BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Ellen M. Corbett, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
AB 1336
Assemblymember Eng
As Amended May 4, 2009
Hearing Date: July 14, 2009
Vehicle Code
BCP:jd
SUBJECT
Parking Violations: Digital Image Recordings
DESCRIPTION
This bill would authorize a local public agency to utilize an
automated parking enforcement system that uses equipment
installed on street sweepers to take digital images of parking
violations occurring in street-sweeping parking lanes during
designated street sweeping hours.
The bill would require a designated employee to review the
digital image recordings, determine whether a parking violation
occurred and to issue a notice of a parking violation to the
registered owner within 15 days of the violation, as specified.
This bill would require that notice of parking violation to be
served by depositing the notice in the mail to the registered
owner's last known address listed with the Department of Motor
Vehicles.
This bill would allow the local public agency to contract with a
private vendor for the installation and maintenance of the
automated parking enforcement system and for the processing of
notices of violation, provided that overall control and
supervision is maintained by the local public agency.
BACKGROUND
While some counties may have already installed certain automated
systems, legislative authorization for automated enforcement
procedures relating to traffic violations began in 1994 with SB
(more)
AB 1336 (Eng)
Page 2 of ?
1802 (Rosenthal, Chapter 1216, Statutes of 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 that proceeded
around closed rail crossing gates in violation of the Vehicle
Code provisions. Those drivers, in turn, received citations for
their violations.
In 1995, the Legislature authorized a three-year trial red light
camera enforcement system program. (SB 833, Kopp, Chapter 922,
Statutes of 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, Chapter 54, Statutes of 1998).
In 2007, the Legislature authorized a four-year pilot project
where the City and County of San Francisco was authorized to
install video cameras on city-owned public transit and for the
purpose of videotaping parking violations in transit-only
traffic lanes. (AB 101, Ma, Chapter 377, Statutes of 2007.)
The City and County of San Francisco is required to provide an
evaluation of the effectiveness of that program no later than
March 1, 2011, and the authorization itself will sunset on
January 1, 2012.
This bill would grant a broad authority, based on AB 101, that
would allow a local public agency to utilize an automated
parking enforcement system that uses cameras on street sweepers
for the purpose of the digital imaging of parking violations.
Under current law, parking violations are civil violations,
subject only to a civil penalty. Those violations must contain
the basis for the violation, a statement that payment is due no
later than 21 days from the date of issuance, and the procedure
to contest the citation. Those violations must also state the
license number and registration date, if visible, the last four
digits of the vehicle identification number, if readable, the
color of the vehicle, and, if possible, the make of the vehicle.
This bill would adapt those provisions for use in enforcement
of parking violations in street sweeping parking lanes, as
specified, including the procedure for contesting a notice of
violation, contents of the notice of violation, use of the
digital image evidence, and method for delivery of the notice of
violation.
AB 1336 (Eng)
Page 3 of ?
This bill was approved by the Senate Committee on Transportation
and Housing on June 16, 2009.
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.)
Existing law provides that notice of a delinquent parking
violation must contain various information, including a notice
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 a delinquent parking violation, as
specified, the renewal of the vehicle registration is contingent
upon compliance with the notice. (Veh. Code Sec. 40207.)
Existing law authorized the City and County of San Francisco
(San Francisco), until January 1, 2012, to enforce parking
violations in specified transit-only traffic lanes through the
use of video image evidence. San Francisco was authorized to
install automated forward facing parking control devices on
city-owned public transit vehicles for the purpose of
video-imaging parking violations in transit-only traffic lanes.
If implemented, San Francisco was required to submit an
evaluation of the program on or before March 1, 2011. (Veh.
Code Sec. 40207 et seq.)
This bill would enact a similar program with regards to street
sweepers throughout all of California. Specifically, this bill
would allow a local public agency to use an automated parking
enforcement system that includes the installation of equipment
on street sweepers for the purpose of digital imaging parking
violations occurring in street-sweeping lanes. That equipment
must be angled and focused so as to capture images of license
plates of vehicles violating street-sweeping regulations and
must not unnecessarily capture identifying images of other
drivers, vehicles, or pedestrians.
This bill would permit citations to be issued only for
AB 1336 (Eng)
Page 4 of ?
violations captured during the designated hours of operation for
a street-sweeping lane, as specified.
This bill would provide that, prior to issuing notices of
parking violations, the local public agency shall issue only
warning notices for 30 days, and make a public announcement of
the automated system.
