BILL ANALYSIS AB 1800 Page 1 Date of Hearing: March 23, 2010 Counsel: Kimberly A. Horiuchi ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY Tom Ammiano, Chair AB 1800 (Ma) - As Amended: March 16, 2010 REVISED SUMMARY : Increases the penalty for unlawful rental of a residential dwelling from a misdemeanor punishable by six months in the county jail and/or a fine of up to $1,000 to a straight felony punishable by a term of 16 months, two or three years in state prison. EXISTING LAW : 1)Provides that any person who, without the owner's or owner's agent's consent, claims ownership or claims or takes possession of a residential dwelling for the purpose of renting that dwelling to another is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months, or by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by both such imprisonment and fine. Each violation is a separate offense. [Penal Code Section 602.9(a).] 2)States that any person who, without the owner's or owner's agent's consent, causes another person to enter or remain in any residential dwelling for the purpose of renting that dwelling to another, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months, or by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by both such imprisonment and fine. Each violation is a separate offense. [Penal Code Section 602.9(b).] 3)Defines "grand theft" as any theft where the money, labor, or real or personal property taken is of a value exceeding $400, except as specified. [Penal Code Sections 487(a).] 4)Defines "trespass" as entering any lands, whether unenclosed or enclosed by fence, for the purpose of injuring any property AB 1800 Page 2 or property rights or with the intention of interfering with, obstructing, or injuring any lawful business or occupation carried on by the owner of the land, the owner's agent or by the person in lawful possession. [Penal Code Section 602(k)] FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown COMMENTS : 1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "As the State grapples with record foreclosures, more and more families are struggling to keep a roof over their heads. As more families look at rental options, a wake of housing-related crimes has erupted throughout California. Scam artists, hoping to prey on potential renters, pose as landlords or as owners of a property, and post attractive rental listings of abandoned homes on the internet. An unsuspecting renter meets with the imposter, is handed keys, and is asked to pay large cash deposit, completely unaware that he or she is about to become a victim of real estate fraud. Bank agents, realtors, or the true property owner later arrive at the residence, and the renter is forced to leave the property, losing possibly thousands of dollars of savings, and left with nowhere else to live. "Under current law, individuals posing as landlords are only guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of no more than $1000 and/or 6 months of jail time. Under Penal Code 602.9, a thief could walk away with a slap on the wrist, and leave a family homeless. With the State's record foreclosures and economic downturn, more and more scammers are taking advantage of innocent people during these difficult times. AB 1800 will simply enhance the current misdemeanor crime of posing as a landlord to a felony." 2)Penal Code Section 602.9 : This section of law was passed by the Legislature in 1998 and has not been amended since. [See AB 583 (Davis), Chapter 193, Statutes of 1998.] The author of AB 538 explained: "Existing law (Civil and Penal Code) does not explicitly outlaw phony adverse possession schemes. Therefore, rental companies are fraudulently renting out unoccupied houses belonging to others. These schemes work as follows: an unscrupulous rental company breaks in and changes the locks on a house that AB 1800 Page 3 is temporarily vacant because of pending foreclosure action. The rental company then advertises for 'house-sitters' to rent the house. The rental company uses the pretext of claiming the house under the state's obscure 1872 adverse possession statute - which permits unused real property to be claimed by a willing user through squatters' rights - to convince the unwitting house-sitters to pay rent under suspicious circumstances. The phony rental company skims all the rent for itself, paying nothing to the true owner or the lender with a lien interest. "Despite the state's economic recovery, there are still thousands of homes subject to foreclosure action. As reported in the December 2, 1997 edition of the Sacramento Bee, foreclosures are expected to reach record levels throughout the state this year and the next. As a result, the phony adverse possession scheme, which has been a growing problem affecting Los Angeles and Orange Counties, is expected to move to San Diego. Law enforcement agencies generally are reluctant to intervene under present trespass laws because they view adverse possession claims as a civil issue rather than a criminal activity that can be prosecuted under the State's unlawful trespass laws." Similar to 1998, California currently faces record foreclosures. It seems clear that the intent of the original legislation was to criminalize the process of adverse possession by occupancy in which the adverse possessor enters the property and attempts to acquire ownership by placing tenants in the home. Previous to this section, any action to restore ownership would be filed in civil court. This bill proposes to increase the penalty for adverse possession by occupancy from a six month misdemeanor to a straight felony punishable by a term of 16 months, two or three years in state. 