Existing law authorizes a peace officer to make an arrest pursuant to a warrant or without a warrant if, among other circumstances, the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed a public offense in the officers presence. Under existing law, it is unlawful to disobey the lawful order, signal, or direction of a uniformed peace officer performing any duties pursuant to the Vehicle Code or to refuse to submit to any lawful vehicular inspection authorized by the Vehicle Code.

Existing case law deems a temporary detention of a person during an automobile stop by the police, even if only for a brief period and for a limited purpose, a seizure, under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and as such, requires the actions to be reasonable. Under existing case law, the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable if the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred. Existing case law holds that constitutional reasonableness of traffic stops does not depend on the actual motivations of the individual officers involved and that ulterior motives do not invalidate police conduct that is justifiable on the basis of probable cause to believe that a violation of law has occurred.

This bill would prohibit a peace officer from stopping or detaining the operator of a motor vehicle or bicycle for a low-level infraction, as defined, unless a separate, independent basis for a stop exists or more than one low-level infraction is observed. The bill would state that a violation of these provisions is not grounds for a defendant to move for return of property or to suppress evidence. The bill would authorize a peace officer who does not have grounds to stop a vehicle or bicycle, but can determine the identity of the owner, to send a citation or warning letter to the owner.

The bill would authorize local authorities to enforce a nonmoving or equipment violation of the Vehicle Code through government employees who are not peace officers.

Existing law authorizes a peace officer to make an arrest pursuant to a warrant or without a warrant if, among other circumstances, the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed a public offense in the officers presence. Under existing law, it is unlawful to disobey the lawful order, signal, or direction of a uniformed peace officer performing any duties pursuant to the Vehicle Code or to refuse to submit to any lawful vehicular inspection authorized by the Vehicle Code.

Existing case law deems a temporary detention of a person during an automobile stop by the police, even if only for a brief period and for a limited purpose, a seizure, under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and as such, requires the actions to be reasonable. Under existing case law, the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable if the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred. Existing case law holds that constitutional reasonableness of traffic stops does not depend on the actual motivations of the individual officers involved and that ulterior motives do not invalidate police conduct that is justifiable on the basis of probable cause to believe that a violation of law has occurred.

This bill would prohibit a peace officer from stopping or detaining the operator of a motor vehicle or bicycle for a low-level infraction, as defined, unless a separate, independent basis for a stop exists or more than one low-level infraction is observed. The bill would state that a violation of these provisions is not grounds for a defendant to move for return of property or to suppress evidence. The bill would authorize a peace officer who does not have grounds to stop a vehicle or bicycle, but can determine the identity of the owner, to send a citation or warning letter to the owner.

The bill would authorize local authorities to enforce a nonmoving or equipment violation of the Vehicle Code through government employees who are not peace officers.

Existing law authorizes a peace officer to make an arrest pursuant to a warrant or without a warrant if, among other circumstances, the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed a public offense in the officers presence. Under existing law, it is unlawful to disobey the lawful order, signal, or direction of a uniformed peace officer performing any duties pursuant to the Vehicle Code or to refuse to submit to any lawful vehicular inspection authorized by the Vehicle Code.

Existing case law deems a temporary detention of a person during an automobile stop by the police, even if only for a brief period and for a limited purpose, a seizure, under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and as such, requires the actions to be reasonable. Under existing case law, the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable if the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred. Existing case law holds that constitutional reasonableness of traffic stops does not depend on the actual motivations of the individual officers involved and that ulterior motives do not invalidate police conduct that is justifiable on the basis of probable cause to believe that a violation of law has occurred.

This bill would prohibit a peace officer from stopping or detaining the operator of a motor vehicle or bicycle for a low-level infraction, as defined, unless a separate, independent basis for a stop exists. exists or more than one low-level infraction is observed. The bill would state that a violation of these provisions is not grounds for a defendant to move for return of property or to suppress evidence. The bill would authorize a peace officer who does not have grounds to stop a vehicle or bicycle, but can determine the identity of the owner, to send a citation or warning letter to the owner.

The bill would authorize local authorities to enforce a violation of the Vehicle Code through government employees who are not peace officers.

Existing law authorizes a peace officer to make an arrest pursuant to a warrant or without a warrant if, among other circumstances, the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed a public offense in the officers presence. Under existing law, it is unlawful to disobey the lawful order, signal, or direction of a uniformed peace officer performing any duties pursuant to the Vehicle Code or to refuse to submit to any lawful vehicular inspection authorized by the Vehicle Code.

Existing case law deems a temporary detention of a person during an automobile stop by the police, even if only for a brief period and for a limited purpose, a seizure, under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and as such, requires the actions to be reasonable. Under existing case law, the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable if the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred. Existing case law holds that constitutional reasonableness of traffic stops does not depend on the actual motivations of the individual officers involved and that ulterior motives do not invalidate police conduct that is justifiable on the basis of probable cause to believe that a violation of law has occurred.

This bill would prohibit a peace officer from stopping or detaining the operator of a motor vehicle or bicycle for a low-level infraction, as defined, unless a separate, independent basis for a stop exists. The bill would authorize a peace officer who does not have grounds to stop a vehicle or bicycle, but can determine the identity of the owner, to send a citation or warning letter to the owner.

The bill would authorize local authorities to enforce a violation of the Vehicle Code through government employees who are not peace officers.

Existing law authorizes a peace officer to make an arrest pursuant to a warrant or without a warrant if, among other circumstances, the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed a public offense in the officers presence. Under existing law, it is unlawful to disobey the lawful order, signal, or direction of a uniformed peace officer performing any duties pursuant to the Vehicle Code or to refuse to submit to any lawful vehicular inspection authorized by the Vehicle Code.

Existing case law deems a temporary detention of a person during an automobile stop by the police, even if only for a brief period and for a limited purpose, a seizure, under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and as such, requires the actions to be reasonable. Under existing case law, the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable if the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred. Existing case law holds that constitutional reasonableness of traffic stops does not depend on the actual motivations of the individual officers involved and that ulterior motives do not invalidate police conduct that is justifiable on the basis of probable cause to believe that a violation of law has occurred.

This bill would prohibit a peace officer from stopping or detaining the operator of a motor vehicle or bicycle for a low-level infraction, as defined, unless a separate, independent basis for a stop exists. The bill would authorize a peace officer who does not have grounds to stop a vehicle or bicycle, but can determine the identity of the owner, to send a citation or warning letter to the owner.

The bill would authorize local authorities to enforce a violation of the Vehicle Code through government employees who are not peace officers.

Existing law authorizes a peace officer to make an arrest pursuant to a warrant or without a warrant if, among other circumstances, the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed a public offense in the officers presence. Under existing law, it is unlawful to disobey the lawful order, signal, or direction of a uniformed peace officer performing any duties pursuant to the Vehicle Code or to refuse to submit to any lawful vehicular inspection authorized by the Vehicle Code.

Existing case law deems a temporary detention of a person during an automobile stop by the police, even if only for a brief period and for a limited purpose, a seizure, under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and as such, requires the actions to be reasonable. Under existing case law, the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable if the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred. Existing case law holds that constitutional reasonableness of traffic stops does not depend on the actual motivations of the individual officers involved and that ulterior motives do not invalidate police conduct that is justifiable on the basis of probable cause to believe that a violation of law has occurred.

Existing law authorizes a peace officer to make an arrest pursuant to a warrant or without a warrant if, among other circumstances, the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed a public offense in the officers presence. Under existing law, it is unlawful to disobey the lawful order, signal, or direction of a uniformed peace officer performing any duties pursuant to the Vehicle Code or to refuse to submit to any lawful vehicular inspection authorized by the Vehicle Code.

Existing case law deems a temporary detention of a person during an automobile stop by the police, even if only for a brief period and for a limited purpose, a seizure, under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and as such, requires the actions to be reasonable. Under existing case law, the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable if the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred. Existing case law holds that constitutional reasonableness of traffic stops does not depend on the actual motivations of the individual officers involved and that ulterior motives do not invalidate police conduct that is justifiable on the basis of probable cause to believe that a violation of law has occurred.

This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation relating to limiting a peace officers authority to initiate pretextual stops to reduce racial profiling and the harm stemming from such stops.

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 50

Author:(Bradford)

As Amended Ver:September 7, 2023

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Prohibits peace officers from initiating a traffic stop for specified low-level infractions unless a separate, independent basis for a stop exists, or unless multiple infractions are seen. Authorizes local authorities to enforce non-moving or equipment violations through the use of non-sworn government employees.

Major Provisions

1. Prohibits a peace officer from stopping or detaining the operator of a motor vehicle or a bicycle for a low-level infraction unless there is a separate independent basis to initiate the stop, or unless more than one low-level infraction is observed.
2. Defines "low-level infraction" as a Vehicle Code violation related to any of the following:
   1. Registration of a vehicle or vehicle equipment;
   2. Positioning or number of license plates when the rear license plate is clearly displayed;
   3. Vehicle lighting equipment not illuminating, if the violation is limited to a single brake light, headlight, rear license plate, or running light, or a single bulb in a larger light of the same;
   4. Vehicle bumper equipment; or,
   5. Bicycle equipment or operation.
3. Provides that "low-level infraction" does not include violations relating to commercial vehicles.
4. Authorizes an officer's agency, if an officer does not have grounds to stop or detain the operator of a motor vehicle or bicycle and the officer can identify the owner of the vehicle, to mail a citation to the owner or send a warning letter identifying the violation and instructing the owner to correct the defect or otherwise remedy the violation.
5. Provides that a county, city, municipality, or any other local authority is not precluded from enforcing a nonmoving or equipment violation provided in Vehicle Code through government employees who are not peace officers.
6. Clarifies that local authorities may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution regulating traffic by means of traffic officers, or other government employees if they are enforcing a nonmoving or equipment violation.
7. Requires Department of Justice (DOJ) to issue any necessary updates to the technical specifications for the reporting process for stop data, as specified, by July 1, 2025.
8. Double-joints this bill with AB 436 (Alvarez) of the current legislative session and AB 825 (Bryan) of the current legislative session to avoid chaptering out issues.
9. Makes technical and conforming amendments.

COMMENTS

According to the Author

"SB 50 will limit law enforcement's ability to stop people for minor, non-safety-related traffic infractions, unless there is an independent, safety-related basis to initiate the stop. It will also provide technical clarification to ensure that localities can explore non-law enforcement approaches to traffic safety. In doing so, SB 50 will help protect Californians of color from unnecessary harms and help ensure that public dollars dedicated to community safety are used more effectively."

Arguments in Support

According to the Prosecutors Alliance of California, one of this bill's sponsors, "Law enforcement use minor vehicle equipment and administrative issues – such as a broken taillight, driving without valid registration, or incorrectly displaying a license plate – to conduct an otherwise illegitimate stop and investigation, commonly referred to as a "pretext stop." The Racial and Identify Profiling Board reports that Black, Latinx, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander Californians are more likely to be subject to pretextual stops than their white counterparts, even though stops of people of color are less likely to result in the discovery of evidence or criminal prosecution then stops of white people. Pretextual stops inflict devastating harm on Californians of color – including dehumanization, economic extraction through fees and fines, physical violence through uses of force, and devaluation of life.

"These practices have also failed to meaningfully improve safety. A 2022 study found that Sheriff's deputies in Los Angeles and Riverside counties spent nearly nine out of every 10 hours on stops initiated by officers rather than responding to calls for help. Amongst those officer-initiated stops, approximately 80 percent were for traffic violations.

"SB 50 will implement the recommendations of the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code and the Racial and Identity Profiling Board, limiting police power to stop people for minor, technical violations of the Vehicle Code. SB 50 will also ensure that communities that wish to move forward with alternative enforcement strategies for traffic laws have the legal authority to do so. SB 50 is a long over due reform to address the harms of racial profiling and promote equal treatment under law."

Arguments in Opposition

According to the California District Attorneys Association, "This bill prohibits peace officers from detaining the operator of a motor vehicle or bicycle for a low-level infraction unless a separate independent basis for the stop exists. Doing so jeopardizes public safety, undermines the rule of law, and reduces accountability for low level infractions.

"Most importantly, this bill's prohibition on detaining drivers for low level infractions deprives peace officers of a very effective investigative tool that is often used by law enforcement to gather information needed in an ongoing criminal investigation, apprehend a suspect who is wanted for having committed an unrelated criminal violation, or to investigate an unrelated offense.

