BILL ANALYSIS
SB 703
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 15, 2004
Counsel: Kathleen Ragan
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Mark Leno, Chair
SB 703 (Florez) - As Amended: June 2, 2004
As Proposed to be Amended in Committee
SUMMARY : Increases the penalties for theft of diesel fuel on
agricultural property. Specifically, this bill :
1)Adds the theft of diesel fuel of a value exceeding $100 to the
definition of "grand theft".
2)Adds the theft of diesel fuel to the crime of theft, and
subjects a person convicted to the specified additional
penalties in addition to the existing penalties for theft.
3)Adds diesel fuel to the crime of possession of stolen
property. Subjects a person convicted of the possession of
stolen diesel fuel to specified penalties in addition to the
existing penalties for possession of stolen property.
4)States that upon a conviction of theft of diesel fuel or
possession of stolen diesel fuel, a court may impose the
following penalties if a vehicle was used to transport or
store the stolen diesel fuel:
a) Suspend, for not more than six months, the person's
privilege to operate a motor vehicle;
b) For each successive offense, suspend the person's
privilege to operate a motor vehicle for one additional
year;
c) In lieu of suspension, allow the court to restrict the
privilege to operate a motor vehicle to that necessary to
travel to and from the person's place of employment or
school for six months;
d) In lieu of suspension, provide that the court may
restrict the driving privilege to allow driving in the
SB 703
Page 2
scope of the person's employment if driving a motor vehicle
is necessary to perform the duties of the person's
employment; and,
e) In lieu of suspending the driver's license, the court
may order the privilege to operate a motor vehicle
restricted to necessary travel in situations of a medical
emergency.
f) Deem the vehicle a nuisance and subject the vehicle to
forfeiture, subject to specified procedures of the Vehicle
Code related to forfeiture and impoundment of vehicles.
EXISTING LAW :
1)States that every person who takes steals or drives away the
personal property of another is guilty of theft. [Penal Code
Section 484(a).]
2)Provides that when the value of the property taken is over
$400, the taking constitutes grand theft. [Penal Code Section
487(a).]
3)States that notwithstanding the value, grand theft is
committed in the following cases:
a) When domestic fowls, avocados, olives, citrus and other
specified farm crops of a value exceeding $100 are taken;
b) When fish, shellfish, mollusks, crustaceans, kelp, algae
or other aquacultural products are taken from a commercial
or research operation, of a value exceeding $100;
c) When the money, labor real or personal property is taken
by a servant, agent or employee from his or her principal
and aggregates $400 or more in any 12 month period;
d) When the property is taken from the person of another;
e) When the property taken is any of the following:
i) An automobile, horse, mare, gelding, any bovine
animal, any caprine animal, mule, jack, jenny, sheep,
lamb, hog, sow, boar, gilt, barrow, or pig; or,
SB 703
Page 3
ii) A firearm.
f) When the property taken is the carcass of specified
animals, which was misappropriated or killed without the
consent of the owner. [Penal Code Section 487a.]
g) Conversion of real estate of the value of $100 or more
into personal property by severance from the realty of
another person. [Penal Code Section 487b.]
h) Taking or stealing of a dog of another person of a value
exceeding $400. [Penal Code Section 487e.]
4)Provides that all other theft is petty theft. [Penal Code
Section 488.]
5)States that grand theft is punishable by imprisonment in the
state prison for 16 months, 2 or 3 years when the theft is of
a firearm. [Penal Code Section 489(a).]
6)Provides that in all other cases, grand theft is punishable by
imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the
state prison. [Penal Code Section 489(b).]
7)States that petty theft is punishable by a fine not exceeding
$1,000, or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six
months, or both. (Penal Code Section 490.)
8)Provides that petty theft of property the value of which does
not exceed $50 may be charged as a misdemeanor or an
infraction, at the discretion of the prosecutor, provided that
the person has no other theft or theft-related conviction.
States that a violation that is an infraction is punishable by
a fine not exceeding $250. (Penal Code Section 490.1.)
9)Provides that a person convicted of receiving stolen property
shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison or in a
county jail for not more than one year. States that the
district attorney may specify that the offense is a
misdemeanor if the value of the property does not exceed $400,
and that this action would be in the interest of justice.
[Penal Code Section 496(a).]
10)Provides that a motor vehicle is subject to forfeiture as a
nuisance if it is driven on a highway by persons with
SB 703
Page 4
specified violations relative to driver's license violations.
[Vehicle Code Section 14607.6(a).]
11)Sets forth the manner in which the proceeds of the sale of a
forfeited vehicle shall be disposed and a priority among
competing interests for those proceeds. [Vehicle Code Section
14607.6(i).]
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "This bill
increases the penalties for the theft of diesel fuel from
agricultural operations. Specifically, this bill authorizes
judges to suspend the driver's license and confiscate the
vehicle of a person convicted of stealing farm diesel fuel.
"According to the California Farm Bureau Federation, fuel theft
in the San Joaquin Valley has quadrupled over the past year.
Statistics from the Agricultural Crime Technology Information
and Operations Network show that in an eight-county radius
including Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Fresno,
Kern and Kings Counties, the amount of diesel fuel theft has
gone up from 33,380 gallons in 2003 to 41,065 gallons between
January and April 2004. The overall number of thefts reported
has risen from 26 in the entire 2003 calendar year to 47 in
just the first four months of this year. The network has
already recorded over $82,000 worth of diesel fuel stolen
in2004, a 100 percent increase over last year.
"The Kern County Sheriff's Department has stated that the recent
rise in diesel fuel prices is one of many factors causing the
increase in farm diesel thefts. Stolen diesel from farms is
resold to truckers on the black market for a cheaper price,
costing farmers tens of thousands of dollars each year.
"One of the tools that could be used by law enforcement agencies
to prevent fuel theft on California farms is the suspension of
a convicted thief's driver's license. The National
Association of Convenience Stores reports that as of April
2004, at least 25 states have passed laws in which a judge has
discretion to suspend the driver's license of a person
convicted of gas theft. However, California law does not
currently provide judges with similar authority to penalize
SB 703
Page 5
individuals convicted of stealing fuel on the farm or
otherwise.
"By authorizing judges to suspend the license and confiscate the
vehicle of an individual caught stealing diesel fuel from
agricultural property, this bill will save growers money and
improve the security of fuel on California farms."
2)Increase in the Theft of Diesel Fuel : According to background
information from the Fresno Bee (June 2, 2004) the cost to the
farmers of the theft of diesel fuel goes beyond the price of
the fuel. A Fresno County Sheriff's Department spokesman
states, "It can shut them down for a time and add to losses
for farmers who are struggling to stay in business."
According to the article, a Fresno County supervisor stated that
the stolen fuel could also pose a risk to homeland security
because it, along with fertilizer, could be used for explosive
devices.
3)Is There a Nexus between Theft of Diesel Fuel and the
Penalties Proposed by this Bill ? This bill proposes
suspension of the driver's licenses of persons convicted of
the theft of diesel fuel and impoundment of their vehicles
used in furtherance of the theft. There is no evidence that a
majority of the people who steal diesel fuel own the vehicles
used to steal the diesel fuel, or even that they have driver's
licenses.
If a person does have a driver's license, is there a rational
basis to suspend the driver's license of a person convicted of
stealing diesel fuel but not a person convicted of stealing
avocados, mussels, or dogs worth more than $400? What about a
person convicted of siphoning regular gasoline from cars
parked on the street?
4)Is This Bill Internally Inconsistent ? If a person is
convicted of stealing diesel fuel, what is the rationale for
allowing the court to restrict the person's driving privilege
if he or she must drive in the course of his or her
employment? It could be argued that a professional driver
convicted of stealing diesel fuel may have stolen the diesel
fuel to facilitate his or her employment by reducing the cost
and thus increasing the profits of that driving employment.
For example, why should the driver's license of a stay-at-home
SB 703
Page 6
parent be completely suspended when the driver's license of a
teamster merely be restricted if both have committed the same
crime of stealing diesel fuel?
What is the purpose of the increasing periods of suspension for
successive violations, especially in view of the unfettered
ability of the court to order only license restriction for
certain classes of people convicted of the theft of diesel
fuel? It could be argued that a person who drives in
connection with his or her employment and is convicted of
stealing diesel fuel on multiple occasions should not be
allowed to continue to drive on a restricted license.
Additionally, the successive periods of license suspension for a
chronic diesel fuel thief ignores the likelihood that the
person with several grand theft convictions will be imprisoned
at some point and, therefore, not affected by a driver's
license suspension that is concurrent with his or her
sentence.
5)Forfeiture Issues : Although specifically allowed for by
certain Vehicle Code provisions, the forfeiture of a vehicle
raises a number of societal concerns where the vehicle is
owned by a married person and is community, not separate,
property. Additionally, even if the vehicle being forfeited
is legally owned by only the diesel fuel thief, that vehicle
may in fact be a household vehicle used by family members or
partners completely innocent of the crime of theft of diesel
fuel. Forfeiture and sale of a vehicle because it was used in
the commission of a crime poses potential significant
hardships on other innocent persons who depend on that vehicle
for transportation, notwithstanding the fact that they may not
be legal owners.
The courts have held that a state's suspension of a driver's
license for statutorily defined cause must comport with
constitutional due process requirements, to protect against an
erroneous deprivation of the driver's property interest in
that license. [ Mackey v. Montrym , 443 U.S. 1 (1979); Peretto
v. Department of Motor Vehicles , 235 Cal. App. 3d 449 (1991);
rev. denied.] Although this bill proposes to utilize the
forfeiture provisions of the Vehicle Code as to hearings and
the priority order of disbursement of the proceeds of the
vehicle's sale, those procedures apply to persons with prior
convictions of specified driver's license provisions.
SB 703
Page 7
The proceeds of the sale of a forfeited vehicle go first to
satisfy towing charges; then to the legal owner to satisfy
indebtedness; then to the holder of any subordinate liens;
and, finally, to any other person who can establish an
interest in the vehicle, including a community property
interest. If there are remaining proceeds, they are divided
between local agencies and the state.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None on file
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Kathleen Ragan / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744