Existing law authorizes a court to permit or order a person who has been convicted of, or plead to, a traffic violation, as specified, to attend traffic violator school. Under existing law, such a person who completes traffic violator school shall have their conviction remain confidential and shall not be assessed traffic violation points, as specified. Under existing law, the willful failure to attend traffic violator school if so ordered by the court is punishable as a misdemeanor.

This bill would remove provisions making the failure to attend traffic violator school a misdemeanor and would clarify that the failure to attend traffic violator school is not punishable as a new offense. The bill would further clarify that the underlying conviction of a person who fails to attend traffic school shall not be confidential and the person shall have traffic violation points assessed as applicable.

Existing law authorizes a court to permit or order a person who has been convicted of, or plead to, a traffic violation, as specified, to attend traffic violator school. Under existing law, such a person who completes traffic violator school shall have their conviction remain confidential and shall not be assessed traffic violation points, as specified. Under existing law, the willful failure to attend traffic violator school if so ordered by the court is punishable as a misdemeanor.

This bill would remove provisions making the failure to attend traffic violator school a misdemeanor and would clarify that the failure to attend traffic violator school is not punishable as a new offense. The bill would further clarify that the underlying conviction of a person who fails to attend traffic school shall not be confidential and the person shall have traffic violation points assessed as applicable.

Existing law authorizes a court to permit or order a person who has been convicted of, or plead to, a traffic violation, as specified, to attend traffic violator school. Under existing law, such a person who completes traffic violator school shall have their conviction remain confidential and shall not be assessed traffic violation points, as specified. Under existing law, the willful failure to attend traffic violator school if so ordered by the court is punishable as a misdemeanor.

This bill would remove provisions making the failure to attend traffic violator school a misdemeanor and would clarify that the failure to attend traffic violator school is not punishable as a new offense. The bill would further clarify that the underlying conviction of a person who fails to attend traffic school shall not be confidential and the person shall have traffic violation points assessed as applicable.

 CONSENT  

Bill No: AB 466

Author: Gipson (D)

Introduced: 2/6/23

Vote: 21

SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE: 16-0, 6/13/23

AYES: Gonzalez, Niello, Allen, Archuleta, Becker, Blakespear, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Limón, McGuire, Newman, Nguyen, Seyarto, Umberg, Wahab

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 4/27/23 (Consent) - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Vehicles: violations

SOURCE: Conference of California Bar Associations

DIGEST:

This bill removes the misdemeanor offence for failing to attend traffic violator school and provides that failing to attend traffic violator school is not a punishable offense.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to license traffic violator schools (TVS) to provide traffic safety instruction, either to those who elect to attend or to those who are required to attend, for a violation of the vehicle code. (VEH §11200)
2. Allows a court to permit a person holding a class C or M driver’s license, or who was operating a vehicle requiring only one of these licenses, and who pleads guilty or no contest or is convicted of certain traffic offenses to complete a course of instruction at a licensed TVS. (VEH §42005)
3. Specifies that the records of the DMV relating to the first proceeding and conviction for a traffic offence in any 18-month period shall not be disclosed to any person other than a court and shall not be used to add a violation point if the person completes a TVS course. (VEH §1808.7)
4. Provides that the failure to attend TVS is a misdemeanor. (Vehicle Code (VEH) §40000.25)
5. Unless otherwise specified, every offense declared to be a misdemeanor is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding $1000, or by both. (Penal Code §19)

This bill:

1. Repeals the provision that failure to attend TVS is a misdemeanor.
2. Specifies that if a person fails to comply with a court order to attend traffic violator school they shall not be assessed any additional penalties but that the record of their offense shall not be kept confidential and will be used to add a violation point.

