WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 609

Civil Procedure - As introduced, specifies that an unauthorized alien does not have standing to commence or appear as a plaintiff in any civil action in this state. - Amends TCA Title 4; Title 8; Title 16; Title 20; Title 28 and Title 29.

114th Regular Session (2025-2026) Introduced by Tim Rudd

Pilot use of automated speed cameras in school zones on state roads to issue $250 civil fines with de novo appeals and owner liability, limited to a pilot.

Taken off notice for cal in s/c Civil Justice Subcommittee of Judiciary Committee
#civilprocedure
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 609

Summary — HB 609: “Phoebe’s Law” — Speed Measuring in School Zones

Status: Introduced as a pilot program to authorize automated enforcement of school‑zone speeds. (Drafted as “Phoebe’s Law”; versions introduced in NC General Assembly.)
Subject areas: Transportation, Traffic Enforcement, Public Safety, Administrative Hearings, State Funds.

Main purpose / intent

The bill establishes a pilot program authorizing the State Department of Transportation to use electronic speed‑measuring systems (automated camera + speed sensor units) on State‑maintained highways in school zones to detect speed violations. The stated goal is to improve public safety around schools by deterring and penalizing speeding.

Key provisions

  • Authorization: DOT may deploy mobile or fixed electronic speed‑measuring systems on State‑maintained highways in school zones. Local governments are prohibited from operating these systems.
  • Definition & evidence: An “electronic speed‑measuring system” is an automated camera + sensor capable of recording speed and producing one or more digital photographs. Results from approved systems are admissible as prima facie evidence of vehicle speed.
  • Minimum data/photo requirements: The system must produce a clear image showing the vehicle, license plate and issuing state, date/time/location, and recorded speed.
  • Signage: DOT must post conspicuous warning signs (consistent with statewide standards) not more than 1,000 feet from a system location to notify motorists.
  • Approval and calibration: Systems must be approved by the Secretary of Transportation. The bill requires calibration, testing, and maintenance standards (and related recordkeeping) to ensure accuracy (detailed calibration procedures are specified in the bill’s standards).
  • Penalty structure:
    • A civil (noncriminal) penalty of $250 for speeding violations detected by the systems in school zones.
    • No motor‑vehicle points or insurance points are assigned as a result of these civil penalties.
    • If the registered owner fails to pay or respond within 30 days, an additional $125 penalty applies.
  • Owner liability and defenses: The registered owner is presumed responsible for the penalty unless, within 30 days, the owner files a sworn affidavit identifying the actual driver or claiming the vehicle was stolen (with documentation such as a police report when applicable).
  • Notice procedure: DOT (or the agency designated in the bill) mails a written notice to the registered owner containing the photo, plate, speed, date/time/location, and instructions for payment or contest.
  • Adjudication & appeals:
    • An administrative, nonjudicial hearing process (to be run by DMV or similar agency) is established for challenges.
    • Decisions can be appealed to district court (trial de novo); appeals generally must be filed within 30 days. The Attorney General represents the State on appeal unless delegated.
  • Fund destination: Civil penalties are directed into a designated special fund within the State Civil Penalty and Forfeiture Fund (to be used as specified by statute).
  • Pilot program nature: The bill frames the initial effort as a limited pilot with statutory standards and procedures; implementation steps require agency rulemaking/administrative set‑up.

Who is affected

  • Motorists/drivers who travel State‑maintained school‑zone roads (owners are initially responsible for penalties).
  • Department of Transportation (implements systems), Division of Motor Vehicles (administrative hearings/notice processes), and Attorney General (appeals).
  • Local governments (explicitly barred from operating systems under this draft).
  • Schools, parents, and communities (safety impacts; notification signage).
  • Courts (may receive de novo appeals), and state treasury (collection of civil penalties).

Potential impacts and considerations

  • Safety: Intended to reduce speeding and improve child pedestrian safety near schools.
  • Revenue & costs: Civil penalties generate revenue into a special fund; implementing agencies incur costs for purchasing/operating equipment, systems approval, calibration, administration, and hearings.
  • Legal/admin: New administrative processes, owner‑liability presumptions, and appeal pathways may increase administrative workload and litigation.
  • Privacy & fairness: Automated enforcement programs often raise questions about accuracy, calibration records, notice reliability, and equitable application; the bill addresses many of these through calibration standards, notice requirements, and adjudication rights.

Procedural / timeline notes

  • Systems must be approved and conform to calibration/testing and signage requirements prior to issuing notices.
  • Administrative rules and program procedures will be developed by the implementing agencies (DOT/DMV), including hearing procedures and evidence standards.
  • The bill envisions limited scope as a pilot; follow‑on evaluations or statutory amendments may be required to expand program scope.

If you want, I can:
- Extract and summarize the bill’s specific calibration/testing schedule and admissibility clauses (the draft contains detailed technical requirements), or
- Prepare a short “what this means for drivers” one‑page for public distribution.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.