The Problem with Shorter Yellow Lights in America

Yellow signals are supposed to give drivers enough time to either brake safely or clear the intersection before red. That window—called the yellow change interval—may sound like a small detail, but it sits at the heart of one of America’s most contentious traffic-safety debates. Across the country, yellow times are set with different rules, formulas, and minimums. In some cities they’ve been nudged shorter—sometimes by just a tenth of a second—coinciding with sharp jumps in red-light camera citations. The result is an uneven patchwork that fuels skepticism: are yellow lights timed for safety first, or to boost fine revenue?

What the engineering guidance actually says

At a high level, federal safety authorities describe the role of the yellow interval and encourage agencies to calculate it carefully, but they don’t mandate a single one-size-fits-all number. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) frames the yellow interval as the critical warning that green is ending and red is imminent, and highlights it as a “proven safety countermeasure.” It points agencies to methods for choosing appropriate durations rather than prescribing a single time. Federal Highway Administration

Most U.S. engineers reference guidance from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), which recommends using a physics-based formula that considers approach speed, driver perception-reaction time, deceleration, and grade. This is meant to create a consistent methodology, but local agencies still decide the inputs and implementation—so two cities can land on different values even at the same posted speed. ITE

States also publish their own standards. For example, Florida’s Traffic Engineering Manual states a minimum of 3.4 seconds and a maximum of 6.0 seconds, but emphasizes that those are minimums and that engineers should increase timing as needed based on ITE methods and real operating speeds. Florida LTAP Center

Why a few tenths of a second matter

Small tweaks produce big effects. At camera-equipped intersections in California’s Bay Area, just half a second more yellow time was linked to a 76% drop in violations—not because drivers suddenly became lawbreakers or saints, but because that extra buffer pulled many out of the “dilemma zone.” When drivers have a fair chance to stop, fewer get snapped entering on red. CBS News

Chicago offers another widely cited illustration. Investigations found some signals ran under the city’s 3.0-second policy, and at one point the city’s ticketing threshold effectively treated 2.9 seconds as good enough. That tenth of a second translated into tens of thousands of extra tickets and roughly $7–8 million of added fines—fueling public distrust and years of scrutiny.  

These examples underline a core truth of traffic engineering: at urban approach speeds, a tenth or two of a second can tip thousands of borderline cases into violations.

States that lengthened yellow—and what happened next

Some states responded to controversy by lengthening yellows at camera intersections. In Georgia, a 2009 law forced a one-second increase in yellow duration wherever red-light cameras operated. Violations—and the surrounding revenue—plunged, and some cities ultimately dropped their camera programs. Georgia also tightened oversight, requiring GDOT to permit and approve camera locations based on safety studies instead of revenue projections. The Newspaper

Florida took a different path. Reporting in 2013 highlighted that state rule changes years earlier removed “whichever is greater” language tied to using either posted or 85th-percentile speeds, which made it easier to set shorter minimums at some camera sites. Subsequent training materials reaffirmed Florida’s floor at 3.4 seconds, but critics point to localized timing reductions along corridors like U.S. 19 (Tampa Bay area) as a cautionary tale about how small cuts can align with large spikes in citations. Law Firm Newswire

The net effect is a patchwork: Georgia explicitly adds time at camera sites; Florida emphasizes a state manual minimum that some cities historically pushed toward the floor; other states leave more discretion to local engineers.

Big-city adjustments and inconsistency

Major metros have wrestled with timing choices in the public eye:

• Los Angeles paused and ultimately ended its camera program over a decade ago, and conversations shifted toward extending yellow and red-clearance intervals as a safety-first alternative. City discussions at the time flagged how small, low-cost timing changes could reduce crashes without the baggage of automated ticketing. Los Angeles Times

• In Chicago, scrutiny of sub-3.0-second yellows and unexplained ticket surges spurred audits, policy tweaks, and litigation. The broader lesson—echoed by many traffic engineers—is that when cameras exist, timing must be above reproach. WBEZ

• Virginia provides a contrast from a technical guidance perspective: VDOT documents spell out the purpose of yellow and red-clearance intervals and the factors engineers should weigh, reinforcing that these are safety parameters, not revenue levers. Virginia Department of Transportation

Why timing can drift short

If the ITE method and state manuals exist, why do yellows sometimes end up shorter than drivers expect?

1. Posted vs. operating speed: When drivers routinely travel faster than the posted limit, using the limit (instead of the higher, measured operating speed) in the equation can under-time the yellow. That’s why many manuals reference the 85th-percentile speed. ITE

2. Policy thresholds: Some cities once treated 2.9 seconds as effectively “three” for enforcement thresholds, a rounding choice with real monetary consequences. blogs.kentlaw.iit.edu

3. Contract and budget pressures: Revenue-sharing models between cities and vendors amplify perceived incentives to keep yellows at the minimum, eroding public trust even when engineers acted in good faith. (Chicago’s broader camera controversies made this dynamic a national story.) TIME

4. Method disputes: A minority of critics challenge elements of the widely used ITE equation (e.g., assumed deceleration, perception-reaction time), arguing it still yields too-short yellows at many sites. Whether you agree or not, the existence of these disputes shows how inputs drive outcomes. Red Light Robber

Safety outcomes: timing vs. ticketing

There’s broad agreement that properly timed yellow and all-red intervals reduce risky entries and angle crashes. Conversely, tightening the yellow to the bare minimum can push more drivers into last-second decisions—either stamping brakes (raising rear-end risk) or entering on red (raising right-angle risk). FHWA’s emphasis on correct change intervals reflects that timing is a primary countermeasure, not a footnote. Federal Highway Administration

Case studies where yellows were extended—such as Fremont’s 0.5-second bump—consistently show violations fall sharply without changing enforcement technology. That suggests timing is often the simpler, cheaper lever for both safety and public acceptance. CBS News

The U.S. consistency problem

Put it all together and you get inconsistency:

• Different floors: Florida’s practical floor is 3.4s; many cities cite 3.0s as a baseline; some corridors justify 4.0s+ based on speed/geometry. Cross a city or state line, and the same approach speed might yield a different yellow. Florida LTAP Center

• Camera exception rules: Georgia explicitly adds one second at camera locations; other states don’t. That means two identical intersections—one in Atlanta, one in Tampa—can have different timings primarily because one has a camera and the other doesn’t. 

• Enforcement thresholds: Chicago’s experience with a 2.9-second ticketing threshold exemplifies how an internal policy nuance can create a de-facto standard that isn’t obvious to drivers. blogs.kentlaw.iit.edu

This patchwork feeds the perception that yellow timing is sometimes optimized for revenue, not safety—especially when reductions happen quietly and coincide with red-light cameras.

Practical, trust-building fixes cities can adopt now

1. Use operating speeds (85th percentile) in the calculation, not just posted speeds; document it publicly. ITE

2. Publish timing sheets for every camera-equipped intersection: approach speed used, grade, perception-reaction time, deceleration rate, selected yellow and red-clearance values. (Several state DOTs already model this transparency in their manuals.) Virginia Department of Transportation

3. Adopt a safety margin (e.g., +0.3s to +1.0s) on camera approaches—Georgia’s “+1 second” rule is a workable template. The Newspaper

4. Separate enforcement revenue from transportation budgets so timing and placement decisions are insulated from financial incentives. (Chicago’s history shows why this matters for legitimacy.) TIME

5. Audit frequently and publicly—especially after signal hardware, detection, or lane geometry changes—to prevent unintentional drift below policy. Federal Highway Administration

Bottom line

Yellow-light timing isn’t a trivial knob; it’s a primary safety control. The U.S. lacks a single national standard for exact durations, so local policy choices and engineering inputs matter enormously. Where those choices skew short—particularly at red-light camera sites—violations and fine revenue soar, trust erodes, and the safety case gets muddied. Conversely, where agencies publish their math, use realistic speeds, add red-clearance time, and err on the side of safety, violations and controversy both tend to fall.

Until cities normalize transparent, safety-first timing, drivers will keep asking the same question at the stop bar: is this yellow here to protect me—or to ticket me?

