Class Action Says Securix ‘Diversion Program’ to Identify, Ticket Uninsured Vehicles Is Unconstitutional

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action claims Securix, LLC’s program to enforce state uninsured vehicle statutes has violated consumers’ constitutional rights to due process and allowed the company to reap millions in fees without any legal authority to do so.

Want to stay in the loop on class actions that matter to you? Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.

The 20-page lawsuit says that the Georgia-based company, which operates public safety programs in a number of states, contracts with government entities and cities to implement its “diversion program” for identifying, ticketing and collecting fees from vehicle owners who the system determines to be uninsured.

However, Securix, “[p]retending to be law enforcement,” uses equipment to analyze photos of vehicles’ license plates and subsequently tickets registered vehicle owners, with neither consideration for who was driving nor any investigation as to whether the driver was lawfully insured, the suit alleges.

“Reducing the number of uninsured vehicles on the public roadways is a laudable goal,” the case says. “Trampling on the rights of vehicle owners is not and [Securix’s] Diversion Program does just that.”

To detect uninsured vehicles, the defendant’s system utilizes automated license plate readers (ALPRs), which can be mounted on traffic lights, road signs or police cars, the complaint states. When an ALPR captures an image of a license plate, Securix runs the plate number against a variety of databases to determine whether the car is insured, the filing relays. As the lawsuit tells it, if Securix concludes that a vehicle is uninsured, the company will then mail to the registered owner a ticket that, per the suit, is misrepresented as a legitimate traffic citation from the city police department.

According to the suit, Securix’s practices are illegal as many states prohibit the use of ALPRs to enforce uninsured vehicle laws, including the plaintiffs’ home state of Mississippi.

In addition, Mississippi’s uninsured vehicle statutes merely require that an automobile is insured and do not specify whether the registered owner, driver or another party must have the requisite insurance, the case relays.

The complaint further explains that law enforcement officers can only issue a vehicle insurance statute violation in relation to a roadblock used to enforce traffic laws or upon stopping an automobile for a separate infraction. Securix, in “blatant violation” of these rules, issues tickets that are not connected to any kind of stop at all, let alone a lawful one, the filing argues.

The lawsuit summarizes that “[the defendant] merely takes pictures of license plates, unlawfully runs the information through the State’s verification system, and sends out Tickets.”

What’s more, the suit charges that the company’s “diversion program” is “egregiously” deceptive. According to the case, Securix “goes to great lengths” to mislead citizens into believing that the city operates the program, and that the citations are sanctioned and issued by the police department.

For example, the complaint shares, the tickets mailed to vehicle owners bear the name of the city, rather than that of the defendant, and include what appears to be a sworn affidavit from a law enforcement officer stating that the registered owner has violated the state’s uninsured vehicle law. The tickets also indicate that a court date has been set, though no case has actually been filed, the lawsuit adds.

Additionally, the mailed tickets threaten suspension of the citizen’s driver’s license unless they provide proof of insurance, appear in court or pay a fee, the filing says. Per the suit, the listed telephone number and website that a vehicle owner can use to pay the fee are operated by Securix, which collects all payments and only transfers a portion to the city.

“Acting under color of law, [Securix] handles everything from detection of the alleged violation to collection of the fee,” the case claims. “Put simply, for alleged uninsured vehicle infractions, [the defendant] becomes the police department.”

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States to whom Securix sent a ticket alleging a violation of a state’s uninsured vehicle statute.

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.