BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: Sb 1362
SENATOR ALAN LOWENTHAL, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: simitian
VERSION: 3/23/10
Analysis by: Jennifer Gress FISCAL: no
Hearing date: May 4, 2010
SUBJECT:
Automated traffic enforcement systems (i.e., red light cameras)
DESCRIPTION:
This bill helps to ensure that red light camera programs are
designed to maximize traffic safety and are implemented in a
lawful and transparent manner.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law authorizes the use of automated traffic enforcement
systems at railroad crossings and intersections to record
violations of unlawful grade crossings and red light running.
Only a governmental agency, in cooperation with a law
enforcement agency, may operate an automated enforcement system.
Under existing law, "operating" a system means that a
governmental agency does the following:
Develops uniform guidelines for screening and issuing
violations, processing and storing confidential information,
and selecting locations where automated enforcements systems
will be utilized.
Establishes procedures to ensure compliance with those
guidelines.
Certifies that the equipment is properly installed and
calibrated and is operating properly.
Ensures that the equipment is regularly inspected.
Inspects and maintains signs that warn drivers that an
SB 1362 (SIMITIAN) Page 2
automated enforcement system is in use. These signs must be
visible to traffic approaching an intersection where an
automated enforcement system operates and clearly identify the
presence of the camera system at that intersection.
Oversees the establishment or change of signal phases and
timing. The yellow light change interval must be established
in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices, which is maintained by the California Department of
Transportation.
Maintains controls necessary to assure that only those
citations that law enforcement personnel have reviewed and
approved are delivered to violators.
A governmental agency may contract out its duties to certify
that the equipment is installed and operating properly and to
ensure that the equipment is regularly inspected, provided the
agency maintains overall control and supervision of the system.
Prior to entering into a contract with a vendor to implement an
automated enforcement system, the legislative body of the local
government (e.g., city council or county board of supervisors)
must conduct a public hearing on the proposed use of the system.
A contract between a governmental agency and a vendor of
automated enforcement equipment may not include a provision for
payment to the vendor based on the number of citations issued or
the amount of revenue generated, unless the contract was entered
into prior to January 1, 2004.
Prior to issuing citations, an agency utilizing an automated
traffic enforcement system must make a public announcement of
the system and issue only warning notices for 30 days. A peace
officer or "qualified employee" of a law enforcement agency
reviews the photographs and issues citations, as appropriate. A
citation involves a "notice to appear," which must use a form
approved by the Judicial Council and contain particular
information, including the name and address of the registered
owner of the vehicle identified in the photograph, the license
plate number of the vehicle, the violation charged, and the time
and place when the person may appear in court. A notice to
appear must be mailed within 15 days of the alleged violation to
the current address of the registered owner of the vehicle.
Existing law contains several provisions regarding the
confidentiality of information collected for purposes of issuing
SB 1362 (SIMITIAN) Page 3
citations for violations captured by an automated enforcement
system. Photographic records produced by automated systems, as
well as information obtained from the Department of Motor
Vehicles (DMV) are confidential and may only be used for traffic
enforcement purposes. This information may be retained for up
to six months from the date the information was first obtained,
or until final disposition of the citation, whichever is later.
After that time, the information is to be destroyed in a manner
that preserves the confidentiality of the person whose
information had been obtained.
This bill :
Requires that signs indicating an automated enforcement
system's presence be placed at both the intersection where the
system operates and at all major entrances to the city.
Requires that a government agency base its guidelines for
selecting a location on safety and make the guidelines
available to the public, including posting them on the
government agency's website.
Provides that a citation issued by a government agency is null
and void if the entity fails to operate its automated
enforcement system in compliance with the law.
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose . In response to the author's annual "There Oughta Be
A Law" contest, one constituent, San Jose resident Vera Gil,
reported that she had been mis-identified three times by red
light cameras located in Southern California. The vehicle
captured in the photograph was not hers, she was not the
driver identified in the photo, and she had not traveled to
Southern California where the violation was recorded. Because
private companies are involved in the issuance of tickets from
automated enforcement systems, it sometimes took Ms. Gil many
steps to demonstrate her innocence.
