BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 882
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 28, 2016
Counsel: Sandy Uribe
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair
SB
882 (Hertzberg) - As Amended May 31, 2016
SUMMARY: Provides that minors shall not be subject to criminal
penalties for evading a transit fare.
EXISTING LAW:
SB 882
Page 2
1)Makes it a criminal infraction, punishable by a fine not to
exceed $250 and by specified community service, for a person
to engage in any of the following activities in a transit
vehicle or facility:
a) Fare evasion, as specified;
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, upon request from a transit system representative,
acceptable proof of eligibility to use a discount ticket.
(Pen. Code, § 640.)
2)Provides for misdemeanor penalties for third or subsequent
offenses for engaging in various forms of fare evasion. (Pen.
Code, § 640.)
3)Allows transit operators to levy administrative penalties
against persons who have committed certain violations on their
systems, including fare evasion. (Pub. Util. Code, § 99580,
subd. (a).)
4)Allows the transit agency to contract with a private vendor or
government agency for the processing of notices of fare
evasion. (Pub. Util. Code, § 99580, subd. (c)(1).)
5)States that a notice of fare evasion must contain specified
information including the violation, the administrative
penalty, the date, time, and place where the violation
occurred, and the procedure for contesting the violation.
(Pub. Util. Code, § 99580, subd. (d)(1).)
6)Prohibits a transit agency from setting administrative
SB 882
Page 3
penalties at an amount that exceeds the maximum fine set forth
in the Penal Code. (Pub. Util. Code, § 99580, subd. (e).)
7)Sets forth a process for an initial review, as well as a
subsequent administrative review, of a fare-evasion violation.
(Pub. Util. Code, § 99581.)
8)Allows a person to appeal an administrative review of a notice
of fare evasion in the superior court, as specified. (Pub.
Util. Code, § 99582.)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS:
1)Author's Statement: According to the author, "SB 882 prevents
minors from being charged with a penal code violation when
they fail to pay the fare on public transit.
"Failure to pay is the number one citation for youth in several
counties. Once a child appears in court, the likelihood that
they will drop out of school and receive another court
appearance greatly increases. It is too easy for a child who
enters the criminal justice system, to never come out.
"SB 882 does not impact the ability of transit authorities to
charge and collect a financial penalty. It does not remove the
ability for authorities to cite a person for smoking, selling
goods, vandalizing or any other violation.
"SB 882 simply ensures that a child is not made a criminal when
SB 882
Page 4
they have failed to pay a fare."
2)Administrative Adjudication of Transit Penalties: Since the
enactment of SB 1749 (Migden), Chapter 258, Statutes of 2006,
the state law allows for an alternative civil infraction
process in San Francisco and Los Angeles Counties. Under
these provisions, the City and County of San Francisco (the
overseer of the city's transit system) and the Los Angeles
County Metropolitan Transportation Authority may adopt and
impose an administrative penalty and adjudication process for
these same violations committed by adults. This process was
subsequently authorized for other transit agencies. (See e.g.
SB 1320 (Hancock), Chapter 493, Statutes of 2010.)
Last year, SB 413 (Wieckowski), Chapter 765, allowed transit
operators to levy administrative penalties against minors for
specified transit violations. Despite this authority, most
transit agencies in the state have not adopted an
administrative process for addressing fare evasion.
Administrative adjudication of transit violations 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, then the issuing agency or
its contracted processing agency must provide an impartial
administrative hearing at which the citing officer is not
required to appear. If the alleged violator is unsatisfied
with the results of the administrative hearing, then he or she
may file an appeal in superior court, which hears the case de
novo.
This bill decriminalizes fare evasion by minors, thereby
SB 882
Page 5
making the administrative review process the only option for
collecting penalties from minors.
3)Argument in Support: According to the Youth Justice
Coalition, a co-sponsor of this bill, "Nearly all of us at the
Youth Justice Coalition (YJC) have been directly impacted by
the high costs -both personal and financial- of transit
evasion, including the extreme fines, lost time at school and
work for court, a burdensome and confusing diversion project
here in our County, and even warrants for unpaid fines
resulting in detention. Three years ago, we began to organize
for decriminalizing fare evasion, and we discovered that the
number one cause of juvenile citations in L.A. County - as
many as 10,000 tickets a year as reported through data we
received through a Public Records Act request to the L.A.
County Probation Department- was for fare evasion. We won a
diversion process in L.A, but have still struggled to make the
process clear and accessible. Based on these experiences, SB
882 is so important and personal to us.
"California law allows young people to have charges brought
against them for a fare evasion ticket, which may result in
court appearances, suspended driver's licenses, and even time
in juvenile detention. As fare evasion is almost always
committed by people who don't have adequate funds needed to
access public transportation, addressing fare evasion through
the penal code essentially criminalizes youth for poverty.
"SB 882 does not eliminate the ability of youth to be cited and
fined for fare evasion. It simply ends the practice of
punishing children and young people for fare evasion in our
penal code and in our detention and probation systems. By
ending criminalization of youth who ride public transit
without paying the fare, we can reduce the likelihood that
they will enter the criminal justice system, reduce the
expense of trying and detaining youth, and eliminate the
life-altering impacts that court and detention have on a young
person's life chances."
SB 882
Page 6
4)Argument in Opposition: According to the California Transit
Association, "Transit fare evasion, whether by minors or
adults, is a financial and operational challenge for public
transit agencies across California, including those in Los
Angeles County. As such, California law has long-authorized
public transit agencies to process these common, and sometimes
recurring, violations through Penal Code §640. Individuals
found guilty of transit fare evasion may face a fine of $250
and/or community service, and in cases of a repeat offenders,
a fine of $400. In the most extreme cases, individuals may
face imprisonment in a county prison for no more than 90 days.
"In 2015, the Association worked with the Legislature to create
an additional tool for deterring and enforcing fare evasion by
minors by sponsoring SB 413 (Wieckowski) [Chapter 765,
Statutes of 2015], which addressed a deficiency in
then-current law, to allow public transit agencies to exercise
an administrative process for deterring fare evasion and
collecting penalties from minors. As a result of this law and
with the support of their county governments, the Los Angeles
County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the San
Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, the public transit
agencies with the highest ridership in California, were able
to decriminalize transit fare evasion on their systems.
Despite interest, no other public transit agency in the state
has been able to establish similar administrative processes
for addressing fare evasion. Asked why they have yet to
establish an administrative process for handling fare evasion,
our members resoundingly point to the high costs of developing
and maintaining the infrastructure necessary to meet the
notice and hearing requirements for an administrative process;
waning federal, state and local financial support; and,
requirements in current law that direct revenue generated from
transit enforcement to the general fund of the county in which
the citation is administered, and not to the transit agency
for the maintenance of this costly system of enforcement.
"The Association and its members remain sympathetic to the needs
of low-income minors, some of whom lack the resources to fully
SB 882
Page 7
pay for transit fares. To that end, a majority of the transit
agencies that comprise our membership offer special reduced
fares (e.g. college/vocational, student, and/or youth) that
aim to alleviate the financial burden associated with
mobility, while still allowing transit agencies to meet the
farebox recovery requirements established by law. We oppose
this bill because, rather than address the root cause of
transit fare evasion, which is transit affordability, or the
key impediments to the adoption of an administrative process
for transit fare evasion citations, this bill would simply bar
cash-strapped transit agencies from utilizing a cost-effective
tool that helps ensure that nominal fares are paid by minors.
"In addition, we oppose this bill because, if it were to become
law, it would necessitate the overhaul of transit fare
enforcement at virtually every transit agency in the state -
at great cost to taxpayers- in order to mitigate the impacts
of a minor infraction with a historically low-incidence. For
context, at the transit agencies with the highest ridership in
the state and no administrative process for administering
citations, youth fare evasion citations as a percentage of
total annual ridership break down as follows: Orange County
Transportation Authority - .0000046% (2 fare evasion
citations/approx. 43,400,000 annual riders); Santa Clara
Valley Transportation Authority - .00056% (246
citations/43,944,096 annual riders); and, San Diego
Metropolitan Transit System - .00041% (401/approx. 97,000,000
annual riders).
"Finally, we oppose this bill because, if resources for this
overhaul do not follow, and transit agencies are unable to
establish an administrative process, fare payment by minors
would become merely a suggestion. For the Orange County
Transportation Authority, the Sacramento Regional Transit
District, the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System and the
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, this change could
potentially lead to a loss in youth fare revenue of $6
million, $2.1 million, $12 million and $4.2 million,
respectively."
SB 882
Page 8
5)Related Legislation:
a) SB 413 (Wieckowski), Chapter 765, Statutes of 2015, in
pertinent part, allows transit operators to levy
administrative penalties against minors for specified
transit violations.
b) AB 869 (Cooper) authorizes a public transit district
with a civil adjudication procedure for minor
transit-related offenses committed by adults to instead
pursue criminal penalties if a person fails to pay the
administrative penalty or successfully complete the civil
administrative process. AB 869 has been moved to the
inactive file on the Senate Floor.
6)Prior Legislation:
a) SB 1320 (Hancock), Chapter 493, Statutes of 2010,
provides authority to specified local transit agencies
allowing them to administratively adjudicate transit
violations.
b) 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
SB 882
Page 9
Children's Defense Fund of California (Co-Sponsor)
Western Center on Law and Poverty (Co-Sponsor)
Youth Justice Coalition (Co-Sponsor)
Alliance for Boys and Men of Color
A New Way of Life Reentry Project
Aspiranet
California Association of Local Conservation Corps
California Coalition for Youth
California Equity Leaders Network
California Pan-Ethnic Health Network
California Public Defenders Association
California School-Based Health Alliance
Californians United for a Responsible Budget
Center for Juvenile Law and Policy, Loyola Law School
Children Now
Children's Advocacy Institute, University of San Diego Law
School
Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc.
Comite Civico del Valle
Community Asset Development Redefining Education
Courage Campaign
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
El Rancho Unified School District
First Place for Youth
Larkin Street Youth Services
Laborers' International Union of North America Locals 777 & 792
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights of San Francisco Bay Area
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter
National Center for Youth Law
Pacific Juvenile Defender Center
Policy Link
SB 882
Page 10
Public Counsel
Root and Rebound
Rubicon Programs
One Private Individual
Opposition
California Police Chiefs Association
California State Sheriffs Association
California Transit Association
Riverside Transit Agency
Sacramento Regional Transit District
Analysis Prepared by:Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744