BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 226|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 226
Author: Alquist (D)
Amended: 6/23/09
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 4/21/09
AYES: Leno, Benoit, Cedillo, Hancock, Huff, Steinberg,
Wright
SENATE FLOOR : 37-0, 4/23/09 (Consent)
AYES: Aanestad, Alquist, Ashburn, Benoit, Calderon,
Cedillo, Cogdill, Corbett, Correa, Cox, Denham,
DeSaulnier, Dutton, Florez, Hancock, Hollingsworth, Huff,
Kehoe, Leno, Liu, Lowenthal, Maldonado, Negrete McLeod,
Oropeza, Padilla, Pavley, Romero, Runner, Simitian,
Steinberg, Strickland, Walters, Wiggins, Wolk, Wright,
Wyland, Yee
NO VOTE RECORDED: Ducheny, Harman
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : Not available
SUBJECT : Identity theft venue: offense committed in
multiple counties
SOURCE : San Francisco County District Attorney
DIGEST : This bill provides that where the same defendant
or defendants commit identity theft crimes in more than one
county, and the crimes are part of a scheme or involve
substantially similar acts, the charges can be tried in a
CONTINUED
SB 226
Page
2
single county.
Assembly Amendments added clarifying language changing
"different counties" to "different jurisdictions."
ANALYSIS : Existing law provides that any person who
falsely personates another is guilty of an alternate
felony-misdemeanor. False personation generally involves
subjecting the person whose identity was assumed to
prosecution, suit, or a debt.
Existing law provides that it is an alternative
felony-misdemeanor for a person to willfully obtain the
personal identifying information of another person and to
use such information to obtain, or attempt to obtain,
credit, goods, or services in the name of the other person
without consent.
Existing law defines "personal identifying information" to
mean name, address, mother's maiden name, place of
employment, date of birth, unique biometric data including
fingerprint, facial scan identifiers, voiceprint, retina or
iris image, or other unique physical representation, unique
electronic data including information identification number
assigned to the person, address or routing code,
telecommunication identifying information or access device,
information contained in a birth or death certificate,
following identifying numbers: telephone, health
insurance, credit card, taxpayer identification, school
identification, state or federal driver's license, state or
federal identification number, social security, employee
identification number, professional or occupational, demand
deposit account, savings account, checking account, PIN or
password, alien registration, government passport, or any
form of identification that is equivalent to those listed
above.
Existing law provides that every person who, with the
intent to defraud, acquires or retains possession of the
personal identifying information of another person, and who
has previously been convicted of a violation of provisions
proscribing identity theft, or who, with the intent to
defraud, acquires or retains possession of the personal
identifying information of 10 or more other persons, shall
SB 226
Page
3
be punished by a fine, by imprisonment in a county jail not
to exceed one year, or by both a fine and imprisonment, or
by imprisonment in the state prison.
Existing law provides that any person who, with intent to
defraud, sells, transfers, or conveys the personal
identifying information of another person shall be punished
by a fine, by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed
one year, or by both a fine and imprisonment, or by
imprisonment in the state prison. Further, any person who,
with actual knowledge that the personal identifying
information of a specific person will be used in violation
of identity theft provisions who sells, transfers, or
conveys that personal identifying information shall be
punished by a fine or by both a fine and imprisonment, or
by imprisonment in the state prison.
Existing law provides that a person who believes that he or
she is the victim of identity theft may initiate an
investigation of the matter by contacting the law
enforcement agency with jurisdiction over the person's
residence or place of business. The victim may then obtain
information from various financial entities concerning the
suspected identity theft incident and may further
investigate the matter, as specified. The victim may
petition a court for an expedited determination of his or
her factual innocence concerning misuse of his or her
identifying information.
Existing law provides that the proper (territorial)
jurisdiction, venue, for a crime is in a court in the
jurisdiction where the crime was committed.
Existing law provides that when a crime is committed partly
in another, trial can be held in either county.
Existing law provides that when a person takes property in
one jurisdiction and brings the property into another
jurisdiction, or a person receives the property in another
jurisdiction, the case can be prosecuted in any of the
jurisdictions. The district attorney can also prosecute in
a contiguous jurisdiction if the defendant is arrested in
that jurisdiction, the defendant waives the right to trial
in the county where the crime was committed, and the
SB 226
Page
4
defendant is charged with one or more property crimes in
the arresting territory.
Existing law provides that charges arising under the
identity theft law can be filed in the county where the
theft of the personal identifying information occurred, or
the county where the information was used illegally. Where
multiple identity theft crimes involving the same defendant
and the same victim occur in multiple jurisdictions, any
one of those jurisdictions is a proper jurisdiction for
trial of all charges.
Existing law provides that where multi-county identity
theft crimes involving the same defendants and the same
victim are filed in a single county, the court shall hold a
hearing to determine if that county is the proper place for
trial, or whether some charges should be "severed" and
filed in another county. The prosecutor shall present
evidence that the prosecutors in the other counties where
the crimes have occurred agree to prosecution in the county
where the case was filed. The court shall consider
availability of evidence, fairness to parties and
convenience to witnesses in making this determination.
Existing law provides that venue for trial of identity
theft is also proper in "the county in which the victim
resided at the time the offense was committed?." The court
shall consider availability of evidence, fairness to
parties and convenience to witnesses in making this
determination.
This bill provides that where identity theft crimes
committed by the same defendant or defendants occurred in
multiple jurisdictions and the crimes involve the same
scheme or substantially similar activity, then any of those
jurisdictions is a proper jurisdiction for all of the
offenses. Jurisdiction also extends to all associated
offenses connected together in their commission to the
underlying identity theft offenses.
This bill requires the court to consider whether or not the
offenses involved substantially similar activity or the
same scheme when making the above decision.
SB 226
Page
5
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/30/09)
San Francisco County District Attorney (source)
Association of California Insurance Companies
California Bankers Association
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California District Attorneys Association
California Financial Services
California Retailers Association
Consumer Federation of California
Consumers Union
Crime Victims United of California
First Data
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Property Casualty Insurers Association of America
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office:
Under existing law prosecutors are unable to
consolidate a series of related criminal activity
involving multiple victims in more than one county.
This also greatly hampers a defendant's ability to
resolve all related cases with one disposition.
Complex identity theft schemes involving numerous
victims in multiple counties are increasingly common.
County prosecutors do not have jurisdiction to charge
offenders with all of the crimes in one criminal
scheme if there are different victims in different
counties.
Law enforcement needs the ability to swiftly hold
these offenders accountable for the full scope of
their actions. It is also costly and redundant to
transport defendants from one county to another to
prosecute each victim's case.
An example from a recent San Francisco case: a
defendant committed 24 acts of identity theft, all at
SB 226
Page
6
Commercial Bank branches, victimizing different people
in Los Angeles, San Jose, San Francisco and
Sacramento. San Francisco prosecutors could only
charge the 5 incidents that occurred in San Francisco.
The other impacted counties will have to charge the
defendant separately, if they choose to do so. The
defendant is reluctant to plead guilty when charges in
other counties may be pending where a plea in SF could
be used as evidence in a different case, and victims
in other counties may never get restitution if other
counties do not pick up the case.
Notably, the proposed change in the law will benefit
the prosecution and the defendant alike. Law
enforcement benefits by (1) not having to conduct
duplicitous investigations in numerous counties, and
(2) the ability to try all cases at once rather than
having several similar trials in multiple counties.
The defendant is benefited by the opportunity to
resolve all outstanding criminal liability in one
trial.
RJG:nl 6/30/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****