Existing law, until January 1, 2026, makes a person guilty of organized retail theft, punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony, as specified, if the person acts in concert with one or more persons to steal merchandise from one or more merchants premises or online marketplaces with the intent to sell or return the merchandise for value, acts in concert with 2 or more persons to receive, purchase, or possess merchandise knowing or believing it to have been stolen, acts as an agent of another to steal merchandise from one or more merchants premises or online marketplaces as part of an organized plan to commit theft, or recruits, coordinates, organizes, supervises, directs, manages, or finances another to undertake acts of theft.

This bill would extend the operation of the crime of organized retail theft indefinitely. By extending the operation of an existing crime, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.

Existing law, until January 1, 2026, requires the Department of the California Highway Patrol to coordinate with the Department of Justice to convene a regional property crimes task force to identify geographic areas experiencing increased levels of property crimes and assist local law enforcement with resources, such as personnel and equipment.

The bill would extend the operation of the regional property crimes task force indefinitely.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law, until January 1, 2026, makes a person guilty of organized retail theft, punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony, as specified, if the person acts in concert with one or more persons to steal merchandise from one or more merchants premises or online marketplaces with the intent to sell or return the merchandise for value, acts in concert with 2 or more persons to receive, purchase, or possess merchandise knowing or believing it to have been stolen, acts as an agent of another to steal merchandise from one or more merchants premises or online marketplaces as part of an organized plan to commit theft, or recruits, coordinates, organizes, supervises, directs, manages, or finances another to undertake acts of theft.

This bill would extend the operation of the crime of organized retail theft indefinitely. By extending the operation of an existing crime, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.

Existing law, until January 1, 2026, requires the Department of the California Highway Patrol to coordinate with the Department of Justice to convene a regional property crimes task force to identify geographic areas experiencing increased levels of property crimes and assist local law enforcement with resources, such as personnel and equipment.

The bill would extend the operation of the regional property crimes task force indefinitely.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law, until January 1, 2026, makes a person guilty of organized retail theft, punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony, as specified, if the person acts in concert with one or more persons to steal merchandise from one or more merchants premises or online marketplaces with the intent to sell or return the merchandise for value, acts in concert with 2 or more persons to receive, purchase, or possess merchandise knowing or believing it to have been stolen, acts as an agent of another to steal merchandise from one or more merchants premises or online marketplaces as part of an organized plan to commit theft, or recruits, coordinates, organizes, supervises, directs, manages, or finances another to undertake acts of theft.

This bill would extend the operation of the crime of organized retail theft indefinitely, unless a specified initiative is approved by the voters. indefinitely. By extending the operation of an existing crime, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.

Existing law, until January 1, 2026, requires the Department of the California Highway Patrol to coordinate with the Department of Justice to convene a regional property crimes task force to identify geographic areas experiencing increased levels of property crimes and assist local law enforcement with resources, such as personnel and equipment.

The bill would extend the operation of the regional property crimes task force indefinitely, unless a specified initiative is approved by the voters. indefinitely.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law, until January 1, 2026, makes a person guilty of organized retail theft, punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony, as specified, if the person acts in concert with one or more persons to steal merchandise from one or more merchants premises or online marketplaces with the intent to sell or return the merchandise for value, acts in concert with 2 or more persons to receive, purchase, or possess merchandise knowing or believing it to have been stolen, acts as an agent of another to steal merchandise from one or more merchants premises or online marketplaces as part of an organized plan to commit theft, or recruits, coordinates, organizes, supervises, directs, manages, or finances another to undertake acts of theft.

This bill would extend the operation of the crime of organized retail theft indefinitely. indefinitely, unless a specified initiative is approved by the voters. By extending the operation of an existing crime, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.

Existing law, until January 1, 2026, requires the Department of the California Highway Patrol to coordinate with the Department of Justice to convene a regional property crimes task force to identify geographic areas experiencing increased levels of property crimes and assist local law enforcement with resources, such as personnel and equipment.

The bill would extend the operation of the regional property crimes task force indefinitely. indefinitely, unless a specified initiative is approved by the voters.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law, until January 1, 2026, makes a person guilty of organized retail theft, punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony, as specified, if the person acts in concert with one or more persons to steal merchandise from one or more merchants premises or online marketplaces with the intent to sell or return the merchandise for value, acts in concert with 2 or more persons to receive, purchase, or possess merchandise knowing or believing it to have been stolen, acts as an agent of another to steal merchandise from one or more merchants premises or online marketplaces as part of an organized plan to commit theft, or recruits, coordinates, organizes, supervises, directs, manages, or finances another to undertake acts of theft.

This bill would extend the operation of the crime of organized retail theft until January 1, 2031. indefinitely. By extending the operation of an existing crime, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.

Existing law, until January 1, 2026, requires the Department of the California Highway Patrol to coordinate with the Department of Justice to convene a regional property crimes task force to identify geographic areas experiencing increased levels of property crimes and assist local law enforcement with resources, such as personnel and equipment.

The bill would extend the operation of the regional property crimes task force until January 1, 2031. indefinitely.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law, until January 1, 2026, makes a person guilty of organized retail theft, punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony, as specified, if the person acts in concert with one or more persons to steal merchandise from one or more merchants premises or online marketplaces with the intent to sell or return the merchandise for value, acts in concert with 2 or more persons to receive, purchase, or possess merchandise knowing or believing it to have been stolen, acts as an agent of another to steal merchandise from one or more merchants premises or online marketplaces as part of an organized plan to commit theft, or recruits, coordinates, organizes, supervises, directs, manages, or finances another to undertake acts of theft.

This bill would extend the operation of the crime of organized retail theft until January 1, 2031. By extending the operation of an existing crime, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.

Existing law, until January 1, 2026, requires the Department of the California Highway Patrol to coordinate with the Department of Justice to convene a regional property crimes task force to identify geographic areas experiencing increased levels of property crimes and assist local law enforcement with resources, such as personnel and equipment.

The bill would extend the operation of the regional property crimes task force until January 1, 2031.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 1802

Author:(Jones-Sawyer)

As Amended Ver:June 29, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Eliminates the sunset date for the crime of organized retail theft and for the existence of a taskforce established by the California Highway Patrol to analyze organized retail theft and vehicle burglary and to assist local law enforcement in counties identified as having elevated property crime.

Senate Amendments

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

COMMENTS

As passed by the Assembly, this bill:

Eliminated the sunset date for the crime of organized retail theft and for the existence of a taskforce established by the California Highway Patrol to analyze organized retail theft and vehicle burglary and to assist local law enforcement in counties identified as having elevated property crime.

According to the Author

"Retail theft has been growing concern in California and is an increasingly frequent topic of discussion in the Legislature. Last year, the Public Policy Institute of California reported a 5.8% increase in commercial burglary and a 9.1% increase in commercial robbery compared to the year prior. AB 1802 will maintain the ability of law enforcement to adequately respond to retail crime by reenacting the crime of organized retail theft and the operation of the CHP property crimes task force until January 1, 2031. In doing so, it will ensure law enforcement and businesses have continued access to a vital tool needed to address this ongoing issue."

Arguments in Support

According to the Los Angeles County District Attorney, the sponsor of this bill, "One of the most important tools we have to combat the problem of retail theft is California's Organized Retail Theft statute, Penal Code Section 490.4. California's Organized Retail Theft statute makes it a wobbler for an organized group of two or more persons to steal goods from a merchant with the intent to sell, exchange, or return the goods for value.

"Last year our Office filed over 500 cases using California's Organized Retail Theft statue in both the criminal and juvenile courts. The majority of these cases involved multiple defendants. In addition to prosecuting these cases, our Office has also worked with the Los Angeles County regional organized task force to recover millions of dollars in stolen goods which have been returned to retailers by law enforcement. For example, $188,000 in merchandise has been returned to Saks Fifth Avenue in Beverly Hills, $250,000 in recovered goods has been given back to Kevin Jewelers, and hundreds of thousands of dollars has been returned to Target and CVS.

"The number of criminal prosecutions for organized retail theft have increased significantly since 2020. In 2020, our Office filed 95 criminal cases charging a violation of Penal Code Section 490.4 (78 felony filings and 17 misdemeanor filings). Last year the number of Penal Code Section 490.4 filings increased to 541 (434 felony filings and 107 misdemeanor filings).

"Retail theft is a significant public policy problem as it not only negatively impacts California merchants but also for everyday Californians who feel less safe shopping in our communities but who are also harmed and inconvenienced by retail store closures in their local neighborhoods."

Arguments in Opposition

The California Attorneys for Criminal Justice argues, "The crime of organized retail theft is of recent vintage: it first became law effective July 21, 2021. Existing laws relating to conspiracy already apply to the criminal conduct covered by AB 331. So this new crime was, when enacted, entirely unneeded. Prosecutors seeking to bring more serious charges against organized groups engaged in retail thefts have always been able to do so, without the necessity of AB 331. This is precisely why a sunset provision was originally included—to wait and see whether AB 331 was anything other than a duplicative. California law should not have both of these as options.

"Nor is there any data suggesting that AB 331 has done anything to impact retail theft one way or another. As Assemblymember Bonta, who sits on the recently formed special committee to address retail theft recently told the Los Angeles Times, "inconsistent information" on the extent of retail thefts since the passage of AB 331 "makes it difficult to assess the issue." (Anabel Sosa, California lawmakers want to curb retail theft, but says it's not as easy as it sounds, L.A. Times, (Dec. 30, 2023)). As noted in this article, when proponents of this bill claiming that there is a rising problem with retail theft were asked to provide data at a legislative hearing, they "came up empty-handed." (Id.) The National Retail Federation was, in fact, forced to retract the statistics it had earlier provided in support of the claim that organized retail theft was the central force behind shoplifting losses among retail businesses. (Mark Faithfull, National Retail Federation Retracts Stats Amid Theft War of Words, Forbes (Dec. 8, 2023).) And, as other media organizations have reported, retailers may be using claims of organized theft to cover up internal flaws causing their profits to drop. (See Gabrielle Funrouge, Retailers say organized theft is biting into profits, but internal issues may really be to blame, CNBC, August 10, 2023).

"Most importantly, there is no pressing need to extend the sunset provision of AB 331 in this legislative session, as AB 331 does not expire until 2026. Rushing to extend the sunset on a controversial and unnecessary expansion of the Penal Code in an election year is purely political gamesmanship and is not the wisest course to actually confront retail theft crimes. For this reason, CACJ opposes this bill."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

1. Cost pressures (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) of an unknown but significant amount to the courts to adjudicate criminal charges for organized retail theft. A defendant charged with a misdemeanor or felony is entitled to no-cost legal representation and a jury trial. Actual costs will depend on the number of cases brought and the amount of court time needed to adjudicate each case. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a need for increased funding for courts from the General Fund. The Governor's 2024-25 May Revision proposes reducing $97 million ongoing from the General Fund to the trial courts.
2. Costs (local funds, General Fund) to the counties and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to incarcerate people convicted of organized retail theft, likely in the millions to tens of millions of dollars annually. Actual incarceration costs will depend on the number of convictions, the length of each sentence, and whether each sentence must be served in county jail or state prison. The average annual cost to incarcerate one person in county jail is approximately $29,000. The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) estimates the average annual cost to incarcerate one person in state prison is $133,000. Although county incarceration costs are generally not considered reimbursable state mandates pursuant to Proposition 30 (2012), overcrowding in county jails creates cost pressure on the General Fund because the state has historically granted new funding to counties to offset overcrowding resulting from 2011 public safety realignment.
3. Costs to CHP (General Fund) to continue operating the task force, likely in the millions of dollars to low tens of millions of dollars annually. CHP reported spending $9.8 million to operate the task force in fiscal year (FY) 2022-23 and anticipates spending $14 million each year in FY 2023-24 and ongoing. The Governor's 2024-25 budget proposal includes $6 million to expand and make permanent the task force. The Governor's budget proposal for 2024-25 includes $373.5 million General Fund over four years to support law enforcement operations relating to organized retail theft, including $6 million in fiscal year 2024-25 and $10.5 million in fiscal year 2025-26 to CHP for retail theft task force expansion.
4. Costs to DOJ (General Fund) likely in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars annually for staffing to continue providing support to the task force.

VOTES:

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 8-0-0

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

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-0

YES: Wicks, Sanchez, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Dixon, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Jim Patterson, Pellerin, Ta, Villapudua

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 72-0-8

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, 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: Bryan, Cervantes, Megan Dahle, Friedman, Gabriel, Holden, Mathis, 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: Elizabeth Potter / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0003813

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1802

Author: Jones-Sawyer (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: 72-0, 5/21/24 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Crimes: organized theft

SOURCE: Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office

DIGEST:

This bill removes the sunset date on the provision of law that criminalizes organized retail theft, thereby making the operation of the law permanent, and extend the operation of the regional property crimes task force indefinitely.

ANALYSIS:

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

Existing law:

1. 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).)
2. Punishes, until January 1, 2024, organized retail theft as follows:
   1. If violations of the above provisions, except the recruiting, coordinating, organizing, supervising, directing, managing, or financing another provision, 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 either a misdemeanor by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or as a jail-eligible felony;
   2. Any other violation of the above provisions, except the recruiting, coordinating, organizing, supervising, directing, managing, or financing another provision, is punishable as a misdemeanor by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year; and,
   3. A violation of the recruiting, coordinating, organizing, supervising, directing, managing, or financing another provision is punishable as either a misdemeanor by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or as a jail-eligible felony. (Pen. Code, § 490.1, subd. (b).)
3. Provides, until January 1, 2026, that for the purpose of determining whether the defendant acted in concert with another person or persons in any proceeding, the trier of fact may consider any competent evidence, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
   1. The defendant has previously acted in concert with another person or persons in committing acts constituting theft, or any related offense, including any conduct that occurred in counties other than the county of the current offense, if relevant to demonstrate a fact other than the defendant’s disposition to commit the act;
   2. That the defendant used or possessed an artifice, instrument, container, device, or other article capable of facilitating the removal of merchandise from a retail establishment without paying the purchase price and use of the artifice, instrument, container, or device or other article is part of an organized plan to commit theft; or,
   3. The property involved in the offense is of a type or quantity that would not normally be purchased for personal use or consumption and the property is intended for resale. (Pen. Code, § 490.4, subd. (c).)
4. Clarifies, until January 1, 2026, that in a prosecution for organized retail theft, the prosecutor shall not be required to charge any other coparticipant of the organized retail theft. (Pen. Code, § 490.4, subd. (d).)
5. States, until January 1, 2026, that upon a conviction for organized retail theft, the court shall consider ordering, as a condition of probation, that the defendant stay away from retail establishments with a reasonable nexus to the crime committed. (Pen. Code § 490.4, subd. (e).)
6. Requires, until January 1, 2026, the Department of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to, in coordination with the Department of Justice, convene a regional property crimes task force to assist local law enforcement in counties identified by the CHP as having elevated levels of property crime, including, but not limited to, organized retail theft and vehicle burglary. The task force shall provide local law enforcement in the identified region with logistical support and other law enforcement resources, including, but not limited to, personnel and equipment, as determined to be appropriate by the Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol in consultation with task force members. (Pen. Code, § 13899.)

This bill:

1. Removes the sunset date of January 1, 2026 making the organized retail theft crime law permanent.
2. Extends operation of the CHP task force indefinitely.

Background

Organized Retail Theft Law. Proposition 47, also known as the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, 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. Specifically, the initiative reduced the penalties for possession for personal use of most illegal drugs to misdemeanors. The initiative also reduced the penalties for theft, shoplifting, receiving stolen property, writing bad checks, and check forgery valued at $950 or less from alternate felony-misdemeanors to straight misdemeanors. Among the crimes reduced to misdemeanors by Proposition 47 “are certain second degree burglaries where the defendant enters a commercial establishment with the intent to steal. Such offense is now characterized as shoplifting as defined in new [Penal Code] section 459.5.” (People v. Sherow (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 875, 879.) The measure limited the reduced penalties to offenders who do not have designated prior convictions for serious or violent felonies and who are not required to register as sex offenders. (See Legislative Analyst's Office analysis of Proposition 47 <http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2014/prop-47-110414.pdf .)

Prior to Proposition 47, most theft offenses had to meet the $950 threshold in order to be charged as a felony. However, this threshold did not apply to certain offenses such as receiving stolen property, fraud and forgery which were punishable as either a felony or misdemeanor, also known as “wobblers.” Also, in cases of retail theft, prosecutors had the option of charging a person with second degree burglary, which was punishable as a wobbler without having to reach the $950 threshold. However, the provisions of Proposition 47 specifically required that the crime of “shoplifting” be punished as a misdemeanor. “Shoplifting” was defined by the initiative as “entering a commercial establishment with intent to commit larceny while that establishment is open during regular business hours, where the value of the property that is taken or intended to be taken does not exceed $950.” (Pen. Code, § 459.5; Proposition 47, approved by California voters on Nov. 4, 2014.)

Because Proposition 47 reduced the number of crimes that can be punished as felonies, it reduced the number of people that could be sentenced to state prison. Proposition 47 requires that the estimated annual savings to the state resulting from Proposition 47’s sentencing changes be spent on mental health and substance use services, truancy and dropout prevention, and victim services. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, last year, the estimated state savings was about $113 million. (https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2023/230474.pdf [as of June 3, 2024].)

After the passage of Proposition 47, opponents of the measure argued that because shoplifting had to be charged as a misdemeanor unless the amount stolen exceeds $950, repeat offenders and those who work in concert with others in an organized retail theft ring were not being appropriately punished. (Grocery stores are pushing California to be tougher on crime, LA Times https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-09-16/california-grocery-industry-supports-tougher-crime-laws [as of June 3, 2024].)

In 2018, a coalition of law enforcement and victims’ advocate groups started gathering signatures to put a new initiative on the ballot that would undo some of the changes made by Proposition 47. That measure, Proposition 20, would have allowed thefts of property worth $250 or more to be punished as felonies and would have created the crime of serial theft and organized retail theft. Proposition 20 qualified to be placed on the ballot for the November 2020 general election and was ultimately rejected by California voters.

Also in 2018, the Legislature passed AB 1065 (Jones-Sawyer, Chapter 803, Statutes of 2018), which created the crime of organized retail theft and allowed the crime to be punished as a wobbler, along with several other provisions related to the prosecution of the new crime and the creation of the CHP property crimes task force to assist local efforts to combat organized property crimes. That law contained a sunset date of January 1, 2021. Since the passage of the organized retail theft law, the sunset has been extended several times. (See AB 94 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 25, Statutes of 2019 and AB 331 (Jones-Sawyer, Chapter 113, Statutes of 2021)

The current sunset date on the crime of organized retail theft and the operation of the CHP task force is January 1, 2026. This bill removes the sunset date making the operation of the crime of organized retail theft and the CHP task force permanent.

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

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• Cost pressures (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) of an unknown but significant amount to the courts to adjudicate criminal charges for organized retail theft. A defendant charged with a misdemeanor or felony is entitled to no-cost legal representation and a jury trial. Actual costs will depend on the number of cases brought and the amount of court time needed to adjudicate each case. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a need for increased funding for courts from the General Fund. The Governor’s 2024-25 May Revision proposes reducing $97 million ongoing from the General Fund to the trial courts.
  
• Costs (local funds, General Fund) to the counties and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to incarcerate people convicted of organized retail theft, likely in the millions to tens of millions of dollars annually. Actual incarceration costs will depend on the number of convictions, the length of each sentence, and whether each sentence must be served in county jail or state prison. The average annual cost to incarcerate one person in county jail is approximately $29,000. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) estimates the average annual cost to incarcerate one person in state prison is $133,000. Although county incarceration costs are generally not considered reimbursable state mandates pursuant to Proposition 30 (2012), overcrowding in county jails creates cost pressure on the General Fund because the state has historically granted new funding to counties to offset overcrowding resulting from 2011 public safety realignment.
  
• Costs to CHP (General Fund) to continue operating the task force, likely in the millions of dollars to low tens of millions of dollars annually. CHP reported spending $9.8 million to operate the task force in fiscal year (FY) 2022-23 and anticipates spending $14 million each year in FY 2023-24 and ongoing. The Governor’s 2024-25 budget proposal includes $6 million to expand and make permanent the task force. The Governor’s budget proposal for 2024-25 includes $373.5 million General Fund over four years to support law enforcement operations relating to organized retail theft, including $6 million in fiscal year 2024-25 and $10.5 million in fiscal year 2025-26 to CHP for retail theft task force expansion.
  
