SACRAMENTO — A month after a public uproar over a mama bear being euthanized after swiping at a resident in Monrovia, state lawmakers are considering mandating the use of nonlethal ways to help allow wildlife and humans to coexist.

Sen. Catherine Blakespear (D-Encinitas) said she believes the bear’s death, and the state’s decision to kill four wolves last year that were preying on cattle, raised public concern.

“That made everybody realize we have to do better here,” she told The Times on Thursday. “We need to recognize the importance of seeing ourselves, humans, as part of a larger ecosystem that includes animals and plants and our world and trying to protect it.”

Senate Bill 1135, introduced by Blakespear, would direct the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to create the Wildlife Coexistence Program, which would provide public education, offer technical assistance and maintain a statewide incident reporting system. It would help communities deploy nonlethal devices to deter predators, like barriers or noise and light machines.

At a legislative hearing on Tuesday, Blakespear told the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water that a three-year state initiative offering similar services was seeing positive results — until it was discontinued two years ago after funding ran dry. She said it was time to implement a permanent program.

“Human population growth, habitat loss and the growth of industry across California inevitably leads to interaction between humans and wildlife,” Blakespear told legislators. “No two animal species are the same and each has unique behavior patterns and territories. SB 1135 recognizes these differences and gives communities the tools to prevent conflict and respond when it occurs.”

The bill would also rename a state program that reimburses ranchers who lose livestock to wolves, calling it the Wolf-Livestock Coexistence and Compensation Program. It would require ranchers seeking compensation to show they were using nonlethal deterrents approved by the department.

Sen. Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield) stressed that life in rural areas is different than living in a city. She said some families and cattle ranchers have a genuine fear of predators.

“When these baby calves drop on the ground and then two wolves start ripping them apart, it’s not the prettiest thing you’ve ever witnessed,” said Grove, who abstained from voting on the measure. “These wolves are not puppies.”

More than 30 organizations are supporting the legislation, including the National Wildlife Federation, Defenders of Wildlife, California State Assn. of Counties, Animal Legal Defense Fund and Citizens for Los Angeles Wildlife.

The California Farm Bureau and the California Cattlemen’s Assn. are in opposition due to concerns over funding.

Last month, Blakespear sent a letter to the chair of the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review requesting $48.8 million to implement the legislation, with $25 million earmarked for addressing wolf encounters. Half of the money for wolf conflicts would go toward deterrents; the remainder would compensate ranchers for their losses.

Kirk Wilbur, vice president of government affairs cattlemen’s association, said the organization is concerned about that division of funding — especially if funding is reduced.

Wilbur told legislators Tuesday that the organization supports some aspects of the bill and was having productive conversations with Blakespear to address their concerns.

The bill ultimately passed the committee with a 5-to-1 vote and now heads to the Senate Committee on Appropriations.

Human wildlife conflicts have made headlines in California recently, with a bear refusing to leave a basement for weeks in Altadena and a mama bear dubbed Blondie crossing paths last month with a woman walking her dog in Monrovia.

Blondie swiped the woman’s leg, and was subsequently euthanized by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Her two cubs were sent to the San Diego Humane Society’s Ramona Wildlife Center. The bear’s death upset many in the community, as thousands had signed a petition calling for other solutions, like relocation.

Deadly wildlife attacks on humans, however, are rare in California.

There have been six reported human fatalities from mountain lions since 1890, according to the state Fish and Wildlife Department. The agency recorded one human fatality from a coyote in 1981 and another fatality from a black bear in 2023. The department has no recorded human fatalities from gray wolves.

The Justice Department is turning to former Trump attorney Joeseph diGenova to spearhead a probe into ex-CIA Director John Brennan and others over the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation, as the department reshuffles leadership of the sprawling inquiry.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has tapped diGenova to serve as counsel overseeing the matter, according to a New York Times report, putting a former Trump attorney in a key role in the high-profile probe. A federal grand jury seated in Miami has been impaneled since late last year.

The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

DOJ ACTIVELY PREPARING TO ISSUE GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS RELATING TO JOHN BRENNAN INVESTIGATION: SOURCES

DiGenova, a former U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., who represented Trump during special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, has repeatedly accused Brennan of misconduct tied to the origins of the Russia probe—allegations that have not resulted in criminal charges.

He also said in a 2018 appearance on Fox News that Brennan colluded with the FBI and DOJ to frame Trump.

The origins of the Russia investigation have been the subject of ongoing scrutiny by Trump allies, who have argued that intelligence and law enforcement officials improperly launched the probe.

BRENNAN INDICTMENT COULD COME WITHIN ‘WEEKS’ AS PROSECUTORS REQUEST OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPTS

DiGenova’s appointment follows the ouster of Maria Medetis Long, a national security prosecutor in the South Florida U.S. attorney’s office. She had been overseeing the inquiry, including a false statements probe related to Brennan and broader conspiracy-related investigations.

As the investigation continues, federal investigators have issued subpoenas seeking information related to intelligence assessments of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Brennan has previously denied wrongdoing related to the Russia investigation and has defended the intelligence community’s assessment that Moscow interfered in the 2016 election.

WASHINGTON  — A man carrying a gun and a cellphone entered a federal credit union in a small town in central Virginia in May 2019 and demanded cash.

He left with $195,000 in a bag and no clue to his identity. But his smartphone was keeping track of him.

What happened next could yield a landmark ruling from the Supreme Court on the 4th Amendment and its restrictions against “unreasonable searches.” The court will hear arguments on the issue on April 27.

Typically, police use tips or leads to find suspects, then seek a search warrant from a judge to enter a house or other private area to seize the evidence that can prove a crime.

Civil libertarians say the new “digital dragnets” work in reverse.

“It’s grab the data and search first. Suspicion later. That’s opposite of how our system has worked, and it’s really dangerous,” said Jake Laperruque, an attorney for the Center for Democracy & Technology.

But these new data scans can be effective in finding criminals.

Lacking leads in the Virginia bank robbery, a police detective turned to what one judge in the case called a “groundbreaking investigative tool … enabling the relentless collection of eerily precise location data.”

Cellphones can be tracked through towers, and Google stored this location history data for hundreds of millions of users. The detective sent Google a demand for information known as a “geofence warrant,” referring to a virtual fence around a particular geographic area at a specific time.

The officer sought phones that were within 150 yards of the bank during the hour of the robbery. He used that data to locate Okello Chatrie, then obtained a search warrant of his home where the cash and the holdup notes were found.

Chatrie entered a conditional guilty plea, but the Supreme Court will hear his appeal next week.

The justices agreed to decide whether geofence warrants violate the 4th Amendment.

The outcome may go beyond location tracking. At issue more broadly is the legal status of the vast amount of privately stored data that can be easily scanned.

This may include words or phrases found in Google searches or in emails. For example, investigators may want to know who searched for a particular address in the weeks before an arson or a murder took place there or who searched for information on making a particular type of bomb.

Judges are deeply divided on how this fits with the 4th Amendment.

Two years ago, the conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans ruled “geofence warrants are general warrants categorically prohibited by the 4th Amendment.”

Historians of the 4th Amendment say the constitutional ban on “unreasonable searches and seizures” arose from the anger in the American colonies over British officers using general warrants to search homes and stores even when they had no reason to suspect any particular person of wrongdoing.

The National Assn. of Criminal Defense Lawyers relies on that contention in opposing geofence warrants.

Its lawyers argued the government obtained Chatrie’s “private location information … with an unconstitutional general warrant that compelled Google to conduct a fishing expedition through millions of Google accounts, without any basis for believing that any one of them would contain incriminating evidence.”

Meanwhile, the more liberal 4th Circuit in Virginia divided 7-7 to reject Chatrie’s appeal. Several judges explained the law was not clear, and the police officer had done nothing wrong.

“There was no search here,” Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson wrote in a concurring opinion that defended the use of this tracking data.

He pointed to Supreme Court rulings in the 1970s declaring that check records held by a bank or dialing records held by a phone company were not private and could be searched by investigators without a warrant.

Chatrie had agreed to having his location records held by Google. If financial records for several months are not private, the judge wrote, “surely this request for a two-hour snapshot of one’s public movements” is not private either.

Google changed its policy in 2023 and no longer stores location history data for all of its users. But cellphone carriers continue to receive warrants that seek tracking data.

Wilkinson, a prominent conservative from the Reagan era, also argued it would be a mistake for the courts to “frustrate law enforcement’s ability to keep pace with tech-savvy criminals” or cause “more cold cases to go unsolved. Think of a murder where the culprit leaves behind his encrypted phone and nothing else. No fingerprints, no witnesses, no murder weapon. But because the killer allowed Google to track his location, a geofence warrant can crack the case,” he wrote.

Judges in Los Angeles upheld the use of a geofence warrant to find and convict two men for a robbery and murder in a bank parking lot in Paramount.

The victim, Adbadalla Thabet, collected cash from gas stations in Downey, Bellflower, Compton and Lynwood early in the morning before driving to the bank.

After he was robbed and shot, a Los Angeles County sheriff’s detective found video surveillance that showed he had been followed by two cars whose license plates could not be seen.

The detective then sought a geofence warrant from a Superior Court judge that asked Google for location data for six designated spots on the morning of the murder.

That led to the identification of Daniel Meza and Walter Meneses, who pleaded guilty to the crimes. A California Court of Appeal rejected their 4th Amendment claim in 2023, even though the judges said they had legal doubts about the “novelty of the particular surveillance technique at issue.”

The Supreme Court has also been split on how to apply the 4th Amendment to new types of surveillance.

By a 5-4 vote, the court in 2018 ruled the FBI should have obtained a search warrant before it required a cellphone company to turn over 127 days of records for Timothy Carpenter, a suspect in a series of store robberies in Michigan.

The data confirmed Carpenter was nearby when four of the stores were robbed.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, joined by four liberal justices, said this lengthy surveillance violated privacy rights protected by the 4th Amendment.

The “seismic shifts in technology” could permit total surveillance of the public, Roberts wrote, and “we decline to grant the state unrestricted access” to these databases.

But he described the Carpenter decision as “narrow” because it turned on the many weeks of surveillance data.

In dissent, four conservatives questioned how tracking someone’s driving violates their privacy. Surveillance cameras and license plate readers are commonly used by investigators and have rarely been challenged.

Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer relies on that argument in his defense of Chatrie’s conviction. “An individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in movements that anyone could see,” he wrote.

The justices will issue a decision by the end of June.