BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 949|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 949
Author: Oropeza (D)
Amended: 5/11/10
Vote: 21
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMM : 8-0, 5/4/10
AYES: Lowenthal, Huff, Ashburn, DeSaulnier, Kehoe,
Oropeza, Pavley, Simitian
NO VOTE RECORDED: Harman
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT : Vehicles: local authority: assessing
penalties
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill clarifies that the provisions of the
California Vehicle Code are applicable throughout the
state, and that local authorities may not enact or enforce
an ordinance or resolution related to matters covered in
the state Vehicle Code, including ordinances or resolutions
that establish regulations or procedures for, or assess a
fine, penalty, assessment, or fee for a violation of the
Vehicle Code, unless expressly authorized to do so.
ANALYSIS : The California Vehicle Code provides that its
provisions are applicable and uniform throughout the state.
A local authority may not enact or enforce any ordinance
on matters covered by the Vehicle Code unless it expressly
CONTINUED
SB 949
Page
2
authorizes a local authority to do so.
Local authorities may adopt rules and regulations by
ordinance or resolution regarding the following matters:
1. Regulating or prohibiting processions or assemblages on
the highways.
2. Licensing and regulating the operation of vehicles for
hire (e.g., taxis), drivers of passenger vehicles for
hire, tow trucks, and tow truck drivers.
3. Regulating traffic by means of traffic officers,
official traffic control devices, persons authorized for
that duty by the local authority, and at the site of
road construction or maintenance.
4. Operation of bicycles and of electric carts by
physically disabled persons or persons 50 years of age
or older on the public sidewalks.
5. Providing for the appointment of nonstudent school
crossing guards.
6. Regulating the methods of deposit of refuse in streets
for collection.
7. Regulating cruising, closing streets to vehicular
traffic, and diverting traffic under certain
circumstances.
8. Regulating or authorizing the removal by peace officers
of vehicles unlawfully parked in a fire lane on private
property.
9. Designating any highway as a through highway and
requiring that all vehicles observe official traffic
control devices before entering or crossing the highway.
10. Prohibiting certain vehicles from using particular
highways.
11. Closing particular streets during regular school
hours for the purpose of conducting driver training.
CONTINUED
SB 949
Page
3
12. Temporarily closing a portion of any street for
celebrations, parades, local special events, etc.
13. Prohibiting entry to or exit from any street by means
of islands, curbs, traffic barriers, or other roadway
design features to implement the circulation element of
a general plan.
The Vehicle Code also prescribes specific fines and
assessments for numerous violations of the code. For
violations for which the code does not prescribe a specific
penalty, the Vehicle Code provides a maximum fine in which
case the Judicial Council may establish the exact fine to
be assessed.
This bill clarifies that the provisions of the California
Vehicle Code are applicable throughout the state, and that
local authorities may not enact or enforce an ordinance or
resolution related to matters covered in the state Vehicle
Code, including ordinances or resolutions that establish
regulations or procedures for, or assess a fine, penalty,
assessment, or fee for a violation of the Vehicle Code,
unless expressly authorized to do so.
Comments
The debate: state preemption . A hand full of local
governments around the state have established municipal
ordinances that include violations identical to ones
contained in the Vehicle Code (e.g., a person shall obey
traffic signs and signals) and that assess penalties for
the violations. If a person is cited for a violation under
a municipal ordinance, the penalty assessed is the penalty
contained in the ordinance, not the state Vehicle Code.
The local government receives the revenue from the penalty
and it does not communicate the violation to the Department
of Motor Vehicles.
At issue is whether the state Vehicle Code preempts local
ordinances with regard to regulating traffic. Section 7 of
Article XI of the California Constitution provides that a
local authority "may make and enforce within its limits all
local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and
CONTINUED
SB 949
Page
4
regulations not in conflict with general laws." Opinions
issued formally by the Office of the Attorney General
(1990) and informally this year by the Los Angeles Police
Department cite legal cases in which "conflict" was found
to occur when the state has enacted a legislative scheme
intended for uniform application throughout the state and
has indicated its intention to preempt local regulation in
the area. In its 1990 opinion, the Office of the Attorney
General concluded, "The Vehicle Code is such an enactment
and in fact contains its own preemption rule, found in its
Section 21."
The City of Roseville argues that by allowing local
authorities to adopt rules and regulations regarding
"regulating traffic by means of official traffic control
devices," the state Vehicle Code does expressly authorize
local authorities to establish and enforce municipal
ordinances regarding such actions as obeying signs or
signals.
Allowing local authorities to regulate traffic by means of
official traffic control devices, however, has generally
been interpreted to mean that local governments may
determine where to place which traffic signs and signals.
Furthermore, a number of legal opinions rendered over the
years reinforce the state's preemption of the field of
traffic control, particularly in cases where penalties for
violations are established in state statute.
In response to local governments enforcing local ordinances
related to matters covered by the state Vehicle Code, the
author requested the Legislative Counsel to opine on the
following question: Does the Vehicle Code preempt local
authorities from enacting and enforcing ordinances to
assess a fine for nonparking-related violations (i.e.,
moving violations) if a fine for the violation is specified
in the Vehicle Code?
In its opinion, Legislative Counsel asserted that the
Vehicle Code does preempt the authority of a local
authority to enact and enforce ordinances assessing
penalties for moving violations because it provides for a
comprehensive scheme of penalties for moving violations,
including the disposition of fine revenue.
CONTINUED
SB 949
Page
5
Statutory and case law show that local ordinances that
assess penalties for moving violations contained in the
Vehicle Code are preempted by the Vehicle Code and thus
invalid. If a local authority would like to cite violators
using municipal ordinances, then legislation would be
needed to explicitly authorize local authorities to enact
and enforce laws that establish penalties for specified
moving violations.
Fine revenue . The fines for violations cited under
municipal ordinances vary by jurisdiction tend to range
from $100 to $150 for the first offense with increasingly
higher fines for subsequent offenses. For failing to obey
traffic control devices, the City of Roseville has adopted
a fine of $100 for a first offense, $200 for a second
offense, and $500 for subsequent offenses. Local fines are
not subject to the state-mandated penalty assessments,
surcharges, or other fees that apply to citations issued
under the Vehicle Code. One hundred percent of revenues
from fines collected under municipal ordinances stay with
the jurisdiction in which the violation occurred.
The fines for violations cited under the Vehicle Code, by
contrast, are much higher in total once penalty
assessments, surcharges, and other fees are added.
According to the 2010 Uniform Bail and Penalty Schedule,
base fine in the amount of $35 has a total bail of $211 and
a base fine of $100 has a total bail of $445. Fine
revenues, including penalty assessments, are distributed
according to complicated formulas established in statute,
but some portion is distributed to the local jurisdiction
where the violation occurred. The exact percentage depends
on the amount of the base fine as some of the penalty
assessments are calculated as a percentage of the base
fine. For base fines of $35, the local government receives
approximately 34 percent of the total bail amount, which
for total bail of $211 is $71. For base fines of $100, the
local government receives about 43 percent of the total
bail, which equals $191.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
CONTINUED
SB 949
Page
6
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/13/10)
AAA of Northern California
Automobile Club of Southern California
California Traffic Classes, Inc
Cheap School (Traffic School)
Great Comedians Traffic School
Traffic Safety Consultants, Inc.
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/13/10)
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
California Fraternal Order of Police
California Public Parking Association
California State Association of Counties
City of Costa Mesa
City of Fremont
City of Red Bluff
County Professional Peace Officers Association
League of California Cities
Long Beach Police Officer's Association
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
The California State Sheriffs' Association
Urban Counties Caucus
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
several local governments, including the county of Alameda
and the cities of Marysville, Roseville, Riverbank, and
Newman, have elected to make it their official policy to
ignore certain moving violations and penalties in the state
Vehicle Code and punish these offenses under their own
local ordinances.
Legislative Counsel has opined that such actions by local
governments are illegal. The Los Angeles Police
Department, the largest local law enforcement entity in the
state, has reached a similar conclusion, finding such
actions by local governments to be in violation of the
California Constitution. With this understanding, the
author considers this bill to be a technical cleanup
measure to remove any misunderstanding local governments
may have regarding their authority under state law.
CONTINUED
SB 949
Page
7
Inconsistency in the enforcement of the state's Vehicle
Code fosters confusion and distrust among drivers. In
addition, it inhibits accurate collection of statewide data
on moving violations, used to track unsafe drivers and
calculate insurance rates, and it puts the state at risk of
losing millions in federal transportation dollars.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Opponents state, "While
seemingly narrow in scope, this bill would create a blanket
preemption of municipal codes addressing traffic
violations. Specifically, SB 949 would prohibit a local
agency from issuing a traffic citation - as currently
authorized under Section 21100 of the Vehicle Code - if the
penalty assessed through the local municipal code is
different from the provided for in the state Vehicle Code.
The intent of this legislation is well within reason, and
we generally concur that uniform traffic regulation is
vital to safe passage for the motoring public, pedestrians,
and cyclists. However, the additional consequences of SB
949 are problematic for both local agencies and the state,
and sets a dangerous precedent for state control over
policies intended to address public safety issues specific
to a jurisdiction.
"The discretion afforded through the municipal codes to
local jurisdictions, the law enforcement officers serving
those local jurisdictions, and courts reviewing citations
ensures an appropriate response to the local needs. SB 949
unfortunately undermines that flexibility for a
one-size-fits-all approach to public safety."
JA:nl 5/13/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED