GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING.
WE'RE GOING TO START AS A
SUBCOMMITTEE, FIRST ON THE LIST
IS SETTING OR. SENATOR
PORTANTINO JUST WANT TO LET THE
COMMITTEE AND THE PUBLIC AND THE
MEMBERS KNOW TODAY THAT WE'LL BE
ENFORCING SOMEWHAT ALTERED, TIME
LIMITS FOR TODAY. WITNESSES WILL
HAVE FOUR MINUTES MAXIMUM. AS
NOTED IN THE DAILY FILE SPLIT
BETWEEN THE WITNESSES. SENATORS
PER COMMITTEE RULES HAVE FIVE
MINUTES TO OPEN AND FIVE MINUTES
TO CLOSE, ONE ADDITIONAL NOTE.
WE'LL BE HEARING ONE MORE
MEASURE. SB 1381. WAHAB, TODAY,
THIS BILL WAS REFERRED TO OUR
COMMITTEE YESTERDAY FOR ASSEMBLY
RULE 77.2. AND THE FILE NOTICE
WAIVERS WERE GRANTED IN ORDER
FOR US TO HEAR THE BILL IN
COMMITTEE TODAY. SO THE FIRST
BILL ON THE DOCKET IS SENATOR
PORTANTINO, THIS IS SB 1128,
FILE ITEM 13. PLEASE PROCEED.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, I WOULD
SAY IN COMMITTEE MEMBERS, BUT
I'LL SAY MR. CHAIR, COMMITTEE
MEMBERS, APPRECIATE YOU STARTING
AS A SUBCOMMITTEE, I'M, I DON'T
KNOW, PLEASED IS THE RIGHT WORD,
BUT I'M, EAGER TO PRESENT SB
1128, AND I SAY, I DON'T KNOW IF
I'M PLEASED BECAUSE THIS IS A
SERIOUS SUBJECT THAT REQUIRES
SERIOUS ATTENTION AND DOESN'T
DOESN'T MAKE ANYBODY HAPPY TO
HAVE TO DISCUSS SOME OF THE
UNFORTUNATE PIECES OF OUR
SOCIETY AND WHAT HAPPENS TO
YOUNG TEENAGE GIRLS IS ONE OF
THOSE UNFORTUNATE THINGS THAT
HAPPENS IN OUR Þ. AT MY HOUSE,
NO ONE EVER TELLS ME TO SPEAK UP
. ARE WE GOOD? YEAH. WE'RE GOOD.
I'LL. I'LL START FROM THE
BEGINNING. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
AS I SAID, I'M HERE TO TALK
ABOUT SB 1128, WHICH WOULD CLOSE
A SERIOUS LOOPHOLE AND PROTECT,
BASICALLY TEENAGE GIRLS FROM
ABUSE, IT'S A SUBJECT THAT
DOESN'T MAKE ME EXCITED TO
DISCUSS, BUT IT'S A NECESSARY
CONVERSATION THAT WE HAVE TO
HAVE TO HAVE BECAUSE, AS THE
FATHER OF TWO GIRLS, AS SOMEONE
WHO, IS OUT THERE IN THE WORLD,
WE SHOULD MAKE SURE THAT WE DO
EVERYTHING WE CAN TO PROTECT,
THESE TEENAGERS, SB 1128 WILL
REQUIRE, ONE TIER ONE SEX
OFFENDER REGISTRATION. IF AN
OFFENDER ENGAGES IN UNLAWFUL
SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH A MINOR
AND THE OFFENDER IS MORE THAN
TEN YEARS OLDER THAN THAT MINOR,
FAILING TO REQUIRE REGISTRATION
FOR OFFENDERS ENGAGING IN THE
UNLAWFUL SEXUAL INTERCOURSE OF A
MINOR IS INEXPLICABLE.
INEXPLICABLE. THIS UNDERCUTS
EFFORTS TO PREVENT SEXUAL
EXPLOITATION AND ABUSE OF
TEENAGE GIRLS. EXISTING LAW
REQUIRES SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY
FOR MULTIPLE SEXUAL ACTS, BUT
NOT INTERCOURSE. THAT MAKES
ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE, IT DOES NOT
REQUIRE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY
FOR OFFENDERS ENGAGING IN SEXUAL
INTERCOURSE WITH A MINOR WITH A
MINOR, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE AGE
DIFFERENCE. MANY MINORS ENGAGED
IN THESE RELATIONSHIPS ARE
EXPLOITED, MANIPULATED, AND FALL
VICTIM TO TRAFFICKING AND OTHER
TYPES OF ABUSE. THIS EFFORT WILL
PROTECT THEM BY GIVING THE LA
CITY ATTORNEY, WHO IS THE
SPONSOR, AND OTHERS, A TOOL THEY
NEED TO PROTECT YOUNG GIRLS. THE
VAST MAJORITY OF VICTIMS COME
FROM MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES,
AND FRANKLY, OUR YOUNG GIRLS OF
COLOR WHO ARE THE MOST
VULNERABLE IN THE CURRENT
SYSTEM, WE KNOW THAT TRAFFICKING
IS $150 BILLION A YEAR. GLOBAL
INDUSTRY. BUT MORE THAN THAT,
WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT HOW WE
GIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT, HOW WE
GIVE THOSE WHO DEEPLY CARE ABOUT
THESE YOUNG GIRLS TOOLS. THEY
HAVE TO PROTECT THEM LONG TERM
TO KEEP THEM FROM THE CONTINUING
FALLING PREY TO, FRANKLY, 50
YEAR OLD MEN WHO ABUSE THESE
YOUNG WOMEN, CALIFORNIA
CONSISTENTLY RANKS NUMBER ONE IN
THE NATION FOR REPORTED THESE
TYPES OF CASES. SB 1128 IS
ESSENTIAL TO PROTECTING
VULNERABLE YOUTH, AND FOR
HOLDING THE SEXUAL PREDATORS
ACCOUNTABLE. SO I'M PLEASED THAT
THE LA CITY ATTORNEY, IS HERE TO
SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE BILL. WE
ALSO HAVE LAPD DEPUTY CHIEF
AHMAD CATEGORYDISS, WHO'S AN
EXPERT, AND WE HAVE DIRECTOR OF
CHILD ABUSE POLICY AND
PREVENTION, LAURA RENO. SO WE
HAVE EXPERTS HERE WHO CAN SHARE
THEIR EXPERIENCES ON THE FRONT
LINES TRYING TO PROTECT THESE
YOUNG GIRLS. SO WITH THAT, I
WANT TO APPROPRIATE WHEN YOU
HAVE A QUORUM, I WOULD
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE
AND I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MY KEY
WITNESSES. THANK YOU. PLEASE
BEGIN. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING.
CHAIR, IT'S A PLEASURE TO BE
BEFORE YOU AGAIN. I AM HERE ON
BEHALF OF SB 1128. I WANT TO
THANK SENATOR PORTENTINO FOR ALL
THE WORK THAT HE'S PUT IN
GETTING THE BILL TO THIS POINT
IN TIME, I WANT TO POINT OUT WE
DID REVIEW THE ANALYSIS. MUCH OF
THE ANALYSIS GOES TO WHETHER OR
NOT A SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION
IS SOMETHING THAT THIS BODY
SHOULD HAVE ENACTED, AS I'VE
SAID TO MANY PEOPLE, THAT'S
ABOVE MY PAY GRADE. I AM NOT
FOCUSED ON WHETHER OR NOT SEX
OFFENDERS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO
REGISTER AS A MEANS OF
REGULATION. WHAT I AM FOCUSED ON
IS OUR YOUNG GIRLS. THERE IS NO
EXCUSE FOR HAVING INTERCOURSE,
ORAL COPULATION, OR PENETRATION
WITH AN OBJECT OTHER THAN A
PENIS. BE AN AUTOMATICALLY
REGISTRABLE TIER ONE OFFENSE AND
EXCLUDING PENILE VAGINAL
INTERCOURSE, OUR YOUNG GIRLS
THEN HAVE TO TESTIFY NOT ONLY AT
THE TRIAL, BUT THEY HAVE TO COME
BACK. IF THERE IS TO BE JUDICIAL
DISCRETION IN THE REGISTRY. AND
THAT RETRAUMATIZES OUR KIDS. I
WOULD POINT OUT THAT THE
ANALYSIS RELIES UPON THE FACT
THAT THE LOS ANGELES DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WAS
INSTRUMENTAL IN PASSING THE
ORIGINAL MODIFICATION TO THE SEX
OFFENDERS LAWS. I WOULD LIKE TO
CALL THE COMMITTEE'S ATTENTION
TO THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE
SUPPORTING THIS BILL FROM ALL
WALKS. SO THIS BILL IS, IN FACT
SUPPORTED BY THE CALIFORNIA
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S ASSOCIATION,
THE CALIFORNIA SEXUAL ASSAULT
FORENSIC EXAMINERS ASSOCIATION,
THE CALIFORNIA WOMEN'S LAW
CENTER, THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES,
NOT JUST MY OFFICE, DIGNITY
HEALTH, THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
PROSECUTORS ASSOCIATION, THE
PEACE OFFICERS RESEARCH
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA, AND A
NUMBER OF ORGANIZATIONS THAT
WORK WITH YOUNG GIRLS OFF THE
STREET. SISTER FRIENDS, THE TÍNH
PROJECT, SOUTH CENTRAL UNITED. I
RESPECTFULLY WOULD ASK THE
COMMITTEE TO PASS THIS BILL TO
THE FLOOR AND ALLOW IT TO BE
VOTED ON. THANK YOU. I NOW WOULD
LIKE TO TURN IT OVER TO DEPUTY
CHIEF AMADOR TINGIRIDES, WHO
WORKS IN THE AREA. THANK YOU.
NEXT WITNESS. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. DISTINGUISHED COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS AHMAD
TINGIRIDES AND I'M A DEPUTY
CHIEF AT THE LOS ANGELES POLICE
DEPARTMENT AND WHICH I HAVE BEEN
FOR THE PAST 29 YEARS, SERVING
SPECIFICALLY THE COMMUNITY OF
SOUTH LOS ANGELES. TODAY, I'M
HERE TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF
SENATE BILL 1128. THIS BILL IS
CRITICAL FOR SEVERAL REASONS.
THE FIRST, IT PROTECTION OF
VULNERABLE YOUTH, OUR YOUNG
BLACK AND BROWN GIRLS IN SOUTH
LOS ANGELES ARE THE MOST
VULNERABLE IN OUR COMMUNITIES
FOR SEXUAL ASSAULTS. HUMAN
TRAFFICKING AND FAMILY SEXUAL
ABUSE. THOSE WHO EXPLOIT THESE
MINORS MUST BE IDENTIFIED AND
REGISTERED AS SEX OFFENDERS TO
ENSURE THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS
AN INVESTIGATIVE TOOL TO PREVENT
THESE INDIVIDUALS FROM CAUSING
FURTHER HARM. BY PASSING THIS
BILL, WE ARE TAKING A
SIGNIFICANT STEP TOWARDS
PROTECTING THESE GIRLS AND
ENSURING THEIR SAFETY, JUSTICE
AND VALIDATION FOR VICTIMS. THE
TEENAGE GIRLS NEED TO KNOW THAT
THEIR VOICES ARE HEARD AND THAT
THE LAW IS ON THEIR SIDE. THIS
BILL MAKES IT LESS LIKELY THAT
THE OFFENDERS WILL RE-OFFEND AND
ARE HELD ACCOUNTABLE, WHICH IS
CRUCIAL TO THE HEALING AND
VALIDATION OF OUR VICTIMS. IT
ALSO HAS AN IMPACT ON OUR
COMMUNITY SAFETY AND THE FIRST
FIVE MONTHS OF THIS YEAR ALONE,
MY BUREAU OPERATIONS SOUTH
BUREAU HAS RESCUED 71 JUVENILE
VICTIMS. THIS FAR SURPASSES MY
TOTAL AMOUNT OF RESCUES LAST
YEAR, WHICH WAS 60. THE REGISTRY
WILL BE AN ESSENTIAL TOOL FOR
LAW ENFORCEMENT TO PREVENT
FURTHER HARMS TO THESE AND OTHER
YOUNG GIRLS. PASSING SENATE BILL
1128 IS NOT JUST A LEGAL
NECESSITY, BUT IT IS A MORAL
IMPERATIVE. THANK YOU. TIME'S UP
. THANK YOU. OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT. PLEASE COME FORWARD.
HELLO. MY NAME IS EMILY
SCHWARTZ. I'M A COLLEGE STUDENT,
AND I'M HERE IN SUPPORT OF THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING.
AMY BAILEY OF THE NAPA COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S ASSOCIATION
IN SUPPORT. I'M DOCTOR STEPHANIE
POWELL, RETIRED LAPD VICE
SERGEANT. I AM IN SUPPORT.
MARJORIE SAYLOR, SURVIVOR AND
SUPPORT. MY NAME IS ODESSA
PERKINS. I AM WITH EMPOWERMENT
DES PERKINS FOUNDATION IN
SUPPORT. DOCTOR ANGELA LUKE IN
FIRM SUPPORT. ROCHELLE CONNOR,
ABOLITIONIST WITH FREDERICK
DOUGLASS FOUNDATION OF
CALIFORNIA. ON BEHALF OF MANY
BLACK AND BROWN WOMEN, WE ARE IN
STRONG SUPPORT. AND HELEN TAYLOR
WITH THE NATIONAL
ANTI-TRAFFICKING ORGANIZATION
EXODUS CRY IN SUPPORT. OLIVIA
BURNETTE WITH EXODUS CRY IN FULL
SUPPORT. CHRISTINE DÍAS IN
SUPPORT. ASHLEY FAISON WITH
ANTI-TRAFFICKING ORGANIZATION
DIAMOND COLLECTIVE IN SUPPORT
THERESA BOOTH WITH DIAMOND
COLLECTIVE IN SUPPORT. TRACY
RICHARDSON IN SUPPORT.
COUNCILPERSON OCTAVIO CESAR
MARTINEZ OF WHITTIER IN SUPPORT.
BRIANA MOSLEY, SURVIVOR AND
ADVOCATE FOR THOSE WHO ARE
TRAFFICKED IN SUPPORT. JANET
JETT WITH LOVE NEVER FAILS AND
IN SUPPORT. MY NAME IS ELIZABETH
QUIROZ. I'M A SURVIVOR, LEADER
AND THE CO-FOUNDER OF AN
ORGANIZATION CALLED REDEMPTION
HOUSE OF THE BAY AREA, AND I AM
IN SUPPORT. MISTER CHAIR MEMBERS
ANDREW ANTHONY WITH CHAU ANTHONY
SCHMELTZER IN LANE. THE LOS
ANGELES CITY COUNCIL VOTED
UNANIMOUSLY TO SUPPORT THIS
MEASURE. TOLPPO PADILLA, BOARD
MEMBER OF CRIME VICTIMS UNITED
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. WITNESSES
IN OPPOSITION, PLEASE COME
FORWARD. YOU HAVE FOUR MINUTES
COMBINED. PLEASE. JUST ONE.
THAT'S FINE. DO YOU HAVE ONE
MORE WITNESS, MR. HERNANDEZ?
YEAH. OKAY OKAY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS
IGNACIO HERNANDEZ, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS FOR
CRIMINAL JUSTICE, STATEWIDE
ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE
LAWYERS, WE ARE IN OPPOSITION TO
THE BILL. WHAT'S BEFORE YOU IN
THIS BILL IS NOT WHETHER OR NOT
HUMAN TRAFFICKING OR VIOLENT
SEXUAL ASSAULT SHOULD BE
ILLEGAL. IT ALREADY IS OR
PUNISHED. IT ALREADY IS. WHAT'S
BEFORE YOU IS NOT EVEN WHETHER
OR NOT IN SOME CASES,
INDIVIDUALS SHOULD BE REGISTERED
IN THE SITUATIONS THAT WERE
DESCRIBED WHEN THERE'S A
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A MINOR AND
SOMEONE TEN YEARS OLDER, THAT'S
ALREADY POSSIBLE. THERE'S
ALREADY DISCRETION FOR THE JUDGE
TO DO THAT. WHAT'S BEFORE YOU IS
THAT THE MANDATE THAT IN EVERY
SINGLE INSTANCE, REGISTRATION
MUST BE IMPOSED. AND THAT'S
WHERE WE HAVE THE PROBLEM WITH
THE BILL, THE CASES THAT WE HAVE
SEEN, THERE ARE INDIVIDUALS
WHERE THERE ARE INDICATORS THAT
THIS PERSON MAY BE SERIAL, MAY
BE A PREDATOR, MAY HAVE ISSUES.
THAT IS WHERE REGISTRATION IS
APPROPRIATE. BUT THERE ARE ALSO
CASES WHERE IT IS AN UNLAWFUL,
INAPPROPRIATE RELATIONSHIP AND
THERE ARE NO INDICATORS THAT
THIS THAT THE INDIVIDUAL THAT
THE DEFENDANT IS A RISK TO BE A
PREDATOR ONGOING TO THE EXTENT
THAT REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED,
THAT THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
RESOURCES ARE NECESSARY TO
MONITOR THIS INDIVIDUAL FOR AN
EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME AND AS
EXTENSIVELY AS AS HAPPENS UNDER
REGISTRATION. AND THAT IS OUR
CONCERN. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE
THAT THE DISCRETION IS THERE. WE
THINK THERE SHOULD PROBABLY BE
MORE DISCRETION IN OTHER CASES,
BUT FOR THE BILL IN FRONT OF
YOU, THE MANDATE IN EVERY SINGLE
CASE, AND I KNOW I'VE HAD
DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PROPONENTS
OF THE BILL. THERE ARE CASES
WHERE IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S RARE
WHERE WITH THIS TYPE OF OFFENSE
IS BEING PROSECUTED. IT'S
ACTUALLY A SMALLER NUMBER
COMPARED TO SOME OF THE OTHER
OFFENSES. AND WE THINK THAT
KEEPING THE DISCRETION IS
CRITICAL. WE LEARNED OUR LESSON,
AND WE BELIEVE THE SEX OFFENDER
MANAGEMENT BOARD SHOULD LOOK AT
THIS ISSUE BEFORE A BILL GOES
FORWARD ON THIS. FOR THOSE
REASONS, WE'RE OPPOSED. THANK
YOU. MARCO GEORGE, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION, I WOULD ECHO MR.
HERNANDEZ'S COMMENTS ABOUT
JUDICIAL DISCRETION AND THE THIS
BILL IS UNNECESSARY, GIVEN THE
FACT THAT A JUDGE CAN ALREADY
ORDER SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION
UNDER 290.06 IF NECESSARY, I
THINK THE ARGUMENT'S BEEN MADE
THAT THIS CURES THE DISPARITY
BETWEEN THIS AND ORAL
COPULATION. AND AS POINTED OUT
IN THE ANALYSIS, THE CALIFORNIA
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT BOARD
DID NOT RECOMMEND REGISTRATION
FOR ORAL COPULATION. THAT WAS AN
AMENDMENT THAT WAS ADDED VERY
LATE IN THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE IN ORDER TO GET THE
BILL OUT. IT IS NOT BASED ON
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OR DATA, AND
NEITHER IS THIS BILL, THE OTHER
ISSUE I THINK HERE IS THE
DISPARITY IN ENFORCEMENT. AND
THAT'S ALSO INDICATED IN THE
ANALYSIS IN LOS ANGELES, 63% OF
THE CASES FILED AGAINST THE
BUYERS ARE, FOR AGAINST
HISPANICS OR LATINOS. THE
POPULATION OF LOS ANGELES IS
ONLY 47% LATINO OR HISPANIC,
THERE IS COMPLETE
DISPROPORTIONATE, ARREST AND
PROSECUTION OF PEOPLE OF COLOR.
I WOULD JUST ALSO SAY 15 MORE
SECONDS. ONE MORE COMMENT IS
THAT THERE'S AN EX POST FACTO
ISSUE HERE, BECAUSE THIS IS NOT
JUST GOING FORWARD. THIS IS ALSO
WOULD REQUIRE PEOPLE WHO ARE
ALREADY CONVICTED OF THIS TO
REGISTER, AND THAT THERE'S,
HEIGHTENED SCRUTINY WHEN THAT IS
THE CASE. SO THERE'S POTENTIAL
SINCE THIS IS AS THE SPONSOR IS
SAYING, IS TO HELP DETER OTHERS
IN OPPOSITION. PLEASE COME
FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND
POSITION ONLY. THAT'S RIGHT. DO
YOU WANT TO SAY AUGUST YOUR
POSITION THERE? YEAH JANICE
BELLUCCI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
THE ALLIANCE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL
SEX OFFENSE LAWS. WE OPPOSE THIS
BILL. MARK JUDKINS I'M FROM LOS
ANGELES. I OPPOSE THIS BILL.
SHIVANI NISHIHARA, ELLA BAKER,
CENTER, RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE THIS
BILL. Dð. COONEY, ON BEHALF OF
ACLU CALIFORNIA ACTION, I'D LIKE
TO ALIGN MY COMMENTS WITH MY
COLLEAGUES AT THE DÍAS. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. MICHAEL MADONNA,
ELK GROVE, CALIFORNIA I STRONGLY
OPPOSE THE BILL. FRANK LINDSAY
GROVER BEACH, CALIFORNIA BOARD
MEMBER AXEL IS STRONGLY OPPOSED.
MELANIE KIM, SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE AND
OPPOSITION JAMES ADAM,
SACRAMENTO I OPPOSE ALEXANDER
KITTINGER, LICENSED CLINICAL
SOCIAL WORKER IN LOS ANGELES,
AND I STRONGLY OPPOSE ELEANOR
MILLER, SOUTH PASADENA. I'M
ATTORNEY VICE PRESIDENT OF THE
ALLIANCE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL SEX
OFFENDER LAWS. I OPPOSE. JO
SIMONSSON, LOMPOC, CALIFORNIA I
STRONGLY OPPOSE. SHERRY MORENO,
SACRAMENTO REENTRY SPECIALIST,
AND I OPPOSE. CHARLES LOPEZ, ELK
GROVE I OPPOSE. DAX PROCTER, FOR
CALIFORNIANS. UNITED FOR A
RESPONSIBLE BUDGET IN OPPOSITION
. FRED AGLE FROM SANTA CLARA,
CALIFORNIA. I STRONGLY OPPOSE.
ROGER HONEYCUTT, MODESTO,
CALIFORNIA BUSINESSMAN, STRONG
OPPOSITION. I'M DAVID HERON FROM
EL DORADO COUNTY, AND I
ENCOURAGE YOU TO VOTE NO ON THIS
BILL. THANK YOU, SEEING NO MORE
OPPOSITION BACK TO COMMITTEE
MEMBERS, QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS, MR.
ZUBIATE SO, I WANT TO, INDICATE
THAT I RECOGNIZE THAT THE AUTHOR
OF THIS BILL IS ONE OF THE
STRONGEST ALLIES OF THE LGBTQ
COMMUNITY THAT WE COULD EVER
IMAGINE. BUT I DO HAVE SOME
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BILL AND
SOME CONCERNS, IN PART BECAUSE
WE AT EQUALITY CALIFORNIA, WHEN
I WAS THERE, SPENT A LOT OF TIME
WORKING ON REFORMS TO THE SEX
OFFENDER REGISTRY TO MAKE SURE
THAT, THE REGISTRY INCLUDED
PEOPLE THAT WERE AT RISK BUT DID
NOT INCLUDE PEOPLE THAT DID NOT
POSE A RISK TO SOCIETY. AND, AND
ALSO, YOU KNOW, WITH THE
BACKDROP OF UNDERSTANDING THAT
WE ACTUALLY HAVE DIFFERENTIAL
ENFORCEMENT THAT RESULTS IN WHEN
YOU HAVE MANDATORY, REGISTRATION
REQUIREMENTS, IT RESULTS IN
DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACTS TO
CERTAIN VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES.
AND I KNOW, THE OPPONENTS RED
INDICATED SOME STATISTICS ABOUT
THE LATINO COMMUNITY. BUT I ALSO
THINK THAT ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S
COMING TO STATUTORY RAPE ISSUES,
YOU HAVE MUCH MORE
DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACT IN THE
LGBTQ COMMUNITY AS WELL,
BECAUSE, WHEN YOU ACTUALLY HAVE
FOLKS THAT ARE WITHIN CERTAIN
AGE JURISDICTIONS AND A PARENT
FINDS OUT, OF A MINOR OBVIOUSLY
FINDS OUT THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT,
THAT THE, THE MINOR WAS, WAS
THERE ON, ON A CONSENSUAL
RELATIONSHIP ON STATUTORY RAPE.
THEY OFTEN THE PARENT WILL
RESULT IN ENFORCEMENT. THAT
WOULD NEVER HAPPEN TO A NON
LGBTQ PERSON, SO THE FIRST
QUESTION I ACTUALLY HAVE, I CAN
ASK TO THE, THE CHAIR TO THE
OPPONENTS IS THEN INSTEAD OF
PORTANTINO, I'LL LET YOU
OBVIOUSLY RESPOND AS WELL,
ASSUMING THAT IT'S OKAY WITH THE
CHAIR. SURE. CAN WE JUST TAKE
ROLL REAL QUICK? TAKE A ROLL
REAL QUICK. YES OF COURSE. YES.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. WE HAVE A
QUORUM. MCCARTY HERE, ALANIS
HERE. LACKEY NGUYEN REYES. TÍNH.
WILSON SABER HERE. YES SO? SO,
FIRST OF ALL, I HAVE CONCERNS
ABOUT THE BILL IN TERMS OF ITS
CONSISTENCY WITH SB 145, WHICH
WAS A BILL THAT WAS A VERY HIGH
PRIORITY FOR EQUALITY
CALIFORNIAN, WHICH WE DID A LOT
OF REFORM TO THE SEX OFFENDER
REGISTRY. AND I'M HAVING TROUBLE
UNDERSTANDING HOW IT INTERSECTS
WITH IT AND WHETHER IT'S UNDOING
SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE, WERE
REALLY IMPORTANT TO US. SO ONE
OF THE FIRST QUESTIONS I HAVE,
AND I'D LIKE TO ASK THE
OPPONENTS AND THEN SENATOR
PORTANTINO IS SOMEONE WHO'S
OUTSIDE THE AGE, YOU KNOW, THAT
FALLS WITHIN THE MANDATORY
REGISTRATION OF THIS BILL, IF
YOU ACTUALLY HAD A STATUTORY
RAPE CHARGE AND THE, THE
DEFENDANT DID NOT ACTUALLY KNOW
OF THE AGE DIFFERENCES, RIGHT,
SO THAT THEY DIDN'T KNOW THAT
THE PERSON WAS UNDER 16, THEY
FELT THEY FELL WITHIN WHAT WOULD
BE CAPTURED BY THE MANDATORY
REPORTING. AND THEY DIDN'T KNOW
THAT. WOULD THEY BE SUBJECT TO
MANDATORY REGISTRATION UNDER
THIS BILL, SO IT WOULD BE A
DEFENSE AT TRIAL THAT THEY
DIDN'T KNOW. BUT MOST CASES GET
PLEA BARGAINED. SO IT IS LIKELY
THE ANSWER WOULD BE YES. RIGHT.
BUT I MEAN, STATUTORY RAPE IS
STATUTORY RAPE. RIGHT. SO IT'S
BASICALLY IT'S NOT SOMETHING
THAT HAS INTENT. SO IF SOMEONE
DID NOT KNOW, I MEAN, IS IT AN
ELEMENT THAT YOU HAVE KNOWLEDGE,
THE STATUTORY RIGHT. I DIDN'T
THINK IT WAS. I THOUGHT THAT
THAT'S A STRICT LIABILITY CRIME,
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT'S
YOU COULD DEFEND ON THAT BASIS,
BUT IT WOULD BE UP TO THE JURY
TO DECIDE IF THAT WAS AN
OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE, YOU
KNOW, ASSUMPTION, WHAT WE HAVE
SEEN IN SOME JURISDICTIONS,
PARTICULARLY, I THINK IT WAS
EITHER FRESNO OR STOCKTON WHERE
THERE HAVE BEEN, UNDERCOVER
AGENTS ACTING AS UNDERAGE GIRLS.
IS THAT AND THIS WAS IN
PARTICULAR IN THE HISPANIC
COMMUNITY, AN UNDERCOVER AGENT
WHO CLEARLY WAS NOT UNDERAGE
WOULD SAY TO THE PURCHASER, IT'S
OKAY, I'M UNDER 18. YOU KNOW,
THAT. AND THE GUY WOULD SAY, OH,
SURE, THAT'S FINE. AND THEN HE
WOULD BE ARRESTED FOR THIS. GOT
IT. OKAY. WELL, THAT'S THAT'S A
I'M SORRY. THERE'S NOT A CLEAR
CUT ANSWER, BUT THERE'S THE CITY
ATTORNEY COULD ANSWER, IF THAT'S
OKAY, MR. CHAIRMAN. ABSOLUTELY.
YES. CAN I RESPOND TO THAT?
YEAH, JUST SO YOU KNOW, I'VE
BEEN A PROSECUTOR FOR OVER 30
YEARS AND OVER HALF OF MY CAREER
I'VE PROSECUTED CHILD SEX ABUSE
CASES FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE. WE WOULD HAVE TO PROVE
THAT THEY KNEW OTHERWISE A JURY
WOULD NEVER CONVICT THAT THEY
THAT THEY WERE A MINOR, ALSO, IF
WE DIDN'T HAVE EVIDENCE OR THERE
WAS AN ISSUE, WE WOULDN'T FILE
THE CASE. SO THIS WOULD NOT BE
AN ISSUE. BUT IF AFTER A JURY
TRIAL, THE JURY FOUND THE PERSON
GUILTY, IF THEY ARE OVER TEN
YEARS OLDER, THEN YES, THIS BILL
WOULD WOULD REQUIRE REGISTRATION
, IF I CAN. IT DOES. THERE'S
ALREADY REGISTRATION REQUIRED
FOR ORAL SEX FOR SEX, FOR
PENETRATION WITH AN OBJECT OTHER
THAN A PENIS. THIS BILL HAS
NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LGBTQ
PLUS COMMUNITY, NOTHING THAT
THOSE SEXUAL ACTIVITIES ARE
ALREADY MANDATORILY REGISTRABLE.
ALL THIS DOES IS IT TAKES 14 TO
17 YEAR OLD GIRLS AND SAYS THAT
WHEN YOU ARE PENETRATED
VAGINALLY, IT IS AS MUCH OF A
SEX CRIME THAT REQUIRES TIER ONE
REGISTRATION AS OTHER FORMS OF
SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH A MINOR.
THAT'S ALL THIS BILL DOES. BUT
DOESN'T IT? BUT DOESN'T IT?
DOESN'T IT ADD A MANDATORY
REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT THAT
THE OTHER ACTIVITIES DON'T? NO
NO, IT ALREADY IS MANDATORILY
REGISTRABLE FOR SEXUAL ACTIVITY
OF THE LGBTQ PLUS COMMUNITY. I'M
NOT CHANGING THAT ONE WAY OR THE
OTHER. OKAY. CAN I CAN I JUST
JUST YES OF COURSE. ONE MORE
QUESTION. YEAH, DO YOU DO YOU
AGREE WITH THAT? YES. THAT IS
ACCURATE. THAT'S THE LATE
AMENDMENT THAT WAS ADDED TO THE
THREE, THE TURING BILL AND
APPROPRIATIONS, 2017, IS THAT
THE YEAR? I THINK IT WAS SENATOR
WIENER'S BILL. IGNACIO MAY HAVE
MORE INFORMATION. MR. CHAIR. MR.
CHAIR RESPONDED AS WELL. YES.
OKAY. YES, PLEASE. THANK YOU. ON
ON THAT QUESTION. SO YES,
MANDATORY REGISTRATION ALREADY
APPLIES IN THE FOR THE OTHER
OFFENSES WHEN IT'S TEN YEARS AND
OVER. I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT
IN REALITY, HAVING THIS OFFENSE
AVAILABLE AS A NON REGISTRABLE
OFFENSE OFTENTIMES HELPS
NEGOTIATE PLEA DEALS IN THOSE
MANDATORY CASES WHERE THERE ARE
FACTS THAT KIND OF INDICATE THIS
PERSON REALLY SHOULDN'T BE
REGISTERED. SO IT'S ALMOST A
RELEASE VALVE. SO IT WILL HAVE
IMPACT, A SECONDARY IMPACT ON
THOSE OTHER CASES BECAUSE IT
WILL BE MORE DIFFICULT TO PLEA
BARGAIN. THOSE CASES BECAUSE
THERE WILL NOT BE A NON
REGISTRABLE NON MANDATORY
REGISTRABLE OFFENSE AVAILABLE.
SO THAT'S THE OTHER THING. WE
ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT YOU'LL
SEE MORE, TRIALS AND CONVICTIONS
FOR THE OTHER OFFENSES. ONE LAST
QUESTION AND, TO THE TO THE
AUTHOR, WHY I'M CONCERNED ABOUT
THIS RETROACTIVITY ISSUE. IT'S
NOT THERE. THERE'S NO
RETROACTIVITY. IT WAS NEVER PART
OF THE BILL. SO THIS ONLY
APPLIES GOING FORWARD. THERE'S
NOT I'VE GOTTEN CALLS FROM THE
OFFICE THAT BASICALLY SAID THAT
THERE'S GOING TO BE 32,000
PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BE
RETROACTIVELY ADDED TO THE TO
THE BILL. MR. MISTER CHAIR. YES.
SO LET'S BE CLEAR. IT'S NOT NOT
RETROACTIVE. AND AS THE CITY
ATTORNEY EXPLAINED, IT IS SIMPLY
CLOSING A LOOPHOLE. IT IS NOT
AFFECTING ANY OF THOSE OTHER
OFFENSES. IT IS SIMPLY SAYING
THAT YOUNG GIRLS SHOULD HAVE THE
SAME PROTECTIONS, SHOULD HAVE
THE SAME IMPLICATIONS AS ALL OF
THOSE OTHER OFFENSES THAT WERE
PART OF THE WIENER BILL AND
OTHER THINGS IT DOES NOT TOUCH
THOSE. AND AS YOU POINTED OUT,
IT'S A COMMUNITY. I CARE DEEPLY
ABOUT THAT AND WOULD NOT
NEGATIVELY AFFECT IN ANY WAY,
SHAPE OR FORM. AND AS PASSIONATE
AS I AM ABOUT MY ADVOCACY FOR
THE LGBT COMMUNITY, I AM, AS A
DAD, PASSIONATE ABOUT THE 16 AND
17 YEAR OLD GIRLS WHO ARE BEING
VICTIMIZED AS WELL. AND SO
THAT'S WHY I'M HERE TODAY. AND
AGAIN, IT'S NOT RETROACTIVE.
IT'S A SMALL LOOPHOLE CLOSING
FOR EQUITY PURPOSES. AND AS IT'S
BEEN TESTIFIED, THE MOST NUMBER
OF VICTIMS ARE MARGINALIZED
YOUNG GIRLS. THAT'S WHY WE'RE
HERE. I WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR
WANTS TO THANK THE CITY ATTORNEY
AND THE OPPONENTS FOR, FOR
HELPING ME THINK THROUGH THIS
ISSUE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OKAY. THANK YOU. FURTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MR. LANNIS
FIRST OFF, THANK YOU TO THE
AUTHOR. AS A PRIOR CRIMES
AGAINST CHILDREN'S DETECTIVE,
I'M VERY HAPPY TO SUPPORT THIS
BILL, I, I'M GLAD THAT THE
QUESTIONS GOT CLARIFIED ON THAT.
I THOUGHT I WAS GOING TO HAVE TO
ASK THAT IN MIND ALSO. SO THANK
YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT FOR
EVERYBODY, THERE WERE SOME SOME
POINTS BROUGHT UP BY THE
OPPOSITION, THAT I DON'T KNOW IF
YOU GUYS HAD A CHANCE TO ADDRESS
YET. SENATOR OR NOT. DID YOU
GUYS HAVE EVERYTHING ELSE THAT
YOU GUYS NEEDED TO KNOW? I THINK
WE'RE GOOD. OKAY, WELL, THANK
YOU GUYS AGAIN. AND I'LL BE
SUPPORTING THIS MOVE. THE BILL.
IS THAT A MOTION? MOTION. AND A
SECOND FURTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS,
SEEING NONE. YOU MAY CLOSE.
SENATOR. NO, I APPRECIATE THE
CONVERSATION. I APPRECIATE THE
QUESTIONS BECAUSE IT ALLOWED US
TO BRING CLARITY TO THIS
CONVERSATION BECAUSE AS WE ALL
KNOW WHO WORK IN THIS BUILDING,
PEOPLE RUN AROUND WITH PUTTING
FIRES OUT THAT DON'T, AREN'T
BURNING. AND THIS IS A CLASSIC
CASE. THIS IS A VERY SIMPLE BILL
THAT BRINGS EQUITY TO YOUNG
GIRLS, THAT GIVES LAW
ENFORCEMENT TOOLS TO PROTECT
THEM PROSPECTIVELY AND KEEPS
REPEAT OFFENDERS FROM
VICTIMIZING THESE YOUNG GIRLS IN
MOSTLY MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES.
SO I APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION
AND RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU, WE HAVE A
MOTION A SECOND. I DO SUPPORT
THIS MEASURE AS WELL. PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL ON SB 1128 BY
SENATOR PORTANTINO. THE MOTION
IS DUE. PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY. AYE. MCCARTY I ALANIS.
ALANIS. AYE. LACKEY NGUYEN.
NGUYEN. AYE REYES. TÍNH WILSON.
WILSON. AYE ZEBRA. ZEBRA. AYE
MEASURE. PASSES. NEXT MEASURES.
MR. BECKER. YOU HAVE THREE
MEASURES, MR. BECKER. WE'LL
START IN, IN ORDER Dð 1133.
FIRST ITEM, NUMBER 15. MR.
CHAIRMAN. YES, SIR. JUST WANTS
TO KNOW. YES. HOLD ON ONE
SECOND. PLEASE. BEGIN SURE. I
THANK YOU, CHAIR. EXCITED TO
PRESENT THESE THREE BILLS TODAY,
STARTING WITH THE REASONABLE
RECONSIDERATION ACT, A BILL THAT
TAKES A COMMON SENSE APPROACH TO
PRETRIAL SYSTEM IN CALIFORNIA.
WHEN A PERSON APPEARS BEFORE A
COURT FOR THE FIRST TIME, A
JUDGE TYPICALLY SETS THE BAIL IN
AMOUNT IN A MANNER OF MINUTES OR
EVEN SECONDS, AND WITHOUT MUCH
INFORMATION IN FRONT OF THEM TO
INFORM THAT DECISION. AS A
RESULT, THERE ARE MANY
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT CAN ARISE
AFTER THE INITIAL HEARING THAT
MAY JUSTIFY A MODIFICATION OF
THE INITIAL BAIL AMOUNT OR
RELEASE CONDITIONS, BUT IT'S NOT
ALWAYS EASY TO GET BACK INTO
COURT AND ARGUE FOR THAT TO
HAPPEN. AND DATA SHOWN THAT THAT
THE LONGER SOMEONE IS DETAINED
PRETRIAL, THE GREATER THE RISK
OF HOUSING INSTABILITY,
UNEMPLOYMENT, AND RE-ARREST.
CURRENT LAW DOES NOT CODIFY THE
STANDARD JUDGES MUST FOLLOW WHEN
REVIEWING INITIAL AMOUNTS OF
BAIL SET AT THESE REVIEW
HEARINGS, AND AS A RESULT,
JUDGES TAKE DRASTICALLY
DIFFERENT APPROACHES ACROSS THE
STATE. ADDITIONALLY, AT A
PERSON'S ARRAIGNMENT, A JUDGE
HAS THE OPTION TO ORDER SOMEONE
BE RELEASED PENDING TRIAL IF
THEY AGREE TO ABIDE BY CERTAIN
CONDITIONS. WITH THE EVER
INCREASING CASE PROCESSING
TIMES, IT'S IMPORTANT THAT
JUDGES USE A STATEWIDE STANDARD
TO REGULARLY REEVALUATE WHETHER
RESTRICTIVE PRETRIAL CONDITIONS
ARE ACTUALLY NECESSARY TO
ADDRESS THE PERCEIVED RISKS. SB
1133 ADDRESSES THESE ISSUES BY
STRENGTHENING EXISTING LAW
GOVERNING BAIL REVIEW HEARINGS
AND CREATING A RECURRING
AUTOMATIC REVIEW WHEN FOLKS ARE
ALREADY COMING BACK IN OF
NON-MONETARY PRETRIAL
CONDITIONS. WE BELIEVE THAT
REVISITING BAIL AND PRETRIAL
CONDITIONS IS A CRITICAL
OPPORTUNITY TO REDUCE THE RISKS
OF DETAINING INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE
NOT A RISK TO THE PUBLIC, BUT
CANNOT AFFORD BAIL, THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. AND WE HAVE WITNESSES
HERE. STARTING WITH MY WITNESS
FROM VERA. YES. PLEASE BEGIN.
HI. GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU.
CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS JACOB DENNY. I'M THE
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH
FOR VERA, CALIFORNIA. WE'RE A
LOCAL INITIATIVE OF THE VERA
INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE. VERA HAS
BEEN WORKING ON PRETRIAL POLICY
ACROSS THE COUNTRY FOR THE LAST
60 YEARS, WITH A FOCUS ON
DELIVERING BOTH SAFETY AND
JUSTICE. I'M HERE TODAY IN
STRONG SUPPORT OF SB 1133. THIS
BILL IS STRAIGHTFORWARD. IT
WOULD IMPROVE OPPORTUNITIES FOR
REVIEW OF PRETRIAL DECISIONS. IT
CLARIFIES EXISTING PROCEDURES
FOR BAIL REVIEW OF PRETRIAL
DECISIONS, EXCUSE ME, IT IT
CLARIFIES EXISTING PROCEDURES
FOR BEAR REVIEW IN APPROPRIATE
CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN ENSURES
THAT THROUGHOUT THE COURT
PROCESS, THERE ARE REVIEWS OF
PRETRIAL CONDITIONS SUCH AS
ELECTRONIC MONITORING. WHILE THE
PROPOSED CHANGES ARE MODEST,
THEY'RE ALSO IMPORTANT. A WELL
INFORMED BAIL DECISION IS A
MATTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY. JUST 24
HOURS OF JAIL INCARCERATION
INCREASES A PERSON'S RISK OF
BEING REARRESTED BECAUSE THEY
CAN LOSE THEIR JOB, THEIR HOME
AND COMMUNITY TIES, RISKING NOT
ONLY THEIR LIFE BUT ALSO THEIR
FAMILIES. ONEROUS PRETRIAL
CONDITIONS SUCH AS ELECTRONIC
MONITORING, DRUG TESTING AND
OTHER CONDITIONS CAN DO THE
SAME, MAKING OUR COMMUNITIES
LESS SAFE. YET ACROSS
CALIFORNIA, JUDGES OFTEN MAKE
PRETRIAL RELEASE DECISIONS IN A
MATTER OF MINUTES OR EVEN
SECONDS WITH LIMITED AND
INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION. IN
MANY CASES, THOSE INITIAL QUICK
DETERMINATIONS DO NOT CONSIDER
ALL THE FACTS OF A PERSON'S
INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES, AND AS
A RESULT, THAT PERSON MAY END UP
WITH PRETRIAL CONDITIONS OR
FINANCIAL BAIL THAT ARE NOT
ACTUALLY REFLECTIVE OF THEIR
NEEDS. IN THE CASE OF PRETRIAL
CONDITIONS, THERE IS NO SET
PROCESS FOR REVIEW TODAY. THIS
IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT FOR
ONEROUS CONDITIONS LIKE
ELECTRONIC MONITORING, WHICH IS
SKYROCKETING IN USE IN MANY
CALIFORNIA COUNTIES. DESPITE ITS
LIMITED EFFECTIVENESS AND WELL
DOCUMENTED POTENTIAL FOR
UNINTENDED HARM BY ENSURING
APPROPRIATE CHANCES FOR JUDGES
TO REVISIT PRETRIAL DECISIONS.
SB 1133 WILL BRING NECESSARY
CLARITY, CONSISTENCY, AND
FAIRNESS TO THE PRETRIAL
PROCESS, ALL WHILE MAINTAINING
THE PUBLIC SAFETY. EVERY
CALIFORNIAN DESERVES. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU VOTE
AYE ON THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
NEXT WITNESS, PLEASE. NOT A
WITNESS, BUT ME TO IS. ARE YOU
READY FOR THAT? DANICA? HALF OF
SMART JUSTICE CALIFORNIA
INITIATE JUSTICE AND
CALIFORNIANS FOR SAFETY AND
JUSTICE AND SUPPORT. MARK MARGO
GEORGE ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION, IN
SUPPORT Dð COONEY ON BEHALF OF
ACLU CALIFORNIA ACTION. STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, AMELIA
ROGERS, ELLA BAKER, CENTER FOR
HUMAN RIGHTS IN SUPPORT LILA
GOLDBERG, ELLA BAKER CENTER FOR
HUMAN RIGHTS IN SUPPORT. MELANIE
KIM, SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC
DEFENDER'S OFFICE IN SUPPORT.
DAX PROCTOR, FOR CALIFORNIANS
UNITED FOR RESPONSIBLE BUDGET IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION. YOU HAVE FOUR
MINUTES FOR YOUR PANEL. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, ESTEEMED
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR TIME. MY NAME IS AMY
BAILEY. I'M WITH THE NAPA COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND
I'M HERE TODAY ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
ASSOCIATION. WE ARE RESPECTFULLY
URGING THIS COMMITTEE TO JOIN US
IN OPPOSING THIS BILL FOR THREE
PRIMARY REASONS. ONE, THERE ARE
SIGNIFICANT PRACTICAL CONCERNS.
THE PROPONENTS OF THE BILL
DISCUSSED CASE PROCESSING TIMES.
I REGRET TO INFORM YOU THAT THIS
BILL WILL SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE
CASE PROCESSING TIMES. SECOND,
IT POTENTIALLY CAUSES HARDSHIPS
TO THE VERY PEOPLE THAT THE
PROPONENTS OF THE BILL SEEK TO
PROTECT FOR THE REASONS I'LL
EXPLAIN. AND FINALLY, THIS LAW
IS NOT MERELY SOMETHING THAT
CLARIFIES THE PROCEDURES THAT
ALREADY EXIST, BUT INSTEAD
ACTUALLY IS INCONSISTENT WITH
EXISTING CASE PRECEDENT. AND
INCONSISTENT WITH THE CALIFORNIA
STATE CONSTITUTION. WITH RESPECT
TO THE PRACTICAL CONCERNS, THE
PROPONENTS ARE CORRECT THAT WHEN
A DEFENDANT COMES BEFORE THE
COURT, THEY ARE ARRAIGNED, AND
WHEN THEY ARE ARRAIGNED, THE
COURT DECIDES WHETHER THEY
SHOULD BE DETAINED OR WHETHER
THEY SHOULD BE RELEASED ON BAIL
OR IF THEY ARE RELEASED. THERE
ARE OFTEN CONDITIONS OF THEIR
RELEASE PLACED. THIS CONDITION
CAN APPLY IN NEARLY EVERY SINGLE
CASE THAT COMES BEFORE THE
COURT. IF THERE IS A THEFT,
TRADITIONALLY THERE IS A STAY
AWAY ORDER AS A CONDITION OF
THEFT. IF YOU STEAL FROM TARGET,
PLEASE DON'T GO TO TARGET WHILE
YOUR CASE IS PENDING IN DUIS, IF
SOMEBODY HAS DRIVEN UNDER THE
INFLUENCE, IT IS ROUTINELY THE
CASE THAT THAT PERSON IS
PREVENTED AS A CONDITION OF
RELEASE FROM DRIVING UNTIL THEY
ARE PROPERLY LICENSED AND
INSURED. SIMILARLY, IN CASES OF
ASSAULT, MAYBE. LET'S TAKE AN
EXAMPLE OF A PC FOR 17
BRANDISHING A FIREARM. LET'S
TAKE THE EXAMPLE OF AN
INDIVIDUAL WHO BRANDISHES A
FIREARM AS A THREAT TO SOMEBODY
AT A DENNY'S. OFTEN THEY MAY BE
PERMITTED TO BE RELEASED PENDING
TRIAL, BUT THEY WOULD BE
PROHIBITED FROM POSSESSING
FIREARMS AND PROHIBITED FROM
GOING TO THAT DENNY'S. THESE ARE
THE KINDS OF CONDITIONS WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT. THIS LAW PROPOSES
THAT EVERY OTHER MONTH, THE
PEOPLE MUST PROVE THAT THOSE
SAME CONDITIONS STAY AWAY FROM
DENNY'S, DON'T HAVE A FIREARM,
SHOULD STILL APPLY. THIS IS AN
ENORMOUS WASTE OF TIME AND
RESOURCES TO CREATE AN AUTOMATIC
REVIEW PROCESS. EVERY OTHER
MONTH FOR POTENTIALLY MILLIONS
OF CASES, BECAUSE NEARLY EVERY
DEFENDANT WHO IS RELEASED HAS
ONE OF THOSE MINOR CONDITIONS.
STAY AWAY FROM THAT PLACE OR
DON'T HAVE A WEAPON. THIS ALSO
POTENTIALLY CAUSES HARM HARDSHIP
TO THE DEFENDANTS IN THESE
CASES, IT ESSENTIALLY
EVISCERATES 977 APPROVAL. THAT'S
THE CASE WHERE AN INDIVIDUAL MAY
CHOOSE TO HAVE THEIR ATTORNEY
APPEAR FOR THEM IN COURT AND
HANDLE THEIR CASE. IF WE WERE TO
AUTOMATICALLY REVIEW CONDITIONS
EVERY OTHER MONTH, THOSE
DEFENDANTS WOULD BE FORCED TO
HAVE A COURT DATE EVERY OTHER
MONTH, LOSING OUT ON PRECIOUS
TIME AT THEIR JOBS, LOSING OUT
ON PRECIOUS TIME WITH THEIR
FAMILY OR THEIR OTHER COMMUNITY
OBLIGATIONS. WE ARE FORCING
DEFENDANTS INTO COURT EVERY
OTHER MONTH BECAUSE THIS LAW
DOESN'T HAVE A WAIVER PROVISION
FOR THE BAIL CONDITIONS AND IF
BAIL OR CONDITIONS CHANGE,
DEFENDANTS MUST BE PRESENT IN
COURT. THEIR ATTORNEYS CANNOT DO
IT FOR THEM. FINALLY, THIS IS
INCONSISTENT WITH EXISTING
PRECEDENT. THIS LAW PURPORTS TO
BE JUST A CODIFICATION OF THE
HENRI HUMPHREY CASE LAW, BUT
IT'S NOT. IT'S NOT A
CODIFICATION OF THAT. AND THE
PROPONENTS STATE THAT IT IS
DIFFICULT TO GET INTO COURT TO
BE ABLE TO CHANGE CONDITIONS IF
CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE. BUT THAT'S
SIMPLY NOT TRUE. EXISTING CASE
LAW ALREADY SUPPORTS THE IDEA
THAT IF THERE IS A CHANGE IN
CIRCUMSTANCE, DEFENDANTS ARE
ENTITLED TO AT ANY TIME COME
BEFORE THE COURT AND REQUEST A
CHANGE IN THEIR CONDITIONS. YOU
HAVE 15 SECONDS. THANK YOU. THIS
LAW DOES NOT ADD THAT I'LL PASS.
THANK YOU. TOPO PADILLA, ON
BEHALF OF THE GOLDEN STATE BAIL
AGENTS ASSOCIATION AND THE
INCOMING PRESIDENT OF THE CRIME
VICTIMS UNITED, I'VE BEEN A BAIL
AGENT FOR 41 YEARS WORKING IN
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM,
ADVOCATING FOR PEOPLE TO BE
RELEASED ON BAIL, BUT AT THE
SAME TIME HOLDING THEM
ACCOUNTABLE, WHAT WE DON'T HEAR
IN ANY OF THESE CASES, TOO OFTEN
IS YOU HAD FOUR MINUTES. WE HAVE
STRICT RULES TODAY. CAN I GIVE
YOU ABOUT VICTIMS? I KNOW IT'S
ONE OF THE LAST WORDS. VICTIMS.
THANK YOU. VICTIMS. THANK YOU.
VICTIMS. I'M SORRY, I KNOW THIS.
NOBODY WANTS. YOUR WITNESS KNOWS
HE HAD FOUR MINUTES. SHE. SHE
SHORTED YOU, SO IT'S ON HER,
PLEASE COME FORWARD IN
OPPOSITION. PLEASE STATE YOUR
NAME. POSITION ONLY. MR.
CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS CARL LUNDIN
HERE ON BEHALF OF CRIME VICTIMS
UNITED AND STRONG OPPOSITION TO
THIS PROPOSAL. THANK YOU. THAT'S
GREAT. THAT'S LOVELY. THANK YOU.
OTHERS IN OPPOSITION. LAST CALL.
NONE. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MR. ZUBIATE.
YEAH, JUST. I JUST HAVE ONE THAT
I'D LIKE TO ASK THE AUTHOR. I
MEAN, IT SEEMS LIKE THE MAIN
ISSUE THAT THE OPPOSITION IS
RAISING IS ONE OF A MULTITUDE OF
HEARINGS THAT WOULD BE TRIGGERED
BY THIS. AND I'M WONDERING IF
YOU COULD SORT OF ADDRESS THAT
AND WHY, WHETHER THAT SHOULD BE
A PROBLEM. WE'RE REALLY THINKING
ABOUT IF THERE'S THINGS THAT
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE DOING
IN TERMS OF FUNDING, IF YOU
COULD JUST ADDRESS THAT ISSUE.
YEAH, I APPRECIATE THAT. I THINK
THE OPPOSITION MAY BE REFERRING
TO AN OLD VERSION OF THE BILL,
BECAUSE I THINK CERTAINLY IF WE
WERE ASKING EVERYONE TO COME IN
EVERY MONTH OR, THAT WOULD BE
CERTAINLY A LOT, WHAT THE BILL
SPECIFICALLY SAYS, IT SAYS IN
THE ANALYSIS IT'S AN AUTOMATIC
AUTOMATIC REVIEW UNDER THE
SECTION AT THE NEXT REGULARLY
SCHEDULED COURT DATE. SO WHEN A
COURT DAY THAT'S ALREADY
SCHEDULED, REGULARLY SCHEDULED
COURT DATE AFTER THE 60 DAY
PERIOD DURING WHICH THE
DEFENDANT HAS BEEN IN COMPLIANCE
WITH ALL THE NON-MONETARY
CONDITIONS. SO, AS YOU CAN
IMAGINE, GIVEN THE CURRENT
BUDGET SITUATION, THE FOCUS WAS
ON NOT CREATING ADDITIONAL
BUDGETARY PRESSURES. SO THE,
THE, THAT PIECE, AND THERE'S
SOME OTHER PIECES THAT WERE
TAKEN OUT, BUT THAT PIECE IS
SPECIFICALLY SAYING IF YOU'RE
ALREADY IF YOU HAVE A REGULARLY
SCHEDULED APPEARANCE, THEN YOU
WILL REVIEW THIS AFTER 60 DAYS,
SO THAT WOULD BE MY MAIN
COMMENT, I THINK, TO CLARIFY
THAT MAYBE YOU HAVE SOME OTHER.
YEAH, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS WON'T
CREATE ANY ADDITIONAL BURDENS TO
THE COURT, AS THE SENATOR SAID,
WE ADOPTED AN AMENDMENT AFTER
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE JUDICIAL
COUNCIL AND THE COURTS WHO HAD
CONCERNS ABOUT BURDENS. SO THIS
WOULD GET TACKED ON TO EXISTING
HEARINGS. WE BELIEVE, HONESTLY,
THAT THIS WOULD TAKE MAXIMUM TWO
MINUTES. IF YOU'VE BEEN TO MANY
OF THESE CRIMINAL COURT
HEARINGS, THESE THINGS ARE VERY
QUICK TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S
CONCERNS ABOUT PRESENTING NEW
INFORMATION. THAT INFORMATION
HAS ALREADY BEEN OR THOSE CASES
HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE BY
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ON WHY THESE
CONDITIONS ARE IMPORTANT. THEY
CAN MAKE THE SAME CASE AGAIN,
AND A JUDGE CAN DECIDE ON THE
EXTRA CONDITIONS, CONDITIONS OF
ALL RELEASE CONDITIONS MANDATED
BY LAW, RIGHT. SO PROTECTIVE
ORDERS, STAY AWAY FROM ALCOHOL,
THINGS LIKE THAT WOULD NOT BE
SUBJECT TO REVIEW UNDER THIS LAW
BECAUSE THEY ALREADY THEY'RE
MANDATED UNDER LAW. THEY WOULD
NOT BE THEY WOULD NOT BE. MAY I
BRIEFLY RESPOND TO THAT? IS THAT
OKAY? YEAH THAT'S IT. JUST YES.
YES. JUST JUST ONE QUICK. THANK
YOU, I THINK THAT'S A
MISSTATEMENT. ALTHOUGH IT MAY
APPLY TO FUTURE COURT DATES, IT
ALSO REQUIRES TRIGGERS, AN
AUTOMATIC REVIEW EVERY 60 DAYS.
REGULAR COURT DATES ARE OFTEN
NOT EVERY 60 DAYS. SO WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S
GOING TO BE HAPPENING MULTIPLE
TIMES A YEAR. IN A CASE WHERE
THOSE ARE NOT THE REGULARLY
SCHEDULED COURT DATES AND
FRANKLY, THE FACT THAT THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY COULD JUST
PRESENT THE SAME ARGUMENTS THEY
PRESENTED AT THE FIRST HEARING,
I THINK IN MY VIEW, HIGHLIGHTS
THE WASTEFULNESS OF THIS BILL
BECAUSE IT ESSENTIALLY REQUIRES
A COURT DATE FOR US TO REPEAT
OURSELVES. AND I THINK THAT'S
WASTEFUL. THE, MAY I JUST
RESPOND, DO YOU WANT TO MR,
SURE. IF THAT'S OKAY. THE
LANGUAGE OF THE BILL SAYS AFTER
60 DAYS THAT THE NEXT COURT
HEARING EVERY 60 DAYS AFTER
THAT. SO IF YOU DON'T HAVE A
COURT HEARING WITHIN 60 DAYS
AFTER THE NEXT ONE YOU HAVE, IT
WOULD GET TACKED ON. SO IT
CREATES NO ADDITIONAL COURT
DATES. IT'S VERY CLEAR IT SAYS
REGULARLY SCHEDULED. IT HAS TO
BE THEY HAVE TO BE GOING IN FOR
OTHER REASONS. OKAY. CAN RESPOND
FROM A VICTIM STANDPOINT. THANK
THANK YOU, MISS WILSON. THANK
YOU. I THINK WE'RE FINE. THANK
YOU, I HAVE SOME SIMILAR
THOUGHTS. I MEAN, NOT SIMILAR
THOUGHTS, BUT MY I WAS WANTING
THE CLARIFICATION THAT WE HEARD
IN OPPOSITION. AND SO I DO WANT
TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND, THAT
SO I'M JUST GOING TO RESTATE IT
BECAUSE THERE WAS A LOT OF BACK
AND FORTH THAT YOU'RE SAYING
THAT, ONCE THEY HAVE A COURT
DATE WHERE THEY'RE GIVEN THESE
NON-MONETARY BAIL, THESE
CONDITIONS OF RELEASE, THAT IF
THEY ARE COMPLYING WITH THEM FOR
A 60 DAY PERIOD, MEANING THERE'S
BEEN NO INFRACTION RELATED TO
THE CONDITIONS THAT AT THE NEXT
SCHEDULED COURT DATE FOR THEM,
NOT A RANDOM COURT DATE, BUT THE
NEXT TIME THEY'RE IN COURT,
THERE IS AN AUTOMATIC REVIEW.
AND THE ASSUMPTION IS UNLESS
THE, PROSECUTORS COME IN TO SAY
OTHERWISE, THE ASSUMPTION IS
THEY'LL BE RELEASED FROM THOSE
CONDITIONS. YES, THERE'S A
PRESUMPTIVE RELEASE FROM
CONDITIONS, BUT THE JUDGE CAN
STILL MAKE ANY DETERMINATION. SO
JUDGE DISCRETION IS STILL IN
PLACE. SO EVEN IF THE
PROSECUTORS ARE SILENT TO IT,
THE JUDGE CAN SAY, I STILL WANT
THESE CONDITIONS OF RELEASE TO
BE IN EFFECT. YES FOR SURE.
YEAH. OKAY. AND SO THE REVIEW IS
BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE NOT GETTING
REVIEWED AND HAVING TO KEEP
THESE IN PERPETUITY FOR, HOWEVER
LONG IT TAKES FOR TRIAL AND
THINGS OF THAT NATURE. YES, I
BELIEVE THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, AND
STUDIES HAVE SHOWN THERE ARE,
YOU KNOW, SIGNIFICANT
RAMIFICATIONS TO PEOPLE'S LIVES
THAT HAVE THESE CONDITIONS. AND
GIVEN WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE
COURT SYSTEM, THERE ARE MANY
TIMES JUST NOT GETTING REVIEWED.
AND SO THIS SAYS AGAIN, ONLY
AFTER 60 DAYS, ONLY IF YOU HAVE
A REGULARLY SCHEDULED
APPEARANCE, THEN IT WILL GET
REVIEWED. OKAY. AND THEN THERE
THERE HAS BEEN THIS QUESTION
FROM THE OPPOSITION ABOUT THE
VICTIMS AND THEIR ROLE IN IT.
ARE VICTIMS REQUIRED TO BE AT
THESE TYPES OF HEARINGS? IS THAT
WHERE YOU THINK IT'S A PRESSING
MATTER TO THIS? BECAUSE I'M
STRUGGLING TO SEE HOW THE VICTIM
PLAYS INTO THIS PARTICULAR PART.
THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. AND
VICTIMS ARE ALL TOO FORGOTTEN
ABOUT AND NOT REALLY HEARD FROM.
YES, VICTIM HAS THAT RIGHT TO BE
THERE AND SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT
TO BE THERE. AND EVERY TIME THEY
HAVE TO GO BACK THERE. NOW FOR
THESE SCHEDULED COURT DATES,
THEY HAVE TO GO IN AND SEE WHAT
IS NEW. AND WE JUST THINK THAT
THAT IS WRONG BECAUSE THEY'RE
VERY LITTLE ABOUT THE VICTIMS IN
HERE. YES WE WOULD HAVE THE
RIGHT TO GO TO THESE HEARINGS
AND TO HAVE TO BE TRAUMATIZED
OVER 60 DAYS. MA'AM, COURTS
WORK. THEY ACTUALLY DO WORK.
THEY MIGHT NOT BE THE MOST
EFFICIENT, BUT THEY DO WORK. LET
ME INTERRUPT FOR A MOMENT.
HOWEVER IF THE 60 DAYS, IF IT'S
AT THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED COURT
DATE, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE WOULD
NOT BE AN ADVANCE. IT'S NOT
BEING SCHEDULED BECAUSE OF THE
60 DAY REQUIREMENT. I DON'T SEE
THAT IN THE LAW, AND I JUST WANT
TO CONFIRM IT'S NOT BEING
SCHEDULED BECAUSE OF THE 60 DAY
REQUIREMENT. IT'S JUST SAYING
THAT THERE'S A PRESUMPTION THAT
AT THAT REGULAR COURT DATE, IF
IT IS BEYOND 60 DAYS FROM THE
LAST REVIEW, THAT THERE HAS TO
BE SOME LEVEL OF PRESUMPTION
THAT IT STILL NEEDS TO EXIST. IT
JUST AUTOMATICALLY CAN'T EXIST
IN PERPETUITY. IS THAT A CORRECT
ASSUMPTION? YES. OKAY. ALL
RIGHT. I'M SATISFIED. THANK YOU.
OKAY THANK YOU. NO FURTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. DO WE
HAVE, NO. YOU'D LIKE TO CLOSE,
SIR? NO. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE
I APPRECIATE THE OPPOSITION. I
THINK THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF
CHANGES, TO THIS BILL, AND WE'LL
MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL ADDRESSING
KIND OF THE CURRENT VERSION, BUT
IT'S BEEN PRETTY, PRETTY SCALED
BACK. BUT IT'S REALLY FOCUSED ON
THIS PIECE. AGAIN, ONLY IF
THERE'S A REGULAR SCHEDULED
COURT DATE AFTER 60 DAYS. I
THINK WE COVERED A LOT OF THE,
THE ISSUES. AND, I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
NOT VOTE. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A
MOTION ON THIS. THE MOTION AND A
SECOND, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON
SENATE BILL 1133 BY SENATOR
BECKER. THE MOTION IS Dð PASS.
MCCARTY. MCCARTY. I ALANIS
LACKEY NGUYEN NGUYEN NOT VOTING.
REYES TÍNH WILSON. WILSON I
ZUBER. ZUBER I OKAY, THANK YOU,
MR. BECKER. YOUR NEXT MEASURE IS
ITEM NUMBER 16. SB 1161. I THANK
YOU, CHAIR. THIS BILL WILL MAKE
SOME CODE, TO ULTIMATELY
STREAMLINE BOTH ACCESS AND
SEALING OPPORTUNITIES FOR
ELIGIBLE YOUTH IN THE JUDICIARY.
THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM.
IT'S CALLED THE JUVENILE JUSTICE
AND OMNIBUS REFORM BILL BECAUSE
THERE'S A NUMBER OF SMALL
CHANGES. I WON'T GO THROUGH A
LOT OF THESE, BUT ITS AREAS,
INCLUDING ACCESS TO JUVENILE
RECORDS, RECORD SEALING WHEN
CHARGES WILL NOT BE FILED,
AVAILABILITY OF INFORMAL
PROBATION, ACCESS, INSTITUTIONAL
RECORDS, PRESERVATION OF FOSTER
CARE BENEFITS FOR NON-MINOR
DEPENDENT YOUTH IN ORDER TO
IMPROVE, AND ALL THIS TO IMPROVE
THE CLARITY AND EFFICACY OF THE
WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE, I
HAVE MY WITNESS HERE, STEVEN
HIRSCH FROM THE SACRAMENTO
COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE.
THANK YOU. PLEASE BEGIN. GOOD
MORNING. MY NAME IS STEVEN
HIRSCH, AND I'M A PUBLIC
DEFENDER HERE IN SACRAMENTO
COUNTY REPRESENTING YOUTH, I'M
TESTIFYING TODAY ON BEHALF OF
THE PACIFIC JUVENILE DEFENDER
CENTER, THE SPONSOR OF SB 1161,
PJDC IS A STATEWIDE ASSOCIATION
OF DEFENDERS AND ADVOCATES
WORKING TO IMPROVE CALIFORNIA'S
LEGAL SYSTEM FOR YOUTH. THE GOAL
OF SB 1161 IS SIMPLY TO CLARIFY,
MODERNIZE AND IMPROVE THE
WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE.
SENATOR BECKER'S BILL MAKES
PRACTICAL, COMMON SENSE
IMPROVEMENTS IN SEVERAL AREAS,
INCLUDING RECORD SEALING, ACCESS
TO JUVENILE RECORDS, THE
AVAILABILITY OF INFORMAL
PROBATION, AND THE EFFECT OF
APPEALS ON ONGOING CASES. TIME
DOES NOT PERMIT ME TO DESCRIBE
ALL OF THE INDIVIDUAL ISSUES
ADDRESSED BY SB 1161, SO I WILL
GIVE YOU JUST ONE ILLUSTRATIVE
EXAMPLE OF THE TYPE OF
COMMONSENSE FIX THAT REFLECTS
THE SPIRIT OF THIS BILL, SO
UNDER CURRENT LAW, THERE ARE
FORMER FOSTER YOUTH BETWEEN THE
AGES OF 18 AND 21 YEARS OLD WHO
RECEIVE WHAT ARE CALLED EXTENDED
FOSTER CARE BENEFITS TO HELP
WITH HOUSING AND OTHER BASIC
NEEDS. SOMETIMES A JUDGE WILL
WANT TO DISMISS THE UNDERLYING
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY CASE FOR A
YOUTH RECEIVING SUCH BENEFITS IN
LIGHT OF THEIR SUCCESSFUL
REHABILITATION AND COMPLETION OF
PROBATION, THE PROBLEM IS, UNDER
CURRENT LAW, THERE IS A LACK OF
CLARITY ON WHETHER SUCH A
DISMISSAL OF THE UNDERLYING CASE
MIGHT ACTUALLY ALSO TERMINATE
THE YOUTH'S FOSTER CARE
BENEFITS. SB 1161 PROVIDES
CLARITY ON THIS ISSUE. IT
CLARIFIES THAT A SUCCESSFUL
DISMISSAL OF A CASE WILL NOT
RESULT IN SUCH A YOUTH LOSING
THEIR FOSTER CARE BENEFITS, SB
1161 INCLUDES ABOUT A DOZEN
OTHER SIMILAR COMMONSENSE AND
RATIONAL FIXES TO THE WELFARE
AND INSTITUTIONS CODE, IN
WORKSHOPPING THESE IDEAS, WE MET
WITH AND RECEIVED HELPFUL
FEEDBACK FROM THE JUDICIAL
COUNCIL AS WELL AS THE
CALIFORNIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION,
ALL BEFORE SB 1161 WAS
INTRODUCED, THE SPIRIT BEHIND
THE BILL IS COLLABORATION,
REFINEMENT AND MODERNIZATION,
ALL CONSISTENT WITH THE
REHABILITATIVE PURPOSE OF THE
JUVENILE COURT, SB 1161 HAS
BROAD SUPPORT, AND WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT. THIS
IS A ME TOO PORTION NAME,
ORGANIZATION AND POSITION. MARCO
GEORGE, ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. Dð COONEY,
ON BEHALF OF ACLU. STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, CECILIA
RODGERS. ELLA BAKER, CENTER FOR
HUMAN RIGHTS IN SUPPORT SHIVANI
NISHIHARA, ELLA BAKER CENTER FOR
HUMAN RIGHTS IN SUPPORT. MELANIE
KIM, SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC
DEFENDER'S OFFICE IN SUPPORT.
JACOB DENNY FROM THE VERA
INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE AND SUPPORT
. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY
OTHERS? JUST SEEING. THERE'S A
LITTLE TRAFFIC JAM OVER THERE.
OKAY. SEEING NONE. MOVING ON TO
OPPOSITION TESTIMONY. THANK
MINUTES. THANK YOU, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS AGAIN, AMY BAILEY, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION.
I'LL KEEP THIS ONE SHORT, BUT WE
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE THIS BILL.
THE LAW CURRENTLY GOES TO GREAT
LENGTHS TO ENSURE THE
CONFIDENTIALITY OF JUVENILE
RECORDS. YES, IT'S A CUMBERSOME
PROCESS ON EVERYBODY INVOLVED IN
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, BUT
THAT IS FOR GOOD REASON. WE HAVE
TO PETITION AND BE ABLE TO
ARTICULATE GOOD REASON TO ACCESS
THESE HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
RECORDS. THE ISSUE WITH THIS LAW
IS THAT IT ELIMINATES THE
REQUIREMENT THAT THE JUVENILES
DEFENSE ATTORNEY FOLLOW THOSE
SAME PROCEDURES. IT STRIKES AT
THE HEART OF THE LAW, WHICH
PROTECTS THE CONFIDENTIALITY.
AND WHILE I UNDERSTAND THAT
CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS CAN
SOMETIMES BE CUMBERSOME, THEY
ARE THERE AND THEY ARE IMPORTANT
TO PROTECT JUVENILES FROM
POTENTIALLY HAVING, HARDSHIPS OR
NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF THEIR
RECORDS BEING RELEASED. AND SO
WE WOULD ASK RESPECTFULLY FOR
YOU TO OPPOSE THIS BILL AS WE
DO. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MOVING
ON TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AND
OPPOSITION, ME TO NAME
ORGANIZATION POSITION. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
DANIEL SANCHEZ ON BEHALF OF THE
CHIEF PROBATION OFFICERS OF
CALIFORNIA. AND I DO WANT TO BE
SURE TO NOTE THAT WE DO NOT HAVE
A POSITION. WE'VE BEEN ENGAGED
IN VERY PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS
WITH THE SPONSORS AND THE AUTHOR
AROUND SOME OF THESE
CONFIDENTIALITY ELEMENTS, AND A
FEW TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF IT,
GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF
OBVIOUSLY, THE GOALS OF RECORD
SEALING, BUT WANT TO MAKE SURE
WE'RE DOING IT IN A WAY THAT
OPERATIONALIZES THIS AND IS VERY
MEANINGFULLY PROTECTING THOSE
EXISTING CONFIDENTIALITY
MEASURES. THANK YOU, THANK YOU,
GAVE YOU THE LEEWAY OF THE THERE
WAS SO MUCH TIME LEFT OVER FROM
THE FOUR MINUTES, AND I DON'T
SEE ANYONE STANDING. SO I WILL
BRING IT TO COMMITTEE. ZUBIATE
SO WHAT ARE THE I MEAN, TO ME,
WHEN I LOOK AT THIS BILL, IT
SEEMS OBVIOUS THAT A JUVENILES
DEFENSE ATTORNEY SHOULD BE ABLE
TO HAVE ACCESS TO THEIR RECORDS.
I MEAN, IT'S LIKE PART OF BEING
ABLE TO BEAR A DEFENSE, HAVE A
DEFENSE AGAINST CHARGES. SO I,
YOU KNOW, I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOU
KNOW, LAWYERS ARE OFFICERS OF
THE COURT. THEY HAVE ETHICAL
DUTIES TO THEIR CLIENTS. I DON'T
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE WOULD
TREAT THEM IN THE SAME WAY WE
WOULD SOME OTHER MEMBER OF THE
PUBLIC IN ACCESSING THE
JUVENILES RECORDS. SO I'M JUST I
JUST I REALLY DON'T GET THAT.
I'D BE HAPPY TO CLARIFY THAT, OF
COURSE, AS THE CASE IS
PROCEEDING, THE JUVENILE CASE IS
PROCEEDING. THE ATTORNEYS
REPRESENTING THAT JUVENILE AND
THE PROSECUTORS PROSECUTING THAT
JUVENILE HAVE ACCESS TO THE
RECORDS IN THE WAY THAT THEY
NEED TO BE ABLE TO MOUNT A
DEFENSE OR PROSECUTE THE CASE.
THE EXCLUSION THAT'S INCLUDED IN
THIS LAW IS AN EXCLUSION THAT
PREVENTS THE DEFENSE FROM HAVING
TO SEAL THE RECORDS AFTER THAT
CASE HAS CONCLUDED, OR BECOME OR
FINISHED IN SOME WAY. THAT'S THE
PART THAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT,
JUST BY WAY OF EXAMPLE, EVEN IN
MY OFFICE, JUVENILES AGAINST
WHOM WE'VE WE'VE PROSECUTED EVEN
I AS A PERSON, NOT IN THE
JUVENILE UNIT, I DON'T HAVE
ACCESS TO THOSE RECORDS. AND I
WOULD HAVE TO PETITION THE COURT
TO GET ACCESS FOR THEM, EVEN
THOUGH SOME OTHER ATTORNEY IN MY
OFFICE MIGHT HAVE THEM. THAT'S
BECAUSE THERE ARE VERY STRICT
CONFIDENTIALITY REQUIREMENTS
AFTER THE CASE IS CONCLUDED TO
PROTECT THE JUVENILE FROM FUTURE
HARM RELATED TO THAT CASE DOWN
THE LINE. SO THE EXCEPTION IS IN
SEALING IT AFTER THE CASE HAS
BEEN FINISHED, AFTER THE DEFENSE
HAS BEEN MOUNTED. SO CERTAINLY
THEY MAINTAIN ACCESS DURING THAT
TIME. BUT THE QUESTION IS
WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE REQUIRED
TO SEAL AS EVERYONE ELSE DOES
AFTER THE CASE IS CONCLUDED, I
MAY ASK, SENATOR. YES, SENATOR
BECKER, DO YOU HAVE ANY RESPONSE
TO THAT, I MEAN, I CAN SEE, YOU
KNOW, HAVING BEEN A PRACTICING
LAWYER FOR YEARS, OBVIOUSLY,
WITH ONGOING MATTERS, WITH THE
TRIAL, YOU WOULD SEE WHY YOU
WOULD WANT I WOULD COULD
UNDERSTAND WHY A DEFENSE LAWYER
WOULD WANT TO HAVE NOT HAVE TO
ACTUALLY GIVE UP RECORDS THAT
WERE PART OF A CASE FILE, BUT
I'M JUST WONDERING IF YOU CAN
SORT OF RESPOND TO THAT. YEAH, I
MEAN, I'D SAY THAT FIRST, I
APPRECIATE THAT YOU HAVE BEEN
WORKING WITH PROBATION OFFICERS
AND OTHERS AND WANT TO TRY TO
MAKE THIS, COMMON SENSE REFORMS,
I'D SAY. WOULD YOU WANT TO
COMMENT ON THE CEILING PIECE?
YES, I WOULD LOVE TO COMMENT ON
THAT, SO FIRST, I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT TO CLARIFY THAT THE
POSITION K¾T AA IS TAKING ON
DEFENSE LAWYERS NEEDING TO SEAL
THEIR RECORDS UNDER 781 AND 786
IS NOT ACTUALLY THE PREVAILING
VIEW ACROSS THE STATE. SO PJDC
HAS SORT OF PULLED OUR
MEMBERSHIP AND IN MOST
JURISDICTIONS, THE LAW IS
ALREADY INTERPRETED TO EXCLUDE
THE DEFENSE LAWYER FROM HAVING
TO SEAL THEIR OWN CLIENT'S
RECORDS, SO THAT WOULD INCLUDE
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, SACRAMENTO
COUNTY, ALAMEDA COUNTY, SAN
MATEO COUNTY, SANTA CLARA COUNTY
, CONTRA COSTA, YOLO, RIVERSIDE,
MANY OTHERS. THE PREVAILING VIEW
ACROSS THE STATE IN MOST
JURISDICTIONS IS THAT THE
DEFENSE ATTORNEY IS ALREADY
ACCEPTED FROM THE SEALING ORDERS
FOR A VARIETY OF GOOD REASONS.
DEFENSE ATTORNEYS HAVE AN
ETHICAL DUTY TO MAINTAIN THE
CLIENT'S FILE. IT'S ACTUALLY THE
CLIENT'S PROPERTY. WE ALSO HAVE
AN ETHICAL DUTY TO. IN ANY TYPE
OF CRIMINAL MATTER, ESSENTIALLY
RETAIN THE CLIENT'S FILE FOR THE
LIFE OF THE CLIENT DUE TO THE
UNFORESEEABLE NATURE OF HOW SOME
OF THE INFORMATION COULD BECOME
RELEVANT DUE TO CHANGES IN THE
LAW IN THE FUTURE, DUE TO WRITS,
DUE TO APPEALS, FURTHERMORE, THE
SEALING THE PURPOSE OF SEALING
IS TO PROTECT THE MINER FROM
PREJUDICE THAT COULD OCCUR AS A
RESULT OF INFORMATION IN THE
FILE GETTING OUT. THE DEFENSE
ATTORNEY IS IN A UNIQUE
POSITION, VIS A VIS EVERY OTHER
PARTY IN THE PROCESS WHEREBY WE
ESSENTIALLY ALREADY OUR FILE IS
ALREADY SEALED, SO TO SPEAK, IT
IS NOT ACCESSIBLE TO OTHER
PARTIES, TO THE PUBLIC, THROUGH
ANY 827 REQUEST OR OTHER
MECHANISM. AND WE HAVE A DUTY TO
NEVER RELEASE ANY CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION OF OUR CLIENT AND TO
ESSENTIALLY DO NO HARM TO OUR
CLIENT, SO JUST JUST TO CLARIFY,
I THINK THAT VIEW OF ATTORNEYS
BEING SUBJECT IS A MINORITY VIEW
IN REALITY. AND ALL OUR ALL THE,
SENATOR BECKER'S LAW IS DOING IS
CLARIFYING FOR THOSE SMALL
MINORITY OF COUNTIES THAT ARE
ORDERING DEFENSE ATTORNEYS TO
SEAL RECORDS, THAT THAT'S NOT
ACTUALLY THE PROPER WAY TO
INTERPRET THIS LAW. AND I WOULD
JUST NOTE SAN DIEGO COUNTY IS
THE ONLY COUNTY I'M I'M
PERSONALLY AWARE OF IN WHICH
COURTS MAKE THIS ORDER TO
DEFENSE COUNSEL. I WANT TO THANK
YOU BOTH, BOTH THE OPPOSITION
AND SENATOR BECKER. THIS WAS
REALLY HELPFUL. I MEAN, TO ME,
THIS IS ABOUT ACTUALLY PUTTING
DEFENSE LAWYERS ON AN EVEN ON AN
EVEN LEVEL WITH THE PROSECUTORS.
AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S
YOU CAN'T ADEQUATELY DEFEND A
CLIENT IF YOU DON'T ACTUALLY
HAVE ACCESS TO THE RECORDS. AND
I AND YOU NEED TO HAVE THOSE
THINGS TO THINK ABOUT, SORT OF
ONGOING MATTERS RELATED TO A
CASE AND, AND, AND LAWYERS ARE
SUBJECT TO ETHICAL DUTIES ABOUT
ETHICAL DUTIES, OF MAINTAINING
CONFIDENTIALITY OF THEIR
CLIENTS. AND I THINK THAT WOULD
EXTEND TO RECORD. SO I JUST WANT
TO THANK YOU BOTH FOR HELPING ME
THINK THROUGH THESE ISSUES.
THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE? THE
BILL HAS BEEN MOVED BY WHEN AND
SECONDED BY ZUBIATE, SEEING NO
FURTHER COMMENTS, I THINK THE
IT'S THE DOES THE CHAIR HAVE A.
