From TheNewspaper.org....

Minnesota Supreme Court Strikes Down Red Light Cameras
The Minnesota Supreme Court delivers a unanimous decision striking down the legality of red light cameras.

The Minnesota Supreme Court today delivered the highest-level court rebuke to photo enforcement to date with a unanimous decision against the Minneapolis red light camera program. The high court upheld last September's Court of Appeals decision that found the city's program had violated state law.

The supreme court found that Minneapolis had disregarded a state law imposing uniformity of traffic laws across the state. The city's photo ticket program offered the accused fewer due process protections than available to motorists prosecuted for the same offense in the conventional way after having been pulled over by a policeman. The court argued that Minneapolis had, in effect, created a new type of crime: "owner liability for red-light violations where the owner neither required nor knowingly permitted the violation."

"We emphasized in Duffy that a driver must be able to travel throughout the state without the risk of violating an ordinance with which he is not familiar," the court wrote. "The same concerns apply to owners. But taking the state's argument to its logical conclusion, a city could extend liability to owners for any number of traffic offenses as to which the Act places liability only on drivers. Allowing each municipality to impose different liabilities would render the Act's uniformity requirement meaningless. Such a result demonstrates that [the Minneapolis ordinance] conflicts with state law."

The court also struck down the "rebutable presumption" doctrine that lies at the heart of every civil photo enforcement ordinance across the country.

"The problem with the presumption that the owner was the driver is that it eliminates the presumption of innocence and shifts the burden of proof from that required by the rules of criminal procedure," the court concluded. "Therefore the ordinance provides less procedural protection to a person charged with an ordinance violation than is provided to a person charged with a violation of the Act. Accordingly, the ordinance conflicts with the Act and is invalid.

About time... There's something inherently slimy about the way these camera makers get a "
kick-back" from every ticket, there are reports of altering yellow light lengths to create more fines and make driving MORE dangerous, and rumblings of starting to use these same cameras for speed enforcement, with the same profit making enticements. Traffic laws are supposed to make us safer, not make money. All traffic ticket revenue should go to fund driver ed, advanced driver training, and better street infrastructure, not to the council/police dept./camera maker that issues the tickets. Blatant conflict of interest.