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 This bill was withdrawn from the Senate Appropriations Committee pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.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