Friday, Nov. 25 2011 11:55AM
Put on the red light
Scott Devouton
Print
E-Mail
AIM
ReprintRed-light cameras have become an increasingly popular public safety tool in cities across the country. They raise revenue by giving people what amounts to a parking ticket for their car being in an intersection while the light is red. The cameras are operated by private companies that split revenues with the cities that hire them.
Red-light cameras are in a political, financial and legal fight. A Missouri state senator received a camera citation and is fighting the violation in court. The red-light camera industry has lobbyists. Lawyers have taken on the anti-camera cause as volunteer public service. There are anti-red-light-camera fundraisers, complete with live music and celebrities.
A St. Louis suburb was a recent hot spot for red-light-camera law. City of Creve Coeur vs. Nottebrok, a Missouri Court of Appeals case, has told us that red-light cameras are legal in Missouri.
The case dealt with a typical red-light camera ticket. The car owner who received the ticket fought it. She argued that the city ordinance was unconstitutional. The court did not agree. Because the city wrote the ordinance as a nonmoving violation, rather than a moving violation, the car owner didn’t stand a chance. The court found the ordinance had a “substantial and rational” relationship with the city’s ability to manage the “health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of the inhabitants of the municipality.”
The court noted that the ordinance did not prohibit “running a red light.” Rather, it “prohibited the presence of a vehicle in an intersection when the traffic control signal for that intersection was emitting a steady red signal for the direction of travel or orientation of the vehicle.” This distinction was crucial in lowering the city’s standard of proof and otherwise making the charge legal.
The court’s analysis of public safety was justly ample. The ordinance said that red-light cameras prevent accidents and pedestrian injuries, improve traffic flow and reduce the public cost of emergency response. While not noted in the court’s opinion, research indicates that red-light cameras actually achieve these goals.
The problem seems to be in the operation of red-light cameras. Critics claim that cities are just trying to raise revenue, that public safety is a convenient platform. A recent USA Today article talked about questionable practices by red-light camera companies, such as contractually preventing cities from lengthening yellow light times. The fact that the industry has lobbyists at all should say something about the money and influence at stake.
The car owner in Nottebrok will probably ask for review by the Missouri Supreme Court. We don’t know whether the court will hear the case, but it is evident that red-light cameras are increasingly common and controversial. Look for them at an intersection near you.
Lastly, there is an update on a prior column about property owners at the Lake of the Ozarks who faced losing houses and other structures built on their property (Lee’s Summit Journal, Oct. 21, 2011).
The owners had all built structures within an area designated as a no-build area under Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulations and Ameren project boundaries. The Commission has given Ameren until June 2012 to redraw its project boundaries to presumably exclude most of the affected property owners. I expect that Ameren will do this, but at this point the ball is in its court and up in the air to some extent.
In the meantime, property owners are nervous. Some have already filed suits and more are likely to come. Law and public relations are colliding in this case, just in time for election season.
Based in Lee’s Summit, attorney Scott Devouton provides basic estate planning and small business services.
