GOOD MORNING. WE WILL START THIS
, COMMITTEE AS A SUBCOMMITTEE,
TODAY WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TO
ESTABLISH A QUORUM JUST YET, BUT
WE'LL START WITH OUR AUTHORS. WE
HAVE TWO SUBSTITUTES TODAY. MR.
HOLDEN IS SUBBING FOR SUMMER
REYES, AND MR. GALLAGHER IS
SUBBING FOR ASSEMBLY MEMBER
LACKEY. WE HAVE MR. GLASER.
PLEASE, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
AND MEMBERS. YOU KNOW, OVER THE
YEARS, WE'VE HAD A SPIRITED
DEBATE ABOUT SOLITARY
CONFINEMENT, ALSO KNOWN AS
SEGREGATED HOUSING, AND A PART
OF THOSE DEBATES HAVE BEEN, YOU
KNOW, WHAT ARE THE FACTS? WHAT'S
THE DATA? WHO'S IN FOR WHAT
REASON? AND THE REST. AND THAT'S
WHAT THIS BILL SEEKS TO TRY TO
PROVIDE TO YOU POLICYMAKERS,
REAL FACTS AND INFORMATION ABOUT
WHAT'S HAPPENING IN OUR PRISONS.
SO THIS BILL WOULD REQUIRE
STARTING JANUARY 2026, THAT THE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION WOULD COLLECT
DATA AND ANNUALLY REPORT TO US
ON WHO WAS BEING SENT TO
SOLITARY, HOW LONG ARE THEY
BEING KEPT THERE FOR, UNDER WHAT
CIRCUMSTANCES? AND THE
JUSTIFICATION, BECAUSE I THINK
ALL OF US WANT TO BE SURE THAT
WE'RE PROVIDING HUMANE AND SAFE
CONDITIONS FOR THOSE WHO ARE
CONFINED, AS WELL AS THE GENERAL
PRISON POPULATION, AS WELL AS
THE STAFF. SO THE ONLY WAY TO
ENSURE THAT ANY PROPOSED CHANGES
TO THE STATE'S SEGREGATED
HOUSING RULES, ARE WORKING IS
THROUGH THE COLLECTION OF REAL
DATA. THE DEPARTMENT HAS MADE
SOME CHANGES IN THAT SPACE,
ARGUABLY THEY'RE VAGUE, AND, AND
NARROW, AND MAYBE INSUFFICIENT.
AND I THINK THEY MAY VERY WELL
BE INSUFFICIENT, BUT WITHOUT THE
DATA TO REALLY MAKE GOOD CHOICES
AND FORM CHOICES, WE'RE REALLY
LEFT WITH A LOT OF BLIND SPOTS.
SO MY BILL WOULD ENSURE THAT WE
GET THOSE FACTS. WHO IS PLACED
IN SOLITARY? FOR HOW LONG? FOR
WHAT REASON? WHAT PROTECTIONS
ARE IN PLACE TO CARE FOR THEM,
TO MAKE SURE THAT IF THERE ARE
ABUSES, WE CAN IDENTIFY THEM AND
MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN CONSIDER
LEGISLATIVE FIXES. THAT'S THE
GOAL OF THIS BILL. WITH THAT,
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU. YOU HAVE, YOU'RE THE
STAR WITNESS TODAY? YES, SIR.
OKAY. OTHERS IN SUPPORT, PLEASE
COME FORWARD. ANY IN OPPOSITION,
PLEASE COME FORWARD. QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. MISTER LENS, THUMBS UP.
OKAY. YES. SO THAT'S, PROPOSED I
WHEN WE GET A QUORUM AS SOON AS
WE CAN. THANK YOU. YES. SO WE
SUPPORT THIS BILL, MR. ZUBIATE.
SO I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THE BILL. I ACTUALLY,
I'M A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED ABOUT
SOME OF THE OPPOSITION BECAUSE
IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S ONLY A GOOD
THING, AND JUST WANT TO SAY
THAT, YOU KNOW, I, I KNOW THAT
AB 280, ANOTHER BILL IS OUT
THERE. IT'S SOMETHING THAT I
SUPPORT. SUPPORT STRONGLY AND
WILL BE CONTINUING TO SUPPORT.
BUT I DON'T SEE THIS AS BEING IN
CONFLICT IN ANY WAY. AND
OBVIOUSLY EVEN AFTER 280 IS
THROUGH, THERE WILL BE SOME
AMOUNT OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT,
I ASSUME, AND THIS WOULD
ACTUALLY PICK UP AND GIVE US
DATA ON THAT. SO WITH THAT, I'M
PROUD TO SUPPORT THE BILL. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU OKAY. THANK YOU
THANK YOU. LET'S BRIEFLY
ESTABLISH A QUORUM. MCCARTY
HERE. ALANIZ GALLAGHER. WHEN
HOLDEN KING HERE. WILSON ZABIR.
OKAY. WE. A QUORUM IS
ESTABLISHED. MR. GLAZER, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? I THANK YOU
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, THERE IS
EFFORTS TO TRY TO MAKE CHANGES
IN THIS SPACE. THIS ISN'T MEANT
TO BE CONTRADICTORY OF ANY OF
THOSE PROPOSALS THAT HAVE BEEN
AUTHORED, OBVIOUSLY, THE
ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN
WRESTLING WITH ALL OF US ABOUT
WHAT CHANGES THEY'RE WILLING TO
MAKE, I HOPE THAT THEY'LL FIND
YOU WILL FIND THIS BILL TO BE A
HELPFUL ONE, NO MATTER WHAT
CHANGES DO TAKE PLACE, TO HAVE
SOME ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE DATA,
TO EXAMINE IT AND MAKE
THOUGHTFUL CHOICES GOING
FORWARD. AND WITH THAT,
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR
MR. ALANIZ. A SECOND FROM
ASSEMBLY MEMBER NGUYEN. PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL FOR ITEM NUMBER
SIX ON SB 733 BY SENATOR GLAZER.
THE MOTION IS DUE PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATE COMMITTEE. MCCARTY A
MCCARTY. AYE. ALANIZ ALANIZ.
AYE. GALLAGHER NGUYEN. AYE. WHEN
I HOLDEN. TING TING I WILSON.
ZEBRA. ZEBRA I OKAY. THAT
MEASURE PASSES, BRING UP NEXT
SENATOR ALVARADO GILL. AND ALSO
TO NOTE THAT SB 349 BY ROTH HAS
BEEN PULLED OFF THE CALENDAR,
PULLED BY THE AUTHOR, SENATOR.
PLEASE PROCEED. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS,
THIS IS A BILL I TRULY WISH THAT
I DID NOT HAVE TO BRING FORWARD.
BUT IN THIS DAY AND AGE WHERE
OUR SCHOOLS AND PLACES OF
WORSHIP ARE SUSCEPTIBLE TO,
THREATS OF DANGER, I BELIEVE
IT'S TIMELY AND NECESSARY,
SENATOR, SENATE BILL 796
ADDRESSES THREATS AT SCHOOLS AND
PLACES OF WORSHIP. IT WOULD MAKE
IT UNLAWFUL FOR SOMEONE TO
THREATEN TO COMMIT A CRIME THAT
WILL THAT THAT'S THE KEY WORD
THAT WILL RESULT IN DEATH OR
GREAT BODILY INJURY. EVEN IF A
SPECIFIC PERSON IS NOT NAMED.
ADDITIONALLY, THIS BILL WOULD
ONLY APPLY TO SCHOOLS AND PLACES
OF WORSHIP, MIRRORING A BILL
THAT THIS COMMITTEE PREVIOUSLY
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY IN 2019.
ASSEMBLY BILL 907 AUTHOR WAS
GRAYSON. AN EXISTING LAW
PROHIBITS MAKING CRIMINAL
THREATS AGAINST A SPECIFIC
PERSON, EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO
INTENT TO ACTUALLY CARRY OUT
THAT CRIME. HOWEVER, IT IS NOT
ILLEGAL TO THREATEN TO COMMIT A
CRIME LIKE A MASS SHOOTING. A
BOMBING AGAINST A PARTICULAR
LOCATION. SO THIS BILL WOULD
FILL THAT GAP IN THE LAW AND
PROVIDE CLARITY FOR ALL
INVESTIGATORS AND PROSECUTORS
WHO COULD NOW HOLD INDIVIDUALS
ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE TERROR AND
DISRUPTION THAT THEIR WORDS
CAUSE. SO WITHOUT SENATE BILL
796, THERE IS STILL THAT GAP, TO
BE ABLE TO NOT ONLY HOLD PEOPLE
ACCOUNTABLE, BUT TO ACCOUNT FOR
THE IMMENSE RESOURCES THAT ARE
EXPENDED, WE HAVE, A COMMUNITY,
A STATE OF FEAR IN OUR SCHOOLS
AND OUR PLACES OF WORSHIP. AND
THESE ARE PLACES THAT SHOULD BE
HELD SACRED SO THAT EVERY
TEACHER, STUDENT, STAFF MEMBER,
ADMINISTRATOR CAN FEEL SAFE
GOING TO WORK EVERY DAY SO THAT
PARENTS CAN GO TO, WORK FEELING
THAT THEIR CHILDREN ARE SAFE AND
IN A TIME WHERE WE'RE PRACTICING
ACTIVE SHOOTER DRILLS, I
REMEMBER WHEN I WENT TO SCHOOL,
IT WAS STOP, DROP AND ROLL AND
IT WAS EARTHQUAKES THAT WE WERE
PRACTICING FOR. IN ADDITION TO
THAT, FAMILIES THAT COME
TOGETHER TO, BE PART OF THEIR
COMMUNITY, GO TO THEIR
SYNAGOGUES TO THE TEMPLES, TO
THEIR CHURCHES, PLACES THAT ARE
SACRED FOR WORSHIP WOULD ALSO BE
COVERED UNDER THIS BILL. I HAVE
TO TESTIFY WITH ME TODAY AS
SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERVISING
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY ADAM
FLORES, THANK YOU FOR BEING
HERE. ADAM. AND PATRICIA RUCKER
FROM CALIFORNIA TEACHERS
ASSOCIATION. THANK YOU,
PATRICIA, FOR BEING HERE AS WELL
. GOOD MORNING. YOU BOTH HAVE
FIVE MINUTES TO SHARE. GOOD
MORNING. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE I'M PATRICIA RUCKER
REPRESENT THE OVER 300,000
EDUCATORS IN THE WHO ARE MEMBERS
OF THE CALIFORNIA TEACHERS
ASSOCIATION. MANY TIMES YOU'VE
HEARD MY COLLEAGUES COME BEFORE
YOU AND TESTIFY IN MULTIPLE
COMMITTEES. AND WE SAY THAT
NUMBER AND WE TALK ABOUT ALL THE
MEMBERS WE REPRESENT TODAY. THAT
NUMBER MEANS MORE TO ME IN
TALKING ABOUT THIS BILL THAN
BEFORE. BACK IN THE 20TH
CENTURY, I WAS A STUDENT AT A
PUBLIC SCHOOL IN NORTH
HIGHLANDS, CALIFORNIA. I GREW
UP, AND WENT TO WORK AND TAUGHT
SCHOOL IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S
IN THE FEEDER PATTERN FOR GRANT
HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT IN
SACRAMENTO COUNTY. AND ALL THAT
TIME, BOTH AS A STUDENT AND AS A
PROFESSIONAL, I NEVER HAD TO
DEAL WITH ISSUES RELATED TO THIS
, FOR REASONS NOT RELATED TO
THIS BILL, I HAD A CHANCE TO GO
AND VISIT MY OLD NEIGHBORHOOD
AND VISIT THE SCHOOL THAT I WENT
TO SCHOOL AT, AND IT IS SO VERY
DIFFERENT FROM THE PICTURESQUE
LITTLE RED SCHOOLHOUSE THAT A
LOT OF US LIKE TO KEEP IN OUR
MIND ABOUT SCHOOLS, ABOUT THE
SWEETNESS AND THE NAIVETE AND
GENTLENESS OF THE DAYS WHEN WE
WERE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS.
AS WELL. THAT SCHOOL NOW HAS A
FENCE AROUND THE ENTIRE CAMPUS.
WE USED TO BE ABLE TO GO TO THAT
SCHOOL AND WALK AROUND THE TRACK
OR PLAY ON THE FIELD, HAVE OUR
FOOTBALL GAMES FOR POP WARNER
THERE, PLAY ON THE PLAYGROUND.
THE ONLY PLACE THAT WAS FENCED
IN WAS THE KINDERGARTEN YARD,
OBVIOUSLY, BECAUSE THOSE LITTLE
KIDS COULDN'T UNDERSTAND WHY
THEY SHOULDN'T CROSS THE STREET.
