Defendant appealed a decision by a Providence Municipal Court Judge sustaining a violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-13-4 (Obedience to devices). An automated traffic camera captured a photograph of Defendant’s vehicle traveling through an intersection after the traffic light signaled red. Defendant argued that he was not the person driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation, and so it was clearly erroneous to uphold the citation as it relates to Defendant. Because Defendant had not had a full hearing on the issue, the Panel could not properly address Defendant’s argument that the statute was ambiguous as it related to the presumption of operation based on ownership. The citation was dismissed on other grounds and this issue was not decided. In a footnote, however, the Panel noted what it called a “latent ambiguity” contained within the automatic traffic camera statute. The statute enables the issuance of a traffic summons based on a photograph captured by a red light camera, but the substantive traffic violation that may be charged is § 31-13-4, Obedience to Devices. “The ambiguity arises from the fact that the [automated traffic camera] statute enables a police department to charge the owner of a vehicle with violating § 31-13-4, but to sustain a violation under § 31-13-4 the prosecution must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the driver of the vehicle failed to obey a traffic control device” (emphasis added).