Dispute over red light camera usage heading to Legislature
»Play Video
SEATTLE -- Red light cameras are designed to catch speeders, but prosecutors argue those snapshots can also capture critical clues that police can use to solve crimes.
The current law won't allow for that kind of use, but a new bill headed for the state legislature aims to change that.
More than two dozen red light cameras keep watch over Seattle intersections, snapping photos when drivers run the light. By law, those images can only be used to prosecute traffic tickets, but investigators want to loosen the rules so police can check them for clues in other crimes.
One case where police think the cameras could help is the drive-by murder of Nicole Westbrook in Pioneer Square last April.
Surveillance video from a nearby store shows the shooter's car pass by just before Westbrook collapses from the gunshot.
"We have a side picture of the car. We have every reason to think that car ran a red light, and had we been able to get the red light picture of that car's license plate, my guess is we would have solved that case," said King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg.
Police are confident Westbrook's killer went through at least two intersections with red light cameras. But under current law, reviewing the footage in any way would jeopardize their case.
"We then looked at the statute and the prosecutors and our detectives determined that if we even peeked, that would be a violation," said Assistant Seattle Police Chief Jim Pugel.
The ACLU says limits on red light cameras protects the public's privacy, and police and prosecutors are just trying an end-run around what the legislature approved.
"There are always arguments that if police had more powers, if they had drones, if they had you name it, they could solve more crimes," said the ACLU's Doug Honig. "When these cameras started out, the government made very clear assurances, 'Oh we're not going to use it that way,' and we don't think they should change now."
A new bill to change the law would still require police to get a search warrant signed by a judge before looking at the videos. Investigators say that would address most people's privacy concerns.
Rep. Chris Hurst is sponsoring legislation to eliminate red light camera restrictions, and that bill will head to a committee hearing next week.
The current law won't allow for that kind of use, but a new bill headed for the state legislature aims to change that.
More than two dozen red light cameras keep watch over Seattle intersections, snapping photos when drivers run the light. By law, those images can only be used to prosecute traffic tickets, but investigators want to loosen the rules so police can check them for clues in other crimes.
One case where police think the cameras could help is the drive-by murder of Nicole Westbrook in Pioneer Square last April.
Surveillance video from a nearby store shows the shooter's car pass by just before Westbrook collapses from the gunshot.
"We have a side picture of the car. We have every reason to think that car ran a red light, and had we been able to get the red light picture of that car's license plate, my guess is we would have solved that case," said King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg.
Police are confident Westbrook's killer went through at least two intersections with red light cameras. But under current law, reviewing the footage in any way would jeopardize their case.
"We then looked at the statute and the prosecutors and our detectives determined that if we even peeked, that would be a violation," said Assistant Seattle Police Chief Jim Pugel.
The ACLU says limits on red light cameras protects the public's privacy, and police and prosecutors are just trying an end-run around what the legislature approved.
"There are always arguments that if police had more powers, if they had drones, if they had you name it, they could solve more crimes," said the ACLU's Doug Honig. "When these cameras started out, the government made very clear assurances, 'Oh we're not going to use it that way,' and we don't think they should change now."
A new bill to change the law would still require police to get a search warrant signed by a judge before looking at the videos. Investigators say that would address most people's privacy concerns.
Rep. Chris Hurst is sponsoring legislation to eliminate red light camera restrictions, and that bill will head to a committee hearing next week.
Big Brother... taking it inch by inch.
Is it so hard to OBEY THE LAW!! Stop running the red lights! In fact stop trying to beat the yellow light! Slow down. You will get there, believe me. And it won't cost you $150.00 extra. Or we can just hire a couple hundred more cops (that would cost MILLIONS!) to sit there and write tickets. Get a life people!!
The federal DOT did a study and found that if you programmed the signals to be red in all directions for 3 seconds, you save far more lives than red light cameras. And the programming is a LOT cheaper. As said by others already, red light cameras are about revenue not safety. If it was safety they wanted, reprogramming signals would be done every where.
Someone should do a survey measuring the correlation between people who think that red light cameras promote safety and people who believe that those pills they advertise on late night TV will miraculously make you smaller⦠or bigger. I bet it would be close to 100%.
Â
I'm in California and it makes me laugh/cry to watch folks in other states make the same mistake we made ten or twelve years ago - putting in red light cameras.
You should know better. The videos the Industry puts on TV show that all of the crashes occur after the signal has been red for 5 or more seconds. It's obvious that that real late running occurs because the motorist (a visitor or distracted/impaired local) completely misses seeing the signal, because it isn't prominent enough.
Â
A camera won't make a signal more prominent. But here's how to do it, cheaply and quickly, without cameras.
Â
A. Paint "signal ahead" on the pavement. A study sponsored by the Florida DOT found that doing so could cut running by up to 74%.
B. Make the signal lights bigger in diameter or, add another signal head. A study by the Texas Transp. Institute (TTI) found that doing either one could cut crashes by 47%.
C. Add backboards to the signal heads. The TTI study found that doing so could cut crashes by 32%.
D. Install brighter bulbs in the street lights above the dangerous intersections and put up lighted name signs for the cross street there.
Â
These things should be tried at a city's worst intersections, before putting in red light cameras.
 @Henry Heighweigh "I'm in California"
Then stay out of WA politics.
They can grope grandma at the airport, but can't look at a red light camera photo to solve a murder? Have we totally lost all common sense and ability to think rationally?
 @justmyopinion "Have we totally lost all common sense and ability to think rationally?"
Probably the most rational and pertinent question I have seen here yet...sadly, judging from the red light haters comments, we are perilously close to a "yes" answer to that question...
@OrcasThunder @justmyopinion Orca, We may not agree on things often...but on THAT one I'll give you two thumbs up.Â
 @Woodswalker  @OrcasThunder  Thank you.
Giving someone a ticket for going 21 in a 20 zone is absurd! Its all about the money. PERIOD! End of story. Thats why they have brought in so much money. I have a car that the speedo is jujst abit off, so I see 20 on my speedo, but click I get a ticket because I am actually going 21? That does not make sense. Not everyones speedo is 100% accurate, especially when you put big rims on them, that effects the accuracy of the speedo.
 @Brutalbubba I didn't think red light cameras issue speeding tickets... but, assuming you're in a school zone and you know your car's speedometer is off, you should probably drive in a way that compensates for that. Personally, I've never heard of someone getting a ticket for going 21 in a 20 unless they were doing something else illegal too.
 @justmyopinion  @Brutalbubba "I've never heard of someone getting a ticket for going 21 in a 20"
I did hear of one cop - in CA, I think - who would drive at night with no lights, come right up to the bumper of the car ahead and then turn on all the lights - who was giving people tickets for 1 mile over the 60 limit...the tickets were always tossed.
Last I heard, he tried that trick once too many times - mistook the warning lights at a barricade at the edge of a large sinkhole for a speeding semi...
Silly Police! Red Light Cameras are to collect REVENUE!
 @gregr "Red Light Cameras are to collect REVENUE"
Only from silly drivers who don't follow the laws...
The cameras are open and in public...what's the big deal..if they can help in catching a bad guy/gal then go for it..
Some Internet searching on the topic will reveal all kinds of studies about red light cameras with results that collectively are inconclusive:  some say the cameras reduce accidents; some day they do not; some say they actually increase rear-end collisions. And, when you review these studies, be skeptical as to the financial motivations of the study sponsors (don't trust any study done by the lizardly camera companies). Other studies show that the clearest path to reducing red light running and related accidents is to lengthen yellow signal times by one second. But of course there's no citation revenue in that approach.
Â
By any objective assessment, these cameras are nothing more than municipal money-grabs; essentially taxation-by-citation on the part of mayors and city councils and police chiefs who are too cowardly to make an honest case for a need for increased revenues. It is also an abomination that high percentages of the citation revenue go to out of state firms . . . tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars removed from the local economy.
Â
Other studies on the topic show the vast majority of red light tickets are for right turns on red where the driver did not come to a full and complete stop. Now, c'mon, you "law and order" perfect driver types out there . . . you're approaching a red light at a time of day with low traffic volume and are about to turn right. There's hardly a car in sight . . .please don't tell me you would always, 100% of the time, come to a full stop in such situations. You slip up only once . . . presto . . . $200 fine! You get ticketed unfairly? Sure, you can fight the ticket, but be prepared to take a day off of work to go through the fiddle faddle at the courthouse.
Â
Moreover, watch for politicians and police officials who are invited to "seminars" held by the companies who run the red light cameras . . . often they just happen to take place in Arizona or Florida in January or February.
Â
Finally, be aware that out of 24 referenda and advisory votes held around the country on the subject of red light cameras, they have been voted down in 23 cases, and most of the time by wide margins. That's because citizens are sick of big brother "gotcha government".
Â
 @kwa829 "Some Internet searching on the topic will reveal all kinds of studies about red light cameras"
Indeed.
Including some that show that people who actually STOP for the red lights - as in actually follow the law - simply do not get tickets. Do not pay fines. Do not feed the money grubbing government...
 @kwa829 I think the cameras are a total money grab. However, it is a moron tax, because only morons continue to break the law repeatedly -- even after being warned that the camera is there. Even if you were on a flat where you could see all directions for 5 miles, and no other vehicle was present but you, you're still required to come to a complete stop at a red light -- BEHIND THE LIMIT LINE -- before turning. What is so hard to grasp about that? Is one second of your time worth your $200? It only takes 21 days to make a new habit.
If the cameras might show a potential murderer, at least in the one case, use them for that! I don't see this article so much about the red-light cameras, as what that one in particular could have shown. Similar to using surveillance video from local businesses, etc. I would be beside myself with frustration if I were a loved one of that girl and knew there might be video of the killer, but it could not be shown.
 @Thunder Ok, but where does it stop? When will they suddenly decide to start using the cameras to prosecute hookers, drug dealers, homeless people, jaywalkers, bicycle riders..... you get the picture. This is the proverbial camel's nose under the tent.
 @slappywag  @Thunder "When will they suddenly decide to start using the cameras to prosecute hookers, drug dealers..."
And why SHOULDN'T they use these tools to stop these illegal acts?
Â
"bicycle riders"
Lord, wouldn't THAT be a joyful day!
Keep them in their lanes, ticket them when THEY run a red light, cross 3 lanes of traffic without even looking behind them, cut through people walking in the crosswalk...
Yes, wouldn't THAT be a wonder to behold?
Â
"you get the picture"
Well, it's a bit clearer now - but which one are you, or are you all of these people?
Â
You DO realize that if a cop dash cam captures you doing any of these things, you can already be arrested, charged and convicted - on that video alone...?
 @slappywag I do get the picture, that is specifically why I decided not to state my views on the cameras. Just stating that if they think they have a murderer on film, and it was my daughter's, I would be obsessed with being able to see that video.
Just put the cameras to a public vote and settle the matter. If the people say they dont want them, then this argument over usage will be gone.
 @SkaBob The cameras are not subject to referendum. Did you learn NOTHING from the Mukilteo initiative?
Great, we need CCTV in WA just like the UK, which is now a police state and has more video cameras than citizens. First SPD gets "drones" and permission to use them, next they get the red light cameras. Next it will be facial recognition software. And you trust SPD with all this after the DOJ review?!
It was probably said in a previous comment but I will say it again. If they want safety at the intersections add one second after the light turns red and before the next light turns green. Problem solved. Also, the first sentence of this article doesn't even make sense. "Red light cameras are designed to catch speeders" Red light cameras are meant to catch people running red lights. But what really happens is, people roll up and can clearly see it's safe to turn right and BAM! it's a 'got damned' disco with all the flashing lights.
 @Rockberry Are you really that ignorant? The people that run red lights will push it to the limit no matter what! You can add 10 seconds, and they will still be crossing the street in front of you after you get green! How hard is it to get that? And you morons that are crossing in front of me when my light turn green, better watch out cuz I am leaving as soon as i get the "go"
 @WhatdidIsay? with how you describe your driving, I would be cautious about criticizing others... Guess you missed the class on defensive driving during drivers Ed.Â
I love it when people claim these red light cameras cause more accidents than they solve, due to people slamming on their breaks to avoid going through the red light (which is their own dumb fault for not knowing how to drive properly).  They cite many studies, all from different states that prove this point and yes its true, there are some studies that prove this, but these studies are done once and never again and its mostly causality reports with no real details to prove its the cause, so its kinda like saying "Well it snowed this Winter, so I guess the planet isnt warming at all".  To prove they are actually causing accidents, you need to do routine studies, at least once a year for 5-10 years to have any valid data to come to that conclusion.  It would be a much better system if the cities owned and operated these cameras, instead of letting a private company run them, because when it comes to letting private companies issue city fines, these companies are shady as f**k.  This way the cost of the ticket can be lowered so that it doesn't sting so bad for violating the most obvious rule in driving.  If the state can spend billions on road construction, then the state can spend 100 million to buy out the company that operates those cameras and license the technology to other cities until it pays for itself, then becomes royalty free.  Everyone wins. Â
 @kinison Jeez, it could not be that THEY were not paying attention, or that THEY were following too close. It's always THE OTHER GUYS FAULT, or THE CAMERA'S FAULT. Hmmm, I'm seeing a pattern here... THEY never take responsibility for THEIR actions.  Â
 @kinison How about removing the cameras, they only cause problems.... They are only there for funding local goverments and not really there to protect citizens!
Â
 @GOCOUGS  @kinison You are dumb, just stop when the light is red and you will not get a ticket! So what if the cameras are there for profit? The law breaking idiots that runs red lights are funding it, and I love it!
 @hinterland  @GOCOUGS "You honestly think red light cameras are for safety only and not for government profit?"
They are for safety - people who run red lights are a safety hazard.
As to the "profits", stop running the lights and there will be no "profits".
It should be plain as the nose on the front of your face - if there was no NEED for these cameras, there would be no "profits" for anyone...
 @OrcasThunder  @GOCOUGS  @WhatdidIsay?  @kinison You honestly think red light cameras are for safety only and not for government profit?
 @GOCOUGS "not really worth having a serious conversation about public safety with you"
No, it isn't - I only respect people who see the need for the laws of driving and don't advocate wide-scale violation of laws and the rights of others to expect every driver on the roads to operate their vehicle safely and responsibly.
So pleas, refrain from responding to my posts...think of the bandwidth you will be saving.
 @OrcasThunder you sound like someone who profits financially off the system.... not really worth having a serious conversation about public safety with you.Â
 @GOCOUGS  @WhatdidIsay?  @kinison "These cameras only make people speed through intersections more!"
Not true - when did the scofflaws need a "reason" to violate the laws?
 @WhatdidIsay?  @kinisonThe public's safety has never warranted needing cameras! These cameras only make people speed through intersections more! Remove all school zones, take all cameras down, and remove all speed limits on sections of highway that dont need them.... These governmental mandates are only there to fund the politicians jobs..
 @GOCOUGS  @kinison "they only cause problems"
Drive safe, pay attention to the road, and don't run the red light...you will never even know the camera is there...
 @choliscott  @OrcasThunder "The 3 pictures show them being at stopped at the intersection, not thru it"
Then go to court and show them to the judge.
 @hinterland  @GOCOUGS  @kinison "most of the tickets at these intersections are really not fully stopping to make a right turn"
What part of the law don't you understand? It says you have to stop for a red light - regardless if you are going straight or turning.
Â
"proven fact that intersections with red light cameras have a shorter yellow light."
Old story, little substance.
Â
Face it, you violate the law, you pay a fine.
@OrcasThunder @GOCOUGS @kinison Tell that to the person who recieved a ticket in the mail & didn't run the red light. The 3 pictures show them being at stopped at the intersection, not thru it
 @OrcasThunder  @GOCOUGS  @kinison Then explain why most of the tickets at these intersections are really not fully stopping to make a right turn, it's all about profit not safety, and it's a proven fact that intersections with red light cameras have a shorter yellow light.Â
I say use them to catch murderers. There is no legal expectation of privacy on, or in clear view of, public property.Â
Red light cameras are for funding politicians... NOT FOR HELPING THE PUBLIC!
Â
Nineteen Eighty-Four
 @Can't Spell Don't Care Great book and it's slowly true every day. Big BrotherÂ
 @Can't Spell Don't Care "Nineteen Eighty-Four"
Not a bad year - but if you MUST drink that vintage, don't drive...!
 @Can't Spell Don't Care Yes, but too many don't understand your reference.Â
Â
Think about this: how many posters here that advocate for red light cameras which trample all over their constitutional rights would go apoplectic if your tried to violate their 2nd Amendment right to own a Howitzer? I'll bet most of them are one and the same. How ironic!
I don't mind the red light cameras so much, but the problem is most of the tickets issued are for turning right on a red light without coming to a complete stop. It's funny how every intersection with a red light camera could easily install a free right turn arrow, when the cross street traffic is taking a left (on a left turn arrow), but that would cut deep into their profits.
 @dylandawgie Wrong answer! How about just stop when the light is red? Problem solved!
@WhatdidIsay? @dylandawgie People do stop when its red. The camera companies decided that you need to wait 3 seconds before you can move your car. I want you to show me in the law where it states, you have to wait 3 seconds. It doesn't, all it says is you need to come to a complete stop.
 @choliscott  @dylandawgie Show me where less than three seconds trips the camera. That would be challenged INSTANTLY.