BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 1303
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 25, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Bonnie Lowenthal, Chair
SB 1303 (Simitian) - As Amended: May 29, 2012
SENATE VOTE : 38-0
SUBJECT : Vehicles: automated traffic enforcement systems
SUMMARY : Revises procedures that local jurisdictions must
follow when installing and operating automated traffic
enforcement systems (red light cameras). Specifically, this
bill :
1)Clarifies that computer-generated information stored by an
automated traffic enforcement system (red light camera system)
is presumed to be an accurate representation.
2)Requires local jurisdictions to post signs identifying the use
of red light cameras within 200 feet of an intersection where
they are in use. Local jurisdictions with systems in place as
of January 1, 2013, must have signs posted in accordance with
this bill not later than January 1, 2014.
3)Specifies that local jurisdictions using red light cameras do
not need to post signs notifying the use of red light cameras
from directions not subject to the citation.
4)Eliminates the option for local jurisdictions to post signs at
major entrances to the city indicating that red light cameras
are in use.
5)Requires local jurisdictions operating red light cameras to
establish uniform guidelines by January 1, 2014, for screening
and issuing violations and for storage of confidential
information for systems installed after January 1, 2013.
6)Requires local jurisdictions, prior to installing a red light
camera system, to make and adopt a finding of fact
establishing the need for the system at the specific location,
for reasons related to safety.
7)Specifies that evidence from red light camera systems is not
hearsay.
SB 1303
Page 2
8)Prohibits a local jurisdiction from considering revenue
generation, beyond recovering actual costs of operating the
system, when considering whether or not to install and operate
a red light camera system.
9)Requires the vendor of a red light camera system, in
cooperation with the local jurisdiction, to submit an annual
report to the Judicial Council that includes the following:
a) The number of alleged violations captured by the red
light camera systems they operate;
b) The number of citations issued by law enforcement based
on the information collected;
c) Based on the overall number of red light camera
citations, the number of violations that involved traveling
straight through the intersection, turning right, and
turning left;
d) The number and percentage of red light camera citations
that are dismissed by the court; and,
e) The number of traffic collisions at each red light
camera-controlled intersection that occurred prior to and
after the installation of the red light camera.
10) Specifies that if, after law enforcement has issued
a red light camera citation, the citing officer determines that
the citation or notice should be dismissed, the citing agency
may recommend in writing to the court that the case be
dismissed and the court may dismiss the case.
11) Requires a notice to appear to contain the
following information:
a) The method that the registered owner of the vehicle or
alleged violator may view and discuss the evidence used to
substantiate the violation by phone and in person; and,
b) The contact information of the issuing agency.
12) Provides a specific illustration of the form that
must be used for the notice to appear and courtesy notice
SB 1303
Page 3
which specifies that the registered owner of the vehicle may
opt not to identify the driver of the vehicle.
13) Prohibits the vendor or issuing agency from
altering the notice to appear, courtesy notice, or any other
form approved by the Judicial Council.
14) Specifies that if the form is found to be
materially altered, the citation based on the altered form may
be dismissed by the court.
15) Makes related, clarifying amendments.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Specifies that printed representation of computer information
and images stored on a video or digital medium is presumed to
be an accurate representation.
2)Requires local jurisdictions that operate red light cameras to
clearly indicate the system's presence by posting signs that
are visible to traffic approaching from all directions or by
posting sighs at all major entrances to the city.
3)Requires local jurisdictions that operate red light cameras to
establish uniform guidelines for screening and issuing
violations and for the processing and storage of confidential
information as well as procedures for compliance with the
guidelines.
4)Requires local jurisdictions that operate red light cameras to
perform various administrative functions including
establishing guidelines for their placement and operation.
5)Specifies a notice to appear for a red light camera violation
constitutes a complaint to which the defendant may enter a
plea as long as the citation is issued by a law enforcement
agency and delivered by mail within 15 days to the current
address of the vehicle's registered owner.
6)Requires the notice to appear to contain the name and address
of the person, the license plate number of the person's
vehicle, the violation charged including a description of the
offense, and the time and place of the scheduled court
appearance set at least 10 days after the notice to appear has
SB 1303
Page 4
been delivered.
7)Authorizes a governmental entity to issue a citation to a
person identified by the registered owner of the vehicle as
being the driver at the time of the alleged violation. The
notice issued to the registered owner requesting
identification of the driver is typically called a courtesy
notice.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, this bill would likely result in minor ongoing costs
to Judicial Council to compile and maintain reports received
from operators of red light cameras as well as non-reimbursable
local costs to post signs and develop uniform guidelines and
procedures. Additionally, opponents of the bill contend that
the provision regarding courtesy notices could result in a
substantial loss of ticket revenue.
COMMENTS : Automated enforcement systems were originally
authorized in California by SB 1802 (Rosenthal) Chapter 1216,
Statutes of 1994, to enforce rail crossings. Two years later,
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 committing such violations and the
vehicles involved. The installation of these systems were
considered justified primarily because red light running is
considered a serious traffic problem that can have catastrophic
results.
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 red light
cameras at intersections. Major modifications were made to this
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.
According to the author, the intent of this bill is to preserve
the ability of red light camera systems to operate while
bringing a greater degree of fairness to their use with
particular attention to concerns about accuracy, privacy, and
SB 1303
Page 5
due process. Specifically, the bill address the evidentiary use
of red light camera photographs, notification signage, the
prohibition against using red light cameras as a revenue
generation tool, requirements for data collection with regard to
red light camera violations, dismissal of red light camera
citations, and the use of courtesy notices.
Hearsay Rule :
The 2nd District Court of Appeals in Los Angeles published two
decisions recently concerning automated red light camera system
evidence submitted to convict violators of running red lights.
In February, a three-judge panel on the appellate court ruled in
People v. Borzakian (2012) that an officer testifying in the
case was not qualified to authenticate video and picture
evidence, because the city had contracted for the maintenance
and operation of the automated traffic enforcement system and
therefore operating the system was not part of the ordinary
course of business for the police department. The city's
evidence was not properly admitted because the officer could not
authenticate the videos and pictures, and without this evidence,
nothing supported the alleged violation. The court reversed
Borzakian's conviction based on this finding.
Later that month, in People v. Goldsmith (2012), a different
three-judge panel from the same appellate court came to a
different conclusion. The panel determined that testimony on
the accuracy and reliability of computer systems is not required
for photos or video to be admitted as evidence unless
alternative evidence is introduced casting doubt on the photo or
video's accuracy. Because Goldsmith did not provide any
substantial evidence undermining the reliability of the video
and photographic evidence, the court concluded that the evidence
did not need to be authenticated and therefore upheld the
conviction.
According to the author, these conflicting decisions demonstrate
a need for clarification in statute regarding the evidentiary
standards required for prosecuting red light camera violations.
The National Motorists Association (NMA), however, believes that
the provision meant to clarify the statue instead eliminates any
SB 1303
Page 6
possibility for state courts to rule photographic evidence
generated by red light cameras lacks foundation. The NMA claims
that this bill will therefore result in persons receiving red
light camera citations being deprived of their basic right to
challenge the evidence used against -- eliminating a significant
legal hurdle for those who operate red light cameras while
eliminating the opportunity for motorists to defend themselves
in court. It is anticipated that the issues raised by the
opposition will be addressed when the bill is heard in the
Assembly Judiciary Committee.
Signage:
Currently, the law requires local jurisdictions to place signs
indicated red light cameras are in use either at all city
entrance roads or at all approaches to the photo enforced
intersection. The majority of jurisdictions choose to erect
signs at individual intersections because it is generally
believed that the warning signs, in addition to the presence of
the red light camera, act as a deterrent to red light running
thereby reducing red light violations and improving safety.
This bill would eliminate a local jurisdiction's option of where
to post red light camera notices by eliminating requiring that
signs be placed at individual photo enforced intersections
within 200 feet of the intersection in the direction that
citations are being issued. Additionally, the bill would
require local jurisdictions with red light camera systems in
place as of January 1, 2013 to have these signs posted no later
than January 1, 2014. According to the author, this provision
would help to reduce the frequency of red light violations by
providing drivers with specific notice and information regarding
intersections they are about to enter.
The wording of this bill could be strictly interpreted to mean
that signs at city entrances could be taken down as of January
1, 2013, but that signs erected at individual intersections
would not need to be in place until January 1, 2014, potentially
leaving a one year span of time when no red light camera signage
would be required. The author has agreed to address this
concern when the bill is heard in the Assembly Judiciary
Committee.
Finding of Fact :
SB 1303
Page 7
In an effort to prohibit local jurisdictions from installing red
light cameras merely to raise revenue, this bill would require
that local jurisdictions operating red light cameras to
establish uniform guidelines for screening and issuing
violations, as well as for the storage of confidential
information. The bill would also prohibit a local jurisdiction
from considering revenue generation when evaluating whether or
not to operate a red light camera system. The local
jurisdiction would also be required to make and adopt a finding
of fact that establishes the need for the system at a specific
intersection for safety-related reasons.
