School Speed Zone Hearings - Regular Meeting

Yeah.

Are we ready to get started?

I'm going to turn it up. Can you hear him okay?

I can hear you.

Okay, we can get started.

All right, got everybody that we need?

We are missing Mechanical Management, Inc., Robert John Neal, and Francisco Scala.

All right. I show Mechanical Management and Robert John Neal as having paid.

Yes.

So I guess we don't need them. All right. All right. If everyone's ready, let's go ahead and bring this proceeding to order. This is... the town of Oakland, Florida's school speed zone special magistrate hearing. This proceeding is getting underway at 2 p.m. on June 17, 2026, as scheduled. My name is John VanLandingham, and I am serving today as the town's local hearing officer for the school zone speed enforcement program. And we have a number of cases on the agenda today. I understand that we do have the petitioners. Are they in the audience? They're off camera now. They're out. And when they are called, where will they go? Right up here?

Right up here, sir. All right.

All right, very good. Well, let me give a brief introduction to the proceedings and for the benefit of the petitioners who are here. Again, my name is John Van Lanningham. I'm a state administrative law judge. I am serving today, as mentioned, as a hearing officer for the town of Oakland's school speed zone enforcement program. This is an administrative hearing conducted under Section 316.1896 Florida Statutes. At the request of each petitioner scheduled for hearing today, we have convened this proceeding to contest the notices of violation you have received. You are a petitioner by definition if you receive the notice from the town of Oakland's police department citing you for exceeding the posted school zone speed limit by at least or by more than 10 miles per hour as evidenced by a speed detection system and you requested this hearing. My responsibility is to decide whether the town has proved that the notice of violation should be upheld under the governing law. The issue before me is not whether the automated enforcement program is a good policy or whether the penalties are too harsh or there are circumstances that might make enforcement seem unfair. My duty is limited solely to deciding whether a violation is established in your case. Pursuant to the statute, a violation may be enforced through this program only during certain school-related time periods and only if the vehicle is traveling more than 10 miles per hour above the speed limit that was in effect at the time. The town will present its evidence first, including testimony from the traffic infraction enforcement officer and the photographs, video, and speed data. You will then have an opportunity to testify, present any evidence of your own, and explain why you contend that the violation notice should be dismissed. The law provides that the photographs or video and the vehicle speed is captured and detected by the speed detection system, create what the statute refers to as a rebuttable presumption, which means that the town's photographic evidence and speed data are legally sufficient to establish the violation unless you present other persuasive evidence showing that the notice should not be of health. If the evidence is in dispute, I will decide the case based upon the evidence that I find to be more reliable and persuasive. This is a non-criminal proceeding, which means that while you might be found liable for a traffic infraction, you will not be found guilty of a crime. Unlike a criminal prosecution, therefore, which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, in this case, preponderance of the evidence is sufficient to establish the speeding violation you've been charged with. Formal rule of evidence do not apply, but due process does apply. All testimony will be taken under oath, and this hearing is being recorded. If the town proves the violation, I must uphold it. If the town does not prove the violation, I must dismiss it. If the notice is upheld, the statutory penalty is 100 dollars and the town also seeks 50 dollars in municipal costs. No points are assessed against your driver license for a violation enforced under this program. And such a violation may not be used for insurance rating purposes. All right. Before we begin, why don't I get everyone sworn in, and then we can begin calling the individual hearing. So all of you who expect to testify today, if you would, please raise your right hands. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you'll give today will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? All right. Why don't we begin calling the cases in?

Click off.

First person, sir, is going to be Ashley Nicole Boyd.

Please come.

Test, test. Is that good?

OK. So I wrote a letter.

Greetings. My name is Ashley Boyd and I'm a longtime resident of the Winter Garden, Oakland area. I reside at 1350 Union Club Drive, Winter Garden, Florida. This is regarding citation number OK10000785. I have lived in this community since I was around six months old and have a strong interest in the safety of our local schools, students, and residents. I understand the importance of school zone speed enforcement cameras and support their use when enforcement is applied consistently, transparently, and in accordance with the information provided to the public. After reviewing the citation and supporting materials, I respectfully requested a hearing to challenge this violation for the following reasons. The time of the alleged violation, number one was the time of the alleged violation. So the alleged violation occurred at 2.42 p.m. on Thursday. I'm sorry.

I'm sorry to interrupt you, but why don't we hear from the town first, from the officer? Let's go ahead and get the case in chief in place first, and then we'll come back to you and hear your evidence and arguments, okay? Okay. Because right now I haven't heard the case. So you're getting ahead of me. You know more about it than I do. So let me ask the town to proceed first, if you would.

Yes, sir. On Thursday, February 19th, 2026, at approximately 2.42 p.m., a Ford bearing a Florida registration of 790BA registered to Ashley Nicole Boyd was photographed by a portable speed monitoring system while traveling along the 500 block of Oakland Avenue westbound. at a speed of 31 miles per hour. The posted speed limit is 20 miles per hour. The photo enforcement school zone and speed limit signs are posted along the 500 block of Oakland Avenue westbound. Calibration tests were conducted at the beginning and at the end of the unit's operation period to ensure that the unit was functioning properly. And it was, Your Honor, the self-test verification and annual calibration certificates are present in court today. All these events occurred in the town of Oakland.

All right. Thank you, Officer. And Ms. Boyd, did you have any questions for the officer?

No, none at this time.

all right so uh i will uh receive then in evidence the uh the photographic evidence that has been provided to me um which i'm required to review under the statute um and uh uh miss boyd you you may proceed now okay do you want me to start from the beginning or where i left off uh why don't you start where you left off i Okay.

