OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Long Beach, California

Robert E. Shannon
City Attorney

March 30, 2005

Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices
California Supreme Court
350 McAllister Street
San Francisco, California 94l02-3600

Re:       The City of Costa Mesa v. Superior Court of the State of California, Orange County; Supreme Court Case No. S132165

Dear Chief Justice and Associate Justices:

Pursuant to California Rules of Court 28(g), we are writing on behalf of the City of Long Beach (the “Long Beach”) to respectfully urge the Court to grant the above-referenced pending petition for review submitted by the City of Costa Mesa (“Costa Mesa”).

Costa Mesa’s petition raises an issue that is of importance to Long Beach - whether Vehicle Code Section 21455.5 requires a 30-day grace period on the issuance of red light traffic violations under an automated enforcement system with respect to individual intersections or with respect to the municipal automated enforcement system as a whole. Long Beach currently operates a red light enforcement program at various intersections, most of which have experienced a reduction in the rate of injuries and accidents since the installment of the photo enforcement system. The trial court’s ruling, if allowed to stand, would hinder Long Beach’s ability to continue to operate the photo enforcement system in a cost-effective manner and might force Long Beach to abandon what has been a successful program to date.

Very truly yours,

ROBERT E. SHANNON, City Attorney

By RICHARD F. ANTHONY

Deputy City Attorney

CITY OF SANTA ANA
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
20 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA M-29 • P.O. BOX 1988
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702
(714) 647-5201 • Fax (714) 647-6515

March 23, 2005

Honorable Ronald M. George, Chief Justice
and the Associate Justices
California Supreme Court
350 McAllister Street
San Francisco, California 94102-7303

RE:      California Supreme Court Case No. S132165
Court of Appeal No. G035169
City of Costa Mesa v. Superior Court of Orange County (Fischetti)
Letter in Support of Petition for Review pursuant to CRC Rule 28(g)

To the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the California Supreme Court:

On behalf of the League of California Cities[1], we submit this letter pursuant to California Rule of Court 28(g) and respectfully request that the California Supreme Court grant the petition for review filed in the above-entitled matter by Petitioner City of Costa Mesa.

I.          The Nature of the Interest of the League of California Cities.

The case in question, City of Costa Mesa v. Superior Court of Orange County (Fischetti), involves a significant legal interpretation of California Vehicle Code section 21455 which will affect cities that have installed and will install automated traffic enforcement systems.

[[Footnote:]]

[1]  The League of California Cities is an association of 476 California cities united in promoting the general welfare of cities and their citizens. The League is advised by its Legal Advocacy Committee, which is comprised of 24 city attorneys representing all 16 divisions of the League from all parts of the state. The committee monitors appellate litigation affecting municipalities and identifies those that are of statewide significance.

--------

At least 66 cities throughout the state have installed automated enforcement systems to capture red light violations. Studies have shown that violations and accidents at intersections drop dramatically after installation of the camera equipment. The respondent court’s legal interpretation of the statute creates a question of first impression and implicates a factual situation likely to be the subject of persistent litigation in the future by all cities with automated enforcement systems. Each city in this state that operates an automated enforcement system has a substantial interest in this matter.

II.         Why Review of City of Costa Mesa v. Superior Court of Orange County Should Be Granted.

An important question of law regarding the requirements for the operation of automated enforcement systems has been raised by the respondent court. Absent direction from this Court, cities throughout the state that operate automated enforcement systems face endless litigation. The impact on cities and the courts with respect to ticket appeals and potential refunds could be enormous should respondent court’s analysis be allowed to stand and other courts follow suit.

The respondent court’s finding that California Vehicle Code section 21455(b)[2] requires a 30-day notice and warning period before the installation of every individual camera was in error. The erroneous legal assumptions made by the respondent court led to an erroneous conclusion.

The respondent court failed to consider the true legislative intent and statutory language when the applicable statutes were enacted. Senate Bill 833, initially introduced on February 23, 1995, created section 21455.5. As introduced, it did not require a 30-day warning period or public education program. SB 833, amended in the Assembly on June 22, 1995, added the following language to section 21455.5(a):

"Any city utilizing an automated traffic enforcement system at intersections shall, prior to issuing citations, commence a program to issue only warning notices for 30 days. The local jurisdiction shall also make a public announcement of the automated traffic enforcement system at least 30 days prior to the commencement of the enforcement program."

[[Footnote:]]

[2]  Unless otherwise noted all references are to the California Vehicle Code.

--------

Importantly, the League is unaware of any California city that has interpreted the Vehicle Code consistent with Respondent Court’s ruling. Most cities contracted for their automated enforcement system when the above stated language was the law. It is at the commencement of a program at intersections” (plural) not at “a specific intersection” that was the law at the time the public notice was given and warning period was commenced. The emphasis of the statutory scheme has always been on the “system” or “program” and not on individual cameras.

By way of example, the City of Santa Ana contracted with a vendor for an automated enforcement system to be comprised of 20 camera installations throughout the city at various intersections. In accordance with section 21455.6(a) a public hearing was held to authorize the city to enter into a contract for the installation of a 20 camera system.[3] Notice was published in a local newspaper. Prior to the first intersection issuing any citations, the intersection was posted with automated enforcement signs in all directions, as well as at every entrance into the city. Any driver entering the city was forewarned and put on notice that an automated enforcement system was installed within the city limits.[4]   During the first 30 days of the first camera being installed warning notices were issued to violators. In addition, there were media press releases stating that the city was commencing an automated enforcement program with an anticipated 20 cameras being installed. Subsequently, additional cameras were installed and no 30 day warning period ensued. Citations were issued immediately.

In 2003, AB 1022 was introduced and section 21455.5 was once again amended. The new wording in section 21455.5(b) read:

[[Footnotes:]]

[3]  Section 21455.6 requires a public hearing on the proposed use of the “system.” To accept the respondent court’s interpretation, the city council would have to have a public hearing every time another camera is added to the “system.”

[4]  Section 21455.5(a)(1) requires that signage be placed at the affected intersection OR at all major entrances to the city.

--------

"Prior to issuing citations under this section, a local jurisdiction utilizing an automated traffic enforcement system shall commence a program to issue only warning notices for 30 days. The local jurisdiction shall also make a public announcement of the automated traffic enforcement system at least 30 days prior to the commencement of the enforcement program."

This language addresses the “system’s” presence within the local jurisdiction. There is no discussion in any of the Senate Bill analyses to suggest that the public announcement and 30-day warning period was to be applicable to each and every camera installation site. The respondent court's conclusion that there must be a public announcement and a 30-day warning period for every camera installation is in error. Prior to issuing citations, cities complied with the requisite public announcement and implemented a 30-day warning period with the first camera installation. The public, in each instance, was put on notice when a city was commencing the installation of automated traffic enforcement systems.

Ill.        Conclusion

The City of Costa Mesa case should be reviewed by this court. The court made erroneous legal assumptions that led to an erroneous legal conclusion that should be reversed.

Respectfully submitted,

[[sig]]

Paula Coleman

Assistant City Attorney for the City of Santa Ana on behalf of the League of California Cities

[[[End]]

[[Highwayrobbery.net made this file of the filed original, by OCR (optical character recognition).  No attempt has been made to remove all errors that occurred during the OCR process.
Edits or explanatory notes by the editor are in double square brackets [[  ]].
This copy of these letters may be freely copied and distributed, so long as credit is given to highwayrobbery.net .]]