BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair A
2009-2010 Regular Session B
9
5
1
AB 951 (Lieu)
As Amended April 21, 2009
Hearing date: July 7, 2009
Public Utilities Code
MK:mc
CHARTER-PARTY CARRIERS
HISTORY
Source: California Bus Association
Prior Legislation: None
Support: Unknown
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 75- Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE CRIMINAL AND CIVIL FINES FOR A NUMBER OF SPECIFIED
VIOLATIONS OF LAWS PERTAINING TO THE REGULATION OF CHARTER-PARTY
CARRIERS BE INCREASED?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to increase the fines for specified
(More)
AB 951 (Lieu)
PageB
misdemeanors and civil sanctions for violations of law
pertaining to charter-party carriers.
Existing law provides that every charter-party carrier of
passengers and every officer, director, agent or employee of any
charger-party carrier of passengers who violates or fails to
comply with, or who procures, aids or abets any violation by any
charter-party carrier of passengers of any provision of this
chapter, or who fails to obey, observe, or comply with any
order, decision, rule, regulation, direction, demand or
requirement of the California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC), or of any operating permit or certificate issued to any
charter-party carrier of passengers, or who procures, aids, or
abets any charter-party carrier of passengers in its failure to
obey, observe, or comply with any such order, decision, rule,
regulation, direction, demand, requirement, or operating permit
or certificate is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine
of not more than $1,000, plus penalty assessments, and/or by
imprisonment in the county jail for not more than three months.
(Public Utilities Code 5411.)
This bill provides instead that the fine for the above
violations should be not less than $1,000 nor more than $5,000.
Existing law provides that every charter-party carrier of
passengers, and every officer, director, agent, or employee of a
charter-party carrier of passengers, who displays on any vehicle
any identifying symbol other than one prescribed by the CPUC, or
who fails to remove an identifying symbol when required by the
commission, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of
not more than $1,000 and/or by imprisonment in the county jail
for not more than one year. (Public Utilities Code 5411.3.)
This bill increases the maximum fine for the above to $2,500.
Existing law provides that every corporation or person other
than a charter-party carrier of passengers, who knowingly and
willfully, either individually, or acting as an officer, agent
or employee of a corporation, copartnership, or any other person
(More)
AB 951 (Lieu)
PageC
other than a charter-party carrier of passengers, violates any
provision of this chapter or fails to observe, obey, or comply
with any order, decision, rule, regulation, direction, demand or
requirement of the CPUC, or who procures, aids, or abets any
charter-party carrier of passengers in its violation of this
chapter, or in its failure to obey, observe, or comply with any
such order, decision, rule, regulation, direction, demand, or
requirement, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and is punishable by a
fine of not more than $1,000 and/or by imprisonment in the
county jail for not more than three months or both. (Public
Utilities Code 5412.)
This bill increases the maximum fine for the above to $2,000.
Existing law provides when a person is convicted of the offense
of operating a charter-party carrier of passengers or a taxicab
without a valid certificate or permit, in addition to any other
penalties provided by law, if the court determines the operator
has the ability to pay, the court shall impose a mandatory fine
not exceeding two $2,500 for a first conviction or $5,000 for a
subsequent conviction. (Public Utilities Code 5412.2.)
This bill leaves the penalty for operating a taxicab without a
license the same but provides that when a person is convicted of
the offense of operating a charter-party carrier of passengers
without a valid certificate or permit, in addition to any other
penalties provided by law, if the court determines the operator
has the ability to pay, the court shall impose a mandatory fine
not exceeding $10,000 for a first conviction or $25,000 for a
subsequent conviction.
Existing law provides that the CPUC may cancel, revoke or
suspend an operating permit for a charter-party carrier for
specified reasons or in the alternative levy a civil fine up to
$5,000. (Public Utilities Code 5378.)
This bill increases the civil fine that may be levied to $7,500.
Existing law provides that upon recommendations for the CHP that
a certificate or permit for a charter-party carrier be suspended
(More)
AB 951 (Lieu)
PageD
for specified purposes, the CPUC shall suspend the carrier's
certificate or permit pending a hearing. A carrier whose
certificate or permit is suspended may obtain a reinspection of
its terminal and vehicle by submitting a written request for
reinstatement to the commission and paying a reinstatement fee
of $100. (Public Utilities Code 5378.5.)
This bill provides that the fee for reinstatement is $1,000.
Existing law provides that after a hearing if the CPUC finds
that a charter-party carrier has continued to operate as such a
carrier after its certificate or permit has been suspended, the
CPUC shall revoke the operating certificate or permit of the
carrier and impose upon the holder of the certificate or permit
a civil penalty of not less than $1,000 nor more than $5,000.
(Public Utilities Code 5378.58(e).)
This bill increases the fine to not less than $1,500 nor more
than $7,500.
Existing law provides that whenever the CPUC finds after a
hearing that any person or corporation is operating as a
charter-party carrier of passengers, including a charter-party
carrier operating a limousine without a valid permit or fails to
include in any written or oral advertisement of the number of
the certificate or permit is required, the CPUC may impose a
fine of not more than $5,000. (Public Utilities Code 5413.5
(a).)
This bill increases the above fine to not more than $7,500.
Existing law provides that every corporation or person other
than a charter-party carrier of passengers who knowingly and
willfully, either individually, or acting as an officer, agent,
or employee of a corporation, copartnership, or any other person
other than a charter-party carrier of passengers violates any
provision of this chapter or fails to observe, obey or comply
with any order, decision, rule, regulation, direction, demand,
or requirement of the commission, or who procures, aids, or
abets any charter-party carrier of passengers in its violation
(More)
AB 951 (Lieu)
PageE
of this chapter, or in its failure to obey, observe, or comply
with any such order, decision rule, regulation, direction,
demand or requirement is subject to a penalty for not more than
$1,000 for each offense. (Public Utilities Code 5414.)
This bil l provides that the fine for the above is not more than
$2,000 for each offense.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
California continues to face a severe prison overcrowding
crisis. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)
currently has about 170,000 inmates under its jurisdiction. Due
to a lack of traditional housing space available, the department
houses roughly 15,000 inmates in gyms and dayrooms.
California's prison population has increased by 125% (an average
of 4% annually) over the past 20 years, growing from 76,000
inmates to 171,000 inmates, far outpacing the state's population
growth rate for the age cohort with the highest risk of
incarceration.<1>
In December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against
CDCR sought a court-ordered limit on the prison population
pursuant to the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On
February 9, 2009, the three-judge federal court panel issued a
tentative ruling that included the following conclusions with
respect to overcrowding:
No party contests that California's prisons are
overcrowded, however measured, and whether considered
in comparison to prisons in other states or jails
within this state. There are simply too many
----------------------
<1> "Between 1987 and 2007, California's population of ages 15
through 44 - the age cohort with the highest risk for
incarceration - grew by an average of less than 1% annually,
which is a pace much slower than the growth in prison
admissions." (2009-2010 Budget Analysis Series, Judicial and
Criminal Justice, Legislative Analyst's Office (January 30,
2009).)
(More)
AB 951 (Lieu)
PageF
prisoners for the existing capacity. The Governor,
the principal defendant, declared a state of emergency
in 2006 because of the "severe overcrowding" in
California's prisons, which has caused "substantial
risk to the health and safety of the men and women who
work inside these prisons and the inmates housed in
them." . . . A state appellate court upheld the
Governor's proclamation, holding that the evidence
supported the existence of conditions of "extreme
peril to the safety of persons and property."
(citation omitted) The Governor's declaration of the
state of emergency remains in effect to this day.
. . . the evidence is compelling that there is no
relief other than a prisoner release order that will
remedy the unconstitutional prison conditions.
. . .
Although the evidence may be less than perfectly
clear, it appears to the Court that in order to
alleviate the constitutional violations California's
inmate population must be reduced to at most 120% to
145% of design capacity, with some institutions or
clinical programs at or below 100%. We caution the
parties, however, that these are not firm figures and
that the Court reserves the right - until its final
ruling - to determine that a higher or lower figure is
appropriate in general or in particular types of
facilities.
. . .
Under the PLRA, any prisoner release order that we
issue will be narrowly drawn, extend no further than
necessary to correct the violation of constitutional
rights, and be the least intrusive means necessary to
correct the violation of those rights. For this
reason, it is our present intention to adopt an order
requiring the State to develop a plan to reduce the
(More)
AB 951 (Lieu)
PageG
prison population to 120% or 145% of the prison's
design capacity (or somewhere in between) within a
period of two or three years.<2>
The final outcome of the panel's tentative decision, as well as
any appeal that may be in response to the panel's final
decision, is unknown at the time of this writing.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis outlined above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
Under current law, the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) regulates charter carriers in
California. The CPUC has the authority to impose
certain fines and penalties to charter carrier companies
that are in violation of certain safety protocols.
