Appeals Court Says Red-Light Cameras Are OK; Agree?

Yes, the judges acknowledged (although they didn't use these words): Red-light cameras are a money grab by local governments. But they're not unconstitutional.

That's the ruling last week of a three-judge panel of the Missouri Court of Appeals in a case involving the red-light camera program in the city of St. Louis. The case affects St. Louis, of course, but numerous municipalities have such programs in place around the region.

Those include St. Peters, Arnold, Hazelwood, Ellisville and Creve Coeur.

A St. Louis Post-Dispatch story about the ruling said, "The appeals court concluded that reasonable traffic regulations are 'a proper exercise' of a city’s police power, and that St. Louis is a constitutional charter city 'possessing broad authority' to enact laws."

• RELATED ANNOUNCEMENT (By American Traffic Solutions): St. Louis Red-Light Safety Cameras Changing Driver Behavior

Another judge had struck down the law in February 2012, calling it unconstitutional. The law, he said, didn't give accused violators a way to challenge the allegation.

The newspaper reported that, "St. Louis red-light tickets brought in about $5.4 million, the mayor’s office said, with about $3.7 million going to the city’s general revenue fund and $1.7 million to American Traffic Solutions."

The ruling by Judge Kurt Odenwald said: “Cities employing automated red-light cameras within their municipal boundaries may have discovered the elusive goose that lays the golden egg.”

Is this the final word on the subject, or will the dispute continue? Are you careful to heed warnings about red-light cameras? Do you consider it an effective tool to stop red-light runners?