THE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY WILL
BEGIN. THIS IS OUR ONLY HEARING
ON TWO YEAR SENATE BILLS IN
ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE
DEADLINES. WE WILL ALSO NOT BE
TAKING ANY AMENDMENTS IN THIS
COMMITTEE BECAUSE OF THE
DEADLINES. I DO WANT TO SAY THAT
OUR VICE CHAIR SENATOR OKO,
BOGUE WILL NOT BE IN TODAY AND
WE HAVE SENATOR SEYARTO WHO WILL
BE FILLING IN FOR HER, UM I
WOULD LIKE TO CALL ROLE TO
ESTABLISH A QUORUM. UH WHAT
HAPPENED HERE? HERE SUHARTO HERE
ARE HERE. BRADFORD BRADFORD
HERE. SKINNER SKINNER HERE,
WIENER. SO WE HAVE ESTABLISHED A
QUORUM. I WOULD LIKE TO CALL
SENATOR PORTANTINO TO PRESENT SB
53. I ALSO WANT TO MAKE A COUPLE
OF ANNOUNCEMENTS AGAIN. EACH
WITNESS HAS EACH LEAD WITNESS ON
FROM BOTH SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION
WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES. PLEASE
COME TO THAT LECTERN OVER THERE.
WE WILL BE TIMING YOU GUYS AND
AS FAR AS THE ME TOO, AS WE
WOULD LIKE FOR ALL OF YOU GUYS
TO COME IN QUICKLY AND SAY ME TO
STATE YOUR NAME, STATE YOUR
POSITION. YOUR ORGANIZATION. ALL
RIGHT, SENATOR. THANK YOU, MADAM
. CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS
APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE THIS
MORNING TO HEAR SB 53 IN 2019 I
AUTHORED SB 172, WHICH
ESTABLISHED A SAFE FIREARM
STORAGE LAW FOR CALIFORNIA. SB
53 IS AN EXPANSION TO THOSE
REQUIREMENTS FROM 172. IT
CREATES AN ADDITIONAL STANDARD
FOR SAFELY SECURING FIREARMS FOR
ALL GUN OWNERS. EXISTING LAW
REQUIRES FIREARMS IN THE HOME
EITHER TO BE KEPT IN A LOCKED
CONTAINER OR SECURED WITH A
LOCKING DEVICE THAT PREVENTS THE
GARDEN FROM FUNCTIONING IF A
CHILD UNDER THE AGE OF 18 IS IN
THE HOME, BUT THERE IS NO BROAD
REQUIREMENT FOR SECURING STORAGE
OF FIREARMS BY OR GUN OWNERS.
DEATH BY FIREARM IS NOW THE
NUMBER ONE CAUSE OF DEATH FOR
CHILDREN IN OUR COUNTRY. LET ME
SAY THAT AGAIN. DEATH BY FIREARM
IS THE NUMBER ONE CAUSE OF DEATH
FOR CHILDREN IN THE U. S
NATIONWIDE. OVER 4.6 MILLION
MINORS LIVING HOMES WITH ACCESS
TO UNSECURED GUNS. AND ONE IN
FIVE GUN OWNERS STORE THEIR
FIREARMS, IN LEAST SAFE MANNER,
SUCH AS LOADED AND UNLOCKED OVER
70% OF CHILDREN REPORTED KNOWING
THE LOCATION OF A HOUSEHOLD
FIREARM AND ONE IN FIVE PARENTS
WHO REPORTED THAT THEIR CHILD
HAD NEVER HANDLED THE HOUSEHOLD
FIREARM WORK CONTRADICTED BY
THEIR CHILD'S REPORT SAY THAT
AGAIN, PARENTS WHO THINK THEIR
CHILDREN HAVEN'T TOUCHED THEIR
GUN CONTRADICTED SIGNIFICANTLY.
ADDITIONALLY, 76% OF SCHOOL
SHOOTERS OBTAIN THEIR FIREARM
FROM THEIR PARENTS' HOME OR THE
HOME OF A CLOSE RELATIVE. SB 53
INTENSE REDUCED FIREARM, SUICIDE
AND UNINTENTIONAL FIREARM
INJURIES THROUGH THE SAFE
STORAGE OF SUCH WEAPONS RESEARCH
SHOWS THAT STATES THAT IMPLEMENT
SAFE STORAGE LAWS SOUGHT A 78%
DROP IN UNINTENTIONAL SHOOTINGS
COMMITTED BY CHILDREN COMPARED
TO STATES THAT DO NOT HAVE SAFE
STORAGE LAWS. SO AGAIN. THIS IS
COMMON SENSE. AND IT WORKS AND
IT SAVES LIVES SHOULD BE
BIPARTISAN. SB 53 DOES NOT
INFRINGE UPON ANYONE'S
INDIVIDUAL SECOND AMENDMENT
RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IN
THEIR HOME, BUT RATHER ENSURES
THAT SAFE STORAGE OF ALL
FIREARMS TO PREVENT
UNINTENTIONAL FIREARM INJURIES
IS IMPLEMENTED. UM IF WE SAY
LOCK YOUR CAR. THAT'S COMMON
SENSE. IT'S NOT PARTISAN. LIKE
YOUR GUN. SHOULD BE COMMON SENSE
AND NONPARTISAN WITH ME. TODAY I
HAVE REBECCA MARCUS FROM THE
BRADY CAMPAIGN AND CASSANDRA
WHETSTONE WITH MOMS DEMAND
ACTION AND AT THE APPROPRIATE
TIME WITH RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
MY VOTE. THANK YOU. YOU HAVE TWO
MINUTES. GOOD MORNING CHAIR AND
MEMBERS REBECCA MARCUS,
REPRESENTING THE BRADY CAMPAIGN
AND STRONG SUPPORT OF SB 53.
CALIFORNIA HAS SOME OF THE
STRONGEST GUN LAWS IN THIS
COUNTRY AND SB 53 WILL ENHANCE
THIS FRAMEWORK TO ENSURE THAT
ALL GUN OWNERS SAFELY STORE
THEIR FIREARMS TO PREVENT
UNINTENTIONAL SHOOTINGS, MASS
SHOOTINGS, THEFT OF FIREARMS AND
FIREARM SUICIDE. THE REALITY IS
THAT SECURE STORAGE OF FIREARMS
SHOULD BE AS AUTOMATIC AS
PUTTING ON A SEATBELT AN
IMPORTANT WAY TO EFFECTUATE THAT
BEHAVIOR CHANGES THROUGH THIS
TYPE OF MANDATE. WE CANNOT HAVE
JUST A PORTION OF THE POPULATION
STORING THEIR FIREARMS SAFELY.
EVERY GUN OWNER NEEDS TO ENGAGE
AND SAFE GUN OWNERSHIP. AS THE
SENATOR STATED GUN VIOLENCE HAS
BECOME THE NUMBER ONE KILLER OF
OUR CHILDREN AND ALL TOO OFTEN
THE SOURCES AND UNSECURED GUN.
THE SPILL IS HOW WE CAN ENSURE
THAT CHILDREN CANNOT GET THEIR
HANDS ON GUNS TO PREVENT
UNINTENTIONAL SHOOTINGS AND
SCHOOL SHOOTINGS. SB 53 WILL
ALSO PREVENT GUN SUICIDES. AS A
SENATOR STATED RESEARCH SUPPORTS
THAT STORING FIREARMS LOCKED AS
AN EFFECTIVE MEASURE TO REDUCE
THE RISK OF SUICIDE. FINALLY GUN
THEFT HAS BECOME A SIGNIFICANT
ISSUE IN CALIFORNIA AND A
SIGNIFICANT SOURCE OF CRIME GUNS
, KEEPING FIREARMS IN A SAFE OR
LOCKBOX IS A COMMON SENSE AND
EFFECTIVE METHOD TO PREVENT
THESE GUNS FROM ENTERING THE
ILLEGAL MARKET. SECURE STORAGE
OF FIREARMS DOES NOT INTERFERE
WITH ANYONE'S RIGHTS TO BEAR
ARMS OR ENGAGE IN SELF DEFENSE.
AS THE SENATOR MENTIONED
LOCKBOXES THAT ALLOW OWNERS
IMMEDIATE ACCESS TO THEIR
FIREARMS, AND THERE ARE THOSE
THAT ARE REASONABLE, MANY THAT
ARE REASONABLY PRICED. SIMILAR
SIMILAR LAWS HAVE BEEN UPHELD IN
THE COURTS. EVERYONE AGREES THAT
GUN OWNERSHIP COMES WITH CERTAIN
RESPONSIBILITIES AND SAFE
STORAGE IS ONE OF THEM. WE URGE
YOU TO SUPPORT THIS BILL, AND WE
ALSO THANK THE SENATOR FOR HIS
CONSISTENT LEADERSHIP ON THIS
ISSUE. GOOD MORNING. SHARON
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS CASSANDRA WHETSTONE, AND
I'M A VOLUNTEER WITH MOMS DEMAND
ACTION 25 YEARS AGO WHEN I WAS A
TEACHER IN SAN JOSE, ONE OF MY
STUDENTS FOUND AN UNSECURED
FIREARM AT HIS BEST FRIEND'S
HOUSE AND SHOT HIMSELF. HE
SURVIVED, BUT WITH BRAIN DAMAGE
THAT HE WOULD CARRY WITH HIM FOR
THE REST OF HIS LIFE. A CHILD
SHOULD NEVER HAVE THAT KIND OF
ACCESS TO A GUN. I'M HERE TODAY
ASKING YOU TO SUPPORT SB 53 BY
SENATOR PORTANTINO. THIS BILL IS
AN IMPORTANT STEP TO BUILD ON
CALIFORNIA'S STRONG FOUNDATIONAL
GUN SAFETY LAWS, AS WELL AS THE
STATE'S RECENT STEPS TO INCREASE
PUBLIC AWARENESS ABOUT THE
IMPORTANCE OF SECURE FIREARMS
STORAGE. THE RESEARCH IS CLEAR
THE SECURE STORAGE OF FIREARMS
SAVES LIVES. SECURE FIREARMS
STORAGE HELPS PREVENT
UNINTENTIONAL SHOOTINGS, GUN
SUICIDE MASS SHOOT. MEETINGS AND
GUN THEFT. AS AN EDUCATOR. I
KNOW ALL TOO WELL THAT UNSECURED
FIREARMS ALSO FUEL GUN VIOLENCE
OUTSIDE THE HOME IN INCIDENTS OF
SCHOOL VIOLENCE. THE U. S SECRET
SERVICE FOUND THAT THREE
QUARTERS OF SCHOOL SHOOTERS
ACQUIRED THEIR FIREARM FROM THE
HOME OF A PARENT OR A CLOSE
RELATIVE. WE KNOW THAT
CALIFORNIA LEADS THE WAY IN MANY
ASPECTS OF GUN VIOLENCE,
PREVENTION AND GUN SAFETY. I AM
GRATEFUL THAT CALIFORNIA IS
ALREADY ONE OF THE 26 STATES
ACROSS THE COUNTRY THAT HAS SOME
FORM OF FIREARMS, SECURE STORAGE
OR CHILD FIREARM ACCESS
PREVENTION LAWS IN PLACE. BUT
THERE IS MORE WORK THAT WE CAN
DO. WHILE MILLIONS OF
RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS FOLLOW
RECOMMENDED STORAGE PRACTICES,
AN ESTIMATED 54% OF GUN OWNERS
NATIONWIDE STILL DO NOT LOCK ALL
OF THEIR GUNS. 53 EXTENDS
CALIFORNIA'S REQUIREMENTS TO
SECURELY STORE FIREARMS TO ALL
HOUSEHOLDS. NOT JUST THOSE WERE
A CHILD OR A PERSON WHO CAN'T
LEGALLY HAVE A GUN MIGHT BE
PRESENT. IN DOING SO. THIS BILL
EXPANDS THE PROTECTIVE BENEFITS
OF SECURE FIREARMS STORAGE TO
MORE CALIFORNIANS AND HELPS
ENSURE THAT SECURE STORAGE IS
THE NEW NORMAL. FOR RESPONSIBLE
FIREARM OWNERS ARE CALIFORNIA
MOMS DEMAND ACTION CHAPTER HAS
ADVOCATED FOR LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS AND WE ASK FOR
YOUR I VOTE ON SB 53. THANK YOU.
DO WE HAVE ANY ME TO SUPPORT?
STATE YOUR NAME YOUR ORG AND
YOUR POSITION? YES OR NO GOOD
MORNING, JAMIE MINOR NEMO,
PAPPAS AND ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF
OF GIFFORDS. THINK THINK THE
AUTHORS CONTINUED LEADERSHIP ON
THIS ISSUE AND PLEASED TO
SUPPORT THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
LIZ RUSSELL MOMS DEMAND
VOLUNTEER FROM NAPA, CALIFORNIA
GUN VIOLENCE SURVIVOR OR JUNIOR
SUPPORT OF SB 53. HMM YARA, JUDE
ALL VOLUNTEER WITH MOMS DEMAND
ACTION AND SUPPORT. SB 53.
CHILEAN KING VOLUNTEER MOMS
DEMAND ACTION YES, ON 53. AMY
SYRUPY AND VOLUNTEER WITH MOMS
DEMAND ACTION YES, AND SUPPORT
OF SB 53. MARY LOUVERS. ETO
VOLUNTEER WITH MOMS DEMAND
ACTION IN SUPPORT OF 53 AND
FORMER POLICE OFFICER. SUZANNE
LANDER, VOLUNTEER WITH MOMS
DEMAND ACTION AND SUPPORT OF SB
53. DANNY OFFER WITH EVERY TOWN
FOR GUN SAFETY AND STRONG
SUPPORT OF THE BILL. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE LEAD
OPPOSITION? YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES
LONG TIME NO SEE HAPPY NEW
YEAR'S HAPPY NEW YEARS TO YOU.
IT'S A PLEASURE TO BE HERE, AND
IT'S GOING TO BE A VERY FUNNIER
MADAM SHARON MEMBERS IF I WAS AS
GOOD AT SELECTING THE LOTTERY
NUMBERS AS I AM AT PREDICTING
HOW OFTEN SENATOR PORTANTINO'S
LEGISLATION WILL BE DECLARED
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, I'D BE A
BILLIONAIRE. I DON'T HAVE VERY
MUCH LUCK AT THE LOTTERY, BUT
WITH REGARDS TO THE SENATOR'S
LEGISLATION, I'M BATTING 1000,
AND THAT'S PRETTY GOOD
UNDERSTAND MEMBERS THAT THE
ISSUE OF SAFE STORAGE OR LOCK
STORAGE IN THE HOME IS ALREADY
SETTLED LAW HELLER VERSUS THE
UNITED STATES OF WASHINGTON, DC,
THE SUPREME COURT THE NUMBER ONE
RULING THAT CAME OUT OF THAT WAS
THAT AH, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
COULD NOT REQUIRE PEOPLE TO KEEP
THEIR GUNS LOCKED UP IN THEIR
HOMES. THAT WAS THE PRIMARY
RULING. THEY EXAMINED BIOMETRIC
LOCKS TRIGGER LOCKS. KEY LOCK
SAFE OF ALL KINDS. AND THEY
RULED THAT IT WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THEN TWO YEARS
LATER, IN MCDONALD VERSUS
CHICAGO, THE SUPREME COURT AND
SAID, YOU KNOW THIS LAW IT IS SO
IMPORTANT THAT WE'RE GOING TO
INCORPORATE IT TO THE STATES SO
THAT NOT ONLY CAN THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, STATE AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS COULD NOT REQUIRE
PEOPLE TO LOCK UP THEIR HOME
THEIR GUNS IN THEIR OWN HOMES.
THE SUPREME COURT SAID THAT AND
MIND YOU, THIS IS NOT TODAY'S
SUPREME COURT. THIS IS THE
SUPREME COURT THAT SUPPORTED
SAME SEX, MARRIAGE AND ABORTION
LAWS AND THINGS LIKE THIS. IT
WAS A DIFFERENT COURT. AND YET
THE COURT CAME BACK AND SAID,
YOU CANNOT FORCE PEOPLE TO KEEP
THEIR GUNS LOCKED UP IN A MANNER
TO WHICH THEY ARE NOT
IMMEDIATELY ACCESSIBLE TO THEM
AT HOME. THAT IS THE LAW. YES
THERE ARE OTHER STATES THAT HAVE
HAVE SOME MANNER OF STORAGE. YOU
WANT TO TALK ABOUT EDUCATION ON
SAFE STORAGE. THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA DOES NOTHING OF THAT.
THE SENATOR DOES NOTHING. OUR
ORGANIZATIONS DO ALL THE LEVEL
AT THE HEAVY LIFTING ON TALKING
ABOUT SAFE AND RESPONSIBLE
STORAGE. THAT'S MY TWO MINUTES.
THANK YOU TO BE A FUN YEAR.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE
ANY OTHER LEAD OPPOSITION SEEING
NONE. I'D LIKE TO CALL
OPPOSITION. ME TOO. SEEING NONE.
WE WILL MOVE ON, SENATOR. WOULD
YOU LIKE I MEAN, SORRY. AH DO WE
HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE
COMMITTEE? COMMENTS. SENATOR
BRADFORD. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIRMAN. I WANT TO THANK YOU,
SENATOR FOR WHAT I CONSIDER
COMMON SENSE MEASURE GUN DEATH
AMONGST KIDS HAVE INCREASED BY
50% OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS. AND
REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE U. S
CONSTITUTION OR THE SUPREME
COURT MIGHT HAVE ROAD, WHY
WOULDN'T WE WANT TO TAKE
EXTRAORDINARY STEPS TO MAKE SURE
THAT GUNS ARE STORED IN A SAFE
HIM AND RESPONSIBLE MANNER. THIS
IS ALL THIS IS ABOUT. I DON'T
UNDERSTAND AMERICA'S OBSESSION.
WITH GUNS AND THE ABILITY TO
ALLOW KIDS TO HAVE ACCESS TO IT.
WE'VE SEEN JUST IN THE LAST
MONTH. TWO KIDS BEING SHOT UNDER
THE AGE OF 10. WOULD GUNS AND
THAT IN IT OF ITSELF SHOULD BE
ENOUGH TO SAY WHY THIS IS
IMPORTANT. SO I WANT TO MAKE A
MOTION TO MOVE THIS BILL. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, SENATOR SUHARTO.
THANK YOU. SO THE LAW ALREADY
COVERS THE ISSUE WITH CHILDREN
AND ACCESS TO GUNS. WHAT HAPPENS
AND HOW IS THAT ENFORCED RIGHT
NOW, DO WE? DO WE HAVE A GRASP
ON THAT? HOW HOW DOES I MEAN?
NOBODY GOES INTO THE HOUSES DO
INSPECT. BUT HOW DO HOW DOES
THAT GET ENFORCED? IT'S LIKE ANY
OTHER LAW THAT YOU DO TO DETER
ACTIVITY. YOU DON'T KNOW WHEN
YOU DO A SUICIDE PREVENTION, YOU
KNOW WHICH SUICIDE YOU PREVENTED
, BUT YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE
PREVENTED THE SAME THING HERE.
WE KNOW BY FORCING PEOPLE TO
LOCK UP THEIR GUNS. THOSE GUNS
THAT ARE LOCKED UP ARE NOT
GETTING INTO THE WRONG HANDS.
RIGHT AND SO IT IN THOSE RARE
INSTANCES WHERE THE GUN GETS
USED BY A PROHIBITED PERSON.
THEN LAW ENFORCEMENT THEN WILL
ENFORCE THE LIABILITY PROVISIONS
AGAINST THAT PERSON WHO LET IT
FALL INTO THE WRONG HANDS. RIGHT
NOW. WE'RE NOT GOING INTO
PEOPLE'S HOUSES AND LOOKING IN
THEIR IN THEIR DRAWERS, BUT THIS
IS A DETERRENT OF STOPPING THE
TRAGEDY FROM HAPPENING. AND THE
QUESTION THAT YOU HAVE TO ANSWER
THE QUESTION IN ALL OF US HAVE
TWO ANSWERS. DO YOU WANT TO
PREVENT THAT SHOOTING? YOU WANT
TO PREVENT DEATH? AND THE BEST
WAY TO DO THAT IS TO LOCK UP
THESE GUNS. AND SO I THINK
THAT'S THE DECISION. WE HAVE TO
DECIDE HERE TODAY. WELL I
STRUGGLE WITH THE POLICY
DECISION BECAUSE THERE ARE LEGAL
MANDATES THAT WIND UP BEING
EXPENSIVE AND CHALLENGEABLE AND
COURTS AND WE'VE DONE SEVERAL OF
THOSE. BUT THERE'S ALSO WAYS OF
GETTING VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE OR
HAVING PEOPLE. UH ENCOURAGED BY
WAY OF EDUCATION, LIKE THE
GENTLEMAN'S TALKING ABOUT, UH IN
HOW WOULD YOU SAFELY STORE YOUR
GUNS AND HOW TO HAVE THE TRIGGER
LOCK MECHANISMS? WE HAD A BILL
LAST YEAR INTRODUCED BY OMI. UM
THAT DID EXACTLY THAT. IT'S SAID
WE WOULD WAIVE THE SALES TAX IF
PEOPLE WANTED TO PURCHASE ONE OF
THESE LOCKS. I DON'T I THINK
THEY'RE LIKE 80 $80 200 DOLLARS
AND IF THAT WAS A BARRIER FOR
SOMEBODY TO DO THAT THIS
ENCOURAGES, IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S
CARROT VERSUS CURRENT VERSUS THE
STICK. WELL, WE TURNED DOWN THE
CARROT APPROACH. WE CAN TURN
DOWN ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO DO
THAT. AND. THIS LAW DOES NOTHING
MORE THAN WE ALREADY HAVE IN
PROTECTING KIDS. BECAUSE. IT
DOESN'T THE KIDS RIGHT NOW ARE
THERE WERE STILL HAVING PROBLEMS
WITH THAT? AND THOSE GUNS ARE
LOCKED UP. SUPPOSEDLY BECAUSE WE
HAVE A LAW THAT SAYS THEY SHOULD
BE. BUT THERE'S STILL THERE'S
THIS IS STILL HAPPENING AND
WHAT'S HAPPENING TO BE ABLE TO
PREVENT THAT. IT'S MORE OF A
PUBLIC EDUCATION. AND THE
ABILITY FOR US TO DECIDE WHAT
WORKS IN OUR OWN HOMES. AND IN
OUR OWN COMMUNITIES. BECAUSE TO
ANSWER. YOU KNOW, IN ANSWER TO
MY COLLEAGUES THING IS THE
REASON PEOPLE HAVE THESE FOR
THEIR FREAKING PROTECTION.
THERE'S SO MANY, THERE'S SOME
COMMUNITIES THEY WERE REALLY
DANGEROUS. AND PEOPLE HAVE GUNS
BECAUSE THEY'RE AFRAID OF BEING
HARMED. AND SO I DON'T KNOW HOW
THIS LAW IN ADDITION, OTHER THAN
MAKING A BUNCH OF PEOPLE THAT
AREN'T CRIMINALS INTO POTENTIAL
CRIMINALS. WHAT ARE WE GOING TO
DO IF WE CATCH THEM? WE'RE NOT
GOING TO PUT HIM IN JAIL BECAUSE
WE DON'T PUT ANYBODY IN JAIL.
MADAM CHAIRMAN, I RESPOND. SO,
SENATOR. LET ME SAY THIS CLEARLY
AND CRISPLY AS POSSIBLE. WE HAVE
SEEN A 78% REDUCTION. 78%
REDUCTION. SO YOUR THESIS THAT
THIS ISN'T GOING TO BENEFIT IS A
FLAW THESIS BECAUSE THE DATA
SHOWS THE EXACT OPPOSITE. SO IF
YOU WANT TO CUT DOWN ON VIOLENT
USES OF WEAPONS, THIS CAUSES A
78% REDUCTION IN STATES THAT
HAVE SAFE STORAGE. SO IF YOU AS
A FIRST RESPONDER IF THOSE ARE
VALUES THAT YOU WANT TO CUT DOWN
ON VIOLENCE, YOU SHOULD BE A CO
AUTHOR OF THIS BILL. RIGHT
RESPONDER. YOU TELL PEOPLE TO
LOCK THEIR CAR RIGHT? YOU WOULD
COUNSEL PEOPLE WRITE LOCK? YOUR
CAR WAS A FIRE. I'M JUST SAYING
YOU'RE STILL IN THAT I'M
BROADENING THE TERM, BUT YOU
WOULD ALSO ENCOURAGE YOUR
NEIGHBORS TO LOCK THEIR DOOR
LOCK THEIR CAR. YOU SHOULD BE
SAYING LOCK YOUR GUN, RIGHT?
WELL IF YOU CARE ABOUT THAT LAST
YEAR, AND WE TURNED IT DOWN.
WELL IF YOU DIDN'T GET OUT OF
COMMITTEE IF YOU CARE ABOUT
REDUCING VIOLENCE, RIGHT, YOU
SHOULD BE A COOPERATIVE THAT 78%
APPLIES TO THE LAW THAT WE
ALREADY HAVE. SO WHY WE PILING
ON MORE LAWS TO SOMETHING WE
ALREADY HAVE, AND HAVE ALREADY
ADDRESSED THE 78% ISSUE WITH
THANK YOU, UM SENATOR SKINNER.
BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
DOCTOR. THAT ANALYSIS. SECOND
VERY GOOD JOB OF POINTING OUT
THAT YES. WELL WE DO HAVE SOME
GOOD LAWS AROUND SAFE STORAGE.
THIS LAW PUTS MORE
RESPONSIBILITY. IT'S ESTABLISHES
AN AFFIRMATIVE DUTY ON THE GUN
OWNER TO DO WHAT IS REQUIRED,
AND IT PUTS MORE RESPONSIBILITY
ON THE GUN OWNER, WHICH IS WHERE
IT SHOULD BE. AND I WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHOR AND I
APPRECIATE THE ANALYSIS AND I
WILL SUPPORT THE BILL. SO I DO
APPRECIATE YOU BRING THIS
FORWARD. WE HAVE A MOTION BY
SENATOR BRADFORD. BUT I WOULD
ASK THE AUTHOR OF THEY WOULD
LIKE TO CLOSE. I WOULD LIKE TO
CLOSE THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND
AGAIN. THIS IS COMMON SENSE.
LOCK YOUR GUN. SO IT DOESN'T
FALL INTO THE HANDS OF SOMEBODY
IS GOING TO GO TO A SCHOOL AND
KILL KIDS. LIKE YOUR GUN, SO IT
DOESN'T FALL INTO THE HANDS OF
SOMEBODY WHO'S GOING TO USE IT
TO COMMIT SUICIDE. DOESN'T TAKE
YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT AWAY BY
THE WAY, 172 HE'S STILL ON THE
BOOKS, AND IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL.
AS THIS WILL BE. SO IF YOU
REALLY VALUE OUR NEIGHBORS. WE
SHOULD MAKE SURE THAT OUR HOMES
ARE SAFE. SO WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR MY VOTE.
THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION BY
SENATOR BRADFORD. CAN WE CALL
THE VOTE? 53 MOTIONS DO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS WILL HAVE HIGH
SEYARTO TOÀN. NO BRADFORD
BRADFORD I. SKINNER SKINNER, I
WIENER. WE WILL LEAVE THE ROLL
CALL OPEN AND WE'LL MOVE ON TO
SENATOR DOLLY, WHO WILL BE
PRESENTING SENATE BILL 804. BY
GOOD MORNING, MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. I AM BACK HERE WITH MY
HEARSAY TESTIMONY BILL. REAL
QUICK. I JUST WANTED TO, UM UM,
SAY THAT WE DID TAKE SOME
AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL. WE
AMENDED THE BILL. SO JUST THIS
CAME TO ME FROM THE DISTRICT.
THIS WAS A BILL THAT WAS BROUGHT
FORWARD BY AH, THE CHIEF OF
POLICE HAVE SHASTA COUNTY. WHO
WANT TO DO EXPAND HEARSAY TO NON
SWORN OFFICERS. LAST YEAR, I
DIDN'T GET THE BILL OUT OF
COMMITTEE, BUT I DID TAKE SOME
AMENDMENTS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO,
UM STATE TO YOU. NOW WE AMENDED
THE BILL TO SAY THAT SWORN PEACE
OFFICERS ARE NON SWORN LAW
ENFORCEMENT. CIVILIANS WHO
COMMIT PERJURY WILL BE ADDED TO
THE BRADY LIST. AND THE
TESTIMONY GIVEN IS SUBJECT TO BE
DISCLOSED AS IMPEACHMENT
EVIDENCE. THIS CHANGE HELPS HOLD
THE WITNESSES ACCOUNTABLE AND
ENSURES THAT ONLY THE BEST, MOST
RELIABLE TESTIMONY IS ADMISSIBLE
IN COURT. UM, WITH THAT BEING
SAID, UM A LOT OF THE VICTIMS
WHO HAVE TO BE WITNESSED TO COME
BACK TO BE WITNESSES WITH
HEARSAY TESTIMONY WOULD ALLOW
THEM NOT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE TO
DO THAT, WHICH IS A HELP FOR
THEM DO NOT HAVE TO RELIVE THE
CRIME AGAIN, AND IT ALSO IS A
HELP FOR THE PEACE OFFICERS, UM,
WHO ARE STRAPPED DOING ALL THIS
HEARSAY TESTIMONY. UM. AND THEY
WOULD BE ABLE TO GO OUT AND DO
THEIR JOBS. SO WITH THAT THOSE
AMENDMENTS I'M HOPEFUL TO GET
THIS BILL OUT OF COMMITTEE. IT'S
A COMMON SENSE. BILL CAME FROM
THE DISTRICT AND I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR MY VOTE. THANK YOU. DO
WE HAVE ANY SUPPORT WITNESSES? I
DON'T THEY DO. THEY WEREN'T
ABLE. THEY MADE IT DOWN LAST
TIME, BUT THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO
MAKE IT DOWN TODAY. OKAY? DO WE
HAVE ANY OPPOSITION WITNESSES?
IF YOU ARE AN OPPOSITION, YOU
HAVE TWO MINUTES. EXCUSE ME.
GOOD MORNING, MADAM CHAIR
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE IGNACIO
HERNANDEZ ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS FOR
CRIMINAL JUSTICE. WE ARE AN
OPPOSITION WHERE STATEWIDE
ASSOCIATION OF COLONEL OFFENSE
LAWYERS IN PRIVATE PRACTICE AND
ALSO WORKING IN PUBLIC DEFENDER
OFFICES. PRELIMINARY HEARINGS IN
FELONY CASES REALLY SHOULD BE A
CRITICAL PART OF THE PROCESS.
IT'S THE FIRST TIME THAT
EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED IN FRONT
OF A JUDGE TO DETERMINE WHETHER
OR NOT LAW ENFORCEMENT AND DÍAS
HAVE IDENTIFIED AND ARRESTED THE
RIGHT PERSON AND THE RIGHT
CHARGES HAVE BEEN FILED, UM OVER
THE YEARS AND ESPECIALLY BECAUSE
OF THE PROPOSITION WAS PASSED IN
1990. HE'S HEARINGS HAVE BECOME
PROFORMA. VERY LITTLE HEARING
VERY LITTLE TIME. AND AS A
RESULT, WE'VE GOTTEN IT WRONG
WAY TOO MANY TIMES THIS BUILD,
LOSES IN THE WRONG DIRECTION AND
EXPANDS HEARSAY. EXCEPTION,
WHICH IS PROBLEMATIC. UM OUR
ATTORNEY. SEE IT FIRSTHAND. I'VE
BEEN IN A CRIMINAL OFFENSE
ATTORNEY. I'VE BEEN IN
PRELIMINARY HEARINGS WHERE WE
TRY TO PUSH TO REALLY HAVE
EVIDENCE REVIEWED BY THE JUDGE
TO BE ABLE TO CROSS EXAMINE
WITNESSES, AND THAT IS WHEN WE
ACTUALLY GET TO THE TRUTH OF
WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED AND
WHETHER IT'S THE RIGHT PERSON OR
WHETHER IT'S THE RIGHT CHARGE.
THIS COMMITTEE PASSED A BILL
LAST YEAR, TWO THIRDS TWO
THIRDS. BUT TAGS TWO THIRDS BILL
TO INCREASE THE TYPE OF EVIDENCE
THAT HAS TO BE PRESENTED BEFORE
PRELIMINARY HEARING TO THE
DEFENSE TO MAKE SURE THAT
PRELIMINARY HEARINGS ACTUALLY OR
MEANINGFUL THIS BILL GOES IN THE
OTHER DIRECTION. AND SO WHILE
IT'S WELL INTENTIONED, WE
UNDERSTAND THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT
IS TRYING TO MOVE TOWARDS
CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES AND THAT'S
YOU KNOW, A FISCAL ISSUE. THIS
RUNS AGAINST AND OVER THE RIGHT
TO CROSS EXAMINE WITNESSES AND
FOR THOSE REASONS WERE OPPOSED.
WE THINK WE NEED TO ACTUALLY
MAKE PRELIMINARY HEARINGS
STRONGER AND NOT WEAKER. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING.
LESLIE CALDWELL. HOUSTON EXCUSE
ME FOR THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. ALLOWING
CIVILIAN WITNESSES EVEN LIMITED
TO THOSE EMPLOYED BY LAW
ENFORCEMENT TO TESTIFY TO HEAR
SAY, SERIOUSLY UNDERMINES THE
PURPOSE OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING
, WHICH IS TO WEED OUT
UNSUPPORTED. CHARGES IT
UNDERMINES CALIFORNIA'S CASE LAW
THAT HAS CONSISTENTLY UPHELD
HEARSAY EVIDENCE OFFERED BY
TRAINED, EXPERIENCED SWORN
OFFICERS WILL NOT MINIMIZING THE
VALUE OF CIVILIAN POLICE
EMPLOYEES. THEY ARE NOT SWORN
THEY DO NOT GO TO A POLICE
ACADEMY, AND THEY DO NOT HAVE
THE BREADTH OF EXPERIENCE THAT
IS SWORN OFFICER HAS THERE IS A
REASON PRELIMINARY HEARINGS.
TESTIMONY IS LIMITED TO THOSE
SWORN OFFICERS, AND THERE IS NOT
A REASON TO BROADEN IT AS THIS
BILL PROPOSES TO DO. PRELIMINARY
HEARINGS WILL REMAIN A CRITICAL
STAGE OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDING.
THE ISSUE WITH THE IDEA THAT
EFFICIENCY SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN
A PRELIMINARY HEARING IS A
CONCERN AND SHOULD NOT BE A
PRIORITY IN A CRIMINAL CASE THAT
WOULD LEAD TO INCARCERATING A
HUMAN BEING. POLICE UNIONS MIGHT
WANT TO CONSIDER WHETHER THIS IS
A STEP TO REPLACE WARREN
OFFICERS WITH CHEAPER, LESS
SKILLED LABOR, GIVEN THE EROSION
OF PUBLIC TRUST IN LAW
ENFORCEMENT, SUCH A COURSE
SEEMED DESTINED. TO WIDEN RATHER
THAN BRIDGE THE GAP BETWEEN
POLICE AND THE COMMUNITIES THAT
THEY SERVE FOR MYRIAD OF
REASONS. WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST
YOUR NO VOTE. THANK YOU FOR ME
TO AGAINST STATE. YOUR NAME YOUR
ORGAN. THE POSITION. DANICA ROAD
ARM ON BEHALF OF INITIATE
JUSTICE AND OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. EXACTLY RESPONDING ON
BEHALF OF SILICONE VALLEY DEBUG
AND OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. WE
TYPICALLY MOVE FASTER THROUGH
THIS MELISSA VALDEZ ON BEHALF OF
SILICON VALLEY DEBUG AND I
OPPOSE. ORTEZ MORALES COMMODITY
BUG AND I OPPOSE AS WELL. REMAIN
HUNTER OF SILICON VALLEY DE BUG
AND A POSITIVE. RAYMOND GOLAN'S
OF SILICON VALLEY DEBUG AND I
POSE CYNTHIA DALE COURT, LUNGS,
SILICON VALLEY DEBUG AND I
OPPOSE ALSO. GOOD MORNING
MEMBERS. MICAH DOCTOR OFF ON
BEHALF OF THE BLUE OF CALIFORNIA
ACTION WHERE REGRETFULLY IN
OPPOSITION. CHINA VARGAS
INITIATE JUSTICE, ACTION AND
OPPOSITION. SURE KHUZAMI,
INITIATE JUSTICE, ACTION AND
OPPOSITION. HEAD ONLY MARGIE LAD
LEGAL SERVICES FOR PRISONERS
WITH CHILDREN IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. SHOW IN
SHEER FELONY MURDER ELIMINATION
PROJECT IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. DON DAVIDSON. ALL OF US
ARE NOT IN PRISON FROM INSIDE
OUT IN OPPOSITION. MORNING HENRY
ORTIZ WITH LEGAL SERVICES FOR
PRISONS WITH CHILDREN IN THE
SACRAMENT, ALL OF US OR NONE
CHAPTER RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED AS
WELL. THANK YOU. JESSE CLYDE
BURLISON LEGAL SERVICES FOR
PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN AND ALL
OF US AND THEN IN OPPOSITION.
ROBERT BOWDEN. LEGAL SERVICES
FOR PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN. ALL
OF US ARE NONE AND OPPOSITION.
GOOD MORNING. TANA APPLICABLE
WITH CALIFORNIANS UNITED FOR
RESPONSIBLE BUDGET OR CURB AND
OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING.
DAX PROCTOR, CALIFORNIA IN THE
UNITED FOR A RESPONSIBLE BUDGET
IN OPPOSITION. GOOD MORNING,
HALEY LITTLE SURGE, BAY AREA
POLICY COMMITTEE AND OPPOSITION.
LESLIE CALDWELL, HOUSTON FOR THE
FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC
DEFENDER'S OFFICE IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU SEE NO FURTHER
SPEAKERS. WE WILL MOVE ON TO
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. WOULD
ANYBODY LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT
OR ASK A QUESTION, SENATOR
SEYARTO. QUESTION AS TO THE
COMPLEXITY OF THIS ALL THIS
REALLY DOES BECAUSE CURRENTLY WE
HAVE TO HAVE A POLICE OFFICER
TAKES A SWORN STATEMENT IN THE
LATER ON, SAYS YES, THAT'S THE
STATE'S SOREN STATEMENT AND
BECAUSE OF STAFFING ISSUES THAT
I THINK POLICE ARE HAVING
NOWADAYS, WHICH IS SIGNIFICANT.
IT'S GETTING MORE AND MORE
DIFFICULT TO SEND THEM OUT. AND
SO THEY ARE EMPLOYING MORE
CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES THAT ARE
STILL BOUND BY THE, UM, THE
DEPARTMENT'S REGULATIONS AND
THEY'RE TAKING THOSE STATEMENTS
AND SAYING YES, THAT'S WHAT THAT
PERSON SAID. THEY'RE JUST
AFFIRMING WHAT THE PERSON SAID,
IS WHAT THEY WROTE DOWN. CORRECT
YES, THAT'S CORRECT. AND SO THAT
AVOIDS THEM HAVING TO HAVE A
POLICE OFFICER COME OVER. AND
ASK THE PERSON THAT TOOK DOWN
THE STATEMENT. IS THAT WHAT THAT
PERSON SAID TO YOU? OR IS THAT
WHAT THE PERSON SAID? THAT'S
CORRECT. SO LET ME LET ME JUST
SEEM HARD. JUST UM, LET ME JUST
MAYBE I CAN CLEAR UP SOME AND
MAYBE EVEN THE OPPOSITION TO THE
OPPOSITION STATED THAT IT'S NOT.
IT'S NOT. IT'S IT WAS BROUGHT TO
ME BY PEOPLE WHO ARE WANTING TO
BE ABLE TO USE UM SO FIRST OF
ALL, THE PERSON THAT IS GETTING
THE TESTIMONY HAS TO HAVE THIS
BILL WOULD AUTHORIZE LAW
ENFORCEMENT CIVILIANS WITH AT
LEAST FIVE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
OR WHO HAVE UNDERGONE THE SAME
HEARSAY POST TRAINING AS A SWORN
PEACE OFFICERS TO PERFORM
HEARSAY TESTIMONY AT A
PRELIMINARY HEARING SO SAME
TRAINING, SAME FAMOUS AS A SWORN
OFFICER. THESE ARE THE SAME
TRAINING EXPERIENCE IS REQUIRED
BY SWORN OFFICERS. SO THAT'S SO
THAT'S NUMBER ONE. SO THERE'S
NOT LIKE JUST SOMEBODY THAT THEY
JUST WENT OUT AND GOT. PEOPLE
HAVE TO HAVE FIVE YEARS OF
EXPERIENCE. SO AND THEN THE
OTHER THING WE DID WAS WE ALSO
ARE AMENDMENTS STATE THAT ANY
PERJURED TESTIMONY GIVEN BY A
PEACE OFFICER OR LAW ENFORCEMENT
CIVILIAN, SO THAT'S BOTH. SO YOU
HEARD THE TESTIMONY, SAYING. WE
HAVE SOME PROBLEMS WITH THIS
AREA. THIS ADDS SWORN OFFICERS
TO THAT, SO WE'RE ACTUALLY
INCREASING. WHAT'S TO WARRANT
OFFICERS ALREADY HAVE TUESDAY IS
TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T HAVE WHAT
THE OPPOSITION SAID. WE ALREADY
HAVE PROBLEMS WITH. SO THIS LAW
WOULD ALLOW CIVILIANS WITH FIVE
YEARS AND IT WOULD ALSO PUT
PEACE OFFICERS PRESENTED TO THIS
SECTION IS SUBJECT TO THE CLOSER
AS IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE TO THE
EXTENT REQUIRED UNDER THE BRADY
VERSUS MARYLAND LAW. SO WE'RE
ADDING THEM IN SO THIS BILL IS
NOT ABOUT DOING AWAY WITH
ANYTHING IS SAME TRAINING,
ACTUALLY MAKING THEM HAVE THAT
TRAINING, SAYING THEY HAVE TO
HAVE THAT TRAINING AT THE SAME
TIME, MAKING SURE THAT SWORN
OFFICERS ARE DOING THE SAME
THING. SO WE'VE ACTUALLY
INCREASED IT WITH OUR AMENDMENTS
TO THIS BILL, AND THIS WOULD
PROBABLY HELP THE PROCESS AND
THE OTHER THING THAT FORWARD AT
A MORE REASONABLE RATE BECAUSE
THEN THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO.
COORDINATE WITH SOMEBODY TO HAVE
TO BE THERE AND IF THEY CAN'T
BECAUSE THERE TIED UP ON A CALL
OR WHATEVER THIS IS. THIS IS
MAKING SURE THAT THE TESTIMONY
IS THE PERSON THAT IS DOING IT.
WHETHER YOU'RE SWORN OR CIVILIAN
IS ACCURATE. AND IF YOU AREN'T,
UM YOU'RE GONNA BE DISMISSED.
AND YOU'RE NOT GETTING ARAMBULA
DO IT IS TO HELP THEM HOLDING
THEM ACCOUNTABLE. SO IT'S DOING
WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS ALREADY A
PROBLEM IS THE FIXING THAT IT'S
ALLOWING. SOMEBODY WHO HAS FIVE
YEARS OF TRAINING HAS THE SAME
POST TRAININGS TO BE ABLE TO DO
IT AS A CIVILIAN. I APPRECIATE
THE CLARIFICATION. IT ALSO IS,
UM, HELPFUL FOR THE PERSON
THAT'S A VICTIM WHO MAY HAVE TO
COME FORWARD AND DO THAT
TESTIMONY SEVERAL TIMES EVEN
YEARS LATER. YES THANK YOU.
APPRECIATE IT. ALRIGHT WE HAVE
ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. THANK YOU, SENATOR
SKINNER. UM THANKS CHAIR, SO I
DIDN'T SUPPORT THIS BILL, AND
THIS WAS FIRST BEFORE US. AND,
UH, THE I APPRECIATE THE, UM,
EXPRESSION OF MUCH OF THE
OPPOSITION AROUND THE ISSUE OF
HEARSAY TESTIMONY, BUT I AM AND
I HAVE BECOME, YOU KNOW, SINCE
WE FIRST HEARD THIS IN
INTERACTING WITH A LOT OF THE
COMMUNITIES IN MY DISTRICT, WE
ARE MOVING AND I WANT TO BE
CLEAR. WE'RE NOT REPLACING
POLICE OFFICERS. WE ARE JUST
USING, UH WHETHER IT'S WELL, WE
ARE USING COMMUNITY
INTERVENTIONS WITH, UH, LAW
ENFORCEMENT HIRED PEOPLE BUT WHO
ARE NOT SWORN OFFICERS. FOR
APPROPRIATE INTERVENTIONS THAT
DON'T NECESSARILY REQUIRE A
POLICE OFFICER. BUT OF COURSE,
WHEN SUCH A CALL COMES, ANYONE
CAN'T ALWAYS PREDICT WHAT WHAT'S
GOING TO OCCUR IN THE RESPONSE
TO THAT CALL, AND SO WE WANT
THOSE COMMUNITY INTERVENTIONS TO
BE AS EFFECTIVE AS POSSIBLE, AND
WE WANT THEM TO SERVE TO HELP.
UM REDUCE CRIME AND REDUCING
NEGATIVE INTERACTIONS WITH LAW
ENFORCEMENT. BUT SO ANYWAY, MY
POINT BEING THAT WE ARE DOING
MORE OF THIS AND SO I CAN SEE A.
A RULE FOR THESE INDIVIDUALS AND
THE THING THAT GIVES ME A LITTLE
MORE COMFORT IS THE REQUIREMENT
OF THESE PEOPLE HAVING BEEN IN
SUCH A ROLE FOR AT LEAST FIVE
YEARS OR HAVING HAD THE
EQUIVALENT TRAINING. UM, I. YOU
KNOW, THIS IS STILL TRICKY. AH
BUT I DON'T HAVE THE SAME
OPPOSITION. UM I'M GONNA LET
SOMEBODY ELSE MOVE IT. BUT I, UH
I JUST WANTED TO EXPLAIN MY THE
EVOLUTION OF MY THINKING ON IT.
THANK YOU. OKAY SENATOR WINNER.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO COMMENT
SUPPORTED THIS BILL LAST YEAR
CONTINUE TO SUPPORT IT. I THINK
I COMPLETELY RESPECT WHERE THE
OPPOSITION IS COMING FROM. BUT
IN THE END, I JUST THINK THIS
MAKES A LOT OF SENSE IN TERMS OF
JUST THE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE AND NOT ALWAYS RELYING
ONLY ON POLICE OFFICERS FOR
EVERYTHING WHEN WE HAVE A
SHORTAGE OF OFFICERS AND WE NEED
WE HAVE BEEN A LONG ADVOCATE OF
CIVILIAN IZATION IN IN LAW
ENFORCEMENT, NOT EVERYTHING HAS
TO BE HANDLED BY A LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. CERTAIN
FORMS OF INVESTIGATION, ETCETERA
, SO I UNDERSTAND THE OPPOSITION
. BUT I DO SUPPORT THIS BILL,
AND I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT
YOU'VE DONE ON IT. THANK YOU,
SENATOR BRADFORD. NOTHING. SO I
JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT. YOU
KNOW, SENATOR, I APPRECIATE YOU
BRINGING THIS FORWARD. ONE OF
THE CONSIDERATIONS I'VE MADE. AS
A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER IS, OF
COURSE, YOU KNOW TO WHAT OUR
PREVIOUS SENATORS HAVE STATED IS
THAT OF COURSE, WE WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT JUSTICE IS SERVED.
NUMBER ONE NUMBER TWO IS TO
ENSURE THAT YOU KNOW, WE DON'T
PUT ALL OUR EGGS IN ONE BASKET,
AND I THINK THAT POLICE OFFICERS
ARE OVERBURDENED WITH A LOT OF
DIFFERENT THINGS THAT THEY HAVE
TO TAKE CARE OF, UM, AND YET AT
THE SAME TIME ON COUNCIL, THE
NUMBER OF NEIGHBORS THAT WOULD
COMPLAIN ABOUT SOME OF THE
PEOPLE IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD OR,
YOU KNOW SOMEBODY RIDING A BIKE
OR, YOU KNOW, ASSUMING THAT THEY
YOU KNOW, STOLE SOMETHING OR
BROKE A WINDOW OR SOMETHING, AND
THIS IS A CONCERN I RAISED LAST
YEAR AS WELL. UM I DON'T 100%
FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THAT
EITHER, RIGHT? AND SO IT IS A
BALANCING ACT AS TO WHAT IS THE
APPROPRIATE MEASURE WHEN WE ARE
TRYING TO ENSURE COMMUNITY
SAFETY, UM, YOU KNOW, NOT
HEAVILY RELY ON ARMED POLICE.
OFFICERS AND AT THE SAME TIME
ENSURE THAT JUSTICE IS SERVED.
UM I WILL BE ABSTAINING ON THIS
PARTICULAR MEASURE JUST BECAUSE
I DON'T THINK I'M VERY YET ON
THIS PARTICULAR BILL, BUT, UM, I
WILL DEFER TO MY COLLEAGUES TO
MAKE THE CHOICE THAT THEY
BELIEVE IS RIGHT FOR THEM. BUT I
DO APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. YOUR
EFFORT. I APPRECIATE ALL THE
SPEAKERS AS WELL. AND YOU KNOW,
WE HAVE A MOTION BY SENATOR
WIENER IF WE CAN CALL FOR A
VOTE. SENATOR WOULD YOU LIKE ONE
MINUTE? YES I JUST WANT TO SAY
THAT I HEARD YOU LAST YEAR AND I
HEARD THE OPPOSITION AND I CAME
BACK WITH, I THINK MAKES THIS
BILL BETTER. IT'S ACTUALLY A LOT
BETTER WITH THE AMENDMENTS WE
PUT SO I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR MY
VOTE. THANK YOU. LET'S CALL VOTE
MOTIONS DO PASS TO THE FLOOR,
HOB. SORRY SEYARTO TOÀN.
BRADFORD BRADFORD I SKINNER.
WIENER WIENER? AYE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. THAT MOTION IS OUT IS
OUT. ALL RIGHT. WE ARE GOING TO
BE MOVING ON TO OUR NEXT
PRESENTER, SENATOR UMBERG. THANK
YOU FOR WAITING. SENATOR UMBERG
WILL BE PRESENTING A NUMBER OF
BILLS. BUT IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO
START WITH SB 92 1ST UM, THANK
YOU, MADAM. CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU TO MISS
MARY KENNEDY FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE
ON THIS ISSUE. THIS IS REGARDING
REMOTE ACCESSING CRIMINAL TRIALS
. THE BILLS SIMPLY EXTENDS THE
SUNSET FOR ONE YEAR. REMOTE
ACCESS HAS NOW BEEN USED IN THE
COURSE OF THE LAST FOUR YEARS.
UH, AND IT HAS PROVED TO BE, I
THINK QUITE EFFECTIVE. UH, THERE
ARE A NUMBER OF PROVISIONS IN
THE BILL. THAT SAFEGUARD THE
ABILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU
HAVE AN ACCURATE RECORD. THOSE
INCLUDE ONE IF THE COURT
REPORTER WHO IS REQUIRED TO BE
PHYSICALLY PRESENT IN THE
COURTROOM. CAN'T HEAR OR
TRANSCRIBED THE PROCEEDINGS. THE
COURT REPORTER, UH HAS THE
ABILITY TO INTERRUPT THE
PROCEEDINGS SO THAT THE RECORD
CAN BECOME CLEAR TO A DEFENDANT
HAS A RIGHT IF THAT DEFENDANTS
SO CHOOSES TO APPEAR AND HEARING
THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS WHERE THE
DEFENDANT WISH TO APPEAR. URGENT
I VOTE WITH ME ON BEHALF.
JUDICIAL COUNCILS, TRACY KENNY.
YOU WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, MADAM CHAIR
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
TRACY KENNY ON BEHALF OF THE
JUDICIAL COUNCIL IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF SENATE BILL 92.
ESSENTIALLY THIS LEGISLATION
WOULD EXTEND FOR AN ADDITIONAL
YEAR. THE EXISTING AUTHORITY TO
CONDUCT REMOTE PROCEEDINGS IN
CRIMINAL CASES. THIS IS WITH
PROTECTIONS. AS SENATOR AMBERG
MENTIONED. THIS IS ONLY WITH THE
CONSENT OF THE DEFENDANT. THEIR
INFORMED CONSENT ON THE RECORD,
AND THIS IS AN OPTION THAT WE
ESTIMATE HAS BEEN USED IN ABOUT
1.5 MILLION CASES SINCE MARCH OF
2022. SO THIS IS BEING USED BY A
LOT OF FOLKS. IT IS NOT. IT'S
NOT THE RULE, BUT IT IS
SOMETHING THAT FOLKS ARE USING
TO BE ABLE TO APPEAR IN CASES TO
PREVENT A FAILURE TO APPEAR TO
ALLOW AND COLLABORATIVE CASES,
ESPECIALLY WHERE THERE ARE
REPEAT APPEARANCES BY
DEFENDANTS. IT ALLOWS THE
DEFENDANT TO BE ABLE TO DO SO
WITHOUT INTERRUPTING THEIR
PROGRAMMING. WHETHER EMPLOYMENT
WE THINK THIS IS A COMMON SENSE
WAY TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO JUSTICE
AND ENSURE THE PARTICIPATION OF
THE GREATEST NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN
OUR CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS SO THAT
COURTS CAN GET THE INFORMATION
THAT THEY NEED, AND WE WOULD
NOTE THAT WE COLLECT DATA ON AN
ONGOING BASIS ON USER
SATISFACTION WITH THE REMOTE
PROCEEDINGS AND HAVE FOUND AND
OVERALL SATISFACTION RATE IN
ALMOST 100,000 SURVEYS OF ABOUT
96% SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS
WORKING WELL, WE RECOGNIZE THAT
THERE ARE CONCERNS BY SOME OF
THE STAKEHOLDERS. WE LOOK
FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THEM TO
ADDRESS THOSE AS NECESSARY AND
WE'RE CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS
OF ADOPTING MINIMUM TECHNOLOGY
STANDARDS TO ENSURE THAT THE
TECHNOLOGY ALLOWS FOR AN
ACCURATE VERBATIM RECORD AND
CLEAR UNDERSTANDING WHAT'S GOING
ON IN THE PROCEEDINGS. WE ASK
FOR YOUR VOTE. MHM. DO WE HAVE
ANY OTHER LEAD WITNESSES? NONE
OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY ME TO
SUPPORT WITNESSES? ALL RIGHT. WE
WILL GO TO LEAD OPPOSITION. TWO
MINUTES. YEAH. GOOD MORNING,
MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS SANDRA
BARRERA ON BEHALF OF STU,
CALIFORNIA. WE REPRESENT COURT
EMPLOYEES IN 36 COUNTIES ACROSS
THE STATE. OUR POSITION IS
OPPOSED. UNLESS AMENDED LAST
YEAR, WE WERE UNABLE TO REACH AN
AGREEMENT ON THE COVID ERROR
PROCEDURES FOR REMOTE
PROCEEDINGS, AND SO THE LAW WAS
EXTENDED FOR ANOTHER YEAR AND
AGAIN. THESE WERE JUST TEMPORARY
EMERGENCY PROCEDURES NEVER
INTENDED TO LAST INDEFINITELY,
SO MAINTAINING THE ACCURACY OF
VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS MAINTAIN
REMAINS A PRIORITY FOR US,
ESPECIALLY IF THEY INCLUDE
WITNESS TESTIMONY. AND WE HOPE
WE CAN REACH AN AGREEMENT THIS
YEAR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. TWO
MINUTES. LESLIE CALDWELL,
HOUSTON FOR THE CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION.
I'D LIKE TO ECHO THE COMMENTS
JUST MADE WE ARE NOT OPPOSED.
CPD IS NOT OPPOSED TO A JUDICIAL
JUDICIOUS USE OF REMOTE
TECHNOLOGY AND CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS IN NON EVIDENTIARY
OR PRETRIAL CONTINUANCES.
HOWEVER CONVENIENCE CANNOT BE
MORE IMPORTANT THAN PEOPLE'S
FREEDOM. IF EFFICIENCY AND I
FEEL LIKE I'M ECHOING MY LAST
COMMENTS, EFFICIENCY CANNOT BE
OUR FOCUS TO THE DETRIMENT. AND
OR THE EXPENSIVE, FAIR
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. WE
HAVE BEEN, UM. DEBATING AND
WORKING AND TALKING FOR IT SEEMS
LIKE TWO OR THREE YEARS NOW ON
THIS. THE VIRTUAL JUSTICE WAS AN
EMERGENCY IDEA PLAN AND TO
EXTEND IT YET ANOTHER YEAR IS AN
APPROPRIATE THERE WERE MANY
PROBLEMS AND ISSUES THAT HAD
PREVIOUSLY BEEN IDENTIFIED IN
THE JOINT HEARING BUT HELD BY
THIS COMMITTEE WITH THE HEALTH
COMMITTEE, IN TESTIMONY BY
PROSECUTORS, JUDGES, DEFENSE
ATTORNEYS, INTERPRETERS AND
COURT REPORTERS, AMONG OTHERS.
SOME OF THE PROBLEMS ARE LACK OF
ACCESS, LEADING TO THE GRAVE
WITH RULER INEQUALITY. I
UNDERSTAND THAT IT HAS BEEN
STATED THAT THE STATE IS IN THE
PROCESS OF ENSURING THAT
EVERYBODY HAS ADEQUATE. UH
CONNECTIVITY AT SUCH? UM BUT
WE'RE NOT THERE IN THE PROCESS
IS NOT THEIR NOISE IN THE
BACKGROUND OR POOR CONNECTION
CAN LEAD TO ERRORS THAT LEAD TO
UNJUST INCARCERATION DOESN'T
HAVE TO BE SOMEONE SAYING I
CAN'T HEAR THEY MAY HEAR WRONG
WITNESS TESTIMONY MUST BE LIVE
AND IN PERSON, AND I SAY THIS TO
YOU. AS I TRAINED, VERY
EXPERIENCED LITIGATOR. TOO MANY
THINGS CANNOT BE CLEAR IN THE
VIDEO CALL, SUCH AS OVERALL
DEMEANOR, PHYSICAL CUES OF
EMOTIONAL RICHNESS, POSSIBILITY
OF OFF CAMERA, COACHING OR
OTHERWISE, VIDEO EVIDENCE LEADS
TO DEHUMANIZATION. I'M NOT
TALKING VERY CLEARLY. TODAY. I
APOLOGIZE. THE HUMANIZATION OF
BOTH WITNESSES AND DEFENDANTS.
AYE. LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING
TO WORK WITH THE AUTHOR ON THE
ISSUES THAT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED,
BUT WE AT THIS POINT
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR NO
VOTE. THANK YOU. ME TOO. STATE
YOUR NAME YOUR ORGANIZATION AND
THAT YOU OPPOSE MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS PAT MORAN, ERIN READING
ASSOCIATES REPRESENTING THE
ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION, PROPOSED UNLESS
AMENDED FOR THE REASONS
PREVIOUSLY STATED, THANK YOU.
OKAY GOOD MORNING, IGNACIO
HERNANDEZ ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA COURT REPORTER
ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA
ATTORNEYS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE
AND THE CALIFORNIA FEDERATION OF
INTERPRETERS, ALL HAVING OPPOSED
UNLESS AMENDED POSITION ON THE
BILL. GOOD MORNING, CHRISTOPHER
RUGGLES ASKED ME CALIFORNIA
POST. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
SEEING THE OTHER SPEAKERS. WE'RE
GOING TO MOVE TO MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. UM I WILL SAY
SOMETHING, SENATOR. I APPRECIATE
YOU BRINGING THIS. I JUST WANT
TO 100% JUST ADDRESS THIS. THIS
BILL DOES JUST EXTEND THE SUNSET
ON THE PROVISION CORRECT THAT'S
CORRECT AND EXTENDS IT TO WHAT
PERIOD OF TIME ONE YEAR UNTIL,
UH, THE CURRENT SUNSET DATE IS
JANUARY, 2025 EXTENDED TO 2026.
OKAY AND DO YOU PLAN ON
POTENTIALLY WORKING ON THIS FOR
LET'S SAY NO SUNSET. BUT LIKE
EXTENDING THIS, YOU KNOW
COMPLETELY UM DO I THINK IT
SHOULD BE EXTENDED INDEFINITELY?
YES I DO. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT
THIS BILL DOES. OKAY AND, UM,
YOU KNOW, I JUST WANT TO SAY
THAT AGAIN, IT'S EXTENDING THE
SUNSET. IT'S ONLY FOR ONE MORE
YEAR. I THINK THAT THERE ARE
STILL PLACES THAT ARE STILL WE
HAVE VULNERABLE POPULATIONS THAT
STILL HAVE SOME DIFFICULTY
MAKING IT IN COURT AND SO FORTH.
I WILL EXTEND THE ANY QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS OR EMOTION BY MY
COLLEAGUES. SENATOR WIENER MOVES
THE BILL. CAN WE CALL FOR A
VOTE? YES AS I'VE SAID A MILLION
TIMES. I AM NOT A FAN OF REMOTE.
COURT PROCEEDINGS, REMOTE
DEPOSITIONS. BUT I UNDERSTAND
THE REALITY OF WHERE THE LEGAL
SYSTEM IS RIGHT NOW, AND I KNOW
THAT THE AUTHORS AND
STAKEHOLDERS HAVE DONE A LOT OF
WORK TO PUT SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE
SO THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT FORCED
INTO THIS, AND WE NEED TO BE
CAREFUL THAT JUDGES ARE NOT
EFFECTIVELY FORCING PEOPLE. INTO
IT, BUT I'LL SUPPORT THIS. CAN
COMFORT US MOTION IS DO YOU PASS
TO APPROPRIATIONS? WAHA I START
Ó. BRADFORD SKINNER. WIENER
WIENER. AYE BRADFORD BRADFORD.
AYE. KNOW THAT THIS MOTION WILL
THIS BILL WILL ACTUALLY BE ON
ROLL CALL SO WE CAN HAVE ANOTHER
SENATORS VOTE ON IT. UM WE'RE
GONNA MOVE ON TO THE NEXT BILL
BY SENATOR UMBERG. SENATOR
AMBURG, WOULD YOU PLEASE PRESENT
SP 379? YES THANK YOU. JUST BY
WAY OF CLOSING LESS. WELL, JUST
I WOULD INVITE INFECT, ENCOURAGE
MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE AND
ALL MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE
TO ACTUALLY VISIT A COURTROOM SO
THAT THEY CAN SEE HOW REMOTE IS
CURRENTLY BEING USED BOTH IN
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS
CIVIL PROCEEDINGS. I THINK THAT
WILL, UM, THAT WILL LAY SOME OF
THE CONCERNS. ALRIGHT, NEXT
BILL. SP 379. THIS BILL, UM WAS.
GENERATED BASED UPON A VISIT TO
DONOVAN'S STATE, UM,
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY. AND THERE
WE TALKED TO A NUMBER OF
DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS WHO
EXPRESSED A DESIRE TO BE ABLE TO
COMMUNICATE THEIR APOLOGY TO
VICTIMS OF THEIR CRIMES AND
CURRENTLY OF THERE MAY NOT BE A
MECHANISM TO DO IT. AND WHAT
THIS FOOT THIS BILL DOES SIMPLY
ESTABLISHES SORT OF A BANK
WHERE, IF A PERSON WHO IS
INCARCERATED WISHES TO
COMMUNICATE WITH A VICTIM. THEY
CAN SUBMIT THAT COMMUNICATION TO
THE BANK AND IF THE VICTIM
WISHES TO RECEIVE IT, THEY CAN
ACKNOWLEDGED THEIR INTEREST IN
RECEIVING IT. IT DOES NOT PERMIT
THE INCARCERATED INDIVIDUAL TO
COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE
VICTIM. UM I WOULD URGE AND I
VOTE. I THANK STEPHANIE JORDAN
FOR YOUR HELP ON THIS MEASURE,
UM THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY
LEAD WITNESSES? WE DO NOT OKAY.
WE WILL MOVE ON TO OPPOSITE
OPPOSITION WITNESSES. SEEING
NONE. WE WILL MOVE ON TO ANY ME
TOOS. SEEING NONE. WE WILL MOVE
ON TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS
COMMENTS. I'LL MOVE THE BILL.
SENATOR SKINNER MOVES THE BILL.
