The USPS certainly ought not be immune to fines from local governments for traffic violations. Like running red lights near schools.
The claim is that the USPS, as a (quasi-)Federal agency, cannot be directly regulated by state and local governments — in this case, traffic laws. The USPS claims its drivers are not immune, but in the case of traffic camera fines presented to the USPS for its drivers violations … well the USPS says they can't be forced to pay, and they have (quoting the story) "no legal system in place to transfer liability from the Postal Service to an employee".
Sounds like their problem. Meantime, pay the fines or get your vehicles booted.
(Note — I do support the federalism tenet that says that state and local laws cannot trump federal law. A state cannot set up a parallel state post office system, for example. But the function being described here — traffic violations — is not part and parcel (so to speak) of the USPS carrying out "its appointed rounds". The state or city is not impinging on a federal function in enforcing its traffic laws, unless the USPS is claiming that the post office _must_run red lights to do its job. If the USPS cannot figure out how to allocate such fines down to the drivers in question, that doesn't mean the fines don't have to get paid.)
Reshared post from +Andrew Eva
Trying to dismiss close to $700 in tickets for running red lights in a school zone, the postal litigator has this to say:
… Postal Service enjoys federal immunity from state and local regulation. — Jennifer Breslin, Postal Litigator
Unfortunately for her, East Cleveland disagrees and has a pretty reliable source.
[Postal workers] receive no special privileges or rights as a postal driver. — USPS Employee Safety Guide
From the city that brought you Woman drives on sidewalk to avoid school bus
#clevelandohio
Embedded Link
Postal Service lawyer claims immunity from traffic laws
USPS attorney claims Postal Service drivers have immunity from state and local laws
Google+: View post on Google+
I largely agree with your assessment. The argument being made is a really stupid one. It does bear pointing out however that traffic camera laws typically make an assumption of guilt based on the vehicle's owner rather than the individual actually committing the crime. Many states for this reason try to gloss them over as non-point, non-contestable, fineable offenses. In other words, revenue generators. If a police officer had been present, the driver would have been ticketed rather than USPS.
I honestly hope the USPS wins this one, because I really don't like anything involving automated "law enforcement."
Oh, I agree — I wasn't speaking to the merits of traffic camera revenue generation (few, aside from generating revenue) as much as the defense made by the USPS.
This is just effin nuts.