BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó







                      SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
                            Senator Loni Hancock, Chair              A
                             2011-2012 Regular Session               B

                                                                     3
                                                                     9
                                                                     1
          AB 391 (Pan)                                                
          As Amended April 18, 2012 
          Hearing date:  May 8, 2012
          Business and Professions Code (URGENCY)
          JM:mc

                          SECONDHAND DEALERS AND PAWN SHOPS:

                              FEES TO SUPPORT SYSTEM OF

                        ELECTRONIC REPORTING OF TRANSACTIONS


                                        HISTORY

          Source:  Attorney General

          Prior Legislation: SB 1520 (Schiff) - Ch. 994, Stats. 2000
                       SB 1893 (Burton) - failed in Assembly Business and 
          Professions, 2004
                       SCR 63 (Yee) - Reso. Ch. 16., Stats. 2010

          Support: National Federation of Independent Business; California 
                   Farm Bureau Federation; Broadway Jewelry and Pawn, San 
                   Diego; California Pawnbrokers Association; California 
                   Peace Officers Association; California State Sheriffs' 
                   Association; Capital City Loan and Jewelry; Bell 
                   Gardens Police Department; Fresno Police Department; 
                   Los Angeles County Sheriff; Novato Police Department; 
                   Santa Ana Police Department; Santa Barbara Police 
                   Department; Peace Officers Research Association of 
                   California; Royal Loan; San Diego County Chiefs' and 
                   Sheriff's Association; San Diego Jewelry and Loan; 




                                                                     (More)







                                                               AB 391 (Pan)
                                                                      PageB

                   Trader Stan's Pawn Shop; Westminster Jewelry and Loan

          Opposition:Antiques by the Bay, Inc.; California Coin and 
                   Bullion Merchants Association (unless amended); AdvoCal 
                   (unless amended); California Alliance of Resale 
                   Merchants and Collectors (unless amended)

          Assembly Floor Vote:  No longer relevant



                                         KEY ISSUE
           
          SHOULD THE CURRENTLY UNFUNDED SYSTEM FOR ELECTRONIC REPORTING OF 
          TRANSACTIONS IN PAWNED AND SECONDHAND GOODS BE IMPLEMENTED THROUGH 
          FUNDING OF THE SYSTEM BY FEES PAID BY PAWNBROKERS AND SECONDHAND 
          PROPERTY DEALERS?


                                       PURPOSE

          The purpose of this bill is to implement the currently unfunded 
          system for electronic reporting of transactions in pawned and 
          secondhand goods through fees from secondhand property dealers 
          and pawnbrokers.

          Secondhand Dealers and Pawn Generally
          
           Existing law  includes a statement of legislative intent to 
          curtail the dissemination of stolen property, to facilitate the 
          recovery of stolen property and to detect possible sales tax 
          evasion by means of a uniform, statewide, state-administered 
          program of regulation of persons whose principal business is 
          dealing in tangible personal property, as specified.  (Bus. & 
          Prof. Code § 21625; Fin. Code § 21051.)

           Existing law  includes legislative intent that reports of 
          transactions in pawned and secondhand property should be 
          correlated with law enforcement reports so as to trace and 
          recover stolen property.  (Bus. & Prof. Code § 21625.)




                                                                     (More)







                                                               AB 391 (Pan)
                                                                      PageC

                    
          Existing law  , for purposes of the system for curtailing 
          dissemination of stolen property, defines a "secondhand dealer" 
          as any person or entity whose business includes buying, selling, 
          trading, taking in pawn, accepting for sale on consignment or 
          auctioning  any "tangible personal property."  (Bus. & Prof. 
          Code § 21625.)
           
          Existing law  defines "tangible personal property" thus:  

                  All secondhand personal property that has a serial 
               number or personalized markings;

                 All tangible property, new or used, taken by a 
               pawnbroker as security for a loan;

                   All tangible personal property commonly sold by 
                secondhand dealers that constitutes a significant class of 
                stolen property.  (Bus. & Prof. Code § 21627, subds. 
                (a)-(b).)
           
          Existing law  provides that tangible personal property does not 
          include new goods purchased by a secondhand dealer from a bona 
          fide manufacturer or distributor.  (Bus. & Prof. Code § 21627, 
          subd. (c).)  

          Existing law  provides that tangible personal property does not 
          include coins, monetized bullion or commercial grade ingots of 
          precious metals.  (Bus. & Prof. Code § 21627, subd. (d).)  

          Existing law  defines a pawnbroker<1> as a "person engaged in the 
          business of receiving goods in pledge for security for a loan."  
          (Fin. Code § 21000.)
           
          Existing law  defines a "coin dealer" as a person or entity 
          "whose principal business is the buying, selling, and trading of 
          coins, monetized bullion, or commercial grade ingots of gold, or 
          ---------------------------
          <1> For purposes of this analysis, the terms pawnbroker and 
          secondhand dealer are used interchangeably.  Secondhand dealers 
          also handle property for consignment sale and resale.



                                                                     (More)







                                                               AB 391 (Pan)
                                                                      PageD

          silver, or other precious metals."  (Bus. & Prof. Code § 21626, 
          subd. (b).)  A coin dealer is not a secondhand dealer, except as 
          concerns transactions in tangible personal property.  (Bus. & 
          Prof. Code § 21626, subd. (a).)
           
          Existing law  includes a statement of legislative intent to 
          require the uniform statewide reporting of transactions in and 
          acquisitions of secondhand and pawned property by pawnbrokers 
          and secondhand dealers.  (Bus. & Prof. Code § 21625; Fin. Code § 
          21051.)
           
          Existing law  provides that pawnbrokers and coin dealers shall 
          report daily on forms approved or provided by the Department of 
          Justice (DOJ), all personal property purchased, taken in trade, 
          taken in pawn, etc., to local law enforcement.  The report shall 
          include the following information: 

                 The name and current address and identification of the 
               intended seller or pledgor of the property; 

                 A complete and reasonably accurate description of 
               serialized or nonserialized property;

                 A certification by the intended seller or pledgor that 
               he or she is the owner of the property, or has the 
               authority of the owner to sell or pledge the property and 
               that any information provide is true and complete, and a 
               legible fingerprint taken from the intended seller or 
               pledgor.  (Bus. & Prof. Code § 21628.)
                
            Existing law  provides the following concerning the 
          identification that must be offered by a pledgor of property in 
          pawn or seller of property:

                 The identification provided by the pledgor shall include 
               a photograph, a description or both, and a signature.

                 The identification shall be verified by the person 
               taking the property.





                                                                     (More)







                                                               AB 391 (Pan)
                                                                      PageE

                 The following forms of identification are acceptable:

                  o         U.S. passport;
                  o         Driver's license issued by any state or 
                    Canada;
                  o         identification card issued by any state;
                  o         identification card issued by the United 
                    States;
                  o         Matricula Consular, in addition to another 
                    form; or
                  o         A passport from any other county, or a 
                    Matricula Consular, in addition to another form of 
                    identification bearing an address.

           Existing law  generally provides that violations of the licensing 
          and reporting requirements for transactions in pawned or 
          (secondhand) tangible personal property are misdemeanors.  (Bus. 
          & Prof. Code § 21645; Fin. Code § 21209.)

          Existing Law on the Electronic Reporting of Transactions by 
          Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers in Tangible Personal Property 

          
           Existing law  requires secondhand dealers, as defined, to make 
          reports to local law enforcement by electronic means about 
          transactions in tangible personal property, as follows:

                 DOJ and local law enforcement agencies, in consultation 
               with representatives from the secondhand dealer and coin 
               dealer businesses, to develop a standard format to be used 
               statewide to transmit a report electronically of all pawned 
               and secondhand property, as follows:

                 Twelve months after the format and the categories have 
               been developed, each secondhand dealer and coin dealer will 
               be required to electronically report using this format the 
               information required by this bill under these reporting 
               categories.