WE HAVE NO FURTHER COMMENTS. IT
LOOKS LIKE SENATOR WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? UM, COMMON SENSE
MEASURES URGENT. I VOTE. THANK
YOU, UM COULD WE CALL FOR A ROLL
CALL VOTE MOTIONS DO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. WAHAB BY SEYARTO
. BRADFORD BRADFORD I SKINNER
WIENER WIENER. I THANK YOU THAT
MOTION THAT BILL IS ON CALL. UM
SENATOR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
PRESENT SB? 850? YES, UM. SB 850
DEALS WITH THE ISSUE OF FOLKS
WHO DO NOT MAKE THEIR
APPEARANCE, NOT BECAUSE THEY
HAVE INTENTIONALLY MISS THEIR
APPEARANCE IN COURT. IT'S
BECAUSE, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY'VE
LOST TRACK, FOR EXAMPLE, IT'S
BEEN CONTINUED THEIR UNAWARE,
AND WHAT THIS BILL DOES IS. IT
SIMPLY PROVIDES A WAY FOR THE,
UM. COURT TO NOTIFY AN
INDIVIDUAL THAT THEY HAVE AN
APPEARANCE. THAT'S UM COMING UP
IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE. UM, WE
INTEND TO TAKE A NUMBER OF
AMENDMENTS TO THIS BILL IF IT
SHOULD MOVE FORWARD. THOSE
AMENDMENTS WOULD INCLUDE THAT
THE PROVISION OF A CELL PHONE
NUMBER IS NOT REQUIRED. IT IS
REQUESTED BUT NOT REQUIRED THAT
THE, UM RESPONSIBILITY TO CREATE
THE SYSTEM WILL REST WITH THE
COUNTIES AS OPPOSED TO JUDICIAL
COUNCIL. UM AND THAT THIS
INFORMATION SO SHOULD SOMEONE
WHO'S ARRESTED PROVIDE THIS
INFORMATION TO AUTHORITIES. UM
AND THEN NOT SHOW UP THE FACT
THAT THEY PROVIDED THIS
INFORMATION ANYTHING SURROUNDING
THIS COMMUNICATION COULD NOT BE
USED AGAINST THEM WITH ME TO
TESTIFY AND SUPPORT. MS SHAYLA
WILSON AND MISS PETER LEO OZAKI
FROM LEVETT DEFENSA. THANK YOU.
YOU WILL BE TIMED. YOU HAVE TWO
MINUTES. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. MY NAME IS SHAYLA
WILSON. I AM A POLICY AND
ADVOCACY ADVISER WITH ALL
DEFENSIVE. WE'RE PROUD CO
SPONSOR OF SB 850. I WOULD LIKE
TO USE THIS TIME TO FURTHER
DISCUSS THE VARIOUS AMENDMENTS.
WE WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE
BILL FOLLOWING THIS HEARING. SO
AS SENATOR UMBERG STATED, RATHER
THAN ESTABLISHING A SINGULAR
STATEWIDE COURT NOTIFICATION
SYSTEM, WE HAVE REWRITTEN THE
BILL TO REQUIRE THE EXISTENCE OF
A COURT REMINDER SYSTEM IN EACH
COUNTY. IT WILL ALLOW VARIOUS
AGENCIES IN THAT COUNTY TO
OPERATE THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE SUPERIOR
CORE PRETRIAL SERVICES OR
COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS,
BUT WILL MANDATE THAT IT BE
AVAILABLE TO ALL PERSONS
ARRESTED. THE BILL WILL REQUIRE
OR ESTABLISHED MINIMUM
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SYSTEMS,
INCLUDING LANGUAGE ACCESS AND A
MINIMUM NUMBER OF REMINDERS FOR
EACH HEARING, INCLUDING THE
INITIAL APPEARANCE. WE DO
MANDATE THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT
REQUEST A PHONE NUMBER FOR EACH
PERSON ARRESTED GIVEN RECENT
DATA OUT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY
THAT SHOWS THAT AROUND 50% OF
MISS COURT APPEARANCES ARE FOR
THAT INITIAL HEARING. PRIOR TO
THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL. BUT
UNDER THE AMENDMENTS, PEOPLE WHO
ARE ARRESTED WILL BE ABLE TO
REFUSE TO PROVIDE THAT
INFORMATION. WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE
, IT WILL ALSO ENABLE PEOPLE TO
OPT OUT WHEN THEY RECEIVED THAT
FIRST REMINDER. A MAJOR CHANGE
FROM LAST YEAR'S ITERATION OF
THE BILL IS THAT JUDICIAL
COUNCIL WILL NO LONGER BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY COMPONENT OF
THE SYSTEM OR RELATED DATA
COLLECTION. INSTEAD, WE INDICATE
THE STATE'S DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE SHOULD MANAGE ALL DATA
COLLECTION AS THIS IS A
RESPONSIBILITY THE AGENCY
ALREADY HOLD FOR OTHER SIMILAR
INITIATIVES. FINALLY SB 850
AMENDMENTS WILL PROVIDE
PROTECTIONS FOR ALL PERSONAL
INFORMATION COLLECTED SOLELY FOR
THE PURPOSE OF THE COURT
REMINDER. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TIME AND CONSIDERATION. THANK
YOU NEXT WEEK, ER TWO MINUTES.
GOOD MORNING, MADAM CHAIR
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS T. TALIA SAKE. I'M GOING
ATTORNEY AND POLICY AND CAMPAIGN
STRATEGIST A LA DEFENSA. WE'RE
THRILLED TO SUPPORT SB 850 A
BILL THAT WOULD REQUIRE COURT
REMINDER SYSTEM TO BE AVAILABLE
IN EACH COUNTY, AND IT CREATES
MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR THOSE
SYSTEMS. ACCORDING TO THE
JUDICIAL COUNCIL, THERE WERE
MORE THAN 57,000 PRE SENTENCE
WARRANTS FOR FAILURES TO APPEAR
IN FELONY CASES IN 2022. THIS
MUSIC, CALIFORNIANS, MISS COURT
AND ALMOST 30% OF THOSE 183,000
FILINGS FOR THAT YEAR. THERE ARE
MANY REASONS WHY SOMEBODY MAY
MISS COURT, MOST OF WHICH ARE
UNINTENTIONAL AND NOT AN ATTEMPT
TO WILLFULLY AVOID PROSECUTION.
REASONS INCLUDE CONFUSION ABOUT
THE DATE TIME OR LOCATION OF THE
HEARING, AMONG OTHER BARRIERS,
ACCESSIBLE COURT REMINDER SYSTEM
WOULD MEAN THAT FEWER
CALIFORNIANS WILL BE RE ARRESTED
ON A BENCH WARRANT OR FACE OF
COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES OF
MISSING COURT AND SUBSEQUENT
HEARINGS. REMINDERS ARE COST
EFFECTIVE AND JURISDICTIONS THAT
HAVE IMPLEMENTED THE COURT
REMINDER SYSTEMS THAT COST
ACROSS THE NATION HAVE REDUCED
FAILURES TO APPEAR BY AS MUCH AS
35% FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO RECEIVED
THOSE REMINDERS. REMINDERS ALSO
IMPROVE THE COURT OPERATIONAL
EFFICIENCY AND INCREASED VARIOUS
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, FOR
EXAMPLE, AND, UM, HIM HENNEPIN
COUNTY IN MINNESOTA COURT
REMINDER SYSTEM SAVED AN
ESTIMATED $3 MILLION FOR THAT
YEAR. MANY COUNTIES IN
CALIFORNIA CURRENTLY OFFERED
COURT REMINDERS. THROUGH COUNTY
PROBATION DEPARTMENTS. BUT THOSE
SYSTEMS VERY WIDELY AND OFTEN
ONLY REACHED A PORTION OF THE
POPULATION. PRETRIAL EIGHT. S B
A 50 WOULD ACTUALLY REQUIRE
UNIFORMITY ACROSS THE STATE.
ADDITIONALLY SPF 50 WOULD
PROVIDE PROTECTIONS FOR ALL
INFORMATION COLLECTED SOLELY FOR
THE PURPOSE OF THE COURT
REMINDER. WE RESPECTFULLY URGE
YOU TO PASS SB A 50 ALLOWING OUR
STATE TO REDUCE COURT COSTS,
FAILURE TO APPEAR AND ENSURE
THAT ALL CALIFORNIANS WERE
RELEASED FREE TRIAL HAVE EQUAL
ACCESS TO COURT. TO COST
EFFECTIVE COURT NOTIFICATION
SYSTEM. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME
AND CONSIDERATION IN THIS MATTER
. THANK YOU. UH DO WE HAVE ANY
OTHER SPEAKERS? ME TO STATE YOUR
NAME YOUR ORGANIZATION AND THAT
YOU SUPPORT. LYNN BERKELEY.
BASQUE INJUSTICE TWO JOBS
COALITION. ME, TOO, WITH
AMENDMENTS. MARIA JOSE MDV,
THERE'S ON BEHALF OF THE VERA
INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE. WE ALSO
SUPPORT SB 850 WITH AMENDMENTS.
VARGAS INITIATE JUSTICE, ACTION
AND SUPPORT PROBES THAT HE'S SO
THIS IS ONE THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT
. DO WE HAVE ANY OPPOSITION? YOU
WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES. BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS FOR
CRIMINAL JUSTICE. WE'RE GOING TO
A LITTLE BIT CLOSER WITH THE
AUTHOR ON THIS BILL. UM WE DO
HAVE A NUMBER OF CONCERNS WITH
THE BILL IN PRINT. WE HAVE BEEN
IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE AUTHOR'S
OFFICE AND THE PROPONENTS OF THE
BILL. WE HAVE SEEN A DRAFT OF
THE AMENDMENTS ARE OBVIOUSLY ARE
AN IMPRINT YET WE THINK IT'S
MOVING IN A BETTER DIRECTION. WE
DO INTEND TO CONTINUE TO BE
ENGAGED. AS THE BILL EVOLVES.
IT'S A LITTLE TRICKY, OBVIOUSLY,
BECAUSE WE HAVE THIS JANUARY
DEADLINE, WHICH WE HAD A LITTLE
BIT MORE TIME TO WORK ON THIS.
WE'LL DO OUR BEST TO PROVIDE
SOME SUGGESTIONS. WE DON'T EVEN
WITH THE DRAFT WE'VE SEEN. WE
DON'T THINK WE'RE THERE YET. WE
THINK THERE'S STILL A NUMBER OF
CHANGES THE OVERALL GOAL OF
GETTING FOLKS TO COURT AND NOT
MR COURT DATE. OBVIOUSLY, WE
SUPPORT UM, AND WE THINK IT'S
GETTING NOT AS PROBLEMATIC AND
WE'LL CONTINUE THOSE
CONVERSATIONS. LESLIE CALDWELL,
HOUSTON FOR THE CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION.
WHILE WE HAVE NOT TAKEN A
POSITION AND OPPOSITION, WE ARE
CONCERNED AND WE'RE IN THE SAME
SITUATION IS THE CALIFORNIA
ATTORNEYS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO DISCUSSING
FURTHER WITH THE AUTHOR. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. WE HAVE ANY
OTHER OPPOSITION CAN ME TOO
ALRIGHT, SEEING NONE. WE'RE
GOING TO BRING THIS BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
WOULD YOU GUYS LIKE TO COMMENT?
SAYING NO COMMENT. CAN WE HAVE A
CLOSE FROM THE AUTHOR? SURE
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MADAM CHAIR
MISS KENNEDY FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE
ON THIS BILL. UH, MOST FOLKS WHO
MISSED THEIR ESPECIALLY THEIR
INITIAL APPEARANCE DO SO NOT
BECAUSE OF THEIR INTENT, BUT
BECAUSE OF INADVERTENCE AFTER
THEY MISS A WARRANT CAN BE
ISSUED FOR THEIR ARREST. CREATES
A LOT OF CHALLENGES, ESPECIALLY
FOR THOSE WHO ARE CHARGED WITH
RELATIVELY MINOR OFFENSES THAT
COMPLICATES THEIR LIVES
IMMEASURABLY URGENT. IVO THANK
YOU. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? DO WE
HAVE A MOTION? THANK YOU,
SENATOR. WIENER MOVES CAN WE
CALL ROLL CALL VOTE LOTION IS DO
PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS. WAHAB
AYE, SEYARTO TOÀN FURRED.
ALRIGHT, BRADFORD. I SKINNER.
WIENER WIENER. I THANK YOU THAT
BUILDS ON CALL. THANK YOU,
SENATOR NEWMAN. THANK YOU FOR
WAITING. SB 251 FLOOR IS YOURS.
MORNING MADAM, SHE REMEMBERS. I
APPRECIATE THIS OPPORTUNITY
PRESENTED TO BE 251. THIS IS A
MODEST PROPOSAL AIMED AT
ENSURING THE CREDIBILITY OF
CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC OFFICE IN
CALIFORNIA. CURRENT LAW PROVIDES
A CANDIDATE WHO KNOWINGLY MAKE
FALSE CLAIMS IN THEIR CANDIDATE
STATEMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO A
CURRENT MAXIMUM FINE OF $1000.
THIS AMOUNT WAS ESTABLISHED IN
1993 AND HAS NOT BEEN RAISED.
SINCE THEN, IT HAS BECOME
EVIDENCE SINCE THAT THE $1000
FINE THRESHOLD ESTABLISHED THREE
DECADES AGO IS UNLIKELY TO
ADEQUATELY TO TURK CANDIDATES
FROM INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING
VOTERS, MAKING IT A COMMON SENSE
MEASURE TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM
FINE TO A THRESHOLD THAT WILL SP
251 WILL PROVIDE THAT IT CAN BE
CONVICTED OF KNOWINGLY MAKING A
FALSE STATEMENT ON HIS OR HER
BALLOT MATERIALS WILL BE SUBJECT
TO A FINE AS HIGH AS $5000 AS
THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS NOTES.
INCLUDING PENALTY ASSESSMENTS.
THE PROPOSED 5000 FINE WOULD BE
APPROXIMATELY $20,000. THIS WE
BELIEVE REPRESENTS A DECENT
DETERRENT TO THAT SORT OF
WILLFUL MISREPRESENTATION. SP
251 WILL ENSURE THAT CANADA'S
WILL ABIDE BY THE REQUIRED
GUIDELINES WHEN CRAFTING A
KENNEDY BELT STEPHEN, THEREBY
ENSURING TRANSPARENCY AND
INTEGRITY, CALIFORNIA ELECTORAL
PROCESS AND PROTECTING THE
INTERESTS OF CALIFORNIA VOTERS.
THIS IS BEFORE YOUR COMMITTEE
BECAUSE IT HAS JURISDICTION IN
THE CASE OF THE RAISING OF FINDS
SUCH AS THIS. I'M RESPECTFULLY
ASKING FOR AN I VOTE TODAY.
THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT? WE DO NOT.
DO WE HAVE ANY WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION. IN SUPPORT OR
OPPOSITION IN SUPPORT. YOU HAVE
TWO MINUTES ERIC GLORY WITH THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES. I'LL KEEP MY REMARKS
SHORT. WE'VE SEEN SOME OF THE
DANGERS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL OF
UNQUALIFIED CANDIDATES FOR
OFFICE BEING ELECTED TO THEIR
POSITIONS, WHICH OFTEN ARE
TECHNICAL IN NATURE. THIS BILL
WON'T GUARANTEE YOU THAT THE
THESE ACTIONS DON'T HAPPEN, BUT
WILL PROVIDE AN IMPORTANT
PROTECTION AGAINST THEM
HAPPENING IN THE FUTURE. AND FOR
THOSE REASONS IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY
OTHER ME TO SUPPORT. OKAY UM, DO
WE HAVE ANY OPPOSITION? SEEING
HER. OKAY, YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALTHOUGH I
DO HAVE MUCH RESPECT FOR SENATOR
NEWMAN. GREAT GUYS. YOU ALL KNOW
I DO FEEL THAT THIS LEGISLATION
IS SOMEWHAT BENCH FALL. IF YOU
WILL. I WANT YOU ALL TO TAKE
INTO CONSIDERATION THAT WHEN
PEOPLE RUN, THEY MAY NOT HAVE
THE INFORMATION IN THE
BACKGROUND AND THE PEOPLE
SUPPORTING YOU THAT YOU ALL DO
THE CONDO OFFICE AND I THINK
THIS WILL INTIMIDATE PEOPLE FROM
RUNNING. I DON'T THINK PEOPLE
ANYWAYS MAKE MISLEADING
STATEMENTS BECAUSE THEY WANT TO
BE BAD. THEY MAY BE TRYING TO
PREVAIL, MENTIONS MESSAGE, AND
THEY MAY NOT UNDERSTAND THE
RULES, PUTTING MORE OF A BURDEN
ON THEM FINANCIALLY WILL
DISCOURAGE PEOPLE FROM RUNNING.
SO I ASKED YOU ABOUT NO, SIR.
WHAT'S YOUR NAME? AND WHAT'S
YOUR ORGANIZATION? MY NAME IS
DAVID BULLOCK. I'M A PRIVATE
INDIVIDUAL. THANK YOU. DO WE
HAVE ANY OPPOSITION? ME TOO?
SEEING NONE. WE WILL MOVE ON TO
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. DO YOU HAVE
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? OKAY SO
SENATOR WEINER HAS MADE A
MOTION. UM I WOULD LIKE TO JUST
CLARIFY, UM, SPECIFICALLY, THESE
ARE FOR CANDIDATES. CORRECT?
CORRECT. AND THIS IS YOU KNOW
WHEN YOU SAY A FALSE STATEMENT?
WHAT SPECIFICALLY? ARE YOU
REFERENCING? THIS IS STRICTLY
WITH RESPECT TO THE TYPICALLY
250 WORD CANDIDATES STATEMENT
THAT HAS SUBMITTED AS PART OF
THE ELECTION PROCESS. PART OF
THEIR FINALLY AT THE STATE LEVEL
OF THAT INVOLVES ACCEPTING THE
VOLUNTARY EXPENDITURE LIMITS,
AND THAT GIVES YOU THE
WHEREWITHAL TO SUBMITTED 250
WORDS. STATEMENT THIS IS THIS
PERTAINS ONLY TO THAT STATEMENT
AND THE I THINK THE RULES ARE
FAIRLY CLEAR. THE EXISTING FINAL
CITY IS ALREADY IN PLACE. THIS
MEASURE WOULD SIMPLY RAISE THAT
FUND. THANK YOU. I DO APPRECIATE
THAT. UM AND I ALSO JUST WANT TO
SAY ONE, YOU KNOW? I FULLY
SUPPORT THIS MEASURE
SPECIFICALLY, I WISH THAT IT WAS
EXTENDED EVEN AH TO SPECIAL
INTEREST GROUPS THAT ARE
PARTAKING IN CAMPAIGNING,
CAMPAIGN LITERATURE, AND WE ALSO
KNOW HOW DIFFICULT IT IS WHERE
FALSE MESSAGES ARE SHARED TO THE
PUBLIC IN MASS. UM SO I REALLY
APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THIS
FORWARD. I HOPE THAT WE CAN
CONTINUE WORKING ON THIS ISSUE.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY SENATOR
WIENER. CAN WE CALL A ROLL CALL
VOTE. WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? I
APPRECIATE IT. I WOULD LIKE TO
POINT OUT I HAD ANOTHER MEASURE.
SB 248. LAST YEAR, THERE WAS
ACTUALLY A LITTLE MORE
COMPREHENSIVE. IT WOULD HAVE
REQUIRED THAT ALL CANDIDATES
WOULD SUBMIT A VERY SIMPLE
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS AS
PART OF THE ELECTION FILINGS.
THAT MEASURE FAILED IN
APPROPRIATIONS. THIS IS AN
INCREMENTAL IMPROVEMENT, BUT
IT'S AN IMPROVEMENT. NONETHELESS
I ASKED FOR YOUR YOUR I VOTE
TODAY. THANK YOU. SB 251 MOTION
IS DUE PAST TWO ELECTIONS AND
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS. WAHAB
I SAY ARTO BRADFORD BRADFORD I.
SKINNER. BYE BYE, WIENER WIENER.
I THANK YOU ALL. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU MEMBERS. SO NEXT WE
HAVE OUR FINAL PRESENTER SENATOR
GLACIER ON SB 733. JURISDICTION.
SENATOR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
MEMBERS THAT CAN YOU HEAR ME? I
MUST SAY THAT DOESN'T DON'T HEAR
IT, BUT THE BILL BEFORE US P.
733 HAS BEEN NARROWED TO FOCUS
STRICTLY ON COLLECTING DATA IN
CALIFORNIA SOLITARY CONFINEMENT
SYSTEM. I STILL BELIEVE WHAT I
SAID LAST YEAR IN MY FIRST
PRESENTATION IN THIS BILL THAT
SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN OUR
PRISONS IS IN NEED OF
SIGNIFICANT CHANGE. WE SHOULD
NOT TOLERATE INHUMAN CONDITIONS
FOR INMATES IN SOLITARY
CONFINEMENT. MY BILL TODAY IS
EVEN MORE IMPORTANT IN LIGHT OF
THE NEW EMERGENCY REGULATIONS AT
THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION.
HAS IMPLEMENTED. THESE NEW
REGULATIONS ARE DUE TO GO
THROUGH REGULAR REGULATORY
CHANNELS THE SPRING THE ISSUE IS
THE SAME WITH THAT MATTER IS AS
IT IS WITH OTHER EFFORTS TO
ENACT SOLITARY CONFINEMENT
REFORMS. BOTH ARE SEEKING
CHANGES WITHOUT COLLECTING
FUNDAMENTAL DATA ON WHAT'S
REALLY HAPPENING IN OUR PRISONS.
THE ONLY WAY TO ENSURE ANY
CHANGE IN THIS SPACE THAT IS
RESPONSIVE TO THE REHABILITATIVE
NEEDS OF INMATES IS THROUGH
ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES LIKE
THIS BILL. TO COLLECT AND SHARE
DATA ON THE ACTIONS THAT ARE
OCCURRING IN REAL TIME IN OUR
PRISONS. SPECIFICALLY THIS BILL
STARTING JANUARY, 1ST 2026 WOULD
REQUIRE CDCR TO COLLECT DATA AND
ANALYZE ANNUALLY. REPORT BACK TO
THE LEGISLATURE IS VERY SPECIFIC
DATA REQUEST ONE SPECIFIC
DESCRIPTIONS OF THE TYPE OF
OFFENSES. INMATES ARE HELD IN
SOLITARY CONFINEMENT OR
RESTRICTED HOUSING IN THE
INSTITUTION. THE NUMBER OF TIMES
INDIVIDUALS WERE KEPT IN
SOLITARY CONFINEMENT OR
RESTRICTIVE HOUSING FOR THAT
YEAR. THE TOTAL TIME INDIVIDUALS
PLACED IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT
OR RESTRICTED HOUSING KEPT IN
SOLITARY FOR THAT YEAR, ALONG
WITH EXISTING MENTAL HEALTH
DIAGNOSIS OF THOSE WHO ARE IN
SOLITARY. AH! AND THE ANALYSIS
HAS A GOOD JOB OF IDENTIFYING
SOME OF THE OTHER IMPORTANT DATA
REQUEST. THIS BILL WOULD REQUIRE
. MY BUILDING, COLLECT AND SHARE
THIS DATA WILL ENSURE THE
CHANGES THAT WE CONSIDER GOING
FORWARD RESULTS IN A SAFER
ENVIRONMENT FOR INMATES AND
THOSE WHO WORK IN THE SYSTEM AND
LEAD TO A GREATER FOCUS ON
REHABILITATION. I'M PLEASED THAT
SOME ORGANIZATIONS HAVE NOW
REMOVED THEIR OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL. I'M HOPING OTHERS WILL
FOLLOW SUIT AS WE CONSIDER
SUPPORTING IT TODAY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A LEAD
WITNESS AND SUPPORT OKAY, SEEING
NONE. DO WE HAVE ANY MEAT TO
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT? SEEING
NONE. WE WILL MOVE ON TO
OPPOSITION LEAD WITNESSES. OKAY?
YOU WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES OF
YOUR TIME. GOOD MORNING. JACKI
GONZALEZ, POLICY DIRECTOR FOR
IMMIGRANT DEFENSE ADVOCATES. I'M
HERE. ALSO ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA MANDELA CAMPAIGN, A
COALITION OF DOZENS OF
ORGANIZATIONS ACROSS THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA WHO CARE ABOUT
CONDITIONS IN JAILS, PRISONS AND
IMMIGRATION DETENTION CENTERS
ARE COALITION ALSO INCLUDES
PEOPLE WHO HAVE SPENT DECADES IN
SOLITARY CONFINEMENT A K A
TORTURE AND TESTIFIED BEFORE THE
SAME COMMITTEE IN OPPOSITION TO
THIS BILL AND SPOKE ABOUT THEIR
EXPERIENCES WHEN THE BILL WAS
FIRST HEARD LAST YEAR. SENATOR
GLASER DESPITE HAVING MANY, MANY
MONTHS TO CONTINUE TO ENGAGE
WITH THE COMMUNITY THAT HAS BEEN
IMPACTED BY THIS PRACTICE. UM I
DON'T SEE ANYONE IN THE ROOM IN
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL, AND I
DON'T SEE ANY ORGANIZATIONS IN
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL IN THE
ANALYSIS WILL CONTINUES TO EXIST
IS A LENGTHY LIST OF OPPOSITION.
THE REASONS FOR THAT OPPOSITION
PRIMARILY ARE FOCUSED ON THE
FACT THAT THERE IS A BILL A B
280, WHICH PASSED OUT OF THE
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE AND IS
NOW SITTING IN THE ASSEMBLY.
SEVERAL OF THE MEMBERS OF THIS
COMMITTEE ARE CO AUTHORS ON THAT
BILL. AND IT'S AN ATTEMPT TO
COMPREHENSIVELY END THE PRACTICE
OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT, WHICH
IS LONG OVERDUE. IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA TODAY, THERE IS STILL
NO DEFINITION FOR THE FOR WORK
FOR SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN
CALIFORNIA. THIS BILL MAY SEEM
ON ITS FACE TO BE A SIMPLE DATA
COLLECTION BILL. I WOULD ARGUE
THAT IT IS NOT EVEN ABLE TO DO
WHAT IT SETS OUT TO DO BECAUSE
THE BILL SAYS THAT SOLITARY
CONFINEMENT, ALSO KNOWN AS
RESTRICTED HOUSING WILL IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AND THEN IT
GOES ON TO SAY WHAT DATA SHOULD
BE COLLECTED. THERE IS NO
DEFINITION FOR SOLITARY
CONFINEMENT IN CALIFORNIA AND
SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IS NOT
RESTRICTED HOUSING IF YOU GO ON
TO CDCR S WEBSITE TODAY, AND
THERE'S A QUESTION THERE THAT
SAYS DO YOU HAVE SOLITARY
CONFINEMENT? YOU ENGAGE IN
SOLITARY? THE ANSWER IS NO. SO
HOW CAN WE TRACK DATA ON A
PRACTICE THAT WE DON'T EVEN
AGREE ON? IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT
YOU'RE TRACKING. YOU CAN'T TRACK
THE DATA. WE AGREE THAT IT'S
IMPORTANT TO COLLECT DATA ON
THIS PRACTICE. AND THAT IS WHY A
B 280 AGAIN INCLUDES INFORMATION
ABOUT WHAT SOLITARY CONFINEMENT
IS ATTEMPTS TO DEFINE IT AND
ALSO HAS A PROVISION TO COLLECT
MUCH OF THE SAME DATA THAT
SENATOR GLASER'S BILL WOULD
COLLECT. SO THE BILL IS THAT
ONCE REDUNDANT. THANK YOU.
INSUFFICIENT THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER LEAD?
OPPOSITION WITNESSES. SEEING
NONE. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO
ME TO OPPOSITION. I WANT TO BE
VERY CLEAR STATE YOUR NAME YOUR
ORGANIZATION AND WE MOVE THROUGH
THIS PRETTY QUICKLY. GOOD
MORNING. MIKE A DOCTOR OF SENIOR
STAFF ATTORNEY AT THE NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA HERE TODAY ON BEHALF
OF CALIFORNIA ACTION. WE HAVE
REMOVED OUR OPPOSITION. WE'RE
GRATEFUL TO THE AUTHOR FOR
TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OUR
CONCERNS. AND WHERE NOW NEUTRAL
ON THE BILL. THANK YOU. JESSE
CLYDE BURLISON IN CUSTODY
PROGRAM COORDINATOR LEGAL
SERVICES FOR PRISONS WITH
CHILDREN AND OPPOSITION. GOOD
MORNING. TONY MAGEE, LAD LEGAL
SERVICES FOR PRISONERS WITH
CHILDREN IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. ROBERT
BOWDEN, LEGAL SERVICES OR
PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN. ALL OF
US ARE NONE AND OPPOSITION.
HELLO HALEY LITTLE SURGE, BAY
AREA POLICY COMMITTEE AND
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. ALL NIKKI MARTINEZ MY
PRONOUNS. ARE SHE HER? WE I'M
DEPUTY DIRECTOR AT SISTER
WARRIORS FREEDOM COALITION IN
OPPOSITION. RACHEL MUELLER ON
BEHALF OF NEXT GEN. CALIFORNIA
IN OPPOSITION. THE OBLIGATION
WITH CALIFORNIANS UNITED FOR
RESPONSIBLE BUDGET AND
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. GREGORY
CRAMER ON BEHALF OF DISABILITY
RIGHTS, CALIFORNIA WHERE A
MEMBER OF THE MANDELA COALITION,
ALSO IN OPPOSITION. LONE PIPER
SHE HER YOUNGER MISS FREEDOM
CENTER, OAKLAND IN OPPOSITION.
ALYSSA MORE INCOME IN CUSTODY
REPRESENTATIVE FOR ALL OF US ARE
NON LEGAL SERVICES FOR PRISONERS
WITH CHILDREN IN OPPOSITION.
LAURENCE COX LEGAL SERVICES FOR
PRISONERS WERE CHILDREN. ALL OF
US ARE KNOWN AS STRONG
OPPOSITION. GOVERNOR ANTHONY
MORIAL, THE LEGAL SERVICES FOR
UM, PRESIDENT, UM, CHILDREN WITH
PRISONERS. SORRY ABOUT THAT, UM
ALL OF US ARE NO STRONGER
OPPOSITION OF IT. GOOD MORNING
AMERICA. MOTA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
SISTER WEARS FREEDOM COALITION
WERE IN OPPOSITION. GOOD
MORNING, APRIL. GRAYSON, POLICY
MANAGER FOR THE SYSTEM, WHERE
FREEDOM COALITION ALSO IN
OPPOSITION. GOOD MORNING, JOHN
CANNON LEGAL SERVICES FOR
PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN AND A
MEMBER OF ALL OF US AND EARNING
STRONG OPPOSITION. GOOD MORNING,
TANISHA, CANON, MANAGING
DIRECTOR WITH LEGAL SERVICES FOR
PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN, AND ALL
OF US ARE NONE AND STRONG
OPPOSITION. GOOD MORNING SWAY
LUCKY WITH COMMUNITIES UNITED
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE. AND I'M
SORRY. PAMELA COUCH. I'M A
RETIRED CC, TWO COUNSELOR WITH
CDCR AND I NOW WORK WITH
BALANCED FREEDOM PROJECT AND T P
W AND I'M IN STRONG OPPOSITION
OF THIS BILL. THEY'RE BORN IN
MONICA, THEN AN EQUAL JUSTICE
USA IN OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL.
NO E GODINO WITH LEGAL SERVICES
FOR THE PRISONERS, WHICH
MEASURING ALL OF US ARE NONE AND
ALSO A CONSTITUENT IN THE GLAZER
AND I MEAN STRONG OPPOSITION.
JIM LINDBERG FRIENDS COMMITTEE
ON LEGISLATION OF CALIFORNIA.
WE'RE REMOVING OUR OPPOSITION TO
THE BILL. THANK YOU. HELLO
MELISSA VALDEZ WITH SILICON
VALLEY DE BUG IN STRONG
OPPOSITION OF THIS BILL. XAVIER
ESPANA, FORMERLY INCARCERATED
CITY CR ON BEHALF OF DEBUG. AND
SILICON VALLEY DEVOTED. I OPPOSE
THIS BILL. RAYMOND JONES,
FORMERLY INCARCERATED. SOLITARY
CONFINEMENT SURVIVOR. I TRIED TO
COMMIT SUICIDE NURSE I KNOW HOW
BAD IT IS HIS BAD I OPPOSE IT.
ORTEZ MORALES. SILICON VALLEY
DEBUG STRONGLY OPPOSED. CYNTHIA
DEL COURT LONG SILICON VALLEY D
BOOKED SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA I
OPPOSED THIS FEEL STRONGLY. I
HAVE A SON WHO'S AT SAN QUENTIN.
NOW, MA'AM. AND, YES, THANK YOU.
HELLO GOOD MORNING. LIZETTE
ALVAREZ, A SISTER. WAR FREEDOM,
CORRELATION ATTACHED. B AND I
OPPOSE. NOT ONLY MOTA WITH
SISTER WORRIES, FREEDOM,
CORRELATION AND I POSE. GOOD
MORNING. DON DAVIDSON. ALL OF US
ARE NOT IN PRISON FROM THE
INSIGHT IN OPPOSITION. LUCERO
REIRA SHE HER HERS PRONOUNS.
YOUNG WOMEN'S FREEDOM CENTER AND
FOUNDER ASSIST THE WARRIORS.
STRONG OPPOSITION. LAUP
OPPOSITION. MEGAN ALEXANDER FROM
YOUNG WOMEN'S FREE CONSIDER IN
OPPOSITION. LEAH JONES FROM
YOUNG WOMEN'S FRUITED DINNER AND
OPPOSITION. LUPITA MARTINEZ FROM
YOUNG WOMEN'S FREEDOM CENTER.
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU SEEING NO
OTHER OPPOSITION WITNESSES.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE WHO WOULD LIKE TO
COMMENT, UM SEEING NONE. OKAY,
SENATOR SKINNER. UM SEEMS TO ME
THIS IS THE KIND OF INFORMATION
AS LEGISLATORS WE CAN REQUEST
FROM CDCR. I DON'T UNDERSTAND
WHY WE NEED TO PUT IT IN
STATUTE, SO I'M NOT PREPARED TO
SUPPORT THE BILL. UM AND I ALSO,
UH, FEEL THAT IT DOES GOD IT
DOESN'T DEAL WITH THE PRINCIPAL
ISSUE, WHICH IS THE NEGATIVE
IMPACTS OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT.
SO I'M NOT PREPARED TO SUPPORT
THANK YOU. SENATOR WIENER? YES
SO OH, I'M A CO AUTHOR OF A B
280. I'LL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT
THAT BILL AND I HOPE WE CAN MAKE
IT A REALITY. AND I DID NOT
SUPPORT THE BILL IN COMMITTEE.
UM LAST YEAR WHEN THE AUTHOR
BROUGHT IT FORWARD, BUT AT THIS
POINT, IT'S A DATA COLLECTION
BILL. I UNDERSTAND, UH, THE
CONCERNS THAT IT MIGHT NOT BE
NECESSARY. THERE ARE TIMES WHEN
WE DO DATA COLLECTION BILLS
WHERE YOU CAN MAYBE GET THE DATA
IN OTHER WAYS AND AH, BUT I
DON'T THINK THE BILL PERSON I
DON'T THINK IT'S HARMFUL. I
DON'T THINK ANYONE'S GOING TO
INTERPRET THIS AS AN ALTERNATIVE
TO 80 TO 80. IT'S BEEN REDUCED
SIGNIFICANTLY TO A DATA
COLLECTION BILL. STILL ALL
SUPPORT IT. THANK YOU. UM YOU
KNOW, I WILL JUST SAY.
HISTORICALLY WE HAVE OPPOSED THE
PREVIOUS VERSION OF THIS BILL.
UM AND I THINK THAT YOU KNOW,
MANY OF US HAVE SUPPORTED THE
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S HOLDEN'S BILL
REGARDING SOLITARY CONFINEMENT.
I THINK MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN A
LITTLE FRUSTRATED WITH SOLITARY
CONFINEMENT AS A WHOLE, AND THE
MERE FACT THAT IT'S STILL ON
HOLD IN THE ASSEMBLY, AND
OBVIOUSLY FURTHER CONVERSATIONS
ARE TAKING PLACE THERE. I DO
APPRECIATE YOU SPECIFICALLY
WHITTLING THIS DOWN TO
SPECIFICALLY DATA COLLECTION AND
DATA NOTIFICATIONS IF YOU WILL,
RIGHT I WOULD LIKE YOU TO BE
ABLE TO ADDRESS ANY OF THE
CONCERNS YOU'VE HEARD AND THEN
MAKE YOUR CLOSING STATEMENT.
THANK YOU. CHAIR. LOOK, I'D LIKE
TO HAVE THIS INFORMATION. I
THINK THE COMMITTEE WOULD LIKE
TO HAVE THIS INFORMATION. SO
I'VE MADE THAT REQUEST TO CDCR
AND HAVEN'T BEEN SUCCESSFUL AND
THINK THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE WOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE
THE SAME REQUEST BECAUSE THIS IS
THE DATA THAT'S NOT BEEN
PROVIDED IN THE DISCUSSIONS OF
280. AND IT'S THE KIND OF THING
THAT'S FOUNDATIONAL FOR MAKING
GOOD CHOICES GOING FORWARD, SO I
RECOGNIZE THAT THERE IS CONCERN
ABOUT RESTRICTED HOUSING.
SOLITARY CONFINEMENT APPRECIATE
THE GOOD HEARTS OF FOLKS WHO
HAVE COME TO TESTIFY AND IT
COMES FROM A GOOD PLACE OF
CONCERN. BUT UM YEAH, THE ISSUE
IS WHETHER WE MAKE PROGRESS. AND
THIS BILL IS AN ATTEMPT TO
CREATE A FOUNDATION FOR
POTENTIAL PROGRESS. UH FROM
THOSE WHO OPPOSE THE BILL,
DESIRE AND OTHERS, AND I THINK
IT'S A IT'S A MODEST STEP
FORWARD. LOOK THE ADMINISTRATION
HAS NOT BEEN AS COOPERATIVE AS
WE'D LIKE THEM TO BE, AND, UH,
MY DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM ON
THESE MATTERS WILL CONTINUE, BUT
IT'S NOT EASY. BECAUSE IT IS
IMPORTANT INFORMATION THAT
REALLY HASN'T BEEN PROVIDED TO
ALL OF YOU AND TO US, SO I THINK
THE BILL IS A POSITIVE STEP
FORWARD AND APPRECIATE YOUR
SUPPORT TODAY. THANK YOU. DO WE
HAVE A MOTION? WE HAVE A MOTION.
UM, YEAH. OKAY THANK YOU.
SENATOR WEINER HAS MOVED. CAN WE
CALL ROLL CALL VOTE MOTIONS. DO
YOU PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS?
WAHAB? I SAY ARTO. HI HI,
BRADFORD SKINNER. WIENER WIENER?
AYE MOTIONS ON CALL THAT BUILDS
ON CALL. UM, BUT THANK YOU,
SENATOR. ALRIGHT CAN WE GO AND
THROUGH EACH OF THE BILLS CALL
ROLL ONE MORE TIME FOR SENATORS
AND LET'S CLOSE OUT THE ROLE. SB
53. THE MOTION IS DUE PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CURRENT VOTE IS
3 TO 1 WIENER. SORRY 53
PORTANTINO'S WIENER? AYE BILLS
OUT. THAT BUILDS OUT 4 TO 1 SP
90 TO DO PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS
SEYARTO TOÀN. I FEELS OUTSIDE
BILLS OUT 5 TO 0. SB 379. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CURRENT VOTE IS
FOR 20 SUHARTO HØI OUT 5050. SB
850 AM BERG MOTIONS DO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS SARTO SKINNER
SKINNER I FILLED OUT OUT OUT 50
SB 251. THE MOTION IS DUE PAST
TWO ELECTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENTS. CURRENT VOTE IS FOR
20 SARTO SEYARTO. AYE OUT 5 TO
0. GOING TO ARREST ME. WE GOT
THAT ONE. START IT OFF.
THIS IS REALLY WE'RE GOING TO
LIFT THE CALL? YEAH. SB 733
MOTIONS DO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. BRADFORD 3030.
IT'S OUT.
ADJOURN. THANK YOU. YEAH.