BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 29|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 29
Author: Simitian (D) and Huff (R), et al.
Amended: 8/26/11
Vote: 21
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE : 9-0, 3/29/11
AYES: DeSaulnier, Gaines, Harman, Huff, Kehoe, Lowenthal,
Pavley, Rubio, Simitian
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 9-0, 05/09/11
AYES: Kehoe, Walters, Alquist, Emmerson, Lieu, Pavley,
Price, Runner, Steinberg
SENATE FLOOR : 36-0, 05/16/11
AYES: Alquist, Anderson, Berryhill, Blakeslee, Calderon,
Cannella, Corbett, Correa, De Le�n, DeSaulnier, Dutton,
Emmerson, Evans, Fuller, Gaines, Hancock, Harman,
Hernandez, Kehoe, La Malfa, Leno, Lieu, Liu, Lowenthal,
Negrete McLeod, Padilla, Pavley, Price, Rubio, Runner,
Simitian, Steinberg, Vargas, Wolk, Wright, Yee
NO VOTE RECORDED: Huff, Strickland, Walters, Wyland
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 70-4, 08/30/11 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Vehicles: automated traffic enforcement
systems
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill makes several changes to the laws
CONTINUED
SB 29
Page
2
regarding automated traffic enforcement systems to ensure
that red light camera programs are designed to maximize
traffic safety and are implemented in a lawful and
transparent manner.
Assembly Amendments delete the requirement for the issuing
agency or the vendor, when contacting the registered owner
of a vehicle prior to issuing a notice to appear in an
effort to determine the identity of the driver, to state in
a clear and prominent fashion that the registered owner is
not required to provide the information, and that failure
to provide the information will not result in additional
responsibility or liability associated with the alleged
violation, and add Senator Anderson as a co-author.
ANALYSIS : Existing law authorizes the use of automated
traffic enforcement systems at railroad crossings and
intersections to record violations of unlawful grade
crossings and red light running.
Only a governmental agency, in cooperation with a law
enforcement agency, may operate an automated enforcement
system. Under existing law, "operating" a system means
that a governmental agency does the following:
1.Develops uniform guidelines for screening and issuing
violations, processing and storing confidential
information, and selecting locations where automated
enforcement systems will be utilized.
2.Establishes procedures to ensure compliance with those
guidelines.
3.Certifies that the equipment is properly installed and
calibrated and is operating properly.
4.Ensures that the equipment is regularly inspected.
5.Inspects and maintains signs that warn drivers that an
automated enforcement system is in use. These signs must
be visible to traffic approaching an intersection where
an automated enforcement system operates and clearly
identify the presence of the camera system at that
intersection.
CONTINUED
SB 29
Page
3
6.Oversees the establishment or change of signal phases and
timing. The yellow light change interval must be
established in accordance with the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices, which is maintained by the
California Department of Transportation.
7.Maintains controls necessary to assure that only those
citations that law enforcement personnel have reviewed
and approved are delivered to violators.
A governmental agency may contract out its duties to
certify that the equipment is installed and operating
properly and to ensure that the equipment is regularly
inspected, provided the agency maintains overall control
and supervision of the system.
Prior to entering into a contract with a vendor to
implement an automated enforcement system, the legislative
body of the local government (e.g., city council or county
board of supervisors) must conduct a public hearing on the
proposed use of the system. A contract between a
governmental agency and a vendor of automated enforcement
equipment may not include a provision for payment to the
vendor based on the number of citations issued or the
amount of revenue generated, unless the contract was
entered into prior to January 1, 2004.
Prior to issuing citations, an agency utilizing an
automated traffic enforcement system must make a public
announcement of the system and issue only warning notices
for 30 days. A peace officer or "qualified employee" of a
law enforcement agency reviews the photographs and issues
citations, as appropriate. A citation results in a "notice
to appear," which must be on a form approved by the
Judicial Council containing specific 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 violation charged, and the time and place
when the person may appear in court. 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.
Existing law contains several provisions regarding the
CONTINUED
SB 29
Page
4
confidentiality of information collected for purposes of
issuing citations for violations captured by an automated
enforcement system. Photographic records produced by
automated systems, as well as information obtained from the
Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) are confidential and may
only be used for traffic enforcement purposes. This
information may be retained for up to six months from the
date the information was first obtained, or until final
disposition of the citation, whichever is later. After
that time, the information is to be destroyed in a manner
that preserves the confidentiality of the person whose
information had been obtained.
This bill:
1. Specifies that a governmental agency must post
signs within 200 feet of an intersection where a
system is operating and allows that the signs may be
posted only in the direction in which the system is
used to issue citations, rather than allowing an
agency to post signs either at all major entrances to
the city or at intersections visible to traffic
approaching from all directions. Governmental
agencies with systems in place as of the effective of
this bill that have not already posted signs in
accordance with this bill must do so by January 1,
2013.
2. Clarifies that a governmental agency must perform
all of the activities that current law specifies to
operate an automated traffic enforcement system (e.g.,
develop uniform guidelines for screening and issuing
violations, establish procedures to ensure compliance,
etc.).
3. Allows governmental agencies with systems in place
as of the effective date of the bill that have not
already developed uniform guidelines for screening and
issuing violations, for the process and storage of
confidential information, or for selecting locations
where an automated enforcement system may be used to
do so by January 1, 2013.
4. Allows governmental agencies with systems in place
CONTINUED
SB 29
Page
5
as of the effective date of the bill that have not
already established procedures for compliance with its
guidelines to do so by January 1, 2013.
5. Requires, for systems installed after January 1,
2012, a governmental agency to make and adopt a
"finding of fact" that the system is needed at a
specified location for reasons related to safety.
6. Prohibits a governmental agency from considering
revenue generation beyond recovering the actual costs
of operating the system when it considers whether to
install and operate an automated traffic enforcement
system.
7. Provides that if, after a law enforcement agency
has issued a citation, the citing officer determines
that the citation or notice should be dismissed, the
citing agency may recommend in writing to the
magistrate or the judge that the case be dismissed.
The recommendation must include the reasoning for the
recommendation and be filed with the court.
8. Requires that a notice to appear (i.e., citation or
ticket) include the following information:
The methods by which the registered owner of
the vehicle or the alleged violator may view and
discuss with the issuing agency, both by telephone
and in person, the evidence used to substantiate the
violation.
The contact information of the issuing agency.
Information that clearly and conspicuously
identifies the vendor with which the governmental
agency contracts for the operation of the system.
1. Permits the issuing agency and the vendor to issue
"courtesy notices" to the registered owner of the
vehicle or the alleged violator prior to issuing a
notice to appear. Beginning on January 1, 2013,
courtesy notices must be on a form approved by the
Judicial Counsel, which must be developed in
CONTINUED
SB 29
Page
6
consultation with the traffic and transportation
committee of the California Peace Officers'
Association. The courtesy notice must contain the
following information:
The methods by which the registered owner of
the vehicle or the alleged violator may view and
discuss with the issuing agency, both by telephone
and in person, the evidence used to substantiate the
violation.
The contact information of the issuing agency.
Information that clearly and conspicuously
identifies the vendor with which the governmental
agency contracts for the operation of the system.
1. Prohibits a vendor from altering the notice to
appear, the courtesy notice, or any other form
approved by the Judicial Council. If a form is found
to have been materially altered, the citation based on
the altered form may be dismissed.
2. Requires the vendor of an automated traffic
enforcement system, in cooperation with governmental
agencies that utilize such systems, to submit an
annual report to the Judicial Counsel that includes
the following information, provided the information is
"in the possession of, or readily available to," the
vendor:
The number of alleged violations collected from
the automated traffic enforcement system.
The number of citations issued by a law
enforcement agency based on information collected
from the automated traffic enforcement system.
The number of citations involving a vehicle
traveling straight through an intersection, turning
right, and turning left.
The number and percentage of citations that are
dismissed.
CONTINUED
SB 29
Page
7
The number of traffic collisions at each
intersection that have occurred prior to and after
the installation of the system.
Prior Legislation
This bill is similar to the final version of SB 1362
(Simitian) of last year, which was heard on the Senate
Floor on 6/1/10 (31-1), and was ultimately held in the
Assembly Appropriations Committee.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Major Provisions 2011-12 2012-13
2013-14 Fund
Penalty revenue loss
unknown potential penalty revenue loss
Various*
Judicial Council minor and
absorbable costs to approve
Special**
forms and receive annual reports
Local mandate no state costs (local crime
disclaimer) Local
* General/Special
** Trial Court Trust Fund
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/30/11)
- - -
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/30/11)
Department of Finance
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office:
In response to the author's annual "There Oughta Be A
Law" contest last year, one constituent, Vera Gil,
CONTINUED
SB 29
Page
8
reported that she had been mis-identified several
times by red light cameras located in Southern
California. The vehicle captured in the photograph
was not hers, she was not the driver identified in the
photo, and she had not traveled to Southern California
where the violation was recorded. Because private
companies are involved in the issuance of tickets from
red light camera systems, it sometimes took Ms. Gil
many steps to demonstrate her innocence.
Ms. Gil's experience prompted the author to
investigate how red light camera programs were being
implemented around the state. This bill is the
product of that investigation.
Three red light camera vendors operate automated
traffic enforcement programs in California: Redflex,
American Traffic Solutions (ATS), and Affiliated
Computer Systems (ACS). Each vendor has its own
business model that it tailors to meet the preferences
and needs of the local agencies with which it
contracts. As a result, there is tremendous variation
in how red light cameras programs are administered
throughout the state. Examples of program elements
that may vary include whether the vendor or the law
enforcement agency screens incidents captured by the
system, the criteria used to screen incidents, what
kinds of notices are mailed to alleged violators,
which entity mails the notices, what information is
included on the notice, and how intersections are
identified for use of automated enforcement. Even
something as seemingly straightforward as defining
what constitutes a red light violation may vary from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
In addition to the variation found in program
administration, there is not consistent agreement
about what current law actually requires to operate an
automated traffic enforcement system. Furthermore,
the processes by which an alleged violator may learn
about and contest a citation are sometimes unclear
and, in certain cases, appear to be misleading. For
example, sometimes the notice to appear was modified,
which current law requires to be on a form approved by
CONTINUED
SB 29
Page
9
the Judicial Council, to serve purposes not addressed
by current law. These modified forms appeared
official, but lacked the force of law.
The intent of this bill is to protect the rights of
Californians cited by automated traffic enforcement
systems. In doing so, it prohibits the use of
automated systems for the purpose of raising revenue,
requires that governmental agencies demonstrate a
safety need when approving the use of such systems,
requires that local governments using these systems
establish policies and procedures that help ensure
citations are properly and appropriately issued, and
improves the means by which a person may challenge
citations issued in error.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Department of Finance is
opposed to this bill because it would make the installation
and operation of red light cameras more cumbersome for
local agencies, which is likely to result in their reduced
or discontinued use. This could reduce annual revenues to
the State and to local jurisdictions by approximately $140
million annually.
The bill, by imposing additional restrictions and
conditions on the use of red light traffic cameras, would
likely lead to increased costs for those entities choosing
to use red light cameras, which would reduce the incentives
to use them.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 70-4, 08/30/11
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall,
Bill Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford,
Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos,
Carter, Cedillo, Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Davis, Dickinson,
Eng, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Beth
Gaines, Galgiani, Gatto, Gordon, Grove, Hagman, Hall,
Harkey, Hayashi, Roger Hern�ndez, Hill, Huber, Huffman,
Jones, Lara, Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza,
Mitchell, Monning, Nestande, Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Pan,
Perea, V. Manuel P�rez, Portantino, Silva, Skinner,
Smyth, Solorio, Swanson, Torres, Valadao, Wagner,
Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A. P�rez
CONTINUED
SB 29
Page
10
NOES: Donnelly, Halderman, Knight, Miller
NO VOTE RECORDED: Garrick, Gorell, Hueso, Jeffries,
Mansoor, Morrell
JJA:nl 8/30/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED