Red-light cameras need reform

Red-light cameras are a bad state law made worse by city and county governments that all too eagerly (and cluelessly) installed the cameras and then waited for the money to start rolling in.

It rolled in all right. Big time.


The fines totaled $100 million last year.

But the latest bout of bad news for camera supporters — a lawsuit against Apopka, Daytona Beach and 22 other towns and the state — could mean governments must refund millions of dollars.

If that happens, the cities and state will get what they deserve.

The red-light camera racket moved beyond a focus on safety to profiteering long ago.

If that wasn't true, then the cities would have supported common-sense changes to the red-light camera law proposed in the Legislature last year.

But those changes didn't go anywhere.

"It's a poorly written statute, and it's very difficult to change because the red-light camera companies and municipalities are perfectly happy with a poorly written law because it's open to so many interpretations," said Sen. Jeff Brandes, a Republican who pushed the changes.

Finally, those varied interpretations are catching up with them.

An appeals court recently ruled that Hollywood illegally outsourced its police authority to its camera company, American Traffic Solutions.

Essentially, the company "pre-screened" the camera images and decided who violated the law before the cops ever looked at the videos.


That system apparently turned real, live police officers into robo-cops who simply followed the company's lead.

An officer's role in the citations was "minimal," according to a new lawsuit. American Traffic Solutions forwarded the image, and the police gave permission to issue a citation simply by clicking a digital "accept" button.

The new lawsuit seeks refunds of fines and class-action status for people issued fines in two dozen cities that used the robo-cop system.

This is not a far-fetched scenario.

One of the law firms involved already was successful in securing at least partial refunds for people who were issued red-light camera tickets before 2010, when the Legislature gave local governments the authority to use the cameras.

The Florida Supreme Court ruled this summer that cities that began issuing fines before that date were in violation of the law.

"We're not passing judgment on the law itself," said attorney David Kerner with Schuler, Halvorson, Weisser, Zoeller & Overbeck in West Palm Beach. "What we're saying is the way the law is being enforced is improper."

Even some towns are beginning to recognize enforcement is a problem.

St. Petersburg removed all of its red-light cameras. Clermont voted to end its red-light camera contract once it realized most of the citations were given to people who didn't come to a complete stop when making a right turn on red. Winter Springs removed its cameras as well.

For many others, though, the sound of extra coin clinking into government bank accounts is too sweet to relinquish.

The state collects $70 of every $158 ticket, while the city or county keeps $75. (The remaining $13 goes to two medical-services trust funds.)

Companies such as American Traffic Solutions have a lot to lose, too. The company doesn't want to lose its contracts and gave nearly $400,000 to political parties, candidates and committees during the recent election.

If the cameras were really about safety, and not money, then the cities and the Legislature would push these common-sense reforms that I first wrote about earlier this year:

•A uniform way of enforcing right-on-red turns. Do drivers have to come to a complete stop or not? The law is unclear.

•Lower the amounts cities and counties can charge to appeal the tickets. A fee for an appeal is reasonable, but in some cities, such as Apopka and Maitland, the court costs more than double the original fine.

•Cities should be required to show that intersections with cameras have a history of being dangerous and are in need of enforcement.

•Police, not camera companies, should make the call about who gets a ticket. As one attorney put it, police power shouldn't be up for sale.