(The Center Square) – Suffolk attorney and candidate for Delegate in the 97th district, Tim Anderson is asking the Virginia Court of Appeals to strike down the city’s speed enforcement camera program, alleging it violates state law and was designed to maximize profit, not improve public safety.
The case, Lytle v. City of Suffolk, centers on a traffic ticket issued to Curtis David Lytle through the city’s automated speed camera system. Anderson argued that the city’s system bypasses required legal steps by outsourcing enforcement to a third-party vendor and not issuing court summonses directly to drivers.
In an email to The Center Square, Anderson said the legal framework “involved sovereign immunity, and whether Suffolk’s photo speed enforcement program was a governmental or proprietary function—but at its core, this case is about accountability,” he said.
He claims Suffolk’s program generated more than $10 million in 2024 revenue and described it as a private operation managed by a third-party vendor but shielded by law enforcement immunity.
“We argued that the City of Suffolk deliberately built a program outside the four corners of Virginia law,” Anderson said. He added that if the court allows Suffolk’s system to stand, other localities across Virginia may follow suit.
At the center of the legal argument is Virginia Code § 46.2-882.1, which governs the use of speed enforcement cameras in work zones and school zones. The law requires localities to post clear signage within 1,000 feet of camera zones and allows photo speed monitoring devices to be used only under specific conditions. It also gives drivers the right to challenge citations in general district court, which Anderson claims is being sidestepped in Suffolk.
He is asking the court to rule that Suffolk’s program is not protected by sovereign immunity, a legal doctrine that generally shields government agencies from lawsuits over official actions. Anderson said the city’s contract with its vendor is more commercial than governmental and should not qualify for legal immunity.
Suffolk officials pushed back in court. Assistant City Attorney Rebecca Powers argued in legal filings that the law already provides a path for drivers to contest citations in general district court and that Lytle failed to use that option.
The city’s brief also called Anderson’s legal theory a “desperate final attempt… to manufacture the jurisdiction necessary” to keep the case alive. It warned that creating a new exception to sovereign immunity would reverse decades of case law and expose local governments to a wave of lawsuits.
He argues Suffolk’s arrangement prioritizes revenue over fairness and avoids meaningful judicial oversight. “We’re asking the Court to recognize that sovereign immunity should not shield a city from judicial review when it’s being accused of exceeding its statutory authority. When a locality outsources enforcement to a for-profit vendor and sidelines the judiciary, it stops being law enforcement and becomes something much more dangerous: government by invoice.”
A 2025 state law is also tightening rules on automatic license plate recognition systems, requiring police to limit their use to specific investigations and submit statewide usage reports. While unrelated to Suffolk’s speed cameras, the law reflects growing scrutiny of automated enforcement tools across Virginia.