Unpaid Red Light Camera Tickets in 2025: Fines & Consequences

Red light cameras have been controversial since they first appeared in U.S. cities in the 1990s. Proponents argue that they save lives by reducing dangerous crashes, while critics see them as cash grabs that do little more than punish drivers. But in recent years, another problem has emerged: more and more drivers are refusing to pay red light camera tickets. Whether out of financial hardship, disagreement with the system, or a gamble that consequences will be minimal, unpaid fines are becoming a growing issue for cities that depend on this revenue.

In 2025, municipalities are learning that while automated cameras can issue tickets reliably, collecting the money is another story. With millions of dollars going unpaid every year, cities are scrambling to find solutions—from sending tickets to collection agencies to suing chronic violators. But results vary widely depending on local laws, enforcement policies, and how determined officials are to chase down scofflaws.

Why Drivers Don’t Pay

Not all unpaid tickets stem from willful defiance. There are a number of reasons drivers may ignore citations:

• Financial hardship. Even a $75 or $95 fine can hit hard for low-income households. Once late fees and collections costs are added, the burden can double.

• Philosophical objections. Some drivers simply refuse to pay on principle, believing camera enforcement is unfair or unconstitutional.

• Confusion about liability. Because cameras capture license plates, not faces, the registered owner gets the ticket. That can create disputes if someone else—such as a family member, employee, or rental customer—was behind the wheel.

• A belief the system has no teeth. Some drivers assume cities won’t pursue them beyond sending a few notices, especially if they live out of state.

When large numbers of drivers take this gamble, cities lose both revenue and deterrent power.

Typical Consequences of Nonpayment

The consequences of ignoring a red light camera ticket vary widely depending on jurisdiction. In most cities, the ticket is treated as a civil violation rather than a moving violation, which means no points on your license and no automatic impact on your insurance. That leads many drivers to assume there are no serious consequences. But depending on where you live, nonpayment may trigger:

• Late fees and penalties. Most cities add surcharges if payment isn’t made within 30, 60, or 90 days.

• Referral to collections. Unpaid tickets are often turned over to private debt collection agencies, who tack on additional fees.

• Vehicle registration holds. Some states block renewal of registration until fines are cleared.

• Booting or towing. Repeat offenders may find their cars immobilized or impounded.

• Credit damage. Some municipalities report unpaid tickets to credit bureaus, though policies differ.

• Civil lawsuits or liens. In extreme cases, cities may sue chronic scofflaws or issue liens, especially for corporate fleets or rental companies.

Case Study: Columbus, Ohio

Columbus provides a clear example of the challenges cities face. In a single year, nearly $1.6 million in red light camera fines went unpaid, money that otherwise would have funded new police cruisers and a summer crime task force.

In 2007, only 12% of tickets were sent to collections. More recently, that figure rose to 28%. Once unpaid tickets pass 90 days, they are handed to Capital Recovery, a debt collection agency that successfully recovers about 17% of cases—better than the national average for civil debt, but still far from full payment.

City officials note that filing lawsuits might improve collections, but legal costs would likely exceed the fines owed. For now, Columbus relies on late fees and collections, though leaders have debated reporting scofflaws to credit agencies.

Among the worst offenders are rental car holding companies, which have racked up dozens of unpaid citations, as well as individuals with multiple violations. One local official blamed his contractors for accumulating five unpaid tickets in vehicles registered in his name, reflecting the common frustration that camera enforcement penalizes the owner, not the driver.

Example: New York City

In New York, unpaid tickets carry more teeth. The city can block registration renewal for any vehicle owner with three or more unpaid camera or parking judgments within 18 months, or five unpaid parking judgments within 12 months. After 30 days, a $25 late penalty is added, and after 60 days, the case is considered in judgment, opening the door to stronger enforcement.

The Department of Finance also employs collection agencies, though payments are made directly to the city. This system ensures that chronic scofflaws can’t legally keep their cars on the road without paying their fines.

Example: Seattle, Washington

Seattle takes a different approach. Camera tickets there are treated like parking tickets, meaning they don’t go on your driving record. But if left unpaid, they can block Department of Licensing registration renewal. That may not seem severe, but it creates a real roadblock when drivers need to legally operate their vehicles.

Example: Waukegan, Illinois

Waukegan’s red light camera program outlines an escalating enforcement process. If a driver fails to pay or contest the ticket, a “Determination of Liability” is issued, followed by a “Final Determination.” At this point, fines increase with penalties, and the case may be sent to collections. Importantly, under Illinois law, accumulating five or more unpaid camera tickets can lead to license suspension.

Example: Chicago and Statewide Illinois

Chicago is notorious for its extensive camera network, and critics argue that the burden of unpaid fines falls disproportionately on Black and Latino residents. In many Illinois jurisdictions, unpaid tickets can double in cost, and repeated offenders may face vehicle booting or impoundment. This heavy-handed enforcement has triggered widespread criticism and fueled distrust in city leadership.

Example: Washington, D.C.

The nation’s capital has taken unpaid tickets to a new level. In 2025, D.C. filed suit against a Maryland driver who had accumulated 414 unpaid camera tickets totaling $168,168. This was made possible by the STEER Act of 2024, which expanded D.C.’s authority to pursue out-of-state drivers in civil court.

Virginia drivers alone currently owe more than $234 million in unpaid D.C. traffic camera fines. In response, D.C. has ramped up lawsuits, booted vehicles, and pursued more aggressive collection tactics, signaling that the era of ignoring D.C. tickets may be over.

Why Collections Often Fail

Even with aggressive tactics, most cities struggle to recover more than a fraction of unpaid fines. The reasons include:

• High volume, low dollar amounts. It’s often not worth the cost of litigation to collect on small fines.

• Jurisdictional limits. Cities struggle to enforce tickets across state lines without special agreements or laws.

• Civil infraction status. Because these are not criminal charges or moving violations, they lack the strong enforcement hooks of license points or insurance penalties.

• Owner vs. driver disputes. Registered owners often deny responsibility, making collection harder.

Impacts on Revenue and Trust

Unpaid tickets undermine not only revenue but also public trust. Cities that depend on camera fines for budget items—from road safety projects to police salaries—can find themselves facing shortfalls when collections lag. At the same time, aggressive collection measures can spark backlash, especially in communities that already feel unfairly targeted.

This tension fuels the broader debate: are red light cameras truly about safety, or are they financial tools that penalize the vulnerable while letting well-off scofflaws pay and move on?

The Future of Enforcement

Looking forward, cities may pursue several approaches to address the unpaid ticket dilemma:

• Smarter intersection design. Engineering fixes like longer yellow signals may reduce violations without relying on fines.

• Graduated fines. Scaling penalties by income could make them fairer and more payable.

• Interstate cooperation. Laws like D.C.’s STEER Act may spread, giving cities more power to pursue out-of-state offenders.

• Technology shifts. In-car warning systems or automated braking may eventually reduce the need for cameras altogether.

Key Takeaways

1. Unpaid red light tickets are a growing problem. In some cities, up to a third of all citations go unpaid.

2. Consequences vary widely. In some places, nonpayment means little beyond collections. In others, registration holds, lawsuits, or license suspensions can follow.

3. Real-world examples highlight the range. Columbus struggles to collect even 17% of delinquent fines. NYC blocks registrations. D.C. sues out-of-state drivers for six-figure balances.

4. Collections are inefficient. National recovery rates for civil traffic tickets are under 10%, leaving most unpaid.

5. Equity concerns loom large. The burden of fines often falls hardest on low-income and minority neighborhoods.

6. Cities face a dilemma. Depend on unreliable fine revenue, or rethink enforcement around safety improvements and fairness.

Red Light Cameras About Tax or Safety First?

The primary purpose of red-light cameras is generally focused on safety rather than generating tax revenue. Red-light cameras are typically installed at intersections with a history of red-light violations and a higher risk of accidents. The intention behind their use is to discourage drivers from running red lights, which is a dangerous behavior that can lead to severe accidents and injuries.

The safety benefits associated with red-light cameras include reducing the number of T-bone collisions, improving intersection safety, and deterring red-light violations. Studies have shown that red-light cameras can contribute to a decrease in red-light running incidents and related crashes.

While red-light camera programs may generate revenue from the fines imposed on violators, the emphasis is typically placed on safety rather than using them as a revenue-generating tool. However, it is essential for communities and authorities to implement and maintain red-light camera programs transparently and with clear guidelines to ensure that the primary focus remains on improving road safety.

It's worth noting that the motivation behind red-light camera programs may vary depending on the jurisdiction, and there can be debates and discussions about their effectiveness and fairness. Public opinion and local policies can influence the implementation and operation of red-light camera programs in different regions.

Criminal Justice Debate: Are Red Light Cameras Unconstitutional?

Constitutionality of Red Light Cameras Being Scrutinized Once Again

Since the development of automated traffic enforcement questions have been raised by students of criminal justice and others, and lawsuits have been launched to challenge the constitutionality and fairness of these systems.  Give us your feedback below.

Just last month, an attorney in Orlando Florida spoke out it court arguing the red-light camera law is unconstitutional. For a long time running, many have felt the system robs individuals ticketed of the constitutional rights to due process and equal protection under the law. It is rumored that several other attorneys with clients that have received a red light camera ticket will also go to court this June to argue their cases. This could be the beginning of a statewide revolt against red light cameras that could certainly turn nationwide if word gets around to enough disgruntled motorists

The constitutionality of red light cameras is a topic of legal debate and can vary depending on the jurisdiction and the specific legal challenges raised against them. It is important to note that I am an AI language model and not a legal expert, so I cannot provide legal advice or a definitive answer on the constitutionality of red light cameras. However, I can offer some general information on the subject.

In the United States, challenges to the constitutionality of red light cameras have been raised on various grounds, including:

Due Process: Critics argue that red light camera tickets violate the due process rights of individuals because they are issued to the registered owner of the vehicle, regardless of who was driving at the time of the violation. Some argue that this may violate the principle of "innocent until proven guilty."

Right to Confront Accusers: Another argument is that red light camera tickets infringe upon the right to confront one's accuser. Since the ticket is typically issued based on photographic evidence without the involvement of a live witness, opponents argue that it denies individuals the opportunity to challenge the evidence against them.

Privacy: Privacy concerns have been raised regarding the use of cameras to monitor and record the activities of individuals in public spaces. Critics argue that the constant surveillance associated with red light cameras may infringe upon a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Court rulings on the constitutionality of red light cameras have varied across jurisdictions. Some courts have upheld the legality of red light cameras, considering them a valid means of enforcing traffic laws and promoting public safety. Other courts have deemed them unconstitutional, citing concerns related to due process, confrontation rights, or privacy.

Victorville California Driver Files Law Suit

Victorville still has 10 red light cameras and this upsets driver Mike Curran who claims they are illegal. He says his ticket came from Redflex in Arizona, not from law enforcement. NBC4's Inland Empire Reporter Craig Feigener explains what's at stake here.

The infraction carried a $490 fine and when Curran inspected the ticket he found that it was issued by an out-of-state company Redflex with no input from Victorville police officers. Curran launched a class-action lawsuit on the grounds that Victorville cannot hire a private company to do police work.  The cameras' owner, the Redflex Group, is headquartered in Phoenix. The company spent more than $146,000 installing the Victorville cameras and it made its money by issuing the tickets.

3 Years of Red Light Camera Ticket Refunds from a Class Action Lawsuit

Class Action Suit Seeks To Refund 3 Years Worth of Red Light Camera Tickets Issued In Santa Ana, CA  

The July 2010 Supreme Court decision (People v. Park) ruling in favor of the motorist ticketed for a red light camera ticket in Santa Ana, CA because the city lacked compliance with the requirement of Vehicle Code section 21455.5 (b) (that a municipality authorizing an automated enforcement system at an intersection comply with the prescribed warning requirements prior to issuing citations) appears to have opened the floodgates for litigation and paved the way for class actions lawsuits.

Class Action Suit Seeks to Refund 3 Years of Red Light Camera Tickets Issued in Santa Ana, CA

A new class-action lawsuit has been filed in Santa Ana, California, seeking refunds for three years' worth of red light camera tickets issued to drivers. The suit alleges that the city’s red light cameras violated legal standards, which could mean that thousands of citations were improperly issued. This lawsuit has caught the attention of drivers and legal experts alike, as it challenges the legitimacy of traffic enforcement practices in one of California’s major cities. Here’s what you need to know about the case and its potential impact on red light camera enforcement.

