A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for

Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

House | June 30, 2015 | Committee Room | Transportation

Full MP3 Audio File

I'd like to call the meeting of house transportation to order. I'd like to recognize our sergeants at arms Corton Adams Charles Gurwin, Joe alston and Martha Gedason and our pages and we'd like you to stand and be recognized when we call your name. Morgan With from Wake County Representative Marlon, Lilly Wolf from Elementary County with Representative Ross, Sarah Willard from both counties representing Tine take lesson from Waig County with Representative Callison, Herna Fields from allion vary with representative Rensco, and Hannah Wail from white county a representative Chris moren[sp?] I will say good to have you Wills today the first thing that we are going to take up is senate bill 182 and it's a PCS so do we need a motion? PCS before us. Okay. Senator Markus(sp? ) Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the committee this is pretty straight forward bill is dealing with automatic license plate readers, automate license plate readers are already out there today in our road right away in capturing the tag numbers on vehicle as it pass by them this is simply a bill that establishes a framework for regulating the use of the data that they're capturing, and specifically those still operated by law enforcement agency, discovered after this bill pass through the senate, I might say I'm not aware of any opposition to it or whatsoever I've worked with the law enforcement agency, other groups we discover there is also none law enforcement automated licence plate readers out there today as well operated by insurance industry so what the PCS does is simply provide for opportunity is where those what I call automatic license plate readers [xx] by insurance company do contain operated as they do today but establishes rules and procedures for data retention for the once operated by law enforcement agency based basically says it's for 90 days, unless there's specific investigation that's ongoing in which case you identity the name of the parties in the investigation, and the data could be captured for a longer period of time. let's say I'm not aware of any opposition to the bill. Any discussion, questions from the committee? Representative McNeil.  Clarify that just a little bit I think on the section on page two the day that tamed on that class in front leader not operated by Law Enforcement Agencies. Could you clarify that section just a little bit more?  Yes, after those they were continuing functioning the way they do today which is mostly I guess insurance companies are now capturing some of that data for purposes which they use for rugges publishing premiums or things like that for certain types of policies and coverage. So far those units that are out there that are not operated by law enforcement agencies this would not attempt to regulate those specifically. There would be, if there was some type of ongoing investigating where law enforcement needed to get to some of that data. It would be subject to the same terms and conditions as ones operated by law enforcement agencies directly. Thank you, follow up? Follow up. Now I know we have one toll road that uses license plate where I don't know if you technically call them readers because I think they take a picture of your license plate and then use that for billing purposes. Does this affect that in any way, and also I think there is some other technology like red light cameras and so forth that use license plate reading technology. It's a good question, it not does not affect those operated on toll roads, it specifically exempts those specifically. It does not impact anything dealing with the red light cameras, that's not within the scope of the bill whatsoever, and where is in the bill is that located? Those exemptions? Let's see. I know we have the language here I can answer that. That would be great. Staff? Thank you Mr. Chairman. If you look on page 1, lines 14-16 the definition of Automatic License Plate Reader System excludes Traffic Control Photographic Systems and Tolling Systems Okay, Follow up.  I'm good thank you. Representative Bumgardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a question about page 1, line 25, Any state or local law enforcement agency can write a written policy, and if they write one then what? Who looks at it, if anybody and what I say here you've a list of things that it has to have in it, but it doesn't say anything about who's going to say this is okay, who's going to say, that this is good policy or not good policy, and any local, law enforcement agency can be any one of a hundred or more. The language here beginning at line 27 on the first page and more specifically this is the policy that should address the following issues and it outlines all of those things that wouldn't infect entail, I did in fact work with representative of law enforcement agencies, who come up with this, fairly intensive cheque list, and they're okay with these specific provisons that you see. They felt that these would not be problematic and thinks it could be easly complied with and then it provided an excellent checklist and my understanding is that there will be basically a model type policy that would be developed worth coming from this that would be I think readopted[sp?] by law enforcement agencies across the state. Follow up. Follow up, well, I see here it says the policy shall address all of the following, but it doesn't say only the following and if a local law enforcement agency decided to owe the state to that matter they can add more items to the list could thy not? I think that could be a correct interpretation, it's kind of like of including but not limited to type of language you might see so it must include those items one through nine which you're specifying but it would not limit an agency from going beyond this list, I think that's the correct interpretation. Representative Craig Horn Thank you Mr. Chairman, Senator I know. I'm over here on your right. On my right. Here we are. Yes. I think last session there was a bill that had to do with license plate readers and that was enabling local governments to use them on state roads through their community. Is this in any way connected with that or is this a different situation altogether? It's a good question, this would not provide an abling authority right away, this is simply a policy relating to the use of those particular licence plate readers out there today or any of them that might be installed in the future and the policies governing this was not enabling authorities for agencies to go out there and put them in. you have excellent re-collections there was a different bill but, this laundry list was included within that bill from last year and it was negotiated with all the law enforcement agencies. Thank you sir, follow up, and this maybe a question for Representative from the chief's association who I believe is here, do  you have law enforcements reactions to this or the acceptable tour. Yes, they have no objection to what is here today, that is correct. Thank you very much. Representative Stam thanks Mr Chair and my question will be, I guess I have been on the ride long and seen what they are using for and especially the ability to see when known bad actors are in certain areas things like that so I'm sort wondering why the bill has come forward in regards To in use other problems that are out there, there have been issues are we involved in laws. I guess I'm sort of we got the stationary thing that collects the data to see what's going on and I'm unsure why were are moving this bill for? Sure it's a good question I think what has been out there is deep concern about the use of data, making sure is

used appropriately, how long that data would be retained there or many states that are adopting legislation which is similar and comfortable to what this proposes for North Carolina many of them have time frames data retention which are shorter time frames than which it's provided for in this bill. So I think this bill establishes what I consider to be reasonable [xx] considering what other Gill states are doing and also considering what I would cal reasonable privacy rights but at the same time providing law enforcement and opportunity to use that data that's collected effectively in carrying out there responsibilities. Representative Presnell Thank you Mr Chairman my first question is who owns this equipment? Excuse me who owns this equipment? The equipment typically is owned by law of course there are agencies that are placing it within the righter ways, righter ways, within the righter ways, righter ways are other locations, okay follow it specifically is it used for? Basically for capturing that data looking at cars as they pass through intersection or strategic locations to really zero specifically on the tags ad to see who those tags belong to and they capture that information go back and review it against information in other databases quick comparison purposes. Follow up, follow up [xx] big brother? It absolutely is, which is why we have this bill coming forward so you can establish some reasonable parameters to protect personal rights and liberties and privacy and we're only letting this data be used for what I call legitimate criminal law enforcement purposes and that's the only thing we're looking at. We're not opening up any kind of flood gate where folks want to go out there and start to sappiner[sp?] this information and use it for some improper purpose that we don't want to see perhaps carried out. Okay, thank you. Representative Adams. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'm trying to wrap my head around this, how much does one of these pieces of equipment cost, and how much does it cost to capture the data and store the data, and how much does it cost to man the operation of the equipment and the data? It's a good question and I'm really not prepared to speak to the cost of equipment. I know there is one gentleman here who works for that private sector firm, who does it for insurance companies, and he may have some information about what it costs for these automated licence feed readers to be installed. It's my understanding that one of the more expensive components of the cost is not necessarily the equipment itself, but it's the vast reservoir of what I call memory you need to store the data. I think it's hardly taken sometimes not to have to store it indefinitely or for extended periods of time so that the actual cost of storing the data, I understand is one of the aspects of it, it is, that does become increasingly expensive. Now I could not give you an actual figure though I'm not prepared to do that, perhaps Mr. Donesky would know something about the cost of this equipment, I think I saw him when I entered the room. I see him back there now if Mr. Chair if you would dock him to speak to the equipment. Yes sir, just state your name and who you're with sir. Thank you Mr Chairman. My name is Donesky, I represent a vendor of this equipment called Vigilance Solutions. Representative Adams I don't have specific answer for you right now the cost of this equipment, I don't know whether the law enforcement entities that acquired this, we don't have any law enforcement agencies that purchases equipment in North Carolina at this time. Follow up. Yes. You mentioned insurance companies, what do insurance companies use this type of equipment for? it's my understanding that they use the data in terms of analyzing vehicles that are out there on the roadways, the way they're engaged in activity even looking at history. Now, Mr. Donesky you may want to follow up on  that as well since you represent some of those entities. Mr. Chairman. Representative Adams see the commercial side use often times can be control the access for facilities, knowing folks who're coming on and off of campuses, colleges use them, work places use them, for the purposes of insurance and banks etcetera, their data is often used for recovery of

vehicles, or those unpaid loans etcetera, so, that's where the commercial aspect of this comes in, those types of uses are separate from law enforcement. Follow up. Yeah, so various sources of information, so, I would like to learn more about the pervasiveness of this type of information, because I found this frankly a bit disturbing. Thank you. Sure, and I can cure with you with information I have in my office. Its a pretty extensive file, which is why I think it begs for us to do something. I think to leave it unregulated in to do nothing would be an error of judgment, I think what we have established is a framework to move forward, it may well be a year or two down the road It come back, revise it, revisit it, twike it some, to make it more extensive or to cover things that we're not no ring today. But right now it's completely unregulated and I think it gives many people concern that we don't have some parameters, guidelines or policies, specifically right now targeted were the ones functioning through the reinforcement agencies SSA. Everybody has born into this that I work with on and, that work goes back more that even gets this session. Rep. McNeil. Thank you. I thank as far as law enforcement it goes started using Licence Plate Readers to recover stolen vehicles, and that's basically how I got. And I signed it could be used for other purposes but if you put a licence plate reader in the right way, it can read thousands of tags, just as a matter as it comes by as fast as they can go by. and identify stolen vehicles and that's why it was originally started using in the law enforcement community but anyway my question is this there again going back to these, this information that has been gathered by these private companies such as the insuarancecompanies and Section B there goes into quite a detail about, it can not be accessed by law enforcements except for and it goes on I guess my question is this, would that be by a search warrant or a sopino, how would that information be accessed if there's a criminal case to investigate? It does not require a sopino or a court order, but you would have to be able to to specify a specific criminal action that you needed to prove and likewise what the investigatory value it will to the law enforcement agencies and there in no requirement for a court order to be obtained but it's going up to that agency to a specific we narrowly identified there is these part of these individuals that we have an ongoing is to get in relating to bringing to specific criminal activity was not general in vague it has to be some specificity provided. So then it's basically what ever the agency that has later decides the're a burden of proof is. So one company practically have no wealth I guess requirement that's a very little and one can have very burdensome requirements, maybe I misunderstood your question I thought you were dealing with the specific provisions dealing with the law enforcement automated license plate readers when it come to the ones that are operated by the other commercial entities if for some reason law law enforcement needed access that information, then you would have to identify the specific case in the parties, if you wanted to access their databases, while theirs would be separate completely identifiable, completely autonomous, so, this bill does not address those readers that are out there on behalf of private companies. Follow up. Yeah, and I understand that if government owns the cameras, they don't need a subpoena, or search warrant to get the data, so, my question was about those independent insurance companies or other people that have this whether, let's say a college that's just gathering whose coming on, my question was, if law enforcement needs that information, how are they going to get it from these colleges that have lost as plague leaders or these insurance companies that have lost as plague leaders, are they going to do it through a search warrant, or are they  going to do it through a subpoena, or is the company just going

to provide it willingly if an officer comes up and says, I need to see your data for the last 30 days of whose being on this campus I have a case I'm investigating maybe there has been a couple of laps on the campus, and law enforcement wants to access that information I guess my question is how are they going to get it? And my response is simply be they will need to approach that operator that per prior to that taken a leader or a back system and let them know what it is they are requiring identify the purpose which is needed the parties to that particular investigation a case and be able to really provide some type of explanation as to why making for query, we have not established a high huddle for that as we don't want it inpead access to that information, it [xx] thank you for your  answer,  I just read that section be anything seems like it it's a good riding for all us there to argue about later we call that employment. Sen. McKissick, I in no way want to impede what you wan't to do here, but we've got about six more on the list. Do you think it would be better for us to displace this bill and then come back to it on another date? Because we've got two other bills, and I didn't realize it will be that complicated. Well if there's anybody who'll move for a favorable report, we could continue working on it. I make a commitment to work with anybody on this committee who wants to work. Rep. Turner, do you want to move for a favorable report? I would like to do so, sir. Okay. PCS with a referral to judiciary IV. Thank you. That's my motion. Okay. All those in favor say Aye. Aye. All opposed like wise no. No. What about some discussion? Sure. Thank you. I will continue to working with any member of this committee who would like to move forward and make it a better bill. Sure. Thank you. Thank you,  Senator. Sen. Jackson we have Senate Bill 448 equalize tax on propane. Thank you Mr. Chairman and members I think this bill would be much work on you previous one this bill basically would equalize if I may Mr. Chairman? Go right ahead. Okay, thank you this bill would basically equalize the tax propane used as a motor fuel to match the equivalent of gasoline, and currently it's semi 3% of the energy of one gallon of propane is equal to one gallon, gasoline and so all this basically puts as on the same fitting for motor fuel tax we've done the same thing I believe in 2014 when natural gas this law will just leveling the playing field and we appreciate your support ask, answer any questions. Any question Representative Jeter, Mr. Chairman I move for a favorable report House Bill 44, excuse me Senate Bill 448 with a re-serial referral to finance. Any other questions from the committee? discussion.  Representative Queen.  Representative Queen. Is this excuse me is this will this raise the tax or lower the tax? This will lower the tax on propane just as it's used on motor fuels. OK, thank you. Any other questions?  Representative Blackwell. I was engaged in a little sidewalk discussion and Senator Jackson I hope you did not already answer this and I am asking you the same thing twice, in reading the bill summary it looks like maybe we are adjusting the right here in such a way that it is going down the collection is going down by $100, 00 for the is there a reason? What is the reason for the adjustment now? Maybe that is what you just said yes sir. Representative. Blackwill basically if you are correct it would have an impact of around right of 100 files to give or take on either side and reason to do that is to they equally fail because of there is more and more forges and LOP as motor fuels and is currently being overtaxed based on the equivalency of propane versus gasoline and what we are trying to do is level the plain field we are doing the same thing in 2014 with the, I mean without natural gas so what we are trying to do is just make it equal and fair for our propane users out there. Follow up, so if I'm reading the bill summarized a gallon of liquefied propane gas

has 73% of the energy of a gallon of gas links so we are using that percentage to basically set this new rate so the tax is like 73% of what a gallon of gas would, yes sir that is correct bid it up level it for you, Representative Bomgard Thank you Mr. Chairman, senator was there a reason we did not do this at the same time we did natural gas Mr. Chairman I want to respond to my knowledge we did not think about it at the time when have done natural gas, we should have done it in the end we would have made it done but we didn't. Follow up. Representative Goodman Thank you M. R Chair I might going to answer that question I think the natural guest adjustment was in the fracking bill I'm not sure but I think that's the way they went Thank you, any others? If that raves there's that black wheel, Okay representative Jitters for your motion. Some moves are just previously stated always a favor aye any oppose the bill pass, thank you senator, thank you M. R chairman, thank you members 654 and this is for the discussion purposes only to pick from where we had left last committee meeting  Senate will read Mr. Chair we thank the members of the committee and I'm good to back were today, I wanted to just touch base on what appears to be the biggest issue on this bill from our last meeting and it's in sub section 1 astounding G on page 2 it essentially relates to the indemnity provision and then CDOT WUMPL and just to kind of take a step back in the way this transpire the moment MPO as you recall from our last meeting solved the ability to record a map and the reason they did was because in the merger process where they were going about finding the best quarter essentially by soliciting input from all the stakeholders while they are in that process they sell the quarter developing somewhat rapidly so what they did was seek this authority to get the map recorded it so they could establish the decoder a little earlier which was a benefit to obviously not just the WMPO but also to NCDOT they were acting essentially is an agent of DOT because the WMPO doesn't have the domain authority and in fact a recent case so just that they actually were acting on behalf of NCDOT. NCDOT is been enjoined in the litigation with all this matters [xx] involved with it,  so it seems to make sense that they were the agent there was benefit to DOT that this [xx] provision survive and move forward Thank you Senator Lee and I will do this we will take a vote on this today if you all are satisfied we would like rather than prolong it. Representative Jeter Senator Lee I appreciate you coming back I read over the bill I don't have a question as much as I have a comment for the committee if that is appropriate Mr Chair I don't how we got to the point where the Wellington MPO had his two special privileges history is what it is, however I don't see the need to punish the Wellington MPO for a decision where they were trying to expedite things and as such I would support the bill as I think there are some concerns I hope we avoid this issues in the future but I give Senator Lee and Representative Malone credit, I think they are doing the right thing here and at the appropriate time I'd like to make a motion.  Representative Jeter to answer your question your statement is called politics Anyone else? Okey, and if we're to vote on this we need approval from the PCS, our representative Brown because I didn't hear your response. You said something about one of the introduced did not have the main authority, would you, could you repeat that sentence for me, please?  Yes, ma'am the WFPO doesn't have the ability to condemn property.  I'll just have a statement I now hate to see harsh or anything like that and with all respect to you senator I just feel like the Wellington MPO took they took that authority that was given to them or offered to them and that ofcourse increased their power and control over a lot of private property owners and that was all well and good till this mud bath went south and it went south in a really bad way and I raised my child to accept the consequences of her actions and of her

behaviors and of her decisions and I just in no way will vote for this bill that abdicates their responsibility, for their actions and their decisions that they made. I'm sorry for this, it's been a horrible law, it's caused a lot of damage across this state but I just can't vote for your bill, thank you Mr Chairman. Any other questions, comments? For a motion Representative Jeter. Mr. Chairman do we need to put fourth a committee substitute for [xx]? Yes, we need that approval for that sir. We do need approval for committee substitute. A move for approval [xx] committee substitute before us. Okay the bills before us and now for your motion. Move for a favorable report at first committee, first committee substitute on senate bill 654 unfavorable to the regional, I do not see a referral. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. The aye's have it, your bill passes the senate relief. Thank you Mr Chairman, thank you members of the committee We are adjourned for today.