SF shoplifting analysis: Prop 47 binds police, shifts burden of arrest to citizens

Girolamo da Santacroce: The Young Mercury Stealing Cattle from the Herd of Apollo, 1540. Image in Public Domain

GrowSF analyzes the Golden City's elevated property crimes post-Prop 47, and explains that reclassifying felonies as misdemeanors has put the onus on eyewitnesses to pursue laborious “citizen's arrests,” since police now can't directly arrest folks who steal under $950. As SJ's mayor Mahan remarks, does it make sense to slap offenders on the wrist for “repeatedly harm[ing] our community”?

Before Prop 47, police officers could perform arrests for shoplifting, but Prop 47 removed that authority, making it much easier to shoplift without any consequences. With the passage of Prop 47, police officers could no longer treat shoplifting as a burglary (as long as the dollar value of what was stolen remained below $950).

The practical impact of all this? All "arrests" for shoplifting had to now be carried out through a "citizen's arrest" which is a legal process in which a non-law enforcement person had to 1) witness the event and 2) show up in court to prosecute the event (or at least testify that the person in question committed the shoplifting). After Prop 47, police officers were not permitted to arrest on the grounds of shoplifting.

In San Francisco, police cannot arrest anyone for shoplifting under a felony charge if the goods stolen are under $950. Instead, SFPD is often held to its "citation release" policy, meaning that most shoplifters are just given a fine of no more than $1,000 and let go. Fining someone $1,000 for stealing $950 doesn't sound like much of a punishment, and with how infrequently this fine is doled out, we can see how profitable shoplifting truly is.

To put this another way, Prop 47 put the burden of arrest on the person who saw the offense happen, rather than the law enforcement agency. So to seek any type of judicial procedure for the person who committed the offense, the person present for the crime—who in many cases is the store security guard (we have over 8,000 in SF alone, almost 4x the number of cops)—would have to: 1) call the police, 2) detain the offender until the police arrive, 3) once the police arrive, sign for personal responsibility that you saw the person commit the crime you claimed they committed, 4) show up in court when the case is tried, 5) followup as needed for the prosecution to occur.

But as you can imagine, the usual response is just inaction. Who would risk their life detaining a criminal who might be armed? Who wants to show up in court? Who wants to get pulled into the complex legal process of prosecution? And why would a security guard feel the incentive to do so when they have little skin in the game?

This article originally appeared in GrowSF. Read the whole thing here.

Related:

• Stockton mayor: Prosecuting theft less rigidly only (you guessed it) increases theft

• Why Bay Area's Asian residents are demanding crime-tolerant leaders get the sack

• CA's “coddle-the-criminal” policies making crime rates soar

Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity

Sign up to receive updates on Opp Now articles

Email Address:

First Name:

Last Name:

Opp Now enthusiastically welcomes smart, thoughtful, fair-minded, well-written comments from our readers. But be advised: we have zero interest in posting rants, ad hominems, poorly-argued screeds, transparently partisan yack, or the hateful name-calling often seen on other local websites. So if you've got a great idea that will add to the conversation, please send it in. If you're trolling or shilling for a candidate or initiative, forget it.