The Sacramento City Attorney's Office has reportedly threatened a local Target store with public nuisance charges for making too many calls to police to report thefts. This revelation has ignited a controversy over the rights of businesses to report crimes and the allocation of law enforcement resources.

According to a source familiar with the matter, the office of City Attorney Susana Alcala Wood warned the Target location at 2505 Riverside Blvd that continued calls to police about thefts could result in fines. This action has drawn criticism from law enforcement officials and state lawmakers who argue that crime victims should have the right to report incidents, the Sacramento Bee reports.

In response to the situation, California lawmakers have proposed an amendment to a retail bill that would prohibit such threats by officials. Alexander Gammelgard, president of the California Police Chiefs Association, expressed surprise at the city's approach during a state Assembly retail committee hearing in December. "I don't think there is a place for that," he stated.

Data from the Sacramento Police Department shows a significant increase in theft-related calls from three Target stores in the city. In 2023, police received 375 calls related to theft, robbery, and shoplifting, compared to 175 in 2022 and 87 in 2021. Out of the 2023 calls, approximately 80 crime reports were filed and 55 arrests were made.

Blake Randol, a criminal justice professor at California State University, Stanislaus, raised concerns about the city's actions. He argued that public nuisance charges could discourage businesses from reporting crimes and suggested that city officials might be attempting to reduce crime statistics.

An amendment to Assembly Bill 2943, expected to be voted on this week, aims to prevent cities from threatening retailers who seek help from authorities. The amendment would prohibit local law enforcement or jurisdictions from bringing nuisance actions against businesses for reporting retail crime, unless the report is knowingly false.

However, the issue remains contentious. Clark Kelso, a professor at the University of the Pacific's McGeorge School of Law, defended the city attorney's authority to issue public nuisance charges against businesses whose property is known to be dangerous. Kelso argued that a high volume of theft-related calls could divert police resources from higher-priority incidents.

As the debate continues, the incident highlights the complex balance between supporting businesses in reporting crimes and managing limited law enforcement resources effectively.