Retail Theft in California: Looking Back at a Decade of Change

2025-26 BUDGET Retail Theft in California: Looking Back at a Decade of Change GABRIEL PETEK | LEGISLATIVE ANALYST JUNE 2025 www.lao.ca.gov 1 AN LAO REPORT 2 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE AN LAO REPORT Executive Summary Retail Theft in California Has Increased in Recent Years. Over the past decade, the rate of reported retail theft ticked up slightly in 2015 before declining through 2021. About half of this decline occurred between 2019 and 2020, suggesting that factors such as temporary stay-at-home orders and closure of nonessential retail businesses in the early part of the COVID-19 pandemic likely contributed. Subsequently, retail theft rebounded between 2021 and 2023. Over the entire ten-year period—2014 to 2023—reported retail theft increased by about 11 percent, though some counties experienced differing trends. Despite the statewide increase, reported retail theft remains well below historical highs that occurred in the 1980s. Various Changes in the Criminal Justice System Could Have Impacted Retail Theft Trends. Proposition 47 (2014) limited punishment for most types of retail theft involving $950 or less to a misdemeanor, when previously, some of these crimes could be punished as felonies. In doing so, Proposition 47 changed how these crimes are handled at certain key stages of the justice system. This is because law enforcement generally has more limited authority to arrest people for misdemeanors than felonies. In addition, many changes in the criminal justice system occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. Some were directly tied to public health responses (such as early releases from prison), while others just happened to coincide with the timing of the pandemic (such as a reduction in probation term lengths). Taken together, these changes may have impacted retail theft rates by reducing (1) the likelihood people are apprehended for crime and (2) the number of people incarcerated at a given time who might otherwise commit crime. Researchers found that Proposition 47 increased larceny (a category of crime that includes some forms of retail theft) though they were unable to determine the impact on retail theft specifically. Additionally, they found that pandemic-era changes to the criminal justice system increased nonresidential burglary (a measure of some forms of retail theft) by reducing jail populations and the likelihood of arrest. However, the researchers were only able to explain about one-third of the pandemic-era increase in nonresidential burglaries. This suggests that factors outside the criminal justice system—such as changes in the retail environment—likely contributed to retail theft trends in California as well. Legislature and Voters Recently Enacted Various Law Changes to Address Retail Theft. In response to growing concerns, the Legislature and voters have enacted several law changes aimed at reducing retail theft, including Proposition 36 (2024) and various bills, such as Chapter 168 of 2024 (AB 2943, Zbur). These changes seek to reduce retail crime by (1) increasing the authority for law enforcement to arrest and detain shoplifters, (2) elevating retail theft from a misdemeanor to a felony in some cases, (3) increasing term lengths for retail crime, and/or (4) increasing capacity to detect and respond to retail crime. For example, changing crimes from misdemeanors to felonies will cause people to spend a longer time incarcerated—reducing their subsequent opportunity to commit crime. This change could also make it more likely for people to be arrested given that law enforcement generally has greater authority to arrest people for felonies. This, in turn, could help deter people from engaging in retail theft if it causes them to perceive a higher likelihood of apprehension. www.lao.ca.gov 3 AN LAO REPORT Legislature Can Ask Several Key Questions to Conduct Oversight of Recent Law Changes. Below, we identify key questions that the Legislature might want to ask as it conducts oversight of the recent law changes made to address retail theft: • Are practitioners, stakeholders, and the public aware of the changes? • Are practitioners and stakeholders using the new tools available to them? • How are practitioners and stakeholders using the new tools? • Are promising practices being captured and shared? • Are the laws robust to technological change? • Is reported retail theft going down? • Are clearance rates (a measure of the likelihood of being apprehended) going up? • Are there unintended consequences? • How much have justice system costs increased? • Do the benefits outweigh the costs? Collecting answers to these questions will allow the Legislature to both monitor the implementation of the law changes and help it assess whether they are successful in reducing retail theft. 4 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE AN LAO REPORT INTRODUCTION Concerns about theft from retail businesses retail theft. The purpose of this report is to provide have become more prominent in recent years. background on trends in retail theft over the past Retail theft has implications for economic decade, discuss some of the possible contributors outcomes, as well as a sense of safety, well-being, to these trends, describe recent retail theft-related and fundamental quality of life for Californians. law changes, and outline key questions that the In response, the Legislature and the voters have Legislature may want to ask as it continues to approved several law changes intended to reduce provide oversight of this issue. WHAT IS RETAIL THEFT? Retail Theft Is a General Term That Includes statewide crime statistics are generally not tracked Different Types of Crimes. While there is not a by the type of victim. For this report, we use universally agreed upon definition of “retail theft,” reported incidents of shoplifting and burglary of the term typically refers to situations in which a a nonresidence as a way to approximate the level retail business is a victim of a theft-related crime. of retail theft. Shoplifting is defined as entering a Depending on the specific circumstances of the commercial establishment during business hours crime—such as the value of property stolen or the with intent to steal $950 or less in merchandise. method in which it was stolen—it can be reported Burglary involves entering a house, store, vehicle, and prosecuted as various specific crimes. Such or other place with intent to steal, regardless of crimes include burglary, shoplifting, embezzlement, the dollar amount. State crime statistics track vandalism, and robbery. burglary of residences and nonresidences No Exact Measure of Retail Theft Incidents. separately. Because retail businesses are typically The number of incidents in which retail businesses not residences, we use just the subset of reported are victims of theft-related crime is not tracked burglaries that are of nonresidences. in statewide crime statistics. This is because HOW HAS THE RATE OF RETAIL THEFT CHANGED OVER THE PAST DECADE? California’s Retail Theft Rate Increased in Figure 1 2015 and Again During the Later Stage of the Pandemic. As shown in Figure 1, the annual rate Retail Theft Increased in 2015 and of reported retail theft incidents has fluctuated. During the Pandemic Between 2014 and 2015, retail theft increased Reported Retail Thefts Per 100,000 Population slightly (5 percent) before declining by a total of 20 percent between 2015 and 2021. About half 600 of this decline occurred between 2019 and 2020. 