BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1362|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 1362
Author: Simitian (D), et al
Amended: 5/25/10
Vote: 21
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE : 7-0, 5/4/10
AYES: Lowenthal, Huff, Ashburn, DeSaulnier, Kehoe, Pavley,
Simitian
NO VOTE RECORDED: Harman, Oropeza
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT : Automated traffic enforcement systems
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : 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:
CONTINUED
SB 1362
Page
2
1. Develops uniform guidelines for screening and issuing
violations, processing and storing confidential
information, and selecting locations where automated
enforcements systems will be utilized.
2. Establishes procedures to ensure compliance with those
guidelines.
3. Certifies that the equipment is properly installed and
calibrated and is operating properly.
4. Ensures that the equipment is regularly inspected.
5. Inspects and maintains signs that warn drivers that an
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.
6. 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.
7. 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
CONTINUED
SB 1362
Page
3
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 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 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:
1. Clarifies that signs identifying an automated
enforcement system's presence be posted at each
intersection where a system is operating.
2. Requires that a government agency base its guidelines
for selecting a location solely on safety and make the
guidelines available to the public, including posting
them on the government agency's Web site.
3. Requires, prior to installing an automated traffic
CONTINUED
SB 1362
Page
4
enforcement system, that a governmental agency collect
traffic collision data for the type of violation to be
photographed and requires at each location where a
system is to be installed that the traffic collision
data demonstrate a significant need for the infraction
upon which the citations will be based prior to
installing the system.
4. Specifies the adoption of guidelines and collection of
data required by the bill do not apply to automated
enforcement systems installed prior to January 1, 2011.
5. Prohibits contacting the registered owner of a vehicle
prior to issuing a notice to appear either directly or
indirectly in an effort to determine the identity of an
alleged automated traffic enforcement system violator
without making the registered owner aware, in a clear
and prominent fashion, that the registered owner is not
required to provide that information and that failure to
provide that information shall not result in any adverse
action.
6. 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.
7. Requires the dismissal of any citation if the court
finds that the governmental agency has failed to operate
the automated traffic enforcement system in compliance
with the provisions of law applicable to automated
traffic enforcement. If a court finds that the
governmental agency has failed to operate the system
incompliance with applicable provisions of law, a law
enforcement agency is prohibited from issuing any
citations until the governmental agency demonstrates to
the satisfaction of the court that it is in full
compliance with all of the requirements applicable to
automated traffic enforcement.
8. Prohibits a governmental agency that operates an
automated traffic enforcement system from considering
revenue generation as a factor when considering whether
or not to operate a system within its local
jurisdiction.
CONTINUED
SB 1362
Page
5
9. Requires the manufacturer or supplier that operates an
automated traffic enforcement system, in cooperation
with the governmental agency, to submit an annual report
to the Judicial Council that includes specified
information.
10.Requires the notice to appear to include the following
information:
A. Methods by which the registered owner of the
vehicle or the alleged violator may view and
discuss with the issuing agency the evidence used
to substantiate the violation.
B. The contact information of the issuing agency.
C. Information which clearly and conspicuously
identifies the manufacturer or supplier of the
system.
11.Authorizes the mailing of a courtesy notice or any other
notice other than a notice to appear by the issuing
agency to the registered owner or the alleged violator
prior to issuing a notice to appear.
12.Prohibits a manufacturer or supplier of an automated
traffic enforcement system or the governmental agency
operating the system from altering the notice to appear
or any other form approved by the Judicial Council. If
a form is found to have been altered, the citation based
on the altered form is to be dismissed.
Comments
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
CONTINUED
SB 1362
Page
6
sometimes took Ms. Gil many steps to demonstrate her
innocence. By the red 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's office to
investigate how red light camera programs were being
implemented around the state.
Three red light camera vendors operate automated
enforcement programs in California: Redflex, American
Traffic Solutions, and Affiliated Computer Systems. 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.
CONTINUED
SB 1362
Page
7
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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/24/10)
League of California Cities
JJA:do 5/26/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED