SB 1051 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis

BILL ANALYSIS Ó

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2015-2016 Regular Session

SB 1051 (Hancock)
Version: April 6, 2016
Hearing Date: May 3, 2016
Fiscal: No
Urgency: No
TH

SUBJECT

Vehicles: Parking Enforcement: Video Image Evidence

DESCRIPTION

Existing law authorizes the City and County of San Francisco to
install automated forward-facing parking control devices on
city-owned public transit vehicles for the purpose of video
imaging parking violations occurring in transit-only traffic
lanes.

This bill would extend this authority to the Alameda-Contra
Costa Transit District, and would expand the authority to
include the video imaging of parking violations occurring at bus
stops.

BACKGROUND

While some counties may have installed automated traffic
enforcement systems at an earlier date, legislative
authorization for automated enforcement procedures relating to
traffic violations began in 1994 with SB 1802 (Rosenthal, Ch.
1216, Stats. 1994). That bill authorized the use of "automated
rail crossing enforcement systems" to enforce prohibitions on
drivers from passing around or under rail crossings while the
gates are closed. (Veh. Code Sec. 22451.) Those systems
functioned by photographing the front license plate and the
driver of vehicles who proceeded around closed rail crossing
gates in violation of the Vehicle Code provisions. The drivers
of photographed vehicles, in turn, received citations for their
violations.

SB 1051 (Hancock)
Page 2 of ?

In 1995, the Legislature authorized a three-year trial red light
camera enforcement system program. (SB 833, Kopp, Ch. 922,
Stats. 1995.) Using similar technology, that program used
sensors connected to cameras to take photographs of the front
license plate and driver upon entering an intersection on a red
light. That program was permanently extended in 1998 by SB 1136
(Kopp, Ch. 54, Stats. 1998).

In 2007, the Legislature authorized a four-year pilot project
where the City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco) was
authorized to install video cameras on city-owned public transit
vehicles for the purpose of video imaging parking violations
occurring in transit-only traffic lanes. (AB 101, Ma, Ch. 377,
Stats. 2007.) Three years later, the Legislature authorized a
five-year statewide pilot project to allow local public agencies
to use automated parking enforcement systems for street
sweeping-related violations. (AB 2567, Bradford, Ch. 471, Stats.
2010.) In 2011, the legislature extended San Francisco's
automated transit-only lane enforcement program for an
additional year, and required the City and County to provide a
report to the Transportation and Judiciary Committees of the
Legislature no later than March 1, 2015, describing the
effectiveness of the pilot program and its impact on privacy.
(AB 1041, Ma, Ch. 325, Stats. 2011.) Following the receipt of
that report, San Francisco's transit-only lane enforcement
program was permanently extended in AB 1287 (Chiu, Ch. 485,
Stats. 2015).

This bill would authorize the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit
District to operate an automated transit-only lane enforcement
program similar to San Francisco's, and would expand both
programs to include automated enforcement of parking violations
occurring at bus stops.

CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW

Existing law authorizes the use of an automated enforcement
system for enforcement of red light violations by a governmental
agency, subject to specific requirements and limitations. (Veh.
Code Sec. 21455.5.) Existing law provides that a violation of
any regulation governing the standing or parking of a vehicle
under the Vehicle Code, federal statute or regulation, or local
ordinance, is subject to a civil penalty. (Veh. Code Sec.
40200.)

SB 1051 (Hancock)
Page 3 of ?

Existing law provides that notice of a parking violation must
contain certain information, including information stating that
unless the parking penalty is paid or contested within 21
calendar days from the issuance of a citation, or 14 calendar
days from the mailing of the violation, as specified, the
renewal of the vehicle registration shall be contingent upon
compliance with the notice. (Veh. Code Sec. 40207.)

Existing law authorizes the City and County of San Francisco
(San Francisco) to install automated forward facing parking
control devices on city-owned public transit vehicles for the
purpose of video imaging parking violations occurring in
transit-only traffic lanes. Existing law defines a
"transit-only traffic lane" to mean any designated transit-only
lane on which use is restricted to mass transit vehicles, or
other designated vehicles including taxis and vanpools, during
posted times. (Veh. Code Sec. 40240(a), (h).)

Existing law states that citations shall only be issued for
violations captured during the posted hours of operation for a
transit-only traffic lane. Existing law requires designated
employees to review video image recordings for the purpose of
determining whether a parking violation occurred in a
transit-only traffic lane, and permits alleged violators to
review the video image evidence of the alleged violation during
normal business hours at no cost. (Veh. Code Sec. 40240(a),
(c), (d).)

Existing law requires automated forward facing parking control
devices to be angled and focused so as to capture video images
of parking violations and not unnecessarily capture identifying
images of other drivers, vehicles, and pedestrians. Existing
law requires the devices to record the date and time of the
violation at the same time video images are captured, and
provides that video image records are confidential and shall not
be used or accessed for any purposes not related to the
enforcement of parking violations occurring in transit-only
traffic lanes. (Veh. Code Sec. 40240(a), (f).)

Existing law authorizes the retention of video image evidence
obtained from an automated forward facing parking control device
for up to six months from the date the information was obtained,
or 60 days after final disposition of the citation, whichever
date is later, and provides that after such time the information

SB 1051 (Hancock)
Page 4 of ?

shall be destroyed. Existing law requires video image evidence
from forward facing automated enforcement devices that does not
contain evidence of a parking violation occurring in a
transit-only traffic lane to be destroyed within 15 days after
the information was first obtained. (Veh. Code Sec. 40240(e).)

Existing law states that prior to issuing notices of parking
violations pursuant to this authority, San Francisco shall
commence a program to issue only warning notices for 30 days,
and shall also make a public announcement of the program at
least 30 days prior to commencement of issuing notices of
parking violations. (Veh. Code Sec. 40240(b).)

This bill would authorize the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit
District to install automated forward facing parking control
devices on district-owned public transit vehicles for the
purpose of video imaging parking violations occurring in
transit-only traffic lanes under the same terms and conditions
that govern San Francisco's automated enforcement program.

This bill would expand the automated transit-only lane
enforcement program authorized for both San Francisco and the
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District to include the video
imaging of parking violations occurring at bus stops.

This bill would define "bus stop" to mean a curb space
authorized for the loading and unloading of passengers of a bus
engaged as a common carrier in local transportation when
indicated by a sign or red paint on the curb erected or painted
by local authorities pursuant to an ordinance.

COMMENT

1.Stated need for the bill

According to the author:
SB 1051 adds [the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC
Transit)] to existing law that authorizes the use of forward
facing cameras to issue citations for vehicles illegally
stopped in a bus-only lane or at a transit bus stop. Blocking
access to bus stops is a growing problem, and it raises
significant safety issues for passengers boarding or exiting
the bus if the bus cannot pull up to the curb. This is a
particularly acute safety and access issue for those
individuals who have disabilities or need extra assistance

SB 1051 (Hancock)
Page 5 of ?

with the boarding process, like children or the elderly.
Furthermore, there is resulting congestion if the bus cannot
pull out of the traffic lane when an illegally parked vehicle
prevents access to the bus stop.

AC Transit is currently building a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
corridor that will utilize dedicated bus-only lanes. This BRT
project will provide fast, frequent and reliable transit
service between 20th Street in downtown Oakland and the San
Leandro BART station. The buses will travel in a dedicated
bus-only lane for most of the corridor, similar to rail
service. This will improve service reliability and frequency,
with 5-minute headways during peak times. Emergency vehicles
may also use the BRT lane, which can improve emergency
response times. The corridor primarily runs along
International Boulevard and E. 14th Street. Service will
begin in late 2017. Given the issues experienced in San
Francisco with vehicles illegally stopped in bus-only lanes,
AC Transit is sponsoring SB 1051 in order to have this
authority in place before service begins.

2.Right to Privacy

The California Constitution provides that all people have
inalienable rights, including the right to pursue and obtain
privacy. (Cal. Const., art. I, Sec. 1.) This "right of privacy
is vitally important. It derives, in this state, not only from
the protections against unreasonable searches and seizures
guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 13,
but also from article I, section 1, of our State Constitution.
Homage to personhood is the foundation for individual rights
protected by our state and national Constitutions." (In re
William G. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 550, 563.)

This Committee has previously expressed concern about the
privacy implications of equipping large numbers of transit
vehicles with forward-facing video cameras that record not only
other vehicles, but also individuals on sidewalks and commercial
and residential property adjacent to the roadway. When San
Francisco's automated transit-only lane enforcement (TOLE) pilot
program was reauthorized by AB 1041 (Ma, Ch. 325, Stats. 2011),
the Legislature directed San Francisco to evaluate the privacy
impacts of the program as part of a larger report on the TOLE
program. That report was submitted in March 2015 and stated in
relevant part:

SB 1051 (Hancock)
Page 6 of ?

The TOLE images and recordings are dedicated to the TOLE
program and can only be used for the TOLE program. The images
and footage are not used for general surveillance. Video for
the TOLE program is recorded onto a special, dedicated hard
drive for professional parking control officers to review for
violations. After reviewing footage, hard drives are
installed back onto Muni buses where they are overwritten with
new data. Each hard drive can hold approximately 72 hours of
video footage. There have been no recorded privacy complaints
related to the TOLE program since the program began.

The Committee's analysis of that report, in the context of AB
1287 (Chiu, Ch. 485, Stats. 2015) which extended San Francisco's
TOLE program indefinitely, noted:

The lack of privacy-related complaints concerning this program
may be attributable to specific requirements built in to the
statute authorizing San Francisco's automation of transit-only
lane parking enforcement. Pursuant to this statute, San
Francisco's automated forward facing parking control devices
must be angled and focused so as to capture video images of
parking violations and not unnecessarily capture identifying
images of other drivers, vehicles, and pedestrians. Existing
law specifies that these video records are confidential and
may not be used or accessed for any purposes not related to
the enforcement of parking violations occurring in
transit-only traffic lanes. Video recordings collected by the
automated enforcement system must be destroyed no later than
six months after the date of collection, or 60 days after the
final disposition of a citation issued on the basis of a
recorded image, whichever is later. Video recordings not
containing evidence of a parking violation in a transit-only
traffic lane must be destroyed within 15 days after
collection.

Together, these statutory restrictions and the experience
gained through the pilot program suggest that this automated
enforcement program is not having a negative impact on
Californian's fundamental right to privacy. However, . . . it
is unclear whether the proposed expansion of transit-only
corridors to other areas of the city over the next ten years
will have a negative impact on privacy interests, particularly
if this expansion reaches into residential districts or other
areas where individuals have a heightened expectation of

SB 1051 (Hancock)
Page 7 of ?

privacy.

Importantly, the Committee's analysis stated that "statutory
restrictions and the experience gained through the pilot
program" suggest that the program was not having a negative
impact on the right to privacy, but the analysis reserved
judgment as to whether the expansion of the program into other
areas would negatively impact this fundamental right.

AC Transit's automated transit-lane only enforcement program is
currently in the proposal stage. As such, no assessment of the
proposed program's privacy impacts is available for review, and
the Committee has no directly related body of experience to draw
from regarding how the program will perform in these new
communities. Consequently, the Committee should consider
whether an analysis of the program's impact on privacy ought to
be required before AC Transit's automated enforcement program is
permanently authorized.

Suggested Amendment :

If the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District implements an
automated enforcement system to enforce violations occurring
in transit-only traffic lanes, as specified, the District
shall provide to the transportation and judiciary committees
of the Legislature an evaluation of the enforcement system's
effectiveness and impact on privacy in compliance with Section
9795 of the Government Code, no later than January 1, 2021.

The authority for the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District to
implement an automated enforcement system to enforce
violations occurring in transit-only traffic lanes shall
remain in effect only until January 1, 2022, and as of that
date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is
enacted before January 1, 2022, deletes or extends that date.

3.Revenue Generation

This Committee has also previously expressed concern over the
use of automated traffic enforcement programs not as means to
promote roadway safety, but as a mechanism for revenue
generation. The Committee's analysis of AB 101 (Ma, Ch. 377,
Stats. 2007), which created San Francisco's automated
transit-only lane enforcement program noted:

SB 1051 (Hancock)
Page 8 of ?

While previously allowing citations based upon photographic
evidence for dangerous rail crossings and red light violations
appeared to be mainly supported by the lives that would be
saved by increased enforcement, and deterrence of reckless
conduct, parking violations do not rise to that level.
. . . Thus, the program proposed by this bill represents a
fundamental shift in the justification required in order to
implement an automatic enforcement system. If cost savings
are considered sufficient justification for such automation,
many additional types of violations could be modified pursuant
to the precedent set by [AB 101].

