Speeding drivers can still receive tickets from the automated traffic enforcement cameras on Interstate Highway 235 in Des Moines, despite a judge's ruling that the Iowa Department of Transportation can order the city to remove the devices.

Des Moines, Cedar Rapids and Muscatine requested the judicial review in 2015 after the DOT ordered some speed cameras turned off because they did not make interstate highways or nearby intersections safer.

Now, the cities are split on whether to continue issuing tickets while their request to delay the judge's ruling is being considered by the court.

Des Moines' cameras on I-235 near Waveland Golf Course and Muscatine's cameras at University Drive and U.S. Highway 61 continue to issue violations, but Cedar Rapids is no longer issuing tickets from the four cameras it has on Interstate Highway 380.

"We felt this was the best course of action as we await a decision ... If the courts grant cities a stay order, we will issue citations while the case continues (on appeal)," said Maria Johnson, a Cedar Rapids spokeswoman.

All three cities have filed motions requesting the court stay the judge's order while they appeal the case.

Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller wrote in a motion that cities have no reason to pursue a stay order other than to "preserve the status quo."

"It now makes good sense for the cities to comply with the ... DOT removal orders," Miller wrote. "There is no reason to allow the continued operation of traffic enforcement cameras that have not been shown to be effective from a highway safety perspective."

A decision on the stay requests is expected by May 17.

Des Moines City Manager Scott Sanders said the city's speed cameras are necessary to enforce traffic laws without creating an "unreasonable risk to the safety of officers and the traveling public."

"The I-235 speed camera will remain in use until otherwise directed by the courts," he said.

But if the stay is denied, it's unclear whether the tickets issued since the April 25 ruling would remain valid.

"With that ruling, and without the judge granting a stay, it's irresponsible of them to keep the cameras working and issuing tickets," said Robert Rehkemper, an attorney with the Gourley, Rehkemper and Lindholm law firm in Des Moines.

“If I get a ticket on I-235 with that speed camera, I’m going to be raising hell,” he said.

Des Moines found itself in a similar situation more than a decade ago when citizens filed a class-action lawsuit against the city for a franchise fee charged to local utility customers.

The courts determined the fee was illegal, but the city appealed the decision and continued to collect the tax during the appeals process. The Iowa Supreme Court ultimately sided with utility customers and ordered the city to repay $40 million.

"Are they slow learners?" said Brad Schroeder, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs in the franchise fee case. "It just seems like common sense. If there's a chance you have to pay it back, you don't double-down in the meantime and make a bad situation much worse."

In 2016, Des Moines' cameras generated about $2.5 million for the city's general fund. Losing that revenue could require the city to increase property tax rates or cut back services, Sanders said.

"We don’t believe we should be required to repay those (tickets) because none are issued to people who are not speeding," Councilman Chris Coleman said.

The traffic camera case

State rules passed in 2013 overseeing the traffic enforcement cameras require local jurisdictions to annually justify use of the devices and their placement on or near highways.

The first reports were due in May 2014; 10 months later, the DOT ruled that 10 of 34 automated traffic enforcement cameras in six cities be turned off. Five cities asked the DOT to reconsider its ruling, and in May 2015, the state agency again ruled that the cameras be turned off. Des Moines, Cedar Rapids and Muscatine turned to the district courts, asking for a judicial review.

The requests were combined into one case.

In his April 25 ruling, Polk County district court Judge Scott D. Rosenberg wrote that the DOT’s “actions were not unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.”

In addition, Rosenberg wrote that the DOT “has the power to apply safety regulations to (automated traffic enforcement) use on primary highways, which does not interfere with municipal police officers’ ability to enforce speed regulations.”

The cities have 30 days to appeal the decision.

Which traffic cameras are at stake?

The DOT wants speed-enforcement cameras removed from: