Existing law defines types of theft, including petty theft, grand theft, and shoplifting. Existing law also defines the crimes of robbery and burglary. Existing law sets forth specific rules relating to the jurisdiction for the prosecution of theft by fraud, organized retail theft, and receiving stolen property, including that the jurisdiction for prosecution includes the county where an offense involving the theft or receipt of the stolen merchandise occurred, the county in which the merchandise was recovered, or the county where any act was done by the defendant in instigating, procuring, promoting, or aiding or abetting in the commission of a theft offense or other qualifying offense. Existing law jurisdictionally limits prosecution of each of the above to criminal actions brought by the Attorney General.

This bill would no longer limit the jurisdictional rules for the above crimes to criminal actions brought by the Attorney General. If a case is brought by someone other than the Attorney General and multiple offenses are committed by the same defendant in multiple jurisdictions, the bill would allow a criminal action to be brought in any of those jurisdictions subject to a hearing on consolidation of the offenses, as specified. The bill would require the prosecution to present written evidence at the hearing that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction over the offenses agree to the venue. The bill would require charged offenses from jurisdictions where there is not a written agreement from the district attorney to be returned to that jurisdiction.

Existing law defines types of theft, including petty theft, grand theft, and shoplifting. Existing law also defines the crimes of robbery and burglary. Existing law sets forth specific rules relating to the jurisdiction for the prosecution of theft by fraud, organized retail theft, and receiving stolen property, including that the jurisdiction for prosecution includes the county where an offense involving the theft or receipt of the stolen merchandise occurred, the county in which the merchandise was recovered, or the county where any act was done by the defendant in instigating, procuring, promoting, or aiding or abetting in the commission of a theft offense or other qualifying offense. Existing law jurisdictionally limits prosecution of each of the above to criminal actions brought by the Attorney General.

This bill would no longer limit the jurisdictional rules for the above crimes to criminal actions brought by the Attorney General. If a case is brought by someone other than the Attorney General and multiple offenses are committed by the same defendant in multiple jurisdictions, the bill would allow a criminal action to be brought in any of those jurisdictions subject to a hearing on consolidation of the offenses, as specified. The bill would require the prosecution to present written evidence at the hearing that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction over the offenses agree to the venue. The bill would require charged offenses from jurisdictions where there is not a written agreement from the district attorney to be returned to that jurisdiction.

Existing law defines types of theft, including petty theft, grand theft, and shoplifting. Existing law also defines the crimes of robbery and burglary. Existing law sets forth specific rules relating to the jurisdiction for the prosecution of theft by fraud, organized retail theft, and receiving stolen property, including that the jurisdiction for prosecution includes the county where an offense involving the theft or receipt of the stolen merchandise occurred, the county in which the merchandise was recovered, or the county where any act was done by the defendant in instigating, procuring, promoting, or aiding or abetting in the commission of a theft offense or other qualifying offense. Existing law jurisdictionally limits prosecution of each of the above to criminal actions brought by the Attorney General.

This bill would no longer limit the jurisdictional rules for the above crimes to criminal actions brought by the Attorney General. If a case is brought by someone other than the Attorney General and multiple offenses are committed by the same defendant in multiple jurisdictions, the bill would allow a criminal action to be brought in any of those jurisdictions subject to a hearing on consolidation of the offenses, as specified. The bill would require the prosecution to present written evidence at the hearing that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction over the offenses agree to the venue. The bill would require charged offenses from jurisdictions where there is not a written agreement from the district attorney to be returned to that jurisdiction.

Existing law defines types of theft, including petty theft, grand theft, and shoplifting. Existing law also defines the crimes of robbery and burglary. Existing law sets forth specific rules relating to the jurisdiction for the prosecution of theft by fraud, organized retail theft, and receiving stolen property, including that the jurisdiction for prosecution includes the county where an offense involving the theft or receipt of the stolen merchandise occurred, the county in which the merchandise was recovered, or the county where any act was done by the defendant in instigating, procuring, promoting, or aiding or abetting in the commission of a theft offense or other qualifying offense. Existing law jurisdictionally limits prosecution of each of the above to criminal actions brought by the Attorney General.

This bill would no longer limit the jurisdictional rules for the above crimes to criminal actions brought by the Attorney General. If a case is brought by someone other than the Attorney General and multiple offenses are committed by the same defendant in multiple jurisdictions, the bill would allow a criminal action to be brought in any of those jurisdictions subject to a hearing on consolidation of the offenses, as specified. The bill would require the prosecution to present written evidence at the hearing that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction over the offenses agree to the venue. The bill would require charged offenses from jurisdictions where there is not a written agreement from the district attorney to be returned to that jurisdiction.

Existing law defines types of theft, including petty theft, grand theft, and shoplifting. Existing law also defines the crimes of robbery and burglary. Existing law sets forth specific rules relating to the jurisdiction for the prosecution of theft by fraud, organized retail theft, and receiving stolen property, including that the jurisdiction for prosecution includes the county where an offense involving the theft or receipt of the stolen merchandise occurred, the county in which the merchandise was recovered, or the county where any act was done by the defendant in instigating, procuring, promoting, or aiding or abetting in the commission of a theft offense or other qualifying offense. Existing law jurisdictionally limits prosecution of each of the above to criminal actions brought by the Attorney General.

Existing law defines types of theft, including petty theft, grand theft, and shoplifting. Existing law also defines the crimes of robbery and burglary. Existing law sets forth specific rules relating to the jurisdiction for the prosecution of theft by fraud, organized retail theft, and receiving stolen property, including that the jurisdiction for prosecution includes the county where an offense involving the theft or receipt of the stolen merchandise occurred, the county in which the merchandise was recovered, or the county where any act was done by the defendant in instigating, procuring, promoting, or aiding or abetting in the commission of a theft offense or other qualifying offense. Existing law jurisdictionally limits prosecution of each of the above to criminal actions brought by the Attorney General.

This bill would no longer limit the jurisdictional rules for the above crimes to criminal actions brought by the Attorney General. If a case is brought by someone other than the Attorney General, the bill would require the prosecution to present written evidence in the jurisdiction of the proposed trial that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction over the offenses agree to the venue. The bill would require charged offenses from jurisdictions where there is not a written agreement from the district attorney to be returned to that jurisdiction.

Existing law defines types of theft, including petty theft, grand theft, and shoplifting. Existing law also defines the crimes of robbery and burglary. Existing law sets forth specific rules relating to the jurisdiction for the prosecution of theft by fraud, organized retail theft, and receiving stolen property, including that the jurisdiction for prosecution includes the county where an offense involving the theft or receipt of the stolen merchandise occurred, the county in which the merchandise was recovered, or the county where any act was done by the defendant in instigating, procuring, promoting, or aiding or abetting in the commission of a theft offense or other qualifying offense. Existing law jurisdictionally limits prosecution of each of the above to criminal actions brought by the Attorney General.

This bill would no longer limit the jurisdictional rules for the above crimes to criminal actions brought by the Attorney General.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 1779

Author:(Irwin)

As Amended Ver:June 29, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Permits the consolidation of specified theft charges, as well as all associated offenses, occurring in different counties into a single trial if the district attorneys in all involved jurisdictions agree.

Senate Amendments

Restore the bill to the original version passed by the Assembly.

COMMENTS

As passed by the Assembly, this bill:

1. Expanded the jurisdiction for charging theft and receiving stolen property to include the county where an offense involving the theft or receipt of the stolen merchandise occurred, the county in which the merchandise was recovered, or the county where any act was done by the defendant in instigating or aiding in the commission of those offenses.
2. Specified that if multiple offenses of theft or receiving stolen property, either all involving the same defendant or defendants and the same merchandise, or all involving the same defendant or defendants and the same scheme or substantially similar activity, occur in multiple jurisdictions, then any of those jurisdictions are a proper jurisdiction for all of the offenses.
3. Stated that jurisdiction also extends to all associated offenses connected together in their commission to the underlying theft offenses.
4. Required that the proposed offenses to be joined, are subject to a joinder hearing, as specified in the jurisdiction of the proposed trial.
5. Required the prosecution to present written evidence that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction of the offenses agree to the venue.
6. Required charged offenses from jurisdictions where there is no written agreement from the district attorney to be returned to that county.

According to the Author

"Across California, shoppers and retailers are frustrated with the impacts of organized retail theft. Whether they be the violent 'smash-and-grabs' or the clearing of pharmacy shelves by organized groups, these crimes are plaguing our shopping centers and malls along major freeway corridors. The Legislature needs to give our law enforcement and prosecutors the tools to address these sophisticated retail theft rings, who are making it harder for consumers to find the products they need during these tough times and threaten their safety when shopping in local businesses. The efficiency and effectiveness of cross jurisdictional charging that was key for prosecutors between 2019-2021 needs to be restored to secure justice and make sure our investments in addressing retail theft are spent wisely. The restoration of this tool to the Attorney General in 2022 was an important first step, but with more multi-county cases than the Department of Justice can effectively pursue, we must fully leverage our District Attorneys who have already been funded at the state level for this important work."

Arguments in Support

According to the Ventura County District Attorney, the sponsor of this bill, "I am pleased to sponsor your measure, [this bill], as amended on March 11, 2024, which enhances our ability to combat organized retail theft by amending Penal Code section 786.5 to provide county district attorneys with legal authority to join related theft offenses from multiple counties. To address concerns about potential conflicts between neighboring counties, your bill has been amended to require a prosecutor to present written authorization that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction agree to the venue.

"As we have discussed, organized retail theft is a significant and escalating problem for business owners in our community and across the state. It is especially concerning to witness the evolving use of violence and the flagrant criminality of the ongoing trend of smash-and-grab and grab-and-go thefts. These crimes wield not only financial losses, but threaten physical harm to business owners, workers, and customers. They also greatly contribute to the perception of lawlessness in California.

"Many organized retail theft crews operate across county lines, a strategy that makes successful prosecution of the perpetrators more difficult and thus renders the crimes more profitable. These thieves understand they are unlikely to face the full consequences of their crimes and they become emboldened to commit more and more thefts. In one example, two such thieves organized to steal baby formula at a time when this essential item was extremely scarce. During one of the thefts in Ventura County, the defendants threatened to harm the loss prevention officer when confronted. Although neither defendant had children, collectively they stole over $7,000 worth of formula in less than two weeks from ten different Target stores in Ventura and Los Angeles Counties.

"In a second example, an individual took advantage of Home Depot's 'Will Call' service, which allows customers to purchase items for later pick up. This defendant would order merchandise and provide a credit card number, then pick up the merchandise with his Will Call receipt. Once the defendant had driven the merchandise away, he would cancel his Will Call order causing Home Depot to refund the amount charged. The defendant did not, however, return the merchandise to Home Depot. This scheme netted the defendant more than $150,624 worth of merchandise in roughly two months from four different stores in Ventura and Los Angeles Counties.

"Under current law, my office could charge only those crimes committed in Ventura County even though we were aware of the significant conduct occurring in Los Angeles. Under [this bill] we could have sought agreement from the Los Angeles District Attorney to consolidate the cases so that all known instances in each scheme could have been efficiently tried and sentenced together and so that truly effective restitution orders could be sought.

"Consolidated prosecutions promote judicial and fiscal efficiency by avoiding the unnecessary expenditures of resources and funds that come with piecemeal and repetitious litigation. Consolidation also saves the accused from potentially having to defend themselves repeatedly in multiple counties.

"Your bill will once again permit prosecutors to join related theft offenses from multiple counties into a single consolidated criminal prosecution and help us more effectively protect our merchants from organized retail theft."

Arguments in Opposition

According to Initiate Justice, "[This bill] would allow prosecutors to prosecute retail theft and 'all associated offenses' across an unlimited number of county lines, if they allege that even one shoplifting case that occurred in their jurisdiction was connected to a case or cases in other jurisdictions. Through this bill, prosecutors would be able to leverage plea deals by aggregating the value of alleged petty theft cases and charging 'all associated offenses' that they allege to have occurred in other county jurisdictions, as well as their own. Currently, only the State Attorney General has the authority to aggregate petty theft cases in various jurisdictions into one organized retail theft case with felony penalties and to charge all associated offenses.

"Under existing law, a prosecutor has jurisdiction over any offense allegedly occurring in their county. (See, e.g., Penal Code Section 786.) [This bill] proposes to allow prosecutors in counties where offenses did not occur to bring charges for offenses allegedly committed in other counties. It would do so even if the prosecutor in the county in which the offense allegedly occurred has already determined that charges are not appropriate, are not in the interest of justice or where the change of venue would harm the interests of victims, witnesses, and defendants. Giving local prosecutors the final say over charging decisions makes sense, both because a local prosecutor can consistently determine what charges (if any) are appropriate, and because forcing victims, witnesses, and defendants to travel out of county can threaten their employment and ability to care for their families."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, "Unknown, potentially significant cost pressure to the state funded trial court system (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) to adjudicate the consolidation hearings required by this bill. Certain rights to the defendants are attached to criminal proceedings, including the right to counsel (at public expense if the defendants are unable to afford the costs of representation) which could lead to lengthier and more complex court proceedings with attendant workload and resource costs to the court. An eight hour court day costs approximately $8,000 in staff in workload. If the bill results in 12 or more days spent in court, trial court costs could be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. While the courts are not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload could result in delayed court services and would put pressure on the General Fund to fund additional staff and resources. For example, the 2021-22 budget included $90 million onetime General Fund to address case backlogs—with $30 million specifically for certain criminal case backlogs and $60 million for backlogs across all case types. The Governor's 2024-25 May Revision proposes reducing $97 million ongoing from the General Fund to the trial courts."

VOTES:

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 8-0-0

YES: McCarty, Alanis, Lackey, Stephanie Nguyen, Reyes, Ting, Wilson, Zbur

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0-9

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Calderon, Cervantes, Megan Dahle, Essayli, Friedman, Holden, Mathis, McKinnor, Luz Rivas

SENATE FLOOR: 38-0-2

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk

ABS, ABST OR NV: Atkins, Stern

UPDATED

VERSION: June 29, 2024

CONSULTANT: Greg Pagan/ PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0003809

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1779

Author: Irwin (D), et al.

Amended: 6/29/24 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 4-0, 6/11/24

AYES: Wahab, Bradford, Skinner, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Seyarto

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-0, 6/17/24

AYES: Caballero, Ashby, Becker, Bradford, Wahab

NO VOTE RECORDED: Jones, Seyarto

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0, 5/22/24 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Theft: jurisdiction

SOURCE: California District Attorneys Association

Orange County District Attorney’s Office

San Diego County District Attorney’s Office

Ventura County District Attorney’s Office

DIGEST:

This bill allows consolidation of specified theft charges, as well as associated offenses, occurring in different counties into a single trial if the district attorneys in all involved jurisdictions agree and expands jurisdiction for charging theft and receiving stolen property, as specified.

ANALYSIS:

Senate Floor Amendments of 6/29/24 remove the urgency clause and the inoperative clause.

Existing law:

1. States that every person who steals, takes, carries, leads, or drives away the personal property of another, or who fraudulently appropriates property which has been entrusted to them, or who knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defrauds any other person of money, labor or real or personal property, is guilty of theft. (Pen. Code, § 484, subd. (a).)
2. Divides theft into two degrees, petty theft and grand theft. (Pen. Code, § 486.)
3. Defines grand theft as when the money, labor, or real or personal property taken is of a value exceeding $950 dollars, except as specified; other cases of theft are petty theft. (Pen. Code, §§ 487-488.)
4. Punishes grand theft as an alternate felony-misdemeanor (“wobbler”). (Pen. Code, § 487.)
5. Punishes petty theft as a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 490.)
6. Creates, until January 1, 2026, the crime of organized retail theft which is defined as:
   1. Acting in concert with one or more persons to steal merchandise from one or more merchant’s premises or online marketplace with the intent to sell, exchange, or return the merchandise for value;
   2. Acting in concert with two or more persons to receive, purchase, or possess merchandise knowing or believing it to have been stolen;
   3. Acting as the agent of another individual or group of individuals to steal merchandise from one or more merchant’s premises or online marketplaces as part of a plan to commit theft; or,
   4. Recruiting, coordinating, organizing, supervising, directing, managing, or financing another to undertake acts of theft. (Pen. Code, § 490.4, subd. (a).)
7. Punishes, until January 1, 2026, organized retail theft as follows:
8. If violations of the provisions directed at acting in concert or as an agent are committed on two or more separate occasions within a one-year period, and if the aggregated value of the merchandise stolen, received, purchased, or possessed within that period exceeds $950, the offense is punishable as a wobbler;
9. Any other violation of the provisions directed at acting in concert or as an agent is punishable as a misdemeanor by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year; and,
10. A violation of the recruiting, coordinating, organizing, supervising, directing, managing, or financing provision is punishable as a wobbler. (Pen. Code, § 490.4, subd. (b).)
11. States that every person who prohibits buying or receiving any property that has been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting theft or extortion, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained, and punishes the offense as an alternate felony-misdemeanor when the value of the property exceeds $950, or as a misdemeanor when the value of the property is $950 or less. (Pen. Code, § 496.)
12. Provides that generally the territorial jurisdiction of a criminal offense is in any competent court in the county where the offense was committed. (Pen. Code, § 777.)
13. Provides that when a criminal offense is committed partially in one county and partially in another, or the acts or effects thereof constituting or requisite to the consummation of the offense occur in two or more counties, then jurisdiction is proper in either county. (Pen. Code, § 781.)
14. Provides that when a criminal offense is committed on the boundary of two or more counties, or within 500 yards thereof, territorial jurisdiction is proper within either county. (Pen. Code, § 782.)
15. States that if property taken in one jurisdictional territory by burglary, carjacking, robbery, theft, or embezzlement has been brought into another, or when property is received in one jurisdictional territory with the knowledge that it has been stolen or embezzled and the property was stolen or embezzled in another jurisdictional territory, the jurisdiction of the offense is in any competent court within either jurisdictional territory, or any contiguous jurisdictional territory if the arrest is made within the contiguous territory, the prosecution secures on the record the defendant’s knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of the right of vicinage, and the defendant is charged with one or more property crimes in the arresting territory. (Pen. Code, § 786, subd. (a).)
16. States that the jurisdiction of a criminal action brought by the Attorney General (AG) for theft, organized retail theft or receiving stolen property shall also include the county where an offense involving the theft or receipt of the stolen merchandise occurred, the county in which the merchandise was recovered, or the county where any act was done by the defendant in instigating, procuring, promoting, or aiding in the commission of the offense or in abetting the parties concerned. (Pen. Code, § 786.5.)
17. Specifies that if multiple offenses of theft, organized retail theft or receiving stolen property, either involving the same defendant or different defendants and the same merchandise, or involving the same defendant or defendants and the same scheme or substantially similar activity, occur in multiple jurisdictions, then any of those jurisdictions are a proper jurisdiction for all offenses. Jurisdiction also extends to all associated offenses connected together in their commission to the underlying offenses. (Pen. Code, § 786.5.)
18. States that an accusatory pleading may charge two or more different offenses connected together in their commission, or different statements of the same offense or two or more different offenses of the same class of crimes or offenses, under separate counts, and if two or more accusatory pleadings are filed in such cases in the same court, the court may order them to be consolidated, as provided. (Pen. Code, § 954.)

This bill:

1. Expands the jurisdiction to prosecute theft, organized retail theft or receiving stolen property when brought by a district attorney to also include the county where an offense involving the theft or receipt of the stolen merchandise occurred, the county in which the merchandise was recovered, or the county where any act was done by the defendant in instigating, procuring, promoting, or aiding in the commission of the offense or in abetting the parties concerned.
2. States that if multiple offenses of theft, organized retail theft or receiving stolen property either all involving the same defendant or defendants and the same merchandise, or all involving the same defendant or defendants and the same scheme or substantially similar activity, occur in multiple jurisdictions, then any of those jurisdictions are a proper jurisdiction for all of the offenses, subject to a hearing on consolidation of the matters in the jurisdiction of the proposed trial.
3. Provides that at the consolidation hearing, the prosecution shall present written evidence that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction over the offenses agree to the venue. Charged offenses from jurisdictions where there is not a written agreement from the district attorney shall be returned to that jurisdiction.
4. Specifies that jurisdiction also extends to all associated offenses connected together in their commission to the underlying offenses of theft, organized retail theft, or receiving stolen property.

Background

This bill would allow for prosecutions of theft, organized retail theft, and receiving stolen property, as well as any associated offenses connected together in their commission to the underlying theft-related offenses, to take place in counties other than the one where the offense occurred. This includes any county in which the stolen merchandise was received or recovered, any county where any act was done by the defendant in instigating, procuring, promoting, or aiding in the commission of the theft offense or in abetting the parties. If multiple offenses of theft, receiving stolen property, or organized retail theft either all involving the same defendant or defendants and the same merchandise, or all involving the same defendant or defendants and the same scheme or substantially similar activity, occur in multiple counties then any of those counties are a proper jurisdiction. This would authorize multiple theft-related offenses to be consolidated into a single trial.

This bill requires the court to conduct a hearing on consolidation of the offenses, where the court may, in the interests of justice and for good cause shown, in its discretion may order that the different offenses or counts set forth in the accusatory pleading be tried separately. This bill requires at the hearing, the prosecution to present written evidence at the hearing that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction over the offenses agree to the venue. Any charged offenses from jurisdictions where there is not a written agreement from the district attorney shall be returned to that jurisdiction.

The benefits of consolidation include judicial economy and convenience to victims and witnesses who may have to testify in multiple trials. The drawbacks can include the potential prejudicial impact on the defendant because jurors may feel compelled to convict based on the number of instances or victims, rather than the strength of the prosecution’s case. Convenience to some victims and witnesses may also come at the cost of inconvenience to others who live outside of the jurisdiction where the trial is held, which could include law enforcement officers from different counties that investigated each crime. So while consolidation may avoid multiple short trials, the single consolidated trial would likely be much longer. Additionally, not all of those individual cases may have gone to trial due to weakness in evidence or lack prosecutorial resources, but when all of the cases are consolidated into one trial, there is a chance that a charge with weak evidence can still result in a conviction because it is strengthened by the aggregate evidence in the other charges leading to a different outcome than would have occurred if the charge was tried separately.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

According to the Senate Committee on Appropriations: Unknown, potentially significant cost pressure to the state funded trial court system (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) to adjudicate the consolidation hearings required by this bill. Certain rights to the defendants are attached to criminal proceedings, including the right to counsel (at public expense if the defendants are unable to afford the costs of representation) which could lead to lengthier and more complex court proceedings with attendant workload and resource costs to the court. An eight hour court day costs approximately $8,000 in staff in workload. If the bill results in 12 or more days spent in court, trial court costs could be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. While the courts are not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload could result in delayed court services and would put pressure on the General Fund to fund additional staff and resources. For example, the 2021-22 budget included $90 million onetime General Fund to address case backlogs—with $30 million specifically for certain criminal case backlogs and $60 million for backlogs across all case types. The Governor’s 2024-25 May Revision proposes reducing $97 million ongoing from the General Fund to the trial courts.

