Clay Judge Set To Rule Red Light Camera Constitutionality
Judge Forbess Will Issue Ruling In Writing To Avoid Ambiguity
On December 4th, a hearing was held in a Clay County courtroom that may have implications across Florida. Clay resident Tyler Wright chose to have a trial by a Judge to contest the legality of a red light camera ticket.
After the state failed to provide a judge in November, Judge Ray Forbess presided over the hearing on December 4 (see our previous story above). Held online via Zoom, the hearing began with confusion over a prerequisite to hearings on the constitutionality of state laws. In short, any defendant who wishes to challenge the constitutionality of a law must first make the attorney general aware in writing.
Due to a misnamed file on record for this case, Judge Forbess was concerned proper notice was not filed. Luckily, the defense had proof on hand showing the Attorney General was notified in writing on three occasions. Prior to the trial, the defense submitted a five part motion to dismiss the infraction.
The prerequisites were satisfied, and the trial began with the presentation of the video of the red light camera infraction at the center of the case. Ronnie Gann, an officer of the Green Cove Springs Police Department, represented the state and played the video of the alleged infraction. Gann added that the vehicle in question was proven to belong to the defendant, Tyler Wright.
The attorney for the defendant, Luis A. Montiel, cross-examined Officer Gann. Through answers to the attorney’s questions, Gann outlined his credentials as a law enforcement officer with over 40 years of experience. He also outlined the differences between a ticket issued via a live traffic stop and one issued retroactively via red light cameras. Gann admitted he could not identify the driver of the vehicle, who ran the red light in this case.
After questioning Gann, Montiel moved on to the five-point motion he filed to dismiss the red light ticket. The motion goes to great lengths to prove, per the defense, that red light infractions violate the Constitution in several ways, including a defendant’s right to remain silent and not incriminate themselves.
The defense motion also claims that red light camera tickets unjustly shift the burden of proof onto the defendant by forcing them to either admit guilt or incriminate someone else for the infraction. The full text of the motion is included at the end of this article.
Forbess and Montiel discussed that this case will likely be a ‘case of first impression’ regarding red light camera laws. A "case of first impression" refers to a legal case where the court must decide an issue that has not been previously addressed or settled by judicial precedent within that jurisdiction. Essentially, it's a situation where there's no existing legal guidance or established law to directly apply, requiring the court to forge new legal ground or interpret the law in a novel way.
As such, the hearing ended with Judge Forbess committing to issue a written ruling on all five points of the motion to dismiss. A written ruling will help avoid ambiguity and enable a more straightforward appeal process after the verdict. Forbess also pledged to issue the verdict as soon as possible, as he had begun researching the motion's points before the hearing.
Clay News & Views will follow up on this story once Judge Forbess’ verdict is issued.
