BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair S
2009-2010 Regular Session B
1
3
2
SB 1325 (Harman) 5
As Amended April 12, 2010
Hearing date: April 20, 2010
Penal Code
JM:mc
SPECIAL MANDATORY FINES:
THEFT OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS OR EQUIPMENT
HISTORY
Source: Tulare County District Attorney
Prior Legislation: None directly on point
Support: California Peace Officers' Association; California
Police Chiefs Association; California State Sheriffs'
Association; California District Attorneys Association;
California Chamber of Commerce
Opposition:California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
KEY ISSUES
WHERE A DEFENDANT HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF THEFT OF AGRICULTURAL
COMMODITIES OR EQUIPMENT FOR A SECOND TIME, SHOULD THE COURT BE
DIRECTED TO IMPOSE A SPECIAL FINE OF $5,000, IN ADDITION TO ANY
OTHER PENALTY AUTHORIZED BY LAW?
WHERE A DEFENDANT HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF THEFT OF AGRICULTURAL
(More)
SB 1325 (Harman)
PageB
COMMODITIES OR EQUIPMENT FOR A THIRD TIME, SHOULD THE COURT BE
DIRECTED TO IMPOSE A SPECIAL FINE OF $10,000, IN ADDITION TO ANY
OTHER PENALTY AUTHORIZED BY LAW?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to require persons convicted of
repeated thefts of agricultural commodities or equipment to pay
enhanced fines, including a $5,000 fine for a second conviction
and a $10,000 fine for a third conviction, in addition to any
other punishment.
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 (Penal Code 487) 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.
Existing law provides that the defendant committed grand theft
where he or she took the property of the following specified
kinds or value, or under the following circumstances:
(More)
SB 1325 (Harman)
PageC
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).
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).
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.
The property was taken from the person of another.
The property taken was any of the following: An
automobile, horse, mare, gelding, any bovine animal, any
caprine animal, mule, jack, jenny, sheep, lamb, hog, sow,
boar, gilt, barrow, or pig.
The property taken was a firearm. (Penal Code 487.)
This bill includes the following definitions:
"Agricultural commodity" means any fruit, nut, citrus,
field, forage, nursery crop, or other farm crop, or apiary,
livestock, or poultry.
"Agricultural equipment" means any equipment used in
agricultural production, including, but not limited to, an
implement of husbandry, (Veh. Code 36000, 36005, and
36015), a farm trailer (Veh. Code 36010), an automatic
bale wagon (Veh. Code 36011), a cotton module mover,
(Veh. Code 36012), and a trap wagon, (Veh. Code 36016),
and any part of that equipment used in agricultural
production.
This bill provides that where a defendant has been convicted for
a second time of theft of agricultural commodities or equipment,
the court shall impose a mandatory fine of $5,000, in addition
to any other authorized penalty.
This bill provides that where a defendant has been convicted for
(More)
SB 1325 (Harman)
PageD
a third time of theft of agricultural commodities or equipment,
the court shall impose a mandatory fine of $10,000, in addition
to any other authorized penalty.
This bill provides that a "person" subject to the mandatory
fines imposed pursuant to this bill includes an individual,
partnership, firm, association, corporation, limited liability
company, or other legal entity.
This bill provides that all fines collected pursuant to the bill
"shall be collected and distributed according to the penalty
assessment provisions Penal Code Sections 1463 and 1463.001."
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
(More)
SB 1325 (Harman)
PageE
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
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
(More)
SB 1325 (Harman)
PageF
adequate medical and mental health care.<1>
The court stayed implementation of its January 12, 2010, ruling
pending the state's appeal of the decision to the U.S. Supreme
Court. That appeal, and the final outcome of this litigation,
is not anticipated until later this year or 2011.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
Existing law provides that grand theft is committed
when farm crops are taken in an excess of $250.
Current law provides that this crime is punishable by
imprisonment in a county jail or state prison for up
to one year.
A major factor affecting the bottom line of
California's agricultural sector is crime. A study by
the Urban Institute found that offenders and potential
offenders modify their criminal behavior in response
both to changes in their risk of detection and capture
and to the expected severity of punishment. SB 1325
seeks to reduce agricultural crime by addressing both
of these factors.
SB 1325 will increase the severity of punishment by
----------------------
<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)
SB 1325 (Harman)
PageG
assessing monetary penalties to felons who are
convicted of multiple agricultural crimes.
2. Background About California Agriculture Submitted by the
Author and Sponsor
California Agriculture Economic Facts
As of 2007, there were approximately 75,000 farms and
ranches in CA.
California's agricultural abundance includes more than
400 commodities. The state produces about half of
U.S.-grown fruits, nuts and vegetables. Many crops are
produced solely in California.
The average farm or ranch operation in the state produced
nearly $488,000 in commodity sales during 2007, about 3
times higher than the U.S. average of $137,000 per farm.
California is home to the most productive agricultural
counties in the nation. According to the 2002 Census of
Agriculture's ranking of market value of agricultural
products sold, nine of the nation's top 10, and 12 of the
top 20, producing counties are in California. Source:
California Agricultural Resource Directory 2008-2009;
http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/files/CDFA_Sec2.pdf
Agricultural Crime Statistics
Only about one in ten pieces of stolen equipment is ever
recovered.
Many thefts are directly related to economic conditions.
For example, fuel thefts increase with rises in the price
for fuel.
A preliminary figure for losses due to rural crime in
eight Central Valley counties during 2006 is $13.2 million,
according to the Agricultural Crime Technology Information
and Operations Network Project (ACTION). ACTION uses
technology and training to support law enforcement agencies
in solving, preventing and prosecuting agricultural crime.
(No government agency tabulates rural crime numbers on a
statewide basis, so that figure is not available.)
(More)
SB 1325 (Harman)
PageH
The total value of goods stolen from rural properties in
ACTION's eight counties during 2006 increased by $2.3
million from the previous year's total of $10.9 million.
In 2004, the figure was $10.6 million. These figures sum up
losses for the following Central Valley counties: Fresno,
Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus and
Tulare.
Counties outside of the Central Valley including
Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and
Santa Cruz are in the process of forming their own regional
task force to address rural crime. Many of these coastal
counties have not yet released crime statistics; however,
in 2006, Monterey County reported that its rural crime
losses reached close to $1.3 million.
According to the Farm Bureau, during 2006 the value of
metals stolen in the eight Central Valley counties reached
nearly $5 million. Farmers suffered additional losses in
production because of the loss of metal equipment.
3. Criminal Fines are Effectively Quadrupled by Mandatory Penalty
Assessments
Criminal fines are subject to mandatory penalty assessments.
The following chart shows a sample calculation for penalty
assessments for a fine of $10,000. The actual fine varies by
county. The calculation used by the Legislative Analyst
reflects an actual fine of $38,000 for a stated statutory fine
of $10,000:
Base Fine: $10,000
Penal Code 1464 Assessment: $10,000($10 for every
$10 in fines)
Penal Code 1465.7 Assessment: $ 2,000(20%
surcharge)
Penal Code 1465.8 Assessment: $ 20($20
fee per fine)
Government Code 70372 Assessment: $ 5,000($5 for every
$10 in fines)
(More)
SB 1325 (Harman)
PageI
Government Code 70373 Assessment $ 30
($30 fee per each conviction)
Government Code 76000 Assessment: $ 7,000 ($7 for every
$10 in fines)
Government Code 7600.5 Assessment: $ 2,000($2 for
every $10 in fines)
Government Code 76104.6 Assessment: $ 1,000($1 for
every $10 in fines)
Total Fine with Assessments: $37,050
If the maximum standard criminal fine of $10,000 is imposed in
addition to the special fine of $10,000 required by this bill,
the actual amount a defendant would be required to pay is
approximately $76,000 in a third conviction. For a defendant
who has been convicted for a second time, the maximum fine would
be approximately $56,500.
DO THE MANDATORY FINES CREATED BY THIS BILL FOR REPEATED
CONVICTIONS OF AGRICULTURAL THEFT PROVIDE APPROPRIATE
PUNISHMENT, OR ARE THE FINES EXCESSIVE?
4. Deterrence and Collection Issues
As noted, the fines in existing law are effectively quadrupled
by penalty assessments. If thieves are not deterred by existing
fines, the question is raised as to whether simply adding
special fines to the existing criminal fines will deter thieves.
Committee staff is not aware of any studies that would assist
the Committee in determining whether the increased fines would
or would not deter potential offenders.
It may be difficult to collect criminal fines. At some point,
the cost of collecting from defendants exceeds what government
entities could hope to net. Many defendants are indigent. Even
where convicted defendants have resources, counties may have
difficulty tracking assets and collecting money. Each county
typically has an office that essentially acts as a collection
agency. A 2006 study by the California Research Bureau noted
that the system for collecting and distributing fines and
(More)
SB 1325 (Harman)
PageJ
penalty assessments is extremely complicated and inefficient.
(More)
IN LIGHT OF THE RELATIVELY HIGH FINES AND PENALTIES THAT MAY BE
IMPOSED UNDER EXISTING LAW, WOULD THE FINES IN THIS BILL LIKELY
DETER AGRICULTURAL THIEVES?
WOULD THE ADDITIONAL FINES AND PENALTIES IMPOSED PURSUANT TO
THIS BILL BE COLLECTIBLE?
5. Technical Drafting Issues
Application of the Bill in Cases Where the Defendant Has Been
Convicted of Agricultural Theft for a Fourth or Subsequent Time
This bill requires the sentencing court to impose a special fine
of $5,000 where a defendant has been convicted of agricultural
theft for a second time. The bill requires the court to impose
a fine of $10,000 for a third such conviction. The bill does
not specifically provide that the $10,000 fine shall be imposed
for a third "or subsequent" conviction for theft of agricultural
commodities or equipment. As such, a defendant could argue that
upon a fourth, fifth, or subsequent conviction for agricultural
theft, no special fine shall be imposed. Such cases are,
however, likely to be relatively rare.
If the author intends that defendants convicted at least three
times of theft of agricultural commodities or equipment shall
receive a special, mandatory fine of $10,000, the bill should
state that the fine applies to a third or subsequent conviction.
DOES THE AUTHOR INTEND THAT THE SPECIAL FINES REQUIRED BY THIS
BILL WOULD APPLY WHERE A DEFENDANT IS CONVICTED OF AGRICULTURAL
THEFT FOR A FOURTH OR SUBSEQUENT TIME?
Likely Unnecessary Reference to Penal Code Sections 1463 and
1463.001
Criminal fines are generally subject to penalty assessments
unless the governing statute provides a specific exception. For
example, Penal Code Section 1202.4, subdivision (e) specifically
provides that restitution fines are not subject to penalty
(More)
SB 1325 (Harman)
PageL
assessments. This bill states that the special fines required
by this bill are to be collected and distributed according to
the formulas for penalty assessments. It appears likely that
this reference is redundant or unnecessary. Numerous court
decisions have held that the Legislature should avoid the use of
unnecessary terms in a statute.
IS THE REFERENCE IN THE BILL TO CODE SECTIONS (PEN. CODE 1463
AND 1463.001) THAT SET OUT THE FORMULAS FOR DISTRIBUTING
CRIMINAL FINES UNNECESSARY AND PERHAPS CONFUSING?
***************