Middletown Police Chief Erik Costa gave the go ahead for speed camera tickets to be issued to potentially hundreds of drivers in Middletown after he was alerted that an “advanced warning sign with speed” notifying drivers of the speed limit enforced by automated cameras as required by state statute and the city’s permit were knocked down by snowplows and not visible for the first week of March, according to emails obtained by Inside Investigator.
Under Connecticut state statute authorizing municipalities to install speed cameras, “the municipality shall install at least two conspicuous signs at a reasonable distance in advance of such location,” and violators caught by the Automatic Traffic Enforcement Safety Device (ATESD) can only be issued a $50 fine for the first offense and $75 for the second offense. An “Advanced Warning Sign with Speed,” was also required for the roadway under Middletown’s ATESD permit to install the cameras on Route 66 Washington Street.
The Middletown police department was first alerted that the sign on Route 66/Washington East & West was knocked down and not visible to drivers on March 5. Dan Cyko, support specialist for Middletown’s ATESD contractor DACRE, sent an email notice to the police department’s administrative secretary, Jessica DiPasquale, and Lt. Daniel Petrulis telling them the down signage needs “immediate attention.”
The sign remained down for a week between February 27 and March 6. Cyko then followed up on March 9, 2026, with an email asking, “How do you want to handle the events and citations that were created while the sign was down? Should we approve/print these or mass reject them?”
DiPasquale responded with, “Approve and print per Chief Costa,” followed by a smiley face.
According to the emails, on March 20, Middletown Police Captain David Godwin wrote to Chief Costa and several other Middletown police officials that he was alerted to the downed sign after seeing comments on social media. He then asked if the citations should be rejected in the system because “missing signage is outside of the issued permit and contestable.”
Seven days later, Godwin reached out to Middletown’s Office of General Counsel attorneys Kori Wisniewski, Christopher Forte, and Brig Smith saying he had been “advised” by other police officers “that the Office of the General Council was consulted and deemed that the issuance of tickets was still permissible.”
Both Smith and Forte indicated it was the first they had heard of the issue, but Smith wrote he believed the downed sign invalidated the tickets.
“Statute requires two signs notifying drivers of the ATESD’s location,” Smith wrote back. “If any tickets were issued while a sign was down, they should probably be dismissed.”
That never happened, even though the city has issued refunds previously and can do so electronically if the fines were paid online. Any tickets issued by cash or check would require city checks. Likewise, the citations from that week when the sign was down could have been discarded, according to emails from Cyko.
Reached for comment, Chief Costa said the fact that this road is monitored by ATESD is well known and well-publicized, and there are multiple speed limit signs warning drivers that the speed limit is 35mph. Costa acknowledged the city’s permit “clearly requires that enforcement zones include two signs warning of photo enforcement,” and said he considered multiple factors in reaching his decision to issue the tickets.
Aside of the other posted speed limit and camera warning signs posted along the route, one of his primary considerations was that downed signage is not considered one of the six allowable defenses under state statute.
The defenses outlined in statute largely pertain to stoplight enforcement cameras, but do indicate that possible defenses to speed camera tickets include if someone was driving an emergency vehicle, the violation took place while the vehicle was reported missing or stolen, and lastly, if the cameras were not calibrated correctly.
“While one of the two signs within the enforcement zone, the one displaying the speed limit ‘Photo Enforced’, was temporarily down, the posted speed limit had already been clearly and consistently established through multiple advance warning signs,” Costa wrote in an email. “After reviewing the situation and considering several important factors, I determined that voiding the violations was not warranted.”
Middletown General Counsel Brig Smith wrote in an email to Inside Investigator that he was under the impression the downed sign was only a speed limit sign and that there are other warnings about the automated speed cameras farther down the road.
Godwin’s email to Smith, Wisnewski, and Forte specifically indicated the sign was an “Advanced Warning Sign with Speed,” outlined on the city permit, which shows a speed limit sign with an automated traffic camera enforcement sign, followed by another sign down the road simply warning of an ATESD ahead.
Smith, however, said the decision to issue the tickets ultimately rests with the chief and that “ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it.”
“Ultimately, while I can offer an opinion regarding what the Automatic Traffic Enforcement Safety Device statute means, under that statute the Middletown Police Department is the law enforcement agency and that cost-benefit analysis is for them to make,” Smith wrote. “I also understand that this is a 35 MPH zone and that tickets would not issue until a driver goes over 50 MPH.”
“In light of this, I understand the chief’s desire to enforce the speeding tickets. Again, though, this is ultimately under the purview of the MPD as the law enforcement agency under the statute,” Smith continued.
According to a Middletown Press story, since the cameras were installed, there have been 86,727 tickets issued, and the city has brought in $2.5 million. Of those citations, 24,527 drivers contested their tickets but only 508 were found not liable. The city is reportedly moving toward a collections system for drivers who don’t pay their fines. Similarly, a January CT Mirror story indicated that Route 66 accounted for the majority of citations, accounting for $1.8 million of the $2.8 million in citations issued at that point.
So far, eleven municipalities have been approved for ATESDs, according to the Connecticut Department of Transportation, and another five municipal applications are under review.
Connecticut approved the use of ATESDs and red-light cameras in 2023 as part of the Connecticut Vision Zero Council’s recommendations. The Vision Zero Council is made up of state government officials from different departments with a mission to reduce vehicle accidents and transportation fatalities in the state.
Although automated speed cameras remain controversial, the enabling bill – which originally included provisions allowing the state to take land to create bicycle trails, motorcycle helmet requirements, and revising Connecticut’s open container law in vehicles – received very little opposition, most of which came from motorcycle riders, and was widely supported by police and municipal leaders.
The Connecticut Conference of Municipalities testified that red-light and speed cameras could ease municipal budgets while increasing road safety.
“Municipal budgets are consistently being strained and local officials should not have to make the hard decision to increase local taxes in order to ensure their roads are safe for all users,” wrote Randy Collins, advocacy manager for CCM. “The creation of a local option for the limited use of automated traffic enforcement safety devices will provide another tool for local officials to enforce traffic laws and improve safety while allowing them to deploy limited police resources to other duties.”
“Our primary objective in the City of Middletown is to reduce serious injury crashes and fatalities, particularly in areas where there has been a history of such incidents. I take this responsibility seriously and remain committed to transparency and fairness in our enforcement efforts,” Costa wrote. “For these reasons, I believe the continued enforcement was justified and that the violations should not be voided.”
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Just the fact that so many folks view the traffic cameras as a honeypot for the city should have made the Chief’s decision an easy one. The tickets in that time frame should have been invalidated. It also seems like the statute requiring the visible signs could be argued in court and won.