By Paul Huebl | CrimeFileNews.tv
Los Angeles politicians have discovered another way to reach into motorists’ wallets. This time, they are installing 125 automated speed cameras throughout the city, handing a lucrative contract to a private corporation, and creating a computerized traffic enforcement system that can issue fines without a police officer ever witnessing the alleged violation.
Naturally, City Hall is selling the program as a lifesaving public safety measure. Nobody disputes that excessive speed can kill innocent people. But invoking public safety does not give politicians a free pass to create expensive enforcement programs without answering serious questions about due process, financial incentives, government accountability, and political influence.
The cameras are coming, the money is enormous, and motorists had better understand exactly what they are dealing with.
FOLLOW THE MONEY
The Los Angeles City Council approved a contract with American Traffic Solutions, Inc., doing business as Verra Mobility, on June 10, 2026. The council vote was 12 to 0, with three members absent.
The city’s May 8 contract proposal requested authorization for a five-year agreement worth up to $33,375,000. That is an extraordinary amount of taxpayer money for a system designed to photograph license plates and generate traffic citations.
And here is something particularly interesting.
Rather than conduct its own competitive bidding process, Los Angeles relied on an existing procurement agreement from Oakland. This procedure, commonly called piggybacking, allowed city officials to avoid conducting another full competitive procurement.
The city argues that the arrangement saves time. Perhaps it does. But saving bureaucrats time is hardly a substitute for demonstrating that taxpayers received the best possible deal.
Who negotiated the financial terms? What profit margins are built into the agreement? How much will the contractor receive for installing, maintaining, and operating the equipment? What happens financially if the cameras generate fewer citations than anticipated?
These are not unreasonable questions. They are precisely the questions taxpayers should demand answers to before politicians commit millions of dollars to a private enforcement operation.
THE GOVERNMENT’S NEW AUTOMATED MONEY COLLECTORS
California Assembly Bill 645, enacted in 2023, authorized Los Angeles and several other jurisdictions to establish automated speed enforcement programs.
The cameras photograph the rear license plates of vehicles allegedly traveling at least 11 miles per hour above the posted speed limit. The information is transmitted for processing, and citations are mailed to registered vehicle owners.
After the initial 60-day warning period, the fines begin.
Traveling 11 to 15 mph above the limit can cost $50. At 16 to 25 mph over the limit, the penalty jumps to $100. At 26 mph or more above the limit, it becomes $200. Driving at 100 mph or faster can produce a $500 citation.
These are civil penalties, meaning motorists generally do not receive DMV points for these violations.
But civil penalties are still money taken from citizens under government authority.
Consider what happens when 125 cameras operate around the clock, automatically recording alleged violations without requiring an officer to stand beside the roadway.
Even modest citation volumes could generate substantial revenue.
For illustration, if each camera eventually generated just 10 paid citations per day averaging $100, the system would collect approximately $45.6 million annually.
That is a mathematical illustration, not a city revenue forecast. Actual collections could be dramatically lower or higher.
Nevertheless, it demonstrates why the financial arrangements deserve scrutiny.
The city insists that revenue will support street safety improvements. California law also restricts how program revenues may be used.
Fine. Then publish the complete financial projections, contractor payments, administrative expenses, and actual collections so taxpayers can determine whether this is genuinely a safety program or an expensive government collection operation dressed up in public safety language.
WHERE IS THE DUE PROCESS?
Here is where the program becomes particularly troubling.
Under California Vehicle Code § 22427, motorists may contest automated citations through an administrative review process.
But this is not the same as appearing in criminal traffic court and requiring the prosecution to establish a violation through traditional courtroom procedures.
The law permits the government to establish a prima facie case using properly prepared documentary evidence, including photographs and vehicle registration information.
The government employee responsible for issuing the citation does not have to appear at the administrative hearing.
Think about that.
