Could Ridgeland use traffic cameras to issue ordinary speeding citations when an officer watched the video?

Plain-English summary

The Attorney General concluded that the Town of Ridgeland could not use photographic or video evidence to assist officers in issuing ordinary speeding or traffic-control citations outside the narrow emergency circumstances authorized by the 2010 legislation. The request described officers present at camera sites or watching a live feed. The opinion found no general statutory authority for that approach and said it could not avoid the legislation's restriction by adding an officer to the process.

For citations based solely on photographic evidence within the authorized emergency setting, the opinion also cited the law's requirement of in-person notice within an hour. It found no provision for a different means of service in those circumstances.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2010. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Did an officer watching the video make routine camera citations permissible? A: The opinion said no. It found no authority to use camera evidence to assist an officer except within the legislation's limited emergency setting.

Q: What emergency exception did the opinion identify?
A: It quoted the 2010 law's exception for violations occurring while relief from federal regulations had been granted due to an emergency.

Q: Could a covered photo-based citation be served later by mail? A: The opinion said the law required in-person notice within an hour for a citation based solely on photographic evidence and identified no alternative service method.

Background and statutory framework

A legislator asked about Ridgeland's planned use of cameras along Interstate 95 after legislation restricted photo-based speeding and traffic-control citations. The opinion read that statute against earlier Attorney General opinions saying photo-radar needed legislative authorization.

Citations and references

The original text below quotes R. 312 and its emergency and service conditions, including its reference to 49 C.F.R. 390.22.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/july-9-2010/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/rutherford-j-t-os-9095-07-09-10-traffic-citations-using-photograph-evidence.pdf

Original opinion text

HENRY MCMASTER
AlTORNEY GENERAL

July 9, 2010

The Honorable J. Todd Rutherford
Member, House of Representatives
P. 0 . Box 11867
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Dear Representative Rutherford:
In a letter to this office you questioned whether recent legislation, R. 312, prevents the Town ofRidgeland from issuing traffic citations in nonemergency situations using photographic evidence. You stated as follows:

.. .it has come to my attention that on Tuesday, July 6, 2010, the Town of Ridgeland will begin using video cameras to issue citations at all times along the portion of Interstate 95 that is within the town limits. The Town will either have officers present at the camera locations or will have officers watching the live video feed. By doing so, the Town believes they will get around the specific requirements of subsection (E) and the legislative intent. However, the officers will not personally serve the citations. Instead, the citations will be served in an unknown manner based upon evidence gained from the video cameras. Referencing such, you have questioned whether such citations will be enforceable given the restrictions of R. 312. Prior opinions of this office dated March 19, 1996 and October 31, 2002 have dealt with the use of photo-radar in this State. Such opinions concluded that statutory authorization for the use of such would have to be enacted in order to utilize such means for detecting traffic violators. The March, 1996 opinion specifically stated that this office would " ... advise that the General Assembly would be the more appropriate body to authorize the use of photo radar." The use of photographic evidence as a means of enforcing traffic laws was provided for in recently-enacted legislation, R. 312, which became effective June 11, 2010 when signed by the Governor, which states in subsection (E):
[c]itations for violating traffic laws relating to speeding or disregarding traffic control devices based solely on photographic evidence may only be issued for violations that occur while relief from regulations pursuant to 49 C.F.R. 390.22 has been granted due to an emergency. A person who receives a citation for violating traffic laws REMl!ER'f c. DENNIS BUtLDING •

Posr OFFICE Box 11549 • COLUMBIA, SC 29211-1549 • TELEPHONE 803-734-3970 • FACSIMILE 803-253-6283

The Honorable J. Todd Rutherford
Page2
July 9, 2010
relating to speeding or disregarding traffic control devices based solely on photographic evidence must be served in person with notice of the violation within one hour of the occurrence of the violation. The provisions of this subsection do not apply to toll collection enforcement. (emphasis added). When interpreting the meaning of a statute, certain basic principles must be observed. The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent. State v. Martin, 293 S.C. 46, 358 S.E.2d 697 (1987). Typically, legislative intent is determined by applying the words used by the General Assembly in their usual and ordinary significance. Martin v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, 256 S.C. 577, 183 S.E.2d 451 (1971). Resort to subtle or forced construction for the purpose oflimiting or expanding the operation of a statute should not be undertaken. Walton v. Walton, 282 S.C. 165, 318 S.E.2d 14 (1984). Courts must apply the clear and unambiguous terms of a statute according to their literal meaning and statutes should be given a reasonable and practical construction which is consistent with the policy and purpose expressed therein. State v. Blackmon, 304 S.C. 270, 403 S.E.2d 660 (1991); Jones v. South Carolina State Highway Department, 247 S.C. 132, 146 S.E.2d 166 (1966). While R. 312 authorizes the use of"photographic evidence... for violations that occur while relief from regulations pursuant to 49 C.F.R. 390.22 has been granted due to an emergency", there is no further authorization for the use of photographic or video camera evidence for traffic violators. Therefore, in the opinion of this office, photographic or video camera evidence may not be used in assisting an officer in observing and reviewing a traffic violation except in those limited circumstances set forth by R. 312. Moreover, as specified in R. 312, "[a] person who receives a citation for violating traffic laws relating to speeding or disregarding traffic control devices based solely on photographic evidence must be served in person with notice of the violation within one hour of the occurrence of the violation." There is no provision for using other means to serve violators in such circumstances. If there are any questions, please advise.

Very truly yours,
Henry McMaster

~e~ ~eneral /}, ~

Cfkd(/H
~~--By:
Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

;Ylz19. ~
Robert D. Cook
Deputy Attorney General