California’s new law introduces tougher measures for drug and shoplifting crimes

Californians accused of certain drug and retail theft crimes already face tougher penalties under a voter initiative this year, along with related bills signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Voters in November overwhelmingly approved Proposition 36, which amends and adds key changes to California law.

That includes prosecutors being able to charge people convicted of various drug offenses for a third time with a so-called treatment-mandated offense, which would refer them to substance use disorder or mental health treatment instead of up to three years of jail or prison.

Under the new law, courts are also required to warn people convicted of selling or supplying certain drugs, such as fentanyl, that they could face felony charges for later distributing illegal drugs that kill someone.

And harsher consequences can also extend to petty theft and shoplifting offenses, including the possibility of up to three years in jail or prison if a person has already been convicted twice of certain theft offences.

Several district attorneys and police departments announced arrests this month that they planned to charge under the new law, including in San Francisco, Solano and Shasta counties.

The measure partially reversed another initiative approved by voters a decade ago that reduced penalties for certain low-level drug offenses and petty theft from misdemeanors to felonies. The initiative, Proposition 47, was intended to develop new public safety strategies and reduce incarceration after the state’s prison population exploded due to tough-on-crime policies dating back to the 1980s.

But the prosecutors, law enforcement and major retailers who rallied in favor of Prop. 36 said those sentencing reforms went too far and created a revolving door for people to commit crimes repeatedly without being held accountable.

“It’s a clear mandate from the public that we need to take a new approach to public safety issues, particularly hard drugs, retail theft and fentanyl,” said Yolo District Attorney Jeff Reisig.

Opponents of the measure warned that it would worsen homelessness, drug use and crime by cutting funding for treatment programs and raising court and prison costs by hundreds of millions of dollars.

Behavioral health experts across the state have expressed concern about the effectiveness of a treatment-mandated offense, given that most California counties lack the resources to provide the “mass treatment” that supporters have promised measure.

“I think (advocates) have also been given a mandate to embrace problem solving and support services for people who are struggling,” said Cristine Soto DeBerry, executive director of the Prosecutors Alliance of California, a nonprofit that opposed Prop. . 36.

“I don’t think the mandate was (to) put more people in jail. It wasn’t what people thought they were voting for. I hope that the people with the discretion to enforce this law will think very carefully about the communities they serve and what they have asked for at this time,” she said.

Gov. Gavin Newsom tried to keep Prop. 36 away from the fall ballot and for a time considered putting a competing crime measure before voters. Instead, he signed a package of 10 bills in August that will make it easier to prosecute retail and vehicle theft. These laws take effect on January 1.

Although Gov. Newsom hasn’t put any money into fighting Prop. 36, he referred to the initiative as an “unfunded mandate” that would take California back to the War on Drugs. Indeed, the measure did not include new funding streams. But advocates like Reisig expressed optimism that funding opportunities already exist in the law, pointing to a $6.4 billion mental health bond voters approved in March.

“I hope lawmakers and the governor embrace the mandate and work collaboratively to ensure we are successful in delivering on the promise of Prop. 36,” Reisig said.