TN Gov. Hearts Scameras


Facing a budget deficit that could reach $800m, Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen (D) is looking at all options to bring the books back into balance. Bredesen’s former legal counsel, Robert E. Cooper, Jr. was appointed state attorney general two years ago. Last week, Cooper did his part by issuing a ruling designed to promote the use of photo ticketing by taking on constitutional arguments commonly leveled against such programs. “It is an accepted principle that enactments of the General Assembly are presumed constitutional,” Cooper wrote. “Whenever the constitutionality of a statute is attacked, courts are required to indulge every presumption in favor of its validity and resolve any doubt in favor of, rather than against, the constitutionality of the act.”
The legislature in 2008 embraced red light cameras while Bredesen officials were quietly exploring the possibility of adopting a freeway speed camera setup similar to that used in Arizona. Cooper cited the rational basis test as establishing the constitutionality of the legislature’s actions.
“If any reasonable justification for the law may be conceived, it must be upheld by the courts,” Cooper said, citing the Tennessee Court of Appeals. “Absent implication of a fundamental right, a legislative act will withstand a substantive due process challenge if the government identifies a legitimate governmental interest that the legislative body could rationally conclude was served by the legislative act.”
The appeals court made similar arguments in a July decision that stated there is no problem in allowing prosecutors to presume the owner of a vehicle is guilty. Shifting the burden of proof presents no constitutional difficulty as long as the state can establish that a vehicle committed a crime. According to Cooper, the only protection the legislature allows is that private vendors may not decide who is guilty.
“The statute makes no provision for a private company to monitor and control a traffic light or to issue a citation,” Cooper wrote. “Applicable law enforcement personnel are the only ones presently authorized to issue this type of citation. It is the opinion of this office that the statute prohibits private vendors from making the determination, based upon photographic evidence, that a traffic violation has occurred, since the statute specifically requires the applicable law enforcement office to make such determination.”
All cities with photo enforcement programs hire private contractors to operate every aspect of the ticket issuing process. Although these programs often claim a police officer personally reviews every photo, cross-examinations in court trials have shown this usually amounts to a “bulk approval” where the officer clicks a mouse button and the vendor attaches his signature digitally to every ticket before dropping it in the mail ( view San Diego, California court decision). If Cooper is right, the “monitoring” of video footage cannot be outsourced and the bulk approval process would be illegal under Tennessee law.
Latest Car Reviews
Read moreLatest Product Reviews
Read moreRecent Comments
- Tassos You should call your columns "EXHUMATION OF THE DAY". FIts perfectly with this 'find'. How deep did you have to dig to exhume it? Let rotting carcasses lie!
- Jew65711923 This is a very, very special breaking news story=============> t.ly/walZD
- Jew65711923 NICE
- Rng65694730 All auto makers seem to be having problems ! Still supply chain issues !
- MrIcky I'd go 2500 before I went 1500 with a 6.2. I watched an engineer interview on the 2.7l. I appreciate that their focus on the 2.7 was to make it perform like a diesel and all of their choices including being a relatively large i4 instead of an i6 were all based around it feeling diesel like in it's torque delivery. It's all marketing at the end of the day, but I appreciated hearing the rationale. Personally I wouldnt want to tow much more than 7-8k lbs with a light truck anyway so it seems to fit the 1500 application.
Comments
Join the conversation
What you guy's need is the photo and the ticket for a datsun 120y doing 120km/h in a 100 zone. When questioned, she said the car was not capable of that speed, the authorities said "The camera system is working ok". The owner of the car (and a tv station) hired a professional race driver to drive her car and he could only get it up to 80km/h. The goverment investigated and found that ALL of the cameras falsely triggering. The goverment then had to reimburse all of the fines gathered during the time the cameras were switched on. They then spent more money trying to find a system that (1) could actually calibrate the camera's and (2) no false positives. look up Melbourne's Western Ring Road camera fiasco