
THE ISOLATION I ENDURED. IT
PROMISES SUPPORT AND THE CHANCE
TO BETTER PARENT AND BREAK
GENERATIONAL CURSES OF BROKEN
HOMES, EVEN BEHIND BARS. LET
THIS BE MORE THAN WORDS ON
PAPER. LET IT BE THE EMBODIMENT
OF EMPATHY, JUSTICE AND
REDEMPTION. AB 2160 REWRITES THE
NARRATIVE FOR MOTHERS, FOR
DAUGHTERS, AND FOR A FUTURE
WHERE NO ONE FACES PARENTING IN
JAIL ALONE. MAY OUR COLLECTIVE
EMPATHY BY PASSING AB 2160 TODAY
PAVE THE WAY FOR CHANGE, FOR
MOTHERS, FOR DAUGHTERS, AND FOR
A MORE COMPASSIONATE SOCIETY.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU OTHERS IN
SUPPORT. PLEASE COME FORWARD.
THANK DANICA ROEM, ON BEHALF OF
INITIATE JUSTICE, LAW, DEFENSE
AND CALIFORNIANS FOR SAFETY AND
JUSTICE AND STRONG SUPPORT.
MOLLY SHEEHAN WITH THE
CALIFORNIA CATHOLIC CONFERENCE
IN STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
KAREN STOUT, ON BEHALF OF
REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL.
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. CORRECT
KELLY WALTERS, ON BEHALF OF
LEGAL SERVICES FOR PRISONERS
WITH CHILDREN. ALL OF US ARE
NONSPECIFICALLY THE LOS ANGELES
CHAPTER AND STRONG SUPPORT.
NATASHA MINSKER SMART JUSTICE
CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT THIS BILL
IS ALSO A PRIORITY FOR THE
BUILDING. THE CALIFORNIA DREAM
ALLIANCE, CLAIRE SIMONE VERA
INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ALICIA
MONTERO. CALIFORNIANS UNITED FOR
RESPONSIBLE BUDGET, STRONG
SUPPORT. MARGO GEORGE, ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. MICAH
DOKHTOUROFF ON BEHALF OF ACLU
CALIFORNIA ACTION AND STRONG
SUPPORT. MELANIE KIM, SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE IN SUPPORT AND ON BEHALF
OF INITIATE JUSTICE ACTION IN
SUPPORT GLENN BACCUS, ELLA BAKER
CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IN
STRONG SUPPORT. WE HAVE
OPPOSITION. PLEASE COME FORWARD.
GOOD MORNING, CINDY DA SILVA
WITH THE CALIFORNIA DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION. AND MY
APOLOGIES. I DIDN'T KNOW I'D BE
STANDING IN THIS MORNING, SO.
BUT I'M HERE, THE CALIFORNIA
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION
DOES NOT ADVOCATE FOR MASS
INCARCERATION OF PREGNANT OR
POSTPARTUM PEOPLE. OUR EFFORTS
ON BEHALF OF VICTIMS AND
SURVIVORS SOUNDLY DEMONSTRATE
OUR COMMITMENT TO THE HEALTH AND
WELL-BEING OF WOMEN AND
CHILDREN, BUT BELIEVES THAT THIS
BILL IS BOTH UNNECESSARILY AND
UNDULY ONE SIDED. FIRST, WE KNOW
THAT FEMALE DEFENDANTS ARE A
VERY SMALL MINORITY IN THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. EVEN
MORE RARE ARE FEMALE DEFENDANTS
WHOSE CRIMES WARRANT EXTENDED
JAIL OR PRISON SENTENCES,
PREGNANT OR POSTPARTUM.
DEFENDANTS FACING EXTENDED
INCARCERATION ARE EVEN LESS
COMMON BY FAR. NEXT, OUR LAWS
ALREADY PROVIDE JUDGES WITH
AMPLE DISCRETION TO CONSIDER A
DEFENDANT'S PREGNANCY OR
POSTPARTUM STATUS AND TO DESIGN
TERMS OF RELEASE OR PENALTIES
THAT SERVE BOTH THE DEFENDANT
AND HER CHILD, AS WELL AS THE
ENDS OF JUSTICE FOR EXAMPLE,
CONVICTED DEFENDANTS MAY BE
PLACED ON PROBATION OR REQUIRED
TO SERVE TIME IN HOME DETENTION.
SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, PENAL CODE
SECTION 1170, SUBDIVISION H. IN
OUR EXPERIENCE, JUDGES USE THESE
ALTERNATIVES ROUTINELY,
ESPECIALLY IN THE EXCEEDINGLY
RARE CASE OF A NON-DANGEROUS
PREGNANT OR POSTPARTUM DEFENDANT
. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. OTHERS
IN, OPPOSITION. SEEING NONE
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. YEAH, I JUST
HAVE A QUESTION. I KNOW YOU'RE
PINCH HITTING, BUT IF YOU IF YOU
LOOK IN THE, ANALYSIS, THIS, YOU
KNOW, THE ARGUMENT IS THIS YOU
CAN ALREADY DO THIS. IT'S
UNNECESSARY. SO IF IT'S
UNNECESSARY, YOU CAN'T DO IT.
WHAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH WHAT THE
BILL PROPOSES? THEN WHAT MORE
WOULD IT DO? WELL, WELL, I DO
AGREE WITH THE PROPOSITION THAT
JUDGES ROUTINELY TAKE THESE TYPE
OF THINGS INTO CONSIDERATION,
FOR BAIL STATUS AND FOR ALL
KINDS OF OTHER THINGS, AND, AND
IT IS TRUE, JUST AS A NUMERICAL,
AS A NUMERICAL ISSUE THAT
PREGNANT PEOPLE ARE IN THIS
POSITION FAR LESS FREQUENTLY
THAN PEOPLE IN OTHER STATUSES.
SO I WOULD JUST POINT THAT OUT.
THANK YOU. YES QUESTION. MISS
REYES, THANK YOU, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER, FOR BRINGING THIS, THIS
BILL. I THINK SOMETIMES WE
FORGET, THE, THE CARE THAT'S
NEEDED. WE SAY YOU YOU YOU GIVE
UP SO, SO MANY OF YOUR RIGHTS.
NO, YOU'RE PREGNANT AND YOUR
CHILD IS NOT GIVEN UP ANY
RIGHTS. AND YOU NEED TO BE TAKEN
CARE OF. AND I THINK HAVING THIS
, THIS WOMEN'S CARE ACT, SIGNED
BY THE GOVERNOR IS GOING TO BE A
GOOD, GOOD THING, A GOOD DAY. SO
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WE'LL TAKE
THE ROLL REAL QUICK. WE HAVE A
QUORUM. MCCARTY HERE ALANIS
HERE. LACKEY HERE. NGUYEN REYES
HERE. TING HERE. JUST ROLL.
ROLL. YEAH. WILSON ZEBRA HERE.
YOU'RE ROLLING. YES! ROLL CALL.
YOU'RE HERE. QUORUM HERE. YES.
THANK YOU. PRESIDENT. OKAY, WE
HAVE A QUORUM. NO FURTHER
QUESTIONS. WE HAVE A MOTION ON
THE BILL. MR. REYES. SECOND BY
MEMBER NGUYEN. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? ASSEMBLY MEMBER. YES, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON AB 2160
BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER MCKENNA. THE
MOTION IS DUE. PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY A MCCARTY I ALANIS.
ALANIS. NOT VOTING. LACKEY.
LACKEY NOT VOTING. NGUYEN NGUYEN
I REYES. REYES I TING TING I
WILSON. ZIPPER. ZIPPER I THAT
MEASURE. OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. THE MEASURE PASSES. MR.
TING.
VICE CHAIR.
NEXT, WE HAVE AB 2178. MR. TING,
THANK YOU, VERY MUCH. AS YOU ALL
ARE. AS WE ARE ALL AWARE, WE
HAVE A VERY, SIGNIFICANT, BUDGET
CRISIS THAT WE ARE FACING, ONE
AREA WHERE I BELIEVE THAT WE
REALLY HAVEN'T LOOKED ENOUGH,
FOR BUDGET SOLUTIONS IS OUR
PRISON SYSTEM, WE HAVE AT THIS
STAGE, ABOUT 13,000 EMPTY BEDS
WITHIN OUR PRISON SYSTEM, AND
JUST TO GIVE PEOPLE AN
EQUIVALENT, ROUGHLY EVERY PRISON
HAS ABOUT 3 TO 4000, BEDS. AND
SO WHEN YOU HAVE A 13,000 EMPTY
BEDS, YOU HAVE THE ROUGHLY
EQUIVALENT OF ANYWHERE BETWEEN 3
TO 4 EMPTY PRISONS. THE LAO
ESTIMATES THAT BY 2028, WE'LL
HAVE NEARLY 19,000 EMPTY
PRISONS, WHICH WILL BE ABOUT
EQUIVALENT OF 5 TO 7 EMPTY
PRISONS, THE LÀ ALSO ESTIMATES
THAT THAT ALL, IF WE WERE TO
CONSOLIDATE AND CLOSE FIVE
PRISONS, IT WOULD RESULT IN
ABOUT $1 BILLION OF SAVINGS
ANNUALLY, AS WELL AS
POTENTIALLY, $2 BILLION OF
CAPITAL COST SAVINGS OVER THE
NEXT TEN YEARS. AGAIN, THIS IS
AN AREA THAT I'VE BEEN WORKING
ON VERY, VERY CLOSELY, DURING MY
TENURE IN THE LEGISLATURE. AND
JUST TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF THE
CDCR BUDGET, THE CDCR BUDGET,
SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE HAS GONE
FROM ABOUT $10 BILLION TO $15
BILLION. AT THE SAME TIME, THAT
THE BUDGET HAS GONE UP BY 50,
THE POPULATION HAS DROPPED ABOUT
50% DURING THAT SAME TIME FRAME.
SO AGAIN, IF YOU LOOKED AT EVERY
SINGLE OTHER PROGRAM THAT WE
FUND, WHETHER IT BE EDUCATION ON
CALWORKS, MEDI-CAL, IF WE SAW A
50% DROP IN USAGE, YOU WOULD SEE
A COMMENSURATE DROP IN THE
BUDGET AS WELL. SO THIS IS
REALLY THE ONE AREA THAT NOT
ONLY HAS THE BUDGET NOT DROPPED,
BUT IT'S INCREASED. SO AGAIN,
DURING TOUGH BUDGET TIMES, IT
SEEMS LIKE A VERY RESPONSIBLE,
WAY TO LOOK AT IT. WHAT THE BILL
DOES IS ASK THE DEPARTMENT TO
OVER A FIVE YEAR, I THINK IT'S A
FIVE YEAR PERIOD TO DOUBLE
CHECKING MY MATH, OVER A FIVE
YEAR PERIOD TO GO FROM A 13,000
BED, EMPTY BED, 13,000 EMPTY
BEDS TO GO DOWN TO, A 2500 EMPTY
BED BUFFER. AND WHAT THAT MEANS
IS THAT YOU LEAVE ABOUT 2500
EMPTY BEDS. SO THAT YOU HAVE
ROOM TO MOVE FOLKS AROUND. YOU
HAVE ROOM FOR WHATEVER,
PROGRAMING OR WHATEVER YOU NEED
THE EMPTY BEDS FOR. SO AGAIN, I
THINK THIS IS A VERY MUCH A
COMMON SENSE FISCAL SOLUTION TO
OUR VERY CHALLENGING BUDGET
SITUATION. WE HAVE HERE. AMBER
ROSE WITH CALIFORNIANS UNITED
FOR A RESPONSIBLE BUDGET. AND WE
ALSO HAVE CAITLYN O'NEIL FROM
LEO, WHO'S HERE TO ANSWER ANY
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS, SHE
KATELYNN'S THE AUTHOR OF THE LÀ
REPORT ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE
AND COVERS THIS ISSUE FOR THE
LÀ. SO THANK YOU, MR. CHING.
GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU FOR
COMING. YOU BOTH HAVE FIVE
MINUTES TOGETHER. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS
AMBER ROSE HOWARD. I AM THE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
CALIFORNIANS UNITED FOR A
RESPONSIBLE BUDGET. WE ARE A
COALITION OF OVER 80
ORGANIZATIONS ACROSS THE STATE
WHO CARE A GREAT DEAL ABOUT HOW
THE STATE SPENDS TAXPAYERS MONEY
, WHICH IS WHY WE URGE YOU TO
SUPPORT AB 2178 AT A TIME WHEN
OUR STATE IS FACING A
SIGNIFICANT BUDGET DEFICIT. WE
ARE COUNTING ON THE LEGISLATURE
TO PARTICIPATE IN DECISIONS
AROUND PRISON BED CAPACITY SO
THAT WE ARE ABLE TO MAINTAIN A
MORE RESPONSIBLE BUDGET. THE
CORRECTIONS BUDGET HAS CLIMBED
TO $19 BILLION THIS YEAR
OVERALL, AND THE CURRENT COST OF
INCARCERATION PER PERSON IS OVER
$130,000 PER YEAR. BY ENSURING
THAT THE STATE PRISONS DO NOT
MAINTAIN EXCESSIVE EMPTY BED
CAPACITY, AB 2178 PROMOTES A
MORE EFFICIENT AND COST
EFFECTIVE USE OF TAXPAYER MONEY,
ELIMINATING SURPLUS BED CAPACITY
WOULD ALLOW THE STATE TO BEGIN
TO SAVE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS PER
YEAR. IT IS FISCALLY IN
RESPONSIBLE TO MAINTAIN EMPTY
BED CAPACITY AT A TIME WHEN
THOUSANDS OF CALIFORNIANS ARE
FACING CUTS TO THE VERY SOCIAL
PROGRAMS THAT KEEP THEM ALIVE
AND OUT OF CRISIS. WHILE
ESSENTIAL AREAS LIKE
TRANSPORTATION, ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION, HOUSING AND
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FACE CUTS
OF 30% OR MORE, THE CORRECTIONS
BUDGET IS TRIMMED BY ONLY 8,
HIGHLIGHTING A DISCUSSION
CONCERNING IMBALANCE IN STATE
PRIORITIES. WE MAY BETTER
BALANCE NECESSARY BUDGET CUTS BY
TAKING THIS OPPORTUNITY TO BEGIN
ELIMINATING SURPLUS CAPACITY AT
CDCR IN A STRUCTURED WAY, WHICH
IS WHAT AB 2178 PROPOSES. PLEASE
VOTE YES. THANK YOU. CAITLIN
O'NEIL WITH THE LÀ, HERE IN A
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CAPACITY
AND AVAILABLE TO ADDRESS. ANY
QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. ANYONE
ELSE IN SUPPORT? PLEASE STEP UP.
NAME? ORGANIZATION, PLEASE.
DANICA ADAMO, ON BEHALF OF
INITIATE JUSTICE LA DEFENSA AND
ROOT AND REBOUND IN STRONG
SUPPORT. GLENN BACCUS, ELLA
BAKER, CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
IN SUPPORT. MARCO JAUCH, ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. MICAH
DOCTOROFF, SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY
WITH THE ACLU OF NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA, ON BEHALF OF ACLU
CALIFORNIA ACTION AND STRONG
SUPPORT. NATASHA MINSKER SMART
JUSTICE CALIFORNIA AND STRONG
SUPPORT MELANIE KIM, SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE IN SUPPORT AND ON BEHALF
OF INITIATE JUSTICE ACTION IN
SUPPORT KELLY WALTERS LEGAL
SERVICES FOR PRISONERS WITH
CHILDREN AND ALL OF US ARE NOT
IN STRONG SUPPORT. CLAIRE SIMONE
VERA INSTITUTE STRONG SUPPORT.
GOOD MORNING ALICIA MONTEIRO.
CALIFORNIANS UNITED FOR SPONSOR
BUDGET AND STRONG SUPPORT. I'LL
ALSO BE READING MEWTWO'S ALSO IN
SUPPORT ON BEHALF OF THE
FOLLOWING ORGANIZATIONS WHO
COULDN'T BE HERE TODAY,
INDIVISIBLE. CALIFORNIA. STAY
STRONG. LAVENDER. PHOENIX,
CALIFORNIA. COALITION FOR WOMEN
PRISONERS. FULL PICTURE. JUSTICE
UNIVERSIDAD. POPULAR, THE AMINA
ROSE FOUNDATION, ROSS
FOUNDATION, SORRY, A NEW PATH
EMPOWER WOMEN IMPACTED BY
INCARCERATION. SISTER WARRIORS
SAN FRANCISCO PRETRIAL DIVERSION
FLYING OVER WALLS. PRISONER
SOLIDARITY PROJECT. ALIANZA SEX
STORIES, TRANSITIONS CLINIC
NETWORK DROP COALITION. DIGNITY
NOT DETENTION. FAMILIES. UNITED
TO END LOOP. INTERFAITH
MOVEMENT. MOVEMENT FOR HUMAN
INTEGRITY. PRISON. FROM THE
INSIDE OUT AND JUST. ADVOCATE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. HELLO,
HANNAH OPPLIGER WITH
CALIFORNIANS UNITED FOR A
RESPONSIBLE BUDGET AS WELL IN
STRONG SUPPORT. I AM ALSO
READING METOO'S ON BEHALF OF 18
ORGANIZATIONS WHO SUPPORT AB
2178 AND COULDN'T BE HERE TODAY.
THAT'S SOUTH BAY, PEOPLE, POWER,
RIVERSIDE, ALL OF US ARE NONE.
S¼ JUSTICE GROUP, DIGNITY AND
POWER NOW. PRIDE AND TRUTH.
HUMAN IMPACT PARTNERS. PRISON
POLICY INITIATIVE. THE PLACE FOR
GRACE. CORRECTIONS ASSOCIATION
OF NEW YORK, SURGE BAY AREA,
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LIBRARY,
CRITICAL RESISTANCE, LOS ANGELES
CHAPTER, BEND THE ARC, JEWISH
JEWISH ACTION, CALIFORNIA FELONY
MURDER ELIMINATION PROJECT,
INLAND COALITION FOR IMMIGRANT
JUSTICE, AMERICAN FRIENDS AND
SERVICE COMMITTEE, FREEDOM TO
THRIVE, AND FAIR CHANCE PROJECT.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ANYONE
ELSE IN OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE.
I'M SORRY. I MET IN SUPPORT.
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND
MEMBERS, ACTUALLY, ARE YOU GOING
TO TESTIFY IN OPPOSITION? YOU
CAN COME UP TO THE SEAT. OKAY,
GREAT. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
I'LL BE BRIEF, WE JUST HAVE A
FEW BASIC CONCERNS. GAVIN
MCHUGH, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE
OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION TO MR.
TING'S BILL, OUR CONCERNS ARE
THAT THE BILL CONSIDERS BED
VACANCIES AS THE ONLY METRIC FOR
REDUCING CAPACITY. IT DOES NOT
TAKE INTO ACCOUNT HOW BEST TO
DELIVER MEANINGFUL
REHABILITATION REFORM AND
PROGRAMS, THE CLOSURES THAT WILL
RESULT FROM THIS BILL WILL
NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE
AVAILABILITY OF ALREADY SCARCE
PROGRAMING SPACE. THOSE ARE OUR
CONCERNS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE IN OPPOSITION?
SEEING NONE. I'LL MOVE IT TO
COMMITTEE. ANY QUESTIONS? CHRIS,
CAN I SAY THAT WHEN OUR BUDGET
CHAIR HAS A SUGGESTION ON HOW TO
TAKE CARE OF OUR BUDGET, I MEAN,
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I
ABSOLUTELY WILL LISTEN TO. SO, I
WOULD THAT I WOULD MOVE THE BILL
. SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION AND A
SECOND. YEAH. WE CANNOT ARGUE
THAT MR. TING IS THE BUDGET GUY.
ANYONE ELSE? MR. LUCKY OKAY. MR.
TING, YOU MAY CLOSE. THANK YOU,
MEMBERS, VERY MUCH APPRECIATE,
THE DISCUSSION, WITH RESPECT TO
OPPOSITIONS, WE ARE HAPPY TO
ALSO WORK WITH THEM TO
INCORPORATE, THEIR CONCERNS
ABOUT ENSURING THERE'S PROPER
REHABILITATION SPACE. ABSOLUTELY
HAPPY TO ADDRESS THAT. AND
AGAIN, DURING TOUGH BUDGET
TIMES, I KNOW WE HAVE TO MAKE
TOUGH DECISIONS, BUT THIS IS AN
AREA THAT SEEMS VERY GLARING AND
VERY OBVIOUS. AND WITH THAT
RESPECT FOR YOU, I VOTED ON AB
2178. THANK YOU. YOU TAKE THE
ROLL, PLEASE. ON AB 2178 BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER TING. THE MOTION
IS DUE. PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. MAKATI
ALANIS. NO. ALANIS. NO. LAKI.
NOT VOTING. LAKI NOT VOTING.
NGUYEN. NGUYEN. AYE. REYES
REYES. AYE. TING TING. AYE
WILSON. ZIPPER. ZIPPER. AYE
THERE'S UNCLE. NEXT. MR. LACKEY,
IF YOU'LL STEP UP, PLEASE. THIS
WILL BE ON AB 2846. MR. LACKEY
HAS THE FLOOR
.
ALL RIGHT. WELL, THANK YOU, MR.
VICE CHAIR AND MEMBERS, FOR
ALLOWING ME TO PRESENT, AB 2846
AND, TO AVOID TRIGGERING AN
ANNOYING AND DISTRACTING
COUGHING SPELL. I'M GOING TO,
INTRODUCE MY WITNESSES AND LET
THEM DO THE TALKING. I'D LIKE TO
INTRODUCE RYAN SHERMAN,
LEGISLATIVE ADVOCATE FOR THE
NARCOTIC OFFICERS ASSOCIATION.
TIFFANY DEVITT FROM CANNACRAFT.
AND FOR ANY TECHNICAL SUPPORT.
CINDY DASILVA, SAN JOAQUIN
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AS
SHE'S HERE AND SHE'S HANGING OUT
BACK THERE. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. YOU GUYS HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS
RYAN SHERMAN WITH THE CALIFORNIA
NARCOTIC OFFICERS ASSOCIATION IN
SUPPORT OF AB 2846 AND ALSO
BRIEFLY, IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL.
HANG ON ONE SECOND ON BEHALF OF
THE RIVERSIDE SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION, RESERVE PEACE
OFFICERS, DEPUTY SHERIFFS OF
PLACER AND MONTEREY COUNTY, AND
POLICE OFFICER ASSOCIATIONS OF
ARCADIA, BURBANK, CLAREMONT,
CORONA, CULVER CITY, FULLERTON,
MURIETTA, NEWPORT BEACH, NOVATO,
PALOS VERDES, POMONA, RIVERSIDE,
SANTA ANA, AND UPLAND, WE ARE
ALL IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL,
WHICH SEEKS TO, CLAMP DOWN ON,
SYNTHETIC CANNABINOID, COMPOUNDS
OR DERIVATIVES. THE BILL WOULD
ADD TWO MORE COMPOUNDS TO THE
CURRENT PROHIBITED LIST, THAT
ARE NOT ORGANIC, BUT ARE
CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS CREATED IN A
LAB. SYNTHETIC CANNABINOIDS ARE
SOLD AT SMALL CONVENIENCE
STORES, HEAD SHOPS, GAS
STATIONS, AND VIA THE INTERNET.
AND THE MAKERS OF THESE DRUGS
ADJUST THEIR COMPOUNDS FROM TIME
TO TIME, ADDING SOMETIMES A
SINGLE ATOM OR OTHER MINOR
ALTERATION TO KEEP THE PRODUCTS
FROM TECHNICALLY BREAKING THE
LAW. AB 2846 SEEKS TO CLOSE
THESE LOOPHOLES BY UPDATING THE
DEFINITION OF A SYNTHETIC
CANNABINOID COMPOUND BY ADDING
SOME RECENTLY DEVELOPED
SUBSTANCES AND METABOLITE. FOR
THESE REASONS, SOUNDS LIKE JUST
BEEPED. Þ. ALL RIGHT, I'LL JUST
FINISH THIS, THIS BILL WILL ALSO
CAPTURE FUTURE COMPOUNDS
INTENDED TO SIDESTEP THESE
PROHIBITIONS BY INCLUDING NEWLY
CREATED SYNTHETIC CANNABINOID
SUBSTANCES THAT, WHEN INGESTED,
ARE INTENDED TO ACT AS A
CANNABINOID. CANNABINOID
RECEPTOR AGONIST. SORRY FOR
THESE REASONS, WE'RE PROUD TO
SPONSOR AND SUPPORT THE BILL,
AND RESPECTFULLY, AS FOR AN AYE
VOTE. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS
TIFFANY DEBIT, AND AS THE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER MENTIONED, I'M
HERE ON BEHALF OF CANNACRAFT AND
MARCHING ASH, WHICH IS A
VERTICALLY INTEGRATED CANNABIS
COMPANY. I'M ALSO HERE ON BEHALF
OF THE SAN DIEGO IMPERIAL COUNTY
JOINT LABOR MANAGEMENT, CANNABIS
COMMITTEE, WHICH IS A JOINT
VENTURE BETWEEN OUR COMPANY AND
UFCW LOCAL 135. I'M ALSO HERE AS
THE AUTHOR OF THE CALIFORNIA
CANNABIS INDUSTRIES 2022 WHITE
PAPER ON INTOXICATING HEMP AND
SYNTHETIC CANNABINOIDS. THE
REASON WHY WE'RE IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF AB 2846 IS PUBLIC
SAFETY, TO GIVE YOU A 45 SECOND
LESSON IN THE SCIENCE OF
SYNTHETIC CANNABINOIDS, THERE
ARE BASICALLY THREE DANGERS.
FIRST, THESE COMPOUNDS ARE
TYPICALLY MANUFACTURED USING
CORROSIVE SOLVENTS AND HEAVY
METAL CATALYSTS, WHICH OFTEN
LEAVES TOXIC RESIDUES IN THE END
PRODUCT. PRODUCT SECOND, THAT
SYNTHESIS PROCESS COMMONLY
PRODUCES WHAT ARE KNOWN AS
UNKNOWN, UNNATURAL ISOMERS,
MEANING MOLECULAR IMPURITIES
THAT HAVE AN UNKNOWN SAFETY
EFFECTS. THE THIRD ISSUE, AND
THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT AS
FAR AS THE NEW GENERATION OF
SYNTHETIC CANNABINOIDS THAT WE
ARE SEEING EVERYWHERE, IS THEY
ARE BEING DESIGNED TO BIND MORE
STRONGLY WITH THE HUMAN
RECEPTORS. SO SOME OF THE MORE
COMMON SYNTHETIC CANNABINOIDS
THC, ÁP THC BE THEY'RE UP TO
BETWEEN 30 AND 40 TIMES STRONGER
THAN THE NATURAL THC YOU GET IN
CANNABIS. AS SUCH, THEY HAVE
SERIOUS SIDE EFFECTS.
UNSURPRISINGLY, SYNTHETICS HAVE
BEEN LINKED TO SEVERE HEALTH
PROBLEMS, INCLUDING RESPIRATORY
FAILURE, LIKE WE SAW IN VAPING
CRISIS, HEART ATTACK, STROKE,
SEIZURES, KIDNEY DAMAGE AND RISK
OF PSYCHOSIS. FOR THOSE REASONS,
WE'RE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE
IN SUPPORT? PLEASE STEP UP TO
THE MIC. NAME AN ORGANIZATION,
PLEASE. CINDY DASILVA, ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT? SEEING
NONE. ANYONE IN OPPOSITION.
JUST ONE. THANK YOU. YOU BOTH
HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO SHARE.
THANK YOU, MARGOT GEORGE, FOR
THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION. AND WE ARE,
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE, UNLESS
AMENDED, WE, OF COURSE, OPPOSE
FURTHER CRIMINALIZATION OF
DRUGS, BUT THIS FEELS LIKE, AN
EFFORT BY THE MARIJUANA INDUSTRY
TO OUTLAW THE COMPETITION. AND
IT WOULD BE BETTER. WE WOULD ALL
BE BETTER SERVED IF THEY JUST,
WE REGULATED THIS PRODUCT, TAXED
IT, AND, HAD QUALITY CONTROL,
BUT SPECIFICALLY, WE'RE OPPOSED
TO THE EXPANSIVE AND CATCH ALL
PROVISION THAT GIVES NO NOTICE
TO INNOCENT PURCHASERS. AND IT
ADDS A NUMBER OF CANNABINOIDS TO
THE LIST. BUT IT HAS THIS CATCH
ALL PROVISION THAT SAYS ANY
SYNTHETIC SUBSTANCE THAT, WHEN
INGESTED BY A HUMAN, BINDS TO OR
IS INTENDED TO ACT AS A
CANNABINOID CANNABINOID RECEPTOR
AGONIST TO PRODUCE PSYCHO ACTIVE
EFFECTS, OR THAT IS INTENDED TO
MIMIC THE EFFECTS OF DELTA NINE.
TETRA HYDRO CANNABIS OIL, AND
OBVIOUSLY CAN'T EVEN PRONOUNCE
IT. THE AVERAGE PERSON THIS
MAKES IT A CRIME TO POSSESS IT
WOULD HAVE NO NOTICE, YOU KNOW
THAT OR ANY IDEA THAT THEY HAD
PURCHASED SUCH A PRODUCT. SO WE
ASK THAT THAT PROVISION BE
AMENDED OUT AND UNLESS IT'S
AMENDED, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR NO VOTE AND REALLY WOULD
ARGUE THAT IT WOULD BETTER BE
SERVED. WE WOULD ALL BE BETTER
SERVED. IF YOU JUST REGULATED
THIS. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING
MICA DOCTOROFF, SENIOR STAFF
ATTORNEY WITH THE ACLU OF
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA. I'M HERE ON
BEHALF OF ACLU CALIFORNIA ACTION
, I WOULD ECHO MY COLLEAGUE FROM
CPJ'S COMMENTS AND JUST ADD, ON
BEHALF OF THE ACLU THAT, WE
APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR'S EFFORTS
TO ADDRESS THE DANGERS AND TO
ADDRESS, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS
REALLY A PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS.
BUT WE DO NOT BELIEVE AND
CONTINUE NOT TO BELIEVE THAT
ADDRESSING A PUBLIC HEALTH
CRISIS WITH ADDITIONAL CRIMINAL
PENALTIES IS THE WAY FORWARD. WE
HAVE SEEN THAT THAT DOESN'T WORK
. WE HAVE SEEN THAT THAT IS
INEFFECTIVE. IT IS COST Kò. IT
IS HARMFUL TO OUR COMMUNITIES.
AND FOR THAT REASON, WE ARE
OPPOSED TO THIS BILL. THANK YOU
SO MUCH. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE
IN OPPOSITION? PLEASE STEP UP TO
THE MIC. NAME AN ORGANIZATION.
MELANIE KIM, SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE OPPOSED
UNLESS AMENDED. KELLY WALTERS,
LEGAL SERVICES FOR PRISONERS
WITH CHILDREN AND ALL OF US ARE
NONE OPPOSED UNLESS AMENDED.
LISA MONTEIRO. CALIFORNIANS
UNITED FOR RESPONSIBLE BUDGET.
OPPOSITION THANK YOU. AND BEFORE
WE MOVE TO COMMITTEE, APPARENTLY
WE HAD SOMEONE ELSE IN SUPPORT
THAT DID NOT MAKE IT IN THROUGH
THE DOOR. SIR YUMI, HAVE YOUR
MOMENT. THANK YOU, MISS BRANT.
FROM THE SWING SPACE. FINALLY
GOT ME HERE, I'M IN STRONG
SUPPORT AND I'M HERE IN
REFERENCE, JARED KILO FOR THE
UNITED CANNABIS BUSINESS
ASSOCIATION. THE COACHELLA,
COACHELLA VALLEY CANNABIS
ALLIANCE, SAN FRANCISCO
RETAILERS ALLIANCE, LONG BEACH
COLLECTIVE ASSOCIATION, ANGELS,
EMERALD AND THE SOCIAL EQUITY LÀ
AND STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. COMMITTEE
QUESTIONS. MR. ZUBER. SO WHEN,
SORRY, WE GET CLOSER TO THE MIC.
SO WHEN THESE, SUBSTANCES ARE
SOLD, WHAT DO THEY LOOK LIKE? I
MEAN, HOW HOW LIKELY ARE THEY TO
BE CONFUSED WITH A LEGAL
CANNABIS PRODUCT, THAT IS THAT
SOMEONE WHO IS PURCHASING Ã
THINKS IS ABSOLUTELY LEGAL. SO
THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS,
IF YOU GO UP ON A NUMBER OF
WEBSITES, THESE COMPANIES ARE
MARKETING AS AS QUOTE, LEGAL
CANNABIS, SO, SO IT'S QUITE
EASILY AND OVERTLY CAN CONFUSE.
AND IF YOU GO UP TO, THERE'S
THIS ONE COMPANY CALLED EL CHAPO
EXTRACTS AND I'M NOT MAKING UP
THAT NAME, IF YOU GO VISIT THEM
ONLINE, THEY CALL IT LEGAL,
SUPER POTENT CANNABIS. AND THEIR
TAGLINE IS SHOP THE NEWEST DRUG
CARTEL IN TOWN. SO EASY TO
CONFUSE. OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. YES. MEMBERS OF BIRTH,
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF
SYNTHETIC CANNABINOIDS, IF YOU
WILL, THAT THIS BILL SEEKS TO
PROTECT PEOPLE FROM. AND MISS
DEVITT JUST ADDRESSED THE SEMI
SYNTHETICS, THE DELTA EIGHT, THE
DELTA TEN, THE THC THC THE HCP.
