The Current Situation Regarding Red Light Cameras in Tennessee
Laws and regulations governing red light cameras in Tennessee are complex and ever changing. While municipalities in Tennessee were allowed to use these devices in 2008 under the authority of Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-198, Governor Bill Haslam signed into law the "Freedom from Traffic Cameras Law," or "Public Chapter 124." This amendment essentially allowed cities to keep using red light cameras for another year, but came with stipulations. Localities were to evaluate whether red light cameras actually reduce traffic accidents and fatalities in their communities.
After an extensive, year-long study, Memphis Mayor AC Wharton Jr. determined that Hampden-Parkway, Amyway/Parkway and Amyway/Quince intersections did tend to reduce accidents, while the city of Nashville found that all four intersections reduced accidents. Eighteen other cities (and three counties) in Tennessee, however, have discontinued the use of red light cameras.
Still, localities have begun to increase the fees issued for these violations in recent years . In 2012, Memphis raised its fees from $50 to $75. The Metro Council in Nashville also voted to raise fines, charging $50 for running a red light and $75 for not stopping for a school bus with safety lights flashing.
To date, the legality of police "red light photo enforcement" is still needlessly contested in Tennessee, as some judges are claiming it violates constitutional rights, while others find no violations in the practice. Currently, the legality of the "Freedom from Traffic Cameras Law" is being contested the Court of Appeals. If the appeals court upholds the law, the red light cameras will remain legal, and the results of Memphis’ study will trump all other conflicting information. If the law is overturned, the legality of red light cameras in Tennessee would be left to the individual municipalities to decide.
It should also be noted that the tokens previously used in Tennessee for payment of red light camera tickets are no longer valid. As of July 1, 2013, all red light tickets must be paid by mail or online.
How Red Light Cameras Function
The way red light cameras work varies from community to community, but the technological concepts are relatively the same. Most red light cameras are digital camera systems that record traffic violations detected by a sensor. A red light camera system is typically composed of a camera capable of recording moving video images, a video capture unit, a controller, and a sensor. The camera takes a digital image of the violation for several consecutive seconds along with the date and time. These images are stuck together and sent to a processing center that determines whether the images depict a traffic law violation.
The traffic law violation images are matched with data from the vehicle in the captured image. This data is retrieved from a license plate that is scanned by visual recognition software. In some cases, the scanned license plate is compared with a database of vehicles that are exempt from the challenged lane ("exemption plates") or disabled vehicles that should have a disabled plate attached to the rear of their car.
If it appears that the camera has captured an image of a vehicle running the red light and it was not one of the exempt vehicles, then the system automatically sends a notice to the violator in the mail. The notice includes a still image of the vehicle in the intersection with the light just prior turning red. Less commonly, some systems may transmit video evidence of the red-light violation in addition to the still image. Ideally, the notice will include a "command stop" photograph of the vehicle within the intersection, rendering – theoretically – no doubt that the motorist, in fact, ran the red light. The red light violation notice may also contain the recorded data concerning the location, time, date, and duration of the yellow light (as recorded by the system during the green/yellow/red phases). The recorded data is essential because the validity of the green light phase and duration of the yellow light phase has been challenged in litigation and can affect the validity of a photo-enforcement ticket.
Pros and Cons of Using Red Light Cameras
As is typical in all local communities, the debate over the legality of red light cameras includes arguments for and against. Those in favor of them tout the safety benefits of the devices, claiming they reduce accidents at intersections and promote traffic safety. The safety argument is buttressed by community statistics indicating that the accident rate after the installation of red-light cameras dropped by twenty or thirty percent.
In contrast, opponents of the cameras argue that statistics may show an increase in accidents in the first few months of the camera installation, claiming that this is due to drivers slamming on their breaks in response to the red-light cameras. Others, mainly those on property committees within an assisting suburban neighborhood, point out that the rear-end accidents caused by sudden breaking could end up raising the insurance premiums for the residents.
Privacy concerns have also been raised by those opposed. According to opponents in Memphis, red-light cameras infringe on a citizen’s right to privacy and allow the government to surveil citizens even when they are not participating in government-sponsored motor vehicle activity.
Law enforcement officials vehemently deny the appropriateness of these privacy argument, however, arguing that not only do red-light cameras enhance public safety, but they also allow the government to monitor a driver’s actions should an accident occur. One official stated that "We’re trying to catch the criminal element or otherwise motorist that would cause death or injury… It’s not considered intrusive or in violation of anybody’s rights."
Opponents of these laws also argue that the programs are simply revenue generating tools for municipalities, alleging that restitution collected for red-light violations is used to pay for usual municipal expenditures, not specifically on the traffic light enforcement program.
According to those who oppose these cameras, particularly in Tennessee, red-light cameras in Tennessee are primarily financially motivated and essentially fine centers for cities in an economic spiral. Municipalities receive a 50% cut from the revenue generated from tickets; in fact, according to a 2007 media report, "the City of Memphis nets $1.5 million a year on tickets for using red lights." The Memphis city government argues that the money received from red-light violations generates funds to hire more police officers and purchase more police cars.
