Government

Florida Judge Ruling Finds Red Light Cameras Unconstitutional

Florida Judge Rules Red Light Cameras Unconstitutional, City Officials Plan to ChallengeA man from Pasco County, Fla., who got nabbed by a traffic camera to catch red light runners believes the camera was wrong — both in snapping his license plate and constitutionally. On the constitutional front, Thomas Filippone now has a county judge’s ruling to back him up.

The Tampa Bay Tribune reports that Filippone received a $158 traffic ticket, but he wasn’t about to pay up and be more careful with the reds next time:

“If they are going to prove I was driving the car, it’s their duty under the law to prove the identity of the driver,” said Filippone, 45, who maintains his 2002 Nissan Altima crossed the intersection a split second before the light turned red on April 15. “It unjustly shifts burden to me and makes me shoulder the burden of having to prove their case.”

(Related: Meet the 17-year-old fight ‘big government’ and traffic cameras)

Pasco County Judge Anne Wansboro was in agreement and dismissed the case Filippone brought before her stating that use of the cameras ”impermissibly shifts the burden of proof to the Defendant and therefore does not afford due process, and is unconstitutional to the extent due process is not provided.”

But the case is not completely closed. The Tribune points out that the traffic cameras remain in place — there has not been a motion to remove them — and some city officials within the county will be appealing Wansboro’s decision:

“We do not agree with the decision,” said City Manager Tom O’Neill, who said the city was not notified of any constitutional challenge to its two red light cameras on U.S. 19. “It would be our position that we were not afforded due process and did not have the opportunity to speak.”

Port Richey city attorney Joe Poblick said officials have also notified the Florida Attorney General’s Office of the ruling. The state Constitution requires that the attorney general be notified whenever a state statute’s constitutionality is at issue.

(Related: Is your community profiting by installing traffic cams to monitor you?)

City officials in other Florida counties are keeping tabs on the proceedings as it makes it through the appeals process but continue to use their cameras as is.

For Filippone though, he thinks the ruling stands in Pasco, meaning he “[shouldn't] get another red light ticket in Pasco County for the rest of my life.” In fact, he is already planning to use the ruling to fight another ticket he received from a red light camera. Filippone, who is an insurance attorney, said he is “looking forward” to his April court date.

Comments (96)

1 2 3
  • charjan
    Posted on March 22, 2012 at 11:02am

    We already challenged a ticket received here in King County, WA requesting the court to prove we were driving the car at the time of the incident. They dropped the case.
    Nor does it matter if you loan your car to someone. You are NOT responsible for someone else driving your car. They are responsible. It is the court who is responsible for proving your guilt as we are innocent UNTIL proven guilty. Catching your car by some camera does NOT prove you were driving that car, thus they cannot prove your guilty of the infraction. My friend sold his car. Then later received a mail ticket for running a red light. He did not even own the car on that date. But he had to prove his innocence to the court or pay the fines. After much intervention of his own, he was finally able to claim the sold car had not been registered properly by the present owner and thus was able to get out of the fine. Cities that are buying into these cameras are just hoping that those ticketed will just pay their fine. It’s a money maker regardless if it is negates the citizen right of innocent until proven guilty.

    Report Post »  
    • black9897
      Posted on March 22, 2012 at 12:54pm

      Thank God. A judge with common sense and is not corrupted. If only all could have this sense.

      Report Post » black9897  
  • Loki
    Posted on March 22, 2012 at 10:58am

    Those with red light cameras in their areas, Sit at the lights with a stop watch and time the lenght of the yellow light. Record the yellows for a half hour. Then repeat this at a light without a camera.
    compair the lenght of the yellow lights.

    Report Post » Loki  
    • frankwhite8536
      Posted on March 22, 2012 at 3:09pm

      exactly. just the other month a colleague of mine had the same issue. if he didn’t sit at a red light before making a turn (legal in NJ), for at least 6 full seconds, then the camera flashed and he got his ticket.

      Report Post »  
  • Mark0331
    Posted on March 22, 2012 at 10:55am

    Ok…now, instead of red light cameras…floating drones will be used, ‘manned’ by police in a warehouse…hope it doesnt’ come to that but, it looks like we are moving in that direction…that RC operator cop will testify if need be.

