This bill amends RCW 9A.56.350 to revise and more specifically define organized retail theft and to change how multiple thefts are aggregated for charging. It creates two degrees of organized retail theft: first degree (theft of $5,000 or more) as a class B felony and second degree (theft of at least $750 but less than $5,000) as a class C felony. Organized retail theft is described to occur when a person, with an accomplice, steals or possesses stolen property taken from a mercantile establishment and meeting the $750 threshold, when a person commits thefts totaling $750 or more from one or more mercantile establishments within up to 365 days, or when a person with at least two accomplices and at least one electronic communication solicits participation in a theft of at least $750 during planning or commission. The bill changes aggregation and prosecutorial procedures: where practicable, a series of thefts by the same person within a 365-day period must be aggregated into one count and values summed to determine degree; thefts aggregated in one county may be prosecuted in any county where one of the thefts occurred; and for the solicitation provision thefts by principals and accomplices should be aggregated where practicable. Mercantile establishments may request that charges be aggregated with other known thefts, and if a prosecuting jurisdiction declines such a request it must promptly notify the requesting establishment(s) and state the reasons. The text references definitions in other statutes (stolen property per RCW 9A.56.140 and electronic communication per RCW 9A.90.120(8)) but does not include those definitions here, and it does not define "mercantile establishment," the standards for when aggregation is "practicable," or what timeframe constitutes "promptly." These missing definitions and timing standards are not provided in the excerpt.

If enacted, the law makes it easier for prosecutors to combine multiple shoplifting incidents over a year into a single case so their total value can meet felony thresholds (class C for $750–$4,999 and class B for $5,000 or more) and treats coordinated thefts involving at least two accomplices and electronic communications as organized retail theft. Retailers can ask prosecutors to aggregate related thefts, and if prosecutors decline they must promptly tell the retailer and explain why. That will likely increase the number of felony prosecutions of repeat or coordinated shoplifters and give retailers a clearer path to push for combined charges. The people most affected are retail businesses, prosecutors, and defendants: retailers may see a higher chance of felony charges for repeat thefts and will need to request aggregation to trigger review; prosecutors will face added responsibility to review incidents across up to 365 days, coordinate across counties when necessary, and provide timely explanations when they decline aggregation, which could raise workload and coordination costs; defendants face greater risk of felony exposure as separate thefts can be summed. Key details are missing here—how terms like “if practicable,” “promptly,” and “mercantile establishment” are defined and the referenced statutory definitions are not included—so the exact timing, scope, and procedural requirements remain uncertain.