Correspondence - Item 27 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Program. In other words, this is not a dependable general-fund revenue tool. Oakland now says its program costs about $1 million per year to operate. Overall, using speed cameras as a mechanism to generate revenue for desired government projects is not only bad for residents, it is self-defeating. The Speed Camera Program is Legally Suspect Cities considering whether to operate a speed camera program under AB 645 should understand that they would be stepping into a pilot program with real litigation risk, not a settled enforcement model. AB 645 raises serious legal questions because it applies existing California speed laws through a stripped-down camera process that gives motorists fewer practical protections than ordinary traffic enforcement, while still imposing liability and collecting money. That design creates serious due process and equal protection vulnerabilities. Participating cities could be forced to defend costly lawsuits, unwind their programs, and refund large sums that may already have been spent on vendors and operating costs. That risk is not hypothetical. In March 2026, a Florida court dismissed a red-light camera citation after holding that the statutory scheme was unconstitutional as applied because it treated the registered owner as responsible and shifted the burden away from the government to prove the actual violation. California’s statute raises similar issues because it also uses a registered-owner ticketing model to enforce driver-based traffic laws through documentary presumptions and a thinner hearing process. That is more than enough to invite expensive test-case litigation against any city that jumps in early. Cities should also remember what happens when camera programs unravel after money has already been collected and spent. On Long Island, Suffolk County has faced potential refund exposure of roughly $91 million over illegal red-light camera add-on fees, while Nassau has faced litigation over far larger sums tied to unlawful camera charges. The financial and political damage is real. AB 645 itself requires participating jurisdictions to track revenues, costs, dismissals, and delinquent violations, which means the exposure will be visible if the legal foundation cracks. The prudent course is to wait until the pilot cities have absorbed the first round of legal