BILL ANALYSIS Ó ------------------------------------------------------------ |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 29| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ------------------------------------------------------------ THIRD READING Bill No: SB 29 Author: Simitian (D) and Huff (R) Amended: 5/11/11 Vote: 21 SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE : 9-0, 3/29/11 AYES: DeSaulnier, Gaines, Harman, Huff, Kehoe, Lowenthal, Pavley, Rubio, Simitian SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 9-0, 05/09/11 AYES: Kehoe, Walters, Alquist, Emmerson, Lieu, Pavley, Price, Runner, Steinberg SUBJECT : Vehicles: automated traffic enforcement systems SOURCE : Author DIGEST : This bill makes several changes to the laws regarding automated traffic enforcement systems 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 CONTINUED SB 29 Page 2 enforcement agency, may operate an automated enforcement system. Under existing law, "operating" a system means that a governmental agency does the following: 1.Develops uniform guidelines for screening and issuing violations, processing and storing confidential information, and selecting locations where automated enforcement 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 SB 29 Page 3 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 results in a "notice to appear," which must be on a form approved by the Judicial Council containing specific 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 (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: 1. Specifies that a governmental agency must post signs within 200 feet of an intersection where a system is operating and allows that the signs may be posted only in the direction in which the system is used to issue citations, rather than allowing an agency to post signs either at all major entrances to SB 29 Page 4 the city or at intersections visible to traffic approaching from all directions. Governmental agencies with systems in place as of the effective of this bill that have not already posted signs in accordance with this bill must do so by January 1, 2013. 2. Clarifies that a governmental agency must perform all of the activities that current law specifies to operate an automated traffic enforcement system (e.g., develop uniform guidelines for screening and issuing violations, establish procedures to ensure compliance, etc.). 3. Allows governmental agencies with systems in place as of the effective date of the bill that have not already developed uniform guidelines for screening and issuing violations, for the process and storage of confidential information, or for selecting locations where an automated enforcement system may be used to do so by January 1, 2013. 4. Allows governmental agencies with systems in place as of the effective date of the bill that have not already established procedures for compliance with its guidelines to do so by January 1, 2013. 5. Requires, for systems installed after January 1, 2012, a governmental agency to make and adopt a "finding of fact" that the system is needed at a specified location for reasons related to safety. 6. Prohibits a governmental agency from considering revenue generation beyond recovering the actual costs of operating the system when it considers whether to install and operate an automated traffic enforcement system. 7. Provides that if, after a law enforcement agency has issued a citation, the citing officer determines that the citation or notice should be dismissed, the citing agency may recommend in writing to the magistrate or the judge that the case be dismissed. The recommendation must include the reasoning for the SB 29 Page 5 recommendation and be filed with the court. 8. Requires that a notice to appear (i.e., citation or ticket) include the following information: The methods by which the registered owner of the vehicle or the alleged violator may view and discuss with the issuing agency, both by telephone and in person, the evidence used to substantiate the violation. The contact information of the issuing agency. Information that clearly and conspicuously identifies the vendor with which the governmental agency contracts for the operation of the system. 1. Permits the issuing agency and the vendor to issue "courtesy notices" to the registered owner of the vehicle or the alleged violator prior to issuing a notice to appear. Beginning on January 1, 2013, courtesy notices must be on a form approved by the Judicial Counsel, which must be developed in consultation with the traffic and transportation committee of the California Peace Officers' Association. The courtesy notice must contain the following information: The methods by which the registered owner of the vehicle or the alleged violator may view and discuss with the issuing agency, both by telephone and in person, the evidence used to substantiate the violation. The contact information of the issuing agency. Information that clearly and conspicuously identifies the vendor with which the governmental agency contracts for the operation of the system. 1. Prohibits a vendor from altering the notice to appear, the courtesy notice, or any other form approved by the Judicial Council. If a form is found to have been materially altered, the citation based on SB 29 Page 6 the altered form may be dismissed. 2. Requires the issuing agency or the vendor, when contacting the registered owner of a vehicle prior to issuing a notice to appear in an effort to determine the identity of the driver, to state in a clear and prominent fashion that the registered owner is not required to provide the information and that failure to provide the information will not result in additional responsibility or liability associated with the alleged violation. 3. Requires the vendor of an automated traffic enforcement system, in cooperation with governmental agencies that utilize such systems, to submit an annual report to the Judicial Counsel that includes the following information, provided the information is "in the possession of, or readily available to," the vendor: The number of alleged violations collected from the automated traffic enforcement system. The number of citations issued by a law enforcement agency based on information collected from the automated traffic enforcement system. The number of citations involving a vehicle traveling straight through an intersection, turning right, and turning left. The number and percentage of citations that are dismissed. The number of traffic collisions at each intersection that have occurred prior to and after the installation of the system. Prior Legislation This bill is similar to the final version of SB 1362 (Simitian) of last year, which was heard on the Senate Floor on 6/1/10 (31-1), and was ultimately held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. SB 29 Page 7 FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes According to the Senate Appropriations Committee: Major Provisions 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Fund Penalty revenue loss unknown potential penalty revenue loss Various* Judicial Council minor and absorbable costs to approve Special** forms and receive annual reports Local mandate no state costs (local crime disclaimer) Local * General/Special ** Trial Court Trust Fund SUPPORT : (Verified 5/10/11) - - - OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/10/11) Department of Finance ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office: In response to the author's annual "There Oughta Be A Law" contest last year, one constituent, Vera Gil, reported that she had been mis-identified several 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 red light camera systems, it sometimes took Ms. Gil many steps to demonstrate her innocence. Ms. Gil's experience prompted the author to SB 29 Page 8 investigate how red light camera programs were being implemented around the state. This bill is the product of that investigation. Three red light camera vendors operate automated traffic 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 traffic 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 traffic enforcement systems. In doing so, it prohibits the use of automated systems for the purpose of raising revenue, requires that governmental agencies demonstrate a safety need when approving the use of such systems, requires that local governments using these systems SB 29 Page 9 establish policies and procedures that help ensure citations are properly and appropriately issued, and improves the means by which a person may challenge citations issued in error. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Department of Finance is opposed to this bill because it would make the installation and operation of red light cameras more cumbersome for local agencies, which is likely to result in their reduced or discontinued use. This could reduce annual revenues to the State and to local jurisdictions by approximately $140 million annually. The bill, by imposing additional restrictions and conditions on the use of red light traffic cameras, would likely lead to increased costs for those entities choosing to use red light cameras, which would reduce the incentives to use them. JJA:nl 5/11/11 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END ****