• Costs to DOJ (General Fund) likely in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars annually for staffing to continue providing support to the task force.

SUPPORT: (Verified 6/29/2024)

Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office (source)
Arcadia Police Officers' Association
Association of California Cities - Orange County
Boma California
Burbank Police Officers' Association
California Association of Highway Patrolmen
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Department of Justice
California District Attorneys Association
California Downtown Association
California Narcotic Officers' Association
California Reserve Peace Officers Association
California Retailers Association
Chief Probation Officers' of California (CPOC)
City of Agoura Hills
City of Artesia
City of Buena Park
City of Carlsbad
City of Crescent City
City of Cypress
City of Fontana
City of Fountain Valley
City of Fullerton
City of Grand Terrace
City of Lakeport
City of Los Alamitos
City of Merced

City of Mission Viejo
City of Norwalk
City of Palmdale
City of Paramount
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
City of Redwood City
City of Rohnert Park
City of Rolling Hills Estates
City of San Luis Obispo
City of Santa Clarita
City of Stanton

City of Stockton
City of Whittier
Corona Police Officers Association
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 Democratic Party
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
Southern California Leadership Council
Target Corporation
Technet-technology Network
Town of Apple Valley
United Chamber Advocacy Network
Upland Police Officers Association
Valley Industry and Commerce Association (VICA)

OPPOSITION: (Verified 6/29/24)

California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
Vera Institute of Justice

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the Los Angeles County District Attorney, the sponsor of this bill:

One of the most important tools we have to combat the problem of retail theft is California’s Organized Retail Theft statute, Penal Code Section 490.4. California’s Organized Retail Theft statute makes it a wobbler for an organized group of two or more persons to steal goods from a merchant with the intent to sell, exchange or return the goods for value.

Last year our Office filed over 500 cases using California’s Organized Retail Theft statue in both the criminal and juvenile courts. The majority of these cases involved multiple defendants. In addition to prosecuting these cases, our Office has also worked with the Los Angeles County regional organized task force to recover millions of dollars in stolen goods which have been returned to retailers by law enforcement. For example, $188,000 in merchandise has been returned to Saks Fifth Avenue in Beverly Hills, $250,000 in recovered goods has been given back to Kevin Jewelers, and hundreds of thousands of dollars has been returned to Target and CVS.

The number of criminal prosecutions for organized retail theft have increased significantly since 2020. In 2020, our Office filed 95 criminal cases charging a violation of Penal Code Section 490.4 (78 felony filings and 17 misdemeanor filings). Last year the number of Penal Code Section 490.4 filings increased to 541 (434 felony filings and 107 misdemeanor filings).

. . . .

It is imperative that law enforcement retains all of our existing tools in order to continue to combat the problem of organized retail theft in California.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to California Attorneys for Criminal Justice:

The crime of organized retail theft is of recent vintage: it first became law effective July 21, 2021. Existing laws relating to conspiracy already apply to the criminal conduct covered by AB 331. So this new crime was, when enacted, entirely unneeded. Prosecutors seeking to bring more serious charges against organized groups engaged in retail thefts have always been able to do so, without the necessity of AB 331. This is precisely why a sunset provision was originally included—to wait and see whether AB 331 was anything other than a duplicative. California law should not have both of these as options.

Nor is there any data suggesting that AB 331 has done anything to impact retail theft one way or another. As Assemblymember Bonta, who sits on the recently formed special committee to address retail theft recently told the Los Angeles Times, “inconsistent information” on the extent of retail thefts since the passage of AB 331 “makes it difficult to assess the issue.” (Anabel Sosa, California lawmakers want to curb retail theft, but says it’s not as easy as it sounds, L.A. Times, (Dec. 30, 2023). As noted in this article, when proponents of this bill claiming that there is a rising problem with retail theft were asked to provide data at a legislative hearing, they “came up empty handed.” (Id.) The National Retail Federation was, in fact, forced to retract the statistics it had earlier provided in support of the claim that organized retail theft was the central force behind shoplifting losses among retail businesses. (Mark Faithfull, National Retail Federation Retracts Stats Amid Theft War of Words, Forbes (Dec. 8, 2023).) And, as other media organizations have reported, retailers may be using claims of organized theft to cover up internal flaws causing their profits to drop. (See Gabrielle Funrouge, Retailers say organized theft is biting into profits, but internal issues may really be to blame, CNBC, August 10, 2023)

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 72-0, 5/21/24

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, 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: Bryan, Cervantes, Megan Dahle, Friedman, Gabriel, Holden, Mathis, Luz Rivas

Prepared by: Mary Kennedy / PUB. S. /

7/2/24 9:31:56

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1802

Author: Jones-Sawyer (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: 72-0, 5/21/24 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Crimes: organized theft

SOURCE: Los Angeles District Attorney

DIGEST:

This bill removes the sunset date on the provision of law that criminalizes organized retail theft, thereby making the operation of the law permanent, and extend the operation of the regional property crimes task force indefinitely.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. 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. (Penal (Pen.) Code § 490.4, subd. (a))
2. Punishes, until January 1, 2024, organized retail theft as follows:
   1. If violations of the above provisions, except the recruiting, coordinating, organizing, supervising, directing, managing, or financing another provision, 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 either a misdemeanor by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or as a jail-eligible felony;
   2. Any other violation of the above provisions, except the recruiting, coordinating, organizing, supervising, directing, managing, or financing another provision, is punishable as a misdemeanor by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year; and,
   3. A violation of the recruiting, coordinating, organizing, supervising, directing, managing, or financing another provision is punishable as either a misdemeanor by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or as a jail-eligible felony. (Pen. Code § 490.1, subd. (b))
3. Provides, until January 1, 2026, that for the purpose of determining whether the defendant acted in concert with another person or persons in any proceeding, the trier of fact may consider any competent evidence, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
   1. The defendant has previously acted in concert with another person or persons in committing acts constituting theft, or any related offense, including any conduct that occurred in counties other than the county of the current offense, if relevant to demonstrate a fact other than the defendant’s disposition to commit the act;
   2. That the defendant used or possessed an artifice, instrument, container, device, or other article capable of facilitating the removal of merchandise from a retail establishment without paying the purchase price and use of the artifice, instrument, container, or device or other article is part of an organized plan to commit theft; or,
   3. The property involved in the offense is of a type or quantity that would not normally be purchased for personal use or consumption and the property is intended for resale. (Pen. Code § 490.4, subd. (c))
4. Clarifies, until January 1, 2026, that in a prosecution for organized retail theft, the prosecutor shall not be required to charge any other coparticipant of the organized retail theft. (Pen. Code § 490.4, subd. (d))
5. States, until January 1, 2026, that upon a conviction for organized retail theft, the court shall consider ordering, as a condition of probation, that the defendant stay away from retail establishments with a reasonable nexus to the crime committed. (Pen. Code § 490.4, subd. (e))
6. Requires, until January 1, 2026, the Department of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to, in coordination with the Department of Justice, convene a regional property crimes task force to assist local law enforcement in counties identified by the CHP as having elevated levels of property crime, including, but not limited to, organized retail theft and vehicle burglary. The task force shall provide local law enforcement in the identified region with logistical support and other law enforcement resources, including, but not limited to, personnel and equipment, as determined to be appropriate by the Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol in consultation with task force members. (Pen. Code § 13899)

This bill:

1. Removes the sunset date of January 1, 2026 making the organized retail theft crime law permanent.
2. Extends operation of the CHP task force indefinitely.
3. Contains an urgency clause.
4. 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

Organized Retail Theft Law. Proposition 47, also known as the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, 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. Specifically, the initiative reduced the penalties for possession for personal use of most illegal drugs to misdemeanors. The initiative also reduced the penalties for theft, shoplifting, receiving stolen property, writing bad checks, and check forgery valued at $950 or less from alternate felony-misdemeanors to straight misdemeanors. Among the crimes reduced to misdemeanors by Proposition 47 “are certain second degree burglaries where the defendant enters a commercial establishment with the intent to steal. Such offense is now characterized as shoplifting as defined in new [Penal Code] section 459.5.” (People v. Sherow (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 875, 879.) The measure limited the reduced penalties to offenders who do not have designated prior convictions for serious or violent felonies and who are not required to register as sex offenders. (See Legislative Analyst's Office analysis of Proposition 47 <http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2014/prop-47-110414.pdf )

Prior to Proposition 47, most theft offenses had to meet the $950 threshold in order to be charged as a felony. However, this threshold did not apply to certain offenses such as receiving stolen property, fraud and forgery which were punishable as either a felony or misdemeanor, also known as “wobblers.” Also, in cases of retail theft, prosecutors had the option of charging a person with second degree burglary, which was punishable as a wobbler without having to reach the $950 threshold. However, the provisions of Proposition 47 specifically required that the crime of “shoplifting” be punished as a misdemeanor. “Shoplifting” was defined by the initiative as “entering a commercial establishment with intent to commit larceny while that establishment is open during regular business hours, where the value of the property that is taken or intended to be taken does not exceed $950.” (Pen. Code § 459.5; Proposition 47, approved by California voters on Nov. 4, 2014)

Because Proposition 47 reduced the number of crimes that can be punished as felonies, it reduced the number of people that could be sentenced to state prison. Proposition 47 requires that the estimated annual savings to the state resulting from Proposition 47’s sentencing changes be spent on mental health and substance use services, truancy and dropout prevention, and victim services. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, last year, the estimated state savings was about $113 million. (https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2023/230474.pdf [as of June 3, 2024])

After the passage of Proposition 47, opponents of the measure argued that because shoplifting had to be charged as a misdemeanor unless the amount stolen exceeds $950, repeat offenders and those who work in concert with others in an organized retail theft ring were not being appropriately punished. (Grocery stores are pushing California to be tougher on crime, LA Times https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-09-16/california-grocery-industry-supports-tougher-crime-laws [as of June 3, 2024])

In 2018, a coalition of law enforcement and victims’ advocate groups started gathering signatures to put a new initiative on the ballot that would undo some of the changes made by Proposition 47. That measure, Proposition 20, would have allowed thefts of property worth $250 or more to be punished as felonies and would have created the crime of serial theft and organized retail theft. Proposition 20 qualified to be placed on the ballot for the November 2020 general election and was ultimately rejected by California voters.

