BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 29
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 13, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Bonnie Lowenthal, Chair
SB 29 (Simitian) - As Amended: May 11, 2011
SENATE VOTE : 36-0
SUBJECT : Vehicles: automated traffic enforcement systems
SUMMARY : Imposes additional requirements on automated traffic
enforcement systems. Specifically, 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.
2)Specifies that governmental agencies with systems in place
prior to enactment of this bill and that have not already
posted signs in accordance with this bill must do so by
January 1, 2013.
3)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.).
4)Requires governmental agencies, with systems in place prior to
enactment of this bill, to develop uniform guidelines and
procedures by January 1, 2013, as specified.
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
SB 29
Page 2
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 recommendation and be filed with the court.
8)Requires that a notice to appear (i.e., citation or ticket)
include the following information:
a) 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;
b) The evidence used to substantiate the violation;
c) The contact information of the issuing agency; and,
d) 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.
2)Specifies that both the citation and the courtesy notice must
contain the following information:
a) 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;
b) The evidence used to substantiate the violation;
c) The contact information of the issuing agency; and,
d) 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
SB 29
Page 3
Council. If a form is found to have been materially altered,
the citation based on 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:
a) The number of alleged violations collected from the
automated traffic enforcement system;
b) The number of citations issued by a law enforcement
agency based on information collected from the automated
traffic enforcement system;
c) The number of citations involving a vehicle traveling
straight through an intersection, turning right, and
turning left;
d) The number and percentage of citations that are
dismissed; and,
e) The number of traffic collisions at each intersection
that have occurred prior to and after the installation of
the system.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Authorizes the use of automated traffic enforcement systems at
railroad crossings and intersections to record violations of
unlawful grade crossings and red light running.
2)Specifies that only a governmental agency, in cooperation with
a law enforcement agency, may operate an automated enforcement
SB 29
Page 4
system if specified requirements are met.
3)Specifies that 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.
4)Requires a governmental agency, prior to entering into a
contract with a vendor to implement an automated enforcement
system, to conduct a public hearing on the proposed use of the
system.
5)Prohibits a governmental agency from including a provision for
payment to the vendor of an automated speed enforcement
equipment based on the number of citations issued or the
amount of revenue generated, unless the contract was entered
into prior to January 1, 2004.
6)Requires that 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.
7)Requires that a peace officer or "qualified employee" of a law
enforcement agency reviews the photographs and issues
citations, as appropriate.
8)Requires that a citation 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.
9)Requires that a citation must be mailed within 15 days of the
alleged violation to the current address of the registered
owner of the vehicle.
10)Specifies that photographic records produced by systems, as
well as information obtained from the Department of Motor
Vehicles (DMV) are confidential and may only be used for
traffic enforcement purposes.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
SB 29
Page 5
Committee, this bill would result in the loss of an unknown
amount of penalty revenues to local jurisdictions that operate
automated traffic enforcement systems. The Senate
Appropriations Committee also indicates that costs to the
Judicial Counsel to carry out specified requirements would be
minor and absorbable.
COMMENTS : Existing law authorizes the use of automated traffic
enforcement systems with minimal restrictions on the government
agencies using the systems.
Automated enforcement systems were originally authorized in
California by SB 1802 (Rosenthal) Chapter 1216, Statutes of
1994, to enforce rail crossings. Two years later, SB 833 (Kopp)
Chapter 922, Statutes of 1995, authorized a three-year
demonstration period to test the use and effectiveness of
similar systems in reducing the incidence of drivers running red
lights at roadway intersections and in identifying the drivers
committing such violations and the vehicles involved.
Installation of these systems were justified primarily because
motorists running red lights are a serious traffic problem with
potentially catastrophic results to other drivers, and it is a
difficult violation for police officers to witness and enforce.
After reviewing the operations and effectiveness of the pilot
program, the Legislature enacted SB 1136 (Kopp) Chapter 54,
Statutes of 1998, to indefinitely authorize the use of automated
traffic enforcement systems, or "red light cameras," at
intersections. Major modifications were made to the statutory
authority by AB 1022 (Oropeza) Chapter 511, Statutes of 2003, as
a result of an audit by the State Auditor that generally
concluded local governments needed to exert more control over
the operation of the automated traffic enforcement systems.
According to the author, the idea for this bill was brought
forward by a constituent who experienced a number of problems
with being misidentified by red light cameras in Southern
California. According to the constituent, the vehicle captured
in the photograph was not hers nor was she the driver identified
in the photo. The constituent reported that because private
companies were involved in the issuance of the red light camera
citations, demonstrating her innocence was a lengthy and
involved process.
SB 29
Page 6
SB 29, would in part, address this problem by standardizing the
content and contact information contained on citations ensuing
that due process is provided in the adjudication process. In
addition, this bill places further controls on the use of red
light cameras to ensure that the systems are used solely for
safety purposes and that motorists are given clear notice by
requiring sign placement at intersections where red light
cameras are in use.
This bill also creates annual reporting requirements for red
light camera manufacturers or suppliers whereby information
related to accidents and citations at red light camera locations
are compiled and submitted to the Judicial Council. It is
unclear, however, what the Judicial Council would do with this
information beyond acting as a repository.
Concerns have been raised that the requirements set forth in
this bill would make installation and operation of red light
cameras cumbersome for local agencies. It has been further
suggested that local jurisdictions could potentially discontinue
or reduce the use of red light cameras as a result of lost
revenues. It can be argued that by authorizing red light
cameras, the Legislature's intent was to improve public safety
rather than provide a tool for revenue generation. If red light
cameras reduce the number of catastrophic accidents associated
with red light running, then the cost of maintaining those
systems should be sufficiently offset by the public safety
benefits they provide. If, however, red light cameras are not
sufficiently reducing such accidents, then it is questionable
whether or not they should be maintained.
Related Legislation : AB 432 (Hall) would require that a peace
officer or law enforcement agency issue the notice to appear for
an automated enforcement citation and that the notice be
accompanied by a certificate of mail obtained through the United
States (U.S.) Postal Service, completed by the local law
enforcement agency. That bill is currently being heard in the
Senate.
AB 2729 (Ammiano) would have expanded the authority to use
automated traffic enforcement systems to include the enforcement
of unlawful turns explicitly at one specific location in San
Francisco. That bill was vetoed by the Governor citing that it
was unnecessary given that existing law allowed for violations
SB 29
Page 7
enforced through automated enforcement.
AB 2567 (Bradford) Chapter 471, Statutes of 2010, authorized a
local public agency to issue citations based on photo-evidence
of parking violations occurring in street-sweeping parking
lanes.
AB 1336 (Eng) of 2009, was nearly identical to AB 2567. It was
vetoed by the Governor over privacy concerns and fear that the
bill could lead to the "unwarranted proliferation of camera
enforcement in many other arenas."
AB 101 (Ma), Chapter 377, Statutes of 2008, authorized the City
and County of San Francisco to issue citations based on
photo-evidence of transit-only lane parking violations.
AB 23 (Ma) of 2007, would have provided the San Francisco with
the explicit authority to automatically enforce an illegal right
turn violation at the intersection of Market Street and Octavia
Boulevard. That bill passed Assembly in 2007 but failed in the
Senate Transportation and Housing Committee and was ultimately
gutted and amended to deal with a different subject.
AB 1022 (Oropeza) Chapter 511, Statutes of 2003, added
conditions and restrictions to the use of automated traffic
enforcement systems.
SB 1136 (Kopp) Chapter 54, Statutes of 1998, repealed the
January 1, 1999, sunset date, and extended indefinitely
provisions that allow the use of automated traffic enforcement
systems at official traffic control signals.
SB 833 (Kopp) Chapter 922, Statutes of 1995, authorized a
three-year demonstration period to test the use and
effectiveness of automated traffic enforcement systems in
reducing the incidence of drivers running red lights at roadway
intersections.
SB 1216 (Rosenthal) Chapter 1216, Statutes of 1994, originally
authorized automated enforcement at rail crossings.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
SB 29
Page 8
None received
Opposition
Department of Finance
Analysis Prepared by : Victoria Alvarez / TRANS. / (916) 319-
2093