Decriminalizing Jaywalking in California Will Help Reduce Police Harassment
Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill in September that will chip away at a policy that has long been criticized as enabling racially-motivated policing.

California will soon decriminalize jaywalking, which will do away with enforcement of a policy that critics say allows police to punish pedestrians with needlessly expensive fines, often in racially-motivated ways.
In September, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the Freedom To Walk Act, which will decriminalize jaywalking in the state. Critics have long noted that anti-jaywalking laws, which criminalize crossing the street outside of designated crosswalks, often levy harsh fines on pedestrians and do little to increase public safety. They argue those laws give the police a reason to write hefty tickets disproportionately to black and Hispanic pedestrians. California, which pioneered anti-jaywalking statutes, is reversing course—a decision that other states will hopefully replicate.
The Freedom to Walk Act will leave California's anti-jaywalking statutes on the books, but will prevent police from ticketing people who jaywalk safely until 2029. However, the law does not completely eliminate pedestrian safety requirements. After it goes into effect at the start of the new year, police will still be able to ticket individuals who cross the street when a "reasonably careful person would realize that there is a danger of collision." This leaves the door open to uneven enforcement, albeit for an offense involving directly reckless behavior.
Jaywalking tickets can often accumulate and lead to burdensome debts for low-income individuals. Jason Sarris, a formerly homeless man, told The New York Times that his jaywalking tickets and tickets for similar offenses amounted to nearly $5,000 in fines, making it difficult to begin rebuilding his life. "I couldn't afford to pay [the tickets]," Sarris told the Times. "I was well known as a homeless person, and I got targeted."
At least in some localities, low-income and homeless pedestrians do appear to be particularly likely to receive jaywalking tickets. For example, according to a 2019 analysis by The Salt Lake Tribune, two-thirds of Salt Lake City's jaywalking tickets were handed out in a one-block radius of an area known to be a hub of the city's homeless services. In Bakersfield, California, 92 percent of jaywalking citations occurred in low-income census tracts. In 2020, an unarmed homeless man named Kurt Reinhold was fatally shot after an Orange County police officer stopped him for jaywalking, an incident which California Assemblymember Phil Ting (D–San Francisco), who introduced the Freedom To Walk Act, said inspired his law.
Jaywalking tickets also appear to be disproportionately handed out along racial lines in many localities. In San Diego, for example, black pedestrians received 16 percent of all jaywalking tickets between 2015 and 2021, despite making up only 6 percent of the city's population. In New York City, 90 percent of jaywalking tickets written in 2019 were handed out to black and Hispanic pedestrians.
"Jaywalking laws do more than turn an ordinary and logical behavior into a crime," Jared Sanchez, senior policy advocate for CalBike, said in Ting's press release. "They also create opportunities for police to racially profile."
Decriminalizing jaywalking is a commonsense measure that would make it harder for police to single out homeless and minority pedestrians. By embracing reform, California is reaffirming the right to safely cross the street without worrying about hefty fines or police harassment.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Huh. Police and prosecutors abuse law enforcement. I wonder if this happens anywhere besides jaywalking.
Naw, that would be madness!
I've seen a person getting a jaywalking ticket for leaving the crosswalk before he reached the other side. Ticket for cutting corners. Scofflaws! Anarchists! Lawlessness!
Back when I lived in San Francisco, long before it got expensive and goofy, I was walking up California St from the Embarcadero BART station, and could hear a cable car coming. When it got about 30 seconds away, there was a break in traffic and I walked out to the middle to wait for the cable car to com by so I could jump on (they move slowly enough you can easily jump on while moving). A traffic cop nearby almost had a fit screaming at me to get back on the sidewalk, but by then the traffic had picked up again and it was not safe.
Stupid cops. Stupid politicians.
How about just assume everybody has agency and is reasonably careful, and leave 'em alone?
I am making 80 US dollars per hr. to complete some internet services from home. I did not ever think it would even be achievable , however my confidant mate got $13k only in four weeks, easily doing this best assignment and also she convinced me to avail.
For more detail visit this article… http://www.Profit97.com
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35400 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot (ans-06) of greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs
…
Just open the link————————–>>> http://Www.TopCityPay.Com
I used to live in the avenues and work in North Beach so I would take the N Judah down to Powell Street and then catch a cable car to work.
Halcyon days...
I've seen too many that have agency but are quite careless, clearly depending on the cars to avoid them no matter who has the right of way. They won't even walk 30 feet to a crosswalk and traffic light, but step out across a rather busy road. They walk down the middle of a road even though there are sidewalks on both sides. And they do this at night, wearing dark clothes and nearly invisible until they're directly in the headlights and under 20 feet away.
Change the law so the driver that hits one of these idiots is held blameless and can sue the idiot for damage to his car and his psyche, and then repeal all jaywalking laws.
At least in some localities, low-income and homeless pedestrians do appear to be particularly likely to receive jaywalking tickets.
People who can't afford cars get busted for jaywalking more than people who drive everywhere?
Oh!
My!
God!
I am able to obtain 80 dollars per/hr to complete easy work working off of a home computer. I not at all realized that it is possible however one of my greatest mate has collected $25k only within three weeks completing this super job furthermore she satisfied me to avail.
Discover further guidance by reaching following website.......>>> Topcitypay
That pesky base rate again! Statistics is a bitch!
This is not new in California, before you start blaming Newsom. This was in place when I was a kid, back before Reagan (CA) was governor, before Nixon (CA) was president. And of course the bigger the city the more it was enforced.
My problem with this remedy is that it's done in a way to actually add to the criminal code instead of reducing it. It's writing non-prosecution for a period of 6 years, instead of just going back and striking the law. I'd rather the law was just repealed with a big strikethrough instead of this weird temporary enforcement suspension.
And I'm not completely sold on whether jaywalking statutes are proper. I think I'm against them but highways and roads are a shared public property, and the usage of them does fall under government authority, with the same power to make rules for usage that a private owner would have. But I haven't really applied myself to how this bears on individual right when considering the rights of motorists vs. pedestrians.
Well now pedestrians can exercise their right to free rides
If you're pro jaywalking then apply the abolition of stop signs and streetlights to drivers for similar concerns.
I have. Stop signs and streetlights enhance overall safety for me. Crosswalks decrease safety. I’ve never been in danger or a danger to others crossing away from intersections. I can’t say the same for crossing at intersections. Too many drivers don’t look or stop when turning right.
So just jumping out into traffic because "I'm walking here" improves your safety because that is what you're advocating, not a controlled assumption of risk.
Jumping into traffic is different than choosing to cross a street with very slow or no traffic away from a defined crosswalk. The vast majority of jaywalk violations happen either on empty streets, or in such a way that they do not impede traffic. Humans can gauge the distance and speed of an incoming car and recognize that they can safely pass in front of it.
There is a reasonable difference between someone who didn't color between the lines and people who are jumping out into busy streets and creating actual hazards.
Interesting ... The change from showing comment timestamps to "37 minutes ago" (you can hover over that to see the actual timestamp) has made me curious. It seems to me that cases like this, where I found this article and my post was first after 3 minutes, are more common; more articles stay comment-free longer than they used to, as if fewer people are commenting than before. It also seems like longer from the Roundup article to get additional articles.
Has Reason been posting fewer articles, possibly because they've gotten fewer donations, which I would guess is from their articles no longer being as libertarian, which is probably from having moved to DC? Are fewer readers reducing how much they earn from ads?
If I were motivated, I'd compare article counts for a month now, vs 5, 10, 15 years ago. But I'm not. Reason seems hellbent on dodging libertarian points of view and staying in DC. Sooner or later some other libertarian site will come along and eat their lunch. Spiked online may be that site, some day, but not yet.
good
Jason Sarris, a formerly homeless man, told The New York Times that his jaywalking tickets and tickets for similar offenses amounted to nearly $5,000 in fines, making it difficult to begin rebuilding his life.
*sigh*
I live in homeless central. Even if... IF homeless people are getting jaywalking tickets, their payment will never ever ever... EVER be enforced. Why do you think Mr. Sarris has $5000 in tickets. Because he literally doesn't give two fucks.
If Reason writers came to visit or lived in an area with pandemic levels of homeless, they'd know this. I strongly suspect the only reason police even hand out jay-walking tickets is not that they expect them to... pay the fine, but to rattle them and get them to stop fucking wandering out into traffic.
Seattle lowered the entire city's speed limits to 25mph because so many homeless people were getting run over. Literally.
I don't know what the statistics are for Seattle, but Portland which is kind of a mirror image of Seattle retardation, 70% of all pedestrian deaths are homeless meth addicts wandering into traffic.
I'm not rah-rah-ing the tickets for homeless people, but what I am saying is that there's a problem here that needs to be a addressed, and when we fail to address it, our knee-jerk reaction is to stop enforcing more and more laws because all we can do is nibble around the symptoms of the infection instead of treating the infection.
Sure, keep taking ibuprofen to reduce the chills and fever, but leave the infection alone.
to rattle them and get them to stop fucking wandering out into traffic
Yeah. On the one hand, stop and frisk. On the other hand, get the fuck (the polite British version) out of the way.
I think it was you who said, “Driving off a cliff while waving out the window at libertarianism”. Thank you for that.
You have a point. The people that will be hurt by this are the middle class proles who are now emboldened to just walk out into traffic and expect cars to yield to them.
My advice is to buy a cow catcher and have it welded onto the front of your car
don't pay jaywalking tickets
Exactly, take a page out of Jason Sarris' book!
So poor people walk more then people who can afford cars?
Who could have possibly have seen that coming?
yes, that is the order. Poor people walk first, then, people with cars follow after
And are we going to indemnify drivers who hit people crossing in the middle of the street?
Nah, just one more step toward lawlessness in California.
- Steal $850 worth of goods? Ok
- Sell drugs on a playground? Ok
- Defecate on the sidewalk? Ok
This is such a low key 'get rid of homeless people plan'. Pure genius
Is that the test for whether people should have the right to make their own decisions?
If you choose to play stupid games in traffic why is it anyone else's responsibility to pay for the consequences?
At least in some localities, low-income and homeless pedestrians do appear to be particularly likely to receive jaywalking tickets.
This analysis about what kind of people are being effected has no bearing on whether a law is just. It may be worth pointing out from an advocacy position, if you're attempting to convince people of the bad effects coming from a law. It may be relevant if the law is particularly engineered to harm a specific group of people. But it's not significant in arguing whether there should be a law against the activity itself.
Unfortunately, this article doesn't do beyond this. The opening sentence discusses the disparate effects on politically protected classes, and it closes that way. There's zero libertarian argument about whether this is a proper power and authority of the state or if it has anything to do with liberty and rights. The law may be unequal in its daily applicatio but it affects everyone, and it means everyone's rights must be assessed in this.
I'm against jaywalking laws for the same reason I'm against seatbelt laws. You shouldn't do it, but you shouldn't be prosecuted for doing it. There's different analyses to take about whether a pedestrian is creating a road hazard or just taking up the road by walking down the middle of a street without concern for traffic. Those can be handled with a different remedy than a broad jaywalking law. I'm not really concerned if certain classes of citizens are violating the law in different proportions.
Did you know that statutes against murder disproportionately affect males under 30? There's clear discrimination happening in this law. Since adverse impacts are clearly the only thing that matters, we need to decriminalize murder.
But regulate and tax it?
Interesting idea. How much should we charge for a murder permit?
I don't know, but a murder permit would only allow you to murder when accompanied by an adult murderer to make sure you murder safely. After a required number of murders, you can take the exams and get your murder license. Pity they no longer have Murder Ed classes in high school like they did in my day.
Yeah; we called it PE.
The seniors had the license to use against the lower classes.
Luckily I dodged that ball.
I have always gotten annoyed at libertarians who glommed onto the "disparate impact" theory of injustice. It's bullshit and it needs to stop.
If someone or something is racist, show me the explicitly racist part and remove it (or them). A bunch of white progressives telling me that "we're all racist" while making damned sure they keep their jobs tells you everything they need to know. If you're such a racist, Ms. DiAngelo, then you're fucking fired. Same with you, Zuckerberg. If you and your company are so racist, then buh bye!
Or if something is bad law that disproportionately affects certain classes of people, it's still bad law when it affects white males. If you need to persuade the identity-politics people, it's fine to bring up disparate impacts, but you should also be able to make a liberty-based assessment of whether the law would be fine if it didn't apply to the affected group.
In short, just give us a little information on why it's a bad law that doesn't have to do with how it's hurting certain racial groups.
Ms. Diangelo? What did Beverley do? Taking your family on vacation is racist now?
Robin is the evil one, Beverley is the good one. And Cristy Brinkley with Beverley would make it an awesome threesome. I'd endure many trips to Wally World if each included that. 🙂
I used to work at a store that sold booze, and so I have also talked with a lot, a lot a lot, of homeless people. So, I'm always a little suspect of any evidence that comes from asking a homeless person why they're there.
They will always have a reason, and it will almost never be their fault.
The NYT reporter was utterly uninterested in how one person could rack up $5k in yay walking tickets.
Even if you believed that jay walking tickets were a tool for the man to lay bullshit hassles on the people... we're completely uninterested in why one homeless guy likes to wander around in traffic. FFS even if there literally was no law against it, I would tell my daughter that continuously wandering into traffic is probably not her best move. And given that the city and the newspapers are sure-as-shit curious to know how many people were killed wandering out into traffic, and what race they are, and if they were homeless or not... you'd think they might ask the last question, but the last question is verboten.
My problem isn't the attempt to point out edge cases, nor even using disparate racial impact as a talking point (though it annoys me).
My problem is that this article does nothing BUT those things. There's no concern about liberty. There's no libertarian small-state case. There's no argument about individuals being accountable for themselves. There's nothing libertarian about this when this would be an easy story to write on libertarian grounds.
Is it too much to ask for some libertarian analysis from a libertarian publication?
No more men should be put on jail or prison for any offense until the inmate population represents society at large, who gives a fuck about who commits more crime or the type committed. That is the proggy argument here that Emma is mindlessly parroting.
Pro Publica had a story about "walking while black": https://features.propublica.org/walking-while-black/jacksonville-pedestrian-violations-racial-profiling/
Are we sure these laws 'allow' police to target black and latino citizens, or, just maybe, that demo is more likely to jaywalk and enforcement is actually neutral?
If this is a revenue enhancer, working class stiffs will be the primary target. I fucking HATE pedestrians so I welcome this legislation
Just pedestrians? Critical Mass on line 2
If there's a Critical Mass on line 2 it needs surgical removal before it reaches our glands and metastasizes.
Next they need to decriminalize running over jay-walking pedestrians since you are going to get a lot more of that. Oh wait, hitting a jay-walking pedestrian is not a crime unless you were violating some other traffic law.
The SUV did it.
Accidents aren't criminal. Now you have contributory negligence on the part of the jaywalker.
This is Bastille Day for drivers
After the Darrell Brooks ruling in Waukesha, thankfully no one can claim that anymore:
Replay: Verdict for Darrell Brooks trial in Waukesha Christmas Parade
https://www.jsonline.com/story/communities/waukesha/news/waukesha/2022/10/26/darrell-brooks-verdict-livestream-of-waukesha-parade-trial-decision/69592751007/
Saying "Da JHVH-1 made me do it!" Won't help either, Thank The Void!
'My conscience is clear': Waukesha killer Darrell Brooks says it was 'God's will' that massacre happened
During the closing argument, Darrell Brooks, 40, said that he never asked himself if 'this' was intentional because he knows it wasn't
By Jenny Anna Mathew
Updated On : 19:07 PST, Oct 25, 2022
https://meaww.com/waukesha-parade-killer-darrell-brooks-says-it-was-gods-will-massacre-happened-closing-argument
Hmmm ... repeal a law that police are abusing to be a-holes ? Or train police not to be a-holes in the first place and fire them if they can't ?
Being an a-hole is a job requirement (along with depraved indifference, sociopathy, sadism, and being a pathological liar).
I bet you would floor it if you saw R Mac or Jesse jaywalking
Good thing he'd be too drunk for his reactions to raise the danger meaningfully.
No fucking way. I like my car.
"In related news, drivers in California are reporting an uptick in pedestrian hood ornaments..."
Although I agree with decriminalizing jaywalking on general principles, early in the article it was alleged that the laws do little to promote safety. It would have been interesting to see why jaywalking is not unsafe - maybe a link to some scientific evidence?
Depends on how and when you do it.
There is the homeless crazy person approach where you wait for a car and try to get hit. In this case getting hit might be success.
There is the middle of the night and there is no traffic approach.
There is the crossing a not very busy street with a huge garden for a median when the closest crosswalk in either direction is a mile away. I personally know about 20 people who have gotten tickets for crossing the street I'm thinking of. One of them spent thousands of dollars to fight the ticket, but ultimately lost.
They are going to miss giving out those lucrative $100 tickets.
I swear they deliberately design some of the crosswalks to encourage it. Things like making the most used side of the street no crossing and forcing you to wait through three lights to get to the corner you want. Jaywalking is safer at that point.
Or you cross the street in the crosswalk to the other side before the intersection where there is no option to cross. God, I FUCKING HATE pedestrians.
Talking like a driver.
Panhandling at intersections set to skyrocket.
>>Homer Thompson
"psst. I think he's talking to you"
The phenomenon I noticed, a while back, was panhandlers walking between the lanes of moving traffic, hoping that some idiot, at a stop-light, would encourage their anti-social lifestyle and give them money.
That might be where a lot of "jaywalking" tickets get handed out to the "homeless"- AKA bums.
Hey, I've got an idea: How about we decriminalize everything? That would, in one fell swoop, eliminate all "police harassment" and "racially-motivated policing"! In fact, why don't we get rid of cops altogether! All together now: "Defund the police!!!"
In Minneapolis we got rid of loitering laws because they were used against Blacks more than others. Now our downtown is a wasteland of gang violence.
I know that theoretically for the 'nice' people trying to 'help' this is a good idea. In practice, the cops need tools to move criminals out of the way before we're actually talking about felonies. I'm libertarian all day long, would like less cops, but reality is reality.
Yeah, jaywalking rules are in place for safety reasons. There needs to be some order and structure.
Is this the libertarian moment I keep hearing about?
Newsom is America’s most libertarian governor, bar none.
Compared to You Know Who Else, yes.
No, the real "Libertarian Moment" will be when all the Jackbooted Thugs try their goose-stepping on scattered Lego Blocks and all the Witch-Burners have empty lighters because they used all their fuel cooking meth.
Fuck Off, Witch-Burning Nazi!
So, Newsom doesn’t care about the lives of POC, who are the most frequent jaywalkers.
Racist!!
Next story: Traffic is racist. Minorities and poor people keep getting hit by cars.
And whatever you do, don't admit it's not working, just vision-zero harder.
