Struggles to Address Retail Theft and Drug Offenses

The California Legislature has passed a substantial package of bills designed to combat the rising tide of retail theft plaguing the state. This legislative push comes as a potential alternative to Proposition 36, a ballot measure that seeks to overturn Proposition 47, a 2014 law that downgraded specific nonviolent drug and property offenses from felonies to misdemeanors.

This package, a mix of bipartisan bills, aims to address the growing issue of retail theft in California. Lawmakers hope these bills will impede retail theft and satisfy voters concerned about public safety, ultimately swaying support away from the more punitive Proposition 36.

Proposition 36, officially known as the Increase Drug and Theft Penalties and Reduce Homelessness Initiative, seeks to address these concerns by amending Proposition 47.

If passed in the November ballot, it would allow individuals with repeated theft or fentanyl possession convictions to be charged with felonies, potentially leading to prison sentences.

It would also lengthen felony sentences for thefts involving three or more individuals, aiming to deter organized retail theft.

It also introduces a new type of felony called a treatment-mandated felony, which is for certain drug offenses and offers individuals with prior convictions the option of entering court-ordered treatment instead of facing potential jail time.

Successful completion of treatment would result in the felony charge being dismissed, and failure could lead to up to three years in state prison.

Among other changes, the proposition would notify illegal drug distributors that they could be charged with murder for the drug overdose deaths of their clients.

Proposition 47 and its impact on crime in California are at the heart of the struggles to address retail theft and drug offenses.

Passed by voters in 2014, Proposition 47 aimed to reduce prison overcrowding and provide a second chance for nonviolent offenders by reclassifying specific nonviolent drug and property crimes, including shoplifting of goods under $950, as misdemeanors rather than felonies.

While proponents, including Governor Newsom, who is against Proposition 36, argue it has saved the state millions in prison costs and facilitated rehabilitation and mental health programs through its savings, opponents blame it for the perceived rise in crime.

The overall objective of the legislative package is to offer an alternative to the stricter sentencing guidelines proposed by Proposition 36, which otherwise could potentially lead to more people facing prison time for theft and drug offenses.

Select lawmakers who supported the bills in the package also back Proposition 36.

However, unlike Proposition 36, the package is not equipped for drug offenses, likely because it would then act more like the proposition.

Key components of the bill package include, but are not limited to:

• AB 2943 (Retail Theft Reduction Act): The bill creates a new felony charge for possessing stolen merchandise exceeding $950 with intent to resell, with a potential prison sentence of up to three years. It also places responsibility on online marketplaces to ensure the legitimacy of products and requires larger retailers to share data with law enforcement to prevent crime.
• AB 1779: Prosecution becomes complex if a theft occurs across multiple jurisdictions. This bill streamlines the process by allowing district attorneys to prosecute such cases in a single court, facilitating a more cohesive approach to organized retail theft.
• AB 1802: This bill eliminates the sunset clause on the state’s organized retail crime statute, making it a permanent fixture in California law. It ensures the continued operation of the California Highway Patrol’s regional property crimes task force, which focuses on identifying and addressing areas experiencing high property crime levels.
• AB 1845: The bill creates a grant program to support local law enforcement in addressing retail theft. The program provides funding for county district attorneys and law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute individuals involved in receiving stolen goods and criminal profiteering.
• SB 1144: This bill aims to crack down on the online sale of stolen goods by imposing stricter regulations on high-volume third-party sellers, mandating online marketplaces to implement policies against selling stolen goods, and granting local prosecutors the authority to take civil action against marketplaces and individuals involved in online trafficking of stolen goods.

Governor Newsom signed the bills when they reached his office shortluy after their passing.

In June, Newsom proposed a ballot measure meant to compete with Proposition 36 but was quickly withdrawn due to time constraints with making amendments.

According to Capital One Shopping Research, retailers in California lost approximately $8.7 billion in revenue due to theft in 2022.

The stage is now set for a showdown in November, as voters decide between the Legislature’s approach, embodied in these bills, and the more punitive measures proposed in Proposition 36.

In a light manner:

Voting “yes” on Proposition 36 would mean individuals convicted of certain drug or theft crimes could face harsher penalties, including longer prison sentences.

Voting “no” on Proposition 36 would mean that penalties for drug and theft crimes would remain unchanged, aside from the specific punishment changes made by the retail theft bills package.