Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-21-2010 Minutes THE CITY OF OCOEE POLICE INFRACTION HEARING BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 21, 2010 CALL TO ORDER Vice -Chair Chinelly called the City of Ocoee Police Infraction Hearing Board meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of City Hall with the pledge of allegiance. The roll was called and a quorum declared. MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice -Chair Chinelly, Members Amey, Ball, Bellerive, Laney and Lopez- Anderson. Also present were City Attorney Hamilton, Lt. Dreasher, Staff - Liaison Sgt. Wagner, Officers Clark and Roberts, CSA Michaelis, Court Clerk Decaul and Recording Clerk Turner. ABSENT: Chairman Minarcin (excused). Vice -Chair Chinelly welcomed everyone and explained the procedures for the hearing. He swore in the officers and the complainants who were present. Vice -Chair Chinelly asked if anyone in the audience would like to abandon their appeal before the hearing begins. Respondents that wished to abandon their appeal, and pay the civil fine: Respondent Case Number Bridgette Horton 1291000080063 PRESENTATION OF CASES Case numbers were not necessarily presented in docket order. Hearings order varied to accommodate the respondents that were present. #64067 Excell -Leroy — Ofc. Clark presented his evidence as to why a citation was issued to Ms. Excell- Leroy. Ms. Excell -Leroy submitted an affidavit and letter to contest the citation. Lt. Dreasher explained to the board that the evidence the City provided includes the corrected Notice of Violation. The corrected Notice of Violation supersedes the original Notice of Violation and was sent certified mail. Ms. Excell -Leroy stated that she was not travelling in the direction that the video and pictures indicate; instead, she was making a right hand turn onto Maguire Road. In her testimony, she stated that she lives in Windermere, and on that day she was on her way home from Clermont; therefore, could not be travelling in the direction that the pictures and video indicate. Member Lopez- Anderson asked Ofc. Clark to verbally explain the roads and pathways that the video and pictures show. Ofc. Clark explained in detail the direction the vehicle was travelling, landmarks, and roadways. Member Amey asked Ms. Excell -Leroy if the vehicle in the pictures and video belongs to her, and Ms. Excell -Leroy stated that it does. Member Amey made a motion to deny Ms. Excell - Leroy's appeal, seconded by Member Bellerieve. Motion passed 4 -2, with Members Ball and Laney opposing. #64208 Douglas — Ofc. Clark presented his evidence as to why a citation was issued to Mr. Douglas. Mr. Douglas submitted an affidavit to contest the citation. The evidence the City provided included the corrected Notice of Violation. The corrected Notice of Violation supersedes the original Notice of Violation, and includes all ordinance requirements. Mr. Page 1 of 5 Douglas stated that the pictures included on the Notice of Violation show that his brake lights were on, proving that he slowed down at the light. He further stated that he has been doing research and a judge in Orange County deemed red light cameras illegal. Vice - Chair Chinelly stated that the case Mr. Douglas is referring to is in the City of Orlando, which is under a different jurisdiction. Furthermore, as of July 1 2010, the City of Ocoee enforces the red light running program under state law. Attorney Hamilton explained that the City of Orlando intends to appeal the decision made by Judge Lauten, and the City of Ocoee's board is not bound to Orlando's ordinance. The City of Ocoee operates under its own jurisdiction, and Judge Lauten's decision has no bearing on Ocoee's ordinance. He also went on to explain that the board reviews the infraction, and not the validity of the ordinance. He told Mr. Douglas that if his appeal is denied, he can go before the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court to appeal the validity of the ordinance. Member Laney stated that the ordinance was passed by the City of Ocoee's Commission, and the board has the authority to hear appeals and vote, but doesn't have the authority to change the ordinance. She further explained that a right turn on red is not a violation of the law, but a vehicle must first come to a complete stop before turning right on red. Mr. Douglas stated that the City does not have proof that he was driving the vehicle on the date of the violation. Member Laney asked if he was driving his vehicle on that day, and Mr. Douglas stated that he was not. His cousin was driving his vehicle, but has returned to Jamaica. Vice - Chair Chinelly stated that if Mr. Douglas wanted to identify the driver, the liability could be transferred to his cousin. Mr. Douglas stated that his cousin lives in Jamaica, and doesn't wish to assign the liability. Member Lopez Anderson made a motion to deny Mr. Douglas' appeal, seconded by Member Amen Motion passed unanimously. #57004 Frias — Respondent wished to abandon his appeal, and pay the civil fine. #55495 Nowell, Jr.— Ofc. Roberts presented her evidence as to why a citation was issued to Mr. Nowell, Jr. The evidence the City provided included the corrected Notice of Violation. The corrected Notice of Violation supersedes the original Notice of Violation, and includes all ordinance requirements. Mr. Nowell, Jr. was not present for the hearing; however, submitted a signed affidavit and a letter to contest the citation. Member Lopez Anderson made a motion to deny Mr. Nowell Jr. 's appeal, seconded by Member Amev. Motion passed unanimously. #59034 Mendez — Mr. Mendez's hearing was rescheduled for November 18, 2010. #64158 Maclean — Ofc. Clark presented his evidence as to why a citation was issued to Mr. Maclean. The evidence the City provided included the corrected Notice of Violation. The corrected Notice of Violation supersedes the original Notice of Violation, and includes all ordinance requirements. Mr. Maclean was not present for the hearing; however submitted a signed affidavit and a letter to contest the citation. Member Bellerieve, seconded by Member Ball motioned to deny Mr. Maclean's appeal; however, the motion was suspended due to information provided by Recording Clerk Turner that the citation had been paid prior to the hearing Attorney Hamilton explained that the introductory remarks state that in the event an appeal is granted, any fees paid will be refunded. He further commented that this remark could be a possible flaw in the ordinance or introductory remarks; however, it would be prudent to dispose of the appeal. Lt. Dreasher stated that the hearing cost in the amount of fifty dollars ($50) would be waived. Page 2 of 5 Member Belerieve made a motion to deny Mr. Maclean's appeal, seconded by Member Ball. Motionpassed 5 -1, with Vice -Chair Chinelly opposing. Lt. Dreasher explained to the board that the introductory remarks indicating that fees would be refunded in the event that an appeal is granted was meant for parking tickets; however, due to its loose interpretation it was wise to proceed as Attorney Hamilton suggested. #64745 Walker — Ofc. Clark presented his evidence as to why a citation was issued to Mr. Walker. The evidence the City provided included the corrected Notice of Violation. The corrected Notice of Violation supersedes the original Notice of Violation, and includes all ordinance requirements. Mr. Walker was not present for the hearing; however, submitted a signed affidavit to contest the citation. Member Amey made a motion to deny Mr. Walker 's appeal, seconded by Member Lopez - Anderson. Motion passed unanimously. #70700 Hommock - Silungwe — Ofc. Clark presented his evidence as to why a citation was issued to Ms. Hammock - Silungwe. The evidence the City provided included the corrected Notice of Violation. The corrected Notice of Violation supersedes the original Notice of Violation, and includes all ordinance requirements. Ms. Hammock - Silungwe was not present for the hearing; however, submitted a signed affidavit to contest the citation. Member Ball and the board discussed the position of the vehicle at the time of the infraction. The board was unable to tell if the driver's side of the vehicle was behind or over the stop bar at the time of the infraction. Member Laney, for the benefit of the board's new member, Member Bellerieve, explained that she is inclined to grant an appeal if it is unclear if a vehicle is behind or over the stop bar. Member Lopez Anderson made a motion to grant Ms. Hammock- Silungwe 's appeal, seconded by Member Amer. Motionpassed 5 -1, with Vice -Chair Chinelly opposing. #71344 Cavey — Ofc. Clark presented his evidence as to why a citation was issued to Mr. Cavey. The evidence the City provided included the corrected Notice of Violation. The corrected Notice of Violation supersedes the original Notice of Violation, and includes all ordinance requirements. Mr. Cavey was not present for the hearing; however, submitted a signed affidavit to contest the citation. Member Laney asked why the photos appeared so dark, but the video was very clear, and Lt. Dreasher explained that it was due to inclement weather. Member Laney stated that because the evidence shows that it was only point eight (.8) seconds, she is inclined to grant the appeal. Vice -Chair Chinelly stated that it appeared that the street lights were not on, it was raining, and the streets wet, yet the driver did not attempt to stop. Member Lopez - Anderson stated that the pictures show that the vehicle was travelling at a speed of twenty -two (22) miles per hour, and the speed limit for that road is thirty-five (35) miles per hour. Member Amey made a motion to deny Mr. Cavey's appeal, seconded by Member Bellerieve. Motion failed due to a tie vote, 3 -3, with Members Lopez Anderson, Ball, and Laney opposing. Due to a tie vote, the appeal was granted Lt. Dreasher explained that the Traffic Control Infraction Officer presenting the evidence in case numbers eleven (11) through eighteen (18) on the docket was in a vehicle accident with Page 3 of 5 injuries, and unable to attend the hearing. In order to not violate the due process of respondents, those cases were dismissed. #60859 Robinson/Harris — Case dismissed because the Traffic Control Infraction Officer was not present. #62277 Simpson — Case dismissed because the Traffic Control Infraction Officer was not present. #63333 Saleem — Case dismissed because the Traffic Control Infraction Officer was not present. #65445 Alberdeston — Case dismissed because the Traffic Control Infraction Officer was not present. #62418 Kellam — Case dismissed because the Traffic Control Infraction Officer was not present. #63887 Kellam — Case dismissed because the Traffic Control Infraction Officer was not present. #66963 Kellam — Case dismissed because the Traffic Control Infraction Officer was not present. #69801 Johnson — Case dismissed because the Traffic Control Infraction Officer was not present. Lt. Dreasher explained to the board that Ofc. Regina Rivera was involved in a vehicle accident on Maguire Road. She went to the clinic with injuries, but was doing well. He further explained that the cases needed to be dismissed in order to not violate the due process of respondents. Vice - Chair Chinelly asked if the cases that had been dismissed also received a corrected Notice of Violation. Lt. Dreasher stated that they had, and so have all the respondents scheduled for the November hearing. He further explained that if respondents scheduled for the November hearing wish to reschedule, the board will meet in December. Member Amey asked what the board will be doing after that point, and Lt. Dreasher stated that the board will still be in place to hear parking citations, noise citations, etc. Member Bellerieve asked how the City provides evidence against a noise citation. Lt. Dreasher explained that there is the officer's sworn testimony and witnesses. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:21 p.m.; board resumes for new business. BOARD OR OFFICERS COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS Vice - Chair Chinelly asked to defer approval of the minutes until after board discussion. He stated that he wanted more clarification on the interpretation of the introductory remarks, as previously discussed in case number 64158/Maclean. He read to the board the introductory comment, "If the Board decides the infraction has NOT been committed, your appeal will be granted. The case will be dismissed and any fees paid by the party who received the citation will be refunded. " He said that he may not have had a clear understanding at the time of the vote. Attorney Hamilton stated that the comment as read refers to parking citations; however, because the language isn't specific to parking citations, it was best to hear the appeal. Lt. Dreasher stated that Chairman Minarcin has made changes to the introductory remarks, but due to his absence, was unable to verify those changes. Member Lopez - Anderson stated that Chairman Minarcin should be contacted to verify, and Lt. Dreasher agreed. Staff - Liaison Sgt. Wagner asked Attorney Hamilton if it is procedurally correct to hear a case if the Page 4 of 5 respondent had already paid. Attorney Hamilton stated that because the language in the introductory remarks lacks specificity as to which citation it is referring to, it was best to hear the case even though the citation was paid. He also stated that he agreed with Lt. Dreasher in waiving the hearing cost. Vice - Chair Chinelly asked if a corrected Notice of Violation will only be mailed out to appellants, or if everyone in receipt of a citation will be issued one. Lt. Dreasher stated that corrected notices have only been mailed to appellants. He further stated that the notices have been updated to include the following: the Traffic Control Infraction Officer Signature, model of the vehicle, and inclusion of both license and registration numbers. REGULAR AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes for September 16, 2010 Member Ball stated that the motion on page 5, case number 43590/Edwards Elec LLC, shows that he motioned to rlenv the anneal ( then vnted aaainet hic num mntinn 1-To +i,.+ i,o