BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1885|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1885
Author: Hill (D)
Amended: 6/29/10 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 5-2, 6/22/10
AYES: Leno, Cedillo, Hancock, Steinberg, Wright
NOES: Cogdill, Huff
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 53-15, 4/29/10 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Airport limousines: regulation
SOURCE : San Francisco International Airport
DIGEST : This bill allows an airport, such as San
Francisco International Airport, that is not located in the
county where the owning entity is located, to enforce state
laws requiring limousine operators to transport passengers
only through prior arrangement and to obtain consent to
operate at the airport.
ANALYSIS : Existing law provides that every person who
enters or remains on airport property owned by a city,
county, or city and county but located in another county,
and sells, peddles, or offers for sale any goods or
services to the public, including transportation, other
than charter limousines licensed by the Public Utilities
CONTINUED
AB 1885
Page
2
Commission (PUC), on or from the airport property, without
express written consent of the airport governing board, is
guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a
county jail for up to six months, a fine of up to $1,000,
or both. The local governing entity may regulate sale or
offering for sale of any goods or services. (Pen. Code
602.4.)
Existing law prohibits the governing body of any airport
from imposing vehicle safety, vehicle licensing, or
insurance requirements on charter-party carriers operating
limousines that are more burdensome than those imposed by
the PUC. However, the governing board of any airport may
require a charter-party carrier operating limousines to
obtain an airport permit for operating authority at the
airport. A city, county, or city and county may impose
reasonable rules for the inspection of waybills of
charter-party carriers of passengers operating within the
jurisdiction of the city, county, or city and county, for
purposes of verifying valid prearranged travel. (Pub.
Util. Code 5371.4, subds. (b) and (h).)
Existing law defines "limousine" as any sedan or sport
utility vehicle, of either standard or extended length,
with a seating capacity of not more than 10 passengers
including the driver, used in the transportation of
passengers for hire on a prearranged basis within
California. (Pub. Util. Code 5371.4, subd. (i).)
Existing law provides, as specified, that every
charter-party carrier and every officer, director, agent,
or employee of any charter-party carrier who violates or
who fails to comply with any order, decision or requirement
of the PUC or of any operating permit or certificate issued
to any charter-party carrier, or who procures, aids, or
abets any charter-party carrier in its failure to obey,
observe, or comply with any such order, decision, rule,
requirement, or operating permit or certificate, is guilty
of a misdemeanor and is punishable by a fine of not less
than $1,000 and not more than $5,000 or by imprisonment in
the county jail for not more than three months, or both.
Persons arrested for operating a charter-party carrier
without a valid certificate or permit at a public airport
or within 100 feet of a public airport may have their
CONTINUED
AB 1885
Page
3
vehicle impounded. (Pub. Util. Code 5411 and 5411.5.)
Existing law provides that the court shall, when sentencing
a defendant for a conviction of operating a charter-party
carrier without a valid certificate or permit, impose a
mandatory fine not exceeding $10,000 for a first
conviction, or $25,000 for a subsequent conviction. The
fine shall be conditioned on the defendant's ability to pay
and shall be imposed in addition to any other penalty.
(Pub. Util. Code 5412.2, subd. (b).)
Existing law provides that whenever the PUC, after hearing,
finds that any person or corporation that is operating as a
charter-party carrier, including a charter-party carrier
operating a limousine, without a valid certificate or
permit, or fails to include in any public advertisement the
number or permit or required identifying symbol, the PUC
may impose a fine of not more than $7,500 for each
violation. The PUC may assess the person or the
corporation in an amount sufficient to cover the reasonable
expense of investigation incurred by the PUC. The PUC may
assess interest on any fine or assessment imposed, to
commence on the day the payment of the fine or assessment
becomes delinquent. All fines, assessments, and interest
collected shall be deposited a least once a month in the
General Fund. (Pub. Util. Code 5413.5.)
This bill removes the exception in the offense for charter
limousines licensed by the Public Utilities Commission.