"Consider the political terrorist who paid individuals to shoot up the homes his political opponents. The plot was only uncovered after a vehicle stop for an expired registration revealed the driver had an active felony warrant. A search of the vehicle revealed 800 fentanyl tablets which lead to a phone with texts detailing the location of the victims and a gun that was ballistically linked to the shootings. [citation omitted]

"Pretextual stops are also employed by peace officers to investigate the transportation for sale of fentanyl. Information alerting law enforcement to controlled substances in vehicles oftentimes come from confidential sources who law enforcement need to protect. The source of information will be 'walled' off from peace officers who will only be told that if a vehicle violates a traffic infraction, pull the vehicle over and investigate for drugs and guns. The traffic infraction is a 'pretext' to investigate another crime without jeopardizing the confidential informant's safety. This technique is used routinely and effectively. Recently in San Diego, for example, a broken taillight on a boat trailer yielded 20,000 fentanyl pills and 1000 pounds of methamphetamine. That stop and others like it would not be permitted if SB 50 became law.

"Research has found that increased traffic enforcement is associated with decreases in traffic crashes and injuries from accidents.   Jordan B. Woods, Traffic Without the Police, 73 Stanford Law Review 1471, 1536 (2021). The low-level infractions defined by SB 50 are, in fact, designed to enhance public safety and notify drivers that their vehicles are out of compliance with traffic safety laws. Pursuant to SB 50, a low-level infraction includes violations related to: 1) vehicle registration requirements; 2) the positioning or number of license plates; 3) vehicle lighting equipment; 4) vehicle bumper requirements; and 5) bicycle equipment or operation. Simply put, a broken headlight, brake light, or windshield obstruction is a driving hazard and can be the cause of an accident. A missing bumper could be the reason that a non-lethal accident becomes fatal.

"Prohibiting a peace officer from detaining and notifying a driver of a hazardous condition ensures that the unsafe vehicle will be driving on the road for a longer time before it is brought into compliance. Mailing the owner of the vehicle a notice of violation, as SB 50 contemplates, does not address the violation with the urgency that is warranted when public safety is at issue.

"Moreover, mailing the owner of the vehicle a notice of the violation creates an additional burden for law enforcement that will likely result in decreased enforcement. This anticipated lack of enforcement will create ambiguity for drivers regarding what the rules of the road actually are, and blur the line between what is lawful and unlawful. Without fear of enforcement, drivers will be less likely to bring their vehicles into compliance with registration requirements and traffic safety laws which, in turn, will make those regulations ineffectual and the roads less safe.

"Not only will SB 50 result in decreased enforcement, if law enforcement does choose to enforce via a mailed notice of violation, it will make it more difficult to hold offenders accountable. Claims that a citation was never received, and the number of warrants being issued for failing to appear, would be significant. Additionally, prohibiting detention would make it more difficult to gather evidence to substantiate the offense. Pursuant to Vehicle Code Section 40001, it is unlawful for the owner to cause or permit the operation of an offending vehicle to be driven on the highway. Without being able to identify the driver (to see if they are the owner), or to speak with the driver (to verify the owner authorized the use), the owner can simply deny that they permitted the operation of the vehicle. This, in turn, would make low level infractions more difficult to prove."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Potential revenue loss (General Fund, special funds, local funds) of an unknown but significant amount due to reduced enforcement of low-level infractions by law enforcement agencies. Infractions are punishable by fines and penalties, which are distributed to various state and local funds. If enforcement of the infractions affected by this bill significantly declines because officers may no longer stop motorists for individual violations, revenue from fines and penalties would also significantly decline. For example, in 2022, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) alone issued 153,700 citations for the vehicle registration infraction affected by this bill. The fine for one corrected expired registration violation results in about $18 in state special fund revenue and the fine for one uncorrected expired registration violation results in about $173 in state special fund revenue. If this bill results in 1,000 fewer registration violations issued, which would otherwise have been uncorrected but ultimately paid, the resulting special fund revenue loss would exceed $150,000.
   • 1. Actual revenue loss will depend on the number of violations not enforced as a result of this bill. Revenue loss may be offset to the extent the infractions included in this bill are enforced in other ways instead of through traffic stops. If a peace officer observes a violation but does not have grounds to stop or detain the vehicle, the bill permits the officer's agency to mail a citation or warning letter to the owner of a vehicle. The bill also allows a local government to enforce nonmoving or equipment violations through employees who are not peace officers.
2. Costs (General Fund) to the DOJ of an unknown but potentially significant amount. DOJ reports that this bill impacts the department's mandatory Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA) data collection efforts. DOJ may need additional staffing in its Application Development Bureau and Justice Data and Investigative Services Bureau to update its databases, provide ongoing database maintenance and support, conduct outreach to law enforcement agencies, and review and refine incoming RIPA data.

VOTES

SENATE FLOOR: 22-11-7

YES: Allen, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Durazo, Eggman, Gonzalez, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Portantino, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener

NO: Alvarado-Gil, Dahle, Glazer, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Wilk

ABS, ABST OR NV: Archuleta, Dodd, Min, Newman, Padilla, Roth, Rubio

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 6-2-0

YES: Jones-Sawyer, Bonta, Bryan, Ortega, Santiago, Zbur

NO: Alanis, Lackey

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 10-5-1

YES: Holden, Bryan, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Papan, Pellerin, Weber, Wilson

NO: Megan Dahle, Dixon, Mathis, Sanchez, Soria

ABS, ABST OR NV: Calderon

UPDATED

VERSION: September 7, 2023

CONSULTANT: Andrew Ironside / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0002072

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 50

Author:(Bradford)

As Amended Ver:September 1, 2023

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Prohibits peace officers from initiating a traffic stop for specified low-level infractions unless a separate, independent basis for a stop exists, or unless multiple infractions are seen. Authorizes local authorities to enforce non-moving or equipment violations through the use of non-sworn government employees.

Major Provisions

1. Prohibits a peace officer from stopping or detaining the operator of a motor vehicle or a bicycle for a low-level infraction unless there is a separate independent basis to initiate the stop, or unless more than one low-level infraction is observed.
2. Defines "low-level infraction" as a Vehicle Code violation related to any of the following:
   1. Registration of a vehicle or vehicle equipment;
   2. Positioning or number of license plates when the rear license plate is clearly displayed;
   3. Vehicle lighting equipment not illuminating, if the violation is limited to a single brake light, headlight, rear license plate, or running light, or a single bulb in a larger light of the same;
   4. Vehicle bumper equipment; or,
   5. Bicycle equipment or operation.
3. Provides that "low-level infraction" does not include violations relating to commercial vehicles.
4. Authorizes an officer's agency, if an officer does not have grounds to stop or detain the operator of a motor vehicle or bicycle and the officer can identify the owner of the vehicle, to mail a citation to the owner or send a warning letter identifying the violation and instructing the owner to correct the defect or otherwise remedy the violation.
5. Provides that a county, city, municipality, or any other local authority is not precluded from enforcing a nonmoving or equipment violation provided in Vehicle Code through government employees who are not peace officers.
6. Clarifies that local authorities may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution regulating traffic by means of traffic officers, or other government employees if they are enforcing a nonmoving or equipment violation.
7. Requires Department of Justice (DOJ) to issue any necessary updates to the technical specifications for the reporting process for stop data, as specified, by July 1, 2025.
8. Make technical and conforming amendments.

COMMENTS

According to the Author

"SB 50 will limit law enforcement's ability to stop people for minor, non-safety-related traffic infractions, unless there is an independent, safety-related basis to initiate the stop. It will also provide technical clarification to ensure that localities can explore non-law enforcement approaches to traffic safety. In doing so, SB 50 will help protect Californians of color from unnecessary harms and help ensure that public dollars dedicated to community safety are used more effectively."

Arguments in Support

According to the Prosecutors Alliance of California, one of this bill's sponsors, "Law enforcement use minor vehicle equipment and administrative issues – such as a broken taillight, driving without valid registration, or incorrectly displaying a license plate – to conduct an otherwise illegitimate stop and investigation, commonly referred to as a "pretext stop." The Racial and Identify Profiling Board reports that Black, Latinx, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander Californians are more likely to be subject to pretextual stops than their white counterparts, even though stops of people of color are less likely to result in the discovery of evidence or criminal prosecution then stops of white people. Pretextual stops inflict devastating harm on Californians of color – including dehumanization, economic extraction through fees and fines, physical violence through uses of force, and devaluation of life.

"These practices have also failed to meaningfully improve safety. A 2022 study found that Sheriff's deputies in Los Angeles and Riverside counties spent nearly nine out of every 10 hours on stops initiated by officers rather than responding to calls for help. Amongst those officer-initiated stops, approximately 80 percent were for traffic violations.

"SB 50 will implement the recommendations of the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code and the Racial and Identity Profiling Board, limiting police power to stop people for minor, technical violations of the Vehicle Code. SB 50 will also ensure that communities that wish to move forward with alternative enforcement strategies for traffic laws have the legal authority to do so. SB 50 is a long over due reform to address the harms of racial profiling and promote equal treatment under law."

Arguments in Opposition

According to the California District Attorneys Association, "This bill prohibits peace officers from detaining the operator of a motor vehicle or bicycle for a low-level infraction unless a separate independent basis for the stop exists. Doing so jeopardizes public safety, undermines the rule of law, and reduces accountability for low level infractions.

"Most importantly, this bill's prohibition on detaining drivers for low level infractions deprives peace officers of a very effective investigative tool that is often used by law enforcement to gather information needed in an ongoing criminal investigation, apprehend a suspect who is wanted for having committed an unrelated criminal violation, or to investigate an unrelated offense.

"Consider the political terrorist who paid individuals to shoot up the homes his political opponents. The plot was only uncovered after a vehicle stop for an expired registration revealed the driver had an active felony warrant. A search of the vehicle revealed 800 fentanyl tablets which lead to a phone with texts detailing the location of the victims and a gun that was ballistically linked to the shootings. [citation omitted]

"Pretextual stops are also employed by peace officers to investigate the transportation for sale of fentanyl. Information alerting law enforcement to controlled substances in vehicles oftentimes come from confidential sources who law enforcement need to protect. The source of information will be 'walled' off from peace officers who will only be told that if a vehicle violates a traffic infraction, pull the vehicle over and investigate for drugs and guns. The traffic infraction is a 'pretext' to investigate another crime without jeopardizing the confidential informant's safety. This technique is used routinely and effectively. Recently in San Diego, for example, a broken taillight on a boat trailer yielded 20,000 fentanyl pills and 1000 pounds of methamphetamine. That stop and others like it would not be permitted if SB 50 became law.

"Research has found that increased traffic enforcement is associated with decreases in traffic crashes and injuries from accidents.   Jordan B. Woods, Traffic Without the Police, 73 Stanford Law Review 1471, 1536 (2021). The low-level infractions defined by SB 50 are, in fact, designed to enhance public safety and notify drivers that their vehicles are out of compliance with traffic safety laws. Pursuant to SB 50, a low-level infraction includes violations related to: 1) vehicle registration requirements; 2) the positioning or number of license plates; 3) vehicle lighting equipment; 4) vehicle bumper requirements; and 5) bicycle equipment or operation. Simply put, a broken headlight, brake light, or windshield obstruction is a driving hazard and can be the cause of an accident. A missing bumper could be the reason that a non-lethal accident becomes fatal.

"Prohibiting a peace officer from detaining and notifying a driver of a hazardous condition ensures that the unsafe vehicle will be driving on the road for a longer time before it is brought into compliance. Mailing the owner of the vehicle a notice of violation, as SB 50 contemplates, does not address the violation with the urgency that is warranted when public safety is at issue.

"Moreover, mailing the owner of the vehicle a notice of the violation creates an additional burden for law enforcement that will likely result in decreased enforcement. This anticipated lack of enforcement will create ambiguity for drivers regarding what the rules of the road actually are, and blur the line between what is lawful and unlawful. Without fear of enforcement, drivers will be less likely to bring their vehicles into compliance with registration requirements and traffic safety laws which, in turn, will make those regulations ineffectual and the roads less safe.

