[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE RISE IN ORGANIZED RETAIL CRIME AND
THE THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-27
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
52-734 WASHINGTON : 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair
DARRELL ISSA, California JERROLD NADLER, New York, Ranking
KEN BUCK, Colorado Member
MATT GAETZ, Florida ZOE LOFGREN, California
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
TOM McCLINTOCK, California HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin Georgia
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ADAM SCHIFF, California
CHIP ROY, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina TED LIEU, California
VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin J. LUIS CORREA, California
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
BEN CLINE, Virginia JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
LANCE GOODEN, Texas LUCY McBATH, Georgia
JEFF VAN DREW, New Jersey MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
TROY NEHLS, Texas VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
BARRY MOORE, Alabama DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
KEVIN KILEY, California CORI BUSH, Missouri
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming GLENN IVEY, Maryland
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas Vacancy
LAUREL LEE, Florida
WESLEY HUNT, Texas
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina
------
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona, Chair
MATT GAETZ, Florida, SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas, Ranking
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin Member
TROY NEHLS, Texas LUCY McBATH, Georgia
BARRY MOORE, Alabama MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
KEVIN KILEY, California CORI BUSH, Missouri
LAUREL LEE, Florida STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
Georgia
CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
AMY RUTKIN, Minority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, June 13, 2023
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Andy Biggs, Chair of the Subcommittee on Crime and
Federal Government Surveillance from the State of Arizona...... 1
The Honorable Eric Swalwell, a Member of the Committee on the
Judiciary from the State of California......................... 4
WITNESSES
The Hon. Kris Kobach, Attorney General, Kansas
Oral Testimony................................................. 6
Prepared Testimony............................................. 9
Lorie Mohs, Newark, California
Oral Testimony................................................. 13
Prepared Testimony............................................. 15
John Flynn, President, National District Attorney Association
Oral Testimony................................................. 18
Prepared Testimony............................................. 20
The Hon. John Milhiser, Former United States Attorney, Central
District, Illinois
Oral Testimony................................................. 27
Prepared Testimony............................................. 29
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
All materials submitted for the record by the Subcommittee on
Crime and Federal Government Surveillance are listed below..... 47
Materials submitted by the Honorable Andy Biggs, Chair of the
Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance from
the State of Arizona, for the record
A statement from the National Retail Federation, June 13,
2023
A letter from Shawn Galey, Vice President & Chief Legal
Officer, CHEP USA, June 12, 2023
An article entitled, ``Serial Retail Theft Suspect: Milwaukee DA
Fails to Chargeat Least 14 Cases [NO PROCESS FILES],'' Dec. 22,
2021, Wisconsin Right Now, submitted by the Honorable Tom
Tiffany, a Member of the Subcommittee on Crime and Federal
Government Surveillance from the State of Wisconsin, for the
record
Materials submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, Ranking
Member of the Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government
Surveillance from the State of Texas, for the record
A letter from Trevor Wagener, Chief Economist and Director,
Research Center, Computer & Communications Industry
Association, June 9, 2023
An article entitled, ``The Great Shoplifting Freak-Out: Why
is it so hard to figure out if America's enormous surge
in theft is real?,'' Dec. 23, 2021, The Atlantic
A statement from the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, Ranking
Member of the Subcommittee on Crime and Federal
Government Surveillance from the State of Texas
THE RISE IN ORGANIZED RETAIL CRIME AND THE THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY
----------
Tuesday, June 13, 2023
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:39 p.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Andy Biggs
[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Biggs, Tiffany, Moore, Kiley, Lee,
Fry, Jackson Lee, Dean, and Cicilline.
Also present: Representative Swalwell.
Mr. Biggs. The Subcommittee will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess at any time.
We will now have the Pledge of Allegiance led by
Representative Moore from Alabama.
All. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States
of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one
Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
all.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Moore.
We welcome everyone to today's hearing on organized retail
crime and threats to public safety.
Without objection, the gentleman from California, Mr.
Swalwell will be permitted to participate in today's hearing.
I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
I'm pleased to be here at the Subcommittee hearing. I'm
grateful to all the witnesses for being here. The topic before
us today is a hearing titled ``The Rise in Organized Retail
Crime and the Threat to Public Safety.''
Organized retail crime is a growing threat to our retailers
and their employees, our law enforcement, and our communities.
The fact that we are having this hearing in some ways is very
disappointing. We used to be a country that adhered to the rule
of law. We used to be a country of sharing and a sense of trust
and respect for our fellow Americans, and that trust and
respect in many respects seems to be gone, and so too is the
rule of law. When the rule of law is gone, it threatens our
very freedom.
Three years ago during the summer of love our country
burned and our stores were looted. Consequences seemed to have
been few. Organized retail crime has become a growing problem
over these past three years because criminals see the
opportunity for profit and know they can get away with it.
Lululemon--I'm not even sure how you say that. Yes,
Lululemon, yes. I actually think I had a relative who worked
for Lululemon. Anyway, nonetheless, Lululemon CEO Calvin
McDonald stood by the retailer's recent decision to fire two
employees who tried to intervene during a theft at one of its
stores.
California is in the process of passing laws prohibiting
retail employers from training employees to actually intervene
in shoplifting and active shooters. That's their SB-553.
We are coddling criminals and flaming the flames of this
problem, and it is open season on our stores. Criminal
syndicates are taking advantage.
The National Retail Federation found that eight in ten
retailers said that violence and aggression associated with
organized retail crime incidents increased in the past year.
Organized retail crime can happen in as little time as just two
minutes.
A CVS executive recently testified that organized retail
crime events are reported in a CVS pharmacy store every three
minutes. In just two minutes, the average professional thief
targeting CVS steals $2,000 worth of goods; two minutes, $2,000
worth of goods. These are not cases of simple shoplifting.
The Biden Administration and rogue Democrat prosecutors
have eroded law and order in this country creating an
environment where retail workers are terrified to go to work.
The rise in organized retail crime is causing businesses to
close and endangers the public.
Walmart, for example, is losing $3 billion per year in U.S.
revenue due to theft and is considering closing stores and
increasing prices due to the severity of theft across the
country.
Who pays the price? Well, consumers do. Consumers are
paying to cover the losses by retailers. With Biden's historic
inflation, that becomes an extra challenge, particularly for
those who are poor.
Let's hear how retail CEOs and others in the retail
industry State the problem. Bob Nardelli, the former Home Depot
COE, stated:
Today this thing is an epidemic. It's spreading faster than
COVID. The degree of severity now is not just theft. It's smash
and grab. Our associates are afraid. The retail salespeople are
afraid. Consumers are afraid. We've got to get control of this.
If the administration doesn't get control of this, they're
abdicating it to the businesses, both public and private.
Bob Eddy, BJ's CEO, stated:
Organized retail crime is definitely a thing. We see it, and it
is material. It is a much more poignant problem in certain
places, particularly on the West Coast or places like Chicago
or Albuquerque that have blue State or local blue governments
that don't really feel like prosecuting crime.
We have a poster behind me. Ira Kress, President of Giant Food,
has posted this particular message in his supermarkets:
You may notice changes to your checkout experience as you are
shopping with us today. Due to a significant increase in crime
and theft that we and many other retailers are experiencing
across our market area, we have made several changes to
operating procedures to mitigate the impact of theft to our
business. We know that these changes may cause some
inconvenience or be disruptive to the experience you're used
to, and I assure you we are making these changes out of
necessity to prioritize the safety of our associates and
customers.
He has further said:
To State that theft has risen tenfold in the last five years
would not be an understatement. It has increased exponentially.
The last thing I want to do is close stores, but I've got to be
able to run them safely and profitably.
That's exactly what's happening. These retailers are
closing stores, costing our communities' jobs, and reducing
Americans' access to basic commodities.
Retailers are forced to raise their costs or close stores.
That's particularly true in communities that can least afford
higher price of goods or scarcity of opportunity to get those
goods. It is allowed by the Americans who pay the price, not
the criminals.
Walmart decided to shut down 17 of its stores after CEO
Doug McMillon warned that theft was the highest it's ever been
around the country, including closing half of its Chicago
stores where thefts are up 25 percent, according to the Chicago
Police Department, while robberies are up 11 percent.
Walmart has also permanently closed stores due to retail
theft in South Bend, Indiana; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Honolulu,
Hawaii; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Washington, DC; and Atlanta,
Georgia.
Target has seen $400 million in lost profits in 2022 due to
organized gangs of shoplifters and has permanently closed
stores in College Park, Maryland; Minneapolis, Minnesota; and
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Walgreens has closed five locations in crime-ridden San
Francisco and others in Chicago, Houston, and Orlando.
Macy's a three-year plan to close 125 stores, citing
increases in retail crime which has resulted in drops in
profits.
Best Buy is closing 20 stores a year for the same reason.
Bed Bath & Beyond has identified 416 of its 1,500 stores
for closure.
Unfortunately, some retailers and prosecutors are more
interested in protecting criminals than they are protecting
their own employees. It is clear that some prosecutors and bail
reform laws in Democrat-run cities and States are emboldening
criminals and fueling a rise in organized retail crime. We've
even heard it from our own witnesses during the violent crime
field hearing we had in Manhattan earlier this year. Democrat
city Councilman Robert Holden provided a grim description of
everyday life in Manhattan when he said:
Mentally ill homeless people verbally and physically attack
people randomly in the streets and in the subway. Pharmacies
lock up their products. The police officers also feel pressure
to undercharge perps they arrest. This is a daily reality in
New York.
