BILL ANALYSIS
SB 949
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 949 (Oropeza)
As Amended August 20, 2010
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :28-0
TRANSPORTATION 11-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Bonnie Lowenthal, | | |
| |Jeffries, | | |
| |Bill Berryhill, | | |
| |Blumenfield, Buchanan, | | |
| |Eng, Galgiani, Hayashi, | | |
| |Niello, Norby, Solorio | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Prohibits local authorities from enforcing their own
ordinances that regulate driving behavior already regulated by
state law.
1)Prohibits, effective July 1, 2011, 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, unless such
ordinances are authorized by the CVC or any other state code.
2)Excludes from this prohibition, the current lawful authority
of the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority to
enforce an ordinance or resolution relating to the management
of public lands within its jurisdiction.
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
SB 949
Page 2
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 is keyed nonfiscal.
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
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
SB 949
Page 3
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
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
SB 949
Page 4
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
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."
Analysis Prepared by : Howard Posner / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093
FN: 0006380