A district attorney in California reportedly told members of law enforcement that they should consider the needs of looters before deciding to charge them with looting.

Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton expressed her view that officers should consider whether "the target business" was "open or closed" at the time the looting took place, and "what was the manner and means" by which the looters had managed to get inside the business, the Daily Wire reported.

The charging guidelines were laid out by Jennifer Van Laar of RedState, which are as follows:

1.) Was this theft offense substantially motivated by the state of emergency, or simply a theft offense which occurred contemporaneous to the declared state of emergency?

2.) Was the target business open or closed to the public during the state of emergency? ii. What was the manner and means by which the suspect gained entry to the business? iii. What was the nature/quantity/value of the goods targeted? iv. Was the theft committed for financial gain or personal need? v. Is there an articulable reason why another statute wouldn't adequately address the particular incident?

Van Laar goes on to quote Shouse California Law Group: "Under Penal Code 463 PC, California law defines 'looting' as taking advantage of a state of emergency to commit burglary, grand theft or petty theft. Looting charges can be filed as a misdemeanor or a felony and is punishable by up to 3 years in jail.