The California Senate Public Safety Committee convened on July 1, 2025, to discuss Assembly Bill 1108, which addresses the investigation of in-custody deaths. The meeting featured emotional testimonies from family members of individuals who died during police encounters, highlighting concerns over conflicts of interest inherent in the current sheriff-coroner model used in most counties.

Tanya Hall, mother of Miles Hall, who was killed by police during a mental health crisis, expressed strong opposition to AB 1108. She argued that the bill fails to adequately address the conflict of interest that arises when sheriff-coroners investigate deaths involving their own deputies. Hall emphasized that the current system lacks the necessary independence and qualifications, as many sheriff-coroners are not trained medical professionals. She called for a more robust reform that would ensure independent investigations into such deaths.

Corey Salzillo, representing the California State Sheriffs Association, countered Hall's claims, asserting that sheriff-coroners do not conduct autopsies themselves but oversee investigations led by licensed medical professionals. He argued that the bill could lead to increased costs and logistical challenges for counties, particularly those that would need to contract with independent medical examiners.

Cephas Johnson, uncle of Oscar Grant, who was killed by police in 2009, echoed Hall's sentiments, stating that the sheriff-coroner model creates a systemic crisis of accountability. He criticized AB 1108 as merely a procedural fix that does not resolve the underlying issues of oversight and independence in death investigations.

The committee members acknowledged the concerns raised during the testimonies and discussed potential amendments to the bill aimed at enhancing the independence of medical examinations. However, some members expressed skepticism about whether the proposed changes would sufficiently eliminate the perceived conflicts of interest.

As the meeting concluded, the committee indicated that further discussions and amendments would be necessary before moving forward with the bill. The ongoing debate reflects a broader struggle for accountability and transparency in law enforcement practices, particularly regarding the treatment of marginalized communities in California.