BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1303
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 3, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
SB 1303 (Simitian) - As Amended: June 26, 2012
As Proposed to be Amended
SENATE VOTE : 38-0
SUBJECT : Vehicles: Automated Traffic Enforcement Systems
KEY ISSUEs :
1)Should A "courtesy Notice" sent to owners of vehicles that
were photographed for failing to stop at a red light be
modifed to clarify that the notice is not a formal citation?
2)Should photographs generated by red-light cameras be treated
as hearsay evidence?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
Under existing law, local jurisdictions are free to adopt (or
not adopt) automated "red light cameras" that use motion sensors
and computer programs to determine if a vehicle entered an
intersection after the traffic light turned red. These systems
have been both praised and condemned, producing competing claims
about their effectiveness, their reliability, and their
fairness. This bill would impose additional requirements and
restrictions on local governmental agencies that opt to use red
light cameras and require the vendors who operate these systems
to submit annual reports to the Judicial Council relating to the
general effectiveness of the systems. The following analysis,
however, will focus on two issues most relevant to this
Committee: (1) the so-called "courtesy notice" and "notice of
non-liability" that is sent to the owner of the vehicle when the
photograph taken by the camera does not appear to match the
registered owner's driver license photograph; and (2) the
questions that arise when photographs generated by red-light
cameras are introduced as evidence in court. As noted in the
analysis, on the first issue the author and various stakeholders
SB 1303
Page 2
have reached an agreement on the contents of the notice. On the
second point, relating to the use of photographs as evidence,
this bill seeks to resolve two competing court cases - by
different panels of the same appellate court - that came to
different conclusions as to (1) how the photographs were to be
properly "authenticated" under the rules of the evidence code;
and (2) whether the photographs constituted hearsay that could
only be admitted as evidence through a recognized hearsay
exception. As noted in more detail below, this bill effectively
codifies the opinion holding that such photographs do not
present insurmountable authentication problems and do not
constitute hearsay. The author will take amendments in this
Committee relating to the "courtesy notice" or "notice of
non-liability." This amendment appears to have removed nearly
all of the opposition to this bill. However, "Safer Streets,
LA," a grassroots organization based in Los Angeles, remains
strongly opposed to this bill for a variety of reasons.
SUMMARY : Creates additional standards for the installation of
automated red-light camera systems and makes other changes
relating to the notices sent to vehicle owners and to the use of
red-light camera photographs as evidence in court.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires that signs identifying an automated traffic
enforcement system be posted within 200 feet of an
intersection where the system is operating. Prohibits a
governmental agency that uses an automated traffic enforcement
system and that had signs posted on or before January 1, 2013,
that met the requirements in effect on January 1, 2012, from
removing those signs until the governmental agency posts signs
that meet the requirements imposed by the bill.
2)Requires a governmental entity that operates an automated
traffic enforcement system to develop uniform guidelines and
establish procedures to ensure compliance with those
guidelines, and that the governmental entity adopt a finding
establishing the need for the system. Sets dates for
compliance with these requirements depending upon when the
system was adopted.
3)Prohibits a governmental agency that proposes to institute an
automated traffic enforcement system from considering revenue
generation, beyond covering operating costs, as a factor when
considering whether or not to install or operate a system
SB 1303
Page 3
within its jurisdiction.
4)Authorizes the mailing of a "notice of non-liability" or
"courtesy notice" by the issuing agency, manufacturer, or
supplier of the system to the registered owner or the alleged
violator prior to issuing a notice to appear, prescribes the
form that must be sent, and prohibits the manufacturer or
supplier of the system, or the governmental entity, from
altering the notice to appear or notice of non-liability.
5)Provides that an evidentiary rebuttable presumption that the
printed representation of computer information is presumed to
be an accurate representation of the computer information,
shall apply to the printed representation of
computer-generated information stored by an automated traffic
enforcement system. (See #5 in the Existing Law section.)
6)Provides that an evidentiary rebuttable presumption that
printed representations of images stored in a video or digital
medium is presumed to be an accurate representation of the
images that it purports to represent, shall apply to the
printed representation of video or photographic images stored
by an automated traffic enforcement system. (See #6 in the
Existing Law Section.)
