Vehicles: automated traffic enforcement systems.

(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.