In a unique play on resisting arrest, CA's Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton actually wants cops to resist arresting any looters who might be in "need" of the items they are looting. Gotta be honest — didn't see many looters running off with milk and bread for their starving children, or even the ever-critical, ever-so-hard to find toilet paper, so not sure how this instruction even applies, but here we go …
Considerations included determining if the business was closed at the time because of a declared emergency. This type of criminal behavior is oh-so-delicately and legally referred to as "Theft Offenses Committed During State of Emergency (PC 463)." In the vernacular — looting!
According to Jennifer Van Laar, from documents "provided to RedState by a confidential source and verified as authentic by a separate source familiar with the office's policies," the guidelines are as follows:
"Was the target business open or closed to the public during the state of emergency?" We can't let a little detail like the store being closed get in the way of our procuring the stuff we need!
"What was the manner and means by which the suspect gained entry to the business?" Did they simply take advantage of an already open window to enter said closed establishment? Clearly a smashed out window or door must indicate it's ok to enter.
"What was the nature/quantity/value of the goods targeted?" As if the nature of the "goods targeted" makes them less stolen.
"Was the theft committed for financial gain or personal need?" Who exactly is to say I don't "need" that $1,000 iPhone or $2,000 TV?
And finally, "Is there an articulable reason why another statute wouldn't adequately address the particular incident?" Let's just call it something else, anything else, than what it is … looting!
I guess we are to infer that during states of emergency, these businesses are only "closed" to law abiding citizens.