Criminals know they can avoid prosecution and incarceration
if they stay below the felony threshold. In jurisdictions with
rogue prosecutors who do not prosecute misdemeanor theft,
criminals can steal just below the threshold and avoid
prosecution altogether.
This has been a problem in California especially, where
many jurisdictions have rogue prosecutors. In 2014, voters in
California passed a law which raised the felony threshold for
theft from $400-$950 in the State.
Lowering felony thresholds would not be needed if
prosecutors actually prosecuted misdemeanors and lax bail
reform laws did not let criminals go free. Broken window
policing does work. Instead, we are seeing lax and, in some
cases, nonexistent prosecution grow a new generation of
criminals.
The rise in organized retail crime in California comes as
the California legislature is advancing a bill that would
prevent retail staff from even stopping thieves from stealing
inside stores. The legislation has passed the State Senate and
is pending in the State Assembly. California Retailers
Association panned the legislation as an invitation for
criminals to come in and steal. Not weeks after the tragic
death of Blake Mohs did the California State Senate pass this
disgraceful legislation. Employees cannot intervene in crimes,
and criminals can steal up to $900 in goods with impunity.
So, why would you open a store in California? Well, you
wouldn't. That's why so many retailers have left these
Democrat-run cities. Thankfully, some States are actually
stepping up to the plate to combat these violent criminal
enterprises.
The State of Kansas signed into law Senate Bill 174. Among
other provisions, the law authorizes the Kansas Attorney
General's office to be the primary prosecutor in the State for
crimes such as ORC that occur in two or more counties. More
than 30 States have actually passed anti-ORC law.
While I assert that this is largely a State and local
issue, it is important for us to understand that these ORC
cartels are crossing State lines. Federal laws that can be used
in prosecution of these include 18 U.S.C. 2314, interstate
transfer of stolen property; 18 U.S.C. 96, RICO; and 18 U.S.C.
1956.
I'm glad we have States that understand the growing threat
of organized retail crime in their communities and are willing
to hold these criminals accountable. It's time we fight back
against organized retail crime. It has to be stopped. Criminals
must be penalized, and prosecutors need to be held responsible
for failing to protect their communities from this violent
crime. We must restore law and order to our communities and
make America safe again.
I'm going to submit two letters for the record: (1) From
the National Retail Federation dated June 13, 2023, talking
about the rise in organized retail crime, and (2) CHEP, which
is CHEP USA, in response to our notice of this hearing. They
will be admitted without objection.
So, ordered.
Our Ranking Member is not here. We will save time for her
to speak when she gets in. I don't see either the Ranking
Member or the Chair of the Full Committee, so we will go--I'm
going to recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Swalwell.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for inviting Ms.
Mohs of Newark, California, who lost her son, Blake, eight
weeks ago today. Ms. Mohs will tell Blake's story momentarily.
I just want to express to Ms. Mohs on behalf of the 14th
Congressional District and my family our deepest sympathies for
the loss of Blake, such an extraordinary young man who was to
be engaged--or who was to be married this summer who we lost at
26 years old, an Eagle Scout which we know is one of the most
elite clubs anyone can be a part of, somebody who anyone who
knew him, he lit up their world.
My promise to you as the representative of Pleasanton,
California, where his murder took place is to be an advocate
for justice, not only for Blake and to make sure that justice
is served in this case, but that we do address retail crime in
this country.
I have worked with our FBI field office for many years
about trying to lend more Federal resources to local law
enforcement so that they can crack down on retail crime.
I will also say personally, my father was not only a police
officer but when he retired a loss prevention agent. I know
what loss prevention agents like Blake encounter every day.
So, again, just on behalf of my office, thank you for
coming here. I know it's not easy. We look forward to hearing
you tell Blake's story and make sure that justice is served.
I yield back.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Swalwell. Thank you for being
here with us today.
Again, Ms. Mohs, thank you. We appreciate it so much.
So, I'm going to begin now by introducing our witnesses,
all who were gracious enough to come and testify before this
Committee on this important issue.
The first we have is the Hon. Kris Kobach. Mr. Kobach is
the Attorney General of Kansas and previously served as the
Secretary of State of Kansas. He graduated from Harvard
University, received his J.D. from Yale University, and
received a Ph.D. from the University of Oxford. He clerked on
the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, taught Constitutional law
at the University of Missouri Kansas City School of Law, and
served in the Department of Justice during the George W. Bush
Administration. Thank you for being here, Mr. Kobach.
Ms. Lorie Mohs is the mother of Blake Mohs. Blake was shot
and killed during an attempted shoplifting at a Home Depot just
a few weeks ago. Her son was a loss prevention employee and was
just 26 years old. The alleged murderer had prior convictions
for theft and fled the scene with her boyfriend and toddler.
She was arrested later by a police officer. I appreciate Mr.
Swalwell's kind introduction of you as well.
The Hon. John J. Flynn is currently serving his second term
as the District Attorney of Erie County, New York. Prior to his
election he worked in private practice as a personal injury
attorney and was a lecturer at SUNY Buffalo State. Mr. Flynn
served in the Navy during the Gulf War and later in the Judge
Advocate General's Corps after receiving his law degree. He
currently serves as the president of the National District
Attorneys Association.
Welcome and thank you for your service, Mr. Flynn.
The Hon. John Milhiser. Mr. Milhiser is the former U.S.
Attorney for the Central District of Illinois. He previously
served as the State's Attorney for Sangamon County--did I say
that right--Sangamon County, Illinois. Since leaving the U.S.
Attorney's office, he has founded the American Center for Law
and Public Safety with other former U.S. attorneys. The center
is a bipartisan organization dedicated to safeguarding the rule
of law, civil liberties, and the Constitution through
education, research, recruitment, and advocacy.
We thank you, Mr. Milhiser, for being here.
We'll now begin by asking you to please stand, and I will
swear you in. If you each would please stand and raise your
right hand.
Do each of you swear or affirm, under penalty of perjury,
that the testimony you are about to give is true and correct to
the best of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help
you God?
Let the record reflect that each of the witnesses has
answered in the affirmative. Please be seated. Thank you.
Please know we have received your written statements.
They're all going to be made part of the record in their
entirety. Therefore, we ask that you summarize your testimony
in five minutes. I don't know if we have a yellow and a light
to let you know when you're getting to the last minute or so,
but I will probably start tapping here when you have about 10
or 15 seconds to go so you know it's time to wrap up.
Thank you each, and we'll start with you, Mr. Kobach.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. KRIS KOBACH
Mr. Kobach. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Members of
the Committee, for--
Mr. Biggs. Is your mic on?
Mr. Kobach. Can you hear me? Oh, there we go.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Members of the
Committee, for addressing this important topic.
The amount of retail crime in Kansas is surprisingly high.
We are among the top ten States hit by--in terms of dollars
stolen in organized retail crime, but we're not in the top ten
in violent crimes or gun crimes or many other categories of
crimes, and the reason most law enforcement give for that is
the I-70 corridor. Kansas and Missouri are both in the top ten.
The other States in the top ten are ones you would expect, like
California, Texas, Florida, and some of the very large, more
populous States.
The I-70 corridor is a pipeline not only for organized
retail crime, but also for drugs. There's often a great deal of
overlap between drugs and organized retail crime because the
drug addicted are often recruited as boosters by the people who
run the organized crime rings or networks.
I thought I would give you some typical cases from Kansas
which I believe are typical not only of our State, but of most
States where organized retail crime is an issue, which is
increasingly all the States.
Recently, we saw the guilty plea of Frank Santa Maria in
March 2023 in Kansas City. He owned a pawn shop which was the
hub of the organized crime network. Pawn shops are very
frequently the hub of these networks. He had four boosters who
stole merchandise for him. He then sold the stolen products on
eBay pages. More than $100,000 in stolen products were sold for
a total of over $3 million. Just to give you a glimpse of what
his network looked like, they stole from Home Depot, Lowe's,
Walmart, Target, Walgreens, and CVS. The stolen products
included ink cartridges, Spypoint cameras, Nikon rangefinders,
electric fence systems, Rogaine products, Nicorette products,
over-the-counter supplements, and Crest Whitestrips. Because
the crimes were sold in both Kansas and Missouri creating
interstate nexus and because the amount stolen was over
$250,000, which is usually the threshold these days for Federal
prosecutors, Federal prosecutors were interested, and the case
was brought in Federal court.
Another case in the Kansas City area, Dennis Russell pled
guilty in a similar scheme. Again, a pawn shop was the hub of
the organized retail crime network, 14,000 stolen items, for a
total of over $740,000 and sold on eBay. The types of stolen
items were a little bit different: Robot vacuum cleaners,
television streaming devices, and, yes, textbooks. Similar
network of a group of four to eight boosters centered on a pawn
shop.
In another case, in a different case in Kansas, this one
without the interstate nexus, again, the retail crime
organization focused on a pawn shop stealing over $200,000 from
predominantly box stores. It's a fairly common pattern. So, to
summarize some of the commonalities, you typically see box
stores being hit two to three times a week. The fence at the
center is usually--or in Kansas is usually a pawn shop, but
oftentimes it's just a warehouse that's used to move the goods.
