SB 1417: Transit districts: prohibition orders.
- Session Year: 2023-2024
- House: Senate
- Latest Version Date: 2024-08-19
Current Status:
Passed
(2024-08-19: Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 189, Statutes of 2024.)
Introduced
In Committee
First Chamber
In Committee
Second Chamber
Enacted
What does this bill do?
This bill adds the Santa Monica Department of Transportation to the list of transit agencies that can issue prohibition orders, so it affects riders and people cited on Santa Monica transit property. Those orders let the agency bar people from entering its vehicles, stations, or property for repeated or serious misconduct, and require an advisory committee, staff training, public notice, and annual reporting on use of the orders.
The summary is provided by generative AI which can make mistakes. For original language, please view the details in the table below.
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 Fresno Area Express, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Sacramento Regional Transit District, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 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 provide that the Santa Monica Department of Transportation is also a transit district for purposes of these provisions regarding prohibition orders.
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 Fresno Area Express, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Sacramento Regional Transit District, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 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 provide that the Santa Monica Department of Transportation is also a transit district for purposes of these provisions regarding prohibition orders.
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 Fresno Area Express, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Sacramento Regional Transit District, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 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 provide that the Santa Monica Department of Transportation is also a transit district for purposes of these provisions regarding prohibition orders.
(a)(1)A transit district may issue a prohibition order to any person to whom any 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 or a property, facility, or vehicle upon which the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District owes policing responsibilities to a local government pursuant to an operations and maintenance agreement or similar interagency agreement for an 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.
(2)A person subject to a prohibition order may not enter the property, facilities, or vehicles of the transit district or the property, facilities, or vehicles upon which the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District owes policing responsibilities to a local government pursuant to an operations and maintenance agreement or similar interagency agreement 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 shall not exceed 90 days, and a third or subsequent prohibition order within one year shall 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, shall 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, shall not exceed one year.
(3)A prohibition order issued pursuant to this subdivision shall not 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 their actions or did not have the ability to control their 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 shall be made at least five calendar days before 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 they determine that the person did not understand the nature and extent of their actions or did not have the ability to control their 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, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, or the Santa Monica Department of Transportation.
SEC. 2.Section 99172 of the Public Utilities Code is amended to read:99172.(a)Before 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 issuing and enforcing prohibition orders.
(2)Ensure that personnel to be charged with issuing and enforcing 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 website, 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 issuing and enforcing 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 before 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, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, or the Santa Monica Department of Transportation.
(a)(1)A transit district may issue a prohibition order to any person to whom any 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 or a property, facility, or vehicle upon which the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District owes policing responsibilities to a local government pursuant to an operations and maintenance agreement or similar interagency agreement for an 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.
(2)A person subject to a prohibition order may not enter the property, facilities, or vehicles of the transit district or the property, facilities, or vehicles upon which the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District owes policing responsibilities to a local government pursuant to an operations and maintenance agreement or similar interagency agreement 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 shall not exceed 90 days, and a third or subsequent prohibition order within one year shall 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, shall 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, shall not exceed one year.
(3)A prohibition order issued pursuant to this subdivision shall not 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 their actions or did not have the ability to control their 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 shall be made at least five calendar days before 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 they determine that the person did not understand the nature and extent of their actions or did not have the ability to control their 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, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, or the Santa Monica Department of Transportation.
SEC. 2.Section 99172 of the Public Utilities Code is amended to read:99172.(a)Before 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 issuing and enforcing prohibition orders.
(2)Ensure that personnel to be charged with issuing and enforcing 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 website, 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 issuing and enforcing 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 before 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, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, or the Santa Monica Department of Transportation.
(a)(1)A transit district may issue a prohibition order to any person to whom either any 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 or a property, facility, or vehicle upon which the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District owes policing responsibilities to a local government pursuant to an operations and maintenance agreement or similar interagency agreement for an 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.
(2)A person subject to a prohibition order may not enter the property, facilities, or vehicles of the transit district or the property, facilities, or vehicles upon which the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District owes policing responsibilities to a local government pursuant to an operations and maintenance agreement or similar interagency agreement 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 shall not exceed 90 days, and a third or subsequent prohibition order within one year may shall 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 shall 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 shall not exceed one year.