    Report Post » Mark0331  
  • USPATRIOT101
    Posted on March 22, 2012 at 10:53am

    There was a lady here in Florida pushing for these cameras because her husband was killed when someone ran a red light. She spouted that those like me that opposed the cameras were just trying to “get a second chance”. She stated her husband never got a second chance. Now several people I know have been getting bogus tickets for wrongful right turn on red. Tickets you cannot fight. So I ask you, is it right that my liberty is sacraficed because her husband died? I give up liberty for nobody.

    Report Post » USPATRIOT101  
    • LARR
      Posted on March 22, 2012 at 10:57am

      Cameral companies have been caught setting up a non-profit, then hiring the widow to use as a spokeman to plead for passage so no one else has to go through what they did.

      Report Post »  
    • awrocksu
      Posted on March 22, 2012 at 12:22pm

      your lying.you don’t get in trouble for legal right turns red. you can appeal everywhere. don’t lie to try and make your case.

      Report Post » awrocksu  
    • omgfolks
      Posted on March 22, 2012 at 2:35pm

      The use of these camera should never have been allowed in the first place. Original done with the idea to monitor taffic for DMV they have evolved into a revenue source for cities and towns across the nation. The sellers of these cameras new what the end result would be a make millions selling and servicing these intrusive camera, however the need for greed seemed to out wieght the right of citizens and they were allowed. All this is about is money, if you get a ticket and do not fight it then you pay, if you fight in you pay in lost time from work or paying a lawyer. either way they cost citizens money and someone is raking in on the profits. They should be removed from every town in the country bar none. This is all about the money, not saving lives, not protecting citizens its about the profit… Plan and simple. Get Rid of Them.

      Report Post »  
  • Ceefour
    Posted on March 22, 2012 at 10:52am

    So this filapomio will continue o run red lights until he gets nailed by another car. If you stop for a red traffic signal and you get rear ended…its not your fault its the jackass behind you who was following too closely..he gets the ticket and you can sue the dummie. Cameras are very advantages when it comes to intersection accidents…the cameras will show who ran the light. I say KEEP EM!!!

    Report Post »  
    • SgtB
      Posted on March 22, 2012 at 11:04am

      Dear dear fool. The vast majority of red light running is done by ACCIDENT! Generally, people do not fly through an intersection on red just hoping that they miss cross traffic. The exception would be someone already being chased by police and the camera wouldn’t do much good then would it?

      The facts are that yellow light cycles are generally too fast. They intentionally shorten these yellow light cycles at intersections equipped with cameras to INCREASE the incidence of red-light “running” so that the private company leasing the cameras to the city can get a decent cut (usually 50%) of the ticket money. Red light cameras do not increase safety, quite the opposite it true. Studies have shown that simply increasing the yellow light cycle and putting in an all stop cycle to allow accidental red light running to go without causing an accident will increase the safety of an intersection 2 fold.

      Please, prove me wrong if you can.

      Report Post » SgtB  
    • rlimike
      Posted on March 23, 2012 at 6:13am

      using 2 user names …

      Report Post » rlimike  
  • LARR
    Posted on March 22, 2012 at 10:47am

    “Hi” – Check out http://www.thenewspaper.com and http://www.motorists.org There is zero proof that redlight cameras save lives. The coincidences/fraud are astounding.

    “Locked” – true if the system were legit. but municipalities have conspired with camera companies to shorten lights, put the cameras where there is more traffic vice where more accidents to “prevent”. Millions in tickets for your bumper over the line.

    No purpose other than revenue.

    Report Post »  
    • Loki
      Posted on March 22, 2012 at 10:54am

      correct.
      They are revenue generators. When a police officer issues a ticket for running a red light, you will get points on your license, and after so many, you lose your license.
      red light cameras issue fines(by private organization) but never punish drivers that are a danger to other drivers.
      Need more states to call them what they are…. red light taxes

      Report Post » Loki  
    • Locked
      Posted on March 22, 2012 at 11:01am

      @Larr

      Then wouldn’t the issue be conspiracy and length of lights? What if light length were changed to the optimum level (ie, add a 1 second red-light delay for all lights, and increase the length of yellow lights to allow time to stop); would you still have an issue with red light cameras?

