BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  SB 949
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   June 28, 2010

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
                               Bonnie Lowenthal, Chair
                     SB 949 (Oropeza) - As Amended:  May 11, 2010

           SENATE VOTE  :  28-0
           
          SUBJECT  :  Traffic violations and fines

           SUMMARY  :  Prohibits local authorities from enacting or enforcing  
          ordinances or resolutions that either establish a violation for  
          the same or similar conduct that is already deemed a violation  
          of the California Vehicle Code (CVC), or assess a fine, penalty,  
          assessment, or fee for a violation of matters covered by the  
          CVC.  

           EXISTING LAW  :  

          1)Declares that the provisions of the CVC are applicable and  
            uniform throughout the state, and that no local authority may  
            enact or enforce any ordinance on the matters covered by it  
            unless expressly authorized by statute.  

          2)Allows local authorities to adopt rules and regulations by  
            ordinance or resolution regarding vehicular matters such as  
            regulating taxi cabs, prohibiting certain vehicles from using  
            particular highways, closing particular streets during regular  
            school hours for the purpose of conducting driver training,  
            and temporarily closing a portion of any street for  
            celebrations, parades, local special events, etc.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  Unknown.  This bill was withdrawn from the  
          Senate Appropriations Committee pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.  

           COMMENTS  :  According to the author's office, several local  
          governments, including the county of Alameda and the cities of  
          Marysville, Roseville, Riverbank, and Newman, have elected to  
          make it their official policy to ignore certain moving  
          violations and penalties in the CVC and punish these offenses  
          under their own local ordinances.  

          These local governments have established municipal ordinances  
          that include violations identical to ones contained in the CVC  
          (e.g., a person shall obey traffic signs and signals) and that  








                                                                  SB 949
                                                                  Page  2

          assess penalties for the violations.  If a person is cited for a  
          violation under a municipal ordinance, the penalty assessed is  
          the penalty contained in the ordinance, not the CVC.  The local  
          government receives the revenue from the penalty and it does not  
          communicate the violation to the Department of Motor Vehicles  
          (DMV).  

          The fines for violations cited under municipal ordinances vary  
          by jurisdiction and tend to range from $100 to $150 for the  
          first offense with increasingly higher fines for subsequent  
          offenses.  For failing to obey traffic control devices, the City  
          of Roseville has adopted a fine of $100 for a first offense,  
          $200 for a second offense, and $500 for subsequent offenses.   
          Local fines are not subject to the state-mandated penalty  
          assessments, surcharges, or other fees that apply to citations  
          issued under the CVC.  All of the revenues from fines collected  
          under municipal ordinances stay with the jurisdiction in which  
          the violation occurred.  

          The fines for violations cited under the CVC, by contrast, are  
          much higher in total once penalty assessments, surcharges, and  
          other fees are added.  According to the 2010 Uniform Bail and  
          Penalty Schedule, a base fine in the amount of $35 has a total  
          bail of $211 and a base fine of $100 has a total bail of $445.   
          Fine revenues, including penalty assessments, are distributed  
          according to complicated formulas established in statute, but  
          some portion is distributed to the local jurisdiction where the  
          violation occurred.  The exact percentage depends on the amount  
          of the base fine as some of the penalty assessments are  
          calculated as a percentage of the base fine.  For base fines of  
          $35, the local government receives approximately 34% of the  
          total bail amount, which for total bail of $211 is $71.  For  
          base fines of $100, the local government receives about 43  
          percent of the total bail, which equals $191.  

          At issue is whether the CVC preempts local ordinances with  
          regard to regulating traffic.  Section 7 of Article XI of the  
          California Constitution provides that a local authority "may  
          make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary,  
          and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with  
          general laws."  Opinions issued formally by the Office of the  
          Attorney General (1990) and informally this year by the Los  
          Angeles Police Department cite legal cases in which "conflict"  
          was found to occur when the state has enacted a legislative  
          scheme intended for uniform application throughout the state and  








                                                                  SB 949
                                                                  Page  3

          has indicated its intention to preempt local regulation in the  
          area.  In its 1990 opinion, the Office of the Attorney General  
          concluded, "The Vehicle Code is such an enactment and in fact  
          contains its own preemption rule, found in its Section 21."  

          In response to local governments enforcing local ordinances  
          related to matters covered by the state Vehicle Code, the author  
          requested the Legislative Counsel to opine on the following  
          question:  "Does the Vehicle Code preempt local authorities from  
          enacting and enforcing ordinances to assess a fine for  
          nonparking-related violations if a fine for the violation is  
          specified in the Vehicle Code?"  

          In its opinion, Legislative Counsel asserted that the CVC does  
          preempt the authority of a local authority to enact and enforce  
          ordinances assessing penalties for moving violations because it  
          provides for a comprehensive scheme of penalties for moving  
          violations, including the disposition of fine revenue.  The only  
          exceptions, according to Legislative Counsel, are "in those  
          cases in which the Vehicle Code expressly authorizes a local  
          authority to enact or enforce ordinances covering the same  
          matters."  Consequently, the author considers this bill to be a  
          technical cleanup measure to remove any misunderstanding local  
          governments may have regarding their authority under state law.   


          Inconsistency in the enforcement of the CVC can foster confusion  
          and distrust among drivers.  It also potentially subjects them  
          to arbitrary and discriminatory treatment by law enforcement.   
          In addition, citing traffic violations under local ordinances  
          inhibits the accurate collection of statewide data on moving  
          violations that are used to flag unsafe drivers for possible  
          action against their licenses and to calculate their insurance  
          rates.  

          The City of Roseville argues that the CVC, by allowing local  
          authorities to adopt rules and regulations regarding "regulating  
          traffic by means of official traffic control devices," does  
          expressly authorize local authorities to establish and enforce  
          municipal ordinances regarding such actions as obeying signs or  
          signals.  

          Opponents of this bill further state, "While seemingly narrow in  
          scope, this bill would create a blanket preemption of municipal  
          codes addressing traffic violations.  Specifically, SB 949 would  








                                                                  SB 949
                                                                  Page  4

          prohibit a local agency from issuing a traffic citation - as  
          currently authorized under Section 21100 of the Vehicle Code -  
          if the penalty assessed through the local municipal code is  
          different from the penalty provided for in the state Vehicle  
          Code.  The intent of this legislation is well within reason, and  
          we generally concur that uniform traffic regulation is vital to  
          safe passage for the motoring public, pedestrians, and cyclists.  
           However, the additional consequences of SB 949 are problematic  
          for both local agencies and the state, and sets a dangerous  
          precedent for state control over policies intended to address  
          public safety issues specific to a jurisdiction.  

          "The discretion afforded through the municipal codes to local  
          jurisdictions, the law enforcement officers serving those local  
          jurisdictions, and courts reviewing citations ensures an  
          appropriate response to the local needs.  SB 949 unfortunately  
          undermines that flexibility for a one-size-fits-all approach to  
          public safety."  

           Suggested committee amendments  :  

          1)To make certain that the bill is not misinterpreted to  
            preclude local governments from enacting their own parking  
            ordinances, the bill should be amended to make clear that its  
            provisions do not alter the existing authority of local  
            agencies to regulate parking.  

          2)Similarly, there is some concern that the bill might preclude  
            park districts from enforcing traffic restrictions they are  
            authorized to enact by the Public Resources Code.  This bill  
            should therefore be amended to provide that "Nothing in this  
            article shall impair or be construed to impair the authority  
            of any local park authority or district whose authority is  
            established pursuant to a separate state code to enact or  
            enforce any ordinance or resolution relating to the management  
            of public lands and parklands or to establish a fine, penalty  
            assessment, or fee for violation thereof."   
           
           REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION  :

           Support 
           
          Automobile Club of Southern California
          California State Automobile Association
          California Traffic Classes, Inc








                                                                  SB 949
                                                                  Page  5

          Cheap School (Traffic School)
          Great Comedians Traffic School
          Traffic Safety Consultants, Inc.

           Opposition 
           
          Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
          California Fraternal Order of Police
          California Public Parking Association
          California State Association of Counties
          California State Sheriffs' Association
          City of Costa Mesa
          City of Fremont
          City of Los Angeles
          City of Red Bluff
          County Professional Peace Officers Association
          League of California Cities
          Long Beach Police Officer's Association
          Los Angeles Police Protective League
          Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority
          Riverside Sheriffs' Association
          Urban Counties Caucus

           
          Analysis Prepared by  :   Howard Posner / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093