Our Mission

Learn who we are and how we serve our community

Leadership

Meet our leaders, trustees and team

Foundation

Developing the next generation of talent

C+CT

Covering the latest news and trends in the marketplaces industry

Industry Insights

Check out wide-ranging resources that educate and inspire

Government Relations & Public Policy

Learn about the governmental initiatives we support

Events

Connect with other professionals at a local, regional or national event

Virtual Series

Find webinars from industry experts on the latest topics and trends

Professional Development

Grow your skills online, in a class or at an event with expert guidance

Find Members

Access our Member Directory and connect with colleagues

ICSC Networking Platform

Get recommended matches for new business partners

Student Resources

Find tools to support your education and professional development

Become a Member

Learn about how to join ICSC and the benefits of membership

Renew Membership

Stay connected with ICSC and continue to receive membership benefits

Government Relations & Public Policy

CA: Lawmakers Enact Sweeping Retail Theft Legislation Before Voters Weigh In on Prop. 36

September 5, 2024

Last month, California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) signed landmark legislation that boosts the state’s effort to crack down and prevent organized retail crime (ORC) in the state. The package of 10 bills, co-authored by Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D) and the Select Committee on Retail Theft, increases penalties for violent and repeat offenders while providing law enforcement and prosecutors with more tools to pursue retail thieves.

While this group of bills broadly addresses ORC, a separate ballot measure appearing before voters in November — Proposition 36 — would bring tougher penalties for retail thieves who steal below $950, the current felony theft threshold. If approved by voters, Prop. 36 would allow prosecutors to charge repeat theft offenders with a felony theft count, regardless of the dollar amount stolen. In addition, the measure would allow prosecutors and law enforcement to charge thieves for the total value of property stolen across multiple jurisdictions.

ORC has been a major issue in California and some have called for amending the 2014 voter-approved Proposition 47 as a way to address the rise in crime. Critics of Prop. 47 claim that increasing the felony threshold for property thefts from $400 to $950 has emboldened thieves who know they can steal up to $950 worth of goods without receiving felony charges.

ICSC has actively supported both the Prop. 36 campaign and the recently enacted ORC legislation. ICSC worked closely with the California Business Properties Association (CBPA) and legislative leaders to advance the package of ORC-related bills, and Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig, sponsor of Proposition 36, served as a keynote speaker at ICSC@MONTEREY. Additionally, efforts have been made to coordinate with local elected officials, including San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, to bolster support for the initiative and legislation.

What are the differences between the ORC legislation enacted this year and Prop. 36?

There is still some confusion over what the package of legislation accomplishes, how that legislation impacts the state statute and what effect the passage of Proposition 36 will have. The chart below breaks down the main objectives of each policy and compares them based on which theft prevention measures have been adopted in other states. Broadly speaking, Prop. 36 is narrowly focused on increasing penalties for thieves who are stealing below the $950 threshold, whereas the package of ORC bills signed into law seeks to address both enforcement and sentencing for high-dollar thefts.

 

ORC Legislation Enacted in 2024

Proposition 36

Aggregation

Prosecutors are allowed to charge offenders with the total value of goods stolen across multiple jurisdictions over two years (AB 2943).

Prosecutors are allowed to aggregate the total value of goods stolen so that offenders who steal over $950 may be charged with a felony. The measure does not provide any time duration limits.

Increased penalties

  • The probation period for petty theft has increased from one to two years (AB 2943).
  • Increases penalties for a person who steals or destroys property worth ≥$50,000 (AB 1960).
  • Increases penalties for a theft offender who sets a retailer’s property on fire (SB 1242).
  • Allows a court to impose a restraining order for up to two years against a person who has stolen, vandalized, or committed battery against a retail employee (AB 3209).
  • Makes theft, regardless of the value, a felony offense if the offender has two or more past theft convictions.

Note: A judge may still exercise discretion on how to sentence a theft offender. Judges may also sentence an offender to a state prison if the offender is convicted four or more times of theft.

  • Increases penalties for offenders who steal, damage or destroy property with two or more offenders or by causing ≥$50,000 worth of damages. 
  • Convicted felons may receive more than three years in jail for acting with three or more individuals.

Organized Retail Theft As an Offense

  • Creates the misdemeanor and felony offense of coordinating with one or more persons to steal ≥$950 with the intent to sell, exchange, or return goods for value (AB 2943).
  • Extends the crime of organized retail theft indefinitely (AB 1802 & SB 982).
 

Tools for Law Enforcement

  • Allows peace officers to arrest persons for shoplifting with probable cause (AB 2943).
  • Makes the California Highway Patrol Retail Theft Task Force permanent (AB 1802).
  • Removes limitations on the jurisdictional rules for theft crimes to criminal actions brought by the Attorney General (AB 1779).
 

Business Protections

Bans law enforcement from bringing a nuisance action against a business for the act of reporting retail crime, unless the report is knowingly false (AB 2943).

 

 

What happens if voters approve Prop. 36?

Prop. 36 is an “initiated state statute,” which means that if a majority of voters approve Prop. 36 on November 5 then the state’s statute on theft offenses will be amended with the ballot’s language. Lawmakers do not have a say on the measure if it is approved by voters. The package of bills enacted by lawmakers this year, meanwhile, will still go into effect on January 1, 2025. It remains to be seen how any contradictory language between the enacted legislation and the ballot measure may be resolved.

What if Prop. 36 is rejected?

If voters reject the ballot measure, then Prop. 47 (2014) would remain the law of the land and the package of ten ORC bills will go into effect on January 1, 2025.

Who is supportive of Prop. 36 and what do voters think?

The Californians for Safer Communities Coalition is the main organization leading the “yes” campaign for Prop. 36. The coalition is made up of district attorneys, retailers, small businesses, law enforcement and prominent lawmakers, including Democratic Mayors London Breed of San Francisco and Matt Mahan of San Jose. According to a recent poll conducted by The Los Angeles Times and UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, 56% of likely voters in California say they support Proposition 36.

For more information contact gpp@icsc.com