STATE OF TENNESEEE Office of the Attorney General IIERBERT II. SLATERY III ATTORNEY GENERAL AND REPORTER P.C). BC)X 20207, NASÉIVrLLE, llJ 37202 TELEPFTONE (61 s)74t -349t FACSTMTLE (6 t s)7 4 t -2OO9 JuIy 6,2016 The Honorable Andy Holt State Representative 205 War Memorial Building Nashville, Tennessee 37243 Dear Representative Holt: Enclosed is the attached opinion per your request. Please let us know further questions. As always, we appreciate your assistance and cooperation. if you have any Sincerely, 4 #uz HERBERT H. SLATERY I{I Attorney General and Reporter Enclosure STATE OF TENNESSEE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL July 6,2016 Opinion No. 16-24 Reviewins Video Evidence from a Traffic Lieht Monitorins Svstem Ouestion I Does Tenn. Code Ar¡r. $ 55-8-198(b)(1) permit employees of private traffrc camera companies who are neither law enforcement officers nor residents of Tennessee to review video footage from unmanned traffrc cameras and determine whether there is a traffic violation before the private employees submit the footage to law enforcement officers for their review and flrnal determination of a violation? Opinion No. I $ 55-8-198(bX1), "[o]nly POST-certified or statecommissioned law enforcement officers" are authorized"to review video evidence from a traffrc light signal monitoring system and make a determination as to whether a violation has occurred." Employees of private traffic camera companies are not POST-certified or state-commissioned law enforcement officers and therefore are not authorizedto review video evidence and make violation Under Tenn. Code Ann. determinations. Ouestion 2 Under what legal authority may these private employees review such video evidence and determine whether or not Tenn. Code Ann. $ 55-8-110(aX3) was violated, or whether any municipal law or ordinance that mirrors, substantially duplicates or incorporates by cross-reference the language of $ 55-8-110(aX3) was violated, before sending the video evidence to police for their review, determination and verification? Opinion 2 1. 'We are not aware of any other Tennessee statute that authorizes employees of private companies to review the video footage for the purpose of determining whether there has been a traffic violation. Please see Opinion ANALYSIS Tennessee Code Annotated $ 55-8-198(b)(1) provides that "fo]nly POST-certified or statecommissioned law enforcement offrcers shall be authorized to review video evidence from a traffic light signal monitoring system and make a determination as to whether a violation has occurred."l In assessing whether this statute permits employees of a private company to review traffrc camera footage to make preliminary violation determinations, the key issues are (i) whether the phrase "[o]nly POST-certified or state-commissioned law enforcement officers" precludes any substantive review by private employees; and (ii) whether the phrase "review video evidence from a trafftc light signal monitoring system and make a determination as to whether a violation has occurred" includes the review of traffic camera evidence for the purpose of making preliminary violation determinations that are subsequently reviewed by law enforcement officers. In construing a statute, courts must carry out the legislative intent and purpose of the General Assembly without unduly restricting or expanding a statute's coverage beyond its intended scope. Arden v. Kozawa, 466 S.W.3d 758, 764 (Tenrl2015); Shore v. Maple Lane Farms, LLC,4ll S.W.3d 405,420 (Tenn. 2013); Waldschmidt v. Reassure Am. Life Ins. Co.,27l S.V/.3d 173, I76 (Tenn. 2008). The best indicator of the General Assembly's intent and purpose is the plain and ordinary meaning of the statutory language. Shore,4l1 S.W.3d at 420. The court must presume that every word has "meaning and purpose." Id. Only when the statutory language is ambiguous may the court consider the broader statutory scheme, public policy, the history of the legislation, or other means of statutory interpretation that go beyond the plain language. Id. Section 55-8-198(b)(1) is not ambiguous. It plainly grants authority to review traffrc "only POST-certified or state-commissioned law enforcement offrcers." The word "only" means "and no one or nothing more besides; solely or exclusively." New Oxford American Dictionary 1226 (3rd ed. 2010). Thus, the plain language of $ 55-8-198(bX1) unambiguously precludes anyone other than POST-certified or state-commissioned law enforcement officers from reviewing traffic camera evidence and making violation determinations. It follows that employees of private traffrc camera companies lack authority to perform that function because they are not POST-certified or state-commissioned law enforcement officers. camera evidence to The function that POST-certified or state-commissioned law enforcement officers are exclusively authorized to perform is "to review video evidence from a traffic light signal monitoring system and make a determination as to whether a violation has occurred." Notably, the word "determination" is not modified by "final" or "ultimate." The statutory language thus contemplates one review process in which the determination is made; it does not, in other words, contemplate sequential reviews. Nor does it otherwise suggest that the role of POST-certified or state-commissioned law enforcement offrcers is merely to review preliminary violation determinations made by someone else. Rather, $ 55-8-198(bX1) is most naturally read as conferring on POST-certified or state-commissioned law enforcement officers exclusive authority to engage in the substantive review of traffic camera evidence and to make violation determinations based on that review. I As originally enacted in 2008, 55-8-198(b) provided that "[a]n employee of the applicable law enforcement office $ shall review video evidence from a traffic light signal monitoring system and make a determination as to whether a violation has occurred." Tenn. Code Ann. $ 55-8-198(b) (2008). ln20ll, the General Assembly amended that provision by replacing the phrase "[a]n employee of the applicable law enforcement office shall review" with the phrase "[o]nly POST-certified or state-commissioned law enforcement officers shall be authorized to review." See 201 I Tenn, Pub. Acts, ch.425, $ 5. 2 This Office has consistently interpreted $ 55-8-198(b) as granting exclusive authority to law enforcement offrcers to engage in the substantive review of traffrc camera evidence and determine whether a violation has occurred. Before the relevant language was amended to its current form in 20II, this Office opined that the provision "prohibit[ed] private vendors from making the determination, based upon photographic evidence, that a traffic violation has occurred," Tenn. Att'y Gen. Op. 08-179 (Nov. 26,2008), and meant that*[oJnly law enforcement personnel are authorized to review the information gathered by unmanned trafflrc surveillance cameras to determine whether a traffic violation has occurred," Tenn. Att'y Gen. Op. 11-3 (Jan.7, 20ll) (emphasis in original). While those opinions did not expressly address whether a private vendor may make preliminary violation determinations, they support the conclusion that the plain language of $ 55-8-198(bX1) strictly limits the authority to review traffrc camera footage to law enforcement officers. Our earlier statement that it might be permissible for a vendor to "provide information which the city's law enforcement department could then use to decide whether and whom to cite for these traffic violations," Tenn. Att'y Gen. Op. 06-150 (Oct.2,2006), is not to the contrary. That opinion was issued before $ 55-8-198 was enacted and addressed only whether it was permissible for a city to delegate by contract certain authority to a private company. In sum, the plain language of $ 55-8-198(bxl) is most naturally read to mean that only POST-certified or state-commissioned law enforcement officers-and no one else-has authority to review traffrc camera evidence and determine, based on that review, whether a traffic violation has occurred. H. SLATER Attorney General and SO LUMSTEIN Solicitor General K. CAMPBELL Special Assistant to the Solicitor General and the Attorney General Requested by: The Honorable Andy Holt State Representative 205 War Memorial Building Nashville, Tennessee 37243 J