Friday Favorite: Beefing up Security in San Pedro

I am excited to see that San Pedro leaders are taking matters seriously in downtown San Pedro. This week, leadership in San Pedro announced that after a recent spike in thefts, they want to bring in more security features such as lighting up alleys and installing security cameras in downtown San Pedro. It is probably seriously necessary since one outstanding incident occurred when an individual yanked a chain off a customer eating lunch at the Jolly Burrito!

For those individuals committing the thefts, the beefed up security would mean an increased chance in getting caught. A California theft related conviction can be particularly harmful to those defendants in seeking employment or state licensing in this already tough economy. Theft convictions are still harmful even after being expunged because they will arise after background checks when applying to state or federal agencies, or when applying to the state for any kind of license or certification.

Most California theft offenses are considered “crimes of moral turpitude;” and are often cited by state license boards as a reason to deny licenses and certifications. Even more harmful are the effects of a theft conviction for immigration purposes, where an individual is seeking a visa, green card or naturalization to the United States. A crime of moral turpitude could subject a defendant in this country illegally to deportation, and denial of naturalization or revocation of a visa or residency status.

The good news is that a first time petty theft where the item taken has a value less than $50, can sometimes be reduced to an infraction. In some D.A. offices, this deal will only apply if the item taken was a food item and there are other extenuating circumstances. This deal is probably reserved for transients and run-away teenagers living on the streets. The prosecution, in first offense cases, where the defendant has no criminal record, will sometimes consider dismissing the charges if the defendant repays the victim, undergoes theft counseling and performs community service.

A petty theft is normally a misdemeanor; however when there is a prior history of petty thefts then the prosecution can charge a new petty theft as a felony. Petty theft applies to taking property valued up to $950. Taking an item with a value over $950 can be charged as felony grand theft. From the article highlighting the new security measure in downtown San Pedro, it is clear that most crimes are probably petty thefts, characterized as “snatch-and-run” thefts.

It is great to see that San Pedro is trying to build a better downtown community and image. It has a lot to offer to its residents and visitors. Hopefully, these new measures will reduce any and all crimes in downtown San Pedro.


You can read the article about the new San Pedro security measures here.

A True Black Friday for this Felon

This Black Friday when you are pushing, shoving, jumping, and committing other Olympic feats to get to the hot-ticket items, remember this story and purchase extra security for your new “toys.” This Friday is a dark, dark Friday for a 22-year-old San Pedro man who is in custody for residential burglary. Detectives tracked him down using the “Lojack for Laptops” software on the laptops he stole from a Rancho Palos Verdes home.

It seems that this San Pedro man decided he just couldn’t wait for Black Friday deals and took matters into his own hands. He was identified as an unlicensed contractor who had done work at the victim’s home two months earlier. The security software was able to gather personal information, including his name and photograph once he logged into the computer. Now, that is pretty crafty of modern technology.

The article states that the police were able to convince him to bring the laptop to the Lomita Sherriff’s station, where he was then promptly arrested. Now, let me just make it clear what this means. The Sherriff’s officers are not brilliant negotiators; when an article says any officer “convinced” a defendant to come down to the station it means one of two things. The officer lied to the defendant somehow, prompting the defendant to head over to the station; or the officer threatened the defendant with arrest if he didn’t cooperate. Sometimes, there is a combination of both.

Earlier in our Friday series, I spoke about commercial burglary. The San Pedro man allegedly stole from a residence making the crime here residential burglary. Residential burglary is the more serious of the two types. A defendant commits residential burglary if he burgles any inhabited dwelling - a place where someone lives or sleeps. A dwelling is "inhabited" if it is used for dwelling purposes, whether or not it is currently occupied. A prosecutor has to prove that the defendant entered the dwelling and that, at the time he entered; he had the intent to steal.

Again, there is the sticky situation of “intent.” Any good defense attorney will latch on to this element, especially in this laptop case. Absent any other evidence, it's just as likely that the San Pedro man didn't form the intent to steal until after he was already inside the home. This is a prime case for theft, not residential burglary because when a defendant formed the intent to steal is the key difference between burglary and theft.

In this case, the prosecution is really going to have to nail down a timeframe for the defendant’s action. The prosecution will need to show something more than just his possession of the laptop. This is because he had a legitimate intent as he entered the home – work – and without more it is too much of a stretch to place intent to steal on him.

If he is convicted of first degree residential burglary, he faces two, four, or six years in the California State Prison and a maximum fine of $10,000. California Penal Code 462 instructs the judge not to issue a probationary sentence if he was convicted of burglarizing an inhabited structure unless it is an "unusual case where the interests of justice would be best served by doing so". Here, if the prosecution doesn’t reduce the charge to theft, then a judge should grant probation. This is because this is not a typical residential burglary – not at night, not with weapons, and not a “break in.” Either way, the San Pedro man faces a strike on his record.

This is an unfortunately black Friday for the San Pedro man. He really should have waited for the shopping deals on Black Friday. Instead, is in custody without bail because of his immigration status. However, this is an important Thanksgiving lesson – be thankful for modern technology and make sure to equip your important electronic toys with security software.

You can read the story of the Rancho Palos Verdes laptops stolen by the San Pedro man here.

Friday Favorite: Stealing From the Dead Probably isn't the Smartest Thing, Especially Right Before Halloween!

I am going to start a new series to post each Friday what my favorite crime story of the week was, with a little bit of explanation of the charge or potential charges. Here is a local one to start with.

In Rancho Palos Verdes, a 21-year-old Redondo Beach man has been charged with two counts of felony burglary for taking personal items of deceased people from inside a mausoleum at a Rancho Palos Verdes cemetery. This is my Friday Favorite because I thought it fit in just well with the upcoming Halloween weekend. Not to be gruesome or inconsiderate about the victims here, but it can’t be a coincidence that he was allegedly seen taking things from a mausoleum the week before Halloween. I wonder what would happen if he brought those items into the bathroom, closed the door, turned off the lights and played Bloody Mary. Would the owners of the personal items appear in the mirror with Bloody Mary? Okay, enough insensitive talk from me.

Burglary means that you enter a building (or other specified enclosure) with the intent to commit a theft or felony once inside. He is likely charged with second degree burglary which requires entry into a commercial building. First degree burglary is commonly referred to as residential burglary and is the more serious of the two types. You commit first degree burglary if you burgle any inhabited dwelling, that is, a place where someone lives or sleeps. A dwelling is "inhabited" if it is used for dwelling purposes, whether or not it is currently occupied.  I wouldn’t put it past a prosecutor to charge him with first degree burglary arguing that the mausoleum was in fact occupied by persons in their final resting place.

It is the “intent” which will be hard to prove in this case. The prosecutor must prove that he intended to commit a felony or petty theft at the time he entered the mausoleum. California burglary law, under Penal Code 459, requires that you intend to "commit a petty theft, grand theft, or other felony" once inside. It isn't necessary for the prosecutor to prove that you actually committed the intended crime, only that you intended to do so. Sometimes intent is obvious, sometimes it's not. He was seen trying to open a glass cabinet inside a container holding the personal items of the deceased. Without more, the defense would argue that he knew the deceased and was replacing the personal items or adding to it. There is no indication that he walked into the mausoleum with tools to pry the glass open or had a bag in which to place items that he was taking. It is these tools and other actions by the defendant that prosecutors use to prove “intent”. This case will definitely be interesting.

If he is convicted of second degree burglary as a felony, he faces sixteen months, or two or three years in the state prison and a maximum fine of $10,000.

Read the news article and see his mug shot here.