BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 413
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 14, 2015
Counsel: Gabriel Caswell
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Bill Quirk, Chair
SB
413 (Wieckowski) - As Amended July 1, 2015
SUMMARY: Specifies that local jurisdictions may pass
ordinances that permit the issuance of infraction tickets for
failing to yield a seat to an elderly or disabled person, or for
playing sound equipment in an unreasonably loud manner, and
allows transit operators to levy administrative penalties
against minors for specified transit violations. Specifically,
this bill:
SB 413
Page 2
1)Makes failing to yield seating reserved for elderly or
disabled persons on public transit property punishable as an
infraction provided that the governing board of the public
transportation agency enacts an ordinance following a public
hearing on the issue.
2)Clarifies that playing unreasonably loud sound equipment on or
in a transit facility or vehicle or failing to comply with the
warning of a transit official regarding disturbing others with
unreasonably loud noise is punishable as an infraction.
3)Allows transit operators to levy administrative penalties
against minors who have committed certain violations on their
systems.
4)Clarifies what constitutes rail transit property.
5)Makes related, clarifying amendments.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Makes it an infraction, punishable by a fine of $250 and 48
hours of community service, for adults who engage in the
following activities in a transit system facility or vehicle:
(Pen. Code, § 640, subds. (a) & (b).)
SB 413
Page 3
a) Eating, drinking, or smoking in areas where those
activities are prohibited;
b) Disturbing other people with loud or unreasonable noise;
c) Expectorating;
d) Skateboarding, roller blading, bicycle riding, or
operating a motorized scooter or similar device, as
specified; and,
e) Selling or peddling goods, merchandise, property, or
services as prohibited by the public transportation system.
2)Allows transit operators to levy administrative penalties
against adults who have committed certain violations on their
systems, but sends minors who commit these same acts through
the judicial system. (Pub. & Util. Code, § 99580.)
3)Provides for misdemeanor penalties (for third or subsequent
offenses) for adults engaging in various forms of fare
evasion. (Pen. Code, § 640 subds. (c) & (d).
FISCAL EFFECT:
COMMENTS:
SB 413
Page 4
1)Author's Statement: According to the author, "Beginning with
SB 1749 (Migden) in 2006, transit agencies have sought
authority to enforce administrative penalties against those
who have committed minor violations. When the City and County
of San Francisco initially pushed for the statute, it
intentionally did not apply the process to minors as it was
thought, at the time, that keeping minors in the judicial
system might act as a deterrent to committing future
violations. Subsequent legislation expanded the list of
specified violations and increased the number of transit
agencies authorized to seek administrative penalties against
violators. This bill is needed to subject minors to an
administrative process for resolving violations in the same
manner as adults, removing them from the criminal process.
Allowing administrative adjudication for minors reduces
pressure on the court system, which has experienced severe
cuts over the years. SB 413 also enables transit systems to
immediately enforce ADA requirements if they have approved an
ordinance in a public hearing. Currently, they have little
recourse when attempting to enforce reserved seating for
disabled and elderly passengers. The bill is also necessary
to provide uniformity on what constitutes noise violations on
a transit property. Currently, the violation for excessive
noise differs between the codes."
2)Administrative Penalties for Minors: In 2006, SB 1749
(Migden), Chapter 258, Statutes of 2006, authorized certain
transit operators to enforce administrative penalties for
transit violations. While SB 1749 provided this
administrative process for adults, it specifically precluded
minors from using it with the intention that forcing minors to
go to court would serve as a deterrent to engaging in
prohibited conduct. As it stands, minors are instead required
to enter the court system with respect to transit citations.
This has overburdened the court system and the author believes
that supplanting the requirement that minors go to court with
resolving transit citations administratively, would provide
SB 413
Page 5
minors with a means to more easily, quickly, and cost
effectively resolve transit citations.
This proposed amendment has drawn mixed reaction from youth
advocates. The San Francisco Youth Commission supports the
provision for youth to use an administrative process to
resolve transit citations and their support letter notes that
allowing local transit agencies to use an administrative
process to address transit citations for minors makes it
easier for youth to resolve citations quickly and easily
online thereby avoiding the need to go to court where
excessive penalties and administrative fees are often
assessed. They correctly point out when criminal penalties
are assessed; fees often end up costing triple the base fine.
The Youth Law Center (YLC), on the other hand, contends that
replacing the option of going to court with an administrative
process would make it impossible for youth to "negotiate"
alternative penalties, such as community service in lieu of
fines. They also contend that online payment systems used by
transit entities are not a realistic option for indigent youth
who often lack computers, internet access, and credit cards.
Transit agencies have confirmed, however, that their
administrative processes do allow for all forms of payment
(cash, credit cards, and checks) as well as the ability to
substitute community service for fines.
3)Noise Violations: According to the author, different
standards are applied with respect to what constitutes a noise
violation on transit property. For example, the Penal Code
SB 413
Page 6
states that officers may cite an individual for "disturbing
another person with loud or unreasonable noise" while the
Public Utilities Code states that individuals may be cited for
"playing sound equipment on or in a system facility." To
address inconsistencies and provide regular enforcement, SB
413 matches the wording with respect to noise violations and
adds the clarification that failing to comply with the warning
of a transit official related to a noise disturbance also
constitutes a violation. By adding this clarifying language,
the author hopes to make noise disturbance enforcement more
uniform and consistent.