      Report Post »  
    • SgtB
      Posted on March 22, 2012 at 11:10am

      @ Locked, if cities took the initiative and setup their traffic light cycles correctly, they wouldn’t feel the need to install cameras in the first place because accidents would drop through the floor. Also, the cameras do not generally prove who is driving the car and in this country you are innocent until proven guilty and an inanimate object cannot be guilty of a crime. So the cameras are a worthless enterprise unless you can put a judge on your bankroll, which they are.

      Report Post » SgtB  
  • justangry
    Posted on March 22, 2012 at 10:46am

    Chalk one up for the good guys.

    justangry  
    • De minimus
      Posted on March 22, 2012 at 10:54am

      AMEN to that.

      Unfortunately not everyone agrees. Seems some people think that having government monitor and milk the public 24-7-365 is a good deal and should be done more! Before you know it they’ll have cameras recording you in your car and force you to pay for it! You know, for safety and security purposes and tickets for nose picking won’t be far behind!

      Report Post » De minimus  
  • LOTO
    Posted on March 22, 2012 at 10:42am

    We should have torn those things down when they first put them up.
    I

    Report Post » LOTO  
    • CatB
      Posted on March 22, 2012 at 10:46am

      It has nothing to do with safety (proven they cause more rear end collisions) it is ALL ABOUT THE MONEY. Nothing but money machines put up to fleece the public and take away liberty.

      Report Post »  
    • chips1
      Posted on March 22, 2012 at 10:54am

      DUI arrests used to be determined by a field sobriety test. The Blood Alcohol level was .15 which everyone was effected. Now it’s .08 because more money is generated. Your being ripped off. Justice has been corrupted.

      Report Post »  
  • GoodCook
    Posted on March 22, 2012 at 10:40am

    Hmmmmmmm. Since when does the vehicle commit the crime? It’s the person behind the wheel that does. But with the automated revenue producer (traffic camera) can‘t deterrmine who drove the vehicle at the time so wouldn’t it be appropriate to send everyone a ticket in the entire area in that case? It’s about as logical as most of the stuff happening in so called government today. Under this you are guilty because they say so and you have no recorse. Give me a break. Automated bureucracy at it’s best…

    Report Post »  
  • Locked
    Posted on March 22, 2012 at 10:35am

    Of course, drivers could just not run red lights. Kind of the intent of the cameras, after all.

    I love the defense of “what if someone else is driving your car?” Well, then you gave them permission; what happens is part of your responsibility. Be careful who you loan your car out to; pick someone more responsible next time. But what if it was stolen? Then you have a filed police report showing it was stolen at the time and can fight the ticket online. What if someone is tailgating you? Tough luck to them; let them whip around you and run a red light and have a ticket sent to their home instead.

    Report Post »  
    • SgtB
      Posted on March 22, 2012 at 10:51am

      Actually, the problem here is that we are all human. IF the intent of a traffic camera is to increase public safety by keeping people from running red lights, the system doesn’t work. Also, if the intent is to make the city money, it also fails at that. A study of Los Angeles traffic cameras has proven that lights with traffic cameras had no statistical improvement in the number of accidents and that they actually cost the city more money due to licensing fees and ticket splitting with the camera provider. Not to mention the police they had to hire just to review every ticket the camera gave.

      In this report, it was shown that red-light cameras actually increased the number of rear end collisions and decreased pedestrian safety. Conversely, if you really wanted to make traffic lights and intersections safer, you can easily and without purchasing expensive equipment change the timing of the traffic lights themselves. It has been found that most traffic lights yellow light cycle is too short and in most places, the lights do not have an all stop cycle. An all stop cycle last about a second and puts all lanes on red allowing the errant dummy to safely exit the intersection before allowing cross traffic to flow.

      Just changing the traffic light timing has shown to have a 50% or more decrease in red light running and accidents in intersections. Red-light cameras come nowhere near that figure.

      Report Post » SgtB  
    • Locked
      Posted on March 22, 2012 at 10:58am

      @Sgtb

      Oh, there are definitely better ways to address the topic; for example, I remember reading a study on a town that completely took out all signs; traffic accidents dropped dramatically.

      That said, the idea of the red light cameras makes some sense if drivers change their behavior (ie, reckless driving). If drivers remain the same, yes, they’ll still drive poorly; now they just get fined.

