SB 29 California Senate · 2011-2012 Regular Session

Vehicles: automated traffic enforcement systems.

Summary
(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, 2012, be identified no later than January 1, 2013. 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, 2012, that a governmental agency that operates an automated traffic enforcement system establish those guidelines by January 1, 2013. 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, 2012. 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. (2) Existing law provides special written, mailed notice to appear procedures in connection with certain alleged violations recorded by an automated traffic enforcement system and provides that 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, 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 specified courtesy notice or any other notice other than a notice to appear 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 contain specified information and, beginning January 1, 2013, be on a form approved by the Judicial Council, following consultation with the traffic and transportation committee of the California Peace Officers' Association. 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 any other form approved by the Judicial Council. 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) 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. (4) 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.
Bill status vetoed 4 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Dec 2010
Committee Review
Sep 2011
Senate Passage
May 2011
Assembly Passage
Aug 2011
Vetoed
Oct 2011
Introduced Dec 6, 2010 Vetoed Oct 7, 2011
Floor votes · Senate May 16, 2011 · Assembly Aug 30, 2011

How they voted

280
Passed · 3 other
Total votes 31
May 16, 2011
D Democratic20
20 Yea
100% Yea
R Republican11
8 Yea 3
72% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea All Nay Mixed No data
Full legislative history

Actions timeline

Total actions
27
Key actions
6
Committee
5
Amendments
4
Mar 1, 2012
Vetoed
Consideration of Governor's veto stricken from file.
upper
Oct 7, 2011
Vetoed
In Senate. Consideration of Governor's veto pending.
upper
Oct 7, 2011
Vetoed
Vetoed by the Governor.
upper
Sep 1, 2011
Upper · Passed
Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 38. Noes 0. Page 2228.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.
upper
Aug 30, 2011
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (60-4-6)
assembly
Aug 30, 2011
Introduced
In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
upper
Aug 26, 2011
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 17. Noes 0.) (August 25).
lower
Jul 7, 2011
Committee
Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
lower
Jun 14, 2011
Committee
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 14. Noes 0.) (June 13). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
May 23, 2011
Committee
Referred to Com. on TRANS.
lower
May 16, 2011
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (28-0-3)
senate
May 10, 2011
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 9. Noes 0. Page 929.) (May 9).
upper
Apr 4, 2011
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 0. Page 495.) (March 29).
upper
Jan 20, 2011
Committee
Referred to Com. on T. & H.
upper
Dec 6, 2010
Introduced
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
upper
1 primary · 2 co-sponsors

Sponsors