Existing law requires any person who enters or crosses any railroad at a private passway enclosed by bars or gates to leave the bars or gates securely closed after entering or crossing.

This bill would make technical, nonsubstantive changes to that provision.

Date of Hearing: April 23, 2024

Counsel: Liah Burnley

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON

Kevin McCarty, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:

Author:() – As Ver:

SUMMARY:

Makes it a felony to steal any infant formula or baby food as specified, over-the-counter medication, vitamin, supplement, as specified, or any medical product intended for the diagnosis or treatment of an illness, as specified, from a merchant’s premises or online marketplace pursuant to the organized retail theft statute. Specifically, this bill:

1. Specifies that any person who acts in concert with one or more persons to steal any of the following merchandise from one or more merchant’s premises or online marketplace with the intent to sell shall be guilty of a felony:
   
   1. Any infant formula or baby food that is required to have a “use by” date on its packaging;
      
   2. Any over-the-counter medication, vitamin, or supplement that has an expiration date on its packaging; and,
      
   3. Any medical product intended for the diagnosis or treatment of an illness, such as a blood glucose testing strip or ketone urine strip, that has an expiration date on its packaging.
      
2. Provides that the felony shall be punishable by a term of imprisonment in a county jail for 16 months, or two or three years.
   
3. Deletes the sunset date for the organized retail theft statute.

EXISTING LAW:

1. States 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 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; or,
      
   4. Recruits, coordinates, organizes, supervises, directs, manages, or finances another to undertake any of these acts or any other statute defining theft of merchandise. (Pen. Code, § 490.4, subd. (a).)
      
2. Punishes organized retail theft, as follows:
   
   1. If violations of the provisions directed at acting in concert or as an agent are committed on two or more separate occasions within a one-year period, and if the aggregated value of the merchandise stolen, received, purchased, or possessed within that period exceeds $950, the offense is punishable as a misdemeanor by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or as a felony, punishable by a term of imprisonment in a county jail for 16 months, or two or three years;
   2. Any other violation of the provisions directed at acting in concert or as an agent is punishable as a misdemeanor by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year; and,
      
   3. A violation of the recruiting, coordinating, organizing, supervising, directing, managing, or financing provision is punishable is punishable as a misdemeanor by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or as a felony, punishable by a term of imprisonment in a county jail for 16 months, or two or three years. (Pen. Code, § 490.4, subd. (b).)
      
3. Defines “Shoplifting” 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. Shoplifting shall be punished as a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 459.5.)
4. States that every person who steals, takes, carries, leads, or drives away the personal property of another is guilty of theft. (Pen. Code, § 484, subd. (a).)
   
5. Punishes petty theft as a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code §490.)
   
6. Defines grand theft as theft of money, labor, real or personal property of a value exceeding $950. Grand theft is a wobbler, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or as a felony by imprisonment in the county jail for 16 months, two years, or three years (Pen. Code, § 487, 489.)
   
7. Provides that the value of the money, labor, real property, or personal property taken exceeds $950 over the course of distinct but related acts, the value of the money, labor, real property, or personal property taken may properly be aggregated to charge a count of grand theft, if the acts are motivated by one intention, one general impulse, and one plan. (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (e).)
   
8. Provides that it is conspiracy if any two or more people conspire to commit any crime. If they conspire to commit a felony, the offense is punishable in the same manner and to the same extent as is provided for the punishment of that felony. If they conspire to commit any other crime, the conspiracy shall be punishable as a misdemeanor by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or as a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for 16 months, or two or three years, or by a fine not exceeding $10,000, or by both. (Pen. Code, § 182.)
   
9. Provides that any person concerned in the commission of a crime, whether it be felony or misdemeanor, and whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, or, have advised and encouraged its commission, or who, by threats, menaces, command, or coercion, compel another to commit any crime, are principals in any crime so committed. A person who aids and abets a crime faces the same punishment as the one who directly commits the crime. (Pen. Code, § 31.)
   

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “Assembly Bill 2790 will increase penalties for the theft of specific public health related goods with the intention of being resold on online platforms, such as Facebook marketplace.

“Stolen medicines and medical devices, intended for resale, pose a serious public health risk. These items are often stored improperly, further endangering the public. Retail stores follow “use by” or “sell by” dates for over-the-counter medications and infant formula. Proper storage with temperature control helps prevent contamination from external sources.

“AB 2790 aims to combat organized retail theft, safeguard public health, and promote fairness in access to essential goods.”

1. Organized Retail Theft: AB 1065 (Jones-Sawyer), Chapter 803, Statutes of 2018, among other things, created the crime of organized retail theft. AB 1065 had a sunset date of January 1, 2021. AB 331 (Jones-Sawyer), Chapter 113, Statutes of 2021, re-established the crime of organized retail theft through January 1, 2026.
   
   The crime of organized retail theft, codified as Penal Code section 490.4, occurs when two or more people act to steal merchandise from a merchant’s store or online marketplace. Organized retail theft of $950 or less is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one-year imprisonment in county jail. Organized retail theft of more than $950 is a wobbler--prosecutors can charge it as a felony or a misdemeanor. Felony organized retail theft carries a county jail sentence of 16 months, 2 years, or 3 years. (Pen. Code, § 490.4, subd. (b).) A person can be convicted of organized retail theft even if the other person they were acting with are never charged or convicted. (Pen. Code, § 490.4, subd. (d).)
   
   To determine whether a defendant should be prosecuted for organized retail theft, rather than petty theft or grand theft, courts can consider any competent evidence, including: whether the defendant previously conspired with others to carry out theft or related offense; whether the defendant had tools that would help steal and carry away merchandise; and, whether the stolen property is of the type of quantity that suggests it is intended for resale. (Pen. Code, § 404.4, subd. (c).)
   
2. Effect of this Bill: Under existing law, the organized retail theft statute does not make any distinction about the type of merchandise that must be stolen to qualify as organized retail theft. Any merchandise stolen from a merchant’s premises or online marketplace falls into the parameters of the organized retail theft statute.
   
   This bill would make such a distinction for specific items and provides that stealing these specific items, with intent to sell, results in increased felony penalties. These specified items include infant formula or baby food that has a “use by” date; over-the-counter medication, vitamin, or supplement that has an expiration date on its packaging; and, any medical product intended for diagnosis or treatment of an illness that has an expiration date on its packaging. Given that stealing any product is already a crime, this level of particularity is not necessary in the organized retail theft statute.

Further, this bill takes away discretion from the prosecutor to charge thefts of these particular items as misdemeanors and instead requires the thefts to be charged as a felony—without any regard to the value of the items stolen. In other words, a person could be charged with a felony, if they act in concert with one or more persons to steal $30 of infant formula with the intent to resell the item to a family member so that they could feed their child. This offense would be punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for a term of 16 months, or two or three years.

1. Existing Law Already Allows for Increased Penalties for Thefts: To the extent this bill is aimed at increasing penalties for thefts, there are currently a number of laws that prosecutors can use to charge cargo theft that call for increased penalties.
   

Grand theft of property (including any baby food, medications, and medical products) valued over $950 is already chargeable as a felony offense, punishable by imprisonment in county jail for a period of 16 months, two or three years. (Pen. Code, § 489, subd. (c)(1).) Existing law also allows for increased penalties for thefts less than $950, for example by aggregation of theft offenses. Repeated acts of theft can be aggregated and prosecuted as one felony if they are conducted pursuant to one intention, one general impulse, and one plan. (People v. Bailey (1961) 55 Cal.2d 514, 518-519 (Bailey).)

Moreover, under California law, if two or more persons conspire to commit any crime, even misdemeanor petty theft, they can be charged with a felony for the conspiracy itself. Thus, any time there is more than one person involved in any act of stealing the items specified in this bill, the offense can be charged as felony conspiracy, regardless of the value of the items stolen. (Pen. Code, § 182.) Also, in all cases, the defendant is also constitutionally required to make full restitution to the victim in the amount stolen, with interest, in addition to any other penalty fine. Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (b)(13); Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (f)(3).)

Notably, as discussed above, the existing organized retail theft statue already covers this offense. Pursuant to this statute, any person who acts in concert with one or more persons to steal merchandise with the intent to sell the product can be punished with a misdemeanor if the value of the items stolen are less than $950 or a felony if the value exceeds $950. (Pen. Code, § 490.4.) Accordingly, this bill is unnecessary.

1. Reports of Exaggerated Losses by Retailers – Separating Fact from Fiction: Some complaints of retail theft were overstated. For example, in 2021, Walgreens closed five stores in San Francisco purportedly due to retail theft. However, the San Francisco Police Department’s data on shoplifting did not support this explanation for the closures. Recently, the chief financial officer of Walgreens acknowledged the shoplifting threat had probably been overstated. The company likely spent too much on security measures and mischaracterized the amount of theft at stores. In fact, shrinkage (the inventory that was bought but could not be sold primarily due to shoplifting) actually decreased to around 2.5 to 2.6 percent of sales, compared to 3.5 percent the prior year.^[1]
   
   Others say retail theft, while an issue, might be overstated as an excuse to write off mediocre sales and historic inflation might be a key reason why we’re seeing any theft bump at all Things have become expensive – “we are in an economy right now where some everyday staples have risen in price six times faster than the overall rate of inflation. Until July of this year, American paychecks grew at a slower rate than inflation as a whole.” Some retailers lump theft in with heavy discounting, soft sales and macroeconomic conditions as other factors that cut into their margins.^[2]
   
   What’s more, the National Retail Federation has not solidified any data around increased rates of organized retail theft or what percentage of external theft is organized crime. Retailers are not required to break down how much they actually lose to theft. “Retailers and trade associations are increasingly using their positions to influence lawmakers to pass new legislation that benefits them, hurts competitors and could disproportionally affect marginalized people.” ^[3]
   
   Additionally, the Federal Trade Commission recently reported that retail stores likely inflated prices to accommodate for lost revenue resulting from the pandemic. The FTC states, in summary, that:

Notably, consumers are still facing the negative impact of the pandemic’s price hikes, as the Commission’s report finds that some in the grocery [including drug stores] retail industry seem to have used rising costs as an opportunity to further raise prices to increase their profits, which remain elevated today.

Retail stores actually saw significant profits over the past few years despite claims that stores are losing profits as a result of theft and other market forces.

“In the first three-quarters of 2023, retailer profits rose even more, with revenue reaching 7% over total costs, casting doubt on the assertions of some companies that rising prices at the grocery store are the result of retailers’ own rising costs.” (Federal Trade Commission, “Feeding America in a Time of Crisis, The United States Grocery Supply Chain and the COVID-19 Pandemic” (March 21, 2024).

Finally, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) data on crime statistics reports that crime is actually down nationwide by a significant margin – contributing to the conclusion that the crime rate was a temporary phenomenon brought on by the pandemic and rapidly escalating costs for basic goods and services.

The new fourth-quarter numbers [for 2023] show a 13% decline in murder in 2023 from 2022, a 6% decline in reported violent crime and a 4% decline in reported property crime.

After a terrible period of underfunding and understaffing caused by the pandemic, local governments have, by most measures, returned to pre-pandemic levels,” wrote John Roman, a criminologist at the University of Chicago. In an interview, Roman said, ‘The courts were closed, a lot of cops got sick, a lot of police agencies told their officers not to interact with the public. Teachers were not in schools, not working with kids.^[4]

Given that claims of massive retail theft appear to be inconsistent with the data, the Legislature should consider evidence-based solutions to address property crimes.

1. Increased Penalties Do Not Deter Crime: Unduly long sentences are counterproductive for public safety and contribute to the dynamic of diminishing returns as the incarcerated population expands.^[5] Increasingly punitive sentences add little to the deterrent effect of the criminal justice system; and mass incarceration diverts resources from program and policy initiatives that hold the potential for greater impact on public safety. (Ibid.)
   
