BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 432
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 18, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 432 (Hall) - As Amended: April 26, 2011
Policy Committee:
TransportationVote:14-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill requires a written notice to appear for an alleged
violation recorded by an automated traffic violation be issued
by a peace officer or a qualified employee of a law enforcement
agency and delivered with a United States Post Office (USPS)
certificate of mailing.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Unknown costs, possibly in the hundreds of thousands of
dollars, to local agencies for peace officer or law
enforcement staff time to issue written notices to appear,
instead of allowing contracted entities to issue those
notices. (Local special funds.)
2)Unknown, potentially significant reduction in fine and penalty
revenues, possibly in the millions of dollars annually, (state
and local special funds), to the extent locals eliminate or
reduce use of automated traffic violation devices as a result
of this bill.
3)Potential reduction in court costs of an unknown amount, and a
corresponding increase in state and local revenue (state and
local special funds), to the extent the bill reduces unpaid or
contested traffic violations.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale. The author notes that existing statute authorizes
local government agencies to contract with private vendors who
AB 432
Page 2
capture images of alleged violations and to send notices to
appear for those offenses that are substantiated. The author
contends that many individuals who receive such notices seem
to doubt their authenticity because the notice was sent by an
entity other than a law enforcement agency and, oftentimes,
from an address other than that where the alleged violation
occurred. The author further contends such delegation of
authority represents a failure of law enforcement to carry out
its duty and results in judges dismissing a greater number of
alleged violations than would otherwise occur.
2)Background . Automated enforcement systems have been
authorized for use by local governments since 1998. Current
law authorizes use of these systems subject to various
requirements relating to posting of signs to notify motorists
of the presence of the system, adherence to traffic signal
timing and intervals standards, and confidentiality of data
collected by the system. Current law also prohibits a contract
between a government agency and a manufacturer or supplier of
automated traffic enforcement equipment from including
provisions for the payment or compensation to the manufacturer
or supplier based on the number of citations generated, or as
a percentage of the revenue generated, as a result of the use
of the equipment.
Under current practice, vendors are contracted by local
authorities to capture images of vehicles that fail to come to
a complete stop at designated intersections. The images are
collected by the vendor and screened to eliminate those that
fail to show a violation. The remaining images are sent to
local law enforcement where an officer reviews the images and
directs the vendor to send notices to appear for those that
clearly show violations.
3)Related Legislation. SB 1362 (Simitian) of 2010 would have
imposed additional requirements on the use of automated
traffic enforcement systems. The bill passed the Senate 31-1
but was held by this committee.
4)The policy committee received no formal support to this bill.
5)Opposition. The bill is opposed by the League of California
Cities, who expresses concern about the effect on local costs
and use of what the league describes as a useful public safety
tool.
AB 432
Page 3
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081