Judge Tosses Red Light Cam Ticket: Says Law is Unconstitutional

0:00Welcome 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

1:03proof 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

2:04no 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

3:06the 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

4:07administrative 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.

5:09A 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

6:10record. 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

7:11gasoline 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

8:12multiple 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

9:17to 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

10:20or 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

11:21remain 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

12:25criminal 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

13:26to 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

14:30in 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

15:32are 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

16:36there'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

17:39is 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

18:41they 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

19:44you'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

20:47just 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