BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 1303
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 16, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
SB 1303 (Simitian) - As Amended: August 13, 2012
Policy Committee:
TransportationVote:11-1
Judiciary 9-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill adds requirements regarding the installation and
operation of an automated traffic enforcement system (ATES) and
the notices sent concerning alleged violations recorded by an
ATES. (Summary continued below.)
FISCAL EFFECT
Minor costs to Judicial Council to approve forms and to compile
and maintain reports from operators of ATES.
SUMMARY (continued)
Specifically, this bill:
1)Prohibits a governmental agency that proposes to install or
operate an ATES from considering revenue generation, beyond
recovery of operating costs.
2)Requires any governmental agency seeking to install or operate
an ATES after January 1, 2013, to adopt a finding of fact that
the ATES is needed at a specific location for safety reasons.
3)Requires the governmental agency utilizing an ATES to identify
the system by signs posted with 200 feet of an intersection
where the system is in use, which are visible to traffic
approaching from all directions, effective January 1, 2014,
for any ATES installed as of January 1, 2013.
4)Requires, by January 1, 2014, any governmental agency
SB 1303
Page 2
operating an ATES installed as of January 1, 2013, to
establish guidelines for screening and issuing violations and
for storage and processing of confidential information.
5)Authorizes the issuing agency, manufacturer or supplier of the
ATES to mail a "notice of non-liability" to the registered
owner or the alleged violator prior to issuing a notice to
appear, prescribes the form that must be sent, and prohibits
the manufacturer or supplier of the system, or the
governmental entity, from altering the notice to appear, or
any other form approved by the Judicial Council.
6)Applies, to the printed representation of computer-generated
information stored by an ATES the rebuttable presumption in
current law that declares a printed representation of computer
information to be an accurate representation of the computer
information, demonstrable, if challenged, by a preponderance
of evidence.
7)Provides procedures by which, after a notice to appear for an
alleged traffic violation recorded by an ATES has been issued,
qualified law enforcement personnel, in the interest of
justice, may recommend to the court that a case be dismissed
and, if the magistrate or judge makes a finding of grounds for
dismissal, requires the infraction to be dismissed and the
finding to be entered into the record.
8)Requires a manufacturer or supplier that operates an ATES to,
in cooperation with the governmental agency, submit an annual
report to the Judicial Council that includes specified data,
including the number of alleged violations captured by the
ATES; the number of citations issued based on information
collected from the ATES; the number of violations that
involved travelling straight through the intersect, or turning
right or left; the number and percentage of citations
dismissed by the court; and the number of collisions at each
intersection before and after installation of the ATES.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . According to the author, the bill is intended to
ensure ATES are operated for safety, not revenue, and due
process is afforded for ATES.
2)Background . ATES have been authorized for use by local
SB 1303
Page 3
governments since 1998. Current law authorizes use of these
systems subject to various requirements relating to posting of
signs to notify motorists of the presence of the system,
adherence to traffic signal timing and intervals standards,
and confidentiality of data collected by the system. Current
law also prohibits a contract between a government agency and
a manufacturer or supplier of automated traffic enforcement
equipment from including provisions for the payment or
compensation to the manufacturer or supplier based on the
number of citations generated, or as a percentage of the
revenue generated, as a result of the use of the equipment.
3)Related Legislation.
a) SB 29 (Simitian 2011) made changes to installation and
operation of ATES and notification of alleged violations
recorded by ATES that were similar this bill. SB 29 passed
the Assembly 70-4 and the Senate 38-0, but was vetoed by
the governor, who stated such issues are better handled by
local government.
b) SB 1362 (Simitian, 2010) also made changes to
installation and operation of ATES and notification of
alleged violations recorded by ATES similar to this bill.
SB 1362 was held by this committee over concerns with the
bill's potential effect on local revenues that would result
from the bills specific notification requirements,
requirements SB 1303 does not include.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081