The bill instead provides that if a charter-party carrier
licensed by the Public Utilities Commission operates at an
airport on a prearranged basis, as specified, that
operation would not constitute the sale, peddling, or
offering of goods, merchandise, property, or services, for
purposes of those existing law provisions.
Background
The author has provided this additional background
information:
Due to a 1973 exemption, officers of the San Francisco
Police Department (SFPD) do not have enforce laws
prohibiting unauthorized limousine drivers from
CONTINUED
AB 1885
Page
4
illegally soliciting business on the grounds of San
Francisco International Airport (SFO). SFO is owned
and operated by the City and County of San Francisco.
San Francisco Police officers patrol SFO. However,
the airport is located in San Mateo County.
Consequently, San Francisco Police officers at the
airport cannot arrest the drivers or impound their
vehicles based on San Francisco police powers because
those powers do not extend to San Mateo County, the
location of SFO.
This bill would allow SFO and San Francisco Police to
use Penal Code Section 602.4, which provides the
police with legal authority to arrest any person who
comes onto airport property and sells or offers to
sell goods and services to members of the public in
violation of the rules and regulations or the airport
governing board. Unfortunately, however, while
Section 602.4 applies generally to transportation
services, charter limousines are specifically exempt
from this provision. Therefore, SFPD cannot protect
the public at SFO from pirate limousine owners and
drivers by arresting such drivers and impounding their
vehicles.
Illegal soliciting by limousine drivers is a
long-standing problem at SFO. I was recently offered
a ride by an unauthorized limo driver at SFO. I have
experience with this and know this type of illegal
soliciting is happening and can be dangerous to those
passengers that get roped in by these rogue limo
drivers.
Because the restriction in Section 602.4 only applies
to SFO and Ontario Airport, other airports do not have
a comparable problem with illegal limousine operators.
AB 1885 provides law enforcement the necessary tools
to reduce the prevalence of limousine drivers that
illegally solicit business at SFO. Unauthorized
limousine drivers not only take away business from
legitimate drivers, they endanger passengers because
they do not have to undergo criminal background checks
and their vehicles are not inspected by the
appropriate authorities.
CONTINUED
AB 1885
Page
5
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/3/10)
San Francisco International Airport (source)
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office:
I was recently offered a ride by an unauthorized limo
driver at San Francisco International (SFO) Airport.
I have experience with this and know this type of
illegal soliciting is happening and can be dangerous
to those passengers that get roped in by these rogue
limo drivers.
AB 1885 provides law enforcement the necessary tools
to reduce the prevalence of unauthorized limousine
drivers that are illegally soliciting business at San
Francisco International Airport. Due to a 1973
exemption, SFO police officers do not have adequate
enforcement authority to monitor unauthorized
limousine drivers. AB 1885 would change the Penal
Code to give them this much needed authority.
Unauthorized limousine drivers not only take away
business from legitimate drivers, they endanger
passengers because they do not have to undergo
criminal background checks and their vehicles are not
inspected by the appropriate authorities.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Adams, Ammiano, Arambula, Beall, Tom Berryhill,
Block, Blumenfield, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Carter,
Chesbro, Cook, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, Eng,
Evans, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani,
Galgiani, Hagman, Hall, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill, Huber,
Huffman, Lieu, Ma, Mendoza, Miller, Monning, Nava,
Nestande, V. Manuel Perez, Portantino, Ruskin, Salas,
Saldana, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Swanson, Torlakson,
Torres, Tran, Yamada, John A. Perez
NOES: Anderson, Blakeslee, Conway, DeVore, Fuller, Gaines,
CONTINUED
AB 1885
Page
6
Gilmore, Harkey, Knight, Logue, Niello, Nielsen, Norby,
Silva, Audra Strickland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bass, Bill Berryhill, Caballero, Charles
Calderon, Emmerson, Garrick, Jeffries, Jones, Bonnie
Lowenthal, Torrico, Villines, Vacancy
RJG:nl 8/4/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED