Red-light Cameras in Texas: A Status Report

July 31, 2006

AccidentscausedbyTexasdriverswhorunredlightsareextremelycostlyinhumanandeconomicterms.TheTexasDepartmentofPublicSafety(DPS)crashdatabaseshowsinjuriesandfatalitiesstemmingfromred-lightcrashesgrewfrom10,000annuallyin1975to24,000peryearin2001,andarecentFederalHighwayAdministrationstudyidentifiedTexasasoneoftheworststatesforred-lightrunning.ThefinancialcostsoftheseaccidentsinTexashavebeenestimatedatbetween$1.4billionand$3billionannuallyinmedical,insurance,andrelatedexpenses.Red-lightaccidentsoftenareamongtheworstbecausetheygenerallyinvolvevehiclescrashingdirectlyintothedriverorpassengersideofanothercarathighspeeds.

Theuseofphotographictrafficsignalenforcementsystems–or“red-lightcameras”–byTexasmunicipalitieshasexplodedsincethe78thLegislatureenactedSB1184byDeuell,whichincludedaprovisiongrantingcitiesadditionalpowerstoregulatetrafficontheirroadsandissuecivilcitationsforviolationsthatpreviouslyhadbeenpunishableonlyascriminaloffenses.Since2003,atleastadozenTexascitieshavecontractedwithvendorstocatchandfinered-lightrunners,andanumberofothersareconsideringestablishingprogramsoftheirown.

AlthoughseveralmunicipalitieshaveinterpretedthelanguageinSB1184tomeanthatTexaslawpermitstheuseofred-lightcameras,theLegislaturehas

notenactedlegislationthatspecificallyallowsorprohibitstheiruse.Arecentattorneygeneralopinionprovidesclearguidancefortheuse

ofcamerasonstateroads,allowingmunicipalitiestoinstallred-lightcamerasunderapartnershipwiththeTexasDepartmentofTransportation(TxDOT).ButTexashasnotexplicitlyaddressedtheuseofcamerasonnon-stateroads.

Red-lightcamerashavebeencontroversialsincetheyfirstwereinstalledinNewYorkCityin1993,andtheirusehassparkeddebate

formanyyearsinTexasandaroundthecountry.Somestateshavebannedthecamerasoutrightwhileothershavegrantedcompleteapprovalfortheuseofcameras.Stillothersallowthecamerasbutlimittheiruse,andafewstates

This report reviews current law, examines state and

national data, and explores some of the legal and ethical questions raised

by the use of red-light cameras.

Number 79-15

3

7

5

2

910

6

Red-light camera legislation in Texas

National programs & data

Box: Programs in other states

Legal and ethical debates

Box: How a red-light camera program work

Box: Programs in Texas cities

Other options

Page � House Research Organization

–includingTexas–havenotcodifiedtheuseofred-lightcamerasevenascitiescreateandoperatetheirownprograms. Thefactthatdifferentstateshaveadopteddiversered-lightcamerapoliciesisareflectiononthemixedfindingsthathaveemergedfromresearchintotheeffectivenessofthesecameras.Arecentfederalstudyfoundeconomicbenefitsassociatedwithred-lightcamerause,andmanycitiesinTexasandnationallythatusecamerashaveseenreductionsincrashesandviolations.Butanumberofstudiessuggestthattheuseofred-lightcamerasmayactuallyincreasethenumberofcaraccidents. Thisreportsummarizescurrentlawandreviewsthelegislativehistoryconcerningtheuseofred-lightcamerasinTexas.Itexaminesstateandnationaldataonred-lightcameraefficacy,describeshowthecameraswork,andreportswhichTexascitiesareoperatingorplanningred-lightprograms.Finally,thereportexploressomeofthelegalandethicalquestionsraisedbytheuseofred-lightcameras.

Red-light camera legislation in Texas

Current law.Texashasnolawthatexplicitlyaddressestheuseofred-lightcameras,butseveralTexascitieshavetakentheircuesfromrecentlegislativeactionandguidancefromtheAttorneyGeneral’sOffice. InFebruary2002,then-Atty.Gen.JohnCornynissuedanopiniononred-lightcamerasattherequestofthecityofRichardsonandRep.TonyGoolsbyofDallas.Richardsonhadinquiredaboutwhetherstatelawwouldallowthecitytousethecamerasandissuecivilviolationsinlieuofcriminalcitationsforred-lightrunnerscaughtonfilm.InOpinionNo.JC-0460,theattorneygeneraldeterminedthatcitieswereallowedtousethecamerasbutcouldnotissuecivilcitationsforred-lightviolations.

Citieshavehome-ruleauthoritytoenacttrafficregulationsunlesstheyconflictwithstatelaw.Atty.Gen.Cornynfoundthatanordinancecreatingacivilpenaltyagainsttheownerofavehiclerunningaredlight,asevidencedbyaphototakenbyared-lightcamera,conflictedwithstatelawimposingacriminalpenaltyforrunningaredlightinthreeways:

1) thepenaltywouldbeimposedontheownerofthe vehicleratherthanthedriver;

