HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondencePage 1 of 1
Martinez, Maribel
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Importance:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Attachments:
Thompson, Priscilla
Sunday, April 20, 2008 3:48 PM
Martinez, Maribel; Olivera, Rosemary; Latimore, Pamela
FW: Red -Light Traffic Camera Systems at Dangerous Intersections
High
Follow up
Flagged
Red -Light Traffic Camera Systems at Dangerous Intersections.pdf
Has this been filed as necessary?
I don't know if it was possibly part of an agenda item at 2/14/08 meeting. Please check and file where ever
necessary.
Pf-iscia , T oN,so r, CR)
City Clerk
(305) 250-5370
fax (305) 858-1610
From: Westall, Lynn
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 11:46 AM
To: Diaz, Manuel A (Mayor); Gonzalez, Angel (Commissioner); Regalado, Tomas (Commissioner); Sanchez, Joe
(Commissioner); Sarnoff, Marc (Commissioner); Spence -Jones, Michelle (Commissioner)
Cc: Hernandez, Pedro G. (City Manager); Anido, Bill; Spring, Larry; Hernstadt, Roger; Fernandez, Jorge L.;
Thompson, Priscilla; Valdez, Suzanna; Castaneda, Frank; Crapp Jr., Tony; Zorrilla, Teresa; Wright, Steve; Nelson,
Ron; Augustus-Fidelia, Vicki; Alexander, Koteles; Gonzalez, Jose; Wysong, George; Miro, Claudia M.; Timoney,
John F. (Chief of Police); Bryson, William (Fire Chief)
Subject: Red -Light Traffic Camera Systems at Dangerous Intersections
Importance: High
The attached memorandum is being provided to you on behalf of the City Manager, Pedro G.
Hernandez.
Thank you.
Lynn Westall
Senior Assistant to the City Manager
City of Miami
305.250.5407 (office)
305.250.5410 (fax)
Iwestall@miamigov.com
07- OI27q- Come p°vtSe C
4/22/2008
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor Manuel A. Diaz DATE: February 4, 2008
HonoraCity Commissioners
FROM: Pedro G. H- . - pd:. P.E.
City Manager
SUBJECT: Red -Light Traffic Camera
Systems at Dangerous
Intersections
REFERENCES:
ENCLOSURES:
At the October 25, 2007, City Commission meeting, you directed the Administration to review and report
on the efficiency of using unmanned cameras to monitor and record traffic violations. This report will
discuss the purpose behind the usage of unmanned cameras, provide legal background, discuss the
advantages and disadvantages of the red-light camera system, and recommend a course of action for
implementation.
Purpose
The City of Miami Police Department has identified a listing of the nineteen most dangerous intersections
in the City based on the number of accidents (See Attachment 1). Please note that seventeen of these
intersections are on the State Highway System under the jurisdiction of the Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) and two are under County jurisdiction. Red-light violations are a contributing
factor in the high number of accidents at these locations. Crash data obtained from the FDOT show that a
total of 83 accidents occurred during a three-year period (2004-2006) as a result of red-light running
violations at the seventeen intersections above.
Red-light camera systems are designed for the purpose of reducing the probability of crashes at
intersections that could result in serious injury or death. Installing unmanned cameras can aid the City in
enforcing traffic laws, and thereby reduce the amount of injuries caused by accidents by automatically
photographing motorists who run red lights. The system works as follows:
• An independent, free-standing red-light camera system is installed to continuously
monitor traffic flow at the crosswalk or stop line.
• The camera itself is triggered by any vehicle entering the intersection above a preset
speed and following a specified time after the signal has turned red.
• A series of photographs and/or video images show the red light violator prior to
entering the intersection on a red signal, as well as the vehicle's progression through
the intersection.
• Cameras record the vehicle license plate, date, time of day, time elapsed since the
beginning of the red signal, and vehicle speed.
Tickets typically are sent by mail to the registered owners of violating vehicles, based on review of the
photographic evidence. In the event that the registered owner was not the driver of the vehicle when it
ran the red light, the registered owner will be required to provide an affidavit indicating the person who
was driving.
February 4, 2008
Page 2
Legal Background
Senate Bill 816 by State Senator Bennett and House Bill 351 by State Representative Reagan, creates the
Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Program to govern the operation of traffic infraction detectors. (See
Attachment 2). The bill requires that a county or municipality enact an ordinance to provide for the use of
a detector to enforce the provisions for failure to stop at a traffic control signal steady red light. It further
authorizes a traffic infraction enforcement officer to issue a ticket for a violation. These bills have been
filed in anticipation of the 2008 legislative session which begins March 4, 2008.
In 1997, the Florida Attorney General opined that the use of unmanned cameras to record violations of
section 316.075, Florida Statutes, was not precluded by state law and represents an innovative approach to
detect and deter the dangerous conditions created by drivers who disobey traffic signals. The statutes
governing the enforcement and citation for violations of section 316.075, Florida Statutes, however have
not been amended to allow the photographic record from unmanned cameras monitoring intersections to
be used as the sole basis for issuing citations. (See AGO 97-06, Attachment 3).
Subsequently in 2005, the Florida Attorney General answered a similar but different question. He was
asked whether a city can use the photographic evidence from the unmanned cameras to advise a car
owner of a violation, and, if so, may the city use its code enforcement special magistrate and enforcement
procedures provided in Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, to enforce violations of traffic signals. The
Attorney General responded that he continues to be of the opinion expressed in Attorney General Opinion
97-06 that legislative changes are necessary before local governments may issue traffic citations and
penalize drivers who fail to obey red light indications on traffic signal devices. (See AGO 05-41,
Attachment 4).
Thus it is clear that a municipality may monitor violations of traffic signals within the city and to use
unmanned cameras to monitor intersections and record traffic violations. It is also clear that a
municipality may use the photographic evidence from unmanned cameras to advise a car owner that his or
her license tag number has been recorded in a violation of the traffic laws. Finally, it is also clear from
the recent attorney general opinion that in order for citations for violations of traffic control laws to be
issued, the statutes appear to require that an officer enforcing the traffic law personally observe or have
personal knowledge of the particular infraction that serves as the basis for issuing the citation.
What is unclear is whether local governments may issue traffic citations and penalize drivers who fail to
obey red light indications on traffic signal devices. Most jurisdictions have interpreted the Attorney
General's opinion to mean that a municipality may issue a civil code enforcement infraction based solely
on photographic evidence to a driver who runs a red light in apparent violation of a municipal ordinance.
Code Enforcement Process
In order to enable the code enforcement department to issue an infraction violation, the City may
implement the following process:
1. A municipal ordinance must be adopted that provides for recorded image monitoring and
enforcement of red light infractions. (See Attachment 5). The ordinance that passed on first
reading at the October 25, 2007, City Commission meeting provides that motor vehicles shall
stop before entering an intersection when the traffic signal is indicating a red light. A failure
to stop may be recorded by a photograph or video movie.
February 4, 2008
Page 3
2. Each alleged infraction will be reviewed by an authorized City employee who shall
meet the qualifications set forth in Section 316.640(5)(a).
3. If the traffic control infraction review officer determines that there is a violation of
the ordinance, then a civil code enforcement infraction will be issued.
4. The violator shall either pay the civil fine or request a hearing in front of a code
enforcement special master.
Currently the City of Miami code enforcement system is tied to property records. Any unpaid code
enforcement fine usually results in a lien being placed upon the property where the violation occurs.
These red light violations present a new challenge in that many of the violators may not own property
within the City of Miami. In an effort to insure compliance with their ordinances, other cities have
determined that unpaid red light violations will either be sent to a collection agency or a negative credit
report will be sent to the various credit reporting agencies, or both.
Advantages of red-light camera systems
• The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has performed a statistical summary
of many red-light camera studies and found that the devices generally reduced the
number of right angle crashes by 25%, reducing injuries resulting from right angle
crashes by 16%.
• Red-light cameras are also a proven deterrent that can bring about a behavioral
change that results in motorists obeying traffic signals, respecting fellow drivers, and
avoiding the crashes, injuries and loss of life caused by red-light running.
• Cameras also provide a mechanism to monitor dangerous intersections 24 hours a
day, seven days a week without having to assign police officers to a designated area,
allowing police to engage in other public safety efforts.
• Federal Highway Administration has determined that red-light cameras saved
taxpayers $39,000 to $50,000 annually at each intersection where they have been
installed. The costs considered include hospital bills, damage to vehicles and
properties, insurance expenses, value of lost quality -of -life, and other costs.
• Red light cameras can be used for non -enforcement activities such as traffic
monitoring and surveillance, incident response, and crash reconstruction.
• Payment of red-light running fines can provide positive cash flow which the City can
use to off -set administrative costs associated with implementation of the system.
Disadvantages of red-light camera systems
• FHWA studies have consistently found that intersections with red-light camera
systems have experienced a 15% increase in total rear -end crashes, increasing
injuries resulting from rear -end crashes by 24%.
• Negative perception among some of the public and State legislators that red-light
camera systems are implemented solely as a revenue generating mechanism for local
governments and also violate privacy rights.
Based on the aforementioned studies, although the number of rear -end crashes tend to increase at
intersections with red-light cameras, the types of crashes prevented (right-angle collisions) tend to be
more severe than rear -end crashes. Therefore research shows a positive aggregate benefit.
February 4, 2008
Page 4
Other Cities' Experiences
Currently there are only two cities in Florida whose unmanned cameras are operational: City of Apopka
and the City of Gulf Breeze. There are five other cities and counties that are in the process of
implementation: Pembroke Pines, Miami Gardens, Palm Coast, Port Richie and Orange County (warnings
only). Several others are in the very early stages including Aventura and Orlando. Consequently, there is
not a lot of Florida experience to analyze.
Information obtained from several vendors indicated that the collection rate is in the 75 to 80% range.
Other cities in other states throughout the nation have much more experience using unmanned cameras.
New York City has had the cameras in operation since approximately 1994. In that period of time, they
have experienced a 73% reduction in violations, a 41% reduction in collisions, and a 35% reduction in
fatalities.
Analysis of Cameras by other entities
A 2005 Virginia Department of Transportation study of the long-term effect of camera enforcement in the
state found a decrease in the number of right-angle crashes, but an increase in rear -end crashes and an
overall increase in the number of accidents causing injuries. The report recommended further study of the
issue to determine whether the severity of the eliminated red- light running crashes was greater than that
of the induced rear -end crashes. The department released a more extensive evaluation of the data in 2007
which showed that the overall number of accidents at intersections with red-light cameras increased in
four of the five cities using the technology. Fairfax City reported a 7% drop in the overall number of
accidents and a 5% drop in injury accidents while overall the state's cameras were correlated with a 29%
increase in overall accidents and an 18% increase in injury accidents. This study also notably found that
red-light violations decreased by 94% at one Fairfax County intersection, after the advent of a 1.5 second
longer yellow -light cycle.
A 2004 Texas Transportation Institute study found, "crashes decrease with an increase in yellow interval
duration and a reduction in speed limit." After 1.0 second was added to the yellow signal timing at test
intersections, accidents dropped by 35 to 40%. This compares with a 6.4% reduction for "area -wide
officer enforcement of intersection traffic control devices...during the time of the enforcement activity."
FDOT Position
Pursuant to a letter dated August 26, 2007, from Mark Wilson, Deputy State Traffic Operations Engineer,
the FDOT does not allow the use of red -light -running cameras on any intersection on the State Highway
System. (See Attachment 6). The FDOT supports municipalities conducting traffic engineering studies to
document any safety deficiencies, and the implementation of countermeasures that will address those
deficiencies. Some of those countermeasures would include improving signal visibility (placement and
number of signal heads, size of signal display, line of sight), traffic signal optimization (change in cycle
lengths, change in timing of yellow and red intervals), advance warning signs, and/or geometric
improvements to the intersection. However, the FDOT has no jurisdiction over municipalities installing
red-light camera systems to monitor intersections on the State Highway System if the system is installed
on either City property or private property.
February 4, 2008
Page 5
Miami -Dade County Position
On November 6, 2007, Miami -Dade County (County) passed Resolution No. R-1248-07, urging the
Florida Legislature to allow the use of unmanned cameras at intersections with traffic signals in an effort
to reduce red-light running. (See Attachment 7). Until such time as the Legislature passes a bill allowing
use of the cameras to enforce traffic infractions, the County does not support the installation or usage of
red-light cameras on its signals. By Home -Rule Charter, the County operates, maintains, and has
jurisdiction over all traffic control devices countywide, including traffic signals on the State Highway
System and on all municipal streets. The County, however, has no jurisdiction over municipalities
installing red-light camera systems to monitor intersections provided the system is installed on either City
property or private property and operates independent of the County's traffic signals.
Recommendation and Next Steps
As a result of the above research, two viable options have been identified for consideration by the City
Commission:
Option 1
Several municipalities in Florida have begun the implementation process, with two being fully operational
(Gulf Breeze and Apopka). One option would be to defer implementation of a red-light camera system
for a period of time as deemed appropriate by the Commission. The deferral would serve two purposes:
1. It would allow the City an opportunity to evaluate whether the system has been
effective in reducing red-light running accidents in those municipalities.
2. It would allow time for the State Legislature to act on the pending legislation, thereby
clearly and unequivocally establishing the authority of municipalities to utilize traffic
cameras to enforce municipal ordinances that prohibit the running of red lights within
the municipality.
Option 2
1. Adopt the proposed Ordinance.
2. Draft and issue a Request for Proposal to solicit technical proposals from various red-
light camera system vendors. It is anticipated that the selected vendor would be
responsible for the design, installation, operation, maintenance and financing of the
system for the life of the system.
3. Recommend selection of a qualified vendor for subsequent Commission approval.
4. Execute an Agreement with the selected vendor for the installation, operation, and
maintenance of red-light cameras (on City right-of-way or private property,
independent of the County's traffic signal system).
5. Implementation of the Code Enforcement process outlined above to enforce payment
of all tickets associated with red-light violations at the selected intersections within the
City.
February 4, 2008
Page 6
In consideration of the above, the Administration recommends Option 2. In the interim, the City will
work with the County and FDOT to explore lengthening the yellow -light interval at the City's most
dangerous intersections, to improve operational safety and to also prospectively address the possible
increase in rear -end collisions upon implementation of a red-light camera system. The City will begin
work on a Request for Proposal (RFP) in order to expedite the selection of a vendor in the event that the
Commission decides to proceed with the implementation of the system.
Should you have any additional questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Assistant City Manager,
Bill Anido, at 305-416-1027.
C: Bill Anido, Assistant City Manager
Jose Gonzalez, Assistant Transportation Coordinator
George K. Wysong III, Assistant City Attorney
Top 19 Locations Involving Traffic Crashes
For City Wide From 1/1/2007 to 10/31/2007
# Intersection
Attachment 1
# of Accidents NET Area
1
NW 37TH AVE & NW 7TH ST
153
Flagami
2
SW 27 AVE & S DIXIE HWY
142
Cocnut Grove
3
SW 17 AVE & S DIXIE HWY
117
Cocnut Grove
4
NW 57TH AVE & NW 7TH ST
111
Flagami
5
SW 4TH AV&SW 8TH ST
104
Little Havana
6
SW 32 AVE & S DIXIE HWY
86
Cocnut Grove
7
NW 27TH AVE & NW 7TH ST
76
Little Havana
8
SW 4TH AV&SW 7TH ST
76
Little Havana
9
NW 27 AVE & W FLAGLER ST
67
Little Havana
10
NW 27TH AVE & NW 14TH ST
61
Little Havana
11
SW 22 ST & SW 27 AVE
64
Coral Way
12
NE 36 ST & BISCAYNE BLVD
62
Wynwood
13
300 SE 26 RD
58
Coral Way
14
SW 37 AVE & S DIXIE HWY
58
Cocnut Grove
15
SW22ST&SW32AVE
57
Coral Way
16
SW 22 AVE & S DIXIE HWY
54
Cocnut Grove
17
NW 42 AVE & NW 14TH ST
51
Little Havana
18
NW 27TH AVE & NW 11TH ST
50
Little Havana
19
NW 42 AVE & NW 7TH ST
48
Little Havana
Attachment 2
FLORIDA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HB351
2008
A bill to be entitled
An act relating to uniform traffic control; creating the
"Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Act"; amending s. 316.003,
F.S.; defining the term "traffic infraction detector";
creating s. 316.0083, F.S.; creating the Mark Wandall
Traffic Safety Program to be administered by the
Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles; requiring
a county or municipality to enact an ordinance in order to
use a traffic infraction detector to identify a motor
vehicle that fails to stop at a traffic control signal
steady red light; requiring authorization of a traffic
infraction enforcement officer to issue and enforce a
ticket for such violation; requiring signage; requiring
certain public awareness procedures; requiring the
ordinance to establish a fine of a certain amount;
prohibiting additional charges; exempting emergency
vehicles; providing that the registered owner of the motor
vehicle involved in the violation is responsible and
liable for payment of the fine assessed; providing
exceptions; providing procedures for disposition and
enforcement of tickets; providing for disposition of
revenue; providing complaint procedures; providing for the
Legislature to exclude a county or municipality from the
program; requiring reports from participating
municipalities and counties to the department; requiring
the department to make reports to the Governor and the
Legislature; amending s. 316.0745, F.S.; providing that
traffic infraction detectors must meet certain
Page 1 of 16
CODING: Words .+ are deletions; words underlined are additions.
hb0351-00
FLORIDA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
HB 351 2008
requirements; amending s. 316.1967, F.S.; providing for
inclusion of persons with outstanding violations in a list
sent to the department for enforcement purposes; amending
s. 322.264, F.S.; revising the definition of the term
"habitual traffic offender" to include a certain number of
violations of a traffic control signal steady red light
indication within a certain timeframe; reenacting ss.
322.27(5) and 322.34(1), (2), (5), and (8)(a), F.S.,
relating to the authority of the Department of Highway
Safety and Motor Vehicles to suspend or revoke a driver
license and driving while a driver license is suspended,
revoked, canceled, or disqualified, for the purpose of
incorporating the amendment to s. 322.264, F.S., in
references thereto; providing for severability; providing
an effective date.
Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
Section 1. This act may be cited as the "Mark Wandall
Traffic Safety Act."
Section 2. Subsection (86) is added to section 316.003,
Florida Statutes, to read:
316.003 Definitions. --The following words and phrases,
when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings respectively
ascribed to them in this section, except where the context
otherwise requires:
(86) TRAFFIC INFRACTION DETECTOR. --A device that uses a
vehicle sensor installed to work in conjunction with a traffic
Page 2 of 16
CODING: Words : •-'4;4E, are deletions; words underlined are additions.
hb0351-00
FLORIDA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
HB 351 2008
control signal and a camera synchronized to automatically record
two or more sequenced photographic or electronic images or
streaming video of only the rear of a motor vehicle at the time
the vehicle fails to stop behind the stop bar or clearly marked
stop line when facing a traffic control signal steady red light.
Any citation issued by the use of
must include a photograph showing
offending vehicle and the traffic
a traffic infraction detector
both the license tag of the
control device being violated.
Section 3. Section 316.0083, Florida Statutes, is created
to read:
316.0083 Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Program;
administration; report.--
(1) There is created the Mark
Safety
Program governing the operation of traffic infraction detectors.
The program shall be administered by the Department of Highway
Safety and Motor Vehicles and shall include the following
provisions:
(a) In order to use a traffic infraction detector, a
county or municipality must enact an ordinance that provides for
the use of a traffic infraction detector to enforce s.
316.075(1)(c), which requires the driver of a vehicle to stop
the vehicle when facing a traffic control signal steady red
light on the streets and highways under the jurisdiction of the
county or municipality. A county or municipality that operates a
traffic infraction detector must authorize a traffic infraction
enforcement officer to issue a ticket for a violation of s.
316.075(1)(c) and to enforce the payment of tickets for such
violation. This paragraph does not authorize a traffic
Page 3 of 16
Wandall Traffic
CODING: Words c .,"i(-)iM.=,} are deletions; words underlined are additions.
hb0351-00
FLORIDA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
85
B6
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
HB351 2008
infraction enforcement officer to carry a firearm or other
weapon and does not authorize such an officer to make arrests.
The ordinance must require signs to be posted at locations
designated by the county or municipality providing notification
that a traffic infraction detector may be in use. Such signage
must conform to the standards and requirements adopted by the
Department of Transportation under s. 316.0745. The ordinance
must also require that the county or municipality make a public
announcement and conduct a public awareness campaign of the
proposed use of traffic infraction detectors at least 30 days
before commencing the enforcement program. In addition, the
ordinance must establish a fine of $125 to be assessed against
the registered owner of a motor vehicle that fails to stop when
facing a traffic control signal steady red light as determined
through the use of a traffic infraction detector Any other
provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, an additional
surcharge, fee, or cost may not be added to the civil penalty
authorized by this paragraph.
(b) When responding to an emergency call, an emergency
vehicle is exempt from any ordinance enacted under this section.
(c) A county or municipality must adopt an ordinance under
s. 316.008 that provides for the use of a traffic infraction
detector in order to impose a fine on the registered owner of a
motor vehicle for a violation of s. 316.075(1)(c). The fine
shall be imposed in the same manner and is subject to the same
limitations as provided for parking violations under s.
316.1967. Except as specifically provided in this section,
chapter 318 and s. 322.27 do not apply to a violation of s.
Page 4 of 16
CODING: Words -': { are deletions; words underlined are additions.
hb0351-00
FLORIDA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
HB351 2008
316.075(1)(c) for which a ticket has been issued under an
ordinance enacted pursuant to this section. Enforcement of a
ticket issued under the ordinance is not a conviction of the
operator of the motor vehicle, may not be made a part of the
driving record of the operator, and may not be used for purposes
of setting motor vehicle insurance rates. Points under s. 322.27
may not be assessed based upon such enforcement.
(d) The procedures set forth in s. 316.1967(2)-(5) apply
to an ordinance enacted pursuant to this section, except that
the ticket must contain the name and address of the person
alleged to be liable as the registered owner of the motor
vehicle involved in the violation, the registration number of
the motor vehicle, the violation charged, a copy of the recorded
images, the location where the violation occurred, the date and
time of the violation, information that identifies the device
that recorded the violation, and a signed statement by a
specifically trained technician employed by the agency or its
contractor that, based on inspection of recorded images, the
motor vehicle was being operated in violation of s.
316.075(1)(c). The ticket must advise the registered owner of
the motor vehicle involved in the violation of the amount of the
fine, the date by which the fine must be paid, and the procedure
for contesting the violation alleged in the ticket. The ticket
must contain a warning that failure to contest the violation in
the manner and time provided is deemed an admission of the
liability and that a default may be entered thereon. The
violation shall be processed by the county or municipality that
has jurisdiction over the street or highway where the violation
Page 5 of 16
CODING: Words are deletions; words underlined are additions.
hb0351-00
FLORIDA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
He 351 2008
occurred or by any entity authorized by the county or
municipality to prepare and mail the ticket.
(e) The ticket shall be sent by first-class mail addressed
to the registered owner of the motor vehicle and postmarked no
later than 14 days after the date of the violation.
(f)1. The registered owner of the motor vehicle involved
in a violation is responsible and liable for payment of the fine
assessed pursuant to this section unless the owner can establish
that:
a. The motor vehicle passed through the intersection in
order to yield right-of-way to an emergency vehicle or as part
of a funeral procession;
b. The motor vehicle passed through the intersection at
the direction of a law enforcement officer;
c. The motor vehicle was stolen at the time of the alleged
violation; or
d. A uniform traffic citation was issued to the driver of
the motor vehicle for the alleged violation of s. 316.075(1)(c).
2. In order to establish any such fact, the registered
owner of the vehicle must, within 20 days after receipt of
notification of the alleged violation, furnish to the county or
municipality, as appropriate, an affidavit that sets forth
detailed information supporting an exemption as provided in sub -
subparagraph 1.a., sub -subparagraph 1.b., sub -subparagraph 1.c.,
or sub -subparagraph 1.d. For an exemption under sub -subparagraph
1.c., the affidavit must set forth that the vehicle was stolen
and be accompanied by a copy of the police report indicating
that the vehicle was stolen at the time of the alleged
Page6of16
CODING: Words ,- are deletions; words underlined are additions.
hb0351-00
FLORIDA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
HB 351 2008
violation. For an exemption under sub -subparagraph l.d., the
affidavit must set forth that a citation was issued and be
accompanied by a copy of the citation indicating the time of the
alleged violation and the location of the intersection where it
occurred.
(g) A person may contest the determination that such
person failed to stop at a traffic control signal steady red
light as evidenced by a traffic infraction detector by electing
to appear before any judge authorized by law to preside over a
court hearing that adjudicates traffic infractions. A person who
elects to appear before the court to present evidence is deemed
to have waived the limitation of civil penalties imposed for the
violation. The court, after hearing, shall determine whether the
violation was committed and may impose a civil penalty not to
exceed $125 plus costs. The court may take appropriate measures
to enforce collection of any penalty not paid within the time
permitted by the court.
(h) A certificate sworn to or affirmed by a person
authorized under s. 316.008 who is employed by or under contract
with the county or municipality where the infraction occurred,
or a facsimile thereof that is based upon inspection of
photographs or other recorded images produced by a traffic
infraction detector, is prima facie evidence of the facts
contained in the certificate. A photograph or other recorded
image evidencing a violation of s. 316.075(1)(c) must be
available for inspection in any proceeding to adjudicate
liability under an ordinance enacted pursuant to this section.
(i) In any county or municipality in which tickets are
Page7of16
CODING: Words e.<' are deletions; words underlined are additions.
hb0351-00
FLORIDA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
H B 351 2008
issued as provided in this section, the names of persons who
have one or more outstanding violations may be included on the
list authorized under s. 316.1967(6).
(j) If the driver of the motor vehicle received a citation
from a traffic enforcement officer at the time of the violation,
a ticket may not be issued pursuant to this section.
(k) The uniform traffic citation prepared by the
department under s. 316.650 may not be issued for any violation
for which a ticket is issued as provided in this section.
(2) The fine imposed pursuant to paragraph (1)(a) or
paragraph (1)(g) shall be retained by the county or municipality
enforcing the ordinance enacted pursuant to this section.
(3) A complaint that a county or municipality is emplonca
traffic infraction detectors for purposes other than the
promotion of public health, welfare, and safety or in a manner
inconsistent with this section may be submitted to the governing
body of such county or municipality. Such complaints, along with
any investigation and corrective action taken by the county or
municipal governing body, shall be included in the annual report
to the department and in the department's annual summary report
to the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of
the House Representatives, as required by this section. Based on
its review of the report, the Legislature may exclude a county
or municipality from further participation in the program.
(4)(a) Each county or municipality that operates a traffic
infraction detector shall submit an annual report to the
department that details the results of using the traffic
infraction detector and the procedures for enforcement.
Page 8 of 16
CODING: Words,-.,.;•ti.- are deletions; words underlined are additions.
hb0351-00
FLORIDA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
HB 351 2008
(b) The department shall provide an annual summary report
to the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of
the House of Representatives regarding the use and operation of
traffic infraction detectors under this section. The summary
report must include a review of the information submitted to the
department by the counties and municipalities and must describe
the enhancement of the traffic safety and enforcement programs.
The department shall report its recommendations, including any
necessary legislation, on or before December 1, 2009, to the
Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the
House of Representatives.
Section 4. Subsection (6) of section 316.0745, Florida
Statutes, is amended to read:
316.0745 Uniform signals and devices.--
(6)(a) Any system of traffic control devices controlled
and operated from a remote location by electronic computers or
similar devices must shall meet all requirements established for
the uniform system, and, if whcrc such a system affects oyotcros
ae the movement of traffic on state roads, the design of the
system must shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of
Transportation.
(b) Any traffic infraction detector deployed on the
streets and highways of the state must meet requirements
established by the Department of Transportation and must be
tested at regular intervals according to procedures prescribed
by that department.
Section 5. Subsection (6) of section 316.1967, Florida
Statutes, is amended to read:
Page 9 of 16
CODING: Words -' are deletions; words underlined are additions.
hb0351-00
FLORIDA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
KB351
2008
253 316.1967 Liability for payment of parking ticket
254 violations and other parking violations.--
255 (6) Any county or municipality may provide by ordinance
256 that the clerk of the court or the traffic violations bureau
257 shall supply the department with a magnetically encoded computer
258 tape reel or cartridge or send by other electronic means data
259 which is machine readable by the installed computer system at
260 the department, listing persons who have three or more
261 outstanding parking violations, including violations of s.
262 316.1955, or who have one or more outstanding tickets for a
263 violation of a traffic control signal steady red light
264 indication issued pursuant an ordinance adopted under s.
265 316.0083. Each county shall provide by ordinance that the clerk
266 of the court or the traffic violations bureau shall supply the
267 department with a magnetically encoded computer tape reel or
268 cartridge or send by other electronic means data that is machine
269 readable by the installed computer system at the department,
270 listing persons who have any outstanding violations of s.
271 316.1955 or any similar local ordinance that regulates parking
272 in spaces designated for use by persons who have disabilities.