Also in 2018, the Legislature passed AB 1065 (Jones-Sawyer), Ch. 803, Stats. 2018, which created the crime of organized retail theft and allowed the crime to be punished as a wobbler, along with several other provisions related to the prosecution of the new crime and the creation of the CHP property crimes task force to assist local efforts to combat organized property crimes. That law contained a sunset date of January 1, 2021. Since the passage of the organized retail theft law, the sunset has been extended several times. (See AB 94 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Rev.), Ch. 25, Statutes of 2019 and AB 331 (Jones-Sawyer), Ch. 113, Statutes of 2021)

The current sunset date on the crime of organized retail theft and the operation of the CHP task force is January 1, 2026. This bill removes the sunset date making the operation of the crime of organized retail theft and the CHP task force permanent.

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

According to the Senate Committee on Appropriations:

• Cost pressures (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) of an unknown but significant amount to the courts to adjudicate criminal charges for organized retail theft. A defendant charged with a misdemeanor or felony is entitled to no-cost legal representation and a jury trial. Actual costs will depend on the number of cases brought and the amount of court time needed to adjudicate each case. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a need for increased funding for courts from the General Fund. The Governor’s 2024-25 May Revision proposes reducing $97 million ongoing from the General Fund to the trial courts.
  
• Costs (local funds, General Fund) to the counties and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to incarcerate people convicted of organized retail theft, likely in the millions to tens of millions of dollars annually. Actual incarceration costs will depend on the number of convictions, the length of each sentence, and whether each sentence must be served in county jail or state prison. The average annual cost to incarcerate one person in county jail is approximately $29,000. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) estimates the average annual cost to incarcerate one person in state prison is $133,000. Although county incarceration costs are generally not considered reimbursable state mandates pursuant to Proposition 30 (2012), overcrowding in county jails creates cost pressure on the General Fund because the state has historically granted new funding to counties to offset overcrowding resulting from 2011 public safety realignment.
  
• Costs to CHP (General Fund) to continue operating the task force, likely in the millions of dollars to low tens of millions of dollars annually. CHP reported spending $9.8 million to operate the task force in fiscal year (FY) 2022-23 and anticipates spending $14 million each year in FY 2023-24 and ongoing. The Governor’s 2024-25 budget proposal includes $6 million to expand and make permanent the task force. The Governor’s budget proposal for 2024-25 includes $373.5 million General Fund over four years to support law enforcement operations relating to organized retail theft, including $6 million in fiscal year 2024-25 and $10.5 million in fiscal year 2025-26 to CHP for retail theft task force expansion.
  
• Costs to DOJ (General Fund) likely in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars annually for staffing to continue providing support to the task force.

SUPPORT: (Verified 6/19/24)

Arcadia Police Officers' Association
Association of California Cities - Orange County
Boma California
Burbank Police Officers' Association
California Association of Highway Patrolmen
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Department of Justice
California District Attorneys Association
California Downtown Association
California Narcotic Officers' Association
California Reserve Peace Officers Association
California Retailers Association
City of Agoura Hills
City of Artesia
City of Buena Park
City of Carlsbad
City of Crescent City
City of Cypress
City of Fontana
City of Fountain Valley
City of Fullerton
City of Grand Terrace
City of Lakeport
City of Los Alamitos
City of Merced

City of Mission Viejo
City of Norwalk
City of Palmdale
City of Paramount
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
City of Redwood City
City of Rohnert Park
City of Rolling Hills Estates
City of San Luis Obispo
City of Santa Clarita
City of Stanton

City of Stockton
City of Whittier
Corona Police Officers Association
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 Democratic Party
Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office
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
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
Target Corporation
Technet-technology Network
Town of Apple Valley
United Chamber Advocacy Network
Upland Police Officers Association
Valley Industry and Commerce Association

OPPOSITION: (Verified 6/19/24)

California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
Vera Institute of Justice

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the Los Angeles County District Attorney, the sponsor of this bill:

One of the most important tools we have to combat the problem of retail theft is California’s Organized Retail Theft statute, Penal Code Section 490.4. California’s Organized Retail Theft statute makes it a wobbler for an organized group of two or more persons to steal goods from a merchant with the intent to sell, exchange or return the goods for value.

Last year our Office filed over 500 cases using California’s Organized Retail Theft statue in both the criminal and juvenile courts. The majority of these cases involved multiple defendants. In addition to prosecuting these cases, our Office has also worked with the Los Angeles County regional organized task force to recover millions of dollars in stolen goods which have been returned to retailers by law enforcement. For example, $188,000 in merchandise has been returned to Saks Fifth Avenue in Beverly Hills, $250,000 in recovered goods has been given back to Kevin Jewelers, and hundreds of thousands of dollars has been returned to Target and CVS.

The number of criminal prosecutions for organized retail theft have increased significantly since 2020. In 2020, our Office filed 95 criminal cases charging a violation of Penal Code Section 490.4 (78 felony filings and 17 misdemeanor filings). Last year the number of Penal Code Section 490.4 filings increased to 541 (434 felony filings and 107 misdemeanor filings).

. . . .

It is imperative that law enforcement retains all of our existing tools in order to continue to combat the problem of organized retail theft in California.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to California Attorneys for Criminal Justice:

The crime of organized retail theft is of recent vintage: it first became law effective July 21, 2021. Existing laws relating to conspiracy already apply to the criminal conduct covered by AB 331. So this new crime was, when enacted, entirely unneeded. Prosecutors seeking to bring more serious charges against organized groups engaged in retail thefts have always been able to do so, without the necessity of AB 331. This is precisely why a sunset provision was originally included—to wait and see whether AB 331 was anything other than a duplicative. California law should not have both of these as options.

Nor is there any data suggesting that AB 331 has done anything to impact retail theft one way or another. As Assemblymember Bonta, who sits on the recently formed special committee to address retail theft recently told the Los Angeles Times, “inconsistent information” on the extent of retail thefts since the passage of AB 331 “makes it difficult to assess the issue.” (Anabel Sosa, California lawmakers want to curb retail theft, but says it’s not as easy as it sounds, L.A. Times, (Dec. 30, 2023). As noted in this article, when proponents of this bill claiming that there is a rising problem with retail theft were asked to provide data at a legislative hearing, they “came up empty handed.” (Id.) The National Retail Federation was, in fact, forced to retract the statistics it had earlier provided in support of the claim that organized retail theft was the central force behind shoplifting losses among retail businesses. (Mark Faithfull, National Retail Federation Retracts Stats Amid Theft War of Words, Forbes (Dec. 8, 2023).) And, as other media organizations have reported, retailers may be using claims of organized theft to cover up internal flaws causing their profits to drop. (See Gabrielle Funrouge, Retailers say organized theft is biting into profits, but internal issues may really be to blame, CNBC, August 10, 2023)

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 72-0, 5/21/24

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, 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: Bryan, Cervantes, Megan Dahle, Friedman, Gabriel, Holden, Mathis, Luz Rivas

Prepared by: Stella Choe / PUB. S. /

6/21/24 11:02:20

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

AB 1802 (Jones-Sawyer) - Crimes: organized theft

Bill Summary:

AB 1802 removes the sunset date on the organized retail theft statute and the regional property crimes task force.

Fiscal Impact:

• Cost pressures (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) of an unknown but significant amount to the courts to adjudicate criminal charges for organized retail theft. A defendant charged with a misdemeanor or felony is entitled to no-cost legal representation and a jury trial. Actual costs will depend on the number of cases brought and the amount of court time needed to adjudicate each case. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a need for increased funding for courts from the General Fund. The Governor’s 2024-25 May Revision proposes reducing $97 million ongoing from the General Fund to the trial courts.
  
• Costs (local funds, General Fund) to the counties and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to incarcerate people convicted of organized retail theft, likely in the millions to tens of millions of dollars annually. Actual incarceration costs will depend on the number of convictions, the length of each sentence, and whether each sentence must be served in county jail or state prison. The average annual cost to incarcerate one person in county jail is approximately $29,000. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) estimates the average annual cost to incarcerate one person in state prison is $133,000. Although county incarceration costs are generally not considered reimbursable state mandates pursuant to Proposition 30 (2012), overcrowding in county jails creates cost pressure on the General Fund because the state has historically granted new funding to counties to offset overcrowding resulting from 2011 public safety realignment.
  
• Costs to CHP (General Fund) to continue operating the task force, likely in the millions of dollars to low tens of millions of dollars annually. CHP reported spending $9.8 million to operate the task force in fiscal year (FY) 2022-23 and anticipates spending $14 million each year in FY 2023-24 and ongoing. The Governor’s 2024-25 budget proposal includes $6 million to expand and make permanent the task force. The Governor’s budget proposal for 2024-25 includes $373.5 million General Fund over four years to support law enforcement operations relating to organized retail theft, including $6 million in fiscal year 2024-25 and $10.5 million in fiscal year 2025-26 to CHP for retail theft task force expansion.
  
• Costs to DOJ (General Fund) likely in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars annually for staffing to continue providing support to the task force.

Background:

• Organized Retail Theft. If a group of people work in coordination to steal merchandise, receive stolen merchandise, or commit other specified acts in support of the coordinated theft of merchandise, they may be convicted of organized retail theft. Depending on the type and frequency of a defendant’s conduct, organized retail theft is punishable as a misdemeanor by imprisonment in county jail for up to one year or as a felony by imprisonment in county jail for 16 months, two years, or three years. If a defendant has certain prior convictions, organized retail theft is punishable by a term in state prison.
• Regional Property Crime Taskforce. Existing law requires CHP to coordinate with DOJ to convene a regional property crimes task force to identify geographic areas experiencing increased levels of property crimes and assist local law enforcement by providing support, personnel, and equipment. According to CHP, it has established three regional property crime task forces in areas with the greatest need for immediate action: Golden Gate Division (encompassing the greater Bay Area), Southern Division (encompassing the greater Los Angeles region), and Border Division (encompassing Orange and San Diego counties). Under current law, the statute authorizing the task force will sunset on January 1, 2026.

Proposed Law:

This bill eliminates the sunset dates on the crime of organized retail theft and the statute that authorizes the regional property crimes task force convened by the CHP and DOJ.

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 1779 (Irwin) allows specified criminal actions for thefts to be consolidated and brought in any jurisdiction, subject to a hearing on consolidation of the offenses, as specified. AB 1779 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.

Staff Comments:

As discussed above this bill would increase incarceration costs. When taking into account the total costs of incarceration, including fixed costs for staffing and infrastructure in addition to the marginal cost of each inmate, the average annual per capita cost to confine a person in state prison is over $133,000. That’s because there are many other types of costs—including most staffing costs—that are only saved when capacity is reduced. Specifically, when a whole prison is deactivated, the state can save several tens of thousands of dollars per capita annually in addition to the population‑driven savings. Since 2021, the administration has deactivated several prisons and yards. CDCR estimates that these deactivations resulted in ongoing General Fund savings totaling about $620 million annually. The administration currently plans to deactivate additional prisons. The Governor’s 2024-25 budget proposes a $493 million decrease in CDCR funding, largely as a result of previous capacity reductions and the planned deactivation of a prison in March 2025. The LAO believes the state could deactivate around five additional prisons that collectively cost nearly $1 billion should they continue operating. As such, the LAO has recommended that the Legislature direct CDCR to begin planning to reduce capacity by deactivating prisons. Longer state prison sentences, like those proposed by this bill, would delay prison closures and the cost savings associated with them.

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 1802 Hearing Date: June 11, 2024

Subject: Crimes: organized theft

HISTORY

Source: Los Angeles District Attorney

Prior Legislation: AB 331 (Jones-Sawyer), Ch. 113, Stats. 2021

AB 94 (Comm. on Budget and Fiscal Rev.), 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; Buena Park; City of; Burbank Police Officers' Association; California Association of Highway Patrolmen; California Business Properties Association; California Chamber of Commerce; California District Attorneys Association; California Downtown Association; California Narcotic Officers' Association; California Reserve Peace Officers Association; Chief Probation Officers' of California (CPOC); City of Agoura Hills; City of Artesia; City of Carlsbad; City of Crescent City; City of Cypress; City of Fontana; City of Fountain Valley; City of Grand Terrace; City of Lakeport; City of Merced; City of Norwalk; City of Paramount; City of Rancho Palos Verdes; City of Redwood; City of Rohnert Park; City of Rolling Hills Estates; City of San Luis Obispo; City of Santa Clarita; City of Stanton; City of Whittier; Corona Police Officers Association; Culver City Police Officers' Association; Darrell Steinberg, Mayor of Sacramento; Deputy Sheriffs' Association of Monterey County; Downtown Santa Monica; Fullerton Police Officers' Association; Fullerton; City of; League of California Cities; Los Angeles County Business Federation (BIZ-FED); Los Angeles County Democratic Party; Mayor Todd Gloria, City of San Diego; Mission Viejo; City of; 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; Technet-technology Network; United Chamber Advocacy Network; Upland Police Officers Association; Valley Industry and Commerce Association (VICA)

Opposition: California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; Vera Institute of Justice

Assembly Floor Vote: 72 - 0

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to remove the sunset date on the provision of law that criminalizes organized retail theft, thereby making the operation of the law permanent, and extend the operation of the regional property crimes task force indefinitely.

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 retail theft as follows:

• If violations of the above provisions, except the recruiting, coordinating, organizing, supervising, directing, managing, or financing another provision, 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 either a misdemeanor by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or as a jail-eligible felony;
• Any other violation of the above provisions, except the recruiting, coordinating, organizing, supervising, directing, managing, or financing another provision, 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 another provision is punishable as either a misdemeanor by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or as a jail-eligible felony. (Pen. Code, § 490.1, subd. (b).)

Existing law, until January 1, 2026, provides that for the purpose of determining whether the defendant acted in concert with another person or persons in any proceeding, the trier of fact may consider any competent evidence, including, but not limited to, all of the following:

• The defendant has previously acted in concert with another person or persons in committing acts constituting theft, or any related offense, including any conduct that occurred in counties other than the county of the current offense, if relevant to demonstrate a fact other than the defendant’s disposition to commit the act;
• That the defendant used or possessed an artifice, instrument, container, device, or other article capable of facilitating the removal of merchandise from a retail establishment without paying the purchase price and use of the artifice, instrument, container, or device or other article is part of an organized plan to commit theft; or,
• The property involved in the offense is of a type or quantity that would not normally be purchased for personal use or consumption and the property is intended for resale. (Pen. Code, § 490.4, subd. (c).)

Existing law, until January 1, 2026, clarifies that in a prosecution for organized retail theft, the prosecutor shall not be required to charge any other coparticipant of the organized retail theft. (Pen. Code, § 490.4, subd. (d).)

Existing law, until January 1, 2026, states that upon a conviction for organized retail theft, the court shall consider ordering, as a condition of probation, that the defendant stay away from retail establishments with a reasonable nexus to the crime committed. (Pen. Code § 490.4, subd. (e).)

This bill removes the sunset date of January 1, 2026 making the organized retail theft crime law permanent.

Existing law until January 1, 2026, requires the Department of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to, in coordination with the Department of Justice, convene a regional property crimes task force to assist local law enforcement in counties identified by the CHP as having elevated levels of property crime, including, but not limited to, organized retail theft and vehicle burglary. The task force shall provide local law enforcement in the identified region with logistical support and other law enforcement resources, including, but not limited to, personnel and equipment, as determined to be appropriate by the Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol in consultation with task force members. (Pen. Code, § 13899.)

This bill extends operation of the CHP task force indefinitely.

COMMENTS

1. Need for This Bill

According to the author of this bill:

Retail theft has been growing concern in California and is an increasingly frequent topic of discussion in the Legislature. Last year, the Public Policy Institute of California reported a 5.8% increase in commercial burglary and a 9.1% increase in commercial robbery compared to the year prior. AB 1802 will maintain the ability of law enforcement to adequately respond to retail crime by eliminating the sunset on the crime of organized retail theft and the operation of the CHP property crimes taskforce. In doing so, it will ensure law enforcement and businesses have permanent access to a vital tool needed to address this ongoing issue.

1. Organized Retail Theft Law: Response to Proposition 47 (2014)

Proposition 47, also known as the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, 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. Specifically, the initiative reduced the penalties for possession for personal use of most illegal drugs to misdemeanors. The initiative also reduced the penalties for theft, shoplifting, receiving stolen property, writing bad checks, and check forgery valued at $950 or less from alternate felony-misdemeanors to straight misdemeanors. Among the crimes reduced to misdemeanors by Proposition 47 “are certain second degree burglaries where the defendant enters a commercial establishment with the intent to steal. Such offense is now characterized as shoplifting as defined in new [Penal Code] section 459.5.” (People v. Sherow (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 875, 879.) The measure limited the reduced penalties to offenders who do not have designated prior convictions for serious or violent felonies and who are not required to register as sex offenders. (See Legislative Analyst's Office analysis of Proposition 47 <http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2014/prop-47-110414.pdf>.)

Prior to Proposition 47, most theft offenses had to meet the $950 threshold in order to be charged as a felony. However, this threshold did not apply to certain offenses such as receiving stolen property, fraud and forgery which were punishable as either a felony or misdemeanor, also known as “wobblers.” Also, in cases of retail theft, prosecutors had the option of charging a person with second degree burglary, which was punishable as a wobbler without having to reach the $950 threshold. However, the provisions of Proposition 47 specifically required that the crime of “shoplifting” be punished as a misdemeanor. “Shoplifting” was defined by the initiative as “entering a commercial establishment with intent to commit larceny while that establishment is open during regular business hours, where the value of the property that is taken or intended to be taken does not exceed $950.” (Pen. Code, § 459.5; Proposition 47, approved by California voters on Nov. 4, 2014.)

Because Proposition 47 reduced the number of crimes that can be punished as felonies, it reduced the number of people that could be sentenced to state prison. Proposition 47 requires that the estimated annual savings to the state resulting from Proposition 47’s sentencing changes be

spent on mental health and substance use services, truancy and dropout prevention, and victim services. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, last year, the estimated state savings was about $113 million. (https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2023/230474.pdf [as of June 3, 2024].)

After the passage of Proposition 47, opponents of the measure argued that because shoplifting had to be charged as a misdemeanor unless the amount stolen exceeds $950, repeat offenders and those who work in concert with others in an organized retail theft ring were not being appropriately punished. (Grocery stores are pushing California to be tougher on crime, LA Times < https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-09-16/california-grocery-industry-supports-tougher-crime-laws > [as of June 3, 2024].)

In 2018, a coalition of law enforcement and victims’ advocate groups started gathering signatures to put a new initiative on the ballot that would undo some of the changes made by Proposition 47. That measure, Proposition 20, would have allowed thefts of property worth $250 or more to be punished as felonies and would have created the crime of serial theft and organized retail theft. Proposition 20 qualified to be placed on the ballot for the November 2020 general election and was ultimately rejected by California voters.

Also in 2018, the Legislature passed AB 1065 (Jones-Sawyer), Ch. 803, Stats. 2018, which created the crime of organized retail theft and allowed the crime to be punished as a wobbler, along with several other provisions related to the prosecution of the new crime and the creation of the CHP property crimes task force to assist local efforts to combat organized property crimes. That law contained a sunset date of January 1, 2021. Since the passage of the organized retail theft law, the sunset has been extended several times. (See AB 94 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Rev.), Ch. 25, Stats. 2019 and AB 331 (Jones-Sawyer), Ch. 113, Stats. 2021.)

The current sunset date on the crime of organized retail theft and the operation of the CHP task force is January 1, 2026. This bill removes the sunset date making the operation of the crime of organized retail theft and the CHP task force permanent.

1. CHP Task Force

The Regional Property Crimes Task Force was enacted by AB 1065 (Jones-Sawyer), Chapter 803, Statutes of 2018. That bill required CHP, until July 1, 2021, to coordinate with Department of Justice (DOJ) to convene a regional property crimes task force to identify geographic areas experiencing increased levels of property crimes and assist local law enforcement with resources, such as personnel and equipment. AB 331 (Jones-Sawyer), Chapter 113, Statutes of 2021, extended the operation of the regional property crimes task force until January 1, 2026.

According to CHP’s website:

As reported by the National Retail Federation, organized retail theft accounts for nearly $30 billion in economic loss per year. This loss is carried by retailers on several levels but is ultimately passed on to consumers through price inflation to offset economic loss. While the problem is most commonly associated with shoplifting, it extends well beyond into associated organized criminal activity. Commercial burglary, vehicle burglary, identity theft, credit card fraud, forgery, and fencing (selling or distribution of) stolen property are part of a bigger picture that finance ongoing criminal operations.

