BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2011-2012 Regular Session B
7
1
6
AB 716 (Dickinson)
As Amended June 29, 2011
Hearing date: July 5, 2011
Public Utilities Code
SM:dl
TRANSIT DISTRICTS:
PROHIBITION ORDERS
HISTORY
Source: Sacramento Regional Transit District
Prior Legislation: SB 1561 (Steinberg) - Ch. 528, Stats. of 2008
AB 2324 (John Perez) - Ch. 675, Stats.of 2010
AB 343 (Huff) - Ch. 260, Stats. of 2006
AB 630 (Oropeza) - Ch. 938, Stats. of 2002
Support: California Transit Association; Ridership for the
Masses; San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
(BART)
Opposition:None
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 66 - Noes 8
KEY ISSUES
SHOULD THE SUNSET BE ELIMINATED ON THE LAW THAT ALLOWS
(More)
AB 716 (Dickinson)
Page 2
SACRAMENTO REGIONAL TRANSIT (RT) AND FRESNO AREA EXPRESS (FAX)
TO ISSUE PROHIBITION ORDERS BANNING PERSONS FROM ENTERING
DISTRICT PROPERTY FOR DETERMINED PERIODS OF TIME FOR SPECIFIED
OFFENSES?
SHOULD THE SAME AUTHORITY BE GRANTED TO THE BAY AREA RAPID
TRANSIT DISTRICT TO ISSUE SUCH PROHIBITION ORDERS?
(CONTINUED)
SHOULD THE SUNSET BE REMOVED FROM THE LAW ALLOWING SACRAMENTO
REGIONAL TRANSIT (RT) AND FRESNO AREA EXPRESS (FAX) TO CREATE
SPECIFIED INFRACTIONS BY ORDINANCE?
SHOULD THE PROHIBITION ORDERS BE ALLOWED BASED ON THREE OR MORE
CITATIONS FOR SPECIFIED INFRACTIONS WITHIN 90 DAYS RATHER THAN 60
DAYS?
SHOULD THE CURRENT PROHIBITION ON TRESPASSING OR INTERFERING WITH
SAFE OPERATION OF A TRAIN ON RAIL TRANSIT-RELATED PROPERTIES BE
EXPANDED TO INCLUDE ALL TRANSIT-RELATED PROPERTY OR VEHICLES?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to (1) eliminate the sunset on the
law that allows Sacramento Regional Transit (RT) and Fresno Area
Express (FAX) to issue prohibition orders banning persons from
entering district property for determined periods of time for
specified offenses; (2) grant the same authority to Bay Area
Rapid Transit District to issue such prohibition orders; (3)
allow a prohibition order to be issued to a person who has been
cited on at least three separate occasions within a period of 90
days, as opposed to 60 days, for specified infractions committed
in or on a vehicle, bus stop, or station of the transit
(More)
AB 716 (Dickinson)
Page 3
district; (4) expand the current prohibition on trespassing or
interfering with safe operation of a train on rail
transit-related properties to include all transit-related
property or vehicles; (5) remove the sunset on the provision of
law allowing the Sacramento Regional Transit District board to
enact ordinances punishable as infractions, as specified; and
(6) recast provisions authorizing RT employees to issue
citations for specified infractions, requiring those employees
to receive specified training.
Current law allows Sacramento Regional Transit (RT) and Fresno
Area Express (FAX), until January 1, 2012, to issue prohibition
orders banning persons from entering the property, facilities,
or vehicles of the transit district for determined periods of
time for specified offenses. Specifically, current law allows
RT and FAX to issue a prohibition order to a person who has been
cited on at least three separate occasions within a period of 60
days for any of the following infractions committed in or on a
transit vehicle, bus stop, or station of the transit district:
Interfering with the operator or operation of a transit
vehicle, or impeding the safe boarding or alighting of
passengers.
Committing any act or engaging in any behavior that may, with
reasonable foreseeability, cause harm or injury to any person
or property.
Willfully disturbing others on or in a transit facility or
vehicle by engaging in boisterous or unruly behavior.
Carrying an explosive or acid, flammable liquid, or toxic or
hazardous material in a public transit facility or vehicle.
Urinating or defecating in a transit facility or vehicle,
except in a lavatory.
Willfully blocking the free movement of another person in a
transit facility or vehicle.
Defacing with graffiti the interior or exterior of the
facilities or vehicles of a public transportation system.
(Public Utilities Code § 99171.)
(More)
AB 716 (Dickinson)
Page 4
Current law also allows RT and FAX to issue a prohibition order
to a person who has been arrested or convicted once for any of
the following misdemeanors or felonies committed in or on a
vehicle, bus stop, or station of the transit district:
Acts involving violence, threats of violence, lewd or
lascivious behavior, or possession or sale of any illegal
substance.
Loitering with the intent to engage in drug-related activity.
Loitering with the intent to commit prostitution.
The maximum duration of a prohibition order is as follows:
30 days for a first order, 90 days for a second order within
one year, and 180 days for a third order within one year
related to infractions.
30 days if issued pursuant to an arrest for a misdemeanor or
felony offense. Upon conviction for the offense the order may
be extended to a total of 180 days for a misdemeanor and one
year for a felony.
A prohibition order is effective eleven days after delivery is
deemed complete unless the person contests the proposed order
within 10 days in accordance with procedures adopted by the
transit district. The procedures must include, among other
things, an opportunity to request an initial review and the
opportunity, if the person is dissatisfied with the results of
the initial review, to request an administrative hearing. The
hearing must provide an independent, objective, fair, and
impartial review of the prohibition order, and the hearing
officer's employment and compensation may not be directly or
indirectly linked to the number of prohibition orders upheld.
If the transit district or hearing officer determines that the
person did not understand the nature and extent of his or her
actions or did not have the ability to control his or her
actions, the prohibition order shall be canceled. If the person
is dependent upon the transit system for trips of necessity,
including travel to or from medical or legal appointments,
(More)
AB 716 (Dickinson)
Page 5
school or training classes, places of employment, or obtaining
food, clothing, and necessary household items, the transit
district or hearing officer must modify the prohibition order to
allow for those trips. If the person is dissatisfied with the
result of the administrative hearing, he or she may seek
judicial review of the administrative hearing decision within 90
days. (Public Utilities Code § 99171.)
Current law requires that, prior to implementing the prohibition
order program, the transit district must establish an advisory
commission that is tasked, among other things, with monitoring
the issuance of prohibition orders to ensure compliance with
anti-discrimination laws and with providing the governing board
of the transit district and the Legislature with an annual
report on the program. (Public Utilities Code § 99172.)
Current law makes it a misdemeanor for a person to enter or
remain upon without permission any rail transit related property
owned or operated by a county transportation commission or
transportation authority or for a person to interfere with,
interrupt, or hinder the safe and efficient operation of the
rail-related facility. (Penal Code § 369i.)
Current law also provides generally that a peace officer, when
arresting a person for an infraction, may only require the
arrestee to present his or her driver's license or
identification for examination and to sign a written promise to
appear. (Penal Code § 853.5.) Until January 1, 2012, a person
"regularly employed" by Sacramento Regional Transit District as
an inspector or supervisor whose duties include enforcement of
district ordinances may arrest and issue citations pursuant to
the peace officer provisions but may not make custodial arrests.
(Public Utilities Code § 102122.)
Current law authorizes several transit agencies to appoint or
contract with designated persons to act as its agents in the
enforcement of specific infractions relating to the operation of
a public transportation system if these persons complete
(More)
AB 716 (Dickinson)
Page 6
specified training. It specifies that these employees are
public officers but are not peace officers, that they may not
carry firearms and may not exercise the powers of arrest of a
peace officer but may issue citations for specified infractions
relating to operation of the transit service. (Penal Code §
830.14.)
This bill would eliminate the sunset on the law described above
that allows RT and FAX to issue prohibition orders banning
persons from entering district property for determined periods
of time for specified offenses.
This bill would grant the same authority to Bay Area Rapid
Transit District to issue such prohibition orders.
This bill would allow the district to issue a prohibition order
to a person who has been cited on at least three separate
occasions within a period of 90 days, as opposed to 60 days, for
specified infractions committed in or on a vehicle, bus stop, or
station of the transit district.