SUPPORT: (Verified 6/29/24)

California District Attorneys Association (co-source)
Orange County District Attorney’s Office (co-source)

San Diego County District Attorney's Office (co-source)

Ventura County Office of The District Attorney (co-source)

Arcadia Police Officers' Association
Association of California Cities - Orange County

Boma California
Burbank Police Officers' Association
California Business Properties Association
California Business Roundtable
California Chamber of Commerce
California Correctional Supervisors Organization, INC.
California Downtown Association
California Narcotic Officers' Association
California Reserve Peace Officers Association
California Restaurant Association
California Retailers Association
City of Alameda
City of Artesia

City of Buena Park
City of Carlsbad

City of Chino Hills
City of Corona
City of Crescent City

City of Cupertino

City of Fullerton

City of Hesperia

City of Lafayette
City of Lakeport
City of Los Alamitos
City of Merced

City of Mission Viejo
City of Norwalk

City of Oakley
City of Palmdale

City of Placentia
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
City of Santa Clarita

City of Thousand Oaks

City of Tustin
Claremont Police Officers Association
Corona Police Officers Association
County of Ventura
Culver City Police Officers' Association
Darrell Steinberg, Mayor of Sacramento
Deputy Sheriffs' Association of Monterey County
Downtown Santa Monica
Fullerton Police Officers' Association
League of California Cities
Los Angeles County Business Federation
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
Mayor Todd Gloria, City of San Diego
Murrieta Police Officers' Association
NAIOP of California
Newport Beach Police Association
Novato Police Officers Association

Orange County Board of Supervisors
Orange County Business Council
Orange County Taxpayers Association
Palos Verdes Police Officers Association
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Placer County Deputy Sheriffs' Association
Pomona Police Officers' Association
Riverside Police Officers Association
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
Santa Ana Police Officers Association
Southern California Leadership Council
Southwest California Legislative Council
Target Corporation
Town of Apple Valley
Tri-valley Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and Town of Danville
United Chamber Advocacy Network
Upland Police Officers Association
Valley Industry and Commerce Association

OPPOSITION: (Verified 6/29/24)

Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Initiate Justice
Initiate Justice Action
LA Defensa
San Francisco Public Defender

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to San Diego County District Attorney’s Office, a co-sponsor of this bill:

The original version of P.C. 786.5, passed in 2018, addressed the problem and plainly stated that Organized Retail Thefts committed in multiple jurisdictions could be prosecuted together in one prosecution. District Attorneys’ Offices are typically very busy and welcome legislation that improves efficiency. However, the law had a sunset date 2 years after enactment.

Since then, Organized Retail Thefts had only escalated. The National Retail Federation reported our nation’s retailers lost approximately $72 billion in product in 2022 to Organized Retail Theft. Los Angeles and San Francisco were the two hardest hit cities in the nation.

In 2022, Penal Code section 786.5 was re-introduced with identical language to its previous version where the jurisdiction applied to all prosecutors. However, the following language “brought by the Attorney General” was eventually added. This was the only change from the original version. The explanation given: “The efficiency and effectiveness of cross jurisdictional charging needs to be restored to the Attorney General to make sure our investments in the Department of Justice to address retail theft are spent wisely.”

The quote is in reference to Governor Newsom’s commitment to provide $18 million to the Attorney General over 3 years to create a dedicated team of investigators and prosecutors to focus on ORT rings that cross jurisdictional lines. While $18 million is a substantial sum, it is not nearly enough to prosecute all ORT crime in our state.

Currently, the Attorney General has only a handful of lawyers prosecuting these crimes statewide. California has nearly 39 million people in 58 counties. There are approximately 164,000 retail stores in California. To be effective with its limited resources, the Attorney General’s Office is currently prosecuting cases with only the highest dollar losses. The rest are left to local police agencies and local prosecutor.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to Ella Baker Center for Human Rights:

Under existing law, a prosecutor has jurisdiction over any offense allegedly occurring in their county. (See, e.g., Pen. Code § 786.) AB 1779 proposes to allow prosecutors in counties where offenses did not occur to bring charges for offenses allegedly committed in other counties. It would do so even if the prosecutor in the county in which the offense allegedly occurred has already determined that charges are not appropriate, are not in the interest of justice or where the change of venue would harm the interests of victims, witnesses, and defendants. Giving local prosecutors the final say over charging decisions makes sense, both because a local prosecutor can consistently determine what charges (if any) are appropriate, and because forcing victims, witnesses, and defendants to travel out of county can threaten their employment and ability to care for their families.

The ability of one elected DA’s office to stack offenses provides undue power to force unjust plea agreements, even when the evidence is weak in one or more of the cases. The District Attorneys are elected county-wide to reflect the priorities of their constituents and their communities. There is no justification for disregarding the will of one county’s voters, based on the biases or policies of another.

Further, there is no evidence that aggressive charging and long periods of incarceration in any way deters retail theft. It will be very costly for California taxpayers, and financially devastating to low income families to have a loved one incarcerated for many years because of overly zealous stacking of charges based on alleged actions across jurisdictional lines.

As currently written, AB 1779 would allow a prosecutor with almost no connection to an alleged offense to charge a person with a crime, even when the prosecutor who has original jurisdiction over that offense has determined that it would be unjust or inadvisable to charge it in the first place, or to allow it to be charged elsewhere. In the bill there are no thresholds for charging across jurisdictional lines, no sunset, and no evaluation of the policy’s effectiveness. As written, it will result in prosecutorial overreach, and given the long history of charging practices in California, fall most heavily on families of low or no income (mostly Black and Latinx).

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0, 5/22/24

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Calderon, Cervantes, Megan Dahle, Essayli, Friedman, Holden, Mathis, McKinnor, Luz Rivas

Prepared by: Mary Kennedy / PUB. S. /

7/2/24 9:31:56

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1779

Author: Irwin (D), et al.

Amended: 6/20/24 in Senate

Vote: 27- Urgency

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 4-0, 6/11/24

AYES: Wahab, Bradford, Skinner, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Seyarto

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-0, 6/17/24

AYES: Caballero, Ashby, Becker, Bradford, Wahab

NO VOTE RECORDED: Jones, Seyarto

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0, 5/22/24 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Theft: jurisdiction

SOURCE: California District Attorneys Association

Orange County District Attorney’s Office

San Diego County District Attorney’s Office

Ventura County District Attorney’s Office

DIGEST:

This bill allows consolidation of specified theft charges, as well as associated offenses, occurring in different counties into a single trial if the district attorneys in all involved jurisdictions agree and expands jurisdiction for charging theft and receiving stolen property, as specified.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. States that every person who steals, takes, carries, leads, or drives away the personal property of another, or who fraudulently appropriates property which has been entrusted to them, or who knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defrauds any other person of money, labor or real or personal property, is guilty of theft. (Pen. Code, § 484, subd. (a).)
2. Divides theft into two degrees, petty theft and grand theft. (Pen. Code, § 486.)
3. Defines grand theft as when the money, labor, or real or personal property taken is of a value exceeding $950 dollars, except as specified; other cases of theft are petty theft. (Pen. Code, §§ 487-488.)
4. Punishes grand theft as an alternate felony-misdemeanor (“wobbler”). (Pen. Code, § 487.)
5. Punishes petty theft as a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 490.)
6. Creates, until January 1, 2026, the crime of organized retail theft which is defined as:
   1. Acting in concert with one or more persons to steal merchandise from one or more merchant’s premises or online marketplace with the intent to sell, exchange, or return the merchandise for value;
   2. Acting in concert with two or more persons to receive, purchase, or possess merchandise knowing or believing it to have been stolen;
   3. Acting as the agent of another individual or group of individuals to steal merchandise from one or more merchant’s premises or online marketplaces as part of a plan to commit theft; or,
   4. Recruiting, coordinating, organizing, supervising, directing, managing, or financing another to undertake acts of theft. (Pen. Code, § 490.4, subd. (a).)
7. Punishes, until January 1, 2026, organized retail theft as follows:
8. If violations of the provisions directed at acting in concert or as an agent are committed on two or more separate occasions within a one-year period, and if the aggregated value of the merchandise stolen, received, purchased, or possessed within that period exceeds $950, the offense is punishable as a wobbler;
9. Any other violation of the provisions directed at acting in concert or as an agent is punishable as a misdemeanor by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year; and,
10. A violation of the recruiting, coordinating, organizing, supervising, directing, managing, or financing provision is punishable as a wobbler. (Pen. Code, § 490.4, subd. (b).)
11. States that every person who prohibits buying or receiving any property that has been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting theft or extortion, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained, and punishes the offense as an alternate felony-misdemeanor when the value of the property exceeds $950, or as a misdemeanor when the value of the property is $950 or less. (Pen. Code, § 496.)
12. Provides that generally the territorial jurisdiction of a criminal offense is in any competent court in the county where the offense was committed. (Pen. Code, § 777.)
13. Provides that when a criminal offense is committed partially in one county and partially in another, or the acts or effects thereof constituting or requisite to the consummation of the offense occur in two or more counties, then jurisdiction is proper in either county. (Pen. Code, § 781.)
14. Provides that when a criminal offense is committed on the boundary of two or more counties, or within 500 yards thereof, territorial jurisdiction is proper within either county. (Pen. Code, § 782.)
15. States that if property taken in one jurisdictional territory by burglary, carjacking, robbery, theft, or embezzlement has been brought into another, or when property is received in one jurisdictional territory with the knowledge that it has been stolen or embezzled and the property was stolen or embezzled in another jurisdictional territory, the jurisdiction of the offense is in any competent court within either jurisdictional territory, or any contiguous jurisdictional territory if the arrest is made within the contiguous territory, the prosecution secures on the record the defendant’s knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of the right of vicinage, and the defendant is charged with one or more property crimes in the arresting territory. (Pen. Code, § 786, subd. (a).)
16. States that the jurisdiction of a criminal action brought by the Attorney General (AG) for theft, organized retail theft or receiving stolen property shall also include the county where an offense involving the theft or receipt of the stolen merchandise occurred, the county in which the merchandise was recovered, or the county where any act was done by the defendant in instigating, procuring, promoting, or aiding in the commission of the offense or in abetting the parties concerned. (Pen. Code, § 786.5.)
17. Specifies that if multiple offenses of theft, organized retail theft or receiving stolen property, either involving the same defendant or different defendants and the same merchandise, or involving the same defendant or defendants and the same scheme or substantially similar activity, occur in multiple jurisdictions, then any of those jurisdictions are a proper jurisdiction for all offenses. Jurisdiction also extends to all associated offenses connected together in their commission to the underlying offenses. (Pen. Code, § 786.5.)
18. States that an accusatory pleading may charge two or more different offenses connected together in their commission, or different statements of the same offense or two or more different offenses of the same class of crimes or offenses, under separate counts, and if two or more accusatory pleadings are filed in such cases in the same court, the court may order them to be consolidated, as provided. (Pen. Code, § 954.)

This bill:

1. Expands the jurisdiction to prosecute theft, organized retail theft or receiving stolen property when brought by a district attorney to also include the county where an offense involving the theft or receipt of the stolen merchandise occurred, the county in which the merchandise was recovered, or the county where any act was done by the defendant in instigating, procuring, promoting, or aiding in the commission of the offense or in abetting the parties concerned.
2. States that if multiple offenses of theft, organized retail theft or receiving stolen property either all involving the same defendant or defendants and the same merchandise, or all involving the same defendant or defendants and the same scheme or substantially similar activity, occur in multiple jurisdictions, then any of those jurisdictions are a proper jurisdiction for all of the offenses, subject to a hearing on consolidation of the matters in the jurisdiction of the proposed trial.
3. Provides that at the consolidation hearing, the prosecution shall present written evidence that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction over the offenses agree to the venue. Charged offenses from jurisdictions where there is not a written agreement from the district attorney shall be returned to that jurisdiction.
4. Specifies that jurisdiction also extends to all associated offenses connected together in their commission to the underlying offenses of theft, organized retail theft, or receiving stolen property.
5. Contains an urgency clause.
6. Provides that if the proposed initiative measure titled “The Homeless, Drug Addiction and Theft Reduction Act” (Initiative 23-0017A1) is approved by the voters at the statewide general election on November 5, 2024, this section shall become inoperative and shall be repealed on January 1, 2025.

Background

This bill would allow for prosecutions of theft, organized retail theft, and receiving stolen property, as well as any associated offenses connected together in their commission to the underlying theft-related offenses, to take place in counties other than the one where the offense occurred. This includes any county in which the stolen merchandise was received or recovered, any county where any act was done by the defendant in instigating, procuring, promoting, or aiding in the commission of the theft offense or in abetting the parties. If multiple offenses of theft, receiving stolen property, or organized retail theft either all involving the same defendant or defendants and the same merchandise, or all involving the same defendant or defendants and the same scheme or substantially similar activity, occur in multiple counties then any of those counties are a proper jurisdiction. This would authorize multiple theft-related offenses to be consolidated into a single trial.

