Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 316.0083
S316.0083 1d4 - NONMOVING TRAFFIC VIOL - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 7581 - M: S
S316.0083 1d5 - NONMOVING TRAFFIC VIOL - FALSE AFFIDAVIT RE NO LIABILITY FOR CITATION - M: S
CopyCited 13 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16142, 2016 WL 4542719
...Among other claims, it includes an unjust enrichment claim in which Plaintiffs seek disgorgement of, the fines they paid to Defendants. The fines that are the subject of the unjust enrichment claim were imposed pursuant to the Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Program (the “Wandall Act”), Florida Statutes § 316.0083....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2014 WL 444171, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 1452
TAYLOR, J. The City of Fort Lauderdale appeals a county court order dismissing a traffic citation and declaring the owner notification provision of Florida’s red light camera law to be unconstitutional. 1 We reverse and hold that section 316.0083(l)(e)l.c., Florida Statutes (2011), does not violate equal protection or due process by providing that, in the case of a jointly owned vehicle, the traffic citation shall be mailed only to the person whose name appears first on the registration....
...either making payment or contesting the violation. Because Mr. Gonzalez did not pay the fine set forth in the Notice of Violation within 30 days, a Florida Uniform Traffic Citation was issued to him as the first registered owner of the vehicle. See § 316.0083(l)(c)l.a., c., Fla....
...s and red light violations caught by cameras. However, neither Arrington nor Idris addressed any equal protection argument that a red light camera law discriminated against the first listed owner of jointly-owned vehicles. The Relevant Provisions of Section 316.0083, Florida Statutes Section 316.0083, Florida Statutes (2011), authorizes a penalty for failure to stop at a red light where the violation is captured by a traffic infraction detector. Section 316.0083(l)(b)l.a., Florida Statutes (2011), provides that “[w]ithin 30 days after a violation, notification must be sent to the registered owner of the motor vehicle involved in the violation ......
...within 30 days following the date of the notification in order to avoid court fees, costs, and the issuance of a traffic citation.” Under the statute, “the photographic or electronic images or the streaming video evidence ... constitutes a rebuttable presumption against the owner of the vehicle.” § 316.0083(l)(b)l.b., Fla. Stat. (2011). When payment has not been made within 30 days after notification of a violation, a traffic citation is issued to the address of the registered owner of the motor vehicle involved in the violation. § 316.0083(l)(c)l.a., Fla....
...“In the case of joint ownership of a motor vehicle, the traffic citation shall be mailed to the first name appeañng on the regis *1123 tration, unless the first name appearing on the registration is a business organization, in which case the second name appearing on the registration may be used.” § 316.0083(l)(c)l.c., Fla....
...The owner of the motor vehicle involved in the violation is responsible and liable for paying the uniform traffic citation when the driver failed to stop at a traffic signal, unless the owner can establish one of the exemptions enumerated in subsections (d)l.a.-d. § 316.0083(l)(d)l.a.-d. (2011). One notable exemption from owner liability applies if “[t]he motor vehicle was, at the time of the violation, in the care, custody, or control of another person.” § 316.0083(l)(d)l.c., Fla....
...To establish an exemption, the owner of the motor vehicle must, within 30 days after the date of issuance of the traffic citation, furnish to the appropriate governmental entity an affidavit setting forth detailed information supporting an exemption. § 316.0083(l)(d)2., Fla. Stat. (2011). For example, an affidavit supporting an exemption under sub-subparagraph l.c. must include, among other things, the name of the person who had care, custody, or control of the motor vehicle at the time of the alleged violation. § 316.0083(l)(d)2.a., Fla. Stat. (2011). Upon the governmental entity’s receipt of an owner’s affidavit, “the person designated as having care, custody, and control of the motor vehicle at the time of the violation may be issued a traffic citation .... ” § 316.0083(l)(d)3., Fla. Stat. (2011). Analysis In this appeal, we are not called upon to address the wisdom, fairness, or logic of the owner notification provision set forth in the red light camera law. Rather, the sole question presented is whether seetion 316.0083(l)(c)l.c., Florida Statutes (2011), violates equal protection or due process by providing that, in the case of a jointly owned vehicle, the traffic citation shall be mailed only to the first name appearing on the registration....
...It also makes the most sense economically, as it eliminates the duplicative waste of mailing the same notice to multiple vehicle owners. Dupli-cative notices may lead to duplicative payments, thereby causing additional administrative costs associated with refunding overpayments. Indeed, section 316.0083(l)(c)l.c....
...If the first named owner on the registration submits an affidavit naming the second owner of the vehicle as the person who had control of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation, then the second owner of the vehicle “may be issued a traffic citation.” § 316.0083(l)(d)3., Fla. Stat. (2011). In sum, section 316.0083(l)(c)l.c., Florida Statutes (2011), does not violate equal protection or due process by providing that, in the case of a jointly owned vehicle, the traffic citation shall be mailed only to the first name appearing on the registration....
...DAMOORGIAN, C.J., AND GROSS, J., concur. . The State of Florida appealed the same order, but has since voluntarily dismissed its appeal. . Without further comment, we reject the City’s argument that Mr. Gonzalez does not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of section 316.0083(l)(c)l.c., Florida Statutes (2011).
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 41 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 61, 2016 Fla. LEXIS 393, 2016 WL 743287
...5, 2016]
LABARGA, C.J.
The City of Fort Lauderdale appeals the decision of the Fourth District Court
of Appeal in City of Fort Lauderdale v. Dhar,
154 So. 3d 366 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).
In that decision, the district court held a provision in section
316.0083(1)(d)3.,
Florida Statutes (2012), known as the “Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Program,” to
be invalid as applied to short-term renters of motor vehicles who are detected by a
“red light camera” committing a violation....
...Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that as a short-
term renter of the motor vehicle, she was treated unequally as
compared to a vehicle’s registered owner or lessee because she was
not initially issued a notice of violation under section
316.0083(1)(b)l.a., Florida Statutes (2012), and therefore could not
avoid the payment of added court costs by simply paying the statutory
penalty of $158.00....
...Based on the
facts and the court’s analysis, the Fourth District affirmed the lower court’s order
granting Dhar’s motion to dismiss the traffic citation for violating her equal
protection and due process rights.
The Fourth District correctly noted that section 316.0083(1)(d)3....
...rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose.’ ” Id. Driving is not a
fundamental right, see Lite,
617 So. 2d at 1060; thus, the statute in this case is
reviewed under the rational basis test. With these standards in mind, we turn to the
statute at issue.
Section
316.0083, Florida Statutes, also known as the Mark Wandall Traffic
Safety Program, was created in chapter 2010-80, § 5, Laws of Florida....
...It authorized the Department of
Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, counties, and municipalities to use cameras
to enforce violations of sections
316.074(1) and
316.075(1)(c), Florida Statutes, for
a driver’s failure to stop at a red light traffic signal. In 2012, when Dhar
committed the traffic violation, section
316.0083(1), Florida Statutes, provided in
pertinent part:
-5-
(b)1.a....
...esponsible for
paying the traffic citation and is not required to submit an affidavit as
specified in this subsection if the motor vehicle involved in the
violation is registered in the name of the lessee of such motor vehicle.
§ 316.0083, Fla....
...See Level 3 Commc’ns,
841 So. 2d at 454. Thus, the district court correctly
affirmed the order of the county court granting the motion to dismiss.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we hold that section
316.0083, Florida
Statutes (2012), is unconstitutional as applied to short-term vehicle renters such as
Dhar....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 16012
...Trinh's
traffic citation was not an appropriate remedy. Based upon our resolution of this case,
we need not address this latter issue.
This court accepted jurisdiction from the county court in this matter.4 The
certified questions are as follows:
1. DOES SECTION
316.0083(1)(a) AUTHORIZE A
MUNICIPALITY TO CONTRACT WITH A THIRD PARTY
VENDOR TO SORT IMAGES FROM A TRAFFIC
INFRACTION DETECTOR SYSTEM INTO QUEUES
BASED ON WRITTEN DIRECTIVES FROM THE
MUNICIPALITY?
2. DO SECTIONS
316.640(5)(a) AND
316.0083, FLORIDA
STATUTES, PROHIBIT A MUNICIPALITY FROM
CONTRACTING WITH A THIRD PARTY VENDOR TO
ELECTRONICALLY GENERATE AND MAIL A NOTICE OF
VIOLATION AND UNIFORM TRAFFIC CITATION AFTER...
...This paragraph does
not prohibit the department, a county, or a municipality from
issuing notification as provided in paragraph (b) to the
registered owner of the motor vehicle involved in the
violation of s.
316.074(1) or s.
316.075(1)(c)1.
§
316.0083 (emphasis added)....
...motor vehicle at the time the vehicle fails to stop behind the
stop bar or clearly marked stop line when facing a traffic
control signal steady red light.
6
In Dhar, the Supreme Court of Florida determined that section 316.0083
was unconstitutional as applied to short-term vehicle renters because "the unequal
statutory treatment of short-term automobile renters bears no rational relationship to a
legitimate state purpose." 185 So....
...under the City of Hollywood's red light camera program with ATS, Eric Arem denied the
violation and requested a trial. After hearing the testimony of the TIEO who issued the
UTC, the county court found that the City of Hollywood's red light camera program did
not comply with sections
316.0083(1)(a) and
316.650(3)(c)10 because the City had
improperly delegated various tasks to ATS....
...issue citations for traffic infractions, which means only law enforcement officers and
traffic enforcement officers are entitled to determine who gets prosecuted for a red light
violation." Id. at 364. In addition, "[a]lthough the legislature in section 316.0083(1)(a)
did permit cities to delegate the review of information obtained from a traffic infraction
detector, it did not permit cities to delegate their authority to issue any resulting traffic
citations anywhere in these statutes."...
...court certified questions of great public
importance to the district court, and the district court accepted jurisdiction. The district
court only addressed two of the certified questions, which were as follows:
1. Does Florida Statute 316.0083(1)(a) authorize a
municipality to delegate and have a private vendor actually
issue Florida Uniform Traffic Citations, when notices of
violation, (also issued by the vendor), are not complied with,...
...ty of
Aventura. Id. at D1754.
Ultimately, the court held that the review completed by ATS was
authorized under the Act, stating as follows:
[W]e hold that the review of red light camera images
authorized by section 316.0083(1)(a) allows a municipality's
vendor, as its agent, to review and sort images to forward to
a police officer where, as here, (1) the vendor's decisions in
this regard are strictly circumscribed...
...in any determination made by the vendor.
Id. at D1753. In addition, the court certified the following questions of great public
importance to the Florida Supreme Court:
1. Does the review of red light camera images authorized by
section 316.0083(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2014), allow a
municipality's vendor, as its agent, to sort images to forward
to the law enforcement officer, where the controlling contract
and City guidelines limit...
...at D1759 (Wells, J., specially concurring).
VI. DISCUSSION
The legal issues in this case, although stated somewhat differently than in
Arem, are substantially the same issues that were addressed in Arem. As in that case,
we must determine whether section 316.0083(1)(a) authorized the City to contract with
ATS to record and screen data of potential red light violations and then to process and
mail a notice of violation and UTC to violators upon authorization by a TIEO.
On appe...
...4 So. 3d at
363-64. In addition, we have no quarrel with the Arem court's conclusion that "[i]n
Florida . . . only law enforcement officers and [TIEOs] are entitled to determine who gets
prosecuted for a red light violation." Id. at 364 (citing §§ 316.0083(3), .640(5)(a)).
