Individual legislator voting records for this vote are not currently available. Includes all politicians who were in office at any point during the 2011-2012 Legislature.

SB 1303 - An Act to Amend Sections 1552 and 1553 of the Evidence Code, and to Amend Sections 21455.5 and 40518 of the Vehicle Code, Relating to Vehicles.

Vehicles: automated traffic enforcement systems. 2011-2012 Legislature. View bill details
Author(s):
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… More
(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. Hide
 
Status:
The bill has become law (chaptered). 
Senate Vote: On Passage

PASSED on August 27, 2012.

voted YES: 35 voted NO: 0
5 voted present/not voting

An Act to Amend Sections 1552 and 1553 of the Evidence Code, and to Amend Sections 21455.5 and 40518 of the Vehicle Code, Relating to Vehicles.

SB 1303 — 2011-2012 Legislature

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… More
(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. Hide
Learn More
At LegInfo.ca.gov
Title
An Act to Amend Sections 1552 and 1553 of the Evidence Code, and to Amend Sections 21455.5 and 40518 of the Vehicle Code, Relating to Vehicles.
Author(s)
Joe Simitian
Co-Authors
    Subjects
    • Vehicles: automated traffic enforcement systems
    Major Actions
    Introduced2/23/2012
    Referred to Committee
    Passed Senate Committee on Transportation and Housing3/27/2012
    Passed Senate Committee on Appropriations4/30/2012
    Passed Senate5/31/2012
    Passed Assembly Committee on Transportation6/25/2012
    Passed Assembly Committee on Judiciary7/03/2012
    Passed Assembly Committee on Appropriations8/16/2012
    Passed Assembly8/23/2012
    Passed Senate8/27/2012
    Presented to the governor (enrolled)8/31/2012
    Became law (chaptered).9/28/2012
    Bill History
    Chamber/CommitteeMotionDateResult
    select this voteSenate Committee on Transportation and HousingDo pass, but re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.3/27/2012This motion PASSED the Senate Committee on Transportation and Housing
    8 voted YES 0 voted NO 1 voted present/not voting
    select this voteSenate Committee on AppropriationsDo pass.4/30/2012This motion PASSED the Senate Committee on Appropriations
    7 voted YES 0 voted NO 0 voted present/not voting
    select this voteSenateSenate 3rd Reading SB1303 Simitian5/31/2012This bill PASSED the Senate
    38 voted YES 0 voted NO 2 voted present/not voting
    select this voteAssembly Committee on TransportationDo pass and be re-referred to the Committee on Judiciary.6/25/2012This motion PASSED the Assembly Committee on Transportation
    11 voted YES 1 voted NO 2 voted present/not voting
    select this voteAssembly Committee on JudiciaryDo pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.7/03/2012This motion PASSED the Assembly Committee on Judiciary
    9 voted YES 0 voted NO 1 voted present/not voting
    select this voteAssembly Committee on AppropriationsDo pass.8/16/2012This motion PASSED the Assembly Committee on Appropriations
    16 voted YES 1 voted NO 0 voted present/not voting
    select this voteAssemblySB 1303 Simitian Senate Third Reading By ENG8/23/2012This bill PASSED the Assembly
    62 voted YES 13 voted NO 5 voted present/not voting
    currently selectedSenateUnfinished Business SB1303 Simitian Concurrence8/27/2012This bill PASSED the Senate
    35 voted YES 0 voted NO 5 voted present/not voting
    ActionDateDescription
    Introduced2/23/2012
    2/23/2012Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
    2/24/2012From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 25.
    3/08/2012Referred to Com. on T. & H.
    3/09/2012Set for hearing March 27.
    select this voteVote3/27/2012Do pass, but re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.
    3/28/2012From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 8. Noes 0. Page 3035.) (March 27). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
    4/20/2012Set for hearing April 30.
    select this voteVote4/30/2012Do pass.
    5/01/2012From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 3388.) (April 30).
    5/02/2012Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
    5/09/2012Ordered to special consent calendar.
    5/14/2012From special consent calendar. Ordered to third reading.
    5/29/2012Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading. (Corrected May 30.) (Corrected May 31.)
    5/30/2012Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
    5/31/2012Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 38. Noes 0. Page 3739.) Ordered to the Assembly.
    5/31/2012In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
    select this voteSenate Vote on Passage5/31/2012Senate 3rd Reading SB1303 Simitian
    6/14/2012Referred to Coms. on TRANS. and JUD.
    select this voteVote6/25/2012Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
    6/26/2012From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 11. Noes 1.) (June 25). Re-referred to Com. on JUD. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
    select this voteVote7/03/2012Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
    7/05/2012From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (July 3).
    8/06/2012Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
    8/07/2012From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR. (Corrected August 8.)
    8/13/2012From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR. (Corrected August 13.)
    8/16/2012From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 16. Noes 1.) (August 16).
    select this voteVote8/16/2012Do pass.
    8/20/2012Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
    8/23/2012Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 62. Noes 13. Page 6184.) Ordered to the Senate.
    select this voteAssembly Vote on Passage8/23/2012SB 1303 Simitian Senate Third Reading By ENG
    8/24/2012In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
    8/27/2012Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 35. Noes 0. Page 4851.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.
    currently selectedSenate Vote on Passage8/27/2012Unfinished Business SB1303 Simitian Concurrence
    8/31/2012Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 11:15 p.m.
    9/28/2012Approved by the Governor.
    9/28/2012Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 735, Statutes of 2012.

