Transcript Highlights:

• We have a warrant for some other criminal activity in our area.
• We have a warrant for some other criminal activity in our area.
• If a warrant has been issued out of the U.S.
• And in some instances, these actions occurred without judicial warrants.
• It means requiring school districts to have clear... ...without a judicial warrant.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on several public safety bills, with testimony first on S.2681, Colby’s Law, which would establish safety standards for BMX and motocross tracks. Supporters, including the family of a child killed at a track, argued the bill is needed because some tracks lack basic protections such as barriers, emergency plans, on-site medical staff, and adequate track maintenance. A motocross track representative opposed the bill as overregulation that could impose major costs and argued existing safety efforts and voluntary safety committees are preferable. No vote was taken during the hearing. The committee also heard testimony on S.2680, which would expand emergency preparedness requirements around aging nuclear power plants and nuclear waste sites from a 10-mile to a 50-mile radius. Supporters from Cape Cod Downwinders, Massachusetts Peace Action, physicians, and other advocates said current law is outdated and insufficient, citing risks from radioactive waste storage, limited federal oversight, and the need for broader evacuation and emergency planning. Testifiers urged the bill’s passage, and no action was taken. A major portion of the hearing focused on the Protect Act, H.5158, dealing with limits on cooperation between state/local agencies and federal civil immigration enforcement. Sheriffs testified about how ICE detainers and notification requests work in practice, emphasizing discretion, public safety, and the difference between sentenced prisoners and pretrial detainees. Supporters from labor, education, and health care groups said immigrant communities are living in fear and asked for stronger protections, including bans on 287(g) agreements and clearer limits on ICE activity in schools, hospitals, and other sensitive locations. The hearing also included testimony on H.4697 regarding training and certification of constables and civil deputy sheriffs, with the Hampshire County sheriff saying sheriffs are already working with POST and MPTC on training standards and that the bill may be duplicative.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><01:56:57.040><c> article</c> cast their vote on any warrant article cast their vote on any warrant
• Obviously, as warrant article to pass.
• </c><01:57:22.080><c> article</c> sentence says, "No warrant article sentence says, "No warrant article
• </c> controversial or impactful warrant controversial or impactful warrant articles.<01:59:59.840><c>
• As you go down the warrant article.

Committee: House Election Law

Summary: The committee first held a public hearing on CACR 30, a constitutional amendment that would make Public Utilities Commission members elected rather than appointed. Representative Thomas Opel testified in support, arguing that rising energy costs and the utility rate-setting structure make the PUC too insulated from ratepayers, and that elected commissioners would be more accountable. He also said the proposal should ideally include a ban on contributions from regulated utilities to PUC campaigns, and acknowledged the draft had errors and needed work. Representative Lane questioned whether a contribution ban would be constitutional, and Opel said there may be ways to structure one to survive legal challenge. The hearing closed with five online supporters and two opponents reported, and no one else testified. The committee then went into executive session on House Bill 1062, authorizing the Secretary of State to conduct random audits of voters’ citizenship qualifications. Representative Newsome offered an amendment to clarify how voters with no evidence either way would be treated and to require a public report on audit results, including referrals, costs, and databases used. Representative Aqua opposed the amendment, saying the bill should pass as written. The amendment failed 9-7, and after further debate over privacy and the purpose of audits, the committee voted 9-7 to recommend ought to pass on HB 1062. Representative Barry was assigned the majority report and Representative Newsome the minority report. The committee next considered House Bill 1388, which would clarify the form of ballots for constitutional amendments. Representative Weary said the bill simply provides clarity for voters and imposes no hardship on the Secretary of State’s office. The committee unanimously voted 17-0 to recommend ought to pass and placed the bill on the consent calendar. Finally, the committee opened a public hearing on House Bill 1125, enabling school districts to adopt partisan school district elections. Representative Weary said partisan labels would help voters understand candidate positions and address low turnout in local elections. He emphasized the bill is enabling, not mandatory. Members questioned why the change was needed if few municipalities have used existing authority, and whether it would increase divisiveness. Weary said many voters are unaware of the option and that partisan labels would give them more information. The hearing closed with five online supporters and 184 opponents. The committee then began executive session on House Bill 1187, concerning the filing deadline for special-election candidates for state representative, but discussion was still ongoing in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• So if you go online, right, and you search for a vehicle and it says a $50,000... fees and all those
• So if you go online, right, and you search for a vehicle and it says a 50,000, You go online, right,
• and you search for a vehicle, and it says a $50,000 vehicle.
• still deeply analyzing the most recent amendments, we believe robust stakeholder conversations are warranted

