Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-11-18; City Council; 13; Impact of Recent Changes in Crime Classifications in the California Incident-Based Reporting SystemCA Review JRT Meeting Date: Nov. 18, 2025 To: Mayor and City Council From: Geoff Patnoe, City Manager Staff Contact: Cindy Anderson, Police Administrative Manager cindy.anderson@carlsbadca.gov, 442-339-5789 Subject: Impact of Recent Changes in Crime Classifications in the California Incident-Based Reporting System Districts: All Recommended Action Receive a report from the Police Department on the Automated Regional Justice Information Systems and the California Incident-Based Reporting System. Executive Summary The City Council directed the City Manager on Sept. 30, 2025, to bring back an item to discuss anticipated changes to Automated Regional Justice Information Systems’ case categorization and how those changes may impact the City of Carlsbad and its residents. Recent changes by the California Department of Justice have disrupted statewide crime reporting, significantly impacting the accuracy and integrity of criminal data across the San Diego region. The state’s deactivation of more than 175 reporting codes has severed the connection between what local agencies enforce and what the state officially recognizes, resulting in incomplete statistics and legal inconsistencies that affect prosecution, policy, and public transparency. The Automated Regional Justice Information System, San Diego’s regional center for gathering, standardizing and sharing crime data, and local law enforcement agencies, including the Carlsbad Police Department, are collaborating to work with the state to address these challenges, seeking to restore accurate crime classification and ensure consistent reporting standards. In the interim, the department and other local agencies are exploring temporary technical solutions to preserve reporting continuity while continuing to advocate for long-term resolution at the state level. Explanation & Analysis Background •The Automated Regional Justice Information System, known as ARJIS, was established in 1976 as a Joint Power Agency among law enforcement agencies in San Diego and Imperial Counties. Nov. 18, 2025 Item #13 Page 1 of 16 •In January 2021, the National Incident-Based Reporting System became the FBI’s national standard for law enforcement crime data reporting in the United States, replacing a system that was created in 1929. •Because California has several crime classifications that are not federally recognized, the California Department of Justice created the California Incident-Based Reporting System, for California agencies. •ARJIS currently transmits crime data to the California crime reporting system for 11 local law enforcement agencies in the County of San Diego. The California Incident-Based Reporting System, known as CIBRS, captures detailed information on 52 types of offense categories and eight types of arrests based on the California Penal Code and California Vehicle Code, which are assigned a charge code based on the elements of the crime. Each charge code is then mapped to one or more of the offense codes. Every agency is required to maintain an error rate of 4% or less to meet the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program standards. CIBRS’ error rate is the percentage of rejected reports out of the total number of reports submitted to the state Department of Justice. Challenges In June 2024, the state Department of Justice removed over 175 criminal charge codes from the state’s official database. CIBRS then marked these codes, used by law enforcement to classify and report specific crimes to the state, as “invalid.” According to state Department of Justice officials, this change was made for internal statistical reporting purposes. However, the consequences go far beyond data formatting and have created serious challenges for the Carlsbad Police Department and law enforcement agencies across California. While the state Department of Justice has removed these 175 charge codes from its reporting system, the laws themselves have not been repealed or made obsolete in the California Penal Code or legal system. Officers are still arresting individuals for these crimes, prosecutors are still charging them in court and judges are still issuing sentences based on them. However, due to the state Department of Justice’s decision to deactivate them and no longer count them, law enforcement agencies can no longer report these crimes to the state as part of their official crime statistics. This creates a major disconnect between what law enforcement agencies are doing and what the state’s Department of Justice’s is recognizing. The result is a large and growing gap in California’s crime data that makes it harder for policymakers, researchers and the public to understand what’s really happening in their communities. Many of the deactivated codes relate to property crimes, particularly theft, which are among the most common offenses reported in the San Diego region. These now-invalidated codes account for roughly 15% of all crimes in the region. That means nearly one in six crimes can no longer be accurately reported to the state’s crime reporting database, significantly skewing public safety data and reducing transparency. Some of the most commonly used charge codes that have been deactivated are: •Penal Code Section 488 – Petty theft •Penal Code Section 25850(c) – Carrying a loaded firearm in public •Penal Code Section 25400(c) – Carrying a concealed weapon •Vehicle Code Sections 20001(b)(1) and 20001(b)(2) – Hit and run driving causing injury or death Nov. 18, 2025 Item #13 Page 2 of 16 •Vehicle Code Section 23550.5 – Enhanced penalties for repeat drunken driving offenders The deactivation of Penal Code Section 488, petty theft, has significantly hindered law enforcement’s ability to apply the state ballot measure Proposition 36 as it was intended. Proposition 36, which took effect in December 2024, provides the legal foundation for felony prosecution under Penal Code Section 666.1, a new charge for petty theft with a prior offense. Proposition 36 created stricter penalties for offenders who repeatedly commit theft-related crimes. Specifically, it allows prosecutors to charge someone with a felony if they have two or more prior theft convictions and commit another theft under specific penal codes, including Penal Code Section 488. Under Penal Code Section 666.1: “A person who has two or more prior convictions for any of the offenses listed in paragraph (2), and who is convicted of petty theft or shoplifting, is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170...”1 Since Penal Code Section 488 has been deactivated in the reporting system, the state Department of Justice has directed law enforcement agencies to use Penal Code Section 484(a) to report petty theft instead. However, Penal Code Section 484(a) is not one of the offenses included under Proposition 36’s framework in Penal Code Section 666.1. As a result, when theft cases are reported under Penal Code Section 484(a) rather than Penal Code Section 488, repeat offenders may fall outside the scope of Proposition 36’s provisions, creating a loophole that limits the intended application of enhanced penalties for repeat theft. Impact The effect of these deactivations is a combination of significant underreporting and legal inconsistency. With approximately 15% of regional crimes no longer accepted in the state’s crime reporting system, California’s statewide crime data has become incomplete and potentially misleading, which can impact public policy decisions, funding allocations and even public trust in reported crime trends. At the same time, agencies are being directed to use alternative charge codes that do not align with the statutes used in court proceedings, creating conflicts between what is reported to the state and how cases are actually prosecuted. This disconnect undermines the consistency and integrity of the criminal justice process by causing discrepancies between the crimes that officers document, the charges prosecutors file, and the offenses the state officially records. It may also lead to situations in which repeat offenders may avoid enhanced penalties, reported crime trends no longer reflect actual activity, and policy decisions may be based on incomplete or misleading data. Representatives from several local law enforcement agencies, including Carlsbad, as well as members of ARJIS have been actively engaging with the Department of Justice’s and its CIBRS team to advocate for the reinstatement of the most frequently used and impactful charge codes. 1 Paragraph (2) specifically references statutes including 488, 490.2 (petty theft), 487, 487h, and 484 (grand theft). Nov. 18, 2025 Item #13 Page 3 of 16 Despite these efforts, progress has been limited. The San Diego region previously had no representation on the state’s working group responsible for decisions to deactivate specific charge codes. The state has now agreed to include three members from San Diego County in the working group. However, the state Department of Justice representatives have continued to maintain their position against reinstating the deactivated charges. If the state Department of Justice does not reconsider its position on the deactivated charge codes, the Police Department intends to work collaboratively with ARJIS and our records management system vendor to implement a workaround by “remapping” the affected codes. This approach would involve maintaining two parallel sets of charge codes: one used for arrests and legal documentation, and another specifically for reporting to the state through the California reporting system. For example, an arrest made under Penal Code Section 488 would still reflect that code in the arrest report, but ARJIS would convert and report the offense to the state system using Penal Code Section 484(a), the alternative code it is currently accepting. While this solution would allow agencies to resume partial reporting, it is far from ideal. It introduces inconsistencies between operational and statistical records, requires maintaining separate internal datasets for accuracy and the related staff time and does not resolve the issue of deactivated charges that lack equivalent charge codes in CIBRS. In those cases, the offenses would go entirely unreported to the state and would only be tracked locally, further contributing to the underrepresentation of crime data. Fiscal Analysis There is no fiscal impact from receiving this report. Next Steps The Police Department will continue to actively work with ARJIS, the department’s reporting system vendor and regional law enforcement partners to explore a solution to remap the affected codes and seek other practical solutions to meet the California Incident-Based Reporting System’s required compliancy rate while also maintaining a secondary set of internal data for statistical purposes. The Police Department will also keep working with the other affected agencies to urge the state to reconsider its position and reinstate the most critical charge codes to ensure consistent and accurate reporting in our region and across California. Environmental Evaluation This action does not require environmental review because it does not constitute a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act under California Public Resources Code Section 21065 in that it has no potential to cause either a direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Exhibits 1.SANDAG Public Safety Committee Item 6, California Incident-Based Reporting System/National Incident-Based Reporting System Update 2.ARJIS Memorandum to CA DOJ, San Diego Law Enforcement Issues with Repealed California State Statutes Nov. 18, 2025 Item #13 Page 4 of 16 Public Safety Committee Item: 6 July 18, 2025 California Incident Based Reporting System/ National Incident Based Reporting System Update Overview In June 2024, the California Department of Justice (CalDOJ) Master Charge Table team repealed 175+ charge codes. These charges were repealed for statistical reporting purposes and can no longer be sent to the California Incident Based Reporting System (CIBRS), which is the California specific system for gathering crime statistics and reporting crimes to CalDOJ and the US Department of Justice (US DOJ). The repealed charges are largely comprised of property crimes, such as theft, and represent roughly 10% of total regional crimes. As a result, the San Diego region is losing valuable data, context, and accuracy about the types of crime occurring in the region. Please note that this committee report pertains to how specific charges have been repealed for statistical reporting purposes under CIBRS and CalDOJ, and this is a separate and unique process from how charge codes are processed locally by our District Attorney’s Office and Court. These differences will be addressed below. Key Considerations This issue is being presented by The Automated Regional Justice Information System (ARJIS), which serves as San Diego’s regional center for gathering, standardizing, and sharing crime data among San Diego’s 12 local law enforcement agencies and 53 state and federal ARJIS member law enforcement agencies. ARJIS has served as the regional body for compiling and reporting all crime statistics to CalDOJ and US DOJ for over 40 years. Currently, ARJIS handles all crime reporting for 11 of our 12 local law enforcement agencies to the state CIBRS program 1. CIBRS is the California specific version of the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) crime data collection program, which captures detailed information on 52 types of crime or offense categories such as homicide, rape, robbery and larceny and 8 types of arrests such as Driving Under the Influence (DUI). When officers write a crime or arrest report in the field, they assign charge codes to each case based on the elements of the crime. Each charge code is then mapped to one or more CIBRS/NIBRS offense codes. In June 2024, the CalDOJ Master Charge Table team, repealed 175+ charge codes which San Diego officers often use in their crime reports. Within the next several months, the California CIBRS team stopped accepting these charges as valid, reportable, CIBRS crimes, which increased the regional CIBRS rejected case rate from less than 1% to just over 13%. These sudden errors not only disrupted the flow of data into CIBRS/NIBRS, but they also created reporting backlogs and increased the administrative burden on agency personnel. Additionally, when these charges were repealed, almost no guidance was provided by CalDOJ on which charges should be used instead, and this has created confusion throughout the region and state. Please note that these repealed charge codes could technically still be sent to the local District Attorney’s Office to be charged and processed in local courts. However, they are no longer accepted as valid crimes 1 Coronado Police Department currently reports their own CIBRS crime data. Action:Information ARJIS staff will present an update on current concerns and actions moving forward. Fiscal Impact: None. Schedule/Scope Impact: None. Exhibit 1 Nov. 18, 2025 Item #13 Page 5 of 16 for statistical reporting at the state level, and therefore they are not reported at the federal level. If these charge code continue to be used locally for processing with the District Attorney’s Office but are not used to report crime statistically to state and federal organizations, this will create a significant difference in how crime statistics are gathered and recorded at the local level versus the state and federal levels. Another concern is the loss of specificity in regional crime data. For example, CalDOJ repealed PC 25850(c)(1)-(6) and instead, is only accepting PC 25850(A) – Carrying a loaded firearm. These deactivated variants of 25850 indicated if the weapon was stolen, if the suspect had a prior conviction, and/or if the gun was not being carried by the registered owner. This loss of rich, descriptive, data will have detrimental long term impact on our regional ability to track and understand important crime trends and patterns in the future. Another major consideration is the technical impact on Records Management Systems (RMS) and police academy courses, many of which are still using repealed charge codes and teaching officers to use repealed charge codes. Adjusting these systems and training modules will require time, vendor support, and financial resources, all of which may be in short supply – particularly for smaller agencies. This situation also puts agencies at risk of falling out of compliance with state and federal reporting standards, potentially jeopardizing eligibility for funding and creating audit vulnerabilities. Lastly, the implications for regional data sharing are substantial. CIBRS is designed to support cross- jurisdictional information sharing and analysis. Inconsistent or incomplete data submissions due to these repealed code changes can hinder regional investigations, reduce situational awareness, and ultimately diminish the collective ability to address crime effectively across agency boundaries. Next Steps ARJIS has been actively working to address the challenges created by these repealed charge codes through analysis and regional coordination. ARJIS staff have been meeting regularly with representatives from member agencies to assess the impact of these changes, gather feedback, and identify common issues. In addition to local coordination, ARJIS has formally requested meetings with the CalDOJ Master Charge Table team to gain clarity on the rationale behind the code deactivations, advocate for regional representation on the charge table working group, and ask for further guidance on which charge codes should be used in the place of repealed charge codes. Currently the San Diego region has no representation on the working group which is making the decisions to deactivate certain charge codes. Internally, ARJIS has been documenting increasing CIBRS rejection rates and documenting the technical and operational impacts of these changes. This information is being continually compiled to support conversations with CalDOJ and inform potential adjustments to the crime reporting process. ARJIS is also working with agency RMS vendors where applicable, to explore technical solutions for remapping or reconfiguring systems to align with regional needs to possibly maintain one set of charges locally and another set of charges for state reporting. Additionally, ARJIS will meet with statewide law enforcement bodies such as the California Police Chiefs Association (CPCA) and the California State Sheriff’s Association (CSSA) to garner statewide support for this important effort. ARJIS will continue to provide additional reports to the SANDAG PSC as policy developments occur and CalDOJ responds to regional concerns. Anthony Ray, Director Nov. 18, 2025 Item #13 Page 6 of 16 Nov. 18, 2025 Item #13 Page 7 of 16 Nov. 18, 2025 Item #13 Page 8 of 16 Nov. 18, 2025 Item #13 Page 9 of 16 Nov. 18, 2025 Item #13 Page 10 of 16 Nov. 18, 2025 Item #13 Page 11 of 16 Nov. 18, 2025 Item #13 Page 12 of 16 1 ARJI Date: September 16, 2025 From: Automated Regional Justice Information System (ARJIS) To: Carlsbad Police Department, Chula Vista Police Department, El Cajon Police Department Escondido Police Department, La Mesa Police Department, National City Police Department, Oceanside Police Department, San Diego Harbor Police Department, San Diego Sheriff’s Department, San Diego Police Department and San Diego County District Attorney’s Office RE: San Diego County Law Enforcement Issues with Repealed California State Statutes This memorandum is a follow up to a call between San Diego County law enforcement representatives from 8 law enforcement agencies to address the issues being caused by specific repealed charge codes. In June 2024, the California Department of Justice (CalDOJ) Master Charge Table (MCT) team administratively “repealed” California State Statutes (charge