246 So. 3d 219
Fla.2018Background
- Plaintiff Luis Torres Jimenez received a red-light-camera citation in Aventura for turning right on red where prohibited; he does not dispute the underlying conduct.
- Aventura contracted with a private vendor (American Traffic Solutions) to review and sort camera images into a "working" database (sent to police) and a "non-working" database (not forwarded); vendor followed City "Business Rules Questionnaire" guidelines.
- Vendor screening included technical checks (image usable, plate legible, time/date), review of A and B photos and a 12-second video clip, and application of City-prescribed rules (e.g., stop-line demarcation).
- City police officers (trained traffic infraction enforcement officers) alone decide whether to issue citations after reviewing images in the working database; only ~65–70% of officer-reviewed images result in citations.
- County court dismissed the citation relying on Fourth District precedent (Arem); the Third District reversed and certified whether municipalities may contract with vendors to sort/review images under § 316.0083(1)(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "review" in §316.0083(1)(a) is limited to checking image completeness/usability | Jimenez: "review" means only ensuring images are complete/usable; vendor may not make preliminary substantive determinations | City/State: "review" can include evaluative sorting under written guidelines short of making probable-cause/citation decisions | Court: "review" permits vendor screening/sorting per City guidelines so long as vendor does not make the probable-cause/citation determination |
| Whether contracting with a vendor to screen/sort images is an unlawful delegation of police power | Jimenez: vendor has "unfettered discretion" to exclude images, effectively deciding who is cited | City: vendor performs ministerial/clerical screening under City rules; only officers exercise prosecutorial discretion | Court: not an unlawful delegation; authority to issue citations remains with trained officers |
| Whether City-specific guidelines violate chapter 316 uniformity requirement | Jimenez: City standards may underinclusive and create nonuniform enforcement | City: enforcement resource allocation and selection of camera locations inherently uneven; no claim of discriminatory enforcement | Court: no uniformity violation; differential enforcement is analogous to roadstop realities |
| Scope of precedent conflict (Arem vs. Trinh/Jimenez) | — | — | Court approves Trinh and Jimenez, disapproves Arem to the extent inconsistent |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Hollywood v. Arem, 154 So.3d 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (held vendor screening unlawfully delegated police power)
- City of Oldsmar v. Trinh, 210 So.3d 191 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (upheld vendor screening where officer makes probable-cause decision; certified conflict with Arem)
- Masone v. City of Aventura, 147 So.3d 492 (Fla. 2014) (discusses uniformity/preemption under chapter 316)