Summary of Proposition 47 (2014)
The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act
Proposition 47 reduces a number of property and drug crimes from felonies and wobblers to
straight misdemeanors, unless the defendant has one of a handful of very specific serious and
violent priors. In most cases there are no enhancements available, regardless of how many prior
convictions the defendant has for the same offense. Further, it allows anyone currently serving
or having completed a felony sentence for one of these offenses to petition for resentencing or
reclassification of their conviction as a misdemeanor. Any cost savings that would result from
the measure would be split between the Board of State and Community Corrections, the
Department of Education, and the Victims Compensation and Government Claims Board.
Crimes that would be impacted by Prop 47
Commercial burglary – Under Prop 47, entering a commercial establishment during business
hours with intent to commit larceny of property not exceeding $950 would be “shoplifting”,
which would be a straight misdemeanor. Prosecutors would be prohibited from charging those
facts as burglary. There are no enhancements for repeat offenses.
Forgery – Currently a wobbler, forgery would be a straight misdemeanor under Prop 47 if the
person is forging a check, money order, cashier's check, etc., not exceeding $950. There are no
enhancements for repeat offenses.
Bad checks – Currently, anything under $450 is a misdemeanor, unless the person has a prior
conviction for a similar offense. Under Prop 47, the limit would be $950 and it would be a
misdemeanor unless the person has THREE priors for similar offenses.
Grand theft – Under current law, the distinction between petty theft and grand theft is based on
the value and the nature of the property. Theft of certain items is always grand theft (e.g., guns
and cars), and there is a lower grand theft value threshold for theft of certain other property (e.g.,
crops and chickens). Under Prop 47, theft of property where the value does not exceed $950
would be considered petty theft and would be a misdemeanor, regardless of the type of property
stolen (e.g., guns) or the number of prior theft convictions.
Receiving stolen property – Currently a wobbler, but prosecutors have discretion to specify in
the accusatory pleading that it is a misdemeanor if the value is less than $950. Prop 47 would
make anything under $950 a misdemeanor. There are no enhancements for repeat offenses.
Petty theft enhancement – Currently, petty theft can be charged as a wobbler if a person has three
or more priors for theft. Under Prop 47, that would only apply to certain serious or violent
offenders with one theft-related prior.
Drug possession – Generally, simple possession of controlled substances is currently either a
wobbler or a felony. Under Prop 47, possession of a wide variety of controlled substances (e.g.,
cocaine, heroin, GHB, etc.) would only be a misdemeanor. The initiative makes no changes to
marijuana possession penalties, which are already misdemeanors or infractions. There are no
enhancements for repeat offenses.
It is unclear how much “savings” is achieved by this part of the measure, since Prop 36 (2000)
already requires multiple treatment opportunities before someone could be incarcerated for
felony drug possession. The likely impact of this provision will be to create a disincentive for
that cohort seeking treatment at all.
How does this impact people previously convicted of a felony for one of these crimes?
Prop 47 would allow anyone currently serving a felony sentence for one of the crimes that will
now be a misdemeanor to petition for resentencing -- but gives the court discretion to deny the
petition if resentencing would pose an unreasonable risk that the petitioner will commit a new
specified violent felony.
Anyone who has completed a felony sentence for one of the new misdemeanors could also apply
to have their felony conviction reclassified as a misdemeanor. The language explicitly states that
prosecutors and victims cannot request a hearing on such an application.
Is anyone excluded from the provisions of Prop 47?
Sort of. Anyone who has a prior conviction for one of the “super strike” offenses in PC
667(e)(2)(C)(iv)1 or an offense that requires registration under PC 290 would be subject to an
1170(h) wobbler for any of the crimes covered by the initiative rather than just a misdemeanor,
and would not be eligible to petition for resentencing or reclassification of their conviction.
The “super strike” offenses in PC 667(e)(2)(C)(iv) are sexually violent offenses, child
molestation, homicide or attempted homicide, solicitation to commit murder, assault with a
machine gun on a peace officer or firefighter, possession of a weapon of mass destruction, and
any serious or violent felony punishable by life imprisonment or death.
1
Additional Issues and Unintended Consequences
Prop 47 makes stealing a gun a misdemeanor in most cases
Under current law, PC 487(d)(2), stealing a gun is an automatic felony. Prop 47 would redefine
grand theft in such a way that theft of a firearm could only be considered a felony if the value of
the gun is greater than $950. Most handguns (which are the most stolen kind of firearm) retail
for well below $950. Since it would no longer be grand theft, it would also no longer qualify as
a serious offense under PC 1192.7(c)(26).
A similar issue that will be of particular interest to those in counties with a large agricultural
community deals with theft of crops, livestock, chickens, etc. Currently, under PC 487(b)(1),
theft of crops, chickens, nuts, etc with a value of more than $250 is grand theft. Prop 47 would
make this petty theft unless the value exceeded $950. Likewise, under PC 487a, theft of horses,
cows, pigs, sheep, etc is grand theft, regardless of value. Prop 47 would make such conduct
petty theft unless the value exceeded $950.
Prop 47 actually sends new people to state prison
The initiative, presumably inadvertently, creates a scenario wherein a certain cohort of criminals
who would currently face a straight misdemeanor for petty theft, could instead be sent to state
prison. Under current law, petty theft without a theft prior is a straight misdemeanor. Prop 47
creates PC 490.2 which says that theft of property valued at less than $950 is misdemeanor petty
theft, unless that person has a "super strike" prior, in which case it is an 1170(h)
wobbler. However, under 1170(h)(3), a person who has a "super strike" must serve their felony
sentence in state prison.
So consider, for example, a person whose only prior is for murder who goes into Target and
steals a $400 Playstation. Under current law, because the thief does not have a theft-related
prior, he could only be charged with misdemeanor petty theft. Under Prop 47, however, because
of his "super strike" prior, that petty theft can be charged as a felony for which the sentence must
be served in state prison.
Similarly, under current law, possession of certain controlled substances (e.g., anabolic steroids,
ketamine, khat) is a misdemeanor, regardless of any prior convictions. Prop 47 amends Health
and Safety Code Section 11377 to make possession of those controlled substances an 1170(h)
wobbler if the person has a “super strike” prior. Again, since 1170(h)(3) precludes anyone with
a “super strike” from serving their sentence in county jail, certain offenders would now go to
state prison for conduct that was previously a straight misdemeanor.
Prop 47 doesn't really allow "low-level" felons to apply for resentencing
The initiative is drafted in such a way that people who are serving a felony sentence for one of
the covered offenses can petition for resentencing, but people who are on felony probation
(which suggests they are a lesser threat than their incarcerated counterparts) would not be
afforded the same opportunity. The specific language that Prop 47 adds in new PC 1170.18(a)
covers a person "currently serving a sentence for a conviction, whether by trial or plea, of a
felony or felonies who would have been guilty of a misdemeanor under this Act". A probation
grant is not a sentence. In fact, it is, by definition, the suspension of a sentence. Thus, anyone
on probation for a felony that is being reduced by Prop 47 would not be eligible for resentencing
-- yet another example of how poorly drafted this initiative is.
Prop 47 severely limits the ability of judges to reject petitions for resentencing
New PC 1170.18(b) lays out the process the court must follow in deciding whether to grant a
petition for resentencing. The court must grant the petition if the person is eligible, "unless the
court, in its discretion, determines that resentencing the petitioner would pose an unreasonable
risk of danger to public safety." New PC 1170.18(b)(1)-(3) provides some criteria that the court
may consider in exercising its discretion -- things like criminal history and disciplinary record
while incarcerated. However, in the very next subdivision, PC 1170.18(c), it defines
"unreasonable risk of danger to public safety" to mean "an unreasonable risk that the petitioner
will commit a new violent felony within the meaning of clause (iv) of subparagraph (C) of
paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 667" -- the so-called "super strikes".
By defining "unreasonable risk of danger to public safety" in such a narrow way, it renders the
criteria in PC 1170.18(b)(1)-(3) meaningless. None of those factors actually matter. What
matters, under this definition, is whether the court can show that the petitioner poses an
unreasonable risk of committing a handful of very specific offenses. It's not enough to determine
that the petitioner is likely to commit a felony; the court must instead determine that the
petitioner is likely to possess a weapon of mass destruction, or engage in solicitation to commit
murder, or some other equally fact-specific conduct. From a practical perspective, such a
determination is highly unlikely -- it's hard to imagine how a court could come to such a specific
conclusion. Thus, this language acts as a virtual get out of jail free card for incarcerated felons.
Prop 47 changes the standard for granting Prop 36 resentencing petitions
New PC 1170.18(c):
(c) As used throughout this Code, “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety”
means an unreasonable risk that the petitioner will commit a new violent felony
within the meaning of clause (iv) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of
subdivision (e) of Section 667.
The key words in (c) are “As used throughout this Code…” Rather than apply that very narrow
definition of “unreasonable risk” only to this new section, the language would apply that
definition to the entire Penal Code. The only other section in the Penal Code that uses the phrase
“unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” is PC 1170.126, which sets the standard courts
must use when reviewing petitions for resentencing under Prop 36 (2012). These are the
petitions from third-strikers whose third strike was not serious or violent.
Under this definition, courts would face the same challenges in denying Prop 36 resentencing
petitions that they would for the new Prop 47 petitions, as discussed above.
Prop 47 allows dangerous criminals to legally own guns
Prop 47 also allows more dangerous criminals to legally own guns. Felony convictions carry a
lifetime prohibition on owning guns. This measure takes many of those felonies and reduces
them to misdemeanors, allowing people convicted of these offenses to escape restrictions on gun
ownership.
Prop 47 will make it more difficult for law enforcement to obtain search warrants
There have been some concerns raised about how Prop 47 would impact law enforcement’s
ability to get search warrants in drug cases. Since simple possession will no longer be a felony,
it becomes more difficult to establish probable cause that a felony is being committed – “I think
this guy has drugs on him” is no longer a sufficient pretext for obtaining a search warrant.
How does this purport to create "safe neighborhoods and schools"?
Beginning in July 2016, the Department of Finance would annually be required to calculate how
much money was saved by the implementation of this act and transfer that amount of money
from the General Fund to the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund, which will be a
continuously appropriated Special Fund. Money from the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools
Fund will be allocated as follows:

65% to the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) for grant programs to
public agencies aimed at supporting mental health and substance abuse treatment, as well
as diversion programs

25% to the California Department of Education (CDE) for grants targeted at reducing
truancy, drop-outs, and crime victims among K-12 students

10% to the Victims Compensation and Government Claims Board (VCGCB) for victim
services grants
How does this create fiscal savings?
Overall, the Legislative Analyst's fiscal analysis of the measure estimates that net state criminal
justice savings could reach the low hundred millions annually, and that county criminal justice
savings could also reach the low hundred millions annually. Here is a brief summary of how
those savings are achieved:

State Prisons/Parole – Creates a temporary increase in parole costs for resentenced felons
who will now be released on parole, but ultimately saves money by lowering the state
prison population.

State Courts – Creates a one-time increase in costs for resentencing and reclassification
hearings, as well as more parole revocation hearings as a result of more people being
placed on parole following resentencing. However, these costs will be partially offset
because misdemeanors are generally shorter trials, and fewer people on county
community supervision (like felony probation) means fewer revocation hearings. In sum,
state court costs will increase in the short term, but the LAO projects a net savings
annually thereafter.

County Jails/Supervision – Prop 47 is anticipated to reduce county jail population
through shorter sentences and release of resentenced inmates, though there would be
some new inmates who would have otherwise gone to state prison. Additionally,
revocations of the large new population supervised individuals would increase the county
jail population. On balance, the LAO projects that the county jail population will
decrease within a few years. The population on supervision is also projected to decrease
because terms of supervision will be shorter for misdemeanants.

Other local costs – LAO anticipates that District Attorneys, Public Defenders, and
Sheriffs (due to increased court security costs) will see increased workloads in the first
few years, but a reduced workload in the long term.
Funding for the initiative
Funding has come primarily from two people. Through March 31, Charles Feeney had given
$600,000 to the effort, and B. Wayne Hughes had contributed $250,000. Feeney built his $7.5
billion fortune as the founder of international duty free shops in airports around the world, and
previously contributed $1 million to the 2012 death penalty repeal effort. Hughes is the CEO of
Public Storage, with a net worth of $3.9 billion. Needless to say, this will be a well-funded
initiative.
In just the first quarter of 2014, proponents raised $1.3 million in support (which includes the
$850,000 from Feeney & Hughes) -- and spent over $1 million, including $938,000 on signature
gathering efforts. To put that in perspective, the death penalty initiative which CDAA endorsed
in late 2013 raised just over $39,000 in that same period of time.
Additionally, the potential exists that the California Teachers Association could open its war
chest as well. With 25% of the state savings being redirected to CDE for new programs, and
language stating that the Special Fund money will be counted as General Fund money for the
purposes of Prop 98 calculations (effectively allowing for a Prop 98 “double dip”), they've made
this a very attractive proposal for CTA to support.
Support (as of 7/23/14)
San Francisco County District Attorney George Gascon
San Diego Police Chief (Ret.) Bill Landsdowne
Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos
Crime Survivors for Safety & Justice
Opposition (as of 7/23/14)
California Coalition Against Sexual Assault
California District Attorneys Association
California Fraternal Order of Police
California Grocers Association
California Narcotics Officers Association
California Peace Officers Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California Retailers Association
California State Sheriffs Association
Crime Victims Action Alliance
Crime Victims United