Local Automated Enforcement
of Red Light Violations
Presented by
Tom Drage
County Attorney
Local Automated Enforcement
of Red Light Violations
Overview of Presentation:

Attorney General Opinions

What some cities are doing

County Attorney’s Opinion
Local Automated Enforcement
of Red Light Violations
Attorney General Opinion 97-06
Issued to Chairman of Palm Beach County Board of County
Commissioners
Question:
May a county use unmanned cameras for the purpose of issuing citations for
running red lights?
Answer:
 Unmanned cameras can be used by local governments to monitor and
detect vehicles that run red lights.
 Unmanned cameras may not be used as the basis for issuing citations.
 Attorney General identified the need for law change to allow issuance of red
light running citations based on photographs taken from unmanned
cameras.
Local Automated Enforcement
of Red Light Violations
Attorney General Opinion 97-06
Discussion:
Preemption
 Chapter 316, Florida Statutes (Florida’s uniform traffic control law), provides
for uniform traffic laws throughout the state.
 Section 316.002, F.S., expressly preempts local governments from passing
ordinances in conflict with chapter 316, F.S.
 Section 316.075, F.S., is the applicable law pertaining to red light running.
Limited Exemption from Preemption
 Section 316.008(1)(w), F.S., allows local governments to use security
devices but not to issue citations as a result of such use.
Local Automated Enforcement
of Red Light Violations
Attorney General Opinion 97-06
Discussion:
Independent Observation by Traffic Enforcement Officer Required
 Section 316.640, F.S., requires independent observation and knowledge
by traffic enforcement officers for issuance of a traffic citation.
Legislation Failed
 1996 Legislation providing for various safeguards for the issuance of red
light running citations predicated on unmanned camera evidence failed.
 The careful drafting of safeguards by the Legislature supports the
conclusion that Legislative authority is required.
Local Automated Enforcement
of Red Light Violations
Attorney General Opinion 2005-41
Issued to the City Attorney of Pembroke Pines
Questions 1 through 3:
May an ordinance be enacted authorizing the city to use unmanned cameras to
advise owners of vehicles running red lights?
Answer:
Yes. Section 316.008(1)(w), F.S., allows local governments to regulate, restrict
and monitor traffic by security devices.
Local Automated Enforcement
of Red Light Violations
Attorney General Opinion 2005-41
Question 4:
May traffic signal violations be enforced through the code enforcement
process?
Answer:
No.
 Attorney General cited the 1997 opinion and provisions requiring
independent observation by a traffic enforcement official for issuance of a
citation;
 Attorney General cited the provisions of section 316.007, F.S., as providing
express preemption against local governments enacting an ordinance on
matters covered in chapter 316, F.S.;
 Attorney General once again suggested the need for legislative changes.
Local Automated Enforcement
of Red Light Violations
Attorney General Opinion 2005-41
Discussion:
Express Preemption
Section 316.002, F.S., provides:
“It is the legislative intent in the adoption of this chapter to make uniform
traffic laws to apply throughout the state and its several counties and
uniform traffic ordinances to apply in all municipalities. . . . It is unlawful for
any local authority to pass or to attempt to enforce any ordinance in conflict
with the provisions of this chapter.” [Emphasis added.]
Section 316.007, F.S., provides:
“The provisions of this chapter shall be applicable and uniform throughout
this state and in all political subdivisions and municipalities therein, and no
local authority shall enact or enforce any ordinance on a matter covered by
this chapter unless expressly authorized.” (Emphasis added.)
Local Automated Enforcement
of Red Light Violations
City of Pembroke Pines
In August 2005 City Attorney transmitted a proposed ordinance providing for:






Use of unmanned cameras for issuance of citation for running red lights;
Citations issued against vehicle owner -- not driver;
Photo images must be manually reviewed prior to issuance of citation;
City Code Enforcement process using special magistrate – not County
court;
$125.00 fine
Warning for first six months.
Local Automated Enforcement
of Red Light Violations
Opinion of City Attorney
The City Attorney opined that the ordinance was consistent with the Attorney
General’s opinion because:

It was to be enforced against owners of vehicles running red lights – not
drivers.

The City would seek to enforce its ordinance through its own special
magistrates – not through county courts.
Local Automated Enforcement
of Red Light Violations
City of Pembroke Pines
Adoption of Ordinance and Follow-up Action

Pembroke Pines Ordinance was adopted October 19, 2005.

On June 20, 2007 the Pembroke Pines City Commission authorized staff to
negotiate a contract with American Traffic Solutions.

FDOT and Broward County advised that City could not install cameras in
the state or county right-of-way absent Legislative authority.

Substantially the same ordinance was adopted by the City of Apopka in
April 2006.
Local Automated Enforcement
of Red Light Violations
City of Gulf Breeze
The Ordinance, as amended in 2006:
 Provides for the use of a photographic system to record a vehicle violating a
steady red light;
 Deems the violation to be a civil, noncriminal violation for which a $100.00
fee is assessed;
 Provides that any owner who fails to pay the fee thereafter is denied other
rights and privileges that he/she may be entitled to receive from the City.
 Requires an appeal be referred to a neutral, unbiased hearing officer
appointed by the City.
Local Automated Enforcement
of Red Light Violations
City of Gulf Breeze
Opinion of City Attorney
The City Attorney issued a memorandum to the Mayor and Commissioners
stating his opinion that the City could enact an ordinance providing that
unmanned cameras could be used as the basis for a citation to owners of
vehicles that run red lights.
City Attorney argued:
 The provisions of s.316.008(1)(w), F.S., authorize municipalities to adopt an
ordinance utilizing unmanned cameras to enforce red light violations; and
 On the basis of recent case law, it does not appear that the proposed
ordinance would conflict with the provisions of Chapter 316, F.S.
Local Automated Enforcement
of Red Light Violations
City of Gulf Breeze
Following Adoption of Ordinance
 July 18, 2005 – Traffipax and Gulf Breeze entered into a contract.
 Traffipax has installed two cameras in a remote location off U.S. Hwy. 98
right-of-way to monitor east and westbound traffic for the purpose of issuing
a civil noncriminal notice of violation.
 The FDOT requested the City remove previously placed cameras when
cameras were installed upon the FDOT traffic signals.
Local Automated Enforcement
of Red Light Violations
Opinion of the County Attorney
Question:
 Whether Orange County can enact an ordinance providing for the
issuance of a civil citation to the owner of a vehicle observed running a red
light by an unmanned camera.
Answer:
 No. The legal distinction pursued in ordinances adopted by the cities of
Apopka, Gulf Breeze and Pembroke Pines – i.e., the issuance of a civil
citation to the owner of a vehicle based only on independent photographic
evidence with enforcement through a local code enforcement process – is a
distinction without a difference.
Local Automated Enforcement
of Red Light Violations
Opinion of the County Attorney
The two Attorney General Opinions correctly provide:
 State law preempts local governments in the area of uniform traffic control
law. This preemption includes code enforcement efforts applicable to red light
running.
 The only limitation of state preemption is to allow local governments to use
security devices to regulate, restrict and monitor traffic but not to issue
citations as a result of such use.
 Unmanned cameras cannot be used to issue citations because direct
observation by a traffic enforcement officer is required.
 State legislation is required to allow enforcement of red light running through
the use of unmanned cameras.
Local Automated Enforcement
of Red Light Violations
Opinion of the County Attorney
“Phantom of Clearwater, Inc. v. Pinellas County “
The Gulf Breeze City Attorney’s reliance on this case for the proposition that a local
ordinance is not unconstitutional if it can coexist with a state statute is misplaced.
The court in Phantom of Clearwater held that State Sale of Fireworks Statute
(Chapter 791, F.S.) does not expressly or impliedly preempt the field of fireworks
regulation and that Pinellas County could enact ordinances involving fireworks so
long as they do not directly conflict with state law.
This is not the law where there is express preemption. The court specifically cites
Chapter 316, F.S., as an example of a state law that clearly provides express
preemption. In the case of express preemption, Pinellas County could not have
lawfully adopted its fireworks ordinance.
Local Automated Enforcement
of Red Light Violations
Opinion of the County Attorney
Accordingly, as a result of the Preemption Doctrine, a county ordinance similar to
those adopted by the cities of Pembroke Pines, Apopka and Gulf Breeze cannot
withstand a constitutional challenge based on preemption.