SUFFOLK, Va. (WAVY) — The legality of collecting fines for speeding violations in construction and school zones via traffic cameras was at issue in a Suffolk courtroom Tuesday.
The traffic cameras are not only in Suffolk, but they are also in other cities, such as Chesapeake. The issue at hand? Who should be collecting fines from drivers, and are they doing it in a way that is legal?
The city of Suffolk was taken to court by an Isle of Wight County resident who thinks the city of Suffolk broke the law by using a third-party vendor and sending out $100 fines, and said that the city is not following state law by not using the Virginia uniform summons and the local court system for speeding tickets.
For its part, the city claims sovereign Immunity protection that it is acting under its governmental right.
Attorney Tim Anderson counters, however, that by working under third parties and doing their work, Suffolk is not covered by sovereign immunity.
“The issue really comes down to sovereign immunity,” Anderson told 10 On Your Side as he stood outside the Godwin Courts Building in Suffolk after the hearing alongside his client, Curtis Lytle, who got one of those $100 tickets.
Anderson said he thought the city had committed fraud because they had the third party asking for $100 and they knew he’s not going to fight it because it’s not worth it,
“Absolutely, it’s from the city of Baltimore,” Anderson said. “Baltimore is not in Virginia, last time I checked.”
For its part, the city claims sovereign immunity protection and doesn’t give that up by having a third-party vendor issuing speeding tickets.
However, Anderson said he’d say the same thing if he was in the city’s shoes.
“But the thing is, is that when you are a company, you don’t get sovereign immunity,” Anderson said, “and that’s the argument that we’re making, and since the company is billing, not the government, that’s where they’ve lost their immunity on top of the fact that they started the fight.”
In court, Suffolk Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Rebecca Powers, who would not talk to reporters outside court, spent time talking about the words shall and may.
“Any prosecution shall be instituted and conducted in the same manner as prosecution for traffic infractions,” she said.
Said Anderson: “The General Assembly said you shall do it this way, and they’re like, ‘Oh, we don’t have to do it that way. We can do it this way and make a lot more money from that,’ and that’s the whole crux of why I’m involved in this, is this money grab that the cities are engaged in.”
During our investigation, we learned that in Suffolk, the third-party vendor has $5.6 million in uncollected revenue.
“There’s a lot more people like me,” Lytle said. “I interpret it that they are not satisfied with the government, and they are just like me.”
And in the end, if the city of Suffolk loses, what does that mean?
Anderson seems to have figured it out.
“Oh, it’s going to mean a lot,” Anderson said. “There’s 130,000 people out here that have got tickets in this unlawful scheme that we argue the cities are engaged in. So, we’re going to ask for all that money to be refunded. It could be $13 million, $15 million, $17 million. … It’s a big deal.”
This matter is all-but-guaranteed for an appeal for the side that loses.
Chesapeake also has a similar suit filed against that city that will be heard Sept. 18.