Administrative hearing upholds most red-light camera citations as drivers say signage was obscured

At an administrative red-light camera hearing, the clerk upheld several citations issued at the 83 and Riverside intersection while drivers said they missed posted warnings because a sign was upside down and another was obscured by shrubbery.

Gloria Ortiz told the clerk she returned to the intersection after receiving a notice and photographed the site, saying, “the sign is upside down and then also there was like a shrubbery in front of it.” The clerk reviewed the video with Ortiz and explained that under Illinois law a driver may make a right turn on red only after making “a full stop behind the line,” and that the camera system activates when a vehicle enters the intersection after the light is red. The clerk found Ortiz liable and advised she has 30 days to pay or contact the contractor for payment arrangements.

Suzan Jasolski said she looked twice at the corner and could not find a sign where she expected one, saying city signs she is used to seeing are “right there when you’re making” the turn. The clerk reiterated that sign placement does not change the statutory requirement to stop before turning and recorded a finding of liability for Jasolski’s contest, again noting the 30-day payment period.

One driver who explained a delayed braking action — saying he had pressed the brake late because of a shoe problem — was found not liable after the clerk determined he had essentially come to a full stop before turning and granted leniency. Robert Hull watched a replay of his incident and told the clerk he “pressed it late”; the clerk found that Hull entered the intersection on a steady red and ruled him liable, giving him 30 days to pay and directing him to the payment instructions on the notice.

The clerk also processed several mail-in contests for the same signal and other locations. At least one notice was dismissed after the registrant provided documentation showing the plate on the ticket did not match their registration; the clerk cited that discrepancy in dismissing that case. The clerk repeatedly noted that red-light cameras are installed following traffic studies and that evidence issues commonly cited by appellants include photo color/legibility and elapsed time captured by the device.

No formal hearing date for further review was announced; appellants were told contact information and payment options are listed on the notice and that the hearing office can only grant the 30-day window for payment, with extensions or alternative arrangements handled by the contracting agency.