YEAH. WELL WE'LL JUST WE'LL JUST
CALL THE ROLL. THANK YOU. SENATE
BILL 1161 BY SENATOR BECKER. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTHY ALANIS LACKEY. NGUYEN.
NGUYEN. AYE. REYES TING. WILSON.
AYE. WILSON AYE. ZEBRA. ZEBRA.
AYE THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. IS
THERE A THIRD FOR BECKER? Ó
ITEM NUMBER 18. THANK YOU. ITEM
NUMBER 18, SB 1254. YOU MAY
PROCEED AT YOUR CONVENIENCE.
THANK YOU, MEMBERS, THIS IS SB
1254. THIS ALLOWS AND ASSISTS
INCARCERATED FOLKS IN APPLYING
FOR CALFRESH BENEFITS UP TO 90
DAYS BEFORE THEIR RELEASE TO
BETTER PREPARE FOR THEIR REENTRY
AND AGAIN, JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS
BILL PROVIDES INDIVIDUALS WITH
CALFRESH ONLY UPON THEIR EXIT
FROM A FACILITY. AND YOU ALL
KNOW ABOUT SNAP, KNOWN AS
CALFRESH AND CALIFORNIA LARGEST
FEDERAL FOOD ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
IN THE COUNTRY, AND AGAIN, THESE
ARE FEDERAL DOLLARS. WE'RE
DRAWING DOWN. AS YOU ALL KNOW,
WE'VE HAD ISSUES IN CALIFORNIA
WITH OUR, OUR PERCENTAGE OF
FOLKS ELIGIBLE WHO ACTUALLY
ACCESS THESE, ESSENTIALLY FREE
DOLLARS FROM THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, AND RIGHT NOW, UNDER
FEDERAL LAW, INCARCERATED
INDIVIDUALS BECOME INELIGIBLE,
INELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE CALFRESH
BENEFITS AFTER 30 DAYS OF
CONFINEMENT. HOWEVER, THE USDA
PROVIDES FOR WAIVERS TO DEVIATE
FROM THAT CURRENT PROVISION,
WHICH 12 STATES HAVE ALREADY
DONE. SO. IN FACT, ORANGE COUNTY
HAS A PILOT PROGRAM SINCE 2021.
THEY DO IT FOR EVERYONE LEAVING.
THEY START THE PROCESS 30 DAYS
BEFORE SOMEONE EXITS AND WE'VE
TALKED TO THE SHERIFFS THERE AND
THEY'RE SUPPORTIVE, AND THAT'S
GOING WELL, GIVEN THAT I WILL,
I'LL LET MY WITNESSES TALK
REALLY ABOUT MORE ABOUT THE NEED
TO, TO DO THIS. BUT I'LL JUST
SAY, AGAIN, THIS BUILDS ON
EXISTING WORK IN CONNECTING
INDIVIDUALS WITH STATE SERVICES
IN AN EFFECTIVE MANNER,
DECREASING BARRIERS TO REENTRY,
AND HELPING ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF
FOOD INSECURITY. AND WITH THAT,
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. MOVING ON TO
WITNESSES, YOU HAVE FOUR MINUTES
BETWEEN THE TWO. GOOD MORNING.
MY NAME IS CAMERON MIMS JONES,
AND I'M A SENIOR AT OH I'M
SORRY. YOU CAN MOVE IT TO YOU.
GOT IT. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS
CAMERON MIMS JONES AND I'M A
SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH NOURISH
CALIFORNIA. OUR MISSION HAS BEEN
TO ENSURE EQUITABLE ACCESS TO
FOOD, HEALTH, AND WELL-BEING FOR
OVER THREE DECADES. OUR
MINORITIZED AND HISTORICALLY
UNDER-RESOURCED COMMUNITIES,
ALREADY HIT BY HARDEST BY MASS
INCARCERATION AND A LEGACY OF
SYSTEMIC RACISM, ALSO BEAR THE
PUBLIC SAFETY BURDEN. 1254 WAS
DEVELOPED ALONGSIDE THOSE
COMMUNITIES WHO HAVE SAID,
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. WE WANT
SOLUTIONS DEVELOPED WITH OUR
IMPACT IN MIND, ACKNOWLEDGING
THE MOMENT WE ARE IN AND THE
SENTIMENTS EXPRESSED BY OUR
COMMUNITIES ACROSS THE STATE IS
IMPERATIVE, BOLD AND INNOVATIVE
APPROACHES ARE URGENTLY NEEDED
TO ADDRESS THE GENUINE PUBLIC
SAFETY CONCERNS WE ALL FACE
TODAY. AT THE SAME TIME, WE MUST
INVEST IN CONSISTENT RESOURCES
FOR INDIVIDUALS TRANSITIONING
BACK TO COMMUNITY FROM
INCARCERATION. THE LACK OF THESE
RESOURCES HAS CREATED
SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGES THAT WE
CAN NO LONGER AFFORD TO IGNORE.
SB 1254 COMES FROM A RESTORATIVE
FRAMEWORK AND UPSTREAM POLICY
AIMED AT THE ENDURING IMPACTS OF
INCARCERATION BY ENABLING
INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS WHO
WILL BE ELIGIBLE UPON RELEASE,
TO BEGIN THE PROCESS BEFORE
RETURNING HOME. THIS INITIATIVE
WOULD ADDRESS NOT ONLY IMMEDIATE
NEEDS, BUT FOSTER LONG TERM
WELL-BEING. CALIFORNIA HAS SEEN
CALFRESH AS A LIFELINE, AND IT
HELPS MILLIONS PUT FOOD ON THE
TABLE. IT'S OUR MOST EFFECTIVE
ANTI-POVERTY PROGRAM AND IS
ADMINISTERED BY OUR COUNTIES. WE
RECOGNIZE THAT COMMUNITIES
THRIVE WHEN ACCESS TO NUTRITIOUS
AND CULTURALLY RELEVANT FOOD ARE
PRIORITIZED, AND ENSURES THERE
ARE DIVERSE EXPERIENCES ON THIS
TOPIC WITHIN OUR COMMUNITIES.
SO. 1254 WAS DEVELOPED TO ENGAGE
INTERESTED PARTIES IN MEANINGFUL
DIALOG. THIS BILL WILL ENABLE US
TO CORRECT AND TO IDENTIFY BEST
PRACTICES TO EFFECTIVELY SUPPORT
OUR REENTRY PROCESS. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE
ON 1254 AND MY ESTEEMED
COLLEAGUE WILL SPEAK. GOOD
MORNING. A LOT OF YOU GUYS KNOW
ME. I'VE CAME IN HERE SEVERAL
TIMES AND I USUALLY SHARE MY
PERSONAL STORY. BUT TODAY I'M
GOING TO TALK ABOUT MY WORK AT
LSPC. I'M THE REENTRY
COORDINATOR FOR NORCAL. FOR ALL
OF US ARE NONE. AND THAT'S
PRIMARILY FOR CHAPTERS. BUT WE
SEE A MANY PEOPLE THAT ARE
COMING FROM THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS THAT
ALAMEDA COUNTY, PARTICULARLY
WHERE I'M STATIONED, HAS NO
RESOURCES FOR THESE PEOPLE. FOR
SPECIFIC SPECIFICALLY FOR FOOD.
AS IMMEDIATE RELIEF. AND WHAT
WE'RE FINDING IS THAT ON
AVERAGE, BEST CASE SCENARIO,
SEVEN DAYS WORST CASE, WE'VE
SEEN 21 AND UPWARDS PEOPLE
WAITING TO ACCESS EMERGENCY FOOD
SERVICES THROUGH THE CURRENT
CALFRESH PROGRAM. SO FOR ME THIS
IS PERSONAL BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY,
YOU KNOW, I JUST CAME HOME AFTER
SERVING 25 YEARS, ABOUT THREE
YEARS AGO. SO, FORTUNATELY, I
WAS BLESSED. I HAD FAMILY
SURROUNDING ME, BUT THE WOMEN
AND MEN AND YES, CHILDREN,
BECAUSE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IS STILL INCARCERATING CHILDREN
AND PAROLING CHILDREN FROM ADULT
PRISONS ARE COMING INTO OUR
OFFICE ASKING FOR RELIEF. THE
BURDEN IS BEING BURIED BY CBOS
PRIMARILY. AND, FOR THOSE OF US
THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THIS WORK
ON A DAILY BASIS, IT'S
HEARTBREAKING. AND I OBVIOUSLY
ASK FOR YOUR AYE VOTE
RESPECTFULLY. THANK YOU. MOVING
TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO
WOULD LIKE TO OFFER ME TO
SUPPORT NAME, ORGANIZATION AND
POSITION DANICA, ON BEHALF OF
INITIATE JUSTICE AND SUPPORT
ACLU CALIFORNIA ACTION. STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. MELANIE KIM,
SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE IN SUPPORT SIMILAR ROGERS
ELLA BAKER, CENTER FOR HUMAN
RIGHTS IN SUPPORT LILA GOLDBERG,
ELLA BAKER CENTER FOR HUMAN
RIGHTS AND SUPPORT. MARGO
GEORGE, CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, MOLLY
SHEEHAN, WITH THE CALIFORNIA
CATHOLIC CONFERENCE IN SUPPORT.
THANKS. MORNING. FAITH LEE. WITH
ASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING
JUSTICE, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,
WE'RE IN SUPPORT. CATHY MOSSBURG
WITH THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION
OF FOOD BANKS IN SUPPORT JIM
LINDBERG, FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON
LEGISLATION AT CALIFORNIA IN
SUPPORT. TRÊN PH¢N WITH JUSTICE
AND AGING IN STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. YOLANDA NAVARETTE,
OUTSIDE ORGANIZER WITH INITIATE
JUSTICE AND INITIATE JUSTICE
ACTION. WE ARE IN STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, DAX PROCTOR
FOR CALIFORNIANS UNITED FOR
RESPONSIBLE BUDGET IN SUPPORT.
GOOD MORNING CARLOS SANTANA, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
IMMIGRANT POLICY CENTER IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
OPPOSITION. LET'S COME FORWARD.
THANK YOU. YOU HAVE FOUR
MINUTES, MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS.
CORY SALZILLO, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION, IN OPPOSITION TO
THE BILL, AS WE NOTED IN
PREVIOUS COMMITTEES, WE
UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE THE
GOAL OF EASING REENTRY OF
FORMERLY INCARCERATED PERSONS.
BUT THIS CREATES EXPENSIVE
CHALLENGES WITHOUT FUNDING OR
THE GUARANTEE THAT THE PROGRAM
WILL ACTUALLY BE APPROVED BY THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, IN ORDER FOR
THIS UNFUNDED MANDATE TO BE EVEN
IMPLEMENTED, STATE OFFICIALS
WOULD HAVE TO SEEK AND RECEIVE A
FEDERAL WAIVER. THERE'S NO
ASSURANCE SUCH WOULD OCCUR. IT
MIGHT HAPPEN, IT MIGHT BE LIKELY
TO HAPPEN, BUT THERE'S NO
GUARANTEE. AND THE WORK THAT
WILL BE DONE IN ADVANCE HAS TO
BE DONE. FURTHER, OUR STATE AND
LOCAL CORRECTIONAL SYSTEMS ARE
ALREADY IN THE MIDDLE OF A
YEARLONG, EXCUSE ME, YEARS, LONG
YEARS LONG PROCESS TO IMPLEMENT
THE SECOND PART OF THE CAL AMG
OR JUSTICE INVOLVED INITIATIVE,
WHICH, AS YOU KNOW, REQUIRES THE
PROVISION OF IN-REACH SERVICES
TO COUNTY JAIL INMATES WITHIN 90
DAYS OF RELEASE. THIS NEW
PROGRAM WILL NOT BE ROLLED OUT
IN COUNTIES ANY EARLIER THAN
OCTOBER 1ST, 2024, AND AT THAT
POINT, IT WILL ONLY BE IN A
HANDFUL OF COUNTIES AND VERY
FEW, IF ANY COUNTIES WILL BE
READY OR WILLING TO PROCEED AT
THAT TIME. SO LAYERING ON
ANOTHER PROGRAM THAT WILL
REQUIRE RESOURCES THAT ARE
CURRENTLY UNACCOUNTED FOR, BOTH
IN FUNDING AND STAFF CAPACITY,
COULD HAMSTRING LOCAL
CORRECTIONAL EFFORTS EVEN NOW
THAT THE BILL'S REQUIREMENTS DO
NOT COMMENCE UNTIL CALAIM IS
IMPLEMENTED. SO FOR THOSE
REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR NO VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. OTHERS IN OPPOSITION,
PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEEING
NONE. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS SÐNG MÁS. THE
FINANCIAL CONCERN. THAT'S A
VALID CONCERN, HOW ARE WE GOING
TO PAY FOR THIS? BUT I THINK THE
IDEA OF SETTING SOMEBODY UP,
THEY'RE GOING TO BE RELEASED TO
HAVE THEM SET UP SO THAT THEY
CAN, UPON THEIR RELEASE, BEGIN
TO RECEIVE CALFRESH. I THINK IS
JUST A HUMANE THING TO DO, AND I
THINK IT HELPS TO SET PEOPLE UP.
I THINK IT'S A VERY GOOD BILL.
WITH THAT, I WOULD MOVE THE BILL
SECOND. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND SEEING NO
FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS,
MR. BECKER, YOU MAY CLOSE. THANK
YOU. YEAH, WE HAVE MADE
SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES ALONG THE
WAY. THIS BILL ALSO, AS I DID GO
INTO GREAT DETAIL, BUT DOES
CREATE A WORKGROUP LOOKING AT
THE REENTRY PROCESS. AND WE HAVE
REPRESENTATIVES NOW FROM THE
SHERIFF AND OTHERS AND, AND, IN
CONSULTATION FROM THE PREVIOUS
HEARINGS, IT DOESN'T TAKE
EFFECT, AS YOU MENTIONED, UNTIL
WE DO SOME OF THESE OTHER
PIECES. AND, YOU KNOW, WITH
RESPECT, YOU KNOW, AT THAT CASE,
YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN TOLD AND WE
TALKED TO THE ORANGE COUNTY
PILOT, YOU KNOW, THIS REALLY
THEN SHOULD JUST BE A FEW A FEW
EXTRA QUESTIONS ON A FORM TO GET
PEOPLE SIGNED UP, WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A
MOTION A SECOND. PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ON SB 1254 BY SENATOR
BECKER. THE MOTION IS DUE PASSED
TO THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY. MCCARTY I, ALANIS
LACKEY. NGUYEN. NGUYEN. AYE.
REYES REYES. AYE. TÍNH WILSON.
ZEBRA ZUBIATE. AYE THANK YOU.
THE MEASURE IS ON CALL. NEXT
AUTHOR IS SENATOR ALVARADO GILL.
OH, I'M SORRY, I APOLOGIZE, MISS
BLAKE SPEAR. I DIDN'T SEE HER.
YOU HAD MR. BECKER. SHADOW ITEM
NUMBER TEN, SB 1000, ITEM NUMBER
TEN, SB 1002. OKAY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR COMING. YEAH
PLEASE BEGIN. OKAY THANK YOU.
CHAIR AND COLLEAGUES, I
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF MY BILL. SB
1002. DESPITE CALIFORNIA HAVING
THE BEST GUN SAFETY LAWS IN THE
NATION, WE STILL HAVE AREAS
WHERE WE NEED TO IMPROVE.
SPECIFICALLY WE NEED TO ADDRESS
IMPLEMENTATION GAPS. THIS IS
PLACES WHERE EXISTING LAWS
AREN'T WORKING QUITE AS WELL AS
THEY SHOULD. THIS BIPARTISAN
MEASURE ADDRESSES ONE OF THE
MOST PRESSING IMPLEMENTATION
GAPS IN ENSURING OUR LAWS THAT
PROHIBIT PEOPLE EXPERIENCING
MENTAL HEALTH CRISES FROM HAVING
GUNS ACTUALLY WORK. TO BE CLEAR,
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE
WHO ARE EXPERIENCING A MINOR
DEPRESSIVE EPISODE. WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT INDIVIDUALS WHO
HAVE BEEN INVOLUNTARILY
HOSPITALIZED, DEEMED NOT GUILTY
BY REASON OF MENTAL INSANITY,
PLACED IN A CONSERVATORSHIP OR
JUDGED TO BE A DANGER TO OTHERS
OR THEMSELVES DUE TO THEIR
MENTAL ILLNESS, ACCORDING TO THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, NEARLY 4800
CALIFORNIANS REMAIN ARMED
DESPITE BEING PROHIBITED FROM
HAVING GUNS DUE TO MENTAL HEALTH
CONCERNS. THIS PROBLEM MAY GROW
AS COUNTIES IMPLEMENT SB 43 FROM
LAST YEAR, EXPANDING THE
PARAMETERS UNDER WHICH
INDIVIDUALS CAN BE INVOLUNTARILY
COMMITTED DUE TO MENTAL HEALTH
FROM 2012 TO 2022, CALIFORNIA
AVERAGED OVER 120,000 MENTAL
HEALTH HOLDS SORRY MENTAL HOLDS
OF ADULTS A YEAR. WE ARE
EXTREMELY VULNERABLE TO SOMEONE
SLIPPING THROUGH THE GAPS IN OUR
SYSTEM. A PERSON WITH A MENTAL
HEALTH CRISIS AND ACCESS TO A
GUN IS AT RISK OF KILLING
THEMSELVES OR SHOOTING OTHERS.
WE WANT TO REDUCE THAT RISK AS
MUCH AS POSSIBLE. SB 1002
STRIVES TO PLUG THESE GAPS AND
MAKE OUR COMMUNITY SAFER BY
IMPLEMENTING SEVERAL CHANGES.
FIRST, IT PROVIDES COMPLIANCE
TIMELINES AND SET UP SETS UP A
SYSTEM WITH OVERLAPPING
CHECKPOINTS TO ENSURE SUCCESS.
PEOPLE WHO ARE INVOLUNTARILY
COMMITTED TO A HEALTH CARE
FACILITY WILL BE INFORMED.
MULTIPLE TIMES THAT THEY HAVE 72
HOURS FROM DISCHARGE TO GET RID
OF THEIR FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION
BY SEVERAL MEANS, INCLUDING SALE
TO OR TEMPORARILY STORING WITH A
LICENSED DEALER OR TURNING THEM
OVER TO LAW ENFORCEMENT. SECOND,
IT PROVIDES LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT WITH THE INFORMATION
THEY NEED TO FOLLOW UP THIS WILL
IMPROVE VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE AND
ENFORCEMENT WHEN NEEDED. I ALSO
WANT TO EMPHASIZE WHAT THE BILL
DOES NOT DO. THIS BILL DOES NOT
CREATE ANY NEW FIREARM
PROHIBITIONS. INSTEAD, IT'S
FOCUSED ON IMPROVING THE
OUTCOMES OF EXISTING LAWS WITH
ME HERE TODAY, I'M HONORED TO
HAVE FERNANDO MEZA, ON BEHALF OF
THE SAN DIEGO SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT AND CHAIR. IF HE
COULD, PLEASE GO AHEAD, GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR AND HONORABLE
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS FERNANDO MEZA, AND I
AM PROPERTY INVESTIGATOR FOR THE
SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF'S
OFFICE. ON BEHALF OF THE SAN
DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF, KELLY
MARTINEZ, WHO WAS THE BILL
SPONSOR. WE WOULD LIKE TO THANK
SENATOR BLAKE SPEAR FOR
AUTHORING SB 1002. THIS BILL
CLOSES CRITICAL IMPLEMENTATION
GAPS WITHIN EXISTING FIREARM
PROHIBITIONS FOR PEOPLE
EXPERIENCING MENTAL HEALTH
CRISES. FROM 2014 TO 2023, THE
SHERIFF'S PROPERTY
INVESTIGATIONS UNIT, A TEAM OF
FOUR, REVIEWED MORE THAN 56,000
INVOLUNTARY DETENTION CASES PER
YEAR. OF THOSE CASES, NEARLY
4,007% INVOLVED A RECORD OF A
FIREARM THAT WAS IDENTIFIED
THROUGH INVESTIGATION AND
RESEARCH. CURRENTLY, WHEN
INTERACTING WITH PROHIBITED
PERSONS AND EDUCATING THEM OF
THE LAW AND THEIR RIGHTS, THERE
ARE TIMES WHEN WE ARE MET WITH
RELUCTANCE AND OR CONFUSION.
UNFORTUNATELY, LAW ENFORCEMENT
HAS NO MECHANISM TO REFERENCE OR
PHYSICALLY POINT TO A DOCUMENT
WHEN CONTACTING INDIVIDUALS. IN
ADDITION, THE PATIENT
NOTIFICATION OF FIREARM
PROHIBITION AND RIGHT TO HEARING
FORM DOESN'T LIST LAW
ENFORCEMENT AS A RELINQUISHMENT
OPTION DESPITE IT BEING
AVAILABLE, CAUSING MORE
CONFUSION WHEN WE CONTACT THEM.
THE SENATE BILL 1002 WILL CLOSE
IMPLEMENTATION GAPS BY ALLOWING
LAW ENFORCEMENT THE ABILITY TO
REQUEST THE SIGNED PATIENT
NOTIFICATION FORM AND ESTABLISH
A HARD DEADLINE FOR A PROHIBITED
PERSON TO SURRENDER ANY
OUTSTANDING FIREARMS THROUGH THE
AVAILABLE RELINQUISHMENT OPTIONS
. THE END GOAL IS TO PREVENT THE
ESCALATION OF A THREAT, SERIOUS
HARM OR DEATH, OR COMMISSION OF
A CRIME. 70% OF GUN VIOLENCE IN
SAN DIEGO COUNTY IS ATTRIBUTED
TO SUICIDE, DISRUPTING ACCESS TO
FIREARMS DURING THESE TIMES OF
CRISIS REDUCES THAT RISK AND
SAVES LIVES. WHEN THE PROHIBITED
PERSON IS BETTER INFORMED AND
LAW ENFORCEMENT IS BETTER
INFORMED, THERE WILL BE A BETTER
OUTCOME. THAT IS WHY THE SAN
DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE IS
PROUD TO SPONSOR THIS IMPORTANT
LEGISLATION THAT WILL HELP
STREAMLINE AND CLARIFY THE
RELINQUISHMENT PROCESS, MAKING
EVERYONE SAFER. IN CLOSING, WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR THE
COMMITTEE'S. I VOTE AND I
WELCOME ANY QUESTIONS. THANK
YOU. OTHERS IN SUPPORT, PLEASE
COME FORWARD. REBECCA MARCUS, ON
BEHALF OF THE BRADY CAMPAIGN AND
SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING, MISTER
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. COREY SUSILO,
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
STATE SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION,
SUPPORT. SERGEANT BRUNO HAYDEN,
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT, ON BEHALF OF SHERIFF
ROBERT LUNA IN SUPPORT CHAIR AND
MEMBERS CASSANDRA MÀ, ON BEHALF
OF GIFFORDS IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. OPPOSITION. PLEASE COME
FORWARD. SEEING NO OPPOSITION
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. SEEING NONE.
I SUPPORT THIS BILL. WE HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND YOU MAY
CLOSE. THANK YOU. AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ON SB 1002 BY SENATORS
BLAKE SPEER. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. MCCARTY. HI. MCCARTY.
A ALANIZ LACKEY NGUYEN REYES
REYES. AYE TÍNH WILSON. ZIPPER
ZIPPER. AYE MEASURES ON CALL.
MR. SPERBER DOING THE MEASURE
NOW, MISS WAHAB. YES. OKAY
SENATOR WAHAB. SENATOR ASHBY AND
ASSEMBLY MEMBER ZUBIATE LIKE TO
JOINTLY PRESENT SB 1381. AGAIN,
YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES COMBO FOR
YOUR OPENING AND CLOSE. THANK
YOU. PLEASE BEGIN. MISTER CHAIR
MEMBERS, I'M HERE TODAY AS A
JOINT AUTHOR ALONG WITH SENATORS
WAHAB AND ASHLEY ON SB 1381. AS
YOU KNOW, THE LEGISLATURE HAS
ADVANCED A BROAD, COMPREHENSIVE
STRATEGY AND PACKAGE OF BILLS
THAT OFFERS BALANCED, EFFECTIVE,
AND SMART SOLUTIONS TO RETAIL
CRIME AND ENDEAVORS TO PRESERVE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORMS THAT
HAVE BEEN EFFECTIVE AT KEEPING
OUR COMMUNITIES SAFE. THE
LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE, TOGETHER
WITH THIS LEGISLATIVE
PROPOSITION, PROVIDE A
COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO THE
PROBLEM OF RETAIL THEFT AND THE
PERVASIVE DANGER PRESENTED BY
FENTANYL IN OUR COMMUNITIES.
DISCUSSIONS REGARDING THE KEY
AREAS IN THIS LEGISLATIVE
PROPOSITION HAVE BEEN LED BY THE
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE AND THE
LEGISLATIVE LEADERSHIP, AND
INVOLVED A VARIETY OF
STAKEHOLDERS. AND THE GOVERNOR
AND LEGISLATIVE LEADERS BELIEVE
THIS PROVIDES A BALANCED
APPROACH. THIS MEASURE WILL HOLD
FENTANYL DEALERS ACCOUNTABLE,
CURB THEFT AT SHOPS AND
BUSINESSES, AND INCREASE ACCESS
TO DRUG TREATMENT. A BRIEF
SUMMARY OF THE MEASURE IT HOLDS
THOSE WHO STEAL REPEATEDLY
ACCOUNTABLE. IT AGGREGATES
THEFTS AMOUNTS BY EMPOWERING LAW
ENFORCEMENT TO COMBINE THE VALUE
OF MULTIPLE THEFTS, EVEN FROM
DIFFERENT VICTIMS. IT CRACKS
DOWN ON FENTANYL LASERS BY
INTRODUCING STIFFER PENALTIES
FOR KNOWINGLY SELLING OR
PROVIDING DRUGS MIXED WITH
FENTANYL WITHOUT INFORMING THE
BUYER. IT HOLDS FENTANYL DEALERS
ACCOUNTABLE BY ESTABLISHING A
STATEWIDE FENTANYL ADMONISHMENT
REQUIREMENT, MAKING IT EASIER
FOR PROSECUTORS TO ENSURE DRUG
DEALERS WHO REPEATEDLY SELL
DEADLY AMOUNTS OF FENTANYL CAN
BE CHARGED WITH MURDER IF A
DEATH OCCURS, AND IT INCREASES
RESOURCES FOR DRUG TREATMENT BY
EXPANDING MENTAL HEALTH AND DRUG
ADDICTION TREATMENT PROGRAMS AND
COMMUNITIES, IMPROVING PUBLIC
SAFETY. I'D NOW LIKE TO TURN IT
OVER TO MY JOINT AUTHOR, SENATOR
WAHAB. THANK YOU, CHAIR,
COLLEAGUES AND MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC. AS YOU KNOW, THE
GOVERNOR HAS WORKED WITH THE
LEGISLATURE TO DEVELOP
PROPOSITION TWO OR SB 1381. SB
1381 IS A BALANCED APPROACH TO
TARGETING GUILTY PERPETRATORS
WITHOUT RESULTING IN MASS
INCARCERATION. THIS PROPOSED
BALLOT MEASURE WILL CREATE NEW
PENALTIES FOR REPEAT SERIAL
RETAIL THEFT OFFENDERS AND
FENTANYL DEALERS, AS WELL AS
PROVIDE ADDITIONAL TOOLS FOR
FELONY PROSECUTIONS. WHILE
INCREASING DRUG TREATMENT. WE
ALL AGREE THAT SOMETHING NEEDS
TO BE DONE TO ADDRESS THE
INCREASE IN BOTH SHOPLIFTING AND
FENTANYL OVERDOSES. AS A
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BAY AREA,
I STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT MORE
NEEDS TO BE DONE. ACCORDING TO
THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE
SERVICES, COMPARED TO 2019,
OVERDOSE DEATH RATES SPIKED BY
42% IN 2020, AND BY 2021, THIS
NUMBER INCREASED BY 70. THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REPORTS
THAT PROPERTY CRIME RATES HAVE
INCREASED BY NEARLY 7% SINCE
2021, ADDING TO THE CHALLENGES
WITH OUR SMALL BUSINESSES AND
RETAILERS ALREADY FACE IN THIS
PANDEMIC. POST PANDEMIC WORLD,
SB 1381 ADDRESSES THESE CONCERNS
BUT ENSURES THAT HARD WON
POLICIES THIS LEGISLATURE HAS
PASSED REGARDING PREVENTION AND
ANTI-RECIDIVISM ARE PRESERVED
AND BY AND PROVIDES AN INCREASE
IN INVESTMENT TOWARD MENTAL
HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE
TREATMENT. I DO WANT TO STATE
THAT SB 1381 COMPLEMENTS THE
LEGISLATURE'S CURRENT
COMPREHENSIVE BIPARTISAN BILL
PACKAGE. THE SAFER CALIFORNIA
PACKAGE TO ADDRESS PROPERTY
CRIME AND THE FENTANYL CRISIS.
AND IT MAINTAINS THE WORK WE
HAVE DONE TO PROTECT OUR YOUTH.
WHILE THIS BALLOT MEASURE DOES
CREATE NEW PENALTIES, IT IS NOT
PUNITIVE, AND IT ALLOWS THE
LEGISLATURE TO AMEND AT A FUTURE
DATE WITH MORE ADDITIONAL DATA.
WHEN IT COMES TO WHAT IS GOING
WELL AND WHAT IS GOING WRONG.
ANYTHING IN OUTSIDE OF THIS
MEASURE DOES NOT DO THAT. IN
FACT, IT RESTRICTS THE
LEGISLATURE'S HANDS. IT TIES OUR
HANDS TO DO ANYTHING MORE FOR
THE PEOPLE WE REPRESENT. THAT IS
WHY THIS BALLOT INITIATIVE IS
IMPORTANT. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK
GOVERNOR NEWSOM AND OUR
LEGISLATIVE LEADERSHIP FOR
SPEARHEADING THE EFFORT ON THIS
INITIATIVE. AND I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR AYE VOTE. I DO HAVE
TWO WITNESSES WITH ME TESTIFYING
IN SUPPORT. RYAN ALLEN WITH THE
CALIFORNIA RETAILERS ASSOCIATION
AND DANIEL CONWAY WITH THE
CALIFORNIA GROCERY GROCERS
ASSOCIATION, I'LL YIELD MINE
BACK TO SENATOR ASHBY. SB 1381
BALANCES OUR SHARED DESIRE FOR
COMMUNITY SAFETY, BUT ALSO
HOLDING OFFENDERS ACCOUNTABLE.
THE BILL GIVES LAW ENFORCEMENT
AND DA'S THE TOOLS THAT THEY
NEED TO PROSECUTE PROPERTY
CRIMES, AS WELL AS ENFORCE
STRICTER PUNISHMENTS FOR
TRAFFICKERS WHO KNOWINGLY SELL
OR MIX FENTANYL. THIS MEASURE
STRIKES AN IMPORTANT BALANCE
BETWEEN ENSURING CRIMINAL
PENALTIES FIT THE CRIMES
COMMITTED AND KEEPING OUR
COMMUNITIES SAFE FROM THEFT AND
LETHAL DRUGS, WHILE ALSO NOT
REGRESSING BACK TO INEFFECTIVE
POLICIES THAT PREVIOUSLY OVER
CRIMINALIZED CALIFORNIA'S LOW
INCOME COMMUNITIES, PARTICULARLY
PEOPLE OF COLOR. WE ALL CARE A
LOT ABOUT SMALL BUSINESSES, BUT
WE ALSO CARE ABOUT NOT REVERTING
BACK TO DAYS OF MASS
INCARCERATION AND A FAILED WAR
ON DRUGS. AS MY COLLEAGUES HAVE
ALREADY LAID OUT, SB 1381 DOES A
FEW THINGS, BUT ONE OF THE MOST
IMPORTANT IS THAT IT EXPANDS
MENTAL HEALTH AND DRUG ADDICTION
TREATMENT PROGRAMS FOR OUR
COMMUNITIES, WHICH FURTHER
IMPROVES COMMUNITY SAFETY WHILE
PRIORITIZING THE OVERALL HEALTH
AND WELL-BEING OF CALIFORNIANS.
COLLEAGUES WE JUST SPENT WEEKS
NEGOTIATING A BUDGET BUDGET,
CUTTING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS. THE
INITIATIVE IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY
NOT ONLY STRIKES A BALANCE ON
CRIME AND ACCOUNTABILITY, IT
ALSO ADDRESSES COSTS. THE WAR ON
DRUGS PROPOSAL HAS BEEN PRICED
OUT BY THE LAO AT HUNDREDS OF
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ANNUALLY FOR
INCARCERATION, NOT TREATMENT,
NOT CARE COURTS, NOT MENTAL
HEALTH SERVICES. STATE PRISON
COLLEAGUES. LET'S GIVE
CALIFORNIANS ANOTHER OPTION, ONE
THAT HOLDS PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE,
ADDRESSES PETTY THEFT WITH
PRIORS. LET'S MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO
MIX FENTANYL WITH OTHER THINGS.
LET'S MOVE RESOURCES TO
TREATMENT. LET'S HELP OUR SMALL
BUSINESSES AND RETAILERS AND
PROTECT KIDS AND NEIGHBORHOODS
WITHOUT SPENDING HUNDREDS OF
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND WITHOUT
RE-IMPLEMENTING FAILED POLICIES
THAT FILLED OUR PRISONS AND DID
NOT REDUCE CRIME. WE CAN
CERTAINLY DO BETTER. I URGE AN
AYE VOTE ON SB 1381. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
YOU HAVE FOUR MINUTES COMBO.
PERFECT THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
CHAIR MCCARTY. COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS RYAN ELAINE,
AND I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA RETAILERS ASSOCIATION
AND STRONG SUPPORT OF SB 1381.
FOR YEARS, THE CALIFORNIA
RETAILERS ASSOCIATION ASKED THIS
BODY, THROUGH OUR SPONSORSHIP OF
LEGISLATION, TO PASS EFFECTIVE
SOLUTIONS TO PROVIDE TOOLS TO
COMBAT RETAIL THEFT ISSUES
SPECIFICALLY FOCUSED ON REPEAT
OFFENDERS, AND HELP FIX THE
UNINTENDED LOOPHOLE OF PROP 47
PERTAINING TO THE LACK OF
ABILITY TO AGGREGATE THE $950
THRESHOLD THAT WE SEE REPEAT
OFFENDERS TAKE ADVANTAGE OF.
UNFORTUNATELY, WE WERE MET. OUR
REQUESTS WERE MET UNANSWERED
UNTIL THIS YEAR, AND UNTIL
TODAY, PREVENTING RETAIL THEFT
AND PROTECTING RETAIL EMPLOYEES
AND CUSTOMERS IS A TOP PRIORITY
FOR ALL RETAILERS THROUGHOUT
CALIFORNIA. BUT THE INCREASE OF
RETAIL THEFT AND THE DAMAGE IT
CAUSES COMMUNITIES DICTATES THAT
SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE TO
ENSURE THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES
FOR CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR. GIVING
RETAILERS, LAW ENFORCEMENT AND
PROSECUTORS THE TOOLS THEY NEED
TO DETER AND PREVENT IT FROM
ESCALATING. EVEN MORE. RETAILERS
WILL CONTINUE TO INVEST IN
PROTECTING EMPLOYEES, CUSTOMERS
AND ASSETS FROM CRIME, BUT
CRIMINALS UNDERSTAND THE
LOOPHOLES AND CURRENT LAW
LOOPHOLES LIKE THE REMOVAL OF
PENAL CODE 666.1 PETTY THEFT
WITH THE PRIOR, OR HOW THE
CURRENT LAW MAKES IT ALMOST
IMPOSSIBLE TO AGGREGATE CRIMES
UP TO THE $950 THRESHOLD, SB
1381 WOULD FIX THAT TODAY. IN
CALIFORNIA, RETAIL THEFT PAYS
AND IT PAYS WELL. IT'S VIEWED AS
A LOW RISK, HIGH REWARD VENTURE
WITH LITTLE CONSEQUENCES. BUT
NOW IT IS TIME TO CHANGE THAT
NARRATIVE. WE HAVE BEEN
ENCOURAGED BY THE CONVERSATIONS
THIS BODY HAS HAD TO MOVE THE
NEEDLE AND PROVIDE REAL REFORMS
TO DETER RETAIL THEFT. IN
CALIFORNIA, REFORMS WE HAVE NOT
SEEN IN DECADES. SENATE BILL
1381 IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF
THIS BROADER RETAIL THEFT
PACKAGE. A PACKAGE THAT
REPRESENTS THE BIGGEST SET OF
REFORMS IN THE CALIFORNIA
LEGISLATURE HAS CONSIDERED IN
DECADES. AND, IF PASSED, WILL
PROVIDE MUCH NEEDED TOOLS TO THE
RETAILERS, LAW ENFORCEMENT AND
PROSECUTORS, RESULTING IN SAFER
STORES FOR OUR EMPLOYEES, SAFE
SHOPPING EXPERIENCES FOR OUR
CUSTOMERS, AND SAFER COMMUNITIES
FOR THE NEIGHBORHOODS IN WHICH
WE OPERATE, WE OPERATE IN. NOW
IS A TIME TO ACT. NOW IS THE
TIME FOR THIS BODY TO LEAD. THIS
ISSUE IS FAR TOO IMPORTANT. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK YOUR AYE VOTE
ON SB 1381. THANK YOU. TWO
MINUTES FOR YOU. THANK YOU.
CHAIRMAN. DANIEL CONWAY WITH THE
CALIFORNIA GROCERS ASSOCIATION.
I JUST WANT TO ECHO THE COMMENTS
OF MY COLLEAGUE HERE AND REALLY
REFLECT ON THE LEADERSHIP THAT'S
GOTTEN US HERE TODAY. I THINK
FOR A LOT OF US, LOOKING AT
WHERE WE'VE COME WITH THIS
LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE, AND NOW
WITH SB 1381, IT'S SHOCKING.
JUST THE PROGRESS THAT WE'VE
MADE IN LESS THAN A YEAR. AND
SO, AGAIN, FOR YOU, CHAIRMAN,
YOU AND YOUR COMMITTEE DESERVE A
LOT OF, ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND
APPRECIATION FOR THAT. BUT I
ALSO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE
WORK THAT THE GOVERNOR AND
LEGISLATIVE LEADERSHIP AND YOU
ALL HAVE DONE, JUST EVEN IN THE
LAST FEW WEEKS, TO BRING US ALL
TOGETHER, I THINK THIS, THIS
PARTICULAR PIECE OF LEGISLATION
IS CONSISTENT WITH CGA'S
PERSPECTIVE, WHICH IS, PROP 47
WAS WELL-INTENTIONED AND, THERE
WAS A NUMBER OF REASONS FOR
ENACTING IT AT THE TIME. BUT AS
WE'VE ALL COME TO ACKNOWLEDGE,
THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT
NEED TO BE REFINED AT THIS
POINT. AND WE THINK THIS BILL
DOES A GREAT JOB OF EMPOWERING
VOTERS TO ONCE AGAIN GO TO THE
BALLOT AND DO THE RIGHT THING
FOR THEMSELVES AND FOR THEIR
COMMUNITIES. SO THANK YOU ALL
FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP, AND I LOOK
FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU
MOVING FORWARD. THANK YOU.
OTHERS IN SUPPORT, PLEASE COME
FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND
POSITION ONLY. OKAY. SEEING NONE
OPPOSITION, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
PLEASE STEP UP. MR. CONWAY. WOW
THAT'S.
YES. MR. ARE YOU ALSO PART OF
THIS GROUP? YES SO, MR. BURKE,
CAN YOU JUMP UP? YEAH. OKAY.
FIRST. ALL RIGHT. YOU HAVE FOUR
MINUTES AMONG YOUR PANEL. SPLIT
IT UP. I'M. I'M BEING LOOKED TO
START. SO, A LITTLE CLOSER TO
THE MIC. SORRY. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS. CORY SUSILO,
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
STATE SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION,
RESPECTFULLY, TO THE AUTHORS AND
THE GOVERNOR, WHO TRIED TO PUT
SOMETHING TOGETHER, ALTHOUGH I
WOULD SAY, THIS REALLY FALLS
RESPECTFULLY AS TOO LITTLE, TOO
LATE. THE SERIAL THEFT PROVISION
OF SB 1381, FALLS WELL SHORT. IT
INCLUDES A THREE YEAR WASH OUT,
WHICH MEANS FOR ANY CRIMES, YOU
WOULD HAVE TO, BE ABLE TO FIND
THEM, CHARGE THEM, PROSECUTE
THEM ALL WITHIN THREE YEARS.
MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT TO USE
SB 1381 LACKS A NUMBER OF THINGS
THAT OTHER MEASURES THAT ARE
ALREADY ON A BALLOT WOULD DEAL
WITH, INCLUDING THOSE WHO HAVE
SIGNIFICANT QUANTITIES OF
FENTANYL. THOSE WHO POSSESS
FENTANYL WILL ARMED, THOSE WHO
CAUSE GREAT BODILY INJURY BY
FURNISHING OTHERS WITH A
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE. NONE OF
THAT EXISTS IN SB 1381. FROM A
PROCEDURAL PERSPECTIVE, THIS HAS
LANGUAGE THAT SAYS A CONFLICTING
MEASURE ON THE BALLOT THAT
RECEIVES FEWER VOTES WOULD NOT
BECOME LAW, SO THIS BASICALLY
CREATES AN EITHER OR CHOICE
BETWEEN OTHER MEASURES THAT MAY
HAVE ALREADY QUALIFIED FOR THE
BALLOT, AND FOR MONTHS,
PROPONENTS RESPECTFULLY HAVE
SAID THAT WE DON'T NEED TO
ADDRESS OUR OUT OF CONTROL THEFT
CRISIS BY AMENDING PROP 47, BY
GOING BACK TO THE BALLOT. BUT
YET HERE WE ARE. IT BEGS THE
QUESTION, WHAT HAS CHANGED? SO
WE'RE WE'RE APPRECIATIVE THAT,
THERE IS SOME, I THINK, REAL
RECOGNITION OF THE CHALLENGES
AND THE FENTANYL CRISIS. AND THE
THEFT CRISIS WE FACE. BUT THIS
BILL, FRANKLY AND RESPECTFULLY,
ISN'T IT, OUR CONTINUED OUR
COMMUNITIES CONTINUOUSLY FALL
VICTIM TO RUNAWAY CRIME, AND OUR
POPULATION IS BEING POISONED.
AND RESPECTFULLY, THIS BILL
FAILS TO ADDRESS THOSE PROBLEMS
AND PUTS ANOTHER MEASURE THAT
HAS A HIGHER CHANCE OF SUCCESS
IN DOING SO AT A HIGHER RISK OF
FAILURE. SO, RESPECTFULLY, WE'D
ASK FOR YOUR NO VOTE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. AMY BAILEY,
CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
ASSOCIATION WE ALSO MUST
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE. WHILE IT IS
A LAUDABLE GOAL, WE DO THINK
THAT THIS LAW REQUIRES FURTHER
REFINEMENT. WE HAVE SEVERAL
TECHNICAL OBJECTIONS, AND I
WOULD ENCOURAGE THE COMMITTEE
MEMBERS TO PLEASE READ THE
LETTER THAT WE SUBMITTED, BUT
I'LL JUST HIGHLIGHT, TWO OF THEM
FOR NOW. I WILL FOCUS ON, WHAT I
THINK IS A MAJOR CHANGE IN THIS
LAW FROM CURRENT JURISPRUDENCE
AND AS A PROSECUTOR MAKES IT
DIFFICULT, WILL MAKE IT
DIFFICULT FOR US TO BE ABLE TO
PROVE THESE CRIMES IN A COURT OF
LAW TO A JURY. IT ADDS THE
REQUIREMENT THAT THE SELLER MUST
KNOW THAT THE SUBSTANCE HE'S
SELLING IS FENTANYL. IT IS
ALREADY A REQUIREMENT FOR
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES THAT THE
SELLER MUST KNOW THAT THEY HAVE
A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, BUT THE
FACT THAT THEY MUST KNOW THAT IT
IS SPECIFICALLY FENTANYL IS AN
ADDED ELEMENT THAT WILL BE
DIFFICULT TO PROVE IN ADDITION,
THE BUYER MUST NOT KNOW THAT
THEY WERE PURCHASING FENTANYL.
THAT'S ANOTHER ELEMENT THAT'S
VERY DIFFICULT FOR THE PEOPLE TO
PROVE. AND SO AND FINALLY, THE
LANGUAGE ALSO REQUIRES A MIXTURE
OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES,
INCLUDING FENTANYL IN SEVERAL
PROVISIONS. AND THAT PRESUMABLY
WOULD REQUIRE AT LEAST TWO
SUBSTANCES IN ADDITION TO
FENTANYL IN ORDER FOR THIS LAW
TO APPLY, WHICH IS UNLIKE
UNDERLYING STATUTES WHERE, THIS
NEW PROVISION WOULD NOT APPLY TO
EITHER TRANSPORTATION OR
IMPORTATION. AND IF WE HAVE TO
PROVE THE MIXTURE, THEN WE ARE
AT RISK OF NOT BEING ABLE TO
PROVE THOSE ELEMENTS. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS. IGNACIO
HERNANDEZ, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS FOR
CRIMINAL JUSTICE, STATEWIDE
ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE
LAWYERS, WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE
BILL AS IT'S CURRENTLY DRAFTED.
LET ME MAKE CLEAR, WE BELIEVE
THAT THE DEBATE ON SMASH AND
GRAB AND FENTANYL HAS RESULTED
IN A BALLOT MEASURE THAT'S
ALREADY QUALIFIED. THAT IS
DRACONIAN AND AN OVERREACH. WE
DO NOT AGREE WITH IT. WE THINK
THERE'S A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH
IT. BUT DUE TO KIND OF THE AND
WE APPRECIATE THE EFFORTS AND
THE WORK THAT THE AUTHOR OF THE
BILL, THE COAUTHORS, THE JOINT
AUTHORS HAVE DONE ON THIS ISSUE.
BUT WE REALIZE WE'RE IN A REALLY
TOUGH POSITION BECAUSE THE FOUR
CORNERS OF THIS BILL IS STILL
VERY PROBLEMATIC FOR US. WE HAVE
PROBLEMS WITH THE ADVISEMENT.
I'VE SAT IN THIS ROOM MANY TIMES
TESTIFYING AGAINST BLANKET
ADVISEMENTS FOR MURDER CHARGES
LATER ON FOR OTHER CASES. WE
THINK IT SETS A TERRIBLE
PRECEDENT. WE THINK THAT THE
EXTENSION ON SOME OF THE
PENALTIES ARE ALSO UNJUSTIFIED,
I DON'T WANT TO COMPARE THE TWO,
BUT CERTAINLY WE DO NOT LIKE THE
EXISTING BALLOT MEASURE. SO WE
UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, THE
LEGISLATURE IS IN THIS REALLY IN
A CONUNDRUM OF WHAT TO DO. SO WE
DO UNDERSTAND THAT. AND RESPECT
THAT. AND WE THINK THAT THERE
ARE PIECES OF THIS BILL THAT ARE
A MORE BALANCED APPROACH THAN
THE EXISTING BALLOT MEASURE, BUT
WE STILL NEED TO GO ON RECORD TO
SAY THAT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT
ARE IN THIS BILL ARE STILL
PROBLEMATIC FOR US, JUST AS A
POLICY WITHIN THE FOUR CORNERS
AND AS AN ASSOCIATION. WE
HAVEN'T HAD ENOUGH TIME TO
INTERNALLY ASSESS WHAT WE WILL
DO IN LIGHT OF BOTH MEASURES.
BUT JUST ON THE FOUR CORNERS OF
THE POLICY TODAY, WE JUST HAVE
TO STATE OUR OPPOSITION. AND I
WANT TO THANK THE AUTHORS FOR
THE BILL. THANK YOU. OTHERS IN
OPPOSITION, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
Dð COONEY, ON BEHALF OF ACLU
CALIFORNIA ACTION, WE DO NOT
CURRENTLY HAVE A POSITION ON THE
BALLOT MEASURE AS WRITTEN, BUT
WE DO WANT TO EXPRESS THAT WE DO
HAVE CONCERNS WITH IT. THANK
YOU. ALICIA BENAVIDEZ, ON BEHALF
OF DRUG POLICY ALLIANCE, SIMILAR
TO THE ACLU. WE JUST WANTED TO
NOTE THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY
CONCERNED WITH THE POSITION AND
DUE TO THE CRIMINALIZATION
FOCUSED OPTIONS, ARE BEING
PRESENTED TO VOTERS. AND
INSTEAD, WE SHOULD BE FOCUSING
THIS FOCUSING THIS AS A PUBLIC
HEALTH CRISIS, THAT IT IS ALSO
NOTING SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT
THE DEVASTATING IMPACT AND
ENHANCEMENTS OF CONTINUOUSLY HAD
ON COMMUNITIES OF COLOR. THANK
YOU. MARGO GEORGE, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION, WE DO NOT HAVE A
POSITION. WE APPRECIATE THE
AUTHORS OF THE GOVERNOR. WE ARE
CONCERNED ABOUT THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
PRETRIAL DETENTION, SECTION.
THANK YOU. HI. MY NAME IS JACOB
DENNY WITH THE VERA INSTITUTE OF
JUSTICE. WE OPPOSE THIS BILL
BECAUSE IT INCREASES
INCARCERATION, WHICH WILL NOT
CHANGE PEOPLE'S BEHAVIOR OR
REDUCE CRIME. THANK YOU. DANICA
O'DONNELL, ON BEHALF OF THE
JUSTICE IN OPPOSITION. GOOD
MORNING, LIEUTENANT JULIO DELEON
FROM THE RIVERSIDE SHERIFF'S
OFFICE. IN OPPOSITION. DAN
LOZOWSKI WITH THE SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT IN
OPPOSITION. KELLY WALTERS FROM
LEGAL SERVICES FOR PRISONERS
WITH CHILDREN. AND ALL OF US ARE
NONE IN OPPOSITION. RYAN,
CHAIRMAN, IN OPPOSITION TO SB
1381, ON BEHALF OF THE RIVERSIDE
SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION,
CALIFORNIA NARCOTIC OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA DESERVE
PEACE OFFICERS, DEPUTY SHERIFFS,
ASSOCIATIONS OF PLACER AND
MONTEREY COUNTIES, AND THE
POLICE OFFICER ASSOCIATIONS OF
THE FOLLOWING CITIES ARCADIA,
BURBANK, CLAREMONT, CORONA,
CULVER CITY, FULLERTON,
MURIETTA, NEWPORT BEACH, NOVATO,
PALOS VERDES, POMONA, RIVERSIDE,
SANTA ANA, UPLAND VALLEY SCHOOL,
POLICE ASSOCIATION, LÀ SCHOOL,
POLICE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION,
AND THE CALIFORNIA COALITION OF
SCHOOL SAFETY PROFESSIONALS, ALL
IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU, AMELIA
ROGERS, ELLA BAKER CENTER FOR
HUMAN RIGHTS IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. MELANIE KIM, SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE AND RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION
. TIM TAYLOR WITH THE NATIONAL
FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT
BUSINESS IN STRONG OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU, DAX PROCTOR, FOR
CALIFORNIANS UNITED FOR
RESPONSIBLE BUDGET IN OPPOSITION
. YOLANDA NAVARETTE WITH
INITIATE JUSTICE ACTION STRONGLY
BUT RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. MORGAN
GUYER, PLACER COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY IN OPPOSITION. GOOD
AFTERNOON. SORRY I MISSED THE
MEETING IN SUPPORT. THIS IS
BRENDA BASS ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. OKAY.
THANK YOU. THERE'S NO MORE
OPPOSITION QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MISS RAY
. THIS HAS BEEN A TOUGH YEAR
TRYING TO DEAL WITH SO MANY
ISSUES THAT THE COMMUNITY HAS,
HAS CALLED US ABOUT ON RETAIL
THEFT AND THE CRIME RINGS AND
RETAIL THEFT, THE FENTANYL, THE
DEATHS OF SO MANY OF OUR YOUTH,
CALLS FROM FROM FAMILY MEMBERS,
FROM PARENTS AND TRYING TO DO
THE RIGHT THING BY THE
COMMUNITIES THAT WE REPRESENT.
I'M REALLY PROUD OF THE NUMBER
OF BILLS THAT HAVE BEEN
INTRODUCED TO DEAL WITH THESE
ISSUES, BOTH FROM THE ASSEMBLY
AND FROM THE SENATE. TRYING TO
DO WE THE, THE STATISTICS THAT
WE HEAR AFTER PROP 47 IS THAT
CRIME WAS DOWN, BUT THERE WERE
TWO AREAS THAT WERE CONSISTENTLY
REMAINING AN ISSUE, AND THAT WAS
FENTANYL SPECIFICALLY. AND
RETAIL THEFT. AND SO A NUMBER OF
BILLS, THAT SITTING HERE IN THIS
COMMITTEE FOR THE FIRST TIME
THAT THAT I HAD THE, I SUPPOSE,
PRIVILEGE OF LISTENING TO
FIRSTHAND AND VOTING ON, TRYING
TO FIND THE BEST WAY TO PROTECT
OUR COMMUNITY. I APPRECIATE IT
SO MUCH, HAVING THE CALIFORNIA
RETAILERS AND THE CALIFORNIA
GROCERS SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS,
THIS PARTICULAR MEASURE, BECAUSE
A LOT OF WHAT WE WERE DOING ON
THE RETAIL THEFT BILLS WAS
TRYING TO ANSWER THEIR CONCERNS,
ABOUT RETAIL THEFT AND THESE
CRIME RINGS, AND I APPRECIATED,
RYAN LANE'S COMMENT THAT THIS IS
THE BIGGEST SET OF REFORM IN
YEARS. AND RECOGNIZING THE
IMPACT OF WHAT YOU ALL ARE
INTRODUCING HERE. AND HE ALSO
TALKED ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT
THROUGH THIS, THAT WE HAVE SAFER
STORES AND SAFER SHOPPING. I'VE
HEARD FROM SO MANY SHOPPERS AND
SO MANY, RETAILERS AND GROCERS
ABOUT THE DANGERS IN THEIR
STORES. FROM THE CALIFORNIA
GROCERS. I APPRECIATED THE
COMMENT ABOUT THE SHOCKING. IT'S
BEEN SHOCKING, THE PROGRESS THAT
WE'VE MADE IN JUST ONE YEAR AND
ESPECIALLY MOST RECENTLY, BEING
ABLE TO BRING THE GROUPS
TOGETHER TO BE ABLE TO PUT
TOGETHER THIS PIECE OF
LEGISLATION, IN RESPONSE, AGAIN,
TO WHAT THE COMMUNITY IS SAYING,
SOMETIMES WE INTRODUCE
LEGISLATION THINKING THAT'S
GOING TO TAKE CARE OF THE ISSUES
AND I APPRECIATE THE COMMENT
FROM THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT,
FROM THE SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
THAT WE'VE BEEN SAYING THAT
GROUPS WERE SAYING WE DON'T NEED
TO REFORM PROP 47, AND HERE WE
ARE. WELL, I APPRECIATE THAT YOU
ALL STEPPED UP THAT YOU
RECOGNIZED THAT PERHAPS NOW WE
DO NEED TO DO A LITTLE BIT MORE
WITH WITH REGARD TO PROP 47. AND
THIS IS WHAT THIS IS. THIS IS A
REFORM TO PROP 47. THE, THE, THE
NUMBER OF PIECES OF LEGISLATION
THAT HAVE BEEN VOTED ON THAT
WILL BE HEADED TO THE GOVERNOR'S
DESK IN, IN CONJUNCTION WITH OR
IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THIS
PARTICULAR MEASURE, WHICH ISN'T
JUST SAYING, HERE'S THE LAW.
WE'RE PASSING IT AND THAT'S IT.
WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS, OKAY,
VOTERS, WE KNOW WE HAVE TO DEAL
WITH THIS, AND WE HAVE TO DO IT
IN A MEASURED WAY THAT, PROVIDES
FOR THE ACCOUNTABILITY, BUT ALSO
MAKES SURE THAT WE PROVIDE THE
PROTECTIONS THAT WE NEED,
WHETHER IT'S MENTAL HEALTH, SO
MANY THINGS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN
HERE, WE'RE SAYING VOTERS, WE'RE
GIVING THIS TO YOU. WE WANT FOR
YOU TO LOOK AT THIS, TO EVALUATE
IT, AND TO VOTE ON IT. THE GROUP
THAT THE GROUPS THAT MOST WERE
WERE AFFECTED BEFORE, AND WANTED
REFORM ON PROP 47 WITH THE
RETAILERS AND THE GROCERS. AND I
AM SO, SO PLEASED TO SEE THAT
THEY HAVE BOTH TESTIFIED HERE ON
YOUR BEHALF IN FAVOR OF THIS
MEASURE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WILSON, THANK
YOU, MR. SPEAKER. THANK YOU TO
THE AUTHORS, FOR BEING WILLING
TO WORK IN THIS SPACE. WE KNOW,
FROM, YOU KNOW, CRIMINAL JUSTICE
REFORM HAS BEEN HARD,
CHALLENGING, TO DO. AND, I SIT,
WITH MY HAT ALWAYS ON AS CHAIR
OF THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE
BLACK CAUCUS AND, OUR CAUCUS,
YOU KNOW, HAS TAKEN A POSITION
COLLECTIVELY, AS NÓ ON THIS, ON
ON THESE TYPES OF MEASURES,
BECAUSE WE'VE FOUND THAT THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IS NOT
YET BLUNT, THAT SOMEHOW THERE
HAS STILL BEEN A
DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACT OF BLACK
INDIVIDUALS IN THIS SYSTEM AND
LAWS SUCH AS THIS SOMEHOW SEEM
TO FIND A WAY THAT WE ARE STILL
DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTED. WE
ONLY MAKE UP A LITTLE UNDER 7%
OF THE ENTIRE STATE, BUT YET AND
STILL, WHEN YOU LOOK AT OUR
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, WE FIND
OURSELVES DISPROPORTIONATELY
REPRESENTED THERE, AND, YOU
KNOW, A LOT OF WHAT IS GOING TO
BE ON THE BALLOT, THIS YEAR,
SETS US BACK IN SO MANY WAYS, TO
THE DAYS OF OLD, WHICH WE HAVE
FOUGHT HARD TO OVERCOME. AND IF
THE VOTERS WOULD CHOOSE THAT, I
FIRMLY BELIEVE IT WOULD TAKE
GENERATIONS, YOU KNOW, TO UNDO.
AND SO, CONSIDERING THAT IT'S
NOT JUST AS SIMPLE AS A BINARY
BLACK OR WHITE CHOICE ON THIS,
THERE'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF GRAY.
AND RECOGNIZING THAT, AS
LEGISLATORS, WE DON'T HAVE THE
POSITION, TO BE BLACK OR WHITE
ON THIS ISSUE IN THE SAME WAY
THAT A VOTER HAS THAT WE HAVE TO
AS LEGISLATORS, GIVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO OUR VOTERS, TO
CHOOSE, THE WAY THEY SEE BEST
FORWARD AND DEAL WITH THE
CONSEQUENCES OF IT. AND THAT IS
A SCARY THOUGHT, KNOWING THAT
THE BLACK COMMUNITY HAS
DEFINITELY BEEN
DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTED BY
THE LAWS THAT HAVE COME OUT OF
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS IT
RELATES TO, THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE
SYSTEM. AND SO I JUST WANTED TO
NOTE THAT, AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT
THE COMMENT WAS BEFORE I WAS
PRESENTING IN ANOTHER COMMITTEE,
SO DIDN'T GET TO HEAR IT, BUT I
JUST WANTED TO NOTE THE FEAR.
THAT EXIST WITHIN OUR CAUCUS ON
BEHALF OF BLACK CALIFORNIANS AS
IT RELATES TO LAWS OF THIS
NATURE. AT THE SAME TIME, I
INDIVIDUALLY RECOGNIZE, LIKE I
NOTED, THAT THERE'S A
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS TO THINGS.
THERE'S THINGS WE HAVE TO DO AS
LEGISLATORS AND ALSO RECOGNIZING
THAT THERE SHOULD BE
CONSEQUENCES THAT WE CAN HAVE
CONSEQUENCES TO CRIMINAL ACTS.
CHEN, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME
HAVING EMPATHY, RECOGNIZING THAT
A LOT OF TIMES CRIMINAL ACTION
IS NOT BASED IN EVILNESS, BUT IN
BASED OUT OF NECESSITY,
DESPERATION AND THINGS OF THAT
SORT, WE DO HAVE A DUTY AS
LEGISLATORS TO PROTECT, YOU
KNOW, OUR BUSINESSES TO ENSURE
THAT THEY CAN OFFER GOODS AND
SERVICES TO PEOPLE BECAUSE
WITHOUT THOSE GOODS AND
SERVICES, WE CANNOT HAVE A HIGH
QUALITY OF LIFE. AND THAT'S
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO ME. SO I
JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT FOR THE
RECORD, I'LL BE SUPPORTING THIS
TODAY, IN LIGHT OF THOSE
COMMENTS AND RECOGNITION THAT WE
ARE GIVING THIS TO THE VOTERS TO
CHOOSE, REALLY, WHAT IS THE
LESSER OF TWO EVILS? BUT, I JUST
THINK IT SHOULD BE SAID THAT WE
HAVE TO DO OUR PART AS
LEGISLATORS, TO THINK THROUGH
THE WORK THAT WE DO HERE. AND
RECOGNIZE THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE
ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS IN PLACE
TO SUPPORT THE MOST VULNERABLE
PEOPLE AMONG US TO ENSURE THAT
PEOPLE OF COLOR ARE NOT
DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTED, AND
THAT OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
TRULY CAN BE BLIND TO THE FACT
OF THE COLOR OF YOUR SKIN. YOUR,
YOU KNOW, SOCIO ECONOMIC LEVEL
AND TREAT EVERYONE UNFAIRLY. AND
THAT'S WORK THAT WE HAVE TO DO.
AND WE ARE FALLING SHORT OF THAT
WORK. THANK YOU, MR. LACKEY.
YEAH. THANK YOU. RETAILERS MOM
AND POP'S STORES, JEWELRY
STORES. AND THROUGHOUT
CALIFORNIA, THEY'RE BEING ROBBED
AT UNPRECEDENTED RATES. WE ALL
KNOW THIS. WE ALL KNOW THIS. WE
ALL SHOP. WE ALL GO TO THE
GROCERY STORE, AND NOW WE SEE
SOMETHING WE'VE NEVER SEEN
BEFORE. WE HAVE SIMPLE PRODUCTS
THAT ARE LOCKED UP BECAUSE THEFT
IS OUT OF CONTROL. IT'S
ABSOLUTELY OUT OF CONTROL. AND
IT WASN'T OUT OF CONTROL PRIOR
TO THIS PROP 47 INITIATIVE. IT'S
VERY INTERESTING TO ME THAT WE
HAVE HEARD OVER AND OVER AND
OVER AGAIN. PROP 47 DOESN'T NEED
TO BE AMENDED AND THE PROPONENTS
OF THIS BILL WERE IN THAT CLAMOR
ALL OF A SUDDEN. NOW WE HAVE
THIS LAST MINUTE SURGE, THIS
BRILLIANT PROPOSAL THAT IS PHONY
. I'M SORRY TO BE EMOTIONAL,
FOLKS, BUT THIS IS AN EMOTIONAL
ISSUE FOR ME. THIS IS SO
POWERFUL TO ALL OF US. I DON'T
CARE WHAT COLOR YOU ARE, THIS
IMPACTS YOU NEGATIVELY RIGHT
NOW. WE'RE ALL HURT BY THIS. WHY
ARE WE PRESENTING SOMETHING
THAT'S PHONY? A VERY GOOD FRIEND
OF MINE HAS STATED VERY, VERY
ACCURATELY, THIS PROPOSAL
DEMONSTRATES THAT NAKED POLITICS
NOT PRINCIPLED POLICY OBJECTIONS
ARE AT THE HEART OF THIS
PROPOSAL. SHAME ON US. THIS IS
GOING TO PASS. I KNOW IT'S GOING
TO PASS, BUT NOT WITH MY
SUPPORT, BECAUSE IT'S PHONY AND
IT'S DESIGNED TO CAUSE
CONFUSION. THAT'S NOT FAIR.
THAT'S NOT FAIR. THIS IS NOT A
RIGHT OR LEFT ISSUE, FOLKS. IT'S
NOT. IT IMPACTS ALL OF US. BUT
WE'RE MAKING IT. WE'RE TRYING TO
MAKE IT A RIGHT LEFT ISSUE.
THAT'S NOT RIGHT. IT'S NOT
RIGHT. AND I I'M SAD TO SAY THAT
IF YOU CAN'T TELL, I'M VERY
FRUSTRATED BY THIS AND IT WILL
NOT GET MY SUPPORT. NO QUESTIONS
. OKAY. THE QUESTIONS. YEAH.
I'LL HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS FOR
EITHER THE DA'S OR THE SHERIFFS.
YOU CAN START COMING UP, BUT,
BUT BEFORE THAT, I JUST WANT TO
SAY I WILL VOTE FOR THIS
MEASURE. I DO SUPPORT THIS, AS
YOU SAID, MR. LACKEY, SOME HAVE
QUESTIONED WHETHER OR NOT 47
NEEDS TO BE ON IT OR NOT, OR WE
NEED TO PUT 47 REFORMS ON THE
BALLOT. I'VE ALWAYS SAID THAT WE
DO, BUT WITH REASON, WITH
BALANCE AND COMMON SENSE AND
WHEN WE STARTED THIS PROCESS SIX
MONTHS AGO, A YEAR AGO, WE SAID
WE WANTED TO BRING MORE
ACCOUNTABILITY TO OUR PUBLIC
SAFETY LAWS, OUR DRUG LAWS, BUT
NOT OVERCORRECT, NOT OVERCORRECT
NOT GO BACK TO THE 90S FOR 25 TO
LIFE FOR A SLICE OF PIZZA. AND
THIS IS ATTEMPTING TO DO THAT.
AND I'M PLEASED THAT WE ARE
GOING TO THE BACK TO THE BALLOT
BECAUSE ONE THING THAT WE HEARD
AND I HEARD CRYSTAL CLEAR AT OUR
VERY FIRST, SELECT COMMITTEE
HEARING THAT I SERVE ON A RETAIL
THEFT DOWN AT THE HOLLYWOOD
CIVIC CENTER. IS THAT WHERE
WHAT'S CALLED CITY HALL? CITY
HALL? EXACTLY IS THAT, NOT ALL
RETAIL THEFT IS EVEN. AND WE SEE
LOTS OF TIKTOK VIDEOS AND THIS
AND THAT. BUT THE ORGANIZED IS
VERY DIFFERENT THAN PEOPLE
HITTING OUR SMALL GROCERS, NOT
THE GROCERS. WE RESPECT THE
GROCERS, BUT THE 7-ELEVEN, THE
CORNER STORES, THE CONVENIENCE
STORES AND THE ONLY WAY THAT YOU
CAN ADDRESS WHAT'S IMPACTING THE
LATTER IS BY GOING BACK TO THE
VOTERS. AND ADJUSTING PROP 47.
AND SO I DO SUPPORT THAT. AND
ONE THING THAT I THOUGHT THE
OTHER PROPOSAL DOES GO TOO FAR
WITH TWO REASONS. ONE, WHAT IS
ACCOUNTABILITY LOOK LIKE? IS IT
STATE PRISON WHERE IT'S 130
GRAND A YEAR PER INMATE? DOES
THAT MAKE SENSE TO SEND SOMEBODY
FOR 50 OR WHATEVER DOLLARS I'M
GOING TO TALK ABOUT IN A SECOND?
THE THRESHOLD OR OUR COUNTY
JAILS? I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE A
POLICY DECISION. WHAT DOES
ACCOUNTABILITY LOOK LIKE? WE CAN
SAY WE SUPPORT ACCOUNTABILITY,
BUT WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE IS, IS
THE KEY. AND I THINK THIS
FOCUSES ON ON THAT BALANCE, ON
THE ISSUE WITH, WITH THE
WASHOUT, I THINK THIS IS
SOMETHING WE HAD TO ADDRESS,
LOOK, I WAS A KNUCKLEHEAD WHEN I
WAS 16, 17, 18 YEARS OLD AS
WELL. AND SO IF I DID SOMETHING
STUPID WHEN I'M 18 AND 19 AND
I'M 52 AND THAT'S MY THIRD
OFFENSE, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE
GOING BACK THREE OVER THE
LIFETIME? SO I THINK HAVING A
SHORTER PERIOD IS THAT'S WHAT
WE'RE FOCUSING ON. REPEAT
OFFENDERS MEANS YOU'RE REPEATING
BY DEFINITION NOT REPEATING OVER
30 YEARS. IT'S REPEATING WITHIN
A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. SO I
KNOW THERE'S CONCERN ABOUT THREE
YEARS. AND I'LL I'LL GET TO
THAT, IN A SECOND. BUT I THINK
THAT DOES BRING BALANCE. I KNOW
THERE IS SOME CONCERN THAT WE
DON'T HAVE ADEQUATE,
ACCOUNTABILITY AS FAR AS DRUGS.
I THINK IT'S STRONG HERE. WHAT
WE'RE GOING AFTER, DRUG
TRAFFICKERS AND WHAT WE'RE DOING
THERE. I THINK THERE'S STILL
SOMETHING TO BE SAID. WE DON'T
HAVE ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES TO
GET PEOPLE INTO TREATMENT, LIKE
DRUG COURT MODEL, LIKE YOU GO TO
TREATMENT OR YOU SERVE
INCARCERATION OR ACCOUNTABILITY,
WHETHER IT'S STATE PRISON OR
COUNTY JAIL. I THINK THAT ISSUE
STILL NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.
HAVING SOME TYPE OF
ACCOUNTABILITY, WHETHER IT'S
FLASH INCARCERATION AND COUNTY
JAIL, IF YOU DON'T GO GET DRUG
TREATMENT BECAUSE THE STATUS QUO
IS NOT WORKING, I'LL TAKE YOU ON
A WALK RIGHT NOW IN CASE REMODEL
AND I'LL SHOW YOU TEN PEOPLE
WHERE IT'S JUST NOT WORKING
RIGHT NOW. WHERE THE VOLUNTARY
GOING TO TREATMENT IS JUST NOT
WORKING. AND EVEN THOUGH WE'RE
EXPANDING MORE MONEY IN THE PROP
47 FUND TO DO MORE TREATMENT,
IT'S NOT NEARLY ENOUGH. NOT
ENOUGH PEOPLE ARE CHECKING THE
BOX SAYING THEY WANT TREATMENT.
SO THIS THAT I WILL SAY IS A
SHORTFALL IN OUR ANSWER, WHETHER
IT'S THIS BILL OR BALLOT
MEASURES OR WHAT HAVE YOU. THE
BOTTOM LINE IS CALIFORNIA WRITES
POLICY TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS.
AND I DON'T THINK WE'RE PROPERLY
ADDRESSING, GETTING PEOPLE INTO
TREATMENT AND HAVING INCENTIVES
TO GET THEM THERE, INCLUDING
SOMETIMES MAKING A CHOICE
TREATMENT, ACCOUNTABILITY, THAT
BEING SAID, I DO WANT TO FOCUS
ON THE, THE WASHOUT. AND THIS
MONETARY VALUE SEEMS TO GET A
LOT OF ATTENTION. AND BOTH OF
YOU, TESTIFIED, I THINK IT WAS
MR. SUSILO SAID THAT. AND SO MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS IT'S
A THREE YEAR PERIOD WITH, A $50
THRESHOLD AND THE THRESHOLD IS
THE IS THE TOTALITY, RIGHT? YES.
OF ALL OF THEM COMBINED. SO AND
SO. AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT
THAT'S NOT PRACTICAL AND THAT'S
GOING TO BE HARD TO REACH THAT
THRESHOLD. SO CAN YOU ELABORATE
WHY YOU DON'T THINK THAT WOULD
BE WORKABLE. OF COURSE, THE
ISSUE WITH THE THRESHOLD IS THAT
FOR PRIOR OFFENSES, FOR ALL
THEFT OFFENSES, EXCEPT ONE IN
THE PENAL CODE, THERE DOES NOT
HAVE TO BE A FINDING OF VALUE.
AND SO FOR US TO GO BACK AND
REACH BACK ON PRIOR THEFT
OFFENSES, WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO
CHARGE THOSE AS PRIORS FOR THIS
PURPOSES OF THIS LAW, BECAUSE
FOR ALL THEFT OFFENSES EXCEPT
GRAND THEFT, ONE OF THE PENAL
CODE SECTIONS, WE DON'T HAVE TO
PROVE THE AMOUNT. AND THE CASE
LAW AS IT STANDS CURRENTLY
PREVENTS JUDGES FROM REACHING
BACK INTO OLD CASES AND FACT
FINDING AND ESSENTIALLY FINDING
THE VALUE OF THE THEFT AT THE
TIME. AND SO FOR THAT REASON,
THE THRESHOLD MAKES IT SORT OF
IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO USE THE
PRIORS AND THEN WITH RESPECT TO
THE THREE YEARS, WE AGREE THAT
IT IS TOO SHORT. I UNDERSTAND
AND APPRECIATE YOUR CONCERNS
ABOUT REACHING BACK FOREVER. AND
OF COURSE, I THINK THERE'S A WAY
TO STRIKE A BALANCE THERE. BUT
THREE YEARS IS TOO SHORT IN IN
PRACTICALITY, IN VIEW OF THE
FAILURE TO APPEAR RATE IN COURT,
IN VIEW OF THE AMOUNT OF TIME
THAT CASES TAKE TO RESOLVE,
THREE YEARS IS SIMPLY JUST NOT
ENOUGH TIME FOR US TO ACTUALLY
MEANINGFULLY ADDRESS PRIOR
ABILITY. SO IT'S THE REST AND
THE CONVICTION OF HER THREE
YEARS. YOU SAID THAT. ARE YOU
CONCERNED THAT YOU WOULDN'T HAVE
ENOUGH TIME TO ADJUDICATE AND
FINISH THOSE TRIALS OVER THAT
WINDOW? AND WHAT'S THE NUMBER
THAT YOU WOULD THINK IS
ACCEPTABLE? IS IT THE TIME OR IS
IT THE DOLLAR AMOUNT OR THE
APPLICATION. IT'S BOTH. AND
BECAUSE THE VALUE IS DIFFICULT
TO PROVE UNLESS THE PERSON WAS
PRIOR CONVICTED OF GRAND THEFT.
SO IT'S ALMOST TANTAMOUNT TO
HAVING THE LAW SAY ONLY IF
YOU'VE BEEN CONVICTED OF PRIOR
GRAND THEFT WILL IT APPLY.
THAT'S SORT OF THE WAY THAT IT
WILL WORK IN OPERATION. AND THE
THREE YEARS IS TOO SHORT.
SPECIFICALLY IN VIEW OF THE
FAILURE TO APPEAR RATE THAT WE
HAVE AND THE LENGTH OF TIME THAT
THOSE OCCUR FOR. AND IN THREE
YEARS IS NOT AN AN UNREASONABLE
AMOUNT OF TIME. I HAVE SEVERAL
CASES ON MY CASELOAD RIGHT NOW
THAT ARE FROM 2020 OR 2021. THAT
WOULD BE OUTSIDE OF THE WASHOUT
PERIOD AT THIS POINT. YEAH SO IF
THERE'S IF THERE'S A 711 RIGHT
OVER HERE ON ON J STREET. SO IF
SOMEBODY WALKS IN THERE EVERY
DAY AND STEALS, 12 PACK OF BEER,
WHICH IS, I DON'T KNOW, 15, 20
BUCKS. SO THAT'S OBVIOUSLY UNDER
$50. SO THAT SO EACH OFFENSE IS
NOT OVER 50. SO THAT THOSE
OFFENSES WOULD NOT BE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE. ON THE THIRD DAY.
THEY WOULD NO, THEY WOULDN'T BE
ABLE TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE
BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE AMOUNTING
TO PETTY THEFT IN EACH INSTANCE.
AND PETTY THEFT DOESN'T REQUIRE
A VALUE AMOUNT. AND SO IF THEY
ALL RESOLVED AND THEN TWO YEARS
DOWN THE LINE, THAT PERPETRATOR
BEGINS THE SAME CONDUCT AGAIN.
AND WE WANT TO USE THE PRIOR
ABILITY OF THOSE PRIOR CRIMES,
WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BECAUSE
THERE'S BEEN NO PROOF OF THE
VALUE, EVEN THOUGH WE CAN SAY
YOU AND I CAN SAY, OH, WE KNOW
BEER IS $15, THE COURT IS
PREVENTED FROM DOING THAT
BACKWARDS FACT FINDING. THEY'RE
NOT PERMITTED TO DO THAT. AND SO
ALL WE KNOW IS THAT THIS PERSON
COMMITTED PETTY THEFT, AND WE
WILL NOT HAVE A WAY TO PROVE THE
VALUE. YEAH. SO I THINK WE HAVE
SOME OBJECTIONS HERE. SO I'M
TRYING TO GIVE YOU A
HYPOTHETICAL. YEAH. YEAH. THANK
YOU. AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, IF YOU
GO IN EVERY DAY $15, AT WHAT
POINT CAN YOU AGGREGATE THAT
OVER THAT PERIOD OF TIME. SO LET
ME LET ME HAVE THE SENATORS
WANTED TO OBJECT. WE'LL COME
BACK TO YOU TO YOU. THANK YOU.
THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS. ONE,
THIS PROPOSAL ALSO INCLUDES A
MORE LIMITED STANDARD ON
AGGREGATION TO ALLOW PROSECUTORS
TO ALLOW OR TO ADD THE VALUES
OVER THE SAME WASHOUT PERIOD. WE
ARE PROVIDING SURGICAL TOOLS TO
ADDRESS REPEAT OFFENDERS. AGAIN
SO THREE YEARS AND AGAIN, IF
THEY ARE SERIAL CRIMINALS IN THE
SENSE THAT THEY ARE STEALING
EVERY WEEK, RIGHT? IF NOT EVERY
DAY, THIS WOULD SPECIFICALLY
FOCUS ON THAT. AND AGGREGATION,
JUST TO BE VERY SPECIFIC.
OBVIOUSLY IS ALLOWING 50 YEARS
IS ACTUALLY A VERY LOW
THRESHOLD, RIGHT? A $50, SORRY,
AND I DO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT A
COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WERE
STATED BY OUR ASSEMBLY MEMBER
COLLEAGUES HERE, FIRST AND
FOREMOST, THE SENATE AND THE
ASSEMBLY HAS BEEN WORKING FOR
OVER A YEAR ON FENTANYL AND
RETAIL THEFT, BOTH HOUSES. AND
THEY WE, FOR EXAMPLE, MYSELF,
HAS SAT ON A FENTANYL WORKING
GROUP TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS
THAT WE HAVE. FENTANYL IS A
SYNTHETIC DRUG THAT HAS MADE ITS
WAY IN CALIFORNIA, AND IT'S VERY
, VERY DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND
FOR THE AVERAGE PERSON IN THE
FACT THAT IT'S HIGH IS A LOT
MORE POTENT THAN ANY OTHER HARD
DRUG. NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO IS
THE FACT THAT WE MET WITH DA'S
AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AND EVEN
BORDER PATROL, AS WELL AS HEALTH
EXPERTS AS TO WHAT SHOULD WE DO
FOR FENTANYL, FENTANYL IS A
SERIOUS ISSUE THAT IS CRIPPLING
OUR COMMUNITY. WITH OVER 70,000
DEATHS IN A SINGLE YEAR, WE HAVE
SEEN THIS AND THE SAFER
CALIFORNIA PACKAGE, AND I JUST
WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR, BECAUSE
THE RHETORIC HERE IS THAT WE
HAVEN'T DONE ENOUGH. AND I THINK
THAT'S ABSOLUTELY FALSE. WE HAVE
BEEN CONTINUING THE WORK WITH
STAKEHOLDERS AT THE TABLE, BOTH
CRIMINAL REFORM JUSTICE GROUPS
AS WELL AS LAW ENFORCEMENT, THAT
SEE THINGS AT A DEEPER LEVEL. SO
WITH THAT, WE HAVE THE SAFER
CALIFORNIA PACKAGE THAT I WILL
SAY HAS OVER A DOZEN BILLS THAT
FOCUS ON DIFFERENT LEVELS OF
FENTANYL SUBSTANCE ABUSE
TREATMENT AND HOLDING
PERPETRATORS ACCOUNTABLE. THE
DEALER, AS WELL AS THE
INDIVIDUAL CONSUMING THE DRUG.
RIGHT. WE ALSO HAVE FOCUSED ON
RETAIL THEFT. PEOPLE ARE SAYING
THAT, OH, IT'S TAKEN THIS MANY
YEARS. PROP 47 HAS BEEN AROUND
FOR TEN YEARS AND IT TAKES A
NUMBER OF YEARS TO SEE THE
EFFECTS OF CERTAIN LAWS IN
PLACE. AND TO ASSEMBLY MEMBER,
YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR HAVE BEEN
DEEPLY IMPACTED. AND IT'S NOT
JUST COMMUNITIES OF COLOR ACROSS
THE BOARD. LOWER SOCIOECONOMIC
INDIVIDUALS HAVE BEEN FACED WITH
HARSHER DIFFICULTIES IN LIFE TO
BEGIN WITH ON EVERY SINGLE
SPECTRUM, RIGHT? WHETHER WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT EDUCATION OR JOBS
OR SO FORTH. AND I WANT TO SAY
THAT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH
STAKEHOLDERS IN A GOOD FAITH
EFFORT. WE HAVE WORKED WITH THE
GROCERS AND THE RETAILERS AND SO
FORTH. ARE SAFER. CALIFORNIA
PACKAGE IS A BIPARTISAN EFFORT.
IT DOES HAVE THE SUPPORT OF
THESE INDUSTRY GROUPS. AND
TODAY, EVEN THIS BILL HAS THE
SUPPORT OF THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE
COMPLAINED THAT THIS HAS BECOME
A PROBLEM. RETAIL THEFT AND
FENTANYL. AND WE ARE SEEING THAT
CRIMINAL JUSTICE GROUPS ARE
CONCERNED, AS THEY SHOULD BE,
WITH ANYTHING THAT'S ON THE
BALLOT. RIGHT. AND WE ARE GIVING
THIS BACK TO THE VOTERS TO
DECIDE. AND THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN OUR BILL AND THE DA'S
INITIATIVE. AND I WANT TO BE
VERY CLEAR, BECAUSE THIS IS THE
BACK AND FORTH IS THE FACT THAT
WE STILL ALLOW FOR THE
LEGISLATURE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
CAN AMEND BILLS AS THEY NEED TO
BE, AS THINGS CHANGE. AND I WILL
SAY THAT LAWS CHANGE AS SOCIETY
CHANGES AND IT DOES TAKE TIME TO
UNDERSTAND THE EFFECTS OF EACH
OF OUR LAWS AND TO BE VERY, VERY
FRANK, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
YOU KNOW, POLITICS, THE DA'S
INITIATIVE SAYS, AND I'M
PARAPHRASING, IN THE EVENT THIS
ACT AND ANOTHER INITIATIVE
RELATING TO THE SAME SUBJECT
APPEAR ON THE SAME BALLOT, THE
MEASURE WITH A GREATER NUMBER OF
VOTES WILL PREVAIL. AND THE
OTHER BALLOT MEASURE WILL BE
NULL AND VOID. AND I WANT TO
HIGHLIGHT THAT BECAUSE THAT'S
WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. THAT
IS WHAT IS COMMON PRACTICE. THIS
BILL ALSO PROTECTS MINORS, WHICH
IS NOT IN PLAY. IN THE OTHER
INITIATIVE WE ARE SPECIFICALLY
ADDRESSING THE CONCERN THAT IF
ADULTS ARE COMMITTING THESE
CRIMES, WE ARE HOLDING THEM
ACCOUNTABLE AND WE ARE NOT
IMPRISONING YOUTH WHO DO TO, AS
YOU STATED, MAKE MISTAKES. WE
ARE ACTUALLY INCREASING
PENALTIES AND ENHANCEMENTS
SPECIFICALLY WITH TWO NEW
FELONIES, AND WE ARE DOING THIS
IN A VERY TACTFUL WAY. WE ARE
THREADING THE NEEDLE OF A VERY
SENSITIVE SUBJECT WITHOUT
CAUSING ADDITIONAL HARM. WE HAVE
TALKED TO THE STAKEHOLDERS. WE
ARE MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE
ADDRESSING THE COMMUNITY NEEDS,
AND WE HAVE TAKEN THEIR INPUT
AND THAT IS THE JOB OF THE
LEGISLATURE. AND I AM VERY PROUD
TO SAY THAT WE HAVE WORKED VERY
HARD IN THE LAST YEAR TO MAKE
SOMETHING RIGHT. AND I WILL SAY
THE FACT THAT WE HAVE CREATED
THE SAFER CALIFORNIA PACKAGE IS
THAT. BUT THIS GOES FURTHER TO
ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OUT OF THE
RHETORIC THAT WE ARE HEARING.
THAT IS SIMPLY FALSE. I READ
THAT PROPERTY CRIME HAS
INCREASED ONLY BY 7%
PRE-PANDEMIC, SO I WANT TO
HIGHLIGHT THAT BECAUSE THERE'S A
LOT OF FALSE NARRATIVES OUT
THERE. IT'S FEARMONGERING. AND
AGAIN, WE ARE POTENTIALLY GOING
TO SEE THE EFFECTS OF WHATEVER
INITIATIVE WINS AND WHAT IT DOES
TO COMMUNITIES AND SPECIFICALLY
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR. SO I
REALLY WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT,
AND I WILL TURN IT OVER TO MY
COLLEAGUE, CHAIRMAN. I'LL JUST
ADD BRIEFLY, SHE'S GONE OVER
EVERYTHING. VERY WELL. A COUPLE
THINGS I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT
TO THE SPECIFICS, I, I ACTUALLY
THINK THE OPPONENTS HERE HAVE
POINTED OUT THE VALIDITY AND
RATIONALE AND NEED FOR THIS
INITIATIVE, BECAUSE THIS
INITIATIVE IS DESIGNED TO CREATE
A MEANINGFUL ALTERNATIVE. IT'S
NOT INTENDED TO CONFUSE. IT'S
NOT INTENDED TO REPLACE. IT IS
INTENDED TO PROVIDE A MEANINGFUL
ALTERNATIVE. IT IS VERY
DIFFERENT THAN THE INITIATIVE
THAT HAS ALREADY QUALIFIED. AND
THERE IS A LOT OF CONFLATING
HAPPENING HERE. BUT FOR EXAMPLE,
IN THE INITIATIVE THAT HAS
ALREADY QUALIFIED, THERE IS NO
LOOKBACK PERIOD. SO YOUR PETTY
THEFTS WITH A PRIOR ARE OVER
YOUR LIFETIME. IN THE INITIATIVE
THAT WE ARE BRINGING FORWARD, IT
IS A THREE YEAR WINDOW FROM
CONVICTION, BY THE WAY, SO
SOMEBODY OFTEN DOESN'T GET
CONVICTED UNTIL LATER, WHICH
MEANS HER 2021 CASE, IF SHE HAD
STARTED IT LAST YEAR, WOULD
QUALIFY AS A PRIOR. PETTY THEFT
WITH THE PRIOR IS NOT A NEW
CRIME. IT'S A CRIME WE'RE
BRINGING BACK. I USED TO WORK IN
THE COURTS HERE. AS YOU KNOW, I
REPRESENTED PEOPLE WHO WERE
BEING, CONVICTED OF SIX SIX,
6.1, WHICH IS PETTY THEFT WITH A
PRIOR. AND YOU ARE ALWAYS
PROVIDED THE PRIOR. OUR BILL IS
DIFFERENT FROM THE EXISTING
BALLOT BECAUSE IT MAKES A $50
MINIMUM. YOU CAN'T GO TO PRISON
FOR STEALING THREE CANDY BARS,
THREE DIFFERENT TIMES IN YOUR
LIFE WITH NO MARGIN OF ERROR ON
THE LOOK BACK, THIS BILL INSTEAD
SAYS THESE THINGS HAD TO HAPPEN
WITHIN THE LAST THREE YEARS, AND
THEY NEED TO AT LEAST HAVE
EQUATED TO MORE THAN $50 TOTAL.
I THINK THAT'S MORE THAN FAIR. I
DON'T THINK WE NEED TO SEND
PEOPLE TO STATE PRISON FOR
LOOKING AT CANDY BARS. SHE
CONFLATES THE ISSUE OF A NEW
FELONY THAT WE ADD THAT DOES NOT
EXIST IN THEIR INITIATIVE, WHICH
IS WHEN YOU MIX FENTANYL AND WE
ALL KNOW THIS. EVERY ONE OF YOU
KNOWS THIS. YOU'VE HEARD THIS
MANY TIMES. WE HAVE ALL HEARD
ABOUT FAMILIES WHOSE WHO HAVE
LOST A YOUNG ONE BECAUSE
SOMEBODY GAVE THEM A SOMETHING
THEY THOUGHT WAS A TYLENOL, BUT
IT WAS MIXED WITH FENTANYL.
THEIR BILL DOESN'T ADDRESS THAT.
OURS DOES. IT'S A NEW FELONY.
IT'S A NEW FELONY. AND SO THERE
ARE MANY GOOD THINGS ABOUT THIS
INITIATIVE, WHICH IS A VERY
MEANINGFUL ALTERNATIVE FOR
PEOPLE IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU. I JUST
WANT TO GO BACK TO YOU. I KNOW,
MR. SELZER, YOU WANTED TO OPINE
MORE ON THE I THINK I THINK ONE
OF THE YEAH, I THINK ONE OF THE
JOINT AUTHORS DID ANSWER IT, BUT
IT'S CLEAR THAT IN, IN SECTION
SEVEN OF THE BILL, SPECIFICALLY
SECTION 666.1 SUB A PARAGRAPH
ONE, SUB PARAGRAPH B, EXCUSE ME,
SEE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY
TAKEN AND LAWFULLY RECEIVED, OR
THAT OTHERWISE PROVIDED THE
BASIS FOR THE CONVICTION. EACH
OF THE FENCES IS ABOVE THE
AMOUNT DESCRIBED IN 490.1. THAT
AMOUNTS $50. SO YOUR EXAMPLE OF
THE CASE OF BEER DOESN'T QUALIFY
UNLESS IT'S LIKE A REALLY
EXPENSIVE CASE OF BEER THAT
EXCEEDS $50. IF THE INTENT WAS
NOT TO MEAN THAT THERE IS A
BOTTOM THRESHOLD ON THAT THEFT
OFFENSE THAT CAN BE PREFERABLE
UNDER THIS NEW CRIME OR THIS
RETURNING CRIME, THEN IT WOULD
BE UNNECESSARY. SURPLUSAGE SO IT
MEANS SOMETHING. SO OKAY. THANK
YOU. CAN I, CAN I,
ASSEMBLYMEMBER FOLLOW
ASSEMBLYMEMBER WILSON WITH A
QUICK FOLLOW UP. THEN WE WANT TO
MOVE ON AND VOTE ON THIS MEASURE
. JUST A QUICK FOLLOW UP. IF THE
OTHER INITIATIVE DIDN'T EXIST
AND THIS WAS A STANDALONE
INITIATIVE THAT WAS BROUGHT BY
THE LEGISLATURE, WOULD THE
OPPOSING GROUP BE IN SUPPORT? Þ
I'M NOT SURE WE CAN ANSWER THAT
QUESTION IN A VACUUM, BECAUSE
THE OTHER INITIATIVE DOES EXIST,
AND THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL
DISCUSSIONS AS THE CHAIR OR THE
AUTHOR SAID, OVER SEVERAL MONTHS
. AND IF TIMING WERE DIFFERENT,
IF I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT THE
MERITS OF THE MERITS OF THE
BILL, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT SO
ABSENT THE OTHER INITIATIVE, THE
MERITS OF THE BILL, HAVING SAT
ON PUBLIC SAFETY, JUST THIS
SECOND HALF OF THE SESSION, THE
THINGS THAT THEY'RE TALKING
ABOUT, AS IT RELATES TO OTHER
BILLS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT
FORWARD, I HAVE SEEN YOU ALL
SUPPORT. SO I'M JUST ASKING THE
MERITS OF THIS PARTICULAR BILL
ABSENT. IF THIS WAS THE ONLY
THING ABSENT THAT WOULD THIS BE
TYPICALLY SOMETHING YOU ALL
WOULD SUPPORT OR THERE'S FLAWS
IN IT THAT YOU FEEL THAT FLAWS
IN IT YOU WOULDN'T SUPPORT IT. I
JUST WANT THAT THERE ARE THROUGH
THE CHAIR. THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT
FLAWS IN THIS. THE LOOKBACK
PERIOD AND THE PETTY THEFT OF
THE PRIOR. THE NEW FENTANYL
CRIME UNDER HEALTH AND SAFETY
CODE 11 352 REQUIRES THREE
DIFFERENT KNOWLEDGE REQUIREMENTS
THAT WILL MAKE IT NEARLY
IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE. SO THIS
NOTION OF ACCOUNTABILITY, IF YOU
CANNOT USE THE CRIMINAL SECTIONS
THAT ARE CREATED, IT'S NOT
USEFUL TOWARDS CREATING
ACCOUNTABILITY. SO MY ANSWER IS
I CAN'T TELL YOU FOR SURE, BUT I
FIND IT WE WOULD HAVE SERIOUS
CONCERNS ABOUT THIS BEING
OFFERED AS A WAY TO REMEDY BOTH
THE FENTANYL AND THE THEFT
CRISIS, EVEN IF A STANDALONE
MEASURE. AND THANK YOU TO THE
CHAIR. YES, JUST I THINK OUR
POSITION WOULD BE SIMILAR, NOT
WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT REFINEMENT
BECAUSE I THINK THERE ARE
PROVISIONS WE JUST SIMPLY
WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO USE. THANK
YOU, MR. ZUBIATE. YEAH. I MEAN,
I'D JUST LIKE TO CLOSE BY REALLY
ECHOING, I THINK WHAT BOTH OF MY
COLLEAGUES HERE ARTICULATED THIS
IS ARE CLOSED. HERE WE GO. OKAY.
I'M SORRY. THIS WILL MAKE THIS
AS OUR CLOSE. GO AHEAD. THIS IS
THE CLOSE. OKAY. GOOD, AND I'LL
LET THEM ADD ON AS WELL. WHAT
BOTH OF MY COLLEAGUES
ARTICULATED. SO I THINK OUR
ARTICULATELY THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THIS IS THAT WE ACTUALLY
IT IS THE PRODUCT OF, OF
ENGAGEMENT WITH ALL OF THE
STAKEHOLDERS, AND THAT MEANT NOT
ONLY THE RETAILERS, THE GROCERS
LAW ENFORCEMENT. AND I KNOW NOT
ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT IS WITH
THIS, BUT WE ACTUALLY HAVE SOME
LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH IT WHO HAVE
BEEN WE'VE BEEN TALKING TO, IT
INCLUDED THE, THE FOLKS THAT IT
INCLUDES THE THINGS THAT THE
GROCERS AND THE RETAILERS AND
THE SMALL BUSINESSES ASKED FOR
WHEN THEY WHEN WE WERE ENGAGING
WITH THEM, WHAT IT AND ONE OF
THE THINGS THEY TOLD US IS THAT
THE BIGGEST ISSUE THEY'RE FACING
IS THE REPEATED RETAIL THEFT OF
THE PEOPLE THAT ARE DOING THIS
OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN IN
A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. AND SO
OURS IS A MORE TARGETED APPROACH
. THE THREE YEAR LOOKBACK PERIOD
IS SOMETHING THAT IF THIS IS
INTENDED TO CATCH THOSE SERIAL
THIEVES, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO
CATCH THOSE FOLKS. THE OTHER
ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO THE $50,
FIRST OF ALL, THE AGGREGATION
PROVISIONS DON'T APPLY TO THE
$50. DON'T APPLY TO THAT. AND
FRANKLY, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT HAVING TO MAKE
PROOF IN COURT, YOU KNOW,
PROSECUTORS SHOULD HAVE TO
ACTUALLY PROVE THINGS WHEN WE'RE
ACTUALLY THINKING ABOUT SENDING
PEOPLE TO PRISON FOR MANY YEARS
AND ACTUALLY ASKING THEM TO
PROVE THE VALUE OF GOODS AT $50
IS NOT THE SAME THING AS HAVING
TO PROVE INTENT. IT JUST ISN'T,
THERE'S LOTS OF WAYS TO PROVE
THAT. AND IT'S BASICALLY, YOU
KNOW, WE NEED TO ACTUALLY, IF
WE'RE NOT GOING TO ACTUALLY PUT
PEOPLE IN PRISON FOR DOING MINOR
THINGS, WE ACTUALLY HAVE TO HAVE
SAFEGUARDS AROUND THESE BILLS, I
THINK THE LAST THING THAT, I'LL
SAY IS, YOU KNOW, THIS ISN'T
INTENDED TO CAUSE CONFUSION.
IT'S GIVING THE VOTERS ANOTHER
ALTERNATIVE, AN ALTERNATIVE
BETWEEN ONE THAT ACTUALLY IS
GOING TO COST OUR COMMUNITIES
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OVER A TEN
YEAR PERIOD, FUNDS THAT WE COULD
BE PUTTING INTO MENTAL HEALTH
DIVERSION INTO OUR SCHOOLS, INTO
SOCIAL SAFETY NET PROGRAMS, ALL
THE THINGS THAT WE WANT TO DO TO
UPLIFT CALIFORNIANS OR ACTUALLY
PUTTING THEM MORE INTO OUR
PRISONS. AND SO, YES, THIS IS A
MORE MEASURED APPROACH, BUT IT'S
ONE THAT IS, I THINK, EFFECTIVE
AND I THINK THE PROOF IN THE
PUDDING IS THE FOLKS THAT HAVE
BEEN COMING TO US ASKING FOR THE
REFORM ARE SUPPORTING THIS
MEASURE. THE GROCERS, THE
RETAILERS AND MANY PEOPLE IN LAW
ENFORCEMENT AS WELL. SO WITH
THAT, I WANT TO THANK MY
COAUTHORS. I JUST WANT TO TURN
IT OVER TO THEM IN CASE THEY
HAVE ANYTHING ELSE THEY NEED TO
ADD. YEP. I'LL BE BRIEF AND THEN
LET SENATOR WAHAB CLOSE US OUT,
THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
THIS INITIATIVE, WHICH WE ARE
PROVIDING AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO
THE EXISTING ALREADY APPROVED
INITIATIVE ON THE BALLOT, IS
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
AND A FINER, MORE SURGICAL
APPROACH AT PROTECTING OUR
COMMUNITIES, ADDRESSING THE
NEEDS OF GROCERS AND RETAILERS
AND SMALL BUSINESSES, AND GOING
AFTER FENTANYL DEALERS, PEOPLE
WHO ARE PREYING ON OUR KIDS. I
THINK ASSEMBLY MEMBER WILSON
ASKED AN EXTREMELY POIGNANT
QUESTION. AS MY DAD USED TO SAY,
I WAS BORN AT NIGHT, BUT IT
WASN'T THE LAST NIGHT, YOU KNOW
DARN GOOD AND WELL THAT ABSENT
THAT INITIATIVE BEING ON THE
BALLOT, THE SAME PEOPLE WHO ARE
IN HERE OPPOSING THIS BILL TODAY
WOULD BE SUPPORTING IT BECAUSE
THEY WOULD WANT US TO ADDRESS
FENTANYL. THEY WOULD WANT US TO
ADDRESS PETTY THEFT AND THEY
WOULD WANT US TO DO EXACTLY WHAT
WE ARE DOING. AND I'M SORRY THAT
WE WEREN'T ABLE TO WORK OUT
SOMETHING TOGETHER. I WILL SAY
THIS. IT WAS NOT FOR LACK OF
EFFORT ON BEHALF OF THE
LEGISLATURE AND THE
ADMINISTRATIVE BODY. THANK YOU.
YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO SAY A
COUPLE OF THINGS JUST TO CLARIFY
EXACTLY WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING.
I DID STATE THAT WE HAVE WORKED
FOR OVER THE PAST YEAR ON
LEGISLATION THAT ADDRESSES BOTH
RETAIL THEFT AND THE DRUG CRISIS
OF FENTANYL, AND WE HAVE DONE
OUR JOBS. WE HAVE INITIATED MORE
THAN A DOZEN BILLS WITH
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT TO ACCURATELY
AND INCLUSIVELY ADDRESS BOTH
ISSUES, WITH THAT SAID, I DO
WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT WE HAVE
HAD OUR DOOR OPEN FOR EVERY
SINGLE TYPE OF STAKEHOLDER
CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORMISTS, LAW
ENFORCEMENT, AS WELL AS THE
DA'S. AND THIS INITIATIVE THAT
IS LARGELY IN OPPOSITION TO WHAT
WE ARE PROPOSING TODAY, WE MET
WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS AND
THEY GAVE US A SET OF DEMANDS
THAT OUR LEADERSHIP HAS HAS
REVIEWED AND MET THEM HALFWAY
AND CONTINUED TO HAVE THOSE
CONVERSATIONS. AND THEY WERE
INSTRUCTED NOT TO COME BACK TO
THE TABLE. IN FACT, HAVING A
SCHEDULED MEETING AND NOT
SHOWING UP FOR IT, THAT IS NOT
GOOD FAITH, EFFORT. AND THE
HONEST TRUTH OF THIS IS THE FACT
THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS
BILL AND THESE INDUSTRIES, AND
YOU HAVE THE RETAILERS AND THE
GROCERS IN SUPPORT OF THIS
PARTICULAR BILL, BECAUSE IT IS
THE RIGHT BILL TO MOVE FORWARD.
AND YET, WHEN WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT THE PROPOSITION THAT IS
COMPETING WITH THIS EFFORT,
WHO'S GETTING PAID FOR THAT?
THAT'S MILLIONS OF DOLLARS,
RIGHT THERE TO TELL THE PUBLIC
THAT WE NEED MORE DONE. AND YET
WE HAVE A BILL PACKAGE THAT
WOULD BE IN EFFECT TODAY IF WE
COULD. RIGHT. AND WE ARE WORKING
TOWARDS IT. AND I WILL SAY THIS
PARTICULAR BILL ADDRESSES A
COUPLE OF DIFFERENT THINGS, AND
IT'S A LOT OF INFORMATION FOR
THE AVERAGE PERSON TO DIGEST IN
A VERY SHORT TIME. BUT I WANT TO
SAY WE ARE TACKLING PETTY THEFT
WITH A PRIOR IN A WAY THAT DOES
NOT HARM CHILDREN. WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT AGGREGATION TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE LOOKING
BACK IN THE LAST THREE YEARS HAS
THIS PERSON COMMITTED ANOTHER
CRIME? IF THEY DID IT FIVE YEARS
AGO, IT'S NOT HELD AGAINST THEM,
RIGHT? WE ARE BEING AS FAIR AS
POSSIBLE. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A
FENTANYL ADVISEMENT AND REALLY
HOLDING THE REAL PERPETRATORS
ACCOUNTABLE. NOT A COLLEGE KID
THAT DOESN'T EVEN KNOW WHERE
THEY GOT IT OR WHAT THEY'RE
CONSUMING. WE ARE INCREASING THE
FACT THAT WE HAVE A DRUG FELONY
BEING CREATED AGAIN FOR THIS
PARTICULAR ISSUE WITH A
PUNISHMENT OF FOUR OR 5 OR 6
YEARS. AND I WANT TO SAY THAT WE
ARE INVESTING MORE IN OUR LOCAL
LAW ENFORCEMENT AND DRUG
TREATMENT AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE
TREATMENT. WE ARE DOING OUR JOBS
IN OUR BILL, AND IT'S VERY CLEAR
WE'RE ADDRESSING THE NEEDS OF
THE PUBLIC. AND I WILL AGREE
WITH THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER WHEN I
GO TO SAFEWAY AND I SEE
LITERALLY SHAMPOO AND TOOTHPASTE
BEHIND A LOCKED GLASS CASE,
WHERE'S THE JUSTICE? WHERE'S THE
QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE AVERAGE
RESIDENT? SO AS CHAIR OF PUBLIC
SAFETY, I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS
IS THE BEST OPTION WE HAVE
MOVING FORWARD WITH OUR SAFER
CALIFORNIA PACKAGE. WE ARE
ADDRESSING THE NEEDS OF
CALIFORNIANS. WE ARE ADDRESSING
THE 40 MILLION PEOPLE THAT WE
REPRESENT. AND WITH THIS
PARTICULAR THING, OUR HANDS ARE
NOT GOING TO BE TIED. WE CAN
COME BACK AND DO MORE. WE CAN
MAKE REFINEMENTS. WHEREAS THE
OPPOSING MEASURE DOES NOT ALLOW
US TO DO THAT RIGHT. WE SHOULD
NOT VOTE FOR IT. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. WE'LL HAVE A MOTION
ON THIS. WE HAVE A MOTION.
MOTION AND A SECOND. SECOND.
YES, A MOTION A SECOND. PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL ON SB 1381 BY
SENATOR WAHAB. THE MOTION IS
DUE. PASS TO THE FLOOR. MCCARTY.
MCCARTY AYE. ALANIZ. NO. ALANIZ.
NO. LACKEY. NO LACKEY. NO.
NGUYEN. NGUYEN. NOT VOTING.
REYES. REYES. AYE TING TING.
AYE. WILSON. WILSON. AYE ZUBER.
ZUBIATE. AYE OKAY. THANK YOU.
AND A QUICK TIME OUT HERE. THANK
YOU. NO, I APPRECIATE IT. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. YOUR LAST I GOT TO
GO BACK TO JUDICIAL. MADAM
LEADER. YOU KNOW I'M GETTING.
VERY PASSIONATE.
OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO HEAR NEXT
MR. MR. MR. JONES, SENATOR GROVE
, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MR. JONES
GO FIRST BECAUSE WE HAVE OUR
CAUCUS LUNCH AND WE THINK YOUR
BILL IS GOING TO HAVE AMPLE
PARTICIPATION. SO WE THINK WE
WON'T HEAR ONE MORE BILL BEFORE
LUNCH. SO MR. JONES. ITEM NUMBER
12 SB OKAY. THEN WE'RE GOING TO
WE'RE GOING TO RECESS THEN TO
LUNCH. SO WE'RE GOING TO LUNCH
RIGHT NOW. EITHER WAY CAUCUS
LUNCH. SO YOU CAN HEAR YOUR BILL
OR NO BILL. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL DO
IT. THANK YOU. OKAY. WE HAVE
FILE ITEM NUMBER 12 SB 1074.
YES, ONE, YEAH. WE HAVE ONE MORE
WITNESS FROM. YES. PLEASE BEGIN.
THANK YOU. SIR. THANK YOU CHAIR.
THANK YOU. MEMBERS OF THE
ASSEMBLY, PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMITTEE. IT'S AN HONOR TO BE
WITH YOU THIS MORNING, WHILE
IT'S STILL MORNING, SENATE BILL
1074 1074 PROVIDES ADDITIONAL
OVERSIGHT TO THE PROCESS BY
WHICH A SEXUALLY VIOLENT
PREDATOR GETS PLACED BACK INTO
THE COMMUNITY. A SEXUALLY
VIOLENT PREDATOR KNOWN AS AN SVP
IS AN INDIVIDUAL CONVICTED OF A
SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENSE AND
DIAGNOSED WITH A MENTAL DISORDER
THAT CAUSES THEM TO BE A DANGER
TO OTHERS AND WITH A HIGH
LIKELIHOOD TO RE-OFFEND. WHEN AN
SVP IS DETERMINED TO BE READY
FOR RELEASE FROM CIVIL
COMMITMENT UNDER THE DEPARTMENT
OF STATE HOSPITALS, A PROCESS
KNOWN AS CONDITIONAL RELEASE
PROGRAM OR CONREP, BEGINS.
CURRENTLY, THE DEPARTMENT USES A
CONTRACTOR TO EXECUTE THE ENTIRE
CONREP PROCESS, TAKING LITTLE TO
NO PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY OR
OVERSIGHT. THIS BILL WILL MAKE
TWO IMPORTANT UPDATES TO THE
CONRAD PROCESS. FIRST, SB 1074
WILL HOLD THE DEPARTMENT OF
STATE HOSPITALS RESPONSIBLE FOR
ENSURING THAT DEPARTMENT VENDORS
CONSIDER PUBLIC SAFETY IN ALL
PLACEMENTS OF SVP. SECOND, 1074
REQUIRES THE DEPARTMENT TO TAKE
A BIGGER ROLE IN THE CONRAD
PROCESS BY MANDATING THE
DEPARTMENT TO APPROVE ANY LEASE
BEFORE IT IS SIGNED BY THE
VENDOR. THIS WILL HELP CURB THE
ISSUE OF THE VENDOR COMMITTING
TO A LEASE BEFORE A JUDGE HAS
APPROVED THE PLACEMENT, LEAVING
TAXPAYERS STUCK WITH THE PAYMENT
EVEN IF THE PLACEMENT IS DENIED.
I THINK I HEARD A MOTION, SO
I'LL GOING TO CUT MY OPEN SHORT
AND, LET THE, WITNESSES, YES,
PLEASE BEGIN. WITNESSES WE HAVE,
FIRST WE HAVE, PLACER COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY MORGAN GIRE.
GOOD MORNING. COURTS RELEASE
SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATORS TO
CONDITIONAL RELEASE PROGRAM.
IT'S BASED ON A FINDING THAT
THEY'RE NO LONGER DANGEROUS.
IMPORTANTLY, WHILE UNDER
SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT IN THE
COMMUNITY IS ONGOING PLACEMENT
IS THE FIRST CRITICAL FEATURE OF
SUPERVISION AND OFTEN DICTATES
THE SUCCESS OF THE TREATMENT OF
THE SVP, WHICH MEANS THE
COMMUNITY WILL BE SAFE AND THE
SVP WILL HAVE THE BEST CHANCE OF
SUCCESS. PUBLIC SAFETY HAS TO BE
A TOP PRIORITY IN PLACEMENT.
DESPITE PARTICIPATION IN THE
HOUSING COMMUNITY, STAKEHOLDERS
ARE OFTEN LEFT IN THE DARK ABOUT
PLACEMENT LOCATIONS. SB 1034,
CODIFIED IN WELFARE AND
INSTITUTIONS CODE 6608, REQUIRES
MEANINGFUL AND ROBUST
PARTICIPATION IN THE HOUSING
SEARCH. REALITY IS THAT WE DON'T
LEARN OF THE PROCESS, THE
CRITERIA, OR ANY OF THE
LOCATIONS UNTIL MEETINGS ARE
CALLED, OFTEN AT THE LAST
MINUTE, WITH LITTLE NOTICE. BY
LIBERTY HEALTHCARE, LOCATIONS
ARE SELECTED, SECURED AND PAID
FOR WITH LITTLE TO NO NOTICE,
LEAVING THOSE CHARGED WITH
ASSISTING UNINFORMED. THE LACK
OF ATTENTION TO PUBLIC SAFETY
CREATES DOUBT, UNCERTAINTY AND
MISTRUST IN THE SVP PROCESS,
PARTICULARLY IN AFFECTED
COMMUNITIES THAT DON'T
UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS AND
RESENT BEING TOLD TAXPAYER
DOLLARS ARE BEING SPENT TO HOUSE
AN SVP IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE
HOSPITALS DEFERS ENTIRELY TO
LIBERTY HEALTH CARE AND THE LACK
OF MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF
THE PROGRAM FRUSTRATES THE
PROCESS OF VETTING LOCATIONS,
WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS. CODE
6608 REQUIRES THE SVP BE PLACED
IN THE COUNTY OF COMMITMENT. IN
THEORY, THE TEAM IS SUPPOSED TO
WORK TOGETHER IN REALITY,
LIBERTY HEALTH CARE KEEPS THE
PROCESS OPAQUE WITH LITTLE OR NO
INFORMATION REVEALED UNTIL A
LOCATION HAS BEEN SELECTED AND
WITH LITTLE TIME FOR OTHER
HOUSING COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO
DETERMINE THE SAFETY AND
SECURITY OF THE RESIDENTS IN
WHICH THE SVP IS TO BE PLACED.
THIS CASTS DOUBT ABOUT WHETHER
LIBERTY'S PRIORITY IS PUBLIC
SAFETY OR SIMPLY EXPEDIENCY. SB
1074 WILL CLARIFY THAT A
PRIORITY FOR DSH AND LIBERTY IS
PUBLIC SAFETY, AND PREVENT
LEASES FROM BEING EXECUTED
SIMPLY TO GET THE SVP PLACED
QUICKLY, RATHER THAN SAFELY.
THIS BILL IS A MODEST MEASURE TO
HELP RESTORE RESPONSIBILITY TO
DSH, PRIORITIZE PUBLIC SAFETY
AND RESTORE SOME FAITH IN THE
PROCESS TO OUR COMMUNITY, WHILE
ENSURING THE BEST CHANCE FOR SVP
TO SUCCEED AND NOT TO REOFFEND.
ONCE RELEASED. THANK U. NEXT
WITNESS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
NEXT WE HAVE A MOTION AND A
SECOND. NEXT IS ERICA FARMER.
SHE IS A CONSTITUENT WITNESS TO
THIS PROCESS AND WANTS TO SHARE
HER PERSONAL STORY REAL QUICK.
GOOD AFTERNOON AND THANK YOU FOR
HAVING ME TODAY. MY NAME IS
ERICA FARMER AND I AM HERE
BEFORE YOU TO BEG FOR
LEGISLATIVE CHANGE, TO HELP
PROTECT OUR COMMUNITIES, OUR
FAMILIES, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY,
OUR CHILDREN. MY LIFE WAS TURNED
UPSIDE DOWN THIS PAST FATHER'S
DAY WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY
ATTENTION THAT TWO SEXUALLY
VIOLENT PREDATORS WOULD BE
MOVING WITHIN A FEW HUNDRED FEET
FROM MY AWAY FROM MY FAMILY
HOME. AS A MOTHER AND CAREGIVER
TO CHILDREN WHO FALL WITHIN
THESE PREDATORS VICTIM TYPES,
THE NEWS HAS BEEN GUT WRENCHING,
TO SAY THE LEAST, SINCE THE NEWS
TWO WEEKS AGO. I HAVE BEEN
INTRODUCED TO AN EXTREMELY
FLAWED PROGRAM WHERE ONE MAIN
PLAYER, LIBERTY HEALTH CARE, IS
THE EXPERT WITNESS, THE JUDGE
AND THE JURY. PLEASE HELP ME
UNDERSTAND THE ONLY COMPANY THAT
HOLDS THE MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR
CONTRACT IS THE SAME COMPANY WHO
PROVIDES EVALUATIONS ON WHETHER
SVP SHOULD BE RELEASED, WHERE
THEY SHOULD BE RELEASED, AND
MANAGES THE FAILURE AND SUCCESS
RATE OF THE PROGRAM. IS IT NOT A
HUGE CONFLICT OF INTEREST THAT
THE MAIN FINANCIAL BENEFICIARY
HAS CONTROL OVER THE ENTIRE
PROCESS? AS A TAXPAYER FUNDING
THESE PROGRAM, SHOULDN'T WE
REQUIRE MORE TRANSPARENCY AS TO
HOW THE MONEY IS BEING SPENT?
JUST RECENTLY, UPWARDS TO $4,000
PER MONTH WAS BEING SPENT ON A
LOCAL HOUSE JUST TO HOLD A HOME
UNTIL CONFIRMATION OF PLACEMENT
COULD BE MADE, AND WHICH THE
CASE THE PLACEMENT WAS DENIED.
WHAT A WASTE. NOW I ASK ALL OF
YOU TO PUT YOURSELF IN MY
POSITION FOR A MOMENT. I WANT
YOU TO IMAGINE TELLING YOUR
CHILDREN THEY CAN NO LONGER PLAY
OUTSIDE, BECAUSE SEXUALLY
VIOLENT PREDATORS CAN WATCH THEM
FROM THEIR HOME. I WANT YOU TO
IMAGINE HAVING TO EXPLAIN TO
YOUR CHILD THEY CAN HAVE NEVER
HAVE ANOTHER BIRTHDAY PARTY AT
HOME BECAUSE NO ONE WILL ATTEND.
KNOWING FULL WELL THERE'S A
CHILD PREDATOR LIVING NEXT DOOR.
I WANT YOU TO FEEL THE WORRY I
DO FOR THE KIDS GETTING OFF OF
THE SCHOOL BUS THAT WALK DOWN
THE ROAD. WILL THEY MAKE IT HOME
SAFELY ONCE THE SVP ARE PLACED,
CAN YOU GUARANTEE THEIR SAFETY
AS IF THOSE KIDS WERE YOUR OWN?
MY CHILDREN AND I HAVE ALREADY
FALLEN VICTIMS TO THE CURRENT
CONDITIONAL RELEASE PROGRAM. OUR
LIVES WILL NEVER BE THE SAME.
AND WHILE I WAIT IN FEAR, I WILL
LET YOU KNOW THAT NOT ONCE HAVE
I BEEN CONTACTED BY ANYONE
INSIDE OF LIBERTY HEALTH CARE,
ENSURING ME AND MY CHILDREN'S
SAFETY IS OF ANY PRIORITY TO
THEM. WHAT A SLAP IN THE FACE
FOR A PROGRAM THAT MY TAX PAYING
DOLLARS IS FUNDING. SO I ASK ALL
OF YOU, WILL YOU TAKE A SECOND
AND HELP SUPPORT BILL 1074 THAT
WILL PUT PUBLIC SAFETY BACK INTO
THE FOREFRONT? Dð MY KIDS AND I
MATTER AT ALL IN THIS PROCESS.
THANK YOU. OTHERS IN SUPPORT.
PLEASE COME FORWARD. MR.
CHAIRMAN MEMBERS COREY SOSA, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION, IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, AMY BAILEY,
CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT KELLY
COELHO WITH B AND C
INVESTIGATIONS IN SUPPORT RYAN
SHERMAN WITH THE RIVERSIDE
SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION AND PLACER
COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT ANNABELLE
VELASQUEZ WITH EMPOWERING
RESILIENCE FROM PLACER COUNTY IN
SUPPORT RACHAEL WEST WITH POWER
AND RESILIENCE PROJECT OUT OF
PLACER COUNTY IN SUPPORT. HI,
PAULA GARDNER WITH SURVIVORS WAY
. HELLO. ALEXANDRA HANSEN WITH
VICTIM ADVOCATE ANGELS IN
SUPPORT BRANDON FARMER,
STANISLAUS COUNTY RESIDENT AND
SUPPORT. MATTHEW AVILA,
STANISLAUS COUNTY RESIDENT. I
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. OPPOSITION
PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEE? NO
OPPOSITION QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS, MR.
LACKEY. YEAH I JUST WANTED TO
THANK THE AUTHOR FOR, FINALLY
PRESENTING SOMETHING TO US
THAT'S, VICTIM CENTRIC AND ASKED
TO BE A COAUTHOR. GREAT. THANK
YOU. OKAY. YES. MRS. MISS
ASSEMBLYMEMBER REYES. I DO WANT
TO THANK THE AUTHOR. AND I THANK
YOU ALSO FOR WORKING WITH THE
OPPOSITION. I THINK IT'S SO
IMPORTANT TO WORK WITH THOSE,
WHO HAVE A DIFFERING OPINION AND
TO BE ABLE TO COME TOGETHER TO
HAVE THEM COME OFF AS
OPPOSITION. BUT MOST ESPECIALLY,
I DO WANT TO THANK YOUR WITNESS.
THANK YOU FOR COMING AND
PROVIDING TESTIMONY. THAT'S
ALWAYS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART
OF THE BILLS THAT WE LISTEN TO,
TO KNOW HOW THEY AFFECT HOW OUR
LAWS HAVE AFFECTED THE LIVES OF
A PERSON, OF A HUMAN BEING, AND
HOW THAT WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED
IS GOING TO HELP. SO THANK YOU
FOR BEING HERE. THANK YOU. YEAH,
WE DID MISS THE OPPOSITION.
COULDN'T GET IN IN TIME. BUT
THEY ARE HERE NOW. WOULD YOU
LIKE TO STATE YOUR POSITION.
YEAH THANK YOU. SORRY WE MISSED
THE QUICK CALL FOR OPPOSITION
AMELIA ROGERS ELLA BAKER CENTER
FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IN OPPOSITION,
ACLU CALIFORNIA ACTION IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. YES SO
WE, VICE CHAIR ALANIS, I JUST
WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL. AS YOU GUYS
MAY KNOW, THIS IS ACTUALLY
HAPPENING ON IN MY DISTRICT
RIGHT NOW AS WE SPEAK. SO THIS
IS VERY VALUABLE, BILL, FOR US
AND ALSO MAKING SURE THAT WE
KEEP PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE,
ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT WE'VE,
EMPLOYED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY
ARE MONITORING AND OVERSEEING
AND JUST BASICALLY FINDING OUT
LIKE WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON AND
WHAT ARE WE PAYING FOR. SO THANK
YOU, SENATOR, FOR DOING THAT.
THANK YOU, WITNESSES, FOR COMING
FORWARD. LOOK FORWARD TO, VOTING
FOR THIS BILL. YES. THANK YOU. I
SUPPORT THIS MEASURE. AND I KNOW
YOU BROUGHT THIS ISSUE UP IS
OBVIOUSLY THERE'S AN ISSUE AND A
PROBLEM, BUT THE REMEDY IS
ALWAYS THE ISSUE, THE DEVIL'S IN
THE DETAILS. AND, YOU'RE
PERSISTENTLY CAME BACK AND YOU
WORKED WITH THE COMMITTEE IN THE
OPPOSITION TO NARROW IT AND
PLEASE JUST SUPPORT THIS
MEASURE. TODAY WE HAVE A MOTION
AND A SECOND, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ON SB 1074 BY SENATOR
JONES. THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS
TO THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY A MCCARTY. AYE. ALANIS.
ALANIS. AYE LAKI LAKI. AYE.
NGUYEN REYES. REYES. AYE TÍNH.
WILSON. ZIPPER THAT MEASURES ON
THAT MEASURE IS ON CALL. WITHOUT
THE LUNCH OUR OUR CAUCUS OUR AS
WELL. WE'RE GOING TO RECESS FOR
ONE HOUR. WE WILL COME BACK AT
1:00. WE'LL BE IN A DIFFERENT
ROOM. WE'LL BE ACROSS THE HALL
IN ROOM 127. SO WE'LL RECESS FOR
ONE HOUR. THANK YOU. WE DIDN'T
THIS ONE TOO. WHAT YEAH. OKAY.
WE WILL RECONVENE OUR PUBLIC
SAFETY HEARING, NEXT ON THE LIST
IS SENATOR GROVE. WE HAVE SB
1414, FILE NUMBER 23. PLEASE
BEGIN.
THANK YOU, MISTER CHAIR, I'M
HERE TODAY TO PRESENT SB 1414
REGARDING THE SOLICITATION AND
ACTUAL PURCHASE OF CHILDREN FOR
SEX. MEMBERS. AS YOU KNOW, I
INTRODUCED SENATE BILL 1414 WITH
THE INTENT OF MAKING
SOLICITATION OR PURCHASE OF
MINORS A SEX FOR SEX, A PRISON
FELONY. HOWEVER, SENATE PUBLIC
SAFETY COMMITTEE FORCED
AMENDMENTS WITHOUT MY CONSENT
AND WATERED DOWN SB 1414 BY
MAKING IT A WOBBLER, WHICH CAN
STILL BE REDUCED TO A
MISDEMEANOR. TO BE CLEAR, I
BELIEVE THAT ADULTS WHO ATTEMPT
TO OR ACTUALLY BUY CHILDREN FOR
SEX IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SHOULD GO TO PRISON ON A FELONY
CHARGE. HOSTILE AMENDMENTS
REDUCED THE PUNISHMENT OF Ã TO
A WOBBLER FOR THOSE WHO WOULD
PURCHASE SEX FROM KIDS THAT ARE
AGES 15 AND UNDER, EXCLUDING 16
AND 17 YEAR OLDS. EVEN FROM THE
WOBBLER PROTECTIONS. AS A POINT
OF CLARIFICATION, A WOBBLER CAN
BE CHARGED AS A JAIL FELONY OR
REDUCED TO A MISDEMEANOR. PLEASE
BEAR IN MIND THAT IF WE DON'T
HAVE STRICTER PUNISHMENTS FOR
THE NEGOTIATION STAGE DURING THE
SOLICITATION OR THE PURCHASE,
THE NEXT OPPORTUNITY WE HAVE TO
LEVY STRONGER PENALTIES IS WHEN
THE ACT IS BEING COMPLETED. I'VE
COMB THROUGH HUNDREDS OF TEXT
MESSAGES FROM OUR LAW
ENFORCEMENT PARTNERS ON
SOLICITATION OF MINORS, AND I
FEEL THAT I CAN READ THIS ONE OR
PARTIAL ONES OF THIS ONE IN
PUBLIC, AT LEAST IT'S THE LEAST
EGREGIOUS ONE THAT I'VE READ. A
30 SOMETHING YEAR OLD MEDICAL
STUDENT WHO WANTS TO HAVE A BABY
WHICH IS BAREBACK BF, WHICH IS
BUT AND I'M NOT GOING TO SAY THE
LAST WORD WITH A 17 YEAR OLD
GIRL AND WANTS PROOF
PHOTOGRAPHIC PHOTOGRAPHIC
EVIDENCE THAT HE IS SLOPPY
SECONDS. THIS IS MORE THERE'S
MORE TO THIS NEGOTIATION WITH
THE ENGAGEMENT OF THE PRICE AND
EVERYTHING. BUT THE LANGUAGE IS
TOO INAPPROPRIATE TO READ IN THE
PUBLIC. BUT SOME MEMBERS THINK
THIS INFORMATION THAT'S ENGAGED
IN IS APPROPRIATE FOR MINORS.
THESE EXCHANGES ARE GRAPHIC,
SICKENING AND EVIL. AND THE LAST
STEP BEFORE THE CHILD SEXUALLY
EXPLOITED BY AN ADULT. RECENTLY,
THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT PERFORMED A STING
OPERATION. ONE ADULT MAN SHOWED
UP TO THE HOTEL EXPECTING TO
MEET A TEN YEAR OLD CHILD. HE
HAD STRAPS IN HIS POCKET TO TIE
THE CHILD DOWN, CHILD SIZED
LINGERIE, SEX TOYS AND
LUBRICATION. AGAIN, I'D LIKE TO
REITERATE THAT WE HAVE TO
ATTEMPT TO STOP THESE
PERPETRATORS BEFORE THEY
ACTUALLY COMPLETE THE ACT TO
DEVASTATE A CHILD'S LIFE
FOREVER. IT'S UNBELIEVABLE THAT
WE FIGHT IN THIS BUILDING TO
PROTECT MINORS UP TO THE AGE OF
21 FROM TOBACCO USE, VAPING,
ALCOHOL, AND EVEN TANNING BEDS.
BUT SOME MEMBERS DON'T WANT TO
INCLUDE PROTECTIONS FOR ALL
MINORS. INDIVIDUALS WHO TRY TO
BUY SEX FROM KIDS DESERVE TO GO
TO PRISON. THEY DESERVE TO SIT
THERE AND THINK ABOUT WHAT
THEY'VE DONE AND HOPEFULLY, AT
MINIMUM, KEEP THEM AWAY FROM THE
CHILDREN WHOSE LIVES THEY SEEK
TO DESTROY THIS REALITY IS EVEN
THE REALITY IS, IS THAT EVEN IF
WE RECLASSIFY AS A PRISON
FELONY, THE DEFENDANT IS STILL
ELIGIBLE FOR PROBATION IN THE
MAJORITY OF SEX OFFENDERS ARE
NOT SERVING THEIR FULL PRISON
SENTENCES, AS IS. KCRA, RIGHT
HERE IN SACRAMENTO INVESTIGATES.
PUT A PUT IN A RECORDS REQUEST
FOR THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS IN 2022. 246 INMATES
WERE IN PRISON FOR HUMAN
TRAFFICKING, PIMPING OR
PANDERING AND WERE RELEASED. ALL
OF THOSE INMATES, OUT OF ALL OF
THEM, THE 246, ONLY TWO WERE
THAT WERE CHARGED, OF A
TRAFFICKING. A MINOR SERVED
THEIR FULL SENTENCE ONLY TWO
WHEN TALKING ABOUT THE VERY
SERIOUS, VERY PREVALENT ISSUE OF
ADULTS PURCHASING SEX FOR
CHILDREN, I WISH THAT WE COULD
FOCUS LESS ON PROTECTING THE
CRIMINALS AND MORE ON THE
VICTIMS. IT SHOULD NOT BE THIS
HARD. IT SHOULD NOT BE THIS
POLITICAL CRAFTING GOOD POLICY
THAT PROTECTS CHILDREN SHOULD BE
A SLAM DUNK FOR BOTH SIDES. THIS
COMMITTEE, ALONG WITH SENATOR
WAHAB, PROPOSED TO ONLY INCLUDE
16 AND 17 YEAR OLD CHILDREN IN A
WOBBLER PROVISION IF THEY CAN
PROVE THEY ARE A VICTIM OF HUMAN
TRAFFICKING. THIS REQUIREMENT IS
UTTERLY RIDICULOUS. IT SAYS THEY
HAVE TO BE BOUGHT, SOLD,
TRAFFICKED AND THEN TO GET A
PROVE THEY'RE TRAFFICKED AND
THEN GO BACK TO GO TO THE
PURCHASER WHO INITIATED THIS
WHOLE ONE MORE MINUTE, WHOLE
NEGOTIATION PROCESS AND STARTED
THIS PROCESS, MY BIG MY BILL
LANGUAGE PUTS THE BLAME SQUARELY
ON THE BUYER. WHILE THE PROPOSED
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS PUT THE
BURDEN OF PROOF SQUARELY ON THE
CHILD VICTIM, WHO WOULD HAVE TO
PROVE THAT SHE WAS TRAFFICKED
SEXUALLY AND ASSAULTED AND
REVICTIMIZED AGAIN.
ADDITIONALLY, THIS COMMITTEE HAS
FAILED TO IMPOSE MANDATORY TWO
DAY MINIMUM JAIL SENTENCES AS A
MISDEMEANOR PROVISION UNDER THE
WOBBLER, AND RICHMOND CAN BUY
THEIR WAY OUT OF THE PUNISHMENT
OF THIS CRIME, PAYING A FINE
INSTEAD OF SERVING TIME OF THE
MISDEMEANOR. THE SANCTITY OF A
CHILD IN CALIFORNIA SHOULD BE
PUT FIRST. A CHILD'S LIFE IS
PRICELESS. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
PAIN TO DESTROY A CHILD'S LIFE,
A SOCIETY THAT WON'T PROTECT
THEIR CHILDREN IS NO SOCIETY AT
ALL. I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU
RESTORE MY BILL LANGUAGE WITH MY
AMENDMENTS, MAKING A PRISON
FELONY TO PURCHASE ALL MINORS
FOR SEX WITH ME HERE TO TESTIFY
IN SUPPORT. DOCTOR STEPHANIE
POWELL, AN EXPERT IN THE FIELD
OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, A 30 YEAR
VETERAN WITH THE LOS ANGELES
POLICE DEPARTMENT, HUMAN
TRAFFICKING DIVISION. AND
BRIANNA MOSLEY, A LIVED
EXPERIENCE EXPERT AND A SURVIVOR
AND ADVOCATE. THANK YOU. YOU
HAVE FOUR MINUTES BETWEEN
YOURSELVES TO COMPLETE YOUR
PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. MY NAME
IS DOCTOR STEPHANIE POWELL. I
HAVE WORKED IN THE AREA OF HUMAN
TRAFFICKING FOR OVER 15 YEARS
THROUGH THE LENS OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT. AS A 30 YEAR
VETERAN OF LAPD, AS WELL AS THE
DIRECT SERVICE PROVIDER, I WAS
BORN AND RAISED IN SOUTH CENTRAL
LOS ANGELES. THEREFORE, I KNOW
THE COMMUNITY. SO WHEN I SEE
THEM, I SEE ME, THE CHILDREN
THAT WE SPEAK OF TODAY ARE
DISPROPORTIONATELY BLACK AND
BROWN. THEY ARE THRUST ON TO
PROSTITUTION TRACKS BECAUSE OF
SYSTEMIC BREAKDOWNS IN THE
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND EDUCATION
SYSTEM, WHICH ALSO OFTEN RESULTS
IN POVERTY, COUPLED WITH A
SOCIETY THAT EITHER DOES NOT SEE
THEM AS ENOUGH OR DOESN'T SEE
THEM AT ALL. TODAY, THIS SYSTEM
HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO RIGHT
ITSELF, STAND BY THEM, BY
BRINGING THIS BILL TO ITS
ORIGINAL INTENT. BUYING A MINOR
OF ANY AGE SHOULD BE A FELONY.
THE SAME POPULATION YOU ARE
TRYING TO PROTECT, YOU ARE
THROWING IN DANGER. EVERYONE
KNOWS THAT THE YOUNGER YOU ARE
ON THE STREETS, THE MORE MONEY
THAT YOU ARE WORTH, THE MORE
MONEY THEY ARE WORTH MAKING. THE
DECISION TO REINSTATE 16 AND 17
YEAR OLDS INTO THIS BILL IS A
TRUE PROTECTIVE MEASURE. THIS
SHOULD BE DONE WITHOUT THEM
HAVING TO PROVE THAT THEY ARE
VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING BY
THEIR AGE ALONE. IT PROVES THAT.
WHY REVICTIMIZE THEM THROUGH
TESTIMONY WHEN THEY OFTEN DON'T
EVEN SELF-IDENTIFY? WHAT YOU'RE
DOING IS PERSONIFYING
ADULTIFICATION THEORY, TREATING
16 AND 17 YEAR OLD CHILDREN OF
COLOR AS THOUGH THEY'RE ADULTS.
YOU SEE, THIS IS NOT ABOUT
ROMANCE. THIS IS ABOUT
VICTIMIZATION AND A SYSTEM THAT
WILL ALLOW VICTIMIZATION IN THE
WRITTEN FORM OF THE LAW. PLEASE
SUPPORT SB 1414, RETURN IT TO
ITS ORIGINAL INTENTION. HOLD SEX
BUYERS ACCOUNTABLE. DON'T
ADULTIFIED CHILDREN OF COLOR. IT
IS BIASED. MY NAME IS BRIANNA
MOSLEY AND I'M FROM SACRAMENTO
COUNTY. I'M NOW 30 YEARS OLD,
BUT I WAS TRAFFICKED BETWEEN THE
AGES OF 13 TO 17. I WANT TO ASK
YOU A QUESTION. AT WHAT AGE DID
MY CHILDHOOD, MY INNOCENCE
BECOME LESS IMPORTANT? WAS IT AT
FOUR WHEN I WAS RAPED BY FAMILY,
AT 13 WHEN I WAS KIDNAPED FOR
THE FIRST TIME AND THEY TRIED
TO, SELL ME TO GROWN MEN AT 14,
WHEN I WAS KIDNAPED FOR THE
SECOND TIME, LOCKED IN A ROOM
FOR SEVERAL DAYS, AND AGAIN,
GROWN MEN PURCHASED ME AND RAPED
ME. YOU MAY THINK, WOW, THAT'S A
LOT FOR A CHILD TO ENDURE. AND
YOU ARE CORRECT. LITTLE DID I
KNOW THEN, BUT MY LIFE WOULD GET
MUCH WORSE. AROUND THE AGE OF 16
WHEN A TRAFFICKER BEFRIENDED ME
AND BEGAN SELLING ME. YES,
SELLING ME AGAIN TO GROWN MEN.
MY MOM LOOKED TIRELESSLY FOR ME
ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. I RECALL
THESE BUYERS SAYING THEY SAW MY
MISSING POSTING FLIERS UP AND
DOWN THE STREET FROM WHERE I WAS
BEING SOLD. DID THAT STOP THEM?
NØ AT 16, I HAD ANOTHER BUYER
ASKED ME HOW OLD I WAS. WHEN I
ANSWERED, HE THEN ASKED ME IF I
COULD PRETEND TO BE YOUNGER IF I
HAD ANY FRIENDS THAT WERE MAYBE
12. I RESPONDED NO, AND HE THEN
PROCEEDED TO PURCHASE ME FOR SEX
AND HAD ME PRETEND TO BE 12. I
HAVE HEARD THE STATEMENT THAT
SOME TEENS NEED THIS TO SURVIVE,
BUT I ASK WHY? AND THAT'S TRUE
AND ONLY IF THAT'S TRUE. WE NEED
TO FIX THOSE ISSUES AND NOT SAY
THAT THEY ARE LESS VALUABLE,
THAT THEY DESERVE TO BE RAPED BY
GROWN MEN, OR THAT THEY DON'T
DESERVE TO BE A CHILD. I CAN
TELL YOU FIRSTHAND ME, ALONG
WITH EVERY OTHER TEEN THAT I WAS
OUT THERE WITH AND THAT I WORKED
WITH, HAD A TRAFFICKER THAT
OFTEN BEAT THEM, BELITTLED THEM,
AND FORCED THEM TO SELL THEIR
SELVES FOR MONEY. AT 30 YEARS
OLD, I AM STILL HEALING FROM THE
TORTURE I ENDURED, BOTH
PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY. I SPEAK
FOR ALL MY FELLOW SURVIVORS,
VICTIMS, AND EVEN SOME OF YOUR
CHILDREN THAT WE ARE VALUABLE,
THAT WE DESERVE TO HAVE OUR
CHILDHOOD AND NOT HAVE IT STOLEN
BY GROWN MEN. WE HAVE TO HOLD
THEM ACCOUNTABLE. AND AS AND AS
I'VE SAID BEFORE, WITHOUT A
BUYER, WE HAVE NO VICTIMS. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. OTHERS IN
SUPPORT, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
ANY. BAILEY, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S.
HOLD ON ONE SECOND. WE. AMY
BAILEY, IN SUPPORT OF THIS BILL
ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S ASSOCIATION. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS
KAREN LANG, ON BEHALF OF THE
KERN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND THE TULARE COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, IN SUPPORT AND
THANK THE WITNESS FOR BEING HERE
. ODESSA PERKINS WITH
EMPOWERMENT, DES PERKINS
FOUNDATION I ATE AT RISK YOUTH
AND HUMAN TRAFFICKING VICTIMS
AND SURVIVORS. I SUPPORT SB
1414. IN SENATOR GROVE'S
ORIGINAL VERSION. MY NAME IS
MARGARITA KELLERMEYER AND TODAY
I STAND AS ONE, BUT I COME IN
THE NAME OF THOUSANDS THAT HAVE
BEEN ABUSED. PLEASE STOP THE
PROBLEM THAT IS CAUSING PEOPLE'S
LIVES. I SUPPORT SHANNON GROVE
IN THIS SB 1414. IF IT WASN'T
FOR HER, I WOULD NOT BE ALIVE
TODAY. WE NEED PEOPLE LIKE HER
THAT CAN HELP US OVERCOME THE
MONSTERS THAT EXIST IN THIS
WORLD. TAKING OUR CHILDHOOD AWAY
FROM US. THANK YOU. DILLON
LOZOVSKY WITH THE SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AND
SUPPORT COURTNEY MARTIN FOR THE
SACRAMENTO DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE. I SUPPORT THE BILL AS
ORIGINALLY PROPOSED BY SENATOR
GROVE MOLLY SHEEHAN WITH THE
CALIFORNIA CATHOLIC CONFERENCE
IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL. THANK
YOU. PASTOR BRANDON CAMPBELL,
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA DIRECTOR FOR
CALIFORNIA BAPTIST FOR BIBLICAL
VALUES IN SUPPORT OF SHANNON
GROVE'S ORIGINAL VERSION OF THE
BILL. CHRISTINE CAMPBELL,
CONCERNED PARENT AND SUPPORT OF
THIS BILL AND SENATOR GROVE'S
ORIGINAL LANGUAGE. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS. COREY
SUSILO, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT CHAIR
AND MEMBERS DANIELLE SANCHEZ ON
BEHALF OF THE CHIEF PROBATION
OFFICERS OF CALIFORNIA AND
STRONG SUPPORT. I'M TAMARA LUKE,
I'M A 16 YEAR OLD AND I SUPPORT
THE ORIGINAL BILL. I'M REALLY
LUKE. I'M 17 AND I SUPPORT THE
ORIGINAL SB 1414. RYAN SHERMAN
WITH THE PREVIOUS LAW
ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATIONS
MENTIONED EARLIER TODAY IN
SUPPORT OF THE ORIGINAL BILL,
AND ALSO ON BEHALF OF PLACER
COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MORGAN
GIRE AND THE CRIME VICTIMS
ALLIANCE IN SUPPORT OF THE
ORIGINAL BILL. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, DOCTOR ANGELA LUKE
FROM KERN COUNTY SUPPORTING THE
BILL IN ITS ORIGINAL WRITING BY
SENATOR GROVE. GOOD AFTERNOON,
LIEUTENANT JULIO DELEON FROM THE
RIVERSIDE SHERIFF'S OFFICE IN
SUPPORT AND ALSO ON BEHALF OF
SHERIFF CHAD BIANCO, MARJORIE
SAYLOR, BOARD CHAIR OF SURVIVOR
NETWORK OF SAN DIEGO. AND
SURVIVOR OF HUMAN SEX
TRAFFICKING, IN FULL SUPPORT OF
SENATOR GROVE'S ORIGINAL VERSION
OF THE BILL. MY NAME IS JANET
JETT AND I'M FROM OAKLAND, AND I
AM WITH LOVE NEVER FAILS AND I
SUPPORT THIS BILL IN THE
ORIGINAL INTENT THAT SENATOR
GROVE HAD. HI, MY NAME IS
ELIZABETH QUIROZ AND I AM A
SURVIVOR LEADER AND I WAS ALSO
TRAFFICKED AT 16 YEARS OLD. AND
I'M ALSO THE CO-FOUNDER OF AN
ORGANIZATION CALLED REDEMPTION
HOUSE OF THE BAY AREA. I ALSO
SIT ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FOR LOVE NEVER FAILS, THE
SPONSORING PARTY, AND WE SUPPORT
THIS BILL IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. HI, MY
NAME IS HELEN TAYLOR, VICE
PRESIDENT OF THE
ANTI-TRAFFICKING ORGANIZATION
EXODUS CRY. ON BEHALF OF THE
THOUSANDS OF TEENAGERS
TRAFFICKED HERE IN CALIFORNIA,
WE FULLY SUPPORT SENATOR GROVE'S
ORIGINAL BILL. BUT THESE FORCED
AMENDMENTS REQUIRE 16 AND 17
YEAR OLDS TO PROVE THAT THEY'RE
VICTIMS OF TRAFFICKING. WHEN
UNDER THE FEDERAL TVPA, ANYONE
UNDER 18 IS AUTOMATICALLY
CLASSIFIED AS A VICTIM OF
TRAFFICKING. SO THESE AMENDMENTS
ARE IGNORANT AT BEST AND HARMFUL
AT WORST. AND WE WON'T STAY
QUIET ABOUT THIS. OLIVIA
BURNETTE ON BEHALF OF
ANTI-TRAFFICKING ORGANIZATION
EXODUS CRY AND A MOTHER. AND I'M
IN FULL SUPPORT OF THE BILL IN
ITS ORIGINAL FORM, WRITTEN BY
SENATOR GROVE. WE KNOW THAT
BUYERS KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE
DOING. STATISTICALLY, THEY'RE
WHITE MEN THAT EARN OVER
$100,000. THEY DON'T DESERVE TO
BE PROTECTED. HELLO THERE. MY
NAME IS RENEE NIELSEN. I
REPRESENT DRIVE FOR IMPACT AND I
FULLY SUPPORT SB 1414. MY NAME
IS ANNABELLE VELASQUEZ. I'M WITH
THE EMPOWER AND RESILIENCE
PROJECT AND I AM A SURVIVOR AND
I AM IN SUPPORT OF SB 1414. HI,
MY NAME IS PAULA GARDNER. I'M
HERE ON BEHALF OF SURVIVORS WAY,
FOR MY NIECE AND I AM ALSO A
SURVIVOR AND I AM HERE FOR
SUPPORTING SHARON GROVE AND SB
1414. HELLO, MY NAME IS
ALEXANDRA HANSEN, AND I'M HERE
WITH VICTIM ADVOCATE ANGELS AND
I AM IN SUPPORT. MY SISTER WAS
ALSO A VICTIM. THANK YOU. MY
NAME IS KEN BURNS. I'M WITH
DRIVE FOR IMPACT, AND WE ARE IN
SUPPORT OF. THANK YOU. HELLO. MY
NAME IS LEANDRA LEPE. ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA FAMILY
COUNCIL, WE ARE IN SUPPORT.
HELLO. MY NAME IS DETECTIVE
JASON COLLINS WITH SACRAMENTO
POLICE DEPARTMENT. HUMAN
TRAFFICKING UNIT. THIS VERSION
OF THE BILL IS INEFFECTIVE, AND
I SUPPORT SENATOR GROVE'S
ORIGINAL BILL. CHRISTINE DÍAS,
BOARD MEMBER OF EMPOWERMENT DESK
, PERKINS FOUNDATION, IN SUPPORT
OF SB 1414. NICOLE WATERMAN, ON
BEHALF OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,
IN SUPPORT RACHEL WEST WITH THE
EMPOWER AND RESILIENCE PROJECT.
AND WE'RE IN SUPPORT. CHAIR
MEMBERS JONATHAN FELDMAN,
CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. SEEING NO OTHER IS IN
SUPPORT. DO WE HAVE OPPOSITION?
OPPOSITION. PLEASE COME FORWARD.
WE HAVE TO MOVE. JUST YOU GOT
IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I GOT
IT. HI. WE HAVE FOUR MINUTES FOR
YOUR PANEL. GOOD AFTERNOON,
CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS ISABELLA BORGESON AND
I'M CAMPAIGN MANAGER AT THE ELLA
BAKER CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS,
WHERE WE WORK TO ADVANCE RACIAL
AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE TO ENSURE
DIGNITY AND OPPORTUNITY FOR
PEOPLE WITH LOW INCOME AS WELL
AS PEOPLE OF COLOR. I WANT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THE SURVIVORS HERE
TODAY AND THAT WE ALL AND NAME
THAT WE ALL, HAVE THE SHARED
GOAL OF PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM
HARM. UNFORTUNATELY TODAY, EBC
MUST STRONGLY OPPOSE SENATE BILL
1414 FOR THE REASONS I WILL
STATE. WE STAND AGAINST ANY
PUNITIVE MEASURE THAT
PERPETUATES SYSTEMIC INJUSTICES,
AND WE EMPHASIZE INSTEAD THE
NEED FOR COMMUNITY BASED
SOLUTIONS. WE STRONGLY SUPPORT
INVESTMENTS IN VICTIM SERVICES
AND PROGRAMS TO PROVIDE HOUSING
AND OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO HELP
PEOPLE ESCAPE TRAFFICKING. WE
ARE CONCERNED THAT THE HARSHER
PENALTIES CONTAINED IN THIS BILL
WILL DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACT
MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES,
PARTICULARLY BLACK AND BROWN
INDIVIDUALS WHO ALREADY BEAR THE
BRUNT OF SYSTEMIC BIASES WITHIN
OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.
UNDER CURRENT CALIFORNIA LAW,
DEFENDANTS COULD FACE YEARS OR
EVEN DECADES IN PRISON FOR
SEXUAL VIOLENCE COMMITTED
AGAINST A MINOR, NOT JUST SIX
MONTHS IN JAIL. AS SENATOR GROVE
AND PROSECUTORS HAVE PREVIOUSLY
CLAIMED. FURTHERMORE THE
APPROACH OUTLINED IN SB 1414
DIVERTS RESOURCES FROM VITAL
PROGRAMS AND SERVICES AIMED AT
SUPPORTING SURVIVORS OF HUMAN
TRAFFICKING AND SEXUAL
EXPLOITATION, OPTING INSTEAD TO
INCREASE FUNDING FOR LENGTHY
JAIL TERMS. OUR RESEARCH HAS
SHOWN THAT PUNITIVE MEASURES
SUCH AS LENGTHY INCARCERATION
AND REGISTRIES, DO LITTLE TO
PREVENT CRIME OR PROTECT
COMMUNITIES. INSTEAD, THEY
PERPETUATE CYCLES OF
INCARCERATION, EXACERBATING THE
VERY PROBLEMS THEY ARE MEANT TO
ADDRESS, RATHER THAN INVESTING
IN PUNITIVE MEASURES, WE SHOULD
BE INVESTING IN COMMUNITY BASED
SOLUTIONS THAT ADDRESS THE
UNDERLYING ISSUES DRIVING
EXPLOITATION. WE SHOULD INSTEAD
SUPPORT SURVIVORS AND HEALING
AND REBUILDING THEIR LIVES WITH
ACCESS TO HOUSING AND FUNDING
FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS. GIVEN
THIS, WE RESPECTFULLY URGE YOU
TO OPPOSE SB 1414. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES
MORE. GOOD AFTERNOON,
CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS OF THE
ASSEMBLY STATE PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS KELLY
WALTERS. I'M A FORMER CRIMINAL
DEFENSE ATTORNEY AND CIVIL
RIGHTS LITIGATOR. TODAY, I'M
REPRESENTING LEGAL SERVICES FOR
PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN. AND I'M
HERE TO EXPRESS OUR OPPOSITION
TO SENATE BILL 1414, WHICH
PROPOSES SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO
THE PENALTIES FOR SOLICITING A
MINOR AS AN ORGANIZATION
DEDICATED TO BUILDING PUBLIC
AWARENESS AND STOPPING BIAS, AND
POLICING THE COURTS AND THE
PRISON SYSTEM. WE DO FEEL THIS
BILL IS DEEPLY FLAWED AND
CONTRADICTS OUR CORE VALUES AND
PRINCIPLES. WE ARE SYMPATHETIC
TO THE INTENTION OF THIS BILL
AND SHARE THE GOAL OF PROTECTING
MINORS FROM EXPLOITATION AND
ABUSE. WE BELIEVE THAT SB 1414
TAKES AN OVERLY PUNITIVE
APPROACH THAT FAILS TO ADDRESS
THE ROOT CAUSES OF THESE ISSUES,
AND WILL NOT EFFECTIVELY STOP
SEXUAL VIOLENCE. WE'RE
PARTICULARLY CONCERNED THAT THE
HARSHER PENALTIES PROPOSED IN
THIS BILL WILL
DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACT
MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES,
ESPECIALLY MEMBERS OF THE LGBTQ
COMMUNITY WHO ALREADY SUFFER
FROM SYSTEMATIC BIASES WITHIN
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM,
PARTICULARLY WHEN IT COMES TO
SEXUALLY BASED OFFENSES. STUDIES
HAVE SHOWN THAT LGBTQ PEOPLE,
PARTICULARLY GAY AND
TRANSGENDERED INDIVIDUALS, ARE
MORE LIKELY TO BE CHARGED WITH
SEX OFFENSES COMPARED TO THEIR
HETEROSEXUAL COUNTERPARTS. FOR
INSTANCE, LGBTQ INDIVIDUALS ARE
NINE TIMES MORE LIKELY TO BE
CHARGED WITH. MEASURES LIKE SB
1414 LEAD TO HIGHER RATES OF
INCARCERATION, LONGER SENTENCES,
AND INCREASED DIFFICULTIES IN
FINDING HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT.
NEARLY 65% OF LGBTQ INDIVIDUALS
ON THESE REGISTRIES REPORTED
BEING INCARCERATED, COMPARED TO
53% OF THEIR HETEROSEXUAL
COUNTERPARTS, WITH MANY
RECEIVING SENTENCES OF 25 YEARS
OR MORE INVESTING IN COMMUNITY
BASED SOLUTIONS CAN HELP BREAK
FREE. BREAK BREAK THESE CYCLES
BY PROVIDING ESSENTIAL SUPPORT
AND RESOURCES TO THOSE AT RISK
AND THOSE WHO HAVE SUFFERED
EXPLOITATION. THE SHIFT IN
APPROACH HOLDS THE POTENTIAL FOR
POSITIVE CHANGE AND A BRIGHTER
FUTURE FOR THESE INDIVIDUALS, A
SHIFT THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED WITH
PUNITIVE MEASURES. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. OTHERS IN OPPOSITION,
PLEASE COME FORWARD, MARCO
GEORGE, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION, WE'RE IN
OPPOSITION. I'M HERE FOR
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. OKAY THANK
YOU. DEANNA, I'M ON BEHALF OF
SMART JUSTICE CALIFORNIA AND
INITIATE JUSTICE AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. SHIVANI NISHAR WITH
ELLA BAKER CENTER IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. I'M ALSO REGISTERING
OPPOSITION ON BEHALF OF JUST
ADVOCATE CALIFORNIA INNOCENCE
COALITION, UNCOMMON LAW, CURB
AND FELONY MURDER ELIMINATION
PROJECT. MELANIE KIM, SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE, RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION Dð
COONEY, ON BEHALF OF ACLU
CALIFORNIA ACTION RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. JIM
LINDBERGH, FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON
LEGISLATION OF CALIFORNIA
OPPOSED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
SEEING NO OTHER INDIVIDUALS
TESTIFYING IN SUPPORT OR
OPPOSITION, DO YOU WANT TO LET
THEM CHECK OUTSIDE? GO CHECKING.
OH THEY DID. SORRY SIR. YEAH.
SORRY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR, FOR THE OPPOSITION,
YOU TALKED ABOUT VICTIM SERVICES
TO SUPPORT THE VICTIMS. WHAT
KIND OF EXAMPLES DO WE HAVE? I'M
HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP WITH EXAMPLES
OF COMMUNITY BASED
ORGANIZATIONS, MANY OF WHOM I'M
SURE ARE IN THE ROOM TODAY, WHO
PROVIDE SERVICES TO SURVIVORS.
THE ELLA BAKER CENTER FOR HUMAN
RIGHTS WORKS WITH THOUSANDS OF
CURRENTLY INCARCERATED PEOPLE
ACROSS CALIFORNIA, INCLUDING
THEIR LOVED ONES, MANY OF WHOM
IDENTIFY AS SURVIVORS
THEMSELVES. WITH REENTRY
SERVICES SUPPORTING THEM IN
FINDING STABLE EMPLOYMENT. WE
BELIEVE THAT, INVESTING IN
INDIVIDUALS STABILITY AND BEING
ABLE TO SUPPORT THEM
HOLISTICALLY IN THEIR JOURNEY
HOME AS THEY COME HOME. SO ARE
WE TALKING INDIVIDUALS, AS IN
VICTIMS OR THE PERSON THAT
ACTUALLY COMMITTED THE CRIME? I
WOULD ASSESS TO SAY THAT, OFTEN
THERE'S NOT SUCH A BINARY
BETWEEN THAT THAT MANY CURRENTLY
INCARCERATED. THERE ACTUALLY IS
THERE'S A CRIME AND THERE'S A
VICTIM AND THERE'S THE PERSON
THAT ACTUALLY DID IT. SO ARE YOU
SAYING YOU'RE PROVIDING SERVICES
FOR THE VICTIM OR THE PERSON
THAT COMMITTED THE CRIME? I'M
SAYING THAT WE'RE PROVIDING
SERVICES US, ALONG WITH MANY
OTHER ORGANIZATIONS ACROSS
CALIFORNIA, MANY OF WHOM ARE
HERE TODAY, PROVIDE SERVICES TO
SUPPORT SURVIVORS REGARDLESS OF
WHETHER OR NOT THEY'VE BEEN
INCARCERATED OR CRIMINALIZED
FOR, FOR ACTIONS THAT THEY'VE
TAKEN. OKAY. AND YOU ALSO
MENTIONED RESEARCH. YOU GUYS
HAVE RESEARCH, WHO DID THE
RESEARCH AND WHEN WAS IT DONE
THAT WOULD AND I ACTUALLY DID
WANT TO COMMENT ON YOUR OKAY, GO
AHEAD. CAN YOU MOVE THE MIC
CLOSER? SURE YOU CAN. THANK YOU,
YEAH. I PREVIOUSLY WORKED IN
SEVERAL SHELTERS THAT WERE
DEVOTED SPECIFICALLY TO
SURVIVORS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
AND SEXUAL ABUSE. AND FRANKLY, I
ORIGINALLY TOOK A VERY SIMILAR
APPROACH IN THAT I THOUGHT
PUNITIVE MEASURES WOULD BE THE
WAY TO GO. AND I'VE SINCE AFTER
READING MULTIPLE RESEARCH THINGS
AND EXPERIENCING IT MYSELF WITH
MY PARTICULAR CLIENTS AT THE
TIME, REALIZED THAT ALL THE
PUNITIVE MEASURES THAT WE'VE
TAKEN OVER THE MANY, MANY YEARS
HAVEN'T REALLY DONE ANYTHING.
AND SO IT'S TIME TO TRY
SOMETHING NEW. SO YOU'RE SAYING
THAT YOUR VICTIMS DID NOT FEEL
SAFE WHEN THE PERSON THAT
COMMITTED THE CRIME WAS IN
PRISON OR IN JAIL OR AWAY FROM
THEM? I WOULD SAY THAT THAT THAT
GENERALLY, NO, THEY DIDN'T,
BECAUSE MY EXPERIENCE AS
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DETECTIVE AND
AS A CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN'S
DETECTIVE WAS THE ABUSER OR THE
PERSON THAT COMMITTED THE CRIME
WHEN THEY WERE PUT AWAY. MY
VICTIMS FELT VERY SAFE AND THEY
WERE SCARED WHEN THEY GOT OUT.
AND IT TOTALLY, TOTALLY
CONTRADICTS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING
RIGHT NOW, SO I DON'T BELIEVE
THAT, SENATOR. GO AHEAD. YOU
HAVE A QUESTION. I JUST WANT TO
BRING BACK THE ATTENTION TO THE
DÍAS THAT MY BILL ADDRESSES THE
PURCHASER THAT BUYS A MINOR
CHILD FOR SEX. IT HAS NOTHING TO
DO WITH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, AND
IT DOESN'T ADDRESS THE ISSUES
THAT WERE. IT DOESN'T I MEAN, I
REALIZE WE'RE NOT DOING
WRAPAROUND SERVICES AND ALL
THIS. I'M TRYING TO STOP THE
DEMAND BY GOING AFTER THE BUYERS
AND THE OPPOSITION FROM THE
PUBLIC DEFENDER'S SIDE, HAVE
ALSO COME INTO THIS BUILDING
SEVERAL TIMES ON OTHER PIECE OF
LEGISLATION TO INCREASE THE AGE
OF INDIVIDUALS FOR MINORS. THAT
CAN'T THINK FOR THEMSELVES
BECAUSE THEIR BRAINS HAVEN'T
DEVELOPED TO THE AGE OF 26, BUT
THEY'RE SUPPORTING SOMETHING
THAT WOULD MAKE 16 AND 17 YEAR
OLDS ABILITY TO MAKE DECISIONS
THAT ARE WELL BEYOND THEIR REACH
AS WELL. OKAY AND JUST ONE LAST
THING, MR. CHAIR, I HAVE FOUND
THAT FOR THE MOST PART, THE
VICTIMS ARE USUALLY THE ONES
THAT ARE LEFT OUT. THEY'RE THE
ONES THAT DON'T GET A VOICE UP
HERE. AND I THINK THAT IS WHAT
NEEDS TO BE CHANGED. I THINK
WHAT IT NEEDS TO GO BACK TO IS
GIVING THE PERSON THAT MADE THAT
DECISION TO COMMIT THAT CRIME,
TO DO THAT TERRIBLE ACT NEEDS TO
BE PUT AWAY. I'LL END ON THAT.
MR. LACKEY. YES. THANK YOU. LET
ME SET A LITTLE CONTEXT HERE AND
REMIND EVERYBODY WHO'S LISTENING
THAT THE FIRST TIME OFFENDERS
HAVE NO SEX REGISTRY AND THEIR
PENALTY IS ANYWHERE FROM TWO
DAYS TO ONE YEAR IN CUSTODY, TWO
DAYS. THAT'S TIME SERVED.
USUALLY FOR BOOKING. BECAUSE OUR
JAILS ARE SO OVERCROWDED. THAT'S
THE PENALTY. NOW. WE'RE NOT
WE'RE NOT CONTESTING THAT, BY
THE WAY. THAT'S HOW IT IS. THIS
BILL SECOND, SECOND TIME OFFENSE
. AND WE HAVE PEOPLE DEFENDING
THIS. I FIND IT TO BE VERY
DIFFICULT TO SWALLOW. AND I
THINK IT'S MISGUIDED,
MISDIRECTED, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO
PUT IT, SYMPATHY. WE HAVE THE
OPPOSITION WHO HAVE SAID THAT
THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT YEARS OF
INJUSTICE SUFFERED RESULTING
FROM CUSTODY. HOW ABOUT THE LIFE
LONG INJURY SUFFERED BY VICTIMS
THAT NEVER GOES AWAY, EVER.
WHERE'S THE BALANCE THERE, FOLKS
? OVERLY PUNITIVE. THAT'S
INSULTING TO VICTIMS THAT THIS
IS OVERLY PUNITIVE. WHAT ABOUT
THE ACT? HOW DO YOU CHARACTERIZE
THAT? HOW DO YOU JUST DISMISS
IT? I FIND IT TO BE VERY, VERY
HURTFUL THAT OUR OUR VALUES HAVE
BECOME SO BLURRED AND SO
MISDIRECTED. IT JUST HURTS ME TO
KNOW THAT THIS BILL IS
CONTROVERSIAL. IT IS REALLY,
REALLY HARD FOR ME TO DIGEST.
AND IF I COULD CHAIR, IF I COULD
ASK THE SACRAMENTO DEPUTY DA
COURTNEY MARTIN, TO ADDRESS HOW
THIS COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENT WILL
PROTECT 16 AND 17 YEAR OLD
VICTIMS. YES, SURE. THIS BILL
WILL NOT PROTECT 16 AND 17 YEAR
OLD VICTIMS UNDER THE AMENDMENT
THAT REQUIRES 16 AND 17 YEAR OLD
VICTIMS TO PROVE THAT THEY WERE
VICTIMS OF SEX TRAFFICKING AT
THE TIME, THAT THEY WERE ALSO
SOLICITED FOR SEX BY A BUYER.
THAT PUTS A TREMENDOUS BURDEN ON
THESE VICTIMS TO PROVE THAT THEY
WERE VICTIMIZED, NOT JUST BY THE
SOLICITOR FOR THE BUYER, BUT
VICTIMIZED IN A SECOND WAY BY
THE TRAFFICKER. IT DOUBLES, IT
TRIPLES. IT QUADRUPLES THE
AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE THAT HAS TO
BE PUT ON BY THAT MINOR AT
TRIAL, THE AMOUNT OF TESTIMONY
THAT THAT MINOR HAS TO GIVE, IT
PUTS A TREMENDOUS BURDEN ON THAT
MINOR. AND IT REALLY IS
UNPRECEDENTED IN THE LAW. I
CAN'T THINK OF ANY OTHER TYPE OF
LAW WHERE WE PUT THAT BURDEN ON
A VICTIM TO SHOW THAT THEY WERE
THE VICTIM OF NOT ONE, BUT TWO
CRIMES IN ORDER TO BE LOOKED AT
AS A VICTIM, IF YOU'RE THE
VICTIM OF SOMEONE SOLICITING YOU
FOR SEX AS A MINOR, THAT SHOULD
BE. THAT SHOULD BE IT. YEAH.
YES, SIR. THANK YOU. NOW, YOU
CAN GO FIRST, MR. CHAIR, I'D
LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE.
SENATOR GROVES, SUBMITTED AUTHOR
AMENDMENTS. I BELIEVE THE
AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN PASSED OUT
AND HAVE BEEN HANDED OUT TO ALL
THE MEMBERS AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. THE AMENDMENTS WOULD
RESTORE SB 1414 TO ITS ORIGINAL
FORM, WHICH WOULD MAKE A
SOLICITATION OF PURCHASE OF SEX
WITH ALL MINORS, INCLUDING 16
AND 17 YEAR OLDS, A FELONY WITH
PRISON TIME, A FINE NOT TO
EXCEED 25,000, AND SEX OFFENDER
REGISTRY ON SECOND AND
SUBSEQUENT OFFENSES, I PROUDLY
SECOND THE MOTION. SUBSTITUTE
MOTION ASKING FOR JUST FIRST
MOTION. IT IS OKAY. SUBSTITUTE
MOTIONS REQUIRE A MAJORITY OF
THOSE PRESENT AND VOTING BEFORE
WE GET TO THE ACTUAL MOTION, AS
AMENDED. MISS ROSE, ORIGINAL
AMENDMENT. CORRECT. THAT'S WHAT
WE THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT. YOUR
ORIGINAL AMENDMENTS, CORRECT?
CORRECT. THEY CAN'T HEAR YOU IS
WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR CORRECT.
SO YES, I WOULD LIKE THE BILL
PASSED WITH MY ORIGINAL
AMENDMENTS. OKAY. SO MR. ALANIZ
HAS OFFERED HE WANTS TO DO A
SUBSTITUTE MOTION. IT HAS BEEN
SECONDED BY MR. LACKEY. SO WE
WILL TAKE THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION
FIRST IN ORDER TO PRESENT THE
QUESTION BEFORE THE BODY TO PASS
THIS BILL OR FOR THE MOTION BE
TO PASS, AS AMENDED, WITH YOUR
AMENDMENTS. SO THAT'S ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT WE DISCUSSED. AND I
WANT TO CLARIFY. THERE'S NO WE
HAVE A MOTION SUBSTITUTE MOTION
IS WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND
TO FOR THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION
HERE, MISS GROVES. BILL, AS WAS
FIRST INTRODUCED IN THE SENATE,
BEFORE IT WAS AMENDED, WE HAVE A
MOTION TO SECOND FOR THE
SUBSTITUTE MOTION. IT REQUIRES
THOSE THE MAJORITY AND PRESENT
AND VOTING IN ORDER TO TAKE THE
SECOND QUESTION BEFORE THE BODY.
YES. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. OKAY.
MR. ALLEN IS ASKING FOR AN AYE.
MR. MCCARTY IS ASKING FOR A NO.
YES. ON THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION,
MCCARTY. NO. MCCARTY. NO. ALANIZ
ALANIZ. AYE. LACKEY A LACKEY.
AYE. NGUYEN. NGUYEN NOT VOTING.
REYES. TÍNH WILSON. ZEBRA ZEBRA.
NO. OKAY. WE'LL GO BACK TO THE
MAIN BILL BEFORE US, I SUPPORT
YOUR BILL, AND I THINK THAT
YOU'VE DONE A LOT OF WORK
BRINGING MORE ACCOUNTABILITY TO
THE SEX TRADE, LAST YEAR, YOU
REALLY STOOD UP AND WENT AFTER
THE TRAFFICKERS. I THINK YOU
ASKED THE KEY QUESTION OVER THE
WINTER. WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE IN THE
SUPPLY AND DEMAND MARKET WHO ARE
BUYING THIS CRAFT, THIS
COMMODITY WHICH ISN'T A
COMMODITY? THERE'S A PERSON, A
HUMAN BEING, A YOUTH, AND THIS
IS AN ISSUE THAT WE ALL HEAR
ABOUT. IT'S PERSONAL TO MANY OF
US WHO HAVE YOUNG PEOPLE ON OUR
FAMILY. SO I APPLAUD YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS ISSUE FORWARD. I
SUPPORT YOUR BILL, AND I'M HERE
TODAY TO SUPPORT YOUR BILL AND
MAKE IT STRONGER, THIS IS A
BUSINESS WHERE YOU DON'T ALWAYS
GET EVERYTHING YOU WANT. IT'S
NOT BLACK AND WHITE. MANY TIMES
IT'S GRAY IN THE MIDDLE. SO I
KNOW THAT YOU WANTED TO KIND OF,
RE LACK A BETTER TERM, LITIGATE
WHAT YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PURSUE IN THE SENATE, THAT'S NOT
ON THE TABLE AS THE RULES. YOU
KNOW, WE CAN'T GO AND CHANGE
THAT. YOU KNOW, INSIDE BASEBALL
JAILBREAK TERMS, BUT THE LAST 24
HOURS, YOU AND YOUR THE MINORITY
LEADER, MYSELF, THE SENATE
PUBLIC SAFETY CHAIR, AND THE
PRESIDENT PRO TEM LOOKED AT SOME
OPTIONS AND WE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT
ONE OF THE FLAWS THAT CAME OUT
OF THE SENATE IS THAT, WE HAVE
MORE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR PEOPLE
BUYING A MINOR UNDER 15 AS A, AS
A SEXUAL COMMODITY. WE DON'T
HAVE EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANTED 15
AND UNDER, 15 AND UNDER, WE HAVE
MORE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR PEOPLE
BUYING INDIVIDUALS 15 AND UNDER
FOR SEX VIA SOLICITATION. WE
DON'T HAVE ADEQUATE, IN MY VIEW,
FOR 16 AND 17. AND, YOU KNOW, IN
MY VIEW, LIKE I'VE BEEN SAYING,
A MINOR IS A MINOR, BUT I THINK
THERE WAS SOME FAIR DISCUSSION
IN THE PRIOR HOUSE AS FAR AS
PEOPLE BEING SWEPT UP WHO WERE
LATE TEENS, YOU KNOW, A LITTLE
OVER AND THEN CLOSE TO THE 16
AND 17. SO WE HEAR YOU THAT WE
DIDN'T DO ENOUGH FOR THE 16 AND
17. SO WE WOULD LIKE TO, TO
PROPOSE THAT WE ADDRESS THE 16
AND 17 YEAR OLDS WITH ONE
ADDITIONAL CLAUSE TO THE
EXISTING BILL. THAT'S PRESENTED
HERE BEFORE THAT STATES THAT 16
AND 17 YEAR OLDS, IF THE IF THE
SOLICITED MINOR WAS UNDER 16 AT
THE AGE AT THE TIME OF OFFENSE,
IF THE PERSON OR IF THE PERSON
SOLICITED WAS UNDER THE AGE OF
18 AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE
AND THE VICTIM WAS A VICTIM OF
HUMAN TRAFFICKING AND OUR
PERCEPTION OF THIS, AND I'M NOT
A PROSECUTOR, AND I RESPECT THE
POSITION OF OUR REPRESENTATIVE
FROM THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY
DISTRICT DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE. THE INDIVIDUAL DOESN'T
HAVE TO PROVE IT. IT'S THE
PROSECUTION. IF THEY WANT TO
CHARGE THIS PERSON WITH THIS NEW
CRIME, WITH THIS UP TO A FELONY
ON THE FIRST OFFENSE, THEY CAN
THEY CAN IF THEY CAN SHOW IN THE
PROSECUTION THAT THE VICTIM, 16
OR 17, WAS A VICTIM OF HUMAN
TRAFFICKING, IF THEY WANT TO
JUST UTILIZE THE EXISTING LAW,
THERE'S TWO STATUES ON THE BOOK.
THEY CAN CHARGE THAT PERSON WITH
A MISDEMEANOR UNDER CURRENT LAW
AS WELL. SO WITH THIS, WE THINK
THAT WE ANSWER YOUR QUESTION
THAT ADDRESSES WHAT HAPPENS WITH
PEOPLE ARE 16 AND 17. THEY'RE
STILL MINORS, BUT THEY WEREN'T
IN THE VERSION THAT YOU GOT
PASSED OUT OF THE SENATE, WHILE
NOT PERFECT IN YOUR EYES, WE
VIEW THAT THIS FURTHERS THE
QUESTION IS HAVING MORE
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR PEOPLE TRYING
TO PURCHASE MINORS FOR SEX, AS
WELL AS HAS A FAIR AND BALANCED
APPROACH. SO THAT'S WHAT I'M
PROPOSING. THOSE ARE THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. ASSEMBLY MEMBER NGUYEN.
AYE, MR. CHARLES, SECOND, YOUR
YOUR MOTION AND THE AMENDMENTS,
AND I WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR
FOR BRINGING THEM. SHE HAS BEEN
A HUGE CHAMPION FOR THIS ISSUE
THAT HAS LONG BEEN OVERDUE AND
HAS GONE ON FOR MORE YEARS. AND
HAS RUINED SO MANY LIVES AND
WHEN YOU CAME TO MY OFFICE THIS
EXACTLY WAS WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT
IS THE FACT THAT THE AGE WAS
TAKEN OUT, WAS AMENDED OUT, AND
WE TALKED ABOUT HOW WE WANTED TO
MAKE SURE WE PROTECTED THOSE
THAT WERE MINORS, RIGHT, BECAUSE
THEY WERE TAKEN OUT AND AMENDED
OUT IN, IN COMMUNITY IN THE
COMMITTEE. AND I AM VERY
SUPPORTIVE OF YOUR BILL. I FEEL
WE NEED TO PROTECT THESE YOUNG
GIRLS. WE NEED TO PROTECT, THESE
GROUPS OF YOUNG GIRLS THAT
CONTINUE TO BE SOLICITED, THAT
ARE HUMAN TRAFFICKED AND VICTIMS
OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING. AND I DO
BELIEVE THESE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS DO ADDRESS THAT. AND
THEY DO BRING THEM BACK INTO THE
CIRCLE. THEY DO BRING THEM BACK
INTO THE CONVERSATION, AND THAT
THIS WILL PROTECT THEM AND
INCLUDE THEM IN WHAT YOUR BILL
IS TRYING TO ADDRESS. THAT WAS
TAKEN OUT. SO, MR. CHAIR, I
WOULD MOTION YOUR SECOND. YOUR
MOTION. YES. OKAY. WE HAVE A
MOTION, A SECOND ON THE BILL
WITH THE PROPOSED COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS. DO WE HAVE FURTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. SEEING NONE
BACK TO YOU ON ON, CLOSING. MR.
CHAIR, I THANK YOU. I THANK YOU
FOR MEETING WITH ME LAST NIGHT
AT 530. I KNOW WE MISSED SEVERAL
OPPORTUNITIES OVER THE LAST
MONTH AND A HALF TO MEET, AND
SOME APPOINTMENTS THAT COULDN'T
BE KEPT, BUT I APPRECIATE YOU AT
LEAST MEETING WITH ME LAST
NIGHT, TO SHOW ME THE AMENDMENTS
THAT YOU GUYS HAD COME UP WITH
ON A BILL THAT I'VE WORKED
REALLY HARD ON. SO AS THE
COALITION THAT IS BEHIND ME HAS
WORKED REALLY HARD ON, SEVERAL
OF THE SITUATIONS WHERE THE
AMENDMENT TROUBLES ME IS THAT
THERE ARE SEVERAL SITUATIONS
WHERE AN INDIVIDUAL, THEY DO CAR
SEX BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T HAVE
PLACES TO GO AND THERE'S A LOT
OF TIMES IN, IN THESE SITUATIONS
WHERE THE PURCHASERS OF THESE
PEOPLE WILL WANT MULTIPLE GIRLS
AND GIVE DIRECTION OF WHAT THEY
WANT, THOSE MULTIPLE INDIVIDUALS
DO AND NOT JUST GIRLS, LGBT KIDS
, THEY THEY HAVE. I DON'T WANT
TO SAY FETISHES, BUT THEY HAVE
THESE, THESE THINGS THAT THEY
DESIRE. SOME LIKE YOUNG BLACK
GIRLS, SOME LIKE LGBT SPECIFIC
KIDS, SOME WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT THEY HAVE, YOU KNOW,
DIFFERENT SPECIFICS ABOUT THEM
REGARDING TIGHTNESS AND THINGS
LIKE THAT. SO I CAN TELL YOU
THAT WHEN WE READ SOME OF THESE
CONVERSATIONS, LIKE RIGHT HERE
ON STOCKTON BOULEVARD, THAT'S IN
THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO, THERE'S
SEVERAL SITUATIONS WHERE A 15,
16, 13 OR EVEN A 12 YEAR OLD
WILL BE WITH A 16 AND 17 YEAR
OLD. SO WITH THE COMMITTEE'S
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, LAW
ENFORCEMENT COULD ACTUALLY GET
THE BUYER WHO SECURED THESE.
THIS NEGOTIATION WITH THESE
MINORS UNTIL THE 16 YEAR OLD,
YOU KNOW, GO ALONG, LITTLE GIRL
OR LITTLE BOY, I CAN ONLY TAKE
CARE OF THE 15 AND BELOW. SO
THAT'S THE FRUSTRATION I HAVE
WITH THIS. AND HAVING TO PROVE
OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT THEY
WERE ACTUALLY BOUGHT, SOLD,
TRAFFICKED, SEXUALLY EXPLOITED,
AND THEN TO GO AFTER THE
ORIGINAL PURCHASER WHO STARTED
THIS WHOLE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS,
THEY HAVE TO PROVE ALL OF THAT
HAPPENED FIRST, INSTEAD OF
STOPPING HIM IN HIS TRACKS, IN
ORDER TO MOVE THE BILL FORWARD,
AND ADDRESS THE ISSUE LIKE WE
HAVE WITH THE ADDITIONAL
PROTECTIONS FOR THE WOBBLER THAT
CAN BE CHARGED AS A FELONY FOR
15 YEAR OLDS, I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE TO HOPEFULLY
CONTINUE THIS CONVERSATION
BECAUSE WE'RE LEAVING 16 AND 17
YEAR OLDS OUT IN THE COLD, AND
I'M NOT. THAT DOESN'T SIT WELL
WITH ME. YEAH. I'M SORRY. I JUST
WANT TO CLARIFY WITH THESE
AMENDMENTS, IT DOES ADDRESS
THESE 13 YEAR OLDS AND 12 YEAR
OLDS, BECAUSE IT'S ANYBODY UNDER
THE AGE OF 18. SO JUST FOR
CLARITY, THE AMENDMENT READS AND
I FIRST WANT TO SAY, I HONOR
YOU. YOU YOU HAVE, MET IN GOOD
FAITH, NEGOTIATED IN GOOD FAITH.
YOU'VE SHARED YOUR STORIES OF
WHAT YOU'VE SEEN ON THE STREET,
WHICH IS THE SAME THING I HAVE
SEEN IN. AND IT'S HEART
WRENCHING, ESPECIALLY FOR A MOM
AND A GRANDMA. THE AMENDMENT
ITSELF THAT THE COMMITTEE IS
PROPOSING IS INCLUDING THE
WOBBLER FOR 15 AND BELOW. PLEASE
CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. IT
KEEPS THE WOBBLER FOR 15 YEARS
OLD AND BELOW. NOT UNDER 15, BUT
15 AND BELOW. EXACTLY. OKAY, SO
THEY CAN BE CHARGED WITH A
FELONY AND IT STILL CAN BE
BROUGHT DOWN TO A MISDEMEANOR.
THAT'S THE IS THE AMENDMENT
UNDER THE 16 AND 17 YEAR OLDS
THAT AMENDMENT SAYS IF IT SAYS
IF THE SOLICITED MINOR 16 YEARS
OLD OR AGE AT THE TIME OF THE
OFFENSE OR THE PERSON SOLICITED
IS UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS
OLD, OF THE OFFENSE, THE VICTIM
OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING UNDER
SECTION 230 6.1. IT'S INCLUDED.
AND IT SAYS THAT IT'S IT ALLOWS
THE IMPRISONMENT OF A COUNTY
JAIL, $10,000 FINE. SO BUT THEY
HAVE TO PROVE THE 16 AND 17 YEAR
OLD HAVE TO PROVE THEY'RE A
TRAFFICKED VICTIM. IF YOU TALK
TO MISS MARTIN, WHO IS HERE, YOU
HAVE GIRLS THAT ARE TRAFFICKED.
THEY ESCAPE THE TRAFFICKER.
THEY'RE OUT ON THE STREET ON
THEIR OWN FOR TWO WEEKS. AND
THEN THEY GO BACK AND GET
TRAFFICKED AGAIN. THEY HAVE TO
PROVE THEY ARE TRAFFICKED, SO
THEY HAVE TO BE BOUGHT. SOLD.
THE NEGOTIATION TAKES PLACE.
THEY HAVE TO BE SEXUALLY
EXPLOITED AND GO AFTER THE
TRAFFICKER WHO THEN CAN GO AFTER
THE PERSON WHO STARTED THIS
WHOLE NONSENSE. THAT'S WHAT THIS
AMENDMENT DOES. I JUST WANT THEM
ALL INCLUSIVE. A 17 YEAR OLD IS
A 16 YEAR OLD IS A 15 YEAR OLD.
I WANT IT ALL INCLUSIVE, BUT WE
CAN'T GET THERE AND I'M TRYING
TO GET THERE. YES. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR THE CLOSE. AND,
YOU KNOW, I SUPPORT THIS BILL.
IT'S, IT'S FURTHER THAN WHAT YOU
WERE AT A MONTH AGO IN THE STATE
SENATE, WHICH IS FURTHER THAN WE
ARE IN STATE LAW. WASN'T WHERE
YOU WERE AT WHEN YOU INTRODUCED
THE BILL IN JANUARY. I'LL GIVE
YOU THAT, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, YOU
LIKE A LAWMAKER, YOU KNOW, SHOOT
FOR THE STARS AND THAT'S YOUR
JOB IS TO GO AS FAR AS YOU CAN.
IT SHOULDN'T BE THAT DIFFICULT.
AND THIS IS AND THIS IS I'M THIS
IS THE THIS IS THE PROCESS THAT
WE'RE IN. WE HAVE A DELIBERATIVE
PROCESS AND GO BACK AND FORTH.
SO WE HEARD THE CALL FROM YOU
AND OTHERS THAT WERE NOT
ADEQUATELY ADDRESSING 16 AND 17
YEAR OLDS. AND I CONCUR. THAT
WAS A FLAWED I THINK WE CAME UP
WITH A GOOD SOLUTION HERE. AND
WE DON'T WANT TO REVICTIMIZE THE
VICTIMS. AND AGAIN, IT'S NOT UP
TO THEM TO PROVE THAT THEY WERE
TRAFFICKED, EXCEPT WITH THE
PROSECUTION. THEY DON'T WANT TO.
AND THERE'S A 16 OR 17 YEAR OLD
THEY CAN GO BACK AND USE THE
EXISTING LAW AND PROSECUTE THAT
AS JUST ON THE MISDEMEANOR
CLAUSE. SO THERE'S TWO STATUTES
IN THE BOOKS THAT WOULD BE
OPERABLE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT AND
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS. AND WITH
THAT, WE HAVE A WE HAVE A MOTION
CLARIFICATION. DOES THE
MISDEMEANOR WE HAVE A MOTION NO
JAIL TIME. WE HAVE A MOTION AND
A SECOND WE HAD A CLOSE I CAME
TO SUPPORT I SUPPORT THE BILL,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. THANK YOU.
ON SB 1414 BY SENATOR GROVE, THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS AS AMENDED
WITH THE CHAIRS COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS. MCCARTY Ã Þ. AND
I'M. EXCUSE ME, THAT CHAIR, THAT
BILL. THIS BILL IS GOING TO
APPROPRIATIONS. MCCARTY MCCARTY
I ALANIZ. ALANIZ I LACKEY LACKEY
I WHEN I REYES REYES I TÍNH
WILSON. ZUBER ZUBER I THAT
MEASURE PASSES THAT MEASURE
PASSES. NEXT MEASURE. SENATOR
ALVARADO GILL THANK YOU. BREAK.
YOU HAVE THREE MEASURES,
SENATOR. WE'LL START WITH, ITEM
NUMBER TWO, SB 268. WE HAVE NO
CONSENT. OKAY. WE'LL WAIT A
SECOND TO QUIETS DOWN. THANK YOU
FOR YOUR PATIENCE. YOU'VE BEEN
HERE ALL DAY. THANK YOU. IT'S
BEEN A GOOD DAY. YEAH. YOU'VE
BEEN HERE ALL DAY IN OUR
COMMITTEE. YEAH. YEAH. I DIDN'T
WANT TO LOSE MY SPOT. YEAH, I
KNOW HOW POPULAR THIS COMMITTEE
GETS. SO, ARE YOU ON THE SENATE
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE? YOU ARE
NOT. SO YOU MUST HAVE LEARNED A
LOT SITTING HERE THROUGH ALL
THESE BILLS. YEAH, I'VE BEEN
HEARING ABOUT THESE BILLS ALL
YEAR LONG. SO THERE YOU GO. ARE
WE ON RECESS? NO, NO. OKAY. I'M
AIMING, BY THE WAY. THANK ME.
OKAY. SO ALL RIGHT. WELCOME DO
YOU. I'M SORRY. DO YOU HAVE A.
OKAY. FIRST BILL, YOU CAN BEGIN.
SO THAT'S ITEM NUMBER TWO SB
268. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO
SIX EIGHT FIRST. YEP OKAY. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR FOR
THIS OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT
SENATE BILL 268. I WEAR A TEAL
ROSE IN HONOR OF SURVIVORS WHO
SUPPORT PROP 57 REFORM. SENATE
268 MAKES THE RAPE OF AN
INTOXICATED PERSON A VIOLENT
FELONY. THIS BILL ONLY APPLIES.
EXCUSE ME? EXISTING LAW ONLY
CONSIDERS RAPE TO BE A VIOLENT
FELONY. WHEN COMMITTED AGAINST A
PERSON'S WILL, BY MEANS OF
FORCE, VIOLENCE, DURESS, MENACE,
FEAR, OR BY THREAT OF VIOLENT
RETALIATION. HOWEVER, RAPE IS
NOT CONSIDERED A VIOLENT FELONY
WHEN COMMITTED AGAINST A PERSON
WHO IS INCAPACITATED AND UNABLE
TO GIVE CONSENT. AS YOU KNOW,
SOMEONE CONVICTED OF A VIOLENT
FELONY CANNOT EARN EARLY RELEASE
CREDITS WHILE SERVING TIME. THIS
IS THE PROBLEM THAT WE AIM TO
FIX WITH THIS BILL, AND WHETHER
SOMEONE CONVICTED OF RAPING AN
INTOXICATED PERSON SHOULD, IN
FACT, EARN EARLY RELEASE CREDITS
WHILE SERVING THEIR SENTENCE.
THIS BILL ONLY APPLIES IN CASES
WHERE IT IS FIRST PLED AND
PROVEN THAT THE DEFENDANT CAUSED
THE INTOXICATION BY DRAGGING THE
VICTIM WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT,
AND WITH THE INTENT TO SEXUALLY
ASSAULT THEM. THIS BILL IS NOT
ABOUT LOCKING PEOPLE UP AND
THROWING AWAY THE KEY FOR THE
LOW LEVEL OFFENSES. THIS BILL IS
ABOUT HOLDING ACCOUNTABLE
SOMEONE WHO COMMITS A
PREMEDITATED ACT OF SEXUAL
ASSAULT. THE OPPOSITION WILL
ARGUE THAT SENATE BILL 268 WOULD
EXPAND THE LIST OF THREE STRIKE
ELIGIBLE, ELIGIBLE OFFENSES, AND
THEY ARE WRONG. THIS TYPE OF
RAPE IS ALREADY A SERIOUS
FELONY, WHICH MEANS IT IS
ALREADY A STRIKE. THE ISSUE AT
HAND IS WHETHER SOMEONE WHO
DRUGS SOMEONE WITH THE INTENT TO
RAPE THEM SHOULD QUALIFY FOR
EARLY RELEASE CREDITS UNDER PROP
57. AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, RAPE
IS ALREADY A VIOLENT FELONY WHEN
ACCOMPLISHED BY FORCE. I BELIEVE
THAT DRUGGING SOMEONE AND TAKING
AWAY THEIR ABILITY TO CONSENT IS
INDEED USING FORCE. AND I AM NOT
ALONE IN THIS. JUST LAST YEAR,
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT RULED 7
TO 0. IN THE CASE OF PEOPLE
VERSUS LEWIS, WHICH UPHELD THAT
KIDNAPING AND INTOXICATED PERSON
WITH THE INTENT TO RAPE THEM BY
USING DECEPTION IS THE SAME AS
USING FORCE, AND THE LEGISLATURE
MUST HAVE INTENDED FOR A RELAXED
STANDARD OF FORCE IN THE
KIDNAPING STATUTE. NOW, THE
ARGUMENT THAT RAPING AN
UNCONSCIOUS PERSON IS NONVIOLENT
SIMPLY BECAUSE THE VICTIM IS
UNABLE TO RESIST IS NONSENSICAL.
THE LAW MUST BE CLEAR, CRYSTAL
CLEAR, IN ORDER TO PURSUE THE
JUSTICE FOR SURVIVORS. IT ALSO
HAS BEEN SAID THAT THIS BILL
DOES NOT DETER CRIME AND THAT
TOUGHER SENTENCING DOES NOT WORK
. WHILE I SHARE THE OPPOSITION'S
VIEW THAT WE SHOULD INVEST IN
PROGRAMS THAT LEAD TO LESS
CRIME, WE MUST ALSO HOLD OUR
WORST OFFENDERS ACCOUNTABLE.
THIS INCLUDES PREDATORS OF
VIOLENT SEXUAL OFFENDERS
OFFENSES, AND IF ANYBODY HAS AN
IDEA ON HOW TO PREVENT RAPE
THROUGH LEGISLATION, I WILL
AUTHOR THAT BILL AND PROMPTLY
RETIRE FROM PUBLIC OFFICE. BY
VOTING NO ON SENATE BILL 268, WE
ARE ESSENTIALLY REWARDING
CERTAIN RAPISTS BY TAKING THE
EXTRA STEP OF DRUGGING THEIR
VICTIM FIRST, BY ALLOWING THEM
TO EARN EARLY RELEASE CREDITS
UNDER PROP 57. CARJACKING AND
ROBBERY ARE TWO EXAMPLES OF
VIOLENT FELONIES THAT WE
CURRENTLY CLASSIFY AS HARSHER
CRIMES THAN DRUGGING AND RAPING.
IN SUPPORTING SENATE BILL 268,
THEN WE'RE ASSERTING THAT
DRUGGING SOMEONE WITH THE INTENT
TO RAPE THEM IS INDEED FORCE AND
THEREFORE VIOLENT, VIOLENT
THROUGH DECEPTION AND
INCAPACITATION. IT IS
PREMEDITATED AND A CRIME OF
POWER, CONTROL AND VIOLENT.
INDEED HERE TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT IS A FELLOW SURVIVOR,
ANNABELLE VELASQUEZ. ANNABELLE
IS RIGHT HERE. GOOD AFTERNOON.
AND THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HAVING
ME. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO SPEAK OUT ON THIS PLATFORM
WHERE SURVIVORS LIKE MYSELF
STRUGGLE TO BE HEARD AMIDST
BUREAUCRATIC NOISE. MY NAME IS
ANNABELLE, AND I AM A SURVIVOR
OF SEXUAL ASSAULT. THE TERM
TODAY TO DESCRIBE WHAT I WENT
THROUGH IS HUMAN TRAFFICKING. SO
IT'S ONLY FAIRLY RECENTLY THAT I
COULD EVEN INTERNALIZE THAT THAT
WAS WHAT WAS HAPPENING. WHAT HAD
HAPPENED TO ME. I WAS DRUGGED
AND RAPED BY MANY PREDATORS IN
MANY DIFFERENT PLACES IN A 12
HOUR TIME SPAN, WHICH BECAME ONE
OF THE MOST HORRIFIC NIGHTS OF
MY LIFE AT THE TENDER AGE OF 15.
AT THAT TIME, I WAS NAVIGATING
THE TRANSITION FROM CHILDHOOD TO
ADULTHOOD AS I TRIED TO
UNDERSTAND THE WORLD AROUND ME.
ON FRIDAY, MAY 20TH, 1994, I WAS
DRUGGED AND BRUTALLY RAPED. MY
PERPETRATORS FORCED MY MOUTH
OPEN AND POURED ALCOHOL DOWN MY
THROAT, AND WITH EACH SIP I FELT
WEAKER AND BEGAN TO GO IN AND
OUT OF CONSCIOUSNESS. MY
INNOCENCE AND VIRGINITY WAS
VIOLENTLY TAKEN AWAY FROM ME. MY
PERPETRATORS THREW ME OVER AN
OVERPASS AND ONLY BY THE GRACE
OF GOD WAS I ABLE TO HOOK MY ARM
OVER THE RAILING AND BEG AND
PLEAD FOR MY LIFE. I SCREAMED
AND PLEADED WITH THEM AND THAT I
WOULD NOT TELL ANYONE IF THEY
JUST CAME BACK FOR ME. MY
SCREAMS PIERCED AND ECHOED
THROUGH THE STILLNESS OF THE
NIGHT, WHEN MY PERPETRATORS THEN
DECIDED TO THROW ME INTO THE
TRUNK OF THEIR CAR AND THEN
SLAMMED ME ONTO MY DRIVEWAY AS
THOUGH I WAS NOTHING BUT
GARBAGE, I CRAWLED INTO MY HOME
AND UP THE STAIRS, DISORIENTED
AND IN SHOCK. I MANAGED TO PULL
MYSELF INTO THE SHOWER AND I WAS
IN SO MUCH PAIN. I HAD FECES ALL
OVER ME. I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS
HUMAN OR ANIMAL, BUT I FELT
DEGRADED AND WORTHLESS BEYOND
LESS THAN HUMAN. I BELIEVE THAT
THIS WAS DONE IN A CALCULATED
WAY, TO GET ME TO WASH EVERY
TRACE OF EVIDENCE OFF OF ME. I
REMEMBER ROCKING MYSELF BACK AND
FORTH ON THE SHOWER FLOOR,
SCRUBBING ALL OF THE FECES OFF
OF ME, TRYING TO BE CAREFUL AS I
HAD BRUISES ALL OVER ME AND I
WAS PRETTY BLOODY IN MY INTIMATE
PARTS, AND I HAD INJURIES ALL
OVER MY BODY. AND AS I LOOK BACK
AT THIS HORRIFIC INCIDENT, I CAN
SEE THAT I WAS REALLY STILL ONLY
A CHILD AT THE TIME. WE NEEDED
SOLID EVIDENCE TO PROVE THIS
HEINOUS CRIME HAD OCCURRED, BUT
IT BECAME MY WORD AGAINST THEIRS
. FOR WEEKS, I GRAPPLED WITH
NIGHTMARES, TRYING TO PIECE
TOGETHER WHAT HAD HAPPENED TO
ME. BUT TO BE HONEST, I STILL
SUFFER FROM NIGHTMARES ABOUT MY
BRUTAL ATTACK TO THIS VERY DAY,
I FELT LIKE TRASH, NOT ONLY DID
THEY TAKE MY VIRGINITY, THEY
SHATTERED MY SELF-WORTH, WHICH
LED TO MY ENTERING DESTRUCTIVE
RELATIONSHIPS, INCLUDING ONE OF
MANY THAT WAS VIOLENTLY ABUSIVE.
I WAS STABBED MY COLLARBONE WAS
BROKEN. I WAS THROWN OUT OF A
MOVING CAR DOWN THE STAIRS. AND
DURING ONE ATTACK, THEY
ATTEMPTED TO SHOVE ME INTO A HOT
OVEN. MY LACK OF SELF-WORTH WAS
A RESULT OF MY PREVIOUS
ASSAULTS, WHICH MADE ME
VULNERABLE, AND I BECAME A
TARGET FOR PREDATORS AS THEY
COULD SEE HOW BROKEN I WAS.
JUSTICE HAD ELUDED ME UNTIL
JANUARY 4TH, 2024. MY HORRIFIC
EXPERIENCE WAS INVESTIGATED BY
THE FREMONT POLICE DEPARTMENT,
THOUGH I KNOW THAT IT WILL NOT
LEAD TO A TRIAL. I FEEL LIKE I
WAS FINALLY HEARD AND THIS IS
THE VALIDATION THAT I NEEDED TO
BEGIN MY HEALING JOURNEY. AND
NOW THIS BILL, SB 268, STANDS
BEFORE US. IT BRIDGES A CRITICAL
GAP IN LEGISLATION BY
CLASSIFYING THE RAPE OF AN
INTOXICATED PERSON, WHERE THE
ASSAILANT INTENTIONALLY DRUGGED
THE VICTIM AS A VIOLENT FELONY.
IT ACKNOWLEDGES THE SEVERITY OF
THESE CRIMES AND THE MENTAL AND
PHYSICAL TRAUMA THAT SURVIVORS
LIKE MYSELF ARE FACED WITH
INDEFINITELY. SURVIVORS AND
VICTIMS WHO CANNOT SPEAK FOR
THEMSELVES CARRY THE STIGMA OF
SHAME LIKE I DID AFTER ALL OF
THESE YEARS. LET'S PUT THE SHAME
AND BLAME BACK ONTO THE
PERPETRATORS ON WHERE IT
BELONGS. BEING DRUGGED AND RAPED
IS A SEVERE VIOLATION OF HUMAN
RIGHTS AND PERSONAL SAFETY.
PERIOD. MY MESSAGE TODAY IS
CLEAR PERPETRATORS WHO DRUG
THEIR VICTIMS AND COMMIT SEXUAL
ASSAULT WILL FACE LEGAL
CONSEQUENCES TO THE FULLEST
EXTENT OF THE LAW. THE ONLY WAY
WE CAN GET THERE IS THROUGH SB
268. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING AND
MAY OUR COLLECTIVE VOICES
IGNITE. CHANGE ONE BILL AT A
TIME. THANK YOU. OTHERS IN
SUPPORT, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
THIS YOUR NAME AND POSITION
ONLY. AMY BAILEY, CALIFORNIA
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION
IN SUPPORT. CARILLO ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA STATE SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT RACHEL
WESP WITH EMPOWER RESILIENCE
PROJECT, PLACER COUNTY IN
SUPPORT. CHAIR MEMBERS JONATHAN
FELDMAN, CALIFORNIA POLICE
CHIEFS ASSOCIATION, SUPPORT.
GOOD AFTERNOON, DYLAN STAPLETON,
ON BEHALF OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
ELENI KOUNALAKIS IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, SERGEANT BERNIE OJEDA
, LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT, ON BEHALF OF SHERIFF
ROBERT LUNA IN SUPPORT,
LIEUTENANT HèA DELEON, ON BEHALF
OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY
SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND SUPPORT.
PAULA GARDNER WITH SURVIVORS WAY
IN SUPPORT. HI. ALEXANDRA HANSEN
WITH VICTIM ADVOCATE ANGELS IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. RENEE
NIELSEN REPRESENTING DRIVE FOR
IMPACT IN SUPPORT. DANIELLE
SANCHEZ, ON BEHALF OF THE CHIEF
PROBATION OFFICERS OF CALIFORNIA
AND SUPPORT KEN BURNS WITH DRIVE
FOR IMPACT IN SUPPORT. RYAN
SHERMAN WITH THE RIVERSIDE
SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION,
CALIFORNIA NARCOTIC OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION, RESERVE PEACE
OFFICERS ASSOCIATION ALL IN
STRONG SUPPORT OF SB 268, ALSO
BEEN ASKED TO STATE ON THE
RECORD OTHER ORGANIZATIONS,
INCLUDING THE DEPUTY SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION OF PLACER AND
MONTEREY COUNTIES AND THE POLICE
OFFICER ASSOCIATIONS OF THE
FOLLOWING CITIES ARCADIA,
BURBANK, CLAREMONT, CORONA,
CULVER CITY, FULLERTON,
MURRIETA, NEWPORT BEACH, NOVATO,
PALOS VERDES, POMONA, RIVERSIDE,
SANTA ANA, UPLAND, THE LÀ
SCHOOL, POLICE ASSOCIATION, L.A.
SCHOOL, POLICE MANAGEMENT
ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA
COALITION OF SCHOOL SAFETY
PROFESSIONALS, CRIME VICTIMS
ALLIANCE, AND PLACER COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY MORGAN GIRE
ALL IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. OPPOSITION. PLEASE COME
FORWARD.
YEAH DANICA, ON BEHALF OF
INITIATE JUSTICE AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. AND I JUST I WANT TO
SAY, LIKE I AM MY HEART IS
BROKEN AND I IS GUT WRENCHING.
AND I JUST WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE
THE COMPLETE FAILURE OF OUR
CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM. AND THIS
PROCESS TO MEANINGFULLY HEAR
THESE STORIES AND ADDRESS THIS
KIND OF HARM, AND TO REALLY GET
AT THE ROOT OF IT THAT IS AT THE
CORE OF OUR OPPOSITION AND I
ACKNOWLEDGE ALL OF THE SURVIVORS
WHO CAME TODAY AND ANNABELLE FOR
SHARING HER STORY. I'M THE
DAUGHTER OF A RAPE SURVIVOR. MY
MOM WAS RAPED AT GUNPOINT BY A
STRANGER IN THE EARLY 80S. I
GREW UP IN THE SHADOW OF THAT.
THAT MAN IS NOW CIVILLY
COMMITTED AS A SEXUALLY VIOLENT
PREDATOR. WE JUST HAVE A
DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE ON HOW
WE'RE GOING TO ACTUALLY SOLVE
THESE PROBLEMS. AND IT IS OUR
POSITION THAT INCREASING
PUNISHMENT IS NOT HOW WE ARE
GOING TO ACTUALLY GET TO THE
ROOT OF WHAT IS HAPPENING IN
THIS COUNTRY AROUND SEXUAL HARM
AND ACTUALLY STOPPING IT, AND
THAT MORE MONEY AND ENERGY THAT
WE DEVOTE TO FURTHER PUNISHMENTS
DIVERTS ENERGY AND RESOURCES
AWAY FROM OTHER WAYS. WE MAY
EXPLORE TO MEANINGFULLY PROVIDE
SUPPORT AND TO STOP CYCLES OF
VIOLENCE. SO BECAUSE SB 268 WILL
REDUCE CREDIT EARNING AND
OPPORTUNITIES FOR INDIVIDUALS TO
GO BEFORE THE PAROLE BOARD EARLY
, THAT WILL RESULT IN LONGER
PRISON SENTENCES AT GREAT COST.
AND WE DO HAVE LIMITED
RESOURCES. WE HAD TO FIGHT VERY
HARD FOR A FUNDING AND FUNDING
FOR SURVIVORS. THIS YEAR, IT'S
$135,000 A YEAR TO INCARCERATE A
PERSON IN CDCR, AND WE BELIEVE
THAT THOSE RESOURCES ARE BETTER
USED FOR OTHER SURVIVOR SUPPORT
AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION
PROGRAMS. SO FOR THOSE REASONS,
WE URGE A NO VOTE. MARCO GEORGE,
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION, I
WANT TO SAY TO THE SURVIVOR WHO
BRAVELY TESTIFIED THAT WE SEE
YOU. I UNDERSTAND I AM A RAPE
SURVIVOR. I WAS ALSO A PUBLIC
DEFENDER FOR OVER 30 YEARS. I
HAVE A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE
ABOUT WHAT WILL CHANGE THE
SYSTEM, AND I THINK THE METOO
MOVEMENT HELPED. IT HELPED ME TO
COME OUT AND TALK ABOUT MY
STORY. THE WOMEN WHO HAVE COME
FORWARD TODAY, WHO HAVE TALKED
ABOUT THEIR STORIES HAVE ALSO
HELPED. WE ALL NEED TO STEP
FORWARD, AND THERE ARE MEN AND
WOMEN IN THIS ROOM. GIVEN THE
STATISTICS, MANY OF WHOM HAVE
BEEN SEXUALLY ASSAULTED. BUT
THIS BILL WILL NOT MAKE THE PAIN
GO AWAY. THE CRIMINAL LEGAL
SYSTEM IS NOT EQUIPPED TO DEAL
WITH THAT PAIN. WHAT WOULD HAVE
HELPED ME IS COUNSELING WAS HELP
UNDERSTANDING THAT WHAT HAPPENED
TO ME AND WHAT HAPPENED TO MY
FRIENDS WAS NOT OUR FAULT. AND
THAT WAS NOT SOMETHING THE
CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM COULD GIVE
US. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE
EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM COULD HAVE
GIVEN ME, THAT THE PUBLIC HEALTH
SYSTEM COULD HAVE GIVEN ME IN
TERMS OF 268, THE SENATOR
ALREADY TOUCHED ON THE FACT THAT
ALL FORMS OF RAPE ARE ALREADY
STRIKES. THEY'RE ALREADY SERIOUS
FELONIES. THEY'RE ALREADY
REQUIRED TO REGISTRATION.
THEY'RE ALREADY OFFENSES FOR THE
PURPOSE OF THE SEXUALLY VIOLENT
PREDATOR LAW. ALL THIS BILL DOES
IS DISINCENTIVIZE PEOPLE WHO ARE
SENT TO PRISON FROM
PARTICIPATING IN REHABILITATION
AND EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS. THOSE
PEOPLE WILL COME HOME SOMEDAY.
WE WANT THEM TO BE BETTER THAN
WHEN THEY WENT IN. THANK YOU. SO
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR NO
VOTE. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
OTHERS IN OPPOSITION, PLEASE
COME FORWARD. NAME AND POSITION
ONLY, PLEASE. THANK YOU. ACLU
CALIFORNIA ACTION. RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU SENATOR.
THANK YOU. ISABELLA BORGESON
WITH ELLA BAKER CENTER IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. I'M ALSO
REGISTERING OPPOSITION ON BEHALF
OF JUST ADVOCATE CALIFORNIA
INNOCENCE COALITION, UNCOMMON
LAW, CALIFORNIANS UNITED FOR
RESPONSIBLE BUDGET, AND FELONY
MURDER ELIMINATION PROJECT.
THANK YOU, MELANIE KIM, SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION,
SIMILAR. ROGERS, ELLA BAKER,
CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS,
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. YOLANDA
NAVARETTE WITH INITIATE JUSTICE
ACTION AND IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. OKAY. QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
I SUPPORT THIS MEASURE, LOOKING
FOR A MOTION, A MOTION, A
SECOND. YES, THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR, ONE THANK YOU TO THE
AUTHOR FOR BRINGING THIS BILL.
AND I'M PROUD TO BE A COAUTHOR
ON IT AS WELL, I JUST WANT TO
POINT OUT THAT EVEN IF THIS DOES
PASS AND BECOMES A FELONY, A
VIOLENT FELONY, THEY STILL
QUALIFY FOR CREDITS. THEY CAN
STILL GET TIME OFF OF THEIR
SENTENCE. SO THEY'RE STILL
INCENTIVIZING THINGS. THEY CAN
DO, THEY'LL JUST HAVE MORE TO
WORK OFF IN A SENSE, SO I JUST
WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT. OTHER
THAN THAT, I THANK YOU BOTH FOR
SAYING WHAT YOU GUYS HAD TO SAY
AS WELL. I'M SORRY I MISSED THE
BEGINNING. I APOLOGIZE, THERE'S
ANOTHER COMMITTEE, BUT I'M
LOOKING FORWARD TO VOTING FOR
THIS. AND IF IT HASN'T BEEN
MOVED, I'D LIKE TO MOVE THE
BILL. WE HAVE MOTION A SECOND
MEMBER. IT'S ONE OF THE COMMENTS
THAT WAS MADE IS THAT WE NEED TO
WORK ON WHAT WILL WORK TO REDUCE
CRIMES, SUCH AS ANNABEL HAS
DESCRIBED. I ABSOLUTELY AGREE,
ABSOLUTELY AGREE. BUT I THINK
THAT IF A RAPE IS A VIOLENT
FELONY, THAT SIMPLY BECAUSE
SOMEBODY IS. HAS BEEN
INTOXICATED AND IS UNRESPONSIVE,
THAT THAT SHOULD NOT TAKE AWAY
THE VIOLENCE. JUST AS YOU'VE
DESCRIBED. I, ANNABEL, THANK YOU
SO MUCH FOR COMING TO SHARE YOUR
STORY. I'M SORRY YOU WENT
THROUGH THAT. I'M SORRY IT TOOK
SO LONG, AND I APPRECIATE THE
SENATOR FOR PRESENTING THE BILL
TO GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO
MAKE IT RIGHT FOR THE NEXT
PERSON WHO SUFFERS WHAT YOU HAVE
SUFFERED. I THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD AND FOR
EDUCATING US ON SOMETHING THAT I
WAS UNAWARE OF, IF A RAPE IS A
VIOLENT CRIME, HOW COULD HOW
COULD IT BE POSSIBLE THAT IF YOU
CAUSED INTENTIONALLY CAUSED THAT
INTOXICATION AND CAUSED THAT
PERSON TO BE UNRESPONSIVE, HOW
COULD THAT NOT ALSO BE A
VIOLENT, VIOLENT FELONY? THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND
YOU MAY CLOSE. THANK YOU TO THIS
COMMITTEE, THIS HAS BEEN THE
WORK OF MY OFFICE SINCE DAY ONE.
THAT I STEPPED INTO THIS ROLE OF
STATE SENATOR, MY STAFF HAS BEEN
WORKING EXTREMELY HARD, SO I DO
WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THEM. AND MY
LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, MICHAEL
SHARIF, FOR THE RECORD, THE
COMMITTEE DID RECEIVE A LETTER
FROM VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE,
CITING THEIR OPPOSITION FOR THE
REASON OF THIS EXPANDING THE
LIST OF THREE STRIKE ELIGIBLE
DEFENSES, WHICH WE'VE ALREADY
HEARD FROM THE OPPOSITION THAT
IS INCORRECT. SO I JUST WANT TO
MAKE THAT CORRECT FOR THE
RECORD, AND JUST REINFORCE THAT
THERE IS NO SCIENCE THAT RAPISTS
CAN INDEED BE REHABILITATED. AND
UNTIL OUR SOCIETY DOES HAVE A
SYSTEM FOR OFFENDERS AND
SURVIVORS ALIKE, WE WILL
CONTINUE TO STRUGGLE WITH POLICY
TO PROTECT OUR MOST VULNERABLE.
SO THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HEARING
ME TODAY, AND THANK YOU ALL FOR
BEING HERE. THANK YOU. PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL ON SB 268 BY
SENATOR ALVARADO GILL. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY A MCCARTY I ALANIS
ALANIS I LACKEY I LACKEY I
NGUYEN NGUYEN I REYES I REYES I
TÍNH WILSON ZUBER ZUBER I THANK
YOU OKAY NEXT MEASURE IS SB 820
RIGHT SB 2822, SB 820. IS SALUD.
THIS IS A CANNABIS ENFORCEMENT
BILL, I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE
THAT THE LEGAL CANNABIS
ECOSYSTEM HAS CAUSED MAJOR
ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL
DAMAGE HERE IN OUR STATE. MUCH
OF THE STATE'S ESTIMATED 50,000
ILLEGAL CULTIVATION SITES HAVE
BEEN FOUND TO USE BANNED
PESTICIDES THAT CAN POISON
WILDLIFE AND WATER SUPPLIES,
ACCOUNTING FOR HUNDREDS OF
MILLIONS OF GALLONS IN WATER
STOLEN FROM FARMS AND
NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES. STATE
AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
EFFORTS HAVE MINIMAL IMPACT ON
DISMANTLING THE LARGE COMMERCIAL
GROWERS, SUCH AS CARTELS,
WITHOUT ADDRESSING THE
UNDERLYING INFRASTRUCTURE THAT
ENABLES THESE LUCRATIVE, ILLEGAL
OPERATIVES TO QUICKLY BOUNCE
BACK AND RESUME UNLICENSED
GROWING AND SELLING OF CANNABIS.
A RECENT RECENT REPORT VALIDATED
PREVIOUS STUDIES THAT TWO THIRD
OF ALL CANNABIS SALES CONDUCTED
IN OUR STATE ARE TAKING PLACE IN
THE ILLICIT MARKET, WHERE THE
PRICE IS UNTESTED, UNTAXED, AND
IT'S CHEAPER BY AS MUCH AS 50.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS BILL IS TO
ADOPT THE SAME CIVIL ASSET
FORFEITURE PROCESSES THAT WE
CURRENTLY APPLY TO UNLICENSED
MANUFACTURING OF ALCOHOL, SO
THIS WOULD CREATE EQUITY FOR
UNLAWFUL, UNLAWFUL CANNABIS
GROWS. THIS BILL WOULD DIRECT
THE SEIZED ASSETS TO BE SOLD AT
PUBLIC AUCTION, BUT ONLY AFTER A
JUDGE INTERVENTION AND
DISCRETION IN FAVOR OF THAT
FORFEITURE. NOW, WE WORKED VERY
HARD WITH THE OPPOSITION ON
HAVING A VERY SPECIFIC LIST OF
ASSETS THAT CAN BE SOLD, SO I
HOPE TO BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO
THOSE IN QUESTIONS SO THAT WE
ARE ALL CLEAR ON WHAT CAN AND
WHAT CANNOT BE SOLD. THE FUNDS
WOULD THEN BE REINVESTED BACK
INTO THE COMMUNITY, INTO OUR
CANNABIS CONTROL FUND, TO CARRY
OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THE
CALIFORNIA CANNABIS EQUITY ACT,
WHICH WE KNOW IS GROSSLY
UNDERFUNDED. IT'S VITAL NOT ONLY
TO SHUT DOWN OUR BAD ACTORS, BUT
TO SUPPORT THE LICENSED CANNABIS
BUSINESSES, THE ONES THAT
ENHANCE RELIABLE ACCESS TO
REGULATED TESTIS. CANNABIS IN
THE LEGAL MARKET. IN SHORT,
THOSE WHO PLAY BY THE RULES. I
WANT TO THANK THE ASSEMBLY
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE STAFF
FOR THEIR TIME OVER THE PAST TWO
YEARS WORKING WITH ME ON THIS
BILL AND MY STAFF, AND THE
FREQUENT COMMUNICATION TO MAKE
THIS THE VERY BEST VERSION OF
THE BILL IT CAN BE. WE ACCEPTED
MANY AMENDMENTS IN THE SENATE
ALONG THIS PROCESS TO ADDRESS
THE OPPOSITION, INCLUDING ADDING
EXPLICIT LANGUAGE THAT ALL
SEIZURES CAN ONLY OCCUR AFTER
OBTAINING AN INSPECTION WARRANT
BY A JUDGE, ENSURING THAT THERE
ARE PROPER CHECKS AND BALANCES,
INCREASING THE PLANT THRESHOLD
FROM 250 LIVE PLANTS TO OVER A
THOUSAND LIVE PLANTS, TARGETING
THOSE LARGE COMMERCIAL GROWERS.
CARTELS RESTRUCTURING.
RESTRUCTURING THE LOCAL
DISTRIBUTION TO EITHER BE
REIMBURSED OR RECEIVE 15% OF THE
PROCEEDS, WHICHEVER IS LESS.
THAT WAY, IT REMOVES THE
FINANCIAL INCENTIVE FOR
ARBITRARY BUSTS, RESTRUCTURING
THE REMAINING MAJORITY OF THOSE
PROCEEDS TO GO INTO THE CANNABIS
CONTROL FUNDS SOCIAL EQUITY
PROGRAM, WHICH INVESTS IN
MINORITY BUSINESSES AND LEGAL
CANNABIS ENTERPRISE. WE ALSO
CLARIFIED THAT REAL PROPERTY AND
PROPERTY AND ASSETS OF EMPLOYEES
IS NOT SUBJECT TO SEIZURE. WE
ADDED THESE PROTECTIONS AGAINST
THE FORFEITURE OF WORKERS
PROPERTIES BECAUSE WE BELIEVE
THAT THEY SHOULD NOT BE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR BOSSES
CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES BY
DISMANTLING LARGE EMPIRES OF
ILLICIT DRUG ACTIVITY IN OUR
RURAL PARTS OF THE STATE, WE ARE
MAKING AN IMPACT ON NOT FIGHTING
THE DRUG WAR. THAT'S NOT WHAT
WE'RE DOING, BUT WHAT WE'RE
DOING IS ASSISTING THE
LEGISLATURE IN WHAT'S ALREADY
LEGAL AND LEGISLATED TO LIFT UP
THE LEGAL CANNABIS MARKET HERE,
TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL IS LEE KAMERICK, POLICY
ADVOCATE FOR RURAL COUNTY
REPRESENTATIVES OF CALIFORNIA
AND ARTHUR WHALEN, ALSO FROM RC.
RC FILLING IN FOR OUR WITNESS
WHO WAS UNABLE TO MAKE IT LAST
MINUTE. GOOD AFTERNOON MEMBERS,
EVEN IN AREAS WITH ROBUST
COMMERCIAL CANNABIS PROGRAMS,
MANY COMMUNITIES CONTINUE TO
FACE SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGES FROM
ILLEGITIMATE CANNABIS
OPERATIONS. THESE ILLICIT
ACTIVITIES COMPROMISE THE HEALTH
AND SAFETY OF CONSUMERS,
RESIDENTS AND THREATEN THE
VIABILITY OF OUR STRUGGLING,
REGULATED CANNABIS INDUSTRY. THE
SCALE OF THIS CRISIS IS
CONSIDERABLE, AND ILLICIT
CANNABIS OPERATORS OFTEN BOUNCE
BACK VERY QUICKLY AFTER
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS. IT'S NOT
UNCOMMON FOR LOCAL JURISDICTIONS
TO GET CALLS THAT ILLEGAL
OPERATORS RESUME BUSINESS
ACTIVITIES JUST DAYS AFTER
ENFORCEMENT AND ABATEMENT
EFFORTS. SB 820 PROPOSES TO
EXTEND THE SEIZURE OF PROPERTY
PROVISIONS CURRENTLY APPLICABLE
TO UNLICENSED ALCOHOL
MANUFACTURING OR MOONSHINING, TO
UNLICENSED COMMERCIAL CANNABIS
ACTIVITIES LIKE ALCOHOL,
CANNABIS IS NOT INHERENTLY
UNLAWFUL AND IT NECESSITATES
SPECIFIC MEASURES THAT, HELP THE
ALCOHOL INDUSTRY.
POST-PROHIBITION, THIS BILL
ESTABLISHES A CIVIL PROCESS THAT
DOESN'T REQUIRE A CRIMINAL
CONVICTION AND ALLOWS, A CIVIL
PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE WHETHER
A PROPERTY HAS BEEN ERRONEOUSLY
SEIZED. AB 820 PROVIDES COUNTIES
WITH THE TOOLS TO DISMANTLE
ILLEGAL CANNABIS ACTIVITIES AND
REMOVE THE ESSENTIAL
INFRASTRUCTURE, TO ALLOW THEM TO
RECUPERATE, SUCH AS
MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENT, HOOP
HOUSES, IRRIGATION SYSTEMS, AND
TRIMMING EQUIPMENT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ARTHUR WILEY AND
COUNCIL FOR THE RURAL COUNTIES,
AND FORMERLY THE COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR TEHAMA COUNTY. FOR MANY
YEARS WHERE I WORKED WITH OUR
FRONTLINE CODE ENFORCEMENT STAFF
ON CANNABIS CODE ENFORCEMENT.
I'M PRIMARILY HERE FOR TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE, BUT I DO THINK
THERE'S A COUPLE OF POINTS THAT
ARE KIND OF WORTH MAKING TO
BEGIN WITH. THE FIRST IS BOTH
THE SENATOR AND MISS KAMERICK
NOTED, SB 820 CONTEMPLATES A
COMPLETELY CIVIL PROCESS. THERE
IS NO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION THAT
IS CONTEMPLATED OR PART OF THE
PROCESS, UNLIKE SOME OF OUR
COLLEAGUES IN OPPOSITION, WE
ACTUALLY SEE THIS AS A FEATURE
RATHER THAN A BUG, PART OF
MOVING AWAY FROM THE OVER
CRIMINALIZATION OF CANNABIS IS
DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE CIVIL
MECHANISMS TO HELP PROMOTE THE
LEGAL MARKET AND HELP NOT
PROMOTE THE ILLEGAL MARKET THAT
IS COMPETING WITH IT. AND THE
SECOND IS THAT THIS BILL
INCORPORATES MULTIPLE LEVELS OF
DUE PROCESS, INCLUDING REQUIRING
A WARRANT BEFORE ANY PROPERTY IS
SEIZED AND OFFERING BOTH
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS AND A
JUDICIAL HEARING IN COURT BEFORE
FORFEITURE OCCURS. NOW, AS THE
SENATOR INDICATED, WE TOOK A
NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS IN PUBLIC
SAFETY, REALLY LISTENING TO
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY, BOTH
LISTENING TO THAT COMMITTEE AND
LISTENING TO THE OPPOSITION TO
TRY TO ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS.
AND I'LL FOCUS ON ONE OF THEM IN
PARTICULAR, WHICH IS THE WARRANT
REQUIREMENT, BECAUSE I THINK
IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT
THE WARRANTS LIKE THIS, THEY DO
REQUIRE A COMPLETE FINDING OF
PROBABLE CAUSE IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE STANDARD SET FORTH IN
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. THE ACTUAL
UNDERLYING CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE SECTIONS. KIND OF
BRIEF, BUT THE CASE LAW,
INCLUDING SAN FRANCISCO VERSUS
MUNICIPAL COURT, IS ACTUALLY
VERY, VERY CLEAR ON THAT SUBJECT
. AND WE THINK THAT THAT REALLY
HELPS HELPS IMPROVE THE BILL AND
HELPS AVOID WE THINK A LOT OF
THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN
RAISED LAST, BUT NOT LEAST IN
TERMS OF THE REASON WHY THIS
BILL IS NECESSARY, ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT I ENCOUNTERED
ROUTINELY WHEN WORKING WITH OUR
CODE ENFORCEMENT IN TEHAMA
COUNTY WERE ESSENTIALLY WERE
WERE UNLICENSED CANNABIS
BUSINESSES, PRIMARILY
CULTIVATION UP THERE, BUT NOT
COMPLETELY. THAT WOULD BE SHUT
DOWN USING THE OTHER TOOLS THAT
ARE AVAILABLE, USING
ADMINISTRATIVE FINES, USING
NUISANCE ABATEMENT, AND WOULD BE
BACK UP AND RUNNING A DAY A WEEK
LATER ACROSS THE STREET OR
ACROSS TOWN WITH ALL OF THE SAME
INFRASTRUCTURE AGAIN AND AGAIN
AND AGAIN. IT REALLY MADE IT
VERY, VERY DIFFICULT FOR US TO
DO WHAT WE NEEDED TO DO TO DEAL
WITH THE UNLICENSED MARKET SO
THAT THE LICENSED MARKET COULD
FLOURISH. AND THANK YOU VERY
MUCH AND ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYONE
ELSE IN SUPPORT? PLEASE COME UP.
NAME AN ORGANIZATION. GOOD
AFTERNOON AGAIN, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MEMBERS KAREN LANG, ON BEHALF OF
THE BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS IN
MENDOCINO AND SISKIYOU COUNTIES,
BOTH IN SUPPORT TODAY. THANK YOU
, MR. CHAIR. RYAN SHERMAN WITH
THE RIVERSIDE SHERIFF'S
ASSOCIATION. AND CALIFORNIA
NARCOTIC OFFICERS ASSOCIATION IN
SUPPORT. YES, JULIAN BORIS, ON
BEHALF OF THE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES IN SUPPORT,
KEISHA HUNT HERE WITH NOSSAMAN
ON BEHALF OF COUNTY OF MONTEREY.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE
IN SUPPORT? SEEING NONE.
OPPOSITION. GOT ONE OVER HERE.
GO AHEAD AND HAVE A SEAT. I
THINK YOU GUYS. OH, NO. WE GOT
TO. MORRELL. OKAY TO GO FIRST.
YES OKAY, OKAY. YOU GUYS WILL
HAVE FOUR MINUTES TO SHARE.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY
NAME IS EMMY YOUNG. I'M A STAFF
ATTORNEY WITH THE ACLU OF
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA. IN 2016,
THE LEGISLATURE PASSED SENATE
BILL 443, A LANDMARK BIPARTISAN
BILL THAT WAS AUTHORED BY
SENATOR, SENATOR HOLLY MITCHELL
AND WAS SUPPORTED BY A DIVERSE
COALITION WHICH INCLUDED LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS, MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS, BUSINESS AND TAXPAYER
ASSOCIATIONS, MEMBERS OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT, BAR ASSOCIATIONS,
AND RELIGIOUS LEADERS. AT ITS
CORE, 443 WAS INTENDED TO REIN
IN ABUSES SURROUNDING THE
PRACTICE OF CIVIL ASSET
FORFEITURE AND REESTABLISHED THE
MOST BASIC TENETS OF
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND VALUES.
SB 443 WAS WIDELY LAUDED AS
CLOSING LOOPHOLES THAT LEFT
CALIFORNIANS VULNERABLE TO
GOVERNMENT OVERREACH CAUSED BY
GAPS IN FEDERAL LAW, INCLUDING
BY REQUIRING, IN MOST CASES,
THAT THE GOVERNMENT EITHER
OBTAIN A CONVICTION OR OTHERWISE
PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
THAT SEIZED PROPERTY WAS USED IN
CONNECTION WITH A QUALIFYING
OFFENSE. SB 820 THE BILL IN
FRONT OF YOU TODAY CARVES OUT AN
EXCEPTION TO THESE PROTECTIONS
THAT WOULD APPLY UNIQUELY TO
PROPERTY THAT IS, THAT IS SEIZED
IN CONNECTION WITH ALLEGED
ILLEGAL CULTIVATION OR
TRANSPORTATION OF CANNABIS. BUT
SB 820 DOES NOT JUST ROLL BACK
THE REFORMS OF SB 443 AS TO THIS
CATEGORY OF OFFENSES. INSTEAD IT
WOULD ADOPT A NEW REGIME THAT
WOULD PERMIT STATE AND LOCAL
OFFICIALS TO SEIZE PROPERTY
DURING TRAFFIC STOPS AND WHILE
CONDUCTING PROPERTY INSPECTIONS,
WITHOUT EVER HAVING TO PROVE
THAT THE PROPERTY QUALIFIES FOR
SEIZURE. UNDER THE STATUTE. BY
SHIFTING THE BURDEN TO
CALIFORNIANS WHOSE PROPERTY IS
SEIZED. TO PROVE THAT THE
SEIZURE WAS UNLAWFUL, THEN
DEPRIVING THEM OF THE EVIDENCE
NEEDED TO CONTEST THE BASIS FOR
THE SEIZURE, AND ERECTING
PROCEDURAL BARRIERS LIKE A 20
DAY DEFAULT PERIOD FOR AN
INDIVIDUAL WITHOUT LEGAL COUNSEL
TO FILE LEGAL DOCUMENTS
CHALLENGING A SEIZURE. THIS BILL
WOULD NOT ONLY UNDERMINE SB 443,
BUT WOULD TAKE CALIFORNIA EVEN
FURTHER BACKWARDS TO BELOW THE
FEDERAL STANDARD, CREATING A
SYSTEM THAT IS BOTH IMPOSSIBLE
TO NAVIGATE FOR THE AVERAGE
PERSON AND RIPE FOR ABUSE. FOR
EXAMPLE, SB 820 WOULD CREATE A
FINANCIAL INCENTIVE FOR LOCAL
LAW ENFORCEMENT TO CONDUCT
TRAFFIC STOPS INTENDED TO SEEK
OUT EVIDENCE OF MARIJUANA
ACTIVITY. STATEWIDE DATA AND OUR
WORK ON RACIAL PROFILING
DEMONSTRATE THAT THESE TYPES OF
PRETEXTUAL STOPS ARE ALMOST
ALWAYS TARGETED AT DRIVERS OF
COLOR, WHO OVERWHELMINGLY SUFFER
THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF SUCH
STOPS. THIS BILL SIGNALS TO LAW
ENFORCEMENT THAT PERFORMING
THESE STOPS WILL SERVE THEIR
BOTTOM LINE, AND INTRODUCES A
VAGUE AND SUBJECTIVE STANDARD
FOR WHEN VEHICLE FORFEITURE IS
PERMITTED. ANOTHER FACTOR THAT
ONLY INCREASES THE LIKELIHOOD OF
ABUSE. FOR THESE REASONS, WE
RESPECTFULLY URGE A NO VOTE ON
SB 820. THANK YOU. YOU HAVE A
MINUTE AND EIGHT SECONDS LEFT.
THANK YOU. MARCO GEORGE FROM THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION ON, AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. WE APPRECIATE THE
AMENDMENTS THAT WERE TAKEN LAST
YEAR, CERTAINLY IS AN
IMPROVEMENT. HOWEVER, THIS IS A
SITUATION WHERE PUBLIC DEFENDER
CLIENTS WOULD BE PARTICULARLY
HARD HIT BY THESE KIND OF
FORFEITURES. LOSING POTENTIALLY
THEIR CAR, THEIR IMPLEMENTS OF
THEIR TOOLS AND SO FORTH. AND IT
NOT ONLY PUNISHES THE CLIENT,
BUT IT PUNISHES THEIR FAMILY AND
CHILDREN. CIVIL ASSET
FORFEITURE, GENERALLY, PUBLIC
DEFENDERS DO NOT REPRESENT
CLIENTS IN CIVIL COURT, SO THEY
WOULD BE ON THEIR OWN WITH NO
RESOURCES TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY.
AND AS MY COLLEAGUE FROM THE
ACLU MAY HAVE TOUCHED ON, BUT
THE ANALYSIS DOES, CIVIL
WARRANTS ARE ISSUED BASED JUST
ON THE FACT THAT THE REGULATION
EXISTS, NOT ON A PARTICULARIZED
SUSPICION. THERE'S YOUR FOREIGN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE IN
OPPOSITION? PLEASE STEP UP YOUR
NAME, ASSOCIATION OR GROUP. ACLU
CALIFORNIA ACTION. RESPECTABLE
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. MELANIE
KIM, SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC
DEFENDER'S OFFICE IN OPPOSITION.
ANYONE ELSE IN OPPOSITION? OKAY.
SEEING NONE, I'LL BRING IT BACK
TO THE COMMITTEE. COMMITTEE? ANY
QUESTIONS? MR. ZUBIATE? I GOTTA
ADMIT, SO FIRST, I'LL THANK YOU
FOR BRINGING THE BILL. IT'S
REALLY NICE TO HAVE YOU HERE IN
OUR, ON OUR SIDE OF THE
LEGISLATURE. I'M HAVING TROUBLE
UNDERSTANDING THE BILL. YOU
KNOW, I, AM ALWAYS WORRIED WHERE
WE, SHORT CIRCUIT, PROTECTIONS
THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO FOLKS BOTH
IN ON THE CRIMINAL SIDE. BUT
EVEN ON THE CIVIL FORFEITURE
SIDE. SO IT MAKES ME NERVOUS
WHEN I HEAR THAT WE'RE, YOU
KNOW, THAT WE'RE. THE GUARDRAILS
ARE, ARE SORT OF GOING AWAY THAT
WE THAT ARE THERE FOR OTHER SORT
OF KINDS OF ACTIVITIES ON THE
OTHER HAND, YOU KNOW, I KNOW HOW
IMPORTANT IT IS, AND IT'S
IMPORTANT IN MY DISTRICT IN
PARTICULAR, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
ARE ACTUALLY SUPPORTING THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A LEGALIZED
CANNABIS MARKET, THAT WE ARE
ACTUALLY TAKING STEPS TO MAKE
SURE THAT ILLICIT OPERATORS ARE
NOT CONTINUING, AND I KNOW THAT
IS SORT OF A LOT OF THE GOALS
BEHIND THE BILL. SO WHAT I'M
TRYING TO RECONCILE IS, I GUESS
THE QUESTION I HAVE IS, WHAT ARE
THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT ARE
BEING FORFEITED AND, AND IS ARE
THERE ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT CAN
BE DONE THAT ADDRESS? I THINK
WHAT THE OPPONENTS ARE RAISING,
WHICH IS A SCHEME WHERE YOU
ACTUALLY HAVE LAW ENFORCEMENT
STOPPING PEOPLE IN CARS, WHERE
YOU HAVE RACIAL AND OTHER KINDS
OF PROFILING OCCURRING, BECAUSE
I HAD SORT OF ON ONE LEVEL, I
HAD SORT OF BEEN THINKING ABOUT
THIS AS SORT OF IS, IS
FORFEITURE OF, YOU KNOW,
HARVESTING EQUIPMENT THING AND
WHAT KINDS OF THINGS ARE BEING
FORFEITED. I GUESS THAT'S THE
QUESTION. OKAY. I WILL ADDRESS
YOUR FIRST QUESTION. SO THIS IS
SOMETHING WHERE WE AN AREA WE
TOOK SOME VERY SPECIFIC,
AMENDMENTS AND WANTED TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE WERE VERY SPECIFIC,
SO ESSENTIALLY THESE ARE ITEMS
THAT ARE REQUIRED OR NECESSARY
FOR GROWING. SO CANNABIS OR
CANNABIS PRODUCTS IN EXCESS OF
1000 LIVE PLANTS CAN BE, SEIZED.
PROCESSING EQUIPMENT FOR
TRIMMING, DRYING, CURING,
SORTING, WEIGHING AND PACKAGING
CANNABIS OR CANNABIS PRODUCTS.
VERY SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTS OF
HUSBANDRY, PACKAGING MATERIALS,
HOOP HOUSES WHICH ARE LIKE
GREENHOUSES, THE IRRIGATION AND
WATER EQUIPMENT, WHICH IS VERY
IMPORTANT BECAUSE THAT IS THAT
CONNECTION TO PESTICIDES INTO
OUR WATER SYSTEMS AND
GENERATORS. LIGHTING EQUIPMENT,
HEATING AND AIR AND VENTILATION
EQUIPMENT, SOILS, PACKING SOILS
WITH THEIR NUTRIENTS,
PESTICIDES. THIS IS ALSO A VERY
IMPORTANT ONE BECAUSE
OFTENTIMES, ESPECIALLY WITH THE
CARTELS, WE SEE PESTICIDES
COMING IN THAT ARE NOT REGULATED
IN CALIFORNIA. AND THAT ALL
SEEPS INTO OUR GROUNDWATER,
GRADING EQUIPMENT, MANUFACTURING
MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT,
SECURITY SYSTEMS. AND THEIR
EQUIPMENT, FIREARMS IS SPECIFIED
IN HERE. ALTHOUGH ALTHOUGH THERE
ARE OTHER AREAS OF LAW THAT TALK
ABOUT FIREARMS, BUT WE WANT IT
TO BE ALL INCLUSIVE IN TERMS OF
GUN CONTROL HERE, FENCING,
SHELVING TOOLS, RAISED BEDS AND
PLANTING POTS. THE COMPUTERS AND
THE COMPUTER ACCESSORIES,
CURRENCY IS ONLY IN EXCESS OF
40,000. NOTHING HERE TALKS ABOUT
THE PROPERTY OR THE HOMES CARS.
WE'RE VERY SPECIFIC THAT THESE
ARE THE IMPLEMENTS OR THE
RECIPE, IF YOU WILL, FOR
CULTIVATION. AND SO WHAT WE'RE
SAYING WITH THIS IS THAT WILL AT
LEAST HELP TO HINDER SOME OF
THESE LARGE COMMERCIAL GROWERS
AND HELP TO THEN BRING THAT
INVESTMENT. 85% OF THAT
INVESTMENT BACK INTO BUSINESS
ENTERPRISES FOR BLACK AND BROWN
COMMUNITY, BECAUSE WE AS A
LEGISLATURE HAVE ALREADY SAID WE
MUST COMMIT TO EQUITY PROGRAMS
IN OUR STATE, CANNABIS. I MEAN,
WE PASSED THE PROPOSITION. NOW
WE'VE GOT TO STAND BEHIND THAT.
SO I'M NOT HERE ASKING FOR
ANOTHER STRIKE, PUTTING MORE
PEOPLE IN JAIL, I'M BRINGING
FORWARD A SOLUTION THAT SAYS,
LET'S TRY TO HELP AND UPLIFT THE
LEGAL CANNABIS MARKET BY ADDING
SOME DISINCENTIVE TO THE ILLICIT
MARKET. THIS ISN'T PUNISHMENT.
THIS IS A DISINCENTIVE. THIS IS
IF YOU HAVE EQUIPMENT FOR
CULTIVATION AND YOU ARE NOT A
LICENSED GROWER OF EXCESS OF
1000 PLANTS, YOU'RE GOING TO
HAVE AN IMPACT. AND SO WHAT
KINDS OF DEMONSTRATION? AND I'M
NOT IF THE CHAIR WILL NOT, I'M
GOING TO WANT TO ASK SOME
QUESTIONS TO THE OPPONENTS AS
WELL. WHAT KIND OF DEMONSTRATION
NEEDS TO TAKE PLACE FOR ALL
THOSE THINGS YOU JUST READ? I
MEAN, THOSE THINGS I UNDERSTAND
WHY WE SHOULD BE TAKING STEPS TO
FOR ILLICIT GROWERS TO
DISRUPTING THAT MARKET. WHAT
WHAT WHAT STEPS AND GUARDRAILS,
WHAT DEMONSTRATION HAS TO BE
MADE BEFORE YOU CAN FORFEIT
THOSE THINGS. I'LL ASK MY
WITNESS FOR TEXAS TECH'S
TECHNICAL SUPPORT. THERE SURE.
I'M HAPPY TO I'M HAPPY TO
ASSIST. AND I WILL NOTE A LOT OF
THE CONCERNS. WE HEARD CONCERNS
OF DIVISION B, WHICH INVOLVES
VEHICLES, I THINK. I HAVEN'T
HEARD A LOT OF CONCERN ABOUT
SUBDIVISION A, WHICH INVOLVES
MANY OF THE THINGS THAT THAT THE
SENATOR IS MENTIONING. AND I DO
THINK THERE'S POTENTIALLY,
WORTHWHILE TO HAVE SOME
DISCUSSION AROUND THAT. BUT IN
TERMS OF THE GENERAL PROCESS
THAT NEEDS TO BE SHOWN. SO I
THINK FROM A CONCEPTUAL
PERSPECTIVE, MAYBE THIS IS WHERE
SORT OF PHILOSOPHICALLY, THE
OPPOSITION AND WE ARE IN
DIFFERENT PLACES IS WE'RE NOT
VIEWING THIS AS DRUG FORFEITURE
2.0 BOTH WHAT CAN BE SEIZED FROM
WHOM IT CAN BE SEIZED, BY WHOM
AND UNDER WHAT STANDARDS, AND
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PROCEEDS
ARE ALL DIFFERENT. THERE'S A
MILLION POINTS OF DIFFERENCE
BECAUSE IT'S APPLES AND ORANGES.
WE DIDN'T TRY TO TAKE DRUG
FORFEITURE AND MAKE IT BETTER.
WE TRIED TO TAKE THE EXISTING
MECHANISM FOR MOONSHINING AND
EXPAND IT TO INCLUDE CANNABIS,
BECAUSE FROM OUR OUR FUNCTIONAL
PERSPECTIVE, THE BETTER ANALOG
FOR CANNABIS IN TODAY'S
CALIFORNIA IS NOT FENTANYL, THE
BETTER ANALOG IS ALCOHOL. SO
IT'S GOING TO LOOK A LOT
DIFFERENT KIND OF ACROSS THE
ACROSS THE ENTIRE BOARD. SO
GENERALLY SPEAKING, IF YOU READ
AND WE'VE INHERITED A LOT OF
THIS, A LOT OF THE LANGUAGE
THAT'S IN HERE FROM THE ALCOHOL
REGULATION SPACE, IN FACT THE
STATUTE THIS WAS BASED ON WAS
ENACTED IN 1935, THE YEAR AFTER
PROHIBITION WAS REPEALED. SO
IT'S GOT QUITE A PEDIGREE AND
HAS A LITTLE BIT OF CASE LAW TO
ASSIST US, KIND OF IN SORT OF
FIGURING OUT HOW THIS IS GOING
TO WORK IN PRACTICE. SO
GENERALLY SPEAKING, THERE'S
ACTUALLY A CASE OUT THERE. IT'S
A PEOPLE VERSUS ONE PLYMOUTH
THAT BASICALLY TALKS ABOUT HOW
IN A CASE ALONG IN A CASE ALONG
THESE LINES, AFTER THE PROPERTY
HAS BEEN SEIZED. SO WE'VE GOTTEN
THROUGH THE PROBABLE CAUSE PHASE
AFTER THE PROPERTY, THE PROPERTY
HAS BEEN SEIZED, THE SEIZING
AGENCY, YOU KNOW, WOULD HAVE TO
PLEAD AND PROVE THE FACT OF
UNLAWFUL USE, AND THEN THE
BURDEN WOULD SHIFT TO THE TO THE
OWNER TO DEMONSTRATE ONE OF THE
POTENTIAL DEFENSES OUT THERE
THAT THEY WERE IN THE PROCESS OF
OBTAINING A LICENSE THAT THEY IN
FACT, WERE NOT AN OWNER OR
MANAGER. THOSE ARE ALL, YOU KNOW
, NEW DEFENSES THAT AREN'T IN
THE ALCOHOL SPACE THAT WE DID
PUT IN HERE, BECAUSE WE DID
LISTEN TO SOME OF THE CONCERNS
THAT WE HAD HEARD ABOUT WORKERS
AND ABOUT THOSE WHO WERE IN GOOD
FAITH PURSUING LICENSURE. AND
THOSE THINGS MADE SENSE. SO, I
DON'T KNOW. DID I ANSWER YOUR
QUESTION? I THINK SO, SO, I
MEAN, CAN I ASK THE OPPONENTS
QUESTION? SO WHAT ABOUT, WHAT
ABOUT WHAT WAS JUST EXPLAINED
NOW LEADS YOU TO THE CONCLUSION
THAT WE'RE GOING TO ACTUALLY
HAVE SORT OF TRAFFIC STOPS,
ENFORCEMENT, THAT IT HAS,
DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACTS ON
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR. THOSE
KINDS OF THINGS. YOU SORT OF
EXPLAIN WHERE THOSE CONCERNS ARE
COMING FROM. YES. THANK YOU FOR
THE QUESTION. SO LOOKING AT THE
LANGUAGE OF THE BILL AND
SPECIFICALLY SUBDIVISION A,
THANK YOU, A TWO, IT ALSO
PROVIDES THAT LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS AND THE STATE
DEPARTMENT MAY SEIZE AN
AUTOMOBILE OR ANY VEHICLE USED
TO CONCEAL, CONVEY, CARRY,
DELIVER OR TRANSPORT CANNABIS OR
CANNABIS PRODUCTS VALUED AT MORE
THAN $5,000. SO WE LOOK AT THIS
SECTION AND FIRST OF ALL THINK
THAT IT JUST ON ITS FACE CREATES
AN INCENTIVE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES TO CONDUCT STOPS, TO
LOOK FOR THIS KIND OF, CANNABIS
EVIDENCE IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY
SEIZURE OF THE VEHICLE. I
UNDERSTAND THE AUTHORS COMMENTS
THAT THERE WAS A REDUCTION IN
THE SHARE OF FUNDS THAT LOCAL
LAW ENFORCEMENT RECEIVE AS PART
OF THIS, BILL, BUT IT IS STILL
THE CASE THAT THEY ARE ENTITLED
TO RECEIVE APPROXIMATELY 15% OR
IN SOME CASES, PERHAPS LESS, OF
THE PROCEEDS OF A VEHICLE
SEIZURE. ONCE THAT VEHICLE IS
SOLD AT AUCTION. WHEN THE WHEN
COUNCIL WAS TALKING ABOUT THE
PROCEDURAL PROTECTIONS IN PLACE,
I THINK IT'S NOTABLE THAT IN
THIS BILL, THERE IS NO LANGUAGE
DESCRIBING ANY BURDEN OF PROOF
ON THE GOVERNMENT. THAT'S WHAT I
MEANT WHEN I SAID THAT THIS IS A
FAR LOWER STANDARD THAN EVEN THE
FEDERAL LAW STANDARD, WHICH SAYS
THAT THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE
BY A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE
THAT THE PROPERTY USED WAS USED
IN SOME CONNECTION WITH THE
CRIME HERE. THIS BILL DOES NOT
HAVE ANY OF THAT LANGUAGE.
INSTEAD, WHAT IT SAYS IN EXCUSE
ME, SUBDIVISION H IS THAT AN
OWNER WHO HAS A VERIFIED ANSWER
ON FILE MAY SHOW BY A
PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE,
ANY OF THE FOLLOWING, AND THEN
IT LISTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE
THE OWNER MAY BE ABLE TO
DEMONSTRATE OR PROVE THAT THEIR
PROPERTY IS NOT PROPERLY SUBJECT
TO SEIZURE. NOW, JUST TO BE
CLEAR AT THIS POINT, THAT
OWNER'S PROPERTY HAS ALREADY
BEEN TAKEN AND IN MANY CASES,
THE ACTUAL DRUG EVIDENCE THAT
THE, AUTHORITIES SAY IS THE
BASIS FOR THE SEIZURE MAY HAVE
ALREADY BEEN DESTROYED. AND SO
THERE'S A REAL QUESTION HERE
ABOUT HOW IT IS THAT PROPERTY
OWNERS ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO
COME IN AND MEET THIS BURDEN AT
THAT STAGE, PARTICULARLY WITH
RESPECT TO VEHICLES WHERE THE
STANDARD IS $5,000 OF PRODUCT,
WITHOUT SPECIFYING WHAT THAT
MEANS. SO IS THERE SOME
REQUIREMENT THAT SOMEONE HAS TO
DEMONSTRATE BEFORE SOMETHING IS
SEIZED THAT THEY THAT THE PERSON
DO THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
SHOW THAT THEY HAVE A LICENSE,
THAT THEY'RE A LICENSED ENTITY?
