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