• Sidebar Ads




Red-light cameras are constitutional, appeals court rules


 Related Articles
Email Print
Red-light cameras are legal and not a violation of any constitutional rights, according to Tennessee’s Court of Appeals.

The appeals court ruled last week that Knoxville’s red-light cameras are not a violation of due process or equal protection under the law. Murfreesboro used Knoxville’s ordinance as a model – along with ordinances from Germantown, Gallatin and Red Bank – when writing its own.

“The Tennessee District Criminal Court of Appeals decision certainly supports Murfreesboro’s efforts to reduce the number of traffic crashes at key intersections in the city via an automated traffic enforcement (ATE) system,” Murfreesboro City Spokesman Chris Shofner said. “One way it does this is by settling the due process question by affirming citations issued for running red lights are civil and not criminal.”

Ronald Brown, whose vehicle was caught running a light in 2006, challenged Knoxville’s cameras and the city code behind them, claiming they violated his constitutional rights.

Brown argued his due process rights were violated because the city’s ordinance places responsibility on the owner of the car, not the driver. But in cases where the driver is not the owner, then a sworn statement will be taken into evidence and make the actual driver responsible for the fine.

In other words, according to Knoxville’s code, the owner of the vehicle is always responsible for the actions of the car, regardless of who is behind the wheel, which is similar to Murfreesboro’s law.

The court found the burden of proof is on the city to prove a violation has been committed. Therefore Brown’s due process rights were not violated by the city’s ordinance.

Brown also argued because Knoxville’s code requires that citation be sent to the owner of the vehicle and not the “guilty party,” his equal protection rights were violated.

Again the court sided with the city.

“We emphasize that pursuant to the City Code, it is the vehicle owner who is responsible for the violation. Therefore, when a red light violation occurs, the ‘guilty party’ is the vehicle owner, who may or may not be driving the vehicle at the time of the violation,” the court wrote.

Michelle Willard can be contacted at 615-869-0816 or mwillard@murfreesboropost.com.
 
 
 
Tagged under  CITY, RED-LIGHT CAMERAS


Member Opinions:
By: bota on 8/5/08
Well that sure shoots down a lot of on-line law "experts".

By: HuskyLover on 8/5/08
I spent the day driving around M'boro today. I wish every single traffic light in the city was equipped with cameras like this. These idiot red light runners are a menace and they're EVERYWHERE!

By: devolver on 8/5/08
I was in the car (at night) with a friend a week ago at the intersection of John Bragg & S. Rutherford when one of the cameras took a picture of someone running the light. It was the first time I've seen it happen, so it wasn't sure what had happened when the INCREDIBLY bright flash on the camera went off. I sat there for a second, then asked the driver, "did you just see a bright flash?". I wasn't sure if I had just had a seizure or was hallucinating.

Way bright. WAY distracting. Not to mention obnoxious.

By: keepingtabs on 8/6/08
The fact that a court has ruled something as legal does not in fact make it right and those who blindly permit and accept incorrect rulings are bigger fools than those who make the ruling.

The highest court in the land condones the murder of unborn humans but that doesn't make it right.

When the intrusion into your life by someone's idea of what is right as opposed to yours occurs, let's see how supportive you are just because some court concurs.



By: matt73557 on 8/6/08
So where will I be able to find the figures relating to revenue generation...er...I mean crash redutions.

Seriously....I want to see the data. Because I don't feel any safer.

And when was the last time someone was killed in Murfreesboro by a red-light runner? Anyone know?

By: Wil2hike on 8/6/08
OK, here's the deal - don't run the redlight -camera will not go off - your privacy will be protected

By: ronjo58 on 4/16/10
The traffic cameras may or may not cause people to think twice about running red lights.However, it will produce huge revenues for the city and state. The Court was wrong in its decision that the cameras are constitutional.The Court rubberstamped the decision and allowed it to be passed on, possibly, to a higher court.
That the Court ruled the owner of the vehicle is responsible for the actions of the actual driver,is in itself irresponsible,in error,considering that the matter is a civil,rather than criminal matter. A traffic ticket in itself is considered an arrest and if the court determines that is a civil matter,then the traffic ticket is illegal.

By: slammerharder on 7/23/10
OK guys Red light camera's are illegal they violate your 6th amendment A right to meet your accuser in court, anyone showing up to court on behalf of the red light camera is all hear say. Also the court can not make you identify the person driving even if they threaten contempt or obstruction of justice, that is a strong arm tactic. Simply mail the letter back with these words written on it.
"This ticket is illegal and violates my 6th Amendment rights" Also if the ticket says you must come to court just ignore it, its not a legal summons. You didn't sign anything promising that you would show up. Also that is a form of trickery on the courts side if you do go in. I simple ignore all camera's and only 3 times have I had a quote and quote ticket come in the mail to me. Which I simply write to them what I said above and then after that ignore it.
Only once did they try to make me pay it thru DMV but that was a huge mistake on their part and they ended up eating the costs.


Login and voice your opinion!
Powered by Bondware
Newspaper Software | Email Marketing Tools | E-Commerce Marketplace