BILL ANALYSIS ------------------------------------------------------------ |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1362| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ------------------------------------------------------------ THIRD READING Bill No: SB 1362 Author: Simitian (D), et al Amended: 5/25/10 Vote: 21 SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE : 7-0, 5/4/10 AYES: Lowenthal, Huff, Ashburn, DeSaulnier, Kehoe, Pavley, Simitian NO VOTE RECORDED: Harman, Oropeza SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8 SUBJECT : Automated traffic enforcement systems SOURCE : Author DIGEST : 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: CONTINUED SB 1362 Page 2 1. Develops uniform guidelines for screening and issuing violations, processing and storing confidential information, and selecting locations where automated enforcements systems will be utilized. 2. Establishes procedures to ensure compliance with those guidelines. 3. Certifies that the equipment is properly installed and calibrated and is operating properly. 4. Ensures that the equipment is regularly inspected. 5. Inspects and maintains signs that warn drivers that an 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. 6. 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. 7. 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 CONTINUED SB 1362 Page 3 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 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 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: 1. Clarifies that signs identifying an automated enforcement system's presence be posted at each intersection where a system is operating. 2. Requires that a government agency base its guidelines for selecting a location solely on safety and make the guidelines available to the public, including posting them on the government agency's Web site. 3. Requires, prior to installing an automated traffic CONTINUED SB 1362 Page 4 enforcement system, that a governmental agency collect traffic collision data for the type of violation to be photographed and requires at each location where a system is to be installed that the traffic collision data demonstrate a significant need for the infraction upon which the citations will be based prior to installing the system. 4. Specifies the adoption of guidelines and collection of data required by the bill do not apply to automated enforcement systems installed prior to January 1, 2011. 5. Prohibits contacting the registered owner of a vehicle prior to issuing a notice to appear either directly or indirectly in an effort to determine the identity of an alleged automated traffic enforcement system violator without making the registered owner aware, in a clear and prominent fashion, that the registered owner is not required to provide that information and that failure to provide that information shall not result in any adverse action. 6. 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. 7. Requires the dismissal of any citation if the court finds that the governmental agency has failed to operate the automated traffic enforcement system in compliance with the provisions of law applicable to automated traffic enforcement. If a court finds that the governmental agency has failed to operate the system incompliance with applicable provisions of law, a law enforcement agency is prohibited from issuing any citations until the governmental agency demonstrates to the satisfaction of the court that it is in full compliance with all of the requirements applicable to automated traffic enforcement. 8. Prohibits a governmental agency that operates an automated traffic enforcement system from considering revenue generation as a factor when considering whether or not to operate a system within its local jurisdiction. CONTINUED SB 1362 Page 5 9. Requires the manufacturer or supplier that operates an automated traffic enforcement system, in cooperation with the governmental agency, to submit an annual report to the Judicial Council that includes specified information. 10.Requires the notice to appear to include the following information: A. Methods by which the registered owner of the vehicle or the alleged violator may view and discuss with the issuing agency the evidence used to substantiate the violation. B. The contact information of the issuing agency. C. Information which clearly and conspicuously identifies the manufacturer or supplier of the system. 11.Authorizes the mailing of a courtesy notice or any other notice other than a notice to appear by the issuing agency to the registered owner or the alleged violator prior to issuing a notice to appear. 12.Prohibits a manufacturer or supplier of an automated traffic enforcement system or the governmental agency operating the system from altering the notice to appear or any other form approved by the Judicial Council. If a form is found to have been altered, the citation based on the altered form is to be dismissed. Comments 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 CONTINUED SB 1362 Page 6 sometimes took Ms. Gil many steps to demonstrate her innocence. By the red 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's office to investigate how red light camera programs were being implemented around the state. Three red light camera vendors operate automated enforcement programs in California: Redflex, American Traffic Solutions, and Affiliated Computer Systems. 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. CONTINUED SB 1362 Page 7 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. FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/24/10) League of California Cities JJA:do 5/26/10 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END **** CONTINUED