A major problem, one that these bicycle and pedestrian activists never touch on, is that they have been inviting pedestrians to cross streets without even looking for vehicles and against signals. They also don't complain when bicyclists ignore every traffic control device known to man. But then they wonder why the crashes happen. How about getting back to basics, such as looking both ways before crossing a street, and stopping at red signals and stop signs if you're on a bicycle? Taking responsibility for one's own safety instead of farming it out to others who probably don't give two shits.
Critical Mass called. They think you’re being obnoxious.
"Critical Mass" got their name from their tripe-shaped hernias and baboon-assed hemorrhoids distending through their skin-tight spandex biker shorts. (Apologies if anyone is eating and reading this.). 🙂
Hey, the bigger the asshole, the larger the hemorrhoid!
If Critical Mass-holes took Preparation-H, they’d turn into Lilliputians. With their little jewel-box locks bouncing off of Hum-Vee chassis as the passing vehicle’s speed sweeps them away. ?
2 things:
It’s so idiotic to “decriminalize” rather than to just strike down the law.
Brothers do love to jaywalk the most! Sheee-it!!!
Decriminalizing rape and murder would reduce it even more.
Are there any data to indicate a correlation of race with jaywalking?
I think there’s some intersectionality.
Ouch! That pun felt like getting hit by a
MackPeterbilt Truck!Johnny Carson explaining the joke: "You see, Peterbilt implies manhood and men aren't too high on the Woke Totem Pole..." 🙂
I’m trying to be a uniter here…not a divider!
Well, United is a moving van line.
Anything that removes discretion from bigoted police officers constitutes progress.
Will you now be shoving things down country-come-to-town hay-seeds' throats at the intersections of enlightened Coastal cities all over the nation? Will your nationwide tour use AmTrac and Section 8 hostels?
Carry on in traffic, Klinger! 🙂
Klinger’s a real drag, man.
I wonder if it was coincidental that Section 8 housing has the same name as a Military Psychiatric Discharge?
I think they are being cleverer than that. L.A. has been using pedestrian deaths as a rationale for "road calming" and "road diet" projects. Added crosswalks, narrowed lanes, reduced lanes, etc. All to slow traffic, with the excuse of reducing pedestrian deaths.
If jaywalking is legalized, I think they are counting on more ped deaths, which they can then use to make L.A. traffic even slower and more painful. All in an attempt to get people to get out of their cars.
And a medium-priced gas station I passed this evening, had low octane for $5.79. So much of what the government does locally and statewide is based on climate myopia. The jaywalking law is likely just another piece of it.
While I completely agree that jaywalking should not be illegal, I would expect more from an article in a magazine called "Reason" than to post statements like "black pedestrians received 16 percent of all jaywalking tickets between 2015 and 2021, despite making up only 6 percent of the city's population." The only "Reason"-able statistic would be the percentage of jaywalkers who are black AND got ticketed versus the percentage of jaywalkers who are non-black AND got ticketed.
You're asking too much. That would require actual investigation in addition to simply regurgitating what some group fed you.
I don't know. I live in Southern California (LA County, but NOT LA thankfully). Last night some dumb-asses were standing in the turning lane of a five-line road in my town where there wasn't a street light. (There was a lighted crosswalk about 10 yards away, but hey, that's not convenient.) The person in front of me stopped and put on their hazard lights to let the dumbasses cross. Of course, the people in the lane next to ours couldn't see the people crossing at all, meaning it just looked like the hazard lights were on due to a mechanical failure. It also meant that it still wasn't safe for the dumbasses to cross. The guy behind me tried to pass us by driving up the passing line, but stopped before he hit the three dumbasses who were almost invisible in the dark. I zoomed around everyone and left the clusterfuck behind.
How about they start actually enforcing the laws before repealing them.
Because decriminalizing shoplifting did such a great job?
Because more car pedestrian accidents are desirable?
Because hospital don't have enough patients?
Because lawyers need more injury lawsuits?