This bill would permit a designated employee for the local
public agency to review digital image recordings for purposes of
determining whether a parking violation occurred in a
street-sweeping parking lane. A violation of a statute,
regulation, ordinance governing parking under the Vehicle Code,
a federal or state statute or regulation, or an ordinance
enacted by the local public agency occurring in a
street-sweeping parking lane observed by the designated employee
in the recordings would be subject to a civil penalty. The
registered owner shall be permitted to review the digital image
evidence of the alleged violation on the Internet or during
normal business hours at no cost.
This bill would provide that digital image evidence may be
retained for up to six months from the date the information was
first obtained, or 60 days after final disposition of the
citation, whichever date is later, after which time the
information shall be destroyed in a manner that preserves the
confidentiality of any person included in the record or
information, as specified. Images that do not contain evidence
of a parking violation must be destroyed within 15 days after
the information was first obtained.
This bill would provide that the digital image records made by
an automated parking enforcement system are confidential, and
that local public agencies shall use and allow access to those
records only for purposes authorized by this bill.
This bill would require a designated employee for the local
public agency to issue a notice of parking violation to the
registered owner within 15 calendar days of the violation, as
specified. The notice must include a statement that payment is
required within 21 calendar days from the date of issuance, and
the procedure to deposit the parking penalty or to contest the
citation. The local public agency must also send information
regarding the process for requesting review of the digital image
along with the notice of parking violation.
AB 1336 (Eng)
Page 5 of ?
This bill would state that the notice of parking violation shall
be served by mail and sent to the registered owner's last known
address listed with the Department of Motor Vehicles. If
payment is made within either 21 calendar days from the date of
mailing of the citation, or 14 calendar days after mailing of
the notice of delinquent parking violation, the parking penalty
shall consist solely of the amount of the original penalty. A
local agency may cancel a notice of parking violation if that
that agency determines that the violation should be cancelled in
the interest of justice.
This bill would permit a contestant to seek court review by
filing an appeal, as specified, following an initial review by
the local agency and an administrative hearing.
This bill would also permit the local public agency to contract
with a private vendor for the installation and maintenance of
the automated parking enforcement system in addition to the
processing of notices of parking violations and notices of
delinquent violations, if the local public agency maintains
overall control and supervision of the automated parking
enforcement system.
This bill would define local public agency, street sweeper,
automated parking enforcement system, and street-sweeping
parking lane.
This bill would additionally codify various findings and
declaration regarding the benefits of street sweeping.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
The California Public Parking Association (CPPA), sponsor,
states:
AB 1336 will significantly help reduce urban runoff into our
lakes, rivers, and beaches while uniformly enforcing posted
parking regulations. Each year, illegally-parked private
cars, trucks and service vehicles on local streets and roads
disrupt full street sweeping of as many as three parking
spaces per illegally parked vehicle, resulting in
significant debris, grease, oil, metals, and other
pollutants being needlessly washed into storm water drains
rather than being captured by street sweepers. . . .
AB 1336 (Eng)
Page 6 of ?
We believe street sweepers that use an automated parking
enforcement system for the purpose of enforcing parking
violations occurring in street-sweeping parking lanes will
effectively complement the work and responsibilities of
parking enforcement personnel as well as help in the
allocation of resources for higher priority parking
violations and other more critical transportation
enforcement demands.
2. AB 101 (Ma, 2007)
This bill is similar to AB 101 (Ma, 2007), which authorized the
City and County of San Francisco to issue citations based on
photo-evidence of transit-only parking violations. This
committee's analysis raised questions about the privacy
implications resulting from the placement of outward facing
cameras on transit vehicles and stated:
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].
This bill would rely upon the precedent set by AB 101 (Ma, 2007)
to allow street sweepers throughout the state to capture digital
images for purposes of issuing citations. It should also be
noted that AB 101 sunsets on January 1, 2012, and as part of
that sunset requires a report to be provided by the City and
County of San Francisco, no later than March 1, 2011, that
evaluates the pilot program's effectiveness.
3. Distinctions from AB 101
While the general framework proposed by this bill is similar to
that enacted by AB 101, there are several significant
distinctions regarding its scope and impact on the privacy of
AB 1336 (Eng)
Page 7 of ?
residents.
a. Privacy considerations of authorizing digital imaging from
street sweepers
As approved by this committee, AB 101 permitted cameras to
only record images when the driver actually observes a parking
violation. The committee analysis noted that the proposed
"limited use of video recording would prevent unnecessary,
potentially privacy invasive video footage from being
captured." While floor amendments removed that provision,
those compromise amendments sought to respond to the privacy
concerns by removing street sweepers, and allowing citations
only for violations occurring in named transit-only traffic
lanes.
From a privacy standpoint, the routes of transit buses
authorized by AB 101 were through downtown urban areas. On
the other hand, street sweepers travel through all parts,
residential and nonresidential, of a city. As a result, the
proposed cameras represent a greater privacy risk by
authorizing the use of cameras in residential areas for which
there currently is no surveillance.
b. Scope of AB 1336 and author's amendments
It should also be noted that unlike AB 101, the provisions of
the bill are not limited to a specific county, downtown area,
street sweeping route, or contain a sunset. In response to
concerns about the privacy implications and breadth of the
bill, the author offers the following amendments:
A 5-year sunset;
Require any local public agency implementing the
program to report on its effectiveness and the impact of
the program on the privacy of residents; and
Allow digital images to be recorded only where there
appears to be an actual parking violation.
4. Issues associated with private vendor contracts
Similar to AB 101, this bill would allow a local public agency
to contract with a private vendor for the processing of notices
of parking violations and notice of delinquent violations. A
similar allowance is provided in Vehicle Code Section 21455.5
relating to red light photo citations, but that allowance states
that certain activities may not be contracted out to the
AB 1336 (Eng)
Page 8 of ?
manufacturer or supplier of the automated enforcement system.
In addition to the above abilities to contract, this bill would
specifically permit the local agency to contract with a private
vendor for the installation and maintenance of the automated
parking enforcement system. Staff notes that the additional
ability to contract goes beyond the authority granted in AB 101,
and raises concerns about the role of a private vendor in the
proposed automated enforcement system. Consistent with the
language enacted by AB 101, the following amendment is suggested
to strike the ability to contract for the installation and
maintenance of the automated parking enforcement system.
Suggested amendment:
On page 7, lines 8 through 9, strike "installation and
maintenance of the automated parking enforcement system in
addition to the"
It should be noted that nothing in this bill details the fee
that a public agency may pay to the private vendor for
processing the notices of parking violations and notices of
delinquent violations. Depending on the role that the vendor
has in the process, and whether their pay is based upon the
revenue generated from the parking violations, that vendor may
have an incentive to become overzealous in the issuance of those
violations. While the agency is required to maintain overall
control and supervision of the program, as noted above, it is
the day-to-day operations (such as installation and maintenance)
that impact whether a consumer receives a notice of violation.
Committee staff notes that legal questions have been previously
raised about the red light camera program in San Francisco and
other cities. The San Francisco Chronicle's February 22, 2006
article discussing an agreement by red light camera plaintiffs
to dismiss a case against the cities of San Francisco and San
Diego noted that "[l]awyers for the plaintiffs argued that the
use of automatic cameras was unconstitutional because some of
the money from ticket fines was being paid to a private company,
which installs and maintains the cameras." The article reported
that the plaintiffs dropped the action "to avoid exposing
clients to a potential claim from San Francisco and San Diego
for legal costs."
5. Provisions of the bill do include protections previously
recommended by this committee
AB 1336 (Eng)
Page 9 of ?
Despite the above issues, this bill does contain language either
suggested by this committee, or later agreed to by the author of
AB 101 that provides both due process protections and addresses
some of the issues relating to privacy.
Specifically, this bill would: (1) require digital imaging
equipment to be angled and focused so as to capture digital
images of license plates on vehicles violating designated street
sweeping regulations; (2) require the designated employee who
reviews the recordings to be qualified by the local public
agency to issue parking citations; (3) require images to be
destroyed within 15 days after the information was obtained if
it does not contain evidence of a parking violation; and (4)
allow citations to be issued only for violations captured during
designated hours of operation for a street-sweeping parking
lane.
6. Clarifying amendments
The following amendments are suggested to clarify the provisions
of the bill.
a. Codified findings and declarations reference proven
technology
The bill includes significant codified findings and
declarations relating to the benefits of street sweeping.
Those findings also state that cities such as Chicago and
Washington D.C. already utilize parking enforcement systems
and thereby employ "proven technology" to enforce regulations
and improve compliance. Considering that California has not
had the opportunity to evaluate the technology used as part of
AB 101, or elsewhere, the bill should be amended to strike
that phrase.
Suggested amendment:
On page 3, line 25, strike "thereby employing proven
technology"
b. Definition of "street-sweeping parking lane"
While this bill authorizes a local public agency to use
digital images for the purpose of capturing parking violations
in street-sweeping parking lanes, those lanes are broadly
AB 1336 (Eng)
Page 10 of ?
defined as any street or road routinely cleaned by street
sweepers during designated hours of operation as indicated on
schedule signs designated on both sides of the street or road.
The following amendment is suggested to narrow that
definition to lanes designated for parking.
Suggested amendment:
On page 4, line 11, after "means" insert:
the lane designated as a parking area on
c. Confidentiality of information
While the bill states that digital images which contain
evidence of a violation must be destroyed in a manner that
preserves confidentiality, that same privacy protection is not
required when images are destroyed because they do not contain
evidence of a parking violation. The following amendment is
suggested to add the same privacy protection to that
provision:
Suggested amendment:
On page 5, line 34 before the period, insert:
in a manner that shall preserve the confidentiality of any
person included in the information.
d. Unclear whether footage is limited to photographs
The bill would define "automated parking enforcement system"
as equipment that takes a digital-camera based photograph
which is linked with a violation detection system that
synchronizes the taking of the photograph with the occurrence
of a parking infraction. While that definition appears to
only cover digital "still" images, the actual language of the
bill refers to the "digital imaging of parking violations."
To provide uniformity within the bill, the following amendment
is suggested to replace references to digital images with
references to digital photographs.
SHOULD REFERENCES TO DIGITAL IMAGES BE REPLACED WITH
REFERENCES TO DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHS?
AB 1336 (Eng)
Page 11 of ?
7. Author's amendments to be offered in committee
The following amendments were accepted by the author in the
Senate Transportation and Housing Committee but are to be taken
in this committee for procedural reasons. Those amendments
would clarify the language of the bill, and require the notice
of parking violation to include a copy of the digital image
evidence of the violation.
1) On page 2, before line 1, insert:
SECTION 1. Section 40207 of the Vehicle Code, as amended by
Section 1 of Chapter 377 of the Statutes of 2007, is amended
to read:
40207. (a) The notice of delinquent parking violation
shall contain the information specified in subdivision (a) of
Section 40202 or subdivision (a) of Section 40241, or
subdivision (a) of Section 40248, as applicable, and Section
40203, and, additionally shall contain a notice to the
registered owner that, unless the registered owner pays the
parking penalty or contests the citation within 21 calendar days
from the date of issuance of the citation or 14 calendar days
after the mailing of the notice of delinquent parking violation
or completes and files an affidavit of nonliability which
complies with Section 40208 or 40209, the renewal of the vehicle
registration shall be contingent upon compliance with the notice
of delinquent parking violation. If the registered owner, by
appearance or by mail, makes payment to the processing agency
within 21 calendar days from the date of issuance of the
citation or 14 calendar days after the mailing of the notice of
delinquent parking violation, the parking penalty shall consist
solely of the amount of the original penalty. Additional fees,
assessments, or other charges shall not be added.
(b) This section shall remain in effect only until January
1, 2012, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2012, deletes or
extends that date.
SEC. 2. Section 40207 of the Vehicle Code, as added by
Section 2 of Chapter 377 of the Statutes of 2007, is amended to
read:
40207. (a) The notice of delinquent parking violation
shall contain the information specified in subdivision (a) of
Section 40202 or subdivision (a) of Section 40248, as
applicable, and Section 40203, and, additionally shall contain a
notice to the registered owner that, unless the registered owner
AB 1336 (Eng)
Page 12 of ?
pays the parking penalty or contests the citation within 21
calendar days from the date of issuance of the citation or 14
calendar days after the mailing of the notice of delinquent
parking violation or completes and files an affidavit of
nonliability which complies with Section 40208 or 40209, the
renewal of the vehicle registration shall be contingent upon
compliance with the notice of delinquent parking violation. If
the registered owner, by appearance or by mail, makes payment to
the processing agency within 21 calendar days from the date of
issuance of the citation or 14 calendar days after the mailing
of the notice of delinquent parking violation, the parking
penalty shall consist solely of the amount of the original
penalty. Additional fees, assessments, or other charges shall
not be added.
(b) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2012.
2) On page 4, line 15, strike out "utilize" and insert:
install and operate
3) On page 4, lines 16 and 17, strike out "that includes
the installation of equipment"
4) On page 4, strike out line 40, on page 5, strike out
lines 1 through 3, inclusive, and
insert:
shall make a public announcement of the automated parking
enforcement system at least 30 days prior to the commencement of
issuing notices of parking violation and shall only issue
warning notices during this 30-day period.
5) On page 5, strike out lines 18-21
6) On page 6, line 15, strike out "The" and insert:
The notice of parking violation shall include a copy of the
digital image evidence. Except as provided in 40247(e)(1),
the
7) On page 6, lines 18-21 strike out "The local public
agency shall send information regarding the process for
requesting review of the digital image evidence along with
the notice of parking violation."
AB 1336 (Eng)
Page 13 of ?
Support : City of San Diego; City and County of San Francisco;
League of California Cities; City of Los Angeles
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Source : California Public Parking Association
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation : AB 101 (Ma, Chapter 377, Statutes of 2007),
See Background.
Prior Vote :
Assembly Transportation Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 3)
Assembly Floor (Ayes 44, Noes 24)
Senate Transportation and Housing Committee (Ayes 9, Noes 2)
**************