WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

A 1166

Requires the court to provide a range of dates for a person pleading not guilty to a traffic infraction to appear

2025 Regular Session Introduced by William Colton and 8 co-sponsors

Requires courts to give a range of dates for appearances when a defendant pleads not guilty to a traffic infraction, easing scheduling and reducing travel burden.

REFERRED TO TRANSPORTATION
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · A 1166

Summary of Assembly Bill A 1166

Overview

  • Bill Number: A 1166
  • Title / Purpose: Requires the court to provide a range of dates for a person pleading not guilty to a traffic infraction to appear. The bill aims to improve scheduling flexibility for defendants who plead not guilty to traffic offenses.
  • Status: Referred to Transportation (as of January 9, 2025).
  • Introduced: January 9, 2025

Key Provisions (as stated)

  • The core requirement of the bill is that, when a person pleads not guilty to a traffic infraction, the court must provide a range of dates on which that person may appear rather than a single fixed date.
  • The sentence indicates that the range would govern the appearance/arraignment process for not-guilty pleas in traffic infraction cases. The exact mechanics (such as the length of the range, methods of notice, and how the range is determined) would be specified in the bill’s text.

Note: The publicly available summary does not include the full text, so specifics such as range length, delivery method (in person vs. electronic), and how the range interacts with other deadlines are not detailed here and would need to be drawn from the bill’s language.

Who Is Affected

  • Defendants: Individuals charged with traffic infractions who plead not guilty would be subject to appearance ranges.
  • Courts and Court Clerks: Courts would be responsible for generating and communicating the date ranges; clerks’ workflows and notification systems may need adjustments.
  • Prosecutors and Defense Attorneys: They would operate within the updated scheduling framework for arraignments and related appearances.
  • Court Scheduling Systems: Potential updates to case management and notification processes to accommodate date ranges.

Procedural and Timeline Considerations

  • Status: The bill has been referred to the Transportation Committee and has not yet advanced to a floor vote or further committees (as of the provided actions).
  • Actions to Watch: Committee hearings, potential amendments, and any subsequent floor votes.

Sponsorship

  • Primary Sponsor: Philip Ramos
  • Cosponsors: Nikki Lucas, Brian Cunningham, Linda Rosenthal, Dana Levenberg, Eddie Gibbs, William Colton, Latrice Walker, Anna Kelles

Related Legislation

  • Related bills from prior sessions: A 7626, A 5052, and A 4486. These references suggest ongoing interest in traffic court procedures and schedules.

Potential Impact and Considerations

  • Benefits: Enhanced scheduling flexibility for defendants, potential reductions in travel burden and court rescheduling, and clearer notice of available appearance windows.
  • Challenges: Administrative burden to implement and maintain date-range notices, ensuring consistency across counties, and avoiding confusion about deadlines or consequences if a defendant does not appear within the range.

Next Steps

  • Monitor committee activity (Transportation) for amendments or clarifications.
  • Review the bill text for exact range specifications, notice requirements, and any interplay with statewide or county-specific court procedures.

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

Sign in to ask a question.