What's up with the red light camera lawsuits?

In the past month or so, I've seen a couple of news stories (here, here) about red light camera law suits. The news, unfortunately, doesn't go into a whole lot of detail. I'm curious, so I did a little digging, and here's what I've found.

There are three lawsuits pending:

(1) Sevin et al v. Parish of Jefferson et al., No. 2:08-cv-802, pending before Judge Vance in the Eastern District: docket (pdf), complaint (pdf).

(2) Ware et al v. Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government, et al, No. 6:08-cv-218, pending before Judge Melancon in the Western District: docket (pdf), complaint (pdf).

(3) McMahon v. New Orleans City et al, No. 2:08-cv-5030, pending before Judge Lemmon in the Eastern District: docket (pdf), complaint (pdf).
These are the allegations.

The camera schemes violate the following individual rights:

• the right to be innocent until proven guilty, because the photos are considered to be prima facie proof of a violation;
• the right against double jeopardy, because your violation may be used against you at a later date;
• the right to confront witnesses, because the "witness" is a machine;
• in Lafayette only, procedural due process, because you have to pay an extra $30 in order to get a hearing;
• the right to service of process, because first-class mail is insufficient in a civil proceeding;
• the right against expropriation/forfeiture of property, because the government is making you forfeit money; and
• the spousal testimonial privilege, I'm really not sure how.

The camera schemes violate the structure of government established by the state constitution because:

• the city/parish is improperly alienating its police power by contract with a private entity;
• the city/parish does not have authorization from the state legislature to enforce traffic laws with cameras; and
• the scheme conflicts with state laws governing the same subject matter.

The allegations are found in the Sevin complaint at ¶¶ 14-28, in the Ware complaint at ¶¶ 14-27, and in the McMahon complaint at ¶¶ 13-28.

Here's the status of each case.

Sevin: the defendants have filed motions to dismiss, which are currently pending and "under consideration" (pdf).

Ware: the defendants have filed motions to dismiss, which are currently pending and "under advisement" (pdf). They've been under advisement since June, so hopefully an order will be forthcoming soon.

McMahon: the defendants still need to be served with process.

As for the specifics of the motions to dismiss, most of the documents are more than 30 pages long - which means it would cost $2.40 to access each document - and my curiosity is capped at about four dollars.

Posted by MBC at December 13, 2008 06:54 PM