Opponents note that this bill does not require a local
jurisdiction to apply objective criteria when evaluating the
safety-related need and, in the absence of clear, objective and
uniform criteria, local jurisdictions and the public will have
not consistent measure of whether or not a given location truly
warrants the installation and operation of a red light camera.
Annual reporting :
This bill also requires red light camera vendors, in cooperation
with the local jurisdiction, to submit an annual report to the
Judicial Council that provides information regarding the number
and type of violations and citations issued at red light camera
intersections. The information that vendors would be required
to submit includes the number of citations issued by law
enforcement based on the information collected, to total the
number of citations involving straight through violations versus
turning right and turning left, as well as the number and
percentage of citations that are dismissed by the court and the
number of traffic collisions at each intersections that occurred
prior to and after the installation of the red light camera.
The author notes that currently this information is held
exclusively by red light camera vendors and that by requiring
that this information be provided to the Judicial Council, the
information would be more broadly available for public scrutiny.
Ability to dismiss citations :
According to the author, the provision allowing a citation to be
dismissed was included in the bill in response to a complaint
brought forward by a constituent who experienced a number of
SB 1303
Page 8
problems with being misidentified by red light cameras in
Southern California. According to the constituent, the vehicle
captured in a red light camera photograph was not hers nor was
she the driver identified in the photograph, however, because
private companies were involved in the issuance of the red light
camera citations, demonstrating her innocence was a lengthy and
involved process. To keep this problem from happening to others
in the future, the author included language in the bill that
would authorize a citing office to recommend to the court that a
citation be dismissed and would also authorize a judge to
dismiss the citation.
Courtesy Notice (Notice of Non-liability) :
Courtesy notices are not actual citations but instead are
investigative tools to help police determine the identity of the
driver whose image was captured by a red light camera. When a
police officer is unable to match the photograph of the driver
to that of the registered owner, the officer mails the
registered owner a courtesy notice (sometimes called a "snitch
ticket"). The form that is mailed to the registered owner
specifically requests that registered owner provide the name of
driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation.
There have been a number of complaints about courtesy notices,
namely that the form that is used appears to indicate that the
registered owner is legally required to provide the information
when in actuality, the registered owner of the vehicle is under
no such obligation to provide the information requested. To
address this issue, the author has included an exact copy of the
courtesy notice in this bill and would require that a true and
exact copy of the form be used for red light camera violations.
The form includes a box entitled "none of the above" that a
registered owner of a vehicle receiving the courtesy notice can
check if he or she does not wish to divulge the identity of the
driver at the time of the alleged violation.
Red light camera vendors note that while the majority of red
light camera violations result in proper identification of the
driver at the time of the alleged violation, approximately 40%
of violations require the use of a courtesy notice or other
means of identifying the driver. Vendors claim that if
registered owners are given the option not to identify the
driver at the time of the alleged violation, they expect that
nearly one-half of respondents will refuse to provide the
SB 1303
Page 9
information resulting in substantial loss of ticket revenue in
addition to costs for law enforcement to ascertain the identity
of the driver using other means. Additionally, the California
Police Chiefs Association notes that including the option for
recipients to not name the driver of the vehicle would simply
encourage scofflaw behavior.
Recent Legislation : SB 29 (Simitian) of 2011, made 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. That bill was vetoed by the Governor on the
grounds that the issues addressed in the bill should be overseen
by local elected officials
AB 1022 (Oropeza) Chapter 511, Statutes of 2003, added
conditions and restrictions to the use of automated traffic
enforcement systems.
SB 1136 (Kopp) Chapter 54, Statutes of 1998, repealed the
January 1, 1999, sunset date, and extended indefinitely
provisions that allow the use of automated traffic enforcement
systems at official traffic control signals.
SB 833 (Kopp) Chapter 922, Statutes of 1995, authorized a
three-year demonstration period to test the use and
effectiveness of automated traffic enforcement systems in
reducing the incidence of drivers running red lights at roadway
intersections.
SB 1216 (Rosenthal) Chapter 1216, Statutes of 1994, originally
authorized automated enforcement at rail crossings.
Double-referral : This bill has also been referred to the
Assembly Judiciary Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None received
Opposition
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
SB 1303
Page 10
California Police Chiefs Association Inc.
California Traffic Defense Bar Association
California Walks
City of Beverly Hills
League of California Cities
Los Angeles Protective League
National Motorists Association
North American Transportation Association Inc.
Redflex Traffic Systems
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
Safer Streets L.A.
1 Individual
Analysis Prepared by : Victoria Alvarez / TRANS. / (916) 319-
2093