Private companies operating traffic enforcement cameras in Tennessee are violating state law if they allow employees to review footage to determine if a motorist broke a traffic law according to Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery.
The opinion rendered by Slatery on Wednesday regarding photo or video traffic enforcement came in response to a request by State Representative Andy Holt, who has been campaigning for the use of the cameras to be abolished in the state.
“The framework used by traffic camera companies in Tennessee is flat out illegal,” said Holt, who represents Weakley County along with parts of Obion and Carroll Counties. “Photographic evidence of motorists is streamed from these privately owned cameras to out-of-state data centers where people with zero knowledge of Tennessee law, who you and I have never met, sit on a computers and decide whether or not to send the supposed violation back to local law enforcement officials.”
Holt said Tennessee state law grants the authority to review camera and video footage to determine if a violation of traffic laws occurred only to state-commissioned or Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) Commission certified officers.
In his three-page long opinion, Slatery agreed with Hold that only officers had the legal authority to make determinations on violations of traffic laws.
“We are not aware of any other Tennessee statute that authorizes employees of private companies to review the video footage for the purpose of determining whether there has been a traffic violation,” Slatery wrote in his opinion. “(State law) is not ambiguous. It plainly grants authority to review traffic camera evidence to ‘only POST-certified or state-commissioned law enforcement officers.’”
“Thus, the plain language of (state statute) unambiguously precludes anyone other than POST-certified or state-commissioned law enforcement officers from reviewing traffic camera evidence and making violation determinations,” Slatery added. “It follows that employees of private traffic camera companies lack authority to perform that function because they are not POST-certified or state-commissioned law enforcement officers.”
The point of contention where Slatery feels the private traffic camera companies are violating state law is by having the company’s employees review the captured videos or images and making a determination of whether or not a motorist violated the law and then sending only the footage or images that contain “violations” to the local law enforcement agencies.
Holt said photo-enforcement camera companies used in Tennessee readily admit to the fact that their employees review footage and determine whether a violation has occurred before sending the violations back to local law enforcement.
“How many violations do these people decide not to send back to local law enforcement? Since when were they granted the authority to enforce law in the State of Tennessee?,” Holt asked.
State Rep. Timothy Hill, who represents Johnson County and portions of Carter and Sullivan Counties, said he was pleased with the opinion rendered by Slatery and called it a “good step in the right direction” for the state.
“I am in complete agreement with what the Attorney General opined,” Hill said. “I think any way we can strip away the use of traffic enforcement cameras is a good thing.”
Hill described himself as “vehemently opposed” to the use of cameras to enforce the state’s traffic laws. Included in Hill’s district is Bluff City where traffic enforcement cameras are currently in use.
“When I first came into office I made two promises,” Hill said. “One was to remain readily accessible to the citizens of my district and the other was to abolish the use of traffic cameras. We passed legislation that they are gone at the end of their current contract. We did it.”
“I can’t speak for anyone else, but my vote will always be against the use of traffic cameras to enforce laws,” Hill added. “They are simply a poor substitute for law enforcement.”
In the wake of Slatery’s ruling, Holt is now calling on Tennessee residents who have received photo enforcement tickets for speeding or red light violations to band together and file a class action lawsuit against the companies who operate those systems.
“We have a situation where every single Tennessee motorist, even motorists just passing through our state, who has received a photo-enforcement ticket in the mail may have had that ticket issued illegally,” Holt said. “If one single person other than a POST-certified or state commissioned law enforcement officer looked at the footage of a supposed violator’s vehicle before sending it off to local police to confirm the preliminary determination with their rubber-stamped signature, then that ticket was issued illegally.”
“In my opinion, each of the individuals whom have paid these illegally issued citations must be repaid,” he added. “I hope to see a class action lawsuit, and I have actually spoken with some law firms that are very interested in taking on this prospect.”
Holt says he is also contacting District Attorneys across the state to ask them to order a cease and desist on all photo-enforcement devices in the State of Tennessee that may be subject to Slatery’s opinion.