The Rules Governing Traffic Cameras
Traffic cameras in Florida are permitted through the use of enabling statutes that require each traffic camera program be governed by an interlocal agreement between the local agency using the program and the tax district conducting the traffic camera program. The majority of traffic camera programs in Florida are operated by the sheriff per the direction of the county commission.
Florida Statute 316.008 (1)(b) authorizes counties and municipalities to enact ordinances to authorize the use of photo radar devices:
Many Americans may have never heard of Section 316.008 (1)(b). The scant number of case opinions involving traffic camera are likely due to the relatively small number of jurisdictions that have installed traffic cameras. Even so, there is no evidence that indicates traffic cameras are being abused at a greater rate than were speed traps twenty years ago. Although the average citizen does not like to be on the receiving end of a speeding ticket, judges uphold thousands each year as the after-market aftermarket. Statistics may also explain why there has not been more litigation challenging the use of traffic cameras.
There are currently more than 75 communities in Florida that utilize red light camera enforcement. The use of speed camera enforcement has been approved by the county commission in Miami-Dade County and in the cities of Palm Harbor and St. Petersburg . In Miami-Dade County, over 18,000 citations were written as a result of speed cameras within the first three months of their use.
The law in Florida authorizing traffic camera enforcement predates the Supreme Court of Florida’s landmark decision in In Re: Amendments to Florida Evidence Code, 210 So. 3d 1231 (2013). At the time traffic camera enforcement was first authorized by statute, Florida law did not require that expert witness testimony concerning chain of custody, mechanical reliability, and witness credentials be presented to the court and jury to establish the truth of claimed facts from automobile mechanical evidence.
The Supreme Court of Florida currently maintains that, absent a legislative mandate to the contrary, an out-of-court electronic statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted is subject to the requirement of testimonial verification. The Supreme Court of Florida placed upon the legislature the responsibility to exempt electronic statements from the certification requirements to promote efficiency in the handling of electronically generated data. The inability of the Florida legislature to exempt traffic camera evidence from Florida’s evidentiary rules relates to a citizen’s right to confront his accuser. The problem may be solved by the legislature enacting legislation that creates a rebuttable presumption concerning the truth of claimed facts from electronic evidence systems.
Controversy and Court Cases
The legal landscape of traffic cameras in Florida has been thoroughly combed and litigated over the last decade, as gulf-coast municipalities rapidly adopted the devices in their respective communities. Many of the challenges have also been supported by citizens who have adopted a vocal stance against their utilization.
The Florida Supreme Court addressed the legality of the devices in 2014. In the case of City of Aventura v. State, the Justices found the red-light cameras to be lawful, meaning municipalities can use the devices. The Court also decided that municipalities can issue fines, which are now not criminal in nature but are administrative. That means violators are not subjected to points on their driver’s license.
Officials from several municipalities defended the fine and noted that they are lower than those for moving violations. Critics of red light cameras are concerned that municipalities are abusing the privilege for financial gain rather than safety. Despite those concerns, the Court upheld ordinances set forth in various counties throughout Florida.
In an unrelated case, the Third District Court of Appeals in Miami declared that municipalities are not permitted to boot vehicles on behalf of private parking companies, citing the Florida Statute that only allows for such action only if performed by police officers. In that case, a vehicle belonging to Aventura Mall was towed by a private towing company, Red Carpet Recovery Services, who then proceeded to boot vehicles in Aventura, a municipality. The vehicle was parked in a loading zone, with tow signs displayed. The owner, who had a license to park in the spot, noted that he placed it on the dashboard. The driver was cited by the Aventura Police Department (APD) for an infraction. However, the driver was not present and returned to find the vehicle booted.
Aventura officials stated that the booting of the vehicle was an authorized response to the illegal activity and emulated how police departments boot cars that have outstanding warrants. Additionally, the company was called to return the vehicle to its owner when they failed to appear.
The 3rd DCA disagreed, stating in their decision that "we do not agree that a municipality is authorized to boot vehicles for payment of a private debt under any circumstances, even if that private debt is incurred in breach of a contract."
The future of traffic cameras is clouded by the fact that despite their widespread adoption, the legalities have not been heard by a higher court. Meanwhile, officials stand behind the belief that the cameras reduce the number of crashes, while critics argue that their use constitutes unwarranted surveillance. There is still a great deal of controversy surrounding the cameras and their implementation, but one thing is for certain: there is no shortage of litigation surrounding them.
Traffic Cameras in Florida Today
Currently, there are several municipalities in the State of Florida that continue using traffic cameras to control their municipal roadways, such as the City of Tampa, the City of Orlando and the City of St. Petersburg. The State level House Bill 4027 was initially designed to repeal the law governing red light cameras. Nevertheless, some local municipalities did not want to lose the revenue being collected from traffic camera violations and were able to keep the money flowing by regulating the use and control of traffic cameras at the municipality level so long as no state money was involved. Thus, some municipalities chose to implement traffic camera systems for speeding. These speed traffic cameras do not create a civil traffic violation but rather a municipal code violation. As a result, a civil traffic ticket cannot be contested in traffic court. All appeals must be filed through the Circuit Court, which is significantly more costly than contesting a civil traffic ticket. The cost of enforcement is born by the violators and not the taxpayers. This is a big change when comparing the traffic camera systems to the old red light camera systems or other cities that still operate a red light camera system. The federal government has made it clear that the legislation has to come down from Tallahassee, the State capital, if anybody wants to change the outcome on the use and control of traffic cameras. However, at this time there are no known bills that have been filed nor is there a political movement to change the current state of the law.
Traffic Cameras: The Good and the Bad
Commercial and residential traffic cameras have burgeoned in Florida streets in recent years, touted as enhancing the safety and well-being of Florida drivers. The devices for viewing traffic include speed, red light and environmental cameras.
The most common red-light camera program is run by local law enforcement agencies, however some motorists are receiving speed camera citations issued by school zones. Both are controversial and have been the subject of much spirited debate over the past few years since the infrastructure of the speed cameras are bolted to traffic light/stoplight pole sets around the state. The City of Tampa reports that the use of several intersections with the red-light cameras had reduced red-light violations by more than half, along with a 14 percent reduction in accidents. Some locals feel that the violation statistics may be misleading and uncomfortable with how the real traffic data is collected and how the public may be swayed to feel safer than they may actually be.
Proponents tout the role of traffic cameras. They say that such systems curtail speeding, control red-light runners and reduce crashes. According to the Florida Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles (FHSMV), more than 160 people were killed in red-light crashes in Florida in 2010, and many of those were from violations of red lights. An estimated 800,000 Florida motorists are ticketed each year for speeding, and seven percent of all drivers in the state are cited for driving faster than 10 mph over the speed limit.
Opponents argue that the real agenda might be to fill the coffers of municipalities running the camera enforcement schemes. A significant percentage of the fines issued are the result of motorists paying the tickets, which in effect counterintuitively promotes the crime they are designed to prevent. Florida residents recently learned that over $2 million was deposited in the bank accounts of a city running the most aggressive red-light camera program in the state . Critics say that the massive amount of money being collected by the speed and red light cameras does nothing to pay for the camera programs, which run at the expense of taxpayers. Residents complain that the fines go into the general fund of municipalities, instead of rebuilding roads or adding law enforcement staff.
Some residents feel that the penalty imposed for receiving a citation for a red-light camera violation or for speeding is excessive and unduly burdensome on those who may be unable to pay the substantial fine. Critics also say that the citations are sent to the vehicle owner, but not the person who was actually driving the car at the time of the offense. They feel that this violates a driver with the right to confront the charged party at what could be a contested court hearing.
There are many questions about the reliability of the machines, their placement, debris blocking their view, or simple discrepancies between what the driver was actually doing and what is depicted by the camera. A yearlong study reported by the MDT indicates that in fatalities involving drivers up to 80 years old, motorists speeding more than 15 mph above the limit were responsible for 96 percent of those deaths. MDT further states that improper driving behavior is the cause of more than half of all fatal traffic accidents in the state. The Florida Department of Transportation estimates the financial impact of traffic crashes to be more than $1.8 billion each year.
Privacy advocates voice concerns that traffic cameras are intrusive and that local governments are capitalizing on an economic downturn to cash in on the good will of citizens. Politicians who propose adding cameras in their cities must tread carefully to avoid being accused of "tax and spend" allegations, especially when the only traffic cameras in the state run without a single bushy haired sheriff.
Tips for Handling a Ticket
First, and perhaps most importantly, you should remember that, under the law, all people are considered innocent until proven guilty. You should not just assume that you did something wrong because you got a ticket. The government has the burden of proving you did something wrong, and you are presumed innocent of any violation.
It is important that you hire a traffic lawyer who has knowledge of the law in your area. I routinely handle traffic camera violations as part of my traffic ticket defense practice. Each jurisdiction has its own unique set of laws, and each traffic camera has its own individual set of rules and regulations. We have had hundreds of cases dismissed on technical grounds. Also, many people have received tickets they did not deserve, and those are contested as well. The police now believe they can catch everybody, and that you are guilty just simply because their cameras caught you doing something. That is no longer the case.
If you get a traffic ticket in Florida from a traffic camera, the important things to remember are that there will be an indication on the Notice to Appear (the ticket) that it was taken by a camera, and the hearing is in the county court, not the municipal court, because the county issues the citation. It is also important to remember that the fine is due on the date indicated on the notice for administrative adjudication. It is very important to pay your fine before the hearing or the hearing will be canceled. I always encourage all traffic camera violators to fight the camera tickets, as we are able to get many of them dismissed. First, as of July 1, 2012, there were new laws requiring the cities to hold hearings where you have the opportunity to give testimony. Secondly, we have had many traffic camera ticket cases dismissed on technicalities because the cities are not complying with the law, or other issues. Third, many times the cameras do not get anybody who is actually violating the law at the time of the ticket. Fourthly, there is no enforcement by a police officer, and the only time you may be in front of a police officer is when you contest the ticket. So the police officer is never a defendant to the case against you. Fifthly, you are presumed to be innocent, and the city has to prove that you violated the traffic violation. Oftentimes, they do not have the evidence on their side to make their case.
The Future of Traffic Cameras in Florida
The future of traffic cameras in Florida raises the possibility of significant legislative changes, technological innovations, and changing public perspectives. In recent years, as state and local governments have invested in traffic camera systems for red light running and speed enforcement, concerns over the constitutionality of those systems have led to litigation. Most notably, in 2020, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the issuance of red light tickets via a traffic infraction camera violated Florida’s constitutional right to due process. Specifically, the court found that the ticket issuing system mandated by state law for red light infractions deprived vehicle owners of the opportunity to challenge potentially erroneous ticketing decisions.
This Supreme Court finding may catalyze a broader legislative reevaluation of the use of such systems. Lawmakers could potentially implement revised systems that ensure due process rights are safeguarded. This might involve creating a centralized adjudicatory system to review tickets or requiring that automated decisions be verified by an officer before a ticket is issued.
Some states already allow for such a requirement with regard to red light running. New York, for example, allows the photo enforced traffic citations to be issued only after a law enforcement officer reviews the cited image and confirms the infraction occurred. New York does not mandate that the officer must have personally witnessed the alleged violation before issuing the citation.
In the case of speed cameras, the Florida Supreme Court did not render a decision on the constitutionality of issuing speed camera tickets . Based on comments from the Florida Supreme Court Justices in this case, it is apparent the Justices seem more amenable to ticketing by speed cameras. The Supreme Court stated that "technology can and should be used to further the efficient administration of justice." The Justices noted that "technology can help us deter criminal and quasi-criminal behavior along our roads and bridges while also increasing the administrative efficiency of our judicial system."
Thus, the future of ticketing systems in Florida may depend on their perceived efficacy and constitutionality. If ticketed vehicle owners believe that the systems work properly to reduce traffic violations, and if the systems are crafted to protect the constitutional right to due process, the public reaction may well be supportive of the continued use of such systems. However, if the systems are found to be flawed, or if they are expensive to operate, or produce a significant number of improper tickets, then public opinion may be less supportive. Changes in technology and advancing systems may also significantly impact public acceptance of the systems. If innovations help ensure fairness and due process, the systems may well become increasingly popular. These systems may even receive more widespread adoption. As it stands now, the future for traffic camera technology in Florida is uncertain. A few things can be expected. Laws about their use will likely change again. Automation will likely increase. Systems will be required to offer more protections to ensure proper issuance of tickets. However, until public comfort with the systems themselves rises, and until the public believes local governments will not abuse the systems, it is unlikely that the systems will reach their full potential.
Leave a Reply