What the Class Action Lawsuit Alleges

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of affected drivers, argues that Santa Ana’s red light camera program was not operated in compliance with California state laws governing traffic cameras. Specifically, the suit claims:

1. Improper Camera Calibration and Maintenance: Allegations suggest that some cameras may not have been properly maintained or calibrated, leading to inaccurate readings and potentially unjust citations.
2. Unlawful Contracts with Camera Operators: The lawsuit also questions whether Santa Ana’s contract with its camera operators followed state regulations, which could impact the legality of the tickets issued.
3. Failure to Meet Due Process Standards: The plaintiffs argue that the ticketing process did not provide adequate information or a fair chance to contest the violations, potentially violating drivers’ due process rights.

If the court finds these allegations to be valid, it could set a precedent that affects red light camera programs across California and beyond.

Why This Could Lead to Refunds for Red Light Camera Tickets

At the heart of the lawsuit is the claim that these tickets were issued in violation of state law, which could entitle drivers to refunds. If Santa Ana’s red light camera system is found to be improperly operated or the contract is deemed unlawful, every ticket issued through the program over the past three years could be considered invalid.

For drivers who paid fines due to red light camera violations, a successful lawsuit could mean a refund of fines, which often range from $100 to $500 per ticket. Given the thousands of tickets issued annually, this could result in millions of dollars refunded to affected drivers.

How Red Light Camera Violations Work in Santa Ana, CA

Red light cameras are installed at intersections to capture images of vehicles that run red lights. In Santa Ana, as in many cities, the system automatically takes photos and videos of vehicles that cross the intersection after the light turns red. The registered owner of the vehicle then receives a citation with the violation details and a fine.

Potential Consequences for Santa Ana and Other Cities

If the class action suit succeeds, it could have a ripple effect across California and other cities that rely on red light camera programs. Here are some key implications:

1. Changes to Red Light Camera Programs: Cities may be prompted to re-evaluate their red light camera contracts, equipment standards, and ticketing processes to ensure full compliance with state laws.
2. Increased Scrutiny of Automated Traffic Enforcement: Red light camera programs, which have faced criticism for prioritizing revenue over safety, may see increased public and legal scrutiny, potentially leading to reforms or even program shutdowns.
3. Potential Refunds in Other Cities: Similar lawsuits could emerge in other jurisdictions if drivers feel their red light camera programs are not following state-mandated standards.

What Drivers in Santa Ana Should Know

If you received a red light camera ticket in Santa Ana in the last three years, you might be eligible for a refund if the class action suit succeeds. Here’s what to keep in mind:

• Stay Informed: Follow updates on the class action suit to understand if and how you might benefit.
• Check Eligibility Requirements: If the suit results in a settlement or judgment, there will likely be criteria to qualify for a refund.
• Keep Records: Hold onto any records of paid tickets, as they could be helpful if refunds become available.

Will Red Light Camera Programs Change?

This lawsuit, if successful, could influence the future of red light camera programs not only in Santa Ana but throughout California. Automated traffic enforcement has long been controversial, with critics arguing that cameras prioritize revenue over safety and may unfairly target drivers. A win for the plaintiffs could lead to tighter regulations, improved transparency, and potentially fewer automated cameras in operation.

Final Thoughts

The outcome of this class action lawsuit in Santa Ana has the potential to reshape how cities use red light cameras to enforce traffic laws. For drivers, it’s a reminder to stay informed about your rights and the evolving laws around traffic enforcement technology. If you’ve received a red light camera ticket in Santa Ana, keep an eye on this case—you may be eligible for a refund if the lawsuit prevails.

Redflex & ATS Class Action Lawsuits

Bruce Simon from Palo Alto has filed a class-action lawsuit against the two largest companies who run red light cameras in San Mateo county Redflex and American Traffic Solutions. Simon says they're violating state law by including a so-called "cost neutral" provision in the contracts.  Simon says the camera makers reimburse cities when they can't make enough from tickets to pay for the monthly operational costs. It can't be a money loser for the cities and the companies will make up the difference.  Red light camera operators typically pick intersections that are going to be susceptible to the most tickets, says Simon.  We're going after the private companies that induce these municipalities to get into these contracts as revenue-enhancing vehicles, Simon said.  If it's supposed to be about safety and preventing accidents, the revenue aspect shouldn't be as important.

