Can a Mississippi city run an ALPR-based program to ticket uninsured drivers and split fees with a private vendor?

Plain-English summary

The City of Clinton was approached by a private vendor with a proposal: install automatic license plate reader (ALPR) cameras around the city, pull weekly motor-vehicle-insurance-verification (MVIVS) data from the Mississippi Department of Public Safety, run every passing plate against that data, and flag uninsured vehicles. A certified officer would review the matches, confirm probable cause, and the registered owner would get a mailed citation. The owner could then choose between municipal court or a vendor-administered diversion program (insurance + online course + a $315 fee split between vendor, city, and DPS, with a continuing-coverage commitment). The mayor's attorney asked whether Mississippi law allows this.

The AG's answer is "not flatly prohibited, but with substantial caveats and several factual questions outside the scope of the opinion."

The traffic-camera ban in Section 17-25-19 is the first hurdle, and it is narrower than people often assume. The statute only bans automated recording equipment that works "in conjunction with a traffic control signal or radar speed detection equipment" and that targets traffic-law violations. Insurance enforcement is not a traffic-law category in Section 17-25-19, and ALPR cameras that are not coupled with traffic signals or radar are not within the prohibition. So the bare camera-and-database matching is allowed.

The MVIVS access rules are the second hurdle. Section 63-16-3(3)(c) limits MVIVS access to "authorized personnel of the department, the courts, law enforcement personnel, and other entities authorized by the department under the provisions of Section 63-16-7." DPS has broad rule-making authority over MVIVS. So a private vendor can use MVIVS only if DPS authorizes the vendor under DPS's rules.

The third hurdle is constitutional. Section 63-16-5 prohibits using MVIVS as the sole basis for a traffic stop, and Section 63-15-4(3) bars using a roadblock for the sole purpose of insurance verification. Whether the proposed ALPR-and-mailed-citation arrangement counts as a "traffic stop" or a "roadblock" is a mixed question of fact and law that the AG cannot resolve. Same for any U.S. constitutional issues, which are outside the scope of a state-law AG opinion.

The fourth hurdle is the diversion-program math. Mississippi law sets specific penalties and mandatory state assessments for insurance violations. Section 99-19-73(8)(c) imposes uninsured-motorist-identification-fund assessments ($200/$300/$400 by offense number) that "may [not] be suspended or reduced by the court." Whether the proposed $315 diversion fee would account for these mandatory assessments is, again, a factual question.

What this means for you

For municipalities considering an ALPR insurance program

The AG did not give a clean yes or no. It concluded the City "is not explicitly prohibited by Mississippi law" from running such a program, but identified several determinations it could not make:

• Vendor access to MVIVS is allowed only if DPS authorizes the vendor under its rules (§§ 63-16-3(3)(c), 63-16-7).
• Whether the proposed arrangement amounts to a "traffic stop" under § 63-16-5 or an unlawful "roadblock" under § 63-15-4 is, in the AG's words, "a mixed question of fact and law upon which this office may not opine."
• Federal constitutional questions and contractual matters were outside the scope of the opinion.
• The mandatory Uninsured Motorist Identification Fund assessments under § 99-19-73 cannot be "suspended or reduced by the court," and the AG said "any citation would need to account for these statutory requirements." Whether the proposed program does so is a question of fact the AG could not decide.

For private vendors pitching ALPR insurance enforcement to Mississippi cities

The opinion's key point for vendors is access: information from MVIVS "may be released to private entities, such as the Vendor, if such action is authorized by DPS in accordance with its rules" under §§ 63-16-3 and 63-16-7. Without that authorization, a vendor is not among the entities allowed to access MVIVS under § 63-16-3(3)(c). The opinion also noted that the mandatory state assessments under § 99-19-73 cannot be suspended or reduced, and that any citation would have to account for them.

For drivers receiving an ALPR-based insurance citation

The opinion does not say an ALPR-based citation is automatically valid or invalid. It identifies what Mississippi law requires: DPS-authorized MVIVS access for any private vendor, an officer's review of flagged vehicles to determine probable cause, and a process that does not run afoul of the stop limit in § 63-16-5 or the roadblock limit in § 63-15-4. It also notes the mandatory Uninsured Motorist Identification Fund assessments ($200 first offense, $300 second, $400 third), which the statute says cannot be suspended or reduced.

For state legislators

The opinion shows there is no Mississippi statute squarely authorizing or prohibiting ALPR-based civil insurance enforcement. The AG reasoned from the traffic-camera statute (§ 17-25-19), the MVIVS access rules (§§ 63-16-3, 63-16-5, 63-16-7), the roadblock limit (§ 63-15-4), and the mandatory assessment schedule (§ 99-19-73), and left the core "traffic stop"/"roadblock" characterization as a factual question it could not resolve.

Common questions

Doesn't Mississippi ban traffic cameras?

Section 17-25-19 prohibits cameras working "in conjunction with a traffic control signal or radar speed detection equipment" used to enforce "traffic signals, traffic speeds or other traffic laws." The AG previously interpreted this in MS AG Op., Sorrell (Apr. 17, 2009), to allow pole-mounted cameras for criminal-activity enforcement so long as they are not paired with a traffic signal or radar. ALPR cameras are not within the Section 17-25-19 prohibition unless they are paired with traffic signals or radar.

Can a private vendor have access to the state's insurance-verification database?

Only if DPS authorizes the vendor under its administrative rules. Section 63-16-3(3)(c) lists who can access MVIVS without fee: DPS personnel, courts, law enforcement, and "other entities authorized by the department under the provisions of Section 63-16-7." Section 63-16-7 gives DPS broad rule-making authority over the system. So the answer is yes if DPS has authorized the vendor; no if it has not.

Can the police pull me over solely because MVIVS shows my vehicle as uninsured?

No. Section 63-16-5(3) says that "[e]xcept upon reasonable cause to believe that a driver has violated another traffic regulation or that the driver's motor vehicle is unsafe or not equipped as required by law, a law enforcement officer may not use the verification system to stop a driver for operating a motor vehicle in violation of this chapter." So an MVIVS hit alone is not enough.

Can the police set up a checkpoint just to verify insurance?

No. Section 63-15-4(3) allows MVIVS use at a roadblock "where all passing motorists are checked as a method to enforce traffic laws," but says "no driver shall be stopped or detained solely for the purpose of verifying that the motor vehicle is covered by liability insurance in the amounts required under Section 63-15-3(j) unless the stop is part of such roadblock."

What are the mandatory state assessments for an insurance violation?

Section 99-19-73(8)(c) imposes Uninsured Motorist Identification Fund assessments on top of any other fines or penalties: $200 for a first offense, $300 for a second offense, $400 for a third or subsequent offense. Section 99-19-73(9) says these assessments cannot be suspended or reduced by the court, even if the underlying fine or penalty is suspended.

What questions did the AG leave unresolved?

The opinion expressly declined several. Whether the arrangement is a "traffic stop" under Section 63-16-5 or an unlawful "roadblock" under Section 63-15-4 is "a mixed question of fact and law upon which this office may not opine." Federal-law questions and contractual matters (including the vendor fee split) were also outside the opinion's scope. And whether the proposed program "includes all such statutory requirements," including the mandatory Uninsured Motorist Identification Fund assessments, is "a question of fact upon which this office may not opine." The AG cited Section 7-5-25 as the limit on its authority to reach these.

Background and statutory framework

Section 17-25-19 (the traffic-camera ban). Cities and counties cannot adopt or enforce ordinances authorizing automated recording equipment "to enforce compliance with traffic signals, traffic speeds or other traffic laws, rules or regulations" or to impose civil/criminal fines for such violations. The statute defines "automated recording equipment or system" specifically as cameras tied to traffic-control signals or radar speed detection equipment. ALPR cameras independent of those triggers are not within the ban.

