BILL ANALYSIS SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE BILL NO: AB 517 SENATOR KEVIN MURRAY, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: Oropeza VERSION: 6/7/04 Analysis by: Steve Schnaidt FISCAL:no SUBJECT: Red light camera enforcement systems. DESCRIPTION: This bill would extend from six to 13 months the period of time that confidential information and photographic records from red light camera enforcement operations may be retained. The bill would also provide that such information is available for judicial purposes and that law enforcement agencies may audit records for contract compliance purposes. ANALYSIS: Existing law defines an "automated enforcement system" as a photographic system operated by a governmental agency, in cooperation with a law enforcement agency, designed to obtain a clear photograph of a vehicle's license plate and the driver of the vehicle when a driver ignores an official traffic control signal or a rail transit signal or crossing gate. The system is one which photographs red light runners or those who ignore railroad grade crossing signals. SB 1802 (Rosenthal, 1994) authorized the use of automated rail crossing enforcement systems (red light cameras) to record violations occurring at rail crossing signals and gates. Later, SB 833 (Kopp, Statutes of 1995) authorized a three-year demonstration period to test the use and effectiveness of such cameras 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, 1998) which authorized the use of automated enforcement systems at intersections indefinitely. AB 517 (OROPEZA) Page 2 Under current law, the use of red light cameras is conditioned on several requirements and procedures, including that: Intersections equipped with the enforcement systems must be identified by signs visible to traffic in all directions, or by signs posted at all major entrances to the participating city; Use of the system must be preceded by public notice by the local jurisdiction at least 30 days in advance and only warning notices may be issued to violators during the first 30 days of the system's operation, after which citations may be issued; Only a governmental agency and law enforcement agency may operate a system; All photographic records from the cameras and related information obtained from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) for enforcement are confidential, shall be made available only to the affected governmental agencies for enforcement purposes and may be retained up to six months from first being obtained; Any driver alleged to be a violator of red light provisions or the vehicle's registered owner is permitted to review the photographic evidence of the alleged violation; Citations must be delivered to the driver within 15 days of the alleged violations, with a certificate of mailing obtained as evidence of service, and must include specified information, including how, when, and where the citation may be challenged. Under current law, the base fine for running a red light is $100, plus substantial penalty assessments for a total fine exceeding $300. The first 30% of the total fine amount is required to be allocated to the general fund of the city or county where the offense occurred. The special penalty and assessment amounts are transferred to various funds and programs as required by law while base fines subject to specific distributions are transferred to the specified state funds or local agencies. AB 517 (OROPEZA) Page 3 This bill would revise provisions governing the retention of red light camera enforcement records and access to those records. Specifically, the bill would: 1.Extend the period of time that photographic records from the camera systems can be retained from the current six months to 13 months. The retention period extension would apply also to confidential informational obtained from the DMV for administration or enforcement of the red light camera systems 2.Declare that the photographic and related confidential records are available for judicial purposes and require that photographic and electronic records may be maintained in a computer or on video digital video systems according to specified sections of the Evidence Code. Those sections provide that an accurate printout of information stored in a computer is an "original" and that a printed representation of images stored on video or digital medium is presumed to be an accurate representation of those images. 3.Allow a law enforcement agency that operates a red light camera system to audit records maintained to ensure compliance with contracts for operation of the system. COMMENTS: 1.According to the author, it can take up to 9 months for the final disposition of citations in California courts due to a violator's failure to appear/pay, court processing time, or extended processing time due to a trial. This is 3 months beyond the current 6 month retention period allowed by law for red light camera records. Although current law does allow for the retention period to exceed 6 months until the final disposition of the case, the custodian of these citation records needs additional time to sort out those citations that have been reconciled from those that have not reached a final disposition. The process of separating those records is very labor intensive. Extending the retention period will reduce the workload because the majority of cases will have reached final disposition and can be destroyed upon initial review. The duplicative work required to review pending records more than once AB 517 (OROPEZA) Page 4 because of the current short retention period would will be eliminated by the bill. The bill also is intended to clarify that the records required to be retained are those that are defined by the Evidence Code as the original records and to clarify the authority of the law enforcement agency running a program to audit records to ensure compliance with the requirements of a contract and the requirements of the section. 2.Over the past several years, some questions and controversy arose over the integrity and operation of the red light camera systems. Some local governments faced accusations that the red light cameras were being used as revenue generators, rather than as safety tools, and that some cameras were being placed in areas not where there were high rates of accidents but where more tickets and subsequent fines could be produced. Additionally, it was learned that some vendors, who were hired to install the cameras, received a portion of the fine revenue. Questions arose whether or not the vendors' role in operating the system was too broad or inappropriate. In an effort to review these concerns and allegations, the Bureau of State Audits (BSA) was directed to review and report on the operation and 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 but operational weaknesses existed at the local level. AB 1022 (Oropeza, 2003), sought to correct the weaknesses and allay concerns by enacting many of the auditor's recommendations. Assembly Votes: Floor: 76-0 Trans: 18-0 (Note: Bill has been revised in the Senate and votes may no longer be relevant.) POSITIONS: (Communicated to the Committee before noon on Wednesday, June 9, 2004) SUPPORT: California Highway Patrol AB 517 (OROPEZA) Page 5 California State Sheriff's Association OPPOSED: None received.