Greenwich to Restart School Zone Cameras With $50 Fines as Suit Seeks Refunds

• Greenwich, Connecticut will restart its school zone speed cameras at ten locations after state traffic officials approved a revised plan on Oct. 29, with 30 days of warnings before $50 fines for a first violation and $75 for later ones.
• A class action filed in September in Stamford Superior Court alleges the first round of the program broke state law and asks a judge to void every earlier ticket and order full restitution of fines and fees that the plaintiffs’ lawyers estimate at $1.4 million.
• Anyone who paid a ticket from a Greenwich school zone camera issued between Nov. 19, 2025 and April 2, 2026 should keep the notice, and the restart terms give a driver 10 days to ask for a hearing.

Why Greenwich Switched Its School Zone Cameras Off in April and What Is Different Now

Greenwich is bringing back its school zone speed cameras with a warning phase first. For the first 30 days, a driver caught going 10 mph or more over the limit gets a written warning. After that, the registered owner of the car pays $50 for a first violation and $75 for a second or later one. OSTA, the state traffic office that signs off on camera plans, approved the revised version on Thursday, Oct. 29, 2026. Police Chief James Heavey wants them running again by winter, and no firm start date has been reported.

A class action filed in September by Stephen Lockton in Stamford Superior Court names the Town of Greenwich and its camera vendor, Blue Line Solutions, LLC, as defendants. It speaks for drivers who were ticketed and paid under the first version of the program, and it asks a judge to throw out the ordinance and every ticket written under it. These are allegations, and no court has ruled on them.

Greenwich Police and Blue Line Solutions, a vendor based in Chattanooga, launched the program under Public Act 23-116, the 2023 Connecticut law that lets a town authorize cameras by ordinance and then seek state approval of a plan. The state approved the original plan in July 2025. After a 30 day warning period, live citations began on Nov. 19, 2025, at $50 for a first offense and $75 after that.

On April 2, 2026, the town halted the program. An internal review found gaps in the approval steps the state statute demands. Greenwich had skipped the public hearing, and the Representative Town Meeting, or RTM, had never voted on the program. The Board of Selectmen had voted for the ordinance at a public meeting, but that session did not count as the hearing. Section 17 of Public Act 23-116 requires a town to hold a public hearing on its camera plan before it sends the plan to the Connecticut Department of Transportation. First Selectman Fred Camillo called the miss “an honest mistake.”

Complaints had already reached the town about signs and the appeals process. Sgt. James D. Smith, the traffic supervisor in the Greenwich Police Department, told the Board of Selectmen in April that the sign fixes were “nothing that couldn’t be remedied in a quick and efficient manner.” He gave a longer update on the work: “Currently, we’ve been working with the Town of Greenwich Traffic Engineering, Blue Line, and us regarding those adjustments of signage,” Smith said, and he noted that residents had asked why the signs are not better lit. “We are still awaiting a reply from Connecticut DOT regarding the additional time placards on signage, saying when the times of enforcement are, to see if that’s DOT-compliant.” Smith also defended how tickets were handled: “There were no issues in how the violations were being processed, and there was no issue with the actual plan as it was approved by the state,” Smith stressed.

The town then did the missing steps. A public hearing took place on May 14, and the RTM approved the program on June 15 by a vote of 100 to 60 with 3 abstentions. Camillo promoted the hearing in his weekly newsletter. “I know there continues to be a lot of questions about this program, which is currently suspended but will be brought back, and this hearing will allow residents to get the facts and comment on elements of the revised safety plan that will soon be submitted to the State, such as locations of the cameras and hours of operation,” Camillo wrote. “It will not be a forum for complaints.”

What Changes When the Cameras Come Back

Ten locations are in the revised plan: Brunswick Lower School, Eagle Hill School, Central Middle School (at Indian Rock Lane and at Orchard Street), Glenville School, Greenwich Academy, Parkway School, North Street School, and Greenwich High School (at Hillside Road and at East Putnam Avenue).

The plan adds time placards and flashing beacons to the signs. The placards tell drivers when enforcement applies, which was one of the open questions Smith raised in April. Heavey says the police are looking at tweaks to the appeal process, and he and Camillo say the program will look almost exactly as it did before.

The trigger stays at 10 mph or more over the posted limit, a threshold the Act writes into the ordinance. The Connecticut Department of Transportation words the school zone rule on its FAQ page as “exceeding the posted speed limit by more than 10 mph,” so a driver who wants a clean margin should treat 10 over as the line and stay below it.

The Act caps the fine at $50 for a first violation and $75 for a second or later one, and the restart terms use those full amounts. Online payment can carry a processing fee, and the program allows a “reasonable fee,” capped at $15 under Section 11(d) of the Act. Fine revenue has to go to transportation mobility, transportation infrastructure improvements or the cost of running the cameras.

The Greenwich Police Department says the cameras cut speeding violations in the school zones by 92 percent. Chief Heavey makes the staffing case: “We get frequent complaints about speeders near schools, and we just don’t have the sufficient staff to cover it,” Heavey explained. Smith said in April that speeds had dropped. “Since the implementation of the program, we have noticed a reduction in speed and the number of violators coming through to be processed,” Smith said. “The program is not intended to replace police officers; we just want that to be clear. It’s a force multiplier. Obviously, there are only so many of us out on the road. But this is a more efficient way of identifying violators,” Smith said.

Residents split. Pamela Weldon, who lives in Greenwich, says the cameras changed her driving. “It has truly made me think about slowing down more when there are young kids around,” Weldon admitted. John Cracraft, another resident, takes issue with the program, saying “it’s annoying and it still seems like a little bit of a money grab.” He also wants better signs: “It’s not clear when that actual school zone is, so some more signage would be beneficial, for sure,” Cracraft said.

Other Connecticut towns run cameras too, and Stamford’s school zone camera fines follow the same $50 and $75 rates. Camillo has argued Greenwich is going easy by comparison. “Some are doing the cameras 24/7, so for those out there that are thinking it’s a police state here, it’s not. We’re actually pretty lenient with this. The whole point is, as the sergeant said, speeding has come down. That’s the point,” Camillo said in April. He has also predicted the fines will fade: “After a while, there’ll be no tickets, because people will just be used to doing it,” Camillo predicted. Heavey described the pause in a more forgiving light: “The police department and the town looked at some of the – I don’t want to say missteps, but challenges that we had to sort out,” Heavey said. “In the end, we probably benefited from the pause, so now we’re really going to get the system right.”

The Lawsuit That Asks a Judge to Void Every Ticket

The suit puts two state law rules at the center. One is the public hearing Greenwich skipped in the first round. The other is a ban on contingent vendor pay. Section 11(b) of Public Act 23-116 bars a town from paying a camera vendor by the ticket: whatever the vendor charges for the design, setup, operation or upkeep of a device cannot hinge on how many citations go out or how many fines get paid. The state transportation department repeats the point in its FAQ.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys at Hurwitz Sagarin & Slossberg argue that Greenwich’s contract with Blue Line Solutions breaks that law outright. In their telling, the ban exists to stop a vendor from profiting when more drivers get tickets. They also allege that Greenwich sent out more than 12,000 warnings and thousands of citations before the program stopped, and that the program took in about $1.4 million, by their estimate, in fines and fees across the four months the cameras ran. Those numbers are the lawyers’ estimates.

The suit seeks that ruling, plus full restitution of fines, fees and surcharges for the class. The docket is FST-CV-26-6083298-S. As of Nov. 1, the Connecticut Judicial Branch website showed Blue Line asking for until Nov. 23, 2026 to file its response. That request is about scheduling, not the merits.

