Florida Judge Rules Red-Light Camera Law Unconstitutional: What It Means for Your Traffic Ticket

Alan S. Bernstein P.A. | Criminal Defense Blog

Published March 8, 2026 | Constitutional Law, Traffic Defense, Due Process

A Broward County judge has handed down a ruling that could reshape how red-light camera tickets are enforced across Florida. In a 21-page order signed on March 3, 2026, Judge Steven P. DeLuca dismissed a photo-enforced traffic citation, finding that Florida’s red-light camera statute unconstitutionally shifts the burden of proof from the government to the vehicle owner. For anyone who has ever received one of these automated tickets and felt the system was fundamentally unfair, this decision is significant—and it deserves a close look.

What Happened in the Broward County Case

The case—State of Florida v. Kayla Erin McFadden, Case No. 25135882TI20A—originated from a red-light camera citation issued in Sunrise, Florida. Automated cameras captured a vehicle entering an intersection against a red signal, and the resulting ticket was mailed to the vehicle’s registered owner under Florida Statute 316.0083—the Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Act. The defendant challenged the citation, arguing that the statute was unconstitutional because it effectively required the registered owner to prove they were not driving, rather than requiring the state to prove who was behind the wheel.

Judge DeLuca agreed with the defense, granted the motion to dismiss, and issued a detailed written order explaining why the statutory framework violates core constitutional protections. The full 21-page order is available for review: Read the Order Granting Motion to Dismiss (PDF).

The Constitutional Problem: Burden of Proof and Due Process

At the heart of this ruling is a principle that criminal defense attorneys champion every day: the government bears the burden of proving its case, not the other way around.

Under Florida’s red-light camera statute, when a camera captures a violation, the registered owner of the vehicle is automatically presumed to be the person responsible. The only way to escape liability is to submit a sworn affidavit identifying someone else as the driver. In other words, you are presumed guilty and must actively prove your innocence—a framework that inverts the foundational principle of American criminal jurisprudence.

Judge DeLuca’s order zeroed in on the classification of these infractions. While red-light camera violations are technically labeled as “civil infractions,” the court found that they function as “quasi-criminal” proceedings. They can result in monetary penalties, formal findings of guilt, and consequences tied to a driver’s record. When a ticket is contested and moves to county court, the standard of proof rises to “beyond a reasonable doubt”—the same standard applied in criminal cases. The statutory presumption that the registered owner is the driver simply cannot survive under that standard.

Why This Matters for Florida Drivers

This ruling matters because it cuts to the core of what due process requires. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect individuals from being deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. When the government issues a fine—even for a traffic infraction—it must follow procedures that are fundamentally fair. A system that presumes guilt and requires the accused to disprove it is the opposite of fair.

Consider the practical reality. A vehicle might be registered in one person’s name but regularly driven by a spouse, an adult child, or an employee. The camera captures the vehicle, not the driver. Under the current statutory framework, the registered owner receives the ticket and must either pay the fine or go through the burden of identifying the actual driver under oath. This creates a perverse incentive: many people simply pay the fine to avoid the hassle, even when they were not the person behind the wheel.

How Far Does This Ruling Reach?

As of now, Judge DeLuca’s ruling applies only to the specific case before him in Broward County. It is not binding on other courts in Florida. However, the legal reasoning in his 21-page order is thorough and well-grounded in constitutional doctrine, which means it could serve as persuasive authority for defense attorneys challenging red-light camera tickets in other jurisdictions across the state.

If the ruling is appealed and reaches the District Court of Appeal, the implications could expand dramatically. A DCA decision would carry binding authority within its district, and if no conflicting appellate decisions exist elsewhere in the state, it could effectively become the law statewide. Legal observers and advocacy groups like StopTheCams are watching closely.

A Broader Pattern: Government Overreach in Traffic Enforcement

This ruling fits into a broader pattern we see regularly in criminal defense work. Government agencies increasingly rely on automated systems—cameras, algorithms, electronic monitoring—to enforce the law, often at the expense of individual constitutional rights. The convenience of automation does not excuse the government from its obligation to prove its case and respect due process protections.

Red-light cameras generate significant revenue for municipalities and the private companies that operate them. Supporters argue these systems improve intersection safety and deter dangerous driving. But the question is not whether the goal is worthwhile—it’s whether the method used to achieve that goal respects the constitutional rights of the people it affects. Judge DeLuca’s ruling says it does not.

What Should You Do if You’ve Received a Red-Light Camera Ticket in Florida?

If you have received a red-light camera citation in Florida—whether in Palm Beach County, Broward County, or elsewhere—this ruling may provide a basis for challenging the ticket. Here are a few things to keep in mind:

Do not ignore the ticket. Unpaid red-light camera citations can result in late fees, vehicle registration holds, and other consequences. You have the right to contest the citation, and doing so preserves your options.

Understand the timeline. There are deadlines for contesting a citation, and missing them can limit your ability to challenge the ticket. Acting promptly is important.

Consult with an experienced criminal defense attorney. A traffic citation may seem minor, but the constitutional issues at play in red-light camera cases are serious. An attorney who understands due process, burden-of-proof challenges, and the nuances of Florida’s traffic enforcement laws can evaluate your case and determine whether a motion to dismiss—based on the reasoning in Judge DeLuca’s order or other legal grounds—is appropriate.

Know your rights. The presumption of innocence is not just a principle for criminal trials. When the government uses quasi-criminal proceedings to impose penalties, it must still prove its case. You are not required to prove your innocence.

The Bottom Line

Judge DeLuca’s ruling is a win for constitutional rights in Florida. It reaffirms that the government cannot sidestep its burden of proof simply because it has access to a camera. Whether this decision ultimately reaches an appellate court and reshapes enforcement statewide remains to be seen, but the legal reasoning is sound: if the state wants to penalize you for running a red light, it must first prove that you were the one driving.

At Alan S. Bernstein P.A., we believe that every person deserves vigorous defense of their constitutional rights—whether the case involves a serious felony charge or a traffic camera citation. If you are facing a red-light camera ticket or any other traffic or criminal matter in South Florida, we are here to help.

Disclaimer: This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this post does not create an attorney-client relationship. If you are facing a legal matter, consult with a qualified attorney to discuss the specifics of your situation.