This bill would expand the current prohibition on trespassing or
interfering with safe operation of a train on rail
transit-related properties to include all transit-related
property or vehicles.
This bill would remove the sunset on the provision of law
authorizing the Sacramento Regional Transit board to enact
ordinances, punishable as infractions, prohibiting:
Knowingly giving false identification to a district
employee engaged in the enforcement of district ordinances
or state laws, or otherwise obstructing the issuance of a
citation for violation of district ordinances or state law;
Unauthorized operation of, interference with, entry
into, climbing upon, attaching to, or loitering on or in
transit facilities or other transit property;
The removal, displacement, injury, destruction, or
(More)
AB 716 (Dickinson)
Page 7
obstruction of any part of any track, switch, turnout,
bridge, culvert, or any other district structure or
fixture;
Specifying conditions under which a passenger may board
a district vehicle with a bicycle and where the bicycle may
be stowed, and
This provision authorizes the board to provide that a violation
of any such ordinance adopted is an infraction punishable by a
fine not exceeding $75, and that a violation by a person after
the second conviction is punishable by a fine not to exceed $250
and by community service for a total time not to exceed 48 hours
over a period not to exceed 30 days which do not conflict with
the violator's hours of school attendance or employment.
This bill would recast provisions in current law allowing
Sacramento Regional Transit District inspectors or supervisors
whose duties include enforcement of district ordinances to issue
citations for specified infractions, and require those persons
to receive specified training appropriate to those duties.
This bill makes other technical, non-substantive changes to
update cross-references to recently amended code sections.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation.
As these cases have progressed, prison conditions have
continued to be assailed, and the scrutiny of the federal courts
over California's prisons has intensified.
On June 30, 2005, in a class action lawsuit filed four years
earlier, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California established a Receivership to take
control of the delivery of medical services to all California
state prisoners confined by the California Department of
(More)
AB 716 (Dickinson)
Page 8
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). In December of 2006,
plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against CDCR sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
three-judge federal panel issued an order requiring California
to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design
capacity -- a reduction at that time of roughly 40,000 inmates
-- within two years. The court stayed implementation of its
ruling pending the state's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On May 23, 2011, the United States Supreme Court upheld the
decision of the three-judge panel in its entirety, giving
California two years from the date of its ruling to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity, subject
to the right of the state to seek modifications in appropriate
circumstances.
In response to the unresolved prison capacity crisis, in early
2007 the Senate Committee on Public Safety began holding
legislative proposals which could further exacerbate prison
overcrowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
ÝO]ver the years RT has received a high number of
complaints from rider regarding the safety of RT
vehicles, parking lots, and passenger waiting areas.
To encourage ridership and to reduce emissions
associated with daily commuting, potential passengers
need to feel that transit services are a safe
alternative to driving. SB 1561 allowed RT and FAX to
(More)
AB 716 (Dickinson)
Page 9
exclude passengers cited for certain offenses, helping
to reduce passenger disruptions and improve overall
service. . . .ÝT]he Legislature should make the
program permanent and improve the program by
authorizing prohibition orders for repeat offenses
over a longer period of time and, most importantly,
creating a consequence for failure to obey a
prohibition order.
2. Reports on Existing Programs
In its recent annual report, RT indicates that it issued nine
prohibition orders based on misdemeanor or felony arrests
between October 1, 2009 and October 31, 2010. None of the
alleged violators contested the order. In addition, RT issued
129 infractions over this same period for violations on the list
of infractions eligible for a prohibition order. The top three
violations included:
Willfully disturbing others on or in a system facility
or vehicle by engaging in boisterous or unruly behavior
(59%).
Urinating or defecating in a system facility, except in
a lavatory (17%).
Interfering with the operator of the transit vehicle and
impeding the safe boarding or alighting of passengers
(12%).
None of the cited offenders repeated the violations three or
more times within the 60 day period.
FAX began implement its exclusion order program on February 1,
2010. In its annual report for 2010, FAX stated that it has
issued 26 prohibition orders, all for misdemeanor and felony
acts, with over half relating to battery of public transit
employee or passenger. None of the orders was appealed, however
FAX modified three orders and dismissed two. In the cover
letter accompanying the report, FAX states, "It is very apparent
(More)
AB 716 (Dickinson)
Page 10
to us that this law has helped reduce some of the behavioral
issues aboard FAX buses."
