Understanding retail theft in California

Concerns about retail theft in California have grown in recent years, with implications for businesses as well as the broader economic climate and the sense of safety across communities. In response, California lawmakers and voters have enacted several legal reforms aimed at curbing theft. A recent report from the California Legislative Analyst’s Office breaks down what we know about retail theft trends over the past decade, explores potential contributing factors, and reviews how recent policy changes may have affected these trends.

What Exactly Is Retail Theft?

“Retail theft” is a broad term covering a range of theft-related crimes where a retail business is the victim. This can include shoplifting, burglary, embezzlement, robbery, and even vandalism, depending on how the crime is committed and the value of goods stolen. Because statewide crime statistics don’t track offenses by victim type, there’s no single data point that captures retail theft. For this analysis, the report uses two proxies: shoplifting (stealing $950 or less from a store during business hours) and nonresidential burglary (unlawfully entering a store or other non-home location to commit theft, regardless of value). These two categories offer the clearest available picture of how retail theft may be evolving.

Retail Theft Trends: A Decade in Review

The rate of reported retail theft in California has shifted over the past ten years, with notable increases and declines tied to key events. After a modest rise in 2015, theft rates fell steadily, dropping 20% between 2015 and 2021. This included a sharp drop between 2019 and 2020, likely driven by pandemic-related shutdowns and stay-at-home orders that temporarily reduced opportunities for theft.

It is important to note that this apparent decline may reflect a reduction in reporting rates rather than a true decrease in retail theft incidents. Proposition 47, passed in 2014, reclassified many lower-level theft offenses from felonies to misdemeanors, which led to changes in law enforcement and prosecutorial priorities. As a result, some agencies may have deprioritized the investigation and reporting of these crimes, and retailers might have been less likely to report incidents that were now considered less likely to result in significant legal consequences.

Regardless, the downward trend reversed after the early pandemic period. Between 2021 and 2023, reported retail theft jumped by 32%. Over the full 2014–2023 period, the statewide rate rose by 11%, or an additional 48 incidents per 100,000 people. This data also likely understates the real scope of recent increases, as several major law enforcement agencies (e.g. the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department) failed to report complete data for 2023.

County-Level Differences

The statewide trend masks significant variation across counties. For example, while the state saw a slight increase in theft rates between 2014 and 2015, some counties experienced declines. More recently, from 2019 to 2023, the sharpest increases in theft were concentrated in large urban counties, especially Los Angeles, Alameda, Sacramento, and San Mateo. In contrast, many smaller counties actually saw theft rates decline. The report suggests that differences in retail density or other local conditions may explain these trends, though the exact reasons remain unclear.

Impacts of Policy Changes

A variety of factors can influence retail theft, ranging from retail technology and economic conditions to homelessness and addiction. This report focused on how changes in criminal justice policy may have shaped California’s retail theft trends over the past decade. Two major influences stand out: the passage of Proposition 47 and a series of criminal justice system shifts that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Proposition 47

Proposition 47, approved by voters in 2014, significantly reduced penalties for lower-level crimes, including many types of retail theft. It reclassified several offenses from felonies or wobblers (crimes that can be charged as either misdemeanors or felonies) to misdemeanors. For example, shoplifting offenses involving goods valued under $950 must now be charged as misdemeanors, even if the same conduct might previously have qualified as felony burglary or “petty theft with a prior.” Receiving stolen property under the $950 threshold is also now a misdemeanor.

These changes altered arrest and detention protocols, making it more difficult for officers to arrest individuals for misdemeanor thefts unless they directly witnessed the offense. Moreover, the measure limited the Legislature’s ability to later increase penalties without securing a two-thirds majority vote. Collectively, these reforms led to lower arrest and incarceration rates for retail theft and may have weakened deterrents, influencing how law enforcement agencies respond to theft-related incidents.

Pandemic-Era Criminal Justice Changes

The COVID-19 pandemic brought a second wave of systemic changes that further disrupted the criminal justice landscape. Temporary policies such as zero-dollar bail enabled many individuals arrested for lower-level offenses to be released immediately. Efforts to reduce jail and prison crowding led to early releases, while law enforcement agencies often shifted toward issuing warnings rather than making arrests in order to limit in-person contact.

Additional policy changes included shortened probation terms under AB 1950 and increased investment in pretrial release programs, both of which reduced the number of people held in custody. At the same time, many law enforcement agencies reallocated resources to address rising violent crime, likely reducing the attention given to property crimes like retail theft.

Two Key Mechanisms Driving Crime Rates

Criminal justice policies tend to influence crime rates through two primary mechanisms: the likelihood of apprehension and the rate of incarceration. When individuals perceive a low likelihood of being caught, crime often increases. In California, the property crime clearance rate dropped from 14% in 2014 to just 8% in 2023, with a particularly sharp decline during the pandemic.

Similarly, a decline in incarceration rates may have expanded the pool of people in the community with the opportunity to commit crime. Following Proposition 47, California’s incarcerated population declined by about 7%, and it fell by another 22% between 2019 and 2023 due to pandemic-related reforms.

Empirical research generally supports the conclusion that Proposition 47 led to an overall increase in larceny, including both retail and non-retail theft. A 2018 study found that California experienced a 9% higher larceny rate compared to other states following the law’s implementation. However, its specific impact on retail theft is harder to quantify, given changes in how such offenses are defined and reported.

The effect of pandemic-era changes on retail theft appears more modest. A 2024 study found that reductions in jail populations and declining clearance rates may have increased nonresidential burglaries by 2% to 3%, but these factors could only account for roughly one-third of the total increase in retail theft observed during the pandemic period.

Legislative Responses

In response to mounting concerns about retail theft, California lawmakers have passed a wide range of new laws aimed at deterring theft, increasing penalties for repeat or organized offenses, and enhancing law enforcement’s ability to respond. While some of these laws date back a few years, many of the most significant reforms only took effect in late 2024 or early 2025. These changes focus on three main goals: increasing the likelihood of apprehension, expanding incarceration options for repeat offenders, and improving coordination and enforcement capacity.

Strengthened Arrest and Detention Authority

Two recent laws have strengthened law enforcement’s authority to arrest and detain shoplifters. AB 2943 (2024) permits officers to make warrantless arrests for misdemeanor shoplifting even if they did not witness the crime firsthand. Meanwhile, AB 1065 (2018) allows courts to hold certain shoplifting suspects in custody before trial, particularly those with recent theft-related citations. These changes could deter theft by increasing the chance of immediate consequences.

Elevating Misdemeanors to Felonies

Several recent laws have made it easier to charge retail theft as a felony, which carries longer potential incarceration terms. Proposition 36 (2024) and AB 2943 allow prosecutors to aggregate the value of multiple thefts—regardless of whether they occurred at different stores or over a period of time—to meet the $950 threshold required for felony charges. AB 1065 (2018) formally defined organized retail theft as a felony when individuals work together to steal and resell merchandise. Additionally, AB 2943 (2024) established a new felony offense for possessing stolen goods valued at $950 or more with the intent to sell, even if the possession spans multiple incidents. Proposition 36 also reinstated a version of petty theft with a prior, enabling felony charges for people with two or more prior theft convictions.

Longer Sentences and Supervision

Some recent laws have extended the length of penalties and probation terms for retail theft offenses. AB 2943 allows courts to impose up to two years of misdemeanor probation for shoplifting cases, doubling the previous standard of one year. Additionally, SB 1416, AB 1960, and Proposition 36 provide for longer prison sentences when the value of theft or property damage exceeds $50,000, with further sentence enhancements for large-scale crimes involving multiple participants.These changes aim to reduce repeat offenses by keeping high-volume offenders off the streets for longer periods and encouraging court-mandated treatment.

Boosting Enforcement Capacity and Retail Protections

In addition to changes in arrest and sentencing, several reforms have been implemented to strengthen the overall enforcement infrastructure against retail theft. AB 1065 required the California Highway Patrol to establish regional task forces that assist local agencies in addressing organized retail theft. The 2022–23 state budget allocated significant funding, providing $85 million annually for three years to support law enforcement efforts against retail, vehicle, and cargo theft, along with $10 million per year to enhance prosecution efforts.

Furthermore, laws passed in 2022 and 2024 mandate that online marketplaces verify high-volume sellers and report suspected sales of stolen goods. Lastly, AB 3209 (2024) enables courts and prosecutors to issue protective orders that prohibit repeat offenders from returning to stores where they have previously committed crimes.

Implementation Considerations

With a wide range of new retail theft laws now in effect, the California Legislature’s job isn’t done. Lawmakers must now monitor how these laws are being implemented and whether they’re delivering real results. Lawmakers may want to review usage data or consult directly with stakeholders to understand whether laws are gaining traction or being ignored because they’re too cumbersome to use.

Retailers, police officers, prosecutors, and even the general public need to understand the new tools available. Without awareness and training, these reforms won’t be used effectively and may fail to deter theft. For example, felony charges now depend on the cooperation of retailers to document and report repeated thefts. If stores don’t know that their evidence could make a legal difference, they may not invest the effort.

Some prosecutors might aggressively pursue felony charges under Proposition 36, while others may take a more lenient stance. Similarly, corporate chains may benefit more than small businesses when thefts across multiple locations can be aggregated. Uneven application could lead to questions about fairness, equity, or unintended consequences.

When local law enforcement agencies and district attorneys develop successful approaches for tackling retail theft, the Legislature should ask whether those insights are being collected and disseminated across counties and cities.

Online resale markets are evolving fast, and so are the methods used to fence stolen goods. The Legislature may need to revisit current rules on online platforms to ensure they’re still effective as new technologies emerge.

Key Outcomes to Monitor

With tougher retail theft laws now in effect, California lawmakers face a critical question: Are these laws actually achieving what they set out to do? While implementation is one piece of the puzzle, the real test lies in outcomes. Below are the key outcomes the Legislature should be considering to guide effective oversight.

Retail Theft Rates

Ultimately, the goal of recent laws is to reduce retail theft. Monitoring reported rates of shoplifting and commercial burglary will help lawmakers track trends over time. But interpreting these numbers isn’t always straightforward. New laws may encourage more reporting or increase arrests, making it seem like crime is rising even if actual theft is not. That means increases in reported crime could reflect greater enforcement, not necessarily more criminal activity.

Clearance Rates

Clearance rates, i.e., the share of crimes solved or closed by arrest, are a strong signal of how likely offenders are to be caught. Research shows that increasing the chance of apprehension can deter crime more effectively than longer sentences. Monitoring clearance rates for retail theft and burglary could help assess whether law enforcement is better equipped to catch and charge suspects under the new laws. But again, more reporting could push clearance rates down even if police are actually solving more crimes.

Unintended Consequences

Every major policy shift carries risk. More aggressive enforcement of retail theft might push crime into other areas, or lead organized theft rings to exploit legal gaps—for example, recruiting minors who face less severe punishment. Lawmakers should also watch for disparities in how the laws affect different groups, especially by age, race, housing status, or region. Engaging directly with law enforcement and community stakeholders may reveal these patterns before they show up in statewide data.

Costs vs. Benefits

The final and most important question: Are these new laws worth it? Tough-on-crime policies can be expensive, especially when they rely on incarceration. Research consistently shows that interventions increasing the chance of being caught (such as more patrols or coordinated investigations) are often more cost-effective than longer sentences. The Legislature should weigh whether recent laws strike the right balance between effectiveness, fairness, and fiscal responsibility.

Increased arrests, prosecutions, and longer sentences will likely drive up jail, prison, and probation populations, especially if prosecutors and judges apply the new laws broadly. But actual cost increases will vary widely depending on local implementation. Monitoring incarceration and supervision trends over time can help lawmakers identify cost drivers. Understanding who is being incarcerated under the new laws and for how long can also guide future decisions about resource allocation.

Conclusion

In response to growing public concern, both the Legislature and California voters have enacted a series of law changes aimed at reducing retail theft. These changes significantly expand the enforcement and prosecutorial tools available to law enforcement agencies and local prosecutors. However, the actual impact of these reforms will depend heavily on how they are implemented at the local level.

The report by the Legislative Analyst’s Office outlines the key provisions of these recent laws, reviews research on how such tools can influence crime rates, and identifies key oversight questions for the Legislature to consider. As the state moves forward, careful monitoring of both implementation and outcomes will be essential. Ongoing legislative oversight can help ensure that these laws are applied effectively, fairly, and in a manner that delivers measurable public safety benefits.

These recent laws reflect a significant shift in how California is approaching retail theft: emphasizing more aggressive arrest powers, tougher penalties for repeat and organized offenders, and investments in coordination and prevention tools. Whether these changes will meaningfully deter theft or shift criminal behavior remains to be seen, but they mark a major reversal of the more lenient policies of the past decade.