Did Tennessee's 2015 ban on speed-cam citations apply to existing contracts between cities and camera vendors, or just to new ones?

Plain-English summary

Chapter 468 of the 2015 Tennessee Public Acts (effective July 1, 2015) amended Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-198(1) to bar unmanned traffic cameras from being used to issue speeding citations, with two narrow exceptions. Representative Tilman Goins asked whether the restriction applied to existing speed-camera contracts between Tennessee cities and private vendors, and if so, whether that violated the federal or state constitutional prohibition on impairment of contracts.

The AG answered yes to applicability and no to constitutional impairment.

On applicability, Chapter 468's own language is explicit: it "shall apply to contracts entered into or renewed on or after" July 1, 2015. Layered on top of that, Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-198(n), added in 2012, already required every speed-camera contract executed after July 1, 2012 to include a clause that "the contract must conform to any change in state law." Reading those together, any speed-camera contract entered into or renewed after July 1, 2012 was already subject to the rule that future state-law changes (like Chapter 468) would apply.

On the constitutional question, the AG relied on prior AG opinions (12-28, 11-61) and the Tennessee Court of Appeals' 2013 decision in American Traffic Solutions, Inc. v. City of Knoxville. That decision held the General Assembly's restrictions on traffic-camera citations were remedial in nature and a valid exercise of the state's police power, so they did not unconstitutionally impair existing contracts. The same reasoning applies to Chapter 468.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2016. 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: What were the two narrow exceptions Chapter 468 preserved?
A: The opinion does not detail them. They are visible in the statute text but were not central to the question presented. Generally, speed-camera enforcement was preserved in narrow contexts (such as school zones during posted times) under separate statutory carve-outs.

Q: Why doesn't a state law that voids the economic value of an existing contract violate the Contracts Clause?
A: Both the federal and state Contracts Clauses prohibit laws "impairing" contracts. Courts apply a balancing test that considers the substantial nature of the impairment, whether the state has a significant and legitimate public purpose, and whether the means chosen are reasonable and necessary. The American Traffic Solutions decision concluded that camera restrictions are remedial public-safety/police-power regulation, the state's regulatory authority is reserved in every commercial relationship, and so the impairment is constitutionally permissible.

Q: Did Chapter 468 affect red-light cameras too?
A: This opinion specifically addresses unmanned cameras "that monitor speed." Red-light cameras are a separate category. Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-198 covered both but with different rules. Specific questions about red-light cameras require parsing that statute as it stood at the relevant time.

Q: Could a city sue the state for taking away its enforcement revenue?
A: As a political subdivision of the state, a city has limited constitutional protections against state regulation of its functions. The AG opinion did not raise this issue because the immediate question was vendor-contract impairment, not municipal home rule.

Background and statutory framework

Tennessee Code Ann. § 55-8-198 governed unmanned traffic enforcement cameras (red-light and speed cameras). Successive legislatures restricted their use, in part because of public objection to revenue-driven enforcement and in part because of due process concerns about owner-not-driver citations.

The 2012 Public Chapter 751 (which became § 55-8-198(n)) was a regulatory hook: it required all post-July 2012 contracts to include a clause subjecting them to future state-law changes. This served two purposes: forewarning vendors of regulatory risk, and creating a contractual basis for applying later restrictions to existing contracts without raising a contracts-clause objection.

Chapter 468 of 2015 made aggressive use of that hook by extending its restrictions to all existing contracts effective on a hard date. The 2013 American Traffic Solutions v. City of Knoxville decision had already approved this regulatory model in the red-light context, providing the AG's constitutional answer.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-198(1) (speed-camera citation restriction)
• Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-198(n) (mandatory state-law-change clause in contracts post-July 2012)
• 2015 Tenn. Pub. Acts 468 (the restriction at issue)
• 2012 Tenn. Pub. Acts 751 (the precursor requiring conformity clauses)

Cases:

