In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Traffic Court

105 So. 3d 1267 (Fla. 2012) · Supreme Court of Florida · December 20, 2012

Summary

The Florida Supreme Court revised its opinion addressing proposed amendments to the Florida Rules of Traffic Court. The Court adopted amendments to rule 6.600(b), declined to adopt proposed amendments to rules 6.600(c) and 6.340(d), and referred concerns about self-incrimination warnings to the Conference of County Court Judges and the Traffic Court Rules Committee. The adopted amendments became effective January 1, 2013.

Holdings

  1. The court adopted the proposed amendments to rule 6.600(b), requiring that, when a defendant appears after notice has been sent but before the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles has suspended the driver's license, the clerk set a hearing upon the defendant's request and payment of the specified costs.
  2. The court declined to adopt the proposed amendments to rule 6.600(c) because newly enacted legislation amending section 318.15, Florida Statutes, addressed the same hearing procedure and made the proposed rule amendment unnecessary.
  3. The court declined to adopt the proposed amendment to rule 6.340(d) because it concerned a substantive constitutional issue—the applicability of the privilege against self-incrimination in traffic infraction proceedings—that was not appropriate for resolution through this rulemaking proceeding.
  4. The court referred to the Conference of County Court Judges of Florida, working with the Traffic Court Rules Committee, the question whether a model colloquy should be adopted to inform defendants of the right not to provide testimony that may incriminate them in a pending or potential criminal case.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the proposed amendments to Florida Rule of Traffic Court 6.600(b) should be adopted.
  2. Whether the proposed amendments to Florida Rule of Traffic Court 6.600(c) should be adopted in light of newly enacted legislation amending section 318.15, Florida Statutes.
  3. Whether the proposed amendment to rule 6.340(d), concerning a defendant's privilege against self-incrimination in traffic infraction proceedings, should be adopted through the rulemaking process.
  4. Whether the concerns regarding inconsistent advisements of self-incrimination rights should be addressed through a model colloquy.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (11)

  • Netbleton v. Doughtie, 373 So. 2d 667, 668 (Fla. 1979)(followed)
  • State v. Cino, 931 So. 2d 164, 167 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)(followed)
  • Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 588, 110 S. Ct. 2638, 110 L. Ed. 2d 528 (1990)(followed)
  • Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77, 94 S. Ct. 316, 38 L. Ed. 2d 274 (1973)(followed)
  • Taubert v. State, Office of Att'y Gen., 79 So. 3d 77, 80-81 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)(followed)
  • Belniak v. McWilliams, 44 So. 3d 1282, 1284 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)(followed)
  • Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486, 71 S. Ct. 814, 95 L. Ed. 1118 (1951)(followed)
  • Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 53, 88 S. Ct. 697, 19 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968)(followed)
  • Boyle v. Buck, 858 So. 2d 391, 392 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)(followed)
  • In re Amendments to the Fla. Evidence Code, 782 So. 2d 339, 341 (Fla. 2000)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 11.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Florida Supreme Court