NASHVILLE -- Tennessee lawmakers legally can require that contracts between cities and traffic-camera surveillance companies comply with future statutory changes, but any changes must be viewed as "reasonable," State Attorney General Bob Cooper said in a new legal opinion.
"The General Assembly may constitutionally require that, as a condition to contracting with a state agency or a political subdivision ... (camera vendors) must agree to incorporate into any such contracts any subsequently enacted changes to that statute," states the opinion, requested by Rep. Vince Dean, R-East Ridge.
But the opinion also cautions "any terms that are incorporated into an existing contract due to statutory changes must be reasonable. A court would be unlikely to permit enforcement of completely unforeseeable and/or unreasonable terms inserted into an existing contract, and such terms would be subject to an attack on the basis of unconscionability."
State lawmakers are considering reining in cities' use of traffic cameras, contending local officials and companies are more interested in making money off motorists' fines than promoting safety.
Then, Red Bank officials angered many lawmakers when the city dodged anticipated restrictions by rushing into a 12-year contract extension with its camera vendor, American Traffic Solutions.
Fearful other cities would follow suit before comprehensive changes are enacted, Rep. Phillip Johnson, R-Pegram, proposed lawmakers fast-track a new law requiring cities and vendors to comply with any forthcoming regulatory changes they consider in separate legislation.
Rep. Dean, a former Chattanooga police officer and one-time East Ridge mayor, said he requested the opinion to see if Rep. Johnson's bill would be constitutional. Rep. Dean, who favors some restrictions on cities but fears the legislature may go too far, said Mr. Cooper's answer doesn't appear very clear.
"I'm not sure what reasonable means," Rep. Dean said. "I know what reasonable is to me, but I don't know what it is to someone else who's interpreting it."
It was unclear what impact it might have on Rep. Johnson's intention to move forward. Meanwhile, the comprehensive bill outlining statewide standards on use of traffic cameras remains on hold until April 1.
House Transportation Committee Chairman Bill Harmon, D-Dunlap, recently directed cities and law enforcement to propose standards and rules, saying he would hold off on pushing reforms -- including a total ban on cameras -- until the April 1 deadline.
Andy Sher is a Nashville-based staff writer covering Tennessee state government and politics for the Times Free Press. A Washington correspondent from 1999-2005 for the Times Free Press, Andy previously headed up state Capitol coverage for The Chattanooga Times, worked as a state Capitol reporter for The Nashville Banner and was a contributor to The Tennessee Journal, among other publications. Andy worked for 17 years at The Chattanooga Times covering police, health care, county government, ...
Just ban the *@&% things and be done with it. They violate due process of law and presume the vehicle owner guilty until proven innocent. There is no "reasonable" motivation for doing that to American citizens.
I disagree with citing motorists by traffic cameras In Red Bank because of the way they are running the program. When you get cited by a traffic camera (at least in Red Bank), the "citation" is sent to you as an invoice on 8 1/2 X 11 letterhead. They are sending you a civil invoice for a "criminal" offense... even though the constitution doesn't allow it to be declared as a criminal offense since there wasn't an officer present to witness the event. If the cameras were constitutional, they would be able to cite you as a criminal for the offense. I suppose that's why if you don't pay it, they DON'T PURSUE YOU ON IT.
There are no points added to your license, and there will be no warrants issued or debt collectors alerted. That in itself proves that they are interested in making money. Oh, and don't forget that all of the procedes in that town are supposed to go to driver's ed. at Red Bank High, but guess what; they have already violated that part of the deal. If they really cared about peoples' saftey, they would have found a way to cite us as criminals. I believe it is deceitful for the police to try to make the citizens feel like they are required, by law, to pay the ticket. There aren't any disclaimers on your invoice indicating that they cannot require you to pay for the offense. No, they just sit behind their shields and expect us to pay out of fear of reprisal, of which there will be none.
In all honesty I prefer the cameras on the roads. Just learn to drive the limit and you never notice them. Keeps some of the crazies on the road in line.
I could'nt care less if you drive 100mph, or run every red light you come to. I have my eyes out and my head on a swivel, you will not take me by surprise.
Most modern law is in place to generate revenue, and instill complacent citizens with a false sense of security. A police officer is nothing more than a janitor with transportation ready to clean up the mess made by a home invasion or a traffice accident, and probably do some complaining about how hard it is. Most any time a police officer is more than that, it is in connection with a "victim-less crime" like speeding or thinking left when the law insists that you think right. "oops I cought you! that'l be fifty bucks sir"
When I am on the road, at the bar, riding my bike, or partaking in any activity that a living person may, I do not rely on the "law" to keep me safe. When you pull out into an intersction trusting the law to keep you safe, there is a very good chance that you will die eventually due to your complacent "passenger" method of drifting through life. The moral? USE YOUR SENSES TO SURVIVE! If with every passing generation, we rely more and more on decisions of the people around us and not our own, than we give the theory of devolution legitimate teeth.
Alright, good talk. Go have fun and be careful.
Or login with:
New Account