Selectwoman Lauren Rabin said in April that she had received numerous emails from residents seeking refunds, and Camillo said no determination had been made. “We’ve told people, don’t email us about that right now, because that’s not been decided. We still have to speak with Blue Line, and we’re speaking with our attorneys,” Camillo said. No refund or claim process has been announced in the reporting through Nov. 4.

How a Camera Ticket Works in Connecticut

A camera photographs the license plate of a car going 10 mph or more over the limit in a school zone. A police officer or a municipal employee the traffic authority designates reviews the images, and only then can a citation go out. The citation goes to the registered owner, who is liable when someone else was driving, and it carries no points and no report to an insurer or a driving record.

The program’s mailing rule sets the clock: “In the case of an alleged violation involving a motor vehicle registered in Connecticut the citation shall be send by first class mail not later than 30 days after the identity of the owner is determined and shall be mailed to the address of the owner that is in the records of the DMV. In the case of an alleged violation involving a motor vehicle registered in another jurisdiction, the citation shall be sent by first class mail not later than 30 days after the identity of the owner is determined and shall be mailed to the address of the owner that is in the records of the official in the other jurisdiction issuing such registration.” The same rule adds a hard stop: “A citation shall be invalid unless mailed to an owner not later than 60 days after the alleged violation.”

To fight a citation, the owner contests liability in writing within 10 days, delivered in person or by mail. The hearing comes 15 to 30 days after the notice is mailed, with testimony under oath, in front of a hearing officer the First Selectman appoints. A driver found not liable has the matter dismissed. A driver who skips the hearing risks a default assessment. A person assessed a fine can appeal to court within 30 days of the mailing of the notice of assessment.

The Act lists six defenses, among them a stolen car not yet recovered, an order from a police officer and a camera that missed its required annual calibration check. The town or its vendor must destroy data that identifies a vehicle within 30 days after the fine is paid or the hearing ends, whichever comes later.

In April, Smith said the town was looking at the appeal window. “We spoke with the vendor Blue Line. They’re open to going to 30 days, but they would like the town ordinance to reflect 30 days as well, so there’s consistency across the board, so we just need to follow up on that,” Smith said. Camillo said 10 days “wasn’t fair” to residents who might be out of town for a few days. The restart terms reported on Nov. 1 still list the 10 day window, and the reporting through Nov. 4 shows no change.

What Drivers Can Do Now

If a Greenwich school zone camera ticketed you between Nov. 19, 2025 and April 2, 2026 and you paid, keep the citation, the payment confirmation and the date you paid. The suit seeks restitution for drivers in that position, and no court has decided whether anyone is owed money. The Connecticut Judicial Branch website carries the docket under FST-CV-26-6083298-S, and Blue Line had asked for until Nov. 23 to respond, as of Nov. 1.

When the cameras restart, expect mailed warnings first, with no fine attached. After that phase, hold the speed limit in all ten zones and keep a margin under 10 mph over. Watch for the new time placards, which say when enforcement applies. If a citation arrives, read the date printed on it and start your 10 days from that date. Send the written hearing request inside that window and keep proof of when you sent it.

Check the citation for the camera’s last calibration date. A citation mailed more than 60 days after the alleged violation is invalid, so compare the violation date with the postmark. Keep your address current with the Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles: a Connecticut registered car’s citation goes to the address in the DMV records.

For the statewide rules, see Connecticut’s school zone camera rollout, which covers the same Public Act 23-116 fine limits and the 30 day warning period.

Want more car content? Add us as a preferred source on Google to your favourites list for the best automotive news and analysis on the internet.

If you enjoyed this article, be sure to follow us on Microsoft Start.

Sources

• CT General Assembly: Public Act 23-116 (Substitute House Bill 5917)
• CTDOT: Red-light and Speed Safety Camera Guidelines, ATESD FAQs
• Greenwich Free Press: Greenwich Amended Speed Camera Plan OK’d by CT Dept of Transportation
• News 12 Connecticut: Greenwich to restart school zone speed cameras

Reviewed by Preetam Gadekar