So yeah, after reviewing the citation and supporting materials, I respectfully requested hearing to challenge this violation for the following reasons. Number one, the time of the alleged violation. So the alleged violation occurred at 2.42 p.m. on Thursday, February 9th, 2026. According to the published dismissal schedule for Oakland Charter School, students are dismissed at 3 p.m. with VPK dismissal at 3.15 p.m. and parent pickup occurring after 3 p.m. except on Wednesdays. Based on the school's published schedule, which I have Exhibit A, students are not released prior to 3 p.m., Number two, the alleged violation is not consistent with the Oakland school zone enforcement criteria stated in the frequently asked questions. The Oakland school enforcement frequently asked questions document, which I have here as exhibit B, states the cameras are enforcing during school hours when children are going to or from school, as indicated by flashing lights in the school zone. This statement identifies two conditions that appear to be required for enhanced school zone enforcement. Number one, children must be going to or from school, and the flashing school zone lights must be active. Neither condition is supported by the evidence provided with the citation. As a result, the timing of the citation does not appear to be consistent with the FAQ's statement that enforcement incurs when children are going to or from school. While the FAQ specifically states that enforcement is indicated by flashing school zone lights, there's no evidence has been provided demonstrating that the flashing lights were active at 2.42 p.m., such as video footage. Without video evidence or other documentation confirming that the flashing lights were active, a driver has no meaningful opportunity to verify whether the condition required for enforcement was present. Overall, based on the foregoing, I respectfully request dismissal of this citation because of the following reasons. The alleged violation occurred prior to the school's published dismissal time. The timing of the citation does not appear to be consistent with the Oakland School Zone enforcement frequently asked questions statement that enforcement occurs when children are going to or from school. The evidence provided does not substantiate the two conditions identified in the FAQ as triggering enforcement. that children are going to or from school and that the flashing lights are active accordingly i respectfully request that this citation be dismissed i appreciate your time and consideration of this matter and respectfully request a fair review of the facts since according to documentation um right i'm sorry i got an interruption there go ahead do i need to repeat it just give me that last piece there Oh, well, just the overall, all the points or?

No, no, just your last sentence there. I missed the last couple of minutes.

So, yeah, just accordingly, I respectfully request that this citation be dismissed. I appreciate your time and consideration of this matter and respectfully request a fair review of the facts and supporting documentation. Thank you.

All right. Let me ask, does the town have any questions for Ms. Boyd?

No, sir.

All right. Let me come back to the officer then just to clarify the record as to a couple of points that have been raised in the defense. I believe the school was identified as what the Oakland Charter School, is that what you said? The Oakland Charter School, yes, sir. Okay. Is that the school, officer?

Yes, sir.

Okay. And a question has been raised about the time. I guess the timing question. What was the applicable school-related enforcement period at approximately 2.42 p.m. that day? I think the defense testimony was in session prior to dismissal.

Yes, sir. It falls under a full day. which means a full day morning is from 7.25 to 7.35 and afternoon falls between 2.25 and 3.35, sir.

2.25, that's still in session?

That's when the cameras start. Yes, sir, it's still in session.

Okay. And is there a different speed limit at different times during the school day?

Yes, sir. Between those times I just read you, it's 20 miles an hour. And between the times, it's 35, sir.

Okay, and just so I'm clear in the records clear at 2.42 PM on February 19th, based on the time of the day relative to the school session at the open charter school, it was a 20 mile per hour speed limit. That's your testimony.

Yes, sir. Yes, sir.

Oh, okay. And Miss Boyd, do you have any, do you dispute that the speed limit was 20 miles per hour at that time?

Well, I'm not aware. I was going off of basically the time frame that states on their Oakland school zone enforcement, which is the frequently asked questions, that the enforcement of the ticketing for this is through when kids are going to and from school, which is dismissal, which is 3 p.m. or later. So I'm not aware of the speed limit being different before 3 p.m., So that's something new to me. I'm just going off of what the enforcement rules are that are on the Oakland Police document.

Or I haven't. For enforcement, yeah. I know you've referred to it. I haven't seen the exact language in the frequently asked questions. I'm familiar with the statute, but not the FAQs. So let me ask the officer, is there a discrepancy that you're aware of between the frequently asked questions and the statutory provisions concerning the enforcement periods during the school day?

Not that I'm aware of, sir.

All right. And can you just read me again, Ms. Boyd, exactly the language that you're referring to in the FAQ?

Oh, sure.

Okay. So there's, yeah, there's three pages to it. So the one section says, when are the cameras enforcing? It's a question mark. And then it says the cameras are enforcing during school hours when children are going to or from school as indicated by flashing lights in the school zone. And then I went to the actual open charter page and have their time of when they get dismissed.

But it doesn't say all right. Does the town have any further response to that.

No, sir. Just that the cameras, I mean, the lights kick on, the flashing lights kick on at 725, like I said, to 835. And then 225 to 335, sir.

Is when the lights are on?

Yes, sir. And the cameras.

Okay. All right. Are the cameras just, from my knowledge, do the cameras run during the time that school is in session, but outside those hours? uh specific periods the uh you know the the beginning of the school day and the discharge of school they they run all day sir they run all day okay but the flashing lights are only during those periods when the speed limit is down to 20 miles an hour that's yes sir okay all right i also have photographs of the signage sir all right why don't we go ahead and take a look at those just so the record has it's clear on that

They're in a binder, sir. Exactly. I don't know how to. No, sir.

There's what the officer is trying to show. The posted speed limit timeframe.

I'm sorry, I can't hear you.

I think I pushed the button and turned it off. So what I was saying was what the officer is trying to show you is that we have pictures of each location and at each location as you enter the school zone and on the side streets, there's a posted sign that also indicates the time at which the flashing lights do enforce. The flashing light times were programmed before the system's So what we have there is that we show that the times match the flashing light times. And actually for the systems ourselves, what we do is we give the cameras a two-minute buffer even after the enforcement time starts. So it's supposed to be 7.30 to the first session is 7.30. I can look at the slide. 7.30 to 3.30 is the entire enforcement time. The flashing lights do start five minutes prior to that, prior to enforcement starting. And then we also, on our end, we provide a two-minute buffer after that. So the cameras actually don't start enforcing until 7.32. So technically you have a seven-minute buffer before the cameras start enforcing compared to the flashing light times.

All right, very good. Anything else, Ms. Boyd?

Well, I guess I just wanted to kind of go back to... Because when I got the initial ticket, I was a little surprised, because I do remember when I went through there and there was no activity. It was really quiet on the street, and... you know, didn't, you know, see anything flashing. So there's no video evidence of the light actually flashing. But when they just mentioned that the enforcement of the, I forgot what you exactly said. So the enforcement on their sign says 730 to 330, but it's just different from the actual police document that says Oakland School Zone enforcement frequently asked questions. So the reason why I'm here today was really just to kind of go back to help clarify that. when they actually enforce that so if it's really being enforced all day then i think that the document should be edited to to clarify that for to the public when they go and and look for clarification online just seems to be a variance when it's stating you know that's enforced when children are going to and from school

Well, I don't think that FAQ is inconsistent with what the statute provides. The 20 mile per hour speed limit is in effect for periods at the beginning of the school day and at the end of the school day for that, you know, roughly 60 minute window that's been discussed. I guess that would be the period when the children are going to and from school. I mean, during the school day, it's also camera enforced, but the speed limit's higher as we've heard. From the language that you read to me out of the frequently asked questions, it didn't sound inconsistent to me with the statutory requirements or the testimony, just not as specific is how it sounds to me in terms of leaving out the specific time periods that that camera is enforcing the 20 mile per hour speed limit. All right. Well, on this one, I'm going to find, based on the evidence presented, including the testimony and the exhibits, that the town has established the sighting No cited violation in this case by a proponent of the evidence. I think the evidence does establish that the vehicle is traveling 31 miles per hour in a 20 mile per hour speed zone at the time it was traveling past the school. So I will uphold the notice. The petitioner, Ms. Boyd, will be responsible for the $100 civil penalty and the town's $50 municipal costs. Does the town have anything further on this one?

No, sir.

Ms. Boyd, do you have any questions?

No questions. No questions. I just, yeah. Thank you.

Well, thank you for coming in, Ms. Boyd. I appreciate your presentation, and you're free to go.

All right. Thank you. I appreciate it.

Joshua McMillan.

Good afternoon, Mr. McMillan. Can you hear me all right?

Yeah, I can hear you.

Very good. Let's hear from the town first, and then we'll come back to you. And officer, you'd get us started, please.

Yes, sir. On Monday, December 15th of 2025, at approximately 2.47 p.m., a Honda bearing a Florida registration of 7.7... Delta India Charlie Mike registered to Joseph Mark McMillan was photographed by a portable speed monitoring system while traveling along the 500 block of Oakland Avenue westbound at a speed of 33 miles per hour. The posted speed limit is 20 miles per hour. The photo enforcement school zone and speed limit signs are all posted along the 500 block of Oakland Avenue westbound. Calibration tests were conducted at the beginning and at the end of the unit's operational period to ensure the unit was functioning properly. And it was, Your Honor, the self-test verification and annual calibration certificates are present in court today. All these events occurred in the town of Oakland, sir.

All right. Very good. Mr. McMillan, do you have any questions for the officer?

I'd just like to see the video along with the flashing lights, because I don't believe the lights were flashing at that time that day.

Officer, can you show the video?

Yes, sir. But in the video, it doesn't have the blinking lights, sir.

It doesn't have the video, the flashing lights, because I don't believe they were flashing. Also, the posted times and speed limits are within the school's zone. So even at slowing down, you would be speeding at the regular speed of 35 at the moment you can actually visibly read. where it comes to 20 miles an hour. I think the placement is extremely poor of all the signage, and it's misrepresented with the flashing lights and timing. Heading from Winter Garden, when Platte Street turns into Oakland Avenue, there is no time until you get right into the school zone. If the lights are flashing, that's one thing, but the lights weren't flashing that day. Heading in... heading would be eastbound from Oakland towards Winter Garden is the direction I was traveling that day. And I don't believe the lights were flashing.

Sir, here's the video. Okay. All right, sir.

Go ahead.

We have signage, sir, at all four areas, both as you're coming down Oakland Avenue and the 400 block and the 500 block. And we have it on the side streets that have the times from 730 to 330. And it also has the 20 mile per hour, 730 times on it.

Mr. McMillan, did you have any other questions for the officer?

I think the proof is the flashing lights. Those are the predated signals for these cameras and what is abided by when they're flashing. I don't believe they were flashing at that time. These cameras, I know you said you're not here to determine whether or not it's a good policy. I think these are unconstitutional, just like they were ruled in Broward County for red light cameras in March of this year, that the burden of proof is being put on us to prove ourselves innocent instead of the police department having the burden of proof to prove us guilty. The camera is the camera, but there's no documentation that the lights are flashing, which is the main indicator of the time for the speed zones change.

All right. And let me, anything else that you wanted to add?

That is all.

All right. Let me just ask the officer, just so the record is clear. In this instance, were the school zone speed limit signs and photo enforcement signs posted for traffic traveling in the sighted direction at this location?

I missed that, sir.

Were there... Were the speed limit signs and photo enforcement signs posted for traffic traveling in the direction of Mr. McMillan's vehicle at the time of the violation?

Yes, sir.

All right. Now, Mr. McMillan contends that there were no flashing beacons. Do you have any information as to whether there were flashing beacons or not?

uh yes sir they they kick on it actually we have it scheduled where they come on five minutes earlier um so that way when they at 7 30 they um they are on at 7 30 right at 7 30 and the same for the two o'clock but the the signage is always posted is that right yes sir and that puts the the motorist on notice of the school's own speed limit and photo enforcement Yes, sir.

Okay.

The photo says school speed limit 20, wind flashing, speeding fines doubled. There is no timeframe within the first instance of signage, and I did not see the lights flashing that day. And I don't believe they have evidence that the lights were flashing indicating that time. Within the school zone, For years, these signs have been up indicating that time when flashing. They weren't flashing that day. And I believe the proof, the, the, um, They need to prove that they were flashing to indicate that I was within that window. Because that is, it's either and, it's not this or that. Because they have different signs that read differently. And the main signage, the first one you come to says school speed limit 20 when flashing. And it was not flashing that day. It doesn't have anything to do with the time. The time, the 730 to 830 signage, It says 20 miles per hour, 730 to 830 in a very small font, to be completely honest. And they're within the speed zone, like within the school speed zone. So by the time you can read them, if you're going 35, you cannot get under 10 miles an hour. in the amount of time once you can read them. I think they're terribly located. They should be at the same location before the intersection where the flashing lights are. I don't believe they were posted. I don't believe the lights were flashing that day. And I think that the burden is on the city to prove they were.

Are you saying that the times were posted, but you couldn't read them because they were too small?

Yes.

Or that the times are not posted. Just to make sure that I'm clear on what you're saying.

There's multiple signage. The oldest signage that is the furthest from, so the first signs you get to is the 20 mile per hour when lights are flashing. The lights weren't flashing. Within the school zone, there are more signs that are much smaller font that say, by the time you can read them, you're already speeding. If the lights aren't flashing telling you to slow down, by the time you can read the new signage, you're already speeding. Because it's 35. So you're going 35 miles an hour. You see that the lights aren't flashing. It's not the school zone. But then you get close enough to that sign and you say, oh, my goodness, I'm going 35. Slam on my brakes to get down to 20. You don't have time to adjust. You're already inside that zone. If the lights aren't flashing with the initial wider zone, by the time you can see the times and the speed limit reduction, it's too late. You're already speeding. They're not at the same location. There's not the grace period that you need to slow down.

All right. Well, I'm not sure the statute speaks about grace periods, but let me just ask the officer. So there are kind of two issues here. One is, does the signage post the time frames when the speed limit is at 20 miles per hour. I think the petitioner is saying that it does, although he's complaining that it doesn't do so sufficiently. And two, there's a dispute about whether the beacons were flashing With regard to that latter issue, I think that becomes probably not an issue if the times are posted on the signs. So if you could just walk me through that so the record is clear. Is there any independent evidence that the beacons were flashing? And two, can you speak to the issue of what the signs say with respect to the times when the 20 mile per hour speed limit is enforced?

Yes, sir. The signage does have the time on it and the speed, where it says speed limit photo in four, 7.30 to 3.30, except on Wednesdays it's 7.30 to, I think it's 2.30, but then it has 20 miles per hour and it goes into the breaking down of the times.

That's on the side streets, because there's no flashing lights on the side streets. As you turn off the side street, we want to make sure that we notify citizens that are when they turn on to enter the school zone that most of the times are there, because the flashing light

I'm sorry, you're kind of breaking up on me. Can you say that again?

I'm sorry. The signs with the posted time that says 20 miles an hour are on the side streets as you turn into the enforcing road onto Oakland Avenue. That's because if a citizen is driving in between the school zone, they most likely probably wouldn't see the flashing lights. So we ended up posting this actual signs or the times of which the lights are flashing or on the sign itself.

Sir, I also have a picture of this speed limit photos forced where you could actually see the blinking sign in the distance. So you actually see the sign with the times first before you see the beacon.

The way it's set up, it says speed limit, photo and force. Then it tells you the times in which we enforce the full time from morning to afternoon. And then after that, then you approach the flashing light beacon where it says 20 miles an hour when flashing. And then the system is after that.

All right. Very good. All right. Mr. McMillan, do you have anything else?

That's it.

No. All right. So I'll receive the town's exhibits and evidence. That would be the photos and videos that have been submitted from the enforcement cameras. Based on the video evidence and photographic evidence and the testimony I've heard, I'm going to find that the greater weight of the evidence does support the violation. So I will uphold the notice of violation along with the $100 fine that it carries for I'll also assess the municipal cost in the amount of $50. I do think, Mr. McMillan, that the flashing beacons are not statutorily required if the times are posted. I think the evidence is sufficient here to persuade me that the beacons were flashing, but there seems to be no dispute that the timeframes for the 20 mile per hour enforcement are posted. I understand that you don't believe they're sufficiently posted to warn the motorist, but I don't think the statute is that specific, and I think the persuasive evidence that I've heard suggests to me that those timeframes can be observed if you're paying attention. So I'll find that this one is upheld as stated. Does the town have anything else on this one?

I did have one other question. Was that a half day of school for Oakland Charter? Because it was the week before Christmas break. That's the other consideration I had that the school even in session the latter half of that day.

All right. Well, I mean, the time to bring that would have been during the hearing, but is the officer, are you able to answer that question?

I'll take it, Your Honor.

I know there was school but I just wonder if that was a half day because it was the week leading into Christmas break.

December 19 was the half day.

I was just wondering I couldn't remember.

This is December 15th. Thanks for coming, Mr. McMillan.

Ms. Noreen Elizabeth Phillips.

Good afternoon, Ms. Phillips. Can you hear me all right?

Yes.

All right, very good. Let me ask the town to get us started, officer, if you'd go ahead and present. I guess we've got four citations for this petition, so we could take them one at a time.

One at a time, sir. Okay. On Thursday, November 6th, 2025, at approximately 7.38 a.m., A Toyota bearing Florida registration of RJVV91 registered to Noreen Elizabeth Phillips was photographed by a portable speed monitor system while traveling along the 500 block of Oakland Avenue westbound at a speed of 31 miles per hour. The posted speed limit is 20 miles per hour. The photo enforcement school zone and speed limit signs are posted along the 500 block of Oakland Avenue westbound. Calibration tests were conducted at the beginning and at the end of the unit's operational period to ensure the unit was functioning properly, and it was, Your Honor. The self-test verification and annual calibration certificates are present in court today, and all of these events occur in the town of Oakland.

All right. Thank you, Officer. Do you have any questions for the officer, Ms. Phillips?

No, not at this time.

All right. Do you have any testimony or evidence you would like to present?

Yes, so when I received this ticket, it was around the time all the signage was changing. I have driven this road every day for five years because my son goes to school in Winter Garden. and the original sign said um that it was 7 45 to 8 45 and 2 45 to 3 15. that sign now says no left turn during those times into the school that you have to use the car line and there was no signage stating it started at 7 30. i also know for a fact the lights were not flashing now since then the signage has been added and lights do perfectly flash my concern is is even when they put the signs up there was nothing to show you that things were changing in that particular school zone they put up stop signs and they put bright orange flags on the side of them so i just think they should have done the same thing with the school zone sign

All right. Just so I'm clear, you're saying that on the date in question of this violation, November 6, 2025, the signage was in place, but it reflected change?

No, the new signage was not up. It was the old signage in November, and the lights were not flashing like they do now.

And what was the issue with the old signage? You say it gave different times?

It was different. It was different. It said 745 to 845 and 215 to 330, I believe. Or 230 to 345, I believe. but it was a different signage. It wasn't until they started changing all of the school zones to start 30 minutes to 15 minutes ahead that all of the schools started changing the signage. I also noticed they changed the signage for the Tildenville Road school zone as well. Okay.

All right. Well, other than your testimony, do you have any other evidence concerning what the signage look like and said on November the 6th?

No, because after I got all of my tickets, that was the same day they changed the signage.

What day was that?

Whatever the last day, the last ticket that came in December 21st or 22nd. I don't remember.

All right. So your testimony is that between November the 6th, 2025 and somewhere around December 21 or 22, 2025, the old signage was in place, which had a starting time of 745 days. not 730 or 735.

Correct. Yes. And the lights did not flash. They do now. They absolutely do now. And they start at 725 and they do flash for dismissal as well. But back then they did not.

When do you contend that the lights started flashing?

Probably a week after I received all my tickets was the first time I saw them.

Sometime in December of 2025? Yes. All right. Well, let me go back to the town and ask, Officer, if you can address those issues. This is the first I'm hearing about different signage, and so is there any evidence or any testimony that the town would like to offer on that point?

One second, Your Honor. Your Honor? Yes. The company is saying that it was changed before the 7th. Changed after the 7th?

Changed when?

I don't have a copy of when exactly was changed with me at hand, but I know it was the old time.

What I have here is the old time was present.

You got to break it up on me. You need to sign. I have up at the time that was the old time was posted up until the up until the 7th, at least the 7th. I don't know. I'm looking to see exactly what day it was. I don't have that with me right right now.

Do you know what the old signage said?

Yes, I do. The old sign did have the 845. 745, I'm sorry. 745?

All right.

So, so I'm sorry, your honor. Um, I just have a message here from, from our, from our team, from the chief of our, our company informed the chief that the signs were, were in on November 7th, November 8th. I'm sorry. November 8th.

November 8th. So starting on November 8th, the signage. move the enforcement, the 20 mile per hour enforcement period back to 725 a.m. from 745 a.m.?

Went from 745 a.m. enforcement back to 730. And I'll read you the email that was emailed to the chief. It says, our field team confirmed that they will be able to replace the signs on Monday morning. Monday morning would have been the, this is the 7th, so 8th, it would be the 10th. Because you got the email sent on Friday.

So it's on November 10th. November 10th, yes. The new sign was installed that moved the enforcement window for the 20 mile per hour speed limit back to 7.30 a.m.?

That is correct.

Okay, I guess, Miss Phillips, you think it's 725. I don't know whether that's material, at least on this particular citation.

I never saw the new signs until December.

And all right. What about the flashing lights? Petitioners testified that there were no flashing lights on November the 6th with the old signage. Any testimony on that?

Yes, sir. I know that we have a computer program that they start at 730.

Okay, was that true on November the 6th?

It started at 725, sir.

The flashing lights.

Yes, sir.

And was that true on November the 6th of 2025?

Is this a citation?

It was on November 13th, right?

Yes, sir. By this, there was nothing going on, so the lights should have been on.

The lights should have been on on November the 6th as of 725, but the signage said that the enforcement of 20 miles per hour started at 745? No. Oh.

For the November 6th date, yes, sir.

Yes, meaning the lights weren't at 725, but the sign said enforcement 20 miles per hour at 745? Yes, sir. All right. Well, this one's a little confusing. However, well, first of all, Ms. Phillips, do you have anything else?

No, that's all.

All right. Does the town have anything else on this one?

No, sir, not on this one.

all right well uh on this one i'll receive the town's exhibits in evidence um and uh i have uh no doubt and i believe that the greater way the evidence that demonstrates that the petitioner's vehicle was traveling uh at 31 miles an hour at 7 35 AM on November the sixth through the school zone. The issue in this case is whether at that time there was proper signage reflecting that the 20 mile per hour speed limit was enforced at that time. And The petitioner testified that there was an old sign then that had a starting time of 745, and that has been corroborated by the town's evidence as well, which is the fact that the new signage was replaced on Put in place or put in service on November the 10th, which. Was a few days later. There's testimony that the flashing lights would have been on, but. The signage apparently indicates that the. 745 is only 20 miles per hour speed begins to be enforced. At least that might be confusing. I'm not sure with the lights flashing and then the sign telling you 745. So in this case, the driver's coming through at 7.38 a.m., which is a few minutes, obviously, before 7.45. On this particular case, then, I'll dismiss, based on the confusion about the starting time of the 20-mile-per-hour enforcement, I don't think it's established by the greater weight that there was sufficient signage posted to notify the motorist that At 7.38 a.m., she could be ticketed for traveling in excess of 20 miles per hour. I just think there's some confusion here based on the evidence I've heard about the signage. And apparently its signage was in the process of being replaced from right around this time this violation occurred. But I'll go ahead and dismiss this one on that basis. Let's move on to the next one. We have a few more for this petitioner.

Yes, sir, on Thursday, November 13th, 2025 at approximately 739, a Toyota bearing Florida registration of RJVV91 registered to Noreen Elizabeth Phillips was photographed by a portable speed monitoring system while traveling along the 500 block of Oakland Avenue westbound at a speed of 31 miles per hour. The posted speed limit is 20 miles per hour. The photo enforcement school zone and speed limit signs are posted along the 500 block of Oakland Avenue westbound. Calibration tests were conducted at the beginning, at the end of the unit's operational period to ensure the unit was functioning properly. And it was, Your Honor, the self-test verification and annual calibration certificates are present in court today. And all these events occur in the town of Oakland.

And let me just clarify, then we'll go back to Ms. Phillips on this one. I'm looking at the photo number two, and it's showing a speed of 32 miles an hour. I think you said 31. I just wanted to make sure we're looking at the same one here. This is 11-12-2025 at 739 AM? Yeah, 11-13, sir. 11-13. Oh, maybe I'm, hold on.

Make sure I've got the right one.

There are several here. 1113. Okay. 1113, 739 AM, speed 31 miles an hour. Okay. So this is the citation ending in 421. 421.

uh yes sir let me uh verify that i just want to make sure sorry mr phillips there are several here what citation were you looking for sir it looks like i'm clicking on uh ending in four two one sir four two one yes okay

All right, so I've got that, I've got that in front of me. 31 in a 20 mile per hour zone at 7.39 a.m. on 11.13, 2025. Ms. Phillips, do you have any questions for the officer?

No, not at this time.

All right, so is there any testimony or evidence that you would like to present?

i will believe them and say that that they say the signs were changed i'm not going to tell them they were wrong maybe i wasn't paying attention but i will stand by the fact that those lights were not flashing we have we have evidence we have a timestamp photo sent to the chief that says the signs were changed on the 10th uh for that okay

All right, well, I'll accept the evidence that the signs were changed on November the 10th and that beginning on that date and thereafter, the warning is given that the speed limit, the speed limit will be enforced starting at 7.30. I can't hear you, ma'am.

No, he was showing me the photo of the sign and I said, I believe them that the signs were changed and maybe I wasn't paying attention. I've driven that road for so long. Maybe I didn't realize, but I always, always, always look for those lights and they were not flashing.

Okay.

Well, the signage provides sufficient notice. If the signs are sufficient to give you the timeframe that the 20 mile per hour limit is enforced, then the beacons don't necessarily, then don't need to be flashing. That's an alternative method. But if the signage gives you the notice of the posted limit, then, and the timeframe is enforced, then the sign, the beacons don't need to flash. I mean, obviously it's preferable that they do flash, but... And there's some evidence that they are, but of course your testimony is that they aren't. I don't need to find that one, one way or the other, because the signage is sufficient. So I'll receive the town's exhibits, the photographic evidence, photographs and videos and evidence. Based on the testimony that I've heard and that evidence, I'll uphold this notice of violation as supported by the greater weight. This one does fall after November the 10th, unlike the first one, and therefore is distinguished by that fact. Even though the time here is 739, it is after the point in time when the signage adjusted the 20 mile per hour speed limit enforcement period. So I'll uphold that along with that $100 fine. I'm going to reserve on the cost issue until we've heard the other cases, and we'll come back to the costs in this and any other citation that might be available. We still have, I think, two more to look at. So why don't we take up the next one?

All right, sir. I'm sorry I skipped that one.

I'm going to go to the ending of 415 at it.

I'm sorry Sir I got booted out of the system.

It's okay.

On Thursday, November, nope, sorry. There it is. On Wednesday, November 12th, 2025, at approximately 739 at Toyota Bering, Florida, Registration of RJVV91 registered to Noreen Elizabeth Phillips was photographed by a portable speed monitoring system while traveling along the 500 block of Oakland Avenue westbound at a speed of 32 miles per hour. The posted speed limit is 20 miles per hour. The photo enforcement school zone and speed limit signs are posted along the 500 block of Oakland Avenue westbound. Calibration tests were conducted at the beginning and at the end of the unit's operational period to ensure the unit was functioning properly. And it was, Your Honor, the self-test verification and annual calibration certificate are present in court today. And all of these occurred in the town of Oakland.

