The Constitutional Status of Police Cameras in Intersections

There have been a series of debates and lawsuits in the State of Minnesota as a result of the placement of police surveillance cameras at intersections. These controversies stem from concern expressed by motorists about constitutionality. Police force officials are citing that these cameras have been instrumental in catching violators, provided valuable evidence in accident cases and even prevented accidents by making motorists more defensive. Although these cameras are being opposed by motorists, their use have statistically lowered accidents and made the intersections monitored much safer overall and should be used.

The Minneapolis Police Department maintains that the total number of accidents occurring at the intersections with cameras decreased by 16% during the first six months after installation, In addition, the number of “T-bone” accidents where one car broadsides another were reduced by 20% at the intersections since the programs inception.

In ACLU Challenges Minneapolis “Photo Cop” Ordinance, the issues are aired. Whether or not city ordinances that support the use of these cameras are constitutional and in compliance with Minnesota state law is questioned. The article states that when a car enters the intersection it is photographed as it enters, when it leaves and its license plate number. However, no photograph is taken that can identify the actual driver.

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Minnesota Executive Director Chuck Samuelson is quoted to say “This ordinance presumes that the owner of a vehicle that is photographed is guilty and then puts the burden on the owner to prove that he or she was not the driver. It turns the notion of due process on its head.” In my opinion, these opponents are splitting hairs in order to avoid violation detection at the intersections and that the best way to avoid the issue is to avoid breaking the law.

In Red-light cameras bring safety, brickbats, Kathleen Murphy writes that the way the cameras are used presumes to guilt of the owner of the car in question whether the owner was actually driving has to be proven in court. Clearly this indicates that in these cases a burden of proof of innocence instead of guilt would be the deciding factor. Murphy also writes “Despite studies that show photo enforcement dramatically reduces accidents, resentment at traffic cameras playing “gotcha” shows why laws using photography to catch violators might not be a slam-dunk for states considering ways to improve roadway safety. Still, advocates insist the hassles are worth it to prevent traffic accidents.