EricL

California bill mandates remote-control kill switch on new cars

Government Miscellaneous Keywords: CALIFORNIA AUTOMOBILES KILL SWITCH
Source: California Bill
Author: Senator Speier
Posted on 09/13/2000 10:06:34 PDT by bokonon

BILL NUMBER: SB 2004 AMENDED
BILL TEXT

AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 4, 2000
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 12, 2000

INTRODUCED BY Senator Speier

FEBRUARY 25, 2000

An act to amend Section 3053 of, and to add Sections 417.10,
1203.1p, and 13519.10 to, the Penal Code, and to amend Section
40000.15 of, and to add Sections 493, 2419.5, 4000.5, 4000.6, and
27010 to, the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles.


LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


SB 2004, as amended, Speier. Safety track
Pursuit intervention termination management system.
(1) Existing law provides for the duties and responsibilities of
the Department of the California Highway Patrol.
This bill would require the department to certify that a
manufacturer or the manufacturer's designee of any safety
track pursuit intervention termination management
system, as defined, offered for sale in the state complies with
performance standards, as prescribed.
(2) Existing law does not require that vehicles offered for sale
in this state have a safety track pursuit
intervention termination management system installed.
This bill would impose that requirement on new motor vehicles on
and after January 1, 2005, and on all vehicles required to be
registered in the state on and after January 1, 2008. The bill would
authorize the department to grant waivers from the installation
requirement, as specified.
(3) Existing law provides for certain equipment requirements for
motor vehicles and provides penalties for violations of those
requirements.
This bill would make it a misdemeanor, thereby imposing a
state-mandated local program, for any owner of a motor vehicle that
is required to install a functioning safety track
pursuit intervention termination management system to fail
to maintain that system in accordance with the manufacturer's
specification.
This bill would prohibit any person from removing, bypassing, or
tampering with a safety track pursuit
intervention termination management system. The bill would
make a violation of this prohibitions a crime, thereby imposing a
state-mandated local program.
(4) Existing law provides for various crimes in the Penal Code.
This bill would make it a crime for a person who is not certified
as described in (7) or is not an employee of a certified manufacturer
or manufacturer's designee to render a motor vehicle inoperable by
activating a safety track pursuit
intervention termination management system or a component of
that system. The bill would also make it a crime for every person to
render a motor vehicle inoperable by activating a safety
track pursuit intervention termination management
system or a component of that system in the course of the
commission of a separate public offense. The bill would make it a
crime for every person who is not certified to activate a
safety track pursuit intervention termination
management system or a component of that system.
(5) Existing law allows courts to grant probation to persons
convicted of public offenses, except as specified.
This bill would specifically allow a court in granting probation
to a defendant to require that defendant to have any motor vehicle
operated by that defendant to have a functioning safety
track pursuit intervention termination management
system and would authorize inspection of the system.
(6) Under existing law, the Board of Prison Terms, upon granting
any parole to any prisoner, is allowed to impose on the parole any
conditions that the court deems proper.
This bill would specifically allow the board to impose as a
condition of parole that a prisoner granted parole operate only motor
vehicles that have a functioning safety track
pursuit intervention termination management system and
would authorize inspection of the system and activation in specified
situations.
(7) Existing law requires the Commission on Peace Officer
Standards and Training to develop certain courses and training
programs and, in connection with those programs, to issue
certificates upon completion of a program.
This would require each member of the Department of the California
Highway Patrol and each peace officer of a city police department or
sheriff's department to complete a described course and receive
certification from the commission regarding PITMS
pursuit intervention termination management system . The
bill would require the training to include relevant laws, potential
liability, and techniques. The bill would require the training
course to consist of a minimum of 4 hours and to include instruction
in accordance with the system's manufacturer's specifications. The
bill would require the commission to consult with the department and
a manufacturer in the development of the instruction, and to include
specific areas of concentration.
Because this bill would impose additional duties on local law
enforcement agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local
program.
(8) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse
local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement, including the creation of a State Mandates Claims Fund
to pay the costs of mandates that do not exceed $1,000,000 statewide
and other procedures for claims whose statewide costs exceed
$1,000,000.
This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no
reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that,
if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains
costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall
be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:


SECTION 1. Section 417.10 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
417.10. (a) (1) Every person who renders a motor vehicle
inoperable by activating a safety track
pursuit intervention termination management system or a
component of that system is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by
confinement in the county jail for up to 60 days.
(2) This subdivision does not apply to a peace officer who is
certified under Section 13519.10 or is not an employee of a
manufacturer or manufacturer's designee certified under subdivision
(b) of Section 2419.5 of the Vehicle Code and is acting within the
course of his or her employment.
(b) (1) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), every person
who renders a motor vehicle inoperable by activating a
safety track pursuit intervention termination
management system or a component of that system in the course
of the commission of a separate public offense is guilty of a
misdemeanor.
(B) Every person committing an offense as set forth in
subparagraph (A), which that results in
great bodily injury or death of any person is guilty of a felony.
(2) The offense described in paragraph (1) shall be in addition to
the underlying public offense described in paragraph (1).
(c) Every person who is not certified pursuant to Section
13519.10 or is not an employee of a manufacturer or manufacturer's
designee certified under subdivision (b) of Section 2419.5 of the
Vehicle Code and who activates a safety track system or a component
of that Section 13519.10 and who activates a pursuit
intervention management system or a component of that system is
guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by confinement in the county jail
for up to 30 days.
(d) As used in this section, " safety track
pursuit intervention termination management system" has
the same meaning as that term is defined in Section 493 of the
Vehicle Code.
SEC. 2. Section 1203.1p is added to the Penal Code, to read:
1203.1p. (a) If a defendant is convicted of an offense and the
defendant is granted probation, the court may order that any motor
vehicle operated by that person have a functioning safety
track pursuit intervention termination management
system as defined in Section 493 of the Vehicle Code.
(b) A court may order that a safety track
pursuit intervention termination management system required to
be installed under subdivision (a) be regularly inspected and
maintained.
SEC. 3. Section 3053 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
3053. (a) The Board of Prison Terms upon granting any parole to
any prisoner may also impose on the parole any conditions that it may
deem proper.
(b) (1) The Board of Prison Terms may impose as a condition of
parole that any prisoner granted parole undergo an examination or
test for tuberculosis when the board reasonably suspects that the
parolee has, has had, or has been exposed to, tuberculosis in an
infectious stage.
(2) For purposes of this subdivision, an "examination or test for
tuberculosis" means testing and followup examinations or treatment
according to the Centers for Disease Control and American Thoracic
Society recommendations in effect at the time of the initial
examination.
(c) The Board of Prison Terms may impose as a condition of parole
that a prisoner granted parole operate only motor vehicles that have
functioning safety track system pursuit
intervention termination management systems , as defined in
Section 493 of the Vehicle Code.
(d) The Board of Prison Terms may order that a safety
track system required to be install under subdivision (c)
pursuit intervention termination management system required to
be installed under subdivision (c) be regularly inspected and
maintained.
(e) A device installed under subdivision (c) may be activated to
prevent or terminate the pursuit of a parolee in violation of any
condition of his or her parole.
SEC. 4. Section 13519.10 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
13519.10. (a) (1) Each member of the Department of the California
Highway Patrol and peace officer of a city police department or
sheriff's department using equipment designed to activate a
safety track pursuit intervention termination
management system shall complete a course, as described in this
subdivision, which is certified by the commission.
(2) The training shall include, but is not limited to, relevant
laws, potential liability, and techniques regarding the use of the
safety track pursuit intervention termination
management system, as defined in Section 493 of the Vehicle
Code. The training course shall consist of a minimum of four hours
of instruction, and shall include instruction in accordance with the
specifications of all manufacturers certified pursuant to Section
2419.5 of the Vehicle Code. The commission shall consult with the
Department of the California Highway Patrol and a manufacturer
certified pursuant to Section 2419.5 of the Vehicle Code in the
development of the instruction, and shall include all of the
following practical areas of concentration:
(A) High-speed avoidance laser technology capabilities and
limitations.
(B) Terminating the pursuit with lasers.
(C) Practical safety track pursuit
intervention termination management system demonstration and
use, including, but not limited to, the user's demonstration of
proficiency with the hand held activation device and experience
operating a vehicle in which a safety track
pursuit intervention termination management system has been
activated.
(D) Laser or electronic technology utilization and agency policy.
(E) Laser or electronic technology and air support.
(b) For the initial group of peace officers certified under this
section, the training and certification described in subdivision (a)
shall be completed on or before July 1, 2004.
SEC. 5. Section 493 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:
493. (a) A safety track system "pursuit
intervention termination management system" is a system that
meets the performance standards set forth in subdivision (b), and
consists of both of the following components:
(1) An electronic or electromechanical device, including, but not
limited to, one or more computer chips that are installed either in,
or functions in conjunction with, an automobile's onboard electronics
system or fuel system, or both the electronics system and fuel
systems.
(2) One or more devices that may remotely activate the
device only be remotely activated by a peace officer
and is installed in the vehicle, and that uses an encrypted
electronic or laser signal to activate the device installed in the
vehicle.
(b) Any device described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision
(a) shall meet or exceed all of the following performance standards:

(1) The device installed in the vehicle shall, at a minimum,
respond to both an encrypted electronic or laser signal from a remote
activation device made by any company.
(2) The device installed in the vehicle shall be capable of
providing the location of the vehicle in which it is installed, but
only with the permission of the owner, and only through the use of a
personal identification number or similar secure identifying
technology.
(3)
(2) A remote activation device shall be equipped with at
least one fail-safe and anti-theft technology that renders the device
inoperable in the hands of a person who is not qualified to use the
safety track pursuit intervention termination
management system pursuant to Section 13519.10 of the Penal
Code , or who is not qualified, through a contract with the
vehicle owner, to activate the safety track system with the
permission of the owner under the terms of the contract.
(4) .
(3) The two devices described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of
subdivision (a), when operated together, shall be able to reduce the
speed of a vehicle by controlling the flow of fuel or the ignition of
an engine, or both the flow of fuel and the ignition of the engine.

(5)
(4) Any vehicle rendered inoperable by the activation of the
system shall be equipped to automatically become operable within 20
minutes from the activation.
(6)
(5) A remote activation device may be portable or
stationary.
(7)
(6) A remote activation device shall be sufficiently
accurate so as to activate the device installed in the targeted
vehicle, and leave unaffected any vehicle within a one-half mile
radius of the target vehicle.
(8) A safety track system shall be tamper resistant.
(9) Any safety track system shall not be disruptive to

