Where to watch Fox 2 News during the US Open and World Cup soccer

Missouri Supreme Court refuses three red light camera cases

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

ST. LOUIS, MO (KTVI) – The Missouri Supreme Court refused to take three red light camera cases on Tuesday.

The justices refused to transfer lawsuits involving Creve Coeur, Florissant and Kansas City. An attorney told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that the transfer denial means he will begin pre-trial discovery in the three lawsuits.

Experts still expect the issue of red light cameras to end up before the supreme court.

Read the full story in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

6 comments

  • ByeByeToTheRite

    I guess they didn’t have much to say about a program that is BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL – FAR more unconstitutional than ANY gun law ever passed (remember the “well regulated” part?) – yet, they know their friends in government need the money to pay for more tax breaks for the wealthy, so they are in a bind! So they just passed it off for now until they come up with a better excuse of why we need it.

    • wrongonred

      It was ATS and the municipalities who appealed the adverse rulings in Damon v KC and Ballard v Creve Coeur. By choosing not to take up the case, the Supreme Court finalized those appellate rulings, which were that the systems are not lawfully being operated. Their rejection is a good thing in shutting this scam down.

      I wonder who these experts are though. If the Supreme Court was going to buy the “Conflict of the Court” arguments that ATS put forth, wouldn’t they have taken up Damon v KC? In Damon the court makes ATS liable for class action recovery and established 2 classes of plaintiff’s. It was quite a rebuke they let stand.

      • ByeByeToTheRite

        Thanks for that! I was really being a bit more sarcastic than serious in my post, but the fact is, it is interesting they passed these cases up, especially the one you point out.

        So, yes, I’m happy, too, and think this is the right thing to do – shut them down.

        But let’s not be too confident yet! I do have my tarnished view that money talks in America, and I’m still suspicious that in the end, somehow these will be found to be okay because of the conflict with public safety. After all, there’s a lot of money potentially involved! Think of the refunds they’d maybe be liable for – would cost these munis and ATS an arm and a leg. I just find it hard to believe that may really happen. But I hope so!

  • Jusatyro

    Red Light Cameras and Speed Cameras defeats the argument that the United States Supreme Court ,Chief Justice Rehnquist ,gave for allowing the justification of a state reasons to violate the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution in allowing traffic roadblocks ..

    Would The United States Supreme Court under Chief Justice Rehnquist have the same opinion today, if the Court would have known that states and cities with red light cameras and speed cameras have on their own admission stated it’s unnecessary to stop motorists for traffic violations and that the Federal and State Point System is unnecessary.

    How can states ,or cities now argue that traffic roadblocks are reasonable use for searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, if a majority of the states major cities traffic violations are done by traffic cameras ?
    .
    How can a judge issue a search warrant on ‘Probable Cause’ in traffic violations stop in Cities such as the City of Arnold ,or St Louis that believes it’s unnecessary to stop motorists for moving traffic violations ?

  • Jusatyro

    States and cities with red light cameras and speed cameras that are now on the record saying it’s unnecessary to stop motorists for traffic violations and the Federal and State Point System is unnecessary.

    Even though the federal guidelines require C.D. L.drivers to report all moving violations to their employer, state license bureau and insurance company, even if they were ticketed for a moving violation driving their own personal car on their own time..

    We all are jesters paying to be a part of a fool’s court..

  • Jusatyro

    I would never make a statement that driving is a privilege not a right,,for i believe in the fundamental right of man evolution in transportation ,but i do understand that along with these Rights comes regulations and responsibilities..

    States and cities with traffic cameras have on their own admission stated it’s unnecessary to stop motorists for traffic violations and that the Federal and State rules and regulations of the Point System are unnecessary.

    How can a judge issue a search warrant on ‘Probable Cause’ in a traffic violations stop ?

Comments are closed.