Red Light Camera Suit Overturned

Red Light Camera Suit Overturned

Posted in the Carondelet Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Today in Arnold

Columbus, OH

#1 Nov 5, 2013
This is relevant to the City of Arnold

http://www.scribd.com/doc/181777171/Ellisvill...

Letusnamenames

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#2 Nov 5, 2013
Today in Arnold wrote:
This is relevant to the City of Arnold

http://www.scribd.com/doc/181777171/Ellisvill...
Wow, a real link with proof. See, it wasn't that hard, was it? Now maybe you can post the rest of your proof for all of Arnold to see.
DSH

Saint Louis, MO

#3 Nov 5, 2013
Missouri Appellate Court Rejects Challenges to Red-Light Safety Cameras
June 11th, 2013

SCOTTSDALE, AZ – Today’s ruling by the Missouri Court of Appeals of Eastern Missouri upholds the constitutionality of red-light safety camera programs, and affirms the City of St. Louis’ authority to regulate traffic safety as an appropriate function of the city’s police power.

The court’s decision aligns with an expanding list of rulings from federal and state courts in Missouri and across the country that find red-light safety camera programs and their enabling legislation to be constitutional.

“This ruling is consistent with prior rulings from the Missouri Court of Appeals, the Federal District Court of the Eastern District of Missouri and numerous state and Federal court rulings from across the country,” said George Hittner, ATS General Counsel and Vice President of Government Relations.“Plaintiff’s attorneys should stop filing frivolous lawsuits and instead ask their clients to obey traffic laws.”

“Today’s rulings and the ones which have come before leave no doubt,” adds Mr. Hittner,“red-light safety cameras operate in full compliance of the law for the benefit of everyone using the streets in St. Louis and communities across the country. It’s time for the critics to abandon their silly sideshow and instead recognize the legal standing and safety benefits of red-light safety cameras.”

Among the many notable court rulings that affirm the use of red-light cameras in Missouri, two decisions stand out. One is the 2009 federal ruling that found the city of Arnold’s red-light safety camera ordinance to be both legal and constitutional (see Kilper et. al. v. City of Arnold, Missouri, et al., 2009). The other, from the Eastern District Missouri Court of Appeals, upheld the city of Creve Coeur’s red-light safety camera program that treated the violation as a civil penalty and issued tickets to vehicle owners. The ruling found the city’s ordinance and program fulfilled all constitutional due process requirements (see Nottebrok v. City of Creve Coeur, Missouri, et al., 2011). Along with these significant cases, judges also struck down five class action lawsuits against red-light cameras in Missouri in 2012.

On the federal level, court rulings from the 5th, 6th, 7th and 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals further validate the legality of red-light safety cameras.

In Idris v. the City of Chicago, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the city’s practice of issuing red-light running citations to vehicle owners instead of vehicle drivers. In the same 2009 decision, the appeals court ruled that cameras did not violate a person’s constitutional due process rights because “no one has a fundamental right to run a red light or avoid being seen by a camera on a public street.”

A year later, in 2010, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s decision in finding that Akron, Ohio’s speed camera program fulfilled the due process protections provided by the Constitution. The court wrote:“As the district court found, the ordinance provides for notice of the citation, an opportunity for a hearing, provision for a record of the hearing decision, and the right to appeal an adverse decision. We agree with the district court that the ordinance and its implementation, as detailed in the stipulations, satisfy due process.”