(7) A pursuit intervention termination management system shall be
tamper resistant.
(8) Any pursuit intervention termination management system shall
not be disruptive to medical devices, aircraft systems, radio
communications, or television signals and shall comply with
any applicable standards all applicable manufacturing
standards for motor vehicles as prescribed by the United States
government.
SEC. 6. Section 2419.5 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:
2419.5. A manufacturer or manufacturer's designee shall obtain
certification from the department prior to offering a safety
track pursuit intervention termination management
system for sale in the state. The department shall certify
each manufacturer or manufacturer's designee that produces a
safety track pursuit intervention termination
management system that is in compliance with the standards set
forth in Section 493.
SEC. 7. Section 4000.5 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:
4000.5. (a) (1) Except as provided in subdivision (b), on and
after January 1, 2005, every manufacturer or importer of new motor
vehicles for sale or lease in this state shall equip the vehicle with
a safety track system or offer a safety track system
pursuit intervention termination management system or
offer a pursuit intervention termination management system as
an option for purchase.
(2) On and after January 1, 2008, all vehicles that are required
to be registered for operation in this state shall have a
functioning, certified safety track pursuit
intervention termination management system installed in the
vehicle.
(b) (1) The Department of the California Highway Patrol may waive
the requirements set forth in subdivision (a) for any vehicle or
class of vehicle identified by the Department of the California
Highway Patrol for any of the following reasons:
(A) The vehicle or class of vehicles consists of authorized
emergency vehicles.
(B) Mechanical limitations of the vehicle or class of vehicles.
(C) Health or safety concerns related to the use of the
safety track equipment. pursuit intervention
termination management system equipment.
(D) Lack of multiple manufacturers of safety track
pursuit intervention termination management
systems for the vehicle or class of vehicles.
(E) To comply with any federal law or regulation that is
inconsistent with the installation of a safety track
pursuit intervention termination management
system.
(2) Any waiver granted pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be
consistent with the objectives of reducing vehicle theft and the need
for high-speed vehicle pursuits by law enforcement.
(3) For any waiver granted pursuant to paragraph (1), the vehicle
or class of vehicle shall be defined by regulation by the Department
of the California Highway Patrol and shall be consistent with the
objectives of reducing vehicle theft and the need for high-speed
vehicle pursuits by law enforcement.
SEC. 8. Section 4000.6 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:
4000.6. Upon demand of a peace officer, every person who drives a
motor vehicle that is subject to a safety track
pursuit intervention termination management system
requirement under any provision of law shall allow an inspection of
the safety track pursuit intervention
termination management system to determine that it is installed
and functioning properly.
SEC. 9. Section 27010 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:
27010. (a) No owner or other person shall remove, bypass, or
tamper with a safety track pursuit
intervention termination management system installed in a
vehicle with the intent to interfere with the proper functioning of
the system.
(b) Any person who violates this section is guilty of a
misdemeanor punishable by confinement in the county jail for six
months or a fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000) or both that fine
and confinement.
SEC. 10. Section 40000.15 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

40000.15. A violation of any of the following provisions shall
constitute a misdemeanor, and not an infraction:
Sections 23103 and 23104, relating to reckless driving.
Section 23109, relating to speed contests or exhibitions.
Subdivision (a) of Section 23110, relating to throwing at
vehicles.
Section 23152, relating to driving under the influence.
Subdivision (b) of Section 23222, relating to possession of
marijuana.
Subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 23224, relating to persons under
21 years of age knowingly driving, or being a passenger in, a motor
vehicle carrying any alcoholic beverage.
Section 23253, relating to officers on vehicular crossings.
Section 23332, relating to trespassing.
Section 24011.3, relating to vehicle bumper strength notices.
Section 27010, relating to safety track systems.
pursuit intervention termination management systems.

Section 27150.1, relating to sale of exhaust systems.
Section 27362, relating to child passenger seat restraints.
Section 28050, relating to true mileage driven.
Section 28050.5, relating to nonfunctional odometers.
Section 28051, relating to resetting odometers.
Section 28051.5, relating to devices to reset odometers.
Subdivision (d) of Section 28150, relating to possessing four or
more jamming devices.
SEC. 11. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution for certain
costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district
because in that regard this act creates a new crime or infraction,
eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime
or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government
Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of
Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.
However, notwithstanding Section 17610 of the Government Code, if
the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains
other costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies
and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7
(commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the
Government Code. If the statewide cost of the claim for
reimbursement does not exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000),
reimbursement shall be made from the State Mandates Claims Fund.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

daverman

Is this for real? In the name of all that is good and decent, what's next? Mandatory remote-control door locks in all our houses, so that if a fire breaks out or a hostage situation ensues, the police can remotely unlock every door in your house?

CREEPY!

vperkins2

Wow! What made you track that down that info?!

I guess pretty soon they'll be installing speed-detectors along the freeway and govenors in our cars to auto-magically regulate the "speeders!" Shee-it!

I guess I better get a three-year loan so that I can buy a new car in 2004!

V.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1" FACE="Verdana, Arial">[This message has been edited by vperkins2 on June 16, 2001 @ ]</font>

EricL

I typed up a very well composed e-mail letter to Jackie Speier (State Senator and bill's sponsor). I had a cousin killed in a police chase -- do you think I have a right to say my piece in this?

I tried to be very civil, but I did point out that miscreant and sociopaths will get their hands on the equipment to hack into the remote stopping devices *and* will be able to disconnect their own devices.

(Someone said this was similar to the criminals getting drugs, guns, whatever.)

I am also concerned that this is the next step to a true "Big Brother" mentality.

I hope that other people who browse here, share this info with their friends and loved ones. And relay this info to any car forums that might be interested.

I have noticed in the past, that as California goes, so goes the rest of the country. I realize that this is way to sweeping to be accurate, but I will site an example -- CARB! Most states will look to CARB (Californai Air Resources Board) to see what CA is doing in the smog department. Some states will accept the CARB approval as a 50 state mandate. They also like to see how initiatives go here, and if there isn't a complete melt-down (can you say energy debacle), they will follow CA.

Some of this misguided "Big Brothers" wanted to tamper with the OBDII computer systems to allow info to be unloaded for driver conviction info. Could you imagine if someone tied the LAT/LON and MPH together, you could go to a dealer, and be arrested when you pick up your car. (Sorry, we found you doing 95 in a 60 MPH area. The logs show 95 at LAT xx,yy,zz, LON aa,bb,cc -- put the 'cuffs on him. Take the kids away

Ouch -- what a nightmare.

Please, this may sound like hyperbolic blather, but it wouldn't hurt to send some mail to Cal State Senators representing your district, and let them know that while the intention is good, the medicine is worse that the disease.

"Good legislative intetions paving the way to an even bigger hell"

EricL

I ran into looking for info about radar and how a squealing tire could be constued as a "exibition of speed." -- long story (looking for someone else).

Please see the note about contacting your state senator in cal.

daverman

Thank you for writing an e-mail to your state senator. That is exactly what needs to be done, and in massive numbers. The rest of the readers should also compose a letter to oppose this misguided legislation.

Remember, a criminal always has a way around this regulation: he can always use a car made before the legislation takes place.

Be extremely wary of legislation that places the cost of enforcement on a whole mass of people to catch a relatively minuscule portion of society who are actually breaking the law. Such laws often boil down to the concept of "guilty until proven innocent." Protest loudly, and protest often.

Other pieces of legislation that have similar characteristics include: cryptographic key escrow; FBI's "Carnivore"; cellular phone autolocation (a.k.a. "E-911"). Beware!

lonny

This issue is bound to end up in the courts in California and I think it will be thrown out eventually. I am sure the ACLU is already working on this one. Can you spell
J O H N N I E C O C H R A N ? ? ?

------------------
'02 TL-S WDP/Parchment NAV

Road Rage

Another good reason I plan to stay put...

Seriously, this is another in a series of "well-intentioned" chips at the rock of freedom.

I said this before, but as an EE, I see that it is very simple to take the electronic data recovered from the speed sensors or electronic speedometers in modern cars, transmit them to a transponder along the side of the road, and download your VIN and other data. They would then send you a "citiation" in the mail, and the insurance company would send you a friendly notification a bit later.

This is crap.

I again say, investigate (and join!) the National Morotrists Assoc in Wisconsin - the head, Mr. Baxter, was once a lobbyist, and knows how to get things done.

------------------
Rage On!
2002 TL-S w. Comptech header/exhaust, springs, airfilter
SSR Integral A2's
17x7 45mm offset
Pirelli P7000 (Summer) 215-50/17

EricL

I received a response from the Senator's aid. They said the bill is dead and will not revive it.

I sent e-mail and contacted my local Senator and it took until Saturday to get a response (from Senator Speier's aid) that they were going to let this one go.

(Thank to any and all that sent e-mails)

The guy who has the patent and demo stuff will probably continue to find legislators to do his bidding -- We will see.