BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: ab 432
SENATOR MARK DESAULNIER, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: HALL
VERSION: 6/21/11
Analysis by: Erin Riches FISCAL: yes
Hearing date: June 28, 2011
SUBJECT:
Traffic violations: notice to appear
DESCRIPTION:
This bill clarifies that only a peace officer or qualified
employee of a law enforcement agency may issue a notice to
appear for specified traffic offenses, including those recorded
by an automated traffic enforcement system.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
Provides that a government agency may equip an
intersection or other place where a driver is required to
respond to an official traffic control signal, with an
automated enforcement system, if the agency meets specified
requirements.
Provides that only a government agency, in cooperation
with a law enforcement agency, may operate an automated
enforcement system.
Requires a government agency to maintain controls
necessary to ensure that citations may only be delivered to
violators if they have been reviewed and approved by law
enforcement.
Authorizes a government agency to contract out most
operations related to the automated enforcement system, if
the agency maintains overall control and supervision of the
system.
Provides that a contract between a governmental agency
and a manufacturer or supplier of automated enforcement
equipment may not include a provision for payment to the
AB 432 (HALL) Page 2
vendor based on the number of citations issued or amount of
revenue generated, as a result of the equipment unless the
contract was entered into prior to January 1, 2004.
Provides that a citation for a traffic offense results
in a written notice to appear, which must be on a form
prescribed by the Judicial Council and must include
specified 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
offense charged, and the time and place for the person to
appear in court.
Provides 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.
This bill :
Requires that only a peace officer or a qualified
employee of a law enforcement agency may serve a notice to
appear for specified traffic offenses involving failure to
respond to an official traffic control signal, including
those recorded by an automated traffic enforcement system.
Clarifies that the notice to appear, which must be
delivered by mail within 15 days to the current address of
the registered owner of the vehicle, must be accompanied by
a certificate of mailing obtained through the US Postal
Service as evidence of service.
Requires the notice to appear to be enclosed in "an
official envelope" of the issuing agency.
COMMENTS:
1. Purpose . According to the author, red light camera
companies send notices to appear to individuals who have
allegedly committed specified traffic offenses, but the
companies' out-of-state addresses cause confusion and often
result in individuals mistaking the notices for junk mail
and discarding them. This bill would help ensure that
individuals who receive the notices understand that the
notice is an official document from a California law
enforcement agency.
AB 432 (HALL) Page 3
The author also notes that California courts are
experiencing difficulties in prosecuting alleged red light
camera violators because of inconsistencies in the process
from county to county. Along with different envelopes,
some agencies send the notices to appear in certified mail,
while others do not. This has resulted in a loss of
revenue for cities and counties.
2. Background . The Legislature first authorized the use of
automated traffic enforcement systems, now commonly known
as red light cameras, under SB 1802 (Rosenthal), Chapter
1216, Statues of 1994, in order to record violations
occurring at rail crossing signals and gates.
Subsequently, SB 833 (Kopp), Chapter 922, Statutes of 1995,
authorized 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 and vehicles
involved in committing such violations. Installation of
such systems was justified based on the rationale that
drivers running red lights are a serious traffic problem
with potentially dire results to other drivers and that
such violations are difficult for police officers to
witness and enforce at the time of the incident.
After reviewing the operations and effectiveness of the
pilot program, the Legislature enacted SB 1136 (Kopp),
Chapter 54, Statutes of 1998, which authorized the use of
automated traffic enforcement systems at intersections. AB
1022 (Oropeza), Chapter 511, Statutes of 2003,
significantly modified the law as a result of an audit by
the State Auditor that concluded that local governments
needed to exert more control over the operation of
automated traffic enforcement systems.
Under current practice, local agencies contract with red
light camera vendors to capture images of vehicles that
fail to come to a complete stop at designated
intersections. The vendors collect the images and screen
them to eliminate those that fail to show evidence that a
vehicle failed to make a complete stop. The vendor sends
the remaining images 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.
AB 432 (HALL) Page 4
The author argues that when vendors mail notices to appear,
some are successfully challenged in court, resulting in a
loss of revenue. This bill corrects these problems by
clarifying that the notice to appear must be issued by a
police officer or other qualified employee of a law
enforcement agency.
3. Arguments in Opposition . According to the League of
California Cities, this bill "would do little to stem
confusion while increasing costs to cities." The League
argues that this bill would result in increased costs to
city police departments for additional personnel hours and
new equipment purchases, with no clear benefit to the
individuals receiving the red light violation notices.
Cities would also have to take their automated traffic
enforcement systems off-line as they transition
responsibilities from the vendor to police department
staff. Finally, although the vendors tend to be located
out of state, they provide abundant contact information,
such as direct customer service and support lines.
4. Related legislation . SB 29 (Simitian), which passed the
Assembly Transportation Committee on June 13, 2011, imposes
additional requirements on automated traffic enforcement
systems, including expanding the information that must be
included in the notice to appear to include clear
identification of the vendor and contact information for
the issuing agency. SB 29 also clarifies that a government
agency must perform all duties specified by current law to
operate an automated traffic enforcement system, including
development of uniform guidelines for screening and issuing
violations.
5. Chaptering out amendments . This bill and SB 29
(Simitian) amend the same section of the Vehicle Code but
are otherwise not in conflict. If these two bills continue
to move through the Legislature, the authors will need to
amend them to ensure that should both be signed into law,
the second bill signed does not chapter out the first.
Assembly Votes:
Floor: 77-0
Appr: 17-0
Trans: 14-0
AB 432 (HALL) Page 5
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the Committee before noon on
Wednesday, June 22,
2011)
SUPPORT: None received.
OPPOSED: League of California Cities