Politics & Government

Judge Overturns Murrieta Red-Light Camera Ban

Traffic regulation is a statewide concern; therefore, the ban could not be enforced locally, ruled Riverside County Superior Court Judge Daniel Ottolia.

A voter-approved ban on red-light cameras in Murrieta was overturned Friday by a Riverside judge.

Riverside County Superior Court Judge Daniel Ottolia ruled Friday against Measure N—the ballot initiative to remove the cameras from three Murrieta intersections was approved by 57 percent of Murrieta voters in November 2012—stating that traffic regulation is a statewide concern; therefore, the ban could not be enforced locally, Murrieta City Attorney Jeffery Morris told Patch.

"It was a couple-page decision (the judge) read in court," Morris said. "What he ruled is that Measure N can not be enforced by the city...The state has entered the arena of traffic regulation, and that's not the proper subject for a local initiative."

Find out what's happening in Murrietawith free, real-time updates from Patch.

The ruling was in response to a post-election lawsuit filed by Safe Streets For Murrieta against Murrieta City Council and Riverside Superior Court. Safe Streets bears the same name as a committee that received at least $55,000 from American Traffic Solutions, the company that operates the cameras in Murrieta, according to campaign disclosure documents.

The cameras—in place for five years at Murrieta Hot Springs and Whitewood roads, Murrieta Hot Springs and Margarita roads, and Clinton Keith Road and Nutmeg Street—were turned off in December.

Find out what's happening in Murrietawith free, real-time updates from Patch.

They will not immediately be powered back on.

"Currently the cameras are turned off and they are going to stay turned off until the City Council decides what they are going to do," Morris said. "...So that is where we are today."

The lawsuit follows a string of legal actions and appeals involving Murrieta's red-light cameras. In August 2012, just months prior to the election, the same judge ruled the initiative should stay on the ballot.

In this case, Morris said the judge's decision can not be appealed by Measure N proponents.

"They didn't appear [were not named] in the action so they would have no standing," Morris said.

Pete Lepiscopo, who represented initiative proponents Diana Serafin and Robin Nielson in previous suits, declined to comment about Friday's ruling except to say: "You will need to speak with Jeff Morris, the attorney for the City charged with defending the law."

Serafin's reaction to the news was one of disappointment.

"We lost. I am really disappointed," Serafin said. "It is the people who lost, which really bothers me because we are losing our rights. Fifty-seven percent of the people said 'get rid of them.' That speaks volumes."

She said did not see the logic in Ottolia's ruling.

"(The judge) says it is a state issue, which it isn't. Because if the city can put them up they can take them down. The state didn't put them up," Serafin said.

"The judges are making laws from the bench, just like with Prop. 8, we voted on it and one judge overturned it. So we are losing our rights."

It is unclear when the issue may come before City Council; it could be as soon as the next regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, April 16.

If it were up to Serafin, she said she would like to see the city follow the people's will.

"We elected them."


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here