AB 342: Vehicles: automated speed enforcement: five-year pilot program.
- Session Year: 2017-2018
- House: Assembly
- Latest Version Date: 2017-04-06
Existing law establishes a basic speed law that prohibits a person from driving a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent given the weather, visibility, traffic, highway conditions, and in no event at a speed that endangers the safety of persons or property. Existing law does not expressly authorize the use of automated speed enforcement in this state.
This bill would authorize, no later than January 1, 2019, the City of San Jose (San Jose) and the City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco) to implement a 5-year pilot program utilizing an automated speed enforcement system (ASE system) for speed limit enforcement on certain streets, if the system meets specified requirements, including that the presence of a fixed or mobile ASE system is clearly identified by signs, as specified, and trained peace officers or other trained designated municipal employees are utilized to oversee the operation of the fixed and mobile ASE systems. The bill would require San Jose and San Francisco to adopt an ASE System Use Policy, as specified, and develop uniform guidelines for, among other things, the processing and storage of confidential information. The bill would provide that a speed violation that is recorded by an ASE system is subject to a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $100.
The bill would, among other things, provide for the issuance of a notice of violation, an initial review, an administrative hearing, and an appeals process, as specified, for a violation enforced by an ASE system. The bill would also authorize the processing agency to assess delinquent fees, as specified, if payment of the civil penalty is not received within a specified time. The bill would require the Department of Motor Vehicles to refuse to renew the registration of a vehicle if, among other things, the owner has not paid the civil penalty and delinquent fees, except as specified. The bill would require the department to remit all penalties and delinquent fees collected, after deducting its own administrative fees, to the processing agency.
Existing law provides that payments for specified penalties, including penalties for offenses relating to the parking of a vehicle, required to register or transfer the registration of a vehicle, constitute a lien on the vehicle on which the payments are due or that was involved in the offenses, and on any other vehicle owned by the owner of that vehicle.
This bill would, until January 1, 2024, also include payments for penalties for offenses related to the ASE system operated by San Jose or San Francisco for which a notice of violation has been served on the owner or recipient of a reissued citation and any delinquent fees added to the penalty as constituting a lien on the specified vehicles.
Existing law transfers the responsibility and authority for the collection of specified delinquent amounts, including penalties for offenses relating to the standing or parking of a vehicle, from the department to the Franchise Tax Board.
This bill would, until January 1, 2024, also transfer to the board the responsibility and authority to collect penalties for offenses related to the ASE system operated by San Jose or San Francisco for which a notice of violation has been served on the owner or recipient of a reissued notice of violation and any delinquent fees added to the penalty.
This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco.
Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.
This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
Existing law establishes a basic speed law that prohibits a person from driving a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent given the weather, visibility, traffic, highway conditions, and in no event at a speed that endangers the safety of persons or property. Existing law does not expressly authorize the use of automated speed enforcement in this state.
This bill would authorize, no later than January 1, 2019, the City of San Jose (San Jose) and the City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco) to implement a 5-year pilot program utilizing an automated speed enforcement system (ASE system) for speed limit enforcement on certain streets, if the system meets specified requirements, including that the presence of a fixed or mobile ASE system is clearly identified by signs, as specified, and trained peace officers or other trained designated municipal employees are utilized to oversee the operation of the fixed and mobile ASE systems. The bill would require San Jose and San Francisco to adopt an ASE System Use Policy, as specified, and develop uniform guidelines for, among other things, the processing and storage of confidential information. The bill would provide that a speed violation that is recorded by an ASE system is subject to a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $100.
The bill would, among other things, provide for the issuance of a notice of violation, an initial review, an administrative hearing, and an appeals process, as specified, for a violation enforced by an ASE system. The bill would also authorize the processing agency to assess delinquent fees, as specified, if payment of the civil penalty is not received within a specified time. The bill would require the Department of Motor Vehicles to refuse to renew the registration of a vehicle if, among other things, the owner has not paid the civil penalty and delinquent fees, except as specified. The bill would require the department to remit all penalties and delinquent fees collected, after deducting its own administrative fees, to the processing agency.
Existing law provides that payments for specified penalties, including penalties for offenses relating to the parking of a vehicle, required to register or transfer the registration of a vehicle, constitute a lien on the vehicle on which the payments are due or that was involved in the offenses, and on any other vehicle owned by the owner of that vehicle.
This bill would, until January 1, 2024, also include payments for penalties for offenses related to the ASE system operated by San Jose or San Francisco for which a notice of violation has been served on the owner or recipient of a reissued citation and any delinquent fees added to the penalty as constituting a lien on the specified vehicles.
Existing law transfers the responsibility and authority for the collection of specified delinquent amounts, including penalties for offenses relating to the standing or parking of a vehicle, from the department to the Franchise Tax Board.
This bill would, until January 1, 2024, also transfer to the board the responsibility and authority to collect penalties for offenses related to the ASE system operated by San Jose or San Francisco for which a notice of violation has been served on the owner or recipient of a reissued notice of violation and any delinquent fees added to the penalty.
This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco.
Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.
This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
Existing law establishes a basic speed law that prohibits a person from driving a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent given the weather, visibility, traffic, highway conditions, and in no event at a speed that endangers the safety of persons or property. Existing law does not expressly authorize the use of automated speed enforcement in this state.
This bill would authorize, no later than January 1, 2019, the City of San Jose (San Jose) and the City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco) to implement a 5-year pilot program utilizing an automated speed enforcement system (ASE system) for speed limit enforcement on certain streets, if the system meets specified requirements, including that the presence of a fixed or mobile ASE system is clearly identified by signs, as specified, and trained peace officers or other trained designated municipal employees are utilized to oversee the operation of the fixed and mobile ASE systems. The bill would require San Jose and San Francisco to adopt an ASE System Use Policy, as specified, and develop uniform guidelines for, among other things, the processing and storage of confidential information. The bill would provide that a speed violation that is recorded by an ASE system is subject to a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $100.
The bill would, among other things, provide for the issuance of a notice of violation, an initial review, an administrative hearing, and an appeals process, as specified, for a violation enforced by an ASE system. The bill would also authorize the processing agency to assess delinquent fees, as specified, if payment of the civil penalty is not received within a specified time. The bill would require the Department of Motor Vehicles to refuse to renew the registration of a vehicle if, among other things, the owner has not paid the civil penalty and delinquent fees, except as specified. The bill would require the department to remit all penalties and delinquent fees collected, after deducting its own administrative fees, to the processing agency.
Existing law provides that payments for specified penalties, including penalties for offenses relating to the parking of a vehicle, required to register or transfer the registration of a vehicle, constitute a lien on the vehicle on which the payments are due or that was involved in the offenses, and on any other vehicle owned by the owner of that vehicle.
This bill would, until January 1, 2024, also include payments for penalties for offenses related to the ASE system operated by San Jose or San Francisco for which a notice of violation has been served on the owner or recipient of a reissued citation and any delinquent fees added to the penalty as constituting a lien on the specified vehicles.
Existing law transfers the responsibility and authority for the collection of specified delinquent amounts, including penalties for offenses relating to the standing or parking of a vehicle, from the department to the Franchise Tax Board.
This bill would, until January 1, 2024, also transfer to the board the responsibility and authority to collect penalties for offenses related to the ASE system operated by San Jose or San Francisco for which a notice of violation has been served on the owner or recipient of a reissued notice of violation and any delinquent fees added to the penalty.
This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco.
Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.
This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)Speed is a major factor in traffic collisions that result in fatalities or injuries.
(b)Law enforcement and other local agencies employ a variety of methods to reduce speeding, including traffic engineering, education, and enforcement.
(c)Traffic speed enforcement is critical to the efforts of municipalities in California to reduce factors that contribute to traffic collisions that result in fatalities or injuries.
(d)Additional tools, including automated speed enforcement, are available to assist cities in addressing excessive speeding and speed-related crashes.
(e)Automated speed enforcement (ASE) offers a high rate of detection, and in conjunction with education, traffic engineering, and law enforcement measures, it can significantly improve traffic safety and prevent traffic related fatalities and injuries.
(f)Multiple ASE programs implemented in other states and cities outside of California have proven successful in reducing speeding and addressing traffic safety concerns.
(g)In the City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco, fatal and injury collisions are often concentrated on specific corridors of the street network where drivers travel at excessive speeds. ASE can be deployed to detect and deter excessive speeding on streets that have a documented speeding problem as demonstrated by an aggregation of traffic collisions caused by excessive speed.
(h)Enforcing speed limits using ASE systems on streets where speeding drivers negatively impact traffic safety is a reliable and cost-effective means to prevent further fatalities and injuries and would be in the public interest. On a pilot basis, this act authorizes the City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco to implement ASE programs for a five-year period, which will commence the day that the ASE system has been activated but not later than January 1, 2019. The City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco would have the authority to use ASE on a street or portions of a street that have a documented speeding problem as demonstrated through a high incidence of speed-related traffic collisions pursuant to the methodology described in this act.
(i)The City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco would be required to submit to the transportation committees of the Legislature an evaluation on the effectiveness of the ASE pilot program implemented in their respective jurisdictions on traffic safety pursuant to requirements described in this act. The City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco would also be required to submit an ASE System Report to their respective governing body pursuant to the requirements described in this act.
(j)To protect the privacy interests of persons who are issued notices of violation under an ASE program, the Legislature finds and declares that the photographic, video, or other visual or administrative records generated by the program shall be confidential, and shall be made available only to alleged violators and to governmental and law enforcement agencies solely for the purpose of enforcing these violations and assessing the impacts of the ASE system as required by this act.
(k)Prior to implementing ASE enforcement, the governing body of the City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco that oversees the ASE program in their respective jurisdictions shall adopt an ASE System Use Policy and approve an ASE System Impact Report pursuant to the requirements described in this act.
SEC. 2.Section 70615 of the Government Code is amended to read:70615.(a)The fee for filing any of the following appeals to the superior court is twenty-five dollars ($25):
(1)An appeal of a local agencys decision regarding an administrative fine or penalty under Section 53069.4.
(2)An appeal under Section 40230 of the Vehicle Code of an administrative agencys decision regarding a parking violation.
(3)An appeal under Section 99582 of the Public Utilities Code of a hearing officers determination regarding an administrative penalty for fare evasion or a passenger conduct violation.
(4)An appeal under Section 186.35 of the Penal Code of a law enforcement agencys determination regarding the placement of an individuals information in a shared gang database.
(5)An appeal under Section 22428 of the Vehicle Code of a hearing officers determination regarding a civil penalty for an automated speed violation, as defined in Section 22425 of the Vehicle Code.
(b)This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2024, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute that is enacted before January 1, 2024, deletes or extends that date.
SEC. 3.Section 70615 is added to the Government Code, to read:70615.(a)The fee for filing any of the following appeals to the superior court is twenty-five dollars ($25):
(1)An appeal of a local agencys decision regarding an administrative fine or penalty under Section 53069.4.
(2)An appeal under Section 40230 of the Vehicle Code of an administrative agencys decision regarding a parking violation.
(3)An appeal under Section 99582 of the Public Utilities Code of a hearing officers determination regarding an administrative penalty for fare evasion or a passenger conduct violation.
(4)An appeal under Section 186.35 of the Penal Code of a law enforcement agencys determination regarding the placement of an individuals information in a shared gang database.
(b)This section shall become operative on January 1, 2024.
SEC. 4.Section 10878 of the Revenue and Taxation Code is amended to read:10878.(a)Notwithstanding Sections 10877 and 10951, the responsibility and authority for the collection of the following delinquent amounts, and any interest, penalties, or service fees added thereto, shall be transferred from the department to the Franchise Tax Board:
(1)Registration fees.
(2)Transfer fees.
(3)License fees.
(4)Use taxes.
(5)Penalties for offenses relating to the standing or parking of a vehicle for which a notice of parking violation has been served on the owner, and any administrative service fee added to the penalty.
(6)Unpaid tolls, toll evasion penalties as described in Section 40252 of the Vehicle Code, and any related administrative or service fees.
(7)Any court-imposed fine or penalty assessment, and any administrative service fee added thereto, that is subject to collection by the department.
(8)Penalties for offenses detected by an automated speed enforcement system operated by the City of San Jose or the City and County of San Francisco for which a notice of violation has been served on the registered owner or recipient of a reissued notice of violation and any delinquent fees added to the penalty.
(b)Any reference in this part to the department in connection with the duty to collect these amounts shall be deemed a reference to the Franchise Tax Board.
(c)The amounts collected under subdivision (a) may be collected in any manner authorized under the law as though they were a tax imposed under Part 10 (commencing with Section 17001) that is final, including, but not limited to, issuance of an order and levy under Article 4 (commencing with Section 706.070) of Chapter 5 of Division 2 of Title 9 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the manner provided for earnings withholding order for taxes. Part 10 (commencing with Section 17001), 10.2 (commencing with Section 18401), or 10.7 (commencing with Section 21001), or any other applicable law shall apply for this purpose in the same manner and with the same force and effect as if the language of Part 10, 10.2, or 10.7, or the other applicable law is incorporated in full into this authority to collect these amounts, except to the extent that the provision is either inconsistent with the collection of these amounts or is not relevant to the collection of these amounts.
(d)Even though the amounts authorized by this section are collected as though they are taxes, amounts so received by the Franchise Tax Board shall be deposited into an appropriate fund or account upon agreement between the Franchise Tax Board and the department. The amounts shall be distributed by the department from the appropriate fund or account in accordance with the laws providing for the deposits and distributions as though the moneys were received by the department.
(e)For any collection action under this section, the Franchise Tax Board may utilize the contract authorization, procedures, and mechanisms available either with respect to the collection of taxes, interest, additions to tax, and penalties pursuant to Section 19376, or with respect to the collection of the delinquencies by the department immediately prior to the time this section takes effect.
(f)The Legislature finds that it is essential for fiscal purposes that the program authorized by this section be expeditiously implemented. Accordingly, Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code shall not apply to any standard, criteria, procedure, determination, rule, notice, or guideline established or issued by the Franchise Tax Board in implementing and administering the program required by this section.
(g)Any standard, criteria, procedure, determination, rule, notice, or guideline, that is not subject to the provisions of Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code pursuant to subdivision (f), shall be approved by the Franchise Tax Board, itself.
(h)The Franchise Tax Board may enter into any agreements or contracts necessary to implement and administer the provisions of this section. The Franchise Tax Board in administering this section may delegate collection activities to the department. Any contracts may provide for payment of the contract on the basis of a percentage of the amount of revenue realized as a result of the contractors services under that contract. However, the Franchise Tax Board, in administering this part, may not enter into contracts with private collection agencies as authorized under Section 19377.
(i)The amendments made to this section by the act adding this subdivision shall apply commencing with the effective date of the act adding this subdivision.
(j)This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2024, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute that is enacted before January 1, 2024, deletes or extends that date.
SEC. 5.Section 10878 is added to the Revenue and Taxation Code, to read:10878.(a)Notwithstanding Sections 10877 and 10951, the responsibility and authority for the collection of the following delinquent amounts, and any interest, penalties, or service fees added thereto, shall be transferred from the department to the Franchise Tax Board:
(1)Registration fees.
(2)Transfer fees.
(3)License fees.
(4)Use taxes.
(5)Penalties for offenses relating to the standing or parking of a vehicle for which a notice of parking violation has been served on the owner, and any administrative service fee added to the penalty.
(6)Unpaid tolls, toll evasion penalties as described in Section 40252 of the Vehicle Code, and any related administrative or service fees.
(7)Any court-imposed fine or penalty assessment, and any administrative service fee added thereto, that is subject to collection by the department.
(b)Any reference in this part to the department in connection with the duty to collect these amounts shall be deemed a reference to the Franchise Tax Board.
(c)The amounts collected under subdivision (a) may be collected in any manner authorized under the law as though they were a tax imposed under Part 10 (commencing with Section 17001) that is final, including, but not limited to, issuance of an order and levy under Article 4 (commencing with Section 706.070) of Chapter 5 of Division 2 of Title 9 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the manner provided for earnings withholding order for taxes. Part 10 (commencing with Section 17001), 10.2 (commencing with Section 18401), or 10.7 (commencing with Section 21001), or any other applicable law shall apply for this purpose in the same manner and with the same force and effect as if the language of Part 10, 10.2, or 10.7, or the other applicable law is incorporated in full into this authority to collect these amounts, except to the extent that the provision is either inconsistent with the collection of these amounts or is not relevant to the collection of these amounts.
(d)Even though the amounts authorized by this section are collected as though they are taxes, amounts so received by the Franchise Tax Board shall be deposited into an appropriate fund or account upon agreement between the Franchise Tax Board and the department. The amounts shall be distributed by the department from the appropriate fund or account in accordance with the laws providing for the deposits and distributions as though the moneys were received by the department.
(e)For any collection action under this section, the Franchise Tax Board may utilize the contract authorization, procedures, and mechanisms available either with respect to the collection of taxes, interest, additions to tax, and penalties pursuant to Section 19376, or with respect to the collection of the delinquencies by the department immediately prior to the time this section takes effect.
(f)The Legislature finds that it is essential for fiscal purposes that the program authorized by this section be expeditiously implemented. Accordingly, Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code shall not apply to any standard, criteria, procedure, determination, rule, notice, or guideline established or issued by the Franchise Tax Board in implementing and administering the program required by this section.
(g)Any standard, criteria, procedure, determination, rule, notice, or guideline, that is not subject to the provisions of Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code pursuant to subdivision (f), shall be approved by the Franchise Tax Board, itself.
(h)The Franchise Tax Board may enter into any agreements or contracts necessary to implement and administer the provisions of this section. The Franchise Tax Board in administering this section may delegate collection activities to the department. Any contracts may provide for payment of the contract on the basis of a percentage of the amount of revenue realized as a result of the contractors services under that contract. However, the Franchise Tax Board, in administering this part, may not enter into contracts with private collection agencies as authorized under Section 19377.
(i)This section shall become operative on January 1, 2024.
SEC. 6.Section 9800 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:9800.(a)Payments for any of the following, and any interest, penalties, or service fees added thereto, required to register or transfer the registration of a vehicle, constitute a lien on the vehicle on which they are due or that was involved in the offense, and on any other vehicle owned by the owner of that vehicle:
(1)Registration fees.
(2)Transfer fees.
(3)License fees.
(4)Use taxes.
(5)Penalties for offenses relating to the standing or parking of a vehicle for which a notice of parking violation has been served on the owner, and any administrative service fee added to the penalty.
(6)Any court-imposed fine or penalty assessment, and any administrative service fee added thereto, which is subject to collection by the department.
(7)Penalties for offenses detected by an automated speed enforcement system operated by the City of San Jose or the City and County of San Francisco for which a notice of violation has been served on the owner or recipient of a reissued citation and any delinquent fees added to the penalty.
(b)Notwithstanding subdivision (a), if a person is cited for a foreign registered auxiliary dolly, semitrailer, or trailer having been operated without current year registration or valid California permits or registration, an amount equal to the minimum registration fees or transfer fees, and any penalty added thereto, from the date they became due, shall, by election of the power unit operator, constitute a lien upon the California registered power unit that was pulling the dolly, semitrailer, or trailer. However, this subdivision is not applicable if the citation is issued at a scale operated by the Department of the California Highway Patrol and registration for the vehicle can be issued there immediately upon payment of the fees due.
(c)Every lien arising under this section expires three years from the date the fee, tax, or penalty first became due unless the lien is perfected pursuant to subdivision (d).
(d)A lien is perfected when a notice is mailed to the registered and legal owners at the addresses shown in the departments records and the lien is recorded on the electronic vehicle registration records of the department. A perfected lien shall expire five years from the date of perfection.
(e)Employees and members of the Department of the California Highway Patrol assigned to commercial vehicle scale facilities may possess and sell trip permits approved by the Department of Motor Vehicles.
(f)This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2024, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute that is enacted before January 1, 2024, deletes or extends that date.
SEC. 7.Section 9800 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:9800.(a)Payments for any of the following, and any interest, penalties, or service fees added thereto, required to register or transfer the registration of a vehicle, constitute a lien on the vehicle on which they are due or that was involved in the offense, and on any other vehicle owned by the owner of that vehicle:
(1)Registration fees.
(2)Transfer fees.
(3)License fees.
(4)Use taxes.
(5)Penalties for offenses relating to the standing or parking of a vehicle for which a notice of parking violation has been served on the owner, and any administrative service fee added to the penalty.
(6)Any court-imposed fine or penalty assessment, and any administrative service fee added thereto, which is subject to collection by the department.
(b)Notwithstanding subdivision (a), if a person is cited for a foreign registered auxiliary dolly, semitrailer, or trailer having been operated without current year registration or valid California permits or registration, an amount equal to the minimum registration fees or transfer fees, and any penalty added thereto, from the date they became due, shall, by election of the power unit operator, constitute a lien upon the California registered power unit that was pulling the dolly, semitrailer, or trailer. However, this subdivision is not applicable if the citation is issued at a scale operated by the Department of the California Highway Patrol and registration for the vehicle can be issued there immediately upon payment of the fees due.
(c)Every lien arising under this section expires three years from the date the fee, tax, or penalty first became due unless the lien is perfected pursuant to subdivision (d).
(d)A lien is perfected when a notice is mailed to the registered and legal owners at the addresses shown in the departments records and the lien is recorded on the electronic vehicle registration records of the department. A perfected lien shall expire five years from the date of perfection.
(e)Employees and members of the Department of the California Highway Patrol assigned to commercial vehicle scale facilities may possess and sell trip permits approved by the Department of Motor Vehicles.
(f)This section shall become operative on January 1, 2024.
SEC. 8.Article 3 (commencing with Section 22425) is added to Chapter 7 of Division 11 of the Vehicle Code, to read:3.Automated Speed Enforcement System22425.(a)As used in this article, the following definitions shall apply:
(1)Automated speed enforcement system or ASE system means a fixed or mobile radar or laser system or any other electronic device that utilizes automated equipment to detect a violation of speeding laws and is designed to obtain a clear photograph, video recording, or other visual image of a vehicle license plate.
(2)Automated speed violation means a violation of a speed law detected by an ASE system operated pursuant to this article.
(3)City of San Jose, City and County of San Francisco, or municipality means any department, bureau, division, or unit of the City of San Jose or the City and County of San Francisco, respectively.
(b)The City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco may establish a program utilizing an ASE system for speed limit enforcement on streets or portions of streets with speed limits that are 50 miles per hour or less and that have a documented incidence of collisions resulting in fatalities or injuries as evidenced by either a three-year fatality and injury collision rate, or a three-year fatality rate, that is higher than the three-year collision and fatality rates published by the Department of Transportation for comparable roadways, based on the most recent available local or state collision and fatality data. The program in the City of San Jose may only have ASE systems deployed on 15 corridors at any time.
(c)ASE is not authorized on freeways. freeways during the five-year pilot program, or any potential extension of the provisions of this article beyond the five-year pilot program period.
(d)If a school zone is located on a street or portion of a street that is eligible for an ASE system pursuant to subdivision (b), and the posted speed limit is 30 miles per hour or higher when children are not present, the City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco may use automated speed enforcement two hours before the regular school session begins and two hours after regular school session concludes.
(e)An ASE system for speed limit enforcement may be utilized pursuant to subdivision (b) if the program meets all of the following requirements:
(1)Is operated in cooperation with a law enforcement agency.
(2)Clearly identifies the presence of the fixed or mobile ASE system by signs stating Photo Enforced, along with the posted speed limit. The signs shall be visible to traffic traveling on the street from the direction of travel for which the ASE system is utilized, and shall be posted at all locations as may be determined necessary by the Department of Transportation through discussions with the California Traffic Control Devices Committee.
(3)Identifies vehicles containing a mobile ASE system with distinctive markings, including information that the system is being operated for Photo Enforcement purposes.
(4)Identifies the streets or portions of streets that have been approved for enforcement using an ASE system and the hours of enforcement on the municipalitys Internet Web site, which shall be updated whenever the municipality changes locations that are enforced with the mobile ASE system or hours of enforcement.
(5)(A)Utilizes trained peace officers or other trained designated municipal employees who oversee the operation of mobile and fixed ASE systems and maintain control over all enforcement activities, including the determination of when a notice of violation should be issued.
(B)Peace officers or other designated municipal employees shall be properly trained in both of the following:
(i)The use of an ASE system, including, but not limited to, the operation, set-up, and testing of the system deployed by the municipality.
(ii)The enforcement of traffic and speeding laws in a course approved and certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training or an operator course meeting equivalent standards.
(C)The municipality shall retain documentation of the successful completion of any required training by any peace officer or designated municipal employee that oversees the operation of an ASE system and the enforcement activities.
(6)Ensures that the ASE system is regularly inspected and certifies that the system is installed and operating properly. Each camera unit shall be calibrated in accordance with the manufacturers instructions, and at least once a year by an independent calibration laboratory. Documentation of the regular inspection, operation, and calibration of the ASE system shall be retained until the date on which the ASE system has been permanently removed from use.
(7)Conducts an engineering and traffic survey as set forth in Section 40802.
(8)Utilizes fixed and mobile ASE systems that provide real-time notification when violations are detected.
(f)Prior to enforcing speed laws utilizing ASE systems, the municipality shall do both of the following:
(1)Administer a public information campaign for at least 30 calendar days prior to the initial commencement of taking any vote on the program, which shall include public announcements in major media outlets and press releases. The public information campaign shall include the draft ASE System Use Policy, the ASE System Impact Report, information on when ASE systems will begin detecting violations, the streets, or portions of streets, where fixed or mobile ASE systems will be utilized, and the citys Internet Web site, where additional information about the program can be obtained. Notwithstanding that additional fixed or mobile ASE systems may be added to the program, no further public announcement by the municipality shall be required.
(2)Issue warning notices rather than notices of violation for violations detected by the ASE systems during the first 90 calendar days of enforcement under the program. If additional fixed or mobile ASE systems are utilized on additional streets after the initial program implementation, the municipality shall issue warning notices rather than notices of violation for violations detected by the new ASE systems during the first 30 calendar days of enforcement for the additional streets added to the program.
(g)The local governing body shall adopt an ASE System Use Policy prior to entering into an agreement regarding an ASE system, purchasing or leasing equipment for an ASE program, or implementing an ASE program. The ASE System Use Policy shall include the specific purpose for the ASE system, the uses that are authorized, the rules and processes required prior to that use, and the uses that are prohibited. The policy shall include the data or information that can be collected by the ASE system and the individuals who can access or use the collected information, and the rules and processes related to the access or use of the information. The policy shall also include provisions for protecting data from unauthorized access, data retention, public access, third-party data sharing, training, auditing, and oversight to ensure compliance with the ASE System Use Policy. The ASE System Use Policy shall be made available for public review review, including, but not limited to, by posting it on the local governing bodys Internet Web site, at least 30 calendar days prior to adoption by the local governing body.
(h)The local governing body also shall approve an ASE System Impact Report prior to implementing an ASE program. The ASE System Impact Report shall include all of the following information:
(1)Description of the ASE system and how it works.
(2)Proposed purpose of the ASE system.
(3)Locations that the ASE system may be deployed and traffic data for these locations.
(4)Assessment of potential impact of the ASE system on civil liberties and civil rights and any plans to safeguard those public rights.
(5)If potential deployment locations of ASE Systems are predominantly in low-income neighborhoods, a determination of why these locations experience high fatality and injury collisions due to unsafe speed.
(5)(6)Fiscal costs for the ASE system, including program establishment costs, ongoing costs, and program funding.
(6)(7)The ASE System Impact Report shall be made available for public review at least 30 calendar days prior to adoption by the governing body.
(i)The municipality shall develop uniform guidelines that shall be approved by the local law enforcement agency for both of the following:
(1)The screening and issuing of notices of violation.
(2)The processing and storage of confidential information and procedures to ensure compliance with confidentiality requirements.
(j)Notices of violation issued pursuant to this section shall include a clear photograph, video recording, or other visual image of the license plate and rear of the vehicle only, the Vehicle Code violation, the camera location, and the date and time when the violation occurred. Notices of violation shall exclude images of the rear window area of the vehicle.
(k)The photographic, video, or other visual evidence stored by an ASE system does not constitute an out-of-court hearsay statement by a declarant under Division 10 (commencing with Section 1200) of the Evidence Code.
(l)(1)Notwithstanding Sections 6253 and 6262 of the Government Code, or any other law, photographic, video, or other visual or administrative records made by an ASE system shall be confidential. Public agencies shall use and allow access to these records only for the purposes authorized by this article or to assess the impacts of the ASE system.
(2)Confidential information obtained from the Department of Motor Vehicles for the administration of ASE systems and enforcement of this article shall be held confidential, and shall not be used for any other purpose.
(3)Except for court records described in Section 68152 of the Government Code, or as provided in paragraph (4), the confidential records and evidence described in paragraphs (1) and (2) may be retained for up to 60 days after final disposition of the notice of violation. The municipality may adopt a retention period of less than 60 days in the ASE System Use Policy. Administrative records described in paragraph (1) may be retained for up to 120 days after final disposition of the notice of violation. Notwithstanding any other law, the confidential records and evidence shall be destroyed in a manner that maintains the confidentiality of any person included in the record or evidence.
(4)Notwithstanding Section 26202.6 of the Government Code, photographic, video, or other visual evidence that is obtained from an ASE system that does not contain evidence of a speeding violation shall be destroyed within five business days after the evidence was first obtained.
(5)Information collected and maintained by a municipality using an ASE system shall only be used to administer an ASE program, and shall not be disclosed to any other persons, including, but not limited to, any other state or federal government agency or official for any other purpose, except as required by state or federal law, court order, or in response to a subpoena in an individual case or proceeding.
(m)Notwithstanding subdivision (l), the registered owner or an individual identified by the registered owner as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation shall be permitted to review the photographic, video, or visual evidence of the alleged violation.
(n)A contract between the municipality and a manufacturer or supplier of ASE systems shall allow the local authority to purchase materials, lease equipment, and contract for processing services from the manufacturer or supplier based on the services rendered on a monthly schedule or another schedule agreed upon by the municipality and contractor. The contract shall not include provisions for payment or compensation based on the number of notices of violation issued by a trained peace officer or other designated municipal employee, or as a percentage of revenue generated, from the use of the ASE system. The contract shall include a provision that all data collected from the ASE systems is confidential, and shall prohibit the manufacturer or supplier of ASE systems from sharing, repurposing, or monetizing collected data for purposes other than those data, except as specifically authorized in this article. The municipality shall oversee and maintain control over all enforcement activities, including the determination of when a notice of violation should be issued.
(o)Notwithstanding subdivision (n), a municipality may contract with a vendor for the processing of notices of violation after a trained peace officer or other designated municipal employee has issued a notice of violation. The vendor shall be a separate legal and corporate entity from, and unrelated or affiliated in any manner with, the manufacturer or supplier of ASE systems used by the municipality. Any contract between the municipality and a vendor to provide processing services may include a provision for the payment of compensation based on the number of notices of violation processed by the vendor.
(p)An ASE system adopted pursuant to this article shall be activated no later than January 1, 2019, and may operate for no longer than five years.
22426.(a)Notwithstanding any other law, a violation of Section 22350, or any other speed law, that is recorded by an ASE system authorized pursuant to Section 22425 shall be subject only to a civil penalty, as provided in subdivision (d), and shall not result in the department suspending or revoking the privilege of a violator to drive a motor vehicle or in a violation point being assessed against the violator.
(b)The ASE system shall capture images of the rear license plate of vehicles that are traveling 10 miles per hour or more over the posted speed limit and notices of violation shall only be issued to vehicles based on that evidence.
(c)No more than one notice of violation shall be issued for a violation recorded from a specific license plate within a 24-hour period.
(d)The total amount of the civil penalty, including any additional local fees by the municipality, for a speed violation that is recorded and cited under this section shall not exceed one hundred dollars ($100).
(e)The written notice of violation shall be issued to the registered owner of the vehicle within 15 calendar days of the date of the violation. The notice of violation shall include all of the following information:
(1)The violation, including reference to the local ordinance, state law, or federal statute or regulation that was violated.
(2)The date, approximate time, and location where the violation occurred.
(3)The vehicle license number and the name and address of the registered owner of the vehicle.
(4)A statement that payment is required to be made no later than 30 calendar days from the date of mailing of the notice of violation, or that the violation may be contested pursuant to Section 22427.
(5)The amount of the civil penalty due for that violation and the procedures for the registered owner, lessee, or rentee to pay the civil penalty or to contest the notice of violation.
(6)An affidavit of nonliability, and information of what constitutes nonliability, information as to the effect of executing the affidavit, and instructions for returning the affidavit to the processing agency. If the affidavit of nonliability is returned to the processing agency within 30 calendar days of the mailing of the notice of violation, together with proof of a written lease or rental agreement between a bona fide rental or leasing company and its customer, which identifies the rentee or lessee, the processing agency shall serve or mail a notice of violation to the rentee or lessee identified in the affidavit of nonliability.
(7)A notice to the registered owner that unless the registered owner pays the civil penalty or contests the notice within 30 calendar days after the mailing of the notice of violation, or completes and files an affidavit of nonliability, the renewal of the vehicle registration shall be contingent upon compliance with the notice of violation. If the registered owner, by appearance or by mail, makes payment to the processing agency within 30 calendar days after the mailing of the notice of violation, the civil penalty shall consist solely of the amount of the original civil penalty.
(f)Revenues derived from any program utilizing an ASE system for speed limit enforcement shall be used to recover program costs. Any remaining revenue shall be used only for improving roadway traffic safety. safety, including traditional law enforcement activities and programs.
22427.(a)For a period of 30 calendar days from the mailing of a notice of violation, a person may request an initial review of the notice by the issuing agency. The request may be made by telephone, in writing, electronically, or in person. There shall be no charge for this review. If, following the initial review, the issuing agency is satisfied that the violation did not occur, or that extenuating circumstances make dismissal of the notice of violation appropriate in the interest of justice, the issuing agency shall cancel the notice of violation. The issuing agency shall advise the processing agency, if any, of the cancellation. The issuing agency or the processing agency shall mail the results of the initial review to the person contesting the notice, and, if cancellation of the notice does not occur following that review, include a reason for that denial, notification of the ability to request an administrative hearing, and notice of the procedure adopted pursuant to subdivision (b) for waiving prepayment of the civil penalty based upon an inability to pay.
(b)(1)If the person contesting the notice of violation is dissatisfied with the results of the initial review, the person may, no later than 21 calendar days following the mailing of the results of the issuing agencys initial review, request an administrative hearing of the violation. The request may be made by telephone, in writing, electronically, or in person.
(2)The person requesting an administrative hearing shall pay the amount of the civil penalty to the processing agency. The issuing agency shall adopt a written procedure to allow a person to request an administrative hearing without payment of the civil penalty upon satisfactory proof of an inability to pay the amount due. The administrative hearing shall be held within 90 calendar days following the receipt of a request for an administrative hearing. The person requesting the hearing may request one continuance, not to exceed 21 calendar days.
(c)The administrative hearing process shall include all of the following:
(1)The person requesting a hearing shall have the choice of a hearing by mail or in person. An in-person hearing shall be conducted within the jurisdiction of the issuing agency.
(2)If the person requesting a hearing is a minor, that person shall be permitted to appear at a hearing or admit responsibility for the automated speed violation without the necessity of the appointment of a guardian. The processing agency may proceed against the minor in the same manner as against an adult.
(3)The administrative hearing shall be conducted in accordance with written procedures established by the issuing agency and approved by the governing body or chief executive officer of the issuing agency. The hearing shall provide an independent, objective, fair, and impartial review of contested automated speed violations.
(4)(A)The issuing agencys governing body or chief executive officer shall appoint or contract with qualified independent examiners or administrative hearing providers that employ qualified independent examiners to conduct the administrative hearings. Examiners shall demonstrate the qualifications, training, and objectivity necessary to conduct a fair and impartial review. The examiner shall be separate and independent from the notice of violation collection or processing function. An examiners continued employment, performance evaluation, compensation, and benefits shall not, directly or indirectly, be linked to the amount of civil penalties collected by the examiner or the number or percentage of violations upheld by the examiner.
(B)(i)Examiners shall have a minimum of 20 hours of training. The examiner is responsible for the costs of the training. The issuing agency may reimburse the examiner for those costs. Training may be provided through any of the following:
(I)An accredited college or university.
(II)A program conducted by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.
(III)A program conducted by the American Arbitration Association or a similar organization.
(IV)Any program approved by the governing body or chief executive officer of the issuing agency, including a program developed and provided by, or for, the agency.
(ii)Training programs may include topics relevant to the administrative hearing, including, but not limited to, applicable laws and regulations, enforcement procedures, due process, evaluation of evidence, hearing procedures, and effective oral and written communication. Upon the approval of the governing body or chief executive officer of the issuing agency, up to 12 hours of relevant experience may be substituted for up to 12 hours of training. Up to eight hours of the training requirements described in this subparagraph may be credited to an individual, at the discretion of the governing body or chief executive officer of the issuing agency, based upon training programs or courses described in this subparagraph that the individual attended within the last five years.
(5)The peace officer or designated municipal employee who issues a notice of violation shall not be required to participate in an administrative hearing. The issuing agency shall not be required to produce any evidence other than, in proper form, the notice of violation or copy thereof, including the photograph, video, or other visual image of the vehicles license plate, and information received from the Department of Motor Vehicles identifying the registered owner of the vehicle. The documentation in proper form shall be prima facie evidence of the violation.
(6)The examiners final decision following the administrative hearing may be personally delivered to the person by the examiner or sent by first-class mail.
(7)Following a determination by the examiner that a person has committed the violation, the examiner may, consistent with the written guidelines established by the issuing agency, allow payment of the civil penalty in installments, or an issuing agency may allow for deferred payment or payments in installments, if the person provides evidence satisfactory to the examiner or the issuing agency, as the case may be, of an inability to pay the civil penalty in full. If authorized by the governing body of the issuing agency, the examiner may permit the performance of community service in lieu of payment of the civil penalty.
(8)If a notice of violation is dismissed following an administrative hearing, any civil penalty, if paid, shall be refunded by the issuing agency within 30 days.
22428.(a)Within 30 days after personal delivery or mailing of the final decision described in subdivision (c) of Section 22427, the contestant may seek review by filing an appeal to the superior court, where the case shall be heard de novo, except that the contents of the processing agencys file in the case on appeal shall be received in evidence. A copy of the notice of violation shall be admitted into evidence as prima facie evidence of the facts stated in the notice. A copy of the notice of appeal shall be served in person or by first-class mail upon the processing agency by the contestant. For purposes of computing the 30-day period, Section 1013 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall be applicable. A proceeding under this subdivision is a limited civil case.
(b)The fee for filing the notice of appeal shall be as provided in Section 70615 of the Government Code. The court shall request that the issuing agencys file on the case be forwarded to the court, to be received within 15 calendar days of the request. The court shall notify the contestant of the appearance date by mail or personal delivery. The court shall retain the fee under Section 70615 of the Government Code regardless of the outcome of the appeal. If the appellant prevails, this fee and any payment of the civil penalty shall be promptly refunded by the issuing agency in accordance with the judgment of the court.
(c)The conduct of the hearing on appeal under this section is a subordinate judicial duty that may be performed by a commissioner or other subordinate judicial officer at the direction of the presiding judge of the court.
(d)If a notice of appeal of the examiners decision is not filed within the period set forth in subdivision (a), the decision shall be deemed final.
(e)If the civil penalty has not been paid and the decision is adverse to the contestant, the processing agency may, promptly after the decision becomes final, proceed to collect the civil penalty under Section 22426.
22429.If the payment of the civil penalty is not received by the person authorized to receive payment of the civil penalty by the time and date fixed for appearance on the notice of violation under Section 22426, the processing agency may assess delinquent fees, as determined by the issuing agency, and may proceed to collect the civil penalty under Section 22426.
22429.5.(a)The City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco shall offer a diversion program for certain low-income ASE system violation recipients to perform community service in lieu of paying the penalty for an ASE system violation.
(b)The City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco shall offer the ability for certain low-income ASE system violation recipients to pay applicable fines and penalties over a period of time under a payment plan.
(c)Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) and (b), the City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco shall reduce the applicable fines and penalties by 80 percent for individuals with household incomes less than 125 percent of the Federal Poverty Level by 80 percent. Level, or for individuals that receive CalFresh benefits, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), or Medi-Cal benefits.
(d) The processing agency for the City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco shall not file or electronically transmit to the department an itemization of unpaid civil penalties, including administrative fees, for citations issued pursuant to this article when the owner is participating in a diversion program, payment plan, or both, as outlined in subdivisions (a) and (b).
22430.(a)Except as provided in subdivision (c), the department shall refuse to renew the registration of a vehicle if the registered owner has been mailed a notice of violation under this article, the processing agency has filed or electronically transmitted to the department an itemization of unpaid civil penalties, including administrative fees pursuant to Section 22431, and the owner has not paid the civil penalty and administrative fees, unless he or she pays to the department, at the time of application for renewal, the full amount of all outstanding civil penalties and administrative fees, as shown by records of the department.
(b)When the department receives the full amount of all outstanding civil penalties and administrative fees pursuant to subdivision (a), it shall issue a receipt showing each civil penalty and the administrative fees that have been paid, the processing agency for that penalty and fee, and a description of the vehicle involved in the automated speed violations.
(c)The department shall not refuse to renew the registration of a vehicle under either of the following circumstances:
(1)If the applicant provides the department with the abstract or notice of disposition of the violation for clearing all outstanding civil penalties and administrative fees as shown by the records of the department.
(2)If the notice of violation was issued prior to the registered owner taking possession of the vehicle or if the notice of violation was reissued to a third party.
22431.(a)The department shall remit all civil penalties and administrative fees collected, after deducting the administrative fees authorized in subdivision (b), for each notice of violation for which penalties and administrative fees have been collected, to the processing agency in the amount due. Within 45 days from the time penalties are recorded by the department, the department shall inform the municipality which of its notices of violation have been discharged.
(b)The department shall assess a fee for the recording of the notice of violation in an amount, as determined by the department, that is no more than the amount sufficient to provide a total amount equal to its actual administrative costs.
22431.5.The City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco shall each develop and submit to their respective governing body an ASE System Report, two years after initial implementation of the ASE program and at the end of the ASE pilot program, that includes all of the following information:
(a)A description of how the ASE system was used.
(b)Whether and how often any ASE system data was shared with outside entities, the name of any recipient entity, the type or types of data disclosed, and the legal reason for the disclosure.
(c)A summary of any community complaints or concerns about the ASE system.
(d)Results of any internal audits, information about any violations of the ASE System Use Policy, and any actions taken in response.
(e)Information regarding the impact the ASE system has had on the streets where the ASE system was deployed.
(f)A summary of any public record act requests.
22432.The City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco shall each, on or before March first of the fifth year in which the ASE system has been implemented, submit to the transportation committees of the Legislature an evaluation of the ASE system in their respective jurisdictions to determine the systems impact on highway safety and the systems economic impact on the communities where the system is utilized. The report shall be made available on the Internet Web sites of the two jurisdictions and shall include all of the following information:
(a)Before and after data on the number and proportion of vehicles speeding between 10 to 19, inclusive, miles per hour over the legal speed limit, 20 to 29, inclusive, miles per hour over the legal speed limit, 30 to 39, inclusive, miles per hour over the legal speed limit, and every additional 10 miles per hour increment thereafter on a street or portion of a street in which an ASE system is used to enforce speed limits. To the extent feasible, the data should be collected at the same time of day, day of week, and location.
(b)The number of notices of violation issued under the program by month and year and the corridors or locations where violations occurred and, to the extent feasible, the day of the week and time the violation occurred.
(c)Before and after data on the number of traffic collisions, categorized by injury severity (such as property damage only, complaint of pain, other visible injury, or severe or fatal injury) that occurred where ASE systems are used relative to citywide data and the transportation mode of the parties involved.
(d)The number of violations paid, the number of delinquent violations, and the number of violations for which an initial review is requested. For the violations in which an initial review was requested, the report shall indicate the number of violations that went to initial review, administrative hearing, and de novo hearing, the number of notices that were dismissed at each level of review, and the number of notices that were not dismissed after each level of review.
(e)The costs associated with implementation and operation of the ASE systems, and revenues collected by each jurisdiction.
(f)The uses of revenues collected by each jurisdiction for any ASE system, including, but not limited to, information on roadway traffic safety projects, traffic safety education, and law enforcement activities and programs that were implemented with any remaining revenue after recovery of ASE program costs.
(g)Before and after data on the number of law enforcement officers, including, but not limited to, the number of officers dedicated to traffic enforcement.
(h)Evaluation of whether the ASE program has resulted in traffic impacts on streets that may be susceptible to traffic diversion, in the vicinity of corridors with installed ASE systems.
(i)The results of surveys and outreach to low-income and predominantly minority communities where ASE systems were deployed, which the City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco shall conduct prior to submitting the report.
22433.(a)This article shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2024, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute that is enacted before January 1, 2024, deletes or extends that date.
(b)Consideration of any potential extension of this article may only occur during the fifth year of the pilot program, and only after the City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco have each submitted the report required by Section 22432.
SEC. 9.The Legislature finds and declares that a special statute is necessary and that a general statute cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution because of the unique circumstances with traffic speed enforcement in the City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco.
SEC. 10.The Legislature finds and declares that Section 8 of this act, which adds Article 3 (commencing with Section 22425) to Chapter 7 of Division 11 of the Vehicle Code, imposes a limitation on the publics right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies within the meaning of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution. Pursuant to that constitutional provision, the Legislature makes the following findings to demonstrate the interest protected by this limitation and the need for protecting that interest:
In order to protect the personally identifiable information of California drivers, it is necessary that this act limit the publics right of access to that information.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)Speed is a major factor in traffic collisions that result in fatalities or injuries.
(b)Law enforcement and other local agencies employ a variety of methods to reduce speeding, including traffic engineering, education, and enforcement.
(c)Traffic speed enforcement is critical to the efforts of municipalities in California to reduce factors that contribute to traffic collisions that result in fatalities or injuries.
(d)Additional tools, including automated speed enforcement, are available to assist cities in addressing excessive speeding and speed-related crashes.
(e)Automated speed enforcement (ASE) offers a high rate of detection, and in conjunction with education, traffic engineering, and law enforcement measures, it can significantly improve traffic safety and prevent traffic related fatalities and injuries.
(f)Multiple ASE programs implemented in other states and cities outside of California have proven successful in reducing speeding and addressing traffic safety concerns.
(g)In the City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco, fatal and injury collisions are often concentrated on specific corridors of the street network where drivers travel at excessive speeds. ASE can be deployed to detect and deter excessive speeding on streets that have a documented speeding problem as demonstrated by an aggregation of traffic collisions caused by excessive speed.
(h)Enforcing speed limits using ASE systems on streets where speeding drivers negatively impact traffic safety is a reliable and cost-effective means to prevent further fatalities and injuries and would be in the public interest. On a pilot basis, this act authorizes the City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco to implement ASE programs for a five-year period, which will commence the day that the ASE system has been activated but not later than January 1, 2019. The City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco would have the authority to use ASE on a street or portions of a street that have a documented speeding problem as demonstrated through a high incidence of speed-related traffic collisions pursuant to the methodology described in this act.
(i)The City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco would be required to submit to the transportation committees of the Legislature an evaluation on the effectiveness of the ASE pilot program implemented in their respective jurisdictions on traffic safety pursuant to requirements described in this act. The City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco would also be required to submit an ASE System Report to their respective governing body pursuant to the requirements described in this act.
(j)To protect the privacy interests of persons who are issued notices of violation under an ASE program, the Legislature finds and declares that the photographic, video, or other visual or administrative records generated by the program shall be confidential, and shall be made available only to alleged violators and to governmental and law enforcement agencies solely for the purpose of enforcing these violations and assessing the impacts of the ASE system as required by this act.
(k)Prior to implementing ASE enforcement, the governing body of the City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco that oversees the ASE program in their respective jurisdictions shall adopt an ASE System Use Policy and approve an ASE System Impact Report pursuant to the requirements described in this act.
SEC. 2.Section 70615 of the Government Code is amended to read:70615.(a)The fee for filing any of the following appeals to the superior court is twenty-five dollars ($25):
(1)An appeal of a local agencys decision regarding an administrative fine or penalty under Section 53069.4.
(2)An appeal under Section 40230 of the Vehicle Code of an administrative agencys decision regarding a parking violation.
(3)An appeal under Section 99582 of the Public Utilities Code of a hearing officers determination regarding an administrative penalty for fare evasion or a passenger conduct violation.
(4)An appeal under Section 186.35 of the Penal Code of a law enforcement agencys determination regarding the placement of an individuals information in a shared gang database.
(5)An appeal under Section 22428 of the Vehicle Code of a hearing officers determination regarding a civil penalty for an automated speed violation, as defined in Section 22425 of the Vehicle Code.
(b)This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2024, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute that is enacted before January 1, 2024, deletes or extends that date.
SEC. 3.Section 70615 is added to the Government Code, to read:70615.(a)The fee for filing any of the following appeals to the superior court is twenty-five dollars ($25):
(1)An appeal of a local agencys decision regarding an administrative fine or penalty under Section 53069.4.
(2)An appeal under Section 40230 of the Vehicle Code of an administrative agencys decision regarding a parking violation.
(3)An appeal under Section 99582 of the Public Utilities Code of a hearing officers determination regarding an administrative penalty for fare evasion or a passenger conduct violation.
(4)An appeal under Section 186.35 of the Penal Code of a law enforcement agencys determination regarding the placement of an individuals information in a shared gang database.
(b)This section shall become operative on January 1, 2024.
SEC. 4.Section 10878 of the Revenue and Taxation Code is amended to read:10878.(a)Notwithstanding Sections 10877 and 10951, the responsibility and authority for the collection of the following delinquent amounts, and any interest, penalties, or service fees added thereto, shall be transferred from the department to the Franchise Tax Board:
(1)Registration fees.
(2)Transfer fees.
(3)License fees.
(4)Use taxes.
(5)Penalties for offenses relating to the standing or parking of a vehicle for which a notice of parking violation has been served on the owner, and any administrative service fee added to the penalty.
(6)Unpaid tolls, toll evasion penalties as described in Section 40252 of the Vehicle Code, and any related administrative or service fees.
(7)Any court-imposed fine or penalty assessment, and any administrative service fee added thereto, that is subject to collection by the department.
(8)Penalties for offenses detected by an automated speed enforcement system operated by the City of San Jose or the City and County of San Francisco for which a notice of violation has been served on the registered owner or recipient of a reissued notice of violation and any delinquent fees added to the penalty.
(b)Any reference in this part to the department in connection with the duty to collect these amounts shall be deemed a reference to the Franchise Tax Board.
(c)The amounts collected under subdivision (a) may be collected in any manner authorized under the law as though they were a tax imposed under Part 10 (commencing with Section 17001) that is final, including, but not limited to, issuance of an order and levy under Article 4 (commencing with Section 706.070) of Chapter 5 of Division 2 of Title 9 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the manner provided for earnings withholding order for taxes. Part 10 (commencing with Section 17001), 10.2 (commencing with Section 18401), or 10.7 (commencing with Section 21001), or any other applicable law shall apply for this purpose in the same manner and with the same force and effect as if the language of Part 10, 10.2, or 10.7, or the other applicable law is incorporated in full into this authority to collect these amounts, except to the extent that the provision is either inconsistent with the collection of these amounts or is not relevant to the collection of these amounts.
(d)Even though the amounts authorized by this section are collected as though they are taxes, amounts so received by the Franchise Tax Board shall be deposited into an appropriate fund or account upon agreement between the Franchise Tax Board and the department. The amounts shall be distributed by the department from the appropriate fund or account in accordance with the laws providing for the deposits and distributions as though the moneys were received by the department.
(e)For any collection action under this section, the Franchise Tax Board may utilize the contract authorization, procedures, and mechanisms available either with respect to the collection of taxes, interest, additions to tax, and penalties pursuant to Section 19376, or with respect to the collection of the delinquencies by the department immediately prior to the time this section takes effect.
(f)The Legislature finds that it is essential for fiscal purposes that the program authorized by this section be expeditiously implemented. Accordingly, Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code shall not apply to any standard, criteria, procedure, determination, rule, notice, or guideline established or issued by the Franchise Tax Board in implementing and administering the program required by this section.
(g)Any standard, criteria, procedure, determination, rule, notice, or guideline, that is not subject to the provisions of Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code pursuant to subdivision (f), shall be approved by the Franchise Tax Board, itself.
(h)The Franchise Tax Board may enter into any agreements or contracts necessary to implement and administer the provisions of this section. The Franchise Tax Board in administering this section may delegate collection activities to the department. Any contracts may provide for payment of the contract on the basis of a percentage of the amount of revenue realized as a result of the contractors services under that contract. However, the Franchise Tax Board, in administering this part, may not enter into contracts with private collection agencies as authorized under Section 19377.
(i)The amendments made to this section by the act adding this subdivision shall apply commencing with the effective date of the act adding this subdivision.
(j)This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2024, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute that is enacted before January 1, 2024, deletes or extends that date.
SEC. 5.Section 10878 is added to the Revenue and Taxation Code, to read:10878.(a)Notwithstanding Sections 10877 and 10951, the responsibility and authority for the collection of the following delinquent amounts, and any interest, penalties, or service fees added thereto, shall be transferred from the department to the Franchise Tax Board:
(1)Registration fees.
(2)Transfer fees.
(3)License fees.
(4)Use taxes.
(5)Penalties for offenses relating to the standing or parking of a vehicle for which a notice of parking violation has been served on the owner, and any administrative service fee added to the penalty.
(6)Unpaid tolls, toll evasion penalties as described in Section 40252 of the Vehicle Code, and any related administrative or service fees.
(7)Any court-imposed fine or penalty assessment, and any administrative service fee added thereto, that is subject to collection by the department.
(b)Any reference in this part to the department in connection with the duty to collect these amounts shall be deemed a reference to the Franchise Tax Board.
(c)The amounts collected under subdivision (a) may be collected in any manner authorized under the law as though they were a tax imposed under Part 10 (commencing with Section 17001) that is final, including, but not limited to, issuance of an order and levy under Article 4 (commencing with Section 706.070) of Chapter 5 of Division 2 of Title 9 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the manner provided for earnings withholding order for taxes. Part 10 (commencing with Section 17001), 10.2 (commencing with Section 18401), or 10.7 (commencing with Section 21001), or any other applicable law shall apply for this purpose in the same manner and with the same force and effect as if the language of Part 10, 10.2, or 10.7, or the other applicable law is incorporated in full into this authority to collect these amounts, except to the extent that the provision is either inconsistent with the collection of these amounts or is not relevant to the collection of these amounts.
(d)Even though the amounts authorized by this section are collected as though they are taxes, amounts so received by the Franchise Tax Board shall be deposited into an appropriate fund or account upon agreement between the Franchise Tax Board and the department. The amounts shall be distributed by the department from the appropriate fund or account in accordance with the laws providing for the deposits and distributions as though the moneys were received by the department.
(e)For any collection action under this section, the Franchise Tax Board may utilize the contract authorization, procedures, and mechanisms available either with respect to the collection of taxes, interest, additions to tax, and penalties pursuant to Section 19376, or with respect to the collection of the delinquencies by the department immediately prior to the time this section takes effect.
(f)The Legislature finds that it is essential for fiscal purposes that the program authorized by this section be expeditiously implemented. Accordingly, Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code shall not apply to any standard, criteria, procedure, determination, rule, notice, or guideline established or issued by the Franchise Tax Board in implementing and administering the program required by this section.
(g)Any standard, criteria, procedure, determination, rule, notice, or guideline, that is not subject to the provisions of Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code pursuant to subdivision (f), shall be approved by the Franchise Tax Board, itself.
(h)The Franchise Tax Board may enter into any agreements or contracts necessary to implement and administer the provisions of this section. The Franchise Tax Board in administering this section may delegate collection activities to the department. Any contracts may provide for payment of the contract on the basis of a percentage of the amount of revenue realized as a result of the contractors services under that contract. However, the Franchise Tax Board, in administering this part, may not enter into contracts with private collection agencies as authorized under Section 19377.
(i)This section shall become operative on January 1, 2024.
SEC. 6.Section 9800 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:9800.(a)Payments for any of the following, and any interest, penalties, or service fees added thereto, required to register or transfer the registration of a vehicle, constitute a lien on the vehicle on which they are due or that was involved in the offense, and on any other vehicle owned by the owner of that vehicle:
(1)Registration fees.
(2)Transfer fees.
(3)License fees.
(4)Use taxes.
(5)Penalties for offenses relating to the standing or parking of a vehicle for which a notice of parking violation has been served on the owner, and any administrative service fee added to the penalty.
(6)Any court-imposed fine or penalty assessment, and any administrative service fee added thereto, which is subject to collection by the department.
(7)Penalties for offenses detected by an automated speed enforcement system operated by the City of San Jose or the City and County of San Francisco for which a notice of violation has been served on the owner or recipient of a reissued citation and any delinquent fees added to the penalty.
(b)Notwithstanding subdivision (a), if a person is cited for a foreign registered auxiliary dolly, semitrailer, or trailer having been operated without current year registration or valid California permits or registration, an amount equal to the minimum registration fees or transfer fees, and any penalty added thereto, from the date they became due, shall, by election of the power unit operator, constitute a lien upon the California registered power unit that was pulling the dolly, semitrailer, or trailer. However, this subdivision is not applicable if the citation is issued at a scale operated by the Department of the California Highway Patrol and registration for the vehicle can be issued there immediately upon payment of the fees due.
(c)Every lien arising under this section expires three years from the date the fee, tax, or penalty first became due unless the lien is perfected pursuant to subdivision (d).
(d)A lien is perfected when a notice is mailed to the registered and legal owners at the addresses shown in the departments records and the lien is recorded on the electronic vehicle registration records of the department. A perfected lien shall expire five years from the date of perfection.
(e)Employees and members of the Department of the California Highway Patrol assigned to commercial vehicle scale facilities may possess and sell trip permits approved by the Department of Motor Vehicles.
(f)This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2024, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute that is enacted before January 1, 2024, deletes or extends that date.
SEC. 7.Section 9800 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:9800.(a)Payments for any of the following, and any interest, penalties, or service fees added thereto, required to register or transfer the registration of a vehicle, constitute a lien on the vehicle on which they are due or that was involved in the offense, and on any other vehicle owned by the owner of that vehicle:
(1)Registration fees.
(2)Transfer fees.
(3)License fees.
(4)Use taxes.
(5)Penalties for offenses relating to the standing or parking of a vehicle for which a notice of parking violation has been served on the owner, and any administrative service fee added to the penalty.
(6)Any court-imposed fine or penalty assessment, and any administrative service fee added thereto, which is subject to collection by the department.
(b)Notwithstanding subdivision (a), if a person is cited for a foreign registered auxiliary dolly, semitrailer, or trailer having been operated without current year registration or valid California permits or registration, an amount equal to the minimum registration fees or transfer fees, and any penalty added thereto, from the date they became due, shall, by election of the power unit operator, constitute a lien upon the California registered power unit that was pulling the dolly, semitrailer, or trailer. However, this subdivision is not applicable if the citation is issued at a scale operated by the Department of the California Highway Patrol and registration for the vehicle can be issued there immediately upon payment of the fees due.
(c)Every lien arising under this section expires three years from the date the fee, tax, or penalty first became due unless the lien is perfected pursuant to subdivision (d).
(d)A lien is perfected when a notice is mailed to the registered and legal owners at the addresses shown in the departments records and the lien is recorded on the electronic vehicle registration records of the department. A perfected lien shall expire five years from the date of perfection.
(e)Employees and members of the Department of the California Highway Patrol assigned to commercial vehicle scale facilities may possess and sell trip permits approved by the Department of Motor Vehicles.
(f)This section shall become operative on January 1, 2024.
SEC. 8.Article 3 (commencing with Section 22425) is added to Chapter 7 of Division 11 of the Vehicle Code, to read:3.Automated Speed Enforcement System22425.(a)As used in this article, the following definitions shall apply:
(1)Automated speed enforcement system or ASE system means a fixed or mobile radar or laser system or any other electronic device that utilizes automated equipment to detect a violation of speeding laws and is designed to obtain a clear photograph, video recording, or other visual image of a vehicle license plate.
(2)Automated speed violation means a violation of a speed law detected by an ASE system operated pursuant to this article.
(3)City of San Jose, City and County of San Francisco, or municipality means any department, bureau, division, or unit of the City of San Jose or the City and County of San Francisco, respectively.
(b)The City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco may establish a program utilizing an ASE system for speed limit enforcement on streets or portions of streets with speed limits that are 50 miles per hour or less and that have had three or more speed-related fatal, severe, or other visible injury collisions occur within a one-half mile distance of each other, over a five-year period a documented incidence of collisions resulting in fatalities or injuries as evidenced by either a three-year fatality and injury collision rate, or a three-year fatality rate, that is higher than the three-year collision and fatality rates published by the Department of Transportation for comparable roadways, based on the most recent available local or state collision data, and the primary or secondary collision factor identified on the California Highway Patrol form 555 is an unsafe speed violation. and fatality data.
(c)ASE is not authorized on freeways.
(d)If a school zone is located on a street or portion of a street that is eligible for an ASE system pursuant to subdivision (b), and the posted speed limit is 30 miles per hour or higher when children are not present, the City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco may use automated speed enforcement two hours before the regular school session begins and two hours after regular school session concludes.
(e)An ASE system for speed limit enforcement may be utilized pursuant to subdivision (b) if the program meets all of the following requirements:
(1)Is operated in cooperation with a law enforcement agency.
(2)Clearly identifies the presence of the fixed or mobile ASE system by signs stating Photo Enforced, along with the posted speed limit. The signs shall be visible to traffic traveling on the street from the direction of travel for which the ASE system is utilized, and shall be posted at all locations in the corridors or zones enforced by an ASE system where there is a posted speed limit sign. Signs shall also be placed at additional locations as may be determined necessary by the Department of Transportation through discussions with the California Traffic Control Devices Committee.
(3)Identifies vehicles containing a mobile ASE system with distinctive markings, including information that the system is being operated for Photo Enforcement purposes.
(4)Identifies the streets or portions of streets that have been approved for enforcement using an ASE system and the hours of enforcement on the municipalitys Internet Web site, which shall be updated whenever the municipality changes locations that are enforced with the mobile ASE system or hours of enforcement.
(5)(A)Utilizes trained peace officers or other trained designated municipal employees who oversee the operation of mobile and fixed ASE systems and maintain control over all enforcement activities, including the determination of when a notice of violation should be issued.
(B)Peace officers or other designated municipal employees shall be properly trained in both of the following:
(i)The use of an ASE system, including, but not limited to, the operation, set-up, and testing of the system deployed by the municipality.
(ii)The enforcement of traffic and speeding laws in a course approved and certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training or an operator course meeting equivalent standards.
(C)The municipality shall retain documentation of the successful completion of any required training by any peace officer or designated municipal employee that oversees the operation of an ASE system and the enforcement activities.
(6)Ensures that the ASE system is regularly inspected and certifies that the system is installed and operating properly. Each camera unit shall be calibrated in accordance with the manufacturers instructions, and at least once a year by an independent calibration laboratory. Documentation of the regular inspection, operation, and calibration of the ASE system shall be retained until the date on which the ASE system has been permanently removed from use.
(7)Conducts an engineering and traffic survey as set forth in Section 40802.
(8)Utilizes fixed and mobile ASE systems that provide real-time notification when violations are detected.
(f)Prior to enforcing speed laws utilizing ASE systems, the municipality shall do both of the following:
(1)Administer a public information campaign for at least 30 calendar days prior to the initial commencement of the program, which shall include public announcements in major media outlets and press releases. The public information campaign shall include information on when ASE systems will begin detecting violations, the streets, or portions of streets, where fixed or mobile ASE systems will be utilized, and the citys Internet Web site, where additional information about the program can be obtained. Notwithstanding that additional fixed or mobile ASE systems may be added to the program, no further public announcement by the municipality shall be required.
(2)Issue warning notices rather than notices of violation for violations detected by the ASE systems during the first 90 calendar days of enforcement under the program. Notwithstanding that If additional fixed or mobile ASE systems may be added to the program, are utilized on additional streets after the initial program implementation, the municipality shall not be required to issue further warning notices. notices rather than notices of violation for violations detected by the new ASE systems during the first 30 calendar days of enforcement for the additional streets added to the program.
(g)The local governing body shall adopt an ASE System Use Policy prior to implementing an ASE program. The ASE System Use Policy shall include the specific purpose for the ASE system, the uses that are authorized, the rules and processes required prior to that use, and the uses that are prohibited. The policy shall include the data or information that can be collected by the ASE system and the individuals who can access or use the collected information, and the rules and processes related to the access or use of the information. The policy shall also include provisions for protecting data from unauthorized access, data retention, public access, third-party data sharing, training, auditing, and oversight to ensure compliance with the ASE System Use Policy. The ASE System Use Policy shall be made available for public review at least 30 calendar days prior to adoption by the local governing body.
(h)The local governing body also shall approve an ASE System Impact Report prior to implementing an ASE program. The ASE System Impact Report shall include all of the following information:
(1)Description of the ASE system and how it works.
(2)Proposed purpose of the ASE system.
(3)Locations that the ASE system may be deployed and traffic data for these locations.
(4)Assessment of potential impact of the ASE system on civil liberties and civil rights and any plans to safeguard those public rights.
(5)Fiscal costs for the ASE system, including program establishment costs, ongoing costs, and program funding.
(6)The ASE System Impact Report shall be made available for public review at least 30 calendar days prior to adoption by the governing body.
(i)The municipality shall develop uniform guidelines that shall be approved by the local law enforcement agency for both of the following:
(1)The screening and issuing of notices of violation.
(2)The processing and storage of confidential information and procedures to ensure compliance with confidentiality requirements.
(j)Notices of violation issued pursuant to this section shall include a clear photograph, video recording, or other visual image of the license plate and rear of the vehicle only, the Vehicle Code violation, the camera location, and the date and time when the violation occurred. Notices of violation shall exclude images of the rear window area of the vehicle.
(k)The photographic, video, or other visual evidence stored by an ASE system does not constitute an out-of-court hearsay statement by a declarant under Division 10 (commencing with Section 1200) of the Evidence Code.
(l)(1)Notwithstanding Sections 6253 and 6262 of the Government Code, or any other law, photographic, video, or other visual or administrative records made by an ASE system shall be confidential. Public agencies shall use and allow access to these records only for the purposes authorized by this article or to assess the impacts of the ASE system.
(2)Confidential information obtained from the Department of Motor Vehicles for the administration of ASE systems and enforcement of this article shall be held confidential, and shall not be used for any other purpose.
(3)Except for court records described in Section 68152 of the Government Code, or as provided in paragraph (4), the confidential records and evidence described in paragraphs (1) and (2) may be retained for up to 60 days after final disposition of the notice of violation. The municipality may adopt a retention period of less than 60 days in the ASE System Use Policy. Administrative records described in paragraph (1) may be retained for up to 120 days after final disposition of the notice of violation. Notwithstanding any other law, the confidential records and evidence shall be destroyed in a manner that maintains the confidentiality of any person included in the record or evidence.
(4)Notwithstanding Section 26202.6 of the Government Code, photographic, video, or other visual evidence that is obtained from an ASE system that does not contain evidence of a speeding violation shall be destroyed within five business days after the evidence was first obtained.
(m)Notwithstanding subdivision (l), the registered owner or an individual identified by the registered owner as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation shall be permitted to review the photographic, video, or visual evidence of the alleged violation.
(n)A contract between the municipality and a manufacturer or supplier of ASE systems shall allow the local authority to purchase materials, lease equipment, and contract for processing services from the manufacturer or supplier based on the services rendered on a monthly schedule or another schedule agreed upon by the municipality and contractor. The contract shall not include provisions for payment or compensation based on the number of notices of violation issued by a trained peace officer or other designated municipal employee, or as a percentage of revenue generated, from the use of the ASE system. The contract shall include a provision that all data collected from the ASE systems is confidential, and shall prohibit the manufacturer or supplier of ASE systems from sharing, repurposing, or monetizing collected data for purposes other than those authorized in this article. The municipality shall oversee and maintain control over all enforcement activities, including the determination of when a notice of violation should be issued.
(o)Notwithstanding subdivision (n), a municipality may contract with a vendor for the processing of notices of violation after a trained peace officer or other designated municipal employee has issued a notice of violation. The vendor shall be a separate legal and corporate entity from, and unrelated or affiliated in any manner with, the manufacturer or supplier of ASE systems used by the municipality. Any contract between the municipality and a vendor to provide processing services may include a provision for the payment of compensation based on the number of notices of violation processed by the vendor.
(p)An ASE system adopted pursuant to this article shall be activated no later than January 1, 2019, and may operate for no longer than five years.
22426.(a)Notwithstanding any other law, a violation of Section 22350, or any other speed law, that is recorded by an ASE system authorized pursuant to Section 22425 shall be subject only to a civil penalty, as provided in subdivision (d), and shall not result in the department suspending or revoking the privilege of a violator to drive a motor vehicle or in a violation point being assessed against the violator.
(b)The ASE system shall capture images of the rear license plate of vehicles that are traveling 10 miles per hour or more over the posted speed limit and notices of violation shall only be issued to vehicles based on that evidence.
(c)No more than one notice of violation shall be issued for a violation recorded from a specific license plate within a 24-hour period.
(d)The total amount of the civil penalty, including any additional local fees by the municipality, for a speed violation that is recorded and cited under this section shall not exceed one hundred dollars ($100).
(e)The written notice of violation shall be issued to the registered owner of the vehicle within 15 calendar days of the date of the violation. The notice of violation shall include all of the following information:
(1)The violation, including reference to the local ordinance, state law, or federal statute or regulation that was violated.
(2)The date, approximate time, and location where the violation occurred.
(3)The vehicle license number and the name and address of the registered owner of the vehicle.
(4)A statement that payment is required to be made no later than 30 calendar days from the date of mailing of the notice of violation, or that the violation may be contested pursuant to Section 22427.
(5)The amount of the civil penalty due for that violation and the procedures for the registered owner, lessee, or rentee to pay the civil penalty or to contest the notice of violation.
(6)An affidavit of nonliability, and information of what constitutes nonliability, information as to the effect of executing the affidavit, and instructions for returning the affidavit to the processing agency. If the affidavit of nonliability is returned to the processing agency within 30 calendar days of the mailing of the notice of violation, together with proof of a written lease or rental agreement between a bona fide rental or leasing company and its customer, which identifies the rentee or lessee, the processing agency shall serve or mail a notice of violation to the rentee or lessee identified in the affidavit of nonliability.
(7)A notice to the registered owner that unless the registered owner pays the civil penalty or contests the notice within 30 calendar days after the mailing of the notice of violation, or completes and files an affidavit of nonliability, the renewal of the vehicle registration shall be contingent upon compliance with the notice of violation. If the registered owner, by appearance or by mail, makes payment to the processing agency within 30 calendar days after the mailing of the notice of violation, the civil penalty shall consist solely of the amount of the original civil penalty.
(f)Revenues derived from any program utilizing an ASE system for speed limit enforcement shall be used to recover program costs. Any remaining revenue shall be used only for pedestrian safety or other roadway traffic safety improvements. improving roadway traffic safety.
22427.(a)For a period of 30 calendar days from the mailing of a notice of violation, a person may request an initial review of the notice by the issuing agency. The request may be made by telephone, in writing, or in person. There shall be no charge for this review. If, following the initial review, the issuing agency is satisfied that the violation did not occur, or that extenuating circumstances make dismissal of the notice of violation appropriate in the interest of justice, the issuing agency shall cancel the notice of violation. The issuing agency shall advise the processing agency, if any, of the cancellation. The issuing agency or the processing agency shall mail the results of the initial review to the person contesting the notice, and, if cancellation of the notice does not occur following that review, include a reason for that denial, notification of the ability to request an administrative hearing, and notice of the procedure adopted pursuant to subdivision (b) for waiving prepayment of the civil penalty based upon an inability to pay.
(b)(1)If the person contesting the notice of violation is dissatisfied with the results of the initial review, the person may, no later than 21 calendar days following the mailing of the results of the issuing agencys initial review, request an administrative hearing of the violation. The request may be made by telephone, in writing, or in person.
(2)The person requesting an administrative hearing shall pay the amount of the civil penalty to the processing agency. The issuing agency shall adopt a written procedure to allow a person to request an administrative hearing without payment of the civil penalty upon satisfactory proof of an inability to pay the amount due. The administrative hearing shall be held within 90 calendar days following the receipt of a request for an administrative hearing. The person requesting the hearing may request one continuance, not to exceed 21 calendar days.
(c)The administrative hearing process shall include all of the following:
(1)The person requesting a hearing shall have the choice of a hearing by mail or in person. An in-person hearing shall be conducted within the jurisdiction of the issuing agency.
(2)If the person requesting a hearing is a minor, that person shall be permitted to appear at a hearing or admit responsibility for the automated speed violation without the necessity of the appointment of a guardian. The processing agency may proceed against the minor in the same manner as against an adult.
(3)The administrative hearing shall be conducted in accordance with written procedures established by the issuing agency and approved by the governing body or chief executive officer of the issuing agency. The hearing shall provide an independent, objective, fair, and impartial review of contested automated speed violations.
(4)(A)The issuing agencys governing body or chief executive officer shall appoint or contract with qualified independent examiners or administrative hearing providers that employ qualified independent examiners to conduct the administrative hearings. Examiners shall demonstrate the qualifications, training, and objectivity necessary to conduct a fair and impartial review. The examiner shall be separate and independent from the notice of violation collection or processing function. An examiners continued employment, performance evaluation, compensation, and benefits shall not, directly or indirectly, be linked to the amount of civil penalties collected by the examiner or the number or percentage of violations upheld by the examiner.
(B)(i)Examiners shall have a minimum of 20 hours of training. The examiner is responsible for the costs of the training. The issuing agency may reimburse the examiner for those costs. Training may be provided through any of the following:
(I)An accredited college or university.
(II)A program conducted by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.
(III)A program conducted by the American Arbitration Association or a similar organization.
(IV)Any program approved by the governing body or chief executive officer of the issuing agency, including a program developed and provided by, or for, the agency.
(ii)Training programs may include topics relevant to the administrative hearing, including, but not limited to, applicable laws and regulations, enforcement procedures, due process, evaluation of evidence, hearing procedures, and effective oral and written communication. Upon the approval of the governing body or chief executive officer of the issuing agency, up to 12 hours of relevant experience may be substituted for up to 12 hours of training. Up to eight hours of the training requirements described in this subparagraph may be credited to an individual, at the discretion of the governing body or chief executive officer of the issuing agency, based upon training programs or courses described in this subparagraph that the individual attended within the last five years.
(5)The peace officer or designated municipal employee who issues a notice of violation shall not be required to participate in an administrative hearing. The issuing agency shall not be required to produce any evidence other than, in proper form, the notice of violation or copy thereof, including the photograph, video, or other visual image of the vehicles license plate, and information received from the Department of Motor Vehicles identifying the registered owner of the vehicle. The documentation in proper form shall be prima facie evidence of the violation.
(6)The examiners final decision following the administrative hearing may be personally delivered to the person by the examiner or sent by first-class mail.
(7)Following a determination by the examiner that a person has committed the violation, the examiner may, consistent with the written guidelines established by the issuing agency, allow payment of the civil penalty in installments, or an issuing agency may allow for deferred payment or payments in installments, if the person provides evidence satisfactory to the examiner or the issuing agency, as the case may be, of an inability to pay the civil penalty in full. If authorized by the governing body of the issuing agency, the examiner may permit the performance of community service in lieu of payment of the civil penalty.
(8)If a notice of violation is dismissed following an administrative hearing, any civil penalty, if paid, shall be refunded by the issuing agency within 30 days.
22428.(a)Within 30 days after personal delivery or mailing of the final decision described in subdivision (c) of Section 22427, the contestant may seek review by filing an appeal to the superior court, where the case shall be heard de novo, except that the contents of the processing agencys file in the case on appeal shall be received in evidence. A copy of the notice of violation shall be admitted into evidence as prima facie evidence of the facts stated in the notice. A copy of the notice of appeal shall be served in person or by first-class mail upon the processing agency by the contestant. For purposes of computing the 30-day period, Section 1013 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall be applicable. A proceeding under this subdivision is a limited civil case.
(b)The fee for filing the notice of appeal shall be as provided in Section 70615 of the Government Code. The court shall request that the issuing agencys file on the case be forwarded to the court, to be received within 15 calendar days of the request. The court shall notify the contestant of the appearance date by mail or personal delivery. The court shall retain the fee under Section 70615 of the Government Code regardless of the outcome of the appeal. If the appellant prevails, this fee and any payment of the civil penalty shall be promptly refunded by the issuing agency in accordance with the judgment of the court.
(c)The conduct of the hearing on appeal under this section is a subordinate judicial duty that may be performed by a commissioner or other subordinate judicial officer at the direction of the presiding judge of the court.
(d)If a notice of appeal of the examiners decision is not filed within the period set forth in subdivision (a), the decision shall be deemed final.
(e)If the civil penalty has not been paid and the decision is adverse to the contestant, the processing agency may, promptly after the decision becomes final, proceed to collect the civil penalty under Section 22426.
22429.If the payment of the civil penalty is not received by the person authorized to receive payment of the civil penalty by the time and date fixed for appearance on the notice of violation under Section 22426, the processing agency may assess delinquent fees, as determined by the issuing agency, and may proceed to collect the civil penalty under Section 22426.
22429.5.(a)The City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco shall offer a diversion program for certain low-income ASE system violation recipients to perform community service in lieu of paying the penalty for an ASE system violation.
(b)The City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco shall offer the ability for certain low-income ASE system violation recipients to pay applicable fines and penalties over a period of time under a payment plan.
(c)Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) and (b), the City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco shall reduce the applicable fines and penalties for individuals with household incomes less than 125 percent of the Federal Poverty Level by 80 percent.
(d) The processing agency for the City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco shall not file or electronically transmit to the department an itemization of unpaid civil penalties, including administrative fees, for citations issued pursuant to this article when the owner is participating in a diversion program, payment plan, or both, as outlined in subdivisions (a) and (b).
22430.(a)Except as provided in subdivision (c), the department shall refuse to renew the registration of a vehicle if the registered owner has been mailed a notice of violation under this article, the processing agency has filed or electronically transmitted to the department an itemization of unpaid civil penalties, including administrative fees pursuant to Section 22431, and the owner has not paid the civil penalty and administrative fees, unless he or she pays to the department, at the time of application for renewal, the full amount of all outstanding civil penalties and administrative fees, as shown by records of the department.
(b)When the department receives the full amount of all outstanding civil penalties and administrative fees pursuant to subdivision (a), it shall issue a receipt showing each civil penalty and the administrative fees that have been paid, the processing agency for that penalty and fee, and a description of the vehicle involved in the automated speed violations.
(c)The department shall not refuse to renew the registration of a vehicle under either of the following circumstances:
(1)If the applicant provides the department with the abstract or notice of disposition of the violation for clearing all outstanding civil penalties and administrative fees as shown by the records of the department.
(2)If the notice of violation was issued prior to the registered owner taking possession of the vehicle or if the notice of violation was reissued to a third party.
22431.(a)The department shall remit all civil penalties and administrative fees collected, after deducting the administrative fees authorized in subdivision (b), for each notice of violation for which penalties and administrative fees have been collected, to the processing agency in the amount due. Within 45 days from the time penalties are recorded by the department, the department shall inform the municipality which of its notices of violation have been discharged.
(b)The department shall assess a fee for the recording of the notice of violation in an amount, as determined by the department, that is no more than the amount sufficient to provide a total amount equal to its actual administrative costs.
22431.5.The City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco shall each develop and submit to their respective governing body an ASE System Report, two years after initial implementation of the ASE program and at the end of the ASE pilot program, that includes all of the following information:
(a)A description of how the ASE system was used.
(b)Whether and how often any ASE system data was shared with outside entities, the name of any recipient entity, the type or types of data disclosed, and the legal reason for the disclosure.
(c)A summary of any community complaints or concerns about the ASE system.
(d)Results of any internal audits, information about any violations of the ASE System Use Policy, and any actions taken in response.
(e)Information regarding the impact the ASE system has had on the streets where the ASE system was deployed.
(f)A summary of any public record act requests.
22432.The City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco shall each, on or before March first of the fifth year in which the ASE system has been implemented, submit to the transportation committees of the Legislature an evaluation of the ASE system in their respective jurisdictions to determine the systems impact on highway safety and the systems economic impact on the communities where the system is utilized. The report shall be made available on the Internet Web sites of the two jurisdictions and shall include all of the following information:
(a)Before and after data on the number and proportion of vehicles speeding between 10 to 19, inclusive, miles per hour over the legal speed limit, 20 to 29, inclusive, miles per hour over the legal speed limit, 30 to 39, inclusive, miles per hour over the legal speed limit, and every additional 10 miles per hour increment thereafter on a street or portion of a street in which an ASE system is used to enforce speed limits. To the extent feasible, the data should be collected at the same time of day, day of week, and location.
(b)The number of notices of violation issued under the program by month and year and the corridors or locations where violations occurred and, to the extent feasible, the day of the week and time the violation occurred.
(c)Before and after data on the number of traffic collisions, categorized by injury severity (such as property damage only, complaint of pain, other visible injury, or severe or fatal injury) that occurred where ASE systems are used relative to citywide data and the transportation mode of the parties involved.
(d)The number of violations paid, the number of delinquent violations, and the number of violations for which an initial review is requested. For the violations in which an initial review was requested, the report shall indicate the number of violations that went to initial review, administrative hearing, and de novo hearing, the number of notices that were dismissed at each level of review, and the number of notices that were not dismissed after each level of review.
(e)The costs associated with implementation and operation of the ASE systems, and revenues collected by each jurisdiction.
22433.This article shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2024, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute that is enacted before January 1, 2024, deletes or extends that date.
SEC. 9.The Legislature finds and declares that a special statute is necessary and that a general statute cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution because of the unique circumstances with traffic speed enforcement in the City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco.
SEC. 10.The Legislature finds and declares that Section 8 of this act, which adds Article 3 (commencing with Section 22425) to Chapter 7 of Division 11 of the Vehicle Code, imposes a limitation on the publics right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies within the meaning of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution. Pursuant to that constitutional provision, the Legislature makes the following findings to demonstrate the interest protected by this limitation and the need for protecting that interest:
In order to protect the personally identifiable information of California drivers, it is necessary that this act limit the publics right of access to that information.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)Speed is a major factor in traffic collisions that result in fatalities or injuries.
(b)Law enforcement and other local agencies employ a variety of methods to reduce speeding, including traffic engineering, education, and enforcement.
(c)Traffic speed enforcement is critical to the efforts of municipalities in California to reduce factors that contribute to traffic collisions that result in fatalities or injuries.
(d)Additional tools, including automated speed enforcement, are available to assist cities in addressing excessive speeding and speed-related crashes.
(e)Automated speed enforcement (ASE) offers a high rate of detection, and in conjunction with education, traffic engineering, and law enforcement measures, it can significantly improve traffic safety and prevent traffic related fatalities and injuries.
(f)Multiple ASE programs implemented in other states and cities outside of California have proven successful in reducing speeding and addressing traffic safety concerns.
(g)In the City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco, fatal and injury collisions are often concentrated on specific corridors of the street network where drivers travel at excessive speeds. ASE can be deployed to detect and deter excessive speeding on streets that have a documented speeding problem as demonstrated by an aggregation of traffic collisions caused by excessive speed.
(h)Enforcing speed limits using ASE systems on streets where speeding drivers negatively impact traffic safety is a reliable and cost-effective means to prevent further fatalities and injuries and would be in the public interest. On a pilot basis, this act authorizes the City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco to implement ASE programs for a five-year period, which will commence the day that the ASE system has been activated but not later than January 1, 2019. The City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco would have the authority to use ASE on a street or portions of a street that have a documented speeding problem as demonstrated through a high incidence of speed-related traffic collisions pursuant to the methodology described in this act.
(i)The City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco would be required to submit to the transportation committees of the Legislature an evaluation on the effectiveness of the ASE pilot program implemented in their respective jurisdictions on traffic safety pursuant to requirements described in this act. The City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco would also be required to submit an ASE System Report to their respective governing body pursuant to the requirements described in this act.
(j)To protect the privacy interests of persons who are issued notices of violation under an ASE program, the Legislature finds and declares that the photographic, video, or other visual or administrative records generated by the program shall be confidential, and shall be made available only to alleged violators and to governmental and law enforcement agencies solely for the purpose of enforcing these violations and assessing the impacts of the ASE system as required by this act.
(k)Prior to implementing ASE enforcement, the governing body of the City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco that oversees the ASE program in their respective jurisdictions shall adopt an ASE System Use Policy and approve an ASE System Impact Report pursuant to the requirements described in this act.
SEC. 2.Section 70615 of the Government Code is amended to read:70615.(a)The fee for filing any of the following appeals to the superior court is twenty-five dollars ($25):
(a)(1)An appeal of a local agencys decision regarding an administrative fine or penalty under Section 53069.4.
(b)(2)An appeal under Section 40230 of the Vehicle Code of an administrative agencys decision regarding a parking violation.
(c)(3)An appeal under Section 99582 of the Public Utilities Code of a hearing officers determination regarding an administrative penalty for fare evasion or a passenger conduct violation.
(d)(4)An appeal under Section 186.35 of the Penal Code of a law enforcement agencys determination regarding the placement of an individuals information in a shared gang database.
(5)An appeal under Section 22428 of the Vehicle Code of a hearing officers determination regarding a civil penalty for an automated speed violation, as defined in Section 22425 of the Vehicle Code.
(b)This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2024, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute that is enacted before January 1, 2024, deletes or extends that date.
SEC. 3.Section 70615 is added to the Government Code, to read:70615.(a)The fee for filing any of the following appeals to the superior court is twenty-five dollars ($25):
(1)An appeal of a local agencys decision regarding an administrative fine or penalty under Section 53069.4.
(2)An appeal under Section 40230 of the Vehicle Code of an administrative agencys decision regarding a parking violation.
(3)An appeal under Section 99582 of the Public Utilities Code of a hearing officers determination regarding an administrative penalty for fare evasion or a passenger conduct violation.
(4)An appeal under Section 186.35 of the Penal Code of a law enforcement agencys determination regarding the placement of an individuals information in a shared gang database.
(b)This section shall become operative on January 1, 2024.
SEC. 4.Section 10878 of the Revenue and Taxation Code is amended to read:10878.(a)Notwithstanding Sections 10877 and 10951, the responsibility and authority for the collection of the following delinquent amounts, and any interest, penalties, or service fees added thereto, shall be transferred from the department to the Franchise Tax Board:
(1)Registration fees.
(2)Transfer fees.
(3)License fees.
(4)Use taxes.
(5)Penalties for offenses relating to the standing or parking of a vehicle for which a notice of parking violation has been served on the owner, and any administrative service fee added to the penalty.
(6)Unpaid tolls, toll evasion penalties as described in Section 40252 of the Vehicle Code, and any related administrative or service fees.
(7)Any court-imposed fine or penalty assessment, and any administrative service fee added thereto, that is subject to collection by the department.
(8)Penalties for offenses detected by an automated speed enforcement system operated by the City of San Jose or the City and County of San Francisco for which a notice of violation has been served on the registered owner or recipient of a reissued notice of violation and any delinquent fees added to the penalty.
(b)Any reference in this part to the department in connection with the duty to collect these amounts shall be deemed a reference to the Franchise Tax Board.
(c)The amounts collected under subdivision (a) may be collected in any manner authorized under the law as though they were a tax imposed under Part 10 (commencing with Section 17001) that is final, including, but not limited to, issuance of an order and levy under Article 4 (commencing with Section 706.070) of Chapter 5 of Division 2 of Title 9 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the manner provided for earnings withholding order for taxes. Part 10 (commencing with Section 17001), 10.2 (commencing with Section 18401), or 10.7 (commencing with Section 21001), or any other applicable law shall apply for this purpose in the same manner and with the same force and effect as if the language of Part 10, 10.2, or 10.7, or the other applicable law is incorporated in full into this authority to collect these amounts, except to the extent that the provision is either inconsistent with the collection of these amounts or is not relevant to the collection of these amounts.
(d)Even though the amounts authorized by this section are collected as though they are taxes, amounts so received by the Franchise Tax Board shall be deposited into an appropriate fund or account upon agreement between the Franchise Tax Board and the department. The amounts shall be distributed by the department from the appropriate fund or account in accordance with the laws providing for the deposits and distributions as though the moneys were received by the department.
(e)For any collection action under this section, the Franchise Tax Board may utilize the contract authorization, procedures, and mechanisms available either with respect to the collection of taxes, interest, additions to tax, and penalties pursuant to Section 19376, or with respect to the collection of the delinquencies by the department immediately prior to the time this section takes effect.
(f)The Legislature finds that it is essential for fiscal purposes that the program authorized by this section be expeditiously implemented. Accordingly, Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code shall not apply to any standard, criteria, procedure, determination, rule, notice, or guideline established or issued by the Franchise Tax Board in implementing and administering the program required by this section.
(g)Any standard, criteria, procedure, determination, rule, notice, or guideline, that is not subject to the provisions of Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code pursuant to subdivision (f), shall be approved by the Franchise Tax Board, itself.
(h)The Franchise Tax Board may enter into any agreements or contracts necessary to implement and administer the provisions of this section. The Franchise Tax Board in administering this section may delegate collection activities to the department. Any contracts may provide for payment of the contract on the basis of a percentage of the amount of revenue realized as a result of the contractors services under that contract. However, the Franchise Tax Board, in administering this part, may not enter into contracts with private collection agencies as authorized under Section 19377.
(i)The amendments made to this section by the act adding this subdivision shall apply commencing with the effective date of the act adding this subdivision.
(j)This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2024, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute that is enacted before January 1, 2024, deletes or extends that date.
SEC. 5.Section 10878 is added to the Revenue and Taxation Code, to read:10878.(a)Notwithstanding Sections 10877 and 10951, the responsibility and authority for the collection of the following delinquent amounts, and any interest, penalties, or service fees added thereto, shall be transferred from the department to the Franchise Tax Board:
(1)Registration fees.
(2)Transfer fees.
(3)License fees.
(4)Use taxes.
(5)Penalties for offenses relating to the standing or parking of a vehicle for which a notice of parking violation has been served on the owner, and any administrative service fee added to the penalty.
(6)Unpaid tolls, toll evasion penalties as described in Section 40252 of the Vehicle Code, and any related administrative or service fees.
(7)Any court-imposed fine or penalty assessment, and any administrative service fee added thereto, that is subject to collection by the department.
(b)Any reference in this part to the department in connection with the duty to collect these amounts shall be deemed a reference to the Franchise Tax Board.
(c)The amounts collected under subdivision (a) may be collected in any manner authorized under the law as though they were a tax imposed under Part 10 (commencing with Section 17001) that is final, including, but not limited to, issuance of an order and levy under Article 4 (commencing with Section 706.070) of Chapter 5 of Division 2 of Title 9 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the manner provided for earnings withholding order for taxes. Part 10 (commencing with Section 17001), 10.2 (commencing with Section 18401), or 10.7 (commencing with Section 21001), or any other applicable law shall apply for this purpose in the same manner and with the same force and effect as if the language of Part 10, 10.2, or 10.7, or the other applicable law is incorporated in full into this authority to collect these amounts, except to the extent that the provision is either inconsistent with the collection of these amounts or is not relevant to the collection of these amounts.
(d)Even though the amounts authorized by this section are collected as though they are taxes, amounts so received by the Franchise Tax Board shall be deposited into an appropriate fund or account upon agreement between the Franchise Tax Board and the department. The amounts shall be distributed by the department from the appropriate fund or account in accordance with the laws providing for the deposits and distributions as though the moneys were received by the department.
(e)For any collection action under this section, the Franchise Tax Board may utilize the contract authorization, procedures, and mechanisms available either with respect to the collection of taxes, interest, additions to tax, and penalties pursuant to Section 19376, or with respect to the collection of the delinquencies by the department immediately prior to the time this section takes effect.
(f)The Legislature finds that it is essential for fiscal purposes that the program authorized by this section be expeditiously implemented. Accordingly, Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code shall not apply to any standard, criteria, procedure, determination, rule, notice, or guideline established or issued by the Franchise Tax Board in implementing and administering the program required by this section.
(g)Any standard, criteria, procedure, determination, rule, notice, or guideline, that is not subject to the provisions of Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code pursuant to subdivision (f), shall be approved by the Franchise Tax Board, itself.
(h)The Franchise Tax Board may enter into any agreements or contracts necessary to implement and administer the provisions of this section. The Franchise Tax Board in administering this section may delegate collection activities to the department. Any contracts may provide for payment of the contract on the basis of a percentage of the amount of revenue realized as a result of the contractors services under that contract. However, the Franchise Tax Board, in administering this part, may not enter into contracts with private collection agencies as authorized under Section 19377.
(i)This section shall become operative on January 1, 2024.
SEC. 6.Section 9800 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:9800.(a)Payments for any of the following, and any interest, penalties, or service fees added thereto, required to register or transfer the registration of a vehicle, constitute a lien on the vehicle on which they are due or which that was involved in the offense, and on any other vehicle owned by the owner of that vehicle:
(1)Registration fees.
(2)Transfer fees.
(3)License fees.
(4)Use taxes.
(5)Penalties for offenses relating to the standing or parking of a vehicle for which a notice of parking violation has been served on the owner, and any administrative service fee added to the penalty.
(6)Any court-imposed fine or penalty assessment, and any administrative service fee added thereto, which is subject to collection by the department.
(7)Penalties for offenses detected by an automated speed enforcement system operated by the City of San Jose or the City and County of San Francisco for which a notice of violation has been served on the owner or recipient of a reissued citation and any delinquent fees added to the penalty.
(b)Notwithstanding subdivision (a), if a person is cited for a foreign registered auxiliary dolly, semitrailer, or trailer having been operated without current year registration or valid California permits or registration, an amount equal to the minimum registration fees or transfer fees, and any penalty added thereto, from the date they became due, shall, by election of the power unit operator, constitute a lien upon the California registered power unit which that was pulling the dolly, semitrailer, or trailer. However, this subdivision is not applicable if the citation is issued at a scale operated by the Department of the California Highway Patrol and registration for the vehicle can be issued there immediately upon payment of the fees due.
(c)Every lien arising under this section expires three years from the date the fee, tax, or parking penalty first became due unless the lien is perfected pursuant to subdivision (d).
(d)A lien is perfected when a notice is mailed to the registered and legal owners at the addresses shown in the departments records and the lien is recorded on the electronic vehicle registration records of the department. A perfected lien shall expire five years from the date of perfection.
(e)Employees and members of the Department of the California Highway Patrol assigned to commercial vehicle scale facilities may possess and sell trip permits approved by the Department of Motor Vehicles.
(f)This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2024, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute that is enacted before January 1, 2024, deletes or extends that date.
SEC. 7.Section 9800 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:9800.(a)Payments for any of the following, and any interest, penalties, or service fees added thereto, required to register or transfer the registration of a vehicle, constitute a lien on the vehicle on which they are due or that was involved in the offense, and on any other vehicle owned by the owner of that vehicle:
(1)Registration fees.
(2)Transfer fees.
(3)License fees.
(4)Use taxes.
(5)Penalties for offenses relating to the standing or parking of a vehicle for which a notice of parking violation has been served on the owner, and any administrative service fee added to the penalty.
(6)Any court-imposed fine or penalty assessment, and any administrative service fee added thereto, which is subject to collection by the department.
(b)Notwithstanding subdivision (a), if a person is cited for a foreign registered auxiliary dolly, semitrailer, or trailer having been operated without current year registration or valid California permits or registration, an amount equal to the minimum registration fees or transfer fees, and any penalty added thereto, from the date they became due, shall, by election of the power unit operator, constitute a lien upon the California registered power unit that was pulling the dolly, semitrailer, or trailer. However, this subdivision is not applicable if the citation is issued at a scale operated by the Department of the California Highway Patrol and registration for the vehicle can be issued there immediately upon payment of the fees due.
(c)Every lien arising under this section expires three years from the date the fee, tax, or penalty first became due unless the lien is perfected pursuant to subdivision (d).
(d)A lien is perfected when a notice is mailed to the registered and legal owners at the addresses shown in the departments records and the lien is recorded on the electronic vehicle registration records of the department. A perfected lien shall expire five years from the date of perfection.
(e)Employees and members of the Department of the California Highway Patrol assigned to commercial vehicle scale facilities may possess and sell trip permits approved by the Department of Motor Vehicles.
(f)This section shall become operative on January 1, 2024.
SEC. 8.Article 3 (commencing with Section 22425) is added to Chapter 7 of Division 11 of the Vehicle Code, to read:3.Automated Speed Enforcement System22425.(a)As used in this article, the following definitions shall apply:
(1)Automated speed enforcement system or ASE system means a fixed or mobile radar or laser system or any other electronic device that utilizes automated equipment to detect a violation of speeding laws and is designed to obtain a clear photograph, video recording, or other visual image of a vehicle license plate.
(2)Automated speed violation means a violation of a speed law detected by an ASE system operated pursuant to this article.
(3)City of San Jose, City and County of San Francisco, or municipality means any department, bureau, division, or unit of the City of San Jose or the City and County of San Francisco, respectively.
(b)The City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco may establish a program utilizing an ASE system for speed limit enforcement on streets or portions of streets with speed limits that are 50 miles per hour or less and that have had three or more speed-related fatal, severe, or other visible injury collisions occur within a one-half mile distance of each other, over a five-year period based on the most recent available local or state collision data, and the primary or secondary collision factor identified on the California Highway Patrol form 555 is an unsafe speed violation.
(c)ASE is not authorized on freeways.
(d)If a school zone is located on a street or portion of a street and the posted speed limit is 30 miles per hour or higher when children are not present, the City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco may use automated speed enforcement two hours before the regular school session begins and two hours after regular school session concludes.
(e)An ASE system for speed limit enforcement may be utilized pursuant to subdivision (b) if the program meets all of the following requirements:
(1)Is operated in cooperation with a law enforcement agency.
(2)Clearly identifies the presence of the fixed or mobile ASE system by signs stating Photo Enforced, along with the posted speed limit. The signs shall be visible to traffic traveling on the street from the direction of travel for which the ASE system is utilized, and shall be posted at all locations in the corridors or zones enforced by an ASE system where there is a posted speed limit sign. Signs shall also be placed at additional locations as may be determined necessary by the Department of Transportation through discussions with the California Traffic Control Devices Committee.
(3)Identifies vehicles containing a mobile ASE system with distinctive markings, including information that the system is being operated for Photo Enforcement purposes.
(4)Identifies the streets or portions of streets that have been approved for enforcement using an ASE system and the hours of enforcement on the municipalitys Internet Web site, which shall be updated whenever the municipality changes locations that are enforced with the mobile ASE system or hours of enforcement.
(5)(A)Utilizes trained peace officers or other trained designated municipal employees who oversee the operation of mobile and fixed ASE systems and maintain control over all enforcement activities, including the determination of when a notice of violation should be issued.
(B)Peace officers or other designated municipal employees shall be properly trained in both of the following:
(i)The use of an ASE system, including, but not limited to, the operation, set-up, and testing of the system deployed by the municipality.
(ii)The enforcement of traffic and speeding laws in a course approved and certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training or an operator course meeting equivalent standards.
(C)The municipality shall retain documentation of the successful completion of any required training by any peace officer or designated municipal employee that oversees the operation of an ASE system and the enforcement activities.
(6)Ensures that the ASE system is regularly inspected and certifies that the system is installed and operating properly. Each camera unit shall be calibrated in accordance with the manufacturers instructions, and at least once a year by an independent calibration laboratory. Documentation of the regular inspection, operation, and calibration of the ASE system shall be retained until the date on which the ASE system has been permanently removed from use.
(7)Conducts an engineering and traffic survey as set forth in Section 40802.
(f)Prior to enforcing speed laws utilizing ASE systems, the municipality shall do both of the following:
(1)Administer a public information campaign for at least 30 calendar days prior to the initial commencement of the program, which shall include public announcements in major media outlets and press releases. Notwithstanding that additional fixed or mobile ASE systems may be added to the program, no further public announcement by the municipality shall be required.
(2)Issue warning notices rather than notices of violation for violations detected by the ASE systems during the first 90 calendar days of enforcement under the program. Notwithstanding that additional fixed or mobile ASE systems may be added to the program, the municipality shall not be required to issue further warning notices.
(g)The local governing body shall adopt an ASE System Use Policy prior to implementing an ASE program. The ASE System Use Policy shall include the specific purpose for the ASE system, the uses that are authorized, the rules and processes required prior to that use, and the uses that are prohibited. The policy shall include the data or information that can be collected by the ASE system and the individuals who can access or use the collected information, and the rules and processes related to the access or use of the information. The policy shall also include provisions for protecting data from unauthorized access, data retention, public access, third-party data sharing, training, auditing, and oversight to ensure compliance with the ASE System Use Policy.
(h)The local governing body also shall approve an ASE System Impact Report prior to implementing an ASE program. The ASE System Impact Report shall include all of the following information:
(1)Description of the ASE system and how it works.
(2)Proposed purpose of the ASE system.
(3)Locations that the ASE system may be deployed and traffic data for these locations.
(4)Assessment of potential impact of the ASE system on civil liberties and civil rights and any plans to safeguard those public rights.
(5)Fiscal costs for the ASE system, including program establishment costs, ongoing costs, and program funding.
(i)The municipality shall develop uniform guidelines that shall be approved by the local law enforcement agency for both of the following:
(1)The screening and issuing of notices of violation.
(2)The processing and storage of confidential information and procedures to ensure compliance with confidentiality requirements.
(j)Notices of violation issued pursuant to this section shall include a clear photograph, video recording, or other visual image of the license plate of the vehicle only, the Vehicle Code violation, the camera location, and the date and time when the violation occurred.
(k)The photographic, video, or other visual evidence stored by an ASE system does not constitute an out-of-court hearsay statement by a declarant under Division 10 (commencing with Section 1200) of the Evidence Code.
(l)(1)Notwithstanding Sections 6253 and 6262 of the Government Code, or any other law, photographic, video, or other visual or administrative records made by an ASE system shall be confidential. Public agencies shall use and allow access to these records only for the purposes authorized by this article or to assess the impacts of the ASE system.
(2)Confidential information obtained from the Department of Motor Vehicles for the administration of ASE systems and enforcement of this article shall be held confidential, and shall not be used for any other purpose.
(3)Except for court records described in Section 68152 of the Government Code, or as provided in paragraph (4), the confidential records and evidence described in paragraphs (1) and (2) may be retained for up to 60 days after final disposition of the notice of violation. Administrative records described in paragraph (1) may be retained for up to 120 days after final disposition of the notice of violation. Notwithstanding any other law, the confidential records and evidence shall be destroyed in a manner that maintains the confidentiality of any person included in the record or evidence.
(4)Notwithstanding Section 26202.6 of the Government Code, photographic, video, or other visual evidence that is obtained from an ASE system that does not contain evidence of a speeding violation shall be destroyed within five business days after the evidence was first obtained.
(m)Notwithstanding subdivision (l), the registered owner or an individual identified by the registered owner as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation shall be permitted to review the photographic, video, or visual evidence of the alleged violation.
(n)A contract between the municipality and a manufacturer or supplier of ASE systems shall allow the local authority to purchase materials, lease equipment, and contract for processing services from the manufacturer or supplier based on the services rendered on a monthly schedule or another schedule agreed upon by the municipality and contractor. The contract shall not include provisions for payment or compensation based on the number of notices of violation issued by a trained peace officer or other designated municipal employee, or as a percentage of revenue generated, from the use of the ASE system. The municipality shall oversee and maintain control over all enforcement activities, including the determination of when a notice of violation should be issued.
(o)Notwithstanding subdivision (n), a municipality may contract with a vendor for the processing of notices of violation after a trained peace officer or other designated municipal employee has issued a notice of violation. The vendor shall be a separate legal and corporate entity from, and unrelated or affiliated in any manner with, the manufacturer or supplier of ASE systems used by the municipality. Any contract between the municipality and a vendor to provide processing services may include a provision for the payment of compensation based on the number of notices of violation processed by the vendor.
(p)An ASE system adopted pursuant to this article shall be activated no later than January 1, 2019, and may operate for no longer than five years.
22426.(a)Notwithstanding any other law, a violation of Section 22350, or any other speed law, that is recorded by an ASE system authorized pursuant to Section 22425 shall be subject only to a civil penalty, as provided in subdivision (d), and shall not result in the department suspending or revoking the privilege of a violator to drive a motor vehicle or in a violation point being assessed against the violator.
(b)The ASE system shall capture images of the license plate of vehicles that are traveling 10 miles per hour or more over the posted speed limit and notices of violation shall only be issued to vehicles based on that evidence.
(c)No more than one notice of violation shall be issued for a violation recorded from a specific license plate within a 24-hour period.
(d)The total amount of the civil penalty, including any additional local fees by the municipality, for a speed violation that is recorded and cited under this section shall not exceed one hundred dollars ($100).
(e)The written notice of violation shall be issued to the registered owner of the vehicle within 15 calendar days of the date of the violation. The notice of violation shall include all of the following information:
(1)The violation, including reference to the local ordinance, state law, or federal statute or regulation that was violated.
(2)The date, approximate time, and location where the violation occurred.
(3)The vehicle license number and the name and address of the registered owner of the vehicle.
(4)A statement that payment is required to be made no later than 30 calendar days from the date of mailing of the notice of violation, or that the violation may be contested pursuant to Section 22427.
(5)The amount of the civil penalty due for that violation and the procedures for the registered owner, lessee, or rentee to pay the civil penalty or to contest the notice of violation.
(6)An affidavit of nonliability, and information of what constitutes nonliability, information as to the effect of executing the affidavit, and instructions for returning the affidavit to the processing agency. If the affidavit of nonliability is returned to the processing agency within 30 calendar days of the mailing of the notice of violation, together with proof of a written lease or rental agreement between a bona fide rental or leasing company and its customer, which identifies the rentee or lessee, the processing agency shall serve or mail a notice of violation to the rentee or lessee identified in the affidavit of nonliability.
(7)A notice to the registered owner that unless the registered owner pays the civil penalty or contests the notice within 30 calendar days after the mailing of the notice of violation, or completes and files an affidavit of nonliability, the renewal of the vehicle registration shall be contingent upon compliance with the notice of violation. If the registered owner, by appearance or by mail, makes payment to the processing agency within 30 calendar days after the mailing of the notice of violation, the civil penalty shall consist solely of the amount of the original civil penalty.
(f)Revenues derived from any program utilizing an ASE system for speed limit enforcement shall be used to recover program costs. Any remaining revenue shall be used only for pedestrian safety or other roadway traffic safety improvements.
22427.(a)For a period of 30 calendar days from the mailing of a notice of violation, a person may request an initial review of the notice by the issuing agency. The request may be made by telephone, in writing, or in person. There shall be no charge for this review. If, following the initial review, the issuing agency is satisfied that the violation did not occur, or that extenuating circumstances make dismissal of the notice of violation appropriate in the interest of justice, the issuing agency shall cancel the notice of violation. The issuing agency shall advise the processing agency, if any, of the cancellation. The issuing agency or the processing agency shall mail the results of the initial review to the person contesting the notice, and, if cancellation of the notice does not occur following that review, include a reason for that denial, notification of the ability to request an administrative hearing, and notice of the procedure adopted pursuant to subdivision (b) for waiving prepayment of the civil penalty based upon an inability to pay.
(b)(1)If the person contesting the notice of violation is dissatisfied with the results of the initial review, the person may, no later than 21 calendar days following the mailing of the results of the issuing agencys initial review, request an administrative hearing of the violation. The request may be made by telephone, in writing, or in person.
(2)The person requesting an administrative hearing shall pay the amount of the civil penalty to the processing agency. The issuing agency shall adopt a written procedure to allow a person to request an administrative hearing without payment of the civil penalty upon satisfactory proof of an inability to pay the amount due. The administrative hearing shall be held within 90 calendar days following the receipt of a request for an administrative hearing. The person requesting the hearing may request one continuance, not to exceed 21 calendar days.
(c)The administrative hearing process shall include all of the following:
(1)The person requesting a hearing shall have the choice of a hearing by mail or in person. An in-person hearing shall be conducted within the jurisdiction of the issuing agency.
(2)If the person requesting a hearing is a minor, that person shall be permitted to appear at a hearing or admit responsibility for the automated speed violation without the necessity of the appointment of a guardian. The processing agency may proceed against the minor in the same manner as against an adult.
(3)The administrative hearing shall be conducted in accordance with written procedures established by the issuing agency and approved by the governing body or chief executive officer of the issuing agency. The hearing shall provide an independent, objective, fair, and impartial review of contested automated speed violations.
(4)(A)The issuing agencys governing body or chief executive officer shall appoint or contract with qualified independent examiners or administrative hearing providers that employ qualified independent examiners to conduct the administrative hearings. Examiners shall demonstrate the qualifications, training, and objectivity necessary to conduct a fair and impartial review. The examiner shall be separate and independent from the notice of violation collection or processing function. An examiners continued employment, performance evaluation, compensation, and benefits shall not, directly or indirectly, be linked to the amount of civil penalties collected by the examiner or the number or percentage of violations upheld by the examiner.
(B)(i)Examiners shall have a minimum of 20 hours of training. The examiner is responsible for the costs of the training. The issuing agency may reimburse the examiner for those costs. Training may be provided through any of the following:
(I)An accredited college or university.
(II)A program conducted by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.
(III)A program conducted by the American Arbitration Association or a similar organization.
(IV)Any program approved by the governing body or chief executive officer of the issuing agency, including a program developed and provided by, or for, the agency.
(ii)Training programs may include topics relevant to the administrative hearing, including, but not limited to, applicable laws and regulations, enforcement procedures, due process, evaluation of evidence, hearing procedures, and effective oral and written communication. Upon the approval of the governing body or chief executive officer of the issuing agency, up to 12 hours of relevant experience may be substituted for up to 12 hours of training. Up to eight hours of the training requirements described in this subparagraph may be credited to an individual, at the discretion of the governing body or chief executive officer of the issuing agency, based upon training programs or courses described in this subparagraph that the individual attended within the last five years.
(5)The peace officer or designated municipal employee who issues a notice of violation shall not be required to participate in an administrative hearing. The issuing agency shall not be required to produce any evidence other than, in proper form, the notice of violation or copy thereof, including the photograph, video, or other visual image of the vehicles license plate, and information received from the Department of Motor Vehicles identifying the registered owner of the vehicle. The documentation in proper form shall be prima facie evidence of the violation.
(6)The examiners final decision following the administrative hearing may be personally delivered to the person by the examiner or sent by first-class mail.
(7)Following a determination by the examiner that a person has committed the violation, the examiner may, consistent with the written guidelines established by the issuing agency, allow payment of the civil penalty in installments, or an issuing agency may allow for deferred payment or payments in installments, if the person provides evidence satisfactory to the examiner or the issuing agency, as the case may be, of an inability to pay the civil penalty in full. If authorized by the governing body of the issuing agency, the examiner may permit the performance of community service in lieu of payment of the civil penalty.
(8)If a notice of violation is dismissed following an administrative hearing, any civil penalty, if paid, shall be refunded by the issuing agency within 30 days.
22428.(a)Within 30 days after personal delivery or mailing of the final decision described in subdivision (c) of Section 22427, the contestant may seek review by filing an appeal to the superior court, where the case shall be heard de novo, except that the contents of the processing agencys file in the case on appeal shall be received in evidence. A copy of the notice of violation shall be admitted into evidence as prima facie evidence of the facts stated in the notice. A copy of the notice of appeal shall be served in person or by first-class mail upon the processing agency by the contestant. For purposes of computing the 30-day period, Section 1013 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall be applicable. A proceeding under this subdivision is a limited civil case.
(b)The fee for filing the notice of appeal shall be as provided in Section 70615 of the Government Code. The court shall request that the issuing agencys file on the case be forwarded to the court, to be received within 15 calendar days of the request. The court shall notify the contestant of the appearance date by mail or personal delivery. The court shall retain the fee under Section 70615 of the Government Code regardless of the outcome of the appeal. If the appellant prevails, this fee and any payment of the civil penalty shall be promptly refunded by the issuing agency in accordance with the judgment of the court.
(c)The conduct of the hearing on appeal under this section is a subordinate judicial duty that may be performed by a commissioner or other subordinate judicial officer at the direction of the presiding judge of the court.
(d)If a notice of appeal of the examiners decision is not filed within the period set forth in subdivision (a), the decision shall be deemed final.
(e)If the civil penalty has not been paid and the decision is adverse to the contestant, the processing agency may, promptly after the decision becomes final, proceed to collect the civil penalty under Section 22426.
22429.If the payment of the civil penalty is not received by the person authorized to receive payment of the civil penalty by the time and date fixed for appearance on the notice of violation under Section 22426, the processing agency may assess delinquent fees, as determined by the issuing agency, and may proceed to collect the civil penalty under Section 22426.
22429.5.(a)The City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco shall offer a diversion program for certain low-income ASE system violation recipients to perform community service in lieu of paying the penalty for an ASE system violation.
(b)The City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco shall offer the ability for certain low-income ASE system violation recipients to pay applicable fines and penalties over a period of time under a payment plan.
22430.(a)Except as provided in subdivision (c), the department shall refuse to renew the registration of a vehicle if the registered owner has been mailed a notice of violation under this article, the processing agency has filed or electronically transmitted to the department an itemization of unpaid civil penalties, including administrative fees pursuant to Section 22431, and the owner has not paid the civil penalty and administrative fees, unless he or she pays to the department, at the time of application for renewal, the full amount of all outstanding civil penalties and administrative fees, as shown by records of the department.
(b)When the department receives the full amount of all outstanding civil penalties and administrative fees pursuant to subdivision (a), it shall issue a receipt showing each civil penalty and the administrative fees that have been paid, the processing agency for that penalty and fee, and a description of the vehicle involved in the automated speed violations.
(c)The department shall not refuse to renew the registration of a vehicle under either of the following circumstances:
(1)If the applicant provides the department with the abstract or notice of disposition of the violation for clearing all outstanding civil penalties and administrative fees as shown by the records of the department.
(2)If the notice of violation was issued prior to the registered owner taking possession of the vehicle or if the notice of violation was reissued to a third party.
22431.(a)The department shall remit all civil penalties and administrative fees collected, after deducting the administrative fees authorized in subdivision (b), for each notice of violation for which penalties and administrative fees have been collected, to the processing agency in the amount due. Within 45 days from the time penalties are recorded by the department, the department shall inform the municipality which of its notices of violation have been discharged.
(b)The department shall assess a fee for the recording of the notice of violation in an amount, as determined by the department, that is no more than the amount sufficient to provide a total amount equal to its actual administrative costs.
22431.5.The City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco shall each develop and submit to their respective governing body an ASE System Report, two years after initial implementation of the ASE program and at the end of the ASE pilot program, that includes all of the following information:
(a)A description of how the ASE system was used.
(b)Whether and how often any ASE system data was shared with outside entities, the name of any recipient entity, the type or types of data disclosed, and the legal reason for the disclosure.
(c)A summary of any community complaints or concerns about the ASE system.
(d)Results of any internal audits, information about any violations of the ASE System Use Policy, and any actions taken in response.
(e)Information regarding the impact the ASE system has had on the streets where the ASE system was deployed.
(f)A summary of any public record act requests.
22432.The City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco shall each, on or before March first of the fifth year in which the ASE system has been implemented, submit to the transportation committees of the Legislature an evaluation of the ASE system in their respective jurisdictions to determine the systems impact on highway safety and the systems economic impact on the communities where the system is utilized. The report shall be made available on the Internet Web sites of the two jurisdictions and shall include all of the following information:
(a)Before and after data on the number and proportion of vehicles speeding between 10 to 19, inclusive, miles per hour over the legal speed limit, 20 to 29, inclusive, miles per hour over the legal speed limit, 30 to 39, inclusive, miles per hour over the legal speed limit, and every additional 10 miles per hour increment thereafter on a street or portion of a street in which an ASE system is used to enforce speed limits. To the extent feasible, the data should be collected at the same time of day, day of week, and location.
(b)The number of notices of violation issued under the program by month and year and the corridors or locations where violations occurred and, to the extent feasible, the day of the week and time the violation occurred.
(c)Before and after data on the number of traffic collisions, categorized by injury severity (such as property damage only, complaint of pain, other visible injury, or severe or fatal injury) that occurred where ASE systems are used relative to citywide data and the transportation mode of the parties involved.
(d)The number of violations paid, the number of delinquent violations, and the number of violations for which an initial review is requested. For the violations in which an initial review was requested, the report shall indicate the number of violations that went to initial review, administrative hearing, and de novo hearing, the number of notices that were dismissed at each level of review, and the number of notices that were not dismissed after each level of review.
22433.This article shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2024, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute that is enacted before January 1, 2024, deletes or extends that date.
SEC. 9.The Legislature finds and declares that a special statute is necessary and that a general statute cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution because of the unique circumstances with traffic speed enforcement in the City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco.
SEC. 10.The Legislature finds and declares that Section 8 of this act, which adds Article 3 (commencing with Section 22425) to Chapter 7 of Division 11 of the Vehicle Code, imposes a limitation on the publics right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies within the meaning of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution. Pursuant to that constitutional provision, the Legislature makes the following findings to demonstrate the interest protected by this limitation and the need for protecting that interest:
In order to protect the personally identifiable information of California drivers, it is necessary that this act limit the publics right of access to that information.
|
Date
|
Status
|
|---|---|
| Feb 1, 2018 | From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56. |
| Jan 31, 2018 | Died pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution. |
| Jan 8, 2018 | In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author. |
| Apr 24, 2017 | In committee: Hearing for testimony only. |
| Apr 19, 2017 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on TRANS. (Ayes 6. Noes 4.) (April 18). Re-referred to Com. on TRANS. |
| Apr 17, 2017 | Re-referred to Com. on P. & C.P. |
| Apr 6, 2017 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on P. & C.P. Read second time and amended. |
| Mar 27, 2017 | In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author. |
| Mar 23, 2017 | Re-referred to Coms. on P. & C.P. and TRANS. pursuant to Assembly Rule 96. |
| Mar 22, 2017 | Re-referred to Com. on TRANS. |
| Mar 21, 2017 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on TRANS. Read second time and amended. |
| Feb 21, 2017 | Referred to Coms. on TRANS. and P. & C.P. |
| Feb 8, 2017 | From printer. May be heard in committee March 10. |
| Feb 7, 2017 | Read first time. To print. |
|
Date
|
Description
|
Location
|
Votes
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 18, 2017 | Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Transportation] | Assembly Standing Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection |
Passed |
This list shows positions taken on this bill by organizations on the date displayed, which is linked to the original source.
Positions by individuals are not included.
|
Organization
|
Position
|
Date
|
|---|---|---|
| 14 Individuals | ** Against | Mar 24, 2017 |
| 14 Individuals | ** Against | Mar 24, 2017 |
| 19 Individuals | ** Against | Apr 14, 2017 |
| 19 Individuals | ** Against | Apr 14, 2017 |
| 19 private citizens | ** Against | Apr 21, 2017 |
| AAA Northern California, Nevada & Utah | * Against | Apr 24, 2017 |
| AAA of Northern California, Nevada and Utah | ** Against | Apr 21, 2017 |
| Alliance for Retired Americans | ** Support | Apr 21, 2017 |
| American Association of Retired Persons | ** Support | Apr 21, 2017 |
| American Civil Liberties Union | * Against | Apr 18, 2017 |
| Association For Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs | * Against | Apr 24, 2017 |
| Association Of California Insurance Companies | ** Support | Apr 21, 2017 |
| Association of Deputy District Attorneys | ** Against | Apr 21, 2017 |
| Auto Club of Southern California | * Against Unless Amend | Apr 24, 2017 |
| Automobile Club of Southern California | ** Against | Apr 21, 2017 |
| Bay Area, | * Against | Apr 24, 2017 |
| California Alliance For Retired Americans | ** Support | Apr 21, 2017 |
| California Association and Highway Patrol | * Against | Apr 24, 2017 |
| California Association Of Code Enforcement Officers | ** Against | Apr 21, 2017 |
| California Attorneys For Criminal Justice | ** Against | Apr 21, 2017 |
| California Bicycle Coalition | * Support | Apr 24, 2017 |
| California Civil Liberties Advocacy | ** Against | Apr 21, 2017 |
| California College And University Police Chiefs Association | ** Against | Apr 21, 2017 |
| California Highway Patrol | * Against | Apr 24, 2017 |
| California Narcotic Officers Association | ** Against | Apr 21, 2017 |
| California Police Chiefs Association | ** Support | Apr 21, 2017 |
| California Walks | ** Support | Apr 21, 2017 |
| CC Puede | ** Support | Apr 21, 2017 |
| City Of Los Angeles | ** Support | Apr 21, 2017 |
| City of San Jose | * Support | Apr 24, 2017 |
| County Transportation Authority of San Francisco | * Support | Apr 24, 2017 |
| Duboce Triangle Neighborhood Association | ** Support | Apr 21, 2017 |
| East Area Progressive Democrats | ** Against | Apr 21, 2017 |
| FDR Dems | ** Support | Apr 21, 2017 |
| Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District | ** Support | Apr 21, 2017 |
| Greater Rincon Hill Community Benefit District | ** Support | Apr 21, 2017 |
| Independent Living Resource Center San Francisco | ** Support | Apr 21, 2017 |
| Livable City | ** Support | Apr 21, 2017 |
| Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association | ** Against | Apr 21, 2017 |
| Los Angeles Police Protective League | ** Against | Apr 21, 2017 |
| Los Angeles Walks | ** Support | Apr 21, 2017 |
| Lower Polk Community Benefit District | ** Support | Apr 21, 2017 |
| Metropolitan Transportation Commission | ** Support | Apr 21, 2017 |
| Mission Bay Neighborhood Association | ** Support | Apr 21, 2017 |
| National Elevator Industry, Inc. | * Neutral | Apr 24, 2017 |
| National Motorists Association | ** Against | Apr 21, 2017 |
| Peace Officers Research Association Of California | ** Against | Apr 21, 2017 |
| Portola Neighborhood Association | ** Support | Apr 21, 2017 |
| Rincon | ** Support | Apr 21, 2017 |
| Riverside Sheriffs Association | ** Against | Apr 21, 2017 |
| Sacramento Trail Net | * Support | Apr 18, 2017 |
| Safe Routes to School National Partnership | * Support | Apr 24, 2017 |
| Safer Streets L.A. | * Against | Apr 24, 2017 |
| san bernardino county sheriff's employees' benefit association | ** Against | Apr 21, 2017 |
| San Bernardino County SheriffS Employees Benefit Association | ** Against | Apr 21, 2017 |
| San Francisco Bay Area Families for Safe Streets | * Support | Apr 24, 2017 |
| San Francisco Bicycle Coalition | * Support | Apr 24, 2017 |
| San Francisco County Transportation Authority | * Support | Apr 24, 2017 |
| San Francisco Department Of Public Health | * Support | Apr 24, 2017 |
| San Francisco Health Improvement Partnership | ** Support | Apr 21, 2017 |
| San Francisco Mayor Edwin M. Lee | ** Support | Apr 21, 2017 |
| San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency | ** Support | Apr 21, 2017 |
| San Francisco Police Department | * Support | Apr 24, 2017 |
| San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo | ** Support | Apr 21, 2017 |
| San Jose Police Department | * Support | Apr 18, 2017 |
| Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | * Support | Apr 24, 2017 |
| Senior & Disability Action | ** Support | Apr 21, 2017 |
| sf.citi | ** Support | Apr 21, 2017 |
| Shape Up San Francisco Coalition | ** Support | Apr 21, 2017 |
| Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition | ** Support | Apr 21, 2017 |
| Silicon Valley Independent Living Center | ** Support | Apr 21, 2017 |
| South Beach | ** Support | Apr 21, 2017 |
| SPUR | ** Support | Apr 21, 2017 |
| Tenants and Owners Development Corporation | ** Support | Apr 21, 2017 |
| The Friends of Monterey Boulevard | ** Support | Apr 21, 2017 |
| Transform | * Support | Apr 24, 2017 |
| Walk San Francisco | * Support | Apr 24, 2017 |
| Western Center On Law And Poverty Inc. | * Neutral | Apr 24, 2017 |
| Western States Trucking Association | ** Against | Apr 21, 2017 |
Date of Hearing: April 24, 2017
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Jim Frazier, Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:AB 342 (
Author:Chiu) – As Amended Ver:April 6, 2017
SUBJECT: Vehicles: automated speed enforcement: five-year pilot program
SUMMARY: Establishes a five-year pilot program to give local transportation authorities in the City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco the authority to install automated speed enforcement (ASE) systems in the two municipalities. Specifically, this bill:
- Makes various findings and declarations regarding development of an ASE program in the City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco.
- Authorizes a five-year ASE pilot program, from 2019 to 2024, in San Jose and San Francisco to enforce speed limits on streets with speed limits that are 50 miles per hour (mph) or less and that have had a documented incidence of collisions resulting in fatalities or injuries as evidenced by either a three-year fatality and injury collision rate, or a three-year fatality rate, that is higher than the three-year collision rates published by the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for comparable roadways.
- Defines an “automated speed enforcement system” as a fixed or mobile radar or laser system or any other electronic device that utilizes automated equipment to detect a violation of speeding laws and is designed to obtain a clear photograph, video recording, or other visual image of a vehicle license plate and defines “automated speed violation” as a violation of a speed law detected by an ASE system operated pursuant to this article.
- Specifies that San Jose may only have ASE systems deployed on 15 corridors at any time.
- Specifies that ASE is not permitted on freeways during the five-year pilot program, or any potential extension of the program beyond the five-year pilot.
- Permits the use of ASE in school zones – that meet the collision and fatality thresholds specified in the bill – two hours before school and two hours after school where the posted speed limit is 30 mph or higher when children are not present.
- Provides that ASE systems must:
- Be operated in cooperation with a law enforcement agency;
- Clearly identify the presence of the fixed or mobile ASE system with signs stating “Photo Enforced,” along with the posted speed limit. The signs must be visible to traffic and posted at all locations, as determined by Caltrans and the local California Traffic Control Devices Committee;
- Identify vehicles containing a mobile ASE system with distinctive markings, including information that the system is being operated for “Photo Enforcement” purposes, identify the streets or portions of streets that have been approved for ASE, and post the locations and hours of enforcement on the municipality’s Internet website.
- Use properly trained peace officers or designated municipal employees, as specified, to operate the ASE and make determinations on when notices of violation should be issued. Requires training and proof of successful completion of peace officer and municipal training to be retained by the pilot cities, as specified.
- Ensure regular inspection and certification of the ASE system to ensure proper calibration; conduct an annual inspection by independent calibration laboratory; and document the inspection, operation, and calibration of the ASE system.
- Conduct an engineering and traffic survey, as specified, and use fixed and mobile ASE systems that provide real-time notification when violations are detected.
- Requires the pilot cities to meet several consumer protection and privacy conditions, including:
a) Conduct a public information campaign for 30 days before ASE deployment or before taking a public vote on deployment.
b) Issue warning notices during the first 90 days of ASE enforcement in the pilot city.
c) Adopt an ASE System Use Policy and an ASE System Impact Report.
d) Include a clear photograph, video recording, or other visual image of the license plate and rear of the vehicle only, a citation of the law violated, the camera location, and the date and time when the violation occurred. Notices of violation must exclude images of the rear window area of the vehicle.
e) Keep ASE data and records confidential, except as required by the Public Records Act. The pilot cities are permitted to retain ASE data and evidence for 60 days and ASE administrative records for 120 days following final disposition of a violation, but are required to destroy any ASE data within five days if the data shows no evidence of a speeding violation.
f) Give the registered owner of the vehicle or an individual identified by the registered owner as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation the right to review the photographic, video, or visual evidence of the alleged violation.
g) Require information collected and maintained using an ASE system to be used only to administer an ASE program and prohibits disclosure to any other person, including a state or federal agency, except as required by law, court order or subpoena.
h) Meet vendor contracting requirements, as specified, including a requirement that any ASE data collected is confidential and may not be shared, repurposed, or monetized for purposes other than ASE enforcement.
i) Issue violations only for violation of speeding 10 mph or more over the posted speed limit, that carry a civil penalty of up to $100, cannot be used to suspend or revoke a driver’s license, and cannot be used to assess a point against the driver. However, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) can refuse to renew a vehicle registration until unpaid violations are paid in full, as specified.
j) Issue no more than one notice of violation for a specific vehicle within a given 24-hour period; send the notice of violation within 15 days to the registered owner of the vehicle; and provide an appeals process, as specified, including a diversion program for low-income violators, as specified.
k) Use revenues from the ASE program to recover program costs and improve roadway traffic safety, including traditional law enforcement activities and programs.
l) Submit an ASE System Report to the Legislature after the fifth and final year of the pilot.
m) Requires the pilot cities to reduce ticket fines and penalties by 80% for people with household incomes less than 125% of the Federal Poverty Level and for people who receive CalFresh benefits, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), or Medi-Cal benefits
EXISTING LAW:
- Establishes a “basic speed law” that prohibits a person from driving a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent given the weather, visibility, traffic, highway conditions, and in no event at a speed that endangers the safety of persons or property.
- Authorizes the use of automated traffic enforcement systems (i.e., red light cameras) at railroad crossings and intersections to record violations of unlawful grade crossings and running of red lights.
- Requires a peace officer or “qualified employee” of a law enforcement agency to review the photograph taken by an automated traffic enforcement system and issue a citation, as appropriate.
- Conditions the use of red light cameras on several requirements and procedures, including the following:
- Only a governmental agency in cooperation with a law enforcement agency may operate a system.
- Intersections equipped with the enforcement systems must be identified by signs visible to traffic in all directions or by signs posted at all major entrances to the participating city.
- The city council or county board of supervisors must conduct a public hearing on the proposed use of an automated enforcement system.
- Use of the system must be preceded by public notice by the local jurisdiction at least 30 days in advance, and only warning notices may be issued to violators during the first 30 days of the system’s operation, after which citations may be issued.
- All photographic records are confidential and shall be made available only to the affected governmental agencies for enforcement purposes.
- Any driver alleged to be a violator of the red light provisions or the vehicle’s registered owner is permitted to review the photographic evidence of the alleged violation.
- Citations must be delivered to the driver within 15 days of the alleged violations, with a certificate of mailing obtained as evidence of service, and must include specified information, including how, when, and where the citation may be challenged.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS: According to the author, despite the fact that San Jose and San Francisco have relatively good traffic safety records, too many people are losing their lives or suffering life-changing injuries in traffic collisions due primarily to unsafe speeds.
In an effort to improve safety, both San Jose and San Francisco have implemented "Vision Zero" traffic safety initiatives. In brief, Vision Zero is a traffic safety philosophy that rejects the notion that traffic crashes are simply “accidents,” but instead preventable incidents that can and must be systematically addressed by building better and safer streets, educating the public on traffic safety, enforcing the most dangerous traffic violations, and adopting other policy changes in order to eliminate traffic deaths and reduce the number of severe injury and fatality collisions. Included in both cities' Vision Zero action strategies is pursuit of legislation to advance ASE; hence AB 342. This bill will allow local transportation authorities in San Jose and San Francisco the authority to install ASE systems over a five-year pilot period, under specific terms and conditions.
California first authorized the use of automated enforcement systems to improve safety at rail crossings with the passage of SB 1802 (Rosenthal), Chapter 1216, Statutes of 1994. Two years later, SB 833 (Kopp), Chapter 922, Statutes of 1995, authorized a three-year demonstration 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. The installation of these systems was considered justified primarily because red light running is considered a serious traffic problem resulting in deadly "T-bone" intersection collisions. After reviewing the operations and effectiveness of the pilot program, the Legislature enacted SB 1136 (Kopp), Chapter 54, Statutes of 1998, that indefinitely authorize the use of red light cameras at intersections.
Since being widely deployed in California, the use of red light cameras has been controversial, at best. Proponents point to the benefits of improved safety provided by red light cameras while opponents complain that the systems are operated less to improve safety and more to generate revenue. This complaint is exacerbated by the fact that many of the violations (typically amounting to $500 or more per violation) being cited include "inadvertent" violations such as stopping just past the limit line, or performing a "rolling" right turn. Opponents also point out that many jurisdictions began removing red light cameras when they became too costly to operate—an action that arguably undermined the argument that they were necessary to improve safety. Despite the fact that many bills have been introduced and enacted to ensure red light camera systems are operated fairly, the debate over their merits and shortcomings continues to this day.
The use of ASE systems, as proposed in this bill, brings forth many of the same arguments that continue to surround red-light cameras. Proponents of the bill, on one hand tout improved safety, and opponents, on the other hand, question the extent to which benefits will actually be realized, and also raise concerns that the systems will be used by jurisdictions primarily to generate revenue.
To illustrate this dichotomy, the author suggests ASE systems are necessary to address compelling accident statistics, such as: San Francisco experiences 30 fatalities and over 200 severe injuries due to collisions; in San Jose, more than 40 people have been killed and approximately 150 people have been injuries due to collisions. The author points to unsafe speed as the single highest factor in these collisions for both cities.
Opponents, however, refute this assertion. Using data from San Francisco's Unsafe Speed Study Fact Sheet, dated September 23, 2015, and data from the California Highway Patrol's (CHP's) Statewide Integrated Traffic Reporting System (SWITRS) database, they suggest that the primary cause of these collisions is not, in fact, speed but failure to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk (12%), followed by red light violations and undetermined causes (each at 8%). Opponents note that traveling too fast for conditions was the cause in only 7.5% of serious injury and fatal traffic collisions while exceeding the speed limit was identified in 4.5% of collisions. Opponents conclude that, since ASE systems would only enforce speed limits (not travelling too fast for conditions), the installation of these systems will not provide widespread benefits to pedestrians and bicyclists as purported. Opponents further argue that factors that also contribute to collisions that seriously injure or kill pedestrians and bicyclists, such as driving under the influence, unsafe lane changes, failure to yield to a pedestrian, jay walking, unsafe U-turns, etc., that would otherwise be cited by an officer, would go undetected by ASE systems.
In the previous policy committee hearing, this bill raised questions of equity. Specifically, that ASE would disproportionately would impact individuals who could least afford citations. The author points out that the issue of equity has been addressed in the bill by making the violation a civil penalty of $100 per violation for exceeding the posted speed limit by 10 mph and that the citation cannot be used to suspend or revoke a driver’s license or to assess a point against the driver. The author does note, however, the DMV can refuse to renew a vehicle registration until unpaid violations are paid in full. The author also points out that in a further effort to address equity, fines and penalties would be reduced by 80% for people with household incomes less than 125% of the Federal Poverty Level and for people who receive CalFresh benefits, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), or Medi-Cal benefits. Opponents of this bill, however, assert that assessing violations as civil penalties would make it difficult for individuals cited using the ASE system to defend themselves and that, for wealthy drivers who can easily afford to pay multiple fines, the system does not provide a sufficient deterrent. Meanwhile, those of lesser means, especially those hovering just above the poverty line, could accumulate citations and end up being unable to register their vehicles which, ultimately, could affect their ability hold a job which is key to paying off their debt.
Writing in support of this bill, the bill's co-sponsor, Honorable Ed Lee, Mayor of San Francisco, writes that unsafe speed is the leading factor in collisions that result in serious injury and death in San Francisco. He notes that ASE systems have been proven repeatedly to reduce speeding and save lives and that of the 142 American cities that have installed cameras, those municipalities have experienced reductions in traffic deaths, excessive speeding, citations issued, and, most significantly, a reduction in crashes resulting in serious injury or death. Mayor Lee notes that ASE, used in conjunction with redesigning streets to be safe in the first place, conducting traditional police enforcement, and targeted education, serves as a critical tool to reduce speeding and save lives. He notes that allowing San Jose and San Francisco to implement a 5-year pilot program will allow for testing of the system and help both cities meet their Vision Zero goals to end traffic deaths and serious injuries without delay.
Writing in opposition, the California Association of Highway Patrolmen (CAHP) and the Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC) point out that the ASE is a "robotic system" of issuing tickets to speeding cars where the citation is received by the owner of the vehicle, not the driver, weeks after the violation occurs. CAHP and PORAC note that the citations issued by ASE systems are issued without regard to time of day, traffic conditions, or whether or not the driver is under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, or driving while distracted. They note that these factors are important ones that would be taken into account by an officer issuing a citation which, in the cases of driver impairment, the driver would be removed from the road rather than allowed to continue driving. These organizations note that officers issuing citations are able to utilize discretion but, at the very least when someone is pulled over and spoken to, the stop has the desired effect influencing driver behavior.
Committee concerns:
- The author states that 70% of fatal and severe collisions are occurring on just a handful of streets and roads in San Francisco and that 50% of fatal collisions occur on just 3% of the streets in San Jose and that these collisions are predominantly the result of vehicles exceeding the speed limit. CHP's SWITRS data, however, appears to indicate that in many cases fatal and injury collisions involving pedestrians and bicyclists involve failure to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk and red light running, and not excessive speed.
- While clearly there are concerns with respect to collisions involving pedestrians and bicyclists in both San Jose and San Francisco on particular streets and roads, it is not clear what steps, if any, these cities have taken to remedy unsafe conditions. To illustrate, it is well documented that engineering, education, and enforcement (the three "E's") are actions that need to be taken to help reduce speeds, and therefore collisions on roadways. In fact, the Vision Zero two-year strategies each outline the three "Es" as important collision reduction approaches. Recommending the use of ASE systems in advance of adequately adding traffic calming features to roadways to slow traffic; adding informational signage with respect to driver speed or posted speed limits; and enhancing enforcement in targeted areas amounts to "placing the cart before the horse."
- Despite perhaps laudable intentions, ASE systems installed in other jurisdictions have raised millions in revenues for jurisdictions that install them, leaving these applications vulnerable to claims that the real intent behind ASE applications is revenue generation. For example, in the District of Columbia, reports indicate that ASE systems issued 520,000 citations producing $55.4 million in revenues in 2015. In Maryland, where ASE systems are also in use, reports indicate that one county in Maryland reported generating $16.6 million from fines issued by ASE systems. While the revenues collected by other ASE systems around the country do not necessarily mean that similar revenues will be collected in San Jose and San Francisco, it does raise the question of whether or not the ASE systems would produce similar results.
- This bill would create a situation where the same violation (speeding) is charged in two different ways depending on whether the driver is cited using an ASE system or by an officer. If cited by a speed camera, the citation would be a civil infraction and not carry with it the same penalties including having the citation show up on the driver's driving record. While this purportedly serves to minimize the impact on low-income individuals, it creates somewhat of a "double standard" with respect the violation.
Double-referral: This bill passed out of the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee on April 18, 2017, with a 6-4 vote.
Related legislation: AB 390 (Santiago), would authorize pedestrians to enter a crosswalk when the countdown symbol is displayed if there is sufficient time left on the countdown for the pedestrian to reasonably complete the crossing safely. AB 390 is set to be heard by this committee on May 8, 2017.
AB 756 (Ting), would establish a prima facie speed limit of 15 miles per hour (mph) on the majority of roadways in San Francisco's Golden Gate Park. AB 756 is set to be heard by this committee on April 24, 2017.
Previous legislation: SB 1325 (Kuehl) of 2008 would have authorized the City of Beverly Hills to deploy an ASE system. SB 1325 failed passage in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee.
SB 1300 (Kuehl) of 2006 was similar to SB 1325 (Kuehl) of 2008. SB 1300 failed passage in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee.
SB 466 (Kuehl) of 2005 was similar to SB 1325 (Kuehl) of 2008. SB 466 failed passage in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee.
AB 1022 (Oropeza), Chapter 511, Statutes of 2003, refined the red light camera provisions after a number of legal challenges arose concerning the operation of the automated systems. These changes clarified responsibility for operation and maintenance of the system by local authorities and private contractors, the involvement of law enforcement personnel in citation issuance, restrictions on compensation to vendors, and the required consideration of alternative methods of enforcement.
SB 1136 (Kopp), Chapter 54, Statutes of 1998, authorized the use of automated enforcement systems at red lights indefinitely.
SB 833 (Kopp), Chapter 922, Statutes of 1995, authorized a three-year demonstration period to test the use and effectiveness of such cameras to reduce the incidence of drivers running red lights at intersections.
SB 1802 (Rosenthal), Chapter 1216, Statutes of 1994, authorized the use of red light cameras to record violations occurring at rail crossing signals and gates.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
San Francisco Mayor Edwin M. Lee (Co-Sponsor)
San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo (Co-Sponsor)
Alliance for Retired Americans
American Association of Retired Persons
Association of California Insurance Companies
California Alliance for Retired Americans
California Bicycle Coalition
California Police Chiefs Association
California Walks
CC Puede
City of Los Angeles
Duboce Triangle Neighborhood Association
FDR Dems
Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District
Greater Rincon Hill Community Benefit District
Independent Living Resource Center San Francisco
Livable City
Los Angeles Walks
Lower Polk Community Benefit District
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Portola Neighborhood Association
Safe Routes to School National Partnership
San Francisco Bay Area Families for Safe Streets
San Francisco Bicycle Coalition
San Francisco County Transportation Authority
San Francisco Health Improvement Partnership
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency
San Jose City Council
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Senior & Disability Action
sf.citi
Shape Up San Francisco Coalition
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition
Silicon Valley Independent Living Center
South Beach / Rincon / Mission Bay Neighborhood Association
SPUR
Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
The Friends of Monterey Boulevard
TransForm
UCSF Department of Surgery at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital
Walk San Francisco
Opposition
AAA of Northern California, Nevada and Utah
Automobile Club of Southern California
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
Association of Deputy District Attorneys
California Association of Code Enforcement Officers
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Civil Liberties Advocacy
California College and University Police Chiefs Association
California Association of Highway Patrolmen
California Narcotic Officers Association
East Area Progressive Democrats
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association
Los Angeles Police Protective League
National Motorists Association
Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC)
Riverside Sheriffs Association
Safer Streets L.A.
San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Employees’ Benefit Association
Western Center on Law & Poverty
Western States Trucking Association
19 private citizens
Analysis Prepared by: Victoria Alvarez / TRANS. /
Date of Hearing: April 18, 2017
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
Ed Chau, Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:AB 342 (
Author:Chiu) – As Amended Ver:April 6, 2017
SUBJECT: Vehicles: automated speed enforcement: five-year pilot program
SUMMARY: Establishes a five-year-pilot program, dubbed the “Safer Streets Act 2017,” that gives local transportation authorities in the City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco the authority to install automated speed enforcement (ASE) systems in the two municipalities. Specifically, this bill:
- Authorizes a five-year ASE pilot program from 2019 to 2024 in the City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco to enforce speed limits on streets with speed limits that are 50 miles per hour or less and that have had a documented incidence of collisions resulting in fatalities or injuries as evidenced by either a three-year fatality and injury collision rate, or a three-year fatality rate, that is higher than the three-year collision rates published by the Department of Transportation for comparable roadways, based on the most recent available local or state collision data.
- Defines “automated speed enforcement system” as a fixed or mobile radar or laser system or any other electronic device that utilizes automated equipment to detect a violation of speeding laws and is designed to obtain a clear photograph, video recording, or other visual image of a vehicle license plate and defines “automated speed violation” as a violation of a speed law detected by an ASE system operated pursuant to this article.
- Specifies that the City of San Jose may only have ASE systems deployed on 15 corridors at any time.
- Specifies that ASE is not permitted on freeways during the five-year pilot program, or any potential extension of the program beyond the five-year pilot.
- Permits the use of ASE in school zones – that meet the collision and fatality thresholds specified in the bill – two hours before school and two hours after school where the posted speed limit is 30 mph or higher when children are not present.
- Provides that ASE systems must:
- Be operated in cooperation with a law enforcement agency.
- Clearly identify the presence of the fixed or mobile ASE system with signs stating “Photo Enforced,” along with the posted speed limit. The signs must be visible to traffic and posted at all locations as determined by the Department of Transportation and the local California Traffic Control Devices Committee.
- Identify vehicles containing a mobile ASE system with distinctive markings, including information that the system is being operated for “Photo Enforcement” purposes, identify the streets or portions of streets that have been approved for ASE, and post the locations and hours of enforcement on the municipality’s Internet website.
- Use properly trained peace officers or designated municipal employees, as specified, to operate the ASE and make determinations on when notices of violation should be issued. Requires training and proof of successful completion of peace officer and municipal training to be retained by the pilot cities, as specified.
- Ensure regular inspection and certification of the ASE system to ensure proper calibration; conduct an annual inspection by independent calibration laboratory; and document the inspection, operation and calibration of the ASE system.
- Conduct an engineering and traffic survey, as specified, and use fixed and mobile ASE systems that provide real-time notification when violations are detected.
- Requires the pilot cities to meet several consumer protection and privacy conditions:
a) Conduct a public information campaign for 30 days before ASE deployment or before taking a public vote on deployment.
b) Issue warning notices during the first 90 days of ASE enforcement in the pilot city.
c) Adopt an ASE System Use Policy and an ASE System Impact Report.
d) Include a clear photograph, video recording, or other visual image of the license plate and rear of the vehicle only, a citation of the law violated, the camera location, and the date and time when the violation occurred. Notices of violation must exclude images of the rear window area of the vehicle.
e) Keep ASE data and records confidential, except as required by the Public Records Act. The pilot cities are permitted to retain ASE data and evidence for 60 days and ASE administrative records for 120 days following final disposition of a violation, but are required to destroy any ASE data within five days if the data shows no evidence of a speeding violation.
f) Give the registered owner of the vehicle or an individual identified by the registered owner as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation the right to review the photographic, video, or visual evidence of the alleged violation.
g) Requires information collected and maintained using an ASE system to be used only to administer an ASE program and prohibits disclosure to any other person, including a state or federal agency, except as required by law, court order or subpoena.
h) Meet vendor contracting requirements, as specified, including a requirement that any ASE data collected is confidential and may not be shared, repurposed, or monetized for purposes other than ASE enforcement.
i) Issue violations only for violation of speeding 10 mph or more over the posted speed limit; that carry a civil penalty of up to $100 only; that cannot be used to suspend or revoke a driver’s license; and that cannot be used to assess a point against the driver. However, the Department of Motor Vehicles can refuse to renew a vehicle registration until unpaid violations are paid in full, as specified.
j) Issue no more than one notice of violation for a specific vehicle within a given 24-hour period; send the notice of violation within 15 days to the registered owner of the vehicle; and provide an appeals process, as specified, including a diversion program for low-income violators, as specified.
k) Use revenues from the ASE program to recover program costs and improve roadway traffic safety, including traditional law enforcement activities and programs.
l) Submit an ASE System Report to the Legislature after the fifth and final year of the pilot.
m) Requires the pilot cities to reduce ticket fines and penalties by 80% for people with household incomes less than 125% of the Federal Poverty Level and for people who receive CalFresh benefits, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), or Medi-Cal benefits
- Makes various findings and declarations.
EXISTING LAW:
- Establishes a “basic speed law” that prohibits a person from driving a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent given the weather, visibility, traffic, highway conditions, and in no event at a speed that endangers the safety of persons or property. (Vehicle Code (VC) Section 22350 et seq.)
- Authorizes the use of automated traffic enforcement systems (i.e., red light cameras) at railroad crossings and intersections to record violations of unlawful grade crossings and running of red lights. (VC 22451, 21455.5, and 40518)
- Requires a peace officer or “qualified employee” of a law enforcement agency to review the photograph taken by an automated traffic enforcement system and issue a citation, as appropriate. (VC 21455.5(c)(2)(F))
- Conditions the use of red light cameras is conditioned on several requirements and procedures, including the following:
- Only a governmental agency in cooperation with a law enforcement agency may operate a system.
- Intersections equipped with the enforcement systems must be identified by signs visible to traffic in all directions or by signs posted at all major entrances to the participating city.
- The city council or county board of supervisors must conduct a public hearing on the proposed use of an automated enforcement system.
- Use of the system must be preceded by public notice by the local jurisdiction at least 30 days in advance, and only warning notices may be issued to violators during the first 30 days of the system’s operation, after which citations may be issued.
- All photographic records are confidential and shall be made available only to the affected governmental agencies for enforcement purposes.
- Any driver alleged to be a violator of the red light provisions or the vehicle’s registered owner is permitted to review the photographic evidence of the alleged violation.
- Citations must be delivered to the driver within 15 days of the alleged violations, with a certificate of mailing obtained as evidence of service, and must include specified information, including how, when, and where the citation may be challenged. (VC 21455.5 et seq.)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS:
- Purpose of this bill: This bill is intended to reduce severe injuries and fatalities caused by speeding vehicles on city streets by authorizing San Francisco and San Jose to conduct a five-year pilot program using ASE on high-collision streets. This measure is sponsored by San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee and San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo.
- Author’s statement: According to the author's office, “Last year, 88 people lost their lives on the streets of San Francisco and San Jose. Every 18 hours a loved one is severely injured or killed while traveling on our city streets. These tragedies are completely preventable. San Francisco leads the state in the number of serious and fatal incidents per capita, and speed is the leading cause of these collisions. Data shows that speed kills. If a pedestrian is stuck by a vehicle traveling 20 mph, that person has 90 percent chance of surviving. If a car is traveling 40 mph, the rate of survival drops to just 10 percent. San Francisco and San Jose have adopted policies of Vision Zero, which reflect our goal and commitment to bring traffic fatalities to exactly zero. Not twenty. Not ten. Zero. […] It is important to remember the children who were going to school, cyclists heading to work, and the seniors who were going home who died in these tragic collisions, and we owe it to these victims to make Vision Zero a reality.”
- Speeding fatalities: According to the sponsors of this bill, data collected by San Francisco and San Jose shows the following:
- In San Francisco, 70% of fatal and severe vehicle collisions occur on just 12% of streets;
- In San Jose, 40% of fatal traffic collisions occur on just 3% of streets.
- Speed is the single highest fault factor in fatal and severe injury collisions in San Jose and San Francisco.
- In 2016, 88 people died in vehicle collisions on the streets of San Jose and San Francisco.
In response to hundreds of traffic collisions in the region, both San Jose and San Francisco have adopted Vision Zero traffic safety initiatives. These initiatives have the goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and reducing the number of severe injury collisions. In both cities, Vision Zero involves a comprehensive set of safety initiatives including infrastructure improvements (pedestrian and bicycle facilities), education (e.g. Safe Routes to School), and enforcement.
- Radar guns and the “lasso” approach to speed enforcement: Traditionally, police have relied on radar (or a laser-based variation called 'lidar') together with chasing down and pulling over (or "lassoing") speeding cars. This approach can be effective to the extent that a law enforcement agency has sufficient police officers to monitor city streets for traffic violations. On the other hand, a police officer chasing a speeding car can cause its own safety risks. According to the bill’s sponsors, the local police chief and sheriff in San Francisco and San Jose believe that their police resources could be better deployed fighting crime than managing traffic.
The author contends that while traditional traffic enforcement efforts help, additional tools are needed to combat speeding as a public health hazard. This bill gives local transportation agencies in the City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco the authority to install ASE systems over a five-year pilot period, in order to protect the safety of vulnerable travelers, such as children, the elderly, and bicyclists, in the two municipalities.
- ASE data from other states: Across the United States, studies have shown that ASE systems can reduce the number of severe and fatal collisions by as much as 58 %. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS):
“Studies of cameras on residential roads in Maryland, on a high-speed roadway in Arizona, and on city streets in the District of Columbia found that the proportion of drivers exceeding speed limits by more than 10 mph declined by 70, 88, and 82 percent, respectively, 6-8 months after cameras were introduced. [A] 2015 study in Montgomery County, Md., found that about 7½ years after the speed camera program began, the cameras were associated with a 10 percent reduction in mean speeds and a 59 percent reduction in the likelihood that a vehicle was traveling more than 10 mph above the speed limit on camera-eligible roads, almost all of which had cameras.”
According to IIHS, Portland, New York, and Denver experienced 30 percent decreases in speeding by utilizing ASE. In Maryland and Washington D.C., the results were more dramatic with a 50 percent and 82 percent decrease, respectively. Perhaps the most compelling evidence showing ASE's effectiveness is a 70 percent drop in fatal crashes in Washington D.C.
An April 2016 study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concluded that “[ASE] is one of many approaches shown to be effective in reducing speeding violations and crashes.” According to the NHTSA, in 2013 speeding was a contributing factor in 29% of vehicle fatalities in the U.S., resulting in 9,513 deaths. NHTSA estimated that in 2010 the economic cost of speed-related crashes was $52 billion. A number of other studies have also shown ASE to be highly effective in reducing excessive traffic speeds and crashes (Decina, Thomas, Srinivasan, & Staplin, 2007; Retting et al., 2008; Pilkington & Kinra, 2005; Wilson, Willis, Hendrikz, & Bellamy, 2006).
According to IIHS and the Highway Loss Data Institute, 142 jurisdictions in the U.S. – including Chicago, the District of Columbia, New York City, Portland, and Seattle – had ASE systems to enforce speed limits as of March 2017. In addition, Illinois, Maryland and Oregon have statewide ASE systems for road construction zones.
- Privacy and social justice concerns: Several concerns and criticisms have been raised with regard to the use of ASE, including:
- Allowing photographs to be taken of vehicles may be an intrusion into one’s privacy. This bill allows for a photo to be taken of the rear of the car, including the rear license plate and where possible the color, make and model of the car. Unlike the red light camera system, this bill does not permit capture of facial images. This bill requires each city to have an ASE System Use Policy that protects data from unauthorized access, delineates data retention rules, and restricts third-party data sharing. This bill requires any data collected that is not evidence of a speeding violation to be destroyed within five business days and requires data related to a violation to be destroyed 60 days after final disposition of the notice of violation.
- ASE will disproportionately affect low-income communities.
ACLU, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Western Center on Law and Poverty have been working with the sponsors of the bill on their concerns that the bill might cause residents of low-income communities, many of whom are ethnic and racial minorities and people with disabilities, to receive a disproportionate number of ASE-issued speeding tickets. The cities of San Francisco and San Jose have in fact indicated that many of their high-collision streets are in low-income areas. On the one hand, ASE systems have proved effective in other states in reducing serious injuries and death to pedestrians, cyclists and other motorists, and the residents of the neighborhoods in which ASE will be placed under this bill will reap these benefits most directly. On the other hand, given the social justice issues associated with those populations being more heavily fined, the author has stated a willingness to continue working with advocacy groups on these equity issues if the bill moves forward.
- ASE systems do not allow officers to educate consumers about unsafe driving behavior.
Certainly, police officers who pull over a speeding car have a unique teaching opportunity that will not be possible using an ASE system. However, San Jose notes that it has at most 10 officers dedicated to traffic enforcement on 2,400 miles of city streets in San Jose, so if most speeding goes undetected, an ASE system can serve as an additional enforcement tool to be used in concert with other efforts. San Francisco County Transportation Authority officials point out that this bill will be a “force multiplier” that complements, rather than replaces, police officers. Indeed the Vision Zero programs in both pilot cities have significant public education components.
- ASE and the basic speed law: ASE does not provide for on-scene discretion on the part of a police officer as to whether or not a driver has violated the state’s “basic speed law” (i.e., whether the driver was driving at an unsafe speed given the conditions). Under this law, driving 40 mph in a 25 mph residential area is not necessarily unlawful if that speed is safe for the conditions. Similarly, driving 25 mph in a 25 mph zone may be considered an unsafe speed, if the conditions, such as school children crossing the street, indicate that a slower speed is appropriate.
Under the basic speed law, if a driver gets a ticket for unsafe speed for driving at a speed above the posted speed limit, then the burden of proof falls on the driver to demonstrate that his or her speed was indeed safe for the conditions. But, if a driver issued a ticket for unsafe speed was driving at a speed below the posted speed limit, then the burden of proof falls on the officer to demonstrate that the speed was unsafe for the conditions.
Violations of the basic speed law are inherently different from red light violations, which in California is already enforceable using an automated system. While speed law violations are usually “prima facie” violations (i.e., violations “upon first sight” but subject to further evidence), while red light violations are “per se” (i.e., violations “as a matter of law”).
Per se laws exist because society determines that certain activities are not acceptable in any situation. In a safety context, it is never (or rarely) safe to run a red light. The violator has no defense to such a violation except mistaken identity. Violations of “per se” statutes impose liability upon the perpetrator without the need for further evidence other than evidence of the violation.
This bill effectively establishes a “per se” violation for speeding by allowing the cities of San Francisco and San Jose to do the following during their five-year pilot program:
- Set up an ASE system with cameras on high-collision streets;
- If a vehicle drives more than 10 mph over the speed limit, take a photo of the rear license plate and vehicle (no facial images);
- Issue a notice of violations and a $100 civil fine per violation;
- Send a notice of violation by mail to the vehicle owner of record with a $100 fine;
- Conduct an initial review within 30 days, if requested by the vehicle owner, and dismiss the citation if the vehicle owner provides sufficient evidence that the citation was a mistake or there was an emergency.
- Establish an administrative hearing appeals process similar to the appeals process for red light violations.
This bill neither repeals the basic speed law nor prevents the cities of San Francisco and San Jose from enforcing speed violations the traditional way using the basic speed law and police officers on the road, but it does give these two pilot cities another tool to reduce speed, and with that reduce injury and death on their city streets.
Critics of the bill argue that instead of taking a step away from the state’s basic speed law, traffic calming in the form of engineering improvements to the roadway is a better way to address speeding than ASE. Examples of traffic calming measurers include: half closures, diagonal diverters, median barriers, speed bumps or tables, textured pavements, and roundabouts.
- Pilot program system reports: This bill is a five-year pilot program from 2019 to 2024 that requires the cities of San Jose and San Francisco to develop and submit to their respective governing bodies an ASE System Report two years after initial implementation, and again at the end of the ASE pilot program.
- Recent amendments: The author recently accepted a number of amendments designed to further protect privacy and remove opposition from the bill. In summary, the amendments do the following:
- Limit the City of San Jose to using ASE on only 15 corridors at any time.
- Prohibits using ASE systems on freeways not only during the five-year pilot program, but also during any potential extension of the program beyond the five-year pilot.
- Require each city to make sure it adopts an ASE System Use Policy prior to entering into an agreement or purchasing or leasing equipment for the ASE system.
- Require the public information campaign to be conducted prior to starting the pilot to include publishing the draft ASE System Use Policy and the ASE System Impact Report, as specified.
- Require public review of the ASE System Use Policy to include posting the Policy on the city’s website for at least 30 days prior to adoption.
- Require that, if the ASE deployment locations are predominantly low-income neighborhoods, the city must determine why these locations experience high fatality and injury collisions due to unsafe speed.
- Require information collected and maintained using an ASE system to be used only to administer an ASE program and prohibits disclosure to any other person, including a state or federal agency, except as required by law, court order or subpoena.
- Requires ASE program revenues to be used not only to recover program costs and improve roadway traffic safety, but also for traditional law enforcement activities and programs.
- Requires the pilot cities to reduce ticket fines and penalties by 80% for people with household incomes less than 125% of the Federal Poverty Level and for people who receive CalFresh benefits, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), or Medi-Cal benefits.
- Arguments in support: The City and County of San Francisco states in support of this measure, that “in San Francisco, unsafe speed is the leading factor in collisions that result in serious injury or death. Speeding drivers are responsible for ten times the number of pedestrian injuries as drunk drivers. Speed kills because its impact on a fragile, human body is exponential. A person hit by a car traveling at 20 mph has a 9 in 10 chance of surviving; at 40 mph, that person has only a 1 in 10 chance of surviving. Automated speed enforcement, or speed safety cameras, have been proven repeatedly to reduce speeding and save lives.”
The Association of California Insurance Companies states in support that “[v]ehicle accidents are on the rise nationwide, and California with its 6.9% increase in vehicle accidents in 2015 is now included in the top 10 states whereby vehicle accidents are trending up. More accidents lead to more claims, which could drive up premium costs for consumers.”
- Arguments in opposition: The California Association of Highway Patrolmen (CAHP) and Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC) state in opposition that “the citation will not go to the driver. It will be mailed via U.S. mail to the registered owner of the car, and will likely arrive two to three weeks after the event occurred. In many cases, the registered owner may not even know who was driving at the time. In San Francisco in particular, parking is so expensive that multiple people share a vehicle. How is the registered owner going to remember who was driving at the time of the incident?"
"In addition, the citation is issued without regard to the time of day, traffic conditions and/or whether the driver was impaired by alcohol, marijuana or any other drug. Officers take all of this into account…Law enforcement exercises discretion; cameras do not.”
- Prior Legislation: SB 1325 (Kuehl) of 2008 would have authorized the City of Beverly Hills to deploy an ASE system. This bill failed passage in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee.
SB 1300 (Kuehl) of 2006 was similar to SB 1325 (Kuehl) of 2008. This bill failed passage in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee.
SB 466 (Kuehl) of 2005 was similar to SB 1325 (Kuehl) of 2008. This bill failed passage in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee.
AB 1022 (Oropeza), Chapter 511, Statutes of 2003, refined the red light camera provisions after a number of legal challenges arose concerning the operation of the automated systems. These changes clarified responsibility for operation and maintenance of the system by local authorities and private contractors, the involvement of law enforcement personnel in citation issuance, restrictions on compensation to vendors, and the required consideration of alternative methods of enforcement.
SB 1136 (Kopp) Chapter 54, Statutes of 1998, authorized the use of automated enforcement systems at red lights indefinitely.
SB 833 (Kopp), Chapter 922, Statutes of 1995, authorized a three-year demonstration period to test the use and effectiveness of such cameras to reduce the incidence of drivers running red lights at intersections.
SB 1802 (Rosenthal), Chapter 1216, Statutes of 1994, authorized the use of red light cameras to record violations occurring at rail crossing signals and gates.
- Double-referral: This bill is double-referred to the Assembly Transportation Committee, where it will be heard if passed by this Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
San Francisco Mayor Edwin M. Lee (co-sponsor)
San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo (co-sponsor)
Alliance for Retired Americans
Association of California Insurance Companies
California Alliance for Retired Americans
California Bicycle Coalition
California Police Chiefs Association
California Walks
CC Puede
City of Los Angeles
Duboce Triangle Neighborhood Association
FDR Dems
Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District
Greater Rincon Hill Community Benefit District
Independent Living Resource Center San Francisco
Livable City
Los Angeles Walks
Lower Polk Community Benefit District
Portola Neighborhood Association
Safe Routes to School National Partnership
San Francisco Bay Area Families for Safe Streets
San Francisco Bicycle Coalition
San Francisco County Transportation Authority
San Francisco Health Improvement Partnership
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Senior & Disability Action
sf.citi
Shape Up San Francisco Coalition
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition
Silicon Valley Independent Living Center
South Beach / Rincon / Mission Bay Neighborhood Association
SPUR
Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
The Friends of Monterey Boulevard
TransForm
UCSF Department of Surgery at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital
Walk San Francisco
Opposition
AAA of Northern California, Nevada and Utah
Automobile Club of Southern California
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
Association of Deputy District Attorneys
California Association of Code Enforcement Officers
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Civil Liberties Advocacy
California College and University Police Chiefs Association
California Association of Highway Patrolmen
California Narcotic Officers Association
East Area Progressive Democrats
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC)
Riverside Sheriffs Association
Safer Streets L.A.
San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Employees’ Benefit Association
Western Center on Law & Poverty
Western States Trucking Association
19 Individuals
Analysis Prepared by: Jennie Bretschneider / P. & C.P. /
Date of Hearing: March 28, 2017
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
Ed Chau, Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:AB 342 (
Author:Chiu) – As Amended Ver:March 21, 2017
SUBJECT: Vehicles: automated speed enforcement: five-year pilot program
SUMMARY: Establishes a 5-year-pilot program, dubbed the “Safer Streets Act 2017,” that gives local transportation authorities in the City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco the authority to install automated speed enforcement (ASE) systems in order to protect the safety of vulnerable travelers, such as children, the elderly, and bicyclists, in the two municipalities. Specifically, this bill:
- Defines “automated speed enforcement system” as a fixed or mobile radar or laser system or any other electronic device that utilizes automated equipment to detect a violation of speeding laws and is designed to obtain a clear photograph, video recording, or other visual image of a vehicle license plate and defines “automated speed violation” as a violation of a speed law detected by an ASE system operated pursuant to this article.
- Authorizes a five-year ASE pilot program from 2019 to 2024 in the City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco to enforce speed limits on streets with speed limits that are 50 miles per hour or less and that have had a documented incidence of collisions resulting in fatalities or injuries as evidenced by either a three-year fatality and injury collision rate, or a three-year fatality rate, that is higher than the three-year collision and fatality rates published by the Department of Transportation for comparable roadways, based on the most recent available local or state collision and fatality data.
- Specifies that ASE is not permitted on freeways but permits the use of ASE in school zones – that meet the collision and fatality thresholds specified in the bill – two hours before school and two hours after school where the posted speed limit is 30 mph or higher when children are not present.
- Provides that ASE systems must:
- Be operated in cooperation with a law enforcement agency.
- Clearly identify the presence of the fixed or mobile ASE system with signs stating “Photo Enforced,” along with the posted speed limit. The signs must be visible to traffic and posted at all locations as determined by the Department of Transportation and the local California Traffic Control Devices Committee.
- Identify vehicles containing a mobile ASE system with distinctive markings, including information that the system is being operated for “Photo Enforcement” purposes, identify the streets or portions of streets that have been approved for ASE, and post the locations and hours of enforcement on the municipality’s Internet website.
- Use properly trained peace officers or designated municipal employees, as specified, to operate the ASE and make determinations on when notices of violation should be issued. Requires training and proof of successful completion of peace officer and municipal training to be retained by the pilot cities, as specified.
- Ensure regular inspection and certification of the ASE system to ensure proper calibration; conduct an annual inspection by independent calibration laboratory; and document the inspection, operation and calibration of the ASE system.
- Conduct an engineering and traffic survey, as specified, and use fixed and mobile ASE systems that provide real-time notification when violations are detected.
- Requires the pilot cities to meet several consumer protection and privacy conditions:
a) Conduct a public information campaign for 30 days before ASE deployment.
b) Issue warning notices during the first 90 days of ASE enforcement in the pilot city.
c) Adopt an ASE System Use Policy and an ASE System Impact Report.
d) Include a clear photograph, video recording, or other visual image of the license plate and rear of the vehicle only, a citation of the law violated, the camera location, and the date and time when the violation occurred. Notices of violation must exclude images of the rear window area of the vehicle.
e) Keep ASE data and records confidential, except as required by the Public Records Act. The pilot cities are permitted to retain ASE data and evidence for 60 days and ASE administrative records for 120 days following final disposition of a violation, but are required to destroy any ASE data within five days if the data shows no evidence of a speeding violation.
f) Give the registered owner of the vehicle or an individual identified by the registered owner as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation the right to review the photographic, video, or visual evidence of the alleged violation.
g) Meet vendor contracting requirements, as specified, including a requirement that any ASE data collected is confidential and may not be shared, repurposed, or monetized for purposes other than ASE enforcement.
h) Issue violations only for violation of speeding 10 mph or more over the posted speed limit; that carry a civil penalty of up to $100 only; that cannot be used to suspend or revoke a driver’s license; and that cannot be used to assess a point against the driver. However, the Department of Motor Vehicles can refuse to renew a vehicle registration until unpaid violations are paid in full, as specified.
i) Issue no more than one notice of violation for a specific vehicle within a given 24-hour period; send the notice of violation within 15 days to the registered owner of the vehicle; and provide an appeals process, as specified, including a diversion program for low-income violators, as specified.
j) Use revenues from the ASE program to recover program costs and improve roadway traffic safety.
k) Submit an ASE System Report two years after initial implementation, as specified, and submit a report to the Legislature after the first and the fifth and final year of the pilot.
- Makes various findings and declarations.
EXISTING LAW:
- Establishes a “basic speed law” that prohibits a person from driving a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent given the weather, visibility, traffic, highway conditions, and in no event at a speed that endangers the safety of persons or property. (Vehicle Code (VC) Section 22350 et seq.)
- Authorizes the use of automated traffic enforcement systems (i.e., red light cameras) at railroad crossings and intersections to record violations of unlawful grade crossings and running of red lights. (VC 22451, 21455.5, and 40518)
- Requires a peace officer or “qualified employee” of a law enforcement agency to review the photograph taken by an automated traffic enforcement system and issue a citation, as appropriate. (VC 21455.5(c)(2)(F))
- Conditions the use of red light cameras is conditioned on several requirements and procedures, including the following:
- Only a governmental agency in cooperation with a law enforcement agency may operate a system.
- Intersections equipped with the enforcement systems must be identified by signs visible to traffic in all directions or by signs posted at all major entrances to the participating city.
- The city council or county board of supervisors must conduct a public hearing on the proposed use of an automated enforcement system.
- Use of the system must be preceded by public notice by the local jurisdiction at least 30 days in advance, and only warning notices may be issued to violators during the first 30 days of the system’s operation, after which citations may be issued.
- All photographic records are confidential and shall be made available only to the affected governmental agencies for enforcement purposes.
- Any driver alleged to be a violator of the red light provisions or the vehicle’s registered owner is permitted to review the photographic evidence of the alleged violation.
- Citations must be delivered to the driver within 15 days of the alleged violations, with a certificate of mailing obtained as evidence of service, and must include specified information, including how, when, and where the citation may be challenged. (Veh. Code Section 21455.5 et seq.)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS:
- Purpose of this bill: This bill is intended to reduce severe injuries and fatalities caused by speeding vehicles on city streets by authorizing San Francisco and San Jose to conduct a five-year pilot program using ASE on high-collision streets. This measure is sponsored by San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee and San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo.
- Author’s statement: According to the author's office, “Last year, 88 people lost their lives on the streets of San Francisco and San Jose. Every 18 hours a loved one is severely injured or killed while traveling on our city streets. These tragedies are completely preventable. San Francisco leads the state in the number of serious and fatal incidents per capita, and speed is the leading cause of these collisions. Data shows that speed kills. If a pedestrian is stuck by a vehicle traveling 20 mph, that person has 90 percent chance of surviving. If a car is traveling 40 mph, the rate of survival drops to just 10 percent. San Francisco and San Jose have adopted policies of Vision Zero, which reflect our goal and commitment to bring traffic fatalities to exactly zero. Not twenty. Not ten. Zero. […] It is important to remember the children who were going to school, cyclists heading to work, and the seniors who were going home who died in these tragic accidents, and we owe it to these victims to make Vision Zero a reality.”
- Speeding fatalities: According to the sponsors of this bill, data collected by San Francisco and San Jose shows the following:
- In San Francisco, 70% of fatal and severe vehicle collisions occur on just 12% of streets;
- In San Jose, 50% of fatal traffic collisions occur on just 3% of streets.
- Speed is the single highest fault factor in fatal and severe injury collisions in San Jose and San Francisco.
- In 2016, 88 people died in vehicle collisions on the streets of San Jose and San Francisco.
In response to hundreds of traffic collisions in the region, both San Jose and San Francisco have adopted Vision Zero traffic safety initiatives. These initiatives have the goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and reducing the number of severe injury collisions. In both cities, Vision Zero involves a comprehensive set of safety initiatives including infrastructure improvements (pedestrian and bicycle facilities), education (e.g. Safe Routes to School), and enforcement.
- Radar guns and the “lasso” approach to speed enforcement: Traditionally, police have relied on radar (or a laser-based variation called 'lidar') together with chasing down and pulling over speeding cars. This approach can be effective to the extent that a law enforcement agency has sufficient police officers to monitor city streets for traffic violations. On the other hand, a police officer chasing a speeding car can cause its own safety risks. According to the bill’s sponsors, the local police chief and sheriff in San Francisco and San Jose believe that their police resources could be better deployed fighting crime than managing traffic.
The author contends that while traditional traffic enforcement efforts help, additional tools are needed to combat speeding as a public health hazard. This bill gives local transportation agencies in the City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco the authority to install ASE systems over a five-year pilot period, in order to protect the safety of vulnerable travelers, such as children, the elderly, and bicyclists, in the two municipalities.
- ASE data from other states: Across the United States, studies have shown that ASE systems can reduce the number of severe and fatal collisions by as much as 58 %. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS):
“Studies of cameras on residential roads in Maryland, on a high-speed roadway in Arizona, and on city streets in the District of Columbia found that the proportion of drivers exceeding speed limits by more than 10 mph declined by 70, 88, and 82 percent, respectively, 6-8 months after cameras were introduced. 2015 study in Montgomery County, Md., found that about 7½ years after the speed camera program began, the cameras were associated with a 10 percent reduction in mean speeds and a 59 percent reduction in the likelihood that a vehicle was traveling more than 10 mph above the speed limit on camera-eligible roads, almost all of which had cameras.”
According to IIHS, Portland, New York, and Denver experienced 30 percent decreases in speeding by utilizing ASE. In Maryland and Washington D.C., the results were more dramatic with a 50 percent and 82 percent decrease, respectively. Perhaps the most compelling evidence showing ASE is effective is a 70 percent drop in fatal crashes in Washington D.C.
An April 2016 study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concluded that “[ASE] is one of many approaches shown to be effective in reducing speeding violations and crashes.” According to the NHTSA, in 2013 speeding was a contributing factor in 29% of vehicle fatalities in the U.S., resulting in 9,513 deaths. NHTSA estimated that in 2010 the economic cost of speed-related crashes was $52 billion. A number of other studies have also shown ASE to be highly effective in reducing excessive traffic speeds and crashes (Decina, Thomas, Srinivasan, & Staplin, 2007; Retting et al., 2008; Pilkington & Kinra, 2005; Wilson, Willis, Hendrikz, & Bellamy, 2006).
According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and the Highway Loss Data Institute, 142 jurisdictions in the U.S. – including Chicago, the District of Columbia, New York City, Portland, and Seattle – had ASE systems to enforce speed limits as of March 2017. In addition, Illinois, Maryland and Oregon have statewide ASE systems for road construction zones.
- Privacy and social justice concerns: Several concerns and criticisms have been raised with regard to the use of ASE, including:
- Allowing photographs to be taken of vehicles may be an intrusion into one’s privacy. This bill allows for a photo to be taken of the rear of the car, including the rear license plate and where possible the color, make and model of the car. Unlike the red light camera system, this bill does not permit capture of facial images. This bill requires each city to have an ASE System Use Policy that protects data from unauthorized access, delineates data retention rules, and restricts third-party data sharing. This bill requires any data collected that is not evidence of a speeding violation to be destroyed within five business days and requires data related to a violation to be destroyed 60 days after final disposition of the notice of violation.
- ASE will disproportionately affect low-income communities.
ACLU, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Western Center on Law and Poverty have been working with the sponsors of the bill on their concerns that the bill might cause residents of low-income communities, many of whom are ethnic and racial minorities and people with disabilities, to receive a disproportionate number of ASE-issued speeding tickets. The cities of San Francisco and San Jose have in fact indicated that many of their high-collision streets are in low-income areas. On the one hand, ASE systems have proved effective in other states in reducing serious injuries and death to pedestrians, cyclists and other motorists, and the residents of the neighborhoods in which ASE will be placed under this bill will reap these benefits most directly. On the other hand, given the apparent social justice issues, the author has stated a willingness to continue working with advocacy groups on these equity issues if the bill moves forward.
- ASE systems do not allow officers to educate consumers about unsafe driving behavior.
Certainly, police officers who pull over a speeding car have a unique teaching opportunity that will not be possible using an ASE system. However, San Francisco notes that it has at most 10 officers dedicated to traffic enforcement on 2,400 miles of city streets in San Francisco, so if most speeding goes undetected, an ASE system can serve as an additional enforcement tool to be used in concert with other efforts. San Francisco County Transportation Authority officials point out that this bill will be a “force multiplier” that complements, rather than replaces, police officers. Indeed the Vision Zero programs in both pilot cities have significant public education components.
- ASE and the basic speed law: ASE does not provide for on-scene discretion on the part of a police officer as to whether or not a driver has violated the state’s “basic speed law” (i.e., whether the driver was driving at an unsafe speed given the conditions). Under this law, driving 40 mph in a 25 mph residential area is not necessarily unlawful if that speed is safe for the conditions. Similarly, driving 25 mph in a 25 mph zone may be considered an unsafe speed, if the conditions, such as school children crossing the street, indicate that a slower speed is appropriate.
Under the basic speed law, if a driver gets a ticket for unsafe speed for driving at a speed above the posted speed limit, then the burden of proof falls on the driver to demonstrate that his or her speed was indeed safe for the conditions. But, if a driver issued a ticket for unsafe speed was driving at a speed below the posted speed limit, then the burden of proof falls on the officer to demonstrate that the speed was unsafe for the conditions.
Violations of the basic speed law are inherently different from red light violations, which in California is already enforceable using an automated system. While speed law violations are usually “prima facie” violations (i.e., violations “upon first site” but subject to further evidence), while red light violations are “per se” (i.e., violations “as a matter of law”).
Per se laws exist because society determines that certain activities are not acceptable in any situation. In a safety context, it is never (or rarely) safe to run a red light. The violator has no defense to such a violation except mistaken identity. Violations of “per se” statutes impose liability upon the perpetrator without the need for further evidence other than evidence of the violation.
This bill effectively establishes a “per se” violation for speeding by allowing the cities of San Francisco and San Jose to do the following during their five-year pilot program:
- Set up an ASE system with cameras on high-collision streets;
- If a vehicle drives more than 10 mph over the speed limit, take a photo of the rear license plate and vehicle (no facial images);
- Send a notice of violation by mail to the vehicle owner of record with a $100 fine;
- Issue a notice of violations and a $100 civil fine per violation;
- Conduct an initial review within 30 days, if requested by the vehicle owner, and dismiss the citation if the vehicle owner provides sufficient evidence that the citation was a mistake or there was an emergency.
- Establish an administrative hearing appeals process similar to the appeals process for red light violations.
This bill neither repeals the basic speed law nor prevents the cities of San Francisco and San Jose from enforcing speed violations the traditional way using the basic speed law and police officers on the road, but it does give these two pilot cities another tool to reduce speed, and with that reduce injury and death on their city streets.
Critics of the bill argue that instead of taking a step away from the state’s basic speed law, traffic calming in the form of engineering improvements to the roadway is a better way to address speeding than ASE. Examples of traffic calming include: half closures, diagonal diverters, median barriers, speed bumps or tables, textured pavements, and roundabouts.
- Pilot program system reports: This bill is a five-year pilot program from 2019 to 2024 that requires the cities of San Jose and San Francisco to develop and submit to their respective governing bodies an ASE System Report two years after initial implementation, and again at the end of the ASE pilot program.
- Arguments in support: The City and County of San Francisco states in support of this measure, that “in San Francisco, unsafe speed is the leading factor in collisions that result in serious injury or death. Speeding drivers are responsible for ten times the number of pedestrian injuries as drunk drivers. Speed kills because its impact on a fragile, human body is exponential. A person hit by a car traveling at 20 mph has a 9 in 10 chance of surviving; at 40 mph, that person has only a 1 in 10 chance of surviving. Automated speed enforcement, or speed safety cameras, have been proven repeatedly to reduce speeding and save lives.”
The Association of California Insurance Companies states in support that “[v]ehicle accidents are on the rise nationwide, and California with its 6.9% increase in vehicle accidents in 2015 is now included in the top 10 states whereby vehicle accidents are trending up. More accidents lead to more claims, which could drive up premium costs for consumers.”
- Arguments in opposition: The California Association of Highway Patrolmen (CAHP) and Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC) state in opposition that “the citation will not go to the driver. It will be mailed via U.S. mail to the registered owner of the car, and will likely arrive two to three weeks after the event occurred. In many cases, the registered owner may not even know who was driving at the time. In San Francisco in particular, parking is so expensive that multiple people share a vehicle. How is the registered owner going to remember who was driving at the time of the incident?
“In addition, the citation is issued without regard to the time of day, traffic conditions and/or whether the driver was impaired by alcohol, marijuana or any other drug. Officers take all of this into account…Law enforcement exercises discretion; cameras do not.”
- Prior Legislation: SB 1325 (Kuehl) of 2008 would have authorized the City of Beverly Hills to deploy an ASE system. This bill failed passage in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee.
SB 1300 (Kuehl) of 2006 was similar to SB 1325 (Kuehl) of 2008. This bill failed passage in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee.
SB 466 (Kuehl) of 2005 was similar to SB 1325 (Kuehl) of 2008. This bill failed passage in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee.
AB 1022 (Oropeza), Chapter 511, Statutes of 2003, refined the red light camera provisions after a number of legal challenges arose concerning the operation of the automated systems. These changes clarified responsibility for operation and maintenance of the system by local authorities and private contractors, the involvement of law enforcement personnel in citation issuance, restrictions on compensation to vendors, and the required consideration of alternative methods of enforcement.
SB 1136 (Kopp) Chapter 54, Statutes of 1998, authorized the use of automated enforcement systems at red lights indefinitely.
SB 833 (Kopp), Chapter 922, Statutes of 1995, authorized a three-year demonstration period to test the use and effectiveness of such cameras to reduce the incidence of drivers running red lights at intersections.
SB 1802 (Rosenthal), Chapter 1216, Statutes of 1994, authorized the use of red light cameras to record violations occurring at rail crossing signals and gates.
- Double-referral: This bill is double-referred to the Assembly Transportation Committee, where it will be heard if passed by this Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
San Francisco Mayor Edwin M. Lee (co-sponsor)
San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo (co-sponsor)
Alliance for Retired Americans
Association of California Insurance Companies
California Alliance for Retired Americans
California Bicycle Coalition
California Walks
CC Puede
Duboce Triangle Neighborhood Association
FDR Dems
Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District
Greater Rincon Hill Community Benefit District
Independent Living Resource Center San Francisco
Livable City
Los Angeles Walks
Lower Polk Community Benefit District
Portola Neighborhood Association
Safe Routes to School National Partnership
San Francisco Bay Area Families for Safe Streets
San Francisco Bicycle Coalition
San Francisco County Transportation Authority
San Francisco Health Improvement Partnership
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Senior & Disability Action
sf.citi
Shape Up San Francisco Coalition
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition
Silicon Valley Independent Living Center
South Beach / Rincon / Mission Bay Neighborhood Association
SPUR
Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
The Friends of Monterey Boulevard
TransForm
UCSF Department of Surgery at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital
Walk San Francisco
Opposition
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
Association of Deputy District Attorneys
California Association of Code Enforcement Officers
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California College and University Police Chiefs Association
California Association of Highway Patrolmen
California Narcotic Officers Association
East Area Progressive Democrats
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC)
Riverside Sheriffs Association
Safer Streets L.A.
Western Center on Law & Poverty
Western States Trucking Association
14 Individuals
Analysis Prepared by: Jennie Bretschneider / P. & C.P. /
Discussed in Hearing
34MIN
Assembly Standing Committee on Transportation
1H
Assembly Standing Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection
Bill Author
