“Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” – Benjamin Franklin
In the hectic closing days of the 2026 Alabama Legislature (about the only time the Legislature gets anything accomplished), SB341, the Alabama Work Zone Safety Act, was passed. Recognizing that drivers who speed through construction zones pose a danger to highway construction workers, the bill authorizes the placement of speed cameras (“red light cameras”) to photograph the license plates of speeding vehicles so authorities can issue tickets with civil penalties for the vehicle owners.
Who could possibly object to a measure promoting the safety of construction workers? Well, State Rep. Shane Stringer (R-Citronelle) did, and as a former prosecutor and staunch law-and-order conservative, but also a strict constitutionalist, I think Stringer has a valid point.
Stringer, the police chief in Creola, Ala., says the law is “unconstitutional,” explaining:
If you borrow my vehicle, and you are speeding down the road and you go through a construction zone, you're not going to get penalized. You're not going to get a ticket. They're going to mail it to me, the registered vehicle owner, and if I don't pay that, then they're going to potentially put a lien on me or block me from getting a tag on my vehicle, which is going to lead to even more trouble. We're opening Pandora's box to put these devices everywhere.
Or suppose this is your wife’s vehicle but it is listed under both your names, yours being first. If your wife drives through a red light or speeds through a construction zone, the ticket will be sent to you, the first name listed on the title. You must go to a hearing in which you can explain that someone else was the driver. But when asked who the driver was, you can either “rat” on your wife, or, like most husbands, you can shut up and pay the fine.
As the bill makes clear, these are “civil” fines, not criminal penalties. That doesn’t make me feel any better. In fact, that’s worse. In a criminal matter, the defendant is entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But because this is a civil matter, the bill provides that the burden is on the defendant to prove any affirmative defenses.
Is this an unconstitutional search and seizure? The Fourth Amendment doesn’t protect against all searches and seizures, only against “unreasonable” ones. I can understand why some would think this is a reasonable measure to protect highway workers.
But consider this: Until the Covid shutdown, I traveled to South Korea for two weeks every year for 10 years to teach for the Handong International Law School. South Korea extensively uses red-light cameras, photographing the front of the vehicle so the driver’s identity is clearly visible. (I’ve been told, but cannot verify, that the cameras often blot out the passenger seat, allegedly because some South Korean drivers might not want their spouses to know who was riding with them.) If South Korea can employ this high technology, why can’t we? It would help ensure that only actual speeders are ticketed and fined.
Other reasonable alternatives exist. We already post signs that say, “Speeding Fines Doubled When Workers Are Present.” Drivers might take these signs more seriously if ALDOT would post “Men Working” only when men are actually present and working. We can increase the presence and visibility of law enforcement at construction sites. And we can provide better means of informing drivers that construction slowdowns may loom.
I can see both sides of this issue. But I am thankful for conservative Christian legislators like Stringer who, while clearly believing in strong law enforcement, also recognize the need to protect our civil liberties. As James Madison said, citizens must “take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.” Such “experiments” commonly begin with the best of intentions, protecting against potential or actual harms. But they establish the precedent for more severe abuses of our liberties later. Beware the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent but outwardly benevolent administrative state. As C. S. Lewis warned in “God in the Dock”:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth.
Colonel Eidsmoe serves as Professor of Constitutional Law for the Oak Brook College of Law & Government Policy (obcl.edu), as Senior Counsel for the Foundation for Moral Law (morallaw.org), and as Chairman of the Board of the Plymouth Rock Foundation (plymrock.org). He and his wife Marleen live in rural Pike Road, Alabama and may be contacted for speaking engagements at [email protected].
The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of 1819 News. To comment, please send an email with your name and contact information to [email protected].
Don’t miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning.
