BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: SB 29
SENATOR MARK DESAULNIER, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: Simitian
VERSION: 3/22/11
Analysis by: Jennifer Gress FISCAL: yes
Hearing date: March 29, 2011
SUBJECT:
Automated traffic enforcement systems (i.e., red light cameras)
DESCRIPTION:
This bill makes several changes to the laws regarding automated
traffic enforcement systems 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 enforcement 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
automated enforcement system is in use. These signs must be
visible to traffic approaching an intersection where an
SB 29 (SIMITIAN) Page 2
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 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. 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
SB 29 (SIMITIAN) Page 3
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 :
Specifies that a governmental agency must post signs within
200 feet of an intersection where a system is operating and
allows that the signs may be posted only in the direction in
which the system is used to issue citations, rather than
allowing an agency to post signs either at all major entrances
to the city or at intersections visible to traffic approaching
from all directions. Governmental agencies with systems in
place as of the effective of this bill that have not already
posted signs in accordance with this bill must do so by
January 1, 2013.
Clarifies that a governmental agency must perform all of the
activities that current law specifies to operate an automated
traffic enforcement system (e.g., develop uniform guidelines
for screening and issuing violations, establish procedures to
ensure compliance, etc.).
Allows governmental agencies with systems in place as of the
effective date of the bill that have not already developed
uniform guidelines for screening and issuing violations, for
the process and storage of confidential information, or for
selecting locations where an automated enforcement system may
be used to do so by January 1, 2013.
Allows governmental agencies with systems in place as of the
effective date of the bill that have not already established
procedures for compliance with its guidelines to do so by
January 1, 2013.
Requires, for systems installed after January 1, 2012, a
governmental agency to make and adopt a "finding of fact" that
the system is needed at a specified location for reasons
related to safety.
Prohibits a governmental agency from considering revenue
SB 29 (SIMITIAN) Page 4
generation beyond recovering the actual costs of operating the
system when it considers whether to install and operate an
automated traffic enforcement system.
Provides that if, after a law enforcement agency has issued a
citation, the citing officer determines that the citation or
notice should be dismissed, the citing agency may recommend in
writing to the magistrate or the judge that the case be
dismissed. The recommendation must include the reasoning for
the recommendation and be filed with the court.
Requires that a notice to appear (i.e., citation or ticket)
include the following information:
o The methods by which the registered owner of the
vehicle or the alleged violator may view and discuss with
the issuing agency, both by telephone and in person, the
evidence used to substantiate the violation.
o The contact information of the issuing agency.
o Information that clearly and conspicuously
identifies the vendor with which the governmental agency
contracts for the operation of the system.
Permits the issuing agency and the vendor to issue "courtesy
notices" to the registered owner of the vehicle or the alleged
violator prior to issuing a notice to appear. Beginning on
January 1, 2013, courtesy notices must be on a form approved
by the Judicial Counsel, which must be developed in
consultation with the traffic and transportation committee of
the California Peace Officers' Association. The courtesy
notice must contain the following information:
o The methods by which the registered owner of the
vehicle or the alleged violator may view and discuss with
the issuing agency, both by telephone and in person, the
evidence used to substantiate the violation.
o The contact information of the issuing agency.
o Information that clearly and conspicuously
identifies the vendor with which the governmental agency
contracts for the operation of the system.
Prohibits a vendor from altering the notice to appear, the
courtesy notice, or any other form approved by the Judicial
Council. If a form is found to have been materially altered,
the citation based on the altered form may be dismissed.
SB 29 (SIMITIAN) Page 5
Requires the issuing agency or the vendor, when contacting the
registered owner of a vehicle prior to issuing a notice to
appear in an effort to determine the identity of the driver,
to state in a clear and prominent fashion that the registered
owner is not required to provide the information and that
failure to provide the information will not result in
additional responsibility or liability associated with the
alleged violation.
Requires the vendor of an automated traffic enforcement
system, in cooperation with governmental agencies that utilize
such systems, to submit an annual report to the Judicial
Counsel that includes the following information, provided the
information is "in the possession of, or readily available
to," the vendor:
o The number of alleged violations collected from the
automated traffic enforcement system.
o The number of citations issued by a law enforcement
agency based on information collected from the automated
traffic enforcement system.
o The number of citations involving a vehicle
traveling straight through an intersection, turning
right, and turning left.
o The number and percentage of citations that are
dismissed.
o The number of traffic collisions at each
intersection that have occurred prior to and after the
installation of the system.
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose . In response to the author's annual "There Oughta Be
A Law" contest last year, one constituent, Vera Gil, reported
that she had been mis-identified several 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 red
light camera 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
SB 29 (SIMITIAN) Page 6
state. This bill is the product of that investigation.
Three red light camera vendors operate automated traffic
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 traffic 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 traffic enforcement systems.
In doing so, it prohibits the use of automated systems for the
purpose of raising revenue, requires that governmental
agencies demonstrate a safety need when approving the use of
such systems, requires that local governments using these
systems establish policies and procedures that help ensure
citations are properly and appropriately issued, and improves
the means by which a person may challenge citations issued in
SB 29 (SIMITIAN) Page 7
error.
2.Related legislation . This bill is similar to the final
version of SB 1362 (Simitian) of last year, which was
ultimately held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
This committee passed SB 1362 last year 7 to 0 and while SB
1362 continued to address the same issues as the version this
committee had passed, the measure evolved considerably as it
progressed through the Legislature and some provisions were
scaled back. For this reason, this bill is very similar in
concept to what this committee passed last year, but numerous
provisions, large and small, have either been amended or
deleted altogether.
3.Technical amendments . Due to Legislative Counsel drafting
errors, the author or committee may wish to make the following
amendments:
Page 3, line 17 after "2012" delete ","
Page 7, line 18 after "agency" delete "," and insert "or
the"
Page 7, line 18 after "manufacturer" delete "," and
insert "or"
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the Committee before noon on
Wednesday, March 23,
2011)
SUPPORT: None received.
OPPOSED: None received.
SB 29 (SIMITIAN) Page 8