BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair A
2009-2010 Regular Session B
1
8
8
AB 1885 (Hill) 5
As Amended April 14, 2010
Hearing date: June 22, 2010
Penal Code
JM:mc
AIRPORT LIMOUSINES - REGULATION
HISTORY
Source: San Francisco International Airport
Prior Legislation: AB 1310 (Leno) - Ch. 701, Stats. 2007
AB 2591 (Leno) - Ch. 603, Stats. 2004
AB 941 (House) - 1999, failed in Senate Public
Safety
Support: Unknown
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 53 - Noes 15
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE GOVERNING STATUTE RELATING TO LIMOUSINE OPERATORS
PROVIDING SERVICES IN AIRPORTS SPECIFICALLY STATE THAT WHERE A
LIMOUSINE SERVICE PROVIDES TRANSPORTATION AT AN AIRPORT ON A
PRE-ARRANGED BASIS, THAT SERVICE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE SELLING OR
OFFERING GOODS OR SERVICES AT THE AIRPORT, AS SPECIFIED?
(More)
AB 1885 (Hill)
PageB
(More)
AB 1885 (Hill)
PageC
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to allow an airport, such as San
Francisco International Airport, that is not located in the
county where the owning entity is located, to enforce state laws
requiring limousine operators to transport passengers only
through prior arrangement and to obtain consent to operate at
the airport.
Existing law provides that every person who enters or remains on
airport property owned by a city, county, or city and county but
located in another county, and sells, peddles, or offers for
sale any goods or services to the public, including
transportation, other than charter limousines licensed by the
Public Utilities Commission (PUC), on or from the airport
property, without express written consent of the airport
governing board, is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by
imprisonment in a county jail for up to six months, a fine of up
to $1,000, or both. The local governing entity may regulate
sale or offering for sale of any goods or services. (Pen. Code
602.4.)
Existing law prohibits the governing body of any airport from
imposing vehicle safety, vehicle licensing, or insurance
requirements on charter-party carriers operating limousines that
are more burdensome than those imposed by the PUC. However, the
governing board of any airport may require a charter-party
carrier operating limousines to obtain an airport permit for
operating authority at the airport. A city, county, or city and
county may impose reasonable rules for the inspection of
waybills of charter-party carriers of passengers operating
within the jurisdiction of the city, county, or city and county,
for purposes of verifying valid prearranged travel. (Pub. Util.
Code 5371.4, subds. (b) and (h).)
Existing law defines "limousine" as any sedan or sport utility
vehicle, of either standard or extended length, with a seating
capacity of not more than 10 passengers including the driver,
used in the transportation of passengers for hire on a
prearranged basis within California. (Pub. Util. Code 5371.4,
(More)
AB 1885 (Hill)
PageD
subd. (i).)
Existing law provides, as specified, that every charter-party
carrier and every officer, director, agent, or employee of any
charter-party carrier who violates or who fails to comply with
any order, decision or requirement of the PUC or of any
operating permit or certificate issued to any charter-party
carrier, or who procures, aids, or abets any charter-party
carrier in its failure to obey, observe, or comply with any such
order, decision, rule, requirement, or operating permit or
certificate, is guilty of a misdemeanor and is punishable by a
fine of not less than $1,000 and not more than $5,000 or by
imprisonment in the county jail for not more than three months,
or both. Persons arrested for operating a charter-party carrier
without a valid certificate or permit at a public airport or
within 100 feet of a public airport may have their vehicle
impounded. (Pub. Util. Code 5411 and 5411.5.)
Existing law provides that the court shall, when sentencing a
defendant for a conviction of operating a charter-party carrier
without a valid certificate or permit, impose a mandatory fine
not exceeding $10,000 for a first conviction, or $25,000 for a
subsequent conviction. The fine shall be conditioned on the
defendant's ability to pay and shall be imposed in addition to
any other penalty. (Pub. Util. Code 5412.2, subd. (b).)
Existing law provides that whenever the PUC, after hearing,
finds that any person or corporation that is operating as a
charter-party carrier, including a charter-party carrier
operating a limousine, without a valid certificate or permit, or
fails to include in any public advertisement the number or
permit or required identifying symbol, the PUC may impose a fine
of not more than $7,500 for each violation. The PUC may assess
the person or the corporation in an amount sufficient to cover
the reasonable expense of investigation incurred by the PUC.
The PUC may assess interest on any fine or assessment imposed,
to commence on the day the payment of the fine or assessment
becomes delinquent. All fines, assessments, and interest
collected shall be deposited a least once a month in the General
Fund. (Pub. Util. Code 5413.5.)
(More)
AB 1885 (Hill)
PageE
This bill removes the exemption currently given to charter-party
carrier limousines licensed by the PUC to enter or remain on
airport property owned by a city, county, or city and county but
located in another county, to offer transportation services, on
or from the airport property, without the express written
consent of the governing board of the airport property, or its
duly authorized representative.
This bill specifically provides that the offering of
pre-arranged transportation services by a charter party carrier
(limousine service) at an airport does not constitute the
offering of goods or services for which prior consent of the
airport authority is required.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
The severe prison overcrowding problem California has
experienced for the last several years has not been solved. In
December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
federal three-judge panel issued an order requiring the state to
reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design capacity
-- a reduction of roughly 40,000 inmates -- within two years.
In a prior, related 184-page Opinion and Order dated August 4,
2009, that court stated in part:
"California's correctional system is in a tailspin,"
the state's independent oversight agency has reported.
. . . (Jan. 2007 Little Hoover Commission Report,
"Solving California's Corrections Crisis: Time Is
Running Out"). Tough-on-crime politics have increased
the population of California's prisons dramatically
while making necessary reforms impossible. . . . As a
result, the state's prisons have become places "of
extreme peril to the safety of persons" they house,
(Governor Schwarzenegger's Oct. 4, 2006 Prison
(More)
AB 1885 (Hill)
PageF
Overcrowding State of Emergency Declaration), while
contributing little to the safety of California's
residents . . . California "spends more on
corrections than most countries in the world," but the
state "reaps fewer public safety benefits." . . . .
Although California's existing prison system serves
neither the public nor the inmates well, the state has
for years been unable or unwilling to implement the
reforms necessary to reverse its continuing
deterioration. (Some citations omitted.)
. . .
The massive 750% increase in the California prison
population since the mid-1970s is the result of
political decisions made over three decades, including
the shift to inflexible determinate sentencing and the
passage of harsh mandatory minimum and three-strikes
laws, as well as the state's counterproductive parole
system. Unfortunately, as California's prison
population has grown, California's political
decision-makers have failed to provide the resources
and facilities required to meet the additional need
for space and for other necessities of prison
existence. Likewise, although state-appointed experts
have repeatedly provided numerous methods by which the
state could safely reduce its prison population, their
recommendations have been ignored, underfunded, or
postponed indefinitely. The convergence of
tough-on-crime policies and an unwillingness to expend
the necessary funds to support the population growth
has brought California's prisons to the breaking
point. The state of emergency declared by Governor
Schwarzenegger almost three years ago continues to
this day, California's prisons remain severely
overcrowded, and inmates in the California prison
system continue to languish without constitutionally
(More)
AB 1885 (Hill)
PageG
adequate medical and mental health care.<1>
The court stayed implementation of its January 12, 2010, ruling
pending the state's appeal of the decision to the U.S. Supreme
Court. On Monday, June 14, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed
to hear the state's appeal in this case.
(More)
---------------------------
<1> Three Judge Court Opinion and Order, Coleman v.
Schwarzenegger, Plata v. Schwarzenegger, in the United States
District Courts for the Eastern District of California and the
Northern District of California United States District Court
composed of three judges pursuant to Section 2284, Title 28
United States Code (August 4, 2009).
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
(More)
AB 1885 (Hill)
PageI
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
I was recently offered a ride by an unauthorized limo
driver at San Francisco International (SFO) Airport.
I have experience with this and know this type of
illegal soliciting is happening and can be dangerous
to those passengers that get roped in by these rogue
limo drivers.
AB 1885 provides law enforcement the necessary tools
to reduce the prevalence of unauthorized limousine
drivers that are illegally soliciting business at San
Francisco International Airport. Due to a 1973
exemption, SFO police officers do not have adequate
enforcement authority to monitor unauthorized
limousine drivers. AB 1885 would change the Penal
Code to give them this much needed authority.
Unauthorized limousine drivers not only take away
business from legitimate drivers, they endanger
passengers because they do not have to undergo
criminal background checks and their vehicles are not
inspected by the appropriate authorities.
2. Additional Background on Illegal Limousine Operators at
the San Francisco International Airport
The author has provided this additional background information:
Due to a 1973 exemption, officers of the San Francisco
Police Department (SFPD) do not have enforce laws
prohibiting unauthorized limousine drivers from
illegally soliciting business on the grounds of San
Francisco International Airport (SFO). SFO is owned
and operated by the City and County of San Francisco.
San Francisco Police officers patrol SFO. However,
the airport is located in San Mateo County.
AB 1885 (Hill)
PageJ
Consequently, San Francisco Police officers at the
airport cannot arrest the drivers or impound their
vehicles based on San Francisco police powers because
those powers do not extend to San Mateo County, the
location of SFO.
This bill would allow SFO and San Francisco Police to
use Penal Code Section 602.4, which provides the
police with legal authority to arrest any person who
comes onto airport property and sells or offers to
sell goods and services to members of the public in
violation of the rules and regulations or the airport
governing board. Unfortunately, however, while
Section 602.4 applies generally to transportation
services, charter limousines are specifically exempt
from this provision. Therefore, SFPD cannot protect
the public at SFO from pirate limousine owners and
drivers by arresting such drivers and impounding their
vehicles.
Illegal soliciting by limousine drivers is a
long-standing problem at SFO. I was recently offered
a ride by an unauthorized limo driver at SFO. I have
experience with this and know this type of illegal
soliciting is happening and can be dangerous to those
passengers that get roped in by these rogue limo
drivers.
Because the restriction in Section 602.4 only applies
to SFO and Ontario Airport, other airports do not have
a comparable problem with illegal limousine operators.
AB 1885 provides law enforcement the necessary tools
to reduce the prevalence of limousine drivers that
illegally solicit business at SFO. Unauthorized
limousine drivers not only take away business from
legitimate drivers, they endanger passengers because
they do not have to undergo criminal background checks
and their vehicles are not inspected by the
appropriate authorities.
AB 1885 (Hill)
PageK
3. Technical Suggestion
The bill now provides: c) For purposes of this section,
any charter-party carrier licensed by the Public Utilities
Commission at an airport operating under a prearranged
basis, as defined in Section 5360.5 of the Public Utilities
Code, shall not constitute the sale, peddling, or offering
of goods, merchandise, property, or services.
Read literally, this provision states that a charter party
carrier shall not be considered the sale, et cetera of
goods. A charter party carrier provides services; it is
not the service. It appears that the purpose of this
provision is to state that a charter party carrier that
provides transportation through an arrangement or contract
made prior to meeting the customer at the airport shall not
be considered to be illegally peddling or offering goods of
services.
It is suggested that this provision be clarified as
follows:
c) For purposes of this section, where any charter-party
carrier licensed by the Public Utilities Commission
provides transportation services at an airport on a
pre-arranged basis, as defined in Section 5360.5 of the
Public Utilities Code, those acts shall not constitute the
sale, peddling, or offering of goods, merchandise,
property, or services.
***************