City of Aventura v. Masone
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 19039
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- City of Aventura enacted Ordinance 2007-5, including section 48-26, authorizing red light camera monitoring and civil notices issued after review by a Traffic Control Infraction Review Officer.
- Masone received two red light violation notices in January 2009 and challenged their validity, arguing preemption and conflict with state law.
- Trial court granted Masone summary judgment, finding section 48-26 invalid as unauthorized municipal regulation conflicting with chapter 316.
- Court of Appeal reversed, concluding municipalities may supplement state traffic laws under home rule and that 48-26 did not conflict with the Uniform Traffic Control Law.
- Court held the Act and UTCL provisions permit local enforcement adjuncts and that 48-26 operates as a supplemental, non-conflicting mechanism.
- Dissent argued that the ordinance is expressly preempted and conflicts with state law, and would affirm the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 48-26 preempt or conflict with state traffic law? | Masone argues preemption under UTCL blocks local rule. | Aventura contends home rule allows supplemental local regulation without conflict. | Not preempted; ordinance supplemental and consistent with UTCL. |
| Does 48-26 conflict with the Uniform Traffic Control Law (UTCL) provisions on enforcement and penalties? | Masone claims penalties and enforcement procedures violate chapters 316/318. | City asserts compliance with UTCL and that cameras supplement, not replace, state enforcement. | No direct conflict; enforcement is ancillary and does not collide with UTCL. |
| Does the ordinance infringe Florida home-rule authority or violate state preemption principles? | Masone asserts the City lacks power to regulate red light violations outside state law. | City relies on art. VIII, § 2(b) and ch. 166 to justify broad home-rule authority. | Ordinance consistent with home-rule powers and state framework. |
| Is the special-master-based adjudication permissible under Florida law for red light notices? | Special Masters hearing violates Article V and does not constitute a court under state law. | Administrative mechanism under local code mirrors judicial review and is consistent with precedent. | No conflict; appeals via Special Masters compatible with existing administrative resolution mechanisms. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lowe v. Broward Cnty., 766 So.2d 1199 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (presumption of validity for ordinances; burden on challenger)
- City of Kissimmee v. Fla. Retail Fed'n Inc., 915 So.2d 205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (presumption in favor of ordinance validity)
- F.Y.I. Adventures, Inc. v. City of Ocala, 698 So.2d 583 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (conflict analysis requires true inconsistency; no direct conflict here)
- Hillsborough Cnty. v. Fla. Restaurant Ass’n, 603 So.2d 587 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (express preemption concepts; need explicit language)
- Phantom of Clearwater, Inc. v. Pinellas Cnty., 894 So.2d 1011 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (implied preemption considerations; pervasive scheme)
- Tallahassee Mem’l Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Tallahassee Med. Ctr., Inc., 681 So.2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (court preemption standards; field occupancy)
- City of Miami v. Aronovitz, 114 So.2d 784 (Fla. 1959) (regarding police powers and municipal regulation)
- Office Realty Co. v. Ehinger, 46 So.2d 601 (Fla. 1950) (historical preemption principles)