BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 492
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 492 (Galgiani)
As Amended August 13, 2012
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: | |(June 2, 2011) |SENATE: |38-0 |(August 20, |
| | | | | |2012) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(vote not relevant)
Original Committee Reference: TRANS .
SUMMARY : Authorizes public transit agencies to adopt an
alternative adjudication process for minor transit violations
occurring at their transit facilities.
The Senate amendments delete the Assembly version of the bill
and, instead:
1)Extend the authorization, currently provided only to specific
transit agencies, to all public transit agencies allowing them
to adopt civil adjudication procedures and impose and enforce
administrative penalties for minor transit-related offenses
associated with fare evasion and passenger misconduct.
2)Prohibit transit agencies from establishing administrative
penalties that exceed the maximum criminal fines set forth in
current law.
3)Require fare evasion and passenger misconduct violation
penalties to be deposited in the general fund of the county in
which the citation is administered.
4)Prohibit a person who receives a notice of fare evasion or
passenger conduct violation to also be cited for a similar
criminal infraction.
5)Incorporate chaptering out language regarding this bill and AB
2247.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Allows the City and County of San Francisco, the Los Angeles
County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Southern
AB 492
Page 2
California Regional Rail Authority, the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority, the Sacramento Regional Transit
District, Long Beach Transit, Foothill Transit, the North
County Transit District, and the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit
District to establish an alternative civil adjudication
process for the following transit violations when they are
committed by adults within their systems:
a) Fare evasion;
b) Misuse of a transfer, pass, ticket, or token with the
intent to evade the payment of a fare;
c) Unauthorized use of a discount ticket or failure to
present acceptable proof of eligibility to use a discount
ticket;
d) Eating, drinking, or smoking in areas where the system
operator has prohibited those activities;
e) Expectorating;
f) Skateboarding, roller skating, bicycle riding, or roller
blading, except as necessary for utilization of the transit
facility by a bicyclist;
g) Playing sound equipment;
h) Willfully disturbing others by engaging in boisterous or
unruly behavior;
i) Carrying an explosive or acid, flammable liquid, or
toxic or hazardous material;
j) Urinating or defecating, except in a lavatory; and,
aa) Willfully blocking the free movement of another person,
except for lawful first amendment activities.
1)Makes it a criminal infraction, for infractions not cited by
transit agencies named in 1) above, for a person to engage in
any of the above listed activities in a transit vehicle or
facility.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill authorized the California
AB 492
Page 3
High-Speed Rail Authority to consider, to the extent permitted
by federal law and all other applicable provisions of state law,
the creation of jobs in California when awarding major contracts
or purchasing high-speed trains and related equipment and
supplies.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the
Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS : Current law authorizes nine transit agencies, as
listed in the above "Existing Law" section, to establish
alternative adjudicative proceedings for violations of fare
evasion and passenger misconduct occurring within their public
transportation systems. This authorization was provided to
these entities pursuant to separate legislation enacted since
2006 (see the following "Related bills" section). The author
had intended to add the San Joaquin Regional Transit District to
the list of transit agencies currently authorized to establish
an alternative civil infraction process for the transit
violations. Instead of continuing to extend the authorization
to separate transit agencies on practically a yearly basis and
also based upon the suggestion of the Senate Transportation and
Housing Committee, the author has amended the bill to allow any
transit agency to establish administrative adjudicatory
procedures for the handling of minor transit violations, as
specified.
Currently, for those transit entities not authorized to
establish the alternative adjudicatory procedures, transit
violations are handled through the criminal court proceedings.
The alternative adjudicatory procedures as provided by this bill
will provide relief to the courts by allowing transit agencies
to adopt and impose an alternative, non-court adjudication
process for transit passenger misconduct committed by non-minors
similar to the adjudicatory process for issuing and enforcing
parking tickets.
This bill in its current form has not been heard in the
Assembly.
Related bills (that authorize local adjudication transit
violation process) : SB 1749 (Migden), Chapter 258, Statutes of
2006, authorization for the City and County of San Francisco (SF
Muni) and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (Metro).
AB 492
Page 4
SB 1320 (Hancock), Chapter 493, Statutes of 2010, authorization
for the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, the
Sacramento Regional Transit District, Long Beach Transit,
Foothill Transit, and the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District.
AB 426 (Bonnie Lowenthal), Chapter 100, Statutes of 2011,
authorization for the North County Transit District (San Diego)
and the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink).
Analysis Prepared by : Ed Imai / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093
FN: 0004827