Bill Text: CA SB226 | 2009-2010 | Regular Session | Enrolled

NOTE: There are more recent revisions of this legislation. Read Latest Draft

---

Bill Title: Identity theft: jurisdiction.

Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 1-0)

Status: (Passed) 2009-08-06 - Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 40, Statutes of 2009. [SB226 Detail]

Download: California-2009-SB226-Enrolled.html

---

BILL NUMBER: SB 226	ENROLLED
	BILL TEXT

	PASSED THE SENATE  JULY 16, 2009
	PASSED THE ASSEMBLY  JUNE 30, 2009
	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  JUNE 23, 2009
	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  JUNE 11, 2009
	AMENDED IN SENATE  APRIL 13, 2009

INTRODUCED BY   Senator Alquist

                        FEBRUARY 23, 2009

   An act to amend Section 786 of the Penal Code, relating to
identity theft.



	LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


   SB 226, Alquist. Identity theft: jurisdiction.
   Existing law provides that when multiple offenses occur in
multiple jurisdictions and all of the offenses involve the same
defendant or defendants and the unauthorized use of the personal
identifying information of one person, then jurisdiction for all
offenses is proper in any one of the counties where an offense
occurred.
   This bill would provide, in addition, that when multiple offenses
occur in multiple jurisdictions and all of the offenses involve the
same defendant or defendants and either the same personal identifying
information of one person or the same scheme or substantially
similar activity, then jurisdiction for all offenses, including
associated offenses connected together in their commission to an
underlying identity theft offense, is proper in any one of the
counties where one of the offenses occurred.
   Existing law requires a court to consider specified facts when
determining if all counts in a complaint alleging multiple offenses
of unauthorized use of personal identifying information occurring in
multiple counties should be joined in one county for prosecution.
   This bill would, in addition, require the court to consider
whether or not the offenses involved substantially similar activity
or the same scheme when making that determination.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

  SECTION 1.  Section 786 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
   786.  (a) When property taken in one jurisdictional territory by
burglary, carjacking, robbery, theft, or embezzlement has been
brought into another, or when property is received in one
jurisdictional territory with the knowledge that it has been stolen
or embezzled and the property was stolen or embezzled in another
jurisdictional territory, the jurisdiction of the offense is in any
competent court within either jurisdictional territory, or any
contiguous jurisdictional territory if the arrest is made within the
contiguous territory, the prosecution secures on the record the
defendant's knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of the right
of vicinage, and the defendant is charged with one or more property
crimes in the arresting territory.
   (b) (1) The jurisdiction of a criminal action for unauthorized
use, retention, or transfer of personal identifying information, as
defined in subdivision (b) of Section 530.55, shall also include the
county where the theft of the personal identifying information
occurred, the county in which the victim resided at the time the
offense was committed, or the county where the information was used
for an illegal purpose. If multiple offenses of unauthorized use of
personal identifying information, either all involving the same
defendant or defendants and the same personal identifying information
belonging to the one person, or all involving the same defendant or
defendants and the same scheme or substantially similar activity,
occur in multiple jurisdictions, then any of those jurisdictions is a
proper jurisdiction for all of the offenses. Jurisdiction also
extends to all associated offenses connected together in their
commission to the underlying identify theft offense or identity theft
offenses.
   (2) When charges alleging multiple offenses of unauthorized use of
personal identifying information occurring in multiple territorial
jurisdictions are filed in one county pursuant to this section, the
court shall hold a hearing to consider whether the matter should
proceed in the county of filing, or whether one or more counts should
be severed. The district attorney filing the complaint shall present
evidence to the court that the district attorney in each county
where any of the charges could have been filed has agreed that the
matter should proceed in the county of filing. In determining whether
all counts in the complaint should be joined in one county for
prosecution, the court shall consider the location and complexity of
the likely evidence, where the majority of the offenses occurred,
whether or not the offenses involved substantially similar activity
or the same scheme, the rights of the defendant and the people, and
the convenience of, or hardship to, the victim and witnesses.
   (3) When an action for unauthorized use, retention, or transfer of
personal identifying information is filed in the county in which the
victim resided at the time the offense was committed, and no other
basis for the jurisdiction applies, the court, upon its own motion or
the motion of the defendant, shall hold a hearing to determine
whether the county of the victim's residence is the proper venue for
trial of the case. In ruling on the matter, the court shall consider
the rights of the parties, the access of the parties to evidence, the
convenience to witnesses, and the interests of justice.
   (c) This section shall not be interpreted to alter victims' rights
under Section 530.6.