In response to AB 1065, the CHP, in consultation with the DOJ, developed a task force concept to work with allied agencies to combat organized retail theft. Three regional task forces, known as Organized Retail Crime Task Forces (ORCTF), were established by the CHP in three field Divisions with the greatest need for immediate action: Golden Gate Division (encompassing the greater Bay Area), Southern Division (encompassing the greater Los Angeles region), and Border Division (encompassing Orange and San Diego counties).

(See https://www.chp.ca.gov/notify-chp/organized-retail-theft-program [as of June 3, 2024].)

As of August 2023, since the inception of the ORCTF, there have been more than 1,850 investigations into retail crimes in California that have resulted in over 1,250 arrests. One key to the ORCTF’s success is the partnership with retailers, local law enforcement, and district attorneys, to effectively disrupt organized retail theft rings and prosecute organized retail crimes. (https://www.chp.ca.gov/PressReleases/Pages/CHP-RAMPS-UP-EFFORTS-TO-DISRUPT-RETAIL-THEFT-RINGS-STATEWIDE.aspx [as of June 3, 2024].)

This bill extends the operation the CHP task force indefinitely.

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 the Los Angeles County District Attorney, the sponsor of this bill:

One of the most important tools we have to combat the problem of retail theft is California’s Organized Retail Theft statute, Penal Code Section 490.4. California’s Organized Retail Theft statute makes it a wobbler for an organized group of two or more persons to steal goods from a merchant with the intent to sell, exchange or return the goods for value.

Last year our Office filed over 500 cases using California’s Organized Retail Theft statue in both the criminal and juvenile courts. The majority of these cases involved multiple defendants. In addition to prosecuting these cases, our Office has also worked with the Los Angeles County regional organized task force to recover millions of dollars in stolen goods which have been returned to retailers by law enforcement. For example, $188,000 in merchandise has been returned to Saks Fifth Avenue in Beverly Hills, $250,000 in recovered goods has been given back to Kevin Jewelers, and hundreds of thousands of dollars has been returned to Target and CVS.

The number of criminal prosecutions for organized retail theft have increased significantly since 2020. In 2020, our Office filed 95 criminal cases charging a violation of Penal Code Section 490.4 (78 felony filings and 17 misdemeanor filings). Last year the number of Penal Code Section 490.4 filings increased to 541 (434 felony filings and 107 misdemeanor filings).

. . . .

It is imperative that law enforcement retains all of our existing tools in order to continue to combat the problem of organized retail theft in California.

1. Argument in Opposition

According to California Attorneys for Criminal Justice:

The crime of organized retail theft is of recent vintage: it first became law effective July 21, 2021. Existing laws relating to conspiracy already apply to the criminal conduct covered by AB 331. So this new crime was, when enacted, entirely unneeded. Prosecutors seeking to bring more serious charges against organized groups engaged in retail thefts have always been able to do so, without the necessity of AB 331. This is precisely why a sunset provision was originally included—to wait and see whether AB 331 was anything other than a duplicative. California law should not have both of these as options.

Nor is there any data suggesting that AB 331 has done anything to impact retail theft one way or another. As Assemblymember Bonta, who sits on the recently formed special committee to address retail theft recently told the Los Angeles Times, “inconsistent information” on the extent of retail thefts since the passage of AB 331 “makes it difficult to assess the issue.” (Anabel Sosa, California lawmakers want to curb retail theft, but says it’s not as easy as it sounds, L.A. Times, (Dec. 30, 2023). As noted in this article, when proponents of this bill claiming that there is a rising problem with retail theft were asked to provide data at a legislative hearing, they “came up emptyhanded.” (Id.) The National Retail Federation was, in fact, forced to retract the statistics it had earlier provided in support of the claim that organized retail theft was the central force behind shoplifting losses among retail businesses. (Mark Faithfull, National Retail Federation Retracts Stats Amid Theft War of Words, Forbes (Dec. 8, 2023).) And, as other media organizations have reported, retailers may be using claims of organized theft to cover up internal flaws causing their profits to drop. (See Gabrielle Funrouge, Retailers say organized theft is biting into profits, but internal issues may really be to blame, CNBC, August 10, 2023)

-- END –

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1802

Author:(Jones-Sawyer)

As Amended Ver:April 1, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Eliminates the sunset date for the crime of organized retail theft and for the existence of a taskforce established by the California Highway Patrol to analyze organized retail theft and vehicle burglary and to assist local law enforcement in counties identified as having elevated property crime.

Major Provisions

COMMENTS

According to the Author

"Retail theft has been growing concern in California and is an increasingly frequent topic of discussion in the Legislature. Last year, the Public Policy Institute of California reported a 5.8% increase in commercial burglary and a 9.1% increase in commercial robbery compared to the year prior. AB 1802 will maintain the ability of law enforcement to adequately respond to retail crime by reenacting the crime of organized retail theft and the operation of the CHP property crimes task force until January 1, 2031. In doing so, it will ensure law enforcement and businesses have continued access to a vital tool needed to address this ongoing issue."

Arguments in Support

According to the Los Angeles County District Attorney, the sponsor of this bill, "One of the most important tools we have to combat the problem of retail theft is California's Organized Retail Theft statute, Penal Code Section 490.4. California's Organized Retail Theft statute makes it a wobbler for an organized group of two or more persons to steal goods from a merchant with the intent to sell, exchange, or return the goods for value.

"Last year our Office filed over 500 cases using California's Organized Retail Theft statue in both the criminal and juvenile courts. The majority of these cases involved multiple defendants. In addition to prosecuting these cases, our Office has also worked with the Los Angeles County regional organized task force to recover millions of dollars in stolen goods which have been returned to retailers by law enforcement. For example, $188,000 in merchandise has been returned to Saks Fifth Avenue in Beverly Hills, $250,000 in recovered goods has been givenback to Kevin Jewelers, and hundreds of thousands of dollars has been returned to Target and CVS.

"The number of criminal prosecutions for organized retail theft have increased significantly since 2020. In 2020, our Office filed 95 criminal cases charging a violation of Penal Code Section 490.4 (78 felony filings and 17 misdemeanor filings). Last year the number of Penal Code Section 490.4 filings increased to 541 (434 felony filings and 107 misdemeanor filings).

"Retail theft is a significant public policy problem as it not only negatively impacts California merchants but also for everyday Californians who feel less safe shopping in our communities but who are also harmed and inconvenienced by retail store closures in their local neighborhoods."

Arguments in Opposition

The California Attorneys for Criminal Justice argues, "The crime of organized retail theft is of recent vintage: it first became law effective July 21, 2021. Existing laws relating to conspiracy already apply to the criminal conduct covered by AB 331. So this new crime was, when enacted, entirely unneeded. Prosecutors seeking to bring more serious charges against organized groups engaged in retail thefts have always been able to do so, without the necessity of AB 331. This is precisely why a sunset provision was originally included—to wait and see whether AB 331 was anything other than a duplicative. California law should not have both of these as options.

"Nor is there any data suggesting that AB 331 has done anything to impact retail theft one way or another. As Assemblymember Bonta, who sits on the recently formed special committee to address retail theft recently told the Los Angeles Times, "inconsistent information" on the extent of retail thefts since the passage of AB 331 "makes it difficult to assess the issue." (Anabel Sosa, California lawmakers want to curb retail theft, but says it's not as easy as it sounds, L.A. Times, (Dec. 30, 2023)). As noted in this article, when proponents of this bill claiming that there is a rising problem with retail theft were asked to provide data at a legislative hearing, they "came up emptyhanded." (Id.) The National Retail Federation was, in fact, forced to retract the statistics it had earlier provided in support of the claim that organized retail theft was the central force behind shoplifting losses among retail businesses. (Mark Faithfull, National Retail Federation Retracts Stats Amid Theft War of Words, Forbes (Dec. 8, 2023).) And, as other media organizations have reported, retailers may be using claims of organized theft to cover up internal flaws causing their profits to drop. (See Gabrielle Funrouge, Retailers say organized theft is biting into profits, but internal issues may really be to blame, CNBC, August 10, 2023).

"Most importantly, there is no pressing need to extend the sunset provision of AB 331 in this legislative session, as AB 331 does not expire until 2026. Rushing to extend the sunset on a controversial and unnecessary expansion of the Penal Code in an election year is purely political gamesmanship and is not the wisest course to actually confront retail theft crimes. For this reason, CACJ opposes this bill."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Cost pressures (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) of an unknown but significant amount to the courts to adjudicate criminal charges for organized retail theft. A defendant charged with a misdemeanor or felony is entitled to no-cost legal representation and a jury trial. Actual costs will depend on the number of cases brought and the amount of court time needed to adjudicate each case. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a need for increased funding for courts from the General Fund. The Governor's 2024-25 budget proposes $83.1 million ongoing from the General Fund to backfill declining revenue to the Trial Court Trust Fund.
2. Costs (local funds, General Fund) to the counties and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to incarcerate people convicted of organized retail theft, likely in the millions to tens of millions of dollars annually. Actual incarceration costs will depend on the number of convictions, the length of each sentence, and whether each sentence must be served in county jail or state prison. The average annual cost to incarcerate one person in county jail is approximately $29,000. The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) estimates the average annual cost to incarcerate one person in state prison is $133,000. Although county incarceration costs are generally not considered reimbursable state mandates pursuant to Proposition 30 (2012), overcrowding in county jails creates cost pressure on the General Fund because the state has historically granted new funding to counties to offset overcrowding resulting from 2011 public safety realignment.
3. Costs to CHP (General Fund) to continue operating the task force, likely in the millions of dollars to low tens of millions of dollars annually. CHP reported spending $9.8 million to operate the task force in fiscal year (FY) 2022-23 and anticipates spending $14 million each year in FY 2023-24 and ongoing. The Governor's 2024-25 budget proposal includes $6 million to expand and make permanent the task force.
4. Costs to DOJ (General Fund) likely in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars annually for staffing to continue providing support to the task force.

According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, the General Fund faces a structural deficit in the tens of billions of dollars over the next several fiscal years.

VOTES

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 8-0-0

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

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-0

YES: Wicks, Sanchez, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Dixon, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Jim Patterson, Pellerin, Ta, Villapudua

UPDATED

VERSION: April 1, 2024

CONSULTANT: Elizabeth Potter / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0003096

Date of Hearing: April 24, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1802

Author:(Jones-Sawyer) – As Amended Ver:April 1, 2024

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill eliminates the sunset dates on the crime of organized retail theft and the statute that authorizes the regional property crimes task force convened by the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and Department of Justice (DOJ).

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Cost pressures (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) of an unknown but significant amount to the courts to adjudicate criminal charges for organized retail theft. A defendant charged with a misdemeanor or felony is entitled to no-cost legal representation and a jury trial. Actual costs will depend on the number of cases brought and the amount of court time needed to adjudicate each case. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a need for increased funding for courts from the General Fund. The Governor’s 2024-25 budget proposes $83.1 million ongoing from the General Fund to backfill declining revenue to the Trial Court Trust Fund.
2. Costs (local funds, General Fund) to the counties and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to incarcerate people convicted of organized retail theft, likely in the millions to tens of millions of dollars annually. Actual incarceration costs will depend on the number of convictions, the length of each sentence, and whether each sentence must be served in county jail or state prison. The average annual cost to incarcerate one person in county jail is approximately $29,000. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) estimates the average annual cost to incarcerate one person in state prison is $133,000. Although county incarceration costs are generally not considered reimbursable state mandates pursuant to Proposition 30 (2012), overcrowding in county jails creates cost pressure on the General Fund because the state has historically granted new funding to counties to offset overcrowding resulting from 2011 public safety realignment.
3. Costs to CHP (General Fund) to continue operating the task force, likely in the millions of dollars to low tens of millions of dollars annually. CHP reported spending $9.8 million to operate the task force in fiscal year (FY) 2022-23 and anticipates spending $14 million each year in FY 2023-24 and ongoing. The Governor’s 2024-25 budget proposal includes $6 million to expand and make permanent the task force.
4. Costs to DOJ (General Fund) likely in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars annually for staffing to continue providing support to the task force.

According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the General Fund faces a structural deficit in the tens of billions of dollars over the next several fiscal years.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

Retail theft has been growing concern in California and is an increasingly frequent topic of discussion in the Legislature…AB 1802 will maintain the ability of law enforcement to adequately respond to retail crime by reenacting the crime of organized retail theft and the operation of the CHP property crimes task force until January 1, 2031. In doing so, it will ensure law enforcement and businesses have continued access to a vital tool needed to address this ongoing issue.

1. Background. Organized Retail Theft. If a group of people work in coordination to steal merchandise, receive stolen merchandise, or commit other specified acts in support of the coordinated theft of merchandise, they may be convicted of organized retail theft. Depending on the type and frequency of a defendant’s conduct, organized retail theft is punishable as a misdemeanor by imprisonment in county jail for up to one year or as a felony by imprisonment in county jail for 16 months, two years, or three years. If a defendant has certain prior convictions, organized retail theft is punishable by a term in state prison.

This bill eliminates the sunset date for the organized retail theft statute, allowing prosecution of organized retail theft to continue indefinitely.

Regional Property Crime Taskforce. Existing law requires CHP to coordinate with DOJ to convene a regional property crimes task force to identify geographic areas experiencing increased levels of property crimes and assist local law enforcement by providing support, personnel, and equipment. According to CHP, it has established three regional property crime task forces in areas with the greatest need for immediate action: Golden Gate Division (encompassing the greater Bay Area), Southern Division (encompassing the greater Los Angeles region), and Border Division (encompassing Orange and San Diego counties). Under current law, the statute authorizing the task force will sunset on January 1, 2026.

This bill eliminates the sunset, allowing the task force to continue operating indefinitely. The Governor’s budget proposal for 2024-25 includes $373.5 million General Fund over four years to support law enforcement operations relating to organized retail theft, including $6 million in fiscal year 2024-25 and $10.5 million in fiscal year 2025-26 to CHP for retail theft task force expansion.

Analysis Prepared by: Annika Carlson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 9, 2024

Consultant: Elizabeth Potter

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON

Kevin McCarty, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:

Author:() – As Ver:

SUMMARY: Eliminates the sunset date for the crime of organized retail theft and for the existence of a taskforce established by the California Highway Patrol to analyze organized retail theft and vehicle burglary and to assist local law enforcement in counties identified as having elevated property crime.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes that a person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of organized retail theft:
   
   1. Acts 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. Acts in concert with two or more persons to receive, purchase, or possess merchandise as described, knowing or believing it to have been stolen.
      
   3. Acts as an agent of another individual or group of individuals to steal merchandise from one or more merchant’s premises or online marketplaces as part of an organized plan to commit theft.
      
   4. Recruits, coordinates, organizes, supervises, directs, manages, or finances another to undertake any of the acts described, or any other statute defining theft of merchandise. (Pen. Code, § 490.4, subd. (a)(1)-(4).)
      
2. Provides that organized retail theft is punishable as follows:
   
   1. If a person acts in concert or as an agent and commits violations on two or more separate occasions within a 12-month period, and if the aggregated value of the merchandise stolen, received, purchased, or possessed within that 12-month period exceeds nine hundred fifty dollars ($950), the offense is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Penal Code section 1170.
      
   2. Any other violation when a person acts in concert or as an agent that is not described in paragraph (1) of this subdivision is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year.
      
   3. A violation of organized retail theft by act of recruiting, coordinating, organizing, supervising, directing, managing, or financing another to commit acts of organized retail theft is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or as a felony pursuant to subdivision (h) of Penal Code section 1170. (Pen. Code, § 490.4, subd. (b)(1)-(3).)
      
3. States that, for the purpose of determining whether the defendant acted in concert with another person or persons in any proceeding, the trier of fact may consider any competent evidence, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
   
   1. The defendant has previously acted in concert with another person or persons in committing acts constituting theft, or any related offense, including any conduct that occurred in counties other than the county of the current offense, if relevant to demonstrate a fact other than the defendant’s disposition to commit the act;
      
   2. That the defendant used or possessed an artifice, instrument, container, device, or other article capable of facilitating the removal of merchandise from a retail establishment without paying the purchase price and use of the artifice, instrument, container, or device or other article is part of an organized plan to commit theft; or,
      
   3. The property involved in the offense is of a type or quantity that would not normally be purchased for personal use or consumption and the property is intended for resale. (Pen. Code, § 490.4, subd. (c).)
      
4. States that, in a prosecution for the crime of organized retail theft, the prosecutor shall not be required to charge any other co-participant of the organized retail theft. (Pen. Code, § 490.4, subd. (d).)
   
5. Provides that, upon conviction for organized retail theft, the court shall consider ordering, as a condition of probation, that the defendant stay away from retail establishments with a reasonable nexus to the crime committed. (Pen. Code, § 490.4, subd. (e).)
   
6. Repeals this crime on January 1, 2026.
   
7. Requires the Department of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to, in coordination with the Department of Justice, convene a regional property crimes task force to assist local law enforcement in counties identified by the CHP as having elevated levels of property crime, including, but not limited to, organized retail theft and vehicle burglary. The task force shall provide local law enforcement in the identified region with logistical support and other law enforcement resources, including, but not limited to, personnel and equipment, as determined to be appropriate by the Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol in consultation with task force members. (Pen. Code, § 13899.)
   
8. Repeals the property crimes task force on January 1, 2026. (Pen. Code, § 13899.1.)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “Retail theft has been growing concern in California and is an increasingly frequent topic of discussion in the Legislature. Last year, the Public Policy Institute of California reported a 5.8% increase in commercial burglary and a 9.1% increase in commercial robbery compared to the year prior. AB 1802 will maintain the ability of law enforcement to adequately respond to retail crime by reenacting the crime of organized retail theft and the operation of the CHP property crimes task force until January 1, 2031. In doing so, it will ensure law enforcement and businesses have continued access to a vital tool needed to address this ongoing issue.”
   
2. Retail Theft in California: A report by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), (see <Retail Theft and Robbery Rates Have Risen across California - Public Policy Institute of California (ppic.org)> [as of April 3, 2024]) took a look at the problem or retail theft and robbery across the state by examining changes and differences across 15 large counties. The report states in part, “the 2022 data shows that while California’s shoplifting rate jumped notably in 2022, it remains lower than it was at any point in the decade before the pandemic. The commercial burglary rate, however, reached its highest level since 2008, and the commercial robbery rate rose to roughly where it was in 2017. The challenges of retail theft and robbery appear to be widespread, but they vary across the state.
   
   “Organized retail theft is frequently cited as a driver of recent trends across the country, but particularly in California. Like many other states, California has launched efforts to curb organized retail theft. AB 331 (2021) toughens penalties and includes funding for a California Highway Patrol task force to identify trouble spots and assist local law enforcement. In June 2023, Attorney General Bonta, announced an information-sharing partnership with a number of large retailers.
   
   “The impact of these efforts will depend partly on the extent to which organized retail theft is actually driving recent trends. It will be important to continue monitoring retail theft and robbery rates and examining other possible contributing factors.”
   
   This bill would eliminate the sunset date of the organized retail theft code.
   
3. Argument in Support: According to the Los Angeles County District Attorney, the sponsor of this bill, “One of the most important tools we have to combat the problem of retail theft is California’s Organized Retail Theft statute, Penal Code Section 490.4. California’s Organized Retail Theft statute makes it a wobbler for an organized group of two or more persons to steal goods from a merchant with the intent to sell, exchange or return the goods for value.
   
   “Last year our Office filed over 500 cases using California’s Organized Retail Theft statue in both the criminal and juvenile courts. The majority of these cases involved multiple defendants. In addition to prosecuting these cases, our Office has also worked with the Los Angeles County regional organized task force to recover millions of dollars in stolen goods which have been returned to retailers by law enforcement. For example, $188,000 in merchandise has been returned to Saks Fifth Avenue in Beverly Hills, $250,000 in recovered goods has been givenback to Kevin Jewelers, and hundreds of thousands of dollars has been returned to Target and CVS.
   
   “The number of criminal prosecutions for organized retail theft have increased significantly since 2020. In 2020, our Office filed 95 criminal cases charging a violation of Penal Code Section 490.4 (78 felony filings and 17 misdemeanor filings). Last year the number of Penal Code Section 490.4 filings increased to 541 (434 felony filings and 107 misdemeanor filings).
   
   “Retail theft is a significant public policy problem as it not only negatively impacts California merchants but also for everyday Californians who feel less safe shopping in our communities but who are also harmed and inconvenienced by retail store closures in their local neighborhoods.”
   
