The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that using automatic cameras to record traffic violations is not permissible if they don’t identify the driver of the vehicle. That may be proper but, like any other definition of property rights, it carries economic consequences.
Traffic enforcement may not seem to have much to do with “property rights” but from an economic point of view, it does. What legal privileges and responsibilities go with owning a vehicle are classic property-rights questions.
Ronald Coase got the 1991 Nobel Prize for exploring how definitions of property rights affect how much society gets from a given set of economic resources.
The court ruling affirms the legal principle that to be convicted of a crime there must be proof that one committed it. A photo showing a car busting a red light does not demonstrate that the owner was driving. Hence it cannot be used to convict him of violating traffic laws.
One can, however, define property rights in a way to impose criminal liability on a property owner, even if that person did not directly harm the public.
Many cities require building owners to clear snow and ice from public sidewalks on their property. A landlord may rent out the property with a requirement that renters see to this. But if the renters fail to scrape the walks, the landlord is not absolved of her legal responsibility.
The usual penalty in such cases is a bill from the city for having a public crew do the work. But in some municipalities repeated noncompliance triggers a misdemeanor citation.
In terms of civil rather than criminal liability, vehicle owners are universally responsible. If you lend your car to a friend and he injures someone blowing through a light, you are legally liable for damages even if he ignored your instructions to drive responsibly.
Bans on automated camera enforcement of traffic laws may protect a constitutional right, but they have costs. Decades of experience in Europe demonstrate that cameras are a low-cost, effective way of enforcing stop sign and speeding laws.
Banning their use means society must spend more tax dollars to achieve the same level of traffic compliance or must absorb the damage to life and property that results from speeding and stop light violations. Law enforcement costs already are high, and damage from speed and stop sign violations is considerable, so it is not a trivial issue.
We could amend the state constitution to make vehicle owners legally liable for criminal violations in their use, regardless of who is driving. That is not an easy process. But if we don’t, society as a whole will pay some price.
© 2007 Edward Lotterman
Chanarambie Consulting, Inc.