Judge Tosses Red Light Cam Ticket: Says Law is Unconstitutional

Welcome once again to Lato's Law. Here's Steve Lato.

Got a great story here and it's straight out of a court opinion from Florida.

A lot of people sent this to me. This video will be a little bit longer because I'm going to go

through an entire opinion. I think it's 23 pages long. However, it's extremely important.

A court there just said that Florida's red light camera law is unconstitutional and unenforceable

as it currently sits on the books in Florida. The case is called Florida versus McFadden

and it's order a granting motion to dismiss just issued a couple days ago and it reads

thusly. Defendance motion dismiss a photo enforced traffic infraction citation issued

pursuant to state law. The citation was issued to defend it as the registered owner of a motor

vehicle alleged to have entered an intersection against a red signal based upon images captured

by an automated traffic enforcement system. This is a red light camera ticket. Defendant moves

to dismiss the citation on the grounds that the law unconstitutionally shifts the burden to

proof onto the accused registered owner requiring them to disprove their guilt. Defendant

contends that this burden shifting framework is incompatible with the due process clauses of

the U.S. Constitution and the Florida Constitution as well as Florida statutes which expressly provide

that traffic violations must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Now understand that traffic

violations in many states are civil infractions. In some states they're criminal and that is a

distinction that matters. So we're talking about Florida here. So the case involves facts which are

not in dispute. So again I have to tell you this that a court making ruling like this says we're

going to assume for a moment that this car was photographed running a red light and the cars owned

by this person. There's no dispute about that. Don't go hey maybe the car wasn't running a red light

no no no no the facts are agreed upon and it happened on May 27th of last year a vehicle registered

to defendant was recorded by a red light camera and sunrise traveling northbound through the

intersection of north university drive and northwest 25th court after the traffic signal for those

lanes had turned red. The city issued a notice of violation of defendant alleging a violation of the

law and then the defendant did not pay which is one of the things they could have done. So the city

then issued a uniform traffic citation to defendant for the same infraction. Then in September

defendant through council entered a written plea of not guilty and requested a hearing before the

court. They then brought up a motion to dismiss and a notice of constitutional question which then

requires the defendant to put the attorney general and the state attorney of Florida on notice

that there's a constitutional question about to get ruled on by a lower court. So here's how it

the Florida statute is known as the Mark Wondell Traffic Safety Act. It authorizes local governments

to implement the red light cameras and those utilize photographic evidence to identify potential

violations which require drivers to obey traffic signals. Okay when such a violation is detected

the enforcing agency does not immediately issue a uniform traffic citation instead there's a

two-step enforcement process. First a notice of violation is sent to the owner of the vehicle

advising of the alleged infraction and demanding payment of $158 but it's postured as a civil

penalty. Then the notice affords the recipient 60 days to either pay, submit an affidavit contesting

responsibility or to request an administrative hearing before a local hearing officer. The

administrative hearing is distinct from the judicial process and county court. For instance the

administrative hearing is before a hearing officer whose employee of the city paid by the city

and subject to firing by the city. The court puts that in there because they think it's important

that it is interesting to look at. So if you want to contest your violation you skip the administrative

option and instead await the issuance of the UTC. If the recipient does not respond the notice within

the prescribed time the local government may issue a formal traffic citation the UTC and that

transfers the matter to the state court system. At that stage the penalty increases to a minimum of 277

dollars. So everyone knows it's going on here. They have that early out where you can pay the

less money and just make it go away because if it escalates as a chance you're going to lose

wouldn't you rather pay the small amount now than risk paying the large amount later. But

any adjudication of guilt is entered on the defendant's official motor vehicle record.

And in this case even the defendant was on guilty. Points are not imposed. Points are not imposed.

A defendant can accrue unlimited red light camera violations addressed in court with the court

and the DMV powerless to remove that errand driver from the road. And the court makes a big deal out

of this but legally they don't actually get into it as much. There's going to be pointing out that

there's a big problem with the law. To be clear in the traditional police officer witnessed

red light violation case the officer observes what he or she believes to be a violation then conducts

a traffic stop determines if there's an emergency or malfunctioning red light equipment and then issues

a uniform traffic citation to actual alleged violation either defendant pleads or is thrown guilty

the violators identified and the violations entered upon the defendant driver's license record.

Points may or may not be imposed depending on the facts and driving record of the defendant

present for the court. Under this red light scenario the actual violator is never identified

and if payment is made within first 30 days then no evidence of the violation appears on anyone's

record. This scheme abandons the point system of Florida law to help identify

errant and dangerous drivers which has been in place for over 50 years and the courts like I said

really underscoring this. So there is an established point system for the determination of the

continuing qualification of any person to operate a motor vehicle and a court wants you to know that

because they think this is important. So a violation of a traffic control signal advice as provided

in the law does allow for points however no points are imposed for violation of this law

because that's a little different. In addition a violation of this when a drivers failed to stop

a traffic signal and when enforced by a traffic and fraction enforcement officer may not be used

for purposes of setting motor vehicle insurance rates. Under this red light camera scheme

employers may never know the people they are hiring to drive school buses or the 9,000 gallons of

gasoline as a class a fuel tank or truck operator are errant and dangerous and are habitual red light

runners because they repeatedly paid within the first 30 days and no estate drivers license record

entry was created. The errant driver the violator is never identified for remediation or

removal from our streets. In the case of commercial drivers this seems to be inconsistent federal law

so the judge is not crazy about the fact that you can get these red light tickets and pay them

and they just disappear. However here's the real problem it begins here a distinctive feature of

this scheme is its assignment of guilt to the registered owner rather than the driver of the vehicle.

The owner of the motor vehicle involved in violation is responsible and liable for paying

a uniform traffic citation issued for violation of this law when the driver failed to stop at a

traffic signal unless the owner can establish one of several enumerated defenses. If there are

multiple registered owners the citations issued to the first registered owner so one of the

defenses is that the registered owner was not the driver but here's where it gets problematic as

I like to point out notice that they accuse you of a crime you have a defense they're saying if

you can prove it wasn't you let you go accordingly under the statutory framework liability initially

attaches to the registered owner by presumption and the burden rests with the owner to affirmatively

identify another person as the driver or otherwise contest the charge at a traffic infraction hearing

the question presented to the court is whether this statute violates the due process clause

of the United States Constitution and the Florida Constitution by creating the presumption

that the registered owner of a vehicle is guilty of committing the violation unless the owner

affirmatively identifies another driver thereby shifting the burden approved from the prosecution

to the accused in a proceeding where commission of the offense must be proved beyond a reasonable

doubt so now they get to sit back and make you prove something and that's not how it works that's

not how it works so the court goes into this and says it is a foundational rule of constitutional

due process that the government must prove every fact necessary to constitute an offense beyond

a reasonable doubt before a person may be adjudicated guilty of a crime and that goes to a US

Supreme Court case not a Florida case the reasonable doubt standard is not merely a rule of evidence

it is a constitutional guarantee that protects the accused against conviction except upon proof

beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged any

procedure that allows conviction while relieving the government of this burden violates the due

process clause the Supreme Court has repeatedly applied this principle to strike down statutory

or jury instruction presumptions that shift the burden approved to the accused as to any element

of the offense Florida courts follow the same rule thus where a statutory scheme imposes upon

a defendant the burden to disprove an element of defense the presumption of innocence is unconstitutional

as applied to the proceedings conducted pursuits this law requiring proof beyond a reasonable

doubt so you also understand the court goes into this too that in 1974 the Florida legislature

enacted a new statute whereby decriminalized most traffic infractions and re-designated them

as civil actions at law I've mentioned before that in some states minor traffic offenses are

civil infractions which means that the standard of proof is lower but here's the thing in Florida

that's different defendant contends that notwithstanding the label traffic infraction proceedings

remain quasi criminal in nature and are therefore subject to procedural due process protections

that apply criminal cases the court agrees although nominally civil traffic infraction proceedings

retain every substantive hallmark of a criminal prosecution they're conducted in court they're

styled as the state of Florida versus defendant the resulted findings are guilty or not guilty

and impose monetary penalties and other sanctions upon convictions convictions are reported to

department of highway safety and motor vehicles and entered on the defendant's permanent driving

record and failure to pay her comply with those orders result in suspension driving privileges

moreover when a person elects to contest a citation in court the commission of a charge

infraction adhering under this chapter must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in Michigan on a

civil infraction you aren't found guilty you're found responsible and there's a bunch of other

differences too so accordingly while these offenses are labeled civil they remain fundamentally quasi

criminal in nature they're punitive they're adjudicative and they're designed to vindicate

the authority of the state rather than to compensate a private party there's a federal case

there's before the US Supreme Court where the US Supreme Court squarely addressed this distinction

holding that the applicability of constitutional due process protection turns not on the label

on a law but on the substance of the proceeding and the character of the relief imposed so here the

law operates precisely as a quasi criminal enforcement mechanism it accuses an individual

of violating state traffic law it imposes a fixed monetary penalty and reports the conviction

of state's licensing agency under the law mentioned earlier proceedings are sufficiently criminal

inform and function to invoke the full protection of due process including the requirement

that every essential element of the alleged offense be proven beyond a reasonable doubt

now the alleged violation in this case arises under two different statutes which govern obedience

to traffic control devices and signals one part provides in relevant part that the driver of any

vehicle shall obey the instructions of any official traffic control device applicable there too

the other section similarly provides that the colors displayed by traffic control signals

shall indicate and apply to drivers of vehicles and pedestrians as follows if you're facing a

steady red indication you must stop before entering the intersection by their playing language

these statutes impose duties upon the driver of the vehicle not the registered owner

the conduct that constitutes the infraction is the act of driving a motor vehicle through a red

signal accordingly in any proceeding governed by this the government bears the burden of proving

beyond a reasonable doubt each element including that the accused was the driver remember these

tickets are issued to the owner of the vehicle the presumption of innocence therefore

entitles the accused to be presumed not to have been the driver unless and until the state meets

the burden of proving that they were proof that a vehicle registered to the defendant was involved

in the alleged infraction does not by itself establish the essential element of operation to

adjudicate guilt based solely on ownership would relieve the government of its constitutional obligation

to prove every fact necessary to constitute the offense beyond a reasonable doubt so

keep in mind that one of the statutes provides that the owner of the motor vehicle involved in the

violation is responsible libel for paying this fine so the court goes on for fewer pages but points

out this procedure operates as a mandatory rebuttable presumption and such a burden shifting

presumption is constitutionally impermissible in a proceeding where guilt must be proved beyond a

reasonable doubt and be aware this opinion goes on for several more pages and they point out that

other states have followed this as well including both Missouri and I believe Minnesota yes and so the

court gets the very end and says for the reason set forth above the court concludes these proceedings

are quasi criminal and that the section of the statutes as applied here violate the procedural

due process guarantees of the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution and article one

section nine of the Florida Constitution in such proceedings the statutes presumption that the

registered owner is responsible for red light violation impermissible shifts the burden approved

the accused and relieves the government of its obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt

and that would be a violation again of the constitutions so accordingly it is ordered and adjudged

that defendants motion to dismiss is hereby granted so this person just got their ticket thrown out

judge signed the order tickets gone now it raises several more questions what about people right now

who've got these tickets that they're dealing with um you you you object and you cite this now you

should be aware that this is out of the Broward County Court 17th Judicial Circuit of Florida and

there's a very good chance at another court and they go oh that court's wrong that court's wrong

but this reasoning appears to be really really good and I suspect that someone's going to take this

up on appeal because the state has a vested interest in protecting that law so they very well might

file an appeal on this and of course the higher it goes the better it is for everybody because then

you get rulings with precedent that cover larger areas but if you're in Florida right now

and you're facing one of these tickets anywhere I would file a motion and just say this law by which

these tickets were issued is unconstitutional and I would simply attach a copy this opinion and say

read this and try to tell me that it's not brilliant because it is this is very very well written

and so I suspect that what'll happen is one of two things possibly both is that this will be taken

up on appeal and I suspect if it goes up on appeal it'll get upheld so what'll have to happen

is is somebody who writes laws in Tallahassee will have to go okay how do we write this law to make it

more palatable there's got to be some way we can write a red light camera ticket law that will

meet constitutional muster and there might be a way to do that I'm not here to explain to

legislatures how to do their jobs quite frankly I don't like red light camera tickets I've always

like the idea of police officers looking around and they see something then they act accordingly

which means a police officer could give you a warning or give you a ticket or do whatever's

necessary but the idea is is some machine just sitting there issuing tickets to me is always bothered

me in a big brother sort of way but it also bothers me how they've got the thing where it's like hey look

if you roll over and just pay the ticket it's just a couple hundred bucks less than a couple hundred

bucks however if you fight it it's gonna jack that cost up and everybody knows what they do that

they don't want people fighting these tickets that's why and don't get me wrong I'm not saying

people should fight everything and deserve to win everything they fight because if you did do

something wrong if you blew through a red light in a 75 witnesses and you have no excuse except I

was just not paying attention you deserve that ticket okay I get that but I'm bothered by the

fact that it's a machine kicking out tickets and they say oh just pay it and and we won't even

we won't even put it on your record and as this judge points out I don't know if you caught this or not

he never addressed the bit about what this does with your record when he's dealing with what was

wrong with the law he was simply pointing that out because it struck him is so odd that there can be

people out there just running red lights willy nilly and as long as they're willing to pay the

fines it'll never go on their record whereas in most states you run seven or 10 red lights

you'll lose your license if you get caught and hit for those the points add up except there's

no points there and it's such a serious violation so he was simply pointing out that by the way there's

constitutional law issues all over the place but there's just this weird disconnect with the fact

that you can run red lights and and pay the tickets and it never goes on your record and so he

was just pointing out that that's such a strange thing but but the constitutional law issue is the

problem and remember it boils down to two things the first thing is that the ticket gets issued to

the owner of the vehicle not the driver and yet it's a driving infraction and number two if they

accuse you of this you have to prove your innocence basically and that's wrong also so this is an

amazing opinion again it's called the state of Florida versus McFadden MCFA DDEN it was literally

just issued a couple days ago and it's been hitting the news now lately so people in Florida who

don't like those red light cameras good news so there you go everybody sent it thanks a lot

questions your comments put them below those talk to you later bye bye thank you for watching

late toes law yield to temptation it may not pass your way again