500 Pandemic-related factors—such as temporary 400 stay-at-home orders and closure of nonessential 300 retail businesses in the early part of the pandemic— 200 likely contributed to the decline over this period. 100 Subsequently, between 2021 and 2023, retail 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 www.lao.ca.gov 5 AN LAO REPORT theft increased by 32 percent. Over the entire Some Counties, However, Experienced ten-year period—2014 to 2023—reported retail Different Trends Than California as a Whole. theft increased by 48 crimes per 100,000 people, As shown in Figure 2, unlike the state as a whole, or 11 percent. Furthermore, an unusually large some counties experienced a decrease in retail number of law enforcement agencies—whose theft rates between 2014 and 2015. In addition, jurisdictions include roughly 10 percent of the county increases in retail theft during the pandemic state population—did not report crime numbers for era (which we measure as changes between 2019 some or all of 2023. (For example, San Bernardino and 2023) were primarily concentrated in larger Sheriff’s Department did not report crime data for counties, particularly Los Angeles, Alameda, seven months of 2023.) Accordingly, crime data Sacramento, and San Mateo Counties. In contrast, may understate the actual increase in retail theft small counties tended to experience declines in that occurred in 2023. retail theft over this period. The reason for these Figure 2 Changes in Reported Retail Theft Rates Varied by County Per 100,000 Population California Los Angeles San Diego Orange Riverside Santa Clara Alameda Sacramento Contra Costa Fresno Kern San Francisco 2014 to 2015 Change Ventura 2019 to 2023 Change San Joaquin San Mateo County Population 250K-550K County Population 100K-249K County Population Less Than 100K -150 -100 -50 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Note: Excludes San Bernardino County because San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department did not report crime data for seven months of 2023. 6 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE AN LAO REPORT differences is unclear but could be tied to factors well below historical highs that occurred in the such as the concentration of retail establishments in 1980s. Specifically, between 1985 and 2023, the each county. retail theft rate declined by 54 percent. (A similar Retail Theft Remains Well Below Historical decline occurred for all types of property crime Levels. As shown in Figure 3, despite increases during this period, including residential burglary and over the last decade, the retail theft rate remains motor vehicle theft.) Figure 3 Despite Recent Increase, Retail Theft Remains Below Historical Levels Reported Retail Thefts Per 100,000 Population 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 1985 1987 1989 19911993 1995 1997 1999 20012003 2005 2007 2009 20112013 2015 2017 2019 20212023 www.lao.ca.gov 7 AN LAO REPORT WHAT CHANGES IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM MIGHT HAVE IMPACTED TRENDS IN RETAIL THEFT? A wide range of factors likely had some effect on crimes. In particular, it changed how certain retail retail theft trends over the past decade. This report theft crimes are handled in the criminal justice focuses on changes in the criminal justice system. system. We provide an overview of these changes Below, we provide background on several notable below. Subsequent law changes—discussed later changes in the criminal justice system—specifically in this report—reversed some of the changes made Proposition 47 (2014) and pandemic-era changes— by Proposition 47. that could have contributed to the trends in retail Converted Certain Theft Crimes Involving theft observed over the past decade. However, $950 or Less From Wobblers to Misdemeanors. various economic, technological, and social Proposition 47 converted several crimes from changes outside of the criminal justice system wobblers (which are crimes that can be treated as could have also impacted trends in retail theft over either felonies or misdemeanors) to misdemeanors. the past decade. See the nearby box for a brief These reduced punishments did not, however, overview of these changes. apply to defendants with prior convictions for certain severe crimes (such as murder) or crimes Proposition 47 requiring registration as a sex offender. The specific Proposition 47, which was approved by the crimes affected by Proposition 47 that are most voters in November 2014, changed state sentencing applicable to retail theft are as follows: law for several lower-level drug and property Changes Outside of the Criminal Justice System Likely Have Impacted Retail Theft Trends Many different factors can affect the rate of retail theft, including those that are not directly related to the criminal justice system. Below, we identify a few examples of other types of factors that could have affected retail theft rates over the past decade. Changes to the Retail Environment. It is possible that changes in the retail environment may have affected retail theft rates. For example, expansion of self-checkout lines and store policies that direct staff not to physically confront shoplifters may have made some people feel that they have a higher chance of avoiding apprehension. In addition, pandemic-era changes—such as the broader use of face masks enabling one’s identity to be concealed—could have further emboldened shoplifters. Broader Technological Changes. Broader technological changes may have also impacted people’s decisions about whether and how to commit retail theft. For example, social media may be making it easier for people to organize theft schemes or share ideas for how to commit thefts without getting caught. Moreover, online marketplaces are being used to facilitate the sale of stolen goods. Changes in the Broader Social Context. There could be various other contextual factors that affect people’s decisions to engage in retail theft. For example, some people experiencing homelessness may steal to acquire necessities like food or to trade stolen items for temporary housing. Also, people with substance use disorders may steal items to sell or trade for drugs in the illicit market. Accordingly, changes to homelessness, addiction, illicit drug markets, or other social factors could have impacted retail theft rates. 