Recent Court Cases and Legal Developments
Like many arguments that go through federal court, reported cases are the greatest teachers. Punitive fines are collected regularly from traffic violations, running red lights being one of the most common. From a financial perspective, the government, whether state or local, does not want the driver to know that this entity is fleeing in the wrong direction. Dozens of cases have made their way through various local courts and even district courts in Tennessee in an effort to determine whether the use of these cameras is constitutional.
As in many of the red light camera cases being heard, the Federal District Court dismissed the plaintiff’s case after finding no facts supporting a deprivation of a constitutional right. Among these plaintiffs was a woman stopped for running a red light in the Memphis area. In that case, it was determined the municipality (Bartlett) was not exercising ordinances and policies in a manner that deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional right as contemplated by 42 U.S.C. §1983. Notably, however, it is possible that the use of these cameras in a new fashion may lead to a different conclusion during summary judgment or trial phases of any potential cases.
As is true for most traffic citations and violations, the defendant has the right to a hearing or trial in most instances . Thus far, red light camera cases have been disposed of via summary judgment (either dismissed or decided in favor of the plaintiff). Should the matter be tried, the issue may be decided on the basis of credibility or discarding of the "eyes in the sky." More likely, though, the outcome will turn on what is considered a violation as well as what state or local law says with regard to the proceedings. As noted above, in many of these cases, the results have been simply disposed of as alarms set off by cameras.
A recent case filed against the county municipal court clerks in Davidson County appears to have been designed to say that the enforcement process was flawed. Because the case was not dismissed as a result of a motion for summary judgment, there is indication that there may have been some actual issues with the clerk’s ability to issue tickets, including any processing against the alleged driver. This case follows two others filed in Johnson County (John Doe v. Roane County and Goodman v. Wilt) that contradict each other with regard to the accountability of the city or county clerk. This case also appears to be headed for the Supreme Court in Tennessee as a result of its impact on other similar cases.
Comparisons with Other States
Tennessee’s law regarding the use of red light cameras differs from that of some other states. For example, in 2008, 33 states had passed laws allowing municipalities to use red light cameras, and at least 24 others had considered legislation but failed to enact it during the 2008 session of the legislature. Further, 19 states had laws in effect similar to Tennessee’s law. Of those, Alabama, California, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Wisconsin and Utah required localities to adopt ordinances authorizing the use of red light cameras; Tennessee law does not require this (Sussman & Patten). Many states additionally require municipalities to audit the performance of red light cameras. Tennessee also does not have such a requirement (Oregon Department of Transportation). Officials from Oregon Transportation Department stated, "The state department of Transportation audits the program to ensure the cameras are being used correctly and are effective in reducing collisions and promoting compliance with traffic laws" (Oregon Transportation Department).
Potential Future for Red Light Cameras in Tennessee
For now, red light cameras remain a legal, if somewhat controversial, tool in Tennessee. In the future, the use of red light cameras will likely depend on whether a common generalization regarding the use of cameras in Tennessee bears out: "the law can’t keep up with the technology."
To deal with the growing uneasiness of citizens regarding photo enforcement in recent years, lawmakers have enacted legislation that attempts to strengthen the law. In 2017, the Tennessee General Assembly passed and the governor signed into law statistics-based legislation. The law requires the following: Because of this technology, the 2017 law may ultimately quell supporters of unfettered photo enforcement in Tennessee. Over time, the law may actually stifle the growth of red light cameras.
Other realities may also deter the growth of red light cameras, including budgetary constraints of local governments and competing priorities for law enforcement resources, not to mention civic pressure from citizen groups.
Instead, it is possible that proponents of an unfettered red light camera industry will simply engage in a game of whack-a-mole with municipal jurisdictions. If red light cameras were to become illegal in one municipality, no doubt a savvy camera company would simply shift to another location.
Camera companies have a real incentive to change laws in other locations given the profitability of the cameras. In Hickman County , Tennessee (population about 9,200), the county government received annual income of $671,000 in 2017, $638,000 in 2016, $528,640 in 2015, $602,050 in 2014, and $237,000 in 2013 from red light cameras. Up to 50 percent of the funds went to the municipalities where the red light cameras were located.
Lauderdale County (Tennessee) officials received $231,000 from red light cameras in 2017.
The localities kept the remaining funds to help offset the expense of county schools. The cameras were in operation for only a brief period in both Hickman and Lauderdale counties (the Hickman camera was discontinued in late 2017 and Lauderdale sold its cameras to benefit a local school). If camera companies seek to replace these machines, they almost certainly will focus attention on low-income communities, rural areas, and municipalities with less well-funded law enforcement departments.
At the end of the day, photo enforcement will always face two problems, however the technology shifts and evolves: In the meantime, look for other parts of the state to be tempted by red light cameras. That is, unless, they remember the enormity of the public backlash. Perhaps the backlash will shift from the camera companies to the municipalities … or both.