However, we part company with the Fourth District when it concludes that "the TIEO[]
merely acquiesces in the vendor's decision to issue the citation," and that under the
initial review of the computer images of purported violations that the processors
exercise "unfettered discretion to decide which images are sent to the TIEO[] and which
ones are not." Id. at 365.
Undoubtedly, section 316.0083(1)(a) permits "a review of information from
a traffic infraction detector by an authorized ....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 17154, 2014 WL 5343530
...Weissman,
Assistant City Attorney, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
James T. Forman of Law Offices of James T. Forman, P.A., Fort
Lauderdale, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The City of Fort Lauderdale (the “City”) appeals a final order from the
county court dismissing a traffic citation on grounds that section
316.0083(1)(d)3., Florida Statutes (2012), of the Mark Wandall Traffic
Safety Act violated Defendant June Dhar’s equal protection and due
process rights under the Constitution....
...Thereafter, Defendant was issued a uniform
traffic citation.
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that as a short-term
renter of the motor vehicle, she was treated unequally as compared to a
vehicle’s registered owner or lessee because she was not initially issued a
notice of violation under section 316.0083(1)(b)l.a., Florida Statutes
(2012), and therefore could not avoid the payment of added court costs
by simply paying the statutory penalty of $158.00....
...Therefore,
short-term automobile renters are similarly situated to registered owners
and lessees, and no rational basis exists for the unequal treatment given
to Defendant by the City in applying this statute. Cf. City of Fort
Lauderdale v. Gonzalez,
134 So. 3d 1119, 1120 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
(holding that “section
316.0083(1)(c)1.c, Florida Statutes (2011), did not
violate equal protection or due process by providing that, in the case of a
jointly owned vehicle, the traffic citation shall be mailed only to the first
name appearing on the registration,...
...the statute’s distinction
between a vehicle’s first listed owner and its subsequent owners is
rationally related to the state’s legitimate interest in administrative
efficiency.”).
2
We note that section 316.0083(1)(d)3....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 16790, 2014 WL 5149159
...Eric Arem’s motion to dismiss a red light camera prosecution against him.
The county court certified the following questions of great public
importance pursuant to section
34.017, Florida Statutes (2011), and
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.160(d):
1. Does Florida Statute
316.0083(1)(a) authorize a
municipality to delegate and have a private vendor actually
issue Florida Uniform Traffic Citations, when notices of
violation, (also issued by the vendor), are not complied
with, where...
...d be
issued. We decline to answer the second question posed by the county
court because the City’s improper delegation of authority in this case
renders the citation void at its inception.
Factual and Procedural Background
Section
316.0083, Florida Statutes, known as the Mark Wandall Traffic
Safety Program (the “Act”), authorizes local governments to use red light
cameras to enforce violations of sections
316.074(1) and
316.075(1)(c)1;
both of which prohibit the running of red lights. See Ch. 2013-160, § 5,
-2-
Laws of Fla.; §
316.008(8)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011). The Act specifically
authorizes the use of TIEOs to enforce red light violations. §
316.0083(1),
Fla....
...knowledge
of the communication, what information was sent to the
Clerk, and when it was done. . . .
....
The procedure employed by the City of Hollywood in this
case is also actually contrary to Florida Statute 316.0083
(1)(a) which provides in pertinent part:
....
...Whether the City has the authority to outsource the issuance of these
citations, or to outsource any other statutory duty, must therefore be
derived from the plain wording of the statutes. Here, the applicable
statutes are clear and unambiguous. Section 316.0083(1)(a) provides, in
pertinent part:
A notice of violation and a traffic citation may not be issued
for failure to stop at a red light if the driver is making a right-
hand turn in a careful and prudent manner at an intersection
where right-hand turns are permissible....
...fraction
detector by an authorized employee or agent of the
department, a county, or a municipality before issuance of the
traffic citation by the traffic infraction enforcement officer.
-6-
§
316.0083(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011) (emphasis added). Section
316.650
(3)(c) also provides:
If a traffic citation is issued under s.
316.0083, the traffic
infraction enforcement officer shall provide by electronic
transmission a replica of the traffic citation data to the court
having jurisdiction over the alleged offense or its traffic
violations bureau...
...(2011) (emphasis added).
In Florida, only law enforcement officers and traffic enforcement officers
have the legal authority to issue citations for traffic infractions, which
means only law enforcement officers and traffic enforcement officers are
entitled to determine who gets prosecuted for a red light violation. See
§
316.0083(3); see also §
316.640, Fla....
...sheriff’s or police department. §
316.640(5)(a).
Section
316.640(5)(a) permits employees of a sheriff’s department or
police department of a municipality, without conveying arrest powers, to
become TIEOs empowered to issue traffic citations under section
316.0083. However, the statute does not authorize a private vendor to issue
citations, either expressly or impliedly. Although the legislature in section
316.0083(1)(a) did permit cities to delegate the review of information
obtained from a traffic infraction detector, it did not permit cities to
delegate their authority to issue any resulting traffic citations anywhere in
these statutes. Had the legislature intended to allow for delegation of this
authority or responsibility, just as it expressly allowed for delegating the
review of traffic infraction detector information by employees or agents
under section
316.0083(1)(a), it could have easily done so....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida
...The issue before the Court involves the interpretation of the Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Program, which grants local governments' traffic enforcement officers the power to issue citations for traffic infractions captured by red light cameras. See ch. 2010-80, § 5, Laws of Fla.; § 316.0083(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2014). In addition to this grant of authority, section 316.0083(1)(a)"does not prohibit a review of information" from red light cameras by a local government's authorized agent before issuance of the traffic citation by a trained traffic enforcement officer. § 316.0083(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2014) (emphasis added). In this case, this Court is asked to determine the meaning of the word "review," as used in section 316.0083(1)(a)....
...City of Aventura v. Jimenez ,
211 So.3d 158 , 160 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). The Third District also certified a question of great public importance, which, for purposes of clarity, we rephrase as follows: 1 Does a local government have the authority under section
316.0083(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2014), to contract with a private third-party vendor to review and sort information from red light cameras, in accordance with written guidelines provided by the local government, before sending that informat...
