BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1010
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 17, 2014
Counsel: Gabriel Caswell
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
SB 1010 () - As Amended: March 17, 2014
SUMMARY : Provides that the penalty for possession for sale of
cocaine base shall be the same as that for possession for sale
of cocaine hydrochloride powder cocaine.
1)Changes the penalty for possession for sale of cocaine base to
two, three, or four years of incarceration.
2)Specifies that probation can only be granted to a person
convicted of possession for sale of 28.5 grams or more of
cocaine base, or 57 grams or more of a substance containing at
least 5 grams of cocaine base, if the court finds unusual
circumstances demonstrating that probation promotes justice.
3)Authorizes seizure and forfeiture of a vehicle, boat or
airplane used as an instrumentality of drug commerce involving
cocaine base weighing 28.5 grams or more, or 57 grams or more
of a substance containing at least 5 grams of cocaine base.
4)Makess legislative findings that powder cocaine and cocaine
base are two different forms of the same drug, each producing
the same effects when ingested and that imposing higher
penalties and greater forfeitures on persons convicted of
crimes involving cocaine base is unjustified.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides penalties for the following conduct involving
controlled substances: possession, possession for sale or
distribution, sale or distribution, and, manufacturing.
(Health & Saf. Code §§ 11350-11401.)
2)Classifies controlled substances in five schedules, with
SB 1010
Page 2
generally lesser restrictions and penalties from Schedule I
through V. Schedule I controlled substances are deemed to
have no accepted medical use and cannot be prescribed.
Examples of drugs in the California schedules drugs follow:
(Health & Saf. Code §§ 11054-11058.)
a) Heroin, LSD, cocaine base and marijuana are Schedule I
drugs.
b) Oxcycodone, cocaine, methamphetamine, and codeine are
Schedule II drugs.
c) Barbituates (tranquilizers, anabolic steroids and
specified narcotic, pain medications are Schedule III
drugs.
d) Benzodiazepines (Valium) and phentermine (diet drug) are
Schedule IV drugs.
e) Specified narcotic pain medications with active
non-narcotic active ingredients are Schedule V drugs.
3)Includes in federal law, the following explanations: (21
U.S.C., Section 812 (b)) |
a) Schedule I controlled substances have no currently
accepted medical use in treatment in the United States,
have a high potential for abuse, and there is a lack of
accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance
under medical supervision. Schedule I drugs include but
are not limited to cannabis, heroin, GHB, and ecstasy.
b) Schedule II controlled substances have a currently
accepted medical use in treatment, a high potential for
abuse, which may lead to severe psychological or physical
dependence. Schedule II drugs include but are not limited
to Cocaine, Ritalin, oxycodone, morphine, and amphetamines.
c) Schedule III controlled substances have a currently
accepted medical use in treatment, a potential for abuse
that is less than that for Schedule I and II drugs, and
abuse may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or
high psychological dependence. Schedule III drugs include
SB 1010
Page 3
but are not limited to anabolic steroids, prescriptions
that combine codeine or hydrocodone with aspirin or another
non-narcotic ingredient, ketamine, and testosterone.
d) Schedule IV drugs have a currently accepted medical use
in treatment, have a low potential for abuse relative to
the substances in Schedule III, and abuse may lead to
limited physical dependence or psychological dependence.
Schedule IV drugs include but are not limited to Xanax,
Librium, Valium, and Phenobarbital.
e) Schedule V drugs have a low potential for abuse, have a
currently accepted medical use in treatment, and abuse of
the drug may lead to limited physical dependence or
psychological dependence. Schedule V drugs include but are
not limited to narcotic drugs containing active medicinal
qualities other than those possessed by narcotic drugs
alone, such as cough suppressants containing small amounts
of codeine.
4)Provides the following penalties for conduct involving cocaine
and cocaine base:
a) Simple possession (for personal use) of cocaine or
cocaine base: Felony, with a jail term (Pen. Code § 1170,
subd. (h)) of 16 months, 2 years or 3 years. (Health &
Saf. Code § 11350.)
b) Possession for sale of cocaine: Felony jail term of 2,
3 or 4 years. (Health & Saf. Code § 11351.)
c) Possession of cocaine base for sale - Felony jail term
of 3, 4 or 5 years. (Health & Saf. Code § 11351.5.)
d) Sale or distribution of cocaine or cocaine base: Felony
jail term of 3, 4 or 5 years. (Health & Saf. Code §
11352.)
e) Transportation for sale across noncontiguous counties of
cocaine or cocaine base: Felony jail term of 3, 6 or 9
years. (Health & Saf. Code § 11352(b).)