The government presents a photograph, documentation generated through an automated enforcement system, and registration records. The motorist must then challenge the allegations through a process administered under the city’s authority.
The statute provides for an independent administrative hearing officer, and motorists have the right to present evidence. Those are important protections.
But how meaningful are those protections when someone disputes the accuracy of the equipment?
Will motorists receive the camera’s calibration records, maintenance history, testing documentation, and technical information necessary to evaluate the alleged violation?
Will the hearing officer require the city to establish that the equipment was operating properly when the citation was generated?
Or will the city’s paperwork be accepted while the motorist struggles to demonstrate a technical malfunction without access to the information necessary to prove it?
Those questions go directly to the constitutional requirement of meaningful due process.
The Fourteenth Amendment does not disappear merely because politicians decide to classify an offense as a civil violation.
In Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) 424 U.S. 319, 335, the United States Supreme Court established the framework for evaluating the procedural protections required when the government deprives someone of a protected interest.
The question is whether Los Angeles will provide a genuinely fair opportunity to contest these penalties or merely an administrative assembly line that processes objections almost as efficiently as it processes citations.
THE CAMERA DOES NOT IDENTIFY THE DRIVER
Another troubling feature deserves attention.
The cameras photograph rear license plates. They do not necessarily establish who was operating the vehicle.
The registered owner receives the citation.
A vehicle may be driven by a spouse, relative, employee, friend, or another authorized person. Yet the enforcement system begins with the person identified through DMV registration records.
California’s statutory framework addresses registered-owner responsibility and provides certain exceptions. Nevertheless, this arrangement raises an obvious question.
Should the government impose a financial penalty against someone without proving that the person actually committed the alleged driving offense?
The Legislature has chosen a civil enforcement model that does not require the same driver identification procedures associated with conventional criminal traffic prosecutions.
That may be legally authorized, but it certainly deserves public examination.
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN MOTORISTS REFUSE TO PAY?
Ordinary parking citations can eventually interfere with vehicle registration renewals.
But the legal authority for applying that same collection mechanism to these new automated speed citations has not been established in the records examined for this article.
Nor has a specific Los Angeles schedule of late-payment penalties been verified.
These are not minor details.
Before motorists begin receiving demands for payment, the city should publicly explain exactly what happens when someone refuses to pay, disputes a citation, or simply cannot afford the penalty.
Will unpaid accounts be referred to private collection agencies? Can additional collection charges be imposed? What judicial procedures are available before more aggressive collection measures begin?
The public deserves specific answers supported by the statutes and regulations authorizing those actions.
WHO PROFITS FROM THE ENFORCEMENT?
The involvement of a private corporation introduces another serious issue.
Verra Mobility is in the business of supplying automated traffic enforcement technology and related services to government agencies.
There is nothing inherently unlawful about a private company providing equipment to a municipality.
But the public has every reason to examine whether the contractor’s compensation creates financial incentives that conflict with the stated goal of reducing speeding.
If motorists slow down and citations decline, does the company receive the same compensation?
Are there transaction-based charges? Are any subcontractors compensated according to citation volume? Who independently audits the equipment and the financial records?
California law contains restrictions intended to prevent certain compensation arrangements from depending on citation volume.
That makes disclosure of the actual compensation formula especially important.
A properly designed safety program should be considered successful when dangerous speeding decreases, even if citation revenue falls.
A program that financially depends upon motorists continuing to violate the law presents an obvious conflict worth investigating.
DID CAMPAIGN MONEY INFLUENCE CITY HALL?
Now we arrive at a question every investigative reporter should ask when politicians award multimillion-dollar government contracts.
Who contributed to the campaigns of the politicians who approved this arrangement?
The Los Angeles City Council approved the contractor agreement by a 12-to-0 vote.
Campaign contribution records should be examined for payments from Verra Mobility, American Traffic Solutions, their executives, registered lobbyists, political action committees, and other identifiable representatives.
