BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2013-2014 Regular Session B
9
2
4
AB 924 (Bigelow)
As Amended April 25, 2013
Hearing date: July 2, 2013
Penal Code
JM:mc
THEFT OF LIVESTOCK OR CARCASSES:
SPECIAL FINE PAID TO INVESTIGATING AGENCY
HISTORY
Source: California Cattlemen's Association
Prior Legislation: None directly on point
Support: California Chamber of Commerce; California Agricultural
Commissioners and Sealers Association; Agriculture
Council of California; California Grain and Seed
Association; California Poultry Federation; Pacific Egg
and Poultry Federation; Western United Dairymen;
California Farm Bureau Federation; Los Angeles County
District Attorney
Opposition:California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; California
Horsemen's Alliance; California District Attorneys
Association (unless amended)
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 77 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
(More)
AB 924 (Bigelow)
Page 2
IN A CASE INVOLVING GRAND THEFT OF LIVESTOCK OR SPECIFIED ANIMAL
CARCASSES, SHOULD THE PROCEEDS OF A FINE OF UP TO $5,000 BE
ALLOCATED TO THE BUREAU OF LIVESTOCK IDENTIFICATION AND FOR
INVESTIGATING SUCH CRIMES, UPON LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to provide that a defendant
convicted of theft of an animal or a specified animal carcass
may be subject to a fine of up to $5,000, the proceeds of which
shall be allocated to the Bureau of Livestock Identification of
the California Department of Agriculture, to be used for
investigation of livestock and animal carcass theft upon
appropriation by the Legislature.
Existing law defines "grand theft" as any theft where the money,
labor, or real or personal property taken or when the property
is taken from the person of another is of a value exceeding
$950. (Pen. Code §§ 487, subd. (a) and 487, subd. (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 $950, except as specified. (Pen. Code § 487, subd.
(a).)
Existing law provides that, notwithstanding the default value of
$940 to establish grand theft, 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)
AB 924 (Bigelow)
Page 3
more in any consecutive 12-month period;
when the property is taken from the person of another;
or
when the property taken is an automobile, firearm,
horse, mare, gelding, bovine animal, caprine animal, mule,
jack, jenny, sheep, lamb, hog, sow, boar, gilt, barrow, or
pig.
(Pen. Code § 487, subd. (b).)
Existing law provides that the taking or fraudulent
appropriation of the carcass of any bovine, caprine, equine,
ovine, or suine animal, or of any mule, jack or jenny, is grand
theft. Where such an animal has been killed without the owner's
consent, taking of any part of the carcass is grand theft.
(Pen. Code § 487, subds. (a)-(b).)
Existing law provides that grand theft is an alternate
felony-misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the county
jail for up to one year, a fine of up to $1,000, or both, or by
a felony jail sentence of 16 months, two years or three years
pursuant to Penal Code Section 1170, subdivision (h), and a fine
of up to $10,000. (Pen. Code § 489, subd. (b).)
Existing law provides that grand theft of a firearm is a felony,
punishable by imprisonment in state prison for 16 months, two
years or three years and a fine of up to $10,000. (Pen. Code §
489, subd. (a).)
Existing law provides that where the defendant in any action,
including a criminal prosecution, has been found to have taken
the cattle of another person, the recovery to the victim shall
be "four times the value of the animals. The defendant shall
reimburse the victim for the time and money expended in pursuing
the cattle. (Food & Agric. Code § 21855: People v. Baker (2005)
126 Cal.App.4th 463, 469-470.)
This bill provides that where a person is convicted of grand
theft of livestock, as specified, or the carcass of a specified
animal, the defendant is liable for a fine of up to $5,000. The
(More)
AB 924 (Bigelow)
Page 4
fine shall be allocated to the Bureau of Livestock
Identification and, upon appropriation by the Legislature, used
for investigating theft of livestock or specified animal
carcasses.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation
relating to conditions of confinement. On May 23, 2011, the
United States Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity within two
years from the date of its ruling, subject to the right of the
state to seek modifications in appropriate circumstances.
Beginning in early 2007, Senate leadership initiated a policy to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate the
prison overcrowding crisis through new or expanded felony
prosecutions. Under the resulting policy known as "ROCA" (which
stands for "Receivership/ Overcrowding Crisis Aggravation"), the
Committee held measures which created a new felony, expanded the
scope or penalty of an existing felony, or otherwise increased
the application of a felony in a manner which could exacerbate
the prison overcrowding crisis. Under these principles, ROCA
was applied as a content-neutral, provisional measure necessary
to ensure that the Legislature did not erode progress towards
reducing prison overcrowding by passing legislation which would
increase the prison population. ROCA necessitated many hard and
difficult decisions for the Committee.
In January of 2013, just over a year after the enactment of the
historic Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011, the State of
California filed court documents seeking to vacate or modify the
federal court order issued by the Three-Judge Court three years
earlier to reduce the state's prison population to 137.5 percent
of design capacity. The State submitted in part that the, ". .
. population in the State's 33 prisons has been reduced by over
24,000 inmates since October 2011 when public safety realignment
(More)
AB 924 (Bigelow)
Page 5
went into effect, by more than 36,000 inmates compared to the
2008 population . . . , and by nearly 42,000 inmates since 2006
. . . ." Plaintiffs, who opposed the state's motion, argue in
part that, "California prisons, which currently average 150% of
capacity, and reach as high as 185% of capacity at one prison,
continue to deliver health care that is constitutionally
deficient." In an order dated January 29, 2013, the federal
court granted the state a six-month extension to achieve the
137.5 % prisoner population cap by December 31st of this year.
In an order dated April 11, 2013, the Three-Judge Court denied
the state's motions, and ordered the state of California to
"immediately take all steps necessary to comply with this
Court's . . . Order . . . requiring defendants to reduce overall
prison population to 137.5% design capacity by December 31,
2013."
The ongoing litigation indicates that prison capacity and
related issues concerning conditions of confinement remain
unresolved. However, in light of the real gains in reducing the
prison population that have been made, although even greater
reductions are required by the court, the Committee will review
each ROCA bill with more flexible consideration. The following
questions will inform this consideration:
(More)
whether a measure erodes realignment;
whether a measure addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
whether a bill corrects a constitutional infirmity or
legislative drafting error;
whether a measure proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy; and
whether a bill addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
The financial loss from animal theft can impact a
family ranching operation tremendously and mean the
difference in ending up in the red or in the black on
any given year. There has been a 60% increase in the
value of beef cattle over the last few years, and as a
result we have also seen an increase in theft. In
2012, the Bureau of Livestock Identification reported
that 1,110 head of cattle were stolen a value of
nearly $1 million. AB 924 would give prosecutors the
tools they need to effectively administer the law and
appropriately convict persons found guilty of
livestock theft.
2. Fines and Fees in Criminal Cases are Numerous
Under existing law, a defendant must pay restitution for direct
losses to his or her victims and a restitution fine, with a
minimum of $140 and $280 for misdemeanors and felonies
respectively, in every case. In addition to imprisonment,
courts can impose substantial criminal fines, with a usual
maximum of $10,000 in felonies and $1,000 in misdemeanors.
"Penalty assessments" must be applied to these fines. Recent
(More)
AB 924 (Bigelow)
Page 7
state budgets have increased penalty assessments to a combined
total of approximately 310% of the base fine, plus an additional
$79 in flat fees. For example, where a court imposed the usual
maximum felony fine of $10,000, penalty assessments of $31,000
would be imposed as well, for a total of $41,000.
This bill allows the court to impose a fine of up to $5,000.
Penalty assessments would raise the actual maximum fine to
approximately $20,500.
This bill allocates the base fine of $5,000 to the Bureau of
Livestock Identification. The penalty assessment amounts would
be allocated to a wide variety of entities and programs, such as
court construction and security, DNA testing, various training
funds and others. Without a more specific allocation, base
fines are divided between the city and county where the
violation occurred, as determined by a complex statutory
designation and agreement. (Pen. Code §§ 1463.0001-1463.0002.)
3. Bill May Fall Heavily on Misdemeanants
The fine of up to $5,000 allowed by this bill may be imposed for
a misdemeanor conviction. The bill requires other obligations
to be satisfied before the fine imposed under this bill can be
collected. The court is also directed to consider a defendant's
ability to pay the fine.
Because the fines and restitution obligations in felony cases
are generally significantly higher and more extensive than in
misdemeanor cases, the fine allowed by this bill may fall
disproportionately on misdemeanants. That is, misdemeanants
will have fewer fines to pay and less restitution obligations.
Thus, misdemeanants will have more money available to pay the
fine allowed by this bill.
4. Special Fines and Restitution for Cattle Theft and Cattle
Inspection Law Violations in Existing Law
AB 924 (Bigelow)
Page 8
Food and Agriculture Code Section 21855 provides that a person
who takes the cattle of another shall pay four times the value
of the cattle to the victim and reimburse the victim for the
time and money he or she spent in pursuing the cattle. It
appears that cattle thieves would likely seek to avoid
inspection by officials of the Department of Food and
Agriculture. Violators of inspection laws are liable for a
civil penalty measured by the value of the costs of
investigation of the offense and the costs to return to the
owner any cattle that were taken unlawfully.
***************