CLARKSVILLE, Tenn. -- Cameras don't lie, so how do you argue with a picture that shows you breaking the law? A Clarksville attorney is going to try.

Watch This Story

A Redflex camera caught Mark Burton running a red light, and for the first time in middle Tennessee, the issue is being taken to court.

At around 5:30 a.m., Burton ran a red light and a Redflex camera caught him the act. Still, Burton's attorney Greg D. Smith said there's no way his client should receive a ticket.

"If you're on the road in the middle of the night, and you're not hurting anybody, you shouldn't have to worry about a hidden camera taking your picture," said Smith.

For the first time in middle Tennessee, Smith and his client are taking the issue to court. Smith argues the Redflex cameras are unconstitutional.

"Under the confrontation clause, you should be able to address who's accusing you, in this case its a camera, and ask, 'Why are you giving me this ticket?' You can't ask questions to a piece of metal," said Smith.

Smith also said the cameras violate Tennessee's open courts law because every time you get a ticket you owe $50. But if you choose to take it to court, you have to shell out an extra $86.

"The system suddenly becomes a barter system of economically, 'Is it cheaper for me to just forget about it or to take my chances in court?'" said Smith.

Then there's the due process clause of innocent until proven guilty. Smith said when it comes to Redflex red-light cameras, that's simply not the case.

"If the camera says you're guilty, suddenly the burden is shifted to proving you're not," said Smith.

Bottom line, Smith thinks the cameras are a violation of privacy. He hopes to take the case all the way to the Supreme court.

Will he win?

Redflex reps believe his chances are slim. In a statement Redflex said, “the cameras are constitutional as ruled by numerous courts."

The city's attorney said the city of Clarksville stands by the cameras.