AB 468: Transit districts: prohibition orders.
- Session Year: 2017-2018
- House: Assembly
- Latest Version Date: 2017-09-01
Existing law prohibits certain acts by a person with respect to the property, facilities, or vehicles of a transit district. A violation is generally an infraction punishable by a fine not exceeding $75 on a first offense, or on a subsequent offense by a fine not exceeding $250 or by community service.
Existing law authorizes the Sacramento Regional Transit District, the Fresno Area Express, and, until January 1, 2018, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District to issue a prohibition order to any person cited for committing one or more of certain prohibited acts in specified transit facilities. Existing law prohibits a person subject to the prohibition order from entering the property, facilities, or vehicles of the transit district for specified periods of time. Existing law establishes notice requirements in that regard and provides for initial and administrative review of the order.
This bill would apply these provisions to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and would extend the application of these provisions to the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District indefinitely.
Existing law prohibits certain acts by a person with respect to the property, facilities, or vehicles of a transit district. A violation is generally an infraction punishable by a fine not exceeding $75 on a first offense, or on a subsequent offense by a fine not exceeding $250 or by community service.
Existing law authorizes the Sacramento Regional Transit District, the Fresno Area Express, and, until January 1, 2018, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District to issue a prohibition order to any person cited for committing one or more of certain prohibited acts in specified transit facilities. Existing law prohibits a person subject to the prohibition order from entering the property, facilities, or vehicles of the transit district for specified periods of time. Existing law establishes notice requirements in that regard and provides for initial and administrative review of the order.
This bill would apply these provisions to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and would extend the application of these provisions to the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District indefinitely.
Existing law prohibits certain acts by a person with respect to the property, facilities, or vehicles of a transit district. A violation is generally an infraction punishable by a fine not exceeding $75 on a first offense, or on a subsequent offense by a fine not exceeding $250 or by community service.
Existing law authorizes the Sacramento Regional Transit District, the Fresno Area Express, and, until January 1, 2018, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District to issue a prohibition order to any person cited for committing one or more of certain prohibited acts in specified transit facilities. Existing law prohibits a person subject to the prohibition order from entering the property, facilities, or vehicles of the transit district for specified periods of time. Existing law establishes notice requirements in that regard and provides for initial and administrative review of the order.
This bill would apply these provisions to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Authority and would extend the application of these provisions to the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District indefinitely.
Existing law prohibits certain acts by a person with respect to the property, facilities, or vehicles of a transit district. A violation is generally an infraction punishable by a fine not exceeding $75 on a first offense, or on a subsequent offense by a fine not exceeding $250 or by community service.
Existing law authorizes the Sacramento Regional Transit District, the Fresno Area Express, and, until January 1, 2018, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District to issue a prohibition order to any person cited for committing one or more of certain prohibited acts in specified transit facilities. Existing law prohibits a person subject to the prohibition order from entering the property, facilities, or vehicles of the transit district for specified periods of time. Existing law establishes notice requirements in that regard and provides for initial and administrative review of the order.
This bill would apply these provisions to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
Existing law establishes the crime of assault committed against any person on the property of, or on a motor vehicle of, a public transportation provider, as defined. This bill would express the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation establishing the crime of assault against a transit operator while a transit vehicle is in motion.Existing law establishes the crime of assault committed against any person on the property of, or on a motor vehicle of, a public transportation provider, as defined.
This bill would express the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation establishing the crime of assault against a transit operator while a transit vehicle is in motion.
(a)(1)A transit district may issue a prohibition order to any person to whom either of the following applies:
(A)On at least three separate occasions within a period of 90 consecutive days, the person is cited for an infraction committed in or on a vehicle, bus stop, or train or light rail station of the transit district for any act that is a violation of paragraph (2) or (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 99170 of this code or paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 640 or Section 640.5 of the Penal Code.
(B)The person is arrested or convicted for a misdemeanor or felony committed in or on a vehicle, bus stop, or light rail station of the transit district for acts involving violence, threats of violence, lewd or lascivious behavior, or possession for sale or sale of a controlled substance.
(C)The person is convicted of a violation of Section 11532 of the Health and Safety Code or Section 653.22 of the Penal Code.
(2)A person subject to a prohibition order may not enter the property, facilities, or vehicles of the transit district for a period of time deemed appropriate by the transit district, provided that the duration of a prohibition order shall not exceed the following, as applicable:
(A)Thirty days if issued pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1), provided that a second prohibition order within one year may not exceed 90 days, and a third or subsequent prohibition order within one year may not exceed 180 days.
(B)Thirty days if issued pursuant to an arrest pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1). Upon conviction of a misdemeanor offense, the duration of the prohibition order for the conviction, when added to the duration of the prohibition order for the initial arrest, if any, may not exceed 180 days. Upon conviction of a felony offense, the duration of the prohibition order for the conviction, when added to the duration of the prohibition order for the initial arrest, if any, may not exceed one year.
(3)No prohibition order issued under this subdivision shall be effective unless the transit district first affords the person an opportunity to contest the transit districts proposed action in accordance with procedures adopted by the transit district for this purpose. A transit districts procedures shall provide, at a minimum, for the notice and other protections set forth in subdivisions (b) and (c), and the transit district shall provide reasonable notification to the public of the availability of those procedures.
(b)(1)A notice of a prohibition order issued under subdivision (a) shall set forth a description of the conduct underlying the violation or violations giving rise to the prohibition order, including reference to the applicable statutory provision, ordinance, or transit district rule violated, the date of the violation, the approximate time of the violation, the location where the violation occurred, the period of the proposed prohibition, and the scope of the prohibition. The notice shall include a clear and conspicuous statement indicating the procedure for contesting the prohibition order. The notice of prohibition order shall be personally served upon the violator. The notice of prohibition order, or a copy, shall be considered a record kept in the ordinary course of business of the transit district and shall be prima facie evidence of the facts contained in the notice establishing a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence. For purposes of this paragraph, clear and conspicuous means in larger type than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same size, or set off from the surrounding text of the same size by symbols or other marks that call attention to the language.
(2)For purposes of this section, personal service means any of the following:
(A)In-person delivery.
(B)Delivery by any form of mail providing for delivery confirmation, postage prepaid, to at least one address provided by the person being served, including, but not limited to, the address set forth in any citation or in court records.
(C)Any alternate method approved in writing by the transit district and the person being served.
(3)If a person served with a notice of prohibition order is not able, or refuses, to provide a mailing address, the notice of prohibition order shall set forth the procedure for obtaining any letters, notices, or orders related to the prohibition order from the administrative offices of the transit district. For purposes of this section, delivery shall be deemed to have been made on the following date, as applicable:
(A)On the date of delivery, if delivered in person.
(B)On the date of confirmed delivery, for any delivery by mail.
(C)For any alternate method of service, as provided in the writing specifying the alternate method.
(4)Proof of service of the notice shall be filed with the transit district.
(5)If a person contests a notice of prohibition order, the transit district shall proceed in accordance with subdivision (c). If the notice of prohibition order is not contested within 10 calendar days after delivery by personal service, the prohibition order shall be deemed final and shall go into effect, without further action by the transit district, for the period of time set forth in the order.
(6)All prohibition orders shall be subject to an automatic stay and shall not take effect until the latest of the following:
(A)Eleven calendar days after delivery of the prohibition order by personal service.
(B)If an initial review is timely requested under paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), 11 calendar days after delivery by personal service of the results of the review.
(C)If an administrative hearing is timely requested under paragraph (3) of subdivision (c), the date the hearing officers decision is delivered by personal service.
(c)(1)For a period of 10 calendar days from the delivery of the prohibition order by personal service, the person may request an initial review of the prohibition order by the transit district. The request may be made by telephone, in writing, or in person. There shall be no charge for this review. In conducting its review and reaching a determination, the transit district shall determine whether the prohibition order meets the requirements of subdivision (a) and, unless the person has been convicted of the offense or offenses, whether the offense or offenses for which the person was cited or arrested are proven by a preponderance of the evidence. If, following the initial review, based on these findings, the transit district determines that the prohibition order is not adequately supported or that extenuating circumstances make dismissal of the prohibition order appropriate in the interest of justice, the transit district shall cancel the notice. If, following the initial review, based on these findings, the transit district determines that the prohibition order should be upheld in whole or in part, the transit district shall issue a written statement to that effect, including any modification to the period or scope of the prohibition order. The transit district shall serve the results of the initial review to the person contesting the notice by personal service.
(2)The transit district may modify or cancel a prohibition order in the interest of justice. The transit district shall cancel a prohibition order if it determines that the person did not understand the nature and extent of his or her actions or did not have the ability to control his or her actions. If the person is dependent upon the transit system for trips of necessity, including, but not limited to, travel to or from medical or legal appointments, school or training classes, places of employment, or obtaining food, clothing, and necessary household items, the transit district shall modify a prohibition order to allow for those trips. A person requesting a cancellation or modification in the interest of justice shall have the burden of establishing the qualifying circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence.
(3)If the person is dissatisfied with the results of the initial review, the person may request an administrative hearing of the prohibition order no later than 10 calendar days after the results of the initial review are delivered by personal service. The request may be made by telephone, in writing, or in person. An administrative hearing shall be held within 30 calendar days after the receipt of a request for an administrative hearing. The person requesting the hearing may request one continuance, not to exceed seven calendar days.
(4)The administrative hearing process shall include all of the following:
(A)The person requesting the hearing shall have the choice of a hearing by mail or in person. An in-person hearing shall be conducted within the jurisdiction of the transit district.
(B)The administrative hearing shall be conducted in accordance with written procedures established by the transit district and approved by the governing body or chief executive officer of the transit district. The hearing shall provide an independent, objective, fair, and impartial review of the prohibition order.
(C)The administrative review shall be conducted before a hearing officer designated to conduct the review by the transit districts governing body or chief executive officer. In addition to any other requirements, a hearing officer shall demonstrate the qualifications, training, and objectivity prescribed by the transit agencys governing body or chief executive officer as are necessary to fulfill and that are consistent with the duties and responsibilities set forth in this subdivision. The hearing officers continued service, performance evaluation, compensation, and benefits, as applicable, shall not be directly or indirectly linked to the number of prohibition orders upheld by the hearing officer.
(D)The person who issued the notice of prohibition order shall not be required to participate in an administrative hearing, unless participation is requested by the person requesting the hearing. The request for participation must be made at least five calendar days prior to the date of the hearing and may be made by telephone, in writing, or in person. The notice of prohibition order, in proper form, shall be prima facie evidence of the violation or violations pursuant to subdivision (a) establishing a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence.