3. Limited to Nuisance Behaviors
The bill would eliminate the sunset and thus make permanent
the compromise reached in SB 1561 (SB 1561 (Steinberg), Chapter
528, Statutes of 2008), which allows RT and FAX to issue
prohibition orders only for specified offenses that relate to
behaviors that directly affect, disturb, or threaten other
riders. The list does not include offenses, such as loitering
or open containers, that do not directly affect other riders per
se. Nor does the list include offenses, such as fare evasion,
that negatively affect the district without directly harming
other riders. This bill would also grant this authority to the
Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART).
4. Prohibition Orders Based on Arrests
Current law allows RT and FAX to issue prohibition orders based
on three or more cited infractions within a period of 60 days
and based on a single arrest or conviction for certain
misdemeanors and felonies. This bill would allow the
prohibition order if the 3 or more infractions occurred within
90 days.
These prohibition orders may be based on arrests (and citations)
and do not require a conviction. The sponsors state, however,
that district attorneys do not prosecute many nuisance offenses
committed on transit. Current law provides that the maximum
length of an order based on arrest is 30 days or 90 days if a
second prohibition order is issued within one year or 180 days
if a third order is issued within a year. Such an order may be
extended to up to 180 days if the person is then convicted of
specified misdemeanors committed on public transit property and
up to one year if convicted of a similar felony. In addition,
current law requires, and this bill maintains, detailed due
process procedures for a person subject a prohibition order to
(More)
AB 716 (Dickinson)
Page 11
contest that order and to seek limitations on the prohibition to
allow them to take public transit for specified critical
purposes, e.g., to school, work, or medical appointments..
This bill would remove the sunset clause from these provisions.
(More)
SHOULD THE SUNSET CLAUSES ON THESE PROVISIONS BE REMOVED?
5. Authority to Issue Citations
Current law contains a statute authorizing Sacramento RT to
adopt ordinances related to interference with or destruction of
transit facilities or obstructing issuance of a citation. This
bill removes the sunset on those provisions while recasting the
portion of that law that allows specified employees of RT to
issue citations for infractions related to disturbing other
passengers. In doing so, this bill would require RT employees
issuing such citations to receive specified training currently
required of employees of other transit districts with these
duties. The training includes, but is not limited to the
following topics:
An overview of barrier-free fare inspection concepts.
The scope and limitations of inspector authority.
Familiarization with the elements of the infractions
enumerated in subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 640.
Techniques for conducting fare checks, including
inspection procedures, demeanor, and contacting violators.
Citation issuance and court appearances.
Fare media recognition.
Handling argumentative violators and diffusing conflict.
The mechanics of law enforcement support and interacting
with law enforcement for effective incident resolution.
SHOULD THIS TRAINING BE REQUIRED OF RT EMPLOYEES ISSUING THESE
CITATIONS?
6. Technical Amendment
The author will be amending the bill in committee to make a
technical amendment to correct an erroneous cross-reference.
The amendment will read:
Section 99171 of the Public Utilities Code is amended to read:
99171. (a) (1) A transit district may issue a prohibition
(More)
AB 716 (Dickinson)
Page 13
order to any person to whom either of the following applies:
(A) On at least three separate occasions within a period of 90
consecutive days, the person is cited for an infraction
committed in or on a vehicle, bus stop, or train or light rail
station of the transit district for any act that is a
violation of paragraph (2) or (5) of subdivision (a) of
Section 99170 of this code or paragraph (1), (2), (3) or (4)
of subdivision (d) of Section 640 or Section 640.5 of the
Penal Code.
This portion of the bill is meant to update the existing
cross-reference to paragraphs (6), (7), (8) or (9) of
subdivision (b) of section 640 of the Penal Code. These
provisions were renumbered in last year's AB 2324 and became
paragraphs (1) (2) (3) (4) of subdivision (d) of section 640 of
the Penal Code. This technical amendment is necessary to
correctly update this cross-reference.
***************