Bill Text: CA SB1303 | 2011-2012 | Regular Session | Amended

NOTE: There are more recent revisions of this legislation. Read Latest Draft

---

Bill Title: Vehicles: automated traffic enforcement systems.

Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 1-0)

Status: (Passed) 2012-09-28 - Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 735, Statutes of 2012. [SB1303 Detail]

Download: California-2011-SB1303-Amended.html

---

BILL NUMBER: SB 1303	AMENDED
	BILL TEXT

	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  JUNE 26, 2012
	AMENDED IN SENATE  MAY 29, 2012

INTRODUCED BY   Senator Simitian

                        FEBRUARY 23, 2012

   An act to amend Sections 1552 and 1553 of the Evidence Code, and
to amend Sections 21455.5 and 40518 of the Vehicle Code, relating to
vehicles.



	LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


   SB 1303, as amended, Simitian. Vehicles: automated traffic
enforcement systems.
   (1) Existing law authorizes the limit line, intersection, or other
places where a driver is required to stop to be equipped with an
automated enforcement system, as defined, if the system meets certain
requirements. Existing law authorizes a governmental agency to
contract out the operation of the system under certain circumstances,
except for specified activities, that include, among other things,
establishing guidelines for selection of location. A violation of the
Vehicle Code is a crime.
   This bill would require that those requirements include
identifying the system by signs posted within 200 feet of an
intersection where a system is operating. The bill would require that
automated traffic enforcement systems installed as of January 1,
2013, be identified no later than January 1, 2014. The bill would
require the governmental agency that operates an automated traffic
enforcement system to develop uniform guidelines for specified
purposes and to establish procedures to ensure compliance with those
guidelines. The bill would require, for systems installed as of
January 1, 2013, that a governmental agency that operates an
automated traffic enforcement system establish those guidelines by
January 1, 2014. The bill would require the governmental agency to
adopt a finding of fact establishing the need for the system at a
specific location for reasons related to safety for those systems
installed after January 1, 2013.
   The bill would prohibit a governmental agency that proposes to
install or operate an automated traffic enforcement system from
considering revenue generation, beyond recovering its actual costs of
operating the system, as a factor when considering whether or not to
install or operate a system within its local jurisdiction. The bill
would require the manufacturer or supplier that operates an automated
traffic enforcement system, in cooperation with the governmental
agency, to submit an annual report to the Judicial Council that
includes specified information. 
    The bill would prohibit a governmental agency that utilizes an
automated traffic enforcement system and that had signs posted on or
before January 1, 2013, that met the requirements in effect on
January 1, 2012, from removing those signs until the governmental
agency posts signs that meet the requirements imposed by the bill.

   (2) Existing law provides special written, mailed notice to appear
procedures in connection with certain alleged violations recorded by
an automated traffic enforcement system. Existing law provides
whenever a written notice to appear has been issued by a peace
officer or by a qualified employee of a law enforcement agency on a
form approved by the Judicial Council for an alleged traffic
violation recorded by an automated traffic enforcement system, and
delivered by mail within 15 days of the alleged violation to the
current address of the registered owner of the vehicle on file with
the Department of Motor Vehicles, with a certificate of mailing
obtained as evidence of service, that an exact and legible duplicate
copy of the notice when filed with the magistrate constitutes a
complaint to which the defendant may enter a plea.
   This bill would expand the information that must be included on a
notice to appear. The bill would authorize the mailing of a notice of
nonliability by the issuing agency, manufacturer, or supplier of the
automated traffic enforcement system to the registered owner or the
alleged violator prior to issuing a notice to appear. The bill would
require that this notice be substantively identical to the form set
forth in the bill. The bill would prohibit a manufacturer or supplier
of an automated traffic enforcement system or the governmental
agency operating the system from altering the notice to appear or
notice of nonliability. If a form is found to have been materially
altered, the bill would authorize that the citation, based on the
altered form, be dismissed. The bill would also require that the
citation be dismissed if a magistrate or judge makes a finding that
there are grounds for dismissal, in certain circumstances.
   (3) Existing law, known as the hearsay rule, provides that, at a
hearing, evidence of a statement that was made other than by a
witness while testifying at the hearing and that is offered to prove
the truth of the matter stated is inadmissible, subject to specified
exceptions. Existing law provides that a printed representation of
computer information, a computer program, or images stored on a video
or digital medium is presumed to be an accurate representation of
the computer information, computer program, or images that it
purports to represent.
   This bill would provide that this presumption applies to the
printed representation of computer-generated information, video, or
photographic images stored by an automated traffic enforcement
system. The bill would expressly state that the printed
representation of computer-generated information, video, or
photographic images stored by an automated traffic enforcement system
does not constitute an out-of-court hearsay statement by a
declarant.
   (4) Because it is unlawful and constitutes an infraction for any
person to violate, or fail to comply with any provision of the
Vehicle Code, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program
by creating a new crime.
   (5) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse
local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
   This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason.
   Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

  SECTION 1.  Section 1552 of the Evidence Code is amended to read:
   1552.  (a) A printed representation of computer information or a
computer program is presumed to be an accurate representation of the
computer information or computer program that it purports to
represent. This presumption is a presumption affecting the burden of
producing evidence. If a party to an action introduces evidence that
a printed representation of computer information or computer program
is inaccurate or unreliable, the party introducing the printed
representation into evidence has the burden of proving, by a
preponderance of evidence, that the printed representation is an
accurate representation of the existence and content of the computer
information or computer program that it purports to represent.
   (b) Subdivision (a) applies to the printed representation of
computer-generated information stored by an automated traffic
enforcement system.
   (c) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to computer-generated official
records certified in accordance with Section 452.5 or 1530.
  SEC. 2.  Section 1553 of the Evidence Code is amended to read:
   1553.  (a) A printed representation of images stored on a video or
digital medium is presumed to be an accurate representation of the
images it purports to represent. This presumption is a presumption
affecting the burden of producing evidence. If a party to an action
introduces evidence that a printed representation of images stored on
a video or digital medium is inaccurate or unreliable, the party
introducing the printed representation into evidence has the burden
of proving, by a preponderance of evidence, that the printed
representation is an accurate representation of the existence and
content of the images that it purports to represent.
   (b) Subdivision (a) applies to the printed representation of video
or photographic images stored by an automated traffic enforcement
system.
  SEC. 3.  Section 21455.5 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
   21455.5.  (a) The limit line, the intersection, or a place
designated in Section 21455, where a driver is required to stop, may
be equipped with an automated traffic enforcement system if the
governmental agency utilizing the system meets all of the following
requirements:
   (1) Identifies the system by signs posted within 200 feet of an
intersection where a system is operating that clearly indicate the
system's presence and are visible to traffic approaching from all
directions in which the automated traffic enforcement system is being
utilized to issue citations. A governmental agency utilizing such a
system does not need to post signs visible to traffic approaching the
intersection from directions not subject to the automated traffic
enforcement system. Automated traffic enforcement systems installed
as of January 1, 2013, shall be identified no later than January 1,
2014.
   (2) Locates the system at an intersection and ensures that the
system meets the criteria specified in Section 21455.7.
   (b) Prior to issuing citations under this section, a local
jurisdiction utilizing an automated traffic enforcement system shall
commence a program to issue only warning notices for 30 days. The
local jurisdiction shall also make a public announcement of the
automated traffic enforcement system at least 30 days prior to the
commencement of the enforcement program.
   (c) Only a governmental agency, in cooperation with a law
enforcement agency, may operate an automated traffic enforcement
system. A governmental agency that operates an automated traffic
enforcement system shall do all of the following:
   (1) Develop uniform guidelines for screening and issuing
violations and for the processing and storage of confidential
information, and establish procedures to ensure compliance with those
guidelines. For systems installed as of January 1, 2013, a
governmental agency that operates an automated traffic enforcement
system shall establish those guidelines by January 1, 2014.
   (2) Perform administrative functions and day-to-day functions,
including, but not limited to, all of the following:
   (A) Establishing guidelines for the selection of a location. Prior
to installing an automated traffic enforcement system after January
1, 2013, the governmental agency shall make and adopt a finding of
fact establishing that the system is needed at a specific location
for reasons related to safety.
   (B) Ensuring that the equipment is regularly inspected.
   (C) Certifying that the equipment is properly installed and
calibrated, and is operating properly.
   (D) Regularly inspecting and maintaining warning signs placed
under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a).
   (E) Overseeing the establishment or change of signal phases and
the timing thereof.
   (F) Maintaining controls necessary to ensure that only those
citations that have been reviewed and approved by law enforcement are
delivered to violators.
   (d) The activities listed in subdivision (c) that relate to the
operation of the system may be contracted out by the governmental
agency, if it maintains overall control and supervision of the
system. However, the activities listed in paragraph (1) of, and
subparagraphs (A), (D), (E), and (F) of paragraph (2) of, subdivision
(c) shall not be contracted out to the manufacturer or supplier of
the automated traffic enforcement system.
   (e) The printed representation of computer-generated information,
video, or photographic images stored by an automated traffic
enforcement system does not constitute an out-of-court hearsay
statement by a declarant under Division 10 (commencing with Section
1200) of the Evidence Code.
   (f) (1) Notwithstanding Section 6253 of the Government Code, or
any other law, photographic records made by an automated traffic
enforcement system shall be confidential, and shall be made available
only to governmental agencies and law enforcement agencies and only
for the purposes of this article.
   (2) Confidential information obtained from the Department of Motor
Vehicles for the administration or enforcement of this article shall
be held confidential, and shall not be used for any other purpose.
   (3) Except for court records described in Section 68152 of the
Government Code, the confidential records and information described
in paragraphs (1) and (2) may be retained for up to six months from
