BILL ANALYSIS AB 517 Page 1 Date of Hearing: January 12, 2003 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION John A. Dutra, Chair AB 517 (Oropeza) - As Amended: January 6, 2004 SUBJECT : Vehicles: automated enforcement systems SUMMARY : Clarifies which law enforcement agency is responsible for the operation of a specified automated enforcement system, also referred to as a "red light camera." Specifically, this bill : 1)States that the law enforcement agency, which has primary traffic enforcement responsibility of a certain jurisdiction, shall also be responsible for operating an automated enforcement system. 2)Specifies that any local law enforcement may enter into an agreement with another law enforcement agency for the purpose of operating an automated enforcement system. EXISTING LAW: 1)Authorizes the limit line, intersection, or other places where a driver is required to stop to be equipped with an automated enforcement system if the system meets certain requirements. 2)Limits the authority to operate an automated enforcement system to governmental agencies, in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown COMMENTS : SB 1802 (Rosenthal), Chapter 1216, Statutes of 1994, authorizes the use of automated rail crossing enforcement systems to record violations occurring at rail crossing signals and gates. SB 833 (Kopp), Chapter 922, Statutes of 1995, authorizes a three-year demonstration period to test the use and effectiveness of such systems in reducing the incidence of drivers running red lights at roadway intersections and in identifying the drivers committing such violations and the vehicles involved. After reviewing the operations and effectiveness of the pilot program, the Legislature enacted SB 1136 (Kopp), Chapter 54, Statutes of 1998, to indefinitely AB 517 Page 2 authorize the use of red light cameras at intersections. Over the past several years, controversy over the validity and integrity of the red light cameras has surfaced. Currently, a fine for running a red light in California can equal as much as $270 ($100 for the base fine and up to $170 for penalty assessments). Thirty percent of the total fine amount is allocated to the city or county general fund. With such fines, local governments began facing accusations that the red light cameras were being used as revenue generators, rather than as safety tools. Concerns were expressed that some cameras were being placed in areas not where there were high rates of accidents, as initially intended, but where more tickets and subsequent fines could be produced. Additionally, when it was learned that some vendors, who were hired to install the cameras, received a portion of the fine revenue, citizen groups and legislators began to question whether or not the vendors' role in operating the system was too broad. Accusations were made that the cameras were being positioned in ways to guarantee a sufficient amount of fines, despite whether or not the fines were warranted. In an effort to review these concerns and allegations, the Bureau of State Audits (BSA) was charged to conduct a report on the efficiency of the red light camera program statewide. Upon the report's completion in 2002, the BSA concluded that red light cameras have contributed to a reduction in accidents; however, despite the reduction in accidents, operational weaknesses at the local level did exist. In order to help correct these weaknesses, AB 1022 (Oropeza), Chapter 551, Statutes of 2003, codified many of the auditor's recommendations, which, as the author claimed, would "restore the public's confidence in (the red light camera) programs." In terms of who is responsible for the red light camera's operation, current law, as amended by AB 1022, restricts that task to a governmental agency, in cooperation with a law enforcement agency. However, current law is silent on which actual law enforcement agency has the responsibility for the operation. AB 517 seeks to address this issue. According to the author, this bill does not change jurisdictional responsibility, but rather simply clarifies that the 'law enforcement agency with primary traffic jurisdiction' AB 517 Page 3 oversee the red light cameras." For example, if police department has primary authority to enforce traffic laws within a certain city, that same police department would have the responsibility of red light camera oversight. The author believes that while there have been no problems to date, this clarification would "simply help preclude any jurisdictional conflicts in the future." Is this bill necessary ? Although there is no formal opposition, the California State Sheriff's Association (CSSA) has expressed concern about the bill's necessity. If one can assume that the governmental agency responsible for the intersection where the red light camera is located is also responsible for the program's oversight, can the same assumption be made about the law enforcement agency responsible for enforcing the traffic laws at that intersection? As this bill proceeds, the author has agreed to work with CSSA in an effort to alleviate their concerns. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support None received Opposition None received Analysis Prepared by : Ryan Spencer / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093