Traffic cameras survive scrutiny elsewhere

By Mike Leidemann
Advertiser Transportation Writer

Traffic photo-enforcement programs like the one started in Hawai'i this month have generated heated opposition in more than 60 locations across North America, but the programs generally have withstood legal and public opinion challenges, according to transportation industry officials.

"These programs work and they are here to stay," said Steve Roberts, a San Francisco attorney who specializes in transportation issues. "I don't know of any case in the country where one of these programs has been totally invalidated by a court."

A number of widely publicized cases, however, have caused programs to be altered or discontinued because of their unpopularity.

• In San Diego this year, a judge dismissed several hundred photo-enforcement tickets, saying the program was not operated in compliance with state law. San Diego officials retooled the program, and the same private company that runs Hawai'i's program still runs the program there.

• In the Canadian province of British Columbia, where the photo programs were spearheaded by state-owned auto insurance companies and vulnerable to charges of conflict of interest, a newly elected government this year shut down the program one day after it took office, even though a local court had upheld the constitutionality of the photos.

• In Anchorage, Alaska, the mayor and local council halted a photo enforcement program when thousands of people refused to pay their tickets and clogged local courts in 1998. The Anchorage program had early public support when it was limited to school zones but grew unpopular when it was expanded to other areas. The state court later ruled that Anchorage did not have legal authority to start the program without a statewide enabling law.

Despite those cases, nationwide and local polls show a majority of the public approves of the use of camera and computer technology to catch speeders and red-light runners.

"Absolutely, people favor traffic enforcement, especially when you can show that it saves lives," said Kenny Morse, a Los Angeles radio, cable and Web site host who bills himself as Mr. Traffic. "There were the same sort of complaints with sobriety checks and seat belts, but now people are willing to accept them."

The opposition to photo-enforcement programs has produced a strange cross-section of conservatives and liberals worried about an erosion of individual freedoms, privacy laws and a lack of due process.

Loss of rights charged

One of the most visible opponents of camera use is Dick Armey, the U.S. House Majority leader who maintains his own Web site (www.freedom.gov/auto) on the issue.

"I don't believe that the camera gives me ... increased safety," said Armey, a Republican from Texas who recently announced his intention to retire from Congress, during a CNN appearance this summer. "What it does give me is a violation of my rights, and I have to tell you I've studied this deployment across the nation. I think it's all about money, not about traffic safety or me and my family."

The technology, in a variety of styles, has been used overseas for decades. More than 70 nations employ it, and a growing number of American communities are adapting it to augment local police enforcement. At least 10 states have laws allowing the use of the cameras; two others, Wisconsin and New Jersey, have created bans on them.

As the tickets-by-mail have proliferated, so has the feeling that the technology is one more example of Big Brother tunneling deeper into American life.

"The two main legal reasons people bring against these programs are a violation of privacy and a lack of due process," said Roberts, an adviser to the federal government's national committee on Intelligent Transportation Systems, the large heading under which photo enforcement is included. "Both of those arguments are false."

Harris said the due process argument often boils down to an accusation that the cameras and computers don't give people a chance to contest the charge. Courts generally have decided that camera technology is accurate, sometimes even more so than the subjective evidence presented by a police officer, he said.

In Hawai'i's three-year trial program, a driver who receives a citation will have an opportunity to contest the charge in court, just like a ticket issued by a police officer. The state Judiciary plans to set up additional District Courts across O'ahu to handle an expected initial surge in contestations of the photo citations, administrative Judge Collette Garibaldi said.

Privacy arguments rejected

The privacy argument also has been shot down in most courts, Roberts said. "Basically, the courts have found there's not a huge privacy right when you travel on a highway. The only people photographed are those who violate the law, and I don't have any problem with that."

In a number of areas, drivers also have raised safety concerns about the cameras, saying they may contribute to more sudden stops at red lights, and unreasonably slow and unsafe driving on highways. Armey, in particular, argued that increasing the time of a yellow light at an intersection would improve safety more than ticketing red-light runners.

"The only documented benefit to red-light cameras is to the pocketbook of local governments who use the devices to collect millions in revenue," Armey said.

The cameras are undoubtedly lucrative. Armey's Web site notes that in Washington, D.C., officials expected to collect $16 million in fines from 37 cameras this year. In San Diego, 19 cameras brought in nearly $30 million in 18 months. In Howard County, Md., the program has collected $4 million from more than 70,000 tickets issued between 1998 and 2000. And in New York City, 15 red-light cameras racked up 168,471 tickets, collecting $5,435,815 in fines during their first year of operation.

Police, state and industry officials insist that the real purpose of the cameras is to save lives.

"Study after study has shown that cameras can reduce violations and crashes," said Russ Rader, a spokesman for the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety. "Red-light running is a huge traffic safety problem. It results in 800 deaths and 200,000 injuries every year. The key is deterrence. If people know the cameras are operating, they'll slow down or stop."

Still, that hasn't quieted many people who often challenge the programs on emotional, rather than legal, grounds.

In Anchorage, when the program grew beyond its initial scope, thousands of people clogged the court system, preventing them from having their challenges heard in a prompt manner. Rather than wade through the legal morass, officials simply abandoned the program.

"It's time to clear the decks and move on," Mayor Rick Mystrom said in announcing the end. "It's the conclusion of a long, long road."

One of the most practical arguments occurs when municipalities turn the operation of the program over to a private contractor, as Hawai'i is doing.

"It raises the whole policy argument that this is just a money-making opportunity for the companies and the municipalities," Roberts said. "You raise the possibility that the private contractor is more interested in making money than improving safety."

In part, that's what happened in San Diego — and could happen in Hawai'i, where the programs are similar.

In San Diego last year, attorneys for those caught running red lights challenged the legality of a private company enforcing the law when the state vehicle code specifically required enforcement by a government agency. As in Hawai'i, the company (ACS State and Local Solutions) receives a portion of each fine paid through the system; a judge ruled that such a set-up gave the appearance of impropriety and ordered the city to readjust the contract before issuing more tickets.

Winning public approval

Hawai'i officials say they have taken note of the problems elsewhere and have carefully crafted the photo-enforcement legislation to meet most legal objections. Part of the Hawai'i program includes a final review by a state Department of Transportation employee before any citation is put in the mail. In most programs active in the United States, the cameras are run or supervised by city police departments.

"Will it be challenged? Unequivocally," City Prosecutor Peter Carlisle said this month when the Hawai'i program was announced. "Can we defeat it? Absolutely."

Preparation is a key to winning legal and public approval for the photo systems, said Amy Polk, a researcher at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Washington, D.C.

In a report entitled "Electronic Enforcement of Traffic Laws: The Devil is in the Details," Polk suggests that the ultimate success of the programs depends on how the technology is applied and how transportation professionals interact with state and local lawmakers, courts and the public.

"Favorable public opinion and public acceptance have been named most often as the aspect that can make or break an automated enforcement program," she wrote.

Others believe that no matter how well officials lay the groundwork for a photo program there is going to be vocal opposition.

"Everybody wants to speed, but not one wants to get caught," Morse said. "The government taking money for traffic citations is a given. But if we didn't break the law, they wouldn't be able to collect a dime."

Reach Mike Leidemann at 525-5460 or mleidemann@honoluluadvertiser.com