273 The department shall mark the appropriate registration records
274 of persons who are so reported. Section 320.03(8) applies to
275 each person whose name appears on the list.
276 Section 6. Subsection (8) of section 320.03, Florida
277 Statutes, reads:
276 320.03 Registration; duties of tax collectors;
279 International Registration Plan. --
Page 10 of 16
CODING: Words are deletions; words underlined are additions.
hb0351-00
FLORIDA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
HB 351 2008
(8) If the applicant's name appears on the list referred
to in s. 316.1001(4), s. 316.1967(6), or s. 713.78(13), a
license plate or revalidation sticker may not be issued until
that person's name no longer appears on the list or until the
person presents a receipt from the clerk showing that the fines
outstanding have been paid. This subsection does not apply to
the owner of a leased vehicle if the vehicle is registered in
the name of the lessee of the vehicle. The tax collector and the
clerk of the court are each entitled to receive monthly, as
costs for implementing and administering this subsection, 10
percent of the civil penalties and fines recovered from such
persons. As used in this subsection, the term "civil penalties
and fines" does not include a wrecker operator's lien as
described in s. 713.78(13). If the tax collector has private tag
agents, such tag agents are entitled to receive a pro rata share
of the amount paid to the tax collector, based upon the
percentage of license plates and revalidation stickers issued by
the tag agent compared to the total issued within the county.
The authority of any private agent to issue license plates shall
be revoked, after notice and a hearing as provided in chapter
120, if he or she issues any license plate or revalidation
sticker contrary to the provisions of this subsection. This
section applies only to the annual renewal in the owner's birth
month of a motor vehicle registration and does not apply to the
transfer of a registration of a motor vehicle sold by a motor
vehicle dealer licensed under this chapter, except for the
transfer of registrations which is inclusive of the annual
Page 11 of 16
CODING: Words are deletions; words underlined are additions.
hb0351-00
FLORIDA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
HB 351 2008
renewals. This section does not affect the issuance of the title
to a motor vehicle, notwithstanding s. 319.23(7)(b).
Section 7. Section 322.264, Florida Statutes, is amended
to read:
322.264 "Habitual traffic offender" defined. --A "habitual
traffic offender" is any person whose record, as maintained by
the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, shows that
such person has accumulated the specified number of convictions
for offenses described in subsection (1) or subsection (2)
within a 5-year period or the specified number of convictions
for offenses described in subsection (3) within a 3-year period:
(1) Three or more convictions of any one or more of the
following offenses arising out of separate acts:
(a) Voluntary or involuntary manslaughter resulting from
the operation of a motor vehicle;
(b) Any violation of s. 316.193, former s. 316.1931, or
former s. 860.01;
(c) Any felony in the commission of which a motor vehicle
is used;
(d) Driving a motor vehicle while his or her license is
suspended or revoked;
(e) Failing to stop and render aid as required under the
laws of this state in the event of a motor vehicle crash
resulting in the death or personal injury of another; or
(f) Driving a commercial motor vehicle while his or her
privilege is disqualified.
Page 12 of 16
CODING: Words . .r are deletions; words underlined are additions.
hb0351-00
FLORIDA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
HB 351 2008
(2) Fifteen convictions for moving traffic offenses for
which points may be assessed as set forth in s. 322.27,
including those offenses in subsection (1).
(3) Three convictions under s. 316.075 for a violation of
a traffic control signal steady red light indication.
Any violation of any federal law, any law of another state or
country,or any valid ordinance of a municipality or county of
another state similar to a statutory prohibition specified in
subsection (1), e. subsection (2), or subsection (3) shall be
counted as a violation of such prohibition. In computing the
number of convictions, all convictions during the 5 years
previous to July 1, 1972, will be used, provided at least one
conviction occurs after that date. In computing the number of
convictions for offenses listed in subsection (3), all
convictions during the 3 years preceding July 1, 2008, will be
used, provided at least one conviction occurs after that date.
The fact that previous convictions may have resulted in
suspension, revocation, or disqualification under another
section does not
revocation under
Section
made by this
8.
act
exempt them from being used for suspension or
this section as a habitual offender.
For the purpose of incorporating the amendment
to section 322.264, Florida Statutes, in a
reference thereto, subsection (5) of section 322.27, Florida
Statutes, is reenacted to read:
322.27 Authority of department to suspend or revoke
license.--
Page13of16
CODING: Words are deletions; words underlined are additions.
hb0351-00
FLORIDA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
HB 351 2008
(5) The department shall revoke the license of any person
designated a habitual offender, as set forth in s. 322.264, and
such person shall not be eligible to be relicensed for a minimum
of 5 years from the date of revocation, except as provided for
in s. 322.271. Any person whose license is revoked may, by
petition to the department, show cause why his or her license
should not be revoked.
Section 9. For the purpose of incorporating the amendment
made by this act to section 322.264, Florida Statutes, in
references thereto, subsections (1), (2), and (5) and paragraph
(a) of subsection (8) of section 322.34, Florida Statutes, are
reenacted to read:
322.34 Driving while license suspended, revoked, canceled,
or disqualified.--
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), any person whose
driver's license or driving privilege has been canceled,
suspended, or revoked, except a "habitual traffic offender" as
defined in s. 322.264, who drives a vehicle upon the highways of
this state while such license or privilege is canceled,
suspended, or revoked is guilty of a moving violation,
punishable as provided in chapter 318.
(2) Any person whose driver's license or driving privilege
has been canceled, suspended, or revoked as provided by law,
except persons defined in s. 322.264, who, knowing of such
cancellation, suspension, or revocation, drives any motor
vehicle upon the highways of this state while such license or
privilege is canceled, suspended, or revoked, upon:
Page 14 of 16
CODING: Words =,..,;; are deletions; words underlined are additions.
hb0351-00
FLORIDA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
HB 351 2008
(a) A first conviction is guilty of a misdemeanor of the
second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s.
775.083.
(b) A second conviction is guilty of a misdemeanor of the
first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s.
775.083.
(c) A third or subsequent conviction is guilty of a felony
of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s.
775.083, or s. 775.084.
The element of knowledge is satisfied if the person has been
previously cited as provided in subsection (1); or the person
admits to knowledge of the cancellation, suspension, or
revocation; or the person received notice as provided in
subsection (4). There shall be a rebuttable presumption that the
knowledge requirement is satisfied if a judgment or order as
provided in subsection (4) appears in the department's records
for any case except for one involving a suspension by the
department for failure to pay a traffic fine or for a financial
responsibility violation.
(5) Any person whose driver's license has been revoked
pursuant to s. 322.264 (habitual offender) and who drives any
motor vehicle upon the highways of this state while such license
is revoked is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable
as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(8)(a) Upon the arrest of a person for the offense of
driving while the person's driver's license or driving privilege
is suspended or revoked, the arresting officer shall determine:
Page 15 of 16
CODING: Words <r;E, are deletions; words underlined are additions.
hb0351-00
FLORIDA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
HB351 2008
1. Whether the person's driver's license is suspended or
revoked.
2. Whether the person's driver's license has remained
suspended or revoked since a conviction for the offense of
driving with a suspended or revoked license.
3. Whether the suspension or revocation was made under s.
316.646 or s. 627.733, relating to failure to maintain required
security, or under s_ 322.264, relating to habitual traffic
offenders.
4. Whether the driver is the registered owner or coowner
of the vehicle.
Section 10. If any provision of this act or its
application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the
invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of
this act which can be given effect without the invalid provision
or application, and to this end the provisions of this act are
declared severable.
Section 11. This act shall take effect upon becoming a
law.
Page 16 of 16
CODING: Words +-,<<1 » are deletions; words underlined are additions.
hb0351-00
Advisory Legal Opinion - Traffic citations, use of unmanned cam
Attachment 3
Florida Attorney General
Advisory Legal Opinion
Number: AGO 97-06
Date: January 24, 1997
Subject: Traffic citations, use of unmanned cameras
The Honorable Ken L. Foster, Chairman
Palm Beach Board of County Commissioners
Post Office Box 1989
West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-1989
RE: TRAFFIC CONTROL --LAW ENFORCEMENT --MOTOR VEHICLES--COUNTIES--
county not authorized to issue citations for running red lights based
upon photographs or film from unmanned camera. s. 316.075, Fla. Stat.
Dear Chairman Foster:
On behalf of the Palm Beach County Commission, you ask the following
questions:
1. May a county enact an ordinance authorizing the use of unmanned
cameras at traffic intersections for the purpose of issuing citations
for violations of section 316.075, Florida Statutes?
2. If so, may the county serve the traffic citation by mail?
In sum:
1. The use of unmanned cameras to record violations of section
316.075, Florida Statutes, is not precluded by state law, and
represents an innovative approach to detect and deter the dangerous
conditions created by drivers who disobey traffic signals. The
statutes governing the enforcement and citation for violations of
section 316.075, Florida Statutes, however, have not been amended to
allow the photographic record from unmanned cameras monitoring
intersections to be used as the sole basis for issuing citations.
2. While the response to question one makes a response to this
question unnecessary, it would appear that the service of traffic
citations by mail must be authorized by statute.
Question One
Chapter 316, Florida Statutes, constitutes the Florida Uniform
Traffic Control Law and was enacted to make uniform traffic laws
hUn://mvfloridalegal.com/aeo.nsf/nrintview/E i324D882C2192CFR52 S6429[1l7C.1 1 25
1 'T/7 1 /,flM
Advisory Legal Opinion - Traffic citations, use of unmanned cameras Page 2 of 5
applicable throughout the state and its counties.[1] Section 316.075,
Florida Statutes, prescribes uniform meanings to be applied to the
red, yellow and green lights that may be used for controlling
vehicles and pedestrians. Pertinent to your inquiry, a steady red
light indicates that vehicular traffic facing the signal "shall stop
before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection
or, if none, then before entering the intersection and shall remain
standing until a green indication is shown. . . ."[2]
Counties have been given original jurisdiction to control traffic
over all streets and highways located within their boundaries, except
all state roads and roads under the jurisdiction of municipalities
[3] Section 316.002, Florida Statutes, however, precludes counties
from passing ordinances in conflict with the provisions of Chapter
316.
