South Dakota Court Rules Against Red Light Cameras

The Newspaper
by The Newspaper
south dakota court rules against red light cameras

A red light camera company faces being fined for running an illegal operation in the state of South Dakota. Last Tuesday, a circuit court judge ruled that Redflex Traffic Systems and the city of Sioux Falls violated state law and the US Constitution when they set up automated ticketing machines without approval from the state legislature. The question of whether Redflex is financially liable, and to what degree, will now be determined by a jury.

On April 8, 2002, Sioux Falls adopted an ordinance creating an automated ticketing program operated under contract with Redflex. The Australian company mailed a ticket to motorist I.L. Wiedermann on March 13, 2006, claiming that he had made a right turn on red. Wiedermann appealed the $86 fine, but a city-paid hearing officer ruled against him. A circuit court refused to hear a second appeal, claiming it lacked jurisdiction. Wiedermann then filed a class action suit against the program claiming four distinct violations of state law. The court denied all but two of the counts in Wiedermann’s suit, but that was enough for Wiedermann.

Redflex had argued that, as a private company, it should be dropped from the suit. Redflex maintained that the camera program was entirely city run. Second Judicial Circuit Presiding Judge Kathleen K. Caldwell laid out the criteria for determining whether this was the case.

“A precursor to a private entity’s liability for constitutional violations is a finding of ‘state action’ by that private entity,” Caldwell wrote. “If Redflex was delegated a public function by the state, was entwined with governmental policies or the city was entwined with [Redflex’s] management or control, then the court can find that Redflex was a state actor.”

The proposal that Redflex submitted to the city when bidding for the contract to run the photo enforcement program provided sufficient evidence to the judge that the company may fit the definition of a state actor.

“Redflex provides jurisdictions with comprehensive adjudication, court support services, including the development of a court file transfer interface, court training modules, provisions for court packages for each hearing and expert witness testimony,” the Redflex documents explained. “Redflex can provide administrative adjudication services and support and court services and support. This includes the scheduling [of] appeal hearings, training hearing panels and/or hearing officers and providing critical documentation and hearing packages.”

The court delivered a fatal blow to the city by agreeing with Wiedermann that the Sioux Falls ordinance violated a uniformity statute that prohibited cities from imposing standards in an ordinance “less stringent” than those imposed by state law for traffic violations and other matters.

“The city’s motion for summary judgment regarding plaintiff’s Count III of the complaint cannot be resolved in the city’s favor because the ordinance adopted by the city sets standards or requirements which are less stringent than state law under SDCL 6-12-5,” Caldwell wrote. “State law makes it a class two misdemeanor to run a red light while the city ordinance in essence decriminalizes the same conduct and makes it a civil penalty… Although only persuasive law, the Minnesota Supreme Court previously looked at this exact issue under Minnesota statutes which are similar to South Dakota statutes in Minnesota v. Kuhlman. In Kuhlman, the Minnesota Supreme Court found that the Minneapolis city ordinance was in conflict with Minnesota state law and specifically reversed the presumption of innocence required by the rules of criminal procedure.”

The court found that although there is no evidence that the hearing officers were biased, the process set up by Redflex and the city improperly reversed the burden of proof. Instead of the city proving the guilt of the accused, the accused must prove his own innocence.

“Plaintiff was given notice but the court finds that plaintiff was not given a meaningful opportunity to be heard under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article Six Section Two of the South Dakota Constitution in light of this court’s recent devision in Daily v. City of Sioux Falls,” Caldwell wrote.

Both findings are enough to invalidate the red light camera program as it is currently operated.

“The only issues for the trier of fact to decide are whether Redflex was a state actor and what damages, if any, to which plaintiff is entitled,” Caldwell ruled.

Sioux Falls City Attorney Robert Amundson said in a statement that the city was reviewing the decision further before deciding how to proceed. A copy of the decision is available in a 500k PDF file at the source link below.

Wiedermann v. Sioux Falls (Circuit Court of South Dakota, 6/15/2010)


Join the conversation
  • SVX pearlie SVX pearlie on Jun 22, 2010

    Nice! Looks like these shakedown schemes are going, going, gone!

  • Dwford Dwford on Jun 22, 2010

    I see rays of hope that courts all over the country are striking down these ridiculous money making schemes the local governments are cooking up.

  • Tassos those 90s pathetic orange pixels are inexcusably lame in a 2010.The interior is filled with Grey Rubbermaid plastic and the tiny sliver of real or fake wood is an utterly pathetic attempt to pretend it's upscale (don't even THINK of "Luxury")Merc SLs with similar metal retractable roofs look so much better inside and out.Regardless of what you paid for this way undepowered near-luxury pretend-sports car, you would have done so much better with a PORSCHE BOXSTER...
  • Dukeisduke That's a cool picture (the one under the bridge) - where was it taken? Google Image Search doesn't turn up any matches.
  • Dukeisduke Okay, yeah, they should fix this, but, "URGENT: DO NOT DRIVE THIS VEHICLE"? I think we're reaching Peak Idiocracy.
  • Lou_BC This offer reminds me of those plans where you get something free but if you fail to cancel prior to the expiry of the "Free" plan you end up on the hook for a lengthy contract. Tesla wants to attract people to their electrical company. It's smart. Make money selling the car, make money with subscription services on the car, and make money selling the fuel to power the car at home and at charging stations.
  • Kwik_Shift Fossil fuels making your electricity. Ironic.