PD Editorial: Close California’s car break-in loophole

Last year in California, there were nearly a quarter-million thefts from automobiles. It's hard to imagine all, or even most, of those burglaries involved unlocked cars. It's even harder to understand why it should matter if they did.

Unfortunately, under current state law, it matters a lot. To gain a conviction in cases of car burglary, prosecutors must prove the vehicle was locked at the moment the theft occurred. That's often a challenge - and a nonsensical one.

“It's ridiculous that under current law you can have a video of someone bashing out a car window, but if you can't prove that the door is locked you may not be able to get an auto burglary conviction,” says state Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat from San Francisco.

At the request of the San Francisco District Attorney's Office, Wiener has introduced legislation to lift the lock requirement. The bill has died in committee the past two years, apparently because Wiener's fellow Democrats don't want to do anything that might be perceived as putting more people behind bars.

There's some merit to that concern. Californians acted with compassion in 2014 when they supported passage of Proposition 47, reducing penalties for drug possession and low-level property crimes. Filling the state's prisons with nonviolent criminals was largely a waste of money and lives.

But people who steal from others still need to be held accountable, and this loophole in state law makes it harder to do that. The Legislature needs to close it, before break-ins become an even bigger problem than they now are.

The number of thefts from automobiles reached 243,000 in California in 2018, down from a record high the previous year but far above the yearly average of 223,000 over the previous eight years.

Much of the state has seen a spike in break-ins. San Francisco now experiences about 70 burglaries a day, with tourists being frequent targets. Other Bay Area cities reported an increase in break-ins in recent years, and Los Angeles recorded a 14.3% increase between 2015 and 2017. In Simi Valley in April, police broke up a major burglary ring led by men who used a jamming device to prevent people from locking their cars.

Sonoma County is experiencing the epidemic too. In October, for example, police in Petaluma responded to a dozen burglaries over just 2½ hours in retail parking lots.

California law, as written, places the onus on motorists to protect their valuables, and to a degree, that's understandable. Insurance companies take a similar view. Policyholders have an obligation to take reasonable steps to protect their cars and any valuables inside.

But it's counterproductive to apply the same expectation in state law. Yes, all of us should protect our cars from burglary, including locking up and not storing valuables inside, especially visible to the outside. Ultimately, though, those protections are immaterial. A person who steals from an unlocked car is no less guilty of a crime than a person who ransacks an unlocked house.

In the wake of Proposition 47, there will still be occasions when lawmakers will need to tighten laws to combat crime. Closing this loophole is obviously one of those occasions.

You can send a letter to the editor at letters@pressdemocrat.com.