Latest news with #AB379
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Yahoo
Man arrested for child abuse in Oroville, endangering toddler in roadway
( — A 31-year-old man was arrested on Wednesday for child abuse after he was witnessed endangering his child in the roadway and admitted to being under the influence of cocaine, according to the Oroville Police Department. Video Above: Controversial child sex trafficking bill AB379 amended Police said officers responded to reports of a man creating a traffic hazard around 1:30 p.m. on Meyers Street and Greenville Street. Callers said the man, later identified as Oscar Bonilla, was playing with an infant in the roadway, refusing to move for cars, walking in traffic while carrying the child and even dropping the toddler on the pavement. More witnesses said that Bonilla put the child on the street, walked in and out of traffic, and described him to be 'flinging the child around like a rag doll.' It was also reported that the suspect was armed with a knife and made motions as if he were trying to hurt the baby, OPD said. A witness was eventually able to take the toddler away when Bonilla dropped them. OPD said Bonilla was exhibiting erratic behavior when they made contact and admitted to being under the influence of a large quantity of cocaine. Police discovered that the suspect had removed the toddler from their home. Police investigate fatal, solo-vehicle crash in Rocklin According to OPD, the baby was taken to the hospital after they were left with road rash, scrapes and bruises. The suspect was taken into custody after being treated for his injuries at the hospital. Bonilla was arrested on felony child abuse and felony assault with a deadly weapon. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
California bill advances with new protections for minors in sex cases
( — California State Assemblyman Juan Alanis issued a statement on May 7 on the restoration of protections for 16 and 17-year-olds to Assembly 379. AB 379 was originally authored by Sacramento Democratic Assemblymember Maggie Krell. The bill's idea was to make it an automatic felony to purchase and solicit and minor under the age of 18 for sex. After the change in Assembly democratic leadership, the bill raised some concerns, arguing it could lead to unintended consequences, specifically jail time for 16 and 17-year-old trafficking victims and punishment for other young adults taking part in consensual sexual activity with them. Alanis said, 'Every child deserves to be shielded from the horrors of sexual exploitation. The overwhelming majority of Californians understand that 16 and 17-year-olds are minors and not adults.' Homeless woman suffers severe burns in alleged attack by suspect Democrats forced amendments onto the bill to exclude cases specifically when 16 and 17-year-olds are either purchased or solicited for sex. 'Making the purchase of 16- and 17-year-olds for sex a felony is both just and common sense. I commend my colleagues in the majority for reversing their previous actions, stripping protections for these kids,' Alanis said. 'I am still dismayed that we even had to have the threat of 16 and 17-year-olds not being covered by this law. The voice of the people matters, protecting our kids matters, and anyone selling children should face the highest penalties of the law.' The Assembly democratic leadership has reversed course, promising to once again allow the proposed felony in cases involving the mentioned age, but the only difference this time it would be that the felony will not apply when the perpetrator is within a three-year age range of the minor victim. At this time, the bill must receive approval from the assembly floor, which, if it does, it can advance to the State Senate. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
San Francisco Chronicle
10-05-2025
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
California Dems keep using the same plan for political failure. Are they done being embarrassed?
