BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 882 Hearing Date: April 12, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Hertzberg |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |January 15, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |No |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|ML |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Crimes: Public Transportation: Minors
HISTORY
Source: Children's Defense Fund; Western Center on Law &
Poverty; Youth Justice Coalition
Prior Legislation:None
Support: California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; California
Public Defenders Association; Californians United for
a Responsible Budget; California Association of Local
Conservation Corps.; Children's Defense Fund; Western
Center on Law & Poverty; California PAN-Ethnic Health
Network; California Association of Local Conservation
Corps; Comite Civico del Valle; Community Asset
Development Redefining Education; Children's Advocacy
Institute; Children Now; Coalition of California
Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc.; Courage Campaign;
El Rancho Unified School District; Ella Baker Center
for Human Rights; First Place for Youth; L.A.
Conservation Corps; Larkin Street Youth Services;
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San
Francisco Bay Area; Legal Services for Prisoners with
Children; A New Way of Life Re-entry Project; National
Center for Youth Law; PolicyLink; Public Counsel
Children's Rights Project; Root & Rebound; Rubicon
SB 882 (Hertzberg ) PageB
of?
Programs
Opposition:California State Sheriffs' Association; California
Police Chiefs Association
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to provide that minors shall not be
subject to an infraction or misdemeanor for evading a transit
fare.
Existing law states that every person who avoids fare payment on
a public transit system, including the misuse of transfer
passes, tickets and tokens when a transit system representative
asks for proof of fare payment, shall be punished by an
infraction or misdemeanor. (Penal Code § 640.)
This bill would provide that a minor shall not be charged with
an infraction or a misdemeanor for evading a transit fee, as
specified.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past several years this Committee has scrutinized
legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential
impact on prison overcrowding. Mindful of the United States
Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the
state's ability to provide a constitutional level of health care
to its inmate population and the related issue of prison
overcrowding, this Committee has applied its "ROCA" policy as a
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison
overcrowding.
On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to
reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of
design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
SB 882 (Hertzberg ) PageC
of?
In December of 2015 the administration reported that as "of
December 9, 2015, 112,510 inmates were housed in the State's 34
adult institutions, which amounts to 136.0% of design bed
capacity, and 5,264 inmates were housed in out-of-state
facilities. The current population is 1,212 inmates below the
final court-ordered population benchmark of 137.5% of design bed
capacity, and has been under that benchmark since February
2015." (Defendants' December 2015 Status Report in Response to
February 10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge
Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).) One
year ago, 115,826 inmates were housed in the State's 34 adult
institutions, which amounted to 140.0% of design bed capacity,
and 8,864 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities.
(Defendants' December 2014 Status Report in Response to February
10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman
v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).)
While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison
population, the state must stabilize these advances and
demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place
the "durable solution" to prison overcrowding "consistently
demanded" by the court. (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and
Denying in Part Defendants' Request For Extension of December
31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court,
Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14). The Committee's
consideration of bills that may impact the prison population
therefore will be informed by the following questions:
Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed
to reducing the prison population;
Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy;
Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or
legislative drafting error; and
Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy.
SB 882 (Hertzberg ) PageD
of?
COMMENTS
1.Need for This Bill
According to the author:
According to data from the L.A. County Probation
Department, riding transit without fare is the number one
reason why youth are cited in L.A. County, and youth of
color receive a disproportionate number of citations in
L.A. County.<1> These citations can result in heavy fines
or count appearances, which can require students, take
time out of school to attend court and can create stress
for students and families.<2> First-time court appearance
during high school quadruples a student's odds of
dropping out.<3> Ending criminal prosecution for riding
transit without fare will greatly reduce the
criminalization of young people and give them a better
shot at success in life. Furthermore, prosecution for
fare evasion unnecessarily burdens public safety systems
while undermining a youth's future. In contrast,
increasing access to public transportation is crucial to
vulnerable populations, and helps reduce traffic
congestion.
2.Effect of Legislation; Background
The inability to afford transportation to and from school is one
of the most frequently cited barriers that low-income youth face
in attending school, which equates to about tens of thousands of
youth each year across California, particularly those who
usually do not have the few dollars requisite to ride
transportation, receive fare citations and experience the
---------------------------
<1> Data from the Los Angeles County Probation Department, as
presented to the School Attendance Taskforce on March 5, 2015.
<2> Los Angeles County Department of Public Health
<3> Sweeten G. Who will graduate? Disruption of high school
education by arrest and court involvement. Justice Quarterly
2006;23(4):462-80
SB 882 (Hertzberg ) PageE
of?
hardships of heavy fines (up to $250) and/or court
appearances.<4> SB 882 prevents youth under 18 from being
charged with a penal code infraction for a fare evasion citation
and reduces the likelihood that they will enter the criminal
justice system alongside reducing the expenses of both trying
and detaining them. The legislation will not impact the ability
of transit authorities to charge and collect a financial
penalty.
In San Francisco, the criminal penalty for juveniles costs up to
$123.97 in fare evasion fines, including court fees. The fare
evasion fine for youth escalates with each offense. It is also
useful to look at the effects of the San Francisco Municipal
Transportation Agency's (SFMTA) decriminalization of fare
evasion for adults in February 2008 in order to reduce fare
evasion citations on traffic court dockets and to increase SFMTA
fine revenue collections. Prior to the transition, the adult
fine, with court fees, totaled $123.97, and the bulk of the fine
was kept by the court. By instituting a $50 administrative fine
in its place, the SFMTA keeps 100 percent of all citation
revenue. The change also effectively lowered the penalty for
adult fare evasion by up to 60 percent.<5> The same report
recommended that in order to dissuade fare evasion and decrease
the gap between an adult and juvenile penalty, the Board of
Supervisors should either revert fare evasion a criminal
citation (only because of the current law criminalizing youth
fare evasion) or increase the base fine for adult fare evasion
to be closer to the city's juvenile fine and also create an
escalating penalty for repeat offenders.<6>
3.Support
The sponsors, Children's Defense Fund, Western Center on Law &
Poverty, and Youth Justice Coalition, state:
Tickets Resulting from Riding Transit without Fare
Have Significant Negative Impacts on Children
According to data from the L.A. County Probation
Department, riding transit without fare is the number
one reason why youth are cited in L.A. County, and
----------------------
<4> http://www.reimaginerpe.org/node/328
<5>
http://www.sfbos.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=19123
<6> Ibid.
SB 882 (Hertzberg ) PageF
of?
youth of color receive a disproportionate number of
citations in L.A. County.<7> These citations can
result in heavy fines or count appearances, which can
require students, take time out of school to attend
court and can create stress for students and
families.<8> First-time count appearance during high
school quadruples a student's odds of dropping
out.<9> Ending criminal prosecution for riding
transit without fare will greatly reduce the
criminalization of young people and give them a
better shot at success in life?
California only transports one in eight students to
school, down from one in four in the late 1970s.
According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, state
funding for transportation is locked at early 1980s
reimbursement rates, and some districts charge
parents fees for bus service, including the San Diego
Unified School District, which charges $500 per
school year for one student, $250 for a sibling and
no additional charge for other siblings. Other
districts have decided to no longer offer bus service
except for students with disabilities.<10>
According to a recent report by California Attorney
General Kamala Harris, poverty and financial
instability is a significant cause of absenteeism and
truancy in the state.<11> ?A survey of Oakland youth
found that 61% of students reported they sometimes
use their lunch money to ride the bus, and nearly
half of low-income students reported that it was
harder to get to school, to jobs, or to after-school
programs without a free transit pass.
----------------------
<7> Data from the Los Angeles County Probation Department, as
presented to the School Attendance Taskforce on March 5, 2015.
<8> Los Angeles County Department of Public Health.
<9> Sweeten G. Who will graduate? Disruption of high school
education by arrest and court
involvement. Justice Quarterly 2006;23(4):462-80.
<10> Review of School Transportation in California, Mac Taylor,
Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO), February 25, 2014
http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2014/education/school-transportatio
n/school-transportation-022514.pdf
<11> https://oag.ca.gov/truancy
SB 882 (Hertzberg ) PageG
of?
Unlike California, many states guarantee
transportation to and from school for public school
students who live beyond a certain distance from
their school and a diverse array of cities and
communities provide free transit passes - including
San Francisco - to children and youth.<12> Until
California ensures access to transportation for every
child, criminally charging children for not paying
the fare on transit is unfair and undermines
opportunity for our poorest youth.
Minor Financial Crimes Should Be Treated As Such
Given most children who ride a bus without the proper
fare do so because they don't have the few dollars
requisite to ride public transportation, addressing
fare evasion through the penal code essentially
criminalizes youth for poverty. SB 882 does not
condone the practice of youth riding transit without
fare or eliminate financial penalties for fare
evasion. It simply ends the practice of punishing
children for failure to pay a transit fare through
our penal code and in our youth detention and
probation systems. By ending the criminalization of
youth who ride transit without paying the fare, we
can reduce the likelihood that they will enter the
criminal justice system and reduce the expense of
trying and detaining them.
4. Opposition
The California State Sheriffs' Association opposes this bill,
stating in part:
We understand the desire to eliminate the impacts
that unlawful fare evasion can have on minors. That
said, we do not agree that simply saying that a minor
cannot be held accountable for an act still deemed to
be illegal is the appropriate way to achieve this
goal.
----------------------
<12> Youth Justice Coalition: Metro Pass Campaign Survey
Results. February 2015. And Iny, Julie and Lila Hussain. Free
Transportation to Get Our Education. Race, Poverty and the
Environment, Winter 2005/2006.
SB 882 (Hertzberg ) PageH
of?
Perhaps transit agencies could be encouraged or
compelled not to charge a fare to riders under a
certain age. Schools could contract with transit
providers to cover the costs of transporting
school-bound children. However, simply allowing one
cohort of individuals to escape liability for
something that remains illegal will frustrate law
enforcement and encourage bad behavior.
-- END -