A Florida Judge Ruled Red-Light Camera Tickets Unconstitutional: What It Actually Means

On March 3, 2026, a Broward County Court judge ruled that Florida's red-light camera law is unconstitutional as applied in one specific case, because it forces the registered owner of a car to prove their innocence instead of requiring the government to prove guilt. That ruling does not strike the law down statewide, does not stop camera enforcement anywhere in Florida, and is not binding on any other judge. If you have a red-light or speed-camera ticket right now, you still need to deal with it.

What actually happened in Broward County

The case is State of Florida v. Kayla Erin McFadden, Case No. 25135882TI20A, decided in Broward County Court by Judge Steven P. DeLuca. Judge DeLuca held that Florida Statute 316.0083 — the state law that authorizes red-light and speed camera enforcement — violates procedural due process guarantees under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution, as applied to Ms. McFadden's case.

The core problem the judge identified is how Section 316.0083 assigns blame. A camera photographs a license plate running a red light or speeding through a work zone or school zone. The notice of violation and the fine go to the registered owner of the vehicle, not necessarily the person who was driving. Under the statute, the owner is presumed responsible unless the owner files a sworn affidavit identifying who was actually behind the wheel. In other words, the burden sits with the owner to prove they weren't the driver, rather than the state having to prove who was.

When a driver contests a camera ticket in county court, the proceeding functions like a quasi-criminal case — the kind where due process normally requires the government to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Judge DeLuca's reasoning was that a statute cannot simultaneously demand that level of proof from the state while also shifting the practical burden of disproving guilt onto the person who received the notice. That combination, in his view, denied Ms. McFadden the process she was constitutionally due.

The single most important thing to understand: this is one trial-court ruling

This is where a lot of the online chatter about "Florida red light cameras being illegal" gets ahead of the facts. Florida's court system has layers, and rulings only bind courts below the level that issued them:

• County court — where traffic infractions like camera tickets are usually heard. This is where Judge DeLuca sits, and where this ruling was issued.
• Circuit court — hears appeals from county court and some other matters.
• District Court of Appeal (DCA) — Florida has several DCAs. A published DCA decision is binding on every county and circuit court within that district, and often persuasive statewide.
• Florida Supreme Court — the final word on Florida constitutional questions, binding statewide.

A county court ruling — even a well-reasoned one from a respected judge — is binding only in that specific case. It is not binding on other Broward County judges, not binding anywhere else in Florida, and it carries no authority outside the courtroom it was decided in. Other judges may find the reasoning persuasive and choose to follow it, and defense attorneys will absolutely cite it, but no other court is required to reach the same conclusion. Until a District Court of Appeal or the Florida Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of Section 316.0083, the statute remains on the books and enforceable statewide.

It's also worth noting the state can appeal this ruling. If it does, a circuit court (sitting in its appellate capacity) or a DCA could affirm, reverse, or narrow Judge DeLuca's reasoning. As of this writing in July 2026, no appellate decision has resolved the question. The legal status of Section 316.0083 is genuinely unsettled — not settled in favor of drivers.

Do cameras still work, and do you still have to pay?

Yes, and generally yes. Red-light and speed cameras continue to operate across Florida municipalities and counties that use them, and local governments continue to issue notices of violation under Section 316.0083. If you receive a camera ticket after March 3, 2026, the ruling in the McFadden case does not automatically apply to you, does not automatically dismiss your ticket, and does not exempt you from the normal deadlines to respond.

That said, the ruling gives anyone contesting a camera ticket in Florida county court a real, citable argument to raise — that the burden-shifting scheme in 316.0083 denies due process. Whether a particular judge accepts that argument is up to that judge. Some may follow Judge DeLuca's reasoning; others may disagree or may decide the statute is constitutional on its face even if problems existed in the specific facts of the McFadden case.

How Section 316.0083 works, step by step

Understanding the mechanics helps explain why the due-process argument exists in the first place:

• Step 1 — Detection. A camera captures an image (and often video) of a vehicle's rear license plate at the moment of the alleged violation — running a red light after it turns red, or speeding through a designated work or school zone.
• Step 2 — Owner lookup. The plate is run against Florida's vehicle registration database to identify the registered owner. That is who receives the notice — regardless of who was actually driving.
• Step 3 — Notice of violation. A notice (not automatically a criminal citation) is mailed to the registered owner, describing the alleged violation and the fine, and explaining the deadline and options to respond.
• Step 4 — The owner's options. The owner can pay the fine, or can contest it. If the owner wasn't driving, the statute allows the owner to submit a sworn, notarized affidavit identifying the actual driver at the time of the violation.
• Step 5 — If contested. If the owner disputes the ticket and it isn't resolved administratively, it can proceed to county court, where — per the McFadden ruling's reasoning — the state must prove the violation, yet the practical structure of the law still starts from a presumption against the owner.

That affidavit requirement — filing a sworn statement naming someone else as the driver, under penalty of perjury — is exactly the mechanism Judge DeLuca found constitutionally troubling, because it puts the burden on the accused to produce exculpatory information rather than requiring the government to establish who was driving in the first place.

Your practical options if you get a camera ticket right now

Because the law is unsettled but still in force, here's how to think through a real ticket:

• Read the notice carefully and note every deadline. Camera notices generally give a limited window to pay, request a hearing, or submit an affidavit naming another driver. Missing the deadline can convert the fine into a higher-cost citation. Deadlines and fine amounts vary by county and municipality, since local governments administer these programs — check the notice itself and your local jurisdiction's website rather than assuming a number you saw online.
• Decide if you were the driver. If you were driving, you can pay the fine to close the matter, or contest it in county court. If someone else was driving, Section 316.0083 allows you to submit a sworn affidavit identifying that person — this shifts responsibility for the ticket to the actual driver, but it must be truthful, since it's made under oath.
• Consider contesting it. If you contest, you can require the local government to establish the violation in county court. Given the McFadden ruling, an attorney (or a well-prepared driver) may choose to raise the due-process argument as part of the defense. There's no guarantee a particular judge will agree, but it's now a documented, real-world argument rather than a novel theory.
• Keep your own documentation. Save the notice, any photos or video links provided, and records of who had the vehicle at the time (work schedules, rental agreements, texts, etc.) if you plan to dispute who was driving.
• Check your local county or municipal program's current status. Some Florida cities and counties have paused, modified, or continued their camera programs independently of this ruling. Whether cameras are active in your area, and how ticket administration works there, is a local decision layered on top of the state statute.

When it's worth talking to a Florida traffic attorney

Most camera tickets are civil infractions with modest fines and no license points, so many drivers simply pay and move on. But it's worth a consultation with a Florida traffic attorney if: you're being asked to name a specific driver and aren't certain who it was, you've received multiple camera tickets and are worried about accumulating fines, your ticket has escalated toward a higher-stakes citation or collections action, or you specifically want to raise the due-process argument from the McFadden case in county court and want it framed correctly for your jurisdiction. An attorney can also tell you whether your county's court has seen similar challenges since March 2026 and how local judges have responded, since that on-the-ground pattern will matter more to your outcome than the Broward ruling alone.

The bottom line

A single Broward County judge found Florida's red-light camera law unconstitutional as applied to one driver's case, based on a genuine and serious due-process concern: the law asks accused drivers to disprove guilt rather than requiring the government to prove it. That's a meaningful development and a useful argument for anyone contesting a ticket. But it is not an appellate ruling, it does not bind any other court, and it does not stop camera enforcement or excuse you from responding to a ticket you receive. Treat any notice you get on its own terms, meet its deadlines, and if you want to challenge it on constitutional grounds, do so through the proper process — ideally with legal advice tailored to your county.

The law behind your rights

A traffic stop is a Fourth Amendment seizure (applied to state and local police through the Fourteenth Amendment): police need at least reasonable suspicion or probable cause of a violation to stop you, may order the driver and passengers out of the car, but cannot drag the stop out longer than needed to handle the reason they pulled you over.

Constitutional basis: Fourth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment. Your state constitution may add further protections.

Key court cases:

• Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) — A traffic stop is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment whenever police have probable cause of a traffic violation, regardless of the officer's true (pretextual) motive.
• Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977) — During a lawful traffic stop an officer may, as a matter of course, order the driver to step out of the vehicle.
• Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997) — An officer may also order passengers, not just the driver, out of a lawfully stopped vehicle.
• Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) — Police may not prolong a traffic stop beyond the time needed to handle the stop's mission (e.g., for a dog sniff) absent independent reasonable suspicion.

These are landmark federal cases that establish the rights described above. How they apply can depend on your state, the federal circuit you are in, and the specific facts of an encounter. This is general legal information, not legal advice.