2021-08-23-minutes-public-works-study-session

Home Browse Search

All camera locations must be clearly marked at least 30 days before the camera is activated. Some jurisdictions have also imposed temporary grace periods after the cameras are activated to educate drivers without ticketing them. Cities and counties using automated cameras must post an annual report on their websites showing: • The number of traffic accidents that occurred at each camera location; • The number of notices of infraction issued for each camera; and • Any other relevant information that the city or county deems appropriate. Records Management Photographs, electronic images, or any other personally identifying data from automated traffic safety cameras are for the exclusive use of law enforcement and are prohibited from release to the public under RCW 46.63.170(1)(g). For information on the retention of automated traffic safety camera footage, see our page Retention Requirements for Law Enforcement Records. Court Decisions Below are selected court decisions pertaining to automated traffic safety cameras, and specifically whether or not the use or authorization of such cameras is subject to initiative or referendum. • City of Longview v. Walling 174 Wn. App. 763 (4130/2013) — Longview adopted an ordinance providing for the placement of automated traffic safety cameras. An initiative was filed to reverse the action. Ultimately the initiative process was stopped after the Supreme Court concluded in Mukilteo Citizens for Simple Govemment v. Cityof Mukilteo, 174 Wn.2d 41 (2012) that the decision to provide for such cameras was not subject to initiative. Wallin appealed, arguing a variety of issues, including challenges to the city's standing, ripeness, Freedom of Speech, etc. The court, on appeal, denied Wallin's efforts, affirming the lower court's decision. • Eyman v. McGehee, 173 Wn. App. 684 (211912013) — After the City of Redmond provided for automatic traffic safety cameras, an initiative was filed with the city clerk seeking an initiative on such cameras. Since the supreme court had determined that initiatives on such issues was beyond the scope of the initiative power, the city clerk did not file the initiative petitions with the county auditor. The initiative proponents sued, seeking to require the clerk to transmit the petitions to the county. The court denied issuance of a writ of mandamus and the initiative proponents appealed. On appeal, the court affirmed. A city clerk has a mandatory duty under the statutes governing the filing of initiative petitions to transmit such petitions to the county auditor for determination of sufficiency. But, a court may review the substance of an initiative petition to determine whether it is valid. Such a determination is "exclusively a judicial function.' Despite a city clerk's mandatory duty, however, a court may decline to grant a writ of mandamus if it determines that ordering compliance is a useless act because an initiative is invalid. • Mukilteo Citizens Am Simple Gov't v. Cityfo MAMtro,174 Wn.2d 41(0310812012) —Because the legislature expressly granted authority to the governing body of the city of Mukilteo to enact ordinances on the use of automated traffic safety cameras, the subject matter of Proposition 1 is not within the initiative power • American Traffic Solutions v. City of Bellingham,163 Wn. App 427 (09/06/2011) — Initiative No. 2011-01 exceeds the lawful scope of local initiative power; it is not a valid ballot measure