TWO SIX SIX NINE.
AND FOR ENTIRELY AND A. B.
EIGHTEEN SEVENTY TWO. IS GOING
ON THE ACTION CALENDAR. BEING
PULLED OFF THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
SO.
WE WILL START NOW WITH A. B..
TWO TWO EIGHT TWO.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER JONES SAWYER.
YOU MAKE JOIN US. IN BEGIN.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR OF GOOD
MORMON MEMBERS I'D I DON'T WANT
TO THANK.
THE COMMITTEE STAFF FOR FOR
WORKING ON HELPING US WITH THIS
BILL. OBVIOUSLY THEY HAD GREAT
TRAINING BEFORE HE CAME OVER TO
THE SENATE.
YEAH.
HE WAS THE BILL WENT THROUGH THE
BEST COMMITTEE BEFORE YESTERDAY
DEAR SURE DID.
AB TWO EIGHT TO THE SUPPORT BILL
THAT PROVIDES A TECHNICAL CLEAN
UP.
TO THE STATUTE WHICH MAKES IT A
FELONY TO A DEVICE OR ENCOURAGE
A SUICIDE. AND TWENTY FIFTEEN
THE LEGISLATURE PASSED THE END
OF LIFE OPTION AT WHICH ALLOWED
TO TURN LEAD GUILT OF DEALT WITH
THE CAPACITY MAKE MEDICAL
DECISIONS TO REQUESTED. AID IN
DYING MEDICATION IF CERTAIN
CONDITIONS ARE MET. IN ABOUT
LIFE OPTION ACT INSULATES A
PRESCRIBING PHYSICIAN AND A
PERSON WHO IS PRESENT FROM
CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR ACTIONS
WHICH ARE AUTHORIZED UNDER REACT.
HOWEVER.
WHEN THE END OF LIFE OPTION ACT
WAS ENACTED THE PENAL CODE
PROVISION WHICH MAKES IT A CRIME
TO AID A SUICIDE WAS NOT UPDATED.
TO REFLECT THAT CHANGE
THIS BILL MAKES THE NECESSARY
CHANGES IN SPECIFIED THAT
ACTIONS WHICH ARE AUTHORIZED
UNDER THE END OF LIFE OPTION
CANNOT BE PROSECUTED UNDER THE
CRIMINAL STATURE. OF MEMBERS ARE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR IAGO.
THANK YOU ARE THERE ANY
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
GOOD ARGUMENTS FOR IT SO YOU OF
CALIFORNIANS SUPPORT.
GOOD MORNING MARCO GEORGE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT THANK
YOU. GREAT.
ANDREA MANY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION.
RIGHT SEEN NINE.
MEET CAITLYN JENNER LUNAR DON'T
HAVE RIGHT.
.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER JONES SAWYER WE
WERE GOING TO TAKE THE MOTION ON
YOUR BILL ONCE WE HAVE
ESTABLISHED QUORUM.
.
BUT THERE'S NO QUESTIONS FROM
THE DYESS WE WILL ALLOW YOU TO
CLOSE.
I RESPECT CLASS RIVAL.
EXCELLENT.
ALRIGHT SO TIME.
WE WILL.
HOLD EMOTION.
AND APPRECIATE AND WHAT'S GOING
TO HAPPEN OTHER ITEMS THIS
MORNING.
RESTORING CONSENT LEFT YOU.
ALRIGHT THANKS SO MUCH THANK YOU
KNOW WE NEED SOME MORE AUTHORS.
BUILDS UP FUSE ME.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER VOCAL WE WILL GO
WITH YOUR BILL WHICH HAD BEEN
PULLED OFF THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
SO.
BABY EIGHTEEN SEVENTY TWO
ASSEMBLYMEMBER FOLK.
AND.
CORRECT BOTTOM CHAIR.
SENATORS.
LIKE TODAY I PRESENT TO YOU AB
EIGHTEEN SEVENTY TWO WHICH WOULD
EXEMPT SWORN PEACE OFFICERS OF A
HARBOR OR PORT DISTRICT
INCLUDING SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT
DISTRICT HARPER PLEASE.
AND HARPER DEPARTMENT OF THE
CITY OF. LOS ANGELES WHO HAVE
SATISFACTORILY COMPLETED THE
COMMISSION ON PEACE OFFICER
STANDARDS AND TRAINING. THAT'S
POST FIREARMS TRAINING COURSE
FROM DOES.
STATE PROHIBITION RELATING TO
SALE OR PURCHASE OF UNSAFE
HANDGUN.
THIS BILL IS A CLEAN UP
LEGISLATION THAT INCLUDES THE
PORT PLEASE AND IS A MINOR
TECHNICAL CHANGE. IN THE SECTION
THIRTY TWO HUNDRED OF THE
CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE.
INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH.
TWENTY ONE DIFFERENT AGENCIES
POLICE AGENCIES. INCLUDING FISH
AND WILDLIFE EXCEPT FOR WERE
INCLUDED IN THIS BILL BUT THE
HARBOR PLEASE FOR LEFT OFF SO
THIS IS SIMPLY A CLEANUP.
AND A SIMILAR LEGISLATION
INCLUDES AB TWENTY ONE SIXTY
FIVE FROM TWO THOUSAND SIXTEEN
HOUSE RESOLUTION TO EIGHTEEN
FROM THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND FOUR
AND SENATE BILL ELEVEN THIRTY TO
FROM THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND TEN.
AB EIGHTEEN SEVENTY TWO PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY ON THE ASSEMBLY
FLOOR AND IS SUPPORTED BY THE
POLICE OFFICERS RESEARCH
ASSOCIATION. OF CALIFORNIA.
AND WITH THESE REASONS.
BY S. FOR AN AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU DO WE HAVE ANY
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
ALRIGHT WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
MON CHAIRMAN MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE CRITICISM AFTER THE
FIRES POLICY COALITION OF FIRST
I'D LIKE TO.
OFFER OUR APOLOGIES FOR GETTING
A LETTER OF OPPOSITION IN LATE.
.
I AT FIRST WHY JUST WANT TO NOTE
THAT. OUR FIRST LAW OUR
OPPOSITION TO THE IDEA OF THE
THE NOT UNSAFE HANDGUN ROSTER AS
IT CURRENTLY EXISTS. A WE HAVE A
MAJOR ISSUE IN THAT BECAUSE OF
IN PARTICULAR THE MICROSCOPIC
REQUIREMENT OF FIREARMS THAT ARE
SAFE AND IN COMMON USE BY
CIVILIANS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
I HAVE ESSENTIALLY BEEN BANNED
FOR SALE IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA THE WORDS CITIZENS
CANNOT PURCHASE THEM FROM
FIREARMS RETAILERS. AB TWENTY
ONE SIXTY FIVE WHEN WAS PASSED A
COUPLE OF YEARS AGO CREATED
MULTIPLE TIERS OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT WHO WERE ABLE TO. UP
PURCHASE A WERE ABLE TO PURCHASE
THESE FIREARMS WERE EXEMPTED
FROM THE NOT UNSAFE HENDON
ROSTER.
BUT CHALLENGES IS THAT ONE OF
THOSE TEARS HAS SEVERE
RESTRICTIONS ON THEIR ABILITY TO
BE ABLE TO THEN SELL THOSE
FIREARMS.
THE PROBLEM THAT THAT IS CREATED
FOUR FIREARMS RETAILERS IS THIS
THEY DON'T KNOW WHEN SOMEONE
COMES IN TO BE ABLE TO TRY AND
TRANSFER THAT FIREARM BECAUSE.
HE IN ESSENCE THIS THIS
RESTRICTION WAS PUT IN PLACE
BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF
INSTANCES IN WHICH.
LAW ENFORCEMENT AND YOU GUYS
HAVE SEEN THE STORIES MEMBERS OF
LAW ENFORCEMENT HAVE ACTUALLY
BEEN.
FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM
TRAFFICKING IN THESE NOT UNSAFE
OR I'M SORRY MCCLINTOCK THESE
UNSAFE FIREARMS THAT DOOR THESE
FARMS THAT HAVE BEEN DEEMED
UNSAFE. UP BY THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA THE CHALLENGE AT THAT
IS CREATED IS IS A LICENSED
RETAILER DOES NOT KNOW HOW. HOW
THIS FIREARM WAS OBTAINED IF IT
WAS OBTAINED UNDER THE BROADER
WILL KALI TIER ONE LAW
ENFORCEMENT EXEMPTION WHICH
INCLUDES?
HIGHWAY PATROL CITY POLICE.
COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPUTY
SHERIFFS AND WHAT NOT OR WHETHER
IT'S ONE OF THESE.
HOW WILL CALL THEM TEAR TO LAW
ENFORCEMENT FISHING GAME OR IF
THIS BILL WERE TO PASS?
HARBOR POLICE.
IF THE HARBOR POLICE OR SOMEONE
WHO'S UNDER THIS TEAR TWO
PERCHED FIREMAN THEY ARE THEY
ARE PROHIBITED FROM BEING ABLE
TO TRANSFER THIS FIREARM TO
ANYONE WHO IS NOT ALSO A TIER
TWO OFFICERS.
NOW HOW IS A A FIREARMS RETAILER
WHEN SOMEONE WALKS INTO THE
STORE SUPPOSED TO KNOW.
THIS IS A CONCERN THAT WE
BROUGHT UP WITH TWENTY ONE SIXTY
FIVE BUT UNFORTUNATELY.
YOU KNOW THIS BUT HE CHOSE TO
IGNORE THOSE CONCERNS BUT NOW
IT'S A SAYING IT'S THE SAME
EXACT PROBLEM WE'RE HAVING IT
ALL WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE
EXPANDING IT BY ADDING ANOTHER
GROUP OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICE
ANOTHER GROUP THAT IS GOING TO
BE EXEMPTED.
AND THEN FINALLY OUR CONCERNS
REGARD RELATING TO THIS MEASURE
HAS TO DO WITH.
AT WHAT HAS TO DO WITH THE
EQUAL PROTECTION.
RIGHT NOW ONCE AGAIN THESE
FIREARMS ARE SAFE IN INCOME AND
USE IN EVERY OTHER STATE IN THE
COUNTRY.
EXCEPT FOR THE STATE EXCEPT FOR
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IT THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA IS THEN
GOING TO DEAN THESE FIREARMS FOR
SOME REASON TO BE UNSAFE.
WE WOULD NOT ALLOW LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO. TO
DRIVE A CAR THAT HAS BEEN DEEMED
UNSAFE BY THE STATE WE WOULD
EVEN ALLOW THEM TO SIT IN THE
CHAIR THAT HAS BEEN DEEMED
UNSAFE BY THE STATE. YET FOR
SOME REASON WITH BY THE WAY NO
ADDITIONAL TRAINING ON HOW TO
HANDLE THESE. UNSAFE FIREARMS WE
ARE NOW GOING TO ALLOW A SPECIAL
GROUP OF PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO
PURCHASE NOT JUST FOR WORK
PURPOSES BUT TO BE ABLE TO
PURCHASE FOR PRIVATE USE.
A FIREARM THAT ONCE AGAIN THE
SAFE IN COMMON USE BUT
PROHIBITED BY OTHER CALIFORNIANS
IT IS FOR THESE REASONS THAT WE
OPPOSE THIS MEASURE BIG BROTHER
ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION.
RIGHT SEEN NINE.
.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE DYESS.
GREAT THAT WE HAVE A MOTION ON.
OH SORRY YOU'RE RIGHT LET'S SET
OUR QUORUM.
AND THEN WE CAN ACT ON IT.
ROLL CALL PLEASE
SKINNER.
I'M HERE SKINNER HERE ANDERSON
HERE ENTERS IN HERE BRADFORD.
BRADFORD HERE JACKSON MITCHELL
STONE.
STONE HERE WIENER.
ALRIGHT ASSEMBLY MEMBER VOEPEL
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE.
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YES VOTE
THANK YOU. KNOW WE HAVE A MOTION
SO LET'S.
.
DO ROLL CALL ON THAT MOTION.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS TO THE
FLOOR SKINNER.
ANDERSON AYE SKINNER AYE
ANDERSON AYE ANDERSON AYE
BRADFORD.
BRADFORD I JACKSON MITCHELL
STONE. STONE AYE WIENER.
WELL HOLD IT OPEN AND YOU HAVE A
SECOND FILM SO LET'S.
AND I BELIEVE THIS BILL HAS
AMENDMENTS THE LAST ONE DID NOT
THIS IS AB TWENTY ONE SIXTY NINE.
GO AHEAD.
WHAT'S GOOD MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS.
I WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT TO YOU
AB TWENTY ONE SIXTY NINE THAT
ENABLES VEHICLE RENTAL COMPANIES
TO REPORT THEFT AS VEHICLES
BECOME OVERDUE RATHER THAN BEING
REQUIRED TO WAIT FIVE DAYS AFTER
THE VEHICLE RETURN DATE. VEHICLE
THEFT IS UNIQUE.
I KNOW SENSE THAT ANY WASTED
TIME ESPECIALLY IN THIS MODERN
ECONOMY.
THE REPORTING PROCESS ALLOWS THE
CRIMINAL TO GEOGRAPHICALLY
DISCONNECT FROM THE SCENE THAT
MEANS THEY BEAT FEET CHOP IT UP.
MOTIVATION FOR AUTOMOBILE THEFT
IS HIGHER WHEN THERE IS A FIVE
DAY GRACE PERIOD GIVEN LEAVING
PLENTY OF TIME TO FLEE THE SCENE
AND DISMEMBER THE VEHICLE FOR
THE SALE.
WHEN FRAUD IS DISCOVERED IT IS
IMPORTANT THAT THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT IS NOTIFIED
IMMEDIATELY RATHER THAN WAITING
UNTIL THE FIVE DAYS EXPIRE AFTER
THE EXPIRATION OF THE CAR.
RENTAL LEASE.
UNDER THIS BILL THE FIVE DAY
WAITING PERIOD WILL BE MINIMIZED
TO FORTY EIGHT HOURS IN ORDER TO
ENSURE. THAT PROPER PROCEDURES
ARE CONDUCTED TO ENSURE BOTH
SAFETY AND UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN
THE RENTAL CAR AGENCY AND THE
RENTER OF THE VEHICLE.
I ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS.
AND WITH THIS SAID I S. TODAY
FEW TO SUPPORT THE BILL THAT
SIMPLY EXPEDITES IT IMPROVES THE
SYSTEM OF TRACKING DOWN STOLEN
CARS.
THANK YOU DO WE HAVE ANY
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
ANY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION
.
ON.
I'M MARGOT GEORGE FROM THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION AND I'M ALSO ONE OF
YOUR CONSTITUENTS MADAM CHAIR.
C. PDA OPPOSES THE CURRENT
VERSION OF BABY TWENTY ONE SIXTY
NINE.
BECAUSE IT IS PROBABLY UNFAIR.
IT IS UNFAIR AND PROBABLY
UNCONSTITUTIONAL DUE TO THE LACK
OF NOTICE TO THE CUSTOMER AND
THE LACK OF POLICE DISCRETION.
MOREOVER IT WILL WASTE TAXPAYER
DOLLARS BY CAUSING THE
UNWARRANTED REST AND POTENTIAL
PROSECUTIONS OF INNOCENT
CUSTOMERS.
MINOR DELAYS AND RETURNING
RENTAL CARS ARE COMMON.
AND THEY HAVE HISTORICALLY BEEN
DEALT WITH BY ADDITIONAL RENTAL
CHARGES. AND.
LATE FEES.
AB TWENTY ONE SIXTY NINE WOULD
TURN THESE DELAYS INTO A
CRIMINAL EVENT.
WHEN OUR PEOPLE RENT A CAR THEY
TYPICALLY PROVIDE THEIR CELL
PHONE NUMBER TO THE RENTAL
COMPANY IF THEY'RE FROM OUT OF
TOWN. ON BUSINESS OR PLEASURE
EVERYONE HAS EXPERIENCED NOT
GETTING A TEXTER MISSING A CALL.
ON THEIR CELL PHONES UNDER AB
TWENTY ONE SIXTY NINE THEY RISK
ARREST IF THEIR PHONE IS LOST OR
STOLEN OR THE BATTERY RUNS DOWN.
SINCE THE RENTAL CAR COMPANY
WILL BE UNABLE TO CONTACT THEM
UNDER THIS VERSION OF THE BILL.
MOREOVER SINCE THE RENTAL CAR
COMPANY IS ONLY REQUIRED TO MAKE
A REASONABLE NUMBER OF TEMPS IF
THE CUSTOMER LATER FINDS.
OR CHARGES IS PHONE THERE'S NO
GUARANTEE THAT THEY WILL RECEIVE
THE MESSAGE.
WHEN THE RENTAL COMPANY REPORTS
THE CARS STOLEN THE POLICE ARE
REQUIRED TO ENTER IT INTO THE
STOLEN CAR SYSTEM. REGARDLESS OF
WHETHER THE CAR COMPANY TRIED
ONCE OR TWICE OR DIDN'T EVEN
BOTHER TO TRY AND CONTACT THE
CUSTOMER.
AB TWENTY ONE SIXTY NINE MAKES
THE POLICE AN ARM OF THE CAR
RENTAL COMPANIES SINCE THE
POLICE MUST ACT WITHOUT
REQUIRING INTO WHAT ATTEMPTS THE
CAR RENTAL COMPANY. HAS MADE TO
CONTACT THE CUSTOMER BEFORE
CALLING THE POLICE.
AND THE POLICE HAVE NO
DISCRETION AS THEY DO UNDER THE
CURRENT STATUTE. TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE
TO ENTER THE CAR STOLEN AND THEN
STOP AND DETAIN THE CUSTOMER
WILL RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
NO VOTE THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION.
SO I THINK THAT'S
SOME OF THE MAYBE NOT ALL OF THE
ISSUES THAT YOU ADDRESSED IN
OPPOSITION TESTIMONY.
WERE ADDRESSED BY THE AMENDMENT
THAT THE.
AUTHORS TAKEN. ON YOU CAN SEE
THAT IN THE ANALYSIS ON PAGE
FOUR. IT MAY NOT ADDRESS ALL THE
CONCERNS BUT. SOME OF THEM.
A FUND SENATOR ANDERSON GO AHEAD.
AND I THINK I JUST HAVE A
COMMENT. YOU KNOW IN THIS.
.
SOCIAL MEDIA.
OUR ENVIRONMENT.
THE FIRST TIME THEY PULL OVER A
FAMILY WHOSE ON THE WAY TO
DISNEYLAND A FAMILY OF FOUR.
BECAUSE THEY WERE.
LATE.
WE'LL BE THE FRONT PAGE OF PAPER
AND FACT COMPANY WILL BE
PUNISHED SEVERELY.
I DON'T THINK COMPANIES ARE
GONNA BE* NILLY. REPORTING
STOLEN CARS UNLESS OF COURSE
WHEN YOU FILLED OUT THE
PAPERWORK YOU FLATLY LIED. ABOUT
ALL THE INFORMATION.
I DON'T THINK THAT THEY'RE GONNA
RUN THE RISK.
OF CALLING THE POLICE INSANE
THEIR CARS STOLEN.
KNOWING.
SOCIAL MEDIA OUTBREAK CAN BE ON
THE FRONT PAGE OF THE NEWS.
SO I'M I'M CONFIDENT THAT THERE
CAN BE JUDICIOUS IN THEIR
PRACTICE.
AND THERE CAN BE VERY SURE THAT
IT IS STOLEN BEFORE THEY
REPORTED STOLEN.
FOR THAT REASON I'D LIKE TO MOVE
THE BILL.
VOIGTS WE HAVE A MOTION.
.
AND GO AHEAD.
.
THINGS I DID ASK IT CLOSE IT.
CORRECT SO GO AHEAD YOU MAY
CLOSE.
THIS ONE FINAL COMMENT.
AND.
FOR IS AS I'VE BEEN WITH MY
RENTAL COMPANY FOR ALMOST THIRTY
FIVE YEARS THEY KNOW ME I'M IN
THEIR SYSTEM I'M IN THEIR
COMPUTER. THE. MAIN PEOPLE THAT
THIS WOULD ADDRESS WOULD BE
BRAND NEW TO THE COMPANY AND THE
CAR DISAPPEARS.
.
SO WITH THAT I RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST YOUR VOTE.
ALRIGHT.
.
WE HAVE A MOTION.
YOU CAN YOU MOVED IT YES THANK
YOU SENATOR ANDERSON.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THAT AS
AMENDED.
.
ANY GOES TO PROPS PROPS
SO ROLL CALL. SKINNER AYE
SKINNER AYE ANDERSON AYE
ANDERSON AYE BRADFORD.
JACKSON.
MITCHELL.
MITCHELL AYE STONE.
STONE AYE WIENER.
WIENER AYE.
BY WILL HOLD OUT OPEN FOR
MISSING MEMBER AND NO WE WILL GO
TO.
YES ASSEMBLYMEMBER LEVINE ITEM
FIVE A. B. EIGHT SEVENTY.
YEAH. TERRITORY.
JUST GO FOR IT.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS AB EIGHT SEVENTY LAWS
JUDGES THREE CORRECT
RECOMMENDATION OF THE CDC ARE
THAT A DEFENDANT RECEIVE A
MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION. YOU
MAY REMEMBER THIS BILL LAST YEAR
IT WAS APPROVED BY THE SENATE
THIRTY SEVEN ZERO AYE BUT WAS
VETOED BY THE GOVERNOR HOWEVER
WHAT YOU DIDN'T. KNOW BEFORE HE
DID THE VETO WAS AT THE STATE
AUDITOR FOUND THAT THE
CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONS OFFICIALS
HAVE CONTINUOUSLY FAIL TO ENSURE
THAT PRISON STAFF MEMBERS
PROPERLY EVALUATE AND TREAT.
PRISONERS MENTAL HEALTH.
IT B. A SEMI GIVES COURT'S
DISCRETION DURING SENTENCING TO
CONSIDER MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT
FOR INDIVIDUAL SCORE DIAGNOSED
WITH MENTAL ILLNESS ARE STUCK
FAST FOR AYE VOTE.
BY WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS NICOLE
MORTAL MEN ON BEHALF OF THE
NATIONAL ALLIANCE ON MENTAL
ILLNESS CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT OF
AB EIGHT SEVENTY. AS OF
SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND FIFTEEN
THIRTY SEVEN THOUSAND OF
CALIFORNIA'S INMATES WERE
DIAGNOSED WITH A MENTAL ILLNESS
A NUMBER WHICH CONTINUES TO GROW.
JAILS AND PRISONS HAVE BECOME
MENTAL HEALTH FACILITIES FOR
MENTALLY ILL INMATES CONTINUE TO
COOK DECLINE AND ARE UNABLE TO
OBTAIN APPROPRIATE TREATMENT.
CALIFORNIA'S LAW ENFORCEMENT
SYSTEM MUST BE MORE RESPONSIVE
TO THE NEEDS OF THOSE WITH
MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES. IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE THEREFORE
NAMI CALIFORNIA SUPPORTS AB
EIGHT SEVENTY AND URGES YOUR AYE
VOTE ON THE MEASURE.
NEXT WITNESS REBEKAH GONZALEZ
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL
WORKERS CALIFORNIA CHAPTER WE
REPRESENT TEN THOUSAND SOCIAL
WORKERS WHO HAVE A DEGREE FROM
AN ACCREDITED SCHOOL OF SOCIAL
WORK. AND WHERE IN SUPPORT WHERE
HERE IN SUPPORT OF AB EIGHT
SEVENTY.
AS THE PREVIOUS WITNESS AS
STATED OUR PRISONS HAPPY KIND DE
FACTO MENTAL HEALTH INSTITUTIONS
OUR PRISONS AND JAILS AND WE
BELIEVE IT'S.
CRUCIAL THAT EVERY.
PEOPLE THAT THAT TO HAVE A
MENTAL ILLNESS ARE IDENTIFIED IN
THIS BILL WILL MAKE SURE THAT
THAT HAPPENS THANK YOU.
WE HAVE OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT.
MARRIAGE HERE I'M PREPARED TO
THE BILL WHEN YOU'RE WRITING
GREAT ALL TAKE THAT MOTION WILL
HE SEE IF THERE'S ANY WITNESSES
IN OPPOSITION.
HOMELESS GIORGINI PROCEED.
MARGOT GEORGE FROM THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION. OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION
FULLY SUPPORTS PROVIDING MENTAL
HEALTH TREATMENT TOUR CLIENTS
WHO SUFFER FROM MILLENNIAL
ILLNESS AND APPRECIATES THE
INTENT BEHIND THIS BILL.
AS THE GOVERNOR NOTED IN THIS
VETO MESSAGE LAST YEAR OF THE
SAME BILL.
THE CDC ARE ALREADY PROVIDES
MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATIONS WHEN
ON. INDIVIDUALS GO TO THIS
RECEPTION CENTERS AND NORTHERN
OR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.
WE'RE ASKING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO
EIGHTY EIGHT SEVENTY BECAUSE AS
IT IS WORDED RIGHT NOW IT WILL
LIKELY LIKELYRESULT INNER
CLIENTS INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT.
TO A MENTAL HOSPITAL AFTER THEY
HAVE FINISHED THEIR PRISON TERMS.
THERE ARE SERIOUS DUE PROCESS
PROBLEMS WITH THE A. B. EIGHT
SEVENTY JUDICIAL FINDINGS.
A. B. EIGHT SEVENTIES JUDICIAL
FINDINGS HAVE NO PROVISION FOR
HEARING EVIDENCE.
STANDARD APPROVED FOR ANY DUE
PROCESS AT ALL.
OF TE JUDGES ASKED TO FIND THAT
THE DEFENDANT AT THE TIME OF THE
COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE WAS
SUFFERING FROM A SERIOUS MENTAL
ILLNESS.
THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD A
DEMONSTRATED HISTORY OF MENTAL
ILLNESS.
THESE FINDINGS MADE BY A JUDGE
WITH THE BEST OF INTENTIONS
COULD HAVE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES
FOR THE INDIVIDUAL.
UNDER THE MENTALLY DISORDERED
OFFENDERS STATUTE. BOMB PENAL
CODE TWENTY NINE SIXTY SIXTY TO
SEVENTY. AND INDIVIDUAL WILL CAN
BE LOCKED UP IN A MENTAL
HOSPITAL INSTEAD OF BEING
PAROLED TO THE COMMUNITY.
AND THEN CAPTAIN THE MENTAL
HOSPITAL ASSEMBLY COMMITTED.
TWO OF THE FOUR CRITERIA TO BE
CERTIFIED AS A MENTALLY
DISORDERED OFFENDERS. ARE.
BASICALLY THE SAME OR SIMILAR TO
THE JUDICIAL FINDINGS ABOUT A.
B. H. SEVENTY ASK A JUDGE TO
MAKE IT SENATE SING.
ONE IS THE PRISONER HAS A SEVERE
MENTAL DISORDER THAT IS NOT
MARIE MISSION OR THAT CANNOT BE
KEPT IN REMISSION WITHOUT
TREATMENT.
TO IS THE SEVERE MENTAL DISORDER
WAS ONE OF THE CAUSES OF OR WAS
AN AGGREGATE FADING FACTOR IN
THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME. FOR
WHICH THE PRISONERS WAS
SENTENCED TO PRISON.
UNDER THE MENTALLY DISORDERED
OFFENDER ACT.
THE INDIVIDUAL HAS NUMEROUS DUE
PROCESS PROTECTIONS.
THE RIGHT TO WAS SUPERIOR BUT
RIGHT TO A HEARING IN THE
SUPERIOR COURT WHILE THEY'RE ON
PAROLE.
AND A JURY TRIAL WITH THE
STANDARD OF BEYOND A REASONABLE
DOUBT ONCE THEY'RE OFF PAROLE.
EIGHT BE EIGHT SEVENTY AND AND
THAT THEM D. O. ACT FINDINGS ARE
ALMOST THE SAME.
WE'RE ASKING FOR SMALL AMENDMENT
BUT EIGHTY EIGHT SEVENTIES I
MEAN WITHOUT DUE PROCESS CANNOT
BE USED TO FIND THAT SOMEONE IS
A MENTALLY DISORDERED FENDER A
SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATOR.
WITHOUT THAT AMENDMENT THE
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF
PASSING EIGHT BE EIGHT.
EIGHT SEVENTY ARE.
IT WILL TAX THE SCARCE JUDICIAL
RESOURCES BECAUSE DEFENDANTS
WILL BE FORCED TO DEMAND FULL
HEARINGS ON THE SENTENCING
COURT'S WITH EXPERT MENTAL
HEALTH PROFESSIONALS.
SINCE THE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AT
THAT STAGE WILL IMPACT WHETHER
THEY GET LOCKED UP IN THEM
MENTAL HOSPITAL INVOLUNTARILY
AFTER THEY SERVE THEIR PRISON
TERM.
IT WILL MAKE DEFENDANTS WHO ARE
MENTALLY ILL WARY OF REACHING
OUT AND SEEKING HELP ONCE THEY
GET TO STATE PRISON.
SO WELL WHILE THIS IS CERTAINLY
WELL INTENDED AND WE AGREED THAT
THE NUMBER OF MENTALLY ILL HOPE.
OF PRISONERS HAS BEEN RISING
SUBSTANTIALLY AND THAT THERE
NEEDS TO BE ADDITIONAL MENTAL
HEALTH.
OF RESOURCES AND HELP IN STATE
PRISONS.
THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO DO IT ON
IT COULD BE IF.
IF THERE WERE FOR THIS SMALL
AMENDMENT.
SO WE ASK FOR YOUR NO VOTE AS
IT'S CURRENTLY BOARDED THANK YOU.
THANK YOU ARE THERE ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
ALRIGHT SO ANY DISCUSSION FROM
THE DIETS.
WE HAVE A MOTION.
I ASSEMBLYMEMBER LEVINE WHICH
ELECT CLOTHES I SUCK*
FERNANDO.
RIGHT WILL DO.
.
THE MOTION IS.
TO PASS TO THE FLOOR THERE WERE
NO AMENDMENTS.
WE'LL DO ROLL CALL SKINNER. AYE
INNER AYE ANDERSON AYE ANDERSON
AYE BRADFORD.
JACKSON.
MITCHELL AYE MITCHELL AYE STONE.
STONE AYE WIENER. INNER AYE.
ALRIGHT.
BEFORE WE TAKE UP THE NEXT BILL
THANK YOU THANK YOU MADAM FOR
HOLD IT UNTIL OUR MISSING
MEMBERS BEFORE WE TAKE ASSEMBLY
MEMBER LACKEY SOMEONE TO DO THE.
CONSENT CALENDAR.
GREAT CONSENT CALENDAR LOOKS TO
ROLL CALL.
SKINNER.
BY
IN OUR AYE ANDERSON.
HOW TO ESOS THIS IS CONSENT FOR
HEALTHCARE I'M ACTUALLY?
ANDERSON AYE BRADFORD. BRADFORD
AYE JACKSON MITCHELL AYE
MITCHELL AYE STONE STONE AYE
WIENER.
WIENER AYE FOR LET'S TOOL CALLED
ON ASSEMBLY MEMBER AYE JONES
SAWYER BILL AND THAT WAS.
.
NOT ITEM ONE A. B. TWO EIGHTY
TWO HE PRESENTED AND WE JUST
WEREN'T HERE SO. HER BROTHER I
WAS HERE.
SKINNER.
