Red Light Camera Reform – AB 666

 

Red Light Camera Reform– AB 666

WHAT OPPONENTS ARE CLAIMING AB 666 DOES VS. WHAT AB 666 WILL ACTUALLY DO

• FICTION:Eliminates Your Right to a Trial if You Get a Red Light Camera Ticket

Ø  TRUTH - A violator may elect to pursue an appeal through an administrative hearing process established in accordance with current CA statute regarding civil matters. A contestant may seek further review by appealing to the superior court.

· FICTION: Makes You Responsible for the Ticket Even When Someone Else Is Driving

Ø TRUTH - All notices of violation provide a notice of non-liability which can be submitted by the registered owner indicating the defense of the violation. If the registered owner was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the violation, and does not return an executed notice of non-liability, as is the case with all civil penalties, the registered owner will be liable for the citation.

 
 

· FICTION:Sets up Kangaroo “Administrative Hearing” Courts Run By Those Who Gave You the Ticket

Ø TRUTH - The administrative hearing process will follow that currently used for parking violations and toll evasion. This process requires certified examiners and for the hearing to be conducted in accordance with written procedures to ensure an independent objective, fair and impartial review of automated violations.

 
 

· FICTION:No Evidence Other than the Ticket Itself is Needed to Convict You

Ø TRUTH - All evidence is reviewed by a law enforcement officer and if they deem it appropriate, a citation is issued. This evidence reviewed includes a minimum of 3 still photos, as well as a 12 second video clip of the incident. The video evidence is admissible as are all computer-generated data and presumed to be accurate. The alleged violation can be contested by a showing that a malfunction occurred with the equipment.

 
 

· FICTION:No Right to Face Your Accuser

Ø TRUTH - If a violator elects to appeal through the initial review, hearing process or the superior court, they will have the right to address a representative from the issuing agency. California statute deems evidence submitted in conjunction with a notice of automated violation as prima facie evidence, but it can be challenged by showing that a malfunction occurred.

· FICTION:You Are Assumed Guilty and Have to Prove Your Innocence

Ø TRUTH - All notices of violation provide a notice of non-liability which can be submitted by the registered owner indicating a defense of the violation.

 
 

· ASSERTION:You Will Have to Pay a Fee If You Want Your Case Heard in Court

Ø TRUTH - Yes, a fee will be required in accordance with subsection (b) of Section 70613 of the Government Code; a filing fee for the notice of appeal to the superior court shall be required. If the appellant prevails, this fee, together with any deposit of an automated violation penalty shall be promptly refunded by the issuing agency in accordance of the judgment of the court.
 

· FICTION:Expands the Use of Photo Enforcement to Other Traffic Violations

Ø TRUTH -Automated enforcement is currently permissible in California for Rail Crossing violations, parking violations, toll violations and intersection violations. AB 666 does not expand authority past these already permissible offenses

The goal of AB 666 is to improve the current red light intersection programs by:

Ø Reducing the burden on the courts by migrating to an administrative violation;

Ø Reducing the fine and fee levels;

Ø Improving collection provisions to prohibit scofflaws;
 

Ø Broadening compliance which will likely equate to a wider safety impact.