Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Transit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill expanding temporary restraining orders to protect transit workers
Summary
AB 3 94, which clarifies enhanced penalties and extends the temporary restraining order (TRO) process systemwide to protect transit employees beyond operators, passed out of committee to the Judiciary Committee.
The Assembly Public Safety Committee voted to pass AB 3 94 to the Judiciary Committee. The bill, presented by Assemblymember Wilson, clarifies that enhanced penalties for battery apply to all transit employees (not only operators), allows employers and labor representatives to petition for temporary restraining orders in the transit context, and specifies that TROs may apply systemwide across vehicles, stations and facilities.
Assemblymember Wilson said AB 3 94 “takes several key steps to address” rising assaults and harassment of transit workers and riders. Union leaders and local transit general managers described violent incidents against drivers and staff and urged the committee to approve the measure. Crystal McGee of ATU Local 256 called the bill “exactly what we need today.” Bill Churchill, general manager of County Connection, described using TROs in his agency’s jurisdiction to remove a small number of highly disruptive individuals and said TROs protected employees and improved overall reliability.
Witnesses for dozens of transit operators, labor unions and public safety groups (including Los Angeles County Metro, the California Transit Association, Teamsters, BART and multiple transit agencies) supported the bill. Opponents — including the California Public Defenders Association, the Western Center on Law and Poverty and the ACLU California Action — said they agreed with the goal of safety but wanted additional clarity on judicial discretion, the duration of TROs, civil liberties and impacts on people who rely on transit as their primary travel mode.
Committee members probed enforceability, systemwide implementation and whether courts would be equipped to issue and police systemwide TROs; witnesses described operational practices used in agencies that have employed TROs, noting supervisors carry TRO paperwork and that agencies typically seek TROs for a very small number of individuals (County Connection said it had sought TROs against seven people over five years, representing a tiny fraction of riders but a large share of violent incidents). The committee accepted amendments intended to clarify the language and application.
The committee recorded an aye recommendation and AB 3 94 was passed to the Judiciary Committee for further consideration.
