BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1320|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 1320
Author: Hancock (D), et al
Amended: 8/9/10
Vote: 21
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMM : 7-1, 4/20/10
AYES: Lowenthal, Huff, DeSaulnier, Kehoe, Oropeza, Pavley,
Simitian
NOES: Ashburn
NO VOTE RECORDED: Harman
SENATE FLOOR : 23-11, 5/3/10
AYES: Cedillo, Corbett, Correa, Cox, DeSaulnier, Ducheny,
Florez, Hancock, Huff, Kehoe, Leno, Liu, Lowenthal,
Negrete McLeod, Oropeza, Padilla, Pavley, Price, Romero,
Simitian, Wolk, Wright, Yee
NOES: Aanestad, Ashburn, Cogdill, Denham, Dutton, Harman,
Hollingsworth, Runner, Strickland, Walters, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Alquist, Calderon, Steinberg, Wiggins,
Vacancy, Vacancy
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 49-24, 8/16/10 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Administrative adjudication of transit
violations
SOURCE : Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
DIGEST : This bill allows specified local transit
agencies to adopt an adjudication process and impose an
CONTINUED
SB 1320
Page
2
administrative penalty for transit-related offenses
committed by non-minors, and these local transit agencies
from establishing administrative penalties that exceed the
maximum criminal fine set forth in current law.
Assembly Amendments add Foothill Transit, Long Beach
Transit, Sacramento Regional Transit District, and the
Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority to the bill's
provisions, and add double-jointing language with AB 2324
(J. Perez).
ANALYSIS : Existing law, Section 640 of the Penal Code,
makes it a criminal infraction for a person to engage in
any of the following activities in a transit vehicle or
facility:
1. Fare evasion.
2. Misuse of a transfer, pass, ticket, or token with the
intent to evade the payment of a fare.
3. Playing sound equipment.
4. Smoking, eating, or drinking where those activities are
prohibited by the transit provider.
5. Expectorating.
6. Willfully disturbing others by engaging in boisterous or
unruly behavior.
7. Carrying an explosive or acid, flammable liquid, or
toxic or hazardous material.
8. Urinating or defecating except in a lavatory.
9. Willfully blocking the free movement of another person
unless permitted by first amendment rights.
10.Skateboarding, roller skating, bicycle riding, or
rollerblading except as necessary for utilization of the
transit facility by a bicyclist.
11.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
SB 1320
Page
3
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 percent
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 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
SB 1320
Page
4
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:
1. Extends existing law relative to the adjudication of
transit violations to the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit
District (AC Transit), Foothill Transit (Foothill), Long
Beach Transit (LBT), Sacramento Regional Transit
District (SacRTD), and the Santa Clara Valley Transit
Authority (VTA). Currently, existing law only allows the
City and County of San Francisco (SF) and the Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
(LAMTA) to adopt an administrative adjudication process
for transit-related violations committed by non-minors.
2. Prohibits SF, LAMTA, AC Transit, Foothill, LBT, SacRTD,
and VTA from establishing administrative penalties that
exceed the maximum criminal fines set forth in current
law.
3. Requires fare evasion and passenger misconduct violation
penalties to be deposited in the general fund of the
county in which the citation is administered.
4. Prohibits a person who receives a notice of fare evasion
or passenger conduct violation from also being cited for
a violation of Section 640 of the Penal Code.
SB 1320
Page
5
5. Amends Penal Code Section 640 to address chaptering-out
provisions between this bill and AB 2324 (J. Perez).
6. Requires the issuing agency, following a review of a
citation requested by alleged violator which does not
result in cancellation of the notice, to provide the
alleged violator a reason for that denial, notification
of the ability to request an administrative hearing, and
notice of the procedure for waiving prepayment of the
penalty based upon the ability to pay.
Comments
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 "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.
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
SB 1320
Page
6
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 jurisdictions. Though, neither organization was
particularly familiar with the program, neither had any
concerns or complaints to share.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Unable to reverify)
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (source)
California Transit Association
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Ammiano, Arambula, Beall, Tom Berryhill, Block,
Blumenfield, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero,
Carter, Chesbro, Coto, De La Torre, De Leon, Eng, Evans,
Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Galgiani,
Gatto, Hall, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill, Huffman, Jones,
Lieu, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Monning, Nava, V.
Manuel Perez, Portantino, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana,
Skinner, Solorio, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico,
Yamada, John A. Perez
NOES: Adams, Anderson, Bill Berryhill, Conway, Cook,
DeVore, Fuller, Gaines, Garrick, Gilmore, Hagman, Harkey,
Huber, Jeffries, Knight, Logue, Miller, Nestande, Niello,
Nielsen, Smyth, Audra Strickland, Tran, Villines
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bass, Blakeslee, Charles Calderon, Davis,
Norby, Silva, Vacancy
JA:nl 8/17/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SB 1320
Page
7
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****