SB 29

  • California Senate Bill
  • 2011-2012 Regular Session
  • Introduced in Senate Dec 06, 2010
  • Passed Senate May 16, 2011
  • Passed Assembly Aug 30, 2011
  • Governor

Vehicles: automated traffic enforcement systems.

Abstract

(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 Sponsors (3)

Votes


Actions


Mar 01, 2012

Senate

Consideration of Governor's veto stricken from file.

Oct 07, 2011

Senate

In Senate. Consideration of Governor's veto pending.

Senate

Vetoed by the Governor.

Sep 09, 2011

California State Legislature

Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 9:45 a.m.

Sep 01, 2011

Senate

Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 38. Noes 0. Page 2228.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.

Aug 30, 2011

Assembly

Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 70. Noes 4. Page 2695.) Ordered to the Senate.

Senate

In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.

Aug 29, 2011

Assembly

Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

Aug 26, 2011

Assembly

Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

Assembly

From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 17. Noes 0.) (August 25).

Jul 07, 2011

Assembly

Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  • Referral-Committee
APPR. suspense file. APPR

Jun 14, 2011

Assembly

From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 14. Noes 0.) (June 13). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  • Referral-Committee
  • Committee-Passage
  • Committee-Passage-Favorable
Com. on APPR.

May 23, 2011

Assembly

Referred to Com. on TRANS.

  • Referral-Committee
Com. on TRANS.

May 16, 2011

Assembly

In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

Senate

Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 36. Noes 0. Page 979.) Ordered to the Assembly.

May 11, 2011

Senate

Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading.

May 10, 2011

Senate

From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 9. Noes 0. Page 929.) (May 9).

May 05, 2011

Senate

Set for hearing May 9.

Apr 05, 2011

Senate

Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  • Reading-2
  • Reading-1
  • Amendment-Passage
  • Referral-Committee
Com. on APPR.

Apr 04, 2011

Senate

From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 0. Page 495.) (March 29).

Mar 22, 2011

Senate

From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on T. & H.

  • Reading-2
  • Reading-1
  • Committee-Passage
  • Amendment-Passage
  • Referral-Committee
Com. on T. & H.

Mar 04, 2011

Senate

Set for hearing March 29.

Jan 20, 2011

Senate

Referred to Com. on T. & H.

  • Referral-Committee
Com. on T. & H.

Dec 07, 2010

Senate

From printer. May be acted upon on or after January 6.

Dec 06, 2010

Senate

Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Bill Text

Bill Text Versions Format
SB29 HTML
12/06/10 - Introduced PDF
03/22/11 - Amended Senate PDF
04/05/11 - Amended Senate PDF
05/11/11 - Amended Senate PDF
08/26/11 - Amended Assembly PDF
09/02/11 - Enrolled PDF

Related Documents

Document Format
No related documents.

Sources

Data on Open States is updated periodically throughout the day from the official website of the California State Legislature.

If you notice any inconsistencies with these official sources, feel free to file an issue.