BILL ANALYSIS SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY Senator Mark Leno, Chair A 2009-2010 Regular Session B 2 3 7 AB 2372 (Ammiano) 2 As Amended March 11, 2010 Hearing date: June 29, 2010 Penal Code JM:dl GRAND THEFT - THRESHOLD AMOUNT HISTORY Source: American Civil Liberties Union; California Attorneys for Criminal Justice Prior Legislation: ABx3 14 (Arambula) - 2009, died on the Assembly Floor AB 2705 (Goldberg) - 2003-04, vetoed Support: California Coalition for Women Prisoners; California Public Defenders Association; Friends Committee on Legislation; SEIU Local 1000; Legal Services for Prisoners with Children Opposition:California Grocers Association Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 44 - Noes 30 KEY ISSUE (More) AB 2372 (Ammiano) PageB SHOULD THE THRESHOLD VALUE FOR GRAND THEFT BE RAISED FROM $400, AS THAT AMOUNT WAS SET IN 1982, TO $950? PURPOSE The purpose of this bill is to raise the general value threshold for grand theft from $400, as that value was set in 1982, to $950. Existing law provides that theft occurs where a person does any of the following: Steals, takes ? or drives away the personal property of another; Fraudulently appropriates property which has been entrusted to him or her; Knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defrauds another person of money, labor or personal or real property; Causes or procures others to report falsely of his or her wealth or mercantile character and by thus imposing upon any person, obtains credit and thereby fraudulently gets or obtains possession of money, or property or obtains the labor or service of another. (Penal Code 484.) Existing law generally provides that theft is a misdemeanor where the value of the property, labor or services involved in the theft does not exceed $400. Theft is grand theft - an alternate felony-misdemeanor - where the value of the property, labor, or services involved in the theft exceeds $400. Specified exceptions, with a lower threshold amount for grand theft, apply to certain kinds of property, such as avocados and shellfish. (Pen. Code 487.) Existing law defines "grand theft" as any theft where the money, labor, or real or personal property taken or when the property (More) AB 2372 (Ammiano) PageC is taken from the person of another is of a value exceeding $400. [Penal Code Sections 487(a) and 487(c).] Existing law provides that grand theft is committed when the money, labor, or real or personal property taken is of a value in excess of $400, except as specified. (Pen. Code 487, subd. (a).) Existing law (Pen. Code 487, subd. (b) provides that notwithstanding the value of the property taken, grand theft is committed in any of the following cases: When domestic fowls, avocados, or other farm crops are taken of a value exceeding $250; When fish or other aquacultural products are taken from a commercial or research operation that is producing that product of a value exceeding $250; Where money, labor or property is taken by a servant or employee from his or her principal and aggregates $950 or more in any consecutive 12-month period; When the property is taken from the person of another; or, When the property taken is, among other things, an automobile, horse or firearm. Existing law provides that if the grand theft of a firearm is a straight felony, punishable by imprisonment in state prison for 16 months, 2 or 3 years. (Pen. Code 489.) Existing law provides that in all cases other than theft of a firearm, grand theft is punishable by imprisonment in county jail for not more than one year or in the state prison. (Pen. Code 489.) Existing law provides that theft in other cases is petty theft. (Pen. Code 488.) Existing law states that petty theft is punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000; by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months; or both. (Pen. Code 490.) (More) AB 2372 (Ammiano) PageD Existing law provides that any person who enters specified buildings, including a vehicle, railroad car, locked or sealed cargo container, whether or not mounted on a vehicle, with intent to commit grand or petty theft or any felony is guilty of a burglary. (Pen. Code 459.) This bill increases the threshold amount that constitutes grand theft from $400 to $950, unless a more specific provision applies. RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION The severe prison overcrowding problem California has experienced for the last several years has not been solved. In December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sought a court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a federal three-judge panel issued an order requiring the state to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design capacity -- a reduction of roughly 40,000 inmates -- within two years. In a prior, related 184-page Opinion and Order dated August 4, 2009, that court stated in part: "California's correctional system is in a tailspin," the state's independent oversight agency has reported. . . . (Jan. 2007 Little Hoover Commission Report, "Solving California's Corrections Crisis: Time Is Running Out"). Tough-on-crime politics have increased the population of California's prisons dramatically while making necessary reforms impossible. . . . As a result, the state's prisons have become places "of extreme peril to the safety of persons" they house . . . (Governor Schwarzenegger's Oct. 4, 2006 Prison Overcrowding State of Emergency Declaration), while contributing little to the safety of California's residents . . . California "spends more on corrections than most countries in the world," but the state "reaps fewer public safety benefits." . . . . Although California's