5)Provides for seizure and forfeiture of a vehicle, boat or
SB 1010
Page 4
airplane used as an instrumentality of drug commerce.
Specified provisions are triggered where the amount of cocaine
base involved in the offense weighed 14.25 grams
(approximately ounce) or more and where the amount of
cocaine weighed 28.5 grams (1 ounce). (Health & Saf. Code §
11470, subd. (e.).)
6)Provides that the court can only grant probation to a person
convicted of certain crimes if unusual circumstances exist
establishing that a grant of probation promotes justice. The
restriction applies to any case involving 14.25 grams or more
of cocaine base, or 57 grams or more of a substance containing
at least 5 grams of cocaine base. By comparison, the
restriction applies to any case involving 28.5 grams or more
of cocaine, or 57 grams or more of a substance containing
cocaine. (Pen. Code § 1203.073, subds. (b)(1) and (5).)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "SB 1010 will
correct the groundless disparity in sentencing, probation and
asset forfeiture guidelines for possession of crack cocaine
for sale versus the same crime involving powder cocaine that
has resulted in a pattern of racial discrimination in
sentencing and incarceration in California.
"Crack and powder cocaine are two forms of the same drug.
Scientific reports, including a major study published in the
Journal of the American Medical Association, demonstrate that
they have essentially identical effects on the human body.
Powder cocaine can be injected or snorted. Crack cocaine can
be injected or smoked, and is a product derived when cocaine
powder is processed with an alkali, typically common baking
soda. Gram for gram, there is less active drug in crack
cocaine than in powder cocaine.
"Whatever their intended goal, disparate sentencing guidelines
for two forms of the same drug has resulted in a pattern of
institutional racism, with longer prison sentences given to
people of color who are more likely than whites to be arrested
and incarcerated for cocaine base offenses compared to powder
SB 1010
Page 5
cocaine offenses, despite comparable rates of usage and sales
across racial and ethnic groups.
2)Background on the Disparity between Cocaine Base and Powder
Cocaine : Len Bias was an extraordinarily gifted college
basketball player at the University of Maryland in the
mid-1980s. Just a few days after being selected by the Boston
Celtics as the second player in the 1986 NBA draft, Bias died
after suffering a seizure when ingesting cocaine with friends
and teammates in a dorm room. Media reports initially stated
or speculated, and then repeated as though confirmed, that
Bias had used crack cocaine or freebased cocaine and that he
had never used cocaine before. The investigation of the
incident and prosecutions related to the incident indicate
that Bias had used cocaine before - perhaps introducing the
drug to friends - and that cocaine had been found in his
leased car. His companions testified that after Bias snorted
the last of numerous lines of powder cocaine, he stood up to
go the bathroom, stumbled back on his bed and had a seizure.
Len Bias' death sparked a nation-wide outcry about the
prevalence and dangers of cocaine use, especially the use of
crack cocaine in African-American communities. Congress very
quickly passed the Ant-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. The law was a
bi-partisan measure with the full support of Speaker Tip
O'Neil, a Bostonian. The law included very long mandatory
minimum sentences. The penalties for crack cocaine or cocaine
base were triggered when a case involved much less of the drug
(1/100th) than powdered cocaine (cocaine hydrochloride). Five
grams of cocaine base triggered the penalties compared to 500
grams of cocaine hydrochloride. In 1986, imprisonment of
African Americans for cocaine exceeded Caucasians for the
first time. Crack was seen as a cheaper and much more
dangerous substance than powder cocaine.
California separately defined, scheduled and punished powder
cocaine in contrast with other forms of cocaine in 1986. In
1987, cocaine base was specifically referenced in Schedule I
and possession for sale of cocaine base was placed in Health
and Safety Code Section 11351.5, with higher penalties than
for cocaine hydrochloride.
SB 1010
Page 6
3)Possession for Sale vs. Simple Possession of Cocaine Base and
Powder Cocaine : Under California law, whether a drug was
possessed for purposes of sale is determined by all the
factors of the charged incident, not by a specified weight or
volume of the drug possessed. Typically, a law enforcement
witness trained in drug cases explains to the jury the facts
on which the prosecution is relying on to prove that the
defendant possessed a drug for sale. The weight or volume of
the drug is typically one of the many factors noted by the
witness. Law enforcement witnesses usually refer to "indicia"
of sale, such as scales for weighing material, ledgers of
payments, the manner in which the drug is packaged and the
amount and denominations of currency the defendant was
carrying.
Cocaine base is essentially made by mixing powder cocaine and
baking soda to form a solid, brittle, rock-like substance. A
defendant could be arrested for possession for sale of cocaine
base because he carried a number of individual "rocks" in
small plastic baggies, wrote names and dollar amounts on a
piece of paper and carried a number of bills in the
denomination for which cocaine base "rocks" of that size
typically sell. Cocaine base is often sold on street corners
in open view. Law enforcement officers can readily see such
activity.
It may be more difficult to establish a case of possession for
sale of powdered cocaine - cocaine hydrochloride - than
cocaine base. Powder cocaine does not naturally come in a
form for ready retail sales. Powder cocaine, unlike cocaine
base, would not typically be sold as a single dose. Cocaine
hydrochloride is often sold in 1-gram "bindles" from which the
user can obtain multiple doses. Powder cocaine is thus not
easily sold hand-to-hand on the street.
4)History of Discriminatory Impact of Current Law : There is a
long and well documented history of a discriminatory impact in
the current California law related to cocaine base vs. powder
cocaine. According to a 2005 statement by the Drug Policy
Alliance, "California is one of only 13 states that make a
distinction in sentencing between powder cocaine and cocaine
base ("crack"), which results in a pattern of
institutionalized racism." According to Progressive
SB 1010
Page 7
Christians Uniting, "In 2003, 70 men and women of Caucasian
descent were convicted for possessing rock cocaine in
California. In that same year, 1,125 African Americans were
convicted for the same crime."
According to a 2005 statement by the California State
Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People, "The primary difference between these two
drugs is the pattern of institutionalized racism inherent in
the disparate sentencing guidelines that impose longer prison
sentences to persons charged with offenses involving the
possession for sale of crack cocaine, who are 66.5%
African-American and poor, and those imposed on persons
involved with powder cocaine, who tend to be in the majority
white and upper income."
In several reports to Congress, the United States Sentencing
Commission (Commission) has supported eliminating the
sentencing disparity between powder and crack cocaine on the
federal level. In 1997, the Commission's report stated, "If
the impact of the law is discriminatory, the problem is no
less real regardless of the intent. This problem is
particularly acute because the disparate impact arises from a
penalty structure for two different forms of the same
substance. It is a little like punishing vehicular homicide
while under the influence of alcohol more severely if the
defendant had become intoxicated by ingesting cheap wine
rather than scotch whiskey. That suggestion is absurd on its
face and ought to be no less so when the abused substance is
cocaine rather than alcohol."
The Commission report further stated, "Bad laws weaken respect
of good laws. Consequences follow. Sooner or later, all
those people who feel alienated as a result of receiving what
they believe to be unfair treatment and unjust sentences will
be released from jail. Does this country really expect them
to become productive members of society or might we anticipate
some retributive behavior?"
According to an article in the San Francisco Examiner,
published March 23, 2007, California's sentencing statistics
overall reveal a clear pattern of racially discriminatory
impact. The article quotes Jeff Adachi, San Francisco Public
SB 1010
Page 8
Defender, on the racially discriminatory impact of sentencing
overall, "Numerous studies, both national and statewide, have
shown that African-Americans and Latinos are more likely to
receive maximum sentences than their white counterparts.
Whites sentenced to drug offenses serve an average of 27
months while blacks serve an average of 46 months. Latino
youth are 13 times more likely to be sentenced to a juvenile
state facility than whites, where they serve up to the maximum
term."
5)Ethnicity of Incarcerated Inmates for Possession for Sale of
Cocaine Base and Powder Cocaine : The California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation has produced in 2013 data on
the number of inmates from fiscal year 2005-2006 through
2009-2010 imprisoned for possession for sale of powder cocaine
and those imprisoned for possession for sale of cocaine base.
The data was disaggregated by ethnicity and sex of the
inmates. The data is set out without reflecting the sex of
the inmate:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Race/Ethnic|African |Caucasian |Latino |Other |
|ity |American | | | |
|-----------+-------------+-------------+------------+------------|
|Cocaine |2061 |829 |3285 |181 |
|-----------+-------------+-------------+------------+------------|
|Cocaine |4152 |96 |972 |142 |
|Base | | | | |
|-----------+-------------+-------------+------------+------------|
|Total |6213 |925 |4257 |323 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
African Americans were imprisoned for possession of cocaine
base for sale at a rate 43.25 times that for Caucasians.
African Americans were imprisoned for possession of cocaine
hydrochloride for sale at a rate 2.5 times that for
Caucasians. African Americans were imprisoned for possession
of cocaine base for sale at a rate 4.3 times that for Latinos.
Latinos were imprisoned for possession of cocaine
hydrochloride for sale at a rate 1.6 times that for African
Americans.
6)Drug Use and Commerce by College Students and Adolescents,
SB 1010
Page 9
Analyzed by Race and Ethnicity; Racial Disparities in Juvenile
Drug Prosecutions : In 2007, the National Center on Addiction
and Substance Abuse at Columbia University published a study
of drug and alcohol use by college students. The study showed
substantially higher use of drugs by whites than African
Americans. For example, white students were twice as likely
to illicitly use prescription drugs, marijuana and MDMA
(ecstasy) than African American students. Students at
traditionally Black colleges had particularly low drug use
rates.
The 2011 National Institute of Health (NIH) study of
adolescent drug use found that "African American students have
substantially lower rates of use of most ? drugs than do
whites at all three grade levels [10th-12th grades]."
(Monitoring the Future, National Results on Adolescent Drug
Use, Johnston, et al., NIH, 2012, p. 45.)
Despite the fact that white adolescents use drugs at much
higher rates than minority adolescents, the United States
Department of Justice Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Programs (OJJDP) found that in 2006 "juvenile
arrests disproportionately involved minorities." African
American minors were arrested for drug offenses (30% of all
drug arrests) at a rate approximately 3 times their proportion
of the population. (Juv. Justice Bulletin, Nov. 2008, U.S.
DOJ, OJJDP, p. 10.)
Another study published in the American Journal of Alcohol and
Drug Abuse in March of 2010 analyzed data from the National
Survey on Drug Use and Health. According to a summary
published by NIH, the study found that white and African
American youth engaged in drug commerce at equivalent rates.
However, white youth used and sold a wide range of drugs.
African American youth were more likely to use and sell
marijuana. White youth who were engaged in drug commerce were
also likely to be "entrenched" users of drugs such as cocaine.
The most recent drug trend statistics from the National
Institute on Drug Abuse - last revised in December, 2012 -
found that non-marijuana drug use has stayed relatively steady
in recent years. Cocaine use, however, is down: Use of most
drugs other than marijuana has not changed appreciably over
SB 1010
Page 10
the past decade or has declined. In 2011, 6.1 million
Americans aged 12 or older (or 2.4 percent) had used
psycho-therapeutic prescription drugs nonmedicaly (without a
prescription or in a manner or for a purpose not prescribed)
in the past month-a decrease from 2010. And 972,000 Americans
(0.4 percent) had used hallucinogens (a category that includes
Ecstasy and LSD) in the past month-a decline from 2010.
Cocaine use has gone down in the last few years; from 2006 to
2011, the number of current users aged 12 or older dropped
from 2.4 million to 1.4 million. Methamphetamine use has also
dropped, from 731,000 current users in 2006 to 439,000 in
2011.
