BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMI TTEE BILL NO: SB 1320
SENATOR ALAN LOWENTHAL, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: Hancock
VERSION: 2/19/10
Analysis by: Mark Stivers FISCAL: No
Hearing date: April 20, 2010
SUBJECT:
Administrative adjudication of transit violations:
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
DESCRIPTION:
This bill allows the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District to
adopt an adjudication process and impose an administrative
penalty for transit-related offenses committed by non-minors.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law makes it a criminal infraction for a person to
engage in any of the following activities in a transit vehicle
or facility:
Fare evasion.
Misuse of a transfer, pass, ticket, or token with the intent
to evade the payment of a fare.
Playing sound equipment.
Smoking, eating, or drinking where those activities are
prohibited by the transit provider.
Expectorating.
Willfully disturbing others by engaging in boisterous or
unruly behavior.
Carrying an explosive or acid, flammable liquid, or toxic or
hazardous material.
Urinating or defecating except in a lavatory.
Willfully blocking the free movement of another person unless
permitted by first amendment rights.
Skateboarding, roller skating, bicycle riding, or
rollerblading except as necessary for utilization of the
SB 1320 (HANCOCK) Page 2
transit facility by a bicyclist.
Unauthorized use of a discount ticket or failure to present
acceptable proof of eligibility to use a discount ticket.
The standard process for enforcing these criminal infractions is
for the transit officer citing the offense to give the alleged
violator a citation with a court date, which the alleged
violator signs promising to appear. The court later sends a
notice to the alleged violator, reminding him or her of the
court date, listing the bail amount, and stating that he or she
must appear unless the bail is paid. On the day the case is set
for a hearing in court, the defendant enters a plea. If the
plea is "guilty" or "no contest," the judge or magistrate fixes
the penalty amount. If the plea is "not guilty," the court
generally assigns a later trial date. At the trial, the officer
is subpoenaed and must appear. In some counties, the defendant
may enter a plea with the court clerk or even online, instead of
in court. In some counties, the plea hearing and trial may be
held at the same time.
State law provides that these criminal offenses are punishable
by a maximum base fine not to exceed $250 (which becomes $950
when mandatory assessments are added on) and 48 hours of
community service. The judges in each county, however, set the
bail schedule annually. In Los Angeles County, the actual base
fines range from $25 for a first offense to $100 for repeated
offenses for most violations and from $100 to $250 for
defecating/urinating and carrying explosives. Once collected,
the base fine monies are distributed between both state and
local governments on a roughly 50/50 basis. The assessments
flow to various state and local entities for things such as
court construction, emergency medical services, peace and
corrections officer training, victim-witness assistance, victim
restitution, and traumatic brain injury services. A 20%
assessment goes directly to the state's General Fund.
Since the enactment of SB 1749 (Migden), Chapter 258, Statutes
of 2006, state law also 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 (LAMTA) may adopt
and impose an administrative penalty and adjudication process
for these same violations committed by non-minors. Similar to
the process for issuing and enforcing parking tickets, the
issuing officer serves the alleged violator with a "notice of
SB 1320 (HANCOCK) Page 3
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 still file an appeal
in Superior Court, which hears the case de novo. All penalties
collected are deposited in the General Fund for Los Angeles or
San Francisco County, as applicable.
To date, only San Francisco has implemented civil infractions
for transit offenses. San Francisco has set the fines for fare
evasion and other passenger misconduct offenses at $75 for a
first offense, $250 for a second offense within one year, and
$500 for a third offense within one year.
This bill allows the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC
Transit) to adopt and impose an administrative penalty and
adjudication process for these same transit-related offenses
committed by non-minors. The bill requires AC Transit to follow
the same procedures that apply to San Francisco and LAMTA,
except that the penalties shall be deposited in the General Fund
of AC Transit itself, as opposed to the respective county.
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose of the bill . AC Transit historically has relied on
passengers paying at the farebox when boarding a bus. With
the need for more efficient operations when the smaller,
temporary replacement for the Trans-Bay Terminal in San
Francisco opens in 2015, those AC Transit riders who board
trans-bay buses will be asked to pre-pay tickets and board on
the honor system. In addition, AC Transit is planning the
development of rapid-bus lines within Alameda County that will
likewise rely on the honor system for fare payment. As a
result, AC Transit expects citations for fare evasion to
increase. According to AC Transit, allowing the district to
adjudicate any or all of the specified violations through
administrative review will free up court dockets to handle
more serious offenses and is consistent with the trend to
SB 1320 (HANCOCK) Page 4
"decriminalize" minor traffic and parking offenses. Moreover,
an administrative process will offer fare evaders and other
violators a less confrontational setting while still affording
them the right to a full hearing. AC Transit believes that
an administrative process will enhance public safety, increase
the payment of transit fares, and improve compliance with
conduct rules by transit riders.
2.Change of venue . This bill effectively moves adjudication of
transit violations that occur within the AC Transit system
from court to an administrative venue, similar to the process
used by cities and counties to adjudicate parking tickets.
