BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: AB 426
SENATOR MARK DESAULNIER, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: B.
Lowenthal
VERSION: 5/16/11
Analysis by: Mark Stivers FISCAL: no
Hearing date: June 7, 2011
SUBJECT:
Administrative adjudication of transit violations
DESCRIPTION:
This bill adds the North County Transit District and the
Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink) to the
list of districts with the authority to adopt a civil
administrative adjudication process for specified transit
violations and directs administrative penalty monies for
violations on the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (LACMTA) and Metrolink systems to the transit
districts' general funds.
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 the transit provider
prohibits those activities.
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 roller
blading except as necessary for utilization of the transit
facility by a bicyclist.
AB 426 (B. LOWENTHAL) Page 2
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 most of these criminal offenses are
punishable by a maximum base fine not to exceed $250 and 48
hours of community service. A third or subsequent fare evasion
violation is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $400
and 90 days in jail, and certain of the more disruptive
violations (willfully disturbing others, carrying an explosive,
flammable, or toxic material, urinating or defecating, and
willfully blocking the free movement of another person) are
punishable by a fine of up to $400 and 90 days in jail for a
first offense.
Since the enactment of SB 1749 (Migden), Chapter 258, Statutes
of 2006, state law also allows the City and County of San
Francisco (operator of SF Muni) and LACMTA to establish an
alternative civil infraction process for the transit violations
specified above that occur within their systems. SB 1320
(Hancock), Chapter 493, Statutes of 2010 expanded this authority
to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, the
Sacramento Regional Transit District, Long Beach Transit,
Foothill Transit, and the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District.
Under these provisions, the named transit districts may adopt
and impose an administrative penalty and adjudication process
for these same violations committed by non-minors, which is
similar to the process for issuing and enforcing parking
tickets. The issuing officer serves the alleged violator with a
AB 426 (B. LOWENTHAL) Page 3
"notice of 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, the alleged violator may request an
administrative hearing for which the issuing agency or its
contracted processing agency must provide an impartial
administrative hearing officer and 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 file an appeal in Superior Court, which hears the
case de novo.
Current law allows the transit providers to set the
administrative penalty amounts for these infractions but
provides that the amounts shall not exceed the maximum statutory
criminal penalties described above. All administrative
penalties collected are deposited in the general fund of the
county in which the citation was issued.
This bill :
Adds the North (San Diego) County Transit District and
Metrolink to the list of districts with the authority to adopt
a civil administrative adjudication process for specified
transit violations.
Allows the named transit districts to establish the conditions
under which they would handle a particular citation under the
administrative adjudications process. In other words, transit
districts could issue and process some citations civilly and
others through the traditional criminal process.
Clarifies that the bill applies to violations that occur in or
on a Metrolink facility or vehicle, whether owned or leased.
Allows the named transit districts to contract with a
governmental agency, in addition to a private vendor, for the
processing of civil citations.
Directs administrative penalty monies for violations on the
LACMTA and Metrolink systems to the transit districts' general
funds, respectively, as opposed to the general fund of the
county in which the violation occurred.
COMMENTS:
AB 426 (B. LOWENTHAL) Page 4
1.Purpose of the bill . In addition to adding two new transit
providers to the current program, this bill seeks to clarify
that transit districts need not treat all violations of the
specified prohibitions through the civil process but may
instead establish the circumstances under which violations
will be treated criminally or civilly. LACMTA wants to
maintain the remedy of a criminal warrant for serious matters,
multiple offenses, or those violators who choose not to
respond to LACMTA's efforts to provide an administrative
process. In addition, maintaining the criminal process option
allows the Superior Court to exercise its entire array of
remedies to address those violators that most endanger public
transportation and its law abiding passengers.
According to the author, this bill is also intended to direct
administrative penalty revenues from violations on the LACMTA
or Metrolink systems to the correct source to support the law
enforcement and adjudication process expenses. Depositing
revenues directly into LACMTA's general fund will allow LACMTA
to cover its law enforcement and adjudication process expenses
in a more streamlined manner and provide for the proper
accounting of funds.
2.Change of venue . For the two new transit districts added to
the current program, this bill effectively moves adjudication
of transit violations 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, other than the fact that
the citing officer will not be present at a hearing. 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. In addition, those violators issued a
civil citation who fail to address their tickets will no
longer be subject to a bench warrant, arrest, and possible
jail time. The transit districts, 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 transit district officers
to spend much less time in court and much more time on patrol.
AB 426 (B. LOWENTHAL) Page 5
3.Creates a bounty situation . By allowing LACMTA and Metrolink
to keep all of the revenues from administrative penalties,
this bill creates an incentive for the districts to increase
enforcement efforts in order to maximize revenues. For
exactly this reason, the Senate Public Safety Committee
amended SB 1749 (Migden) of 2006, which gave San Francisco and
LAMTA the authority to enforce transit violations
administratively, to direct all penalty revenues to the
respective county general fund, not the transit district
directly. Likewise, when it heard SB 1320 (Hancock) relating
to AC Transit in 2010, this committee insisted on amendments
directing penalty revenues to the general fund of the county
in which the violation occurred, as opposed to the transit
district.
Just last year, LACMTA staff told committee staff that it
intended to enter into an agreement with its county to
pass-through some or all of the penalty revenues to cover the
costs of the administrative adjudication process. Neither
LACMTA nor Metrolink has provided any justification as to why
the pass-through strategy is no longer viable. Moreover, the
bill treats LACMTA and Metrolink differently than the other
seven transit districts that would have administrative
adjudication authority. If these two districts are allowed to
deposit fine revenues in their general funds, all other
transit districts will surely request the same allowance. The
committee may wish to consider whether it is appropriate to
create a bounty hunter situation by allowing an enforcement
agency to keep penalty revenues.
4.Expansion without review . The original legislation allowing
transit district administrative adjudication authority applied
to only two districts. Last year's legislation gave the
authority to five more districts. This bill seeks to add two
more. In spite of this broad and expanding authority, only
San Francisco has initiated its program, and no program has
been evaluated to measure its success or to ascertain whether
unforeseen issues have arisen. The committee may wish to
consider the wisdom of expanding the program more broadly
until it has more experience with the current authority or, at
a minimum, to require transit districts implementing the
authority to report back to the Legislature two and five years
after their programs have launched.
5.Technical amendments .
AB 426 (B. LOWENTHAL) Page 6
Combine Penal Code Section 640(e)(1) and (2) into a
single paragraph.
On page 4, line 38 after "opportunity" insert "to"
Combine Government Code Section 99580(a)(1) and (2) into
a single paragraph.
Assembly Votes:
Floor: 74-0
Public Safety: 7-0
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the Committee before noon on
Wednesday,
June 1, 2011)
SUPPORT: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (sponsor)
North County Transit District (NCTD)
Southern California Regional Rail Authority
(Metrolink)
OPPOSED: None received.