The November 7, 2024, article in the Warwick Beacon by Adam Zangari entitled “Police: Traffic cameras likely to go up by spring,” concerning the placement of 24 cameras in the vicinity of school zones and red lights, caught my attention for a number of reasons.

First, the use of new technology that helps to promote public safety while respecting civil liberties, as the cameras appear to do, is a good thing. And the use of a 30-day warning period allowing offenders to resolve their matters without sanctions as reported, makes perfect sense, as the prevalence of these cameras becomes better known thereby accomplishing the goal of deterring future behavior.

But with that said, the discussions regarding whether to include anticipated revenue (up to $1.3 million) from the sanctions resulting from the use of these cameras in the city budget is a cause for serious concern and should play no part at all in the decision to utilize this new technology. In that regard there is much that we learn from recent and not so recent developments at the state level.

Beginning in 2008 the General Assembly considered and enacted a number of measures attempting to reconfigure the way in which court costs and fees in criminal cases are assessed, collected, and waived in cases of indigency. Some of these measures worked, and others didn’t.

At the heart of the conversation about these reforms were two basic premises.

First, it is inappropriate and possibly unconstitutional (as a violation of separation of powers) to use the courts to raise money for the state. This function is better left to the legislative and executive branches in the setting of rates and collection of taxes, respectively.

Second, the costs of collecting these monies can exceed whatever is realized. That is because the collection process, which can include incarceration and court time and personnel, is not only costly but unfair, especially when the indigent are involved.

Finally, in 2022, sensible and comprehensive reforms resulting from the collaboration between numerous criminal justice stakeholders, including the courts, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and community service providers were enacted via 2022 RI Public Laws Chapters 200, 201.

These common-sense reforms have totally changed the landscape and the way in which court costs in criminal cases are assessed, collected and waived, especially in cases of indigency. It is now rare for someone to be incarcerated for an inability to pay and court costs are routinely waived in cases of verifiable indigency. It should be noted that then Senate Majority Leader Michael McCaffrey and current Speaker of the House K. Joseph Shekarchi played prominent roles in the passage of these sensible reforms, something that Warwick residents should be pleased and proud of.

It is true that the sanctions resulting from the use of these cameras in the city of Warwick are not criminal in nature, but instead are civil sanctions in which incarceration, let alone for nonpayment, is unlikely to result. But the same basic constitutional and policy concerns that drove the conversations at the state level beginning in 2008 and culminating in 2022 are still applicable and further exacerbated by the lean economic times that may soon be upon us.

Using the court system, even at the municipal level, to raise money, while tempting, is unwise, unsound and inefficient – in short, that’s not what our courts were designed to do. It also makes for a slippery slope, as cities and towns like Warwick come to anticipate and rely upon revenues from these sources.

Finally, since 2010 and the enactment of RIGL § 31-27-25 Rhode Island police departments are forbidden from imposing ticket quotas on its officers, as tempting as that possibility might be.

In short, the use of these cameras, their effectiveness, promotion of public safety, adherence to civil liberty protections, and even their cost is fair game for conversations by law enforcement, public officials, and policy makers. But the amount of money that may be realized from their implementation should play no role at all in the ultimate decision regarding their use.

Michael A. DiLauro, Esq.

The Just Criminal Justice Group, LLC