No speed camera reprieve

A high-tech speed trap on I-95 in Ridgeland was finally terminated by the Legislature last year, and its bad example should mean that similar ventures won’t be undertaken elsewhere in South Carolina. Certainly, that was the general recommendation of a legislative commission that looked into using traffic cameras for traffic enforcement.

The ad hoc Traffic Camera Enforcement Commission recently concluded that systems such as that used by the town of Ridgeland create more problems than they solve.

Ridgeland employed a private company to help identify speeders using radar and cameras. No motorists were actually stopped; rather, tickets were sent by mail.

Town officials insisted that the goal was strictly public safety. Senate Transportation Committee Chairman Larry Grooms, R-Bonneau, probably expressed the public consensus when he described the operation as “a small-town money grab.”

The commission cited potential complications with traffic camera enforcement, particularly when a private company is involved. Paying a contractor based on the number of tickets issued “was a clear inducement to issue as many tickets as possible,” the commission said in its report.

“Traffic enforcement could become driven by the desire to fill government coffers — and those of the private vendor — rather than driven by public safety,” the commission concluded.

The commission also raised legal and constitutional issues. For example, the system violates the fundamental tenet of “innocent until proven guilty.”

And it limits the constitutional right of a citizen to face his accuser. “With a camera violation, there is no accuser to confront or question.”

The manner in which citations are issued in a system like Ridgeland’s makes it unlikely that either the motorist or the officer overseeing the operation has any recollection of the violation. Consequently, both are at a disadvantage if the matter goes to court.

Moreover, the commission cited evidence that enforcement cameras actually create a public safety hazard — “a visual disturbance for the driver resulting from a flash when the system takes a picture.”

The commission did conclude that cameras might have some value in school zones and temporary work zones, but said their use should be restricted to the state Department of Public Safety to ensure uniformity and fairness.

The findings of the commission should carry some weight, since its members included the chief justice of the state Supreme Court, legislative leaders and representatives of the governor, state law enforcement organizations and the attorney general.

Simply put, it should end any effort to revive traffic camera enforcement systems by local governments in South Carolina.