Can employees of private traffic camera companies in Tennessee preview footage and flag possible red-light violations before sending the clips to a police officer for a final call?

Plain-English summary

Many Tennessee cities use red-light cameras operated by outside vendors (Redflex, ATS, and similar companies). The vendor records continuous footage; clips of potential violations are flagged for human review; and a police officer makes the final call before a ticket is issued.

The question for the AG was whether vendor employees could do the first layer of review (flagging clips, deciding whether they look like violations) before passing them to police. A state representative asked because the cities and vendors had been operating that way, and the statute had been tightened in 2011 to make POST-certified or state-commissioned officers the exclusive reviewers.

The AG's answer was no, vendor employees cannot do that preliminary screening. Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-198(b)(1) provides that "[o]nly POST-certified or state-commissioned law enforcement officers shall be authorized to review video evidence from a traffic light signal monitoring system and make a determination as to whether a violation has occurred." The word "only" is unambiguous, and the statute does not modify "determination" with "final" or "ultimate." The AG read this to mean the law contemplates a single review by a law enforcement officer, not a vendor-then-officer two-step. The 2011 amendment (Public Acts ch. 425, § 5) replaced an earlier provision that referenced "an employee of the applicable law enforcement office" with the more restrictive "only POST-certified or state-commissioned" language, which the AG treated as deliberate tightening.

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.

Background and statutory framework

Tennessee's traffic camera statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-198, governs unmanned traffic signal monitoring systems. The statute has gone through several iterations. As originally enacted in 2008, § 55-8-198(b) provided that "[a]n employee of the applicable law enforcement office shall review video evidence from a traffic light signal monitoring system and make a determination as to whether a violation has occurred." That left some ambiguity about who could be "an employee of the applicable law enforcement office."

In 2011, the legislature replaced that language with the current text: "[o]nly POST-certified or state-commissioned law enforcement officers shall be authorized to review video evidence from a traffic light signal monitoring system and make a determination as to whether a violation has occurred." 2011 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 425, § 5. The change replaced a generic-employee description with two specific credentials: Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) certification, which Tennessee uses to credential police officers, and state commission, which covers state law enforcement personnel.

The AG worked through two textual questions:

1. Does "only POST-certified or state-commissioned law enforcement officers" allow any substantive review by private employees? Reading "only" in its dictionary sense (per Shore v. Maple Lane Farms's plain-meaning canon), the answer is no. "Only" means "and no one or nothing more besides; solely or exclusively." The statute does not say "only POST-certified officers can make the final determination" or "private employees can do preliminary review subject to officer approval." It places review and determination entirely in the officers' hands.

2. Does "review and make a determination" contemplate sequential review? The AG said no. The statute uses "determination" without the modifiers "final" or "ultimate" that would suggest a two-step process. The natural reading is one review, by one type of person.

The opinion cited two prior AG opinions on the same statute. Op. 08-179 (Nov. 26, 2008) read the pre-amendment text to prohibit private vendors from making the determination. Op. 11-3 (Jan. 7, 2011) said only law enforcement personnel could review traffic camera information to determine whether a violation occurred. The AG also noted Op. 06-150 (Oct. 2, 2006) had suggested that vendors might "provide information which the city's law enforcement department could then use to decide whether and whom to cite," but that opinion predated § 55-8-198 entirely and addressed only contracting questions, not statutory review authority.

The opinion did not address the procedures vendors could legitimately use. Vendors typically run the camera installation, maintain the equipment, transmit clips, manage records and citation issuance workflow. None of that requires reviewing video for violations. The bright line the AG drew is about who exercises judgment on the violation question.

Common questions

Q: I got a red-light ticket. Was it reviewed by a real officer?
A: The statute requires that yes. If the ticket was generated based only on vendor-employee review with no officer ever watching the clip and making the determination, the citation is vulnerable on these grounds. You can request the case file and may want consult a traffic attorney before paying.

Q: Can a vendor employee adjust the camera settings, package clips, or transmit them?
A: The opinion addressed only the "review video evidence and make a determination as to whether a violation has occurred" function. Mechanical setup, transmission, and record management are not "review" in the violation-determination sense.

Q: Can a non-officer city employee (e.g., a traffic engineer in a city department) do the review?
A: The statute says only POST-certified or state-commissioned law enforcement officers, not "any city employee." A non-officer reviewer, even a city employee, would not satisfy the text.

Q: Does this apply to speed cameras too?
A: § 55-8-198 specifically addresses "traffic light signal monitoring systems." Speed enforcement cameras are governed by other provisions. The opinion did not extend its analysis to speed cameras, and any analysis there should start from those provisions.

Q: What if the vendor employee is a former police officer?
A: The statute requires current POST certification or state commission, not a past credential. A retired officer without active certification would not satisfy the text.

Citations and references

Statutes (as cited in the opinion):

• Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-198(b)(1)
• Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-110(a)(3)
• 2011 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 425, § 5

Cases:

• Arden v. Kozawa, 466 S.W.3d 758 (Tenn. 2015)
• Shore v. Maple Lane Farms, LLC, 411 S.W.3d 405 (Tenn. 2013)
• Waldschmidt v. Reassure Am. Life Ins. Co., 271 S.W.3d 173 (Tenn. 2008)

Prior AG opinions:

• Tenn. Att'y Gen. Op. 06-150 (Oct. 2, 2006)
• Tenn. Att'y Gen. Op. 08-179 (Nov. 26, 2008)
• Tenn. Att'y Gen. Op. 11-3 (Jan. 7, 2011)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/opinions.html
• Original PDF: https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/attorneygeneral/documents/ops/2016/op16-024.pdf

Original opinion text

STATE OF TENNESSEE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
July 6, 2016
Opinion No. 16-24
Reviewing Video Evidence from a Traffic Light Monitoring System

Question 1
Does Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-198(b)(1) permit employees of private traffic camera
companies who are neither law enforcement officers nor residents of Tennessee to review video
footage from unmanned traffic cameras and determine whether there is a traffic violation before
the private employees submit the footage to law enforcement officers for their review and final
determination of a violation?

Opinion 1
No. Under Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-198(b)(1), "[o]nly POST-certified or state-
commissioned law enforcement officers" are authorized "to review video evidence from a traffic
light signal monitoring system and make a determination as to whether a violation has occurred."
Employees of private traffic camera companies are not POST-certified or state-commissioned law
enforcement officers and therefore are not authorized to review video evidence and make violation
determinations.

Question 2
Under what legal authority may these private employees review such video evidence and
determine whether or not Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-110(a)(3) was violated, or whether any
municipal law or ordinance that mirrors, substantially duplicates or incorporates by cross-reference
the language of § 55-8-110(a)(3) was violated, before sending the video evidence to police for
their review, determination and verification?

Opinion 2
Please see Opinion 1. We are not aware of any other Tennessee statute that authorizes
employees of private companies to review the video footage for the purpose of determining
whether there has been a traffic violation.

ANALYSIS

Tennessee Code Annotated § 55-8-198(b)(1) provides that "[o]nly POST-certified or state-
commissioned law enforcement officers shall be authorized to review video evidence from a traffic
light signal monitoring system and make a determination as to whether a violation has occurred."

In assessing whether this statute permits employees of a private company to review traffic camera
footage to make preliminary violation determinations, the key issues are (i) whether the phrase
"[o]nly POST-certified or state-commissioned law enforcement officers" precludes any
substantive review by private employees; and (ii) whether the phrase "review video evidence from
a traffic light signal monitoring system and make a determination as to whether a violation has
occurred" includes the review of traffic camera evidence for the purpose of making preliminary
violation determinations that are subsequently reviewed by law enforcement officers.

In construing a statute, courts must carry out the legislative intent and purpose of the
General Assembly without unduly restricting or expanding a statute's coverage beyond its
intended scope. Arden v. Kozawa, 466 S.W.3d 758, 764 (Tenn. 2015); Shore v. Maple Lane
Farms, LLC, 411 S.W.3d 405, 420 (Tenn. 2013); Waldschmidt v. Reassure Am. Life Ins. Co., 271
S.W.3d 173, 176 (Tenn. 2008). The best indicator of the General Assembly's intent and purpose
is the plain and ordinary meaning of the statutory language. Shore, 411 S.W.3d at 420.

