Missouri Supreme Court Strikes Down Red Light Cameras

The Newspaper
by The Newspaper

The supreme court of Missouri sent photo enforcement companies scrambling on Monday after it declared the red light camera administrative hearing process in the city of Springfield to be void. The high court moved with unusual speed, handing down a strongly worded, unanimous decision about one month after hearing oral arguments in the case.

“This is a $100 case,” Judge Michael A. Wolff wrote for the court. “But sometimes, it’s not the money — it’s the principle.”

At first glance, the court’s decision appeared to be limited to a technical legal issue regarding Springfield’s authority to adjudicate a photo ticket against motorist Adolph Belt in an administrative hearing. The court indicated that this was plainly not permitted under state law. Section 479.010 of the Missouri Code requires ordinance violations of this type to be heard in a circuit or municipal court. Springfield had argued that its administrative hearing officer was the first and last word on all judgments, with no appellate courts — not even the supreme court itself — having any jurisdiction over the matter.

A closer look at the ruling shows that the high court judges expressed a dim view toward the legal arguments often cited by municipalities to justify their red light cameras programs. For example, the court made it clear that no city had any authority to treat red light violations in the same manner as a parking ticket.

“The administrative system at issue here is created for a violation of a red light ordinance, which typically is considered a moving violation,” Wolff wrote.

That means no city in Missouri, including Kansas City and St. Louis, has the authority to issue civil violations that carry no points. A footnote explained further that charter cities have no power to act in areas limited by state law. Both premises are key rebuttals to the argument that municipalities in the state have the authority to create red light camera programs without the sanction of state law. The high court also called into question Springfield’s use of short yellows.

“Undeniably a traffic expert, Belt timed the yellow caution light at the intersection and found that it was rather quick,” Wolff wrote. “He also concluded that the stoplight and the cameras needed to be synchronized.”

Another footnote cited three articles by TheNewspaper that Belt had brought to the court’s attention.

“Another article he found stated that a study in Texas had found that adding an additional second to yellow lights corresponded to a 40-percent reduction in crashes [ view study],” Wolff wrote. “Even so, the city of Springfield had chosen to reduce its yellow-light timing at more than 100 intersections prior to starting red light camera ticketing [ view article].”

State supreme courts are now evenly split on the issue of photo enforcement. Missouri’s supreme court joined the Minnesota high court which struck down red light cameras as illegal in 2007, explaining that cities may not water down the due process protections of motorists simply for the ease of issuing tickets ( view ruling). On the other hand, the Ohio Supreme Court ( read opinion) and Iowa Supreme Court ( read opinion) declared camera use consistent with state laws.

The Missouri Supreme Court judges voided Belt’s citation without remanding proceedings to a lower court. A copy of the decision is available in a 50k PDF file at the source link below.

Missouri v. Belt (Supreme Court of Missouri, 3/2/2010)

[courtesy: thenewspaper.com]

The Newspaper
The Newspaper

More by The Newspaper

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 8 comments
  • CarPerson CarPerson on Mar 04, 2010

    In the State of Washington, the fines they levy have just been adjudicated as Ok. Case against the cameras thrown out.

  • Obbop Obbop on Mar 04, 2010

    My shanty is in Springfield, MO, the heart of hillbilly land and chock-full of backwards inbred roadkill-for-dinner mental midgets with a large percentage of mental midgets who equate loud exhaust as a reminder to all of their manliness. A class-action lawsuit has already commenced for folks to retrieve fines already paid issued via tickets resulting from a red-light camera. On the whole, the driving 'round these parts is not excessively dangerous, not nearly as bad as I witnessed in Nebraska or Iowa and generally a minimal amount of road rage incidents. Oh, sure, perhaps a scuffle over who gets to retrieve the road kill for the dinner pot now-and-then but gun play is quite minimal compared to how things were in California when I dwelt out yonder over that, y'all.

    • Porschespeed Porschespeed on Mar 05, 2010

      Hey now. That's only about 99% of the denizens of Springfield. The other .01% is Wal-Mart money. And they do have piles of it. Just a thought.

  • MaintenanceCosts Poorly packaged, oddly proportioned small CUV with an unrefined hybrid powertrain and a luxury-market price? Who wouldn't want it?
  • MaintenanceCosts Who knows whether it rides or handles acceptably or whether it chews up a set of tires in 5000 miles, but we definitely know it has a "mature stance."Sounds like JUST the kind of previous owner you'd want…
  • 28-Cars-Later Nissan will be very fortunate to not be in the Japanese equivalent of Chapter 11 reorganization over the next 36 months, "getting rolling" is a luxury (also, I see what you did there).
  • MaintenanceCosts RAM! RAM! RAM! ...... the child in the crosswalk that you can't see over the hood of this factory-lifted beast.
  • 3-On-The-Tree Yes all the Older Land Cruiser’s and samurai’s have gone up here as well. I’ve taken both vehicle ps on some pretty rough roads exploring old mine shafts etc. I bought mine right before I deployed back in 08 and got it for $4000 and also bought another that is non running for parts, got a complete engine, drive train. The mice love it unfortunately.
Next