A Broward Judge Just Told Florida That a Camera Is Not a Witness
What the McFadden ruling on red light cameras says about who carries the burden of proof — and why that question matters far beyond a traffic intersection.
On March 3, 2026, Broward County Judge Steven P. DeLuca signed a 21-page order dismissing a red light camera citation and holding that the statute behind it is unconstitutional as applied. The case is State of Florida v. Kayla Erin McFadden, Case No. 25135882TI20A. The ticket came out of the City of Sunrise, where an automated camera photographed a vehicle entering an intersection against a red signal in May 2025. The notice simply went to the woman whose name was on the registration.
That last detail is the whole case.
How the Statute Works
Section 316.0083, Florida Statutes — the Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Act, on the books since 2010 — does not require anyone to prove who was driving. A camera photographs a license plate. The notice of violation goes to the registered owner. A first violation carries a $158 fine and no points. If the owner was not behind the wheel, the way out is to swear an affidavit naming the person who was.
So the state proves that your car ran the light. You are left to prove that you were not in it.
What Judge DeLuca Held
The order rests on a characterization that does a lot of work: these proceedings are quasi-criminal, not merely civil. They carry monetary penalties, a formal finding of guilt, and consequences attached to a driving record. Once a traffic infraction is contested in county court, Florida requires the state to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
From there the conclusion follows. If the state must prove every fact necessary to constitute the offense, and the identity of the driver is one of those facts, then a statutory presumption that hands that element to the government for free — and makes the accused disprove it — inverts the burden. Judge DeLuca found that this violates procedural due process under both the Fourteenth Amendment and Article I, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution.
He also pointed at a structural oddity in the scheme. Because camera violations never put points on a license, a driver could run red lights indefinitely, pay the fines, and never trip Florida’s point-based driver discipline system under section 322.27. A program sold as a safety measure produces no record of the unsafe driver.
What This Ruling Does Not Do
It does not turn the cameras off. This is a county court order. It binds the parties in front of Judge DeLuca and nobody else. It is persuasive authority — a well-reasoned 21 pages that other defendants can and do put in front of other judges — but it is not precedent, and municipalities across Florida are still issuing citations.
Practically, that means the worst thing you can do with a camera ticket is throw it away. Ignoring a notice of violation converts it into a uniform traffic citation with a higher penalty and exposure that the original notice did not carry. Anyone who wants to raise the constitutional argument should raise it in court, on time, preferably with counsel.
Where It Goes From Here
An appeal would run to the Fourth District Court of Appeal, and a constitutional challenge to a state statute has a realistic path to the Florida Supreme Court after that. Counsel for the defense has estimated roughly a year at the DCA level, longer if review is sought. Only at that stage does the ruling become binding on anyone beyond one Broward courtroom.
It is worth noting that the cameras have survived the Florida Supreme Court once already. The 2018 Jimenez litigation upheld the program against a challenge to how cities delegate the review of camera images to private vendors. That was a different question. Nobody in Jimenez decided whether the owner-liability presumption itself can coexist with a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard.
The Numbers, and Who Is Citing Them
StopTheCams.org, the nonprofit run by the attorney who tried this case, reports that Florida drivers have paid more than $1.2 billion in automated ticket fines since 2010, with the proceeds divided among state funds, municipalities, and the private contractors who operate the equipment. The same group cites statewide crash data showing increases at camera intersections: 8.9% in total crashes, 15.3% in angle crashes, and 19% in serious-injury crashes, with no measurable change in fatalities.
Those are advocacy figures, not findings from the McFadden order, and they should be read as such. The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles publishes its own annual analysis of the camera programs, and anyone weighing the safety question should look there too. But the revenue number is the part that explains why this fight is unlikely to end quietly.
How Does a Court Ruling on Traffic Tickets Relate to Property Insurance Benefits?
Because the principle underneath this ruling is the one we argue about constantly.
A system that presumes liability from an easily obtained fact — your name on a registration — and then leaves you to disprove it is a system built for the convenience of the party doing the collecting. Florida policyholders will recognize the structure immediately. A carrier denies a claim on a desk review, assigns a cause you never agreed to, and the burden quietly lands on the homeowner to produce documentation, prove a date of loss, or rebut a report from an engineer who never climbed the roof.
Judge DeLuca’s order is a reminder that the burden of proof is not an administrative detail. It is the thing that decides most cases. Where it sits determines who wins, and any system that shifts it away from the party seeking money should have to justify that shift on the record.
| Being Told to Prove Your Own Innocence? That Sounds Familiar.
Policyholders hear a version of this every day. The claim is denied or underpaid, and suddenly the burden is on you to prove the age of a roof, the date of a storm, or the condition of a pipe you have never seen. That is not how a first-party property insurance claim is supposed to work, and it is not how Florida law says it works. Cohen Law Group represents Florida policyholders — homeowners, condominium associations, and business owners — in disputes with their insurance carriers. We handle these cases on a contingency-fee basis: no fee unless we recover on your claim. If your claim has been denied, underpaid, or delayed, call (407) 478-4878 for a free review of your policy and your loss. Cohen Law Group | 350 North Lake Destiny Road, Suite 200, Maitland, FL 32751 | (407) 478-4878 |
Legal Disclaimer
This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and Cohen Law Group or any of its attorneys. Outcomes described here are specific to the cases and courts discussed, and the McFadden order is a county court decision that is not binding on other Florida courts. Statutes, case law, and administrative procedures change. Do not act or refrain from acting on the basis of this article without seeking advice from a licensed Florida attorney regarding your particular circumstances. If you have received a traffic citation, consult a traffic defense attorney; Cohen Law Group’s practice is limited to first-party property insurance matters.
SEO Metadata
Meta Title: Florida Red Light Camera Law Ruled Unconstitutional | What the McFadden Ruling Means
Meta Description: A Broward County judge held Florida’s red light camera statute unconstitutional for shifting the burden of proof to vehicle owners. Cohen Law Group breaks down the McFadden ruling and why burden of proof matters for policyholders too.
Primary Keyword: Florida red light camera unconstitutional
Secondary Keywords: Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Act; Florida Statute 316.0083; Broward County red light camera ruling; State v. Kayla Erin McFadden; burden of proof Florida; due process traffic citation; Florida property insurance attorney; denied insurance claim Florida
Suggested Internal Links: Burden of proof in a denied property insurance claim; What to do when your insurer blames wear and tear; Florida claim deadlines under section 627.70132
Suggested Slug: /florida-red-light-camera-ruling-burden-of-proof