This bill requires the court to conduct a hearing on consolidation of the offenses, where the court may, in the interests of justice and for good cause shown, in its discretion may order that the different offenses or counts set forth in the accusatory pleading be tried separately. This bill requires at the hearing, the prosecution to present written evidence at the hearing that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction over the offenses agree to the venue. Any charged offenses from jurisdictions where there is not a written agreement from the district attorney shall be returned to that jurisdiction.

The benefits of consolidation include judicial economy and convenience to victims and witnesses who may have to testify in multiple trials. The drawbacks can include the potential prejudicial impact on the defendant because jurors may feel compelled to convict based on the number of instances or victims, rather than the strength of the prosecution’s case. Convenience to some victims and witnesses may also come at the cost of inconvenience to others who live outside of the jurisdiction where the trial is held, which could include law enforcement officers from different counties that investigated each crime. So while consolidation may avoid multiple short trials, the single consolidated trial would likely be much longer. Additionally, not all of those individual cases may have gone to trial due to weakness in evidence or lack prosecutorial resources, but when all of the cases are consolidated into one trial, there is a chance that a charge with weak evidence can still result in a conviction because it is strengthened by the aggregate evidence in the other charges leading to a different outcome than would have occurred if the charge was tried separately.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

According to the Senate Committee on Appropriations: Unknown, potentially significant cost pressure to the state funded trial court system (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) to adjudicate the consolidation hearings required by this bill. Certain rights to the defendants are attached to criminal proceedings, including the right to counsel (at public expense if the defendants are unable to afford the costs of representation) which could lead to lengthier and more complex court proceedings with attendant workload and resource costs to the court. An eight hour court day costs approximately $8,000 in staff in workload. If the bill results in 12 or more days spent in court, trial court costs could be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. While the courts are not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload could result in delayed court services and would put pressure on the General Fund to fund additional staff and resources. For example, the 2021-22 budget included $90 million onetime General Fund to address case backlogs—with $30 million specifically for certain criminal case backlogs and $60 million for backlogs across all case types. The Governor’s 2024-25 May Revision proposes reducing $97 million ongoing from the General Fund to the trial courts.

SUPPORT: (Verified 6/19/24)

California District Attorneys Association (co-source)
Orange County District Attorney’s Office (co-source)

San Diego County District Attorney's Office (co-source)

Ventura County Office of The District Attorney (co-source)

Arcadia Police Officers' Association
Association of California Cities - Orange County (ACC-OC)
Boma California
Burbank Police Officers' Association
California Business Properties Association
California Business Roundtable
California Chamber of Commerce
California Correctional Supervisors Organization, INC.
California Downtown Association
California Narcotic Officers' Association
California Reserve Peace Officers Association
California Restaurant Association
California Retailers Association
Chino Hills; City of
City of Alameda
City of Artesia

City of Buena Park
City of Carlsbad
City of Corona
City of Crescent City

City of Cupertino

City of Fullerton

City of Hesperia

City of Lafayette
City of Lakeport
City of Los Alamitos
City of Merced

City of Mission Viejo
City of Norwalk

City of Oakley
City of Palmdale

City of Placentia
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
City of Santa Clarita

City of Thousand Oaks

City of Tustin
Claremont Police Officers Association
Corona Police Officers Association
County of Ventura
Culver City Police Officers' Association
Darrell Steinberg, Mayor of Sacramento
Deputy Sheriffs' Association of Monterey County
Downtown Santa Monica
Fullerton Police Officers' Association
League of California Cities
Los Angeles County Business Federation (BIZ-FED)
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
Mayor Todd Gloria, City of San Diego
Murrieta Police Officers' Association
NAIOP of California
Newport Beach Police Association
Novato Police Officers Association
Orange County Business Council
Orange County Taxpayers Association
Orange; County of
Palos Verdes Police Officers Association
Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC)
Placer County Deputy Sheriffs' Association
Pomona Police Officers' Association
Riverside Police Officers Association
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
Santa Ana Police Officers Association
Southern California Leadership Council
Southwest California Legislative Council
Target Corporation
Town of Apple Valley
Tri-valley Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and Town of Danville
United Chamber Advocacy Network
Upland Police Officers Association
Valley Industry and Commerce Association (VICA)

OPPOSITION: (Verified 6/19/24)

Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice (CURYJ)
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Initiate Justice
Initiate Justice Action
LA Defensa
San Francisco Public Defender

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to San Diego County District Attorney’s Office, a co-sponsor of this bill:

The original version of P.C. 786.5, passed in 2018, addressed the problem and plainly stated that Organized Retail Thefts committed in multiple jurisdictions could be prosecuted together in one prosecution. District Attorneys’ Offices are typically very busy and welcome legislation that improves efficiency. However, the law had a sunset date 2 years after enactment.

Since then, Organized Retail Thefts had only escalated. The National Retail Federation reported our nation’s retailers lost approximately $72 billion in product in 2022 to Organized Retail Theft. Los Angeles and San Francisco were the two hardest hit cities in the nation.

In 2022, Penal Code section 786.5 was re-introduced with identical language to its previous version where the jurisdiction applied to all prosecutors. However, the following language “brought by the Attorney General” was eventually added. This was the only change from the original version. The explanation given: “The efficiency and effectiveness of cross jurisdictional charging needs to be restored to the Attorney General to make sure our investments in the Department of Justice to address retail theft are spent wisely.”

The quote is in reference to Governor Newsom’s commitment to provide $18 million to the Attorney General over 3 years to create a dedicated team of investigators and prosecutors to focus on ORT rings that cross jurisdictional lines. While $18 million is a substantial sum, it is not nearly enough to prosecute all ORT crime in our state.

Currently, the Attorney General has only a handful of lawyers prosecuting these crimes statewide. California has nearly 39 million people in 58 counties. There are approximately 164,000 retail stores in California. To be effective with its limited resources, the Attorney General’s Office is currently prosecuting cases with only the highest dollar losses. The rest are left to local police agencies and local prosecutor.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to Ella Baker Center for Human Rights:

Under existing law, a prosecutor has jurisdiction over any offense allegedly occurring in their county. (See, e.g., Pen. Code § 786.) AB 1779 proposes to allow prosecutors in counties where offenses did not occur to bring charges for offenses allegedly committed in other counties. It would do so even if the prosecutor in the county in which the offense allegedly occurred has already determined that charges are not appropriate, are not in the interest of justice or where the change of venue would harm the interests of victims, witnesses, and defendants. Giving local prosecutors the final say over charging decisions makes sense, both because a local prosecutor can consistently determine what charges (if any) are appropriate, and because forcing victims, witnesses, and defendants to travel out of county can threaten their employment and ability to care for their families.

The ability of one elected DA’s office to stack offenses provides undue power to force unjust plea agreements, even when the evidence is weak in one or more of the cases. The District Attorneys are elected county-wide to reflect the priorities of their constituents and their communities. There is no justification for disregarding the will of one county’s voters, based on the biases or policies of another.

Further, there is no evidence that aggressive charging and long periods of incarceration in any way deters retail theft. It will be very costly for California taxpayers, and financially devastating to low income families to have a loved one incarcerated for many years because of overly zealous stacking of charges based on alleged actions across jurisdictional lines.

As currently written, AB 1779 would allow a prosecutor with almost no connection to an alleged offense to charge a person with a crime, even when the prosecutor who has original jurisdiction over that offense has determined that it would be unjust or inadvisable to charge it in the first place, or to allow it to be charged elsewhere. In the bill there are no thresholds for charging across jurisdictional lines, no sunset, and no evaluation of the policy’s effectiveness. As written, it will result in prosecutorial overreach, and given the long history of charging practices in California, fall most heavily on families of low or no income (mostly Black and Latinx).

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0, 5/22/24

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Calderon, Cervantes, Megan Dahle, Essayli, Friedman, Holden, Mathis, McKinnor, Luz Rivas

Prepared by: Stella Choe / PUB. S. /

6/24/24 11:07:37

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

AB 1779 (Irwin) - Theft: jurisdiction

Bill Summary:

AB 1779 allows specified criminal theft charges to be consolidated and brought in any jurisdiction, subject to a hearing on consolidation of the offenses, as specified.

Fiscal Impact:

Unknown, potentially significant cost pressure to the state funded trial court system (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) to adjudicate the consolidation hearings required by this bill. Certain rights to the defendants are attached to criminal proceedings, including the right to counsel (at public expense if the defendants are unable to afford the costs of representation) which could lead to lengthier and more complex court proceedings with attendant workload and resource costs to the court. An eight hour court day costs approximately $8,000 in staff in workload. If the bill results in 12 or more days spent in court, trial court costs could be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. While the courts are not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload could result in delayed court services and would put pressure on the General Fund to fund additional staff and resources. For example, the 2021-22 budget included $90 million onetime General Fund to address case backlogs—with $30 million specifically for certain criminal case backlogs and $60 million for backlogs across all case types. The Governor’s 2024-25 May Revision proposes reducing $97 million ongoing from the General Fund to the trial courts.

Background:

Territorial jurisdiction for a criminal offense is generally proper in any competent court within the jurisdictional territory where it was committed. In other words, subject to a few exceptions, criminal charges must be brought in the county where the crime is alleged to have happened.

Recently enacted law expanded territorial jurisdiction for a criminal action brought by the AG for the crimes of theft, organized retail theft, or receipt of stolen property. (AB 1613 (Irwin), chapter 949, statutes of 2022.) It allows the prosecution of these offenses when brought by the AG to occur in any county where any stolen merchandise was recovered, or any instigating, procuring, promoting, or aiding in the commission of the offense occurred, even if the theft offense itself was committed in a distant county. It also expanded jurisdiction to any one of the counties in which a theft offense occurred against the same victim(s), and the merchandise was the same, or the theft was committed by the same defendant or defendants under a common plan or scheme. The expanded jurisdiction also applies any associated offenses connected together in their commission to the underlying offenses of theft, organized retail theft or receiving stolen property.

Proposed Law:

• Expands the jurisdiction to prosecute theft, organized retail theft or receiving stolen property when brought by a district attorney to include the county where an offense involving the theft or receipt of the stolen merchandise occurred, the county in which the merchandise was recovered, or the county where any act was done by the defendant in instigating, procuring, promoting, or aiding in the commission of the offense or in abetting the parties concerned.
• States that if multiple offenses of theft, organized retail theft or receiving stolen property either all involving the same defendant or defendants and the same merchandise, or all involving the same defendant or defendants and the same scheme or substantially similar activity, occur in multiple jurisdictions, then any of those jurisdictions are a proper jurisdiction for all of the offenses, subject to a hearing on consolidation of the matters in the jurisdiction of the proposed trial.
• Provides that at the consolidation hearing, the prosecution shall present written evidence that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction over the offenses agree to the venue. Charged offenses from jurisdictions where there is not a written agreement from the district attorney shall be returned to that jurisdiction.
• Specifies that jurisdiction also extends to all associated offenses connected together in their commission to the underlying offenses of theft, organized retail theft, or receiving stolen property.

Related Legislation:

AB 1794 (McCarty) authorizes counties to operate a program to allow retailers to submit details of alleged shoplifting, organized retail theft, or grand theft directly to the district attorney through an online portal on the district attorney’s internet website. AB 1794 will be heard by this Committee today.

AB 1802 (Jones-Sawyer) removes the sunset date on the organized retail theft statute and the regional property crimes task force. AB 1802 will be heard by this Committee today.

AB 1960 (Soria) creates sentencing enhancements for taking, damaging, or destroying property in the commission or attempted commission of a felony, as specified. AB 1960 will be heard by this Committee today.

AB 1972 (Alanis) requires the existing regional crimes property task force to assist railroad police and specifies cargo theft as a property crime for consideration by the regional property crimes task force. AB 1972 will be heard by this Committee today.

AB 2943 (Zbur) makes it a crime for any person to possess property unlawfully that was acquired through one or more acts of shoplifting, theft, or burglary from a retail business, if the property is not possessed for personal use and the person has intent to sell, exchange, or return the merchandise for value, or the intent to act in concert with one or more persons to sell, exchange, or return the merchandise for value, and the value of the possessed property exceeds $950. AB 2943 will be heard by this Committee today.