WE'RE ALSO ADDRESSING THE MDM
PHªN PINAKA AND THE ADB
BHUTANICA WHICH ARE PURE
SYNTHETICS BEING SHIPPED MUCH
THE WAY FENTANYL IS IN PRECURSOR
FORM FROM CHINA AND COMING IN
THROUGH WHATEVER, WHATEVER
SMUGGLING METHODS THEY COME IN
THROUGH, THOSE ARE NOT BEING, TO
MY KNOWLEDGE, MISTAKEN AS LEGAL
WEED. THOSE ARE THOSE ARE SPICE
IS WHAT THEY ARE. BUT THE REASON
THAT WE CALL THEM BOTH, EITHER
SYNTHETICS OR SEMI SYNTHETICS,
IS THAT THE SPICE ARE PURELY
MADE IN A LAB, AND THE ONES THAT
MISS DEVITT IS CONCERNED ABOUT
ARE THEY DO OCCUR NATURALLY IN
THE PLANT IN VERY MINUTE TRACE
AMOUNTS. BUT IN ORDER TO EXTRACT
THEM FROM THE PLANT, YOU HAVE TO
USE DIRTY MANUFACTURE METHODS.
METHODS SUCH AS USING BUTANE OR
YUCKY GROSS IMPURE, EXTRA ACTION
METHODS, AND OFTENTIMES THEY DO
TAKE THAT FROM, FROM, FROM CBD
OR THE HEMP PLANT. SO IT'S NOT
EVEN COMING FROM A THC STRAIN OF
MARIJUANA. THOSE MAY OR MAY NOT
BE, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE
MISTAKEN FOR MARIJUANA, BUT THEY
MAY BE SNUCK INTO PRODUCTS THAT
CLAIM TO BE, CBD, PURELY LEGAL,
ETC. SO ARE THEY SOLD IN LIKE,
PENS OR WHAT? HOW HOW IS THIS
SOLD? YOU MEAN LIKE VAPE
CARTRIDGE PENS? LIKE LIKE A VAPE
? PROBABLY ARE, AND I KNOW MR.
SHERMAN BROUGHT WITH HIM TODAY
SOME EXAMPLES OF STUFF HE WAS
ABLE TO BUY THAT ARE PROBABLY
NOT LEGAL IN MY OPINION, THE,
AND HE WAS ABLE TO BUY IT FROM
MY, I DON'T KNOW, A DRUGSTORE OR
SOMETHING, BUT, YES, THEY ARE
THEY ARE BEING PUT IN THINGS
THAT THEY SHOULDN'T BE. THEY
SHOULDN'T BE SMOKABLE. ANYWAY,
IN UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW, BUT
YES, THEY'RE PUTTING THEM IN,
SOLUTIONS AND VARIOUS THINGS
THAT PEOPLE TAKE. SO WHY WOULD
THEY NOT WHY WOULD THEY? WHY ARE
YOU SAYING THAT THEY'RE NOT
LEGAL THEN IF THEY'RE NOT UNDER
CALIFORNIA LAW? BECAUSE. WELL,
IN MR. VET CAN CAN CAN ANSWER
THAT AS WELL. BUT WE'VE GOT
UNDER PROP 64 THE LAWFUL
CANNABIS INDUSTRY. AND THEN WE
HAVE HEMP ON THE OTHER SIDE. AND
HEMP IS, IS, IS, COMES FROM A
DIFFERENT STRAIN OF THE PLANT
THAT HAS LESS THAN 0.3% THC
DELTA NINE TETRAHYDROCANNABINOL
PHENOL OIL, DELTA NINE, WHEREAS
THE OTHER ONES HAVE MORE THAN
THE 0.3. THE ONES THAT HAVE MORE
THAN 0.3 PERCENT ARE SUBJECT TO
QUITE A FEW REGULATIONS. UNDER
PROP 64. THAT WAS A 33 PAGE
VOTER PAMPHLET LAW AND QUITE
WELL REASONED, WHETHER YOU AGREE
WITH IT OR NOT, THE HEMP FOLKS
DON'T HAVE THE SAME CONSUMER
SAFETY RIGMAROLES THAT THEY NEED
TO GO THROUGH, AND IF YOU'RE
COMBINING LIKE IN THE THING THAT
MR. SHERMAN SHOWED ME, IF YOU'RE
COMBINING DELTA EIGHT WITH DELTA
NINE, THE DELTA NINE STUFF IS
NOT COMPLYING WITH THE SAME
THINGS THAT THE LAWFUL CANNABIS
INDUSTRY HAS TO, SUCH AS THE
CANCER CAUSING LABELS WARNINGS,
THE. SO YEAH, WHY WOULDN'T WHY
WOULDN'T YOU JUST BASICALLY TRY
TO REGULATE THIS? I MEAN, THE
THING THAT MAKES ME REALLY
CONCERNED IS THE FACT THAT, A
CONSUMER IS NOT GOING TO KNOW
WHETHER OR NOT WHAT THEY'RE
DOING IS LEGAL OR NOT LEGAL
BASED ON THIS LAW. AND NOW WE'RE
BASICALLY PUTTING A WHOLE BUNCH
OF FAIRLY INNOCENT PEOPLE.
BEALL, WE'RE CRIMINALIZING A
BEHAVIOR THAT THEY DIDN'T EVEN
HAVE ANY IDEA WAS WAS CRIMINAL.
SO WHY WOULDN'T WE JUST REGULATE
THIS? AND WHERE ARE THE STUDIES
THAT SORT OF DIFFERENTIATE THESE
SUBSTANCES FROM REGULAR
CANNABIS? I MEAN, I HOPE THAT I
CAN ADDRESS THAT CONCERN, AS FOR
AS FOR, PEOPLE BEING ON NOTICE,
11 350 7.7 DOES NOT I TOOK
ANOTHER LOOK AT IT DOES NOT
CRIMINALIZE MERE POSSESSION.
IT'S POSSESSION FOR SALE. YEAH.
SO IT'S NOT LIKE MR. SHERMAN'S
GOING TO GO GET PROSECUTED AFTER
, YOU KNOW, THIS THIS LAW GOES
INTO EFFECT, IF YOU POSSESS IT,
YOU'RE NOT IN VIOLATION. AND I
SHARE YOUR POSSESSION FOR SALE.
I MEAN, YOU COULD ACTUALLY HAVE
SOMEONE WHO HAS A GIFT SHOP THAT
ACTUALLY SELLS THESE KINDS OF
THINGS AND BASICALLY HAS NO IDEA
THAT, THAT THIS HAS A, I MEAN,
YOU TALKED ABOUT A FAIR NUMBER
OF FAIRLY, TECHNICAL TERMS THAT
CHARACTERIZE, YOU KNOW, THAT
DESCRIBE ALL THESE VARIOUS
SUBSTANCES THAT ARE BASICALLY
BEEN PUTTING INTO SOMETHING THAT
LOOKS LIKE IT'S PRETTY
INNOCUOUS. YOU KNOW, I JUST HAVE
REALLY CONCERNS ABOUT YOU KNOW,
A LOT OF SORT OF FOLKS THAT ARE
DOING THINGS THAT ARE FAIRLY
INNOCENTLY BEING SUBJECT NOW TO
CRIMINAL PENALTIES WHEN I THINK
A BETTER APPROACH WOULD BE
EDUCATION AND REGULATION. MY
FAVORITE SPA, MY FAVORITE PET
GROOMING PLACE, HAS THINGS LIKE
THIS TOO, AND THE WAY THAT WILL
OPERATE IS THAT THE FDA OR THE
CALIFORNIA VERSION OF IT, THE
SHERMAN FOOD AND DRUG ACT, AND
MAYBE EVEN DCC, THE DEPARTMENT
OF CANNABIS CONTROL WILL GO OUT
AND GIVE WARNINGS FIRST SO THAT
MY FAVORITE SPA WILL BE TOLD YOU
MIGHT WANT TO TAKE THAT OFF YOUR
SHELF. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GET
RAIDED BY A SWAT TEAM. THEY'LL
BE TOLD, YEAH, BUT BUT I GUESS
THE OTHER THING IS IT'S, YOU
KNOW, I I'M NOT CONVINCED, BASED
ON THE DATA THAT WAS AT LEAST
PRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT,
THAT ALL THESE THINGS ACTUALLY
HAVE SOME KIND OF SIGNIFICANT
HEALTH IMPACT. SO WHAT YOU'RE
BASICALLY SAYING IS YOU'VE GOT A
CHEMICAL COMPOUND THAT
AUTOMATICALLY, IF IT'S IN A
CREAM OR IN SOMETHING THAT'S
GOING TO BE INGESTED, IS NOW
MAKES THAT PERSON A CRIMINAL,
WHETHER THEY POSSESS IT OR SELL
IT. AND THEY HAVE NO IDEA THAT
THAT I MEAN, GIVEN WHAT'S,
WHAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH
THESE OTHER PRODUCTS, YOU'RE
CRIMINALIZING A LOT OF PEOPLE
THAT I THINK ARE ENGAGING IN A
FAIRLY INNOCENT ACTIVITY AND
WITHOUT. WITH WHAT? WITHOUT WHAT
I'M SEEING IS SOME REGULATORY
AGENCY SAYING THIS LEVEL OF THIS
KIND OF SUBSTANCE AT THIS LEVEL
IS UNHEALTHY. SO, AND, AND
THAT'S 11 350 7.5 EXISTED SINCE,
AND I BELIEVE EVEN MR. LACKEY
WAS ONE OF THE CO-SPONSORS OF
ONE OF THE UPGRADES TO THAT. A
NUMBER OF YEARS AGO. SO THAT
YOU'RE I ALMOST SAID, YOUR HONOR
, BUT YOUR CONCERN IS ALREADY
REFLECTED, FOR BETTER OR FOR
WORSE, IN THE LAW. THERE'S A
LAUNDRY LIST OF THINGS PEOPLE
CAN'T HAVE AND EVIDENCE, AS WELL
AS ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE THAT I'VE
SEEN FROM TALKING TO PEOPLE, IS
THAT PARTICULARLY THE SPICE, THE
SYNTHETIC CANNABINOIDS, PURELY
SYNTHETIC, ARE HARMING PEOPLE,
PEOPLE ARE USING THEM AND GOING,
WHOA, THAT WAS THE WORST TRIP
I'VE EVER HAD. I'M GOING TO KEEP
USING DRUGS. BUT NOT THAT DRUG,
SO I DO WANT TO DRAW A DEFINITE
DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE SPICE,
THE ADB, THE MDM, ETC. AND THEN
THE SEMI SYNTHETICS. THOUGH I
THINK BOTH NEED TO BE REFLECTED
IN THE LAW. AND TO ANSWER YOUR
CONCERN ON PEOPLE ENGAGING IN
INNOCUOUS ACTIVITIES THAT'S
HARMING THE KIDS BECAUSE THEY'RE
GETTING THE GUMMIES THAT ARE
INFUSED WITH DELTA EIGHT AND
DELTA TEN THAT THEY BUY SOME
FROM, SOME RANDOM PLACE THAT
ASSURES THEM THIS IS LEGAL, IT'S
FINE. SO THEY LEAVE IT OUT ON
THEIR KITCHEN COUNTERTOP FOR
THEIR TEN YEAR OLD TO TAKE.
