What Is a Traffic Camera Ticket and How Do They Work?
Traffic enforcement cameras use a range of technologies to enforce traffic laws and reduce the risk of road traffic accidents. The various types include speed cameras, red-light cameras, automated number plate recognition and pedestrian crossing cameras.
Speed detection devices that use radar, laser, induction loop, or other technology to detect speeding are one of the most common technologies used by traffic enforcement cameras. Fixed cameras (e.g., speed cameras) are located at points where collisions have frequently occurred. Mobile camera units (e.g., mobile speed cameras) are highly visible and operated by law enforcement officials in marked vehicles.
Another common type of traffic enforcement camera is the red-light camera , which snaps the image of vehicles that run an intersection. Many new models also have speed detection systems integrated with them.
The Automated Number Plate Recognition system is an optical system that uses character recognition on vehicle license plates. ANPR systems are used in police vehicles for the purpose of parking enforcement, EC and national tax evasion inspections and toll violations. Some private parking companies use ANPR to issue parking charge notices.
Lastly, pedestrian crossing cameras detect the failure of a motorist to stop at a pedestrian crossing and thereafter issue infringement notices.
Traffic enforcement cameras are highly controversial in some jurisdictions. For example, the introduction of red-light cameras in certain areas of the United States, such as the state of Arizona, was met with such strong local resistance that the courts were asked to examine their legality. However, the cameras continue to be used, and new models have been introduced, in more jurisdictions around the country in recent years.
Camera Ticket: Legal Status in Various States
The legal status of camera tickets varies significantly from state to state in the U.S. For instance, states such as Alaska, New Hampshire, and Maine have chosen to completely ban the use of these automated enforcement devices. This means that no automated camera system is allowed to be used for traffic violations in these states. On opposite end of the spectrum, states like Kentucky have no restrictions on the use of traffic cameras and allow law enforcement agencies to use them in a manner they deem appropriate.
Some states are more ambiguous in their legal status of traffic cameras for fines and penalties, such as California. While California does not technically prohibit the use of traffic cameras, the California Vehicle Code 21455.8 specifies that local jurisdictions must meet certain conditions before using them for red light violations, mandating that cities provide written findings at least every red light camera reporting cycle, or every fifth year. In addition, there are lawsuits that have been filed to determine whether the use of these cameras are constitutional or not, as well as challenges to certain provisions of the red light cameras.
States like Illinois and argues that the use of traffic cameras is illegal if it violates certain parts of the Illinois Vehicle Code. Namely, the courts have determined that some provisions of Illinois law require a police officer to issue the citation or stop the driver before issuance of a citation. Because Illinois does not allow for police officers to issue citations through these automated systems, they argue that issuance of these automated traffic tickets is illegal. Several other states have similar statutes and lawsuits that were filed challenging the use of automated enforcement systems.
Traffic Camera Arguments for and Against the Legality
Proponents of camera tickets argue that they serve as an effective deterrent to traffic violations. By placing cameras at intersections known for accidents or areas where speeding is rampant, municipalities hope that drivers will be more cautious. Advocates further argue that by taking the responsibility of enforcing traffic violations away from law enforcement, public agencies can reduce enforcement costs by eliminating the need for costly police officers to patrol areas outside of high traffic spots.
Opponents of the legality of camera tickets contend that the practice is unjust, as it effectively outsources the responsibility of enforcing traffic laws from law enforcement to private companies that profit from the fines assessed. This argument is especially salient in states where legislation was passed granting traffic fines to the municipalities and not the state. By taking the responsibility of enforcement from the police agencies, some believe that public agencies are incentivized to seek out more violations as a method for revenue generation.
Still other opponents of the legality of camera tickets assert that violations imposed by camera tickets are issued without a process to challenge the infraction. Indeed, many states do not provide for an appeal or hearing process for individuals who receive camera tickets. This is contrasted with individuals who receive traffic tickets from law enforcement, who may challenge the citation before a judge at a traffic court.
Recent Developments and Case Laws
Despite the perceived legality of camera tickets, industry dynamics and legal challenges continue to arise over the practice of automated law enforcement.
One significant case occurred in 2017 when the Washington Supreme Court had to determine whether the failure of a camera system to take picture of a vehicle behind a stopped bus was a valid defense to certain bus lane violations.
In the case of State v. City of Seattle, the court was asked to consider whether a driver could be automatically held liable for an illegal maneuver around a stopped bus even if the city failed to capture his license plate in violation of its own camera policy.
