Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House narrows photo‑radar use and requires limits after intense privacy and due‑process debate
Summary
The House passed a substituted version of the automated‑enforcement bill (2nd H.Sub. to SB 8) that narrows allowable uses and requires procedural safeguards after floor amendments addressing where machines may be used and whether citations must include photographs; the substitute passed 52–20 and returns to the Senate.
The House spent substantial floor time debating the second house substitute to Senate Bill 8, the bill that governs automated traffic enforcement (commonly called photo‑radar). Lawmakers confronted disagreements over constitutional concerns, accuracy and local revenue motives.
The substitute arriving from committee sought to limit photo‑radar use to areas approved by local governing bodies based on demonstrated public‑safety need, require a photograph with citations, and prevent automated citations from counting as reportable moving violations on a driver's record. During floor debate members repeatedly raised two themes: (1) whether automated enforcement should be limited to low‑speed residential streets and school zones, where radar accuracy is better and wrong‑vehicle identification is less likely; and (2) due‑process concerns because a machine cannot be cross‑examined in court.
Representative Adkins (floor proponent) summarized the bill and noted judges routinely throw out photo‑radar citations because of evidentiary issues. Representative Atkinson and others called for tighter restrictions to prevent what they described as revenue‑driven deployments on high‑speed arterials and called for clearer photo requirements and limits on using citations as a revenue source. Representative Bigelow proposed making a photocitation functionally similar to a parking ticket so the vehicle, not the driver, is the enforcement target; that motion failed on the floor. A pink‑sheet amendment ultimately reinstituted language restricting automated enforcement to lower‑speed residential areas and school zones and added procedural clarifications.
Supporters argued photo‑radar reduces hazardous speeding in problem corridors and can be a useful tool where single‑lane, lower‑speed conditions prevent operator misidentification. Opponents raised constitutional questions about the right to confront one's accuser and objected to requiring vehicle owners to identify the driver in all cases. Sponsors said local governments retain discretion to adopt or reject automated enforcement and that some revenues are shared with the private contractor under local contracts.
After votes on amendments, the House approved the second house substitute to SB 8 (52 yes, 20 no) and returned it to the Senate with the floor amendments.
