- November 18, 2024
-
-
Loading
Loading
The Florida Supreme Court has held red-light camera programs initiated before the July 2010 Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Act illegal, but if you got a pre-2010 Palm Coast red-light camera ticket, don’t count on a refund.
The court opinion that held the pre-2010 programs illegal, City Attorney Bill Reischmann said during a June 17 City Council meeting, doesn’t necessarily set a precedent that would require refunds.
“Yes, there is precedent coming out of the Florida Supreme Court, but it would impact that one case, that one individual,” he said. And at this point, he said, the city will likely wait and see what other cities in similar situations do.
The opinion of the court does not dispose a lawsuit filed in 2012 against Palm Coast, he said, and there are several possible defenses the city could use to avoid issuing refunds.
First, in one case, courts held that an Orlando red-light camera lawsuit didn’t meet qualifications for class action — in other words, an individual could bring the suit, but the outcome would apply only to that individual, not to a class of people judged to have been wronged in the same way. The lawsuit pending in Palm Coast is also not a class-action suit.
Secondly, residents who were fined and paid the citation might not have a case if they didn’t challenge the citation earlier.
“When someone makes a voluntary payment, and does not appeal … and later on there’s a decision that changes the basis for the underlying wrongdoing, at that point in time that person that made the voluntary payment can’t come in and sue to get their money back,” he said. That’s the direction Orlando is going, he said, with plans to pay back only people who “did not make voluntary payments.”
Either way, City Manager Jim Landon said, the city’s financial status wouldn’t take much of a hit.
“Those dollars have never gone into our operating fund. They have gone into our street improvement fund,” he said. As a result of the red-light camera revenue, the city expedited certain initiatives, including upgrading guardrails and making signs ADA compliant, he said.
This year, he said, there’s about $10 million in the street improvement fund, and about $2.5 million to $3 million of that each year is unrestricted.
“So if we have to reimburse, it would come out of these funds the dollars went into initially, and it would be a matter of adjusting that five year capital improvement plan,” he said. "The community won’t see any impact; it definitely won’t raise any taxes; it’s just a matter of adjusting our capital improvement fund."
The Supreme Court of Florida's consideration of the cameras was a result of two separate legal challenges of pre-2010 red light camera programs, one in Aventura and one in Orlando.
In the Aventura case — City of Aventura v. Masone — the state’s 3rd District Court of Appeal sided with the city against the driver challenging the program's legality. In the Orlando case — City of Orlando vs. Udowychenko — the 5th District Court of Appeal sided with the driver and against the city.
After the appellate courts issued conflicting rulings, the Florida Supreme Court examined the issue and upheld the Orlando decision, ruling 5-2 in favor of the 5th District, with Justices Peggy A. Quince and Barbara J. Pariente dissenting.
The majority opinion held that municipalities did not have the legal authority to enact local red-light camera ordinances before the Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Act was passed in July 2010, specifically because they were preempted by state law from setting different punishments for traffic violations.
The opinion dealt only with the issue of preemption, Reischmann said, and not with other legal issues surrounding the cameras — leaving ample room for other defenses.
“To sit here and say it’s a done deal? No,” he said. “There’s one issue, and one issue alone, that was resolved by the Florida Supreme Court.”
