Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council schedules public hearing on automated traffic enforcement ordinance after first reading
Summary
Council held a first reading of an ordinance to permit automated traffic enforcement safety devices (speed and red-light cameras) in school and pedestrian safety zones, set a public hearing for Oct. 27 and discussed privacy, vendor selection and enforcement limits.
Get email alerts on the Traffic Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The West Haven City Council’s legislative matters committee conducted a first reading of an ordinance to permit automated traffic enforcement safety devices (ATESDs)—commonly described as speed and red-light cameras—in school zones, pedestrian safety zones and other designated high-risk areas.
Attorney Paul Dorsey summarized the ordinance and its legal framework: the city would use ATESDs only where enabled by state law (the enabling statute cited in the discussion), impose civil penalties of $50 for a first offense and $75 for a subsequent offense within one year, and limit the devices’ recorded information to evidence of the two enumerated offenses (speeding set at 10 mph over the posted limit and failure to stop at a solid red light). Dorsey said locations must be approved following a public hearing before the Board of Police Commissioners and by the Connecticut Department of Transportation; the statute also restricts the use and disclosure of recorded images and personal information and requires procedures for hearings and appeals to Superior Court.
Committee members raised a range of questions: how vendors will be selected (competitive bid), how the system will operate and retain data (Dorsey said a vendor will store data but the statute limits city use; the police department reviews alleged violations), whether recordings could be used for other investigations (the ordinance and enabling statute severely restrict use as evidence in other matters), enforcement of unpaid citations and whether out-of‑town drivers can be reached. Council members also raised equity and privacy concerns and asked for a police department representative to provide technical details on camera operation, placement criteria and data-handling practices at a future meeting.
The committee voted to set a public hearing on the proposed ordinance for Oct. 27 at 6:55 p.m. to collect public comment before any adoption steps.

