Trial Magazine

Willis v. Chicago, No. 16 CH 14304 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty. Feb. 21, 2017).

When the city of Chicago installed red light traffic cameras at intersections, issuing automatic tickets to drivers who exceeded the speed limit or failed to stop, it purportedly made the streets safer. But the program was plagued by scandal from the beginning. Investigations by the Chicago Tribune revealed that—among other issues—yellow lights were too short, ­malfunctioning cameras caused thousands of tickets to be issued improperly, and a city employee had received illegal ­kickbacks from a vendor for every new camera installed in the city.

Multiple procedural violations—for example, failure to provide second notices to ticketed people as well as premature late penalty fees—also made it more difficult to contest tickets or timely pay fines. Despite the city’s insistence that its program was legal, two Chicago attorneys, Jacie Zolna and Antonio Romanucci, fought to end it. They eventually negotiated a historic $125 million settlement with the city.

In 2015, Romanucci and Zolna filed a class action on behalf of plaintiffs who alleged that the city’s red light program had been operating illegally. For example, although the city was legally required to send two notices to ticketed people and give them 21 days to contest the fine before imposing liability, it had not done so, the lawsuit claimed. In fact, the city had failed to send second notices to some people, had found others liable after only 14 days, and had also prematurely doubled the late fines for people who had not timely paid. The program was collecting hundreds of millions of dollars for the city—but it was doing so, Zolna and Romanucci believed, at the cost of its residents’ due process rights. “[The red light camera program] was making it harder for people to contest the tickets and easier for the city to find them liable,” Zolna explained.

The court agreed with the plaintiffs that the fines and penalties were illegal and void. The city responded by changing the city ordinance: It dropped the requirement for a second notice, gave people the correct amount of time to contest the ticket (21 days), and decreased the late payment penalties. In September 2016, the city passed a new ordinance under which it sent second notices to those who had not received them the first time. But the ordinance also opened up liabilities still attached to the old tickets, allowing the city to issue new notices and hold new hearings based on tickets that the judge had already held were void.

“It was almost akin to money laundering,” Zolna said. “They had all these old, void tickets and were trying to cleanse them through this new process. Even while we were able to void the original tickets, the city’s argument was that they had a new and separate fine. I’ve never seen anything like it.”

“They were attempting a do-over after our lawsuit,” Romanucci added.

Undeterred, the two attorneys filed a new lawsuit alleging that the ordinance violated the Illinois Vehicle Code’s prohibition against adopting an ordinance authorizing the administrative adjudication of past offenses and unlawfully enabled the city to deprive citizens of property before a hearing.

For example, one plaintiff—who ran a business transporting people with medical emergencies—received more than 30 alleged speed and red light camera violations between 2010 and 2015. Fearing that his business would be negatively impacted, he paid part of the fees and penalties, only to receive another notice under the new ordinance seven years after the earliest alleged violations occurred. When the plaintiff did not pay these fines, which were associated with tickets that had already been resolved, the city threatened to revoke his drivers’ licenses, seize his vehicles, file a lien on his home, and garnish his wages. As Zolna explained, “There are all sorts of draconian things the city does to get money—some of which could significantly impact people’s livelihoods.”

The traffic program was also unfair and discriminatory from the very beginning, Romanucci explained, both in the cameras’ placement and in the procedural roadblocks to contesting a ticket. “There were communities being targeted unfairly with these cameras—a lot of them were placed in lower income neighborhoods,” Romanucci noted. “There weren’t many [cameras] in downtown Chicago, which is probably the wealthiest neighborhood around here. But when you go to the South Side or the West Side, there are more cameras there per neighborhood and per block than there are in downtown Chicago.”

He added, “A $90 ticket for somebody who is looking for work is a much greater burden than for someone who is making $100,000 a year downtown.”

The settlement amount is historic. But, as Zolna pointed out, the settlement offers additional value in its new debt relief program: When people pay their remaining fines, the city will waive all of the associated late fines and collection costs, which can sometimes be equal to the fine itself.

“A typical ticket is $244: $100 fine, $100 late penalty, and $44 in collection costs. Those who take part in the initial partial debt relief and the subsequent debt relief program will only need to pay $22 on that ticket to be relieved of the entirety of their debt,” Zolna explained. “That is a big deal, especially for people who may have four or five tickets and owe in excess of $1,000, which they simply cannot afford. Under this settlement, all that debt disappears for somewhere around $100, a much more manageable amount.”

Romanucci believes that the result is just—the red light traffic program has not been proven to make intersections safer. Sudden stops at known traffic cameras have, in fact, caused crashes. “I don’t believe for a second that red light cameras at intersections make them safer,” he said. “The reason Chicago has continued them is for the revenue that they generate—the city has been suffering from substantial budget deficits for years and years. And every year, it’s a game as to how to fill those budget deficits.”

“This is an unprecedented settlement against the city of Chicago,” Romanucci added. “It’s very important and very substantial. We hope not only that our program is now fixed—but that any other programs that go forth in the country follow the appropriate model so as not to violate people’s rights.”

Diane M. Zhang is a Trial associate editor.