Federal appeals court dismisses most claims challenging Cedar Rapids traffic cameras

CEDAR RAPIDS - A federal appeals court has agreed for the most part with a lower-court ruling to throw out a class-action lawsuit challenging traffic cameras in Cedar Rapids.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit filed a 15-page ruling on Wednesday that 'affirmed in part and reversed in part” Chief Judge Linda R. Reade's July 2015 ruling dismissing the case.

Twelve motorists sued the city of Cedar Rapids and its automated traffic camera vendor, Beverly, Mass.-based GATSO USA, challenging the legitimacy and fairness of automated traffic cameras. The cameras snap pictures of red light and speeding violations and trigger citations against the motorists.

'GATSO is happy with today's ruling,” said Paul Burns, GATSO's attorney. 'The Eighth Circuit joined a growing list of courts that have rejected legal challenges to the ATE (automated traffic enforcement) system.”

Cedar Rapids spokeswoman Maria Johnson declined to comment, citing ongoing litigation over the legality of traffic cameras.

Jim Larew, the attorney for plaintiffs in cases against Cedar Rapids and Des Moines, said, 'We are reviewing both decisions carefully with our clients to determine our next step.”

A similar ruling in the Des Moines case also was filed Wednesday.

In the Cedar Rapids case, an appeals court panel of Judges Arlen Beam, James Loken and William D. Benton agreed with Reade's dismissal of due process violations claims by most of the plaintiffs, but reversed her ruling for two plaintiffs, Gary Hughes and David Mazgaj.

Mazgaj and Hughes hadn't received a ticket, so couldn't show they had 'injury in fact,” which is a requirement for a federal hearing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Instead of dismissal, the appeals court ruled it lacked jurisdiction and sent the claim to state court.

For those plaintiffs with standing, the court found a due-process violation had not occurred. Motorists called the ticket appeals process a 'rubber stamp” and a 'sham of a process,” but the court found they have two means to contest traffic camera tickets, plus appeals.

In addition, the automated traffic camera program doesn't impinge on motorists right to travel, according to the court.

'A state may enforce conventional traffic regulations - even if they deter travel - without violating the fundamental right to travel,” the panel ruled.

Finally, the panel 'dismissed without prejudice” claims based on violations of Iowa Department of Transportation standards, which put some traffic cameras in Cedar Rapids and other Iowa cities out of compliance with state rules.

Dismissed without prejudice means this claim can be litigated again.

In a separate, pending lawsuit in state court, Cedar Rapids, Des Moines and Muscatine appealed an order by the Iowa DOT to turn off or move traffic certain cameras, claiming agency rules didn't have jurisdiction over local traffic enforcement methods.

Because the case is pending, the federal appeals court ruled that challenges claiming the cameras violate Iowa DOT standards are 'not ripe.” In Reade's earlier ruling, she had dismissed the Iowa DOT standards claim with prejudice, meaning the same claim could not be litigated again before the court.