Bob Barr

Lawful Frown on Red-light Cash Cows
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
February 21, 2007

With so many of those operating under the Gold Dome on the prowl constantly for things to regulate and limit—smoking, drinking, driving, even photography—it's nice to see some of our legislators taking the lead in trying to un-regulate and disempower our state government. That's just what state Reps. Barry Loudermilk (R-Cassville) and Bobby Franklin (R-Marietta) are doing.

The target of legislation being championed by Loudermilk, Franklin and a group of their colleagues in the Georgia House is the red-light cameras that have become cash cows for Marietta, Duluth, Alpharetta, Atlanta and elsewhere in the metro area and beyond. The legislators are attacking the scourge of intersection surveillance cameras on all fronts, and their efforts are bearing fruit, at least on the public relations front.

A recent story in USA Today led off with a reference to and quotes by Loudermilk. In fact, Loudermilk is right on the money in attacking the issue of traffic surveillance cameras on legal and policy grounds, rather than rely simply on conflicting studies of whether they cause certain types of accidents (they do) or prevent certain other types of accidents (they may).

Ever since governments in the United States began emulating our Big Government brethren across the Atlantic in Great Britain—which pioneered the extensive use of surveillance cameras to monitor planes, trains, automobiles and people—the debate has raged. Are ubiquitous surveillance cameras consistent with the constitutional right to privacy embodied in our Bill of Rights, and does their prevalence reflect good public policy?

The manner in which local governments have chosen to employ what have accurately been labeled "cash machines" has caused at least one state attorney general—in Michigan—recently to declare their use unlawful. Legislatures in other states such as Virginia have chosen to curtail their deployment after a trial period; Florida, New Jersey and Wisconsin have simply said "no" to their deployment.

Since Georgia hopped on the red-light surveillance camera bandwagon in 2001, millions of dollars have flowed into the coffers of those municipalities that have chosen to go the surveillance route. The windfall has been used to fund sidewalk beautification in Rome, though more often the dollars generated by the camera-based tickets are used to bolster general revenues for local governments. Of all the traffic-surveillance municipalities in Georgia, Marietta far outpaces its sister cities in revenues thus generated—nearly $4.5 million, compared to Duluth, which has taken in about $2 million to claim second place in the red-light camera sweepstakes. In fact, budgets of Atlanta-area municipalities have ballooned some $12 million in just the past couple of years thanks to the cameras.

Loudermilk, Franklin and their colleagues who believe that simply because something makes money for the government does not mean it reflects good policy or is consistent with our Bill of Rights, are fighting back aggressively. They have marshaled an impressive array of statistical, policy and legal analysis to show:

- At best, red-light surveillance cameras cause as many accidents as they might prevent.

- Many jurisdictions locate cameras based on traffic flow in order to maximize income.

- Permitting governments to outsource law enforcement—at great profit to private companies—raises important legal and policy issues itself.

- Placing the burden of proving innocence on the accused registered owner to establish they were not driving their vehicle "caught on tape," violates principles of fairness, equal protection, due process and other fundamental constitutional rights that used to be important to lawmakers in this country.

- Some Georgia jurisdictions now using the cameras are not following the requirements the state law places on them.

Regardless of whether he and his colleagues will succeed this session in passing legislation to end the Faustian bargain of red-light surveillance cameras, Loudermilk says he intends to continue beating the drum on the matter and working to develop support.

By the way, have you noticed the video cameras that have been springing up on utility poles to cover virtually every inch of asphalt on most interstate highways in the state and at many intersections? Government officials assure us these are used solely to monitor traffic flows and trigger green lights. Will every motorist who believes that is or will always be the case, please raise their hands?

Bob Barr occupies the 21st Century Liberties Chair for Freedom and Privacy at the American Conservative Union Foundation.