The Court recently struck down three traffic camera ordinances. However, the Court noted important exceptions that may still allow for enactment and enforcement.
Tupper, et al. v. City of St. Louis, et al. – St. Louis' red light cameras shot videos of vehicles running red lights and used photographs of license plates to find the owner of the vehicle, but did not photograph the driver. The ordinance required the vehicle owner to either pay a fine or complete an "affidavit of non-responsibility." This unconstitutionally required an owner to prove that he or she was not driving at the time of the violation.
City of St. Peters v. Roeder – St. Peters' red light camera ordinance prohibiting "driving through the intersection when the light was red," was invalid as it created a moving violation with no points in conflict with state statute, § 302.302.1(1), requiring the assessment of two points. The Court, however, allowed enforcement of the law with the points being assessed.
City of Moline Acres v. Brennan – Moline Acres’ speed camera ordinance and notice procedure unconstitutionally presumed that the owner of a vehicle had given permission to the driver to speed. The Court held that the City could still enforce the ordinance if it stated facts in the notice of violation showing probable case that the owner gave the driver permission. The notice also stated that no points would be assessed, however, because the ordinance did not, the Court refused to invalidate it on those grounds.