• State v. Davis, 484 S.W.3d 138 (Tenn. 2016) (plain meaning rule)
• Eastman Chemical Co. v. Johnson, 151 S.W.3d 503 (Tenn. 2004) (statutory construction)
• American Traffic Solutions, Inc. v. City of Knoxville, 2013 WL 5677342 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 18, 2013) (camera restrictions are valid police power; not unconstitutional contracts impairment)

Related AG opinions:

• Tenn. Att'y Gen. Op. 12-28 (Mar. 2, 2012) (legislative camera restrictions survive contracts-clause challenge)
• Tenn. Att'y Gen. Op. 11-61 (Aug. 8, 2011) (same)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/opinions.html
• Original PDF: https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/attorneygeneral/documents/ops/2016/op16-028.pdf

Original opinion text

STATE OF TENNESSEE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
July 22, 2016

Opinion No. 16-28

Statutory Restriction on the Use of Unmanned Traffic Enforcement Cameras

Question

Effective July 1, 2015, Public Chapter 468 amended Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-198 to restrict the use of unmanned traffic enforcement cameras that monitor speed. Do these restrictions apply to contracts either executed or renewed on or after July 1, 2015, by a local government with a company to install, maintain, and operate such cameras and, if so, does this requirement violate any State or federal constitutional provision prohibiting the impairment of contracts?

Opinion

The restrictions enacted by Chapter 468 of the 2015 Tennessee Public Acts apply to all existing contracts executed by a local government with a company to install, maintain, and operate unmanned traffic enforcement cameras. Chapter 468 does not violate any State or federal constitutional provision prohibiting the impairment of contracts.

ANALYSIS

Chapter 468 of the 2015 Tennessee Public Acts amended Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-198(1) to provide that, subject to two narrow exceptions, "[n]otwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, an unmanned traffic enforcement camera that monitors speed shall not be used to issue a citation to any driver for violating the speed limit on any public road or highway." 2015 Tenn. Pub. Acts 468, § 1.

Chapter 468 states its provisions will take effect on July 1, 2015, and expressly provides these provisions "shall apply to contracts entered into or renewed on or after such date." Id. § 2. Tennessee Code Annotated § 55-8-198(n) further requires that, after July 1, 2012, "a local government shall include in any contract involving unmanned traffic enforcement cameras . . . that the contract must conform to any change in state law." This provision was added by Chapter 751 of the 2012 Tennessee Public Acts. These provisions collectively make clear that the restrictions in the use of unmanned traffic enforcement cameras adopted by Chapter 468 shall become immediately applicable, upon the effective date of Chapter 468, to all contracts executed by a local government for the operation of such cameras. When the statutory language is unambiguous, as is the case here, courts will apply the statute's plain meaning in its normal and accepted use. State v. Davis, 484 S.W.3d 138, 144-45 (Tenn. 2016); Eastman Chemical Co. v. Johnson, 151 S.W.3d 503, 507 (Tenn. 2004).

This Office has previously opined that legislative changes in the use of unmanned traffic enforcement cameras, including changes restricting the use of such cameras to support the issuance of traffic citations, likely would withstand a constitutional challenge claiming that these changes impair existing contracts to install and maintain such cameras. Tenn. Op. Att'y. Gen. No. 12-28, at 1-2 (March 2, 2012); Tenn. Op. Att'y. Gen. No. 11-61, at 3 (Aug. 8, 2011). See also American Traffic Solutions, Inc. v. City of Knoxville, No. E2012-01334-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 5677342, at *3-9 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 18, 2013) (finding the General Assembly's enactment of restrictions on the use of unmanned traffic enforcement cameras to issue traffic citations was remedial in nature and a valid exercise of the State's police power, and thus did not unconstitutionally impair a contract executed by the City of Knoxville with a company to install, maintain and operate such cameras).

HERBERT H. SLATERY III
Attorney General and Reporter

ANDRÉE SOPHIA BLUMSTEIN
Solicitor General

BILL YOUNG
Associate Attorney General

Requested by:
The Honorable Tilman Goins
State Representative
207 War Memorial Building
Nashville, Tennessee 37243