Cell phone theft cannot be such a large problem that this is a politically beneficial thing to do, much less a legitimate use of power.
Cell phone theft is a HUGE problem. Huge.
People don't like carrying things of large, uncontrolled value on their person when they don't have to. The status quo is the equivalent of forcing people to carry a small brick of gold on them everywhere they go, just so they can hail an Uber or play Candy Crush.
People will literally feel safer for this every day - I know I do already.
There have also been changes in crime rates; [3] identifies a 45% rise in armed robberies, and suggests cell phones are the reason.
I think even the most libertarian among us would agree it's within the state's remit to reduce armed robberies.
[1] http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012... [2] http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_26403692/brown-sign... [3] http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/whats-driving-oaklands...
I know if I was robbing a house, I'd probably be taking all sorts of things, and if I found a phone, I'd add it to the loot I was stealing.
There are many examples --
http://www.dailypilot.com/news/tn-dpt-me-0522-strong-arm-rob...
http://www.wbaltv.com/news/5-arrested-in-attack-on-woman-cel...
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101589854#.
Quote from the last link: "About 3.1 million Americans had their phones stolen last year, according to a just-released national survey by Consumer Reports. That's nearly double the magazine's estimate of 1.6 million mobile phones stolen during 2012."
-- but the intent is irrelevant to the problem the bill addresses -- it removes the incentive to try to steal a cell phone, regardless of the specifics.
But I appreciate the individual stories about cellphone theft, whether or not they are really relevant to the point of burglaries and robberies.
Perhaps I wasn't clear before, but my point was that it's not necessary to prove that someone had a specific and sole intent to steal a cell phone, for an anti-theft bill to make sense.