I MEAN, WHAT IS THE STEP BEFORE
THE SEIZURE THAT TAKES PLACE?
YES. SO I WANT TO JUST CLARIFY
THIS ISN'T SEIZURE ON $5,000
WORTH OF PRODUCT, THESE THAT THE
$5,000 MARK IS SPECIFICALLY
AROUND A VEHICLE. SO THIS IS A
VEHICLE HOLDING A THOUSAND LIVE
PLANTS. I MEAN, SO THIS ISN'T
JUST, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY OF
MIDDLE CLASS, WORKING CLASS
DRIVING TO WORK BACK AND FORTH.
SO YOU STILL HAVE TO HAVE THESE
OTHER ELEMENTS, THE HOOP HOUSES,
THE IRRIGATION AND WATER
EQUIPMENT, THE GENERATOR. NO, I
GET THAT, BUT BUT, BUT SAY YOU
COME INTO A, YOU KNOW, SOMEPLACE
WHERE THEY'RE GROWING CANNABIS
AND YOU'VE GOT PLASTIC TENTS AND
THERE'S A BUNCH OF PLANTS IN
THERE AND THERE'S ALL THIS
EQUIPMENT. WHAT DO YOU HOW DOES
THE WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN BEFORE
THEY CAN START GOING IN AND JUST
TEARING ALL THE STUFF OUT? I
MEAN, ISN'T THERE SOME
PROTECTION THAT IF IT WAS A
LEGITIMATE BUSINESS OWNER,
RIGHT, THAT THEY HAVE TO
DEMONSTRATE? I MEAN, SOMEBODY
CAN'T JUST COME IN AND JUST
START TAKING THEIR STUFF, RIGHT?
SO I'M, I'M NOT, AN ATTORNEY IN
THIS SITUATION. SO I WILL ASK
FOR TECHNICAL SUPPORT HERE, BUT
COMPARED TO WHAT WE SEE IN
CURRENT LAW. SO IN CURRENT LAW,
WHAT I HEAR FROM MY, MY
CONSTITUENTS, I REPRESENT 13
COUNTIES AND VERY RURAL
COMMUNITIES IS THAT OFTENTIMES
THEIR HANDS ARE TIED A, A LAWFUL
CANNABIS GROWER, LAWFUL CANNABIS
BUSINESS IS LICENSED. AND AND
REGULATED JUST LIKE ANY OTHER
LEGAL BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA.
RIGHT. SO WE'RE MOVING IN THAT
DIRECTION IN THE EVENT THAT THEY
DON'T HAVE DOCUMENTATION OR
PERMITS TO SHOW THAT THEY CAN
ACTUALLY GROW, 1000 OR MORE
PLANTS OR ENGAGE IN CULTIVATION,
THEY DO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
SHOW THAT THEY ARE IN THE
PROCESS OF GETTING LICENSED. SO
LET'S SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU FIND
SOMEONE THAT HAS ALL THE
MATERIALS READY TO START
IRRIGATION, THE SOIL, THE HOOP
HOUSES, THE GENERATORS, THEY'RE
READY TO GO, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE
THE LICENSE. THEY DON'T HAVE THE
PLANTS. WHERE IS THAT IN THE
BILL? I'LL ASK FOR TECHNICAL
HELP THERE. SURE. SO IN THE IN
THE SCENARIO YOU MENTIONED,
THERE ARE BASICALLY SORT OF TWO
BURDENS THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE
MET BEFORE THE OWNER IS IN THE
PROCESS. IS IN THE POSITION OF
HAVING TO SHOW ANYTHING. THE
FIRST IS THOSE THINGS CANNOT BE
SEIZED WITHOUT A WARRANT. AND
WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN THINGS
THAT WERE SAID HERE EARLIER, A
WARRANT FOR THIS KIND OF CODE
ENFORCEMENT, WHERE IT'S NOT PART
OF A ROUTINE AREA SEARCH, WHERE
IT'S BASED ON A PARTICULARIZED
SUSPICION, DOES REQUIRE A
PARTICULARIZED SHOWING OF
PROBABLE CAUSE. I'VE GOTTEN
THESE WARRANTS IN THE INSPECTION
CONTEXT. SO YOU'D HAVE TO SHOW A
JUDGE THAT THERE'S PROBABLE
CAUSE AT STEP ONE, AND THEN STEP
TWO IS. AND LIKE I SAID, THE
BENEFIT THAT WE HAVE OF
BORROWING FROM AN EXISTING
SCHEME IS THAT WE HAVE EXISTING
CASE LAW, AND IF YOU WANT TO GET
REALLY TECHNICAL, THE COURT SAID
THIS IN A CASE WHERE, WHERE IS
THAT IN THE BILL, SO I THINK THE
WAY THAT THE COURT READ IT IN
THE PLYMOUTH, PLYMOUTH SEDAN
CASE BASICALLY SAID THAT THE
REFERENCE TO THE REFERENCE IN
THE, IN THE LAW, WHICH AGAIN,
WE'VE COPIED OVER TO THE OWNER
FILING AN ANSWER, IMPLIED THAT
THERE WAS A BURDEN ON THE
PLAINTIFF, WHICH WOULD BE THE
CITY OR THE COUNTY OR THE OR THE
DEPARTMENT TO BASICALLY PLEAD
AND PROVE THE UNDERLYING FACTS
TO VALIDATE THE SEIZURE, AND
WE'RE CERTAINLY HAPPY TO CLARIFY
THAT IT'S NEVER BEEN OUR
INTENTION TO DO ANYTHING OTHER
THAN WHAT EXISTING LAW IS. I
THINK WE THINK THE CASE LAW IS
CLEAR, BUT IF IT WOULD MAKE
PEOPLE HAPPIER TO CLARIFY IT,
WE'RE HAPPY TO DO THAT. OKAY, I
GUESS THE LAST THING I'M GOING
TO I THINK I'VE I'M NERVOUS
ABOUT THE BILL. I ACTUALLY
SUPPORT THE GOALS OF THE BILL. I
MEAN, IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S
REALLY IMPORTANT FOR MY DISTRICT
THAT THESE ILLICIT GROWERS GET
STOPPED. BUT WHAT I'M NERVOUS
ABOUT IS THE FACT THAT IT
DOESN'T SEEM TO ME, AND I'M NOT
SEEING IT IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE
BILL, THAT THERE ACTUALLY HAS TO
BE A DEMONSTRATION THAT IS REAL.
YOU KNOW, THAT THIS IS AN
ILLICIT GROWER. ONE SECOND, I
WOULD BE MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE
TAKING OUT ALL THE STUFF RELATED
TO AUTOMOBILES. I MEAN, HOW
IMPORTANT IS THAT IN THIS LARGER
SCHEME OF THINGS, IF YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT THESE THINGS THAT
RELATE TO A THOUSAND PLANTS,
LIKE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE
DRIVING A THOUSAND PLANTS AROUND
IN AN AUTOMOBILE, THAT'S $5,000.
SO WHY DO WE EVEN HAVE THIS IN
THE BILL IF IT'S RAISING ALL
THESE ISSUES FOR THE, FOR THE
OPPONENTS? SO, I MEAN, WOULD YOU
BE WILLING TO CONSIDER SOME
AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD TAKE THE
AUTOMOBILES OUT ONE? AND SECOND,
THAT PUT MUCH MORE SAFEGUARDS IN
WHAT HAPPENS BEFORE YOU GET A
WARRANT, BETWEEN NOW AND THE
NEXT STEP IN THE PROCESS, I'D
CERTAINLY COMMIT TO CONTINUING
TO WORK EITHER WITH CONSULTANTS
HERE ON THOSE AMENDMENTS, WE DID
WELCOME AMENDMENTS AND ASKED,
HOW DO WE MAKE THIS BILL BETTER
COMING OUT OF SENATE? I MEAN, WE
WERE NOT OFFERED ANY AMENDMENTS,
SO I AM WELCOMING, WAY TO MAKE
THIS BILL BETTER. I'M I'M NOT
ABOUT GOTCHA BILLS. AND, YOU
KNOW, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, I'M I'M
LOOKING AT HOW DO WE HELP TO
SUPPORT A BUSINESS THAT WE THE
LEGISLATORS WE STARTED RIGHT.
THE LEGAL ENTERPRISE, IN A WAY
THAT DOESN'T PUNISH IT'S NOT
PUNITIVE, DOESN'T PUT PEOPLE IN
JAIL. SO MY COMMITMENT IS TO
MAKE THIS THE BEST VERSION OF
THE BILL POSSIBLE, IF IT SHALL
PASS, THIS COMMITTEE AND GO TO
APPROPRIATIONS, CAN I ASK ONE
MORE THING TO THE. AND I WILL
SHUT UP, I PROMISE. OKAY THE
OPPONENTS ARE THERE OTHER AREAS
OTHER THAN THE AUTOMOBILES AND
THE STANDARDS RELATED TO THE
FORFEITURE THAT YOU HAVE
PARTICULAR CONCERNS ABOUT?
THAT'S ADDRESSED TO YOU. THE MIC
. I AM CONCERNED ABOUT ANYTHING
THAT IMPACTS MY CLIENT'S ABILITY
TO, TO HAVE A LIVELIHOOD BECAUSE
MY CLIENTS ARE PEOPLE, POOR
PEOPLE, BASICALLY. RIGHT SO IF
THEIR VEHICLES ARE SEIZED, IT
DRAMATICALLY AFFECTS THEM AND
THEIR FAMILIES. IF THEIR TOOLS
ARE SEIZED, IT DRAMATICALLY
AFFECTS THEM AND THEIR FAMILIES,
THE STANDARD I THINK MAYBE WE
NEED TO CLEAR THAT UP. MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THE CIVIL
FORFEITURE STANDARD THAT'S BEING
PROPOSED IN THIS BILL HAS BEEN
UPHELD BY A COURT, AND THE AND
THE COMMITTEE CONSULTANT WHO
ANALYZED THE BILL PROBABLY COULD
ANSWER THIS BETTER THAN I CAN,
OR PERHAPS MY COLLEAGUE FROM THE
ACLU. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS
THAT IT IS SUFFICIENT TO SAY
IT'S BASED ON THIS REGULATION.
OKAY. I MEAN, I THINK NOT FOR A
CRIMINAL OFFENSE, BUT JUST FOR
CIVIL FORFEITURE. I LAST THING,
I'LL SAY IS THAT I HOPE THAT THE
OPPONENTS WILL WORK WITH THE
AUTHOR. I MEAN, THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT IN MY DISTRICT THAT WE
ACTUALLY HAVE STEPS TO DISRUPT
THIS ILLEGAL CANNABIS, GROWING
AND MANUFACTURING. IT'S A YOU
KNOW, I'VE GOT A LOT OF CANNABIS
RELATED ENTITIES IN MY DISTRICT.
THEY HAPPEN TO LOCATE IN MY
DISTRICT BECAUSE MY DISTRICT IS
A FRIENDLY ONE, AND SO I SUPPORT
WHERE THE WHY WHY THE AUTHOR IS
DOING THIS. I'M GOING TO SUPPORT
THIS TODAY, BUT I'M ASKING THE
AUTHOR TO WORK WITH THE
OPPONENTS AND THE OPPONENTS TO
WORK WITH THE AUTHOR, TO REALLY
ADDRESS THESE THINGS. TO ME, THE
BILL SEEMS LIKE IT'S ABOUT MORE
LARGE SCALE, YOU KNOW, GROWING
AND DISTRIBUTION AND THAT YOU
SHOULD BE ABLE TO SORT OF AT
LEAST TIGHTEN THIS UP SO THAT
IT'S NOT I MEAN, I DON'T SEE WHY
WE HAVE CARS IN HERE AT ALL,
FRANKLY. I'D LIKE TO SORT OF SEE
THAT OUT, AND OTHER THINGS THAT
RELATE TO, YOU KNOW, A PERSON
JUST TAKING THINGS AWAY, HAVING
A RISK OF A OF A PERSON WHO'S
JUST TRYING TO HAVE A LIVELIHOOD
, HAVING STUFF TAKEN FROM THEM.
AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE
DETAIL PRIOR TO THE FORFEITURE.
AND SO I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT IT
TODAY, BUT, YOU KNOW, I'LL BE
LOOKING AT IT PRETTY CAREFULLY
BEFORE WHEN IT COMES BACK. THANK
YOU. SIMILAR REYES. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. I AGREE WITH MY
COLLEAGUE THAT THE PURPOSE OF IT
MAKES SENSE, WE HAVE THOSE WHO
ARE LICENSED, TO GROW AND TO
CULTIVATE AND TO SELL THIS
PRODUCT BECAUSE IT'S LEGAL AND
WE HAVE THOSE WHO ARE UNLICENSED
AND, THERE HAS TO BE A WAY TO
BRING THE UNLICENSED INTO THE
FOLD. THEY'VE GOT TO GET A
LICENSE IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE
IF THEY WANT TO BE LEGAL IN
THEIR OPERATION. I'M EXTREMELY
CONCERNED ABOUT SEIZING PROPERTY
IN A WAY THAT IN MY, IN MY
OPINION, IS WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.
I LOOK TO SEE AND ASK FOR SOME
HELP ON THIS. THE INSPECTION
WARRANT. A JUDGE CAN ISSUE AN
INSPECTION WARRANT. AUTHORIZED
BY STATE OR LOCAL LAW OR
REGULATION RELATED TO BUILDINGS,
FIRES, SAFETY. PLUMBING.
ELECTRICAL. HEALTH. LABOR.
ZONING UPON CAUSE THAT IS
SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE
PLACE, THE DWELLING, THE
STRUCTURE, PREMISES OR VEHICLE
TO BE INSPECTED AND THE PURPOSE
FOR WHICH THE INSPECTION IS
MADE. AND I'M JUST CONCERNED
BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE IT ALL
BEGINS. IS THIS INSPECTION
WARRANT? IT'S SUCH AN EASY THING
TO GET, IT SEEMS. AND NOW YOU
GET AN INSPECTION WARRANT. YOU
GO IN, YOU SAY, DO YOU HAVE A
LICENSE? NO, I DON'T HAVE A
LICENSE. YOU TAKE EVERYTHING.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
WHO WORK THERE. THE EMPLOYEES
PERSONAL, PHONES AND CARS AND
EVERYTHING ELSE. THOSE ARE ALL
GOING TO BE SEIZED. AND I
RECOGNIZE THAT THEY CAN FILE AN
ANSWER, AND THEN THEY HAVE TO
PROVE THAT THEY DID NOT CONTROL
THE UNLICENSED OPERATION. AFTER
THE SEIZURE. SO ALL THEIR THINGS
HAVE ALREADY BEEN PICKED UP, AND
NOW THEY HAVE TO GO AND PROVE
THAT THEY ALL BELONG TO THEM,
AND THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
TAKEN AWAY. I THINK THE
OPPOSITION TALKED ABOUT THE FACT
THAT THERE IS OR ASKED, WHAT IS
THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE
GOVERNMENT. THAT'S A BIG CONCERN
. SO THEY THIS INSPECTION, I
MEAN, JUST WHEN I SAW THAT WAS
THE FIRST THING I NOTICED AN
INSPECTION WARRANT. THIS IS NEW
WORD, RIGHT. SO WHAT'S THE
BURDEN OF PROOF? IT'S MINIMAL
AND YOU CAN GO ON, YOU CAN JUST
SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? I THINK THAT
ONE IS UNLICENSED. I'D LIKE AN
INSPECTION WARRANT. YOU GET THE
INSPECTION WARRANT, YOU'RE IN,
THEN THEY'RE ABLE TO PROVE THEY
DON'T HAVE A LICENSE, AND IT'S.
I'M CONCERNED ABOUT DOING IT IN
THIS WAY. I APPRECIATE THAT. 85%
OF THE SEIZED PROPERTY OR THE
SALE OF IT GOES TO DIVERSITY
FUNDING. I, SENATOR MITCHELL'S,
BILL WAS WAS A VERY IMPORTANT
PART OF THIS WHOLE CONVERSATION,
AND I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE
LOOK TO THAT AND TO SEE WHAT IT
IS THAT NEEDS TO BE, WHERE WE
NEED TO IMPROVE ON THAT AS
OPPOSED TO SETTING UP A SYSTEM
THAT THAT TRULY CONCERNS ME
LEGALLY. IT CONCERNS IT CONCERNS
ME TREMENDOUSLY THAT WE ARE
SEIZING PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS AND JUST BECAUSE WE
THINK SOMEBODY IS DOING
SOMETHING, THEY SHOULDN'T, IF
I'M NOT REQUIRED TO GO THROUGH
THIS DUE PROCESS TO SHOW A
BURDEN OF PROOF AT A HIGHER
LEVEL, I CAN GO ANYWHERE I WANT
AND SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? I THINK
THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH THE
ZONING, OR I THINK THERE'S A
PROBLEM WITH THE PLUMBING OR, I
CLEARLY CAN COME UP WITH ANY
REGULATION IN THE STATE OR LOCAL
GOVERNMENT, GET THIS INSPECTION
WARRANT, AND I'D BE ABLE TO GO
LOOK AT EVERYTHING AND START
SEIZING. AND WHEN YOU HAVE ALL
YOUR THINGS TAKEN AWAY, I THINK
OF THOSE EMPLOYEES. AND I GO
BACK TO WHAT MY COLLEAGUE WAS
TALKING ABOUT, THEIR TOOLS ARE
THEIR LIVELIHOOD. AND YOU TAKE
AWAY SOMEBODY'S TOOLS. I I KNOW
LOTS OF PEOPLE WHO RELY ON THOSE
TOOLS. THAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT
THING FOR THEM, I SO I HAVE I
HAVE SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH THIS.
I DO APPRECIATE, SENATOR, THAT
YOU TOOK MY CALL AND WE TALKED
VERY LATE LAST NIGHT. ON SOME OF
THESE THINGS, BUT, THIS BURDEN
OF PROOF, FOR THE GOVERNMENT AND
THIS INSPECTION, WARRANT, I
RECOGNIZE AND I HEARD WHAT WAS
SAID BY YOUR WITNESS THAT THIS
WAS LANGUAGE THAT WAS INHERITED.
AND I'M THINKING MAYBE THIS
ISN'T THE YEAR TO DO IT. MAYBE
IT'S NEXT YEAR. TRYING TO FIGURE
OUT JUST WHAT WE DO, KNOWING
THAT IT'S THE CAUSE IS NOBLE.
EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE A LICENSE.
WE'VE MADE IT LEGAL. LET'S GET A
LICENSE SO THAT YOU COMPETE ON
THE SAME LEVEL WITH WITH A
LICENSED, CANNABIS. GROWER. BUT
I THINK THIS JUST GOES A LITTLE
TOO FAR. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
THANK YOU. YOU CAN, ADDRESS THIS
IN YOUR CLOSE. HOW ABOUT CLOSE?
OKAY. EVEN BETTER. YES. WE HAVE
A MOTION AND A SECOND. YOU MAY
CLOSE. WELL, NO. AND I HAVE
QUESTIONS. OKAY. WILL YOU DO THE
MOTION, THOUGH? I WILL MOTION
ALSO. YES, ME. SO I WANT TO JUST
MAKE SOME POINTS HERE, WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT ILLEGAL GROWTHS
FOR THOSE, WHO TALK TO THEIR
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. ASK THEM
ABOUT PERMITTING FOR MARIJUANA
GROWS, THIS IS A BIG ISSUE IN MY
DISTRICT. WE HAVE THOSE THAT ARE
DOING IT THE RIGHT WAY. THEY'RE
GETTING A PERMIT. THEY'RE
ACTUALLY MAKING A LEGIT
BUSINESS, AND THEY'RE TRYING TO
MAKE A GOOD NAME FOR THE
CANNABIS, INDUSTRY. BUT THEN YOU
HAVE THESE GROUPS THAT ARE NOT
LICENSED THAT ARE, AS POINTED
OUT, THEY'RE STEALING WATERS
FROM THE RIVER OR IRRIGATIONS OR
CANALS. WATER THAT MY
CONSTITUENTS HAVE TO PAY FOR,
INTRODUCING PESTICIDES INTO THE
GROUND, THAT ARE NOT REGISTERED,
IS HAPPENING ALSO. AND WE'RE WE
SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTING THAT.
WE SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTING
ILLEGAL ACTIVITY, WHICH IS
WHAT'S GOING ON HERE, FOR THOSE
WHO MAYBE LIVE INSIDE OF A CITY
MAY GET A CODE ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER AT THEIR DOOR KNOCKING,
SAYING, HEY, I RECEIVED A
COMPLAINT, MAYBE YOUR FENCE WAS,
BUILT WRONG. OR MAYBE YOU HAD
SOMETHING, WHERE A SIDEWALK
NEEDED TO BE FIXED. THAT HAPPENS
EVERY DAY. AND SO THAT'S WHAT'S
HAPPENING RIGHT NOW WITH THESE
ILLEGAL GROWTHS. I HAVE A LOT OF
PEOPLE IN MY DISTRICT WHO HAVE
ILLEGAL GROWS THAT THEY'RE
CALLING ON ALL THE TIME, AND
THAT'S THAT'S CALLS THAT ARE
THAT ARE GENERATED THAT WAY. AND
SO THAT'S HOW THEY GO OUT THERE
AND THEY GO AND LOOK AND FIND
OUT THAT THERE'S NOT A LICENSE,
A PROPER LICENSING. SO THEY THEY
CAN'T SAY THAT THEY DID NOT KNOW
ABOUT IT. THERE'S PLENTY OF
NOTICES THAT ARE GIVEN, THERE'S
PLENTY OF, OF NOTICES KNOWN NOW
THAT OBVIOUSLY WE'VE MADE IT
LEGALIZED HERE IN CALIFORNIA,
BUT WE NEED TO GET RID OF THE
BAD PLAYERS THAT ARE TAKING AWAY
FROM THE LEGIT PLAYERS. IT'S
MAKING A BLACK MARKET. IT'S
MAKING IT TERRIBLE FOR LAW
ENFORCEMENT AS A PRIOR LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, SOME OF THE
WORST CALLS WE HAD WERE OF
ILLEGAL GROWTHS HAVING TO GO OUT
THERE, HAVING DEPUTIES, OFFICERS
RISK THEIR LIVES OUT THERE FOR
BUSINESSES THAT WERE NOT AND
SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THERE IN
THE FIRST PLACE. SO I JUST I
WANT TO MAKE THAT POINT ON THIS
BILL. I WANT TO I WANT TO THANK
THE SENATOR FOR THIS BILL AS
WELL. OBVIOUSLY, I'M GOING TO BE
SUPPORTING THIS. I MOVED THE
BILL, BUT WE DO NEED TO CUT DOWN
ON THIS. I, I UNDERSTAND THAT WE
ARE, THINKING THAT WE'RE
INVADING PEOPLE'S LIVELIHOODS,
BUT WE'RE ALSO BY SAYING THAT
SUPPORTING ILLEGAL LIVELIHOODS,
WE NEED TO NOT DO THAT WE
WOULDN'T SUPPORT IF IT WAS
SOMEBODY RUNNING, AN ILLEGAL,
WELL, I'M JUST GOING TO LEAVE IT
AT THAT. WE WON'T GO ANY
FURTHER, BUT I'M PROUD TO
SUPPORT THIS. I ENJOYED MY
COLLEAGUES QUESTIONS. VERY LEGIT
QUESTIONS. OBVIOUSLY, I KNOW THE
AUTHOR WILL ALSO BE ADDRESSING
THOSE AS WELL. AND I THANK YOU
FOR THAT. THANK YOU. YOU MAY
CLOSE. THANK YOU, SO I JUST WANT
TO SAY CALIFORNIA IS A STATE
THAT WE TAKE MUCH PRIDE ON
SUPPORTING OUR WORKERS, OR ONE
OF THE STRONGEST LABOR UNION
STATES IN THE NATION, AND BY
SUPPORTING ILLICIT BUSINESSES
SUCH AS CANNABIS GROWS. THIS IS
AN EXPLOITATION OF WORKERS. THIS
IS WORKERS WITHOUT PROTECTIONS.
WORKERS PUTTING THEIR LIVES ON
THE LINE. THIS ISN'T EARNING
LIVELIHOOD. THIS IS HUMAN
EXPLOITATION OF LABOR. ANYBODY
WHO HIRES PEOPLE TO WORK ON
ILLICIT, GROW FARMS IS PUTTING
AT RISK THOSE WORKERS, AND IT IS
OUR JOB TO PROTECT OUR WORKERS
BY HAVING SOUND REGULATION, BY
HAVING PROTECTIONS IN PLACE. AND
SO I LOOKED AT THIS BILL WITH
THE LENS OF PROTECTION OF
WORKERS. AND THAT IS WHY THROUGH
THE PROCESS, WORKERS ARE NOT A
CAUSE FOR ACTION. I ALSO LOOK AT
THE MY NEIGHBORS AND MY
COMMUNITY. AND AS A PROPERTY
OWNER, YOU KNOW, I'M AGAINST
1010 ACRES OF PROPERTY, THAT IS
UNFENCED. AND IF THERE IS A GROW
NEXT TO MY HOME AND I SEE A LOT
OF PEOPLE OR PEOPLE ALL AT
NIGHT, AND I START TO SEE GUNS
AND SEE THINGS THAT I THINK
WOULD BE PUT MY SAFETY AT RISK,
YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO FOLLOW
THE PROCESS AND CALL LAW
ENFORCEMENT IN QUESTION. RIGHT.
AND AT THAT POINT, YOU KNOW,
THEY MIGHT ASK ME FOR AN
AFFIDAVIT, RIGHT? I KNOW THAT IF
I MAKE AN AFFIDAVIT THAT PUTS MY
NAME ON THE RECORD. RIGHT. SO I
PUT MY LIFE AT RISK, MY PROPERTY
AT RISK, IF INDEED THIS IS AN
ILLICIT GROW THAT IS TIED TO THE
CARTEL. BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT IF
I'M DOING THE RIGHT THING OF
PROTECTING MY COMMUNITY BY
IDENTIFYING RIGHT, SEE
SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING, THEN
THAT GIVES ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO
THEN START THIS PROCESS. AND SO
TO MR. ZORBAS, ASSEMBLYMEMBERS.
Ã BIRTHS. QUESTION I COMB
THROUGH THIS BECAUSE DUE PROCESS
TO ME IS SO IMPORTANT THAT IS A
CONSTRUCT OF OUR CONSTITUTION
AND NO LAW SHALL BE CRAFTED
WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. AND I'M
NOTICING HERE, JUST TO BE
TECHNICAL, ON SECTION THREE, Â,
THERE IS A NOTICE UPON THE
AFFIDAVIT, THERE IS A NOTICE OF
THE SEIZURE OF THE INTENDED
FORFEITURE. AND YOU MUST FILE
THAT WITH THE CLERK AND THEN
SERVE IT TO ALL PERSONS AND
FIRMS AND CORPORATIONS, BECAUSE
THEY HAVE THE RIGHT, THEY HAVE
THE RIGHT TO RESPOND, JUST AS IF
WE WERE ISSUING ANOTHER CIVIL
NOTICE. YOU KNOW, DIVORCES,
CIVIL ACTIONS. SO THERE IS A
NOTICE THIS ISN'T DONE, THAT YOU
WAKE UP ONE DAY AND THEN THERE'S
A RAID RIGHT NOW, WITHIN 20 DAYS
AFTER BEING SERVED OF THAT
NOTICE OF SEIZURE AND INTENT,
INTENDED FORFEITURE, THEN
THERE'S A RIGHT TO RESPOND TO
THAT. AND IF THERE IS NO
RESPONSE, THEN WE HAVE TO MOVE
INTO THAT BURDEN OF PROOF. IF
THERE IS A RESPONSE, THE OWNER
OR THAT THE PERSON WHO IS BEING
NAMED IN THAT AFFIDAVIT MUST
PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT THE
PROPERTY THAT IS BEING NOTICED
FOR FORFEITURE BY THE STATE IS
INDEED NOT BEING USED FOR
ILLICIT PURPOSES, AND SO WHEN I
THINK OF DUE PROCESS, I THINK
OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU SEE IN
THE MOVIES, YOU KNOW, KICKING
DOWN THE DOOR, JUST COMING AND
TAKING EVERYTHING. IT IS NOT
THIS, THIS IS SAYING WE ARE A
STATE THAT WILL REFUSE TO
EXPLOIT WORKERS AND PUT WORKERS
IN HARM'S WAY, AND WE KNOW THE
ILLEGAL CANNABIS MARKET, THE
CULTIVATION I'M FOCUSED ON
CULTIVATION IS A DANGEROUS ONE.
IT PUTS LIVES AT RISK. IT PUTS
OUR ENVIRONMENT AT RISK. IT PUTS
OUR ECONOMIC VALUES AT RISK. AND
SO I WILL DO EVERYTHING I CAN TO
MAKE THIS THE BEST BILL
POSSIBLE. AND THANK YOU FOR
ENCOURAGING US TO CONTINUE TO
WORK ON THE LANGUAGE. THAT LOOKS
AT AUTOMOBILES AS WELL AS
FURTHER, EXPLAINS DUE PROCESS SO
THAT THIS IS NOT A GOTCHA BILL,
BUT THIS IS A BILL THAT HELPS TO
LIFT UP OUR SOCIAL EQUITY
PROGRAMS AND LEGAL CANNABIS
GROWS. SO I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL ON SB 820 BY
SENATOR ALVARADO GILL. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY. MCCARTY I ALANIS I
ALANIS I LACKEY. WHEN REYES.
REYES NOT VOTING TÍNH TÍNH NOT
VOTING WILSON. ZUBER I'M SORRY
WHAT I ZIPPER I MEASURES ON
CALL. THANK YOU. YOU HAVE ITEM
NUMBER 26. THIS IS A VOTE ONLY
AND YOU'RE ACCEPTING THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, CORRECT. I
DON'T BELIEVE I SAW COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS. NO WHAT? YES. ARE
YOU ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS, MAY I BE AWARE OF
THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
COMMITTEE THAT WERE OFFERED TO
YOU LAST YEAR WHEN YOU PROBABLY.
I WASN'T HERE EITHER. SO I TIME
OUT REAL QUICK. TIME OUT REAL
QUICK. ANYBODY? ANYBODY OKAY.
I REMEMBER.
YEAH OH, YEAH. I THINK WE AGREED
TO THOSE. YES. OKAY, OKAY. WE'RE
GOOD. YES. I WANT TO SAY THANK
YOU TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMITTEE FOR GRANTING THE
RECONSIDERATION. AND, YES, WE
ACCEPT THE AMENDMENTS. OKAY.
YES. DO PASS WITH THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS. ONLY VOTE ONLY. WE
NEED A MOTION. PLEASE THE MOTION
IS SECOND. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
THIS MEASURE IS FOR VOTE ONLY.
SB 226 BY SENATOR ALVARADO GILL.
THE MOTION IS DUE PASS, AS
AMENDED, TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE MCCARTY MCCARTY I.
ALANIZ. ALANIZ I, LACKEY. NGUYEN
REYES. REYES I TING. TING I
WILSON. ZUBER VOTING. CYBER NOT
VOTING THAT MR. THANK YOU. SO
REMEMBER DOLLY, PLEASE COME
FORWARD AND PRESENT. YOU HAVE
FILED NUMBER FOR SB 804. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MEMBERS CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, HERE TO PRESENT SB 8042
HEARSAY TESTIMONY AT PRELIMINARY
HEARINGS. LAW ENFORCEMENT AND
LEGAL SYSTEMS MUST BE GIVEN THE
TOOLS TO PROPERLY SERVE OUR
COMMUNITIES. LAW ENFORCEMENT AND
CIVILIANS ARE BECOMING MORE
FREQUENTLY USED, SOMETHING THE
LEGISLATURE HAS ENCOURAGED.
CURRENTLY, ONLY SWORN OFFICERS
CAN PERFORM HEARSAY TESTIMONY,
MEANING IF LAW ENFORCEMENT
CIVILIANS ARE CALLED TO COURT,
SWORN OFFICERS MUST RE-INTERVIEW
OLD VICTIMS OR THOSE VICTIMS
MUST BE CALLED TO COURT TO
TESTIFY THEMSELVES. THIS BILL
WOULD AUTHORIZE LAW ENFORCEMENT
CIVILIANS WITH AT LEAST FIVE
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE, OR WHO HAVE
UNDERGONE THE SAME HEARSAY POST
TRAINING AS SWORN OFFICERS TO
PERFORM HEARSAY TESTIMONY AT
PRELIMINARY HEARINGS. THESE ARE
THE SAME TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE
REQUIREMENTS AS SWORN OFFICERS.
THIS BILL IS GOOD FOR VICTIMS
AND IT WILL ENABLE THOSE TO
AVOID APPEARING IN COURT AND
HAVING TO RELIEVE THE CRIME.
RELIVE THE CRIME AGAIN THROUGH
ADDITIONAL INTERVIEWS AND
STATEMENTS. AND IT'S GOOD FOR
LAW ENFORCEMENT AS IT ALLOWS
SWORN OFFICERS TO OFFICERS TO
REMAIN FOCUSED ON THE PRIMARY
DUTIES OF RESPONDING TO
EMERGENCY CALLS. WE TOOK
AMENDMENTS IN SENATE PUBLIC
SAFETY THAT REQUIRES SWORN PEACE
OFFICERS AND NON SWORN LAW
ENFORCEMENT CIVILIANS WHO COMMIT
PERJURY WILL BE ADDED TO THE
BRADY'S LIST AND THE TESTIMONY
GIVEN IS SUBJECT TO BE DISCLOSED
AND IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE. THIS
CHANGE HAS HELPED HOLD BOTH
WITNESSES ACCOUNTABLE AND ENSURE
THAT ONLY THE BEST, MOST
RELIABLE TESTIMONY IS ADMISSIBLE
IN COURT MEMBERS. I THIS HAS
BEEN A TWO YEAR BILL. I TOOK ME
QUITE A FEW TIMES TO GET IT OUT
OF THE SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY.
THIS WAS BROUGHT TO ME BY LAW
ENFORCEMENT TO ALLOW OUR AND THE
TRAINING IS THE SAME. EXACTLY
ACTUAL TRAINING AS SWORN
OFFICERS. SO I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU.
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
CHAIR KAREN LANG, ON BEHALF OF
SAN FRANCISCO MAYOR LONDON BREED
AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU. MADAM
CHAIR AND MEMBERS, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA STATE SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT.
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION. SORRY,
MY IN SUPPORT. JONATHAN FELDMAN,
CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. ANY MORE IN SUPPORT? LET'S
MOVE ON TO OPPOSITION. LET ME
START I CAN START I'VE GOT FOUR
MINUTES BETWEEN THE TWO OF YOU.
OKAY, MY NAME IS MELANIE KING,
STATE POLICY DIRECTOR AT THE SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE, TESTIFYING IN OPPOSITION
TO SB 804, WHICH WOULD EXPAND
THE EXCEPTION TO THE
INADMISSIBILITY OF HEARSAY
EVIDENCE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT
CIVILIANS AT PRELIMINARY
HEARINGS. THE PRELIM HEARING IS
CRITICAL FOR JUDGES. THE
PROSECUTION AND THE ACCUSED TO
ASSESS THE CASE. IT'S THE ONLY
OPPORTUNITY TO TEST THE VERACITY
OF EVIDENCE BEFORE A JURY TRIAL
AT THE PRELIM HEARING. THE
BURDEN OF PROOF IS ONLY PROBABLE
CAUSE A RELATIVELY LOW STANDARD
COMPARED TO BEYOND A REASONABLE
DOUBT, WHICH MUST BE
DEMONSTRATED IN TRIAL. HEARSAY
EVIDENCE IS GENERALLY
INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE IT IS
INHERENTLY LESS RELIABLE THAN
TESTIMONY FROM A PERSON WHO HAS
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE EVENTS
THAT OCCURRED, NAMELY, HEARSAY
EVIDENCE CANNOT BE EFFECTIVELY
TESTED THROUGH CROSS
EXAMINATION. CURRENT LAW ALREADY
ALLOWS HEARSAY EVIDENCE AT A
PRELIMINARY HEARING WHEN OFFERED
BY A QUALIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER. THIS BILL WOULD EXPAND
THE PRACTICE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT
CIVILIANS. A POORLY DEFINED
CATEGORY OF PERSONS. THESE
UNSWORN CIVILIANS WILL BE ABLE
TO TAKE DOWN WITNESS STATEMENTS
AND TESTIFY ABOUT THEM AT PRELIM
HEARINGS TO ESTABLISH PROBABLE
CAUSE AND INDIVIDUALS CHARGED
WITH CRIMES WILL NOT BE ABLE TO
CROSS-EXAMINE ACTUAL WITNESSES,
WHICH IS A CONSTITUTIONAL
SAFEGUARD IN ENSURING ACCURACY
AND COMPLETENESS OF EVIDENCE, AS
I EXPLAINED, EXPANDING HEARSAY
IN PRELIMINARY HEARINGS LIMITS
THE AMOUNT A PROSECUTOR OR JUDGE
CAN ASSESS THE CASE BEFORE
SENDING IT TO A JURY, ALLOWING
NON-SWORN CIVILIANS TO TESTIFY
AS CONTEMPLATING THIS BILL WOULD
EXACERBATE THIS PROBLEM, AND IT
WILL UNJUSTLY EXPEDITE THE
PRELIMINARY HEARING PROCESS,
MAKING IT EASIER FOR INDIVIDUALS
ACCUSED OF FELONY CHARGES TO BE
HELD IN CUSTODY AWAITING TRIAL.
WHEN INDIVIDUALS ARE HELD IN
CUSTODY AWAITING TRIAL, THEY'RE
SEPARATED FROM THEIR FAMILIES,
COMMUNITIES. THEY LOSE JOBS,
HOUSING AND SUPPORT NETWORKS,
COMPLETELY UPENDING THEIR LIVES
WHEN THEY HAVE NOT BEEN
CONVICTED OF ANY CRIMINAL
OFFENSE, I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR NO VOTE. OKAY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. IGNACIO HERNANDEZ, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ATTORNEYS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE
STATEWIDE ASSOCIATION OF
CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS, WE'RE
IN OPPOSITION. YOU KNOW, LET ME
SAY THIS AS CRIMINAL DEFENSE
ATTORNEYS, WE'RE EXTREMELY
FRUSTRATED WITH THE PRELIMINARY
HEARING PROCESS. AND THAT IS
REALLY ONE OF THE MAJOR REASONS
WHY WE'RE OPPOSED TO THIS BILL.
WE CONTINUALLY HIGHLIGHT THE
PROBLEMS AND THE RESTRICTIONS
PLACED ON DEFENDANTS AND
CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS AND
PRELIMINARY HEARINGS, WHICH MAKE
IT PATENTLY UNFAIR, IT'S ALL
ABOUT MAKING THE HEARING
EXPEDITIOUS, BUT NOT ABOUT IT
BEING FAIR. AND SO WE ARE
STRUGGLING WITH THESE TYPES OF
BILLS BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, DEFENSE
ATTORNEYS, FOR EXAMPLE, CANNOT
EVEN ASK QUESTIONS OF WITNESSES
ON THE STAND IF WE DO NOT
ALREADY HAVE THE EVIDENCE. AND
THE DA'S AND PROSECUTORS ARE NOT
EVEN REQUIRED TO GIVE US ALL THE
EVIDENCE BEFORE PRELIMINARY
HEARINGS. SO NOW WE'RE ADDING
ANOTHER LAYER OF HEARSAY
TESTIMONY THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL
WITH WITHOUT HAVING ACCESS TO
EVIDENCE, WITHOUT HAVING A
NUMBER OF RIGHTS TO ASK
QUESTIONS OF WITNESSES IN
PRELIMINARY HEARINGS. AND THAT
IS OUR FRUSTRATION. WE
UNDERSTAND IT'S TRYING TO EQUATE
IT WITH SWORN PEACE OFFICERS AND
APPRECIATE THE AMENDMENTS THAT
ARE THAT THE TRAINING
REQUIREMENT IS SIMILAR. BUT THE
BOTTOM LINE IS THAT PRELIMINARY
HEARINGS ARE SO PROBLEMATIC
RIGHT NOW. IF YOU GO DOWN TO THE
COURTHOUSE, EVERYONE KNOWS THAT
EVERYONE IS EXPECTED PRELIMINARY
HEARINGS TO TAKE 15, 20 MINUTES
ON SERIOUS CASES BECAUSE THE
DEFENSE SIMPLY HAS SO MANY
RESTRICTIONS AND LIMITS, AND
THIS IS GOING TO MAKE IT EVEN
MORE COMPLICATED. WE'VE RUN
BILLS AND WE HAVE A PENDING BILL
NOW TO TRY TO IMPROVE THE
PROCESS. BUT UNTIL WE IMPROVE
THE PRELIMINARY HEARING PROCESS,
WE JUST CANNOT SUPPORT
ADDITIONAL HEARSAY LAYERS GOING
FORWARD. SO FOR THOSE REASONS,
WE'RE OPPOSED. THANK YOU. LET'S
GO AHEAD AND HEAR FROM ME IN
OPPOSITION. NAME AND
ORGANIZATION. PLEASE GO AHEAD.
DANICA ADAMO, ON BEHALF OF
INITIATE JUSTICE AND OPPOSITION,
MARCO GEORGE, ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION AND STRONG
OPPOSITION JAMES KING, ON BEHALF
OF CITIZENS UNITED FOR A
RESPONSIBLE BUDGET AND
OPPOSITION. YOLANDA NAVARETTE,
ON BEHALF OF INITIATE JUSTICE
ACTION IN OPPOSITION. ANY
OTHERS? WE'LL TAKE US BACK TO
THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MR.
LACKEY, JUST AS A REMINDER, A
PRELIMINARY HEARING IS NOT A
TRIAL. IT'S BASICALLY IT'S A
HEARING. AND IT'S A HEARING JUST
TO ESTABLISH PROBABLE CAUSE.
IT'S NOT A GUILTY OR INNOCENT
FINDING. HOWEVER, IF THERE'S NO
PROBABLE CAUSE, IT'S DISMISSED.
SO IT HAS A VERY MINIMAL
STANDARD. AND TO TRY TO EQUATE
IT WITH A TRIAL IS UNFAIR AND
IT'S INACCURATE. SO I THINK THIS
IS A VERY REASONABLE REQUEST.
AND I'LL I'M PROUD TO SUPPORT IT
. YES. AND I MOVE THE BILL. I'LL
SECOND THE BILL. SORRY JUST A
QUICK QUESTION. SO COULD YOU
COULD YOU WALK THROUGH UNDER
WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES? WHY IS IT
CRITICAL TO HAVE THE HEARSAY
TESTIMONY FROM YOUR OPINION?
YOU'RE ASKING ME? YES. WELL,
THEY DON'T THEY DON'T AGREE WITH
YOU. SO WELL, FIRST OFF, WE HAVE
A VERY DIFFICULT TIME GETTING
PEOPLE TO GO INTO LAW
ENFORCEMENT. NUMBER ONE. AND
NUMBER TWO, THESE THE VICTIMS
ARE ARE, IF YOU HAVE IT, YOU
HAVE TO HAVE A SWORN OFFICER.
AND THE REGULATIONS IN THIS BILL
ARE THE SAME AS A SWORN OFFICER.
THE SAME EXACT, ACTUALLY, THIS
BILL ENHANCES FOR SWORN OFFICERS
AS WELL UNDER THE BRADY BILL,
BRADY LAW. SO THE GOAL HERE IS,
IS TO ALLOW THAT TESTIMONY TO,
NOT TO NOT VICTIMIZE THE VICTIM.
AGAIN, NUMBER ONE, NUMBER TWO,
KEEP OUR PEACE OFFICERS OUT ON
THE STREET DOING THEIR JOB. AND
BEING ABLE TO ALLOW THESE, CSOS
TO WORK IN THE COURT SYSTEM.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING
TO DO. IT'S BROUGHT TO ME BY LAW
ENFORCEMENT TRYING TO DEAL WITH
THE LACK OF FOLKS. AND ALSO THE
SAME TIME, YOU KNOW, MAKING SURE
THAT WE DON'T HAVE PEOPLE THAT
ARE, ARE NOT WORTHY PEOPLE. SO
WE HAVE TO HAVE THE SAME
TRAINING. WE HAVE TO HAVE THE
POST TRAINING, WE HAVE TO HAVE
FIVE YEARS EXPERIENCE. WE THAT'S
THAT'S WHAT IT TOOK TO GET IT
OUT OF THE SENATE. AND I THINK
WE I THINK WE STRUCK A GOOD
BALANCE HERE. GOT IT. SO YOU'RE
SAYING THAT THERE'S CERTAIN
KINDS OF OFFICERS WHO WOULD BE
ALLOWED TO TAKE THIS, AND THEY
HAVE TO SWEAR UNDER PENALTY OF
PERJURY THAT THIS IS WHAT THEY
HEARD FROM A PARTICULAR WITNESS.
IS THAT FAIR? YES. ALSO, AT THE
SAME TIME, HAVING THE SAME
EXACT, TRAINING AND, AND YEARS
OF EXPERIENCE AS A SWORN
OFFICER. GOT IT. SO YOU CAN'T
JUST YOU CAN'T JUST SAY YOU'RE
GOING TO DO IT. YOU ACTUALLY
HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS
AS THE SAME AS A SWORN OFFICER.
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A
CSO AND A SWORN OFFICER IS ONE
SWORN AND ONE'S NOT. THAT'S
THAT'S WHAT THIS BILL DOES. AND
JUST GOING TO OUR POSITION FOR
ONE SECOND. SO YOU'RE SAYING
THAT NORMALLY IN A, IN A
PRELIMINARY HEARING, YOU WOULD
WANT TO POTENTIALLY
CROSS-EXAMINE THAT WITNESS. IS
THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. AND
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T CROSS-EXAMINE
THE WITNESS, YOU KNOW, MEANING
CROSS-EXAMINING THE OFFICER
WOULDN'T BE THE SAME, RIGHT? IF
I MAY, MADAM CHAIR OR MR. CHAIR.
YEAH. WE RECOGNIZE THAT UNDER
CURRENT LAW, HEARSAY BY SWORN
PEACE OFFICER IS ALLOWED AND HAS
BEEN ALLOWED FOR YEARS SINCE THE
INITIATIVE WAS PASSED IN 1990.
THERE HAS CHALLENGE WITH THAT
BECAUSE THERE IS NOT A RIGHT TO
BRING THE BRING A WITNESS IN,
CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESS. WE
HAVE TO FOCUS ON JUST THE
OFFICER. SO HERE'S GOING TO BE
ANOTHER SITUATION WHERE IT'S A
NON SWORN PEACE OFFICER. I
UNDERSTAND THE TRAINING AND DO
APPRECIATE THAT THAT LANGUAGE,
IT SHOULD BE EQUAL IF NOTHING
ELSE. BUT WE WON'T HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE
WITNESS. SO AGAIN AND I DO
RESPECT THAT THIS IS NOT A
TRIAL. WE UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT
TIME AND TIME AGAIN, THIS IS AN
OPPORTUNITY AND THE ONLY
OPPORTUNITY TO GET IN FRONT OF A
JUDGE BEFORE TRIAL, WHEN THERE
IS AT LEAST SOME EVIDENCE AND
SOME EVEN THOUGH LOW STANDARD TO
IDENTIFY IF IT'S THE RIGHT
PERSON AND THE RIGHT CHARGE. AND
SO OFTENTIMES, BECAUSE OF THE
RESTRICTIONS ON ATTORNEYS, WE
CANNOT WE CANNOT OBTAIN
DISCOVERY THROUGH PRELIMINARY
HEARING, WHICH MEANS WE CANNOT
ASK CERTAIN QUESTIONS THAT WE
DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER TO. AND
BECAUSE CURRENTLY, UNDER CURRENT
LAW, WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO WE'RE
NOT REQUIRED TO RECEIVE CERTAIN
INFORMATION BEFORE PRELIMINARY
HEARING. IT'S JUST VERY
LIMITING. SO IF WE HAVE ANOTHER,
WE EXPAND PEOPLE THAT CAN
TESTIFY TO HEARSAY. IT AGAIN,
IT'S JUST ANOTHER LIMIT ON WHAT
WE CAN DO. WE UNDERSTAND THAT IF
WE HAD MORE ROBUST DISCOVERY,
WHICH WE PUSHED FOR, WE HAVE A
BILL. IF THERE ARE OTHER RULES
THAT ARE CHANGED, AND THIS WOULD
MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE SENSE
TO US. BUT BECAUSE THERE'S SO
MANY RESTRICTIONS THAT WERE
IMPOSED BY INITIATIVE IN 1990,
AND IT'S REALLY HARD TO UNDO, IT
JUST MAKES IT THAT MUCH HARDER.
AND THERE ARE TIMES OF
PRELIMINARY, LET ME JUST ADD, WE
DO IDENTIFY, WE CAN IDENTIFY
THAT IS THE WRONG PERSON OR THE
WRONG CHARGE. AND THAT BENEFITS
EVERYONE. SO THE MORE THAT WE
CAN DO THAT EARLY IN THE
PROCESS, THE BETTER IT IS FOR
EVERYONE. YEAH THE QUESTIONS.
ALL RIGHT. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE
SOME STATEMENTS. PROP 115
TESTIFYING IS GREAT. I'VE HAD
DEPUTIES OUT IN THE FIELD THAT I
COULDN'T BRING IN, THAT I HAD TO
HAVE OTHER OFFICERS OR DEPUTIES
TESTIFY ON, EXPANDING THIS TO
CSOS, OUR OUR NON-SWORN. I THINK
IT'S A GREAT IDEA, TALK ABOUT
USING OUR RESOURCES WISELY. I
THINK THAT'S GREAT. AND FOR THE
OPPOSITION, HAVE YOU EVER NOT
BEEN ABLE TO CALL AN OFFICER IN
THAT YOU NEEDED TO ASK QUESTIONS
OF? MR. CHAIR, ARE YOU ASKING IF
A WITNESS WHO'S NOT TESTIFYING
TO HEARSAY SO THE ACTUAL
OFFICER. CORRECT. I WOULD HAVE
TO CHECK WITH SOME OF MY SOME OF
THE ATTORNEYS, BUT I WOULD I
BELIEVE SOME OF OUR ATTORNEYS
WOULD SAY THAT THAT HAS BEEN A
CHALLENGE BECAUSE OF THE
HEARSAY, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A
RIGHT TO THAT WITNESS. IF THERE
IS A HEARSAY, THERE'S AN
APPLICABLE HEARSAY EXCEPTION,
WHICH WOULD BE THE SWORN
OFFICER. THEN THERE IS A
CHALLENGE. WE HAVE TO SHOW PROOF
AS TO WHY WE HAVE TO BRING THAT
PARTICULAR WITNESS, I BELIEVE IS
WHAT THE RULE IS. SO IT IS A
CHALLENGE SOMETIMES AND I WOULD
CONCUR WITH THAT. SO IN MY
EXPERIENCE, I'VE ACTUALLY HAD
SOME ATTORNEYS WHERE THEY NEEDED
TO SPECIFICALLY ASK A QUESTION
OF AN OFFICER THAT WE DID HAVE
TO BRING THEM IN. AND SO THEN
THAT DID ADDRESS THAT ISSUE. BUT
FOR ALL INTENDED PURPOSES OF
SAVING TIME, MONEY, THE PROP 115
IS GREAT. YES. THEY HAVE TO BE
TRAINED AND CERTIFIED AND BRINGS
THEM THROUGH THAT, I'LL LEAVE IT
AT THAT AND I'LL HAVE YOU CLOSE.
WELL, I JUST LIKE TO SAY, I
THINK THE OPPOSITION ACTUALLY
MAKES THE POINT FOR ME THAT
WHETHER YOU'RE A SWORN OFFICER
OR A CSO, THIS BILL GIVES YOU
THE SAME EXACT PLACE WHERE YOU
WOULD BE. SO IF THE PROBLEMS
THAT THEY'RE HAVING, THOSE
PROBLEMS WILL STILL BE THERE,
WHETHER THIS IF THIS BILL WAS
NOT IN PLACE, YOU WOULD JUST NOT
HAVE THE CSO. SO I THINK THEY
MAKE THE CASE FOR ME. BUT THIS
IS A GOOD BILL AND WE SHOULD BE
ALLOWED TO EXPAND IT. SO WE HAVE
CSOS. SO WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. ON SB 804 BY SENATOR
DAWLEY, THE MOTION IS DUE PASS
MCCARTY. ALANIS. AYE. ALANIS.
AYE LAKI LAKI. AYE. NGUYEN
NGUYEN. AYE. REYES. TÍNH MR.
TÍNH NOT VOTING. WILSON. ZUBIATE
MAJORS ON CALL. THANK YOU.
SENATOR WIENER. SB 925. ITEM
NUMBER SEVEN. SENATOR, IT'S ALL
YOURS.
OKAY, GREAT. WELL THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. THANK THANK. IS THERE
A HEARING? ROOMS THANK YOU,
THANK YOU, MR. VICE CHAIR AND
COLLEAGUES, I'M HERE TO PRESENT
SENATE BILL 925, WHICH WILL
ALLOW SAN FRANCISCO TO FOSTER
OUR THRIVING STREET VENDING
SCENE WHILE AT THE SAME TIME
ADDRESSING THE FENCING OF STOLEN
GOODS ON OUR STREETS, A PRACTICE
THAT FUELS RETAIL THEFT AND THAT
BADLY UNDERMINES LEGITIMATE
STREET VENDING, SPECIFICALLY,
THE BILL ALLOWS THE SAN
FRANCISCO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
TO ADOPT A LIST OF COMMONLY
STOLEN GOODS THAT ARE SOLD IN
OUR STREETS AND TO REQUIRE A
PERMIT TO SELL THOSE COMMONLY
STOLEN GOODS. IF SOMEONE THEN
SELLS THOSE IDENTIFIED GOODS
WITHOUT A PERMIT ON THE STREET,
POLICE WOULD BE ABLE TO ENFORCE
INITIALLY VIA A CITATION AND
AFTER MULTIPLE CITATIONS VIA A
MISDEMEANOR. THE MISDEMEANOR IS
DESIGNED IN A WAY TO AVOID
IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES. THE
NEW CRIMINAL OFFENSES IN THE
BILL WILL NOT APPLY TO THE VAST
MAJORITY OF STREET VENDORS,
INCLUDING THOSE WHO ARE SELLING
GOODS WITH A PERMIT, THOSE WHO
ARE SELLING GOODS EVEN ON THE
ADOPTED LIST. BUT WITH A PERMIT,
AND ANYONE SELLING PREPARED FOOD
WITH OR WITHOUT A PERMIT. IN
2018, THE LEGISLATURE PASSED SB
946, ESTABLISHING THE SAFE
SIDEWALK VENDING ACT. I VOTED
FOR THAT BILL. IT WAS AN
IMPORTANT BILL. IT
DECRIMINALIZED SIDEWALK VENDING
AND ESTABLISHED AN
ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY SYSTEM TO
REPLACE THE FORMER CRIMINAL
SYSTEM THAT, THIS LAW
EFFECTIVELY BARRED LAW
ENFORCEMENT FROM CONDUCTING
INSPECTIONS OR ENFORCING AGAINST
VIOLATIONS BASED ON LOCAL OR
STATE LAWS GOVERNING STREET
VENDING. SB 946, HAS HAD MANY
BENEFITS FOR OUR STREET VENDING
ECONOMY, PARTICULARLY IN PARTS
OF THE STATE THAT HAVE BEEN
HISTORICALLY HOSTILE TO STREET
VENDORS, IT ENSURES THAT VENDORS
CAN SELL GOODS TO THE PUBLIC,
ACTIVATE PUBLIC SPACES, EARN A
LIVING, AND SUPPORT THEIR
FAMILIES. HOWEVER, IN SAN
FRANCISCO, A LIMITED NUMBER OF
BAD ACTORS HAVE TAKEN ADVANTAGE
OF HIGHLY CAPABLE AND
SOPHISTICATED CRIMINAL NETWORKS
TO FACILITATE, FENCING
OPERATIONS AND A LACK OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT TOOLS HAS LEFT SAN
FRANCISCO UNABLE TO HALT THESE
CRIMINAL OPERATIONS, WHICH ARE
OFTEN TIED TO ORGANIZED RETAIL
THEFT. PERMITTED STREET VENDORS
IN THESE AREAS WHO HAVE BEEN
SELLING THEIR GOODS AND EARNING
A LIVING FOR A LONG TIME HAVE
HAD A HARD TIME DEALING WITH
THIS INFLUX OF CRIMINAL
OPERATIONS, LEADING TO
HARASSMENT AND INTIMIDATION,
EVEN VIOLENCE, LEGITIMATE STREET
VENDORS ARE OFTEN FEARFUL
ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT
AGAINST THESE CRIMINAL
OPERATIONS HAS NOT BEEN
SUCCESSFUL. INDEED, AS YOU WILL
HEAR, OUR PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT WORKERS HAVE BEEN
ASSAULTED AND AT ONE POINT BEGAN
WEARING BULLETPROOF VESTS WHILE
DOING THEIR JOBS. THE SITUATION
IS SO SEVERE THAT SAN FRANCISCO
WAS FORCED TO DECLARE A
MORATORIUM ON STREET VENDING ON
AND AROUND MISSION STREET, WHICH
IS TO NO ONE'S BENEFIT. I WANT
TO BE VERY CLEAR, STREET
VENDING, MAKES SAN FRANCISCO A
BETTER PLACE. IT ADDS TO THE
RICH CULTURAL AND ECONOMIC
DIVERSITY OF OUR CITY,
PARTICULARLY IN THE MISSION AND
OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS. AND WE WANT
TO FOSTER IT. I WANT TO THANK
MAYOR BREED AND SUPERVISOR
HILLARY RONEN FOR WORKING
CLOSELY WITH US AND THE
COALITION OF COMMUNITY
ORGANIZATIONS AND STREET VENDORS
IN THE MISSION TENDERLOIN AND
ELSEWHERE FOR WORKING WITH US. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE
WITH ME TODAY TO TESTIFY, IS
RODRIGO LOPEZ, WHO IS THE
PRESIDENT OF THE MISSION STREET
VENDORS ASSOCIATION, AND PAUL
HAYWARD, AN INSPECTOR WITH THE
SAN FRANCISCO, PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT. OKAY. YOUR WITNESSES
WILL HAVE FOUR MINUTES TO SHARE
AMONGST THE THREE OF YOU. SO
MAKE SURE YOU USE YOUR TIME
WISELY. AND WE HAVE A HAVE AN
INTERPRETER FOR THE FIRST
WITNESS. OKAY BUENAS TARDES.
PRESIDENT MIEMBROS DEL COMITÉ ME
NOMBRE. RODRIGO LOPEZ Y TENGO EL
HONOR DEL PRESIDENTE DE LA
ASOCIACION DE VENDEDORES
AMBULANTES NUESTRA ORGANIZATION
REPRESENTA MAS DE $70 AMBULANTES
PERMITIDOS EN EL DISTRITO DE LA
MISION DE SAN FRANCISCO, LOS
VENDEDORES AMBULANTES UNA PARTE
VITAL DE LA CALIDAD CULTURAL DE
MUCHOS DE LOS VECINDARIOS DE
ESTE ESTADO Y DEL PAIS. SOMOS
PARTE DEL TEJIDO QUÊ C¯
NOSOTROS, CIUDADES DESTINOS DE
VIAJE Y CULTURAL PARA ME PARA
MIEMBROS DE ESTA ORGANIZACION.
NOSOTROS PERTENECE EL DISTRITO
DE LA MISION IN SAN FRANCISCO,
SAN FRANCISCO, TÍNH AHORA UNA
CRISIS QUIENES VENDEN A QUIENES
BENJAMIN ROBADOS A VECES SON
DECENAS DE CIENTOS DE PERSONAS
EN LAS QUÊ SE LEÓN EN LAS CALLES
VENDIENDO VIENEN ROBADOS Y ESO
PROVOCA PELEAS Y OTROS PROBLEMAS
. NOSOTROS COMO MEDIDAS
AUTORIZADOS HEMOS SIDO ATACADOS
CUANDO LAS CONDICIONES EN LA
CALLE IMPERIUM. ESTO AFECTA C¯
ELLOS DE NOSOTROS, VAMOS POR
GANADO EN LA VIDA LEGITIMA TODOS
LOS DIAS REALIDAD ES QUÊ NO
PODER VENDER EN LAS CALLES. NO
SE AFECTADO MUCHO COMO SABEN I
PROVISIONS EN ALGUNAS PARTES DE
LA CIUDAD. SI BIEN LA CIUDAD
ESTA REDUCIENDO GRADUALMENTE LAS
VENTAS A AMBULANTES EN EL
DISTRITO DE LA MISION. A VECES
SE NECESITA UN EQUIPO CORONADO
DE MULTIPLES APARTAMENTOS DE LA
CIUDAD PARA PODER CUBRIR OBRAS
PUBLICAS Ó A NOSOTROS COMO
VENDEDORES PARA GARANTIZAR LA
SEGURIDAD DE LA COMUNIDAD
IRREGULAR. LAS ACCIONES DE MÀ
LOS ACTORES CON LAS VÆ NO
VEINTICINCO ESPERAMOS C¯ NOS
AYUDA A MEJORAR LAS CONDICIONES
GENERALS Y LA SITUACIÓN DE
MUCHOS C¯. NOSOTROS ESTAMOS EN
LAS CALLES DE SAN FRANCISCO.
NOSOTROS LOS MIEMBROS DE LA
ASOCIACION. HEMOS SEGUIDO DE LAS
REGLAS Y LA LEGISLATION.
QUEREMOS QUÊ LAS CONDICIONES DE
NUESTRO VECINDARIO MEJOR PARA
QUÊ NUESTROS MIEMBROS PUEDEN
VOLVER A VENDER DE MANERA SEGURA
EN LAS CALLES DE SAN FRANCISCO Y
VETERANOS AFLOAT. NECESITAMOS
APOYO, NECESITAMOS APOYO PARA
GARANTIZAR UN ENTORNO SEGURO Y
ESTRUCTURAL PARA NUESTRO ÉXITO,
EL ÉXITO DE LAS PEQUENAS
EMPRESAS Y EL ÉXITO DE NUESTRA
COMUNIDAD. EN GENERAL, GRACIAS.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS RODRIGO LOPEZ, AND I
HAVE THE HONOR OF BEING THE
PRESIDENT OF THE MISSION STREET
VENDORS ASSOCIATION. OUR
ORGANIZATION REPRESENTS OVER 116
PERMITTED STREET VENDORS IN SAN
FRANCISCO'S MISSION DISTRICT.
STREET VENDORS ARE A VITAL PART
OF THE CULTURAL VIBRANCY OF MANY
NEIGHBORHOODS THROUGHOUT THE
STATE AND COUNTRY. WE ARE PART
OF THE FABRIC THAT MAKES OUR
CITIES DESTINATIONS OF TRAVEL
AND CULTURE. FOR ME AND THE
MEMBERS OF OUR ASSOCIATION, THAT
AREA OF SAN FRANCISCO'S MISSION
DISTRICT, SAN FRANCISCO, HAS A
CRISIS RIGHT NOW. OF THOSE WHO
SELL STOLEN GOODS, SOMETIMES
IT'S DOZENS OR EVEN HUNDREDS OF
PEOPLE THAT LINE THE STREETS
SELLING STOLEN GOODS, AND IT
ATTRACTS FIGHTS AND OTHER
PROBLEMS. WE, AS PERMITTED
VENDORS, HAVE GOTTEN ATTACKED
WHEN CONDITIONS ON THE STREET
GET BAD. IT IMPACTS THOSE OF US
WHO FIGHT TO MAKE A LEGITIMATE
LIVING EVERY DAY. THE REALITY IS
THAT NOT BEING ABLE TO SELL ON
THE STREETS HAS AFFECTED US A
LOT. AS YOU KNOW, THERE ARE
BANDS IN PARTS OF THE CITY.
WHILE THE CITY IS PHASING BACK
VENDING IN THE MISSION DISTRICT,
IT TAKES A COORDINATED TEAM OF
MULTIPLE CITY DEPARTMENTS,
INCLUDING POLICE, PUBLIC WORKS
AND ESTÁ VENDORS TO ENSURE
COMMUNITY SAFETY AND REGULATE
THE ACTIONS OF BAD ACTORS. WITH
SB 925, WE HOPE IT WILL HELP US
IMPROVE THE OVERALL CONDITIONS
AND SITUATION THAT MANY OF US
ARE CONFRONTED WITH ON THE
STREETS OF SAN FRANCISCO. WE,
THE MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATION,
HAVE FOLLOWED THE RULES AND WE
SUPPORT THE LEGISLATION. WE WANT
THE CONDITIONS IN OUR
NEIGHBORHOOD TO IMPROVE SO THAT
OUR MEMBERS CAN GET BACK SAFELY
TO SELLING ON THE STREETS OF SAN
FRANCISCO AND STAY AFLOAT. WE
NEED SUPPORT TO ENSURE A SAFE
AND STRUCTURED ENVIRONMENT FOR
OUR SUCCESS. THE SUCCESS OF
SMALL BUSINESSES AND THE SUCCESS
OF OUR COMMUNITY AT LARGE. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU,
SENATOR, MY ESTEEMED AND
HONORABLE COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS PAUL HAYWARD AND I
REPRESENT SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC
WORKS AS A STREET INSPECTOR. MY
TRADITIONAL ROLE IN JOB
DESCRIPTION IS TO MAKE SURE
STREETS AND SIDEWALKS ARE
REPAIRED AND MAINTAINED BY CITY,
STATE, AND PRIVATE AGENCIES.
SINCE ITS DECRIMINALIZATION, A
FEW YEARS AGO, I ALSO WORKED TO
ENFORCE OUR CITY'S PERMITTED
VENDING. HOWEVER, OUR
ENFORCEMENT HAS BECOME
INCREASINGLY FUTILE IN THE FACE
OF CRIMES OF OPPORTUNITY AND
PROFESSIONAL FENCING OPERATIONS.
SIMPLY PUT, THE CRIMINALS HAVE
ADAPTED BEYOND OUR ABILITY TO
ENFORCE ARTICLE 5.9 OF THE DPW
REGULATIONS. SIDEWALKS HAVE
BECOME OPEN AIR MARKETS, FUELING
CRIME, DRUG USE AND A MALAISE
THAT TEARS AT THE FABRIC OF OUR
COMMUNITY. IN ADDITION, MY
COLLEAGUES AND I ARE ROUTINELY
THE VICTIMS OF PHYSICAL, VERBAL
AND PSYCHOLOGICAL THREATS
SLASHED TIRES, PHYSICAL ASSAULTS
THAT HAVE LED TO COURT CASES,
STRESS ON OUR FAMILIES, THE
INABILITY TO TRAVEL TO CERTAIN
PARTS OF TOWN ON OUR OWN Dð IN
TIME DUE TO SAFETY CONCERNS. WE
ARE SURROUNDED BY FENTANYL
POWDER. SINCE ADDICTION DRIVES A
GREAT DEAL OF FENCING ACTIVITIES
. FURTHERMORE, ALTHOUGH WE ARE
NOT TRAINED IN SELF-DEFENSE NOR
DE-ESCALATION PROCEDURES, WE ARE
FORCED INTO SUCH SITUATIONS ON A
REGULAR BASIS. THANK YOU FOR
RECOGNIZING THE PLIGHT OF SAN
FRANCISCO BY PUTTING FORTH STATE
BILL 9925, WHICH PROVIDES A VERY
NARROW BUT EFFECTIVE WAY TO
COMBAT FENCING. WHILE
ENCOURAGING VENDORS WHO PROVIDE
GOODS AND SERVICES THAT ADD TO
THE MOSAIC THAT IS SAN
FRANCISCO. I FEEL THAT IT'S
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT ALTHOUGH
SOME ILLEGAL GOODS ARE STOLEN IN
SAN FRANCISCO, MANY ITEMS ARE
ALSO STOLEN FROM BAY AREA
MUNICIPALITIES, OTHER BAY AREA
MUNICIPALITIES, AND SOLD ON THE
STREETS HERE. AS WE CONTINUE TO
FIND NEW WAYS TO ADDRESS
ADDICTION, WEALTH DISPARITY, AND
MENTAL ILLNESS, LET US ALSO
RECOGNIZE THE TOLL THAT
UNFETTERED LAWLESSNESS TAKES ON
THE CITIZENRY OF OUR FAIR CITY
TO TAKE AWAY ACCESS TO SIDEWALKS
AND THOROUGHFARES, TO TURN THE
PUBLIC COMMENTS INTO FLEA
MARKETS, TO SPEND CRUCIAL FUNDS
AND POLICE RESOURCES ON FIGHTING
SCOFFLAWS RATHER THAN BUILDING
AN EQUITABLE SOCIETY. THIS
DISENFRANCHIZES EVERYONE, SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC WORKS IS PROUD
TO WORK WITH YOU AND OUR FELLOW
AGENCIES IN ORDER TO BRING ABOUT
POSITIVE CHANGE AND ENGENDER A
BRIGHT FUTURE FOR OUR BELOVED
CITY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT? PLEASE
STEP UP. NAME AND ORGANIZATION.
MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS, CLIFF
COSTA, TODAY, ON BEHALF OF UC
COLLEGE OF THE LAW, SAN
FRANCISCO, I SEE THAT BUTTON IS
PUSHED FOR THE MICROPHONE. OH, A
RED BUTTON. IT IS. IS IT OKAY?
I'LL. I'LL GO AGAIN. CLIFF
COSTA, TODAY, ON BEHALF OF THE
UC COLLEGE OF THE LAW, SAN
FRANCISCO. AND STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. SANTIAGO LERMA,
DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT, SAN FRANCISCO. AND
MISSION RESIDENT. AND I FULL
HEARTEDLY SUPPORT. MY NAME IS
ANA HERNANDEZ. APOYO LA LEY
NUEVE DE CINCO. ISLA ANDINO. I
SUPPORT. IS IDALIA LOPEZ Y YO
APOYO LA NUEVA VEINTICINCO?
MUCHAS GRACIAS. HELLO. ESA AND
LOOPER, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY
ORGANIZING FOR THE TENDERLOIN
COMMUNITY BENEFIT DISTRICT. AND
WE ARE WHOLEHEARTEDLY BEHIND
THIS MEASURE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. HI. MY NAME IS CRYSTAL FROM
A SMALL BUSINESS SUPPORT, AND I,
SUPPORT THIS BILL. KARL NISHIDA
ON BEHALF OF THE SAN FRANCISCO
POLICE DEPARTMENT IN SUPPORT.
GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN. KAREN
LANG, ON BEHALF OF MAYOR LONDON
BREED AND THE CITY AND COUNTY OF
SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND SUPPORT TODAY.
THANK YOU. WUJIAOCHANG STREET
INSPECTION SUPERVISOR FOR SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC WORKS. AND I AM
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ANYONE
ELSE IN SUPPORT? OKAY. HEARING
AND SEEING NONE. ANYONE FOR
OPPOSITION? TO THE OPPOSITION.
MARGOT GEORGE, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION, WE HAVE NOT TAKEN A
POSITION ON THE BILL. I WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHOR FOR THE
AMENDMENTS THAT HE TOOK ON THE
26TH. AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH THE AUTHOR'S
OFFICE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
MARGOT. ANYONE ELSE IN
OPPOSITION? ALL RIGHT, WE'LL
BRING IT TO COMMITTEE. ANY
QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY
WANT TO MOVE THE BILL? DID WE
GET A MOVE? SECOND? ALL RIGHT,
SENATOR, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
THIS BILL. AND, HELPING MAKE SAN
FRANCISCO BACK TO WHERE IT USED
TO BE. AND THAT BEAUTIFUL PLACE
WHERE WE ALL LIKE TO GO VISIT.
SO THANK YOU FOR TAKING THESE
STEPS. AND I'LL LET YOU CLOSE,
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR.
I WILL NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT
THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE CITY
IS, IS ABSOLUTELY, THRIVING AND
IS WHAT IT'S ALWAYS BEEN. WE
HAVE A FEW PARTS OF THE CITY
THAT ARE HAVING SOME STRUGGLES
THAT TEND TO GET A LOT OF
ATTENTION IN THE MEDIA, AND
WE'RE DOING A LOT OF WORK
LOCALLY TO TRY TO MAKE THE CITY
AS AN EVEN BETTER THAN IT'S EVER
BEEN BEFORE. AND I KNOW WE'RE
GOING TO GET THERE. I DO JUST
WANT TO SAY THAT THIS IS AN
ISSUE. THAT WE HAVE REMARKABLY
BROAD INTERNAL SUPPORT IN THE
CITY. ON THE MAYOR, A UNANIMOUS
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, BROAD
SUPPORT IN OUR IN THE MISSION
AND THE TENDERLOIN, AND I'M
GRATEFUL FOR, FOR THIS COALITION
COMING TOGETHER. I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU.
SENATOR, PLEASE TAKE ROLL ON SB
925 BY SENATOR WIENER. THE
MOTION IS DUE. PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE, MAKATI
. ALANIS. ALANIS. AYE LAKI LAKI.
AYE. NGUYEN NGUYEN. AYE. REYES
TÍNH. WILSON ZABA. MEASURES ON
CALL. THANK YOU SO MUCH,
COLLEAGUES. GO GIANT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE GOT.
SENATOR GUEVARA, HAVE YOU NEXT.
DO YOU WANT TO START WITH NINE,
EIGHT, SEVEN? YES ALL RIGHT,
ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, SB 987. ALL
YOURS IS WAITING FOR MY. SO MANY
MEMBERS. IT'S BEEN A LITTLE BIT
OF THE MESSAGE OF OUR SHOW.
WE'VE GOT THREE BILLS IN FRONT
OF YOU. STARTING OUT WITH SB
9877, SB 987 IS SIMPLY A
PERMISSIVE BILL. IT'S LOOKING TO
EXPAND THE DEFINITION OF
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCIES TO
INCLUDE PRETRIAL RELEASE
DEPARTMENTS AFTER AMENDMENTS
THROUGHOUT PREVIOUS POLICY
COMMITTEES, SB 907 ONLY APPLIED
TO THREE COUNTIES LÀ, SANTA
CLARA AND SAN FRANCISCO.
EXISTING LAW ONLY ALLOWS
PRETRIAL WORK TO BE COMPLETED BY
PROBATION DEPARTMENTS, THE
COURTS, OR OTHER EXISTING
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCIES,
EXCLUDING AGENCIES LIKE L.A.
COUNTIES, JUSTICE CARE AND
OPPORTUNITIES DEPARTMENT, ALSO
KNOWN AS J. COURT. PRETRIAL
SERVICE AGENCIES LIKE THESE ARE
USED IN THE EARLY STAGES OF THE
CRIMINAL CASE PROCESS, OFFERING
THE COURT ALTERNATIVES BY
IMPROVING THE BREADTH AND
QUALITY OF INFORMATION ABOUT
DEFENDANTS AND PROVIDING
SERVICES TO ADDRESS THEIR NEEDS.
THIS INFORMATION CAN HELP THIS
INFORMATION INCLUDE THEIR
HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT SITUATION
, FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS, AND
OTHER COMMUNITY TIES. ALL
IMPORTANT TO NOTE TO UNDERSTAND
A CLIENT'S CIRCUMSTANCES THAT
HAVE LED TO THEIR CHARGES. THIS
INFORMATION ALSO HELPS TO
IDENTIFY THEIR NEEDS TO PREVENT
FROM THEIR REENTRY IN THE
CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM. SO WHY DO
WE NEED THIS? WELL, YOU'RE GOING
TO HEAR FROM THE OPPOSITION THAT
THE CURRENT STATUS QUO IS
WORKING, BUT I'D LIKE TO POINT
OUT SOME RECENT RECENT ARTICLES
AND THE NEWS FROM LA TIMES. LA
DAILY NEWS REGARDING WHAT IS
HAPPENING IN LA COUNTY AND LA
COUNTY. IF YOU'RE NOT A MEMBER,
THERE IN LA COUNTY, WHAT WE'RE
SEEING IS A LACK OF STAFFING TO
MEET THE NEEDS OF THE VARIOUS,
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE
DEPARTMENT. WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS
THE CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER
HAVING TO MOVE AROUND VARIOUS
PROBATION OFFICERS TO DIFFERENT
AREAS TO MEET THE STAFFING
NEEDS, BECAUSE THE CULTURE OF
CALLAO IS VERY STRONG.
UNFORTUNATELY, IN THE LA
PROBATION DEPARTMENT, WHAT WE'RE
SEEING IS THAT COURTS ARE
FRUSTRATED JUDGES ARE FRUSTRATED
BECAUSE OF THE SHIFT IN PEOPLE
IN DIFFERENT POSITIONS. REPORTS
ARE BEING DELAYED. WE'RE HAVING,
ATTORNEYS BE UPSET BECAUSE THEIR
CLIENTS ARE HAVING TO WAIT
LONGER TIME IN JAILS TO GET A
SENTENCE TO GET TO, WAITING FOR
A REPORT BECAUSE PROBATION
OFFICERS ARE SPREAD REALLY,
REALLY THIN RIGHT NOW. SB 907 IS
SIMPLY LOOKING TO SUPPLEMENT
THAT WORK. YOU'LL SEE IN
ARTICLES THAT ON CERTAIN
HOLIDAYS, SUPER BOWL, HUNDREDS
OF PROBATION OFFICERS ARE
CALLING OUT FROM THEIR JOBS.
SOME ARE NOT EVEN CALLING IN TO
SAY THEY'RE NOT GOING TO SHOW
UP. THEY'RE SIMPLY NOT SHOWING
UP. THE CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER
OF LA COUNTY IS DOING ALL HE CAN
DO TO ADDRESS THE STAFFING
ISSUES IN LA COUNTY. WE WANT TO
HELP SUPPLEMENT THAT. THIS BILL
IS NOT GOING TO REMOVE PROBATION
OFFICERS FROM STILL FROM DOING
PRETRIAL SERVICES. IT SIMPLY
ASKING TO HELP OFFLOAD SOME OF
THE CASEWORK. THAT IS NOT BEING
MET UNDER THE CURRENT STATUS QUO
. I'D LIKE TO NOW TURN TO TWO
WITNESSES, MR. CHAIR, WHO WOULD
SPEAK, WHO ARE HERE TO TESTIFY.
FIRST UP, WE HAVE, JUDGE SONGHAI
ARMSTEAD, WHO IS THE DIRECTOR OF
THE LA COUNTY JUSTICE KAREN,
OPPORTUNITIES DEPARTMENT. YOU
BOTH HAVE FOUR MINUTES TO SHARE.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON,
MEMBERS. I'M RETIRED JUDGE
SONGHAI ARMSTEAD, DIRECTOR OF
LOS ANGELES COUNTY'S JUSTICE
KAREN OPPORTUNITIES DEPARTMENT,
BETTER KNOWN AS JACOB. JACOB IS
THE COUNTY'S NEW AGENCY UNIFYING
LA COUNTY'S EFFORTS TO SERVE
VULNERABLE, JUSTICE, IMPACTED
PEOPLE AND COMMUNITIES. OUR
DEPARTMENT DOES A NUMBER OF
THINGS, INCLUDING PRETRIAL
SERVICES WORK, REENTRY SERVICES
WORK. WE'RE ALSO THE LEADING
AGENCY TO DO COLLABORATIVE AND
INNOVATIVE JUSTICE PROJECTS FOR
THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. WE
ALSO SUPPORT HUNDREDS OF
COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS
THROUGH FUNDING, TRAINING, AND
ADDITIONAL SUPPORTS. THE BILL
HAS THE SUPPORT OF OUR FULL
BOARD AS WELL AS OUR PROBATION
CHIEF. THE BILL IS IMPORTANT
BECAUSE EXISTING LAW RESTRICTS
PRETRIAL WORK TO PROBATION
DEPARTMENTS, THE COURTS AND
OTHER EXISTING CRIMINAL JUSTICE
AGENCIES. THE BILL EXPANDS THE
DEFINITION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
AGENCIES TO INCLUDE INDEPENDENT
PRETRIAL DEPARTMENTS IN LOS
ANGELES, SANTA CLARA, AND SAN
FRANCISCO COUNTIES ONLY. THIS
BILL ALLOWS LOS ANGELES JUSTICE,
CARE AND OPPORTUNITIES
DEPARTMENT TO OFFER A WIDE ARRAY
OF CLIENT SERVICES, ALONG WITH
TRADITIONAL PRETRIAL OPERATIONS.
IT ENSURES THAT INFORMATION
GATHERED DURING PRETRIAL
INVESTIGATIONS REMAINS
CONFIDENTIAL, WITH SPECIFIED
EXCEPTIONS, TO PROMOTE CANDID
CONVERSATIONS AND IMPROVE
TREATMENT OUTCOMES. YOU MAY HEAR
FROM OUR OPPOSITION THAT THERE
IS CONCERN FOR POTENTIAL ABUSE
OF DOJ CRIMINAL DATABASE. THAT
WAS NOT THE CASE. THOSE CONCERNS
WILL BE TAKEN EXTREMELY
SERIOUSLY AND MEASURES WILL BE
PUT IN PLACE TO PREVENT ANY SUCH
ABUSE, THE FORMER PROBATION LOS
ANGELES COUNTY FORMAL PROBATION
AND PRETRIAL SERVICES MANAGEMENT
STAFF ALREADY WORK WITHIN OUR
DEPARTMENT, AND THEY HAVE
DECADES OF EXPERIENCE, THIS, JOB
AS PRETRIAL SERVICES BEGAN WITH
NON-SWORN COURT STAFF DOING
INVESTIGATIONS AND REPORTS AND
WAS THEN TRANSFERRED TO
PROBATION STAFF, WHO ARE ALSO
NON-SWORN. THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS NOW HAS TRANSFERRED
THAT RESPONSIBILITY TO THE
JUSTICE, CARE AND JUSTICE CARE
AND OPPORTUNITIES DEPARTMENT.
