SAN JOSE — In what the region’s top FBI official said could serve as a model for other agencies, San Jose police are sending more gun crimes to federal court to obtain harsher sentences for violent offenders they say benefit from soft spots created by California’s criminal-justice reforms.

Under the new approach, believed to be the only one of its kind in the state, San Jose detectives, working with local prosecutors and the FBI, will more routinely consider certain crimes when a gun is used — regardless of whether it’s fired — for federal prosecution. At the federal level, mandatory minimum sentences are significantly longer, and served in out-of-state detention facilities.

“There are loopholes in the (state) system,” San Jose police Chief Eddie Garcia said. “There are individuals released back into our communities arrested with loaded handguns or selling large quantities of meth. If federal agents can help us take these criminals off the street, we’re going to use that tool.”

The new strategy centers on four specific crimes: armed robberies, armed carjackings, felons arrested for possessing handguns, and drug trafficking.

Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen, whose office normally prosecutes these cases, is on board with the new tactic and notes his team already huddles with federal prosecutors over where cases should be tried.

“We view gun crimes very seriously. With felons who possess loaded guns, I consider that a violent crime because of the potential for serious harm,” Rosen said. “If we don’t think we’ll get an appropriate sentence in state court, we’ll seek an appropriate sentence in federal court.”

While they have previously voiced concerns about a host of criminal-justice reforms over the past decade that reduced state incarceration — to fulfill a U.S. Supreme Court order — Garcia and Rosen specifically mentioned Proposition 57, an initiative California voters approved in 2016 that gives nonviolent offenders a chance at early parole and more opportunities for early release if they successfully complete rehabilitation programs.

Advocates of Prop. 57 and related policies, who assert they are bringing equity to a criminal-justice system that historically has been unfairly punitive to minorities and poor people, see the move toward increased federal prosecution as a defiant act.

“California has rejected a failed model of mass incarceration, which has disproportionately impacted communities of color,” Santa Clara County Assistant Public Defender Damon Silver said in a statement. “We hope the public and the counties’ will to reform our justice system isn’t hijacked by our federal government.”

Mayor Sam Liccardo, a former federal prosecutor, echoed Rosen’s contention that the SJPD practice is simply using an already available path in response to changing circumstances.

“There’s nothing new under the sun here,” Liccardo said. “What’s changed is that we’ve seen a rollback of state law protections that have created unintended consequences.”

Robert Weisberg, law professor and co-director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, said the conflict has been recurring since the California Legislature passed the Public Safety Realignment Act, which shifted incarceration for certain nonviolent convictions from state prison to county jails, often for reduced custody time followed by probation supervision.

“I understand that DA’s are frustrated by overly lenient classification of gun crimes,” Weisberg said. “This has been a problem with (Proposition) 57 and goes back to realignment. Voters draw this line between violent and nonviolent. The distinctions will strike many as arbitrary, because they’re not intuitive.”

The office of Gov. Jerry Brown, who heavily advocated and promoted Prop. 57, declined to comment on the San Jose policy.

Garcia referenced a handful of cases — taking care not to identify specific offenders — as examples of gray areas his department has encountered. That includes a man convicted of hiding and then selling a gun used in a gang shooting in 2010, who later left a loaded handgun in a car he abandoned during a traffic stop. He served four years of a 15-year sentence in part because he did not fire the gun. The chief also mentioned a similar case in 2012 where a man convicted of distributing cocaine and carrying a gun served two years of a 12-year prison sentence.

“We’re looking for those really violent actors who are going to be such a problem in the community,” said John Bennett, special agent in charge for the FBI San Francisco division. “We want to be very surgical with this. This is not for your average offender on the street.”

Federal sentencing for the kinds of crimes addressed in the new San Jose policy is considerably stiffer. According to the federal criminal code, “carrying a firearm during and in relation to, or possessing a firearm in furtherance of, a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime” carries a minimum sentence of five years in prison, with increases for brandishing or firing the weapon, and harsher penalties based on the type of gun that rise as high as 30 years. Repeat offenses can carry a 25-year mandatory minimum sentence.

“When people realize that the FBI is now involved in the case, and we’re bringing federal charges, there are people who cannot wait to get on the first deal,” he said. “It scares the hell out of the bad guys, and we’re happy to be their boogeyman.”

Raj Jayadev, director of the civil-rights group Silicon Valley De-Bug, said he also sees that as a deterrent — from justice.

“Because the sentencing exposure is so dramatic,” Jayadev said, “it increases the likelihood of things like false convictions and people taking pleas to avoid the risk of longer mandatory minimums.”

Weisberg noted there is no guarantee for how many cases are accepted by federal prosecutors, given their own caseloads and a higher threshold for prosecution. The new San Jose practice ironically comes as Congress is on the verge of passing a bill that would lessen federal mandatory minimums.

Aaron Resendez, a longtime resident near Poco Way, in one of the most crime-ridden areas in San Jose, said he is in favor of any policy that might break up the revolving door of criminals coming back after jail and prison stints.

“Many of these people get out of jail, come back to the neighborhood, do bad, then go again to jail,” Resendez said. “And the members of the community are protecting these people from police because they are afraid of retaliation.”

Garcia knew he was wading into controversy by turning more to the feds to prosecute these kinds of gun crimes, and is ready for any blowback.

“I’m not trying to build stronger relationships with the armed methamphetamine dealer. I’m not interested in what the prior violent felon in possession of a handgun thinks of our efforts,” Garcia said. “They will be treated fairly, but they will be caught. I’m interested in building strong relationships with the members of our community, who live in areas impacted by violence. They deserve better.”