Richard Masone v. City of Aventura
147 So. 3d 492
| Fla. | 2014Background
- Cities of Orlando and Aventura enacted municipal ordinances (pre-2010) using red‑light cameras to detect violations and impose municipal civil penalties via local code‑enforcement procedures.
- Ordinances issued owner‑directed notices of violation based on camera images; enforcement and disposition occurred outside chapters 316/318 procedures.
- Petitioners (Udowychenko, Masone) challenged fines as invalid under state preemption; conflicting appellate decisions resulted: Third DCA upheld Aventura; Fifth DCA invalidated Orlando and certified conflict.
- The Florida Supreme Court accepted review to resolve whether § 316.008(1)(w) authorized the municipal enforcement schemes and whether state law preempted them.
- Chapters 316 and 318 create a uniform statewide traffic scheme, include express preemption provisions (§ 316.007, § 316.002) and a prohibition on adding fines beyond chapter 318 penalties (§ 318.121).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether municipal red‑light camera ordinances are preempted by state law | Udowychenko/Masone: ordinances are preempted because chapters 316/318 cover red‑light violations | Orlando/Aventura: § 316.008(1)(w) authorizes local regulation (including monitoring/enforcement) by security devices | Held: Ordinances are expressly preempted; invalidated |
| Whether § 316.008(1)(w) "regulating, restricting, or monitoring traffic by security devices" expressly authorizes local punishment for conduct covered by chapter 316 | Cities: the phrase authorizes their camera enforcement regimes | Challengers: the provision does not expressly authorize imposing penalties outside chapter 318 framework | Held: § 316.008(1)(w) does not expressly authorize municipal punishment for conduct already covered and punished by state law |
| Whether municipal regimes conflict with chapter 316/318 (conflict preemption) | Cities: local ordinances supplement state law and can coexist; ordinances excluded cases where state citations issued | State/Challengers: separate municipal enforcement and fines frustrate uniform enforcement and chapter 318 penalties scheme | Held: Ordinances stand as an obstacle to statute’s purposes (uniform scheme); conflict/preemption supports invalidation |
| Role of Thomas v. State (614 So.2d 468) precedent | Cities: Thomas permits local penalties under § 316.008 for matters even if chapter 316 addresses them | Challengers: Thomas involved regulation of conduct not covered by chapter 316 and does not authorize evading express preemption here | Held: Thomas is distinguishable and does not authorize these municipal camera‑penalty regimes when chapter 316/318 expressly preempt the field |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. State, 614 So.2d 468 (Fla. 1993) (examined municipal regulation under § 316.008 and limits on criminal penalties where state decriminalized conduct)
- City of Aventura v. Masone, 89 So.3d 233 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (upheld Aventura’s camera ordinance as exercise of § 316.008 authority)
- City of Orlando v. Udowychenko, 98 So.3d 589 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (invalidated Orlando’s camera ordinance; certified conflict)
- City of Palm Bay v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 114 So.3d 924 (Fla. 2013) (discusses preemption and conflict between state and municipal law)
- Sarasota Alliance for Fair Elections, Inc. v. Browning, 28 So.3d 880 (Fla. 2010) (explains implied preemption and test for conflict between state and local enactments)