4. Argument in Opposition: The California Attorneys for Criminal Justice argues, “The crime of organized retail theft is of recent vintage: it first became law effective July 21, 2021. Existing laws relating to conspiracy already apply to the criminal conduct covered by AB 331. So this new crime was, when enacted, entirely unneeded. Prosecutors seeking to bring more serious charges against organized groups engaged in retail thefts have always been able to do so, without the necessity of AB 331. This is precisely why a sunset provision was originally included—to wait and see whether AB 331 was anything other than a duplicative. California law should not have both of these as options.
   
   “Nor is there any data suggesting that AB 331 has done anything to impact retail theft one way or another. As Assemblymember Bonta, who sits on the recently formed special committee to address retail theft recently told the Los Angeles Times, “inconsistent information” on the extent of retail thefts since the passage of AB 331 “makes it difficult to assess the issue.” (Anabel Sosa, California lawmakers want to curb retail theft, but says it’s not as easy as it sounds, L.A. Times, (Dec. 30, 2023). As noted in this article, when proponents of this bill claiming that there is a rising problem with retail theft were asked to provide data at a legislative hearing, they “came up emptyhanded.” (Id.) The National Retail Federation was, in fact, forced to retract the statistics it had earlier provided in support of the claim that organized retail theft was the central force behind shoplifting losses among retail businesses. (Mark Faithfull, National Retail Federation Retracts Stats Amid Theft War of Words, Forbes (Dec. 8, 2023).) And, as other media organizations have reported, retailers may be using claims of organized theft to cover up internal flaws causing their profits to drop. (See Gabrielle Funrouge, Retailers say organized theft is biting into profits, but internal issues may really be to blame, CNBC, August 10, 2023).
   
   “Most importantly, there is no pressing need to extend the sunset provision of AB 331 in this legislative session, as AB 331 does not expire until 2026. Rushing to extend the sunset on a controversial and unnecessary expansion of the Penal Code in an election year is purely political gamesmanship and is not the wisest course to actually confront retail theft crimes. For this reason, CACJ opposes this bill.”
   
5. Related Legislation:
   
   1. AB 1772 (Ramos) would require the DOJ to submit a report to the Legislature regarding the number of retail theft convictions during the COVID-19 State of Emergency, as specified. AB 1772 is pending in this Committee.
      
   2. AB 1779 (Irwin) would allow, a prosecutor to bring a case in any county where theft offenses occurred for offenses that occur in multiple jurisdictions, as specified. AB 1779 is pending in this Committee.
      
   3. AB 1787 (Villapudua) would among other things, repeal the sunset provision in the organized retail theft statute, thereby extending the crime indefinitely. AB 1787 is pending in this Committee.
      
   4. AB 1794 (McCarty) states the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation relating to theft. AB 1794 is pending in this Committee.
      
   5. AB 1845 (Alanis), would establish the Identifying, Apprehending, and Prosecuting of Resale of Stolen Property Grant Program (IAPRSP Grant Program). AB 1845 is pending hearing in this committee.
      
   6. AB 1972 (Alanis) would include the railroad police and cargo theft in CHP’s regional property crimes task force. AB 1972 is pending in this Committee.
      
   7. AB 1960 (Soria) would reenact sentence enhancement for theft offenses when the loss exceeds specified dollar amounts. AB 1960 is pending in this Committee.
      
   8. AB 1990 (W. Carrillo) would authorize peace officers to make a warrantless arrest for misdemeanor shoplifting, as specified. AB 1990 is pending in this Committee.
      
   9. AB 2406 (Davies) would make it a felony, punishable by imprisonment in state prison, to use two or more minors to engage in theft related offenses. AB 2406 is pending in this Committee.
      
   10. AB 2438 (Petrie-Norris) would make any person who acts in concert with two or more persons to take, attempt to take, damage, or destroy any property in the commission or attempted commission of a felony punishable by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment of one, two or three years. AB 2438 is pending in this Committee.
       
   11. AB 2790 (Pacheco) would define organized retail theft to include acting in concert with one or more persons to steal specified types of merchandise, including infant formula, baby food, over-the-counter medications, and blood glucose testing strips, with the intent to sell those items. AB 2790 is pending in this Committee.
       
   12. AB 2943 (Zbur) would, among other things, extend the organized retail theft statute until January 2031, and make 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 is pending in this committee.
       
   13. SB 923 (Archuleta) would revise the definition of shoplifting to require an intent to steal retail property or merchandise and would require a person convicted of petty theft or shoplifting, if the person has two or more prior convictions for specified theft-related offenses, to be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year, or for 16 months, or two or three years. SB 923 is pending in Senate Public Safety Committee.
       
   14. SB 928 (Niello) would remove the sunset date for organized retail theft. SB 928 is pending in Senate Public Safety Committee.
       
   15. SB 982 (Wahab) would remove the sunset date for organized retail theft. SB 982 is pending in Senate Appropriations Committee.
       
   16. SB 1416 (Newman) would create 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 and would make these enhancements apply to any person acting in concert with another person to commit these offenses. SB 1416 is pending in Senate Public Safety Committee.
       
6. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. AB 23 (Muratsuchi), of the 2023-2024 Legislative Session, would have decreased the threshold amount for grand theft from $950 to $400. The hearing on AB 23 was canceled the request of the author.
      
   2. AB 75 (Hoover), of the 2023-2024 Legislative Session, would have reinstated the offense of petty theft with a prior as it existed before it was eliminated by Prop. 47 and makes it applicable to the offense of shoplifting created by Prop.47, subject to approval by the voters. AB 75 failed passage in this committee.
      
   3. 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.
      
   4. AB 335 (Alanis), of the 2023-2024 Legislative Session, would have required the Little Hoover Commission to submit a report to the Legislature describing the reported retail thefts, as specified. AB 335 was held under submission in Assembly Appropriations Committee.
      
   5. AB 2294 (Jones-Sawyer), Chapter 856, Statutes of 2022, authorized the misdemeanor arrest of a person that has a prior arrest, citation or conviction for theft, as specified, and authorized a city or county prosecuting authority or county probation department to create a diversion or deferred entry of judgment program for persons who commit a theft offense or repeat theft offenses.
      
   6. AB 2356 (Rodriguez), Chapter 22, Statues of 2022, expanded the definition of “grand theft” where the aggregate amount taken by all participants exceeds $950.
      
   7. SB 101 (Senate Committee on Budget), Chapter 12, Statutes of 2023, allocated 85,000,000 million dollars for a grant program to combat organized retail theft that law enforcement agencies could apply and compete for; and 10,000,000 million dollars for a grant program for organized retail theft vertical prosecution that district attorneys could apply and compete for; and for both grant programs to be administered by BSCCC. This budget bill also included other programs and budget allocations relating to Budget Act of 2023.
      
   8. SB 316 (Niello), of the 2023-2024 Legislative Session, would have reinstated the offense of “petty theft with a prior” as it existed prior to the passage Proposition 47 and includes shoplifting in the list of eligible prior crimes.
      
   9. AB 331 (Jones-Sawyer), Chapter 113, Statutes of 2021, extended the sunset date for organized retail theft through January 1, 2026.
      
   10. AB 1597 (Waldron), of the 2021-2022 Legislative Session, would have amended Proposition 47 by reinstating the offense of petty theft with a prior. AB 1597 failed passage in this Committee.
       
   11. AB 1599 (Kiley), of the 2021-2022 Legislative Session, would have repealed the changes made by Proposition 47, except those related to reducing the penalty for possession of concentrated cannabis, subject to approval of the voters. AB 1599 failed passage in this Committee.
       
   12. AB 1603 (Salas), of the 2021-2022 Legislative Session, would have amended Proposition 47 by reducing the threshold amount for petty theft and shoplifting to be punished as a misdemeanor from $950 to $400. AB 1603 failed passage in this Committee.
       
   13. AB 2390 (Muratsuchi), of the 2021-2022 Legislative Session, would have amended Proposition 47 by authorizing the aggregation of the value of property from one or more acts of theft or shoplifting, as specified. AB 2390 failed passage in this Committee.
       
   14. SB 1108 (Bates), of the 2021-2022 Legislative Session, would have amended Proposition 47 by reinstating the offense of petty theft with a prior. SB 1108 failed passage in Senate Public Safety Committee.
       
   15. AB 3234 (Ting), Chapter 334, Statutes of 2020, created a court-initiated misdemeanor diversion program.
       
   16. AB 1810 (Budget Committee), Chapter 34, Statutes of 2018, allows trial courts to divert mentally ill defendants into pre-existing treatment programs, where the proposed program is consistent with the needs of the defendant and the safety of the community.
       
   17. AB 1065 (Jones-Sawyer), Chapter 803, Statutes of 2018, created the crime of organized retail theft and expanded jurisdiction to prosecute cases of theft or receipt of stolen merchandise.
       
   18. AB 2369 (Patterson), of the 2015-2016 Legislative Session, would have amended Proposition 47 by making persons convicted of crimes reduced to misdemeanors eligible for felony prosecution and sentencing if convicted of specified offenses two times within a three-year period. AB 2369 failed passage in this Committee.
       
   19. SB 1227 (Hancock), Chapter 658, Statutes of 2013, created a diversion program for veterans who commit misdemeanors or county jail-eligible felonies and who are suffering from service-related trauma or substance abuse.
       
   20. AB 994 (Lowenthal), of the 2013-2014 Legislative Session, would have required each county to establish and maintain a pretrial diversion program, to be administered by the district attorney of that county, and authorizes either the district attorney or the superior court to offer diversion to a defendant. AB 994 was vetoed.
       
   21. AB 1844 (Fletcher), Chapter 219, Statutes of 2010, amended petty theft with a prior to require three prior theft-related convictions.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office (Sponsor)
Arcadia Police Officers' Association
Boma California
Burbank Police Officers' Association
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Narcotic Officers' Association
California Reserve Peace Officers Association
Chief Probation Officers' of California (CPOC)
City of Carlsbad
City of Santa Clarita
Corona Police Officers Association
Culver City Police Officers' Association
Deputy Sheriffs' Association of Monterey County
Fullerton Police Officers' Association
League of California Cities
Los Angeles County Business Federation (BIZ-FED)
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
Technet-technology Network
United Chamber Advocacy Network
Upland Police Officers Association
Valley Industry and Commerce Association (VICA)

Oppose

California Attorneys for Criminal Justice

Analysis Prepared by: