That is the internet lawyer answer that you hear all the time, and there may be a judge or two that is against them and will dismiss your case if you go to court, the reality is, traffic cameras are in place and have been for decades and there has never been a successful challenge on those grounds, the reason they are civil and not criminal violations is that they can't prove you are the operator, however, as the owner, you are responsible civilly. As Spud notes below, there is a law on the books in VA that makes the cameras legal and it has never been successfully challenged. These are not as simple as a camera taking a picture and sending you a bill. There is a review conducted by a sworn LEO, who is required to sign off on the citation, he or she is in fact viewing the evidence, just like if he or she clocked you with a radar gun or saw you run a light or stop sign. That is your accuser, and they will go to court, just like the officer on the street that pulls you over. There have been successful challenges of cameras, when I was in Iowa the town I worked in decided to put them up all over town. The basis of the claim was the constitutional grounds and two were deemed non-compliant, but not because they were not enforceable under constitutional grounds, but because they were too close to where a speed limit was reduced, which by IA law, provides a distance for you to slow after the posting of the new speed limit. The other cameras were all left in place and kept the locals well funded and the state supreme court ruled that the fact that a sworn LEO was signing the citation, and the accused could face him or her in court, meant it passed constitutional muster.