California report examines impacts of new retail theft law

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) — Retail theft drew major headlines across California last year, as a statewide voter initiative targeting the issue took center stage.

That initiative — Proposition 36 — passed overwhelmingly, increasing penalties for certain theft and drug crimes. Now in effect for six months, the new law is a main focus in a report released Thursday by the state Legislative Analyst’s Office.

The report offers no hard opinions, but instead highlights how changes in the law expand law enforcement power over retail theft, points to how it could impact crime rates and provides questions for lawmakers to tackle as they continue to work on the issue.

“Retail theft has implications for economic outcomes, as well as a sense of safety, well-being, and fundamental quality of life for Californians,” the office wrote.

California saw retail theft climb over the past 10 years, with a slight rise in 2015 followed by a decline through 2021. Half of the decline happened between 2019 and 2020, likely because of stay-at-home orders stemming from the Covid-19 pandemic.

Retail theft increased as the pandemic waned, leading to an 11% increase between 2014 and 2023 statewide.

The office points to a 2014 voter referendum — Proposition 47, which was repealed by the November measure — as a key reason for retail theft trends. Proposition 47 dropped penalties for many retail theft offenses to a misdemeanor, if the items stolen were $950 or less.

Other impacts on retail theft trends could include the early release of some inmates from prison during the pandemic, and the reduction in probationary sentences, the office wrote.

“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,” it added.

However, while researchers determined Proposition 47 increased larceny, they couldn’t pinpoint its impact on retail theft specifically. This led the office to opine that changes in the retail landscape, for example, likely played a role in the state’s retail theft trends.

Pivoting to Proposition 36, the office noted that laws like it were passed because of rising concern. Changes include increasing law enforcement’s power to detain shoplifters, making retail theft a felony in some cases, heightening prison time for such theft and increasing the ability to find and respond to retail theft.

The office wrote that the changes could lead to more arrests, as authorities have more leeway in charging someone with a felony. That could result in less retail theft if people believe they face a greater chance of arrest.

Concluding its report, the office offered questions for the Legislature to examine, the first of which is whether law enforcement, retailers and the public know about the changes to the law.

“Broader public awareness of these new enforcement and prosecutorial tools could help deter people from committing retail theft by increasing the perception that they will get caught,” the office wrote.

Other questions include whether authorities are using the new law, if retail theft is decreasing and do unintended consequences exist.

Determining whether the law is working could prove tricky.

The office wrote that retailers could start reporting thefts more often to law enforcement because the law changed and authorities could arrest and prosecute more offenders.

“To the extent these dynamics occur, they could cause reported crime, arrests, or convictions to increase even if the actual underlying level of crime stays the same or declines,” the office wrote. “Accordingly, raw crime and arrest data must be interpreted with caution.”

Watching for unintended consequences also requires a keen eye.

The office wrote that criminals could shift their focus to other types of illegal revenue or recruit juveniles to shoplift for them, figuring they would face a lesser punishment.

It advised the Legislature to monitor disparate impacts by age, race and ethnicity, housing status and substance use disorder to get a better understanding of the law’s effects.