(E)In issuing a decision, the hearing officer shall determine whether the prohibition order meets the requirements of subdivision (a) and, unless the person has been convicted of the offense or offenses, whether the offense or offenses for which the person was cited or arrested are proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Based upon these findings, the hearing officer may uphold the prohibition order in whole, determine that the prohibition order is not adequately supported, or cancel or modify the prohibition order in the interest of justice. The hearing officer shall cancel a prohibition order if he or she determines that the person did not understand the nature and extent of his or her actions or did not have the ability to control his or her actions. If the person is dependent upon the transit system for trips of necessity, including, but not limited to, travel to or from medical or legal appointments, school or training classes, places of employment, or obtaining food, clothing, and necessary household items, the transit district shall modify a prohibition order to allow for those trips. A person requesting a cancellation or modification in the interest of justice shall have the burden of establishing the qualifying circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence.
(F)The hearing officers decision following the administrative hearing shall be delivered by personal service.
(G)A person aggrieved by the final decision of the hearing officer may seek judicial review of the decision within 90 days of the date of delivery of the decision by personal service, as provided by Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(d)A person issued a prohibition order under subdivision (a) may, within 10 calendar days of the date the order goes into effect under paragraph (6) of subdivision (b), request a refund for any prepaid fare media rendered unusable in whole or in part by the prohibition order, including, but not limited to, monthly passes. If the fare media remain usable for one or more days outside the period of the prohibition order, the refund shall be prorated based on the number of days the fare media will be unusable. The issuance of a refund may be made contingent on surrender of the fare media.
(e)For purposes of this section, transit district means the Sacramento Regional Transit District, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Fresno Area Express, or the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District.
SEC. 2.Section 99172 of the Public Utilities Code is amended to read:99172.(a)Prior to exercising the authority given in subdivision (a) of Section 99171 to issue prohibition orders, a transit district shall do all of the following:
(1)Establish an advisory committee for the purpose of evaluating the procedures for and issuance of prohibition orders and recommending a course of training for personnel charged with issuance and enforcement of prohibition orders.
(2)Ensure that personnel to be charged with issuance and enforcement of prohibition orders have received training as recommended by the advisory committee.
(3)Provide reasonable notification to transit district riders that persons who engage in disorderly conduct may be subject to a prohibition order barring the person from the transit districts property, facilities, or vehicles for a period of up to one year. Reasonable notification may include, but is not limited to, information on the transit districts Internet Web site, in written materials, at transit stations, and on citations issued by the transit district of the types of conduct that may result in issuance of a prohibition order.
(b)The advisory committee shall be composed of at least five members appointed by the legislative body of the transit district. At least one of the members of the advisory committee shall have experience working with individuals with psychiatric, developmental, or other disabilities, at least one member shall be a youth advocate, and at least one member shall have law enforcement experience.
(c)The advisory committee shall be tasked, at a minimum, with all of the following:
(1)Providing recommendations, in consultation with the county mental health director within the service area of the transit district, regarding the type and extent of training that should be undertaken by individuals with responsibility for issuance and enforcement of prohibition orders, with particular emphasis on training designed to assist those individuals in identifying and interacting with persons who are homeless or who have psychiatric, developmental, or other disabilities.
(2)Identifying, in consultation with the county mental health director within the service area of the transit district, services and programs to which persons who are homeless or who have psychiatric, developmental, or other disabilities may be referred by transit district enforcement personnel prior to or in conjunction with issuance of a prohibition order.
(3)Monitoring the issuance of prohibition orders to assist the transit district in ensuring compliance with Section 51 of the Civil Code.
(4)Providing the governing board of the transit district and the Legislature with an annual report summarizing the number of prohibition orders that were issued by the transit district during the preceding year, including, but not limited to, the types and numbers of citations by category, and the number of exclusion orders appealed, the appeals granted, the reasons granted, and other relevant information directly related to those orders.
(d)The transit district may use an existing advisory committee to fulfill the requirements of this section, provided that the composition and purpose of the existing advisory committee meet or are modified to meet the requirements of this section.
(e)For purposes of this section, transit district means the Sacramento Regional Transit District, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Fresno Area Express, or the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District.
(a)(1)A transit district may issue a prohibition order to any person to whom either of the following applies:
(A)On at least three separate occasions within a period of 90 consecutive days, the person is cited for an infraction committed in or on a vehicle, bus stop, or train or light rail station of the transit district for any act that is a violation of paragraph (2) or (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 99170 of this code or paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 640 or Section 640.5 of the Penal Code.
(B)The person is arrested or convicted for a misdemeanor or felony committed in or on a vehicle, bus stop, or light rail station of the transit district for acts involving violence, threats of violence, lewd or lascivious behavior, or possession for sale or sale of a controlled substance.
(C)The person is convicted of a violation of Section 11532 of the Health and Safety Code or Section 653.22 of the Penal Code.
(2)A person subject to a prohibition order may not enter the property, facilities, or vehicles of the transit district for a period of time deemed appropriate by the transit district, provided that the duration of a prohibition order shall not exceed the following, as applicable:
(A)Thirty days if issued pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1), provided that a second prohibition order within one year may not exceed 90 days, and a third or subsequent prohibition order within one year may not exceed 180 days.
(B)Thirty days if issued pursuant to an arrest pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1). Upon conviction of a misdemeanor offense, the duration of the prohibition order for the conviction, when added to the duration of the prohibition order for the initial arrest, if any, may not exceed 180 days. Upon conviction of a felony offense, the duration of the prohibition order for the conviction, when added to the duration of the prohibition order for the initial arrest, if any, may not exceed one year.
(3)No prohibition order issued under this subdivision shall be effective unless the transit district first affords the person an opportunity to contest the transit districts proposed action in accordance with procedures adopted by the transit district for this purpose. A transit districts procedures shall provide, at a minimum, for the notice and other protections set forth in subdivisions (b) and (c), and the transit district shall provide reasonable notification to the public of the availability of those procedures.
(b)(1)A notice of a prohibition order issued under subdivision (a) shall set forth a description of the conduct underlying the violation or violations giving rise to the prohibition order, including reference to the applicable statutory provision, ordinance, or transit district rule violated, the date of the violation, the approximate time of the violation, the location where the violation occurred, the period of the proposed prohibition, and the scope of the prohibition. The notice shall include a clear and conspicuous statement indicating the procedure for contesting the prohibition order. The notice of prohibition order shall be personally served upon the violator. The notice of prohibition order, or a copy, shall be considered a record kept in the ordinary course of business of the transit district and shall be prima facie evidence of the facts contained in the notice establishing a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence. For purposes of this paragraph, clear and conspicuous means in larger type than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same size, or set off from the surrounding text of the same size by symbols or other marks that call attention to the language.
(2)For purposes of this section, personal service means any of the following:
(A)In-person delivery.
(B)Delivery by any form of mail providing for delivery confirmation, postage prepaid, to at least one address provided by the person being served, including, but not limited to, the address set forth in any citation or in court records.
(C)Any alternate method approved in writing by the transit district and the person being served.
(3)If a person served with a notice of prohibition order is not able, or refuses, to provide a mailing address, the notice of prohibition order shall set forth the procedure for obtaining any letters, notices, or orders related to the prohibition order from the administrative offices of the transit district. For purposes of this section, delivery shall be deemed to have been made on the following date, as applicable:
(A)On the date of delivery, if delivered in person.
(B)On the date of confirmed delivery, for any delivery by mail.
(C)For any alternate method of service, as provided in the writing specifying the alternate method.
(4)Proof of service of the notice shall be filed with the transit district.
(5)If a person contests a notice of prohibition order, the transit district shall proceed in accordance with subdivision (c). If the notice of prohibition order is not contested within 10 calendar days after delivery by personal service, the prohibition order shall be deemed final and shall go into effect, without further action by the transit district, for the period of time set forth in the order.
(6)All prohibition orders shall be subject to an automatic stay and shall not take effect until the latest of the following:
(A)Eleven calendar days after delivery of the prohibition order by personal service.
(B)If an initial review is timely requested under paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), 11 calendar days after delivery by personal service of the results of the review.
(C)If an administrative hearing is timely requested under paragraph (3) of subdivision (c), the date the hearing officers decision is delivered by personal service.
(c)(1)For a period of 10 calendar days from the delivery of the prohibition order by personal service, the person may request an initial review of the prohibition order by the transit district. The request may be made by telephone, in writing, or in person. There shall be no charge for this review. In conducting its review and reaching a determination, the transit district shall determine whether the prohibition order meets the requirements of subdivision (a) and, unless the person has been convicted of the offense or offenses, whether the offense or offenses for which the person was cited or arrested are proven by a preponderance of the evidence. If, following the initial review, based on these findings, the transit district determines that the prohibition order is not adequately supported or that extenuating circumstances make dismissal of the prohibition order appropriate in the interest of justice, the transit district shall cancel the notice. If, following the initial review, based on these findings, the transit district determines that the prohibition order should be upheld in whole or in part, the transit district shall issue a written statement to that effect, including any modification to the period or scope of the prohibition order. The transit district shall serve the results of the initial review to the person contesting the notice by personal service.
(2)The transit district may modify or cancel a prohibition order in the interest of justice. The transit district shall cancel a prohibition order if it determines that the person did not understand the nature and extent of his or her actions or did not have the ability to control his or her actions. If the person is dependent upon the transit system for trips of necessity, including, but not limited to, travel to or from medical or legal appointments, school or training classes, places of employment, or obtaining food, clothing, and necessary household items, the transit district shall modify a prohibition order to allow for those trips. A person requesting a cancellation or modification in the interest of justice shall have the burden of establishing the qualifying circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence.
(3)If the person is dissatisfied with the results of the initial review, the person may request an administrative hearing of the prohibition order no later than 10 calendar days after the results of the initial review are delivered by personal service. The request may be made by telephone, in writing, or in person. An administrative hearing shall be held within 30 calendar days after the receipt of a request for an administrative hearing. The person requesting the hearing may request one continuance, not to exceed seven calendar days.
(4)The administrative hearing process shall include all of the following:
(A)The person requesting the hearing shall have the choice of a hearing by mail or in person. An in-person hearing shall be conducted within the jurisdiction of the transit district.
(B)The administrative hearing shall be conducted in accordance with written procedures established by the transit district and approved by the governing body or chief executive officer of the transit district. The hearing shall provide an independent, objective, fair, and impartial review of the prohibition order.
(C)The administrative review shall be conducted before a hearing officer designated to conduct the review by the transit districts governing body or chief executive officer. In addition to any other requirements, a hearing officer shall demonstrate the qualifications, training, and objectivity prescribed by the transit agencys governing body or chief executive officer as are necessary to fulfill and that are consistent with the duties and responsibilities set forth in this subdivision. The hearing officers continued service, performance evaluation, compensation, and benefits, as applicable, shall not be directly or indirectly linked to the number of prohibition orders upheld by the hearing officer.
(D)The person who issued the notice of prohibition order shall not be required to participate in an administrative hearing, unless participation is requested by the person requesting the hearing. The request for participation must be made at least five calendar days prior to the date of the hearing and may be made by telephone, in writing, or in person. The notice of prohibition order, in proper form, shall be prima facie evidence of the violation or violations pursuant to subdivision (a) establishing a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence.
(E)In issuing a decision, the hearing officer shall determine whether the prohibition order meets the requirements of subdivision (a) and, unless the person has been convicted of the offense or offenses, whether the offense or offenses for which the person was cited or arrested are proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Based upon these findings, the hearing officer may uphold the prohibition order in whole, determine that the prohibition order is not adequately supported, or cancel or modify the prohibition order in the interest of justice. The hearing officer shall cancel a prohibition order if he or she determines that the person did not understand the nature and extent of his or her actions or did not have the ability to control his or her actions. If the person is dependent upon the transit system for trips of necessity, including, but not limited to, travel to or from medical or legal appointments, school or training classes, places of employment, or obtaining food, clothing, and necessary household items, the transit district shall modify a prohibition order to allow for those trips. A person requesting a cancellation or modification in the interest of justice shall have the burden of establishing the qualifying circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence.
(F)The hearing officers decision following the administrative hearing shall be delivered by personal service.
(G)A person aggrieved by the final decision of the hearing officer may seek judicial review of the decision within 90 days of the date of delivery of the decision by personal service, as provided by Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(d)A person issued a prohibition order under subdivision (a) may, within 10 calendar days of the date the order goes into effect under paragraph (6) of subdivision (b), request a refund for any prepaid fare media rendered unusable in whole or in part by the prohibition order, including, but not limited to, monthly passes. If the fare media remain usable for one or more days outside the period of the prohibition order, the refund shall be prorated based on the number of days the fare media will be unusable. The issuance of a refund may be made contingent on surrender of the fare media.
(e)For purposes of this section, transit district means the Sacramento Regional Transit District, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Fresno Area Express, or the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District.
SEC. 2.Section 99172 of the Public Utilities Code is amended to read:99172.(a)Prior to exercising the authority given in subdivision (a) of Section 99171 to issue prohibition orders, a transit district shall do all of the following:
(1)Establish an advisory committee for the purpose of evaluating the procedures for and issuance of prohibition orders and recommending a course of training for personnel charged with issuance and enforcement of prohibition orders.
(2)Ensure that personnel to be charged with issuance and enforcement of prohibition orders have received training as recommended by the advisory committee.
(3)Provide reasonable notification to transit district riders that persons who engage in disorderly conduct may be subject to a prohibition order barring the person from the transit districts property, facilities, or vehicles for a period of up to one year. Reasonable notification may include, but is not limited to, information on the transit districts Internet Web site, in written materials, at transit stations, and on citations issued by the transit district of the types of conduct that may result in issuance of a prohibition order.
(b)The advisory committee shall be composed of at least five members appointed by the legislative body of the transit district. At least one of the members of the advisory committee shall have experience working with individuals with psychiatric, developmental, or other disabilities, at least one member shall be a youth advocate, and at least one member shall have law enforcement experience.
(c)The advisory committee shall be tasked, at a minimum, with all of the following:
(1)Providing recommendations, in consultation with the county mental health director within the service area of the transit district, regarding the type and extent of training that should be undertaken by individuals with responsibility for issuance and enforcement of prohibition orders, with particular emphasis on training designed to assist those individuals in identifying and interacting with persons who are homeless or who have psychiatric, developmental, or other disabilities.
(2)Identifying, in consultation with the county mental health director within the service area of the transit district, services and programs to which persons who are homeless or who have psychiatric, developmental, or other disabilities may be referred by transit district enforcement personnel prior to or in conjunction with issuance of a prohibition order.
(3)Monitoring the issuance of prohibition orders to assist the transit district in ensuring compliance with Section 51 of the Civil Code.
(4)Providing the governing board of the transit district and the Legislature with an annual report summarizing the number of prohibition orders that were issued by the transit district during the preceding year, including, but not limited to, the types and numbers of citations by category, and the number of exclusion orders appealed, the appeals granted, the reasons granted, and other relevant information directly related to those orders.
(d)The transit district may use an existing advisory committee to fulfill the requirements of this section, provided that the composition and purpose of the existing advisory committee meet or are modified to meet the requirements of this section.
(e)For purposes of this section, transit district means the Sacramento Regional Transit District, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Fresno Area Express, or the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District.
(a)(1)A transit district may issue a prohibition order to any person to whom either of the following applies:
(A)On at least three separate occasions within a period of 90 consecutive days, the person is cited for an infraction committed in or on a vehicle, bus stop, or train or light rail station of the transit district for any act that is a violation of paragraph (2) or (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 99170 of this code or paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 640 or Section 640.5 of the Penal Code.
(B)The person is arrested or convicted for a misdemeanor or felony committed in or on a vehicle, bus stop, or light rail station of the transit district for acts involving violence, threats of violence, lewd or lascivious behavior, or possession for sale or sale of a controlled substance.
(C)The person is convicted of a violation of Section 11532 of the Health and Safety Code or Section 653.22 of the Penal Code.
(2)A person subject to a prohibition order may not enter the property, facilities, or vehicles of the transit district for a period of time deemed appropriate by the transit district, provided that the duration of a prohibition order shall not exceed the following, as applicable:
(A)Thirty days if issued pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1), provided that a second prohibition order within one year may not exceed 90 days, and a third or subsequent prohibition order within one year may not exceed 180 days.
(B)Thirty days if issued pursuant to an arrest pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1). Upon conviction of a misdemeanor offense, the duration of the prohibition order for the conviction, when added to the duration of the prohibition order for the initial arrest, if any, may not exceed 180 days. Upon conviction of a felony offense, the duration of the prohibition order for the conviction, when added to the duration of the prohibition order for the initial arrest, if any, may not exceed one year.
(3)No prohibition order issued under this subdivision shall be effective unless the transit district first affords the person an opportunity to contest the transit districts proposed action in accordance with procedures adopted by the transit district for this purpose. A transit districts procedures shall provide, at a minimum, for the notice and other protections set forth in subdivisions (b) and (c), and the transit district shall provide reasonable notification to the public of the availability of those procedures.
(b)(1)A notice of a prohibition order issued under subdivision (a) shall set forth a description of the conduct underlying the violation or violations giving rise to the prohibition order, including reference to the applicable statutory provision, ordinance, or transit district rule violated, the date of the violation, the approximate time of the violation, the location where the violation occurred, the period of the proposed prohibition, and the scope of the prohibition. The notice shall include a clear and conspicuous statement indicating the procedure for contesting the prohibition order. The notice of prohibition order shall be personally served upon the violator. The notice of prohibition order, or a copy, shall be considered a record kept in the ordinary course of business of the transit district and shall be prima facie evidence of the facts contained in the notice establishing a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence. For purposes of this paragraph, clear and conspicuous means in larger type than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same size, or set off from the surrounding text of the same size by symbols or other marks that call attention to the language.
(2)For purposes of this section, personal service means any of the following:
(A)In-person delivery.
(B)Delivery by any form of mail providing for delivery confirmation, postage prepaid, to at least one address provided by the person being served, including, but not limited to, the address set forth in any citation or in court records.
(C)Any alternate method approved in writing by the transit district and the person being served.
(3)If a person served with a notice of prohibition order is not able, or refuses, to provide a mailing address, the notice of prohibition order shall set forth the procedure for obtaining any letters, notices, or orders related to the prohibition order from the administrative offices of the transit district. For purposes of this section, delivery shall be deemed to have been made on the following date, as applicable:
(A)On the date of delivery, if delivered in person.
(B)On the date of confirmed delivery, for any delivery by mail.
(C)For any alternate method of service, as provided in the writing specifying the alternate method.
(4)Proof of service of the notice shall be filed with the transit district.
(5)If a person contests a notice of prohibition order, the transit district shall proceed in accordance with subdivision (c). If the notice of prohibition order is not contested within 10 calendar days after delivery by personal service, the prohibition order shall be deemed final and shall go into effect, without further action by the transit district, for the period of time set forth in the order.
(6)All prohibition orders shall be subject to an automatic stay and shall not take effect until the latest of the following:
(A)Eleven calendar days after delivery of the prohibition order by personal service.
(B)If an initial review is timely requested under paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), 11 calendar days after delivery by personal service of the results of the review.
(C)If an administrative hearing is timely requested under paragraph (3) of subdivision (c), the date the hearing officers decision is delivered by personal service.
(c)(1)For a period of 10 calendar days from the delivery of the prohibition order by personal service, the person may request an initial review of the prohibition order by the transit district. The request may be made by telephone, in writing, or in person. There shall be no charge for this review. In conducting its review and reaching a determination, the transit district shall determine whether the prohibition order meets the requirements of subdivision (a) and, unless the person has been convicted of the offense or offenses, whether the offense or offenses for which the person was cited or arrested are proven by a preponderance of the evidence. If, following the initial review, based on these findings, the transit district determines that the prohibition order is not adequately supported or that extenuating circumstances make dismissal of the prohibition order appropriate in the interest of justice, the transit district shall cancel the notice. If, following the initial review, based on these findings, the transit district determines that the prohibition order should be upheld in whole or in part, the transit district shall issue a written statement to that effect, including any modification to the period or scope of the prohibition order. The transit district shall serve the results of the initial review to the person contesting the notice by personal service.
(2)The transit district may modify or cancel a prohibition order in the interest of justice. The transit district shall cancel a prohibition order if it determines that the person did not understand the nature and extent of his or her actions or did not have the ability to control his or her actions. If the person is dependent upon the transit system for trips of necessity, including, but not limited to, travel to or from medical or legal appointments, school or training classes, places of employment, or obtaining food, clothing, and necessary household items, the transit district shall modify a prohibition order to allow for those trips. A person requesting a cancellation or modification in the interest of justice shall have the burden of establishing the qualifying circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence.
(3)If the person is dissatisfied with the results of the initial review, the person may request an administrative hearing of the prohibition order no later than 10 calendar days after the results of the initial review are delivered by personal service. The request may be made by telephone, in writing, or in person. An administrative hearing shall be held within 30 calendar days after the receipt of a request for an administrative hearing. The person requesting the hearing may request one continuance, not to exceed seven calendar days.
(4)The administrative hearing process shall include all of the following:
(A)The person requesting the hearing shall have the choice of a hearing by mail or in person. An in-person hearing shall be conducted within the jurisdiction of the transit district.
(B)The administrative hearing shall be conducted in accordance with written procedures established by the transit district and approved by the governing body or chief executive officer of the transit district. The hearing shall provide an independent, objective, fair, and impartial review of the prohibition order.
(C)The administrative review shall be conducted before a hearing officer designated to conduct the review by the transit districts governing body or chief executive officer. In addition to any other requirements, a hearing officer shall demonstrate the qualifications, training, and objectivity prescribed by the transit agencys governing body or chief executive officer as are necessary to fulfill and that are consistent with the duties and responsibilities set forth in this subdivision. The hearing officers continued service, performance evaluation, compensation, and benefits, as applicable, shall not be directly or indirectly linked to the number of prohibition orders upheld by the hearing officer.
