from Hacker News

Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

by 1970-01-01 on 3/9/26, 5:20 PM with 556 comments

by fusslo on 3/9/26, 8:01 PM
After reading the 21 page order, I do tend to agree with the judge
The judge frames the red light camera scheme as a revenue generating scheme, not a public safety measure.
Additionally, "A distinctive feature of the statutory scheme is its assignment of guilt to the registered owner rather than the driver of the vehicle". and "If there are multiple registered owners, the citation is issued to the 'first' registered 'owner'". and the person whom the citation was issued to must sign an affidavit that includes the name, address, dob, of the person who was actually driving. The judge says this "...abandon(s) centuries time honored protections of hearsay as substantive evidence.".
"It is a foundational rule of constitutional due process that the government must prove every fact necessary to constitute an offense beyond a reasonable doubt before a person may be adjudicated guilty of a crime".
"Although nominally civil, traffic infraction proceedings retain every substantive hallmark of criminal prosecution..." "under Feiock, such proceedings are sufficiently criminal in form and function to invoke the full protections of due process..." - that's probably the core of the reasoning here.
"Section 316.074(1) provides in relevant part that "The driver of any vehicle shall obey..."" - the driver, not the registered owner.
I highly recommend reading the order. It's easy to follow and aligns with my understanding of the law within the USA.
by embedding-shape on 3/9/26, 5:43 PM
Seems the fact that it was a "red light camera" is completely irrelevant? The relevant part:
> The defendant argued the statute unconstitutionally requires the registered owner to prove they were not driving — instead of requiring the government to prove who was behind the wheel.
Bit like having to prove you weren't the one breaking in, rather than the police having to prove you were guilty.
In light of this, seems like a no-brainer no one could disagree with.
by db48x on 3/9/26, 5:50 PM
Steve Lehto has an analysis of the opinion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VinCGmdj-jQ
One interesting point is that the Judge also spent some ink criticizing the law because paying the ticket removes the ticket from your driving record. This means that habitual bad drivers can get away with the same infractions over and over again as long as they pay the fines quickly. This bypasses the State’s points system that was designed to punish repeat offenders by taking away their license.
I wonder how other state’s red–light camera laws hold up? Do they have the same flaws or are they written better?
by devy on 3/9/26, 8:29 PM
NYC government has thought about the legality of red light cameras. What they made it legal is to have human law enforcement officers review ever single computer flagged speeding footages with zoom out license plates, putting enforcement officer's signature into the tickets mailed out. In the same ticket they also provided a signed affidavit from the red light camera technology vendor's technician who performs weekly technical maintenance to certify that the red light camera is functional proper at the designed technical specifications (violation speed was far exceeds the margin of errors of reported speed etc.) Thus, both signatures satisfied the legal due process in NY state law. And the red light camera tickets mailing out are legal and enforceable.
Sources:
1. yes I got them before when I was driving a lot in Queens, New York City had legal counsel regarding fighting these red light camera tickets.
2. NYC government is quadrupling those cameras as it's a really cheap way to increase municipal revenue and reduce traffic speed. It's working if you drive in Queens NYC you will notice most traffic obey to the speed limits. https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/1q8fm89/nyc_to_quadrup...
by crote on 3/9/26, 5:56 PM
Surely the obvious next step is to charge the car itself with the crime of moving through a red light? Isn't that what civil forfeiture was supposed to be for? You're not getting a ticket, we're just impounding your car until someone bails it out...
Besides, it neatly solves the whole responsibility problem for self-driving car!
by vincston on 3/10/26, 10:22 AM
Its baffling to me how the US cannot handle their traffic laws. How is there any doubt in running a red light? Why can they not let common sense handle it? Just fine the car owner without question. Car owners will think twice borrowing their cars. Easy detection, less bureaucracy. And hopefully safer streets.
by 1shooner on 3/9/26, 5:45 PM
>"I've been ticketed here twice, and it's ridiculous because they it's just not fair," one driver said who didn't want to be identified. The person that does the determination when you ran the light, it's just a random. Whoever they want to pick, pick you to say, okay, you're gonna pay the ticket."
This is the opposite of my understanding of red light cameras. I always considered the supposed impartial application of the traffic law as the main benefit.
by richard_chase on 3/9/26, 9:55 PM
I was pulled over for having a non-obstructive frame on my license plate. The officer said they interfere with the red light cameras. He then presented me with a screwdriver and gave me the option of getting a ticket or taking it off. I took the screwdriver and he watched me take it off. I lost a freedom due to a shitty ml model.
by arjie on 3/9/26, 6:24 PM
One thing that seems reasonable is to have car points and driver points. In the event of violations, both the vehicle and the driver are assigned points depending on detection. Then after a certain number of points, the vehicle is impounded with the owner able to have it stored at an appropriately licensed facility of their choice that ensures that the vehicle cannot be driven on public roads.
Reporting vehicle theft etc. can provide immunity from points on the car.
by t1234s on 3/9/26, 5:56 PM
Having driven in the UK and coming back to the US I miss all of the roundabouts. Any reason (aside from contractor profits) towns use 4-way traffic light systems vs a roundabout and some yield signs?
by rudhdb773b on 3/10/26, 3:44 AM
The issue with police departments trying to maximize fine revenue has a simple solution.. pass a law that says all fines go directly to the treasury.
A similar law could eliminate most of the problems with civil forfeiture.
by fennecfoxy on 3/10/26, 10:09 AM
Lmao why. Stop driving through red light, stop speeding. Ya fuckers.
In the UK it's ridiculous, barely any speed cameras and those that are there are clearly marked (legally have to be). Everyone just slows down for the speed cameras and then start speeding again after.
I've actually heard people say that the above is effective because it makes people slow down where it's important. Or, you know how about people just don't fucken speed in general?
If it were up to me they'd be everywhere, totally unmarked and all revenue from fines would go to charitable causes to rule out the "but they just do it for da money!11" bs - no, they're doing it to stop people speeding and killing someone for fuck's sake.
Stop speeding.
by vaadu on 3/9/26, 7:16 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VinCGmdj-jQ He's a lawyer and describes it in excellent detail.
One side issues the judge brought up is that no points go on the driver's record with a red light camera offense. The entire point of the points system is to get bad drivers off the road. But people can have numerous red light infractions and still keep their license.
by Arch-TK on 3/9/26, 10:25 PM
The US could be be such an amazing place...
Meanwhile the solution to this problem in the UK is to reaffirm that you are in fact guilty by default unless by happenstance you are determined not to be by an unfairly chosen panel of blind and deaf mice.
by spullara on 3/9/26, 6:10 PM
It seems like the law was poorly written. If it is civil, automated speeding tickets and red light tickets should be just added to the registration cost. If it is criminal, you definitely need to identify the person in order to prove they are guilty.
by limagnolia on 3/9/26, 8:15 PM
It should be noted that red light cameras were NOT found unconstitutional as a thing, BUT Florida (and many other states) implementation of them was. And I think the judge used very good, solid reasoning.
by donatj on 3/10/26, 12:21 AM
Minnesota is in a strange place where they were ruled unconstitutional, and they disappeared for many years. Now they are back, and to get around that they are not a misdemeanor, aren't a ding against your license or insurance, and you're under no obligation to pay them.
by gozucito on 3/9/26, 11:51 PM
Fun fact! This is the second time red light camera tickets have been successfully challenged.
I believe the first time it was because the photos were processed out of state. Apparently it didn't stick!
by ayaros on 3/9/26, 6:00 PM
Florida did something good for once?
by jscomino on 3/9/26, 5:48 PM
Here's a novel idea: Let the citizens vote on whether they want red-light cameras or not.
by triceratops on 3/9/26, 8:09 PM
Red light camera fines, like all sin taxes, should be made revenue neutral.
by 46493168 on 3/9/26, 5:48 PM
Palantir found their next contract for facial recognition. Palatir x Flock collab soon?
by aschatten on 3/9/26, 9:32 PM
https://www.law.gmu.edu/pubs/papers/ls15_36
by credit_guy on 3/9/26, 7:46 PM
I know this is not related to the legal merits of the case being discussed, but who runs a red light? In my experience, this is an infarction that occurs very infrequently. Speeding or illegal parking happen all the time, but running a red light? Most people are not suicidal.
Edit: Nevermind, I think crossing on yellow and catching a tenth of a second of red counts as running a red light. If it does, it’s something I did myself a few times (of course, all in the distant past, the statute of limitations has pased now …)
by kazinator on 3/9/26, 8:31 PM
> "I've been ticketed here twice, and it's ridiculous because they it's just not fair," one driver said who didn't want to be identified.
Of course they don't want to be identified after blankly admitting they were ticketed; i.e. they were the one driving, in fact.
Entitled prick: running red lights, and crying "unfair".
> The person that does the determination when you ran the light, it's just a random. Whoever they want to pick, pick you to say, okay, you're gonna pay the ticket."
Complete nonsense; why is the article even quoting this mouth breather?
These cameras work in terms of determining that the given vehicle was involved in the alleged violation. There is nothing random about it. It's not randomly pinning a drummed up allegation on vehicles not involved in a violation. The choice of pinning the ticket on the registered owner is also not random.
Typically these systems take at least two shots, moments apart, one showing the vehicle not yet in the intersection (whose traffic light is clearly red) and then the same vehicle in the intersection a split second later, providing evidence that the vehicle entered the intersection on a red.
by analog31 on 3/9/26, 5:51 PM
This is going to be the year of refunds from the government.
by engelo_b on 3/10/26, 12:41 AM
The ripple effects for automotive liability will be interesting to watch here. For a long time, insurance companies have viewed these citations as an easy signal for high-risk behavior. If that signal is now legally 'poisoned fruit' in Florida, it likely makes the move toward private telematics tracking your actual braking and speed via apps even more inevitable for the carriers. They are going to want that risk data one way or another, and private tracking bypasses the due process issues of municipal cameras.
by jibal on 3/10/26, 5:34 AM
The HN title is factually incorrect. As the article's title and text state, it was Florida's specific law that was declared unconstitutional, and not because of red light cameras.
by jollyllama on 3/9/26, 9:02 PM
Stephen Ruth sends his regards.
by bell-cot on 3/9/26, 8:55 PM
Before getting too excited - note that it's just a County Court Judge. So the ruling only applies in one of Florida's 67 counties.
by kevincloudsec on 3/10/26, 2:32 AM
whether you want a network of cameras tracking every vehicle through every intersection is a different question that nobody voted on
by stevehawk on 3/9/26, 5:45 PM
just means they will install more cameras to capture driver faces or buy cellphone data
by natas on 3/10/26, 3:07 AM
the judge probably also got a ticket
by shevy-java on 3/9/26, 7:59 PM
Interesting - the constitution protects people for so many years now.
by SilverElfin on 3/9/26, 7:29 PM
Great. Ban speed cameras next. They’re just performative safetyism used as revenue sources or by activists on an anti car quest. But I actually suspect all of this will somehow be twisted into something neither side expects, which is mass surveillance and tech grift.
by lateforwork on 3/9/26, 5:54 PM
The problem with red-light cameras is that enforcement becomes robotic. Robots are perfect—they don’t make mistakes (at least in theory), and they don’t show leniency. If policing is done by robots, then humans are expected to be infallible.
by CapitalistCartr on 3/9/26, 5:53 PM
We have red light cameras here in Tampa. I don't know all the details of what it takes to make a right on red and not get a ticket, so I do exaggerated stops to be sure. I know what the law claims but that doesn't matter. The real law is the actual (proprietary) code rumning in the machine. Not what the law says. Not what the contract says. Not what the requirements say. Not what the programmer thinks the code does.
by angry_octet on 3/9/26, 9:58 PM
This is a great argument for fines indexed to the price of the car, and non-linearly with speed and value and repeated occurrences.
Fine = 2 ^v^2 ^n^2 ^p^2
Where v is velocity % higher than the speed limit, n is the number of speeding occurrences in the past 12 months, p is the normalised price of the vehicle. Obviously these parameters could be tweaked.
The result should be that frequent violations cost much more, cost is proportional to the increased danger, and rich people feel the cost of violations.
by ProllyInfamous on 3/9/26, 11:55 PM
These are already unconstitutional in Tennessee — yet the private company still sends out violation notices (with a payment address).
Nothing happens if you don't pay them; state congressmen have burned their own citations publicly.
by mchusma on 3/9/26, 6:00 PM
Red light running is bad...but I think the solution to this problem at this point is just "self driving cars". With some exceptions, I would just focus all jurisdictions on this future and avoid policy inline with a world full of self driving cars. Currently in the US, most places feel like you need a car, and many US laws are designed with this in mind. In 5 years, this will no longer be true, so laws should reflect:
1. No parking minimums 2. Less free parking (e.g. street parking) 3. Policy supportive of self driving cars 4. More aggressive removal of driver licenses for human drivers with repeat violations 5. More aggressive penalties for driving without a license.