BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 2805 Hearing Date: June 28, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Olsen |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |March 17, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |No |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|JM |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Cargo Theft: Prevention Program
HISTORY
Source: Western Agricultural Processors Association
Prior Legislation:SB 1023 (Budget and Fiscal Review) - Ch. 43,
Stats 2012
SB 44 (Denham) - Ch. 18, Stats. 2003
AB 1727 (Reyes) - Ch. 310, Stats. 2003
AB 2768 (Poochigian) - Ch. 327, Stats. 1996
Support: Agricultural Council of California; California Farm
Bureau Federation; California State Association of
Counties; California State Sheriffs' Association;
Pacific Merchant Shipping Association; Western Growers
Association
Opposition:California Association of Highway Patrolmen
Assembly Floor Vote: 76 - 0
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to allow specified counties to enter
into an agreement to form the California Agriculture Cargo Theft
AB 2805 (Olsen ) PageB
of?
Crime Prevention Program, which would be administered by the
county sheriff's department of each participating county under a
joint powers agreement (JPA).
Existing law creates the Motor Carriers Safety Improvement Fund
to cover the costs for the Department of the California Highway
Patrol to deter commercial motor vehicle cargo, as specified.
(Pen. Code § 14170.)
Existing law creates the Cargo Theft Interdiction Program to
combat the ever increasing cargo theft problem. (Pen. Code §
14170.)
Existing law creates the Rural Crime Prevention Program to
enhance crime prevention efforts by establishing programs to
strengthen law enforcement agencies in rural areas to detect and
monitor agricultural and rural based crimes. (Pen. Code §
14170.)
Existing law allows for the formation of a JPA for the purpose
of two or more public agencies, by agreement, to jointly
exercise any power common to the contracting parties. (Pen.
Code, § 14170.)
Existing law provides that grand theft is theft committed in any
of the following cases: (Pen. Code § 487, subd. (h).)
a) When the money, labor, or real or personal property
taken is of a value exceeding nine hundred fifty dollars
($950).
b) Grand theft is committed in any of the following cases:
i) When domestic fowls, avocados, olives, citrus or
deciduous fruits, other fruits, vegetables, nuts,
artichokes, or other farm crops are taken of a value
exceeding two hundred fifty dollars ($250).
ii) For the purposes of establishing that the value of
domestic fowls, avocados, olives, citrus or deciduous
fruits, other fruits, vegetables, nuts, artichokes, or
other farm crops under this paragraph exceeds two hundred
fifty dollars ($250), that value may be shown by the
AB 2805 (Olsen ) PageC
of?
presentation of credible evidence which establishes that
on the day of the theft domestic fowls, avocados, olives,
citrus or deciduous fruits, other fruits, vegetables,
nuts, artichokes, or other farm crops of the same variety
and weight exceeded two hundred fifty dollars ($250) in
wholesale value.
iii) When fish, shellfish, mollusks, crustaceans, kelp,
algae, or other aquacultural products are taken from a
commercial or research operation which is producing that
product, of a value exceeding two hundred fifty dollars
($250).
iv) Where the money, labor, or real or personal property
is taken by a servant, agent, or employee from his or her
principal or employer and aggregates nine hundred fifty
dollars ($950) or more in any 12 consecutive month
period.
v) When the property is taken from the person of
another.
vi) When the property taken is any of the following:
(1) An automobile.
(2) A firearm.
This bill permits the counties of Butte, Colusa, Fresno, Glenn,
Kern, Kings, Los Angeles, Madera, Merced, Sacramento, San
Benito, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Yolo,
and Yuba to enter into an agreement to form the California
Agriculture Cargo Theft Crime Prevention Program.
This bill requires the California Agriculture Cargo Theft Crime
Prevention Program to be jointly administered by the county
sheriff's department of each participating county under a joint
powers agreement.
This bill requires the parties to the agreement to form a task
force known as the California Agriculture Cargo Theft Crime
Prevention Task Force.
AB 2805 (Olsen ) PageD
of?
This bill requires the task force to be an interactive team
working together to develop crime prevention, problem solving,
and crime control techniques, to encourage timely reporting of
crimes, and to evaluate the results of these activities.
This bill permits the task force to operate from a joint
facility in order to facilitate investigative coordination.
This bill allows the task force to develop a uniform procedure
for all participating counties to collect data on agricultural
cargo theft crimes.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past several years this Committee has scrutinized
legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential
impact on prison overcrowding. Mindful of the United States
Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the
state's ability to provide a constitutional level of health care
to its inmate population and the related issue of prison
overcrowding, this Committee has applied its "ROCA" policy as a
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison
overcrowding.
On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to
reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of
design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
In December of 2015 the administration reported that as "of
December 9, 2015, 112,510 inmates were housed in the State's 34
adult institutions, which amounts to 136.0% of design bed
capacity, and 5,264 inmates were housed in out-of-state
facilities. The current population is 1,212 inmates below the
AB 2805 (Olsen ) PageE
of?
final court-ordered population benchmark of 137.5% of design bed
capacity, and has been under that benchmark since February
2015." (Defendants' December 2015 Status Report in Response to
February 10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge
Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).) One
year ago, 115,826 inmates were housed in the State's 34 adult
institutions, which amounted to 140.0% of design bed capacity,
and 8,864 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities.
(Defendants' December 2014 Status Report in Response to February
10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman
v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).)
While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison
population, the state must stabilize these advances and
demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place
the "durable solution" to prison overcrowding "consistently
demanded" by the court. (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and
Denying in Part Defendants' Request For Extension of December
31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court,
Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14). The Committee's
consideration of bills that may impact the prison population
therefore will be informed by the following questions:
Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed
to reducing the prison population;
Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy;
Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or
legislative drafting error; and
Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
AB 2805 (Olsen ) PageF
of?
California has seen an increase in incidents of cargo
theft in recent years. According to CargoNet,
California experienced 158 cargo theft incidents in
2015, costing businesses over $18.7 million - more
than any other state. These massive losses are spread
across all sectors of our economy including
agriculture, retail, and technology. Organized crime
has been responsible for many of these thefts, and the
scope of crime suggests international actors are at
play. However, local law enforcement agencies have
been unable to adequately respond due to a lack of
resources and the inability to coordinate statewide.
California needs a proactive solution that will aid
local law enforcement officials and protect
businesses. AB 2805 provides a solution to this
ever-growing problem.
2.Cargo Theft of Agricultural Products - Background
As noted in author's statement, cargo theft of all kinds is a
growing problem for a wide range of business, although
agriculture has been hit particularly hard. According to the
Western Agricultural Processors Association (Processors), the
tree nut industry has reported 30 separate incidents of cargo
theft in the last six months. Millions of dollars in almonds,
walnuts, cashews and pistachios have been stolen via thieves,
posing as legitimate truck drivers, creating fraudulent
paperwork and picking up cargo. The industry has responded by
fingerprinting truckers who come in to pick up loads and
sometimes photographing big rig drivers. Processors also are
checking truck vehicle identification numbers and calling to
verify information. Others are adopting high-tech solutions,
such as radio-frequency identification tags to track cargo
loads. The Processors Association, the Agricultural Council of
California and the Farm Bureau argue that a proactive,
coordinated statewide task force will help lower the number of
thefts. Law enforcement officials believe organized criminal
enterprises might be diverting some of the nut cargo to the
export market. However, local law enforcement agencies have
been unable to adequately respond due to a lack of resources and
the inability to coordinate statewide.
This bill would create the California Agriculture Cargo Theft
AB 2805 (Olsen ) PageG
of?
Crime Prevention Program. Participating counties will create a
task force comprising of members from each county office of the
district attorney, sheriff, agricultural commissioner, and
interested property owner groups or associations. The task force
will be modeled after the Rural Crime Prevention Task Force. At
this time there is no proposed funding for AB 2805.
3.California Rural Crime Prevention Programs
This bill is similar in concept to the California Rural Crime
Prevention Program, which was established by AB 2768
(Poochigian), Ch. 327, Stats. 1996. The program was renamed the
Central Valley Rural Crime Prevention Program (CVRCPP) in 2002.
A parallel program - the Central Coast Rural Crime Prevention
Program (CCRCPP) - was enacted by SB 44 (Denham) in 2003. The
programs - including a funding distribution formula for
participating counties - are still in statute.
2014 Budget legislation - AB 1468 (Committee on Budget) included
the following funding sources and allocations for CVRCPP and
CCRCPP in Penal Code 13821, subdivision (c): Commencing with
the 2013-14 fiscal year, the Central Valley and Central Coast
Rural Crime Prevention Programs, authorized by Sections 14170
and 14180, shall receive 9.06425605 percent and shall be
allocated by the Controller in monthly installments according to
the following schedule:
Fresno County 18.5588%
Kern County 13.7173%
Kings County 6.8587%
Madera County 4.4380%
Merced County 6.8587%
Monterey County 7.2411%
San Benito County 4.8273%
San Joaquin County 6.8587%
San Luis Obispo County2.1723%
Santa Barbara County3.6206%
Santa Cruz County 1.4482%
Stanislaus County 6.8587%
Tulare County 16.5415%
A 2002 report by the Legislative Analyst found mixed results for
the CVRCPP, although LAO had limited data to analyze. The
report included the following positive conclusion: "[A]ll eight
AB 2805 (Olsen ) PageH
of?
[participating] counties had better outcomes than the state as a
whole, suggesting that the Rural Crime Prevention program has
led to greater success in the area of arrests, prosecutions, and
convictions."
http://www.lao.ca.gov/2002/rural_crime/rural_crime_052102.pdf
The experience of the participants in the CVRCPP and the CCRCPP
could be valuable for participants in implementing the program
created by this bill. Participants could limit mistakes and
emphasize strategies that were successful in those programs.
Further, an agricultural cargo crime prevention program could
perhaps use part of collaborative structure created for the
CVRCPP and CCRCPP.
4.A Separate Statute Defines Cargo Theft
California law defines cargo theft as a separate form of grand
theft. (Pen. Code § 487h.) The basic elements of the crime are
the same as other forms of grand theft - the taking of the
property of another valued at over $950, with the intent to
permanently deprive the owner of possession or use of the
property. The only difference is the kind of property taken.
The cargo theft statute was enacted to allow law enforcement to
separately track the incidence of cargo theft in California.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has required separate
reporting of cargo theft since 2006. California ports are a
substantial security concern of the federal and state
governments. In 2015, the Brookings Institute the reported that
the combined value of good handled by the ports of Long Beach
and Los Angeles ranked 1st in the United States and the San
Francisco-Oakland ports ranked 9th.<1> The Los Angeles County
Sheriff sponsored the bill that defined cargo theft - SB 24
(Oropeza) Ch. 607, Stats. 2009. At the time that SB 24 was
---------------------------
<1>
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/the-avenue/posts/2015/07/01-top-10
-metro-ports-tomer-kane . This ranking appears to include cargo
handled by the Los Angeles World Airports
AB 2805 (Olsen ) PageI
of?
enacted, the sponsor noted that federal funding is available for
security at ports, including to combat cargo theft.
5.Argument in Support
The California State Association of Counties argues in support:
In recent years, California has seen an increase in
incidents of cargo theft with over 150 cargo thefts in
2015, costing businesses over $18.7 million. These
massive losses are spread across all sectors of our
economy. Local law enforcement has struggled to
adequately respond due to a lack of resources and the
inability to coordinate statewide.
AB 2805 creates a task force charged with developing
and adopting standards for detecting and tracking
cargo theft. The task force would be compromised of
members from diverse law enforcement groups and
businesses from the following participating counties:
Butte, Colusa, Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Kings, Los
Angeles, Madera, Merced, Sacramento, San Benito, San
Joaquin, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Yolo and
Yuba. The bill provides a comprehensive, cross
jurisdictional approach to cargo theft of agricultural
commodities, many of which are destined for export.
Because of the nature of cargo moving throughout the
state, this bill addresses some of the impediments
facing law enforcement by providing better
coordination and cooperation between various
jurisdictions.
6.Argument in Opposition
The California Association of Highway Patrolmen argues in
opposition:
The CHP is the statewide law enforcement organization
tasked with addressing cargo theft in California, and
has been providing cargo theft investigations for more
than two decades. We are unaware of any allegations
that the CHP has not performed their duties
adequately.
AB 2805 (Olsen ) PageJ
of?
AB 2805 would set up a cargo theft program in Butte,
Colusa, Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Kings, Los Angeles,
Madera, Sacramento, San Benito, San Joaquin,
Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Yolo and Yuba
counties and rely on sheriffs to coordinate so that
enforcement is done consistently throughout each
county. This is precisely why the CHP was formed -
for uniform, statewide enforcement of commercial
vehicle laws and the California Vehicle Code. The CHP
is the only agency that has jurisdiction across all
county lines. We simply do not believe this bill is
necessary.
-- END -