A Missouri citizen's guide to red light cameras.

• Author: Conlon, Joe

1. INTRODUCTION

   Red light cameras are a hotly debated issue in Missouri. Many supporters argue that red light cameras reduce accidents and save lives. (1) Those opposed claim the cameras do more harm than good.2 This Summary provides a brief background on red light cameras and their early use in Missouri. This Summary then discusses the recent development in red light camera laws, including the string of recent Missouri court cases dealing with the issue, as well as proposed state legislation. Finally, this Summary discusses possible legal arguments one can present in court in the event that he or she is accused of a violation.

2. LEGAL BACKGROUND

   Running red lights poses a serious safety threat to pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists nationwide. In 2012 alone, over 133,000 people were injured in crashes involving motorists running a red light. (3) Even worse, more than 680 people lost their lives that year due to such accidents. (4) In response to this threat, many states and cities began using red light camera systems in order to prevent needless accidents. The first red light camera system was installed in New York City in 1992.5 Currently, over 500 communities nationwide in twenty-three states and the District of Columbia utilize red light camera systems. (6)

   1. Red Light Cameras First Introduced in Missouri

      In Missouri, cities and municipalities are authorized to make traffic rules and regulations in order to meet their traffic needs. (7) Armed with police power granted from the state, municipalities can enact ordinances to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. (8) In the mid-2000s, municipal ordinances permitting the use of red light cameras began springing up across the state.

      The City of Arnold was the first municipality in Missouri to adopt such an ordinance. (9) In 2006, Arnold enacted Ordinance 23-181, which permitted the use of red light camera enforcement systems. (10) The ordinance adopted by Arnold is very similar to other ordinances used throughout the state. (11) Under Arnold's ordinance, traffic cameras are installed at intersections around the city. The cameras are angled in such a way that they can easily take a picture of a car passing through an intersection. (13) If a driver enters an intersection under a solid red light, the traffic camera takes a picture of the intersection, which captures a view of the red light and the car, including the license plate. (14) A notice of the violation is sent to the owner of the vehicle. (15) The notice of the violation includes a copy of the photograph taken by the camera, a summons to appear in court, and instructions on how to waive the court hearing and pay a fine. (16) The penalty for a red light violation is usually around $100. (17)

      Whether red light camera systems actually reduce violations and accidents is still up for debate. A synthesis of numerous red light camera studies compiled by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program concluded that red light camera systems do reduce the number of red light running violations. (18) More importantly, it noted that intersections with red light cameras saw a decrease in angle crashes, which occur when two cars collide at an angle of approximately ninety degrees. (19) A common example is when a car gets "T-boned," which occurs when the front end of one car crashes directly into the side of another car. Angle crashes are usually more dangerous than collisions in which the vehicles are pointing in the same direction, such as when one gets "rear ended." (20)

      Critics of red light cameras note that there are numerous studies that show that red light cameras do not reduce accidents. (21) In fact, critics often note that the use of cameras can lead to an increase in rear end collisions, as overly-cautious motorists will choose to stop at an intersection flashing a yellow light to avoid getting a ticket, thereby coming to a quick stop such that the motorists following them will crash into the rear end of their cars. (22) According to the New Jersey Department of Transportation, New Jersey saw a twenty-percent increase in rear-end collisions at intersections with newly installed red light cameras. (23) It also noted a slight increase in overall collisions at all intersections in which it installed red light cameras, as compared to the year before when the intersections did not have red light cameras. (24)

      While the debate over effectiveness rages on, the debate over cost is settled: red light cameras are expensive. One camera alone can cost around $50,000 to purchase and over $5,000 to install, not to mention maintenance costs. (25) Most cities cannot afford to purchase one camera, let alone several, so they contract with manufacturers to lease them instead. (26) One of the most popular camera manufacturers is American Traffic Solutions ("ATS"). ATS is based out of Arizona and has been manufacturing, installing, and operating cameras since 1987. (27) ATS operates cameras in many places across the United States, including New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington D.C., New Orleans, and Atlanta. (28) The company currently operates cameras in over twenty Missouri communities, including St. Louis, Kansas City, and Springfield. (29) Instead of purchasing a camera from ATS, municipalities contract with ATS to install and operate the cameras at little or no cost to the city. (30) In return, ATS receives a portion of each fine collected by the city. (31) ATS is heavily involved in the enforcement process, as it installs the cameras, tracks violations, sends out violation notices, and even collects fines for some cities. (32) The amount of money ATS receives varies with each contract and is usually around one third of each red light fine collected by the city. (33) In some cases, ATS receives a flat fee from the city for each camera it operates, regardless of how many fines are actually issued. (34) For example, in its contract with Kansas City, ATS receives about $4,500 per month for each camera it operates, or about $1.6 million a year. (35)

      For some cities, red light cameras can generate a huge source of revenue. Kansas City, Missouri, has collected over $2 million since it instituted its red light camera ordinance in 2009. (36) Likewise, the City of Ellisville in St. Louis County has generated about $200,000 in revenue annually since it began using red light camera systems in 2009 for a total of over $1 million. (37) St. Louis collected over $4.1 million in 2013 alone. (38)

   2. Challenges to Red Light Cameras in Missouri

      One of the first notable challenges to a red light camera ordinance in Missouri came in 2011 in the case of City of Creve Coeur v. Nottebrok. (39) The city passed an ordinance permitting the use of "automated photo traffic enforcement system[s]," otherwise known as red light cameras. (40) Under the ordinance, if a camera recorded a car entering an intersection while the signal was emitting a steady red light, the car owner could be found guilty of committing a "violation of public safety at an intersection." (41)

      In August 2009, Mary Nottebrok's car was caught running a red light. (42) The city sent her a citation in the mail, which included the images of her car in the intersection and a fine for $100. (43) The citation also notified Nottebrok that the violation was considered by the city as a non-moving violation, so no points would be added to her license. (44) It also stated that the car owner was responsible for the ticket, even if she had not been driving the vehicle at the time of the violation, and that the owner could not transfer liability to the driver. (45) Finally, the citation noted that if Nottebrok failed to respond to or pay the citation, a notice to appear in court would be issued. (46)

      Nottebrok did not pay the fine, and a notice to appear in court was issued in September 2009. (47) In response, Nottebrok filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the camera ordinance violated her right to due process, that the city did not have probable cause to find her guilty under the ordinance, that the ordinance conflicted with state law for failing to assess points for a moving violation, and that Creve Coeur did not have authority to enact such an ordinance. (48) The municipal court denied her motion to dismiss and found her guilty of violating the ordinance. (49) Nottebrok then filed an application for review in circuit court and subsequently an identical motion to dismiss. (50) The circuit court denied the motion and, after de novo review, found Nottebrok guilty of violating the ordinance. (51) Unsatisfied with the outcome, Nottebrok appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Eastern District of Missouri. (52) Nottebrok's first point on appeal was that Creve Coeur violated her right to due process. (53) She argued that if the city was going to issue her a ticket, it must have had probable cause to suspect that she was driving the car at the time of the violation, and the fact that she was the owner was not enough to hold her responsible. (54) The appellate court disagreed, finding that since violations under this ordinance were civil in nature, and not criminal, she was not entitled to the higher degree of procedural protection afforded under criminal laws. (55) One does not get the same level of procedural protections for violating a civil ordinance as one does for violating a criminal statute. (56) The level of due process required in this case was less than that of a criminal case. The court therefore held that the city did not have to prove that the car owner was in fact the driver in order to hold the car owner liable under the ordinance. (57) The court believed red light camera tickets could be treated like parking tickets. (58) When a car owner receives a parking ticket for violating a city ordinance, the city can hold the car owner liable and need not prove that he or she was the driver of the car. (59) Following this logic, the court held that...