St. Cloud special magistrate upholds multiple school‑zone speed‑camera citations; fines and payment schedules set

Special Magistrate Drew Smith upheld about 10 school‑zone speed‑camera citations at a City of St. Cloud hearing, ordering the standard $100 citation plus $89.49 in administrative costs for each case and setting payment deadlines.

The rulings affect drivers captured by automated school‑zone cameras in multiple locations on Michigan Avenue, Buettinger Avenue and other streets. In several cases in which the defendant or a representative appeared, Smith allowed extended payment time; in other cases he ordered payment within 30 days.

The decisions came after testimony from St. Cloud Police Department traffic officers who presented photos, video, camera logs and radar calibration certificates. Captain Ed Matteo, Sergeant Collier and other traffic unit officers described each capture, the recorded speed and the active school‑zone signal at the time of the violation. Investigator Hostler testified that the camera captured a vehicle traveling 28 miles per hour in a 15‑mph school zone in one case and provided a photographic and video record.

Drew Smith, the hearing officer, explained the process and the standard of review, then issued rulings after hearing arguments and reviewing the evidence. “I will find in favor of the city,” Smith said repeatedly when he concluded the evidence supported the city’s position. In one case in which the registered owner appeared and said a different household member had driven the car, Smith explained the statutory process for identifying an alternate driver and said that absent completion of that process he would hold the registered owner responsible.

Votes at a glance

- Notice 3829 — Defendant: Mitchell Daniel Alba (represented by Christopher Alba). Ruling: citation upheld (driving 28 mph in a 15 mph zone). Amount: $100 citation + $89.49 administrative costs = $189.49. Payment: allowed 90 days. Note: representative said the vehicle was driven by the owner’s father; magistrate described statutory process to transfer responsibility.

- Notice 7606 — Defendant: Mitchell Daniel Alba. Ruling: citation upheld (31 mph in 15 mph zone). Amount: $189.49. Payment: allowed 90 days.

- Notice 12200 — Defendant: Carlos Eduardo Correia Rodriguez (absent). Ruling: citation upheld (reported 36 mph in a 25 mph zone). Amount: $189.49. Payment: ordered within 30 days.

- Notices 2458, 202490, 4835, 7069, 8257 — Defendant: Matthew George Marshall (teacher; appeared). Ruling: all citations upheld (speeds recorded between 28–32 mph in 15 mph school zones). Amount per case: $100 + $89.49 administrative costs = $189.49. Payment: magistrate made all five payable within 90 days and discussed staggered payment options; defendant accepted 90 days.

- Notice 15427 — Defendant: John Caleb Potter (absent). Ruling: citation upheld (27 mph in 15 mph zone). Amount: $189.49. Payment: ordered within 30 days.

- Notice 13471 — Defendant: Gary Valente (appeared). Ruling: citation upheld (28 mph in 15 mph zone). Amount: $189.49. Payment: allowed 90 days. Magistrate reiterated that the registered owner may complete a statutorily prescribed affidavit to identify the actual operator if someone else was driving.

Why it matters

The magistrate’s decisions finalize the administrative outcomes for drivers cited by the city’s automated school‑zone cameras. Each upheld citation includes a $100 statutory fine plus administrative costs the city says cover camera and enforcement expenses. The hearing also clarified that these citations, as handled under the relevant statute and local ordinance, do not generate driver‑license points.

Hearing details and procedure

City witnesses offered camera stills and video for each violation and provided camera self‑test logs and radar calibration certificates (most calibrations cited were dated November 2024). Where defendants appeared, they raised issues such as late receipt of courtesy warnings, whether the school‑zone lights were flashing in still photos and whether the vehicle owner was the driver. The magistrate reviewed video replays when requested and, when evidence showed the yellow flashing light active in the video, generally concluded the evidence supported the city’s allegation of speeding in an active school zone.

The city cited enforcement under City of St. Cloud ordinance 20‑24‑48 and referenced the statutory program establishing school‑zone automated enforcement and its warning period. Smith frequently noted the governing statute’s framework — including a defined warning period — and said a warning notice is not a precondition to a later citation once the program entered enforcement.

What happens next

The ordered payments will be processed through the city’s payment system and mailed notices will provide payment instructions. Several defendants were given 90 days to pay; others were ordered to pay within 30 days. Defendants retain the option described in the notices and statute to submit an affidavit identifying a different operator when applicable.