BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: ab 432 SENATOR MARK DESAULNIER, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: HALL VERSION: 6/21/11 Analysis by: Erin Riches FISCAL: yes Hearing date: July 5, 2011 SUBJECT: Traffic violations: notice to appear DESCRIPTION: This bill provides that only a peace officer or qualified employee of a law enforcement agency may issue a notice to appear for specified traffic offenses, including those recorded by an automated traffic enforcement system. ANALYSIS: Existing law: Provides that a government agency may equip an intersection or other place where a driver is required to respond to an official traffic control signal, with an automated enforcement system, if the agency meets specified requirements. Provides that only a government agency, in cooperation with a law enforcement agency, may operate an automated enforcement system. Requires a government agency to maintain controls necessary to ensure that citations may only be delivered to violators if they have been reviewed and approved by law enforcement. Authorizes a government agency to contract out most operations related to the automated enforcement system, if the agency maintains overall control and supervision of the system. Provides that a contract between a governmental agency and a manufacturer or supplier of automated enforcement equipment may not include a provision for payment to the AB 432 (HALL) Page 2 vendor based on the number of citations issued or amount of revenue generated, as a result of the equipment unless the contract was entered into prior to January 1, 2004. Provides that a citation for a traffic offense results in a written notice to appear, which must be on a form prescribed by the Judicial Council and must include specified information, including the name and address of the registered owner of the vehicle identified in the photograph, the license plate number of the vehicle, the offense charged, and the time and place for the person to appear in court. Provides that a notice to appear must be mailed within 15 days of the alleged violation to the current address of the registered owner of the vehicle, with a certificate of mailing obtained as evidence of service. This bill : Requires that only a peace officer or a qualified employee of a law enforcement agency may serve a notice to appear for specified traffic offenses involving failure to respond to an official traffic control signal, including those recorded by an automated traffic enforcement system. Clarifies that the notice to appear, which must be delivered by mail within 15 days to the current address of the registered owner of the vehicle, must be accompanied by a certificate of mailing obtained through the US Postal Service as evidence of service. Requires the notice to appear to be enclosed in "an official envelope" of the issuing agency. COMMENTS: 1. Purpose . According to the author, red light camera companies send notices to appear to individuals who have allegedly committed specified traffic offenses, but the companies' out-of-state addresses cause confusion and often result in individuals mistaking the notices for junk mail and discarding them. This bill would help ensure that individuals who receive the notices understand that the notice is an official document from a California law enforcement agency. AB 432 (HALL) Page 3 The author also notes that California courts are experiencing difficulties in prosecuting alleged red light camera violators because of inconsistencies in the process from county to county. Along with different envelopes, some agencies send the notices to appear in certified mail, while others do not. This has resulted in a loss of revenue for cities and counties. 2. Background . The Legislature first authorized the use of automated traffic enforcement systems, now commonly known as red light cameras, under SB 1802 (Rosenthal), Chapter 1216, Statues of 1994, in order to record violations occurring at rail crossing signals and gates. Subsequently, SB 833 (Kopp), Chapter 922, Statutes of 1995, authorized a three-year demonstration period to test the use and effectiveness of similar systems in reducing the incidence of drivers running red lights at roadway intersections and in identifying the drivers and vehicles involved in committing such violations. Installation of such systems was justified based on the rationale that drivers running red lights are a serious traffic problem with potentially dire results to other drivers and that such violations are difficult for police officers to witness and enforce at the time of the incident. After reviewing the operations and effectiveness of the pilot program, the Legislature enacted SB 1136 (Kopp), Chapter 54, Statutes of 1998, which authorized the use of automated traffic enforcement systems at intersections. AB 1022 (Oropeza), Chapter 511, Statutes of 2003, significantly modified the law as a result of an audit by the State Auditor that concluded that local governments needed to exert more control over the operation of automated traffic enforcement systems. Under current practice, local agencies contract with red light camera vendors to capture images of vehicles that fail to come to a complete stop at designated intersections. The vendors collect the images and screen them to eliminate those that fail to show evidence that a vehicle failed to make a complete stop. The vendor sends the remaining images 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. AB 432 (HALL) Page 4 The author argues that when vendors mail notices to appear, some are successfully challenged in court, resulting in a loss of revenue. This bill corrects these problems by clarifying that the notice to appear must be issued by a police officer or other qualified employee of a law enforcement agency. 3. Arguments in Opposition . The League of California Cities and the Police Chiefs Association argue that this bill will increase costs to cities while failing to stem confusion. They argue that this bill will result in increased costs to city police departments, which are already stretched thin, for additional personnel hours and new equipment purchases. Cities would also have to take their automated traffic enforcement systems off-line as they transition responsibilities from the vendor the police department staff. 4. Related legislation . SB 29 (Simitian), which passed the Assembly Transportation Committee on June 13, 2011, imposes additional requirements on automated traffic enforcement systems, including expanding the information that must be included in the notice to appear to include clear identification of the vendor and contact information for the issuing agency. SB 29 also clarifies that a government agency must perform all duties specified by current law to operate an automated traffic enforcement system, including development of uniform guidelines for screening and issuing violations. 5. Chaptering out amendments . This bill and SB 29 (Simitian) amend the same section of the Vehicle Code but are otherwise not in conflict. If these two bills continue to move through the Legislature, the authors will need to amend them to ensure that should both be signed into law, the second bill signed does not chapter out the first. Assembly Votes: Floor: 77-0 Appr: 17-0 Trans: 14-0 POSITIONS: (Communicated to the Committee before noon on Wednesday, June 29, 2011) AB 432 (HALL) Page 5 SUPPORT: None received. OPPOSED: California Police Chiefs Association League of California Cities