Committee Kills Identity Theft and Personal Privacy Protection Act
"In spite of the fact that Californians are under siege by identity thieves, our state laws have not kept up with high-tech criminals. As long as the penalties for identity theft amount to a slap-on-the-wrist, we should expect this epidemic to continue. The committee's rejection of the California Identity Theft and Personal Privacy Protection Act today will result in more victims of identity theft, and inadequate sentencing for perpetrators of these financially devastating crimes."
- Senator Chuck Poochigian
Senate Public Safety Committee Kills Identity Theft Measure
The Senate Public Safety Committee voted today to kill Senator Poochigian's California Identity Theft and Personal Privacy Protection Act (SB 839). The measure would have given law enforcement new tools to combat identity thieves, increased penalties for perpetrators, and updated our laws to account for new technology, among other things. Following is a description of the problem of identity theft in California, and the issues that the California Identity Theft and Personal Privacy Protection Act sought to address.
The Crime and Costs of Identity Theft
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) states that identity theft is the fastest growing crime in the nation. In a 2004 FTC study, California ranked as the third highest state (behind Arizona and Nevada) as having the greatest number of identity theft victims - at 635,000 victims or 122.1 per 100,000 population. In 2004, consumers reported losses of $547 million. It took the average consumer victim 175 hours and $800 to resolve identity theft problems, and it took an average of two to four years for victims to clear their names.
Reasons for the Rise in Identity Theft
There are a few reasons why criminals choose identity theft. Three often cited are that:
- It is a non-violent crime;
- Criminal penalties for first-time and repeat offenders are light - often a misdemeanor that typically results in just a few days or weeks in jail and small fines - while the potential to make quick cash is great; and,
- The use of computers and the internet allows thieves to acquire, buy, sell, and use information quickly, and anonymously.
California Identity Theft and Personal Protection Act
In response to the growing problem of identity theft in California, Senator Poochigian introduced the California Identity Theft and Personal Protection Act (SB 839). It is an expanded version of last year's Identity Theft Traffickers Act, which also sought to increase penalties for the trafficking and misuse of personal identifying information.
Highlights of the California Identity Theft and Personal Protection Act - SB 839:
Identity Theft News
- Increases the penalties for the theft and trafficking of personal identifying information. Currently, regardless of the number of identities stolen, a criminal can only be charged with a misdemeanor for possessing and trafficking in information. The California Identity Theft and Personal Protection Act increases the penalty based on the number of victims. This provision addresses the Choicepoint type of situation where a thief steals 300,000 identities and sells that information to others to misuse. The Choicepoint thief could only be charged with a misdemeanor under existing law, a penalty that is woefully inadequate.
- Recognizes the role of technology. Today, if a criminal steals your social security card it is a felony. However, if they steal your social security number it is only a misdemeanor. This measure treats the theft of social security numbers the same as the theft of social security cards. It also creates a new criminal penalty for the high-tech crime of phishing.
- Creates a two year enhancement for repeat offenders. This measure targets career criminals by adding two years to any sentence for any prior convictions of identity theft. The enhancement applies to the following prior crimes: grand theft, stolen mail, criminal misuse of someone's identity, misuse of credit cards.
- Creates an enhancement for targeting seniors, children and the military. This measure creates a one-year enhancement when identity thieves target vulnerable communities.
- Targets increasing use of identity theft by gangs. Adds identity theft to crimes that may be prosecuted under the Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act (STEP). Crimes listed in the STEP Act are subject to enhanced sentences if committed by gang members.
- Allows cases to be tried in the community where the victim resides. Currently, cases against identity thieves can only be charged where the criminal lives or where they misuse the identity. This means that a victim whose identity is stolen in San Francisco but whose identity is used in Los Angeles must travel to LA to resolve the case. This measure will allow the victim to have their local District Attorney prosecute the crime in their own hometown.
- Creates a new laboratory fee for identity thieves. The fee would be $250 payable by convicted identity thieves. The fee would be retained by the county to fund the fight against identity theft through regional computer forensic laboratories. These laboratories have been able to complete forensic computer analysis of a suspected felon's computers and have unraveled many identity theft and financial fraud schemes. These funds should help all counties have access to these valuable laboratory services.
"We must give law enforcement the tools they need to pursue and prosecute all levels of identity thieves - from high-tech hackers to dumpster-diving drug abusers. Thousands more Californians should not have to be victimized before the Legislature takes action. Enhanced penalties deter criminals, and I am committed to continuing to work to make the punishment for identity theft fit the crime."
- Senator Chuck Poochigian
Media Contact: Seth Unger
(916) 445-9600
Capitol Office (916)445-9600
Fresno Office (559) 253-7122
Ripon Office (209) 599-8540
Key issues
According to the California District Attorneys Association
- Should possession, acquisition or transfer of the identifying information of another person with intent to defraud be an alternate felony-misdemeanor, and should possession of such information from at least 10-persons be a straight felony, with increasing prison terms based on the number of persons whose identifying information possessed by the defendant?
- Should the acts constituting possession, acquisition, et cetera, of identifying information with intent to defraud include selling or conveying such information?
- Where a person is convicted in the current case of felony identity theft or felony possession, acquisition, et cetera, of another's personal identifying information with intent to defraud, and where the defendant has been previously convicted of identity theft or specified related offenses, should the defendant receive a prison enhancement of two years?
- Should a person who is convicted of a felony violation of penal code section 530.5 (identity theft and related offenses concerning personal identifying information) or a felony conspiracy to commit such a crime, receive a two-year sentence enhancement for each prior felony conviction for such crimes?
- Where the defendant commits felony identity theft or felony possession, transfer, et cetera, of personal information with intent to defraud against a person in the uniformed services (armed forces, national guard, health service, a minor, elder or dependent adult, should the defendant receive a prison enhancement of one year?
- Should prior identity theft and similar convictions from other jurisdictions be used to enhance a defendant's sentence if the crime in the out-of-state conviction has the same elements as a qualifying California crime?
- Should procedural rules for determining the place of trial of related identity theft crimes that took place in multiple counties be amended and clarified?
Related Articles
- Protecting Against Identity Theft During the Holidays
- Gift Cards: Holiday Tips for Consumers
- Keeping Safe and Secure thru the Holiday Season
- Patriot: U.S. Tax Returns, Identity Theft and H&R Block
- Download OCC Tips
Updated December 2, 2006