Almost all the products are sold online.
The factors in the legal system that are exacerbating this
problem:
(1) Many of the cases do not get prosecuted. A huge number
do not get prosecuted due to the lack of prosecutorial capacity
at the county level. Many DAs simply have too large a stack of
crimes. Nonperson crimes like this get moved to the bottom of
the stack and, consequently, don't get prosecuted.
(2) Compounding this is a lack of prosecutorial capacity,
which one of the other witnesses may be able to address, at the
Federal level. In our area they have a $250,000 threshold. If
you can't show that 250 grand has been shown in your network of
stores, then you're not going to get your case prosecuted.
(3) Investigative capacity is also limited. Police
departments only have a limited number of detectives, and if
you've got multiple stores getting hit multiple times each day,
they don't have the capacity to investigate all of them.
(4) On top of that, there's a problem in the courts. Many
courts are setting bail too low for the criminals, much lower
than they did in the past. On top of that, bail bondsmen today
are willing to accept a much lower percentage of the bail
amount than they were, say, 20 or 30 years ago. As a
combination of those two things, it's highly likely that the
booster will be back out on the street before the end of the
day.
Policy recommendations: In Kansas, as the Chair mentioned,
we try to bring State prosecution to bear where more than one
county is involved in a course of criminal conduct. I think the
Federal legislation before this Committee is a very good step.
I would also encourage, to the extent it's possible, U.S.
Attorney prosecutors to lower that threshold from $250,000.
I just want to summarize by saying we've talked about the
economic consequences, but there's a bigger consequence, and
that's the degradation of the rule of law.
I just want to end with a quick story. I went into a
Walgreens recently and talked to a clerk, and her store is hit
two to three times a day. I asked her what she does. She said,
. . . well, she finally decided to start following the
boosters through the store, heckling them and harassing them
against store policy.
I asked her why she did that. She said because she,
. . . can't stand what's happening to the reputation of her
store and her neighborhood. She is fighting to preserve our
culture where the rule of law is intact.
[The prepared statement of the Hon. Kobach follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Kobach.
Ms. Mohs, we're ready for you and your five minutes.
STATEMENT OF LORIE MOHS
Ms. Mohs. Good afternoon.
Thank you for taking the time to hear my story.
My name is Lorie Mohs, and my son's name is Blake Mohs. He
was born on January 14, 1997, and was murdered on April 18,
2023, at the young age of 26. In my son's short 26 years, he
was a chef, an Eagle Scout, a church youth leader, a Newark
Police Department cadet, but most of all, he was a friend, a
nephew, a cousin, a grandson, a brother, and my son.
Blake lived a life of community service dedicated to
fighting for the underdog and a love for his family. He lived
life to the fullest every day, laughing often and giving the
best hugs imaginable.
In early 2022, Blake became an asset protection associate
for Home Depot. He worked to gain additional experience before
applying to the Newark Police Department. When I spoke with
Blake on our every Wednesday calls, he would tell me about his
training at Home Depot. He would explain that he was trained to
locate shoplifters within the store, document their actions,
track shoplifters through the store, follow them outside and
apprehend them. Then he would bring the shoplifters back into
the store to complete a theft report, take photos, and then
turn them over to law enforcement if required.
When I asked my son about the risk of his new job at Home
Depot and if he was provided any personal protective equipment,
he quickly would tell me no. I would ask if he's been issued
any bulletproof vests, pepper spray, or safety gear, and he
would again tell me no.
During many of my calls we would talk about the level of
theft he experienced within Home Depot. He would tell me of the
theft rings he would help gather evidence for local police
departments and how excited he was to work with the officers.
Blake would tell me about the many weapons he had pulled on
him, including knives and guns, by shoplifters. When I asked
about how he could manage to be safe, my son would tell me he
could simply hide behind a post to avoid being shot or hurt.
As a mom, my concerns began to grow at the lack of PPE that
had been issued by Home Depot.
All my concerns and fears were realized by one phone call.
On Tuesday, April 18th, the voice over the phone declared that
my son had been shot. I quickly called Eden Medical where he
had been transported to get an update. I spoke with the
emergency room doctor, and he simply told me to come as quickly
as I could. I asked if I needed to gather my family, and he
said yes. At that moment I knew my son was dead.
On April 18, 2023, eight weeks ago today, at 2:15 Pacific
Standard Time, my son was shot at close range by a shoplifter
while working as an asset protection officer at Home Depot in
Pleasanton, California. My son and his teammate had been called
into action as Benicia Knapps attempted to steal a charger from
the tool department. My son encountered Knapps at the back of
the store where her getaway driver, David Guillory, was
awaiting to flee the scene. According to witness statements, my
son took the item from Knapps and walked back into the store.
Knapps followed my son back into the store. When he turned
around, she pulled out her gun from her purse and shot my son,
in the heart of all places. He fell face forward to the ground
and dropped the item. Knapps picked up the item from his dead
body and fled in the getaway car.
In the days to come, I would learn that Guillory, the
getaway driver, was a felon. He had served jail time for home
invasion robbery but was let go during COVID. We learned that
Knapps, my son's executor, had been in and out of trouble since
1995. She was in violation of probation since 2012 but was
still roaming the streets free. She also had a concealed permit
that had been revoked, along with her security guard card.
For both Guillory and Knapps, the judicial system failed to
rehabilitate them properly. The system failed to keep them
accountable for their private actions, leading to the
escalation in criminal behavior, leading to the shooting death
of my son.
The system failed because instead of rehabilitating
criminals, we release them early, we do not execute proper
charges in court, and we fail to seek probation violators.
The system failed my son. He was asked to do a job with a
small wage and a high risk leading to his death. Home Depot
failed to provide proper protective equipment to secure his
safety and carry out his required duties. OSHA failed to make
safety a priority for asset protection officers and mandate
bulletproof vests.
The system failed Blake's future self. He will never be
married. He will never have a child. He will never grow old. We
will never have another family photo. We will never hear his
laughter or feel his hugs. I will never get to say, I love you
and I'm proud of you, and I'll never hear it back.
What we do have is 26 wonderful years of memories that were
cut too short. The failing of so many could have prevented his
death. Our hope is that our story helps this Committee
understand the importance and the urgency for change.
Thank you for your time and for listening to our story.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Mohs follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Biggs. Thank you very much and thank you for sharing
that very poignant story.
Thank you.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Flynn.
STATEMENT OF JOHN FLYNN
Mr. Flynn. Thank you, sir.
Good afternoon, Chair Biggs, and Members of the
Subcommittee. As was alluded to, my name is John Flynn, and I'm
the elected District Attorney of Erie County, New York. That is
the home of Buffalo, New York. I am also the elected--the
President of the National District Attorneys, Association
better known as NDAA. NDAA recognizes the vital role that
prosecutors play in the safety of local communities, including
addressing the serious challenge of retail theft and organized
retail crime. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today.
Let me begin with a couple of statistics that give you the
scope of the problem. According to a report by the Retail
Industry Leaders Association on the impact of all forms of
retail theft, almost $70 billion worth of products was stolen
from U.S. retailers in 2019. Connected to that is the cost of
Federal and State governments in lost personal and business tax
revenues estimated at about $15 billion.
These statistics are comprised of large and small, urban
and rural communities. Organized retail crime and retail theft
are equal opportunity destroyers of communities and must be
addressed to ensure healthy and vibrant communities.
We have to differentiate, though, between the two and break
down the types of defendants as seen by law enforcement
prosecutors.
In my county of almost one million people, we see mainly
three categories:
(1) First are the organized crime syndicates, the Russian
crime syndicates, the Mafia, the Mexican cartels, other highly
sophisticated gangs, and other transnational rings.
(2) The second group I would characterize as loosely
affiliated group affiliations, individuals, groups of four to
five individuals that get together and steal merchandise.
(3) The third category I would call just the random
individuals, those who commit theft for personal use. This
category often involves a single individual who is suffering
from a substance abuse disorder, mental illness, is homeless,
or has economic challenges.
Overall, we are seeing the vast majority of activity in my
community and when I talk to most local prosecutors in the
second and third categories of defendants. However, it's
important to note that the first group of defendants very much
exist.
Both retail theft and organized retail crime have a
negative impact on communities. Unfortunately, it sometimes
involves violence as well as damage to store fronts and other
property. That's on top of the economic loss, which then adds
to the burden faced by consumers.
I think we can all agree that this has to change. The
approach must be targeted and must be tailored as opposed to a
one-size-fits-all strategy.
We must address the issue holistically. For those
individuals who steal for their own personal use, they may need
services like alcohol, drug, or mental health treatment. For
more sophisticated operations, particularly involving repeat
offenders, a more law-and-order approach is needed, such as
incarceration. Each category of defendant and even each
individual within the categories must be treated differently,
depending on the circumstances and facts of each case.
It is also important to understand who is generally
handling these cases and these categories as defendants.
The first category of organized criminal groups is handled
primarily by the Federal government, through agencies like the
Homeland Security Investigations and U.S. attorneys' offices
acting through the Department of Justice. This is particularly
important when criminals cross State lines or even
international borders.