      Report Post »  
    • SgtB
      Posted on March 22, 2012 at 1:13pm

      @ Locked, unfortunately for you and every city plagued with these moronic devices, studies have proven that the cameras themselves cause more accidents than they prevent. So not only are drivers not changing their habits and becoming better drivers, but they are using their already horrible habits to make a bad situation worse. So your argument for them just to fine the individuals who may misjudge a yellow light is actually making the world a less safe place. So if by your own admission there are better ways to reduce traffic accidents and injuries, why are you defending anyone using an approach that is proven to decrease safety? That would be like telling someone it is okay to clean a loaded gun because it is only slightly more dangerous than cleaning an unloaded gun. It doesn’t make sense.

      Report Post » SgtB  
    • TexasRepublic
      Posted on March 22, 2012 at 8:56pm

      @Locked
      Do you have kids? Ever let them drive your car? I suppose you teach them that your always “partly” responsible for their actions, and they don’t have to take any or only part. Do you tell them they will pay only half of the ticket and you’ll pick up the other half? I wonder if you also support the TSA and their detaining and searching of every citizen at airport. After all it’s ok to give up little freedom if we are safer right? Someone once said “Those who would give up freedom for safety, will soon have niether.”

      Report Post » TexasRepublic  
  • mpetroski
    Posted on March 22, 2012 at 10:32am

    I got one due to a practical joke of sorts. I was in the cue for a right turn light. I got to the white line at the intersection as the light turned yellow and the car in front of me slammed on his breaks and came to a complete stop. I was stuck half over the white stop line as the light turned red. He was completely in the intersection. I though what a jerk, why would he do that. He sped off and cleared the intersection. I followed through the intersection as to not block it.

    I got a letter and 3 photographs in the mail with a 180 dollar fine. You was plainly evident in the photos that We both had our red break lights on. The cops did not care. Though the lady at the desk said its a trick that a-holes do at intersections to get the person behind them a ticket. They never know if it happens but its just for fun. She said she has had several people come in and point it out. The city does not care.

    I would have cleared the intersection legally if he had not slammed on the breaks and stopped in the intersection. I was told that if I had stopped and not cleared the intersection I would have still gotten the ticket.

    I hate those camera’s

    Report Post »  
    • mpetroski
      Posted on March 22, 2012 at 10:42am

      Oh yeah this too. My large carbon footprint SUV was lurching forward on its front suspension as well. Evidence that I was on my breaks really hard in response to this guy slamming on his breaks. I wasn’t tailgating I was breaking hard to avid a collision.

      Report Post »  
  • Mathew Manhorne
    Posted on March 22, 2012 at 10:29am

    I got nailed by one of these where I live. When they put these up on intersections that I drive through on a regular basis they shortened the length of the yellow lights…. It has nothing to do about safety and everything to do about making money. Its a total scam….

    Report Post »  
  • biohazard23
    Posted on March 22, 2012 at 10:23am

    Typo: the story is from the Tampa Bay times, formerly the St Petersburg Times, not the Tampa Trib. Both are crappy papers, but at least get the credit straight.

    When it comes to running the light where there’s a camera, here’s a question: what are you supposed to do if someone is tailgating you quite aggressively as you approach a traffic signal that is about to turn red? Are you supposed to hit the brakes and maybe cause an accident for the sake of avoiding a ticket? Or should you have to deal with the wrath of some idiot overwhelmed by road rage over the fact that you supposedly caused him to miss the light, thereby justifying our right as set forth by the 2nd amendment? Just wondering……

    Report Post » biohazard23  
    • chips1
      Posted on March 22, 2012 at 10:48am

      You basically hit the nail on the head. You are going to court to explain what a picture shows and it won’t show the reason. If a police officer sees the violation, he can testify about what caused the violation. If a car was too close for you to stop, then a violation of following too closely should be issued to the other driver. The only reason for cameras is for revenue. Police are no longer trained for observation. Enforcing the law is sorely corrupt. Glad I’m retired.

      Report Post »  
  • ColoradoMaverick
    Posted on March 22, 2012 at 10:20am

    I‘ve always had a problem with these camera’s because they just send the ticket to the registered owners and have no idea who might have been actually driving the car.

    Report Post » ColoradoMaverick  
  • Mapache
    Posted on March 22, 2012 at 10:15am

    What the legislature will do is fine the VEHICLE and not the driver. So drivers will have no ticket or points but the VEHICLE will be fined for breaking the law. Since it is all about revenue anyway, the cities and the counties won’t care. The charges will accrue on the vehicle and will have to be paid up before any reregistration or sale of the vehicle.

