Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Red Light Cameras topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and advocates press county to end red‑light cameras; witness alleges officer retaliation
Summary
At the Suffolk County Legislature public portion, multiple residents and advocacy groups urged an end to the county’s red‑light camera program and criticized enforcement practices; one speaker alleged a specific incident of retaliatory traffic enforcement by a county sergeant.
A string of public commenters at the Suffolk County Legislature’s June 25 meeting urged elected officials to terminate or ban the county’s red‑light camera (RLC) program and questioned whether enforcement prioritized revenue over safety.
Independent journalist and activist Sean Paul Reyes told legislators he confronted a Suffolk County sergeant he said was illegally parked in a bus lane; Reyes said the officer later stopped him and issued multiple tint tickets and held him longer than an average traffic stop. “Sergeant Meo told me the reason for the stop was that, allegedly, my window tints were illegal and that it is an officer safety issue,” Reyes said, adding he was held about 35 minutes and that he has video evidence of the incident.
Several other public speakers described legal and equity concerns with RLC contracts, engineering documentation and traffic‑signal timing. Stephen Ruth said a Department of Transportation e‑mail showed shorter yellow‑light timings at camera intersections; Greg Fischer and Angelo Veltri cited missing engineering signoffs and the concentration of cameras in working‑class neighborhoods. Hector Gavilla presented a county report indicating certain intersections had increased accidents after camera installation.
Speakers also raised concerns about due process in camera‑issued cases and court procedures for contesting citations. Attorney Bill Ian Jurow described administrative court procedures he said denied defendants timely discovery and an effective opportunity to contest citations.
Supporters of phasing out the program urged the Legislature to reject contract renewals or to pass a local ban. Opponents of a blanket ban — including some public‑safety advocates not present at this meeting — have previously argued cameras reduce dangerous red‑light running, but that position was not advanced in the public comments on June 25.
The public commentary came during a broader meeting that also included votes on water‑quality funding and the county capital program. No formal legislative action on the red‑light cameras occurred at the June 25 meeting; speakers asked the Legislature to act in future sessions.
