BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: sb 1303
SENATOR MARK DESAULNIER, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: simitian
VERSION: 2/23/12
Analysis by: Eric Thronson FISCAL: yes
Hearing date: March 27, 2012
SUBJECT:
Automated traffic enforcement systems (i.e., red light cameras)
DESCRIPTION:
This bill changes the laws governing automated traffic
enforcement systems to ensure that red light camera programs
maximize traffic safety and are implemented in a lawful and
transparent manner.
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, among other things, inspects and maintains
signs that warn drivers that an automated enforcement system is
in use. These signs must either be visible to traffic
approaching an intersection where an automated enforcement
system operates or posted at all major entrances to a city such
as at freeways, bridges, and state highway routes.
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
SB 1303 (SIMITIAN) Page 2
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, a Judicial Council form
that contains 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. The law enforcement agency must mail the
notice to appear within 15 days of the alleged violation to the
current address of the registered owner of the vehicle.
This bill makes many substantive changes to statute governing
automatic traffic enforcement systems, including:
Requiring a governmental agency to post signs identifying the
use of automated traffic enforcement within 200 feet of an
intersection where a system is operating, while eliminating
the option that allows an agency to post signs at all major
entrances to the city. Agencies with systems in place as of
the effective date of this bill that have not already posted
signs in accordance with this provision must do so by January
1, 2014.
Requiring, for systems installed after January 1, 2013, 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. At the same time, this bill expressly
prohibits a governmental agency from considering revenue
generation when it deliberates about whether to install and
operate an automated traffic enforcement system.
Requiring the vendor, in cooperation with governmental
agencies that utilize its systems, to submit an annual report
to the Judicial Council that includes the following
information, provided the information is "in the possession
of, or readily available to," the vendor:
o The number of alleged violations captured by the
system and resulting citations,
o The number of citations involving a vehicle
traveling straight through an intersection, turning
right, and turning left,
o The number and percentage of citations that a court
dismisses,
SB 1303 (SIMITIAN) Page 3
o The number of traffic collisions at each
intersection that occurred prior to and after the
installation of the system.
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 court that it dismiss the case.
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, 2014, courtesy notices must be on the Judicial
Council forms, which the Council shall develop in consultation
with the traffic and transportation committee of the
California Peace Officers' Association.
Requires that both a notice to appear (i.e., citation or
ticket) and a courtesy notice contain the following
information:
o 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.
o The contact information of the issuing agency.
o Information that clearly and conspicuously
identifies the vendor with which the governmental agency
contracts for the operation of the system.
Prohibits a vendor or governmental agency from altering the
notice to appear, the courtesy notice, or any other Judicial
Council form. If a governmental agency or vendor materially
alters the form, then the court may dismiss the case.
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose . The author introduced this bill to protect the
rights of Californians cited by automated traffic enforcement
systems. To do so, this bill 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, and improves the means by which a
person may challenge citations issued in error. The author
contends this bill is necessary to increase public confidence
SB 1303 (SIMITIAN) Page 4
in the purpose and fairness of red light camera operations.
The author also suggests this bill will likely be needed to
address issues raised in two recent appellate court decisions.
2.Recent court decisions . The 2nd District Court of Appeals in
Los Angeles has published two decisions recently concerning
automated traffic enforcement system evidence submitted to
convict violators of running red lights. In February, a
three-judge panel on the appellate court ruled in People v.
Borzakian (2012) that an officer testifying in the case was
not qualified to authenticate video and picture evidence,
because the city has contracted for the maintenance and
operation of the automated traffic enforcement system and
therefore operating the system was not part of the ordinary
course of business for the police department. The city's
evidence was not properly admitted because the officer could
not authenticate the videos and pictures, and without this
evidence, nothing supported the alleged violation. The court
reversed Borzakian's conviction based on this finding.
Later that month, in People v. Goldsmith (2012), a different
three-judge panel from the same appellate court came to a
different conclusion. The panel determined that testimony on
the accuracy and reliability of computer systems isn't
required for photos or video to be admitted as evidence unless
alternative evidence is introduced casting doubt on the photo
or video's accuracy. Because Goldsmith did not provide any
substantial evidence undermining the reliability of the video
and photographic evidence, the court concluded that the
evidence did not need to be authenticated and therefore upheld
the conviction.
These conflicting decisions demonstrate a need for
clarification in statute regarding the evidentiary standards
required for prosecuting automated traffic enforcement
violations. This bill currently does not include clarifying
language, but the author indicates that he intends to amend
this bill at some point to include such language.
SB 1303 (SIMITIAN) Page 5
3.Governor's veto . This bill is essentially the same as SB 29
(Simitian), which this committee passed last year 9 to 0 and
which the governor ultimately vetoed. The governor's veto
message indicates that, while SB 29 standardizes rules for
local governments to follow when installing and maintaining
red light cameras, the governor feels this is something that
elected officials can and should oversee. The author
indicates he is in discussions with the administration and
expects to find a compromise that the governor can support.
The author believes that, in light of the recent court rulings
and ensuing legal ambiguity, the governor may wish to sign a
bill that helps bring clarity to the prosecution of red light
violations while also increasing public confidence in the
purpose and fairness of red light camera operations.
SB 1303 (SIMITIAN) Page 6
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on
Wednesday,
March 21, 2012)
SUPPORT: None received.
OPPOSED: None received.