California 2011-2012 Regular Session Status: Enacted

SB 1303 — Vehicles: automated traffic enforcement systems.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 735, Statutes of 2012.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

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

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 23, 2012. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 70% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How often bills like it became law.

  • Enacted

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 1 sponsor

    1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 8 recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

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, 2013, be identified no later than January 1, 2014. 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, 2013, that a governmental agency that operates an automated traffic enforcement system establish those guidelines by January 1, 2014. 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, 2013. 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. The bill would prohibit a governmental agency that utilizes an automated traffic enforcement system and that had signs posted on or before January 1, 2013, that met the requirements in effect on January 1, 2012, from removing those signs until the governmental agency posts signs that meet the requirements imposed by the bill. (2) Existing law provides special written, mailed notice to appear procedures in connection with certain alleged violations recorded by an automated traffic enforcement system. Existing law provides 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, that 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 notice of nonliability 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 be substantively identical to the form set forth in the bill. 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 notice of nonliability. 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) Existing law, known as the hearsay rule, provides that, at a hearing, evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated is inadmissible, subject to specified exceptions. Existing law provides that a printed representation of computer information, a computer program, or images stored on a video or digital medium is presumed to be an accurate representation of the computer information, computer program, or images that it purports to represent. This bill would provide that this presumption applies to the printed representation of computer-generated information, video, or photographic images stored by an automated traffic enforcement system. The bill would expressly state that the printed representation of computer-generated information, video, or photographic images stored by an automated traffic enforcement system does not constitute an out-of-court hearsay statement by a declarant. (4) 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. (5) 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 Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 735, Statutes of 2012.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 11:15 p.m.

  4. Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 35. Noes 0. Page 4851.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.

  5. In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.

  6. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 62. Noes 13. Page 6184.) Ordered to the Senate.

  7. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  8. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 16. Noes 1.) (August 16).

  9. (Corrected August 13.)

  10. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  11. (Corrected August 8.)

  12. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

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

  14. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (July 3).

  15. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  16. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 11. Noes 1.) (June 25). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  17. Referred to Coms. on TRANS. and JUD.

  18. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

  19. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 38. Noes 0. Page 3739.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  20. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  21. (Corrected May 31.)

  22. (Corrected May 30.)

  23. Ordered to second reading.

  24. Read third time and amended.

  25. Ordered to third reading.

  26. From special consent calendar.

  27. Ordered to special consent calendar.

  28. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  29. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 3388.) (April 30).

  30. Set for hearing April 30.

  31. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 8. Noes 0. Page 3035.) (March 27). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  32. Set for hearing March 27.

  33. Referred to Com. on T. & H.

  34. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 25.

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

Sponsors

  • Simitian · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 2 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Simitian

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

Votes

Unfinished Business SB1303 Simitian Concurrence

Passed 35 Yea · 0 Nay · 5 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 33004
Democratic 2000
Republican 0001
Total 35005
% of votes cast 88%0%0%13%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Yea
Anderson — Yea
Cannella — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Correa — Yea
Dutton — Yea
Evans — Yea
Fuller — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Harman — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Huff — Yea
Kehoe — Yea
Leno — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Pavley — Not Voting
Price — Yea
Simitian — Yea
Vargas — Yea
Walters — Yea
Wright — Yea
Wyland — Not Voting
Lowenthal — Yea
Negrete McLeod — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Runner — Not Voting
De León — Not Voting
Alquist — Yea
Blakeslee — Yea
Liu — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Emmerson — Yea
DeSaulnier — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Yea
La Malfa — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

SB 1303 Simitian Senate Third Reading By ENG

Passed 62 Yea · 13 Nay · 5 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 601205
Republican 1100
Democratic 1000
Total 621305
% of votes cast 78%16%0%6%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Gordon — Yea
Gorell — Yea
Halderman — Nay
Butler — Yea
Feuer — Yea
Carter — Yea
Cedillo — Yea
Garrick — Yea
Fong — Yea
Conway — Yea
Allen — Yea
Alejo — Yea
Hill — Yea
Huber — Yea
Wagner — Yea
John A. Pérez — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Fletcher — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Gatto — Nay
Campos — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Hagman — Nay
Hall — Yea
Harkey — Nay
Portantino — Not Voting
Hayashi — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Huffman — Yea
Knight — Nay
Lara — Yea
Beall — Yea
Block — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Cook — Not Voting
Donnelly — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Miller — Yea
Monning — Yea
Morrell — Nay
Nielsen — Nay
Norby — Nay
Pan — Yea
Perea — Yea
Silva — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Solorio — Yea
Torres — Yea
Williams — Not Voting
Achadjian — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brownley — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Jeffries — Yea
Logue — Yea
Ma — Yea
Mansoor — Nay
Nestande — Yea
Olsen — Nay
Smyth — Yea
Swanson — Yea
Valadao — Nay
Wieckowski — Not Voting
Eng — Yea
Davis — Yea
Dickinson — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
Furutani — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Bonnie Lowenthal — Yea
Roger Hernández — Not Voting
V. Manuel Pérez — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 16 Yea · 1 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 15100
Democratic 1000
Total 16100
% of votes cast 94%6%0%0%
How each member voted (17)
Member Party Vote
Hall — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Hill — Yea
Campos — Yea
Cedillo — Yea
Davis — Yea
Donnelly — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Solorio — Yea
Wagner — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Harkey — Yea
Norby — Nay
Fuentes — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

Passed 11 Yea · 1 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 11102
Total 11102
% of votes cast 79%7%0%14%
How each member voted (14)
Member Party Vote
Eng — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Portantino — Not Voting
Furutani — Yea
Jeffries — Not Voting
Norby — Nay
Solorio — Yea
Wagner — Yea
Achadjian — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Logue — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Bonnie Lowenthal — Yea

Official roll call →

3rd Reading

Passed 38 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 36001
Democratic 2000
Republican 0001
Total 38002
% of votes cast 95%0%0%5%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Yea
Wyland — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Cannella — Yea
De León — Yea
Negrete McLeod — Yea
Fuller — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Runner — Not Voting
Corbett — Yea
Dutton — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Alquist — Yea
Anderson — Yea
Blakeslee — Yea
Huff — Yea
Leno — Yea
Liu — Yea
Price — Yea
Simitian — Yea
Vargas — Yea
Walters — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Harman — Yea
Kehoe — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Wright — Yea
Emmerson — Yea
Correa — Yea
Evans — Yea
DeSaulnier — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Yea
La Malfa — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 7000
Total 7000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Kehoe — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Alquist — Yea
Dutton — Yea
Price — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Walters — Yea

Official roll call →

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 SB 1303 do?
(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, 2013, be identified no later than January 1, 2014. 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, 2013, that a governmental agency that operates an automated traffic enforcement system establish those guidelines by January 1, 2014. 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, 2013. 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. The bill would prohibit a governmental agency that utilizes an automated traffic enforcement system and that had signs posted on or before January 1, 2013, that met the requirements in effect on January 1, 2012, from removing those signs until the governmental agency posts signs that meet the requirements imposed by the bill. (2) Existing law provides special written, mailed notice to appear procedures in connection with certain alleged violations recorded by an automated traffic enforcement system. Existing law provides 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, that 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 notice of nonliability 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 be substantively identical to the form set forth in the bill. 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 notice of nonliability. 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) Existing law, known as the hearsay rule, provides that, at a hearing, evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated is inadmissible, subject to specified exceptions. Existing law provides that a printed representation of computer information, a computer program, or images stored on a video or digital medium is presumed to be an accurate representation of the computer information, computer program, or images that it purports to represent. This bill would provide that this presumption applies to the printed representation of computer-generated information, video, or photographic images stored by an automated traffic enforcement system. The bill would expressly state that the printed representation of computer-generated information, video, or photographic images stored by an automated traffic enforcement system does not constitute an out-of-court hearsay statement by a declarant. (4) 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. (5) 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.
Who sponsors SB 1303?
SB 1303 is sponsored by Simitian.
What is the current status of SB 1303?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 23, 2012. Enacted.
Where can I track SB 1303?
Track SB 1303 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 1303

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 SB 1303

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →