Oanh Trinh watched in horror as thieves drove an SUV through two security gates and rifled her Oakland business, Lucky 7 Cigarettes, early one morning in October. The livestreamed security cam footage on her phone told the story: Like so many others in the East Bay and the state, she was the victim of retail theft. Such crimes have soared across California, and Alameda County has seen one of the most dramatic jumps. Between 2019 and 2023, retail theft—both shoplifting and commercial burglaries—increased 65% in the county. These are the grim realities that political experts say led voters to pass Prop. 36, the Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act. The measure allows felony charges for certain drug and theft crimes, and increases penalties for those crimes if the defendant has two prior convictions. In Alameda County, voters passed the proposition by a 62% margin—and all 58 of the state’s counties passed it. The proposition went into effect statewide on Dec. 18. The passage of the bill signals a shift by California voters, who in 2014 passed Prop. 47, which reduced certain crimes from felonies to misdemeanors in hopes of reducing the number of people in prison. Prop. 36 changes the older proposition to deal with repeat offenders. Whether Prop. 36—which also addresses drug offenses—will actually deter retail theft is still to be seen. “When you look at the research, it’s the likelihood of being apprehended that has an impact on whether a particular policy is going to prevent crime,” said Magnus Lofstrom, criminal justice policy director for the Public Policy Institute of California. “That is more likely to be an effective strategy than harsher penalties extending the length of the sentence. The likelihood of apprehension, ‘I’m going to get caught for one of these crimes,’ is a factor that has a possible effect on criminal behavior,” Lofstrom said. The policy director named two factors he said will affect whether the measure will succeed as a deterrent. “It will depend on law enforcement. Will police make more arrests for retail theft?” Lofstrom said. “It also depends on the prosecutors. When police make an arrest and refer it for prosecution, how will the district attorneys charge the cases?” Supporters of the measure say it will incentivize officers to make arrests and create a greater deterrent for serial thieves. A Vallejo police spokesman said Vallejo officers are already making arrests for retail theft when called for. “If someone commits a crime, say shoplifting, we’re going to arrest them. And it’s also a property crime, so the retail store will have to want to press charges. If the store wants to press charges, the suspect will get arrested,” said Vallejo police Sgt. Rashad Hollis, the department’s public information officer. “You call 911, and if we can determine a crime occurred, there will be an arrest,” Hollis said. The passage of the measure has brought about a change in Vallejo police procedure, he said. “Now, under Proposition 36, we will run a criminal history on suspects to determine if they have prior convictions. If so, now they can be charged with a felony instead of a misdemeanor if they have two or more convictions.” A Berkeley police officer said the department received a bulletin from the state Department of Justice Law Enforcement Division Dec. 13 briefing officers on the measure. It highlights changes including the removal of eligibility for the sentences of certain offenses to be served in county jail and alignment of punishment for crimes involving fentanyl with that of other similar controlled substances. “As it was released just a few days ago, the Berkeley Police Department is still in the process of reviewing the information to see what if any policy and/or procedural changes might be necessary,” said Officer Byron White.  As to whether prosecutors might be more likely to charge retail theft crimes as felonies, San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe said the answer is yes. “In my office, the policy we have adopted is, on the fourth offense we will go felony. Unless there is something unusual, if the suspect has prior robbery convictions, for example. Most DAs are planning to charge repeat offenders as a felony,” he said. The trouble with Prop. 47 was “you could commit 50 thefts from a retail store and it was always a misdemeanor,” Wagstaffe said. Misdemeanor petty theft is a cite-and-release offense in California, which means repeat offenders generally walk away with a notice to appear in court.  “So, there was no consequence. Retail theft went out of control. This says the first two times it’s a misdemeanor, then it’s a felony—and a felony has greater consequence, such as incarceration. Many of these retail thefts occur because the perpetrator is a drug addict and they need money to feed the habit,” Wagstaffe said. In addition to increasing penalties for repeat retail theft, Prop. 36 creates a new treatment-focused court process for some drug-possession crimes. Under certain circumstances, people with multiple drug-possession convictions could complete drug treatment instead of going to prison. “That’s what I hope happens—we can nudge them into treatment,” the prosecutor said. “That’s for the addict who is walking into Target and grabbing a pair of shoes and will go into the street and sell them in order to purchase their next fix,” Wagstaffe said. Before Prop. 47 passed, Wagstaffe said, “in our drug court we had generally over 300 people at a time.” He added, “What happened after 47 when there was no punishment—two weeks ago our drug court had 12 people because no one was going for treatment.” He said, “I’m hopeful I do not send one more person to prison than we did in the last year. We just want to do what we can to help stop retail theft.” Opponents of the measure say there aren’t enough treatment facilities to accommodate the need. “Prop. 36 was unnecessary, and voters only passed it because proponents misled them into believing it would provide treatment and housing. It does neither of those things,” Alameda County Chief Public Defender Brendon Woods said in an email. “Right now, there’s not enough treatment and housing available in Alameda County for the people who want it,” he added. According to a 2024 RAND study, the state doesn’t have enough beds to serve the existing demand for supply. San Mateo County has a number of treatment facilities, including Our Common Ground and Free at Last, but some counties, particularly in the northern part of the state, have few or none. “I hope the governor and the legislature say, ‘We’re going to help, we’re going to send money for clinics,’” Wagstaffe said. “If they don’t, in a lot of counties it’s going to fail miserably and that would be a true dereliction of duty on the part of our state leaders.” Contra Costa County Chief Assistant DA Simon O’Connell also weighed in on the treatment aspect of the measure. “Prosecutors are responsible for evaluating cases to determine appropriate charges and pursue prosecution of criminal offenses. Proposition 36 aims to encourage drug treatment, offering those charged with nonviolent drug offenses the opportunity to choose treatment over punishment. The ultimate decision lies with the individual defendant,” O’Connell said in an email. Regarding deterrence, O’Connell said, “It is purely speculative to determine whether Proposition 36 will deter substance abuse.” He added that one of its key goals is to encourage individuals to seek drug treatment, and if treatment leads to someone overcoming substance-related challenges, “it could hopefully enable them to become a productive member of the community, reducing future contact with the criminal justice system.” Asked if prosecutors will charge more crimes as felonies in the wake of the measure’s passage, O’Connell said the decision depends on the nature of the offense and the defendant’s criminal history. “Prosecutors evaluate these factors carefully, charging based on the seriousness of the crime and prior records,” he said. Alameda County is currently without a permanent DA. Roberts, who is serving temporarily as Alameda County DA, weighed in on Prop. 36 via email. “Regarding charging cases against defendants whose alleged crimes are among those listed in Proposition 36, the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office has educated prosecutors about the Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act, and this office is fully prepared to prosecute cases in accordance with the new law.” The former DA, Pamela Price, was recalled in the Nov. 5 election. The County Board of Supervisors is taking steps to appoint an interim DA. A Stanford law professor pointed to the recall of Price, who was depicted as “soft on crime,” and the passage of Prop. 36 as a sea change in California. “The law that has been curtailed (Proposition 47) was enacted at a time of considerable liberal reform in California,” said Robert Weisberg, a professor and co-faculty director, Stanford Criminal Justice Center. “The passage of the new initiative is roughly simultaneous with a movement against progressive prosecutors; we see the recall of DA Price, the recall of progressive DA Chesa Bodin in San Francisco and the loss of the Nov. 5 election in Los Angeles of (progressive) DA George Gascón,” Weisberg said. Weisberg is interested to see if Prop. 36 has the desired effect. “You can see this as an experiment to see if Proposition 36 will significantly reduce the undeniable phenomenon of rampant retail theft in cities throughout the state,” he said. Meanwhile, Oanh Trinh and her husband, Ket Trinh, are fighting to keep their 26-year-old business open, the couple said on a GoFundMe page established for Lucky 7. “This store is our baby, our means to live, what helps put food on the table for our family,” the two said on the page. For the sake of people like Oanh and Ket Trinh, hopefully the experiment will not fail.