BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1303|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 1303
Author: Simitian (D)
Amended: 8/13/12
Vote: 21
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE : 8-0, 3/27/12
AYES: DeSaulnier, Gaines, Harman, Kehoe, Pavley, Rubio,
Simitian, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Lowenthal
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 7-0, 4/30/12
AYES: Kehoe, Walters, Alquist, Dutton, Lieu, Price,
Steinberg
SENATE FLOOR : 38-0, 5/31/12
AYES: Alquist, Anderson, Berryhill, Blakeslee, Calderon,
Cannella, Corbett, Correa, De Le�n, DeSaulnier, Dutton,
Emmerson, Evans, Fuller, Gaines, Hancock, Harman,
Hernandez, Huff, Kehoe, La Malfa, Leno, Lieu, Liu,
Lowenthal, Negrete McLeod, Padilla, Pavley, Price, Rubio,
Simitian, Steinberg, Vargas, Walters, Wolk, Wright,
Wyland, Yee
NO VOTE RECORDED: Runner, Strickland
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 62-13, 8/23/12 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Automated traffic enforcement systems (i.e.,
red light cameras)
SOURCE : Author
CONTINUED
SB 1303
Page
2
DIGEST : This bill changes the laws governing automated
traffic enforcement systems to ensure that red light camera
programs maximize traffic safety and are implemented in a
lawful and transparent manner.
Assembly Amendments prohibit a governmental agency that
utilizes an automated traffic enforcement system and that
had signs posted on or before January 1, 2013, that met the
requirements in effect on January 1, 2012, from removing
those signs until the governmental agency posts signs that
meet the requirements imposed by the bill, and revise the
Notice of Non-Liability and Courtesy Notice.
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, among other things, inspects
and maintains signs that warn drivers that an automated
enforcement system is in use. These signs must either be
visible to traffic approaching an intersection where an
automated enforcement system operates or posted at all
major entrances to a city such as at freeways, bridges, and
state highway routes.
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
CONTINUED
SB 1303
Page
3
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, a Judicial Council form that contains 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. The law enforcement agency must mail
the notice to appear within 15 days of the alleged
violation to the current address of the registered owner of
the vehicle.
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
CONTINUED
SB 1303
Page
4
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.
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:
CONTINUED
SB 1303
Page
5
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 of Non-Liability and Courtesy
Notice clearly indicating that the notice is not a
ticket.
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.
Comments
According to the author's office, this bill was introduced
to protect the rights of Californians cited by automated
traffic enforcement systems. To do so, this bill 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, and
improves the means by which a person may challenge
citations issued in error. The author's office contends
this bill is necessary to increase public confidence in the
purpose and fairness of red light camera operations. The
author's office also suggests this bill will likely be
needed to address issues raised in two recent appellate
court decisions.
Recent court decisions . The 2nd District Court of Appeals
in Los Angeles has published two decisions recently
concerning automated traffic enforcement 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
CONTINUED
SB 1303
Page
6
the case was not qualified to authenticate video and
picture evidence, because the city has 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 isn't 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.
These conflicting decisions demonstrate a need for
clarification in statute regarding the evidentiary
standards required for prosecuting automated traffic
enforcement violations.
Governor's veto . This bill is essentially the same as SB
29 (Simitian), which the Senate passed 38-0 on September 1,
2011, the Governor ultimately vetoed. The Governor's veto
message indicates that, while SB 29 standardizes rules for
local governments to follow when installing and maintaining
red light cameras, the Governor feels this is something
that elected officials can and should oversee. The
author's office indicates they are in discussions with the
administration and expects to find a compromise that the
Governor can support. The author's office believes that,
in light of the recent court rulings and ensuing legal
ambiguity, the Governor may wish to sign a bill that helps
bring clarity to the prosecution of red light violations
while also increasing public confidence in the purpose and
fairness of red light camera operations.
CONTINUED
SB 1303
Page
7
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Likely minor one-time costs to Judicial Council to
develop and adopt courtesy notice forms, and minor
ongoing costs to compile and maintain reports received
from operators of automated traffic enforcement systems
(Trial Court Trust Fund).
Non-reimbursable local costs to post signage and develop
uniform guidelines and procedures by January 1, 2014.
Additional local costs related to the discretionary act
of installing future automated traffic enforcement
systems.
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/23/12)
California Police Chiefs Association
California Walks
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/23/12)
California Traffic Defense Bar Association
National Motorists Association
North American Transportation Association Inc.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 62-13, 8/23/12
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall,
Bill Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford,
Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos,
Carter, Cedillo, Chesbro, Conway, Davis, Dickinson,
Donnelly, Eng, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani,
Galgiani, Garrick, Gordon, Gorell, Grove, Hall, Hayashi,
Hill, Huber, Hueso, Huffman, Jeffries, Lara, Logue,
Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Miller, Mitchell, Monning,
Nestande, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel P�rez, Silva, Skinner,
Smyth, Solorio, Swanson, Torres, Wagner, Yamada, John A.
P�rez
NOES: Beth Gaines, Gatto, Hagman, Halderman, Harkey,
Jones, Knight, Mansoor, Morrell, Nielsen, Norby, Olsen,
CONTINUED
SB 1303
Page
8
Valadao
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cook, Roger Hern�ndez, Portantino,
Wieckowski, Williams
JJA:dm 8/24/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED