Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

Okay, we're going to get started in a minute so people could please take their seats. Good morning. Before we gavel down and because of Assembly rules, I'd like to recognize the mayor of West Hollywood, John Erickson, before we proceed.

Thank you so much. All right, good morning, everyone. Welcome to West Hollywood. Bright and shiny. 09:00 a.m. It's so easy to get here. We're happy to have you. My name is John Erickson. I'm the mayor of the City of West Hollywood. Welcome to our fabulous city. Before I just make one quick remark, I want to recognize some of my colleagues in the room. We have councilmember John Heilman right in the back. We've got councilmember Lauren Meister right there. And we have Vice Chelsea Byers.

And then I also want to acknowledge President of California Contract cities and mayor of the City of Beverly Hills, Dr. Julian Gold, right over here. And I just really want to thank this amazing Committee as well as all of our Assembly Members. Welcome to West Hollywood. Thank you for having this important conversation. It's really impacting all of our communities, and we're looking forward to being active partners with you here at the local level.

And thank you again, Assembly Member Chavez Zbur, for being a continued advocate for your communities and public safety. I hope everyone has a safe weekend and enjoys the panel. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I call this meeting to order. Good morning. We are bringing the hearing to order. I want to welcome everyone to the second hearing of the California Assembly Select Committee on Retail theft. And we're pleased to host this as a Joint Hearing along with the Assembly Public Safety Committee.

We have Select Committee Members on retail theft on this side, Public Safety Committee Members on this side of me, and we're looking forward to examining the serious issue of retail crime in communities throughout our state. First, I'd like to welcome everyone to the 51st Assembly District and to West Hollywood, the heart of my district.

And I want to thank the Assembly staff that's helped make today happen, including my Chief of Staff, Tommy Martin and district Director Robert Oliver, as well as Public Safety Committee chief consultant Sandy Aribi, policy consultant to the Speaker Sean Naidu and Gary Olsen. And Gary Olsen, the Republican caucus consultant. And also want to thank the City of West Hollywood for hosting us today. City manager David Wilson Hernandez Molina, government affairs liaison, and of course, Mayor Erickson, vice mayor Byers and council Members Heilman Meister and Shine.

At our first hearing in December, we heard from three panels of experts representing a range of perspectives, including law and data experts, retailers, workers, property managers, community advocates, and law enforcement agencies. We heard from experts that some of what we are dealing with are crimes of survival, but also that a very large part of the problem is due to organized crime rings, professional criminals that are responsible for a pretty large percentage of retail thefts occurring in our communities.

We heard from law enforcement agencies that they need better tools to address the problem of repeat offenders and these professional crime rings. We heard that diversion programs should be part of a comprehensive approach to solving this problem and that the best deterrence is not necessarily increasing imprisonment, but instead assuring that there's enforcement and a certainty of consequences for breaking the law.

We heard from business owners bearing the brunt of retail crime in their stores, not just the loss of inventory, but the added costs of locking up merchandise and paying for additional staff and security. And we've heard that retailers fear not only for their business operations, but also for the well being of their workers and customers. We've heard from workers themselves who relay their concerns over their safety, too, and who fear discipline should they intervene to try to prevent or stop retail crime themselves.

We heard from folks who believe that the felony dollar limit threshold should be reduced. But we also learned that California's $950 threshold is actually relatively Low compared to other states, and that the problem of retail theft is a national problem. We were presented with data indicating that shoplifting is actually down in some places, yet we watch as more and more stores lock up their inventory and report losses.

There seems to be a gap between some of the data and the on the ground experiences of so many businesses, workers, residents and law enforcement agencies in our state. Numbers on a spreadsheet can only tell us so much. Our constituents have told us that there's a serious problem with retail crime and have asked us for help, and I want to assure you that we are listening. I want to assure you that we intend to take meaningful steps to solve this problem in this legislative session.

Speaker Rivas has made solving this issue one of his top priorities and has asked all of us on the Deus here to act expeditiously as we work to find solution to these issues. Though, we are also working alongside with both our law enforcement and our criminal justice reform partners.

We need to make sure that new policies to address retail crime are thoughtful and truly effective, and that we preserve those reforms that have both made our communities safer and that have reduced the practice and the financial and human cost of imprisoning people for minor infractions. So today we're here to dig deeper. We are looking not to just understand the problem, but for the solutions and reforms that will make our communities safer for everyone. We have a lot of open issues.

What is being done at the state and local level to prevent and address retail crime? What is working well and what is not? How can we shut down the main distribution channels for stolen goods? And these are often online marketplaces. How can diversion programs be part of the solution? And I know my colleagues here will have many more questions. California's many areas of commerce should be safe, vibrant centers of economic opportunity and upward mobility.

They're threatened by any increase in retail crime, but I believe that we can get things back on track. Assembly Member Mccarty, who will be with us shortly, he had missed a flight this morning and is on his way. He'll be here in probably about 3540 minutes.

The two of us are working on companion bills to bring balanced, effective solutions to deal meaningfully with these issues while continuing to listen to every stakeholder, as Speaker Rebus has asked us to do today, we will hear from three panels, and on each panel we have a set of perspectives that build upon those from our first hearing, including a focus on online fencing operations and the adequacy of existing tools to address online crime.

For those who wish to provide public comment, at the end of today's hearing, we will open the mic for public comment in person here in the West Hollywood City Council chambers. With that, I'd like to welcome our panelists and audience to the forum and give the Members of our Committee an opportunity to provide their opening comments. In the interest of time, I'd like to ask each Member to limit their opening comments to about two minutes to ensure everyone has an opportunity to speak.

Who would like to start?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Stephanie Nguyen. I represent district 10, which includes Sacramento and Elk Grove, and it looks like I'm holding the fort on the public safety side on my own for now. Until my colleagues get here. I want to thank West Hollywood for inviting us here, hosting us here, and for all of you who are out there, not just here to hear what we have to say, but also online and listening as well, too. You heard the chair say balance and solutions.

And I think bringing us all together here gives us an opportunity to not only hear from these panelists and the experts, but also gives us an opportunity to talk to each other, to find ways which we can find a balanced environment and also solutions to solving many of the things that we've heard earlier today. It's my first time being on the Public Safety Committee as a new Committee Member, I look forward to having these discussions and making our state better. Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member Nguyen, Assembly Member.

Bonta, thank you so much. I want to thank and appreciate chair Chavez Zbur for bringing forward this opportunity for us to focus in on retail crime. I'm Assembly Member Mia Bonta.

I represent the beautiful people of Oakland, Alameda and Emeryville in 8018 and have sat for several years on the Public Safety Committee prior to this term and currently chair the Health Committee, which I think is a notable aspect of ensuring that we're looking at some of the root causes associated with crime and property, crime and violence in our communities specifically. And I've also had the opportunity to sit on to chair budget sub then budget sub five, which was focused on public safety.

I want to thank everyone for coming together and thank you to the City of West Hollywood for hosting us for this very important conversation. I too am very interested in ensuring that we're looking at smart solutions associated with retail theft, retail crime throughout the State of California particularly. I want to ensure that we are looking at ways in which that are evidence based to be able to curtail the crime and harm that's committed in our community.

And I look forward to this round of conversations to ensure that we are actually focused in on the details of the problem that we are trying to solve and then move forward with the solutions that are going to ensure that we have the intended impact that we want throughout the State of California.

Thank you, Assemblymember Bonta. We will have an opportunity. We have a number of other Members that are on their way here. They've been caught in traffic or had some flight delays, so we'll give them an opportunity to make opening statements later when they get here. So with that, I'd like to welcome our first set of panelists, which will provide an overview of statewide efforts on this issue. Would like to bring the panelists up to the chairs here in the front.

Welcome. Thank you so much for joining us today. We're grateful to be joined today by Special Assistant Michael Redding from the California Department of Justice, California Highway Patrol Commissioner Sean Duryee. Did I hope I pronounced that correctly? Close enough. Captain Sean Apacheko and Executive Director of the California Board of State and Community Corrections, Kathleen Howard. Please proceed when you're ready. Mr. Redding, would you like to start?

Sure. Good morning. Chairman Chavez Zbur, Chairman Mccarty and the honorable Members of both committees. zero, there we go. Now. Am I cooking? All right. My name is Michael Redding. As you said, I'm a special assistant Attorney General at the California Department of Justice. Prior to joining the California Department of Justice, I served as a state and federal prosecutor on behalf of California Attorney General Rob Banta. We appreciate the opportunity to participate in today's hearing and look forward to the discussion.

The Attorney General is excited to collaborate with everybody on the Committee. We met earlier this week with Speaker Revis, the legislative staff, the Attorney General and myself had a very good conversation about organized retail crime. We're committed to working with Senate pro Tempur Mcguire and look forward to this hearing and future conversations about how to solve this problem. Again, the Department is here continuing that spirit of collaboration. The problem of organized retail crime is multifaceted, and the answers will be multifaceted.

We look forward to continuing to work to keep our workers safe and make sure that our communities remain free of crime. I have three key messages today from the Department of Justice. First, solving this problem will take hard work, and the Department of Justice is doing that work. DOJ special agents are investigating these cases, and DOJ deputy attorneys General are bringing them to justice. The proof is in the pudding. These cases involve high dollar thefts.

In 2022, we announced guilty pleas for a group of individuals who stole $1 million in jewelry from stores in nine counties throughout California. One year ago this very day, we announced arrests and charges of eight individuals involved in a statewide organized retail thefts operation, targeting primarily Apple stores and resulting in the loss of another $1.0 million. The cases spanned the state, as evidenced by both those cases and often the globe.

In 2021, a case we investigated and prosecuted involved $200,000 worth of theft from California, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Washington. And we are currently working to expedite those individuals back from Romania. And while not every smash and grab is connected to a larger web, these cases are often dangerous.

Just over a week ago, the Attorney General announced pleas and sentencing for three defendants who stole $130,000 worth of merchandise, often by way of violent robberies at Target and Walmart here in Los Angeles, in Orange County, Riverside County, San Bernardino, County, San Diego, and Ventura County. DOJ invested the case, prosecuted the case, and thanks to the hard work of those individuals, the lead defendant was sentenced to six years in state prison. These cases did not spring up overnight.

They were the product of long hours, good policing, and hard work. To that end, my second message is that solving this problem will take partnership. We are proud to collaborate with the California Highway Patrol's organized retail theft task force on the issue, and we have since the beginning. We welcome the money that BSCC is distributing to local law enforcement and district attorneys, and we look forward to continuing our partnership with those locals as we develop the most serious and complex cases.

Our work here is a product of that partnership at the state level, the local level, and the federal level. Additionally, we have developed excellent relationships with our retailer and online marketplaces who are developing everyday new methods to detect and prevent thefts from their stores and on their platforms, and in many instances, bringing those cases to us for investigation and prosecution. Finally, solving this problem will take leadership.

Just over two years ago, not far from here, the Attorney General convened a consortium of some of the largest retailers and online marketplaces in the country and told them that the people of California expected better. It took time, it took creative thinking, and it took some difficult conversations. But last June, he announced a first of its kind partnership with these groups to collaborate to solve these problems. Retailers agreed to bring better evidence, excuse me, to better evidence retention and to proper reporting of incidents to police.

Online marketplaces agreed to share information and develop tools to affirmatively detect organized retail crime on their sites. The details are important, and I'm happy to share them. But the key is that the Attorney General reoriented these groups toward collaboration, and in doing so, we are tapping their own unique skill sets and knowledge of their own stores and platforms to solve this problem. So, in summation, I would just say DOJ is on the job, working hard, partnering, and leading.

I want to thank all of you for holding this hearing, bringing attention to this very important issue, and welcome your questions after the presentation of my colleagues.

Thank you. Commissioner Duryee, would you like to go next?

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the joint Select Committee. It's good to be here. My name is Sean Duryee. I'm the Commissioner of the California. I'm Troll. I'm joined with Captain Shauna Pacheco, who leads one of our teams and look forward to hearing her insight on some operations and some of the things that we face.

I appreciate the comments of my colleague from the Department of Justice, and we'll do my best not to repeat the things that he said and just give you some of our perspective and the efforts that the CHP has been engaged in this space. And then maybe after Shauna fills in on some of the operations, I could offer some possible solutions from our perspective. The CHP first got into this in 2018 through legislation that authorized the CHP to establish an organized retail theft crime task force.

We did that initially with three locations, Los Angeles, San Diego, and the Bay Area. That original authorization had a sunset date that was removed in 2021. That was extended through the end of 2026. And that's where we sit now with a sunset date of 2026. With the reauthorization recently that was signed by the Governor, the CHP expanded our efforts into the Sacramento region and in through the Central Valley, so down through Fresno, down through the heart of the state.

One of the first questions we got was, why the CHP? Why the CHP and retail theft? And we have noticed many of these cases will start in one jurisdiction, but they'll go beyond that. They'll go outside the state, they'll go into other cities, other counties, and we are able, as a statewide law enforcement agency, to connect those dots and put those cases together. I have two cases in mind that could illustrate that.

One started in San Francisco, and we track that to products being resold in a small flea market in the little town of Galt in Sacramento county. Another case we recently worked started in the Bay Area, and the arrests were made down in Oceanside. One of the first things we did as we stood up retail theft team is we started collaborating with the Retailers Association. In my experience in law enforcement, this is one of the best examples of private public partnership.

As we tackle this together, the CHP has built a relationship with the Retailers Association. Through that, we offer training and education not just to law enforcement, but to other retailers. We've opened up lines of communication that we can share, intelligence and practices. In fact, I won't share the details, but we have a case pending where retailers are flying in, associates that are going to help us recover product and help identify stolen product.

Since the inception in 2019, the first year, I want to just share some stats on some of the things that the higher troll has been able to accomplish. 2300 investigations 2235 suspects arrested. Three quarter of a million products recovered different stolen items at a value of $41 million in 2019. When we first stood this up, Captain Shawna Pacheco was a sergeant on our Bay Area's team. She supervised the team.

She's very knowledgeable of the operations, and I ask her just to share what we face and maybe some of the trends that we're seeing now.

Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you for having us here. I appreciate it. As you know, it's a wide ranging problem, and it affects all of our communities. And as the Commissioner said, in 2019, I was a sergeant that oversaw not only our organized retail crime task force, but also our cargo theft task force. And that partnership that we started to develop with our allied agencies and with the retailers was key in how we were able to actually start solving some of these issues.

So I just want to touch base real quick on some of the methods that are used from the criminals in order to accomplish their crimes. One of the things that they do, it's called a grab and go. So oftentimes that'll be individuals, they'll run into a store and they grab whatever they can, shoving it in their jackets, bags, purses, and lately, the store. The other one is a flash mob. I'm sure that you have seen that on some of the news.

That's where large groups of people go in, and they will take whatever product targeting Apple stores, any kind of retailer. Perfumes, Ulta. They are hit hard. There were some big events back in August of 2023 that were huge impacts. We had yives St. Lawrence, that was in Glendale, and they were hit by approximately 30 individuals with a loss of over $300,000 of product.

That same month, Nordstrom's over at the Topanga mall was also hit with about 30 to 50 people in a flash mob, and they took away $100,000. As you can imagine, just as a retailer, that's a huge loss. But as a consumer, being in a store and seeing this happen, it's frightening. And it's frightening for the workers that are there. Some of these people that are going in and committing these crimes are getting more violent.

And that is also a concern of ours, and it's a concern of the retailers, and it's a concern of the public. Smash and grabs is another method that is utilized. And that's basically when they go in, whether it's a jewelry store or something that's locked up, they smash it with hammers or whatever that they have, and they'll grab it and they take off. And then, of course, there's methods of fraud. And fraud can happen in two different ways.

They can go ahead and come in with retail that has already been stolen and fraudulent, return that retail for the cash profit, or they can use point of sale fraud, and basically, they're fraudulently creating receipts and bringing that up. And again, making profit off of that cargo theft has been an increase as well. And being the sergeant over cargo theft, I was well aware that the organized retail crime was occurring well before any of the legislation had happened.

That was one of the things that we worked at. And I would always reference it as the front of the house. And the back of the house. Front of the house is, of course, what we're dealing with with organized retail crime. Back of the house is your cargo theft, and that is a huge profit as well. When they can easily take a trailer full of product, and now they have an opportunity to take that to a fence and make tons of money very easily.

So that is why we are here. Why do the criminals do this? Well, in our interviews with them, it's been very clear that it's easy, it's very profitable, and there's Low penalties, and they know that. And I can tell you there was one particular time where we made an arrest on an individual that had an ankle monitor and had just been released a few days before and was out committing these crimes again. So obviously, the fear of penalties is very Low for these criminals.

And as I said, the profits are very, very high. Some of the ways that, as a unit that we've combat this is we have a couple of different methods. We have what we call blitz operations, in which what we do is we go to the retailers that have reached out to us that are experiencing high levels of theft. They oftentimes know some of these suspects that have repeatedly hit them.

We work with those retailers, and we work with allied agencies in and around that city and vicinity. How that works is essentially, we have officers that will be in an undercover capacity, as well as marked units in full uniform. And what we're looking at and apprehending are those suspects that are making those immediate grab and goes, smash and grabs and leaving the stores. That allows us to make an immediate arrest and an immediate recovery.

And it also shows both the public and the retailers that we are out there and we care about their safety and that we're telling the criminals that we are actually going to be working to apprehend them and prevent what they're doing. Those are very quick operations, and they usually happen within a day. We do have very long term planning and investigations, and that's how we are really effective in taking down fencing operations. As you can imagine.

And as has been said, these criminals will cross jurisdictional boundaries. They oftentimes don't care where they're going, because they're given a list by store or fencing operations as to what products are selling and what they are to go and get, what they will do then these boosters is what we call them, the criminals at the lower level. They will go out and they will acquire the list, and they will go back to the fencing operations.

The challenge for us on that is making sure that we are able to actually identify each and every booster knowing that they are stealing, and then tie that back to a fencing operation who's an individual or a set of individuals who know that they are purchasing stolen goods. And make sure that we can have that correlation firmly and concretely so that we can present a solid case, so that prosecution can occur. Those take a long time for us to develop, sometimes months, up to a year.

But once we have it, what we are able to do from there is we're able to go ahead and make an arrest and take down fencing operation, which is the head, if you will, of where all these boosters are going. And we recover lots of product and hundreds of thousands, and sometimes into the millions of product. These fencing operations can occur anywhere. Oftentimes they can be online, but oftentimes they're in a residential area and the residents have no idea really what's going on.

Other that cars are coming and going and bringing bags of stuff to a house. These can span out from there and enter into storage facilities, warehouses, or also they can be in other storage fronts.

Gives you an idea of some of the operations that we face. We can just offer some things from our perspective that are really working that we feel should continue and maybe some other possible solutions. First and foremost is the funding. The CHP, from the beginning, has benefited from consistent funding in the budget that has allowed us to do what we do.

From a law enforcement perspective, one of the biggest game changers we're going to see in the State of California, and I won't steal Director Howard's thunder, but this funding that's been available to locals and district attorneys, that has allowed numerous task forces to do what Captain Pacheco was describing, to stand up throughout the state. I'm excited when I read what's happening with LAPD, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Riverside County, Sacramento county. There are more people now engaged in this. We need that.

The CHP can't do this alone, and not any one law enforcement agency or the Legislature can't do it alone. We have to be a team effort in this. So thank you for that. And we would be strong advocates for continuing that, if at all possible. Accountability. Accountability has to play a role in this, and prosecutors have to play their role. And let me be clear, and I think we've done a good job trying to illustrate this. We're not dealing with shoplifters.

We're not dealing with people that are stealing to survive. We are dealing with professional, organized criminals that are benefiting, profiting hundreds of thousands of dollars off of Californians, and it needs to stop. And to do that, we have to have prosecution. We have to have accountability. We've teamed up with some prosecutors, and I will call out a couple that have been very, very successful.

In addition to our efforts with the Department of Justice, Orange County embedded a vertical prosecutor into our team early through the funding that's been made available. We have other district attorneys that are assigning vertical prosecutors and matching the funding that the state's provided. Alameda County is one that I met with recently that is doing the same thing. So we're excited about how that is going to play out, but it has to be there for the locals to participate. About one more minute. Thanks, sir.

I'll just end with this. The increased penalties, that's for the Legislature to decide. But we do think there is some space for increased penalties when it comes to the ones that are benefiting from this the most. And those are the ones that are the criminal cowards that are hiding behind online stores and selling this in the tune of hundreds and thousands of dollars. It's interesting. We call this organized crime.

It's time for law enforcement and the Legislature and the prosecutors to get organized on this effort, too. So thanks for having us here.

Thank you so much. Ms. Howard.

Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm Katie Howard. I'm the Executive Director of the board of state and Community Corrections, or BSCC. And the BSCC is administering two major grant programs connected to this topic of organized retail theft, following on the work that the CHP representatives have been talking about, the Governor initiated in 2022, and the Legislature strongly supported a significant grant program and funding level to address organized retail theft prevention and vertical prosecution.

I'm going to tell you about both of those and where we stand today. The ORT Prevention grant was designed as a competitive grant for city police departments, county sheriffs, and probation departments to support efforts to prevent and respond to organized retail theft, as well as motor vehicle or motor vehicle accessory theft, as well as cargo theft. The ORT prevention grant was a major investment at over $242,000,000 over three years.

The second and complementary grant is the ORT Vertical Prosecution grant, also established in 2022, and this competitive grant supports district attorneys to address increased levels of retail theft property crimes using a vertical prosecution model, which is where one attorney and investigative team handles all phases of a case. The ORT vertical prosecution grant provided $28.5 million over three years in response to the RFP for organized retail theft prevention. We received 114 proposals.

The total amount of funding that was requested was $379,000,000 and that was 137,000,000 more than we had available to offer. So this high level of response reflects the significant need and interest in the field for resources to address ORT.

We had a couple of different funding levels that were available for the proposals to go into, and after they were all scored and ranked in a competitive process, there was funding to award the top 38 applicants and I asked Siri this morning, what's 114 -38 and we had 76 applicants that unfortunately were not able to get funding, as well as some other circumstances of applications not getting in on time.

I had a conversation with assemblymember Bonta around the time that the grants were awarded, and we've continued to hear from the field about the interest in resources for this. We approved the ORT prevention and vertical prosecution grants at the September board meeting, and you have in your handout a list of the law enforcement agencies and partner agencies that received the prevention grants.

We wanted to highlight just a little bit of the data that was cited in the grant proposals for why these were some of the grants that were awarded. What was happening out in the field? And the City of San Jose reported a 95% increase in grand theft shoplift between 21 and 22. The City of Anaheim reported a 47% spike in ORT crimes in the 18 months prior to the application period.

And the City of Chula Vista had 995 reports of vehicle theft and 180 reports of catalytic converter thefts in the year prior to the application. So, turning to the solutions that these grantees anticipate putting into place, there will be real time watch centers and integrated crime centers. These are approaches that have benefits to more of a region, as the CHP has been talking about. There will be expansions in creation of ORT task forces and increased operations at key hotspot locations.

Of course, there's the need to hire additional officers to do all of this kind of work, and a great deal of equipment is involved as well. Most of the grantees are purchasing and installing a variety of kinds of surveillance technology, including automated license plate readers and real time information software cameras that can collect a whole lot of information out into the field.

We just launched the grant back in September, as I mentioned, and in January of this year, we sent out a survey to all of the ORT grantees to find out more about their planned activities and a little bit about the highlights to date in the first three months. So the majority of grantees are conducting ORT operations like task forces and blitzes. As CHP mentioned, some have already implemented these operations and have indicated there have been over 900 arrests in that short period of time.

Almost all the grantees, 98%, plan to purchase and install the kind of surveillance equipment and investigative tracking equipment that I mentioned. And, of course, about 70% of these grantees are hiring new staff. I want to talk a little bit now about the ORT vertical prosecution grants. Eligible applicants were the District Attorney's offices, and we received 13 proposals for that.

What we're hearing about is that the ORT vertical prosecution grants have established their ORT unit and are in the process of hiring staff and just putting those models into place. So we are really pleased to hear from the grantees all of the effort and activity that they're putting into place. There's always a ramp up period at the beginning of the grants.

So, similar to what some of the other panelists have been saying, this work takes time to set up, and we will have a lot more information to share with you as the implementation continues. Happy to take any questions that you may have.

Thank you very much. I'd like to open this up for questions. Assembly Member Nguyen, do you have any. Okay.

Yep. Thank you. Thanks so much, Chair. First, I want to thank Director Howard for the conversations that we were able to have about the ORT grants that you were able to focus in on, as well as the vertical prosecution grants, and thankful that Alameda County was actually able to receive one of those. And I think we're, in these coming days going to see that in full action. I was interested to hear more. I would love to hear more about specifically the Real-Time Information Centers.

That seemed like one of the strategies that the grantees were using. Can you just put some texture on what that is and what it looks like?

I don't have a whole lot of additional detail to add here. I know that some members of our team visited the Elk Grove Police Department about two weeks ago, and there's a partnership there that's doing more of a regional approach. I'd be happy to follow up with the Committee with more detail on what's going on.

I think Commissioner might also have some additional perspective.

Real-Time Crime Center, Real-Time Fusion Center is just data sharing, intelligence sharing; As information comes in, we're sharing that with other law enforcement partners where in the past, without that technology, you may have been operating in a silo and limited to the information that you knew at the time. For example, we could put in data like a crime ring using certain techniques or certain vehicles, enter those vehicles and share them and find out that they're linked in Oakland, Sacramento, Long Beach, and tie the case together, so.

And is that, does that, is that enabled by cross-jurisdictional data sharing? Is there an option?

It is. There's the ability to do it. I'm sorry to cut you.

No, go ahead.

Yeah, there is the ability to do that. Law enforcement is coming online with this now. We're seeing Real-Time Crime Centers stand up throughout the state, and then as they become online, the ability to share that information would be there.

Yeah, I think based on the testimony that you offered, where there's actually a lot of movement across the state, it's absolutely critical that we enable, we get smarter about ensuring that we have that kind of interoperability in our data system. So I'm looking forward to that opportunity. Director, just another question for you. I know this because I sat and talked to you about this a lot.

So I just wanted to highlight the fact that you said there were 76 applicants that were not able to get funding because, essentially, the program was oversubscribed. Do you have a sense about, from those applicants that didn't receive funding, whether they are still in need of ensuring that they receive funds to be able to move forward with their plans?

I think the extremely high level of interest reflects that ongoing need. We were not surprised to see that level, but it's really difficult when you have a competitive grant like this. The rules of the RFP direct what the maximum grant amount that can be requested and all the scoring criteria and all of that. And it just turned out that we were able to fund 38 really good programs, and there's still tremendous need out there.

Yeah. Thank you. And just a couple of questions for Commissioner Duryee. Did I say that right? Say your name right for us, please.

Duryee.

Duryee. Thank you. Commissioner Duryee, I want to first thank the CHP for its recent efforts in expanding the number of opportunities to be able to lend the state support to the Bay Area in this moment. Very much appreciate that. One of the things that I think is really critical for us to focus in on is this inter-jurisdictional effort.

The CHP is uniquely situated to be able to do that, and I'm wondering if there are any additional specific resources that would ensure that CHP has an opportunity to track retail crime across jurisdictions.

No, I appreciate the question, and I don't have any specifics to offer today, but other than a philosophy that as the CHP in this statewide position, we should probably be backing out now of the actual operations and into more of this, coordinating with our local agencies as they come online. And so as we do that, maybe evolve into that role, we will continue to do the operations, especially for those that don't have the capability. If I could just give a little context for that.

All of these cases start in a local jurisdiction, right? They have a Police Department or a Sheriff's Department, and we try to, we do coordinate with those agencies. Many of them now will have the capabilities to do those, others won't. And so maybe the CHP could be a little more strategic on where we're doing our work, but we could be in this statewide coordination role, and I think that's the next level. To get this all to the next level, we should look at that.

So as we identify specific things, we're happy to bring those forward.

Thank you. And just for Special Assistant Redding, thank you for being with us today. I'm particularly interested in the investigatory aspects and the relationship between retailers and marketplaces, so to speak. Can you speak a little bit more to the voluntary agreements that you were able to have some retailers and marketplaces enter into and what that looks like?

Sure. It's a great question. So, on the, so yea, exactly. We had about 12, 15 retailers and marketplaces that we were meeting with regularly and ultimately had sort of a brokered negotiation, meaning there were things that the marketplaces really wanted, there were things that the retailers wanted, there were things that law enforcement and our prosecutors wanted. And there were a few different obstacles. One obstacle in every case is identification. If we're looking at multi-defendant, multi-jurisdictional, multi-incident, we need to be able to identify those defendants in every single case.

And that really turns on the evidence collection, unfortunately, at the retailer side. So it was asking them to both do a better job of retaining the evidence, collecting the evidence, and then also immediately reporting incidents to us. It's difficult to tell at the street level whether something is organized retail crime or whether it's just a one-off incident. Often they look the same. So really, that was the focus, was getting retailers to do more of that.

On the marketplace's side, you know, this is something where obviously, the development from having to sell stolen goods on the street, where everybody has a sense that this is probably stolen, and moving that into sort of sanitizing it and putting on a marketplace, it's not the fault of the marketplaces. They just created the platform.

But at that point, it was the Attorney General's belief that they had a responsibility to do a better job of looking at that, because that was, for better or for worse, one of the drivers of what we were seeing. So, again, I don't personally have the ability to go in and tell any of these marketplaces, "well, you should write the algorithm like this," or "you should look at it like that."

But what we needed them to do was because they knew their platforms, because they knew their sites, to do that themselves. So that was really the commitment that we asked for from them, was one, to really come to the table. The retailers had a built-in reason to come to the table. People were stealing from them. The marketplaces didn't have as much.

And so we were trying to bring them to the table with that pressure and get them to affirmatively detect and report crime on their site, and then also do a better job of information sharing. So, really, candidly, we were looking at the work of the Legislature, and SB 301 was going through at the time.

We were looking at the national perspective, and that was a question that when we initially convened everybody in November of 2021, these were some of the things that came up, and we wanted to carve out a different lane. And I will just say I can't report on specific cases. But in the subsequent months, we have seen, and I have seen personally, the outgrowth of that seed we planted back in June.

I just want to provide some additional kind of specific information about that we're thankful to receive, I guess, a copy of the agreement letter that everyone signed on to. So specifically, retailers committed to filing police reports for all incidents determined to be related to ORC with specific information relating to theft, store location, suspect information, et cetera.

Retailers will maintain policies related to the retention of video of ORC-related incidents, and retailers will ensure loss prevention personnel are trained on gathering, reporting, and retaining the evidence, as well as maintaining records of ORC-related thefts in a case management system. One of the comments and things that we talked about at the last hearing was just a lack of actual data coming from the retailers about specific incidents. And I think I was certainly expressed some frustration in not really being able to have that resource.

And I'm sure, just as somebody who is not having to investigate, it's incredibly helpful to actually have these kinds of commitments from the retailers to provide that information so that we can support those efforts. Also, just wanted to have you hit a little bit more on the commitments from the marketplaces. One of the easiest ways to end retail theft is to not make it available for valuable products.

Yes, absolutely. And so, exactly. So we were asking them and they agreed to do more affirmative detection, to have staff that would be available that are going to be doing this, to have a point of contact or a portal for law enforcement. So when law enforcement reaches out to them with legal process, they have an easy place to go to have a point of contact or a platform for retailers.

So one of the issues that we ran into was getting to the point of developing legal process, finding or getting to the point of having probable cause to get this information required not necessarily sharing information--well, I should say not necessarily--not at all sharing information that was not otherwise public, but sometimes helping guide somebody through it and say, okay, the site is designed for sales, it's not designed for detecting crime.

But if you look at it from this perspective, you can find an individual, track their sales and purchase history and learn more.

So developing a platform so that they could work together on that. And then again, really doing a better job of, you'll hear later today from Ebay, and they've done an excellent job of looking at items that are commonly stolen, people who are engaged in behavior that would strike anybody as suspicious and sort of raising a flag on that and saying there may be an issue.

And just quickly, Commissioner Duryee, does the CHP have access to that case management system?

Say that again.

Does the CHP have access to the case management system?

Not that I know of, but we may.

Yeah so this is, this is more something that's going to be, excuse me, that is available and should be available at each of the sites. So they do, and they may be accessing it and don't know that some of it came from this.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Assemblymember Bonta. I have a number of questions. So I think picking up on what Assemblymember Bonta was asking about with respect to the voluntary agreements, and I think those are really important, want to thank the Attorney General for really trying to take steps to provide more data to help us understand what's happening in our communities.

One of the things we've been hearing is in some areas, retailers are being threatened for complying with those agreements, being threatened with being cited as nuisances and charged for the cost of additional enforcement in their communities. I'm wondering if you've heard that and what we might do to make sure that the reporting that you have caused people to agree to, isn't thwarted?

Candidly, I have not heard that. It sounds somewhat familiar, but I have not heard that specifically. What I can tell you is, look, when we started having these conversations, I was surprised at the level of discourse, which I know sounds like high discourse, but I mean that the retailers didn't come and say, well, we're losing a bunch of money.

They came and said, look, we're trying to create an environment where people are coming, where they can be safe, where they can collaborate, where our workers can be safe. And that focus was something that really spoke to all of us and really spoke to the Attorney General. Somebody that cares a lot about workers, cares a lot about people who are coming and just trying to do their job.

What the focus was from us, and what I think the retailers and the marketplaces did very well, was recognize that they are a part of this. They are a part of the community and for better or for worse, part of the community, being part of the community means that you're making references when there's a crime, that if you see somebody who's doing something wrong, that you're pointing that out and not just saying, "well, I don't want to get involved in this business."

So to the extent that that is happening, I would love to hear more about it offline and see what specifically we can do. But broadly, the retailers are part of the community, and that is a responsibility that we all have as citizens.

Would you look into that with the retailers? Because we've been hearing a fair amount about that, and I think it is an outgrowth of, I think the very good work that the Attorney General is doing asking for voluntary agreements from these retailers. One of the things we're looking at is how we might strengthen the ability to enforce in these distribution channels, both online and in physical locations and communities.

And one of the things that has been suggested is that there might be additional requirements for record keeping to assure that goods that are sold, at least with the online folks, that they're sort of chain of custody record keeping, that you can demonstrate that it came from a legitimate source.

I'm wondering if you have any comment on that and whether or not one of the things I'm nervous about beyond online is how that might be misused with respect to street vendors, because it seems like that is actually a different category of the kind of folks that could be engaging in things in a more innocent way. And so I just want to see if you have any comments about that.

We've been having those conversations as well. Conversations as well. And I think it speaks to something that would be very beneficial to have. Obviously, what we're interested in doing is making sure that we're developing systems that are workable that marketplaces can comply with. I think obviously, the benefit of being an online marketplace is you have a lot of data, so it's not necessarily the case that somebody has to sit and type in this information. They can collect it on the front end.

But I think you're right. That's also what we're concerned with. I was smiling as you were asking the question, because don't let the glasses fool you. I buy a lot of used books online, and many of those books come from libraries that have had the books for 20 years. And exactly, they're not going to have some information about where they got it because they've had it for a long time.

So I think the devil is in the details there and working out exactly how you would do it. But absolutely, I think that's the idea that I'm trying to convey, is that these are information hubs. They're places where there is all kinds of data. And if you're looking at it in the right way and you have it, then you can say, "this is abnormal activity here," and this is something that's going to speak to it.

And I commend the work of the CHP. Obviously, I commend the work that the Attorney General's Office is doing, building these cases from the ground up. But if you're really going to want to solve the problem, figuring out a way to start on the back end and say, okay, in drug cases, you work your way, all the way up. Here you don't have to do that. We have that information at the stop. We can start with the cartel leader.

We can start with the head of the organization and say, "okay, we're very close to this," and then build out the rest of the operation. So all that is to say the devil is the details. We're definitely talking about that. But I think that is absolutely one of the things that we should be looking at, is making sure that we are collecting and getting that information.

But again, in a way that recognizes that the marketplaces, they didn't come to the table saying, "We don't want to be involved in this." They came to the table saying, "We're marketplaces. We created a place where people could sell goods to each other and resell old library books." So this is, it's not new for them now, but it's something that they had to develop. So all that to say, absolutely.

It just sort of seems that when I buy something on Ebay or Amazon, I have a record of where it came. You know, I think most retail establishments, when they purchase something from a manufacturer or wholesaler, they've got a bill of lading and they keep those records. It doesn't seem like it'd be unreasonable to require online retailers to actually have something that shows that their stuff came from a legitimate source.

I'm wondering if you would sort of help us think through this and provide some suggestions about how that might occur without overreach. And so I think that's something that we're definitely interested in.

Absolutely.

Thank you. Going to, is it Commander Pacheco?

Captain.

Captain Pacheco, I'm sorry. Yes. So thank you very much. I was very interested in your testimony. One of the things that related to us, we have some laws on the books already that create penalty enhancements when you actually have a felony robbery. But this is in the context of the smash-and-grab, in which there's property damage that is almost intentional, that occurs with the theft. So someone coming into a store, really just trashing the whole store, the cabinets, the glass panels, all of that.

I'm wondering if you can give us a sense of sort of how--and one of the requests that is out there that folks have asked us to consider is actually lowering the level of when that enhancement might happen in terms of the dollar amount. Can you give us a sense of sort of, do you have a sense of when folks come in and trash these stores, what the value of the property damage sort of looks like?

I can speak to the fact that they don't care about the property damage that they're creating at the time of them gathering whatever merchandise they're after. And I can also say that many of these criminals know exactly what that threshold is, and they will go up almost right to the dollar amount or just below it so that they are not in that felony category. And that causes a bit of an issue.

When we are able to go in on these blitz operations, we do have the ability right there to take that person into custody and then make the charges. Adding on property damage can absolutely be a charge in addition to what they've stolen.

So the felony level is $950. So obviously, the property damage almost always is over the $950. We're talking about enhancements that I think are triggered with $50,000 or $100,000 in property damage above that. And I think one of the things that folks have said is that often there's significant amounts of property damage that are below $100,000. Do you have any data that could help us understand sort of what these dollar amounts look like when people come in and trash an entire store?

That's not something that the individual teams will gather data on. But working with the retailers, I mean, we do meet with them quarterly, some of them monthly. That's something that we can go ahead and start asking those questions and start looking into that and gathering that data. Yes.

Thank you. And then I think the last thing is prosecution across districts. I'd like to sort of get the views from Mr. Redding and Commissioner Duryee about currently, there may be felony theft that's occurring in different counties. I think today, from what I understand, multiple thefts that may occur in different counties can be prosecuted by the Attorney General's Office, but not by a local DA.

And so I'm just wondering if you can sort of give your thoughts about what the pros and cons would be about allowing prosecution by a district, a DA in one area, when there's been felony theft in more than one county. And also, I think thinking about sort of the issue of sort of where the fencing is occurring.

Yeah, you're correct. So right now, currently. Exactly. That provision that allowed one District Attorney to bring in multiple thefts sunset a few years ago, and now the Attorney General is the only prosecutorial agency in the state that can bring in multiple thefts from different counties, with some exceptions. But, yeah, I mean, look, it puts pressure on us to take those cases. DA's offices range from hundreds to sometimes just two or three in different places. And so we have our own thresholds and our own charging guidelines.

We're looking at--like we said--larger, complex cases. We have a limited number of prosecutors. They're taking these cases very seriously, but have lots of cases to do as well. And so what we want to make sure is that there is no gap where something doesn't really meet our threshold but is too big, or DA's office doesn't have the ability to look at the broad scope. So to more directly answer your question, that's something that we would absolutely be interested in discussing.

Again, I think I understand the counterarguments, and we don't want to create a situation where district attorneys are fighting over cases or something like that. But the limit in these cases, as I understand it, is not, we're not reaching the bottom of the barrel and saying we found all the people who are committing large cases. The limit is the resources we're able to put in the case and the investigation.

And certainly it is the Attorney General's belief that being able to sink in those cases, sink in that investigation and come to a more broad and more full picture of what an individual is involved in, be it in San Bernardino or Riverside or Los Angeles, is something that should be taken very seriously and should, in those cases, be brought before the court.

I think it would be helpful given that the Attorney General has a sort of a statewide perspective of helping us think through that issue. I think there's a lot of interest to allow this cross jurisdictional enforcement, but I do understand that there are some downsides to that, and I'd like to sort of understand what those downsides are and if there's any recommendations the Attorney General's Office could give us about what kind of guardrails there might be if we went in that direction, would be helpful.

Absolutely, happy to have that conversation.

Well, I'll just add from our perspective, because so many of these cases do cross jurisdictional boundaries, and maybe some of them don't meet the threshold that the Attorney General is prosecuting, that there would be an advantage, from our perspective to allow that in certain instances. Now, what that policy looks like, we're happy to lend our voice from our perspective and help work through that with the district attorneys and the Attorney General's Office.

We'd appreciate if you could do that. So with that, I don't have any other questions, but I'd like to recognize Assemblymember Eloise Reyes-Gómez. I want to give her an opportunity to make a short opening statement, if she'd like, and ask any questions you might have.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the invitation to be part of this Joint Committee hearing, and I thank you and Assemblymember McCarty for putting this together.

I'm one of the new members of the Assembly Public Safety Committee, and since being appointed, I've been spending a lot of time over the last few months diving deeper into this policy area and getting a better understanding of who the stakeholders are, what the problem is that exists specifically relating to this, and what the potential solutions being considered consist of.

I do want to be abundantly clear that it's clear that our community deserves to feel safe, our retailers deserve to open their doors and know that their customers are safe, and our shoppers deserve to be safe. Just this week I had a meeting with the California Retailers Association about their concerns, specifically with the big box stores across our state. But those very concerns were also echoed by my local small businesses in my community.

We had a meeting with our Redlands Chamber of Commerce that my staff attended, along with our Police Chief, Rachel Tolber, who reported the increase in these particular crimes. We know that there are lots of statistics about the decrease in crime in many other areas and probably almost all other areas, especially violent crimes. But this is one area where we have seen an increase.

A couple of months ago, I also had a meeting with a number of Members of the SIC Community, who were sharing that not only was there an increase in retail theft, but also an increase in violence. And we had then the crossover not only of retail theft, but also of hate crimes committed against the sick community with some horrible examples that were shared. It's clear that we have a responsibility to seriously examine crime and its causes.

But another thing, I also want to be abundantly clear that as a Member of the Public Safety Committee, I'm not interested in political rhetoric and I want to be focused on real solutions to combat organized retail theft and other public safety challenges. We need to answers, and I'm committed to working to achieve them. But also without question, solutions that I've seen that have been offered do not appear to me to address the root of the very specific problems that we are examining.

We cannot go back to mass incarceration.

Under Assembly rules. If we could just ask folks to not applaud, we let it happen one other time. So thank you for that. But just going forward, you'll have an opportunity to make a public comment at the end, or you can submit comments to us, but please don't, don't applaud or make other gestures as people speak. So thank you.

Especially no negative gestures, please. I think that we already have laws on the books, and those are laws that we need to enforce and they need to be enforced equitably with everyone. When we're talking about repeat offenders of retail theft, especially organized retail crimes, we have to recognize that that is at a different level. We're not talking about individuals.

We are talking about something much bigger that is taking advantage of our very community, who is very vulnerable, susceptible to a lot of what organized crime is trying to offer to them. These criminal enterprises are terrorizing not only our communities, but stores. And there has to be the punishment to the organized crime, without a doubt. If there are concerns regarding our ability to carry out the law against these individuals, I'm here to hear about the suggestions.

We have a lot of work to do, and there's no question about that. I think that for me, it's a privilege to sit on the Public Safety Committee because public safety is a priority for everyone. For everyone. And I do look forward to the conversation that we're having today and looking forward to the information that is being provided. I did want to also comment on the work that our Attorney General is doing specifically in this area.

When we talk about solutions, the solution cannot be just one person or one organization. It is having somebody at his level also be able to organize everybody, and that's organize everybody to come up with the solutions. And I think that when we bring all the stakeholders together, that's the only way we're going to do it.

So it's those who come to see us that want to make sure that we're not criminalizing poverty, but also those who are the owners of these retail stores saying, you've got to help us keep our doors open, and you've got to help us so that we can have our customers come in. So I do thank you, and I'm sorry that I missed the first part of this, but the questions have been very informative from both Ms. Bonta and Mr. Zbur. Thank you.

I think we're at time for this panel. I just want to thank all the panelists for making it down to California. For those of you who travel to Southern California, welcome to West Hollywood. And thank you so much for joining us. Very, very helpful. Thank you.

Thank you.

Now I'd like to ask our second set of panelists to come up and take seats at the table.

So thank you all. Welcome. Our next panel includes folks that are going to be providing more of a local perspective on efforts to address retail crime in our communities.

We're grateful to be joined today by Deputy District Attorney Paul Kim from the Los Angeles District Attorney's office office, the head deputy public defender, Sean Mcdonald from the Los Angeles Public Defender's office, Erica Shahane, Director of lead in the Office of Diversion and Reentry at the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, and Sean Howe, on behalf of Shields for families. Which one of you would like to start? Mr. Kim, does that make sense? Yes. And please limit your comments to five minutes. Thank you.

Committee Members, on behalf of... Okay. Thank you. My name is Paul Kim, and I am the assistant head deputy of the Organized Crime Division of Los Angeles County. The organized crime division processes all of the retail theft cases in the County of Los Angeles. And I should say we have a great partnership, and the partnership is with the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department organized retail Theft Task Force and the LAPD organized retail theft task force.

These two task force, led by Captain Peacock and Captain Botang, collectively each have a team of about 30 detectives that are focused exclusively on combating retail theft here in the County of Los Angeles. I think the best way for me to inform this Committee of the Manner in which LAda is combating retail theft is by giving you some examples. I'd like to start with some of the reactive side, the reactive side of law enforcement when we react to the problems that we are confronting.

We had a case that occurred recently where Sachs and Beverly Hills was hit by a flash mob. 10 people came in, all masked, wearing hoodies. They came in one after another. They had getaway cars nearby, one facing north, one facing south. They went into the Chanel store and started grabbing bags. And you can see on the videos the Chanel employees, frightened, horrified, jumping over counters to get away. They went to the Louis Vuitton store, also in Saks, and stole purses from there as well.

Now, the Lada's office filed robbery charges in this case. And when we went to the preliminary hearing, and I can tell you these facts because they are part of the public record, we argue that the intimidating nature in which these individuals came in the force that they use, and that the fear that was instilled within the store employees made this a robbery. And the bench officer that presided at the preliminary hearing agreed with that conclusion, and the defendants were all held to answer on robbery charges.

So that's one of the ways that we're trying to combat these problems that we're having, not just here in Los Angeles, but across the entire country. Now, that's the reactive side to prosecution. There's also a proactive side, and I think that's also best explained by example. We had a case that was brought to us by the LAPD commercial crimes division, and they had been working on a fencing operation. These types of operations take an incredible amount of resources.

You're talking about people that are watching the fencing location late at night using night vision goggles. You're talking about undercover officers. You're talking about confidential, reliable informants. You're talking about having to arrest individuals. At the end, what we noticed from this operation is there would be a line of people starting at, let's say, 07:00 at night, all with a bunch of trash bags. And these trash bags would be full of items that had been stolen from local retailers, generally sundries, lotions, deodorants, razors, shampoos.

And they would be paid by a middleman. And then in the back would be a very large U Haul type truck where all the stolen goods at the end of the night would be dropped off. Now, after this occurs, at this point in the distribution stream, the middleman is going to take this to a brick and mortar store, and this brick and mortar store is going to sell these items.

And when the brick and mortar store was searched from floor to rafter, every square inch were items that had been stolen, totaling a couple $100,000 from local retail theft merchants. The individuals that were bringing the items, the boosters, a lot of these Members were unhoused. A lot of these individuals had substance abuse problems. They were getting probably $0.10 on the dollar. But when we rated the facility, what we saw inside of the facility weren't just stolen goods.

We found hundreds of laptops, hundreds of phones. These are items that are being taken from auto burglaries. So there's this nexus. And so we do want to be proactive with our prosecutions. We want to go after the retailers. Nike recently came to a press conference at the District Attorney, and they've also been a very good partner because Nike shoes are kind of like baseball cards. They're collectibles.

And working with, I think, the private sector and working with our law enforcement partners, I think we're doing an effective job combating retail theft. But obviously, we need help. We need help from our retailer partners. We need better cameras. We need better sensors. There was only one retailer out of about 10 that had a special wand that they could use to detect that the products that had been recovered had never gone through a cash register.

And finally, we need to address the very root problems that was mentioned by one of the Committee Members earlier today, which is we have to address the problems of poverty, homelessness, substance abuse and mental illness that are all contributing to this problem. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Mr. Mcdonald with the Los Angeles County.

Morning. I'm Sean Mcdonald with the Los Angeles County Public defender's office. I'm a head deputy. I want to thank you for allowing us to participate in this hearing today on the Joint Hearing Select Committee on retail theft and public safety. I noticed the agenda title in quotations, retail crime, exploring solutions that work. And I'd like to start off just by saying that increasing the incarceration rates is not a solution and it doesn't work.

More specifically, I'd like to address recent proposals to amend and amendments to current statutes that increase the punishment for shoplifting. There's some proposed amendments to elevate shoplifting with priors from a misdemeanor with a maximum sentence of six months in jail to a felony with a maximum sentence of three years in jail. These proposed amendments target the wrong offenders. You're targeting shoplifters. You're not targeting the organized crime that the previous panel addressed Commissioner dury indicated. We're not dealing with shoplifters.

We are focusing on the ones who are benefiting the most. That's not what these proposed amendments do to the shoplifting crimes. They focus on the offenders that are most vulnerable, are mentally ill, are unhoused, are people living in poverty and the increased penalties, they're not a deterrent, they're not a solution. They do not work. We have laws currently on the books specifically targeting organized retail theft, and those laws are sufficient.

And if the Assembly is interested in increasing penalties and the misguided belief that that will somehow combat these thefts, then I would suggest that you focus on retail, the organized retail crime with enhancements for the taking, the amount of enhancements. So if you $30,000 of goods, you get an extra amount of time, 50,000, you get an extra amount of time. I think, statistically speaking, it will not change incarceration. And the threat of incarceration is not a deterrent to crime.

What we're seeing from the Department of Justice in Washington, DC is that the biggest deterrent to this type of crime is the certainty of getting caught. And that would bring up other issues regarding the retailers taking proactive actions with making security more present, making the retail establishment more secure so that you are making that prospective shoplifter afraid that they're going to get caught. At the time, I would just implore this community not to go back to the faulty reasoning and policies that led to mass incarceration.

And your proposed amendments to the shoplifting statutes are doing exactly that. Next year, they will be back asking for increased penalties for the recidivist who just got out of prison. Let's reinstall the one year prior. zero, this person has prior violent cases. Let's double his sentence. You will fall right back into that faulty reasoning if we abandon the progress we have made. Thank you.

Welcome. Just want to point out that we don't have any proposals out on the table yet. We're just listening to all stakeholders and considering them. But thank you very much. Really appreciate that. Ms. Shehane.

Good morning. Thank you, Assembly Members, and thank you for the opportunity to talk about Lead. Lead is the law enforcement assisted diversion program. It's a national evidence based program that began in Seattle in the early 2010s in response to failed policies related to the war on drugs and mass incarceration. It's now in over 70 jurisdictions across the US and other countries as well.

Lead is a public safety program that provides a community based system of response and care to address frequent contact with law enforcement that is related to extreme poverty, substance use, and or unmet mental health needs.

With Lead, the aim is to intervene at the earliest point possible in the criminal legal system to prevent unnecessary harms that result from arrest and incarceration, while also saving the public money on law enforcement and court interventions that are highly expensive and do little to address the root causes of why a person continues to be arrested here in La County, Lead is a partnership among the Office of Diversion and Reentry, local law enforcement, the sheriff's Department, LAPD, Long Beach PD, and prosecution offices, the District Attorney, LA City attorney, and the City of Long Beach prosecutor's office.

We've been operating lead programs since 2017. We currently cover three areas in the county in south LA, Long Beach, Hollywood, Rampart, right down the street, and East LA. We're also in the process of expanding services. Lead is intended to be a solution for those who are generating multiple calls for law enforcement and who are falling through the cracks of traditional system of care.

In many of our communities, there are people who tend to be in the same places engaging in a behavior that the public has concerns about. This can look like someone using drugs at the gas station or stealing food from a grocery store. Status quo response is to call law enforcement, and law enforcement at that point really has two options to deal with the situation, ignore or arrest. With lead, we provide law enforcement with a third option.

They can ask the person if they'd like more help, and if the person agrees, a lead case manager responds. In the field, community stakeholders, such as businesses or City Council offices or even community based organizations, can also refer individuals to lead. Participants agree to be in lead voluntarily. Many say yes to lead when they've declined other programs, including court ordered programs.

Because we make it extremely easy to be in lead, we focus on building long term trusting relationships with participants and work with them on things they identify as priority, not goals that are artificially and punitively imposed on them. There is no requirement to maintain sobriety or go to treatment. In lead, the relationship is the intervention. There is sometimes the sentiment that voluntary programs lack accountability. However, lead is actually more accountable to community concerns than many programs.

With LEAD, the community gets our office, the Health Department, and a team of community partners all working together to take community safety concerns seriously and provide appropriate care for lead participants so they're no longer at risk of arrest. We meet regularly with stakeholders such as law enforcement, prosecution, City Council, cbos, so that if a lead participant continues to cause disruption in the community, these stakeholders can come to lead instead of calling law enforcement.

And we can problem solve the situation in a way that reduces harm for all involved. Participants in lead get wraparound intensive case management for as long as they want it. We commit to serve them indefinitely. There's no time limit. Case managers have small caseloads, so they have time to be creative and nimble. The program also provides motels, permanent housing, harm reduction services and supplies, field based primary cares and support to resolve and clear their legal cases.

We've actually found that getting someone inside and helping them resolve complex medical issues is what most people want and need. We've seen participants voluntarily reduce or stop substance use simply by going indoors or finally getting appropriate medical care so they're not in pain anymore. And evaluations show that lead participants have better outcomes. National evaluations of lead consistently show reduced recidivism amongst participants in LA, the results are the same. After 12 months of participation, lead participants were better off than the comparison group.

They experienced five times less felony arrest, had five times less felony cases filed, spent four times less time on probation, and had 35% less misdemeanor arrests. Because of these successful outcomes, in the 2023 annual report, the California Committee on Revision of the Penal Code, gave its support for lead and specifically recommended that law enforcement in all jurisdictions refer people arrested for Low level offenses to community based care in lieu of jail and prosecution.

We have decades of research that show that telephone crime policies do not work and actually destabilize communities. Further. What's needed for long standing public safety is investment in effective community programs that offer more flexibility, more compassion, and more care. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Mr. Hough, did I pronounce that right? Hough, nice to meet you.

Yes, sir. Thank you. Nice to meet you as well.

Five minutes, please.

I am the vocational Services Administrator with Shields for Families, which is a nonprofit organization supporting south LA families since 1991. I think what we have heard here consistently is that we have the lived experience that informs us that we cannot simply arrest and incarcerate our way to the durable safety we all desire and deserve. To be sure, our retailers deserve safety, as do our shoppers and as do all Californians. This is not up for debate.

What also shouldn't be up for debate is that we must focus on real solutions and what we know will work to combat organized retail theft and other public safety challenges. And so I'm thankful and honored for this Commission here that's really looking to see what are the solutions?

Reform from the past 10 years, including 2000 and fourteen's, Proposition 47 has been critical in moving California away from its mass incarceration crises and have shown us what is possible when we prioritize our community Members by investing in crime prevention interruption supportive services that actually lead to public safety and community well being. The premise of reforms such as Prop 47 was straightforward.

If we stopped sending to state prisons people convicted of simple possession of drugs and petty theft, and instead made these folks eligible for a sentence of up to one year in local jail, we'd save a lot of money. That money then could be reallocated back to local communities that could use it to build crime prevention programs aimed at people vulnerable for recidivating, thus increasing public safety by ending the revolving doors that have been the main drivers of our mass incarceration problem.

This simple and straightforward approach has been one of the most successful reforms in state history, has produced extraordinarily successful public safety outcomes, and continues to show us what is possible if we prioritize investing in actual public safety. So there are four local public safety solutions that I'll highlight. Amongst many that you have heard and will continue to hear. One is investing in the root causes and not the symptoms.

Since Prop 47 went into effect, California has invested approximately 800 million into programs and communities across California to increase services available to survivors, significantly reduce recidivism rates, reduce homelessness rates, increase access to mental health, increase access to substance abuse treatment programs, and increased employment opportunities for vulnerable community Members.

Los Angeles alone has received more than 60 million to date from Prop 47 savings and has used those resources to build an extensive reentry intensive case management program that helps people with old records find employment, housing, mental health, and substance use treatment they need to regain stability.

A recent independent analysis of the county's Prop 47 funded program found it has reduced recidivism by 17% unemployment rates among program participants from 59% to 29%, and I'm proud to say that the Shields for Families Jericho Vocational Services program has contributed to these declines by serving over 1600 community Members as one of the RICMS Public Safety Investment awardees. Another program funded by Prop 47, run by the Los Angeles mayor's office, has cut employment among participants from 88% to 34%.

These amazing outcomes are not specific to Los Angeles Alameda County has a program that provides services focused on substance abuse, housing diversion, and medical assistant treatment. Contra county cost Contra County's public defender's office has a program that in less than two years has seen the failure to repair rate for clients at only 12 point 33% and has further 50% of the clients had no additional charges filed.

In Marin County, we see a funded program that has reduced homelessness among participants from 19% to 6% and has boosted independent living from 19% to 43%. A successfully funded program in San Francisco, the Star program has just a 1.8% recidivism rate among participants over three years. Recent data from BSCC shows us that more than 70,000 Californians have received treatment through programs funded through the Prop 47 generated public safety investments.

These programs have reduced homelessness by 64%, reduced employment by 32%, and increased full time employment by 180%. Additionally, programs that focus on reducing crime by justice involved people reported a recidivism rate of 12%. This is a 76% reduction over state averages. It should also be noted that all of this was accomplished while crime rates in California were declining.

Property crime rates in California declined for five consecutive years after reform Prop 47 went into effect, and in 2019 and 2020, property crime rates hit some of their lowest levels in recorded history. And although crime rates continued to tick up in 2021 and 2022, on the heels of the global pandemic, it must be said that crime rates today are still lower than they were pre pandemic. You got it, number two.

Investing in our k through 12 schools, we saw over 1200 schools received investment public safety dollars, which serves 734,000 of our young adults. Also, programs that are working is investing in those most harm our survivors and our victims of crime. When Prop 47 was enacted in 2014, we had one trauma recovery center in the state. Now there are currently 22. And number four, the work that our law enforcement is doing.

We commend Governor Newsom, CHP and local law enforcement leadership in communities across our state for taking organized retail theft seriously and seeking strategies to combat it. We've heard some amazing efforts and results from their efforts, and so we commend them for that. I will conclude by saying the effectiveness of Proc 47 and other reform efforts demonstrate that changing course from being emotionally reactionary to thoughtfully responsive is far more effective and sustainable.

Public safety agenda in a recent LA Times article, our city mayor, while standing with Chief Moore and speaking about the reduction in crime, not only credited Chief Moore and the work that he and his team are doing, but also uplifted the efforts being taken to get people housed and the $50 million that were invested in community based violence program. These are local partnerships and approaches that work. However, effective programs are too often not funded to scale or provided with ongoing support.

There are many examples of strong local programs working to prevent, interrupt, stop, repeat offending, provide healing, and redirect people towards stability. It is imperative that we do not forget that public safety investments like those made possible through reforms such as Prop 47 continue to work and continue to show us that true safety for all community Members is possible when we prioritize crime, harm prevention, public safety and community well being. Thank you.

Okay, so we have about 20 minutes for questions from Members of the two committees. I'd like to ask folks to sort of limit their series of questions to about four minutes. Who would like to start? Assembly Member Nguyen.

Great. Thank you, sir. Thank you all. And Ms. Shehane, I come from the line of work, of services and resources. And so I absolutely agree with you that that does work when people have the right tools in front of them that they can be successful. And you mentioned some figures. You said five times more, five times better, but I didn't necessarily hear of the percentage. How many are referred to you? How many of those actually succeed, do well, complete or whatnot?

I was wondering if you can kind of give any of those figures. Also, you said you're in 70 jurisdiction, if I heard that correct. And I was wondering if you can talk about in any of those areas which does better than others. And what were the reasonings why they were successful.

Thank you for the questions, and happy to try and comment as best as I can. So for lead, we don't have a graduation, really. People stay with us indefinitely. So the outcomes are what I reported in terms of evaluation, and the reason for that is because many people in our program have experienced decades of being unhoused and trauma, and we just understand they may want support for a much longer period of time.

So we really leave it up to the participants how long they would like to stay in the program. So there's not really sort of completion rates for lead, if that makes sense. So we look at other outcomes, such as recidivism, and we're working on other evaluations that can maybe look at health outcomes and things like that.

Okay. Yeah, I understand there wouldn't be a graduation rate or exit plan, but how about the numbers of how many are referred to you?

We've served 469 people since the program began. I would be happy to get back to you on referral numbers. Typically what happens is because law enforcement is referring folks in the field. If they say no to law enforcement, we may not get that information. So we tend to get the yeses rather than the no's. But I'm happy to get you more data on that. And then the jurisdictions. So there's a national organization that provides support to lead jurisdictions all over the country.

Their website is in the handout you received, and I'm happy to also make connections. I think Seattle was the first jurisdiction, and they did a lot of extensive research. I think the things that we've seen and what works is buy in from all the partners. So Leed is really, it's a service program, but it's also a political intervention, so it works really well.

And I think that's why we've had success here when we get local buy in from all the various know in our health Department and law enforcement prosecution. So we're all with the shared goal of reducing that law enforcement contact and diverting people into care and out of the legal knowledge is also based on a harm reduction approach. That is something that's come up in evaluations and even on our own evaluation here, that Fidelity to that model. And there are core elements of lead across jurisdictions.

And so a lot of what the national team does is help sites make sure that they're staying in Fidelity to that harm reduction model.

Great. And then can you tell me an example of one area where you feel like they've got it right? Like, is it know? Because all the partners are engaged and involved and all the players are there.

Yeah. I do feel like Seattle and the State of Washington, they've expanded it to many, many jurisdictions. I think it might be close to statewide in Washington. I also think we're doing a really pretty good job here. Our Hollywood station has been great partners. We have the support of local City Council Members. And I think in my mind, what's also a key element is being nimble to changing situations.

Like when Covid happened, everybody being able to think about how we respond to changes in what was happening on the ground with policing and zero bail and people just. There were many different things.

Okay, great. One more. I'm sorry, just one more. Not for her, but for Mr. Mcdonald. So you had mentioned that you felt that maybe having more security presence would be more of an effective tool. Right. Not increasing incarceration rate doesn't work.

Right.

I kind of scribbled down some stuff I would say, though, and please feel free. I'd love to have the conversation with you, is that in certain communities, having more security doesn't necessarily work, and you're saying that that's what you think would work. And then your comment about securing merchandise, and we heard earlier from the panelists earlier that merchandise are being secured, and yet they're still bringing things in to break into it, to grab it and whatnot as well. So I was hoping you can comment on that a bit.

Well, I think what the Committee with the Department of Justice was talking about was the certainty of getting caught, which is the biggest deterrent for crime. When they're looking at retail theft, shoplifting, it's the certainty of getting caught that deters people, not the severity of the punishment or how much time they're going to get. If they approach a retail establishment and they feel like if I go in there and steal, I'm going to get caught, then that's the primary deterrent that we're looking at.

Yeah.

Okay, sorry. Who'd like to be next? Assembly Member Gomez Reyes.

I appreciate the various opinions. Quite frankly, I think it is important to hear from the DA, to hear the things that need to be done, the things that have been done that are effective, and how you're looking at the entire organized crime issue, but knowing also that there are programs that are available that we obviously need to put more funding into. 469 people in La County. That's a lot, but that's obviously not enough if we want to have an impact.

When I think about homelessness or those with housing and security, I realize that if we get our young people when they're very young, they'll become chronically homeless. And I think it's the same thing with the program that you have is when we get them, especially if we help them when they're young. And I appreciated all the issues that you talked about, substance use, unmet mental health needs, and extreme poverty.

If we look at the root causes of a lot of what is happening and we treat that, then we as a society are going to benefit. And there is no doubt in my mind about that in the demographics of the statistics that you provided. One question that I did have was the age.

And I'd like to know my assumption, and I want to know if this is accurate, that you have greater success the younger the person is that is referred to your program or is that a statistic that's kept.

Yeah, thank you for the question, and I could definitely get that to you. Apologies. It wasn't in the handout. We actually see that lead participants tend to be 40 and above, maybe 40 to 60. And this is because lead is designed to work with people who are really falling through the cracks of other programs. And so especially here in La County, we do have quite effective youth prevention programs and even young adult programs. And once people become older, it does become a bit tougher for is.

But I could get you that exact number. Thank you.

Thank you. And for public defender, I know that in San Bernardino, county, we work very closely with our public defender because oftentimes when we're talking about repeat offenders, you are the very organization that gets to see them because you're representing them. Oftentimes they don't have the money to provide for their own counsel. And so you are providing that representation.

Do you find that the programs that are available, is this something that is helpful to you in then working out a plea deal with the DA's office, or is it the same whether you have programs or not?

It's a short answer so we can get to the next set of questions.

Absolutely. Programs for shoplifters and people accused of minor offenses are instrumental in bringing them back into society and alleviating our incarceration problems.

Thank you. And finally, for Mr. Hough.

Yes. Thank you for providing the statistics. When we talk about Prop 47, it was passed by 60% of the voters. And now I know that we hear a whole lot about the problems with Prop 47. We know that there are problems within, and I appreciate that both chairs have talked about the fact that everything is on the table, nothing is off the table.

But it's important to hear the statistics about the funding that has been used through, especially through the investments in k through 12, homelessness, reducing homelessness, reducing crime. Those services that have been provided through the funding through Prop 47, no matter what we're talking about, nothing is perfect. But I appreciate that you have provided those statistics. Now, did you say a total of 70,000 people have received services since Prop 47?

Yes. To date, over 70,000 people across the state have received services with amazing outcomes. And so I think to the point that you made, what it shows is if we invest to scale, no matter what we may feel about Prop 47, when we invest to scale in programs that reach to the root causes, as you brought up, as has been shared here, then we see results.

We have not only the data, but the personal testimonies of the results that have happened, and we can compare them with what we know, the destruction of the pre reform area and the tough on crime, mass incarceration, that destruction that that did to our communities.

And just one last question, if I may. There was a quote that you said towards the end, and I tried to write it down, that instead of being emotionally reactionary, we should be reactive.

Yes, ma'am. And I have it in my notes.

I liked the quote, and I wanted to get it right.

I will have it right here. And so instead of, you caught me off guard, I have all of my notes. Thank you very much. How about I go back here, I'll move on, and I'll get back to you.

All right. Very good. I would like to get that quote.

Yes.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

So I'd like to welcome Assemblymember Mccarty, who is the chair of the Public Safety Committee. Want to thank him. He has had an ordeal getting here this morning with some canceled flights and such. So I just want to welcome him today and would like to actually turn the mic over to Assembly Member Bonta for questions.

Thank you so much to this panel. I think one of the highlights is that I'm taking two things away. First is just a reiteration of the reality and the evidence based approach that the certainty of getting caught is the primary deterrent to crime. So I just wanted to have deputy District Attorney Kim and head deputy public defender Mcdonald speak to how that actually plays out within the context of organized retail theft, focusing on the certainty of getting caught.

When we're talking about the certainty of getting caught, I think Voltaire said we should first define our terms. I'm not really quite sure what that means, because when we look at a lot of the organized retail theft, a lot of it's on video camera, and a lot of these video cameras, you're going to have an individual that's watching it, let's say a security officer for any major retailer.

And then that security officer is seeing the same person come in, sometimes dozens of times, sometimes many dozens of times. So I'm not quite sure what we mean when we say the certainty of being caught, Assembly Member Bonta.

I would say there's a distinction between your shoplifter and your organized retail theft. I think your people involved in organized retail theft probably make a much more calculated decision on their crime than the shoplifter and who would be the subject of the statute.

I was concerned about when you're talking about the minor participant, the shoplifters, the very bottom level people involved, I think getting caught is going to be a much larger deterrent for them and not part of the calculation process that would go in into the organizers.

Appreciate that. And I just also want to thank the panel for focusing in on the efficacy of harm reduction strategies. Mr. Huff and Ms. Shahane both spoke to that. So just with the lead program, I want you to just do two things. One is focus a little bit more on the participant outcomes associated with it. Assembly Member Wynn asked a question about the efficacy of that.

I'm looking at a sheet here that says that lead participants experienced five times less felony arrests and five times less felony cases filed and were four times less time. Participants spent about four times less time on probation. So clearly, program harm reduction programs like lead work and are incredibly effective. Can you speak to that a little bit more?

Yes, that's my thinking, too. Thank you. I think the reason that lead is effective is because related to the recidivism outcomes we see is we're able to actually help participants navigate an extremely complicated legal system. Many people will come to us, not know if they have warrants, don't know if they're on probation, don't know when the next court date is, just small things like that.

Even helping a participant have enough trust in their case manager that can go with them to court so they can actually appear. There's a lot of fear in dealing with that system, and so many of our participants will opt out of doing anything at all and just sort of that's how they've been surviving. And so that's why we really focus on building that trust. Another reason there's no time limit is so we can go at their pace.

And that's where I think we see the meaningful outcomes. And in terms of harm reduction. Like I said, there's no requirements related to substance use. Or even if they're on a corner and nobody wants them on that corner, we really work with them and let them know these are the natural consequences of staying here. And if they'd like to move, we can help them. And it takes time. But I think we do see long term outcomes.

We have law enforcement officers that will see a participant after they've been in lead two years, and they don't even recognize the person anymore. And they've just totally changed. And so I think we really want to. The lead perspective is that our participants actually know what they need, and they just need that support to get there. And so that's why we don't have a prescriptive model, but we really just work with them on getting all the things done that they need to get done.

And just. Mr. Mcdonald, very quickly, if you can, speak to why it's important for these programs to be community based, and also, I'm sorry, Mr. Hough, for these programs to be community based, and the importance of these programs being voluntary.

So I think the importance of them being community based is that they are led by Members that the community trust. That can't be overstated. When you have agencies that have been in communities and people working for those agencies that the community can relate to, people often with the lived experience to demonstrate what is possible.

When we take advantage of these investments, then we see a lot more involvement, a lot more voluntary involvement, which, to your point, is extremely important because that's the place where change is ready to happen.

When I get to the place where I acknowledge that I want the support, when I get to the place where I make the decision internally that I want to go to this office, whether it's mental health support, whether it's substance abuse, whether they're doing workforce development or employment support, or it's participating in my children's school, at that point, then I'm open to the help that's there. At that point, then I'm open to receiving the supports that's available anytime. Anytime.

It's highly possible that where we have court mandated situations, there are some amazing testimonies. Nevertheless, that's something that I am reacting to in many cases just to get the lowest sentence possible. But when I get to the place where I voluntarily walk into an office or can on my own make the choice to participate without a stick hanging over my head, then we see greater results and greater outcomes and sustained outcomes from community Members.

Thank you.

And if I may... Yes. Yes. And it was in regards to the effectiveness of Prop 47 and other reform efforts. And it says that these efforts demonstrate that changing course from being emotionally reactionary to thoughtfully responsive is far more effective and sustainable public safety agenda. Thank you.

I had a couple of questions myself. I think the first one relates to. I clearly believe that we need to look at this through two different lenses. One lens are crimes of survival, crimes of poverty, which need a different set of approaches, and then other crimes that are professional organized crime rings that I think need other approaches.

With respect to both of them, though, I guess I also have read all of the studies, and I don't doubt at all the fact that over time, we know that increasing incarceration and length of prison terms is not an effective deterrent. But as you said, certainty of getting caught is.

I think the question I have is, and I think I'd like to direct this to the Lada's office as well as to the public defender, is when I hear the stories of what's happening here in my district. Right. You end up having folks that are coming in. Some of them are, I think, the professional thieves. Some of them are not. And they'll walk into a store and I'll ask the store folks, what do you do when you see that the shoplifting is occurring?

They say, well, we instruct our employees not to engage because we're legitimately worried about their safety. If we have a security guard on site, they will make an assessment about whether or not that person is dangerous and will intervene if they're not. So what happens when you intervene at that point? Said, well, if they're not dangerous, we confiscate the goods. I ask if they call the police.

They say, well, they will report it to the police, but they don't call because the police don't respond unless there's a use of force. And so they basically will give a trespass ticket which asks them not to come back to the store. I said, well, what is the effect of the trespass ticket? They said, it has no effect. People just keep coming back and they have the same people coming back.

So in La County, it seems it's sort of the opposite happening, at least with respect to both felony and misdemeanor levels, that you almost have a certainty of not having getting caught. So I guess I just wanted to sort of ask how we deal with that without significant increases in policing, which is something that I've never supported. So just want to ask your thoughts on that.

That solution is, I believe, why this Committee is assembled. We do have instances where employees in loss prevention will make contact, and when they do, there's often a struggle over the merchandise. And at that point, what began as a petty theft graduates into a robbery, an estes robbery. And in those instances, we do file the robbery cases.

In my experience, and I am speaking from the date that we began working with the task forces, and I believe LAPD's task force was created around August 21 of last year. I know that since from that date, LAPD, which is our largest single agency, has been taking police reports on all these petty thefts. And I know similarly, the Los Angeles sheriff's Department does, because all those cases come to the Organized Crime Division for filing decisions. So at that time, we make the decision.

And the 490.4 section that was recently enacted, the organized retail theft, gives us some discretion, because if you have somebody who's stealing over the course of a year, the theft can be aggregated into a felony. But if it's somebody without a criminal background, it's not a repeat offender, then that's not what you would do. You wouldn't hammer the person. You want the justice system to be fair.

You want justice to be equally fair for the public, to promote public safety, but to take into account the fact that each individual is very different. So in my experience, and I'm talking about since I've been involved here, which has been since October 17, as far as the operations side, the LAPD and LASD have been taking reports for every theft-related incident that gets reported to them.

And when the loss prevention agents get involved and there is contact, then we do take that conduct seriously, because it's dangerous. It's happening during normal business hours.

And if you could see some of the videos that come into the office and that will be presented to juries when these cases go to trials, you will see that these individuals, they may not have any weapons, they may not be even making threats, but the amount of force that they're using and the struggles is terrifying the public, and sometimes even children are being knocked over.

So there is an impact, and that's why we are taking these organized retail theft cases so seriously here in Los Angeles.

I was wondering if you had a short response.

I would add also that it just goes back to community programming, and the laws are already on the books. I don't think we need to increase punishments. The laws are already on the books. And when you have retailers who aren't reporting the crimes, who aren't calling the police, because the police say they won't show up. I think that's a completely different issue.

And I would implore our state Assembly people not to fall back on the safety of, "well, we're going to increase punishment because that's going to work." I think the Assembly needs to focus on working with the retailers, again, to try and help them prevent the theft at the start.

Yeah, I don't disagree with anything you've said. I do think that there is a big gap there about certainty of getting caught, especially with misdemeanor crimes in general, even with felony ones, where basically we have folks that are repeatedly coming into stores and basically nothing happens. And so I think that's pretty significant. And I think that is really one of the big nuts we have to crack.

And I would encourage both of you, if you have ideas about how we deal with, know that's consistent with, I think, what you're advocating, we'd be very open to considering those things. I have one last question. I know the Assemblymember, McCarty has a question for the DA. I have one more for the DA, and that is MacArthur park.

Can you just give us a sense as to what some of the challenges are and why that continues to be an ongoing problem in the LA County area?

I suspect, Mr. Chairman, that when you say MacArthur park, you're talking about the reselling environment?

The reselling environment in MacArthur park, yes.

And it's a big social question. If we want to live a healthy life as an individual, we can't just medicate ourselves. We have to eat well. We have to exercise. If we want to promote public safety, we can't just go to call law enforcement. We have to be involved as part of the community as well. We need the community's help.

So when it comes to something like that, an ORT tip line would be helpful, because then we would know, hey, these are the vendors that are selling it. And somebody could call in and say, look, there's this store that's got all these items, but it's got this label of this other manufacturer. It's got all this makeup from Sephora. But this raises significant public safety issues about whether products are being adulterated and the pharmaceuticals, whether or not they're expired.

A lot of makeup that is sold in these places are being diverted from the factories where they've been destined for destruction. So there are a lot of issues around that. What I would say is we do need community help. We need the community to help alert us.

And I think if the community were aware that a lot of this does relate to organized crime and that some of these organized crime elements might even involve elements of forced criminality, that they would care and they would say, "hey, I'm going to not participate in this. This product may be dangerous. I'm not going to take this product home and I'm going to call law enforcement because clearly what's being sold here was stolen from another retailer."

I think it would be helpful to us. Obviously, the thing that I'm worried about is really unintentionally harming street vendors who are law-abiding citizens and really just trying to make a living. But the issue we keep hearing over and over again that a lot of the stolen goods are being fenced in places in MacArthur park and that that is a big area that needs focus.

And so I would encourage you to think about some things that we might be able to consider that focus on that. And so with that, let me turn it over to Assemblymember McCarty, who I know has a question.

Yes, thank you. I wanted to ask a few questions of our Deputy District Attorney, Mr. Kim. Nice to meet you. So we've been conversing on this policy topic with a lot of stakeholders on what to do with retail theft and some potential remedies to Prop 47. And as you know, there's some proposals put forth by the DA's Association which may or may not be the path that we want to go in California. But that's a proposal out there.

So I just wanted to dig in on the certainty of getting caught. I know that Mr. Zbur mentioned that. And a few moments ago, Assemblymember Bonta talked about that as one of the reasons in people's head that they do or don't do it. And you alluded, one of you, that it's not always that super complicated by who they are. And I'm thinking a lot about retail theft, that there's really two separate categories of people, lots of people, but kind of two buckets.

And it really dawned on me last week because I went to go tour a Home Depot in my district in Sacramento, and they had a whole team of people with loss prevention in their corporate that just walked me through what happens at a store. And super organized, people come in there with a list. They're looking for this RYOBI or Makita, Milwaukee tool. Sometimes they climb the raft. They call this one guy spider man.

He climbs up there to get the stuff, throws it down so they know exactly what they're doing. And so I kind of thought that in my head, like, that's a piece of this retail theft cohort, whether it's Target, CVS, what have you, and then they fence it online or go to MacArthur park. We'll get to that later. And a few hours later, in my same district, I went to a local liquor store that was family owned. It was at night.

And I asked the gentleman who was the owner operator, and I said, "how often do you have retail theft here?" He said, "every day." And I said, "what do you do when it happens?" "Well, it depends." And when he said that, he looked at his right and he had a baseball bat down there. So I said, it depends on what the situation is. Okay. So, very different situations, and it's still so called retail theft. Different populations, different reasons they're doing it.

Some are monetary, selling it's a job, some are tough luck in life, what's happening in situations going in, their survival, whatever it is, the petty theft with a prior-type crowd. So those are probably the two most common scenarios of the retail theft buckets. So in your experience in LA County, do you think you have adequate tools to hold these individuals accountable? And the certainty of getting caught?

Is it the certainty of getting caught, like apprehended a cuff or caught, as in seeing Deputy District Attorney having some adjudication? Because there's all these ideas about we need to repeal, fix, mend, reform 47. So in the tools that you have in your job, or maybe your people below you, because you're the supervisor, my understanding. Give us an understanding of what is there and what you have or don't have to address the situation.

Well, I want to start off by saying that Prop 47 is a policy decision, and that's something that's made by the elected official and his executive management team. I run an operation, and it's called the Organized Crime Division. And what we do in the Organized Crime Division is we focus on serious offenders. Now, we do file, we do the intake for all the retail theft cases that are brought to us by the task force. And I do think that LAPD and LASD do a tremendous job.

I was meeting with a couple members of the commercial crimes team last night. The amount of work that they put in on a case that we filed for today, involving a crew that was targeting jewelers, was incredible. And I can't talk about the investigation, but the amount of work that was put in by law enforcement in that case was very impressive.

And I have to say that I am impressed every single day by the impressive work that LAPD, LASD, and our local law enforcement partners are putting in day in and day out. Now if you want to talk about improvements and how things can be improved, I did have the pleasure of going to the Beverly Hills Real-Time Watch Center recently, and I want to thank Captain Max Subin for inviting me and my supervisor out there to see that. They have over 2000 cameras, a couple hundred license plate readers, they have drones.

What they are able to see in that Real-Time Watch Center, not just in terms of preventing crimes in Beverly Hills, but in terms of identifying criminals that happen to be coming into their city, that are part of other crews, is really impressive. I think that Santa Monica is moving forward in that same direction. I had a conversation with Glendale the other day. They're moving forward in that direction as well.

And I think if we were to invest more resources into some of the technology that is available to help us, not just in terms of license plate readers and cameras, but in terms of working together so that this information is shared adequately across the county, because we are the most populous county or actually the most populous non-state entity in the United States. I do think that that would be an excellent way of helping us improve and combat not just organized retail theft, but promote public safety altogether.

So let me ask it in another way. So we are, of course, lawmakers, right? Laws, the voters, the public created a law via Prop 47. So do you think that you, LA County, have adequate tools from a prosecutory toolbox needed to address retail theft? Or do you think that we need to propose alterations in statute, whether they're petty theft with a prior, or the aggregation issue as well?

Again, I'm not here to talk about the policy and I'll tell you why, sir. I haven't read all the studies and I don't know all the facts. These types of policy making decisions should be made by somebody who has all the facts available, has reviewed all the studies, and can make an informed advisement to this Committee that this should or shouldn't be done. Again, I just work on the operations side.

And as far as the operations side, as far as going after criminals that are committing organized retail crime, violent crime, transnational gangs, Eurasian gangs, and we also prosecute all the hate crimes in the County of Los Angeles. I think we have the tools to do that effectively.

Thank you for your response.

Thank you. We're over time now. I just want to thank you all for joining us today. I know you're all very busy people and it's been very informative. Want to thank you for taking part of your day with us today. Thank you. Let's go ahead and bring the next panel up. Oh, great. I also want to welcome Assemblymember David Alvarez, who's from San Diego.

And while we're bringing the next panel up, I'd like to give him two minutes to make a statement if he'd like. You want to wait until the end? Okay, great.

Welcome. Last but not least, I'd like to welcome our third set of panelists, which will lead us in a discussion regarding fencing and reselling both online and on the ground. So we're grateful today to be joined by Commander Jay Mastick from the Los Angeles Police Department, Andrea Devoe on behalf of TechNet, and Mike Carson on behalf of eBay. Thank you all for joining us today. I'm not sure if you've all discussed an order or not, so we'll start with Mr. Mastick. Thank you. And 5 minutes apiece.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Committee Members. Fencing remains a problem in Los Angeles. Our most notorious location in Los Angeles is MacArthur Park. MacArthur park is surrounded by the Alvarado Corridor, specifically between Wilshire Boulevard to the south, 6th street to the north, along with the Metropolitan Transit Authority Line B station. It's a known location for street vendors who can buy and sell stolen property. In policing, we refer to this as fencing.

Los Angeles Police Department detectives have made numerous arrests for grand theft and shoplifting from all the big box locations that surround that area, including Target, Rite Aid, The 99 Cent Store and other local businesses. The suspects, who are primarily from the homeless population and suffering from narcotics addiction, often sell the stolen products to street vendors stores along Alvarado for money and other things such as food, hotel stays and narcotics.

In terms of strategies for the Los Angeles Police Department to have a meaningful impact on boosting and fencing crimes, Los Angeles Police Department is focused on career criminals, places and activities. We conduct shoplifting, blitz operations, booster operations, street vendor operations, as well as search warrants at brick and mortar stores that sell those stolen goods. I think they'd been referred to previously by the LA County District Attorney. Detectives have regular meetings with retailers to discuss crime trends, the activity of suspects within their stores.

Information is provided to the retailers with regard to best practices and training for things like report writing, crime reporting documentation, surveillance camera usage, and we recently reformed the ORCA Committee with retail theft. Victims of retail theft we held a summit last September that was here in Rampart area, where we had 250 retailers.

At the meeting, detectives and vice officers typically work with retailers to identify fencing locations, and other vendors in the area also notify us because typically they're in competition with those folks who sell merchandise or buy steal merchandise, sell it to other merchants, and then compete with them in that local area. Our officers prepare search warrants on fencing locations, recover property, collect evidence and affect arrests.

Although shoplifting is grossly underreported, the ongoing communication between our investigators, retailers and more accurate feedback regarding the increase or decrease in criminal activity in the local area. The Los Angeles Police Department remains eager to address fencing activities in the city's pursuit to reduce theft crime in the area and remains committed to this goal. In terms of case statistics, since we rolled out our organized retail theft operation back on October 21, we've conducted 36 blitz operations.

We've affected 179 arrests, 160 misdemeanor arrests, 18 of those are felony arrests, and one subject was a juvenile. We've conducted two fencing operations which rendered nine misdemeanor arrests. The challenge remains. It's very difficult to work these operations from the back end. It is very much more effective to work these operations from the front end.

At the time of the theft, search warrants, unique identifiers, tags, things of that nature, tracking devices, they're an effective tool, but they really have a very limited impact on all the property that's taken and the recovery. So we recover a very, very small portion of what's actually taken. With regard to recidivism, I know that's been spoken about to some degree this morning. Recidivism remains our biggest challenge. I have several cases I've outlined.

I'm not going to go through all of them today, but they're arrest, followed by release, followed by continued crimes, followed by additional arrests that come through. One particular egregious case, on July 7, we arrested two suspects. They were affiliated with the Topanga Westfield Mall retail theft crimes. That was on TV. That was really the incident that kicked off our task force. They were both charged with seven counts of grand theft. They were released on zero bail here in LA County.

And then after being released, both suspects committed additional grand theft crimes and robberies. One incident was on August 14, another incident on August 24, another incident on September 10. The September 10 incident involved both these suspects, as well as four additional suspects who were engaged in a flash mob. They entered the Macy's at the Northridge fashion center, where they utilized force to break open display cases. They instilled fear in both the employees and customers and fled with several items of property.

Detectives were able to locate both suspects and obtain arrest and search warrants for both. In the completion of those search warrants, a ghost gun was recovered, and both were ultimately held to answer. We do look forward with a partnership in the support of the State of California and developing solutions to this very serious problem that's impacting Los Angeles. Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Mastick. Really appreciate it. And I just want to especially express my thanks to Ms. Devoe and Mr. Carson for being with us today. I know that part of the reason we've asked you here is because you both have been focusing, I think, in the industry on ways in which we can make sure that the goods that are bought online are legitimate and that you have been thinking about these kinds of issues.

eBay has implemented many practices that are considered best practices and so very interested in your thoughts. And before you go, I just want to recognize Assemblymember Pilar Schiavo, who has joined us. We'll give her an opportunity to make a comment a little bit later, so go ahead. Please proceed.

Good morning. Still, thank you Committee Chairs and Members, my name is Andrea Devoe. I'm here today representing TechNet. TechNet is a bipartisan network of technology and innovation companies. Our Members represent diverse subcategories of the industry, including clean energy, software developers, device manufacturers and relevant to our purpose today, online marketplaces. As it relates to our member company actions, we are proud to be engaged, active and stand ready to continue our partnership in combating retail theft.

We understand that organized retail crime is a significant issue facing all retailers today and that online platforms have a responsibility to be a part of that solution. TechNet members take the issue of organized retail crime very seriously. It is in each online marketplace's interest to maintain trust with the consumers using their platforms and the public.

Our marketplace member companies take a holistic approach to combat the sale of illegal and counterfeit products by heavily investing in technologies, personnel and processes that identify bad actors and remove them from the platforms. These tools are constantly being assessed and improved to ensure that they target the bad actors on their platforms and to move more quickly to spot a range of organized retail crime schemes like theft through retail concessions, cargo theft and potential resale of stolen goods.

Our members review every instance of suspected organized retail crime and when there is suspicion or evidence that bad actors are misusing a marketplace to sell stolen or illicit goods, our Members work directly with law enforcement, retailers and brands to bring offenders to justice. I'd like to highlight the measures that online marketplaces take to fight back against organized retail crime.

These include maintaining accessible and easy to use reporting forms employing notice and takedown teams to investigate suspicious activity promptly removing reported listings, blocking suspicious listings from being published, banning sellers with multiple violations, shutting down related sellers and preventing banned users or sellers from returning to the platform, assisting law enforcement and other partners in ongoing investigations.

And typically, when a platform identifies an issue, they work closely with law enforcement, retailers and brands to stop the bad actors and hold them accountable, including withholding funds, terminating accounts and making law enforcement referrals. In addition, I'd like to share some of the efforts our member companies have in terms of related partnerships. TechNet and our members are also participating, advocating for public and private partnerships to take a unified approach to combating the issue.

Our members work directly with brands and retailers to investigate organized retail crime schemes, as mentioned, but also work regularly with law enforcement, prosecutors and State's Attorney General. Several of our companies sit on state retail and organized crime associations in states across the country or serve on Attorney General led ORC task force forces. These public private partnerships work collaboratively on organized retail crime, sharing information, investigating cases, taking enforcement action, and collaborating on legislative efforts to stop bad actors.

We supported the Federal Inform Act, which I do want to note only went into effect six months ago, and we are eager to see sort of how that implementation takes place before we see any modifications that potentially might be needed. We work closely with many of you and the Legislature in supporting and passing SB 301, enacting the California version of the Inform Act.

About one more minute.

Got it. Additionally, TechNet and our members participate have participated in a robust stakeholder process which was alluded to earlier by Mr. Redding, organized by Attorney General Rob Bonta and his team to develop a joint statement of principles. I have those principles, but I will, for the sake of brevity, save those if you have questions. So, in summary, we as an industry are here to partner, collaborate and help combat retail theft.

While the industry and our work alongside law enforcement and retailers has made a lot of progress, more work is always going to be required. It's been made clear that organized retail theft operations are sophisticated and our responses and tools that are tracking, preventing and removing bad actors and illegal products that are working today constantly need to be advancing and adapting to those threats. We remain committed and thank you for having us here today.

Thank you.

Hello all. Thank you for having me today. My name is Mike Carson and I'm a senior Director in eBay's regulatory policy group and I've been with the company for over 18 years. Our team manages Ebay's prohibited and restricted items policies and also oversees our criminal and regulatory investigations team, which works closely with law enforcement and retailers on issues related to criminal activity, including organized retail crime.

eBay is committed to providing a safe, secure online shopping experience to millions of people globally and plays an industry leading role in utilizing a combination of sophisticated detection tools, aggressive enforcement and strong relationships with brand owners, retailers and law enforcement agencies to effectively combat the sale of stolen, counterfeit or illegal goods and present our customers with the safest, most trusted shopping experience available. Through our partnering with Retailers Offensively Against Crime and Theft, better known as PROACT, eBay collaborates with more than 60 retail loss prevention departments in North America that are seeking assistance with investigations related to ORC.

The program allows participants to report evidence of theft to eBay for further investigation. eBay also maintains a dedicated law enforcement portal to enable law enforcement officers to submit investigation related requests to eBay to us quickly and securely. We're proud to make this investment to fight organized retail crime because it enables our customers to sell and buy with confidence, knowing eBay has the people, policies and processes in place to protect them.

I just want to talk a little bit more about the PROACT program and then happy to answer any other questions. Our PROACT program has been in place since 2007, and over that time period, we've seen real progress in countering ORC and bringing organized crime ranks to justice.

In fact, we've been told by a number of retailers throughout the history of the program that we're a leader in this space and they would love to see other online platforms model our efforts, and we're happy to work with them to inform them about that. The PROACT system is really a two way tool. It enables retailers to provide us with information that we might not have, and likewise we can provide them with information they might not necessarily have access to.

And these partnerships are especially important for stolen goods. Because stolen goods are genuine and legitimate products. They can be difficult to detect with the filters that we normally apply to illegal or counterfeit goods. So we really rely on that specific intelligence we get from retailers to help us better detect those items. So to put this in perspective, one example I can use is a way eBay can detect it.

A brand new seller comes to the site, lists 200 Iphones they've never sold before on Ebay at all. That's going to raise some red flags on our end. We're going to halt that, ask for some more information before it goes forward. On the other side, if a retailer has a stolen theft in their store of, say, 100 of a specific type of power tool, they can tell us where that store was, that zip code.

We can then do a search on our side to see if there's been recent activity from sellers in that area. Work with them and with law enforcement again, to affect an investigation there. Without that intel, those power tools may have looked like the hundreds of thousands of perfectly legitimate items on our site every day. And then, in closing, just want to give one example of our proact program in action in May of 2002.

We worked with the New York City AG's Organized Crime Task Force on a retail theft operation investigation involving 41 people that were charged for their roles in this crime ring that stole luxury clothing and goods and thousands of items from drugstores. Law enforcement, as a result of this investigation and our partnership, law enforcement was able to seize more than $3.8 million worth of stolen retail items, more than 550 stolen gift and cash cards, and more than $300,000 in cash. Thank you and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. So we've got six of us here. We want to make sure that we've. And we only have about 15 minutes left for this panel. I wanted to. After this panel, we're going to have an opportunity for public comment. I was wondering if those who anticipate wanting to make a public comment could raise their hand so I know how much time we're going to need. Does that look like about 30 people? Is that a good estimate? Does that look right? Okay, great.

Thank you all very much. Okay. What I'd like to do is come back to the Committee Members and ask every Committee Member to limit their question to one question without follow up so that we can get through and make sure that everyone has an opportunity to ask start. Do you want to start? Okay. Would you like to ask anything, Ms. Schiavo?

Yeah. My apologies for being late today, but I was listening while I was driving up from Orange County, and so just wanted know this has been an issue that I've heard from folks in our community about, and especially smaller retailers just reviewing all of the work that the Legislature did last year. We have actually put, you know, grants in place to, to address retail theft.

And I think part of what needs to happen is that we also need to allow that to work and be able to see the fruits of our labor, because that's really just starting. And so I think that there's actually been really good, significant work that we have done in this space to address concerns around retail theft that we have to make sure that we see through and that we can make tweaks and adjustments as we go forward.

I know the panel before this was talking a little bit more around more petty theft and as it relates to people who are experiencing homelessness and an extreme poverty, and I know the smaller retailers, that's more where they see the interaction. And I think focusing a lot of our law enforcement efforts around organized retail crime makes sense because it's a whole larger network and rings that we need to address.

My concern around smaller, which I think was addressed a little bit in the earlier panel for people who are experiencing homelessness and things related to that, is that it's just creating a cycle, right, of maybe sight and release, or it's not really addressing the root cause. And I wonder, when LAPD is interacting with folks in this situation, what are the actions you can take? You can charge, you cannot charge.

What are the options to you and what are the ones that you see can be the deterrent that can maybe get people's support and help that they need so that they're not in a situation where they need to go steal food or need to go steal something to sell it, to be able to buy food.

Thank you, ma'am. In terms of our contact, when we contact a suspect in a crime, it would be to affect or not to affect an arrest. That is selling the City of Los Angeles very, very much short in our homeless engagement efforts. That's just a very small part. That's where you see a police officer affect an arrest, process them, book them, take them into custody, that kind of a thing.

There are several other options out there with the Los Angeles City homeless authority that deals with the homeless population in that regard. But in terms of a police officer coming in contact with someone, a vendor retailer that's been a victim of a crime, that can affect a private person's arrest if they choose to do so, we would accept the private person's arrest. Once that's completed, it's forward to the prosecutor's office. Misdemeanors go to our LA City prosecutor.

And there are many alternatives to choosing to prosecute if they choose to do so. But from the Police Department aspect, if we're confronted with a private person's arrest, we're obligated by state law to accept that private person's arrest. The officer on the scene doesn't have the authority to say no.

I got permission to break the rules and ask one follow up since I haven't been around, I know the lead program was talking earlier about sometimes folks can go towards that avenue, right, of going into the lead program. So how is that connected? Are officers aware of that program? Is that available as a resource for them to choose that direction? Or how does that come into play?

Often it would be after the arrest. Otherwise, there would be no documentation. They never would have even been arrested. There would be no tracking. There would be no anything. Having said that, I don't have the numbers in front of me. You'd have to ask the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office about misdemeanor prosecutions, I would suggest to you that there are very few. I don't have the numbers in front of me. They do have alternatives to incarceration. There's a wide panel of how those are implemented.

But from the Police Department's perspective, we don't do that. We accept an arrest if it's a private person's arrest. There's a state law that mandates a police officer accept a private person's arrest. If our officer didn't do that, he'd be subject to discipline. So it's not the officer's decision to accept it or not. That's a requirement by state law.

Okay, great. Okay, perfect. Mia, did you have anything? Okay, I have one question, and I'll just ask you all to respond to it quickly. So, one of the things that has been raised is potentially a new requirement that would require folks to maintain records that show the providence of their goods. Wondering if you could comment what the pros and cons of that might be. And I think, officer, with respect to. I'm particularly concerned about misuse of that with street vendors, and I was just wondering if you could address that issue and then you all the online issue.

I see it being the problem of implementation. If you were to like, it's either all or nothing. So if you were to require it for everything, small street vendors on the street, to require them, anybody selling anything, to have the source of where it came from, it's almost an unrealistic expectation. Now, I don't know about online retailers. It's not really my expertise, but anybody to sell anything to require what it is and where it came from. It almost seems, I want to say, unreasonable.

That's my gut. But I wanted to just get your perspective and then if you could answer the question.

Yeah, I will respond almost similarly for different reasons. It is that this is a one size fits all proof of purchase is just a requirement that in some instances couldn't be met. Just for a few examples. Handmade goods, gifts that you receive that you want to resell, goods bought at an estate sale or a yard sale, antiques, refurbished electronics. Right.

The list goes on and on. So these are just real life practical examples that could reach pretty significant thresholds in terms of dollar amounts. But there's never a proof of purchase. So I think that we need to consider the unintended consequences when pushing what would, I think be with good intentions policy that might put small sellers in a position of not being able to run their business.

Yes. Similar from my perspective, creating that huge barrier of entry for everybody, I think would be overwhelmingly burdensome. That said, there are certain areas where, again, through these partnerships with retailers, where we can focus on high risk activity and being able to recognize that and target putting those burdens in place where they should apply, as opposed to the 99% of people that are doing the right thing and putting those extra requirements.

We have policies where in certain areas, we may only allow pre approved sellers to list certain items, or sellers that provide us with documentation up front, but not across the board, as that would be impossible for sellers to meet.

If I could just add on one final point with that, I think someone had suggested early on it may have been you, ma'am? Very high end items. Maybe a threshold that might be a cap or something like that, or specific electronics, specific expensive handbags. A certain threshold might be appropriate. I'm going to follow my own rule and go to Mr. Mccarty.

I just wondered if you could follow up on Mr. Zbur and kind of the earlier. What more tools do you think we need? This is the industry, so you're on the front lines here, whether it's Macarthur park or online or offer up or Facebook, what have you. So what tools do you think that we need to provide to help you do your job?

I would say that there's a lot of fantastic tools that are out there. And the retail theft, there was a grant that Los Angeles Police Department received. It was $15.6 million. It was just recent. We have chosen to invest in technologies. By and large, almost of all of that grant will go into technologies and not into overtime or things like that because it's been so successful in terms of crime solving and prosecution.

Are those monies used specifically for the reselling and the fencing side?

They're across the board.

I guess maybe I ask you different. What tools, whether it's money in the budget or legislative tools, do you think that we need to consider to deal with the resale fencing piece, especially the online fencing? Because that seems to be where it is now.

In terms of what the Committee could do and what the state Legislature could do, I really don't have a suggestion on what a law would be or I can't really advocate a position as a police officer.

I'll just sort of close. I would love to work with all of you. I think there's a desire for us to do more. We see that that continues to be a pathway. Obviously, it's not our goal to shut down legitimate small businesses. But I think if you could help us with some things that are not as broad, maybe as the question I posed, but that would help be effective. We'd appreciate a partnership on that. So let me go to some people raised comments.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. There are a few things that were mentioned that I think are really important. I appreciate the comments. Commander Mastick, you talked about the fact that shoplifting is grossly underreported. That's an issue. And I think that our chair, Mr. Zbur, talked about that earlier, and what is it that keeps our retailers from reporting it? And part of it is, and maybe it's anecdotal, maybe it's rumor, but we hear it, that the charges that they are being charged, if they overreport.

So just something to think about. Representative Andrea, you talked about the fact that online retailers have a responsibility, and that's really important. I think that if they accept the responsibility, as it's clearly shown here, and even from our conversations with Amazon, they're working on that as well. That is really important. And you said maintaining easy to use reporting forms takes us back to what we were talking about earlier from Ebay.

You mentioned the fact that you work with law enforcement and you have a law enforcement portal. Working together, obviously is going to be the best way to be able to identify where the real problem is and then work with law enforcement on that. My question is, and I think I go back to what Assembly Member or chair Mccarty is talking about, this is really the perfect time to be able to give the suggestions. It's clear that Governor Newsom has this. This is a really important issue.

From Governor Newsom to both our chairs to Committee Members, we want to find solutions. We want to make sure that people feel safe. We want to make sure that our retailers don't have to shut their doors, that they don't have to have the added expense of hiring law enforcement, because we've heard of those examples as well. It isn't just security guards. They will get somebody who is uniformed officer to come in during off hours. But not everybody can afford that.

Maybe the big box retailers can, and they've shared that some of them are doing that, but that's a big expense. And then do you want to walk into a store where the first person you see is a uniformed officer? That's another issue that others talk about. So I go back to the question, and even if the answer isn't available at this moment, you are all in the best position to be able to provide.

And it goes also for the other panelists, this is the perfect time to enter the dialogue, to talk about possible solutions. It is very easy for either side to say, no, you're not doing it. Legislators, and we're just going to do our own thing, or legislators, you're too much on one side and we're just always going to be against you. You're hearing from us. The fact that we have a Joint Committee hearing means that this is a top priority for us.

And I go back to the governor's. He's made comments and there's extra funding that is being brought in. This is a time to try to figure out solutions. And if one of you would like to offer something that has not already been mentioned, I would appreciate that.

I'd like to respond to a few things that you'd mentioned in terms of crime reporting. Los Angeles Police Department recently introduced our computerized online reporting system. And if somewhere along the lines through one of the panels, we've led you to believe that we don't want that reported, that is categorically untrue.

And to think that the Department or the city would charge someone for reporting a crime report, also categorically untrue. We absolutely encourage it. We absolutely facilitate it. These things can be reported online if there's no leads or follow ups, things of that nature, if it's just a property loss as a whole, from a big box store, for example, that can be reported online.

The second piece, and you had alluded to it in terms of the education piece from our Department and what we tell retailers, certainly security would be fantastic, but I am in, the La County prosecutor had mentioned this. When the security guard engages a thief at the time of a property loss, if they struggle over that property, it turns into a robbery. There was a case in Central California where a simple s test robbery, that's what we refer to it as, which is a felony.

The security guard had been shot. He'd been shot and killed. Based on that, our public engagement, our public education piece is, don't physically engage them. Call the professionals. We'll come out. We'll do it. I realize it is problematic. That's why the panel is assembled. But I don't want to see someone get hurt or killed over property. So as a priority between property loss and a crime against a person, especially where someone gets hurt or killed, I would prefer the property loss.

I will tell you, and I alluded to this when I gave my opening comments, a very sad situation. It was in West Covina in October of last year when a liquor store Clerk was trying to stop a robbery, Karan Singh. And he was shot and killed. 17 year old was later arrested. And so I absolutely agree with you. So trying to find the solutions, that's what we're here for. We are serious about this, and it cannot be one sided.

You can tell from the Members that are part of this Committee that we have different lived experiences, and we want to come up with a solution that takes care of the issue in a thoughtful and intentional way.

Want to give either of you a minute, if you'd like, and then we close 30 seconds.

Just very briefly. I think there's not one solution. I think it's a theme of solutions to lead us to hopefully, what we will see is improvement and ultimately resolving organized retail crime. As somebody Member Bonta alluded to earlier, I think on the first panel about how important data is, I would just underscore that significantly. Data is going to tell us where, when, how and what. I think Assemblywoman Schiavo, she mentioned letting policies work.

I think that's also important, continuing to innovate, as Ebay has described, and best practices always being met. And finally, just partnering retailers, law enforcement and online marketplaces as we are. So thank you.

Thank you.

One thing I would just add is how do we better make everybody aware of the solutions that are already out there? For instance, our proact program. Are there retailers that don't even know we offer that our law enforcement portal? Are there law enforcement agencies out there that are dying to use it but just don't know of it?

Are there ways we can get the major players together, more involved, sharing the solutions that each one already has and just making sure, as opposed to always looking for new solutions. There could be things on the table already that people just aren't aware of, and that's Low hanging fruit that we could really take advantage of and work.

Mr. Mccarty and I have both been engaging in a lot of discussions with folks, and we'd look forward to sort of sitting down with you and thinking through some things we might be able to do. So I want to thank this panel. Thank you so much. I know some of you came from far away, and I know you're very close, but so thank you very much. And by the way, the rumors we've been hearing about the enforcement issues about reporting are not in the LA area.

So just so you know that. Thank you all very much. Okay. With that. Do we have any Members of the panel that need to leave sooner than 30 minutes out? Would you like to make a comment now? Okay. We have time for closing comments after public comment, but I'm going to allow Mr. Alvarez to make his comment now.

Thank you to our chair. I want to make this comment now because I hope that the public comment is somewhat in response to my comment. And my comment is that this process for me and this hearing and the hearing that was held before and the hearing that will be held after this in some time is about listening to the public about the input on how to best proceed.

I think there was a panelist a little bit earlier, and I also acknowledge I arrived late, but with technology, I was able to hear all of the discussion from previous panels. And sometimes listening is better than talking, and I got to do that for a couple of hours on my way up here. And that's what I want to do for the next 30 minutes as you all speak and as we go on, because I'm actually someone who, not really sure what the solution is.

I want to say that I believe that there's a lot of other legislators that might feel the same way. I can tell you from our two chairs who we're looking to in the Assembly to help us, guide us through this conversation. They're not wedded to one decision or another or how to move forward. And I think that's a good thing. I think that it's really helpful and useful to have a conversation in that way.

But I also want to acknowledge that there are some people who say, you just get rid of Prop 47 and all the problems go away. And that's not true. And there are some people who say, just let everything be the same how it is today, and there are no problems. That is also not true. The reality is that we do have something is happening. There is retail crime happening.

And we see that in our everyday lives as we all go with our families to either your local corner store or to a larger retail store. And so we know that something is happening. And what I would ask all of you, as you provide your input and your comments and your expertise for those of you who are panelists, is that we help elected officials resist the urge to just do something, to say they did something, because often that's what happens.

And up and down the state today, I think there are people who are saying, let's do something just because they want to put that as a checkbox or on their campaign literature. There are a lot of us who don't just want to do something, just to say we did something. We want to do something because we actually want to address this issue.

So as you provide your testimony as panelists in the future going forward, as the Legislature Members present different ideas and suggestions, I ask you that you give thoughtful consideration to what your response is to that. I ask you that you provide input and suggestions on how to make that better. I have not introduced any legislation. I am not a co author to any legislation. I believe that is the most prudent thing to do at this moment, is to listen and to be guided by facts.

And there are a lot of facts that are still not on the table. And for us to say let's not do anything or let's do all of this before we have the facts would be irresponsible in this conversation. So I ask all of you to help us in your public input to identify, yes, the programs that work, because programs do work. But how do we make sure that more people get into those programs? Is there a different way to do that?

Because we know that some people just refuse to and choose not to, and yet they continue to be part of the retail crime situation that we have. And we have to acknowledge that that is happening. So help us understand and help us identify how we can ensure that more people get the help that they need to do the right thing. That is what I'm hoping. And I want to thank the chair for allowing me to speak at this moment.

I held back from questions earlier and before you provided your public comment, which is very important to me because I hope that in your testimonies in your public comment, that you help us understand a pathway forward so that we can craft the best solutions forward for the state. So I thank you in advance for your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Alvarez. Okay, so everyone else will have an ability to close after the public comment. Is there anyone, would you like to do yours beforehand? You would like. Yeah, go ahead. Ms. Shelvin might need to leave, so we'll let her. Then we'll move to public comment right after.

Chair. This is a complicated issue, and we didn't get here overnight, and we didn't get here because one thing went wrong. And I think that we have to be really thoughtful and intentional about looking at solutions, and we have to make sure that we are looking for solutions that work. I appreciate my colleague, Assembly Member Alvarez's comment about just wanting to say you did something. I don't want to say we did something. I want something that will work.

And I think that that's what we're grappling with here now. Right. Seeing the data, unfortunately, it's really hard to get data from retailers on this issue. But trying to dig into the data that works and what doesn't. And we know a lot of things that do and do not work. We know that enhancements and punishments don't really work to deter crime. Right. We know that antirecitivism and supports for people does.

And these are things that we have recently in the state made a shift to really invest in. And I think it's to my point earlier about needing to give time for these things to start working. But I think we can do better and I think we can do more. And I think that especially as someone who co founded an organization working on homelessness and focuses on that.

A-I-I am always thinking of examples like Richmond that used to have really high gun violence and took a completely different approach to addressing that and got it down to almost nothing. But it wasn't through enhanced penalties and punishments. It was through making sure that the handful of people they figured out were actually responsible for most of the gun violence were surrounded by supports and services and opportunities for a different path.

And unfortunately, our system is set up in a way for most people to set them up for failure, that when you get out of jail, you're given $200, and if you need to get a bus ticket, that's deducted from it, and if you need some clothes, that's deducted from it. And so maybe you have $100 or $50 to start your new life. I don't know why we're surprised that it's not working.

And so I'm encouraged about a lot of work that has been happening in the Legislature even before I got here. I've only been here a year to make this shift and to invest in things that we know do work and do set people up for success, for a different path.

And I think we need to do a better job of really figuring that out around homelessness, because I think if people have housing and food and their basic needs met, they're not going to be repeat offenders and having to be in a situation of stealing to eat or survive. And I'm encouraged by a lot of the online strategies that are being taken.

And I think that there's more that can be done there around really large scale and the organized crime side of the work that we need to address. And I know there's a lot of focus there, which I'm encouraged by.

