A new batch of laws targeting crimes that have increased a “sense of social anxiety” among Californians reflects support for stronger penalties following a decade of easing punishments, but experts say they don’t signal a return to the “tough-on-crime” policies of decades past.
The laws taking effect on New Year’s Day will tackle property crimes, retail theft rings and other offenses. Some will allow prosecutors to add new sentencing enhancements for some types of retail theft or extend laws expanding the definition of organized retail theft that previously were set to end. Others introduce new regulations aimed at stemming the sale of stolen goods online or attempting to return stolen goods to stores for money.
Experts say the laws passed in 2024 represent a slight shift away from a more recent focus on decreasing incarceration but won’t push California back to its tougher policies of the 1980s. Rather, they say, the changes reflect popular support for tougher penalties.
“We had been having a period of reform, sort of moving the state away from a multi-decade-long commitment to heavy use of incarceration,” said Jonathan Simon, a professor of criminal justice law at UC Berkeley Law. “It’s not clear whether what we’re seeing is the end of that period of reform.”
In August, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed 10 of these bills — many written in collaboration with big retailers — into law, saying that Californians’ concerns about organized retail theft were “front and center.”
“Public opinion has shifted,” said Garrick Percival, professor of political science at San Jose State. “Although I think it’s important not to read too much into the shift because I think there’s still plenty of evidence that the public supports rehabilitation programs and is not supportive of ramping up sort of mass incarceration as the state has sort of practiced for many years. It’s a bit of a corrective.”
Simon said many new laws are “redrawing the line” around existing crimes that have recently been associated with a new “sense of social anxiety.” He added that many of the laws would initially apply to “a fairly narrow number of cases.”
Many retail theft laws focus on the prosecution of these crimes, including new sentencing rules for setting fires to facilitate retail theft (SB 1242, introduced by State Sen. Dave Min) and sentencing enhancements for returning, exchanging or selling stolen goods (SB 1416, introduced by State Sen. Josh Newman) and for retail theft valued at more than $50,000 (AB 1960, introduced by Assemblymember Robert Rivas).
The consequences of the new laws will depend on whether law enforcement officers make more arrests based on the laws and how frequently prosecutors charge crimes, Percival said.
Prosecutors “still are going to have quite a bit of discretion to charge offenders,” he said. “I think the most likely outcome is you’re going to see these (laws) applied differently depending on which county you’re in.”
AB 1779, introduced by Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin, allows prosecutors to consolidate theft charges from separate counties into one trial as long as the district attorneys of each locale agree. Another new law, AB 1802, extends the crime of organized retail theft, which previously had a sunset date at the beginning of 2026, to last indefinitely. That same bill also extends a task force of the California Highway Patrol that works to analyze organized retail theft and vehicle burglary.
Another law, AB 1972, allows for the expansion of the CHP property crimes task force to also analyze railroad and cargo theft.
A law introduced by State Sen. Nancy Skinner, SB 1144, requires online marketplaces to create policies prohibiting the sale of stolen goods and alert California law enforcement agencies of anyone believed to be trying to sell stolen goods to California residents.
Other laws focus on enforcement to reduce retail theft.
AB 2943, introduced by Assemblymembers Rick Chavez Zbur and Robert Rivas, allows police to make warrantless arrests for misdemeanor shoplifting if officers did not witness the crime, so long as they can state probable cause. It also expands the definition of what is considered “related acts” to reach the threshold to charge someone with grand theft.
Because officers will now be able to arrest based on the testimony of a witness, the change will “almost certainly increase the potential number of people who are arrested,” Simon said.
Percival explained that the length of the penalty is not the largest factor in deterrence but rather the “odds of getting caught in the act,” meaning that laws expanding police enforcement could potentially help decrease the number of people who attempt retail theft.
Higher sentences for some crimes may also have an “indirect effect” on police behavior toward choosing arrests if they know that someone is more likely to be charged for a crime, he said. Then, they “might be more willing to make an arrest whereas before he or she may not have done that.”
Another law, AB 3209, will allow courts to issue orders prohibiting people convicted of theft or vandalism of a retail store, or battery on a retail employee, from returning to the retail establishment and institutes jail time of up to six months for violating that order.
Beyond retail theft, other crime laws focus on vehicles. A new law introduced by State Sen. Scott Wiener closes the so-called “locked door loophole,” making it a crime to forcibly enter a vehicle with the intention to commit theft.
“It’s a little early to know what the effects are going to be, not only on number of arrests, but also on overall crime rates,” Percival said.
Originally Published:
