BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: ab 2567
SENATOR ALAN LOWENTHAL, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: bradford
VERSION: 6/3/10
Analysis by: Mark Stivers FISCAL: no
Hearing date: June 15, 2010
SUBJECT:
Photographic enforcement of street sweeping parking violations
DESCRIPTION:
This bill allows a local public agency to issue parking
citations for violation of street sweeping parking restrictions
based on digital photographs collected by an automated parking
enforcement system installed on street sweepers.
ANALYSIS:
Current state law establishes various parking offenses and
provides local governments with limited ability to adopt local
ordinances establishing additional parking offenses. Parking
offenses are civil rather than criminal violations, subject only
to a civil penalty.
A parking citation must include the violation, the date and
time, the location, the penalty amount, the penalty payment due
date, and the procedure for the owner to pay the penalty or
contest the citation. The citation must also include the
license number and registration expiration date, the last four
digits of the vehicle identification number, and the color and
make of the vehicle cited.
If a person wishes to contest a parking citation, he or she may
request a free initial review by the issuing agency (the city or
county police or parking enforcement department) within 21 days.
If the issuing agency is satisfied that the violation did not
occur, that the registered owner was not responsible for the
violation, or that extenuating circumstances make dismissal of
the citation appropriate in the interest of justice, the issuing
agency cancels the citation.
AB 2567 (BRADFORD) Page 2
If the person is dissatisfied with the results of the initial
review, he or she may request an administrative hearing with the
citation processing agency (which may be the same as the issuing
agency or may be a public or private contractor) within 21 days
following the mailing of the results of the initial review.
Along with the request, the person must deposit the amount of
the penalty with the processing agency unless he or she can
demonstrate an inability to pay. The hearing must be conducted
by a qualified examiner and provide an independent, objective,
fair, and impartial review of the contested parking violation.
The officer or person who issued the citation is not required to
participate in the hearing, and the ticket itself is prima facie
evidence of the violation. Ultimately, a person may contest a
negative hearing decision in superior court.
Current law enacted in 2007 by AB 101 (Ma), Chapter 377, also
allows San Francisco until January 1, 2012 to issue citations
for violations of transit-only traffic lane parking restrictions
based on video images collected from cameras installed on
city-owned public transit vehicles.
This bill allows a local public agency, until January 1, 2016,
to issue parking citations for violation of street sweeping
parking restrictions based on digital photographs collected by
an automated parking enforcement system installed on street
sweepers. Specifically, the bill:
Defines a local public agency as a city, county, city and
county, district, or joint powers authority.
Allows a local public agency to install an automated parking
enforcement system on agency-owned or operated street sweepers
for the purpose of taking digital photographs of parking
violations in street sweeping lanes.
Provides that only a local public agency may operate an
automated parking enforcement system.
Requires that the equipment only capture photographs when the
system detects a parking infraction.
Requires cameras to be angled and focused in a way that
captures images of the vehicles' license plates without
unnecessarily capturing images of drivers, pedestrians, or
other vehicles.
Requires the equipment to record the date and time of the
photograph on the photograph.
Requires the local public agency to issue a public
announcement 30 days prior to beginning to issue citations and
to issue only warnings during the 30-day period.
AB 2567 (BRADFORD) Page 3
Requires a designated city employee who is qualified to issue
parking citations to review the images and determine if a
violation of parking restrictions has occurred.
Allows for citations to be issued only for violations captured
during the hours of the street sweeping parking restrictions,
except that the agency may not issue citations based on
photographic images for violations that occur after the street
has been swept.
Requires an employee of the local public agency to issue a
citation within 15 days of the violation.
Requires the citation to state the parking violation and
include the date, time, and location of the violation, the
license plate number, the registration expiration date if
visible, the color of the vehicle, the make of the vehicle if
possible, a statement that payment is due within 21 days of
the date of issuance, and the process for paying or contesting
the citation. The notice of violation must also include a
copy of the digital photographic evidence.
Requires the local public agency to serve the citation by mail
to the registered owner's last known address listed with the
Department of Motor Vehicles and to maintain proof of mailing.
Allows an owner, consistent with current law for all parking
violations, to request an initial review, to request an
administrative hearing, and ultimately, to contest the
citation in court.
Requires the local public agency, consistent with current law
for all parking violations, to cancel a citation if it
determines that, in the interest of justice, the citation
should be canceled.
Allows the local public agency to contract with a private
vendor for processing citations and notices of delinquent
violation, provided that the agency maintains overall control
of supervision of the automated parking enforcement system.
Provides that there shall be no late fees or penalty increases
if the vehicle owner makes payment or contests the violation
within 21 days of the mailing of the citation or 14 days of
the mailing of a notice of delinquent parking violation.
Provides that the photographic images collected by an
automated enforcement system are confidential and may only be
accessed and used for the purposed of this program.
Requires the local public agency to destroy all photographic
images that do not involve violations within 15 days and all
images that do involve violations within six months or 60 days
after final disposition of the citation, whichever occurs
later. The local public agency shall destroy the images in a
AB 2567 (BRADFORD) Page 4
manner that preserves the confidentiality of any person
included in the image.
Requires a local public agency that utilizes an automated
parking enforcement system on street-sweepers to collect data
and submit a report by January 1, 2015 to the Senate and
Assembly Committees on Judiciary, this committee, and the
Assembly Committee on Transportation that includes the
following:
? The number of citations issued.
? The number of violations contested, and the final
disposition of those violations.
? An evaluation of the overall effectiveness of the
program.
? An evaluation of the privacy implications of the system,
including a summary of any privacy-related complaints about
the system.
Sunsets these provisions on January 1, 2016.
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose of the bill . According to the author, Street sweepers
are used throughout the state and nation to safely remove
debris and pollutants from the streets, thereby providing the
community with a cleaner environment, a reduced risk of
flooding from storm drain blockage, and cleaner water. Local
governments routinely have to contend with illegally parked
vehicles impeding street sweeping. One illegally parked
vehicle can result in up to three or more parking spaces not
being cleaned. These spaces become harbors for trash, debris
and chemicals that can wash into storm drains. By enhancing
enforcement efforts, this bill will facilitate street sweeping
and thereby benefit the environment, improve water quality,
decrease stormwater drain runoff, and help reduce ongoing
habitat deterioration.
2.Previous legislation . In 2009, Assemblyman Eng authored an
almost identical bill, AB 1336. Governor Schwarzenegger
vetoed that bill. In his veto message, the governor wrote:
This bill could present a significant risk of violating an
individual's privacy unrelated to the enforcement of law.
It may also lead to the unwarranted proliferation of camera
enforcement in many other arenas.
AB 2567 (BRADFORD) Page 5
3.Increases enforcement, efficiency, and revenue too . Allowing
local public agencies to issue tickets from an office based on
photographic evidence will cost much less, both in personnel
and equipment costs, than employing parking control officers
to patrol city streets, thereby increasing enforcement efforts
and government efficiency. The revenue generated per ticket,
however, remains the same. As a result, any city or county
that chooses to implement this authority is likely to see a
significant increase both in efficiency and, due to the
increased number of tickets the agency can issue and the
increased margin per ticket, in revenue. In Washington, DC,
budget officials estimated that automated enforcement of
street sweeping parking violations would result in 237,000
more tickets in fiscal 2010.
4.Modeled on AB 101 . AB 101 (Ma) of 2007 allows San Francisco
until January 1, 2012 to issue citations for violations of
transit-only traffic lane parking restrictions based on video
images collected from cameras installed on city-owned public
transit. AB 101 includes a number of procedural and privacy
protections for vehicle owners and the general public. The
language of this bill is almost identical to that of AB 101.
Besides the types of violations to be photographed, the real
difference is that this bill applies statewide, as opposed to
a single jurisdiction.
5.Experiences in other cities . Two cities in the United States,
Chicago and Washington, D.C., have adopted street sweeper
camera programs. Washington, D.C. began issuing tickets based
on street sweeper photographs on March 30, 2009. According to
a press quote from the spokesperson for the city's Department
of Public Works, "Previously, you probably had about a one in
four chance of getting a ticket because of our limited parking
enforcement staff. Now you pretty much have about a 100
percent chance of getting a ticket." In a phone interview
with committee staff, another city official familiar with the
program stated that no privacy issues have been raised to
date, possibly due to the fact that the features of any
individual captured in a photo are blurred and indistinct.
The City of Chicago approved an ordinance and signed a
contract with a camera vendor in 2008. After what a city
spokesperson described to the press as a "very successful
field test" involving six street sweepers, the city
discontinued the program and ended the contract in April of
this year. According to news reports, the city discontinued
AB 2567 (BRADFORD) Page 6
the program because the city could no longer afford it and
because it was not clear that state law allowed the use of
street sweeper cameras.
6.Arguments in opposition . First of all, opponents believe that
this bill is premature because the AB 101 pilot program
allowing San Francisco to use cameras to cite parking
violations in bus lanes has not yet been studied. Second,
this bill raises privacy concerns for opponents. The system
used in Washington, DC includes "license plate recognition
technology," essentially scanners that read and store license
plate numbers. Washington, DC has apparently stated that it
may use the gathered information for other purposes, including
law enforcement. While this bill requires that photos only be
taken when a violation is detected and further prohibits the
local public agency from using photos for any other purpose,
opponents are concerned that the bill does not explicitly
prohibit the use of scanning technology. Because violations
can be documented with photos, there is no need for the use of
scanners, and the bill should prohibit their use. In
addition, opponents would like to see additional language to
ensure that the images of any persons captured in photos are
cropped or blurred to protect privacy. Lastly, opponents have
suggested a number of specific questions to be answered in the
required report. The committee may wish to consider adding
additional privacy protections to the bill.
7.Back to Rules Committee . After referring the bill to this
committee, the Senate Rules Committee asked that this
committee return the bill, if approved, to the Rules Committee
for further consideration of the Judiciary Committee's request
to hear the bill. Historically, the Judiciary Committee has
focused its review on issues related to privacy.
Assembly Votes:
Floor: 49-24
Trans: 11-3
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the Committee before noon on
Wednesday,
June 9, 2010)
SUPPORT: California Public Parking Association
California State Association of Counties
City and County of San Francisco
City of Los Angeles
AB 2567 (BRADFORD) Page 7
City of San Diego
League of California Cities
OPPOSED: American Civil Liberties Union