SB 720: Automated traffic enforcement system programs.

Official summary

Legislative Counsel’s Digest (official, as of the latest version). Written by nonpartisan legislative staff; reproduced verbatim.

Existing law authorizes the limit line, intersection, or other places where a driver is required to stop to be equipped with an automated traffic enforcement system if the governmental agency utilizing the system meets certain requirements, including identifying the system with signs and ensuring that the system meets specified criteria on minimum yellow light change intervals. Existing law authorizes, until January 1, 2032, the Cities of Los Angeles, San Jose, Oakland, Glendale, and Long Beach, and the City and County of San Francisco to establish a speed safety system pilot program for speed enforcement that utilizes a speed safety system in specified areas, if the system meets specified requirements. Existing law prescribes specified requirements for a notice of violation issued pursuant to these provisions, and requires a violation of a speed law that is recorded by a speed safety system to be subject only to a specified civil penalty.

This bill would additionally authorize a city, county, or city and county to establish an automated traffic enforcement system program to use those systems to detect a violation of a traffic control signal, if the system meets specified requirements. The bill would require a violation of a traffic control signal that is recorded by an automated traffic enforcement system to be subject to escalating civil penalties, as specified. The bill would, among other things, provide for the issuance of a notice of violation, an initial review, an administrative hearing, and an appeals process, as specified, for a violation under this program. The bill would clarify that a local jurisdiction may utilize an automated traffic enforcement system pursuant to these provisions or the above-described provisions authorizing the utilization of an automated traffic enforcement system. The bill would require a local jurisdiction utilizing the above-described provisions to take into account the relative risk to traffic and pedestrian safety posed by prohibited right turns on red compared to proceeding through the intersection against a red signal.

Existing law establishes a $25 filing fee for specified appeals and petitions.

This bill would require a $25 filing fee for an appeal challenging a notice of violation issued as a result of an automated traffic enforcement system.

Existing provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

Sponsors

Sponsors by party (alphabetical): Democratic 3

“Support” is shown only as formal sponsorship recorded by the legislature. Roll-call votes are available on the official bill page.

Recent official actions

1. October 13, 2025Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 782, Statutes of 2025.
2. October 13, 2025Approved by the Governor.
3. September 23, 2025Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 2 p.m.
4. September 13, 2025Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 33. Noes 3. Page 3026.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.
5. September 12, 2025In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
6. September 12, 2025Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 68. Noes 8. Page 3399.) Ordered to the Senate.
7. September 4, 2025Ordered to third reading.
8. September 4, 2025Read third time and amended.
9. September 3, 2025Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
10. September 2, 2025Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
11. August 29, 2025From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 12. Noes 3.) (August 29).
12. August 20, 2025August 20 set for first hearing. Placed on APPR. suspense file.