City of Aventura v. Stein

306 So.3d 296

CITY OF AVENTURA, etc., et al., Appellants,

v.Lee STEIN, Appellee.

Nos. 3D19-523

3D19-524

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed June 24, 2020

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Christopher M. Sutter, Assistant Attorney General (Fort Lauderdale); Weiss Serota Helfman Cole & Bierman, P.L., and Edward G. Guedes, Samuel I. Zeskind, and Eric S. Kay, for appellants.

Gold & Associates P.A., d/b/a The Ticket Clinic, and Louis Arslanian (Hollywood), for appellee.

Before SALTER, LOGUE, and GORDO, JJ.

LOGUE, J.

The City of Aventura and the Attorney General of Florida appeal a decision of the county court dismissing a traffic citation that charged Lee Stein with illegally turning right at a traffic signal on red. Probable cause for the citation was based on photographs from the City's red light camera program, which is serviced by American Traffic Solutions, Inc., a City vendor.

In moving to dismiss, Stein did not contest that the red light camera pictures showed probable cause that he committed the infraction. Instead, he contended Aventura's red light camera program violates Florida Statutes due to Aventura's use of certain guidelines. These guidelines are instructions Aventura gives its Vendor to sort images into different databases before the images are reviewed by police officers for probable cause. Different local governments give their vendors different guidelines. This difference means some cities have police officers review more images for probable cause than other cities. Stein contended the guidelines are akin to local traffic ordinances preempted under Chapter 316 of Florida Statutes. He also contended that the differences in guidelines means that violators may be more likely to escape citations in some cities than other cities. This variation in enforcement, Stein argues, makes Aventura's red light camera program violate the statutory requirement that there be uniform traffic laws.

Stein's argument cannot be reconciled with the reasoning and holdings of the prior decisions of this court and the Florida Supreme Court upholding the same Aventura red light guidelines that Stein challenges here. State ex rel. City of Aventura v. Jimenez, 211 So. 3d 158 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (hereinafter " Jimenez I"), aff'd sub nom., Jimenez v. State, 246 So. 3d 219 (Fla. 2018) (hereinafter " Jimenez II").

As explained below, the guidelines are instructions each city gives its red light vendor regarding the contractual task of sorting camera images: they do not define traffic violations and are not traffic laws that apply to the driving public. The variations in levels of red light traffic enforcement that result from different guidelines do not violate the requirement that traffic laws be uniform. Chapter 316 recognizes there will be different levels of local traffic enforcement. For example, it leaves to each city the decision whether, where, and how to deploy red light cameras. In the final analysis, the fact that other violators in other cities may not receive citations is not "a matter about which those cited for a violation have authority to complain." Jimenez II, 246 So. 3d at 230 (quoting Jimenez I, 211 So. 3d at 173 (Wells, J., specially concurring)).

BACKGROUND

A. Aventura's Red Light Camera Program

In 2010, the Legislature enacted the Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Program Act. Chapter 2010-80, Laws of Fla., codified at § 316.0083, Fla. Stat. Named in honor of Mark Wandall, whose wife was nine months pregnant when he was killed by a driver who ran a red light, the Wandall Act authorizes local governments to use cameras to enforce traffic signals. See § 316.0083, Fla. Stat. In doing so, the Wandall Act also permits local governments to use vendors to conduct a preliminary review of images obtained from the cameras. Id. ("This paragraph does not prohibit a review of information from a traffic infraction detector by an authorized employee or agent of the department, a county, or a municipality before issuance of the traffic citation by the traffic infraction enforcement officer.").

Stein's challenge focuses on the guidelines that Aventura gives its Vendor to sort red light camera images prior to police review for probable cause.¹ In Jimenez II, the Supreme Court explained Aventura's sorting process as follows:

[T]he Vendor sorts the information and images generated by the system into two databases: a "working" database that the City police review to decide whether to issue a citation and a "non-working" database that the City police do not review for that purpose. Each image placed in the non-working database is reported, and the reason for placing the image in the non-working database is explained by the Vendor on a report screen. The report screen is periodically reviewed by the sergeant in charge of the City's review. The non-working database remains available and is occasionally accessed by the police for other investigations.

