BILL NUMBER: AB 1773 CHAPTERED
BILL TEXT
CHAPTER 908
FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE SEPTEMBER 26, 2002
APPROVED BY GOVERNOR SEPTEMBER 25, 2002
PASSED THE ASSEMBLY AUGUST 28, 2002
PASSED THE SENATE AUGUST 27, 2002
AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 22, 2002
AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 14, 2002
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 20, 2002
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Wayne
JANUARY 9, 2002
An act to amend Section 786 of the Penal Code, relating to
identity theft.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 1773, Wayne. Crime.
Existing law provides with respect to certain property crimes that
occur in one jurisdictional territory and the property is taken to
another jurisdictional territory, that jurisdiction of the offense is
any court within either of those 2 jurisdictional territories or any
contiguous territory, as specified.
This bill would also provide that the jurisdiction of a criminal
action for unauthorized use of the personal identifying information
of another is the county where the theft occurred or where the
information was illegally used, and if multiple offenses of
unauthorized use of personal identifying information occur in
multiple jurisdictions, as specified, any one of those jurisdictions
is a proper jurisdiction for all of the offenses.
This bill would provide that a court in which a complaint alleging
multiple offenses of unauthorized use of personal identifying
information occurring in multiple territorial jurisdictions has been
filed shall hold a hearing to consider whether the matter should
proceed in the county of filing or whether one or more counts should
be severed, as specified. This bill would require the district
attorney filing the complaint to present evidence to the court that
the district attorney in each county where any of the charges could
have been filed has agreed that the matter should proceed in the
county of filing. Because this bill would increase the duties of
prosecutors, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
This bill would state findings and declarations of the Legislature
with respect to the effect of these provisions in reducing the
number of separate prosecutions, which would, in turn, produce a cost
savings to local governments and the courts.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 786 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
786. (a) When property taken in one jurisdictional territory by
burglary, carjacking, robbery, theft, or embezzlement has been
brought into another, or when property is received in one
jurisdictional territory with the knowledge that it has been stolen
or embezzled and the property was stolen or embezzled in another
jurisdictional territory, the jurisdiction of the offense is in any
competent court within either jurisdictional territory, or any
contiguous jurisdictional territory if the arrest is made within the
contiguous territory, the prosecution secures on the record the
defendant's knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of the right
of vicinage, and the defendant is charged with one or more property
crimes in the arresting territory.
(b) (1) The jurisdiction of a criminal action for unauthorized use
of personal identifying information, as defined in Section 530.5 of
the Penal Code, shall also include the county where the theft of the
personal identifying information occurred, or the county where the
information was used for an illegal purpose. If multiple offenses of
unauthorized use of personal identifying information, all involving
the same defendant or defendants and the same personal identifying
information belonging to the one person, occur in multiple
jurisdictions, any one of those jurisdictions is a proper
jurisdiction for all of the offenses.
(2) When charges alleging multiple offenses of unauthorized use of
personal identifying information occurring in multiple territorial
jurisdictions are filed in one county pursuant to this section, the
court shall hold a hearing to consider whether the matter should
proceed in the county of filing, or whether one or more counts should
be severed. The district attorney filing the complaint shall
present evidence to the court that the district attorney in each
county where any of the charges could have been filed has agreed that
the matter should proceed in the county of filing. In determining
whether all counts in the complaint should be joined in one county
for prosecution, the court shall consider the location and complexity
of the likely evidence, where the majority of the offenses occurred,
the rights of the defendant and the people, and the convenience of,
or hardship to, the victim and witnesses.
(c) This section shall not be interpreted to alter victims' rights
under Section 530.6.
SEC. 2. The Legislature finds and declares that this measure is
intended to reduce the number of separate prosecutions, which will,
in turn, produce a cost savings to local governments and the courts.
SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because
this act provides for offsetting savings to local agencies or school
districts that result in no net costs to the local agencies or school
districts, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government
Code.