Ms. Gil's experience prompted the author to investigate how
red light camera programs were being implemented around the
state. This bill, and the author's amendments discussed in
the second comment, are the product of that investigation.
SB 1362 (SIMITIAN) Page 4
Three red light camera vendors operate automated enforcement
programs in California: Redflex, American Traffic Solutions
(ATS), and Affiliated Computer Systems (ACS). Each vendor has
its own business model that it tailors to meet the preferences
and needs of the local agencies with which it contracts. As a
result, there is tremendous variation in how red light cameras
programs are administered throughout the state. Examples of
program elements that may vary include whether the vendor or
the law enforcement agency screens incidents captured by the
system, the criteria used to screen incidents, what kinds of
notices are mailed to alleged violators, which entity mails
the notices, what information is included on the notice, and
how intersections are identified for use of automated
enforcement. Even something as seemingly straightforward as
defining what constitutes a red light violation may vary from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
In addition to the variation found in program administration,
there is not consistent agreement about what current law
actually requires to operate an automated enforcement system.
Furthermore, the processes by which an alleged violator may
learn about and contest a citation are sometimes unclear and,
in certain cases, appear to be misleading. For example,
sometimes the notice to appear was modified, which current law
requires to be on a form approved by the Judicial Council, to
serve purposes not addressed by current law. These modified
forms appeared official, but lacked the force of law.
The intent of this bill is to protect the rights of
Californians cited by automated enforcement systems. In doing
so, it will require that local governments using red light
cameras establish policies and procedures that help ensure
citations are properly and appropriately issued and improve
the means by which a person may challenge citations issued in
error.
2.Author's amendments . The author intends to offer a series of
amendments in committee based on findings made to date in his
investigation of red light camera programs. Each amendment
and the rationale supporting the proposed change is explained
below.
SB 1362 (SIMITIAN) Page 5
Clarify the activities that must be undertaken in order to
operate an automated enforcement system:
Section 21455.5(c): Explicitly require that all of the
activities articulated in current law are undertaken when a
government agency operates an automated enforcement system.
It is unclear whether current law requires a government
agency to do all activities specified in current law or
whether conducting any of the specified duties is
sufficient to operate a system. This amendment removes
that ambiguity by clearly stating that a government agency
must undertake all prescribed duties.
Ensure that automated enforcement systems are implemented and
operated in a manner to improve traffic safety:
21455.5(c)(2)(A): Add "solely" on line 31 after "based"
to clarify that a local government may employ automated
enforcement systems only to improve traffic safety, as
opposed to generating revenue.
With regard to determining which intersections may be
equipped with an automated enforcement system, the
amendments will require a government agency to collect
collision data for each type of violation that the agency
contemplates enforcing using the system. For example, if
an agency wishes to use photo enforcement to capture right
turn violations, the agency must document that the
incidence of collisions due to right turn violations is
significant. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure
that government agencies select intersections based on a
documented safety risk posed by red light running and not
by other factors.
21455.5(g): Add a paragraph to stipulate that, when a
government agency enters into a contract with a vendor, the
agency may not consider revenue generation or profit beyond
recovering its costs to implement the system.
Make the processes for issuing and contesting citations
transparent and fair:
21455.5(d)(2): Specify that a citation must be
dismissed if an automated enforcement system is not
implemented in a manner such that all duties specified in
SB 1362 (SIMITIAN) Page 6
current law are undertaken. The amendments will also
prohibit a government agency from issuing further citations
until all duties have been completed.
21455.5(c)(2): Require government agencies to develop
procedures to ensure that citations are issued to the
correct person.
