Thanks To Jessica White for bringing up this story in class.
Do the red light cameras in Houston violate constitutional rights and if so, what rights do they violate?
This question relates to the subject matter of both 2301 and 2302. In 2301 we will be discussing the appropriate limits of governmental power (civil liberities) and where they might be found (either specifically written in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights or seen in the broader reaches of the concept of "unalienable rights"). In 2302 we will discuss how appellate judges--most notably members of the Supreme Court--interpret constitutional language.
Two traffic lawyers in Houston claim that the cameras violate the principle of taxation without representation, which suggests that they see the policy not as a traffic safety issue, but as a revenue issue (in 2301 we will discuss the concept of framing when we cover public opinion).
Having yet to dwelve fully into this, I think that if this is defined as a traffic safety issue, then there really are no rights issues in play. Driving is considered a privilege not a right and the greater interest of society in having safe roads--which includes ensuring that people stop at red lights--outweighs an individuals' claim to drive as they choose, or to protest a means for enforcing the law. This is a more complex issue than I'm giving it credit for however. Legitimate questions have been raised in the past regarding the constitutionality of enforcing speed limits with cameras and sending tickets to the registered user (how do we know that that was the driver?) and the use of road blocks to enforce compliance.
But since this is defined in terms of taxation, who knows how it will go? Here are some posts (one and two) from other sources which describe this effort. Apparently this has been going on a while.