    Report Post » Mapache  
  • cessna152
    Posted on March 22, 2012 at 10:13am

    I got nabbed bye one of these “revenue makers”… it said “infraction; .03 seconds”. WTF? Who writes these programs? Who determines the infraction? Whom does it benefit? Finally a win…abolish all this BS big government intrusive cr@p.

    Report Post » cessna152  
  • HorseCrazy
    Posted on March 22, 2012 at 10:12am

    everywhere in my area they have installed these cameras accidents have gone up as well as congestion. people slam on their brakes and generally drive like fools because no one wants a ticket in the mail. get rid of them

    Report Post »  
  • Dumpster Baby
    Posted on March 22, 2012 at 10:12am

    Yet DUI checkpoints are not?

    Report Post »  
  • hi
    Posted on March 22, 2012 at 10:10am

    I can’t stand the speed trap cameras, but the red light ones save lives.

    Report Post » hi  
    • SgtB
      Posted on March 22, 2012 at 10:57am

      Red light cameras do NOT save lives. It has been shown now in multiple studies that red light camera increase the number of traffic accidents at the intersection. A more sensible and cost free solution is to properly time the cameras to have a long enough yellow and an all stop cycle to allow the idiot who doesn’t stop on time to clear the intersection instead of sending cross traffic at him. You obviously know not of what you speak if you say red light cameras save lives.

      Report Post » SgtB  
  • EqualJustice
    Posted on March 22, 2012 at 10:09am

    Those lights change SO quickly where the speed limit is 45 MPH, you are 9 times out of 10 going to be CAUGHT in the middle of the intersection OR get rear ended by slamming on your brakes. You can’t FIGHT these mailed tickets, either!

    Report Post » EqualJustice  
    • USPATRIOT101
      Posted on March 22, 2012 at 10:44am

      Under the Constitution you are to be able to face your acuser. Will the camera show up at court and confront me face to face?

      Report Post » USPATRIOT101  
    • EqualJustice
      Posted on March 22, 2012 at 1:02pm

      They can’t even PROVE who was behind the WHEEL?? I don’t get how they can TICKET a VEHICLE OWNER if they were not even driving the vehicle? Absurd!

      Report Post » EqualJustice  
  • momrules
    Posted on March 22, 2012 at 10:03am

    I absolutely hate these cameras, they are nothing more than a money grab. I wish they would be banned across the nation.

    Report Post »  
  • USPATRIOT101
    Posted on March 22, 2012 at 10:01am

    I avoid these intersections and have stopped going to businesses around them. My little way of staying away from the bull. Sorry small businesses.

    Report Post » USPATRIOT101  
  • Baddoggy
    Posted on March 22, 2012 at 10:01am

    One law down a bazillion to go!

    Report Post » Baddoggy  
    • HorseCrazy
      Posted on March 22, 2012 at 10:10am

      one can only dream for every new law they would get rid of three

      Report Post »  
    • justangry
      Posted on March 22, 2012 at 10:47am

      Yup, throw away all the statutes and case precedence and start over.

      Report Post » justangry  
  • Wilma
    Posted on March 22, 2012 at 10:00am

    Yippie!!!!!

    Report Post » Wilma  
  • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
    Posted on March 22, 2012 at 9:57am

    Excellent, here in AZ, many a ticket is dispensed with due to the fact our state laws mandate a ticket has to be delivered by a law officer or recognized agent of the court appointed for that purpose; otherwise it has been challenged many times on these grounds and the ticket voided.

    Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • JACKTHETOAD
      Posted on March 22, 2012 at 10:02am

      They’re not gonna give this one up without a fight. This is revenue.

      Report Post » JACKTHETOAD  
    • SgtB
      Posted on March 22, 2012 at 1:18pm

      Really? because the last time I drove through your state they thought that putting ford explorers with radio antennas and radar tracking systems on the roof parked in the left breakdown lane was a good idea. I felt the urge to just slam into those trucks every time I passed one. They caused traffic to slow jam up and people were slamming on their brakes to slow down. It really is a wonder that no one pulled onto the shoulder after receiving the standard brake check and took out one of these atrocities on accident.

      Report Post » SgtB  
1 2 3

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love