BILL ANALYSIS SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY David Roberti, Chairman 1993-94 Regular Session SB 1802 (Rosenthal) As Introduced Hearing date: April 19, 1994 Vehicle Code BAF/jms AUTOMATED RAIL CROSSING ENFORCEMENT SYSTEMS HISTORY Source: Author Prior Legislation: None Support: Not known Opposition: None known (THIS ANALYSIS REFLECTS AUTHOR'S AMENDMENTS TO BE OFFERED IN COMMITTEE.) KEY ISSUE MAY RAILROAD AND RAIL TRANSIT GRADE CROSSINGS BE EQUIPPED WITH AN šAUTOMATED RAIL CROSSING ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM IF (1) IT IS DESIGNED TO šPRODUCE A CLEAR PHOTOGRAPH OF THE VEHICLE'S LICENSE PLATE AND šDRIVER, (2) SIGNS ARE POSTED WHICH ARE CLEARLY VISIBLE TO TRAFFIC šAPPROACHING IN EACH DIRECTION INDICATING THE PRESENCE OF THE šENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, (3) A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY DELIVERS NOTICE BY šMAIL OF AN ALLEGED VIOLATION TO THE REGISTERED OWNER OF A VEHICLE šWITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE VIOLATION, (4) THE NOTICE ORDERS THE PERSON šTO APPEAR WITHIN A TIME PERIOD AT LEAST 10 DAYS AFTER THE NOTICE IS šDELIVERED, AND (4) NO ENTITY OTHER THAN A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY šOPERATES SUCH A SYSTEM? SHALL THE DMV REFUSE TO RENEW THE REGISTRATION OF A VEHICLE WHOSE šREGISTERED OWNER HAS BEEN MAILED A NOTICE TO APPEAR BY A LAW šENFORCEMENT AGENCY OPERATING AN AUTOMATED RAIL CROSSING ENFORCEMENT šSYSTEM, IF THE OWNER HAS FAILED TO APPEAR WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE šTIME SPECIFIED IN THE NOTICE TO APPEAR? (More) SB 1802 (Rosenthal) Page 2 PURPOSE Existing law Existing law requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to refuse to šre-register any vehicle registered to any person who has delinquent šparking tickets (Veh. 4760) or any outstanding notices to appear in šcourt or notices of failure to pay any outstanding fine (Veh. š4760.1); see also Veh. 40509. Existing law requires the driver of any vehicle approaching a šrailroad grade crossing to stop not less than 15 feet from the šnearest rail and not to proceed until he or she can do so safely š(Veh. 22451). This bill This bill specifies that the above restriction applies to rail štransit grades as well as railroad grade crossings. The bill authorizes the use of automated rail crossing enforcement šsystems. The bill requires that an automated rail crossing šenforcement system must be designed to produce a clear photograph šof the license plate and driver of the vehicle, and must be šidentified by signs clearly indicating the system's presence, švisible to traffic approaching in each direction. The bill provides for a notice to appear to be mailed by law šenforcement personnel to the registered owner of the vehicle, based šon a photograph of an alleged rail crossing violation, within 30 šdays of the alleged violation, and provides that the notice shall šspecify a time to appear that is at least 10 days after the šdelivery of the notice. The bill requires the DMV to refuse to renew the registration of a švehicle whose registered owner has been mailed a notice to appear šby a law enforcement agency operating an automated rail crossing šenforcement system, if the owner has failed to appear within 15 šdays of the time specified in the notice to appear. The bill would require the Department of Motor Vehicles to refuse što renew the registration of a vehicle of a person who ignores a šnotice to appear mailed by law enforcement based on an alleged šviolation photographed by an automated rail crossing enforcement šsystem. The bill would provide that no entity other than a law šenforcement agency may operate an automated rail crossing šenforcement system. The purpose of this bill is to allow railroad and rail transit š (More) SB 1802 (Rosenthal) Page 3 grade crossings to be equipped with an automated rail crossing šenforcement system. COMMENT 1. Need for bill According to the author, motorists driving through, under, and around rail transit gates have been the source of frequent accidents on the Los Angeles Metro Blue Line. Between July 1990 and November 1993, there were 180 grade crossing accidents on the Blue Line, resulting in 14 deaths. To combat the problem, the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) is operating an automated enforcement demonstration program. MTA has installed automated rail crossing enforcement equipment at four grade crossings, and operated them since November of 1992. Data collected indicate that the equipment reduced violations by 65 percent in just three months, and the rate of violations is continuing to drop even further as more motorists become aware that the equipment is in use. Source: Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Los Angeles County Sheriff's deputies have been integrally involved in the automated enforcement demonstration program, including loading/unloading film and interviewing individuals receiving citations. Both the Los Angeles and Compton court districts have agreed to participate in the program. 2. Time period to appear The bill provides that the notice shall specify a time to appear that is at least 10 days after the delivery of the notice. DOES "DELIVERY" OCCUR WHEN THE NOTICE IS MAILED, WHEN IT IS POSTMARKED, OR WHEN IT IS RECEIVED? IS 10 DAYS ENOUGH? WHAT IF THE PERSON IS OUT OF TOWN FOR A COUPLE OF WEEKS? 3. Personal jurisdiction In traffic infractions, personal jurisdiction over a defendant is generally obtained by arrest followed by a release on a signed promise to appear. A person who violates a section of the Vehicle Code either signs a promise to appear and is released immediately or is brought before a magistrate without delay. Some might question whether a court has personal (More) SB 1802 (Rosenthal) Page 4 jurisdiction over someone who receives a notice based on an alleged violation recorded by a device. DOES A COURT LACK PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER SUCH A PERSON? 4. Due process One might also question the due process implications of the delay between when an alleged violation takes place, and when a person is notified of that violation. People's recollection may dim if too much time has transpired between the alleged violation and the notice. This bill as proposed to be amended requires notification within 30 days of the alleged violation. IS THAT AN APPROPRIATE TIME PERIOD? Those who oppose photo radar (c.f. SB 1772 Hill died in š Assembly Judiciary!; SB 218 Hill died in Senate Transp.!) have š raised similar due process objections in the past. Interestingly, although those who supported the Hill bills (and oppose photo radar) were contacted by committee staff about this bill, none has expressed opposition to it. Perhaps that is because speeding violations often happen without one being aware one is speeding, but most people remember whether they drove around a rail crossing gate. Also, the bill requires signs to be posted indicating the device is in use at rail crossings, so this is not like a speed trap. Some might be disturbed by the due process implications of a vehicle's registered owner being cited for a moving violation that might have been committed by a driver other than the owner. Although the registered owner can go into court and dispute the violation, that is somewhat like being presumed guilty until proven innocent. IS THIS A PROBLEM? One might also be disturbed by the concept of a vehicle's registered owner not being allowed to re-register his or her car because of violations that may have been committed by other people driving his or her car. However, existing law does that already with respect to delinquent parking tickets (Veh. 4760). ********* (More) SB 1802 (Rosenthal) Page 5 (More)