BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    






           SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE       BILL NO: sb 466
          SENATOR ALAN LOWENTHAL, CHAIRMAN               AUTHOR:  kuehl
                                                         VERSION: 1/4/06
          Analysis by:  Jennifer Gress                   FISCAL:  No





          SUBJECT:

          Mobile photo radar speed enforcement system.

          DESCRIPTION:

          This bill authorizes the City of Beverly Hills to use a mobile  
          photo radar enforcement system for local speed enforcement under  
          specified conditions until January 1, 2010.  

          ANALYSIS:

          Existing law authorizes the use of automated enforcement systems  
          (e.g., red light cameras) at railroad crossings and  
          intersections to record violations of unlawful grade crossings  
          and running of red lights, respectively.  The law authorizes  
          local agencies to equip, install, and use the systems to  
          photograph drivers violating the grade crossing barriers and red  
          lights after certain public notification procedures and in  
          accordance with comprehensive requirements.  These requirements  
          include equipment calibration, operation, and maintenance,  
          citation administration and processing, due process and citation  
          challenge provisions, and restrictions on contracts with firms  
          providing the equipment and their related compensation.

          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 to reduce the incidence of drivers running red lights at  
          roadway intersections and to identify 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  




          SB 466 (KUEHL)                                           Page 2

                                                                       


          indefinitely.

          AB 1022 (Oropeza, 2003) refined the red light camera provisions  
          after a number of legal challenges arose to aspects of the red  
          light camera systems' operation.  These changes clarified  
          responsibility for operation and maintenance of the system by  
          local authorities versus contractors, the involvement of law  
          enforcement personnel in citation issuance, restrictions on  
          compensation to vendors, and the required consideration of  
          alternative methods of enforcement.

          Under current law, the use of red light cameras is conditioned  
          on several requirements and procedures, including:

           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 are confidential and shall be made  
            available only to the affected governmental agencies for  
            enforcement purposes.

           Any driver alleged to be a violator of the 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.

           This bill  permits the City of Beverly Hills to operate a similar  
          camera enforcement system, a mobile photo radar speed  
          enforcement system, for purposes of speed enforcement, under  
          specified conditions.  The bill does all of the following:





          SB 466 (KUEHL)                                           Page 3

                                                                       


           Defines a "mobile photo radar speed enforcement system" as a  
            system operated by a peace officer or a public officer that is  
            used to detect speeding law violations by obtaining a clear  
            photograph of a vehicle's license plate and the driver of the  
            vehicle.  

           Specifies the conditions that must be met in order to use the  
            mobile photo radar speed enforcement system (MPRSE) including  
            the following:  the system be identified by clearly visible  
            signs indicating the system's presence to traffic on the  
            street where the system is in use; the vehicle containing the  
            MPRSE equipment must be identified with distinctive markings;  
            and notice must be provided to drivers that a photograph may  
            have been taken when the driver passes the vehicle containing  
            the MPRSE system.

           Restricts the MPRSE systems' use to residential streets with a  
            speed limit of 25 mph or less and to school zones.

           Requires the presence of a peace officer or a public officer,  
            as defined, who is properly trained, as specified, in the use  
            of photographic equipment, radar, laser, or other electronic  
            devices and in the enforcement of traffic and speeding laws.  

           Requires that the local authority make a public announcement  
            of the MPRSE system 30 days following the installation of  
            signs and requires a 30-day warning-only period prior to  
            issuing citations.

           Provides the local law enforcement agency the authority to  
            oversee the local authority utilizing the MPRSE system.

           Requires the local authority utilizing the MPRSE system to  
            meet specified conditions, including: 
                  o         Developing uniform guidelines for selecting  
                    locations, screening and issuing citations, processing  
                    and storing the photo evidence and confidential driver  
                    information, and establishing procedures to ensure  
                    compliance with the guidelines. 

                  o         Performing daily administrative functions  
                    including certifying that equipment is properly  
                    installed and calibrated, as defined, ensuring  
                    equipment is regularly inspected, inspecting and  
                    maintaining warning signs, and ensuring that all  
                    citations delivered to violators have been reviewed  




          SB 466 (KUEHL)                                           Page 4

                                                                       


                    and approved by law enforcement.  