The traffic control law enumerates several areas that local
authorities are authorized to address, including, "[r]egulating,
restricting, or monitoring traffic by security devices or personnel
on public streets and highways, whether by public or private
parties . . . ."[4] (e.s.) Use of an unmanned camera to detect
vehicles that do not remain stopped and standing at a steady red
light as required by section 316.075(3)(a), Florida Statutes, would
appear to fall within this specifically granted authority.
It remains questionable, however, whether an unmanned "electronic
traffic infraction detector" may independently be used as the basis
for issuing citations for violations of these traffic laws.
Section 316.640(2), Florida Statutes, vests the sheriff's office of
each county with the authority to enforce all of the traffic laws of
this state on all streets and highways throughout the county where
the public has a right to travel. The sheriff's office may employ
traffic infraction enforcement officers with specified training
requirements who may issue citations when the officer "observes the
commission of a traffic infraction or, in the case of a parking
infraction, . . . observes an illegally parked vehicle . . . .11[5]
(e.s.)
Section 316.645, Florida Statutes, states:
"A police officer who makes an investigation at the scene of a
traffic accident may arrest any driver of a vehicle involved in the
accident when, based upon personal investigation, the officer has
reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the person has
committed any offense under the provisions of this chapter or chapter
322 in connection with the accident." (e.s.)
Thus, in order for citations for violations of traffic control laws
to be issued, the statutes appear to require that an officer
1, „•//r.•tr,flnr?ri IPnal rnm/a an ncf/nrintvip.w/F1 4TlRR7C7197.CFR57.56429007C1 175 11/71 /7nn7
Advisory Legal Opinion - Traffic citations, use of unmanned cameras Page 3 of 5
enforcing the traffic law observe or have personal knowledge of the
particular infraction that serves as the basis for issuing the
citation.
A similar situation arises when law enforcement officers use
electronic speed measuring devices to detect motor vehicles exceeding
the speed limit. Section 316.1906(2), Florida Statutes, makes
evidence of the speed of a vehicle measured by any speed -measuring
device inadmissible in any proceeding related to an alleged violation
of speed limit laws unless the officer, among other specific
requirements, "[h]as made an independent visual determination that
the vehicle is operating in excess of the applicable speed limit."
During the 1996 legislative session, Senate Bill 94 was introduced to
provide for up to ten traffic control signal photo -monitoring device
demonstration projects to be approved by the Department of Highway
Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) in conjunction with the Department
of Transportation (DOT).[6] A traffic control signal photo -monitoring
device involves the use of cameras to capture the image of motor
vehicles at the time they fail to stop at a steady red traffic light.
[7] Under the proposed law, DHSMV and DOT were to establish
requirements for the photo -monitoring devices and such devices would
be required to be tested routinely according to procedures
established by DHSMV and DOT.[S]
Senate Bill 94, which did not pass, provided specific notice
requirements to inform the public of the project, limited the
consequences for initial violations (providing for only warning
notices during the initiation of the project), and prescribed a civil
penalty with a $52 fine and no other consequences when a citation for
violation was ultimately issued.[9] Moreover, the bill stated that a
uniform traffic citation could not be used as the citation for a
violation of the newly enacted law and that the normal procedures for
enforcing traffic citations would not apply to enforcement actions
undertaken pursuant to the law.[10]
The careful drafting of these safeguards in Senate Bill 94 supports
the conclusion that legislative authorization would be required for
using photo -monitoring devices as a means to enforce traffic law
violations.[11] Regrettably, these advancements in technology have
not been adequately addressed by the Legislature so that law
enforcement may more efficiently and thoroughly target those who
create dangerous conditions by violating the traffic laws of this
state.
Accordingly, it is my opinion that while nothing precludes the use of
unmanned cameras to record violations of section 316.075, Florida
Statutes, a photographic record of a vehicle violating traffic
control laws may not be used as the basis for issuing a citation for
such violations. Rather, independent observation or knowledge of the
hfiln //mvflnrirlalPaal r.nm/a an ncf/nr;nt�r;p.x,/x 12'.---')r~')1n-r 'I 0 ' .f_'A"inn...r
Advisory Legal Opinion - Traffic citations, use of unmanned cameras Page 4 of 5
infraction by the officer issuing the citation is required.
Question Two
In light of the conclusion in question one, it is not necessary to
respond to this question as it relates to the mailing of a citation
for violation of section 316.075, Florida Statutes. A general
discussion of how citations may be served, however, may provide some
assistance under other circumstances.
Violations of Chapter 316, Florida Statutes, with the exception of
criminal offenses enumerated therein, are noncriminal infractions for
which individuals are cited.[12] Section 318.14(2), Florida Statutes,
states:
"Except as provided in s. 316.1001(2), any person cited for an
infraction under this section must sign and accept a citation
indicating a promise to appear. The officer may indicate on the
traffic citation the time and location of the scheduled hearing and
must indicate the applicable civil penalty established in s.
318.18."[13]
As an exception to this general requirement that a person sign and
accept a citation, section 316.1001(2), Florida Statutes, allows a
citation for failure to pay a prescribed toll to be issued by
certified mail, return receipt requested, to the address of the
registered owner of the motor vehicle involved in the violation.[14]
A review of Chapter 316, Florida Statutes, has not revealed any
analogous provision for the mailing of citations for violation of
section 316.075, Florida Statutes.
Accordingly, it is my opinion that service of traffic citations for
violations of Chapter 316, Florida Statutes, may be made by mail only
when authorized by statute.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Butterworth
Attorney General
RAB/tis
[1] See, s. 316.002, Fla. Stat. (1995).
[2] Section 316.075(3), Fla. Stat. (1995), contains specific
exceptions for turning right on red after stopping and left on red
/f r.%r r..•i1nnr►oo'r1in-tneornecync ,.,u...,...,,..
Advisory Legal Opinion - Traffic citations, use of unmanned cameras Page 5 of 5
from a one-way street intersecting a one-way street with traffic
moving to the left.
[3] Section 316.006 (3) (a) , Fla. Stat. (1995) .
[4] Section 316.008 (1) (w) , Fla. Stat. (1995) .
[5] Section 316.640(5)(a), Fla. Stat.
[6] See, s. 1, CS for SB 94, 1996 Legislative Session.
[7] See, s. 1(1), CS for SB 94, 1996 Legislative Session.
[8] See, s. 1(3), CS for SB 94, 1996 Legislative Session.
[9] See, s. 1(4), CS for SB 94, 1996 Legislative Session.
[10] See, s. 1(5), CS for SB 94, 1996 Legislative Session.
[11] Cf. , s. 316.1001 (2) (b) , Fla. Stat. (1995) , authorizing the
issuance of a citation by certified mail, return receipt requested,
to the address of the registered owner of a vehicle that is involved
in a violation of the noncriminal infraction of failing to pay a
prescribed toll.
This office has been advised that the City of Fort Meade, Florida, is
participating in a federally funded red light camera detection
demonstration program in which motorists who are recorded running a
red light in violation of s. 316.075, Fla. Stat., are mailed a
warning, but no citations are issued. Chief George Ferris of the Fort
Meade Police Department has indicated that, at times during the
demonstration project, officers -were placed at the intersections
where cameras were operating, and citations were issued to motorists
who ran the light.
[12] See, s. 318.14(1), Fla. Stat. (1995).
[13] Section 318.14(3), Fla. Stat. (1995), makes it a misdemeanor of
the second degree for a person to willfully refuse to accept and sign
a summons.
[14] Section 316.1001 (2) (b) , Fla. Stat. (1995) , requires that the
citation be mailed within 14 days after the date of the violation and
the registered owner of the vehicle must be advised of the option to
pay a $30 fine to the clerk of the court, in which case adjudication
will be withheld and no points may be assessed against the owner's
driving record.
-PC 1'In ATOO'lr,"1(VI !`gr. "
Advisory Legal Opinion - Traffic, use of unmanned cameras
Attachment 4
Florida Attorney General
Advisory Legal Opinion
Number: AGO 2005-41
Date: July 12, 2005
Subject: Traffic, use of unmanned cameras
Mr. Samuel S. Goren
City of Pembroke Pines Attorney
3099 East Commercial Boulevard
Suite 200
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308
RE: MUNICIPALITIES - UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL LAW - ORDINANCES --
CAMERAS - use of unmanned cameras to monitor traffic violations. Ch.
166, Fla. Stat., and s. 316.075, Fla. Stat.
Dear Mr. Goren:
On behalf of the Pembroke Pines City Commission you have asked for my
opinion on essentially the following questions:
1. May the City of Pembroke Pines enact an ordinance authorizing the
city to monitor violations of traffic signals within the city?
2. If the answer to Question One is "yes," may the city use unmanned
cameras to monitor intersections and document traffic violations?
3. If the answers to Questions One and Two are both "yes," may the
city use the photographic evidence from the unmanned cameras to
advise a car owner of a violation?
4. If the answers to Questions One and Two are "yes," may the city
use its code enforcement special magistrate, and enforcement
procedures provided in Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, to enforce
violations of traffic signals?
5. If the answers to Questions One and Two are "yes," is the city
authorized to install the unmanned cameras at intersections for state
and/or county roads as long as all authorities with jurisdiction over
such roads consent and use the photographic evidence in the same
manner as the city for violations documented at intersections
involving only city streets?
According to your letter, the City of Pembroke Pines seeks to enhance
public safety within the city by attempting to reduce dangerous
http://myfloridalegal. corn/ago.nsf/printview/CEO 1 BE293FCEEA208525703 C00720344 12/21/2007
Advisory Legal Opinion - Traffic, use of unmanned cameras Page 2 of 5
driving behavior relating to the failure to obey red light
indications on traffic signal devices, a laudable goal. The city
commission desires to enact an ordinance authorizing the city to
monitor traffic signals within the city. The city would install
unmanned cameras at intersections within the city to record vehicles
that fail to stop for red lights. The photographic evidence from the
unmanned cameras would be used to advise the vehicle's owner of the
violation.
Questions One and Two
Chapter 316, Florida Statutes, is the "Florida Uniform Traffic
Control Law." Section 316.002, Florida Statutes, expresses the
legislative intent for adopting this law, stating:
"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. The Legislature recognizes that there are conditions
which require municipalities to pass certain other traffic ordinances
in regulation of municipal traffic that are not required to regulate
the movement of traffic outside of such municipalities. Section
316.008 enumerates the area within which municipalities may control
certain traffic movement or parking in their respective
jurisdictions. This section shall be supplemental to the other laws
or ordinances of this chapter and not in conflict therewith. It is
unlawful for any local authority to pass or to attempt to enforce any
ordinance in conflict with the provisions of this chapter." (e.s.)
The Legislature clearly recognized the authority of municipalities to
adopt certain local legislation to control traffic and parking within
municipalities.
In section 316.008, Florida Statutes, the traffic control law
enumerates several areas that local authorities are authorized to
address, including, "[r]egulating, restricting, or monitoring traffic
by security devices or personnel on public streets and highways,
whether by public or private parties . . . ."[1] As this office
concluded in Attorney General's Opinion 97-06, the use of an unmanned
camera to record vehicles that do not remain stopped and standing at
a steady red light as required by section 316.075(3)(a), Florida
Statutes, would appear to fall within the scope of this authority.
Thus, it is my opinion that the City of Pembroke Pines is authorized
by the terms of section 316.002 and 316.008, Florida Statutes, to
enact an ordinance authorizing the city to monitor violations of
traffic signals within the city and to use unmanned cameras to
monitor intersections and record traffic violations.
Question Three
http ://myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printview/CEO 1 BE293FCEEA208525703 C00720344 12/21/2007
Advisory Legal Opinion - Traffic, use of unmanned cameras Page 3 of 5
As discussed above, it is my opinion that the City of Pembroke Pines
is authorized to monitor violations of traffic signals within the
city and to use unmanned cameras to record the license tag numbers of
cars involved in such violations.
It is a rule of statutory construction that an express power duly
conferred may include the implied authority to use the means
necessary to make the express power effective, although such implied
authority may not warrant the exercise of a substantive power not
conferred.[2] The City of Pembroke Pines is granted the authority to
regulate and monitor traffic on municipal streets. The express power
to regulate and monitor would appear to encompass the authority to
advise those in violation of local ordinances that their actions had
been recorded by traffic cameras installed to detect such violations.
I see no impediment to the city taking such steps in a public safety
effort to reduce dangerous driving behavior relating to the failure
to obey red light indications on traffic signal devices.
Therefore, it is my opinion that the City of Pembroke Pines may use
the photographic evidence from unmanned cameras to advise a car owner
that his or her license tag number has been recorded in a violation
of the traffic laws.
Question Four and Five
In a 1997 Attorney General Opinion requested by Palm Beach County,
this office considered whether a county could enact an ordinance
authorizing the use of unmanned cameras at traffic intersections for
the purpose of issuing citations for violations of section 316.075,
Florida Statutes. Attorney General Opinion 97-06 concluded that the
use of unmanned cameras to detect vehicles that do not remain stopped
and standing at a steady red light as required by section 316.075(3)
(a), Florida Statutes, would appear to come within the scope of
statutory provisions authorizing local governments to monitor traffic
by security devices on public streets and highways.
The problem identified in the opinion was whether unmanned
"electronic traffic infraction detectors" may independently be used
as the basis for issuing citations for violations of these traffic
laws. The provisions of the Uniform Traffic Code require that
citations be issued when an officer "observes the commission of a
traffic infraction[.]"[3] (e.s.) Thus, in order for citations for
violations of traffic control laws to be issued, the statutes appear
to require that an officer enforcing the traffic law personally
observe or have personal knowledge of the particular infraction that
serves as the basis for issuing the citation. The opinion concluded
that nothing precludes the use of unmanned cameras to record
violations of section 316.075, Florida Statutes, but a photographic
record of a vehicle violating traffic control laws may not be used as
http://myfloridalegal. com/ago.nsf/printview/CE01 BE293FCEEA208525703 C00720344 12/21/2007
Advisory Legal Opinion - Traffic, use of unmanned cameras Page 4 of 5
the basis for issuing a citation for such violations. This office has
suggested that legislative amendments would be necessary to allow the
photographic record from unmanned cameras monitoring intersections to
be used as the sole basis for issuing citations.
Chapter 316, Florida Statutes, contains provisions regulating traffic
control signal devices and mandating a vehicular stop at a red light.
Section 316.075, Florida Statutes, designates the colors to be used
for traffic control signal lights used to control traffic, including
municipal traffic, and requires that "the lights shall indicate and
apply to drivers of vehicles and pedestrians" as described therein.
[4] Pursuant to section 316.075(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes:
"Vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal shall stop before
entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if
none, then before entering the intersection and shall remain standing
until a green indication is shown . . . ."
The statute recognizes that municipal and county authorities may take
certain actions to regulate traffic turning on a steady red signal.
[5] The statute makes a violation of section 316.075, Florida
Statutes, a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable pursuant to
Chapter 318 as a moving violation.[6] Thus, Chapter 316, Florida
Statutes, contains enforcement and penalty provisions for violations
of traffic control signal lights.
In light of the proscription contained in section 316.007, Florida
Statutes, that "no local authority shall enact or enforce any
ordinance on a matter covered by this chapter unless expressly
authorized," this office continues to be of the opinion expressed in
Attorney General Opinion 97-06 that legislative changes are necessary
before local governments may issue traffic citations and penalize
drivers who fail to obey red light indications on traffic signal
devices.
Sincerely,
Charlie Crist
Attorney General
CC/tgh
[1] Section 316.008 (1) (w) , Fla. Stat.
[2] See, e.g., Molwin Investment Company v. Turner, 167 So. 33 (Fla.
1936); Gessner v. Del -Air Corp., 17 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 1944); cf.
Thayer v. State, 335 So. 2d 815, 817 (Fla. 1976); Dobbs v. Sea Isle
http://myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printview/CEO 1 BE293FCEEA208525 703 C00720344 12/21/2007
Advisory Legal Opinion - Traffic, use of unmanned cameras Page 5 of 5
Hotel, 56 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 1952); Ideal Farms Drainage District v.
Certain Lands, 19 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 1944).
[3] Section 316.640(5)(a), Fla. Stat.
[4] See s. 316.075(1)(a), indicating the actions to be taken when a
green indication is given; s. 316.075(1)(b), Fla. Stat., providing
direction when a steady yellow indication is presented; and s.
316.075(1)(c), Fla. Stat., relating to a steady red indication.
[5] See 316.075(1)(c)1.a. and b., Fla. Stat., allowing counties and
municipalities to prohibit right turns against a steady red signal at
any intersection and to prohibit a left turn onto a one-way street
intersecting another one-way street at a steady red signal.
[6] See 316.075(4), Fla. Stat.
http ://myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printview/CE01 BE293FCEEA208 5 2 5 703 C007203 44 12/21/2007
City of Miami
Legislation
Ordinance
Attachment 5
3500 Pan American
Drive
Miami, FL 33133
www.miamigov.com
File Number: 07-01279
Final Action Date:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S),
AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA,
ENTITLED, "MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC," BY CREATING ARTICLE X,
ENTITLED, "DANGEROUS INTERSECTION SAFETY," PROVIDING FOR
RECORDED IMAGE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT OF RED LIGHT
INFRACTIONS, AND FOR RELATED PROCEDURES AND PROVISIONS;
FURTHER AMENDING CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE X, SECTION 2-829, ENTITLED
"ADMINISTRATION/CODE ENFORCEMENT/SCHEDULE OF CIVIL PENALTIES,"
TO FACILITATE USE OF CODE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM FOR
DANGEROUS INTERSECTION SAFETY; CONTAINING A REPEALER
PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the running of red lights causes a safety hazard affecting every citizen and traveler in
the City of Miami ("City"); and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to reduce the running of red lights by creating an additional
enforcement mechanism; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission, after careful consideration of this matter, deems it advisable and
in the best interest of the general welfare of the City and its inhabitants to approve this enforcement as
hereinafter set forth;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA;
Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the Preamble to this Ordinance are adopted by
reference and incorporated as if fully set forth in this Section.
Section 2. Chapter 35 of the Code of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended, entitled, "Motor
Vehicles and Traffic," is amended in the following particulars:{1?
"CHAPTER 35
Motor Vehicles and Traffic
ARTICLE X. DANGEROUS INTERSECTION SAFETY
*
Sec. 35-348. Intent.
City of Miami Page 1 of 7 Printed On: 12121/2007
File Number: 07-01279
The purpose of this article is to authorize the use of unmanned cameras/monitoring system to
promote compliance with red light signal directives as proscribed by this article, and to adopt a civil
enforcement system for red light signal violations. This article will also supplement law enforcement
personnel in the enforcement of red light signal violations and shall not prohibit law enforcement
officers from issuing a citation for a red light signal violation in accordance with other routine statutory
traffic enforcement techniques.
Sec. 35-349. Use of Image Capture Technologies.
The City shall utilize image capture technologies as a supplemental means of monitoring
compliance with laws related to traffic control signals, while assisting law enforcement personnel in the
enforcement of such laws, which are designed to protect and improve public health, safety and welfare.