...4th DCA 2014), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's dismissal of a traffic citation, holding that the City of Hollywood's red light camera enforcement program amounted to an unlawful delegation of the City's police power under section 316.0083(1)(a)....
...roadside citation." Id. The Third District thus concluded that there was no unconstitutional delegation of authority and reversed the dismissal of the citation. ANALYSIS The issue before the Court involves the meaning of the word "review" as used in section 316.0083(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2014)....
...affic Control Law." §
316.001, Fla. Stat. (2014). We then turn to the Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Act, which authorizes traffic enforcement officers to issue traffic citations based on images from red light cameras. Ch. 2010-80, § 5, Laws of Fla.; §
316.0083(1)(a), Fla....
...of this chapter shall not be deemed to prevent local authorities, with respect to streets and highways under their jurisdiction and within the reasonable exercise of the police power" from using red light cameras. Id. §
316.008(1) ; accord id. (8). Section
316.0083(1)(a) expressly authorizes a traffic infraction enforcement officer to issue a traffic citation for a violation of certain red light traffic infractions. Id. §
316.0083(1)(a). Section
316.0083(1)(a) also states: This paragraph does not prohibit a review of information from a traffic infraction detector by an authorized employee or agent of the department, a county, or a municipality before issuance of the traffic citation by the traffic infraction enforcement officer....
...The Rephrased Certified Question Jimenez argued to the county court and the Third District that the City's red light camera enforcement program amounted to an unlawful delegation of police powers by giving the Vendor "unfettered discretion that exceeded the City's statutory authority to use an agent to 'review' images" under section 316.0083(1)(a)....
...Jimenez ,
211 So.3d at 159 -60 . In this Court, Jimenez does not pursue his unlawful delegation argument and argues instead that the City's red light camera enforcement program (A) unlawfully exceeds the authority conferred upon the City by the Legislature because "review" under section
316.0083(1)(a) is limited to determining whether images from red light cameras are "complete and usable"; and (B) is unconstitutional because it violates the uniformity principle set forth in chapter 316....
...Whether the City Exceeded its Statutory Authority in Contracting with the Vendor to Review the Red Light Camera Images Jimenez argues that the City's red light camera program exceeds the authority granted by the Legislature with respect to the meaning of the word "review" as used in section 316.0083(1)(a). Specifically, Jimenez asserts that the word "review" as used in section 316.0083(1)(a) is limited to ensuring that the images from the red light camera are complete and usable, as opposed to the review conducted by the Vendor in this case, which, according to Jimenez, involves making a preliminary determination as to whether a traffic infraction has occurred....
..."In addition, examining the history of the legislation is a helpful tool in determining legislative intent." Raymond James Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Phillips ,
126 So.3d 186 , 192 (Fla. 2013). The Legislature did not define, or otherwise elaborate upon, the word "review" in section
316.0083(1)(a)....
...t of the entire section in order to ascertain legislative intent for the provision.' " Larimore v. State ,
2 So.3d 101 , 114 (Fla. 2008) (quoting Fla. Dep't of Envtl. Protection v. ContractPoint Fla. Parks, LLC ,
986 So.2d 1260 , 1265 (Fla. 2008) ). Section
316.0083(1)(a), in its entirety, provides: For purposes of administering this section, the department, a county, or a municipality may authorize a traffic infraction enforcement officer under s....
...fficer. This paragraph does not prohibit the department, a county, or a municipality from issuing notification as provided in paragraph (b) to the registered owner of the motor vehicle involved in the violation of s.
316.074(1) or s.
316.075(1)(c)1. §
316.0083(1)(a), Fla....
...Under the statute, the review contemplated is "of information from a traffic infraction detector," id. , which, as section
316.003(87) makes clear, consists of "photographic or electronic images or streaming video." Id. §
316.003(87). Reading the provision in its entirety, we conclude that section
316.0083(1)(a) allows a local government's authorized agent to review images from red light cameras for any purpose short of making the probable cause determination to issue a traffic citation....
...ecifically trained technician employed by the agency or its contractor that, based on inspection of photographs or other recorded images," the driver of the vehicle committed a traffic infraction. Fla. HB No. 325, § 3 (filed Nov. 6, 2009) (proposed § 316.0083(1)(d) )....
...ities to an agent, the Legislature clearly intended that the ultimate authority to issue a citation would remain with a trained traffic enforcement officer. Thus, this argument does not support Jimenez's narrow interpretation of the word "review" in section 316.0083(1)(a)....
...... to ensure accuracy and data integrity." Fla. Admin Code R. 14-100.002(3). Jimenez asserts that this administrative rule's definition of the word "review," which is limited to ensuring accuracy, supports his interpretation of the word "review" in section 316.0083(1)(a)....
...Further, the word "review" does not appear in the toll enforcement statute. Lastly, the administrative rule Jimenez cites does not even pertain to the statute at issue in this case. We thus conclude that this argument does not support Jimenez's narrow interpretation of the word "review" in section 316.0083(1)(a). Ultimately, Jimenez cannot escape the fact that the term "review," as used in section 316.0083(1)(a), indicates some evaluative component, and there is no indication that the Legislature intended the most restrictive version of the term in the context of this statute. We therefore hold that section 316.0083(1)(a) authorizes a local government to contract with a private third-party vendor to review and sort information from red light cameras, in accordance with written guidelines provided by the local government, before sending that info...
...d sorting the images before sending to a trained traffic enforcement officer who determines whether probable cause exists and a citation should be issued. Thus, the City's red light camera enforcement program does not exceed the authority granted in section 316.0083(1)(a)....
...infraction enforcement officers.
211 So.3d at 173-74 (Wells J., specially concurring). Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Jimenez's arguments that the City's red light camera enforcement program (A) unlawfully exceeds the grant of authority in section
316.0083(1)(a), and (B) violates the uniformity principle set forth in chapter 316, are without merit....
...As part of this express authorization, the Legislature has permitted a local government's agent to review information from red light cameras for any purpose short of making the probable cause determination as to whether a traffic infraction was committed. We thus hold that section 316.0083(1)(a) authorizes a local government to contract with a private third-party vendor to review and sort information from red light cameras, in accordance with written guidelines provided by the local government, before sending that info...
...LABARGA, C.J., and QUINCE, J., concur. LEWIS, J., concurs in result. CANADY, J., concurs specially with an opinion, in which POLSTON and LAWSON, JJ., concur. The question that was certified by the Third District asks: Does the review of red light camera images authorized by section 316.0083(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2014), allow a municipality's vendor, as its agent, to sort images to forward to the law enforcement officer, where the controlling contract and City guidelines limit the Vendor to deciding whether the images...
...Jimenez also argues that the City's red light camera enforcement program is invalid because it is preempted by state law. We need not address this argument because it is dependent upon our agreement with Jimenez regarding the meaning of "review" in section 316.0083(1)(a).
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 8188, 2015 WL 2458128
...n, which reversed the trial court’s finding that photographic and video evidence obtained from red light cameras needed to be authenticated prior to being admitted into evidence. Each Petitioner was separately issued a traffic citation pursuant to section 316.0083, Florida Statutes (2012), known as the Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Act, after a red light camera allegedly captured him or her running a red light....
...k place on June 7, 2012, and August 2, 2012. At the hearing, the State attempted to admit into evidence the photographs and video obtained from the red light cameras without first providing authentication of the evidence, 1 claiming that pursuant to section 316.0083(l)(e), Florida Statutes (2012), 2 authentication of this evidence was not required as a condition to its admissibility because the evidence was self-authenticating....
...ed, this evidence is self-authenticating, and it was error that the trial court did not automatically admit this evidence at the hearing.” Petitioners now seek cer-tiorari review on the sole issue of whether the circuit court erred in interpreting section 316.0083(l)(e), Florida Statutes (2012), to provide that photographic and video evidence obtained from red light cameras are self-authenticating....
...Petitioners do not dispute that photographs and video obtained from red light cameras are relevant evidence. See §
90.401, Fla. Stat. (2012) (“Relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact.”). Rather, they argue that there is nothing in the plain language of section
316.0083(l)(e), Florida Statutes (2012), to indicate that the rules of evidence were not applicable or that the photographs and video from red light cameras were admissible without the need for authentication....
...ding. See Stilson,
692 So.2d at 983 . PETITION DENIED. ORFINGER, EVANDER, and ' LAMBERT, JJ., concur. . See §
90.901, Fla. Stat. (2012) ("Authentication or identification of evidence is required as a condition precedent to its admissibility.”). . Section
316.0083(l)(e), Florida Statutes (2012), provides, in full: The photographic or electronic images or streaming video attached to or referenced in the traffic citation is evidence that a violation of s....
...ble presumption that the motor vehicle named in the report or shown in the photographic or electronic images or streaming video evidence was used in violation of s.
316.074(1) or s.
316.075(l)(c)l. when the driver failed to stop at a traffic signal. §
316.0083(l)(e), Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 11373
...Jimenez challenged his ticket based on a claim that the City’s red light camera program was illegal because (1) the Vendor was given unfettered discretion that exceeded the City’s statutory authority to *160 use an agent to “review” images, section 316.0083(l)(a), Fla....
...officer “shall provide” an electronic copy to the Clerk, section
316.650(3)(c), Fla. Stat. (2014). For the reasons explained below, we reject Jimenez’s arguments. In particular, we hold that the review of red light camera images authorized by section
316.0083(l)(a) allows a municipality’s vendor, as its agent, to review and sort images to forward to a police officer where, as here, (1) the vendor’s decisions in this regard are strictly circumscribed by contract language, guidelines pr...
...BACKGROUND AND FACTS A. The Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Act. On July 1, 2010, the Legislature enacted the Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Act, which authorized local governments to use cameras to enforce traffic lights. Ch. 2010-80, Laws of Fla., partially codified at § 316.0083, Fla....
...On this point, the Wandall Act reads, “[t]his paragraph does not prohibit a review of information from a traffic infraction detector by an authorized employee or agent of the department, a county, or a municipality before issuance of the traffic citation by the traffic infraction enforcement officer.” § 316.0083(l)(a), Fla....
...enez, and in delivering an electronic copy of the citation to the clerk, did not involve unfettered discretion. The trial court certified to this court the following issues: 1. Does the review of red light camera images authorized by Florida Statute 316.0083(l)(a) allow a municipality’s vendor, as its agent, to review and then select which images to forward to the law enforcement officer, where the municipality has provided the vendor with specific written guidelines for determining which images to forward or not to forward? 2....
...Const.; §
34.017(1) & (2), Fla. Stat. (2015). ANALYSIS A. Certified Question Number 1: the Vendor’s Sorting of Images. The trial court’s first certified question reads: Does the review of red light camera images authorized by Florida Statute
316.0083(l)(a) allow a municipality’s vendor, as its agent, to review and then select which images to forward to the law enforcement officer, where the municipality has provided the vendor with specific written guidelines for determining which imag...
...2 The starting point for this argument is the language in the Wandall Act authorizing the City to use “agents” to “review” the information generated by the red light traffic program “before issuance of the traffic citation by the traffic infraction enforcement officer.” § 316.0083(l)(a), Fla....
...g the “accept” button? Jimenez argues that the statutory language requiring the “issuance” of the notice and citation by an “officer” signifies that the officer who makes the probable cause decision must also print and mail the citation. § 316.0083(l)(a), Fla....
...e Legislature, we certify the following issues, which we have answered in this opinion, pursuant to Article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution as having great public importance: 1. Does the review of red light camera images authorized by section 316.0083(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2014), allow a municipality’s vendor, as its agent, to sort images to forward to the law enforcement officer, where the controlling contract and City guidelines limit the Vendor to deciding whether the imag...
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 3023203, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 12095
...o have violated the statute, and the violation was observed by a law enforcement officer.” The trial court held that the statute violates both the federal and Florida Equal Protection Clauses and offered the following rationale: Although [section]
316.0083[, Florida Statutes (2010) ] prohibits the exact conduct as [section]
316.075, a driver who is observed by an officer committing the violation (in the traditional manner) is subjected to more severe penalties and ramifications than a driver who is fortunate enough to have committed the infraction at a “red light camera” intersection. The trial court concluded that continued enforcement of section
316.0083 renders section
316.075 unconstitutional by treating citizens differently, depending upon whether the red light violation is caught by law enforcement or a red light camera. The State has timely appealed the order. The State argues that the trial court erred in declaring section
316.075 unconstitutional because sections
316.075 and
316.0083 do not apply to similarly-situated people. Therefore, -the differing penalties do not violate equal protection principles. The defendant continues to argue that the two statutes apply to similarly-situated people, and enforcement of section *326
316.0083 renders section
316.075 unconstitutional....
...fore entering the intersection and shall remain standing until a green indication is shown ....” §
316.075(1)(e)1, Fla. Stat. (2010). “A violation of [section
316.075] is a noncriminal traffic infraction....” §
316.075(4), Fla. Stat. (2010). Section
316.0083 also imposes a penalty for failure to stop at a red light....
...the violator must pay the penalty of $158 to the department, county, or municipality, or furnish an affidavit ... within 30 days following the date of the notification in order to avoid court fees, costs, and the issuance of a traffic citation. *327 §
316.0083(1)(b)1.a, Fla. Stat. (2010) (emphasis added). Subsection (1)(b)1.b establishes a rebuttable presumption that the person operating the vehicle is its owner. §
316.0083(1)(b)1.b, Fla. Stat. (2010). That presumption may be overcome through any of the means enumerated in subsections (d)1.a.-d. §§
316.0083(1)(d)1.a.-d. (2010). A vehicle-owner does not receive any points on his license for a violation of section
316.0083. Under Dixon , individuals cited for red light violations under section
316.075 are not similarly situated to those who are cited for red light violations under section
316.0083. Even if the individuals were similarly situated, section
316.075 is not unconstitutional because there is a rational basis for not issuing points on the licenses of those in violation of section
316.0083. Pursuant to section
316.075, a law enforcement officer has to observe the violation, who then tickets the “driver” of the car. However, under section
316.0083, because no one observes the driver, the “owner” of the car is sent a notice....
...For this reason, no points are assessed against the “owner” because someone else may have been driving the car. As the State argues, Points are personal — they apply to the licenses of people [who] violate traffic laws; they are not assessed against the vehicles involved in the violations. Due to section 316.0083’s focus on a vehicle’s “owner,” rather than the actual “driver,” it was rational for the legislature to exclude the imposition of additional points on the owner’s license....
...nforcement officer present to determine who actually operated the vehicle. There is therefore a rational basis for the differing penalties between the two statutory provisions. Section
316.075 is not unconstitutional because of the enforceability of section
316.0083....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida
...mail citations, and process violators’ payments of the civil penalties
imposed. Id. at 1309. In February 2018, ATS mailed Appellant
Stephen J. Pincus a Notice of Violation (NOV) on behalf of the City
for failing to comply with a steady red light signal, in violation of
sections
316.0083,
316.074(1), and
316.075(1)(c)1, Florida Statutes
(2017)....
...In addition
to the $158 penalty, Pincus paid ATS a 5% convenience fee of
$7.90. Id.
Pincus subsequently filed a putative class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, arguing
the convenience fee was prohibited by sections
316.0083(b)(4),
318.121, and
560.204, Florida Statutes (2017), and ATS was
therefore unjustly enriched by retaining the fee....
...ATS moved to
dismiss the complaint, arguing Pincus failed to state a claim for
unjust enrichment. Pincus v. American Traffic Solutions, Inc., No.
18-cv-80864,
2019 WL 9355827, *1 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 14, 2019). The
federal district court agreed, finding: (1) ATS’s fee was not
prohibited under section
316.0083(b)(4) because the fee was not a
“commission” within the meaning of the statute; (2) ATS’s fee was
not prohibited under section
318.121 because this statute only
applies to violations assessed under chapter 318, Florida Statu...
...rd? In particular:
a. Does the challenged fee constitute a
“commission from any revenue collected from
violations detected through the use of a traffic
infraction detector” under Fla. Stat.
§ 316.0083(1)(b)(4)?
b....
...retain what Pincus paid.
We find that, as a matter of Florida law, he cannot, and that
this is determinative of the other questions before us. Pincus
argues it would be unjust for ATS to retain a fee collected in
violation of Florida law, specifically, sections
316.0083(1)(b)4,
318.121, and
560.204, Florida Statutes (2021)....
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
...an ATS red light photo enforcement system used in the City of North Miami
Beach. On appeal, Pincus argues that the district court erred in dismissing his
complaint because (1) the fee ATS charged him was an illegal commission under
Florida Statutes §
316.0083(b)(4); (2) the fee was a prohibited surcharge under
§
318.121; and (3) ATS violated §
560.204(1) because it operated as an unlicensed
money transmitter, all violations that he contends support a claim for unjust
enrichment under Flor...
...totaled $7.90—five percent of his $158.00 penalty. After paying the fee, Pincus
filed this putative class action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, alleging three counts of unjust enrichment based on violations
of Florida Statutes §§
316.0083(b)(4),
318.121, and
560.204.
5
“Doc.” numbers refer to the district court’s docket entries.
6
ATS sent the notice on the City’s behalf.
4
...
...7 The district
court granted the motion to dismiss on the ground that Pincus failed to state a claim
for unjust enrichment under Florida law. The district court reasoned that Pincus
failed to state a claim because: (1) the challenged fee was not a “commission”
within the meaning of §
316.0083; (2) the fee was not barred as a surcharge under
§
318.121, as it was assessed exclusively under Chapter 316; and (3) a private
cause of action for unjust enrichment could not be maintained under § 560.240.
This appeal followed.
II....
...conferred.” Agritrade, LP v. Quercia,
253 So. 3d 28, 33 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
7
USCA11 Case: 19-10474 Date Filed: 02/02/2021 Page: 8 of 31
statutes: §§
316.0083 (Count I),
318.121 (Count II); and
560.204 (Count III).
Thus, the third element of each of Pincus’s unjust enrichment counts turns on the
proper interpretation of a different Florida statute.
All three counts also turn on issues of Florida common law....
...across Florida, we certify those questions to the Supreme Court of Florida.
8
USCA11 Case: 19-10474 Date Filed: 02/02/2021 Page: 9 of 31
1. Count I: Violation of Fla. Stat. § 316.0083
In Count I, Pincus alleged that ATS’s retention of the fee he paid was
inequitable because the fee was an illegal commission prohibited by
§ 316.0083(1)(b)(4). Section 316.0083(1)(b)(4) provides:
An individual may not receive a commission from any revenue
collected from violations detected through the use of a traffic infraction
detector. A manufacturer or vendor may not receive a fee or
remuneration based upon the number of violations detected through the
use of a traffic infraction detector.
Fla. Stat. § 316.0083(1)(b)(4). 9 The district court dismissed this count after
interpreting the statutory term “commission,” concluding that the challenged fee
was not prohibited because § 316.0083(1)(b)(4) bars only “commission[s] derived
from the [statutory penalty],” not “surcharge[s]” that rest atop that penalty....
...charges elsewhere in the traffic laws. Id. at
11 (citing Fla. Stat. §
318.121). Because ATS took no cut of Pincus’s statutory
penalty but rather charged him a fee in excess of that penalty, the district court
concluded that ATS did not violate §
316.0083(1)(b)(4).
9
Pincus also argues that his fee was a prohibited commission under another statute,
§
318.18(15)(d). Because that argument is indistinct from Pincus’s argument that the fee is a
prohibited commission under §
316.0083(1)(b)(4), we do not address it separately.
9
USCA11 Case: 19-10474 Date Filed: 02/02/2021 Page: 10 of 31
ATS agrees, adding only that the district court’s conclusion is supported by
the preceding subsection, which specifically allocates each dollar of the $158.00
penalty to various funds. See Fla. Stat. §
316.0083(1)(b)(3) (providing for a
specific allocation of the $158.00 penalty across different departments and funds);
ATS argues that the allocation provision explains why commissions taken from the
penalty are barred: each dollar of the $158.00 penalty is already spoken for....
...inction
between “commissions” and “surcharges.”
ATS’s argument is premised on its interpretation of the word “revenue” in
the statute to refer to the $158.00 penalty rather than the entire sum collected by
ATS. See Fla. Stat. § 316.0083(1)(b)(4) (“An individual may not receive a
commission from any revenue collected from violations ....
...“from” the revenue collapses, because the fee was taken from the entire sum of
money Pincus paid. Thus, Pincus argues that ATS’s fee was a “commission”
because the fee is a cut of the total “revenue collected from violations [like
Pincus’s].” Fla. Stat. § 316.0083(1)(b)(4).
10
USCA11 Case: 19-10474 Date Filed: 02/02/2021 Page: 11 of 31
To prevail with this argument, Pincus must show that the word “revenue” in
the statute refers to the entire sum collected by ATS....
...See, e.g., Revenue, Merriam–Webster Unabridged Online Dictionary,
https://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/unabridged/revenue (last visited February
2, 2021) (“[T]he total income produced by a given source.”). Second, he argues
that the language surrounding “revenue” in § 316.0083(1)(b)(4) supports his
interpretation. He contends that because “any” precedes “revenue,” we should
construe “revenue” broadly. See Fla. Stat. § 316.0083(1)(b)(4) (“An individual
may not receive a commission from any revenue collected.” (emphasis added));
Appellant’s Reply Br....
...revenue,’ or from [the] ‘civil penalty revenue’” but “from any revenue.”).
So, both parties maintain that the text of the statute supports their respective
positions about whether the fee charged by ATS qualified as a “commission” for
purposes of § 316.0083....
...camera enforcement systems on their roadways. See Mark Wandall Traffic Safety
Act, 2010 Fla. Sess. Law. Serv. Ch. 2010-80 (West). As amended, Chapter 316
provides that the penalty to be assessed for such an infraction is $158.00. See Fla.
Stat. §
316.0083(1)(b)(3)(a) (providing for the penalty and allocation of its revenue
when enforced by a state officer),
316.0083(1)(b)(3)(b) (providing for the penalty
and allocation of its revenue when enforced by a county or municipal officer).
The difficulty is that, as amended, Chapter 318 includes a pair of
functionally identical provisions. See id. §§
318.18(15)(a)(2) (providing for the
same penalty and allocation as §
316.0083(1)(b)(3)(a), albeit in a rearranged
order),
318.18(15)(a)(3) (providing for the same penalty and allocation as
§
316.0083(1)(b)(3)(b), albeit in a rearranged order)....
...based on the relationship of the two chapters. He contends that Chapter 316 “sets
forth the rules of the road pertaining to photo-enforced red lights, while Chapter
318 contains the provisions relating to infractions and civil penalties.” Id. He
points to the fact that §
316.0083(1)(a) authorizes traffic enforcement officers to
issue citations for violations of §
316.074(1), which requires drivers to obey the
commands of “any official traffic control device,” and §
318.18 provides for
penalties “for a violation of §
316.074(1).” Fla. Stat. §§
316.0083(1)(a),
316.074(1),
318.18(15)(a)(1)....
