(Photo by Randy M. Cauthron) Traffic cameras in Spencer aren't used for enforcement by the Spencer Police Department, according to Chief of Police Mark Lawson. Some cities have cameras mounted on traffic signals to monitor intersections for violations.

DES MOINES (AP) -- The Iowa Supreme Court, in a split ruling on Friday, upheld the city of Davenport's use of traffic cameras to catch speeders and drivers who run red lights.

The ruling involved the case of a man who challenged the city's ordinance, which authorized the use of cameras and sensors to catch motorists who violate traffic laws.

Thomas Seymour received a citation in 2006 after a camera recorded him traveling 49 miles per hour in a 35 mph zone in Davenport.

Drivers through Spencer also will see cameras perched atop some traffic lights, but they aren't used by the Spencer Police Department for enforcement.

The cameras were installed by the Iowa Department of Transportation, according to Spencer Police Chief Mark Lawson. The local police department has no access to the camera's images. Lawson said he doesn't know the purpose of the equipment, though traffic trend monitoring during the recently completed Grand Avenue bridge construction is a possibility.

In the Davenport case, Seymour challenged the citation, saying the city's ordinance violated his right to due process by shifting the burden of proof to the defendant, by depriving him the presumption of innocence, changing the burden of proof from reasonable doubt to a lesser standard of clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence and shifting liability to vehicle owners and not drivers.

A Scott County judge rejected his arguments and found him guilty. A district court upheld the decision and Seymour appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court.

Seymour argued that Davenport's ordinance conflicted with state law, but the court ruled the state authorizes cities to establish traffic laws and does not prohibit cities from using traffic cameras to enforce those laws.

"The fact that state law does not authorize the state to enforce its statute through certain remedial options does not mean that it forbids municipalities from the same course of action," the court wrote. "In the context of state-local pre-emption, the silence of the Legislature is not prohibitory but permissive.

The court said that while the case may be the subject of contentious political debate and while other issues may be questioned, Seymour's appeal only addressed whether Davenport's ordinance is prohibited under state law.

"The Legislature has expressly authorized local governments to establish rules of conduct related to rules of the road. The Legislature used no words of limitation in the section," the court said.

"We hold the Davenport ... ordinance is not pre-empted by the traffic regulations and enforcement mechanisms of (state code)," the court said.

Davenport City Administrator Craig Malin issued a statement Friday that said the city appreciated the court's decision.

"The city's first responsibility is public safety. Our primary goal with the red light and speed enforcement program has been to improve traffic safety, and we continue to use technology to achieve our goal," the statement read.

Malin said city staff and the council will review the program before it is restarted.

"Staff expects to review camera effectiveness and locations with the council, review a public education campaign on traffic safety ... and continue the practice that any fine revenue be solely directed to public safety and other traffic safety programs."

Malin said the city used the camera program conservatively.

"Even with that, it was proving very successful in reducing accidents and injuries," he said.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, which represented Seymour in the case, issued a statement that said the court's decision could entice other cities to consider "such schemes."

The ACLU said it believes ticketing the owners of vehicles could violate their right to due process, and that Iowans should "shudder at the though of a future of computerized cameras monitoring citizens and evaluating their behavior everywhere they go."

The ACLU also expressed concern about what it called the inflexible justice of the system.

"Our right to be held accountable only for our own actions and not for someone else driving our car, to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and to be at peace when traveling in public are all at risk here," the ACLU said.

Justice David S. Wiggins issued the dissenting opinion, saying he does not agree that state code does not pre-empt Davenport's traffic camera ordinance.

"Although the majority recognizes the doctrine of implied pre-emption, it fails to follow our existing case law in its application of the doctrine," Wiggins wrote.

He said the Legislature "never envisioned that municipalities could raise revenue under the guise of traffic law enforcement at the expense of safer highways.

"Without specific authorization by the Legislature to hold owners strictly liable for the acts of a driver, and without DOT authority to regulate who should not be on the roads, I would hold Davenport's Automated Traffic Enforcement ordinance invalid."

In a separate ruling, the supreme court reversed a district court's decision to certify a class action lawsuit, ruling that others who paid fines under the city's traffic camera ordinance were entitled to recover the fines. Justice Wiggins again issued a dissenting ruling in the case.