Yes Virginia, Aventura can legally film you running red lights:
The Ordinance mandates that the Traffic Control Infraction Review Officer review and verify the recorded images prior to the issuance of a notice of violation which parallels the requirement that a traffic infraction enforcement officer under the Uniform Traffic Control Law observe the traffic violation and, does not conflict with the requirements of subsection 316.640(5)(a), Florida Statutes. Accordingly, we find the trial court erred in its determination that section 48-26 allowed the cameras to serve as the sole basis for issuing a notice of violation in direct conflict with section 316.007, Florida Statutes.Ah yes, doesn't every hamlet have an
But the dissent, well, dissents.
Sayeth The Rothenberg:
The City and the majority’s reliance on section 316.008(1)(w) as the statute’s express grant of authority is, however, misplaced. The City’s unmanned cameras placed at various intersections do not regulate nor restrict traffic, and Masone does not allege that the use of cameras to monitor traffic is preempted by or in conflict with Florida law. What Masone correctly argues is that section 316.008(1)(w) does not expressly grant municipalities the authority to: (1) enforce by ordinance, violations of traffic infractions, including red light violations, already being enforced under Florida’s uniform traffic laws; (2) punish alleged violators on an adjudication on the merits in a “court” unauthorized by the Florida Constitution or state statute; (3) create a different standard of proof and liability for red light violations than that which has been approved by the Legislature; and (4) establish penalties not authorized by chapters 316 or 318.She also helpfully identifies all the conflicts with state law -- the first two seem most pertinent:
(1) Whereas section 316.075 punishes drivers who commit traffic light infractions, the City’s ordinance punishes the owner of the vehicle which is observed committing a red light traffic infraction unless the owner submits an affidavit stating that at the time the infraction was being committed, his/her vehicle was being driven without his/her consent.Hmm -- "driver" vs. "owner of the vehicle"; and "personally observe" vs. "review recorded images" -- what am I missing here?
The affidavit must include the identity of the person who had care, custody or control of the vehicle, if known, or include a police report if the vehicle was stolen.
(2) Whereas section 316.640(5)(a) requires the traffic enforcement officer to personally observe the commission of the traffic infraction, the City’s ordinance only requires that a traffic enforcement officer review the recorded images taken by a camera installed by the City at the subject intersection.
(Or are we in "meaningfully distinguishable" territory again?)
Judges Emas and Lagoa go at it over an arbitration provision.
Important PIP opinion here.
Wow, three dissenting opinions this week -- cut back on the egg nog, fellas!