Senate Bill 415, which would have allowed the installation of traffic enforcement cameras in areas prone to crashes, was heard in the Senate Committee on Growth and Infrastructure in late March, but it failed to get a vote out of the committee.
The bill was one of many to not make it through the first major hurdle in the 120-day legislative process, and it joins a long line of unsuccessful traffic enforcement camera legislation in Nevada. Lawmakers killed similar bills in 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2019.
Proposals to use high-speed cameras to enforce traffic laws and issue citations have long brought concerns of privacy invasions and a Big Brother-esque government. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have expressed issues with where the revenue would go, where data would be stored and how drivers would keep their due process.
This time, however, the proposal had the backing of both Clark County Sheriff Kevin McMahill and Gov. Joe Lombardo. McMahill repeatedly stressed that he was “sick and tired” of people dying on Las Vegas Valley roads as the result of drivers running red lights, and he thought 2025 might be the right time to get something done.
Traffic safety advocates pushed for lawmakers to take another look at the installation of cameras, saying the state should consider every piece of available technology to reduce the high number of fatalities on Nevada’s roadways.
Andrew Bennett, chair of the Nevada Advisory Committee on Traffic Safety, said he appreciated the opportunity for the bill to be heard in committee and for the Interim Joint Growth and Infrastructure Committee for putting the bill forward. He said the traffic safety community believes traffic cameras are a proven technology that reduces fatalities, and they don’t need to be examined further.
“We appreciate the opportunity to represent the larger traffic safety community, and we’re rather united behind this policy,” he said. “I encourage people to keep an open mind. At the end of the day we’re attempting to save lives on our roadways.”
Athar Haseebullah, executive director of the ACLU of Nevada, said he is pleased the bill died, calling it a “half-baked” proposal in which the ACLU’s concerns were never addressed. The ACLU testified in opposition, expressing concerns about constitutional considerations, predatory fees and surveillance.
Haseebullah said databases from similar programs elsewhere have been weaponized, and “there’s no ability for the Legislature to have oversight over this data,” Haseebullah told the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
Traffic enforcement cameras are not off the table completely. Dead bills can always be added as an amendment to still-active legislation, though it’s rare, and another traffic camera bill is still alive.
Assembly Bill 402, sponsored by Democratic Assemblymember Selena Torres-Fossett of Las Vegas, would allow the use of traffic enforcement cameras in construction zones. It passed from the Assembly Committee on Growth and Infrastructure last week.
During the March hearing on that bill, Torres-Fossett emphasized the bill’s narrow scope. It would enforce infractions of 10 mph above the speed limit in construction zones, and the cameras would only be in use when workers are present.
Haseebullah said for similar reasons, the ACLU of Nevada is opposed to the Assembly bill. He said it’s wishful thinking to believe traffic cameras would deter speeding in zones where patrol vehicles haven’t had an impact, and he urged Nevadans to testify against it.
Assembly Bill 527, sponsored by the Assembly Committee on Growth and Infrastructure, also remains on the table. It would allow a school district to install and use a school bus infraction detection system to enforce traffic laws as it relates to school bus stops.
© 2025 Las Vegas Review-Journal. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
