Million Dollar Red-Light Camera | Dallas, Texas Personal Injury Attorney Blog

While some cities have lost money on the controversial red-light cameras, others are clearly generating large sums of revenue.

The red light camera located at Danieldale Road and U.S. Highway 67 in Duncanville, Texas tops the list of money makers. The cameras at that intersection issued more than 19,000 citations and generated more than $1 million in a one-year span. Meanwhile, the cameras located at the intersection of Cooper Street and Spur 303 in Arlington, Texas generated more than $943,000 in revenue for the city of Arlington. Of the top 10 money-making cameras in North Texas, three are in Duncanville. Dallas, Richardson, Richland Hills and Irving also made an appearance on the top 10.

The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit news Web site, analyzed red-light cameras across the state from July 1, 2008 to June 20, 2009. To view those results, go to: http://www.texastribune.org/library/data/red-light-cameras/

The Controversy

In addition to the anger some people have because over the use of red light cameras to generate revenue, and that the belief that some red light cameras may contribute to the cause of accidents when drivers slam on their brakes to avoid being issued a ticket from a red light camera, the companies that operate these red light cameras have come under fire for not being operated in a legal fashion under Texas law.

Dallas attorney Lloyd Ward started the fight when he sued ACS, one of the largest red light camera companies after he received a ticket as a result of a red light camera operated by ACS. Mr. Ward discovered that ACS and two other red light camera companies, ATS and Redflex were all in violation of Texas law because they did not have an occupational license as required by the Texas Occupational Code. Judge Craig Smith (192^nd District Court of Dallas County, Texas) agreed and issued a ruling that ACS was operating without a license.
Texas Occupation Code Section 1702.101 states that “Unless the person holds a license as an investigations company, a person may not… offer to perform the services of an investigations company. A person acts as an investigations company for the purposes of this chapter if the person engages in the business of obtaining or furnishing… information related to… crime or wrongs done; or… engages in the business of securing… evidence for use before a court, board, officer, or investigating committee… furnishing information includes information obtained or furnished through the review and analysis of, and the investigation into the content of, computer-based data not available to the public.”

On the heels of Ward’s victory, two new cases were filed in federal court against two different vendors. The plaintiffs in Steven Bell, Alexis and Jacqueline Monrreal, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. American Traffic Solutions, Inc., filed suit in Dallas. They claim that American Traffic Solutions failed to obtain the appropriate license as a private investigator in Texas. The plaintiffs received notices of red light violations from Irving and Arlington, respectively. Importantly, the pleadings in the case seek to certify a class action lawsuit on behalf of everyone who has ever received a notice of violation from those cities, and seeks actual damages in the amount of the tickets each plaintiff received, attorneys’ fees, plus $3 million in punitive damages. The same attorney filed an essentially identical suit in federal court in Sherman, Steven Bell, TXPS, Inc., and Mohammed Al Musa on behalf of others similarly situated v. Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. That case involves notices of violation issued by Plano and Duncanville.

On March 26, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas dismissed a lawsuit claiming that red-light camera vendors were required to obtain a private investigator’s license to operate in the State of Texas. An identical case was filed against American Traffic Solutions, Inc. (ATS) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. In dismissing the case with prejudice, United States District Judge Michael H. Schneider said the plaintiffs do not have standing to argue that a private investigator’s license is required for vendors to operate camera programs or to address the Texas Legislature’s authorization of the use of red-light cameras by local governments.

Future controversies of red light cameras are quickly resolving themselves as these red light camera companies are taking steps to get the required licensing to make sure that the millions of dollars being generated by these cameras is not being jeopardized.