Officials Back Bill to Stiffen Graffiti Penalties

Law enforcement officials attending what they called a “graffiti vandalism summit” on Friday expressed strong support for a bill pending in the Legislature that would impose harsher penalties on those who repeatedly scrawl their graffiti--a crime that costs the county an estimated $42 million.

“It’s sorely needed,” said Los Angeles Assistant City Atty. Martin Vranicar Jr., a gang unit supervisor and speaker at the gathering. “It will give law enforcement another tool. I think it’s time.”

Held at the county Department of Public Works building in Alhambra, the meeting brought together agencies from throughout the county to discuss ways of combating graffiti.

The bill (AB 2077), which the Assembly passed this week and now must be considered by the state Senate, would close what some called a loophole in the law against those who go on “tagging” sprees, defacing buildings, freeway signs and walls.

Under the current law, punishment for graffiti vandals is based on the dollar amount of damage to each piece of property. Damage must reach $5,000 to warrant a felony charge, but typically the destruction caused by a single act is less and the crime is prosecuted as a misdemeanor, which means lesser fines and penalties.

The proposed law, introduced by Assemblyman Martin Gallegos (D-Baldwin Park), would enable authorities to prosecute a case based on the total damage caused by a graffiti vandal during a three-month period.

“It’s going to make the ongoing, serious vandalism criminal able to be prosecuted in Superior Court as a felon,” said Deputy Dist. Atty. Deanne Castorena of the Hard-Core Gang Division.

Graffiti vandals continue to be brazen in their attacks, leaving their mark everywhere and on everything, from freeway heights to rocks along Angeles Crest Highway, said Valerie J. Hill, graffiti abatement manager with the county Department of Public works.

What has changed over the years is the response of law enforcement, government officials and the public. Officers are now more likely to work together, and the public has grown less tolerant.

“We’ve done a better job of cleaning up,” Hill said. “People don’t want to see it. They want it gone.”

Although the graffiti problem has lessened since its height in 1993-94, it persists and may grow if a projected increase in those ages 16 to 24 occurs, Castorena said.

“It’s something law enforcement has been talking about,” she said. “We’re all concerned about this demographic explosion in the new millennium.”

Over the past 12 months, more than 4,500 young people appeared in Informal Juvenile and Traffic Court in graffiti cases, said David Joe Searcy, supervising referee at Juvenile Court.

The problem is “not going away,” he said. “Some kids tell us they can’t quit. It’s like an addiction to them.”