The Legal Case against the Scamera Systems

The systems are illegal, but don’t take our word for it. It is not just WrongOnRed that thinks so. Even Stinson, Morrison, and Hecker LLP, American Traffic Solutions Legal firm agrees. source American Traffic Solutions was advised of this by their legal firm just prior to engaging the City of Arnold. In this bombshell released as part of discovery in the Hokestra v. City of Arnold Federal case,

Stephen Chinn, Stinson, Morrison, Hecker Attorney states in a memo to ATS President James Tuton dated May 24th, 2005:

"Under current Missouri law, every court with jurisdiction over any state laws or county, or municipal ordinances regulating the operation of vehicles on highways must report, to the Missouri Highway Patrol, a record of any plea or finding of guilty of any person within ten days after the record is made. 302.225 RSMo Cumm. Supp. 2004. A moving violation is a violation, that is of the character, where, at the time the violation is committed, the motor vehicle involved is in motion. 302.010 (12) RSMo. Cumm. Supp. 2004. Thus by failing to stop at a red light, a driver has clearly committed a moving violation of state law, and presumably, of a municipal ordinance.

The Missouri Highway Patrol must forward records of guilty pleas or convictions to the Director of Revenue within 15 days after receipt. 302.225 RSMo. Cum. Supp. 2004. The Director of Revenue is required to assess points in a system designed to allow the State to suspend or revoke driver’s licenses once a conviction has been made. The Director has not discretion in applying the points required upon his receipt of the record of guilty plea or conviction. See Knierim v. James 677 S.W.2d 322 (Mo. Banc 1984)(citing Rudd v. David, 444 S.W.2d 457, 459 (Mo. 1969)).

An amendment to 302.225, which becomes effective September 30, 2005, will broaden this reporting requirement. See L. 2004 S.B. 1233, S.B. 840, and S.B. 1043, West’s No. 181. After the effective date, courts having jurisdiction over any state law or county or municipal ordinance regulating the operation of vehicles on highways or any other offense in which the commission of such offense involves the use of a motor vehicle, must report a guilty plea of conviction for any moving traffic violation directly to the Director of Revenue within seven days after the record is made. Thus, within the next few months, it will be mandatory that a court with jurisdiction to hear municipal ordinance violations, the commission of which involve the use of a motor vehicle, report guilty pleas or convictions.

Considering the discussion above on sources of municipal authority, we do not believe a constitutional charter city, or statutory city, town, or village could adopt an ordinance which circumvents the Director of Revenue’s point system for the suspension and revocation of motor vehicle licenses without the legislative authorization to do so. The mandatory language used in the text of the statute supports a conclusion that an ordinance of this nature would conflict with state law. Cf. Cape Motor Lodge, 706 S.W.2d at 211. This conclusion is augmented also by the clear legislative intent to broaden this reporting requirement to any court with jurisdiction over any offence committed involving a vehicle, as seen in the General Assembly’s recent amendment of 302.225."

Not only did American Traffic Solutions own law firm tell them what they were about to introduce to the state of Missouri and City of Arnold was illegal, but the Director of Revenue also agrees, and confirms that there is no such statutory authority supporting these illegal systems. source

In the event that ATS's own legal counsel and the Director of the Missouri Department of Revenue are not convincing enough on the law, the Washington University Law Review also agrees these are an illegal scam concluding;

"Municipalities' burgeoning reliance on red-light camera technology in lieu of traditional patrolling elicits practical and legal questions worthy of careful scrutiny. Absent legislative or judicial intervention, red-light cameras' continued presence seems assured. Automated enforcement of this sort raises significant constitutional red flags; red-light cameras' validity is questionable under both general constitutional principles and the expanding jurisprudential frameworks established by state courts assessing similar schemas. Red-light cameras unduly impede constitutional liberty by depriving motorists of their Fifth Amendment presumption of innocence and Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, and as such should not enjoy protection from Missouri courts." source