An Act Concerning Traffic Safety Cameras (AFTER DEADLINE)
Maine Legislature, Session 123, LD 2244
Committee: Transportation
Sponsors: PILON, DAMON, MARLEY
Amends: 29-A MRSA §2075, 29-A MRSA §2609

Legislative Document 
No. 2244 
H.P.1605 
House of Representatives, March 4,2008 
An Act Concerning Traffic Safety Cameras 
(AFTER DEADLINE) 
Approved for introduction by a majority of the Legislative Council pursuant to Joint Rule 
205. 
Reference to the Committee on Transportation suggested and ordered printed. 
Presented by Representative PILON of Saco. 
Cosponsored by Senator DAMON of Hancock and 
Representative: MARLEY of Portland. 
Printeu on recyc..:leu paper 
17/~ 
/J7.1JltU~{ 
MILLICENT M. MacFARLAND 
Clerk 
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows: 
Sec. 1. 29-A MRSA §lOl, sub-§85-A is enacted to read: 
85-A. 
Traffic light violation monitoring system. 
"Traffic light violation 
monitoring system" means a vehicle sensor installed to work in conjunction with a lighted 
traffic control device as described in section 2057, subsections 1 and 3 that automatically 
produces one or more photographs, one or more microphotographs, a videotape or other 
recorded image of a vehicle at the time the vehicle is operated in violation of state law. 
Sec. 2. 29-A MRSA §2075, sub-§3, ~, as amended by PL 2003, c. 92, §3, is 
further amended to read: 
E. 
Subject to the provisions of this paragraph, if it is a qualifying municipality, set 
speed limits on qualifying roads. 
As used in this paragraph, "qualifying 
municipality" means a municipality that has a population of 2,500 or more as 
measured by the latest decennial United States census or that employs a professional 
engineer licensed in this State. As used in this paragraph, "qualifying road" means a 
town way that is classified as local by the Department of Transportation fn 
accordance with the federal functional classification system. 
If a qualifying municipality decides to set speed limits in accordance with this 
paragraph, the municipality shall provide written notice of that determination to the 
Commissioner of Transportation and shall set speed limits for all qualifying roads in 
that municipality. 
Unless otherwise approved as provided in paragraph D, speed limits set by a 
municipality must be in 5-mile-per-hour increments within the following ranges: 
(1) From 20 to 25 miles per hour, inclusive, regarding roads in a business or 
residential district or a compact area, except that the lower limit may be set at 15 
miles per hour on roads on islands not accessible by road or dead end roads less 
than 114 mile in length; and 
(2) From 30 to 50 miles per hour, inclusive, regarding roads in all other areas. 
Prior to establishing a speed limit, the municipality must perform a traffic 
investigation that reviews the factors identified in the applicable sections of the 
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The municipal officers shall validate 
that speed limit in accordance with the procedure for establishing municipal traffic 
ordinances set forth in Title 30-A, section 3009, post standard speed limit signs in 
accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and provide written 
notice of that speed limit zone to the Commissioner of Transportation on forms 
approved by the Department of Transportation. 
The Department of Transportation may require a municipality with a population of 
5,000 or more as measured by the latest decennial United States census that has not 
provided written notice to the department that the municipality will set speed limits in 
accordance with this paragraph to provide the department with all data necessary to 
set such speed limits. The nature, extent and form of that data must be acceptable to 
the department and may include, without limitation, the reason for the request, length 
and location of the propos(~d speed zone, road width, number of driveways in that 
zone, traffic volume, posted speed, prevailing speed as measured by radar, accident 
history and speed enforceIDI~nt efforts; aru:l 
Sec. 3. 29-A MRSA §2075, sub-§3, ~, as enacted by PL 2003, c. 92, §4, is 
amended to read: 
F. 
With the approval of the Department of Transportation and the Chief of the State 
Police, and in accordance with the latest edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic 
Control Devices published by the Federal Highway Administration, designate a 
school zone to which the speed limits in section 2074, subsection 1, paragraph A 
0 
apply~; and 
Sec. 4. 29-A MRSA §2075, sub-§3, ~G is enacted to read: 
G. Install and operate traffic light violation monitoring systems. 
Sec. 5. 29-A MRSA §2075, sub-§6 is enacted to read: 
6. State, county and municipal authority. The State or a county or municipality 
may install and operate traffic light violation monitoring systems. 
