A License Plate Recognition and Speed Detection System - Index of

Federal Highway Administration and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have
indicated their support for automated enforcement systems. Numerous states (Arizona,
California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New York and Virginia) have
enacted statutes allowing the use of these automated systems to enforce traffic laws (Ref21).
Connecticut statute (C.G.S. Title 14, Chapter 248, § 14-219c, Vehicle Highway Use), does not
specifically mention photo radar or red light cameras, but the statute’s phrase “any other speed
monitoring device approved by the Commissioner of Public Safety” could allow for their use. In
the 2005 legislative session, House Bill 5744 (Ref. 31) attempted to introduce devices that are
“designed to automatically record the image of the license plate of a motor vehicle that is
entering an intersection in violation of a traffic control signal”. However, the bill was never
signed into law. In the January 2007 session, raised bill #1443 was introduced in the State Senate
where it has been referred to the Joint Committee on Judiciary; it has not left the Committee. In
November 2007, Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell proposed installing automated traffic
enforcement devices along a stretch of Interstate-95 in East Lyme where I-95, I-395, and Route 1
intersect. This proposal is being reviewed by the Department of Public Safety.
The National Highway Safety Commission has set 65/55 mph as the speed limit on much
of the Federal Interstate Highway system, with lower limits set for densely populated areas. It is
the responsibility of the individual states to establish appropriate speed limits for roadways that
are not part of the Interstate system. For example, Connecticut General Statute Title 14, Chapter
249, Part 1, Section 14-309, assigns the responsibility for determining safe speed limits to State
Highway Traffic Commission.
In most states motor vehicle violations are considered warrant-less misdemeanor
violations and in general they fall under common law practice (Ref. 28). According to common
76