BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Noreen Evans, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
SB 1570 (Wyland)
As Introduced
Hearing Date: May 8, 2012
Fiscal: No
Urgency: No
TW
SUBJECT
Vehicles: Automated Parking Enforcement
DESCRIPTION
Existing law, until January 1, 2016, authorizes a local agency
to install and operate an automated parking enforcement system
on local public agency-owned or local public agency-operated
streetsweepers for the purpose of digital photographing of
street-sweeping parking violations occurring in street-sweeping
parking lanes.
This bill would expand the use of streetsweeper cameras by
permitting the installation of an automated parking enforcement
system on streetsweepers operated by a vendor pursuant to a
contract with a local public agency.
BACKGROUND
While some counties may have already installed certain automated
systems, legislative authorization for automated enforcement
procedures relating to traffic violations began in 1994 with SB
1802 (Rosenthal, Chapter 1216, Statutes of 1994). That bill
authorized the use of "automated rail crossing enforcement
systems" to enforce prohibitions on drivers from passing around
or under rail crossings while the gates are closed. (Veh. Code
Sec. 22451.) Those systems functioned by photographing the
front license plate and the driver of vehicles who proceeded
around closed rail crossing gates in violation of the Vehicle
Code provisions. Those drivers, in turn, received citations for
their violations.
(more)
SB 1570 (Wyland)
Page 2 of ?
In 1995, the Legislature authorized a three-year trial red light
camera enforcement system program. (SB 833 (Kopp, Chapter 922,
Statutes of 1995).) Using similar technology, that program used
sensors connected to cameras to take photographs of the front
license plate and driver upon entering an intersection on a red
light. The program was permanently extended in 1998 by SB 1136
(Kopp, Chapter 54, Statutes of 1998).
In 2007, the Legislature authorized a four-year pilot project
where the City and County of San Francisco was authorized to
install video cameras on city-owned public transit for the
purpose of video imaging parking violations occurring in
transit-only traffic lanes. (AB 101 (Ma, Chapter 377, Statutes
of 2007).) The City and County of San Francisco's authorization
to use the cameras originally sunset on January 1, 2012, but was
extended to January 1, 2016 last year by AB 1041 (Ma, Chapter
325, Statutes of 2011). That bill also expanded the application
of the project by broadening the definition of "transit-only
traffic lane," and removed the prohibition on wireless
transmission of video images.
Following the passage of AB 101, the Legislature also authorized
a five-year statewide pilot project to allow local public
agencies to use automated parking enforcement systems for
streetsweeping-related violations. (AB 2567 (Bradford, Chapter
471, Statutes of 2010).) That bill granted broad authority,
based on AB 101, to allow a local public agency to utilize an
automated parking enforcement system that uses cameras on
streetsweepers for the purpose of taking digital photographs of
parking violations. Although that bill was chaptered in 2010,
it should be noted that Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed a
substantially similar version the prior year due to concerns
that it "could present a significant risk of violating an
individual's privacy unrelated to the enforcement of law. It
may also lead to the unwarranted proliferation of camera
enforcement in many other arenas." Similar concerns regarding
privacy and the unintended consequences of authorizing the
additional use of cameras proposed by the original bills were
discussed in this Committee.
This bill, sponsored by Redflex Traffic Systems, would further
expand the use of cameras by specifically authorizing the use of
those cameras on streetsweepers operated by a vendor pursuant to
a contract with the local public agency. As a result, this bill
would further remove public involvement in the enforcement of
the laws by authorizing the pictures taken by a private,
non-public, vehicle to be used for enforcement of parking
SB 1570 (Wyland)
Page 3 of ?
violations while using other authority authorized by AB 2567 to
use another (or the same) private company to process notices of
those violations.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law authorizes the use of an automated enforcement
system for enforcement of red light violations by a governmental
agency, subject to specific requirements and limitations. (Veh.
Code Sec. 21455.5.) Existing law provides that a violation of
any regulation governing the standing or parking of a vehicle
under the Vehicle Code, federal statute or regulation, or local
ordinance, is subject to a civil penalty. (Veh. Code Sec.
40200.)
Existing law provides that notice of a delinquent parking
violation must contain various information, including a notice
that unless the parking penalty is paid or contested within 21
calendar days from the issuance of a citation, or 14 calendar
days from the mailing of a delinquent parking violation, as
specified, the renewal of the vehicle registration is contingent
upon compliance with the notice. (Veh. Code Sec. 40207.)
Existing law authorized the City and County of San Francisco
(San Francisco), until January 1, 2012, to enforce parking
violations in transit-only traffic lanes through the use of
video image evidence. San Francisco was authorized to install
automated forward facing parking control devices on city-owned
public transit vehicles for the purpose of video-imaging parking
violations in transit-only traffic lanes, and is required to
submit an evaluation of the program on or before March 1, 2015.
(Veh. Code Sec. 40240 et seq.)
Existing law , until January 1, 2016, authorizes a local public
agency to install and operate an automated parking enforcement
system on streetsweepers for the purpose of digital
photographing of street-sweeping parking violations occurring in
street-sweeping lanes. The equipment must be angled and focused
so as to capture photographs of license plates of vehicles
violating street-sweeping regulations and must not unnecessarily
capture identifying photographs of other drivers, vehicles, or
pedestrians. (Veh. Code Sec. 40245 et seq.)
Existing law permits that equipment to only capture digital
photographs when the automated parking enforcement system
detects the occurrence of a parking infraction. The equipment
SB 1570 (Wyland)
Page 4 of ?
shall record the date and time the photograph was captured onto
the photograph, and require any information read from a license
plate at a location or at a time not designated for
streetsweeping to be destroyed by the close of the next business
day. (Veh. Code. Sec. 40247.)
Existing law permits citations to be issued only for violations
captured during the designated hours of operation for a
street-sweeping lane, as specified. At least 30-days prior to
issuing notices of parking violations, the local public agency
shall make a public announcement of the automated enforcement
system and only issue warning notices during that 30-day period.
(Veh. Code Sec. 40247.)
Existing law requires a designated employee for the local public
agency to review digital photographs for purposes of determining
whether a parking violation occurred in a street-sweeping
parking lane. A violation of a statute, regulation, ordinance
governing parking under the Vehicle Code, a federal or state
statute or regulation, or an ordinance enacted by the local
public agency occurring in a street-sweeping parking lane
observed by the designated employee in the photographs would be
subject to a civil penalty. (Veh. Code Sec. 40247.)
Existing law allows digital photograph evidence to be retained
for up to six months from the date the information was first
obtained, or 90 days after final disposition of the citation,
whichever date is sooner, after which time the information shall
be destroyed in a manner that preserves the confidentiality of
any person included in the record or information, as specified.
Photographs that do not contain evidence of a parking violation
must be destroyed, in a manner that preserves the
confidentiality of any person included in the information,
within 15 days after the information was first obtained. (Veh.
Code Sec. 40247.)
Existing law also provides that the digital image photographs,
and any information read from license plates, by an automated
parking enforcement system are confidential, and that local
public agencies shall use and allow access to those photographs
and license plate readings only for purposes authorized by this
bill. (Veh. Code Sec. 40247.)
Existing law requires a designated employee for the local public
agency to issue a notice of parking violation to the registered
owner within 15 calendar days of the violation, as specified.
SB 1570 (Wyland)
Page 5 of ?
The notice must include a statement that payment is required
within 21 calendar days from the date of issuance, and the
procedure to deposit the parking penalty or to contest the
citation. The notice must include a copy of the digital
photograph evidence. (Veh. Code Sec. 40248.)
Existing law additionally permits the local public agency to
contract with a private vendor for the processing of notices of
parking violations and notices of delinquent violations, if the
local public agency maintains overall control and supervision of
the automated parking enforcement system. (Veh. Code Sec.
40248.)
This bill would additionally authorize the installation of an
automated parking enforcement system on streetsweepers operated
by a vendor pursuant to a contract with the local public agency.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
According to the author:
In 2007, AB 101 (Ma) was signed into law which authorized a
pilot program in the City of San Francisco. This
legislation allowed the city to install an automatic parking
enforcement system on public transit and city-owned vehicles
in order to monitor parking violations. The Legislature
found when evaluating the automated enforcement systems that
parking violations decreased in the areas where these
systems were in place. Automated parking enforcement system
utilization reduced the cost for manual enforcement of
parking violations.
The pilot program was eventually expanded in 2010 by AB 2567
(Bradford). The bill authorized a local agency to install
and operate an automated parking enforcement system on
street sweepers. Video recording devices are required to be
angled and focused to capture images of parking violations,
while ensuring that they do not unnecessarily capture
identifying images of other drivers, vehicles, and
pedestrians in an effort to protect privacy. The digital
evidence must remain confidential and must be destroyed six
months following the date it was obtained or 60 days after
the final disposition of the citation, whichever is later.
SB 1570 (Wyland)
Page 6 of ?
After the passage of AB 2567, it was found that the
provisions of the bill only applied to street sweepers owned
by a public agency and not to street sweepers owned by
private vendors who are operating under a contract for
services with a local agency. . . . SB 1570 allows a local
public agency to install and operate an automated parking
enforcement system on street sweepers operated by a private
vendor.
The League of California Cities, in support, notes that
"automated street sweeping parking citations will alleviate the
workload of parking/traffic enforcement officers, allowing them
to prioritize more pressing assignments and better manage
limited public safety dollars."
2. Policy questions raised by use by private parties
In addition to the privacy issues raised by the proposed
expansion on the use of cameras on streetsweepers, the expanded
role of non-governmental entities in the enforcement of local
laws also raises significant policy questions about the
appropriate role of private parties in the enforcement of public
laws. Prior to the original authorization provided by AB 2567
(Bradford, Chapter 471, Statutes of 2010), enforcement officers
(local government employees) were tasked with enforcing parking
violations occurring in streetsweeping lanes during designated
sweeping hours. That fundamental structure ensured that the
local government employees enforced the local laws and
regulations. Although AB 2567 weakened that structure by
allowing cameras to capture images of violations, those images
were still captured by a government-operated vehicle and
reviewed by a designated employee. By allowing private vehicles
operated by non-governmental individuals to enforce parking
violations, this bill raises significant policy and due process
questions about who should be enforcing the laws of local
jurisdictions in California.
For example, it is unclear whether a local government would have
a sufficient amount of control to ensure the integrity of the
images in a situation where a private party controls the vehicle
that captures those images of violation. In that situation, the
provisions of existing law would require a designated employee
for the public agency to review the images (captured by camera
on private vehicle) to see if there is a violation - that
employee would have to rely upon information that was provided
regarding time, date, location to find conclusively that there
SB 1570 (Wyland)
Page 7 of ?
was a violation. That employee may be unable to detect any
errors in the data (for example, if the time or location was
correct on the image), thus, resulting in the issuance of a
violation, certified correct by a public employee, which was
based upon incorrect information. If challenged by the alleged
violator, it is unclear whether a court may simply look at the
incorrect data provided by the private party and reviewed by the
public employee to find that the violation actually occurred.
In contrast, absent the involvement of cameras or third parties,
an alleged violation would be documented by an actual
enforcement officer who would have personal knowledge of the
circumstances regarding the notice of parking violation.
SHOULD IMAGES CAPTURED BY PRIVATE VEHICLES BE SUFFICIENT FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF PARKING VIOLATIONS? TO ENSURE INTEGRITY OF THE LAWS
OF THIS STATE, SHOULD VIOLATIONS BE CAPTURED BY A GOVERNMENTAL
ENTITY?
From a policy standpoint, allowing local governments to rely on
images captured by cameras on private vehicles to issue fines
would appear to further infringe on the privacy of individuals
caught on camera. That use of third parties expands the use of
cameras further into residential areas and sets the dubious
policy standard of allowing non-governmental individuals to
capture images that are relied on by the government to find a
violation of the laws. Considering that the use of the
automated system simply generates fine revenue and does not
actually move cars to allow streetsweeping (a tow truck would
have to be called in to do so), it is unclear whether any
benefit as a result of the deterrent of the cameras outweighs
the additional impacts on privacy and due process. Regarding
the deterrent effect, the League of California Cities notes that
"�c]ities that currently implement digital camera recording
report increased levels of compliance with street sweeping
regulations, maximizing the full cleaning service of street
sweeping."
It should also be noted that automated traffic enforcement
systems have been subject to recent lawsuits, thus, it is
unclear whether a local government using the automated system on
private vehicles can expect overall cost savings after paying
the required fees and defending any litigation that challenges
the fines that are issued.
3. Questionable control
SB 1570 (Wyland)
Page 8 of ?
Pursuant to existing Section 40248 of the Vehicle Code, a local
public agency may contract with a private vendor for processing
notices of parking violations only if the local public agency
"maintains overall control and supervision of the automated
parking enforcement system." While that section does not define
overall control and supervision, it is unclear how that control
could be maintained when a private vendor both operates the
streetsweeper and processes the notices of violation. That
control is essential to ensure the integrity of the violations
and to avoid any actual (or perceived) conflict of interest by a
private vendor who may be paid based upon the number of
violations.
To ensure that the requirement of control is not illusory, the
bill could be amended to prohibit a local governmental entity
from contracting with a private entity for both processing
notices of violations and operating the streetsweepers.
Although the amendment would provide clarity for local
governments and reduce the chance of litigation by violators who
allege that the local public agency lacked overall control, that
amendment would not address the fundamental concerns raised
above regarding the use of private individuals to enforce public
laws.
WOULD A LOCAL PUBLIC AGENCY HAVE OVERALL CONTROL OVER THE
AUTOMATED SYSTEM AS REQUIRED BY LAW IF THE IMAGES OF VIOLATION
ARE TAKEN BY A PRIVATELY OPERATED STREETSWEEPER AND PROCESSED BY
A PRIVATE PARTY?
4. Expansion proposed before issuance of report on privacy
implications
To provide information regarding the impacts of authorizing the
use of cameras on streetsweepers to capture parking violations,
AB 2567 (Bradford, 2010) requires any local public agency using
the system to collect and report information in eight different
areas. Of particular relevance to the privacy issues raised by
the original authorization, the report is required to include
information regarding individuals who requested photographs for
a purpose unrelated to a parking violation, and an "evaluation
of the privacy implications of the system, including a summary
of any privacy-related complaints about the system." (Veh. Code
Sec. 40249.) Since those reports are not required until January
1, 2015, it is unknown whether any local agency is already
experiencing unusual requests for these photographs, or, has
particular concerns about the privacy implications of the system
SB 1570 (Wyland)
Page 9 of ?
that is already authorized.
Considering the lack of information about the impacts of AB
2567, the Committee should consider whether it is appropriate to
expand that original authorization without more complete data as
to the effects of the cameras currently being used on
streetsweepers in California.
SHOULD THE PROVISIONS OF AB 2567 BE EXPANDED PRIOR TO RECEIVING
THE REPORT REQUIRED BY THAT BILL?
5. Prior concerns about camera use
This Committee's analysis of AB 101 raised questions about the
privacy implications resulting from the placement of outward
facing cameras on transit vehicles and stated:
While previously allowing citations based upon photographic
evidence for dangerous rail crossings and red light
violations appeared to be mainly supported by the lives that
would be saved by increased enforcement, and deterrence of
reckless conduct, parking violations do not rise to that
level.
. . . Thus, the program proposed by this bill represents a
fundamental shift in the justification required in order to
implement an automatic enforcement system. If cost savings
are considered sufficient justification for such automation,
many additional types of violations could be modified
pursuant to the precedent set by �AB 101].
Similarly, this Committee's analysis of AB 2567 (Bradford,
2010), which authorized local public agencies to install and
operate automated parking enforcement systems on streetsweepers,
noted:
�AB 2567] would rely upon the precedent set by AB 101 (Ma,
2007) to allow street sweepers throughout the state to
capture digital photographs for purposes of issuing parking
citations. That precedent - authorizing the use of cameras
to save on costs - represents a fundamental change in how
California has historically used cameras to enforce
violations. This legislation represents another step away
from the rationale previously used to justify the use of
cameras for automated enforcement. Although this bill could
arguably result in reduced employee costs for local
governments (and increased revenue from citations), part of
that cost reduction could also come in the form of fewer
SB 1570 (Wyland)
Page 10 of ?
employees needed to patrol for those violations.
Support : California Public Parking Association; League of
California Cities
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Source : Redflex Traffic Systems
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation :
AB 1041 (Ma, Ch. 325, Stats. 2011) See Background.
AB 2567 (Bradford, Ch. 471, Stats. 2010) See Background;
Comments 1, 2, 4, and 5.
AB 101 (Ma, Ch. 377, Stats. 2007) See Background; Comments 1 and
5.
SB 1136 (Kopp, Ch. 54, Stats. 1998) See Background.
SB 833 (Kopp, Ch. 922, Stats. 1995) See Background.
SB 1802 (Rosenthal, Ch. 1216, Stats. 1994) See Background.
Prior Vote : Senate Transportation & Housing Committee (Ayes 8,
Noes 0)
**************