   Research shows that increasing the severity of the punishment does little to deter the crime. According to the National Institute of Justice, laws and policies designed to deter crime by focusing mainly on increasing the severity of punishment are ineffective partly because criminals know little about the sanctions for specific crimes. More severe punishments do not “chasten” individuals convicted of crimes, and prisons may exacerbate recidivism. Studies show that for most individuals convicted of a crime, short to moderate prison sentences may be a deterrent but longer prison terms produce only a limited deterrent effect. In addition, the crime prevention benefit falls far short of the social and economic costs.^[6]
   

This finding makes intuitive sense. Consider a person who is thinking about stealing a car or burglarizing a local business. If he is thinking rationally, he will take into account a variety of factors when considering how to commit the crime, including time of day, ease of entry, presence of security personnel or technology, or his ability to leave the crime scene. He does this to avoid being caught in the act because being arrested and prosecuted will impose significant burdens on him. Additionally, because he is not planning on being apprehended, he is unlikely to be thinking about how much time he might spend in prison and whether his sentence will be three, five, or seven years.

Notably, this example looks at the behavior of a rational person, which rarely fits the picture of a substantial portion of those who actually commit a crime. Many are teenagers seeking peer approval for their illegal behavior, individuals under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of the offense, or are motivated by economic challenges. Many of these individuals are not even thinking about the risk of being caught, let alone know how much prison time they may face.

The limited impact of extending sentence length becomes even more attenuated for long-term incarceration. If the penalty for a second robbery conviction is twenty years and a legislative body increases that penalty to twenty- five, few would-be robbers undeterred by the prospect of “only” a twenty year sentence would balk at an additional five years.

Again, there are multiple possible reasons for imposing a given prison term, depending on the circumstances of the crime. But policymakers and judges should be cognizant of the evidence to support any particular goal of sentencing. If the length of a prison term has little deterrent value, it may be time to forego the rationale of “sending a message.” ^[7]          

An analysis of 116 studies showed that incarceration does not deter people from committing future crimes and, in fact, incarceration can actually make someone more likely to be arrested and commit crimes later (due to heightened barriers to securing employment, identification, housing, and other basic services necessary to successfully reenter society).^[8] These findings are consistent with other research from national institutions of renown.^[9]

1. Argument in Support: According to the Coalition of Law Enforcement and Retail (CLEAR), “AB 2790 would protect products such as infant formula, baby food, over the counter medications and blood glucose testing instruments from being stolen off the shelves of retailers in bulk, and then resold to unsuspecting California consumers. organized retail crime networks that target these items, often disregard safety handling protocols, and expose these sensitive products to conditions that degrade the nutritional value, compromise the effectiveness of medications, and affect the accuracy of critical glucose readings. This includes a common practice to manipulate the federally mandated expiration dates to resell millions of dollars in potentially harmful infant formula through sophisticated ORC criminal networks.
   
   “In addition to the public safety concerns, the thefts of these specific products have a well-documented history in connection with major criminal organizations and the largest ORC cases on record in California, including a fifty-million-dollar criminal enterprise in San Mateo in 2022 and several multi-million-dollar cases in Los Angeles over the last year. Infant formula specifically has been at the center of multiple California State benefit scandals and price gouging schemes by organized fraudsters being investigated by the State Attorney Generals Office.
   
   “Our national coalition believes that the protection and security of California communities is vital, and we are deeply disturbed that some of the most vulnerable members of those communities are being put in harm’s way by nefarious crime rings that put profits over people. We feel AB 2790 will prove to be a valuable tool to protect the integrity of the sensitive products that the public relies upon for health and wellness […]”
   
2. Argument in Opposition: According to Californians for Safety and Justice, “AB 2790 would allow law enforcement to charge someone with organized retail theft for stealing any amount of baby formula, baby food, blood glucose test strips, or over-the-counter medications. Currently, in order to be charged pursuant to Section 490.4, the aggregated value of items stolen must exceed $950 and the theft must have occurred on two or more separate occasions within a 12-month period. If enacted, AB 2790 would represent a massive expansion of this Penal Code section with the express intent of criminalizing families and people with chronic illnesses, and will disproportionately impact low-income Black and brown communities.
   
