Existing law prohibits a person from evading or attempting to evade the payment of tolls or other charges on any vehicular crossing or toll highway, and makes a violation of these provisions subject to civil penalties, as specified. If a vehicle is found to have evaded tolls on any toll road or toll bridge, existing law requires an issuing agency or a processing agency, within 21 days of the violation, to forward to the registered owner a notice of toll evasion violation setting forth the violation, as specified.

Existing law authorizes, within 21 days from the issuance of the notice of a toll evasion violation, or within 15 days from the mailing of the notice of delinquent toll evasion, whichever occurs later, a person to contest a notice of toll evasion violation or a notice of delinquent toll evasion. Existing law requires the processing agency to either investigate with its own records and staff or request that the issuing agency to investigate the circumstances of the notice, and requires the processing agency to mail the results of the investigation to the person who contested the violation. If the person is not satisfied with the results of the investigation, existing law authorizes the person to deposit the amount of the toll evasion penalty and request an administrative review, as prescribed. Existing law requires the review to be conducted in accordance with specified written procedure established by the processing agency and authorizes the agencys final decision to be delivered personally or by first-class mail. Within 20 days after mailing of the final decision, the contestant may seek review by filing an appeal to the superior court.

This bill would not require a person contesting a notice of toll evasion violation or notice of delinquent toll evasion from being required to pay the toll evasion penalty until after the processing agency or issuing agency finds as a result of an investigation, or the processing agency finds as a result of an administrative review, or a court finds as a result of a hearing, that the contestant did commit a toll evasion violation, whichever occurs later. The bill would authorize an administrative review to include reviews of multiple notices of toll evasion violation or notices of delinquent toll evasion of a person.

Existing law prohibits a person from evading or attempting to evade the payment of tolls or other charges on any vehicular crossing or toll highway, and makes a violation of these provisions subject to civil penalties, as specified. If a vehicle is found to have evaded tolls on any toll road or toll bridge, existing law requires an issuing agency or a processing agency, within 21 days of the violation, to forward to the registered owner a notice of toll evasion violation setting forth the violation, as specified.

Existing law authorizes, within 21 days from the issuance of the notice of a toll evasion violation, or within 15 days from the mailing of the notice of delinquent toll evasion, whichever occurs later, a person to contest a notice of toll evasion violation or a notice of delinquent toll evasion. Existing law requires the processing agency to either investigate with its own records and staff or request that the issuing agency to investigate the circumstances of the notice, and requires the processing agency to mail the results of the investigation to the person who contested the violation. If the person is not satisfied with the results of the investigation, existing law authorizes the person to deposit the amount of the toll evasion penalty and request an administrative review, as prescribed. Existing law requires the review to be conducted in accordance with specified written procedure established by the processing agency and authorizes the agencys final decision to be delivered personally or by first-class mail. Within 20 days after mailing of the final decision, the contestant may seek review by filing an appeal to the superior court.

This bill would not require a person contesting a notice of toll evasion violation or notice of delinquent toll evasion from being required to pay the toll evasion penalty until after the processing agency or issuing agency finds as a result of an investigation, or the processing agency finds as a result of an administrative review, or a court finds as a result of a hearing, that the contestant did commit a toll evasion violation, whichever occurs later.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING

Senator Jim Beall, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Bill No: Hearing Date: 7/11/2017

SUBJECT: .

DIGEST: This bill defers the payment requirements for a person contesting a notice of toll evasion violation through an administrative review hearing.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides that evasion of tolls is a civil offense, rather than a criminal offense.
2. Generally requires a notice of toll evasion violation to be issued within 21 days of the violation, and prescribes specific information that must be included in the notice.
3. Provides that the notice of toll evasion is required to include the following information:
   1. The vehicle license plate number.
   2. The registration expiration date and the make of the vehicle, if practicable.
   3. A clear and concise explanation of the procedures for contesting the violation and appealing an adverse decision, as specified.
4. Provides that a person may contest a notice of toll evasion and requires a toll agency to investigate a contesting request with its own records and staff, as specified. Further provides that if a toll agency determines that a violation did not occur or that the registered owner is not responsible for the violation, the toll agency is required to cancel the toll evasion violation and notify the person who contested the toll evasion notice, as specified.
5. Provides that if a person is not satisfied with the results related to the abovementioned appeal process, a person may request an administrative review for contested toll evasion citation(s), and further requires that a person contesting a violation(s) must deposit the toll evasion penalty amount at the time the appeal is requested, as specified.
6. Directs the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to refuse to renew a vehicle registration with outstanding toll evasion citations.

This bill:

1. Removes the requirement that a person contesting a notice of toll evasion violation must pay the associated penalty at the time an appeal is sought. Instead, requires that the penalty be paid, following the result of an investigation, administrative review, or court ruling, whichever is later, if found guilty.
2. Allows for the administrative review conducted to include reviews of multiple notices of toll evasion violation or notices of delinquent toll evasion of a person.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author, “With the current toll violation system in place, it is assumed the person charged with the crime is guilty without any factual evidence considered. Californians have the right to be innocent until proven guilty. In other words, Californians should not have to pay a fine without certain conviction for that crime. Appealing toll violations also hurts the state’s most vulnerable populations the hardest: low-income families. This bill will allow individuals contesting a toll violation to postpone paying their fine until they are proven guilty, upholding their Constitutional right to due process.”
2. Existing process. Under the existing statutory framework, a person that receives a notice of toll evasion violation has the ability to contest the notice by requesting the toll agency to investigate the notice at no cost. Upon receiving the request, toll agencies will typically investigate the accuracy of the contested violation by reviewing the transaction date and time, license plate number, vehicle registration, and whether the vehicle has an account with the toll agency. If it is determined that a violation did not occur, a toll agency will cancel the notice and associated penalties and will also mail the results of the investigation to the person who contested the notice. If it is determined that a violation did occur, the person contesting the notice is responsible for paying the tolls and any associated fines.

If a person remains unsatisfied with the results from the toll agency’s first investigation, a person may contest the results through a second process that includes an administrative review by an independent party. At this point the person contesting the notice is required to deposit an amount equal to the toll plus any associated fines and is required to receive an administrative hearing within 90 days of the request. Similar to the first investigation, an administrative reviewer will return the toll amount and associated fines if it is determined that a person was not guilty of toll evasion.

1. Additional measures. While the abovementioned process is administered by all toll agencies across the state for anyone that elects to dispute a toll evasion notice, toll agencies provide additional options for motorist that receive toll evasion violations yet may be experiencing financial hardships or have difficulty paying tolls. For example, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Authority (METRO) offers to waive penalties if a person received a notice(s) due to not having a subscription to a FasTrak account if that person chooses to sign up for an account. Additionally, METRO will automatically exempt a motorist’s first toll evasion violation if it’s determined that the vehicle has no known record of a prior violation. The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) has policies in place to allow for the penalty deposit to be decreased or waived in cases of economic hardship when requesting an administrative review. Lastly, the Transportation Corridor Agencies offer motorists the opportunity to pay tolls without an account within five days of receiving a notification without any penalty and offer a seven day grace period for motorists that receive a toll evasion notice to pay only the toll without any penalties.
2. Incentive for bad actors? Supporters of this bill note that a person must pay the toll amount and fine prior to receiving an administrative review of the toll violation, placing financial hardship on low income individuals. However, this bill will allow for any motorist that receives a toll violation notice to request an administrative review without having to submit the toll amount and associated fines, regardless of their ability to pay. While low income motorists would be afforded the opportunity to request a second review without having to submit a payment, so would all other motorists receiving a toll evasion violation notice. As a result, this bill may incentivize repeat toll violators to continue illegally using toll roads by allowing payment to be delayed/postponed for an extended period of time while all opportunities to challenge the toll evasion notice are exhausted. Furthermore, as mentioned, toll agencies currently have policies in place to allow an individual to demonstrate financial hardship when contesting a notice or providing a period of time to allow an individual to pay a toll amount without any fines. Thus, it is unclear who may benefit with the option to delay payment on a second review beyond motorist that habitually evade tolls. Given that the bill in its current form incentivizes repeat offenders to delay paying fines and continuously violate the law, the committee may wish to hold this bill.
3. Costly process. Upon the request for an administrative review, toll agencies are required to schedule the hearing/review within 90 days. While toll agencies are required to schedule the hearing/review, the person contesting the notice is not responsible for the cost associated with setting up the hearing if they do not appear at the scheduled time or submitting any necessary documentation in a timely manner. Consequently, this would leave toll agencies responsible for covering the cost of the hearing which ranges from $250 to $300 per hearing regardless if the individual requesting the hearing appears and/or participates. As requiring a payment upon request of a second appeal provides an incentive for an individual to attend/participate in an administrative hearing, deferring a payment may result in toll agencies experiencing a notable increase in administrative hearings and reviews, in turn potentially resulting in significant cost increases to toll agencies and ultimately to lawful motorists using toll roads.

Recent amendments were introduced to allow an individual to have an administrative hearing for multiple notices of toll evasion. However, toll agencies currently have the ability to hold a hearing for multiple notices and an individual requesting a hearing would still not be responsible to cover hearing cost if they failed to attend.

Assembly votes:

Floor: 80-0

Trans: 14-0

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday,

July 5, 2017.)

SUPPORT:

American Civil Liberties Union

Courage Campaign

Law Enforcement Action Partnership

Riverside Temple Beth El

National Center for Lesbian Rights

San Francisco Public Defender

Teamsters

Western Center on Law and Poverty

OPPOSITION:

Alameda County Transportation Commission

Bay Area Toll Authority

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Orange County Business Council

Orange County Transportation Authority

San Bernardino County Transportation Authority

South Orange County Economic Coalition

Transportation Corridor Agencies

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING

Senator Jim Beall, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Bill No: Hearing Date: 6/27/2017

SUBJECT: .

DIGEST: This bill defers the payment requirements for a person contesting a notice of toll evasion violation through an administrative review hearing.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides that evasion of tolls is a civil offense, rather than a criminal offense.
2. Generally requires a notice of toll evasion violation to be issued within 21 days of the violation, and prescribes specific information that must be included in the notice.
3. Provides that the notice of toll evasion is required to include the following information:
   1. The vehicle license plate number.
   2. The registration expiration date and the make of the vehicle, if practicable.
   3. A clear and concise explanation of the procedures for contesting the violation and appealing an adverse decision, as specified.
4. Provides that a person may contest a notice of toll evasion and requires a toll agency to investigate a contesting request with its own records and staff, as specified. Further provides that if a toll agency determines that a violation did not occur or that the registered owner is not responsible for the violation, the toll agency is required to cancel the toll evasion violation and notify the person who contested the toll evasion notice, as specified.
5. Provides that if a person is not satisfied with the results related to the abovementioned appeal process, a person may request an administrative review for contested toll evasion citation(s), and further requires that a person contesting a violation(s) must deposit the toll evasion penalty amount at the time the appeal is requested, as specified.
6. Directs the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to refuse to renew a vehicle registration with outstanding toll evasion citations.

This bill removes the requirement that a person contesting a notice of toll evasion violation must pay the associated penalty at the time an appeal is sought. Instead, the bill requires that the penalty be paid, following the result of an investigation, administrative review, or court ruling, whichever is later, if found guilty.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author, “With the current toll violation system in place, it is assumed the person charged with the crime is guilty without any factual evidence considered. Californians have the right to be innocent until proven guilty. In other words, Californians should not have to pay a fine without certain conviction for that crime. Appealing toll violations also hurts the state’s most vulnerable populations the hardest: low-income families. This bill will allow individuals contesting a toll violation to postpone paying their fine until they are proven guilty, upholding their Constitutional right to due process.”
2. Existing process. Under the existing statutory framework, a person that receives a notice of toll evasion violation has the ability to contest the notice by requesting the toll agency to investigate the notice at no cost. Upon receiving the request, toll agencies will typically investigate the accuracy of the contested violation by reviewing the transaction date and time, license plate number, vehicle registration, and whether the vehicle has an account with the toll agency. If it is determined that a violation did not occur, a toll agency will cancel the notice and associated penalties and will also mail the results of the investigation to the person who contested the notice. If it is determined that a violation did occur, the person contesting the notice is responsible for paying the tolls and any associated fines.

If a person remains unsatisfied with the results from the toll agency’s first investigation, a person may contest the results through a second process that includes an administrative review by an independent party. At this point the person contesting the notice is required to pay the amount of the toll plus any associated fines and is required to receive an administrative hearing within 90 days of the request. Similar to the first investigation, an administrative reviewer may return the toll amount and associated fines if it is determined that a person was not guilty of toll evasion.

1. Additional measures. While the abovementioned process is administered by all toll agencies across the state for anyone that elects to dispute a toll evasion notice, toll agencies provide additional options for motorist that receive toll evasion violations yet may be experiencing financial hardships or have difficulty paying tolls. For example, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Authority (METRO) offers to waive penalties if a person received a notice(s) due to not having a subscription to a FasTrak account if that person chooses to sign up for an account. Additionally, METRO will automatically exempt a motorist’s first toll evasion violation if it’s determined that the vehicle has no known record of a prior violation. The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) has policies in place to allow for the penalty deposit to be decreased or waived in cases of economic hardship when requesting an administrative review. Lastly, the Transportation Corridor Agencies offer motorists the opportunity to pay tolls without an account within five days of receiving a notification without any penalty and offer a seven day grace period for motorists that receive a toll evasion notice to pay only the toll without any penalties.
2. Incentive for bad actors? Supporters of this bill note that a person must pay the toll amount and fine prior to receiving an administrative review of the toll violation, placing financial hardship on low income individuals. However, this bill will allow for any motorist that receives a toll violation notice to request an administrative review without having to submit the toll amount and associated fines, regardless of their ability to pay. While low income motorists would be afforded the opportunity to request a second review without having to submit a payment, so would all other motorists receiving a toll evasion violation notice. As a result, this bill may incentivize repeat toll violators to continue illegally using toll roads by allowing payment to be delayed/postponed for an extended period of time while all opportunities to challenge the toll evasion notice are exhausted. Furthermore, as mentioned, toll agencies currently have policies in place to allow an individual to demonstrate financial hardship when contesting a notice or providing a period of time to allow an individual to pay a toll amount without any fines. Thus, it is unclear who may benefit with the option to delay payment on a second review beyond motorist that habitually evade tolls.
3. Costly process. Upon the request for an administrative review, toll agencies are required to schedule the hearing/review within 90 days. While toll agencies are required to schedule the hearing/review, the person contesting the notice is not responsible for the cost associated with setting up the hearing if they do not appear at the scheduled time or submitting any necessary documentation in a timely manner. Consequently, this would leave toll agencies responsible for covering the cost of the hearing which ranges from $250 to $300 per hearing regardless if the individual requesting the hearing appears and/or participates. As requiring a payment upon request of a second appeal provides an incentive for an individual to attend/participate in an administrative hearing, deferring a payment may result in toll agencies experiencing a notable increase in administrative hearings and reviews, in turn potentially resulting in significant cost increases to toll agencies and ultimately to lawful motorists using toll roads.

Assembly votes:

Floor: 80-0

Trans: 14-0

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday,

June 21, 2017.)

SUPPORT:

American Civil Liberties Union

Courage Campaign

Law Enforcement Action Partnership

Riverside Temple Beth El

National Center for Lesbian Rights

San Francisco Public Defender

Teamsters

Western Center on Law and Poverty

OPPOSITION:

Alameda County Transportation Commission

Bay Area Toll Authority

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Orange County Business Council

Orange County Transportation Authority

San Bernardino County Transportation Authority

South Orange County Economic Coalition

Transportation Corridor Agencies

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 344

Author:(Melendez)

As Introduced Ver:February 7, 2017

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Strikes the requirement that a person contesting a notice of toll evasion violation must pay the associated penalty at the time an appeal is sought; instead, requires the penalty to be paid, if necessary, following the result of an investigation, administrative review, or court ruling, whichever is later.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides that evasion of tolls is a civil offense, rather than a criminal offense (similar to the concept applied to parking tickets).
2. Generally requires a notice of toll evasion violation to be issued within 21 days of the violation, and prescribes the information that must be included in the notice.
3. Prescribes administrative appeals procedures for contested toll evasion citations, including the requirement that a person contesting a violation must deposit the toll evasion penalty amount at the time the appeal is requested via administrative hearing or court review.
4. Directs the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to refuse to renew a vehicle registration with uncleared toll evasion citations.

FISCAL EFFECT: None

COMMENTS: Under existing law, agencies that issue parking violations must allow persons contesting a parking violation to request an administrative hearing without paying the parking penalty in advance, if the person can demonstrate an inability to pay the amount due. In practice, some cities entirely forego the requirement that a person demonstrate an inability to pay and routinely allow administrative reviews without accepting payment up front.

This bill borrows from these provisions by modifying existing toll evasion violations procedures specifically to provide that a person contesting a violation or notice of delinquent toll evasion is not required to pay the toll evasion penalty until after the citation is adjudicated in one of several specific ways. (Unlike provisions related to parking violations, this bill does not require that a person demonstrate an inability to pay the amount due prior to appealing the violation.)

Toll evasion penalties can be substantial. For example, on the toll roads in Orange County that are operated by the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA), each violation is assessed a $57.50 penalty, in addition to the toll amount due. Failure to respond to the first violation notice results in an additional $42.50 penalty. Toll evasion penalties for San Francisco Bay Area bridges are slightly lower. Upon the initial citation notice, the penalty is the toll plus $25. After a second notice, the penalty is the toll plus $70, but is lowered to $25 if the toll is paid within 15 days. DMV will refuse to renew a vehicle registration if there are outstanding unpaid penalties.

This bill is consistent with actions taken by the Judicial Council of California in 2015. The action was as a result of criticisms aimed at state traffic infraction laws that raised significant concerns about procedural fairness in traffic infraction proceedings and ended the requirement that drivers pay traffic tickets before they can contest the ticket in court.

Analysis Prepared by: Janet Dawson / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN: 0000057

Date of Hearing: March 27, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Jim Frazier, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 344 (

Author:Melendez) – As Introduced Ver:February 7, 2017

SUBJECT: Toll evasion violations

SUMMARY: Strikes the requirement that a person contesting a notice of toll evasion violation must pay the associated penalty at the time an appeal is sought; instead, requires the penalty to be paid, if necessary, following the result of an investigation, administrative review, or court ruling, whichever is later.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides that evasion of tolls is a civil offense, rather than a criminal offense (similar to the concept applied to parking tickets).
2. Generally requires a notice of toll evasion violation to be issued within 21 days of the violation, and prescribes the information that must be included in the notice.
3. Prescribes administrative appeals procedures for contested toll evasion citations, including the requirement that a person contesting a violation must deposit the toll evasion penalty amount at the time the appeal is requested via administrative hearing or court review.
4. Directs the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to refuse to renew a vehicle registration with uncleared toll evasion citations.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS: Under existing law, agencies that issue parking violations must allow persons contesting a parking violation to request an administrative hearing without paying the parking penalty in advance, if the person can demonstrate an inability to pay the amount due. In practice, some cities entirely forego the requirement that a person demonstrate an inability to pay and routinely allow administrative reviews without accepting payment up front.

This bill borrows from these provisions by modifying existing toll evasion violations procedures specifically to provide that a person contesting a violation or notice of delinquent toll evasion is not required to pay the toll evasion penalty until after the citation is adjudicated in one of several specific ways. (Unlike provisions related to parking violations, this bill does not require that a person demonstrate an inability to pay the amount due prior to appealing the violation.)

Toll evasion penalties can be substantial. For example, on the toll roads in Orange County that are operated by the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA), each violation is assessed a $57.50 penalty, in addition to the toll amount due. Failure to respond to the first violation notice results in an additional $42.50 penalty. Toll evasion penalties for San Francisco Bay Area bridges are slightly lower. Upon the initial citation notice, the penalty is the toll plus $25. After a second notice, the penalty is the toll plus $70, but is lowered to $25 if the toll is paid within 15 days. DMV will refuse to renew a vehicle registration if there are outstanding unpaid penalties.

This bill is consistent with actions taken by the Judicial Council of California in 2015. The action was as a result of criticisms aimed at state traffic infraction laws that raised significant concerns about procedural fairness in traffic infraction proceedings and ended the requirement that drivers pay traffic tickets before they can contest the ticket in court.

Previous legislation: AB 1314 (Havice), Chapter 640, Statutes of 2002, requires agencies that issue parking violations to adopt written procedures to allow a person to request an administrative hearing, without payment of the parking penalty, upon satisfactory proof of an inability to pay the amount due.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

American Civil Liberties Union

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Janet Dawson / TRANS. /