After the Assembly Public Safety Committee proposed amendments to Assembly Bill (AB) 2390 that the California Retailers Association (CRA) thought were too narrow, Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance) withdrew the legislation last week.
“The committee’s initial reaction was for us to take or leave the amendments they offered us or they would oppose the bill and we're now trying to work through that,” said Steve McCarthy, CRA’s vice president of government affairs and policy. “We didn't want to lose the bill right away. Instead, we are trying to extend the conversation a little bit further.”
Muratsuchi authored AB 2390 to strengthen Proposition 47 as a solution to stop ‘smash and grab’ incidents that are allegedly impacting small businesses statewide.
“The bill is still alive,” McCarthy told the Southern California Record. “The policy committee deadline is April 29th. So, the bill has to be approved by the Assembly Public Safety Committee by then. There are two more hearings. One is on April 19th, and the final one is on April 26th. It needs to be approved at one of those hearings. Then, it can move forward. If not, it's pretty much dead at that point.”
Prop 47 was approved by voters in 2014 to raise the dollar amount at which point stealing can be prosecuted as a felony from $400 to $950, according to media reports.
If approved, AB 2390 would allow multiple instances of retail theft to be aggregated towards $950, which would result in a felony charge, however the Assembly Public Safety Committee argued against combining multiple theft incidents citing prior case law.
“Under the Bailey case, certain factors have to be present for grand theft to be charged,” McCarthy said. “In order to charge multiple thefts as one, they all have to be part of one plan, one intention, and one general impulse. All of those factors have to be present where over time if a defendant accumulates more than the grand theft total, we think there should still be the option to make a felony charge at that point.”
CRA is calling for a stakeholder meeting of interested groups on the issue to discuss some alternatives.
“Postponing the bill hearing is giving us some time to have that conversation with the Committee,” McCarthy added. “We thought the Committee’s proposed amendments wouldn't apply to the vast majority of cases of retail theft.”