Arnold’s red light camera law is unconstitutional

upholds the Appellate Court ruling and allows the matter to go back to the trial court for more fact finding...now that discovery has been allowed...ATS is going to have some 'splainin' to do.

Reading the summary provided it appears there were several points the court found the city of Arnold were non-compliant.

The court found:
The Ordinance conflicts with state law relating to the assessment of points.
The rebuttable presumption contained within the Ordinance is unconstitutional if the Ordinance is criminal in nature.
The Ordinance, as a matter of law, is criminal in nature.

From what is provided in the excerpt from the court document it appears as if the City of Arnold assessed points against a driver's license record and that is what was unconstitutional. Without having the city's ordinance we can only guess those receiving citations could not have the the equipment examined to insure its proper operation and could not bring those responsible for its operation into court to question them. The court upheld the ruling the City of Arnold did not install the cameras for unjust enrichment.

If the camera law is unconstitutional... does that mean that ALL the red light fines and court costs are going to be refunded to those who wallet was made a little bit lighter

In addition... what about the possible increase in the auto insurance costs paid out?

And also... how is this court determination going to affect the points placed against the drivers license

There's a lot to think about when things are finally resolved.

Nuvi1300WTGPS

The money would have to come about in a civil suit, but only after the criminal suit was resolved. If some lawyer wants to make a lot of money, they might be able to get a class action going. But it would still have some hurdles to clear.

And the implication that there have been no red-light running fatalities because of the red light cameras is dubious at best. I don't know how big Arnold is off the top of my head, but having lived in St. Louis for a good chunk of my life, I can tell you that it's a suburban community with a high median income that probably doesn't see that many traffic fatalities to begin with.

There are basically 2 main roads (the interstate notwithstanding, but there are also no traffic lights on the interstate) and the rest of it is all neighborhoods. I doubt there were that many fatalities in the 8 years before they installed the cameras--not a lot of fatal accidents happen at 25 mph.

I don't see it coming.

That MIGHT be impressive, IF there were a LOT of fatalities from running red lights in the same locations prior to installing the cameras. However, unless that data was provided, there is always the possibility of "Figures don't lie, but . . . ".

- Tom -

Here is a link to additional info on the subject:

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/42/4288.asp

--Looks like the court can finally and officially see that these RLCs are purely about a money grab!!!

problem is will they care.

There's three sides to any story and the version printed in "The Newspaper" isn't close enough to be considered as one of the three. While some of the facts are correct, the explanation they provide is so slanted it makes the checkout stand tabloid claims of alien invasion and proofs that Elvis lives seem credible.

I'm sure that many other small towns will take a look at the outcome before their implementation of RLC's.

Fred

I find it quite credible and am disappointed that you do not agree, but if you don't like it there is a link at the bottom of the page to the court documents. It's a little long and not quite as exciting as the checkout stands, but it appears to have more info on the case than the original story posted above.

Of course this is only Missouri. It is not binding on other states. Currently in my area, RLC's are increasing in number.

In fact the behaviors of drivers who know there is a camera changes from normal and probably cause as many accidents

It's almost like that...except, at a toll booth, you pay when you stop, with a RLC, you pay when you don't stop...

Say what? Let's see the proof.

A court ruled in Elmwood Place, Ohio that the use of these cameras is not in compliance with the law. Here are the court documents:

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2013/oh-dueprocess.pdf

Bills are also pending in Florida and Ohio that would ban the devices entirely. The Ohio bill is largely a reaction against Elmwood Place, a tiny village surrounded by Cincinnati, which collected $1.5 million in fines from 20,000 people on a single block during two weeks in 2012. In June 2013, a local judge ordered that village’s camera program to be shut down and had all the cameras confiscated. By October 2013, the mayor of Elmwood Place resigned as a result of the controversial program. In 2012, Ohio cities collectively took in $16 million from red light camera systems.

This ruling (pending appeals) now opens it up for a massive civil case where the people receiving tickets can sue for the refund of the fines. Elmwood Place and its speed camera vendor would have to pay back up to $1.7 million if ticketed motorists win the class-action lawsuit certified Tuesday by the judge who ordered the cameras removed last spring.

Up to 10,000 motorists who paid the $105 tickets would be included in the suit, attorney Mike Allen said.

The village collected more than $1.75 million in fines and fees during the six months the six cameras were in operation from September 2012 to March 2013. Approximately 20,000 tickets were issued, Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Robert Ruehlman wrote in his ruling Tuesday.

Ruehlman certified the class action on behalf of all motorists who paid the fines, additional online charges and hearing fees or other charges under Elmwood Place's Automated Speed Enforcement program. It doesn't include those who didn't pay their tickets and others who already got a court-ordered refund.

“Judge Ruehlman’s ruling today that this case can proceed as a class action is a victory for the common man and woman, I think,” Allen told WCPO-TV. “If you look at those people who were out at Elmwood at those hearings, it was people on fixed incomes, elderly people. They shelled out 105 bucks, in some cases more, to Elmwood.

“Judge Ruehlman’s ruling today gives us the opportunity to put money back in their pockets.”

When they had the speed cameras in the Phoenix area, traffic became very hazardous. People would drive at 80 in the 65 zone on the freeway, then slam on their brakes when they approached the cameras, then accelerate back to 80 or so... this behavior probably caused more accidents than the high speed.

It appears that the ruling is stating that it is unconstitutional only because it is a criminal charge with points being assessed without due process. In Tx. it is a "civil" complaint without points being assessed and the courts upheld it.

Of course they had to change the laws prior to installation so they could do it this way.

Still more about money than anything.

In Houston the Red Light Cameras were put on the ballot a couple of years ago and it was overwhelming to remove them.

No RLC's in Houston now. Still in many other cities though.

I have never even been to Missouri before, but would love to hear about red-light cameras going away anywhere. At the very least, getting a dialogue open about the cameras might help in other jurisdictions.

I like the RLC's... People need to get over it and spend their time better than complaining about them...

I saw one driver trying to beat the light Saturday. He got his picture taken. It's too bad they took the speed camera off this corner or the car would have been nailed for that as well.

I believe most people don't like them. If they put it on the ballot everywhere, most of these cameras would be gone.

If cameras only photographed guilty people, I'd be for them too.

The RLCs are photographing/filming the license plate areas of cars, not people.

I've seen dozns of stills and videos from these devices and have never seen enough detail to ID the driver even though I knew who was driving.