"Not only will SB 50 result in decreased enforcement, if law enforcement does choose to enforce via a mailed notice of violation, it will make it more difficult to hold offenders accountable. Claims that a citation was never received, and the number of warrants being issued for failing to appear, would be significant. Additionally, prohibiting detention would make it more difficult to gather evidence to substantiate the offense. Pursuant to Vehicle Code Section 40001, it is unlawful for the owner to cause or permit the operation of an offending vehicle to be driven on the highway. Without being able to identify the driver (to see if they are the owner), or to speak with the driver (to verify the owner authorized the use), the owner can simply deny that they permitted the operation of the vehicle. This, in turn, would make low level infractions more difficult to prove."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Potential revenue loss (General Fund, special funds, local funds) of an unknown but significant amount due to reduced enforcement of low-level infractions by law enforcement agencies. Infractions are punishable by fines and penalties, which are distributed to various state and local funds. If enforcement of the infractions affected by this bill significantly declines because officers may no longer stop motorists for individual violations, revenue from fines and penalties would also significantly decline. For example, in 2022, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) alone issued 153,700 citations for the vehicle registration infraction affected by this bill. The fine for one corrected expired registration violation results in about $18 in state special fund revenue and the fine for one uncorrected expired registration violation results in about $173 in state special fund revenue. If this bill results in 1,000 fewer registration violations issued, which would otherwise have been uncorrected but ultimately paid, the resulting special fund revenue loss would exceed $150,000.

Actual revenue loss will depend on the number of violations not enforced as a result of this bill. Revenue loss may be offset to the extent the infractions included in this bill are enforced in other ways instead of through traffic stops. If a peace officer observes a violation but does not have grounds to stop or detain the vehicle, the bill permits the officer's agency to mail a citation or warning letter to the owner of a vehicle. The bill also allows a local government to enforce nonmoving or equipment violations through employees who are not peace officers.

1. Costs (General Fund) to the DOJ of an unknown but potentially significant amount. DOJ reports that this bill impacts the department's mandatory Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA) data collection efforts. DOJ may need additional staffing in its Application Development Bureau and Justice Data and Investigative Services Bureau to update its databases, provide ongoing database maintenance and support, conduct outreach to law enforcement agencies, and review and refine incoming RIPA data.

VOTES

SENATE FLOOR: 22-11-7

YES: Allen, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Durazo, Eggman, Gonzalez, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Portantino, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener

NO: Alvarado-Gil, Dahle, Glazer, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Wilk

ABS, ABST OR NV: Archuleta, Dodd, Min, Newman, Padilla, Roth, Rubio

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 6-2-0

YES: Jones-Sawyer, Bonta, Bryan, Ortega, Santiago, Zbur

NO: Alanis, Lackey

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 10-5-1

YES: Holden, Bryan, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Papan, Pellerin, Weber, Wilson

NO: Megan Dahle, Dixon, Mathis, Sanchez, Soria

ABS, ABST OR NV: Calderon

UPDATED

VERSION: September 1, 2023

CONSULTANT: Andrew Ironside / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0001581

Date of Hearing: August 16, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Chris Holden, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 50

Author:(Bradford) – As Amended Ver:June 29, 2023

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

SUMMARY:

This bill prohibits a peace officer from stopping a driver or bicyclist for a low-level infraction unless there is a separate, independent basis for the stop or the officer observes more than one low-level infraction.

For the purposes of this prohibition a “low-level infraction” means, as specified:

1. A violation related to vehicle registration or vehicle equipment.
2. A violation related to the position or number of license plates.
3. A violation related to vehicle lighting equipment not illuminating.
4. A violation related to vehicle bumper equipment.
5. A violation related to bicycle equipment or operation.

This prohibition does not apply to violations relating to commercial vehicles. A violation of this prohibition is not grounds for a defendant to move for suppression of evidence or return of their property.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Potential revenue loss (General Fund, special funds, local funds) of an unknown but significant amount due to reduced enforcement of low-level infractions by law enforcement agencies. Infractions are punishable by fines and penalties, which are distributed to various state and local funds. If enforcement of the infractions affected by this bill significantly declines because officers may no longer stop motorists for individual violations, revenue from fines and penalties would also significantly decline. In 2022, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) alone issued about 251,000 citations for the infractions affected by this bill, 153,700 of which were for registration violations. The fine for one corrected expired registration violation results in about $18 in state special fund revenue and the fine for one uncorrected expired registration violation results in about $173 in state special fund revenue. If this bill results in 1,000 fewer registration violations issued, which would otherwise have been uncorrected but ultimately paid, the resulting special fund revenue loss would meet this committee’s suspense threshold.

Actual revenue loss will depend on the number of violations not enforced as a result of this bill. Revenue loss may be offset to the extent the infractions included in this bill are enforced in other ways instead of through traffic stops. If a peace officer observes a violation but does not have grounds to stop or detain the vehicle, the bill permits the officer’s agency to mail a citation or warning letter to the owner of a vehicle. The bill also allows a local government enforce the affected infractions through employees who are not peace officers.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

SB 50 will limit law enforcement’s ability to stop people for minor, non-safety-related traffic infractions, unless there is an independent, safety-related basis to initiate the stop. It will also provide technical clarification to ensure that localities can explore non-law enforcement approaches to traffic safety. In doing so, SB 50 will help protect Californians of color from unnecessary harms and help ensure that public dollars dedicated to community safety are used more effectively.

1. Background. A pretextual stop occurs when a peace officer uses a minor traffic violation as an excuse to stop a vehicle and further investigate the driver or vehicle without probable cause or reasonable suspicion of another crime. For example, an officer may use a driver’s expired vehicle registration as a pretext to pull the driver over so the officer can search the car for drugs, even if the officer has no facts to support their hunch that drugs may be in the car. Although police searches conducted without probable cause or reasonable suspicion of a crime are generally unconstitutional, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that temporary detention of a driver based on probable cause that they violated a traffic law does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even if a reasonable officer wouldn’t have stopped the driver for the violation alone. This ruling allowed pretextual stops to proliferate. Some research indicates that Black and Hispanic drivers are stopped and searched by law enforcement officers at a disproportionate rate, despite the fact that white drivers are actually more likely to be found with illegal items if searched.

This bill prohibits a peace officer from stopping or otherwise detaining a non-commercial driver or cyclist solely on the basis of one minor vehicle infraction. The infractions affected by this bill sometimes form the basis for pretextual stops. By prohibiting a peace officer from stopping a driver solely on the basis of a single, low-level infraction, this bill may avert some pretextual stops. It will likely also result in some loss of revenue due to reduced enforcement of these low-level infractions, which are generally punishable by a fine that is distributed to various state and local funds.

1. Related Legislation. AB 93 (Bryan) prohibits a peace officer from conducting a vehicle search based solely on a person’s consent. AB 93 failed passage on the Assembly floor.
2. Prior Legislation. SB 1359 (Hueso), Chapter 306, Statutes of 2022, prohibits issuing a citation for failure to display DMV registration tabs when the vehicle’s registration is current.

SB 1389 (Bradford), of the 2021-2022 Legislative Session, would have prohibited a peace officer from stopping a vehicle based solely on certain low-level infractions. SB 1389 was ordered to the Senate inactive file.

Analysis Prepared by: Annika Carlson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: July 11, 2023

Counsel: Andrew Ironside

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 50

Author:(Bradford) – As Amended Ver:June 29, 2023

SUMMARY: Prohibits peace officers from initiating a traffic stop for specified low-level infractions unless a separate, independent basis for a stop exists, and to authorize local authorities to enforce traffic violations through the use of non-sworn government employees. Specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits a peace officer from stopping or detaining the operator of a motor vehicle or a bicycle for a low-level infraction unless there is a separate independent basis to initiate the stop, or unless more than one low-level infraction is observed.
   
2. Defines “low-level infraction” as a Vehicle Code violation related to any of the following:
   
   1. Registration of a vehicle or vehicle equipment;
      
   2. Positioning or number of license plates when at least one plate is clearly displayed;
      
   3. Vehicle lighting equipment not illuminating, if the violation is limited to a single brake light, headlight, rear license plate, or running light, or a single bulb in a larger light of the same;
      
   4. Vehicle bumper equipment; or,
      
   5. Bicycle equipment or operation.
      
3. Provides that “low-level infraction” does not include violations relating to commercial vehicles.
   
4. Authorizes an officer’s agency, if an office does not have grounds to stop or detain the operator of a motor vehicle or bicycle and the officer can identify the owner of the vehicle, to mail a citation to the owner or send a warning letter identifying the violation and instructing the owner to correct the defect or otherwise remedy the violation.
   
5. Provides that a county, city, municipality, or any other local authority is not precluded from enforcing a violation provided in Vehicle Code through government employees who are not peace officers.
   
6. Clarifies that local authorities may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution regulating traffic by means of government employees, as well as traffic officers.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable seizures and searches may not be violated; and a warrant may not issue except on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons and things to be seized. (U.S. Const., amend. IV; Cal. Const., art. I, § 13.)
   
2. Requires each state and local agency that employs peace officers to annually report to the Attorney General data on all stops conducted by that agency’s peace officers for the preceding calendar year. (Gov. Code, § 12525.5, subd. (a)(1).)
   
3. Requires reports on stops submitted to the Attorney General to include, at a minimum, the following information:
   
   1. The time, date, and location of the stop;
      
   2. The reason for the stop;
      
   3. The result of the stop, such as: no action, warning, citation, arrest, etc.;
      
   4. If a warning or citation was issued, the warning provided or the violation cited;
      
   5. If an arrest was made, the offense charged;
      
   6. The perceived race or ethnicity, gender, and approximate age of the person stopped. For motor vehicle stops, this paragraph only applies to the driver unless the officer took actions with regard to the passenger; and,
      
   7. Actions taken by the peace officer, as specified. (Gov. Code, § 12525.5, subd. (b)(1)-(7).)
      
4. Provides that law enforcement agencies shall not report personal identifying information of the individuals stopped to the Attorney General, and that all other information in the reports, except for unique identifying information of the officer involved, shall be available to the public. (Gov. Code, § 12525.5, subd. (d).)
   
5. Defines “stop,” for the purposes of reports sent by law enforcement agencies to the Attorney General, as any detention by a peace officer of a person, or any peace officer interaction with a person in which the peace officer conducts a search, including a consensual search, of the person’s body or property in the person’s possession or control. (Gov. Code, § 12525.5, subd. (g)(2).)
   
6. Finds and declares that pedestrians, users of public transportation, and vehicular occupants who have been stopped, searched, interrogated, and subjected to a property seizure by a peace officer for no reason other than the color of their skin, national origin, religion, gender identity or expression, housing status, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability are the victims of discriminatory practices. (Pen. Code, § 13519.4, subd. (d)(4).)
   
7. Creates the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (RIPA), which, among other duties, is required to conduct and consult available, evidence-based research on intentional and implicit biases, and law enforcement stop, search, and seizure tactics. (Pen. Code, § 13519.4, subd. (j)(3)(D).)
   
8. Prohibits a peace officer from engaging in racial or identity profiling, as defined. (Pen. Code, § 13519.4, subds. (e) & (f).)
   
9. Provides that the provisions of the Vehicle Code are applicable and uniform throughout the state and in all counties and municipalities therein, and a local authority shall not enact or enforce any ordinance or resolution on matters covered by the Vehicle Code, as specified, unless expressly authorized by that code. (Veh. Code, § 21, subd. (a).)
   
10. Provides that a person shall not drive, move, or leave standing upon a highway, or in an off-street public parking facility, any motor vehicle unless it is registered with the DMV and the appropriate fees have been paid, with exceptions. (Veh. Code, § 4000).
    
11. Requires motorists to have their valid driver’s license in their immediate possession when driving a motor vehicle, and to present their license for examination upon demand of a peace officer. (Veh. Code, § 12951, subds. (a) & (b).)
    
12. Establishes various requirements regarding the equipment specifications and operation of bicycles, as well as related safety devices. (Veh. Code, §§ 21201 & 21212).
    
13. Establishes various requirements regarding the display of license plates and registration tabs and stickers. (Veh. Code, §§ 5200-5206).
    
14. Establishes various requirements regarding the functionality of vehicle lighting equipment. (Veh. Code, § 24250 et. seq.).
    
15. Requires every passenger vehicle registered in this state to be equipped with a front bumper and rear bumper. (Veh. Code, § 28701.)
    
16. Requires the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to include in the California Driver’s Handbook information regarding a person’s civil rights during a traffic stop. (Veh. Code, § 1653.6, subd. (a)(4).)
    
17. Makes it unlawful to willfully fail or refuse to comply with a lawful order, signal or direction of a uniformed peace officer or to refuse to submit to a lawful inspection pursuant to the Vehicle Code. (Veh. Code, § 2800, sudb. (a).)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “SB 50 will limit law enforcement’s ability to stop people for minor, non-safety-related traffic infractions, unless there is an independent, safety-related basis to initiate the stop. It will also provide technical clarification to ensure that localities can explore non-law enforcement approaches to traffic safety. In doing so, SB 50 will help protect Californians of color from unnecessary harms and help ensure that public dollars dedicated to community safety are used more effectively.”
   
2. Pretext Stops: The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides in part that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” The United States Supreme Court has held that temporary detention of individuals during the stop of an automobile by the police, even if only for a brief period and for a limited purpose, constitutes a ‘seizure’ of persons within the meaning of this provision. (See Delaware v. Prouse (1979) 440 U.S. 648, 653; United States v. Martinez Fuerte (1976) 428 U.S. 543, 556; United States v. Brignoni Ponce (1975) 422 U.S. 873, 878.) In Whren v. United States (1996) 517 U.S. 806, the Court further held that “the temporary detention of a motorist upon probable cause to believe that he has violated the traffic laws does not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable seizures, even if a reasonable officer would not have stopped the motorist absent some additional law enforcement objective.” (Id. at pp. , 809-819.) The Court’s decision in Whren has given rise to what have been dubbed “pretext stops,” a practice in which a law enforcement officer uses a minor traffic violation as a pretext to stop a vehicle in order to investigate other possible crimes.
   
   Officers stop drivers for low-level offenses such as tinted windows, broken taillights, license plates improperly affixed to vehicles, obstructed windshields or objects hanging from a rearview mirror. (See, e.g., Pen. Code § 26708(a)(2); People v. Colbert (2007) Cal.App.4th 1068, 1073 [a stop under § 26708(a)(2) is reasonable when the police officer “explicitly testifie[s] that the air freshener was ‘large enough to obstruct [the driver’s] view through the front windshield”]; People v. Guerra (2002) 2002 WL 31717061 [stopping a driver to see whether a neck chain hanging from a rearview mirror violated the Vehicle Code]; Baker & Bogel-Burroughs, How a Common Air Freshener Can Result in a High-Stakes Traffic Stop, N.Y. Times (Apr. 17, 2021) <https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/17/us/police-air-fresheners.html?referringSource=articleShare> [“prohibitions against objects hanging from rearview mirrors can extend to fuzzy dice, graduation tassels, and rosaries”].)
   
3. Racial Disparity in Traffic Stops: As mentioned above, much of the criticism of pretext stops has centered around their disparate impact on communities of color. In 2020, the Stanford Open Policing Project published an analysis of almost 100 million police traffic stops conducted between 2011 and 2017 by 21 state patrol agencies (including the California Highway Patrol) and 29 municipal police departments nationwide. One of the study’s central findings was that “police stopped and searched black and Hispanic drivers on the basis of less evidence used in stopping white drivers, who are searched less but are more likely to be found with illegal items.” (Pierson et. al, A large-scale analysis of racial disparities in police stops across the United States, Nature Human Behavior (July 2020) p. 743 <https://5harad.com/papers/100M-stops.pdf> [as of July 3, 2023].) Moreover, these stops based on routine traffic violations often turn violent. A 2021 New York Times investigation found that in the preceding 5 years, police officers had killed at least 400 unarmed drivers and passengers who were not under pursuit for a violent crime, while about 60 officers had died at the hands of motorists who had been pulled over. (Kirkpatrick et. al, Pulled Over: Why Many Police Traffic Stops Turn Deadly, The New York Times (Oct. 31, 2021) <https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/31/us/police-traffic-stops-killings.html> [as of July 3, 2023].)
   
   The Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA) of 2015, expressly prohibits racial and identity profiling by law enforcement and requires law enforcement agencies to report vehicle stop data to the DOJ. A 2022 analysis conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California of RIPA stop data collected in 2019 California found the following:

[Our] research finds that Black Californians are more than twice as likely to be searched as white Californians, but searches of Black Californians are somewhat less likely to yield contraband or evidence. […] Black Californians are markedly overrepresented in traffic stops […] and white drivers are somewhat underrepresented. […]

The likelihood of being searched during a traffic stop varies across race and ethnicity as well as across agency type. Black drivers stopped by local police and sheriff departments are searched in 20 percent of traffic stops, while the search rates for Latino and white drivers are 13 percent and 6 percent, respectively. […] While roughly one in ten white drivers stopped by local law enforcement in the late evening are searched for contraband or evidence, about one in four Black drivers and one in five Latino drivers are searched. […] The higher search rates of Latino and Black drivers in traffic stops made by local law enforcement are not associated with higher rates of discovery of contraband or evidence.

(Lofstrom et. al, Racial Disparities in Law Enforcement Stops, Public Policy Institute of California (Oct. 2022) <https://www.ppic.org/publication/racial-disparities-in-traffic-stops/”> [as of June 26, 2023].)

In January, 2023, the RIPA Board released its sixth annual stop data report of data collected in the 2021 calendar year, which showed that the most commonly reported reason for a stop (86.8%) across all racial/ethnic groups was a traffic violation, and that individuals perceived as Black or Hispanic comprised nearly 58% of the stops reported (against a total population share of 42%), while just under 31% of the stops involved individuals perceived as white (against a total population share of 35%). Additionally, the report found that officers used force against people perceived as Black at 2.2 times the rate of individuals perceived as white. (See RIPA Board, Annual Report 2022 <https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/ripa-board-report-2022.pdf> [as of July 3, 2023]; Press Release, California Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Releases Report on 2021 Police Stop Data, DOJ (Jan. 3, 2023) <https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/california-racial-and-identity-profiling-advisory-board-releases-report-2021> [as of July 3, 2023].)

1. Recent Reforms and Policy Recommendations: In recent years, several local jurisdictions have advanced reforms related to traffic stops. For instance, in 2018, the Oakland Police Department, long criticized for using traffic violations to stop and search people of color, instituted a policy of declining to initiate traffic stops for low-level infractions. Although the racial breakdown of traffic stops in the first year of the policy resembled that from the year prior, the number of traffic stops involving Black individuals decreased by over eight thousand, representing a 43% drop. (Swan, To curb racial bias, Oakland police are pulling fewer people over. Will it work?, S.F. Chronicle (Nov. 15, 2019) <https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/To-curb-racial-bias-Oakland-police-are-pulling-14839567.php> [as of July 3, 2023].) In nearby Berkeley, the city council in 2020 proposed the creation of a new Berkeley Department of Transportation, which would assume responsibility for the city’s traffic enforcement from the police department. (Raguso, Plans firm up to remove police from traffic stops, but it’s a long road ahead, Berkeleyside, (May 25, 2021) <https://www.berkeleyside.org/2021/05/25/berkeley-department-of-transportation-civilian-traffic-enforcement> [as of June 26, 2023].)
   
   In early March 2022, the Los Angeles Police Department enacted a policy to limit the use, duration and scope of pretext stops conducted by its officers. The policy allows officers to make stops for minor equipment violations or other infractions only when the officer believes that such a violation significantly interferes with public safety, and requires officers to state the public safety reason for such stops on their body-worn cameras. The policy also prohibits pretext stops unless officers are acting upon articulable information in addition to the traffic violation, which may or may not amount to reasonable suspicion, regarding other specified crimes, such as a serious or violent crime, reckless driving, burglary, and others. (Special Order #3, March 9, 2022, LAPD, <https://lapdonlinestrgeacc.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/lapdonlinemedia/2022/03/3_9_22_SO_No._3_Policy_Limitation_on_Use_of_Pretextual_Stops_Established.pdf> [as of June 26, 26, 2023].)
   
   In addition to publishing compiled stop data, the RIPA board suggests best practices and provides recommendations to law enforcement agencies and policymakers. Regarding pretextual stops, the RIPA board, in its most recent report, recommended that the Legislature and local law enforcement should examine approaches to:
   

• Eliminating all pretextual stops and subsequent searches and ensure that a stop or search is based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause;
• Identifying and taking action to limit enforcement of traffic laws and minor offenses that pose a low public safety risk and show significant disparities in the rate of enforcement; and,
• Limiting armed responses to traffic enforcement by allowing for stops only if there is a concern for public safety, and consider amending the Vehicle Code to more broadly move traffic enforcement out of law enforcement’s purview (i.e. to a civilian traffic unit).

(RIPA Board, Annual Report 2022 (Jan. 3, 2023) <https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/2023-ripa-report-best-practices.pdf)> [as of July 3, 2023].)

In December 2022, the Committee on the Revision of the Penal Code (CRPC) released its annual report, issuing a series of recommendations spanning various topics in criminal law. One recommendation urged the Legislature to “prohibit police officers from stopping people for technical, non-safety-related traffic offenses, including at a minimum offenses related to vehicle or equipment registration, position or number of license plates, lighting equipment, window tints or obstructions, and bicycle equipment and operation.” (Committee on the Revision of the Penal Code, 2022 Annual Report and Recommendations (Dec. 2022) p. 27 <http://www.clrc.ca.gov/CRPC/Pub/Reports/CRPC_AR2022.pdf> [as of July 3, 2023].)

This bill would implement recommendations from both the CRPC and the RIPA board described above.

1. Effect of This Bill: The California Vehicle Code establishes roughly 1,000 infractions related to a wide array of conduct and vehicle types. (Published by Contra Costa County Superior Court, Traffic Infraction Fixed Penalty Schedule <https://www.cc-courts.org/fees/docs/2015BailSchedules_Traffic.pdf> [as of July 3, 2023].) This bill would prohibit officers from initiating a vehicle stop for a “low-level infraction,” unless there is a separate, independent basis for the stop, or unless there is more than one low level infraction. This bill would define “low-level infraction” as any violation related to vehicle registration or vehicle equipment, the position or number of license plates, vehicle lighting not illuminating if it is a single light or single bulb, bumper equipment and bicycle equipment or operation. Thus, while the bill does limit the permissible bases for a traffic stop to some degree, there are still hundreds of traffic violations for which an officer could initiate a stop, even as a pretext to investigate other potential crimes. For violations where an officer does not have grounds to stop or detain a motorist or bicyclist, and the officer can identify the owner of the vehicle, this bill would allow the officer to send a citation or fix-it ticket to the motorists home address.
   
   In addition to the traffic-stop-related provisions described above, this bill clarifies that a city, county or other local authority may enforce Vehicle Code violations through the use of government employees who are not sworn peace officers. This change provides firmer legal footing to Berkeley and other local jurisdictions seeking to transfer traffic enforcement responsibility from armed police to unarmed civilians. That is, where such jurisdictions may currently perceive a high risk that such local reforms would be preempted by existing state law, this bill expressly states that such local reforms are not prohibited by the relevant provisions of the Vehicle Code.
   
2. Argument in Support: According to the Prosecutors Alliance of California, one of the bill’s sponsors, “Law enforcement use minor vehicle equipment and administrative issues—such as a broken taillight, driving without valid registration, or incorrectly displaying a license plate—to conduct an otherwise illegitimate stop and investigation, commonly referred to as a “pretext stop.” The Racial and Identify Profiling Board reports that Black, Latinx, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander Californians are more likely to be subject to pretextual stops than their white counterparts, even though stops of people of color are less likely to result in the discovery of evidence or criminal prosecution then stops of white people. Pretextual stops inflict devastating harm on Californians of color—including dehumanization, economic extraction through fees and fines, physical violence through uses of force, and devaluation of life.
   
   “These practices have also failed to meaningfully improve safety. A 2022 study found that Sheriff’s deputies in Los Angeles and Riverside counties spent nearly 9 out of every 10 hours on stops initiated by officers rather than responding to calls for help. Amongst those officer-initiated stops, approximately 80 percent were for traffic violations.
   
   “SB 50 will implement the recommendations of the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code and the Racial and Identity Profiling Board, limiting police power to stop people for minor, technical violations of the Vehicle Code. SB 50 will also ensure that communities that wish to move forward with alternative enforcement strategies for traffic laws have the legal authority to do so. SB 50 is a long over due reform to address the harms of racial profiling and promote equal treatment under law.”
   
3. Argument in Opposition: According to the California District Attorneys Association, “This bill prohibits peace officers from detaining the operator of a motor vehicle or bicycle for a low-level infraction unless a separate independent basis for the stop exists. Doing so jeopardizes public safety, undermines the rule of law, and reduces accountability for low level infractions.
   
   “Most importantly, this bill’s prohibition on detaining drivers for low level infractions deprives peace officers of a very effective investigative tool that is often used by law enforcement to gather information needed in an ongoing criminal investigation, apprehend a suspect who is wanted for having committed an unrelated criminal violation, or to investigate an unrelated offense.
   
   “Consider the political terrorist who paid individuals to shoot up the homes his political opponents. The plot was only uncovered after a vehicle stop for an expired registration revealed the driver had an active felony warrant. A search of the vehicle revealed 800 fentanyl tablets which lead to a phone with texts detailing the location of the victims and a gun that was ballistically linked to the shootings. [citation omitted]
   
   “Pretextual stops are also employed by peace officers to investigate the transportation for sale of fentanyl. Information alerting law enforcement to controlled substances in vehicles oftentimes come from confidential sources who law enforcement need to protect. The source of information will be ‘walled’ off from peace officers who will only be told that if a vehicle violates a traffic infraction, pull the vehicle over and investigate for drugs and guns. The traffic infraction is a ‘pretext’ to investigate another crime without jeopardizing the confidential informant’s safety. This technique is used routinely and effectively. Recently in San Diego, for example, a broken taillight on a boat trailer yielded 20,000 fentanyl pills and 1000 pounds of methamphetamine. That stop and others like it would not be permitted if SB 50 became law.
   
   “Research has found that increased traffic enforcement is associated with decreases in traffic crashes and injuries from accidents.   Jordan B. Woods, Traffic Without the Police, 73 Stanford Law Review 1471, 1536 (2021). The low-level infractions defined by SB 50 are, in fact, designed to enhance public safety and notify drivers that their vehicles are out of compliance with traffic safety laws. Pursuant to SB 50, a low-level infraction includes violations related to: 1) vehicle registration requirements; 2) the positioning or number of license plates; 3) vehicle lighting equipment; 4) vehicle bumper requirements; and 5) bicycle equipment or operation. Simply put, a broken headlight, brake light, or windshield obstruction is a driving hazard and can be the cause of an accident. A missing bumper could be the reason that a non-lethal accident becomes fatal.
   
   “Prohibiting a peace officer from detaining and notifying a driver of a hazardous condition ensures that the unsafe vehicle will be driving on the road for a longer time before it is brought into compliance. Mailing the owner of the vehicle a notice of violation, as SB 50 contemplates, does not address the violation with the urgency that is warranted when public safety is at issue.
   
   “Moreover, mailing the owner of the vehicle a notice of the violation creates an additional burden for law enforcement that will likely result in decreased enforcement. This anticipated lack of enforcement will create ambiguity for drivers regarding what the rules of the road actually are, and blur the line between what is lawful and unlawful. Without fear of enforcement, drivers will be less likely to bring their vehicles into compliance with registration requirements and traffic safety laws which, in turn, will make those regulations ineffectual and the roads less safe.
   
   “Not only will SB 50 result in decreased enforcement, if law enforcement does choose to enforce via a mailed notice of violation, it will make it more difficult to hold offenders accountable. Claims that a citation was never received, and the number of warrants being issued for failing to appear, would be significant. Additionally, prohibiting detention would make it more difficult to gather evidence to substantiate the offense. Pursuant to Vehicle Code § 40001, it is unlawful for the owner to cause or permit the operation of an offending vehicle to be driven on the highway. Without being able to identify the driver (to see if they are the owner), or to speak with the driver (to verify the owner authorized the use), the owner can simply deny that they permitted the operation of the vehicle. This, in turn, would make low level infractions more difficult to prove.”
   
4. Related Legislation: AB 93 (Bryan), would prohibit peace officers from conducting searches of a vehicle, person or their effects based solely on a person’s consent, and specifies that consent to conduct a search is not a lawful justification for a search. AB 93 failed passage on the Assembly Floor.
   
5. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. SB 1389 (Bradford), of the 2021-2022 Legislative Session, was substantially similar to this bill. SB 1389 (Bradford, 2022), died on the Senate floor inactive file.
      
   2. AB 2537 (Gipson), Chapter 332, Statutes of 2022, requires driver education courses to include a video on proper conduct by peace officers and individuals during a traffic stop.
      
   3. AB 2773 (Holden), Chapter 805, Statutes of 2022, requires a peace officer making a traffic or pedestrian stop to state the reason for the stop before asking any questions.
      
   4. AB 2918 (Holden), Chapter 723, Statutes of 2018, requires the DMV to include within its Handbook a section on a person’s civil rights during a traffic stop.
      
   5. AB 2133 (Torrico), of the 2005-2006 Legislative Session, would have prohibited consent searches in connection with traffic stops. AB 2133 was not heard in this Committee at the request of the author.
      

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Faculty Association (Co-Sponsor)
Aapi Equity Alliance
ACLU California Action
Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus
Berkeley; City of
California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice
California Association of Local Conservation Corps
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Federation of Teachers Afl-cio
California for Safety and Justice
California Immigrant Policy Center
California Native Vote Project
California Public Defenders Association
California Public Defenders Association (CPDA)
California-hawaii State Conference of The NAACP
Californians for Safety and Justice
Californians United for A Responsible Budget
Center for Policing Equity
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
Charles Houston Bar Association
Children's Defense Fund - CA
Church State Council
City of Berkeley
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA)
Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice (CURYJ)
Consumers for Auto Reliability & Safety
County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors
County of Sonoma
Democrats of Rossmoor
Disability Rights California
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Empowering Pacific Islander Communities (EPIC) Fiscally Sponsored by Community Partners
Equality California
Fair Chance Project
Fresh Lifelines for Youth
Fresno Barrios Unidos
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Indivisible CA Statestrong
Indivisible Yolo
Initiate Justice (UNREG)
Initiate Justice Action
LA Defensa
Law Enforcement Action Partnership
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of The San Francisco Bay Area
League of Women Voters of California
Legal Services for Prisoners With Children
Los Angeles County
National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter
Norcal Resist
Oakland Privacy
Pacific Juvenile Defender Center
Peace and Freedom Party of California
People for The American Way
Policylink (UNREG)
Prosecutors Alliance California
San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR)
San Francisco Public Defender
Secure Justice
Seiu California
Showing Up for Racial Justice North County San Diego
Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition
Smart Justice California
State of California Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board
Streets are For Everyone (SAFE)
Team Justice
Techequity Collaborative
University of San Francisco School of Law | Racial Justice Clinic
Voices for Progress
Voices for Progress Education Fund
Walk Bike Berkeley

Opposition

Arcadia Police Officers' Association
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS)
Burbank Police Officers' Association
California Association of Highway Patrolmen
California Coalition of School Safety Professionals
California Contract Cities Association
California District Attorneys Association
California Peace Officers Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
Claremont Police Officers Association
Corona Police Officers Association
Culver City Police Officers' Association
Deputy Sheriffs' Association of Monterey County
Fullerton Police Officers' Association
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Los Angeles School Police Officers Association
Monterey County District Attorney's Office - ODA - Salinas, CA
Murrieta Police Officers' Association
Newport Beach Police Association
Orange County Sheriff's Department
Palos Verdes Police Officers Association
Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC)
Placer County Deputy Sheriffs' Assocation
Pomona Police Officers' Association
Riverside County Sheriff's Office
Riverside Police Officers Association
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department
San Diegans Against Crime
San Diego Deputy District Attorneys Association
Santa Ana Police Officers Association
Upland Police Officers Association
Visalia; City of

Analysis Prepared by: Andrew Ironside / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744

THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 50

Author: Bradford (D), et al.

Amended: 5/18/23

Vote: 21

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 4-1, 3/28/23

AYES: Wahab, Bradford, Skinner, Wiener

NOES: Ochoa Bogh

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 5/18/23

AYES: Portantino, Ashby, Bradford, Wahab, Wiener

NOES: Jones, Seyarto

SUBJECT: Vehicles: enforcement

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill prohibits peace officers from initiating a traffic stop for specified low-level infractions unless a separate, independent basis for a stop exists, and to authorize local authorities to enforce traffic violations through the use of non-sworn government employees.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable seizures and searches may not be violated; and a warrant may not issue except on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons and things to be seized. (U.S. Const., amend. IV.; Cal. Const., art I, § 13.)
2. Requires each state and local agency that employs peace officers to annually report to the Attorney General data on all stops conducted by that agency’s peace officers for the preceding calendar year. (Government Code §12525.5(a)(1).)
3. Requires reports on stops submitted to the Attorney General to include, at a minimum, the following information:
   1. The time, date, and location of the stop.
   2. The reason for the stop.
   3. The result of the stop, such as: no action, warning, citation, arrest, etc.
   4. If a warning or citation was issued, the warning provided or the violation cited.
   5. If an arrest was made, the offense charged.
   6. The perceived race or ethnicity, gender, and approximate age of the person stopped. For motor vehicle stops, this paragraph only applies to the driver unless the officer took actions with regard to the passenger.
   7. Actions taken by the peace officer, as specified. (Government Code §12525.5(b)(1)-(7).)
4. Provides that law enforcement agencies shall not report personal identifying information of the individuals stopped to the Attorney General, and that all other information in the reports, except for unique identifying information of the officer involved, shall be available to the public. (Government Code §12525.5(d).)
5. Defines “stop,” for the purposes of reports sent by law enforcement agencies to the Attorney General, as ‘any detention by a peace officer of a person, or any peace officer interaction with a person in which the peace officer conducts a search, including a consensual search, of the person’s body or property in the person’s possession or control.’ (Government Code §12525.5(g)(2).)
6. Finds and declares that pedestrians, users of public transportation, and vehicular occupants who have been stopped, searched, interrogated, and subjected to a property seizure by a peace officer for no reason other than the color of their skin, national origin, religion, gender identity or expression, housing status, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability are the victims of discriminatory practices (Penal Code §13519.4(d)(4).)
7. Creates the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (RIPA), which, among other duties, is required to conduct and consult available, evidence-based research on intentional and implicit biases, and law enforcement stop, search, and seizure tactics. (Penal Code §13519.4(j)(3)(D).)
8. Prohibits a peace officer from engaging in racial or identity profiling, as defined. (Penal Code §13519.4(e),(f).)
9. Provides that the provisions of the Vehicle Code are applicable and uniform throughout the state and in all counties and municipalities therein, and a local authority shall not enact or enforce any ordinance or resolution on matters covered by the Vehicle Code, as specified, unless expressly authorized by that code. (Vehicle Code §21(a).)
10. Provides that local authorities may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution regarding regulating traffic by means of traffic officers, and sets forth the scope of local authority with regard to establishing and enforcing other traffic related regulations. (Vehicle Code §21100(c), (o).)
11. Provides that a person shall not drive, move, or leave standing upon a highway, or in an off-street public parking facility, any motor vehicle unless it is registered with the DMV and the appropriate fees have been paid, with exceptions. (Vehicle Code §4000).
12. Requires motorists to have their valid driver’s license in their immediate possession when driving a motor vehicle, and to present their license for examination upon demand of a peace officer. (Vehicle Code §12951(a),(b).)
13. Establishes various requirements regarding the equipment specifications and operation of bicycles, as well as related safety devices. (Vehicle Code §§21201, 21212).
14. Establishes various requirements regarding the display of license plates and registration tabs and stickers (Vehicle Code §§5200-5206).
15. Establishes various requirements regarding the functionality of vehicle lighting equipment. (Vehicle Code §§24250 et. seq.).
16. Establishes various requirements regarding vehicle windshields and mirrors. (Vehicle Code §§26700-26712.)
17. Requires every passenger vehicle registered in this state to be equipped with a front bumper and rear bumper. (Vehicle Code §28701.)
18. Requires the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to include in the California Driver’s Handbook information regarding a person’s civil rights during a traffic stop. (Vehicle Code §1653.6(a)(4).)
19. Makes it unlawful to willfully fail or refuse to comply with a lawful order, signal or direction of a uniformed peace officer or to refuse to submit to a lawful inspection pursuant to the Vehicle Code. (Vehicle Code §2800(a).)

This bill:

1. Provides that notwithstanding any other law, a peace officer shall not stop or detain the operator of a motor vehicle or bicycle for a low-level infraction.
2. Defines “low-level infraction” as any of the following:
   1. A violation related to the registration of a vehicle or vehicle equipment, as specified.
   2. A violation related to the positioning or number of license plates when at least one plate is clearly displayed, as specified.
   3. A violation related to vehicle lighting equipment not illuminating, if the violation is limited to a single brake light, headlight, rear license plate, or running light, or a single bulb in a larger light of the same, as specified.
   4. A violation related to vehicle bumper equipment, as specified.
   5. A violation related to bicycle equipment or operation, as specified.
3. Specifies that “low-level infraction” does not include violations relating to commercial vehicles.
4. Provides that if an officer does not have grounds to stop or detain the operator of a motor vehicle or bicycle, and the officer can identify the owner of the vehicle, the officer’s agency may, mail a citation to the owner, or send a warning letter identifying the violation and instructing the owner to correct the defect or otherwise remedy the violation.
5. Specifies that existing law does not preclude a county, city, municipality or any other local authority from enforcing a violation provided in the Vehicle Code through government employees who are not peace officers.
6. Specifies that local authorities may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution regarding regulating traffic by means of traffic officers or other government employees.

Comments

According to the author, “SB 50 will limit law enforcement’s ability to stop people for minor, non-safety-related traffic infractions, unless there is an independent, safety-related basis to initiate the stop. It will also provide technical clarification to ensure that localities can explore non-law enforcement approaches to traffic safety. In doing so, SB 50 will help protect Californians of color from unnecessary harms and help ensure that public dollars dedicated to community safety are used more effectively.

“Research shows that pretext stops do not significantly benefit public safety, yet use valuable resources that could be directed to more effective public safety approaches. A 2022 study by Catalyst California and ACLU SoCal found that instead of addressing community concerns about serious crime, Sheriff’s deputies in Los Angeles and Riverside counties spent nearly 9 out of every 10 hours on stops initiated by officers rather than responding to calls for help. SB 50 builds on recommendations from the CA Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board and the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code to limit enforcement of minor traffic offenses that pose little to no risk to public safety and result in racially biased harms.”

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides in part that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” The United States Supreme Court has held that temporary detention of individuals during the stop of an automobile by the police, even if only for a brief period and for a limited purpose, constitutes a ‘seizure’ of persons within the meaning of this provision. In Whren v. United States, decided in 1996, the Court further held that “the temporary detention of a motorist upon probable cause to believe that he has violated the traffic laws does not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable seizures, even if a reasonable officer would not have stopped the motorist absent some additional law enforcement objective.” The Court’s decision in Whren has given rise to what have been dubbed “pretext stops,” a practice in which a law enforcement officer uses a minor traffic violation as a pretext to stop a vehicle in order to investigate other possible crimes. Given the litany of possible traffic violations, especially in California, the use of pretext stops as an investigative tool has become widespread since the decision in Whren.

As use of pretext stops has increased, so too has criticism of the practice. Many argue that pretext stops are a driver of racial bias in law enforcement (discussed further below), while others claim that they subvert the spirit, if not the letter, of the Fourth Amendment by giving officers carte blanche to stop a vehicle. Critics also point to the difficulty in contesting a pretext stop in court. That is, if an officer stops a driver based on an observed traffic violation – of which there are dozens – the driver bears the burden of producing evidence to refute the officer’s testimony, that, for instance, the license plate was obscured or a taillight was not properly illuminated on a specific date and time. All of these issues, critics argue, lead to disparate outcomes, primarily based on race, and undermine police legitimacy in the eyes of the communities they serve.

The California Vehicle Code establishes roughly 1,000 infractions related to a wide array of conduct and vehicle types. This bill prohibits officers from initiating a vehicle stop for a “low-level infraction,” unless there is a separate, independent basis for the stop. The bill defines “low-level infraction” as any violation related to vehicle registration or vehicle equipment, the position or number of license plates, vehicle lighting not illuminating if it is a single light or single bulb, window tints or obstructions, bumper equipment and bicycle equipment or operation. Thus, while the bill does limit the permissible bases for a traffic stop to some degree, there are still hundreds of traffic violations for which an officer could initiate a stop, even as a pretext to investigate other potential crimes. For violations where an officer does not have grounds to stop or detain a motorist or bicyclist, and the officer can identify the owner of the vehicle, the bill allows the officer to send a citation or fix-it ticket to the motorists home address.

In addition to the traffic stop-related provisions described above, this bill clarifies that a city, county or other local authority may enforce Vehicle Code violations through the use of government employees who are not sworn peace officers. This change provides firmer legal footing to Berkeley and other local jurisdictions seeking to transfer traffic enforcement responsibility from armed police to unarmed civilians. That is, where such jurisdictions may currently perceive a high risk that such local reforms would be preempted by existing state law, this bill expressly states that such local reforms are not prohibited by the relevant provisions of the Vehicle Code, thereby mitigating that risk.

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

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, unknown, potentially-significant reduction in revenue to various funds resulting from fewer citations being issued (General Fund, Special Funds, Local Funds).

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/12/23)

AAPI Equity Alliance

ACLU California Action

Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Asian Law Caucus

California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice

California Association of Local Conservation Corps

California Faculty Association

California Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO

California Immigrant Policy Center

California Native Vote Project

California Public Defenders Association

California-Hawaii Conference of the NAACP

Californians for Safety and Justice

Californians United for a Responsible Budget

Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice

Charles Houston Bar Association

Children’s Defense Fund California

Church State Council

City of Berkeley

Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights

Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice

Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety

County of Sonoma

Democrats of Rossmoor

Disability Rights California

Ella Baker Center for Human Rights

Empowering Pacific Islander Communities

Fresh Lifelines for Youth

Fresno Barrios Unidos

Indivisible CA Statestrong

Indivisible Yolo

Initiate Justice

Initiate Justice Action

LA Defensa

Law Enforcement Action Partnership

Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area

League of Women Voters of California

Legal Services for Prisoners with Children

Los Angeles County

National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter

Oakland Privacy

Pacific Juvenile Defender Center

Peace and Freedom Party of California

People for the American Way

PolicyLink

Prosecutors Alliance California

San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association

San Francisco Public Defender

Secure Justice

SEIU California

Showing Up for Racial Justice North County San Diego

Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition

Smart Justice California

State of California Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board

Streets Are For Everyone

Team Justice

Techequity Collaborative

University of San Francisco School of Law Racial Justice Clinic

Voices for Progress

Walk Bike Berkeley

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/12/23)

Arcadia Police Officers’ Association

Burbank Police Officers’ Association

California Association of Highway Patrolmen

California Coalition of School Safety Professionals

California Contract Cities Association

California District Attorneys Association

California State Sheriffs’ Association

California Peace Officers Association

California Police Chiefs Association

City of Visalia

Claremont Police Officers Association

Corona Police Officers Association

Culver City Police Officers’ Association

Deputy Sheriffs’ Association of Monterey County

Fullerton Police Officers’ Association

Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association

Los Angeles School Police Officers Association

Los Angeles Police Protective League

Murrieta Police Officers’ Association

Newport Beach Police Association

Orange County Sheriff’s Department

Palos Verdes Police Officers Association

Peace Officers Research Association of California

Placer County Deputy Sheriffs Association

Pomona Police Officers’ Association

Riverside Police Officers Association

Riverside Sheriffs’ Association

San Bernardino County Sheriffs Department

San Diego Deputy District Attorneys Association

San Diegans Against Crime

Santa Ana Police Officers Association

Upland Police Officers Association

Prepared by: Alex Barnett / PUB. S. /

5/23/23 11:04:14

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

SB 50 (Bradford) - Vehicles: enforcement

Bill Summary:

SB 50 would prohibit peace officers from initiating a traffic stop for specified low-level infractions unless a separate, independent basis for a stop exists.

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on May 18, 2023

Fiscal Impact:

Unknown, potentially-significant reduction in revenue to various funds resulting from fewer citations being issued (General Fund, Special Funds, Local Funds).

Committee Amendments:

Delete the provision that would prohibit traffic stops for violations of the vehicle code relating to window tints and obstructions.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

SB 50 (Bradford) - Vehicles: enforcement

Bill Summary:

SB 50 would prohibit peace officers from initiating a traffic stop for specified low-level infractions unless a separate, independent basis for a stop exists.

Fiscal Impact:

• Unknown, potentially-significant reduction in revenue to various funds resulting from fewer citations being issued (General Fund, Special Funds, Local Funds). See Staff Comments for additional details.
• Possible reduction in revenue in Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-24 due to delayed enforcement of vehicle registration violations (Special Fund, Motor Vehicle Account). Short-term loss of revenue is likely to be recouped in FY 2024-25.

Background:

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides in part that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” The United States Supreme Court has held that temporary detention of individuals during the stop of an automobile by the police, even if only for a brief period and for a limited purpose, constitutes a ‘seizure’ of persons within the meaning of this provision. In Whren v. United States, decided in 1996, the Court further held that “the temporary detention of a motorist upon probable cause to believe that he has violated the traffic laws does not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable seizures, even if a reasonable officer would not have stopped the motorist absent some additional law enforcement objective.” The Court’s decision in Whren has given rise to what have been dubbed “pretext stops,” a practice in which a law enforcement officer uses a minor traffic violation as a pretext to stop a vehicle in order to investigate other possible crimes. Given the litany of possible traffic violations, especially in California, the use of pretext stops as an investigative tool has become widespread since the decision in Whren.

As use of pretext stops has increased, so too has criticism of the practice. Many argue that pretext stops are a driver of racial bias in law enforcement (discussed further below), while others claim that they subvert the spirit of the Fourth Amendment by giving officers carte blanche to stop a vehicle. In 2015, the Legislature passed AB 953 (Weber, Ch. 466, Stats. of 2015), also known as the Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA) of 2015, which expressly prohibited racial and identity profiling by law enforcement and requires law enforcement agencies to report vehicle stop data to the DOJ. In January, 2023, the RIPA Board released its sixth annual stop data report of data collected in the 2021 calendar year, which showed that the most commonly reported reason for a stop (86.8%) across all racial/ethnic groups was a traffic violation, and that individuals perceived as Black or Hispanic comprised nearly 58% of the stops reported (against a total population share of 42%), while just under 31% of the stops involved individuals perceived as white (against a total population share of 35%). Additionally, the report found that officers used force against people perceived as Black at 2.2 times the rate of individuals perceived as white.

This bill prohibits officers from initiating a vehicle stop for a low-level infraction, unless there is a separate, independent basis for the stop. The bill defines low-level infraction for purposes of the bill. The bill would also specify that local governments are not precluded from enforcing low-level infractions with government employees who are not peace officers.

Proposed Law:

• Provides that notwithstanding any other law, a peace officer shall not stop or detain the operator of a motor vehicle or bicycle for a low-level infraction.
• Defines “low-level infraction” as any of the following:
  • A violation related to the registration of a vehicle or vehicle equipment, as specified.
  • A violation related to the positioning or number of license plates when at least one plate is clearly displayed, as specified.
  • A violation related to vehicle lighting equipment not illuminating, if the violation is limited to a single brake light, headlight, or running light, or a single bulb in a larger light of the same, as specified.
  • A violation related to window tints or obstructions, as specified.
  • A violation related to vehicle bumper equipment, as specified.
  • A violation related to bicycle equipment or operation, as specified.
• Specifies that “low-level infraction” does not include violations relating to commercial vehicles.
• Provides that if an officer does not have grounds to stop or detain the operator of a motor vehicle or bicycle, and the officer can identify the owner of the vehicle, the officer’s agency may, mail a citation to the owner, or send a warning letter identifying the violation and instructing the owner to correct the defect or otherwise remedy the violation.
• Specifies that existing law does not preclude a county, city, municipality or any other local authority from enforcing a violation provided in the Vehicle Code through government employees who are not peace officers.
• Specifies that local authorities may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution regarding regulating traffic by means of traffic officers or other government employees.

Related Legislation:

• AB 93 (Bryan) would prohibit peace officers from conducting searches of a vehicle, person or their effects based solely on a person’s consent. AB 93 is pending on the Assembly Floor.
• SB 1389 (Bradford, 2022) was similar to this bill in that it would have bill prohibits a peace officer from initiating a traffic stop for a low-level infraction, as defined, unless there is a separate, independent basis to initiate the traffic stop. SB 1389 was ordered to the inactive file on the Senate Floor.
• SB 1359 (Hueso) Ch. 306, Stats. of 2022, required law enforcement to confirm that a vehicle does not have current Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) registration before issuing a citation for failure to display registration tabs, and prohibited the issuance of a citation for failure to display registration tabs when the vehicle’s registration is current.

Staff Comments:

When someone is stopped for one of the traffic infraction offenses enumerated in this bill, they are issued a citation. There is a typically an opportunity to correct that citation, which would require a relatively modest payment. If the citation goes uncorrected, however, the penalty goes up dramatically. For example, the infraction offense of driving a vehicle without current registration (Vehicle Code § 4000), carries a fine of $25. Upon collection, that $25 is divided between the State Court Facilities Fund ($15.00), the State Penalty Fund ($3.40), and the local county and/or city general fund ($6.60). When a violation of that section goes uncorrected, the penalty is ratcheted up to $285. Various additional funds are included in the distribution of those $285, including the General Fund, the Trial Court Trust Fund, the DNA Identification Fund, and others.

It is unclear how many citations would go unissued as a result of this bill that otherwise would have resulted in citations and revenue to the various funds described above. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) reports that it alone issued over 300,000 citations for the traffic code violations specified in this bill in 2022. A single expired registration violation that goes uncorrected results in approximately $173 in state special fund revenue. Therefore, if law enforcement, including CHP and local police and sheriff departments, issued 868 fewer citations as a result of this bill, and assuming for the moment that each of those citations was not corrected, SB 1389 would meet the suspense threshold. Assuming every citation would be corrected, it would take a reduction of approximately 8,300 citations to meet the suspense threshold. Staff notes that the loss of revenue to the State may be partially offset to the extent law enforcement is able to successfully identify the motorist and send a citation to their home address that results in collection. Additionally, to the extent local governments are able to establishment enforcement of Vehicle Code violations through government employees who are not peace officers, there may be some offset of revenue loss.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Aisha Wahab, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: SB 50 Hearing Date: March 28, 2023

Subject: Vehicles: enforcement

HISTORY

Source: Author

Prior Legislation: SB 1389 (Bradford, 2022), died on Senate inactive file

AB 2773 (Holden, 2022), Ch. 805, Stats. of 2022

AB 953 (Weber, 2015) Ch. 466, Stats. of 2015

AB 2133 (Torrico, 2006), not heard in Assembly Public Safety

SB 1389 (Murray, 2000), held in Senate Appropriations

Support: AAPI Equity Alliance; ACLU California Action; Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Asian Law Caucus; California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice; California Faculty Association; California Immigrant Policy Center; California Native Vote Project; California Public Defenders Association; Californians for Safety and Justice; Californians United for a Responsible Budget; Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice; Charles Houston Bar Association; Church State Council; City of Berkeley; Church State Council; Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights; Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice (CURYJ); Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety; Democrats of Rossmoor; Disability Rights California; Ella Baker Center for Human Rights; Empowering Pacific Islander Communities (EPIC); Fresh Lifelines for Youth; Fresno Barrios Unidos; Indivisible CA Statestrong; Indivisible Yolo; Initiate Justice; Initiate Justice Action; LA Defensa; Law Enforcement Action Partnership; Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area; Legal Services for Prisoners with Children; Oakland Privacy; Pacific Juvenile Defender Center; People for the American Way; PolicyLink; Prosecutors Alliance California; San Francisco Public Defender; Secure Justice; Showing Up for Racial Justice North County San Diego; Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition; Smart Justice California; Team Justice; Techequity Collaborative; University of San Francisco School of Law Racial Justice Clinic; Walk Bike Berkeley

Opposition: Arcadia Police Officers’ Association; Burbank Police Officers’ Association; California Association of Highway Patrolmen; California Coalition of School Safety Professionals; California District Attorneys Association; California State Sheriffs’ Association; Claremont Police Officers Association; Corona Police Officers Association; Culver City Police Officers’ Association; Deputy Sheriffs’ Association of Monterey County; Fullerton Police Officers’ Association; Los Angeles School Police Officers Association; Murrieta Police Officers’ Association; Newport Beach Police Association; Palos Verdes Police Officers Association; Peace Officers Research Association of California; Place County Deputy Sheriffs Association; Pomona Police Officers’ Association; Riverside Police Officers Association; Riverside Sheriffs’ Association; San Diego Deputy District Attorneys Association; An Diegans Against Crime; Santa Ana Police Officers Association; Upland Police Officers Association

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to prohibit peace officers from initiating a traffic stop for specified low-level infractions unless a separate, independent basis for a stop exists, and to authorize local authorities to enforce traffic violations through the use of non-sworn government employees.

Existing law provides that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable seizures and searches may not be violated; and a warrant may not issue except on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons and things to be seized. (U.S. Const., amend. IV.; Cal. Const., art I, § 13.)

Existing law requires each state and local agency that employs peace officers to annually report to the Attorney General data on all stops conducted by that agency’s peace officers for the preceding calendar year. (Government Code §12525.5(a)(1).)

Existing law requires reports on stops submitted to the Attorney General to include, at a minimum, the following information:

• The time, date, and location of the stop.
• The reason for the stop.
• The result of the stop, such as: no action, warning, citation, arrest, etc.
• If a warning or citation was issued, the warning provided or the violation cited.
• If an arrest was made, the offense charged.
• The perceived race or ethnicity, gender, and approximate age of the person stopped. For motor vehicle stops, this paragraph only applies to the driver unless the officer took actions with regard to the passenger.
• Actions taken by the peace officer, as specified. (Government Code §12525.5(b)(1)-(7).)

Existing law provides that law enforcement agencies shall not report personal identifying information of the individuals stopped to the Attorney General, and that all other information in the reports, except for unique identifying information of the officer involved, shall be available to the public. ((Government Code §12525.5(d).)

Existing law defines “stop,” for the purposes of reports sent by law enforcement agencies to the Attorney General, as ‘any detention by a peace officer of a person, or any peace officer interaction with a person in which the peace officer conducts a search, including a consensual search, of the person’s body or property in the person’s possession or control.’ (Government Code §12525.5(g)(2).)

Existing law finds and declares that pedestrians, users of public transportation, and vehicular occupants who have been stopped, searched, interrogated, and subjected to a property seizure by a peace officer for no reason other than the color of their skin, national origin, religion, gender identity or expression, housing status, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability are the victims of discriminatory practices (Penal Code §13519.4(d)(4).)

Existing law creates the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (RIPA), which, among other duties, is required to conduct and consult available, evidence-based research on intentional and implicit biases, and law enforcement stop, search, and seizure tactics. (Penal Code §13519.4(j)(3)(D).)

Existing law prohibits a peace officer from engaging in racial or identity profiling, as defined. (Penal Code §13519.4(e),(f).)

Existing law provides that the provisions of the Vehicle Code are applicable and uniform throughout the state and in all counties and municipalities therein, and a local authority shall not enact or enforce any ordinance or resolution on matters covered by the Vehicle Code, as specified, unless expressly authorized by that code. (Vehicle Code §21(a).)

Existing law provides that local authorities may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution regarding regulating traffic by means of traffic officers, and sets forth the scope of local authority with regard to establishing and enforcing other traffic related regulations. (Vehicle Code §21100(c), (o).)

Existing law provides that a person shall not drive, move, or leave standing upon a highway, or in an off-street public parking facility, any motor vehicle unless it is registered with the DMV and the appropriate fees have been paid, with exceptions. (Vehicle Code §4000).

Existing law requires motorists to have their valid driver’s license in their immediate possession when driving a motor vehicle, and to present their license for examination upon demand of a peace officer. (Vehicle Code §12951(a),(b).)

Existing law establishes various requirements regarding the equipment specifications and operation of bicycles, as well as related safety devices. (Vehicle Code §§21201, 21212).

Existing law establishes various requirements regarding the display of license plates and registration tabs and stickers (Vehicle Code §§5200-5206).

Existing law establishes various requirements regarding the functionality of vehicle lighting equipment. (Vehicle Code §§24250 et. seq.).

Existing law establishes various requirements regarding vehicle windshields and mirrors. (Vehicle Code §§26700-26712.)

Existing law requires every passenger vehicle registered in this state to be equipped with a front bumper and rear bumper. (Vehicle Code §28701.)

Existing law requires the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to include in the California Driver’s Handbook information regarding a person’s civil rights during a traffic stop. (Vehicle Code §1653.6(a)(4).)

Existing law makes it unlawful to willfully fail or refuse to comply with a lawful order, signal or direction of a uniformed peace officer or to refuse to submit to a lawful inspection pursuant to the Vehicle Code. (Vehicle Code §2800(a).)

This bill provides that notwithstanding any other law, a peace officer shall not stop or detain the operator of a motor vehicle or bicycle for a low-level infraction.

This bill defines “low-level infraction” as any of the following:

• A violation related to the registration of a vehicle or vehicle equipment, as specified.
• A violation related to the positioning or number of license plates when at least one plate is clearly displayed, as specified.
• A violation related to vehicle lighting equipment not illuminating, if the violation is limited to a single brake light, headlight, or running light, or a single bulb in a larger light of the same, as specified.
• A violation related to window tints or obstructions, as specified.
• A violation related to vehicle bumper equipment, as specified.
• A violation related to bicycle equipment or operation, as specified.

This bill specifies that “low-level infraction” does not include violations relating to commercial vehicles.

This bill provides that if an officer does not have grounds to stop or detain the operator of a motor vehicle or bicycle, and the officer can identify the owner of the vehicle, the officer’s agency may, mail a citation to the owner, or send a warning letter identifying the violation and instructing the owner to correct the defect or otherwise remedy the violation.

This bill specifies that existing law does not preclude a county, city, municipality or any other local authority from enforcing a violation provided in the Vehicle Code through government employees who are not peace officers.

This bill specifies that local authorities may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution regarding regulating traffic by means of traffic officers or other government employees.

COMMENTS

1. Need for This Bill

According to the Author:

SB 50 will limit law enforcement’s ability to stop people for minor, non-safety-related traffic infractions, unless there is an independent, safety-related basis to initiate the stop. It will also provide technical clarification to ensure that localities can explore non-law enforcement approaches to traffic safety. In doing so, SB 50 will help protect Californians of color from unnecessary harms and help ensure that public dollars dedicated to community safety are used more effectively.

Research shows that pretext stops do not significantly benefit public safety, yet use valuable resources that could be directed to more effective public safety approaches. A 2022 study by Catalyst California and ACLU SoCal found that instead of addressing community concerns about serious crime, Sheriff’s deputies in Los Angeles and Riverside counties spent nearly 9 out of every 10 hours on stops initiated by officers rather than responding to calls for help. SB 50 builds on recommendations from the CA Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board and the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code to limit enforcement of minor traffic offenses that pose little to no risk to public safety and result in racially biased harms.

1. Pretext Stops

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides in part that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” The United States Supreme Court has held that temporary detention of individuals during the stop of an automobile by the police, even if only for a brief period and for a limited purpose, constitutes a ‘seizure’ of persons within the meaning of this provision.^[1] In Whren v. United States, decided in 1996, the Court further held that “the temporary detention of a motorist upon probable cause to believe that he has violated the traffic laws does not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable seizures, even if a reasonable officer would not have stopped the motorist absent some additional law enforcement objective.”^[2] The Court’s decision in Whren has given rise to what have been dubbed “pretext stops,” a practice in which a law enforcement officer uses a minor traffic violation as a pretext to stop a vehicle in order to investigate other possible crimes. Given the litany of possible traffic violations, especially in California, the use of pretext stops as an investigative tool has become widespread since the decision in Whren.

As use of pretext stops has increased, so too has criticism of the practice. Many argue that pretext stops are a driver of racial bias in law enforcement (discussed further below), while others claim that they subvert the spirit, if not the letter, of the Fourth Amendment by giving officers carte blanche to stop a vehicle. Critics also point to the difficulty in contesting a pretext stop in court. That is, if an officer stops a driver based on an observed traffic violation – of which there are dozens – the driver bears the burden of producing evidence to refute the officer’s testimony, that, for instance, the license plate was obscured or a taillight was not properly illuminated on a specific date and time. All of these issues, critics argue, lead to disparate outcomes, primarily based on race, and undermine police legitimacy in the eyes of the communities they serve.

1. Racial Disparity in Traffic Stops

As mentioned above, much of the criticism of pretext stops has centered around their disparate impact on communities of color. In 2020, the Stanford Open Policing Project published an analysis of almost 100 million police traffic stops conducted between 2011 and 2017 by 21 state patrol agencies (including the California Highway Patrol) and 29 municipal police departments nationwide. One of the study’s central findings was that “police stopped and searched black and Hispanic drivers on the basis of less evidence used in stopping white drivers, who are searched less but are more likely to be found with illegal items.”^[3] Moreover, these stops based on routine traffic violations often turn violent. A 2021 New York Times investigation found that in the preceding 5 years, police officers killed at least more than 400 unarmed drivers and passengers who were not under pursuit for a violent crime, while about 60 officers died at the hands of motorists who had been pulled over.^[4]

In 2015, the Legislature passed AB 953 (Weber, Ch. 466, Stats. of 2015), also known as the Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA) of 2015, which expressly prohibited racial and identity profiling by law enforcement and requires law enforcement agencies to report vehicle stop data to the DOJ. A 2022 analysis conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California of RIPA stop data collected in 2019 California found the following:

[Our] research finds that Black Californians are more than twice as likely to be searched as white Californians, but searches of Black Californians are somewhat less likely to yield contraband or evidence. […] Black Californians are markedly overrepresented in traffic stops […] and white drivers are somewhat underrepresented. […]

The likelihood of being searched during a traffic stop varies across race and ethnicity as well as across agency type. Black drivers stopped by local police and sheriff departments are searched in 20 percent of traffic stops, while the search rates for Latino and white drivers are 13 percent and 6 percent, respectively. […]While roughly one in ten white drivers stopped by local law enforcement in the late evening are searched for contraband or evidence, about one in four Black drivers and one in five Latino drivers are searched. […] The higher search rates of Latino and Black drivers in traffic stops made by local law enforcement are not associated with higher rates of discovery of contraband or evidence.^[5]

In January, 2023, the RIPA Board released its sixth annual stop data report of data collected in the 2021 calendar year, which showed that the most commonly reported reason for a stop (86.8%) across all racial/ethnic groups was a traffic violation, and that individuals perceived as Black or Hispanic comprised nearly 58% of the stops reported (against a total population share of 42%), while just under 31% of the stops involved individuals perceived as white (against a total population share of 35%). Additionally, the report found that officers used force against people perceived as Black at 2.2 times the rate of individuals perceived as white.^[6]

1. Recent Reforms and Policy Recommendations

In recent years, several local jurisdictions have advanced reforms related to traffic stops. For instance, in 2018, the Oakland Police Department, long criticized for using traffic violations to stop and search people of color, instituted a policy of declining to initiate traffic stops for low-level infractions. Although the racial breakdown of traffic stops in the first year of the policy resembled that from the year prior, the number of traffic stops involving black individuals decreased by over eight thousand, representing a 43% drop.^[7] In nearby Berkeley, the city council in 2020 proposed the creation of a new Berkeley Department of Transportation, which would assume responsibility for the city’s traffic enforcement from the police department.^[8] And in early March 2022, the Los Angeles Police Department enacted a policy to limit the use, duration and scope of pretext stops conducted by its officers. The policy allows officers to make stops for minor equipment violations or other infractions only when the officer believes that such a violation significantly interferes with public safety, and requires officers to state the public safety reason for such stops on their body-worn cameras. The policy also prohibits pretext stops unless officers are acting upon articulable information in addition to the traffic violation, which may or may not amount to reasonable suspicion, regarding other specified crimes, such as a serious or violent crime, reckless driving, burglary, and others.^[9]

In addition to publishing compiled stop data, the RIPA board suggests best practices and provides recommendations to law enforcement agencies and policymakers. Regarding pretextual stops, the RIPA board, in its most recent report, recommended that the Legislature and local law enforcement should examine approaches to:

• Eliminating all pretextual stops and subsequent searches and ensure that a stop or search is based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
• Identifying and taking action to limit enforcement of traffic laws and minor offenses that pose a low public safety risk and show significant disparities in the rate of enforcement.
• Limiting armed responses to traffic enforcement by allowing for stops only if there is a concern for public safety, and consider amending the Vehicle Code to more broadly move traffic enforcement out of law enforcement’s purview (i.e. to a civilian traffic unit).^[10]

In December 2022, the Committee on the Revision of the Penal Code (CRPC) released its annual report, issuing a series of 10 recommendations spanning various topics in criminal law. Their fourth recommendation urged the Legislature to “prohibit police officers from stopping people for technical, non-safety-related traffic offenses, including at a minimum offenses related to vehicle or equipment registration, position or number of license plates, lighting equipment, window tints or obstructions, and bicycle equipment and operation.”^[11] To a specific extent, this bill implements the recommendations of both the CRPC and the RIPA board described above.

1. Effect of This Bill

The California Vehicle Code establishes roughly 1,000 infractions related to a wide array of conduct and vehicle types.^[12] This bill prohibits officers from initiating a vehicle stop for a “low-level infraction,” unless there is a separate, independent basis for the stop. The bill defines “low-level infraction” as any violation related to vehicle registration or vehicle equipment, the position or number of license plates, vehicle lighting not illuminating if it is a single light or single bulb, window tints or obstructions, bumper equipment and bicycle equipment or operation. Thus, while the bill does limit the permissible bases for a traffic stop to some degree, there are still hundreds of traffic violations for which an officer could initiate a stop, even as a pretext to investigate other potential crimes. For violations where an officer does not have grounds to stop or detain a motorist or bicyclist, and the officer can identify the owner of the vehicle, the bill allows the officer to send a citation or fix-it ticket to the motorists home address.

In addition to the traffic stop-related provisions described above, this bill clarifies that a city, county or other local authority may enforce Vehicle Code violations through the use of government employees who are not sworn peace officers. This change provides firmer legal footing to Berkeley and other local jurisdictions seeking to transfer traffic enforcement responsibility from armed police to unarmed civilians.^[13] That is, where such jurisdictions may currently perceive a high risk that such local reforms would be preempted by existing state law, this bill expressly states that such local reforms are not prohibited by the relevant provisions of the Vehicle Code, thereby mitigating that risk.^[14]

1. Prior Legislation

The provisions of this bill are largely similar to those of SB 1389 (Bradford, 2022), which ultimately died on the Senate floor inactive file. SB 1389 contained a narrower definition of “low-level infraction,” which did not include violations related to window tints or obstructions and those related to bumper equipment. SB 1389 also differed from this bill in that it did not contain any of the provisions pertaining to the enforcement of traffic violations via non-sworn government employees. SB 1389 passed out of this committee by a vote of 4-1.

1. Related Legislation

Assembly Bill 93 (Bryan) prohibits peace officers from conducting searches of a vehicle, person or their effects based solely on a person’s consent, and specifies that consent to conduct a search is not a lawful justification for a search. AB 93 passed out of Assembly Public Safety Committee on March 7, 2023 by a vote of 6-1, and is currently awaiting a vote on the Assembly floor.

1. Argument in Support

According to Prosecutors Alliance California, one of the bill’s sponsors:

Law enforcement use minor vehicle equipment and administrative issues—such as a broken taillight, driving without valid registration, or incorrectly displaying a license plate—to conduct an otherwise illegitimate stop and investigation, commonly referred to as a “pretext stop.” The Racial and Identify Profiling Board reports that Black, Latinx, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander Californians are more likely to be subject to pretextual stops than their white counterparts, even though stops of people of color are less likely to result in the discovery of evidence or criminal prosecution then stops of white people. Pretextual stops inflict devastating harm on Californians of color—including dehumanization, economic extraction through fees and fines, physical violence through uses of force, and devaluation of life.

These practices have also failed to meaningfully improve safety. A 2022 study found that Sheriff’s deputies in Los Angeles and Riverside counties spent nearly 9 out of every 10 hours on stops initiated by officers rather than responding to calls for help. Amongst those officer-initiated stops, approximately 80 percent were for traffic violations.

SB 50 will implement the recommendations of the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code and the Racial and Identity Profiling Board, limiting police power to stop people for minor, technical violations of the Vehicle Code. SB 50 will also ensure that communities that wish to move forward with alternative enforcement strategies for traffic laws have the legal authority to do so. SB 50 is a long over due reform to address the harms of racial profiling and promote equal treatment under law.

1. Argument in Opposition

According to the California District Attorneys Association:

This bill prohibits peace officers from detaining the operator of a motor vehicle or bicycle for a low-level infraction unless a separate independent basis for the stop exists. Doing so jeopardizes public safety, undermines the rule of law, and reduces accountability for low level infractions. Most importantly, this bill’s prohibition on detaining drivers for low level infractions deprives peace officers of a very effective investigative tool that is often used by law enforcement to gather information needed in an ongoing criminal investigation, apprehend a suspect who is wanted for having committed an unrelated criminal violation, or to investigate an unrelated offense.

Consider the political terrorist who paid individuals to shoot up the homes his political opponents. The plot was only uncovered after a vehicle stop for an expired registration revealed the driver had an active felony warrant. A search of the vehicle revealed 800 fentanyl tablets which lead to a phone with texts detailing the location of the victims and a gun that was ballistically linked to the shootings.

Pretextual stops are also employed by peace officers to investigate the transportation for sale of fentanyl. Information alerting law enforcement to controlled substances in vehicles oftentimes come from confidential sources who law enforcement need to protect. The source of information will be “walled” off from peace officers who will only be told that if a vehicle violates a traffic infraction, pull the vehicle over and investigate for drugs and guns. The traffic infraction is a “pretext” to investigate another crime without jeopardizing the confidential informant’s safety. This technique is used routinely and effectively. Recently in San Diego, for example, a broken taillight on a boat trailer yielded 20,000 fentanyl pills and 1000 pounds of methamphetamine. That stop and others like it would not be permitted if SB 50 became law.

Research has found that increased traffic enforcement is associated with decreases in traffic crashes and injuries from accidents. The low-level infractions defined by SB 50 are, in fact, designed to enhance public safety and notify drivers that their vehicles are out of compliance with traffic safety laws. Pursuant to SB 50, a low-level infraction includes violations related to: 1) vehicle registration requirements; 2) the positioning or number of license plates; 3) vehicle lighting equipment; 4) vehicle window tints and obstructions; 5) vehicle bumper requirements; and 6) bicycle equipment or operation. Simply put, a broken headlight, brake light, or windshield obstruction is a driving hazard and can be the cause of an accident. A missing bumper could be the reason that a non-lethal accident becomes fatal. Prohibiting a peace officer from detaining and notifying a driver of a hazardous condition ensures that the unsafe vehicle will be driving on the road for a longer time before it is brought into compliance. Mailing the owner of the vehicle a notice of violation, as SB 50 contemplates, does not address the violation with the urgency that is warranted when public safety is at issue.

-- END –

1. See Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653 (1979); United States v. Martinez Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 556 (1976); United States v. Brignoni Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878 (1975) ↑

2. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 809-819 (1996). ↑

3. Pierson, Emma et. al. “A large-scale analysis of racial disparities in police stops across the United States.” The Stanford Open Policing Project. July 2020. https://5harad.com/papers/100M-stops.pdf ↑

4. Kirkpatrick, David et. al. “Pulled Over: Why Many Police Traffic Stops Turn Deadly.” New York Times. 31 Oct 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/31/us/police-traffic-stops-killings.html ↑

5. Lofstrom, Magnus et. al. “Racial Disparities in Law Enforcement Stops.” Public Policy Institute of California. Published October 2022. https://www.ppic.org/publication/racial-disparities-in-traffic-stops/ ↑

6. “Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2023.” https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/ripa-board-report-2022.pdf; “California Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Releases Report on 2021 Police Stop Data.” California Department of Justice. 3 January 2023. https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/california-racial-and-identity-profiling-advisory-board-releases-report-2021 ↑

7. “To curb racial bias, Oakland police are pulling fewer people over. Will it work?” San Francisco Chronicle. 15 November 2019. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/To-curb-racial-bias-Oakland-police-are-pulling-14839567.php ↑

8. “Plans firm up to remove police from traffic stops, but it’s a long road ahead.” Berkeleyside. 25 May 2021. https://www.berkeleyside.org/2021/05/25/berkeley-department-of-transportation-civilian-traffic-enforcement ↑

9. “Policy – Limitation on Use of Pretextual Stops – Established.” Special Order #3, March 9, 2022. LAPD. https://lapdonlinestrgeacc.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/lapdonlinemedia/2022/03/3_9_22_SO_No._3_Policy_Limitation_on_Use_of_Pretextual_Stops_Established.pdf ↑

10. “Annual Report – Recommendations and Best Practices 2023” Racial and Identity Profiling Board. 3 January 2023. https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/2023-ripa-report-best-practices.pdf ↑

11. “2022 Annual Report and Recommendations.” Committee on the Revision of the Penal Code. Published December 2022. P. 27. http://www.clrc.ca.gov/CRPC/Pub/Reports/CRPC_AR2022.pdf ↑

12. “Traffic Infraction Fixed Penalty Schedule.” Published by Marin County Superior Court. https://www.marincourt.org/data/UBPS/Traffic.pdf ↑

13. On a related note, there is pending federal legislation which would create a $100 million annual grant program to reward cities that make use of unarmed civilians in traffic stops. See H.R. 852, Investing in Safer Traffic Stops Act of 2023, 118^th Congress (2023-2024). ↑

14. Currently, it is unclear whether, at least with regard to cities, courts would uphold a local ordinance shifting traffic enforcement duties from police to non-sworn government employees under the relevant test set forth in Cal. Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. v. City of Los Angeles, 11 Cal. 4th 342 (1995). ↑