BILL ANALYSIS Ó
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1303|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 1303
Author: Simitian (D)
Amended: As introduced
Vote: 21
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE : 8-0, 3/27/12
AYES: DeSaulnier, Gaines, Harman, Kehoe, Pavley, Rubio,
Simitian, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Lowenthal
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 7-0, 4/30/12
AYES: Kehoe, Walters, Alquist, Dutton, Lieu, Price,
Steinberg
SUBJECT : Automated traffic enforcement systems (i.e.,
red light cameras)
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : 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
CONTINUED
SB 1303
Page
2
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 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
SB 1303
Page
3
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.
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
SB 1303
Page
4
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
According to the author's office, this bill was introduced
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's office contends
this bill is necessary to increase public confidence in the
purpose and fairness of red light camera operations. The
author 's office also suggests this bill will likely be
needed to address issues raised in two recent appellate
court decisions.
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
SB 1303
Page
5
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.
Governor's veto . This bill is essentially the same as SB
29 (Simitian), which the Senate passed 38-0 on September 1,
2011, 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's office indicates they are in discussions with the
administration and expects to find a compromise that the
Governor can support. The author's office 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
Page
6
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Likely minor one-time costs to Judicial Council to
develop and adopt courtesy notice forms, and minor
ongoing costs to compile and maintain reports received
from operators of automated traffic enforcement systems
(Trial Court Trust Fund).
Non-reimbursable local costs to post signage and develop
uniform guidelines and procedures by January 1, 2014.
Additional local costs related to the discretionary act
of installing future automated traffic enforcement
systems.
JJA:do 5/1/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: NONE RECEIVED
**** END ****