7)Rates of Drug Use by Race and Ethnicity : Blacks, whites and
Latinos use drugs at relatively similar rates, with Latinos'
usage the lowest of the three. Asians use illicit drugs at a
lower rate than other ethnic or racial groups. The data in
the following chart is from the National Survey on Drug Use
and Health published by United States Department of Health and
Human Services (DHHS), including the most recent available
data from 2011:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|YEAR |Rate of Drug |Rate of Drug |Rate of Drug |
| |Use - Whites |Use - Blacks |Use - Latinos |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|2002 |8.5% |9.7 % |7.2% |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|2003 |8.3% |8.7% |8.0% |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|2004 |8.1% |8.7% |7.2% |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|2005 |8.1% |9.7% |7.6% |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|2006 |8.5% |9.8% |6.9% |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|2007 |8.2% |9.5% |6.6% |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|2008 |8.2% |10.1% |6.2% |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|2009 |8.8% |9.6% |7.9% |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
SB 1010
Page 11
|2010 |9.1% |10.7% |8.1% |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|2011 |8.7% |10% |8.4% |
| | | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
8)Incarceration Rates in Drug Offenses by Race and Ethnicity
(White, Black and Latino Defendants) : According to a
1999-2005 Sentencing Project Study, African Americans are
imprisoned for felony drug crimes at a rate five times greater
than their proportion of the population. Whites are
incarcerated for felony drug crimes at rate that is one third
or one quarter their proportion of the population:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|YEAR |Whites - |Blacks - |Latinos - |
| |Percentage of |Percentage of |Percentage of |
| |State Prison |State Prison |State Prison |
| |Drug Crime |Drug Crime |Drug Crime |
| |Populations |Population |Population |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|1999 |20.2% |57.6% |20.7% |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|2000 |23.2% |57.9% |17.2% |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|2001 |23.3% |56.8% |19.1% |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|2002 |24.3% |47.5% |23.3% |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|2003 |25.9% |53.0% |20.0% |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|2004 |26.4% |45.1% |20.8% |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|2005 |28.5% |44.8% |20.2% |
| | | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
These data must be viewed in light of the proportion of
whites, blacks and Latinos in the population. According to
the United States Census:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SB 1010
Page 12
|All whites, |Non-Hispanic |African |Latino/Hispanic |
|including |whites |Americans | |
|Hispanics of | | | |
|European | | | |
|origin | | | |
|--------------+----------------+---------------+-----------------|
|72.4% |63.7% |12.6% |16.3% |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In 2000, Human Rights Watch researchers found that through
1996 African Americans were 13 times more times more likely to
be imprisoned for drug crimes than whites. The Sentencing
Project study indicates that that disparity has been reduced
somewhat in recent years, although the disparity is still
striking. These disproportionate prosecution rates exist
despite the fact that African Americans and whites use drugs
in roughly equivalent proportions. Other studies have
reported that white youth sell drugs at a much higher rate
than African American youth.
9)Drug Control through Criminal Penalties Generally : This bill
continues a decades-long history of expanded criminal
penalties for commerce in drugs of intoxication. Numerous
studies have concluded that criminal penalties have not
substantially limited drug abuse, but prohibition has
generated substantial profits for illicit trade.
President Nixon declared a war on drugs in 1971. California
adopted the federal controlled schedules and set penalties
based on the federal schedules in 1972. Nixon established the
Drug Enforcement Administration in 1973. President Reagan
signed legislation establishing mandatory minimums for drug
crimes in 1986. George H.W. Bush appointed the first drug
czar in 1989. Inherent in these policies is a belief that
relatively severe penalties for drug crimes, including drug
possession, deter people from using or selling drugs.
(Timeline, America's War on Drugs, NPR, April 2, 2007; Health
& Saf. Code §§ 11054-11058; 11350-11383.7, 11351.5.)
In June 2011, the Global Commission on Drug Policy released a
report, "War on Drugs," examining global drug policy over the
past half-century. The Commission is comprised of current and
SB 1010
Page 13
former heads of state, public officials, and experts.
The report states: "The global war on drugs has failed, with
devastating consequences for individuals and societies around
the world. Fifty years after the initiation of the UN Single
Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and 40 years after President
Nixon launched the US government's war on drugs, fundamental
reforms in national and global drug control policies are
urgently needed.
