CC SR 20201006 G - Proposition 20
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 10/06/2020
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Calendar
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to take a position of support regarding California
Proposition 20, which will appear on the statewide ballot on November 3, 2020.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Consider supporting Proposition 20 as requested by the Association for Los
Angeles Deputy Sheriffs; and
(2) If acceptable, adopt Resolution No. 2020-__, thereby supporting Proposition 20.
FISCAL IMPACT: At this time, costs to the City if Proposition 20 passes is unknown
as it relates to potential increases in law enforcement and other services, as described
below in this agenda report.
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Shane Lee, Administrative Analyst
REVIEWED BY: Karina Bañales, Deputy City Manager
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Official title, summary, and analysis of California Proposition 20 prepared
by the Attorney General (page A-1)
B. “Yes on Proposition 20” fact sheet (page B-1)
C. “No on Proposition 20” fact sheet (page C-1)
D. Draft Resolution No. 2020-__, supporting California Proposition 20 (page
D-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
On September 11, 2020, the Association for Los Angeles Dep uty Sheriffs (ALADS)
contacted the City asking for support for Proposition 20 (Prop. 20), the Criminal
Sentencing, Parole, and DNA Collection Initiative, which will appear on the statewide
ballot on November 3. ALADS sought a letter of opposition to a proposed Los Angeles
County Board of Supervisors motion opposing Prop. 20 that was subsequently
1
approved unanimously by the board on September 15. Depending on the consideration
and decision of the City Council, the City can adopt a resolution supporting or opposing
Prop. 20.
Proposition 20
The ballot title for Prop 20 reads, “Restricts Parole for Non-Violent Offenders.
Authorizes Felony Sentences for Certain Offenses Currently Treated Only as
Misdemeanors.” (Attachment A).
Brought forward by Assemblymember Jim Cooper (D-Elk Grove) and Assemblymember
Vince Fong (R-Bakersfield), the initiative is designed to amend three laws primarily
intended to reduce the state’s prison inmate population: Assembly Bill No. 109 (2011),
Proposition 47 (2014), and Proposition 57 (2016).
AB 109 shifted non-serious, non-violent, and non-sexual offenders from state prisons to
local jails, and made counties, rather than the state, responsible for supervising certain
felons on parole. Proposition 47 reclassified certain felonies to misdemeanors, changing
the law so that some low-level and non-violent crimes can only be charged as
misdemeanors. One of the significant changes included establishing that theft of
property with values that do not exceed $950 would exclusively be a misdemeanor and
not a felony. Proposition 57 increased parole changes for felons convicted of non-
violent crimes and more opportunities to earn sentence reduction for good behavior. It
also allowed judges to decide whether to try certain juveniles as adults in court, instead
of the previous system of having prosecutors make that determination.
Prop. 20 would implement a number of changes to amend these laws, as summarized
below:
• Limits access to parole programs established for non-violent offenders who have
completed the full term of their primary offense by eliminating edibility for certain
offenses;
• Changes standards and requirements governing parole decisions under this
program;
• Authorizes felony charges for specific theft crimes previously chargeable only as
misdemeanors, including some theft crimes where the value of stole objects is
between $250 and $950;
• Requires convicted persons of certain misdemeanors or felonies before 2014 to
submit to a DNA sample collection for state and federal databases; and,
• Creates two new theft-related crimes that would be charged as wobblers,
punishable by up to three years in county jail:
o Serial theft: Any person with two or more past convictions for certain theft-
related crimes found guilty of petty theft or shoplifting of property worth
more than $250 could be charged with serial theft.
o Organized retail theft: Any person acting with others who commit petty
theft or shoplifting two or more times where the total value of property
2
stolen within 180 days exceeds $250 could be charged with organized
retail theft.
Fiscal Impact on Cities
Analysis on the fiscal impact of Prop. 20 on state and local governments varies because
implementation would depend on the courts and inmate population. However, assuming
Prop. 20 is fully implemented, there will likely be increases to state and local
correctional costs, court-related costs, and law enforcement costs (Attachment B).
