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.
*************