Richard Masone v. City of Aventura

Supreme Court of Florida
147 So.3d 492, 2014 WL 2609201 (2014)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Municipal ordinances creating local enforcement and penalty systems for traffic violations already covered by the state's uniform traffic code are expressly preempted by state law unless a state statute explicitly authorizes such local enforcement schemes.

Facts:

The City of Orlando and the City of Aventura enacted municipal ordinances establishing local enforcement systems for red light violations.
These ordinances authorized the use of cameras to detect and record vehicles running red lights at certain intersections.
When a violation was detected, the ordinances provided for a notice of infraction and a fine to be issued to the vehicle's registered owner.
The ordinances created a code enforcement system for these violations that operated entirely separate from the state's traffic infraction system established in Chapters 316 and 318 of the Florida Statutes.
Luis Udowychenko received a fine under the City of Orlando's ordinance for a red light violation.
Richard Masone received a fine under the City of Aventura's ordinance for a red light violation.
These events and ordinances were in place prior to July 1, 2010, the effective date of a new state law that specifically authorized and regulated the use of red light cameras.

Procedural Posture:

The City of Aventura issued a fine to Richard Masone, who challenged the validity of the city's red light camera ordinance.
The Third District Court of Appeal, an intermediate appellate court, ruled in favor of the City of Aventura, finding the ordinance valid. Masone, the losing party, sought review from the Florida Supreme Court.
The City of Orlando issued a fine to Luis Udowychenko, who challenged the validity of its red light camera ordinance.
The Fifth District Court of Appeal, an intermediate appellate court, ruled in favor of Udowychenko, finding Orlando's ordinance was preempted by state law. The Fifth District then certified conflict with the Third District's decision.
The City of Orlando, the losing party, sought review from the Florida Supreme Court, which consolidated the two cases to resolve the conflict between the lower appellate courts.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does Florida's Uniform Traffic Control Law (Chapter 316) expressly preempt municipal ordinances that establish a local code enforcement system, including fines, for red light violations detected by cameras, when state law already prohibits and provides punishment for such violations?

Opinions:

Majority - Canady, J.

Yes, the ordinances are invalid because they are expressly preempted by state law. Florida's Uniform Traffic Control Law (Chapter 316) states that local authorities cannot enact ordinances on matters covered by the chapter unless 'expressly authorized.' Red light violations are a matter covered by Chapter 316. The municipalities argued that section 316.008(1)(w), which allows them to 'regulat[e], restrict[], or monitor[] traffic by security devices,' provided the necessary express authorization. The court rejected this argument, holding that the general authority to monitor traffic does not constitute express authorization to create a separate and distinct system for punishing conduct that is already proscribed and punished under the state's statutory framework. The power to 'monitor' does not encompass the power to create a parallel code enforcement regime with its own fines, which conflicts with the uniform system of penalties established in Chapter 318.

Dissenting - Pariente, J.

No, the ordinances were not preempted and should be considered valid exercises of municipal home rule authority. The dissent argues that section 316.008(1)(w) did, in fact, provide the express authorization for municipalities to use red light cameras. The power to 'regulate' traffic via security devices inherently includes the power to enforce those regulations with penalties, a position supported by the court's precedent in Thomas v. State. The ordinances supplemented rather than conflicted with state law, as a driver could not be cited under both systems for the same violation. Furthermore, the fact that the legislature explicitly preempted the field in 2010 with the Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Act suggests that the field was not preempted before then.

Analysis:

This decision clarifies the high bar for municipal authority in areas governed by uniform state law, particularly traffic control. It establishes that a general grant of power to 'regulate' or 'monitor' is insufficient to authorize a municipality to create a parallel punishment scheme for violations already penalized by state statute. The ruling reinforces the principle of state supremacy and requires a specific and explicit delegation of enforcement power from the legislature. This holding had a significant practical impact, invalidating numerous red light camera programs across Florida that existed before 2010 and potentially requiring the refund of millions of dollars in fines.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Richard Masone v. City of Aventura (2014)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature