California 2009-2010 Regular Session Status: In Committee

AB 77 — Vehicles: notice of delinquent parking violation.

Last action — From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. 2
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

Existing law requires a parking processing agency to cancel the notice of parking violation, upon written request of a person, if the description of the vehicle on the notice of parking violation does not substantially match the corresponding information on the registration card for the vehicle and if the processing agency is satisfied that the vehicle has not been incorrectly described due to the intentional switching of license plates. A violation of the Vehicle Code is a crime. This bill would instead require the processing agency to verify that all notices of delinquent parking violations substantially match the corresponding information on the registration of the vehicle and to cancel the parking violation if the information is not a match. It would also delete the requirement that a person provide a written request for cancellation of the parking violation to the parking processing agency. To the extent that certain local agencies perform the processing agency function and to the extent that certain processing agencies are run by private entities, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program by increasing duties on local agencies and by creating a new crime. 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Bill Text

What changed in the latest version

1 added · 1 removed

1 line(s) added, 1 removed.

→
Previous
Latest
Bill Number Bill Keyword Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites Bill Information >> Bill Search >> Text Bill TextBill Information PDF2 Add To My Favorites | Version:
Bill Number Bill Keyword Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites Bill Information >> Bill Search >> Text Bill Text PDF2 Add To My Favorites | Version:
⬇ Download PDF
View plain text versions (2)

Action History

  1. From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  2. Died pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution.

  3. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  4. Referred to Coms. on TRANS. and L. GOV.

  5. From printer. May be heard in committee January 18.

  6. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Jeffries · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Jeffries

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Subjects

public-safety transportation
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 77 do?
Existing law requires a parking processing agency to cancel the notice of parking violation, upon written request of a person, if the description of the vehicle on the notice of parking violation does not substantially match the corresponding information on the registration card for the vehicle and if the processing agency is satisfied that the vehicle has not been incorrectly described due to the intentional switching of license plates. A violation of the Vehicle Code is a crime. This bill would instead require the processing agency to verify that all notices of delinquent parking violations substantially match the corresponding information on the registration of the vehicle and to cancel the parking violation if the information is not a match. It would also delete the requirement that a person provide a written request for cancellation of the parking violation to the parking processing agency. To the extent that certain local agencies perform the processing agency function and to the extent that certain processing agencies are run by private entities, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program by increasing duties on local agencies and by creating a new crime. 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Who sponsors AB 77?
AB 77 is sponsored by Jeffries.
What is the current status of AB 77?
This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track AB 77?
Track AB 77 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 77

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 77

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →