No Bull, No Fluff, No Smudges
Your news source for
Flagler, Florida and Beyond

Palm Coast’s Pre-2010 Red-Light Camera Fines in Question Following Latest Court Decision

| July 10, 2012

traffic cameras

Not quite birds on a wire. (Dave Dugdale)

A decision on red light traffic cameras by the 5th District Court of Appeal in Daytona Beach on Friday is flashing chills of anxiety down the spine of Palm Coast’s budget and city council officials–or ought to: if the decision is upheld, it may mean that Palm Coast, and more than a dozen cities that installed spy-and-snap cameras before the state gave them authority to do so, would have to refund the fines they charged countless drivers until the system was brought in compliance with state law in 2010. For Palm Coast, that’s somewhere between $1 and $2 million.

The decision does not affect the current camera set up or the fine structure. That means if you’re caught running a red light at any of Palm Coast’s 10 camera-equipped intersections, you may still face a $158 fine. And even if the decision were upheld, municipalities would contend that drivers who paid their fines gave up their right of appeal. For refunds to be considered, a class-action lawsuit would have ton be filed on behalf of all drivers affected by the scheme.

William Reischmann, Palm Coast’s attorney, filled in the council on Tuesday on the latest decision on the matter, which conflicts with a previous decision, by the 3rd District Court of Appeal, that found the traffic cameras legal even before the state standardized the system. Because of the conflict between the two courts of appeal, it may be up to the Florida Supreme Court to settle the question. The 5th district’s decision is asking the higher court to do just that. That doesn’t mean the higher court will.

“Our office does not recommend any change in direction,” Reischmann said. “We disagree with the decision.”

“The current program, the current red light cameras are in no way impacted by this because they are all falling under the state law,” City Manager Jim Landon told the council by way of reassurance. “These law suits are all based on the idea that we didn’t have authority to install the red light cameras prior to the state authorizing them. It’s a typical home rule. For those of us that believe in home rule, if the state doesn’t pre-empt you from doing it, then you have the home rule to do it.”

That’s not what Judge Jessica Recksiedler ruled. (Recksiedler was the original judge assigned to the George Zimmerman case. She recused herself because her husband works at a law firm where a lawyer is providing commentary on the case for CNN.)

“While local governments have the authority to enact ordinances, they are prohibited from infringing on areas preempted by state law, and in this instance ‘covered’ by the Uniform Traffic Laws of the State of Florida, or conflicting with state statute,” Recksiedler wrote.

The problem with the Orlando spy-and-snap system Recksiedler was referring to was similar to Palm Coast’s: the cameras were not installed by law enforcement or by a state agency, but by the cities’ code enforcement departments, in contravention to a state law, in place at the time, reserving traffic cameras to state authorities.

The law “specifically states the intent of the Legislature for uniformity of the traffic laws throughout the state prohibiting any local government from enacting or enforcing local laws covered by or in conflict with [that law],” Recksiedler ruled for a unanimous three-judge panel, “clearly indicates the Legislature’s intent to expressly preempt to the state the enforcement of traffic signal violations except for the limited local regulation allowed by the law.” What was especially objectionable was Orlando’s enforcement of a system reserved for the state.

Beginning July 1, 2010, the “Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Act” went into effect, allowing a county or municipality to use “traffic infraction detectors” at intersections. But the new law implemented a statewide red light enforcement program regulating the use of any traffic infraction detector on state, county, and local municipal roads, and it made the citations uniform, with just over half the penalty going to the state. thus eliminating local municipalities’ use of the cameras as

“The key to it is that it does not impact any of the red light camera citations since the state definitely gave us authorization because at that point that whole issue is moot,” Landon said. “Because a lot of people are going to say oh, look at that, they found the red light cameras not legal. That’s back to 2010.”

The Orlando case was brought by Michael Udowychenko, argued that the state’s 2011 law was, in fact, a preemption law in response to at least 26 municipalities with red light programs similar to Daytona Beach’s–and Palm Coast’s. The case is part of a statewide push by Dave Kerner, a lawyer with the West Palm Beach firm of Schuler, Halvorson, Weisser and Zoeller, to refund drivers cited under pre-2010 spy-and-snap schemes. Kerner intends to file a class-action suit should the decision by the 5th DCA be upheld.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

9 Responses for “Palm Coast’s Pre-2010 Red-Light Camera Fines in Question Following Latest Court Decision”

  1. Anon says:

    The city thought it could circumvent state law by labeling the violations one of code enforcement.