...rt costs and
surcharges assessed under s.
318.18(11), (13), (18), (19), and (22)” (emphasis
added)). The last of these exceptions, for §
318.18(22), is relevant here. That
subsection provides:
In addition to the penalty prescribed under s.
316.0083 for violations
enforced under s.
316.0083 which are upheld, the local hearing officer
15
USCA11 Case: 19-10474 Date Filed: 02/02/2021 Page: 16 of 31
may also order the payment of county or municipal costs, not to exceed
$250.
Id. §
318.18(22). Section
318.121, then, carves out only one exception to its
surcharge prohibition for penalties prescribed under §
316.0083—a payment of
municipal costs ordered by a local hearing officer....
...And that exception does not
apply to ATS’s fee. Pincus contends that §
318.121’s exception for §
318.18(22)
furthers his argument in two ways: (1) it demonstrates that, in general, §
318.121’s
no-surcharge rule applies to penalties enforced under §
316.0083, and (2) it shows
that, in the context of photo-enforced red light penalties, the Florida legislature
exempted only one type of additional fee from §
318.121’s general ban on
surcharges—and it is not the type of fee at issue here....
...Chapter 316 and thus that enforcement may occur through either chapter. See Fla.
Stat. §
316.640(5)(a) (providing that traffic infraction enforcement officers may
issue citations for noncriminal traffic offenses “as defined in s.
318.14” or “under
s.
316.0083”)....
...Then, ATS argues that the plain language of Chapters 316 and 318
17
USCA11 Case: 19-10474 Date Filed: 02/02/2021 Page: 18 of 31
demonstrates that Pincus’s penalty was assessed under Chapter 316. For example,
§
316.0083(5)(e) provides that if a Notice of Violation is upheld after a hearing,
the violator must “pay the penalty previously assessed under [Chapter 316].” Id.
§
316.0083(5)(e) (emphasis added). And §
316.00831 provides for the allocation
of a collected penalty when a municipality “impose[s] a penalty under
s.
316.0083(1)(b).” Id. §
316.00831 (emphasis added). According to ATS,
Chapter 318 similarly suggests that Pincus’s penalty was assessed under Chapter
316. See id. §
318.18(22) (“In addition to the penalty prescribed under
s.
316.0083 for violations enforced under [§]
316.0083 ....
...We reiterate that each count of Pincus’s unjust enrichment claim—not just
his count based on §
560.204—raises the issue of whether plaintiffs may assert
unjust enrichment based on statutory violations with no private right of action.
Like §
560.204, neither §
316.0083 nor §
318.121 establishes a private right of
action for a violation....
...In particular:
a. Does the challenged fee constitute a “commission from any
revenue collected from violations detected through the use of a
traffic infraction detector” under Fla. Stat. § 316.0083(1)(b)(4)?
17
See Fla....
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
...ticket with a credit card? In particular:
a. Does the challenged fee constitute a “commission from
any revenue collected from violations detected through
the use of a traffic infraction detector” under Fla. Stat.
§ 316.0083(1)(b)(4)?
b....
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Program (the “Wandall Act”), Florida Statutes §
316.0083. The Wandall Act authorizes the use of red-light
CopyAgo (Fla. Att'y Gen. 2010).
Published | Florida Attorney General Reports
...cal authorities under the act: "(a) A county or municipality may use traffic infraction detectors to enforce s.
316.074 (1) or s.
316.075 (1)(c)1. when a driver fails to stop at a traffic signal on streets and highways under their jurisdiction under s.
316.0083 ....
...allation of any such detectors only within the unincorporated area of the county. A county may authorize installation of any such detectors by interlocal agreement on roads under its jurisdiction." A framework for enforcement of the act is provided. Section 316.0083 (1)(b), Florida Statutes, provides that within thirty days after the violation the city must send notification to the registered owner of the motor vehicle involved in the violation....
...The statute also makes provision for notification of a violation in situations where the vehicle involved in the violation is owned jointly. 7 In the event that payment is not made within thirty days after notification of the violation, a traffic citation shall be issued. 8 Section 316.0083 (1)(c)1.d., Florida Statutes, requires that "[t]he traffic citation shall be mailed to the registered owner of the motor vehicle involved in the violation no later than 60 days after the date of the violation." Delivery of the traffic citation by mail constitutes issuance of the citation....
...e, custody or control of the motor vehicle at the time of the violation. Your question relates to the procedure for issuing a traffic citation to the person identified in the affidavit as in control of the motor vehicle at the time of the violation. Section 316.0083 (1)(d)1., Florida Statutes, provides that: "The owner of the motor vehicle involved in the violation is responsible and liable for paying the uniform traffic citation issued for a violation of s....
...tation for violation of s.
316.074 (1) or s.
316.075 (1)(c)1, when the driver failed to stop at a traffic signal." 12 Thus, the statute recognizes that a traffic citation may be issued "upon receipt of an affidavit" submitted to the city pursuant to
316.0083(d)1., Florida Statutes....
...2 Section 1, ch. 2010-80 , Laws of Fla. 3 Section 3, ch. 2010-80 , Laws of Fla. 4 Id. 5 See, e.g. , Ops. Att'y Gen. Fla. 10-32 (2010) and 10-28 (2010) (discussing preemption and municipal authority to legislate on matters preempted to the state). 6 See s. 316.0083 (b)1.b., Fla. Stat. 7 Section 316.0083 (1)(c)1.c., Fla. Stat. 8 Section 316.0083 (1)(c)1.a., Fla. Stat. 9 Id. 10 Section 316.0083 (1)(c)1.c., Fla. Stat. 11 Section 316.0083 (1)(d)2., Fla. Stat. And see s. 316.0083 (1)(d)4., making submission of a false affidavit a second degree misdemeanor. 12 Section 316.0083 (1)(d)3., Fla....