Given that the courts generally hear transit violations in an
informal traffic court before a magistrate and that defendants
may simply pay bail in lieu of appearing in court, it is
unlikely that the defendant will see much of a difference in
the process. At best, the defendant will be spared a trial
date that is different from the plea hearing date and will
have the whole matter resolved more quickly. For those who
fail to address their tickets, however, they will no longer be
subject to a bench warrant, arrest, and possible jail time.
AC Transit, on the other hand, may benefit substantially by
the fact that the administrative process does not require the
citing officer to appear, whereas a court trial does. This
will allow AC Transit officers to spend much less time in
court and much more time on patrol.
3.The experiences in San Francisco and Los Angeles . San
Francisco is the only jurisdiction to date to adopt civil
citations for transit infractions, and its representative
reports that transit officers there issued 3600
transit-related citations in 2009.
LAMTA has studied the feasibility and financial assumptions of
an administrative adjudication system, is still considering
it, but has yet to adopt one. One of the agency's key
objectives for such a system would be to have access to
adequate information on the status of individual citations and
the penalties assessed. Currently, LAMTA is unable to obtain
this information from the county courts.
Staff contacted the Bus Riders Union in Los Angeles and the
San Francisco Organizing Project, two consumer-oriented
membership organizations active on transit issues, to inquire
about rider complaints or concerns with the actual or
prospective administrative enforcement programs in those two
SB 1320 (HANCOCK) Page 5
jurisdictions. Though, neither organization was particularly
familiar with the program, neither had any concerns or
complaints to share.
4.Doesn't apply to minors . As with the laws that allow San
Francisco and LAMTA to establish administrative adjudication
processes for transit violations, this bill does not apply to
minors. The juvenile court system will continue to handle
minor violators.
5.Creates a bounty situation . By allowing AC Transit to keep
all of the revenues from administrative penalties, this bill
creates an incentive for the district to increase enforcement
efforts in order to maximize revenues. For exactly this
reason, SB 1749 (Migden) of 2006, which gave San Francisco and
LAMTA the authority to enforce transit violations
administratively, was amended to direct all penalty revenues
to the respective county general fund, not the transit
district directly, though in the case of San Francisco, the
transit district is essentially a department of the county.
AC Transit's representative states that the district does not
expect to make money from this bill. The costs associated
with the adjudication process will likely equal or exceed any
penalty revenues. Nonetheless, the committee may wish to
consider whether it is appropriate to allow the enforcement
agency to keep penalty revenues. Like LAMTA expects to do, AC
Transit could always enter into an agreement with its counties
to pass-through some or all of the penalty revenues to cover
the costs of the administrative adjudication process.
6.No caps on fines . Current law allows San Francisco and LAMTA
to establish the amount of the administrative penalty
associated with a violation of the listed prohibitions, and
this bill would provide identical authority to AC Transit. It
is possible or even likely that the civil penalties
established by these three entities are or will be less than
the total fines (including assessments) associated with a
criminal violation, however, the law does not establish any
cap on the amount of these penalties. The committee may want
to consider imposing a cap on administrative penalties that
equals the maximum base fine allowed under the Penal Code.
7.No double jeopardy . Staff at LAMTA states that it would be
helpful to clarify that, where a transit agency has adopted an
administrative adjudication system, peace officers and transit
SB 1320 (HANCOCK) Page 6
officers may continue to issue a criminal citation or may
issue the new civil citation but not both. Flexibility is
important because non-financial penalties are the only
effective deterrents for some offenders. Adding such language
would also ensure that a violator cannot receive both a
criminal and civil citation for the same offense. The
committee may wish to consider making this clarification.
8.Diversion of revenues from the state and other entities .
Criminal violations handled by the courts result in the
payment of fines and assessments that benefit many different
entities. Base fine monies are distributed to both state and
local governments on a roughly 50/50 basis. The assessments,
which amount to many times the base fine, ultimately flow to
various state and local entities for things such as court
construction, emergency medical services, peace and
corrections officer training, victim-witness assistance,
victim restitution, traumatic brain injury services, and the
state's General Fund. Under this bill, these entities no
longer would receive funding for transit violations in AC
Transit's service area. The losses to the state and to county
courts would be offset, and possibly exceeded, however, by the
savings in court workload and hearings. In essence, AC
Transit would accept the lion's share of the adjudication
costs, but it (or the counties if the bill is amended in
accordance with comment #5) would also receive all of the
revenue. Legislative Counsel has keyed this bill non-fiscal,
but clearly there are significant fiscal impacts to the state,
counties, and other entities. The committee may wish to
consider referring this bill to the Appropriations Committee
for a review of these impacts.
9.Technical amendment . The bill should also amend Public
Utilities Code Section 99581 to require that the processing
agency inform an alleged violator simultaneously with the
results of the initial review of the procedure for waiving
prepayment of the penalty based upon an inability to pay.
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the Committee before noon on
Wednesday,
April 14, 2010)
SUPPORT: AC Transit (sponsor)
California Transit Association
OPPOSED: None received.
SB 1320 (HANCOCK) Page 7