Sec. 6. 29-A MRSA §2609 is enacted to read: 
§2609. Enforcement actions using evidence from a traffic light violation monitoring 
system 
The process and rules of I~vidence described in this section apply in enforcement 
actions for violations of state law in which evidence is obtained by the use of a traffic 
light violation monitoring system. 
1. Proof of violation. 
Evidence from information obtained from a traffic light 
violation monitoring system is admissible to prove a violation of state law. A certificate 
or a facsimile sworn to or affirmed by a state, county or municipal person qualified to 
operate a traffic light violation monitoring system, based on inspection of photographs, 
microphotographs, videotape Jr other recorded images produced by a traffic light 
violation monitoring system, must be accepted as prima facie evidence of all facts 
contained therein or thereon. 
A photograph, microphotograph, videotape or other 
recorded image evidencing such a violation must be available for inspection in a 
proceeding to adjudicate liability for that violation. 
I 
2. Rebuttable presumption of identity of violator. In the prosecution of an offense 
established under this section, prima facie evidence that the vehicle described in the 
summons issued pursuant to this section was operated in violation of state law, together 
with proof that the defendant \Vas at the time of that violation the registered owner of the 
vehicle, constitutes a rebuttable presumption that the registered owner of the vehicle ,vas 
the person who committed the violation. This presumption is rebutted if: 
A. A person other than the owner is convicted of illegally operating the vehicle at the 
time of the violation. In this case, the registered owner may not be found liable under 
this section; 
I 
B. The registered owner is a lessor of vehicles and at the time of the violation the 
vehicle was in the possession of a lessee and the lessor provides the investigating 
officer with a copy of the lease agreement containing the information required by 
section 254. In this case, the lessee, but not the lessor, may be charged under this 
section; 
C. The vehicle is operated using a dealer or transporter registration plate and at the 
time of the violation the vehicle was operated by any person other than the dealer or 
transporter and if the dealer or transporter provides the investigating officer with the 
name and address of the person who had control over the vehicle at the time of the 
violation. In this case, that person, but not the dealer or transporter, may be charged 
under this section; or 
D. A report that the vehicle was stolen is given to a law enforcement officer or 
agency before the violation occurred or within a reasonable time after the violation 
occurred. In this case, the registered owner may not be charged under this section. 
3. 
Service of Violation Summons and Complaint; notice requirements. 
Notwithstanding any other requirements in this subchapter or any other law, a Violation 
Summons and Complaint based on evidence obtained from a traffic light violation 
monitoring system may be served by mailing by first class mail a copy of the Violation 
Summons and Complaint and the certificate on which it is based to the address of the 
registered owner of the vehicle as shown on the records of the bureau. 
The mailing must also inform the alleged violator that the enforcement action is based on 
evidence obtained from a traffic light violation monitoring system and that the evidence 
may be viewed at a specific time and place by calling a specified telephone number to set 
up the viewing. A clear copy of the evidence may be enclosed as a substitute for the 
viewIng. 
4. Revenue to county or municipality. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the 
contrary, 50% of the revenue collected as a result of an enforcement action arising from 
evidence obtained from a traffic light monitoring system must be returned to the county 
or municipality that installed and was operating the traffic light monitoring system at the 
time of the enforcement action. Each county or municipality shall certity monthly to the 
Treasurer of State the amount of revenue collected pursuant to this section as a result of a 
traffic light monitoring system. 
Within 15 days of receipt of this certification, the 
Treasurer of State shall forward 50% of that certified amount to the county or 
municipality. 
SUMMARY 
Current law requires a police officer to observe a violation of a traffic control device, 
stop the violator, issue a summons and complaint and often go to court. 
This bill is based on laws in other states that permit the use of evidence obtained from 
unmanned, automatic cameras to prosecute and prove traffic violations. Traffic light 
violation monitoring systems may be installed by the State or a county or municipality. 
The owner of the vehicle photographed or otherwise recorded violating a traffic control 
I 
device is rebuttably presumed to be the violator, similar to current Maine law regarding 
passing a stopped school bus or a traffic violation at an emergency scene. 
This bill also requires 50% of the revenue generated by a traffic light monitoring 
system to be returned to the county or municipality that installed and was operating the 
system at the time of the enforcement action.