BILL ANALYSIS SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMI TTEE BILL NO: SB 1320 SENATOR ALAN LOWENTHAL, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: Hancock VERSION: 2/19/10 Analysis by: Mark Stivers FISCAL: No Hearing date: April 20, 2010 SUBJECT: Administrative adjudication of transit violations: Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District DESCRIPTION: This bill allows the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District to adopt an adjudication process and impose an administrative penalty for transit-related offenses committed by non-minors. ANALYSIS: Existing law makes it a criminal infraction for a person to engage in any of the following activities in a transit vehicle or facility: Fare evasion. Misuse of a transfer, pass, ticket, or token with the intent to evade the payment of a fare. Playing sound equipment. Smoking, eating, or drinking where those activities are prohibited by the transit provider. Expectorating. Willfully disturbing others by engaging in boisterous or unruly behavior. Carrying an explosive or acid, flammable liquid, or toxic or hazardous material. Urinating or defecating except in a lavatory. Willfully blocking the free movement of another person unless permitted by first amendment rights. Skateboarding, roller skating, bicycle riding, or rollerblading except as necessary for utilization of the SB 1320 (HANCOCK) Page 2 transit facility by a bicyclist. Unauthorized use of a discount ticket or failure to present acceptable proof of eligibility to use a discount ticket. The standard process for enforcing these criminal infractions is for the transit officer citing the offense to give the alleged violator a citation with a court date, which the alleged violator signs promising to appear. The court later sends a notice to the alleged violator, reminding him or her of the court date, listing the bail amount, and stating that he or she must appear unless the bail is paid. On the day the case is set for a hearing in court, the defendant enters a plea. If the plea is "guilty" or "no contest," the judge or magistrate fixes the penalty amount. If the plea is "not guilty," the court generally assigns a later trial date. At the trial, the officer is subpoenaed and must appear. In some counties, the defendant may enter a plea with the court clerk or even online, instead of in court. In some counties, the plea hearing and trial may be held at the same time. State law provides that these criminal offenses are punishable by a maximum base fine not to exceed $250 (which becomes $950 when mandatory assessments are added on) and 48 hours of community service. The judges in each county, however, set the bail schedule annually. In Los Angeles County, the actual base fines range from $25 for a first offense to $100 for repeated offenses for most violations and from $100 to $250 for defecating/urinating and carrying explosives. Once collected, the base fine monies are distributed between both state and local governments on a roughly 50/50 basis. The assessments flow to various state and local entities for things such as court construction, emergency medical services, peace and corrections officer training, victim-witness assistance, victim restitution, and traumatic brain injury services. A 20% assessment goes directly to the state's General Fund. Since the enactment of SB 1749 (Migden), Chapter 258, Statutes of 2006, state law also allows for an alternative civil infraction process in San Francisco and Los Angeles Counties. Under these provisions, the City and County of San Francisco (the overseer of the city's transit system) and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LAMTA) may adopt and impose an administrative penalty and adjudication process for these same violations committed by non-minors. Similar to the process for issuing and enforcing parking tickets, the issuing officer serves the alleged violator with a "notice of SB 1320 (HANCOCK) Page 3 fare evasion or passenger misconduct violation," which includes the date, time, location, and nature of the violation, the administrative penalty amount, the date by which the penalty must be paid, and the process for contesting the citation. If the alleged violator contests the citation, then the issuing agency or its contracted processing agency must provide an initial review. If the citation is not dismissed after the initial review, then the issuing agency or its contracted processing agency must provide an impartial administrative hearing at which the citing officer is not required to appear. If the alleged violator is unsatisfied with the results of the administrative hearing, then he or she may still file an appeal in Superior Court, which hears the case de novo. All penalties collected are deposited in the General Fund for Los Angeles or San Francisco County, as applicable. To date, only San Francisco has implemented civil infractions for transit offenses. San Francisco has set the fines for fare evasion and other passenger misconduct offenses at $75 for a first offense, $250 for a second offense within one year, and $500 for a third offense within one year. This bill allows the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) to adopt and impose an administrative penalty and adjudication process for these same transit-related offenses committed by non-minors. The bill requires AC Transit to follow the same procedures that apply to San Francisco and LAMTA, except that the penalties shall be deposited in the General Fund of AC Transit itself, as opposed to the respective county. COMMENTS: 1.Purpose of the bill . AC Transit historically has relied on passengers paying at the farebox when boarding a bus. With the need for more efficient operations when the smaller, temporary replacement for the Trans-Bay Terminal in San Francisco opens in 2015, those AC Transit riders who board trans-bay buses will be asked to pre-pay tickets and board on the honor system. In addition, AC Transit is planning the development of rapid-bus lines within Alameda County that will likewise rely on the honor system for fare payment. As a result, AC Transit expects citations for fare evasion to increase. According to AC Transit, allowing the district to adjudicate any or all of the specified violations through administrative review will free up court dockets to handle more serious offenses and is consistent with the trend to SB 1320 (HANCOCK) Page 4 "decriminalize" minor traffic and parking offenses. Moreover, an administrative process will offer fare evaders and other violators a less confrontational setting while still affording them the right to a full hearing. AC Transit believes that an administrative process will enhance public safety, increase the payment of transit fares, and improve compliance with conduct rules by transit riders. 2.Change of venue . This bill effectively moves adjudication of transit violations that occur within the AC Transit system from court to an administrative venue, similar to the process used by cities and counties to adjudicate parking tickets. Given that the courts generally hear transit violations in an informal traffic court before a magistrate and that defendants may simply pay bail in lieu of appearing in court, it is unlikely that the defendant will see much of a difference in the process. At best, the defendant will be spared a trial date that is different from the plea hearing date and will have the whole matter resolved more quickly. For those who fail to address their tickets, however, they will no longer be subject to a bench warrant, arrest, and possible jail time. AC Transit, on the other hand, may benefit substantially by the fact that the administrative process does not require the citing officer to appear, whereas a court trial does. This will allow AC Transit officers to spend much less time in court and much more time on patrol. 3.The experiences in San Francisco and Los Angeles . San Francisco is the only jurisdiction to date to adopt civil citations for transit infractions, and its representative reports that transit officers there issued 3600 transit-related citations in 2009. LAMTA has studied the feasibility and financial assumptions of an administrative adjudication system, is still considering it, but has yet to adopt one. One of the agency's key objectives for such a system would be to have access to adequate information on the status of individual citations and the penalties assessed. Currently, LAMTA is unable to obtain this information from the county courts. Staff contacted the Bus Riders Union in Los Angeles and the San Francisco Organizing Project, two consumer-oriented membership organizations active on transit issues, to inquire about rider complaints or concerns with the actual or prospective administrative enforcement programs in those two SB 1320 (HANCOCK) Page 5 jurisdictions. Though, neither organization was particularly familiar with the program, neither had any concerns or complaints to share. 4.Doesn't apply to minors . As with the laws that allow San Francisco and LAMTA to establish administrative adjudication processes for transit violations, this bill does not apply to minors. The juvenile court system will continue to handle minor violators. 5.Creates a bounty situation . By allowing AC Transit to keep all of the revenues from administrative penalties, this bill creates an incentive for the district to increase enforcement efforts in order to maximize revenues. For exactly this reason, SB 1749 (Migden) of 2006, which gave San Francisco and LAMTA the authority to enforce transit violations administratively, was amended to direct all penalty revenues to the respective county general fund, not the transit district directly, though in the case of San Francisco, the transit district is essentially a department of the county. AC Transit's representative states that the district does not expect to make money from this bill. The costs associated with the adjudication process will likely equal or exceed any penalty revenues. Nonetheless, the committee may wish to consider whether it is appropriate to allow the enforcement agency to keep penalty revenues. Like LAMTA expects to do, AC Transit could always enter into an agreement with its counties to pass-through some or all of the penalty revenues to cover the costs of the administrative adjudication process. 6.No caps on fines . Current law allows San Francisco and LAMTA to establish the amount of the administrative penalty associated with a violation of the listed prohibitions, and this bill would provide identical authority to AC Transit. It is possible or even likely that the civil penalties established by these three entities are or will be less than the total fines (including assessments) associated with a criminal violation, however, the law does not establish any cap on the amount of these penalties. The committee may want to consider imposing a cap on administrative penalties that equals the maximum base fine allowed under the Penal Code. 7.No double jeopardy . Staff at LAMTA states that it would be helpful to clarify that, where a transit agency has adopted an administrative adjudication system, peace officers and transit SB 1320 (HANCOCK) Page 6 officers may continue to issue a criminal citation or may issue the new civil citation but not both. Flexibility is important because non-financial penalties are the only effective deterrents for some offenders. Adding such language would also ensure that a violator cannot receive both a criminal and civil citation for the same offense. The committee may wish to consider making this clarification. 8.Diversion of revenues from the state and other entities . Criminal violations handled by the courts result in the payment of fines and assessments that benefit many different entities. Base fine monies are distributed to both state and local governments on a roughly 50/50 basis. The assessments, which amount to many times the base fine, ultimately flow to various state and local entities for things such as court construction, emergency medical services, peace and corrections officer training, victim-witness assistance, victim restitution, traumatic brain injury services, and the state's General Fund. Under this bill, these entities no longer would receive funding for transit violations in AC Transit's service area. The losses to the state and to county courts would be offset, and possibly exceeded, however, by the savings in court workload and hearings. In essence, AC Transit would accept the lion's share of the adjudication costs, but it (or the counties if the bill is amended in accordance with comment #5) would also receive all of the revenue. Legislative Counsel has keyed this bill non-fiscal, but clearly there are significant fiscal impacts to the state, counties, and other entities. The committee may wish to consider referring this bill to the Appropriations Committee for a review of these impacts. 9.Technical amendment . The bill should also amend Public Utilities Code Section 99581 to require that the processing agency inform an alleged violator simultaneously with the results of the initial review of the procedure for waiving prepayment of the penalty based upon an inability to pay. POSITIONS: (Communicated to the Committee before noon on Wednesday, April 14, 2010) SUPPORT: AC Transit (sponsor) California Transit Association OPPOSED: None received. SB 1320 (HANCOCK) Page 7