City of Orlando v. Udowychenko
98 So. 3d 589
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- City of Orlando enacted a Red Light Infractions ordinance on December 17, 2007, employing automated cameras to photograph red-light runners and issue notices to vehicle owners.
- Udowychenko’s vehicle was recorded running a red light in May 2009; a hearing officer later found him liable and fined him $155.
- Udowyehenko sued the City and Lasercraft (the camera installer) in August 2009, asserting the ordinance violated state preemption and related statutes.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Udowychenko, concluding the ordinance interfered with state traffic control law (Chs. 316 and 318) and was invalid.
- The City and Lasercraft appealed, arguing the ordinance supplemented state law and did not conflict with it.
- The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the City’s use of cameras was not preempted and the ordinance could supplement state law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ordinance is preempted by state traffic laws. | Udowychenko asserts express/implied preemption under Ch. 316 and 318. | Udowychenko argues City’s ordinance supplements, not conflicts with, state law. | Preemption found; ordinance invalid. |
| Whether the ordinance conflicts with state statutes on penalties and procedure. | Udowychenko contends penalties and procedures exceed state law and are improper. | City contends penalties follow local process while aligning with 316/318 framework. | Conflict with state law established; invalid. |
| Whether Section 316.008(l)(w) authorizes local enforcement via cameras without violating uniform traffic laws. | Udowychenko argues camera-based enforcement intrudes into state-regulated territory. | City relies on 316.008(l)(w) to permit local regulation via cameras. | Not authorized; preemption shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Aventura v. Masone, 89 So.3d 233 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (rejected implied/express preemption and found ordinance supplementary)
- Phantom of Brevard, Inc. v. Brevard Cnty., 3 So.3d 309 (Fla. 2008) (local ordinance conflicts with state-wide traffic regulations when it creates penalties at odds with state law)
- State v. Kuhlman, 729 N.W.2d 577 (Minn. 2007) (illustrates owner-based penalties conflicting with uniform traffic regulations)