AB 3209 (Berman) establishes a retail theft restraining order, as specified. AB 3209 will be heard by this Committee today.

SB 1144 (Skinner) revises the types of transactions that qualify a third-party seller as a “high-volume third-party seller,” relating to online marketplaces, as specified. SB 1144 is pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

SB 1416 (Newman) reinstates sentencing enhancements for selling, exchanging, or returning for value, or attempting to sell, exchange, or return for value, any property acquired through one or more acts of shoplifting, theft, or burglary from a retail business, if the property value exceeds specified amounts. SB 1416 is pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

SB 905 (Wiener) creates the new crime of forcibly entering a vehicle with intent to commit theft therein, as specified. SB 905 is pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

SB 982 (Wahab) removes the sunset date on the organized retail theft statute. SB 982 is pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

SB 1242 (Min) makes it a factor in aggravation if arson was carried out within a merchant’s premises in order to facilitate organized retail theft. SB 1242 is pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Proposed Amendments:

This bill will be amended to contain an urgency clause, allowing the bill’s provisions to take effect immediately upon approval of the Governor. Additionally, the bill will be amended to contain an inoperability clause stating that its provisions will become inoperative if the proposed initiative measure titled, “The Homelessness, Drug Addition, and Theft Reduction Act” (Initiative 23-0017A1) is approved by the voters at the statewide general election on November 5, 2024.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Aisha Wahab, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: AB 1779 Hearing Date: June 11, 2024

Subject: Theft: jurisdiction

HISTORY

Source: California District Attorneys Association

Orange County District Attorney’s Office

Ventura County District Attorney’s Office

San Diego County District Attorney’s Office

Prior Legislation: AB 1613 (Irwin), Ch. 949, Stats. 2022

AB 331 (Jones-Sayer), Ch. 113, Stats 2021

SB 94 (Committee on Budget) Ch.25, Stats 2019

AB 1065 (Jones-Sawyer), Ch. 803, Stats. 2018

Support: Arcadia Police Officers' Association; Association of California Cities - Orange County (ACC-OC); Boma California; Burbank Police Officers' Association; California Business Properties Association; California Business Roundtable; California Chamber of Commerce; California Correctional Supervisors Organization, INC.; California Downtown Association; California Narcotic Officers' Association; California Problem Solvers Caucus; California Reserve Peace Officers Association; California Restaurant Association; California Retailers Association; California State Sheriffs' Association; Chief Probation Officers' of California (CPOC); City of Alameda; City of Artesia; City of Corona; City of Crescent City; City of Lakeport; City of Merced; City of Norwalk; City of Rancho Palos Verdes; City of Santa Clarita; Claremont Police Officers Association; Corona Police Officers Association; Culver City Police Officers' Association; Darrell Steinberg, Mayor of Sacramento; Deputy Sheriffs' Association of Monterey County; Downtown Santa Monica Inc.; Fullerton Police Officers' Association; League of California Cities; Los Angeles County Business Federation (BIZ-FED); Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department; Mayor Todd Gloria, City of San Diego; Murrieta Police Officers' Association; Naiop of California; Newport Beach Police Association; Novato Police Officers Association; Orange County Business Council; Orange County Taxpayers Association; Palos Verdes Police Officers Association; Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC); Placer County Deputy Sheriffs' Association; Pomona Police Officers' Association; Riverside Police Officers Association; Riverside Sheriffs' Association; Santa Ana Police Officers Association; Santa Clarita; City of; Southern California Leadership Council; Target Corporation; Tri-valley Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and Town of Danville; United Chamber Advocacy Network; Upland Police Officers Association; Valley Industry and Commerce Association (VICA)

Opposition: Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice (CURYJ); Ella Baker Center for Human Rights; Initiate Justice; Initiate Justice Action; LA Defensa; San Francisco Public Defender’s Office

Assembly Floor Vote: 71 - 0

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to allow consolidation of specified theft charges, as well as associated offenses, occurring in different counties into a single trial if the district attorneys in all involved jurisdictions agree and expand jurisdiction for charging theft and receiving stolen property, as specified.

Existing law states that every person who steals, takes, carries, leads, or drives away the personal property of another, or who fraudulently appropriates property which has been entrusted to them, or who knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defrauds any other person of money, labor or real or personal property, is guilty of theft. (Pen. Code, § 484, subd. (a).)

Existing law divides theft into two degrees, petty theft and grand theft. (Pen. Code, § 486.)

Existing law defines grand theft as when the money, labor, or real or personal property taken is of a value exceeding $950 dollars, except as specified; other cases of theft are petty theft. (Pen. Code, §§ 487-488.)

Existing law punishes grand theft as an alternate felony-misdemeanor (“wobbler”). (Pen. Code, § 487.)

Existing law punishes petty theft as a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 490.)

Existing law, until January 1, 2026, creates the crime of organized retail theft which is defined as:

• Acting in concert with one or more persons to steal merchandise from one or more merchant’s premises or online marketplace with the intent to sell, exchange, or return the merchandise for value;
• Acting in concert with two or more persons to receive, purchase, or possess merchandise knowing or believing it to have been stolen;
• Acting as the agent of another individual or group of individuals to steal merchandise from one or more merchant’s premises or online marketplaces as part of a plan to commit theft; or,
• Recruiting, coordinating, organizing, supervising, directing, managing, or financing another to undertake acts of theft. (Pen. Code, § 490.4, subd. (a).)

Existing law, until January, 1 2026, punishes organized theft as follows:

• If violations of the provisions directed at acting in concert or as an agent are committed on two or more separate occasions within a one-year period, and if the aggregated value of the merchandise stolen, received, purchased, or possessed within that period exceeds $950, the offense is punishable as a wobbler;
  
• Any other violation of the provisions directed at acting in concert or as an agent is punishable as a misdemeanor by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year; and,
• A violation of the recruiting, coordinating, organizing, supervising, directing, managing, or financing provision is punishable as a wobbler. (Pen. Code, § 490.4, subd. (b).)

Existing law states that every person who prohibits buying or receiving any property that has been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting theft or extortion, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained, and punishes the offense as an alternate felony-misdemeanor when the value of the property exceeds $950, or as a misdemeanor when the value of the property is $950 or less. (Pen. Code, § 496.)

Existing law provides that generally the territorial jurisdiction of a criminal offense is in any competent court in the county where the offense was committed. (Pen. Code, § 777.)

Existing law provides that when a criminal offense is committed partially in one county and partially in another, or the acts or effects thereof constituting or requisite to the consummation of the offense occur in two or more counties, then jurisdiction is proper in either county. (Pen. Code, § 781.)

Existing law provides that when a criminal offense is committed on the boundary of two or more counties, or within 500 yards thereof, territorial jurisdiction is proper within either county. (Pen. Code, § 782.)

Existing law states that if property taken in one jurisdictional territory by burglary, carjacking, robbery, theft, or embezzlement has been brought into another, or when property is received in one jurisdictional territory with the knowledge that it has been stolen or embezzled and the property was stolen or embezzled in another jurisdictional territory, the jurisdiction of the offense is in any competent court within either jurisdictional territory, or any contiguous jurisdictional territory if the arrest is made within the contiguous territory, the prosecution secures on the record the defendant’s knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of the right of vicinage, and the defendant is charged with one or more property crimes in the arresting territory. (Pen. Code, § 786, subd. (a).)

Existing law states that the jurisdiction of a criminal action brought by the Attorney General (AG) for theft, organized retail theft or receiving stolen property shall also include the county where an offense involving the theft or receipt of the stolen merchandise occurred, the county in which the merchandise was recovered, or the county where any act was done by the defendant in instigating, procuring, promoting, or aiding in the commission of the offense or in abetting the parties concerned. (Pen. Code, § 786.5.)

Existing law specifies that if multiple offenses of theft, organized retail theft or receiving stolen property, either involving the same defendant or different defendants and the same merchandise, or involving the same defendant or defendants and the same scheme or substantially similar activity, occur in multiple jurisdictions, then any of those jurisdictions are a proper jurisdiction for all offenses. Jurisdiction also extends to all associated offenses connected together in their commission to the underlying offenses. (Pen. Code, § 786.5.)

Existing law states that an accusatory pleading may charge two or more different offenses connected together in their commission, or different statements of the same offense or two or more different offenses of the same class of crimes or offenses, under separate counts, and if two or more accusatory pleadings are filed in such cases in the same court, the court may order them to be consolidated, as provided. (Pen. Code, § 954.)

This bill expands the jurisdiction to prosecute theft, organized retail theft or receiving stolen property when brought by a district attorney to also include the county where an offense involving the theft or receipt of the stolen merchandise occurred, the county in which the merchandise was recovered, or the county where any act was done by the defendant in instigating, procuring, promoting, or aiding in the commission of the offense or in abetting the parties concerned.

This bill states that if multiple offenses of theft, organized retail theft or receiving stolen property either all involving the same defendant or defendants and the same merchandise, or all involving the same defendant or defendants and the same scheme or substantially similar activity, occur in multiple jurisdictions, then any of those jurisdictions are a proper jurisdiction for all of the offenses, subject to a hearing on consolidation of the matters in the jurisdiction of the proposed trial.

This bill provides that at the consolidation hearing, the prosecution shall present written evidence that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction over the offenses agree to the venue. Charged offenses from jurisdictions where there is not a written agreement from the district attorney shall be returned to that jurisdiction.

This bill specifies that jurisdiction also extends to all associated offenses connected together in their commission to the underlying offenses of theft, organized retail theft, or receiving stolen property.

COMMENTS

1. Need for This Bill

According to the author of this bill:

Across California, shoppers and retailers are frustrated with the impacts of organized retail theft. Whether they be the violent “smash-and-grabs” or the clearing of pharmacy shelves by organized groups, these crimes are plaguing our shopping centers and malls along major freeway corridors. The Legislature needs to give our law enforcement and prosecutors the tools to address these sophisticated retail theft rings, who are making it harder for consumers to find the products they need during these tough times and threaten their safety when shopping in local businesses. The efficiency and effectiveness of cross jurisdictional charging that was key for prosecutors between 2019-2021 needs to be restored to secure justice and make sure our investments in addressing retail theft are spent wisely. The restoration of this tool to the Attorney General in 2022 was an important first step, but with more multi-county cases than the Department of Justice can effectively pursue, we must fully leverage our District Attorneys who have already been funded at the state level for this important work.

1. Jurisdiction for Criminal Offenses

Territorial jurisdiction for a criminal offense is generally proper in any competent court within the jurisdictional territory where it was committed. In other words, criminal charges must normally be brought in the county where the crime is alleged to have happened. Nonetheless, the Legislature has created a number of exceptions to this general rule. For example, felony sex offenses and human trafficking offenses that occur in multiple counties can be consolidated into a single trial, and then tried in a single county. (Pen. Code, § 784.7.) When the Legislature passes these kind of special jurisdictional rules they are construed liberally. (Price v. Superior Court, supra, 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1055.)

Recently enacted law expanded territorial jurisdiction for a criminal action brought by the AG for the crimes of theft, organized retail theft, or receipt of stolen property. (AB 1613 (Irwin), chapter 949, statutes of 2022.) It allows the prosecution of these offenses when brought by the AG to occur in any county where any stolen merchandise was recovered, or any instigating, procuring, promoting, or aiding in the commission of the offense occurred, even if the theft offense itself was committed in a distant county. It also expanded jurisdiction to any one of the counties in which a theft offense occurred against the same victim(s), and the merchandise was the same, or the theft was committed by the same defendant or defendants under a common plan or scheme. The expanded jurisdiction also applies any associated offenses connected together in their commission to the underlying offenses of theft, organized retail theft or receiving stolen property.

This bill would apply the expanded jurisdictional rules for crimes of theft, organized retail theft, or receipt of stolen property to criminal actions brought by district attorneys, but since each county has a different district attorney as opposed to one AG for the state, the bill requires the court to conduct a hearing on the issue of consolidation and for the prosecution to provide written evidence that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction over the offenses agree to the venue.

