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: 8/20/10 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 Senate Floor Amendments of 8/20/10 add intent language to the bill and correct one technical mistake. 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. AB 2567 Page 3 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 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 violation 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. AB 2567 Page 4 9. Requires a designated city employee who is qualified to issue parking citations to review the images and 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 AB 2567 Page 5 enforcement system. 17.Provides that there shall be no late fees or penalty 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. AB 2567 Page 6 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 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 AB 2567 Page 7 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 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 AB 2567 Page 8 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 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, AB 2567 Page 9 Villines NO VOTE RECORDED: Blumenfield, Caballero, Cook, Hall, Huffman, Norby, Vacancy JJA:do 8/23/10 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END ****