At this point, I have not verified contributions connecting any particular Los Angeles politician to the contractor.
That distinction matters. No politician should be accused of accepting contractor money without documentary evidence.
But the absence of a verified contribution list is hardly a reason to abandon the investigation.
The Los Angeles City Ethics Commission maintains campaign finance records. Those records, combined with lobbying disclosures and the city’s procurement documents, provide a starting point for tracing any political relationships.
The public should know whether anyone who participated in approving this contract received political support from interests financially connected to the program.
If the answer is nobody, publish the records and put the question to rest.
If contributions exist, disclose the amounts, dates, donors, and recipients so voters can judge their significance.
THE BIGGEST QUESTION: WILL THE CAMERAS ACTUALLY SAVE LIVES?
City officials point to traffic fatalities and serious injuries as justification for the program.
Those concerns are legitimate.
Los Angeles reports that speeding contributed to approximately one in five fatal crashes in the city during 2024.
There is also evidence from other jurisdictions that automated speed enforcement can reduce dangerous speeding.
But the existence of a public safety benefit does not automatically justify every contract, enforcement procedure, or expenditure.
The city should be required to demonstrate measurable results.
Are collisions decreasing at camera locations? Are serious injuries and fatalities declining? Are drivers simply slowing down briefly before accelerating again? Are some camera locations generating substantial revenue without producing meaningful safety improvements?
And perhaps most importantly, could comparable safety improvements have been achieved through less expensive measures, including better roadway engineering, improved traffic signals, more visible enforcement, and redesigned dangerous intersections?
Those questions should be answered with independently verifiable data rather than promotional material prepared by the agencies operating the program.
CITY HALL NEEDS TO OPEN THE BOOKS
Los Angeles officials should release the complete executed contractor agreement, all compensation schedules, relevant subcontracting agreements, equipment certification requirements, independent testing procedures, projected revenues, operating expenses, and collection policies.
They should also disclose the identities and qualifications of administrative hearing officers and explain exactly how motorists can obtain technical evidence necessary to challenge citations.
Finally, the city should provide a complete accounting of political contributions and lobbying activity associated with the contractor and its representatives.
None of these requests is unreasonable.
We are talking about a government enforcement system capable of issuing large numbers of financial penalties to ordinary citizens, backed by a multimillion-dollar private contract.
That demands more transparency, not less.
MY FINAL WORD
I spent years as a Chicago police officer and have worked as a licensed private investigator since 1981. I understand traffic enforcement, criminal investigations, evidence, and the importance of protecting innocent people.
I also understand the difference between genuine law enforcement and government programs that create enormous financial opportunities under the banner of public safety.
Los Angeles may ultimately demonstrate that its speed cameras reduce dangerous driving and save lives. If so, the evidence should speak for itself.
But public safety cannot become a magic phrase that excuses questionable procurement practices, inadequate procedural protections, undisclosed financial incentives, or resistance to public scrutiny.
When government installs 125 automated enforcement machines, commits millions of dollars to a private corporation, and begins mailing financial penalties to motorists, citizens have every right to follow the money and demand answers.
Until those answers are provided, Los Angeles motorists have every reason to examine this program with considerable skepticism.
Public safety should be the objective. Government revenue should never become the driving force.
Paul Huebl is a former Chicago police officer, Vietnam-era U.S. Army veteran, licensed private investigator since 1981, and investigative journalist.
DOCUMENTARY SOURCES
- California Assembly Bill 645 (2023), codified principally at California Vehicle Code §§ 22425-22429.
- Los Angeles City Council File 26-0707, contractor approval and June 10, 2026, council vote.
- Los Angeles Department of Transportation, May 8, 2026, report requesting authorization to contract with American Traffic Solutions, Inc.
- LADOT Speed Safety System Program, official implementation information and camera locations.
- LADOT Speed Safety System Use Policy, April 2026.
- Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) 424 U.S. 319, 335.
Comments