One of the theft-related offenses affected by this bill is organized retail theft which was created by AB 1065 (Jones-Sawyer) in 2018. AB 1065 also had expanded jurisdictional rules for theft offenses that was substantially similar to the language in this bill. AB 1065 had a sunset date of January 1, 2021 and was reenacted for 5 years by AB 331 (Jones-Sawyer) in 2021, but the jurisdictional provisions were intentionally excluded when the law was reenacted.

1. Consolidation of Cases from Different Jurisdictions

This bill would allow for prosecutions of theft, organized retail theft, and receiving stolen property, as well as any associated offenses connected together in their commission to the underlying theft-related offenses, to take place in counties other than the one where the offense occurred. This includes any county in which the stolen merchandise was received or recovered, any county where any act was done by the defendant in instigating, procuring, promoting, or aiding in the commission of the theft offense or in abetting the parties. If multiple offenses of theft, receiving stolen property, or organized retail theft either all involving the same defendant or defendants and the same merchandise, or all involving the same defendant or defendants and the same scheme or substantially similar activity, occur in multiple counties then any of those counties are a proper jurisdiction. This would authorize multiple theft-related offenses to be consolidated into a single trial.

This bill requires the court to conduct a hearing on consolidation of the offenses, where the court may, in the interests of justice and for good cause shown, in its discretion may order that the different offenses or counts set forth in the accusatory pleading be tried separately. This bill requires at the hearing, the prosecution to present written evidence at the hearing that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction over the offenses agree to the venue. Any charged offenses from jurisdictions where there is not a written agreement from the district attorney shall be returned to that jurisdiction.

The benefits of consolidation include judicial economy and convenience to victims and witnesses who may have to testify in multiple trials. The drawbacks can include the potential prejudicial impact on the defendant because jurors may feel compelled to convict based on the number of instances or victims, rather than the strength of the prosecution’s case. Convenience to some victims and witnesses may also come at the cost of inconvenience to others who live outside of the jurisdiction where the trial is held, which could include law enforcement officers from different counties that investigated each crime. So while consolidation may avoid multiple short trials, the single consolidated trial would likely be much longer. Additionally, not all of those individual cases may have gone to trial due to weakness in evidence or lack prosecutorial resources, but when all of the cases are consolidated into one trial, there is a chance that a charge with weak evidence can still result in a conviction because it is strengthened by the aggregate evidence in the other charges leading to a different outcome than would have occurred if the charge was tried separately.

1. Renewed Efforts to Combat Property Crimes

“The Homelessness, Drug Addition, and Theft Reduction Act” is a new initiative that would make specific changes to laws enacted by Proposition 47, also known as the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act which was approved by the voters in November 2014. Proposition 47 reduced the penalties for certain drug and property crimes and directed that the resulting state savings be directed to mental health and substance abuse treatment, truancy and dropout prevention, and victims’ services. (See Legislative Analyst's Office analysis of Proposition 47 (See http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2014/prop-47-110414.pdf [as of June 3, 2024].)

Specifically, the new initiative would reenact felony sentencing for petty theft with two prior thefts, allow multiple petty thefts to be aggregated to meet the $950 threshold without a showing that the acts were connected, and create new enhancements depending on the amount of property stolen or damaged. The initiative would also increase penalties for certain drug crimes, mandate treatment for certain offenders, and require courts to warn people convicted of drug distribution that they may be charged with murder in the future if someone dies after taking an illegal drug provided by that person. (https://ballotpedia.org/California_Drug_and_Theft_Crime_Penalties_and_Treatment-Mandated_Felonies_Initiative_(2024) [as of June 3, 2024].) The initiative is supported by various law enforcement, public officials, district attorneys, small businesses and retail corporations. (Id.) To qualify for the November 2024 ballot, the law requires 546,651 valid signatures by June 27, 2024; as of January 25, 2024, the campaign had notified the Secretary of State that 25% of the required signatures had been collected. (Id.) The initiative is currently pending signature verification. (https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/initiative-and-referendum-status/initiatives-and-referenda-pending-signature-verification [as of June 3, 2024].)

On January 9, 2024, Governor Newsom called for legislation to crack down on large scale property crimes committed by organized groups who profit from resale of stolen goods. (https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/01/09/property-crime-framework/ [as of June 3, 2024).) The proposals include: 1) creating new penalties targeting those engaged in retail theft to resell, and those that resell the stolen property; 2) clarifying existing arrest authority so that police can arrest suspects of retail theft, even if they didn’t witness the crime in progress; 3) clarifying that theft amounts may be aggregated to reach the grand theft threshold; 4) creating new penalties for professional auto burglary, increasing penalties for the possession of items stolen from a vehicle with intent to resell, regardless of whether the vehicle was locked; 5) eliminating the sunset date for the organized retail crime statute; and 6) increasing penalties for large-scale resellers of stolen goods.

Both houses of the Legislature have announced legislative packages that include parts of the Governor’s proposals. (See https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-02-26/senate-leaders-respond-to-states-fentanyl-crisis-and-organized-retail-theft-problem-with-new-legislation [as of June 3, 2024) and https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-02-15/democratic-lawmakers-introduce-legislation-to-target-organized-retail-theft-online-resellers#:~:text=If%20passed%2C%20the%20bill%20would,if%20there%20were%20separate%20victims [as of June 3, 2024].)

1. Amendments to be Taken in Appropriations Committee

This bill will be amended to contain an urgency clause, allowing the bill’s provisions to take effect immediately upon approval of the Governor. Additionally, the bill will be amended to contain an inoperability clause stating that its provisions will become inoperative if the proposed initiative measure titled, “The Homelessness, Drug Addition, and Theft Reduction Act” (Initiative 23-0017A1) is approved by the voters at the statewide general election on November 5, 2024.

1. Argument in Support

According to San Diego County District Attorney, a cosponsor of this bill:

The original version of P.C. 786.5, passed in 2018, addressed the problem and plainly stated that Organized Retail Thefts committed in multiple jurisdictions could be prosecuted together in one prosecution. District Attorneys’ Offices are typically very busy and welcome legislation that improves efficiency. However, the law had a sunset date 2 years after enactment.

Since then, Organized Retail Thefts had only escalated. The National Retail Federation reported our nation’s retailers lost approximately $72 billion in product in 2022 to Organized Retail Theft. Los Angeles and San Francisco were the two hardest hit cities in the nation.

In 2022, Penal Code section 786.5 was re-introduced with identical language to its previous version where the jurisdiction applied to all prosecutors. However, the following language “brought by the Attorney General” was eventually added. This was the only change from the original version. The explanation given: “The efficiency and effectiveness of cross jurisdictional charging needs to be restored to the Attorney General to make sure our investments in the Department of Justice to address retail theft are spent wisely.”

The quote is in reference to Governor Newsom’s commitment to provide $18 million to the Attorney General over 3 years to create a dedicated team of investigators and prosecutors to focus on ORT rings that cross jurisdictional lines. While $18 million is a substantial sum, it is not nearly enough to prosecute all ORT crime in our state.

Currently, the Attorney General has only a handful of lawyers prosecuting these crimes statewide. California has nearly 39 million people in 58 counties. There are approximately 164,000 retail stores in California. To be effective with its limited resources, the Attorney General’s Office is currently prosecuting cases with only the highest dollar losses. The rest are left to local police agencies and local prosecutor.

1. Argument in Opposition

According to Ella Baker Center for Human Rights:

Under existing law, a prosecutor has jurisdiction over any offense allegedly occurring in their county. (See, e.g., Pen. Code § 786.) AB 1779 proposes to allow prosecutors in counties where offenses did not occur to bring charges for offenses allegedly committed in other counties. It would do so even if the prosecutor in the county in which the offense allegedly occurred has already determined that charges are not appropriate, are not in the interest of justice or where the change of venue would harm the interests of victims, witnesses, and defendants. Giving local prosecutors the final say over charging decisions makes sense, both because a local prosecutor can consistently determine what charges (if any) are appropriate, and because forcing victims, witnesses, and defendants to travel out of county can threaten their employment and ability to care for their families.

The ability of one elected DA’s office to stack offenses provides undue power to force unjust plea agreements, even when the evidence is weak in one or more of the cases. The District Attorneys are elected county-wide to reflect the priorities of their constituents and their communities. There is no justification for disregarding the will of one county’s voters, based on the biases or policies of another.

Further, there is no evidence that aggressive charging and long periods of incarceration in any way deters retail theft. It will be very costly for California taxpayers, and financially devastating to low income families to have a loved one incarcerated for many years because of overly zealous stacking of charges based on alleged actions across jurisdictional lines.

As currently written, AB 1779 would allow a prosecutor with almost no connection to an alleged offense to charge a person with a crime, even when the prosecutor who has original jurisdiction over that offense has determined that it would be unjust or inadvisable to charge it in the first place, or to allow it to be charged elsewhere. In the bill there are no thresholds for charging across jurisdictional lines, no sunset, and no evaluation of the policy’s effectiveness. As written, it will result in prosecutorial overreach, and given the long history of charging practices in California, fall most heavily on families of low or no income (mostly Black and Latinx).

-- END –

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1779

Author:(Irwin)

As Amended Ver:April 25, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Permits the consolidation of specified theft charges, as well as all associated offenses, occurring in different counties into a single trial if the district attorneys in all involved jurisdictions agree.

Major Provisions

1. Expands the jurisdiction for charging theft and receiving stolen property to include the county where an offense involving the theft or receipt of the stolen merchandise occurred, the county in which the merchandise was recovered, or the county where any act was done by the defendant in instigating or aiding in the commission of those offenses.
2. Specifies that if multiple offenses of theft or receiving stolen property, either all involving the same defendant or defendants and the same merchandise, or all involving the same defendant or defendants and the same scheme or substantially similar activity, occur in multiple jurisdictions, then any of those jurisdictions are a proper jurisdiction for all of the offenses.
3. States that jurisdiction also extends to all associated offenses connected together in their commission to the underlying theft offenses.
4. Requires that the proposed offenses to be joined, are subject to a joinder hearing, as specified in the jurisdiction of the proposed trial.
5. Requires the prosecution to present written evidence that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction of the offenses agree to the venue.
6. Requires charged offenses from jurisdictions where there is no written agreement from the district attorney to be returned to that county.

COMMENTS

According to the Author

"Across California, shoppers and retailers are frustrated with the impacts of organized retail theft. Whether they be the violent 'smash-and-grabs' or the clearing of pharmacy shelves by organized groups, these crimes are plaguing our shopping centers and malls along major freeway corridors. The Legislature needs to give our law enforcement and prosecutors the tools to address these sophisticated retail theft rings, who are making it harder for consumers to find the products they need during these tough times and threaten their safety when shopping in local businesses. The efficiency and effectiveness of cross jurisdictional charging that was key for prosecutors between 2019-2021 needs to be restored to secure justice and make sure our investments in addressing retail theft are spent wisely. The restoration of this tool to the Attorney General in 2022 was an important first step, but with more multi-county cases than the Department of Justice can effectively pursue, we must fully leverage our District Attorneys who have already been funded at the state level for this important work."

Arguments in Support

According to the Ventura County District Attorney, the sponsor of this bill, "I am pleased to sponsor your measure, [this bill], as amended on March 11, 2024, which enhances our ability to combat organized retail theft by amending Penal Code section 786.5 to provide county district attorneys with legal authority to join related theft offenses from multiple counties. To address concerns about potential conflicts between neighboring counties, your bill has been amended to require a prosecutor to present written authorization that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction agree to the venue.

"As we have discussed, organized retail theft is a significant and escalating problem for business owners in our community and across the state. It is especially concerning to witness the evolving use of violence and the flagrant criminality of the ongoing trend of smash-and-grab and grab-and-go thefts. These crimes wield not only financial losses, but threaten physical harm to business owners, workers, and customers. They also greatly contribute to the perception of lawlessness in California.

