ARIZONA STATE SENATE
RESEARCH STAFF
|
KATY YANEZ LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH ANALYST APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE Telephone: (602) 926 -3171 Facsimile: (602) 926 -3833 |
DATE: April 19, 2011
SUBJECT: House Changes to S.B. 1398 – photo enforcement; DPS equipment
fund (NOW: moving violations; assessment; equipment; enforcement)
________________________________________________________________________________
As passed by the Senate, S.B. 1398 extends the transfer of remaining monies in the Photo Enforcement Fund (PEF), up to forty percent and not exceeding $7,000,000, to the Public Safety Equipment Fund (PSEF) to FY 2012.
Purpose
An emergency measure, establishes a $13 assessment for criminal offenses and civil penalties relating to violations of local motor vehicle ordinances and provides for the disposition of those monies. Makes appropriations.
Background
Photo Enforcement/PSEF
Laws 2008, Chapter 286 established a statewide photo enforcement program to be managed by the Department of Public Safety (DPS). In July 2008, DPS contracted with a private vendor to construct and operate the state photo enforcement system. The cameras were placed throughout the state at locations determined by the Director of DPS to detect speed limit violations. In July 2010, DPS did not renew their contract with its vendor which facilitated the state photo enforcement system.
The PSEF was established by Laws 2008, Chapter 286 to provide monies for protective armor, electronic stun devices and other safety equipment. PSEF revenues are derived from the first $1,200,000 in revenue generated by additional assessments of up to $1,500 to be paid by every offender convicted of driving or operating under the influence.
Laws 2010, Chapter 266 redirected forty percent of the remaining PEF monies, not to exceed $7,000,000, to the PSEF in FY 2011. This legislation continues that funding source for the PSEF in FY 2012. There is no impact to the state General Fund as a result of this legislation.
GIITEM Fund
Established in the year 2010 by A.R.S. § 41-1724, monies in the GIITEM Fund are used for employer sanctions enforcement, enforcing human smuggling and drug smuggling laws, gang and strict immigration enforcement, including border security and border personnel and county jail reimbursement resulting from costs attributed to illegal immigration. Revenues to the GIITEM Fund are derived from penalties assessed against law enforcement agencies in the state that are not enforcing current illegal immigration statutes. The fine can be no less than $500 and no more than $5,000 per day for as long as the law enforcement agency is in non-compliance.
Law provides that for each year that monies are available in the GIITEM Fund, the first $1,600,000 is allocated to a county sheriff of a county with a population of more than three million persons. The next $500,000 is allocated to a county sheriff of a county with a population of less than 500,000 persons but more than 300,000 persons. Any remaining monies are used for agreements or contracts in accordance with law. Law specifically excludes a county with a population of more than 500,000 persons but less than two million from receiving monies from the GIITEM Fund.
Provisions
The House of Representatives passed a strike everything amendment that combined provisions from SB 1353 and with provisions from the originating SB 1398 that:
1. Establishes the GIITEM Subaccount (Subaccount) to be administered by the Department of Public Safety .
2. States that any Subaccount monies distributed to a county sheriff must go directly to the county sheriff and are not subject to any form of approval by the Board of Supervisors.
3. States that all Subaccount monies are subject to legislative appropriation and must be used for law enforcement purposes relating to border security, including border personnel.
4. Establishes a $13 assessment for all criminal and civil traffic offenses.
5. Requires the court with originating jurisdiction over the criminal or civil traffic offense to transfer the collected assessments to their respective county or city treasurers.
6. Requires the city or county treasurer to transmit eight dollars of the assessment to the State Treasurer, with four dollars transferred to the PSEF and the remaining four dollars to the Subaccount.
7. Requires the treasurer to transmit four dollars of the assessment to the agency that investigated the offense or issued the citation, to be used to supplement, not supplant, monies available for officer safety equipment.
8. Requires the city treasurer to transmit one dollar of the assessment to the county treasurer, to be used improve, maintain and enhance the ability of courts to collect and manage assessed monies, improve court automation and to improve case processing or the administration of justice in:
a) a county with a population of less than two million persons, to the justice courts, distributed proportionally based on judicial productivity credits as reported in Arizona Supreme Court statistics; and
b) a county with a population of two million persons or more, to the justice court administration.
9. States that all monies deposited in such funds are subject to legislative appropriation and must be used by the Department of Public Safety for public safety equipment.
10. Repeals statutes relating to the state photo enforcement system.
11. Transfers forty percent of remaining monies in the PEF, after paying all expenses and court costs that cover the processing of photo enforcement violations and citations, not exceeding $7,000,000, to the PSEF for FY 2012.
12. Eliminates the exclusion of a county official in a county with a population of more than 500,000 persons but less than 2,000,000 persons from receiving any monies from GIITEM.
13. States that if the citation issued by a law enforcement agency as a result of a photo enforcement system is served in a manner other than proscribed by rules of civil procedure, the agency must inform the person that there is no obligation to identify the driver or respond to the citation.
14. States, additionally, that failure to respond to the citation will result in the probability that the person will be formally served pursuant to state law and Arizona rules of civil procedure, which will likely result in the person being required to pay the cost of the service.
15. States that, notwithstanding any other law, if a person receives a notice of violation in the mail of a traffic sign violation, speed restriction violation or of a city or town excessive speed ordinance violation that is obtained using a photo enforcement system, the person does not have to either identify who is in the photo or respond to the notice of violation.
16. Requires the notice of violation to state that:
a) the notice is not a court issued document;
b) the recipient is under no obligation to identify the person or respond to the notice; and
c) failure to respond to the notice may result in official service that may result in an additionally levied fee.
17. Repeals statute that prohibited DPS from considering photo enforcement violation for determining whether the person's driver license should be suspended or revoked.
18. Delays the repeal date for the state enforcement system and PEF from and after June 30, 2012.
19. Requires all PSEF monies to be used by DPS for public safety equipment.
20. Appropriates $1,000,000 from the State GF in FY 2012 to DPS to enter into a memorandum of understanding with a county with a population between 300,000 and 500,000 persons to purchase equipment and supplies for deputies in the county for border security.
21. Requires the initial $1,000,000 received by the Subaccount to be deposited to the State GF.
22. Requires that any monies appropriated in FY 2012 to the State Aid to Indigent Defense Fund to be deposited into the Subaccount.
Miscellaneous
23. Defines notice of violation to mean a notice issued by a photo enforcement company or municipality that is not a uniform traffic ticket or complaint.
24. Defines photo enforcement system to have the same meaning as proscribed in statute.
25. Contains technical and conforming changes.
26. Becomes effective on the signature of the Governor, if the emergency clause is enacted.
Senate Action House Action
APPROP 2/8/11 DP 13-0-0-0 MAPS 2/28/11 DPA 8-0-0-1-0
3rd Read 2/22/11 30-0-0-0 APPROP 2/28/11 10-1-0-2
3rd Read 4/19/11 38-22-0-0
KY/ly
cc: All Senators