A AYE INTER AYE ANDERSON.
ANDERSON NOW BRADFORD.
BRADFORD AYE JACKSON MITCHELL.
MITCHELL AYE STONE STONE NOW
WIENER AYE WIENER AYE.
ALRIGHT WITH THAT BUSINESS DONE
WILL GO TO ASSEMBLY MEMBER
LACKEY AND I THINK YOU WANTED TO
TAKE YOUR BILLS UM IN REVERSE
ORDER.
SEC CORRECT WANTED TO START WITH.
ITEM TWELVE EP EIGHTEEN SIX
FIVE SECRETARY GREAT SO WE WILL
START WITH ITEM TWELVE AB
EIGHTEEN SIX
FIVE.
AND.
.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER LACKEY WHENEVER
YOU WOULD LIKE TO START GO AHEAD.
BUT THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR AND
SENATORS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT THIS BILL AB EIGHTEEN
SIXTY FIVE.
I LIKE TO I THINK SENATOR WINNER
FOR COST DURING THIS LEGISLATION
WITH ME. HAD TAKEN AN ACTIVE
ROLE SUPPORTING THE DISABLED
COMMUNITY.
THIS LEGISLATION BUILDS UPON
EXISTING LAW WHICH WAS APPROVED
BY THE LEGISLATURE IN TWENTY
FOURTEEN WHICH MADE IT A CRIME
FOR AN INDIVIDUAL. OR THEIR DOG
TO ATTACK A GUIDE SIGNAL OR
SERVICE DOG WILD IS ACTIVELY
PROVIDING SERVICE TO ITS HANDLER.
UNFORTUNATELY CURRENT LAW FAILS
TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT.
THAT THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
SERVICE DOGS EXTEND BEYOND
MOMENTS WHEN A DOG IS ACTIVELY
GUIDING ITS HANDLER.
THE VALUE OF SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
SERVICE DOG DOES NOT DIMINISH
SIMPLY BECAUSE THE HELLER
DECIDES TO ALLOW THE ANIMAL TO
RELAX.
WHILE WAITING FOR A BUS OR
SITTING ON A PARK.
AB TWO SIXTY FIVE WILL REMOVE
THE REQUIREMENT TO THE DOG BE
PERFORMING ITS DUTIES AT THE
TIME OF BEING ATTACKED.
FOR IT TO BE A CRIME.
ADDITIONALLY CURRENT LAW ALLOWS
DOG OWNERS TO BE COMPENSATED
THROUGH THE VICTIMS COMPENSATION
FUND FOR VETERINARY BILLS OR THE
COST OF REPLACING THE DOG.
AB DID SIXTY FIVE WILL ENABLE
DISABLED INDIVIDUALS TO ALSO
COLLECT ON MEDICAL EXPENSES
OCCURRED AND LOST INCOME
RESULTING FROM THE TIME SPENT
WITHOUT THE SERVICES OF THE DOG.
I NOW TURN IT OVER.
THE BILL'S SPONSORS REPRESENTING
THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE
BLIND OF CALIFORNIA AND A US PCI.
WITNESS YOU MAY BEGIN.
OKAY.
I'M.
GOOD MORNING MADAM CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS THANK YOU FOR
HEARING MY TESTIMONY.
ON.
RASKIN YEARS PART YOU PLEASE
GIVE YOUR NAME AND FUNDS.
MY NAME IS AND SHANNON TELL AND
I'M HERE TO REPRESENT NATIONAL
FEDERATION THE POINT CALIFORNIA.
AND FOR ASKING FOR YOU TO
PROTECT GUIDE SIGNAL AND SERVICE
DOGS ON.
WHO ARE ATTACKED AND INJURED OR
KILLED I'M EVEN IF THEY'RE IN
TRAINING OR?
?
EVEN IF THEY'RE NOT AND
DISCHARGE OF THEIR DUTIES ON.
I. WORK EVERY DAY AND PUBLIC CAN
TAKE MY RIGHT EYE BURKE WHO WORK
AND TAKE MY DOG TO THE BATHROOM
IN PUBLIC TAKE ITS HARNESS OFF
BY DEFINITION. ITS ALLIES YOU
TAKE YOUR HARNESS OFF TO LET THE
DOG NO IT'S OKAY TO GO TO THE
BATHROOM.
SOMETHING THE TRAIN EVERYBODY DO
IN SCHOOL AND SO THE DOGS.
ARE OUT IN PUBLIC THEY'RE NOT
REALLY PROTECTED I GET ARM
REGULARLY HOME YOU KNOW THEIR
THEIR DOGS.
OUT NEAR WHERE I WORK THAT.
.
THAT ADDRESS HAVE BEEN HOSTILE
TOWARD MY DOG ON INTENTIONALLY
PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN APARTMENTS
ARE PLACES WHERE THEY TAKE THEIR
DOGS OUT TO GO TO THE BATHROOM
AND PUBLIC.
HAVE AND THIS ISSUE OR I MIGHT.
A THE OTHER LADY WHO IS NOT HERE
TODAY TO TESTIFY BUT HAS HAS
TESTIFIED BEFORE ABOUT HER DOG
BEING ATTACKED TWICE IN HER YARD.
IT'S IT'S STILL A SERVICE DOG
IT STILL A GUIDE DOG AND. HIS
DOG'S COST AROUND SIXTY THOUSAND
DOLLARS TO RAISE AND TRAIN. AND
THEN THE PERSON TO THE HANDLER.
ON TAKES IF YOU GO TO SCHOOL FOR
TWO WEEKS TO A MONTH TO. GET THE
TRAINING TO LEARN HOW TO
CORRECTLY HANDLED THE DOG.
IT'S A IT'S A MINUTE IT'S AN
ENORMOUS COMMITMENT ON THE
BEHALF OF ALL THE PUPPY RAISERS
IN THE SCHOOLS TO RAISE THE DOG.
AND THEN THE PERSON WHO HAS TO
TAKE TIME OFF FROM WORK OUR TIME
AWAY FROM THEIR HOME.
TO GO TO STAY IN A DORM USUALLY
TO GET THE DOG.
TO BE TRAINED TO USE AND HANDLE
THE GUIDE DOG.
AND IF THE DOG IS INJURED OR
KILLED FREQUENTLY.
THE SCHOOL WOULD HAVE TO SEND
SOMEONE OUT TO WORK WITH THE DOG.
SOMETIMES THE DOG IF IF IT'S
STILL ABLE TO WORK.
IT WILL STILL IT WILL STILL
HAVE ISSUES.
AND THOSE HAVE TO BE WORKED
THROUGH WITH THAT TRAINER FROM
THE SCHOOL.
IF THE DOGS NO LONGER ABLE TO
WORK THEN THE PERSON.
THEIR HANDLER THINK BLIND ARE
DISABLED HIM BLAIR. HOUSE TO
TAKE TIME OFF TO RETRAIN FOR
ANOTHER DOG SO THAT'S ANOTHER
TWO WEEKS TO A MONTH THAT THEY
SPEND TO GO GET ANOTHER DOG.
AND OF COURSE ANOTHER SIXTY
THOUSAND DOLLAR DOG ON FOR FOR
GUIDE DOGS.
SO WE'RE ASKING YOU TO PLEASE
SUPPORT THIS.
ALSO THEIR MEDICAL EXPENSES BUT
ALSO I'M EXPENSES PEOPLE WHO.
HOME.
TAKE TIME AWAY FROM WORK AND I'D.
I DON'T GET PAID FOR THE TIME
OFF THAT I TAKE TO GO GET A
GUIDE DOG.
SO THOUGHT YOU KNOW.
SOON DOT IS WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR
MANY LOST WAGES TO BE PART OF
THE SECRETION.
THANK YOU PLEASE PLEASE SUPPORT
ABC EIGHTEEN SIXTY FIVE THANK
YOU SO MUCH.
THANK YOU.
NEXT WITNESS.
GOOD MORNING MADAM CHAIR.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS STEP BROUGHT
DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA AND.
WE ARE IN VERY STRONG SUPPORT OF
THE BILL. IMAGINE THAT YOU ARE
AT WORK ON AN EIGHT HOUR SHIFT.
AND YOU WENT INTO THE RESTROOM
SHAKE.
A POTTY BREAK.
AND SOMEONE WAS THERE AND RAPE
YOU.
OR.
SOMETHING LESS.
SEVERE THAN THAT BUT.
YOU KNOW YOU AND A PINK DEAD OR
SOMETHING WE WERE YOU IN SERVICE
WERE YOU AT WORK.
WHEN WHEN THAT HAPPENED.
BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
HERE IS.
A.
SERVICE THAT GUIDE DOGS PROVIDE.
THAT'S TWENTY FOUR SEVEN.
BUT IT'S NOT REALLY TWENTY FOUR
SEVEN BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO GO TO
THE BATHROOM THEY THEY HAVE TO
GET SOME DOWN TIME YOU CAN'T YOU
CAN'T ALWAYS BE. ABLE TO UP
PERFORM THAT FUNCTION AND.
LE WHAT SHANNON SAID ABOUT THE
MONEY IS VERY.
IMPORTANT BECAUSE.
A GUIDE DOG IS OFTEN A LIFELINE
UP FOR THE PERSON WHO HAS A
GUIDE DOG AND I'M NOT SURE HOW
MANY OF YOU KNOW THAT THERE ARE
DIFFERENT KINDS OF SERVICE
ANIMALS. BUT GUIDE DOGS CAN GO
ANYWHERE YOU CANNOT PREVENT THEM
IN THE LAW FROM.
GOING ANNA ACCOMPANYING THE A
PERSON FOR WHOM THEY PROVIDE
SERVICE.
I I WOULD LIKE TO.
.
CLOSE JUST BY TELLING YOU HOW
IMPRESSED I WAS AT THE LAST
HEARING THE POLICY COMMITTEE
HEARING IN THE ASSEMBLY.
BUT ONE OF THEIR PRIMARY
WITNESSES.
WE WENT UPSTAIRS TO THE
CAFETERIA AND WE WERE YOUNG TO
IN THE LITTLE DEBRIEF.
AND.
I WAS WALKING OUT WITH HER AND
SHE HAD HER DOG AND SHE ASKED ME.
WERE ON THE SIXTH FLOOR SHE
ASKED ME.
YOU KNOW WHERE I WAS THE LIFT.
AND.
WE'RE WALKING.
TOWARDS THAT AREA.
AND WE COME TO THE POINT WHERE
THERE SHOULD THE LEFT YOU CAN GO
DOWN SOME STAIRS.
OR YOU CAN CONTINUE ON THE RIGHT
AND GET TO THAT LEFT.
AND HER DOG IS KINDA LEANING TO
THE LEFT BETTER AND I'M WATCHING
AND I'M I'M THINKING.
WHO MOVE WAR COULD DISCUSS
WRITER HOPE THIS GOES RIGHT AND
IT WAS?
A TWO ME IT SEEMED LIKE A YOU
KNOW A MINUTE OR TWO BUT IT WAS
REALLY QUITE QUICK AND THE DOG
VERY QUICKLY CORRECTED.
AND YOU KNOW WENT.
STRAIGHT.
WHERE HE OR SHE WAS SUPPOSED TO
GO IT WAS INCREDIBLE?
AND AND YOU CAN'T REPLACE THAT
OVERNIGHT
AND YOU CAN'T EXPECT DOGS NOT TO
HAVE TO DEAL WITH THEIR BODILY
FUNCTIONS AND YOU CAN'T EXPECT
THEM TO BE ON DUTY.
TWENTY FOUR SEVEN THEY'RE JUST
AS VALUABLE WHEN THEY'RE NOT.
THANK YOU NEXT WITNESS.
MONITOR.
NUMBER.
MONITOR MEMBERS STAND FILLS OUT
ON BEHALF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
OFFICE SUPPORTS THIS MEASURE WE
CAN VIEW THAT IS TO TAKE
ECHNICAL.
OVERSIGHT WE URGE THE COMMITTEE
TO.
.
AND.
VOTE I THINK YOU.
RIGHT WE HAVE A MOTION OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT OF THE PIPE.
MANAGER MEMBERS SHIFT HOME
REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA
COUNCIL BLIND STRONG SUPPORT OF
THE BILL.
THE MORNING SUSAN RATES WITH
AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE
PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
THE SPCA AND.
AS A PET OWNER AND MANY OF YOU
I'M SURE PET OWNERS AS WELL YOU
KNOW HOW DEVASTATING IT IS FOR
YOU OR. PAT TO BE A PAIN TO BE
ATTACHED YOU HAVE EXPERIENCE
SOME DISCOMFORT AND YOU KNOW
THIS IS DOUBLY TRUE WHEN YOU'RE
RELIANT FOR YOUR DAILY
ACTIVITIES ARE ON YOUR.
ON A COMPANION ANIMAL AND SOLD
THE SPCA IS STRONGLY IN SUPPORT
OF THE PROTECTIONS AFFORDED BY
THE THAT BILL THAT ON.
I ASSEMBLY MEMBER LACKEY HAS HAS
PUT FORTH THINK YOU.
RIGHT OTHER.
.
SUPPORT WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
IT'S MORE MATURE MEMBERS RAIN
CHAIRMAN WITH THE RIVERSIDE
SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION AND SPORT.
ANY OTHERS.
ALRIGHT WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
MISS GEORGE YOU WANT TO COME TO
THE TABLE ARE YOU.
LOOK AT MY OPPOSITION KNOWN FROM
HERE MARCO GEORGE FROM THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION.
OF WE OPPOSE THE BILL BECAUSE WE
FEEL THERE ARE ALREADY NUMEROUS
LAWS ON THE BOOKS IN FIVE NINETY
SEVEN BEING ONE OF THEM THAT
PROTECT ANIMALS FROM BEING
MAIMED OR INJURED OR KILLED.
THANK YOU.
ALRIGHT ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN.
OPPOSITION.
OKAY WE HAVE A MOTION AND ANY.
QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION BY
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
ALRIGHT THEN.
ITEM AHEAD OF THE BILL WARY WE
DO HAVE A MOTION ALREADY
ASCENDER LACKEY I MEAN ASSEMBLY
MEMBER LACKEY YOU MAY CLOSE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH I'D I THINK
THE POINTS HAVE BEEN WELL MADE
AND WE CERTAINLY ASK YOUR AYE
VOTE.
RIGHT AND HISSES.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS TO THE.
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE WE'VE
GOT A MOTION SO LET'S TO ROLL
CALL.
SO THERE WERE AMENDMENTS OKAY
THAT WE CERTAINLY THOUGHT
MAINTENANCE RIGHT OKAY.
APOLOGIES FOR NOT.
CATCHING THAT SO IT IS TO PASS
AS AMENDED TO APPROACH
ROLL CALL SKINNER AYE SKINNER
AYE ANDERSON.
ANDERSON AYE BRADFORD.
BRADFORD AYE JACKSON MITCHELL
AYE MITCHELL AYE STONE.
STONE AYE WIENER. WIENER AYE.
FULL HOLD IT OPEN FOR MISSING
MEMBERS AN YOU HAVE AN
ADDITIONAL BILL AND THAT IS AB
ELEVEN NINETY TWO A COMMAND.
ONCE AGAIN THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO NOW PRESENT TO A
BE ELEVEN NINETY TWO WHICH WILL
EXTEND THE DEFINITION OF
HONORABLY RETIRED. PEACE
OFFICERS TO INCLUDE RETIRED
LEVEL ONE RESERVE PEACE OFFICERS.
AT TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN OR
GOVERNOR SIGNED AB SEVEN ALL
THREE INTO LAW.
AND THAT GRANTED HONORABLY
RETIRED LEVEL ONE RESERVE PEACE
OFFICERS TO CARRY A CONCEALED
FIREARM ON THE SAME BASIS AS
HONORABLY RETIRED. FULL TIME
REGULAR OFFICERS.
