How did Minneapolis resurrect camera-based traffic citations?
The City of Minneapolis announced it is about to implement a new $12 million camera-based traffic citation system near five (5) intersections, with plans to expand to over forty (40) locations over time. It’s part of the city’s “Vision Zero” initiative adopted in 2017 to eliminate all traffic-related serious injuries and deaths by 2027.
By its own admission, the city has experienced an increase in serious injuries and deaths since the initiative began. It shouldn’t be a mystery why aggressive and reckless driving has increased in a city where the number of police officers has plummeted and the number of stolen vehicles and carjackings has skyrocketed.
Yet the city seems determined to continue down the road of finding “alternatives” to traditional policing, like the new camera-based citation system or violence interrupters to the tune of $20 million plus. Imagine how far $32 million could go towards achieving meaningful public safety in the hands of responsible policy makers.
On August 1, the camera-based system will begin issuing citations for those drivers who exceed the speed limit by 10 mph. The announcement has many asking, “Didn’t they try that a number of years ago, only to have it ruled unconstitutional?”
Yes and no — read on.
Misconception
Minneapolis’s earlier version of camera-based citations, which began in 2004 and ended a short time later, focused on stop light infractions. But the process was similar, with traffic cameras capturing potential violations and sending citations to the registered owners of involved vehicles.
The program was shut down after a legal challenge in State v. Kuhlman, whereby one of the arguments made was that the state was skirting its burden of proof that the registered owner was the one committing the violation.
One of the biggest misconceptions coming out of Kuhlman was that such systems were ruled “unconstitutional.” In fact, the Minnesota Supreme Court didn’t specifically rule on the constitutionality of such systems. Instead, it ruled that the Minneapolis ordinance supporting the camera-based citations was invalid because it conflicted with state traffic law.
The misconception has likely grown over the years because the Minnesota Supreme Court showed its hand on the constitutional question, by discussing basic rules of criminal procedure, such as:
“…the state has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the owner was driving at the time of the red-light offense, and the owner has no obligation to prove anything.”
The Supreme Court then explained why it didn’t need to rule on the issue of constitutionality:
But, as we discussed above, (the Minneapolis ordinance) is itself in conflict with state law because it imposes liability on owners who would not be liable under the Act. Thus, we need not analyze the question of severance (from the constitutional issue) because it would not alter the outcome in this case.
The DFL end-around
So, how is Minneapolis implementing another camera-based citation system?
The city worked with the Democratic-Farmer-Labor-led Minnesota Legislature in 2024 to create a new state statute 169.147, entitled “Traffic Safety Camera System Pilot Program.”
Interestingly, the statute allows not only Minneapolis to implement the new camera-based citation system, but also the State Department of Transportation in work zones, and the City of Mendota Heights. The pilot program sunsets on July 31, 2029.
The new process
The new statute took care of the conflict identified in Kuhlman, by creating a uniform statute. But will the new law overcome concerns over constitutionality?
A change put into the new law will probably help.
The new process includes a human element, which is a solid step towards addressing the burden of proof concern. In the case of Minneapolis, a full-time traffic enforcement specialist(s) authorized to issue traffic citations will review each incident the camera system identifies as a possible violation. The traffic specialist will then work to identify the registered owner and review video/still photo images of the violation to determine if the registered owner was the driver at the time of the violation. If it’s clear to the traffic specialist, they will begin with a warning for a first violation and then progress to a $40 fine for subsequent violations.
There is a provision in the statute for the registered owner to contest the citation if they have proof that they were not the driver at the time of the violation. The new statute does not appear to require the registered owner to identify who the driver was, which was part of the 2004 Minneapolis ordinance.
Finally, the new statute makes commercial vehicle drivers with class A, B, and C driver’s licenses ineligible for diversion, regardless of whether the violation occurred in a commercial vehicle or not.
Summary
Minneapolis is moving forward with a new camera-based citation system for speeding. Changes to the law authorizing the system appear designed to overcome concerns addressed in earlier litigation. Time will tell if the new system is challenged.
Regardless, the new system is bound to cause a lot of unnecessary issues, and it’s more than questionable whether it will have any impact on public safety. Given the number of stolen and car-jacked vehicles being operated in Minneapolis, it seems the $12 million devoted to this new camera-based citation system would be better spent on ensuring the city had a robust police presence actively engaged in proactive policing.