An act to amend Section 884 of the Food and Agricultural Code, relating to agricultural theft.
Summary
AB 312 makes a narrow change to California’s agricultural theft procedures. Under existing law, when an agricultural commissioner sells a seized agricultural commodity that could not be returned to its rightful owner, the commissioner must hold the sale proceeds for at least six months before any unclaimed funds are deposited into the county general fund. This bill shortens that holding period to three months. The bill does not change the initial seizure, sale, donation, or destruction rules for agricultural commodities, nor does it alter the owner’s ability to claim the proceeds by providing proof of ownership.
The measure is framed as an amendment to Section 884 of the Food and Agricultural Code and is limited to the disposition of proceeds from sold commodities. It affects county agricultural commissioners and, indirectly, owners of agricultural commodities that have been seized in theft-related circumstances. By reducing the claim period, the bill accelerates when counties may receive unclaimed proceeds, while still preserving a window for lawful owners to recover funds.
Impact
AB 312 would amend Food and Agricultural Code Section 884 to reduce the statutory retention period for proceeds from the sale of seized agricultural commodities from six months to three months before those proceeds are deposited into a county’s general fund. In practice, this changes the timing of county revenue collection and shortens the period during which a lawful owner may claim sale proceeds after proving ownership. The bill leaves intact the commissioner’s authority to seize, sell, donate, or destroy commodities under existing agricultural theft procedures.
Sentiment
The available voting record indicates strong, unanimous support for the bill. It received a 7-0 do pass vote in committee and later passed the Assembly Third Reading with 75 yeas and 0 nays. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, but the recorded votes suggest the measure was viewed as noncontroversial and procedural rather than policy-heavy.
Contention
No notable opposition is reflected in the provided materials. Because the bill only shortens the holding period for unclaimed sale proceeds, any potential concern would likely come from parties interested in preserving a longer recovery window for rightful owners of seized commodities. However, the unanimous committee and floor votes suggest that no significant disagreement emerged in the legislative process shown here. The bill appears to have been treated as a modest administrative adjustment affecting county agricultural commissioners and owners seeking to reclaim proceeds.
An act to amend Sections 2301 and 2302 of, and to add Section 2303 to, the Fish and Game Code, to add and repeal Section 515 of the Food and Agricultural Code, to amend Sections 675, 676, and 676.