SB 1019 replaces the archaic opening clause of Penal Code Section 587 with a contemporary subject-verb construction. The statutory elements that criminalize removing, injuring, destroying, or obstructing railroad tracks and related structures remain in place; the bill does not add or remove the list of covered items or change the listed penalties.
On its face this is a drafting cleanup: the Legislative Counsel describes the amendment as technical and nonsubstantive. That said, small edits to how a criminal statute is framed can invite litigation about elements, mens rea, and charging forms — which is why prosecutors, defense lawyers, and infrastructure owners should note the change now rather than later.
At a Glance
What It Does
SB 1019 amends Penal Code §587 by replacing the statute’s opening wording with a modernized clause that identifies the offender as "a person who maliciously does" the listed acts. It leaves subsections (a) and (b) — the prohibited acts and enumerated railroad fixtures — intact and preserves the statute’s penalty language referencing Section 1170(h) and a county jail term not exceeding one year.
Who It Affects
The change directly affects prosecutors and defense counsel who draft or challenge charging documents under §587, as well as railroad and transit operators and their insurers because the reach and enforcement of the statute remains the same. Local law enforcement and courts will encounter the new statutory text in arrests, charging instruments, and court pleadings.
Why It Matters
Even purely editorial changes can alter how courts parse statutory elements or how lawyers frame mens rea arguments. The bill’s practical effect is likely nil, but interested parties should review charging templates, plea forms, and training materials to ensure they reflect the revised text and to anticipate any defense challenges that rely on textual differences.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Section 587 of the Penal Code has long criminalized intentional damage to railroad infrastructure and placing obstructions on railroad tracks. SB 1019 does not alter that substantive list of forbidden acts; it changes the initial clause that sets out who is subject to the statute and the placement of the mens rea wording.
In plain terms, the bill substitutes a contemporary grammatical construction — identifying the offender as "a person who maliciously does" one of the enumerated acts — in place of an older phrasing.
The statute’s two operative subsections remain: subsection (a) criminalizes removing, displacing, injuring, or destroying any part of a railroad or related structures (the text explicitly names switches, bridges, culverts, station houses, etc.); subsection (b) criminalizes placing any obstruction on rails, tracks, switches, or similar components. SB 1019 keeps those lists unchanged, so the conduct that historically triggered liability under §587 continues to do so under the amended text.SB 1019 also preserves the penalty framework that the current statute uses: it references imprisonment under subdivision (h) of Section 1170 (the statutory sentencing cross‑reference) or a county jail sentence not exceeding one year.
Because the bill does not add new elements, enhancements, or defenses, agencies and operators should expect the law’s substantive effect to remain stable. Still, drafting cleanups can alter how courts and litigants read a statute’s elements and mens rea placement, so local prosecutors and public defenders should update charging forms and be prepared for arguments that the textual change affects notice or burden of proof.
The Five Things You Need to Know
SB 1019 replaces the statute’s opening language so the offense now begins with: "A person who maliciously does either of the following...", Subsection (a) continues to criminalize removing, displacing, injuring, or destroying any part of a railroad or connected structure, listing items such as switches, bridges, viaducts, culverts, embankments, and station houses.
Subsection (b) continues to ban placing an obstruction on rails, tracks, switches, branches, branchways, or turnouts connected with a railroad.
The bill preserves the penalty language in the statute: punishment under subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year.
Legislative Counsel describes the amendment as a technical, nonsubstantive change rather than a policy overhaul, meaning it intends no change to the statute’s elements or scope.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Modernizes the statute’s opening clause
This single amendment replaces the older phrasing that begins the statute with a contemporary clause identifying the offender as "a person who maliciously does either of the following." The practical mechanics are editorial: the change alters grammar and syntax but does not insert or remove culpable mental states, elements, or defenses. The main practical implication is administrative — charging forms, bench warrants, and jury instructions will need to match the revised text.
Retains the long list of covered conduct and fixtures
Subsection (a) remains the same in substance: it criminalizes removing, displacing, injuring, or destroying parts of a railroad and a broad set of connected structures (switches, turnouts, bridges, culverts, embankments, station houses, and other fixtures). Because the list is unchanged, the statute continues to reach both active mainline infrastructure and ancillary structures that support rail operations, which matters for property owners, maintenance contractors, and insurers.
Keeps the prohibition on placing obstructions
Subsection (b) still forbids placing any obstruction on rails, track, switches, branches, branchways, or turnouts. That provision has historically been the basis for criminal charges when individuals put objects on tracks that create derailment or collision risk. The bill does not narrow or broaden the definition of "obstruction," so interpretive disputes about what qualifies (size, permanence, intent) will continue to be litigated under existing precedent.
Leaves sentencing cross‑reference and jail exposure unchanged
The amendment preserves the statute’s penalty language: punishment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 or county jail not exceeding one year. Practically, that means prosecutors retain the same sentencing options under state law; any change in charging practice will come from prosecutorial discretion, not from the statutory text here.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Criminal Justice across all five countries.
Explore Criminal Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Prosecutors and district attorneys — gain a clearer, modernized statutory text for charging and pleading that reduces reliance on archaic grammar when preparing indictments and training materials.
- Railroad and transit operators — preserve the existing criminal protections for infrastructure without losing statutory reach; continued criminal penalties support civil insurance and security strategies.
- Legislative drafters and codifiers — benefit from modernization that brings code language in line with contemporary drafting norms and reduces clutter in statutory text.
Who Bears the Cost
- Defense counsel and public defenders — may need to review the amended language and consider new motions testing whether the textual change affects elements, mens rea placement, or notice to defendants.
- Local courts and clerks — must update charging templates, jury instructions, and internal references to match the revised statutory wording, creating modest administrative work.
- Law enforcement agencies — training materials and arrest paperwork will need revision to ensure officers cite the amended statute correctly at the scene and in reports.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is tidy statutory housekeeping versus the risk of unintended interpretive consequences: modernizing language reduces archaic drafting problems but can reopen disputes about elements and mens rea that courts have previously settled under the older text.
The amendment is labeled technical, but even purely editorial edits to criminal statutes carry implementation questions. First, the placement and phrasing of mens rea words like "maliciously" can matter in court: defense lawyers may press interpretations about whether the bill changes which acts require proof of malice or how malice applies across the enumerated clauses.
Second, the statute continues to contain dated terms (for example, references to "steam or horse cars") that survive the update; those remnants could sustain defense arguments about legislative intent or the statute’s contemporary applicability, especially in edge cases involving non‑traditional rail operations.
A second practical tension concerns sentencing and charging practice. The statute still cross‑references Section 1170(h) for imprisonment, which interacts with California’s broader sentencing framework; stakeholders should check whether local charging policies or plea bargaining norms depend on specific wording that the bill adjusts.
Finally, while federal sabotage or transportation‑safety statutes exist, SB 1019 does not address federal overlap; that leaves open coordination questions in incidents that implicate both state §587 and federal offenses, including which authority leads investigation and prosecution.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.