                 Until that time, each secondhand dealer and coin dealer 




                                                                     (More)







                                                               AB 391 (Pan)
                                                                      PageF

               will be allowed to either continue to report this 
               information using existing forms and procedures or may 
               begin electronically reporting this information under the 
               reporting categories and using the format described in this 
               bill as soon as each has been developed.  (Pen. Code § 
               21628, subd. (j).)

           Existing law  requires a coin dealer who engages in less than ten 
          specified transactions each week involving tangible personal 
          property to report the transaction on a paper form developed by 
          DOJ.  The form shall be transmitted each day by facsimile 
          transmission or by mail to the chief of police or sheriff.  A 
          transaction shall consist of not more than one item.  When a 
          coin dealer engages in at least 10 transactions per week, the 
          coin dealers shall report electronically, as with any pawnbroker 
          or secondhand dealer.  (Bus. & Prof. Code § 21628, subd. 
          (j)(B)(3).)



          Implementation of the System of Electronic Reporting of 
          Transactions by Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers in Tangible 
          Personal Property - Payment of a Fee by Licensees
          
           This bill  provides that on the date that DOJ implements the 
          statewide electronic reporting system for pawned or secondhand 
          tangible personal property, each secondhand dealer, pawnbroker 
          or coin dealer shall electronically report applicable 
          transactions, as specified.

           This bill  provides that the duty of a coin dealer to 
          electronically report transactions in tangible personal property 
          shall apply when the coin dealer makes at least 10 transactions 
          per week, and the coin dealer shall otherwise provide reports on 
          paper forms.

           This bill  provides that for 30 days after implementation of the 
          electronic system, dealers shall continue to report on paper 
          forms.





                                                                     (More)







                                                               AB 391 (Pan)
                                                                      PageG

           This bill  provides that DOJ shall charge all secondhand dealers 
          and pawnbrokers a fee for the operation of the electronic 
          reporting system.  

           This bill  provides that the secondhand dealer licensing 
          authority - the sheriff, police chief or police commission as 
          applicable - shall collect the electronic system reporting fee 
          and transmit the fee to DOJ.

           This bill  provides that the secondhand dealer licensing 
          authority may charge a fee, not to exceed actual costs, to 
          process the renewal application. 

           This bill  provides that pawnbrokers shall comply with property 
          transaction reporting requirements imposed on secondhand 
          dealers.

           This bill  provides the following as to the calculation of the 
          electronic reporting system fee: 

                 The fee shall be paid at the time the original license 
               is granted and when the license is renewed every two years.

                 The fee shall be no more than $300 in any event.

                 The fee shall be no more than necessary to reflect the 
               costs of the following:

                  o         Processing of the initial application.
                  o         Processing renewal applications.
                  o         Implementing, operating and maintain the 
                    statewide reporting system. 
            
           This bill  provides that within 120 days of the effective date of 
          this bill, all license holders, as specified, shall pay a fee 
          not to exceed $288 to DOJ.

           This bill  establishes the Secondhand Dealer and Pawnbroker Fund 
          and continuously appropriates money in the fund to DOJ for the 
          implementation, operation, and maintenance of the pawned and 




                                                                     (More)







                                                               AB 391 (Pan)
                                                                      PageH

          secondhand property electronic reporting system.

           This bill  provides that any applicant for a secondhand dealer or 
          pawnbroker shall submit fingerprints and related information 
          required by DOJ for the purpose of determining, pursuant to 
          Penal Code section 11105, subdivision (l) the applicant's 
          criminal record, including convictions and arrests.  Arrest 
          records under this provision do not include charges resulting in 
          exoneration, or successful diversion, or deferred entry of 
          judgment proceedings.

           This bill  directs DOJ to provide subsequent arrest information 
          of the applicant to appropriate local government licensing 
          entities.

           This bill  provides that DOJ shall charge a fee sufficient to 
          cover the costs of the criminal record check process. 

                    RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
                                      ("ROCA")
          
          In response to the unresolved prison capacity crisis, since 
          early 2007 it has been the policy of the chair of the Senate 
          Committee on Public Safety and the Senate President pro Tem to 
          hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate prison 
          overcrowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions.  Under 
          the resulting policy known as "ROCA" (which stands for 
          "Receivership/Overcrowding Crisis Aggravation"), the Committee 
          has held measures which create a new felony, expand the scope or 
          penalty of an existing felony, or otherwise increase the 
          application of a felony in a manner which could exacerbate the 
          prison overcrowding crisis by expanding the availability or 
          length of prison terms (such as extending the statute of 
          limitations for felonies or constricting statutory parole 
          standards).  In addition, proposed expansions to the 
          classification of felonies enacted last year by AB 109 (the 2011 
          Public Safety Realignment) which may be punishable in jail and 
          not prison (Penal Code section 1170(h)) would be subject to ROCA 
          because an offender's criminal record could make the offender 
          ineligible for jail and therefore subject to state prison.  




                                                                     (More)







                                                               AB 391 (Pan)
                                                                      PageI

          Under these principles, ROCA has been applied as a 
          content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that 
          the Legislature does not erode progress towards reducing prison 
          overcrowding by passing legislation which could increase the 
          prison population.  ROCA will continue until prison overcrowding 
          is resolved.

          For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's 
          prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation. 
           On June 30, 2005, in a class action lawsuit filed four years 
          earlier, the United States District Court for the Northern 
          District of California established a Receivership to take 
          control of the delivery of medical services to all California 
          state prisoners confined by the California Department of 
          Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR").  In December of 2006, 
          plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against CDCR sought a 
          court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the 
          federal Prison Litigation Reform Act.  On January 12, 2010, a 
          three-judge federal panel issued an order requiring California 
          to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design 
          capacity -- a reduction at that time of roughly 40,000 inmates 
          -- within two years.  The court stayed implementation of its 
          ruling pending the state's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.  

          On May 23, 2011, the United States Supreme Court upheld the 
          decision of the three-judge panel in its entirety, giving 
          California two years from the date of its ruling to reduce its 
          prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity, subject 
          to the right of the state to seek modifications in appropriate 
          circumstances.  Design capacity is the number of inmates a 
          prison can house based on one inmate per cell, single-level 
          bunks in dormitories, and no beds in places not designed for 
          housing.  Current design capacity in CDCR's 33 institutions is 
          79,650.

          On January 6, 2012, CDCR announced that California had cut 
          prison overcrowding by more than 11,000 inmates over the last 
          six months, a reduction largely accomplished by the passage of 
          Assembly Bill 109.  Under the prisoner-reduction order, the 
          inmate population in California's 33 prisons must be no more 




                                                                     (More)







                                                               AB 391 (Pan)
                                                                      PageJ

          than the following:

                 167 percent of design capacity by December 27, 2011 
               (133,016 inmates);
                 155 percent by June 27, 2012;
                 147 percent by December 27, 2012; and
                 137.5 percent by June 27, 2013.
               
          This bill does not aggravate the prison overcrowding crisis 
          described above under ROCA.


                                      COMMENTS

          1.  Need for This Bill  

               Updating the state's antiquated reporting process for 
               pawnshops and secondhand dealers is long overdue and 
               will provide tools for law enforcement agencies to use 
               to curtail the sale of stolen goods and will expedite 
               the rapid recovery of stolen property.  The Department 
               of Justice will create an on-line database in which 
               secondhand dealers and pawn brokers will enter the 
               information required on form, in lieu of submitting 
               the JUS-123 - that information will be available for 
               all law enforcement agencies in a searchable format.  
               This system would be fully funded by increasing the 
               application and renewal fees currently being paid by 
               pawn brokers and secondhand dealers from $12 to $300.

               The new system will also streamline the existing 
               burdensome reporting process for entities covered 
               under existing law.  This may provide for some level 
               of economic stimulus in the affected industries as 
               each covered store stands to save thousands of 
               dollars.
          
          2.  Secondhand Property Dealers are Broadly Defined in Existing 
            Law - Separate Regulatory Scheme for Flea Markets and Swap 
            Meets  




                                                                     (More)







                                                               AB 391 (Pan)
                                                                      PageK


          General Definition of Secondhand Property Dealers
          
          Business and Professions Code Section 21626 defines a 
          "secondhand dealer" as any person or entity "whose business 
          includes buying, selling, trading, taking in pawn, accepting for 
          sale on consignment, accepting for auctioning, or auctioning 
          secondhand tangible personal property."  (Italics added.)  A 
          person or entity is a secondhand dealer regardless of whether or 
          not secondhand property transactions form the major part of the 
          person's or entity's business.  For example, it would appear 
          that a music store that regularly accepts a few instruments on 
          consignment is a secondhand dealer.  However, Business and 
          Professions Code Section 21625 states that the intent of the 
          reporting system for tangible personal property is to regulate 
          "persons whose principal business" is dealing in tangible 
          personal property so as to curtail theft and prevent and detect 
          sales tax evasion.

          Limited Appellate Decisions on Secondhand Dealer Status
          
          There are surprisingly very few appellate decisions discussing 
          who is a secondhand property dealer.  A litigant in one 
          appellate case has provided the Committee, the author and the 
          sponsor with a decision from the Court of Appeal of California, 
          Second Appellate District, in Los Angeles interpreting and 
          applying the Los Angeles City ordinance regulating secondhand 
          dealers.  In that case, the appellate court held that a person 
          who buys and collects, but does not sell, used books and 
          "ephemera" is not a secondhand dealer within the meaning of the 
          local ordinance.  (Hopp v. City of Los Angeles (2010) 183 
          Cal.App.4th 713,717-722.)  The Los Angeles ordinance at issue in 
          Hopp is similar to state law in defining persons who buy 
          property as secondhand dealers.  As such, the decision in Hopp 
          could well to apply to a similar challenge of state law.  

          Separate Regulatory Scheme for Vendors at Flea Markets and Swap 
          Meets - Paper Reporting would appear to continue for these 
          Persons
          




                                                                     (More)







                                                               AB 391 (Pan)
                                                                      PageL

          It would also appear that a person who occasionally sells items 
          at a flea market or similar venue fits the statutory definition 
          of a secondhand dealer.  However, an article of the Business and 
          Professions Code chapter on secondhand goods includes a 
          regulatory scheme for flea markets and swap meets.  (Bus. & 
          Prof. Code §§ 21660-21669.1.)  A swap meet is specifically 
          defined as a flea market or open-air market at which two or more 
          persons offer merchandise for sale and either 1) the operator 
          charges a fee to vendors; or 2) the operator charges attendees 
                                                                 for parking or admission.  Further, regardless of the number of 
          persons involved or whether or not a fee is charged, a swap meet 
          includes events where secondhand property is offered on more 
          than six occasions in a year.  Swap meets do not include 
          specified charitable sales or auctions.  (Bus. & Prof. Code § 
          21661.)

          Swap meets or flea market vendors must report their names and 
          addresses and vehicles used to transport property to the events. 
           Vendors must list and describe property they offer for sale, 
          including through any serial numbers or identifying marks or 
          symbols.  The information is recorded on forms provided by DOJ.  
          Vendors give the forms to the operator of the swap meet or flea 
          market, who then provides the form to the chief of police or 
          sheriff.  Swap meet and flea market operators must retain copies 
          of the forms for six months and make the copies available for 
          law-enforcement inspection.  (Bus. & Prof. Code § 21663-21665.)  
          The chief of police or sheriff can waive the reporting 
          requirements if that "is not necessary or appropriate in the 
          public interest."  (Bus. & Prof. Code § 21668.)  

          It appears that this bill would not apply to swap meet or flea 
          market vendors.  The paper reporting system would thus continue 
          for these persons.

          3.  Determination of Electronic Reporting Fee  

          This bill provides that each pawnbroker and secondhand property 
          dealer shall pay a fee to support an electronic reporting system 
          for transactions in secondhand and pawned property.  The bill 
          states that the fee shall be no more than necessary to implement, 




                                                                     (More)







                                                               AB 391 (Pan)
                                                                      PageM

          operate, and maintain the system.  The fee is the same for each 
          licensee, regardless of the number of transactions the licensee 
          makes.  

          Concerns have been raised that the existence of such a fee would 
          cause law enforcement to become relatively aggressive in 
          enforcing the laws applicable to secondhand dealers, regardless 
          of the size of a person's business.  Further, concerns have been 
          raised that it would be unfair for persons who only engage in a 
          relatively small number or transactions in secondhand goods to 
          pay a fee that supports a regulatory system for full-time 
          business, including pawnbrokers, who engage in the business of 
          lending money and take property as collateral for loans.  

          The sponsor and the author have stated that under Proposition 26 
          of the November, 2010 General Election, a proportional fee based 
          on the number of transactions made by the licensee would require 
          a 2/3 vote as a tax measure.

          Proposition 26 amends Section 3 of Article XIII A of the 
          California Constitution: In relevant part, the proposition 
          provides:

               (b) As used in this section, "tax" means any levy, 
               charge, or exaction of any kind imposed by the State, 
               except the following:

               (2) A charge imposed for a specific government service 
               or product provided directly to the payor that is not 
               provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed 
               the reasonable costs to the State of providing the 
               service or product to the payor.

               (3) A charge imposed for the reasonable regulatory 
               costs to the State incident to issuing licenses and 
               permits, performing investigations, inspections, and 
               audits, enforcing agricultural marketing orders, and 
               the administrative enforcement and adjudication 
               thereof.





                                                                     (More)











          It appears that paragraph 2 and 3 could be said to apply to this 
          bill.  As concerns paragraph 2, a fee for the electronic 
          reporting system maintained by DOJ can be described as a method 
          provided to pawnbrokers and secondhand dealers to comply with 
          and perform their statutory duty to daily report transactions in 
          specified property.  As concerns paragraph 3, a fee for the 
          electronic reporting system can be described as a charge for the 
          reasonable regulatory costs to the State incident to the 
          regulation of licensees who deal in pawned and secondhand 
          property.

          The sponsor has analogized the electronic reporting fee to a 
          business license imposed by a local government entity or the fee 
          for the issuance of a driver's license.  Each holder of 
          commercial driver's license pays the same fee, regardless of the 
          number of miles driven by the operator, or the amount of 
          property or persons transported.

          SHOULD THE FEE PAID BY EACH PAWNBROKER AND SECONDHAND DEALER 
          LICENSEE BE THE SAME FOR EACH LICENSEE?

          IS A UNIFORM FEE FOR EACH PAWNBROKER OR SECONDHAND DEALER 
          REQUIRED TO AVOID A DETERMINATION THAT THE FEE IS A TAX?

          4.  No Specificity About How and to Whom Pawnbrokers Pay the 
            Electronic Reporting Fee - Suggested Amendment  

          This bill requires secondhand dealers and pawnbrokers, as part of 
          the licensing process for these businesses, to pay a fee of up to 
          $300 for the operation and maintenance of an electronic reporting 
          system to track transactions in pawned and secondhand goods.  The 
          bill specifically provides that secondhand dealers shall pay the 
          fee to the local licensing authority - the sheriff or police 
          chief - and that the local law enforcement entity will transmit 
          the fee to DOJ.  The bill does not specify how or to whom 
          pawnbrokers shall pay the fee for the electronic reporting 
          system.  The bill merely states that DOJ shall charge a fee for 
          the reporting system and that the local licensing authority may 
          charge a fee to cover the cost of processing the application by 




                                                                     (More)







                                                               AB 391 (Pan)
                                                                      PageO

          the pawnbroker.  

          In discussions with Committee staff, representatives of the 
          Attorney General (the bill sponsor) stated that the process for 
          paying the fee for the electronic reporting system should be the 
          same for pawnbrokers and secondhand dealers.  Making this clear 
          in the bill would prevent confusion and inconsistent application 
          of the bill.  It is suggested that the bill be amended to 
          provide that pawnbrokers shall pay the fee for operation and 
          maintenance of the electronic reporting system to the local 
          licensing authority at the time the pawnbroker applies for an 
          original license or renews an existing license.



          SHOULD THE BILL BE AMENDED TO SPECIFY THAT PAWNBROKERS SHALL PAY 
          THE FEE FOR THE ELECTRONIC REPORTING SYSTEM TO THE POLICE CHIEF 
          OR SHERIFF THAT LICENSES THE PAWNBROKER AND THAT THE POLICE 
          CHIEF OR SHERIFF SHALL TRANSMIT THE FEE TO DOJ?

          5.  Electronic Reporting of Secondhand and Pawn Transactions in 
          other Jurisdictions  

          When this Committee heard SB 1893 (Burton) in 2004, Committee 
          staff noted that Minneapolis had instituted an electronic 
          reporting system.  Since that time, a number of jurisdictions 
          have begun electronic reporting.  These include Tulsa, Oklahoma, 
          Scottsdale, Arizona and Madison, Wisconsin, among others.  
          Reporting is done voluntarily in Tulsa, but by law in other 
          jurisdictions.  The Madison ordinance became effective in 
          February, 2012.  

          A company called Leads Online<2> markets databases for reporting 
          pawned and secondhand goods, as well as numerous other law 
          enforcement tracking systems, such as purchases from pharmacies. 
           The company Website states that "thousands of law enforcement 
          agencies across the country" and businesses that are required to 

          ---------------------------
          <2> 
          http://leadsonline.com/main/about-leadsonline/about-leadsonline.p
          hp











                                                               AB 391 (Pan)
                                                                      PageP

          report pawn and secondhand transactions use the company's 
          systems.  Another company called Business Watch International<3> 
          (BWI) markets products specifically for reporting pawned and 
          secondhand property.  BWI states that its products are used by 
          280 law enforcement agencies in 200 cities in the United States 
          and Canada.  It is not known how many other companies market 
          such services to law enforcement or state and local legislative 
          bodies.  Concerns have been raised by Tulsa, Oklahoma, pawn shop 
          owners about using a private, third-party to transmit pawn 
          information to law enforcement.  

          The Minneapolis Police Department's pawn reporting system, APS - 
          Automated Pawn System, is distributed to other law enforcement 
          agencies through a consortium called Gov to Gov Solutions.  APS 
          is a trademark registered to the City of Minneapolis.  As 
          implied by the name, Gov to Gov Solutions operates through 
          sharing of technology across government entities.  The Gov to 
          Gov Solutions system<4> appears to be cost-effective.  APS is 
          used in many jurisdictions in Minnesota and Wisconsin.  The 
          Website states:

               The Automated Pawn System service is available to all 
               law enforcement agencies.  Agencies that license pawn 
               and/or secondhand shops will find APS is a proven, low 
               cost way to effectively manage and regulate their 
               shops, as well as all the transaction information 
               their shops are required to report.  Law enforcement 
               agencies use the customizable tools within the APS 
               application to manage and regulate their licensed 
               dealers according to local ordinance requirements, and 
               to investigate reported crimes.  Pawn and secondhand 
               dealers use the point-of-sale software of their 
               choice, with minor customization required to 
               accommodate APS transaction reporting requirements.

                                   ***************




          ---------------------------
          <3> http://www.bwipolice.com/
          <4> http://www.govtogovsolutions.org/Default.aspx











                                                               AB 391 (Pan)
                                                                      PageQ