Opinion
NO. 2021 CA 1292
04-21-2022
Peter T. DAZZIO v. CITY PARISH OF BATON ROUGE and City of Baton Rouge Red Light Enforcement Program
Craig J. Sabottke, Peter T. Dazzio, Pro Se, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant, Peter T. Dazzio Anderson O. "Andy" Dotson, III, Parish Attorney, A. Gregory Rome, David M. Lefeve, Aislyn C. Taylor, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee, City of Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge
Craig J. Sabottke, Peter T. Dazzio, Pro Se, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant, Peter T. Dazzio
Anderson O. "Andy" Dotson, III, Parish Attorney, A. Gregory Rome, David M. Lefeve, Aislyn C. Taylor, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee, City of Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge
BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C.J., PENZATO, AND WOLFE, JJ.
WOLFE, J.
This appeal arises out of an alleged traffic signal violation captured on camera as part of the City of Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge's Electronic Red Light Enforcement Program. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court finding that the City/Parish acted within the bounds of its legal authority in assessing a fine against plaintiff, Peter Dazzio.
BACKGROUND
On June 26, 2020, a vehicle owned by Mr. Dazzio was captured on camera for failing to come to a complete stop at a steady red traffic signal located at the intersection of Coursey Boulevard and Cedarcrest Avenue in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Pursuant to the City/Parish's Code of Ordinances § 11:54, Electronic Red Light Enforcement Program, Mr. Dazzio was issued a notice of the violation on July 7, 2020, that included a penalty assessment of $117.00 for the alleged violation. Mr. Dazzio timely contested the violation and penalty.
An administrative adjudication hearing was held on October 6, 2020, where Mr. Dazzio was present, arguing that the proceeding was illegal and the penalty assessment was null. The City/Parish relied on the recorded photographic images of Mr. Dazzio s vehicle failing to stop at a steady red light, which were certified by a police officer as the basis for probable cause of the violation. After the administrative hearing, a Notice of Determination was sent to Mr. Dazzio, finding him liable because he failed to come to a complete stop at the red traffic signal in violation of the ordinance. Mr. Dazzio was assessed a penalty totaling $167.00 ($117.00 for the violation and $50.00 fine for being found liable at the administrative hearing).
Following the administrative hearing and Notice of Determination, Mr. Dazzio filed a petition for judicial review on October 23, 2020, in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, challenging the validity and constitutionality of Ordinance § 11:54. The City/Parish answered the petition and lodged the administrative record at the district court. After a hearing on June 14, 2021, the district court allowed the introduction of the entire administrative record into evidence and found in favor of the City/Parish and against Mr. Dazzio. The district court concluded that the City/Parish had acted within the bounds of its legal authority pursuant to Ordinance § 11:54. The district court affirmed the $167.00 penalty assessed against Mr. Dazzio and dismissed Mr. Dazzio's petition at his cost.
Mr. Dazzio timely appealed the district court's judgment. He asserts that the violation and his fine should be dismissed with prejudice as a nullity because Ordinance § 11:54 violates: (1) the Louisiana Constitution by unconstitutionally authorizing the existence and rulings of the traffic adjudication hearing office; (2) the Louisiana Codes of Civil Procedure and Criminal Procedure by failing to provide proper notice/affidavit/indictment and hearings in civil and/or criminal matters; and (3) the Louisiana Constitution by altering the burden of proof. The City/Parish argues that Mr. Dazzio's arguments are without merit, insisting that Ordinance § 11:54 is constitutional and consistent with current Louisiana law.
After the record was lodged with this court, we issued a show cause order on December 6, 2021, because the district court judgment at issue referenced a document – the decision of the Red Light Enforcement Program – that was not attached to the judgment. To be a valid, final, and appealable judgment, the judgment must not reference any extrinsic source or other documents in the record. The judgment must be precise, definite, and certain. See Laird v. St. Tammany Parish Safe Harbor, 2002-0045 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/20/02), 836 So.2d 364, 365 ; Baker v. Perret, 2018-0812 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/28/18), 304 So.3d 860, 861. In light of Code of Civil Procedure articles 1918(A), 1951, and 2088(A)(12), as amended by 2021 La. Acts No. 259, this court issued an interim order instructing the district court to sign an amended judgment to correct the deficiencies noted in the show cause order and to supplement the appellate record with the amended judgment. The record was supplemented with an amended judgment signed by the district court on March 2, 2022. The amended judgment defined the contents of the Notice of Determination ruling of the City/Parish Electronic Red Light Enforcement Program, affirmed the fine of $167.00, and attached and incorporated the Notice of Determination as part of the amended judgment. We concluded that the amended judgment is valid and appealable; thus, we maintained the appeal in a separate action issued on March 8, 2022.
DISCUSSION
On August 8, 2007, the City/Parish adopted Ordinance § 11:54 to permit the imposition of a civil penalty for traffic signal violations enforced by a photographic signal enforcement system. The Ordinance was codified and promulgated in the City/Parish Code of Ordinances. Ordinance § 11:54 outlines a method to detect and deter red-light violations by use of automated cameras. After a determination that a violation has occurred, the registered owner of the vehicle is sent a notice of violation by mail. The notice contains detailed information concerning the violation, and information about how to contest the violation and civil penalty imposed at an administrative adjudication hearing. The City/Parish has the ultimate burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a violation has occurred. Further, Ordinance § 11:54 provides a list of affirmative defenses available to the registered owner in order to contest the imposition of civil liability and civil penalty.
Ordinance § 11:54 provides, in pertinent part:
(a) Red light running.
* * *
(2) Imposition of civil penalty for violations enforced by a photographic traffic signal enforcement system.
* * *
b. ... [T]he owner of a vehicle is liable for a civil penalty of one hundred seventeen dollars ($117.00) if the vehicle proceeds into an intersection at a system location when the traffic control signal for that vehicle's direction of travel is emitting a steady red signal.
* * *
(3) Enforcement; procedures.
a. The department is responsible for the enforcement and administration of this section.[ Footnote added.]
* * *
c. In order to impose a civil penalty under this article, the department shall mail a notice of violation to the owner of the vehicle liable for the civil penalty[.] ...
d. A notice of violation issued under this section shall contain the following:
1. A description of the violation alleged;
2. The date, time, and location of the violation;
3. A copy of the recorded images taken by the still camera system of the vehicle involved in the violation;
4. The amount of the civil penalty to be imposed for the violation;
5. The date by which the civil penalty must be paid which shall be not less than sixty (60) days from the date of the mailing of the notice;
6. A statement [that] the person named in the notice of violation may pay the civil penalty in lieu of appearing
The "Department" shall mean the department of public works, its successor, or an authorized representative as determined by the director of the department of public works for the City/Parish. See Baton Rouge, East Baton Rouge Parish, La. Code of Ordinances, § 11:54 (a)(1).
at an administrative adjudication hearing;
7. Information informing the person named in the notice of violation:
i. Of the right to contest the imposition of the civil penalty in an administrative adjudication;
ii. Of the manner and time in which to contest the imposition of the civil penalty; and
iii. Failure to pay the civil penalty or to contest liability is a waiver of the right to appeal under subsection (4);
8. A statement that a recorded image is evidence in a proceeding for the imposition of a civil penalty;
* * *
(4) Administrative adjudication hearing.
a. A person who receives a notice of violation may contest the imposition of the civil penalty by submitting a request in writing for an administrative adjudication of the civil penalty within fifteen (15) calendar days inclusive of weekends and legal holidays after receipt of the notice of violation. Upon receipt of a timely request, the department shall notify the person in writing of the date and time of the administrative adjudication hearing, which may be reassigned at the discretion of the hearing officer.
* * *
e. In an administrative adjudication hearing, the issues must be proved at the hearing by a preponderance of the evidence. The reliability of the system used to produce the recorded image of the violation may be attested to in an administrative adjudication hearing by certification of an officer or the department. A certified notice from a sworn law enforcement officer or from the department that alleges a violation based on an inspection of the pertinent recorded images, is admissible in a proceeding under this article and shall constitute prima facie proof of the violation.
f. A person who is found liable after an administrative adjudication hearing ... shall be liable for the civil penalty and an administrative fee of fifty dollars ($50.00).
g. It shall be an affirmative defense to the imposition of civil liability under this article, to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, that:
1. The traffic-control signal was not in proper position and sufficiently legible to an ordinarily observant person;
2. The operator of the vehicle was acting in compliance with the lawful order or direction of a law enforcement or public safety officer;
3. The operator of the vehicle violated the instructions of the traffic-control signal so as to yield the right-of-way to an immediately approaching authorized emergency vehicle;
4. The vehicle was being operated as an authorized emergency vehicle under La. R.S. 32:24 ...;
5. At the time of the violation, the vehicle was in the care, custody or control of another person where the owner furnishes a truthful affidavit which identifies the name and mailing address of the person or entity who leased, rented or otherwise had the care, custody and control of the vehicle at the time of the violation. Responsibility for the violation under this section shall be transferred to the person identified in the affidavit;
6. The presence of ice, snow, unusual amounts of rain or other unusually
hazardous road conditions existed that would make compliance with this article more dangerous under the circumstances than non-compliance;
7. The person who received the notice of violation was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of the violation; or
8. At the time of the violation the vehicle was a stolen vehicle or the license plate displayed on the vehicle was a stolen plate, which must include proof acceptable to the hearing officer that the theft of the vehicle or license plate had been timely reported to the appropriate law enforcement agency.
* * *
i. The decision of the hearing officer shall be the final decision by city-parish consolidated government. A person or persons aggrieved by a decision may file a petition for judicial review to the district court of the parish, within thirty (30) days after the date of entry of the decision.
(5) Order of hearing officer.
a. The hearing officer at any administrative adjudication hearing under this article shall issue an order stating:
1. Whether the person charged with the violation is liable for the violation; and
2. The amount of any civil penalty and administrative fee assessed against the person.
* * *
(6) Effect of liability; exclusion of civil remedy.
a. The imposition of a civil penalty under this article shall not be considered a criminal conviction.
* * *
As set forth in the Notice of Violation and Ordinance § 11:54, a registered vehicle owner may contest the imposition of civil liability and a civil penalty by appearing at an administrative adjudication hearing on the date indicated in the notice. The Ordinance clearly states that the imposition of the penalty is not considered a criminal conviction. The Ordinance further specifies that it is the City/Parish that has the ultimate burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence that a violation has occurred. If the vehicle owner is aggrieved by the hearing officer's decision, the vehicle owner may file a petition for judicial review to the district court. Mr. Dazzio's arguments about violations of the Louisiana Codes of Criminal and/or Civil Procedure are without merit. Ordinance § 11:54 sets up an administrative procedure that is enforced by the Department of Public Works or an authorized representative determined by the director of the department for the City/Parish. See Ordinance § 11:54 (a)(1) and (a)(3)(a).
In this case, Mr. Dazzio incurred a civil penalty of $117.00 for running a red light. It is undisputed that Mr. Dazzio received notice of the violation and challenged the penalty in an administrative adjudication hearing. Mr. Dazzio then filed a petition for judicial review to challenge the validity of Ordinance § 11:54, arguing that the ordinance is unconstitutional and violates Louisiana law regarding notice and altering the burden of proof. We find no merit in Mr. Dazzio's arguments. Conversely, the City/Parish maintains that the Louisiana Constitution and the City/Parish's Home Rule Charter vest the City/Parish with the power to create and confer adjudicatory powers regarding traffic violations. We agree.
Municipalities, such as the City/Parish, derive their power to enact ordinances from the state constitution. City of Baton Rouge v. Williams, 95-0308 (La. 10/16/95), 661 So.2d 445, 447. Further, while the police power of the state is inalienable, it may be delegated to municipalities because these entities are part of the total government of the state. Id. at 449. Louisiana Constitution Article s and 5, authorize home rule charters and vest the local governmental subdivision with authority to draft, adopt, and amend home rule charters, as well as the authority to provide for the structure and organization, powers, and functions of the local governmental subdivision. We find that the City/Parish Ordinance complies with the notice and hearing requirements of procedural due process, as well as the proper burden of proof at the administrative hearing.
Mere conclusory allegations, unsupported by facts, are insufficient to state a cause of action attacking the validity of an ordinance. See Montalvo v. Sondes, 93-2813 (La. 5/23/94), 637 So.2d 127, 131. Mr. Dazzio fails to set forth any facts to support a constitutional challenge against the City/Parish. The Louisiana Supreme Court has consistently held that legislative enactments, including city ordinances, are presumed valid and their constitutionality should be upheld when possible. See State v. Hatton , 2007-2377 (La. 7/1/08), 985 So.2d 709, 719. Thus, Ordinance § 11:54 is presumed to be constitutional. See Theriot v. Terrebonne Parish Police Jury , 436 So.2d 515, 520 (La. 1983) ("An ordinance, like a state statute, is presumed to be constitutional and the party attacking the ordinance has the burden of proving its unconstitutionality.") An ordinance will be upheld if there exists a reasonable relationship between the law and the public good. Id. Mr. Dazzio did not make any showing that the ordinance at issue was limited by or conflicted with the Louisiana Constitution, state law, or the City/Parish's home rule charter.
Additionally, we find no merit to Mr. Dazzio's argument that Ordinance § 11.54 violates procedural due process requirements. The Ordinance provides for notice and a hearing where the individual is given an opportunity to be heard in a meaningful manner. Therefore, this civil administrative proceeding meets the requirements of due process. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-335, 96 S.Ct. 893, 902-903, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976). The City/Parish has a strong interest in promoting public safety by protecting the public from drivers who run red lights. The civil monetary penalty of $117.00 for running a red light is not unduly burdensome. There is no risk of criminal liability or arrest. See Ordinance § 1 l:54(a)(6)(a). Mr. Dazzio took advantage of the right to an administrative hearing and appeal process after he received notice of the violation and the notice of determination. Thus, the hallmarks of procedural due process – notice and the opportunity to be heard – are met in this civil administrative proceeding. Further, the City/Parish satisfied its burden of proving a violation by a preponderance of the evidence, with the presentation of the enforcement pictures showing the vehicle's alleged violation. Mr. Dazzio failed to establish any affirmative defense as to why he should not be penalized. See Ordinance § 11:54(a)(4)(g). Mr. Dazzio's arguments on appeal do not present a defense that he did not run the red light, that he had some lawful reason for running the red light, that he is not the owner of the vehicle in the photos, or that someone else was driving his vehicle at the time of the violation. Accordingly, we conclude that all of Mr. Dazzio's arguments on appeal are without merit.
CONCLUSION
For the stated reasons, the March 2, 2022 judgment of the district court affirming the civil liability determination of the hearing officer for the City of Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge's Electronic Red Light Enforcement Program and dismissing Peter Dazzio's petition for judicial review is affirmed in all respects. All costs of this appeal are assessed to Peter Dazzio.
AFFIRMED.
Whipple, C.J., concurs.
Penzato, J., concurs.