BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1323
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1323 (Gatto)
As Amended April 26, 2011
Majority vote
TRANSPORTATION 14-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Bonnie Lowenthal, | | |
| |Jeffries, Achadjian, | | |
| |Blumenfield, Bonilla, | | |
| |Buchanan, Eng, Furutani, | | |
| |Galgiani, Logue, Miller, | | |
| |Norby, Portantino, | | |
| |Solorio | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Directs the proceeds from the sale of property
forfeited by persons convicted of auto theft to county-based
programs that deter, investigate, and prosecute vehicle theft
crimes. Specifically, this bill :
1)Appropriates the proceeds (net of the reimbursement described
in EXISTING LAW 1) a) below) from the sale of properties
forfeited by persons convicted of auto theft to county
programs that enhance the capacity of local police and
prosecutors to deter, investigate, and prosecute vehicle theft
crimes, provided that: the case arises in a county that has
adopted a resolution establishing such a program funded by an
annual $1 surcharge on vehicle registrations, the case
involves grand theft of an automobile or theft of a vehicle,
the case is prosecuted solely by a local entity, the sale of
the property is made by the local entity, and all expenditures
made or incurred in connection with the sale of the property,
including expenditures for any necessary repairs, storage, or
transportation of any property seized under existing law, are
made or incurred solely by a local entity.
2)Prohibits the sale proceeds from being expended for any
purpose other than for a county's vehicle theft deterrence
program nor to offset a reduction in any other source of
funds.
3)Requires the proceeds to be appropriated to the county where
AB 1323
Page 2
the local entity is located.
4)Requires the proceeds to be deposited with the Controller for
disbursement to any county that has established a theft
deterrence program.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires, in cases of criminal profiteering, forfeited moneys
as well as the proceeds of the sale of forfeited property, to
be distributed by the state or local governmental entity as
follows:
a) To innocent purchasers, sellers, or lien-, mortgage- or
security-holders, up to the amount of their interests in
the property or proceeds, when the court declaring the
forfeiture orders a distribution to those persons.
b) To the Department of General Services or local
governmental entity for all expenditures made or incurred
by it in connection with the sale of the property,
including expenditures for any necessary repairs, storage,
or transportation of any property seized.
c) To the general fund of the state or local governmental
entity, whichever prosecutes.
1)Authorizes counties to impose a $1 fee upon vehicle
registration and registration renewal, the proceeds of which
may be expended only to fund programs that enhance the
capacity of local police and prosecutors to deter,
investigate, and prosecute vehicle theft crimes. In any
county with a population of 250,000 or less, the funds may
also be expended for the prosecution of crimes involving
driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or
both, or vehicular manslaughter, or any combination of those
crimes.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal.
COMMENTS : The author has presented this bill as an enhancement
for the anti-theft programs that resulted from SB 2139 (Davis)
Chapter 1670, Statutes of 1990, which authorized counties to
undertake vehicle theft deterrence programs to be financed by a
AB 1323
Page 3
$1 surcharge on vehicle registrations. He cites highly
successful efforts in Los Angeles and San Diego Counties under
SB 2139 (Davis) that have recovered tens of thousands of stolen
vehicles and resulted in thousands of successful prosecutions of
car thieves.
Bemoaning the fact that no new resources have been directed to
these programs since their inception, the author asserts that by
penalizing convicted thieves, "This measure would allow counties
to recover some of (their) costs from those who can best afford
it: the criminals who profit from victimizing Californians.
Allowing law enforcement to recover the cost of investigating
these crimes would help allow counties to keep (anti-theft) task
forces operating and reduce auto theft statewide." It should
also be noted that the existing programs are funded by a fee on
law-abiding vehicle owners (who, as the author points out, are
the victims), as opposed to the criminals themselves, whose
illicit profits would fund this enhancement.
Forfeitures imposed upon convicted criminals currently benefit
the cities and counties in which those cases are prosecuted.
Dedicating the revenue stream from forfeitures imposed on car
thieves for county-based theft deterrence programs would provide
a much-needed boost for these highly-successful efforts. This
does, however, represent the re-direction of an existing funding
source of unknown magnitude which may have negative consequences
for other public programs. The author acknowledges this concern
and is reaching out to cities and counties to determine if
clarifying language is necessary to protect the interests of
local governments.
Analysis Prepared by : Howard Posner / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093
FN: 0000397