Correctional costs will likely be in the tens of millions of dollars annually due possible
increases to county jail populations and increased levels of county supervision. Court -
related costs may increase by several million dollars annually because felonies typically
take more time for courts to process than misdemeanors, which includes more work for
the courts, prosecutors and defenders, county sheriff security, and police officers. Law
enforcement costs would increase to expand the DNA sample collection portion of the
initiative, possibly by few millions of dollars annually. However, an unknown variable is if
the increase in penalties reduces crime, there may be some reduction to the criminal
justice system costs.
Support and Opposition
Prop. 20 is supported by the Association of Deputy District Attorneys, Association for
Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS), Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs,
Crime Survivors PAC, and cities throughout Los Angeles County. Keep California Safe
is leading the support campaign and seeks to fix flaws that have appeared from the
above-mentioned criminal justice reform laws by addressing violent crime classification,
serial theft, parole reform, and DNA collection. The attached “Yes on Prop . 20” fact
sheet (Attachment B) further outlines the case for Prop. 20.
Prop. 20 is opposed by the Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice, Public Defenders
Association, ACLU of California, and League of Women Voters of California to name a
few. Californians Against the Prison Spending Scam Committee is leading the
opposition campaign and seeks to oppose Prop. 20 and to continue reallocating money
to build additional local safety solutions and continue to make communities safer,
without spending more money on prisons. The attached “No on Prop. 20” fact sheet
(Attachment C) further outlines the case against Prop. 20 and provides a full list of those
opposed.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes had experienced an increase in robberies, residential
burglaries, larceny thefts, and grand theft autos in 2015, correlating to the passing of
Prop. 47. From 2014 to 2015, robberies increased from five to 12, residential burglaries
from 145 to 184, total larceny thefts from 258 to 296, and grand theft autos from 29 to
39. Prop. 20 seeks to amend Prop. 47 and 57 to better implement public safety. The
City Council supports efforts to increase public safety and increase law enforcement
tools to solve crimes. Given that Prop. 20, which seeks to address serial theft, parole
reform, and DNA collection to assist in solving crimes, supports one of the City’s top
3
priorities of reducing property, vehicular, and commercial thefts, Staff has prepared a
draft resolution supporting Prop. 20 (Attachment D) for the City Council’s consideration.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available
for the City Council’s consideration:
1. Take no position on Prop. 20.
2. Direct Staff to draft a resolution opposing Prop. 20 for consideration at the
October 20, 2020 City Council meeting.
4
PROPOSITION RESTRICTS PAROLE FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES CURRENTLY CONSIDERED TO
20 CURRENTLY TREATED ONLY AS MISDEMEANORS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
BE NON-VIOLENT. AUTHORIZES FELONY SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES
OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
The text of this measure can be found on the Secretary of State’s website at
voterguide.sos.ca.gov.
20
•Limits access to parole program
established for non-violent offenders
who have completed the full term of
their primary offense by eliminating
eligibility for certain offenses.
•Changes standards and requirements
governing parole decisions under this
program.
•Authorizes felony charges for specified
theft crimes currently chargeable
only as misdemeanors, including
some theft crimes where the value is
between $250 and $950.
•Requires persons convicted of
specified misdemeanors to submit to
collection of DNA samples for state
database.
SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S ESTIMATE
OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
FISCAL IMPACT:
•Increased state and local correctional
costs likely in the tens of millions
of dollars annually, primarily due to
increases in county jail populations
and levels of community supervision.
•Increased state and local court-related
costs that could be more than several
million dollars annually.
•Increased state and local law
enforcement costs not likely to be
more than a few million dollars
annually related to collecting and
processing DNA samples.
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
OVERVIEW
Proposition 20 has four major
provisions. It:
•Changes state law to increase
criminal penalties for some theft-
related crimes.
•Changes how people released from
state prison are supervised in the
community.
•Makes various changes to the
process created by Proposition 57
(2016) for considering the release of
inmates from prison.
•Requires state and local law
enforcement to collect DNA from
adults convicted of certain crimes.
Below, we discuss each of these major
provisions and describe the fiscal effects
of the proposition.
CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN
THEFT-RELATED CRIMES
BACKGROUND
A felony is the most severe type
of crime. State law defines some
felonies as “violent” or “serious,” or
both. Examples of felonies defined as
violent and serious include murder,
robbery, and rape. Felonies that are not
defined as violent or serious include
human trafficking and selling drugs.
A misdemeanor is a less severe crime.
44 | Title and Summary / Analysis A-1
PROPOSITION RESTRICTS PAROLE FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES CURRENTLY CONSIDERED TO
BE NON-VIOLENT. AUTHORIZES FELONY SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES
CURRENTLY TREATED ONLY AS MISDEMEANORS. INITIATIVE STATUTE. 20
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
Misdemeanors include crimes such as
assault and public drunkenness.
Felony Sentencing. People convicted of
felonies can be sentenced as follows:
• State Prison. People whose current
or past convictions include serious,
violent, or sex crimes can be
sentenced to state prison.
• County Jail and/or Community
Supervision. People who have no
current or past convictions for
serious, violent, or sex crimes are
typically sentenced to county jail or
are supervised by county probation
officers in the community, or both.
Misdemeanor Sentencing. People
convicted of misdemeanors can be
sentenced to county jail, county
community supervision, a fine, or some
combination of the three. They are
generally punished less than people
convicted of felonies. For example, a
misdemeanor sentence cannot exceed
one year in jail while a felony sentence
can require a much longer time in jail or
prison. In addition, people convicted of
misdemeanors are usually supervised in
the community for fewer years and may
not be supervised as closely by probation
officers.
Wobbler Sentencing. Currently, some
crimes—such as identity theft—can
be punished as either a felony or a
misdemeanor. These crimes are known
as “wobblers.” The decision is generally
based on the specifics of the crime and
a person’s criminal history.
Proposition 47 Reduced Penalties for
Certain Crimes. In November 2014,
CONTINUED
voters approved Proposition 47, which
resulted in certain theft-related crimes
being punished as misdemeanors
instead of felonies. For example,
under Proposition 47, theft involving
property worth $950 or less is generally
considered petty theft and punished as
a misdemeanor—rather than as a felony
as was sometimes possible before (such
as if a car was stolen). Proposition 47
also generally requires that shoplifting
involving $950 or less be punished as
a misdemeanor—rather than a felony as
was possible before.
PROPOSAL
Increases Penalties for Certain Theft-
Related Crimes. Proposition 20 creates
two new theft-related crimes:
• Serial Theft. Any person with two or
more past convictions for certain
theft-related crimes (such as
burglary, forgery, or carjacking) who
is found guilty of shoplifting or petty
theft involving property worth more
than $250 could be charged with
serial theft.
• Organized Retail Theft. Any person
acting with others who commits
petty theft or shoplifting two or
more times where the total value
of property stolen within 180 days
exceeds $250 could be charged
with organized retail theft.
Both of these new crimes would
be wobblers, punishable by up to
three years in county jail, even if the
person has a past conviction for a
serious, violent, or sex crime.
20
Analysis | 45 A-2
PROPOSITION RESTRICTS PAROLE FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES CURRENTLY CONSIDERED TO
20 CURRENTLY TREATED ONLY AS MISDEMEANORS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
BE NON-VIOLENT. AUTHORIZES FELONY SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES
20
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
In addition, Proposition 20 allows some
existing theft-related crimes that are
generally punished as misdemeanors
under Proposition 47 to be punished
as felonies. For example, under current
law, theft of all property worth less than
$950 from a store is generally required
to be punished as a misdemeanor.
Under Proposition 20, people who
steal property worth less than $950
that is not for sale (such as a cash
register) from a store could receive
felony sentences. This could increase
the amount of time people convicted of
these crimes serve. For example, rather
than serving up to six months in county
jail, they could serve up to three years in
county jail or state prison.
We estimate that a few thousand people
could be affected by the above changes
each year. However, this estimate is
based on the limited data available, and
the actual number of people affected
would depend on choices made by
prosecutors and judges. As a result, the
actual number could be significantly
higher or lower.
