When some North Carolina cities began using cameras to catch drivers running red lights, privacy advocates expressed concern that Big Brother had found a home at busy intersections around the state. But a General Assembly bill expected to become law this session authorizes the Charlotte-Mecklenburg police department to expand its use of cameras to catch speeders. That has civil libertarians fearing that Big Sister is joining her nosy sibling to infringe further on citizens’ right to privacy and the presumption of innocence.
“This is just a couple of steps away from cameras on 24 hours a day,” said Jim Harper, a Washington-based lawyer and editor of Privacilla.org, a 3-year-old online think tank that researches and writes about privacy issues, including photo radar enforcement. Harper said that while there’s no expectation of privacy on a public street, the scenario developing in North Carolina represents “the Big Brother infrastructure.” And, he cautions, don’t be surprised if it continues to grow. “The next step is more cameras at more places, more pictures of more things.”
Trying to reduce accidents
Not so, says Boyd Cauble, executive assistant to Charlotte’s city manager and the person who lobbied for the bill on behalf of the city. He said this effort is simply a way to reduce traffic accidents and speeding in areas with high incidents of one or both problems. “I see this as expanding the technology of radar in speed enforcement. You have an appeals process, so I don’t buy that argument,” Cauble said of concerns about privacy.
The bill gives the Charlotte-Mecklenburg police department the authority to implement a three-year pilot program using radar-activated cameras in police vehicles stationed around its jurisdiction. The program is expected to begin in early 2004 and is set to end in July 2006. Its effectiveness will be evaluated by comparing pre- and post-program accident data in the areas outfitted with cameras, Cauble said.
Fourteen locations have been selected based on their accident history, congestion, and speeding tickets, said Keith Bridges, public affairs director for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg police department. The law stipulates that a specially trained police officer must operate and monitor the equipment whenever it’s being used. How fast is considered speeding? That’s up to the officer’s discretion, as it is now, Bridges said.
Once the officer determines the speed at which drivers will be considered in violation, the cameras will be set to photograph vehicles exceeding the limit. A $50 ticket, in both English and Spanish, will be mailed to the registered owner, along with the incriminating photo. The owner can either pay the fine or appeal it.
“We want to slow them down. That’s what we’re getting at here,” Bridges said, pointing to the 64 people killed in traffic accidents in the area during 2002: 49 vehicle occupants and 15 pedestrians. “We’re not spying inside your car,” he said, when asked about the privacy issue.
Trying to save lives is a noble intention, but that mindset is part of the problem, cautioned Harper, who formerly worked as counsel for the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives and has testified before Congress about red-light cameras. “There are good reasons to do this and use them more,” he said. “All of this adds up to mission creep. Now is the time to say no, this isn’t the North Carolina I want,” he said.
Sen. Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, concurs. “If you allow the nature of the problem to allow you to ignore long-established rules, you’re heading down the wrong road. It’s a bad precedent to be setting,” Berger said.
Public safety outweighs privacy concerns as long as the cameras are used in an appropriate manner, said Rep. Martha Alexander, D-Meck-lenburg, one of the bill’s primary sponsors. “Speed kills. It’s a major problem in Mecklenburg County. The police feel it will be a major help to them,” she said in defense of the bill.
But Sen. Bob Rucho, R-Mecklenburg, disagrees that a one-size-fits-all fine will effectively deter speeding. To do that, he explained, the amount of the fine should increase with the severity of the infraction. Rucho reserved his strongest condemnation of the bill for what he described as its fundamental flaws. “It flies in the face of the Constitution. You have to prove yourself innocent, take a day off work and maybe lose money to do it,” he said, describing the appeals process. “We have the right to face our accuser. In this case, the accuser is a camera, not a person.”
Regardless, Alexander maintains there have been few problems with the citations issued for red-light photo radar offenses and, therefore, there’s no reason to expect problems with the new program.
She cites anecdotal evidence from friends who have told her the red-light camera warning signs force them to pay special attention to their driving. “Hopefully, it will be the same with this,” she said.
Spreading to other cities
Rep. Rick Eddins, R-Wake, shares his colleagues’ concerns about privacy and wonders whether the program will eventually spread to his district. He also sees a financial motive in the bill, pointing to the fact that tickets generated by the cameras will result in the fine but not in insurance or driver’s license points. “It’s a constant battle, these fees. If it’s costing citizens more money, what’s the difference whether it’s a fee or a tax? The result is the same,” Eddins said.
Cauble ardently disputes that the city has a financial motivation, but he admits it’s a tough sell. “I know it’s hard to get people to believe that this is not a revenue enhancement issue,” he said. In fact, Cauble questions whether the ticket fines will cover the program’s costs. After expenses are paid, any net profit is destined for the local school system, he said.
Cauble estimates start-up capital expenditures of $200,000 to buy two or three cameras and, perhaps, special vans.
But that’s just the beginning. Officers will need special training, the program will be advertised in local media, and 3-foot by 3-foot warning signs will be produced and posted 1,000 feet on either side of the speed traps. While the city will own the equipment, it may contract with a private firm for photo processing and mailing of tickets, yet another cost.
Cauble said a final tally is difficult to calculate at this point.
While the bill applies only to Charlotte, Berger agrees with Eddins that it may well follow the path of red-light cameras and expand to other cities and towns. “I’d be surprised if it didn’t spread,” Berger said.
Where will photo enforcement end? Eddins isn’t sure and he’s hesitant to contemplate what may come next. But at this point, Alexander isn’t concerned about the impact her bill may have on paving the way for even more uses of cameras to monitor citizens. They’re already with us, she said. “Think about where cameras are; we have them more places than we probably know.”
Alexander is right, Harper said. “We have to push back. Is this the end result we really want?” he asked. “Ordinary people should be talking about this.”
Martinez is associate editor at Carolina Journal.