Court Opinion

ID: 9802928
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 15:08:07.2898+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:02:25.935274
License: Public Domain

Supreme Court of Florida
                             ____________

                          No. SC2023-0360
                            ____________

 IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF TRAFFIC
                      COURT.

                          August 31, 2023

PER CURIAM.

     The Florida Bar’s Traffic Court Rules Committee (Committee)

filed a report proposing amendments to the Florida Rules of Traffic

Court. 1 The proposed amendments were unanimously approved by

the Committee and The Florida Bar’s Board of Governors. Both the

Committee and the Court separately published the proposed

amendments for comment, but no comments were received.

     Having considered the Committee’s report, we hereby adopt

the amendments to the Florida Rules of Traffic Court as proposed

by the Committee. The amendments delete rules 6.080 (Improper

Disposition of Traffic Ticket), 6.180 (Sentencing Repeat Offenders),

     1. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.; Fla. R.
Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.140(b)(1).
6.183 (Peremptory Challenges), 6.190 (Procedure on Failure to

Appear; Warrant; Notice), and 6.300 (Driver License Revocation;

Maintaining List) as obsolete or redundant to other rules. Text from

rule 6.080 relating to contempt proceedings is streamlined and

moved to rule 6.090 (Direct and Indirect Criminal Contempt).

       Accordingly, we amend the Florida Rules of Traffic Court as

reflected in the appendix to this opinion. New language is indicated

by underscoring; deletions are indicated by struck-through type.

The amendments shall become effective January 1, 2024, at 12:01

a.m.

       It is so ordered.

MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, LABARGA, COURIEL, GROSSHANS,
FRANCIS, and SASSO, JJ., concur.

THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER
THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE AMENDMENTS.

Original Proceeding – Florida Rules of Traffic Court

Howard James Williams, Chair, Traffic Court Rules Committee,
Tampa, Florida, Andrew Joseph Decker IV, Past Chair, Traffic Court
Rules Committee, Lake City, Florida, Joshua E. Doyle, Executive
Director, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida, and Michael
Hodges, Bar Liaison, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida,

       for Petitioner

                                 -2-
                               APPENDIX

RULE 6.080.      IMPROPER DISPOSITION OF TRAFFIC TICKET

      Any person who solicits or aids in the disposition of a traffic
complaint or summons in any manner other than that authorized
by law or who willfully violates any provision of these rules shall be
proceeded against for criminal contempt in the manner provided in
these rules. However, a traffic hearing officer shall not have the
power to hold any person in contempt of court, but shall be
permitted to file a verified motion for order of contempt before any
state trial court judge of the same county in which the alleged
contempt occurred. Such matter shall be handled as an indirect
contempt of court pursuant to the provisions of Florida Rule of
Criminal Procedure 3.840.

                           Committee Notes

     1990 Amendment. This rule expands the statutory mandate
of Chapter 89-337, section 3(1) which deprives magistrates of the
power of contempt with respect to defendants only. The rule
extends the prohibition of a magistrate’s direct contempt powers to
cover any person. The Committee expressed concern that if the
contempt prohibition were limited to only the defendant, it might be
assumed that such powers existed with respect to others such as
attorneys, court personnel and witnesses. This rule also
incorporates reference to the provisions of Florida Rule of Criminal
Procedure 3.840 by specifying that magistrates may initiate indirect
contempt proceedings by filing a verified motion for order of
contempt pursuant to the Rule of Criminal Procedure.

      1996 Amendment. Enactment of chapter 94-202, Laws of
Florida, necessitated the deletion of all references in the rules to
traffic “magistrates” in favor of the term traffic “hearing officers.”

                                  -3-
RULE 6.090.     DIRECT AND INDIRECT CRIMINAL CONTEMPT

     Direct and indirect criminal contempt shall be proceeded upon
in the same manner as in the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.

     A traffic hearing officer does not have the power to hold any
person in contempt of court, but is permitted to file a verified
motion for order of contempt before any state trial court judge of the
same county in which the alleged contempt occurred. Such matter
must be handled as an indirect contempt of court under the
provisions of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840.

                          Committee Notes

                             [No Change]

RULE 6.180.     SENTENCING REPEAT OFFENDERS

     (a) Defendant’s Rights. A defendant, alleged to have a prior
conviction for a criminal traffic offense, shall have the right to
remain silent concerning any prior conviction at the time of plea or
sentence.

      (b) Proof of Prior Convictions. If the right to remain silent
is invoked by the defendant, the state shall have a reasonable time,
if requested, to determine if any prior convictions exist. If the state
is unable to prove any prior convictions, the defendant shall be
treated as if no prior convictions exist.

      (c) Suspension by Department. This provision shall not
prevent the department from suspending a defendant’s driving
privilege for a longer period than the court has entered if a prior
record is discovered by the department.

                          Committee Notes

                                 -4-
      1988 Adoption. Rule 6.180 is new and is designed to codify
existing procedures in DUI cases. The rule sets forth what has
become known as a “Meehan plea.” Meehan v. State, 397 So. 2d
1214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).

     1992 Amendment. Makes a “Meehan plea” applicable to all
criminal traffic offenses.

RULE 6.183.     PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES

      In every jury trial in which a defendant is charged with a
violation of section 316.193, Florida Statutes, each party shall have
3 peremptory challenges, but the trial court, in the interest of
justice, in its discretion may permit additional challenges.

                         Committee Notes

      1988 Adoption. This rule was initially drafted to allow 6
peremptory challenges per side in all DUI trials on the basis that
the penalties in a DUI were normally more severe than most third-
degree felonies, that the trial was as complicated as any second-
degree felony, and that it was also subject to extreme jury prejudice
due to “media blitz” publicity and the pressures from citizen action
groups, as well as the numbers of prospective jurors who were
nondrinkers or had religious reasons against drinking. The
proposed rule met with strong opposition from the committee as
drafted, with an almost even split vote. An amendment was
proposed, which is the above rule as written, which satisfied all
members of the committee, as it was recognized that the outlined
problems existed, and the committee felt that a rule was needed to
affirmatively show that additional peremptories should be freely
granted by the court when the need arises.

                                -5-
RULE 6.190.     PROCEDURE ON FAILURE TO APPEAR;
                WARRANT; NOTICE

      (a) Issuance of Warrants. The court may direct the issuance
of a warrant for the arrest of any resident of this state, or any non-
resident on whom process may be served in this state, who fails to
appear and answer a criminal traffic complaint or summons
lawfully served on such person and against whom a complaint or
information has been filed. The warrant shall be directed to all law
enforcement officers, state, county, and municipal, in the state and
may be executed in any county in this state.

      (b) Warrant Not Issued or Served; Disposition of Case. If a
warrant is not issued or is not served within 30 days after issuance,
the court may place the case in an inactive file or file of cases
disposed of and shall report only bond forfeiture cases and cases
finally adjudicated to the driver license issuing authority of the
department. For all other purposes, including final disposition
reports, the cases shall be reported as disposed of, subject to being
reopened if thereafter the defendant appears or is apprehended.

       (c) Nonresident of State; Failure to Appear or Answer
Summons. If a defendant is not a resident of this state and fails to
appear or answer a traffic complaint, the clerk of the court or the
court shall send notice to the defendant at the address stated in the
complaint and to the department. The department shall send notice
to the license issuing agency in the defendant’s home state. If the
defendant fails to appear or answer within 30 days after notice is
sent to the defendant, the court shall place the case in an inactive
file or file of cases disposed of, subject to being reopened if
thereafter the defendant appears or answers or a warrant is issued
and served.

      (d) Forfeiture of Bail. The waiting period imposed herein
shall not affect any proceedings for forfeiture of bail.

                                -6-
RULE 6.300.     DRIVER LICENSE REVOCATION; MAINTAINING
                LIST

      In order to comply with the provisions of section 322.282(1),
Florida Statutes, the clerk need not maintain a separate list of
driver license revocations or suspensions from his or her existing
records.

                                -7-