EXISTING LAW :
1)Permits the limit line, intersection, or other places where a
driver is required to stop to be equipped with an automated
enforcement system, as defined, if the governmental agency
using the system identifies the system by signs that clearly
indicate the system's presence and are visible to traffic
approaching from all directions, or posts signs at all major
entrances to the city, including, at a minimum, freeways,
bridges, and state highway routes. (Vehicle Code Section
21455.5 (a).)
2)Requires that, prior to issuing citations under an automated
enforcement system, a local jurisdiction using the system
shall issue only warning notices for the first 30 days.
Requires the local jurisdiction to also make a public
announcement of its intent to use the system at least 30 days
prior to commencement of enforcement of the system. (Vehicle
Code Section 21455.5 (b).)
SB 1303
Page 4
3)Provides that only a governmental agency, in cooperation with
a law enforcement agency, may operate an automated enforcement
system. Specifies that "operating" a system includes all of
the following activities:
a) Developing uniform guidelines for screening and issuing
violations and for the processing and storage of
confidential information, and establishing procedures to
ensure compliance with those guidelines.
b) Establishing guidelines for administrative functions and
day-to-day functions, including, but not limited to,
selecting locations for the system, ensuring that the
system is regularly inspected, certifying that the
equipment is properly installed and operating properly,
maintaining warning signs, and maintaining controls
necessary to ensure that only those citations that have
been reviewed and approved by law enforcement are delivered
to violators.
c) Provides that the above operating activities, except as
specified, may be contracted out by the governmental agency
so long as it maintains overall control and supervision of
the system. (Vehicle Code Section 21455.5 (c).)
4)Specifies that a contract between a governmental entity and a
manufacturer or supplier of automated enforcement equipment
may not include a provision 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. (Vehicle Code Section
21455.5 (g).)
5)Provides, for purposes of authenticating evidence used at
trial, that a printed representation of computer information
or of a computer program is presumed to be an accurate
representation of the computer information or computer program
that it purports to represent. However, if a party to an
action introduces evidence that a printed representation or
computer program is inaccurate or unreliable, the party
introducing the printed representation into evidence has the
burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
the printed representation is an accurate representation of
the existence and content of the computer information or
computer program that it purports to represent. (Evidence
Code Section 1552.)
SB 1303
Page 5
6)Provides, for the purposes of authenticating evidence used at
trial, that a printed representation of images stored on a
video or digital medium is presumed to be an accurate
representation of the images it purports to represent. If a
party to an action introduces evidence that a printed
representation of images stored on a video or digital medium
is inaccurate or unreliable, the party introducing the printed
representation into evidence has the burden of proving, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the printed representation
is an accurate representation of the existence and content of
the images that it purports to represent. (Evidence Code
Section 1553.)
7)Defines "hearsay evidence" as evidence of a statement that was
made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing
and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
Provides that, except as provided by law, hearsay evidence is
inadmissible. Defines a "statement" to mean (a) oral or
written verbal expression or (b) nonverbal conduct of a person
intended by him as a substitute for oral or written verbal
expression.
8)Creates several statutory exceptions to the hearsay rule
which, if applicable, make hearsay statements admissible.
(Evidence Code Sections 1220-1350.)
COMMENTS : In 1998, after the completion of two prior pilot
programs, the Legislature enacted SB 1136 (Chapter 54, Stats. of
1998), which authorized local governments to install and operate
red light cameras - or "automated traffic enforcement systems" -
at intersections. The use of these devices has been a source of
considerable controversy since their introduction, and based on
the initial and ongoing opposition to this bill, the controversy
shows no signs of abating. Although state law sets out the
general parameters for installing the systems, local governments
are free to adopt or not adopt the systems and operate them on a
day-to-day basis based on guidelines that they develop. Most,
if not all, local governments contract out many of the
operational aspects to the system to the private vendors that
manufacture and install these systems; however, state law
requires that certain aspects of the operation remain under the
control of the governmental agency and require that information
generated by the system be reviewed by law enforcement officials
before a citation may be sent to the alleged violator.