    Anyone who sees something waddling and quacking quacking knows what it is.

    This obstinate and obdurate bunch, both the administration and town council are going to get bit where it hurts most, in the pocketbook. If the judge rules against them they will be crying like a baby whose candy was stolen. And if they have to make refunds they will be looking for another way to tax the citizens to recoup from another one of their blunders. Blundering seems to be routine for this group.

  2. Johnny Taxpayer says:

    I hate to say I told you so, wait, no I don’t. I told you so. The unfortunate part is the clowns that allowed these cameras in the first place and squandered all the ill gotten gains are either gone all ready or term limited (netts) and can’t run again anyway, so they cannot be held responsible while we get stuck with this tab which was the obvious inevitability to even the most junior legal observer. Wait a tick… the over paid City Manager who spear headed this in the first place is still there, time to dust off the old resume Mr. Landon and this time include under most recent accomplishments “Convinced City council to move forward on an illegal revenue enhancement scheme which left the taxpayers of the City holding the bag for $2mil + in settlement costs… Good times.

  3. Ben Dover says:

    Its too bad we can t handle this like they did in the old days , this bunch no doubt would have been dragged out into the street and Tarred and Feathered,

  4. question says:

    I for one will put out optimistic ions into the atmosphere that the 5th DCA decision will NOT be upheld. Rather champion keeping intersections safer AND keep those red light runners fines IN Palm Coast’s bank account.

    Where is Justice Roberts when I need him…again.

    • John says:

      It isn’t intended to promote safety, it’s just another revenue builder. Law enforcement shouldn’t be used as an enhancement to build revenue. That practice lends itself to corruption and robbing the public in the name of safety.

  5. PJ says:

    Here for those brilliant minds of Palm Coast city council could do one thing right. Get rid of the cameras BEFORE they cost us money in any law suits.

    Oh that’s right Landon said no…………….never mind……..

  6. Deep South says:

    I don’t understand why the city is even involved in this red light camera sceme, except just to collect a fee to increase revenue. Their is no state or county law enforcement agency that stands behind these cameras. No court or traffic judge to plea your case. You can’t even hire a lawyer to assist you in your citation, because the state or county does not recognize this as a motor vehicle violation. Basically it just you paying a fee to the city without you having any course of action. Also you do not receive any points on your driving record or possible increase in your insurance premium, and you can not attend traffic school to eliminate your points. I always thought that our public roads were patrolled by our city, county, or state law enforcement agency. I understand that the city has a person in their code enforcement division that supposently has law enforcement background so therefore the city feels that this is legit.

  7. i want my money back says:

    So how do i go about my refund or help fight for it???

  8. Kanas City Native says:

    I have spoken to the Mayor of Palm Coast personally about this issue. He is unable to produce the baseline data to substantiate the fact that there was a need for these camera. There is not data that exist that shows intersection accidents were an issue thus proving there is no need for these cameras. However, there is data from the National Roadway Safety Institute that shows that increasing the yellow light by one second reduces intersection accidents by up to 92%. I feel that the citizens of Palm Coast are hard working and the vast majority of us do not deliberately run red lights and pose harm on to others. WhenI brought forth the fact that many households in Palm Coast are struggling financially and that a ticket of $157 poses a financial threat to families the Mayor’s response was “Well, then drive safer”. What a disgrace. Do we really want someone running a city that has no empathy toward those of us who work hard and who lies to our faces?

Leave a Reply

Read FlaglerLive's Comment Policy | Subscribe to the Comment Feed rss flaglerlive comment feed rss

More stories on FlaglerLive

Get Email Alerts to FlaglerLive

Enter your email address to get alerts.


suppert flaglerlive flagler live palm coast flagler county news pierre tristam florida
news service of florida
FlaglerLive is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization | P.O. Box 254263, Palm Coast, FL 32135 | Contact the Editor by email | (386) 586-0257 | Sitemap | Log in