Each month, approximately 5,000 images are sorted into the working database and 3,000 are sorted into the non-working database. The police sergeant who oversees the City's review testified that the City would be overwhelmed if it was required to review all images generated by the system.

To sort images, the Vendor conducts a review that includes (1) confirming workable images exist (and the camera did not simply misfire); (2) examining the images to verify the license plate of the subject vehicle is legible; (3) using the license plate number in an automated process to obtain the identifying information of the registered owner from the Florida Department of Motor Vehicles; (4) confirming the capture of date, time-of-day, speed, and timing-of-light data; (5) checking the "A" shot, which is a still photograph showing the vehicle approaching the intersection; (6) checking the "B" shot, which shows the vehicle in the intersection; and (7) checking the twelve-second video clip that shows the vehicle approaching and traveling through the intersection. The Vendor can pause the video and view it frame by frame.

A representative of the Vendor testified that the Vendor's task when reviewing images was to filter out images that were "useless." A clear example, she explained, is where a camera simply misfired and failed to record an image. Other examples are where the light displays green or where images fail to capture a vehicle's license plate number. These images were useless, she testified, because "the police cannot do anything with them." But other images are determined to be useless based on the specific and detailed contract language and City guidelines.

Jimenez II, 246 So. 3d at 222-23 (quoting Jimenez I, 211 So. 3d at 161 ).

Aventura's guideline for the line of demarcation was used by the Supreme Court to explain how the guidelines work. This discussion is relevant because Stein challenges Aventura's line of demarcation. As explained:

[G]uideline 4.1 concerns the line of demarcation, which means the boundary of the intersection. This is the line used to evaluate the "A" shot, which is the photograph that shows the vehicle approaching the intersection. In reviewing this guideline, one must keep in mind that if the front tires of a vehicle crossed the boundary and entered the intersection when the light is still displaying green, the vehicle obviously is not running a red light. Conversely, if the front tires had not yet reached this line when the light displays red, the vehicle would appear to be running a red light (assuming the vehicle does not immediately stop within the edge of the intersection and wait for a green light). All of the City intersections containing red light cameras have painted stop lines.

Jimenez II, 246 So. 3d at 223 (quoting Jimenez I, 211 So. 3d at 162-63 ).

After the Vendor sorts the images, the Supreme Court explained, the images are reviewed by a police officer to determine whether probable cause exists to issue a citation:

The officers decide to issue a citation based on the images in the same manner they decide to issue a roadside citation. If, after reviewing the photographs, video, and other information, the officer decides to issue a citation, the officer clicks the "accept" button on the screen. By doing so, the officer authorizes his or her electronic signature and badge number to appear on the notice and citation. The officer's review and determination in this regard is far from a mere rubber stamp. As the trial court expressly found, "[o]f the images reviewed by the City's police officers, only between sixty-five percent (65%) and seventy percent (70%) are approved as a violation."

Jimenez II, 246 So. 3d at 223 (quoting Jimenez I, 211 So. 3d at 163 ).

B. Stein's Ticket and the County Court Proceedings.

Stein was issued a citation for "failure to stop at a red traffic signal" at 9:35 am on August 6, 2014, at the intersection of Northeast 191st Street and Biscayne Boulevard. The citation referred to section 316.075(1)(c), which prohibits illegal right turns on red; section 316.074(1), which prohibits failure to obey traffic signals; and section 316.0083, which authorizes municipalities to use red light traffic cameras. The citation contained three photographs of a Lexus automobile showing (1) the license plate, (2) the traffic light and the vehicle's front tires immediately before the tires reached the stop bar, and (3) the traffic light and the vehicle's back tires after the tires passed the stop bar. The last photograph also showed the sign prohibiting right turns on red. At oral argument, counsel for Aventura and Stein both agreed that Stein's alleged offense was making a right turn on red at an intersection where a sign is posted prohibiting right turns on red.

Stein pleaded not guilty and moved to dismiss his citation. In his motion, he did not contest that the images showed probable cause that he violated the governing statutes. Instead, he argued his citation was illegal because the guidelines Aventura issued to the Vendor to conduct...