BUT MY PARENTS USED TO BE ABLE
TO PULL UP TO THAT SIDEWALK AND
TAKE PICTURES OF US OUT ON THE
FIELD, AND THOSE WERE WHERE
MEMORIES WERE CREATED. I HAVE
VERY DIFFERENT MEMORIES AS A
STUDENT THAN THE STUDENTS. I
WENT TO SCHOOL, THAN THE
STUDENTS I WENT TO SCHOOL WITH
WHO ARE NOW SENDING THEIR
CHILDREN THERE, AND THE STUDENTS
THAT I TAUGHT. THIS BILL IS
IMPORTANT TO THE MEMBERS I
REPRESENT WHO ARE STILL IN
SCHOOL TODAY. THE STANDING
COMMITTEE THAT CTA HAS ON SCHOOL
SAFETY AND SCHOOL MANAGEMENT
LOOKS AT STATISTICS ON CREDIBLE
THREATS THAT ARE SENT TO SCHOOLS
AND THAT ARE PRESENTED TO
SCHOOLS EVERY SINGLE WEEK OF
EVERY SINGLE SCHOOL YEAR. THESE
CREDIBLE THREATS BECOME
IMPORTANT BECAUSE WE OFTEN FEEL
ISOLATED AS EDUCATORS AND
PROFESSIONALS. WE FEEL ALONE,
AND WE DON'T THINK PEOPLE ARE
NECESSARILY PAYING ATTENTION TO
THE URGENCY OF NOW. SCHOOLS ARE
NO LONGER THOSE LITTLE RED
SCHOOL HOUSES WHERE SWEETNESS
AND LIGHT OCCURS. EDUCATION
STILL HAS TO OCCUR. WE ARE STILL
ACCOUNTABLE AND WE STILL NEED TO
PROTECT AND GIVE LIGHT AND HOPE
TO THE STUDENTS WHO SHOW UP AT
THOSE SCHOOLS EVERY DAY AND ASK
US TO PROTECT THEM. THIS IS A
SIMPLE PROPOSAL THAT CALLS OUT
AND PRIORITIZES AND HIGHLIGHTS
FOR ALL OF THOSE PROFESSIONALS.
I REPRESENT. WHY THIS SCHOOL,
THESE CAMPUSES, THESE PLACES OF
WORSHIP SHOULD BE HIGHLIGHTED.
CALLED OUT, AND SPECIFICALLY
PROTECTED BY LEGISLATIVE
PROPOSALS SUCH AS THIS. SO FOR
THAT REASON, THE CALIFORNIA
TEACHERS ASSOCIATION AND ITS
300,000 MEMBERS PLUS URGE YOUR
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
IT'S NOT JUST MASS SHOOTINGS
THEMSELVES. WE MUST END. WE MUST
ALSO END THE THREATS OF THOSE
SHOOTINGS WHICH CAUSED
SIGNIFICANT DISRUPTION AND
TRAUMA TO COMMUNITIES. NOTABLY,
THESE THREATS CAN BE A PRECURSOR
TO A PERSON CARRYING OUT A MASS
SHOOTING. IT IS COMMON THAT MASS
SHOOTERS MAY SIGNAL TO THEIR
IMPENDING VIOLENCE THROUGH A
BEHAVIOR KNOWN AS LEAKAGE. OUR
COMMUNITIES ARE VULNERABLE TO
THESE THREATS THROUGH A LEGAL
LOOPHOLE IN EXISTING LAW.
CURRENT LAW DOES NOT PROHIBIT
THESE THREATS IF THEY DO NOT
NAME A SPECIFIC PERSON. IN
EFFECT, THREATS TO SHOOT UP A
SCHOOL OR PLACE OF WORSHIP ARE
NOT PROHIBITED, DESPITE, OF
COURSE, THE CLEAR DANGER THEY
PRESENT. FURTHER CASE LAW IS
AMBIGUOUS AT BEST AT WHETHER THE
CONDUCT IS PROHIBITED BY
EXISTING STATUTE, AND WE DON'T
BELIEVE THAT IT IS. 796 IS
NARROWLY TAILORED. IT PROHIBITS
THREATS TO SCHOOLS OR PLACES OF
WORSHIP WHEN A SPECIFIC
INDIVIDUAL IS NOT NAMED, AND IT
ALLOWS POLICE TO INVESTIGATE
THESE THREATS BEFORE THEY COME
TO FRUITION. IT CREATES A JAIL
COUNTY JAIL FELONY. MISDEMEANOR.
WOBBLER. IT'S NOT A STRIKE.
THERE IS NO MINIMUM JAIL
SENTENCE, AND JUVENILES CAN ONLY
BE CHARGED WITH A MISDEMEANOR.
IMPORTANTLY, THE FIRST AMENDMENT
DOES NOT PROTECT THE TYPES OF
THREATS PROHIBITED BY THIS BILL.
SO GIVEN THE REALITY IN
CALIFORNIA OF MASS SHOOTINGS AND
TARGETED VIOLENCE, THE LAW MUST
BE UPDATED TO PROTECT OUR
COMMUNITIES. FOR THESE REASONS,
I ASK FOR YOUR AYE VOTE ON THIS
BILL, AND THERE ARE OTHER
ORGANIZATIONS THAT COULD NOT BE
HERE THAT WOULD ALSO LIKE TO
VOICE THEIR SUPPORT FOR THIS
BILL, SPECIFICALLY, SAN
FRANCISCO DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE, CALIFORNIA DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S ASSOCIATION, AND THE
ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE
IN SUPPORT, PLEASE NAME
ORGANIZATION AND POSITION CHAIR
MEMBERS JONATHAN FELDMAN WITH
THE CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS
ASSOCIATION, PROUD CO-SPONSOR OF
THE BILL. CHRIS MYERS WITH THE
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT. MR.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS VICTORIA
RODRIGUEZ, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY
OF VISALIA IN SUPPORT. DANNY
ALFORD WITH EVERYTOWN FOR GUN
SAFETY IN STRONG SUPPORT OF THE
BILL. THANKS CLIFTON WILSON ON
BEHALF OF SF CITY ATTORNEY DAVID
CHIU IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ANYONE IN THE ROOM IN
OPPOSITION, PLEASE STEP UP.
NØ. GOOD MORNING. YOU'LL BOTH
HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO SHARE AS
WELL. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS DUKE COONEY
WITH ACLU CALIFORNIA ACTION. WE
ARE IN RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION TO
AB OR SORRY TO SB 796, WHILE
ENSURING THAT OUR SCHOOLS AND
PLACES OF WORSHIP ARE SAFE
SPACES IS THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE,
WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS BILL
IS NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT
GOAL. UNDER EXISTING LAW, A
PERSON CAN ALREADY BE PROSECUTED
AND CONVICTED OF MALICIOUSLY
COMMUNICATING THAT DEADLY HARM
WILL OCCUR ON THE CAMPUS OF A
SCHOOL OR A PLACE OF WORSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY PENAL CODE SECTION
422, WHICH PUNISHES CRIMINAL
THREATS IN ANY SETTING, WHETHER
SCHOOL RELATED OR OTHERWISE,
ALREADY ADDRESSES THE BEHAVIOR
AT ISSUE IN SB 796, WE CAUTION
AGAINST EXPANDING EXISTING LAW
WHEN ENFORCEMENT OF THAT LAW IS
OFTEN PROBLEMATIC. PENAL CODE
SECTION 422 IS A STATUTE THAT IS
OFTEN MISUSED TO PENALIZE
CONDUCT THAT DOES NOT TRULY
BELONG IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE
SYSTEM. PENAL CODE SECTION 422,
LIKE SB 786, DOES NOT REQUIRE
THAT THE PERSON MAKING THE
THREAT HAVE EITHER THE INTENT OR
THE ABILITY TO CARRY IT OUT, OR
THAT THE PERSON TAKE ANY ACTION
TO ACTUALLY CARRY OUT THE THREAT
. DEFENDANTS, OFTEN YOUNG PEOPLE
OR INDIVIDUALS WITH MENTAL
HEALTH ISSUES, CAN FACE
PUNISHMENT FOR SOMETHING THAT
THEY SAID THAT THEY HAVE, OR
SORRY FOR SOMETHING THEY SAID
WITH NO INTENT TO ACTUALLY DO
ANYTHING ABOUT IT. THIS IS
PARTICULARLY TRUE FOR THOSE WITH
MENTAL HEALTH CONDITIONS, WHO
ARE OFTEN SUFFERING FROM
PARANOIA AND DELUSIONS, AND
EXPANDING THE STATUTE IS NOT THE
WAY TO ADDRESS THE BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH ISSUES OF YOUNG PEOPLE OR
PEOPLE WITH MENTAL HEALTH
ILLNESS. FOR THESE ISSUES, WE
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE AND ASK FOR
YOUR NO VOTE ON SB 786. SISTERS
OH, OKAY, MARCO GEORGE, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION, AN
ORGANIZATION OF 4000 CRIMINAL
DEFENSE LAWYERS, PUBLIC
DEFENDERS INVESTIGATORS, AND
ALLIED PARA PROFESSIONALS, I DO
WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE LIVE
IN VERY PAINFUL TIMES WITH WITH
WHITE SUPREMACIST AND MENTALLY
ILL YOUTH, THREATENING TO ATTACK
SCHOOLS, CHURCHES, SYNAGOGUES
AND MOSQUES AND WE ALL WANT TO
DO SOMETHING TO STOP THIS
ATTACKS AND FEEL LIKE WE ARE
SAFER IN OUR COMMUNITIES.
UNFORTUNATELY, SB 796 IS NOT THE
SOLUTION AND WILL NOT FIX THIS,
AS MY COLLEAGUE FROM THE ACLU
OUTLINED, IT WILL EXPAND THE
CURRENT DEFINITION OF FOR 22
TERRORIST THREATS AND FOR 22 IS
A SERIOUS FELONY AND A STRIKE,
AS IN THREE STRIKES. AND IT'S A
MATTER OF GREAT CONCERN FOR
PUBLIC DEFENDERS ACROSS THE
STATE TO SEE THIS EXPANDED, IT'S
AS, MR. COONEY OUTLINED A
STATUTE THAT'S OFTEN MISUSED TO
PENALIZE CONDUCT THAT DOES NOT
TRULY BELONG IN THE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM. THIS IS
PARTICULARLY TRUE FOR MANY OF
OUR CLIENTS WHO HAVE MENTAL
HEALTH CONDITIONS, WHO OFTEN
SUFFER FROM CRIPPLING PARANOIA
AND DELUSIONS. THE FEAR THAT
THESE CLIENTS EXPERIENCE CAN
LEAD THEM TO SAY THINGS THAT ARE
EASILY MISINTERPRETED OR ARE
SIMPLY A THREAT OF THEIR
ILLNESS. AND I WANT TO GIVE A
COUPLE EXAMPLES, ROGER, WHO WAS
A MARINE CORPS VET AND SUFFERS
FROM PTSD AND IS BIPOLAR,
WITHOUT HIS MEDICATION AND WAS
AT AN ACUTE PSYCHIATRIC
HOSPITAL. HE LIVES IN FLORIDA,
BUT HE WAS HERE FOR A MARINE
CORPS REUNION. HE DIDN'T BRING
ENOUGH MEDICATION AND AS A
RESULT HAD AN EPISODE OF HEARING
VOICES AND SMELLING DEAD BODIES
THAT REQUIRED HIM TO BE 5150.
THE DOCTOR TOLD HIM THAT HIS
SYMPTOMS DID NOT MEET THE
CRITERIA FOR 5150, AND HE WOULD
NOT BE ADMITTED OR GIVEN HIS
MEDICATION. HE COMPLAINED TO THE
DISCHARGE PLANNER AND ASKED HER
WHAT THE CRITERIA WAS. SHE TOLD
HIM DANGER TO HIMSELF OR OTHERS.
HE SAID, WELL, I WAS THINKING
ABOUT GETTING A GUN AND SHOOTING
MYSELF FOR THE STAFF, TO WHICH
SHE PROMPTLY CALLED THE POLICE
AND THEY ARRESTED HIM FOR A
FELONY FOR 22. THAT'S THE KIND
OF CASE THAT WE GET, ANOTHER
INDIVIDUAL L, BRIAN WAS IN HIS
50S AND MENTALLY ILL. HE WAS OFF
HIS MEDICATION. THÀNH. AND HE
TOLD HIS FRIEND THAT HE WAS
GOING TO BLOW UP THE BUILDING.
HIS FRIEND CALLED THE DEPARTMENT
OF MENTAL HEALTH ASKING FOR HELP
AND WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT. THE POLICE
ARRIVED AND PROMPTLY ARRESTED
HIM FOR 22 TERRORIST THREATS.
FOR THOSE REASONS, AND FOR ALL
OF THE PEOPLE WHO SUFFER FROM
MENTAL ILLNESS, AND ALL OF THE
PEOPLE WHO HAVE HATEFUL
IDEOLOGIES. THANK YOU. WE'RE
DONE. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ASK FOR YOUR NO VOTE. ANYONE IN
OPPOSITION, PLEASE STEP UP.
