Sweeney: Constitution Does Not Forbid Red-Light Cameras

City Attorney Bob Sweeney, speaking to about 150 people and four video cameras during City Hall’s public forum on Tuesday night, said red-light camera systems are constitutional.

The tickets are civil violations instead of criminal violations in Arnold, Sweeney said. No points are charged to the violating driver, and the camera systems encourage people to change behavior that causes car wrecks, injuries and fatalities.  

“If a swat on the behind can change behavior, then there is no need for jail,” Sweeney said.

The ordinance that allows the cameras also provides local enforcement of Arnold’s traffic laws, rather than having Jefferson County or Washington, D.C., control the streets, Sweeney said.

“If we have an idea to solve a problem differently from the state or county, we should be encouraged explore those ideas,” Sweeney said about the City of Arnold.

U.S. Appellate Judge Dismisses Challenges to Camera Systems

During his presentation, Sweeney said U.S. Appellate Judge Frank Easterbrook heard numerous red-light camera cases, on appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court, and stated the red-light cameras are legal.

Then-President Ronald Reagan nominated Easterbrook for the court in 1984. The U.S. Senate confirmed Easterbrook to the court in 1985.

Easterbrook struck down four legal complaints — the cameras violate due process, improperly fine the car owners, improperly raise city revenues, the city cannot pass a law differing from state or county law — against using the camera systems in a Jan. 5, 2009, decision.

Due process, Easterbrook wrote in the court’s decision, depends on the fundamental right to perform an action.  

“No one no one has a fundamental right to run a red light or avoid being seen by a camera on a public street,” Easterbrook wrote. Only state action, not city actions, which affect fundamental rights, are evaluated for due process violations.

Car owners should be held responsible for traffic violations, Easterbrook wrote, but they can demand repayment from the driver who violated the law.

“Owners will take more care when lending their cars, and often they can pass the expense on to the real wrongdoer,” Easterbrook wrote.

He also said cities can tax or charge a penalty fee to discourage certain actions. 

It is commendable that a system can raise revenues and reduce the number of lawbreakers, Easterbrook wrote.

Cities can have different laws from counties and states.

“The Constitution does not demand that units of state government follow state law,” Easterbrook wrote. A federal court can only decide whether federal law forbids a city’s or state’s actions.

According to Sweeney, Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster, in a letter to State Senator Jim Lembke, said it is legal for cities to have laws that differ from state laws.

An Arnold resident on Pine Court said he disagreed with the Arnold government’s decision to implement the camera systems without asking for public vote. 

The people’s will should set laws, the man said, the red-light cameras should not have been be forced on the residents.