Red light camera programs in St. Louis and St. Peters are unconstitutional according to the Missouri Supreme Court. Both said someone else was driving at the time. The owner is driving about 70 percent to 80 percent of the time, he said, adding that the camera in St. Louis only picks up the vehicle’s tags.
Advertisement
The decisions also could cause other cities around the state to redraft their ordinances on traffic cameras. The vote was unanimous to approve another five year contract with America Traffic Solutions.
The court identified issues with how those cities were implementing the programs and gave what some consider guidance on how to lawfully and constitutionally use the cameras. He said that could mean transitioning to systems that take photos of drivers. Statistics in 2013 showed 191,000 tickets had been issued at $100 per violation.
A spokesman for Kansas City – which was not part of the lawsuits – said the city manager likely will “recommend re-establishing the cameras at our most unsafe intersections”. It is unclear what will happen to those funds after the ruling. It began when KMOX radio host Charlie Brennan was ticketed when his vehicle was caught on camera going 11 miles per hour over the speed limit on a stretch of Missouri Highway 367 in the city limits in 2012.
“If we had lost these cases, cameras would have multiplied like rabbits in the spring and the poor and middle-class would be beset with these fines”, said Bevis Shock, the attorney who represented the plaintiffs in all three cases the court ruled on Tuesday.
While there was significant net revenue generated in the early years of the previous program, by the end it was essentially break even as people adjusted their behavior and stopped running red lights. That ordinance categorized such infractions as “non-moving” violations that would not lead to points on a driver’s record.
Messages seeking comment on Tuesday’s court ruling from Joyce, Dotson and McCoy’s attorney were not immediately returned.
Advertisement
The court ruled the ordinance made an unconstitutional presumption that a vehicle owner granted permission for another person to speed using the owner’s vehicle.
