Eyes in the sky

Minneapolis resurrects camera-based traffic citations

On July 15, the City of Minneapolis announced the implementation of a new $12 million camera-based traffic citation system near five intersections this fall, with plans to eventually expand to over 40 locations. It’s part of the city’s “Vision Zero” initiative adopted in 2017 to eliminate all traffic-related serious injuries and deaths by 2027.

In a city where the number of stolen vehicles and carjackings has skyrocketed and the number of police officers has plummeted, it is no surprise that aggressive and reckless driving has increased.

Consequently, Minneapolis — by its own admission — has experienced a rise in serious injuries and deaths. Still, the City seems determined to ignore the root cause of these incidents and continue down the road of finding “alternatives” to traditional policing, such as the new camera-based citation system or violence interrupters with a cost to taxpayers of over $20 million. Imagine how far $32 million could go toward achieving meaningful public safety in the hands of responsible policymakers.

On Aug. 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.

Misconception

Minneapolis’s earlier version of camera-based citations, which began in 2004 and ended a short time later, focused on stoplight infractions. But the process was similar, with traffic cameras capturing potential violations and sending citations to the registered owners of the vehicles involved.

The program was shut down after a legal challenge in 2007’s State v. Kuhlman. One of the arguments in that case was that the state was skirting its burden of proof that the registered owner was the one committing the violation.

One of 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.

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 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

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.”

The statute allows not only Minneapolis to implement the new camera-based citation system but also the City of Mendota Heights, and it can also be used in in work zones by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The pilot program sunsets July 31, 2029.

The new process

The new statute took care of the conflict identified in Kuhlman by creating a uniform statute. However, will the new law overcome concerns about its constitutionality?

A change introduced in the new law will likely help.

The new process includes a human element, which is a solid step toward addressing the concern about establishing the burden of proof. In the case of Minneapolis, a full-time traffic enforcement specialist, or specialists, 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 or still 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 the driver, 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.

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 carjacked vehicles being operated in Minneapolis, it seems the $12 million devoted to this new camera-based citation system would be better spent ensuring the city has a robust police presence actively engaged in proactive policing.