SB 1303
Page 6
According to the author, the intent of this bill is to preserve
the ability of red light camera systems to operate while at the
same time addressing legitimate concerns that have been raised
about the fairness and accuracy of the system. Specifically,
the bill addresses a number of distinct issues: the
justifications for adopting such systems; required signage that
puts drivers on notice that the systems are in place; the
transparency of notices that are sent to vehicle owners when the
photograph of the driver does not clearly match the photograph
of the registered owner; and the evidentiary use of red light
camera photographs. Because the question of the overall worth
and effectiveness of these systems and issues like signage have
been addressed in prior Committees, this analysis will focus on
two issues of greatest concern to this Committee: (1) the
so-called "notice of non-liability" or "courtesy notice" sent to
the vehicle owner; and (2) concerns that have been raised by the
use of red-light camera photographs as evidence in court.
The "Courtesy Notice" or "Notice of Non-Liability :" Based on
information provided to the Committee by the author's office and
various stakeholders, the private vendors that local governments
typically contract with to operate the red-light system, under
the ultimate control and supervision of the governmental entity,
send the photographic and related data to the law enforcement
agency charged with issuing traffic tickets. The law
enforcement agency reviews the information and decides if there
is enough evidence of a violation to justify sending a citation
or a "notice of non-liability" (sometimes called a "courtesy
notice"). In short, if law enforcement decides that the zoom
image of the driver that is captured by the red light camera
appears to match up with the driver's license photograph of the
registered car owner, then a citation (or ticket) and notice to
appear is sent to the registered owner of the vehicle. However,
if the photograph captured by the red light camera appears to be
a different person than the one on the driver's license picture
of the registered owner - or if it is impossible to say whether
it is the same person - then law enforcement sends the "notice
of non-liability" or "courtesy notice" to the registered owner.
The "courtesy notice" informs the owner that his or her vehicle
was photographed failing to stop for a red light, and then gives
the owner the opportunity to detach and return a "notice of
non-liability" that asks the owner to identify the actual
driver, or to provide some other explanation for why the owner
is not liable for the violation. (For example, the owner may
have sold the car to someone else before the violation or the
SB 1303
Page 7
system may have simply made mistake.) Critics of the red-light
camera system refer to the notices as "snitch tickets," because
they encourage the owner to "snitch" on the person who was
actually driving the vehicle.
According to many critics of the red-light cameras, the
"courtesy notice" is misleading. Critics claim that the notice
appears to be a semi-official document, if not an actual
citation, that seems to require the owner to "name names," so to
speak, and return the "notice of non-liability" or possibly
assume liability for the violation. In fact, the notice is not
a citation, and there is no consequence for failure to return
the notice, since unlike a parking ticket, the owner and driver
are not jointly liable for the violation. When it comes to
moving violations, the driver, not the owner, is the only person
who can be cited. To suggest, therefore, that an owner is
liable and must name the driver is simply misleading. On the
other hand, supporters of the red-light cameras inform the
Committee that these notices are important because the driver is
not always the owner and it is not always possible to establish
a definite match due to the quality (or lack thereof) of the
photographs. Supporters of the red-light system, therefore,
allow the driver to be done with the matter immediately and
allow law enforcement to issue the citation against the right
person.
This bill attempts to increase the transparency of the
"courtesy" notice by making it clear that the notice is not a
citation and that the owner is not required to turn over the
name of the actual driver, even if the owner knows who it was.
The burden, after all, is on law enforcement to prove their case
by identifying the driver who committed the violation; the
burden is not on the third party, even if he or she owns the
vehicle, to identify the driver.
Proposed Author Amendments to Address the Above Concerns : Since
this bill was heard by the Assembly Transportation Committee,
the author and certain stakeholders have worked with the
Committee to craft a notice that will provide transparency to
the recipient while at the same time keeping the form as a
useful tool that will help law enforcement identify the
violator. Specifically, the author has agreed to make the
following changes to the "notice of non-liability" that now
appears on page 11 of the bill in print. The form, as proposed
to be amended, appears on the following page of the analysis.
SB 1303
Page 8
At the top of each page of the in larger, bold, and
capital letters the: "Courtesy Notice: This is Not a
Ticket."
