AB 2499

Bill Subjects

Abstract

(1) Existing law provides for the licensing and administration by the Department of Motor Vehicles of traffic violator schools, operators, and instructors in a classroom setting. Existing law also defines the term "traffic violator school" for purposes of the Vehicle Code to mean, among other things, a business that provides instruction in traffic safety, including, but not limited to, classroom traffic violator curricula. Existing law authorizes a court, in lieu of adjudicating a traffic offense committed by a person who holds a specified class of driver's license, to order or permit the person to attend a licensed traffic violator school, licensed driving school, or other court-approved program of driving instruction. Existing law also permits a court to order a continuance against a person who receives a notice to appear in court for a violation of a statute relating to the safe operation of a vehicle, in consideration for attendance at a licensed school for traffic violators, a licensed driving school, or any other court-approved program of driving instruction, and after that attendance, to dismiss the complaint, as specified. This bill would revise and recast these provisions and, instead, would authorize the court, after a deposit of bail and bail forfeiture, a plea of guilty or no contest, or a conviction, to order a continuance of the proceeding against a person who receives a notice to appear in court for a violation of a statute relating to safe operation of a vehicle, in consideration for completion of a program at a licensed school for traffic violators and order that the conviction be held confidential. The bill would prohibit the record of certain convictions from being confidential under these provisions. The bill, on April 1, 2012, would delete specified provisions governing existing court or county contracts to provide traffic safety instructional services to traffic violations. The bill would also require that no violation point count be assessed if the record of conviction is confidential, unless other specified conditions apply. The bill would require that these provisions become operative on July 1, 2011. (2) Existing law establishes traffic violator school licensing requirements and requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to license traffic violator school operators. This bill would revise these requirements, including the licensing criteria applicable to a traffic violator school owner or operator and a person licensed as an owner/operator and who is so designated on the owner's license. The bill would revise the requirements applicable to a court-approved program and would require a court-approved program that was in operation prior to January 1, 2011, to file an application for licensure as a traffic violator school by January 1, 2012. The bill would prohibit a court from approving a traffic safety program after January 1, 2011. (3) Existing law authorizes a court, under contract, to use a court assistance program (CAP) to perform services related to the processing and monitoring of traffic violators and traffic violator schools and establishes requirements for the program. The bill would instead authorize a traffic assistance program (TAP) under contract with the Department of Motor Vehicles to assist in oversight activities. This bill would delete provisions relating to both a monitoring report prepared by a CAP and other provisions that preclude the department or the court from removing a traffic violator school from a referral list if certain conditions are met. The bill would also delete provisions relating to a requirement that the Judicial Council collect and compile data on CAPs and traffic safety instruction. The bill would authorize the court to charge a traffic violator fee to defray the costs incurred by a TAP for traffic administration services provided to the court and to delegate collection of the fee to the TAP. The bill would require that the fees be approved and regulated by the court and that the fee not exceed the actual costs incurred by the TAP. (4) Existing law requires a traffic violator school owner to file a bond of $2,000 with the department. The bill would increase the amount of the bond to $15,000 for home study schools and require a $2,000 bond for classroom-based schools. (5) Existing law establishes fees related to the department's licensing of traffic violator schools. This bill would discontinue the fee charged for the completion certificate and would, instead, require the department to charge fees for issuance of an original, renewal, or duplicate or corrected traffic violator school owner, operator, instructor, and branch or classroom location license. The bill would require the court to collect a single administrative fee to be collected from the person attending the traffic violator school, which would include an amount sufficient to defray the cost of monitoring traffic violator school instruction. (6) Existing law requires the court to make available to persons who choose the traffic violator school, the current list of traffic violator schools, published by the department. This bill would require the Department of Motor Vehicles to provide a list of licensed traffic violator schools on its Internet Web site, as specified, and to develop a Web-based database accessible by the courts and traffic violator schools to allow oversight of traffic violator school student enrollments and course completions. The bill would also require, if a court or a TAP provides a hard copy list of licensed traffic violator schools to a traffic violator, to provide only a current date-stamped list downloaded from the department's Internet Web site. (7) Under existing law, with certain exceptions, a violation of the Vehicle Code is a crime. Because this bill would change the definition of an existing crime, it would impose a state-mandated local program. (8) The bill would make conforming changes. (9) 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.