Iowa Supreme Court rules speed cameras constitutional

In a blow to motorists wanting to get rid of speed cameras in Iowa, the state’s Supreme Court recently ruled that speed enforcement via cameras does not violate due process. The decision puts an end to a class action lawsuit filed against Cedar Rapids.

In August 2018, the high court ruled on three traffic camera lawsuits, mostly in favor of the city. However, one case, Behm v. Cedar Rapids, was sent back to the lower court because of the city’s collection procedure, stating it did not conform to state law. On Jan. 25, that case made its way back to the Iowa Supreme Court. This time around, the city received a full victory.

Nearly 10 years ago, Cedar Rapids passed an ordinance authorizing the city to establish an “automated traffic enforcement system” and install speed cameras.

In 2015, six motorists received a notice of violation earlier that same year for an alleged speeding violation on Interstate 380. All six drivers contested the charges with the administrative appeals board, claiming noncompliant camera sites and constitutional questions regarding the city’s failure to prove who was driving and the failure of the city to allow drivers to face and question the accuser. The six drivers filed a joint lawsuit after all six appeals were rejected.

The district court ended up granting the city’s motion to dismiss.

Regarding the suppression of some license plates, the Iowa Supreme Court determined that the “minor degree of under-inclusiveness” does not sufficiently consider the ordinance unconstitutional under the due process, equal protection and privileges and immunities clauses.

Considering the question of due process, the Iowa Supreme Court used the “shock-the-conscience” test. The court recognized that the cameras are considered by many to be a speed trap, but the court found nothing egregious about the cameras.

“While we respectfully acknowledge these concerns, this case involves traffic citations with small fines, not the pumping of a resisting person’s stomach,” the court wrote. LL