Minnesota Traffic Camera Ticket Laws: The 2025-2029 Pilot Program Explained

Minnesota's camera-enforcement law does not fit neatly into the owner-civil-penalty or driver-moving-violation models used elsewhere. It is a time-limited pilot program, run by a short list of named authorities, and it treats a camera violation as a petty misdemeanor rather than either a criminal offense or a straightforward civil fine.

A Pilot, Not a Permanent Program

Minnesota's camera authority sits at Minn. Stat. 169.147, and the statute is explicit about its own lifespan: «The authority for camera-based traffic enforcement under the pilot program is limited to August 1, 2025, to July 31, 2029,» and «this section expires July 31, 2029.» That is a hard, self-executing sunset, not a renewal-by-default program. Only three authorities may run cameras under the pilot: the state, through the commissioners of MnDOT and DPS, in trunk-highway work zones; the city of Minneapolis; and the city of Mendota Heights. Locations are limited to trunk-highway work zones, or to spots within 2,000 feet of a school, a statutorily defined school zone, or a postsecondary institution that has «an identified traffic safety concern.»

The statute singles out Minneapolis for an unusual restriction: «The city of Minneapolis is prohibited from implementing the pilot program or camera-based traffic enforcement through or in substantive coordination with the city's police department.» Whatever camera enforcement Minneapolis runs under this pilot, it cannot be run by, or in close coordination with, its own police force.

Petty Misdemeanor, Not a Civil Penalty or a Crime

Most states in this cluster use one of two labels: an owner-liability civil penalty, or a driver-liability moving violation prosecuted like an ordinary ticket. Minnesota uses a third category. Under both the red light provision (Minn. Stat. 169.06, subd. 10) and the speed provision (Minn. Stat. 169.14, subd. 13), «the owner of the vehicle or the lessee of the vehicle is guilty of a petty misdemeanor,» with a fine of $40 for a red light violation or a speed violation under 20 mph over the limit, and $80 for a speed violation of 20 mph or more over the limit.

Minn. Stat. 609.02, subd. 4a, defines what that label actually means: a petty misdemeanor «does not constitute a crime,» and its fine is capped at $300. That places a Minnesota camera violation in a distinct middle category, neither a criminal conviction nor the flat administrative civil penalty New York or Illinois use.

Warning First, and Two Different Tracks After That

The pilot builds in a graduated, forgiving structure that most camera programs in this cluster do not have, but it is not identical across all three implementing authorities. A first offense must be handled with a warning everywhere: the statute requires that «a person who commits a first offense... must be given a warning and is not subject to a fine or conviction.» From there, Minneapolis and Mendota Heights, operating under subdivision 9's general citation authority, can offer a second-offense diversion option, typically a traffic safety course, and then escalate to a real $40 or $80 petty-misdemeanor fine for repeated violations. The commissioners' own trunk-highway work-zone component is different: subdivision 17(b) provides that «the commissioners must issue a warning for a violation... captured by a speed safety camera system and must not impose any fine for a second or subsequent violation.» Read plainly, that means the state's own trunk-highway work-zone cameras never escalate to a fine at all, regardless of how many violations a vehicle racks up, which is a materially more lenient outcome than the two-city track. If your camera ticket came from a state trunk-highway work zone rather than from Minneapolis or Mendota Heights, this distinction is worth checking against your specific notice.

Points, Record, and License Consequences

Both governing subdivisions state directly that «a fine or conviction under subdivision [10/13] does not constitute grounds for revocation or suspension of a person's driver's license.» That is a clear, statutory protection against losing your license over a camera violation.

What the statute text does not spell out, at least in the sections reviewed for this page, is whether a fine or conviction appears on your driving record the way an ordinary moving violation would, the kind of no-record clause states like New York and Illinois state explicitly. Minnesota's statute simply does not address that question either way in the text opened this session, so this page does not assert a specific answer. If your camera ticket comes with a real dollar fine (meaning it is a second-or-later offense, not a first-offense warning), treat the driving-record impact as an open question to raise with the issuing authority rather than something settled by the statute.

Owner Defenses

An owner can avoid liability under Minn. Stat. 169.14, subd. 13, with proof of theft, a transfer of ownership before the violation, identification of the actual lessee or driver, a sworn statement of non-operation submitted to the court or prosecuting authority, or a documented medical emergency verified by a physician.

Information last verified on 2026-08-12. This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Related Resources

• Traffic Camera Ticket Laws by State
• Do You Have to Pay a Camera Ticket?
• How to Fight a Camera Ticket
• DUI Laws by State
• Can You Get a Speeding Ticket Without Being Pulled Over?

---

Last updated: 2026-08-12.