Public Safety, Business Leaders Condemn State Bill To Expand Diversion For Theft Offenders

A coalition of law enforcement, district attorneys, and business leaders from across California are pushing against a bill that would require prosecutors to determine if theft offenders are eligible for diversion programs.

The group held a briefing this week to denounce the bill, arguing that it would undermine Proposition 36, which nearly 70% of California voters passed in 2024 and allows repeat petty theft offenses to be charged as felonies.

“While it’s presented as a diversion bill, its practical effect is to weaken the repeat offender accountability that California has overwhelmingly voted to restore by allowing theft-related offenses to be dismissed through diversion,” said El Dorado County District Attorney Vern Pierson.

Assembly Bill 2108 was created by state Assemblymember LaShae Sharp-Collins, D-La Mesa. It would mandate that county probation departments and prosecutors review the files of theft offenders and evaluate if they meet criteria for diversion. Offenders charged with theft that involved violence or threats of violence are not eligible for diversion.

Sharp-Collins has argued that AB 2108 will help expand diversion options instead of incarceration for theft offenders who are stealing out of necessity, with the aim of getting to the root causes of low-level theft.

“Deprivation of resources breeds desperation, and desperation breeds necessity,” Sharp-Collins said while presenting her bill at a Senate Public Safety Committee meeting last month. “Assembly Bill 2108 creates pathways into the workforce, whether it’s vocational or apprenticeship programs, to help lift individuals out of poverty and curb retail theft.”

AB 2108 is still pending in the state Legislature and is next expected to be heard at the Senate Appropriations Committee meeting on Monday, where the committee will evaluate the fiscal impact of the legislation and take a vote.

Opponents say that AB 2108 could allow for defendants to commit repeated petty theft without facing felony charges as intended under Prop 36, since offenders who complete a diversion program will be able to have that charge go away.

“The bill would allow many qualifying theft cases to be diverted and dismissed, with the arrest deemed not to have occurred for most purposes upon successful completion of that diversion,” said Chad Bianco, Riverside County sheriff and president of the California State Sheriffs’ Association .

“This means that the repeat theft patterns will be harder to identify and document over time, which will weaken the ability to establish the history necessary for enhanced repeat theft prosecution and organized retail theft investigations,” Bianco said.

Sharp-Collins said that her bill excludes “habitual repeat theft offenders” and still gives judges the “discretion to evaluate a defendant’s suitability for diversion based on the actual case.”

AB 2108 would also offer treatment for first-time offenses, an option that does not become mandated until the third drug offense under Prop 36. Even so, the treatment component of Prop 36 has not received adequate funding from the state as the law did not come with a dedicated funding mechanism, according to the Chief Probation Officers of California association.

“Contrary to what folks are saying, this bill is not anti-Prop 36, but instead, as previously stated, builds on the proposition’s promise of consequences and treatment,” Sharp-Collins said. “Without this bill, folks who are in poverty who are convicted of theft crimes are left with no treatment options.”

Esa Ehmen-Krause is Contra Costa County’s chief probation officer and president of CPOC. She thinks that AB 2108 will add more work for probation departments and lacks provisions to supervise defendants after completing diversion programs for their charge.

“This bill shifts significant new responsibilities onto county probation departments to conduct assessments and evaluations but provides none of the tools or resources to supervise these people afterward,” Ehmen-Krause said.

Business leaders also spoke out against the bill, including Oakland African American Chamber of Commerce President Cathy Adams and Oakland Chinatown Chamber Foundation President Carl Chan.

“We’ve been working together and supporting our local small businesses that have been suffering because of crime being targeted to many of them,” Chan said. “We have to be here again to make sure that the AB 2108 will not be passed.”

Karen Kam owns two shopping centers in the Bay Area. She also criticized the bill, saying that it could cause a rise in theft.

“Before the approval of Prop 36 in California, we saw many thieves coming to our centers day in, day out, as if we lived in anarchy,” Kam said. “I thought we finally got the solution to the problem. However, we were stunned and depressed when we heard about AB 2108.”