Summary: The committee first took up SB 712, which would expand California’s smog-check exemption for classic vehicles by adding model years 1976 through 1986 in phases, with a sunset in 2032. The author and supporters, including lowrider advocates and the Specialty Equipment Market Association, argued the bill would preserve car culture, support a small class of rarely driven collector vehicles, and reduce burdens on owners who struggle to find equipment for older smog tests. Opponents, including air district officials, the American Lung Association, and other environmental groups, warned the bill would weaken an important emissions-control program and increase pollution. After discussion, the committee adopted the motion to do pass as amended to Appropriations on a roll call vote of 10-0, with the roll held open for additional votes. The committee then heard SB 800, which requires Caltrans, working with local governments, to assess mitigation measures for suicide prevention on locally owned overpasses crossing state highways. The bill was presented as a response to recent tragedies in Rancho Cucamonga and was supported by local officials, health organizations, and suicide-prevention advocates, who said the measure would help identify high-risk locations and lead to life-saving interventions. There was no registered opposition. The committee members expressed support, and SB 800 was passed to Appropriations on a unanimous roll call vote, with the roll held open. Next, the committee considered SB 30, which would prohibit California public entities from selling, donating, or transferring decommissioned diesel locomotives and railroad equipment with Tier 1 or older engines unless the engine is removed, while allowing Tier 2 and newer transfers under certain conditions. The author and supporters framed the bill as a climate and public-health measure to prevent older, dirtier locomotives from continuing to pollute elsewhere, while transit agencies opposed it, arguing it could limit useful transfers of equipment that still supports passenger service and could be better handled through case-by-case air-quality review. After debate, the committee voted 6-4 to pass SB 30 as amended to Appropriations, with the roll held open for later additions. The committee also heard SB 791, which replaces the flat dealer document processing charge cap with a 1% fee capped at $350, along with new disclosure requirements. Dealers and industry groups supported the bill as a way to recover costs and improve transparency, while consumer advocates opposed it as an unjustified increase that would burden buyers. The committee approved SB 791 on a 8-? roll call vote and held the roll open. The meeting then moved on to SB 34, a port-air-quality bill presented by Senator Richardson, but the transcript ends during testimony and debate on that measure.

Transcript Highlights:

• And if a case does warrant formal discipline and is sent to the Attorney General's Office for prosecution
• Sometimes it’s a search firm.
• A quick Google search revealed that Santa Rosa, a 42-square-mile city with 175,000 people, had 130 massage
• A quick Google search revealed that Santa Rosa, a 42-square-mile city with 175,000 people, had 130 massage

Summary: The joint sunset oversight hearing reviewed five regulatory entities: the Board of Behavioral Sciences, the Board of Psychology, the Physician Assistant Board, the Podiatric Medical Board, and the California Massage Therapy Council. Across the hearing, each entity described recent accomplishments, licensing and enforcement workload, workforce shortages, and efforts to modernize processes. Common themes included streamlining licensure, expanding access to care, addressing telehealth or emerging technology, and balancing consumer protection with workforce needs. For the Board of Behavioral Sciences, members discussed workforce shortages in mental health, supervision barriers, telehealth confidentiality, AI in therapy, interstate compacts, school-based services, and military spouse licensure. The board said it has expanded outreach, improved licensing processes, and created temporary practice authority tracking, while also expressing concern about counseling compacts and emphasizing California-specific law, ethics, and cultural competency. Public commenters supported the board’s work and the possible move to a national MFT exam, while also urging more resources. The Board of Psychology highlighted fee adjustments, streamlined licensure pathways, enforcement process improvements, new CPD requirements, and proposed changes including a psychotherapist-client privilege exception for investigations. Committee members and public witnesses focused heavily on that privilege proposal, with some members opposing it as too broad and privacy-invasive, while the board argued it is needed to obtain records in bias and sexual misconduct cases. The board also discussed workforce shortages, processing improvements, and the use of inactive status for psychological associates. The Physician Assistant Board reported growth in the PA workforce and education programs, SB 697 implementation, and financial pressure from rising enforcement costs. The main policy debate centered on physician-to-PA ratios and practice agreements, with board representatives and many public commenters arguing that current restrictions limit access to care, especially in rural areas, while the California Medical Association defended the need for explicit ratios and agreements. The board also discussed AI, fee increases, and tracking temporary practice authority. The Podiatric Medical Board described licensing and renewal reforms, residency expansion, enforcement support, and budget constraints, while public testimony raised concerns about a proposed fee increase and about reimbursement parity and practice recognition for podiatrists. Finally, the California Massage Therapy Council defended the certification model over licensure, citing lower costs, local government collaboration, anti-trafficking work, and its role in vetting applications and disciplining bad actors; no formal votes or final actions were taken during this portion of the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's a June warrant and there's the warrant for the December bill.
• So the warrants committed, right?
• uh the warrant warrant and there's the uh the warrant for<02:37:59.520><c> the</c><02:37:59.680><c>
• So the warrants committed, right?
• So, if you go to a warrant article on your warrant, it'll have a recommendation count typically from

Committee: House Municipal and County Government

Transcript Highlights:

• from a time equal to the time given to a governing body or a budget committee to introduce their warrant
• article from a time petitioned warrant article from a time equal<02:15:24.079><c> to</c><02:15:24.320
• </c><02:15:30.800><c> article</c><02:15:31.679><c> to</c><02:15:32.000><c> a</c> introduce their warrant
• article to a introduce their warrant article to a minimum<02:15:33.040><c> of</c><02:15:33.440><c> 10
• Others came fleeing war, poverty, persecution, or simply searching for the promise that America holds

Transcript Highlights:

• the idea of plain English court forms that use ordinary terms as opposed to technical terms like warrant
• So instead of warrant in debt, a lot of folks see that and they think warrant, arrest warrant, what is
• A lot of folks see that and they think warrant, arrest warrant, what is this?
• And I think the easy first consequence of this, if you just add to, you know, let's say warrant in debt

Transcript Highlights:

• I believe under the sub that I propose, we changed that section to actually pull in the judicial warrant
• the authority when entering a residence for the sole purpose, because we changed it to the judicial warrant
• This amendment just makes it clear that when a person enters, when a peace officer has a warrant to enter
• general exceptions to... ...is experiencing a mental health crisis, the general exceptions to the warrant
• We actually cross-reference the judicial warrant statute and ordered and referenced civil commitment

Bills: SB5925 , SB6086 , SB6074 , SB5962 , SB6296 , SGA9272 , SGA9255 , SGA9256 , SGA9271

Committee: Senate Law & Justice

Keywords: Attorney General, civil investigative demand, CID, subpoena-like demand, investigative authority, consumer protection, civil enforcement, pre-suit investigation, document production, interrogatories, deposition, oral testimony, confidentiality, trade secrets, judicial review, enforcement action, Washington RCW, law enforcement powers, government transparency, due process

Transcript Highlights:

• The second way is the judicial warrant process through signature of a judge. is eight, as I've been told
• The second way is the judicial warrant process through signature of a judge.
• The other way is the judicial warrant process through the signature of a judge for that detainer.
• governor has said that in order to hand this fellow over to ICE, they're going to need a judicial warrant
• If they want, in the scenario, if a judicial warrant would have been in place, that would have likely

Committee: House Public Safety

Transcript Highlights:

• addresses for for flagged to to search addresses for for flagged addresses<00:20:59.360><c> beyond</
• The act requires title insurers to search for Rock Notices before issuing a policy.
• ,</c> reasonable search, reasonable search, and<00:47:15.680><c> fails</c><00:47:16.040><c> to</c><00
• ,</c> would have been found by such a search, would have been found by such a search, the<00:47:20.880
• </c><01:30:41.240><c> data</c> I searched for any meaningful data I searched for any meaningful data

Committee: Joint Corporations, Elections & Political Subdivisions

Transcript Highlights:

• , I I feel for my and telephonic warrants, I I feel for my family,<00:47:48.480><c> my</c><00:47:48.640
• He said the office has had one judge in the First Circuit go through a blood warrant and that more of
• , which means that telephonic warrants, which means that what<00:49:58.160><c> we</c><00:49:58.319><c
• We have had one judge in the warrants.
• and we appreciate that blood warrant and we appreciate that judge's<00:50:31.599><c> work,</c><00:50

Summary: The House Committee on Transportation heard several vehicle and traffic safety measures. HB 2347, which would require the director of transportation to adopt rules allowing mobile vehicle safety inspections, drew support from DOT and individual testifiers who said it would add convenience and efficiency for passenger vehicle owners. Committee members questioned how home or driveway inspections would handle safety standards such as headlight checks and whether added convenience would come with higher costs; DOT also said it would follow up on inspection fees and audit procedures. HB 182, which would exempt motorcycles and passenger cars from safety inspections, received opposition from DOT, the Hawaii Police Department, and the City and County of Honolulu Department of Customer Services, with Grassroot Institute in support. HB 2022, which would equalize county and state annual vehicle registration fees, was opposed by the Hawaii Transportation Association because it would raise costs that would likely be passed on to consumers. The committee also took testimony on HB 1708, which would make operating a vehicle under the influence at a high intoxication level a class C felony and add probation requirements. Prosecutors, police, DOT, and the Honolulu customer services department supported the bill, while the Public Defender’s Office opposed it, arguing that it would increase court workload, require more defense resources, and create collateral consequences, including possible immigration impacts. Several witnesses and members discussed a proposed HD1 that would change the bill to a graduated penalty structure, making a first offense a misdemeanor and a second offense a felony, while also addressing deferred pleas and DUI deferrals. The Honolulu Prosecutor’s Office supported the bill’s intent but warned that Oahu lacks a reliable electronic or telephonic warrant system, which could lead to more refusals and additional court impacts. HB 2086, which would amend negligent injury in the first degree to include injuries negligently inflicted by intoxicated drivers, received support from DOT, county prosecutors, police, and the Honolulu Prosecutor’s Office. Honolulu’s prosecutor supported the bill but recommended against the attached HD1, saying the current drafting better preserves negligent injury as a lesser included offense and avoids blending it with a separate statutory scheme. HB 2154, which would create a framework for intelligent speed assist technology and require a report to the legislature, was supported by DOT, county police, Smart Start LLC, AAA Hawaii, and others, with the Alliance for Automobile Innovation offering comments and proposed amendments. A testifier described the bill as a way to prevent repeat speeding by limiting vehicles from accelerating beyond the speed limit. No votes or final committee actions were taken in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• No warrant, no explanation.
• No warrant, no explanation.
• No warrant,<00:09:08.720><c> no</c><00:09:08.959><c> explanation.
• In Minneapolis, warrant, no explanation.
• And in Bell Plains, federal warrant.

Summary: The meeting was a multi-state press event and hearing focused on alleged federal immigration enforcement abuses in Minnesota and other states. Minnesota lawmakers and invited legislators from Montana, Illinois, North Dakota, Tennessee, and elsewhere described ICE and Border Patrol activity as warrantless, masked, and violent, citing detentions of residents and U.S. citizens, school lockdowns, hospital disruptions, chemical munitions, and the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Brady. Speakers said the actions were terrorizing immigrant communities, communities of color, Native Americans, and families, and argued that the federal government was using Minnesota as a testing ground for broader authoritarian overreach. Several lawmakers tied the situation to constitutional and civil-rights concerns, saying the conduct violated protections related to due process, free speech, and equal treatment. They urged state and federal officials to resist cooperation with ICE, protect schools, hospitals, churches, and courthouses as safe spaces, and support sanctuary policies. One speaker said Minnesota had never before needed a select committee on federal impacts, but that the current situation justified it; another said a coalition of 27 states was coordinating 85 bills to require coordination with local law enforcement, increase transparency, protect against warrantless arrests and racial profiling, and impose consequences for federal misconduct. During the press question period, lawmakers from North Dakota and Tennessee said similar enforcement activity was spreading beyond Minnesota, including reported abductions in Fargo and a large federal presence in Memphis that had led to deportations and business closures. Illinois lawmakers said their state had already passed sanctuary laws and would continue pushing back. The event ended with calls for continued organizing, state-level legislation, and collective resistance to federal immigration enforcement practices described by speakers as unlawful and abusive.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have over a thousand search-and-rescue response personnel that I have organized through my military
• In which I represent House District 124, we have been boots on the ground since July 6th for the search
• Initially, the Army was not being aggressive enough, in my view, in searching for her.
• to push and get the White House involved and others to make sure that they did the right thing in searching
• visited families whose doors were knocked down by ICE and police collaboration without a judicial warrant

Committee: House Congressional Redistricting, Select

Transcript Highlights:

• federal agencies to access, review, or obtain their worker records without a subpoena or judicial warrant
• The element that requires a subpoena or a judicial warrant would be any other worker records as defined
• An employer would not be required to request a subpoena or a judicial warrant in order to comply.
• The element that requires a subpoena or a judicial warrant would be any other worker records as defined
• The bill also prohibits an employer from sharing worker records without a subpoena or judicial warrant

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 2091, a collective bargaining measure that would require state agencies and other employers covered by the Personnel System Reform Act to provide unions with employee contact and job information similar to what other public employers already must share. The sponsor and union witnesses said the bill would close a gap left by prior legislation and improve communication with represented employees; no one testified in opposition during the hearing portion shown. Action on the bill was deferred. The committee then moved to House Bill 2264, which would allow workers who voluntarily participate in an employer-initiated layoff or reduction-in-force plan to qualify for unemployment insurance if the separation results from that plan. The sponsor and a member described it as a narrow fix to clarify eligibility and reduce disputes. After brief supportive testimony, the committee voted 9-0 to report the bill out with a due pass recommendation. A lengthy hearing followed on House Bill 2218, a workers’ compensation bill that would expand provider choice, require notice to injured workers of their right to choose a provider, limit employer steering, speed utilization review, allow more flexibility from treatment guidelines, and change rules for reopening or continuing treatment on certain claims. Supporters, including injured workers, unions, attorneys, firefighters, and a psychiatrist, argued the current system delays care and over-relies on rigid guidelines; opponents from business groups and the Department of Labor and Industries said the bill would weaken evidence-based standards, raise costs, and create uncertainty. No final action was taken in the portion shown. The committee also heard House Bill 2105, as a proposed substitute, which would require employers to notify workers after an ICE Form I-9 inspection notice or results, limit voluntary access to certain records without a subpoena or warrant, require workplace postings, and create enforcement by the Attorney General and private lawsuits. Supporters said the bill would provide due process, transparency, and protection for immigrant workers; opponents, especially small business and agricultural groups, warned of conflicts with federal law, burdensome notice requirements, and severe penalties. The hearing continued with additional testimony, and no vote was taken in the excerpt provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• If there is a warrant, then yes, that would be allowable in the constitutional sense.
• The way this bill is drafted, though, doesn't require that there be a warrant.
• And, in fact, I think in most cases there wouldn't be a warrant.
• How many are being held without a warrant?
• Should warrants be required more expressly in bills like this?

Committee: Senate Public Safety

Summary: The Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety met on March 24, 2006, first as a subcommittee until a quorum was reached. The committee heard several bills in file order, beginning with SB 1056 by Senator Grayson, which would require protective orders for sexually explicit material involving adult victims in criminal cases. The author and survivor witnesses argued the bill would prevent unnecessary copying and dissemination of highly sensitive evidence while preserving defendants’ access to discovery; public defenders and criminal defense groups opposed it as vague, overbroad, and potentially harmful to due process. After committee amendments were accepted, SB 1056 passed on a due pass as amended motion to Appropriations, with the bill held on call. The committee then heard SB 937 by Senator Gonzalez, which would restrict law enforcement use of flashbang devices for crowd control and ban their use in immigration enforcement. Supporters described serious injuries and community fear from recent deployments, while sheriffs’ and police groups objected that the bill was vague, could limit necessary tactics, and might conflict with existing law and task-force operations. Members raised concerns about overuse of force but also about drafting details and exceptions for exigent circumstances; the bill was moved on a due pass motion to Appropriations and held on call. Next, SB 1070 by Senator Grove sought to make intentional disruptions of worship services a wobbler offense, allowing felony charges in more serious cases. Faith leaders and supporters said the bill was needed to deter coordinated disruptions and protect religious exercise, while opponents, including civil liberties and public defender groups, argued it would criminalize speech, raise constitutional concerns, and impose excessive penalties for conduct better addressed through existing law or restorative justice. After extended debate, the committee rejected the bill on a roll call vote, and the motion to reconsider was granted without objection. The committee also heard SB 1130 by Senator Reyes, which would update privacy law for wearable recording devices such as smart glasses by restricting surreptitious recording in places with a reasonable expectation of privacy and limiting technologies that disable recording indicators. Supporters said the bill addressed a growing privacy threat, while industry groups warned it could create liability for manufacturers and businesses and needed tighter definitions. After committee amendments reducing penalties and removing manufacturer provisions from the criminal code, SB 1130 passed as amended to Rules, with the bill held on call. Finally, the committee heard SCA 2 by Senator Troy, a constitutional amendment to bar governors from pardoning themselves or immediate family members. Supporters framed it as an accountability measure, while some members objected that it addressed a hypothetical problem and could unnecessarily restrict legitimate clemency. The transcript ends during the roll call on SCA 2, with the vote in progress.

Transcript Highlights:

• The way this bill is drafted, though, doesn't require that there be a warrant.
• And, in fact, I think in most cases there wouldn't be a warrant.
• How many are being held without a warrant?
• Should warrants be required more expressly in bills like this?
• Should warrants be required more expressly in bills like this?

Summary: The committee met first as a subcommittee because a quorum was not initially present, and it heard several bill presentations. SB 1056 by Senator Grayson would require courts to issue protective orders for sexually explicit material involving adult victims in criminal cases, limiting copying and dissemination while preserving discovery and trial rights. Supporters, including Aaron and Denise Heskins-Quinn and the California District Attorneys Association, said the bill would prevent retraumatization and close a privacy gap; opponents, including public defenders and criminal defense groups, argued it was overbroad, vague, and could interfere with defense preparation. The committee adopted amendments narrowing the bill’s scope and sent it to Appropriations on a due pass as amended vote, with the bill held on call. SB 937 by Senator Gonzalez would restrict law enforcement use of flashbang devices for crowd control and ban their use in immigration enforcement. Supporters described injuries and fear caused by flashbangs and explosive breaching charges, including incidents involving protests and a home entry in Huntington Park; opponents from sheriffs’ and police groups argued the bill’s definitions were vague, could limit tactical discretion, and might conflict with existing law and task force operations. Members expressed both support and concern about definitions and exigent circumstances, and the bill was moved due pass to Appropriations on a vote, with the final roll held on call. SB 1070 by Senator Grove would make intentional disruptions of worship services a wobbler offense, allowing felony charges in more serious cases. Faith leaders and supporters said the bill was needed to deter coordinated disruptions and protect religious exercise, while opponents including the Friends Committee on Legislation, ACLU California Action, and public defenders argued it would criminalize speech, rely on a content-based statute, and impose disproportionate felony penalties. Several committee members raised constitutional and restorative-justice concerns, and the bill failed on the roll call, though reconsideration was granted. SB 1130 by Senator Reyes would update privacy law for wearable recording devices such as smart glasses, limiting surreptitious recording in places where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy and restricting technologies that disable recording indicators. Supporters said the bill responds to emerging surveillance risks; opponents from TechNet and industry groups warned it could create liability for manufacturers and businesses beyond the actual wrongdoers. The committee accepted amendments reducing penalties, removing manufacturer provisions from the bill’s core criminal section, and creating civil penalties in the Business and Professions Code; the bill was moved due pass as amended to Rules, with the vote held on call. The committee also heard SCA 2 by Senator Troy, which would bar governors from pardoning themselves or immediate family members; there was no public opposition, but some members questioned the need for a constitutional amendment given the lack of evidence of abuse, and discussion was ongoing when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• The way this bill is drafted, though, doesn't require that there be a warrant.
• And, in fact, I think in most cases there wouldn't be a warrant.
• How many are being held without a warrant?
• Should warrants be required more expressly in bills like this?
• Should warrants be required more expressly in bills like this, and if so, why?

Committee: Senate Public Safety

Transcript Highlights:

• 2024, the agency received an email notification from the Treasurer's Office stating that a state warrant
• had been altered and cashed, and that DHS would need to begin the affidavit process to get a new warrant
• 21, 2024, 15 business days later, that the agency notified us of the theft of the almost $610,000 warrant
• The pay line on the redeemed warrant was altered and replaced with the name of a private business, but
• the warrant amount and number remained unaltered.