Section 55-8-198(b)(1) is not ambiguous. It plainly grants authority to review traffic
camera evidence to "only POST-certified or state-commissioned law enforcement officers." The
word "only" means "and no one or nothing more besides; solely or exclusively." New Oxford
American Dictionary 1226 (3rd ed. 2010). Thus, the plain language of § 55-8-198(b)(1)
unambiguously precludes anyone other than POST-certified or state-commissioned law
enforcement officers from reviewing traffic camera evidence and making violation determinations.

It follows that employees of private traffic camera companies lack authority to perform that
function because they are not POST-certified or state-commissioned law enforcement officers.

The function that POST-certified or state-commissioned law enforcement officers are
exclusively authorized to perform is "to review video evidence from a traffic light signal
monitoring system and make a determination as to whether a violation has occurred." Notably,
the word "determination" is not modified by "final" or "ultimate." The statutory language thus
contemplates one review process in which the determination is made; it does not, in other words,
contemplate sequential reviews. Nor does it otherwise suggest that the role of POST-certified or
state-commissioned law enforcement officers is merely to review preliminary violation
determinations made by someone else. Rather, § 55-8-198(b)(1) is most naturally read as
conferring on POST-certified or state-commissioned law enforcement officers exclusive authority
to engage in the substantive review of traffic camera evidence and to make violation
determinations based on that review.

As originally enacted in 2008, § 55-8-198(b) provided that "[a]n employee of the applicable
law enforcement office shall review video evidence from a traffic light signal monitoring system
and make a determination as to whether a violation has occurred." Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-198(b)
(2008). In 2011, the General Assembly amended that provision by replacing the phrase "[a]n
employee of the applicable law enforcement office shall review" with the phrase "[o]nly POST-
certified or state-commissioned law enforcement officers shall be authorized to review." See 2011
Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 425, § 5.

This Office has consistently interpreted § 55-8-198(b) as granting exclusive authority to
law enforcement officers to engage in the substantive review of traffic camera evidence and
determine whether a violation has occurred. Before the relevant language was amended to its
current form in 2011, this Office opined that the provision "prohibit[ed] private vendors from
making the determination, based upon photographic evidence, that a traffic violation has
occurred," Tenn. Att'y Gen. Op. 08-179 (Nov. 26, 2008), and meant that "[o]nly law enforcement
personnel are authorized to review the information gathered by unmanned traffic surveillance
cameras to determine whether a traffic violation has occurred," Tenn. Att'y Gen. Op. 11-3 (Jan. 7,
2011) (emphasis in original). While those opinions did not expressly address whether a private
vendor may make preliminary violation determinations, they support the conclusion that the plain
language of § 55-8-198(b)(1) strictly limits the authority to review traffic camera footage to law
enforcement officers. Our earlier statement that it might be permissible for a vendor to "provide
information which the city's law enforcement department could then use to decide whether and
whom to cite for these traffic violations," Tenn. Att'y Gen. Op. 06-150 (Oct. 2, 2006), is not to the
contrary. That opinion was issued before § 55-8-198 was enacted and addressed only whether it
was permissible for a city to delegate by contract certain authority to a private company.

In sum, the plain language of § 55-8-198(b)(1) is most naturally read to mean that only
POST-certified or state-commissioned law enforcement officers, and no one else, have
authority to review traffic camera evidence and determine, based on that review, whether a traffic
violation has occurred.

HERBERT H. SLATERY III
Attorney General and Reporter

ANDRÉE SOPHIA BLUMSTEIN
Solicitor General

SARAH K. CAMPBELL
Special Assistant to the Solicitor General and the Attorney General

Requested by:
The Honorable Andy Holt
State Representative
205 War Memorial Building
Nashville, Tennessee 37243