Over the past several years, Democrats in the California Legislature seem to have developed a bizarre, five-point political playbook that goes something like this: Take a highly unpopular stance that's almost impossible to defend or coherently explain to average voters and residents. Face severe public pushback. Double down on that stance. Face even more severe public pushback. Battered and humiliated, reverse course and adopt the very same policy they'd argued so fiercely against. The latest about-face happened Tuesday, when Democratic leaders of the California Assembly backtracked on their opposition to a proposal to strengthen penalties for offenders who purchase 16- and 17-year-olds for sex. Last week, Assembly Democrats overwhelmingly voted to strip AB379, by Assembly Member Maggy Krell, D-Sacramento, of its key provision: strengthening punishments to match those for offenders convicted of purchasing kids 15 and younger for sex. Democrats then inserted amendments that vaguely promised to 'adopt the strongest laws to protect 16- and 17-year-old victims.' Of course, the strongest law would have been passing Krell's original bill. Legislative leaders not only didn't do that, but they also ignored strong pressure from Gov. Gavin Newsom to do so. Predictably, severe public backlash ensued. Also predictably, Democrats backed down. They now plan to amend AB379 to impose felony penalties for adult offenders convicted of soliciting sex from 16- and 17-year-olds — as long as they're at least three years older than the minor, according to an outline of the deal Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas' office shared with me. (If the adult offender is less than three years older than the minor, the crime would still be classified as a misdemeanor.) The bill also creates a state grant program to help district attorneys streamline the prosecution of human trafficking. Krell is also being reinstated as a bill co-author after Assembly Democrats stripped her name from its original version. This bill recognizes what should long have been obvious: that buying minors for sex is an egregious and horrific crime, regardless of whether the kids are 15 or 17. And it takes a far more common-sense approach to resolving some Democrats' concerns that young adults in romantic relationships with minors (i.e., in a high-school relationship) could inadvertently be targeted. So why did legislators expend so much political capital dying on a hill they couldn't defend for more than a week — when a far more rational alternative was readily available? That remains to be seen. It's also unclear if they've learned anything. The state Senate still has to sign off on the bill if it clears the Assembly, where it's scheduled for a hearing Wednesday. Are Democrats ready to get to the serious business of improving outcomes in California? Or will they continue to give Republicans and other critics easy political ammunition to portray them as out-of-touch ideologues? After all, Democrats have been here before. In 2023, the Assembly Public Safety Committee killed a bill authored by state Sen. Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield, to classify human trafficking of minors as a 'serious' felony. The committee's reasoning? Such crimes could already be considered 'serious' if additional offenses had been committed — such as inflicting great bodily injury on the child victim. That absurd rationale sparked immediate backlash and left Democrats in damage control mode. Newsom and Rivas raced to intervene, and Grove's bill was revived and signed into law. Then, in 2024, Democrats embarked on a series of convoluted maneuvers — each more nonsensical than the last — in a failed attempt to head off a proposed November ballot measure to overhaul portions of Proposition 47, the controversial 2014 measure that lightened penalties for some drug and theft crimes. First, Rivas and Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire, D-Healdsburg, floated a mob-like proposal to kill their own public-safety legislative package if voters approved the proposed ballot measure, later dubbed Prop 36. But their nakedly transparent effort to force the measure's proponents to withdraw it from the ballot alienated both Republican and Democratic lawmakers, and Rivas and McGuire ultimately sacked the plan. This prompted Newsom to introduce his own last-ditch proposal for a competing ballot measure to reform Prop 47, even though Newsom, Rivas and McGuire had repeatedly said Prop 47 didn't need any changes. Knowing the proposal faced an uphill battle in the Legislature, Newsom proposed manipulating an arcane election procedure to circumvent the two-thirds super majority required to place it on the ballot and instead allow it to be passed with a simple majority. Less than 48 hours later, however, Newsom scrapped the proposal, stating that lawmakers couldn't reach a consensus on proposed amendments by the ballot deadline. To the surprise of absolutely no one who had set foot in California in recent years and had sensed voters' mounting frustrations with crime, Prop 36 passed with more than 68% of the vote. In all of these examples, Democrats have spent significant time, energy and resources fighting against what most Californians clearly view as common sense. In all of these cases, they've been forced to retreat with their tail between their legs. Does anyone know what kind of political strategy this is? Because it sure doesn't make any sense to me. Emily Hoeven is a columnist and editorial writer for the Opinion section.
Yahoo
06-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Fact Check: Posts incorrectly claim Calif. Democrats blocked bill to make the sex trafficking of minors a felony
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Generate Key Takeaways Claim: California Democrats blocked a bill that would make the sex trafficking of minors a felony. Rating: Rating: False Context: Both sex trafficking of minors and contacting anyone under the age of 18 for sex are felony charges in the state of California. The bill in question, AB 379, aimed to do several things, including increasing a separate charge for soliciting sex from a 16- or 17-year-old to a felony. California Democrats told the bill's author that they would support the bill if she removed that specific provision, which she did. Current California state law establishes the trafficking of minors for sex as a felony: "A person who causes, induces, or persuades, or attempts to cause, induce, or persuade, a person who is a minor at the time of commission of the offense to engage in a commercial sex act, with the intent to effect or maintain a violation of Section 266, 266h, 266i, 266j, 267, 311.1, 311.2, 311.3, 311.4, 311.5, 311.6, or 518 is guilty of human trafficking." California law also makes it a felony to contact any person under the age of 18 to engage in sexual activity. A separate law allows prosecutors to charge anyone who solicits a minor under the age of 16 for sex (or any minor under the age of 18 who is a victim of human trafficking for sex) with a "wobbler," meaning it can be a misdemeanor or felony on the first offense, and a felony on all subsequent offenses. Some, but not all, California Democrats removed a provision in a proposed bill that would extend the "wobbler" charge to anyone who solicited any 16- or 17-year old for sex, regardless of whether they were a victim of human trafficking. This proposed bill has no effect on the penalties for sex trafficking. On April 29, 2025, EndWokeness, a prominent conservative account on X, made a post claiming that Democratic lawmakers in California had rejected a bill that made sex trafficking a minor a felony. The claim spread on social media, and the conservative tabloid New York Post also reported it. Snopes readers searched the site to find out whether the claim was true. While the claim has some small basis in reality, the facts of the situation were significantly more complex — the claim as it appeared on social media was false. What is sex trafficking? It is important to have a clear understanding of the terms being used in the claims on social media and the bill itself. The definition of sex trafficking, and, in particular, who can be found guilty of it, is critical to understanding the nuance at play. California's existing law on human trafficking defines sex trafficking of a minor as follows: A person who causes, induces, or persuades, or attempts to cause, induce, or persuade, a person who is a minor at the time of commission of the offense to engage in a commercial sex act, with the intent to effect or maintain a violation of Section 266, 266h, 266i, 266j, 267, 311.1, 311.2, 311.3, 311.4, 311.5, 311.6, or 518 is guilty of human trafficking. A violation of this subdivision is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison as follows: (1) Five, 8, or 12 years and a fine of not more than five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000). (2) Fifteen years to life and a fine of not more than five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) when the offense involves force, fear, fraud, deceit, coercion, violence, duress, menace, or threat of unlawful injury to the victim or to another person. This law specifically targets people who facilitate commercial sex, but do not participate in it — in other words, pimps. Meanwhile, because the age of consent in California is 18, a separate state law makes it a felony to contact any minor for sexual activity: (a) Every person who contacts or communicates with a minor, or attempts to contact or communicate with a minor, who knows or reasonably should know that the person is a minor, with intent to commit an offense specified in Section 207, 209, 261, 264.1, 273a, 286, 287, 288, 288.2, 289, 311.1, 311.2, 311.4 or 311.11, or former Section 288a, involving the minor shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for the term prescribed for an attempt to commit the intended offense. (b) As used in this section, "contacts or communicates with" shall include direct and indirect contact or communication that may be achieved personally or by use of an agent or agency, any print medium, any postal service, a common carrier or communication common carrier, any electronic communications system, or any telecommunications, wire, computer, or radio communications device or system. (c) A person convicted of a violation of subdivision (a) who has previously been convicted of a violation of subdivision (a) shall be punished by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for five years. Assembly Bill 379 The fight revolves around a state bill, AB 379, that attempts to strengthen penalties for attempting to solicit minors for sex, among other things. The bill did not change the penalties for sex trafficking at all. Until 2024, California state law separately classified soliciting a prostitute as a misdemeanor offense. That year, the state legislature debated a bill that increased the charge for anyone who solicited a prostitute under the 18 years old to a "wobbler" on the first offense, meaning it could be tried as either a misdemeanor or a felony. (It's always a felony on subsequent offenses.) Democrats agreed to support the bill after further compromise — as it currently stands, the wobbler charge applies only to anyone who solicited minors under the age of 16, or anyone who solicited a minor who was trafficked. In 2025, Democratic Assembly member Maggy Krell, a former prosecutor and deputy attorney general, authored a bill that expanded the wobbler charge to include anyone who solicited a 16- or 17-year-old, among several other provisions, including making it a misdemeanor to loiter with the intent of buying sex. The bill's summary, as found on CalMatters, read in part (emphasis ours): Under existing law, a person who solicits, or who agrees to engage in, or who engages in, any act of prostitution is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor. Under existing law, if the person solicited was under 16 years of age, or if the person solicited was under 18 years of age at the time of the offense and the person solicited was a victim of human trafficking, the offense is punishable as a misdemeanor by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year and a fine not to exceed $10,000 or as a felony by imprisonment in the county jail for 16 months or 2 or 3 years. This bill would make that increased punishment applicable to any solicitation of any person under 18 years of age. The bill would require a person who commits prostitution with the intent to receive compensation, money, or anything of value from another person to, for a first or 2nd violation of those provisions, be offered a diversion program pursuant to specified provisions. The bill would make it a misdemeanor for any person to loiter in any public place with the intent to purchase commercial sex, as specified. The bill would make any person who violates that crime or who commits prostitution in exchange for providing compensation, money, or anything of value to the other person subject to an additional fine of $1,000, and would establish the Survivor Support Fund and require that additional fine be deposited in the fund. According to CalMatters reporting, other state Democrats rejected specifically the wobbler provision for 16- and 17-year-olds in Krell's bill (in bold above), and asked her to amend the bill by removing that provision in order to pass it through committee — which she did. This is what the social media posts incorrectly simplified to "blocking" the bill. Gov. Gavin Newsom announced that he supported the full original bill, including the wobbler charge for soliciting 16- and 17-year-olds. Why were some Democrats against the bill? Assembly member Nick Shultz, the chairman of the legislative body's public safety committee, told Sacramento news station KCRA-TV he was concerned the bill was being rushed through the chamber without adequately considering its potential effects. However, he told the Los Angeles Times he did not "have any opposition to the premise of the problem of what Assemblymember Krell is trying to solve." The LA Times article noted several arguments from opponents of the bill. One group was concerned that parents of teenagers in LGBTQ+ or interracial relationships who did not approve of such relationships might abuse the law. A survivor of child trafficking said she worried that increasing the penalties for soliciting would put sex workers in danger — the potential of a felony charge for simply propositioning might lead people paying for sex to take more risk and be more aggressive toward sex workers. In conclusion … Because the 2025 bill was introduced by a Democratic state lawmaker and was also supported by the Democratic governor, it is important to note that this issue was something Democrats, who hold a supermajority in the state legislature, disagreed on. Furthermore, the bill is still continuing through the state Assembly — Democrats were only opposed to the provision in the bill that increased penalties for soliciting 16- and 17-year-olds. Existing state law makes it a felony to