Albuquerque's red-light cameras were turned off recently, but other cities in the state still have them. Two cases before the N.M. Supreme Court could affect such programs. (Journal File)
Albuquerque abandoned its red-light camera program last month.
A pair of cases before the state Supreme Court might ensure it never comes back. They could also shape the legal parameters under which similar systems are permissible elsewhere in New Mexico. Rio Rancho, Las Cruces and Santa Fe have camera programs, for example.
Both cases have already gone before the state Court of Appeals, which narrowly upheld Albuquerque’s camera system.
In the first case, filed by Victor Titus, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in November and could issue a decision anytime. In the other, a class action called Christine Montoya vs. Albuquerque, the justices are to hear arguments Jan. 31.
They could issue one ruling for each case or combine them into one decision, attorneys said.
“I would presume that it will have an impact on the parameters for camera enforcement” throughout New Mexico, said David Tourek, Albuquerque’s top city attorney.
Mayor Richard Berry and city councilors in Albuquerque terminated the program after municipal voters opposed the cameras in an October ballot initiative. But neither they nor their successors are barred from reviving the program at some point.
Albuquerque’s camera system, launched in 2005, underwent several changes before City Hall pulled the plug. At one point, it issued both speeding and red-light violations. It was scaled back later to focus only on red-light runners.
Titus challenged two speeding fines issued to him in 2006 and 2007. He argued that he was not the driver of the vehicles and that, on at least one occasion, he was out of the country entirely.
But Albuquerque’s ordinance was designed to hold the vehicle owner responsible for the fine regardless of who drove. Titus didn’t “nominate” the driver of the vehicles and make that person pay the fine, an option under the ordinance.
“It’s not the camera system” itself that’s necessarily improper, Titus said Friday in an interview. “It’s the way it’s used to form an irrebuttable presumption, and the owner is absolutely liable, and the only defense you have is to prove the car was stolen or nominate the driver. … That’s not the legal system that I was taught.”
In the Montoya case, the plaintiffs not only challenged the legality of the camera program but also asked the court to order Albuquerque to return all the money it had collected “under the illegal penalty scheme.”
In both cases, the Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in favor of the city. Chief Judge Celia Foy Castillo wrote the decisions, and Judge James Wechsler concurred.
In dissent was Judge Michael E. Vigil.
The majority opinion said the city camera ordinance offered several options for defending yourself against the fine — such as identifying the real driver — and that Titus didn’t pursue any of them.
The judges said “Titus necessarily created and allowed the speeding to exist as it was his vehicles that committed the violations and his control over those vehicles has never been questioned.”
They covered a variety of other arguments, too, in a 30-page decision.
Vigil offered a vigorous dissent and said the cameras appeared to be a money-making scheme for City Hall.
“By penalizing a person or entity which does nothing except merely own a vehicle which is driven by another person over the posted speed limit, STOP (the formal name of the camera program) is contrary to New Mexico law and unconstitutional,” he wrote.
— This article appeared on page A1 of the Albuquerque Journal
Reprint story -- Email the reporter at dmckay@abqjournal.com. Call the reporter at 505-823-3566