"Many organized retail theft crews operate across county lines, a strategy that makes successful prosecution of the perpetrators more difficult and thus renders the crimes more profitable. These thieves understand they are unlikely to face the full consequences of their crimes and they become emboldened to commit more and more thefts. In one example, two such thieves organized to steal baby formula at a time when this essential item was extremely scarce. During one of the thefts in Ventura County, the defendants threatened to harm the loss prevention officer when confronted. Although neither defendant had children, collectively they stole over $7,000 worth of formula in less than two weeks from ten different Target stores in Ventura and Los Angeles Counties.

"In a second example, an individual took advantage of Home Depot's 'Will Call' service, which allows customers to purchase items for later pick up. This defendant would order merchandise and provide a credit card number, then pick up the merchandise with his Will Call receipt. Once the defendant had driven the merchandise away, he would cancel his Will Call order causing Home Depot to refund the amount charged. The defendant did not, however, return the merchandise to Home Depot. This scheme netted the defendant more than $150,624 worth of merchandise in roughly two months from four different stores in Ventura and Los Angeles Counties.

"Under current law, my office could charge only those crimes committed in Ventura County even though we were aware of the significant conduct occurring in Los Angeles. Under [this bill] we could have sought agreement from the Los Angeles District Attorney to consolidate the cases so that all known instances in each scheme could have been efficiently tried and sentenced together and so that truly effective restitution orders could be sought.

"Consolidated prosecutions promote judicial and fiscal efficiency by avoiding the unnecessary expenditures of resources and funds that come with piecemeal and repetitious litigation. Consolidation also saves the accused from potentially having to defend themselves repeatedly in multiple counties.

"Your bill will once again permit prosecutors to join related theft offenses from multiple counties into a single consolidated criminal prosecution and help us more effectively protect our merchants from organized retail theft."

Arguments in Opposition

According to Initiate Justice, "[This bill] would allow prosecutors to prosecute retail theft and 'all associated offenses' across an unlimited number of county lines, if they allege that even one shoplifting case that occurred in their jurisdiction was connected to a case or cases in other jurisdictions. Through this bill, prosecutors would be able to leverage plea deals by aggregating the value of alleged petty theft cases and charging 'all associated offenses' that they allege to have occurred in other county jurisdictions, as well as their own. Currently, only the State Attorney General has the authority to aggregate petty theft cases in various jurisdictions into one organized retail theft case with felony penalties and to charge all associated offenses.

"Under existing law, a prosecutor has jurisdiction over any offense allegedly occurring in their county. (See, e.g., Pen. Code Section 786.) [This bill] proposes to allow prosecutors in counties where offenses did not occur to bring charges for offenses allegedly committed in other counties. It would do so even if the prosecutor in the county in which the offense allegedly occurred has already determined that charges are not appropriate, are not in the interest of justice or where the change of venue would harm the interests of victims, witnesses, and defendants. Giving local prosecutors the final say over charging decisions makes sense, both because a local prosecutor can consistently determine what charges (if any) are appropriate, and because forcing victims, witnesses, and defendants to travel out of county can threaten their employment and ability to care for their families."

FISCAL COMMENTS

Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.

VOTES

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 8-0-0

YES: McCarty, Alanis, Lackey, Stephanie Nguyen, Reyes, Ting, Wilson, Zbur

UPDATED

VERSION: April 25, 2024

CONSULTANT: Gregory Pagan / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0002766

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1779

Author:(Irwin)

As Amended Ver:March 11, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Permits the consolidation of specified theft charges, as well as all associated offenses, occurring in different counties into a single trial if the district attorneys in all involved jurisdictions agree.

Major Provisions

1. Expands the jurisdiction for charging theft and receiving stolen property to include the county where an offense involving the theft or receipt of the stolen merchandise occurred, the county in which the merchandise was recovered, or the county where any act was done by the defendant in instigating or aiding in the commission of those offenses.
2. Specifies that if multiple offenses of theft or receiving stolen property, either all involving the same defendant or defendants and the same merchandise, or all involving the same defendant or defendants and the same scheme or substantially similar activity, occur in multiple jurisdictions, then any of those jurisdictions are a proper jurisdiction for all of the offenses.
3. States that jurisdiction also extends to all associated offenses connected together in their commission to the underlying theft offenses.
4. Requires the prosecution to present written evidence that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction of the offenses agree to the venue.
5. Requires charged offenses from jurisdictions where there is no written agreement from the district attorney to be returned to that county.

COMMENTS

According to the Author

"Across California, shoppers and retailers are frustrated with the impacts of organized retail theft. Whether they be the violent 'smash-and-grabs' or the clearing of pharmacy shelves by organized groups, these crimes are plaguing our shopping centers and malls along major freeway corridors. The Legislature needs to give our law enforcement and prosecutors the tools to address these sophisticated retail theft rings, who are making it harder for consumers to find the products they need during these tough times and threaten their safety when shopping in local businesses. The efficiency and effectiveness of cross jurisdictional charging that was key for prosecutors between 2019-2021 needs to be restored to secure justice and make sure our investments in addressing retail theft are spent wisely. The restoration of this tool to the Attorney General in 2022 was an important first step, but with more multi-county cases than the Department of Justice can effectively pursue, we must fully leverage our District Attorneys who have already been funded at the state level for this important work."

Arguments in Support

According to the Ventura County District Attorney, the sponsor of this bill, "I am pleased to sponsor your measure, AB 1779, as amended on March 11, 2024, which enhances our ability to combat organized retail theft by amending Penal Code section 786.5 to provide county district attorneys with legal authority to join related theft offenses from multiple counties. To address concerns about potential conflicts between neighboring counties, your bill has been amended to require a prosecutor to present written authorization that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction agree to the venue.

"As we have discussed, organized retail theft is a significant and escalating problem for business owners in our community and across the state. It is especially concerning to witness the evolving use of violence and the flagrant criminality of the ongoing trend of smash-and-grab and grab-and-go thefts. These crimes wield not only financial losses, but threaten physical harm to business owners, workers, and customers. They also greatly contribute to the perception of lawlessness in California.

"Many organized retail theft crews operate across county lines, a strategy that makes successful prosecution of the perpetrators more difficult and thus renders the crimes more profitable. These thieves understand they are unlikely to face the full consequences of their crimes and they become emboldened to commit more and more thefts. In one example, two such thieves organized to steal baby formula at a time when this essential item was extremely scarce. During one of the thefts in Ventura County, the defendants threatened to harm the loss prevention officer when confronted. Although neither defendant had children, collectively they stole over $7,000 worth of formula in less than two weeks from ten different Target stores in Ventura and Los Angeles Counties.

"In a second example, an individual took advantage of Home Depot's 'Will Call' service, which allows customers to purchase items for later pick up. This defendant would order merchandise and provide a credit card number, then pick up the merchandise with his Will Call receipt. Once the defendant had driven the merchandise away, he would cancel his Will Call order causing Home Depot to refund the amount charged. The defendant did not, however, return the merchandise to Home Depot. This scheme netted the defendant more than $150,624 worth of merchandise in roughly two months from four different stores in Ventura and Los Angeles Counties.

"Under current law, my office could charge only those crimes committed in Ventura County even though we were aware of the significant conduct occurring in Los Angeles. Under AB 1779 we could have sought agreement from the Los Angeles District Attorney to consolidate the cases so that all known instances in each scheme could have been efficiently tried and sentenced together and so that truly effective restitution orders could be sought.

"Consolidated prosecutions promote judicial and fiscal efficiency by avoiding the unnecessary expenditures of resources and funds that come with piecemeal and repetitious litigation. Consolidation also saves the accused from potentially having to defend themselves repeatedly in multiple counties.

"Your bill will once again permit prosecutors to join related theft offenses from multiple counties into a single consolidated criminal prosecution and help us more effectively protect our merchants from organized retail theft."

Arguments in Opposition

According to Initiate Justice, "AB 1779 would allow prosecutors to prosecute retail theft and 'all associated offenses' across an unlimited number of county lines, if they allege that even one shoplifting case that occurred in their jurisdiction was connected to a case or cases in other jurisdictions. Through this bill, prosecutors would be able to leverage plea deals by aggregating the value of alleged petty theft cases and charging 'all associated offenses' that they allege to have occurred in other county jurisdictions, as well as their own. Currently, only the State Attorney General has the authority to aggregate petty theft cases in various jurisdictions into one organized retail theft case with felony penalties and to charge all associated offenses.

"Under existing law, a prosecutor has jurisdiction over any offense allegedly occurring in their county. (See, e.g., Pen. Code Section 786.) AB 1779 proposes to allow prosecutors in counties where offenses did not occur to bring charges for offenses allegedly committed in other counties. It would do so even if the prosecutor in the county in which the offense allegedly occurred has already determined that charges are not appropriate, are not in the interest of justice or where the change of venue would harm the interests of victims, witnesses, and defendants. Giving local prosecutors the final say over charging decisions makes sense, both because a local prosecutor can consistently determine what charges (if any) are appropriate, and because forcing victims, witnesses, and defendants to travel out of county can threaten their employment and ability to care for their families."

FISCAL COMMENTS

Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.

VOTES

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 8-0-0

YES: McCarty, Alanis, Lackey, Stephanie Nguyen, Reyes, Ting, Wilson, Zbur

UPDATED

VERSION: March 11, 2024

CONSULTANT: Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0002714

Date of Hearing:

Chief Counsel: Sandy Uribe

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Kevin McCarty, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1779

Author:(Irwin) – As Amended Ver:March 11, 2024

SUMMARY:

Permits the consolidation of specified theft charges, as well as all associated offenses, occurring in different counties into a single trial if the district attorneys in all involved jurisdictions agree. Specifically, this bill:

1. Expands the jurisdiction for charging theft and receiving stolen property to include the county where an offense involving the theft or receipt of the stolen merchandise occurred, the county in which the merchandise was recovered, or the county where any act was done by the defendant in instigating or aiding in the commission of those offenses.
   
2. Specifies that if multiple offenses of theft or receiving stolen property, either all involving the same defendant or defendants and the same merchandise, or all involving the same defendant or defendants and the same scheme or substantially similar activity, occur in multiple jurisdictions, then any of those jurisdictions are a proper jurisdiction for all of the offenses.
   
3. States that jurisdiction also extends to all associated offenses connected together in their commission to the underlying theft offenses
   
4. Requires the prosecution to present written evidence that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction of the offenses agree to the venue.
5. Requires charged offenses from jurisdictions where there is no written agreement from the district attorney to be returned to that county.

EXISTING LAW:

1. States that, except as otherwise provided by law, the jurisdiction of every public offense is in any competent court within the jurisdictional territory of which it is committed. (Pen. Code, § 777.)
2. States that when a public offense is committed in part in one jurisdictional territory and in part in another, or the acts constituting or requisite to committing the offense occur in more than one territorial jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of the offense is in any competent court within either jurisdiction. (Pen. Code, § 781.)
3. Permits consolidation of different offenses which do not relate to same transaction or event where there is common element of substantial importance in their commission, such as the same class of crimes. (Pen. Code, § 954.)
   
4. Allows property crimes occurring in one jurisdictional territory if property is taken to another jurisdictional territory and an arrest is made there, to be prosecuted in either jurisdiction. (Pen. Code, § 786.)
   
5. Provides that the jurisdiction of a criminal action brought by the Attorney General for theft, as defined, or for receiving stolen property, as well as all associated offenses connected in their commission of the underlying theft, shall also include the county where an offense involving the theft or receipt of the stolen merchandise occurred, the county in which the merchandise was recovered, or the county where any act was done by the defendant. (Pen. Code, § 786.5.)
   
6. Provides that if one or more violations of specified sex offenses occurs in more than one jurisdictional territory, the jurisdiction of any of those offenses, and for any offenses properly joinable with that offense, is in any jurisdiction where at least one of the offenses occurred, subject to the following conditions:
   1. Consolidation of the cases is subject to a joinder hearing, within the jurisdiction of the proposed trial court;
   2. The prosecution presents written evidence that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction of the offenses agree to the venue; and,
   3. Charged offenses from jurisdictions in which there is no written agreement from the district attorney must be returned to that county. (Pen. Code, § 784.7, subd. (a).)
      
7. Provides that if any domestic violence crime, as defined, occurs in more than one jurisdiction, and the defendant and the victim are the same for all the offenses, the jurisdiction of any of the offenses and for any offenses properly joinable with that offense is the jurisdiction where at least one of the offenses occurred, subject to the following conditions:
   
   1. Consolidation of the cases is subject to a joinder hearing, within the jurisdiction of the proposed trial court;
   2. The prosecution presents written evidence that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction of the offenses agree to the venue; and,
   3. Charged offenses from jurisdictions in which there is no written agreement from the district attorney must be returned to that county. (Pen. Code, § 784.7, subd. (b).)
      
8. Provides that if one or more specified human trafficking, pimping, and pandering offenses occurs in more than one jurisdictional territory, the jurisdiction of any of those offenses, and for any offenses properly joinable with that offense, is in any jurisdiction where at least one of the offenses occurred, subject to the following conditions:
   1. Consolidation of the cases is subject to a joinder hearing, within the jurisdiction of the proposed trial court;
   2. The prosecution presents written evidence that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction of the offenses agree to the venue;
   3. Charged offenses from jurisdictions in which there is no written agreement from the district attorney must be returned to that county; and,
   4. The court must consider the location and complexity of the likely evidence, where the majority of the offenses occurred, the rights of the defendant and the people, and the convenience of, or hardship to, the victim or victims and witnesses. (Pen. Code, § 784.7, subd. (c).)
      

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “Across California, shoppers and retailers are frustrated with the impacts of organized retail theft. Whether they be the violent ‘smash-and-grabs’ or the clearing of pharmacy shelves by organized groups, these crimes are plaguing our shopping centers and malls along major freeway corridors. The Legislature needs to give our law enforcement and prosecutors the tools to address these sophisticated retail theft rings, who are making it harder for consumers to find the products they need during these tough times and threaten their safety when shopping in local businesses. The efficiency and effectiveness of cross jurisdictional charging that was key for prosecutors between 2019-2021 needs to be restored to secure justice and make sure our investments in addressing retail theft are spent wisely. The restoration of this tool to the Attorney General in 2022 was an important first step, but with more multi-county cases than the Department of Justice can effectively pursue, we must fully leverage our District Attorneys who have already been funded at the state level for this important work. ”
   
2. Territorial Jurisdiction and Vicinage: Territorial jurisdiction is the location in which a case may be brought to trial. Ordinarily, the territorial jurisdiction of a superior court is the county in which it sits. (Pen. Code, § 691, subd. (b).) The general rule of territorial jurisdiction is stated in section 777: “except as otherwise provided by law the jurisdiction of every public offense is in any competent court within the jurisdictional territory of which it is committed.” When the Legislature creates an exception to the rule of section 777, the statute is remedial and is construed liberally to achieve the legislative purpose of expanding criminal jurisdiction. (Price v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1055.)

Vicinage is the right to trial by a jury drawn from residents of the area where the offense was committed. Venue and vicinage are closely related, as a jury pool is selected from the area in which the trial is to be held. Vicinage is not a necessary feature to the right of a jury trial as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it “does not serve the purpose of protecting a criminal defendant from government oppression and is not necessary to ensure a fair trial.” (Price, supra, 25 Cal. 4th 1046, 1065-1069.) This does not mean that a state has the right to try a defendant anywhere it chooses. Rather, the right of vicinage in California is derived from the right to jury trial as guaranteed in the California Constitution. (Id. at p. 1071.) As the Supreme Court explained, the right to a trial by a jury of the vicinage, as guaranteed by the California Constitution, requires trial in a county that has a reasonable relationship to the offense or to other crimes committed by the defendant against the same victim. Thus, the Legislature’s power to designate the place for trial of a criminal offense is limited by the requirement that there be a reasonable relationship or nexus between the place designated for trial and the commission of the offense. (Id.at p. 1075.)

The Legislature has created several exceptions to the general rule that a case must be tried in the jurisdiction where the offense was committed if a defendant commits multiple offenses in different jurisdictions. For example, Penal Code section 784.7, subdivision (b), permits more than one violation of specified domestic violence offenses that occur in more than one territorial jurisdiction to be consolidated in a single trial in any county where at least one of the offenses occurred, if the defendant and the victim are all the same. Regarding this provision as set forth in former Penal Code section 784.7, the Supreme Court has stated:

The Legislature’s power to designate the place for trial of a criminal offense is limited by the requirement that there be a reasonable relationship or nexus between the place designated for trial and the commission of the offense. Repeated abuse of the same child or spouse in more than one county creates that nexus. The venue authorized by Penal Code section 784.7 is not arbitrary. It is reasonable for the Legislature to conclude that this pattern of conduct is akin to a continuing offense and to conclude that the victim and other witnesses should not be burdened with having to testify in multiple trials in different counties.

(People v. Price, supra, 25 Cal.4th. at p. 1075.)

AB 1065 (Jones-Sawyer), Chapter 803, Statutes of 2018, among other things, expanded jurisdictional provisions for specified theft offenses, but had a sunset clause of January 1, 2021. The expanded jurisdiction was allowed to sunset, largely due to concerns about “forum shopping.” The concept of “forum shopping” is the process by which a party to a lawsuit selects a given jurisdiction to file suit not because it is the most appropriate venue for the case, but rather because the selected forum offers some kind of strategic or legal advantage. Forum shopping is more common in civil cases than criminal cases, and it is often discouraged by the courts. (See e.g. Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., (1988) 487 U.S. 22, 39-40.) Currently, only the Attorney General has the authority to aggregate theft offenses in various jurisdictions in one case and to charge all associated offenses.

This bill would reinstate this expanded jurisdiction, similar to the ones codified for domestic violence offenses and human trafficking offenses, for specified theft offenses that may be consolidated in a single trial in any county. The bill would allow prosecution of not only the theft offenses, but also to associated offenses connected together in their commission to the underlying theft offenses. This bill would make joinder of offenses from different counties contingent on agreement by all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction over the offenses. This bill would require that charges from jurisdictions on which there is no agreement by the district attorney to be returned to that jurisdiction. Because agreement by the prosecutors is needed to join offenses from other counties, this bill avoids concerns about “forum shopping.”

It should be noted however, that this bill differs from other similar statutes expanding criminal jurisdiction in one respect—it lacks the requirement that evidence of agreement be presented at a joinder/consolidation hearing pursuant to Penal Code section 954. (Compare Pen. Code, § 784.7 [requiring hearing to join sex, domestic violence, and human trafficking offenses].) A hearing under section 954, by granting a court the discretion to sever offenses in the interests of justice and for good cause shown, has been held to be critical to the constitutional validity of this statute, which no longer requires offenses to have been committed against a single victim. A court assessing the propriety of joinder under section 784.7 must consider the prejudicial effects of such joinder upon a good showing made by a party resisting it. (People v. Nguyen (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1113.) To avoid constitutional concerns, this bill should also be amended to include this procedural requirement.

1. Argument in Support: According to the Ventura County District Attorney, the sponsor of this bill, “I am pleased to sponsor your measure, AB 1779, as amended on March 11, 2024,

which enhances our ability to combat organized retail theft by amending Penal Code section 786.5 to provide county district attorneys with legal authority to join related theft offenses from multiple counties. To address concerns about potential conflicts between neighboring counties, your bill has been amended to require a prosecutor to present written authorization that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction agree to the venue.

“As we have discussed, organized retail theft is a significant and escalating problem for business owners in our community and across the state. It is especially concerning to witness the evolving use of violence and the flagrant criminality of the ongoing trend of smash-and-grab and grab-and-go thefts. These crimes wield not only financial losses, but threaten physical harm to business owners, workers, and customers. They also greatly contribute to the perception of lawlessness in California.

“Many organized retail theft crews operate across county lines, a strategy that makes successful prosecution of the perpetrators more difficult and thus renders the crimes more profitable. These thieves understand they are unlikely to face the full consequences of their crimes and they become emboldened to commit more and more thefts. In one example, two such thieves organized to steal baby formula at a time when this essential item was extremely scarce. During one of the thefts in Ventura County, the defendants threatened to harm the loss prevention officer when confronted. Although neither defendant had children, collectively they stole over $7,000 worth of formula in less than two weeks from ten different Target stores in Ventura and Los Angeles Counties.

“In a second example, an individual took advantage of Home Depot’s ‘Will Call’ service, which allows customers to purchase items for later pick up. This defendant would order merchandise and provide a credit card number, then pick up the merchandise with his Will Call receipt. Once the defendant had driven the merchandise away, he would cancel his Will Call order causing Home Depot to refund the amount charged. The defendant did not, however, return the merchandise to Home Depot. This scheme netted the defendant more than $150,624 worth of merchandise in roughly two months from four different stores in Ventura and Los Angeles Counties.

“Under current law, my office could charge only those crimes committed in Ventura County even though we were aware of the significant conduct occurring in Los Angeles. Under AB 1779 we could have sought agreement from the Los Angeles District Attorney to consolidate the cases so that all known instances in each scheme could have been efficiently tried and sentenced together and so that truly effective restitution orders could be sought.

“Consolidated prosecutions promote judicial and fiscal efficiency by avoiding the unnecessary expenditures of resources and funds that come with piecemeal and repetitious litigation. Consolidation also saves the accused from potentially having to defend themselves repeatedly in multiple counties.

“Your bill will once again permit prosecutors to join related theft offenses from multiple counties into a single consolidated criminal prosecution and help us more effectively protect our merchants from organized retail theft.”

1. Argument in Opposition: According to Initiate Justice, “AB 1779 would allow prosecutors to prosecute retail theft and ‘all associated offenses’ across an unlimited number of county lines, if they allege that even one shoplifting case that occurred in their jurisdiction was connected to a case or cases in other jurisdictions. Through this bill, prosecutors would be able to leverage plea deals by aggregating the value of alleged petty theft cases and charging ‘all associated offenses’ that they allege to have occurred in other county jurisdictions, as well as their own. Currently, only the State Attorney General has the authority to aggregate petty theft cases in various jurisdictions into one organized retail theft case with felony penalties and to charge all associated offenses.
   
   “Under existing law, a prosecutor has jurisdiction over any offense allegedly occurring in their county. (See, e.g., Pen. Code § 786.) AB 1779 proposes to allow prosecutors in counties where offenses did not occur to bring charges for offenses allegedly committed in other counties. It would do so even if the prosecutor in the county in which the offense allegedly occurred has already determined that charges are not appropriate, are not in the interest of justice or where the change of venue would harm the interests of victims, witnesses, and defendants. Giving local prosecutors the final say over charging decisions makes sense, both because a local prosecutor can consistently determine what charges (if any) are appropriate, and because forcing victims, witnesses, and defendants to travel out of county can threaten their employment and ability to care for their families.”
   
2. Related Legislation: AB 329 (Ta) of the 2023-2024 Legislative Session, would have expanded the territorial jurisdiction in which the Attorney General can prosecute specified theft offenses and associated offenses connected together in their commission to include cargo theft. AB 329 failed passage in this Committee.
   
3. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. AB 1613 (Irwin), Chapter 949, Statutes of 2022, expands the territorial jurisdiction in which the Attorney General can prosecute specified theft offenses and associated offenses connected together in their commission to the underlying theft offenses.
      
   2. SB 94 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 25, Statutes of 2019, extended the expanded jurisdictional provision relating to theft offenses until July 1, 2021.
      
   3. AB 1065 (Jones-Sawyer), Chapter 803, Statutes of 2018, created the crime of organized retail theft, and created the expanded jurisdictional provisions for specified theft offenses, with a sunset clause of January 1, 2021.
      

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Correctional Supervisors Organization, INC.
California District Attorneys Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
Chief Probation Officers' of California (CPOC)
City of Santa Clarita
League of California Cities
Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC)
San Diego County District Attorney's Office
Valley Industry and Commerce Association (VICA)
Ventura County Office of The District Attorney

Oppose

Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice (CURYJ)
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Initiate Justice
Initiate Justice Action
LA Defensa

Analysis Prepared by:

Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744