This section shall not supersede, infringe, curtail or impinge upon state or county laws related to red
light signal violations or conflict with such laws. Nothing herein shall conflict with the primary
jurisdiction of Miami -Dade County to install and maintain traffic signal devices. This article shall serve
to enable the City to provide enhanced enforcement and respect for authorized traffic signal devices.
The City may utilize image capture technologies as an ancillary deterrent to traffic control signal
violations and to thereby reduce accidents and injuries associated with such violations. Notices of
infractions issued pursuant to the article shall be addressed using the City of Miami's own Special
Masters pursuant to Article X of Chapter 2 of the City Code and not through uniform traffic citations or
county courts. This shall not bar the use of uniform traffic citations and the county courts when city
police personnel decide not to rely on this article as the enforcement mechanism for a specific
violation.
Section 35-350. Definitions.
The following definitions shall apply to this article:
INTERSECTION. The area embraced within the prolongation or connection of the lateral curb line;
or, if none, then the lateral boundary lines, of the roadways of two roads which join or intersect one
another at, or approximately at, right angles; or the area within which vehicles traveling upon different
roads joining at any other angle may come in conflict.
MOTOR VEHICLE. Any self-propelled vehicle not operated upon rails or guide way but not
including any bicycle or electric personal assisted mobility device.
OWNER/VEHICLE OWNER. The person or entity identified by the Florida Department of Motor
Vehicles, or other state vehicle registration office, as the registered owner of a vehicle. Such term
shall also mean a lessee of a motor vehicle pursuant to a lease of six months or more.
RECORDED IMAGES. Images recorded by a traffic control signal monitoring system/device:
On:
Two or more photographs;
Two or more electronic images;
Two or more digital images;
Digital or video movies; or
Any other medium that can display a violation; and
City of Miami Page 2 of 7 Printed On: 12/21(2007
File Number: 07-01279
Showing the rear of a motor vehicle and on at least one image, clearly identifying the license plate
number of the vehicle.
RED ZONE INFRACTION. A traffic offense whereby a traffic control signal monitoring system
established that a vehicle entered an intersection controlled by a duly erected traffic control device at a
time when the traffic control signal for such vehicle's direction of travel was emitting a steady red
signal.
SPECIAL MASTER. The City's Code Enforcement Special Master, as described in Chapter 2, Article
X of the City Code.
TRAFFIC CONTROL INFRACTION REVIEW OFFICER. The City police department employee
designated, pursuant to Sec. 35-354 (2) herein, to review recorded images and issue red zone
infractions based upon those images.
TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL. A device exhibiting different colored lights or colored lighted arrows
successively one at a time or in combination, using_ only the colors green yellow and red which
indicate and apply to drivers of motor vehicles as provided in Fla. Statute $316.075.
TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL MONITORING SYSTEM/DEVICE. An electronic system consisting of
one or more vehicle sensors, working in conjunction with a traffic control signal, still camera and video
recording device, to capture and produce recorded images of motor vehicles entering an intersection
against a steady red light signal indication.
Sec. 35-351. Adherence to Red Light Traffic Control Signals.
Motor vehicle traffic facing a traffic control signal's steady red Tight indication shall stop before
entering the crosswalk on the near side of an intersection or, if none, then before entering the
intersection and shall remain standing until a green indication is shown on the traffic control signal;
however. the driver of a vehicle which is stopped at a clearly marked stop line, but if none before
entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then at thepoint nearest the
intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway
before entering the intersection in obedience of a steady red traffic control signal may make a right
turn (unless such turn is otherwise prohibited by posted sign or other traffic control device) but shall
yield right-of-way to pedestrians and other traffic proceeding as directed by the traffic control signal at
the intersection.
Sec. 35-352. Violation.
A violation of this article, known as a red zone infraction, shall occur when a motor vehicle does not
comply with the requirements of Sec. 35-351. Violations shall be enforced pursuant to Sec. 35-354.
Sec. 35-353. Ninety Day Notice; Introductory Period.
The Police Chief shall notify the City Manager when the red light camera system is operating
correctly at the initial location established. For the ninety days following said notification, unless the
driver of a vehicle received a citation from a police officer at the time of a red zone infraction in
accordance with routine traffic enforcement techniques, the vehicle owner shall receive a warning in
the form of a courtesy notice of the violation. Commencing ninety-one days after the above -referenced
City of Miami Page 3 of 7 Printed On: 12/21/2007
File Number: 07-01279
notification, the vehicle owner is subject to the enforcement provisions as provided herein and no
warning shall be given pursuant to this Article.
Sec. 35-354. Review of Recorded Images.
1. The owner of the vehicle which is observed by recorded images committing a red zone
infraction, shall be issued a Civil Infraction Notice (hereinafter also known as a "Notice"). The recorded
image shall be sufficient grounds to issue a Notice.
2. The City's Chief of Police shall designate a Traffic Control Infraction Review Officer, who shall be a
police officer of the City or who shall meet the qualifications set forth in Fla. Statute §316.640(5)(A), or
any other relevant statute. The Traffic Control Infraction Review Officer shall review recorded images
prior to the issuance of a Notice to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the recorded images. Once the
Traffic Control Infraction Review Officer has verified the accuracy of the recorded images, he or she
shall complete a report, and a Notice shall be sent to the vehicle owner at the address on record with
the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles or the address on record with the
appropriate agency having such information in another state.
Sec. 35-355. Civil Infraction Notice.
The Notice shall be in the form as provided for in Sec. 2-823 of the City Code but shall also include:
The name and address of the vehicle owner;
The license plate number and registration number of the vehicle;
The make, model, and year of the vehicle;
Notice that the infraction charged is pursuant to the Article;
The location of the intersection where the infraction occurred;
Notice that there are recorded images relating to the vehicle and a statement that the recorded images
are evidence of a red zone infraction;
Images depicting the infraction;
A signed statement by the Traffic Control Infraction Review Officer that, based on inspection of
recorded images, the vehicle was involved in and was utilized to commit a red zone infraction.
Sec. 35-356. Vehicle Owner Responsibilities.
A vehicle owner receiving a notice may:
a. Pay the assessed civil penalty pursuant to instructions on the Notice; or
b. Appear before the Special Master to contest the Notice.
The failure to pay the assessed civil penalty and failure to appear before the Special Master to contest
the Notice will be considered an admission of liability and in such case an order may be entered
against the violator for an amount up to the maximum civil penalty, plus any administrative costs.
Sec. 35-357. Hearing Before the Special Master.
The Citv's Code Enforcement Special Masters are authorized to hold hearings related to the
enforcement of this Article. A hearing shall be scheduled for all notices for which the vehicle owner
timely requests an administrative hearing.
City of Miami Page 4 of 7 Printed On: I2/21/2007
File Number: 07-01279
Upon receipt of the named violator's timely request for an administrative hearing, the City shall
schedule a hearing before the Special Master pursuant to Section 2-825 of the City Code. Notice of
hearing shall be provided to the vehicle owner pursuant to the notice provisions contained in Article X
of Chapter 2 of the City Code.
The hearing shall be held pursuant to the procedures set forth in Article X of Chapter 2 of the City
Code. The Traffic Control infraction Review Officer may testify at the hearing. The vehicle owner may_
present testimony and evidence.
Recorded images indicating a red zone infraction, verified by the Traffic Control Infraction Review
Officer are admissible in any proceeding before the City's Special Master to enforce the provisions of
this Article, and shall constitute prima facie evidence of the violation.
Unless an affidavit is provided pursuant to Sec. 35-358, it is presumed that the person registered as
the vehicle owner with the Florida Department of Motor Vehicles or any other state vehicle registration
office, or an individual having the owner's consent, was operating the vehicle at the time of a red zone
infraction.
Sec. 35-358. Vehicle Owner Affidavit of Non -Responsibility.
In order for the vehicle owner to establish that the motor vehicle was, at the time of the red zone
infraction, either: (a) in the care, custody, or control of another person without the consent of the
registered owner; or (b) was subject to a short term (less than six months) car rental agreement
entered into between a car rental agency, whichis licensed as reouired by applicable law and is
authorized to conduct business in the State of Florida, and the operator of the vehicle. The vehicle
owner is required, within 20 days from the date listed on the Notice, to furnish to the City, an affidavit
setting forth the circumstances demonstrating, either: (a) that the motor vehicle was not in the vehicle
owner's care, custody, or control, and was not in the care, custody or control of another person with the
vehicle owner's consent, or (b) that the motor vehicle was subject to a short term (less than six
months) rental agreement between the car rental agency receiving the notice and the vehicle operator
and provide a true and correct copy of the short term car rental agreement, as applicable. The affidavit
must be executed in the presence of a Notary, and include:
a. If known to the vehicle owner, the name, address, and the driver's license number of the person
who had care, custody,or control of the motor vehicle, without the vehicle owner's consent at the time
of the alleged red zone infraction; or
b. The name, address and driver's license number of the person who rented the motor vehicle from
the car rental agency which has received the Notice, at the time of the alleged red zone infraction; or
If the vehicle was stolen, the police report indicating_the vehicle was stolen at the time of the alleged
red zone infraction; and
The following language immediately above the signature line: "Under penalties of perjury I declare
that I have read the foregoing affidavit and that the facts stated in it are true."
Upon timely receipt of a sufficient affidavit pursuant to this Section, any prosecution of the Notice
issued to the vehicle owner shall be terminated. Proceedings may be commenced by the City against
the responsible person identified in the affidavit, and in such event, the responsible person shall be_
subject to the same process and procedures which are applicable to vehicle owners
City of Miami Page 5 of 7 Printed On: 12/21/2007
File Number: 07-01279
Sec. 35-359. Administrative Charges.
In addition to the penalty pursuant to Sec. 35-362 herein, administrative charges may be assessed
pursuant to Article X of Chapter 2 of the City Code in the event of a hearing and/or the necessity to
institute collection procedures arises.
Sec. 35-360. Collection of Fines.
Collection of fines shall be accomplished pursuant to Article X of Chapter 2 of the City Code.
Sec. 35-361. Exceptions.
This Article shall not apply to red zone infractions involving vehicle collisions or to any authorized
emergency vehicle responding to a bona fide emergency; nor shall a Notice be issued in any case
where the operator of the vehicle was issued a citation for violating the state statute regarding the
failure to stop at a red Tight indication for the same event or incident.
Sec. 35-362. Penalty.
A violation of this Article shall be deemed a non -criminal, non-moving violation for which a civil
penalty, as proscribed in Article X of Chapter 2 of the City Code, shall be assessed. As the violation
relates to this Article and not to the Florida Statutes, no points as otherwise provided in Fla. Statute
§322.27, shall be recorded on the driving record of the vehicle owner or responsible party.
Sec. 35-363. Enforcement.
This Article may be enforced by any other means available to the City.
Sec. 35-364. Signage.
The City shall, to the extent practicable, at the primary motor vehicle entry points to the City, cause
to be erected and maintained signs, which substantially meet the design specifications indicated in
Exhibit "A," providing notice of this Article, failure to erect, maintain or create these signs shall not
invalidate or impair any enforcement of this Article.
Section 3. Chapter 2, Article X, Section 2-829, of the code of the city of Miami, Florida, as
amended, entitled "Administration/Code Enforcement/Schedule of Civil Penalties," is amended in the
following particulars:{1}
"CHAPTER 2
ADMINISTRATION
City of Miami Page 6 of 7 Printed On: 12/21/2007
File Number: 07-01279
ARTICLE X. CODE ENFORCEMENT
Sec. 2-829. Schedule of civil penalties.
Code Section
*
35-25 et seq.
Description of Violation Civil Penalty
*
Violation of the Dangerous Intersection Safety $125.00 first offense
$250.00 second offense
$500.00 each additional offense
*
* * *
*
*11
Section 4. All ordinances or parts of ordinances that are inconsistent or in conflict with the
provisions of this Ordinance are repealed.
Section 5. If any section, part of section, paragraph, clause, phrase or word of this Ordinance is
declared invalid, the remaining provisions of this Ordinance shall not be affected.
Section 6. This Ordinance shall be come effective thirty (30) days after final reading and adoption
thereof.{2}
Footnotes:
{1} Words/and or figures stricken through shall be deleted. Underscored words and/or figures shall be
added. The remaining provisions are now in effect and remain unchanged. Asterisks indicate omitted
and unchanged material.
{2} This Ordinance shall become effective as specified herein unless vetoed by the Mayor within ten
days from the date it was passed and adopted. If the Mayor vetoes this Ordinance, it shall become
effective immediately upon override of the veto by the City Commission or upon the effective date
stated herein, whichever is later.
City of Miami Page 7 of 7 Printed On: 12/21/2007
Tcilinz:sseee. Florida 32 399.0450
August 28, 2007
Stephen R. Donaldson
Dear Mr. Donaldson:
Florida Department of Tran,spoi- ation
Attachment 6
605 5a,iworityea? Street aTrT ! L tv 1:'. Kor.E.i.oukt_1y
iECftL1'1#iX
Your letter to Representative Tom Anderson concerning the use of Red -
Light -Running Cameras was forwarded to our office for analysis and response.
Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns and comments about the
use of Red -Light -Running Cameras.
The Florida Department of Transportation actively monitors the latest.
research on the use of Red -Light -Running Cameras. We are aware of the research
on this issue that you discussed in your letter.1 can tell that you understand the
relationship between the length of yellow clearance and of all -red clearance to the
correlation with red-lighttrunning violations, We have recommendations an the
length of yellow and all -red clearances that you can find on our web page that help
reduce red-light running Violations and crashes_ We encourage city and county
traffic engineers to follow these guidelines,
v1 lw.dot,state..ti usaraff O ieralio s10peraticn St its temanLi tiC aaptar l3 60 05 pdf)
The decision to allow or not allow the use of Red .ightWRunning Cameras is
determined) by the Florida Legislature and Governor Crest. Current Florida Law
does not allow the use of Red -Light -Running Can eras for the enforcement of a
traffic violation-. The Florida Department of Transportation does not allow the use of
Red-Light-Runring: Cameras on any of our intersections on the State l"iig:hway
System. We do know that some Florida cities are using Redd-L. g.trt-Running
Cameras for enforcement of a violation of a local city ordinance,
know your letter to Rep. Tom Anderson did not request a response, but I hope the
information provided is helpful on this issue..
Sincerely,
Mark C. Wilson, P.E.
Deputy State Traffic Operations Engineer
Rep. Tom Anderson
Electra Theodorides-Bustle
0,A441.P64. 1.3
Attachment 7
Bar
MEMORANDUM Agenda No, 2J y w .:‘
TO: Honorable Chairman Bruno A. Barreiro
and Members, Board of County Commissioners
FROM: R. A. Cuevas, Jr.
County Attorney
DATE:
October 9, 2007
SUBJECT: Resolution urging the
Florida Legislature to allow
the use of unmanned cameras
at intersections with traffic
signals in an effort to reduce
red-light running
The accompanying resolution was prepared and placed on the agenda at the request of
Commissioner Joe A. Martinez and Commissioner Carlos A. Gimenez.
R. A. Cuevas, Jr. s��
5
County Attorney ,i'
RACIj 1s
MEMORANDUM
(Revised)
TO: Honorable Chairman Bruno A. Barreiro DATE: November 6, 2007
and Members, Board of County Commissioners
641
FROM: R. A. C evas, Jr!
County Attorney
SUBJECT: Agenda Item No.
Please note any items checked.
"4-Day Rule" ("3-Day Rule" for committees) applicable if raised
6 weeks required between first reading and public hearing
4 weeks notification to municipal officials required prior to public
hearing
Decreases revenues or increases expenditures without balancing budget
Budget required
Statement of fiscal impact required
Bid waiver requiring County Manager's written recommendation
Ordinance creating a new board requires detailed County Manager's
report for public hearing
Housekeeping item (no policy decision required)
No committee review
crt
Approved
Veto
Override
Mayor
RESOLUTION NO.
Agenda Item No.
11-6-07
RESOLUTION URGING THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE TO
ALLOW THE USE OF UNMANNED CAMERAS AT
INTERSECTIONS WITH TRAFFIC SIGNALS IN AN EFFORT
TO REDUCE RED-LIGHT RUNNING
WHEREAS, red-light running is one of the major causes of accidents, deaths and
injuries at intersections with traffic signals; and
WHEREAS, recent crash statistics show that there were 206,000 red-light running
accidents nationwide, with nearly 1,000 deaths and 176,000 injuries; and
WHEREAS, red-light cameras can help reduce red-light running by automatically
photographing vehicles whose drivers run red lights; and
WHEREAS, studies in California and Virginia have shown that red-light cameras can
reduce red-light running by approximately forty percent (40%); and
WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration has concluded that red-light cameras
can be an effective measure to prevent red-light running and encourages the use of red-light
cameras; and
WHEREAS, Florida law authorizes the use of cameras to enforce toll collections on the
Florida Turnpike System; and
WHEREAS, Florida's Attorney General recently issued an opinion concluding that
legislative changes to Florida law are necessary before local governments can issue traffic
citations and penalize drivers who fail to obey red lights based solely on unmanned red-light
cameras, see AGO 2005-4; and
RESO4206f
Agenda Item No.
Page No. 2
WHEREAS, cameras could be used solely to photograph the license plates of vehicles
that run red lights; and
WHEREAS, photographs of Iicense plates could be used to create a rebuttable
presumption that the owner of the vehicle violated traffic laws related to running red lights; and
WHEREAS, citations issued as a result of photographic evidence could be limited only
to nonmoving violations, so that fines might apply, but no points would issue as a result of the
violation if the citation is based on photographic evidence, similar to parking tickets; and
WHEREAS, having citations based on photographic evidence of running a red-light or
blocking an intersection could nonetheless prohibit a driver from renewing license tags or a
driver's license to increase enforcement; and
WHEREAS, the Governor recently expressed support for legislation that would allow
local governments to use unmanned red light cameras,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that this Board:
Section 1. Urges the Florida Legislature to allow the limited use of cameras at
intersections with traffic signals to enforce traffic infractions in an effort to reduce red-light
running, provided that only nonmoving violations could be issued and the cameras only
photograph license plates, but providing that license tags or drivers' licenses may not be renewed
with outstanding citations of this type.
Section 2. Directs the Clerk of the Board to transmit a certified copy of this
resolution to the Governor, Senate President, House Speaker, and the Chair and Members of the
Miami -Dade County State Legislative Delegation.
RESO12051
Agenda Item No.
Page No. 3
Section 3. Directs the County's state lobbyists to advocate for the passage of the
legislation and the implementation of the reforms set forth in Section 1 above, and directs the
Office of Intergovernmental Affairs to include this item in the 2008 State Legislative Package.
The foregoing resolution was sponsored by Commissioner Joe A. Martinez and
Commissioner Carlos A. Gimenez and offered by Commissioner
who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
and upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Bruno
Barbara J.
Jose "Pepe" Diaz
Carlos A. Gimenez
Joe A. Martinez
Dorrin D. Rolle
Katy Sorenson
Sen. Javier D. Souto
A. Barreiro, Chairman
Jordan, Vice -Chairwoman
Audrey M. Edmonson
Sally A. Heyman
Dennis C. Moss
Natacha Seijas
Rebeca Sosa
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 6th day of
November, 2007. This resolution shall become effective ten (10) days after the date of its
adoption unless vetoed by the Mayor, and if vetoed, shall become
override by this Board.
Approved by County Attorney as
to form and legal sufficiency. 'J -Wy
Jess M. McCarty
RES012061
effective
only upon an
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY ITS BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
HARVEY RUVIN, CLERK
By:
Deputy Clerk