codes). Consequently, the CA CIBRS team removed those charge codes as “valid” charges for CIBRS submission. “Repealing” the charges in the Master Charge Table means that San Diego law enforcement agencies should no longer crimes with these repealed charge codes to the California Incident Based Reporting System (CIBRS). The repealed charge codes are largely comprised of property crimes, such as theft, and represent roughly 10% of total regional San Diego crimes. As a result, California is losing valuable data, context, and accuracy about the types of crime occurring in the San Diego region and most likely throughout the state. When the CalDOJ MCT team repeals valid charge codes, which are still active California laws, they impede law enforcement agencies from reporting crimes to the state as they are occurring in the field. To understand this challenge, it is important to clarify how crime reports are written and processed locally by law enforcement agencies and at the state level. When law enforcement officers in the field write a crime report, that report is entered into an electronic Records Management System (RMS). Every RMS has a list of valid statutes and municipal codes from which officers can choose to write crime reports, depending on the elements of the crime. Once the crime report is entered into the RMS it is sent to the state for CIBRS crime reporting, and additional copies of that same crime report are sent to the District Attorney (DA) and/or the City Attorney (CA) depending on the charges present on the case. The charges that are sent to the DA and CA have historically been the same charges which are reported to CalDOJ CIBRS since 2021. Exhibit 2 Nov. 18, 2025 Item #13 Page 13 of 16 2 However, when the MCT team “repeals” valid statutes, they are in effect directing law enforcement to stop using valid California state laws. Similarly, given how crime reports flow to both the (CA CIBRS) and the DA and CA, these repealed charge codes may also impact prosecutors, who will not receive the full scope of charges and information to appropriately prosecute crimes. Additionally, these repealed charges may not reach the Court, which will prevent persons to be convicted of those Statutes in court proceedings. By repealing valid chargeable Statutes, the MCT Committee is usurping the rights and privileges of the California Legislature. We in San Diego County law enforcement have identified some Statutes which we assert have been improperly “repealed” by the MCT Committee and are requesting these Statutes be reinstated as soon as possible. The following is a partial list, including some of the Statutes where the “repeal” has the most severe impact on our ability to perform our law enforcement and reporting functions. 488 PC – Petty Theft 488 PC has been the definition of Petty Theft since its enactment in 1927. In November 2024, the legislature enacted 666.1 PC as part of Proposition 36 and clearly identified Section 488 as the Section defining Petty Theft. 666.1(a)(2)(A) “Petty theft, as described in Section 488 or 490.2.” On the call, Marc St. Pierre asserted that the discussion that led to the administrative “repeal” of 488 PC was that they felt no one would charge, prosecute, or convict based on “488 PC – Theft in other cases”. That is a false and incorrect assumption. In fact, in the past 2 years, San Diego County law enforcement officers have charged 488 PC approximately 750,000 times, with many of those going on to prosecutions and convictions. The Statute text used in these charges is quite clear as “488 PC – Petty Theft”. To make it easy for officers to select the appropriate IBR classifications, the RMS systems display the selections as: Literal CIBRS Code PETTY THEFT(Pocket Picking) (M) 23A PETTY THEFT(Purse Snatch) (M) 23B PETTY THEFT(Shoplift) (M) 23C PETTY THEFT(from Building) (M) 23D PETTY THEFT(from Coin Oper Machine) (M) 23E PETTY THEFT(from Veh) (M) 23F PETTY THEFT(Mot Veh Parts) (M) 23G PETTY THEFT(All Other Larceny) (M) 23H Nov. 18, 2025 Item #13 Page 14 of 16 3 In San Diego County, for decades, 488 PC has been taught at the regional Academy and used as the Petty Theft charge across all agencies, prosecutors, and courts. 25850(C) Carry Loaded Firearm in Public, and 25400(C) Carry Concealed Weapon Both these Statutes have a subsection “(c)” which enumerates the conditions (1) through (6) under which the offense is a Felony, and in fact, both Statutes specify that if none of the conditions (1) through (6) are specified, then the offense is a Misdemeanor. By removing the ability of law enforcement to charge the specific subsections (C)(1) through (C)(6), officers must use the generic (A) section, which does NOT clearly stipulate the conditions for Felony or Misdemeanor charging. Thus, officers must charge (A) and then in their narrative must explain to the prosecutor that the person should be charged with (C)(1) through (C)(6) as appropriate. This leads to confusion and also means that the detailed information about these crimes and arrests is not being appropriately reported for statistical purposes. In San Diego County, over the past 2 years, law enforcement charged the (C) subsections of these Statutes nearly 4,200 times. 