The amendments will prohibit government agencies and
vendors from requiring, or appearing to require, that
persons submit information that may then be used to issue a
citation to that person. If a government agency or vendor
contacts a registered owner of a vehicle prior to issuing a
citation in an effort to determine the identity of the
alleged violator, the entity must clearly and prominently
communicate that the person is not required to provide any
information and that failure to do so will not result in
any adverse action. This amendment is intended to address
the practice of some vendors of issuing what is variously
referred to as a "courtesy notice" or a "notice of
violation" that have the appearance of an official citation
but instead represent an attempt to obtain information
about a person that the vendor believes may be the violator
captured in a photo. The information is used to confirm
the identity of an alleged violator, which is then
submitted to the law enforcement agency.
This practice raises a number of concerns. First, the
information contained on the "notice of violation" is
somewhat misleading. Staff has examined examples of these
notices and the notices are presented in a manner that
makes it appear that a law enforcement agency is issuing
them when in fact one is not. Additionally, the
instructions included on the form appear to require the
person to complete and return the form or the person risks
being cited, even if the person in the photograph is not
the person receiving the notice. This practice may mislead
a person receiving a notice to believe he or she must
complete and return the form when in fact the vendor has no
authority to require that any person submit information
about him or herself to it. Second, the form includes an
"affidavit of non-liability" that allows a person to
indicate that he or she was not the person in the photo.
If the person is not the driver in the photograph, then the
form directs the person to indicate who the driver was.
The author is concerned that persons receiving these
SB 1362 (SIMITIAN) Page 7
notices may assume that they are required to incriminate
themselves or others, a potential violation of one's
rights.
Amend Section 40518 of the Vehicle Code to delete
"qualified employee of a law enforcement agency" to ensure
that only peace officers issue citations for violations
captured by automated enforcement systems.
Amend Section 40518 to add a subdivision that specifies
the type of information that must be included on a notice
to appear. This information includes, but is not limited
to, the following:
The methods by which a person may view and discuss
with the issuing agency, both by telephone and in-person,
the evidence used to substantiate the violation.
Contact information for the issuing agency.
Amend Section 40518 to add a subdivision specifying that
if a vendor elects to use "courtesy notices" or "notices of
violation" or any other notice that does not constitute an
official notice to appear, the form used must be approved
by the Judicial Council. The form shall include a
description of the methods by which a person may view and
discuss the violation with the issuing agency and contact
information for the issuing agency. Furthermore,
communications initiated by the vendor on behalf of itself
or the government agency shall clearly and conspicuously
identify the vendor and in no case shall appear to be the
law enforcement agency responsible for issuing the
citation.
Amend Section 40518 to add a subdivision prohibiting a
vendor or government agency from modifying a form approved
by the Judicial Council. If a form is found to have been
altered, the citation issued using the altered form shall
be dismissed.
Provide for data collection and reporting:
The amendments will require vendors, in cooperation with
the government agencies with which they contract, to submit
an annual report to the Judicial Council regarding the use
of their systems. The following information will be
required to be included in the report:
SB 1362 (SIMITIAN) Page 8
Number of alleged violations captured by the systems
they operate.
Number of citations issued by a law enforcement
agency based on information collected from a photo
enforcement system.
The number of citations issued for each type of
violation.
The number and percentage of citations that are
contested.
The number and percentage of citations that are
dismissed.
The number of collisions at each intersection where
a photo enforcement system operates before and after a
system is installed.
Because government agencies operate their programs
independently without oversight by any state or federal
agency, it has been very difficult to assess the extent of
operations in California and whether any problems exist
with specific programs or with the authority in general.
The committee, for example, receives numerous complaints
from individuals that suggest the number and cost of
citations issued for right-turn violations are out of
proportion with the risk posed by turning right on red. No
data are available, however, to assess these concerns and
determine whether appropriate limitations may be put in
place. The intent of this amendment, therefore, is to
provide a means by which the state may gain a better sense
of what is occurring with automated enforcement systems
across jurisdictions and whether any areas of improvement
may exist.
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the Committee before noon on
Wednesday,
August 28, 2010)
SUPPORT: None received.
OPPOSED: None received.