Comments

1. Purpose of bill. According to the author “Commonly, if a person is involved in a traffic incident they have the option of either going to traffic school or receiving a point on their record. Although, under California state law, if a person who was involved in a traffic incident and doesn’t complete traffic school they could also be charged with a misdemeanor. This charge could result in additional fines and blemishes on a person’s criminal record. This punishment is excessive and could lead to additional hardships, particularly on low income communities. AB 466 seeks to eliminate this penalty by striking the provision out of law that allows a misdemeanor conviction for not completing traffic school. This bill would have no impact on the overall safety of the roads.”
2. Negligent driver points. As part of the consequences for collision or moving violation, a culpable driver’s license will be given points in the Negligent Operator Treatment System. More minor moving violations like speeding or having an unsafe vehicle will result in one point, while more serious offenses like driving under the influence will result in two points. Accumulating two points within a year results in being sent a warning letter, three points will result in a notice of intent to suspend, and four or more points in a year will result in an order of one-year probation and a six-month suspension.
3. Traffic Violator School. Upon receiving ticket for a one-point violation, a motorist has an opportunity to attend traffic violator school if they have not received another ticket within 18 months and do not contest the ticket. The individual must still pay the fine for the ticket and any other associated fees. In order to incentivize this additional training, completing traffic violator school allows a motorist to “mask” a point on their driving record – making the conviction confidential. This masking can help prevent further action by the DMV and avoid increases in car insurance premiums. Courses may be classroom based, home study (using printed, CDs or other materials) or taken online with costs ranging from $5 to $40 per class.

Research of TVS in California used to suggest that TVS policies actually made the roads less safe, as TVS training did not seem to reduce crash rates and allowed bad drivers to avoid consequences for violations. In 2010 the Legislature passed AB 2499 (Portantino, Chapter 599, Statutes of 2010), which made large changes to the TVS system. Before AB 2499, attending TVS resulted in complete dismissal of the traffic violation by the court, after passage TVS dismissals became masked convictions which allowed second and subsequent convictions to be placed on the driving record. The bill also increased the DMV’s authority to regulate at-home TVS courses, helping them bring those providers into the same standards as the rest. Subsequent research performed by the DMV in 2021 showed that with these changes TVS attendance results in a significant reduction in subsequent traffic crashes.

1. Failure to appear. Existing law provides that if a person decides to attend TVS, but fails to do so, they may be convicted of a misdemeanor. Failing to appear does not remove any of the consequences of their original violation. The individual will still have paid fees for the violation, plus the cost of TVS, and will likely pay increased insurance fees when the violation is no longer confidential. The further punishment of a misdemeanor may be excessive, especially given the time and cost associated with bringing the misdemeanor to trial. The California Department of Justice reports that, in each of the past five years, there have been either zero arrests or one arrest for a failure to attend TVS. Given the lack of enforcement, it seems likely that many people would be surprised to learn of this penalty for not completing traffic school.

According to the California Public Defenders Association “In a way, traffic school is like the diversion offered other offenders – successful completion results in a benefit which encourages successful completion of the school or program. But traffic school is unlike diversion in one significant way – a person who fails to complete traffic school could be charged with a misdemeanor, punishable up to six months in jail. Contrast that with the fact there is no separate punishment for failure to complete diversion for crimes more serious than traffic infractions other than the potential reinstatement of the original criminal charge.”

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 6/26/23)

Conference of California Bar Associations (source)
ACLU California Action
California Public Defenders Association
Streets are For Everyone

OPPOSITION: (Verified 6/26/23)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 4/27/23

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Chen, Connolly, Megan Dahle, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, Mathis, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Jim Patterson

Prepared by: Jacob O'Connor / TRANS. / (916) 651-4121

6/28/23 11:20:22

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Senator Lena Gonzalez, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: AB 466 Hearing Date: 6/13/2023

SUBJECT: Vehicles: violations

DIGEST: This bill removes the misdemeanor offence for failing to attend traffic violator school and provides that failing to attend traffic violator school is not a punishable offense.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to license traffic violator schools (TVS) to provide traffic safety instruction, either to those who elect to attend or to those who are required to attend, for a violation of the vehicle code. (VEH §11200)
2. Allows a court to permit a person holding a class C or M driver’s license, or who was operating a vehicle requiring only one of these licenses, and who pleads guilty or no contest or is convicted of certain traffic offenses to complete a course of instruction at a licensed TVS. (VEH §42005)
3. Specifies that the records of the DMV relating to the first proceeding and conviction for a traffic offence in any 18-month period shall not be disclosed to any person other than a court and shall not be used to add a violation point if the person completes a TVS course. (VEH §1808.7)
4. Provides that the failure to attend TVS is a misdemeanor. (Vehicle Code (VEH) §40000.25)
5. Unless otherwise specified, every offense declared to be a misdemeanor is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding $1000, or by both. (Penal Code §19)

This bill:

1. Repeals the provision that failure to attend TVS is a misdemeanor.
2. Specifies that if a person fails to comply with a court order to attend traffic violator school they shall not be assessed any additional penalties but that the record of their offense shall not be kept confidential and will be used to add a violation point.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose of bill. According to the author “Commonly, if a person is involved in a traffic incident they have the option of either going to traffic school or receiving a point on their record. Although, under California state law, if a person who was involved in a traffic incident and doesn’t complete traffic school they could also be charged with a misdemeanor. This charge could result in additional fines and blemishes on a person’s criminal record. This punishment is excessive and could lead to additional hardships, particularly on low income communities. AB 466 seeks to eliminate this penalty by striking the provision out of law that allows a misdemeanor conviction for not completing traffic school. This bill would have no impact on the overall safety of the roads.”
2. Negligent driver points. As part of the consequences for collision or moving violation, a culpable driver’s license will be given points in the Negligent Operator Treatment System. More minor moving violations like speeding or having an unsafe vehicle will result in one point, while more serious offenses like driving under the influence will result in two points. Accumulating two points within a year results in being sent a warning letter, three points will result in a notice of intent to suspend, and four or more points in a year will result in an order of one-year probation and a six-month suspension.
3. Traffic Violator School. Upon receiving ticket for a one-point violation, a motorist has an opportunity to attend traffic violator school if they have not received another ticket within 18 months and do not contest the ticket. The individual must still pay the fine for the ticket and any other associated fees. In order to incentivize this additional training, completing traffic violator school allows a motorist to “mask” a point on their driving record – making the conviction confidential. This masking can help prevent further action by the DMV and avoid increases in car insurance premiums. Courses may be classroom based, home study (using printed, CDs or other materials) or taken online with costs ranging from $5 to $40 per class.

Research of TVS in California used to suggest that TVS policies actually made the roads less safe, as TVS training did not seem to reduce crash rates and allowed bad drivers to avoid consequences for violations. In 2010 the Legislature passed AB 2499 (Portantino, Chapter 599, Statutes of 2010), which made large changes to the TVS system. Before AB 2499, attending TVS resulted in complete dismissal of the traffic violation by the court, after passage TVS dismissals became masked convictions which allowed second and subsequent convictions to be placed on the driving record. The bill also increased the DMV’s authority to regulate at-home TVS courses, helping them bring those providers into the same standards as the rest. Subsequent research performed by the DMV in 2021 showed that with these changes TVS attendance results in a significant reduction in subsequent traffic crashes.

1. Failure to appear. Existing law provides that if a person decides to attend TVS, but fails to do so, they may be convicted of a misdemeanor. Failing to appear does not remove any of the consequences of their original violation. The individual will still have paid fees for the violation, plus the cost of TVS, and will likely pay increased insurance fees when the violation is no longer confidential. The further punishment of a misdemeanor may be excessive, especially given the time and cost associated with bringing the misdemeanor to trial. The California Department of Justice reports that, in each of the past five years, there have been either zero arrests or one arrest for a failure to attend TVS. Given the lack of enforcement, it seems likely that many people would be surprised to learn of this penalty for not completing traffic school.

According to the California Public Defenders Association “In a way, traffic school is like the diversion offered other offenders – successful completion results in a benefit which encourages successful completion of the school or program. But traffic school is unlike diversion in one significant way – a person who fails to complete traffic school could be charged with a misdemeanor, punishable up to six months in jail. Contrast that with the fact there is no separate punishment for failure to complete diversion for crimes more serious than traffic infractions other than the potential reinstatement of the original criminal charge.”

Related Legislation:

AB 2499 (Portantino, Chapter 599, Statutes of 2010) changed the result of attending TVS from having a conviction removed to having it masked, as well as increasing the authority of the DMV to regulate all forms of TVS.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, this bill will incur negligible costs, if any, to the state.

POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday, June 7^th.)

SUPPORT:

ACLU California Action
California Public Defenders Association
Conference of California Bar Associations (sponsor)
Streets are For Everyone

OPPOSITION:

None received

-- END --

Date of Hearing: April 19, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Chris Holden, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 466

Author:(Gipson) – As Introduced Ver:February 6, 2023

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill removes failure to attend traffic violator school (TVS) from the violations of the vehicle code that may be punished as a misdemeanor. Additionally, this bill prohibits the assessment of additional penalties against a person who fails to attend TVS.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Negligible costs, if any, to the state, as the Department of Justice reports that, in each of the past five years, there have been either zero arrests or one arrest for a failure to attend TVS.

COMMENTS:

The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) will, generally, assign one or more “negligent operator points” to the driver license of a person convicted of certain moving traffic violations. Accumulation of points may result in DMV restricting or suspending a person’s driver license. Insurance companies have access to driving records and may increase the cost of insurance for a person with points on their license.

Existing law allows a person convicted of certain moving violations to attend traffic violator TVS once every 18 months. Generally, DMV will not assign a point to the driver license of person convicted of a moving violation if the person chooses to attend TVS as a result of that violation.

Existing law provides that if a person decides to take TVS, but fails to do so, they may be convicted of a misdemeanor and subject to imprisonment in county jail up to six months or by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or both. This bill eliminates the possibility of these penalties, which the author asserts to be “excessive” and possibly leading to “additional hardships.”

Were this bill to become law, DMV will still be able to assign a point to the driver license of a person who chooses to attend TVS but fails to do so.

Analysis Prepared by: Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: March 13, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Laura Friedman, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 466 (

Author:Gipson) – As Introduced Ver:February 6, 2023

SUBJECT: Vehicles: violations

SUMMARY: Removes the ability to charge an individual with a misdemeanor if a person fails to attend traffic violator school (TVS) and provides that failing to attend TVS is not a punishable offense.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides that the failure to attend TVS is a misdemeanor. (Vehicle Code (VEH) 40000.25)
2. Allows a court to permit a person holding a driver’s license who pleads guilty or no contest or is convicted of certain traffic offenses to complete a course of instruction at a licensed TVS if the person was operating a vehicle requiring only a class C or class M license and provides that a person who completes the course may avoid having a negligent operator point accessed on their driver’s license. (VEH 42005)
3. Unless otherwise specified, every offense declared to be a misdemeanor is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding $1000, or by both. (Penal Code 19)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS: Negligent operator points are often assessed against drivers convicted of a moving violation. If a person is found to be a negligent operator after receiving four or more points on their driver’s license, they may have their license restricted or suspended. In order to mitigate the potential for accumulating too many points, persons are authorized to attend TVS once every 18 months to avoid receiving a point on their license for most offenses. Certain offenses, like driving under the influence, are not eligible for TVS.

Existing law provides that if a person decides to take TVS, but fails to do so, they may be convicted of a misdemeanor and subject to imprisonment in county jail up to six months or by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by both.

According to the author, “This punishment is excessive and could lead to additional hardships, particularly on low income communities. AB 466 seeks to eliminate this penalty by striking the provision out of law that allows a misdemeanor conviction for not completing traffic school. This bill would have no impact on the overall safety of the roads”.

The California Public Defenders Association, writing in support of this bill, argues “It makes no sense that current law threatens misdemeanor punishment for failing to complete traffic school. In addition, this “threat” seems idle. We are unaware of any prosecution in California for failing to complete traffic school. Because the law creates a misdemeanor, a prosecutor would have to file and prosecute the charge and the accused would be entitled to a jury trial and the services of appointed counsel if indigent. Courts and prosecutors recognize that additional prosecution would be a waste of resources when the failure to complete traffic school already results in the conviction being reported to the individual’s insurance company and the attendant insurance rate increase. AB 466 is a commonsense, fiscally sound proposal to clarify and modernize existing law so that it is consistent with current practice”.

Related legislation:

AB 1266 (Kalra) of the current legislative session makes it an infraction instead of a misdemeanor if a person fails to appear in court and the underlying charge was an infraction. That bill is pending before Assembly Public Safety Committee.

Previous Legislation:

SB 185 (Hertzberg) of 2017 would have made it an infraction instead of a misdemeanor if a person fails to appear in court. That bill was held in Assembly Appropriations Committee.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Public Defenders Association

Conference of California BAR Associations

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: David Sforza / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093