Violations can include, but are not limited to,
mechanical problems with the charter carrier, lack of
insurance, operating the company without a license, and
allowing an unlicensed driver operate a charter carrier.
It is the opinion of the California Bus Association and
Assemblymember Ted Lieu that the fines outlined in state
law are too low to serve as a deterrent for bad actors
that would rather compromise the safety of its
passengers to make a profit. Fines regarding charter
carriers can range from as low as $125 to $5000 for
-----------------------
<2> Three Judge Court Tentative Ruling, Coleman v.
Schwarzenegger, Plata v. Schwarzenegger, in the United States
District Courts for the Eastern District of California and the
Northern District of California United States District Court
composed of three judges pursuant to Section 2284, Title 28
United States Code (Feb. 9, 2009).
(More)
AB 951 (Lieu)
PageH
violations that compromise the safety of human beings.
In addition, the majority of these fines have not been
updated for over 20 years.
2. Increases in Misdemeanor Fines for Charter-party Carriers
(More)
This bill increases the misdemeanor fines for violations of laws
regulating charter-party carriers. These misdemeanor fines are
in addition to any civil penalties or licensing sanctions that
also apply.
Under existing law it is a misdemeanor punishable by up to three
months in jail and or a fine of up to $1,000 plus the 270%
penalty assessments - $3,700<3> for a charter-party carrier or
every officer, director, agent, employee, etc., to violate or
fail to comply with, or to procure, aid, or abet any violation
of the Public Utility Code regulating charter-party carriers or
to fail to obey etc. any regulation, rule, etc. This bill would
provide that the minimum criminal fine would be $1,000 ($3,700
with penalty assessments) and the maximum fine $5,000 ($18,500
with penalty assessments).
Under existing law it is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one
year in county jail and or a fine of not more than $1,000
($3,700 with the penalty assessments) for a charter-party
carrier, its officers, employees, etc., to display an
unauthorized identifying symbol. This bill would increase the
maximum fine for this misdemeanor to $2,500 ($9250 with penalty
assessments).
Under existing law it is a misdemeanor punishable by up to three
months in the county jail and/or a fine of not more than $1,000
($3,700 with penalty assessments) for every corporation or
person other than a charter-party carrier to knowingly violate
provisions of the Public Utilities Code or other rules
regulating charter-party carriers. This bill would increase the
fine to up to $2,000 ($7,400 with penalty assessments).
---------------------------
<3> Until the budget year 2002-2003, there was 170% in penalty
assessments applied to every fine, the current penalty
assessments are approximately 270%. (See Penal Code 1464;
Penal Code 1465.7; Penal Code 1465.8 Government Code
70372; Government Code 7600.5 Government Code 76000 et seq;
Government Code 76104.6)
(More)
AB 951 (Lieu)
PageJ
Under existing law it is a misdemeanor punishable by an
additional mandatory fine of $2,500 ($9,250 with penalty
assessments) for a first conviction and $5,000 ($18,500) for a
repeat conviction, to operate a charter-party carrier or taxicab
without a valid certificate or permit. This bill would increase
the penalties for charter-party carriers to $10,000 ($37,000
with penalty assessments) for a first conviction and $25,000
($92,500 with penalty assessments) for a second conviction.
This is an odd existing section because it seems intended to be
an enhancement on a misdemeanor, which does not really happen.
It would be cleaner to just make this provision a separate
misdemeanor for this type of violation.
The sponsor states:
The California Bus Association prides itself on
maintaining its vehicles in safe operating condition.
As an organization, we have grappled for years with the
issue of what to do about the rogue operators who are
consistently breaking the law but persist anyway. AB
951, in conjunction was another penalty bill, AB 636 is
a much needed first step to stop these bad operators and
to help keep the motoring public safe.
Should these increases in the penalties for the offenses in this
bill be made? At what point are fines too excessive for
misdemeanor penalties and offenses that could range from minor
regulation violations to very serious violations? Are minimum
penalties in the $4,000 range, once penalty assessments are
taken into account, appropriate when the range of violations can
be so broad? Are the increases of the fines to almost $40,000
appropriate for operating a charter-party carrier without a
permit?
***************
AB 951 (Lieu)
PageK