RedSpeed rejects River Forest contract as ‘unconstitutional’

Web Extra!

RedSpeed Illinois, the primary provider of red-light photo enforcement technology in the Chicago suburbs, has rejected an amended contract with the Village of River Forest. That contract was unanimously approved by village trustees Monday night after an amendment for a two-tier fine system passed the board by a 3-2 vote.

Village President John Rigas said this morning that the Lombard-based company informed the village by e-mail of its attorneys’ belief that differentiating between a rolling right turn at a red light and driving straight through a red light and then fining  differently for those actions violates constitutional clauses for equal protection.

“They felt it was a violation of due process,” Rigas said.

RedSpeed Marketing Director Debra Beerup said in voicemail this morning that, after conferring with several company officials, it was her understanding RedSpeed was “not moving forward with the contract.”

The decision was made, she said, “based on the fact that it’s a violation of the Illinois constitution to penalize one violator this amount and another violator another amount for what is essentially the same infraction.”

Under questioning by trustee Susan Conti on Monday, RedSpeed sales rep Michael Lebert said it was his understanding that the village could, under state law, modify fines, but urged the board not to make any changes citing his company’s “standards and practices.”

“There’s a potential for mistakes to be made if we start to alter our automated system,” Lebert told the board Monday.

Rigas, who did not vote on the amended contract Monday, supported Lebert’s contention at the time, saying that being the sole party to do something different within such a technical system leaves you “open to bugs, errors and problems.”

Steve Hoke, chairman of the police committee that first heard Lebert’s video presentation last month, said Monday that the two violations were clearly different. “I don’t think software problems should drive our decision making as to what’s fair,” Hoke said.

In her phone message, Beerup argued that there is no distinction to be made regarding rolling red light turns and straight-through violations, saying, “Either way, it’s a violation of the Illinois law regarding red lights.”

Hoke and Rigas, who are both lawyers, expressed differing opinions today.

Rigas said RedSpeed’s interpretation “makes sense,” noting: “Whether you’re speeding or going slow, whether you’re going straight or turning, you’re running a red light.”

Hoke said he’d consulted with experts on state and federal constitutional law and that both gave what they called “preliminary” opinions that the village would be exercising allowable “prosecutorial discretion” when treating right-turn-on-red violations differently from straight-ahead red-light violations.

“You’re distinguishing between different levels of conduct,” Hoke argued, noting the increasing fines allowed for speeding convictions that are based on the speed. He added that the treatment of red-light violations under the camera enforcement statute makes it an administrative matter, unlike when a police officer pulls over a driver.

“It’s not a moving violation,” Hoke said, also noting that the Illinois vehicle code itself distinguishes between right-on-red turn violations and straight-ahead red-light violations.

Rigas he expected the red-light issue to be discussed at Monday’s village board committee of the whole meeting, or possibly at a special board meeting before the committee of the whole meeting.