3)Adverse Possession : Adverse possession is a method of acquiring title to real property by possession for a statutory period of time under certain conditions such as a non-permissive use of the land with a claim of right when that use is continuous, exclusive, hostile, open and notorious. A person may establish actual possession of a parcel of land under a claim of right if the property has been protected by a substantial enclosure or cultivated or improved in the usual manner. Only the land that is actually possessed by means of enclosure, cultivation, or improvement may be claimed by AB 1800 Page 4 adverse possession. [Code of Civil Procedure Section 324; Gray vs. Walker (1910) 157 Cal. 381, 384.] Prior to 1998, the adverse claimant need not personally occupy or reside on the property. An adverse claimant in possession of a structure, who thereafter rents and manages the structure for five years, has been held to adequately possess the property to perfect title by adverse possession. [People vs. Lapcheske (1999) 73 Cal.App. 4th 571, 573.] However, as noted above, AB 538 prohibited renting property without the owner's consent, meaning that the adverse possessor would have to acquire good title before he or she could rent the property. Also, the defendant may be charged with theft if he or she receives money for rent where the defendant misrepresents his ownership. If the rent received is more than $400, then the defendant may be charged with grand theft which is punishable as an alternate felony/misdemeanor. 4)Trespass : "Trespass" is defined, inter alia, as entering any lands, whether unenclosed or enclosed by fence, for the purpose of injuring any property or property rights or with the intention of interfering with, obstructing, or injuring any lawful business or occupation carried on by the owner of the land, the owner's agent or by the person in lawful possession. [Penal Code Section 602(k).] Although adverse possession may be a lawful manner of acquiring ownership, it is trespassing and may be punished accordingly. [See Lapcheske at 575.] 5)Concerns for Prison Overcrowding : The California Policy Research Center (CPRC) issued a report on the status of California's prisons. The report stated, "California has the largest prison population of any state in the nation, with more than 171,000 inmates in 33 adult prisons, and the state's annual correctional spending, including jails and probation, amounts to $8.92 billion. Despite the high cost of corrections, fewer California prisoners participate in relevant treatment programs than comparable states, and its inmate-to-officer ratio is considerably higher. While the nation's prisons average one correctional officer to every 4.5 inmates, the average California officer is responsible for 6.5 inmates. Although officer salaries are higher than average, their ranks are spread dangerously thin and there is a severe vacancy rate." [Petersilia, Understanding California Corrections, CPRC (May 2006).] California's prison population will likely exceed 180,000 by 2010. AB 1800 Page 5 According to the Little Hoover Commission, "Lawsuits filed in three federal courts alleging that the current level of overcrowding constitutes cruel and unusual punishment ask that the courts appoint a panel of federal judges to manage California's prison population. United States District Judge Lawrence Karlton, the first judge to hear the motion, gave the State until June 2007 to show progress in solving the overpopulation crisis. Judge Karlton clearly would prefer not to manage California's prison population. At a December 2006 hearing, Judge Karlton told lawyers representing the Schwarzenegger administration that he is not inclined 'to spend forever running the state prison system.' However, he also warned the attorneys, 'You tell your client June 4 may be the end of the line. It may really be the end of the line.' "Despite the rhetoric, thirty years of 'tough on crime' politics has not made the state safer. Quite the opposite: today thousands of hardened, violent criminals are released without regard to the danger they present to an unsuspecting public. Years of political posturing have taken a good idea - determinate sentencing - and warped it beyond recognition with a series of law passed with no thought to their cumulative impact. And these laws stripped away incentive s for offenders to change or improve themselves while incarcerated. "Inmates, who are willing to improve their education, learn a job skill or kick a drug habit find that programs are few and far between, a result of budget choices and overcrowding. Consequently, offenders are released into California communities with the criminal tendencies and addictions that first led to their incarceration. They are ill-prepared to do more than commit new crimes and create new victims . . . . " [Little Hoover Commission Report, Solving California's Corrections Crisis: Time is Running Out (2007), pg. 1, 2.] On January 12, 2010, the Three Judge Panel issued its final ruling ordering the State of California to reduce its prison population by approximately 50,000 inmates in the next two years. [Coleman/Plata vs. Schwarzenegger (2010) No. Civ S-90-0520 LKK JFM P/NO. C01-1351 THE.] Although this order is stayed pending appeal to the United States Supreme Court, careful consideration must be given to any proposal that exacerbates prison overcrowding. AB 1800 Page 6 6)Three Strikes : Because this bill expands the definition of an existing felony, a person may be sentenced to a term of 25-years-to-life for adverse possession by occupancy, as specified. Under "Three Strikes," any felony conviction, not just a serious or violent felony conviction, following a violent or serious prior results in a sentence of twice the normal length. With any two violent or serious felony priors, a new conviction for any felony - including writing bad checks, petty theft with a prior, etc. - results in a life sentence. Thus, the Three Strikes Law makes no distinction in severity between different felonies. This explains why creating a new felony involves very weighty and severe consequences. Where a Three Strikes defendant is convicted of two counts of theft not committed on one occasion or arising from the same facts, he or she must receive two consecutive terms of 25-years-to-life. For many defendants, such a sentence means that they will never be released from prison. Although it may be argued that a defendant may always file a motion to dismiss a strike under People vs. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, filing such a motion hardly means that a defendant will be successful especially when the Legislature sees fit to create a new felony. Simply passing the responsibility to the courts is irresponsible. People vs. Romero is rooted in Penal Code Section 1385, which allows a judge to "strike a strike, in the interest of justice", meaning dismiss one of the prior strikes for purposes of sentencing under the Three-Strikes Law. Courts will look at a number of factors to decide if dismissal for purposes of sentencing is appropriate, including if the defendant has lived a crime-free or relatively crime-free life between the second and third offense. [People vs. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367.] Living a crime-free life usually includes not committing any misdemeanors. A defendant who has a record of misdemeanors between strikes will likely be unsuccessful. A denial of an invitation to dismiss under Penal Code Section 1385 is reviewed by appellate courts pursuant to an abuse of discretion standard, which is extremely difficult to show. [People vs. Superior Court (Alvarez) (1997) 14 Cal.4th 9680.] Therefore, it should provide little comfort to the Legislature that a defendant may make this very often, unsuccessful motion to avoid being sentenced to 25-years-to-life on a non-violent third strike. Does it make sense to expose a person to a term of 25-years-to-life for what is currently a misdemeanor AB 1800 Page 7 punishable by six months in the county jail? 7)Arguments in Support : According to the California State Sheriffs' Association , "As the State grapples with record foreclosures, more and more families are struggling to keep a roof over their heads. As more families look at renting, a wake of house-related crimes have erupted throughout California. Under current law, individuals posing as landlords are only guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of no more than $1000 and/or six months in the county jail. These crimes should be grand theft, but PC 602.9 applies and the thief walks away leaving the family homeless. AB 1800 will enhance the current misdemeanor crime of posing as a landlord to a felony. Renters and new homeowners should have a sense of security that a person handing over the keys is not an imposter. " 8)Arguments in Opposition : According to the American Civil Liberties Union , "Current law makes the unlawful rental of residential property a misdemeanor. Current law also permits felony charges if the defendant obtains rent exceeding $400. We perceive little justification to making all these cases felonies. Imposing new or stiffer felony penalties for this or any other crime simply exacerbates the current prison overcrowding crisis. It also implicates the Three Strikes Law. The current penalties for these acts are sufficient to punish the individuals for those offenses." 9)Prior Legislation : AB 583 (Davis), Chapter 193, Statutes of 1998, provided that claiming ownership or claiming or taking possession of, or causing another to enter or remain in, a residential dwelling for the purpose of renting or leasing the dwelling to another without the consent of the owner or the owner's lawful agent is a misdemeanor punishable, as specified. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support Alameda County Sheriff's Office California Apartment Association California Association of Realtors California Correctional Supervisors Organization California Peace Officers' Association AB 1800 Page 8 California State Sheriffs' Association Crime Victims United Mariposa County Sheriff's Office Mono County Sheriff's Office Office of the Sheriff, Santa Barbara County Office of the Sheriff, Shasta County San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office Western Center on Law and Poverty Yolo County Sheriff's Department Opposition American Civil Liberties Union Legal Services for Prisoners with Children Friends Committee on Legislation Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Horiuchi / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744