20001(B)(1) and (2) – Hit and Run Resulting in Injury or Death The MCT Team “repealed” all the subsection (B) items, but the one that remains (A) does not specify any information as to whether the accident resulted in a serious injury or even death. Subsections (B)(1) and (2) are the parts that clearly identify for what the person is being charged. These need to be reinstated, but It would be useful for the MCT Team to properly classify the two subsections, as (B)(1) is essentially defined as a Misdemeanor, while (B)(2) could be either a Misdemeanor or Felony. Removing subsection (B) leaves just the ambiguous part (A). The (B) subparts were charged just under 400 times in the County in the last 2 years. 23550.5 – Penalties for Violations of Section 23152 While this is titled as a “penalty” section, it is a chargeable offense and has been used over 300 times in the County over the past 2 years. If this Section is removed (and you have offered no replacement statute), then how do officers and prosecutors charge persons who commit repeated DUI offenses? Nov. 18, 2025 Item #13 Page 15 of 16 4 This statute provides the ability to charge those who repeatedly commit DUI offenses. What is the proposed alternative to charging and prosecuting repeat DUI offenders if you “repeal” this Statute? The above are the primary Statutes that we assert should be immediately reinstated. Additional Considerations & Thanks We understand that that MCT Team is attempting to disable reporting of charges that are considered items such as bail enhancers or Statute Sections that are mere “penalty” sections. However, we believe that in several of the above Statutes, the MCT Team overlooked the fact that the “penalty” subsections are not just stating penalties, but in fact define specific facets of the crimes that enable charging as either a Felony or a Misdemeanor. We suggest that when considering “penalty” sections for removal, that a more detailed analysis of the impact should be performed to ensure that the sections do not also identify or clarify facets of the crimes. We thank you for offering to allow San Diego County to participate in future Committee discussions and will be forwarding names and contact information for the recommended individuals shortly. We also appreciate your willingness stated on the call to implement a broader mechanism for disseminating advance information to all agencies prior to future changes and ensuring there is a suitable period between your decisions and when the changes will take effect and subsequently cause changes in CIBRS reporting compliance. Nov. 18, 2025 Item #13 Page 16 of 16 ARJIS and CIBRS Information Christie Calderwood, Chief of Police Cindy Anderson, Police Admin Manager November 18, 2025 ITEM #13 ARJIS & CIBRS INFO STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive information from the Police Department regarding the Automated Regional Justice Information System (ARJIS), the California Incident- Based Reporting System (CIBRS), and the recent changes made by the California Department of Justice 2 TODAY’S PRESENTATION •Overview of ARJIS and CIBRS •Changes by the CA DOJ •Issues with deactivated charge codes •Impact on the public •Progress from the region ITEM #13 ARJIS & CIBRS INFO 3 b Automated Regional Justice Information System (ARJIS): •Established in 1976 as a Joint Powers Agency •Collects, standardizes, and shares regional crime data •Transmits crime data to CA DOJ’s CIBRS for San Diego County AR J I S ITEM #13 ARJIS & CIBRS INFO 4 CALIFORNIA INCIDENT-BASED REPORTING SYSTEM (CIBRS) •52 types of offenses reported •Data collection began in 2021 for San Diego County •Created to improve the quality of crime data and give context to crimes (victim/suspect relationship) ITEM #13 ARJIS & CIBRS INFO 5 ISSUES CA DOJ DEACTIVATED 175+ CHARGE CODES 15% COUNTYWIDE ERROR RATES PROP 36 INCONSISTENT REPORTING ITEM #13 ARJIS & CIBRS INFO 6 COMMONLY USED DEACTIVATED CHARGES 488 PC Petty Theft 25850(c) PC 25400(c) PC Carrying a Loaded Firearm in Public Carrying a Concealed Weapon 20001(b)(1) VC 20001(b)(2) VC Hit & Run Causing Injury/Death 23550.5 VC Enhanced Penalties for Repeat DUI Offenders ITEM# 13 ARJIS & CIBRS 7 ITEM #13 ARJIS& CIBRS COMMUNITY IMPACT •Underreporting of crimes •Legal inconsistencies •Repeat offenders may avoid enhanced penalties •Inaccurate crime trend reporting 8 PROGRESS Regional meetings with CA DOJ Representation from San Diego County ARJIS remapping of offense codes Internal data for accurate statistics ITEM# 13 ARJIS & CIBRS 9 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive information from the Police Department regarding the Automated Regional Justice Information System (ARJIS), the California Incident-Based Reporting System (CIBRS), and the recent changes made by the California Department of Justice ITEM# 13 ARJIS & CIBRS 10