Why fighting a revenue camera ticket in Tennessee is such an uphill battle

(Note: These Tennessee traffic camera tickets are nearly watertight. If you enjoy these Big Brother revenue generators, be sure to thank your state senators and representatives who enacted them into law.)

Thursday, September 24th, was the first day for drivers to challenge citations issued since the red-light and speed cameras went on line in Oak Ridge.

Of the five people who challenged RedFlex Traffic -Systems camera violations in Oak Ridge City Court, four were found guilty of the traffic offense. The fifth person was given 10 days to file an affidavit naming the other person who was driving her car at the time of the alleged violation.

In each of the speeding cases, the defendants all had the same argument: "I don't know who was driving." The "it wasn't me" defense.

In the case that was continued 10 days for an affidavit, the judge gave the defendant 10 days to find out who was driving her car the day the ticket was issued. She had testified that several people had been driving her car because she had a vision issue. She said she had been going to doctors' visits two or three times a week during that period. He even asked her to go back and check her appointments on those days.

City Attorney Ken Krushenski stated that the law is clear when it comes to the registered owner's culpability. He said the registered owner has the opportunity to tell the court who was actually driving when the ticket was issued. He also said the traffic offense doesn't go on the driver's record.

It would behoove all Tennessee drivers, especially those who expect to travel through revenue camera towns - to familiarize themselves with a section of Tennessee Code Annotated.

Let me break it down for you.

Specifically:

TENNESSEE CODE ANNOTATED 55-8-198. Citations based on surveillance cameras. —
[with my comments]

(d) (1) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection (d), the registered owner of the motor vehicle shall be responsible for payment of any notice of violation or citation issued as the result of a traffic light monitoring system.
[If the vehicle is registered to you, then you're ultimately responsible for the ticket. This makes it legal for those RedFlex cameras to take pictures only of the vehicle's license plate and not the driver of the vehicle. Again, if the registration has your name on it, you're responsible for the ticket.]

(2) An owner of a vehicle shall not be responsible for the violation if, on or before the designated court date, the owner furnishes the court an affidavit stating the name and address of the person or entity that leased, rented or otherwise had care, custody or control of the motor vehicle at the time of the violation.
[You can't just say, "it wasn't me, Judge." You have to submit a sworn (under oath) affidavit to the court and tattle on who was driving... so that the court can ticket THAT person.

Don't take a sworn affidavit lightly. Lying under oath is a crime - called perjury - and it can carry penalties. Also, if you've committed perjury, that can be construed as an insult to the court and you could find yourself facing a contempt charge, too.

And claiming "I don't know who was driving" won't cut it, either. If you can't (or won't) tell, then YOU'RE responsible.]

(3) If a motor vehicle or its plates were stolen at the time of the alleged violation, the registered owner must provide an affidavit denying the owner was an operator and provide a certified copy of the police report reflecting such theft.
[Another situation of "put up or shut up." If you claim that your vehicle was stolen at the time, you have to not only submit a sworn (under oath) affidavit, you also have to present a certified copy of the police report showing that you had reported the car stolen at that time.]

(4) An affidavit alleging theft of a motor vehicle or its plates must be provided by the registered owner of a vehicle receiving a notice of violation within thirty (30) days of the mailing date of the notice of violation.
[And as an addendum to provision 3 above, you only have 30 days FROM THE DATE THE CITY MAILED THE ORIGINAL TICKET TO YOU to show the court that you had reported your car stolen.]

The State of Tennessee definitely had its ducks in a row when it codified these laws. I wouldn't call them completely watertight, but they're pretty dang close. So, don't put all the blame on the City of Oak Ridge or Knoxville or Chattanooga or wherever. The State of Tennessee did plenty to help out ol' RedFlex, too. Give a great big "thank you" to your state representatives who voted for this jewel, next time you've a mind to do so.

TN State Representatives - how they voted for this law **ALL Tennessee State Representatives of the 105th General Assembly voted in favor of this law - no Nay votes recorded**
TN State Senators - how they voted for this law **ALL Tennessee State Senators of the 105th General Assembly voted in favor of this law - no Nay votes recorded**

The law even survived a good constitutional challenge: Knoxville v. Brown

Mr. Brown argued that because he had no choice but to pay the red-light camera ticket and thereby admit guilt, or, if he was not driving, to inform on someone else who was, the system itself violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the Tennessee and U.S. constitutions.

In its opinion, the state Appellate Court at Knoxville noted that Tennessee lawmakers authorized cities to issue photo tickets as civil penalties (not criminal citations) that sidestep the most important protection provided by the state constitution under the criminal code - namely that the driver must be proved to have been the one who actually committed the crime.

The Court further noted that as long as the fine remained no more than $50, no jury trial would be available to the defendant. Next, because the city had a right to declare the owner of a vehicle automatically liable because of the 2008 Tennessee law regarding citations based on surveillance cameras, no due process protections applied.

"The city code merely permits the responsible vehicle owner to shift the responsibility for the violation to the actual driver of the vehicle in certain circumstances," the Court stated. "This does not mean that the owner of the vehicle was not in violation of the city code."

According to the Court, this was not a violation of due process because the city had to prove "every element of the case." In other words, the city had to prove that Brown owned the vehicle, and that the vehicle was photographed committing a violation on September 18, 2006. It did not have to prove Mr. Brown did anything wrong - his mere ownership of the vehicle constituted the civil crime. Moreover, the court found this arrangement did not violate the constitutional protections against self-incrimination because Brown did not need to admit guilt - he was automatically guilty.

The Court went even further than that, asserting that Knoxville's camera ticket ordinance does not make the driver of a vehicle liable. Instead, according to the Court, the owner of the vehicle is responsible for a red light violation, regardless of who was actually driving the vehicle at the time. The fact that state law allows the registered owner to submit an affidavit as to who was driving is merely a measure of courtesy - it's still within the city's right to go after the registered owner.

In short, I don't know of any easy way to get out of a Tennessee revenue camera ticket, unless somebody is able to successfully challenge the constitutionality of such a thing. That will be a tough fight because these tickets are civil matters, not criminal, and they involve a small fee. As far as the constitution is concerned, they're pretty much "under the radar." (Pardon the pun)

If you get slapped with one of these, good luck. From where I stand, it looks like a losing battle.