In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Practice & Procedure for Traffic Courts

608 So. 2d 451, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 668, 1992 Fla. LEXIS 1825, 1992 WL 301685
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedOctober 22, 1992
DocketNo. 79617
StatusPublished

This text of 608 So. 2d 451 (In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Practice & Procedure for Traffic Courts) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Practice & Procedure for Traffic Courts, 608 So. 2d 451, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 668, 1992 Fla. LEXIS 1825, 1992 WL 301685 (Fla. 1992).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Traffic Court Rules Committee of The Florida Bar (rules committee) has petitioned this Court to approve its quadrennial report of proposed changes to the Florida Rules of Practice and Procedure for Traffic Courts (Traffic Court Rules). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 2(a) of the Florida Constitution.

The rules committee proposes substantive amendments to rules 6.040, 6.110, 6.180, 6.360, 6.370, 6.470, and 6.630; deletion of rule 6.185; consolidation of rules 6.291, 6.292, and 6.293; and adoption of new rules 6.161 and 6.325. All other recommended changes are editorial. Pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.130(c), the proposed amendments were submitted to The Board of Governors of The Florida Bar for its recommendation. The board unanimously recommended approval of the proposed amendments. The proposed changes were published for comment. Several comments were filed in opposition to rule 6.161. In addition, The Traffic Court Review Committee (review committee) of this Court filed a response to the rules committee’s petition. The review committee’s response proposed a technical amendment to rule 6.115 and included comments on rules 6.161 and 6.325.

The review committee recommends that subdivisions (d)(1) and (d)(3) of rule 6.115 be amended to reflect the 1992 amendment to section 25.387, Florida Statutes, which increased the assessment for the DUI Programs Coordination Trust Fund from six to ten dollars, effective July 1, 1992. See ch. 92-94, Laws of Fla. We approve the review committee’s proposed change.

In its report, the rules committee proposes the adoption of rule 6.161 which would permit either party, without court approval, to take a telephonic statement of any witness listed by the other party. The rules committee’s petition notes that “this rule has not been received well by the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee, the Criminal Law Section DUI and Traffic Subcommittees.” Comments from rules committee member Judge Walter Fullerton, the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee of The Florida Bar, and the review committee have expressed more vehement opposition to the proposed rule. Proposed rule 6.161 would permit telephonic depositions without court approval in misdemeanor criminal traffic cases. This is in direct conflict with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(h)(l)(iii) which provides that “[n]o deposition shall be taken in a case where the defendant is only charged with a misdemeanor or a criminal traffic offense when all other discovery provided by this rule has been complied with unless good cause can be shown to the trial court.” (Emphasis added.) The rules of criminal procedure, which apply to criminal traffic cases, clearly do not permit depositions in such cases without court approval. Furthermore, rule 6.161 constitutes a departure from Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(h)(7) which permits telephonic statements by law enforcement officers in lieu of deposition, but only upon stipulation by the parties and the consent of the witness. Thus, we decline to adopt proposed rule 6.161.

[452]*452The rules committee also proposes the adoption of rule 6.325, a speedy trial rule for civil traffic infractions. Under the proposed rule, every defendant charged with a noncriminal traffic infraction must be brought to trial within 180 days of the infraction or the charge is subject to dismissal. According to the rules committee, such a time limit will address “the effect on an individual of outstanding pending civil traffic infractions for an unreasonable time.” The rules committee suggests that this rule ultimately will ease the backlog of pending cases and may also ease the daily burden upon county judges and traffic magistrates. We hereby adopt rule 6.325. However, because the review committee has expressed confusion as to how the rule will apply to infractions issued before the effective date of these rule changes, we include a schedule to clarify the application rule 6.325. Under this schedule, all civil traffic infractions pending on January 1, 1994, are governed by rule 6.325. The speedy trial in these pending cases shall be computed in the manner specified by subdivision (a). The 180 days shall run from the date the alleged infraction took place, and not from the effective date of the rule. The Court anticipates that the time between the publication of this opinion and the effective date of rule 6.325 will provide adequate opportunity for any backlog of cases to be eliminated.

We approve the remainder of the proposed changes. Appended is the text of the amended portions of the rules. New language is indicated by underscoring; deletions are indicated by struck-through type. The committee notes are offered for explanation and guidance only and are not adopted as an official part of the rules. The amendments shall become effective January 1, 1993, at 12:01 a.m. with the exception of rule 6.325 which becomes effective at 12:01 a.m. on January 1, 1994.

It is so ordered.

BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, shaw, grimes, kogan and HARDING, JJ., concur.

RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE FOR TRAFFIC COURTS

I. SCOPE, PURPOSE, AND CONSTRUCTIONrAND TRANSITION

RULE 6.010. SCOPE

(a) Application. These Rrules govern practice and procedure in any traffic case and specifically apply to practice and procedure in Ccounty Ccourts, and, if applicable, to civil traffic infraction hearing officers appointed as traffic magistrates.

(b) Part III. The rules under Part III of these rules apply to all criminal traffic offenses not-subject to the provisions of Chapter 318, Florida Statutes, whether prosecuted in the name of the state or any subdivision of it.

(c) Part IV. The rules under Part IV of these rules apply only to traffic infractions governed by Chapter 318, Florida Statutes, adjudicated in a court of the state, whether by a county court judge or civil traffic infraction hearing officer appointed as a traffic magistrate.

Committee CommentsNotes

1990 Amendment;. The statutory authorization of civil traffic infraction hearing officers by Cchapter 89-337, Laws of Florida, necessitates reference to such hearing officers (statutorily referred to interchangeably as magistrates) in the traffic court rules. Reference in the proposed rule to traffic magistrate rather than merely magistrate is designed to distinguish the former from other magistrates,^ especially in relation to the applicability of the Code of Judicial Conduct (see section of code entitled “Compliance with the Code of Judicial Conduct”), thereby avoiding the possibility of conflict with authorizing statute.

1992 Amendment. Because traffic violations are contained in several chapters of Florida Statutes, references to chapter 318 have been deleted to eliminate latent inconsistencies.

[453]*453II. GENERAL PROVISIONS

RULE 6.040. DEFINITIONS

The following terms shall have the meaning respectively-ascribed to themdefinitions apply:

(a) “Court” means any county court to which these rules apply and the judge thereof or any civil traffic hearing officer program and the traffic magistrate thereof.

(⅛) “Charging document” means any information, uniform traffic citation, complaint affidavit, or any other manner of charging a criminal traffic offense under law.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Meehan v. State
397 So. 2d 1214 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
608 So. 2d 451, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 668, 1992 Fla. LEXIS 1825, 1992 WL 301685, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-amendments-to-the-florida-rules-of-practice-procedure-for-traffic-fla-1992.