Council members backed another look at speed and red-light enforcement, but key rules — including locations, speeding thresholds and data retention — have not yet been decided

Damien Willis, Organ Mountain News

LAS CRUCES - Automated speed and red-light cameras could return to Las Cruces after city councilors directed staff Monday to bring a proposal back for formal consideration.

The discussion leaves several important pieces unresolved — including where cameras could be placed, how far above the speed limit a driver would have to travel before receiving a citation, how long images would be retained and whether the city would begin with a pilot program.

Mayor Eric Enriquez said he supported moving forward and asked whether councilors favored having staff return with a resolution or ordinance, potentially beginning with a pilot.

“We still have the crashes, we still have the speeders, we still have the fatalities, we still have the injuries,” Enriquez said. “So we have to do something.”

Councilor Johana Bencomo also supported bringing the proposal forward.

The cameras under discussion are separate from the Flock automated license-plate readers that have generated a different discussion over surveillance and data use in Las Cruces. The proposed traffic cameras would be used to enforce speeding or red-light violations.

LCPD officials said the proposed technology would photograph the rear of a vehicle rather than the driver. A resulting citation would be civil rather than the type of traffic citation issued by an officer during a stop.

Under the framework discussed Monday, a citation could carry a $100 fine. The citation would initially go to the registered owner, who could identify another person as the driver. A hearing officer would determine liability using a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.

Unlike a traditional traffic citation, the violation could not be reported to the Motor Vehicle Division and failure to pay would not result in an arrest warrant or driver's license suspension. Unpaid citations could eventually be sent to collections.

But many of those details remain subject to change before anything returns to the council for approval.

Among the questions councilors and police discussed was how fast a vehicle would have to be traveling before automated enforcement begins. Officials raised possibilities ranging from 5 mph to 10 mph above the posted limit. LCPD said some other jurisdictions set their threshold so citations begin at 11 mph over the limit.

Data retention also remains unsettled. Police discussed retaining images for about 30 days when no citation is challenged, with a longer period when a case proceeds to a hearing.

Enriquez said those decisions should follow best practices.

The city would also have to decide where the equipment goes.

Police said fixed cameras can enforce both speeding and red-light violations, while transportable equipment could be moved among locations but would generally be limited to speed enforcement.

LCPD officials said they would favor using crash and speed data to determine locations, particularly along major corridors where the city has documented recurring problems. They cited Lohman Avenue and Main Street among areas that have appeared repeatedly in crash data.

Bencomo also raised the possibility of using movable speed cameras in residential neighborhoods where residents have complained about speeding but police officers cannot provide constant enforcement.

Police Chief Jeremy Story said the department has seven traffic officers covering roughly 500 miles of roadway, forcing officers to concentrate their efforts where crashes and injury crashes are most prevalent.

Automated enforcement, Story said, could allow cameras to handle some high-crash locations while freeing officers to spend more time responding to neighborhood complaints.

Still, both councilors and police raised questions about equity and surveillance.

Officials said camera placement should be based on objective safety measures rather than concentrating enforcement in particular neighborhoods. Bencomo suggested that a neighborhood petition process could help determine whether transportable cameras are used on residential streets.

Police also acknowledged broader concerns about cameras and surveillance and said transparency about locations and data retention would be important.

Those concerns are particularly relevant as Las Cruces separately faces public questions about its use of automated license-plate readers.

Las Cruces has tried traffic cameras before

Automated traffic enforcement would not be new to Las Cruces.

The City Council created its Safe Traffic Operations Program in 2008 and contracted with Redflex. Cameras eventually operated at several intersections, including Lohman Avenue and Walnut Street, Lohman Avenue and Telshor Boulevard and other major corridors.

State transportation policy later restricted automated enforcement on state-controlled roadways, forcing some Las Cruces cameras offline. The city's contract continued for several years, but LCPD officials said Monday that the fragmented history made it difficult to determine the program's long-term effectiveness.

Story was critical of the way the previous program was administered.

“I think we did not do it well here at the time,” he said, adding that problems with Redflex contributed to the city's experience.

Police presented data suggesting more consistent camera enforcement at some locations coincided with lower crash or injury-crash numbers, but officials cautioned against drawing firm conclusions from portions of the old program because cameras repeatedly went on and offline.

LCPD also pointed to more recent programs elsewhere in New Mexico. Police said Albuquerque has reported substantial reductions in speeding at many camera locations and cited Bernalillo County's option allowing some drivers to complete community service instead of paying a citation.

Councilors expressed interest in exploring a similar community-service option in Las Cruces.

What happens next

No formal action was possible Monday because the council was meeting in a work session. Staff was directed to develop a proposal and return with a resolution or ordinance for consideration at a future regular meeting.

Councilors will still be able to debate the program’s scope, locations, enforcement thresholds, privacy rules and whether implementation should begin as a pilot.

Enriquez said bringing the proposal back publicly would give residents a chance to see where cameras might go and how the system would work before a final decision is made.

“We do want to be transparent,” he said. “We do want to identify the locations. We want to let the community know what law enforcement is doing, what engineering is doing.”

That means the cameras are not coming back yet — but Las Cruces is now taking the first formal steps toward deciding whether they should.

Damien Willis is founder and editor of Organ Mountain News. If you have a personal story to share or a lead we should follow up on, reach out at OrganMountainNews@gmail.com or connect with him on X at @damienwillis.