There have been court challenges to the cost-neutral clause and as a result, several Peninsula cities have stopped using the red light cameras, others are in the process of dropping it, among them is Redwood City.  Another trend seems to be the growing use of right turn cameras or those intersections that monitor if you make a "California Stop".  A California stop is also referred to as a rolling right turn. 

Related articles:
Red-light cameras in Redwood City have not resulted in a significant drop in accidents

Red Light Camera Class Actions Starting

Class Action Law Suits in Louisiana

Orleans Parish District Court Judge Kern Reese on Friday granted the city of New Orleans' motion to continue a class certification hearing in a red light camera case until Sept. 24.

The city filed the motion to continue through assistant city attorney Detrich Hebert.

The motion cites Louisiana State Civil Procedure Article 592 (3)(a) and states that the "hearing on class certification is improper because the city has not made an appearance before the court in the present matter." It also states that "the city has not had adequate time to conduct discovery because there are numerous other traffic camera violation cases that are consuming counsel's time."

Metairie lawyer Joseph McMahon III filed the class action claiming the cameras that catch motorists breaking the law are illegal. Reese threw out a red light camera ticket issued against McMahon in 2008.

McMahon has filed similar lawsuits in Jefferson Parish and in Lafayette, La.

Red light camera revenue has been used for various public works projects in Orleans and Jefferson Parishes. The Times-Picayune reported that New Orleans has used most of the nearly $10 million generated from red light cameras towards the rebuilding of roads throughout the city while Jefferson Parish has held nearly $15 million in escrow until all appeals are exhausted.

McMahon's other cases against red light cameras in Louisiana are still ongoing.

But in May 2009, U.S. District Judge Sarah Vance threw out a similar case, stating that McMahon and his lawyer, Anthony Maska, failed to show that Jefferson Parish's system is unconstitutional. Maska and McMahon have taken their case back to state court.

In Lafayette, a state judge threw out the bulk of McMahon's lawsuit against the city's traffic cameras that sought to prove the program is unlawful for turning traffic tickets into civil violations.

McMahon and Maska are now attempting the same argument they've made in New Orleans, alleging that in the Lafayette system, someone must see the traffic violation in order to validate the image of the purported crime provided by the red light camera.

New Orleans adopted the red light camera system in April 2008 after a private firm, American Traffic Solutions Inc., won an open-bidding contract to install and run the cameras and issue citations and fines to motorists.  Read.

Judge Rules Red Light Cameras Are Not Legal

In a ruling that could have implications for other cities, a circuit court judge ruled Monday morning that the city of Aventura, Florida cannot use cameras to catch red-light runners.  However, it did not file an injunction ordering the city to stop using the cameras. The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by a motorist who argued that only the state Legislature can pass laws regarding traffic violations. Cities have gotten around the lack of state authorization by citing red-light runners with a code violation, rather than a traffic ticket.

The city can appeal the ruling by Circuit Court Judge Jerald Bagley, and the judge's decision has no bearing on other cities nor did it invalid the constitutionality of red-light programs. But if it stays in force, the ruling could set a legal precedent that could be used in suits against red-light camera programs in other cities.

Other South Florida cities have similar ways to catch speeders and beef up city revenues, so the ruling against the cameras could open the flood gates to challenges. Cities, like Aventura, Miami Beach, Pembroke Pines and others, have used cameras to cite red-light runners with a code violation, instead of a traffic violation. Lusskin argued that was merely a way of circumventing the state law and that cities could only issue tickets to red-light runners if an officer is present.

In his ruling Monday morning, Bagley sided with Lusskin and granted his motion for summary judgment against Aventura.

The lawyer representing Aventura city attorney Michael S. Popok said that the judge's ruling only addressed whether or not cities can issue fines based on the red-light cameras - and not the presence of the cameras themselves or the program. The state charter says that cities have the power to use ``security devices'' to ``regulate'' what occurs on the roadways, and the issue, according to Popok, is whether or not the word ``regulate'' gives cities the authority to issue fines.

The judge did not issue an injunction against the program as part of his ruling, so it can continue to operate while the city decides whether or not to file an appeal.