Are Robots Writing Your Traffic Tickets?

By: John Guidry

Some folks say technology has made our lives better. Video cameras protect citizens, and DNA testing frees the innocent. But technology also creates problems—specifically, the fact that computers are slowly replacing human judgment.

You mentioned the P vs. NP problem—the idea that computers might one day solve complex problems as well as doctors or lawyers. Well, if you have received a Red Light Camera ticket in Florida, you might argue that day is already here. Except instead of solving problems, the computers are just issuing citations.

A huge legal battle has been fought over whether a private company (a “robot,” essentially) can do the job of a police officer.

Got a Red Light Camera ticket in the mail?

Don’t let a machine decide your guilt. Call John today at (407) 423-1117.

The Good News: City of Hollywood v. Arem

In 2014, we scored a major victory for human oversight in City of Hollywood v. Arem, 154 So. 3d 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).

The issue was simple: The City of Hollywood (like many others) subcontracted their red light enforcement to a private company called American Traffic Solutions (ATS). ATS provided a “one-stop shop”:

• They installed the cameras.
• Their computers monitored the images.
• Crucially: Their computers decided which images were potential violations and forwarded only those to the police.

The Problem: Florida law says only law enforcement officers and Traffic Infraction Enforcement Officers (TIEOs) have the authority to issue citations. By letting ATS filter the images first, the City was effectively letting a private vendor decide who gets prosecuted.

The Court ruled:

“It cannot be said that this is the legal equivalent of a TIEO issuing the citation, especially when it is the third-party vendor that controls what information is, or is not, made available for the officer’s consideration.”

The Result: The citation was dismissed because the delegation of power was illegal.

The Bad News: State v. Jimenez (2016 Update)

As predicted, the victory was somewhat short-lived. In 2016, the Third District Court of Appeal released a decision in State v. Jimenez, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 11373, that distinguished itself from the Arem case.

• The Argument: Jimenez argued that, just like in Arem, the camera vendor had “unfettered discretion.”
• The Ruling: The court disagreed. They reviewed the specific policies of that municipality and found that because the city required a law enforcement officer to review the citations before they went out, the vendor did not have “unfettered discretion.”

The Reality Check: Basically, if the city has the right paperwork saying “an officer reviews this,” the courts are now leaning toward calling it legal.

I suspect many cities will simply re-write their guidelines to match the Jimenez policies “on paper” to keep the revenue flowing. Will they actually change how they handle the tickets? Don’t hold your breath. It is likely just a rubber-stamp process to satisfy the court.

John’s Takeaways

The red light camera war is far from over in Orange, Seminole, and Osceola County. Here is what you need to look out for:

• The “Rubber Stamp” Defense: Even with Jimenez, we can still fight these tickets by questioning the actual process. Did an officer really review the footage, or did they just click “Approve All” on a batch sent by the computer?
• The Confrontation Clause: There is a major flaw in these statutes regarding what testimony a judge can consider. Often, the “witness” in court is just a clerk who knows how to operate a computer, not the person who reviewed the evidence. We can challenge this.
• Don’t Just Pay It: Paying the ticket is an admission of guilt. These camera tickets carry points (in some contexts if unpaid/converted) and hefty fines. They are beatable, but you have to fight them.

Fight the Machine

Technology is great, but it shouldn’t be stripping you of your due process rights. If a computer decided you broke the law, you deserve a human attorney to defend you.

Call me at (407) 423-1117. Let’s unplug their case.

About John Guidry II

John Guidry II is a seasoned criminal defense attorney and founder of the Law Firm of John P. Guidry II, P.A., located in downtown Orlando next to the Orange County Courthouse, where he has practiced for over 30 years. With more than three decades of experience defending clients throughout Central Florida since 1993, Guidry has successfully defended thousands of cases in Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Brevard, Lake, and Volusia counties. He has built a reputation for his strategic approach to criminal defense, focusing on pretrial motions and case dismissals rather than jury trials.

Guidry earned both his Juris Doctorate and Master of Business Administration from St. Louis University in 1993. He is a member of the Florida Bar and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. His practice encompasses the full spectrum of Florida state criminal charges, with a particular emphasis on achieving favorable outcomes through thorough pretrial preparation and motion practice.

Beyond the courtroom, Guidry is a prolific legal educator who has authored over 400 articles on criminal defense topics. He shares his legal expertise through his popular YouTube channel, Instagram, and TikTok accounts, where he has built a substantial following of people eager to learn about the law. His educational content breaks down complex legal concepts into accessible information for the general public.

When not practicing law, Guidry enjoys tennis and pickleball, and loves to travel. Drawing from his background as a former recording studio owner and music video producer in the Orlando area, he brings a creative perspective to his legal practice and continues to apply his passion for video production to his educational content.