BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                       



           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                  AB 2567|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                         |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                         |
          |(916) 651-1520         Fax: (916) |                         |
          |327-4478                          |                         |
           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
           
                                         
                                 THIRD READING


          Bill No:  AB 2567
          Author:   Bradford (D)
          Amended:  6/17/10 in Senate
          Vote:     21

           
           SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE  :  7-1, 6/15/10
          AYES:  Lowenthal, Huff, DeSaulnier, Harman, Kehoe, Pavley,  
            Simitian
          NOES:  Ashburn
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Oropeza

           SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE  :  3-1, 6/29/10
          AYES:  Harman, Hancock, Leno
          NOES:  Corbett
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Walters

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  49-24, 4/22/10 - See last page for vote


           SUBJECT  :    Photographic enforcement of street sweeping  
          parking 
                      violations

           SOURCE  :     Affiliated Computer Services


           DIGEST  :    This bill allows a local public agency to issue  
          parking citations for violation of street sweeping parking  
          restrictions based on digital photographs collected by an  
          automated parking enforcement system installed on street  
          sweepers.

                                                           CONTINUED





                                                               AB 2567
                                                                Page  
          2

           ANALYSIS  :    Current state law establishes various parking  
          offenses and provides local governments with limited  
          ability to adopt local ordinances establishing additional  
          parking offenses.  Parking offenses are civil rather than  
          criminal violations, subject only to a civil penalty.  

          A parking citation must include the violation, the date and  
          time, the location, the penalty amount, the penalty payment  
          due date, and the procedure for the owner to pay the  
          penalty or contest the citation.  The citation must also  
          include the license number and registration expiration  
          date, the last four digits of the vehicle identification  
          number, and the color and make of the vehicle cited.  

          If a person wishes to contest a parking citation, he or she  
          may request a free initial review by the issuing agency  
          (the city or county police or parking enforcement  
          department) within 21 days.  If the issuing agency is  
          satisfied that the violation did not occur, that the  
          registered owner was not responsible for the violation, or  
          that extenuating circumstances make dismissal of the  
          citation appropriate in the interest of justice, the  
          issuing agency cancels the citation.  

          If the person is dissatisfied with the results of the  
          initial review, he or she may request an administrative  
          hearing with the citation processing agency (which may be  
          the same as the issuing agency or may be a public or  
          private contractor) within 21 days following the mailing of  
          the results of the initial review.  Along with the request,  
          the person must deposit the amount of the penalty with the  
          processing agency unless he or she can demonstrate an  
          inability to pay.  The hearing must be conducted by a  
          qualified examiner and provide an independent, objective,  
          fair, and impartial review of the contested parking  
          violation.  The officer or person who issued the citation  
          is not required to participate in the hearing, and the  
          ticket itself is prima facie evidence of the violation.   
          Ultimately, a person may contest a negative hearing  
          decision in superior court.

          Current law enacted by AB 101 (Ma), Chapter 377, Statutes  
          of 2007, allows San Francisco, until January 1, 2012, to  
          issue citations for violations of transit-only traffic lane  







                                                               AB 2567
                                                                Page  
          3

          parking restrictions based on video images collected from  
          cameras installed on city-owned public transit vehicles.  

          This bill allows a local public agency, until January 1,  
          2016, to issue parking citations for violation of street  
          sweeping parking restrictions based on digital photographs  
          collected by an automated parking enforcement system  
          installed on street sweepers.  Specifically, the bill:

          1. Defines a local public agency as a city, county, city  
             and county, district, or joint powers authority.

          2. Allows a local public agency to install an automated  
             parking enforcement system on agency-owned or operated  
             street sweepers for the purpose of taking digital  
             photographs of parking violations in street sweeping  
             lanes.

          3. Provides that only a local public agency may operate an  
             automated parking enforcement system.

          4. Requires that the equipment only capture photographs  
             when the system detects a parking infraction. 

          5. Requires cameras to be angled and focused in a way that  
             captures images of the vehicles' license plates without  
             unnecessarily capturing images of drivers, pedestrians,  
             or other vehicles.

          6. Requires the equipment to record the date and time of  
             the photograph on the photograph.

          7. Requires information read from a license place at a  
             location or at a time not designated for streets  
             sweeping be destroyed by the close of the next business  
             day.

          8. Requires the local public agency to issue a public  
             announcement 30 days prior to beginning to issue  
             citations and to issue only warnings during the 30-day  
             period.

          9. Requires a designated city employee who is qualified to  
             issue parking citations to review the images and  







                                                               AB 2567
                                                                Page  
          4

             determine if a violation of parking restrictions has  
             occurred.  

          10.Allows for citations to be issued only for violations  
             captured during the hours of the street sweeping parking  
             restrictions, except that the agency may not issue  
             citations based on photographic images for violations  
             that occur after the street has been swept.

          11.Requires an employee of the local public agency to issue  
             a citation within 15 days of the violation.

          12.Requires the citation to state the parking violation and  
             include the date, time, and location of the violation,  
             the license plate number, the registration expiration  
             date if visible, the color of the vehicle, the make of  
             the vehicle if possible, a statement that payment is due  
             within 21 days of the date of issuance, and the process  
             for paying or contesting the citation.  The notice of  
             violation must also include a copy of the digital  
             photographic evidence. 

          13.Requires the local public agency to serve the citation  
             by mail to the registered owner's last known address  
             listed with the Department of Motor Vehicles and to  
             maintain proof of mailing. 

          14.Allows an owner, consistent with current law for all  
             parking violations, to request an initial review, to  
             request an administrative hearing, and ultimately, to  
             contest the citation in court.  

          15.Requires the local public agency, consistent with  
             current law for all parking violations, to cancel a  
             citation if it determines that, in the interest of  
             justice, the citation should be canceled.

          16.Allows the local public agency to contract with a  
             private vendor for processing citations and notices of  
             delinquent violation, provided that the agency maintains  
             overall control of supervision of the automated parking  
             enforcement system.  

          17.Provides that there shall be no late fees or penalty  







                                                               AB 2567
                                                                Page  
          5

             increases if the vehicle owner makes payment or contests  
             the violation within 21 days of the mailing of the  
             citation or 14 days of the mailing of a notice of  
             delinquent parking violation.

          18.Provides that the photographic images and any  
             information read from license plates collected by an  
             automated enforcement system are confidential and may  
             only be accessed and used for the purposed of this  
             program.

          19.Requires the local public agency to destroy all  
             photographic images that do not involve violations  
             within 15 days and all images that do involve violations  
             within six months or 90 days after final disposition of  
             the citation, whichever occurs sooner.  The local public  
             agency shall destroy the images in a manner that  
             preserves the confidentiality of any person included in  
             the image.

          20.  Requires a local public agency that utilizes an  
          automated parking enforcement system to collect and report  
          to the Senate and Assembly Committees on Judiciary, the  
          Senate Committee on Transportation and Housing, and the  
          Assembly Committee on Transportation, data regarding: 


             A.    Number of citations issued.

             B.    Number of violations contested and the final  
                disposition of those violations.

             C.    Number and percentage of photographs recorded  
                from which notices of parking violations were  
                issued.

             D.    Number and percentage of photographs recorded  
                from which no notices of parking violations were  
                recorded.

             E.    Summary of instances in which a request for a  
                photograph for a purpose unrelated to this bill.

             F.    Procedure use for destruction of license plate  







                                                               AB 2567
                                                                Page  
          6

                readings.

             G.    Evaluation of the overall effectiveness of the  
                program.

             H.    An evaluation of the privacy implications of the  
                system. 

          21.Sunsets these provisions on January 1, 2016.  

           Background
           
          AB 101 (Ma) of 2007 allows San Francisco, until January 1,  
          2012, to issue citations for violations of transit-only  
          traffic lane parking restrictions based on video images  
          collected from cameras installed on city-owned public  
          transit.  AB 101 includes a number of procedural and  
          privacy protections for vehicle owners and the general  
          public.  The language of this bill is almost identical to  
          that of AB 101.  Besides the types of violations to be  
          photographed, the real difference is that this bill applies  
          statewide, as opposed to a single jurisdiction. 

          Two cities in the United States, Chicago and Washington,  
          D.C., have adopted street sweeper camera programs.   
          Washington, D.C. began issuing tickets based on street  
          sweeper photographs on March 30, 2009.  According to a  
          press quote from the spokesperson for the city's Department  
          of Public Works, "Previously, you probably had about a one  
          in four chance of getting a ticket because of our limited  
          parking enforcement staff. Now you pretty much have about a  
          100 percent chance of getting a ticket."  In a phone  
          interview with committee staff, another city official  
          familiar with the program stated that no privacy issues  
          have been raised to date, possibly due to the fact that the  
          features of any individual captured in a photo are blurred  
          and indistinct.    

          The City of Chicago approved an ordinance and signed a  
          contract with a camera vendor in 2008.  After what a city  
          spokesperson described to the press as a "very successful  
          field test" involving six street sweepers, the city  
          discontinued the program and ended the contract in April of  
          this year.  According to news reports, the city  







                                                               AB 2567
                                                                Page  
          7

          discontinued the program because the city could no longer  
          afford it and because it was not clear that state law  
          allowed the use of street sweeper cameras.

           Previous Legislation

           In 2009, Assemblyman Eng authored an almost identical bill,  
          AB 1336.  Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed that bill.  In his  
          veto message, the governor wrote, "This bill could present  
          a significant risk of violating an individual's privacy  
          unrelated to the enforcement of law.  It may also lead to  
          the unwarranted proliferation of camera enforcement in many  
          other arenas."

           FISCAL EFFECT  :    Appropriation:  No   Fiscal Com.:  No    
          Local:  No

           SUPPORT  :   (Verified  7/2/10)

          California Public Parking Association
          California State Association of Counties
          City and County of San Francisco
          City of Los Angeles
          City of San Diego
          League of California Cities
          Oakland City Council

           OPPOSITION  :    (Verified  7/2/10)

          American Civil Liberties Union

           ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :    According to the author's office,  
          street sweepers are used throughout the state and nation to  
          safely remove debris and pollutants from the streets,  
          thereby providing the community with a cleaner environment,  
          a reduced risk of flooding from storm drain blockage, and  
          cleaner water.  Local governments routinely have to contend  
          with illegally parked vehicles impeding street sweeping.   
          One illegally parked vehicle can result in up to three or  
          more parking spaces not being cleaned.  These spaces become  
          harbors for trash, debris and chemicals that can wash into  
          storm drains.  By enhancing enforcement efforts, this bill  
          will facilitate street sweeping and thereby benefit the  
          environment, improve water quality, decrease stormwater  







                                                               AB 2567
                                                                Page  
          8

          drain runoff, and help reduce ongoing habitat  
          deterioration.

           ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION  :    First of all, opponents believe  
          that this bill is premature because the AB 101 pilot  
          program allowing San Francisco to use cameras to cite  
          parking violations in bus lanes has not yet been studied.   
          Second, this bill raises privacy concerns for opponents.   
          The system used in Washington, DC includes "license plate  
          recognition technology," essentially scanners that read and  
          store license plate numbers.  Washington, DC has apparently  
          stated that it may use the gathered information for other  
          purposes, including law enforcement.  While this bill  
          requires that photos only be taken when a violation is  
          detected and further prohibits the local public agency from  
          using photos for any other purpose, opponents are concerned  
          that the bill does not explicitly prohibit the use of  
          scanning technology.  Because violations can be documented  
          with photos, there is no need for the use of scanners, and  
          the bill should prohibit their use.  In addition, opponents  
          would like to see additional language to ensure that the  
          images of any persons captured in photos are cropped or  
          blurred to protect privacy.  Lastly, opponents have  
          suggested a number of specific questions to be answered in  
          the required report.  
           
           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  : 
          AYES:  Ammiano, Arambula, Bass, Beall, Bill Berryhill,  
            Block, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Charles Calderon,  
            Carter, Chesbro, Conway, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De  
            Leon, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani,  
            Galgiani, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill, Huber, Jones, Lieu,  
            Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Monning, Nava, Nielsen, V.  
            Manuel Perez, Portantino, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana,  
            Skinner, Solorio, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico,  
            Yamada, John A. Perez
          NOES:  Adams, Anderson, Tom Berryhill, Blakeslee, DeVore,  
            Emmerson, Fletcher, Fuller, Gaines, Garrick, Gilmore,  
            Hagman, Harkey, Jeffries, Knight, Logue, Miller,  
            Nestande, Niello, Silva, Smyth, Audra Strickland, Tran,  
            Villines
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Blumenfield, Caballero, Cook, Hall,  
            Huffman, Norby, Vacancy








                                                               AB 2567
                                                                Page  
          9


          JJA:do  7/2/10   Senate Floor Analyses 

                         SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                                ****  END  ****