COMMUNITY SUPERVISION
PRACTICES
BACKGROUND
People who are released from state
prison after serving a sentence for a
serious or violent crime are supervised
for a period of time in the community
by state parole agents. People who are
released from prison after serving a
sentence for other crimes are usually
supervised in the community by county
CONTINUED
probation officers—commonly referred to
as Post-Release Community Supervision
(PRCS). When people on state parole
or PRCS break the rules that they are
required to follow while supervised—
referred to as breaking the “terms of
their supervision”—state parole agents
or county probation officers can choose
to ask a judge to change the terms of
their supervision. This can result in
harsher terms or placement in county
jail.
PROPOSAL
Changes Community Supervision Practices.
This proposition makes various changes
to state parole and PRCS practices. For
example, it requires probation officers
to ask a judge to change the terms of
supervision for people on PRCS if they
have violated them for a third time. In
addition, the proposition requires state
parole and county probation departments
to exchange more information about the
people they supervise.
PROPOSITION 57 RELEASE
CONSIDERATION PROCESS
BACKGROUND
People in prison have been convicted
of a primary crime. This is generally
the crime for which they receive the
longest amount of time in prison. They
often serve additional time due to the
facts of their cases (such as if they used
a gun) or for other, lesser crimes they
were convicted of at the same time. For
example, people previously convicted of
a serious or violent crime generally must
46 | Analysis A-3
PROPOSITION RESTRICTS PAROLE FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES CURRENTLY CONSIDERED TO
BE NON-VIOLENT. AUTHORIZES FELONY SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES
CURRENTLY TREATED ONLY AS MISDEMEANORS. INITIATIVE STATUTE. 20
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
serve twice the term for any new felony
they commit.
In November 2016, voters approved
Proposition 57, which changed the State
Constitution to make prison inmates
convicted of nonviolent felonies eligible
to be considered for release after serving
the term for their primary crimes.
Inmates are considered for release
by the state Board of Parole Hearings
(BPH). Specifically, a BPH staff member
reviews various information in the
inmate’s files, such as criminal history
and behavior in prison, to determine
if the inmate will be released. BPH
also considers any letters submitted by
prosecutors, law enforcement agencies,
and victims about the inmate. The
California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) contacts victims
registered with the state to notify them
that they can submit such letters. The
inmate is released unless BPH decides
that the inmate poses an unreasonable
risk of violence. If not released, the
inmate can request a review of the
decision. Inmates who are denied
release are reconsidered the following
year, though they often complete their
sentences and are released before
then. In 2019, BPH considered nearly
4,600 inmates and approved about 860
(19 percent) for release.
PROPOSAL
Changes Proposition 57 Release
Consideration Process. Proposition 20
makes various changes to the
Proposition 57 release consideration
process. The major changes are:
CONTINUED
• Excluding some inmates from the
process—such as those convicted of
some types of assault and domestic
violence.
• Requiring BPH to deny release to
inmates who pose an unreasonable
risk of committing felonies that
result in victims, rather than only
those who pose an unreasonable risk
of violence.
• Requiring BPH to consider
additional issues, such as the
inmates’ attitudes about their
crimes, when deciding whether to
release them.
• Requiring inmates denied release
to wait two years (rather than one)
before being reconsidered by BPH.
• Allowing prosecutors to request
that BPH perform another review of
release decisions.
• Requiring CDCR to try to locate
victims to notify them of the review
even if they are not registered with
the state.
DNA COLLECTION
BACKGROUND
In California, DNA samples must be
provided by (1) adults arrested for,
charged with, or convicted of a felony;
(2) youth who have committed a felony;
and (3) people required to register
as sex offenders or arsonists. These
samples are collected by state and
local law enforcement agencies and
submitted to the California Department
of Justice (DOJ) for processing. DOJ
20
Analysis | 47 A-4
PROPOSITION RESTRICTS PAROLE FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES CURRENTLY CONSIDERED TO
20 CURRENTLY TREATED ONLY AS MISDEMEANORS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
BE NON-VIOLENT. AUTHORIZES FELONY SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES
20
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
currently receives roughly 100,000
DNA samples each year. DOJ stores
the DNA profiles in a statewide DNA
database and submits them to a national
database. These databases are used by
law enforcement to investigate crimes.
