BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                      



           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                   AB 426|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                         |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                         |
          |(916) 651-1520         Fax: (916) |                         |
          |327-4478                          |                         |
           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
           
                                         
                                SPECIAL CONSENT


          Bill No:  AB 426
          Author:   Bonnie Lowenthal (D)
          Amended:  6/10/11 in Senate
          Vote:     21

           
           SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE  :  9-0, 6/7/11
          AYES:  DeSaulnier, Gaines, Harman, Huff, Kehoe, Lowenthal, 
            Pavley, Rubio, Simitian
           
          ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  74-0, 4/11/11 (Consent) - See last page 
            for vote


           SUBJECT  :    Administrative adjudication of transit 
          violations

           SOURCE  :     Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation 
          Authority


           DIGEST  :    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.  

           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.

                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                AB 426
                                                                Page 
          2

           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.

           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/her of the court date, listing the bail 
          amount, and stating that he/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 

                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                AB 426
                                                                Page 
          3

          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 Los Angeles 
          County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (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 "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 

                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                AB 426
                                                                Page 
          4

          hearing, then he/she may file an appeal in Superior Court, 
          which hears the case de novo.  

          Existing 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: 

          1. 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.  

          2. 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.

          3. Clarifies that the bill applies to violations that occur 
             in or on a Metrolink facility or vehicle, whether owned 
             or leased.

          4. Allows the named transit districts to contract with a 
             governmental agency, in addition to a private vendor, 
             for the processing of civil citations.

           Comments  

           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 

                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                AB 426
                                                                Page 
          5

          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.   

           FISCAL EFFECT  :    Appropriation:  No   Fiscal Com.:  No   
          Local:  No

           SUPPORT  :   (Verified  6/9/11)

          Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 
          (source)
          North County Transit District 
          Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink)



           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  : 
          AYES:  Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, 
            Bill Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford, 
            Brownley, Buchanan, Charles Calderon, Campos, Carter, 
            Cedillo, Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Davis, Dickinson, Eng, 
            Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Galgiani, Garrick, Gatto, 
            Gordon, Grove, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Roger 
            Hernández, Hill, Huber, Hueso, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, 
            Knight, Lara, Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mansoor, 
            Mendoza, Miller, Mitchell, Monning, Morrell, Nestande, 
            Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel Pérez, 
            Portantino, Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Swanson, 
            Torres, Valadao, Wagner, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, 
            John A. Pérez
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Butler, Donnelly, Fletcher, Gorell, 
            Halderman, Vacancy


          JJA:mw  6/24/11   Senate Floor Analyses 

                         SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                                ****  END  ****
          



                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                AB 426
                                                                Page 
          6














































                                                           CONTINUED