Iowa Supreme Court hears Davenport traffic camera case

Font Size:

By Tory Brecht and Amy Lorentzen | Tuesday, March 11, 2008 |

Traffic along the 3300 block of Division St. in Davenport had a speed camera on them as they go by Northwest Park before they were turned off pending a court ruling. (FILE PHOTO) Buy this Photo

An Iowa Supreme Court Justice questioned whether Davenport’s automated traffic enforcement program was more about revenue than public safety during oral arguments on the first of two cases before the court dealing with the city’s traffic cameras.

Justice David Wiggins asked attorney Craig Levien — who is representing Davenport — whether the purpose of the state’s traffic law is to protect the public and remove unsafe drivers from the road.

“This doesn’t do this. This just brings some revenue to the city of Davenport, but there’s no way to remove these drivers from the street,” Wiggins said. “You could have a guy on your street do it 12 times and that person will still be doing so. How is that consistent with the stated purpose of our traffic laws?”

The justices were reviewing the case of Thomas Seymour, who challenged the use of the cameras after his vehicle was photographed going 49 mph in a 35-mph zone in March 2006. Seymour, who received the $60 ticket in the mail, claimed he was denied his right to due process.

Both the Seymour case and a class-action lawsuit initiated by Monique Rhoden of Rock Island, Ill. — which will be heard by the court on April 29 — center on whether Davenport’s camera ordinance conflicts with state motor vehicle law.

The Seymour case was taken up by the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, which filed a motion to dismiss the ticket. A Scott County judge rejected the group’s arguments and so did an appeals court judge, prompting the ACLU to seek Supreme Court review.

During his questioning, Wiggins also asked why the city didn’t purchase a camera system that would photograph the vehicle as well as its driver.

Levien argued that the city’s civil ordinance is a consistent supplement to the state’s criminal traffic violations system.

“It’s a joint, shared use of the police power, which under the ... constitution is permitted,” he said.

Davenport’s ordinance works in conjunction with the state statute and is designed to do the same thing — make people obey the speed limit and make people stop at a red light, Levien said after the hearing ended.

Rhoden successfully challenged the legality of Davenport’s ordinance in district court, and she won a ruling from District Judge Gary McKenrick to make her case a class-action lawsuit.

Rhoden’s attorney, Cathy Zamora Cartee, said a motion to consolidate the cases — based on both calling into question whether the municipal ordinance is in conflict with state law — was denied. However, both she and Levien, said it’s likely the court will wait to issue a ruling on either case until both are argued before the justices.

ACLU lawyer Michael McCarthy argued Tuesday that the state constitution does not give the city authority to issue such fines and that the cameras and the subsequent issuing of tickets denied people the right to face their accusers.

McCarthy said state code requires that people who run red lights be issued criminal citations, but the city of Davenport treats the citations issued to people caught on camera as a civil matter.

“They’ve taken this and turned it around and just created this different regulatory scheme,” McCarthy said.

McCarthy said it is inconsistent with state law for the city to issue tickets to the vehicle’s owner, not the driver.

“It puts the burden on the owner instead of the driver, and that’s the inconsistency,” McCarthy told the justices. “The city has no evidence that (Seymour) was the driver of the vehicle” at the time of the violation.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case during a special session at the Drake University Law School.

Steve Davis, the court’s communications officer, said rulings usually follow three to four months after oral arguments.

Davenport City Administrator Craig Malin said if the city is successful in court, it will re-evaluate the camera program before putting it back online.

“I imagine the City Council will revisit some aspects of the program, such as location of cameras and the threshold of speed enforcement,” he said. “We started this for public safety reasons, and they clearly were being successful.”

(Amy Lorentzen of the Associated Press contributed to this story.)

Tory Brecht can be contacted at (563) 383-2329 or tbrecht@qctimes.com.

What’s next?

A second case involving Davenport’s speed and red-light cameras, a class-action suit initiated by Monique Rhoden, will be heard by Iowa Supreme Court justices on April 29.