In the smaller print just below this line, the notice in
the bill in print says the recipient is "encouraged" to
review the photographic evidence before taking action on
the notice. The amended version will be rephrased to add
that the recipient is "encouraged" to respond to the
notice, an affirmative way of informing the recipient that
he or she is not required to respond.
The option for "None of the above" is removed as a
checkbox option (which law enforcement sees as a "scofflaw"
box that would invite people to shirk responsibility.)
The confusing and redundant comments referenced by the *
are deleted.
As amended today in Committee, the form will read as follows:
COURTESY NOTICE: THIS IS NOT A TICKET
ÝInsert agency name]
INSTRUCTION PAGE
The Reason You Received This Notice:
A vehicle registered in your name was photographed failing to
stop for an official red light traffic control signal. This is
a violation of the State of California Vehicle Code Section
21453(a) or (c) pursuant to Section 21455.5.
You are encouraged to view the video of this violation and to
respond to this notice . You may make an appointment to view the
evidence by calling the Ýinsert agency name] at (000) 000-0000.
During this viewing, an officer or qualified employee will show
you a high quality video and still images depicting the
violation in greater detail than the printed photos in this
notice.
You can also view the video online at www.0000000000.
The video is available online for 60 days from the date of
violation. After 60 days an appointment must be made with
SB 1303
Page 9
Ýinsert agency name].
DO NOT CALL THE COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE. For additional
questions contact the Photo Enforcement Program at (000)
000-0000.
Tear Here Tear Here Tear
Here
NOTICE OF NON-LIABILITY
IF YOU WERE NOT THE DRIVER/OWNER
Violation #: <> Last Issued
To: <>
ÝInsert agency
name]
CHECK ONE:c The person named below was the driver of the
vehicle.
c I sold the vehicle prior to the violation date to
the person named below.
c I have never owned this vehicle or license plate.
CHECK ONE:cI am an individual.
c I am a car rental or leasing company.
Print Actual Driver/New Owner's
Name:_____________________________ Driver's License/ID
No.:___________________
Address:_______________________________________________________Is
sued in the State of: ____________________
City, State, ZIP Code:
____________________________________________Date of Birth:
___________________________
SB 1303
Page 10
Gender: __________ Hair Color: __________ Eye Color:
__________ Height: __________ Weight: __________
DECLARATION
I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT
Signature __________________________________________Print Name
_____________________________________
Your Telephone Number ( ) ______ - ___________Date
__________________________________________
Evidentiary Issues: This bill also attempts to address two
competing appellate court decisions on the admissibility of
red-light camera photographs as evidence in court.
Specifically, the use of these photographs raises two distinct
issues which, unfortunately, are sometimes improperly conflated.
The first issue concerns what is required to "authenticate" or
"lay a foundation" sufficient to show that the photographs are a
reasonably accurate representation of what they purport to
represent. The second issue is whether the photograph is
inadmissible "hearsay" evidence - that is, is it an out-of-court
"statement" by someone who is not in court and which is offered
to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement?
Authentication of a "Writing :" One of the criticisms of the use
of red-light photographs as evidence in court is that the person
who usually appears as a witness for the issuing agency is a law
enforcement officer who reviewed the photographic evidence and
decided whether or not to issue a citation. Critics claim that
because the vendor operates the equipment, the officer who
appears to testify has no knowledge of whether or not the system
was working and therefore cannot verify or "authenticate" the
photograph. (This was the argument made by defendants in the
two cases discussed below.) Evidence Code Section 1401 requires
the "authentication" of any "writing" before it may be received
into evidence, and Evidence Code Section 250 defines a "writing"
to include photographs or videos, including computer-generated
and digital photographs or videos. "Authentication" simply
requires evidence sufficient to sustain a finding that the
SB 1303
Page 11
writing is what the proponent of the evidence claims that it is.
This is sometimes referred to as "laying a foundation." This
does not require proving that the photograph is accurate or that
it proves anything, but simply that the evidence is what the
proponent claims it to be: in this case, a photograph taken by a
red light camera.