But I think whatever policy that we're going to move forward this year, we have to focus on the data, focus on what really works, and make sure that we're doing something that's going to be effective, because I don't want to just rubber stamp something to say we did something. And I know that my colleagues are really intentional about making sure that that's the lens that we're looking through things at.

So I really appreciate the panelists who are here today and their insights and looking forward to the public comment and just want to thank the chair, both chairs, for hosting this today and look forward to the continued conversations and really coming up with something that's going to be effective. Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member Schiavo. Okay, so it's now time for public comment. We have about 30 minutes, so if you can all line up behind this microphone, those that would like to make a comment, you're going to be limited to. Is this still 30 people? Do.

Good morning. My name is Catherine Perkins. I'm a resident of Los Angeles. I am a member of Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice. I am a survivor of crime. Thank you for giving me this opportunity. But what I want. What I want, what I really want. Being a survivor of crime, what I really want. I'm sorry. This really means a lot to me because being a survivor and my voice is being heard is that I don't want anyone else to go through what I went through.

So what happened to me and my family, I don't want anyone else to have to go through what I went through. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, please.

Good afternoon. My name is Alec Mesropian and I am here on behalf of BizFed, the Los Angeles County Business Federation, an alliance of over 240 business organizations who represent over 420,000 employers with 5 million employees here in Los Angeles County. First, we would like to thank both committees for holding this important hearing today.

For the past four years, crime, and in particular retail theft, has been listed as one of the top three issues negatively impacting the business community within LA region. We appreciate that more attention and recognition is being brought to this issue and we are hopeful more meaningful reforms will be considered. We would like to emphasize to the committees that retail theft isn't just limited to retail, it includes our communities and impact that unaddressed crime has on our homes, our values and on future generations.

We hope the committees will take the concerns addressed today seriously and work towards actionable items that will bring real results and lasting change.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Koorosh Shahrokh. I'm the secretary of a franchise owners association of a large national, international retail organization that I'm not supposed to name. I'm also an attorney. I'm also a retail store owner.

Someone who this weekend was provided two videos, separate videos of one man walking behind my register, behind my cash register, pointing a gun at my clerk, asking him to empty the register out. Then the next day, three people came in of my other store, jumped over the counter and basically took out the cash registers. These are way more serious crimes. But you know how these get going? Because you start to escalate, you get away with taking the Snickers.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Appreciate that. Sorry to hear that.

Hi, good afternoon. My name is ... Singh and I'm a 7-Eleven owner. I used to have a two store, but I just gave one store back to the company in Long Beach because of the theft and all kind of going on. And police never showed up. They never answered the calls. And I have another store in Lakewood, California. We need your help and we need to stop this crime, theft going on. Thank you.

Sorry to hear that. Thank you very much.

Hello, my name is Paul Anand and I am also a small retail owner. I have stores throughout Los Angeles, and I wanted to talk about how small retailers are not facing organized crime rings in the same way as was brought up. And so even now when we call the police, it's not like we're going to the Organized Crime Center. Anything. Nobody comes, nobody cares. And theft has become normalized. So we've just stopped reporting it.

I can attest that most all of us and everyone I know in our franchise organizations have just stopped reporting. So you can say, hey, crime is down. But in fact, it's just we throw our hands up and we're not reporting it anymore. So we would appreciate some help with that.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. Yeah, my name is Ashutos Barua. I am the 7-Eleven owner. I come from Long Beach, downtown. Yeah, I have a lot of homeless issue and a lot of problems.

Last year, actually, I got September back to back, two people killed in front of my store. So we called the police along with Police Department twice, 911, they come a little bit late. We saw the gun, but we have a lot of problem. I want to sell that store, but nobody wants to buy now. So please, we need really help. We have to survive our life. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Thank you for being here today.

Good afternoon. Thank you for your intentions.

My name is Serafin Serrano. I currently live in Long Beach. And I am with Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice. And as a practitioner for three decades. The proof is in the pudding. Healing works, trauma recovery center works. It is complex, but it's a paradox of sort because it's providing those basic needs that human beings require before leading. So in closing is that we not continue to be reactive, rather be responsive. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. My name is Marcel Rodarte.

I am the Executive Director for the California Contract Cities Association. We are an association that represents 80 cities in Southern California since 1957. Our main goal is to support cities and local control. Public safety is the utmost importance to our Member cities. We want all of our residents to feel safe with all aspects of daily lives. That includes when they are shopping at local businesses. Retail theft is not just a public safety concern, though. It's a major economic issue.

A lot of our cities rely on the sales tax revenue generated from these stores. And when stores close or they have to change the way they do business, people start shopping online more, which affects the sales tax revenue of those cities and affects the ability of those cities to provide essential services to residents. So we're encouraged by some of the legislation that we're seeing up in Sacramento right now. I invite you to use us as a resource. We are able to reach a lot of cities.

We will be taking positions on many of the bills, support for anything and everything that you guys can do to help curb the issue that we're seeing throughout California. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. My name is Matt Matu. I'm an aerospace engineer from England. And somehow I got into retail. I don't know how, but my wife kind of forced me into it. So anyways, like the girl down there said, a Sikh died in a convenience store. I'm a 7-Eleven owner.

I own stores in Los Angeles, Thousand Oaks, North Hollywood. And we represent the whole nation with 40,000 stores and hundreds of thousands of employees. And these employees are good, hardworking employees. And now, like the gentleman said, somebody took his registers. Yes, they took my registers every day. I get robbed in downtown every day. And we don't report that because police does not come. It's not like it used to be. So we do need help. Please help us. And it's totally, totally underreported.

And please listen to the retailers. What they feel and what they're going through. They're going through hell. It's not right.

Thank you very much. Really appreciate that. Thank you.

My name is Nick Anand, and I have a small store and thieves are coming and stealing the beer in front of us and going in the parking lot and selling it right there and then come back again and steal it. We call the police.

They say, 'oh, it's not urgent, so somebody going to come show up'. We hold the phone for a couple of hours. Nobody picks up the phone, and then we stop reporting. So crime is underreported in our eyes. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you for being here.

Good afternoon. My name is Andrew Levin, and I'm coming to represent the company Elite Interactive Solutions. We are a technology company that deals in crime prevention.

So through our technology, partnerships with law enforcement and cities, as well as human interaction, last year we were able to present 72,000 crimes with only having to dispatch law enforcement 1600 times. I would love to be part of the solution. I appreciate the care and effort that you're taking to handle this situation. And I open myself up as a resource.

Thank you. Please give us your contact information to my staff here on the side. Thank you.

Good afternoon, My name is Nick ... First we met at Pilar Schiavo's office, district office here, and brought up our issues of theft. The theft crime has gone up and is going up. I represent a franchise owners association, a very large group in Southern California. Every day, every morning, I hear the news that something happened last night. So we need help. It's not the organized crime. We're affected by the random crime. Every day, every moment. We have to be watchful that who's going to do what. Employees don't want to work.

Before this escalation, I had eleven stores. Now I'm down to four. And I couldn't sell them. I had to turn back, hand them back to the company, because we just couldn't handle the crime part of it. We need help, and desperately. A lot of crimes are not reported. When we start reporting. The insurance companies walked away from California, and now I'm paying $24,000 insurance, liability insurance, instead of $1,000 a year. So this is what we're facing, and it has walked into our homes. I live in Granada Hills. Every day I hear robberies at gunpoints.

Thank you, sir. Thank you very much.

Thank you for taking our opinions. My name is John Garcha. I am a convenience store owner. I have stores in Santa Monica, Glendale, Montrose areas. There needs to be a public awareness campaign that states retail theft is not okay. There's a consensus amongst these criminals that it's okay to walk into a store, walk out with something. The economic impact is huge.

We're just trying to survive here. No one here is making a ton of money. And I think we've been very patient for a solution. Thank you so much. This is a great start, and we wish to continue supporting this cause and working with you. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

Good afternoon Chairman, Daniel Conway with the California Grocers Association. First of all, thank you for a really fantastic set of panels today.

I thought there was a lot of good discussion across the board, and I thought we all had a lot to learn. I did want to respond to a couple of comments that were made. At one point it was suggested that perhaps we should make it less enticing to steal from stores, grocery stores. Obviously, a lot of money has already been spent on hardening stores, locking up merchandise, and things like that. At the end of the day, we want our stores to be safe and welcoming.

And so I think I appreciated some of the comments that were made by you all kind of recognizing that, no, let's find other ways to kind of course correct, rather than making it less welcoming for customers. The other thing I would mention, I appreciated your question, Chairman, about some jurisdictions looking at punitive measures. In fact, the City of Calabasas did, in fact, submit an ordinance that was going to punish people for reporting these types of crimes. So that is out there. Real quick, big picture.

I know that you guys are doing a lot of work in the space. It seems like from the discussion today, we're almost looking at three types of crimes, right? Like, there's the sophisticated, online, organized stuff that we're hearing about, like multi jurisdictional. There's kind of the random crime that you're hearing about here today of just people who are taking advantage of a system that doesn't really have adequate cost and benefits.

The third is kind of these survival issues that you talked about, Assembly Member and I think it's really important to connect the work that you're doing here with some of the other work that Legislature has been doing to provide services to people who need mental health, substance use, so that we can truly distinguish between these populations and really provide the help that people need, but also perhaps the penalties that others do.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

Hi. Good afternoon. Thank you for being here. It's really great to see that we've got a Joint Committee here. I'm a grocery retailer. I'm a Vice President of asset management for a Southern California grocery company. We have 20 stores up and down California, and we have two right here in the Hollywood area. So what I just wanted to talk about is really public safety. So we want our customers to come into our stores to feel safe, and we want our employees to be safe.

We've heard it today. We do have a hands off policy because our employees mean more than the product walking out the door. But as a business, we've got to stop that product going out the door. We've got product going out the door in shopping carts full and purses and handbags and reusable bags. And so what we're looking for is really those repeat offenders that keep coming into our store, and we feel there are no consequences there.

I will say that as a grocery retailer, we do report, and I can tell you, just listening to what we heard from today, I think there's a disconnect in when we report what happens with those reports. There's not a follow up there. So I'm looking to see what we can do. Maybe that's a solution, that there's some follow up there.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Could you give us your card to my staff over here so we can follow up on some of these ideas?

Absolutely.

Okay. Thank you so much.

Good afternoon. Chairs McCarty, Chavez, Zbur and Committee Members. My name is Maya Littlejohn, and I'm speaking today on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. I'm here to speak on what we should be doing instead of discussing reenacting failed policy solutions like increasing penalties, punishments, and incarceration for retail theft. As California faces a $38 billion budget deficit, we should realize that we didn't get in this hole from some stolen shampoo, and we won't get out of it by refilling prisons and jails.

In this year of economic struggle for the state, our communities also continue to struggle. While during the pandemic, the social safety net was at an all time high, we have since pulled back how we invest in the economic safety of low and no income Californians. The vast majority of the theft we're here to address is A, not criminal or violent, and B is often out of necessity, necessity to feed a family, make an income, or simply survive the day. The solution?

Reinvest back into Californians who desperately need it. Invest in job creation initiatives for the same people who might have before turned to theft. Support robust reentry programs for formerly incarcerated people and their families so they aren't forced back into a cycle of incarceration. And preserve and enhance funding for mental health services, non police response units and community based organizations.

Thank you so much every day. And please submit, you can submit some additional comments in writing and we'd look forward to hearing from you. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Frank Ferral, Chief Policy Officer for the Greater Stockton Chamber of Commerce. I was in the area, so I thought I'd stop on by with the Western Association of Chamber of Executives. We had our conference down in your neck of the woods, but we started a program in Stockton called the Stockton Takes Action Against Retail Theft.

It's a coalition, it's a grassroots effort with Ron Freitas, our DA, our Stockton PD, our City Council, our Board of Supervisors, our sheriff, and all of our security officers, our security companies that are in chamber membership, getting together, looking at putting together new ways of communicating out there, increasing the reporting by developing an app for your phone so it makes it easy to report the crimes. One of the biggest things the DA is advocating for is you need a report in order to prosecute.

So I'm here. We're a resource.

Thank you very much. If you can drop off your card with our staff, we'd be happy to follow up. Thank you.

I'm a little on the short side. Sorry. Hello. My name is Catherine Osano. I am a community Member and a program manager for the SHIELDS for Families Jericho Program that provides intensive case management services to individuals that have been impacted by the justice system.

I have worked serving the re-entry population for 12 years. Six of those years working to provide services utilizing Prop 47 funds that have proven to reduce property crime because they invest in services that provide access to health care, homelessness, mental health, substance abuse, employment, education, and violence intervention services. These services have strengthened public safety by reducing the likelihood of crimes being committed because they engage in the services that help address the root cause of incarceration.

When people have access to these services, such as employment support or career advancement opportunities, they are less likely to turn to committing crimes such as the retail crime.

Thank you so much. Thank you for being here.

Hi, my name is Daniel Trautfield. I'm a longtime LA resident and I work for the Felony Murder Project. I just want to say that I really appreciate this Committee's commitment to balance and smart solutions here, but I'm worried that passing any legislation this year, given the fact that this Committee acknowledges that there isn't really enough data to actually substantiate some of the problems that are being brought, is a little too soon and a little too rushed.

I'd also like to remind the Committee that this is all happening in the context of soaring profits at big box retailers across the state and across the United States. While they cut retailers, I mean, while they cut employees and staff, and just want to make sure that that's also acknowledged as we move forward in policy decisions.

I'd also like to finally say that there are a bunch of community organizers and people who have pushed very hard for criminal justice reform in our state, and those people are experts. And I'd like to encourage this Committee to meet with those people as they move forward over the next couple of years.

Yeah, and we have been meeting with them, but thank you. Great. Appreciate it.

Good morning. Thank you. My name is Bea Dieringer, and I'm the President of the LA County Division for the League of California Cities, representing 86 cities. And I'm also a 43 year veteran of the La County District Attorney's office. So I would like to say that the problem of retail theft is the worst it's ever been in our county. And for the sake of time, I'm going to quickly go through some recommendations.

In my opinion, we need to bring back petty theft with a prior. Two, we need to the ability to aggregate petty theft amounts from multiple retail stores for repeat offenders. Three, we need to change the law to allow police to arrest for a felony even when the theft was not committed in their presence, when there's probable cause. And four, for retail thieves who are drug addicted.

We need to have strong accountability model for drug programs where individuals are prescreened by the prosecution and program staff and quickly brought back into the criminal justice system when they fail to comply with program rules.

We're available as a resource and look forward to working with.

Thank you.

Thank you. We'd love to get your recommendations in writing. Thank you.

Mr. Chair Members, I'm Juliana Voris, on behalf of the League of California Cities. Really appreciate this hearing and you listening to the community. Cal Cities does want to address retail theft, but we also don't want to go back to the days of mass incarceration. So we know we have to thread this needle. We are part of a broad coalition of business, local government, law enforcement that is trying to approach this in a comprehensive way and not piecemeal.

Addressing organized retail theft is great, but it's not going to address the whole bucket of issues that we're having, which has created this problem and really appreciate and look forward to working with the Committee in the future. Thank you.

Thank you for being here. Thank you.

Hi all. Thank you for holding this Committee. My name is Stephen Post. I am a resident of West Hollywood and also a Communications Manager with Last Prisoner Project. First, I wanted to thank Assembly Member Bonta for all of her work on our Bill, AB 176. That has helped cleared plenty of records in California as it relates to cannabis.

Over 50% of those that were still held up, but there's still at least 13,000 records still to be cleared that we're working with the DOJ to make sure that happens and appreciate all the work there. And I think it's just to be said these instances have affected the cannabis industry greatly as well.

And any advocacy that the state and folks can do to continue to help legalize cannabis and provide funding for reentry mechanisms like those that we provide, including basic income to folks that are returning from prison, would be greatly appreciated. And thanks for the advocacy.

Thank you for being here.

Hi, my name is Bryan Ziadie. I'm a Westside resident. I'm also a member of the LA Chapter of Critical Resistance, and I'm someone who's lost a family member to police violence at a very young age.

So that's part of the reason I'm in this organization which challenges the use of prisons and policing for the management of social inequities. As many of the panelists pointed out today, it's truly one of the stakes of the hearing which is shaping the narrative around retail theft, is to kind of inform the decision about how to manage these social inequities.

So it's truly alarming that this is coming into the new year where the proposed budget sees increases, looking like increases, for prisons and placing coming after 2023, which was a record setting year for police violence. The violence mapping project finds that there are 1200 people killed by US police, and this is like an average of three people per day. So in terms of retail theft, think about people like Tamie Wilson, Banko Brown, Amanda Buse. These are people who died because of theft allegations.

So I'm urging Assemblymember Kevin McCarty to keep this in mind, to hold on to this, because these narratives can be life destroying. The solution to the problem, to retail theft is also the solution to the budget deficit that everyone is talking about. Close prisons, invest in public goods that keep us safe by keeping basic needs met. There are community leaders like Californians United for Responsible Budget that can guide us through this.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon Committee Members. My name is Olivia Gleason and I'm a resident of Long Beach, California, and a member of Californians United for a Responsible Budget, an organization of over 80 grassroots organizations. Speakers and comments today made it clear that there is general agreement that what the state is doing now isn't working. Everyone deserves to be safe and what we are doing now is giving billions to our police and correction systems and facing the ongoing consequences and threats of tough on crime legislation.

As speakers pointed out today, the data is important and the data underscores the effectiveness of addressing root causes over punitive measures. Retail theft is down nationally and in California. This points to the successes of community based interventions. By investing in mental health, housing initiatives, employment, such as raising wages, we are not only reducing crime, but also fostering a stronger, more resilient community, both for our retail worker community and community at large. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Thanks for being here.

Good afternoon Assembly Members. My name is Dax Proctor. I'm a member of Californians United for Responsible Budget or CURB for short. I'd like to use my time today to highlight the very real human cost of over policing. The tragic case of Banko Brown, a young black Trans man and Amanda Buse, who died in custody in an LA County jail, are stark reminders of the dangers of an enforcement driven approach to retail theft.

Banko Brown and Amanda Buse are not isolated incidents, but indicators of a systemic issue that disproportionately affects marginalized communities. We must advocate for a shift towards smart solutions and preventative measures like access to stable housing and employment that address the underlying root causes of theft. We must ensure justice and safety for all community members, business owners and struggling people alike. Thank you.

Thank you for being here.

Good afternoon. Thank you for your time. My name is Dawn. I am with A New Way of Life and the chapter for LA of All of Us or None. I just want to stand here and first and foremost say we do not disregard the struggles that are retail, the losses that they're having. But I also don't want to disregard all the work that we have done in criminal justice reform, 36, 47, 57, and I know a few of you had touched the topic of really looking at the root core of the problem.

And it's not the theft, it's where it's coming from. It's the underhoused, our mental health issues, our drug abuse. And we really need to go back to the core of that and address those issues first. If we don't go to the core, we're never going to get to the end of it. It's just going to continue, continue to grow. So I just thank you for your time.

Thank you for being here.

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Mercy Solorzano with the LA Alliance for a New Economy. Panic around retail theft is a convenient scapegoat used by big corporations to avoid the responsibility for complex issues. We as LAANE urge this Committee to move away from criminalization every problem that has been largely created by corporations. Harsh criminal penalties for shoplifting do not work and disproportionately impact marginalized communities. We firmly oppose this. There are practical solutions to this.

As a former retail employee, I can say retailers have put their employees and customers at greater risk by significantly slashing staffing levels and training. Employers bear the responsibility for creating a safe environment for both staff and customers. Safe staffing levels are a common sense safety solution that can be implemented to prevent retail theft. This includes employers investing in their workplace and implementing minimum staffing at the front of the store. Rolling back Prop 47 is not the solution. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thanks for being here.

Good afternoon. My name is Taina Vargas. I'm with Initiate Justice Action and also a person directly impacted by incarceration I have had several family members who have been impacted by criminalization when actually what they needed was investment in community.

I'm here with two quick recommendations today for this Committee, the first of which is, yes, while we acknowledge that there has been an increase in retail crime over recent years, we think it's really important that we don't blame Prop 47, which is an initiative that is almost 10 years old. What has happened in recent years has been a global pandemic that has resulted in incredible economic and emotional hardship for most of us in California.

And what we need to invest in is rebuilding from the pandemic and investing in our communities and not increasing criminalization. We have soaring cost of living. Food prices have gone up up to 25%, rent is up between 25 and 40% in major cities, and fuel costs have risen up by 28%. The second recommendation that I want to make is that I believe this Committee should prioritize listening to people who are directly impacted by incarceration and finding the solution.

Today we heard a lot from law enforcement and from a small number of service providers. But we should be talking directly to people who are unhoused, who are suffering from substance use disorder, so they can say directly what services are not being met in their communities.

Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Thank you for being here.

Hi there. Shervin Aazami with Initiate Justice Action. Thank you so much to both committees. I want to start by sharing the three recommendations we put forth in our written public comment. One, address wage theft, which is costing Californians 2 billion a year or more. Address the gaps in our social safety net, and address corporate profiteering. In April of last year, the National Retail Federation put out a statistic saying that half of the retail shrink the industry experience was driven by organized retail theft.

A claim that was so outlandish and proven to be fabricated that they retracted it six months later in December. But by that point, the impacts of public perception had already been done. And so how could this happen while those same retailers are openly boasting on their earnings calls of having the highest profit margins ever? How can both those things exist?

Perhaps if, for example, companies like Unilever weren't allowed to increase the cost of a bar of Dove soap by 25% while shrinking it by over an ounce, those thefts would not be happening to begin with. Please invest in real solutions. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. I worked in retail for half of my life, most recently at Saks Fifth Avenue. I'm disturbed by the rhetoric that law enforcement parrots when less than 2% of shoplifting incidents involve another crime and just over 1% involve assault. Scare tactics of violence and fear are a disservice to public safety. The strongest loss prevention is a fully staffed store, a well paid staff that offers great customer service. In my tenure, my teammates and I have prevented countless thefts without fear for our safety.

I've heard no mention about internal theft or customers returning used merchandise, which both contribute to inflation data that's been misattributed to organized retail theft. I urge you to crack down on wage theft and hold big corporations accountable for profiteering. It's not a coincidence that retail theft has spiked over the last couple of years as corporate profits have soared. 50% of recent inflation has been driven by corporate profiteering. Study after study shows that harsher penalties, including priors, will not effectively combat retail theft.

Rather than increasing sentence length or making it easier to charge felonies, we should focus on addressing the reasons people shoplift. The stronger a community is economically, the lower the crime rate is. We must foster crime prevention by strengthening our social safety net in bringing Californians out of poverty.

I apologize, I forgot to introduce myself. My name is Michelle King. I'm a resident of 90015 and I split my time between 94114.

Thank you.

Thank you for being here.

Good afternoon Committee. Thank you so much for being here in Los Angeles. We appreciate and hopefully there's more opportunities quickly. Want to address some of the facts with regards to retail crime.

California has seen an increase within the last few years, even before the pandemic, and it's to the point now where three cities, San Francisco, Sacramento and Los Angeles, are now in the top 10 list of retail and property theft incidences, with Los Angeles being number one for the last five years. So on top of that, we need to make sure that we're addressing the organized crime aspect of it. It has become a lot more sophisticated.

So being able to address these matters with regards to expanding the opportunities to actually conduct prosecution across jurisdictions and across state lines, working with our local partners at the state level, and then also working with the DOJ at the federal level to ensure that we're getting resources as well as personnel to help address these matters, right. We can go ahead and have various sunsets, but we know that crime does not have a sunset itself.

In addition to that, we also want to be able to address the fact that we do not want a return to mass incarceration. But obviously we want to be able to address the concerns with those that are repeat offenders and those that manage, organize, finance, all of these organized crime rings. So with that, yes, thank you so much and look forward to working with you guys.

I shall be brief. Hello, everyone. I am Brian Stamp of the UFCW Local 770 office. Since 2016, I work for the CVS pharmacy, primarily at their 24 hours Hollywood location. I've been witness to much retail theft which can and has led to workplace violence. One particular time, I am working a busy self checkout area alone. Someone enters the store, accuses me of something, hits me and leaves. The stores have a lack of proper staffing. Self checkouts are also an issue. We need more staff and accountability to help create a 100% safe work environment.

Thank you kindly for your time and union power.

Thank you so much.

Hello. Thank you for having us today. My name is Maria Gonzalez. I'm the Legal Support Community Coordinator for Youth Justice Coalition. I am also the founder of Pride in Truth. I am a member of the Reentry Health Advisory Collaborative, RHAC LA County and also LA County Alternatives to Incarceration. I'm here to share a success story. I have a student that was actually charged with retail theft, smash and grab. He was not getting a misdemeanor. He was getting a strike. Three years in prison, first time offender.

After advocating for this student, we were able to manage to get him to a misdemeanor and two year probation. This student is now working as a security guard. He is now going to Compton College, and he is also part of the Youth Justice Coalition Diversion Program where we are actually helping him with his future. There is no reason for us to be giving punitive punishment incarceration to people that actually need further help.

As everyone else has talked about here, and I don't think I need to repeat myself. And furthermore, I want to speak about a tragedy. I will mention her name. Her name is-

Thank you, but could you leave your contact information with our staff so we can follow up with you? Really appreciate that. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Cynthia Meza. I'm with the Youth Justice Coalition. I'm the Legal Clinic Assistant in south central Los Angeles. I am a formerly youth impacted by incarceration. I can speak from experience that incarceration does not help a person. What helps is having the opportunity to change the circumstances leading to the behavior that causes an interaction with the justice system. Solutions we need are more willingness from prosecutor's office when advocates like myself suggest diversion and alternatives to incarceration, criminalizing poverty isn't the answer.

And rolling back Prop 47 isn't the answer. There are more than enough programs willing to help the communities such as my organization. Thank you.

We're only going to take the people that are in line now because we're really running out of time, and I want to give everyone who's in line their full minute. So, we're stopping with the last person in line there. So go ahead.

Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Claire Simonich. I live in Los Angeles and I'm the Associate Director at Vera California. First, in pursuing solutions, the California Legislature must separate fact from fiction. The California Retailers Association has acknowledged that there is no comprehensive and reliable data on theft. What we do know is that shoplifting in California is down 8% from pre-pandemic levels. Second, enacting harsher penalties will not work.

Studies have shown that increasing punishment for repeat offenses does not deter crimes, and instead, these policies would send more black and Latinx people to prison, taking California back to the type of mass incarceration it saw before Prop 47. In terms of solutions, we should have policies in place that make sure people don't need to commit crimes of desperation again, things like New York City's Community Navigator program and the lead program discussed here today should be fully funded.

We should also support local businesses and invest in our workers. As the Lowe's CEO recently explained, the greatest deterrent for any type of theft is effective customer service. And California should support retail workers by ensuring living wages and workplace safety training. Instead of falling back on harsh punishment, California should follow the facts.

Thank you. Thank you for being here.

Hi. Hello, everyone. My name is Jess Farris. I'm an Angeleno and also a Senior Policy Counsel at ACLU SoCal with our criminal justice team. Thank you so much for this opportunity to weigh in today. I echo many others in urging that any action you take on retail theft is one rooted in prevention and investment in true community safety rather than any legislative action that would increase penalties, we don't need additional criminal penalties for retail theft.

What we do need is more investment improvement strategies that will prevent theft, like affordable housing, guaranteed income programs, more lead staffing, and following plans set forth in the Los Angeles County Care First Alternatives to Incarceration roadmap, for example. So we urge you to focus on these real solutions that address the underlying causes of theft. And we look forward to working with you to create a safer, healthier, more just California for all. Thanks.

Thank you for being here.

Good afternoon. My name is Hadir Azab. I'm a resident of Los Angeles. I'm also the Policy Coordinator at the Council on American Islamic Relations - Greater Los Angeles chapter. I'd like to begin by further emphasizing that increasingly penalizing lower level offenses is not sustainable and is extremely harmful to people living in poverty, as well as black and brown communities in which there is continuous misinformation surrounding retail theft, leading to disproportionate reactions.

Robust research shows that even 24 hours in jail is so destabilizing that it makes someone significantly more likely to be rearrested again. And so, rather than pouring investments into incarcerating and criminalizing communities, I ask that this Committee pour their energy into strengthening California's safety net and finding creative solutions to advance public safety. You can do so by investing in workforce development programs, affordable housing, poverty alleviation programming, and other services inclusive of immigrants and refugees. Thank you.

Thank you for being here.

Hi, my name is DeAnna Pittman and I'm here on behalf of the Young Women's Freedom Center. We're a statewide leadership and advocacy organization that works with young girls and trans youth that are system impacted. And I just want to thank you all for holding this conversation. It really sheds lights on the fact that one of the biggest issues that folks in California are struggling with right now is poverty. There's no denying that retail theft is an issue.

But what's also true is that incarceration and other carceral methods are not proven ways to solve the issue. At the Young Women's Freedom Center, we believe that youth have the right to redeem themselves, and we offer redemption through our programs like Transform your Hustle and Beyond Survival. These are two programs that open up doors for youth that have been incarcerated for crimes of poverty and hustling to survive, and also for youth that are on that trajectory to incarceration.

We invite you all to come to us, to learn from us and to see us as experts. We have to stray away from carceral solutions because when you treat someone like a criminal, they're going to act like a criminal. When you treat someone and see someone as a leader and invest in them, then that's what we become, leaders. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Could you leave your card with us so we can contact you? Thank you. Next.

Hi, yes, my name is Ambrose Brooks. I'm a constituent of Assemblymember Zbur and campaign and advocacy manager at Dignity and Power Now, a local grassroots organization fighting for the dignity and power of those directly and indirectly impacted by incarceration and sheriff violence.

First of all, thank you for holding this hearing today here in West Hollywood where you heard from many community members whose lives have been impacted by the overly punitive and racist structures inherent in California's penal code increasing penalties for retail theft will not stop retail theft, it will just widen the net of mass incarceration. We know sentencing enhancements are disproportionately applied to black and Latinx community members, as enhancements are sought more frequently against people of color as compared to white people facing similar charges.

The nation often looks to California as a beacon of progressive values, a state that, "often does the right thing". Don't send California backwards when you're faced with a moment where you can directly invest resources in support for those who need it the most. I have here over 100 letters from LA residents who urged the committees not to roll back Prop 47, not to increase reef tail theft penalties and instead invest in community support systems. Thank you.

Thank you. Please drop the letters off. We'd love to review them. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for doing that.

Hi, my name is Kate McInerny. I'm a resident of LA Assembly District 61 and a researcher at UCLA. I just want to echo the calls of community members who are urging you to not roll back Prop 47.

We've seen time and time again carceral and punitive solutions to these issues that are issues of poverty, issues where people need support systems, and all of the things that community members have named and uplifting those who are most impacted by incarceration and impacted by poverty that need community based solutions which community members have outlined time and time again. So I really appreciate you all taking the time today. Thank you.

Thank you for being here.

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Luz Castro. I am Associate Director of Policy at Inclusive Action for the City. We are leaders in the statewide street vendor campaign and we also work with hundreds of LA County small businesses in making sure that they have access to transformative capital. Today, I'm here to express inclusive actions concerns regarding efforts to expand sentences for shoplifting and retail theft.

We have further learned about efforts to criminalize individuals who might sell stolen goods, which would effectively feed immigrants into the deportation pipeline for simply looking to put food on the table. Rather than advocating for increased policing and extended prison sentences, we strongly urge you to address retail theft by focusing on the following things. First, strengthening California's social safety net. Secondly, addressing the root causes to better understand why people commit crimes in the first place and how limited economic opportunities lead to need driven theft.

Thirdly, resisting fear based punitive measures that don't make our communities safer and cost taxpayers a lot of money each year. California deserves care and investment, not increased incarceration. I hope that you will consider this.

Thank you very much. Thank you for being here.

Good morning, Chair Zbur, Chair McCarty. Eric Henderson, legislative advocate from ACLU California Action. Pleased to join you from Sacramento for this very important hearing. I align my comments with my colleagues from ACLU SoCaL, CSJ, Vera, Initiate Justice, EBC, CURB, Young Women's Freedom Center, and the criminal justice partners that are here and that we're unable to be here today. We need to invest in prevention efforts that identified people's needs and not their risks.

We need to invest in public health approaches like housing, healthcare, education, substance use and mental health treatment. ACLU, as you know, is committed to partnering with the Legislature to address retail theft. And I look forward to seeing you back in Sacramento.

Thanks for traveling to be here.

Good afternoon. My name is James Finney-Conlon. I am a constituent of Chairman Rick Chavez Zebra, and I'm the senior public policy manager for the LA Area Chamber of Commerce. I'm here today representing thousands of small businesses that are impacted by retail theft and organized retail theft. It these issues are affecting consumer confidence in brick and mortar stores and are also impacting small businesses who are today not receiving any resources from the government.

In order to deal with these issues, people are going to ecommerce platforms instead, and a lot of brick and mortar shops are closing because people do not feel safe going in or also shopping. And we need to support a lot of small local businesses. So if they are losing funds, they are able to secure them and they're able to stay open in Los Angeles and continue to bring money back into our neighborhoods. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Thank you for being here.

Hello. My name is Zenia Moreno, and I'm also here with the Young Women's Freedom Center. I wanted to point out that prioritizing the financial interests of corporations is oftentimes diametrically opposed to safety for workers or the public at large. For example, in 2021, the Long Beach City Council ordained a $4 an hour hazard pay increase for grocery store workers who are risking their lives during the height of COVID and Kroger opted instead to shut down the local Ralph's and food for less stores in retaliation.

Meanwhile, corporations are enthusiastic about the criminalization of consumers and do not trust black and brown communities to buy toothpaste if it is not locked up, but are consistently in opposition to regulation of their own practices, regardless of impact. Thank you.

Honorable members, my name is Stanley Thermidor. I am the policy and advocacy strategist with A New Way of Life. We had a lot of good discussion. Know, the thing that stood out most in my mind was the prosecutor who said he had all the tools he needed to actually deal with this issue. So as a black man, the tough on crime narrative, I'm keenly aware of how it disproportionately affect black people and brown people.

When I'm in Porter Ranch visiting a friend, I rarely see the police. When I'm in Watts, I see the police all the time. So when we consider that pre incarceration folks who are incarcerated only make $19,000, that's a big indicator. We spend $120,000 a year to incarcerate a person. While we could spend $80,000 over four years to send them to a CSU and get an education. See, as a taxpayer that's the kind of math that makes sense to me. Thank you.

Thank you so much. And thank you for waiting so long in line. Okay. Thank you all for testifying today. I'd like to actually turn it back to the committee to make closing statements and would like to start with Chair McCarty.

Thank you, Mr. Zbur. My first time in West Hollywood. What's the nickname here?

We hope.

Okay. First time here at Snazzy City Council chambers here. And our job in Sacramento, which is my district, is to write laws to get at it. But our job too is to listen and think. So I think it's important that we're here at the select committee, and as Mr. Alvarez noted, this is our second one, and I know we have others, and concurrently we go through legislative process. So two things happen at, you know, I want to go back to what you said, Mr. Alvarez.

You laid out these two scenarios of throwing the baby out with the bathwater or doing nothing, and our job is to be more nuanced. And so that I think two things can be true. We can have a real concern about retail theft and the remedies and tools we have for communities to address that and also know that Prop 47 did a lot of good in addressing mass incarceration, war on drugs and so forth. So I don't think that they are either or scenarios.

And we are delving into proposals to respond. And I will note that the legislature, the assembly will respond. We won't do nothing this year. Certainly there are outside entities as well trying to respond with a process through the ballot and is their constitutional right. That's occurring as well. But we certainly will be very active and assembly members and I are gathering these ideas, this input. Many of our colleagues have ideas on this as well.

I think there's already more than two dozen bills introduced or will be introduced on this topic. And we're going to kind of get together and kind of bring some of the ideas that we've heard from this select committee process and from just our collective will and move forward. So stay tuned. But thank you and other entities here testifying today and giving us information. But I'll go back to what I said earlier and what my colleague from Grand Terrace asked as well. You know.

When we ask you, what ideas do you have for us? It's not always helpful if you say we don't have any. We ask you here for a reason. And so either you give us ideas, we're going to write them ourselves, and you may not like them. So choose your poison. So help us address these issues. And even if you may not be supportive of some of the proposals, tell us the impacts of how some of these things would play out.

And so we have a legislative process. It's not going to be over at our first committee hearing hearings of these bills in April. It's a multi month process through the summer. So keep engaging with us. Your input is valuable no matter what side of the equation you come on today. But this will be an issue that we're going to take seriously and address in 24. Thank you.

Assembly Member Eloise Gomez.

Thank you. This has been very informative. I appreciate the comments, especially for those of you who stayed till the end to provide your comments. I appreciate those very much. I will continue my discussions back in my district with my retailers, with law enforcement, and with our criminal justice reform organizations. I truly believe we can come up with solutions. And as my colleague said, your input is extremely important, and I hope you believe that and I hope you do participate.

Nothing we do is ever perfect, but the more participation we have from those who are most affected, the better the legislation is. I hope you will work with us.