BILL ANALYSIS SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: Sb 1362 SENATOR ALAN LOWENTHAL, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: simitian VERSION: 3/23/10 Analysis by: Jennifer Gress FISCAL: no Hearing date: May 4, 2010 SUBJECT: Automated traffic enforcement systems (i.e., red light cameras) DESCRIPTION: This bill helps to ensure that red light camera programs are designed to maximize traffic safety and are implemented in a lawful and transparent manner. 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 does the following: Develops uniform guidelines for screening and issuing violations, processing and storing confidential information, and selecting locations where automated enforcements systems will be utilized. Establishes procedures to ensure compliance with those guidelines. Certifies that the equipment is properly installed and calibrated and is operating properly. Ensures that the equipment is regularly inspected. Inspects and maintains signs that warn drivers that an SB 1362 (SIMITIAN) Page 2 automated enforcement system is in use. These signs must be visible to traffic approaching an intersection where an automated enforcement system operates and clearly identify the presence of the camera system at that intersection. Oversees the establishment or change of signal phases and timing. The yellow light change interval must be established in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which is maintained by the California Department of Transportation. Maintains controls necessary to assure that only those citations that law enforcement personnel have reviewed and approved are delivered to violators. A governmental agency may contract out its duties to certify that the equipment is installed and operating properly and to ensure that the equipment is regularly inspected, provided the agency maintains overall control and supervision of the system. 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 for 30 days. A peace officer or "qualified employee" of a law enforcement agency reviews the photographs and issues citations, as appropriate. A citation involves a "notice to appear," which must use a form approved by the Judicial Council and contain particular 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. A notice to appear must be mailed within 15 days of the alleged violation to the current address of the registered owner of the vehicle. Existing law contains several provisions regarding the confidentiality of information collected for purposes of issuing SB 1362 (SIMITIAN) Page 3 citations for violations captured by an automated enforcement system. Photographic records produced by automated systems, as well as information obtained from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) are confidential and may only be used for traffic enforcement purposes. This information may be retained for up to six months from the date the information was first obtained, or until final disposition of the citation, whichever is later. After that time, the information is to be destroyed in a manner that preserves the confidentiality of the person whose information had been obtained. This bill : Requires that signs indicating an automated enforcement system's presence be placed at both the intersection where the system operates and at all major entrances to the city. Requires that a government agency base its guidelines for selecting a location on safety and make the guidelines available to the public, including posting them on the government agency's website. Provides that a citation issued by a government agency is null and void if the entity fails to operate its automated enforcement system in compliance with the law. COMMENTS: 1.Purpose . In response to the author's annual "There Oughta Be A Law" contest, one constituent, San Jose resident Vera Gil, reported that she had been mis-identified three times by red light cameras located in Southern California. The vehicle captured in the photograph was not hers, she was not the driver identified in the photo, and she had not traveled to Southern California where the violation was recorded. Because private companies are involved in the issuance of tickets from automated enforcement systems, it sometimes took Ms. Gil many steps to demonstrate her innocence. Ms. Gil's experience prompted the author to investigate how red light camera programs were being implemented around the state. This bill, and the author's amendments discussed in the second comment, are the product of that investigation. SB 1362 (SIMITIAN) Page 4 Three red light camera vendors operate automated enforcement programs in California: Redflex, American Traffic Solutions (ATS), and Affiliated Computer Systems (ACS). Each vendor has its own business model that it tailors to meet the preferences and needs of the local agencies with which it contracts. As a result, there is tremendous variation in how red light cameras programs are administered throughout the state. Examples of program elements that may vary include whether the vendor or the law enforcement agency screens incidents captured by the system, the criteria used to screen incidents, what kinds of notices are mailed to alleged violators, which entity mails the notices, what information is included on the notice, and how intersections are identified for use of automated enforcement. Even something as seemingly straightforward as defining what constitutes a red light violation may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In addition to the variation found in program administration, there is not consistent agreement about what current law actually requires to operate an automated enforcement system. Furthermore, the processes by which an alleged violator may learn about and contest a citation are sometimes unclear and, in certain cases, appear to be misleading. For example, sometimes the notice to appear was modified, which current law requires to be on a form approved by the Judicial Council, to serve purposes not addressed by current law. These modified forms appeared official, but lacked the force of law. The intent of this bill is to protect the rights of Californians cited by automated enforcement systems. In doing so, it will require that local governments using red light cameras establish policies and procedures that help ensure citations are properly and appropriately issued and improve the means by which a person may challenge citations issued in error. 2.Author's amendments . The author intends to offer a series of amendments in committee based on findings made to date in his investigation of red light camera programs. Each amendment and the rationale supporting the proposed change is explained below. SB 1362 (SIMITIAN) Page 5 Clarify the activities that must be undertaken in order to operate an automated enforcement system: Section 21455.5(c): Explicitly require that all of the activities articulated in current law are undertaken when a government agency operates an automated enforcement system. It is unclear whether current law requires a government agency to do all activities specified in current law or whether conducting any of the specified duties is sufficient to operate a system. This amendment removes that ambiguity by clearly stating that a government agency must undertake all prescribed duties. Ensure that automated enforcement systems are implemented and operated in a manner to improve traffic safety: 21455.5(c)(2)(A): Add "solely" on line 31 after "based" to clarify that a local government may employ automated enforcement systems only to improve traffic safety, as opposed to generating revenue. With regard to determining which intersections may be equipped with an automated enforcement system, the amendments will require a government agency to collect collision data for each type of violation that the agency contemplates enforcing using the system. For example, if an agency wishes to use photo enforcement to capture right turn violations, the agency must document that the incidence of collisions due to right turn violations is significant. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that government agencies select intersections based on a documented safety risk posed by red light running and not by other factors. 21455.5(g): Add a paragraph to stipulate that, when a government agency enters into a contract with a vendor, the agency may not consider revenue generation or profit beyond recovering its costs to implement the system. Make the processes for issuing and contesting citations transparent and fair: 21455.5(d)(2): Specify that a citation must be dismissed if an automated enforcement system is not implemented in a manner such that all duties specified in SB 1362 (SIMITIAN) Page 6 current law are undertaken. The amendments will also prohibit a government agency from issuing further citations until all duties have been completed. 21455.5(c)(2): Require government agencies to develop procedures to ensure that citations are issued to the correct person. The amendments will prohibit government agencies and vendors from requiring, or appearing to require, that persons submit information that may then be used to issue a citation to that person. If a government agency or vendor contacts a registered owner of a vehicle prior to issuing a citation in an effort to determine the identity of the alleged violator, the entity must clearly and prominently communicate that the person is not required to provide any information and that failure to do so will not result in any adverse action. This amendment is intended to address the practice of some vendors of issuing what is variously referred to as a "courtesy notice" or a "notice of violation" that have the appearance of an official citation but instead represent an attempt to obtain information about a person that the vendor believes may be the violator captured in a photo. The information is used to confirm the identity of an alleged violator, which is then submitted to the law enforcement agency. This practice raises a number of concerns. First, the information contained on the "notice of violation" is somewhat misleading. Staff has examined examples of these notices and the notices are presented in a manner that makes it appear that a law enforcement agency is issuing them when in fact one is not. Additionally, the instructions included on the form appear to require the person to complete and return the form or the person risks being cited, even if the person in the photograph is not the person receiving the notice. This practice may mislead a person receiving a notice to believe he or she must complete and return the form when in fact the vendor has no authority to require that any person submit information about him or herself to it. Second, the form includes an "affidavit of non-liability" that allows a person to indicate that he or she was not the person in the photo. If the person is not the driver in the photograph, then the form directs the person to indicate who the driver was. The author is concerned that persons receiving these SB 1362 (SIMITIAN) Page 7 notices may assume that they are required to incriminate themselves or others, a potential violation of one's rights. Amend Section 40518 of the Vehicle Code to delete "qualified employee of a law enforcement agency" to ensure that only peace officers issue citations for violations captured by automated enforcement systems. Amend Section 40518 to add a subdivision that specifies the type of information that must be included on a notice to appear. This information includes, but is not limited to, the following: The methods by which a person may view and discuss with the issuing agency, both by telephone and in-person, the evidence used to substantiate the violation. Contact information for the issuing agency. Amend Section 40518 to add a subdivision specifying that if a vendor elects to use "courtesy notices" or "notices of violation" or any other notice that does not constitute an official notice to appear, the form used must be approved by the Judicial Council. The form shall include a description of the methods by which a person may view and discuss the violation with the issuing agency and contact information for the issuing agency. Furthermore, communications initiated by the vendor on behalf of itself or the government agency shall clearly and conspicuously identify the vendor and in no case shall appear to be the law enforcement agency responsible for issuing the citation. Amend Section 40518 to add a subdivision prohibiting a vendor or government agency from modifying a form approved by the Judicial Council. If a form is found to have been altered, the citation issued using the altered form shall be dismissed. Provide for data collection and reporting: The amendments will require vendors, in cooperation with the government agencies with which they contract, to submit an annual report to the Judicial Council regarding the use of their systems. The following information will be required to be included in the report: SB 1362 (SIMITIAN) Page 8 Number of alleged violations captured by the systems they operate. Number of citations issued by a law enforcement agency based on information collected from a photo enforcement system. The number of citations issued for each type of violation. The number and percentage of citations that are contested. The number and percentage of citations that are dismissed. The number of collisions at each intersection where a photo enforcement system operates before and after a system is installed. Because government agencies operate their programs independently without oversight by any state or federal agency, it has been very difficult to assess the extent of operations in California and whether any problems exist with specific programs or with the authority in general. The committee, for example, receives numerous complaints from individuals that suggest the number and cost of citations issued for right-turn violations are out of proportion with the risk posed by turning right on red. No data are available, however, to assess these concerns and determine whether appropriate limitations may be put in place. The intent of this amendment, therefore, is to provide a means by which the state may gain a better sense of what is occurring with automated enforcement systems across jurisdictions and whether any areas of improvement may exist. POSITIONS: (Communicated to the Committee before noon on Wednesday, August 28, 2010) SUPPORT: None received. OPPOSED: None received.