Public Safety Verification and Enforcement Act, Sections 63-16-1 et seq. Section 63-16-3 establishes MVIVS, the database that tracks Mississippi insurance compliance. Section 63-16-3(3)(c) limits access. Section 63-16-7 gives DPS rule-making and authorization authority. Section 63-16-5 limits the use of MVIVS in traffic stops. Section 63-15-4 limits roadblock-based insurance verification.

Penalties and assessments. Section 63-15-4(4) makes failing to have proof of insurance a misdemeanor punishable by a $100 fine and a one-year license suspension; Section 63-16-13 covers failure to maintain insurance. Section 99-19-73(8)(c) layers on the Uninsured Motorist Identification Fund assessments. Section 99-19-73(9) prohibits suspending or reducing those assessments.

Section 7-5-25. Limits AG opinions to questions of state law and excludes federal-law and contract-specific questions, which is why this opinion repeatedly notes that Fourth Amendment and contractual issues are not addressed.

Citations

• Miss. Code Ann. § 17-25-19
• Miss. Code Ann. §§ 63-16-1, et seq. (especially 63-16-3, 63-16-5, 63-16-7, 63-16-13)
• Miss. Code Ann. §§ 63-15-3, 63-15-4
• Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-73(8)(c), (9)
• Miss. Code Ann. § 7-5-25
• MS AG Op., Sorrell (Apr. 17, 2009)

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/divisions/opinions-and-policy/recent-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/W.Purdie-August-30-2024-ALPR-Motor-Vehicle-Insurance-Enforcement-Program.pdf

Original opinion text

August 30, 2024
William C. Purdie, Esq.
Attorney, City of Clinton
Post Office Box 156
Clinton, Mississippi 39060
Re:

ALPR Motor Vehicle Insurance Enforcement Program

Dear Mr. Purdie:
The Office of the Attorney General has received your request for an official opinion. Background According to your request, the city of Clinton (the "City") has been approached by a private company (the "Vendor") with a proposal to implement an automatic license plate reader-based motor vehicle insurance enforcement program. As proposed, the program would operate in the following manner: the Mississippi Department of Public Safety ("DPS") would provide the City and the Vendor with information from the motor vehicle insurance verification system ("MVIVS") database on a weekly basis. The Vendor would then use an automatic license plate reader ("ALPR") system to check the insurance status of every vehicle that passes the reader against the data provided by DPS. When a vehicle is identified as uninsured, a certified law enforcement officer would be notified of the uninsured vehicle along with an image of the vehicle's license plate. The officer would review the images and the MVIVS database to determine whether probable cause exists. The violation would be secondarily verified, and then the motor vehicle owner would be mailed a citation for violation of Mississippi's mandatory insurance laws. Upon receipt of a citation, the motor vehicle owner may choose to enter a diversion program requiring the vehicle owner to:

1. Agree to participate in the diversion program
2. Obtain liability insurance
3. Take an online course covering Mississippi's liability insurance requirements
4. Pay a $315 fee to be split between the Vendor, the City, and DPS
5. Agree to maintain liability insurance

If the motor vehicle owner successfully completes the diversion program, the charge will be dismissed. Alternatively, the owner may choose to address the citation through municipal court. In that instance, the Vendor would have no further involvement in the case. Question Presented Does the City have the legal authority to institute and operate an ALPR-based motor vehicle insurance enforcement program in accordance with the provisions outlined above? Brief Response The City is not explicitly prohibited by Mississippi law from initiating and utilizing an ALPR-based motor vehicle insurance enforcement program. However, certain factual and legal determinations, which are outside the scope of this opinion, must be considered in regard to the proposed program, including but not limited to, the proposed uses of MVIVS. Applicable Law and Discussion To begin, this opinion concerns matters of state law only and does not address U.S. Constitutional or federal law or any contractual considerations. In regard to municipalities utilizing ALPR cameras, Mississippi Code Annotated Section 17-25-19 provides: (1)(a) Neither the board of supervisors of any county nor the governing authority of any municipality shall adopt, enact or enforce any ordinance authorizing the use of automated recording equipment or system to enforce compliance with traffic signals, traffic speeds or other traffic laws, rules or regulations on any public street, road or highway within this state or to impose or collect any civil or criminal fine, fee or penalty for any such violation.
...
(2) For the purposes of this section, the term "automated recording equipment or system" means a camera or optical device installed to work in conjunction with a traffic control signal or radar speed detection equipment or both and designed to record images that depict the license plate attached to the rear of a motor vehicle that is not operated in compliance with instructions of the traffic control signal or the posted speed limit. (emphasis added). In sum, Section 17-25-19 prohibits the use of ALPRs that work in conjunction with traffic signals or radar equipment. This office addressed Section 17-25-19 in MS AG Op., Sorrell (Apr. 17, 2009), and opined that the statute did not completely prohibit the use of ALPR cameras but rather allowed municipalities to "continue to utilize cameras mounted on poles . . . for enforcement of criminal activity within the municipality as long as the cameras are not used in conjunction with a traffic control signal or radar speed detection equipment or both and designed to record images of a license plate." Id. at *1 (emphasis in original). Furthermore, Section 17-25-19 only addresses traffic laws, rules, and regulations — not motor vehicle insurance requirements. Next, the Public Safety Verification and Enforcement Act is set forth in Sections 63-16-1, et seq. In accordance with Section 63-16-3 therein, DPS established MVIVS, a database for verifying a motor vehicle's compliance with Mississippi's mandatory insurance laws. Section 63-16-3(3) sets forth various statutory requirements for MVIVS. Among these, Section 63-16-3(3)(c) provides that MVIVS must "[b]e accessible, without fee, to authorized personnel of the department, the courts, law enforcement personnel, and other entities authorized by the department under the provisions of Section 63-16-7." (emphasis added). Section 63-16-7 gives DPS broad authority over the administration and enforcement of MVIVS and grants DPS the power to enact rules for the same: (1) The Department of Public Safety, hereinafter referred to in this section as "department," shall administer and enforce the provisions of this chapter, as applicable, and shall make rules necessary for the administration of the motor vehicle insurance verification system created under Section 63-16-3.
...
(3) The department may adopt additional rules to:
(a) Assist authorized users in interpreting responses received from the motor vehicle insurance verification system and determining the appropriate action to be taken as a result of a response; and (b) Otherwise clarify system operations and business rules. In your provided scenario, the third-party Vendor would use information from MVIVS, provided by DPS, and an ALPR system to verify insurance coverage of every vehicle that passes the ALPR readers. A law enforcement officer or authorized employee of a law enforcement agency would then go behind the Vendor to verify the insurance status of all motor vehicles flagged as uninsured. In summary, information recovered from MVIVS may be released to private entities, such as the Vendor, if such action is authorized by DPS in accordance with its rules as set forth in Sections 63-16-3 and 63-16-7. More specific to your proposed scenario, as highlighted above, Section 63-16-3(3)(c) states that MVIVS must "[b]e accessible, without fee, to authorized personnel of the department, the courts, law enforcement personnel, and other entities authorized by the department under the provisions of Section 63-16-7." (emphasis added). Additionally, Section 63-16-5 permits a law enforcement officer or authorized employee of a law enforcement agency to access MVIVS in relation to a traffic stop, with certain limitations. Specifically, Section 63-16-5 prohibits law enforcement officers from using MVIVS as the sole cause for a stop: (1) A law enforcement officer or authorized employee of a law enforcement agency may, during the course of a traffic stop or accident investigation, access the verification system established under Section 63-16-3 to verify whether a motor vehicle is covered by a valid motor vehicle liability policy in at least the minimum amounts required under Section 63-15-3(j).
...
(3) Except upon reasonable cause to believe that a driver has violated another traffic regulation or that the driver's motor vehicle is unsafe or not equipped as required by law, a law enforcement officer may not use the verification system to stop a driver for operating a motor vehicle in violation of this chapter. (emphasis added). Further, while Section 63-15-4(3) permits the use of MVIVS "at a roadblock where all passing motorists are checked as a method to enforce traffic laws," that section also states that "no driver shall be stopped or detained solely for the purpose of verifying that the motor vehicle is covered by liability insurance in the amounts required under Section 63-15-3(j) unless the stop is part of such roadblock." Presumably, these provisions were enacted to prevent illegal searches. This said, whether the scenario you provide would constitute a "traffic stop" as contemplated by Section 63-16-5 or a "roadblock" as contemplated by Section 63-15-4 is a mixed question of fact and law upon which this office may not opine. See Miss. Code Ann. § 7-5-25. Nonetheless, if it is determined that such use does not constitute a "traffic stop" as provided in Section 63-16-5 and does not constitute an unlawful use of a "roadblock" as provided in Section 63-15-4, there are no other provisions within the Public Safety Verification and Enforcement Act that limit an entity authorized by the department or a law enforcement officer's ability to access MVIVS. Rather, as noted above, DPS is provided broad statutory authority over the administration and enforcement of MVIVS. Last, we address the proposed diversion program, including the fee. Again, we note that this office may not opine upon any contractual matters. Accordingly, this opinion only addresses Mississippi statutory considerations. Specific penalties for the violation of Mississippi's mandatory insurance laws are set forth in Sections 63-15-4(4) and 63-16-13(1). These statutes likewise specify where funds from such fines shall be deposited. Section 63-15-4(4) provides: Failure of the owner or the operator of a motor vehicle to have the insurance card in the motor vehicle, or to display the insurance card by electronic image on a cellular phone or other type of electronic device, is a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, is punishable by a fine of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) and suspension of driving privilege for a period of one (1) year or until the owner of the motor vehicle shows proof of liability insurance that is in compliance with the liability limits required by Section 63-15-3(j) and has paid the fines and assessments imposed and the driver's license reinstatement fees imposed by the Department of Public Safety. . . . If such fines are levied in a municipal court, the funds from such fines shall be deposited in the general fund of the municipality. If such fines are levied in any of the courts of the county, the funds from such fines shall be deposited in the general fund of the county. A person convicted of a criminal offense under this subsection (4) shall not be convicted of a criminal offense under Section 63-16-13(1) arising from the same incident. (emphasis added). See also Miss. Code Ann. § 63-16-13(1) (providing same). Unlike Section 63-9-11, which specifically provides first-time violators of Chapter 3, 5, or 7 of Title 63 the option to complete a traffic safety violator course, Sections 63-15-4(4), relating to the failure to have proof of insurance, and 63-16-13(1), relating to the failure to maintain insurance, while not prohibiting such a diversion program, also do not specifically contemplate a diversion program. Further, in addition to assessments to the state general fund "from each person upon whom a court imposes a fine or other penalty for any violation in Title 63," Section 99-19-73 sets forth an additional state assessment for persons violating the Mississippi motor vehicle liability insurance requirements specifically: Motor vehicle liability insurance violations. In addition to any monetary penalties and any other penalties imposed by law, there shall be imposed and collected the following state assessment in addition to all other state assessments due under this section from each person upon whom a court imposes a fine or other penalty for any violation of Section 63-15-4(4) or Section 63-16-13(1): Uninsured Motorist Identification Fund: First offense: $200.00 Second offense: $300.00 Third or subsequent offense: $400.00 Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-73(8)(c). Section 99-19-73(9) clarifies that even "[i]f a fine or other penalty imposed is suspended, in whole or in part, such suspension shall not affect the state assessment under this section. No state assessment imposed under the provisions of this section may be suspended or reduced by the court." (emphasis added). This is to say, state assessments for failure to have motor vehicle liability insurance are statutorily mandatory, not discretionary, whether imposed by a court or not. Accordingly, any citation would need to account for these statutory requirements. Whether the program you have summarized here includes all such statutory requirements is a question of fact upon which this office may not opine.

If this office may be of any further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, LYNN FITCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL By:

/s/ Maggie Kate Bobo
Maggie Kate Bobo
Special Assistant Attorney General