Committee: All LEGISLATIVE JOINT AUDITING-STATE AGENCIES

Summary: The committee first approved prior meeting minutes by motion and voice vote. It then took up audit reports, with several reports without findings filed without objection. The main discussion centered on the FY24 Department of Human Services audit, which contained three findings: alleged fraud involving disaster SNAP and Medicaid benefits, a delayed notification of a nearly $610,000 altered state warrant, and asset-control issues including missing or misidentified equipment and improper sales tax paid on vehicle purchases. DHS representatives said some fraud cases had been resolved with restitution, others were pending or dismissed, and they described corrective steps such as updating internal notification procedures and asset controls. Committee members questioned the missing assets, the notification delay, and the sales tax issue, and the report was deferred to the next meeting so DHS could return with written policy changes. The committee also reviewed the FY24 Department of Parks, Heritage and Tourism audit, which had two findings: loss of nearly $3,500 in museum receipts and cash-control exceptions involving $100 missing from a park camping drawer and an $80 overage at War Memorial Stadium. Agency officials said the museum loss was believed to be theft, that controls had since been strengthened with a point-of-sale and reservation system, and that the stadium issue reflected the unique mix of cash and bank balances used for events. Members asked about the investigation, reimbursement through the bond board, and whether the employee’s final paycheck could be withheld. The chair later relayed that the prosecutor’s office said the Parks and Tourism investigation remained open and that additional information had been requested from the agency, so the report was also deferred to the next meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Additionally, cities don't have an annual warrant or warrant articles, so it seems as if they would presumably
• Additionally, cities don't have an annual warrant or warrant articles, so it seems as if they would presumably
• Additionally, cities don't have an annual warrant or warrant articles, so it seems as if they would presumably
• </c> warrant article prior to voting. warrant article prior to voting.
• ><c> so</c> Annual warrant or warrant articles, so it seems as if they would presumably be exempt.

Committee: House Housing

Transcript Highlights:

• You have to get a judicial warrant for that. There is a process.
• You can get a warrant, go to the court, and get a judicial warrant issued by an Article 3 judge in order
• And the last thing that I would say, two words: judicial warrant.
• warrant.
• heard from some of my colleagues about a written warrant, judicial warrant.

Summary: The Senate opened with routine proceedings, approval of the prior day’s journal, and several motions to restore previously passed bills to the third-reading calendar. Senate Print 2436A, an amendment to the Administrative Code of New York City, and Senate Print 7160, an amendment to the Elder Law, were both reconsidered and restored to the calendar by roll call. Amendments were also received on Senate Print 9960, which retained its place on the third-reading calendar. The chamber then paused to honor Madeline Wilson on her 100th birthday and Marilyn D. Mosley through previously adopted resolutions, with family members and guests recognized on the floor. The Senate also welcomed Columbia Kicks Cancer, a student-run East Greenbush fundraising team that raised more than $239,000 for blood cancer research and care. The Finance Committee reported Senate Print 9005C, a budget bill amending Chapter 268 of the Laws of 1996, directly to third reading, and the Senate accepted the report and the message of necessity. The bill was then taken up on the controversial calendar, leading to extended debate on Part LL, which focused on limits on state and local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, including 287(g) agreements, informal cooperation, masking rules for law enforcement, sensitive locations such as polling places, and the creation of an Office of Immigration Trust within the Attorney General’s office. Supporters argued the bill would keep state and municipal employees focused on their own duties, protect constitutional rights, and prevent New York resources from being used for federal immigration enforcement; they also said it would not bar all cooperation or prevent local police from responding to crime. Opponents argued it would hinder public safety, restrict law enforcement cooperation, and interfere with local discretion, while some raised concerns about constitutional issues and the practical effects on sheriffs, county jails, and police agencies. The debate also included a separate provision creating a civil cause of action for constitutional-rights violations by federal, state, or local officials, which supporters described as an accountability measure. Members further discussed the masking section, with supporters saying it applied broadly to officials and was intended to withstand constitutional scrutiny, while opponents cited a recent Ninth Circuit ruling striking down a similar California law. The Office of Immigration Trust and its complaint/referral process were also examined, including the role of the Governor and the State Education Department in reviewing alleged violations. No final vote on the controversial calendar bill was taken in the portion of the transcript provided.