HOWEVER IN TWO THOUSAND SIXTEEN
THE SIGNING OF SENATE BILL
FOURTEEN FORTY SIX IN THE
PASSING OF PROP SIXTY THREE.
BOTH REQUIRE ALL POOR PERSONS TO
DIVEST THEMSELVES OF LARGE
CAPACITY MAGAZINES WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF HONORABLY RETIRED
PEACE OFFICERS. EFFECTIVE JULY
ONE TWO THOUSAND SEVENTEEN.
WE RAN THE NUMBERS OF FOUND THAT
OVER TWO THIRDS OF RESERVE PEACE
OFFICERS ARE DESIGNATED AS LEVEL
ONCE.
RESERVE PEACE OFFICERS MEET THE
SAME SELECTION STANDARD AS FULL
TIME REGULAR OFFICERS INCLUDING
PERSONAL HISTORY INVESTIGATIONS.
AND MEDICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL
SCREENINGS.
BY PASSING THIS BILL HONORABLY
WRITTEN RESERVE PEACE OFFICERS
WHO MEET THE SAME SELECTION
STANDARDS AND ARE PERMITTED TO
PERFORM. THE SAME DUTIES AS
REGULAR A FULL TIME OFFICERS
WILL RECEIVE THE SAME EXEMPTION
TO RETAIN THE POSSESSION OF THE
PRESENTLY OWNED.
MAGAZINES AS DO THEIR FULL TIME
RETIRED COLLEAGUES.
WITH ME TODAY ARE P. DOWNS OF
VICE PRESIDENT OF LEGISLATIVE
AFFAIRS FOR THE CALIFORNIA
RESERVE PEACE OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION.
UNLIKE WORRIES OF FORMER.
RESERVE PEACE OFFICER TO GIVE
THEIR TESTIMONY SUPPORT.
EXCELLENT YOU MAY BEGIN.
MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE HAVE MY NAME IS PETE
DOWNS WITH THE CALIFORNIA
RESERVE PEACE OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION.
HOW KEEP MY?
TESTIMONY SHORT I KNOW YOU'VE
GOT A FULL AGENDA TODAY.
I WANT TO START OFF BY SAYING
HOW MUCH I APPRECIATE TO THE
STAFF TO COMMITTEE STAFF WORKING
WITH US ON THE BILL. AND.
HELPING US GET HERE TODAY.
I WANT TO EMPHASIZE TWO THINGS
ONCE THIS BILL APPLIES TO LEVEL
ONE RESERVES.
AND IF YOU WERE A TO SEE A LEVEL
ONE RESERVE YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE
TO TELL THAT RESERVE FROM A FULL
TIME. PEACE OFFICER.
THE FULL TIME PEACE OFFICER WHEN
THEY RETIRE THEY GET A PENSION.
RESERVES DO THIS WITHOUT PAY AND
WITHOUT PENSION.
BUT THEY STILL CARRY THE SAME
HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES.
IN THE COURSE OF THEIR DUTY.
SO IT'S A VERY SIMPLE BILL IT'S
A TECHNICAL CORRECTION TO
INCLUDE TO RESERVES.
TO RETAIN THOSE MAGAZINES THAT
THEY USE NORMALLY AND THERE.
DAILY WORK.
THANK YOU.
MADAM CHAIR AND.
SENATORS THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
MY NAME IS MICHAEL VOORHEES.
AND.
I SERVED AS A RESERVE DEPUTY
SHERIFF.
FOUR THE CINEMA COUNTY SHERIFF'S
OFFICE FOR APPROXIMATELY FORTY
ONE YEARS. RETIRING ABOUT TWO
YEARS AGO.
IT MY UP THE FINAL RANK WAS.
RESERVE ASSISTANT CHAIR OF.
BUT.
DESPITE MY RANK I WORK PATROL
FOR THE ENTIRE FORTY ONE YEARS I
WORKED A SOLO UNIT FOR THIRTY
THREE YEARS AND I WAS DOUBLE FOR
THE FIRST.
EIGHT.
AND WHILE SERVING IN THAT
CAPACITY I DEALT WITH THE SAME
PEOPLE AS MY.
FULL TIME PAID COLLEAGUES DID.
I GUESS YOU COULD SAY MADE THE
MADE THE SAME ENEMIES AND.
AND SO FORTH.
SUIT THE PURPOSE OF OUR BILL IS
TO.
PROVIDED EXTEND THE PROTECTIONS
INTENDED BY. AB SEVEN NO THREE
WHEN THIS OF THE LEGISLATURE
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
ENDORSED CCW ENDORSED ID CARDS
FOR RETIRED LEVEL ONE RESERVES.
TO ALSO CURRENT SUPPLY THEM WITH
THE SAME.
CAPACITY MAGAZINES
AS THEY USED WHEN THEY WERE
ACTIVE.
I WOULD MENTION BRIEFLY THAT.
AS.
ASSEMBLYMAN LACKEY.
STATED THAT A LEVEL ONE RESERVES
GO THROUGH THE SAME HIRING
STANDARD MEANS MUST MEET SAME
HIRING STANDARDS.
SAME ACADEMY SAME FIELD TRAINING
PROGRAM AND SO FORTH. AS DO OF
FULL TIME LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS.
AND THE.
PROTECTIONS THAT ARE IN PLACE.
FOR.
QUALIFYING FOR.
THE ENDORSED ID CARD THE THAT
THAT LIMIT.
OR PROVIDE REVOCATION OR A
FAILURE TO ISSUE.
FOR FULL TIME OFFICERS IS
EXACTLY THE SAME FOR RESERVE
PEACE OFFICERS.
BOTH AS A RESULT OF AB SEVEN ó
THREE AND THE WAY THAT THIS A
BILL WOULD WORK.
SO I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT FOR THIS BILL THANK YOU.
THANK U. DO WE HAVE OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
ALRIGHT ANY IN OPPOSITION.
MOVE APPROVAL SEEING NINE NINE
WE HAVE A MOTION.
AND.
.
YEAH THAT'S RIGHT SO THIS IS THE
TO PASS TO THE FLOOR. AND SEEING
NO.
DISCUSSION THEM THE DYESS.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER LACKEY MAY
CLOSE BUT AGAIN I THINK THE
POINT ROOM THAT WILL WORK WELL
MADE AND WE WOULD ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT ON THIS THANK YOU. THANK
YOU WE WILL I TAKE THE ROLL CALL
THEN. SKINNER AYE SKINNER AYE
ANDERSON ARE ANDERSON AYE
BRADFORD.
BRADFORD AYE JACKSON MITCHELL
MITCHELL AYE STONE AYE STONE AYE
WIENER. WIENER AYE.
SO WE WILL HOLD IT OPEN BECAUSE
WE HAVE A MISSILE MEMBER. TOM
BUT OTHERWISE STE LOOKS GOOD AND.
.
I THINK THAT WAS YOUR LAST ITEM
AGREED THEY OUR MEMBERS THAT
VERY MUCH VERY.
NOW WE HAVE ASSEMBLY MEMBER LOW.
OKAY.
AND THIS IS AB FIFTEEN ELEVEN.
ITEM NINE.
GOOD MORNING TO YOU VERY MUCH
MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF FIRST
OFF I'D LIKE TO THINK YOUR
OFFICE INCLUDED STAFF FOR. A
WORKING WITH US ON THIS BILL AND
WE WILL BE ACCEPTING THE
AMENDMENTS TO ALLOWS
FOR JUDICIAL DISCRETION REMOVES
THE FIRST TIER. OF PENALTY AND
THE MINUTES TO SUNSET DATE OF
THIS BILL ENJOYED BIPARTISAN
SUPPORT IS NOT RECEIVED A SINGLE
NO VOTE IN THE STATE ASSEMBLY
WITH ME TODAY SHAWN HOP IN
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION.
AND THEN FLOWS OUT ON BEHALF OF
THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
THANK YOU.
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT YOU CAN
START. BUT MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS
SHAUN OFTEN THE CALIFORNIA
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION.
.
AB FIFTEEN ELEVEN RESTORES.
ENHANCEMENT THAT ALLOWS JUDGES
TO GIVEN THE DISCRETION WITH THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS TO. FASHION
SEND THAT THE PREVIOUS.
IF WE JUST EXTENDED THE EX AB
BILL OR IF WE HAD JUST.
EXTENDED THE SUNSET IT WOULD
HAVE NOT ALLOWED TO DO SO THAT
IS CORRECT.
SO GIVES JUDGES THE AUTHORITY
TO FASHION A SENTENCE THAT
APPROPRIATELY REFLECTS.
THE.
THE SIZE OF THE TAKING SO WHEN-WE GET INTO THE SIX AND SEVEN
FIGURE. ARE IN A PRIMARILY WHITE
COLLAR CRIME.
MASSIVE FRAUD CASES ALLOWS THEM
SOME.
FLEXIBILITY ON ON HOW TO.
DO THAT SENTENCING.
I WOULD ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT ON
THE BILL.
RIGHT A.
NEXT WITNESS
BUT YOU'RE MEMBERS STAND FILLS
ALL ON BEHALF THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE WHERE CO SPONSOR OF THIS
BILL.
.
S. MY COLLEAGUES STATED.
THIS BILL IS VALUES IN
PREDOMINATE WHITE COLLAR.
CRIME CASES AYE IS ALSO USED IN
A LOT OF.
THE ELDER THEFT SCAM.
.
REAL ESTATE FRAUD A MEDICAL
FRAUD.
LVC PONZI SCHEMES.
THAT THE FEDS DON'T.
PROSECUTE.
IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE RESTORE.
THIS SECTION BECAUSE WITH OUT
IT A THEFT OF. BE OUT THREE FOUR
MILLION DOLLARS IS TREATED THE
SAME AS A THEFT OF NINE HUNDRED
FIFTY ONE DOLLARS.
YOU KNOW A THEFT OF YOU KNOW A
NINE HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS TO
FOR MYSELF WILL NOT.
NECESSARILY IMPACT YOU KNOW MY
THAT MY COLLEAGUE MY LIFE AND
EVERYTHING HOWEVER SCAMS THAT
TARGET THE ELDERLY.
CAN HAVE DEVASTATING IMPACTS
AND NEED TO BE TREATED.
APPROPRIATELY THIS BILL WILL
HELP US TO THAT AS WE ASK YOUR
AYE VOTE.
OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
MORNING MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS WHO
SHALL MUCH LEARN BEHALF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION SUPPORT.
MONEY MANAGER RUNNING CHAIRMAN
WITH THE RIVERSIDE SHERIFF'S
ASSOCIATION ALSO IN SUPPORT.
MARIO DIBERNARDO YOU ON BEHALF
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAVEA
BUT SARAH IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL.
ANY OTHERS. WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION.
MOVE APPROVAL.
RIGHT SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND I
JUST WANTED TO LEARN.
MENTION THE.
.
AMENDMENTS AND APPRECIATE THE
AUTHOR TAKING THEM.
THE.
SUPPORT WITNESSES REFERENCE THE.
ELDER ABUSE AN ELDER FRAUD. AND
THE REASON THE COMMITTEE.
VERY MUCH WANTED TO ENSURE THAT
WE HAD JUDICIAL DISCRETION HERE
RATHER THAN CONTINUING THE FOR.
AT THE STATUTE AS IS IS BECAUSE
THERE ALREADY EXISTS A HIGHER
BAY SENTENCE FOR ELDER ABUSE.
AND WE DID NOT WANT TO BE IN A
SITUATION THERE'S I THINK ANY
OBSERVER OF THIS COMMITTEE KNOWS
WE.
.
FREQUENTLY EITHER.
.
DO NOT LET OUT OF THE COMMITTEE
ENHANCEMENTS OR WE GREATLY
MODIFY THEM. BUT WITH THE
AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN AGREED
TO THINK THIS IS A REASONABLE
AND WE'VE ALSO ADDED THE ABILITY
TO HAVE THE INFLATIONARY
ADJUSTMENT.
.
SO IF THERE'S ANY OTHER
DISCUSSION FROM. THE DICE.
ALRIGHT WE HAVE A MOTION.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER LOW WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE SEXY* PRIVATE
EXCELLENT.
AND THEN WE WILL HAVE ROLL CALL.
MOTION IS TO PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS
SKINNER AYE INNER AYE ANDERSON.
AYE ANDERSON AYE BRADFORD.
JACKSON POLLOCK JACKSON AYE
MITCHELL.
STONE.
I'M STONE AYE WIENER. WIENER AYE.
GREAT YOUR BILL IS OUT AND.
AYE FIVE ZERO AND I BELIEVE.
THAT WAS.
YOU ONLY REALLY HAD BEFORE SO WE
WILL NOW MOVE TO.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER CERVANTES AND
THAT IS ITEM ELEVEN AB SEVENTEEN
FORTY SIX.
GOOD MORNING MADAM CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS THIS MORNING I
AM PLEASED TO PRESENT ASSEMBLY
BILL SEVENTEEN FORTY SIX.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS BILL IS TO
PROTECT SURVIVORS BY EXPEDITING
THE PROCESS OF PROSECUTING
SERIAL FENCES OF SEXUAL BATTERY.
AND UNLAWFUL SEXUAL INTERCOURSE
WHICH IS COMMONLY KNOWN AS
STATUTORY RAPE UNDER CURRENT LAW
THE PROSECUTION OF CERTAIN
CRIMES CAN BE CONSOLIDATED INTO
A SINGLE TRIAL AT THE
PERPETRATOR COMMITTED THEM
ACROSS MULTIPLE JURISDICTIONS.
THE LIST OF ELIGIBLE CRIMES
INCLUDE HUMAN TRAFFICKING
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND CHILD
ABUSE HOWEVER THIS LIST DOES NOT
INCLUDE SEXUAL BATTERY OR
STATUTORY RAPE. THIS MEANS THAT
A SURVIVOR WHO ADORED ONE OF
THESE OFFENSES MAY BE FORCED TO
TESTIFY AT MULTIPLE TRIALS AND
FORCED TO RELIVE THIS ORDEAL HE
OR SHE ENTERED.
THIS COULD BE VERY TRAUMATIC FOR
VULNERABLE SURVIVORS INCLUDING
CHILDREN. NOT ONLY THAT BUT
UNDER CURRENT LAW. ARE UNDER
RESOURCE JUSTICE SYSTEM WOULD BE
FORCED TO HOLD SEVERAL COSTLY
AND TIME CONSUMING TRIALS THIS
WOULD ALSO DELAYED THE
PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT OF
THESE PERPETRATORS.
ASSEMBLY BILL SEVENTEEN FORTY
SIX WILL SOLVE THIS ISSUE BY
ADDING STE SEXUAL BATTERY AND
UNLAWFUL SEXUAL INTERCOURSE TO
LIST OF ELIGIBLE CRIMES.
TO BE ABLE TO CONSOLIDATE INTO A
SINGLE TRIAL.
WITH ME TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT IS
JUDY CASHNER WHO'S HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY. SUMMER
STEPHAN AND JUST TO NOTE THIS
BILL DID RECEIVE NO VOTES IN THE
ASSEMBLY AND IS SUPPORTED BY
RIVERSIDE SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION
SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY
SUMMER STAFF IN THE CALIFORNIA
JUST RETURNEES ASSOCIATION. THE
CALIFORNIA STATE SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION AND CRIME VICTIMS
UNITED.
GOODMAN WITNESSES CAN BEGIN
THANK YOU GOOD MORNING
CHAIRWOMAN SKINNER AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS I'M JUDY TAUSCHER I'M A
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AT THE
SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE
AB SEVENTEEN FORTY SIX
REPRESENTS A SMALL STEP TOWARDS
PROTECTING SEX CRIMES VICTIMS
FROM HAVING TO INDOOR TESTIFYING
IN MULTIPLE TRIALS.