    MapLight did not identify any interest groups that took a position on this vote.
    You may be able to explore campaign contributions data if you add interest groups.

    0 Organizations Supported and 0 Opposed

    Organizations that took a position on
    An Act to Amend Sections 1552 and 1553 of the Evidence Code, and to Amend Sections 21455.5 and 40518 of the Vehicle Code, Relating to Vehicles.: Unfinished Business SB1303 Simitian Concurrence

    0 organizations supported this bill

    0 organizations opposed this bill

    Need proof?

    View citations of support and opposition

    Includes reported contributions to campaigns of Senators in office on day of vote, from interest groups invested in the vote according to MapLight, January 1, 2009 – December 31, 2012.
    Contributions data source: FollowTheMoney.org

    Add Data Filters:

    Legislator Filters
    Legislator Filters
    Show All
    NamePartyDistrict$ From Interest Groups
    That Supported
    $ From Interest Groups
    That Opposed
    Vote
    Elaine AlquistDCA-13$0$0
    Joel AndersonRCA-36$0$0
    Tom BerryhillRCA-14$0$0
    Sam BlakesleeRCA-15$0$0
    Ron CalderonDCA-30$0$0
    Anthony CannellaRCA-12$0$0
    Ellen CorbettDCA-10$0$0
    Lou CorreaDCA-34$0$0
    Kevin De LeonDCA-22$0$0
    Mark DeSaulnierDCA-7$0$0
    Bob DuttonRCA-31$0$0
    Bill EmmersonRCA-37$0$0
    Noreen EvansDCA-2$0$0
    Jean FullerRCA-18$0$0
    Ted GainesRCA-1$0$0
    Loni HancockDCA-9$0$0
    Tom HarmanRCA-35$0$0
    Ed HernandezDCA-24$0$0
    Bob HuffRCA-29$0$0
    Christine KehoeDCA-39$0$0
    Doug La MalfaRCA-4$0$0
    Mark LenoDCA-3$0$0
    Ted LieuDCA-28$0$0
    Carol LiuDCA-21$0$0
    Alan LowenthalDCA-27$0$0
    Gloria Negrete McLeodDCA-32$0$0
    Alex PadillaDCA-20$0$0
    Fran PavleyDCA-23$0$0
    Curren PriceDCA-26$0$0
    Michael RubioDCA-16$0$0
    Sharon RunnerRCA-17$0$0
    Joe SimitianDCA-11$0$0
    Darrell SteinbergDCA-6$0$0
    Tony StricklandRCA-19$0$0
    Juan VargasDCA-40$0$0
    Mimi WaltersRCA-33$0$0
    Lois WolkDCA-5$0$0
    Rod WrightDCA-25$0$0
    Mark WylandRCA-38$0$0
    Leland YeeDCA-8$0$0

    Interest Groups that supported this bill

    $ Donated

    Interest Groups that opposed this bill

    $ Donated
    Loading…
    Date Range of Contributions
    Enter a custom date range