BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 432 Page 1 Date of Hearing: May 18, 2011 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Felipe Fuentes, Chair AB 432 (Hall) - As Amended: April 26, 2011 Policy Committee: TransportationVote:14-0 Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes SUMMARY This bill requires a written notice to appear for an alleged violation recorded by an automated traffic violation be issued by a peace officer or a qualified employee of a law enforcement agency and delivered with a United States Post Office (USPS) certificate of mailing. FISCAL EFFECT 1)Unknown costs, possibly in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, to local agencies for peace officer or law enforcement staff time to issue written notices to appear, instead of allowing contracted entities to issue those notices. (Local special funds.) 2)Unknown, potentially significant reduction in fine and penalty revenues, possibly in the millions of dollars annually, (state and local special funds), to the extent locals eliminate or reduce use of automated traffic violation devices as a result of this bill. 3)Potential reduction in court costs of an unknown amount, and a corresponding increase in state and local revenue (state and local special funds), to the extent the bill reduces unpaid or contested traffic violations. COMMENTS 1)Rationale. The author notes that existing statute authorizes local government agencies to contract with private vendors who AB 432 Page 2 capture images of alleged violations and to send notices to appear for those offenses that are substantiated. The author contends that many individuals who receive such notices seem to doubt their authenticity because the notice was sent by an entity other than a law enforcement agency and, oftentimes, from an address other than that where the alleged violation occurred. The author further contends such delegation of authority represents a failure of law enforcement to carry out its duty and results in judges dismissing a greater number of alleged violations than would otherwise occur. 2)Background . Automated enforcement systems have been authorized for use by local governments since 1998. Current law authorizes use of these systems subject to various requirements relating to posting of signs to notify motorists of the presence of the system, adherence to traffic signal timing and intervals standards, and confidentiality of data collected by the system. Current law also prohibits a contract between a government agency and a manufacturer or supplier of automated traffic enforcement equipment from including provisions for the payment or compensation to the manufacturer or supplier based on the number of citations generated, or as a percentage of the revenue generated, as a result of the use of the equipment. Under current practice, vendors are contracted by local authorities to capture images of vehicles that fail to come to a complete stop at designated intersections. The images are collected by the vendor and screened to eliminate those that fail to show a violation. The remaining images are sent to local law enforcement where an officer reviews the images and directs the vendor to send notices to appear for those that clearly show violations. 3)Related Legislation. SB 1362 (Simitian) of 2010 would have imposed additional requirements on the use of automated traffic enforcement systems. The bill passed the Senate 31-1 but was held by this committee. 4)The policy committee received no formal support to this bill. 5)Opposition. The bill is opposed by the League of California Cities, who expresses concern about the effect on local costs and use of what the league describes as a useful public safety tool. AB 432 Page 3 Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081