contact a minor for sex, and this bill, if passed in its original form, would add an additional wobbler charge for solicitation. The bill would not affect charges for sex trafficking. As such, because sex trafficking remains a felony in California, the claim is false. Sources: "22 U.S. Code § 7102 - Definitions." LII / Legal Information Institute, Accessed 5 May 2025. AB 379- AMENDED. Accessed 5 May 2025. Associated Press. "What to Know About California's Fight Over Harsher Penalties for Soliciting Sex From Older Teens." US News & World Report, 1 May 2025, Ayestas, Jonathan. "New Coalition Pushes for California Bill That Targets People Who Buy Children for Sex." KCRA, 21 Apr. 2025, California Code, PEN 236.1. Accessed 5 May 2025. California Code, PEN 288.3. Accessed 5 May 2025. California Code, PEN 647. Accessed 5 May 2025. "California Cracks Down on Sex Trafficking of Minors." Governor of California, 26 Sept. 2023, "California Gov. Gavin Newsom Steps in to Help Revive a Stalled Bill on Child Trafficking." AP News, 12 July 2023, "California Governor Signs Law Increasing Penalty for Soliciting Minors to a Felony." AP News, 26 Sept. 2024, Downing, Jared. Calif. Lawmakers Block Bid to Make Paying for Sex with 16- and 17-Year-Olds a Felony. 30 Apr. 2025, Federal Law | National Human Trafficking Hotline. Accessed 5 May 2025. Kuang, Jeanne. "Why Are California Democrats against Higher Sentences for Child Sex Crimes?" CalMatters, 2 May 2025. Macht, Daniel. "Gov. Newsom Signs Bill Making It a Felony to Purchase a Child for Sex in California." KCRA, 26 Sept. 2024, Nguyen, Tran. "What to Know about California's Fight over Harsher Penalties for Soliciting Sex from Older Teens." Washington Post, 2 May 2025, "What Is Human Trafficking?" State of California - Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney General, 6 Jan. 2012, X, et al. "In a Break from Other Democrats, Newsom Says Soliciting Older Minors for Sex Should Be a Felony." Los Angeles Times, 30 Apr. 2025, Zavala, Ashley. "California Lawmakers to Block Effort to Make It a Felony to Buy 16 and 17-Year-Olds for Sex." KCRA, 29 Apr. 2025,
Politico
06-05-2025
- Politics
- Politico
California Dems find common ground on sex trafficking after public blow-ups
SACRAMENTO, California — Democratic lawmakers will push to tighten penalties against those who solicit 16- and 17-year-olds for sex after a public spat over a trafficking bill forced lawmakers to adopt a more conservative stance on the issue. Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas' office told POLITICO exclusively Tuesday morning that he had reached a deal to amend AB 379 so it would allow prosecutors to charge felonies for soliciting older teens. The agreement resulted from negotiations with Public Safety Committee Chair Nick Schultz and Assemblymember Maggy Krell, a former prosecutor and first-term Democratic lawmaker who introduced the original legislation. The updated bill would also prohibit prosecutors from applying felony charges if the accused is within three years of the victim's age — a provision meant to address concerns from progressive Democrats that the bill could unfairly ensnare people closer in age to potential victims. Purchasing sex with a minor would remain illegal, but it would be a lower-level crime. 'I'm looking at this from a prosecutor's standpoint — this bill strengthens California law and gives us the felony hammer to prosecute the creeps that are preying on teenagers,' Krell said in a statement. 'I appreciate everyone's work on this bill, especially the survivors who won't give up.' The fight over whether to add older teen victims to a new soliciting law created an uproar in the Assembly, dividing Democrats and giving campaign fodder to Republicans. Progressive lawmakers opposed the expansion, wary of increasing criminal penalties; some argued it would allow parents upset about LGBTQ and interracial relationships to weaponize the law. Krell fanned the flames last week as she joined with Republicans to force an Assembly floor vote to reinstate the portion of the bill applying to 16- and 17-year-old victims that had previously been removed. This led Rivas to take Krell's name off the legislation. Democrats then voted to add amendments promising to add unspecified protections for 16- and 17-year-olds to the bill. The floor snafu allowed a sex-trafficking discussion that gave Republicans carte blanche to hit Democrats on the issue — which has long been a losing one for the party. The Assembly Appropriations Committee will consider the changes Wednesday. 'I am grateful for the leadership of Speaker Rivas, Assemblymember Nguyen and others who have worked tirelessly the last few days to secure a Democratic solution that strengthens California's existing laws and penalties,' Schultz said in a statement.
