LANCASTER – City Council members Tuesday night voted 4-0, with Mayor R. Rex Parris absent, to introduce a program they say would counter the criminal impact on local communities due to recent state laws.
To discourage people from committing crimes such as shoplifting, theft, buying or receiving stolen property, unlawful dumping, vandalism, and other nonviolent crimes within the city of Lancaster, offenders would face big fines under the city’s proposed Administrative Citation Program. Local law enforcement would be given authority to cite offenders $500 for the first offense, and $1,000 for every offense afterward. [Read the ordinance here.]
“So the bottom line of what we’re trying to accomplish here is to tell our citizens to behave themselves and follow the rules,” Vice Mayor Chair Marvin Crist clarified at Tuesday’s meeting. “If the state of California wants to transfer the burden to the county or to the cities, this is our last measure that we have to accomplish that.”
Lee D’Errico Jr., Lancaster’s Public Safety Manager, explained the negative impact that recent state laws have had on local communities, such as the AB 109 Prison Realignment and the reduction of felony offenses to misdemeanors under Proposition 47.
“We’ve seen diminishing results in terms of the punitive issues related to incarceration times,” D’Errico said at the start of Tuesday’s public hearing. “We’re certainly going in a direction that I think is appropriate based on what is occurring, while developing some process out there that actually prevents people from committing those types of crimes which are typically not going to be managed through the judicial process.”
Under the recently-approved state Proposition 47, criminal offenses such as theft, shoplifting, receipt of stolen property, and other crimes where the value of stolen items does not exceed $950, must now be charged as misdemeanors.
According to Assistant City Attorney Jocelyn Corbett, the ordinance is an administrative procedure and an administrative penalty that a deputy or other designated officer may use as an alternative to pursuing misdemeanor criminal proceedings through the district attorney’s office and the courts.
Corbett said the ordinance clearly affords the alleged offender their due process of rights under the law and gives the opportunity to appeal the citation before an independent hearing officer.
When a citation is upheld and an offender fails to pay the fine, Corbett said the ordinance identifies special methods for collecting unpaid administrative penalties, such as recording a lien or imposing a special assessment on real property, collecting the amount through the state Franchise Tax Board from personal state income tax refunds, or even taking it from an individual’s state lottery winnings.
“We realize that this is cutting edge,” Corbett said at Tuesday’s meeting. “We don’t know of any other city in Southern California that’s doing this at this point. We’re pushing the envelope, and we think rightly so.”
During the public hearing, Lancaster resident and former LAPD reserve officer Michael Rives told the City Council that, “This is a well-intentioned ordinance, but I think it’s wrong.” Rives cited the will of the California voters who passed Proposition 47 as the ultimate authority on “how people want to reduce crime.”
Michelle Egberts, of the AV-East Kern 2nd Chance Program, also spoke against the new ordinance, believing it would deny individuals the right to due process.
“It does not (give people due process),” Egberts argued with Vice Mayor Christ. “It still gives them a charge on their record. I’m not against people following the rules. I deal with people who didn’t follow the rules, while getting them empowered to get (their offenses) expunged.”
Crist responded to Egberts, saying, “I understand the compassion, but we have to have compassion for our businesses also. We have to have some type of protection – and the protection is a financial protection, and it does not incarcerate them. If you’re going to break the rules, we’re going to fine them.”
Egberts ended her comments by predicting that the ordinance would end up in court.
“And I would say that the city of Lancaster would welcome that,” Christ countered.
To which Egberts said: “Then we’ll see each other in court.”
–
Rankin says
Rather than fines have offenders do community service like pick up trash, clean restrooms , and the like…
Shawn says
Criminal that receive these citatation and can’t afford to pay them will be liked up. Closing the loophole prop 47 opened. Don’t do the crime if you can’t pay the fine!
james says
I agree with the Mayor, but now it’s time for the Mayor to create minimum wage attachment law which forces the city of Lancaster to open a non profit corporation which would generate billions of dollar which would be given to good citizens who don’t commit those crimes by attaching the incentive to minimum wage. The incentive would come out to $80.00 an hour apart what the employer pays the good citizen. People would have more money to spend on local business and the city would collect more sales tax. Democracy is government by the people and for the people and it’s time that people wake up and govern themselves.
Ann Taylor says
Do I get this? Someone can steal a 3,000. dollar item, get fined 1,000, and an employee making minimum wage will get an 80.00 per hr. raise? What drugs are you people on? Does not even compute?
Pepper says
This is just another way for the city to gain funds. It has nothing whatsoever to do with crime prevention. This definitely circumvents due process like those checkpoint stops. The city is just raking in money at city residents expense. Poor and middle class people are already strapped. Now you want to add liens and fines on top of what the law already allows.
Bikerbob says
How many businesses have closed on the East side of Lancaster because of shoplifting?
They lost more money from theft than from sales. It’s no secret that most of these thefts are from people of color. I’ve seen kids at Walmart go to the Ice Cream freezers and take out what they want and eat it. If you are brave enough to say anything they just toss it onto a shelf, give you the finger and let it melt all over the merchandise. I’ve watched adults and their kids push carts, put food in them and eat as they push. then they leave the cart and walk away. Security does nothing about it. All it does is raise prices that I have to pay to make up the loss. Make them pay some back.
Ric says
Hmmmmm – Yeah I see this as a huge deterrent to crime … Will the fines be payable via EBT / SNAP cards…? It seems like we are simply paying twice here: Once when we purchase something legitimately and then a second time when our taxes that fund social assistance picks up the tab – I think the DOJ would find this type of ‘taking responsibility for ones actions’ to be a violation of a criminals civil rights; and we all know that is extremely frowned upon in the AV –
Kay says
What a great idea. Let’s fine the majority of people who commit thefts who are already poor and will never pay the fine. I predict having law enforcement busy handing out these citations will cost the city more than they will ever collect. Prop 47 may be a mess but the voters passed it. Deal with it in a way that does not end up wasting time and costing us more. I would live deputies to respond more quickly to real emergencies instead.
Michelle Egberts says
The proposed ordinance is in conflict with state law and in violation of the 6th Amendment of the US Constitution… “The Sixth Amendment guarantees the rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know who your accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against you.”
In addition, it is preempted by state law.
Steve says
For a petty crime that is less than 950 dollars?? What a waste of time and resources. If the criminal wants to submit a request for all of the above Sixth Amendment guarantee’s and “pay” for it then so be it. But to burden the court system with unnecessary litigation makes no sense.
Irena says
It may not make any sense, but it is still the law. Right to due process is very important and this new ordinance sidesteps it. Reading the actual document, it clearly states that it will be an informal hearing (should someone request it) which does not follow the formal rules of evidence and procedure.
The ability of a city to enforce this is also in question. According to the state law that this stems from, California Constitution Article XI, Section 7, and Government Code Section 53069.4, it mentions only ordinances that were enacted by the local agency are eligible for administrative penalties.
It seems like a slippery slope of working around the established judicial system.
Michelle Egberts says
The law is the law and a City can NOT break the law to enforce the law and that is what they are trying to do with an unlawful, unconstitutional Ordinance that is going to cost the tax payers tens of thousands of dollars, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars for the lawsuit that is about to come. Unfortunately for the citizens of the City of Lancaster the City Council is not looking out for what is in the best interest of the citizens and businesses.
The only way the city deals with people is through lawsuits, they want it, they got it. Don’t violate the State and U.S. Constitution for mere revenue when it is undoubtedly going to cost greatly either way.
The people spoke at the polls and Prop 47 passed. There was not one resident at the city council meeting who spoke in support of this ludicrous ordinance.
really says
Michelle you say it is preempted by state law. Then would you also agree that all of californias weapon laws are illegal because federal law preempts them? I am curious as to your logic and what your using to prove this. Many municipalities have municipal codes that take state or county codes and turn them into administrative citations. I believe handicap parking would be one example.
Michelle Egberts says
@ Really… Let’s keep it on topic. Bottom line is this ordinance is UNCONSTITUTIONAL period. The City does NOT have the authority to change misdemeanors into a citation, that’s why we have courts and the defendants are ENTITLED to DUE PROCESS!!!
really says
Im not trying to go off topic. You should be able to defend your position based on facts. I was using instances that show your logic may be flawed. And I will be perfectly candid and say I dont know if this is a good idea or not. Here is my synopsis:
1. The city feels that prop 47 shows that the state is unable to properly hold some criminals accountable. The city wants to make money so this is a way to do it
2. You are against this because you get money from to work with the ab109/prop47 population.
Thats the only logic I can pull from this since what the city is proposing isnt even a misdemeanor arrest. It is an administrative procedure in lieu of arrest. Explain how the city doing that is worse for someone than being arrested.
Irena says
The action itself is flawed because a city does not have the right to charge something that should be a misdemeanor as an administrative offense.
With a criminal charge, there is the right to a trial of one’s peers for certain crimes. Barring that, a defendant has the right to be seen by a judge who is suppose to have a greater understanding of the law, procedure, evidence etc. According to what the city proposes, that same person would go before a hearing officer. Not a judge, not a panel of their peers, but just some person the city deems capable. There are no guidelines in place to appoint said hearing officer. The hearing officer doe not have to follow any judicial regulation. No evidence need be presented. Since the hearing officer is a city employee, who do you think they will side with?
I am all for administrative citations for code enforcement. That is permissible under CA law. Citing people for misdemeanor offenses is most likely illegal as it strips them of the right to due process.
Michelle Egberts says
@Really, Bottom line is the City does NOT have the authority to change State LAW period. Any changes to the law that they want to propose should be addressed through the State legislative process. This is why I oppose this ordinance not because of money, but it is a violation of DUE PROCESS.
Furthermore, even LA County District Attorney’s office does NOT support the City’s attempt to change the law.
In addition, funding appropriations for Prop 47 will commence on August 1, 2016, so no one is receiving any funding at this time. The money will be distributed as follows:
25% to the State Department of Education, to administer a grant program to public agencies aimed at improving outcomes for public school pupils in kindergarten through 12th grade by reducing truancy and/or supporting students who are at-risk of dropping out of school or are victims of crime.
10% to the Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, to make grants to trauma recovery centers to provide services to victims of crime.
65% to the Board of State and Community Corrections, to administer a grant program to public agencies aimed at supporting mental health treatment, substance abuse treatment, and diversion programs for people in the criminal justice system, with an emphasis on programs that reduce recidivism of people convicted of less serious crimes.
FYI, our organization AV-East Kern Second Chance has never received any money under AB 109. We are not about money, we are about changing peoples lives and reintegrating them back into society and reducing recidivism through our Expungement Workshop in collaboration with LA County GROW.
Irena says
2 totally different issues. States are allowed to create laws that are more restrictive. Lancaster’s new ordinance however attempts to go around the already established right to due process.
Administrative citations are usually used for things like code enforcement or parking. They are not criminal per se under state law. That is the major issue here. The Lancaster one clearly states criminal infractions. What the city is trying to do is circumvent the judicial system all together for crimes that are covered under the penal code. Such as shoplifting and vandalism.
Also there is little mentioned about a hearing officer. Almost any person can be a hearing officer if the city deems them competent. Their understanding of the law could be nil, but since it is an informal hearing it won’t matter. They will not have to follow any regulations already put into place by the judicial system.
huh says
Hearing officer a sham. They have an answer or excuse for everything siding with the city.
Josh says
How many thieves are going to know about this program and also have it deter them from doing criminal actions? I’m going to go out on a limb and say the percentage is very small. This seems to just be a politically safe way to raise revenue.
Bill M says
Why is Rex absent? Has anyone seen him lately? I heard he moved to Santa Barbara
Native says
Nah…he doesn’t have to move…he took office while living elsewhere…..lol.
Parris is a joke! Another corrupt politician with the law in his side (in his wallet). I keep expecting people of this town to wake up…but…don’t seem to be on the horizon…Administrative Citation Squad….this town implemented a couple million to ensure the town (west of sierra) would be safe. Ohh wait…that didn’t work…let’s spend MORE skrilla on an investment sue to curb crime….
Michael says
$500 is a good fine if they add the the assessment and your well over 2000
Steve says
Well I think it’s a start. At least the city council is doing something to these low life scum that refuse to abide by our local laws. Lord knows we have a long way to go to clean up the “element” we’ve had to deal with lately!!
Mistie says
;-)
Turd Ferguson says
It is as stupid as LEAPS.It is as stupid as LEAPS.Or birdy songs on the BLVD.Or birdy songs on the BLVD.At least it doesn’t cost $90,000.00 a month.At least it doesn’t cost $90,000.00 a month.For ten years.For ten years.That is $10,800,000.00.That is $10,800,000.00.That is what LEAPS cost.That is what LEAPS cost.Maybe this will pay for LEAPS.Maybe this will pay for LEAPS.But I doubt it.But I doubt it.It is illegal.It is illegal.Another crazy move.Another crazy move.Like birth tourism.Like birth tourism.And LEAPS.And LEAPS.No to LEAPS.No to LEAPS.
Darius White says
I understand what the city is attempting to accomplish but I don’t think this will yield the desired results. First, the initial fine must be no less than $950. If not, the gift of being charged with only a misdemeanor can be simply repaid by pawning the items they STOLE. As far as it “still gives them a charge on their record”, too bad. I was charged with a misdemeanor for doing 90+ mph on the freeway, paid a helluva lot more than $950 for doing it, and didn’t whine about it, probably because I WAS WRONG AND BROKE THE LAW. As far as the “special methods for collecting unpaid administrative penalties”, there’s already a “special method” in place: it’s called SERVE TIME IN LIEU OF PAYING THE FINE. The potential of loss (in this case, freedom) must be greater than the possibility of gain (OUR stuff the THIEF steals) if we want to change the criminal mindset.
I am getting a little frustrated with the majority of us having to bend over backwards to “help” those who feel that the rules and laws apply to everyone BUT THEM. Many people have said Rex and the council are “bullies”, but in this case they were way too soft.
Mistie says
I 2nd every single word you wrote!!! ;-)
bluiblnd says
Right On!!!
The Ox says
The council is attempting to better the living conditions in our city, yet ppl criticize their effort without making suggestions. It’s like they’re (complainants) are just tryna protect their family members and friends. I agree this decision will eventually end up in court because that’s what ppl that live that type of life do, they sue! And why not, they have nothing else to do. I do believe that this decision will make some (would be) violators think twice before committing a crime in our city, the career criminal is just that, a career criminal! Unfortunately ppl didn’t think of the increase in crime rate when voting to approve prop 47.