Caught on Camera: The Legal Fault Line Beneath Virginia’s Speed Camera Programs
I received a speed camera ticket for a car I co-own—even though I wasn’t the one driving. That ticket was issued through an automated enforcement system run by a private company hired by the City of Harrisonburg. But the deeper I looked, the more I realized: the problem wasn’t just what happened to me. It was how the system is structured.
And under Virginia law, it might be unlawful.
Let me explain.
What the Law Actually Says
Virginia Code § 46.2-882.1 allows law-enforcement agencies to use speed cameras and to hire private vendors to support that process. But it doesn’t say that cities or counties can do so.
In Virginia, that distinction matters. It’s a Dillon Rule state, which means cities and counties only have the powers the General Assembly expressly gives them. If the legislature wanted to authorize municipalities to contract for photo enforcement, it could have—but it didn’t. Instead, the statute gives that power to law-enforcement agencies, which are not the same thing as the city or county itself.
Who Actually Signed These Contracts?
In Harrisonburg, it was the City, not the Police Department, that signed the contract with Altumint. This isn’t unique—municipalities like Arlington, Albemarle, and Prince William have done the same.
But here’s the catch: police departments in Virginia generally don’t have independent legal authority to enter contracts. They’re part of the city structure. So if the statute gives power to the agency, but that agency can’t contract—and the city wasn’t granted authority—then who had the legal right to act at all?
That’s the legal gap moving to the center of this fight.
Vendors Acting Like Courts
The statute also outlines how to rebut a citation. If you weren’t the driver, you can submit a sworn affidavit to the clerk of the general district court. But cities like Harrisonburg tell drivers to send those affidavits to the vendor—Altumint in Pennsylvania or Verra in Arizona.
These companies then decide whether your affidavit is “good enough” to avoid a hearing. That makes them the gatekeepers of your right to contest a ticket, even though they’re not part of the court system—and they have a financial interest in keeping the process moving.
That’s not due process. That’s privatized adjudication.
The Certified Question Before the Court
Because of these structural problems, I’ve asked the federal court to certify the following question to the Virginia Supreme Court:
Whether, under Virginia Code § 46.2-882.1(H), a city or county may lawfully enter into a contract with a private vendor to operate a photo speed enforcement program when the statute authorizes such contracts only by a “law-enforcement agency,” and such agency lacks independent legal capacity to contract.
This isn’t just about my case. There’s no appellate guidance on this. If courts decide these contracts are unlawful, the entire system built on them could be, too.
What’s at Stake
If the contracts are unauthorized, then:
-
Tickets issued under them may be void.
-
Vendors may have operated without legal authority.
-
Money collected could be subject to refund.
-
Drivers denied a hearing due to vendor discretion could raise due process violations.
This Fight Isn’t Just About Me
I didn’t file this lawsuit to dodge a fine. I filed it because the rules matter. Cities shouldn’t bypass the legislature. Vendors shouldn’t decide whether you get your day in court. And enforcement systems shouldn’t be built on shaky legal foundations.
That’s why I asked the courts to get clarity from Virginia’s highest court. Because if no one has the authority to sign these contracts, then we shouldn’t be issuing tickets based on them.
Read the Motion Summary
If you’d like to see a non-technical breakdown of the legal motion currently before the court, here it is:
Summary of Plaintiff's Motion to Certify a Question of State Law
Proposed Question to the Virginia Supreme Court:
Whether, under Virginia Code § 46.2-882.1(H), a city or county may lawfully enter into a contract with a private vendor to operate a photo speed enforcement program when the statute authorizes such contracts only by a “law-enforcement agency,” and such agency lacks independent legal capacity to contract.
Why It Matters:
-
Virginia law limits municipal power under the Dillon Rule—cities can only act when the legislature explicitly says they can.
-
The statute gives contracting authority only to law-enforcement agencies, not to localities themselves.
-
Most police departments can’t sign contracts independently, and cities weren’t granted this power under the statute.
Additional Concerns:
-
Vendors are receiving and reviewing sworn affidavits that the law says must go to a court clerk.
-
This delegates a judicial function to private companies with a financial stake—raising serious due process concerns.
-
The statute is fully workable without expanding its scope: sheriffs’ departments, which are independent, could serve this role lawfully.
Requested Relief:
-
That the court certify the question to the Virginia Supreme Court.
-
That the court stay proceedings until a definitive ruling is issued.
The Virginia Supreme Court hasn’t weighed in yet. But they should. Because no one—not a city council, not a vendor—gets to rewrite the rules of justice.
[Link to full motion coming soon.]
