BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1303
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 1303 (Simitian)
As Amended August 13, 2012
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :38-0
TRANSPORTATION 11-1 JUDICIARY 9-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Bonnie Lowenthal, |Ayes:|Feuer, Wagner, Atkins, |
| |Achadjian, Blumenfield, | |Dickinson, Gorell, Huber, |
| |Bonilla, Buchanan, Eng, | |Monning, Wieckowski, |
| |Furutani, Galgiani, | |Bonnie Lowenthal |
| |Logue, Wagner, Solorio | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Norby | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS 16-1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Gatto, Harkey, | | |
| |Blumenfield, Bradford, | | |
| |Charles Calderon, Campos, | | |
| |Davis, Donnelly, Fuentes, | | |
| |Hall, Hill, Cedillo, | | |
| |Mitchell, Nielsen, | | |
| |Solorio, Wagner | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Norby | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
SB 1303
Page 2
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.
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;
SB 1303
Page 3
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 of Non-Liability and Courtesy Notice
clearly indicating that the notice is not a ticket.
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
SB 1303
Page 4
clearly indicate the system's presence by posting signs that are
visible to traffic approaching from all directions or by posting
signs 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 that 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 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 Assembly Appropriations
Committee, minor costs to the Judicial Council to approve the
forms and to compile and maintain reports provided by red light
camera system operators.
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
SB 1303
Page 5
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 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
SB 1303
Page 6
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 statute instead eliminates any
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 them-- eliminating a
significant legal hurdle for those who operate red light cameras
while eliminating the opportunity for motorists to defend
themselves in court.
According to the Assembly Judiciary Committee, beyond the hearsay
question, the courts differed fundamentally in their
interpretation of Evidence Code Sections 1552 and 1553, and on
what is required to authenticate the photographs. Because the
Legislature enacted those sections, the Assembly Judiciary
Committee notes that it is arguably both the right and duty of the
Legislature to clarify what is meant by them when two courts reach
different conclusions about what they mean. The author has
attempted to achieve this clarification by amending the Evidence
Code sections on authentication and specifying that both Sections
1552 and 1553 apply to images generated by red-light camera
systems. In addition, it expressly states for the limited
purposes of contested red-light citations, the photographs shall
not constitute hearsay. It is important to note that this bill
does not create a new "hearsay exception" to add to the
traditional list of exceptions. It is instead saying that the
photographs are not hearsay, and therefore that there is no need
for a hearsay exception.
SB 1303
Page 7
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.
Finding of fact : 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 not have
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
SB 1303
Page 8
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 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 the 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
SB 1303
Page 9
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 amended the bill so that the courtesy
notice includes "This Is Not a Ticket" in the heading and deletes
sections that suggest that the vehicle owner is required to
provide the name of the person driving the vehicle at the time the
red light camera photo was captured. According to the Assembly
Judiciary Committee, this amendment removed nearly all of the
opposition to the bill, with the exception of Safer Streets, LA,
which remains strongly opposed to the bill for a variety of
reasons.
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.
Analysis Prepared by : Victoria Alvarez / TRANS. / (916) 319-
2093
FN: 0005017
SB 1303
Page 10