The Perils of Red Light Cameras

By Michael S. Klein

The City of Santa Monica is considering installing red light cameras at traffic intersections and issuing tickets by mail. At the City Council meeting on August 13, 2002, the issue was debated. The issue was tabled, but not finally dealt with and may come back before the Council. ("Council Puts Brakes on Red Light Cameras," August 15)

Of course, traffic laws are very important. Enforcement is critical. No one can disagree with that. Santa Monica has a fine police department that works very hard and generally does an excellent job for its citizenry.

But we can reasonably disagree about how to enforce laws and suggest alternatives, as good citizens should.

I spoke at the City Council hearing. I raised various legal issues of privacy and fundamental fairness. I concluded by suggesting enforcement by live officers instead of cameras.

I raised the issue of fundamental fairness in several ways. I mentioned that tickets sent by mail don't always reach the person in question. Sometimes, a person has moved, or a roommate may not deliver them, or the dog may eat them, or, mail service being mail service, they simply may not be delivered.

The Police Department responded that if no response is received, tickets are re-mailed.

But tickets that are re-mailed may still not reach people, for the same reason that the first one didn't get there, or for other reasons.

No matter how you slice it, a police officer handing out a ticket is guaranteed service of process.

Not only that, it's guaranteed service on the right person -- the actual driver, not someone else driving the car. There is no better way to get a ticket to the right person than an officer standing there and there can be no question that the person was served. That's "the gold standard." Anything less isn't what we should and do expect from our criminal justice system.

I also raised the issue of being able to defend yourself. I said that, with a traffic officer, the alleged violator is stopped on the spot and has an opportunity to recollect the circumstances of the ticket and defend himself or herself, gather witnesses, and prepare a case.

With a camera, the alleged violator receives the ticket many days or even weeks later. In the interim, the alleged violator probably does not know that a ticket is in process and may forget the circumstances if he or she was ever aware of them. In fact, the alleged violator may go through the intersection in question many times -- even 3 or 4 times a day. I said that it is fundamentally unfair to ask someone to defend himself or herself without the opportunity to recollect the circumstances, gather witnesses and mount a defense.

The Police Department responded that the driver sees the flash, and so has a fair chance to recollect the circumstances and defend him or herself, gather witnesses, and mount a defense.

But on a sunny day, with glints coming from every direction, is the driver going to see the flash? And what if the driver is through safely, but the vehicle next to or behind the driver or going the other way is running the light? The driver might see a flash, but is it for the driver?

I've never had a ticket on one of the traffic cameras, but there are several times I have thought that I did. What is a driver to do? Spend the rest of his or her days getting ready to defend tickets that may or may not have been issued? I repeat, it is fundamentally unfair to have camera-generated tickets.

But with a police officer and that siren and that ticket, the driver has a fair chance to defend her or himself -- if there is any argument to make. The driver can't complain about any lack of that crucial American Constitutional specialty --- due process.

Another issue is the critical privacy issues with video, cameras, record keeping, capturing others in the picture, and most important, the tendency in our society to a surveillance state.

Cameras mounted at intersections are another incremental invasion of our privacy today, and more importantly, could potentially be used for further invasions of our privacy and our precious Constitutional freedoms in the future. If I were a dictator interested in taking over this country, one of the things that would most facilitate my efforts to restrain and control the populace would be an installed base of cameras at traffic intersections and the legal precedents to retain them.

And, contrary to what one council member said, private individuals or businesses using cameras are not the same thing and do not justify government cameras. A camera at a bank doesn't raise the Constitutional issues that a government camera may. The Bill of Rights is very specific in its focus. It starts out, and right from the First Amendment, the focus is clearly very different from the rest of the Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

What kind of government document starts out saying "Congress shall make no law....?"

The answer is simple. The Bill of Rights is intended to protect us from -- our own government(!), reflecting the view of the Founders that, historically, people need protection most from their own government, which has far and away more power over them than any other individual or group -- or even foreign government.

The bottom line is that the cameras not only violate privacy rights, and endanger the public welfare in the long term, but that they are also fundamentally unfair to the public.
Does that mean that we shouldn't enforce traffic laws vigorously?

Absolutely not! The money should be used for human officers who can not only monitor traffic, but perform other necessary police functions.

One last point. Californians are known to be particularly sensitive to privacy issues.

The California Constitution has a specific and explicit provision protecting privacy rights in California, which was added to the Constitution by initiative in 1972:

"All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are ... privacy."

Another indication of our sensitivity is that Californians have the highest percentage of people who elect to have unpublished phone numbers in the United States.

Santa Monicans, as a group, are in my opinion even more sensitive. I don't have statistics on the percentage of us with unlisted phone numbers, but if one wanted further proof of our sensitivity, one could note that, in the public comment at the City Council meeting, every speaker -- I think there were 10 or 12 -- spoke against red light cameras.