Vast expenditures on criminalization and repressive measures
directed at producers, traffickers and consumers of illegal
drugs have clearly failed to effectively curtail supply or
consumption. Apparent victories in eliminating one source or
trafficking organization are negated almost instantly by the
emergence of other sources and traffickers. Repressive
efforts directed at consumers impede public health measures to
reduce HIV/AIDS, overdose fatalities and other harmful
consequences of drug use. Government expenditures on futile
supply reduction strategies and incarceration displace more
cost-effective and evidence-based investments in demand and
harm reduction." (Global Commission on Drug Policy, War on
Drugs (June 2011), italics added.)
10)Argument in Support : According to the American Civil
Liberties Union , "SB 1010 will correct the groundless
disparity in sentencing, probation and asset forfeiture
guidelines for possession for sale of crack cocaine versus the
same crime involving powder cocaine that has resulted in a
pattern of racial discrimination in sentencing and
incarceration in California. Moreover, the nonpartisan
Legislative Analyst's Office estimates that, by equalizing the
penalty, the state and local governments would save millions
of dollars annually.
"Crack and powder cocaine are two forms of the same drug.
Crack cocaine is a product derived when cocaine powder is
processed with an alkali, typically common baking soda. Gram
for gram, there is less active drug in crack cocaine than in
powder cocaine. Whatever their intentional goal, disparate
sentencing guidelines for two forms of the same drug has
resulted in a pattern of institutional racism, despite
comparable rates of usage and sales across racial and ethnic
SB 1010
Page 14
groups.
"According to the CDCR, there are about 1,000 people in state
prison for possession for sale of crack cocaine; 98% of people
entering a California prison for this offense are people of
color."
11)Argument in Opposition: According to the California
Narcotics Officers' Association , "Senate Bill 1010 will lower
penalties for trafficking in cocaine base to the level that
currently exists for powder cocaine trafficking. Although we
agree with you that there is no rational basis for having
different levels of punishment for trafficking in the same
product, we must respectfully disagree with the remedy that is
embodied in Senate Bill 1010: the reduction of penalties for
drug traffickers dealing in cocaine base.
"We believe that the preferable approach is to raise the
penalties for powder cocaine trafficking to the same level
that currently exists for trafficking in cocaine base.
Candidly, the damages done to individuals, families and
neighborhoods by virtue of cocaine trafficking are severe.
Although we support equalizing the penalty structures, we do
not believe that drug traffickers - who visit real harm on
communities - should be the beneficiaries of legislation that
equalizes the penalty structure."
12)Prior Legislation :
a) AB 337 (Dymally), of the 2007-2008 Legislative Session,
equalized the penalties for violations of the laws related
to the possession or purchasing for sale of powder and
crack cocaine to eliminate the racially disparate impact of
existing law. AB 337 was never heard on the Assembly
floor.
b) AB 125 (Dymally), of the 2005-06 Legislative Session,
equalized the penalties for violations of the laws related
to the possession or purchasing for sale of powder and
crack cocaine to eliminate the racially disparate impact of
existing law. AB 337 was never heard on the Assembly
floor.
SB 1010
Page 15
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
A New PATH
Alpha Project
American Civil Liberties Union
American Friends Service Committee
Asian American Drug Abuse Program, Inc.
California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program Executives
California Communities United Institute
California NAACP
California Public Defenders Association
California Society of Addiction Medicine
Californians for Safety and Justice
Californians United for a Responsible Budget
Children's Defense Fund of California
Center for Health Justice
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
Center on Policy Initiatives
Centro Legal de la Raza
Community Coalition
Courage Campaign
Fair Chance Project
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Greenlining Institute
HealthRIGHT360
Hermandad Mexicana Humanitarian Foundation
Homeboy Industries
Homeless Health Care Los Angeles
Hope of the Valley Rescue Mission
Islamic Shura Council
Justice Not Jails
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Los Angeles Community Action Network
Los Angeles District Attorneys Association
Los Angeles Regional Reentry Partnership
Mexican American Political Association
National Employment Law Project
New Way of Life Project
PICO California
SB 1010
Page 16
Pillars of the Community Employee Rights Center
Presente.org
Progressive Christians Uniting
Project Inform
Prototypes
San Diego Organizing Project
Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety
Watts/Century Latino Organization
Women's Foundation of California
Tarzana Treatment Centers
William C. Velasquez Institute
49 private citizens
Opposition
California Narcotics Officers' Association
California Police Chiefs Association
Analysis Prepared by : Gabriel Caswell / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744