BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2567|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2567
Author: Bradford (D)
Amended: 8/20/10 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE : 7-1, 6/15/10
AYES: Lowenthal, Huff, DeSaulnier, Harman, Kehoe, Pavley,
Simitian
NOES: Ashburn
NO VOTE RECORDED: Oropeza
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 3-1, 6/29/10
AYES: Harman, Hancock, Leno
NOES: Corbett
NO VOTE RECORDED: Walters
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 49-24, 4/22/10 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Photographic enforcement of street sweeping
parking
violations
SOURCE : Affiliated Computer Services
DIGEST : 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.
CONTINUED
AB 2567
Page
2
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/20/10 add intent language to
the bill and correct one technical mistake.
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.
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.
AB 2567
Page
3
Current law enacted by AB 101 (Ma), Chapter 377, Statutes
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 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:
1. Defines a local public agency as a city, county, city
and county, district, or joint powers authority.
2. 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.
3. Provides that only a local public agency may operate an
automated parking enforcement system.
4. Requires that the equipment only capture photographs
when the system detects a parking infraction.
5. 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.
6. Requires the equipment to record the date and time of
the violation on the photograph.
7. Requires information read from a license place at a
location or at a time not designated for streets
sweeping be destroyed by the close of the next business
day.
8. 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
Page
4
9. 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.
10.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.
11.Requires an employee of the local public agency to issue
a citation within 15 days of the violation.
12.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.
13.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.
14.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.
15.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.
16.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
AB 2567
Page
5
enforcement system.
17.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.
18.Provides that the photographic images and any
information read from license plates collected by an
automated enforcement system are confidential and may
only be accessed and used for the purposed of this
program.
19.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 90 days after final disposition of
the citation, whichever occurs sooner. The local public
agency shall destroy the images in a manner that
preserves the confidentiality of any person included in
the image.
20.Requires a local public agency that utilizes an
automated parking enforcement system to collect and
report to the Senate and Assembly Committees on
Judiciary, the Senate Committee on Transportation and
Housing, and the Assembly Committee on Transportation,
data regarding:
A. Number of citations issued.
B. Number of violations contested and the final
disposition of those violations.
C. Number and percentage of photographs recorded
from which notices of parking violations were
issued.
D. Number and percentage of photographs recorded
from which no notices of parking violations were
recorded.
AB 2567
Page
6
E. Summary of instances in which a request for a
photograph for a purpose unrelated to this bill.
F. Procedure use for destruction of license plate
readings.
G. Evaluation of the overall effectiveness of the
program.
H. An evaluation of the privacy implications of the
system.
21.Sunsets these provisions on January 1, 2016.
Background
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.
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
AB 2567
Page
7
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 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.
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."
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 7/2/10)
California Public Parking Association
California State Association of Counties
City and County of San Francisco
City of Los Angeles
City of San Diego
League of California Cities
Oakland City Council
OPPOSITION : (Verified 7/2/10)
American Civil Liberties Union
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
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
AB 2567
Page
8
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.
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.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Ammiano, Arambula, Bass, Beall, Bill Berryhill,
Block, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Charles Calderon,
Carter, Chesbro, Conway, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De
Leon, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani,
Galgiani, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill, Huber, Jones, Lieu,
Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Monning, Nava, Nielsen, V.
Manuel Perez, Portantino, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana,
Skinner, Solorio, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico,
Yamada, John A. Perez
NOES: Adams, Anderson, Tom Berryhill, Blakeslee, DeVore,
Emmerson, Fletcher, Fuller, Gaines, Garrick, Gilmore,
Hagman, Harkey, Jeffries, Knight, Logue, Miller,
Nestande, Niello, Silva, Smyth, Audra Strickland, Tran,
AB 2567
Page
9
Villines
NO VOTE RECORDED: Blumenfield, Caballero, Cook, Hall,
Huffman, Norby, Vacancy
JJA:do 8/23/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****