WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 5722

Concerning photographs, microphotographs, and electronic images from traffic safety cameras and toll systems.

2023-2024 Regular Session Introduced by Manka Dhingra and 4 co-sponsors

SB 5722 lets law enforcement and prosecutors access traffic camera and toll-system images via court warrants or subpoenas with a materiality finding, narrowing privacy protections.

By resolution, returned to Senate Rules Committee for third reading.
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 5722

Summary — SB 5722

Concerning photographs, microphotographs, and electronic images from traffic safety cameras and toll systems

Main purpose

SB 5722 removes certain statutory barriers to using images and related records collected by automated traffic safety cameras and photo toll systems in criminal investigations and prosecutions by allowing their disclosure to law enforcement and litigants when obtained through appropriate court process.

Key provisions

  • Requires that any records, photographs, microphotographs, or electronic images collected with:

    • an automated traffic safety camera (used for notices of infraction), or
    • a photo toll system (used for toll enforcement), be made available to:
    • law enforcement pursuant to a lawfully issued search warrant; and
    • prosecuting attorneys and defense lawyers pursuant to a subpoena for production/inspection in a criminal case in which the court has made a finding of materiality.

  • Clarifies that the existing statutory restrictions on use of these materials (e.g., not open to the public, limited use to enforcement of infractions or tolls, limited retention) do not apply to materials produced under an applicable warrant or subpoena.

  • No appropriation is included. A fiscal note is available.

  • Effective date: 90 days after adjournment of the legislative session in which the bill is passed.

Context / background (existing law)

  • Automated traffic safety cameras may be used only for specific authorized infractions (red light, certain speed zones, railroad crossings, etc.). Camera images are limited to the vehicle and license plate, must not reveal driver or passenger faces, and locations must be clearly posted in many cases.
  • Under current law, photographs and records from these systems:
    • are not public records,
    • may only be used for enforcing the specific infraction or toll penalty, and
    • may not be used in unrelated court proceedings and must not be retained longer than necessary for enforcement.

SB 5722 permits disclosure beyond those limits—but only when a warrant or a court‑authorized subpoena (with a finding of materiality) is used.

Who is affected

  • Law enforcement agencies (may obtain images via warrant for investigations).
  • Prosecuting attorneys and defense counsel (may obtain images via subpoena with court finding).
  • Local governments and agencies operating traffic cameras or toll photo systems (must respond to valid warrants/subpoenas).
  • Motorists and vehicle owners (their vehicle/toll images may be used in criminal proceedings when obtained through proper court process).
  • Courts (will receive and adjudicate materiality findings and handle subpoena/warrant requests).
  • Privacy advocates and the public (privacy protections are narrowed for court‑ordered disclosures).

Procedural status / timeline (selected)

  • Introduced in the Senate and considered in 2023–2024 legislative sessions; hearings and committee actions occurred in 2023–2024 (Senate Law & Justice; House Community Safety).
  • Passed third reading in the Senate (Feb 9, 2024 — yeas 34; nays 13).
  • Reported/considered in the House (public hearing 2/19/24).
  • Status reported: By resolution, returned to Senate Rules Committee for third reading (most recent procedural status provided).

Potential impacts / considerations

  • Facilitates use of camera/toll images in criminal investigations and trials when courts authorize disclosure, potentially aiding prosecutions.
  • Provides a clear legal pathway for defense access to the same materials (but requires judicial materiality determination).
  • Narrows prior privacy/public‑record protections for these images in the context of authorized warrants/subpoenas, raising policy questions about surveillance, retention, and oversight.
  • May increase workload for courts and local agencies responding to warrants/subpoenas; fiscal impacts are noted in the bill’s fiscal note.

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

Sign in to ask a question.