Florida Justices Question Challenge to Red-Light Cameras
The court is set to decide whether Aventura's red-light camera program improperly delegates power by allowing private companies to decide which images to send on to police.
February 07, 2018 at 11:14 AM
3 minute read
Florida Supreme Court justices seemed skeptical Wednesday of a challenge to red-light camera programs in which private companies look over footage and forward potential violations to police.
Luis Torres Jimenez sued the city of Aventura after receiving a traffic citation based on footage reviewed by a third-party vendor. But he does not dispute that he turned right on red, ignoring a sign prohibiting the turn.
“If he violated the statute, I don't see what he has to complain about,” Justice Charles Canady told Jimenez's attorney, Stephen Rosenthal of Podhurst Orseck in Miami.
The case came before the high court after the Third District Court of Appeal ruled the program was constitutional because police officers were reviewing the record before deciding to issue a citation, and not just rubber-stamping the private company's decision.
An earlier Fourth DCA decision found Hollywood's program improperly delegated police power, but the Supreme Court said the cases were distinguishable and did not directly conflict.
Rosenthal argued Aventura's program delegated the power to make a substantive review of the tickets to a private vendor. The company decides about 30 percent to 40 percent of tickets will not go on to the police to be reviewed because the images are unusable or don't meet the standards set by the city for a possible violation, he said.
While those discarded images are available to the police, in a practical sense they can't be reviewed because “the city would be overwhelmed,” Rosenthal said.
Justice Barbara Pariente said every municipality has to make decisions about how to use its manpower — there can't be a police officer sitting at every intersection.
“That means that every day in this state, there are red-light violators that are going undetected in those cities that have no red-light camera because they don't have the manpower to catch everyone. … I'm not getting your standing, even, to assert that they're not putting more people into the violator pile,” Pariente said.
Rosenthal argued any resident would have standing to challenge the red-light camera program because “all cases in the city of Aventura are passed through an unconstitutional filter.” He argued state law preempted the city from delegating “review” powers to a private company.
Florida Solicitor General Amit Agarwal told the court Aventura's rules expressly direct the outside vendor to forward the images to the police if it's “anything even remotely resembling a close call.” Only the police can make a finding of probable cause, he said.
“This is all about the exercise of the state's police power, and that police power as relevant here is the power to issue a citation,” Agarwal said.
Aventura attorney Edward Guedes of Weiss Serota Helfman Cole & Bierman in Coral Gables, who is involved in a number of red-light camera cases, argued the Wandall Act allows for substantive “review” of an image. He said that doesn't just mean looking at the footage for fun.
“There's some level of assessment that has to be conducted as part of a review,” he said.
Louis Arslanian of the Ticket Clinic in Hollywood and Podhurst Orseck associate Lisa Lauck joined Rosenthal at oral arguments.
On the government side, Agarwal and Guedes were joined by Samuel Zeskind of Weiss Serota in Fort Lauderdale and Senior Assistant Attorney General Robert Dietz.
The session was the court's first foray into livestreaming oral arguments on Facebook Live.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAfter Miami Arrest, Top Real Estate Broker Brothers Facing Sex Crimes Charges
US Judge Throws Out Sale of Infowars to The Onion. But That's Not the End of the Road for Sandy Hook Families
4 minute read3 Incidents Lead to Charges Against the Alexander Brothers; Cousin Remains at Large
3 minute readAmid Growing Litigation Volume, Don't Expect UnitedHealthcare to Change Its Stripes After CEO's Killing
6 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250