All right. Thank you. Officer, do you have any questions for the officer, Ms. Phillips?

No. No.

Do you have any testimony or evidence that you would like to present?

No.

All right, then. Well, I'll receive the town's exhibits consisting of the photographic evidence from the cameras into evidence at this time. Based on the testimony and the images received, I will find that the greater weight of the evidence does support the notice of violation in this case. So I'll uphold the citation and the $100 fine that it carries. I'm going to reserve on the cost until we have heard all the cases involving this petition. I think we've got one more citation.

On Tuesday, November 18, 2025, at approximately 7.38 a.m., a Toyota bearing a Florida registration of RJV-V91 registered to Noreen Elizabeth Phillips was photographed by a portable speed monitoring system while traveling along the 500 block of Oakland Avenue westbound. at a speed of 31 miles per hour. The posted speed limit is 20 miles per hour. The photo enforcement zone, school zone and speed limit signs are posted along the 500 block of Oakland Avenue westbound. Calibration tests were conducted at the beginning and at the end of the unit's operational period to ensure the unit was functioning properly and it was your honor. The self-test verification and annual calibration certificates are present in court today. All these events occur in the town of Oakland.

All right. Thank you, Officer. And Ms. Phillips, did you have any questions for the officer?

No, Your Honor.

All right. Do you have any testimony you'd like to present?

No, not at this time.

All right. So I'll receive the town's exhibits and evidence consisting of the photographic images taken from the enforcement cameras. And based on that evidence and the testimony, I'll find that the greater weight of the evidence does support the violation charged in the citation, which I'll uphold along with the $100 fine. Find that it carries. So, for petitioner, Noreen, Elizabeth Phillips, we do have 3 citations that I've upheld the ones that end in numbers. 415. 421 and 443 respectively. I reserved on the cost because I wanted to see which which ones. might be upheld and if any might not be. We do have three that have been upheld here. The costs to be assessed are up to $50. I'm going to adjust that in each of these because we do have multiple cases here and we have one petitioner and there is some efficiency in having the petitioner here for one hearing to take care of all of them. So I'm going to reduce the cost amount in each citation to $25 from $50 So that the total cost burden would be $75 between the between three citations instead of 150. Since there are multiple cases here that we've heard it once. So on each of those three citations have been upheld and reduce the municipal cost to $25. Does the town have anything else on any of these cases for Miss Phillips?

No, sir.

Miss Phillips, do you have any questions or anything else?

No.

All right. Thanks for coming in. Then you're free to go.

Your Honor, the next petitioner, Ali Razi Ruzielab, sorry, I'm mispronouncing that, is not present. His daughter is present, Isabella Ruzielab. Can you please come up?

Good afternoon. Can you hear me?

Yes.

All right. And you're here on behalf of your father?

The car is registered to my dad's name, but I was the one driving.

Okay. All right. There hasn't been any transfer of liability, so your father's registered owner would be liable for the citation, but you're here to give testimony about what happened?

I'm sorry, what was that?

You're here to give testimony about what happened. I don't see an indication that liability was transferred from the registered owner, your dad, to you.

You were driving. Yes, yeah.

All right. All right. Let me hear from the town first, and then we'll come back to you, Mrs. Isabella.

Yes, sir. On Wednesday, November 5th, 2025, at approximately 1.45 p.m., a Toyota bearing Florida registration Z11HUX registered to Ali Ruzetalib. was photographed by a portable speed monitoring system while traveling along the 400 block of Oakland Avenue eastbound at a speed of 33 miles per hour. The posted speed limit is 20 miles per hour. The photo enforcement school zone and speed limit signs are posted along the 400 block of Oakland Avenue eastbound. Calibration tests conducted at the beginning at the end of the unit's operational period to ensure the unit was functioning properly. And it was your honor. The self test verification and annual calibration certificates are present in court today. All the events occurred happened in the town of Oakland.

All right. Thank you, Officer. Um, Mrs Bell. Do you have any questions for the officer?

Um, yes, I was just, um, a little unclear, because my citation said it was at 145. And I wasn't sure I didn't think that that was within the posted school period.

All right. Well, uh, let me ask, um, uh, what do you have, uh, I'll ask that question just a minute. Sister Melanie, do you have any testimonies to what you think the posted speed limit was or what the timeframes were?

Um, I believe I, I don't have the exact time like memorized, but I think it was like two 30 in the afternoon, at least, um, two 32. To like three something i'm not sure exactly. But at that time I was driving there wasn't any you know traffic or anything or lights flashing indicating. That it was. During the school zone so.

All right. Let me ask the town to clarify the record, if possible, as to what the signage said on November the 5th at approximately 1.45 p.m. in terms of the timeframes from enforcing the 20 mile per hour speed limit.

Yes, sir. That time would have been 1.30 to 2.30, sir.

All right. And so this case doesn't have the old versus new signage issue that we heard in the previous case?

Actually, it does, sir. It falls into that. But this case falls into that time frame from 1.30 to 2.30.

In other words, the old signage had that 1.30 to 2.30 time frame?

Yes, sir.

Okay. And remind me, does the current signage have a different time frame?

Yes, sir. The new signage does.

Tell me what the new sign again is.

The new sign would have been 2.30 to 3.30, sir. This is also a half day. It's on a Wednesday. So it would have been 1.30 to 2.30. Okay. Okay.

