BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1320
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 14, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Bonnie Lowenthal, Chair
SB 1320 (Hancock) - As Amended: June 10, 2010
SENATE VOTE : 23-11
SUBJECT : Administrative adjudication of transit violations:
local transit agencies.
SUMMARY : Provides authority to specified local transit agencies
allowing them to administratively adjudicate transit violations.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Extends existing law relative to the adjudication of transit
violations to the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC
Transit), Foothill Transit (Foothill), Sacramento Regional
Transit District (SRTD), and the Santa Clara Valley Transit
Authority (VTA). Currently, existing law only allows the City
and County of San Francisco (SF) and the Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LAMTA) to adopt an
administrative adjudication process for transit-related
violations committed by non-minors.
2)Prohibits SF, LAMTA, AC Transit, Foothill, SRTD, and VTA from
establishing administrative penalties that exceed the maximum
criminal fines set forth in current law.
3)Requires fare evasion and passenger misconduct violation
penalties to be deposited in the general fund of the county in
which the citation is administered.
4)Prohibits a person who receives a notice of fare evasion or
passenger conduct violation from also being cited for a
violation of Section 640 of the Penal Code.
5)Requires the issuing agency, following a review of a citation
requested by alleged violator which does not result in
cancellation of the notice, to provide the alleged violator a
reason for that denial, notification of the ability to request
an administrative hearing, and notice of the procedure for
waiving prepayment of the penalty based upon the ability to
pay.
SB 1320
Page 2
EXISTING LAW :
1)Makes it a criminal infraction, punishable by a fine not to
exceed $250 and by specified community service, for a person
to engage in any of the following activities in a transit
vehicle or facility:
a) Fare evasion;
b) Misuse of a transfer, pass, ticket, or token with the
intent to evade the payment of a fare;
c) Playing sound equipment;
d) Smoking, eating, or drinking where those activities are
prohibited by the transit provider;
e) Expectorating;
f) Willfully disturbing others by engaging in boisterous or
unruly behavior;
g) Carrying an explosive or acid, flammable liquid, or
toxic or hazardous material;
h) Urinating or defecating except in a lavatory;
i) Willfully blocking the free movement of another person
unless permitted by first amendment rights;
j) Skateboarding, roller skating, bicycle riding, or
rollerblading except as necessary for utilization of the
transit facility by a bicyclist; and,
aa) Unauthorized use of a discount ticket or failure to
present acceptable proof of eligibility to use a discount
ticket.
2)Provides for the enforcement and criminal prosecution of
certain standing and parking offenses by the issuing local
agency.
3)Provides that the legislative body of a local agency may, by
ordinance, make any violation of any ordinance enacted by the
local agency subject to an administrative fine or penalty and
sets up a procedure for an administrative procedure including
SB 1320
Page 3
review of an order.
4)Allows for an alternative, non-judicial civil infraction
process in San Francisco and Los Angeles counties.
Accordingly, authorizes SF and LAMTA to adopt and impose an
administrative penalty and adjudication process for the above
violations (under Section #1) committed by non-minors.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown.
COMMENTS : This bill would authorize AC Transit, Foothill, SRTD,
and VTA to adopt and enforce a local administrative adjudication
ordinance that, according to the author, would "decriminalize"
transit fare evasion and other minor transit infractions.
Further, this change would extend provisions of existing law to
these four entities "that already allows the City and County of
San Francisco and LAMTA to adjudicate any or all of the
specified violations through administrative review, freeing up
court dockets to handle more serious offenses."
Administrative adjudication of transit penalties : This bill
would allow for specific offenses occurring on or in a facility
or vehicle owned by any of the four specified public
transportation systems (AC Transit, Foothill, SRTD, and VTA) to
be dealt with via administrative penalties rather than as
infractions as current law dictates. This change from
infraction to administrative penalty is not automatic under this
bill. Instead, this bill merely authorizes these four transit
agencies to pass an ordinance that would allow for the change
from infraction to administrative penalty for the specified
offenses. However, the ordinance and the administrative
procedure would not apply to juveniles - juvenile cases will
continue to be handled by the juvenile court system under the
provisions of this bill.
The specific offenses this bill encompasses include a long list
of predominantly innocuous behaviors. The offenses that could
be enforced administratively if they occur on or in a facility
of a vehicle owned by the public transportation system are
listed above (under the "Existing Law" section #1).
Regarding the costs to administer this alternative, non-court
enforcement procedure, this bill directs that all of the
revenues from administrative penalties be deposited into the
county general fund that is processing or adjudicating the
SB 1320
Page 4
violation through the civil, non-criminal proceedings. Further,
it is expected that the costs associated with the adjudication
process will likely equal or exceed any penalty revenues. Any
funds to be directed back to the transit district would require
an agreement between the transit district and appropriate
county.
Change of venue : This bill effectively moves adjudication of
transit violations that occur within the AC Transit, Foothill,
SRTD, and VTA transit systems 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 any defendant will see
much of a difference via this alternative adjudication 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. The four transit
agencies specified by this bill, 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 the officers to spend much less time in
court and much more time on patrol.
Hearing process : This bill establishes an administrative
hearing process to be followed by the four transit agencies for
persons challenging a citation for a fare evasion or other
transit related violation, similar to that established
previously for SF and LAMTA.
Cap limit on administrative penalties : Current law allows SF
and LAMTA to establish the amount of the administrative penalty
associated with a violation of the listed prohibitions. This
bill would impose a cap on administrative penalties that the six
transit districts affected by this bill could levy that equals
the maximum base fine allowed under the Penal Code.
Double jeopardy : This bill clarifies that officers may issue a
criminal citation under current law or issue a civil citation
under the provisions of this bill for fare evasion or passenger
misconduct, but not both. This ensures that a violator cannot
receive both a criminal and civil citation for the same offense.
SB 1320
Page 5
Support : In support of this bill and as its sponsor, AC Transit
contends that the bill enables it "to establish an enforcement
system that enhances public safety and reflects how transit
systems are evolving to a prepaid fare system. Riders that
board AC Transit buses use cash, prepaid monthly passes or
Translink cards. Riders can use Translink cards to board AC
Transit, BART and San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency
and the use of the cards will eventually be expanded to include
all Bay Area transit operators. Riders boarding AC Transit
buses at the temporary Transbay Terminal in San Francisco will
be required to use prepaid fares. AC Transit also plans to
require prepaid fares on planned bus rapid transit lines. This
situation raises the potential for abuse by those who evade
paying a fare. Under current law, AC Transit is not authorized
to enforce a fare evasion ordinance. SB 1320 would add AC
Transit to existing provisions that authorize LAMTA and SF to
enforce a fare evasion ordinance."
Suggested committee amendment : Subsequent to this bill's
introduction, several transit districts requested to be included
in the bill's authorization for establishing an alternative
enforcement procedure for transit violations. Consequently, the
bill has been amended to accommodate the request for inclusion
by those districts. Accordingly, in anticipation of requests by
other transit districts to be allowed to use this alternative
enforcement process, the committee suggests that the provisions
and scope of the bill be expanded to apply to any transit
district operating within the state.
Related bills : AB 2324 (J. Perez) of 2010, would create new
misdemeanors and recasts fines and punishments for crimes
committed in a public transit facility. That bill passed the
Assembly by unanimous vote and is awaiting hearing in the Senate
Public Safety Committee.
SB 1749 (Migden, Chapter 258, Statutes of 2006) allows for an
alternative civil infraction process in San Francisco and Los
Angeles counties.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
SB 1320
Page 6
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (sponsor)
California Transit Association
Foothill Transit
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Ed Imai / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093