Overview of automated enforcement in transportation

Institute of Transportation Engineers. ITE Journal, Jun 1998 by Turner, Shawn, Polk, Amy Ellen

Passage of Enabling Legislation

Enabling legislation permits the use of automated enforcement by providing for the mailing of a ticket to a suspected violator. In most areas of the United States and elsewhere, explicit enabling legislation is necessary prior to initiation of an automated enforcement program. Several states' attorneys general have ruled that a combination of current laws and court rulings in effect prohibit automated enforcement.8

In addition, the public debate at the state legislature or city council level will allow prospective implementors to address the public's concerns before implementation of the system. There are several open questions concerning the implementation, such as whether photos will be taken of drivers in addition to vehicle license plates, whether the owner or the driver of the vehicle will be ticketed and whether the ticket will be a moving violation or the equivalent of a parking ticket. Public debate will allow implementors to change the system design to suit the particular concerns of their community.

In a 1995 research synthesis? the authors presented model state legislation to allow automated enforcement programs, along with a discussion of the proposed legislation. A 1996 legal research digest6 provided examples of proposed enabling legislation from California, Maryland, Michigan and Virginia that contain different language to reflect different choices for implementing an automated enforcement program.

In the United States, some automated enforcement programs were started without enabling legislation at the state level. In 1987, the Arizona Legislature changed the penalties for driving less than 20 miles per hour over the posted speed limit from a misdemeanor to a civil infraction. This change allowed the City Council of Paradise Valley, Ariz., USA, to pass a city ordinance permitting an automated enforcement system to detect and provide valid evidence for this type of civil infraction. Paradise Valley operated their program for 10 years without specific enabling legislation? Other Arizona cities, including Scottsdale, Mesa and Tempe, also have developed automated enforcement programs.

The City of Anchorage, however, provides a more typical example. In 1996, the City of Anchorage initiated an automated enforcement program to enforce speeding. However, the city lacked statewide enforcement legislation. The program engendered public opposition because it began as a speed enforcement program for school zones, but then hours of operation were expanded to beyond school hours. Local judiciary, and later the state Supreme Court, ruled that existing state law required officers to be present at the time of the violation as a requirement of due process. The program was terminated later that year.7

CURRENT ISSUES

The use of automated enforcement has met with opposition in some locations. The opposition has centered around a number of issues such as privacy, distribution of ticket revenue, ticketing procedures and effectiveness of automated enforcement. These issues are introduced in the following sections.