California 2011-2012 Regular Session Status: To Executive

SB 29 — Vehicles: automated traffic enforcement systems.

Last action — Consideration of Governor's veto stricken from file.

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

This bill died with 2011-2012 Regular Session. It reached “To Executive” 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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

(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 Text

Action History

  1. Consideration of Governor's veto stricken from file.

  2. In Senate. Consideration of Governor's veto pending.

  3. Vetoed by the Governor.

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

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

  6. In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.

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

  8. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  9. Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

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

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

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

  13. Referred to Com. on TRANS.

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

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

  16. Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading.

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

  18. Set for hearing May 9.

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

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

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

  22. Set for hearing March 29.

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

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

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

Sponsors

  • Anderson · Cosponsor
  • Huff · Cosponsor
  • Simitian · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 2 co-sponsors · 119 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Simitian

Co-sponsors (2)

  • Anderson
  • Huff

Not signed on (119)

119 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 119 →

"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 SB29 Simitian Concurrence

Passed 38 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 36001
Republican 1000
Democratic 1001
Total 38002
% of votes cast 95%0%0%5%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Cannella — Yea
Wyland — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
De León — Yea
Negrete McLeod — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Evans — Yea
Runner — Yea
Fuller — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Harman — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Huff — Yea
Kehoe — Yea
Dutton — Yea
Anderson — Yea
Blakeslee — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Liu — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Price — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Walters — Yea
Alquist — Not Voting
Leno — Yea
Simitian — Yea
Vargas — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Wright — Yea
Emmerson — Yea
Correa — Yea
DeSaulnier — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Yea
La Malfa — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Not Voting
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Yea

Official roll call →

SB 29 Simitian Senate Third Reading By ENG

Passed 70 Yea · 4 Nay · 6 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 67406
Republican 2000
Democratic 1000
Total 70406
% of votes cast 88%5%0%8%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Gorell — Not Voting
Halderman — Nay
Butler — Yea
Feuer — Yea
Carter — Yea
Fong — Yea
Cedillo — Yea
Allen — Yea
Huber — Yea
Alejo — Yea
Conway — Yea
Cook — Yea
Logue — Yea
Swanson — Yea
Wagner — Yea
Campos — Yea
Portantino — Yea
John A. Pérez — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Fletcher — Yea
Furutani — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Hagman — Yea
Hall — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Harkey — Yea
Block — Yea
Donnelly — Nay
Hueso — Not Voting
Jeffries — Not Voting
Knight — Nay
Lara — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Miller — Nay
Monning — Yea
Nestande — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Pan — Yea
Silva — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Solorio — Yea
Torres — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Achadjian — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Beall — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brownley — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Hayashi — Yea
Hill — Yea
Huffman — Yea
Ma — Yea
Mansoor — Not Voting
Morrell — Not Voting
Norby — Yea
Olsen — Yea
Perea — Yea
Smyth — Yea
Valadao — Yea
Williams — Yea
Eng — Yea
Davis — Yea
Dickinson — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
Garrick — Not Voting
Yamada — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Bonnie Lowenthal — Yea
Roger Hernández — Yea
V. Manuel Pérez — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 17 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 16000
Democratic 1000
Total 17000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (17)
Member Party Vote
Hall — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Harkey — Yea
Campos — Yea
Hill — Yea
Donnelly — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Solorio — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Lara — Yea
Norby — Yea
Wagner — Yea
Davis — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

3rd Reading

Passed 36 Yea · 0 Nay · 4 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 34003
Democratic 2000
Republican 0001
Total 36004
% of votes cast 90%0%0%10%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Hancock — Yea
Wyland — Not Voting
Yee — Yea
Cannella — Yea
Evans — Yea
Runner — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
De León — Yea
Fuller — Yea
Negrete McLeod — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Correa — Yea
Huff — Not Voting
Leno — Yea
Alquist — Yea
Anderson — Yea
Blakeslee — Yea
Dutton — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Liu — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Simitian — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Wright — Yea
Harman — Yea
Kehoe — Yea
Price — Yea
Vargas — Yea
Walters — Not Voting
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 →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 9 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 9000
Total 9000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (9)
Member Party Vote
Runner — Yea
Kehoe — Yea
Alquist — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Price — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Walters — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Emmerson — 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 29 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, 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.
Who sponsors SB 29?
SB 29 is sponsored by Anderson, Huff, and Simitian.
What is the current status of SB 29?
This bill died with 2011-2012 Regular Session. It reached “To Executive” 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 SB 29?
Track SB 29 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 29

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 29

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →