City of Oldsmar v. Trinh
210 So. 3d 191
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- City of Oldsmar contracted with American Traffic Solutions (ATS) for red‑light cameras and the Axsis software to record, sort, and process potential violations; the contract included "business rules" the City supplied for ATS processors to follow.
- ATS processors review recorded photos/videos, apply City business rules, sort events into working/nonworking queues, and transmit all raw data electronically to the City; processors may zoom/lighten images but cannot alter video.
- City Traffic Infraction Enforcement Officers (TIEOs) access both queues, make independent probable‑cause determinations, and click an electronic "accept" to trigger ATS software to prepare and mail a Notice of Violation (NOV); if unpaid, the system generates a Uniform Traffic Citation (UTC) and sends it to the printer/clerk.
- Appellee Tammy Vo Trinh received an NOV and a UTC generated under this process and moved to dismiss, arguing the City impermissibly delegated police power to ATS by allowing pre‑screening and automated issuance functions.
- The county court dismissed the citation relying on City of Hollywood v. Arem; the Second District reversed, answering certified questions that (1) municipalities may contract with vendors to sort images under written directives and (2) the statute does not prohibit vendors from electronically generating/mailing NOVs and UTCs after a TIEO authorizes issuance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Trinh) | Defendant's Argument (City/AG) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §316.0083(1)(a) authorizes a municipality to contract with a third‑party to sort images into queues under municipal directives | ATS prescreening/sorting constitutes an unauthorized delegation of the City's police power because the vendor effectively decides which cases reach the officer | The Act permits "review" by an agent; business rules and protocols limit vendor action to ministerial sorting and all data remain available to the City | Held: Yes — the statute authorizes contracting for vendor sorting when constrained by written rules and oversight; screening is ministerial and not an unlawful delegation |
| Whether §§316.640(5)(a) and 316.0083 prohibit a municipality from contracting with a vendor to electronically generate and mail NOVs/UTCs after the TIEO clicks "accept" | Automated generation/mailing by the vendor is the effective issuance of the citation by a private actor, which is forbidden | The officer makes the probable‑cause decision and authorizes issuance; automated ministerial printing/mailing merely implements the officer's decision and does not delegate police power | Held: No — automated generation/mailing after officer authorization is permitted; ministerial implementation does not equal delegation |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Hollywood v. Arem, 154 So. 3d 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (held vendor prescreening and automated issuance impermissibly delegated police power)
- Masone v. City of Aventura, 147 So. 3d 492 (Fla. 2014) (pre‑Act municipal red‑light ordinances were preempted by state law)
- City of Fort Lauderdale v. Dhar, 185 So. 3d 1232 (Fla. 2016) (addressed constitutionality of §316.0083 as applied to short‑term renters)
- St. John's Cty. v. Ne. Fla. Builders Ass'n, 583 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 1991) (delegation allowed where fundamental policy decisions remain with government and standards sufficiently limit private discretion)
- Citizens v. Wilson, 567 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 1990) (ministerial tasks by staff consistent with nondelegation when board sets standards)
- Gard v. State, 521 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (clerical/ministerial drafting of court orders by prosecutor did not constitute improper delegation)