In Idris, et al., v. City of Chicago , et al., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 42 (7th Cir. Ill. Jan. 5, 2009),the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, recently affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, holding that the City of Chicago’s practice of fining vehicle owners under a local ordinance, regardless of the identity of the driver, pursuant to its red light camera enforcement system, does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.
In July, 2003, the City of Chicago enacted Chapter 9-102 of the Chicago Traffic Code, allowing the City to install cameras at traffic intersections around the city to photograph vehicles entering intersections against red lights or making illegal turns. Under the code section, the photographs are considered prima facie evidence of the traffic violation and the registered owner of the vehicle is generally liable for a $90 fine if the owner’s car is photographed, regardless of the identity of the driver. Three of the plaintiffs in Idris, were issued citations for violation of Chapter 9-102, as the registered owners of certain vehicles, even though they were not the actual drivers of those vehicles at the time of the alleged infraction.
Plaintiff owners appealed a decision of the United Stated District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granting summary judgment to the City of Chicago in their action alleging that Chapter 9-102 violated the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. On appeal, plaintiffs asserted that vicarious liability offended the substantive component of the due process clause.
In reviewing the case, the Seventh Circuit noted: “When a government action is challenged under substantive due process, a court must first determine whether a fundamental right is implicated and if not, must apply the rational basis test.” Idris, et al., v. City of Chicago , et al., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3933 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 16, 2008); citing, Doe v. City of Lafayette, 377 F. 3d 757, 773 (7th Cir. 2004). “The rational basis test under substantive due process …requires only that a government action be ‘rationally related to a legitimate government interest.’” Id.
In this case, the Seventh Circuit dismissed the implication of a fundamental right, noting that no one has a fundamental right to run a red light or avoid being seen by a camera on a public street. Thus, review under the rational-basis doctrine left the court to decide whether the City’s approach of fining the owner rather than the driver was rationally related to a legitimate government interest. The court ultimately found that it was.
In support of its decision, the court noted that a camera can reliably show which vehicles go through red lights, but is less likely to show who was driving, imposing a virtually impossible burden on the municipality to prove the identity of the driver after the respondent invokes a “innocent owner” defense. Also, the use of a red light camera system reduces the cost of law enforcement and increases the proportion of all traffic offenses that are detected, which said objectives can be achieved only if the owner is held responsible. Finally, expanding on the city’s contention in the district court that Chapter 9-102 is rationally related to advancing its interest in deterring traffic violations and promoting traffic safety, the appellate court noted that “[a] system that simultaneously raises money and improves compliance with traffic laws has much to recommend it and cannot be called unconstitutionally whimsical.” Id.
This decision is important because it provides a constitutional basis for municipalities, which may have previously deferred, to move forward in introducing red light camera systems without having to incur a relatively impossible burden of proof in adjudication of the same. In addition, this decision may provide guidance in the potential expansion of red light camera initiatives beyond their current use.
* * *
Brian Begley, an associate in our Joliet, Illinois office, concentrates his practice in municipal and premises liability. Mr. Begley previously served as an Assistant State's Attorney in the Cook County State's Attorney's Office, where he tried numerous cases in the traffic and narcotics divisions. Mr. Begley also served in the Civil Actions Bureau, representing Cook County in complex building and zoning matters.
Prior to joining Querrey & Harrow, Ltd., Mr. Begley also served as an Associate at another local law firm where his concentration included representation of municipal entities and local school districts. Mr. Begley has also served as an Administrative Hearing Officer where he adjudicated local municipal code violations. If you have any questions regarding this article, please contact Brian via bbegley@querrey.com, or via (815) 726-8153.
