Crimes: looting.

The authors, Assembly Members Gabriel, Irwin, and Pacheco, propose a measure that ties the handling of certain property crimes in disaster contexts to evacuation-zone rules while clarifying burglary liability when structures are damaged by a disaster. They frame the changes as aligning criminal liability with the emergency-management framework, and they indicate the act would become operative only if a companion Senate bill addressing related emergency powers is enacted and takes effect by an early-2026 date.

Core changes center on two pillars. First, the burglary provision remains focused on entering defined places with intent to commit theft or a felony, but the bill adds a rule clarifying that damage to a structure caused by a natural or other disaster does not preclude conviction. Second, the existing looting provisions are repealed and reconstituted as a distinct framework tied to evacuation orders and evacuation zones. An evacuation order is defined as an official directive to relocate due to imminent danger from a disaster, and an evacuation zone includes an evacuation area or area under an evacuation warning, plus residential dwelling units within such zones that are damaged or destroyed for specified periods (one year after the evacuation went into effect, or up to three years if undergoing reconstruction), with detached structures excluded. Within these evacuation zones, offenses such as burglary, grand theft, trespass with intent to commit larceny, and theft from an unlocked vehicle are treated as looting, carrying penalties that can include state-prison terms for burglary and existing sentencing ranges for the other offenses. The bill also imposes probationary conditions and potential community-service requirements, and it provides a safe-harbor provision for consensual entry into certain commercial structures.

Beyond penalties, the measure defines key terms—evacuation order, evacuation zone, local emergency, reconstruction, and state of emergency—and anchors them to established emergency-management references in state regulations and Government Code provisions. The approach creates a time-bound expansion of looting coverage within disaster areas, specifying how long dwelling units remain within the evacuation-zone framework and how penalties interact with the broader criminal code. It also contemplates the administrative footprint of enforcing the new rules as a state-mandated local program, with no reimbursement mandated under the constitutional framework, and it ties the act’s operative effect to the enactment and timing of the companion measure.

In context, the authors’ framing positions the changes as an integration of property-crime penalties with disaster-response structures, aiming to deter looting in designated evacuation zones and to standardize enforcement across police, prosecutors, and courts within emergencies. The bill relies on cross-references to existing emergency-powers statutes and regulatory definitions to govern the scope of “evacuation orders” and “evacuation zones,” while shifting certain offenses within evacuated areas to more punitive categories and adding schedule-based probation and community-service requirements. Because the act’s operative provisions depend on the companion bill, timing and implementation hinge on that measure’s passage and effectiveness; enforcement interpretation will require clear alignment with the defined terms and the specified timeframes for coverage.