2) itwouldbeacivilratherthanacriminaloffense;and3) thepenaltywouldbe$75ratherthanacriminalfine

rangingfrom$1to$200. Atty.Gen.Cornyndidleavethedooropenforfutureuseofthecamerastoissuecivilcitationsbypointingoutthatan“ordinancecouldbeadoptedbythecityifthelegislatureamendedstatelawsoastoexpresslypermititorotherwiseeliminatetheconflict”betweencivilandcriminalpunishmentforthesameviolation. Red-lightcameraadvocatesbelievetheenactmentofSB1184byDeuellin2003eliminatedthisconflict.AHouseamendmenttoSB1184addedthefollowinglanguagetoTransportationCode,sec.542.202,whichcoversthepowersoflocalauthoritiesoverroadsintheirjurisdictions: “‘Regulating’meanscriminal,civil,andadministrativeenforcementagainstaperson,includingtheowneroroperatorofamotorvehicle,inaccordancewithastatelaworamunicipalordinance.” Abillthatwouldhaverepealedthatlanguageandanotherthatwouldhavebannedthecamerasoutrightbothfailedduringtheregularsessionofthe79thLegislature.SupportersofthecameraspointtothosedevelopmentsasatacitendorsementbytheLegislatureofred-lightcamerause. OnJune23,2006,followingarequestfromTxDOTforlegalguidance,Atty.Gen.GregAbbottissuedanopinionthatuseofred-lightcamerasisallowedonstateroads.InOpinionNo.GA-0440,notingTxDOT’sbroadauthorityoverthestatehighwaysystemanditscurrentuseofcamerasfortrafficandemergencypurposes,theattorneygeneralaffirmedthatthedepartmentcaninstallthecamerasandallowmunicipalitiestodothesame“forthepurposeofenforcingtrafficlawsonstatehighways”andforthepromotionofpublicsafety.Atty.Gen.AbbottalsocitedTransportationCode,sec.221.002,toshowthatmunicipalitiesandtheTexasTransportationCommissioncurrentlyareauthorizedtoreachagreementsthatsharetheresponsibilityandliabilityassociatedwithperformingvariousdutiesonstateroads.Theopiniondidnotaddresswhetherlocalgovernmentshavetheauthoritytousered-lightcamerasonnon-stateroadsbecausethissubjectfelloutsidethescopeofTxDOT’srequest.

Todate,TxDOThasreceivedrequestsfrom14citiesregardingtheinstallationofred-lightcamerasonstateroads.ByAugust,theagencyexpectstohavedraftedanagreement

House Research Organization Page �

thatwillallowTxDOTtoauthorizemunicipalitiestoplacecamerasonstatehighwaysandrightsofway.Theagencydoesnotplantoturndownrequeststoinstallcamerasbutwillreviewallapplicationstoensurethatmunicipalitiesfirsthaveexploredengineeringoptionstoreducered-lightrunningaccidents.TxDOTwillnotchargemunicipalitiestoinstallthecamerasandwillnotseekanyrevenueraisedthroughtheiruse.Inaddition,theagencywillturnoverallresponsibilityregardingthefundingandoperationofthecamerastothemunicipalities.

Legislative history.TheTexasLegislaturehasconsideredlegislationaddressingred-lightcamerasinallbutoneofthelastsixregularsessions.

In1995,SB876byCain,whichwouldhaveauthorizedmunicipalitiestousered-lightcameras,passedtheSenatebutfailedintheHouseonsecondreadingduringthe74thLegislature.

The76thLegislaturein1999didnotenactHB1152byDriver,whichwouldhaveallowedamunicipalityinacountywithapopulationofatleast150,000ornexttoacountywithapopulationofatleast150,000toissuecivilcitationstotrafficoffenderscaughtbyred-lightcameras.TheHousetabledthebillafterpassinganumberofflooramendments,includingonethatwouldhaverequiredanoticeaccompanyingthecamerastoread:“BigBrotheriswatchingyou!”

In2001,HB1115byDriverdiedaftertwoseparatevotesintheHouseendedinatie.Thebillwouldhaveallowedmunicipalitiestoimposecivilpenaltiesundertheuseofa“photographictrafficsignalenforcementsystem.”

Twobillsthatwouldhaveauthorizedred-lightcamerasfailedtopassinthe78thLegislatureduringthe2003regularsession.HB200byBermandiedinHousecommittee,andHB901byP.KingwasdefeatedinthefullHouseaftertwoamendmentsrestrictedcamerausetomunicipalitiesincountieswithpopulationsof50,000orlessandthentocountieswithpopulationsof50orless.

InenactingSB1184byDeuell,whichdealswithenforcingcommercialmotorvehiclestandards,the78thLegislaturein2003approvedanamendmentbyRep.Harper-BrownofIrvingthatgrantslocalauthoritiesthepowertoregulateroadsusing“criminal,civil,andadministrativeenforcement”(TransportationCode,sec.542.202(b)(3)).Red-lightcameraadvocatespointtoSB

1184asthelegaljustificationforthemunicipaloperationofred-lightcameraprogramsthatissuecivilcitationstooffenders.Opponents,however,believethatSB1184doesnotauthorizecitiestousered-lightcamerasandarguethatTexaslacksalawspecificallyadressingthissubject.

Duringits2005regularsession,the79thLegislatureconsideredHB259byElkins,whichwouldhaverepealedTransportationCode,sec.542.202(b)(3).ItpassedtheHousebutdiedintheSenateafterfailingtogetthetwo-thirdssupportneededtobringthebilltothefloor.HB1347byIsettalsopassedtheHousebutdiedinSenatecommittee.Inadditiontorepealingsec.542.202(b)(3),itwouldhaveprohibitedlocalauthoritiesfromoperatingred-lightcamerasontheirroads.

National red-light camera programs and data

Avarietyofstateactionshavemirroredthedisparityinstudiesfocusedonred-lightcameras.Somestatesandmunicipalitieshavebannedtheiruseoutrightorcanceledprogramsbasedonevidencethatthecamerasareineffectiveinenhancingsafety.Otherstatesandcitieshaveciteddifferentstudiesshowingimprovementinsafetyatintersectionsusingred-lightcameras. Proponentsofred-lightcamerasoftenpointtotheincreasedpopularityofthedevicesasevidenceoftheirsuccess–citieswouldnotusethemunlesstheyworked.TwelvestatesandtheDistrictofColumbiahaveenactedlegislationallowingtheuseofred-lightcameras.Manyapplyconditionstotheiruse,suchaspostingsignstoalertdriversthattheycouldbephotographedandcitediftheyrunaredlight.NewYorkallowscamerastobeusedonlyincitieswithpopulationsofatleast1millionandcapsat100thenumberofintersectionsatwhichanyjurisdictioncanemploythecameras.CertaincitiesinNorthCarolinaandthosewithpopulationsgreaterthan30,000inOregoncanoperatered-lightcameras.California,Colorado,Delaware,Georgia,Illinois,Maryland,Pennsylvania,RhodeIsland,andWashingtonalsohavelawsallowingforphotoenforcementatintersections(seeTable 1: Red-light camera programs in other states,page5). Innineotherstates,includingTexas,camerasareinuseintheabsenceofanyspecificstatestatuteauthorizingorprohibitingthem.Arizona,Iowa,Missouri,NewMexico,Ohio,RhodeIsland,SouthDakota,andTennesseearesilent

Page � House Research Organization

onthelegalityofcameras,butred-lightcameraprogramsareoperatingincitiessuchasPhoenix,Toledo,andKnoxville.Intotal,morethan110citiesacrossthecountryemployred-lightcameras.

Success stories and studies. Supportersofred-lightcamerasciteanumberofgovernmentandprivatestudiesasdemonstratingthebenefitsofemployingthecameras.ThefederalTransportationResearchBoardfoundinits“ImpactofRedLightCameraEnforcementonCrashExperience”surveyconductedin2003thatamajorityofred-lightcamerajurisdictionsreporteddecreasesinaccidentsandviolationsasaresultofthecrashes,including:

Charlotte,NC,whereallcrashtypesdroppedby19percentandcrashseverityfellby16percentduringathree-yearperiod;Sacramento,CA,wherered-lightcrashesdecreased39percentduringaone-yearperiod;andBaltimoreCounty,MD,wherered-lightcrashesfell30percentduringaone-yearperiod.

TheFederalHighwayAdministrationinApril2005reported“amodesttomoderateeconomicbenefit”tojurisdictionsthatinstalledthecameras,whichyieldedanaverageof$39,000to$50,000annuallyateachintersectionwheretheywereinuse.Usingdatacollectedaroundthecountryat132intersections,thestudyfoundthecamerascausedareductioninright-anglecrashesbutanincreaseinrear-endcollisions.Althoughthedataforintersectionswithandwithoutthecameraswerenearlyidenticalintermsofthetotalnumberofcrashes,thestudyconcludedthatcamerascanreducecostsbecausebroadsidecrashesaremoredangerousandcausegreaterdamagethanrear-endcollisions.

TheInsuranceInstituteforHighwaySafetyhasconductedseveralstudiesacrossthenation,findingthatcamerashavereducedred-lightrunningandcrashesatintersections.Its2002study,whichcomparedcrashdatafromOxnard,CA,withdatafromthreesimilarcitieswherered-lightcamerasarenotemployed,showedanoverallcrashrate7percentlowerinOxnardandarateofinjuryaccidents29percentlowertherethanintheothercities.ThestudyexaminedallintersectionsinOxnardandconcludedthatthepresenceofcamerasatsomeintersectionscreatesa“haloeffect”thatpromptsdriverstobemorecautiousateveryintersection.

•

•

•

Rejected programs and opposing data.Whilestudiesandstatisticshavetoutedthesuccessofred-lightcameras,severalstatesandmunicipalitieshavereacheddifferentconclusions. In2005,theVirginiaLegislatureoptednottocontinuethatstate’sred-lightprogramaftertheconclusionofa10-yearpilotprojectinseveralcommunitiesaroundWashington,D.C.,andinVirginiaBeach.Alongwithgeneralconcernsaboutcivilliberties,legislatorsreachedthedecisionaftercommissioningastudyconductedbytheVirginiaTransportationResearchCouncil–agroupjointlysponsoredbytheVirginiaDepartmentofTransportationandtheUniversityofVirginia.BasedondatafromtheNorthernVirginiacameras,itconcludedthatthenumberofinjury-causingcrashesactuallyhadincreasedwhiletheintersectionswereundersurveillance.Althoughthecamerasreducedthenumberofaccidentsinwhichoneormoreofthedriverswaschargedwithfailingtoobeythestoplight,theanalysisfoundanincreaseinrear-endcrasheswhilerevealingapossibledecreaseincrashesatanangle.Whileallowingthattheseverityofinjuriesincurredintheseangledcrashescouldbegreaterthanthoseresultingfromrear-endcollisions,researchersdidnothavedatadetailedenoughtoprovethathypothesis. In2002,Hawaiilawmakerscanceledatrafficcameraenforcementprogramthatusedcamerasmountedinvansandradartotargetspeedersandred-lightrunners.Criticsclaimedthattheprograminvadedtheprivacyofdriversand

Data from Garland

OfalltheTexascitiesusingred-lightcameras,onlyGarlandhasbeenoperatingasystemlongenoughtohavecollectedannualdataonviolationsandcitations.Sinceinstallingthecamerasattheendof2003,Garlandhasseenviolationsandcitationsdropineachsuccessivecalendaryear.

Thecitylauncheditsprogramwiththreecameras,addedoneafewmonthslater,andinstalledafifthcamerain2005.(Thefifthcamerahasbeenexcludedfromtheanalysisbecauseitmalfunctionedduringthefinalthreemonthsof2005.)Programdatashowthataveragemonthlyviolationspercameradecreased27percentfrom2004to2005,andaveragemonthlycitiationsfell14percentoverthesameperiod.

House Research Organization Page �

Source: National Conference on State Legislatures and HRO research

State Legal status of red-light cameras

Table 1: Red-light camera programs in other states

Arizona Nostatelaw;cityprogramsincludePhoenixandScottsdale

Arkansas Camerasbannedunlesslawenforcementofficerispresenttoissuecitation

California Cameraslegalstatewide;programsinatleast55citiesandtwocounties

Colorado Cameraslegalstatewide;programsinatleastsixcities

Delaware Cameraslegalstatewide;programsinatleastfivecities

DistrictofColumbia Cameraslegalcitywide

Florida Nostatelaw;attorneygeneralruledcameraevidencecannotbeusedtocitemotorists

Georgia Cameraslegalstatewide;programsinatleast15citiesandtwocounties

Hawaii Programterminatedin2003

Illinois Cameraslegalineightcounties

Iowa Nostatelaw;cityprogramsincludeCouncilBluffsandDavenport

Maryland Cameraslegalstatewide;programsinatleast17citiesand6counties

Missouri Nostatelaw;cityprogramsincludeArnoldandFlorissant

Minnesota Nostatelaw;soleprograminMinneapolisoverturnedbycourt

NewMexico Nostatelaw;cityprograminAlbuquerque

Nevada Camerasbannedunlessoperatedbylawenforcementagency

NewYork Cameraslegalincitieswithatleast1millionresidents;programinNewYorkCity

NorthCarolina Cameraslegalinselectcities;manycityprogramssuspendedduetolegalchallenges

Ohio Nostatelaw;cityprogramsincludeColumbus,Dayton,andToledo

Oregon Cameraslegalincitieswithatleast30,000residents;programsinatleastthreecities

Pennsylvania StatelawauthorizesPhiladelphiaprogram

RhodeIsland Cameraslegalstatewide;programinProvidence

SouthDakota Nostatelaw;programinSiouxFalls

Tennessee Nostatelaw;cityprogramsincludeGermantownandKnoxville

Utah Restrictscamerastolow-speedroadswhereapoliceofficeralsohaswitnessedtheviolation

Virginia Legislaturedidnotrenewprogramafter10-yearpilotexpiredinJuly2005

Washington Cameraslegalstatewide;programsinatleastthreecities

WestVirginia Camerasbannedstatewide

Wisconsin Camerasbannedstatewide

Page � House Research Organization

wasunconstitutionalbecauseitassumedthatthevehicle’sownerwasdrivingthecarwhentheviolationoccurred.Thegovernororderedanendtotheprogramduringthefirstyearofitsthree-yearpilotphase,andsubsequenteffortstorevivetheprogramhavestalled. Fourotherstatelegislatures,inArkansas,Nevada,WestVirginia,andWisconsin,havebannedautomatedred-lightenforcementsystems.Florida’sattorneygeneralruledthatevidencegleanedfromred-lightcamerascouldnotbeusedtoissuetickets,butthreecitieshaveengagedinalegalbattlewiththestatebymovingforwardwithred-lightcameraprogramsnonetheless.

Inresponsetootherstudiesthathadbeencriticizedfortheirsimplicityorsmallsamplesizes,theUrbanTransitInstituteatNorthCarolinaA&TStateUniversityanalyzedreportedaccidentsatornear303intersectionsovera57-monthperiodthatbeganmorethantwoyearsbeforetheintroductionofred-lightcameras.TheOctober2003study,updatedthefollowingJuly,foundthatred-lightcamerasdidnotreducecrashesandthattheymayhaveledtoincreasesinrear-endandothertypesofcrashes.Accidentsinvolvingcarstravelingindifferentdirectionsdidnotchangewiththeintroductionofthecameras,accordingtothestudy.“Inmanyways,”theauthorsconcluded,“theevidencepointstowardtheinstallationof[red-lightcameras]asadetrimenttosafety.” BasedondatafromaDistrictofColumbiaintersectionaccidentdatabaseoveraseven-yearperiod,theWashington PostinOctober2005determinedthatthenumberofcrashesatintersectionswithcamerasdoubledfrom1998to2005andincreasedby64percentatintersectionswithout24-hourmonitoring.Evenfatal-and-severe-injurycrashesandbroadsidecrashesappeartohaveincreasedsignificantlyatallintersections,whichcriticssaycontradictsthebeliefamongred-lightcameraadvocatesthatcamerasareeffectiveinpreventingthedeadliestaccidents.

Problems with cameras.Technicalandlegalproblemsalsohavemitigatedagainsttheuseofred-lightcamerasinseveraljurisdictionsaroundthecountry. InMinnesota,wherenolawspecificallyallowsorprohibitsred-lightcameras,acountyjudgehaltedtheMinneapolisred-lightprogram,theonlyoneinthestate.Becausestatelawmakesdriversresponsibleforred-lightviolationsandthecitydoesnothavetheauthoritytoestablishanordinancedirectedattheactualdrivers,a

HennepinCountyDistrictJudgeinMarch2006struckdownthecity’sordinancebecauseitconflictswithstatelawbyshiftingtheburdenofprooftovehicleownersinsteadofrequiringticketingauthoritiestoproveviolations. NorthCarolina’scourtsalsohaveeffectivelyundercutred-lightprogramsthere.InMay2006,theNorthCarolinaCourtofAppealsfoundtheprogramunconstitutionalbecauseitdoesnotgive90percentofthemoneycollectedfromeverytrafficcitationtolocalschoolsystemsasmandatedbythestateconstitution.Morethantwodozencitiesandtownsoperatecamerasthere,andsomehavesuspendedtheirprogramsduringtheappealsprocess.Becausethecostofpayingred-lightcameravendorsismuchhigherthanthe10percentportionoftheticketthatjurisdictionscankeepforthemselves,citieswillhavetodecidewhethertopayfortheirprogramsthroughothermeansorkillthementirely. LosAngelesalsohaddifficultywithitsprogramafter20percentofitsphotographedviolationsweredismissedduetolackofclearevidence.Thecitybrieflystoppeditsprogram,terminateditsvendor,andcontractedwithanewcompanytoinstallthecamerasatasmanyas32intersectionsbytheendof2006.

Legal and ethical debates

Red-lightcamerasbringwiththemthepotentialofincreasedsafetyandrevenue,buttheyalsohavegeneratedanumberofethicalandlegaldilemmas.Opponentsofthecamerasexpressconcernsaboutprivacyandtheriseofasurveillancestate,alongwithothercomplaintsabouttheunfairnessofpunishmentsissuedbyfor-profitcompaniesinlieuoflawenforcementagencies.Advocatessaythatmanyimprovementshavebeenmadetothesystemssincetheybeganoperatingindozensofcitiesaroundthecountry,nullifyingmanyoftheseconcerns.

Equality of punishment. Avehiclerunningaredlightinacommunitywithred-lightcamerascanbesubjecttounequalpunishments,criticssay,dependingonwhocatchestheviolator.Adrivercaughtbyared-lightcamerafacesacivilcitationandafinethatinmostTexascommunitiesusingthecamerasislowerthantheoneissuedbyauniformedofficer.Also,becauseanofficer-issuedticketisacriminalcitation,itcanaddpointstoadriver’srecordandpotentiallyraisethatperson’sinsurancerates.

House Research Organization Page �

Severalcompaniesoperatered-lightcamerasundercontractwithmunicipalities.Mostcompaniesusedigitalcamerasmountedabovethecornersofanintersectionpointinginallfourdirectionsoftraffic.Thecamerasareconnectedbycomputertoboththetrafficsignalandtoundergroundelectricalwiresthatactivatethecameraswhenadriverrunsaredlight.Thesystemsutilizea“passivesensor”thatswitchesonthecamerasonlywhenavehicleenterstheintersectionafterthelighthasturnedred;avehiclealreadyintheintersection,suchasonewaitingtoturnleftjustasthelightturnsred,wouldnottriggerthered-lightcamera.

Whenavehiclerunsaredlight,thecomputertriggersthecameratotaketwooverheadpicturestodocumenttheviolation–ashotofthevehicleenteringtheintersectionafterthelightturnsredandanotherpictureofthevehiclemovingthroughtheintersectionwhilethelightisred.Aseparatecameratakesaphotographofthevehicle’slicenseplate.Aftertakingthepictures,thecomputersuperimposesdataontheimagetoincludethetimeanddateoftheinfraction,thelocationoftheintersection,thespeedofthecar(calculatedbythedistanceandtimedocumentedinthephotos),andtheelapsedtimebetweenwhenthelightturnedredandwhenthecarenteredtheintersection.Somesystemsalsoemployavideocameratoshowa12-secondblocoftimesurroundingtheinfraction.Thevendorthenweedsoutanyblurredorotherwiseunusablephotosbeforeforwardingthecompletedimagestothecontractingmunicipality.

The Garland model.MostTexascitiesemploythefollowingmodel,pioneeredbythecityofGarland,toissueandadjudicatethecitations.Uponreceivingtheimagesfromthevendor,thecityremovesanythatitbelieveswouldnotstanduptoachallengebasedonincompleteorinconclusivedata.Imagesthatdocumentavalidreasonforacartorunaredlight,suchasafuneralprocessionorapoliceofficermanuallydirectingtrafficattheintersection,alsoarediscarded.Thepolicedepartmentthenissuesacivilviolation–ratherthanacriminalviolationthatmustbewitnessedbyapoliceofficer–tothevehicle’sregisteredowner.Asacivilviolation,theoffenseisnotincludedontheowner’sdrivingrecord.InGarlandandmanyTexascities,thefinefortheoffenseis$75butcanincreaseto$200foradriverwhohasreceivedatleasttwored-lightcameracitationsintheprevious12months.

How a red-light camera program works

Uponreceivingacitation,theownerofthevehiclehasthreeoptions:paythefine,requestanadministrativehearing,orprovideevidencetoshowthatsomeoneelsewasdrivingthevehicleatthetimeoftheinfraction.Suchevidencemayinclude,forexample,apolicereportshowingthatthevehiclehadbeenstolenpriortothered-lightoffenseorabillofsaledemonstratingthatthecarhadbeensoldpriortotheinfractionbuthadnotyetbeenregisteredbythenewowner.Insuchcases,thepolicedepartmentdismissestheoriginalticketand,whenpossible,reissuesitinthenameoftheactualdriver.

Apersonchallengingtheticketbeforeanadministrativehearingofficeralsomayintroducemitigatingevidencethatanofficeronthescenemighthavetakenintoaccount,suchasweatherconditionsthatwouldhavemadeasuddenstopunsafe.Inaddition,ifadriverreceivedforthesameoffenseacivilcitationinthemailandaticketfromanofficeronthescene,thecitywoulddismissthecivilcitation.

Whenmotoristsfailtorespondtocivilcitationsbythedeadlineprintedonthebackoftheticket,somecitieshavebegunturningoverdelinquentpaymentstocollectionsagencies.Indefinitefailuretopaythefinecouldresultintheinclusionofoutstandingdebtonthedriver’screditreport,asopposedtofailuretorespondtoacriminalcitationforwhichpenaltiesincludedenialofadriver’slicenserenewal,denialofavehicleregistrationrenewal,and/oranadditionalcriminalchargeoffailuretoappearaccompaniedbyawarrantforthedriver’sarrest.

Mostcompaniessignmulti-yearagreementstorunred-lightcamerasatselectedintersections.Thecompaniesmaintainandownthecamerasthemselvesandgenerallychargeamonthlyfeepercamerainservice.Somecompaniesstillreceiveacertainpercentageofeachticketassessedbutthispracticehasdeclinedduetotheperceptionthatcompaniesandcitieshaveanincentivetoissueasmanyticketsaspossible.Althoughtermsvary,eachcontractallowsthecitytoterminatetheprogramiftheLegislatureorthecourtsdeemtheuseofred-lightcamerasillegal.Mostcontractsallowmunicipalitiestooptoutiftheydonotmakeenoughmoneytorecouptheircosts,althoughtheregenerallyareexpensesassociatedwithdismantlingared-lightcameraoperation.

Page � House Research Organization

Supportersofred-lightcameraspointoutthatrepeatoffenderswouldeventuallyfacemoreseverepunishmentundertheprogramthatGarlandandmostTexascitieshaveestablishedbecausethosereceivingmorethantwoticketsina12-monthperiodfacelargerfines.Thecamerasarenotinstalledateveryintersection,andpoliceofficersmonitoringthosestoplightslikelywouldcatchdriverswhoconsistentlyrunafoulofthelaw.Moreover,supporterssay,thefeeforacivilpenaltyisequivalenttothatpaidbypeoplewhotakedefensivedrivingordeferredadjudicationtodisposeofcriminalcitations.

Equality of enforcement. Opponentsofthecamerasbelievetheyviolateacitizen’sSixthAmendmentrighttoconfronthisorheraccuser.Unlikeanofficeronthescene,acameracannottestifyastowhathappened,andanaccusedmotoristcannotofferadefenseagainstamachinethatmayhavemalfunctionedandsnappedapicturewhenthelightwasnotred.Further,opponentssay,camerascannotexercisethediscretionanofficeronthescenemightuseinchoosingnottociteamotoristrunningaredlightduetobadweatherorparticipationinafuneralprocession,forexample. Supportersarguethattheuseofred-lightcamerasdoesnotviolatetheConstitutionbecausethemunicipalityitselfbecomestheaccuser.Apersonwhoreceivesaticketviacameraalsohastheopportunitytoexplainthecasetoanadministrativehearingofficer,whocanexercisethesamediscretiontodismissaticketthatapoliceofficermight.

Safety. ManypolicedepartmentsinTexasarestrongsupportersofred-lightcamerasbecausetheysaythetechnologyallowsthemtoallocatemanpowermoreefficiently.Assumingapoliceofficertakesabout15minutestopulloverandticketamotorist,theofficercouldcitenomorethanfouroffendersperhour.Inaddition,thesesupporterssay,aloneofficermonitoringred-lightrunnersatagivenintersectioncanonlywatchtrafficmovinginonedirectionandwouldmissamajorityofthattrafficwhilecitingoffenders.Red-lightcamerashavenosuchlimitations,supporterssay.Infact,somecamerascanphotographuptofourviolatorsmovinginonedirectionatthesametime. Opponents,however,pointtowhatcamerascannotdo–removerecklessordrunkdriversfromtheroad.Theyalsofearthatthecamerassimplywillevolveintoareplacementforuniformedtrafficofficerswhowilleitherbereallocatedorreducedinforceasaresultofdownsizing.

Red-lightcameraadvocatesareskepticalofsuchclaims,citingseveralexamplesofcitieswithcamerasthatareusingproceedstohireadditionalofficers.Althoughdrunkandrecklessdriversareasafetyconcern,soisapoliceofficerwhoplacesotherdriversindangerbyrunningaredlighttoapprehendacarthatranaredlight.Besides,supporterssay,thecameraswouldactuallyfreemoreofficerstoremovehabituallydangerousdriversfromtheroad. Camerasupportersalsoarguethatdriversinareaswithoutcamerasknowthereareonlysomanyofficersontheroadandwoulddrivemorecarefullyiftheyknewintersectionsweremonitoredaroundtheclock.Further,theysay,camerasarevaluableinhelpingpolicedepartmentsdocumentthecausesofaccidents,especiallythosethatoccurwithoutwitnesses,andpreventingtrafficproblemssuchasgridlockcausedbycarsthatblockintersections.

Revenue. Someopponentsofred-lightcamerasworrythatcitieswithred-lightcameraprogramsmaybemoreinterestedinraisingrevenuethaninpromotingpublicsaftety.TheypointtoSanDiegoas“exhibitA”ofasystemrunamok.ThecitycontractedwithLockheedMartinCo.tooperateared-lightcameraprogram,givingthecompany$70foreach$271citationitissued.ButaccordingtotheRedLightCameraDefenseTeam,agroupofareaattorneys,thecityandLockheedchosetomonitornotthemostdangerousintersectionsbutthosewithshortyellow-lighttimesandheavytrafficvolumes.ThreemonthsafterthecitysuspendedtheprograminJune2001,aCaliforniajudgedismissedalmost300citationsbecausehefoundLockheedhadtoomuchdiscretionovertheprogram’simplementation.

Red-lightcameraadvocatesobservethatSanDiego’sprogramisupandrunningagaininpartnershipwithAffiliatedComputerServices,whichhadacquiredLockheed’sred-lightcameradivisionintheinterim.Insteadofaper-ticketfee,thecompanychargesamonthlyrate,andeveryTexascityoperatingared-lightprogramhasimplementedasimilarsystem.Neitherred-lightvendorsnorpolicedepartmentscansequencethetrafficlights,whicharecontrolledbystateorlocaltrafficdepartmentsinaccordancewithstateandfederalregulations. Inaddition,supporterssay,manyTexascitieshavespecificallyearmarkedprofitsmadefromthecamerasforuseinenhancingpublicsafety.Garland,forexample,hasusedred-lightmoneytoreplaceallsignallightswithbigger

House Research Organization Page �

Figure 1: Red-light camera programs in Texas cities

1

�

�

��

�

�

�

�

10

11

1�

1�

1�

1�

1���1���

�� ��

��

�1

seeinset

11

��

citythatcurrentlyoperatesared-lightprogram

citythatplanstolaunchared-lightprogramwithin12months

citythatisconsideringestablishingared-lightprogram

�0

1.Denton–4cameras 2.Frisco–2cameras 3.Garland–5cameras(planstoadd7) 4.Plano–4cameras 5.Richardson–2cameras 6.Rowlett–3cameras

7.Arlington–10cameras 8.Dallas–15cameras 9.Duncanville–2cameras 10.ElPaso–10cameras 11.GrandPrairie–10cameras 12.Houston–10cameras (planstoadd40inincrementsof10)

13.AlamoHeights 14. Austin 15.Bedford 16.Conroe 17.CopperasCove 18.FarmersBranch 19.HighlandPark 20. Irving 21.Laredo 22.LeonValley 23.Marshall 24.NorthRichlandHills 25.Pasadena 26.SanAntonio 27.Terrell 28.UniversityPark

AlthoughRichardsonwasthefirstcityinTexastoestablishared-lightcamerapilotandseekstateapprovalfortheprogram,thecityofGarlandsincehastakentheleadinexploringandtestingitslegalauthoritytousered-lightcameras.InSeptember2003,Garlandbecamethefirstcitytoinstallandrunapermanentred-lightcameraprogramfollowingtheenactmentofSB1184.Sincethen,thelegalframeworkusedinGarlandhasbeenmirroredinatleastadozenTexascommunitiesthathavepassedordinancestoestablishprograms,imposecivilpenaltiesforred-lightrunning,andcreateenforcementandhearingprocesses.

1�

�

1���

��

Page 10 House Research Organization

andbrighterlight-emittingdiode(LED)lights,alongwithreplacingallschool-crossingsignswithhigh-visibilityfluorescentgreensignsandre-stripingallintersections.

Privacy. WithanodtothetotalitariangovernmentdepictedinGeorgeOrwell’sfuturisticnovelNineteen Eighty-Four,somecriticsbelievethemunicipaluseofred-lightcamerasisakintoBigBrotherspyingonthedriversofTexas.Already,theysay,theproliferationofsurveillanceequipmentinoursocietyisexcessive,withpublicandprivatecamerasinstalledonmanystreetsandbuildingstomonitortrafficandguardagainstbreak-ins.Red-lightcameraprograms,theyargue,violatetheFourthAmendment’sprotectionagainstunreasonablesearchandseizure.Citygovernmentsunreasonablydeploycamerasonpublicroadswithoutprobablecausetobelievethatanyparticularmotoristwillviolatethelaw.

Camerasupporterscontendthatprivacyclaimsbroughtbydriversonpublicroadshavebeenrejectedbycourtsaroundthecountry.ThefactthatcamerasalreadyareusedwidelyinTexas,includingattollbooths,withlittlepubliccomplaintprovestheyarenotonlyeffectivebutalsorelativelynoninvasive,supporterssay.Thisisespeciallytruegiventhatred-lightcamerasinTexasphotographonlythevehicleandlicenseplatebutnotthedriver.Inaddition,supporterssay,thecamerasarenotconstantlyrunning–theyaretriggeredtotakephotosonlyafteramotoristhasrunaredlight.

Other options

AdvocatesonbothsidesofthedebatepointtoseveralreasonswhyTexasneedsastatutethatexplicitlyallowsorprohibitstheuseofred-lightcamerasbycitiestoissuecivilcitations.

Authorizing red-light cameras. Supportersofred-lightcameraprogramsarguethattheLegislatureshouldenactlegislationexplicitlyauthorizingtheiruse.Basedonexperienceswithred-lightcamerasinotherstatesaswellasconcernsaboutproblemsthatcouldarisefromthepatchworkofprogramsthathasemergedinTexas,theyurgelawmakerstoconsiderthefollowingideasastheymoveforwardwithsuchlegislation:

Protection from litigation. InMinnesota,thelackofastatelawauthorizingred-lightcamerasenabledcourtstheretoinvalidateprogramsonconstitutionalgrounds.

Whilenolegalchallengetoared-lightcameraprograminTexasisunderwaytoday,litigationonthisfrontisalwaysapossibilityabsentastatelawexpresslyauthorizingsuchprograms.

Breadth of current authorizing language. ThelanguageintheTransportationCodethatmunicipalitieshaveusedaslegalauthoritytoinstallthecamerasonnon-stateroadsallowslocalauthoritiestousecriminal,civil,oradministrativepenaltiesagainstamotoristforviolatingastatelawormunicipalordinance.Whilemunicipalitiesthusfarhaveusedthislanguageonlytooperatered-lightcameraprograms,itcouldbeconstruedtogovernavarietyofotheractionsnotexplicitlycoveredbystatelaw,suchasprohibitingtheuseofacellphonewhiledriving.Bydirectlyauthorizingred-lightcameraprogramsinstatute,theLegislaturecouldstrikesec.542.202(b)(3)toensurethatcitiesdidnotusethislanguageinthefuturetoconductactivitiesthatlawmakershadnotintendedtoallow.

Regulation and oversight. AlthoughmostTexascitieswithred-lightcameraprogramshavefollowedtheGarlandmodel(seeHow a red-light camera program works,page7),theycurrentlyarenotboundbyanystateregulationswhenestablishingtheirsystems.Statelawmandatesthatcitiesmustsetcriminalfinesforred-lightrunningthatrangebetween$1and$200,butthereisnocorrespondingguidelineiftheviolationisdeemedaciviloffense.Writingred-lightcameraprogramsintolawwouldallowtheLegislaturetosetlimitsoneverythingfromthenumberofcamerasacitycouldinstalltotheamountitcouldfineviolators.

Revenue direction. ManyTexascitiesthatoperatered-lightcamerashavededicatedtheuseofrevenuegeneratedfromtheprogramforpublicsafetyorotherpolicefunctions.Butcitiesarenotrequiredtousered-lightviolationdollarsforanyparticularpurpose,andthereisevidencethatcertaincities,suchasSanDiego,haveimplementedred-lightcameraprogramsthatemphasizerevenuegenerationoverpublicsafety.Alawthatspecificallyauthorizestheuseofred-lightcamerascouldrequirecitiestousetherevenuegeneratedforthepublicgood.

Eliminating unequal punishment. ATexasdriverissubjecttodifferentpunishmentbasedonwhetherheorsheiscitedbyanofficeroracamera.IssueswithunequalpunishmentdonotexistinstatessuchasArizonaandCaliforniawhereallred-lightrunningoffensesarecriminalviolations.Inadditiontophotographingcarsandlicense

House Research Organization Page 11

plates,theircamerasystemsalsotakepicturesofactualdrivers,supplyingtheevidenceneededtocitethedriverforacriminaloffense.

Open records status.Nostatewidestandardexistsfortheuseandsharingofimagesbymunicipalitiesthatoperatered-lightcameraprograms.Imagescapturedbyred-lightcamerasareconsideredopenrecordssubjecttodiscoveryundertheTexasOpenRecordsActandcanbesubpoenaedbycourtsandinsurancecompaniesintrafficdisputes.However,apartyrequestingtheinformationmusthavekeyinformationsuchasthetime,date,andlocationoftheoffensebecausecitiesthatusered-lightcamerasdonotnecessarilyfiletheimagesundertheviolators’names.

HB901byP.King,whichthe78thLegislaturedidnotenactin2003,wouldhaveaddressedtheopen-recordsstatusofred-lightcameraimages.Exceptforarequestbythecitedmotorist,thebillwouldhaveexemptedtheimagesfromdiscoveryundertheOpenRecordsAct.Italsowouldhaverequiredmunicipalitiestodestroyallphotoscapturedbyred-lightcameraswithin30daysofpaymentofthecivilpenalty.

Double jeopardy.TheGarlandordinance,whichmanyTexascitieswithred-lightprogramsuseasamodel,includesaprovisiondesignedtopreventplacingred-lightviolatorsindoublejeopardy;i.e.,imposingbothacriminalandcivilpenaltyforthesameinfraction.Underthisprovision,thecitycannotimposeacivilpenaltyonamotoristwhohasbeencitedorarrestedforthesameoffensebyapoliceofficer.

Inpractice,Garland’spoliceofficersflageachcriminalcitationwrittenforred-lightrunningatintersectionsunderphotoenforcement,whichnotifiesthedepartmentthatmotoristsshouldnotreceivecivilcitationsforthoseoffenses.Butmanylegalexpertsbelievethatadriverwhoreceivedtwocitationsforasingleoffensecouldpaythecivilfineimmediatelyandthensuccessfullycontestthecriminalviolationonthebasisthatthedriveralreadyhadbeenpunishedfortheoffense.

Thepotentialforplacingoffendersindoublejeopardylikelywillincreaseasmoreandlargercitiesbeginoperatingred-lightprograms,andnostatewidestandardcurrentlyexiststoensurethatcityordinancesguardagainstdoublejeopardy.

Banning red-light cameras.Opponentsofred-lightcameraprogramsbelievethatcitiesshouldusemeasuresotherthanautomatedenforcementtoimprovetrafficsafety.TheyarguethattheLegislatureshouldexplicitlyprohibitred-lightcamerasandgrantTxDOTandDPStheresourcesandauthoritytotakethefollowingsteps: Lengthen warning time prior to red lights. AMarch2005TexasTransportationInstitutestudyof181Texasintersectionsduringathree-yearperiodfoundthatincreasingthelengthofyellow-lighttimebyonesecondreducedviolationsby53percentandcrashesby40percent.Inaddition,trafficsignalsinsomeEuropeancountriesemployacountdownclockthatshowshowmanysecondsremainuntilthelightwillturnred.Supportersofthisapproachcontendthatdriversoftenrunredlightssimplybecausetheymisjudgehowmuchtimetheyhavebeforealightturnsred,althoughopponentsarguethatdriverswhomisjudgeyellowlightstodaystillwilllikelyrunredlightsaftertheclockhasrundown.

Make lights more visible. Avarietyoftechnologicalsolutionsareavailabletoimprovethevisibilityoftrafficlightsfromafar,includingtheuseoflargersignalsandbrighterlights.

Explore engineering alternatives. Theuseofcamerasreducesincentivestodeterminethetruecausesofred-lightrunningaccidents,suchaspoorlydesignedintersections.Examplesofimprovementsincludeinstallingdedicatedturnarrows,trimminghedgesandreducingotherpotentialvisionimpairments,andinstallingtrafficcirclesinadditiontoorinsteadofstoplights.

Improve lane markings. Intersectionsthatarepoorlymarkedcanleadtoaccidents,particularlyamongdriverswhoareunfamiliarwiththearea.Restripingthelanemarkingshelpstodefineclearlytheboundariesofintersections,ensurethatcarshaveampleroomtoexecuteturns,andreduceconfusionamongdrivers.

– by Joel Eskovitz

House Research Organization Page 1�

HOUSE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION

Steering Committee:

BobHunter,Chairman DavidFarabee,Vice Chairman BillCallegari DianneWhiteDelisi HaroldDutton CarlIsett MikeKrusee JimMcReynolds GeanieMorrison ElliottNaishtat JoePickett RobertPuente ElviraReyna JimSolis G.E.“Buddy”West

JohnH.ReaganBuildingRoom420P.O.Box2910Austin,Texas78768-2910

(512)463-0752

www.capitol.state.tx.us/hrofr/hrofr.htm

Staff:TomWhatley,Director;BenDavis,Editor;RitaBarr,Office Manager/Analyst;BetsyBlair,KellieDworaczyk,JoelEskovitz,TeddHolladay,Research Analysts