(3)A prohibition order issued pursuant to this subdivision shall not 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 their actions or did not have the ability to control their 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 shall be made at least five calendar days before 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 they determine that the person did not understand the nature and extent of their actions or did not have the ability to control their 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, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, or the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. Authority, or the Santa Monica Department of Transportation.
SEC. 2.Section 99172 of the Public Utilities Code is amended to read:99172.(a)Before 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 for, and issuance of of, prohibition orders and recommending a course of training for personnel charged with issuance and enforcement of issuing and enforcing prohibition orders.
(2)Ensure that personnel to be charged with issuance and enforcement of issuing and enforcing 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 website, 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 issuing and enforcing 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 before 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, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, or the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. Authority, or the Santa Monica Department of Transportation.
|
Date
|
Status
|
|---|---|
| Aug 19, 2024 | Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 189, Statutes of 2024. |
| Aug 19, 2024 | Approved by the Governor. |
| Aug 13, 2024 | Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 2 p.m. |
| Aug 8, 2024 | In Senate. Ordered to engrossing and enrolling. |
| Aug 8, 2024 | Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 72. Noes 0. Page 6249.) Ordered to the Senate. |
| Jul 3, 2024 | Read second time. Ordered to consent calendar. |
| Jul 2, 2024 | From committee: Do pass. Ordered to consent calendar. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) (July 1). |
| Apr 29, 2024 | Referred to Com. on TRANS. |
| Apr 18, 2024 | In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk. |
| Apr 18, 2024 | Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 39. Noes 0. Page 3671.) Ordered to the Assembly. |
| Apr 11, 2024 | Read second time. Ordered to consent calendar. |
| Apr 10, 2024 | From committee: Do pass. Ordered to consent calendar. (Ayes 15. Noes 0. Page 3536.) (April 9). |
| Mar 1, 2024 | Set for hearing April 9. |
| Feb 29, 2024 | Referred to Com. on TRANS. |
| Feb 20, 2024 | From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 18. |
| Feb 16, 2024 | Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print. |
|
Date
|
Description
|
Location
|
Votes
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 8, 2024 | SB 1417 Allen Consent Calendar Second Day Regular Session | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| Jul 1, 2024 | Do pass. To Consent Calendar. | Assembly Standing Committee on Transportation |
Passed |
|
| Apr 18, 2024 | Consent Calendar 2nd SB1417 Allen | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| Apr 9, 2024 | Do pass and be ordered to the Consent Calendar | Senate 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
|
|---|---|---|
| California State Legislative Board of SMART | ** Support | |
| City of Santa Monica | ** Support | |
| SMART-Transportation Division | ** Support | |
| Streets Are For Everyone | ** Support |
Date of Hearing: July 1, 2024
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Lori D. Wilson, Chair
SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1417
Author:(Allen) – As Introduced Ver:February 16, 2024
SENATE VOTE: 39-0
SUBJECT: Transit districts: prohibition orders
SUMMARY: Authorizes the Santa Monica Department of Transportation to issue prohibition orders to any person cited for committing a specified act.
EXISTING LAW:
- Authorizes Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT), the Fresno Area Express (FAX), Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), or the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), 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 train or light rail station of the transit district, or a property, facility, or vehicle upon which BART owes policing responsibilities, as specified, 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;
- Extending any portion of the body through a window opening of a transit vehicle in a manner that may cause harm or injury;
- Throwing an object from a transit vehicle;
- Committing an 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.
- 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.
- Specifies prohibition processes, notification procedures, and hearing and appeal procedures.
- 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. Tasks the advisory committee with responsibilities, as specified. Authorizes existing advisory committees to be used if appropriate.
- Requires the transit district to provide the governing board of the 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.
- Defines “transit district” to mean the Sacramento Regional Transit District, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Fresno Area Express, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, or Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.
FISCAL EFFECT: This bill is keyed non-fiscal by Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS: AB 716 (Dickinson), Chapter 534, Statutes of 2011 authorized the creation of a three-year pilot program to allow BART to issue prohibition orders denying entry onto transit vehicles and facilities to passengers committing certain illegal behaviors. In 2013, BART initiated its AB 716 program, which also required BART to provide the Legislature with annual reports on the program. The program became permanent with the passage of AB 730 (Quirk), Chapter 46, Statutes of 2017.
Since then, the California Legislature has extended the authority to issue prohibition orders to the SacRT, LA Metro, FAX and VTA.
Transit agencies are authorized to exclude individuals from any or all parts of the system for up to 90 consecutive days for three separate occasions if a person was cited for the following crimes: willfully disturbing others by unruly or boisterous behavior, carrying explosive, flammable, or acidic substances in a transit facility, urinating or defecating in public, willfully blocking free movement, willfully tampering with or destroying any part of the facility, defacing transit vehicles or facilities with graffiti or inscribed material, interfering with the operator or operations of a transit vehicle, or behavior that reasonably foreseeably caused harm or injury to any person or property.
Additionally, a prohibition order can be issued after conviction for a misdemeanor or felony involving violence or threats of violence, lewd or lascivious behavior, or possession of a controlled substance. Finally, a prohibition order can be issued for loitering for drug activity or loitering for prostitution convictions. These orders can range from 30 days for arrests to 180 days for misdemeanor convictions and up to a year for felony convictions.
According to the author, "In 2022 and 2023, operators of the Santa Monica Big Blue Bus reported nearly 450 incidents of passenger disruptions on the transit system. These incidents included threats and assaults against bus drivers and other passengers. Only five transit providers are currently authorized to issue prohibition orders to repeatedly disruptive riders. SB 1417 adds Big Blue Bus to that list. This will increase safety for both workers and transit users and enhance the transit experience for riders."
Every transit agency authorized to issue prohibition orders is required to submit an annual report to the legislature on the use of prohibition orders. So far, BART is the only transit agency to have utilized this authority to issue prohibition orders, and as a result, it remains the only agency to issue such orders under this statute.
According to the most recent report from BART, "In 2022, 310 prohibition orders were issued compared to 236 in 2021. Prohibition orders were issued at 42 BART stations… In 2021, 236 prohibition orders were issued compared to 255 in 2020… In 2020, 255 prohibition orders were issued compared to 317 in 2019.
Statistics related to age, race, and gender have remained relatively consistent over the years. However, the number of younger adults (under age 35) receiving prohibition orders continues to be relatively high at 199, constituting 64% of all orders. Within this demographic, a disproportionate number of orders were issued to younger Black individuals, totaling 124 or 40% of all orders. Although this figure increased from 95 in 2021, it still represented 40% of all orders (according to the 2022 BART customer satisfaction survey, 12% of their riders identify as Black).
Ninety-three or 30% of prohibition orders issued in 2022 were for battery and threats against BART patrons. This compares to 56 in 2021, 64 in 2020, and 104 in 2019. As we emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic, we are seeing numbers rebound to pre-pandemic levels.”
Santa Monica Big Blue Bus: The City of Santa Monica’s Department of Transportation operates the city’s transit service, known as the Big Blue Bus. The City launched the bus line in 1928 and currently serves 27,000 daily riders with 195 buses. The Big Blue Bus serves areas beyond the boundaries of the City of Santa Monica. Currently, it operates 20 routes covering 58 square miles, including connections to Los Angeles International Airport, UCLA, and downtown Los Angeles. According to the City, Big Blue Bus ridership has returned to 80% of pre-pandemic levels.
According to data compiled by the City of Santa Monica, security incidents on its system have been increasing in recent years. Security incidents can range from assaults on bus operators or passengers, property damage, to disturbances causing service disruptions, including intoxication, indecent exposure, and threats to operators or passengers. Specifically, assaults on bus operators increased by roughly 23% in the last year, and threats against operators also saw an increase.
The City of Santa Monica’s Department of Transportation operates the city’s transit service, known as the Big Blue Bus. The City launched the bus line in 1928 and currently serves 27,000 daily riders with 195 buses. The Big Blue Bus serves areas beyond the boundaries of the City of Santa Monica. Currently, it operates 20 routes covering 58 square miles, including connections to Los Angeles International Airport, UCLA, and downtown Los Angeles. According to the City, Big Blue Bus ridership has returned to 80% of pre-pandemic levels.
SMART Transportation Division, writing in support of this bill, argues: "In 2022 and 2023, Big Blue Bus transit workers reported nearly 450 incidents of passenger disruptions on the system, including threats and assaults against bus drivers and other passengers. Instances of property damage have also occurred, including individuals kicking and punching bus doors, shattering windows and windshields, and breaking off windshield wipers and mirrors.
Currently, only five transit agencies in the state have the authority to issue prohibition orders to passengers who exhibit frequent disruptive or dangerous behavior. When they do, existing law provides exceptions for vulnerable Californians taking necessary trips for work or medical appointments and offers a process to appeal such orders. Prohibition orders are an effective tool for transit agencies to ensure rider safety while still allowing access to the system. The City of Santa Monica is also introducing a Transit Safety Officer program that will add transit ambassador personnel to aid in de-escalating disturbances, assisting customers, and deterring crime."
Previous legislation: AB 1735 (Low) Chapter 69, Statutes of 2023) added VTA to the transit districts authorized to issue prohibition orders to passengers committing certain illegal behaviors.
AB 1337 (Lee) Chapter 534, Statues of 2021) extended the authority of specified transit district entities to issue prohibition orders to include the property, facilities and vehicles on which it owes policing responsibilities to a local government pursuant to agreement, and expands current law to make entering or remaining on those properties without permission a misdemeanor.
AB 730 (Quirk) Chapter 46, Statutes of 2017 repealed the sunset on the law that allows BART to issue prohibition orders to passengers committing certain illegal behaviors, making BART’s authority to do so permanent.
AB 468 (Santiago) Chapter 192, Statutes of 2017 added the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) to the transit districts authorized to issue prohibition orders to passengers committing certain illegal behaviors.
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 the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, until January 1, 2015, to issue prohibition orders denying passengers committing certain illegal behaviors entry onto transit vehicles and facilities and removed the sunset provisions for SacRT and the Fresno Area Express, making their related authority permanent.
SB 1561 (Steinberg) Chapter 528, Statutes of 2008 authorized SacRT 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
California State Legislative Board of SMART
City of Santa Monica
SMART-Transportation Division
Streets are for Everyone
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by: David Sforza / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | SB 1417 |
CONSENT
Bill No: SB 1417
Author: Allen (D)
Introduced: 2/16/24
Vote: 21
SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE: 15-0, 4/9/24
AYES: Cortese, Niello, Allen, Archuleta, Becker, Blakespear, Dahle, Dodd, Gonzalez, Limón, Newman, Nguyen, Portantino, Seyarto, Umberg
SUBJECT: Transit districts: prohibition orders
SOURCE: City of Santa Monica
DIGEST:
This bill authorizes the Santa Monica Department of Transportation to have the authority currently provided to specified transit districts to issue prohibition orders to any person cited for committing a specified act.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
- Authorizes Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT), the Fresno Area Express (FAX), Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), or the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), 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 train or light rail station of the transit district, or a property, facility, or vehicle upon which BART owes policing responsibilities, as specified, 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;
- Extending any portion of the body through a window opening of a transit vehicle in a manner that may cause harm or injury;
- Throwing an object from a transit vehicle;
- Committing an 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.
- 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.
- Specifies prohibition processes, notification procedures, and hearing and appeal procedures.
- 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. Tasks the advisory committee with responsibilities, as specified. Authorizes existing advisory committees to be used if appropriate.
- Requires the transit district to provide the governing board of the 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.
- Defines “transit district” to mean SacRT, Metro, the FAX, BART, or VTA.
This bill authorizes the Santa Monica Department of Transportation to issue prohibition orders to any person cited for committing a specified act.
Comments
- Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “In 2022 and 2023, operators of the Santa Monica Big Blue Bus reported nearly 450 incidents of passenger disruptions on the transit system. These incidents included threats and assault against a bus driver and other passengers. Only 5 transit providers are currently allowed to issue prohibition orders to repeatedly disruptive riders. SB 1417 adds Big Blue Bus to that list. This will increase safety for both workers and transit users and enhance the transit experience for riders.”
- Santa Monica’s Big Blue Bus. The City of Santa Monica’s Department of Transportation operates the city’s transit service, known as the Big Blue Bus. The City of Santa Monica launched the bus line in 1928 and currently serves 27,000 daily riders with 195 buses. The Big Blue Bus serves areas beyond the boundaries of the City of Santa Monica. Currently, it serves 20 routes covering 58 square miles, including connections to the Los Angeles International Airport, UCLA and downtown Los Angeles. According to the City of Santa Monica, Big Blue Bus has ridership returned to 80% of pre-pandemic levels.
- Transit Prohibition Orders. Public transit systems in the state and across the country experience complaints from riders and employees regarding safety and security. AB 716 (Dickinson, Chapter 534, Statutes of 2011) authorized the creation of a three-year pilot program to allow BART to issue prohibition orders, which allow BART to deny passengers committing certain illegal behaviors entry onto transit vehicles and facilities for a specified amount of time. In 2013, BART initiated its AB 716 program, which also required BART to provide the Legislature with annual reports on the program. The program was made permanent with the passage of AB 730 (Quirk, Chapter 46, Statutes of 2017).
The California Legislature has extended the authority to issue prohibition orders to SacRT, Metro, FAX, VTA and authorized BART to issue prohibition orders on VTA property shared with BART. This bill extends to Santa Monica Department of Transportation the authority to issue prohibition orders on its transit system.
- Assaults on operators are on the rise. According to data compiled by the City of Santa Monica, security incidents on its system are on the rise in recent years. Security incidents can range from assaults on bus operators or passengers; property damage; and disturbances that cause service disruptions, including intoxication, indecent exposure, and threats to operators or passengers. Specifically, assaults on bus operators increased roughly 23% in the last year, and threats against operators have also increased.
Assaults on operators increased during the pandemic, exacerbating an already challenging problem of the recruitment and retention of transit workers. According to a Transit Center report, Bus Operators in Crisis, “Operators are increasingly assaulted on the job, which has decreased the desirability of the profession. Many potential employees are wary of, if not opposed to, taking a job that could involve hostile interactions with the public. According to the Federal Transit Administration, data shows that operator assaults per unlinked passenger trip increased fourfold from 2009 to 2020. Operators have a legitimate fear that their job could put them in harm’s way. Though most of their interactions with the public are friendly, the job requires operators to intervene in potentially dangerous situations. Fare enforcement and intervening in onboard incidents can escalate and put operators in harm’s way. Traffic incidents can also put operators in harm’s way and subject them to abuse from angry drivers in cars and trucks. On the road, operators are often on their own should something occur. This is especially true during overnight runs on routes that serve less populated areas.”
- City of Santa Monica is working to increase safety. The City of Santa Monica adopted a plan for service improvements to help ensure the safety of its bus operators and passengers. In February 2024, the City approved a Transit Safety Officer Program, which kicked off in March. The safety officers ride in pairs, system wide and assist with enforcing the adopted code of conduct, de-escalating situations and disturbances, assisting customers, and deterring crime aboard the buses and at bus stops.
This bill extends the authority to issue prohibition orders to the City of Santa Monica, as neighboring agency Metro, and other transit districts in California currently enjoy.
Related/Prior Legislation
AB 1735 (Low, Chapter 69, Statutes of 2023) added VTA to the transit districts authorized to issue prohibition orders to passengers committing certain illegal behaviors.
AB 1337 (Lee, Chapter 534, Statutes of 2021) extended the authority of specified transit district entities to issue prohibition orders to include the property, facilities and vehicles on which it owes policing responsibilities to a local government pursuant to agreement, and expands current law to make entering or remaining on those properties without permission a misdemeanor.
AB 730 (Quirk, Chapter 46, Statutes of 2017) repealed the sunset on the law that allows BART to issue prohibition orders to passengers committing certain illegal behaviors, making BART’s authority to do so permanent.
AB 468 (Santiago, Chapter 192, Statutes of 2017) added the Metro to the transit districts authorized to issue prohibition orders to passengers committing certain illegal behaviors.
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. The bill 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 SacRT and FAX, until January 1, 2012, to issue prohibition orders denying passengers committing certain illegal behaviors entry onto transit vehicles and facilities. The bill also described the kinds of behaviors according to their potential severity and prescribes the progressive penalties based upon the severity and frequency of violations.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/11/24)
City of Santa Monica (sponsor)
California State Legislative Board of SMART – Transportation Division
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/11/24)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Writing in support of the bill, the California State Legislative Board of SMART – Transportation Division, who represents bus and mass transit employees, states, “In 2022 and 2023, Big Blue Bus transit workers reported nearly 450 incidents of passenger disruptions on the system, including threats and assault against bus drivers and other passengers. Instances of property damage have also occurred including individuals kicking and punching bus doors, shattering windows and windshields, and breaking off windshield wipers and mirrors.
“Currently only five transit agencies in the state have authority to issue a prohibition order to passengers who have frequent disruptive or dangerous behavior. When they do, existing law affords exceptions for vulnerable Californians taking necessary trips for work or medical appointments and provides
an avenue for to appeal an order. Prohibition orders are an effective tool for transit agencies to ensure rider safety while continuing to allow access to the system.”
Prepared by: Melissa White / TRANS. / (916) 651-4121
4/11/24 12:14:42
**** END ****
SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Senator Dave Cortese, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular
Bill No: Hearing Date: 4/9/2024
Author: | Allen | ||
Version: | 2/16/2024 Introduced | ||
Urgency: | No | Fiscal: | No |
Consultant: | Melissa White | ||
SUBJECT:
DIGEST: This bill authorizes the Santa Monica Department of Transportation to have the authority currently provided to specified transit districts to issue prohibition orders to any person cited for committing a specified act.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
- Authorizes Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT), the Fresno Area Express (FAX), Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), or the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), 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 train or light rail station of the transit district, or a property, facility, or vehicle upon which BART owes policing responsibilities, as specified, 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;
- Extending any portion of the body through a window opening of a transit vehicle in a manner that may cause harm or injury;
- Throwing an object from a transit vehicle;
- Committing an 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.
- 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.
- Specifies prohibition processes, notification procedures, and hearing and appeal procedures.
- 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. Tasks the advisory committee with responsibilities, as specified. Authorizes existing advisory committees to be used if appropriate.
- Requires the transit district to provide the governing board of the 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.
- Defines “transit district” to mean the Sacramento Regional Transit District, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Fresno Area Express, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, or Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.
This bill:
- Authorizes the Santa Monica Department of Transportation to issue prohibition orders to any person cited for committing a specified act.
COMMENTS:
- Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “In 2022 and 2023, operators of the Santa Monica Big Blue Bus reported nearly 450 incidents of passenger disruptions on the transit system. These incidents included threats and assault against a bus driver and other passengers. Only 5 transit providers are currently allowed to issue prohibition orders to repeatedly disruptive riders. SB 1417 adds Big Blue Bus to that list. This will increase safety for both workers and transit users and enhance the transit experience for riders.”
- Santa Monica’s Big Blue Bus. The City of Santa Monica’s Department of Transportation operates the city’s transit service, known as the Big Blue Bus. The City launched the bus line in 1928 and currently serves 27,000 daily riders with 195 buses. The Big Blue Bus serves areas beyond the boundaries of the City of Santa Monica. Currently, it serves 20 routes covering 58 square miles, including connections to the Los Angeles International Airport, UCLA and downtown Los Angeles. According to the City, Big Blue Bus has ridership returned to 80% of pre-pandemic levels.
- Transit Prohibition Orders. Public transit systems in the state and across the country experience complaints from riders and employees regarding safety and security. AB 716 (Dickinson, Chapter 534, Statutes of 2011), authorized the creation of a three-year pilot program to allow BART to issue prohibition orders, which allow BART to deny passengers committing certain illegal behaviors entry onto transit vehicles and facilities for a specified amount of time. In 2013, BART initiated its AB 716 program, which also required BART to provide the Legislature with annual reports on the program. The program was made permanent with the passage of AB 730 (Quirk, Chapter 46, Statutes of 2017).
The California Legislature has extended the authority to issue prohibition orders to SacRT, LA Metro, FAX, VTA and authorized BART to issue prohibition orders on VTA property shared with BART. This bill would extend to Santa Monica Department of Transportation the authority to issue prohibition orders on its transit system.
- Assaults on operators are on the rise. According to data compiled by the City of Santa Monica, security incidents on its system are on the rise in recent years. Security incidents can range from assaults on bus operators or passengers; property damage; and disturbances that cause service disruptions, including intoxication, indecent exposure, and threats to operators or passengers. Specifically, assaults on bus operators increased roughly 23% in the last year, and threats against operators have also increased.
Assaults on operators increased during the pandemic, exacerbating an already challenging problem of the recruitment and retention of transit workers. According to a Transit Center report, Bus Operators in Crisis, “Operators are increasingly assaulted on the job, which has decreased the desirability of the profession. Many potential employees are wary of, if not opposed to, taking a job that could involve hostile interactions with the public. According to the Federal Transit Administration, data shows that operator assaults per unlinked passenger trip increased fourfold from 2009 to 2020. Operators have a legitimate fear that their job could put them in harm’s way. Though most of their interactions with the public are friendly, the job requires operators to intervene in potentially dangerous situations. Fare enforcement and intervening in onboard incidents can escalate and put operators in harm’s way. Traffic incidents can also put operators in harm’s way and subject them to abuse from angry drivers in cars and trucks. On the road, operators are often on their own should something occur. This is especially true during overnight runs on routes that serve less populated areas.”
- City of Santa Monica is working to increase safety. The City of Santa Monica adopted a plan for service improvements to help ensure the safety of its bus operators and passengers. In February 2024, the City approved a Transit Safety Officer Program, which kicked off in March. The safety officers ride in pairs, system wide and assist with enforcing the adopted code of conduct, de-escalating situations and disturbances, assisting customers, and deterring crime aboard the buses and at bus stops.
SB 1417 would extend the authority to issue prohibition orders to the City of Santa Monica, as neighboring agency LA Metro, and other transit districts in California currently enjoy. Writing in support of the bill, the California State Legislative Board of SMART – Transportation Division, who represents bus and mass transit employees, states, “In 2022 and 2023, Big Blue Bus transit workers reported nearly 450 incidents of passenger disruptions on the system, including threats and assault against bus drivers and other passengers. Instances of property damage have also occurred including individuals kicking and punching bus doors, shattering windows and windshields, and breaking off windshield wipers and mirrors.
“Currently only five transit agencies in the state have authority to issue a prohibition order to passengers who have frequent disruptive or dangerous behavior. When they do, existing law affords exceptions for vulnerable Californians taking necessary trips for work or medical appointments and provides an avenue for to appeal an order. Prohibition orders are an effective tool for transit agencies to ensure rider safety while continuing to allow access to the system.”
Related/Previous Legislation:
AB 1735 (Low, Chapter 69, Statutes of 2023) -- Added VTA to the transit districts authorized to issue prohibition orders to passengers committing certain illegal behaviors.
AB 1337 (Lee, Chapter 534, Statues of 2021) -- Extended the authority of specified transit district entities to issue prohibition orders to include the property, facilities and vehicles on which it owes policing responsibilities to a local government pursuant to agreement, and expands current law to make entering or remaining on those properties without permission a misdemeanor.
AB 730 (Quirk, Chapter 46, Statutes of 2017) -- Repealed the sunset on the law that allows BART to issue prohibition orders to passengers committing certain illegal behaviors, making BART’s authority to do so permanent.
AB 468 (Santiago, Chapter 192, Statutes of 2017) -- Added the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) to the transit districts authorized to issue prohibition orders to passengers committing certain illegal behaviors.
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 the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, 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. SB 1561 also described the kinds of behaviors according to their potential severity and prescribes the progressive penalties based upon the severity and frequency of violations.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday,
April 3, 2024.)
SUPPORT:
City of Santa Monica (sponsor)
California State Legislative Board of SMART – Transportation Division
OPPOSITION:
None received
-- END --
Bill Author
Bill Co-Author(s):