SAN ANTONIO — Businesses are preparing to put up big bucks in opposition to Proposition A, or the “San Antonio Justice Charter,” which is on the ballot for the May 6 municipal election.
While the proposition, spearheaded by the activist group ACT 4 SA, has already grabbed headlines as an attempt to decriminalize marijuana and abortions, businesses said their concerns fall squarely on the ballot measure’s cite-and-release policy for theft and other crimes.
The San Antonio Safe PAC and Protect SA has already spent money on commercials which claim “Prop A would decriminalize shoplifting or theft of services” and that “activists want no arrests and no jail time.”
At the same time, ACT 4 SA Founder Ananda Tomas and SA Stands's Carolina Canizales both said the proposition would make the cite-and-release policy currently used by the San Antonio Police Department and Bexar County a permanent ordinance. Canizales also claimed the policy was currently showing good results.
So whose claims are closer to the truth? Here’s what we found out.
The "decriminalizing theft" claim.
Eddie Aldrete, co-chair of San Antonio Safe, told KENS 5 that if Proposition A went into effect, “I could steal your watch right now and I could not be arrested for it, even if it is a $750 watch.”
Under Proposition A, this would be true in the short-term. But the county could also issue an arrest warrant down the line in some cases.
Section 180 of Prop A, which can be read here, states “a ticket or verbal warning, rather than arrest, shall be issued for individuals charged with committing the following offenses,” and then lists eight groups of offenses that apply.
These offenses include theft of property less than $750 and theft of service less than $750, among others.
This means an officer is instructed to not arrest an individual for that crime and instead give them a ticket with instructions to appear at a county office and turn themselves in. If Aldrete hypothetically did steal a watch, get a ticket and not show up to court, the county could then issue a warrant for his arrest and he could still be arrested at a later time.
There is also an exception to the policy that would allow Aldrete to be arrested sooner. Prop A states there is an exception if "the subject could not provide satisfactory evidence of personal identification to allow for citation.”
Translation: If an officer has no way to identify a suspect, the officer could still arrest that suspect according to Section 180(b) of the proposition.
However, the officer would also need to request supervisor approval and include the approval in a report according to new rules in the proposition. That report could then be reviewed by the SAPD Internal Affairs Unit.
Additionally, San Antonio Police Association President Danny Diaz is concerned because the proposition loosens identification requirements.
Section 180(b)(i) states a library card, bill or even a “credible verbal verification of a subject’s identity and address shall suffice and may be obtained by contacting a family member.” Diaz said it would be easy for an individual to give incorrect information.
“The expectation is that they can give you a name and that officers are supposed to take that name without verifying. How do we do that when it comes to prosecuting people? If they give me a fake name, if they give me your name, a warrant is going to come out for you,” Diaz said.
Still, in the case of a theft: If a person was cited, the citation had the correct information, the person who was cited didn’t show up to county court and an arrest warrant was issued, then that individual could still eventually be arrested for theft of less than $750 if Proposition A passes.
This makes Aldrete’s claim, and the Protect SA commercials, true in the short0term, but false in the long0term.
The “it’s the same as the current policy” claim.
Tomas and Canizales have both claimed the “cite-and-release” policy in Proposition A is an official version of a policy both the city and Bexar County already use.
“Cite-and-release is not new to San Antonio," Canizales said. "It has been in effect as an administrative policy under the San Antonio Police Department. All Prop A would do is make it permanent.”
Under the current policy, police officers still have discretion to arrest someone instead of giving them a citation. Under Proposition A, an officer could only issue an arrest for a citation-eligible offense if they couldn’t identify the person or if the accused person demanded to be taken before a magistrate.
Additionally, Proposition A would expand the number of citation eligible offenses to include “graffiti, with damage less than $2500, Class A or B misdemeanor” and “All Class C misdemeanors, except Class C Public Intoxication.”
Adding class C misdemeanors may not sound significant, but Diaz had concerns about that change as well.
“One class C offense that we see is voyeurism. That’s a peeping-tom and we can tie that in to sexual assault. They are wanting us to let them go? That makes no sense at all,” Diaz said. “Even a simple assault is a class C, we won’t be able to arrest for that either.”
With the number of changes in Proposition A, the claims stating “it’s the same as the current policy” is false.
The "it's already paying off" claim
Canizales also told KENS 5 that the currently available data on the “cite-and-release” program shows that it is working correctly and should be continued.
“When you look at the cite-and-release data on the DA’s website you can see how many people have been able to complete the program or have enrolled,” Canizales said. “We need to trust the data that we have… people want a second opportunity.”
The cite-and-release program would give some offenders the opportunity to go through a “diversion program” that would get their case dismissed and allow the crime to be expunged from their record. The defendant would need to do complete community service or provide restitution payments.
So is the program working?
County data shows officers have issued 2,052 citations for theft under the current program since it began in 2019. The data shows 1,277 of those offenders have been referred to the diversion program and 513 offenders successfully passed.
According to that data, roughly one in four suspects cited for theft have been able to avoid an arrest and conviction by completing the program. Officials also said the program has saved Bexar County $5.6 million dollars in booking costs to date.
It's not clear, however, what happened to the other theft suspects who didn't complete the program.