existing prison system serves (More) AB 2372 (Ammiano) PageE neither the public nor the inmates well, the state has for years been unable or unwilling to implement the reforms necessary to reverse its continuing deterioration. (Some citations omitted.) . . . The massive 750% increase in the California prison population since the mid-1970s is the result of political decisions made over three decades, including the shift to inflexible determinate sentencing and the passage of harsh mandatory minimum and three-strikes laws, as well as the state's counterproductive parole system. Unfortunately, as California's prison population has grown, California's political decision-makers have failed to provide the resources and facilities required to meet the additional need for space and for other necessities of prison existence. Likewise, although state-appointed experts have repeatedly provided numerous methods by which the state could safely reduce its prison population, their recommendations have been ignored, underfunded, or postponed indefinitely. The convergence of tough-on-crime policies and an unwillingness to expend the necessary funds to support the population growth has brought California's prisons to the breaking point. The state of emergency declared by Governor Schwarzenegger almost three years ago continues to this day, California's prisons remain severely overcrowded, and inmates in the California prison system continue to languish without constitutionally adequate medical and mental health care.<1> --------------------------- <1> Three Judge Court Opinion and Order, Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, Plata v. Schwarzenegger, in the United States District Courts for the Eastern District of California and the Northern District of California United States District Court composed of three judges pursuant to Section 2284, Title 28 United States Code (August 4, 2009). (More) AB 2372 (Ammiano) PageF The court stayed implementation of its January 12, 2010 ruling pending the state's appeal of the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. On Monday, June 14, 2010, The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the state's appeal in this case. This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding crisis described above. (More) COMMENTS 1 Need for This Bill According to the author: Existing law sets the minimum threshold for grand theft at $400. This amount has not been indexed for inflation and has not been adjusted since 1982. Last year, we adjusted the threshold for 39 property crimes but did not adjust grand theft. Grand theft was established as a crime in 1867 for crimes involving more than $50. That figure was first adjusted in 1923 and increased to $200. According to the United States Department of Labor's Consumer Price Index, the $200 threshold established in 1923 if adjusted for inflation would be $2,534 in 2010. The $400 level established in 1982 would be around $900 today. AB 2372 adjusts the threshold amount for the first time in a generation, taking into consideration these inflationary factors, and sets the amount at $950. Leaving the grand theft threshold itself unchanged undermines the impact of the other property crimes adjustment because the crimes could alternatively be charged as grand theft. In 2009, the Department of Corrections estimated savings of $68.4 million dollars for the 2010/11 Budget if all property crimes were adjusted for inflation. Leaving the grand theft threshold unchanged undermines these savings. The Department estimates there will be 2,152 fewer defendants sent to state prison for these property crimes by December 2011 if AB 2732 is enacted into law. (More) 2. Adjusting Grand Theft Value Threshold for Inflation The author's statement notes that the grand theft amount was originally set at $50 in 1872. The amount was raised to $200 in 1923, an amount equal to approximately $2,500 today. This bill raises the threshold from $400 to $950 to reflect the effect of inflation on the threshold since it was set in 1982. Again, as noted by the author, inflation effectively changes the nature of the crime over time, expanding the reach of a felony. In coming years, $950 will likely not reflect the same value of property that it does today. The Legislature should perhaps consider including a provision in the grand theft law that directs the Legislature to review the effect of inflation on the threshold value for grand theft on a regular basis, such as at the end of each 10-year period. SHOULD THE LEGISLATURE CONSIDER REGULAR REVIEW OF THE THRESHOLD VALUE FOR GRAND THEFT SO AS TO REFLECT INFLATION? 3. Related Legislation SBX3 18 (Ducheny), Chapter 28, Statutes of 2009, increased the threshold amount for thefts of specified agricultural goods and specified aquacultural products from $100 to $250. SBx3 18 also increased the threshold amount of thefts of money, labor, or real or personal property taken by an agent, servant, or employee from $400 to $950. Provisions equivalent to those in this bill were contained in AB x3 14 (Arambula), which died on the Assembly Floor. 4. Legislation from Prior Sessions AB 2705 (Goldberg), of the 2003-04 Legislative Session, would have increased the threshold for grand theft from $400 to $1,000 and the threshold amount for specified thefts from $100 to $250. AB 2705 was vetoed. (More) AB 2372 (Ammiano) PageI AB 2668 (DeVore), of the 2007-08 Legislative Session, would have included theft or vandalism of fire equipment within the definition of grant theft. AB 2668 failed passage in this Committee. AB 2827 (Runner), Ch. 105, Stats. 2008, added defrauding a public housing authority to the definition of grand theft. *************