NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is
intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the
legislature. The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume
responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used for
other purposes.
The most recent FIR
version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative
Website. The Adobe PDF version includes
all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be
obtained from the LFC in
SPONSOR: |
M.P. Garcia |
DATE TYPED: |
|
HB |
586/aHTC/aHJC |
||
SHORT TITLE: |
Use of Automated Enforcement Systems |
SB |
|
||||
|
ANALYST: |
Fox-Young |
|||||
APPROPRIATION
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
FY03 |
FY04 |
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
|
|
$0.1 Significant |
Recurring |
General
Fund |
(Parenthesis
( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
Responses
Received From
Department of
Public Safety (DPS)
Attorney
General (AG)
Administrative
Office of the District Attorneys (AODA)
State
Highway and Transportation Department (SHTD)
Taxation
and Revenue Department (TRD)
SUMMARY
Synopsis of HJC Amendment
The
House Judiciary Committee strikes the House Transportation Committee amendment
number one. This action undoes the
restriction on the use of automated enforcement systems to Class A counties
with populations greater than 300,000.
Synopsis of HTC Amendment
The
House Transportation Committee amendment makes technical adjustments to House
Bill 586.
For purposes of clarity, the language of the
first amendment should be inserted after “citations” rather than after
“agency.” (page 1, line 19)
Synopsis
of Original Bill
House Bill 586 amends the Motor Vehicle Code,
authorizing state or local law enforcement agencies to use automated
enforcement systems to issue citations for motor vehicle code or ordinance
violations.
The bill defines automated enforcement systems,
authorizes local authorities to use them at intersections, in school zones and
on highways, and mandates the Motor Vehicle Division prepare a uniform traffic
citation for use in conjunction with these systems. The bill provides for a court appearance or
for payment of a penalty assessment in cases where automated enforcement systems
are used.
The Motor Vehicle Division shall prescribe the
form, content and procedure for issuing and processing uniform automated
enforcement system citations.
Significant
Issues
The Attorney General (AG) notes that is unclear
whether the sudden use of the automated enforcement system unconstitutionally
infringes on a citizen’s “due process” and “right to notice” regarding a new
law enforcement practice. In an effort
to address this concern, the California Legislature required that citizens
receive warnings rather than citations during the first 30 days of use of the
system. AG also notes that federal law prohibits public access to motor vehicle
information and that the California Legislature, in an effort to address this
concern, has required that the owner and/or driver of the vehicle are the only
private citizens who have access to the photographs. (Naumchik, Steven, Photographic
Enforcement of Red Lights, 30 McGeorge Law Review 833 (1999)).
AG reports that some municipalities have argued
they have the sole authority to handle and set policies for traffic
violations. In Commerce City v.
Colorado, 40 P.3d 1273 (
AG notes that a number of procedural components
will need to be worked out. These
include:
The Administrative Office of the District Attorneys (AODA) indicates that difficulties may ensue in identifying drivers of particular vehicles, effectively making it unconstitutional to issue an arrest warrant for failure to appear at an initial court hearing.
Because this state does not require front license plates, it will be difficult to identify vehicles.
DPS notes that the bill does not delineate who will monitor compliance of penalty assessments submitted or court compliance for violators who contest citations.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
AODA notes that,
because there are no law enforcement officers on the scene in cases involving
automated enforcement systems, it is unclear who will appear in court to prove
guilt in any given case. AODA indicates
that a custodian of records could testify to support the case and lay an
adequate foundation for admission of the photographic proof of guilt; however
the state will need to establish a system whereby a custodian of record will be
in a position to testify and be available for a multitude of court
appearances. AODA notes that as a
practical matter, numerous custodians would be required in light of the size of
the state and number of traffic citations that will be issued.
Although the bill
includes no provisions for certification, authorization, maintenance and repair
of equipment, there is a significant cost associated with these
activities. DPS
indicates that in order to manage automated enforcement systems, the department
will require more data entry personnel, technicians to repair and maintain the
cameras or sensors and related hardware and software.
Depending upon the
extent to which automated enforcement systems are used, overall law enforcement
costs have the potential to decrease. In
the long run, if these systems can efficiently perform a portion of
the traffic enforcement currently carried out by law enforcement officers, at
the same time saving agencies time (and overtime), a cost savings may ensue.
TECHNICAL ISSUES
AODA notes that the language in Section 66-8-123 and
Section 66-8-124 (disallowing arrest
for motor vehicle code violations except by uniformed police officers)
should be amended to include provisions for automated enforcement systems.
DPS notes that
the definition for “automated enforcement system” references a “standard
traffic-control device” which is not defined.
JCF/njw:sb