the date the information was first obtained, or until final
disposition of the citation, whichever date is later, after which
time the information shall be destroyed in a manner that will
preserve the confidentiality of any person included in the record or
information.
   (g) Notwithstanding subdivision (f), the registered owner or any
individual identified by the registered owner as the driver of the
vehicle at the time of the alleged violation shall be permitted to
review the photographic evidence of the alleged violation.
   (h) (1) A contract between a governmental agency and a
manufacturer or supplier of automated traffic enforcement equipment
shall not include provision for the payment or compensation to the
manufacturer or supplier based on the number of citations generated,
or as a percentage of the revenue generated, as a result of the use
of the equipment authorized under this section.
   (2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to a contract that was entered
into by a governmental agency and a manufacturer or supplier of
automated traffic enforcement equipment before January 1, 2004,
unless that contract is renewed, extended, or amended on or after
January 1, 2004.
   (3) A governmental agency that proposes to install or operate an
automated traffic enforcement system shall not consider revenue
generation, beyond recovering its actual costs of operating the
system, as a factor when considering whether or not to install or
operate a system within its local jurisdiction.
   (i) A manufacturer or supplier that operates an automated traffic
enforcement system pursuant to this section shall, in cooperation
with the governmental agency, submit an annual report to the Judicial
Council that includes, but is not limited to, all of the following
information if this information is in the possession of, or readily
available to, the manufacturer or supplier:
   (1) The number of alleged violations captured by the systems they
operate.
   (2) The number of citations issued by a law enforcement agency
based on information collected from the automated traffic enforcement
system.
   (3) For citations identified in paragraph (2), the number of
violations that involved traveling straight through the intersection,
turning right, and turning left.
   (4) The number and percentage of citations that are dismissed by
the court.
   (5) The number of traffic collisions at each intersection that
occurred prior to, and after the installation of, the automated
traffic enforcement system. 
   (j) If a governmental agency utilizing an automated traffic
enforcement system has posted signs on or before January 1, 2013,
that met the requirements of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of this
section, as it read on January 1, 2012, the governmental agency
shall not remove those signs until signs are posted that meet the
requirements specified in this section, as it reads on January 1,
2013. 
  SEC. 4.  Section 40518 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
   40518.  (a) Whenever a written notice to appear has been issued by
a peace officer or by a qualified employee of a law enforcement
agency on a form approved by the Judicial Council for an alleged
violation of Section 22451, or, based on an alleged violation of
Section 21453, 21455, or 22101 recorded by an automated traffic
enforcement system pursuant to Section 21455.5 or 22451, and
delivered by mail within 15 days of the alleged violation to the
current address of the registered owner of the vehicle on file with
the department, with a certificate of mailing obtained as evidence of
service, an exact and legible duplicate copy of the notice when
filed with the magistrate shall constitute a complaint to which the
defendant may enter a plea. Preparation and delivery of a notice to
appear pursuant to this section is not an arrest.
   (b) (1) A notice to appear shall contain the name and address of
the person, the license plate number of the person's vehicle, the
violation charged, including a description of the offense, and the
time and place when, and where, the person may appear in court or
before a person authorized to receive a deposit of bail. The time
specified shall be at least 10 days after the notice to appear is
delivered. If, after the notice to appear has been issued, the citing
peace officer or qualified employee of a law enforcement agency
determines that, in the interest of justice, the citation or notice
should be dismissed, the citing agency may recommend, in writing, to
the magistrate or the judge that the case be dismissed. The
recommendation shall cite the reasons for the recommendation and be
filed with the court. If the magistrate or judge makes a finding that
there are grounds for dismissal, the finding shall be entered on the
record and the infraction dismissed.
   (2) A notice to appear shall also contain all of the following
information:
   (A) The methods by which the registered owner of the vehicle or
the alleged violator may view and discuss with the issuing agency,
both by telephone and in person, the evidence used to substantiate
the violation.
   (B) The contact information of the issuing agency.
   (c) (1) This section and Section 40520 do not preclude the issuing
agency or the manufacturer or supplier of the automated traffic
enforcement system from mailing a notice of nonliability to the
registered owner of the vehicle or the alleged violator prior to
issuing a notice to appear. The notice of nonliability shall be
substantively identical to the following form: GRAPHIC INSERT HERE:
SEE PRINTED VERSION OF THE BILL]
   (2) The form specified in paragraph (1) may be translated to other
languages.
   (d) A manufacturer or supplier of an automated traffic enforcement
system or the governmental agency operating the system shall not
alter the notice to appear or any other form approved by the Judicial
Council. If a form is found to have been materially altered, the
citation based on the altered form may be dismissed.
  SEC. 5.  No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because
the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school
district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or
infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty
for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the
Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the
meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
Constitution.