Letter from the Florida Attorney General denying request of city looking to install red light cameras.
Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist issued a warning on Tuesday to the city of Pembroke Pines, saying it would be "unlawful" for it to issue red light camera tickets without the sanction of the state legislature.
A handful of cities in Florida have been lobbying for red light camera-enabling law in the state legislature, but these efforts have failed. In February, the Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives said that legislation that would make photo enforcement legal in the state was, "dead on arrival." The president of the Florida Senate said of the cameras, "It's all about profits, under the guise of public safety."
Seeing the opposition of the legislature, Pembroke Pines sought a legal opinion of whether it could install the devices under its municipal authority. The attorney general said the cameras could be installed, but no ticket could be issued. Current law, according to Crist, requires "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."
National Motorists Association spokesman Eric Skrum suggests that the cities should consider alternatives to cameras. "The NMA hopes that the decision of the attorney general will encourage local officials to begin exploring engineering solutions," Skrum said. "Proven engineering solutions, such as lengthening the yellow light time, are too often ignored by local officials who are blinded by the money that can be generated by ticket cameras."
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 . . . ." 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.
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[.]" (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 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.
 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 Hotel, 56 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 1952); Ideal Farms Drainage District v. Certain Lands, 19 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 1944).