JACOB, JUST AS PROBATION BEFORE
THEM WILL BE TRAINED IN DOJ
PROTOCOLS, PROCEDURES AND BEST
PRACTICES, CURRENT NON-SWORN
PROBATION STAFF THAT WORK WITHIN
LOS ANGELES COUNTY'S PROBATION,
PRETRIAL SERVICES, AND THEY'RE
ALL NON-SWORN WILL NOT BE FORCED
TO TRANSFER TO JUSTICE, CARE AND
OPPORTUNITY DEPARTMENT IF THEY
DON'T CHOOSE TO TRANSFER. ALSO,
THIS BILL IS SOLELY PERMISSIVE
IN ADDING INDEPENDENT PRETRIAL
SERVICE AGENCIES, TO THE BILL
AND ONLY THREE COUNTIES, MAKING
JACOB ANOTHER ELIGIBLE GROUP TO
COMPLETE PRETRIAL WORK. JACOB
WILL CONTINUE TO COLLABORATE
WITH PROBATION AND OTHER JUSTICE
PARTNERS, CONTINUING TO BUILD ON
NEW AND IMPROVED CARE. FIRST
MODEL OF PRETRIAL SERVICES.
THANK YOU, AND I URGE YOUR
SUPPORT OF SB 987. THANK YOU.
YOU HAVE A MINUTE AND 14
SECONDS. GOOD AFTERNOON, RYAN
SOUSA, ON BEHALF OF AMITY
FOUNDATION AND ITS CEO, DOUG
BOND. JUST HERE TO REALLY TALK
ABOUT AMITY FOUNDATION BRIEFLY,
WHICH IS FOCUSED ON,
HABILITATION OF PEOPLE
MARGINALIZED BY ADDICTION,
INCARCERATION AND HOMELESSNESS,
YOU KNOW, THIS BILL REALLY
FOCUSES ON A REALLY IMPORTANT
OPPORTUNITY FOR PROVIDERS. AMITY
HAS WORKED IN THE FIELD FOR
DECADES, BOTH IN PRISON, IN
JAILS AND IN THE COMMUNITY. AND
WHEN WE OPEN LINES OF
COMMUNICATION AND OFFER PEOPLE
OPPORTUNITY FOR ADDITIONAL
PRETRIAL SERVICES THAT ARE
REALLY ON THE PRECIPICE OF
EITHER ENGAGING FURTHER IN THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM OR
HAVING ACCESS TO THESE TYPES OF
SERVICES, IT BENEFITS THEM. AND
AMITY FOUNDATION IS A STAUNCH
SUPPORTER OF ANYTHING WHERE
ACCESS AND INFORMATION CAN BE
SHARED TO APPROPRIATELY PROVIDE
THAT TREATMENT. I WILL WRAP UP
BECAUSE OF MY TIME, BUT THANK
YOU AND WE REALLY SUPPORT THE
BILL. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT? PLEASE
STEP UP TO THE MIC. NAME AN
ORGANIZATION, PLEASE. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR. I WOULD
KIDANI REPRESENTING COALITION
FOR RESPONSIBLE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT AS WELL AS AMITY
FOUNDATION IN STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU TO THE AUTHOR, MARCO
GEORGE, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU, JOHN SKOGLUND, WITH THE
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, SPONSORS
OF THIS LEGISLATION AND IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, ELIZABETH
ESPINOZA, ON BEHALF OF THE
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, IN
SUPPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON,
MEMBERS, AND DIRECT ASSOCIATE
DIRECTOR OF ADVOCACY AND
COMMUNITY ORGANIZING AT THE
ANTI-RECIDIVISM COALITION.
STRONG SUPPORT OF THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. MELANIE KIM, SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU AND
OTHERS IN SUPPORT. OPPOSITION,
PLEASE COME FORWARD. YOU HAVE
TO.
YES. MY NAME IS JONATHAN BYRD. I
SERVE AS SECOND VICE PRESIDENT,
CHIEF STEWARD OF ASMI LOCAL 685.
WE REPRESENT LOS ANGELES COUNTY
PROBATION OFFICERS, FIRST, I'D
LIKE TO SAY THAT, THIS BILL IS
AN ATTACK ON LABOR AND ON
PROBATION IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY.
IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT BOTH
SANTA CLARITA. EXCUSE ME, SANTA
CLARA AND SAN FRANCISCO PRETRIAL
IS NOT UNDER THE PROBATION
ENTITY. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY,
FIRST OF ALL, FROM A HISTORICAL
PERSPECTIVE, AND I DON'T KNOW IF
MR. TING HE STEPPED OUT, BUT I
BELIEVE IN 2019 IT WAS AB 74
THAT PROVIDED FUNDING FOR WHAT
WE CALL PREP, WHICH IS, PRETRIAL
REFORM EVALUATION PROGRAM. THE
STATE WANTED TO EXPAND THE
SERVICES OF PRETRIAL. SO 16
COUNTIES WERE REPRESENTED IN
DOING THE SURVEY AND DOING THE
DATA COLLECTION DURING THAT TIME
IN 2021, I BELIEVE IT WAS
SENATOR SKINNER WHO INTRODUCED
SB 129, WHICH SHE ASKED FOR $140
MILLION TO EXPAND THE PROGRAM,
WITH 70 MILLION BEING ONGOING IN
2021. IT WAS THIS UNION ASKED ME
AND THE RIVERSIDE SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION, WHO REPRESENTED
PROBATION, WHO CAME TO THE
FOREFRONT TO SUPPORT THAT
FUNDING WHEN THEY INTRODUCED THE
PROGRAM, THE PILOT PROGRAM FOR
PRETRIAL TO DEAL WITH SOCIAL
REFORMS, DISPARITIES. LA COUNTY
FROM THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
AND COUNTY OF COUNTIES IN 2021
RECEIVED THE NATIONAL AWARD FOR
THE SERVICES THAT THEY PROVIDED,
MAKING THEM WHAT WE WOULD CALL
IN THE EDUCATIONAL REALM, THE
SUMMA LAUDE OF PRETRIAL SERVICES
. IN 2023. ZERO BAIL CAME INTO
LAW AT THAT TIME IN OCTOBER OF
2023, WHEN ZERO BAIL CAME INTO
LAW, OUR PRETRIAL SERVICES
WORKFORCE HAD TO BE CUT IN HALF.
NOW, I SAY THAT BECAUSE, WHEN
THE PREP OR THE PRETRIAL REFORM
PROGRAM WAS PUT INTO PLACE,
THERE WERE 176 MEMBERS OF
PRETRIAL SERVICES THAT WORKS
UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF PROBATION.
THEY ARE NON-SWORN. PROBATION
OFFICERS ARE NOT THE ONES THAT
SUPPLIES THE REPORTS. THE
INITIAL REPORTS TO THE JUDGES,
TO THE COURTS. BUT THEY DO WORK
IN CONJUNCTION WITH PROBATION IN
ORDER TO EXPEDITE THE RISK
ASSESSMENTS THAT ARE NEEDED TO
HAVE SOMEONE RELEASED IN 2023,
WHEN THE ZERO BAIL WENT INTO
LAW, THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT
HAD TO DISPERSE OVER HALF OF THE
POPULATION OF THE WORKFORCE FOR
PRETRIAL AND FIND OTHER JOBS FOR
THEM. IMAGINE THOSE WHO HAVE
BEEN TRAINED SINCE 2019 2020,
ALL THE WAY UP TO 24, WHO ARE
EXPERTS IN THE FIELD OF
PROVIDING SERVICES, HAVE BEEN
DISMISSED AND MOVED TO OTHER
JOBS. WHAT YOU MAY HEAR IN THE
ANALYSIS OF THE BILL IS THAT
IT'S IN, THE J CARD, WHICH IS A
NEW ENTITY IN THE COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES WHICH HAS NO EVIDENCE
BASE STATUS AS OF THIS POINT,
YOU MAY SEE THAT THEY'RE SAYING
THEY ARE TRYING TO SUPPLY
NONCITIZENS OR NON-SWORN PEOPLE
TO WORK TO ENHANCE THE WORKFORCE
UNDER PROBATION. PRETRIAL IS
NON-SWORN. THERE ARE NO
PROBATION OR PEACE OFFICERS OR
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WORKING
IN THE PRETRIAL DIVISION. THE
MAJORITY OF THE WORKERS IN
PRETRIAL, OVER 90% ARE
MINORITIES. BLACK AND BROWN.
THEY COME OUT OF THE COMMUNITIES
THEY DESIRE TO RENDER. THE
SERVICES THAT ARE NEEDED SO THAT
OUR COMMUNITIES ARE NOT
NECESSARILY, DEFICIENT. OF THE
SERVICES, BUT ALSO PROVIDE A
CERTAIN AMOUNT OF SAFETY. ALSO,
THEY HAVE BEEN PROVEN AND
QUALITY TO DO THE ASSESSMENTS,
IN ORDER TO GO AND HAVE J CARD
PROVIDE THESE SERVICES, YOU HAVE
TO CHANGE CERTAIN LAWS SO THEY
CAN ACCESS THE RECORDS, THAT
INVESTMENT SEEMS UNNECESSARY
WHEN, AGAIN, YOU HAVE OVER 50%
OF THE WORKFORCE ALREADY
DISPERSED, WHO'VE ALREADY BEEN
TRAINED, WHO ALREADY HAVE ACCESS
TO THOSE RECORDS. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. OTHERS IN,
OPPOSITION, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
GOOD AFTERNOON, JANICE O'MALLEY,
AFSCME, CALIFORNIA, IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK YOU
. DANIEL SANCHEZ, ON BEHALF OF
THE CHIEF PROBATION OFFICERS OF
CALIFORNIA, RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE,
UNLESS AMENDED. OKAY. SEEING NO
OTHER OPPOSITION QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS,
I HAVE A QUICK COMMENT. MR.
LACKEY. YEAH, MINE WILL BE
BRIEF. I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT,
THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT HAS
BEEN UNFAIRLY CHARACTERIZED FOR
THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS AND BEEN
DECIMATED. AND I THINK THIS IS
ANOTHER UNFAIR CHARACTERIZATION
OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITY AND THE
WAY THEY HANDLE IT. AND I THINK
THIS IS AN ASSAULT THAT'S
UNJUSTIFIED, AND I WILL NOT BE
ABLE TO SUPPORT THE BILL. SO
MEMBER REYES. THANK THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. AS I WAS REVIEWING
THIS AND BEING BRIEFED ON IT, I
KIND OF GOT THE IMPRESSION THAT
WE'RE KIND OF TALKING ABOUT
PRIVATIZATION OF OUR PROBATION
DEPARTMENT. CAN YOU ADDRESS
THAT? YEAH ABSOLUTELY. THIS IS
DEFINITELY NOT PRIVATIZATION,
BECAUSE THESE ARE COUNTY
EMPLOYEES, THEY'RE WITHIN THE
COUNTY FAMILY, SO THIS IS
PERMISSIVE. AGAIN, THIS WOULD
ALLOW THE COUNTY, SHOULD THEY
CHOOSE TO, ALLOW TO SUPPLEMENT
SOME OF THE WORK. SO IT'S WE'RE
NOT SUBCONTRACTING TO OUTSIDE
ENTITIES TO PRIVATE ENTITIES.
THESE ARE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, JUST
LIKE YOUR STAFFERS ARE JUST LIKE
MY STAFFERS ARE. WHY NOT TRAIN
THEM TO BE PROBATION OFFICERS
AND HAVE THEM QUALIFIED AS
PROBATION OFFICERS IF THEY'RE
GOING TO BE DOING THE JOB OF A
PROBATION OFFICER? LÀ FOR TWO
THINGS. LÀ PROBATION HAS BEEN
HIRING NONSTOP. THEY'VE HAVEN'T
BEEN ABLE TO FILL VACANCIES
WHILE THESE POSITIONS ARE
NON-SWORN, THEY'RE OPEN TO
CONTINUE TO HIRE, BUT THEY
HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO RECENTLY.
THE MANAGERS WHO ARE SWORN
OFFICERS WHO WORK IN PRE-TRIALS
HAD TO BE REMOVED FROM
PRE-TRIALS TO FIT THE ROLES, FIT
THE GAPS OF OTHER LOCATIONS
BECAUSE OF HOW SPREAD OUT, THE
SWORN PEEL SIDE IS, WHICH IS THE
ORGANIZATION THAT REPRESENTS THE
PROBATION OFFICERS. THERE ARE
VARIOUS LOCALS AFSCME, SEIU 721.
I'D LIKE TO HEAR A RESPONSE FROM
THEM. YES, HE'S ONE OF THEM. THE
AC REP OR YES, YES, YES, I'M A
PROBATION OFFICER IN LOS ANGELES
COUNTY FOR 32 YEARS WORKING WITH
JUVENILES. THE ISSUE BECOMES OF
THE SHORTAGE OF STAFF. AND
YOU'VE SEEN PROBATION IN THE
MEDIA QUITE OFTEN, BECAUSE OF,
SHORT STAFFING SHORTAGES, WHICH
HAS HAPPENED OVER THE LAST TEN
YEARS. I'LL GIVE YOU ONE
EXAMPLE. IN 2010, THE RANK AND
FILE HAD 4400 MEMBERS. TODAY WE
HAVE 2300 MEMBERS. AND SO YOU'RE
TRYING TO PROVIDE SERVICES, WHEN
YOU HAVE NOT KEPT UP WITH THE
ATTRITION RATES THAT ARE
NECESSARY. BUT BESIDES THAT, IT
IS NOT THE PROBATION OFFICERS
THAT HOUSE, IS THE WORKFORCE FOR
PRETRIAL. PRETRIAL IS DOES NOT
HAVE A STAFFING SHORTAGE. AS I
SAID BEFORE, IN OCTOBER OF LAST
YEAR, WHEN ZERO BAIL CAME ABOUT,
ONE OF THE FUNCTIONS OF
PRETRIAL, HAD TO BE REDUCED
BECAUSE OF ZERO BAIL. YOU WERE
NO LONGER NEEDED TO PROVIDE THAT
SERVICE. THEY CUT 50% OF THE
WORKFORCE, MOVED THEM OUT INTO
OTHER AREAS THAT ARE NON-SWORN
IN THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT. SO
IF YOU WANTED TO ENHANCE
PRETRIAL, WHICH IS AN ILLUSION,
IF YOU WANTED TO ENHANCE, YOU
WOULD JUST BRING THOSE PEOPLE
BACK WHO HAVE BEEN TRAINED UNDER
THE PREP PROGRAM, WHICH THE
STATE IMPLEMENTED IN 2020. AND
LOS ANGELES COUNTY PRETRIAL
SERVICES RECEIVED A NATIONAL
AWARD FROM THE NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES FOR
DOING THE REFORM SERVICES THAT
WERE RECOMMENDED BY THE PROGRAM.
SO THERE'S NO NEED FOR THIS
PARTICULAR PROGRAM. IT'S AN
ATTACK ON LABOR. IT'S AN ATTACK
ON THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT, AND
IT'S EASY TO ATTACK THE
PROBATION DEPARTMENT, AS YOU SEE
IT TODAY, BECAUSE OF SO MUCH
SHORT STAFFING SHORTAGE IN THE
JUVENILE DIVISION, WHICH HAS
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH
PRETRIAL SERVICES OR SUPPLYING
THEM ANY WORKFORCE EFFORTS. I DO
WANT TO CLARIFY. I KNOW HE
CONTINUES TO MENTION THE PROGRAM
PREP, BUT PREP IS NO LONGER
UNDER PROBATION OFFICERS OR
PROBATION DEPARTMENT PREP THIS
AWARD WINNING SERVICES IS UNDER
ACTUALLY THE PROGRAM UNDER THE
DEPARTMENT THAT I WANT TO MOVE
FORWARD WITH THIS BILL. SO I DO
WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THE AWARD
WINNING PROGRAM IS NO LONGER IS
NOT UNDER THEIR DEPARTMENT. IT'S
UNDER JPOD, WHICH IS WHAT THIS
BILL WOULD ALLOW TO PROCEED WITH
WHAT IS THE WHAT IS THE. AND YOU
MAY HAVE ADDRESSED THIS EARLIER
AND I APOLOGIZE TO YOU THAT I
WAS, ELSEWHERE. BUT WHAT IS THE
PROBLEM WE'RE TRYING TO SELL
SOLVE, I READ SOMEWHERE IN THE
ANALYSIS THAT THERE ISN'T THERE
HASN'T BEEN AN ISSUE IN THESE
COUNTIES, SO WHAT IS THE ISSUE?
WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE? I'D LIKE
TO SPLIT MY TIME, MR. CHAIR, IF
I CAN, WITH RESPONDING. AND ALSO
FROM MY WITNESS HERE, LÀ COUNTY
FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS NOW HAS
BEEN ON THIS GOAL, OF MOVING
TOWARDS CAREFIRST JAIL LAST
MOTTO. AND IN THAT THEY'VE
CREATED THE YOUTH DEPARTMENT
AGENCY. THEY CREATED THIS
PRETRIAL SERVICES THAT ADDS
ADDITIONAL SERVICES, THAT
PROBATION OFFICE, THE PROBATION
DEPARTMENT, NOR THE PRETRIAL
SERVICE OFFER. IN THIS SHIFT
TOWARDS THIS. THIS WAS THE NEXT
STEP. THAT WAS BROUGHT, THAT WAS
BROUGHT FORWARD. THIS IS WHY WAS
IT SPONSORED BY LA COUNTY BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS. THAT'S WHY IT
WAS TRIMMED DOWN TO THESE
COUNTIES, RIGHT NOW IT'S THREE
SPECIFIC COUNTIES. AND I KNOW
THE OPPOSITION MENTIONED THAT
THIS DOESN'T REALLY APPLY TO SAN
FRANCISCO AND SANTA CLARA. I DID
NOT ASK TO INCLUDE THOSE TWO
SPECIFIC COUNTIES. THEY DON'T
HAVE TO BE INCLUDED IN THIS, BUT
IT'S ONLY FOR THOSE COUNTIES
THAT HAVE WILLINGLY CREATED
OTHER AGENCIES BECAUSE THEY ARE
THE ONES ON THE GROUND SEEING
THE NEED FOR THAT. RIGHT. YOU
HEARD OPPOSITION FROM THE CHIEF
PROBATION OFFICER, CPOC, BUT THE
CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER OF THIS
VERY COUNTY WHERE THIS WOULD BE
IMPACTED IS IN SUPPORT OF IT IS
IN SUPPORT OF THIS. SO THE WHOLE
ASSOCIATION OF KP.ORG THIS ISN'T
GOING TO IMPACT THEIR AREAS. THE
ACTUAL CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER
THAT WILL GET IMPACTED BY THIS
IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS. AND I'D
LIKE TO ALSO TURN NOW TO MY
WITNESS TO ANSWER THE REST OF
YOUR QUESTION AS TO WHY WE'RE
HERE. YES. PLEASE DO BRIEFLY,
I'LL TRY TO BE BRIEF. THANK YOU,
SENATOR. SO J CODE PROVIDES A
NUMBER OF SERVICES WE SUPPORT
OVER 430 NONPROFITS THAT PROVIDE
SERVICES THAT PROBATION
PREVIOUSLY WAS NOT ABLE TO
PROVIDE. SO WE PROVIDE HOUSING,
WE PROVIDE FOOD SERVICES,
SUBSTANCE ABUSE, MENTAL HEALTH.
WE PROVIDE ALL OF THE SUPPORT
SERVICES TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM
AND TO HELP OUR COMMUNITIES BE
SAFE. THE ONLY TOOL THAT WE'RE
AND THE BOARD HAS ALREADY MOVED
PRETRIAL FUNCTIONS TO OUR
DEPARTMENT, BUT WE'RE NOT ABLE
TO RUN THE RAP SHEETS TO MAKE
SURE THAT WHEN WE GIVE NOT ABLE
TO WHAT CURRENTLY RUN THE RAP
SHEETS, WE DON'T HAVE THE DEAL.
SO THAT'S ALL WE'RE ASKING FOR
IS PERMISSION TO RUN THE RAP
SHEETS. THE MANAGERS THAT WERE
IN PROBATION THAT ACTUALLY
TRAINED EVERYBODY TO BE ABLE TO
DO THE FUNCTION, THEY THEY
ALREADY WORK IN OUR DEPARTMENT.
SO THE SAME TRAINERS WOULD BE
THERE, THE SAME MANAGERS ARE
ALREADY THERE, AND AS FAR AS
FOLKS THAT ARE BLACK AND BROWN
WITH LIVED EXPERIENCE, THEY'RE
ALSO IN OUR DEPARTMENT AS WELL.
SO THAT'S WHO WE'RE ALSO HIRING.
AND WHAT WE'RE DOING IS JUST
PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER. SO YOU
HAVE SERVICES, BUT WE'RE ALSO
ABLE TO RUN THE RAP SHEETS FOR
THE COURTS. WE ACTUALLY HAVE
ALREADY LAUNCHED PRETRIAL
SERVICES IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY.
WE'RE ALREADY IN THE COURTS, THE
PREP PROGRAM THAT HE'S
MENTIONING IS ALSO IN THE
JUSTICE, CARE AND OPPORTUNITY
DEPARTMENT ALREADY, AND WE ARE
WINNING THE NATIONAL AWARDS THAT
HE'S TALKING ABOUT. AND WE'RE
NOT AGAINST PROBATION. WE
ACTUALLY PAY THEIR OVERTIME AND
WE PAY FOR THEM TO DO ANKLE
MONITORING. SO WE WORK IN
COLLABORATION IN L.A. COUNTY.
BUT I UNDERSTAND I MEAN, THAT'S
WHAT WE'RE DOING. SO IT JUST
APPEARS LIKE A LABOR DISPUTE.
AND I HATE BEING IN THE MIDDLE
OF A LABOR DISPUTE. SO AND I'D
LIKE TO POINT TO A SENTENCE IN
THIS VERY COMMITTEE'S ANALYSIS
ON PAGE SIX AT THE BOTTOM TO
SECTION THREE EFFECT OF THIS
LEGISLATION. EXISTING LAW DOES
NOT PROHIBIT USING A COUNTY
AGENCY OTHER THAN PROBATION TO
PROVIDE THESE SERVICES. THAT IS,
EXISTING LAW. OKAY, SO THIS
ISN'T A LABOR DISPUTE. EXISTING
LAW ALREADY SAYS SOMEONE OTHER
THAN PROBATION CAN PROVIDE THESE
SERVICES. WE UNDERSTAND THAT.
NOW, THE SECOND PART WHERE WE'RE
LOOKING TO DO IS JUST TO ENSURE
THAT THE SECOND AGENCY THAT IS
IN PROBATION HAS THE FULL ACCESS
TO EVERYTHING RELATED TO THE
CASE TO MAKE A FULL, ROBUST
DECISION OR ROBUST, I GUESS,
DECISION. AND WHAT IS THE BEST
COURSE FOR THE CLIENT? SO
CURRENT LAW SAYS OTHER PEOPLE
CAN WORK ON THIS. NOW I JUST
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE
THE FULL INFORMATION TO
ADEQUATELY REPRESENT THAT CLIENT
IN PRETRIAL SERVICES. SO THE
PART IS ON THE INFORMATION,
RIGHT? PROBATION RIGHT NOW IS
THE ONLY KEEPER OF ALL THE
INFORMATION. AND WHAT PRETRIAL
SERVICES HAVE TO DO RIGHT NOW IS
GO TO PROBATION AND SAY, HEY, WE
NEED THIS INFORMATION. WE'RE
JUST TRYING. I'M SAYING IT
CORRECTLY, RIGHT? WE'RE TRYING
TO REMOVE THAT REQUEST THERE.
AND JUST SAY, HEY, WE'RE WORKING
ON THESE TRIALS ON THESE
PRETRIAL IS ALREADY PRETRIAL
WORK ALREADY. WE WOULDN'T HAVE
THE INFORMATION UP FRONT. SO
THIS PRE PROBATION CAN CONTINUE
TO WORK. NON-SWORN OFFICERS WILL
CONTINUE TO WORK IN THIS SPACE.
SHOULD L.A. COUNTY SAY, HEY Ã
WE HAVE MORE CASES. WE SEE THIS
AND THIS AND WHY. IT COULD BE
PERMISSIVE FOR THEM TO UTILIZE
IT. I WORKED, I'VE BEEN WORKING
WITH OPPOSITION THROUGHOUT THIS
WHOLE YEAR ON THIS, HAD MEETINGS
I EVEN TOOK AN AMENDMENT TO
CLARIFY SPECIFICALLY LANGUAGE
THAT SAID PROBATION DEPARTMENT
IS NOT EXCLUDED. CAN STILL WORK
ON THIS BECAUSE I WANTED TO MAKE
SURE THEY KNEW THAT I'M NOT
EXCLUDING THEM FROM THIS WORK
WHATSOEVER. I WOULD ONLY ASK,
AND I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I
HAVE CONCERNS, BUT I DO KNOW
THAT THE CHAIR AND THE COMMITTEE
HAVE REVIEWED THIS, HAVE WORKED
WITH YOU ON THIS, AND THE CHAIR
DOES HAVE AN I RECO. I WOULD ASK
THAT YOU CONSIDER A SUNSET TO
THIS TO EVALUATE WHETHER OR NOT
THIS WAS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY
DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME,
SHOULD IT PROCEED AND PASS
THROUGH AND ONTO THE GOVERNOR'S
DESK, THAT THERE BE A SUNSET?
YOU'VE IDENTIFIED SOMETHING THAT
IS NECESSARY. AND IF THE
LEGISLATURE AGREES THAT WE
SHOULD, WE SHOULD ALLOW THIS TO
HAPPEN. I WOULD I WOULD HOPE
THAT WE CAN PUT A SUNSET,
REEVALUATE, DETERMINE WHETHER
THIS WAS A GOOD DECISION OR NOT.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER, FOR THAT. I DEFINITELY
WOULD TAKE. WE'LL BE TAKING THAT
BACK FOR CONSIDERATION. THANK
YOU. OKAY THANK YOU, DO WE HAVE
CAN I JUST HAVE ONE MORE
QUESTION? IT'S NOT FOR ME, BUT I
WOULD JUST LIKE TO ASK, DANIELLE
SANCHEZ FROM CPAC IF SHE WOULD
EXPLAIN WHY THEY'RE IN
OPPOSITION. I THINK THAT WOULD
CLARIFY, BASED ON THE, THE
STATEMENT THAT WAS GIVEN BY THE
AUTHOR, THANK YOU FOR THE
QUESTION, SO CPOC HAS AN OPPOSE
UNLESS AMENDED POSITION ON THIS
BILL, AND THE CONCERNS EMANATE
FROM A FEW SPECIFIC PROVISIONS
IN THE BILL THAT WHILE THE
APPLICABILITY IS NARROWED TO
THREE COUNTIES, THERE ARE A FEW
SECTIONS, SPECIFICALLY SECTION
TWO AND FIVE, AS NOTED IN THE
CPAC LETTER THAT SEEM TO HAVE A
STATEWIDE APPLICATION. THOSE
SECTIONS REFER TO MAINTAINING
INFORMATION APART FROM OTHER
CRIMINAL JUSTICE RECORDS. AND
WHILE IT IS, OF COURSE OF THE
HIGHEST IMPORTANCE TO MAKE SURE
THAT ALL CRIMINAL JUSTICE
RELATED INFORMATION IS PROTECTED
AND CONFIDENTIAL, THAT THERE ARE
SYSTEMS IN PLACE FOR THAT, AND I
THINK IT'S UNCLEAR WHAT A PART
MEANS AND WHAT THAT WOULD
REQUIRE OF POTENTIALLY NEW
SYSTEMS TO BE ACQUIRED TO DO
THAT, AND THEN THE SECTION FIVE
OF THE BILL, WHICH TALKS ABOUT
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY, I
THINK, AGAIN, RECOGNIZING THAT
CURRENT STATUTE ALLOWS FOR
ENTITIES TO RECEIVE SUMMARY
CRIMINAL HISTORY INFORMATION AND
LIMITED AND SPECIFIED PURPOSES,
WHAT THE NEED IS TO ADD TO THAT
DEFINITION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
AGENCIES FOR THE LARGER PURPOSES
OF THE BILL. SO THOSE
SPECIFICALLY, AS REFLECTED IN
CPUC'S LETTER FOR OPPOSE, UNLESS
AMENDED. THANK YOU. DID YOU MAKE
A MOTION, ASSEMBLYMEMBER? SURE.
YES. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A
SECOND. YOU MAY CLOSE. THANK YOU
SO MUCH. AND THANK YOU, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER, FOR ASKING THAT
QUESTION, BECAUSE THIS BILL IS
NOT FOR STATEWIDE. CHANGES. THIS
BILL IS SPECIFICALLY FOR THREE
COUNTIES. SO WE'RE GOING TO BE
GOING BACK AND REVIEWING THE
SECTION TWO AND SECTION FIVE. I
HAVE THE OPPOSED LETTER IN FRONT
OF ME, BUT I JUST WANT TO
CLARIFY WHERE THE TRAINING,
BECAUSE I KNOW THE OPPOSITION,
SOME OF THE OPPOSITION SPOKE
ABOUT, YOU KNOW, HAVING NON-LAW
ENFORCEMENT ACCESS. THESE ARE
NON-SWORN INDIVIDUALS. THEY'RE
CURRENTLY NOT OFFICERS, AND THE
SAME TRAINING THEY GOT, JAY CODD
WOULD GET EXACTLY THE SAME OR
HIGHER, YOU HAVE IN THE BILL
LANGUAGE FOR, IT TO BE,
ACCEPTABLE UNDER DOJ, WHICH WE
CAN WE CAN SAY THAT IS,
APPROVED, TO ENSURE THAT THE
TRAINING MATCHES THIS BILL IS
NOT ASKING PROBATION OFFICERS OR
PROBATION DEPARTMENT TO STEP
ASIDE, THIS BILL IS NOT TELLING
THEM THAT YOU'RE DOING A BAD JOB
AT THIS. AT THIS RIGHT NOW. I'M
NEVER GOING TO TAKE AWAY THE
THING OVER 30 YEARS OF
EXPERIENCE THAT MR. BYRD HAS
SHARED THROUGHOUT THIS YEAR WITH
ME. BUT WE ARE SAYING AS L.A.
COUNTIES CONTINUE TO LOOK AT HOW
WE REIMAGINE, HOW WE ADDRESS
THIS CRIMINAL JUSTICE APPROACH,
WE NEED TO BRING WHAT I KEEP
SAYING IN DIFFERENT OTHER THINGS
NEW FRIENDS TO THE TABLE TO WORK
COLLABORATIVELY IN ADDRESSING
THE UNIQUE NEEDS OF PEOPLE IN
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. I
AM ASKING FOR YOU TO ALLOW LA
COUNTY, WHO IS ASKING FOR THIS
TO MOVE FORWARD WITH ADDING J
CODE TO THE APPROVED AGENCIES TO
WORK ALONGSIDE PROBATION
OFFICERS, A PROBATION DEPARTMENT
IN PROVIDING PRETRIAL SERVICES,
REQUESTING AN AYE VOTE. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ON SB 987 BY SENATOR
MENGIBAR. THE MOTION IS DUE.
PASS TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE, MAKATI. MAKATI I
ALANIS LACKEY. LACKEY NOT VOTING
NGUYEN REYES. REYES I TÍNH
WILSON. ZUBIATE THANK YOU. NEXT
MEASURE IS ITEM NUMBER 11 SB
1057.
JESSE RIGHT, PLEASE. OKAY. THANK
YOU SO MUCH, MR. CHAIR. ABOUT
TEN YEARS AGO. IN THE PROCESS
WHERE WE CLOSED JPS, WE THERE
WAS A REALIGNMENT, WE SENT A
JUVENILES IN THE IN OUR STATE
PRISONS DOWN TO COUNTIES. WE
REALIGNED IT. WE WANTED OUR
JUVENILES IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM
TO BE CLOSER TO THEIR HOME, TO
BE SERVICED BY LOCAL COUNTIES.
AND IN THAT, IMPLEMENTATION
PROCESS, WE ASK THAT EVERY
SINGLE COUNTY CREATE A COUNCIL,
A COUNCIL THAT BROUGHT TOGETHER
DIFFERENT EXPERTISE TO DETERMINE
HOW THE FUNDING THAT WAS BEING
BROUGHT BY OUR STATE WAS GOING
TO BE UTILIZED TO ADDRESS
RECIDIVISM, TO ADDRESS REENTRY,
TO ADDRESS PREVENTION, AND IN
THOSE AND THOSE IN THAT DECADE,
WE'VE SEEN A COUPLE OF HICCUPS
ACROSS OUR COUNTIES FOR EXAMPLE,
WHILE THEY ARE UNDER THE BROWN
ACT, WE'VE SEEN SOME COUNTIES
VIOLATE THAT BECAUSE THEY ARE
HAVING MEETINGS IN THE COUNCIL
IN PRIVATE. WE'VE SEEN TWO
STATE, TWO COUNTIES, SACRAMENTO
AND RIVERSIDE, GET SUED BECAUSE
THEY'RE NOT FOLLOWING THE INTENT
OF WHAT THESE COUNTIES ARE
SUPPOSED TO BE USED FOR RIGHT
NOW IN CURRENT STATUTE, THERE IS
A REQUIREMENT OF NUMBER OF
PEOPLE IN THE COUNCIL THAT ARE
IS MADE UP OF DA'S CHIEF
PROBATION OFFICERS, OTHER LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY. AND WHAT I'M
LOOKING TO DO IS ADD MORE PEOPLE
TO THE COUNCIL, NOT CHANGE THE
AMOUNT THE CURRENT PEOPLE THAT
ARE IN THE COUNCIL RIGHT NOW,
BUT ADD MORE PEOPLE TO IT,
BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS
THAT WHILE THERE IS A CHANGE OF
THE AMOUNT OF YOUTH GOING INTO
JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM, THERE
ISN'T A CHANGE OF HOW WE WHERE
WE FOCUS OUR ENERGY, WHAT WE'RE
LOOKING TO DO WITH SB 1057 IS
ADD 50% OF COMMUNITY
REPRESENTATIVES TO THE COUNCIL.
SO IF A COUNT IF A COUNTY SAYS,
I WANT FIVE INDIVIDUALS FROM THE
COUNTY, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO
PUT FIVE INDIVIDUALS TO MATCH
THAT TO BE FROM THE COMMUNITY,
I.E. PEOPLE WITH LIVED
EXPERIENCES, FAMILY MEMBERS OF
THOSE WITH LIVED EXPERIENCES,
EXPERIENCES, INDIVIDUALS WHO
WORK IN COMMUNITY BASED
ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE FOCUSED
IN THIS SPACE. PEOPLE LIKE FROM
AAC AND SO FORTH. ADDITIONALLY,
WE'RE LOOKING TO ADD A CO-CHAIR
TO THIS COUNCIL. WE'RE HEARING
ANECDOTAL INFORMATION FROM
VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS ACROSS THE
STATE THAT WHILE THEY'VE WANTED
TO PARTICIPATE, FOR EXAMPLE,
SOME ARE BEING TURNED AWAY
BECAUSE THEY THEMSELVES ARE ON
PROBATION. ASSEMBLY MEMBERS,
THIS IS A COUNCIL TO TALK ABOUT
PEOPLE IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM WHO
ARE ON PROBATION AND SO FORTH.
HOW ARE WE GOING TO TURN AWAY
SOMEONE FROM WITH THE VERY LIVED
EXPERIENCE WE'RE LOOKING TO
ADDRESS? ADDITIONALLY, WE'RE
HEARING THAT INDIVIDUALS WHO
PARTICIPATE ARE BEING EXCLUDED
FROM CONVERSATIONS. THEY ARE
UTILIZING JARGON TO CONFUSE
THEM. THEY'RE JUST RUBBER
STAMPING THINGS, THERE IS AN
AMOUNT OF UNKNOWN MONEY IN EACH
COUNTY THAT IS NOT BEING SPENT
ON SERVICES, AND THERE IS NO
AMOUNT OF TRANSPARENCY IN A LOT
OF THESE COUNTIES. SAN FRANCISCO
, IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHAT A
COUNTY SHOULD LOOK LIKE WITH
THEIR COUNCILS, WITH THEIR
PARTNERSHIP. LA COUNTY, YOU
KNOW, JUST RECENTLY, NOT SUPER
RECENTLY, BUT ADDED TEN
ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY MEMBERS TO
THEIR CITY COUNCILS. AND LIKE I
MENTIONED EARLIER, RIVERSIDE HAD
TO ADD FIVE COMMUNITY
REPRESENTATIVES BECAUSE THEY
WERE SUED. SACRAMENTO HAD TO ADD
COMMUNITY MEMBERS BECAUSE THEY
WERE SUED. SO DO WE WANT TO
APPROACH THIS CHANGE BY EACH
LAWSUIT, OR DO WE WANT TO
APPROACH THIS CHANGE THROUGH A
STATEWIDE, APPROACH, LET IT BE
POLICY DRIVEN. I'VE BEEN WORKING
WITH THE OPPOSITION VERY CLOSELY
FROM THE BEGINNING. WE DID
AMENDMENTS TO ENSURE THAT THE
CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER WAS
STILL PART OF THE CO-CHAIR. WE
EVEN YESTERDAY I MET WITH SOME
OF THE OPPOSITION. I UNDERSTAND
THAT EVERY SINGLE COUNTY IS THE
SAME. I WANT EACH COUNTY TO BE
SUCCESSFUL, AND I HAVE MENTIONED
TO THEM THAT I AM AMENABLE TO
FIND A WAY THAT WE CAN TWEAK
THAT, WHERE EACH COUNTY CAN BE
SUCCESSFUL, BECAUSE THIS
SHOULDN'T BE A ONE SIZE FITS
ALL. SOME COUNTIES OBVIOUSLY ARE
SMALLER THAN OTHERS. SO WHERE
DOES AND I'LL AND I'LL END ON
THIS. WHERE DID THIS REALLY COME
FROM? A 2020 STATE AUDIT FOUND
THAT I MENTIONED SOME COUNTIES
ARE REALLY JUST NOT MEETING AT
ALL. THEY DON'T HAVE A COUNCIL.
THIS IS A DATA DRIVEN APPROACH.
AN AUDIT CAME OUT, AN AUDIT WAS
FORMED FROM THIS. AND NOW WE
HAVE A POLICY TO ADDRESS THE
SERVICE GAPS FOR SEEN NOW. SO
NOW I'D LIKE TO, TURN OVER TO,
WELL, BEFORE I SAY THAT, I JUST
WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THIS ISN'T
GONNA DICTATE HOW COUNTIES SPEND
THEIR FUNDS. THIS IS NOT IN NO
WAY, SHAPE OR FORM GOING TO
WITHHOLD FUNDING FROM THE STATE
TO GO DOWN TO THE COUNTIES IT
WON'T TAKE AWAY ANY FUNDING FROM
THE COUNTIES. IT WON'T MAKE ANY
CHANGES TO PROBATION BUDGETS OR
FUNDING STREAMS, AND IT WON'T
PREVENT ANY CURRENT AGENCY FOR
PARTICIPATING IN THE COUNCILS
WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO TURN OVER
TO MY TWO WITNESSES. YES PLEASE.
WE HAVE, FOUR MINUTES COMBINED.
THANK YOU. YEAH. GOOD AFTERNOON,
EVERYBODY ON THE DÍAS MEMBERS,
MY NAME IS JESSE ORNELAS, AND I
AM A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER IN THE
CITY OF MERCED, BUT I'M NOT HERE
IN THAT CAPACITY. I'M ALSO A
MEMBER OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE
COORDINATING COUNCIL IN MERCED
COUNTY, I WORK FOR YOUTH
LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE, WHERE I AM
A DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMING IN
MERCED COUNTY. ALSO, I MUST ADD,
I AM A FORMERLY INCARCERATED
YOUTH AND ADULT, MY ORGANIZATION
AND MYSELF SUPPORT SB 1057. IN
MY EXPERIENCE, BEING ON THE JJC,
I HAVE SEEN WHAT GOOD
RELATIONSHIPS WITH COUNTY
AGENCIES AGENCIES CAN LOOK LIKE.
HOW HOW HOW IT CAN BENEFIT AND
I'VE SEEN HOW IT IMPACTS, AND
THE HOW HOW IT BENEFITS, THE
MOST VULNERABLE AND THOSE THAT
HAVE BEEN IMPACTED BY BY THE
JUSTICE SYSTEM, THROUGH A
CULTIVATED RELATIONSHIP ROOTED
IN, ROOTED IN COMMUNITY, WE HAVE
BEEN ABLE TO DO SOME AMAZING
THINGS, THERE IN MERCED COUNTY,
YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD
OPPORTUNITIES TO, TO DEVELOP
PUBLICATIONS LIKE THIS HERE,
THIS IS A PUBLICATION THAT WAS
WRITTEN ALL BY INCARCERATED
YOUTH THERE IN MERCED COUNTY
JUVENILE HALL, WE'VE ALSO HAD
THE OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD A SWEAT
LODGE WHERE OUR YOUNG PEOPLE CAN
CAN LEARN ABOUT THEIR INDIGENOUS
ROOTS, THROUGH MENTORSHIP WITH
COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS,
YOU KNOW, WE'VE, OTHER CBOS ARE
ALSO DOING GREAT WORK THERE. THE
COMMUNITY DESERVES AN EQUITABLE
SEAT AT THAT TABLE OF JJC. THE
AT OUR NEXT JJC MEETING, WE ARE
ALREADY GOING TO BE HAVING A
VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD
IMPLEMENT A CO-CHAIR WITH
POSITION THAT WOULD BE HELD BY
BY A COMMUNITY BASED
ORGANIZATION MEMBER, THE ONLY
ISSUE IS THAT THE VOTE IS
BETWEEN MYSELF AND SOMEBODY
WHO'S ALREADY, RETIRED LAW
ENFORCEMENT WHO DECIDED TO, TO
MAKE, AN ORGANIZATION TO BE ABLE
TO OBTAIN FUNDING TO DO THAT
TYPE OF WORK, HAVING A MANDATE
THAT ENSURES THE EQUITABLE
PLAYING FIELD WILL ALLOW EVENTS
LIKE OUR NEXT VOTE BE, FOR A
CO-CHAIR, BE BASED ON MERIT AND
NOT, POLITICS. GOOD AFTERNOON.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
KENT MENDOZA. I'M THE ASSOCIATE
DIRECTOR OF ADVOCACY AND
COMMUNITY ORGANIZING AT THE
ANTI-RECIDIVISM COALITION IN LA,
I AM ALSO A LONG TIME SERVING
MEMBER OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE
COORDINATING COUNCIL IN LA
COUNTY. I WAS APPOINTED TO THE
JDC IN 2017, PRIOR TO 2017, IN
LA COUNTY, THERE WAS 818
COMMITTEE MEMBERS THAT WERE
SITTING IN THIS COMMITTEE. ALL
THAT 18 COMMITTEE MEMBERS WERE
ALL COUNTY ENTITY INDIVIDUALS,
IN 2017, WE EXPANDED TO ADDING
TEN ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY
REPRESENTATIVES. I'VE BEEN ONE
OF THE AT LARGE COMMITTEE
REPRESENTATIVES FROM THOSE TENS.
WE EXPANDED FROM 18 TO 28, FROM
THEN, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE BEEN
ABLE TO SEE WHAT THESE TEN
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE
REPRESENTATIVES HAVE DONE IN THE
COMMITTEE THROUGH THE PROCESS OF
JJC AND HONORING JJC LAW, WE
HAVE, YOU KNOW, THROUGH THE JJC
PROCESS, WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO PUT
BACK MONEY TO THE COMMUNITY, AS
FAR AS, LIKE DELINQUENCY
PREVENTION SERVICES, AROUND $20
MILLION SINCE 2017, AND YOU
KNOW, EVERY YEAR THE JJC MEETS,
HAS MEETINGS, YOU KNOW, OPEN TO
THE PUBLIC, AND, YOU KNOW, WE
DISCUSS, EVERYTHING THAT HAS TO
DO WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AROUND THE FUNDING OF JJC FUNDS.
AND, YOU KNOW, EVEN WITH THESE
TEN ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE
MEMBERS, WE STILL HAVE A
STRUGGLE. AND REALLY, HAVING A
HOLISTIC, APPROACH ON HOW WE'RE
GOING TO APPROACH THESE PLANTS
ON THE JJC AND, YOU KNOW, HAVING
THIS, THIS BILL, WHAT IT DOES IT
BASICALLY, I KNOW IT SOUNDS
FUNNY TO SAY IT, BUT IT KIND OF
MAKES A COMMITTEE. JJC
COMMITTEES HAVE LIKE A AN
OFFICIAL LEGIT BODY THAT IS
EQUITABLE FROM BOTH COUNTY
ENTITIES AND COMMUNITIES SO THEY
CAN WORK COLLABORATIVELY. AND IT
ALSO ALLOWS FOR THE CO-CHAIR,
WHO I BELIEVE IN L.A. COUNTY, WE
HAVE SEEN HAS STRUGGLED AT
SETTING THAT MEETING, SETTING
AGENDAS ON TIME, SOMETIMES
CANCELING MEETINGS ON THE SAME
DAY OF THE MEETING. YOU KNOW, I
FEEL LIKE THERE'S A LACK OF
SUPPORT FROM THE CHAIR. SO THIS
BILL KIND OF CEMENTS PROBATION
AS A CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE AND
ADDS AN ADDITIONAL CAPACITY TO
ENSURE THAT THE MEETINGS ARE
BEING DONE ON TIME, AGENDA ITEMS
ARE BEING SENT ON TIME, AND
PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY ARE
AWARE OF WHAT'S HAPPENING, SO
THEY CAN REALLY MEANINGFULLY
ENGAGE IN THE COMMITTEE AND
ULTIMATELY HONOR THE JJC LAW
THAT PASSED IN 2000, WHICH IS TO
REALLY PREVENT DELINQUENCY
PREVENTION AND REALLY CATER TO
THE YOUTH IN THE COMMUNITY. SO
THIS BILL WILL REALLY ENSURE
THAT JJC DOES HAVE A HOLISTIC
REPRESENTATION FOR COMMUNITY AND
GOVERNMENT, AND THAT THERE'S
COLLABORATIVE PROCESS IN THE JJC
AND ULTIMATELY HONOR JJC. JJC
LAW TO ENSURE THAT THE MONEY
GOES TO THE THANK YOU, THANK YOU
TIMES UP OTHERS IN OPPOSITION.
LET'S COME FORWARD. I'M SORRY.
DANICA. DANICA, ON BEHALF OF THE
VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE AND
INITIATE JUSTICE AND SUPPORT
CAPS WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ALLIANCE OF CHILD AND FAMILY
SERVICES AND SUPPORT. Þ GEORGE,
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, JAMES KING
ON BEHALF OF THE ELLA BAKER
CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND
CITIZENS UNITED FOR A
RESPONSIBLE BUDGET AND SUPPORT.
Dð COONEY ON BEHALF OF ACLU
CALIFORNIA ACTION. STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, WENDY AND
NANCY JUAREZ, WITH THE CENTER ON
JUVENILE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
AND STRONG SUPPORT OF SB 1057,
ALONG WITH THE NATIONAL CENTER
FOR YOUTH LAW, THIS BILL ENSURES
FOLKS WITH LIVED EXPERTISE,
NAMELY YOUNG PEOPLE, THEIR
FAMILY MEMBERS AND OTHER
COMMUNITY MEMBERS CAN
MEANINGFULLY COLLABORATE ON THE
JUVENILE JUSTICE COORDINATING
COUNCILS. IT ALSO FOLLOWS SUITS
WITH VIOLENCE INTERVENTION AND
PREVENTION FUNDING LIKE CAL AND
PROP 47. THANK YOU. JUST YOUR
NAME AND POSITION, TINA CURIEL
WITH THE CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE FOR
YOUTH AND COMMUNITY JUSTICE AND
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
YOLANDA NAVARETTE, ON BEHALF OF
INITIATE JUSTICE ACTION, STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, HENRY ORTIZ,
ON BEHALF OF SACRAMENTO, ALL OF
US AND NONE AND COMMUNITY
HEALERS AND STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, CHRISTINA ROBINSON,
ON BEHALF OF COMMUNITY HEALERS
AND, ALL OF US IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. SEEING NO MORE SUPPORT
OPPOSITION, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
YOU HAVE. TO. FOUR MINUTES FOR
YOUR PANEL HERE. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU AGAIN. THANK YOU.
CHAIR, COMMITTEE AND STAFF, RYAN
MOORE WITH THE CALIFORNIA STATE
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, ALSO ON
BEHALF OF THE URBAN COUNTIES OF
CALIFORNIA AND RURAL COUNTY
REPRESENTATIVES, CALIFORNIA HERE
IN RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION TO SB
1057, WE'D ALSO LIKE TO THANK
THE AUTHOR FOR AND HER STAFF FOR
THE DISCUSSIONS. AND, AND, YOU
KNOW, APPRECIATE THE ONGOING
COMMUNICATION, FIRST, I'D LIKE
TO REINFORCE THAT COUNTIES VALUE
COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS, THE WORK
OF CBOS, AND THE TRUSTED
RELATIONSHIPS AMONG JUSTICE.
JUSTICE IMPACTED YOUTH. AND WE
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT REPRESENTATION
MATTERS. HOWEVER, CURRENT LAW
PROVIDES THAT BY REQUIRING THAT
A JUVENILE JUSTICE COORDINATING
COUNCIL INCLUDES AN AT LARGE
COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVE, A
REPRESENTATIVE OF A COMMUNITY
BASED DRUG AND ALCOHOL PROGRAM,
AS WELL AS REPRESENTATIVES FROM
NONPROFIT CBOS. AS WITH PREVIOUS
ITERATIONS OF THIS BILL, WE
FUNDAMENTALLY OPPOSE ANY CHANGES
THAT IN COMBINATION, CAN LEAD TO
DIMINISHED AUTHORITY OVER THE
MANDATED RESPONSIBILITIES.
SIMPLY PUT, THE PUBLIC HOLDS THE
COUNTIES ACCOUNTABLE FOR
GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS, AND OUR
BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS HOLD
PROBATION DEPARTMENTS
RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR MANDATED
DUTIES. THAT SAID, THE JJC
PLANNING PROCESS MUST REMAIN
LOCALLY, DRIVEN BY THOSE WHO ARE
RESPONSIBLE AND HELD ACCOUNTABLE
FOR PROGRAM. PROGRAM OUTCOMES.
WITH INPUT FROM A DIVERSE SET OF
STAKEHOLDERS. AN IMPORTANT PIECE
OF HISTORY IS THAT THE JJC FUND
WAS ESTABLISHED AND PURPOSELY
DESIGNED TO SUPPORT LOCAL
DEVELOPMENT OF A CONTINUUM OF
YOUTH SERVICES. IT WAS THE FIRST
STATEWIDE INVESTMENT IN JUVENILE
PROBATION SERVICES, AND BECAME A
FOUNDATIONAL BUILDING BLOCK FOR
THE EVENTUAL SHIFT TO
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ENTIRE
JUVENILE JUSTICE CONTINUUM, THE
JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM TO
COUNTIES EFFECTUATED OVER THE
LAST DECADE, AND A HALF, WHILE
WE RECOGNIZE THE BILL NO LONGER
INCLUDES PROVISIONS AROUND THE
FUNDING AUTHORITY, THE BILL
NOTABLY INCREASES ELIGIBILITY
REQUIREMENTS FOR ESTABLISHING A
JJC TO EXACERBATING ONGOING
CHALLENGES FOR COUNTIES THAT
ALREADY FACE CONSIDERABLE
DIFFICULTY IN MEETING AND
IDENTIFYING WILLING
PARTICIPANTS. OUR CONCERN IS
THAT THE PERSPECTIVE THAT THE
PRESCRIPTIVE COMPOSITION CHANGES
CREATE ADDITIONAL BARRIERS AND
WILL RESULT IN DELAYS TO
DELIVERING SERVICES TO OUR
YOUTH, AND THEN LASTLY, WE
RECOGNIZE THE CURRENT FISCAL
CLIMATE, BUT CONTINUE TO
ENCOURAGE A COLLABORATIVE
DISCUSSION ABOUT SEPARATE AND
ADDED INVESTMENTS DESIGNED TO
ENHANCE PREVENTION EFFORTS AND
FOR THOSE THAT BECOME SYSTEM
INVOLVED, HOW WE BEST FACILITATE
PROGRAMING SERVICES AND
COMMUNITY REENTRY. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. DANIELLE
SANCHEZ, ON BEHALF OF THE CHIEF
PROBATION OFFICERS OF CALIFORNIA
IN OPPOSITION TO SB 1057, AND DO
WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND THANK
THE SENATOR FOR HER ONGOING
CONVERSATIONS ON THIS, JJC HAS
HAS A LONG HISTORY AND TRACK
RECORD THAT HAS SUPPORTED
APPROACHES TO DRIVE DOWN ARREST
AND DETENTION RATES AND WORKING
LOCALLY WITH OUR COMMUNITY
PARTNERS AND OUR COUNTY PARTNERS
ON THE GOALS OF TRANSPARENCY,
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND LOCALLY
RESPONSIVE PROGRAMS. I THINK
MANY OF THOSE STORIES ACTUALLY
SHARED, FROM SOME OF THE
SPONSORS AROUND THE GOOD WORK
THAT'S HAPPENING AROUND
COLLABORATION LOCALLY, I WANT TO
BE VERY CLEAR THAT WE VALUE THE
PARTNERSHIPS THAT PROBATION HAS
WITH OUR OUR GOVERNMENTAL COUNTY
PARTNERS AS WELL AS OUR
COMMUNITY BASED PARTNERS. I
THINK WHEN WE LOOK LOCALLY,
THESE HAVE LED TO VERY POSITIVE
OUTCOMES, AND WE DO NOT WANT TO
UNDO OR OR KIND OF LOSE SIGHT OF
, OF THAT POSITIVE DIRECTION.
AND SO, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT
WE ARE PARTICULARLY CONCERNED
ABOUT, THOUGH, IN THE SPECIFIC
APPROACH IN THIS BILL, IS THAT
RATHER THAN TALKING ABOUT HOW
WE'RE ENHANCING THAT COMMUNITY
ENGAGEMENT, IT'S MANDATING A
SINGULAR APPROACH THAT TIES THE
ELIGIBLE FUNDING TO 50.
COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVES AND,
AND A COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVE
CO-CHAIR. AND I THINK IT IS
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE
DEFINITION IN THIS BILL OF
COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVE IS NOT
JUST MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL
PUBLIC, THAT IT IS INDIVIDUALS
WHO ARE FORMERLY, OR CURRENTLY
SYSTEM INVOLVED, ALONG WITH
THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS AND
NONPROFITS. AGAIN, WE THINK THAT
IS VERY IMPORTANT TO HAVE THOSE
VOICES AND PERSPECTIVE INVOLVED.
BUT BY NARROWING THAT DEFINITION
AND THEN MANDATING THAT IT'S 50,
AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, THAT CAN BE
VERY DIFFICULT TO MEET IN MANY
PARTS OF THE STATE, WHICH IS WHY
YOU'LL SEE A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER,
I THINK, OF, REGIONS REPRESENTED
ABOUT THE, UNTENABLE POSITION TO
BE ABLE TO MEET THOSE
REQUIREMENTS, WHICH ARE, AGAIN,
VOLUNTEER POSITIONS AND NOT
SOMETHING THAT WE CAN COMPEL
PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE AT. SO IN
CLOSING, WE, YOU KNOW, FULLY
AGREE WITH COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
AND WOULD WOULD WANT TO LOOK AT
HOW WE CONTINUE TO ENHANCE THAT.
BUT THIS PRESCRIPTIVE NATURE OF
THIS BILL IS GOING TO PUT
COUNTIES IN AN UNWORKABLE SPOT
TO, IN SOME CASES, MEET THOSE
REQUIREMENTS. AND THEN IT TIES
TO THE ELIGIBILITY FOR FUNDING.
AND SO FOR THOSE REASONS, WE ARE
OPPOSED TODAY. OKAY. THANK YOU.
OTHERS GOOD AFTERNOON, MISTER
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, KAREN LANG,
ON BEHALF OF THE BOARDS OF
SUPERVISORS AND THE COUNTIES OF
FRESNO, MADERA, STANISLAUS,
SHASTA, MENDOCINO, PLACER, SAN
LUIS OBISPO, SOLANO, KERN AND
SAN JOAQUIN ALL IN OPPOSITION
TODAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, AMY
BAILEY, NAPA COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
ASSOCIATION, IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION, JANICE O'MALLEY
ASKED ME CALIFORNIA RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. ELIZABETH
ESPINOZA, ON BEHALF OF THE
BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS AND THE
COUNTIES OF RIVERSIDE, SANTA
BARBARA AND VENTURA, ALSO
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. THANK YOU.
NICOLE WATERMAN, ON BEHALF OF
THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION, AS WELL, JEFF NEAL,
REPRESENTING THE COUNTIES OF
CONTRA COSTA AND LAKE, ALSO
OPPOSED KEISHA HUNT WITH
NOSSAMAN WITH THE COUNTY OF
MONTEREY AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. JONATHAN BIRD,
REPRESENTING ASM LOCAL 685
PROBATION OFFICERS UNION IN LOS
ANGELES COUNTY. WE OPPOSE THE
BILL. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
OTHERS. OTHERS IN OPPOSITION.
SEEING NO MORE QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
REYES. I APPRECIATED THE
TESTIMONY OF THE YOUNG MAN WHO
SHARING THAT HE'S PART OF THE
COUNCIL. I THINK IT'S A GREAT
OPPORTUNITY TO IF WE'RE IF THIS
COUNCIL IS TO DEVELOP AND
IMPLEMENT THE CONTINUUM OF CARE
TO PREVENT AND RESPOND TO YOUNG
PEOPLE EXPERIENCING A JUVENILE
COURT SYSTEM INVOLVEMENT, THEN I
THINK HAVING SOMEONE LIKE THIS
YOUNG MAN BE PART OF IT, I THINK
IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, THAT'S A
VOICE THAT I BELIEVE SHOULD BE
INCLUDED, THE 50% BEING
COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVES. WHEN
I FIRST SAW THAT, I THOUGHT,
OKAY, NOT SUCH A BAD IDEA. THEN
WHEN I SAW THE WAY THAT IT WAS
BROKEN DOWN, AND WAS COMMENTED
ON, THAT IT'S CURRENT OR FORMER
FORMER JUSTICE INVOLVED, SYSTEM
IMPACTED MEMBERS, OR FAMILY
MEMBERS OR REPRESENTATIVES FROM
NONPROFITS THAT SERVE THE YOUTH.
HAVING A COMBINATION AS OPPOSED
TO GROUPING THEM ALL TOGETHER
AND CALLING THEM ALL COMMUNITY
SERVICE SO THAT YOU'RE SURE TO
HAVE THE YOUTH, I THINK WOULD BE
IMPORTANT, BUT CAN YOU REPHRASE
THAT FOR ME, PLEASE? IT'S
COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVE CAN BE
ONE OR THE OTHER OR THE OTHER.
IT CAN BE THE YOUTH WHO'S BEEN,
SYSTEM INVOLVED. COULD BE THE
FAMILY THAT'S IMPACTED OR
COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS
SERVING YOUTH. YES. AND SO THAT
MEANS THAT ALL THE COMMUNITY
REPRESENTATIVES COULD JUST BE
COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS
AND NOT NECESSARILY ANY YOUTH.
SO I THINK SPECIFICALLY HAVING
YOUTH, I THINK WOULD BE VERY
IMPORTANT, I DID NOTE THAT OUR
RURAL COMMUNITIES, RURAL
COUNTIES WERE SAYING THAT'S A
REAL ISSUE FOR THEM BECAUSE THEY
CAN BARELY GET PEOPLE TO
VOLUNTEER. I THINK I HEARD YOU
SAY THAT THAT'S SOMETHING YOU'RE
GOING TO ADDRESS. SUPER VALID
CONCERN. WE EVEN MET YESTERDAY
ON THIS VERY TOPIC ON RURAL
COUNTIES. I KNOW I EVEN AGAIN
JOTTED IT DOWN THAT THE, YOU
KNOW, DIFFICULTIES FOR CERTAIN
COUNTIES AND I I'LL REPEAT WHAT
I TOLD THEM YESTERDAY AND WHAT I
SHARED THAT THAT I'VE THEY HAVE
I'VE ASKED FOR WHAT WOULD BE
WORKABLE TO BE SUCCESSFUL. WE
WERE GIVEN ONE EXAMPLE THAT ONE
COUNTY COULD POTENTIALLY JUST
HAVE ONE CBO WORKING IN THAT
COUNTY. SO IT'S GOING TO BE
REALLY HARD. THAT WOULD BE THE
ENTIRE CBO OR, YOU KNOW, TO BE
PART OF THIS, COUNCIL. SO I AM
100% AMENDABLE TO ADDRESSING HOW
RURAL COUNTIES REMOTE COUNTIES
CAN BE SUCCESSFUL. AND I THINK
THAT POSITION WILL BE SENDING ME
SOME INFORMATION, IN THE
UPCOMING DAYS OR WEEKS, IF
THAT'S CORRECT. ON HOW ON FOR MY
TEAM TO REVIEW. WE JUST HAVEN'T
RECEIVED ANYTHING TO REVIEW JUST
YET. NOW IS DO I UNDERSTAND
CORRECTLY THAT THE OPPOSITION
HAS TO DO WITH THE GRANTS AND
THE MONEY AND REDIRECTING THE
MONEY FROM THESE GRANTS? SO
THERE'S NO REDIRECTION? BSC WAS
STILL DIRECTED. IS THAT THE
OPPOSITION? I JUST WANT TO
UNDERSTAND IF THAT IS THE BASIS
OF THE OPPOSITION FIRST, AND
THEN I DO WANT YOU TO ADDRESS
IT, IF I MAY, THROUGH THE CHAIR.
YES, SO THAT IS, THAT IS
ABSOLUTELY PART OF IT IS, IS THE
LANGUAGE THAT TALKS ABOUT TO BE
ELIGIBLE FOR THE GRANT NOW TIES
IT TO THIS NEW COMPOSITION. AND
SO IN THE RURAL COUNTIES AND
BEYOND WHERE WE KNOW THAT'S
GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT TO
MEET IT, IT CREATES KIND OF
THIS, THIS NEW REQUIREMENT THAT
IS NOT TIED INTO EXISTING
FUNDING. AND SO WE ABSOLUTELY DO
SEE THE FUNDING AS POTENTIALLY
BEING IMPACTED HERE, BASED ON
THE NEW REQUIREMENTS THAT,
AGAIN, I THINK ARE GOING TO BE
UNWORKABLE IN MANY CASES IN MANY
COUNTIES ACROSS THE STATE. I
WOULD SAY THAT'S INCORRECT,
CURRENT STATUTE RIGHT NOW,
CURRENTLY IN LAW, IT SAYS THAT
EACH COUNTY IS REQUIRED TO
CREATE A COUNCIL IN ORDER FOR
THEM TO GET FUNDING. THAT'S IN
CURRENT STATUTE RIGHT NOW. IN
THE 2020 AUDIT, FOUND THAT MOST
COUNTIES HAD DIDN'T HAVE
COUNCILS, AND NOT A SINGLE
EXAMPLE CAN BE SHARED ON ANY
FUNDING BEING PULLED, EVEN
THOUGH IT'S CURRENT LAW RIGHT
NOW, FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO PULL
FUNDING BACK IF THERE'S NO
COUNCIL THAT EXISTS. SO THAT'S
CURRENT LAW. NOW, I HAD IF I
MAY, THROUGH I HAD MY, MY TEAM.
I ASKED, WELL, WHAT'S THE
COUNCIL MADE UP OF NOW AND
HECTOR GREAT JOB. I UNDERSTAND
THAT IT'S MINIMUM OF 12 SEATS.
TEN LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES.
FOR THOSE SEATS, ONE IS A
NONPROFIT AND ONE IS AN AT LARGE
COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVE. SO
WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT WE'RE
SWITCHING THIS TO HALF OF IT
BEING COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVES
TO INCLUDE THOSE THREE GROUPS.
YES. SO PREVIOUS CURRENT LAWS,
IT'S PRESCRIPTIVE. IT'S ON
NUMBER. THIS BILL IS NOT
PRESCRIPTIVE ON NUMBER, ONLY ON
THE PERCENTAGE. SO IF THEY NO
LONGER WANT TO HAVE 13 OR 12
LIKE YOU MENTIONED, THEY CAN
HAVE FIVE FROM THE CURRENT. AND
JUST ADD FIVE MORE COMMUNITY
MEMBERS IF THEY WANT TO KEEP
THAT SAME NUMBER OF 12, THEN
THEY WOULD HAVE TO ADD 12
COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVES. OKAY.
AND FINALLY, AGAIN, I WANT TO GO
BACK TO THE YOUNG MAN THAT
TESTIFIED. I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT
THIS OBVIOUSLY IS A WAY TO BRING
UP LEADERS IN THE COMMUNITY, TO
BE INVOLVED AND CLEARLY HE'S
SOMEONE THAT THAT WOULD WOULD BE
A LEADER IN THE COMMUNITY TO BE
ABLE TO BRING A VOICE TO SUCH A,
SUCH AN IMPORTANT ORGANIZATION,
SUCH AN IMPORTANT COUNCIL.
THAT'S REALLY. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER. I THINK YOU HIT
IT ON THE NAIL. IT'S TO BRING
THOSE PERSPECTIVES INTO IT. AND
I'D LIKE TO JUST QUOTE, JUST A
STAT HERE. SO YOUTH ARRESTS HAVE
DECLINED BY 89. IN 2000 AND THEN
26,020 22. SO WE'VE SEEN A
DECLINE IN YOUTH BEING ARRESTED.
HOWEVER, WE'VE WE HAVEN'T SEEN A
CHANGE IN HOW WE APPROACH THE
SERVICES. SO ARRESTS ARE GOING
DOWN, REFERRALS TO PROBATION ARE
GOING DOWN. BUT THE INVESTMENT
IN SERVICES ARE JUST NOT
CHANGING. SO WE WANT THOSE
PERSPECTIVES TO BE PART OF THE
COUNSEL TO HAVE FURTHER
DISCUSSIONS ON WHERE TO INVEST.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
THANK YOU. ZUBIATE SO, THANK YOU
FOR BRINGING THE BILL. I WANT TO
THANK YOU. WE SPENT SOME TIME
LAST NIGHT ON, TALKING ABOUT THE
BILL. AND AS I MENTIONED, I'M
GOING TO SUPPORT IT TODAY, I DID
HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS, ONE IS,
CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THE, WHAT
SORT OF AUTHORITY THESE COUNCILS
HAVE? I MEAN, WHAT WHAT ARE THE
KINDS OF ACTIONS THAT THEY'RE
GOING TO BE TAKING? SO THESE
COUNCILS ARE IN CHARGE OF SO
THEY GET THE FUNDING AND THEY'RE
IN CHARGE OF DISTRIBUTING HOW
THE FUNDING IS UTILIZED. SO, FOR
EXAMPLE, THEY WOULD DETERMINE,
HEY, WE WANT TO USE ALL OF OUR
MONEY ON DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S AND
USE NO MONEY ON REENTRY,
REHABILITATION AND SO FORTH. SO
THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO
THAT. HEY, WE WANT TO CREATE A
NEW PROGRAM, THEY WOULD, VOTE
ON, HEY, WE WANT TO CREATE A NEW
PROGRAM TO ADDRESS MENTAL HEALTH
OR SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER
AMONGST THE YOUTH. SO THAT'S
THEIR, JURISDICTION AND POWER,
IT'S NOT ON CREATING NEW LAWS.
IT'S NOT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, BUT
THEY DO DECIDE WHO THEY DO
DECIDE HOW THE FUNDING IS
UTILIZED. OKAY. SO I OH GO
AHEAD. YEAH OH THANK YOU,
SENATOR, SO I, YOU KNOW, I
MENTIONED LAST NIGHT THAT I'M
GOING TO SUPPORT THIS TODAY. I
DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT IT.
I, I THINK IT'S A REALLY GOOD
THING THAT THERE'S MORE
COMMUNITY REPRESENTATION. I
THINK OBVIOUSLY, YOU AND I,
REPRESENT PARTS OF LOS ANGELES
COUNTY. WE BOTH KNOW THAT THERE
NEEDS TO BE SOME REFORM IN THAT
AREA. AND I KNOW THAT THAT IS
WHAT'S DRIVING THIS, I'M
HOPEFUL, THOUGH, THAT YOU CAN
THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT ONE THE
PERCENTAGE, WHETHER OR NOT THAT
50% IS RIGHT IS THE RIGHT NUMBER
, BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE WE
ALSO NEED SOME OTHER EXPERTISE
IN THESE, IN THESE, IN THESE
BODIES TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE
MAKING SOUND FISCAL DECISIONS,
AND SO I THINK YOU MENTIONED TO
ME THAT YOU'RE OPEN TO WORKING
WITH THE OPPOSITION TO THINK
ABOUT WHAT THE PERCENTAGE IS OR
THOSE PERCENTAGES ARE. RIGHT.
AND THEN IN ADDITION TO THAT,
YOU KNOW, I CARE A LOT ABOUT,
MAKING SURE THAT THIS ISN'T
BEING USED IN A WAY THAT'S SORT
OF CONTRACTING OUT JOBS. FROM
THE COUNTY AS WELL. SO, JUST
WANT TO SEE IF YOU CAN THINK
ABOUT WAYS IN WHICH THERE'S SOME
ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS FOR, FOR
WORKERS AND THE COUNTY THAT,
THAT, THAT THEY DESERVE. AND
WHETHER YOU WILL COMMIT TO
HAVING, CONTINUING HAVING
DISCUSSIONS ON THOSE THINGS.
YES. YOU KNOW, THIS IS REALLY
ABOUT TRANSPARENCY. A LOT OF THE
TIMES, NOT A LOT OF THE TIMES,
THERE HAVE BEEN INCIDENTS WHERE
THESE DISCUSSIONS ON HOW FUNDING
IS UTILIZED, THAT IS HAPPENING
BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, ONE EXAMPLE
THAT WE HAVE DURING THE AUDIT,
WE FOUND THAT NEARLY 400,000
YEARLY IS SPENT ON YOUTH
DIVERSION PROGRAMS THAT SERVED
ZERO YOUTH PARTICIPANTS. SO IT'S
ABOUT TRANSPARENCY. IF THE SAME
PEOPLE ARE MAKING THESE
DECISIONS, WHERE IS THE
ACCOUNTABILITY, WE'VE ALSO SEEN,
FOR EXAMPLE, WHILE
SIMULTANEOUSLY WITHHOLDING $100
MILLION IN FUNDING. IF YOU'RE
THE KEEPER OF THIS FUNDING AND
YOU DON'T HAVE SOMEONE WITH
LIVED EXPERIENCE SAYING, HEY,
THAT FUNDING COULD HAVE HELPED
ME. WHEN I WAS IN THERE, WE'RE
NOT GOING TO BE SPENDING THE
MONEY. SO WE HAVE A DETAILED
LIST OF VARIOUS COUNTIES THAT
ARE SITTING ON FUNDING WHILE,
YOU KNOW, AS WE'RE WORKING ON
SAFER CALIFORNIA, THAT SUBSTANCE
USE DISORDER IS HUGE FOR YOUTH.
WHILE RETAIL THEFT, WE'RE SEEING
YOUTH GO IN AND DO THIS. IT'S
BECAUSE WE'RE NOT UTILIZING THE
FUNDING TO ADDRESS PREVENTATIVE
MEASURES TO ADDRESS THE SOCIAL,
SOCIAL, SOCIOECONOMIC ISSUES. SO
IT'S AT THE END OF THE DAY BEING
TRANSPARENT. AND IT'S NOT ABOUT
I'M GOING TO GIVE ALL THIS MONEY
TO CBOS OR I'M GOING TO GIVE ALL
THIS MONEY TO THIS. NO, IT'S
ABOUT WHAT IS EVIDENCE BASED.
WHAT CAN IT BE UTILIZED, AND HOW
ENSURING THAT WE'RE HAVING EVERY
VOICE AT THE TABLE. YEAH. I JUST
WANT TO MAKE SURE. I MEAN,
OBVIOUSLY, I THINK THAT HAVING
MONEY GO TO REHABILITATION
PROGRAMS, PROGRAMS THAT ARE,
THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT PEOPLE ARE, ARE BECOMING,
YOU KNOW, ARE BEING ABLE TO
FUNCTION IN SOCIETY. AND AN
UPLIFTING OUR COMMUNITIES IS AN
IMPORTANT THING. I ALSO WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT IT DOESN'T END UP
GETTING USED TO SORT OF CONTRACT
OUT JOBS THAT ACTUALLY ARE
APPROPRIATELY IN THE PROBATION
DEPARTMENT. SO I'D JUST LIKE YOU
TO GIVE SOME THOUGHT ON THAT.
AND THEN I THINK THE LAST POINT
WOULD BE THE SMALLER, THE
SMALLER COUNTIES. I'M JUST
WONDERING IF YOU WANT TO THINK
ABOUT AN APPROACH THAT MIGHT BE
SLIGHTLY ALTERED, WHERE IT'S
JUST GOING TO BE HARDER TO SORT
OF, FULLY COMMITTED TO THAT.
OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. OKAY. THANK YOU. BACK TO
MR. LACKEY. AND THEN WE'RE
LOOKING DO WE HAVE A MOTION? YOU
MADE A MOTION FROM A MEMBER
EARLIER? YES. MOTION AND SECOND.
SECOND. OKAY. YEAH. GOOD NEWS IS
I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION, I JUST
HAVE A REMARK THAT I. I BELIEVE
IN BALANCE. SO I'M HERE TO KIND
OF BALANCE. I THINK THIS JJC
THING IS A REALLY STRONG AND
IMPORTANT PART OF OUR PROCESS.
HOWEVER NO OTHER COUNTY TRULY
MIRRORS LA COUNTY. WE HAVE MANY
COUNTIES THAT ARE TINY, TINY,
AND THIS IS A VERY UNREASONABLE
DEMAND. IT'S NOT A REQUEST, IT'S
A DEMAND. AND I THINK IT'S
COMPLETELY OUTRAGEOUS. I
UNDERSTAND WHAT'S TRYING TO BE
ACCOMPLISHED HERE. IT'S NOT
REASONABLE. SO I CAN'T SUPPORT
IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. WE DO HAVE
A MOTION AND A SECOND, SENATOR,
YOU MAY CLOSE. I HEARD I HEAR
THE CONCERNS REGARDING THE ONE
SIZE FITS ALL. NOT REALLY
ADDRESSING THE UNIQUENESS OR OF
OUR VARIOUS 58 COUNTIES, I HAVE
COMMITTED TO ENSURING THAT WE
FIND A SOLUTION IN ADDRESSING
THE UNIQUENESS OF EACH COUNTY.
THAT IS SUCCESSFUL. ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT I ALWAYS SAY IS THIS
HAS BEEN IN STATUTE FOR ALMOST A
DECADE, IF NOT OVER A DECADE.
THE COUNCILS ARE SUPPOSED TO
EXIST AND A LOT OF THEM ARE NOT
MEETING THE MARK, THIS IS JUST
KIND OF LIKE A CHECK IN TO WHAT
WE DID IN OUR INTENT TEN YEARS
AGO. HEY, THE PAST TEN YEARS
HASN'T BEEN GOING SO WELL. LET'S
ADDRESS IT AND FIX IT.
ADDITIONALLY, NEW DEPARTMENTS
HAVE OPENED UP SINCE THE
EXISTENCE SINCE WE PASSED THIS
LEGISLATION AND REALIGNMENT THAT
CAN NOW HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
BE PART OF THIS COUNCILS. FOR
EXAMPLE, IN LA COUNTY, WE HAVE A
YOUTH DEPARTMENT THAT RIGHT NOW,
IN CURRENT LAW WOULD NOT BE
ELIGIBLE TO BE PART OF THIS. AND
THOSE ARE COUNTY EMPLOYEES AND
SO FORTH. LIKE EACH COUNTY, AS
NEW DEPARTMENTS OPEN WOULD HAVE
THE ABILITY TO BE PART OF THESE
CONVERSATIONS. NOW I AM AMENABLE
TO ENSURING THAT WE TWEAK IT FOR
EACH COUNTY, BUT AT THE END OF
THE DAY, IF I'M BEING ASKED TO
NOT HAVE COMMUNITY
REPRESENTATIVES AT THE TABLE,
THAT'S GOING TO BE A HARD LINE
FOR ME BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE
SURE, LIKE YOU HEARD FROM MY
WITNESS, THAT WE HAVE THOSE
VOICES AT THE TABLE TO REALLY
ENSURE THAT WE ARE ADDRESSING
THE NEEDS THAT THEY NEEDED AT
THE TIME THAT THEY WERE IN
JUVENILE HALLS AND, POST ONCE,
ONCE THEY LEAVE THESE HALLS, I
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
EXPERTISE VOICES OF THE DA'S OF
CHIEF PROBATION OFFICERS, OF
COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH AND SO
FORTH ARE STILL ARE AT THE TABLE
BECAUSE WE NEED THOSE EXPERTISE.
WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
THEY'RE INCLUDING OTHER PEOPLE
TO MAKE MORE ROBUST DECISIONS,
RESPECTFULLY ASKING FOR AN AYE
VOTE. OKAY. THANK YOU, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL ON SB 1057 BY
SENATOR MENGIBAR. THE MOTION IS
DUE. PASS TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. MCCARTY MCCARTY I
ALANIS LACKEY. LACKEY. KNOW WHEN
REYES. REYES I TÍNH WILSON.
ZUBER. ZUBER I THAT MEASURES ON
CALL. OH YES. ONE MORE.
OKAY. PLEASE BEGIN. ALL RIGHT.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS IN CALIFORNIA,
THERE IS A MONTHLY STATEWIDE
WAIT LIST OF APPROXIMATELY 200
TO 300 INDIVIDUALS ALLEGED TO
HAVE COMMITTED FELONIES, WHOM
THE COURTS HAVE DEEMED MENTALLY
INCOMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL. NOW,
A PREVIOUS Ã SENATOR, SENATOR
STERN, HAS LOOKED TO ADDRESS
THAT GAP WITH MISDEMEANORS. I'M
NOW LOOKING TO DO IT WITH FIST
FELONIES. WHO ARE HAVE THE
INABILITY TO STAND TRIAL. THESE
INDIVIDUALS ARE WAITING FOR A
BED TO BECOME AVAILABLE IN A
STATE HOSPITAL SO THEY CAN
UNDERGO EVALUATION AND A PROCESS
TO RESTORE THEM TO COMPETENCY.
BUT SO MANY TIMES, THEY'RE
ACTUALLY JUST WAITING IN JAILS
BECAUSE IT'S NOT THEY DON'T HAVE
ENOUGH BEDS IN THE STATE
HOSPITAL TO GO THROUGH THE
PROCESS SO THEY CAN AT TIMES
SERVE THEIR ENTIRE SENTENCE IN A
JAIL, OR THEY'RE ACTUALLY SENT
TO STATE HOSPITALS. AND WE KNOW
THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE UNABLE
TO, REGAIN THEIR COMPETENCY,
WASTING A LOT OF TAXPAYER MONEY
THAT CAN BE UTILIZED TO REFER
THEM ELSEWHERE. THIS BILL IS
GOING TO ALLOW A DISCRETION TO
THE JUDGES TO SAY, HEY, KEVIN,
YOU ARE NEVER GOING TO BE
COMPETENT EVER AGAIN. I'M NOT
EVEN GOING TO SEND YOU TO A
STATE HOSPITAL. I KNOW THAT I
NEED TO SEND YOU TO CARE COURT.
I NEED TO START THE
CONSERVATORSHIP, OR I NEED TO
SEND YOU TO MENTAL HEALTH. I SAW
YOUR NAME RIGHT THERE. I JUST
WENT STRAIGHT. I NEED TO SEND
YOU TO MENTAL HEALTH DIVERSION,
IT JUST ALLOWS THE JUDGE TO
UPFRONT, HAVE THAT DISCRETION
THAT SAVES US A LOT OF TIME.
MAKES BEDS AVAILABLE IN STATE
HOSPITALS AND SAVES US MONEY.
NOW, I WANT TO BE VERY, VERY
CLEAR THAT THIS IS ONLY ELIGIBLE
FOR CERTAIN AMOUNT OF PEOPLE.
