Garvin said the case will be discussed further in a hearing on June 13.

An attorney in the case, Jim Martin, said red-light cameras offer a litany of due process concerns.

"It strips away all of the fundamental rights you have to actually confront the witness," Martin said, noting that most cases are decided by a judge watching the alleged offense on a computer monitor. "In our minds, and in the minds of others, it appeared to be nothing more than a money grab."

The cameras, Martin said, upend the presumption of innocence. They work by taking a photo of the license plate of the offending vehicle, and sending a $100 citation to the registered vehicle of the car -- who is not necessarily the driver.

Car owners who contend they were not behind the wheel at the time have to send an affidavit stating who was.

"You have to snitch. You have to say my daughter was driving, my son was driving," Martin said. "You don't have to say anything under our laws. You have the right to remain silent. There are so many fundamental things this tramples on."

Shake off your afternoon slump with the oft-shared and offbeat news of the day, hand-brewed by our online news editor, Mandy St. Amand. Sign up! * I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.