In the current political climate, some citizens are advocating for a reduction in police budgets across the nation. They argue that there are better-qualified professionals to assume some police responsibilities. This article explores one form of the outsourcing of police work: Red light cameras.

Red light cameras take pictures of cars that pass through the traffic lights while the light is red. This picture is then received by law enforcement, who in turn, examine the license plate in the photo, and mail a ticket to the registered owner of the vehicle. While people like Aaron Gordon claim that the nation can outsource some police tasks via cameras, others feel that this process raises constitutional issues. Particularly relevant is 6th Amendment case law and the accused’s right to due process present in the 5th Amendment are considered.

Before getting into the minutiae of this argument, it is essential to state that there is no legal nor constitutional right to run a red-light and violate traffic law. As stated by Chief Justice Frank Easterbrook, in an opinion from the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: “[N]o one has a fundamental right to run a red-light.” Questioning the legality of red-light cameras is an exercise in critiquing the process by which the accused were caught rather than asserting that the accused’s actions were just.

Nevertheless, there will be some who claim that catching a criminal—no matter the methods—should always be considered just. This argument is facile and lacks merit for a multitude of reasons. There are numerous times when the United States justice system has chosen to protect the rights of the individual rather than catch prospective criminals. A perfect example came out of Mapp v. Ohio (1961) when the court declared that all evidence found in the course of an unreasonable search is inadmissible in the court, a principle called the “exclusionary rule.” This simple ruling illustrates the broad trend that the courts, especially the Supreme Court, can put an individual right to due process before the police’s need to catch criminals.

Therefore, a basic test of the strength of the argument against red-light cameras in the context of the above is as follows: If the methods by which potential evidence is discovered are found to be unjust, then the evidence would be inadmissible, much like the evidence which is inadmissible under the exclusionary rule. Two central claims challenge red-light cameras as an unjust method:

1. 6th Amendment grounds– This claim is derived from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (2009). In that case, the court held that “testimonial” evidence—certificates claiming that a substance found at a crime scene was indeed cocaine—can not be introduced without allowing for the accused to cross-examine whoever prepared the evidence in question. Those in favor of banning evidence from red-light cameras argue that the photographs collected by such a device would constitute testimonial evidence, and therefore, would be inadmissible unless the accused can cross-examine the technician or police officer who reviewed the footage and prepared the violation.

Some take the 6th Amendment defense to an extreme. They assert that the concept of the accused cross-examining the accuser would mean that the accused party in a red-light camera case would be entitled to cross-examine the actual camera. This reading of the case is, at best, intellectually dishonest in an attempt to prove a point. Putting the explicit textualist argument in the context of the Melendez-Diaz case, they would assert that the accused would have the ability to cross-examine the machine that detected the substance as cocaine rather than the scientist that oversaw the testing machine. The court indeed held that the necessary testimony was that of the expert—which in a red-light camera case—would be the person who viewed the camera footage and sent the ticket in the mail, not the camera itself.

Even without taking the argument to the extreme, there are legitimate concerns regarding red-light cameras from the 6th Amendment perspective. Without the technician or officer of record testifying, the precedent from Melendez-Diaz would cast doubt on the constitutionality of the evidence collected by red-light cameras. The American justice system is built on the simple fact that the accused has a right to face their accuser in court. This fact allows the accused to question their accuser and forces the court not to accept the arguments of the accuser on a prima facie basis. In cases built upon red light camera evidence, the accused still possess that right, even if that takes a slightly different form due to the testimonial nature of the evidence. 

However, given that—in New York State—the maximum punishment for such an offense is 50 dollars and 0 points on your driving record, some people choose not to fight the charge and plead guilty. A guilty plea for the sake of ease concerns as the charged individual has accepted guilt for an action because it is easier to pay the modest fine rather than to fight the charge and follow the steps to ensure they can cross-examine the party responsible for the maintenance of the red-light camera. This claim of a party accepting guilt because of the perception that a court will not be able to find them to be not guilty leads perfectly into the second constitutional concern.

2. 5th Amendment, Due Process Grounds– One of the bedrock principles of the American judicial system is that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. This principle encourages the jury to be open-minded throughout a trial, ultimately becoming the final arbiter of what is and not the truth. The courts have upheld the jury’s truth-finding responsibility in numerous ways; the one specific instance of this is the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Scheffer (1998). In that case, the court held that polygraph evidence could not be admitted into evidence because it challenged the jury’s position as the final arbiter of truth.

There is an argument that red-light cameras do indeed challenge the “innocent until proven guilty” principle. This argument is not the strongest, as the court does not ban other forms of justly collected photographic evidence that may be quite damning. However, those who believe that red-light cameras do violate this principle point to the fact that, if this evidence were to be admitted, an individual’s guilt is assumed based on the prima facie basis due to the damning photo. This assumption is not the same when a police officer makes a traffic stop, and it is reviewed in court. While an officer’s testimony is respected in a court, it is not objectionable to question them; that is the accused right. In other words, it is not accepted on that same prima facie basis as the truth. For this reason, many people do not challenge these violations, opting to pay the modest fine.

While this may not be the largest issue when faced with a modest fine, new legislation passed in New York City threatens to place stiffer penalties onto repeat red-light camera offenders. The new city law titled “A Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to a creating a dangerous vehicle abatement program” states that if a car accrued five or more red-light camera violations within twelve months, the owner must attend a training class offered by the Department of Transportation or their vehicle will be impounded. This law represents a significant escalation in punishments. It leaves the accused wondering how they could prove their innocence in the courts—in order to retain their ability to drive—when faced with red-light camera evidence, rather than the court trying to prove their guilt.

With all this in mind, there are indeed issues with red-light cameras and the evidence they produce. On the one hand, there appears to be case law claiming that the pictures alone are not allowed to be introduced as evidence. This development would force the state to produce the officer who reviewed the footage or the technician who collected the footage from the camera, along with the photos themselves, to fulfill a citizens’ 6th Amendment right to question their accuser. On the other hand, some believe that the mere introduction of the photos is unduly prejudicial—much like a polygraph—and interferes with the principle that the accused is innocent until proven otherwise.

Since the evidence above illustrates that both of these claims have some degree of merit, one could reasonably assert that the use of red-light cameras is an unjust way of collecting evidence. While these cameras may be effective—as stated earlier—that is only one of many considerations. The fact that these photographs force the accused to prove their innocence instead of the court having to prove their guilt illustrates their prejudicial nature. While catching guilty parties is important, it is equally important that it is done in the right way. For red light cameras to become a just method of collecting evidence, the state must accept that further remedies are necessary to alleviate some of the constitutional issues that they may arise.