AND I'M NOT GOING TO READ THE
LONG LIST OF THINGS THAT IT'S
NOT ELIGIBLE FOR, BUT IT IS IN
YOUR ANALYSIS. BUT ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT WE'VE ALL BEEN ASKED
THAT THOSE WHO COMMIT MURDER ARE
NOT GOING TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR
THIS APPROACH, AND THERE ARE
ABOUT 24 THINGS, OR ARE ABOUT 50
THINGS ON THAT LIST THAT PEOPLE
WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR, THAT
IS THE PREMISE OF MY BILL. I'D
LIKE TO NOW TURN TO MY LEAD
WITNESS. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME
IS JOY HAVILAND. I'M SENIOR
STAFF COUNSEL WITH THE
CALIFORNIA COMMITTEE ON REVISION
OF THE PENAL CODE, WHICH IS AN
ENTITY CREATED BY THIS BODY, TO
MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT ALL
ASPECTS IN CRIMINAL LAW. THIS
BILL COMES OUT OF A
RECOMMENDATION THE PENAL CODE
COMMITTEE MADE IN 2000, 2022 TO
MODERNIZE THE COMPETENCY TO
STAND TRIAL SYSTEM. THE CORE
COMPONENTS OF THE FELONY IST
PROCESS HAS LARGELY REMAINED THE
SAME FOR DECADES, AND DURING
THAT TIME, IT HAS FAILED TO
INTERRUPT CYCLES OF CRIMINAL
LEGAL INVOLVEMENT. WHILE
MAJORITY OF PEOPLE ARE RESTORED,
ULTIMATELY RESTORED TO
COMPETENCY, THEY ARE RESTORED
AND RETURNED IMMEDIATELY TO THE
COMMUNITY. ONLY A QUARTER OF
PEOPLE GO ON TO SERVE A STATE
PRISON SENTENCE. THE
OVERWHELMING MAJORITY ARE
RETURNED AND THEIR CHARGES ARE
DISMISSED, OR THEY PLEAD TO TIME
SERVED. AND THEY'RE NOT WITHOUT
ANY CONNECTION TO LONG TERM
TREATMENT. SO AFTER SPEAKING
WITH A NUMBER OF PRACTITIONERS
AND EXPERTS THROUGHOUT THE STATE
AND NATIONWIDE, OUR COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDED MODERNIZING THE
COMPETENCY TO STAND TRIAL SYSTEM
BY GIVING JUDGES MORE
FLEXIBILITY AND MORE TOOLS TO
ADDRESS INDIVIDUALS WITH SERIOUS
MENTAL ILLNESS. SO THIS BILL
ALLOWS JUDGES TO DETERMINE
WHETHER RESTORATION TO
COMPETENCY IS IN THE INTERESTS
OF JUSTICE. AND THEN, EXCUSE ME,
CONSIDER ALTERNATE TREATMENT
OPTIONS OTHER THAN
HOSPITALIZATION IN THE MOST
RESTRICTIVE AND MOST EXPENSIVE
SETTING THAT IS OFFERED BY THE
STATE. WE RECOMMENDED WHAT'S IN
THIS BILL BECAUSE IT MAKES
BETTER USE OF LIMITED RESOURCES
AND GETS PEOPLE INTO LONG TERM
TREATMENT, THEREBY KEEPING THEM
OUT OF THE STATE HOSPITAL SYSTEM
AND OUT OF THE CRIMINAL LEGAL
SYSTEM WHILE INCREASING PUBLIC
SAFETY. OKAY. THANK YOU. OTHERS
IN SUPPORT, MR. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, CLIFF COSTA, TODAY ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA JUDGES
ASSOCIATION, IN STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. MARCO GEORGE, ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. DANICA ADAMO
ON BEHALF OF SMART JUSTICE
CALIFORNIA, AND INITIATE JUSTICE
AND SUPPORT MELANIE KIM, SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE AND SUPPORT. Dð COONEY,
ON BEHALF OF ACLU CALIFORNIA
ACTION. STRONG SUPPORT. THANK
YOU, JIM LINDBERG. FRIENDS
COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION OF
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. OKAY.
THANK YOU. OPPOSITION. PLEASE
COME FORWARD. I THINK YOU'RE
OKAY. GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIR,
AND MEMBERS. WELL, AFTER FIVE
NOW, SO I'LL TRY TO BE
RELATIVELY BRIEF. MY NAME IS MEG
HOLTMAN. I AM A DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY FOR THE RIVERSIDE
COUNTY DA'S OFFICE. AND ON
BEHALF OF MY OFFICE AND THE
CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
ASSOCIATION, WE HAVE TO
REGRETFULLY AND RESPECTFULLY AND
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE THIS
MEASURE. UNLESS AMENDED. I DON'T
WANT TO COME OUT GUNS BLAZING.
THIS IS A VERY WELL INTENTIONED
BILL THAT IS DESIGNED, AT LEAST,
AT LEAST IN MIND, TO PROTECT A
VULNERABLE POPULATION. BUT AS
PRESENTLY WRITTEN, IT IS
DANGEROUS. IT IS NOT GOING TO
ENHANCE PUBLIC SAFETY, BECAUSE
PART OF THE WAY THAT IT'S
WRITTEN DEMONSTRATES A LACK OF
UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROCEDURAL,
PRACTICAL REALITIES OF HOW FOLKS
ARE RESTORED TO COMPETENCY AND
HOW THEY'RE DEALT WITH IN
CONSERVATORSHIPS. SO RIGHT NOW,
THE BILL ASKS THAT JUDGES UP
FRONT RIGHT AWAY, IMMEDIATELY IN
THE PROCEEDINGS, DETERMINE IF
IT'S IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE
TO RESTORE SOMEONE WHO IS
SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL, TO THE
POINT WHERE THEY'RE INCOMPETENT
TO COMPETENCE. IT IS ALWAYS IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO MAKE
SOMEONE BETTER. AND WHAT IT
COMES DOWN TO IS THIS IS
TANTAMOUNT TO ASKING JUDGES TO
DECIDE WHICH DEFENDANTS ARE
WORTH TRYING TO RESTORE. THE
AUTHOR TALKS ABOUT MONEY. THERE
IS NO DOLLAR AMOUNT TO PUT ON
SOMEONE'S SANITY. THEIR MENTAL
HEALTH, THEIR WELLNESS. NOW I
WANT TO FOCUS PREDOMINANTLY ON
THE MAIN SOURCE OF CONCERN THAT
I KNOW WE'VE WE'VE KIND OF GONE
BACK AND FORTH WITH A LITTLE BIT
WHEN WE'VE BEEN INVITED TO THE
TABLE, AND THAT DEALS
SPECIFICALLY WITH MURPHY
CONSERVATORSHIPS. BUT I CAN'T
TALK ABOUT THAT UNLESS I GIVE
YOU KIND OF AN ANECDOTE. FOR THE
LAST TWO AND A HALF YEARS, I
MYSELF HAVE BEEN PROSECUTING AN
INDIVIDUAL WHO WE'LL JUST CALL
HIM P. P IS VERY, VERY MENTALLY
ILL. MANY VIOLENT CRIMINAL
CONVICTIONS, MULTIPLE PRIOR
STRIKES IN AND OUT OF
COMPETENCE, IN AND OUT OF THE
STATE HOSPITAL, CONSTANTLY IN
FIGHTS IN THE JAIL, GETS HIMSELF
BEAT TO HECK IN THE JAIL BECAUSE
HE GOES AND STARTS ASSAULTING
PEOPLE. WELL, HIS UNDERLYING
OFFENSE AMONG MANY THINGS, IS TO
STRUGGLE OR TO STRANGLE AND
SUFFOCATE A MAN AND RIP THE
BOTTOM PART OF HIS FACE OFF WITH
HIS BARE HANDS. THAT'S
PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE, BUT HE'S
NOT CHARGED WITH MURDER. HE'S
NOT CHARGED WITH A SEX OFFENSE,
AND HE DIDN'T USE A BOMB. SO
THEREFORE HE FALLS UNDER THE
PURVIEW OF, 1323 MANDATORY
DISMISSAL PROVISIONS, TORTURE,
ATTEMPTED MURDER, MAYHEM,
AGGRAVATED MAYHEM. THOSE ALL
QUALIFY. THOSE CASES CAN BE
DISMISSED. NOW, THE MAIN CONCERN
IS THAT FOLKS LIKE P AND
COUNTLESS OTHERS. AND BY THE
WAY, P IS NOT AN ANOMALY. THIS
IS A REALITY. THIS IS WHAT WILL
HAPPEN. HE SHOULD BE PLACED IN A
MURPHY CONSERVATORSHIP. THESE
ARE SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED FOR
VIOLENT OFFENDERS WHO ARE
INCOMPETENT AND NEED HIGH LEVELS
OF TREATMENT, UNDER WHICH 5008
H1B1 OF THE REQUIREMENTS TO HAVE
A MURPHY CONSERVATORSHIP IS A
PENDING FELONY, NOT ADJUDICATED,
NOT DISMISSED WHERE THERE IS THE
RISK, POTENTIALLY DEATH OR GREAT
BODILY INJURY OR THE SERIOUS
RISK OF THESE THINGS. NOW UNDER
1323, RIGHT AS PRESENTLY
WRITTEN, UPON THE GRANTING OF A
TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT
CONSERVATORSHIP, THERE'S NO
EXCEPTION FOR MURPHY'S. THE CASE
MUST BE DISMISSED. SO WHAT DOES
THAT DO TO THE MURPHY? IT GOES
AWAY. THE COURT NO LONGER HAS
JURISDICTION. WE CAN'T PUT HIM
IN A LESSER LPS CONSERVATORSHIP.
WE CAN'T NOW KICK HIM TO CARE
COURT. WE CAN'T PUT HIM IN
ANOTHER PROGRAM. HE QUITE
LITERALLY GETS RELEASED. AND
THAT'S NOT IN HIS INTEREST
CURRENTLY. HE ACTUALLY THINKS
HE'S A CAT. LAST TIME HE CAME TO
COURT, HE WAS HISSING AT THE
DEPUTIES AND CLAWING THE AIR.
THIS IS A GUY WHO'S GOING TO
HURT SOMEONE MORE THAN HE
ALREADY HAS. THIS IS SOMEONE
WHO'S GOING TO GET HIMSELF HURT
IF SOMEBODY DOESN'T DIE, HE
WILL. AND THAT IS NOT THAT'S NOT
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. AND I
DON'T THINK THAT THAT IS WHAT
THIS BILL INTENDS TO DO. I DON'T
THINK THAT IS AN INTENDED
CONSEQUENCE AT ALL. FROM OUR
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE SPONSORS,
THEY TEND TO AGREE, BUT
UNFORTUNATELY THERE IS NOT THAT
AMENDMENT. THANK YOU. TIME'S UP.
OKAY. THANK YOU. OTHERS IN
OPPOSITION, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
OKAY IF I COULD CLARIFY ONE
THING. SORRY, IT WAS A QUESTION
FROM THE COMMITTEE. QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM, COMMITTEE MEMBERS
. YES. THAT WAS WELL PLAYED.
SURE. AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO
STATE THAT, THE SENATOR'S OFFICE
HAS WE HAVE ALL BEEN WORKING
WITH CDA AND THE JUDGES
ASSOCIATION AND CDA SENT, A LIST
OF SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS THAT WE
ARE, CONFERENCING WITH THE
JUDGES ASSOCIATION AS WELL AS
WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE
HOSPITALS. WHO ARE THE EXPERTS
HERE, AND SORT OF THIS SMALL
PIECE THAT SHE'S REFERENCING,
MURPHY CONSERVATORSHIPS IT IS, I
THINK THERE'S ABOUT 13 PEOPLE,
AVERAGE OF TEN PER YEAR, STATE
WIDE, THAT ARE COMMITTED TO
DEPARTMENT OF STATE HOSPITALS ON
THESE MURPHY CONSERVATORSHIPS
AND THE BILL AS WRITTEN, THERE
IS NO MANDATORY DISMISSAL. IT IS
A MAY. BUT THIS AMENDMENT SHE
SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT IS
SOMETHING THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY
CONSIDERING, CERTAINLY ALL OF
THIS IS ULTIMATELY WITHIN A
JUDGE'S DISCRETION. THE GOAL OF
THIS BILL IS TO GIVE JUDGES MORE
DISCRETION IN TREATING
INDIVIDUALS WITH SERIOUS MENTAL
ILLNESS THROUGH THE CHAIR. YES,
IT'S CLEAR FROM THOSE WHO HAVE,
THE LIST OF THOSE WHO ARE IN
SUPPORT OF THIS, IT IT APPEARS
TO BE GOOD POLICY. THE ISSUE
THAT WAS ADDRESSED BY THE
RIVERSIDE DA'S OFFICE IS CLEARLY
SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE
ADDRESSED. AND SOUNDS LIKE YOU
ARE ADDRESSING IT, BECAUSE I'M
SURE THAT'S NOT THE INTENTION
OF, OF THIS LAW. SO, WOULD THAT
I WOULD MOVE THE BILL. OKAY. WE
HAVE A MOTION, A SECOND, NO MORE
QUESTIONS. QUESTION. MR. LACKEY.
NOT REALLY A QUESTION, JUST A AN
EXPLANATION OF WHERE I STAND ON
THIS. I, I THINK THE INTENTION
IS ALSO VERY NOBLE. I MEAN, I
HAVE A VERY STRONG, SYMPATHY FOR
THOSE WHO HAVE, STRUGGLES WITH
MENTAL ILLNESS OF ANY SORT, BUT,
MY FRUSTRATION IS THAT
DISMISSING FELONIES IS A VERY
SERIOUS THING, BECAUSE IN ORDER
TO FOR IT TO BE A FELONY, YOU
HAVE A VICTIM THAT WAS, IMPACTED
VERY, VERY SEVERELY. AND SO WE
NEED TO GUARD AGAINST REPEAT
OFFENSE AND NOT ALLOWING ANY
OTHER REPEAT OFFENSE. AND SO THE
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AND IST
IS A VERY BROAD DESCRIPTION. I
MEAN, IT'S NOT THAT IT'S NOT
ALWAYS THOSE THAT HAVE LIMITED
CAPACITY THAT QUALIFY FOR AN
IST. I MEAN, NOT TO BE CUTE, BUT
THERE IS EVEN A FINDING BY ONE
LEGAL MIND THAT OUR PRESIDENT
QUALIFIED FOR THIS RIDICULOUS
THING. SO I'M JUST WORRIED THAT
THIS HAS A STRONG LIKELIHOOD.
THE WAY IT'S WORDED TO HAVE
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. SO I
JUST WON'T BE ABLE TO SUPPORT
IT. YES THAT'S TRUE, BELIEVE IT
OR NOT, YOU MAY CLOSE, YOU KNOW,
IN WORKING WITH OPPOSITION
BEFORE WE GOT OUT OF A RIGHT OR
RIGHT BEFORE HOUSE OF ORIGIN, WE
AMENDED THE BILL TO REMOVE THE
MANDATORY DISMISSAL IN THE FRONT
WHERE THE JUDGE WOULD ORIGINALLY
HAD DISCRETION TO DO, MANDATORY
DISMISSAL. SO WE TOOK THAT OUT.
NOW, THE SECOND PART IS AFTER
THEY'VE GONE THROUGH X, Y, Z
TREATMENT THAT JUDGE CURRENTLY
IN THE IN THE BILL DOES HAVE
DISCRETION TO DISMISS IT AFTER
THEY TRIED TO REFER THEM TO
DIFFERENT, TREATMENT CENTERS AND
IT DIDN'T WORK. WE ARE WORKING
WITH CD-R. I'VE LOOKED AT MYSELF
THE PACKET OF PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS OR TECHNICAL
AMENDMENTS, BOTH TECHNICAL AND
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FROM CDA.
YOU'VE HEARD FROM MY WITNESS
THAT WE'VE ACTUALLY SUBMITTED
THIS TO JUDICIAL COUNCIL AND
DEPARTMENT OF STATE HOSPITAL. MY
TEAM IS ACTUALLY MEETING WITH
DEPARTMENT OF STATE HOSPITAL
TOMORROW TO REVIEW SOME OF THESE
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FROM THE
OPPOSITION TO SEE WHAT WOULD BE,
WHAT WOULD ACTUALLY WORK UNDER
THEIR JURISDICTION. SO WE ARE IN
TOUCH WITH THEM AND WE'LL
CONTINUE TO BE IN TOUCH ON THIS
SECOND LAST STICKING POINT WITH
THAT, RESPECTFULLY ASKING FOR AN
AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL ON SENATE BILL 1323 BY
SENATOR MENGIBAR. THE MOTION IS
DUE. PASS TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. MCCARTY Ã MCCARTY I
ALANIS LACKEY. LACKEY NOT VOTING
WHEN REYES REYES. AYE TÍNH
WILSON. THE BR ZUBIATE AYE THAT
MR. SENATOR SKINNER. SKINNER,
THEN. SKINNER. GLAZIER. ALAN
ARCHULETA. UNLESS YOU MAKE OTHER
ARRANGEMENTS. THAT'S AMONGST
YOURSELVES. SENATOR SKINNER,
PLEASE BEGIN, THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, CHAIR AND MEMBERS, I WILL
START WITH, SB 1001. IS THAT
OKAY? YES. OKAY, GREAT. I'M
TAKING TECHNICAL AUTHOR
AMENDMENTS TO SB 1001. ONE. AND
THEN TO THE SUBJECT OF THE BILL,
WHAT? SB 1001 DOES IS IT IS
ESTABLISHES A PROCESS FOR A
PERSON WITH A DEVELOPMENTAL OR
INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY WHO IS
CURRENTLY ON DEATH ROW. SO, IN
OTHER WORDS, THEY'VE ALREADY
BEEN SENTENCED TO DEATH TO BE
ABLE TO PROVE THAT THEIR
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY
MANIFESTED DURING THEIR
DEVELOPMENTAL PERIOD. CURRENT
LAW SAYS THAT YOU MUST HAVE A
DIAGNOSIS OF THAT INTELLECTUAL
OR DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY
DURING YOUR DEVELOPMENTAL
PERIOD. AND IF YOU DO NOT, THEN
IT CANNOT BE USED IN YOUR
DEFENSE. THERE ARE MANY
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT CAN RESULT IN
A PERSON WHO IS DEVELOPMENTALLY
OR INTELLECTUALLY DISABLED FROM
NOT GETTING SUCH A DIAGNOSIS
DURING THEIR DEVELOPMENTAL
PERIOD. FOR EXAMPLE, THEY COULD
HAVE HAD LIMITED OR NO ACCESS TO
HEALTH CARE. THEY COULD HAVE
ATTENDED SCHOOLS THAT DID NOT DO
TESTING. THERE'S ANY NUMBER OF
THINGS. AND YET IT COULD HAVE
BEEN VERY PRESENT AND OBVIOUS
DURING THEIR DEVELOPMENTAL
PERIOD. AND UNDER THIS BILL, BY
DEFINING A PROCESS WITH MEDICAL
PROFESSIONALS TO DETERMINE THE
PRESENCE OF AN INTELLECTUAL
DISABILITY. SB 1001 WILL BETTER
ALIGN CALIFORNIA WITH THE EIGHTH
AMENDMENT AND HELP PREVENT THE
EXECUTION OF THOSE WITH
INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES. AND
NOW I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE MY
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT. I HAVE
NISHA SHAH FROM THE HABEAS
CORPUS RESOURCE CENTER AND MOLLY
SHEEHAN FROM THE KATHERINE
CATHOLIC, CALIFORNIA CATHOLIC
CONFERENCE. YES, PLEASE BEGIN.
GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS NISHA
SHAH AND I'M THE LEGAL DIRECTOR
AT THE HABEAS CORPUS RESOURCE
CENTER. SENATOR SKINNER STAFF
ASKED ME TO ADDRESS THE
TECHNICAL CHANGES SB 1001
PROPOSES TO CALIFORNIA'S LAW
EXEMPTING FROM EXECUTION PEOPLE
WHO HAVE AN INTELLECTUAL
DISABILITY OR ID FOR SHORT. 22
YEARS AGO, THE US SUPREME COURT
HELD THAT EXECUTION OF A PERSON
WITH ID IS CRUEL AND UNUSUAL
PUNISHMENT. CALIFORNIA CODIFIED
THIS RULING IN PENAL CODE
SECTION 1376, WHICH THIS
LEGISLATURE UPDATED IN 2020 TO
BRING IN LINE WITH CURRENT
CLINICAL STANDARDS. SB 1001 WILL
FURTHER BRING CALIFORNIA IN
COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNING LAW.
FIRST, THE BILL SIMPLY CLARIFIES
THAT A PERSON WITH ID IS
INELIGIBLE FOR THE DEATH
PENALTY. SECOND, IT CODIFIES
CASE LAW DEFINING THE PROCEDURES
TO BE USED WHEN A PROSECUTOR
SEEKS TESTING OF A PERSON WITH
AN ID CLAIM. THE LAW GOVERNING
TESTING IN THESE CASES IS
UNIQUE, AND COURTS AND
PROSECUTORS AREN'T ALWAYS AWARE
OF IT. THE BILL ALSO WILL
EXPEDITE HEARINGS BY DEFINING
THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH A
PROSECUTION EXPERT CAN PERFORM
ADDITIONAL TESTING. IT IS
CRITICAL THAT WE PROTECT
INDIVIDUALS WITH ID FROM
UNWARRANTED AND INAPPROPRIATE
TESTING. THIRD, THE BILL WILL
EXPEDITE PROCEEDINGS WHEN THE
PARTY AGREES THAT A PERSON HAS
ID BY GIVING COURTS A TIME FRAME
IN WHICH TO ACT. AND FINALLY,
THIS BILL FURTHERS THE
LEGISLATURE'S GOAL OF REMOVING
BIAS FROM THE CRIMINAL LEGAL
SYSTEM. MORE THAN HALF OF THOSE
WITH ID OR DEVELOPMENTAL
DISABILITIES IN THIS COUNTRY
HAVE NOT BEEN FORMALLY
IDENTIFIED AS SUCH, DUE TO THEIR
SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS, NATIONAL
ORIGIN, OR A LACK OF ACCESS TO
RESOURCES. THE FAILURES OF OUR
SYSTEM TO IDENTIFY PEOPLE WHO
HAVE ID EARLY ON SHOULD NOT
EXEMPT THEM FROM CONSTITUTIONAL
PROTECTIONS. IN SOME, SB 1001
TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS WILL HELP
ENSURE THAT THIS STATE
IDENTIFIES AND PREVENTS THE
EXECUTION OF PEOPLE WITH ID, AS
THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES. THANK
YOU. NEXT WITNESS. GOOD EVENING,
MOLLY SHEEHAN WITH I AM
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR HEALTHY
FAMILIES FOR THE CALIFORNIA
CATHOLIC CONFERENCE, WHICH IS
THE PUBLIC POLICY VOICE FOR THE
CATHOLIC BISHOPS OF CALIFORNIA.
WE ARE HAPPY TO CO-SPONSOR SB
1001. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
BISHOPS AND THE CATHOLIC
COMMUNITY TO ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE. APPLICATION OF THE DEATH
PENALTY CONTINUES TO BE A
CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC IN
CALIFORNIA. HOWEVER WE CAN ALL
AGREE THAT THE MOST VULNERABLE
PEOPLE IN OUR SOCIETY NEED TO BE
PROTECTED, INCLUDING PEOPLE WITH
INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES. IT'S
COMMON FOR PEOPLE WITH
INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES TO GO
UNDIAGNOSED AS CHILDREN, EVEN IF
IT'S CLEAR THEY HAVE A
DISABILITY AS CHILDREN.
OFFENDERS ON DEATH ROW WITH
INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES OFTEN
GREW UP IN POVERTY WITHOUT
NETWORKS OF SUPPORT, WITHOUT
FAMILY SUPPORT, WITHOUT THE
SERVICES THEY NEEDED CONTINUING
TO KEEP A PERSON WITH AN
INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY ON DEATH
ROW PROVIDES NO REHABILITATION
OR RESTORATION TO THE OFFENDER,
THE VICTIM OR SOCIETY. PEOPLE
WITH INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES
MAY NOT BE FULLY CULPABLE FOR
THEIR ACTIONS, ABLE TO ACTIVELY
PARTICIPATE IN THEIR DEFENSE, OR
FULLY UNDERSTAND THE TRUE NATURE
OF PUNISHMENT. THEY ARE ALSO AT
HIGHER RISK OF WRONGFUL
CONVICTION, CONVICTIONS AND
FALSE CONFESSIONS. THE SUPREME
COURT RULED IN ATKINS VERSUS
VIRGINIA THAT APPLYING THE DEATH
PENALTY TO PEOPLE WITH
INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES
CONSTITUTES CRUEL AND UNUSUAL
PUNISHMENT, CODIFYING THAT IN
STATUTE AND RECOGNIZING THAT
MANY PEOPLE WITH INTELLECTUAL
DISABILITIES WERE UNDIAGNOSED AS
CHILDREN, SHOWS RESPECT FOR
HUMAN DIGNITY AND IS A STEP
TOWARDS OVERCOMING VIOLENCE IN
OUR CULTURE. WE HAVE A
RESPONSIBILITY TO SERVE THE MOST
VULNERABLE AND TO PROMOTE
HEALING AND RESTORATION FOR
VICTIMS, OFFENDERS AND SOCIETY.
THIS BILL IS A STEP IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION AND WE URGE AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK
YOU. OTHERS, PLEASE COME FORWARD
IN SUPPORT. DANICA ADAMO, ON
BEHALF OF SMART JUSTICE
CALIFORNIA, THE GRIP TRAINING
INSTITUTE AND INITIATE JUSTICE
AND STRONG SUPPORT. GOOD
EVENING, GLENN BACKUS FOR THE
ELLA BAKER CENTER FOR HUMAN
RIGHTS AND SUPPORT AND
CALIFORNIANS UNITED FOR
RESPONSIBLE BUDGET. THANK YOU,
MARCO GEORGE, FOR THE CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
DYLAN ELLIOTT, ON BEHALF OF THE
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, IN SUPPORT. JIM
LINDBERG, ON BEHALF OF THE
FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION
OF CALIFORNIA, CO-SPONSOR IN
SUPPORT Dð COONEY ON BEHALF OF
ACLU CALIFORNIA ACTION. STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. AMIKA MOTA
WITH THE YOUNG WOMEN'S FREEDOM
CENTER, SISTER WARRIORS, FREEDOM
COALITION AND STRONG SUPPORT.
GOOD AFTERNOON, HENRY ORTIZ,
WITH ALL OF US IN OUR SACRAMENTO
CHAPTER AND COMMUNITY HEALERS
AND STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
CHRISTINA ROBINSON WITH
COMMUNITY HEALERS AND ALL OF US
ARE NONE IN STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, OPPOSITION, PLEASE
COME FORWARD. AMY BAILEY, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION,
WE MUST RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE THIS
BILL WITHOUT AMENDMENT, IT IT'S
SIMPLY UNWORKABLE FOR US, I'LL
KEEP THIS BRIEF, BUT WHEN MENTAL
DISABILITY, IS AT ISSUE, THE
PROSECUTION HAS THE ABILITY TO
INDEPENDENTLY ASSESS AND TEST
THE DEFENDANT. THIS LAW WOULD
UPEND LONG HELD LEGAL PRECEDENT
BY CREATING A PRESUMPTION IN
FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT'S CHOSEN
TEST, AND ONLY PERMITTING THE
PEOPLE TO INDEPENDENTLY EXAMINE
IF WE MEET A NEAR IMPOSSIBLE
BURDEN OF PROVING UNRELIABILITY.
WE ARE IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE
SYSTEM, IN THE BUSINESS OF
SEEKING TRUTH, AND IN SEEKING
TRUTH. WE MUST REQUIRE BOTH
SIDES, THE EQUAL ABILITY TO
EXAMINE THE DEFENDANT, WE MUST
ALLOW BOTH SIDES TO HAVE EQUAL
FOOTING ON THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE.
AND SO FOR THOSE REASONS, WE
SIMPLY MUST RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE
THIS BILL AND ASK FOR YOUR NO
VOTE. OKAY. OTHERS IN
OPPOSITION, PLEASE COME FORWARD
SEEING NONE, WE HAVE A MOTION.
MOTION MOVE BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER
REYES SECOND HERE, QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS,
SEEING NONE, YOU MAY CLOSE.
THANK YOU. I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR I VOTE GREAT. THANK
YOU. WELL DONE. PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ON SB 1001 BY SENATOR
SKINNER. THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS
MCCARTY A MCCARTY I ALANIS
LACKEY NGUYEN REYES REYES. AYE.
TÍNH WILSON. ZEBRA THAT MEASURES
ON CALL. THANK YOU. NEXT
MEASURE. FILE NUMBER SIX, SB
898. THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR.
CHAIR, MEMBERS PRESENTING SB
898. NO MATTER WHAT SOMEONE HAS
DONE TO BE THAT THEN RESULTED IN
THEIR BEING SENTENCED TO EITHER
JAIL OR PRISON, THEY SHOULD NOT
HAVE TO ENDURE THE BRUTAL CRIME
OF RAPE OR SEXUAL ASSAULT BY
CUSTODIAL STAFF OR VENDORS IN
OUR, INCARCERATED CARCERAL
FACILITIES. HIGHER WHILE CDCR
HAS A ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY ON
SEXUAL ASSAULT, SEXUAL ASSAULT
HAS NOT BEEN ELIMINATED IN OUR
CDCR FACILITIES. LATE LAST YEAR,
FOR EXAMPLE, THE MADERA COUNTY
DA CHARGED A FORMER CORRECTIONS
OFFICER AND THIS CORRECTIONS
OFFICERS ONLY FORMER BECAUSE HE
QUIT WHEN HE WHEN THE CHARGES
WERE COMING FORWARD WITH 96
COUNTS OF RAPE AND SEXUAL
ASSAULT AGAINST UP TO 22 WOMEN
WHO WERE INCARCERATED AT
CALIFORNIA'S CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY IN CHOWCHILLA, THE
ASSAULTS OCCURRED OVER MANY
YEARS. THE COMPOUNDING THE HARM
OF SUCH ASSAULTS WHEN
INCARCERATED PEOPLE REPORT SUCH
CRIMES, THEY FACE RETALIATION
AND RETALIATION. AS YOU CAN
IMAGINE, GREATLY DETERS
REPORTING, WHICH THEN FOSTERS AN
ENVIRONMENT WHERE SUCH ABUSE
POTENTIALLY IS OVERLOOKED OR
EVEN TOLERATED. SB 898 HAS TWO
PURPOSES FIRST, TO CREATE A SAFE
ENVIRONMENT FOR REPORTING
ASSAULTS, REGARDING WHETHER IT
IS THE VICTIM THEMSELVES OR A
PERSON WHO IS A WITNESS, AND BY
CREATING THAT SAFE ENVIRONMENT,
IT IN TURN CAN HELP PREVENT SUCH
INCIDENTS BECAUSE IT CHANGES THE
ENTIRE ENVIRONMENT OF THE
FACILITY AND SECONDLY, THE
SECOND PURPOSE IS TO ACKNOWLEDGE
THE GRAVE HARM SUCH ASSAULTS CAN
HAVE ON THE VICTIM AND
SPECIFICALLY, SB 898 PROVIDES
SAFEGUARDS AGAINST RETALIATION
FOR THOSE WHO REPORT INCIDENTS
OF STAFF SEXUAL ABUSE AND ALLOWS
THE VICTIMS AND NOTE THE VICTIMS
WITH SUBSTANTIATED SEXUAL
ASSAULT CLAIMS. UP TO 12 MONTHS
OF SURVIVOR SAFETY CREDITS. NOTE
THAT THOSE SAFETY CREDITS ARE
ONLY AVAILABLE TO THOSE WHERE
CDCR'S INVESTIGATION, OR, IN THE
CASE OF A COUNTY JAIL, THE JAIL
ITSELF INVESTIGATION RESULTED IN
SUBSTANTIATED FINDINGS. NOW THE
PRISON RAPE ELIMINATION ACT
REQUIRES OUR OUR FACILITIES TO
POST DATA. AND IN THE ANNUAL
AUDIT OF 2022, THERE WERE 396
ALLEGATIONS OF STAFF ON
INCARCERATED PERSONS SEXUAL
MISCONDUCT 2257 ONGOING
INVESTIGATIONS. ONLY 28 RESULTED
IN SUBSTANTIATED FINDINGS. SO
OVERALL, ONLY 7% OF THOSE
MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS WERE
FOUND TO BE SUBSTANTIATED. AND I
WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR NOTE
BECAUSE YOU WILL HEAR FROM THE
OPPOSITION THAT BY PROVIDING IF
THIS BILL IS SUCCEEDS, BY
PROVIDING A POTENTIAL SURVIVOR
SAFETY CREDIT, THAT SOMEHOW WE
ARE INVITING PEOPLE TO EITHER
PURSUE SEXUAL ASSAULT BY A
CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL. BUT I NOTE
THAT IT CAN ONLY BE IF THAT
ASSAULT WAS SUBSTANTIATED BY THE
CDCR'S OWN INVESTIGATION, I
COULD TELL YOU MORE, BUT I WILL
LEAVE IT TO GIVE MY, WITNESSES
THE ABILITY TO TESTIFY. AND I
HAVE PENNY GODBOLD, WHO IS THE
CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES
ATTORNEY, AND AMICA MØT, WHO IS
THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF SISTER
WARRIORS. YES. FOUR MINUTES,
FOUR MINUTES COMBO. THANK YOU.
GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS PENNY
GODBOLD, AND I'M AN ATTORNEY AT
ROSENBERG. AND GALVIN AND
GRUNFELD. I REPRESENT PEOPLE IN
CALIFORNIA PRISONS WITH
DISABILITIES. AND IN MY ROLE, I
WORK WITH INCARCERATED PEOPLE ON
REPORTING STAFF MISCONDUCT. I
MONITOR STAFF MISCONDUCT
COMPLAINTS, INCLUDING COMPLAINTS
ABOUT SEXUAL STAFF MISCONDUCT AT
MULTIPLE PRISONS. I'M HERE TO
LET YOU KNOW THAT RETALIATION IS
VERY REAL. FEAR OF RETALIATION
IS THE NUMBER ONE CITED REASON
THAT PEOPLE STATE THAT THEY ARE
AFRAID TO COME FORWARD AND
REPORT STAFF MISCONDUCT. I
RECENTLY REVIEWED A PRODUCTION
OF STAFF MISCONDUCT COMPLAINTS
THAT WAS CLOSED DURING THE FIRST
QUARTER OF 2024 FOR THE
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTION FOR
WOMEN, APPROXIMATELY ONE THIRD
OF THOSE COMPLAINTS ALLEGED
SEXUAL STAFF MISCONDUCT, AND 40%
OF THE COMPLAINTS INVOLVED
ALLEGED RETALIATION.
INCARCERATED PEOPLE THAT I WORK
WITH TELL ME IT'S NOT THE
BLATANT OR OBVIOUS ACTS OF
RETALIATION THEY WORRY THE MOST
ABOUT. INSTEAD, IT IS THE LITTLE
INDIGNITIES THAT STAFF CAN
IMPOSE ON SOMEBODY THAT MAKE
LIFE IN PRISON UNBEARABLE. FOR
EXAMPLE, STAFF HAVE WIDE
LATITUDE TO SEARCH CELLS IN
PRISON POLICY, IN FACT, REQUIRES
SEARCHES TO HAPPEN. BUT TO
RETALIATE, STAFF CAN TARGET
CERTAIN CELLS FOR SEARCH
DESTROYING AND CONFISCATING
PROPERTY, DAMAGING AND
DESTROYING IMPORTANT LEGAL
PAPERWORK AND EVEN BELOVED
FAMILY BELONGINGS AND PHOTOS.
TARGETED CELL SEARCHES RARELY
GET NOTICED AND ARE DIFFICULT TO
PROVE, SINCE CELL SEARCHES ARE
AN EXPECTED PART OF PRISON
OPERATIONS. THESE ACTS OVERALL
CONSTITUTE THE LITTLE
INDIGNITIES THAT ARE RETALIATION
. STEPS MUST BE TAKEN TO PREVENT
RETALIATION. IF WE WANT PEOPLE
TO COME FORWARD AND REPORT
MISCONDUCT, SB 898 IS A CRITICAL
STEP IN THIS CONVERSATION. THANK
YOU. NEXT WITNESS. THANK YOU.
GOOD EVENING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS AMIKA MOTA. I AM THE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE SISTER
WARRIORS FREEDOM COALITION.
SISTER WARRIORS IS A GENDER
JUSTICE ORGANIZATION. OUR
LEADERSHIP TEAM HAS OVER 50
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE WITHIN
CALIFORNIA WOMEN'S DESIGNATED
FACILITIES AND OVER 1000 OF OUR
MEMBERS ARE CURRENTLY OR
FORMERLY INCARCERATED. WE SPEAK
FIRST HAND TO THE SEXUAL ABUSE
THAT INCARCERATED PEOPLE SUFFER
AT THE HANDS OF CORRECTIONAL
OFFICERS. WE WERE HONORED TO BE
ENTRUSTED BY THE LEGISLATURE TO
LEAD THE SEXUAL ASSAULT RESPONSE
AND PREVENTION WORKGROUP, WHICH
RELEASED ITS FIRST REPORT IN
MARCH. OUR PRIORITY
RECOMMENDATION IS THE EXPEDITED
RELEASE OF SURVIVORS SEXUAL
ABUSE AGAINST CURRENTLY AND
FORMERLY INCARCERATED GIRLS,
WOMEN, NON-BINARY AND TRANS
PEOPLE OF ALL GENDERS IS
ENDEMIC. CDCR HAS NOT ADDRESSED
THE ISSUE, ESSENTIALLY ALLOWING
STAFF TO ABUSE VICTIMS AND THEN
RETRAUMATIZE THEM THROUGHOUT
INVESTIGATIONS. SEXUAL VIOLENCE
IN PRISON HAS NO ESCAPE.
SURVIVORS ARE TRAPPED AND
VULNERABLE TO THEIR ABUSERS.
YOUR ABUSER HAS THE KEYS TO YOUR
CELL IN OPPOSING THIS BILL. CD-R
VICTIM BLAMES EXTREMELY
VULNERABLE PEOPLE AND ARGUES
THAT VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT
IN THEIR WORDS, SEDUCE OFFICERS
FOR PERSONAL GAIN. IT IS ILLEGAL
FOR OFFICERS TO ENGAGE IN ANY
SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH
INCARCERATED PEOPLE. THE VIEWS
EXPRESSED IN THEIR LETTER
DISPLAY A WILLFUL DISREGARD FOR
THE LAW, AND IGNORANCE OF GENDER
BASED VIOLENCE, AND
INCARCERATION. OUR STATE HAS
FAILED TO PREVENT GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES FROM SEXUALLY
ASSAULTING PEOPLE IN THEIR
CUSTODY. THIS BILL THIS BILL IS
A MODEST ATTEMPT TO REPAIR THAT
GRAVE INJUSTICE BY ALLOWING
SURVIVORS TO HEAL IN THEIR
COMMUNITIES, WHERE THEY CAN BE
SAFE FROM RETALIATION AND
ONGOING ABUSE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU OTHERS IN SUPPORT, PLEASE
COME FORWARD. YEAH MARK. MARCO
GEORGE, ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION AND
SUPPORT, THANK YOU. GLEN
BACCHUS, ELLA BAKER CENTER FOR
HUMAN RIGHTS AND SUPPORT, MOLLY
SHEEHAN WITH THE CALIFORNIA
CATHOLIC CONFERENCE IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, JIM LINDBERG, FRIENDS
COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION OF
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. HENRY
ORTIZ WITH COMMUNITY HEALERS AND
ALL OF US IN SACRAMENTO CHAPTER
IN STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
CHRISTINA ROBINSON WITH
COMMUNITY HEALERS AND ALL OF US
ARE N N SACRAMENTO STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. OPPOSITION
LET'S GO FORWARD. NO, NO. HERE.
WHICH ONE ARE YOU? OPEN TO THE
OTHER SIDE. SO STRAIGHT. OH MY
GOD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA STATE SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION, RESPECTFULLY IN
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL,
OBVIOUSLY, WE DON'T CONDONE
SEXUAL ABUSE OF ANY PERSON IN A
CUSTODIAL SETTING OR ANY UNDER
ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE, THE
PROBLEM IS THE CONNECTION
BETWEEN SUCH ALLEGATIONS OR ACTS
AND THE POTENTIAL TO LIMIT A
PERSON'S CULPABILITY AND REDUCE
THEIR SENTENCE FOR THE
UNDERLYING OFFENSES THAT RESULT
IN THEIR INCARCERATION IS
UNCLEAR. SO AGAIN, YOU ARE THE
VICTIM OF THIS CRIME, YOU GET
TIME OFF YOUR SENTENCE OR YOU
HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO GET TIME
OFF YOUR SENTENCE. WE DON'T
UNDERSTAND THE CONNECTION HERE.
PERHAPS MORE OPERATIONALLY
PROBLEMATIC IS THE MONITORING
REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE TRIGGERED
BY SIMPLY AN ALLEGATION OF
SEXUAL ABUSE AND THE PRESUMPTION
THAT CERTAIN ACTIONS ARE
PRESUMED TO BE RETALIATION FOR
AN ALLEGATION. THIS WILL DRAIN
LIMITED RESOURCES AND PRECLUDE
ROUTINE AND UNRELATED
CORRECTIONAL MEASURES FROM
TAKING PLACE. SO LET ME GIVE YOU
AN EXAMPLE. AND AGAIN, NOT
CONDONING RETALIATION OR THE
UNDERLYING ALLEGATION OF SEXUAL
ABUSE. BUT HERE'S THE ISSUE WITH
THE WAY THE BILL IS DRAFTED
WITHIN 90 DAYS AFTER MAKING AN
ALLEGATION JUST AN ALLEGATION.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE
SUBSTANTIATED FOR THIS PORTION
OF THE BILL, BUT AN INCARCERATED
PERSON MAKES AN ALLEGATION THAT
THEY HAVE BEEN THE VICTIM OF A
SEXUAL ASSAULT PERPETRATED BY A
STAFF MEMBER IN A PRISON OR A
JAIL FOR 90 DAYS AFTER THAT
ALLEGATION. THAT PERSON HAS TO
BE MONITORED. THE PERSON WHO
REPORTED IT, IF IT'S A DIFFERENT
PERSON, HAS TO BE MONITORED, AND
THEN IF THERE'S ANY DISCIPLINARY
REPORT AGAINST THAT PERSON FOR
ANY REASON NOT RELATED TO THE
ALLEGATION OR ANYTHING ELSE, IF
THERE'S A PROGRAM CHANGE, SAY
THE PERSON HAS A DIFFERENT
SCHOOLING PROGRAM OR THEY CHANGE
JOB ASSIGNMENTS BECAUSE THAT JOB
IS ENDING OR THEY DON'T LIKE TO
WORK IN THE KITCHEN, SO THEY'RE
WORKING SOMEWHERE ELSE. A NON
ROUTINE CELL SEARCH. IF THERE IS
SOME VERY GOOD REASON FOR THERE
TO BE AN UNSCHEDULED OR A NON
ROUTINE CELL SEARCH, ANY OF
THOSE THINGS PER THE DRAFTING OF
THE BILL, THOSE ARE PRIMA FACIE
EVIDENCE THAT THE ALLEGED ABUSE
OCCURRED. OKAY. IT COULD HAVE
NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. BUT IN
ORDER TO BRING IN THIS NOTION
THAT ONCE YOU MAKE AN
ALLEGATION, YOU'RE GOING TO BE
RETALIATED AGAINST. IT SWEEPS
WITH SO BROAD A BRUSH THAT THAT
CORRECTIONAL OFFICIALS WILL BE
HAMSTRUNG. THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO
DO ANYTHING. THEY WON'T BE ABLE
TO DISCIPLINE SOMEONE WHO
ALLEGES A SEXUAL ASSAULT. AND
THAT WILL CREATE A SITUATION NOT
WITH A NOTION OF INVITING SEXUAL
ASSAULT, BUT IT WILL INVITE A
PERSON TO MAKE AN ALLEGATION,
SAYING, I WAS THE VICTIM OF
THIS. AND AS A RESULT, YOU CAN'T
CHANGE MY PROGRAM. YOU CAN'T
MOVE ME, YOU CAN'T TOSS MY CELL.
ALL OF THESE THINGS WOULD BE THE
VERY REAL IMPACT OF THIS BILL.
SO FOR THOSE REASONS, WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR NO
VOTE. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING,
CHAIR AND MEMBERS, AMY BAILEY,
CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
ASSOCIATION. WE ALSO
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE, IT'S
UNCLEAR IN THIS, LAW WHICH
CRIMES ARE PERMITTED TO BE
RESENTENCED. APPARENTLY ALL OF
THEM. THERE IS NO STANDARD OF
PROOF REQUIRED. I UNDERSTAND
THERE WAS MUCH ADO ABOUT
SUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS. ONLY IF I
CAN BRIEFLY ADDRESS THE 7%
FIGURE. I THINK THAT HIGHLIGHTS
ONE OF OUR CONCERNS, WHICH IS
THAT WHEN ALL OTHER REMEDIES
HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED FOR A
DEFENDANT TO CHANGE THEIR
SENTENCE OR TO BE RESENTENCED,
THEY WOULD HAVE A BAD INCENTIVE
TO FABRICATE CLAIMS. IN FACT, IT
LOOKS LIKE 7% OF CLAIMS ARE THE
ONLY ONES THAT ARE
SUBSTANTIATED. FURTHERMORE,
THERE IS NO LIMIT ON THE NATURE
OF CONDUCT THAT A QUALIFIES
UNDER THIS LAW. IS IT WORDS
ALONE? IS IT ACTUAL PHYSICAL
CONDUCT? IT'S NOT CLEAR IN THE
LAW. IT MAY EVEN ENCOMPASS
CONSENSUAL ENCOUNTERS, FOR THOSE
REASONS, WE DO OPPOSE AND WE
WOULD ASK THAT YOU VOTE NO.
THANK YOU. OTHERS IN OPPOSITION,
PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEEING NONE
. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, SIMILAR
MEMORIES. I THINK THE OPPOSITION
HAS, FAIR COMMENTS REGARDING,
YOU KNOW, JUST TIGHTENING IT UP
A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT COULD
WHAT CAN BE USED, WHAT CAN'T BE
USED. BUT I'VE GOT TO TELL YOU
THAT AS I'M LISTENING TO THIS,
I'M THINKING OF THE OTHER BILLS
THAT WE'VE HEARD EARLIER TODAY.
THIS IS IT ALMOST CANNOT BE
CONSENSUAL WITH THIS. THIS IS AN
UNEQUAL POWER BETWEEN SOMEONE
WHO HAS POWER OVER YOUR FREEDOM,
OVER YOU. SO THAT THAT PART OF
IT, THAT CONCERNS ME THAT THAT
WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT HERE. THE OTHER
THING IS, WHAT'S THE CONSEQUENCE
TO THAT PERSON WHO WAS RAPED OR
SEXUALLY HARASSED? THAT PERSON?
BECAUSE THIS IS RAPE. SO ARE
THERE CRIMINAL CHARGES FILED
THEN AGAINST THE OFFICER WHO
HAS, SEXUALLY ABUSED THIS, THIS
INMATE. SO THERE ARE A FEW
THINGS THAT I THINK NEED TO BE
ADDRESSED. BUT CERTAINLY IF
SOMEBODY IS THE VICTIM OF SEXUAL
ASSAULT WHILE THEY ARE
INCARCERATED, HAVING A
REDUCTION, AS A RESULT OF THAT,
WHEN IT'S PROVEN, WHEN IT'S
SUBSTANTIATED, I THINK IS
SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE
REASONABLE. AND I WILL FOLLOW
THE CHAIR'S, RECOMMENDATION. AND
I MOVE THE BILL. OKAY. WE HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND SECOND THE
MEASURE FURTHER QUESTIONS.
SEEING NONE, YOU MAY CLOSE.
THANK YOU. JUST TO, THERE IS
THERE CANNOT BE CONSENT. THERE
CANNOT BE CONSENT BETWEEN A
INCARCERATED INDIVIDUAL AND A
CORRECTIONS OFFICIAL. IT IS
IMPOSSIBLE UNDER THE LAW. SO IT
IS LIKE SAYING THAT THERE CAN BE
CONSENT BETWEEN A MINOR AND AN
ADULT IN A IN THOSE SEXUAL
CIRCUMSTANCES. THAT'S WHAT OUR
LAW IS CLEARLY PROTECT. AND TO.
I WON'T GO FURTHER ANYWAY. AND
THE RETALIATION PROTECTIONS ARE
FOR 90 DAYS 90 DAYS ONLY. AND I
WILL FURTHER, AS I POINTED OUT,
THE ONLY WAY THAT YOU COULD GET
THE POSSIBILITY OF A ONE YEAR
SURVIVOR SAFETY CREDIT, A ONE
YEAR SURVIVOR SAFETY CREDIT IS
IF THE CLAIM IS SUBSTANTIATED.
AND WITH THAT, I ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE OKAY. THANK YOU. PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL ON SB 898 BY
SENATOR SKINNER. THE MOTION IS
DUE. PASS TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. MCCARTY MCCARTY I
ALANIS LACKEY NGUYEN. YES.
NGUYEN. AYE REYES. REYES. AYE.
TÍNH TÍNH. AYE. WILSON ZABA.
MEASURES ON CALL. OKAY. THANK
YOU. MR. ARCHULETA. SENATOR
ARCHULETA, YOU HAVE ITEM NUMBER
20, SB 1262.
THE COMMITTEE ON. OKAY. PLEASE
BEGIN. GOOD. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS,
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.
IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY, HASN'T IT?
WELL, LET ME GO AHEAD AND GET
STARTED ONCE AGAIN. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
SENATE BILL 1262 IS A
REINTRODUCTION OF AB 1408
CALDERON FROM 2017, WHICH WAS
INTRODUCED IN DIRECT RESPONSE TO
THE SHOOTING DEATH OF OFFICER
KEITH BOYER OF THE WHITTIER
POLICE DEPARTMENT BY AN
INDIVIDUAL ON. POST-RELEASE, THE
COMMUNITY OF WHITTIER CONTINUES
TO MOURN THE FEBRUARY 20TH, 2017
FATAL SHOOTING OF WHITTIER
POLICE OFFICER KEITH MOYER AND
WOUNDING WHITTIER POLICE OFFICER
PATRICK HAZEL. IT WAS THE FIRST
KILLING OF A POLICE OFFICER IN
NEARLY 40 YEARS IN THE CITY OF
WHITTIER. OFFICER BOYER'S DEATH
NOT ONLY IMPACTED THE CITY OF
WHITTIER, BUT RESONATED WITH
CITIES AND TOWNS ACROSS
CALIFORNIA, HIGHLIGHTING THE
NEED FOR EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF
POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION. SENATE
BILL 16 1262 SEEKS TO MAKE
MODEST CHANGES TO CALIFORNIA'S
POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION LAW TO
ALLOW LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AND
PUBLIC SAFETY PROFESSIONALS
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES TO MAKE THE
BEST DECISION IN DETERMINING THE
PROPER RESPONSE FOR REPEAT
OFFENDERS, ENHANCING OVERSIGHT
AND TRANSPARENCY WITHIN THE
POST-RELEASE COMMUNITY.
SUPERVISION WOULD HELP ALL LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO BE
SUCCESSFUL IN FACILITATING THE
TRANSITION FOR FORMERLY
INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS BACK
INTO THE COMMUNITY. THE BILL IS
A REASONABLE APPROACH INTENDED
TO MITIGATE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR
ADDITIONAL TRAGEDIES FROM
OCCURRING BY CLOSING SOME OF THE
LOOPHOLES THAT ALLOW REPEAT
OFFENDERS WHO DELIBERATELY ABUSE
THE SYSTEM. LET ME SAY THAT
AGAIN. REPEAT OFFENDERS WHO
DELIBERATELY ABUSED THE SYSTEM
AND THOSE WHO ADHERE TO THE
SYSTEM THAT IS NOT A PROBLEM.
OUR GOAL IS TO PROVIDE AN EXTRA
LAYER OF OVERSIGHT TO PREVENT
ANOTHER TRAGEDY FROM OCCURRING.
THIS BILL ONLY FOCUSES ON
INDIVIDUALS WHO CONTINUED
DISREGARD AND ABUSE THE SYSTEM.
SENATE BILL 1262 PRIORITIZES
ACCOUNTABILITY TO PREVENT REPEAT
OFFENDERS ON COMMUNITY
SUPERVISION AND NEEDED OVERSIGHT
INFORMATION TO ENSURE THE
APPROPRIATE PERSONS RECEIVE THIS
TYPE OF RELEASE, ALL OF WHICH
ARE A TESTAMENT TO THE LESSONS
LEARNED FROM THE TRAGIC LOSS OF
OFFICER BOYLE. AND HERE WITH ME
TODAY IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL IS
MAYOR OF WHITTIER, JOE VENNERI
AND JOLINA MORRIS. WITH THE
LEAGUE OF CITIES, I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR AYE VOTE AND THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TIME. YES. PLEASE
BEGIN. YOU HAVE FOUR MINUTES
BETWEEN YOURSELVES. GOOD EVENING
AND THANK YOU SO MUCH, MEMBERS.
I'M JOE VINATIERI AND I'M THE
HONOR AND PLEASURE OF BEING THE
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF WHITTIER
FOR THE PAST 18 YEARS. FIRST, AS
A COUNCIL MEMBER AND THEN
ELECTED AS THE FIRST CITYWIDE
ELECTED MAYOR ON FEBRUARY 20TH,
2017. IT WAS A VERY DIFFICULT
DAY IN THE LIFE OF WHITTIER AND
THE LIFE OF THE MAYOR. OUR TIGHT
KNIT COMMUNITY WAS ROCKED TO ITS
CORE BY THE SENSELESS MURDER OF
WHITTIER POLICE OFFICER KEITH
BOYER BY AN INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS
ON POST COMMUNITY RELEASE
SUPERVISION, AND HE WAS KNOWN TO
HAVE SOME ISSUES WITH THE TERMS
OF HIS RELEASE. BASED UPON THE
NUMBER OF TECHNICAL VIOLATIONS
THAT HE HAD GARNERED IN A
RELATIVELY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME,
FIVE VIOLATIONS. THE MURDER OF
OFFICER BOYER WAS FELT SO DEEPLY
BY THE COMMUNITY THAT WHITTIER,
THEN ASSEMBLY MEMBER MEMBER IAN
CALDERON, INTRODUCED AB 1408. IN
RESPONSE TO THAT SENSELESS
TRAGEDY, AND MR. CALDERON WAS SO
MOVED BY THE ACTIONS OF FEBRUARY
20TH THAT, FOR ALL INTENTS AND
PURPOSES, HE WAS THE SPONSOR OF
THAT LEGISLATION. THAT BILL
PASSED THIS COMMITTEE AND THE
LEGISLATURE ON VERY STRONG
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT. WE TRULY
APPRECIATE THE STRONG BIPARTISAN
SUPPORT AT THAT POINT IN TIME,
AND WE ARE HOPEFUL TO CONTINUE
THAT MOMENTUM TODAY WITH THE
SPONSORSHIP OF SB 1262. WE'VE
WORKED HARD WITH THE OPPOSITION
IN THE OTHER HOUSE, AND IT'S
ABSOLUTELY NOT OUR INTENT. I
WANT TO UNDERLINE THAT
ABSOLUTELY NOT OUR INTENT TO
UNFAIRLY OR UNJUSTLY IMPUGN
INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE DOING THEIR
BEST TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF
RELEASE, BUT OUR ONLY GOAL IS TO
PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL
OVERSIGHT TO THE SMALL NUMBER OF
INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE FLAGRANTLY
DISREGARDING THEIR PC HOURS
CONDITIONS. SO I THANK THE
SENATOR FOR INTRODUCING THIS
VERY IMPORTANT BILL TO NOT ONLY
THE PEOPLE OF WHITTIER, BUT THE
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. APPRECIATE ALL THE
WORK OF THIS COMMITTEE AND THE
OTHER COMMITTEES, AND I
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. THANKS. SORRY
YES, YOU HAVE ABOUT TWO MINUTES
LEFT. SURE. I'LL BE SHORT, MR.
CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS JULIAN MORRIS
HERE ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
CITIES, I'M PLEASED TO BE HERE
IN SUPPORT AND WANT TO THANK THE
SENATOR FOR INTRODUCING THIS
MEASURE, THIS IS A TARGETED
APPROACH ON PRCS, WHICH PROVIDES
THAT IF YOU'RE ON THE, YOU KNOW,
THIRD OFFENSE OR IF YOU'RE
ACCRUING A NEW CRIME, THEN YOU
WOULD POTENTIALLY SERVE MORE
TIME. IT IS NOT INTENDED TO GO
BACK TO THE DAYS OF MASS
INCARCERATION OR ANYTHING. THIS
IS JUST ANOTHER LEVEL OF
OVERSIGHT, AND WE WOULD ALSO,
WANT TO, YOU KNOW, EMPHASIZE
THAT THIS IS FOR REPEAT
OFFENDERS, SOMETHING THAT THIS
LEGISLATURE HAS BEEN TRYING TO,
TO TARGET THIS YEAR WITH RETAIL
THEFT. SO WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF
THIS MEASURE. AND WE THINK IT'S
A COMMON SENSE APPROACH TO
PROVIDE MORE OVERSIGHT AND TO
DEAL WITH THOSE, AND THAT ARE
DOING THESE REPEAT OFFENSES AND
TO ENSURE THAT PRCS OR PROBATION
AND PAROLE ARE PROVIDED, THAT
ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT TO GET THE
SERVICES THAT THESE INDIVIDUALS
NEED. SO WE URGE YOUR AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU,
THOSE IN SUPPORT, PLEASE COME
FORWARD. COUNCIL MEMBER OCTAVIO
CAESAR MARTINEZ I'M IN SUPPORT
OF THIS. OKAY. CHAIR MEMBERS
JONATHAN FELDMAN, CALIFORNIA
POLICE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, OPPOSITION.
PLEASE COME FORWARD, SEEING NONE
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER REYES, WE HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND SUMMER. YES.
I'LL SECOND. I WANT TO THANK THE
SENATOR FOR WORKING WITH THE
OPPOSITION. I SAW THAT THERE ARE
A NUMBER OF THOSE IN OPPOSITION
WHO REMOVED, THEIR OPPOSITION
ARE NOW NEUTRAL, THAT TAKES A
LOT OF WORK. AND I APPRECIATE
YOU. YOU WORKING WITH THEM?
WELL, THANK YOU, ASSEMBLY
MEMBERS. IT'S, REALLY AN HONOR
TO BE HERE WITH ALL OF YOU,
BECAUSE I KNOW EACH AND EVERY
ONE OF YOU THAT YOU REPRESENT
YOUR DISTRICT AND THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. CAN JOIN US IN THIS,
BECAUSE HERE WE'RE TRYING TO
MAKE THINGS BETTER FOR THE
COMMUNITY AND THE STATE. AND I
THINK THIS IS A BIG STEP
FORWARD. WE'RE GOING TO HELP
INDIVIDUALS, BUT WE'RE GOING TO
MAKE SURE THOSE WHO,
CONTINUOUSLY VIOLATE THE LAW,
WILL SEEK THE HELP THEY GET AND
GET THEM BACK INTO THE SYSTEM
AND THE HEARING THEY NEED AND
THE OPPORTUNITY TO, GET BACK
INTO THE SYSTEM, AND BE GIVEN
EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO VOICE THEIR
OPINIONS. AND WITH THAT, MR.
CHAIR, I GUESS I'LL ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE. OKAY. THANK YOU. WE
HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON SB 1262
BY SENATOR ARCHULETA. THE MOTION
IS DUE. PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY, A MCCARTY. AYE. ALANIZ.
LAKI LAKI. AYE. NGUYEN. NGUYEN.
AYE. REYES REYES. AYE. TING TING
AYE. WILSON. SUBUR MEASURE
PASSES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
THANK YOU. MR. GLAZIER WAS HERE.
NO ADD ON. COULD YOU ADD ONS?
YEAH. THIS IS SOME ADD ONS.
THANK YOU. I'LL DO A FEW OF
THOSE. OH, YES. LET'S MOVE THE
CONSENT CALENDAR THAT HAS ONE
BILL BY SENATOR BILL. LUCKY
MEMBER. ITEM NUMBER 17 SB ITEM
NUMBER 17, SB 1202. ON THE
CONSENT CALENDAR. MCCARTY.
MCCARTY I ALANIS LACKEY. LACKEY
I NGUYEN NGUYEN. AYE. REYES.
REYES. AYE TING TING AYE. WILSON
ZUBER. THE CONSENT CALENDAR IS
ADOPTED. OKAY. SENATOR ASHBY IS
HERE. HAVE ITEM NUMBER 24, SB
1502. A CONTRAST, OKAY. I THINK
WE HAVE A WITNESS ON THE WAY,
BUT I'M GOING TO GET STARTED
ANYWAY. IF IT'S OKAY WITH YOU
GUYS. ALL RIGHT. TODAY. THANK
YOU. FIRST OF ALL, COLLEAGUES,
WHAT A WHAT A DAY, WHAT A DAY.
OKAY, I'M HERE TO PRESENT SB
1502, WHICH WILL SCHEDULE
XYLAZINE PREVENTING ITS ILLICIT
USE WHILE CREATING GUARDRAILS
FOR THE DRUG'S CONTINUED USE IN
VETERINARY MEDICINE. THE BILL IS
PART OF THE SENATE'S WORKING
TOGETHER FOR A SAFER CALIFORNIA
LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE THAT WE HAVE
TALKED ABOUT SEVERAL TIMES
TODAY. THIS IS A PORTION THAT
ADDRESSES THE FENTANYL CRISIS.
THE BILL RECEIVED BIPARTISAN
SUPPORT IN THE SENATE AND
ENJOYED NO NO VOTES. SB 1502 IS
A PRIORITY BILL FOR THE
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, COMMONLY
REFERRED TO AS TRANQ OR THE
ZOMBIE DRUG. XYLAZINE IS A
POTENT VETERINARY SEDATIVE WHICH
IS INCREASINGLY BEING TRAFFICKED
IN OUR COUNTRY. ACCORDING TO THE
DEA, XYLAZINE RELATED DEATHS
HAVE DRASTICALLY INCREASED
NATIONWIDE MORE THAN TRIPLING
FROM 2020 TO 2021. THERE IS A
GROWING TREND OF MIXING FENTANYL
WITH XYLAZINE, RENDERING IT,
RENDERING FENTANYL AND XYLAZINE
TOGETHER AS THE DEADLIEST DRUG
COMBINATION IN THE COUNTRY. SB
1502 WILL ADD XYLAZINE TO THE
LIST OF SCHEDULE THREE
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES, WHICH
ENABLES LAW ENFORCEMENT IN
CALIFORNIA TO RESTRICT ACCESS TO
THIS MEDICATION AND PREVENT ITS
ABUSE. XYLAZINE IS CONSIDERED
UNSAFE FOR HUMAN USE AND CAN
CAUSE SEVERE WOUNDS, POTENTIALLY
LEADING TO AMPUTATION OR FATAL
OVERDOSE. UNLIKE OPIOIDS,
XYLAZINE OVERDOSE CANNOT BE
REVERSED BY NARCAN. IN FACT, THE
USE OF XYLAZINE WITH FENTANYL
MAKES FENTANYL IMPERVIOUS TO
NARCAN, WHICH IS WHY IT IS THE
DEADLIEST COMBINATION IN THE
COUNTRY. WHILE XYLAZINE HASN'T
BEEN SCHEDULED FOR THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, CALIFORNIA SHOULD
LEAD THE WAY IN PREVENTING THE
TRAFFICKING OF THIS MEDICATION.
WE HAVE NEVER MADE IT A HABIT TO
WAIT FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
TO ACT, AND I DO NOT THINK WE
SHOULD DO SO WITH XYLAZINE. IT'S
CRUCIAL THAT WE TAKE STEPS TO
PROTECT CALIFORNIANS FROM THE
NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF XYLAZINE,
AND SB 1502 ENSURES THE HEALTH
AND SAFETY OF OUR COMMUNITIES BY
REGULATING ITS AVAILABILITY AND
PREVENTING ITS MISUSE. XYLAZINE
IS A PROBLEM RIGHT HERE IN
SACRAMENTO. OUR OWN SHERIFF, JIM
COOPER, HAS INDICATED THAT THE
NUMBERS OF XYLAZINE USE,
PARTICULARLY IN COMBINATION WITH
FENTANYL, HAVE GONE UP
DRASTICALLY. I KNOW THAT THIS
COMMITTEE HEARD A SIMILAR BILL
TO THIS ONE NOT LONG AGO, AND
MADE A DIFFERENT DECISION. MADE
A DECISION TO WAIT FOR THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. AND WHILE I
RESPECT OUR PROCESS, I DON'T
BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD CONTINUE
TO WAIT. I WOULD BE MORE THAN
HAPPY TO INCLUDE THAT AUTHOR
WITH ME ON THIS BILL. I KNOW IT
IS A PRIORITY FOR THE
ADMINISTRATION, A PRIORITY FOR
THE SENATE, AND MOST
IMPORTANTLY, IT IS A REALLY
IMPORTANT TOOL TO PROTECT 40
MILLION CALIFORNIANS. I HAVE
WITH ME A WITNESS WHO WILL TALK
AT THIS. THIS IS NOT OKAY.
GREAT. I HAVE WITH ME A WITNESS
WHO'S AN EXPERT IN THIS SPACE IN
TERMS OF VETERINARY MEDICINE,
WHO WILL SHARE WITH YOU SOME
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. GOOD
EVENING, MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
I'M CHRISTINA DECARO, AND I'M
PITCH HITTING FOR, DOCTOR GRANT
MILLER. THE CALIFORNIA
VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION,
A REGULATORY DIRECTOR. I AM
THEIR LOBBYIST. MR. CHAIRMAN AND
MEMBERS, THE CALIFORNIA
VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
IS IN STRONG SUPPORT OF SB 1502
BECAUSE IT MAKES AGGRESSIVE
MOVES TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM
XYLAZINE DIVERSION AND ABUSE,
WHILE BALANCING THE NEEDS FOR
VETERINARIANS TO MAINTAIN ACCESS
TO THIS IMPORTANT DRUG FOR USE
PRIMARILY IN LIVESTOCK, EQUINE
AND WILDLIFE. SPECIES. XYLAZINE
IS COMMONLY USED IN VETERINARY
MEDICINE TO PROVIDE SEDATION AND
PAIN CONTROL TO LIVESTOCK AND
HORSES. ITS USE AND AVAILABILITY
ARE OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE TO
ANIMAL SAFETY TO HUMAN SAFETY,
SUCH AS VETERINARIANS WHO HAVE
TO PERFORM PROCEDURES ON ANIMALS
THAT OUTWEIGH US BY TENFOLD, AND
PUBLIC SAFETY FOR ANIMAL CONTROL
DIRECTORS WHO USE IT TO SUBDUE
WILD AND LOOSE ANIMALS UNDER THE
DIRECTION OF A VETERINARIAN. IT
EASILY RANKS AMONG ONE OF THE
TOP TEN MOST IMPORTANT
MEDICATIONS IN LIVESTOCK, EQUINE
AND WILDLIFE, VETERINARY
MEDICINE. I MYSELF WILL
ADMINISTER XYLAZINE TO HORSES IN
NEARLY 75% OF MY DAILY
APPOINTMENTS. IT PROVIDES
EXCELLENT, QUICK AND PREDICTABLE
SEDATION AND PAIN CONTROL WITHIN
45 TO 60S. FOLLOWING
ADMINISTRATION, AND HE'LL USE IT
IN EMERGENCIES TO CALM AN AILING
HORSE AND DULL ITS PAIN TO KEEP
A HORSE RELAXED AND STILL, WHILE
HE NUMBS A WOUND FOR CLEANING
AND SUTURING. TO FACILITATE
DENTAL WORK, THE RISK TO HIM AND
HIS EQUINE PATIENTS IF HE WERE
TO TRY TO COMPLETE THESE MEDICAL
PROCEDURES WITHOUT XYLAZINE, IS
NOT SOMETHING HE WOULD LIKE TO
IMAGINE. HE SAYS, WE'D LIKE TO,
SUPPORT THIS BILL TODAY STRONGLY
TO HELP ENSURE THAT
VETERINARIANS WILL BE ABLE TO
MAINTAIN VITAL ACCESS TO
XYLAZINE FOR USE IN LEGITIMATE
VETERINARY PRACTICES AND
PROCEDURES THAT BENEFIT OUR
ANIMAL PATIENTS. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. ONE ADDITIONAL LEAD
WITNESS, CHAIRMAN MR. SHERMAN,
FROM THE CALIFORNIA NARCOTIC
OFFICERS ASSOCIATION. YES THANK
YOU. YOU HAVE ABOUT TWO MINUTES
LEFT IN YOUR PANEL. I'LL KEEP IT
SHORT, RYAN SHERMAN WITH
CALIFORNIA NARCOTIC OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION AND ALL THE OTHER
PPOS AND DSOS, PREVIOUSLY
STATED, HERE IN THIS COMMITTEE
TODAY, XYLAZINE ALSO KNOWN AS
TRANQ OR ZOMBIE DRUG, IS
FREQUENTLY USED AS AN ADULTERANT
MIXED WITH OTHER DRUGS,
ESPECIALLY FENTANYL. FENTANYL
MIXED WITH XYLAZINE ENHANCES
FENTANYLS EFFECTS, INCREASES ITS
ADDICTIVENESS, AND WORSENS THE
RISK OF LIFE THREATENING
OVERDOSES. AS PREVIOUSLY STATED
BY THE OTHER WITNESS, NARCAN
DOES NOT HAVE AN IMPACT ON
THESE, OVERDOSE SITUATIONS. AND
IT POSES ADDITIONAL CHALLENGES
TO FIRST RESPONDERS AND
EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS, SINCE
XYLAZINE ISN'T AN OPIATE AND
CAN'T BE REVERSED AS STATED, LAW
ENFORCEMENT RECOGNIZES SB 1502
AS AN IMPORTANT PREVENTATIVE
EFFORT TO DETERRING THE FURTHER
SATURATION OF XYLAZINE IN
CALIFORNIA, THE ILLICIT DRUG
MARKET, AND THE HARM THAT
RESULTS AND FOR THESE REASONS,
WE STRONGLY SUPPORT SB 1502 AND
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. OTHERS IN
SUPPORT, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. I'M MOIRA TOP HERE ON
BEHALF OF CITY OF SAN DIEGO
MAYOR TODD GLORIA, CO-SPONSOR OF
THE MEASURE AND STRONG SUPPORT.
GOOD EVENING, SHARON GONSALVES,
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
BAKERSFIELD, IN SUPPORT. JULIANA
BORIS, ON BEHALF OF THE LEAGUE
OF CALIFORNIA. CITIES IN
SUPPORT. OTHERS IN SUPPORT,
PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEEING NONE
. OPPOSITION. Dð COONEY, ON
BEHALF OF ACLU CALIFORNIA.
ACTION. REGRETFULLY IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 1502, THE ACLU
HAS CONSISTENTLY MAINTAINED THAT
ATTEMPTS TO ADDRESS THE PUBLIC
HEALTH PROBLEM OF DRUG ABUSE
THROUGH CRIMINAL LAW IS
INAPPROPRIATE, INEFFECTIVE,
COSTLY, AND LEADS TO WIDESPREAD
VIOLATION OF PRIVACY AND OTHER
CIVIL LIBERTIES. SB 1502, SORRY,
BECAUSE DRUG ENFORCEMENT IS
AIMED AT BEHAVIOR WHICH IS
INHERENTLY DIFFICULT TO DETECT
AND DOES NOT INVOLVE A
COMPLAINING VICTIM, IT
NECESSARILY RELIES ON LAW
ENFORCEMENT TECHNIQUES SUCH AS
THE USE OF UNDERCOVER
OPERATIONS, INVASIVE TESTING
PROCEDURES, RANDOM OR DRAGNET
SEIZURES, AND SIMILAR MEASURES
THAT ARE ARBITRARY BY NATURE AND
RAISE SERIOUS CIVIL LIBERTIES
CONCERNS. FOR THESE REASONS, WE
URGE A NO VOTE. THANK YOU. OKAY.
THANK YOU. OTHERS IN OPPOSITION,
PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEEING
NONE. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. YEAH. THANK
YOU. I'LL BE QUICK. I'M VERY
THANKFUL FOR THIS. THIS
PROPOSAL. TRANK IS A VERY, VERY
SCARY AND TOXIC INFLUENCE IN OUR
SOCIETY. AND, THE SCHEDULING OF
DRUGS IS VERY POWERFUL, JUST ASK
THE CANNABIS INDUSTRY, THAT'S
FACT IS, MAYBE WE CAN SET THE
STANDARD IN CALIFORNIA FOR THE
SCHEDULING OF THIS PARTICULAR
DRUG. AND THEN LET'S WORK ON
CANNABIS TO SET THE EXAMPLE.
THERE SOMETIMES THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IS VERY WELL, NOT
SOMETIMES THEY'RE ALWAYS SLOW,
SLOWER THAN US. AND SO I'M
THANKFUL THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY
ADDRESSING THIS IN AN
APPROPRIATE MANNER, BECAUSE
THERE'S NO OPIOID ANTAGONIST OR
NARCAN FOR TRANK, THERE'S
NOTHING TO RECOVER ONCE THIS IS
IN THEM, THEY'RE DOOMED. AND, WE
NEED TO TREAT IT THAT WAY. AND
THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT THE
SCHEDULING DOES. SO THANK YOU
FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD. VERY
PROUD TO, TO SUPPORT THIS. AND,
IF POSSIBLE, I'D LIKE TO BE A
COAUTHOR. OKAY. I DO HAVE A
QUESTION, SENATOR. SO YOU DID
MENTION IN YOUR STATEMENT THAT
THERE WAS ANOTHER BILL THAT WE
HEARD IN THIS COMMITTEE THAT'S
OVER IN THE SENATE TODAY, AND
THAT BILL, VERY SIMILAR BILL,
HAS A CLAUSE THAT SAYS THE
SCHEDULING OF XYLAZINE SHALL BE
CONTINGENT ON THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT PLACING IT ON THE
SCHEDULE, A SCHEDULE THREE OF
THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT.
SO THAT'S OUR COMMITTEE
AMENDMENT. SO ARE YOU ACCEPTING
THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT? NO, I
AM NOT. AND LET ME JUST TELL YOU
WHY I'M NOT ACCEPTING THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENT, THE BILL
THAT YOU HEARD PREVIOUSLY FROM
DOCTOR BANES IS, I THINK, A
REALLY GOOD AND IMPORTANT BILL.
IT'S ALSO MUCH BROADER THAN JUST
THE SCHEDULING OF XYLAZINE. SO
WHILE YOU REMOVED IN THIS
COMMITTEE THE SCHEDULING OF
XYLAZINE AND IN WAIT FOR THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO ACT, THERE
WERE OTHER PARTS OF THAT BILL
THAT SHE CONTINUED TO MOVE
FORWARD. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT
THAT WAS THE RIGHT CALL TO
REMOVE IT FROM HER BILL, AND I
DON'T BELIEVE IT'S THE RIGHT
CALL TO MOVE IT FROM THIS BILL.
I KNOW THAT I SHARED WITH YOU
EARLIER THE ADMINISTRATION IS
HOPING TO RECEIVE THIS BILL IN
ITS CURRENT FORM TO REVIEW THE
POINT OF THIS EFFORT IS FOR
CALIFORNIA TO HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO GET OUT IN FRONT
OF AN ISSUE THAT IS PLAGUING
OTHER STATES AND OTHER
COMMUNITIES, LIKE PHILADELPHIA,
TURNING LITERAL COMMUNITIES INTO
PLACES WHERE FOLKS ARE CALLED
ZOMBIES BECAUSE OF THIS DRUG,
WHICH IS WHY IT'S CALLED THE
ZOMBIE DRUG. SO I AM NOT GOING
TO ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS BECAUSE I BELIEVE THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS RENDER THIS
BILL NULL AND VOID, BECAUSE IT
WOULD DO NOTHING BUT WAIT FOR
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO ACT.
AND I DON'T KNOW, CALIFORNIA, TO
BE A STATE THAT SITS BACK AND
WAITS FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
TO SHOW US THE WAY. I BELIEVE
CALIFORNIA IS A LEADER, A LEADER
IN SO MANY WAYS AND IN SO MANY
SPACES. AND IF EVER THERE WAS A
PLACE WHERE WE SHOULD STAND UP
AND DEFEND 40 MILLION PEOPLE, IT
IS HERE, AS YOU HAVE. YOU ALL
HAVE BEEN DOING ALL DAY TODAY,
HEARING FENTANYL BILLS, HEARING
DRUG BILLS, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT
HOW TO KEEP PEOPLE SAFE. THIS IS
A VERY SIMPLE AND ELOQUENT WAY
TO DO JUST THAT. OKAY. THANK
YOU. SO JUST CONFIRMING YOU DO
NOT ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE.
CORRECT. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM OTHER COMMITTEE
MEMBERS? YES. MR. TÍNH. NO.
OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION. NO.
SECOND. NO. SECOND. NO SECOND.
THE BILL WILL BE HELD. THANK
YOU. MR. GLAZIER, IS HE THERE?
MR. ALLEN? OH, THERE SHE GOES.
LET ME LET ME JUST START BY
REALLY THANKING MY COLLEAGUE,
SENATOR GLAZIER, THE ONLY REASON
WHY I REALLY, I DON'T, I DON'T
LIKE, DOING THIS IS JUST THAT
I'VE GOT SARAH BROOKS WHO'S BEEN
HERE SINCE THIS MORNING AND, AS
YOU CAN TELL, HAS A LITTLE ONE
ON THE WAY AND HAS ONE ANOTHER
LITTLE ONE AT HOME. AND SHE CAME
IN FROM SONOMA, IT'S BEEN A LONG
DAY AS EVERYONE KNOWS. SO I
REALLY DO APPRECIATE IT,
SENATOR. AND, THANK YOU FOR
YOUR, FOR YOUR, YOUR INDULGENCE.
I KNOW, I KNOW, I KNOW, WE'VE
GOT A MARATHON GOING ON AT THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, SO LET ME
START BY THANKING THE CHAIR AND
THE COMMITTEE FOR ITS WORK, IT'S
TIME IT'S CONSIDERATION ON THIS
BILL. I AM ACCEPTING THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS TODAY, JUST
TO GIVE A LITTLE HISTORY ON THIS
TOPIC, IN 2017, THE LEGISLATURE
PASSED SB 180, AUTHORIZED BY
SENATORS HOLLY MITCHELL AND
RICARDO LARA, WHICH REPEALED THE
APPLICATIONS OF SENTENCE
ENHANCEMENTS THAT ADDED THREE
YEARS OF INCARCERATION FOR EACH
PRIOR NONVIOLENT DRUG OFFENSE.
THEN, TWO YEARS LATER, IN 2019,
THE LEGISLATURE PASSED SB 136 BY
SENATOR WIENER, WHICH REPEALED
THE APPLICATION OF SENTENCE
ENHANCEMENTS THAT ADDED ONE YEAR
OF INCARCERATION FOR EACH PRIOR
PRISON OR FELONY JAIL TERM,
UNLESS THERE WAS A PRIOR
CONVICTION FOR A SEXUALLY
VIOLENT OFFENSE. THESE TWO
REFORMS ARE APPLIED ONLY
PROSPECTIVELY TO CASES FILED
AFTER THE BILLS BECAME LAW. THIS
MEANT THAT THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE
IN CALIFORNIA JAILS AND PRISONS
WHO WERE CONVICTED PRIOR TO
THESE REFORMS WERE STILL SERVING
SENTENCES BASED ON THESE NOW
ELIMINATED ENHANCEMENTS. SO, I
CAME BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE IN
2021, WITH SB 483, AN IMPORTANT
PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT
RETROACTIVELY REMOVED THESE ONE
AND THREE YEAR SENTENCE
ENHANCEMENTS TO ENSURE THAT NO
ONE WAS SERVING EXTRA TIME BASED
ON THESE TWO TYPE OF NOW INVALID
ENHANCEMENTS. AND LET ME SAY,
OUR OFFICE HAS BEEN MADE AWARE
OF MANY STORIES OF PEOPLE WHO
HAVE BEEN HAVE GIVEN BACK, BEEN
GIVEN, GIVEN BACK YEARS OF THEIR
LIVES, AND THEY'RE MAKING THE
MOST OF IT. I'LL JUST GIVE YOU
ONE EXAMPLE, A CASE FROM 2012,
51 YEAR OLD MAN WHO WAS
SENTENCED TO 38 YEARS TO LIFE
FOR A NONVIOLENT BURGLARY WITH
NO HISTORY OF HARMING OTHERS
BASED ON PRIOR CONVICTIONS FOR
SUBSTANCE RELATED OFFENSES,
DURING HIS INCARCERATION, THE
MAN COMMITTED HIMSELF TO
REHABILITATION. HE WAS SOBER AT
THE TIME OF HIS RELEASE. HE'S
PARTICIPATED IN FAITH GROUPS.
THE GUITAR CHORUS TOOK PRIDE IN
HELPING OTHER INCARCERATED MEN.
AFTER SB 483, MY BILL PASSED,
HIS CASE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR
CONSIDERATION. AS A RESULT, AND
WITH A DETAILED SOCIAL HISTORY
REVEALING A TROUBLED PAST AND
NEWFOUND, SUPPORT FROM FAMILY.
HE WAS RELEASED IN 2022, AND
NOW, AT 63 YEARS OLD, HE'S
THRIVING WITH A STEADY JOB. HE'S
GOT HIS OWN APARTMENT, HE'S GOT
A COMMITMENT TO HIS OWN PASSIONS
AND HIS OWN SOBRIETY. AND AS OF
TODAY, SEVERAL THOUSAND PEOPLE
HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ACCESS
RESENTENCING HEARINGS UNDER SB
483. ABOUT 1500 ARE STILL
AWAITING VERIFICATION OF THEIR
ELIGIBILITY OR COMPLETION OF
THEIR RESENTENCING HEARING. NOW,
UNFORTUNATELY, THERE ARE SEVERAL
PEOPLE CONVICTED OF VIOLENT AND
HEINOUS CRIMES WHO WERE ALSO
UNINTENTIONALLY MADE ELIGIBLE
FOR RESENTENCING UNDER OUR BILL.
UNDER MY BILL, SB 43, ONE
EXAMPLE OF THIS IS THE VERY
NOTORIOUS RICHARD ALLEN DAVIS,
WHO WAS CONVICTED OF KIDNAPING
SEXUAL ASSAULT AND MURDER AT
KNIFEPOINT OF 12 YEAR OLD POLLY
KLASS IN 1993 AND SENTENCED TO
DEATH ON THE DAY HE WAS
CONVICTED. RICHARD ALLEN DAVIS
SHOWED NO REMORSE. INSTEAD, HE
GAVE THE ENTIRE COURT AND QUITE
FRANKLY, EVERY CALIFORNIAN IN
THE MIDDLE FINGER AND HARASSED
POLLY KLAAS FAMILY. AND IT WAS
THE HEINOUS NATURE OF THIS CASE
AND THE MANY KIDNAPING AND
ASSAULT PRIORS THAT RICHARD
ALLEN DAVIS HAD ON HIS RECORD
THAT GALVANIZED CALIFORNIA.
BEHIND PASSAGE OF THE THREE
STRIKES LAW. NOW, THIS YEAR,
SHOCKINGLY, TO ME, QUITE
FRANKLY, RICHARD ALLEN DAVIS
APPEALED TO THE COURTS FOR
RESENTENCING PURSUANT TO SB 483.
EVEN THOUGH THE ORIGINAL BILL
NEVER INTENDED TO PROVIDE A FULL
RESENTENCING OPPORTUNITY TO
PEOPLE SERVING SENTENCES FOR
CAPITAL AND SEXUALLY VIOLENT
OFFENSES. AND I COME BEFORE YOU
TODAY WITH SB 285 TO RIGHT THIS
ERROR, INVALIDATING SENTENCE
ENHANCEMENTS IN THESE WORST
CASES WILL NOT LESSEN SENTENCES
OR SHORTEN THE TIME
INCARCERATED. THESE ARE PEOPLE.
THIS IS A GUY WHO HAS A DEATH
SENTENCE. WE'RE TALKING YOU
KNOW, IN OTHER CASES WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT FOLKS, YOU KNOW,
AND WHAT WHAT'S HAPPENING IF WE
DON'T PASS THIS BILL IS IT'S,
YOU KNOW, CONTINUING TO PROCESS
THESE CASES SIMPLY WILL
EXACERBATE THE BACKLOG AND
FINANCIAL PRESSURES ON THE
COURTS. AND UNNECESSARILY REOPEN
THE WOUNDS OF THE FAMILIES OF
VICTIMS, WITH COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS, SB 285 CLARIFIES
THAT PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN
SENTENCED TO DEATH OR LIFE
WITHOUT PAROLE AND HAVE A
SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENSE ON
THEIR RECORD ARE NOT ELIGIBLE
FOR RESENTENCING UNDER SB 43,
THIS BILL WILL NOT RETROACTIVELY
AFFECT ANYONE WHO'S ALREADY BEEN
RESENTENCED UNDER SB 483, BUT
ULTIMATELY, THIS IS ABOUT
REDUCING CASELOADS AND LIMITING
THE RETRAUMATIZATION OF VICTIMS
AND THEIR FAMILIES. IF SHOULD
YOU HAVE ANY TECHNICAL
QUESTIONS? I DON'T KNOW IF YOU
WANT TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS.
YEAH. OKAY. SO WE HAVE WITH ME
TODAY, SONOMA DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY SARAH BROOKS AND MARK
KLAAS, WHO'S HERE AS WELL, WHO
WHO I DIDN'T KNOW WAS COMING
TODAY. HE HEARD ABOUT THE BILL
AND DECIDED TO SHOW UP. AND I
JUST OUT OF RESPECT FOR HIM, I
WANTED TO GIVE HIM AN
OPPORTUNITY. YES. YOU HAVE, FOUR
MINUTES FOR YOUR PANEL. IF YOU
WANT. THANK YOU TO THE
COMMITTEE. AND ALSO THANK YOU TO
SENATOR ALLEN FOR AUTHORING SB
285. I DO WANT TO URGE SUPPORT
FOR THE BILL, GIVEN WHAT WE'RE
SEEING AT THE SUPERIOR COURT
LEVEL, I THINK THAT THIS BILL
WOULD, WOULD GO A LONG WAY IN
LIMITING SOME OF THE CONGESTION
THAT WE'RE SEEING WITH
RESENTENCING SENTENCING ON SOME
OF THE MORE HEINOUS AND VIOLENT
CRIMINAL OFFENDERS THAT WE'RE
STILL DEALING WITH, IN TERMS OF
RESENTENCING, I THINK SB 483,
HAS ACCOMPLISHED A LOT OF WHAT
ITS ORIGINAL INTENT WAS MEANT TO
DO. WE'VE, WE'VE AT LEAST IN OUR
COUNTY, WE HAVE PROCEEDED
THROUGH MOST OF THE RESENTENCING
THINGS, AND A LOT OF DEFENDANTS
HAVE SEEN SOME SIGNIFICANT
ADJUSTMENTS TO THEIR SENTENCES,
AND BY CLARIFYING WHO REMAINS
ELIGIBLE UNDER SB 285, IT WOULD
SIMPLY LIMIT THE CONGESTION FOR,
FOR THE CASES THAT REMAIN THE
MOST SERIOUS, THE MOST VIOLENT,
AND FOR WHICH, THE DEFENDANT HAS
EARNED THE MOST SERIOUS
SENTENCE, SPECIFICALLY, A
CAPITAL SENTENCE OR A LIFE
WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF
PAROLE ON A SEXUALLY VIOLENT
OFFENSE. I THINK THAT, IT
PROVIDES SOME CLARITY AT THE
SUPERIOR COURT LEVEL ABOUT WHO
SHOULD REMAIN ELIGIBLE OR WHO
SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE
ELIGIBLE UNDER 1172 .75 AND
WOULD HELP PROVIDE CONSISTENCY
AMONG THE COUNTIES WITH DEALING
WITH THE REMAINING CASES. AND
GIVEN WHAT WE'RE SEEING AT THE
SUPERIOR COURT LEVEL, THAT WOULD
HELP A LOT WITH THE CURRENT
CONGESTION ON RESENTENCING. AND
IT WOULD ALSO GO A VERY LONG WAY
IN STOPPING THE RETRAUMATIZATION
OF OUR VICTIMS, MANY OF WHOM ARE
STARTLED TO FIND OUT THAT, THE
DEFENDANTS WHO COMMITTED THE
MOST SERIOUS ACTS AND THE MOST
VIOLENT, THE MOST HEINOUS ACTS
ARE EVEN CONSIDERED FOR
RESENTENCING CAN BE VERY
TRAUMATIC FOR MANY OF OUR
VICTIMS. AND THE PROCESS OF
GOING THROUGH THESE RESENTENCING
, WHICH AT THIS POINT HAVE TAKEN
A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF TIME, I
THINK THAT THIS BILL WOULD GO A
LONG WAY IN PROVIDING SOME
CLOSURE AND SOLACE FOR THE
FAMILIES WHO HAVE LOST THE MOST.
SO I WOULD URGE THE COMMITTEE TO
SUPPORT THE BILL. YES. THANK
YOU. MY NAME IS MARK KLAAS. I'M
WITH THE CLASS CGRTS FOUNDATION,
AND I'M POLLY KLAAS FATHER IN
1960 1996, A JURY FOUND RICHARD
ALLEN DAVIS GUILTY OF CAPITAL
MURDER AND A VARIETY OF,
SENTENCING ENHANCEMENTS. AND THE
JUDGE SENTENCED HIM TO DEATH. I
WAS TOLD AT THAT TIME THAT,
BARRING ANY CHANGES THROUGH THE
APPEALS PROCESS, THAT THAT WE
WERE DONE WITH THIS MAN AND WE
WOULD NEVER HAVE TO DEAL WITH
THIS AGAIN, HOWEVER, WHAT I WAS
INFORMED THAT A HEARING FOR
SENTENCING RECONSIDERATION WAS
BEING CONDUCTED BY THE SANTA
CLARA SUPERIOR COURT ON APRIL
5TH, I DIDN'T KNOW QUITE WHERE
TO GO WITH THIS. AND MY MENTAL
AND PHYSICAL HEALTH TOOK A TURN
FOR THE WORSE BECAUSE THIS
PREVIOUSLY DIAGNOSED SEXUALLY
SADISTIC PSYCHOPATH WAS BEING
GIVEN. YET ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY
TO REDUCE HIS SENTENCE. I
SUFFERED PTSD, AN INABILITY TO
FOCUS, MOOD SWINGS, LOSS OF
APPETITE AND SLEEP. OTHER
MEMBERS OF MY FAMILY WERE
SIMILARLY AFFECTED. THIS MAN IS
THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG. IF
RICHARD ALLEN DAVIS SOMEHOW
QUALIFIES FOR RESENTENCING UNDER
ONE, 172.5, THEN VIRTUALLY EVERY
OTHER DEATH ROW INMATE IN
CALIFORNIA IS GOING TO TRY THE
SAME GAMBIT TO GET OUT AND
HUNDREDS, IF NOT THOUSANDS OF
FAMILIES ARE GOING TO GO THROUGH
EXACTLY THE SAME THING THAT I
DID. IT'S UNFAIR. IT'S UNCALLED
FOR. IT SHOULDN'T BE HAPPENING.
WE CAN'T TURN AWAY THE WE JUST
CAN'T TURN OUR BACK ON. ON THE
FINDINGS OF A JURY. SO I BELIEVE
THIS DOES NOTHING MORE THAN BOG
DOWN OUR COURTS, RIG VICTIMIZE
INNOCENT VICTIMS OR THEIR GRIEF
STRICKEN FAMILIES, AND OFFER THE
WORST OF THE WORST OFFENDERS IN
OUR PRISON SYSTEM. OPPORTUNITIES
FOR RESENTENCING OR IN SOME
CASES, POSSIBLY EVEN RELEASE
FROM PRISON. I HOPE THAT YOU
VOTE YES ON SB 285 AND PUT AN
END TO THIS MADNESS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU OTHERS IN SUPPORT,
PLEASE COME FORWARD. YES, MISTER
CHAIRMAN MEMBERS CARL LONDON, ON
BEHALF OF CRIME VICTIMS UNITED
ALSO IN STRONG SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. BEVERLY DUKES BROWN ON
BEHALF OF GET VOCAL FOR VICTIMS
AND STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
RYAN SHERMAN WITH THE RIVERSIDE
SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION SUPPORT
AND ALL THE OTHER LAW
ENFORCEMENT GROUPS PREVIOUSLY
STATED ALONG WITH THE CRIME
VICTIMS ALLIANCE IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. YES. OPPOSITION,
PLEASE COME FORWARD. OKAY.
OKAY. YOU HAVE FOUR MINUTES FOR
YOUR PANEL. GOOD EVENING. AND
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WANT TO
THANK SENATOR ALLEN AS WELL AS
THE FAMILY, FOR BEING HERE ON
THIS VERY IMPORTANT HEARING. AND
I'M REALLY GLAD THAT WE'RE ALL
HERE TO TALK ABOUT THIS. MY NAME
IS ELLIOT HOFFMAN. I'M A
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SPECIALIST AT
THE SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC
DEFENDER'S OFFICE RESENTENCING
UNIT, WHERE WE DO THESE SB 483
RESENTENCING HEARINGS, I'M
TESTIFYING IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. WE WERE PART OF THE
GROUP THAT WORKED WITH SENATOR
ALLEN. WE'RE VERY ENTHUSIASTIC
ABOUT THE PROMISE OF SB 483. AND
I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THIS
HORRIBLE INSTANCE THAT JUST
HAPPENED, RIGHT, THAT NONE OF US
ANTICIPATED THAT MR. RICHARD
ALLEN DAVIS WOULD BE A PART OF
THIS, NECESSARILY. BUT I WANT TO
SAY THAT THE JUDGE DID THE RIGHT
THING, AND I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT
THAT THAT HEARING, AS HORRIBLE
AS THIS, HAS BEEN, AND MY HEART
GOES OUT TO THAT FAMILY, I WANT
TO SAY THAT THE SYSTEM DOES NOT
NEED TO BE CLARIFIED IN THE
COUNTIES DO HAVE THE CLARITY
THAT THEY NEED AT THIS EXACT
TIME TO MAKE THIS DECISION OVER
AND OVER AGAIN, WITH THE
SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE. IN FACT,
EVEN IF THE JUDGE IN RICHARD
ALLEN DAVIS'S CASE HAD NOT DONE
THE RIGHT THING, THE BOARD OF
PAROLES WOULD HAVE HAD TO CLEAR
IT, THE GOVERNOR WOULD HAVE HAD
TO CLEAR IT, AND THEN THE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE HOSPITALS
WOULD HAVE HAD TO DECIDE WHETHER
OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO CIVILLY
COMMIT THIS MAN FOR THE REST OF
HIS LIFE. THERE'S A NUMBER OF
POLITICALLY MOTIVATED ACTORS WHO
CARE DEEPLY ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY.
I DO WANT TO SAY THAT ALL OF
THESE RESENTENCING PROCEEDINGS
ARE SYSTEM INITIATED, WHICH
MEANS THAT THE LIST OF CDCR AND
THE SHERIFF CREATED IN 2022 HAD
RICHARD ALLEN DAVIS'S NAME ON
IT. BUT THEY DID ALSO HAD
EVERYONE ELSE'S NAME ON IT.
RIGHT? THERE'S NOT A RACKET ON
DEATH ROW, RIGHT NOW. YOU CANNOT
PETITION TO GET INTO THE COURT.
ON SB 483. THESE LISTS WERE
CREATED BY SHERIFFS AND THE CDCR
IN 2022. THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN
SENT TO THE COURTS. AS SENATOR
ALLEN SAID, THERE ARE A FEW
REMAINING PEOPLE ON THIS LIST.
HOWEVER CREATING NEW EXCEPTIONS
WILL NOT UNDO WHAT HAS HAPPENED
HERE AND IT WON'T PREVENT IT
FROM HAPPENING AGAIN BECAUSE
THESE FOLKS THAT ARE ELIGIBLE
ARE GOING TO BE SUBJECT TO
JUDICIAL DISCRETION. AND THIS
DISCRETION IS EXACTLY WHAT
HAPPENED. WHILE IN THIS CASE.
BUT I ALSO WANT TO NOTE THAT
THIS BILL SEEKS TO SOLVE A
PROBLEM THAT IT WILL NOT SOLVE.
AND I WILL DEFER TO MY
COLLEAGUE. MR. KING, GOOD
EVENING. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR
AND OTHER ESTEEMED MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE, FOR
YOUR CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF
THIS LEGISLATION. BEFORE YOU.
I'M HERE, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT
TO SENATOR ALLEN, TO OPPOSE SB
285, BECAUSE IT ROLLS BACK SB
248 THREE, ALSO AUTHORED BY
SENATOR ALLEN, WHICH PROVIDED A
MUCH NEEDED CORRECTION TO FAIL
SENTENCE ENHANCEMENT LAWS PASSED
DURING CALIFORNIA'S TOUGH ON
CRIME ERA. MY NAME IS JAMES
KING. I CURRENTLY SERVE AS
CO-DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMS FOR THE
ELLA BAKER CENTER FOR HUMAN
RIGHTS. THE ELLA BAKER CENTER
WAS A CO-SPONSOR OF THE PRIOR
RISE ACT, WITH SENATOR MITCHELL,
SENATOR WIENER, AND SENATOR
ALLEN HIMSELF. AND AS YOU KNOW,
RISE IS AN ACRONYM FOR REPEAL
AND EFFECTIVE SENTENCING
ENHANCEMENTS. I'VE WORKED WITH
THE ELLA BAKER CENTER FOR THE
PAST FOUR YEARS. PRIOR TO THAT,
I WAS INCARCERATED, SERVING A
LIFE SENTENCE UNDER CALIFORNIA'S
THREE STRIKES LAW. AT THE TIME
OF MY CONVICTION, THERE WEREN'T
ANY VIABLE LEGISLATIVE OPTIONS
FOR RELIEF FOR MY 30 YEAR TO
LIFE SENTENCE. IN SPITE OF THAT,
I COMMITTED MYSELF TO EDUCATION
AND GROWTH. AND IN 2019, I WAS
ONE OF THE FORTUNATE FEW WHOSE
SENTENCE WHO RECEIVED CLEMENCY
FROM GOVERNOR BROWN. WHEN I
FIRST WENT TO PRISON, I WAS
DEVASTATED. I THOUGHT MY LIFE
WAS OVER, BUT THERE WERE PEOPLE
AT THE PRISON. I WAS AT, MOST OF
WHOM WERE SERVING LIFE WITHOUT
THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE, LIKE
MY GOOD FRIEND ANTHONY WEBB, WHO
SUPPORTED ME, MENTORED ME,
POINTED ME TOWARDS INFORMATION,
THE TOOLS TO HEAL, TO MAKE
SMARTER DECISIONS, AND TO BE IN
HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS. WHEN I
WAS AT MY LOWEST POINT BECAUSE
OF MY OWN ACTIONS, IT WAS PEOPLE
WHO WERE SERVING LIFE SENTENCES
AND LIFE SENTENCES WHO BELIEVED
I COULD CHANGE AND POURED THEIR
WISDOM INTO ME. WHAT SB 483 DOES
IS GIVE PEOPLE HOPE. ONE OF THE
CENTRAL TENETS OF REHABILITATION
IS THAT YOU ARE NOT THE WORST
THING YOU HAVE DONE. INSTEAD,
YOU ARE A PERSON WHO CAN CHANGE,
EVOLVE, AND GROW. AND IF YOU'RE
WILLING TO PUT THE WORK IN AND
LEARN HOW TO PROCESS YOUR OWN
TRAUMA, CHANGE YOUR BELIEF
SYSTEMS AND PRACTICE THE TOOLS
TO COPE WITH TRAUMA AND HEALTHY
WAYS, YOU CAN HAVE A HEALTHIER,
HAPPIER LIFE, EVEN IN PRISON.
THANK YOU. TIME, OTHERS IN
OPPOSITION, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
DANICA ADAMO, ON BEHALF OF
INITIATE JUSTICE IN OPPOSITION,
ALSO REGISTERING FOR THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION, THAT THEY HAVEN'T
HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE
AMENDMENTS AND DIGEST THEM. BUT
THEY'RE TAKING A LOOK AT IT.
THANKS GOOD EVENING, GLEN BACKUS
, FOR ORIGINAL SPONSORS OF THE
MITCHELL WIENER AND ALLEN BILL,
ELLA BAKER CENTER FOR HUMAN
RIGHTS, CALIFORNIANS UNITED FOR
RESPONSIBLE BUDGET IN
OPPOSITION. ALSO FOR THE RECORD,
FELONY MURDER ELIMINATION
PROJECT JUST ADVOCATE CALIFORNIA
INNOCENCE PROJECT AND UNCOMMON
LAW ALL OPPOSE THANK YOU.
MELANIE KIM, SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE.
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. SEEING NO MORE OPPOSITION,
THANK YOU, SENATOR, FOR
PRESENTING THIS BILL. AND WE
SPENT SOME TIME LAST FEW WEEKS.
AND I THINK IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S
KEY THAT YOU AUTHORED THIS BILL
A FEW YEARS AGO, AND NOT A LOT
OF TIMES YOU TAKE BACK AND LOOK,
OH, I COULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING
DIFFERENTLY. THAT WASN'T MY
INTENDED PURPOSE. SO I
ACKNOWLEDGE YOU FOR DOING JUST
THAT. AND I THINK THIS WAS
BALANCED. I THINK THE COMPROMISE
THAT WE WORKED OUT, MEETS WHAT
THE OBJECTIVE IS GOING FORWARD,
SO THANK YOU FOR PRESENTING
THAT. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? SO
MOVED A MOTION IN A SECOND.
FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS. YOU MAY
CLOSE. YEAH THANK YOU. AND I
WANT TO THANK THE CHAIR FOR A
THOUGHTFUL ENGAGEMENT. AND LET
ME SAY TO MY I MEAN, THIS IS A
PAINFUL EXPERIENCE FOR ME,
RIGHT? WE WERE ALL STANDING
TOGETHER, WITH, WITH SB, 483
AND, YOU KNOW, PART OF, YOU KNOW
, I'M PROUD OF MUCH OF WHAT SB
43, THE VAST MAJORITY OF WHAT SB
483 IS DONE. I MEAN, THERE'S SO
MANY WONDERFUL STORIES OF
REDEMPTION, YOU KNOW, I HAVE TO
EMPHASIZE, I MEAN, WHEN WE FIRST
INTRODUCED THIS BILL, IT WAS
OVERLY BROAD. WE WORKED HARD
WITH THE COMMITTEE TO GET IT
VERY NARROW. I MEAN, I JUST HAVE
TO EMPHASIZE TO FOLKS HOW NARROW
THIS IS. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN SENTENCED
TO DEATH OR LIFE WITHOUT THE
POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE. NOT THREE
STRIKES CASES. AND YOU HAVE TO
HAVE A SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENSE,
YOU KNOW, THIS WAS JUST NOT THE
CASE. YOU KNOW? I MEAN, I WAS
OUT THERE CONVINCING FOLKS TO
VOTE FOR THE PREVIOUS BILL. I
MEAN, PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, MY
FRIEND SENATOR GLAZER, WHO'S
WALKING AROUND IN THE BACK, YOU
KNOW, THIS WAS THESE WERE THE
KINDS OF CASES THAT WE JUST THIS
WAS NOT WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO
ADDRESS. WE WERE TRYING TO
ADDRESS THE FOLKS LIKE YOU,
RIGHT, WHO ARE WRAPPED UP IN THE
MADNESS OF THREE STRIKES, YOU
KNOW, FOLKS WHO MAYBE COMMITTED
A CRIME BASELINE OF SEVEN YEARS.
SUDDENLY THEY'RE IN THERE FOR 45
YEARS BECAUSE THEY HAD PRIOR
AND, YOU KNOW, ALL THESE EXTRA
THINGS THAT WERE ADDED ON, SO,
YOU KNOW, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE,
IN SUCH RESPECTFUL DISAGREEMENT
WITH MY FRIENDS HERE, FROM MY
PERSPECTIVE, THIS REALLY RETURNS
THE BILL TO, TO ITS ORIGINAL
INTENT. SB 43, AND, YOU KNOW,
IT'S VERY NARROWLY CRAFTED, BUT
IN THE END OF THE DAY, THIS IS
ABOUT THIS IS ABOUT, YOU KNOW,
DOING RIGHT BY VICTIMS FAMILIES,
REDUCING CASELOADS AND BASICALLY
NOT. AND NOT GETTING US TO A
SITUATION WHERE WE'RE WE'RE
HAVING RESENTENCING HEARINGS FOR
FOLKS WHOM IT'S ACTUALLY
IRRELEVANT BECAUSE THESE ARE
PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN SENTENCED
TO EITHER TO DEATH OR LIFE
WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF
PAROLE. SO THAT'S MY RESPECTFUL
PERSPECTIVE. I KNOW IT'S
DIFFERENT FROM OUR FOLKS, BUT I
REALLY, IN THAT SPIRIT, ASK FOR
AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU, WE HAVE
A MOTION A SECOND, PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL ON SB 285 BY SENATOR
ALLEN. THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS
AS AMENDED, TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY MCCARTY I ALANIS.
ALANIS. AYE LAKI LAKI. AYE.
NGUYEN REYES. REYES. AYE. TÍNH
WILSON. ZUBIR THAT MEASURES ON
CALL. OKAY. THANK YOU, NEXT
MEASURE. SENATOR GLAZIER. RIGHT
HERE. OKAY YES. THERE HE IS.
THANK YOU. STEVE ALLEN. THERE
WAS A PREGNANT LADY. GO HOME.
IT'S OKAY. CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS
RESPECTFULLY. ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. OKAY. WHO'S THE SPONSOR OF
THIS BILL? I AM EXCELLENT. SO
I'D LIKE TO HEAR, WITNESS IN
SUPPORT HERE FOR TECHNICAL
QUESTIONS. IF NECESSARY. POLICE
CHIEFS ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT.
WE HAD A MOTION. SECOND
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? NO
OTHERS. OTHERS IN SUPPORT. I WAS
JUST GOING. SORRY, I'M OLD AND
FAT AND I'M RUNNING AS FAST AS I
CAN. MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION, ALSO
EXPRESSING THE SUPPORT OF THE
CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
ASSOCIATION. THANK YOU. ACLU
CALIFORNIA ACTION IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. OKAY YEAH. ANY OTHERS
IN SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION? THIS
IS A RECORD. OKAY SEEING NONE,
NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. WE HAVE A
MOTION A SECOND, PLEASE OR MR.
CLOSE, IT'S A NARROWLY CRAFTED
BILL. RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
VOTE TODAY. YES. PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ON SB 1256 BY SENATOR
GLAZIER. THE MOTION IS DUE PASS
TO THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY A MCCARTY A ALANIZ.
ALANIZ A LAKI LAKI. AYE NGUYEN.
REYES REYES. NOT VOTING. TING
WILSON. SOBER THAT MEASURES ON
CALL. OKAY, LET'S GO REAL QUICK.
WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A VOTE ONLY
ON ITEM NUMBER 25, SB 89. OCHOA
B¢O, THE CHAIR IS AT A NO
RECOMMENDATION, DO NOT ACCEPT
THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS. SO THE
RECOMMENDATION IS A NO. PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. NO. WE NEED A
MOTION. NO, DID NOT DO NOT
ACCEPT. WE NEED A MOTION TO.
HOW'S IT WORK? SECOND. LOOKING
FOR A NO. THIS MOTION. THIS BILL
IS FOR VOTE ONLY. SB 89. OCHOA
BOGH. THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS TO
THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY. NO. MCCARTY. NO ALANIS.
ALANIS. AYE. LAKI LAKI. AYE
NGUYEN. REYES REYES NO TING.
EXCUSE ME. REYES. NOT VOTING.
TING TING. NOT VOTING. WILSON.
ZIPPER MCCARTY. NOT VOTING. OH
EXCUSE ME. ON SB 89. MCCARTY. NO
TO NOT VOTING. THAT MEASURES ON
CALL. THANK YOU. OKAY. IS DEROSA
PRESENT THEIR BILLS? BRADFORD
UMBERG DEROSA.
YEAH OH, YEAH. WENT DOWN THE
HALLWAY. ON NUMBER.
ONE. TWO.
OH ITEM 22. SENATOR BRADFORD, SB
1328, PLEASE PRESENT. YES, IT'S
1328 TO UPDATE AND MAKES CLEAR
EXISTING LAW AND PROCEDURES
REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO ELECTION
TECHNOLOGY. CERTIFIED, FOR
CERTIFIED USE IN CALIFORNIA AND
CALIFORNIA HAS THE MOST
STRINGENT VOTING SYSTEM TESTING,
CERTIFICATION AND USE
REQUIREMENTS IN THE COUNTRY.
HOWEVER, EXISTING LAW ON
STORAGE, MAINTENANCE, AND
DESTRUCTION OF ELECTION
MATERIALS MUST BE UPDATED TO
PROVIDE CLEAR GUIDANCE FOR
ELECTRONIC VOTING DATA. SB 1328
CLARIFIES EXISTING LAW RELATED
TO THE CRIME OF INTERFERING OR
ATTEMPTING TO INTERFERE WITH
VOTING OR VOTING MACHINES TO
CONFORM WITH CURRENT TECHNOLOGY.
THIS BILL HAS RECEIVED
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT, AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AYE VOTE
HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. IS
RODNEY RODRIGUEZ FROM CALIFORNIA
SECRETARY OF STATE'S OFFICE? OH,
NO. RODNEY LOUD. SO, OKAY, OKAY.
YOU'RE THE STAR WITNESS. I GUESS
I AM. OKAY. OTHERS IN SUPPORT,
PLEASE COME FORWARD. GOOD
EVENING. LARA SOME RECORD ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF CLERKS AND
ELECTION OFFICIALS AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COMING
OVER? NO NO, THERE'S AN
OPPOSITION. ANYBODY IN
OPPOSITION? Þ ROSE. OPPOSITION.
THERE'S OPPOSITION TO STEVE
RAFEAL. I'LL BE BRIEF, SIR,
DYLAN ELLIOTT, ON BEHALF OF THE
SHASTA COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED FOR THE REASONS OUTLINED
IN THE ANALYSIS. THANK YOU.
ELECTION DENIERS. ALRIGHTY.
SEEING NO OTHER OPPOSITION, WE
HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND,
BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. NO QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS. YOU MAY CLOSE. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AYE VOTE.
GREAT. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL NOW.
WE'RE GOING TO TALK FAST. YES ON
SB 1328 BY SENATOR BRADFORD, THE
MOTION IS DUE. PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY HI. MCCARTY. I ELANESE
LAKI LAKI. AYE. NGUYEN NGUYEN.
AYE. REYES REYES. AYE. TÍNH
WILSON. ZIPPER. THAT MEASURES ON
CALL MEASURE IS ON TÊ. MY
APOLOGIES. ON SB 1328 TÍNH TÊ
TÍNH. I STILL ON CALL? NO. THAT
BAD? FOR OKAY. YEAH, YEAH, IT'S
KIND OF COOL. I'M GOING TO HANG
OUT. ONE, TWO THREE, FOUR. IT'S
ONLY FOUR OF US. OH, I MISSED
REYES. YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH.
OKAY. MR. UMBERG. YES. HI. THANK
YOU. ITEM NUMBER ONE S 99. IT'S,
QUITE BALMY HERE. I THINK I'M
GOING TO STICK AROUND FOR A
WHILE. I'M GONNA GO VERY SLOW.
HAVE YOU BEEN OVER TO WHERE WE
ARE? IT'S HOT. ALL RIGHT, THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND ANDREA
IRONSIDE FOR WORKING ON THIS
BILL AND IMPROVING THIS BILL.
HERE'S WHAT THE THIS WHAT THE
BILL IS ABOUT, IT CAME TO OUR
ATTENTION THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE HAS BANNED THE
ACQUISITION OR USE OF CERTAIN
EQUIPMENT, BECAUSE THEY WERE
CONCERNED THAT THAT EQUIPMENT
MIGHT BE USED BY THE CHINESE
GOVERNMENT TO SPY ON US AND
COLLECT INFORMATION ON
INDIVIDUALS AS WELL AS,
GEOGRAPHY AS WELL AS INDUSTRY,
AS WELL AS ALL KINDS OF OTHER
SENSITIVE ITEMS. AND SO WE
INTRODUCED A BILL THAT SAID, IF
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BANS
THE USE OR ACQUISITION OF
CERTAIN EQUIPMENT BECAUSE
THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT NATIONAL
SECURITY, THAT OUR LAW
ENFORCEMENT FOLKS SHOULD BE IN A
SIMILAR SITUATION. THIS BILL
WILL BE AMENDED TO ADDRESS LAW
ENFORCEMENT CONCERNS ABOUT THE
EXISTING INVENTORY OF,
SPECIFICALLY, DRONES THAT HAVE
BEEN PURCHASED FROM THE CHINESE
MANUFACTURED IN CHINA. I'M
INFORMED THAT'S THE ONLY PLACE
THEY CAN MANUFACTURE CERTAIN
DRONES THAT CAN BE USED FOR
THESE LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES.
AND SO WE ARE ENTERTAINING AT
LEAST A TWO YEAR, A TWO YEAR
PERIOD BEFORE THE LAW COMES INTO
EFFECT, AS WELL AS A PROVISION
THAT IF THE ACQUIRING ENTITY, IN
ESSENCE CLEANSES, THAT DRONE.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DRONES RIGHT
NOW FROM THE ABILITY TO BE ABLE
TO TRANSMIT INFORMATION TO CHINA
OR OTHER LOCATIONS OTHER THAN
THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF THAT
LOCATION, THAT THAT WILL SUFFICE
SO THAT THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
ENTITY CAN CONTINUE TO USE IT.
WE'VE GOTTEN INPUT FROM VARIOUS
SHERIFFS IN ORANGE COUNTY AND
SAN DIEGO COUNTY AND IN
SACRAMENTO COUNTY, AND THAT'S
BEEN VERY VALUABLE. AND US
WORKING ON THE BILL, AND SO
THAT'S WHERE WE ARE, I HAVE I AM
THE WITNESS. SO WITH THAT, I
URGE AND I VOTE ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT, ANY OTHER
WITNESSES, ANY OTHER WITNESSES
IN SUPPORT? I DON'T THINK SO.
NO. OKAY. SORRY. I THOUGHT YOU
WERE MAKING YOUR WAY UP HERE.
HOW ABOUT OPPOSITION? YOU HAVE
FOUR MINUTES BETWEEN THE TWO, SO
I'M GOING TO DO MY THREE. YEAH,
YOU DO THAT ALL THE TIME. SORRY,
I PROMISE, I PROMISE. GOOD
EVENING EVERYONE. MY NAME IS
MIKE WALSH. I'M A SHERIFF'S
LIEUTENANT WITH THE RIVERSIDE
COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, AND I
WORK AT OUR SPECIAL ENFORCEMENT
BUREAU. I'M HERE TO TESTIFY ON
THE OPPOSITION OF SB 99 ON
BEHALF OF SHERIFF CHAD BIANCO.
MORE SPECIFICALLY, THE PASSING
OF THIS BILL WOULD LIMIT OR
PREVENT MY ORGANIZATION FROM
PURCHASING AND DEPLOYING FOREIGN
MADE UAS OR DRONES. I'VE WORKED
FOR THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY
SHERIFF'S OFFICE FOR 28 YEARS,
AND HAVE SERVED WITH OUR SWAT
TEAM FOR APPROXIMATELY 22 YEARS.
WE ARE A FULL TIME TEAM AND USE
UAS AND DRONES ON NEARLY EVERY
OPERATION. WE RUN AN AVERAGE OF
APPROXIMATELY TWO OPERATIONS,
200 OPERATIONS A YEAR. WE HAVE A
LARGE UAS FLEET PRIMARILY
PRODUCED BY FOREIGN
MANUFACTURERS. THEY'RE
REASONABLY PRICED. THE CURRENT
FLEET VALUE IS NEARLY $300,000.
WE HAVE VARIOUS SIZES. WE USE
DRONES FOR OPEN SPACE SEARCHES,
CONFINED SPACES, AND INSIDE
STRUCTURES. THERE ARE FAST AND
EASY TO DEPLOY. THE USABILITY
FROM ONE DRONE TO THE NEXT IS
EXCEPTIONAL. WITH LITTLE OR NO
ADDITIONAL PILOT TRAINING, THE
PILOT CAN FLY A $500 DRONE WHERE
HE CAN FLY A $20,000 DRONE.
CURRENT TECHNOLOGY AND
LOGISTICAL SUPPORT WITH US
MANUFACTURED DRONES ARE YEARS
BEHIND FOREIGN MANUFACTURERS.
UPDATE THEIR TECHNOLOGY MORE
FREQUENTLY THAN DOMESTICALLY
PRODUCED DRONES. MY ORGANIZATION
INITIALLY TESTED DOMESTIC DRONES
AND DETERMINED THEY WERE
INFERIOR TO THE FOREIGN
MANUFACTURED FLEET. FOREIGN
MANUFACTURED DRONES ALSO PROVED
TO BE FAR MORE RELIABLE. FLEET
VARIETY IS CRUCIAL. WE HAVE
LARGE, MEDIUM AND SMALL DRONES.
THEY ARE USED IN NONTRADITIONAL
SETTINGS. FOR EXAMPLE,
EVALUATING AN ARMED, MENTALLY
DISTURBED PERSON OR CRITICAL
INCIDENTS FROM A DISTANCE. THEY
ARE USED AS POLL CAMERAS
ATTACHED TO PAINTERS POLLS.
THEY'RE TETHERED TO A ROPE AND
LOWERED INTO WELLS FOR
OBSERVATION. THEY ARE PERCHED
FOR EXTENDED PERIODS OF TIME,
FOR REAL TIME OBSERVATION, AND
THEY ARE VERY RELIABLE. WE USE
THESE FOREIGN MANUFACTURED
DRONES FOR INTERIOR SEARCHES,
WHICH COME WITH INHERENT RISKS
TO INCLUDE CRASH HAZARDS,
OBSTRUCTIONS, PILOT ERROR,
WEATHERED WHILE IN TRANSIT FROM
OUTSIDE TO INSIDE A STRUCTURE.
THEY'RE SUSPECT HAZARDS,
INCLUDING VANDALISM,
DESTRUCTION, DAMAGE FROM
FIREARMS, THE DRONES THAT ARE
USED ON THE OUTSIDE FOR OUTSIDE
SEARCHES. THERE'S WEATHER
HAZARDS AS WELL, DEPENDING ON
THE NATURE OF THE SEARCH, AND
BECAUSE OF OUR LARGE FLEET,
THERE'S RISK TAKING WITH THE
DRONES, SUCH AS LOOKING INTO
BUSHES, TREES, OBSTRUCTIONS WITH
THE POSSIBILITY OF CRASHING,
DEPLOYED OVER WATER WITH MINIMAL
FINANCIAL RISK. THEY ARE USED IN
SEARCH AND RESCUES. REASONABLY
PRICED DRONES ALLOW AGAIN FOR A
LARGE FLEET MULTI DEPLOYMENT TO
EXPEDITE VICTIM LOCATION.
INEXPENSIVE FOR REPLACEMENT
BECAUSE THEY ARE REASONABLY
PRICED AND WE CAN MAINTAIN OUR
LARGE FLEET NUMBERS. THE
BATTERIES FOR FOREIGN
MANUFACTURED DRONES ARE ALSO
CHEAP. THEY THEY WE CAN SHARE
BATTERIES FROM DRONE TO DRONE.
THE IMAGERY CAPTURED BY FOREIGN
DRONES WAS OF CONCERN. THE
FOREIGN MANUFACTURED DRONE WE
USE HAS DISABLED THE ABILITY FOR
ITS DRONES TO UPLOAD TO A THIRD
PARTY. THIS INCLUDES PICTURES,
VIDEO AND FLIGHT INFO. THE
INFORMATION IS UNAVAILABLE AND
ONLY CAPTURED ON THE DRONE
ITSELF. THE INFORMATION REALLY
CAPTURED IS ONLY RELATIVE TO THE
LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL WHO
ARE DISPATCHED TO THE INCIDENT.
THESE SAME DRONES ARE NOT
GENERALLY USED ON SENSITIVE
INFRASTRUCTURE. THE UAS PROVIDES
SIMPLE RECORDING OF VIDEO FOR
DEBRIEFS AND PROSECUTION, AND
OUR CURRENT IT INFRASTRUCTURE
ALREADY IN PLACE SUPPORTS THE
CURRENT FLEET. OUR FOREIGN
MANUFACTURED DRONES ARE MODULAR.
THEY COME WITH A NUMBER OF
ATTACHMENTS TO INCLUDE EXTERNAL
LIGHTS, SPEAKERS, PRERECORDED
MESSAGES WHICH SOLICIT SUSPECT
SURRENDERS WITHOUT THE USE OF
FORCE. NIGHT VISION AND THEIR IR
CAPABLE OFFICER, CIVILIAN AND
SUSPECT SAFETY. AS YOU ALL KNOW,
THESE ARE USED AS A
DE-ESCALATION TOOL.
AFFORDABILITY IS A MUST,
OTHERWISE THEY ARE NOT FEASIBLE
FOR PURCHASE. THEY HAVE TO BE
EASY TO USE. AGAIN, REASONABLY
PRICED DRONES PROVIDE FOR A
LARGE FLEET IN THE EVENT OF AN
INADVERTENT CRASH OR SUSPECT
INTERACTION. OUR DRONES ARE
VIRTUALLY DISPOSABLE. THEY'RE
LOW COST, THEY'RE RELIABLE,
FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE TO FOR
PURCHASE BY OUR DEPARTMENT.
THEY'RE SIMPLE TO REPAIR, PARTS
ARE CHEAP AND KEPT IN INVENTORY.
THE FLEET IS LARGE, SUPPORT
MULTIPLE INCIDENTS OCCURRING
SIMULTANEOUSLY, AND THE
COMPLEXITY OF THE MORE COMPLEX
PROBLEM THAT REQUIRES MORE THAN
ONE DRONE. THERE IS AN ENORMOUS
COST. SHOULD WE DO A COMPLETE
FLEET SWAP OUT DOMESTICALLY
MANUFACTURED DRONES DON'T
COMPARE BECAUSE OF PRICE,
FEATURES AND USABILITY. IN
CLOSING, DOMESTICALLY
MANUFACTURED DRONES ARE OFTEN
TESTED AND EVALUATED BY OUR
DEPARTMENT, BUT WE HAVE YET TO
FIND COMPARABLE UAS IN PRICE
USABILITY AVAILABLE FEATURES,
MODULAR ATTACHMENTS, AND
RELIABILITY. BECAUSE OF THESE
REASONS, WE ARE ASKING FOR A NO
VOTE. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY
QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
THERE'S AN OPPOSITION. YEAH, I
UNDERSTAND THERE'S PROBABLY NOT
ENOUGH TIME FOR ME TO SAY MUCH
MORE THAN RESPECT THE AUTHOR'S
INTENT HERE. I THINK THERE'S A
LOT THAT NEEDS TO GET WORKED OUT
IN TERMS OF HOW DO WE REGULATE
THESE AND HOW DO WE PROTECT
CYBERSECURITY. YOU KNOW, KNOWING
THE AUTHOR'S BACKGROUND, I KNOW
IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S VERY, TRUE
AND SINCERE TO HIS HEART AND
DOING THAT, THERE'S A LOT OF
DIFFERENCES, A LOT OF NUANCES.
THE TIME FOR TODAVÍA OTHERS IN
OPPOSITION WORK THAT OUT. SO
OPPOSED. MR. CHAIRMAN MEMBERS.
COREY, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION, ECHOING THE
COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
OBED DIFRANCO HERE ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA FIRE CHIEFS
ASSOCIATION AND THE FIRE
DISTRICTS ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION, THANK YOU. SINGH.
YES, MR. CHAIR RYAN SHERMAN WITH
THE RIVERSIDE SHERIFF'S
ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA NARCOTIC
OFFICERS ASSOCIATION IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. SEE, NO OTHER OPPOSITION
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MEMBER REYES
AND WILSON, IT'S A DELAYED
IMPLEMENTATION. HOW HOW LONG?
WELL, WE WANT TO DELAY IT. SO
LONG AS WE CAN HOPE THAT
AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS CAN ENTER
THE MARKET, AT LEAST AT LEAST
TWO YEARS, IF NOT THREE YEARS.
BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT, THAT,
FOR EXAMPLE, IN SAN DIEGO, I AM
INFORMED THAT THE SAN DIEGO
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, WHAT
THEY'RE DOING IS, IN ESSENCE,
MAKING SURE THAT THE DRONES THAT
ARE DEPLOYED ARE CLEANSED OF THE
ABILITY TO TRANSMIT INFORMATION
TO LOCATIONS OTHER THAN THE
LOCATION THAT'S INTENDED TO
RECEIVE IT. SO THAT'S THAT'S WHY
WE'RE WE'RE DELAYING
IMPLEMENTATION TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE DON'T CAUSE AN IMPEDIMENT TO
LAW ENFORCEMENT. BUT I DO ASSUME
THAT THOSE INVOLVED IN LAW
ENFORCEMENT ARE QUITE PATRIOTIC.
THAT'S MY EXPERIENCE. AND THEY
WOULD HAVE SIMILAR NATIONAL
SECURITY CONCERNS, AS THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WOULD HAVE
IN DEPLOYING AIRCRAFT OR DRONES
THAT AREN'T MODIFIED, FROM THE
ORIGINAL MANUFACTURER. SO I ASK
THE QUESTION BECAUSE THEN THEY
CAN BE MODIFIED. AND DO YOU HAVE
AN EXAMPLE WHERE THEY HAVE BEEN
MODIFIED? BECAUSE I THINK IN ALL
FAIRNESS TO RIVERSIDE, IF THEY
HAVE THESE AND HAVE INVESTED ALL
THIS MONEY, THEN IT PROVIDES THE
TIME TO MODIFY THEM. AS SAN
DIEGO HAS. THAT'S MY RIGHT.
THAT'S MY ASSUMPTION. THANK YOU.
I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH
LAW ENFORCEMENT TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE DON'T CAUSE AN
IMPEDIMENT. I RECOGNIZE THAT
THEY ARE QUITE IMPORTANT FOR LAW
ENFORCEMENT. I SPENT A YEAR IN
AFGHANISTAN. I KNOW THE
SIGNIFICANCE AND THE
CAPABILITIES OF DRONES AND HOW
IMPORTANT THEY ARE IN SO MANY
DIFFERENT AREAS, BUT I ALSO KNOW
HOW IMPORTANT THEY ARE IN
GATHERING REALLY IMPORTANT AND
SENSITIVE INFORMATION. THANK
YOU. BILL THANK YOU. MEMBER
WILSON. SECOND, DID YOU HAVE
YOUR HAND UP? YES. YEAH. OKAY.
NO NO NO I DID I WAS WAITING IT
WAS THERE WAS COMMENTS GOING AND
SO I WAS WAITING FOR THE MOTION
AND THE SECOND GIVING IT A
CHANCE TO RECOGNIZE IT, MY, MY
FOLLOW UP IS JUST IN THE SENSE
THAT THE OPPOSITION HAS STATED,
THE AREA LAW ENFORCEMENT, IT
SEEMS LIKE THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN, WHAT THE FEDERAL NEEDS
ARE AND THE STATE NEEDS ARE, AND
THERE MIGHT BE DIFFERENT OR
LOCAL NEEDS, AND THERE MIGHT BE
A DIFFERENT REASON FOR WHY THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WOULD BAN
SOMETHING OF USE IN COMPARISON
FROM STATE OR LOCAL, AND WE'VE
SEEN THAT GO BOTH WAYS. AND SO I
WONDERING WHAT I'M WONDERING IS
I WAS TRYING TO MAKE UP A NEW
WORD. WHAT I'M WONDERING IS, IS
AS WHY, IS IT ABSOLUTELY
NECESSARY TO BAN IT STATEWIDE IN
TERMS OF LETTING LOCALS
DETERMINE WHAT THEY THINK, THEIR
NEEDS ARE RIGHT. AND, AND, AND
WHAT THEY DO WITH THAT
INFORMATION AND WHETHER IT'S
SUSCEPTIBLE OR NOT, WHY NOT LET
IT BE JUST A LOCAL DECISION AS
IT RELATES TO THIS TYPE OF
PRODUCT? SO THERE ARE A WIDE
VARIETY OF DRONES, BOTH USED IN
LAW ENFORCEMENT AS WELL AS THE
MILITARY. THERE ARE MANY, MANY
DRONES USED IN THE MILITARY FOR
KINETIC PURPOSES. AND I DON'T
BELIEVE THERE ARE LAW
ENFORCEMENT DRONES IN
CALIFORNIA, MAYBE EVEN ANYWHERE
IN THE UNITED STATES THAT ARE
USED FOR KINETIC PURPOSES, LIKE
THEY MIGHT BE USED IN WARFARE.
BUT THE DRONES THAT ARE USED FOR
BOTH SURVEILLANCE AND
INFORMATION COLLECTING ARE
BASICALLY THE SAME KINDS OF
DRONES. THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE USED
FOR. THEY'RE USED TO BASICALLY,
AS WAS ILLUSTRATED BY THE
WITNESSES, TO VISUALIZE THE
SCENE, COLLECT INFORMATION,
ANALYZE THAT INFORMATION, SEND
IT BACK TO A PLACE IT CAN BE
ANALYZED, AND THEN
OPERATIONALIZE IT. AND SO TO THE
EXTENT THAT THAT INFORMATION CAN
BE SENT TO A PLACE THAT THAT IS
NOT DOES NOT HAVE THE UNITED
STATES INTEREST AT HEART, THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SAYS, HEY,
YOU KNOW, THESE DRONES ARE BEING
MANUFACTURED IN A FOREIGN LAND,
AND WE BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE
BEING POTENTIALLY USED FOR
PURPOSES THAT IMPACTS NATIONAL
SECURITY. SO IF THAT VERY SAME
DRONE CAN COLLECT AND ANALYZE OR
EXCUSE ME, COLLECT AND,
INFORMATION HERE AND TRANSMIT
IT, THAT SAME INFORMATION IS
SENSITIVE, WHETHER YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT THE GRID OR
WHETHER YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT,
YOU KNOW, THE STATE CAPITOL OR
WHAT HAVE YOU, THAT'S STILL THE
SAME. AND THAT'S WHY WHY WE WANT
TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GIVE LAW
ENFORCEMENT AN OPPORTUNITY TO
ONE TO THE EXTENT THAT THEIR,
INVENTORY BASICALLY AGES OUT OR
TWO, THAT THEY CAN MODIFY THOSE
DRONES SO THAT THEY DON'T
COLLECT AND DELIVER AND TRANSMIT
INFORMATION THAT MAY BE
SENSITIVE. AND DO YOU THINK THAT
THE SENSITIVE NATURE THAT THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAY BE
LOOKING AT AND USING THOSE
DRONES FOR IS DIFFERENT THAN
WHAT A TYPICAL LOCAL ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY IS, OR YOU DRAW NO
DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO,
THAT IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT A
NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT THAT'S THAT'S
JUST AS SENSITIVE AS LOOKING AT
MAYBE A, YOU KNOW, A VERY
SENSITIVE, THING RELATED TO
NATIONAL SECURITY. IF YOU HAVE A
DRONE THAT'S LOOKING FOR, FOR
EXAMPLE, ENEMY MOVEMENT, YOU
KNOW, FOLKS THAT ARE ARMED AND
MOVING ABOUT, IT'S VERY SIMILAR
TO LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT'S
LOOKING FOR, INDIVIDUALS THAT
MAY BE MOVING ABOUT THAT'S VERY
SIMILAR. IF YOU'RE IF YOU'RE
LOOKING FOR, EXAM, FOR EXAMPLE,
FOR A VEHICLE, IF YOU'RE LOOKING
FOR A SPECIFIC VEHICLE, THAT'S
THE EXACT SAME THING BETWEEN THE
MILITARY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT.
SO, I GUESS I WAS WHAT I WAS
LOOKING FOR IS THE DISTINCTION
BETWEEN WHAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT WOULD BE LOOKING AT
AS IT RELATES TO NATIONAL
SECURITY IN COMPARISON TO WHAT
LOCALS WILL BE LOOKING AT AS IT
RELATES TO A LOCAL CRIME.
TYPICALLY, THEY'RE NOT INVOLVED
IN THINGS RELATED TO NATIONAL
SECURITY. NOT TO SAY THAT
SOMETHING MAY NOT RISE TO THAT
LEVEL, BUT THEY'RE TYPICALLY NOT
INVOLVED. AND SO THAT'S WHAT I
WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND OF, YOU
KNOW, IT'S LIKE ME USING
SOMETHING A PRODUCT THAT WAS
BANNED AT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
TO LOOK AT MY BACKYARD COMPARED
TO WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
WAS LOOKING AT. IT'S VERY
DIFFERENT LEVELS OF SENSITIVITY,
I GUESS. AND SO YOUR BILL MAKES
NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN THOSE
LEVELS OF, OF, IT MAKES NO
DISTINCTION. AND SO I WAS JUST
WONDERING ABOUT THAT PART, SO.
WELL I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S IN YOUR
BACKYARD, BUT, BUT I HOPE
NOTHING RIGHT. BUT BUT THE,
DETAILED INFORMATION ABOUT, FOR
EXAMPLE, OUR ENERGY
INFRASTRUCTURE HERE IS
INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT AND
SENSITIVE INFORMATION THAT CAN
BE COLLECTED VIA DRONE, IT IS
AMAZING THE KIND OF ACUITY THAT
DRONES CAN COLLECT. AND SO THAT
THAT'S, THAT'S VALUABLE
INFORMATION. AND IF IT IS
TRANSMITTED TO SOMEONE THAT
DOESN'T HAVE OR IS SOME ENTITY
THAT DOESN'T HAVE OUR NATIONAL
SECURITY INTEREST AT HEART,
THAT'S A PROBLEM. AND IF THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE HAS SAID,
LOOK, IT THIS IS A DANGER TO THE
UNITED STATES AND OUR NATIONAL
SECURITY. IT'S A DANGER WHEN A
FOREIGN MANUFACTURED INSTRUMENT
IS EITHER BEING USED OR
POTENTIALLY BEING USED TO IMPACT
OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. I THINK
WE OUGHT TO PRESUMPTIVELY
BASICALLY DEFER TO THE TO OUR
NATIONAL SECURITY APPARATUS TO
SAY, YEAH, THAT COULD BE A
PROBLEM. BUT AGAIN, I DON'T WANT
TO INTERFERE WITH LAW
ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES TODAY,
THAT'S WHY WE WOULD DELAY
IMPLEMENTATION FOR SOME PERIOD
OF TIME. AND WE WOULD ALSO
PROVIDE THAT IF, MUCH AS I'M
TOLD THEY'RE DOING IN SAN DIEGO,
THAT THE DRONES THAT ARE
PURCHASED FROM FOREIGN
MANUFACTURER, ARE MODIFIED SO
THAT THEY CAN'T TRANSMIT
INFORMATION TO THAT FOREIGN
ENTITY. OKAY. MY CONCERN WITH
THAT, THANK YOU FOR THE
DISCUSSION. I REALLY APPRECIATE
IT. AND IT DID PROVIDE CLARITY
TO YOUR INTENT, MY CONCERN IS
THAT WE CAN GET IN A SLIPPERY
SLOPE. SLOPE? YOU KNOW, I, YOU
KNOW, FOR FROM PHONES TO ALL
KINDS OF THINGS OF THEY'RE MADE
BY A PARTICULAR, MADE IN A
PARTICULAR COUNTRY. AND THE FEDS
DECIDE TO BAN IT. THEN WE'RE
AUTOMATICALLY. THEN WHY WOULDN'T
WE BAN EVERYTHING? AND SO THAT
THAT CAN THAT CONCERNS ME A BIT,
BUT THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT.
OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. ALANIS.
SENATOR, SO YOU MAY OR MAY NOT
KNOW THIS, BUT I HAVE A LITTLE
BIT OF EXPERTISE IN THIS AREA.
I'VE HELPED AGENCIES UP AND DOWN
THE STATE START DRONE TEAMS, 6
OR 7 YEARS AGO, SO I TAKE THIS
TO HEART ON THIS ONE, I
APOLOGIZE. I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT
THIS BILL UNTIL TODAY. ACTUALLY,
I PROBABLY WOULD HAVE TALKED TO
YOU A BIT MORE ABOUT IT, WE
TALKED ABOUT $20,000 DRONES.
WELL, I'VE CRASHED A $30,000
DRONE, IT IS WHAT IT IS, BUT I
EVEN WHEN I WAS STARTING THESE
TEAMS AND GETTING THESE
COMMUNITIES WHO COULD BARELY
SCROUNGE UP THE MONEY TO BUY
THESE FOREIGN DRONES, WHICH THAT
ARE BEING MENTIONED. I KNOW
WE'RE NOT SAYING THEIR NAME, BUT
THEY'RE RELIABLE. THEY'RE
THEY'RE I'VE I'VE CRASHED SOME
AND THEY'VE STILL BEEN ABLE TO
FLY THERE AND THEY'RE GREAT
DRONES, NO AMERICAN MADE DRONE
HAS MATCHED IT YET. AND CONCERNS
OF FOREIGN NATIONS SEEING WHAT
KIND OF FOOTAGE I WAS DOING WHEN
I WAS WORKING SWAT SEARCH AND
RESCUE, MAYBE LOOKING FOR
SOMEBODY WHO HAD, STOLE A CAR
AND HAD RAN INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND I'M TRYING TO FIND IF
THERE'S KIDS IN THE BACKYARD
THAT WE NEED TO HURRY UP AND
BRING IN OR WHATEVER IT IS, I
DIDN'T CARE IF A FOREIGN COUNTRY
WAS LOOKING AT A BACKYARD OR
THIS GARAGE THAT I WAS IN WITH A
COUCH AND A REFRIGERATOR IN IT,
SO I DIDN'T REALLY HAVE THOSE
CONCERNS AS WE DO, BUT I, I DO
UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERNS WITH
THE FOREIGN GOVERNMENT. UNTIL WE
CAN HAVE A COMPANY OR SOME
COMPANIES THAT ARE MAKING
SOMETHING RELIABLE, I DON'T I
DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH TIME THAT
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE ON THIS
BILL THAT'S GOING TO ACTUALLY,
GIVE A COMPANY TIME TO DO THIS,
I'M. I'M GUESSING LIKE TEN YEARS
OUT MAYBE OR SO FOR THEM TO
ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO TEST THEM,
GET THEM TO ACTUALLY WORK,
ACTUALLY GET AGENCIES TO BE ABLE
TO TRUST THEM BECAUSE I KNOW
THAT THE DRONES THAT THAT THESE
TEAMS NOW HAVE, WHICH THEY HAVE
FOUGHT REALLY HARD TO GET, IT'S
GOING TO BE HARD FOR THEM TO
BREAK AWAY FROM THAT. WITH
TECHNOLOGY, THE WAY IT WORKS
WITH OUR OUR CELL PHONES, THE
WAY IT WORKS WITH OUR TABLETS,
OUR IPADS, I'M ABLE TO STREAM
STUFF ONTO A TEAM AS I'M LOOKING
INTO A ROOM SO THEY ALREADY KNOW
AHEAD OF TIME WHAT'S GOING ON.
AND I'M SURE YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS
AS WELL, BUT I JUST I HAD THOSE
CONCERNS ON THAT, AND I
APOLOGIZE FOR NOT TALKING TO YOU
EARLIER ABOUT THIS. OBVIOUSLY, I
RESPECT YOU VERY MUCH. I CAN'T
GET THERE TODAY, BUT I'M HAPPY
TO HEAR THAT YOU AT LEAST WANT
TO PUSH IT OUT. THANK YOU. OKAY.
OTHERS SEEING? NO. WE HAVE A
MOTION. AND A SECOND. I'D LIKE
TO CLOSE. WELL, I MIGHT HAVE
MORE CONFIDENCE IN AMERICAN
TECHNOLOGY THAN OTHERS. I DO
BELIEVE THAT THAT WE WILL
PROVIDE SUFFICIENT TIME FOR
AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS TO ENTER
THE MARKETPLACE IN A WAY THAT IS
COMPETITIVE WITH OTHERS. NUMBER
ONE. NUMBER TWO, APPARENTLY SAN
DIEGO IS DOING THAT TODAY. SAN
DIEGO IS BEING ABLE TO MODIFY
THEIR DRONES SO THAT THEY ARE
INCAPABLE OF TRANSMITTING
INFORMATION BEYOND THE INTENDED
RECIPIENT. SO TO THE EXTENT THAT
SAN DIEGO CAN DO IT, I HAVE
CONFIDENCE THAT OTHERS CAN
REPLICATE THAT HERE IN
CALIFORNIA. IF WE NEED TO
PROVIDE THREE YEARS, WE'LL
PROVIDE THREE YEARS. BUT IN ANY
EVENT, I THINK EVERYONE SHARES
THE CONCERN THAT LEAST IS RAISED
BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
SAYING THAT THESE, THIS KIND OF
EQUIPMENT CAN BE A NATIONAL
SECURITY THREAT WITHOUT I URGE
AND I VOTE. OKAY. THANK YOU.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON SB 99 BY
SENATOR UMBERG. THE MOTION IS
DUE. PASS TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. MCCARTY, A MCCARTY A
ALANIZ. ALANIZ. NOT VOTING.
LACKEY LACKEY. NO. WHEN NGUYEN
NOT VOTING. REYES. REYES. AYE
TING TING. AYE. WILSON. WILSON.
NOT VOTING. ZEBRA THAT MEASURE
FAILS. YES. THAT MEASURE DOES
NOT PASS. ALRIGHTY APPRECIATE
YOUR ATTENTION. THANK YOU. OKAY.
THANK YOU, THE FINAL BILL IS,
SENATOR BARRASSO, 14, SB 1132.
IT'S THE FINAL BILL OF THE DAY.
THE FINAL BILL OF THE YEAR FOR
THE ASSEMBLY. PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMITTEE. WE HAD A BUSY YEAR,
AND YOU'RE THE LAST ONE OVER
HERE. THANK YOU. MOVING THE BILL
, I KNOW. YEAH. THANK YOU. AND
THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY BECAUSE
YEAH, I KNOW, YEAH. YES. OKAY.
YEAH. PLEASE BEGIN. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR, SB 1132 CLARIFIES THE
AUTHORITY OF COUNTY HEALTH
OFFICERS TO ENTER AND INSPECT
PRIVATE DETENTION FACILITIES
OPERATING IN OUR STATE. THE
REASON WE'RE DOING THAT IS
BECAUSE EXISTING LAW DOES NOT
EXPLICITLY COVER PRIVATE
DETENTION FACILITIES THAT
OPERATE IN OUR STATE, INCLUDING
CIVIL DETENTION FACILITY
FACILITIES USED TO DETAIN
IMMIGRANTS. TODAY THERE ARE SIX
PRIVATE FACILITIES OPERATING IN
OUR STATE THAT CAN HOLD AS MANY
AS 7000 INDIVIDUALS, GOING
THROUGH THIS FAST, SB 1132 WILL
ENSURE OUR COUNTY HEALTH
OFFICIALS HAVE WHAT THEY NEED TO
DO THEIR JOBS AND ENSURE MINIMUM
STANDARDS IN THESE FACILITIES.
WITH ME, I HAVE JOSÉ RUBÉN
HERNANDEZ GÓMEZ, INTERFAITH
MOVEMENT FOR HUMAN INTEGRITY AND
ANDREA AMAVISCA, CALIFORNIA
IMMIGRANT POLICY CENTER TO SPEAK
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. YEAH. FOUR MINUTES
COMBINED. THANK YOU. GOOD
EVENING. CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS ANDREA AMAVISCA AND I'M
THE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS MANAGER
WITH THE CALIFORNIA IMMIGRANT
POLICY CENTER. CO-SPONSOR OF
THIS BILL. CALIFORNIA HOLDS A
THIRD LARGEST IMMIGRATION
DETENTION DETENTION POPULATION
IN THE COUNTRY. ALL SIX ICE
DETENTION FACILITIES IN THE
STATE ARE RUN BY PRIVATE, FOR
PROFIT PRISON COMPANIES, MAKING
THEM PRONE TO A LACK OF
ACCOUNTABILITY. THE FOR PROFIT
PRISON FACILITIES AT HAND HAVE A
HORRIFIC TRACK RECORD WHEN IT
COMES TO HEALTH, SAFETY AND
HUMAN RIGHTS. DETENTION
FACILITIES CAN POSE A PUBLIC
HEALTH RISK TO INDIVIDUALS
DETAINED INSIDE INDIVIDUALS WHO
WORK INSIDE, AS WELL AS FAMILIES
WHO LIVE NEAR THESE FACILITIES.
A 2021 REPORT BY THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOUND THAT
THE ADELANTO DETENTION FACILITY
IN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY HAD
USED A CHEMICAL AGENT, KNOWN AS
HDC NEUTRAL TO SANITIZE SURFACES
, WHICH MANY INDIVIDUALS
DETAINED AT THIS FACILITY
REPORTED WAS SO TOXIC THEY
EXPERIENCED HEADACHES, NAUSEA,
NOSEBLEEDS, FAINTING, BREATHING
ISSUES, AND MORE. THESE ARE JUST
THIS IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF MANY
OF UNSAFE CONDITIONS AT PUBLIC
HEALTH AND PUBLIC HEALTH
VIOLATIONS THAT OCCUR IN THESE
FACILITIES, AND PART OF THE
URGENT NEED FOR A PUBLIC HEALTH
SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM. SB
1132 CLARIFIES THAT COUNTY
HEALTH OFFICIALS CAN INSPECT THE
HEALTH AND SANITARY CONDITIONS
OF PRIVATE DETENTION FACILITIES
WHEN DEEMED NECESSARY AND
APPROPRIATE. THE BILL DOES NOT
IMPOSE AN ANNUAL INSPECTION. AND
THANK YOU. I RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK
YOU. NEXT. GOOD EVENING. CHAIR
AND MEMBERS, MY NAME IS JOSE
HERNANDEZ GÓMEZ. I AM THE
SPIRITUAL ACTIVIST WITH
INTERFAITH MOVEMENT FOR HUMAN
INTEGRITY AND A STUDENT AT THE
SAN JOAQUIN DELTA COLLEGE. AFTER
EARNING MY EARLY RELEASE FROM
STATE CUSTODY, I WAS TRANSFERRED
TO THE GOLDEN STATE ANNEX AND
MESA VERDE DETENTION FACILITY,
TWO PRIVATELY OWNED FACILITIES
WHERE I WAS DETAINED FOR THE
TOTAL OF 16 MONTHS, WHERE I WAS
FORCED TO LIVE IN DORMS THAT HAD
THE CAPACITY OF HOLDING 100
PEOPLE THAT CONTAINED MOLD
PESTS, AS WELL AS VENTILATION
SYSTEMS THAT RELEASE BLACK DUST.
WE HAD TO WORK AS JANITORS FOR A
DOLLAR A DAY BECAUSE OF THE CITY
DID NOT DO ANY OF THE CLEANING,
LEAVING US TO LIVE IN FILTH
WHILE WE WERE UNDER QUARANTINE
DURING THE PANDEMIC. WE WERE
EXPOSED TO TOXIC CHEMICALS
WITHOUT PROPER EQUIPMENT,
TRAINING AND INSTRUCTION WITH
RESPECT TO FOOD AND WATER, WE
WERE CONSISTENTLY SERVED EXPIRED
MILK, NO FRESH FRUITS AND
VEGETABLES, AND DENIED BOTTLED
WATER. WHEN FACILITIES WATER
SYSTEM WAS RELEASING DARK,
RUSTED WATER, ACCORDING TO A
REPORT BY THE CALIFORNIA
COLLABORATIVE FOR IMMIGRANT
JUSTICE. ON AVERAGE, 85% OF
PEOPLE DETAINED AT BOTH OF THESE
PRIVATE FACILITIES EXPERIENCED
FINDING FOREIGN OBJECTS IN THE
TRAYS. SOMETHING THAT I THAT I
MYSELF EXPERIENCED, COMMISSARY
FOOD ITEMS THAT I PURCHASED FOR
A HIGH PRICE WOULD BE MOLDED AND
EXPIRED. IN TERMS OF MEDICAL
NEGLECT, MY VISION HAS WORSENED
BECAUSE I WAS NEVER TREATED BY
AN EYE DOCTOR. AS REQUESTED, I
WITNESSED MY PEERS BEING DENIED
COVID TESTS AND MEDICATIONS BY
MEDICAL STAFF, RESULTING IN
OUTBREAKS AND HAVING TO ENDURE
THE PAIN AND SUFFERING FROM FROM
COVID. WE EXHAUSTED ALL AVENUES
BY BRINGING UP GRIEVANCES
INFORMALLY AND FORMALLY, BUT
NOTHING EVER CHANGED DURING THIS
TIME. WE NEVER MET WITH ANY
STATE OR LOCAL PUBLIC HEALTH
OFFICIALS. WE HAD NO CHOICE BUT
TO LAUNCH A LABOR STRIKE, AS
WELL AS A HUNGER STRIKE TO CALL
THE ATTENTION TO THESE ISSUES,
WHICH RESULTED IN US BEING
RETALIATED AGAINST BY THE
FACILITY BY PLACING US IN
SOLITARY CONFINEMENT AND BEING
VIOLENTLY TRANSFERRED TO THE
STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE PURPOSE
OF FORCE FEEDING. THAT HAS LEFT
ME CAME DOWN. THESE ARE SOME OF
THE BRIEF EXAMPLES THAT OF WHAT
I LIVED THROUGH IN THESE
FACILITIES, AND THAT PEOPLE ARE
STILL OCCURRING LIVING IN. I
KINDLY ASK THAT YOU PLEASE PASS
SB 1132. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME
AND GOD BLESS. THANK YOU. OTHERS
IN SUPPORT ACTUALLY WALKED OVER.
HELLO ISABELLA ARGUETA WITH THE
HEALTH OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT DANICA
ADAMO ON BEHALF OF SMART JUSTICE
CALIFORNIA INITIATE JUSTICE AND
ASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING
JUSTICE OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
IN SUPPORT. GWEN BACCUS FOR ELLA
BAKER CENTER, THANKS THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND STAFF FOR
YOUR WORK THIS YEAR AND IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ARE OKAY. NO
OTHER SUPPORT. OPPOSITION. NONE.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. WE DO HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND. SO MEMBER
REYES. YOU KNOW, IT'S THE LAST
BILL WE'RE SEEING AND I KNOW
EVERYBODY IS TIRED, BUT I CAN
TELL YOU HOW IMPORTANT THIS BILL
IS. AND I SEE THE HAND GESTURES
OVER HERE. I CAN SEE FROM THE
SIDE OF MY EYES. AND I WANT TO
THANK YOU FOR COMING TO TESTIFY.
YOUR TESTIMONY IS REALLY
IMPORTANT. BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT
SENATE-ROOM THAT ALSO ALWAYS
PROVIDES, LEGISLATION THAT'S
REALLY IMPORTANT. AND GOES TO
THE HEART OF OUR COMMUNITIES.
BUT TO HAVE YOU HERE TO SHARE
THE HORRENDOUS EXPERIENCE THAT
YOU WENT THROUGH, I REALLY
APPRECIATE THAT. AND I
APPRECIATE YOU BEING THE VOICE
FOR THOSE WHO ARE STILL
DETAINED. THANK YOU, THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. WITH THAT, YOU MAY
CLOSE AS I VOTE. THANK YOU.
EXCELLENT. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ON SB 1132 BY SENATOR GAROZZO.
THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS MCCARTY
A MCCARTY. I ALANIS ALANIS. I
LACKEY. OKAY. LACKEY. I NGUYEN
NGUYEN I REYES REYES I TÍNH I
TING I WILSON WILSON I ZEBRA
THAT MEASURE PASSES, THAT
MEASURE PASSES. THANK YOU
COLLEAGUES THANK YOU. SO WE'RE
GOING TO MEMBERS. WE'RE GOING TO
WAIT A FEW MOMENTS TO MR.
ZUBIATE TO COME OVER AND DEVOTE
SOME ADD ONS. AND THEN WE'RE
GOING TO DO ONE RECONSIDERATION.
BUT I DID WANT TO SAY THIS IS
OUR LAST, HEARING OF THE YEAR,
HAD A FABULOUS YEAR HERE ON THIS
COMMITTEE. I WANT TO START OUT
BY THANKING OUR VICE CHAIR FOR,
FOR HELPING US AND WORKING IN A
BIPARTISAN FASHION, THAT WAS OUR
GOAL THIS YEAR. AND THANK ALL OF
OUR COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR YOUR
PARTICIPATION AND ENGAGEMENT.
AND LASTLY, BUT NOT LEAST, I
WANT TO THANK THIS AMAZING STAFF
THAT HAD A RECORD NUMBER OF
BILLS FOR THIS YEAR. A RECORD
NUMBER OF ANALYZES. AND, WE HAD
SOME TURNOVER AS WELL. SO SOME
OF THEM HAD TO DO DOUBLE DUTY.
WE HAD TO LITERALLY BRING
SOMEBODY BACK FROM RETIREMENT
AND MR. Ã RETIRED ANNUITANTS
OVER HERE. SO, YEAH. THANK
EVERYBODY FOR THEIR HARD WORK
THIS YEAR. AND, YOU KNOW, HOPE
WE MADE A DIFFERENCE FOR
CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU. CHAIR, WE
WANT TO THANK YOU. PUT YOUR MIC
ON SO THE WORLD CAN HEAR. RIGHT.
I ALSO WANT TO TAKE TIME TO
THANK OUR CHAIR. ALSO YOU'VE
BEEN EASY TO WORK WITH. GREAT TO
WORK WITH. I ENJOYED BEING UP
HERE WITH YOU. AND SO THANK YOU
VERY MUCH FOR STEPPING UP. OKAY.
THANK YOU. AND I BELIEVE THIS IS
YOUR LAST MEETING THAT YOU GET
TO CHAIR AS A LEGISLATOR HERE IN
THIS BUILDING. SO THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. YES. ERIC, COULD YOU HEAR
US? COME. UP. YES OH, NO. YOU
GOT ONE MINUTE. ALL OF YOU.
CHAIR THANK 25 TO 3. NOT GOOD
JOB. THANK YOU. NICE TO WORK
WITH YOU. HAVE A GOOD. HAVE A
GREAT SUMMER. GIANTS WIN 5 TO 3
OVER THE BRAVES AWAY.
I'LL BE HONEST. THE.
GAME. AGAINST.
THAT'S WHY I. GOT. OUT. RIGHT.
YEAH SHE'S. JESUS I'M SORRY. THE
REGULAR STAFF I SHE SPECIAL.
OKAY. MARY.
BUT.
WE WILL BEGIN AND DO WITH
EVERYTHING. WILL RETURN TO ITEM
NUMBER ONE. WHEN MR. SILVER GETS
HERE. YES, PLEASE LIFT THE CALLS
AND DO THE ADD ONS. AND WE'RE
GOING TO HOLD ONE. OPEN ON THE
CONSENT CALENDAR. ALANIS. ALANIS
I, WILSON, WILSON I ZEBRA. ITEM
NUMBER ONE. WE ARE WAITING FOR
MR. ZEBRA. ITEM NUMBER TWO AB
268 BY SENATOR ALVARADO GIL TING
TING I WILSON. I'M SORRY. ON SB
268, WILSON I. ITEM NUMBER THREE
SB 285 BY SENATOR ALLEN. THIS
MEASURE WAS ON CALL WHEN I TING
TING I WILSON WILSON I ZEBRA.
THAT MEASURE NOW PASSES ITEM
NUMBER FOUR SB 804 BY SENATOR
DALI. THIS MEASURE WAS ON CALL
MCCARTY I MCCARTY I REYES. REYES
NOT VOTING. WILSON. 35 EXCUSE ME
ON TÍNH SB 800 EXCUSE ME. SB 804
BY SENATOR DALI TING. NOT VOTING
TO I. WILSON. NOT VOTING.
WILSON. NOT VOTING. ZEBRA THAT
MEASURE NOW PASSES. ITEM NUMBER
FIVE SB 820 BY SENATOR ALVARADO
GILL. THIS MEASURE WAS ON CALL.
LACKEY. LACKEY I NGUYEN NGUYEN I
WILSON. WILSON I THAT MEASURE
NOW PASSES ITEM NUMBER SIX SB
888 BY SENATOR SKINNER. THIS
MEASURE WAS ON CALL. ALANIS NÓ
ALANIS NÓ. LACKEY. LACKEY NØ
WILSON. CHANGE MY VOTE TO NOT
VOTING. I'M SORRY, I'M SORRY. ON
SB 888. LACKEY NÓ TO NOT VOTING.
WILSON WILSON I ZEBRA I ZIPPER I
THAT MEASURE NOW PASSES. ON ITEM
NUMBER SEVEN SB 925 BY SENATOR
WIENER. THIS MEASURE WAS ON CALL
MCCARTY. MCCARTY. I REYES. REYES
NOT VOTING TÍNH TÍNH I WILSON.
WILSON I ZEBRA I. ZEBRA I. THAT
MEASURE NOW PASSES. ITEM NUMBER
EIGHT SB 987 BY SENATOR
MENGIBAR. THIS MEASURE WAS ON
CALL. ALANIS ALANIS. I WHEN I
TING TING I WILSON WILSON I
ZEBRA ZEBRA NOT VOTING THAT THAT
MEASURE NOW PASSES. ITEM NUMBER
NINE SB 1001 BY SENATOR SKINNER.
THIS MEASURE WAS ON CALL. ALANIS
NØ ALANIS NØ LACKEY. LACKEY NOT
VOTING WHEN WE ARE ON ITEM
NUMBER NINE, SB 1001 BY SENATOR
SKINNER NGUYEN I TING TING I
WILSON WILSON I ZEBRA ZEBRA I
THAT MEASURE NOW PASSES ITEM
NUMBER TEN, SB 1002 BY SENATOR
BLAKE SPEAR. THIS MEASURE WAS ON
CALL ALANIS ALANIS I LACKEY
LACKEY I NGUYEN NGUYEN I TING
TING I WILSON WILSON I THAT
MEASURE NOW PASSES ITEM 11 SB
1057 BY SENATOR MENGIBAR. THIS
MEASURE WAS ON CALL ALANIS
ALANIS NÓ. WHEN 1057 BY SENATOR
MENGIBAR. WHEN NOT VOTING TING
TING I WILSON WILSON I THAT
MEASURE NOW PASSES. ITEM NUMBER
12 SB 1074 BY SENATOR JONES.
THIS MEASURE WAS ON CALL NGUYEN.
NGUYEN I TING TING I WILSON I
WILSON I ZEBRA ZEBRA I THAT
MEASURE NOW PASSES ITEM NUMBER
13 SB 1128 BY SENATOR PORTANTINO
LACKEY. LACKEY I REYES REYES I
TING TING NOT VOTING ITEM NUMBER
14 SB 1132 BY SENATOR DURAZO.
ZEBRA. ZEBRA I, ITEM NUMBER 15
SB 1133 BY SENATOR BECKER. THIS
MEASURE WAS ON CALL. ALANIS
ALANIS NÓ. LACKEY. LACKEY NØ
REYES REYES I TING TING I THAT
MEASURE NOW PASSES ITEM 16 SB
1161 BY SENATOR BECKER. THIS
MEASURE WAS ON CALL MCCARTY.
MCCARTY I ALANIS 1161, SIR. 1161
I LACKEY LACKEY NOT VOTING REYES
REYES I TING TING I THAT MEASURE
NOW PASSES. ITEM 17 SB 1202 WAS
ON CONSENT. ITEM NUMBER 18 SB
1254 BY SENATOR BECKER. THIS
MEASURE WAS ON CALL. ALANIS
ALANIS I LACKEY. LACKEY I TING
TING I WILSON WILSON I THAT
MEASURE NOW PASSES ITEM 19 SB
1256 BY SENATOR GLAZIER. THIS
MEASURE WAS ON CALL WHEN NGUYEN
I TING TING I WILSON WILSON I
ZEBRA ZEBRA I THAT MEASURE NOW
PASSES ITEM 20 BY SENATOR SB
1262 BY SENATOR ARCHULETA.
ALANIS ALANIS I WILSON. WILSON I
ZEBRA ZEBRA NOT VOTING ITEM 21
SB 1323 BY SENATOR MENGIBAR.
THIS MEASURE WAS ON CALL. ALANIS
ALANIS NÓ NGUYEN NGUYEN NOT
VOTING TING TING I WILSON WILSON
I THAT MEASURE NOW PASSES. ITEM
22 SB 1328 BY SENATOR BRADFORD
ALANIS ALANIS I WILSON. WILSON I
ZEBRA ZEBRA I. ITEM 23 SB 1414
BY SENATOR GROVE TING TING I
WILSON. YES, AMENDMENTS ARE
TAKEN. RIGHT. OKAY, SO I WILSON
I. ITEM NUMBER 24 SB 1502 WAS
HELD BY COMMITTEE. ITEM 25. THIS
MEASURE WAS VOTE ONLY SB 89 BY
OCHOA BOGH. THIS MEASURE WAS ON
CALL NGUYEN. NGUYEN NOT VOTING
WILSON. WILSON. NOT VOTING.
ZEBRA. ZEBRA. NOT VOTING. THAT
MEASURE FAILS. ITEM NUMBER 26 SB
2226 BY SENATOR ALVARADO GILL.
THIS MEASURE WAS ON CALL. LACKEY
LACKEY I NGUYEN NGUYEN I WILSON.
WILSON I THAT MEASURE NOW PASSES
. ITEM NUMBER 27. SB 1381 HAS
BEEN DISPENSED WITH. WE WILL NOW
RETURN TO ITEM NUMBER ONE. THE
CHAIR IS ASKING FOR
RECONSIDERATION ON SB 99 BY
SENATOR UMBERG ON
RECONSIDERATION, MCCARTY I
MCCARTY I ALANIS. YOU COULD DO A
NOT VOTING ON RECONSIDERATION.
ALANIS NOT VOTING I LAKI LACKEY
NOT VOTING ON RECONSIDERATION.
NGUYEN NGUYEN NOT VOTING ON
RECONSIDERATION REYES REYES I
TÍNH HOLMBERG RECONSIDERATION OH
I TING I WILSON. WILSON I ZEBRA
ZEBRA I YES WE TAKING UP THE
MEASURE YES SB 99 BY SENATOR
UMBERG. THE MOTION IS DUE PASS
TO THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MCCARTY MCCARTY I ALANIS ALANIS
NÓ LACKEY. NO. LACKEY. NO NGUYEN
NGUYEN NOT VOTING. REYES REYES I
TING. YES. YES TING I WILSON.
WILSON I ZEBRA ZEBRA I THAT
MEASURE NOW PASSES. YES ALL
RIGHT. WE WILL FINISH ADDING ON
FOR MR. ZEBRA. ITEM NUMBER THREE
SB 285 BY SENATOR ALLEN. ZEBRA.
ZEBRA I, ITEM NUMBER FOR SB 804
BY SENATOR DALI. ZEBRA. ZEBRA
NOT VOTING. NO. TO. YOU HAVE
DONE NUMBER TWO, SIR. DID YOU
CALL 27 THE WAHAB? THE RETAIL
THEFT ONE. YOU ALREADY VOTED FOR
THAT 27 BEFORE LUNCH. I HAVE YOU
DOWN AS VOTING. I HAVE YOU DOWN
AS THE SECOND. THANK YOU. THE
MOTION. YEAH, BUT I GOT YOU AT
SOME POINT. HOLD ON. OH. I'M
SORRY. YES. WE ALSO NEED CONSENT
FOR YOU, MISTER ZEBRA. MY
APOLOGIES. CONSENT CONSENT ON,
CALENDAR. ZEBRA. I ALL RIGHT,
LET'S.
JUST TO DOUBLE CHECK. YES, I
BELIEVE IS THAT I THINK WE'VE
GOTTEN EVERYONE. SO I. MR.
CHAIRMAN, WE HAVE EVERYONE NOW.
OKAY. THANK YOU. DO YOU WANT TO
ADJOURN FOR. YES OKAY. THIS
CONCLUDES OUR LAST EVER HEARING.
WE ARE ADJOURNED.