In issuing its 6-3 ruling in favor of the city’s policy, the court found that the city’s parking enforcement manual was not a binding "rule" that would "materially change the circumstances of liability." In other words, an individual citation could not be dismissed even if the ticketing officer did not follow every component of the city’s enforcement policies. The court, however, cautioned that enforcement policy was not irrelevant to the findings of a court, simply that the camera tickets can be upheld in certain situations despite the failure to document certain criteria. So long as a driver’s notification of the improper behavior was captured by the camera — in this case, the camera notification that a person had passed a stopped bus with its lights flashing — the evidence provided by the city was sufficient to establish the violation, even if the license plate number was not documented .
Not to be outdone, on December 7, 2018, the Michigan Supreme Court heard State of Michigan v. Gratiot County, to consider whether a camera vendor or issuing governmental agency is responsible for the payment of costs, along with attorney fees incurred by a person challenging the debt collection of a photographic ticket in district court under subsection (8), if the governmental entity ultimately fails to prevail in that action. Subsection (8) of Section 7.1 of 2006 PA 275 (MCL 257.741a(8) is a part of Michigan’s 2006 comprehensive law concerning the use of automated camera enforcement for speeding violations.
The "Gratiot County" case arises out of allegations that the adopted ordinance to issue traffic tickets from red light cameras did not comply with state law and its contractual agreement with the camera vendor was not always followed. Gratiot County Circuit Court Judge Michael Catholic dismissed Gratiot’s lawsuit against Dearborn alleging the city failed to give proper notice of Gratiot’s citation and failed to provide any of the evidence to contest the ticket. The city’s attorney argued that Gratiot was never issued a proper citation because of an ongoing clerical error, so the city didn’t owe any money at all. The court rejected this claim, finding Dearborn wrongfully used the error to keep money from residents.
What to Do When You Get a Traffic Camera Ticket
It is critical that all drivers understand the process for contesting a traffic infraction and otherwise handling a camera ticket (i.e., failure to stop at a traffic signal or stop sign) that may be issued in Pennsylvania.
So how do motorists, who have received a camera ticket, handle these violations, contest them, and comply with the demands of the citation, which may require them to pay a fine? The chair of the Traffic law group at Post & Post, P.C., Brian Django advises that the first step after receiving a camera ticket is to carefully read it. The citation will identify the time, location and vehicle’s violation, according to a signal’s specifications or traffic control device requirements. The ticket will identify the fine. Typically, it will allow the violator to pay the fine, equating the fine to an admission of guilt and no points assessed. If the camera ticket is ignored, Philadelphia will issue additional notices and will bill the vehicle’s registered owner and/or lessee up to four times. If the violation is still ignored, the fine increases with each notice. Eventually the traffic court will issue a summons requiring the violator’s presence in court. Motorists may challenge the citation, which require them to appear before the Traffic Court of Philadelphia, and may make arguments to mitigate the fine, such as that bad weather made the traffic signal impossible to observe. If the photo violates tolerance requirements, the driver may have grounds to prevail in court and the traffic citation may be dismissed, or the fine may be reduced. However, each case is different. Drivers should also note that if they prevail by making some sort of legal argument, a judge may require them to pay all or part of the court costs, which may equal or exceed the amount of the fine. Additionally, many traffic courts require motorists to pay a $150 administrative fee along with the fine, which results in the total amount due sometimes exceeding $200.
Future Trends in Camera Enforcement & the Law
As the demand for safer roads and smarter technology continues to rise, the future of camera enforcement in traffic law could potentially take several avenues. One likely direction for the enforcement of traffic laws is an increased reliance on smart technology to analyze traffic patterns, speed limits, and violations. The future may hold a move away from traditional law enforcement personnel towards an automated system that detects violations and issues penalties without human oversight. This could lead to an entirely self-sufficient network of cameras, sensors, and other tools that monitor and regulate traffic in real time, potentially improving safety but also raising questions about due process and surveillance. Legislative changes may affect the legality of camera tickets through the imposition of more stringent requirements on jurisdictions for the issuance and management of automated enforcement tickets . Proponents of automated enforcement may counter such restrictions with evidence of its effectiveness in reducing traffic violations and accidents. Emerging trends also foresee the use of artificial intelligence in the interpretation of footage from traffic cameras not only for ticketing but for broader city planning and infrastructure purposes. Existing infrastructures may become integrated with these newer technologies, providing an "intelligent" transportation system that regularly adapts itself to improve function. Whatever the specific application, it is clear that the deployment and enforcement of traffic laws will increasingly utilize complex and evolving systems of technology, with uncertain implications for drivers and those charged with the adjudication of their alleged violations.