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