Similarly, the Committee's analysis of AB 2567 (Bradford, Ch.
471, Stats. 2010), which authorized local public agencies to
install and operate automated parking enforcement systems on
street sweepers, noted:

[AB 2567] would rely upon the precedent set by AB 101 (Ma,
2007) to allow street sweepers throughout the state to capture
digital photographs for purposes of issuing parking citations.
That precedent - authorizing the use of cameras to save on
costs - represents a fundamental change in how California has
historically used cameras to enforce violations. This
legislation represents another step away from the rationale
previously used to justify the use of cameras for automated
enforcement. Although this bill could arguably result in
reduced employee costs for local governments (and increased
revenue from citations), part of that cost reduction could
also come in the form of fewer employees needed to patrol for
those violations.

In response to the concern that these automated enforcement
programs could be used more for revenue generation than for
roadway safety, the reauthorization of San Francisco's automated
enforcement program in 2011 included a requirement that San
Francisco prepare a report for the Legislature evaluating the
effectiveness of the program, including an analysis of the
program's implementation costs against its revenue generation.
That report was submitted in March of 2015 and showed that San
Francisco's automated enforcement program for transit-only lanes
at the time operated at a sustained loss. No such study has
been conducted regarding AC Transit's proposed automated
enforcement program. Consequently, the Committee should
consider whether a similar cost/revenue analysis ought to be
required before AC Transit's automated enforcement program is

SB 1051 (Hancock)
Page 9 of ?

permanently authorized.

Suggested Amendment :

If the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District implements an
automated enforcement system to enforce violations occurring
in transit-only traffic lanes, as specified, the District
shall provide to the transportation and judiciary committees
of the Legislature an evaluation of the enforcement system's
effectiveness, cost to implement, and generation of revenue,
in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government Code, no
later than January 1, 2021.

4.Expansion to bus stops

Unlike previous automated transit-only lane enforcement
programs, this bill would expand automated enforcement to
parking violations occurring at bus stops. Such a change
represents a significant expansion to automated transit vehicle
enforcement authority, and raises new concerns not previously
evaluated by this Committee or the Legislature. Depending on
how authorized entities administer this new power, it could lead
to an unreasonable or inflexible mode of enforcement that would
not necessarily be the case with enforcement by traffic officers
present to witness a violation.

Videographic evidence necessarily limits the field of view of an
observer, and prevents consideration of relevant facts that
would otherwise be available to an officer who sees an event
transpire in person. Will a transit vehicle's camera system be
able to clearly distinguish between a vehicle slowing to park
adjacent to a bus stop versus a vehicle parked in a designated
bus stop? Would the angle of a transit vehicle's camera obscure
critical facts that explain a would-be violator's actions, such
as the presence of a small child in a vehicle's path of travel,
or a disabled vehicle obstructing the normal flow of traffic?
The Committee may wish to consider whether expanding transit
vehicle based automated enforcement to bus stops ought to be

SB 1051 (Hancock)
Page 10 of ?

implemented on a trial basis or through a time-limited pilot
program.

Suggested Amendment :

If the City and County of San Francisco or the Alameda-Contra
Costa Transit District implements an automated enforcement
system to enforce parking violations occurring in bus stops,
as specified, the implementing agency shall provide to the
transportation and judiciary committees of the Legislature an
evaluation of the enforcement system's effectiveness, impact
on privacy, cost to implement, and generation of revenue, in
compliance with Section 9795 of the Government Code, no later
than January 1, 2021.

The authority to implement an automated enforcement system to
enforce parking violations occurring in bus stops shall remain
in effect only until January 1, 2022, and as of that date is
repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted
before January 1, 2022, deletes or extends that date.

Support : California Public Parking Association

Opposition : None Known

HISTORY

Source : Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

Related Pending Legislation : None Known

Prior Legislation :

AB 1287 (Chiu, Ch. 485, Stats. 2015) See Background.

AB 1041 (Ma, Ch. 325, Stats. 2011) See Background.

AB 2567 (Bradford, Ch. 471, Stats. 2010) See Background.

AB 101 (Ma, Ch. 377, Stats. 2007) See Background.

SB 1136 (Kopp, Ch. 54, Stats. 1998) See Background.

SB 833 (Kopp, Ch. 922, Stats. 1995) See Background.

SB 1051 (Hancock)
Page 11 of ?

SB 1802 (Rosenthal, Ch. 1216, Stats. 1994) See Background.

Prior Vote : Senate Transportation and Housing Committee (Ayes
11, Noes 0)

**************