REDUCING CRIMINAL CHARGES TO SAVE MONEY IS A DANGEROUS IDEA

As California's leaders have scrambled for ideas to reduce the state's
worsening deficit, law enforcement professionals are alarmed that some
of the proposed cures are worse than the disease. Perhaps the most
dangerous example of the law of unintended consequences is Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger's recent proposal to reclassify property crimes and
many drug offenses from "wobblers," which can be charged as felonies
or misdemeanors, to misdemeanors.

A defendant convicted of a misdemeanor may be incarcerated only in the
county jail for up to a year, while a defendant convicted of a felony
may be sentenced to years in state prison. The intended consequence
appears to be to reduce the number of thieves and drug dealers sent to
prison, keeping them instead in county jails, and thus saving the
state the cost of state prison incarceration.

Proponents suggest that most of these crimes do not warrant a prison
term, and besides, the prisons are overcrowded. We would take the
other side of that debate, pointing to the scam artists who victimize
our senior citizens, the insurance and medical fraud rings that cost
Californians hundreds of millions of dollars a year and the scourge of
drug dealers who sell to our schoolchildren.

Labeling their crimes as misdemeanors, and treating them no
differently from shoplifters and addicts, would be a travesty of
justice and make it impossible for us to isolate major offenders for
appropriate periods of time.

It also would make it impossible for us to catch many of those
criminals in the first place.

The statute of limitations to bring a felony prosecution is usually at
least three years; classifying the offense as a misdemeanor reduces it
to only one year. Many complex thefts and drug rings, including those
operated by gangs and organized crime syndicates, require a year or
more of investigation to unearth. Those cases would be lost.

Even worse, Penal Code Section 1524 allows issuance of a search
warrant only to discover evidence of a felony, not a misdemeanor. The
only exception is a search for contraband. Accordingly, even in those
cases, investigators would only be able to seize illegal drugs and not
the other evidence, such as payment records and scales, that prove
that a criminal is a dealer.

Because many complex theft and drug cases are built on search warrants
for bank records and other follow-the-money evidence, this proposal
would give these criminals a "stay out of jail free" card. No amount
of cost savings would justify the epidemic of elder fraud, insurance
fraud, auto theft, embezzlement, forgery and drug dealing that would
result.

Our community will also be affected by the proposed early release of
more than 20,000 state prisoners, described as "nonviolent, non-
serious" felons. While this may seem a reasonable approach to reduce
prison costs, law enforcement professionals believe that "nonviolent,
nonserious" does not translate to "low risk."

Cost savings at the state level will be negated by increased local
community costs. The offenders proposed for release can have more
serious criminal histories than just the nonviolent, nonserious
offense which caused their current incarceration. Budget reductions to
the parole system will also reduce or eliminate the supervision of
parolees released to our communities.

Law enforcement knows, both from research studies and our experience,
that approximately 70 percent of people released from prison commit
additional crimes within three years of their release.

California is facing what may prove to be its worst financial crisis
since the Great Depression. Nevertheless, issuing predators a license
to prey on our society is not a solution.