NAME. ORGANIZATION. YOUR
POSITION PLEASE. DAVID IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. MELANIE
KIM, SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC
DEFENDER'S OFFICE AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. ANYONE
ELSE? OKAY, WE'LL BRING IT BACK
TO THE COMMITTEE. COMMITTEE? ANY
QUESTIONS? MISS WILSON? THANK
YOU, THANK YOU, FOR THE. WELL,
THANK YOU TO THE AUTHOR. FIRST,
THANK YOU FOR SUBMITTING THIS
BILL, AND TO THE OPPOSITION, MY
QUESTIONS CENTER AROUND, FOR 22,
WHICH YOU NOTED, BOTH NOTED IN
YOUR TESTIMONY, AND SO, THERE'S
I'M LOOKING AT THE COMMITTEE'S
ANALYSIS ON PAGE SIX AND IT SAYS
INTERPRETING, INTERPRETING PENAL
CODE SECTION 422, AND IT GIVES,
IN ORDER TO CONVICT, THEY MUST
HAVE THE FOLLOWING BEYOND A
REASONABLE AND THE, THE FOURTH
OR FIFTH BULLET, Â SAID THE
THREAT ACTUALLY CAUSED THE
PERSON THREATENED TO BE IN
SUSTAINED FEAR FOR HIS OR HER
OWN SAFETY OR FOR HIS HER OWN
IMMEDIATE FAMILY SAFETY. AND SO
ON, THE, PROPONENTS OF THE BILL
HAVE NOTED, THAT THIS BASICALLY
THIS WOULDN'T APPLY IF YOU DID A
GENERAL THREAT. AND SO I'M
WONDERING THE DISCONNECT THERE
YOU NOTED AS IT, CAPTURING
MENTAL HEALTH FOLKS, BUT YOU
ALSO NOTE THAT THIS IS
SUFFICIENT FOR 22 IS SUFFICIENT.
AND IT'S ALREADY AND IT'S
ALREADY FORM AND WE DON'T NEED
THIS. BUT THEN THERE'S THAT
PARTICULAR Â THAT I'M HAVING A
DIFFICULT TIME RECONCILING WITH
FOR 22, AND WHAT THE PROPONENT
AND THE AUTHOR IS TRYING TO DO.
DO YOU WANT ME TO ANSWER, THANK
YOU FOR THE QUESTION. I THINK IN
THE ANALYSIS AS, THE CONSULTANT
POINTS OUT, THAT THE ONE CASE
THAT WENT UP ON APPEAL THAT HAD
A GENERALIZED THREAT THAT THE
COURT DID NOT CRITICIZE OR
UNDERMINE THE GENERAL THREAT,
THE NATURE OF THE GENERAL
THREAT, IT WAS SOMEWHAT
AMBIGUOUS. BUT PEOPLE GET
ARRESTED ALL THE TIME AND
PROSECUTE SUITED FOR GENERAL
THREATS. AND WE DON'T SEE
APPELLATE DECISIONS OVERTURNING
THOSE CONVICTIONS. SO I THINK IN
ONE RESPECT, MY THE PROPONENT IS
RIGHT THAT IT IS SOMEWHAT
AMBIGUOUS, BUT IN ITS ACTUAL
APPLICATION, WE'RE SEEING IT
USED FOR GENERAL THREATS, AND
PEOPLE ARE BEING PROSECUTED AND,
AROUND THE STATE FOR GENERAL
THREATS BECAUSE THE INDIVIDUALS
WHO RECEIVED THE THREAT AS GROUP
DO MEET THE SUBJECTIVE
REQUIREMENT OF BEING, YOU KNOW,
UPSET, SCARED, YOU KNOW, FEARING
FOR THEIR SAFETY. AND SO JUST TO
MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD THAT
YOU'RE SAYING AND THAT ALTHOUGH
THERE MIGHT BE AMBIGUITY IN THE
LAW, ON THE SURFACE, JUST BY THE
WRITTEN LAW, BECAUSE OF THE, Â
OR ANY SECTION OF IT, YOU'RE
SAYING THAT IN PRACTICE THERE
HAS BEEN NO AMBIGUITY, BECAUSE
IN PRACTICE THERE HAS BEEN
CHARGES RELATED TO GENERAL
THREAT, AND THERE HAS NOT BEEN
APPEAL OF THOSE CHARGES BASED ON
THIS CRITERIA FOR, RELATED TO
THOSE THAT HAVE PROVIDED GENERAL
THREAT. TO THE BEST OF MY
KNOWLEDGE, THAT IS CORRECT. AND,
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY MAY HAVE
SOME INCIDENT FROM HIS COUNTY
THAT UNDER, YOU KNOW, GOES THE
OTHER WAY. BUT TO STATEWIDE,
THAT'S MY IMPRESSION OF WHAT'S
HAPPENING. DO YOU MIND TO THE
PROPONENT? YES. THANK YOU,
COMMITTEE MEMBER SO I THINK,
RESPECTFULLY, FOR 22, THERE HAS
TO BE A SPECIFIC THREAT TO A
SPECIFIC PERSON THAT'S CURRENT
FOR 22. SO THIS GENERAL THREATS
TO GENERAL, LIKE WITH NO
SPECIFIC PERSON IN MIND, THAT'S
EXACTLY WHY WE ARE HERE. BECAUSE
IF THE THREAT IS TOO GENERAL,
NOT TO A SPECIFIC PERSON, THEN
IT WOULD NOT QUALIFY UNDER FOR
22. THAT'S HOW IT IS APPLIED IN
PRACTICE. AND THEN THE PEOPLE
WOULD HAVE TO SHOW A SPECIFIC
PERSON THE ELEMENTS NOTED HERE.
AND ALSO THE SPECIFIC INTENT
THAT IT WAS UNDERSTOOD TO BE A
THREAT, THAT IT WAS COMMUNICATED
AS A THREAT, AND THAT THE VICTIM
ALSO WAS IN SUSTAINED FEAR. SO
THERE HAS TO BE THE INTENT OF
THE PERSON MAKING THE THREAT.
AND ALSO YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE
VICTIM'S PERCEPTION, THIS IDEA
OF A GENERAL, AGAIN, GENERAL
THREAT NÓ IT HAS TO BE TO A
SPECIFIC PERSON. AND THAT'S
AGAIN WHY WE ARE HERE. AND YOU
WOULD SAY IN PRACTICE THAT IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT WE
HAVEN'T SEEN PROSECUTION OF
PEOPLE MAKING A GENERAL THREAT
TO A SCHOOL WITHOUT INTENT OR A
PLACE OF WORSHIP, JUST A GENERAL
THREAT, THAT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN
PROSECUTED OR SUCCESSFULLY. I
SHOULDN'T, I SHOULD SAY,
SUCCESSFULLY PROSECUTED. THERE'S
ONE CASE THAT WAS NOTED IN THE
COMMITTEE. I BELIEVE IT WAS IN
THE COMMITTEE IN RE AG. I
BELIEVE IT IS WHERE THERE WAS A
GENERAL THREAT TO THE TO THE
SCHOOL, THAT IS AN OUTLIER.
THAT'S ONE CASE. AND THIS LAW,
THIS PROPOSED BILL CLARIFIES
WHATEVER AMBIGUITY THERE IS,
BECAUSE IN PRACTICE, THERE HAS
TO BE THAT SPECIFIC PERSON THAT
IS NAMED. AND THAT'S WHAT WE SEE
IS THAT THERE HAS TO BE THIS
SPECIFIC PERSON NAMED. SO YOUR
HOPE WOULD BE THAT, THERE WOULD
BE INCREASE OF PROSECUTION AS IT
RELATES TO THESE TYPES OF
THREATS, BECAUSE YOU ONLY HAVE
SO MUCH RESOURCES WITHIN, YOU
KNOW, AN OFFICE. AND SO IF YOU
IF THERE IS AMBIGUITY, YOU MIGHT
DECIDE TO PRIORITIZE ANOTHER
CASE OVER THAT BECAUSE OF THAT.
EXACTLY. RIGHT. AND, AND I WOULD
EVEN SAY TAKE IT UPSTREAM A
LITTLE BIT FURTHER. LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES MAY RECEIVE
THESE GENERAL THREATS, AND THEY
MAY NOT EVEN BE ABLE TO PURSUE
THEM BECAUSE THEY SAY, WE
THERE'S NO SPECIFIC PERSON
NAMED. WE CAN'T EVEN PURSUE
THIS. WE CAN'T, INVESTIGATE
THIS. AND THEN PURSUE IT TO THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. SO
IT EVEN CAUSES CHALLENGES
UPSTREAM TO LAW ENFORCEMENT.
OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK
YOU. TO THE CHAIR. THANK YOU. IF
I COULD JUST ADD IN PRACTICE
WHAT WE'RE SEEING IN THE
COMMUNITY IS THESE THREATS ARE
BEING MADE AND IT'S SCHOOL
PRINCIPALS, SUPERINTENDENTS THAT
ARE HAVING TO MAKE THE DECISION
TO PUT GO ON LOCKDOWN. THESE ARE
TEACHERS THAT ARE HAVING TO MAKE
THE DECISION TO KEEP THEIR
STUDENTS SAFE. THIS IS NOT LAW
ENFORCEMENT IN PRACTICE. THIS IS
REAL LIFE FRONTLINE WORKERS THAT
ARE HAVING IN AN INSTANT TO MAKE
THE DECISION IN LIFE OR DEATH
SITUATIONS AND THAT'S WITHOUT
EVEN LOOKING AT PROSECUTION OR
ARRESTS. THESE ARE SOME OF OUR
OUR RELIGIOUS LEADERS THAT ARE
THERE TO GIVE, MESSAGES TO THEIR
CONGREGATION. AND UNDER THE
THREAT OF HARM, HAVING TO MAKE A
DECISION THAT INSTANT WHETHER TO
CLOSE THEIR DOORS, SEND PEOPLE
HOME, AND THAT CREATES THIS
COMMUNITY OF FEAR, WHERE WE
SHOULD BE HAVING CENTERS FOR
LEARNING, FOR HOPE AND FOR JOY.
SO ASIDE FROM PROSECUTION, ASIDE
FROM ARREST IN PRACTICE, WHAT IS
HAPPENING RIGHT NOW. IN
CALIFORNIA AND THE US IS WE ARE
UNDER SIEGE BY TERROR, BY
THREATS, AND BY FEAR OF BEING
HARMED. AND THAT'S WHAT THIS
BILL IS ABOUT. WE NEED TO ADD
TEETH TO THE JOURNEY OF
ACCOUNTABILITY IN THESE
SITUATIONS AND LET OUR PARENTS
AND OUR TEACHERS, OUR EDUCATORS,
KNOW THAT WE STAND WITH THEM,
AND WE HEAR THAT THEY ARE NOW
BEING PLACED IN SITUATIONS EVERY
SINGLE DAY, THAT THEY HAVE TO
WONDER WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO
BE HOME SAFELY AT THE END OF THE
DAY. SO THIS FOR ME IS REALLY
ABOUT, NOT JUST HOLDING PEOPLE
ACCOUNTABLE, DETERRING FROM
CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR, BUT CREATING
A SOCIETY OF SAFETY AND
SECURITY. SO WITH THAT, I KINDLY
ASK FOR YOUR AYE VOTE. OKAY.
GIVE ME A SECOND. FOR A MINUTE.
WE STILL GOT TO FINISH WITH
COMMITTEES. I'M ASSUMING THAT
WAS GOING TO BE YOUR CLOSING.
SORRY, MR. TÍNH, DO YOU HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS? OKAY, I'D LIKE TO
JUST THROW MY COMMENTS INTO THIS
AS WELL, FOR 22 THAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT, I KNOW IT WAS
REFERRED TO AS TERRORIST
THREATS, BUT THAT HAS SINCE
CHANGED. IT'S NOW CALLED
CRIMINAL THREATS, THE DA, I'D
LIKE TO GET A LITTLE BIT MORE OF
YOUR OPINION ON THAT. I KNOW, I
KNOW, YOU ADDRESSED MISS
WILSON'S, QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS
ABOUT THAT. I KNOW WE CITED THE
ONE CASE THAT YOU SAID, AND I
KNOW IT WAS HARD, EVEN AS BEING
PRIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT. I NEED TO
HAVE A VICTIM IN CHARGING THAT
WITH THE FOR 22 AS IT GOES, IS
THERE ANY OTHER ANY OTHER, MAYBE
CASE OR ANY OTHER SCENARIO THAT
YOU CAN THINK OF WHERE A FOR 22
WAS BROUGHT IN WITH WHAT THE
OPPOSITION WAS BRINGING UP?
COULD YOU CLARIFY AS AS FAR AS
THEM SAYING WITH MENTAL HEALTH
PEOPLE COMING UP WITH MENTAL
HEALTH, THIS GENTLEMAN NAMED
BRIAN FROM THE MARINE CORPS WHO,
APPARENTLY CAME FROM FLORIDA
WITHOUT HIS MEDICATION, WHICH IS
UNFORTUNATE FOR HIM, BUT WE NEED
TO PROTECT OUR COMMUNITY. SO HE
WAS 5150 THEN. THEY DIDN'T MAKE
THE CRITERIA, DO YOU DO YOU HEAR
ANY ANY FURTHER ON THAT, OR DO
YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO
ELABORATE ON THAT? YES, I WOULD
ACTUALLY, THE PEOPLE
ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THERE MAY BE
INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE MENTAL
HEALTH CONCERNS AND MENTAL
HEALTH ISSUES THAT ARE BROUGHT
INTO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE
SYSTEM. WHAT I THINK IS VERY
IMPORTANT FOR THE COMMITTEE TO
CONSIDER IS ALSO MENTAL HEALTH
DIVERSION. THERE MAY BE SOMEONE
WHO COMMITS A FOR 22 OR THE
BEHAVIOR SOUGHT TO BE PROHIBITED
HERE, AND THEN THE COURT LATER
DETERMINES THROUGH THE PROCESS,
THE INVESTIGATION AND
PROSECUTION. ALTHOUGH THE
CONDUCT IS OF COURSE PROHIBITED,
THAT SOMEHOW MENTAL HEALTH
PLAYED INTO WHAT HAD OCCURRED.
THE COURT IS ACTUALLY EMPOWERED
THROUGH THE MENTAL HEALTH
DIVERSION STATUTES TO ADDRESS
THE MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES, WHILE
ALSO HOLDING THE PERSON
ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR CONDUCT.
THAT IS PROHIBITED HERE. SO I
THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO STEP
BACK AND ALSO LOOK THAT THIS
BODY HAS ALREADY PASSED STATUTES
THAT SEEK TO ADDRESS THOSE
INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE MENTAL
HEALTH CONSIDERATIONS, AND THAT
IS THAT APPROPRIATE BALANCE THAT
THIS BODY HAS ALREADY SOUGHT TO
ADDRESS, HOLDING THE PERSON
ACCOUNTABLE FOR CONDUCT THAT IS
NOT PROPER, THAT IS PROHIBITED
WHILE ALSO SEEKING TO ADDRESS
THE MENTAL HEALTH CONCERNS, THE
CONSIDERATIONS, AND THE COURT IS
ABLE TO TAKE ALL THAT INTO ACTOR
AND POTENTIALLY EVEN DISMISS THE
CASE AT THE COMPLETION OF THAT,
PROSECUTION. THANK YOU. AND I
THINK EVERYONE'S CONCERNS HERE
ALSO WITH WITH PEOPLE WITH
MENTAL HEALTH, CAN SHARE ALL
THAT AS WELL. BUT IN THE LONG
RUN, REGARDLESS OF MENTAL HEALTH
OR NOT, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE
KEEP OUR CHURCHES AND OUR
SCHOOLS SAFE AS WELL. HAVING
SAID THAT, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING
ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO,
SENATOR, FOR YOUR CLOSING, THANK
YOU FOR THE QUESTIONS. AND,
THANK YOU FOR OUR, WITNESSES FOR
BEING HERE TODAY FOR THIS
DISCUSSION. I KINDLY ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
ITEM EIGHT, SB 796 BY SENATOR
ALVARADO GIL. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASSED TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. MAKATI ALANIS. AYE.
ALANIS. AYE. GALLAGHER. WHEN
WHEN I HOLDEN TING TING. AYE.
WILSON AYE. WILSON. AYE. ZABALA
THANK YOU. MEASURE WILL BE ON
CALL. WE HAVE A COUPLE MEMBERS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.
SENATOR NEXT UP, SENATOR WAHAB.
ON SB 1353. ALL RIGHT. THE FLOOR
IS YOURS. THANK YOU. COLLEAGUES
AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. SB
1353 ADDS TO THE EXISTING YOUTH
BILL OF RIGHTS THAT YOUTH
DETAINED IN JUVENILE FACILITIES
HAVE TIMELY ACCESS TO MENTAL
HEALTH AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
RESOURCES, INCLUDING MENTAL AND
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH THERAPISTS AND
COUNSELORS, ACCORDING TO A 2017
REVIEW FROM THE US OFFICE OF
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY
PREVENTION, YOUTH WITH MENTAL
HEALTH PROBLEMS WHO ARE INVOLVED
WITH OUR JUSTICE SYSTEMS ARE
MORE LIKELY TO RECIDIVATE.
OFTENTIMES, THESE YOUTH HAVE
GONE UNDIAGNOSED, WHICH RESULTS
IN EXTERNALIZING BEHAVIORS THAT
CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR
INCARCERATION. THE INTERTWINED
NATURE OF MENTAL AND BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH MEANS WE HAVE TO ENSURE
BOTH ARE BEING ACCOUNTED FOR, TO
ENSURE THE MAXIMUM BENEFIT TO
THOSE IN NEED. SB 1353 IS
SPONSORED BY PROSECUTORS
ALLIANCE ACTION. WE HAVE ALSO
WORKED COLLABORATIVELY WITH THE
CHIEF PROBATION OFFICERS OF
CALIFORNIA ON AMENDMENTS, AND
ARE STILL IN CONVERSATION WITH
THEM REGARDING POTENTIAL FLOOR
AMENDMENTS. WHILE WE DID NOT YET
REACH A CONSENSUS WITH THEM ON
THE LANGUAGE IN PRINT, THEIR
INPUT AS WELL AS THAT OF
ADDITIONAL STAKEHOLDERS IMPROVED
WHAT WE ALREADY ARE TRYING TO
ACCOMPLISH. WHILE ALSO
RESPECTING THE WORK PREVIOUSLY
DONE ON THE YOUTH BILL OF RIGHTS
. SB 1353 EMPOWERS INCARCERATED
YOUTH AND PROMOTES
ANTI-RECIDIVISM BY EMPHASIZING
THE IMPORTANCE OF TIMELY ACCESS
TO MENTAL AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
RESOURCES IN THE YOUTH BILL OF
RIGHTS. I DO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT
THAT AGAIN. AS A FORMER FOSTER
YOUTH, OFTENTIMES AGED OUT
FOSTER YOUTH AND FOSTER YOUTH IN
GENERAL END UP BEING THE ONES
THAT HIT THE JUVENILE SYSTEM.
NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, THAT
LARGELY UNSTABLE HOUSEHOLDS
CONTRIBUTE TO THIS FACTOR AS
WELL. WHEN WE ARE TALKING, AND
I'M CHAIR OF PUBLIC SAFETY ON
THE SENATE SIDE, WHEN WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT, PUBLIC SAFETY AS
A WHOLE, WE ARE NOT DOING ENOUGH
TO STOP RECIDIVISM. NUMBER ONE.
AND NUMBER TWO, FOCUS ON
REENTRY. AND NUMBER THREE, ALSO
FOCUSING ON OUR YOUTH WHO
DESERVE EVERY SINGLE RESOURCE WE
HAVE THAT WE CAN GIVE TO THEM.
RIGHT? THEY ARE KIDS. THEY JUST
NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME AND
ATTENTION AND THE SERVICES THAT
REALLY ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THEM.
SO WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO
INTRODUCE MY WITNESSES, GLEN
BACCHUS FROM THE PROSECUTOR'S
ALLIANCE ACTION, AND TOM TRAN
WITH ELLA BAKER CENTER FOR HUMAN
RIGHTS. GOOD MORNING, GENTLEMEN.
YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO SHARE.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. GOOD
MORNING, GLEN BACCHUS WITH
PROSECUTORS ALLIANCE. ACTION
PROSECUTORS ALLIANCE IS PROUD TO
SPONSOR THIS BILL THAT ADDS TO
THE EXISTING BILL. YOUTH BILL OF
RIGHTS, THE RIGHT TO TIMELY
ACCESS TO BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CARE
AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE, AND
ACCESS TO COUNSELORS AND
THERAPISTS FOR YOUTH HELD IN
JUVENILE FACILITIES. PROSECUTORS
ALLIANCE IS A MEMBERSHIP
ORGANIZATION OF MORE THAN 4000
PROSECUTORS, VICTIMS, ADVOCATES,
AND ALLIES WHO ARE WORKING TO
REFORM CALIFORNIA'S CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM THROUGH SIMPLE,
SMART, MODERN SOLUTIONS THAT
ADVANCE PUBLIC SAFETY BUT ALSO
PROTECT HUMAN DIGNITY AND
COMMUNITY WELL-BEING. SENATE
BILL 1353 LIVES AT THE
CROSSROADS WHERE RESPECT FOR
HUMAN RIGHTS AND COMPASSIONATE
POLICY INTERSECTS WITH GOOD
CRIME PREVENTION POLICY. MANY OF
THE YOUTH IN STATE AND LOCAL
FACILITIES HAVE SUFFERED
SIGNIFICANT TRAUMA AND MANY
SUFFER. TODAY, UNTREATED AND
UNDIAGNOSED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
AND MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES USING
THE TIME THAT THEY ARE
TEMPORARILY IN CONTROL OF STATE
OR LOCAL PROBATION. THÀNH TÊ TO
PROVIDE EFFECTIVE, COMPASSIONATE
CARE WILL GREATLY REDUCE THE
LIKELIHOOD THAT THEY WILL
RECIDIVATE OR BE RE-INCARCERATED
. THE GOAL IS TO MAKE THE LIVES
OF YOUTH BETTER, BUT IN DOING SO
MAKE OUR COMMUNITIES SAFER. WE
RESPECTFULLY URGE AND I VOTE.
HELLO, MY NAME IS TOM TRAN.
POLICY CONSULTANT WITH THE ELLA
BAKER CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS,
AND THIS BILL IS VERY
STRAIGHTFORWARD FOR MANY LOW
INCOME YOUTH CAPTURED IN THE
JUVENILE SYSTEM, UNDIAGNOSED AND
UNTREATED MENTAL HEALTH AND
BEHAVIORAL ISSUES, HEALTH ISSUES
IS WHY THEY WERE LOCKED UP IN
THE FIRST PLACE. AND THIS MAY BE
THEIR FIRST AND BEST CHANCE TO
GET THE CARE THAT THEY NEED. I
SPEAK NOT JUST FROM A DATA
STANDPOINT, BUT FROM EXPERIENCE.
SINCE I WAS PLACED INTO FOSTER
CARE AT 18 MONTHS OLD BECAUSE MY
MOTHER WAS INCARCERATED FOR HER
ADDICTION, THE UNPROCESSED
TRAUMA, PAIN, AND ANGER OF BEING
A FOSTER CHILD WAS NEVER
ADDRESSED IN THERAPY. INSTEAD, I
WAS INCARCERATED NINE TIMES FROM
THE AGE OF 12 TO 18. DURING MY
TIME IN SACRAMENTO'S JUVENILE
HALL, SACRAMENTO'S BOYS RANCH,
SACRAMENTO'S WARREN THORNTON
YOUTH CENTER, I WAS NEVER ONCE
OFFERED MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES.
I WAS OFFERED PSYCH MEDS TO
PACIFY ME DURING MY
INCARCERATION. THEN I WAS
RELEASED AS A FURTHER
TRAUMATIZED CHILD, BACK TO THE
SAME TOXIC ENVIRONMENTS THAT LED
TO MY INCARCERATION IN THE FIRST
PLACE. IN INCARCERATION IS NOT
HOW YOU HEAL YOUTH. THAT SAID,
IF THEY'RE ALREADY CAPTURED
WITHIN OUR SYSTEM, IT IS OUR
RESPONSIBILITY TO THEM AND THE
PUBLIC SAFETY OF OUR COMMUNITY
TO PROVIDE THEM WITH MEANINGFUL
BEHAVIORAL AND MENTAL HEALTH
SERVICES, TO HELP THEM HEAL AND
GIVE THEM TOOLS TO SURVIVE THEIR
TOXIC ENVIRONMENTS. THIS WAY, WE
HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PREVENT
FUTURE HURT ACTED OUT BY HURT
CHILDREN. I'LL CLOSE BY SAYING
AFTER BEING INCARCERATED NINE
TIMES AS A JUVENILE AND SERVING
TEN AND A HALF YEARS IN STATE
PRISON, I'M FINALLY TAKING
THERAPY. AND IF WE PASS THIS
BILL, MAYBE ANOTHER YOUNG TEEN
WON'T HAVE TO SUFFER AND CAUSE
ALL OF THIS SUFFERING FOR ALL OF
THESE YEARS TO FINALLY GET THE
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES THAT THEY
NEED. SO I IMPLORE YOU TO PLEASE
PASS THIS BILL. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ANY OTHERS IN SUPPORT?
NATASHA MINSKER SMART. JUSTICE
CALIFORNIA STRONG SUPPORT
DANICA. RADAMEL ON BEHALF OF
JUSTICE AND LA DEFENSA AND
STRONG SUPPORT TARA GAMBOA
EASTMAN WITH THE STEINBERG
INSTITUTE IN SUPPORT. MARGO
GEORGE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION AND STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, LIZZIE
KUTSUNA HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF CHILD AND
ADOLESCENT PSYCHIATRY AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. HI, DANNY,
ON THE BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA
COALITION FOR YOUTH AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. MELANIE KIM, SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
DO WE HAVE OPPOSITION TO THIS
BILL? GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. DANIELLE SANCHEZ, ON
BEHALF OF THE CHIEF PROBATION
OFFICERS OF CALIFORNIA, I DO
WANT TO, VERY MUCH APPRECIATE,
ACKNOWLEDGE THE SENATOR'S WORK
WITH US ON THIS, WE'VE
COLLECTIVELY BEEN ENGAGING EARLY
ON, RECOGNIZING THE SHARED GOALS
AROUND ENSURING ACCESS FOR
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AND
SOMETHING THAT THE PROBATION
CHIEF CERTAINLY TAKE, VERY
STRONGLY AND IMPORTANTLY ABOUT
THE SERVICES WE PROVIDE TO YOUTH
WHILE UNDER OUR CARE, THAT SAID,
AS WE'VE LOOKED AT AGAIN HOW WE
LOOK AT THIS IN PRACTICE TO
ENSURE THAT ACCESS, BUT DO IT IN
A WAY THAT MITIGATES SOME OF THE
IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES AROUND
CODIFYING THIS, SPECIFICALLY IN
THE BILL OF RIGHTS SECTION, THAT
THE LANGUAGE IN PRINT DOESN'T,
FULLY ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS, I
THINK, AS WE LOOK AT THIS BILL
AND AGAIN, RECOGNIZING THAT IT'S
EXPANDING THE TYPE AND SCOPE OF
SERVICES BEYOND WHAT IS
CURRENTLY IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS,
THAT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE
LANGUAGE REFLECT AVAILABILITY OF
THOSE SERVICES SO THAT WE CAN
MAKE SURE THAT WE, AGAIN, ARE
MEETING THE GOALS OF THE BILL IN
A WAY THAT IS ABLE TO BE
OPERATIONALIZED. SO AGAIN, I
WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE
SENATOR'S WORK, THE WORK WITH
THE SPONSORS ON THIS, ON OUR
ALIGNED GOALS. AND WE ARE
CERTAINLY COMMITTED AND LOOK
FORWARD TO CONTINUING
CONVERSATIONS, IN THE HOPES THAT
WE CAN GET, KIND OF THESE FINAL
PIECES ADDRESSED AND WORKED
THROUGH. SO THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, OPPOSITION THÀNH ME TO.
YES, COME FORWARD. THIS IS ME TO
TESTIMONY. I JUST WANTED TO HEAR
BOTH SIDES BEFORE I, MADE A
DECISION, AND I OFFER MY
SUPPORT. MY NAME IS DAVID
BULLOCK. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK
YOU. SEEING NO OTHER TESTIMONY,
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, MISS WILSON,
THANK YOU, TO THE AUTHOR, FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD. I THINK
IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, AND
TO, THE TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT,
YOU KNOW, VERY TOUCHING AND
RELEVANT AS IT RELATES TO THIS
AND GOES TO SHOW WHY THIS BILL
IS SO IMPORTANT. SO I MOVE THE
BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. VICE
CHAIR ALANIZ. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. I WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR FOR BRINGING THIS. AND
OBVIOUSLY, IN YOUR OPENING
STATEMENT, SAYING THAT YOU'RE
WORKING WITH THE OPPOSITION. I'M
HAPPY TO HEAR ALL THAT'S
HAPPENING. THANK YOU FOR
EVERYTHING YOU'VE BEEN DOING AS
WELL AND COMING THROUGH A HARD
LIFE AND OBVIOUSLY MAKING, GOOD
AND SHARING THAT WITH OTHERS AS
WELL, BIG, BIG, BIG SUPPORTER OF
YOUTH PROGRAMS, SCHOOL RESOURCE
OFFICER DARE COACH, ALL THAT
STUFF. I, I'M A BIG BELIEVER IN
GETTING TO THEM WHEN THEY'RE
YOUNG AND, AND MENTAL HEALTH IS
ALSO PART OF THAT. SO I'LL BE
VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS TODAY.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
SEEING NO OTHERS YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE, SENATOR, RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AN AYE OKAY. THANK YOU. I
SUPPORT THIS MEASURE. WE HAVE A
MOTION. SO MEMBER WILSON, SECOND
BY MR. HOLDEN, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. ITEM 11 SB 1353, BY
SENATOR WAHAB. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASSED. MCCARTY MCCARTY I
ALANIZ. ALANIZ I. GALLAGHER.
NGUYEN. NGUYEN I HOLDEN. HOLDEN.
I TING TING I WILSON. WILSON.
AYZENBERG MEASURE PASSES. NEXT.
AUTHOR. MR. UMBERG SB 92 TO WE
DO THE. OKAY. LET'S BRIEFLY DO
THE CONSENT CALENDAR. MR. UMBERG
HAS ANOTHER BILL ON THAT LIST
TOO. SO WE HAVE, SEVEN BILLS ON
THE PROPOSED CONSENT CALENDAR.
SB 379 UMBERG, SB 442 LIMÓN SB
1005 ASHBY, SB 1122 SATO SB 1381
MCGUIRE, SB 1473 LAIRD AND SB
1489 MCGUIRE. WE HAVE A MOTION.
A MOTION BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
WILSON AND A SECOND BY MR. TING.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL FOR THE
CONSENT CALENDAR. MCCARTY
MCCARTY I ALANIZ. ALANIZ. AYE.
GALLAGHER WHEN I WHEN I HOLDEN.
HOLDEN. AYE. TING TING. AYE.
WILSON. WILSON. AYE. ZEBRA OKAY.
THE CONSENT CALENDAR IS ADOPTED,
MR. UMBERG SB 92. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, I WANT TO
PARTICULARLY THANK YOU AND YOUR
STAFF AND L'ENJEU FOR YOUR WORK
ON THIS BILL, SB 92 SIMPLY
EXTENDS THE SUNSET FOR REMOTE
ACCESS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS.
WE HAVE FOR THE LAST SEVERAL
YEARS, HAD REMOTE ACCESS IN BOTH
CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS,
REMOTE ACCESS IS ABOUT TO EXPIRE
IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, AND
REMOTE ACCESS IS A TOOL THAT HAS
PROVIDED, IN PARTICULAR THOSE
WHO CAN'T AFFORD, FOR EXAMPLE,
TO MISS A DAY OF WORK, TO SIMPLY
SHOW UP FOR A 15 MINUTE HEARING,
THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE.
BUT NOT MISS A DAY OF WORK. IT
ALSO PROVIDES THE OPPORTUNITY
FOR EXAMPLE, FOR PARENTS TO
PARTICIPATE WHEN ONE OF THEIR
CHILDREN IS, IN IN JEOPARDY OF
LOSING, FOR EXAMPLE, THEIR
LIBERTY, WITH ME HERE IS TRACY
KENNY FROM JUDICIAL COUNCIL
TESTIFY I HOPE IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. HI, TRACY.
KENNY, ON BEHALF OF THE JUDICIAL
COUNCIL IN SUPPORT OF SENATE
BILL 92, WHICH WOULD EXTEND THE
SUNSET DATE ON THE EXISTING
AUTHORITY FOR CRIMINAL REMOTE
PROCEEDINGS, I WOULD NOTE THAT
REMOTE PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN
TAKING PLACE REGULARLY IN OUR
CRIMINAL COURTS SINCE THE COVID
19 PANDEMIC, SO WE HAVE FOUR
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE WITH THIS
AUTHORITY, AND THE COURTS AND
THE PUBLIC HAVE SEEN GREAT
BENEFITS FROM PROVIDING THIS
ACCESS, I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT
THIS IS AN OPTION. REMOTE
WITNESS TESTIMONY IN A CRIMINAL
CASE REQUIRES THE CONSENT OF
BOTH PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING,
AND IT IS NEVER ALLOWED IN
FELONY TRIAL. SO IN THE MOST
SERIOUS MATTERS, THERE IS NO
OPPORTUNITY FOR REMOTE
TESTIMONY. WE KNOW THAT THE
PUBLIC WANTS THIS OPTION BECAUSE
THEY ARE OPTING FOR REMOTE
PROCEEDINGS. IN MANY CASES, WE
ESTIMATE THAT OVER 1.5 MILLION
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN
CONDUCTED USING REMOTE
TECHNOLOGY, AND THEY SAVE COURT
USERS MILLIONS OF TRIPS TO THE
COURTHOUSES ANNUALLY. AND WE DO
USER SURVEYS TO SEE THE
SATISFACTION THAT PEOPLE HAVE.
WE ASK THEM, DID YOU HAVE A
POSITIVE OR A NEGATIVE
EXPERIENCE? AND OVER 95% OF
EMPLOYEES IN COURT USERS
INDICATE THAT THEY HAD A
POSITIVE EXPERIENCE WITH THE
REMOTE TECHNOLOGY. WE'VE SEEN A
LOT OF BENEFITS, PARTICULARLY IN
COLLABORATIVE JUSTICE COURTS,
WHERE DEFENDANTS ARE ASKED TO
COME BACK TO COURT ON A REGULAR
BASIS AND HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY
TO PARTICIPATE REMOTELY FOR
THOSE REGULAR PROCEEDINGS GIVES
THOSE DEFENDANTS THE OPPORTUNITY
TO PARTICIPATE IN WHATEVER
TREATMENT PROGRAMS THEY MAY BE
UNDERGOING, WORK PROGRAMS AND
OTHER SERVICES, WITHOUT
INTERRUPTING THOSE ACTIVITIES TO
BE ABLE TO CHECK IN WITH THE
JUDGE AND SUCCESSFULLY GRADUATE
FROM THOSE PROGRAMS. WE HEARD
ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE OF THE
VALUE OF THIS TESTIMONY WHEN A
PUBLIC DEFENDER FROM CONTRA
COSTA COUNTY WAS TESTIFYING
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE
REVISION OF THE PENAL CODE AND
INDICATED THAT BECAUSE OF THE
COVID 19 EMERGENCY RULES, HE WAS
ABLE TO OBTAIN REMOTE WITNESS
TESTIMONY FROM A STATISTICAL
EXPERT TO BE ABLE TO PROVE A
CLAIM UNDER THE RACIAL JUSTICE
ACT, WHICH REQUIRES VERY
SPECIFIC INFORMATION ABOUT
IMPLICATIONS OF BIAS IN THESE
CASES. SO HAVING THAT TESTIMONY
IN THAT RACIAL JUSTICE ACT CASE
WAS ESSENTIAL TO HIM, AND HE
WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO
OBTAIN THAT TESTIMONY IF HE'D
HAD TO PAY FOR THAT EXPERT TO
TRAVEL TO CALIFORNIA, BECAUSE IT
WOULD HAVE BEEN OUTSIDE THE
BUDGET. THE CRIMINAL REMOTE
STATUTE HAS CLEAR PROTECTIONS
WHICH REQUIRE THE COURT TO
CONVENE IN PERSON IF THERE'S ANY
KIND OF AUDIBILITY ISSUE OR
TECHNOLOGICAL GLITCHES, OR IF
FOR SOME REASON THE COURT
REPORTER CANNOT MAINTAIN THE
RECORD OR THE COURT INTERPRETER
CANNOT PROVIDE LANGUAGE ACCESS,
THE STATUTE HAS LOTS OF BUILT IN
PROTECTIONS TO ENSURE AN
ACCURATE VERBATIM RECORD, AS
WELL AS EFFECTIVE LANGUAGE
ACCESS AND PROTECTION SO THAT WE
HAVE INTEGRITY IN OUR PROCESSES.
WE BELIEVE WE NEED TO MOVE
FORWARD WITH INCORPORATING
REMOTE OPTIONS IN CRIMINAL
MATTERS ON A REGULAR BASIS, AND
WE ASK FOR YOUR AYE VOTE TO
CONTINUE THIS AUTHORITY FOR AN
ADDITIONAL YEAR. OKAY. THANK
YOU. OTHERS IN SUPPORT. DAVID
BULLDOG, SB ALLIANCE I ONLY ASK
THAT THE AUTHOR CONSIDER ADDING
LANGUAGE THAT WILL PROTECT THE
DEFENDANT. IF THIS FROM THERE
WOULD BE NO PUNISHMENT TO THEM
IF THEY'RE IN CUSTODY. WHETHER
THEY CHOOSE TO DO IT REMOTELY OR
CHOOSE TO BE TRANSFERRED TO THE
COURT. THANK YOU. OTHERS IN
SUPPORT. OPPOSITION. PLEASE COME
FORWARD.
TRACY ARE YOU GOING TO MOVE?
YEAH. OKAY OKAY. OKAY. YEAH.
FIVE MINUTES BETWEEN THE GROUP.
THANK YOU. MR. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. SANDRA BORRERO, ON BEHALF
OF SEIU CALIFORNIA, WE ARE
OPPOSED. UNLESS AMENDED, AND WE
AREN'T OPPOSED TO REMOTE
SPECIFIC ONLY. HOWEVER, WE STILL
THINK THAT TRIAL COURTS NEED TO
RECONCILE THE IMPACTS ON STAFF
THAT REMOTE HAS CAUSED. SO WE
SURVEYED OUR COURT CLERKS, AND
87% SAID THAT THEIR WORKLOAD HAS
SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED SINCE
THE PANDEMIC, AND 80% SAID THEIR
COURT IS EXPERIENCING A
RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION
PROBLEM. AT LEAST 28 COURTS HAVE
YET TO PROVIDE COURT REPORTERS
WITH THE APPROPRIATE EQUIPMENT
TO MEET THEIR STATUTORY DUTY OF
ACCURACY, AND IF A COURT
REPORTER CERTIFIES A TRANSCRIPT
THAT IS INACCURATE, THEY COULD
LOSE THEIR LICENSE OR BE CHARGED
WITH A MISDEMEANOR. SO WE
UNDERSTAND THAT REMOTE CAN BE
MORE EFFICIENT AND CAN BE MORE
CONVENIENT FOR COURT USERS.
HOWEVER, DURING CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS, PEOPLE'S LIVES ARE
AT STAKE AND WE HAVE TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THE LIMITATIONS OF
REMOTE AND, YOU KNOW, TRY TO
RECONCILE WITH SOME OF THESE
IMPACTS THAT STAFF HAVE
EXPERIENCED. I RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST YOUR NO VOTE. THANK YOU.
OKAY GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS
MELANIE KIM, STATE POLICY
DIRECTOR AT THE SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE, IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 92, UNLESS IT
IS AMENDED TO ENSURE FAIR AND
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO JUSTICE. MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT SEPARATE
FROM THIS BILL, ALL THE
STAKEHOLDERS ARE CURRENTLY
INVOLVED IN NEGOTIATIONS RELATED
TO REMOTE, REMOTE PROCEEDINGS.
AND WE ASK THE COMMITTEE TO
CONSIDER THESE NEGOTIATIONS.
WITH THAT SAID, HERE ARE SOME OF
OUR CONCERNS WITH SB 92. IT
PROVIDES THAT A WITNESS MAY
APPEAR AT A MISDEMEANOR OR
FELONY CRIMINAL PROCEEDING,
EXCEPT FOR A FELONY TRIAL.
REMOTELY. MOST CRITICAL AND
ALARMING IS THE PROSPECT OF A
WITNESS TESTIFYING REMOTELY IN A
FELONY CASE AND THEN BEING
UNAVAILABLE FOR TRIAL. THEIR
PREVIOUS TESTIMONY COULD BE
ADMITTED TO CONVICT AN
INDIVIDUAL WITHOUT THE WITNESS
EVER BEING CONFRONTED OR
CROSS-EXAMINED IN PERSON.
SECONDLY, CALIFORNIANS DO NOT
HAVE UNIVERSAL ACCESS TO
ADEQUATE TECHNOLOGY, HIGH SPEED
INTERNET AND PRIVACY. MANY
CALIFORNIANS LIVE IN RURAL
COMMUNITIES WHERE HIGH SPEED
INTERNET IS NOT AVAILABLE, EVEN
IN URBAN COMMUNITIES WHERE IT IS
AVAILABLE NOT EVERYONE HAS
ACCESS TO REMOTE TECHNOLOGY AND
MAY NOT HAVE THE SPACE TO
PARTICIPATE IN REMOTE
PROCEEDINGS SAFELY AND
PRIVATELY. LACK OF ADEQUATE
TECHNOLOGY EXACERBATES EXISTING
ECONOMIC AND RACIAL INEQUALITY
IN OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM. SB 92 IS
SILENT ON THE NEED FOR MINIMUM
STANDARDS FOR COURTROOM
TECHNOLOGY TO CONDUCT REMOTE
PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT ADEQUATE
SAFEGUARDS IN THE EXISTING
STATUTES. PUBLIC DEFENDER
OFFICES HAVE WITNESSED SOME
COURTS ROUTINELY CHOOSING
EXPEDIENCY OR CONVENIENCE OVER
THEIR MANDATE OF FAIR AND
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO JUSTICE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MARK Ó
GEORGE, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION, WE ARE OPPOSE
UNLESS AMENDED, AND WE THINK
THAT THERE ARE CERTAINLY
BENEFITS TO REMOTE PROCEEDINGS,
BUT THERE NEED TO BE ADEQUATE
SAFEGUARDS. THERE HAVE BEEN A
NUMBER OF INSTANCES THROUGHOUT
THE STATE THAT INCLUDE PEOPLE
HACKING THE PROCEEDINGS, PEOPLE
GETTING ONLINE AND COMMITTING
SEX ACTS DURING COURT
PROCEEDINGS, THOSE PEOPLE
TELLING OUR CLIENTS TO HANG UP
AND THEN PROMISING TO GET THEIR
CASES DISMISSED IF THEY SEND
THEM MONEY, WITNESSES AND,
MENTALLY DISORDERED OFFENDER AND
MENTAL HEALTH PROCEEDINGS HAVE
TESTIFIED FROM THEIR CARS.
EXPERT WITNESSES, SO WE JUST
NEED SOME SAFEGUARDS TO PROTECT
THE INTEGRITY OF THE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM AND TO MAKE SURE
OUR THAT PROCEEDINGS ARE
AFFORDED THE DIGNITY AND THE
DECORUM THAT IS NECESSARY TO, TO
PROTECT ALL OF US. SO THAT'S WHY
WE'RE OPPOSE, UNLESS AMENDED AND
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR NO
VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
OTHERS IN OPPOSITION, MR. CHAIR
AND MEMBERS, PAT MORAN WITH
AARON REED AND ASSOCIATES
REPRESENTING THE ORANGE COUNTY
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, WHO
REPRESENT THE COURT WORKERS IN
ORANGE COUNTY OPPOSING LESS
AMENDED. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. CHAIR MEMBERS. JANICE
O'MALLEY WITH AFSCME CALIFORNIA
ALSO IN OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED
POSITION. WE ALSO REPRESENT
COURT REPORTERS, COURT CLERKS
AND COURT IT PROFESSIONALS.
THANK YOU. OKAY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WILSON, THANK
YOU TO THE AUTHOR. FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD. AND I DO
APPRECIATE THE CONCERNS BROUGHT
IN BY OPPOSITION. I WAS READING
THROUGH THE, YOU KNOW, OPPOSING
AMENDED LETTERS. I WOULD SAY, IN
REGARD TO THE, THIS PARTICULAR
BILL BECAUSE IT IS NARROWLY
FOCUSED ON JUST EXTENDING, THERE
IS MERIT TO IF THIS IS GOING TO
BE COMMON PRACTICE, THAT WE
SHOULD CONSIDER AS A
LEGISLATURE, PUTTING PARAMETERS
TO PROTECT PEOPLE THROUGH THE
PROCESS AND RECOGNIZING THERE
CAN BE SOME UNJUST. I JUST WANT
TO CONFIRM THAT A DEFENDANT OR,
ANYONE, ANY PARTY TO THE
PROCEEDING CAN DECLINE TO
PARTICIPATE REMOTELY, WHICH
MEANS NO ONE WOULD BE ABLE TO
PARTICIPATE REMOTELY. IS THAT
ACCURATE? SO THAT IS ACCURATE.
OKAY. THIS REQUIRES THE CONSENT.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE DEFENDANT, AND
ALSO PROVIDES THAT SHOULD THERE
BE SOME SORT OF GLITCH WHEN
SOMEONE'S TESTIFYING REMOTELY,
THE COURT REPORTER IS PRESENT
PHYSICALLY PRESENT, AND HAS BOTH
THE OPPORTUNITY AS WELL AS THE
RIGHT TO, IN ESSENCE, PAUSE THE
PROCEEDING, THE COURT REPORTER
THEMSELVES VERSUS THE JUDGE
WOULD TYPICALLY THE JUDGE. THE
JUDGE, OF COURSE, ALWAYS HAS
THAT OPPORTUNITY. YEAH, YEAH,
BUT BUT THE COURT REPORTER IS
ALLOWED TO RAISE THAT FLAG AND
IT WOULD HAVE TO BE PAUSED
BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO
DO IT ACCURATELY. EXACTLY.
CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. MOVE
THE BILL, MR. ALANIS. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR, TO TRACY'S POINT,
WITH FOUR YEARS WORTH OF, COVID
WITH VIDEO COURTS, IT'S ACTUALLY
BEEN GOING ON A LOT LONGER THAN
THAT. I'VE. I'VE DONE REMOTE
HEARINGS WITH, PRELIMINARY
HEARINGS OR COMING IN THAT WAY
FROM THE IT WAS JUST EASIER FOR
US TO DO IT OVER VIDEO FROM A
JAIL CELL OR FROM A JAIL
FACILITY THAN IT WAS TO THE
COURT. SO WE'VE BEEN DOING THAT
FOR MANY, MANY YEARS, I'M A BIG
FAN OF REMOTE MEETINGS. I'M SURE
ALL OF US HAVE THEM WITH OUR
STAFF AND WHATNOT. AT TECHNOLOGY
IS MOVING FORWARD AND WE'RE
MOVING FORWARD WITH IT. AND I
THINK THAT'S WHAT THIS BILL DOES
AS WELL, I UNDERSTAND THE
OPPOSITION'S, POINTS WITH, RURAL
COMMUNITIES AS, AS MY DISTRICT
IS AS WELL, POOR CONNECTIONS
AND, AND PEOPLE NOT BEING ABLE
TO GET IN. BUT AS THE QUESTION
THAT YOU ANSWERED EARLIER, IT'S
ALL ABOUT PERSONS CONSENTING TO
WANTING TO BE PART OF THAT. AND
I'M SURE THEY'LL MAKE SURE THEY,
CORRECT WAYS FOR THEM TO HAVE
ACTUALLY HAVE A PROCEEDING TO
HAPPEN. AND AS FAR AS THE COURT
REPORTERS, A LOT OF MY FRIENDS
ARE COURT REPORTERS, AND I SEE
AND KNOW THE FRUSTRATION WITH
THAT. I'VE ACTUALLY BEEN IN
COURT WHERE THEY'VE ACTUALLY
HAVE STOPPED THE PROCEEDINGS
BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HEAR WHAT
WAS SAID, SO THAT THAT IS
SOMETHING THAT IS STILL
PRACTICED AND, JUST LOOKING AT
YOUR FACE, SENATOR, AS AS THE
QUESTIONS WERE GOING, I'M PRETTY
SURE YOU'RE YOU'RE THINKING
ABOUT THAT AS WELL AS FAR AS
WORKING WITH THEM. SO I
APPRECIATE THAT, AS FAR AS
PEOPLE HACKING IN AND MAKING
GESTURES AND STUFF IN ZOOMS, I
KNOW A LOT OF CITY COUNCIL
MEETINGS ALSO HAVE HAD THAT
PROBLEMS AS WELL, AND THEY FOUND
WAYS TO REMEDY THAT. I WANT TO
SAY, IF ANYTHING, IT'S GOING TO
BE SOMETHING WHERE THAT PERSON
THAT'S TESTIFYING IS GOING TO BE
IN ON A ON A SECURE LINE THAT WE
WON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THAT.
SO HAVING HAVING SAID THAT, I
THINK THIS HELPS WITH PEOPLE
WITH TRAVELING, FOR THOSE WHO
ARE WORRIED ABOUT SO MANY CARS
ON THE STREETS AND, AND STUFF
LIKE THAT, SOMETIMES PEOPLE'S
HEALTH DOES NOT ALLOW THEM TO
COME TO A BUILDING, WHICH WOULD
ALSO HELP WITH THAT AS WELL, OR
MAYBE EVEN AGE OR MAYBE, ACCESS
TO A BUILDING AS WELL. SO WITH
THAT, I'LL BE SUPPORTING THIS
BILL. AND IF IT'S BEEN MOVED,
I'D LIKE TO SECOND. THANK YOU.
OKAY WE HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND.
SO THIS OF COURSE WAS PUT IN
PLACE. AS NOTED IN THE LAST FEW
YEARS DURING THE PANDEMIC, YOU
HAD A BILL LAST YEAR WOULD
EXTEND IT FOR FOUR YEARS. IT
DIDN'T GO FORWARD. THE BUDGET
GAVE IT A ONE YEAR EXTENSION.
AND THEN YOU THIS BILL DOES IT
ANOTHER ONE YEAR. SO YOU'VE
HEARD FROM SOME OF THE CONCERNS.
SO WE'LL BE BACK HERE A YEAR
FROM NOW. SO WHAT DO YOU ATTEMPT
TO, WORK ON TO TRY TO MAKE SURE
WE ADDRESS SOME OF THE
UNDERLYING ISSUES. SO MAYBE,
MAYBE YOU CAN ADDRESS THAT IN
YOUR CLOTHES. SURE. YES SHALL I
CLOSE? YEAH. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR, I AM QUITE
INTERESTED IN FINDING OUT ABOUT
THE HACKING, DURING TRIAL, I HAD
NOT HEARD THAT THERE WAS HACKING
GOING ON DURING TRIAL, SO I'D
LOVE TO EXPLORE THAT, TO MAKE
SURE THAT THE TECHNOLOGY DOESN'T
PERMIT SOMEONE TO, FOR EXAMPLE,
HACK INTO A TRIAL TO, IN
ESSENCE, RUIN THE TRIAL BY
PROVIDING A JURY OR THE
FACTFINDER WITH INFORMATION, THE
EVIDENCE THAT IS NOT PROPERLY,
ADDUCED. NUMBER ONE, AND THE
SAME THING GOES WITH RESPECT TO
APPROPRIATE ATTIRE. IF SOMEONE
IS APPEARING REMOTELY IN
INAPPROPRIATE ATTIRE, THE JUDGE
DOESN'T ABDICATE HER
RESPONSIBILITY SIMPLY BY VIRTUE
OF THE FACT THAT IT'S A REMOTE
PROCEEDING. IF IT'S A REMOTE
PROCEEDING, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE'S
AN EXPERT TESTIFYING THAT EXPERT
IS REQUIRED OR SHOULD BE
REQUIRED, AT LEAST IN MY VIEW,
TO BE APPROPRIATELY ATTIRED AND
APPROPRIATELY ADDRESSED. THE
FINDINGS OF FACT, IN TERMS OF
REMOTE ACCESS IN RURAL
COMMUNITIES, TO THE EXTENT THAT
THERE IS A COMMUNITY THAT
DOESN'T HAVE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE
ABILITY VIA THE INTERNET TO
PARTICIPATE, THAT WITNESS AND OR
THAT DEFENDANT CERTAINLY MAY
APPEAR. THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS
BILL. AND WE'VE TRIED TO MAKE IT
CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THIS BILL
DOES NOT PRECLUDE SOMEONE FROM
APPEARING IN PERSON. IT SIMPLY
GIVES AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR
IN A DIFFERENT MODALITY. AND
WITH THAT, I URGE AN AYE VOTE.
OKAY. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A
MOTION. AND, SECOND ITEM ONE, SB
92 BY SENATOR UMBERG. THE MOTION
IS DUE PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY. MCCARTY AYE. ALANIZ.
ALANIZ. AYE. GALLAGHER WHEN?
