BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 1303 Page 1 Date of Hearing: June 25, 2012 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION Bonnie Lowenthal, Chair SB 1303 (Simitian) - As Amended: May 29, 2012 SENATE VOTE : 38-0 SUBJECT : Vehicles: automated traffic enforcement systems SUMMARY : Revises procedures that local jurisdictions must follow when installing and operating automated traffic enforcement systems (red light cameras). Specifically, this bill : 1)Clarifies that computer-generated information stored by an automated traffic enforcement system (red light camera system) is presumed to be an accurate representation. 2)Requires local jurisdictions to post signs identifying the use of red light cameras within 200 feet of an intersection where they are in use. Local jurisdictions with systems in place as of January 1, 2013, must have signs posted in accordance with this bill not later than January 1, 2014. 3)Specifies that local jurisdictions using red light cameras do not need to post signs notifying the use of red light cameras from directions not subject to the citation. 4)Eliminates the option for local jurisdictions to post signs at major entrances to the city indicating that red light cameras are in use. 5)Requires local jurisdictions operating red light cameras to establish uniform guidelines by January 1, 2014, for screening and issuing violations and for storage of confidential information for systems installed after January 1, 2013. 6)Requires local jurisdictions, prior to installing a red light camera system, to make and adopt a finding of fact establishing the need for the system at the specific location, for reasons related to safety. 7)Specifies that evidence from red light camera systems is not hearsay. SB 1303 Page 2 8)Prohibits a local jurisdiction from considering revenue generation, beyond recovering actual costs of operating the system, when considering whether or not to install and operate a red light camera system. 9)Requires the vendor of a red light camera system, in cooperation with the local jurisdiction, to submit an annual report to the Judicial Council that includes the following: a) The number of alleged violations captured by the red light camera systems they operate; b) The number of citations issued by law enforcement based on the information collected; c) Based on the overall number of red light camera citations, the number of violations that involved traveling straight through the intersection, turning right, and turning left; d) The number and percentage of red light camera citations that are dismissed by the court; and, e) The number of traffic collisions at each red light camera-controlled intersection that occurred prior to and after the installation of the red light camera. 10) Specifies that if, after law enforcement has issued a red light camera citation, the citing officer determines that the citation or notice should be dismissed, the citing agency may recommend in writing to the court that the case be dismissed and the court may dismiss the case. 11) Requires a notice to appear to contain the following information: a) The method that the registered owner of the vehicle or alleged violator may view and discuss the evidence used to substantiate the violation by phone and in person; and, b) The contact information of the issuing agency. 12) Provides a specific illustration of the form that must be used for the notice to appear and courtesy notice SB 1303 Page 3 which specifies that the registered owner of the vehicle may opt not to identify the driver of the vehicle. 13) Prohibits the vendor or issuing agency from altering the notice to appear, courtesy notice, or any other form approved by the Judicial Council. 14) Specifies that if the form is found to be materially altered, the citation based on the altered form may be dismissed by the court. 15) Makes related, clarifying amendments. EXISTING LAW : 1)Specifies that printed representation of computer information and images stored on a video or digital medium is presumed to be an accurate representation. 2)Requires local jurisdictions that operate red light cameras to clearly indicate the system's presence by posting signs that are visible to traffic approaching from all directions or by posting sighs at all major entrances to the city. 3)Requires local jurisdictions that operate red light cameras to establish uniform guidelines for screening and issuing violations and for the processing and storage of confidential information as well as procedures for compliance with the guidelines. 4)Requires local jurisdictions that operate red light cameras to perform various administrative functions including establishing guidelines for their placement and operation. 5)Specifies a notice to appear for a red light camera violation constitutes a complaint to which the defendant may enter a plea as long as the citation is issued by a law enforcement agency and delivered by mail within 15 days to the current address of the vehicle's registered owner. 6)Requires the notice to appear to contain the name and address of the person, the license plate number of the person's vehicle, the violation charged including a description of the offense, and the time and place of the scheduled court appearance set at least 10 days after the notice to appear has SB 1303 Page 4 been delivered. 7)Authorizes a governmental entity to issue a citation to a person identified by the registered owner of the vehicle as being the driver at the time of the alleged violation. The notice issued to the registered owner requesting identification of the driver is typically called a courtesy notice. FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, this bill would likely result in minor ongoing costs to Judicial Council to compile and maintain reports received from operators of red light cameras as well as non-reimbursable local costs to post signs and develop uniform guidelines and procedures. Additionally, opponents of the bill contend that the provision regarding courtesy notices could result in a substantial loss of ticket revenue. COMMENTS : Automated enforcement systems were originally authorized in California by SB 1802 (Rosenthal) Chapter 1216, Statutes of 1994, to enforce rail crossings. Two years later, 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 committing such violations and the vehicles involved. The installation of these systems were considered justified primarily because red light running is considered a serious traffic problem that can have catastrophic results. After reviewing the operations and effectiveness of the pilot program, the Legislature enacted SB 1136 (Kopp) Chapter 54, Statutes of 1998, to indefinitely authorize the use of red light cameras at intersections. Major modifications were made to this statutory authority by AB 1022 (Oropeza) Chapter 511, Statutes of 2003, as a result of an audit by the State Auditor that generally concluded local governments needed to exert more control over the operation of the automated traffic enforcement systems. According to the author, the intent of this bill is to preserve the ability of red light camera systems to operate while bringing a greater degree of fairness to their use with particular attention to concerns about accuracy, privacy, and SB 1303 Page 5 due process. Specifically, the bill address the evidentiary use of red light camera photographs, notification signage, the prohibition against using red light cameras as a revenue generation tool, requirements for data collection with regard to red light camera violations, dismissal of red light camera citations, and the use of courtesy notices. Hearsay Rule : The 2nd District Court of Appeals in Los Angeles published two decisions recently concerning automated red light camera 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 had 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 is not 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. According to the author, these conflicting decisions demonstrate a need for clarification in statute regarding the evidentiary standards required for prosecuting red light camera violations. The National Motorists Association (NMA), however, believes that the provision meant to clarify the statue instead eliminates any SB 1303 Page 6 possibility for state courts to rule photographic evidence generated by red light cameras lacks foundation. The NMA claims that this bill will therefore result in persons receiving red light camera citations being deprived of their basic right to challenge the evidence used against -- eliminating a significant legal hurdle for those who operate red light cameras while eliminating the opportunity for motorists to defend themselves in court. It is anticipated that the issues raised by the opposition will be addressed when the bill is heard in the Assembly Judiciary Committee. Signage: Currently, the law requires local jurisdictions to place signs indicated red light cameras are in use either at all city entrance roads or at all approaches to the photo enforced intersection. The majority of jurisdictions choose to erect signs at individual intersections because it is generally believed that the warning signs, in addition to the presence of the red light camera, act as a deterrent to red light running thereby reducing red light violations and improving safety. This bill would eliminate a local jurisdiction's option of where to post red light camera notices by eliminating requiring that signs be placed at individual photo enforced intersections within 200 feet of the intersection in the direction that citations are being issued. Additionally, the bill would require local jurisdictions with red light camera systems in place as of January 1, 2013 to have these signs posted no later than January 1, 2014. According to the author, this provision would help to reduce the frequency of red light violations by providing drivers with specific notice and information regarding intersections they are about to enter. The wording of this bill could be strictly interpreted to mean that signs at city entrances could be taken down as of January 1, 2013, but that signs erected at individual intersections would not need to be in place until January 1, 2014, potentially leaving a one year span of time when no red light camera signage would be required. The author has agreed to address this concern when the bill is heard in the Assembly Judiciary Committee. Finding of Fact : SB 1303 Page 7 In an effort to prohibit local jurisdictions from installing red light cameras merely to raise revenue, this bill would require that local jurisdictions operating red light cameras to establish uniform guidelines for screening and issuing violations, as well as for the storage of confidential information. The bill would also prohibit a local jurisdiction from considering revenue generation when evaluating whether or not to operate a red light camera system. The local jurisdiction would also be required to make and adopt a finding of fact that establishes the need for the system at a specific intersection for safety-related reasons. Opponents note that this bill does not require a local jurisdiction to apply objective criteria when evaluating the safety-related need and, in the absence of clear, objective and uniform criteria, local jurisdictions and the public will have not consistent measure of whether or not a given location truly warrants the installation and operation of a red light camera. Annual reporting : This bill also requires red light camera vendors, in cooperation with the local jurisdiction, to submit an annual report to the Judicial Council that provides information regarding the number and type of violations and citations issued at red light camera intersections. The information that vendors would be required to submit includes the number of citations issued by law enforcement based on the information collected, to total the number of citations involving straight through violations versus turning right and turning left, as well as the number and percentage of citations that are dismissed by the court and the number of traffic collisions at each intersections that occurred prior to and after the installation of the red light camera. The author notes that currently this information is held exclusively by red light camera vendors and that by requiring that this information be provided to the Judicial Council, the information would be more broadly available for public scrutiny. Ability to dismiss citations : According to the author, the provision allowing a citation to be dismissed was included in the bill in response to a complaint brought forward by a constituent who experienced a number of SB 1303 Page 8 problems with being misidentified by red light cameras in Southern California. According to the constituent, the vehicle captured in a red light camera photograph was not hers nor was she the driver identified in the photograph, however, because private companies were involved in the issuance of the red light camera citations, demonstrating her innocence was a lengthy and involved process. To keep this problem from happening to others in the future, the author included language in the bill that would authorize a citing office to recommend to the court that a citation be dismissed and would also authorize a judge to dismiss the citation. Courtesy Notice (Notice of Non-liability) : Courtesy notices are not actual citations but instead are investigative tools to help police determine the identity of the driver whose image was captured by a red light camera. When a police officer is unable to match the photograph of the driver to that of the registered owner, the officer mails the registered owner a courtesy notice (sometimes called a "snitch ticket"). The form that is mailed to the registered owner specifically requests that registered owner provide the name of driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation. There have been a number of complaints about courtesy notices, namely that the form that is used appears to indicate that the registered owner is legally required to provide the information when in actuality, the registered owner of the vehicle is under no such obligation to provide the information requested. To address this issue, the author has included an exact copy of the courtesy notice in this bill and would require that a true and exact copy of the form be used for red light camera violations. The form includes a box entitled "none of the above" that a registered owner of a vehicle receiving the courtesy notice can check if he or she does not wish to divulge the identity of the driver at the time of the alleged violation. Red light camera vendors note that while the majority of red light camera violations result in proper identification of the driver at the time of the alleged violation, approximately 40% of violations require the use of a courtesy notice or other means of identifying the driver. Vendors claim that if registered owners are given the option not to identify the driver at the time of the alleged violation, they expect that nearly one-half of respondents will refuse to provide the SB 1303 Page 9 information resulting in substantial loss of ticket revenue in addition to costs for law enforcement to ascertain the identity of the driver using other means. Additionally, the California Police Chiefs Association notes that including the option for recipients to not name the driver of the vehicle would simply encourage scofflaw behavior. Recent Legislation : SB 29 (Simitian) of 2011, made several changes to the laws 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. That bill was vetoed by the Governor on the grounds that the issues addressed in the bill should be overseen by local elected officials AB 1022 (Oropeza) Chapter 511, Statutes of 2003, added conditions and restrictions to the use of automated traffic enforcement systems. SB 1136 (Kopp) Chapter 54, Statutes of 1998, repealed the January 1, 1999, sunset date, and extended indefinitely provisions that allow the use of automated traffic enforcement systems at official traffic control signals. SB 833 (Kopp) Chapter 922, Statutes of 1995, authorized a three-year demonstration period to test the use and effectiveness of automated traffic enforcement systems in reducing the incidence of drivers running red lights at roadway intersections. SB 1216 (Rosenthal) Chapter 1216, Statutes of 1994, originally authorized automated enforcement at rail crossings. Double-referral : This bill has also been referred to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support None received Opposition Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs SB 1303 Page 10 California Police Chiefs Association Inc. California Traffic Defense Bar Association California Walks City of Beverly Hills League of California Cities Los Angeles Protective League National Motorists Association North American Transportation Association Inc. Redflex Traffic Systems Riverside Sheriffs' Association Safer Streets L.A. 1 Individual Analysis Prepared by : Victoria Alvarez / TRANS. / (916) 319- 2093