The YLC contended in the Assembly Transportation Committee
that in an attempt to clarify the codes, SB 413 has made the
provision overly broad, implying that simply playing sound
equipment could be a citable offense. While it is unlikely
that a transit officer would issue a citation if someone were
simply listening to music on their iPod. The YLC suggested
amending the bill to specify "unreasonably" loud music.
To respond to the contention of the YLC, the author amended
the bill in the Assembly Transportation Committee to specify
"unreasonably loud music." The argument in opposition below
was sent prior to the amendment taken on July 1, 2015.
4)Rail Authority Property: SB 413 seeks to clarify what
constitutes a rail authority property. According to the
sponsor, transit officers often need to take enforcement
action to address activities occurring on adjunct facilities
such as tracks, culverts beneath tracks, viaducts, and
facilities that are leased rather than owned. SB 413
elucidates that transit facilities include all properties
owned or leased by the transit operator, including stations
and rail cars or buses and associated facilities. By
clarifying what constitutes a rail authority property, SB 413
will allow transit operators to better address prohibited
conduct.
5)ADA Compliance: SB 413 addresses the act of failing to give
SB 413
Page 7
up designated priority seating to elderly or disabled person,
making failure to comply a violation that can be cited as an
infraction. Specifically, the sponsor notes that in
accordance with ADA requirements, signs are posted in
facilities specifying that individuals must give up designated
priority seating for elderly and disabled persons, upon
request. Transit entities, however, are not authorized to
cite passengers who refuse to comply, making it impossible for
the transit agency to enforce ADA requirements.
6)Argument in Support: According to the San Francisco Municipal
Transit Agency, "This bill would amend Public Utilities Code §
99580 and Penal Code § 640 to allow transit agencies to use
the administrative process afforded to them under PUC § 99580
to cite and process minors in violation of specified
prohibited acts (e.g. fare evasion, smoking where prohibited)
occurring on transit vehicles and facilities. In doing so,
minors could be subject to an administrative process for
resolving violations in the same manner as adults, removing
them from the criminal process in certain jurisdictions. This
change is important for jurisdictions like San Francisco which
has established a free-transit for low-income youth program,
with an estimated 48,000 youth eligible to participate. Key
goals of this program are to increase youth transit ridership,
improve school attendance and eliminate the fear and stigma
attached to fare evasion enforcement.
"By retaining the jurisdiction for administration of the
transit violations for youth in the court system, an undue
burden is placed on children and families by requiring them to
appear in court during school and/or work hours. Adults, on
the other hand, are able to simply pay or protest their
violation by mail, online, or by phone. In addition, adults
charged with fare evasion pay a $109 administrative fee, while
juveniles may be subject to criminal penalties and
administrative fees up to $380. Failure to appear in court
may also result in a warrant being issued and further criminal
penalties."
SB 413
Page 8
7)Argument in Opposition: According to the Youth Law Center,
"While we are gratified with the language about criminalizing
failure to yield one's seat to elderly or disabled people now
requires the enactment of a specific ordinance, after a
hearing, we are still concerned with specific parts of the
language. In particular,
"SEC. 2. Section 99580 of the Public Utilities Code is
amended to read:?(b)(3) Playing loud sound equipment on or
in a system facility or vehicle, or failing to comply with
the warning of a transit official related to disturbing
another person by loud or unreasonable noise.
"This language is overbroad and would criminalize typical
teenage behavior, such as playing an iPod or other music
streaming device on the bus, without regard to whether it is
bothering anyone. In our view, the language should be amended
to require that the use of sound equipment is excessively loud
or disturbing and continues after the person has been asked to
stop. For example:
"(b) Failing to comply with the request of a transit
official to stop playing sound equipment or in a system
facility that produces by loud or unreasonable noise.
"Also, we are still concerned about the general thrust of this
bill. While we understand the need to maintain peace and
order on public transit vehicles, we are concerned that the
infraction system will just make things worse for the
predominantly poor young people who use public transit. As
every parent knows, even 'good' teenagers can be thoughtless,
noisy (especially in the company of peers), and obnoxious.
Subjecting them and their families to the infraction process
for behavior that is a predicable part of adolescent
development will not address the underlying issues. In fact,
it will have negative consequences when they are unable to
negotiate the online infraction process or simply do not have
the means to pay.
SB 413
Page 9
8)Related Legislation:
a) SB 24 (Hill), would restrict the use of e-cigarettes in
specific areas, including adding the use of e-cigarettes on
transit property to the list of activities that are
infractions. SB 24 failed passage on the Senate Floor and
was placed on the inactive file at the request of the
author.
b) SB 140 (Leno), would, among other things, define
"smoking" to include the use of e-cigarettes, and
references this definition in relation to the smoking
activity on a transit property. SB 140 is currently
pending in the Assembly Governmental Organization
Committee.
9)Prior Legislation: SB 1749 (Migden), Chapter 258, Statutes of
2006, allowed for administrative enforcement of
transit-related violations in the City and County of San
Francisco and The Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
California Transit Association
SB 413
Page 10
City and County of San Francisco
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
San Bernardino Associated Governments
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency
San Francisco Youth Commission
Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority
Solano County Transit
Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink)
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
Opposition
SB 413
Page 11
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Youth Law Center
Analysis Prepared by:Gabriel Caswell / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744