In addition to the local disappointment we experienced in the Facella v. Orange County case, there is also some bad news for Red Light Camera (RLC) opponents at the state-wide level.
The 2nd and 3rd District Courts of Appeal have recently released their own opinions that conflict with the 4th DCA in Arem, and essentially hold that a third-party RLC vendor can legally issue RLC tickets as long as that vendor is classified as an “agent” of the municipality in the contract. All of the opinions are linked below:
3rd DCA case: City of Aventura v. Jimenez (Fastcase)
2nd DCA case: City of Oldsmar v. Trinh (Fastcase)
4th DCA (Arem) case (for reference): City of Hollywood v. Arem (Fastcase)
What this means is that, until the Florida Supreme Court speaks to break the tie, the law of the state is in flux.
**Update** The Supreme Court has accepted jurisdiction! We will post more information as it comes in: Jimenez order on jurisdiction
If you are in a municipality in the jurisdiction of the 2nd or 3rd DCAs, you cannot argue your RLC program is invalid under Arem, unless the specific RLC vendor is not an agent of your municipality under the express language of your municipality’s contract with the RLC vendor.
However, if you are in a municipality that is controlled by the 4th DCA, you can still argue that the RLC program is invalid under Arem (i.e. because it improperly delegates the police power to a 3rd party vendor).
If you live in a 1st or 5th DCA area, its a coin toss as to whether your DCA judges will agree with Arem, or Jimenez/Trinh.
Here is a map of the District Court of Appeal geographical jurisdiction areas: http://www.flcourts.org/florida-courts/district-court-appeal.stm
Orlando and Central Florida are controlled by the Fifth DCA, which is yet to address the RLC issue.
So, since our last update, there have been several big decisions in favor of RLCs, which is a blow to those of us who oppose them.
It is unfortunate, but the battle continues in the Supreme Court and in the legislature.