(D)The person who issued the notice of prohibition order shall not be required to participate in an administrative hearing, unless participation is requested by the person requesting the hearing. The request for participation must be made at least five calendar days prior to the date of the hearing and may be made by telephone, in writing, or in person. The notice of prohibition order, in proper form, shall be prima facie evidence of the violation or violations pursuant to subdivision (a) establishing a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence.
(E)In issuing a decision, the hearing officer shall determine whether the prohibition order meets the requirements of subdivision (a) and, unless the person has been convicted of the offense or offenses, whether the offense or offenses for which the person was cited or arrested are proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Based upon these findings, the hearing officer may uphold the prohibition order in whole, determine that the prohibition order is not adequately supported, or cancel or modify the prohibition order in the interest of justice. The hearing officer shall cancel a prohibition order if he or she determines that the person did not understand the nature and extent of his or her actions or did not have the ability to control his or her actions. If the person is dependent upon the transit system for trips of necessity, including, but not limited to, travel to or from medical or legal appointments, school or training classes, places of employment, or obtaining food, clothing, and necessary household items, the transit district shall modify a prohibition order to allow for those trips. A person requesting a cancellation or modification in the interest of justice shall have the burden of establishing the qualifying circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence.
(F)The hearing officers decision following the administrative hearing shall be delivered by personal service.
(G)A person aggrieved by the final decision of the hearing officer may seek judicial review of the decision within 90 days of the date of delivery of the decision by personal service, as provided by Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(d)A person issued a prohibition order under subdivision (a) may, within 10 calendar days of the date the order goes into effect under paragraph (6) of subdivision (b), request a refund for any prepaid fare media rendered unusable in whole or in part by the prohibition order, including, but not limited to, monthly passes. If the fare media remain usable for one or more days outside the period of the prohibition order, the refund shall be prorated based on the number of days the fare media will be unusable. The issuance of a refund may be made contingent on surrender of the fare media.
(e)For purposes of this section, transit district means the Sacramento Regional Transit District, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, or the Fresno Area Express. Until January 1, 2018, for purposes of this section, transit district also means Express, or the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District.
SEC. 2.Section 99172 of the Public Utilities Code is amended to read:99172.(a)Prior to exercising the authority given in subdivision (a) of Section 99171 to issue prohibition orders, a transit district shall do all of the following:
(1)Establish an advisory committee for the purpose of evaluating the procedures for and issuance of prohibition orders and recommending a course of training for personnel charged with issuance and enforcement of prohibition orders.
(2)Ensure that personnel to be charged with issuance and enforcement of prohibition orders have received training as recommended by the advisory committee.
(3)Provide reasonable notification to transit district riders that persons who engage in disorderly conduct may be subject to a prohibition order barring the person from the transit districts property, facilities, or vehicles for a period of up to one year. Reasonable notification may include, but is not limited to, information on the transit districts Internet Web site, in written materials, at transit stations, and on citations issued by the transit district of the types of conduct that may result in issuance of a prohibition order.
(b)The advisory committee shall be composed of at least five members appointed by the legislative body of the transit district. At least one of the members of the advisory committee shall have experience working with individuals with psychiatric, developmental, or other disabilities, at least one member shall be a youth advocate, and at least one member shall have law enforcement experience.
(c)The advisory committee shall be tasked, at a minimum, with all of the following:
(1)Providing recommendations, in consultation with the county mental health director within the service area of the transit district, regarding the type and extent of training that should be undertaken by individuals with responsibility for issuance and enforcement of prohibition orders, with particular emphasis on training designed to assist those individuals in identifying and interacting with persons who are homeless or who have psychiatric, developmental, or other disabilities.
(2)Identifying, in consultation with the county mental health director within the service area of the transit district, services and programs to which persons who are homeless or who have psychiatric, developmental, or other disabilities may be referred by transit district enforcement personnel prior to or in conjunction with issuance of a prohibition order.
(3)Monitoring the issuance of prohibition orders to assist the transit district in ensuring compliance with Section 51 of the Civil Code.
(4)Providing the governing board of the transit district and the Legislature with an annual report summarizing the number of prohibition orders that were issued by the transit district during the preceding year, including, but not limited to, the types and numbers of citations by category, and the number of exclusion orders appealed, the appeals granted, the reasons granted, and other relevant information directly related to those orders.
(d)The transit district may use an existing advisory committee to fulfill the requirements of this section, provided that the composition and purpose of the existing advisory committee meet or are modified to meet the requirements of this section.
(e)For purposes of this section, transit district means the Sacramento Regional Transit District, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, or the Fresno Area Express. Until January 1, 2018, for purposes of this section, transit district also means Express, or the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District.
(a)(1)A transit district may issue a prohibition order to any person to whom either of the following applies:
(A)On at least three separate occasions within a period of 90 consecutive days, the person is cited for an infraction committed in or on a vehicle, bus stop, or train or light rail station of the transit district for any act that is a violation of paragraph (2) or (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 99170 of this code or paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 640 or Section 640.5 of the Penal Code.
(B)The person is arrested or convicted for a misdemeanor or felony committed in or on a vehicle, bus stop, or light rail station of the transit district for acts involving violence, threats of violence, lewd or lascivious behavior, or possession for sale or sale of a controlled substance.
(C)The person is convicted of a violation of Section 11532 of the Health and Safety Code or Section 653.22 of the Penal Code.
(2)A person subject to a prohibition order may not enter the property, facilities, or vehicles of the transit district for a period of time deemed appropriate by the transit district, provided that the duration of a prohibition order shall not exceed the following, as applicable:
(A)Thirty days if issued pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1), provided that a second prohibition order within one year may not exceed 90 days, and a third or subsequent prohibition order within one year may not exceed 180 days.
(B)Thirty days if issued pursuant to an arrest pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1). Upon conviction of a misdemeanor offense, the duration of the prohibition order for the conviction, when added to the duration of the prohibition order for the initial arrest, if any, may not exceed 180 days. Upon conviction of a felony offense, the duration of the prohibition order for the conviction, when added to the duration of the prohibition order for the initial arrest, if any, may not exceed one year.
(3)No prohibition order issued under this subdivision shall be effective unless the transit district first affords the person an opportunity to contest the transit districts proposed action in accordance with procedures adopted by the transit district for this purpose. A transit districts procedures shall provide, at a minimum, for the notice and other protections set forth in subdivisions (b) and (c), and the transit district shall provide reasonable notification to the public of the availability of those procedures.
(b)(1)A notice of a prohibition order issued under subdivision (a) shall set forth a description of the conduct underlying the violation or violations giving rise to the prohibition order, including reference to the applicable statutory provision, ordinance, or transit district rule violated, the date of the violation, the approximate time of the violation, the location where the violation occurred, the period of the proposed prohibition, and the scope of the prohibition. The notice shall include a clear and conspicuous statement indicating the procedure for contesting the prohibition order. The notice of prohibition order shall be personally served upon the violator. The notice of prohibition order, or a copy, shall be considered a record kept in the ordinary course of business of the transit district and shall be prima facie evidence of the facts contained in the notice establishing a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence. For purposes of this paragraph, clear and conspicuous means in larger type than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same size, or set off from the surrounding text of the same size by symbols or other marks that call attention to the language.
(2)For purposes of this section, personal service means any of the following:
(A)In-person delivery.
(B)Delivery by any form of mail providing for delivery confirmation, postage prepaid, to at least one address provided by the person being served, including, but not limited to, the address set forth in any citation or in court records.
(C)Any alternate method approved in writing by the transit district and the person being served.
(3)If a person served with a notice of prohibition order is not able, or refuses, to provide a mailing address, the notice of prohibition order shall set forth the procedure for obtaining any letters, notices, or orders related to the prohibition order from the administrative offices of the transit district. For purposes of this section, delivery shall be deemed to have been made on the following date, as applicable:
(A)On the date of delivery, if delivered in person.
(B)On the date of confirmed delivery, for any delivery by mail.
(C)For any alternate method of service, as provided in the writing specifying the alternate method.
(4)Proof of service of the notice shall be filed with the transit district.
(5)If a person contests a notice of prohibition order, the transit district shall proceed in accordance with subdivision (c). If the notice of prohibition order is not contested within 10 calendar days after delivery by personal service, the prohibition order shall be deemed final and shall go into effect, without further action by the transit district, for the period of time set forth in the order.
(6)All prohibition orders shall be subject to an automatic stay and shall not take effect until the latest of the following:
(A)Eleven calendar days after delivery of the prohibition order by personal service.
(B)If an initial review is timely requested under paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), 11 calendar days after delivery by personal service of the results of the review.
(C)If an administrative hearing is timely requested under paragraph (3) of subdivision (c), the date the hearing officers decision is delivered by personal service.
(c)(1)For a period of 10 calendar days from the delivery of the prohibition order by personal service, the person may request an initial review of the prohibition order by the transit district. The request may be made by telephone, in writing, or in person. There shall be no charge for this review. In conducting its review and reaching a determination, the transit district shall determine whether the prohibition order meets the requirements of subdivision (a) and, unless the person has been convicted of the offense or offenses, whether the offense or offenses for which the person was cited or arrested are proven by a preponderance of the evidence. If, following the initial review, based on these findings, the transit district determines that the prohibition order is not adequately supported or that extenuating circumstances make dismissal of the prohibition order appropriate in the interest of justice, the transit district shall cancel the notice. If, following the initial review, based on these findings, the transit district determines that the prohibition order should be upheld in whole or in part, the transit district shall issue a written statement to that effect, including any modification to the period or scope of the prohibition order. The transit district shall serve the results of the initial review to the person contesting the notice by personal service.
(2)The transit district may modify or cancel a prohibition order in the interest of justice. The transit district shall cancel a prohibition order if it determines that the person did not understand the nature and extent of his or her actions or did not have the ability to control his or her actions. If the person is dependent upon the transit system for trips of necessity, including, but not limited to, travel to or from medical or legal appointments, school or training classes, places of employment, or obtaining food, clothing, and necessary household items, the transit district shall modify a prohibition order to allow for those trips. A person requesting a cancellation or modification in the interest of justice shall have the burden of establishing the qualifying circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence.
(3)If the person is dissatisfied with the results of the initial review, the person may request an administrative hearing of the prohibition order no later than 10 calendar days after the results of the initial review are delivered by personal service. The request may be made by telephone, in writing, or in person. An administrative hearing shall be held within 30 calendar days after the receipt of a request for an administrative hearing. The person requesting the hearing may request one continuance, not to exceed seven calendar days.
(4)The administrative hearing process shall include all of the following:
(A)The person requesting the hearing shall have the choice of a hearing by mail or in person. An in-person hearing shall be conducted within the jurisdiction of the transit district.
(B)The administrative hearing shall be conducted in accordance with written procedures established by the transit district and approved by the governing body or chief executive officer of the transit district. The hearing shall provide an independent, objective, fair, and impartial review of the prohibition order.
(C)The administrative review shall be conducted before a hearing officer designated to conduct the review by the transit districts governing body or chief executive officer. In addition to any other requirements, a hearing officer shall demonstrate the qualifications, training, and objectivity prescribed by the transit agencys governing body or chief executive officer as are necessary to fulfill and that are consistent with the duties and responsibilities set forth in this subdivision. The hearing officers continued service, performance evaluation, compensation, and benefits, as applicable, shall not be directly or indirectly linked to the number of prohibition orders upheld by the hearing officer.
(D)The person who issued the notice of prohibition order shall not be required to participate in an administrative hearing, unless participation is requested by the person requesting the hearing. The request for participation must be made at least five calendar days prior to the date of the hearing and may be made by telephone, in writing, or in person. The notice of prohibition order, in proper form, shall be prima facie evidence of the violation or violations pursuant to subdivision (a) establishing a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence.
(E)In issuing a decision, the hearing officer shall determine whether the prohibition order meets the requirements of subdivision (a) and, unless the person has been convicted of the offense or offenses, whether the offense or offenses for which the person was cited or arrested are proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Based upon these findings, the hearing officer may uphold the prohibition order in whole, determine that the prohibition order is not adequately supported, or cancel or modify the prohibition order in the interest of justice. The hearing officer shall cancel a prohibition order if he or she determines that the person did not understand the nature and extent of his or her actions or did not have the ability to control his or her actions. If the person is dependent upon the transit system for trips of necessity, including, but not limited to, travel to or from medical or legal appointments, school or training classes, places of employment, or obtaining food, clothing, and necessary household items, the transit district shall modify a prohibition order to allow for those trips. A person requesting a cancellation or modification in the interest of justice shall have the burden of establishing the qualifying circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence.
(F)The hearing officers decision following the administrative hearing shall be delivered by personal service.
(G)A person aggrieved by the final decision of the hearing officer may seek judicial review of the decision within 90 days of the date of delivery of the decision by personal service, as provided by Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(d)A person issued a prohibition order under subdivision (a) may, within 10 calendar days of the date the order goes into effect under paragraph (6) of subdivision (b), request a refund for any prepaid fare media rendered unusable in whole or in part by the prohibition order, including, but not limited to, monthly passes. If the fare media remain usable for one or more days outside the period of the prohibition order, the refund shall be prorated based on the number of days the fare media will be unusable. The issuance of a refund may be made contingent on surrender of the fare media.
(e)For purposes of this section, transit district means the Sacramento Regional Transit District District, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, or the Fresno Area Express. Until January 1, 2018, for purposes of this section, transit district also means the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District.
SEC. 2.Section 99172 of the Public Utilities Code is amended to read:99172.(a)Prior to exercising the authority given in subdivision (a) of Section 99171 to issue prohibition orders, a transit district shall do all of the following:
(1)Establish an advisory committee for the purpose of evaluating the procedures for and issuance of prohibition orders and recommending a course of training for personnel charged with issuance and enforcement of prohibition orders.
(2)Ensure that personnel to be charged with issuance and enforcement of prohibition orders have received training as recommended by the advisory committee.
(3)Provide reasonable notification to transit district riders that persons who engage in disorderly conduct may be subject to a prohibition order barring the person from the transit districts property, facilities, or vehicles for a period of up to one year. Reasonable notification may include, but is not limited to, information on the transit districts Internet Web site, in written materials, at transit stations, and on citations issued by the transit district of the types of conduct that may result in issuance of a prohibition order.
(b)The advisory committee shall be composed of at least five members appointed by the legislative body of the transit district. At least one of the members of the advisory committee shall have experience working with individuals with psychiatric, developmental, or other disabilities, at least one member shall be a youth advocate, and at least one member shall have law enforcement experience.
(c)The advisory committee shall be tasked, at a minimum, with all of the following:
(1)Providing recommendations, in consultation with the county mental health director within the service area of the transit district, regarding the type and extent of training that should be undertaken by individuals with responsibility for issuance and enforcement of prohibition orders, with particular emphasis on training designed to assist those individuals in identifying and interacting with persons who are homeless or who have psychiatric, developmental, or other disabilities.
(2)Identifying, in consultation with the county mental health director within the service area of the transit district, services and programs to which persons who are homeless or who have psychiatric, developmental, or other disabilities may be referred by transit district enforcement personnel prior to or in conjunction with issuance of a prohibition order.
(3)Monitoring the issuance of prohibition orders to assist the transit district in ensuring compliance with Section 51 of the Civil Code.
(4)Providing the governing board of the transit district and the Legislature with an annual report summarizing the number of prohibition orders that were issued by the transit district during the preceding year, including, but not limited to, the types and numbers of citations by category, and the number of exclusion orders appealed, the appeals granted, the reasons granted, and other relevant information directly related to those orders.
(d)The transit district may use an existing advisory committee to fulfill the requirements of this section, provided that the composition and purpose of the existing advisory committee meet or are modified to meet the requirements of this section.
(e)For purposes of this section, transit district means the Sacramento Regional Transit District District, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, or the Fresno Area Express. Until January 1, 2018, for purposes of this section, transit district also means the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District.
SECTION 1.It is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation establishing the crime of assault against a transit operator while a transit vehicle is in motion.It is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation establishing the crime of assault against a transit operator while a transit vehicle is in motion.
|
Date
|
Status
|
|---|---|
| Sep 1, 2017 | Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 192, Statutes of 2017. |
| Sep 1, 2017 | Approved by the Governor. |
| Aug 25, 2017 | Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3 p.m. |
| Aug 21, 2017 | Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. |
| Jul 17, 2017 | In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after July 19 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77. |
| Jul 17, 2017 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. |
| Jul 13, 2017 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. |
| Jul 11, 2017 | Ordered to special consent calendar. |
| Jun 28, 2017 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| Jun 27, 2017 | Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading. |
| Jun 22, 2017 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| Jun 21, 2017 | From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (June 20). |
| May 24, 2017 | Referred to Com. on T. & H. |
| May 11, 2017 | In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. |
| May 11, 2017 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 77. Noes 0. Page 1482.) |
| May 10, 2017 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| May 9, 2017 | From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 14. Noes 0.) (May 8). |
| Mar 27, 2017 | Re-referred to Com. on TRANS. |
| Mar 23, 2017 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on TRANS. Read second time and amended. |
| Mar 23, 2017 | Referred to Com. on TRANS. |
| Feb 14, 2017 | From printer. May be heard in committee March 16. |
| Feb 13, 2017 | Read first time. To print. |
|
Date
|
Description
|
Location
|
Votes
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 21, 2017 | AB 468 SANTIAGO Concurrence in Senate Amendments | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| Jul 17, 2017 | Special Consent Calendar # AB468 | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| Jun 20, 2017 | Do pass | Senate Standing Committee on Transportation and Housing |
Passed |
|
| May 11, 2017 | AB 468 SANTIAGO Assembly Third Reading | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| May 8, 2017 | Do pass. | Assembly Standing Committee on Transportation |
Passed |
This list shows positions taken on this bill by organizations on the date displayed, which is linked to the original source.
Positions by individuals are not included.
|
Organization
|
Position
|
Date
|
|---|---|---|
| American Civil Liberties Union | ** Against | Jun 15, 2017 |
| American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees | ** Support | Jun 15, 2017 |
| California Disability Rights | * Against | May 8, 2017 |
| Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority | * Support | May 8, 2017 |
| Metro | ** Support | Jun 15, 2017 |
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
CSA1 Bill Id:AB 468
Author:(Santiago)
As Amended Ver:June 27, 2017
Majority vote
ASSEMBLY: | 77-0 | (May 11, 2017) | SENATE: | 38-0 | (July 17, 2017) |
Original Committee Reference: TRANS.
SUMMARY: Adds the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) to the transit districts authorized to issue prohibition orders to passengers committing certain illegal behaviors.
The Senate amendments add provisions from AB 730 (Quirk) of the current legislative session to avoid chaptering out conflicts.
EXISTING LAW:
- Prohibits a person subject to a prohibition order from entering the property, facilities, or vehicles of the transit district for a period of time deemed appropriate by the transit district, provided that the duration of the prohibition order does not exceed the following specified time limits:
- Thirty days for a first order, 90 days for a second order within one year, and 180 days for a third order within one year related to infractions; or,
- Thirty days if issued pursuant to an arrest for a misdemeanor or felony offense. Upon conviction for the offense, the order may be extended to a total of 180 days for a misdemeanor and one year for a felony.
- Specifies prohibition processes, notification procedures, and hearing and appeal procedures.
- Authorizes Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT), the Fresno Area Express, or the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART, until January 1, 2018), to issue a prohibition order to any person who, on at least three separate occasions within a period of 90 consecutive days, is cited for an infraction committed in or on a vehicle, bus stop, or light rail station of the transit district for any of the following acts:
- Interfering with the operator or operation of a transit vehicle, or impeding the safe boarding or alighting of passengers;
- Committing any act or engaging in any behavior that may, with reasonable foreseeability, cause harm or injury to any person or property;
- Willfully disturbing others on or in a transit facility or vehicle by engaging in boisterous or unruly behavior;
- Carrying an explosive, acid, or flammable liquid in a public transit facility or vehicle;
- Urinating or defecating in a transit facility or vehicle, except in a lavatory;
- Willfully blocking the free movement of another person in a transit facility or vehicle; or,
- Defacing with graffiti the interior or exterior of the facilities or vehicles of a public transportation system.
- Authorizes a prohibition order to be issued to a person arrested or convicted for any misdemeanor or felony committed in or on a vehicle, bus stop, or light rail station of the transit district, for acts involving violence, threats of violence, lewd or lascivious behavior, or possession for sale or sale of a controlled substance.
- Authorizes a prohibition order to be issued to a person convicted of loitering with the intent to commit specified drug offenses or loitering with intent to commit prostitution.
- Requires the transit district to establish an advisory committee and to ensure that personnel charged with issuance and enforcement of prohibition orders receive training as emphasized and as recommended by the advisory committee.
FISCAL EFFECT: None. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS: Metro operates the third largest transit system in the United States with over 10,000 employees and 1 million bus boardings per day. Metro's service area spans 1,433 square miles with a bus fleet of 2,248 buses traveling along 170 routes. According to the author, despite crime being down overall on the Metro system as compared to the rest of Los Angeles County, Metro bus operators continue to be victims of physical assaults while on the job. Further, he states that an assault on a vehicle as large as a bus poses a significant risk to employees, passengers, and the public at large, and the risk is extremely high if a bus operator is incapacitated or distracted in any way while performing their in-transit duties. This bill is intended to provide Metro with the ability to continue to lower the incidences of bus operator assault and ensuing costs by allowing them to join the ranks of [other transit districts] in their ability to issue prohibition orders on unruly passengers.
In writing in support of this bill, the sponsor, Metro states that "in 2016, it recorded a total number of 120 cases of assault on [bus] operators, and if an assault occurs when a bus is in motion, or in service, this can pose a deadly threat to the operators, passengers on board, and the public. This legislation is vital to deter and reduce crime on the Metro system for our bus operators and patrons."
Additionally, writing is support, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), notes that "between medical costs, legal expenses and temporary and permanent disability payments, the average cost when an assault occurs is $49,071 per claim. This policy would help assure that passengers with a repeated pattern of violence towards bus operators would not again infringe upon a driver's ability to safely transport passengers. AB 486 is an extremely cost-efficient and necessary method to address this growing concern."
According to Metro, it has invested resources in training and technology to help reduce incidences of assault by 29% in recent years. For example, some of these efforts include installation of live video monitoring systems aboard buses to monitor activity, installation of Plexiglas barriers aboard all new buses and retrofitting buses already in the fleet, training operators on how to "de-escalate" a confrontation, launching a Metro marketing campaign aimed at educating patrons to respect operators, implementation of the successful Transit Watch Smartphone App where patrons can "see something, say something," and increased security and law enforcement presence system-wide. Establishing a prohibition order process within Metro would be another tool to help protect bus operators and riders.
Current law authorizes the use of prohibition orders for BART, and current legislation AB 730 (Quirk) is being pursued to permanently extend this authority. According to BART's annual report on prohibition orders, as required by statute, BART saw a 2% increase in ridership from 2015 to 2016 which corresponds to an overall 3% decrease in reported crimes of violence and property crimes throughout the BART district area. However, while overall crime decreased BART saw an increase in crimes of violence by 38%. In 2016, BART issued 275 prohibition orders with battery/threats to patrons and BART employees being the highest amount.
As stated in the report, "with increase in ridership, increase in reported crimes of violence, and decrease in overall criminal activity, [the use of prohibition orders] is one of a number of tools assisting with crime reduction and the prevention of violence against persons on District property. Suspects known to commit violence against others are precluded from returning to District property, and therefore are less likely to commit another offense during the specified period of prohibition."
Analysis Prepared by: Melissa White / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN: 0001062
Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | AB |
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 468
Amended: 6/27/17 in Senate
SENATE TRANS. & HOUSING COMMITTEE: 12-0, 6/20/17
AYES: Beall, Cannella, Allen, Atkins, Bates, McGuire, Mendoza, Morrell, Roth, Skinner, Wieckowski, Wiener
NO VOTE RECORDED: Gaines
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 5/11/17 - See last page for vote
DIGEST:
This bill adds the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (METRO) to the transit districts authorized to issue prohibition orders to passengers committing certain transit-related violations.
Senate Floor Amendments of 6/27/17 make technical non-substantive clean up amendments to fix grammatical errors.
Existing law:
- Establishes the County Transportation Commissions Act, which provides for the creation of county transportation commissions in the Counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura, with various powers and duties relative to transportation planning and funding, as specified.
- Establishes METRO, which is the successor agency to the Southern California Rapid Transit District and the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission.
- Provides METRO with specified powers and duties relative to transportation planning, programming, and operations in the County of Los Angeles.
- Prohibits a person subject to a prohibition order from entering the property, facilities, or vehicles of the transit district for a period of time deemed appropriate by the transit district, provided that the duration of the prohibition order does not exceed the following specified time limits:
- 30 days for a first order, 90 days for a second order within one year, and 180 days for a third order within one year related to infractions; or,
- 30 days if issued pursuant to an arrest for a misdemeanor or felony offense. Upon conviction for the offense, the order may be extended to a total of 180 days for a misdemeanor and one year for a felony.
- 30 days for a first order, 90 days for a second order within one year, and 180 days for a third order within one year related to infractions; or,
- Specifies prohibition processes, notification procedures, and hearing and appeal procedures.
- Authorizes Sacramento Regional Transit District, the Fresno Area Express, or the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART, until January 1, 2018), to issue a prohibition order to any person who, on at least three separate occasions within a period of 90 consecutive days, is cited for an infraction committed in or on a vehicle, bus stop, or light rail station of the transit district for any of the following acts:
- Interfering with the operator or operation of a transit vehicle, or impeding the safe boarding or alighting of passengers;
- Committing any act or engaging in any behavior that may, with reasonable foreseeability, cause harm or injury to any person or property;
- Willfully disturbing others on or in a transit facility or vehicle by engaging in boisterous or unruly behavior;
- Carrying an explosive, acid, or flammable liquid in a public transit facility or vehicle;
- Urinating or defecating in a transit facility or vehicle, except in a lavatory;
- Willfully blocking the free movement of another person in a transit facility or vehicle; or,
- Defacing with graffiti the interior or exterior of the facilities or vehicles of a public transportation system.
- Interfering with the operator or operation of a transit vehicle, or impeding the safe boarding or alighting of passengers;
- Authorizes a prohibition order to be issued to a person arrested or convicted for any misdemeanor or felony committed in or on a vehicle, bus stop, or light rail station of the transit district, for acts involving violence, threats of violence, lewd or lascivious behavior, or possession for sale or sale of a controlled substance.
- Authorizes a prohibition order to be issued to a person convicted of loitering with the intent to commit specified drug offenses or loitering with intent to commit prostitution.
- Requires the transit district to establish an advisory committee and to ensure that personnel charged with issuance and enforcement of prohibition orders receive training as emphasized and as recommended by the advisory committee.
This bill authorizes METRO is issue prohibition orders under the same authority as several other transit districts for certain transit-related violations, as specified.
Comments
- Purpose. According to the author, “AB 468 will provide the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Authority with the ability to continue to lower the incidences of bus operator assault and ensuring costs by allow them to join the ranks of the Sacramento Regional Transit District and Fresno Area Express in their ability to issue prohibition orders on unruly passengers.”
- METRO. METRO is a multimodal transportation agency providing a variety of transportation-related services and functions for Los Angeles County. These services/functions include transportation planning, transit services (both bus and light rail), capital construction projects, and administering several local sales tax measures. Metro operates the third largest transit system in the United States with over 10,000 employees and 1 million bus boardings per day. Metro’s service area spans 1,433 square miles with a bus fleet of 2,248 buses traveling along 170 routes.
In 2016, METRO reported a total number of 120 cases of assault on operators. The potential risk of assaults on bus operators and passengers is significant. According to METRO, the average cost associated with driver assault is $49,071 in workers compensation costs. This cost includes legal expenses, temporary and permanent disability payments, and medical costs. Similar to other transit districts, the ability for METRO to issue prohibition orders may serve as an effective deterrent in reducing future driver and passenger assaults.
- Other transit agencies. As mentioned, three other transit agencies throughout the state are authorized to issue prohibition orders to riders when certain violations occur. These transit agencies include Sacramento Regional Transit, Fresno Area Express, the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART, until January 1, 2018). In the current legislative session, due to the effectiveness of prohibition orders, BART is pursuing legislation that will remove the 2018 sunset to allow the agency to issue prohibition orders ongoing. In BART’s most recent report to the Legislature, the agency notes, for 2015, BART issued 255 prohibition orders. Five of the alleged violators contested the order. The report reflects a reduction in the issuance of prohibition orders in the areas of robbery, batteries/threats involving patrons and threats/batteries involving employees (including officers). Violent crimes committed on the district property declined from 158 in 2014, to 123 in 2015. At the same time, overall ridership increased.
Thus, as prohibition orders appear to serve as an effective public safety tool for transit agencies throughout the state, providing METRO similar authority is reasonable when considering the size and scope of the transit services METRO provides.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:
None received
OPPOSITION: (Verified 6/22/17)
None received
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 5/11/17
AYES: Acosta, Aguiar-Curry, Travis Allen, Arambula, Baker, Berman, Bigelow, Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Caballero, Calderon, Cervantes, Chau, Chávez, Chen, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Cunningham, Dababneh, Daly, Eggman, Flora, Fong, Frazier, Friedman, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gomez, Gonzalez Fletcher, Gray, Grayson, Harper, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Obernolte, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Reyes, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Voepel, Waldron, Weber, Wood, Rendon
NO VOTE RECORDED: Dahle, O'Donnell, Patterson
6/28/17 14:51:02
**** END ****
Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | AB |
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 468
:
SENATE TRANS. & HOUSING COMMITTEE: 12-0, 6/20/17
AYES: Beall, Cannella, Allen, Atkins, Bates, McGuire, Mendoza, Morrell, Roth, Skinner, Wieckowski, Wiener
NO VOTE RECORDED: Gaines
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 5/11/17 - See last page for vote
DIGEST:
This bill adds the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (METRO) to the transit districts authorized to issue prohibition orders to passengers committing certain transit-related violations.
Existing law:
- Establishes the County Transportation Commissions Act, which provides for the creation of county transportation commissions in the Counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura, with various powers and duties relative to transportation planning and funding, as specified.
- Establishes METRO, which is the successor agency to the Southern California Rapid Transit District and the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission.
- Provides METRO with specified powers and duties relative to transportation planning, programming, and operations in the County of Los Angeles.
- Prohibits a person subject to a prohibition order from entering the property, facilities, or vehicles of the transit district for a period of time deemed appropriate by the transit district, provided that the duration of the prohibition order does not exceed the following specified time limits:
- 30 days for a first order, 90 days for a second order within one year, and 180 days for a third order within one year related to infractions; or,
- 30 days if issued pursuant to an arrest for a misdemeanor or felony offense. Upon conviction for the offense, the order may be extended to a total of 180 days for a misdemeanor and one year for a felony.
- 30 days for a first order, 90 days for a second order within one year, and 180 days for a third order within one year related to infractions; or,
- Specifies prohibition processes, notification procedures, and hearing and appeal procedures.
- Authorizes Sacramento Regional Transit District, the Fresno Area Express, or the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART, until January 1, 2018), to issue a prohibition order to any person who, on at least three separate occasions within a period of 90 consecutive days, is cited for an infraction committed in or on a vehicle, bus stop, or light rail station of the transit district for any of the following acts:
- Interfering with the operator or operation of a transit vehicle, or impeding the safe boarding or alighting of passengers;
- Committing any act or engaging in any behavior that may, with reasonable foreseeability, cause harm or injury to any person or property;
- Willfully disturbing others on or in a transit facility or vehicle by engaging in boisterous or unruly behavior;
- Carrying an explosive, acid, or flammable liquid in a public transit facility or vehicle;
- Urinating or defecating in a transit facility or vehicle, except in a lavatory;
- Willfully blocking the free movement of another person in a transit facility or vehicle; or,
- Defacing with graffiti the interior or exterior of the facilities or vehicles of a public transportation system.
