Nevada committee hears bill to allow automated speed enforcement in work zones; supporters cite safety, critics raise due-process and surveillance concerns

Assembly Bill 402, which would allow automated traffic enforcement systems in temporary traffic control zones while workers are present, received a full hearing on March 25 in the Assembly Committee on Growth and Infrastructure. The sponsor, Assemblymember Torres Faucette, and construction-industry supporters said the measure is a targeted tool to reduce work-zone crashes; civil-rights groups and fines-and-fees advocates voiced procedural, privacy and equity concerns.

Why it matters: Proponents argued automated enforcement can save lives by slowing vehicles in work zones where people perform road construction and maintenance. Opponents warned automated enforcement risks reversing burdens of proof, generating revenue, and expanding surveillance if not tightly limited.

What the bill would do: Assemblymember Torres Faucette said the bill "permits the Department of Transportation, local authorities and regional transportation commissions to install automatic traffic enforcement systems in temporary traffic control zones where highway construction, maintenance or repair is being conducted and when workers are present." A conceptual amendment presented to the committee would limit enforcement to speeds of 10 miles per hour or more over the posted temporary work-zone limit, require signage at the entry point to the work zone, require a peace officer to review automated-system evidence before a citation is issued, and extend response time for recipients from 90 to 120 days. The amendment also seeks to restrict data storage and dissemination to the law-enforcement agency adjudicating the citation and to bar the technology vendor from receiving per-ticket payments.

Supporters' testimony: Labor unions, contractors and transportation agencies gave multiple safety-focused statements. Alexis Moderex of the Nevada Chapter of the Associated General Contractors told the committee that states with work-zone camera programs have reported large reductions in speeding and crashes; she cited Maryland studies showing a 10% average speed reduction and a 39% fall in crashes causing severe or fatal injuries after camera programs were introduced. NDOT Deputy Director Sajid Solaria and local transportation agencies voiced support, saying automated enforcement would bridge enforcement gaps where officers are not available.

Opposition and concerns: Civil-rights and legal-advocacy witnesses opposed or sought changes. Kayla Maese of the ACLU of Nevada said the organization opposed the bill as written and has concerns about surveillance and due process. Nick Shipack of the Fines and Fees Justice Center highlighted the bill's current bond requirement to challenge a citation and argued the state should not require people to post the full ticket amount to contest automated citations. Paloma Guerrero of the Clark County Public Defender's Office echoed concerns and asked for continued stakeholder work.

Questions and unresolved issues: Committee members probed operational details. Presenters said cameras would be active only when workers are present and signage would indicate when automated enforcement is in use. Stakeholders discussed which agency should mail citations (the conceptual amendment moves that duty to the Department of Motor Vehicles) and whether funds collected beyond operating costs should be dedicated to public infrastructure. Several members asked about remedies when multiple registered owners exist and how an owner would rebut a presumption that the registered owner was the driver; sponsors said the amendment would permit removal of a citation when an owner proves they were not driving, but the precise process and evidentiary standard remain under negotiation.

Procedure and status: The committee heard extensive testimony for and against and posed technical questions to the sponsor and witnesses. No committee vote on AB 402 was taken during the hearing; the sponsor said she would continue discussions with stakeholders and that committee staff would receive further materials at members' request.

Ending: Supporters argued the bill is a narrowly tailored safety tool limited to active work sites; opponents asked for stronger due-process protections, pilot language, and strict limits on data and revenue uses. The committee asked the sponsor to provide supporting data to staff and to continue stakeholder conversations before any committee action.