Missouri’s first red-light safety camera program started in Arnold in 2005. Currently, more than 500 cities and counties in the United States use these camera programs. Rigorous independent studies show red-light safety cameras effectively reduce dangerous right-angle intersection collisions by changing driver behavior.

http://www.atsol.com/missouri-appellate-court...
Suzy Q

United States

#4 Nov 5, 2013
Letusnamenames wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, a real link with proof. See, it wasn't that hard, was it? Now maybe you can post the rest of your proof for all of Arnold to see.
What a sarcastic ass you are.
Today in Arnold

Columbus, OH

#5 Nov 5, 2013
DSH wrote:
Missouri Appellate Court Rejects Challenges to Red-Light Safety Cameras
June 11th, 2013
SCOTTSDALE, AZ – Today’s ruling by the Missouri Court of Appeals of Eastern Missouri upholds the constitutionality of red-light safety camera programs, and affirms the City of St. Louis’ authority to regulate traffic safety as an appropriate function of the city’s police power.......
“This ruling is consistent with prior rulings from the Missouri Court of Appeals, the Federal District Court of the Eastern District of Missouri and numerous state and Federal court rulings from across the country,” said George Hittner, ATS General Counsel and Vice President of Government Relations.“Plaintiff’s attorneys should stop filing frivolous lawsuits and instead ask their clients to obey traffic laws.”
“Today’s rulings and the ones which have come before leave no doubt,” adds Mr. Hittner,“red-light safety cameras operate in full compliance of the law for the benefit of everyone using the streets in St. Louis and communities across the country. It’s time for the critics to abandon their silly sideshow and instead recognize the legal standing and safety benefits of red-light safety cameras.”
Among the many notable court rulings that affirm the use of red-light cameras in Missouri, two decisions stand out. One is the 2009 federal ruling that found the city of Arnold’s red-light safety camera ordinance to be both legal and constitutional (see Kilper et. al. v. City of Arnold, Missouri, et al., 2009). The other, from the Eastern District Missouri Court of Appeals, upheld the city of Creve Coeur’s red-light safety camera program that treated the violation as a civil penalty and issued tickets to vehicle owners. The ruling found the city’s ordinance and program fulfilled all constitutional due process requirements (see Nottebrok v. City of Creve Coeur, Missouri, et al., 2011). Along with these significant cases, judges also struck down five class action lawsuits against red-light cameras in Missouri in 2012.
On the federal level, court rulings from the 5th, 6th, 7th and 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals further validate the legality of red-light safety cameras.
In Idris v. the City of Chicago, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the city’s practice of issuing red-light running citations to vehicle owners instead of vehicle drivers. In the same 2009 decision, the appeals court ruled that cameras did not violate a person’s constitutional due process rights because “no one has a fundamental right to run a red light or avoid being seen by a camera on a public street.”
A year later, in 2010, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s decision in finding that Akron, Ohio’s speed camera program fulfilled the due process protections provided by the Constitution. The court wrote:“As the district court found, the ordinance provides for notice of the citation, an opportunity for a hearing, provision for a record of the hearing decision, and the right to appeal an adverse decision. We agree with the district court that the ordinance and its implementation, as detailed in the stipulations, satisfy due process.”
Missouri’s first red-light safety camera program started in Arnold in 2005. Currently, more than 500 cities and counties in the United States use these camera programs. Rigorous independent studies show red-light safety cameras effectively reduce dangerous right-angle intersection collisions by changing driver behavior.
http://www.atsol.com/missouri-appellate-court...
Why did you post the above? If you read the decision from the link posted, you will see that it is from TODAY. It specifically states the municipal law regarding red light cameras runs afoul of Missouri State statutes and that makes it void and unenforceable.
DSH

Arnold, MO

#6 Nov 5, 2013
Because if you read, all those decisions, including the one from earlier this year, were handed down by higher courts. What you have is one judge, in one court, with a personal agenda, ignoring 4 years of precedent. You are quick to post precedent when it supports your cause, yet shoot it down when it doesn't. You can't have it both ways. Did you read the very first sentences?

"Today’s ruling by the Missouri Court of Appeals of Eastern Missouri upholds the constitutionality of red-light safety camera programs, and affirms the City of St. Louis’ authority to regulate traffic safety as an appropriate function of the city’s police power."

That is a higher court.

And note, the class action lawsuits brought against Arnold time and again were dismissed WITH PREJUDICE.
RZA

Fenton, MO

#7 Nov 5, 2013
DSH wrote:
Because if you read, all those decisions, including the one from earlier this year, were handed down by higher courts. What you have is one judge, in one court, with a personal agenda, ignoring 4 years of precedent. You are quick to post precedent when it supports your cause, yet shoot it down when it doesn't. You can't have it both ways. Did you read the very first sentences?
"Today’s ruling by the Missouri Court of Appeals of Eastern Missouri upholds the constitutionality of red-light safety camera programs, and affirms the City of St. Louis’ authority to regulate traffic safety as an appropriate function of the city’s police power."
That is a higher court.
And note, the class action lawsuits brought against Arnold time and again were dismissed WITH PREJUDICE.
The opinion issued today was from the Eastern District Court of Appeals, the only higher court in the state is the Missouri Supreme Court. You might benefit from reading the opinion from today.
DSH

Arnold, MO

#9 Nov 5, 2013
Ok, I have to apologize....I didn't realize there were two rulings going on. A City of St. Louis judge ruled against the City on a Red Light ticket. I totally misread this topic.
DSH

Arnold, MO

#10 Nov 5, 2013
It's interesting that the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District overturned their own previous decisions. It'll be interesting to see what the U.S. Court of Appeals says. Federal Courts very rarely overturn their decisions.
RZA

Fenton, MO

#11 Nov 5, 2013
DSH wrote:
It's interesting that the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District overturned their own previous decisions. It'll be interesting to see what the U.S. Court of Appeals says. Federal Courts very rarely overturn their decisions.
That is not how it works. The Mo Court of Appeals voided the ordinance based on conflicts with Missouri Law. Next stop is the Missouri Supreme Court if ATS wants to appeal, and the Missouri Supreme Court decides to hear the case on appeal.

State Courts settle state issues, Federal Courts settle Federal matters, they do not transfer from State Appellate to Federal Appellate courts, they systems are separate.
DSH

Saint Louis, MO

#12 Nov 6, 2013
Then how would a case ever, ever get to the Supreme Court?

Oh, and here ya go....

"...2009 FEDERAL ruling that found the city of Arnold’s red-light safety camera ordinance to be both legal and constitutional (see Kilper et. al. v. City of Arnold, Missouri, et al., 2009)."

"In Idris v. the City of Chicago, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the city’s practice of issuing red-light running citations to vehicle owners instead of vehicle drivers. In the same 2009 decision, the appeals court ruled that cameras did not violate a person’s constitutional due process rights because “no one has a fundamental right to run a red light or avoid being seen by a camera on a public street.”"
Today in Arnold

Columbus, OH

#13 Nov 6, 2013
The federal judge ruled on the federal RICO complaints and dismissed the complaints that were state related, those were not addressed.
RZA

Fenton, MO

#14 Nov 6, 2013
DSH wrote:
Then how would a case ever, ever get to the Supreme Court?
Oh, and here ya go....
"...2009 FEDERAL ruling that found the city of Arnold’s red-light safety camera ordinance to be both legal and constitutional (see Kilper et. al. v. City of Arnold, Missouri, et al., 2009)."
"In Idris v. the City of Chicago, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the city’s practice of issuing red-light running citations to vehicle owners instead of vehicle drivers. In the same 2009 decision, the appeals court ruled that cameras did not violate a person’s constitutional due process rights because “no one has a fundamental right to run a red light or avoid being seen by a camera on a public street.”"
Because the Kilper case alleged civil conspiracy under 1983, which is a Federal Law, hence the case was heard in Federal Court. Easterbrook stated that there were a myriad of State issues, but that because there was no standing Federal issue, he dismissed the case, telling the plaintiffs to refile in State Court over the claims.