- Interfering with the operator or operation of a transit vehicle, or impeding the safe boarding or alighting of passengers;
- Authorizes a prohibition order to be issued to a person arrested or convicted for any misdemeanor or felony committed in or on a vehicle, bus stop, or light rail station of the transit district, for acts involving violence, threats of violence, lewd or lascivious behavior, or possession for sale or sale of a controlled substance.
- Authorizes a prohibition order to be issued to a person convicted of loitering with the intent to commit specified drug offenses or loitering with intent to commit prostitution.
- Requires the transit district to establish an advisory committee and to ensure that personnel charged with issuance and enforcement of prohibition orders receive training as emphasized and as recommended by the advisory committee.
This bill authorizes METRO is issue prohibition orders under the same authority as several other transit districts for certain transit-related violations, as specified.
Comments
- Purpose. According to the author, “AB 468 will provide the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Authority with the ability to continue to lower the incidences of bus operator assault and ensuring costs by allow them to join the ranks of the Sacramento Regional Transit District and Fresno Area Express in their ability to issue prohibition orders on unruly passengers.”
- METRO. METRO is a multimodal transportation agency providing a variety of transportation-related services and functions for Los Angeles County. These services/functions include transportation planning, transit services (both bus and light rail), capital construction projects, and administering several local sales tax measures. Metro operates the third largest transit system in the United States with over 10,000 employees and 1 million bus boardings per day. Metro’s service area spans 1,433 square miles with a bus fleet of 2,248 buses traveling along 170 routes.
In 2016, METRO reported a total number of 120 cases of assault on operators. The potential risk of assaults on bus operators and passengers is significant. According to METRO, the average cost associated with driver assault is $49,071 in workers compensation costs. This cost includes legal expenses, temporary and permanent disability payments, and medical costs. Similar to other transit districts, the ability for METRO to issue prohibition orders may serve as an effective deterrent in reducing future driver and passenger assaults.
- Other transit agencies. As mentioned, three other transit agencies throughout the state are authorized to issue prohibition orders to riders when certain violations occur. These transit agencies include Sacramento Regional Transit, Fresno Area Express, the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART, until January 1, 2018). In the current legislative session, due to the effectiveness of prohibition orders, BART is pursuing legislation that will remove the 2018 sunset to allow the agency to issue prohibition orders ongoing. In BART’s most recent report to the Legislature, the agency notes, for 2015, BART issued 255 prohibition orders. Five of the alleged violators contested the order. The report reflects a reduction in the issuance of prohibition orders in the areas of robbery, batteries/threats involving patrons and threats/batteries involving employees (including officers). Violent crimes committed on the district property declined from 158 in 2014, to 123 in 2015. At the same time, overall ridership increased.
Thus, as prohibition orders appear to serve as an effective public safety tool for transit agencies throughout the state, providing METRO similar authority is reasonable when considering the size and scope of the transit services METRO provides.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:
None received
OPPOSITION: (Verified 6/22/17)
None received
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 5/11/17
AYES: Acosta, Aguiar-Curry, Travis Allen, Arambula, Baker, Berman, Bigelow, Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Caballero, Calderon, Cervantes, Chau, Chávez, Chen, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Cunningham, Dababneh, Daly, Eggman, Flora, Fong, Frazier, Friedman, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gomez, Gonzalez Fletcher, Gray, Grayson, Harper, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Obernolte, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Reyes, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Voepel, Waldron, Weber, Wood, Rendon
NO VOTE RECORDED: Dahle, O'Donnell, Patterson
6/23/17 10:35:45
**** END ****
SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING
Senator Jim Beall, Chair
2017 - 2018 Regular
Bill No: Hearing Date: 6/20/2017
Author: | Santiago | ||
Version: | 3/23/2017 | ||
Urgency: | No | Fiscal: | No |
Consultant: | Manny Leon | ||
SUBJECT: .
DIGEST: This bill adds the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (METRO) to the transit districts authorized to issue prohibition orders to passengers committing certain transit-related violations.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
- Establishes the County Transportation Commissions Act, which provides for the creation of county transportation commissions in the Counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura, with various powers and duties relative to transportation planning and funding, as specified.
- Establishes METRO, which is the successor agency to the Southern California Rapid Transit District and the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission.
- Provides METRO with specified powers and duties relative to transportation planning, programming, and operations in the County of Los Angeles.
- Prohibits a person subject to a prohibition order from entering the property, facilities, or vehicles of the transit district for a period of time deemed appropriate by the transit district, provided that the duration of the prohibition order does not exceed the following specified time limits:
- 30 days for a first order, 90 days for a second order within one year, and 180 days for a third order within one year related to infractions; or,
- 30 days if issued pursuant to an arrest for a misdemeanor or felony offense. Upon conviction for the offense, the order may be extended to a total of 180 days for a misdemeanor and one year for a felony.
- 30 days for a first order, 90 days for a second order within one year, and 180 days for a third order within one year related to infractions; or,
- Specifies prohibition processes, notification procedures, and hearing and appeal procedures.
- Authorizes Sacramento Regional Transit District (RT), the Fresno Area Express, or the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART, until January 1, 2018), to issue a prohibition order to any person who, on at least three separate occasions within a period of 90 consecutive days, is cited for an infraction committed in or on a vehicle, bus stop, or light rail station of the transit district for any of the following acts:
- Interfering with the operator or operation of a transit vehicle, or impeding the safe boarding or alighting of passengers;
- Committing any act or engaging in any behavior that may, with reasonable foreseeability, cause harm or injury to any person or property;
- Willfully disturbing others on or in a transit facility or vehicle by engaging in boisterous or unruly behavior;
- Carrying an explosive, acid, or flammable liquid in a public transit facility or vehicle;
- Urinating or defecating in a transit facility or vehicle, except in a lavatory;
- Willfully blocking the free movement of another person in a transit facility or vehicle; or,
- Defacing with graffiti the interior or exterior of the facilities or vehicles of a public transportation system.
- Interfering with the operator or operation of a transit vehicle, or impeding the safe boarding or alighting of passengers;
- Authorizes a prohibition order to be issued to a person arrested or convicted for any misdemeanor or felony committed in or on a vehicle, bus stop, or light rail station of the transit district, for acts involving violence, threats of violence, lewd or lascivious behavior, or possession for sale or sale of a controlled substance.
- Authorizes a prohibition order to be issued to a person convicted of loitering with the intent to commit specified drug offenses or loitering with intent to commit prostitution.
- Requires the transit district to establish an advisory committee and to ensure that personnel charged with issuance and enforcement of prohibition orders receive training as emphasized and as recommended by the advisory committee.
This bill authorizes METRO is issue prohibition orders under the same authority as several other transit districts for certain transit-related violations, as specified.
COMMENTS:
- Purpose. According to the author, “AB 468 will provide the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Authority with the ability to continue to lower the incidences of bus operator assault and ensuring costs by allow them to join the ranks of the Sacramento Regional Transit District and Fresno Area Express in their ability to issue prohibition orders on unruly passengers.”
- METRO. METRO is a multimodal transportation agency providing a variety of transportation-related services and functions for Los Angeles County. These services/functions include transportation planning, transit services (both bus and light rail), capital construction projects, and administering several local sales tax measures. Metro operates the third largest transit system in the United States with over 10,000 employees and 1 million bus boardings per day. Metro’s service area spans 1,433 square miles with a bus fleet of 2,248 buses traveling along 170 routes.
In 2016, METRO reported a total number of 120 cases of assault on operators. The potential risk of assaults on bus operators and passengers is significant. According to METRO, the average cost associated with driver assault is $49,071 in workers compensation costs. This cost includes legal expenses, temporary and permanent disability payments, and medical costs. Similar to other transit districts, the ability for METRO to issue prohibition orders may serve as an effective deterrent in reducing future driver and passenger assaults.
- Other transit agencies. As mentioned, three other transit agencies throughout the state are authorized to issue prohibition orders to riders when certain violations occur. These transit agencies include Sacramento Regional Transit, Fresno Area Express, the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART, until January 1, 2018). In the current legislative session, due to the effectiveness of prohibition orders, BART is pursuing legislation that will remove the 2018 sunset to allow the agency to issue prohibition orders ongoing. In BART’s most recent report to the Legislature, the agency notes, for 2015, BART issued 255 prohibition orders. Five of the alleged violators contested the order. The report reflects a reduction in the issuance of prohibition orders in the areas of robbery, batteries/threats involving patrons and threats/batteries involving employees (including officers). Violent crimes committed on the district property declined from 158 in 2014, to 123 in 2015. At the same time, overall ridership increased.
Thus, as prohibition orders appear to serve as an effective public safety tool for transit agencies throughout the state, providing METRO similar authority is reasonable when considering the size and scope of the transit services METRO provides.
Related Legislation:
AB 730 (Quirk, 2017) — would repeal the sunset for BART to issue prohibition orders to any person cited for committing one or more of certain prohibited acts in specified transit facilities.
Assembly votes:
Floor: 77-0
Trans: 14-0
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday,
June 14, 2017.)
SUPPORT:
METRO
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
OPPOSITION:
American Civil Liberties Union
-- END --
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
ATR Bill Id:AB 468
Author:(Santiago)
As Amended Ver:March 23, 2017
Majority vote
Committee | Votes | Ayes | Noes |
Transportation | 14-0 | Frazier, Fong, Aguiar-Curry, Baker, Berman, Bocanegra, Chu, Daly, Friedman, Harper, Mathis, Medina, Nazarian, O'Donnell |
SUMMARY: Adds the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) to the transit districts authorized to issue prohibition orders to passengers committing certain illegal behaviors.
EXISTING LAW:
- Prohibits a person subject to a prohibition order from entering the property, facilities, or vehicles of the transit district for a period of time deemed appropriate by the transit district, provided that the duration of the prohibition order does not exceed the following specified time limits:
- Thirty days for a first order, 90 days for a second order within one year, and 180 days for a third order within one year related to infractions; or,
- Thirty days if issued pursuant to an arrest for a misdemeanor or felony offense. Upon conviction for the offense, the order may be extended to a total of 180 days for a misdemeanor and one year for a felony.
- Specifies prohibition processes, notification procedures, and hearing and appeal procedures.
- Authorizes Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT), the Fresno Area Express, or the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART, until January 1, 2018), to issue a prohibition order to any person who, on at least three separate occasions within a period of 90 consecutive days, is cited for an infraction committed in or on a vehicle, bus stop, or light rail station of the transit district for any of the following acts:
- Interfering with the operator or operation of a transit vehicle, or impeding the safe boarding or alighting of passengers;
- Committing any act or engaging in any behavior that may, with reasonable foreseeability, cause harm or injury to any person or property;
- Willfully disturbing others on or in a transit facility or vehicle by engaging in boisterous or unruly behavior;
- Carrying an explosive, acid, or flammable liquid in a public transit facility or vehicle;
- Urinating or defecating in a transit facility or vehicle, except in a lavatory;
- Willfully blocking the free movement of another person in a transit facility or vehicle; or,
- Defacing with graffiti the interior or exterior of the facilities or vehicles of a public transportation system.
- Authorizes a prohibition order to be issued to a person arrested or convicted for any misdemeanor or felony committed in or on a vehicle, bus stop, or light rail station of the transit district, for acts involving violence, threats of violence, lewd or lascivious behavior, or possession for sale or sale of a controlled substance.
- Authorizes a prohibition order to be issued to a person convicted of loitering with the intent to commit specified drug offenses or loitering with intent to commit prostitution.
- Requires the transit district to establish an advisory committee and to ensure that personnel charged with issuance and enforcement of prohibition orders receive training as emphasized and as recommended by the advisory committee.
FISCAL EFFECT: None. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS: Metro operates the third largest transit system in the United States with over 10,000 employees and 1 million bus boardings per day. Metro's service area spans 1,433 square miles with a bus fleet of 2,248 buses traveling along 170 routes. According to the author, despite crime being down overall on the Metro system as compared to the rest of Los Angeles County, Metro bus operators continue to be victims of physical assaults while on the job. Further, he states that an assault on a vehicle as large as a bus poses a significant risk to employees, passengers, and the public at large, and the risk is extremely high if a bus operator is incapacitated or distracted in any way while performing their in-transit duties. This bill is intended to provide Metro with the ability to continue to lower the incidences of bus operator assault and ensuing costs by allowing them to join the ranks of [other transit districts] in their ability to issue prohibition orders on unruly passengers.
In writing in support of this bill, the sponsor, Metro states that "in 2016, it recorded a total number of 120 cases of assault on [bus] operators, and if an assault occurs when a bus is in motion, or in service, this can pose a deadly threat to the operators, passengers on board, and the public. This legislation is vital to deter and reduce crime on the Metro system for our bus operators and patrons."
Additionally, writing is support, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), notes that "between medical costs, legal expenses and temporary and permanent disability payments, the average cost when an assault occurs is $49,071 per claim. This policy would help assure that passengers with a repeated pattern of violence towards bus operators would not again infringe upon a driver's ability to safely transport passengers. AB 486 is an extremely cost-efficient and necessary method to address this growing concern."
According to Metro, it has invested resources in training and technology to help reduce incidences of assault by 29% in recent years. For example, some of these efforts include installation of live video monitoring systems aboard buses to monitor activity, installation of Plexiglas barriers aboard all new buses and retrofitting buses already in the fleet, training operators on how to "de-escalate" a confrontation, launching a Metro marketing campaign aimed at educating patrons to respect operators, implementation of the successful Transit Watch Smartphone App where patrons can "see something, say something," and increased security and law enforcement presence system-wide. Establishing a prohibition order process within Metro would be another tool to help protect bus operators and riders.
Current law authorizes the use of prohibition orders for BART, and current legislation AB 730 (Quirk) is being pursued to permanently extend this authority. According to BART's annual report on prohibition orders, as required by statute, BART saw a 2% increase in ridership from 2015 to 2016 which corresponds to an overall 3% decrease in reported crimes of violence and property crimes throughout the BART district area. However, while overall crime decreased BART saw an increase in crimes of violence by 38%. In 2016, BART issued 275 prohibition orders with battery/threats to patrons and BART employees being the highest amount.
As stated in the report, "with increase in ridership, increase in reported crimes of violence, and decrease in overall criminal activity, [the use of prohibition orders] is one of a number of tools assisting with crime reduction and the prevention of violence against persons on District property. Suspects known to commit violence against others are precluded from returning to District property, and therefore are less likely to commit another offense during the specified period of prohibition."
Please see the policy committee analysis for full discussion of this bill.
Analysis Prepared by: Melissa White / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN: 0000287
Date of Hearing: May 8, 2017
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Jim Frazier, Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:AB 468 (
Author:Santiago) – As Amended Ver:March 23, 2017
SUBJECT: Transit districts: prohibition orders
SUMMARY: Adds the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) to the transit districts authorized to issue prohibition orders to passengers committing certain illegal behaviors.
EXISTING LAW:
- Prohibits a person subject to a prohibition order from entering the property, facilities, or vehicles of the transit district for a period of time deemed appropriate by the transit district, provided that the duration of the prohibition order does not exceed the following specified time limits:
- 30 days for a first order, 90 days for a second order within one year, and 180 days for a third order within one year related to infractions; or,
- 30 days if issued pursuant to an arrest for a misdemeanor or felony offense. Upon conviction for the offense, the order may be extended to a total of 180 days for a misdemeanor and one year for a felony.
- 30 days for a first order, 90 days for a second order within one year, and 180 days for a third order within one year related to infractions; or,
- Specifies prohibition processes, notification procedures, and hearing and appeal procedures.
- Authorizes Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT), the Fresno Area Express, or the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART, until January 1, 2018), to issue a prohibition order to any person who, on at least three separate occasions within a period of 90 consecutive days, is cited for an infraction committed in or on a vehicle, bus stop, or light rail station of the transit district for any of the following acts:
- Interfering with the operator or operation of a transit vehicle, or impeding the safe boarding or alighting of passengers;
- Committing any act or engaging in any behavior that may, with reasonable foreseeability, cause harm or injury to any person or property;
- Willfully disturbing others on or in a transit facility or vehicle by engaging in boisterous or unruly behavior;
- Carrying an explosive, acid, or flammable liquid in a public transit facility or vehicle;
- Urinating or defecating in a transit facility or vehicle, except in a lavatory;
- Willfully blocking the free movement of another person in a transit facility or vehicle; or,
- Defacing with graffiti the interior or exterior of the facilities or vehicles of a public transportation system.
- Interfering with the operator or operation of a transit vehicle, or impeding the safe boarding or alighting of passengers;
- Authorizes a prohibition order to be issued to a person arrested or convicted for any misdemeanor or felony committed in or on a vehicle, bus stop, or light rail station of the transit district, for acts involving violence, threats of violence, lewd or lascivious behavior, or possession for sale or sale of a controlled substance.
- Authorizes a prohibition order to be issued to a person convicted of loitering with the intent to commit specified drug offenses or loitering with intent to commit prostitution.
- Requires the transit district to establish an advisory committee and to ensure that personnel charged with issuance and enforcement of prohibition orders receive training as emphasized and as recommended by the advisory committee.
FISCAL EFFECT: None. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS: Metro operates the third largest transit system in the United States with over 10,000 employees and 1 million bus boardings per day. Metro’s service area spans 1,433 square miles with a bus fleet of 2,248 buses traveling along 170 routes. According to the author, despite crime being down overall on the Metro system as compared to the rest of Los Angeles County, Metro bus operators continue to be victims of physical assaults while on the job. Further, he states that an assault on a vehicle as large as a bus poses a significant risk to employees, passengers, and the public at large, and the risk is extremely high if a bus operator is incapacitated or distracted in any way while performing their in-transit duties. This bill is intended to provide Metro with the ability to continue to lower the incidences of bus operator assault and ensuing costs by allowing them to join the ranks of [other transit districts] in their ability to issue prohibition orders on unruly passengers.
In writing in support of this bill, the sponsor, Metro states that “in 2016, it recorded a total number of 120 cases of assault on [bus] operators, and if an assault occurs when a bus is in motion, or in service, this can pose a deadly threat to the operators, passengers on board, and the public. This legislation is vital to deter and reduce crime on the Metro system for our bus operators and patrons.”
Additionally, writing is support, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), notes that “between medical costs, legal expenses and temporary and permanent disability payments, the average cost when an assault occurs is $49,071 per claim. This policy would help assure that passengers with a repeated pattern of violence towards bus operators would not again infringe upon a driver’s ability to safely transport passengers. AB 486 is an extremely cost-efficient and necessary method to address this growing concern.”
According to Metro, it has invested resources in training and technology to help reduce incidences of assault by 29% in recent years. For example, some of these efforts include installation of live video monitoring systems aboard buses to monitor activity, installation of Plexiglas barriers aboard all new buses and retrofitting buses already in the fleet, training operators on how to “de-escalate” a confrontation, launching a Metro marketing campaign aimed at educating patrons to respect operators, implementation of the successful Transit Watch Smartphone App where patrons can “see something, say something,” and increased security and law enforcement presence system-wide. Establishing a prohibition order process within Metro would be another tool to help protect bus operators and riders.
Current law authorizes the use of prohibition orders for BART, and current legislation AB 730 (Quirk) is being pursued to permanently extend this authority. According to BART’s annual report on prohibition orders, as required by statute, BART saw a 2% increase in ridership from 2015 to 2016 which corresponds to an overall 3% decrease in reported crimes of violence and property crimes throughout the BART district area. However, while overall crime decreased BART saw an increase in crimes of violence by 38%. In 2016, BART issued 275 prohibition orders with battery/threats to patrons and BART employees being the highest amount.
As stated in the report, “with increase in ridership, increase in reported crimes of violence, and decrease in overall criminal activity, [the use of prohibition orders] is one of a number of tools assisting with crime reduction and the prevention of violence against persons on District property. Suspects known to commit violence against others are precluded from returning to District property, and therefore are less likely to commit another offense during the specified period of prohibition.”
Related legislation: AB 730 (Quirk) would repeal the sunset for BART to issue prohibition orders to any person cited for committing one or more of certain prohibited acts in specified transit facilities. AB 730 passed out of the Assembly Public Safety Committee unanimously on April 4, 2017, was subsequently passed off of the Assembly Floor on April 17, 2017, with a vote of 74-0. AB 730 is currently awaiting referral to a policy committee by the Senate Rules Committee.
Prior legislation: SB 1154 (Hancock), Chapter 559, Statutes of 2014, extended the sunset on the law that allows BART to issue prohibition orders denying passengers committing certain illegal behaviors entry onto transit vehicles and facilities, until January 1, 2018.
AB 716 (Dickinson), Chapter 534, Statutes of 2011, authorized BART, until January 1, 2015, to issue prohibition orders denying passengers committing certain illegal behaviors entry onto transit vehicles and facilities. AB 716 also removed the sunset provisions for Sacramento Regional Transit District and the Fresno Area Express, making their related authority permanent.
SB 1561 (Steinberg), Chapter 528, Statutes of 2008, authorized the Sacramento Regional Transit District and the Fresno Area Express, until January 1, 2012, to issue prohibition orders denying passengers committing certain illegal behaviors entry onto transit vehicles and facilities.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Sponsor)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by: Melissa White / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093
Discussed in Hearing
Assembly Floor
Assembly Floor
Assembly Standing Committee on Transportation
Bill Author
Bill Co-Author(s):