While Evidence Code Section 1401 may work well enough when it
comes to traditional photographs, questions have been raised
about whether computer-generated digital photographs and videos
can be authenticated in the same, relatively easy manner. The
Legislature first tried to address this question by enacting
Evidence Code Sections 1552 and 1553, dealing with
computer-generated printouts and images. Evidence Code Section
1552 says that, for purposes of authenticating evidence used at
trial, a printed representation of computer-generated
information is presumed to be an accurate representation of the
computer information that it purports to represent. This is a
rebuttable presumption: if the party objecting to the evidence
introduces evidence that a printed representation or computer
program is somehow inaccurate or unreliable, then the party
seeking to introduce the printed representation into evidence
has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that the printed representation is an accurate representation of
the computer information that it purports to represent. Of
course, one could argue that this presumption only establishes
that the printed representation accurately reflects the
information in the computer, not that the computer data itself
is accurate. (See e.g. People v Hawkins (2002) 98 Cal. App. 4th
1428.) However, the California Supreme Court has addressed this
issue and determined that the admission of computer records does
not require foundational testimony showing their accuracy or
reliability. "Our courts have refused to require," the Supreme
Court held, "as a requisite to admission of computer records,
testimony on the acceptability, accuracy, maintenance, and
reliability of . . . computer hardware or software." (People v.
Martinez (2000) 22 Cal. 4th 106, 132; See also People v. Nazary
(2010) 191 Cal. App. 4th 727, 755.)
If Evidence Code Section 1552 creates a rebuttable presumption
regarding representations of computer-generated information,
Section 1553 deals with representations of images stored on a
video or digital medium and is therefore perhaps more relevant
to the red-light camera issue. Moreover, the logic applied to
the court rulings on Section 1552 would also apply to Section
SB 1303
Page 12
1553. The presumption it creates is that an image in video or
digital form is presumed to be an accurate representation of the
image that it purports to be, and the courts would not require
testimony on the reliability of the system that produced it
unless there was some evidence to suggest unreliability.
Is the Red-Light Photograph "Hearsay" Evidence ? Objections to
the admission of evidence based on a party's failure to
authenticate the evidence are analytically distinct from
objections to admissibility based on the claim that evidence is
"hearsay." Hearsay is the statement of a person who is not in
court but which is offered to assert the truth of the thing
asserted. The general rule is that hearsay evidence is not
admissible; however the courts recognize a number of "hearsay
exceptions" that, though originally developed by the courts,
have been codified in the Evidence Code. Before considering
whether one of these exceptions applies, however, courts will
first consider whether or not the evidence is hearsay, because
if it is clearly not hearsay, there is no need to find a hearsay
exception.
In People v Goldsmith (2012) 203 Cal. App. 4th 1515, the
California Court of Appeal for the Second District found that a
red-light camera photograph was not hearsay. The court began
its analysis by noting, first, that hearsay must be "a
statement" by a "person." Evidence Code Section 225 defines a
statement to mean (a) oral or written verbal expression or (b)
nonverbal conduct of a person intended by him as a substitute
for oral or written verbal expression. A photograph, the court
reasoned, is neither a "written or verbal expression" nor
"conduct of a person." It is merely an image generated by a
machine that has no ability to speak for itself, let alone offer
testimony. =The court did not conclude that a photograph was
not a "statement" merely because it lacked words, citing cases
which have held that printed receipts (which do typically have
words on them) are not hearsay, because they were not statements
of a person but a printout from a machine. Such evidence would
need to be authenticated, of course, but it is not hearsay, the
courts have held. =As the Goldsmith court put it, "The
Evidence Code does not contemplate that a machine can make a
statement, and a printout of the results of a computer's
internal operations is not a 'statement' constituting hearsay
evidence." (Goldsmith at 1525, citing People v. Hawkins (2002)
98 Cal. App. 4th 1428.)
SB 1303
Page 13
In explaining its reasoning, the Goldsmith Court noted that the
underlying purpose of the hearsay rule "stems from the
requirement that all testimony should be tested by
cross-examination, which can best expose what may lie beneath a
witness's bare, untested assertions." It is not possible, the
court observed, to cross-examine computer-generated photographs
or videos. That is why photographs and videos are treated not
as "testimonial" evidence that can and should be subject to
cross-examination, but as "demonstrative evidence" that cannot
speak for itself. To be hearsay a statement must declare or
assert something, but a photograph is demonstrative evidence
that is only used to demonstrate; it cannot declare or assert
anything by itself.
Goldsmith and Borzarkian: Conflicting Opinions on the
Admissibility of Red-Light Photographs: In reaching its
conclusion, the Goldsmith court disapproved of People v.
Borzarkian (2012) 203 Cal. App. 4th 525, a decision issued only
a month earlier by a different panel of judges of the same
appellate court. On the question of "authentication," the
Borzarkian court found that a police officer who reviewed the
photographs for purposes of issuing a citation was not qualified
to lay a proper foundation because he was not present when the
camera took the picture and had little knowledge as to the
reliability of the system. Contrary to Goldsmith, the court
rejected the idea that Evidence Code 1552 authorized admission
of the evidence because that section only creates an assumption
that a computer's "print function" was working properly; it did
not create an assumption that the underlying data is accurate or
reliable. In disapproving of this holding, the Goldsmith court
noted that Borzarkian failed to take account of the California
Supreme Court's Martinez ruling, which has expressly rejected
this view and held that "Our courts have refused to require as a
requisite to admission of computer records, testimony on the
acceptability, accuracy, maintenance, and reliability of . . .
computer hardware or software." (Martinez at 132.)
In addition to ignoring binding authority that admission of
computer-generated representations does not require first-hand
testimony on the accuracy and reliability of the computer
system, on the hearsay question the Borzarkian also failed to
ask the critical threshold question of whether or the not the
photographic evidence was hearsay. Instead, the court appeared
to assume that it was and launched into an analysis of whether
the evidence could be admitted under one of the hearsay
SB 1303
Page 14
exemptions. The Court argued that the evidence could not be
admitted under the "official records" exception because that
exception only applies if the records were made by and within
the scope of duty of the public employee, and the court
concluded that records were made by the vendor, a private
entity. The court concluded that the photographs could not be
admitted under the "business records" exception because that
exception requires the custodian of the records to testify, and
the court found that the private vendor, not the police officer
who testified at trial, was the custodian of the records.
However, while this analysis might be a reasonable application
of those hearsay exceptions, the Goldsmith decision concluded
that such an analysis is beside the point if the evidence is not
hearsay, since if it is not hearsay there is no need for a
hearsay exception. In short, Borzarkian's failed to address the
threshold question of whether the evidence offered was hearsay
and instead jumped immediately to an analysis of hearsay
exceptions.
This Bill Embraces the Goldsmith Reasoning : The author believes
that this bill provides an opportunity to clarify the
conflicting rulings in favor of Goldsmith. Although the
Committee is not a court, it finds the Goldsmith ruling more
persuasive for the reasons stated. But trying to determine
which court "got it right" is a fool's quest and at any rate
ultimately irrelevant. More important, beyond the hearsay
question, the courts differed fundamentally in their
interpretation of Evidence Code Sections 1552 and 1553, and on
what is required to authenticate the photographs. Because the
Legislature enacted those sections, it is arguably both the
right and duty of the Legislature to clarify what is meant by
them when two courts reach different conclusions about what they
mean. The author attempts to achieve this clarification by
amending the evidence codes section on authentication and
specifying that both Sections 1552 and 1553 apply to images
generated by red-light camera systems. In addition, it
expressly states for the limited purposes of contested red-light
citations, the photographs shall not constitute hearsay. It is
important to note that this bill does not create a new "hearsay
exception" to add to the traditional list of exceptions. It is
instead saying that the photographs are not hearsay, and
therefore that there is no need for a hearsay exception.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author:
SB 1303
Page 15
The growing use of automated traffic enforcement systems
have highlighted areas of abuse. Senate Bill 1303 is
designed to allow the continued use of automated traffic
enforcement systems to enhance public safety while
addressing the significant potential for misuse. The
measure establishes ground rules for the operation of red
light camera programs to address legitimate concerns about
accuracy, privacy, and due process.