The Ellisville case did not allege any Federal issues. It was based solely on conflicts with the Missouri Statutes and the Missouri Constitution, thus there is no Federal issue, so this will not ever go to Federal Court. I do you not think you quote understand the relationship between the State Court and Federal Court systems.
Spotting Farces

Columbus, OH

#15 Nov 6, 2013
The Post weighs in. Does anyone have the current stats for the City of Arnold? The red light camera was never re-installed at Astra Way and 141. Guess it wasn't generating enough revenue to keep it up after the yellow light was extended and the flashing yellow warning light was installed to let drivers know the light was going to change. Seems that is what made this intersection a lot safer for citizens.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-...

Letusnamenames

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#16 Nov 6, 2013
Spotting Farces wrote:
The Post weighs in. Does anyone have the current stats for the City of Arnold? The red light camera was never re-installed at Astra Way and 141. Guess it wasn't generating enough revenue to keep it up after the yellow light was extended and the flashing yellow warning light was installed to let drivers know the light was going to change. Seems that is what made this intersection a lot safer for citizens.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-...
The City will probably credit the round about that is not even at that intersection. Lol.
delete yourself

Tulsa, OK

#17 Nov 6, 2013
DSH wrote:
Because if you read, all those decisions, including the one from earlier this year, were handed down by higher courts. What you have is one judge, in one court, with a personal agenda, ignoring 4 years of precedent. You are quick to post precedent when it supports your cause, yet shoot it down when it doesn't. You can't have it both ways. Did you read the very first sentences?
"Today’s ruling by the Missouri Court of Appeals of Eastern Missouri upholds the constitutionality of red-light safety camera programs, and affirms the City of St. Louis’ authority to regulate traffic safety as an appropriate function of the city’s police power."
That is a higher court.
And note, the class action lawsuits brought against Arnold time and again were dismissed WITH PREJUDICE.
Most of the folks here are well aware of that cat leash nutball venable and why he rallied for the ridiclous scamares in front of rockport in the first place. The redlights were turned on for approx. 45 min twice a day on a four lane hwy. Like him The whole damn thing was farce!
Now the problem is the city is dependent on the revenue.
I can't wait till they are taken out and the city actually has to really budget.
RZA

Fenton, MO

#18 Nov 6, 2013
When is Arnold ending their illegal program? KC halted theirs today. They were able to read the writing on the wall. http://www.kansascity.com/2013/11/06/4602214/...

Letusnamenames

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#19 Nov 7, 2013
delete yourself wrote:
<quoted text>Most of the folks here are well aware of that cat leash nutball venable and why he rallied for the ridiclous scamares in front of rockport in the first place. The redlights were turned on for approx. 45 min twice a day on a four lane hwy. Like him The whole damn thing was farce!
Now the problem is the city is dependent on the revenue.
I can't wait till they are taken out and the city actually has to really budget.
And exactly how much did Arnold make off of them last year? Can you even answer that question?
Spotting Farces

Columbus, OH

#20 Nov 7, 2013
There are no financial statements or the budgets from 2012 or 2013 on the City of Arnold website.

Letusnamenames

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#21 Nov 7, 2013
Spotting Farces wrote:
There are no financial statements or the budgets from 2012 or 2013 on the City of Arnold website.
Then how can you claim they are a cash cow still? You have no figures to go on. Did you get them through a Sunshine Request? In other words, do you even have the numbers? You have no financial statements yet you try to claim the City hasn't budgeted for the loss of revenue and you can't prove it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Carondelet Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Jefferson County Allows Child Abuse! (Nov '12) Fri victim 9
Is fenton a racist city Fri not here 5
Three Black ladies harrased at Toys R Us (Dec '15) Jul 27 Colby Raines 6
Trolling for losers on Topix (Dec '15) Jul 26 captain schmuck 2
Fox C6 Board of Education : Discussion (Jun '14) Jul 23 Just Saying 1,480
News Chick-fil-A Turned Away (Mar '11) Jul 22 Back Again 29
Water Tower Dental Group Jul 18 angel 8

Carondelet Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Carondelet Mortgages