HECK, YOU LEAVE A GUMMY OUT, I'M
GOING TO EAT IT, AND THE TEN
YEAR OLDS EAT IT AND THE NUMBER
OF KIDS GOING TO THE EMERGENCY
ROOM IS SKYROCKETING,
PARTICULARLY IN SAN DIEGO
COUNTY, FROM WHAT I'M HEARING.
SO IT IS A CONSUMER SAFETY
ISSUE, ESPECIALLY. I'M NOT GOING
TO BELABOR THIS. I'M JUST, YOU
KNOW, IT LOOKS LIKE WHAT WE'RE
DOING WITH THE BILL AND I KNOW
THAT THE YOU KNOW, I HAVE GREAT
RESPECT FOR THE AUTHOR. I KNOW
THAT YOU KNOW, THAT THAT, THAT
THE THAT THE INTENTION IS A IS A
GOOD ONE. BUT WHAT I FEAR IS
THAT YOU ACTUALLY HAVE WITHOUT A
LOT OF DATA THAT DISTINGUISHES
BETWEEN SUBSTANCES THAT ARE
RELATIVELY SAFE AND THOSE THAT
AREN'T BASICALLY CRIMINALIZING
THINGS THAT ARE BASICALLY GOING
TO BE PROVIDED WITHOUT PEOPLE
KNOWING THAT IT'S THAT THE
POSSESSION OR THE SALE IS A
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. SOMETIMES AND
ALSO THAT I DON'T NECESSARILY
KNOW THAT THERE'S BASICALLY SOME
KIND OF HEALTH IMPACT
NECESSARILY THAT IS POSITIVE.
AND THEN THIRD, THAT, THAT IT'S
NOT GOING TO DISSUADE, IT'S NOT
GOING TO PREVENT THE ACTIVITY. I
JUST SORT OF THINK A REGULATORY
APPROACH WITH EDUCATION IS A IS
A BETTER ONE. AND SO I JUST WANT
TO, YOU KNOW, THANK YOU, THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. SO MEMBER REYES,
THANK YOU. I DO WANT TO BEGIN BY
SAYING THAT, THE AUTHOR HAS BEEN
A LEADER WHEN IT COMES TO
CANNABIS AND HIS EDUCATED US ON
SO MANY ISSUES, REGARDING THE
SUBJECT, I'VE BEEN HERE FOR
EIGHT YEARS, AND HE HAS BEEN ONE
OF THOSE LEADERS THAT HAS
DIRECTED SO MUCH OF WHAT WE HAVE
DONE HERE. I, TOO, AM CONCERNED
THAT WITHOUT DATA AND, WHEN I
HEAR THAT THE NUMBERS ARE
SKYROCKETING AND I WANT TO KNOW,
I WANT TO SEE THAT THEY'RE
SKYROCKETING, IS IT WITH
CHILDREN? IS IT WITH WITH
ADULTS, WE ALREADY HAVE IN THE
BOOKS. AND THAT'S WITH BECAUSE
OF SENATOR GALGIANI, FROM 2 TO
2016, THE PENALTIES FOR
POSSESSION OF SYNTHETIC
CANNABINOIDS, AND SO WE HAVE
THINGS ON THE BOOKS THAT CAN
ALREADY BE USED. SO WE'RE ASKING
WE'RE BEING ASKED TO REDEFINE
WHAT THOSE ARE TO INCLUDE MORE
SUBSTANCES AND NOW TO
CRIMINALIZE IT. AND I WOULD HAVE
TO AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE THAT
IF WE'RE GOING TO CROSS THE
THRESHOLD AND CRIMINALIZE IT,
THAT WE'RE ADDING A NUMBER OF
SYNTHETIC, ITEMS, CANNABINOIDS,
I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW MORE ABOUT
WHAT IT IS WE'RE DOING. SO FOR
TODAY, I WON'T BE ABLE TO
SUPPORT THIS. OKAY. FURTHER
QUESTIONS ALSO THAT WHEN WE'RE
GOING TO HAVE I'M SORRY. YEAH.
GO AHEAD. IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE
ITEMS THAT ARE GOING TO BE
GIVEN, I THINK IT REALLY SHOULD
BE THROUGH THE CHAIR TO HAVE
THAT AUTHORIZED FOR BEFORE IT'S
GIVEN TO US. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO
MEMBER ALANIS. YES I THINK THE
SERGEANTS HAD ADDRESSED THAT
EARLIER ALSO. SO I JUST WANT TO
MAKE IT A POINT IN MY 20 PLUS
YEARS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT
LEGISLATION HAS ALWAYS BEEN
CATCHING UP TO THE CHEMICAL
COMPOUNDS THAT HAVE BEEN
CONSTANTLY CHANGING IN
CALIFORNIA AND THE UNITED STATES
AND THE WHOLE WORLD, THERE ARE
SMART PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT ARE
MAKING DRUGS THAT WILL JUST
CHANGE THE COMPOUND OF WHAT THE
DRUG IS. SO IT DOES NOT FALL
UNDER THE LAW THAT WAS MADE AT
THE TIME. AND SO, THINGS LIKE,
LIKE WE'RE RIGHT NOW, WE'RE
DEALING WITH WITH TRANQ. RIGHT?
TRANQ IS A THING THAT WE KNOW
ABOUT THAT WE SHOULD BE WORKING
EVEN HARDER ON TO ADDRESS. BUT I
SEE IN THIS BILL THAT IS
SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE ADDRESSING
IS JUST HELPING US CATCH UP TO
THE NEW CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS THAT
THESE SCIENTISTS, THESE DRUG
MAKERS HAVE HAVE CHEATED THE
SYSTEM TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT
DIFFERENT TO WHERE IT DOESN'T
APPLY TO THEM, AND IF YOU WANT
TO ADDRESS THAT, I'M PROBABLY ON
YOUR CLOSING OR NOT, BUT, THAT
THAT'S WHAT I SEE IN THIS, IT'S
UNFORTUNATE THAT WE'RE GOING TO
BE DOING THIS EVERY YEAR BECAUSE
IT IS GOING TO THIS COMPOUND IS
GOING TO CHANGE NEXT YEAR ALSO.
AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO
CHANGE THAT ONE AS WELL. JUST TO
ADD IT, I WISH THERE WAS
SOMETHING THAT COULD MAKE IT
EASIER, BUT IT DOES THE SAME
THING. IT'S THE SAME TYPE OF
DRUG. THEY JUST CHANGED THE
MAKEUP OF THE COMPOUND OF THE
DRUG IS WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO CATCH UP
TO. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU.
FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS ANSWER
HIS QUESTION. DO YOU HAVE A
QUESTION OR IS THAT A COMMENT?
MR. YES, YES. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
WE DRAFTED THIS LAW SO THAT YOU
WOULDN'T HAVE TO READDRESS THIS
EVERY YEAR BECAUSE IT HARKENS
BACK TO 11 401 OF THE HEALTH AND
SAFETY CODE, WHICH IS THE ANALOG
STATUTE, THE WAY THE CURRENT 11
350 7.5 IS WRITTEN, YOU DO HAVE
TO COME BACK ALL THE TIME.
THAT'S WHY IT'S 14 PAGES LONG OF
JWH 087 TYPE DRUGS. THE PROBLEM
IS YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT, PEOPLE
ARE TWEAKING THOSE DRUGS TO
CREATE NEW ONES. ADB BHUTANICA
AND MDM FOUR AND PINAKA ARE THE
ONES WE'RE SEEING QUITE A BIT.
AND I THOUGHT WE HAD PROVIDED
THOSE STATISTICS. I APOLOGIZE IF
THEY DIDN'T GET TO YOU ALL, BUT
IF THIS BILL GETS PASSED, YOU
WON'T HAVE TO COME BACK EVERY
YEAR BECAUSE IT GIVES THAT THAT
THAT DEFINITION OF IF IT IF IT
PRODUCES THE SAME OR GREATER
HALLUCINOGENIC DEPRESSANT OR
STIMULATIVE EFFECTS ON THE
PERSON'S CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM.
IT'S AN ANALOG AND WE CAN
PROSECUTE IT AS AN ANALOG, SAME
WAY, SAME WAY WE CAN PROSECUTE
MDMA, WHICH IS ECSTASY. OKAY.
THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE DO WE HAVE
A MOTION? WE HAVE A MOTION A
SECOND. WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE,
SIR? I WOULD JUST CLOSE BY
SAYING THE PUBLIC DESERVES
PROTECTION AND THESE SUBSTANCES
ARE DANGEROUS AND MISLEADING.
AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOUR
SUPPORT ON THIS MEASURE. THANK
YOU. MOTION A SECOND, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL ON A B 2846 BY
SOME MEMBER LACKEY. THE MOTION
IS DUE. PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY MCCARTY I ALANIZ. ALANIZ
I LACKEY. A LACKEY I NGUYEN
NGUYEN I REYES REYES NOT VOTING
TING TING I WILSON ZABIR ZABIR.
NOT VOTING. OKAY, THAT MEASURE
PASSES. THANK YOU, MR. ZABIR A
FINAL BILL. YEP. THANK YOU.
OKAY.
YES. PLEASE BEGIN, MR. CHAIR.
MEMBERS, I'M PROUD TODAY TO
PRESENT AB 2917 ALONGSIDE OUR
SPONSOR, EVERYTOWN FOR GUN
SAFETY, AND CO-SPONSOR THE SAN
FRANCISCO CITY ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE. THIS BILL UPDATES AND
REFINES CALIFORNIA'S NATION
LEADING GUN VIOLENCE RESTRAINING
ORDER. GVRO LAW TO DRAW THE
CIVIL COURTS ATTENTION TO A
BROADER SET OF RISK FACTORS IN A
COURT'S ANALYSIS OF WHETHER A
TEMPORARY ACCESS TO FIREARMS
SHOULD BE RESTRICTED, ACCORDING
TO THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S MOST RECENT REPORT ON
HATE CRIMES IN CALIFORNIA, HATE
CRIME EVENTS INVOLVING RACIAL
BIAS, RELIGIOUS BIAS, SEXUAL
ORIENTATION BIAS, AND GENDER
BIAS ALL HAVE INCREASED BETWEEN
2021 AND 2022. WE HAVE TO WE
HAVE TO STRENGTHEN OUR TOOLS TO
PREVENT HATE BASED VIOLENCE,
ESPECIALLY THE ALARMING RATES OF
VIOLENCE AGAINST LGBTQ PLUS
COMMUNITIES, ESPECIALLY TRANS
WOMEN, RELIGIOUS MINORITIES,
INCLUDING PEOPLE OF JEWISH AND
ISLAMIC FAITH, AND MINORITY
RACIAL AND ETHNIC COMMUNITIES.
THE BILL GUIDES THE COURT TO
CONSIDER THREATS OF VIOLENCE
MADE AGAINST GROUPS PROTECTED BY
HATE CRIME LAWS AND THREATS OF
VIOLENCE, TO ADVANCE POLITICAL
OBJECTIVES. IT ALSO UPDATES
VARIOUS STATUTES TO CODIFY THE
ABILITY OF CITY AND COUNTY
ATTORNEYS PURSUING GROSS TO
ACCESS CRIMINAL HISTORY
INFORMATION. CALIFORNIA'S GVRO
LAW CREATED A CIVIL LEGAL
PROCESS THROUGH WHICH LAW
ENFORCEMENT CONCERNED FAMILY
MEMBERS AND OTHER DESIGNATED
INDIVIDUALS MAY REQUEST THAT A
COURT GRANT AN ORDER TEMPORARILY
RESTRICTING A PERSON'S ACCESS TO
FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION WHEN
THERE'S EVIDENCE THAT THE PERSON
POSES A SIGNIFICANT RISK OF HARM
TO SELF OR OTHERS. IN THE
DECADES SINCE THE LAW WAS FIRST
PASSED, SROS HAVE BECOME ONE OF
THE MOST EFFECTIVE TOOLS
AVAILABLE FOR PREVENTING CERTAIN
TYPES OF GUN VIOLENCE BEFORE IT
OCCURS BY PROMPTLY AND
TEMPORARILY REMOVING FIREARMS
FROM A PERSON AT RISK OF HARMING
OTHERS OR THEMSELVES. GVRO CAN
BE PARTICULARLY USEFUL FOR
PREVENTING MASS SHOOTINGS AND
SUICIDE. OUR MOST VULNERABLE
COMMUNITIES DESERVE PROTECTION,
INCLUDING PROTECTION FROM GUN
VIOLENCE. CALIFORNIA COURTS MUST
STAY ALERT TO THE IMPORTANCE OF
CONSIDERING THREATS OF HATE
BASED VIOLENCE AND THREATS OF
POLITICAL VIOLENCE WHEN
TEMPORARILY RESTRICTING ACCESS
TO GUNS, THEREBY PREVENTING
NEEDLESS DEATHS AND POTENTIALLY
SAVING INNOCENT LIVES. WHEN THE
WARNING SIGNS ARE THERE AND WE
SEE SOMEONE THREATEN VIOLENCE
BECAUSE OF HATE OR EXTREMIST
IDEOLOGY, WE MUST USE THE TOOLS
NECESSARY TO PREVENT THESE
TRAGEDIES. I ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME AND
WITH ME TODAY ARE KRYSTAL DE
LOPILATO, SENIOR POLICY COUNSEL
WITH EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY,
AND REBECCA KRELL, DIRECTOR OF
POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
FROM THE SAN FRANCISCO
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, THE SPONSOR
AND CO-SPONSOR OF THE BILL TO
PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
PLEASE PROCEED. GOOD MORNING,
CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS KRYSTAL
LOPILATO AND I SERVE AS SENIOR
POLICY COUNSEL WITH EVERYTOWN
FOR GUN SAFETY. TOGETHER WITH
MOMS DEMAND ACTION AND STUDENTS
DEMAND ACTION, WE ARE THE
LARGEST GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION
ORGANIZATION IN THE COUNTRY, AND
WE'RE VERY GRATEFUL TO ASSEMBLY
MEMBER ZABIR FOR BRINGING THIS
BILL FORWARD. WE'RE HERE AS
SPONSORS OF AB 2917, WHICH WILL
UPDATE CALIFORNIA'S LANDMARK GUN
VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDER LAW.
THIS BILL SEEKS TO SHINE A
SPOTLIGHT ON TYPES OF GUN
VIOLENCE THAT CAN BE
PARTICULARLY USEFUL FOR
PREVENTING, WHILE ALSO
INCORPORATING LESSONS LEARNED
FROM THE LAST FEW YEARS OF
IMPLEMENTATION AND FROM OTHER
STATES. ONE Kò UPDATE, AS THE
ASSEMBLYMEMBER MENTIONED, IS TO
CLARIFY AND SPECIFY ADDITIONAL
FACTORS. THE COURT MAY CONSIDER
IN DECIDING WHETHER TO ISSUE A
GVRO. UNDER CURRENT LAW, THE
COURT IS TASKED WITH DETERMINING
WHETHER A PERSON POSES A
SIGNIFICANT DANGER OF HARMING
OTHERS OR THEMSELVES IF THEY
HAVE ACCESS TO FIREARMS. NOTHING
ABOUT THAT OVERARCHING ANALYSIS
WILL CHANGE HERE, BUT THIS BILL
CAREFULLY DRAWS THE COURT'S
ATTENTION TO MORE RISK FACTORS
TO CONSIDER, INCLUDING THREATS
OF VIOLENCE MADE AGAINST A
PERSON OR A GROUP PROTECTED BY
CALIFORNIA'S HATE CRIMES LAW,
AND THREATS OF VIOLENCE TO
ADVANCE A POLITICAL OBJECTIVE OR
TO INTERFERE WITH ANOTHER
PERSON'S EXERCISE OF THEIR
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. AND
EVERYTOWN ANALYSIS OF MASS
SHOOTINGS FROM 2015 TO 2022
REVEALED THAT IN NEARLY A THIRD
OF THE INCIDENTS, THE SHOOTER
EXHIBITED WARNING SIGNS BEFORE
THE SHOOTING. THIS IS TRUE OF
THE HATE MOTIVATED SHOOTERS AT
THE MOTHER EMANUEL AME CHURCH IN
CHARLESTON. IN 2015, THE
PITTSBURGH TREE OF LIFE
SYNAGOGUE IN 2018, THE EL PASO
WALMART SHOOTING IN 2019, THE
TOP SUPERMARKET IN BUFFALO IN
2022, AND THE CLUB Q NIGHTCLUB
IN COLORADO SPRINGS IN 2022.
WHEN SOMEONE SENDS OUT WARNING
SIGNS THAT THEY INTEND TO COMMIT
THOSE TYPES OF ACTS, WE NEED TO
GET GUNS OUT OF THOSE
SITUATIONS. WE NEED TO MAKE THE
TOOLKIT OF PREVENTION OPTIONS AS
STRONG AS WE CAN, AND WE NEED TO
MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE, INCLUDING
THE JUDGES WHO EVALUATE GUN
VIOLENCE, RESTRAINING ORDER
PETITIONS, KNOW THAT GROWS ARE
AN OPTION TO KEEP COMMUNITIES
SAFE. IN THOSE SITUATIONS, WE
ASK FOR YOUR AYE VOTE ON AB
2917. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR MCCARTHY AND
MEMBERS OF THE ASSEMBLY PUBLIC
SAFETY COMMITTEE. I'M REBECCA
CROW HERE REPRESENTING SAN
FRANCISCO CITY ATTORNEY DAVID
CHIU. THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY ON AB
2917 TODAY, THE SAN FRANCISCO
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
APPRECIATES ASSEMBLY MEMBERS
BURR'S LEADERSHIP ON THIS
IMPORTANT BILL AND IS GRATEFUL
TO PARTNER WITH EVERYTOWN FOR
GUN SAFETY ON THIS LEGISLATION.
AS YOU ALL KNOW, IMPACTFUL LAWS
REQUIRE EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION
AND ENFORCEMENT AS LEGAL COUNSEL
TO THEIR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES. AS CALIFORNIA CITY
ATTORNEYS AND COUNTY COUNSEL ARE
ON THE FRONT LINES OF
IMPLEMENTING GUN VIOLENCE
RESTRAINING ORDERS, SECTIONS 1
TO 3 OF AB 2917 ARE NARROWLY
SCOPED. UPDATE TO THE LAW TO
FACILITATE GVRO IMPLEMENTATION
BY STREAMLINING THE ABILITY OF
CITY ATTORNEYS AND COUNTY
COUNCILS TO ACCESS CRIMINAL
HISTORY INFORMATION AS PART OF
THEIR WORK PARTNERING WITH LOCAL
LAW ENFORCEMENT TO FILE AND
PROCESS GVR PETITIONS, THE SAN
FRANCISCO CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
FIRST BEGAN SEEKING GROWS ON
BEHALF OF THE SAN FRANCISCO
POLICE DEPARTMENT IN 2019
THROUGH OUR OFFICE'S OUTREACH
WITH GUN SAFETY ADVOCATES AND
TRAINING OF LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT, THE NUMBER OF GROWS
SOUGHT BY OUR OFFICE AND THE
NUMBER OF FIREARMS SEIZED
PURSUANT TO GROWS HAVE INCREASED
STEADILY IN SAN FRANCISCO. THE
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS
INVOLVED IN EVERY SINGLE GVRO
SOUGHT BY THE SFPD AND
COORDINATED PARTNERSHIP IS
CRITICAL TO OUR SUCCESS. AB 2917
ALSO HAS THE UNANIMOUS SUPPORT
OF THE CALIFORNIA CIVIL
PROSECUTORS COALITION. THE
COALITION SERVES MANY OF THE
LARGEST CITY ATTORNEY AND COUNTY
COUNSEL OFFICES IN CALIFORNIA,
REPRESENTING MILLIONS OF
RESIDENTS IN OUR JURISDICTIONS,
IMPROVING PUBLIC SAFETY LAWS
GEARED TOWARDS PREVENTING GUN
VIOLENCE, SUCH AS GUN VIOLENCE
RESTRAINING ORDERS IS A TOP
LEGISLATIVE PRIORITY FOR US THIS
YEAR. THE COALITION IS CHAIRED
BY SAN DIEGO CITY ATTORNEY MARA
ELLIOTT, WHO HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED
AS A NATIONAL LEADER ON GWS.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. OTHERS IN
SUPPORT. CINDY DA SILVA, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION,
PLEASED TO BE IN SUPPORT.
GILLIAN KING, VOLUNTEER, MOMS
DEMAND ACTION. JARED GOODALL,
VOLUNTEER WITH MOMS DEMAND
ACTION IN SUPPORT SASHA
HOROWITZ, LOS ANGELES UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT AND SUPPORT. LIZ
RUSSELL, GUN VIOLENCE SURVIVOR,
MOMS DEMAND VOLUNTEER AND
SUPPORT MARY DUPLAA, GUN
VIOLENCE SURVIVOR, VOLUNTEER FOR
MOMS DEMAND ACTION IN SUPPORT.
OPPOSITION. PLEASE COME FORWARD.
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS
MICAH DOCTOROFF, ON BEHALF OF
THE ACLU OF CALIFORNIA ACTION,
WE HAVE NOT TAKEN A POSITION ON
THE BILL. WE VOICED SOME
CONCERNS TO THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE,
AND HE'S BEEN VERY GRACIOUS AND
HEARING OUR CONCERNS AND WE'RE
WORKING WITH THE SPONSORS AND
HOPE WE'LL BE ABLE TO FIND SOME
AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
GREAT. EXCUSE ME, SIR, FIRST OF
ALL, I'M HAPPY TO SAY THAT THE
ACLU HAS TAKEN A LOOK AT THIS.
WE HAVE ACTUALLY PARTNERED. I'M
SAM PAREDES, REPRESENTING GUN
OWNERS OF CALIFORNIA, WE HAVE
PARTNERED WITH ACLU ON ON
SEVERAL OCCASIONS WITH REGARDS
TO, FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUES AND
PRIVACY RIGHTS. SO I HOPE THAT
YOU WILL TAKE A VERY SERIOUS
LOOK AT THIS SITUATION. WE HAVE
THREE POINTS OF OPPOSITION TO
THIS BILL, NUMBER ONE, IT'S VERY
PROBLEMATIC WHEN YOU TRY TO
DEFINE VIOLENT SPEECH IN STATUTE
AND EVEN THROUGH THE COURTS,
WHEN SOMEBODY STANDS UP AND
SAYS, FIGHT FOR THE COMMUNIST
REVOLUTION IN CALIFORNIA, IS
THAT VIOLENT SPEECH? I SUPPORT
THE SECOND AMENDMENT. WE NEED TO
FIGHT FOR OUR RIGHTS. IS THAT
VIOLENT SPEECH? THOSE ARE BOTH
PROMOTING A POLITICAL AGENDA. SO
WE HAVE CONCERNS THAT THAT, YOU
KNOW, VIOLENT SPEECH, UGLY,
DETESTABLE, TERRIBLE IS STILL
PROTECTED SPEECH UNDER THE FIRST
AMENDMENT. SO WE NEED TO BE VERY
AWARE OF THAT. SO WE HAVE WE
THINK THAT THIS BILL OVERSTEP
THAT LINE, SECONDLY, AND IT'S I
DON'T EVEN KNOW WHY IT'S HERE,
PEOPLE WHO ARE CONCERNED AND,
YOU KNOW, WHO DO ANIMAL CRUELTY,
THAT IS A DEFINITION. THAT IS.
WHAT IS THAT MANY, MANY, MANY
TIME HONORED ANIMAL TRAINING
TECHNIQUES HAVE BEEN USED FOR
CENTURIES AND FOR A LONG TIME
HERE IN CALIFORNIA BY MANY
PROFESSIONALS. SOME ANIMAL
RIGHTS ACTIVISTS ARE NOW
DECLARING THOSE THINGS AS
CRUELTY. WELL, WE DON'T SEE THE
NEXUS THERE, I'VE HEARD THE
TESTIMONY BEFORE AND THE
ARGUMENTS BEFORE THAT. YOU KNOW,
IF SOMEBODY KICKS THEIR DOG OR
KILLS THEIR DOG OR KILLS THEIR
CAT, THAT'S A TELLTALE SIGN THAT
THEY ARE VIOLENT AND THEY MIGHT
COMMIT SOME SORT OF AN ATROCITY
TO US. THAT'S THAT'S A
SIGNIFICANT STRETCH. AND THE
THIRD ISSUE IS THAT THE ENTIRE
ISSUE OF GUN VIOLENCE
RESTRAINING ORDERS, COMMONLY
KNOWN AS RED FLAG LAWS IN
AMERICA, IS NOW BEFORE THE
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IN
THE RAHIMI CASE, UNITED STATES
VERSUS RAHIMI, IT IS NOT JUST
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, BUT WE KNOW
THAT, GROSS OR RED FLAGS ARE
ALSO GOING TO BE CONSIDERED. SO
THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT CHANCE
THAT THE ENTIRE ISSUE OF GROWS
MAY BE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL
. WHY? BECAUSE THEY VIOLATE A
PERSON'S FIRST, FOURTH, FIFTH,
AND 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. THE
PEOPLE WHO ARE, ISSUED A GVRO.
THEY DON'T KNOW WHO THEIR
ACCUSERS ARE. IT'S EX PARTE.
THEY CANNOT IMMEDIATELY GO
BEFORE A COURT AND DEFEND
THEMSELVES TO SAY, HEY, I'M IN
AN UGLY DIVORCE. MY WIFE IS
ACCUSING ME OF THIS, AND THEY
DON'T HAVE THAT. SO THEY'RE
THEY'RE, RIGHTS ARE INFRINGED,
RIGHTS DELAYED ARE RIGHTS DENIED
. SO WE HAVE GREAT CONCERNS NOW,
IF THE SUPREME COURT, WHICH WILL
HAPPEN BEFORE JUNE, IF THE
SUPREME COURT DECLARES THAT THE
GUN VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDERS
AND RED FLAG LAWS OF AMERICA ARE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS THEY ARE
PRESENTLY CONSTITUTED, WE WOULD
BE HAPPY TO TALK WITH THE PEOPLE
WHO WANT TO LOOK AT WAYS OF
PREVENTING GUN VIOLENCE. THAT
OFFER HAS BEEN OUT THERE
FOREVER. HAS IT EVER BEEN TAKEN
UP? NOT A SINGLE TIME YOU CANNOT
VIOLATE SOMEONE'S FIRST, FOURTH,
FIFTH AND 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS
IN ORDER TO DENY THEM THEIR
SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS FOR
THESE REASONS, WE ARE IN STRONG
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL. AND, WE
HOPE THERE WILL BE A WAIT AND
SEE SITUATION TO SEE WHAT THE
SUPREME COURT DOES TO LEAD US IN
THIS DIRECTION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ANY OTHERS IN OPPOSITION ON
BEHALF OF GUN OWNERS OF
CALIFORNIA AND THE CALIFORNIA
RIFLE AND PISTOL ASSOCIATION,
THERE'S AN OPPOSITION. PLEASE
COME FORWARD. HEARING NONE.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. WE HAVE WE
HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. MR.
TÍNH I WANT TO ASK OPPOSITION
SOME QUESTIONS, ARE THERE
APPRECIATE YOUR POSITION. ARE
THERE ANY PEOPLE YOU BELIEVE
SHOULDN'T OWN GUNS OR SHOULDN'T
ABSOLUTELY, ABSOLUTELY. THERE
ARE PEOPLE WHO SHOULDN'T OWN
GUNS. THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN,
CONVICTED OF CRIMES, AND HAVE
NOT YET SERVED THEIR, THEIR
TERMS IN SOCIETY, THOSE THAT
HAVE BEEN MENTALLY ADJUDICATED
AS MENTALLY DEFICIENT, USUALLY
THOSE PEOPLE ARE ALREADY. WHAT'S
THAT? USUALLY THOSE PEOPLE ARE
IN FACILITIES. NO. NO, SIR,
THEY'RE NOT PEOPLE THAT HAVE
BEEN ADJUDICATED AS MENTALLY
DEFICIENT ARE WALKING AMONGST
US. SOME OF THEM HERE IN THIS
BUILDING. EXCUSE ME. I WAS MY
ATTEMPT AT LIBERTY, SO.
ABSOLUTELY. THERE THERE ARE SOME
PEOPLE WHO SHOULD NOT OWN GUNS.
YOU MENTIONED THAT, THE OFFERS
NEVER BEEN TAKEN TO, TRY TO
ADDRESS THIS ISSUE. IT'S
ABSOLUTELY FALSE. I KNOW THAT
I'VE CARRIED NUMEROUS BILLS ON
THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. REACHED
OUT TO YOUR ORGANIZATION, TRY TO
WORK OUT AGAIN. WHO, WHO MAY BE
APPROPRIATE TO NOT HAVE,
FIREARMS AND, YOU KNOW, THIS IS
THE FIRST TIME I'VE HEARD THAT
YOU'VE ACTUALLY TALKED ABOUT
PEOPLE WHO SHOULDN'T HAVE
FIREARMS. ASSEMBLYMAN TÍNH, YOU
HAVE NOT READ A SINGLE ONE OF
OUR LETTERS OF OPPOSITION,
BECAUSE THAT IS THE CLOSING LINE
IN EVERY LETTER THAT WE WRITE
THAT WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO TALK
WITH THE OPPOSITION IN ORDER TO
COME UP WITH SOLUTIONS THAT
DON'T VIOLATE PEOPLE'S RIGHTS.
AND WE CAN SIT DOWN AND TALK
ABOUT THOSE THINGS IN EVERY
SINGLE LETTER OF OPPOSITION,
THAT WE HAVE WRITTEN AND
SUBMITTED TO THE ASSEMBLY AND
THE SENATE THAT IS INCLUDED. I
MEAN, WHAT ABOUT MY RIGHT TO
LIVE? OH, YOU WE ALL HAVE A
RIGHT TO LIVE. YEAH, THERE'S NO
QUESTION ABOUT IT. NOW, WHAT IF
SOMEONE INFRINGES THAT? WHAT'S
THAT? WHAT IF SOMEONE INFRINGES
THAT? I'M SORRY. WHAT IF SOMEONE
INFRINGES YOUR RIGHT TO LIVE?
WHAT ARE THE INFRINGEMENTS ON MY
RIGHT TO LIVE, MY HEARING AIDS
ARE HEARING NO. WHAT IF SOMEONE
INFRINGES MY RIGHT TO LIVE? MY
RIGHT FOR MY CHILDREN TO GO TO
SCHOOL SAFELY? WE ALL HAVE THOSE
RIGHTS. WE. THERE'S NO QUESTION
ABOUT IT. WE DO NOT ARGUE. WE
AGREE ON THAT. HOW YOU GO ABOUT
ADDRESSING THE ISSUE WITHOUT
VIOLATING PEOPLE'S
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IS THE
TASK OF THIS LEGISLATURE AND THE
COURTS TO FIGURE OUT. I THINK
WE'RE TRYING TO BALANCE THAT
RIGHT WITH THE RIGHT TO LIFE,
LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF
HAPPINESS. YEAH, BUT YOU'RE
DOING IT BY VIOLATING, VIOLATING
PEOPLE'S RIGHTS IN ORDER TO
ACHIEVE THAT GOAL. AND THE GUN
VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDERS,
FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, ARE THE
SINGLE MOST INSINCERE METHOD OF
DOING THAT, BECAUSE THERE'S A
GVRO IS ISSUED, POLICE SHOW UP
AND SAY, SURPRISE, WE'RE TAKING
AWAY YOUR GUNS. SOMEBODY HAS
ACCUSED YOU OF BEING A DANGER TO
YOURSELF OR OTHERS. AND THEN
WHAT DO THEY DO? THEY SAY, GO
OFF AND BE NICE. IF SOMEBODY IS
TRULY IN DANGER OF GREAT BODILY
HARM OR INJURY TO SOMEBODY ELSE,
DON'T YOU THINK THAT WE WOULD
WANT TO FIND HELP FOR THEM?
DON'T YOU THINK THAT WE WOULD
WANT TO HAVE THEM ADDRESS
COUNSELORS OR OR MEDICAL
PROFESSIONALS IN ORDER TO TRY TO
FIGURE OUT WHAT THE ISSUE IS? WE
DON'T DO THAT. YEAH. IF SOMEBODY
WAS IN CRISIS, WE JUST SAY, GO
OFF, BE NICE. THAT DOESN'T
HAPPEN. YEAH. WELL, ONE
SITUATION WE SAW IN 1000 OAKS
WHERE YOU SAW LAW ENFORCEMENT,
YOU SAW SOCIAL SERVICES VISIT
THE INDIVIDUAL IN QUESTION, HAD
CONCERNS ABOUT HIM, DECIDED NOT
TO TAKE THE GUNS AWAY. THE GUY
SHOT UP AT NIGHTCLUB A COUPLE
MONTHS LATER. SO. SO AGAIN, YOU
LOOK AT THE, GROWS THE UC DAVIS,
UC DAVIS HAS STUDIED THIS ISSUE.
THEY'VE ESTIMATED NUMBER OF
LIVES SAVED THROUGH THIS. SO
AGAIN, YOU TALK ABOUT YOUR
SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS. THERE'S
THE ULTIMATE THAT'S JUST A
THAT'S ONE OF THE AMENDMENTS TO
THE CONSTITUTION. THE ULTIMATE
CONSTITUTION TALKS ABOUT LIFE.
IT'S A FIRST LINE THAT WE HAVE A
RIGHT TO LIFE. RIGHT AND SO I
THINK WE'RE TRYING TO BALANCE
THAT. I WISH THAT YOU WOULD BE
MORE HELPFUL IN HELPING US,
BALANCE THAT, ESPECIALLY WHEN
PEOPLE WHO HAVE GUNS END UP
KILLING PEOPLE. IT'S A NUMBER
ONE CAUSE OF DEATH FOR OUR. IT'S
ONE OF THE MAJOR CAUSES OF DEATH
FOR CHILDREN RIGHT NOW IN OUR IN
OUR STATE, IN OUR COUNTRY. IT'S
A VERY SERIOUS ISSUE. AND I
UNDERSTAND, YOUR OPPOSITION, BUT
AGAIN, WE'RE TRYING TO BALANCE
BOTH THOSE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
COMPLETELY. UNDERSTAND THAT,
ASSEMBLYMAN. AND NUMBER ONE, THE
COMMENT THAT, GUN VIOLENCE IS
THE NUMBER ONE CAUSE OF DEATH IS
ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE. ACCORDING
TO THE CENTER FOR DISEASE
CONTROL, IF YOU REMOVE I, I
CORRECTED, I CORRECTED MYSELF, I
DIDN'T SAY THE NUMBER ONE CAUSE
OF DEATH. OKAY, I MY HEARING
AIDS DIDN'T. IT'S OKAY. FORGIVE
ME. YEAH, WELL, IT IS THE NUMBER
ONE CAUSE OF DEATH FOR YOUNG
PEOPLE, IT'S NOT. WITH THAT, I
WILL ALLOW YOU TO. DO YOU HAVE A
MOTION A SECOND? YEAH, A MOTION
A SECOND. NO MORE QUESTIONS.
SURE, I'LL LET YOU CLOSE. BUT
ONE THING MAYBE YOU CAN ADDRESS
IN YOUR CLOSE IS THE ISSUE
VERSUS ANIMAL CRUELTY. I DON'T
THINK IT'S. YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY
USED TO WORK IN THE CIRCUS, WORK
WITH ELEPHANTS. IT'S DOCUMENTED
CASES IN THE BILL. TALK ABOUT
THAT. MAYBE YOU CAN JUST TOUCH
ON THAT IN YOUR CLOSE. SO FIRST
OF ALL, THE ANIMAL CRUELTY ISSUE
THAT'S, AN ISSUE THAT IS
AVAILABLE FOR GROWERS IN A
NUMBER OF OTHER STATES NOW. AND
SO SINCE WE ARE UPDATING THE
FACTORS THAT A COURT IS, IS
HIGHLIGHTED FOR CONSIDERATION,
WE ADDED THAT TO SORT OF ALIGN
IT WITH WHAT'S HAPPENING IN
OTHER STATES, BUT THE BASIC
FOCUS OF THIS BILL, ONE, IT
DOESN'T CHANGE THE UNDERLYING
STANDARD, FOR A COURT TO
CONSIDER, THREATS OF VIOLENCE.
THIS ISN'T ABOUT SPEECH. IT'S
ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT, THERE IS A
THREAT OF VIOLENCE THAT'S BASED
ON HATE OR A THREAT OF VIOLENCE.
AND SO, THE, YOU KNOW, THE
ISSUES RELATED TO, YOU KNOW, THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES THAT HE
RAISES ARE NOT THIS IS NOT ABOUT
SPEECH. IT'S ABOUT THREATS OF
VIOLENCE, WHICH IS THE STANDARD
THAT THE COURT HAS TO FOCUS ON
IN EACH CASE. AND OBVIOUSLY IN
THOSE CASES, THOSE ARE FACT
BASED. RIGHT? IT DEPENDS, THERE
WILL BE CASES WHERE, WHERE,
PRIMARILY WHAT'S HAPPENING MIGHT
FALL WITHIN PROTECTED SPEECH AND
OTHERS WHERE THERE'S A THREAT,
AN ACTUAL THREAT. AND SO WE'VE
NARROWLY CRAFTED THIS BILL TO
FOCUS REALLY ON, ON THE COURT
CONSIDERING THREATS OF VIOLENCE
AS OPPOSED TO JUST GENERALIZED,
GENERALIZED SPEECH OR POLITICAL
SPEECH, I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN
ASK MY, FOLKS FROM EVERYTOWN FOR
GUN SAFETY TO SORT OF TALK ABOUT
THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES, BUT
SURE. CERTAINLY. YEAH, I DO
THINK IT'S, YOU KNOW, IMPORTANT
TO NOTE, SINCE THE RAHIMI CASE
THAT'S AT THE SUPREME COURT WAS
MENTIONED JUST TO REALLY CLARIFY
FOR EVERYONE THAT THAT IS NOT AN
EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER
LAW THAT'S UP AT STATE. THERE'S
A LOT OF, DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
THAT CASE AND CERTAINLY
CALIFORNIA'S GUN VIOLENCE
RESTRAINING ORDER LAW. THE
REASON THAT THAT CASE IS EVEN AT
THE SUPREME COURT, RIGHT NOW,
AND IT INVOLVES A FEDERAL LAW
THAT'S BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR 30
YEARS. IT'S AT THE SUPREME COURT
BECAUSE THE BRUIN CASE IN 2022
CHANGED THE ANALYSIS FOR SECOND
AMENDMENT CASES AFTER BRUIN
COURTS HAVE BEEN UPHOLDING
EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER
LAWS IN OTHER STATES, JUST LAST
MONTH, THE NEW YORK STATE
APPELLATE COURT ACTUALLY ISSUED
A RULING FINDING THEIR EXTREME
RISK PROTECTION ORDER LAW
CONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE BRUIN
TEST. WE HAVE NO REASON TO
ANTICIPATE THAT THE NINTH
CIRCUIT OR CALIFORNIA COURTS
WOULD FIND DIFFERENTLY. THANK
YOU, SO WITH THIS, I MEAN, YOU
KNOW, THERE THERE ARE SIGNS OF
THAT, YOU KNOW, IN MANY CASES
THAT, THAT THERE IS A HEIGHTENED
THREAT OF VIOLENCE THAT IS OUT
IN THE COMMUNITY. THIS IS, SORT
OF A SIMPLE, LAW THAT REALLY
BRINGS TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION
THE FACT THAT UNDER THE
UNDERLYING STANDARD THAT THEY
ARE CHARGED TO CONSIDER IN
ISSUING A GUN VIOLENCE
RESTRAINING ORDER, THAT AMONG
THE KINDS OF THREATS OF VIOLENCE
THAT THIS IS AVAILABLE FOR WOULD
BE, HATE MOTIVATED THREATS AND
VIOLENCE, EXTREMISM, BASED ON
POLITICAL ADVOCACY. AND SO WITH
THAT, I THINK THIS IS A NARROW
CASE. THIS IS ONE THAT IN THE
TIMES THAT WE'RE LIVING WITH THE
KINDS OF THREATS THAT ARE
OCCURRING, TO THE LGBTQ
COMMUNITY, TO FOLKS FROM
COMMUNITIES OF FAITH, RACE
BASED, THREATS OF VIOLENCE, I
THINK THIS IS AN IMPORTANT TOOL.
AND WILL WILL SAVE LIVES. THANK
YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON 2917 BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER ZUBER. THE
MOTION IS DUE. PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY I MCCARTY I ALANIS
ALANIS. NOT VOTING. LAKI. LAKI.
NOT VOTING. WHEN NGUYEN I REYES
REYES I TING I TING I WILSON.
ZIPPER I ZIPPER I THANK YOU.
THAT MEASURE PASSES. WE'LL GO
BACK UP TO THE TOP AND LOOKING
FOR A MOTION ON SOME OF THE
EARLY ITEMS WE HAVE EVERYBODY.
YEP. ON AB 26 2065 BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER CARRA. THIS
MEASURE WAS ONLY FOR TESTIMONY.
IS THERE A MOTION? SO MOVED.
SECOND, ON AB 2065 BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER CALVO. THE MOTION
IS DUE. PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY Ã MCCARTY. AYE. ALANIS.
ALANIS. NOT VOTING. LACKEY
LACKEY. NOT VOTING. WHEN. WHEN I
REYES REYES I TING TING I WILSON
. ZIPPER YES, SIR. ZIPPER I YOUR
PASSES. THANK YOU. MEASURE
PASSES. ITEM NUMBER TWO. WE ARE
WAITING FOR MISS WILSON. ITEM
NUMBER. EXCUSE ME. AB 2178 BY
MR. TING. THIS MEASURE WAS ON
CALL MCCARTY. Ã MCCARTY. I
WILSON. THAT MEASURE NOW PASSES.
AB 2576 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
NGUYEN. THIS MEASURE WAS ONLY
FOR TESTIMONY THIS MORNING. IS
THERE A MOTION MOVE? ON AB 2576
BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER NGUYEN, THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY. MCCARTY I ALANIS ALANIS
I LAKI LAKI I NGUYEN NGUYEN I
REYES REYES. REYES I TING TING I
WILSON. ZIPPER I. DISCUSSIONS
ABOUT ZIPPER I. THAT MEASURE NOW
PASSES. AB 2692 BY MEMBER
PAPPIN. THIS MEASURE WAS DOING
WAS TESTIMONY ONLY THIS MORNING.
IS THERE A MOTION? MOTION SECOND
ON AB 2692 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
PAPAN. THE MOTION IS DUE PASS AS
AMENDED TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. MCCARTY MCCARTY I
ALANIS ALANIS I LAKI LAKI I
NGUYEN NGUYEN I REYES. REYES NOT
REYES NOT VOTING. TING TING I
WILSON. ZIPPER. ZIPPER I THAT
MEASURE PASSES. AB 2846. STILL
WAITING FOR MISS WILSON AND AB
2917. STILL WAITING FOR A MISS
WILSON. OKAY, THAT THAT
CONCLUDES FOR YOU ALL. WE'RE
GOING TO WAIT HERE FOR, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER WILSON. DID YOU
?
SAY WHAT?
TANYA, WE'RE NOT DONE. I'M
SORRY. HE'S NOT AS
.
SORRY ABOUT THAT, MR.
SORRY. THANK YOU. EVERYONE THANK
YOU
.
SO. WE HAVE 20.
UNMUTE. EVERYBODY ON AB 2065 BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER CARRA WILSON
WILSON. I ON AB 2160 BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER MCKENNA WILSON.
WILSON I. ON AB 2178 BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER TING WILSON WILSON I. ON
AB 2576 BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER NGUYEN
WILSON. NO SIR, NO MA'AM TO WORK
ON KEY ISSUES. I NEED B 2576
WILSON. I ON AB 2692 BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER PAPIN WILSON. WILSON I ON
AB 2846 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
LACKEY WILSON. I THE LACKEY BILL
Þ NÓ THE PAPINVILLE AMENDMENT.
I'M SORRY WE ARE ON THE. ESTÁN
FOR THE STRUCTURE. I MISSED IT,
BUT I. OKAY, I'LL TAKE. ON AB
2846 BY SENATOR MOORLACH WILSON.
I ON AB 2917 BY SOME MEMBERS OF
THE BURGH WILSON WILSON I. THANK
YOU. YES. THANK YOU. THAT
CONCLUDES THIS HEARING. WE WILL
ADJOURN