Minnesota Supreme Court
Howard Bass; Bass and Peck, LLC
Photo Cop BackgroundACLU-MN volunteer attorneys Howard Bass and Chad Fancher filed a motion in early December 2005 seeking the courts opinion on the legality of the photo cop ordinance. This ordinance gave the authority for cameras to be installed at intersections that would issue tickets to motorists who ran a red light. The motion was filed on behalf of an individual who received a citation because his vehicle was alleged to have violated the ordinance. "This ordinance presumes that the owner of a vehicle that is photographed is guilty and then puts the burden on the owner to prove that he or she was not the driver," said ACLU-MN Executive Director Chuck Samuelson. "It turns the notion of Due Process on its head." In its brief, ACLU-MN argued that in Minnesota petty misdemeanor prosecutions, the prosecutor has the burden of proof to show that an individual is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The Minneapolis ordinance relieves the prosecutor from the burden to prove that the owner was actually the driver of the vehicle that was photographed going through the red light. In addition, State law prohibits local traffic regulations from being in conflict with state law. The Minneapolis ordinance conflicts with state law because it shifts liability for traffic light violations from the driver to the owner. During the 2001 and 2003 Legislative Sessions, the Minnesota Legislature considered and rejected bills that would have allowed local governments to use automated cameras to enforce traffic regulations. Timeline of EventsSpring 2006 Hennepin County District Court Judge Mark Wernick invalidated a Minneapolis ordinance permitting the use of cameras to catch traffic violations, agreeing with the position presented by the Minnesota affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union that the ordinance stood in violation of state law. Summer 2006 Attorneys for the City of Minneapolis asked the Court of Appeals to overturn the district court decision that invalidated the Minneapolis "Photo Cop" ordinance. The ordinance allows for photographic enforcement of red light violations. The City of Minneapolis appealed their decision. Fall 2006 The Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the District Court's ruling invalidating the Minneapolis "Photo Cop" ordinance. the City of Minneapolis appealed their decision December 2006 the Courts granted the State of Minnesota's petition for review of the earlier decision of the Court of Appeals. The earlier decision had agreed with the position presented by the ACLU of Minnesota that the photo cop ordinance stood in violation of state law. March 2007 The ACLU of Minnesota with volunteer attorney Howard Bass argued their case against the City of Minneapolis in the Minnesota State Supreme Court. A decision is expected in a few months. Updates In April 2007 the Minnesota Supreme Court joined the Hennepin County District Court and the Minnesota Court of Appeals by ruling that Minneapolis' Photo Cop ordinance conflicts with the state law. It conflicts with the state law because it violates the requirement that Minnesota traffic regulations be uniform; and it reduces the state's burden of proof in prosecuting red light violations. If you recieved a photo cop ticket and would like to reopen the case you can visit the courts' website and fill out a form to reopen your case. You can read this news release at "Minnesota Supreme Court Strikes Down Photo Cop"
Legal Documents
Decisions
|
