Des Moines Automated Speed Camera — HF 2681 (2024) DOT Permit Compliance
Iowa enacted HF 2681 in 2024 (codified at Iowa Code §321.236(13) and §321.491A), which fundamentally restructured automated traffic enforcement. Effective January 1, 2025, every Automated Traffic Enforcement (ATE) device — including Des Moines's I-235, Hubbell Avenue, and school-zone cameras — must (1) be authorized by an Iowa DOT permit issued under newly-required statewide criteria; (2) be located only where the City demonstrates engineering need that cannot be addressed by other means; (3) provide statutory pre-enforcement signage; (4) issue citations on the new uniform statewide form; (5) be subject to capped civil penalties; and (6) be reported annually to DOT. Cameras operating without a valid post-1/1/2025 DOT permit, or citations issued in violation of the new uniform requirements, are subject to dismissal. Cedar Rapids and other cities have already been ordered to remove cameras lacking permits.
Legal basis
Iowa Code §321.236(13); §321.491A (HF 2681, 2024 sess.); Behm v. City of Cedar Rapids, 922 N.W.2d 524 (Iowa 2019); Hughes v. City of Cedar Rapids, 840 F.3d 987 (8th Cir. 2016)
Sample appeal wording
[DATE] City of Des Moines Automated Traffic Enforcement Hearing Officer [ADDRESS] Re: Notice of Violation #[NUMBER] — Automated Traffic Enforcement Date: [DATE] Location: [LOCATION] I contest this Notice of Violation. The cited Automated Traffic Enforcement device fails to comply with Iowa Code §321.236(13) and §321.491A as enacted by HF 2681 (2024 sess.), and the resulting citation is unenforceable. 1. DOT permit. Effective January 1, 2025, no city may operate an ATE device without a permit issued by the Iowa Department of Transportation under §321.491A. I have requested, via Iowa Code Chapter 22 (Open Records Act), the DOT permit for the device at [LOCATION]. The City has [failed to produce / produced an expired permit / produced a permit issued for a different location]. 2. Engineering need. §321.491A requires the City to demonstrate that the ATE device addresses an engineering or safety need that cannot be addressed by lower-cost means. The City has produced no engineering study supporting the device. 3. Pre-enforcement signage. The statutorily-required warning signs were [absent / placed within the prohibited proximity to the camera / not conforming to the Iowa MUTCD as required by §321.252]. 4. Registered-owner-liability rebuttal. Under §321.236(13), I am [not the operator / the operator was [NAME], affidavit attached / the vehicle was reported stolen on [DATE], police report #_____]. 5. Behm v. City of Cedar Rapids, 922 N.W.2d 524 (Iowa 2019), made clear that ATE programs must comply strictly with their statutory authorizations. For each independent reason above, the citation must be dismissed. Sincerely, [NAME]
Replace [PARKING DATE], [NtK DATE] etc. with your own dates before sending.
Beat It writes this argument automatically
Scan your PCN — our AI checks if this ground applies to your specific ticket, drafts a properly-cited appeal letter, and submits it to the council on your behalf. Only pay if you win.
Scan my ticketSources
- Iowa Code §321.236(13), §321.491A (legis.iowa.gov)
- HF 2681 (2024 Iowa Acts) — full text and Senate floor record
- Iowa DOT ATE Program guidance (iowadot.gov)
- Behm v. City of Cedar Rapids, 922 N.W.2d 524 (Iowa 2019)
- Hughes v. City of Cedar Rapids, 840 F.3d 987 (8th Cir. 2016)