8 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE AN LAO REPORT • Shoplifting. Prior to Proposition 47, stealing Impacted Arrest and Pretrial Detention $950 or less of money or property from a Procedures for Crimes Converted to store was sometimes treated as a wobbler Misdemeanors. By converting crimes to punishable by up to three years in jail or misdemeanors, Proposition 47 resulted in them prison. For example, if the defendant entered being processed differently at the following key the store with intent to commit theft—as stages of the criminal justice system: evidenced, for example, by their possessing a • Arrest. Peace officers can arrest someone bag designed to conceal merchandise—they for a felony or wobbler as long as they could be charged with burglary. Also, if the have probable cause to believe the person defendant had certain previous theft-related committed the crime. To arrest someone convictions, they could be charged with “petty for a misdemeanor, one of the following theft with a prior.” Both burglary and petty circumstances must also apply: (1) the crime theft with a prior are wobblers. Proposition 47 was committed in the officer’s presence, requires that shoplifting involving $950 (2) the crime was committed in the presence or less in value always be charged as a of a private person and that person delegates misdemeanor punishable by up to six months their authority to make a private person’s in jail, though it is common for people arrest (also known as a citizen’s arrest) to the convicted of misdemeanors to be supervised peace officer, or (3) a specific exception to in the community rather than placed in jail. the “in the presence of” requirement applies (Using force or fear in the process of stealing (such as for misdemeanor domestic battery). merchandise is still considered robbery, This means someone suspected of a felony which is a felony, regardless of the dollar or wobbler may be more likely to be arrested amount involved. In addition, damaging than someone suspected of a misdemeanor. property in the process of shoplifting is still • Pretrial Detention. People arrested for considered vandalism, which is punishable as misdemeanors are generally either (1) cited in a felony if the damaged property is valued at the field and released or (2) taken to the jail, $400 or more.) booked (meaning the details of their arrest • Receiving Stolen Property. Prior to are recorded), and then released. In contrast, Proposition 47, knowingly buying, receiving, people arrested for felonies or wobblers are or selling property that had been stolen was more likely to be placed into jail and held a wobbler, regardless of the dollar amount until their first court proceeding, known as involved. This means someone could have arraignment. At arraignment, judges determine been charged with a felony and sentenced whether people will be detained or can be to up to three years in prison or jail if their released while their case is being resolved. crime involved property worth $950 or less. However, Proposition 47 requires that Pandemic-Era Changes receiving stolen property worth $950 or less Many changes in the criminal justice system be charged as a misdemeanor, punishable by occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. Some up to one year in jail. were directly tied to public health responses, while Prohibited Legislature From Making others just happened to coincide with the timing Amendments Inconsistent With Its Intent. of the pandemic. We describe some of the notable Proposition 47 specifies that the provisions of the changes below. measure may be amended by a two-thirds vote of Temporary Public Health Responses. the members of each house of the Legislature and Numerous actions to prevent the spread of signed by the Governor so long as the amendments COVID-19 in the community, courtrooms, are consistent with and further the intent of the correctional facilities, and other workplaces measure. However, it allows the Legislature—by affected the criminal justice system in various ways, majority vote—to further reduce the penalties for such as the following: any of the offenses addressed by the measure. www.lao.ca.gov 9 AN LAO REPORT • Modified Law Enforcement Policies and Other Changes That Coincided With the Practices. Local law enforcement agencies Pandemic Era. There were various policy changes implemented various temporary policies to that occurred around the same time as the reduce interactions with community members pandemic, but were not direct responses to the in order to mitigate the spread of the virus. public health emergency. Some of these changes Examples include taking police reports remain in place. Below, we discuss some of the online or over the phone instead of in-person, notable changes. issuing warnings instead of making arrests, • Reduction of Prison Terms Due to or delaying planned arrests unless doing so Proposition 57 (2016). In 2016, voters would have jeopardized public safety. In cases approved Proposition 57, which, among other where interactions with the public did occur, provisions, expanded CDCR’s authority to precautions to mitigate the spread of the virus reduce people’s prison terms through credits. may have slowed down processes in various With this additional authority, CDCR has taken ways. For example, requirements to clean jail several steps to date to increase credits. booking areas more frequently could have Some of these steps occurred in the pandemic slowed down the booking process and meant era. For example, in May 2021, CDCR that officers were kept away from patrolling modified its regulations to allow people with the community longer than usual. convictions for violent crimes to earn up to • Zero Dollar Bail Orders. In April 2020, 33.3 percent off of their sentence (an increase the Judicial Council (the policymaking and from 20 percent) for maintaining good governing body of the judicial branch) adopted behavior. Implementation of Proposition 57 a statewide emergency bail schedule that set is driving a long-term downward trend in the bail for arrestees at $0 for most misdemeanors prison population. and low-level felonies. Local bail schedules • Reduction of Probation Terms. Chapter 328 applied otherwise. However, judges retained of 2020 (AB 1950, Kamlager) reduced the ability to deviate from the bail schedules. maximum probation terms to one year for This change substantially increased the misdemeanors and two years for felonies. number of people who were immediately Previously, misdemeanor probation terms released from jail after being arrested. While could last up to three years and felony Judicial Council repealed this statewide probation terms could last up to the greater directive after several months, a number of of five years or the maximum sentence for the trial courts temporarily maintained zero dollar crime the person was on probation for. bail for various offenses for longer periods • Additional Modifications to Pretrial of time. Practices. In addition to the zero bail orders • Early Releases From Prison. Between mentioned above, the state implemented April 2020 and December 2021, the California various other changes to its pretrial release Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation practices and processes. For example, the (CDCR) released certain people up to 2021-22 budget package provided the judicial 365 days before their normal release date. branch with $140 million—a portion of which Eligibility for early release was determined was ongoing—to support programs and based on people’s criminal history; activities aimed at reducing pretrial detention likelihood of committing future crimes; risk of of people in jail, including funding for pretrial complications from COVID-19; and the need monitoring services. This made a two-year to reduce capacity at the prisons where they pilot program initially funded as part of the were housed to create space for physical 2019-20 budget package permanent and distancing, isolation, and quarantine efforts. expanded it statewide. Such changes may have reduced the number of people detained in jail pretrial. 10 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE AN LAO REPORT • Changes in Law Enforcement Priorities. whole—experienced an uptick in violent crime. Various factors can affect how law This likely caused law enforcement to shift enforcement agencies choose to prioritize resources away from property crime and other their resources. For example, during the lower-level crimes to prioritize addressing the pandemic era, California—and the nation as a increase in violence. HOW MIGHT THESE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM CHANGES HAVE IMPACTED RETAIL THEFT? As discussed earlier, a wide range of factors era. Proposition 47 and the pandemic-era changes can affect crime rates. Within the criminal justice could have reduced clearance rates for various system, the available research has generally found reasons. For example, as discussed above, by that two key mechanisms can affect crime rates: converting crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, (1) the likelihood of apprehension for crime and Proposition 47 narrowed officers’ authority to make (2) the number of people incarcerated at a given arrests for shoplifting. In addition, efforts to mitigate time who might otherwise commit crime. Below, the pandemic may have reduced the likelihood we discuss both of these mechanisms in more that people would be arrested, particularly for detail, and how Proposition 47 and pandemic-era lower-level crimes, such as shoplifting. changes could have impacted observed retail theft Reduced Incarceration Increases Some trends in California through these mechanisms. People’s Opportunity to Commit Crime. Then, we summarize research finding evidence Generally, research evaluating crime rates across that Proposition 47 increased larceny (a type of different locations and time periods has found that theft that includes shoplifting as well as non-retail the level of incarceration is one mechanism through thefts), though it remains unclear whether and which criminal justice system changes can affect how it impacted retail theft specifically. We also crime. In particular, when a policy lowers the level describe research that suggests criminal justice of incarceration—such as by reducing sentence system changes during the pandemic-era likely lengths or changing pretrial detention practices—it contributed to a modest portion of the recent leads to people having more time in the community increase in retail theft by reducing clearance rates and therefore more opportunity to commit crime. and jail populations. Decline in Likelihood of Being Apprehended Figure 4 Increases Willingness to Commit Crime. Generally, research on crime rates suggests that Property Crime Clearance Rate Declined people are less likely to commit crime when they perceive that they have a higher chance of being 16% Proposition 47 Passed November 2014 apprehended. One measure of the likelihood 14 of being apprehended for crime is the share of 12 reported crimes for which police make an arrest 10 and refer the arrestee for prosecution (or otherwise 8 resolve the case). This is known as the “clearance 6 Pandemic Starts March 2020 rate.” As shown in Figure 4, California’s clearance 4 rate for property crimes declined over the past 2 decade from about 14 percent of reported crimes 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 cleared in 2014 to about 8 percent in 2023. The decline was particularly sharp during the pandemic www.lao.ca.gov 11 AN LAO REPORT As shown in Figure 5, prison and jail populations Proposition 47 was 9 percent larger than that of have decreased substantially over the past decade, similar states. In a 2024 study, PPIC researchers particularly as a result of Proposition 47 and the analyzed changes in prison and jail incarceration pandemic-era changes. Specifically, the number of rates as well as property crime clearance rates people incarcerated in either state prison or county to see if they were associated with changes in jail declined by about 14,000 (7 percent) between crime, including measures of retail theft. They were 2014 and 2015 and by about 44,000 (22 percent) unable to reliably determine whether the changes between 2019 and 2023. The people who did in incarceration and clearance rates associated not have to spend time in prison or jail over with Proposition 47 increased, decreased, or had this time period due to Proposition 47 and/or no effect on retail theft. This was primarily because the pandemic-era changes therefore had more Proposition 47 changed the definitions of certain opportunity to commit crimes—including retail theft. retail crimes, which may have affected whether and Proposition 47 Likely Contributed to Increase how the crimes were reported. in Larceny, Though Impact on Retail Theft Is Pandemic-Era Declines in Jail Population Inconclusive. In a 2018 study, researchers at the and Clearance Rates Partly Explain Retail Theft Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) found Trend. In their 2024 study, PPIC researchers found some evidence that Proposition 47 may have evidence that pandemic-era changes impacted contributed to an increase in larceny. (Larceny nonresidential burglary. Specifically, they found is a type of theft that includes shoplifting as that the decline in the jail population and the well as non-retail thefts, such as stealing from decline in nonresidential burglary clearance rates a car.) Specifically, they found that the increase during the pandemic era appear to have increased in California’s larceny rate immediately following nonresidential burglaries by about 2 percent and 3 percent, respectively. (They did Figure 5 not find evidence of an impact of the decline in the prison population Incarceration Has Declined, Particularly After on retail theft.) Accordingly, Proposition 47 and During the Pandemic consistent with the broader research, this study suggests 250,000 that reductions in incarceration Proposition 47 Passed Jail November 2014 (in this case, the jail population Prison 200,000 Pandemic Starts specifically) and clearance rates March 2020 likely contributed to increases in 150,000 retail theft. However, the study was only able to explain about one-third 100,000 of the pandemic-era increase in nonresidential burglaries, which 50,000 suggests there are likely other key contributors to retail theft trends 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 in California. 12 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE AN LAO REPORT WHAT STATE LAW CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE TO ADDRESS RETAIL THEFT? In response to growing concerns, the Legislature • Aggregation of Multiple Incidents of Theft. and voters have enacted several law changes Historically, the dollar value of multiple acts of aimed at reducing retail theft. In this section, we shoplifting could generally not be aggregated discuss several of these changes and the ways to achieve a felony theft conviction (theft of in which they might reduce retail theft. Figure 6 over $950) unless it is proven that the separate on the next page provides a summary of the acts of shoplifting are motivated by a common changes. While some of these changes have been plan. Chapter 168 and Proposition 36 make it in effect for a few years, several were only recently easier for the value involved in multiple acts of enacted. Specifically, Proposition 36, approved theft or shoplifting to be aggregated to meet by the voters in November 2024 became effective the $950 threshold for a felony conviction. on December 18, 2024. In addition, a package of In addition, while it did not create a new legislation signed into law in fall 2024 generally crime, Chapter 165 of 2024 (AB 1779, Irwin) became effective on January 1, 2025. allows the consolidation of theft charges Authority for Law Enforcement to Arrest and that occurred in separate counties into a Detain Shoplifters Increased. Chapter 168 of single trial. This could facilitate aggregation 2024 (AB 2943, Zbur) expanded officers’ authority of dollar values for thefts that occurred in to arrest shoplifters and Chapter 803 of 2018 multiple counties. (AB 1065, Jones-Sawyer) added conditions under • Organized Retail Theft. Chapter 803 which they can be held in jail until arraignment. created the crime of “organized retail theft,” This could help deter people from committing which allows some cases where people work shoplifting if it causes them to perceive a higher together to commit retail theft to be charged likelihood of apprehension. Additionally, any time as felonies instead of misdemeanors. they spend in jail following arrest reduces their • Unlawful Deprivation of a Retail Business opportunity to commit more crime. Opportunity. Chapter 168 created the crime Retail Theft Elevated From Misdemeanor to of “unlawful deprivation of a retail business Felony in Some Cases. Some law changes allow opportunity,” which allows the dollar value misdemeanor acts of shoplifting or possessing involved with multiple misdemeanor acts of stolen property to be treated as felonies in certain possessing stolen property within a two-year cases. These felonies are punishable by up to three period to be aggregated into a felony. years in county jail or state prison depending on the • Shoplifting With Two or More Specified person’s criminal history. By elevating punishments Prior Convictions. Proposition 36 established from misdemeanors to felonies, these changes a new version of petty theft with a prior, which will cause some people to spend a longer time was previously generally eliminated under incarcerated, which, in turn, could reduce crime Proposition 47. This new law allows felony by reducing people’s subsequent opportunity to charges for people who commit shoplifting commit crime. In addition, the changes could make and have two or more past convictions for it more likely for people who commit these offenses certain theft crimes (such as shoplifting, to be arrested and detained prior to arraignment burglary, or carjacking). given that law enforcement generally has greater Increased Term Lengths for Retail Crime. authority to arrest and detain people for felonies. Some law changes increase the length of sentences This could help deter people from engaging in retail or supervision for certain retail theft crimes. theft if it causes them to perceive a higher likelihood The most significant changes include: of apprehension. We summarize these changes as follows: www.lao.ca.gov 13 AN LAO REPORT Figure 6 Several Recent Law Changes Intended to Reduce Retail Theft Primary Way(s) Changes Might Reduce Theft Likelihood of Apprehension Incarceration Increased Authority for Law Enforcement to Arrest and Detain Shoplifters Chapter 168 of 2024 Authorizes a peace officer to make a warrantless arrest for a  (AB 2943, Zbur) misdemeanor shoplifting offense not committed in the officer’s presence if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed shoplifting. Chapter 803 of 2018 Adds conditions under which people arrested for shoplifting can   (AB 1065, Jones-Sawyer) be held in jail until arraignment, such as having previously been cited for theft from a store or vehicle in the last six months. Elevated Some Retail Theft Crimes From Misdemeanors to Felonies Chapter 168 of 2024 Allows the dollar value of thefts committed by the same   (AB 2943, Zbur) defendant against different retailers or in separate counties to be aggregated in order to achieve a felony conviction if they are substantially similar in nature or occur within a 90-day period. Proposition 36 (2024) Allows the dollar value of thefts committed by the same defendant   to be aggregated in order to achieve a felony conviction in all cases, including if the thefts are not similar in nature or do not occur within a 90-day period. Chapter 165 of 2024 Allows the consolidation of theft charges that occurred in  (AB 1779, Irwin) separate counties into a single trial if the district attorneys in all of the involved jurisdictions agree. Chapter 803 of 2018 Establishes “organized retail theft” as a specific crime that   (AB 1065, Jones-Sawyer) involves working with other people to steal merchandise with an intent to sell it, knowingly receiving or purchasing such stolen merchandise, or organizing others to engage in these activities. If the value of the merchandise involved sums to more than $950 within a 12-month period, such people can be charged with a felony. People who organize others to engage in retail theft can be charged with a felony, regardless of the dollar amount involved. Chapter 168 of 2024 Establishes “unlawful deprivation of a retail business opportunity”   (AB 2943, Zbur) as a specific crime, punishable as a felony. The crime involves possessing more than $950 worth of stolen property with the intent to sell that property. For the purposes of determining if the $950 threshold has been met, the law allows the dollar value of multiple acts of possessing stolen property within a two-year period to be aggregated. It also allows the dollar value of stolen property possessed separately by two people to be added if those people were working together. Proposition 36 (2024) Allows felony charges for people who commit shoplifting and   have two or more past convictions for certain theft crimes (such as shoplifting, burglary, or carjacking). (Continued) • Misdemeanor Probation Term for relevant to the underlying factors that led to Shoplifting. Chapter 168 allows a court to their offense. (For example, someone stealing impose a two-year term of misdemeanor to support a drug addiction might be referred probation for people convicted of shoplifting, to substance use disorder treatment.) Being as opposed to the standard one year for under probation supervision can increase the misdemeanors. It requires a court that imposes likelihood a person is arrested for crimes they a term longer than one year to consider commit or is referred to relevant services. referring the defendant for services that are 14 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE AN LAO REPORT Primary Way(s) Changes Might Reduce Theft Likelihood of Apprehension Incarceration Increased Term Length for Some Retail Crimes Chapter 168 of 2024 Allows a court to impose a two-year term of misdemeanor  (AB 2943, Zbur) probation for people convicted of shoplifting, as opposed to the standard one-year term for misdemeanors. Chapter 174 of 2024 Allow increased sentences for people convicted of felonies in  (SB 1416, Newman), which the amount of property that was stolen or damaged is Chapter 220 of 2024 over $50,000, with longer enhancement terms as the dollar (AB 1960, Rivas), and amounts increase. For example, if the affected property is Proposition 36 worth more than $50,000 but not more than $200,000, a year can be added to the person’s sentence. If the property is worth more than $200,000 but not more than $1,000,000, two years can be added. Proposition 36 (2024) Allows up to three years to be added to the sentences of people  who worked with two or more other people to commit a felony involving theft or damage of property. Increased Capacity to Detect and Respond to Retail Crime Chapter 803 of 2018 Requires the California Highway Patrol to establish regional task  (AB 1065, Jones-Sawyer) forces to assist local law enforcement in addressing organized retail theft among other types of property crimes. 2022-23 Budget Act Provided $85 million annually for three years to support  competitive grants for local law enforcement to combat organized retail, motor vehicle, and cargo theft and $10 million annually for three years to support competitive grants to local prosecutors for vertical prosecution of organized retail theft. Chapter 857 of 2022 Requires online marketplaces—platforms that enable  (SB 301, Skinner) and third-party sellers to sell goods directly to consumers—to Chapter 172 of 2024 collect information from certain high-volume third-party sellers (SB 1144, Skinner) and report sellers to law enforcement when there is reason to believe the seller is offering stolen goods for sale. Chapter 169 of 2024 Authorizes courts when sentencing a person for an offense  (AB 3209, Berman) involving theft, vandalism, or battery of an employee of a retail establishment, to issue a criminal protective order prohibiting that person from entering that retail establishment. Also authorizes prosecutors and attorneys representing a retail establishment to file a petition for the issuance of a criminal protective order against a person who has been arrested two or more times for any of these offenses at the same retail establishment. • Added Time for Certain Theft or Property to commit a felony involving theft or damage Damage Felonies. Chapter 174 of 2024 of property. It is possible that these changes (SB 1416, Newman), Chapter 220 of 2024 will reduce crime by causing people to spend a (AB 1960, Rivas), and Proposition 36 all added longer amount of time in jail or prison, thereby similar language to state law, which allows for reducing their opportunity to commit crime. increased sentences for people convicted of However, because these changes affect crimes felonies in which the amount of property that that are already felonies, the affected people was stolen or damaged is over $50,000, with would already have been exposed to felony longer enhancement terms as the dollar incarceration terms without these changes. amounts increase. In addition, Proposition 36 These changes simply allow for them to be allows up to three years to be added to the given longer incarceration terms. sentences of people who worked with others www.lao.ca.gov 15 AN LAO REPORT Increased Capacity to Detect and Respond to local prosecutors for vertical prosecution to Retail Crime. As discussed below, various of organized retail theft. (Vertical prosecution other changes are intended to create increased is a strategy in which the same attorney is capacity to detect and respond to retail crime with responsible for all aspects of a case from a focus on more sophisticated retail crime rings and arraignment to disposition, which can promote people who engage in repeated and/or high-volume consistency throughout prosecution of cases thefts. These changes could reduce crime to the and the opportunity for attorneys to develop extent they increase the likelihood and/or perceived expertise in the content area.) likelihood that people are arrested for retail crime. • Regulation of Online Market Places. The most significant recent changes include: Chapter 857 of 2022 (SB 301, Skinner) and • Establishment of State-Level Task Forces. Chapter 172 of 2024 (SB 1144, Skinner) require Chapter 803 required the California Highway online marketplaces to collect information Patrol (CHP) to establish regional task forces from certain sellers and report sellers to law to assist local law enforcement in addressing enforcement when there is reason to believe organized retail theft among other types of the seller is offering stolen goods for sale. property crimes. The Governor’s proposed • Retail Theft Restraining Orders. Chapter 169 budget for 2025-26 includes $10.5 million of 2024 (AB 3209, Berman) authorizes courts from the General Fund (growing to $15 million to issue criminal protective orders prohibiting in 2026-27 and ongoing) to support these people from entering retail establishment task forces. where they have previously committed crimes. • Grants to Local Law Enforcement and Chapter 169 also authorizes prosecutors and Prosecutors to Combat Organized Retail attorneys representing a retail establishment Theft. The 2022-23 Budget Act provided to petition for such orders against people who $85 million annually for three years to the have been arrested two or more times at the Board of State and Community Corrections same retail establishment. Protective orders (BSCC) to support competitive grants for local allow employees to call law enforcement law enforcement to combat organized retail, to have such people arrested before they motor vehicle, and cargo theft. In addition, the commit additional crimes if they return to budget provided $10 million annually to BSCC the establishment. for three years to support competitive grants WHAT ARE KEY QUESTIONS FOR LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT? Below, we identify key questions that the Oversight of Implementation Legislature might want to ask as it conducts Are Practitioners, Stakeholders, and the oversight of the recent changes made to address Public Aware of the Changes? Recent law retail theft. First, we discuss questions intended changes have given criminal justice system to assist the Legislature in monitoring the practitioners several new enforcement and implementation of recent law changes. Second, we prosecutorial tools. However, these tools will not be discuss questions intended to assist the Legislature effective if these practitioners are not aware of them with monitoring key criminal justice system or do not fully understand them. Accordingly, the outcomes and costs to help it assess whether the Legislature may want to ask representatives of law changes were successful. enforcement and prosecution agencies how they have been communicating with and training staff 16 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE AN LAO REPORT on these law changes. Similarly, some changes shoplifting to be convicted of a felony if they have may require the awareness and collaboration of two or more prior theft-related convictions at any retailers in order to be effective. For example, to point in their past. However, some prosecutors’ achieve a felony conviction by aggregating the offices may choose to ignore prior convictions that dollar value of multiple thefts from different retailers, occurred more than a certain number of years in law enforcement will need each retailer to report the past. Others may choose to consider all prior the crime and provide evidence. If retailers are convictions. This implementation choice will help aware that their contribution could lead to a felony determine whether such felony convictions are conviction under new laws, they may be more likely broadly or narrowly applied. In addition, there could to dedicate the staff resources necessary for this be variation in how the new tools are affecting collaboration. Finally, the Legislature may want to different types of businesses. For example, new consider the extent to which the public is aware laws that allow separate acts of misdemeanor theft of the law changes. Broader public awareness of to be aggregated to achieve a felony conviction may these new enforcement and prosecutorial tools be more helpful for corporate retailers with multiple could help deter people from committing retail stores operated by a single parent company than theft by increasing the perception that they will for franchises and small, independent businesses. get caught. This is because it is likely easier for parent Are Practitioners and Stakeholders Using companies to identify if the same individual has the New Tools Available to Them? Even if stolen from multiple locations so that they can be practitioners and stakeholders are aware of the referred to law enforcement for felony charges. new tools, the Legislature may want to assess the Are Promising Practices Being Captured extent to which they are actually using these tools. and Shared? Variation in local implementation For example, the Legislature may want to review could yield useful lessons about what strategies conviction data or ask representatives of law seem to be effective. In addition, some agencies— enforcement agencies to determine how often such as the recipients of the organized retail the new crime of unlawful deprivation of a retail theft grant funds distributed by BSCC—may be business opportunity is being used to arrest or farther ahead in developing enforcement and prosecute in retail theft incidents. Similarly, it may prosecution strategies. Accordingly, the Legislature want to consult with retailers to understand how may want to assess whether promising strategies often they choose to seek criminal protective are being captured and shared. For example, orders under Chapter 169. If such tools are rarely it could ask state-level agencies—including being used, this could be a sign that they need to BSCC, CHP, and the Department of Justice—or be modified. For example, it is possible that some statewide associations—such as the California laws may go unused because they are too onerous District Attorneys Association or the California to be practical and may require revisions in order Retailer’s Association—what venues or systems to achieve their intended effect. Alternatively, low exist to facilitate capturing and sharing of utilization could be a sign that one of the other promising practices. policy changes—such as Proposition 36—provided Are the Laws Robust to Technological a broader authority for law enforcement and is Change? Over the longer term, the Legislature therefore preferred by practitioners as a means to may want to monitor whether the laws are robust to achieve the same ends. technological change. This is particularly relevant to How Are Practitioners and Stakeholders the regulation of online market places to prevent the Using the New Tools? The Legislature may also sale of stolen goods. This is a relatively new area of want to get a sense of how the new tools are being regulation and one that is likely continuing to evolve used and how their use varies across the state. For as new online platforms or criminal strategies for example, Proposition 36 allows people who commit utilizing existing ones emerge. www.lao.ca.gov 17 AN LAO REPORT Oversight of Key Outcomes would be less likely to face increased punishments in the juvenile justice system. Accordingly, Is Reported Retail Theft Going Down? monitoring for potential disparate impact by age The primary goal of the law changes discussed group, race/ethnicity, housing status, substance use above is to reduce retail theft. To determine whether disorder, or geographic region could provide the these specific law changes—as opposed to other Legislature with greater insight into impacts of the factors that can affect crime—cause retail theft to law changes. go down will likely require a relatively sophisticated academic study. Absent or until such a study is How Much Have Criminal Justice System completed, monitoring rates of reported shoplifting Costs Increased? Many of the law changes and commercial burglary can still provide a helpful increase state and local government costs— indication of whether crime is declining, regardless primarily by increasing the prison, jail, and probation of cause. However, we caution that the law changes populations. However, the actual increase in costs themselves may cause retailers to be more likely to will depend on implementation decisions made by report crime to law enforcement and/or may cause various actors. For example, the extent to which law enforcement to be more likely (or able) to arrest prosecutors apply their new sentencing tools in a and prosecute people for the affected crimes. To the narrow or broad manner will impact the number extent these dynamics occur, they could cause of cases affected by the increased punishment. reported crime, arrests, or convictions to increase In addition, decisions made by judges—such as even if the actual underlying level of crime stays the whether to sentence people convicted of felonies same or declines. Accordingly, raw crime and arrest to jail or prison as opposed to granting probation data must be interpreted with caution. in lieu of incarceration—will impact system costs. Pinpointing cost increases tied directly to the use Are Clearance Rates Going Up? As discussed of these new enforcement and prosecution tools above, research suggests that crime can be may be difficult due to both limited data and the reduced when the likelihood of apprehension challenge of knowing what costs would have been increases. Monitoring burglary clearance rates can absent these law changes. However, the Legislature give the Legislature a sense of whether the likelihood can monitor for notable increases in prison, jail, of apprehension is increasing. However, again, we and probation populations. In addition, as the caution that if retailers become more likely to report Legislature conducts oversight of implementation, crime as a result of the law changes, then clearance it may uncover information—such as which tools are rates could go down even if the actual likelihood of driving the most use of incarceration—that can yield apprehension increases. avenues for further inquiry around cost. Are There Unintended Consequences? Do the Benefits Outweigh the Costs? As As with any new policy, unintended consequences the Legislature gathers answers to the above can occur. For example, directing increased questions—such as through commissioning studies enforcement resources toward retail theft could or engaging in dialogue with practitioners and cause criminals to shift their focus to other illegal stakeholders—some sense of the magnitude of sources of revenue. While data limitations may make benefits, costs and any unintended consequences it difficult to directly detect such shifts at a statewide should start to emerge. At that point, the Legislature level, this is an area where the Legislature could will want to consider whether the increases in costs engage representatives of local law enforcement or and or unintended consequences of these changes others who may have insight into crime dynamics. are justified by reductions in the crime rate and/or Another potential unintended consequence of these increases in the clearance rates. In particular, the law changes is that they could have disproportionate Legislature may want to scrutinize the use of the effects on certain groups of people. For example, most expensive interventions, such as incarceration, increased punishment for adults caught shoplifting to ensure they are reserved for cases where could cause organized theft rings to recruit juveniles research suggests they could yield a commensurate to shoplift for them under the expectation that they reduction in crime. For example, since incarceration 18 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE AN LAO REPORT can be relatively costly for the state or local to be cost effective than interventions that increase governments, research suggests that adding time to the likelihood of apprehension, such as increasing felony jail or prison sentences is generally less likely police presence. CONCLUSION In response to growing concerns, the Legislature enforcement and prosecutors to respond to retail and the voters recently approved several law theft, how research suggests these tools could changes intended to reduce retail theft. The potentially impact crime rates, and provide key potential effects of these law changes are complex questions about implementation and outcomes and will depend heavily on implementation of these changes for the Legislature to ask as decisions made by local criminal justice system it conducts ongoing oversight of the issue of actors. We outline in this report how the recent retail theft. law changes expanded the tools available for law www.lao.ca.gov 19 AN LAO REPORT LAO PUBLICATIONS This report was prepared by Caitlin O’Neil, and reviewed by Drew Soderborg and Ross Brown. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) is a nonpartisan office that provides fiscal and policy information and advice to the Legislature. To request publications call (916) 445-4656. This report and others, as well as an e-mail subscription service, are available on the LAO’s website at www.lao.ca.gov. The LAO is located at 925 L Street, Suite 1000, Sacramento, California 95814. 20 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE