Item 3: Discussion and Approval of IGR Positions

Home Browse Search

We support the bill as it is written, but believe that the bill could be improved in its impact on the metal theft problem if certain elements were added. The bill and additional elements will help combat theft of non-ferrous metals. Although the theft rate is currently low, it was at a peak last year when metal prices peaked. The price of non-ferrous metals has been cyclical. It is currently down, but it has always been like a roller coaster and we expect the value to rise again in the future. When the value rises theft will increase as it has done in the past. We recommend that the bill be amended to include the following provisions, which would help law enforcement to combat this problem: • MANDATORY REPORTING to law enforcement versus MANDATORY RECORDING: This is probably the most important piece for law enforcement. The current law and this bill talk about mandatory recording. Law enforcement would benefit more if mandatory reporting to law enforcement was included. It would help in that the buyers would supply law enforcement a list of sellers along with what they were selling. This would give law enforcement an opportunity to look over this list and possibly match cases to stolen property or identify people that we need to contact because the quantities or types of metal they are selling may appear similar to stolen property. This has been very a very effective investigative element of the pawn laws. With the current mandatory reporting, law enforcement officers do not get the opportunity to review incoming property unless they are actually at the business. We only find out about it after the fact if we identify a suspect. With mandatory reporting, the metal buyers would have to send us the names of the sellers which would give us a distinct advantage over the criminal element that might be involved in the thefts. • Requiring buyers to photograph, as well as write down a description of, the non- ferrous metal purchased: There is no element requiring the buyers to hold the purchased metal unless it is found by law enforcement to be stolen. Metal is moved so quickly by some of the buyers that it is possible for an item to be purchased one day and be gone the next. A photograph would at least help law enforcement identify stolen property. • Requiring a thumbprint: Criminal suspects have been known to use forged identification but they cannot forge their thumbprint. This would allow positive identification of those selling metal. • Requiring a metal transport record: Oregon law formerly required a person to have a metal transport record. We would recommend that a requirement be reinstituted that any person transporting a more than a designated quantity of non-ferrous metal have some documentation (such as a receipt) as to how the person lawfully obtained the metal. This law would allow law enforcement officers to contact persons with suspected stolen metal and interview them regarding the source of the metal they were transporting. ContactRespondentDept Updated Priority Policy Poli Numb Recommendation Eric Jones Eric Jones PW-ADM 3/12/2009 Pri 1 Yes YesV. C12 Support Comments: This is a piece of a comprehensive package of solutions that have been offered. Eventually, these various bills (including HB 2421, HB 2423 and SB 405) will boil down to one or two key pieces of legislation. For now, all bills that address this issue are receiving a priority one support recommendation. Recommend that Tom Larsen review all bill relating to metal theft. ContactRespondentDept Updated Priority Policy Poli Numb Recommendation Tom Larsen Tom Larsen PWM 4/8/2009 Pri 1 Yes YesV. C12 Support Comments: This bill is one of several that takes a multi-pronged approach to reducing metal theft. It is comprehensive and contains many good ideas from other bills. Key aspects of this bill include payment only by check mailed to a physical address and a waiting period before the check is sent. Additional record keeping and penalities are also important elements. I like the original 10 day waiting period more than proposed shorter periods, but support the concept over all. Other bills allowing small payments in cash on site are weaker than this legislation. 8