The second and third category of defendants are local in
nature, and I believe should be handled by local law
enforcement and my district attorney prosecution agencies. That
requires law enforcement prosecutors to step up and acknowledge
the serious nature of these crimes and their impact on
communities.
Just last week my office prosecuted a habitual offender for
retail theft after being banned from several stores. He was
given six years in prison, and this individual continued to
steal even when picked up on an outstanding warrant. The bottom
line is that shoplifting is not a victimless crime. We should
not tolerate these thefts and should hold offenders accountable
for their crimes.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you about these
important and complex issues. NDAA stands ready to assist as we
look for ways to tackle organized retail crime and retail theft
that threatens the vibrancy of our communities.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Flynn follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Flynn.
Mr. Milhiser.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN MILHISER
Mr. Milhiser. Thank you, Chair Biggs and the distinguished
Members of the Committee. Thank you very much for the
opportunity to address you on this important topic, the rise in
organized retail crime and the corresponding threat to public
safety.
I spent the majority of my career as a State and Federal
prosecutor working on these very issues and the main overriding
issue of public safety and safe communities.
My name is John Milhiser. From 2018-2021, I served as the
United States Attorney for the Central District of Illinois.
Prior to that, from 2010-2018, I served as the State's Attorney
or local DA for Sangamon County, Illinois, of which I was a
member of the NDAA, which DA Flynn is the president of. In both
positions my goal was the same, to work each day to make my
community safer. That should be the goal of every prosecutor in
this country, and I'm not sure it is.
At the outset, I recognize that this is a congressional
hearing. As a former U.S. Attorney, I'm fully aware that
Federal prosecutors and Federal law enforcement agencies can be
important partners in investigating and prosecuting organized
crime. However, the bulk of the heavy lifting in prosecuting
crime in the United States is performed by State and local
prosecutors.
The individuals on the frontline tasked with keeping our
communities safe are the 2,500 or so elected and appointed DAs
and their offices around the country at the State and local
level. These prosecutors have a tremendous amount of
discretion. Unfortunately, as we have seen in some
jurisdictions, when they come in and fail to do their job,
crime increases. It's a difficult job, but an incredibly
important one.
To have safe communities, we need to ensure that we have
good prosecutors in every jurisdiction in the country, and we
need to ensure that these prosecutors have access to the
resources necessary to successfully prosecute crimes which are
becoming increasingly more sophisticated.
Organized retail crime has both national and international
components. It's become a serious problem for nationwide
retailers and can be devastating to small local businesses.
Organized retail crime is distinguishable from ordinary retail
theft given its large scale and its focus on converting stolen
goods to cash, through resale or to gift cards through store
returns.
Theft can occur throughout the supply chain. Organized
retail crime drives up costs, requires diversion of already
scarce resources, results in lost tax revenue, and,
significantly, puts individuals at risk.
To successfully combat this worsening trend, we need tools
for law enforcement and local prosecutors, and we need local
prosecutors committed to preserving the rule of law and
protecting the public.
During my time as U.S. Attorney and State's Attorney, I
participated in a number of topic specific task forces which
included State and Federal prosecutors, law enforcement, and
relevant government and private agencies. Coordination is key
in dismantling criminal enterprises, whether it be human
trafficking, illegal drugs, or organized retail theft.
For example, while most crimes are prosecuted locally, the
Federal government is uniquely positioned to investigate online
multijurisdictional resale of stolen goods.
Additionally, there's legislation being considered here on
Capitol Hill that could help, including broadening the scope of
cases in which the U.S. Attorneys' offices can be involved and
Federal charges can be filed and utilizing Federal asset
forfeiture to take away the proceeds from organized retail
crime and to disrupt operations.
When considering the increase in organized retail theft,
one must examine the rise in crime in general and how to
address the overall problem. We need Federal authorities to
provide resources, expertise, and partnerships. At the end of
the day, we need local prosecutors to step up and do their
jobs.
Earlier this year, I along with several other former U.S.
Attorneys from around the country formed a bipartisan
organization to address this very issue called the American
Center for Law and Public Safety. We identified five core
principles needed by responsible prosecutors around the country
to be effective. These are:
(1) Prioritize public safety. You'd think that would be a
given, but it's not for some prosecutors when they come in.
(2) Respect for the rule of law. Some prosecutors come in,
and they say, you know what? I don't care what the legislature
says. I'm going to go ahead and not follow what they say, and
I'm going to not charge certain offenses that are on the books.
(3) Support victims' rights. They're often forgotten in
the equation, but they're the victims of these offenses.
(4) Collaboration with law enforcement. They are part of
the answer, not the problem.
(5) Support post-sentence reentry, which good prosecutors,
responsible prosecutors know that because these folks that are
locked up, 99 percent of them are going to get out. If they go
right back to that same environment that they were in, we're
silly to think they're going to change their behavior. So, we
need to put them in the best position to no re-offend.
Being a modern-day prosecutor is a difficult job dealing
with limited resources, but it's a vitally important job, and a
prosecutor's most important duty is to protect the public.
Working together, we can achieve the goal of safe communities
and allow individuals and businesses to prosper.
Thank you for this opportunity and for raising awareness on
this issue. I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of the Hon. Milhiser follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Milhiser.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin for his
five minutes.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Kobach, do you think the lawlessness we're seeing in
our country--and we are seeing it--over the last number of
years and the defund the police movement, this lack of respect
for law enforcement, do you think this has contributed to what
we're seeing here?
Mr. Kobach. I do, sir. At the end of my comments, I briefly
noted on this. There's a cultural element here too, and it's a
lack of respect for the rule of law, and it gets to a point in
certain areas where people feel like shoplifting is accepted or
at least tolerated or nothing is being done about it. There's
also a subculture among the boosters and among people who may
not be part of organized retail crime that works but,
nevertheless, shoplift for personal reasons, and there are
committing these on Reddit where they routinely talk about
sharing strategies for crime, for different stores and how to
hit different types of stores differently, and what the
policies are.
So, there is definitely a shift in the culture of certain
communities geographically where the organized retail crime is
hitting, and I think that's a problem. It's more than just
stores being hit and a lack of prosecutors. It's being accepted
in some quarters. So, I think by taking action we also restore
the rule of law in a sort of cultural sense both for the
communities and for the entire country.
Mr. Tiffany. Ms. Mohs, you commented about there and
perhaps should be some additional safety requirements put in
place for people like your son who's in a job like he's doing.
Do you live in California? We're certainly seeing what is
happening in California where the legislature is basically
endorsing crime with some of their public policy actions.
Do you agree with the characterization that Mr. Kobach just
laid out?
Ms. Mohs. I only involve myself in this instance with my
son's passing, unfortunately. So, defunding police and things
of that, those are not my expertise. I just know how my son
passed and what I'm fighting for in my own community.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you for that.
So, I would share a story. Mr. Milhiser, you laid it out
quite well there. I have spoken repeatedly in this Committee in
regard to the District Attorney down in Milwaukee County who
has accepted this lawlessness in his county. There's a story
here that there's a serial retail thief who has stolen
thousands of power tools 14 times from various Home Depot
stores throughout the area since August 2021, yet the Milwaukee
County District Attorney has not charged any of those
instances.
Mr. Chair, I would like to enter this into the record, a
story from Wisconsin Right Now, serial retail theft suspect, 14
cases, failure to charge.
Mr. Biggs. Without objection.
Mr. Tiffany. If you will remember, it's that same district
attorney that let Darrell Brooks out on a $1,000 bail. He was a
serial recidivist, including violent crimes. He was the
perpetrator of the Waukesha Christmas Day Parade from--what was
that--a year and a half ago, $300,000 bail. Six people were
killed when he drove his automobile through that parade. I
believe there were about 60 people that were injured.
This is the kind of thing that's happening around America
where we have these prosecutors that are doing things like
that.
I think we would be remiss, Mr. Chair, because I think you
laid it out quite well in your opening statement, about the
lawlessness that pervades America. We see it down on the
southern border, which we've heard about repeatedly in this
Committee, where we have a Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security that denies that there's a problem on the
border, even in the face of the head of Border Patrol saying
differently, that the border is not secure.
We're seeing this lawlessness generally across America
and--but I think I would be remiss, Mr. Chair, in not pointing
out that some of the woke corporations that are coming to us
now and saying, ``Hey, we need relief,'' we don't disagree with
you, but you need to not fund these activities that are going
on and these organizations that are perpetrating some of this
crime. I think it's very important that you step up. Also, I
would just say to local citizens around America, I know you
want to vote for Democrats. That's what you believe in. When
you're in the big cities of America--
Mr. Biggs. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Tiffany. --it is why you're seeing the lawlessness. You
need to vote for people who are going to be tough on crime.
Mr. Biggs. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentlelady, Ms. Dean.
Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to all our testifiers for being here today. I'm
Madeleine Dean. I represent suburban Philadelphia, Montgomery,
and Bucks Counties.
So, Ms. Mohs, to you, thank you for your courage to come
here today, to tell your story, to tell Blake's story. It is
heartbreaking. It's crushing to hear something like that, which
should have been abundantly preventable, happen to your
beautiful 26-year old young man. From what I understand, a
young man who wanted to go into law enforcement himself, was
proud of what he was engaging in.
It comes at a time that strangely on the floor right now is
being argued about making legal a stabilizer brace to make
weapons more lethal at a time in our country when we're
struggling with gun violence. It comes at a time when we can't
get the majority party to do anything around gun violence.
Thoughts and prayers are all they do.
I want you to know that there are many of us here who are
fighting to make sure that the kind of person who shot your son
does not possess a weapon. We have laws. She was a prohibited
purchaser. We have to make sure we do better by our children.
So, I wanted to give you a minute to tell us a little bit
more about your son and just to take back to your family our
abiding love and sympathy for your unimaginable loss.
Tell us a little bit more about your son.
Ms. Mohs. Thank you so much. I appreciate your words there.
They are beyond kind.
When I talk personally about my son versus in a very
eloquent way, the things that I think about are the moments
we're really going to miss our traditions without him, our
Thanksgiving prayer that my father hosts that will not host
this year that prayer, because to say the ones we've lost, he
now adds to the chain of my grandmother and my aunt, my son is
there.
So, my son lived the biggest life possible, and everybody
he touched is better. I'm better for being his mom, and his
brother is better for being his brother.
Ms. Dean. There's a blessing in that. We are very, very
sorry. You just have my commitment that we will do everything
possible to get our arms around this incredible problem, retail
theft, obviously, very serious, but violent crime and gun
deaths in this country, when we lose 45,000-47,000 people to
gun violence every single year in this country, and we have a
party that we tried to have a hearing last week, and no one on
the other side of the aisle would give us a hearing room so
that victims like you, survivors like you could speak. We had
to go over to the Senate side. So very interested in retail
crime, not very interested in saving lives.
Mr. Swalwell. Does the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Dean. I will yield.
Mr. Swalwell. Ms. Mohs, I also want to make sure we
recognize, your father is a retired police officer, deputy
sheriff--is that right--and then became a police chief?
Ms. Mohs. Yes. My father, Roy Froom, is seated behind me,
and he is my strength today. He is a retired sheriff, and he
also went to the FBI Academy here in D.C. and has lived a
wonderful life and was a wonderful grandfather.
Mr. Swalwell. Ms. Mohs, can you also tell us--you have this
public forum, a forum that you never wanted, but to the
prosecutors in this case--I hope they're listening to this--
what do you want to see as an outcome?
Ms. Mohs. We should be charging this case appropriately,
and we should be charging the case based on facts and not on
personal opinion or personal agenda. We should be using the
judicial system as it should be used, not for personal gain,
but for safety of our communities and our children. By not
charging the proper gun, which is discharge in death, Benicia
Knapps will serve much less of a sentence, and the DA's office
is refusing to do so.
It's not fair that we have to be victimized again to fight
for our child and to fight for justice and the right things to
happen in court.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Ms. Mohs.
I yield back.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you. The time has expired.
I now recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Moore.
Mr. Moore. Ms. Mohs, thank you for being here today and
sharing your family's personal story.
Mr. Kobach, you said something a while ago that when you
said a lower bail percentage, you mentioned that in your
testimony, tell me, I've heard of being soft on crime. How is
that impacting people getting out and why lower bail
percentage?
Mr. Kobach. Well, if the bail bondsman is accepting a much
smaller percentage, say, ten percent or five percent of the
bail amount and the bail amount itself is very small, then you
may be--these boosters may be able to get out on bail for only
$1,000 or even less. So, that results in them being detained
for a very short period of time and that they can go right back
to doing what they were doing.
Mr. Moore. So, in a situation like that, they would be back
in a Lowe's or a Home Depot rather quickly once that decision
is made to turn them back out on the street?
Mr. Kobach. Right.
Mr. Moore. Is that because they're soft on crime? The bail
bondsman knows, in fact, that there's probably not going to a
prosecution and they're not going to jump?
Mr. Kobach. No. I would say that this is occurring in
jurisdictions in my State that are certainly not soft on crime,
and the prosecutors are not soft on crime at all. It's just
that the judges--there's been a trend over the years in many
States where there's no political dynamic going on, but the
bail amounts are being set lower.
That's something that legislatively the legislators in
Kansas may need to address. It's one of many factors that is
causing a lack of prosecution or, in this case, a lack of
detention.
Mr. Moore. Gotcha.
How is your office working to toughen Federal and State
laws to stop these gangs from stealing in different
jurisdictions and then stealing just enough to stay below that
felony threshold? What are you doing in that respect?
Mr. Kobach. So, they typically--in Kansas, the felony
threshold is at $1,000, so you will typically see them stealing
900 or so in any given criminal event. The prosecutors note
this, and as I said before, they've got a stack of cases, and
if there's no person felony, it's only non-person felonies,
they tend to fall to the bottom of the stack. I'm not blaming
local prosecutors. They have a shortage of criminal prosecuting
attorneys across the country.
In my office, at the State Attorney General's office, we're
having difficulty hiring to fill all the vacancies we have. We
do have capacity, and that's why in our State legislation that
was recently adopted, we have primary prosecution authority if
the case involves more than one county, which typically is the
case in these organized retail crime networks. So, we'll be
bringing State resources to bear when that law takes effect on
July 1st.
Mr. Moore. OK. Thank you, thank you.
Mr. Milhiser, what's happening in communities where the
prosecutors fail to apply the laws? What are you seeing? You
mentioned that in your testimony about you've got certain
prosecutors that have just decided not to apply the law on the
book. Whether we change the law or not, if it's not applied,
it's very ineffective for us to pass law after law, whether it
be gun laws or drug laws, or whatever the case, if, in fact,
they're not prosecuted.
What's going on in those communities, Mr. Milhiser?
Mr. Milhiser. What we've seen--and it's pretty uniform
around the country--in jurisdictions where a--I call them so-
called progressive prosecutors, because a progressive
prosecutor is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. It could be a
modern prosecutor that looks at diversion courts and specialty
courts, all things I put in when I was the elected DA.
Those are fine, but as prosecutors, when they come in with
some other agenda, sort of these politically driven extremists
that have done nothing but degrade the quality of the criminal
justice system around the country, in the communities that they
serve, and I think what you see is crime goes up. Businesses
leave. We see what's happening in San Francisco. Now, they
recalled that DA last year.
In St. Louis, that's another one with the Circuit Attorney
Kim Gardner who recently a judge--before she resigned, a judge
called her office a rudderless ship of chaos. Now, I've run a
prosecutor's office. You don't want to have a judge call your
office that. She not only had this political agenda, but she
was inept and could not run an office.
In Chicago the same thing with Kim Foxx, who was a
progressive prosecutor, so-called progressive because, again,
they decide, hey, I'm going to raise the thresholds, I'm not
going to prosecute these cases. People come in, they don't file
charges, they get right back out on the street. I think the
Chicago Police Department called it catch and release.
You see this in cities around the country when crimes are
not prosecuted, and there's no accountability. Those criminals
know it, and they're right back out to deadly consequences,
deadly consequences, and it's seen all around the country.
Mr. Moore. The word gets around pretty quick I understand
in communities where we're not prosecuting crimes, whether it's
organized or just community. Word travels pretty quickly in
those communities, and crime just kind of runs rampant. Is that
what we're seeing?
Mr. Milhiser. Very much so. So, let's take Illinois, for
example. So, you have Cook County where you have Kim Foxx was
the State's Attorney, did a poor job of prosecuting cases. Will
County, Jim Glasgow, Democrat, good prosecutor. DuPage County,
Republican, Bob Berlin, good prosecutor. So, those border Cook
County, so those defendants know it. They know it.
There was a carjacking last year. Thankfully, that
carjacking person was arrested in Will County where he was
prosecuted and locked up. If that same case had happened in
Cook County, the person would have been released the next day.
So, it's those jurisdictions that are potentially dangerous.
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Milhiser. I'm out of time.
I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the Ranking Member, the distinguished
lady from Houston, Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you for your courtesies and let me
thank Congressman Dean for her questioning, certainly to
Congressman Swalwell, and to his constituent for his
leadership, persistent leadership in assuring justice for you.
I'm very appreciative of his presence here and as well his
assistance in covering the Ranking Member capacity. So, thank
you so very much for your leadership on this issue.
I think we all want justice for anyone that has been in the
midst of a heinous crime that has generated in the loss of
life. We want to come here today and fully appreciate what
we're dealing with.
So, I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding
to me for my opening statement, which I will try to summarize
and come back again for questions. We're here today to deal
with the issue of retail crime.
Recently retail and industry advocates have sounded the
alarm expressing concern that organized retail crime has become
a significant threat to the retail industry. This criminal
activity involves groups of individuals who operate in a well-
coordinated manner to steal goods or defraud retailers and
resell stolen items for economic gain.
Mr. Biggs, Congressman Biggs, just last week I spoke to the
mobile phone store owners. Most of those stores are ground
floor--all of them are ground floor. They're in shopping
centers, strip centers, et cetera. There's nothing like--I
guess the terminology is break the glass and grab something
else--smash and grab. Thank you so very much. They were
speaking of that, and I went to listen to them because that is
heinous, it is an economic crime but, it's also violence and
threatens the potential of people's lives. Smash and grab,
we're not here to support that.
It is a multibillion-dollar enterprise, and I want them to
know that I'm listening to those constituents in Houston who
have businesses that are subject to that kind of crime that
evolves and adapts to the latest technological trends within
the retail industry and among consumers and results in higher
prices at the cash register. Social media and news reports are
replete with videos of flash mobs rushing into stores and
overwhelming, sometimes assaulting, employees and leaving with
bags and armfuls of goods, mostly these retail items, from
clothing to jewelry to phones, et cetera.