PROPOSAL
Expands DNA Collection. This proposition
requires state and local law enforcement
to also collect DNA samples from adults
convicted of certain misdemeanors.
These crimes include shoplifting, forging
checks, and certain domestic violence
crimes.
FISCAL EFFECTS
The proposition would have various fiscal
effects on state and local government.
However, the exact size of the effects
discussed below would depend on
several factors. One key factor would
be decisions made by the courts and
others (such as county probation
departments and prosecutors) about how
the proposition would be implemented.
For example, the proposition seeks to
change certain inmates’ constitutional
eligibility to be considered for release
under Proposition 57 without changing
the State Constitution. If the proposition
were challenged in court, a judge might
rule that certain provisions cannot be
put into effect. Our estimates below
of the fiscal effects on state and local
government assume that the proposition
is fully implemented. In total, the
estimated increase in state costs
reflects less than one percent of the
state’s current General Fund budget.
CONTINUED
(The General Fund is the state’s main
operating account, which it uses to pay
for education, prisons, health care, and
other services.)
State and Local Correctional Costs. The
proposition would increase state and
local correctional costs in three ways.
• First, the increase in penalties
for theft-related crimes would
increase correctional costs mostly
by increasing county jail populations
and the level of community
supervision for some people.
• Second, the changes to community
supervision practices would increase
state and local costs in various
ways. For example, the requirement
that county probation officers seek
to change the terms of supervision
for people on PRCS who violate
them for a third time could increase
county jail populations if this causes
more people to be placed in jail.
• Third, the changes made to the
Proposition 57 release consideration
process would increase state costs
by reducing the number of inmates
released from prison and generally
increasing the cost of the process.
We estimate that more than several
thousand people would be affected by
the proposition each year. As a result, we
estimate that the increase in state and
local correctional costs would likely be
in the tens of millions of dollars annually.
The actual increase would depend on
several uncertain factors, such as the
specific number of people affected by
the proposition.
48 | Analysis A-5
PROPOSITION RESTRICTS PAROLE FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES CURRENTLY CONSIDERED TO
BE NON-VIOLENT. AUTHORIZES FELONY SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES
CURRENTLY TREATED ONLY AS MISDEMEANORS. INITIATIVE STATUTE. 20
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
State and Local Court-Related Costs. The
proposition would increase state and
local court-related costs. This is because
it would result in some people being
convicted of felonies for certain theft-
related crimes instead of misdemeanors.
Because felonies take more time for
courts to handle than misdemeanors,
workload for the courts, county
prosecutors and public defenders,
and county sheriffs (who provide court
security) would increase. In addition,
requiring probation officers to ask judges
to change the terms of supervision
for people on PRCS after their third
violation would result in additional court
workload. We estimate that these court-
related costs could be more than several
million dollars annually, depending on
the actual number of people affected by
the proposition.
State and Local Law Enforcement Costs.
The proposition would increase state
and local law enforcement costs by
expanding the number of people who
are required to provide DNA samples,
possibly by tens of thousands annually.
CONTINUED
We estimate that the increase in state
and local law enforcement costs would
likely not be more than a few million
dollars annually.
Other Fiscal Effects. There could be other
unknown fiscal effects on state and local
governments due to the proposition. For
example, if the increase in penalties
reduces crime, some criminal justice
system costs could be avoided. The
extent to which this or other effects
would occur is unknown.
Visit http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/campaign/
measures/ for a list of committees primarily
formed to support or oppose this measure.
Visit http://www.fppc.ca.gov/
transparency/top-contributors.html
to access the committee’s top 10 contributors.
If you desire a copy of the full text of this state
measure, please call the Secretary of State
at (800) 345-VOTE (8683) or you can email
vigfeedback@sos.ca.gov and a copy will
be mailed at no cost to you.
20
Analysis | 49 A-6
VIOLENT CRIME
n Expands the list of violent crimes for which early release is not an option
n Under current law, rape of an unconscious person, trafficking a child for sex,
assault of a peace officer, felony domestic violence and other similar crimes are not
classified as “violent felonies” — making criminals convicted of these crimes eligible
for early release
n Gives victims reasonable notice of inmates’ release and the right to submit a
confidential statement to the Board of Parole Hearings
An Initiative for Public Safety
DNA COLLECTION
n Reinstates DNA collection for certain crimes that were reduced to misdemeanors as
part of Proposition 47
n Multiple studies have shown that DNA collected from theft and drug crimes has
helped solve other violent crimes, including robbery, rape and murder. Since passage
of Prop. 47, cold case hits have dropped over 2,000, with more than 450 of those hits
connected to violent crimes
B-1
SERIAL THEFT
n Revises the theft threshold by adding a felony for serial theft — when a person is
caught for the 3rd time stealing with a value of $250
n Prop. 47 changed the dollar threshold for theft to be considered a felony — from
$450 to $950. As a result, there has been an explosion of serial theft and an inability
of law enforcement to prosecute these crimes effectively
n Theft has increased by 12 to 25 percent, with losses of more than $10 billion dollars
and counting since the law was passed*
n This problem won’t be solved legislatively
* openjustice.doj.ca.gov
PAROLE VIOLATIONS
n Requires the Board of Parole Hearings to consider an inmate’s entire criminal history
when deciding parole, not just his most recent commitment offense; and requires a
mandatory hearing to determine whether parole should be revoked for any parolee
who violates the terms of his parole for the third time
n AB 109 bases parole solely on an offender’s commitment offense, resulting in the
release of inmates with serious and violent criminal histories. Moreover, parolees who
repeatedly violate the terms of their parole currently face few consequences, allowing
them to remain on the street
Ad paid for by Yes on 20 – Keep California Safe, a Project of the
California Public Safety Partnership Issues Committee
Committee major funding from
San Bernardino County Sheri’s Employees’ Benefit Association
Funding details at www.fppc.ca.gov
Ad paid for by Yes on 20 – Keep California Safe, a Project of the
California Public Safety Partnership Issues Committee
Committee major funding from
Devin Nunes Campaign Committee
San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Employees’ Benefit Association
Funding details at www.fppc.ca.gov B-2
Proposition 20 is a SCAM funded by special interests that want to
spend tens of millions of your taxpayer dollars on prisons while
rolling back effective criminal justice reforms overwhelmingly
supported by California voters.
Ad paid for by No on Prop. 20, Californians Against the Prison Spending
Scam Committee major funding from
Patty Quillin
Stacey H. Shusterman
The Heising-Simons Act Fund
Funding Details at www.fppc.ca.gov
NoProp20.vote #StopThePrisonSpendingScam
OPPOSED BY
Chief Probation Officers of California • California Partnership to End Domestic Violence •
The National Center for Victims of Crime • The California Democratic Party • ACLU of California
•Public Safety Leaders • Governor Jerry Brown • Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice • SEIU
California • California Teachers Association • Californians for Safety and Justice
ROLLS BACK PROGRESS
Californians are demanding change to the criminal justice system and have
overwhelmingly voted to reduce wasteful prison spending. Prop 20 REVERSES that
progress. Rehabilitating people before prison release is the most effective way to improve
public safety. Prop 20 could eliminate funding for what we know works, and waste money
on more prisons we don’t need.
IS EXTREME
Prop 20 means petty theft – stealing a bike – could be charged as a serious felony. That’s
extreme, OUT OF LINE with other states, and means more teenagers and people of color
could be locked up for years for low-level, non-violent crimes.
WASTES YOUR MONEY
The non-partisan Legislative Analyst says Prop 20 will cost, “tens of millions of dollars”
every year which could force DRACONIAN CUTS to:
•Rehabilitation in prison for people getting out
•Mental health programs proven to reduce repeat crime
•Schools, healthcare, housing, and homelessness
•Fire protection and public safety programs
•Support for victims
C-1
Resolution No. 2020-__
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA, IN SUPPORT
OF PROPOSITION 20, THE “CRIMINAL SENTENCING,
PAROLE, AND DNA COLLECTION INITIATIVE”
WHEREAS, protecting every person in our state, including our most vulnerable
children, from violent crime is of the utmost importance. Rapists, child molesters and other
violent criminals should not be released early from prison; and,
WHEREAS, recent changes to parole laws allow the early release of d angerous
criminals by the law’s failure to define certain crimes as “violent,” and these changes
allowed individuals convicted of sex trafficking of children, rape of an unconscious person,
felony assault with a deadly weapon, and felony domestic violence to be considered
“nonviolent” offenders; and,
WHEREAS, as a result, these “nonviolent” offenders are eligible for early release
from prison after serving only a fraction of the sentence ordered by a judge; and ,
WHEREAS, violent offenders are also being allowed to remain free in our
communities even when they commit new crimes and violate the terms of their post
release community supervision; and,
WHEREAS, Proposition 20 reforms the law so felons who violate the terms of their
release will be brought back to court upon their third violation and can be held accountable
for such violations; and,
WHEREAS, nothing in the Proposition is intended to create additional “strike”
offenses which would increase the state prison population; nor is it intended to affect the
ability of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to award educational
and merit credits; and,
WHEREAS, recent changes to California law allow individuals who steal
repeatedly to face few consequences, regardless of their criminal record or how many
times they steal; and,
WHEREAS, as a result, between 2014 and 2019, California saw a 30% increase
in certain theft and property crimes, while most states have seen a steady decline; and,
WHEREAS, according to the California Department of Justice, the value of
property stolen has increased 25% since 2014; and,
WHEREAS, grocery store operators and other retail outlets around the state have
seen unprecedented increases in the amount of losses associated with shoplifting in
D-1
Resolution No. 2020-__
Page 2 of 2
their stores, with some reporting up to 150 percent increases in these losses from 2012
to present, with the largest jumps occurring since 2014; and,
WHEREAS, shoplifting incidents have started to escalate in such a manner that
have endangered innocent customers and employees; and,
WHEREAS, individuals who repeatedly steal often do so to support their drug
habit, but recent changes to California law have reduced judges’ ability to order
individuals convicted of repeated theft crimes into effective drug treatment programs; and,
WHEREAS, California needs stronger laws for those who are repeatedly convicted
of theft related crimes, which will encourage those who repeatedly steal to support their
drug problem to enter into existing drug treatment programs, and this Proposition would
enact such reforms; and,
WHEREAS, collecting DNA from criminals is essential to solving violent crimes,
and over 450 violent crimes including murder, rape and robbery have gone unsolved
because DNA is being collected from fewer criminals; and,
WHEREAS, DNA collected in 2015 from a convicted child molester solved the
rape-murders of two six year-old boys that occurred three decades ago in Los Angeles
County; and DNA collected in 2016 from an individual caught driving a stolen car solved
the 2012 San Francisco Bay Area rape-murder of an 83-year-old woman; and,
WHEREAS, recent changes to California law unintentionally eliminated DNA
collection for theft and drug crimes, but this Proposition restores DNA collection from
persons convicted for such offenses; and,
WHEREAS, permitting collection and more DNA samples will help identify
suspects, clear the innocent and free the wrongly convicted; and,
WHEREAS, this Proposition does not affect existing legal safeguards that protect
the privacy of individuals by allowing for their removal of their DNA profile if they a re not
charged with a crime, are acquitted or are found innocent.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes does
hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1: The City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby goes on
record as supporting passage of Proposition 20 on the November 3, 2020 ballot.
Section 2: The City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby
authorizes listing the City as a member of the “Keep California Safe Coalition.”
Section 3: Staff are hereby directed to email a copy of this adopted resolution
to Jeffrey Monical of the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs at jeffrey@lavell.net.
D-2
Resolution No. 2020-__
Page 3 of 2
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 6th day of October 2020.
____________________
John Cruikshank, Mayor
Attest:
___________________
Emily Colborn, City Clerk
State of California )
County of Los Angeles ) ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes )
I, Emily Colborn, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that
the above Resolution No. _________ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the
said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on October 6, 2020
____________________________
Emily Colborn, City Clerk
D-3