Run a Red Light in Arizona, Get a Constitutional Claim?

Arizona has been in the legal news for a while, and for a variety of reasons. Most of those reasons have to do with their, how should I say, “creative” law-enforcement ideas.

This story is no exception, though it’s likely to ruffle far fewer feathers (for the abuse of abysmal alliteration, my apologies). Arizona is one of the first states to adopt the use of red light cameras in earnest. When a car runs a red light, a motion sensor activates a camera, which takes a picture of the car’s license plate and driver. A few days or weeks later, the driver gets a letter from the police department, with a copy of the photograph, and a ticket. This seems a little passive-aggressive, but many states claim that they greatly reduce the rates of red-light violations, and that those who do run red lights get caught at a much higher rate, which leads to more fines flowing into the cash-strapped coffers of state governments.

In Arizona, at least, the program has proven to be more trouble than it’s worth. First of all, many people simply ignored the tickets, and didn’t pay the fines. Also, the cameras were sometimes vandalized, and, in one tragic case, an officer manning a van with a speed camera was murdered.

However, Arizona is also facing serious criticism from conservative activists who claim that the cameras are an unconstitutional invasion of privacy. You may remember that many conservatives took a similarly-principled stance when the Supreme Court decided Lawrence v. Texas, where it decided that the (admittedly unwritten) constitutional right to privacy rendered state laws banning certain sex acts between consenting adults in private homes unconstitutional.

Oh, wait. No. They howled that there is no constitutional right to privacy, and that state governments could do pretty much whatever they wanted to their citizens (or at least the gay ones).

Now, I don’t want to give the impression that all conservatives have such disjointed views on these two unrelated issues. I’m sure many of them hold more principled positions. However, considering that the “no right to privacy” line has been a mainstream conservative talking point for years, it’s hard not to see a trend.

These conservatives do have one good point, however: the evidence that these cameras make the roads safer is inconclusive, and they are pretty obviously intended to raise money for the state, rather than improve public safety.

Some local governments have even raised concerns that red-light cameras work “too well.” Basically, in some cities with aggressive enforcement policies, drivers run red lights far less often, with fewer fines being assessed, meaning that the cameras no longer pay for themselves. Because of this, some cities are discontinuing their use.

Attention local governments: when you sell a new policy to the public as something that is meant to keep them safer, it’s probably not a good idea to say “oh, hey, these things aren’t making us as much money as we thought they would. It’s time to pull the plug.” Otherwise, you might give the public the impression that you never had their safety in mind, and wanted to collect more money from them without raising taxes. An honest mistake, I’m sure.

OK, I think I’m done with the snark. It’s rare that such a relatively innocuous story raises so many serious issues, from money-making ploys disguised as public safety measures, to invoking the constitution when it’s convenient (something of which all political ideologies are equally guilty).

I’m really not sure how I feel about cash-strapped localities using the “public safety” to justify obvious moneymaking schemes. On one hand, if whatever they’re doing actually improves public safety, it could be argued that this is a good thing, regardless of the underlying motives. Nevertheless, at a time when politics in America seem to be more polarized than ever, anything that might engender cynicism and mistrust of government must be undertaken very, very carefully.

There will always be people who disagree with a given government policy, which is fine. But when a significant number of people lose faith in the very foundations of our government, we’ve got problems.

Here’s a modest proposal: if a state needs to raise money, why not just say so? Nobody likes to pay taxes, but most people don’t mind (in principle, at least) using fines to punish minor criminal acts.

However, local governments have somewhat of a knee-jerk aversion to saying that anything they do is motivated by bringing money into the government budget, even if it’s necessary, and even if the only people who will pay under a particular scheme are those who have done something wrong.

Maybe people would be less cynical about these public safety measures if states would simply say something to the effect of “yes, this is motivated primarily by money, but we need the money, and if you don’t run red lights, you’ll be fine.”

After all, people are smart, and know that we need things like roads, schools, police, and fire departments, and that we have to pay for those things somehow. People may become more trusting of the government, and more willing to support things like red light cameras and speed traps, if the authorities were simply honest about their purpose.

By: Rusty Shackleford