While these anecdotal counts are allowing the Federal role
in deterring these crimes, it should be made clear, because it
seems unclear, the Federal government has long recognized the
problem and taken steps to combat organized retail crime and
protect store employees, customers, and communities.
Cooperation between retailers and Federal and State law
enforcement agencies through task forces and partnerships has
been crucial in addressing these crimes and promoting public
safety.
For example, the FBI's Cleveland Field Office partnered
with the Retail Industry Leaders Association and State and
local law enforcement agencies to share expertise,
intelligence, and resources to identify, investigate, and
prosecute those who perpetrate these crimes.
Over the past three years, Homeland Security Investigation
has tripled the number of cases it is investigating. Last year,
HSI Houston and the Houston Police Department, who I applaud,
arrested eight people and seized nearly 2,000 stolen electronic
devices, which is very likely the device of choice, valued at
approximately $1.8 million as part of a joint investigation
into a $65 million transnational organized retail crime
operation suspected of smuggling stolen cell phones and other
electronic overseas and laundering the proceeds.
The FBI, the Secret Service, and the Department of Homeland
Security have all increased their efforts to investigate and
prosecute retail crime because it is a domestic national
security threat, and it connects internationally.
Even in spite of the efforts of law enforcement to address
this issue, the issue of understanding the prevalence of
organized retail crime persists, largely due to a lack of
consistent and comprehensive data.
If I support legislation, that would be one of the aspects
of determining what is the level of this type of crime. Data
gives us a pathway to solution. While various retailers, retail
organizations, law enforcement track retail theft, there is no
uniform definition of organized retail crime or a standardized
method for tracking such crimes, which makes it difficult to
ascertain the full scope of the problem and formulate a
targeted response.
Compound the inconsistency in data collection with
retailers' reluctance to report the full extent of crimes
committed in their stores, then lawmakers, such as ourselves,
are left with little information that we can use to determine
how Congress can help.
If we can get sort of the relief from insurance rates going
up or people not wanting to come to your store to these
retailers so we can gather data, that might be a good step
forward in getting the information we need.
Moreover, the anonymous nature of the internet has made it
easier for criminals supporting the activities and resale of
their ill-gotten merchandise. Monitoring online activity can be
complicated, and not all transactions can be traced, making it
even harder to understand the prevalence of organized retail
crime as it occurs.
Last Congress we were able to pass the INFORM Consumers Act
which takes effect this month. That's good news. That law will
have more transparency to online transactions by requiring
online marketplaces to collect, verify, and disclose certain
information from high-volume sellers and provide consumers with
means to report suspicious activities.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Despite there being no representative from
the retailers present today, I hope our witnesses have been
able to, because you've already been testifying, to help us
determine whether there's more that the Federal government can
do to combat organized retail crime, and certainly to prevent
the hardship of this mother who has experienced a terrible
crisis and devastating act in her life.
I expect that they will be able to explain--or have been
able to explain their vision for increased Federal involvement,
and I hope Members have secured that information from them.
While there are those who have advocated for Federal organized
crime statute, many in law enforcement argue that existing
tools are sufficient. We will keep looking at this to combat
these crimes.
When considering the creation of new Federal offenses,
should be both thoughtful and careful, particularly if there
are statutes already available to prosecute the conduct in
question. Bearing that in mind, although Federal law does not
explicitly criminalize retail theft, the transportation of
stolen goods across State lines, the sale or receipt of stolen
goods, money laundering, and conspiracy, all which are
components of organized retail crime and are all currently
prohibited by Federal law. Enforcement is certainly a key.
Catching these bad guys and ladies is certainly important.
Hopefully, today's hearing has been able to determine, and
will continue to, what the impediments investigating and
prosecuting organized retail crime are due, more to a lack of
resources than a need for additional prosecutorial tools.
So, I look forward to listening to the witnesses' answers
so that we can be as effective as possible. Yes, when it comes
to the dastardly act of someone losing their life, that they
never had that happen to a mother or family again. We know
there is petty shoplifting, but we know that there is this
thing called violent crime that hurts everyone.
With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
With that, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from
California, Mr. Kiley.
Mr. Kiley. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for
organizing this hearing.
We need to make crime illegal again. I'm encouraged by the
comments of the Ranking Member, which made reference to these
flash mobs and the smash and grabs, which shows there's a
bipartisan interest in doing just that.
I'm from California, the State where this decriminalization
agenda is perhaps in its most advanced stage. To see the perils
of it, you need look no further than what's going on in San
Francisco as we speak.
Just yesterday, Mr. Chair, Westfield mall, the famous
Westfield mall in downtown San Francisco announced it's
surrendering the property to its lenders, citing the difficult
operating conditions downtown. Almost every day we're learning
of new businesses that are closing in San Francisco. In just
the last few weeks, that includes T-Mobile, Old Navy,
Nordstrom, Whole Foods, Anthro-
pologie, and many more.
The population is dramatically declining in the city as
well. In fact, it's declining faster than any major U.S. city
in United States history. Faster even than Detroit when it went
bankrupt. If you walk around parts of San Francisco, the
conditions are truly horrifying. It's utter lawlessness. The
subway system, public transportation is on the verge of
collapse because of many reasons, one of which is people simply
don't feel safe riding. Indeed, the Governor of California,
Gavin Newsom, has even said he is sending the National Guard
into San Francisco to restore order. Now, that seems to be a
stunt because we haven't seen much action yet. Even he
recognizes the situation on how dire it is.
CNN just did an hour-long special titled, ``What Happened
to San Francisco?'' So, to answer that question, what happened,
I think we can look at a few things.
(1) The laws that have been passed,
(2) the approach to law enforcement, and
(3) the role of prosecutors.
On the first count, when it comes to the laws, the Chair
mentioned Prop 47, which is one of many laws that have been
passed in California that have in very ill-calculated ways
lower criminal penalties. This initiative was passed in 2014.
Yes, it was approved by California voters, but they were misled
as to what they were voting for. This initiative was titled by
its supporters, quote, ``Safe Neighborhood and Schools Act.''
It lowered the threshold for a felony to over $950. So, you see
people who just again and again and again go and steal below
that threshold, and there's no consequence. The retailers don't
even report what's happening. Now, as the Chair mentioned,
there's even legislation to stop the stores from trying to stop
this from happening.
To the point that one of the witnesses, Mr. Milhiser, made,
which is that these policies are not truly progressive in any
meaningful sense of the word. One of the other things that Prop
47 did is that it took away penalties for drug possession,
which basically eviscerated the drug court system in
California, because prosecutors no longer had a leverage to
encourage offenders to go into drug treatment. So, that's the
perverse irony, is that laws like Prop 47 have both eroded
public safety and compromised the capacity of our criminal
justice system to rehabilitate offenders.
There have been many other laws along these lines. Prop 57
passed. That used another trick, which is to classify offenses
as nonviolent, even though they're often quite violent. Then
they tell people that's what they're voting for when,
obviously, it's something much different. You've had this
Governor and his predecessor have released tens of thousands of
people early under the banner of executive authority. You had
what was known as realignment, where prison populations were
shifted into county jails, which aren't built to deal with
those sorts of offenders. The list goes on and on and on.
Then at the same time, you had jurisdictions like San
Francisco that chose to defund police departments. Now, a lot
of that has been reversed now because they realize what a
disaster it was, but the damage has been done in a lot of ways.
You still have police departments throughout California that
are having a very, very difficult time with recruitment and
continue to be understaffed because of this anti-law
enforcement message that came from some of our State's leading
politicians.
Then, finally, you had in places like San Francisco and Los
Angeles these so-called--I'll adopt that terminology--
progressive prosecutors, the really political prosecutors who
came in with an agenda and refused to even enforce the laws
that were there.
Here is the big takeaway from all of this, which is that
this decriminalization agenda is massively unpopular in
California. The District Attorney of San Francisco was
overwhelmingly recalled from office. By the way, the Trump-
Pence ticket got 12 percent in San Francisco. This isn't some
conservative bastion. You've had dozens of city councils have
issued votes of no confidence against George Gascon in Los
Angeles. California voters overwhelmingly say crime is a major
problem, and at this point they favor repealing Prop 47 by 2-1.
So, I thank the Chair for this opportunity to issue this
warning to other jurisdictions not to follow the California
example and to marshal whatever Federal support we can to make
up for the reckless policies of our State's politicians.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Biggs. The gentleman yields.
The Chair recognizes again the Ranking Member from Texas,
Ms. Jackson Lee, for her five minutes of questions.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it.
I thank the gentleman from California for giving us an
overview.
I think my statement was very clear. We've got to find a
way to pinpoint just what the extent, damage, violence of
retail crime, and organized crime. It's very important that we
give local police the authority and we give them the ability to
distinguish against a homeless person, teenager, somebody who's
come into a retail place for one item, or teenagers, so that we
can focus our resources on keying in to saving lives when
violent acts generate, and also to really quash this kind of
retail crime. We've got to get our hands around it.
So, Mr. Flynn, if you would help me out. There's a study
conducted by the National Retail Federation that found that
boosters use money earned from retail theft to meet their basic
needs or to support a drug habit. Please tell us more about the
Vibrant Communities Initiative and then how will this program
prevent vulnerable people from falling prey to organized retail
crime recruiters. Almost like human trafficking where the folk
are not prostitutes, but they fall victim to being recruited by
human traffickers to be prostitutes. Even just recently in my
community at a high school. So, would you help us with that,
please?
Mr. Flynn. Yes, ma'am. So, what you see a lot of times that
you alluded to are individuals who get caught up in, as I
characterized before, some of these loosely affiliated groups.
So, you may have a drug dealer or an individual who is involved
in human trafficking. Then that individual may have a stable of
four or five people who are indeed drug addicts or women who
are caught up in sex trafficking, who they use as boosters to
go out and steal in stores.
So, the individuals who are the perpetrators of the crime,
who are actually in the stores, are, in fact, individuals who
need help. They have a drug problem. They have a substance
abuse problem. They have an alcohol problem. Even sometimes a
mental illness. So, we, obviously, want to help them out. At
the same time, if there is an individual who is using them to
go out in the stores, that person needs to be held accountable,
obviously, and looked at in a different manner.
So, the initiative is holistic in the sense that we're
trying to identify who the players are, what their roles are in
the crime, and give services, and as Mr. Milhiser mentioned,
diversion programs to those who need it, but at the same time
hold people accountable who need to be held accountable.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Very quickly, my time is--I should
probably--shouldn't acknowledge that to the Chair, but let me
quickly--
Mr. Biggs. I noticed it.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me quickly go to understanding how we
distinguish the shoplifting persons, not indicating that that
is not bad from organized crime, No. 1. Is there a way that
local law enforcement and the State can collaborate with
Federal law enforcement on these big organized circumstances?
So, start first with the shoplifting and organized retail
crime, both bad, but that's getting a loaf of bread in the old
days and something else. It's certainly not coming in with a
gun and killing an innocent person, such as Ms. Mohs--is that
pronounced right--Ms. Mohs' experience, which is dastardly and
horrific.
Mr. Flynn. So, the only way that we can ascertain whether
or not there is a ``higher up''--let's use that phrase there
for, as an example--is if one of the perpetrators talks. If a
defense lawyer comes to me and says, hey, my client got picked
up for stealing a hundred bucks' worth of stuff, and they want
to cooperate now and talk about who the higher-ups are, then we
find out. Then we can also find out through other investigative
tools. Unless we get some type of intelligence or cooperation
from the boosters, it's difficult to work our way up the food
chain.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, are you able to tell between
shoplifting and organized--
Mr. Biggs. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Mr. Flynn. Yes, we are able to tell from an individual
who's just using it for their own personal needs or if they are
taking the merchandise and then giving it to someone or
themselves sometimes putting it online for resale, we can tell
a lot of times.
Ms. Jackson Lee. All right. Mr. Chair, I do yield, but I
will have some articles to submit and maybe one more question.
I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Biggs. Mr. Fry from South Carolina.
Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for having this hearing
today.
To our witnesses, thank you, Ms. Mohs. I'm always struck
when we have people who are victims in crime, just in general,
who come to this Committee, who testify. It's incredibly brave
of you to be here. We appreciate it. Thank you for sharing your
son's story with us.
We find ourselves in this perplexing situation since I've
been here in 6 months that we are constantly looking at,
whether it's New York, whether it's Washington, DC, in the
Oversight Committee, we are talking about--and the attorneys on
the panel talked about this pretty easily, the inability of
district attorneys to prosecute crimes and enforce the laws
that are on the books. We even had--in the case of New York, we
even had Democrat city councilmen saying that they weren't--
that the District Attorney was refusing to do his job and has
increased crime on the streets. Of course, we talk about, in
this case, organized retail crime.
I criminals are winning in our society right now. They
really are. Th're's this wide gulf that exists that we want to
play footsie and we want to play cute with law enforcement, but
people are suffering, businesses are suffering, families are
suffering.
Just in the district that I represent, the Myrtle Beach
Police Department just a few years ago, along with Federal
agents, had a task force that opened an investigation to
organized retail crime, an estimated $24,000 worth of new in-
the-box merchandise, headphones, Roombas, power tools, nine
rifles, seven shotguns, an ATV, another ATV, a John Deere, a
lawnmower, E-Z golf cart--or excuse me, E-Z--GO golf cart, and
seven trailers. This is just a drop in the bucket. This is just
in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. We see this time and time
again.
That's the problem, is that you guys hit on it very easily,
which is these things happen and criminals think that they have
a carte blanche invitation to continue doing these things
because there are no repercussions for the actions that they
do.
Attorney General, I want to turn to you really quick. Last
year, Congress passed the INFORM Consumers Act requiring online
marketers to verify the identities of the majority of their
sellers. We know that stolen goods appear in these marketplaces
in large quantity. We hear from retailers constantly. The
INFORM Act goes into effect at the end of this month.
How would this law help your office be more effective in
prosecuting ORC cases?
Mr. Kobach. I think the act will help. The majority of
goods these days are being fenced--being stolen--sorry, being
sold by the fences online on these various marketplaces online.
So, requiring a higher level of certainty and knowing your
supplier, I guess would be the right way to put it, is
certainly going to help. Indeed, most of the criminal lead--
well, I won't say most--many of the criminal leads that
prosecutors do get are in the actual selling of the good online
and using a number of methods to determine that this is likely
the same good that was stolen from a Home Depot a month before
or whatever.
So, the more we can learn about the transactions and those
who are selling the goods online, the more tools we will have
in the toolbox to bring these prosecutions, which need to--
well, if we prosecute more cases, the--it's not rocket
science--the problem will diminish if we increase the amount of
prosecution.
Mr. Fry. In your office, do you coordinate right now with
retailers on implementation of this to better understand how
this new tool will build opportunities to prosecute these
cases?
Mr. Kobach. We coordinate with retailers a great deal
already. We have not discussed this new tool yet, but I'm sure
that we will be. The retailers are actually a very good source
of information. Like Ms. Mohs' son, many of them have
individuals whose sole job is to keep track of and try to deter
and diminish the in-store theft. So, the retailers are an
invaluable source in prosecuting.
Mr. Fry. Thank you. Just briefly, part--you know, of this--
I look at this issue--part of this is maybe the--Lululemon
fired their employees for going after somebody who was
stealing, right. So, there are some corporate issues that are
related to this. Part of this is the inability of district
attorneys to do their job, quite frankly, and prosecute cases.
The task that we have, at least in Congress, is there--
would it be helpful to have a Federal partner prosecute these
cases across interstate lines? I'll leave that, Attorney
General, or to the other lawyers on the panel.
Mr. Kobach. Yes, I mentioned something about that point. I
think we have to bring the maximum number of prosecutors to
bear, period. That means reducing the threshold right now.
There seems to be, at least in the middle part of the country,
a $250,000 threshold before the Feds. The prosecutors will be--
in the U.S. attorney's offices will be interested. It would be
better if they would be interested in interstate cases at a
lower level.
In my State, we're bringing State prosecutors to bear so
the burden doesn't just fall on county attorneys and district
attorneys. Resources to hire attorneys at all levels are
important. We need more prosecution to occur.
Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm out of time. I yield
back.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
The Ranking Member has some documents she wants to admit
into the record.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I ask unanimous consent to submit into the record, (1) a
statement from Trevor Wagener, Chief Economist and Director of
Research for the Computer and Communications Industry and (2) a
September 23, 2021, article from The Atlantic, entitled, ``The
Great Shoplifting Freak-Out: Why is it so hard to figure out if
America's enormous surge in theft is real?''
I ask unanimous consent.
Mr. Biggs. Without objection.
Mr. Biggs. Now, I'll recognize the gentlelady from Florida,
Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Florida is one of nearly three dozen States that have
passed organized retail crime statutes. We've actually gone one
step further by launching something called FORCE, which is the
Florida Organized Retailers Crime Exchange, a task force and
data base for police, prosecutors, and retailers to work
together to organize--to identify organized retail theft rings.
It's been our experience that communication among stakeholders,
the private sector, law enforcement, both public and private,
is really a key part of identifying and combatting these
violent and costly crimes.
I would like to start with you Mr. is it Milhiser?
Mr. Milhiser. Yes.
Ms. Lee. All right. Mr. Milhiser, I know you too have a
significant background as a former Federal prosecutor. You had
mentioned this in your testimony, this same concept. Would you
please elaborate on your experience and your observation on how
those private partner collaborations with Federal law
enforcement agencies can rid an important part of really
combatting this problem?
Mr. Milhiser. Right. Well, there are examples that have
been successful. If you look at human trafficking, drugs,
OCDETF, when we attack kind of the gang problem and the cartels
coming in from Mexico. So, the best way to attack it is to have
as many people at the table all kind of pulling their weight
and doing their job. So, we need local prosecutors there to
prosecute, oftentimes, the bulk of the cases, but then also the
Federal prosecutors there to get involved too.
Federal law enforcement oftentimes can help with the kind
of technical aspects of these cases. If they're crossing State
lines, using computers, oftentimes out of the country. These
are international operations. So, you have the Secret Service
and the FBI, and you have these other Federal law enforcement
agencies that can use their expertise. Everyone working
together collaboratively is the best way to attack the problem.
The only way it works is if everyone does their job and
every part of person there. The Feds have to say, yes, we'll
sit at the table, and we'll actually file charges. I spent a
long time--and I would guess Mr. Flynn has this problem
sometimes, too--so working with the Feds on cases sometimes
they're like, hey, we're too busy, we don't want to file that.
No, no, you're going to file that, because it's going to help
what is best for the community.
So, everyone has to get together and sit down. How can we
best attack the problem? Everybody has to carry their weight
and do their job.
Ms. Lee. Now, you just touched on something that's very
important there. The collaboration between those Federal law
enforcement resources, but also local, and the important role
of working together.
Would you describe for us the role of local law enforcement
in that process? We've got the Feds at the table. They're
providing expertise in resources. Describe for us the role,
though, of the local on-the-ground law enforcement as well.
Mr. Milhiser. Well, a hundred percent, they are a big part
of the equation. We look at law enforcement around the country,
85 percent of it is State, local, and Tribal. So, the Federal
law enforcement is a small part of law enforcement in general
in this country. So, those local individuals have to be used.
For a long time, I was a State court prosecutor and worked
with those local sheriffs, worked with the local police, to
help identify those criminals, help bring them to justice, help
prosecute cases. So, they play an integral part. It cannot be
law enforcement in their silos, whether it be FBI or DEA, in
their silo, sheriffs, police in their silo. They have to be
talking, they have to be coordinating to best attack the
problem.
Ms. Lee. So on that subject, in the event that local law
enforcement, whether it is a local district attorney, a local
police chief, in the event that one of the individuals who
should be at that table and part of that collaboration decides
not to do their job, whether it is one of those soft-on-crime
policies, a decision not to prosecute certain offenses, how
does that affect the overall effectiveness of combatting
criminal activity in our communities?
Mr. Milhiser. Well, it has a negative effect, I mean, when
you don't have everybody pulling their weight and doing their
job, especially the local prosecutor. So, if the local
prosecutor is not willing to prosecute these cases, not willing
to do their part, it has a negative effect.
I guess, then, the next question is, what do we do about
that? I think one thing we do is call those prosecutors out.
Now, it's difficult, obviously, in this forum, but it's for the
community to become aware of it. I mentioned during my
testimony an organization. I started the American Center for
Law and Public Safety with U.S. attorneys from around the
country. We have law enforcement, local prosecutors to do this
very thing--to educate the public on what is a good prosecutor,
what is needed, how can we have safe communities, and to call
out those bad prosecutors.
Because people for years took for granted that their local
prosecutor was going to do their job and prosecute cases. All
of a sudden, they didn't, crime increased. They're like, oh, my
gosh, what happened? So, we need to educate the public on what
is a good prosecutor and assist those with resources. That's
where the Federal government can come into play. There's often
scarce resources for local prosecutors. They can assist in that
way.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
I'm going to allow the Ranking Member, recognize her for
one question. I know her, and she is capable of asking what we
call in the trade a compound question.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Or a running.
Mr. Biggs. So, I'm trusting her that it's just one
question.
Ms. Jackson Lee. It is. It is.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Madam.
Ms. Jackson Lee. We thank you, to the Chair, for your
kindness.
Attorney General Kobach, am I getting close to
pronunciation, sir?
Mr. Kobach. Kobach, yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you so very much. I've studied this
issue because the Chair was kind enough to bring it to our
attention. So, we found a recent workshop on crime trends in
Kansas, Wichita, with your Police Chief, Joe Sullivan, that
said that among larger national chains, Wichita ranks among the
worst retail theft. He went on to say that getting these people
into treatment would have an unbelievable impact on organized
retail theft. Because I think it ties into what Mr. Flynn had
said, because the vast majority of the thieves, they're like
agents, workers commit these crimes to sell the stolen items
and buy drugs or get them to their handler.
So, do you agree with Chief Sullivan's assessment? While
this is not the only answer, could we not reduce the prevalence
of these crimes by addressing as a component the current public
health crisis of drug addiction? So, these people are used--I
say mules. There's a lot of terminology to utilize in this
instance.
Mr. Kobach. I do agree with what the Wichita police chief
said. The boosters who are drug addicted are recruited so they
can support their habits. They're recruited by the fences, at
least in Kansas, who tend to be the ones who are organizing
these retail crime networks. They're given assignments by the
fence, what to go steal next, where to steal it. They are used
as mules. You can also use that analogy in these networks.
So, certainly, if there are fewer drug-addicted people
recruitable, then that would reduce the total pool of recruits
to be boosters. Although, I don't think that alone would solve
the problem, but it certainly would be a component of the
problem.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, we certainly want to get rid of the
fences for sure.
Mr. Kobach. Yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you so very much.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Jackson Lee.
I will recognize myself for five minutes of questioning.
Ms. Mohs, again, thank you for coming in and sharing your
son's story and his life with us, and bringing your father with
you as well.
I just want to make sure that everyone knows, I want to
make clear, the individual who murdered your son was--if I
understood you right, was on probation and had been on
probation for more than 10 years. Is that fair to say?
Ms. Mohs. My understanding was that her probation had been
revoked, and she was in violation as of 2012--I'm sorry, not
revoked, but in violation of, and she was out on the street.
Mr. Biggs. I see. A similar situation with the getaway
driver?
Ms. Mohs. The getaway driver had been incarcerated for a
home invasion robbery and was released during COVID in
California's attempt to reduce inmates.
Mr. Biggs. All right. Well, thank you. You described it
correctly. It was a system failure. There was a law on the
books. She was not to be a possessor. Somehow, she had a gun
and she used it violently. That's a system failure, in my
opinion. We hope that we can learn and go forward and change
the system where we need to make changes. Thank you for sharing
that.
I want to get to something that you testified to, Attorney
General Kobach, and it's right on my experience with other
things, and that is you talked about the threshold. For
instance, the U.S. attorney saying if it's an interstate
transport of thefts, of stolen goods, it's 250,000 bucks. In
Arizona, the U.S. attorney has basically said they're not going
to carry--they're not going to charge, for instance, mules
carrying pot, unless they're carrying several hundred pounds in
the desert, and they actually still have it on their person
when they're apprehended.
How does the raising of those thresholds impede the actual
enforcement of our law?
Mr. Kobach. It certainly does, and it's amazing. I think
one of the things that has surprised me about all this is how
savvy and how quickly informed the organized retail crime
networks are. They learn very quickly where their thresholds
are. Now, some of them are statutory thresholds as to where the
felony level is, but they will learn what they can get away
with.
In an interstate case, that's where the Feds can come in
and help because, as I mentioned, there's a lack of
prosecutorial resources generally. If we can get the Feds
involved in a lower level, that would greatly increase our
resources. Even looking within the State, like in Kansas where
we're looking where we can help, the local prosecutors, they
have a lot--they have a huge pile of cases and a lack of
resources to address those cases. They may not recognize--and
this is where Ms. Lee's question is particularly important--
they may not have enough information to recognize that the two
thefts at this Home Depot were committed by the same network
that, in the neighboring county, did five thefts at a Lowe's
and a Walmart, et cetera.
So, by having this information sharing, which we're doing
in Kansas with the Kansas Bureau of Investigation, we can put
two and two together, connect the dots, and realize that this
isn't just a theft of $900 at one store, it's part of a much
larger network that's stolen $200,000. That gets the attention
not only of local attorney--prosecuting attorneys, but
certainly that's where our State resources come into play as
well.
Mr. Biggs. So, I am intrigued by the notion that there are
different levels. I agree with that, having been in the
judicial--actually prosecuting--I prosecuted some shoplift
cases. They were never--we rarely saw an organization. We saw
small single one-offs. Now, we see these organizations.
I would venture to say that not every booster is actually
necessarily a drug addict. Some of them are engaged in criminal
conduct. I wanted your opinion on that, Mr. Milhiser.
Mr. Milhiser. Well, I guess to follow what Ms. Jackson Lee
said, when we talk about whether it's somebody that's homeless,
there's all kinds of issues that these individuals that are
arrested have. Homeless, substance abuse. When we let them out
of jail or prison, we need to as a society and a good
prosecutor does, put them in the best position not to re-
offend, right. We want to reduce recidivism.
Mr. Biggs. What does recidivism rank?
Mr. Milhiser. Oh, it's incredibly high. I think we would
all say that it's more than half. They get out and they re-
offend. Especially if they go back to that same environment
they were in, they're going to re-offend.
So, what do we have to do? We have to look and say,
employment, housing, substance abuse, and mental health
treatment. Those four things. Look at that, and what can we do?
That's where we talk about collaboration. It's not just law
enforcement. It is other government services. It's not for-
profits. It's all those individuals in a community that can
help when these individuals get out to keep them crime free.
Mr. Biggs. Well, thank you.
I again thank the witnesses. My time has expired.
I appreciate every Member of the Committee being here and
participating.
Again, this is a real serious, serious issue that needs, in
my opinion, continued elevation of notoriety so people will
respond, particularly at the State and local levels. The
Federal level, we have the things we should be doing, but we
certainly want to encourage our State and local levels whose
resources are stretched thin to actually enforce the law and
really help out here.
Thanks again for being here. With that, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:42 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
The record for this hearing by the Members of the
Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance is
available at: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?Event ID=116093.
[all]