Court considers handling of red-light camera citations

TALLAHASSEE — Luis Torres Jimenez admits he made an illegal right turn at a red light, but that hasn’t stopped him from going to the Florida Supreme Court to have his ticket thrown out.

The fate of his 2011 citation, issued after a red-light camera captured an image of his illegal turn, now rests in the justices’ hands. But some justices seemed skeptical Wednesday as his lawyers tried to persuade them that the way the South Florida city of Aventura handles such citations is unlawful.

His lawyers contended the city had illegally given “unfettered discretion” to a red-light camera firm to review images of potential violations and to print and issue citations. A Miami judge quashed Jimenez’s ticket, but the 3rd District Court of Appeal overturned that ruling and asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue.

Arguments centered on the role that American Traffic Solutions Inc. has in handling red-light traffic violations. The company sorts images and puts them into two databases — a “working” database that police review for possible traffic violations and a “non-working” one police don’t use for ticketing motorists. Up to 35 percent of the images are rejected, according to court documents. The rest are given to traffic enforcement officials, who decide whether to issue citations.

Stephen Rosenthal, who represents Jimenez, told the court that a state law allows contractors to review the images, but only traffic enforcement officers can issue citations. He argued that Aventura’s system is unlawful because no city official “reviews” the images the vendor’s employees deem are not violations, meaning that the private company ultimately decides which drivers not to ticket.

But some justices seemed stymied by his view. “Is it a miseryloves-company argument?” Justice Charles Canady asked. “... If he violated the statute, I don’t see what he has to complain about because … other people who might have violated the statute don’t get dragged into the net.”

Florida Solicitor General Amit Agarwal told the justices the vendor’s staff “are engaged in only a clerical and essentially ministerial task” as allowed by state law.