I oppose Senate Bill 720, which would take away your right to a trial for red-light camera tickets and make the vehicle owner responsible—even if they weren’t the one driving. 

SB-720 seeks to dramatically expand the use of automated red-light enforcement while simultaneously eliminating long-standing fundamental due process protections for California drivers. While framed as a modernization of enforcement tools, SB-720 ultimately sacrifices due process, public trust, and safety outcomes in favor of a streamlined revenue-generating model.

SB-720:

1. Presumes Guilt, Reverses Burden of Proof
SB-720 allows citations to be issued solely based on a photograph of a vehicle’s license plate and basic metadata, such as date, time, and location. This minimal documentation is treated as prima facie evidence of guilt, and the vehicle owner is presumed responsible—regardless of who was driving. The accused is denied the right to cross-examine witnesses, subpoena evidence, or review the full circumstances of the alleged violation. In effect, SB-720 eliminates the presumption of innocence and provides no meaningful way to contest a citation.

2. Shifts Responsibility to the Vehicle Owner, Not the Driver
By removing the requirement to identify the actual driver, SB-720 shifts liability to vehicle owners—even when someone else was behind the wheel. This departs from California’s long-standing legal standard that traffic violations are tied to driver behavior, not vehicle ownership. It also means dangerous drivers evade accountability while law-abiding owners bear the consequences.

3. Eliminates the Right to a Court Trial
SB-720 eliminates the right to a court trial and replaces it with an administrative process operated by the same jurisdiction that issued the citation. These hearings are not overseen by independent judges and are not bound by formal rules of evidence. Adjudicators—who may have little or no legal training—preside over cases in which the citation itself is treated as prima facie evidence of guilt. Defendants have no right to cross-examine witnesses, subpoena evidence, or access the same procedural safeguards provided in a court of law. Appeals to Superior Court require filing fees and are limited in scope, further discouraging meaningful challenges. The process is structurally imbalanced and appears designed to dissuade recipients from contesting citations, pressuring them instead to simply pay the fine—regardless of fault or circumstance.

4. Expands Enforcement Without Checks or Oversight
SB-720 makes it easier for jurisdictions to adopt red-light camera programs by reducing the cost of running the program and allowing cities to keep all revenue. This change creates a powerful incentive to expand camera deployments widely. As seen in past programs, such expansions often lead to mass ticketing for minor, non-dangerous infractions such as rolling right turns—raising serious concerns about enforcement overreach and the use of camera systems as revenue tools rather than safety interventions.

5. Burdens Low-Income Drivers with a High Volume of Minor Tickets
Although SB-720 lowers the fine for red-light camera violations to $100, it enables mass issuance of citations for technical or low-risk infractions—such as rolling right turns and split-second entries after the light turns red. These are violations that police officers rarely cite in person. With expanded automation and minimal oversight, vehicle owners will be far more likely to receive multiple tickets, quickly accumulating financial penalties. Even modest fines, when frequent and unavoidable, impose significant hardship —particularly in lower-income communities.

6. Offers No Real Safety Benefit
Research shows that most crashes from red-light violations involve drivers who are distracted, impaired, or fleeing law enforcement—behaviors that cameras cannot prevent. Conversely, engineering solutions like extending yellow light intervals or improving signal visibility have been proven to reduce violations and crashes. Yet SB-720 removes incentives for these proven fixes by tying enforcement revenue to unrelated infrastructure spending and encouraging reliance on automated ticketing instead.

7. Creates a Revenue Model That Prioritizes Profit Over Public Safety
SB-720 transforms red-light camera programs into high-volume, low-oversight ticketing operations. Camera vendors benefit from reduced operational costs—no need to identify drivers or prepare evidence—and cities benefit from a steady revenue stream. As past program data shows, jurisdictions tend to increase ticket volume by targeting minor violations rather than dangerous behavior. Cities that don’t generate enough revenue through these tactics often end their programs, confirming that financial viability—not safety—is the driving force.

Recommendation
I support efforts to reform California’s red-light camera enforcement system, including making fines more reasonable—particularly for minor violations. However, SB-720 is not the appropriate path. Instead of increasing fairness, it removes critical rights, weakens public safety, and fuels a system that prioritizes automation and profit over transparency and accountability.

We urge you to reject SB-720 and work instead toward reforms that uphold due process, improve road safety through engineering and targeted enforcement on truly dangerous behavior, and ensure California’s traffic laws reflect justice—not just revenue.

Vote NO on SB-720!