AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 63-3-519, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO AUTHORIZE THE SHERIFF AND HIS DEPUTIES IN ANY COUNTY TO USE RADAR SPEED DETECTION EQUIPMENT UNITS UPON THE PUBLIC STREETS, ROADS AND HIGHWAYS OF THE COUNTY LYING OUTSIDE OF THE LIMITS OF ANY MUNICIPALITY, VILLAGE OR HAMLET; TO PRIORITIZE USAGE IN CERTAIN AREAS; TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF RADAR SPEED DETECTION EQUIPMENT UNITS IN A COUNTY BASED ON POPULATION; TO DEFINE AND PROHIBIT SPEED TRAPS; TO BRING FORWARD SECTION 37-25-17, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, WHICH CREATES THE DRIVER TRAINING PENALTY ASSESSMENT FUND, FOR POSSIBLE AMENDMENT; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
SB 2614 amends Mississippi’s radar speed detection law to expand who may use radar equipment on county roads. Under the bill, sheriffs and their deputies in any county may purchase and use radar speed detection equipment on public roads, streets, and highways outside municipal, village, or hamlet limits, but only with unanimous approval from the county board of supervisors before purchase or use. The bill also directs sheriffs to prioritize enforcement in areas with recurring speed-related crashes or fatalities, in school zones, or where adjacent property owners have complained about speeding.
The bill places population-based limits on the number of radar units a county may use, ranging from one unit in counties under 50,000 residents to five units in counties over 110,000 residents. It also defines and prohibits the use of radar at “speed traps,” while carving out exceptions for posted school zones and certain local residential streets. In addition, the bill brings forward the existing Driver Training Penalty Assessment Fund statute for possible amendment and sets an effective date of July 1, 2026.
The bill would revise Section 63-3-519 of the Mississippi Code to broaden county-level radar enforcement authority while preserving existing limits on municipal, campus, and highway patrol use. It creates a new statutory framework for sheriff use of radar on county-maintained roads outside municipal boundaries, adds county board oversight, establishes population-based equipment caps, and codifies a speed-trap prohibition with defined exceptions. The bill also leaves Section 37-25-17 in place by bringing it forward, which keeps the Driver Training Penalty Assessment Fund available for any future changes.
The available context shows little recorded debate or voting history, so there is no clear evidence of strong support or opposition in committee or on the floor. Based on the bill’s structure, the measure appears framed as a public-safety and local-control bill, emphasizing crash reduction, school-zone enforcement, and limits on abuse through board approval and speed-trap restrictions. The absence of transcripts or votes suggests the bill’s reception cannot be fully gauged from the provided materials.
The main points of potential contention are the expansion of sheriff radar authority and the risk of increased traffic enforcement outside municipalities. Supporters would likely emphasize safety, especially in crash-prone areas and school zones, while critics may focus on concerns about speed traps, revenue-driven enforcement, or inconsistent use across counties. The unanimous approval requirement from county supervisors and the explicit speed-trap definition appear designed to address those concerns by adding local oversight and limiting enforcement in questionable locations.