SEXUAL PREDATORS ARE EVOLVING IN
HOW THEY CONTACT THEIR VICTIMS.
SOCIAL MEDIA IS MAKING IT EASIER
FOR OLDER PERPETRATORS
OFTENTIMES IN THEIR TWENTIES OR
OLDER.
TO MATE TO MEET THEIR UNDER AGE
VICTIMS TWELFTH. FOURTEEN
FIFTEEN OR SIXTEEN THEIR MEETING
ON SOCIAL MEDIA AT THEIR MEETING
ON FACEBOOK THEIR MEETING ON
DATING APPS.
SO THEY OFTEN DON'T LIVE NEAR
EACH OTHER.
THE PERPETRATOR TRAVELS TO
DIFFERENT COUNTIES TO MEET UP
WITH THEIR VICTIMS.
OFTENTIMES THE PERPETRATOR MAY
LIVE IN SAN DIEGO IN THE VICTIM
LIVES IN A DIFFERENT COUNTY SUCH
AS RIVERSIDE.
THEY TRAVEL UP THERE AND
DIFFERENT SEX ACTS ARE OCCURRING
IN DIFFERENT COUNTIES.
PENAL CODE SECTION SIX EIGHTY
SEVEN EIGHTY FOUR POINT SEVEN
SHOULDN'T JUST PROTECT VIOLENCE
FORCIBLE SEX CRIMES.
VICTIMS
BECAUSE THE REALITY IS
OFTENTIMES SEX CRIMES ARE
COMMITTED ON VULNERABLE.
AND YOUNG IMPRESSIONABLE VICTIMS
WITHOUT THE USE OF FORCE.
THE LEGISLATIVE POWER TO
DESIGNATE THE PLACE FOR TRIAL OF
A CRIMINAL OFFENSE IS LIMITED BY
THE REQUIREMENT THAT THERE BE A
REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP OR AND
ACCESS.
TO THE PLACE DESIGNATED AND THE
OFFENSE.
VENUE IN SEVEN EIGHTY FOUR POINT
SEVEN IS NOT ARBITRARY.
REPEATED SEXUAL ABUSE
OR UNLAWFUL SEXUAL INTERCOURSE.
IS IT CAN.
TO A CONTINUING OFFENSE
AND THE VICTIM AND WITNESSES
SHOULD NOT BE BURDENS WITH
HAVING TO TESTIFY IN MULTIPLE
TRIALS IN DIFFERENT COUNTIES.
HAVING THESE CASES TRIED
TOGETHER IN ONE COUNTY WHERE ONE
OR MORE OF THE CRIMES TOOK PLACE.
IT REDUCES THE BURDEN AND
HARDSHIP IMPOSED ON VICTIMS AND
WITNESSES IT SAVES TIME AND
EXPENSE TO THE DEFENDANT COURTS
AND STATE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
THANK YOU NEXT WITNESS.
MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS DENTALS
AUTOGRAPHED THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE. IN SUPPORT.
FOR THE REASONS STATED BY MY
COLLEAGUE FROM SAN DIEGO.
LAST YEAR ARE OFF TO SPONSOR
SIMILAR BILL BY SOME AMERICAN
MEMBER MARC TO MATTEUCCI. THAT
THIS COMMITTEE PASSED.
WITH THE ADVENT OF SOCIAL MEDIA.
THE PROBLEM OF INDIVIDUALS
TRAVELLING BETWEEN JURISDICTIONS
IS GROWING UP MORE AND MORE
COMMON WE JUST SAW THIS. LAST
WEEK HERE IN SACRAMENTO. WHERE A?
INDIVIDUAL FROM YUBA COUNTY
ABOUT CAME DOWN HERE TO MEET A
THIRTEEN YEAR OLD FOR.
SEX ACTS AND WAS ARRESTED.
IN THIS INDIVIDUALS SUSPECTED
OF DOING THIS ON MULTIPLE
COUNTIES.
.
THE TRAUMA ON VICTIMS OF HAVING
TO RETEST BY ISRAEL A
CONSOLIDATING THESE INTO ONE
TRIAL WILL BE.
BOTH BENEFIT TO THE VICTIMS AS
WELL AS A COST EFFICIENT
SO WE ASK FOR YOUR AYE VOTE.
ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
DON'T OFTEN WITH THE CALIFORNIA
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION
SUPPORT.
THE SHOW MUCH LIKE WITH THE
CALIFORNIA STATE SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION SUPPORT.
RANGER WITH THE RIVERSIDE
SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION SUPPORT.
BY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
MR JIMMY COME TO THE TABLE.
AND.
.
THANKS.
ADVANCE FOR STORY DAN THANK YOU
FOR.
STEPPING BACK SO.
LAKE ROOM FOR.
OUR PUBLIC DEFENDERS
REPRESENTATIVE.
CERTAINLY.
ARGO. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION. OF FIRST
I WANNA SAY THAT THE SPECTER. OF
ON A TWELVE AND THIRTEEN YEAR
OLDS.
BEING PROSECUTED OR HAVING
PEOPLE WHO HAVE SEX WITH THEM
BEING PROSECUTED FOR STATUTORY
RAPE.
IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY BECAUSE
THEY'RE MUCH MORE LIKELY TO BE
PROSECUTED FOR OF. MOLESTATION
NOT STATUTORY RAPE THE PEOPLE.
SO I DON'T THINK THAT THIS BILL
REALLY COVERS THAT SEVEN EIGHTY FOUR POINT SEVEN
WAS AMENDED TO ALLOW PROSECUTION.
FOR MULTIPLE HUMAN TRAFFICKING
PIMPING AND PANDERING OFFENSES
GETS DIFFERENT VICTIMS TO TAKE
PLACE AND THEN THE COUNTY IN
WHICH THEY OCCURRED.
PURSUANT TO AN AGREEMENT
AMONGST THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S.
BUT COMPETING CONSIDERATIONS OF
THE DEFENDANT BEING TRIED WHERE
THE OFFENSE OCCURRED WAS
BALANCED AT THAT TIME AGAINST
THE RATIONALE. THAT THE VICTIMS
OF THESE FELONIES HAD ALREADY
BEEN TRAUMATIZED AND SHOULD NOT
BE FURTHER TRAUMATIZED BY HAVING
TO TESTIFY IN AND TRAVEL TO
MULTIPLE TRIALS.
THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHT.
GATEWAY TO THE STATED GOAL OF OF
WAITING ADDITIONAL TRAUMA TO THE
VICTIMS.
BY CONSOLIDATING THE CHARGES
THE PROSECUTION BENEFITTED AND
SIDESTEPPED THE ISSUE OF WHETHER
OR NOT THE SEPARATE OFFENSES.
OF PIMPING OR HUMAN TRAFFICKING
WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE AS PART OF A
COMMON PATTERN OR PLAN UNDER
EVIDENCE CODE SECTION ELEVEN A
ONE.
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION IS SUPPOSED TO A. B.
SEVENTEEN FORTY SIX BECAUSE IT
GOES TOO FAR. AND BALANCING THE
SCALE IN THE PROSECUTION'S FAVOR.
ORDINARILY MISTER MANNERS AND
FELONIES OR TRY THE COUNTIES IN
WHICH THEY ARE COMMITTED UNDER
PENAL CODE SEVEN SEVEN SEVEN.
ORDINARILY DEFENDANTS HAVE THE
RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY DRAWN
FROM THE RESIDENTS OF THE AREA
WHERE THE OFFENSE WAS COMMITTED.
TEENAGERS WHO HAD HAD CONSENSUAL
SEX OR NOT IN THE SAME SITUATION
AS RATE THE NEWMAN TRAFFICKING
VICTIMS.
THERE IS NO REASON TO TELL FOR
SCALE OF JUSTICE AGAINST THE
DEFENDANT. CHARGED WITH
MISDEMEANOR STATUTORY RAPE OR
SEXUAL BATTERY BY ALLOWING THE
CHARGES TO BE CONSOLIDATED IN
ONE COUNTY.
AND THAT'S A REAL KEY
DISTINCTION HERE BECAUSE WE'RE
NOT TALKING ANYMORE ABOUT
VIOLENT FELONIES WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT POTENTIAL.
MISDEMEANORS WERE TALKING ABOUT.
BOMB EIGHTEEN YEAR OLDS HAVING
SEX WITH SIXTEEN YEAR OLDS WERE
TALKING ABOUT NINETEEN YEAR OLDS
HAVING SEX WITH SIXTEEN OR
SEVENTEEN YEAR OLDS.
SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE
WHO ARE NOT THAT CHRONOLOGICALLY
DIFFERENT IN AGE. AND IT'S
UNLIKELY HAVES AND THAT
SITUATION THAT.
THE INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS UNDER AGE
IS REALLY ACTUALLY. BEEN
TRAUMATIZED PERHAPS SHE'S BEEN
TRAUMATIZED BECAUSE
HIS OR HER PARENTS HAVE
INTERVENED AND BROUGHT THE
SITUATION TO.
ON THE AUTHORITIES.
AND.
AGREED THAT ON PEOPLE. WHO ARE
UNDER EIGHTEEN ARE NOT ALLOWED
TO CONSENT TO SEX AND IT IS
STILL WEAK?
BUT WE WOULD BE.
BEARING OUR HEADS IN THE SAND.
TO. ON NOT ACKNOWLEDGED FAT
THAT'S GOING ON EVERYDAY WITH
TEENAGERS
AND THIS BILL YOU COULD.
CONTEMPLATE A YOUNG PERSON WHO.
WHO LIVES IN OAKLAND GOING TO
SCHOOL? IN LOS ANGELES TO UCLA
AND BEING PROSECUTED FOR HAVING.
.
SEX WITH HIS OR HER GIRLFRIEND
IN OAKLAND AND THEN IN LA IF THE
PERSON WAS DATING SOMEONE WHO
WAS SEVENTEEN.
AND THE INDIVIDUAL WAS EIGHTEEN.
A WE ASK FOR YOUR KNOW VOTE
THANK YOU VERY MUCH
WE HAVE ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION.
RIGHT TOO WE HAVE.
ANY DISCUSSION FROM THE GUYS.
.
I WOULD ONLY POINT OUT AND I DO
APPRECIATE THE.
PUBLIC DEFENDERS CONCERN IN
ALWAYS APPRECIATE THEIR BRING TO
OUR ATTENTION.
ISSUES THAT.
EITHER THEY FEEL WERE
INADEQUATELY ADDRESSED HER CHEST
WAYS THAT THE STATUTE THAT'S
BEING PROPOSED IS.
.
AND.
QUESTIONABLE.
BUT THEY'RE IN EXISTING LAW
THEIR DOES ALLOW CERTAIN
MISDEMEANORS AND WAFFLER SUCH AS
CHILD ABUSE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
STALKERS.
TO HAVE THIS ABILITY TO
CONSOLIDATE A MULTI COUNTY CASE.
.
BUT APPRECIATE.
YOU'RE POINTS THAT.
EVEN WHILE THAT MAY BE IN
EXISTING STATUTE FOR THOSE
CERTAIN MISDEMEANORS MODELERS.
THAT THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS DOES
NOT FEEL THAT THIS IS
INAPPROPRIATE THIS SET OF.
OF A MISDEMEANORS MODELERS ARE
APPROPRIATE TO ADD TO THAT.
.
WE DID NOT ASK FOR ANY MEN
CORRECT.
SO I CENTER WIENER GO AHEAD YET
THANK YOU AYE AYE PERSONA IT'S
IS A APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS BY
THE POOR DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION
CALIFORNIA.
IS ONE OF THE STATE'S A DOES
NOT HAVE ZERO ROMEO AND JULIET
KIND OF EXCEPTION TO SUCH THREE
RAPE AND SO. IT IS STATUE SORT
STATUTORY RAPE ONE EIGHTEEN YEAR
OLD HAVE SEX WITH A.
SEVENTEEN YEAR OLD AN ELEVEN
MONTH.
YOU KNOW IT'S IT'S.
BARRETT DOT AS A WHOLE PHONE
SEPARATE POLICY DISCUSSION ABOUT
SHOULD BE STATUTORY RAPE ONE
EIGHTEEN YEAR OLD HAVE SEX WITH
SOMEONE WHO IS SEVENTEEN YEARS
OLD AND ELEVEN MONTHS.
AND TWENTY FIVE DAYS AND YOU
KNOW IT'S IT'S THAT WE HAVE THAT
WE'VE TAKEN THAT I THINK.
A PARTICULAR APPROACH HERE IN
CALIFORNIA SUCH A RAPE AND
THAT'S A VERY LEGITIMATE. TOPIC
A POLICY DISCUSSION ABA THAT IS
THE WAY THE LAW IS WHAT IT IS. I
DON'T TO MEET BILL SEEMS ARE
REASONABLE IN.
PERSONAL GIVING IT DOESN'T
REQUIRE THAT THESE CASES BE
CONSOLIDATED. IT IS AND I AM
GOING TOUCH US A HAZARD A GUESS
THAT.
PROSECUTORS ARE NOT GOING TO
JUST* NILLY A DO IT IS SORT
OF A BIG DEAL TO CONSOLIDATE HIS
SINCE IT'S A LOT OF.
OUR RESOURCES SO I SUSPECT IT'LL
HAPPEN IN CASES WHERE THERE'S
BEEN REAL VICTIMIZATION A
PARTICULAR PART TIME OF THE SAME
VICTIM AND.
MULTIPLE COUNTY SO I I'M I'M
COMFORTABLE I VOTING OUT FOR
THIS UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE IS
A BROADER. AYE ISSUE OUT THERE
THANK YOU.
WITH THE BILL.
WE HAVE MOTION.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER CERVANTES DO
YOU WANT TO A CLOSE.
YES THANK YOU I DO WANT TO NOTE
SAID EYES OF MY COLLEAGUES DID
MENTION THAT THIS BILL IS NOT
MANDATORY IT WOULD ALLOW FOR THE
CONSENT. A OF THOSE BY THE
COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S.
WHERE THIS IS HAPPENING OUT
THOSE RELEVANT BY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS IN THE
COURTS TO?
HOW OF THIS AS AN OPTION SHOULD
THEY DECIDE TO MOVE DOWN THAT
ROUTE I IT IS BY THE DISCRETION
OF THE COURT SEND? I'D WE
CERTAINLY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE ARE. ALLOWING FOR THE
RENDERING OF SWIFT JUSTICE TO
THE PERPETRATORS OF THESE
HEINOUS CRIMES AND I. PLAY
SHADEGG YES VOTE ON THIS BILL
THANK YOU.
RIGHT SO. SEEING NO OTHER
DISCUSSION.
WE HAVE.
MOTION WHICH IS TO PASSED TO
APPROPRIATIONS.
AND WILL AND DO A ROLL CALL.
SKINNER AYE SKINNER AYE ANDERSON
AYE AYE ANDERSON AYE BRADFORD
AYE BRADFORD AYE JACKSON.
JACKSON AYE MITCHELL. MITCHELL
AYE STONE.
STONE AYE WIENER AYE WIENER AYE.
WRITE YOUR BILL IS OUT AND.
WE WILL NOW GO TO PREMIXED MY
REMAINING BILL.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER TEN CUNNINGHAM
SPILL AB EIGHT OR NINE WHICH IS
ITEM.
TEN.
SORRY.
IT'S A AB SEVENTEEN THIRTY
THIRTY SIX
OKAY ITEM TEN POGES GOT YOUR
BILL NUMBER WRONG.
BUT.
.
YOUR CLARIFY SO YOU GO AHEAD AND
ASSEMBLYMEMBER CUNNINGHAM. THANK
YOU MADAM CHAIR AND SENATORS.
SO UNDER CURRENT LAW EVANS COULD
TWELVE NINETY FOUR ALLOWS.
.
PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS TO
BE INTRODUCED AT TRIAL UNDER
CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
WHERE YOU HAVE A WITNESS OR A
VICTIM THE TESTIFIED AT A
PRELIMINARY HEARING?
OR AT UP.
TRIAL.
AND WERE THEREFORE SUBJECT TO.
AN OATH AND SUBJECT TO CROSS
EXAMINATION.
YOU CAN USE THAT THAT WITNESS
LATER BECOMES UNAVAILABLE YOU
CAN USE THAT TESTIMONY.
AND YOU CAN USE ANY PRIOR
INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS THEN IT
MADE PRIOR TO THAT TESTIMONY.
AND ENERGY SET A TRIAL.
THERE IS A THIRD TYPE OF
EXAMINATION. THAT'S LESS COMMON
THAN PREPLANNED AND TRIAL.
CALL THE CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION.
AND A CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION.
IS ALSO UNDER OATH.
AND ALSO SUBJECT TO CROSS
EXAMINATION.
IT'S OFTEN USE WHERE THE VICTIM
OR WITNESS IS ELDERLY OR HAS A
HEALTH ISSUE. OR FOR SOME REASON
THERE'S A FEAR OR CONCERN THAT
THAT WITNESS MAY BECOME
UNAVAILABLE LATER AND NOT ABLE
TO TESTIFY AT TRIAL.
WHAT THIS BILL SEEKS TO DO IS
CHANGE THE LAW TO ALIGN IT WITH
PRELIM AND TRIAL TESTIMONY SO AS?
TO ALLOW.
WHERE WITNESS TESTIFIED IN A
CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION AND
LATER BECOMES UNAVAILABLE FOR
TRIAL?
THE PRIOR INCONSISTENT
STATEMENTS THAT WHEN THIS MAY
HAVE MADE CAN ALSO BE INTRODUCED.
A COURT APPEAL CASE PEOPLE V.
GARCIA IN TWO THOUSAND SIXTEEN.
DEALT WITH A CIRCUMSTANCE
WHERE'S THAT VICTIM OF HUMAN
TRAFFICKING.
WAS.
DETAINED.
AND WAS SUBJECTED TO A
CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION.
AND THAT APPELLATE COURT NOTED
THAT QUOTE THE PROBLEM MIGHT BE
RESOLVED THAT THE LEGISLATURE
WERE TO AMEND THE EVIDENCE CODE
TO PERMIT. A DETAINED WITNESSES
PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT TO
BE CONSIDERED FOR THEIR TRUTH
THE TRIAL SINCE THIS IS AN ISSUE
THAT'S BEEN RAISED BY APPELLATE
COURTS. AND THEY'VE NOTED TO
SORT OF DISCREPANCY IN THE LAW.
THAT WERE SEEKING TO FIX.
I THINK IT'S A PRETTY STRAIGHT
FORWARD AND.
PRETTY AND. PRETTY GOOD CHANGE
IN LAW THAT COMPORTS WITH DUE
PROCESS I WOULD NOTE. ALSO IT'S
IMPORTANT UNDERSTAND THAT BOTH.
BOTH DEFENSE AND PROSECUTION CAN
REQUEST CONDITIONAL EXAMINATIONS
AND A AND OFTEN DO. AND FOURTEEN
YEARS OF PRACTICE I'VE ONLY DONE
ONE OF THEM BUT IT WAS A
CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE.
WE HAD A NINETY NINE YEAR OLD
VICTIM.
ALLEGE WHITE COLLAR CRIMES
AND I WAS ON THE DEFENSE SIDE OF
THAT CASE AND ME IN THE
PROSECUTOR ACTUALLY.
AGREED BY STIPULATION TO DO THE
CONDITIONAL EXAM.
BECAUSE CASE INVOLVED DOCUMENTS
AND THE WITNESS HAD TO. RECALL
WHETHER SHE SIGNED THIS OR THAT
DOCUMENT THAT SORT OF THING SO'S
IMPORTANT PRESERVE TESTIMONY.
AND MAKE SURE THAT WAS AVAILABLE
FOR TRIAL. BUT ALSO IT WOULD
HAVE BEEN IMPORTANT HAD THAT
CASE GONE TO TRIAL.
THAT.
AS A DEFENSE ATTORNEY THAT I
WOULD I WOULD BE ABLE TO USE ANY
PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS.
THAT WERE MADE PRIOR TO THE
CONDITIONAL EXAM.
SO I THINK IT'S A. MODEST BUT
IMPORTANT CHANGE IN THE LAW.
AT PASSED ON CONSENT ASSEMBLY
ACTUALLY AND WITH ME TODAY IS.
DAN BARREN FROM THE ORANGE
COUNTY DA'S OFFICE TO. SHARE HIS
EXPERIENCE AND ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE THANK YOU.
TO BURN.
PROCEED THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE GOOD
MORNING THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME
HERE TODAY. I'M I'M A SENIOR
DEPUTY DISK DISTRICT ATTORNEY
ORANGE COUNTY I'M ASSIGNED FOR
THE LAST FIVE YEARS IN OUR HUMAN
EXPLOITATION TRAFFICKING UNIT.
AND ACTUALLY I WAS THE TRIAL
COUNSEL ON THE PEOPLE THE GARCIA
CASE THAT ASSEMBLY MEMBER
CUNNINGHAM JUST REFERENCE.
IT.
I'M SORRY.
SO.
AND IN THE REASON WHY WE WE
OPPOSE THIS BILL IS BECAUSE OF
ONE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT
THE COURT NOTED IN THAT CASE
WHICH WAS THAT.
HAD THE VICTIM THE FOURTEEN YEAR
OLD IN THAT CASE. NOT TESTIFIED
AT THE CONDITIONAL EXAM
CONSISTENTLY WITH WHAT SHE HAD
TOLD POLICE EARLIER.
THEN.
THE COURT MAY NOT HAVE RELEASED
HER SO SHE COULD GO BACK TO HER
HOME STATE AND START GETTING
TREATMENT THEY MAY HAVE ACTUALLY
BEEN REQUIRED TO KEEP BRING
CUSTODY OR OPTED TO KEEP HER IN
CUSTODY LONGER. UNTIL THE TRIAL
THAT OCCURRED SO THE COURT OF
APPEAL I THINK WAS POINTING THIS
OUT IS AN ISSUE.
TO ALLOW FOR THIS A THIS FIX TO
TO TAKE PLACE WHERE YOU WOULD
ALLOW PRIOR INCONSISTENT
TESTIMONY OR STATEMENTS TO COME
IN FOR THEIR TRUTH. I'M I WANT
TO POINT OUT THAT THIS ODDITY IN
THE LIES THAT EXISTS RIGHT NOW.
AND YOU CAN HAVE A CONDITIONAL
EXAM FOR HUMAN TRAFFICKING
VICTIMS WHO ARE.
BEING THREATENED OR INTIMIDATED
BY THEIR EXPLOITER. YOU CAN HAVE
A CONDITIONAL EXAM FOR DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE VICTIMS WHO ARE BEING
THREATENED.
ORDERED WERE DISSUADED BY THEIR
ABUSER.
BUT IF THAT PERSON BECAUSE OF
THOSE THREATS AND BECAUSE OF THE
ABUSE AND BECAUSE OF THE
DISSUADING. TESTIFIES OF THE
CONDITIONAL EXAM.
INCONSISTENTLY WITH WHAT SHE
TOLD POLICE EARLIER.
THEN ALL WE'VE DONE IS HELL THE
CONDITIONAL EXAM. UNDER THREAT
OF INTIMIDATION.
TO THE BENEFIT OF THE ABUSER AND
THEN NO MECHANISM FOR BRINGING
IN THE PRIOR STATEMENT WHERE
THEY TALK ABOUT THE ABUSE.
FOR A JURY TO DECIDE WHAT
ACTUALLY HAPPENED AND SO THIS IS
ACTUALLY A MECHANISM WHEREBY A
JURY WILL GET THE FULL BREADTH
OF STATEMENTS.
BOTH THE STATEMENTS THAT WERE.
DISCLOSING THE ABUSE BUT ALSO
THE STATEMENTS THAT WERE UNDER
OATH AT THE CONDITIONAL WHERE
THEY MAY HAVE BEEN UNDER
INTIMIDATION AND THEY CAN ASSESS
WHICH ONE OF THOSE STATEMENTS
UNDER WHICH CONDITIONS ARE TRUE.
AND SO THIS IS EIGHT EIGHT EIGHT
THE OBJECTIVE HERE IS TO A
REALLY SEEK THE TRUTH I'M AND
AGAIN IT IS WORTH POINTING OUT
THE CONDITIONAL EXAMS ARE NOT A
A SINGLES YOU KNOW SIDE SWINGING
DOOR IT SWINGS BOTH WAYS. BOTH
SIDES CAN REQUEST A CONDITIONAL
EXAM UNDER THE SAME PARAMETERS
THAT'S NOT LIKE THE PROSECUTION
GET SOME IN SOME CASES BUT THE
DEFENSE DOESN'T. THERE'S A SET
OF PARAMETERS LISTED IN THIRTEEN
THIRTY SIX AND THIRTEEN THIRTY
SEVEN THAT IF EITHER SIDE
APPLIES FOR IT.
CAN.
CAN GET I THINK THIRTEEN ANSWER
SEVENTEEN THIRTY SIX IS A
REASONABLE PROPOSAL THAT JUST
SEEKS TO TREAT CONDITIONAL EXAM
THE SAME WAY WE ALREADY TREAT.
PRIOR PRIOR SWORN TRIAL
TESTIMONY OR PRIOR SWORN A
PRELIMINARY HEARING TESTIMONY I
THINK THERE WAS SOME CONCERN
ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS A
DIMINISHED RELIABILITY OF
CONDITIONAL EXAMTESTIMONY. A
BUT AS I NOTED IF THAT'S THE
CONCERN THAT I THINK YOU WOULD
WANT THE PRIOR STATEMENT TO
POLICE THAT WAS ON SWORN. TO
COME IN FOR ALL PURPOSES AT THE
TRIAL SO THAT THAT WAY THE JURY
CAN DECIDE A WHICH ONE.
THAT TO BELIEVE FOR ITS TRUTH.
ANOTHER POINT IN OPPOSITION MAY
BE THAT THERE IS THAT THIS IS A.
A A SOLUTION TO A THEORETICAL
PROBLEM.
BUT THIS PROBLEM HAS BEEN NOTED
BY THE COURT OF APPEAL INTO
PUBLISHED OPINIONS OVER THE LAST
SEVENTEEN YEARS.
BUT THAT DOESN'T TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT WHAT OTHER TRIAL COURTS
THIS MAY HAVE HAPPENED AND THAT
NEVER MADE IT TO THE COURT OF
APPEAL FOR WHATEVER REASON.
BUT TWICE THE COURT OF APPEAL
HAS PASSED THE LEGISLATURE TO
CONSIDER ADDRESSING.
THIS THIS AREA OF LAW MY WILL
NO CONDITIONAL EXAMS ARE
EXCEEDINGLY RARE OTHER PROBABLY
MORE.
PREVALENT IN HUMAN TRAFFICKING
CASES I'D SAY THE LAST FIVE
YEARS IN OUR UNIT I'M GONNA
ESTIMATE WE'VE DONE PROBABLY
BETWEEN EIGHT AND TEN
CONDITIONAL EXAMS. A WHICH IS
HIGH RELATIVE TO OTHER UNITS BUT
AGAIN THAT'S A VERY LOW
PERCENTAGE OF OUR CASES WHERE WE
ACTUALLY DO CONDITIONAL EXAMS. I
AND FINALLY IF THERE IS ANY
CONCERN ABOUT THE FORMALITY OF
CONDITIONAL EXAMS USER EXAMS
THAT ARE DONE IN COURT WITH A
JUDGE ON THE BENCH IN A ROBE.
WITH A COURT REPORTER PRESENT
WITH THE DEFENDANT PRESENT WITH
THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY PRESENT
THEIR SUBJECT TO CROSS
EXAMINATION AND JUST BECAUSE A
CONDITIONAL EXAM OCCURS. DOESN'T
MEAN THAT THE CONDITIONAL EXAM
TESTIMONY IS ADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL
IT'S STILL SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE
DUE PROCESS CONSTRAINTS OF THE
US CONSTITUTION. AND IT SUBJECT
TO THE ADMISSIBILITY
REQUIREMENTS OF EVIDENCE CODE
SECTION TWELVE NINETY ONE.
THANK YOU FOR.
FIGHT OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
SHAWN HOP IN THE CALIFORNIA
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION
SUPPORT.
BRIAN CHAIRMAN WITH THE
RIVERSIDE SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION
ALSO IN SUPPORT.
RIGHT ANY OTHERS.
OUR WITNESSES IN.
OPPOSITION WOULD YOU LIKE TO
COME TO THE TABLE.
AND THE.
SEE.
WE HAVE TO I THINK WE HAVE TO
SEATS AND MIKE SO WE'LL BE ABLE
TO ACCOMMODATE. EVERYONE.
AS GEORGE YOU MAY BEGIN BAKARE.
I'M MARGOT GEORGE FOR THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION.
OF WE OPPOSE A AB SEVENTEEN
THIRTY SIX.
THE POLICY RATIONALE OF
ADMITTING HERE SAFE FOR THE
TRUTH OF THE MATTER. BOMB IS IN
EVIDENCE CODE SECTION TWELVE
NINETY FOUR WHICH IS KNOWN AS
THE HEARSAY RULE.
AND PENAL CODE SECTION THIRTEEN
THIRTY FIVE PROVIDES FOR
CONDITIONAL EXAMINATIONS.
THOSE TWO STATUTES ARE A
DELICATE BALANCE BETWEEN A
DEFENDANT'S RIGHT. TO FULLY
CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AT TRIAL
AND THE OCCASIONAL NEED TO
EXAMINE A WITNESS VERY EARLY IN
THE PROCESS.
AB SEVENTEEN THIRTY SIX WOULD
UPSET THIS DELICATE BALANCE
WITHOUT A CLEAR SHOWING OF THE
NEED TO DO SO.
AS.
THE PROPONENT HAS NOTED.
THERE HAS NEVER BEEN AN
INSTANCE THAT'S BEEN RECORDED
WHERE THE.
STATEMENT THAT WAS GIVEN THAT A
CONDITIONAL EXAM WAS NEEDED FOR
THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER.
THERE TO APPELLATE COURTS WHO
HAVE OPINED ON THE MATTER BUT
AND BOTH CASES THEY DID NOT HAVE
THAT SITUATION IN FRONT OF THEM.
IN THE GARCIA CASE AS.
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY FROM
ORANGE COUNTY HAS NOTED THE
WITNESS TESTED CONSISTENTLY WITH
HER TESTIMONY. PALM AT THE
CONDITIONAL HEARING.
SO WHAT IS THE PRACTICAL EFFECT
OF THIS BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT ON
AS A PUBLIC DEFENDER. AFFECTS US
MOST FIRST PUBLIC DEFENDERS ARE
SIGNED COUNCIL REPRESENT
APPROXIMATELY EIGHTY TWO PERCENT
OF THE FELONY DEFENDANTS AND
LARGE COUNT STATE COURTS
ACCORDING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE.
AND HAVE ANNUAL CASELOADS OF A
HUNDRED FIFTY CASES.
MAXIMUM.
ARE WE CANNOT ADEQUATELY
INVESTIGATE AND PREPARE TO CROSS
EXAMINE WITNESSES IN CONDITIONAL
HEARINGS THAT CAN BE SET WITH AS
LITTLE AS THREE DAYS NOTICE.
NORMALLY DEFENDANTS ARE CHARGED
WITH FELONIES HAVE PRELIMINARIES
HEARINGS WOULDN'T TAKE TEN DAYS
OF THE DEFENDANT'S FIRST
APPEARANCE WITH THE LAWYER IN
COURT.
AND SERIOUS CASES THE
PRELIMINARY HEARINGS MAY BE
CONTINUED FOR SEVERAL MONTHS IN
ORDER FOR THE LAWYER TO PREPARE
AND INVESTIGATE. SO THAT HE OR
SHE CAN ADEQUATELY AND
COMPETENTLY CROSS EXAMINE THE
WITNESSES.
DEFENDANTS CHARGED WITH HUMAN
TRAFFICKING OR OTHER SERIOUS
FELONIES MAY BE FACING LIFE IN
PRISON.
ALLOWING UNSWORN PRIOR
INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS TO BE
ADMITTED TO CONVICT PUBLIC
DEFENDER CLIENTS AFTER CURSORY
CONDITIONAL EXAM WILL RESULT IN
INCREASED LITIGATION AND IN SOME
CASES A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.
I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU AN
EXAMPLE. ON I HAVE A CLIENT WHO
WAS CHARGED WITH KIDNAPPING AND
RAPING HIS WIFE.
UNDER THIS PROPOSAL ON HER
STATEMENTS TO THE POLICE WOULD
HAVE COME IN FOR THE TRUTH THE
MATTER.
SHE CALLED THE POLICE WHO
INITIATED A MAJOR MANHUNT.
USING A HELICOPTER TO LOCATE MY
CLIENT NO CLINTON.
DANNY WAS ARRESTED.
OM AND FACE CHARGES THAT COULD
HAVE RESULTED IN DECADES IN
PRISON.
AFTER WE CONDUCTED AN EXTENSIVE
INVESTIGATION. OF WE FOUND OUT
THAT HIS WIFE HAD FABRICATED.
THE ENTIRE INCIDENT AS A MEANS
OF GETTING BACK AT HIM FOR HIS.
RUNNING AROUND WITH OTHER WOMEN.
WE WERE ABLE TO CONTACT THE
OTHER WOMAN WE WERE ABLE TO
CONFRONT THE WIFE WE WERE ABLE
TO TALK TO THE NEIGHBORS. WE
WERE ABLE TO.
I GATHER A PERSUASIVE CASE THAT
THIS WAS COMPLETELY FABRICATED.
IF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY HAD
CONDUCTED A CONDITIONAL EXAM.
BOMB.
UNDER A. B. SEVENTEEN THIRTY SIX.
OUR MY CLIENT WILL INNOCENT
CLIENT WOULD HAVE BEEN CONVICTED
AT TRIAL. WITH HIS WIFE
STATEMENTS TO THE POLICE.
ON INSTEAD THAT DISTRICT
ATTORNEY DISMISSED THE CASE.
SO I ASK FOR YOUR NO VOTE ON AB
SEVENTEEN THIRTY SIX.
OUR NEXT WITNESS IN OPPOSITION
GOOD MORNING NATASHA MINSKER ON
BEHALF OF THE ACLU OF CALIFORNIA
WE ARE OPPOSED TO THIS BILL. I
THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO
EMPHASIZE THAT WE'RE NOT TALKING
ABOUT THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE
TESTIMONY GIVEN DURING THE
CONDITIONAL EXAM SO TO BE VERY
CLEAR. WHAT THE WITNESS SAYS IN
THE CONDITIONAL EXAM IS
ADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL THAT'S NOT
THE ISSUE IN THIS BILL? THE
ISSUE IS WHETHER STATEMENT GIVEN
OUT OF COURT
PRIOR TO THE CONDITIONAL EXAM.
THAT THE WITNESS
SPECIFICALLY DIVERSE ARE VOWED
UNDER OATH AND SAID WAS NOT TRUE.
WHETHER THAT PRIOR INCONSISTENT
STATEMENT WILL NOW COME INTO
TRIAL FOR THE TRUTH OF THE
MATTER ASSERTED. SO THIS IS
REALLY AN EFFORT TO BOOT STRAP A
STATEMENT GIVEN OUT OF COURT.
THAT THE WITNESS SPECIFICALLY
SAID UNDER OATH WAS NOT TRUE.
INTO TRIAL TESTIMONY. AS
TRUTHFUL TESTIMONY
AND SO IT'S.
REALLY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND
THAT THE WITNESS TESTIMONY OF
THE WITNESS ACTUALLY GIVES UNDER
OATH.
WILL COME AND AND WE HAVE NO
OBJECTION TO THAT BUT WE ARE
VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS EFFORT
TO BOOT STRAP. AND GET INTO
COURT FOR THE TRUTH OF THE
MATTER ASSERTED A STATEMENT MADE
OUT OF COURT WITH NO.
INDICIA OF RELIABILITY. AND TO
HAVE THAT BECOME EVIDENCE THAT
THE JURY CAN RELY ON TO CONVICT
A PERSON IT'S ALSO PER IMPORTANT
UNDERSTAND THAT CONDITIONAL
EXAMS ARE. EARLY IN A PROCESS AN
UNUSUAL.
RIGHT SO THIS IS NOT TESTIMONY
GIVEN AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING
WHERE THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY HAS
HAD MORE TIME TO PREPARE IT IS
VERY INTENTIONALLY. ON EXAM OF A
WITNESS QUICKLY IN THE
PROCEEDINGS AT AN EARLY STAGE
BEFORE THE DEFENSE HAS HAD TIME
TO INVESTIGATE.
FOR REASONABLE REASONS BECAUSE
THE WITNESS MAY BECOME
UNAVAILABLE BUT IT IS VERY TRUE
THAT IT IS AN EARLY.
WITNESS TESTIMONY THAT THE
DEFENSE ATTORNEY HAS NOT HAD
SUFFICIENT TIME TO PREPARE AND
IS NOT THE SAME AS THE TESTIMONY
GIVEN. AT A PRELIMINARY HEARING
AND THEN THE THIRD POINT I WOULD
MAKE IS THAT WE HAVE IN THIS
BODY EXPANDED THE USE OF
CONDITIONAL EXAMS OVER THE YEARS.
AND SO A PROCESS THAT WAS
INTENDED CREATED INITIALLY FOR
VERY LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE
A WITNESS WAS QUITE LIKELY TO BE.
NO LONGER LIVING AT THE TIME OF
TRIAL THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL
PURPOSE OF THE CONDITIONAL EXAM.
WE HAVE EXPANDED THE USE OF
CONDITIONAL EXAMS FOR SITUATIONS
WHERE A WITNESS MAY SIMPLY
BECOME UNWILLING TO TESTIFY.
A AND SO WE ARE CONCERNED THAT
AS WE CONTINUE TO EXPAND THE USE
OF CONDITIONAL EXAMS A IS MORE
REASON WHY WE MUST BE VERY VERY
CAUTIOUS AND NOT INCREASE THE
USE OF.
TESTIMONY GIVEN IN THOSE
CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN THE WITNESS
ITSELF HERSELF OR HIMSELF HAS
SPECIFICALLY DISAVOWED A
STATEMENT MADE OUT OF COURT.
SO FOR THESE REASONS WE URGE YOU
TO REJECT THIS BILL AND VOTE NO
THANK YOU.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION.
RIGHT TERMS.
ANY DISCUSSION THE DICE YES
SENATOR JACKSON'S.
PLEASE THANK YOU I'M A LITTLE
CONFUSED HERE.
I'M ASSUMING THESE ARE OUR
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS THAT
THERE'S BEEN A PRELIMINARY.
.
EXAMINATION THROUGH A PRELIM.
CORRECTIVE A AND THAT THIS WOULD
BE A FOLLOW UP TYPE OF.
A EXAMINATION.
THIS WOULD BE BEFORE THE PRELIM.
BUT A TYPICAL.
I'M SORRY COULDN'T THROUGH THE
CHAIR COULD COULD I GET IT.
YES YOU CAN.
OKAY MERRY SPOT PLEASE WELL IT
THEY THE CODE REQUIRES A MINIMUM
OF SEVENTY TWO HOURS NOTICE.
SO IT COULD HAPPEN AT ANY TIME
IN THE PROCEEDINGS IN FACT IN
GARCIA IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED
AFTER PRELIMINARY HEARING.
WOULD HAPPEN IN THAT CASE WAS
THE VICTIM WAS LOCATED.
AND THEN WE MADE A MOTION FOR A
CONDITIONAL EXAM AT THE TIME OF
ARRAIGNMENT AND THEN THERE WAS A
DISCUSSION WITH THE JUDGE.
I'M TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WAS A
REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME BASED
ON ALL OF THE DISCOVERY IN THE
CASE. AND THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY
SCHEDULE TO MAKE SURE THAT HE
HAD EFFECTIVE TIME TO PREPARE SO
THERE WAS A BALANCING TEST THAT
THE COURT EMPLOYED IN THAT CASE.
WHERE THEY SAID WELL OKAY THAT
THING WAS TEN DAYS OR TWO WEEKS
THAT THEY FIGURED WAS A
REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR
THE DEFENSE TO BE ABLE TO
PREPARE? THAT TOOK INTO ACCOUNT
THE FACT THAT THERE IS A MINOR
VICTIM WHO IS BEING DETAINED AND
ALSO.
THE THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO
HAVE PREPARED INCOMPETENT
COUNSEL SO HOW DOES THIS DIFFER
FROM A PRELIMINARY HEARING.
I I DON'T THINK IT DOES.
BE IF IT DOES IN THE STATE AND
FROM THE STANDPOINT OF A
PRELIMINARY HEARING IS FOR THE
COURT TO FIND OF PROBABLE CAUSE
TO EXIST. TO SET THE MATTER FOR
TRIAL
SO V. EVIDENTIARY REQUIREMENT IS
IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE A
CONDITIONAL EXAM DOESN'T HAVE A
FACT TO BE PROVEN.
BUT THE V. CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE
HEARING IS MUCH THE SAME WERE
THERE IT IS STILL IN FRONT OF
EIGHT A SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE.
AND IT AND IT IS STILL SWORN
TESTIMONY IT IS STILL SUBJECT TO
CROSS EXAMINATION AND THE
DEFENDANT HAS A RIGHT TO BE
PRESENT.
SO IT LOOKS VERY MUCH THE SAME.
BUT THERE'S NOTHING FOR THE
JUDGE TO DECIDE AFTERWARDS
PROMISE THINK IT'S KERMIT'S
GEORGE YES YOU MAY. GO ON
SO NORMALLY ON IN THE PAST RIGHT
I'M I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE
PRACTICE THEY HAVE AN ORANGE
COUNTY WHERE NOW THEY'RE
CONDUCTING THEM IT SOUNDS LIKE
QUITE OFTEN IN HUMAN TRAFFICKING
CASES HE SAID FIVE EIGHT I THINK.
BUT IN THE PAST THE CONDITIONAL
EXAM WAS HELD BEFORE THE
PRELIMINARY HEARING.
AND IT USE TO BE LIMITED TO
SITUATIONS WHERE SOMEONE WAS
ELDERLY OR INFIRM AND IT WAS NOT.
ON THERE WAS CONCERN ABOUT
WHETHER THEY WOULD SURVIVE.
BUT STILL BE. OF THE CONDITIONAL
HEARING IS USUALLY TO HAVE IT
OCCUR BEFORE THE PRELIMINARY
HEARING.
BECAUSE PRELIMINARY HEARINGS ELM.
THE EVIDENCE THAT COMES OUT AND
THAT THE POLICEMEN AREA HEARING.
IS ADMISSIBLE. ARM.
FOR THE TRIAL.
AT THAT POINT THE LAWYERS ARE
USUALLY PREPARED. TO COMPLETELY
CROSS EXAMINE. THE WITNESSES
ABOUT ANY PRIOR INCONSISTENT
STATEMENTS.
THEY ARE OUR CONCERN HERE IS
THAT WITH THE EXPANSION OF THE
CONDITIONAL EXAM WHICH IS GONNA
HAPPEN AT AN EARLY STAGE OF THE
PROCEEDINGS WE WILL BE PREPARED.
TO CROSS EXAMINE THE WITNESSES
ABOUT THEIR PRIOR INCONSISTENT
STATEMENTS.
AND THOSE PRIOR INCONSISTENT
STATEMENTS COULD COME IN TO
IMPEACH THE WITNESS RIGHT BUT
THINK THEY NOW CANNOT COME IN
FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER.
AND WHAT THEY WANT IS FOR THE
PRIOR.
STATEMENT TO COME IN FOR THE
TRUTH OF THE MATTER. WHEN THIS
CONDITIONAL EXAM.
EVEN IF IT OCCURS THREE DAYS
AFTER THE PERSON IS ARRESTED.
SENATE JACKSON HUMAN THINKING OF
THE FLORIDA COULD I ALSO MANAGER
AT ON AN ANSWER THE QUESTION.
YES YOU MAY OKAY THANK YOU SO I
JUST WANTED TO AT IN THAT CASE I
REFERENCE WHERE I WAS.
AND DEFENDING THE THE WHITE
COLLAR CRIMINAL WE WANTED THE
CONDITIONAL EXAM IT OCCURRED
BEFORE THE PRELIM. UP FOR
DIFFERENT PURPOSES WAS TO
CAPTURE. THE TESTIMONY OF
BECAUSE OF HER AGE WE DIDN'T
KNOW WHEN THE TRIAL WOULD BE
WOULDN'T KNOW WHEN THE PRELIM
WOULD BE. AND WE'RE LOOKING A
PRE ON THAT WAS PROBABLY GONNA
INVOLVED FOUR BOXES OF DOCUMENTS
AND SEVENTEEN WITNESSES. WITH
THE INTENT AS.
ALWAYS IN A PRE WENT TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THERE WAS
PROBABLE CAUSE
SO THIS WAS A DEVICE THAT. I CAN
THINK IT CAN BE USED AS THE
WITNESS SAID EITHER BEFORE OR
AFTER BUT IT'S.
IT'S A DIFFERENT PURPOSE
I THINK THEN PROVEN TESTIMONY
BUT STILL UNDER OATH AND SUBJECT
TO CROSS INTO AGAINST MY
QUESTION THEN IS THAT. YOU'VE
INDICATED THAT ON A PRELIM THAT
THE TESTIMONY CAN IS ONLY USE
FOR IMPEACHMENT RA AD BUT IN
THIS INSTANCE IT COULD ALSO BE.
USE FOR THE TRUTH OF FOR THE.
FOR THAT YEAH FOR THE TRUTH OF
THE MATTER BUT FOR THE A JURY.
JUST TO BE ABLE TO HAVE IN FRONT
OF THEM SWORN TESTIMONY THAT IS.
THAT POTENTIALLY CONTRADICTORY.
IS IS THAT A AND I'M NOT SURE I
GET THE DISTINCTION BECAUSE HE
THAT TIME A TRIAL WHAT YOU DO IS-YOU TRY TO IMPEACH FOR
INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS.
WHETHER THEY'RE MADE UNDER OATH
WHETHER THEY'RE MADE IN A POLICE
REPORT OR TO THE OTHER.
WITNESSES HI I'M NOT TRYING TO
GET YOUR DOES ALLOW MISTER
DIFFERENCE WOULD BE. BACK YOU ON
MAY I ANSWER YES THE DIFFERENCE
WOULD BE.
YOU HAVE THIS CONDITIONAL EXAM.
REALLY ON.
ON THE STATEMENT COMES SOON AS
IN MY CASE RATE. ON THE WIFE
SAYS.
ON I LIED.
HE DID NOT KIDNAP AND RAPE ME.
OKAY THAT'S UNDER OATH SHE'S
REPUDIATING WHAT SHE SAID
EARLIER.
THE POLICE.
COMMON AND THEY SAY.
OM YOU.
TOLD US THAT YOU. LIED.
I MEAN THAT YOU ON THAT HE
KIDNAPPED AND RAPED YOU.
OR THE THE SHE IS ASKED ISN'T IT
TRUE. THAT YOU TOLD THE POLICE
THAT HE KIDNAPPED AND RAPED YOU.
RIGHT NOW IF SHE DID NOT SHOW UP
FOR THE TRIAL RIGHT WE ONLY HAD.
THE TESTIMONY FROM THE
CONDITIONAL HEARING.
THAT TESTIMONY COULD BE READ TO
THE JURY.
AND WITHOUT ANY FURTHER.
CROSS EXAMINATION.
THEY COULD. OWN LACKED WHETHER
THEY BELIEVED THE STATEMENT TO
THE POLICE.
OR THEY BELIEVED HER RECANTING
IT UNDER OATH.
AND.
SO THAT'S THAT'S THE PROBLEM
THERE IS.
IT WOULD BE GIVEN THE SAME
WEIGHT.
UNDER THIS PROPOSAL AS THE
TESTIMONY UNDER OATH.
SO MAY I MATCHES HAS ONE OF THE
QUESTION IF I ME MADAM CHAIR.
IF IF.
IF YOU HAVE THIS CONDITIONAL.
HEARING.
THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY EXCLUDE
OR PRECLUDE ERRORS OR PREEMPT.
THAT PERSON TESTIFYING AT TRIAL
AND IN FACT. DOESN'T DON'T YOU
HAVE TO SHOW.
IN FIFTEEN OH CRITERIA VERY
CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THAT PERSON
NOT TO BE.
TESTIFYING AT TRIAL SO THAT THE
DAY INTRODUCTION OF THIS
TESTIMONY.
IS NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO
OCCUR I MEAN WHAT IS THE VALUE
OF THIS TESTIMONY IF A WITNESS
IS NOT.
OR IS SUBPOENAED AND DOESN'T
SHOW UP OR. I MEAN YOU KNOW YOU
NEED TO HAVE THAT PERSON A TRIAL
AS WELL UNLESS YOU CAN SHOW
CIRCUMSTANCES WHY THEY SHOULDN'T.
WHY YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO USE
THAT?
THAT OTHER TESTIMONY BECAUSE
YOU HAVE A JURY THEY'RE SUPPOSED
TO BE ABLE TO.
TO EVALUATE THE WITNESSES AND
AND A TIME OF TRIAL YOU HAVE A
RIGHT TO CONFRONT AND CROSS
EXAMINE DO YOU NOT. AMINO ARE
YOU NEGATING THAT BY THIS BILL
IN YOUR OPINION. NOT. GO THROUGH
THE CHAIR BUT LET ME ASK IT AND
CENTER JACKSON IF YOU DON'T MIND
LET ME ASK THE QUESTION BUT IF
THIS IS NOT THE DIRECTION YOU'RE
GOING AND SO. THE QUESTION I
WOULD ASK IN THIS IS.
IN IN THE CASE WHERE YOU
DESCRIBED WHERE THE WITNESS
DOESN'T SHOW UP.
TO A TRIAL SO WE HAVE THIS
INCRIMINATING STATEMENT. THERE
IS.
.
IT'S READ TO THE JURY.
WOULD YOU NOT BE ABLE TO USE THE
TESTIMONY.
COULD YOU NOT IMPEACH THAT
TESTIMONY WITH THE OUT OF COURT
STATEMENT IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE
RIGHT IS THAT.
IS THAT SIMILAR TO IT OKAY NAM
MS MEN SCREAMING ANSWER AND THEN
WE CAN HAVE OKAY YES SO THE ONLY
TIME ANY OF THIS IS RELEVANT IS
IF THE WITNESS. IS NOT AVAILABLE
TRY.
AND SO THE WITNESS CANNOT
COMMENT TESTIFYING FOR THE
JURORS TO TAKE THAT AS A AS THE
PROMISE OF INVESTITURE RATIONS
WERE AND.
AND THEN THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF
THE CONDITIONAL EXAM WAS TO
CAPTURE THAT WITNESS'S TESTIMONY
AND THEN PRESENT IT TO THE JURY.
SO YOU CAN DO THAT YOU CAN
PRESENTED TO THE JURY SO LET'S
TAKE MS GEORGE'S EXAMPLE WHAT
THE JURY HEARS IS THE WIFE
SAYING.
IN THIS EXAMPLE I LIED.
HE DID NOT KIDNAP ME NONE OF
THAT HAPPENED.
THE JURY WILL ALSO HERE THE OUT
OF COURT STATEMENT BUT ONLY FOR
THE PURPOSE OF SHOWING THAT HER
TESTIMONY UNDER OATH.
IS NOT TRUE. NOT FOR THE TRUTH.
OF THE ORIGINAL STATEMENT BUT HE
KIDNAPPED HER. AND WHAT THAT
MEANS
IS THAT THAT ORIGINAL STATEMENT
HE KIDNAPPED ME IS NOT IN FRONT
OF THE JURY. THEY CAN'T RELY ON
THAT AS EVIDENCE TO CONVICT AND
SO THEY MAY NOT HAVE THE ACTUAL
CORPUS NEEDED TO PROVE A CRIME.
DOES THAT HELP AT ALL.
IT'S VERY TECHNICAL BUT YOU'RE.
A FORMER PROSECUTOR SO.
BUT I GUESS MISTER IT YOU MAY
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR IS AYE AYE
THAT'S CORRECT AS FAR AS THE
MECHANISM BUT I THINK IT
HIGHLIGHTS THE PROBLEM.
BECAUSE THE PROBLEM IS YOU WOULD
NEVER GET A CASE.
YOU THAT GOES TO THE COURT OF
APPEAL BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE THAT
CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE SOMEBODY HAS
A CONDITIONAL EXAM TESTIMONY
WHERE THEY SAY. IT NEVER
HAPPENED.
WELL THEN WE DON'T HAVE ANY
CORPUS AS AS AS WAS JUST STATED
BY THE WITNESS TO BRING THAT
CASE TO TRIAL SO THE CASE HAS TO
BE RESOLVED REDUCE MISTER
SOMETHING HAS TO HAPPEN.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT WHEN A
CONDITIONAL EXAM IS AVAILABLE
FOR A VICTIM OF DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE OR DOMESTIC OR HUMAN
TRAFFICKING.
THERE MAY BE.
EXTRANEOUS EVIDENCE THAT
EXPLAINS WHY THAT WITNESS WHO IN
THE SAFE ENVIRONMENT INSIDE A
POLICE STATION.
GAVE GIVE A STATEMENT TO LAW
ENFORCEMENT ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED
HOW SHE WAS EXPLOITED. THAT'S
MAY BE SUPPORTED BY
CORROBORATING EVIDENCE THROUGH
TEXT MESSAGES OR CELLPHONES OR
OTHER OR OR OR OTHER MEANS THAT
THAT CORROBORATE BUT DON'T GO ON
THEIR OWN TO PROVE THE CRIME.
RIGHT BUT THEN THERE'S OTHER
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MAY BE IT MAY
EXPLAIN WHY THAT PERSON. GAVE
AND EXCULPATORY STATEMENT ABOUT
WHAT HAPPENED AT THE CONDITIONAL
EXAM.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE NEVER GET
TO A TRIAL BECAUSE THERE'S NO
CORPUS AND SO WHAT THIS DOES IS
IT JUST GIVES US THE AVENUE. TO
BRING IN BOTH STATEMENTS FOR
THEIR TRUTH AT TRIAL AND AND
THEN AGAIN IF THERE IS
CORROBORATING INFORMATION FOR
THE STRIPPERS STATEMENT. WELL
THEN IT SUPPORTS THE TRUTH OF
THAT STATEMENT IF THERE ISN'T
THEN IT DOESN'T AND THEN THE
PERSON WOULD WHAT WOULD BE
ACQUITTED I WOULD NOTE THAT YOU
KNOW JUST TO THE COMMENT THAT
THEY WOULD BE GIVEN THE SAME WAY
TO TRIAL. IT'S FOR THE JURY TO
DECIDE WHAT WEIGHT.
RIGHT IT'S NOT FOR THE COURT TO
DECIDE WHAT WEIGHT BUT THE JURY
GETS TO AT LEAST EVALUATED AND
DECIDE WHICH ONE TO GIVE MORE
WEIGHT TO BASED AGAIN ON THE
CORROBORATING IN SURROUNDING
EVIDENCE. AND I THINK THAT'S WHY
THIS IS SUCH AN IMPORTANT BILL.
RIGHT CENTER JACKSON GIVEN
CHOQUET. ANY OTHER.
QUESTIONS FROM THE.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
ALRIGHT.
.
MONNING.
SAUCE.
BONE.
I WILL TAKE YOUR MOTION IN A
MINUTE SENATOR ANDERSON BY WILL
ALLOW SENATOR WIENER TO QUIET
CENTER WIENER THANK YOU.
MAN SHALL BE ON I UNDERSTAND
THE ARGUMENTS ALL BE SUPPORTING
THE BILL I THINK IN THE AND.
WHEN YOU HAVE.
PRESUMING YOU HAVE SOMEONE
WHO'S UNAVAILABLE TRIAL AND YOU
HAVE THIS PRIOR TESTIMONY UNDER
OATH SUBJECT TO CROSS
EXAMINATION.
WHY IT I DON'T?
THE ICE I UNDERSTAND THE
ARGUMENT WHY THIS IS DIFFERENT
FROM PLUMERI. HEARING IN TERMS
OF. POTENTIALLY ABILITY TO
PREPARE.
DOT AND COMPLETE INVESTIGATION
SO AS THE OTHER SIDE.
NOT BUT YOU KNOW I I JUST TO ME
BITS TESTIMONY UNDER OATH
SUBJECT TO CROSS EXAMINATION.
PERSON DISAPPEARS OUR DIARIES.
AYE I DON'T BUT I THINK IT'S
REASONABLE FOR FOR THAT.
IMPEACHMENT PER THAT PRIOR
INCONSISTENT STATEMENT TO COME
AND. OFFER THE TRUTH ABOUT
HERSELF BE SUPPORTING THE BILL.
RIGHT I.
APPRECIATE THE DISCUSSION I
REALIZE.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER THAT I HATE YOU
INDICATED THE BILL WAS ON A
CONSENT IN THE ASSEMBLY BUT I
THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE THAT WE
GOT INTO THE WEEDS IN IT BECAUSE.
.
WE HAVE TO ALWAYS BE CAREFUL OF
THESE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.
AND.
.
WHILE I THINK THERE STILL COULD
BE SOME. I THINK THE DISCUSSION
IS.
HIGHLIGHTED THAT THERE'S STILL
OPPORTUNITY FOR.
THE.
IN THOSE CASES FOR THE.
THE STATEMENT TO BE COUNTERED BY.
.
GAVE GIVE ME THAT.
YEAH FOR THE.
THE TESTIMONY.
IN EFFECT TO IMPEACH IT WITH THE
OUT OF COURT STATEMENT SO. WHILE
THAT IS WELL CERTAINLY THAT
EXAMPLE IS NOT NECESSARILY GOING
TO COVER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT
THIS BILL. COULD ALLOW FOR.
.
I THINK WE WILL STICK WITH OUR.
RECOMMEND.
.
SUPPORT FOR THE BILL. AND
SENATOR ANDERSON HAD A MOTION.
.
I KNOW BUT I.
MY LIKE MY MOTION FROM THE FLOOR.
OKAY CHRIS CERTIFICATES YOU MAY
CLOSE.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR THANK YOU
CENTERS FOR THE ROBUST
DISCUSSION I THINK THIS IS A
TECHNICAL BUT IMPORTANT BILL. I
APPRECIATE THE COMMITTEES HARD
WORK ON IT AND THE FINE ANALYSIS
AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR MY
BOOK.
ALRIGHT WITH THAT WE WILL DO A
ROLL CALL.
MOTION IS TO PASS THE FLOOR
SKINNER.
I INNER AYE ANDERSON AYE AYE
ANDERSON AYE BRADFORD. BRADFORD
AYE JACKSON. JACKSON AYE
MITCHELL.
MITCHELL AYE STONE.
STONE AYE WIENER WIENER AYE.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER CUNNINGHAM YOUR
BILL THOUSAND AB SEVENTEEN
THIRTY SIX OUT OF.
AND.
THREE THAT WAS OUR LAST ITEM
THAT WE HAVE SOON.
.
WE HAVE A NUMBER OF BILLS THAT
WE NEED TO REOPEN THE ROLL CALL
SO PEOPLE CAN ADD ON.
.
SO LET'S START.
YEAH LET'S START WITH AB TWO
EIGHTY TWO THAT WAS ITEM ONE
JONES SAWYER THE.
IT WAS DUE PASS.
TO.
THE FLOOR IN THE CURRENT VOTE
IS FOR TWO.
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT HERE ACT AS
A
OKAY.
BY YOU PASS ASAMENDED TO THE
FLOOR AND IT'S FOR TO JACKSON.
JACKSON I.
BILLS OUT WILL NOW GO TO YOU AND.
TO ANSWER TO YOUR WE DON'T NEED
TO OF CONSENT CALENDAR WILL AND.
AND YOU DID WE DIDN'T TAKE A
VOTE.
OKAY SO CONSENT CALENDAR LET'S
HAVE THE MEMBERS THAT MISSING
WERE OUT ON JACKSON. JACKSON AYE
PUT CASE GREAT WILL NOW GO TO
EIGHTY EIGHT SEVENTY WHICH IS
ITEM FIVE. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
LEVINE IT WAS TO PASS TO THE
FLORIDA VOTE SO FAR.
IS.
FIVE ZERO BRADFORD.
BRADFORD AYE JACKSON AYE JACKSON
AYE.
IT WASN'T.
GREAT WILL NOW GO TO ITEM.
.
SEVEN. WHICH IS AB ELEVEN NINETY
TWO LACKEY IT'S DUE PASSED TO
THE FLOOR.
AND.
BROKE ON THE MISSING MEMBER.
ANNA JACKSON.
JACKSON NOT TOTING. RIGHT NOW
WILL GO TO EAT THE. THAT'S. OKAY
SORRY A. B..
.
THIS ONE HAD EVERYBODY OKAY SO
NOT ITEM NINE. THAT HAD EVER
BEEN TO LET'S SEE.
ITEM TWELVE A. B. EIGHTEEN
SIXTY FIVE WHICH IS TO PASS AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS THE
VOTE RIGHT NOW. IS SIX
ZERO JACKSON.
JACKSON I.
MMHM SET IT UP HEALTH. YEAH THAT
WAS NOT CONSENT OKAY ITEM
THIRTEEN A. B. EIGHTEEN SEVENTY
TWO. ASSEMBLY MEMBER VOCAL IT'S
DUE PASSED IT TO THE FLOOR IN
THE VOTE COUNT RIGHT NOW IS FOUR
ZERO.
JACKSON.
JACKSON AYE MITCHELL.
WIENER.
EIGHTEEN SEVENTY TO ITEM
THIRTEEN EIGHTEEN SEVENTY TWO.
AND SO.
THE PRINTED HEARING GOING FOR
HAD BEEN ON CONCERN THAT WE HAD
A FULLER.
TREATMENT AND FOR.
WHERE THE OFFICERS THAT HAD BEEN
A PROPOSED FOR CONSENT WE HAD A
WHOLE IT?
I THINK IT CHAU AYE WIENER.
WIENER AYE.
ALRIGHT AND THEN.
.
FULLER SO TWENTY LIKE IT'S BEEN
TWENTY ONE SIXTY NINE.
PEOPLE IN.
ALRIGHT SO ITEM TWENTY AB TWENTY
ONE SIXTY NINE WHICH IS TO PASS
AS AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS.
AND THE VOTE RIGHT NOW IS.
FIVE ZERO.
IT'S.
RENTAL CAR.
JACKSON.
NOT CARING.
ALRIGHT AND I BELIEVE THAT IS IT.
THANK YOU VERY WITH THAT. WE'VE
CONCLUDED ALL OUR.
BUSINESS BEFORE US.
AND THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
PUBLIC SAFETY IS A TURN