WHEN I HOLDEN. HOLDEN AYE. TING
TING. AYE. WILSON AYE. WILSON.
AYE. ZEBRA MEASURE PASSES. NEXT
MEASURE. SENATOR SKINNER. THANK
YOU. THE CONSENT ONE. OH. SECOND
ONE. YES OH THREE. THANK YOU. SB
758 OH. YEAH. THREE BILLS. I
THOUGHT THE OTHER ONE WAS. YEAH.
GOTCHA OKAY. THANK YOU. PROCEED.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS SB 758. BY THE WAY, WE
WILL ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH
FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS, MR. CHAIR
AND MR. IRONSIDE'S WORK AS WELL.
THIS BILL DOES TWO THINGS VERY
SIMPLY. ONE, IS IT NOTIFIES
FOLKS WHEN THEY COME INTO THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. HEY, IF
YOU'RE BRINGING ILLEGAL WEAPON,
JUST LIKE IF YOU'RE BRINGING AN
ORANGE OR A WATERMELON, YOU
SHOULDN'T DO IT. AND YOU COULD
BE SUBJECT TO PENALTIES. THAT'S
ITEM ONE. ITEM TWO IS THAT IF
YOU KNOW AND THE EMPHASIS IS ON
NO. IN OTHER WORDS, ACTUAL
KNOWLEDGE THAT YOU ARE THAT
THAT. EXCUSE ME. THANKS. MR.
DORK, IF YOU IF YOU ACTUALLY
KNOW, THEN YOU CAN BE SUBJECT TO
CERTAIN ADDITIONAL PENALTIES.
WITH THAT, I URGE AN AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU. WITNESSES IN SUPPORT
HERE SIMPLY TO ANSWER ANY
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS. OKAY. THANK
YOU. OTHERS IN SUPPORT. OTHERS
IN SUPPORT. OPPOSITION PLEASE
COME FORWARD. DAVID POGUE IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. OKAY.
SEEING NO OTHER OPPOSITION
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, VICE CHAIR
LANCE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR,
SENATOR, I JUST, I NOTICED AS
FAR AS THE SIGNAGE THAT YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT, WHEN PEOPLE ARE
ENTERING, IS THERE SOMETHING
THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH THE
SIGNAGE FROM TO BEST OF MY
KNOWLEDGE, IT HASN'T BEEN
UPDATED SINCE 2021, WELL, MR.
NOWAK SEEMS VERY ANXIOUS TO
ANSWER THIS QUESTION. SO IF YOU
DON'T MIND. NOPE. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER. THANK YOU. I'LL ASK MR.
NOWAK TO ANSWER. YES. WHAT THE
REFERENCE IS. AND THIS WAS
BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION BY THE
ABLE COMMITTEE CONSULTANT, IS
THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
WAS NOT UPDATING A PAMPHLET
UNDER A CATHERINE BAKER LAW.
THIS IS NOT RELEVANT TO THAT,
BECAUSE THESE ARE SIGNS THAT ARE
THE FOOD AND AG HAVE BEEN DOING
SINCE THE ALBERT PEACE SHALL WE
LAW WENT INTO EFFECT IN 1998. SO
THE CONCERN ABOUT DOJ AND NOT
UPDATING THE PAMPHLET IS A
LEGITIMATE ISSUE THAT I WOULD
SUGGEST THAT THIS COMMITTEE
BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. BUT IT'S
NOT REALLY RELEVANT TO THIS.
GOTCHA. BUT I'M, I'M SURE AT
SOME POINT TO MAKE SURE THE BILL
IS BETTER THAN WHAT IT IS, AS WE
MAKE SURE THAT THE INFORMATION
THAT WE'RE SENDING THEM TO IS
ALSO UPDATED AS WELL. AND IF DOJ
NEEDS TO BE REMINDED OF THAT,
I'M SURE THEY'LL BE BROUGHT IN
SOMEWHERE TO, HEY, WE'RE SENDING
PEOPLE TO THIS WEBSITE, MAKE
SURE IT'S UPDATED, WITH THAT, I
THANK YOU MOTION OKAY, I HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND. SO MEMBER
NGUYEN, MAY CLOSE THIS. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, I
URGE, AND I VOTE. OKAY, BUT A
MOTION A SECOND FROM ALAN
NGUYEN. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ITEM SEVEN SB 758 BY SENATOR
UMBERG. THE MOTION IS DUE PASS
AS AMENDED, TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE MCCARTY
MCCARTY I. ALANIZ. ALANIZ I
GALLAGHER 11I HOLDEN. HOLDEN I
TING TING I WILSON. ZEBRA THAT
MEASURE PASSES. OKAY, NOW WE
HAVE, SENATOR SKINNER. THE FINAL
BILL OF THE MORNING, SB 254. ALL
RIGHT. VERY GOOD. WE'VE GOT FIVE
PASSES.
THANK YOU. CHAIR. MEMBERS,
PLEASED TO PRESENT SB 254, SB
254 BRINGS BACK SOME
TRANSPARENCY TO OUR STATE
PRISONS. CALIFORNIA USED TO BE A
NATIONAL LEADER IN TERMS OF THAT
ACCESS TO MEDIA. BUT IN THE
1990S, CALIFORNIA CUT OFF MOST
OF THE ACCESS. AND TODAY, OUR
PRISONS ARE AMONG THE LEAST
TRANSPARENT IN THE NATION. SO
WHAT 254 DOES IS PROVIDE DODD,
OUR NEWS MEDIA ACCESS TO OUR
STATE PRISONS WITH APPROPRIATE
GUARDRAILS. AND I'LL GET INTO
THOSE. SO IT'S NOT JUST A FLAT
OUT ANY MEDIA, ANY JOURNALIST
CAN SHOW UP AT ANY PRISON
UNANNOUNCED AND DO WHATEVER THEY
LIKE. NO, THAT IS NOT HOW IT'S
DESIGNED. WE WILL GET INTO THAT.
BUT WHAT IT DOES IS ALIGN US
CLOSER TO STATES LIKE FLORIDA,
MAINE AND RHODE ISLAND. SO WHAT
IT WOULD DO IS ENABLE NEWS MEDIA
TO TOUR PRISONS AND INTERVIEW
INCARCERATED PEOPLE. IF THERE IS
CONSENT FROM THE INCARCERATED
INDIVIDUAL AND IF THE WARDEN OF
THE FACILITY DETERMINES THAT THE
TOUR AND OR THE INTERVIEW IS NOT
A THREAT TO SECURITY OR SAFETY,
SO THE WARDEN STILL HAS TO
APPROVE, THE BILL ALSO OPENS OUR
PRISONS ACCESS TO MEMBERS OF THE
LEGISLATURE, TO THE GOVERNOR'S
OFFICE, AND TO JUDICIAL
OFFICIALS. AND I THINK THAT THAT
ONE IS PARTICULARLY APPROPRIATE,
WHILE WE MEMBERS OF THE
LEGISLATURE HAVE ACCESS TO MOST
STATE FACILITIES, WE DO NOT HAVE
ACCESS TO THE PRISONS, WITHOUT,
QUITE A PROCEDURE FOR, AND WHEN
WE LOOK AT, SITUATIONS LIKE THE
INCIDENTS, UNFORTUNATELY, OF
STAFF ON INCARCERATED
INDIVIDUALS SEXUAL ABUSE, SAY,
IN OUR WOMEN'S FACILITIES, YOU
KNOW, IT MIGHT HELP FOR US TO BE
ABLE TO, TO, HAVE A LITTLE MORE
TRANSPARENCY OUT THERE SO THAT
WE CAN HELP, MAKE SURE THAT THAT
, THAT THAT CIRCUMSTANCE IS
COMPLETELY, STOPPED, ONE NOTE
I'D LIKE TO MAKE IS THE ANALYSIS
INDICATES THAT THIS BILL COVERS
OUR JAILS. IT DOES NOT IN THE
SENATE, I DID AMENDMENTS THAT
REMOVED JAILS. SO JAILS ARE NOT
IN IT. AND SB 254 NOW HAS NO
OPPOSITION. BUT I WOULD LIKE MY
WITNESS, BRITTANY BARSOTTI,
WHO'S THE GENERAL COUNSEL FOR
OUR NEWS PUBLISHED ASSOCIATION,
TO SPEAK TO THE BILL. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. PROCEED THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE, BRITTANY BARCI
WITH THE CALIFORNIA NEWS
PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION,
REPRESENTING OVER 400
PUBLICATIONS, UP AND DOWN THE
STATE AND ALSO WITH A LARGE
COALITION OF JOURNALISM GROUPS
THAT SUPPORT SB 254, WHICH, AS
THE SENATOR SAID, ONLY APPLIES
TO CALIFORNIA PRISONS, THANK YOU
TO AMENDMENTS. AS YOU KNOW,
TRANSPARENCY IS ESSENTIAL TO A
WELL FUNCTIONING GOVERNMENT. A
LOT OF OUR MEMBERS ARE ACTUALLY
ALL OF OUR MEMBERS TAKE GREAT
PRIDE IN BEING THAT GOVERNMENT
WATCHDOG AND BEING ABLE TO
REPORT NOT JUST ON WHAT THE
GOVERNMENT, DOES, BUT ALSO WHAT
IT DOES. WELL RIGHT. BECAUSE THE
PUBLIC NEEDS TO KNOW WHAT IS
WORKING FOR, TO BE ABLE TO MAKE
GOOD POLICY DECISIONS AND ENGAGE
ON THE ISSUES THAT IMPACT THEM,
I'M HERE TODAY BECAUSE FOR THE
LAST 30 YEARS, THE FOURTH ESTATE
HAS BEEN LIMITED AS ESPECIALLY
AS IT PERTAINS TO CCR, WHICH HAS
A $14.5 BILLION GENERAL FUND
SPENDING TAG. AND RIGHT NOW, THE
PRESS AND THE PUBLIC ARE REALLY
UNABLE TO SEE HOW THAT MONEY IS
SPENT. AS SENATOR HARKIN NOTED
IN THE 1990S, WE SUBSTANTIALLY
REDUCED ACCESS UNDER GOVERNOR
PETE WILSON. RIGHT NOW, YOU ARE
ONLY ALLOWED TO BRING IN A SMALL
NOTEBOOK AND PENCIL TO BE ABLE
TO INTERVIEW ANY MEMBER, WHO IS
INCARCERATED, SO, SO THE
ADVANCES IN TECHNOLOGY LIKE
AUDIO VISUAL EQUIPMENT, THINGS
THAT HAVE BEEN REALLY EFFECTIVE
STORYTELLING MECHANISMS ARE NOT
ALLOWED TO BE UTILIZED INSIDE
OUR PRISONS. SO THIS IS A NEW
RADICAL PIECE OF LEGISLATION,
AND IT SIMPLY RESTORES THE
ACCESS THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY
ALLOWED TO THE PRESS, IT BRINGS
GREATER TRANSPARENCY BACK TO THE
PRISON SYSTEMS. AND I'D LIKE TO
FINISH BY SAYING, RIGHT NOW IS
THE PERFECT TIME, TO RESTORE
MEDIA ACCESS, WHY THE GOVERNOR
AND THE LEGISLATURE ARE
EMBARKING ON SWEEPING
TRANSFORMATION OF THE STATE
PRISONS, INCLUDING SAN QUENTIN.
AND WE'VE ALSO GONE UNDERGONE
SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES SINCE
REALIGNMENT OVER THE LAST 30
YEARS. SO IT WOULD BE WONDERFUL
FOR THE PUBLIC TO BE ABLE TO SEE
WHAT'S WORKING AND WHAT HASN'T.
RIGHT HAS HEALTH CARE IMPROVED?
HAS MENTAL HEALTH CARE IMPROVED
INSIDE THE PRISONS? HOW IS
OVERCROWDING DOING AND BEING
REDUCED, AND THIS BILL WILL GIVE
JOURNALISTS THE ESSENTIAL TOOLS
THEY NEED WHILE PROTECTING
SECURITY TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER
THESE QUESTIONS AND MUCH MORE.
LET ME END WITH A QUOTE BY
MICHIGAN'S REPUBLICAN SENATOR
WHO AUTHORED MICHIGAN'S ACCESS
BILL LIMITING MEDIA ACCESS
SERVES TO CREATE RUMORS AND
SUSPICION TO MAINTAIN FULL TRUST
OF THE PEOPLE, WE MUST PROTECT
THE ABILITY OF THE MEDIA TO
INVESTIGATE ALL SIDES AND REPORT
FAIRLY AND ACCURATELY TO THE
PUBLIC. AND WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY URGE YOUR AYE VOTE
ON SB 254. THANK YOU. OTHERS IN
SUPPORT, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
DAVID BULLOCK WITH THE SSP
ALLIANCE, SINCE 2020, AFTER THE
PASSAGE OF SB 132 AND 2019,
THERE HAS BEEN THE ALLOWANCE OF
WHOEVER IDENTIFIES WHATEVER
GENDER THEY ARE TO BE ASSIGNED
TO THAT A PRISON THAT THEY ARE
SERVING TIME IN. AND THAT HAS
BEEN USEFUL TO ACTUAL MEN WHO
HAVE TRANSITIONED INTO WOMEN.
TRANS WOMEN HAVE USED THIS TO
THEIR BENEFIT, BUT UNFORTUNATELY
THERE HAS BEEN MALE PREDATORS
HAVE USED THIS LAW IN THEIR
ADVANTAGE TO GO AFTER FEMALE
PRISONERS. AND I'M WELL, HE HAS
FIVE MINUTES. SO GO AHEAD. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, NO, I'M NOT
DONE. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WERE
CUT ME OFF OR NOT. NO. YOU HAVE
ABOUT 45 SECONDS LEFT BECAUSE
YOU HAD FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU.
UNFORTUNATELY THESE THESE FEMALE
INMATES ARE. NOW, ARE YOU A
SUPPORT WITNESS? YES. OKAY. YES,
YES, I'M IN SUPPORT OF IT
BECAUSE FEMALE INMATES ARE BEING
SEXUALLY ASSAULTED UNDER THE
UNDER THE SB 132. AND THEY ARE
SCARED OR HAVE REPERCUSSIONS
FROM INMATES FROM, PRISON STAFF
IF THEY DO REPORT THIS, THIS
WILL ALLOW THROUGH THE CHAIR.
HE'S TALKING ABOUT TRANSGENDER.
YEAH I'M TALKING ABOUT YOU HAVE
10S TO WRAP IT UP, SIR. IF THESE
WOMEN ARE ALLOWED IN, IF THESE
WOMEN ARE ALLOWED TO SHARE THEIR
INFORMATION WITH THE MEDIA AND
THE LEGISLATURE, THEY WILL BE
ALLOWED TO BE ADDRESSED IN THIS.
THANK YOU. NEXT. NEXT. SPEAKER.
JUST, YOU'RE TO SUPPORT SECTIONS
OVER ME. TWO'S NOW, NATASHA
MINSKER SMART JUSTICE CALIFORNIA
STRONG SUPPORT. MARGIE LEE
SAMSON ADVISORS ON BEHALF OF FAM
AND STRONG SUPPORT. MARGO
GEORGE, CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION ASIAN AND
STRONG SUPPORT Dð COONEY, ACLU
CALIFORNIA ACTION STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. OPPOSITION.
SEEING NO OPPOSITION QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. THANK YOU, FIRST OF
ALL, TO THE AUTHOR, I APPRECIATE
YOU BEING FORWARD, BUT I WOULD
NOT. BUT I WANT TO I WOULD BE
REMISS IF I DID NOT NOTE THAT IN
PART OF THE TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT
OF THIS VITAL PIECE OF
LEGISLATION, PROVIDED
MISINFORMATION THÀNH. AND I KNOW
IT WASN'T AT THE WILL OF THE
AUTHOR OR ONE OF THE TESTIFIERS,
REGARDING, TRANSGENDER PEOPLE
WITHIN OUR PRISON SYSTEM, AND
JUST NOTING THAT, FOR THE
RECORD, IT WAS DEFINITELY OFF
TOPIC AND SHOULD NOT BE USED IN
A WAY TO SUPPORT THIS VITALLY
IMPORTANT BILL, IN ANY TYPE OF
TESTIMONY RELATED TO THAT TRULY
IS AN ATTACK ON THAT COMMUNITY,
ESPECIALLY AT A TIME WHEN WE'RE
CELEBRATING THEM, AND ENSURING
THAT THEY FEEL LIKE THERE'S A
SENSE OF BELONGING NOT ONLY IN
THEIR COMMUNITIES BUT IN THE
LEGISLATURE. IT'S IMPORTANT TO
CALL THAT OUT. AS AN ATTACK, BUT
GETTING BACK TO THE BILL VERSUS
THE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE BILL, I
THINK IT'S LIKE I NOTED, IT'S
VITALLY IMPORTANT. AND I THINK
IT'S KEY, MY ONLY ONE CONCERN
AND NOT AND I'M SUPPORTING THE
BILL. SO I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE
IT, WAS I NOTICED ON THE, ON THE
NEWS SIDE OR THE MEDIA SIDE, AN
ITEM F THERE'S A DENY VÌ RELATED
TO SECURITY, DIRECT THREAT, YOU
KNOW, PHYSICAL SAFETY, ALL OF
THAT. AND THEN TÍNH, BUT ON THE
SIDE WHERE WE AS GOVERNMENT
OFFICIALS, PEOPLE WHO ARE
REQUIRED TO GIVE OVERSIGHT, NOT
THAT THERE SHOULD BE A NOW, BUT
THERE'S NO CAVEAT OR ANY KIND OF
MECHANISM RELATED TO IF WE IF
BECAUSE IT'S JUST BROAD, IT'S
BASED ON OUR PLEASURE TO, BUT
THERE'S NO MENTION OF SAFETY OR
PHYSICAL THREAT LIKE THERE IS
FOR THE OTHER PEOPLE. AND SO I
DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S INTENTIONAL
JUST BECAUSE MAYBE WE WOULDN'T
GO IF THERE WAS THAT KIND OF
THREAT, BUT THAT MIGHT BE
SOMETHING, TO CONSIDER, SOME
TYPE OF ALLOWANCE FOR THE FACT
THAT WE MAY DESIRE TO GO AT A
PARTICULAR TIME WHERE IT WOULD
BE UNSAFE FOR US TO GO, BUT
THAT'S MY ONLY COMMENT TO THAT.
THANK YOU. APPRECIATE. I THINK
WHAT WITH, WE'RE TRYING TO
STRIKE THAT BALANCE THAT WITH.
WAS THAT A QUESTION YOU WERE
ASKING? YES. YEAH I DIDN'T WANT
HER TO COMMENT. AND SHE CAN
COMMENT NOW OR IN CLOSE OR
HOWEVER SHE SEE FIT, LOOK, WE
SHOULD NOT OBVIOUSLY,
LEGISLATORS ARE NOT ABOVE THE
LAW, SO. BUT WE ARE IN A
DIFFERENT CATEGORY. SO. BUT I
CERTAINLY AM OPEN TO LOOKING AT
WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE ANY
APPROPRIATE GUARDRAILS THERE.
OKAY, OKAY. SEEING NO FURTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, YOU MADE
A MOTION. WE HAVE A SECOND FOR
MR. TING, YOU MAY NOW CLOSE,
PRECIATE THE, COMMENTS. AND, AS
I INDICATED, THERE ARE
GUARDRAILS, BUT CERTAINLY OPEN
TO LOOKING AT WHETHER THERE
SHOULD BE ADDITIONAL. BUT I
THINK IT WAS IT'S DESIGNED TO,
GIVE A MODEST, ACCESS TO MEDIA
AND TO GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. AND
WITH THAT, I ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. OKAY. THANK YOU. I HAVE A
MOTION A SECOND, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. ITEM TWO SB 254 BY SENATOR
SKINNER. THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS
TO THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY. MCCARTY. I ALANIZ.
ALANIZ I GALLAGHER. WHEN NGUYEN
I HOLDEN. HOLDEN I TING TING I
WILSON I WILSON I ZUBER. THE
MEASURE PASSES. WE'RE NOW GOING
TO GO BACK AND DO ADD ONS. DO WE
HAVE ANY ON CALL. YES MA'AM. WE
HAVE ONE MEASURE ON CALL. SO
WE'LL JUST GO DOWN THE ORDER OF
THE MEASURES, THE MEASURE ON
CALL AND ADD ONS FOR ITEM NUMBER
ONE, SB 92 BY SENATOR UMBERG.
THE MOTION WAS Dð PASSED TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
GALLAGHER ZEBRA. ITEM TWO SB
JUST HEARD THAT ONE. SO ITEM
NUMBER THREE, SB 349 WAS PULLED
BY THE AUTHOR. ITEM NUMBER FOUR
BY SENATOR UMBERG. 379 WAS ON
CONSENT. ITEM NUMBER FIVE SB 442
BY SENATOR LIMON WAS ON CONSENT.
ITEM NUMBER SIX SB 733 BY
SENATOR GLAZIER. THE MOTION WAS
Dð PASSED TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. GALLAGHER HOLDEN.
HOLDEN. NOT VOTING? WILSON. I'D
JUST LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT
BEFORE I EXPRESS MY VOTE. I YES,
CONFIRMED WITH THE CHAIR, SO I
ALSO SIT AS CHAIR OF THE
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE BLACK
CAUCUS, AND WE HAVE MADE A
PRIORITY AB 280, WHICH IS
ASSEMBLYMEMBER HOLDEN'S BILL TO
BAN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT,
RECOGNIZING ABSENT OF THAT BILL,
THIS WOULD BE A BILL THAT I
WOULD SUPPORT AND THE SENSE THAT
IT DOES PROVIDE DATA, WHICH IS
SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN MISSING,
FROM OUR CONVERSATIONS AROUND
SOLITARY CONFINEMENT AND SO
GIVEN THAT BOTH BILLS, WILL
SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY FOR BOTH
BILLS TO GO THROUGH THE
LEGISLATURE, LEGISLATIVE
PROCESS, BUT, HOWEVER, STAND
FIRMLY THAT, SOLITARY
CONFINEMENT SHOULD NOT EXIST,
BUT DEFINITELY OPEN TO
INFORMATION AND OVERSIGHT FOR
ACCOUNTABILITY PURPOSES, WITH
THAT, I'LL GIVE AN AYE VOTE.
WILSON AYE. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN,
SB 758 BY SENATOR UMBERG. THE
MOTION WAS Dð PASS AS AMENDED.
GALLAGHER WILSON. I ZEBRA. ITEM
NUMBER EIGHT, SB 796 BY SENATOR
ALVARADO GILL. THE MOTION WAS Dð
PASSED TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. THIS ITEM WAS ON
CALL. MCCARTY. MCCARTY. I
GALLAGHER. HOLDEN. HOLDEN I
ZEBRA. ITEM NUMBER NINE SB 1005
BY SENATOR ASHBY WAS ON CONSENT.
ITEM NUMBER TEN SB 1122 BY
SENATOR SATO WAS ON CONSENT.
ITEM NUMBER 11 SB 1353 BY
SENATOR WAHAB DO PASS GALLAGHER.
ZEBRA. ITEM NUMBER 12 SB 1381 BY
SENATOR MCGUIRE WAS ON CONSENT.
ITEM NUMBER 13 SB 1473, BY
SENATOR LILLARD WAS ON CONSENT.
ITEM NUMBER 14 SB 1489 BY
SENATOR MCGUIRE WAS ON CONSENT.
YEAH, OKAY. I'M NOT SURE IF.
MAYBE HE WAS JUST HERE. AN
EMERGENCY? YEAH, YEAH. THAT'S
FINE. THANKS, JOHN. SO WE'LL
WAIT FOR PERFECT. THANK YOU.
OKAY.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. OKAY I.
THANK YOU. IT'S A BIRD. HE'S
COMING BACK TO. AMEND. IT LOOKS
LIKE NO. HERE.
THAT WAY. I THINK HE'S. BACK
OTHER THINGS. YEAH. IT KIND OF
GOT TO IT.
WELL, I GUESS IT FEELS GOOD TO.
IS JOHN. OKAY. THANK YOU. NO
WORRIES. THANK YOU. NEXT
PRIORITY ITEM. IN ORDER TO GET.
GO AHEAD FOR THE. I'M SORRY FOR
THE CONSENT CALENDAR. GALLAGHER.
ZEBRA. ZEBRA. I ITEM NUMBER ONE,
SB 92 BY SENATOR UMBERG. THE
MOTION WAS Dð PASSED TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
GALLAGHER ZEBRA. ZEBRA. NOT
VOTING. ITEM NUMBER TWO, SB 254
BY SENATOR SKINNER. THE MOTION
WAS Dð PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
GALLAGHER ZEBRA. ZEBRA I, ITEM
NUMBER THREE, SB 349 BY SENATOR
ROTH WAS PULLED BY THE AUTHOR.
ITEM NUMBER FOUR, SB 379, BY
SENATOR UMBERG WAS ON CONSENT.
ITEM NUMBER FIVE SB 442 BY
SENATOR LAYMAN WAS ON CONSENT.
ITEM NUMBER SIX SB 733 BY
SENATOR GLAZIER. THE MOTION WAS
Dð PASSED TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. GALLAGHER ITEM NUMBER
SEVEN, SB 758, BY SENATOR
UMBERG. THE MOTION WAS Dð PASS,
AS AMENDED, TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
GALLAGHER. ZEBRA. ZEBRA. I ITEM
NUMBER EIGHT, SB 796, BY SENATOR
ALVARADO GILL. THE MOTION WAS Dð
PASSED TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. GALLAGHER ZEBRA.
ZEBRA I ITEM NUMBER NINE, SB
1005, BY SENATOR ASHBY WAS ON
CONSENT. ITEM NUMBER TEN SB 1122
BY SENATOR SATO WAS ON CONSENT.
ITEM NUMBER 11 SB 1353, BY
SENATOR WAHAB. THE MOTION WAS Dð
PASS GALLAGHER, ZEBRA. ZEBRA I,
ITEM NUMBER 12, SB 1381 BY
SENATOR MCGUIRE WAS ON CONSENT.
ITEM NUMBER 13 SB 1473 BY
SENATOR DILLARD WAS ON CONSENT.
ITEM NUMBER 14 SB 1489 BY
SENATOR MCGUIRE WAS ON CONSENT.
OKAY. THERE YOU GO. ABSOLUTELY.
THANK YOU. THIS HEARING IS
ADJOURNED. GOOD JOB.