           Makes the photographic records and Department of Motor  
            Vehicles information confidential and usable only by  
            governmental and law enforcement agencies for the bill's  
            purposes.  Records could be retained up to 6 months or until  
            final disposition of a citation, whichever comes later.

           Allows the vehicle's registered owner, or driver identified by  
            the owner, to review the photographic evidence of the alleged  
            violation.

           Prohibits contracts with suppliers or manufacturers from  
            containing provisions for payment or compensation based on the  
            number of citations or a percentage of the citation revenue  
            generated by the cameras.

           Provides a notice to appear where the alleged speed violator  
            may enter a plea.   

           Requires the local authority using the MPRSE system to hire a  
            contractor to conduct an evaluation of the system and provide  
            a report of its findings to the Legislature by July 1, 2009. 

           Sunsets January 1, 2010.
          
          COMMENTS:

           1.Purpose of the bill.  The intent of the bill is to reduce  
            accidents and fatalities due to speeding and provide clear  
            authorization to use the photo radar system.  The equipment is  
            intended for use in residential areas and school zones and  
            with the involvement of affected communities.  The legislation  
            is modeled after the existing red light camera enforcement  
            system provisions, but it is not identical.

            The author states that speeding is a factor in 31% of all  
            deaths in the country.  In California in 2003, 1,507 persons  
            died due to speeding, with the overwhelming majority of those  
            deaths on roads other than highways.  Speeding is said to be  
            epidemic in school zones, with 32.7% of vehicles operating  
            faster than 30 MPH in such zones.

          2.    Support  .  The author and proponents argue that law  
            enforcement lacks sufficient resources to effectively control  
            speeding, especially in neighborhoods and school zones.  Photo  




          SB 466 (KUEHL)                                           Page 5

                                                                       


            radar is seen as a traffic calming tool without the  
            disadvantages of speed humps/bumps that can slow or damage  
            police or fire/emergency vehicles.  Photo radar would target  
            those drivers exceeding a predetermined speed limit, set by  
            each jurisdiction, to curb excessive, not casual, speeding.

            Proponents argue that the systems are effective and are in use  
            in Colorado, Utah, Washington, D.C., and  San Jose  , and that  
            courts have not ruled that such programs are unconstitutional  
            or violate due process.  An Institute for Highway Safety study  
            is cited as concluding that within 6 months of the use of the  
            cameras in Washington, D.C., there was an 82% decline in  
            vehicles exceeding the speed limit by more than 10 MPH.

           3.Opposition.   The opposition includes claims that the systems  
            will be abused and will function more as revenue producers.   
            The legislation fails to address the problem of false  
            accusations of speeding or to require clear identification of  
            a driver prior to the issuance of a citation.  
            The automobile clubs have stated their opposition in a  
            detailed discussion, the highlights of which are as follows:

               The Auto Clubs are concerned with the proliferation of  
               automated enforcement for traffic safety.  If automated  
               enforcement is utilized for this new purpose, it must be  
               implemented in a way that actually promotes traffic safety  
               and not to generate revenue for technology vendors or to  
               solve local government budget deficits.  It must also be  
               used in ways that protect the due process and legitimate  
               privacy rights of the motoring public.

               Our experience with the use of red light cameras  
               unfortunately demonstrated that many cities will not use  
               their authority responsibly and, in the absence of strong  
               statutory safeguards, will abuse the rights of motorists  
               under the guise of safety.  SB 466, because it does not  
               contain adequate safeguards to assure that this cannot  
               happen if automated enforcement systems are allowed to  
               expand to identify alleged speed violations, causes us  
               great concern.

               There is an inherent difference between red light and speed  
               law violations.  A red light violation is a "per se"  
               violation.  "Per se" equates to "as a matter of law."  In  
               the context of red light cameras, motorists are cited for  
               violating a section of the Vehicle Code that is a "per se"  




          SB 466 (KUEHL)                                           Page 6

                                                                       


               violation, meaning that as a matter of law, it is illegal  
               to run a red light under any circumstance.  "Per se" laws  
               exist because society has determined through experience  
               that certain activities are not warranted under any  
               situation and are simply not to be condoned.  In a safety  
               context, this means that it is never (or rarely) safe to  
               run a red light.  The alleged violator has no defense to  
               such a violation except mistaken identity.  Violations of  
               "per se" statutes impose liability upon the perpetrator  
               without the need for further evidence other than evidence  
               of the violation.

               Speed law violations are, on the other hand, usually "prima  
               facie" violations.  "Prima facie" means "at first sight,"  
               or "upon first appearance but subject to further evidence."  
                "Prima facie" evidence is sufficient to raise a  
               presumption unless disproved or rebutted.  The basic speed  
               law in California (VC 22350) states that a driver should  
               not drive at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent  
               with due regard to weather, visibility, traffic and other  
               highway conditions.  It is this requirement that the  
               circumstances be evaluated before a speeding citation can  
               be issued that markedly distinguishes red light enforcement  
               from speed enforcement.

           4.System calibration.   Is a 3-year calibration cycle sufficient  
            to ensure the equipment's accurate operation for enforcement?   


          5.Sponsors of the bill note that the City of San Jose already  
            operates a photo radar speed enforcement system.  San Jose  
            representatives report that they have done so since 1995 under  
            general authority in the Penal Code authorizing local speed  
            enforcement.  That authority does not include the specific  
            provisions and requirements in the current bill.

            San Jose officials state that their program utilizes trained  
            technicians to operate the camera equipment and that the  
            program was developed in consultation with local law  
            enforcement and court representatives.  It is unclear whether  
            or how the present bill would affect the San Jose program or  
            whether the San Jose program meets the requirements proposed  
            in this bill.

           6.Possible amendments:  





          SB 466 (KUEHL)                                           Page 7

                                                                       


                 The peace officer or public officer present when the  
               photo radar system is in operation shall record road and  
               driving conditions that would make it unsafe for a motorist  
               to drive at the speed at which the photo radar has been  
               calibrated at the time a photo was taken.

                 A notice to appear shall be accompanied by an  
               explanation of California speed laws, a description of the  
               driving conditions that made it unsafe to drive at the  
               speed at which the photo was taken, and an explanation that  
               the driver has a right to appeal the citation. 
          
          POSITIONS:  (Communicated to the Committee before noon on  
          Wednesday
                     January 4, 2006.)
                     (Note that most positions reflect a previous version  
          of the bill.)
          
               SUPPORT:  Bel-Air/Beverly Crest Neighborhood Council
                         Beverly Hills Unified School District
                         City of Beverly Hills, City Council
                         City of Beverly Hills, Police Department
                         City of Hermosa Beach
                         City of Lake Elsinore 
                         City of Los Angeles
                         City of Monrovia Police Department 
                         City of Pasadena 
                         City of San Diego
                         City of Stockton City Council
                         City of Stockton Police Department
                         Community Magnet School, Los Angeles 
                         County of Los Angeles
                         Los Angeles Unified School District
                         The John Thomas Dye School     
                         Traffic Engineering Services
                         West Los Angeles Community Policy Advisory Board
                         Westside Neighborhood Council
                         Westwood South of Santa Monica Blvd. Homeowners  
          Association
                         Councilwoman Cindy Mikcikowski, Eleventh District  

                         Councilman Antonio R. Villaraigosa, Fourteenth  
          District
                                                       
               OPPOSED:  Amalgamated Transit Union 
                         Automobile Club of Southern California




          SB 466 (KUEHL)                                           Page 8

                                                                       


                         California Association of Highway Patrolmen
                         California State Automobile Association
                         California Teamsters Public Affairs Council 
                         Expert Witness Services, Inc.
                         1 individual