Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Burglary Tools And Auto Theft topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to add key‑programming devices to burglary‑tools statute draws questions on intent and bias
Summary
AB 486 would amend Penal Code section 466 to list key programmers and key duplication devices as burglary tools; proponents including law enforcement associations said courts need clarity, while civil liberties groups warned the change risks biased stops and arrests when possession is lawful.
Assemblymember Lackey presented AB 486 to the Senate committee as a response to a rise in vehicle thefts driven by electronic key‑programming and duplication devices. Lackey said the devices can plug into a vehicle’s diagnostic port to override security and enable rapid theft; he cited statewide auto theft increases and told the committee the bill would give law enforcement clear authority to act on possession of the devices when accompanied by felonious intent.
Jonathan Feldman of the California Police Chiefs Association testified in strong support, saying modern burglary tools include technological devices and that law enforcement should not be forced to operate in “gray spaces.” Feldman emphasized that the bill would not remove the requirement to prove felonious intent: mere possession alone would not be sufficient for conviction.
Opponents led by the ACLU California Action urged caution. George Kramthu, a legislative attorney with the ACLU, said Penal Code section 466 already lists commonly owned items such as screwdrivers and pliers and warned the measure could invite biased policing: lawful mechanics and vehicle owners may possess programmers and signal extenders for legitimate purposes. He argued that while the intent standard exists, it does not prevent arrests or searches that can have disruptive and dangerous consequences.
Committee members pressed the author and supporters on the standard for stops and searches and how intent will be proven. The author and witnesses reiterated that mere possession is not a crime; prosecutors must still prove felonious intent to convict. Senator Caballero, drawing on decades of legal experience, said prosecutors and judges often encounter such cases during ongoing investigations and expressed support for giving officers a clear statutory framework while emphasizing safeguards.
The committee ultimately recorded the bill as passed to appropriations; the committee rollcall later recorded AB 486 as approved on a 6–0 vote.
Ending: Debate focused on balancing public safety and protecting lawful possession by mechanics and vehicle owners; proponents said the bill clarifies modern burglary tools while opponents urged strict safeguards and training to reduce biased enforcement.