   “Giving birth and raising children in California is notoriously expensive. A report by FAIR Health found that the average in-network cost for vaginal delivery in California is $16,577, compared to a national average of $12,968.1 For anyone out of network, the costs are astronomical, at a median value of $35,710. Raising a child is also absurdly expensive - in California, it costs $23,586 per year - which is 1.63x the cost of annual in-state tuition at the University of California. The cost of baby formula and baby food constitute a large percentage of that high annual cost, which can reach as high as $1,500 per year. Similarly, for someone diagnosed with diabetes, they could be spending hundreds of dollars per month on blood glucose test strips depending on the severity of their diagnosis.
   
   “California should be in the business of helping young families obtain the necessary goods and services to raise healthy children and build strong communities, not throw them in jail for trying to secure food for their babies. The real robbery concern are the runaway prices baby formula manufacturers are charging thanks to their successful market consolidation - with average prices increasing by nearly 18% in a single year. Indeed, just four companies - Abbott, Perrigo, Nestle, and Mead Johnson - control 98% of the entire baby formula market nationwide. Even more alarming is that due to the market consolidation, if a single factory shuts down for any reason as occurred in 2021, it triggers a nationwide shortage. California families just bore the brunt of the notorious 2021 shortage, wherein supply rates were as much as 70% below average. In fact, the closure of a single Abbott factory in Michigan was responsible for 43% of the baby formula shortage.
   

“Instead of failed carceral solutions that will neither reduce formula theft nor help families feed their babies, we urge the Legislature to examine real solutions that hold manufacturers accountable for their runaway profiteering. In 2022 during the height of the greedflation period, Governor Newsom signed an Executive Order prohibiting manufacturers from charging prices that were 10% or more above their market price as of February 2022.6 The Legislature can build on the Governor’s efforts by codifying a similar measure in state law. We also encourage the Legislature to work with the California Department of Public Health to increase enrollment in the Women, Infants & Children (WIC) Program, given that nearly 60% of infants born each year in California are WIC eligible, and the program provides no-cost coverage to families. […]”

1. Related Legislation:
   
   1. AB 1802 (Jones-Sawyer) would extend the sunset date for organized retail theft to January 1, 2031. AB 1802 is pending in Assembly Appropriations Committee.
      
   2. AB 1960 (Soria) would reenact sentence enhancement for theft offenses when the loss exceeds specified dollar amounts. AB 1960 is pending in Assembly Appropriations Committee.
      
   3. AB 1990 (W. Carrillo) would authorize peace officers to make a warrantless arrest for misdemeanor shoplifting, as specified. AB 1990 is pending in Assembly Appropriations Committee.
      
   4. 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 Assembly Appropriations Committee.
      
   5. AB 1787 (Villapudua) would among other things, repeal the sunset provision in the organized retail theft statute. AB 1787 is in Assembly Appropriations Committee.
      
   6. AB 1794 (McCarty) would clarify aggregation requirements for grand theft, among other things. AB 1794 is pending in Assembly Appropriations Committee.
      
   7. AB 2406 (Davies) would make it a wobbler to use a minor to engage in theft related offenses. AB 2406 is pending in this Committee.
      
   8. AB 2438 (Petrie-Norris) would make any person who acts in concert to take, damage, or destroy any property in the commission of a felony punishable by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment. AB 2438 failed passage in this Committee.
      
   9. 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. AB 2943 is pending in Assembly Appropriations Committee.
      
2. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. 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.
      
   2. 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.
      
   3. AB 331 (Jones-Sawyer), Chapter 113, Statutes of 2021, extended the sunset date for organized retail theft through January 1, 2026.
      
   4. 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.
      
   5. AB 329 (Ta) would have imposed higher penalties for shoplifting and petty theft if the crime is committed by a non-citizen of the state of California. AB 329 failed passage in this committee.
      
   6. 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.
      
   7. AB 2356 (Rodriguez), Chapter 22, Statues of 2022, expanded the definition of “grand theft” where the aggregate amount taken by all participants exceeds $950.
      
   8. AB 1603 (Salas), of the 2021-2022 Legislative Session, would have reduced 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.
      
   9. AB 2390 (Muratsuchi), of the 2021-2022 Legislative Session, would have authorized 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.
      
   10. 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.
       

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Arcadia Police Officers' Association
Burbank Police Officers' Association
California Narcotic Officers' Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California Reserve Peace Officers Association
Claremont Police Officers Association
Coalition of Law Enforcement and Retail
Corona Police Officers Association
Culver City Police Officers' Association
Deputy Sheriffs' Association of Monterey County
Fullerton Police Officers' Association
League of California Cities
Murrieta Police Officers' Association
Newport Beach Police Association
Novato Police Officers Association
Palos Verdes Police Officers Association
Placer County Deputy Sheriffs' Assocation
Pomona Police Officers' Association
Riverside Police Officers Association
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
Santa Ana Police Officers Association
Upland Police Officers Association

Oppose

A New Way of Life Reentry Project
ACLU California Action
California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
Californians for Safety and Justice
Californians United for A Responsible Budget
Children's Defense Fund - CA
Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice (CURYJ)
Drug Policy Alliance
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Felony Murder Elimination Project
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Initiate Justice
Initiate Justice Action
LA Defensa
Legal Services for Prisoners With Children
Pacific Juvenile Defender Center
San Francisco Public Defender
Smart Justice California, a Project of Tides Advocacy
Team Justice
Uncommon Law
Underground Grit
Vera Institute of Justice
Young Women's Freedom Center
California Public Defenders Association

Analysis Prepared by:

1. See New York Times, Walgreens Executive Says Shoplifting Threat Was Overstated (Jan. 6, 2023) <https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/06/business/walgreens-shoplifting.html> ; see also Los Angeles Times, Retailers Say Thefts Are at Crisis Level. The Numbers Say Otherwise (Dec. 15, 2021) <https://www.latimes.com/‌business/story/2021-12-15/organized-retail-theft-crime-rate>; CNN Business, ‘Maybe We Cried Too Much’ Over Shoplifting, Walgreens Executive Says (Jan. 7, 2023) <https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/06/business/walgreens-shoplifting-retail/index.html>; The Atlantic, The Great Shoplifting Freak-Out (Dec. 203, 2021) <https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/12/shoplifting-holiday-theft-panic/621108/>.) ↑

2. (Freight Waves, What’s Behind the Reports of ‘Unprecedented’ Retail Theft (Oct. 2023). Available at: <https://www.freightwaves.com/news/whats-behind-the-reports-of-unprecedented-retail-theft>; see also Bloomberg, Thieves Target Donuts and Ham as Food Prices Jump (Feb. 2024). Available at: <https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-02-23/supply-chain-latest-food-theft-rises-on-grocery-inflation>. ↑

3. CNBC, Companies say organized retail crime is on the rise, but there’s no data to prove it. (Aug. 2023). Available at < https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/09/claims-about-organized-retail-theft-are-nearly-impossible-to-verify.html>. ↑

4. FTC, Report on Grocery Supply Chain Disruptions (March 2024). Available at: <https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/03/ftc-releases-report-grocery-supply-chain-disruptions>. ↑

5. Long-Term Sentences: Time to Reconsider the Scale of Punishment, 87 UMKC L. Rev., 1 (Nov. 5, 2018). ↑

6. National Institute of Justice, Five Things about Deterrence <https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf> [as of Feb. 15, 2023]. ↑

7. Long-Term Sentences: Time to Reconsider the Scale of Punishment, 87 UMKC L. Rev., 1 (Nov. 5, 2018) (citations omitted). ↑

8. Brookings, Retail Theft In US Cities: Separating Fact from Fiction (March 6, 2024). Available at: <https://www.brookings.edu/articles/retail-theft-in-us-cities-separating-fact-from-fiction/>. ↑

9. National Research Council of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences, (April 2014) at pp. 130 -150. Available at: <https://‌academic‌works.‌cuny.edu/cgi/‌viewcontent.cgi?‌article=1026&‌context=‌jj_‌pubs>. ↑