Red Light Cameras are declared unconstitutional and rebuked by the Minnesota Supreme Court

L-R: 1200 WOAI News Reporter Jim Forsyth, former Minneapolis Police Chief & current San Antonio Police Chief Bill McManus, red light camera in Balcones Heights

By Jim Forsyth
WOAI 1200 Radio

In a rebuke to red light cameras that will have national implications, the Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that the cameras are ‘in all cases unconstitutional,’ 1200 WOAI news reports today.

The decision is also a slap in the face to San Antonio Police Chief William McManus, who supported the cameras when he was police chief in Minneapolis and continues to maintain that they are a safety tool.

The Minnesota court, in a unanimous ruling, ruled that the cameras violate the due process rights of motorists by not affording them the constitutional right to face their accuser in court. The court ruled that red light cameras create a new, and unconstitutional crime, the offense of “owner liability for red light violations where the owner neither required nor knowingly permitted the violation.’

In the most important part of the ruling affecting red light cameras in Balcones Heights and elsewhere in Texas, the Minnesota court spelled out the inherent unfairness of ‘assuming’ that the ‘registered owner’ of the car is at fault.

“This eliminates the presumption of innocence and shifts the burden from that required by the rules of criminal procedure,” the court wrote.

The court wrote that since a police officer can determine who was at the wheel of the car when it ran the red light and the camera cannot, the cameras are unconstitutional.

“The ordinance provides less procedural protection to a person charged with an ordinance violation (red light cameras) than is provided to a person charged with a violation of the Act (arrest by a police officer). Accordingly, the ordinance conflicts with the Act and is invalid,” the court ruled.

The court further ruled that the presence of the cameras at just a handful of intersections violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution, because it has the affect of enforcing laws differently.

“A driver must be able to travel the state without the risk of violating an ordinance with which he is not familiar,” the court wrote, ruling that motorists understand that running a red light may make him or her subject to arrest by a police officer, but since cameras exist at only scattered intersections and may involve different rules of operation, allowing red light cameras to exist denies citizens the right to equal enforcement of laws.

While the ruling outlaws red light cameras in Minnesota only, it is expected to have a wide ranging impact on cameras in all states, including Texas.