There are two broad deficiencies in existing law first is
conflicting appellate court cases. The bill would resolve
this conflict by providing that computer generated evidence
that is part of an automated traffic enforcement system is
admissible unless the defendant shows that the evidence is
faulty in some way. The second deficiency is with the
general lack of clear rules surrounding operation of
automated traffic enforcement systems. The bill would make
a number of changes to existing law that will bring fair
practice to the use of the technology.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : ÝNOTE: Redflex, the company which
serves as the vendor for most of the red-light camera systems
in California, and several law enforcement groups strongly
opposed the provision of this bill that allowed recipients of
the "notice of non-liability" to check "None of the above" as
an option. However, the Committee has been informed that with
the amendment to remove that option, these groups no longer
oppose the bill and may even move to a position of support.
However, no letters of support or letters withdrawing
opposition had been received by the Committee at the time of
this writing.]
Safer Streets L.A. however, continues to strongly oppose nearly
every aspect of this bill because, it believes, "it would impair
defendants' rights to confront their accusers and would sanction
the mailing of deceptive governmental notices." Further, Safer
Streets contends that "the bill's provisions that purport to
protect the rights of Californians would provide little or no
relief from the abusive use of red light cameras by some
jurisdictions in the state." Safer Streets, L.A. describes its
specific objections, in its own words, as follows:
1. Provisions in this bill affecting the hearsay rule
would permit the introduction of testimonial evidence from
a third party in photo enforcement cases, thereby carving
SB 1303
Page 16
out an exception to long held constitutional protections
affording defendants the right to confront their accusers.
2. California law holds motor vehicle drivers responsible
for violations of the vehicle code. However, this bill
would permit agents of the government in cases where they
know that the registered owner was not the person driving
to send out an official looking "notice of non-liability"
to the registered owner that appears to require them to
identify the driver of the vehicle although no such
requirement exists in California law.
3. Specifying that it is permissible to mail a "notice of
non-liability" prior to sending an actual citation could
be interpreted to alleviate jurisdictions of the current
requirement to deliver citations within 15 days of the
alleged violation.
4. Where a jurisdiction chooses to place photo enforcement
signs at red light camera intersections rather than at
entrances to the city, this bill eliminates the
requirement to post warning signs at all approaches to the
intersection. Instead, the bill only requires warning
signs in the directions in which the automated traffic
enforcement system is being utilized to issue citations.
This is problematic in that some systems are located where
a motorist might approach the enforcement system after
making a right or left turn off a parallel street. Without
the requirement to locate warning signs on all approaches,
many drivers would have no warning whatsoever that photo
enforcement is being used at the intersection.
5. Some reporting requirements could be used to
erroneously justify the use of the enforcement systems.
For example, the bill requires that the number of traffic
collisions at each intersection that occurred prior to and
after the installation of the system be reported. However,
the bill does not require that the type of collision be
reported nor does it state the length of time before and
after the installation of the system for which collision
data be reported. Without listing the specific types of
accidents that have occurred and providing for a long
enough data collection period, the information could be
misused to provide justification for the use of red light
cameras where no justification exists.
SB 1303
Page 17
6. Provisions requiring that jurisdictions make and adopt
a finding of fact establishing that the system is needed
for reasons related to safety and prohibit them from
considering revenue generation are virtually meaningless.
Currently no jurisdiction openly admits that they consider
revenue generation, although their actions in running
their systems clearly point to revenue generation as a
motive. Furthermore, all that would be required for a
jurisdiction to find that the system is needed for safety
would be for them to show that violations are taking place
at a particular intersection. The bill provides no
objective criteria for determining whether a system is
needed "for reasons related to safety" and therefore does
not help protect citizens from photo enforcement abuses.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None on file
Opposition
Safe Streets, L.A.
Opposition (To 6/26 version of the bill)
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
California Police Chiefs Association Inc.
California Traffic Defense Bar Association
California Walks
City of Beverly Hills
League of California Cities
Los Angeles Protective League
National Motorists Association
North American Transportation Association Inc.
Redflex Traffic Systems
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
Analysis Prepared by : Thomas Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
SB 1303
Page 18