BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 432
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 432 (Hall)
As Amended April 26, 2011
Majority vote
TRANSPORTATION 14-0 APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Bonnie Lowenthal, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Harkey, |
| |Jeffries, Achadjian, | |Blumenfield, Bradford, |
| |Blumenfield, Bonilla, | |Charles Calderon, Campos, |
| |Buchanan, Eng, Furutani, | |Davis, Donnelly, Gatto, |
| |Galgiani, Logue, Miller, | |Hall, Hill, Lara, |
| |Norby, Portantino, | |Mitchell, Nielsen, Norby, |
| |Solorio | |Solorio, Wagner |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires that a peace officer or law enforcement
agency issue the notice to appear for an automated enforcement
citation and that the notice be accompanied by a certificate of
mail obtained through the United States (U.S.) Postal Service,
completed by the local law enforcement agency.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides authority for automated enforcement at places where a
driver is required to respond to an official traffic control
signal, upon condition that various requirements are met.
2)Specifies that only a governmental agency, in cooperation with
a law enforcement agency, may operate an automated enforcement
system.
3)Specifies that a governmental agency may contract out its
duties to certify that the automated enforcement equipment is
installed and operating properly provided the agency maintains
overall control and supervision of the system.
4)Requires that the local government entity conduct a public
hearing on the proposed use of the automated enforcement
system prior to entering into a contract with a red light
camera vendor.
5)Requires that a contract between a governmental entity and a
AB 432
Page 2
vendor 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.
6)Requires that prior to issuing citations using an automated
enforcement system, the local entity must make a public
announcement of the system and issue only warning notices for
30 days.
7)Requires that a peace officer or "qualified employee" of a law
enforcement agency must review the photographs and issues
citations, as appropriate.
8)Requires that a citation results in a "notice to appear,"
which must be on a form approved by the Judicial Council
containing specific 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.
9)Requires that 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, with a certificate of mailing
obtained as evidence of service.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)Unknown costs, possibly in the hundreds of thousands of
dollars, to local agencies for peace officer or law
enforcement staff time to issue written notices to appear,
instead of allowing contracted entities to issue those notices
(Local special funds).
2)Unknown, potentially significant reduction in fine and penalty
revenues, possibly in the millions of dollars annually, (state
and local special funds), to the extent locals eliminate or
reduce use of automated traffic violation devices as a result
of this bill.
3)Potential reduction in court costs of an unknown amount, and a
corresponding increase in state and local revenue (state and
AB 432
Page 3
local special funds), to the extent the bill reduces unpaid or
contested traffic violations.
COMMENTS : Automated enforcement systems were originally
authorized in California by SB 1802 (Rosenthal), Chapter 1216,
Statutes of 1994, to enforce rail crossings. SB 833 (Kopp),
Chapter 922, Statutes of 1995, authorizes a three-year
demonstration period to test the use and effectiveness of
similar systems in reducing the incidence of drivers running red
lights at roadway intersections and in identifying the drivers
committing such violations and the vehicles involved.
Installation of these systems was justified primarily because
motorists running red lights are a serious traffic problem with
potentially catastrophic results to other drivers, and it is a
difficult violation for a police officer to witness and enforce
at the time it is committed.
After reviewing the operations and effectiveness of the pilot
program, the Legislature enacted SB 1136 (Kopp), Chapter 54,
Statutes of 1998, to indefinitely authorize the use of automated
traffic enforcement systems, or "red light cameras," at
intersections. Major modifications were made to the statutory
authority by AB 1022 (Oropeza), Chapter 511, Statutes of 2003,
as a result of an audit by the State Auditor that generally
concluded local governments needed to exert more control over
the operation of the automated traffic enforcement systems.
Under current practice, "red light camera" vendors are
contracted by local authorities to capture images of vehicles
who fail to come to a complete stop at designated intersections.
The images are collected by the vendor and screened to
eliminate those images that fail to show evidence that a vehicle
failed to make a complete stop. The remaining images are then
sent to local law enforcement where an officer reviews the
images and directs the vendor to send notices to appear for
those that clearly show violations.
The author notes that under current practice, when vendors send
out notices to appear to alleged violators, individuals
receiving the notices are confused as to the legitimacy of the
documents since the city and state shown on the mailing is
different from the locality where the violation occurred. For
example, the author notes that for violations occurring in Elk
Grove, California, notices to appear indicate that the mailing
AB 432
Page 4
is on behalf of the Elk Grove Police Department yet the address
shows a post office box in Phoenix, Arizona. The author claims
that many individuals who receive these notices disregard them
since they are unaware that the mailing is from a law
enforcement agency.
Statutes related to the issuance of notices to appear for
automated enforcement violations specifies that a notice to
appear must be issued by a peace officer or by a qualified
employee of a law enforcement agency on a form approved by the
Judicial Council. The author notes that when notices to appear
are mailed by vendors, they can be called into question if
challenged in court and that, on a number of occasions, these
court challenges result in the ticket being thrown out,
resulting in loss of revenue. It is the author's contention
that failure of law enforcement to carry out the duties of
mailing citations and using appropriate evidence of service
forms violates the rights of individuals and causes the
citations to be overturned in court.
To correct this, this bill would clarify that a written notice
to appear must be issued by a peace officer or other qualified
employee of a law enforcement agency and that the certificate of
mailing, obtained through the U.S. Postal service, must be
completed by local law enforcement and accompany the notice to
appear.
Writing in response to this bill, the League of California
Cities cites concern that the bill would increase costs to
cities and possibly interrupt the operation of this traffic
safety tool. The League is further concerned that this bill
would result in direct costs to city police departments in
additional personnel hours and new equipment purchases with no
clear benefit to individuals who receive red light violation
notices.
Previous legislation: AB 1362 (Simitian) of 2010 would have
imposed additional requirements on the use of automated traffic
enforcement systems. That bill died in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee.
Analysis Prepared by : Victoria Alvarez / TRANS. / (916) 319-
2093
AB 432
Page 5
FN: 0000952