All right. So the town's testimony is that the signage in place on November the 5th, 2025 indicated that a 20 mile per hour speed limit was being enforced between 1.30 and 2.30 PM. Just so I'm clear on that.

Yes, sir. All right. Okay, very good.

Ms. Isabella, did you have any other questions for the officer or any other testimony that you would like to present?

No, sir.

All right. All right, well, I'll receive the town's... exhibits and evidence of the photographic images taken from the enforcement cameras, including photograph number two, which gives us the date and the time, the speed being traveled, and other particulars. There's been some dispute in the evidence or testimony concerning the signage and whether the sign indicated that a 20 mile per hour speed limit was enforced at 1.45 PM. Based on the greater weight of the evidence, I'll find that the persuasive evidence supports the notice of violation. So I'll uphold that along with the $100 fine that it carries and I'll assess the cost of the amount of $50 for today's proceeding. Does the town have anything else that it needs on this one?

No, sir.

Ms. Isabella, do you have any questions?

No, sir.

Thank you for coming in. You're free to go.

Thank you.

Okay, next up is Thomas Rutherford, Rutherfield.

Good afternoon. Can you hear me? And just so I'm clear, last name is Rutherfield, not Rutherford. It's Rutherford. All right, Mr. Rutherford, let me hear from the town and then we'll come back to you. Officer, if you get us started, please.

On Monday, December 15th, 2025, at approximately 2.32 p.m., a Jeep bearing Florida tag T0MNDEB registered to Thomas Houston Rutherford was photographed by a portable speed monitoring system while traveling along the 500 block of Oakland Avenue westbound at a speed of 31 miles per hour. The posted speed limit is 20 miles per hour. The photo enforcement school zone and speed limit signs are posted along the 500 block of Oakland Avenue westbound. Calibration tests were conducted at the beginning and at the end of the unit's operational period to ensure the unit was functioning properly. And it was, Your Honor, the self-test verification and annual calibration certificates are present in court today. All these events occur in the town of Oakland.

All right. Thank you, Officer. And I'll receive an evidence that this photographic image is taken from the enforcement cameras. And Mr. Rutherford, do you have any questions for the officer?

I do have something to say.

Yeah, I know. Do you have any questions? No, sir. All right. Go ahead, then, if you have any testimony or evidence you'd like to present.

I do not at all dispute that I was there.

Could I ask you to, Mr. Rutherford, if you could just speak up a little bit. I'm having a hard time hearing you. Can I speak into the mic?

Yes, sir.

I don't dispute that I was there that day or that time or that I was going 31 miles an hour or that it was in the school zone. What I do dispute is that the light was flashing. that Mr. McMillan, who was here earlier, was there on the same day. I was there a little bit sooner than he was, and I'm saying the light wasn't flashing. I travel that road twice a day on the way to and from work every day. There's two school zones. There's that one at Oakland Avenue Charter School and at Tildenville School, and I watch out for the flashing lights, and when they're flashing, I go under 20 miles an hour. So I'm... don't dispute any of this that is in here but the light was not flashing and nothing in the video evidence shows that it was and the signs start out saying the posted speed limit is 35 and then it says there's photo enforced from the time in the morning that the officer has cited till the afternoon and then it says the speed limit is 20 when lights are flashing those are the three signs that are right there in a row And where are the signs that say what time that it's being enforced? It says speed limit photo enforced 7 a.m., 7.30 a.m. to 3.30 p.m. except Wednesdays when the other time. It doesn't say what times that the speed limit drops. It says that's the times they're being enforced. It doesn't list what time the speed limit drops. And I don't even dispute that the light was supposed to be flashing at 2.30 in the afternoon. I'm sure it is supposed to be, and often it is, but that day it wasn't. And I have evidence that sometimes the system doesn't work.

All right. Well, what does the... I guess my understanding from the prior case was that the signage did indicate that the speed limit was 20 miles an hour from 230, 330. I thought that's what it said.

Show me where it says the speed limit is 20 and what times the speed limit is 20. And where are those signs? So those signs are on the side street, not on Oakland Avenue.

Yes, sir.

I was not on a side street. I was on Oakland Avenue. There's no way I could have seen that sign. It says speed limit is photo enforced. It doesn't say the speed limit is 20 between those hours. If the light is flashing. It says speed limit enforced when the light is flashing. The light was not flashing that day. I'm not disputing that it's not supposed to be flashing, but that day it wasn't. And Mr. McMillan said the same thing. The same day, he came through the same piece of road a few minutes after I did. And I have evidence that sometimes the system doesn't work.

What evidence is that?

That is a letter from the Oakland Police Department to my daughter, who got a similar ticket on... September the 29th, 2025, that she was going 32 miles an hour at 3.44 p.m. on the same block in the same exact place. It's the same exact pictures, still pictures, except it's her vehicle and not mine. And she got a letter. It is not dated, but it says, dear sir or madam, please accept this notice as a formal retraction of, and it says her citation number, that was issued to Rutherford Sarah Stoney on 10-22-25 for alleged speeding in a school zone. During our standard quality assurance process, the citation required additional investigation and review of the circumstances surrounding the incident, where it was determined that the sidation was issued in error. We deeply apologize for any inconvenience or distress this may have caused. If payment is already received for the sidation, it will be refunded. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, the Oakland Police Department. Sometimes the system doesn't work, and I allege that the light was not flashing that day. I don't think that letter says the light was. Oakland Avenue does not indicate what times the speed limit drops.

Yeah, I'm not sure that letter says that the beacons weren't, the lights weren't flashing, but let me clarify a couple of things. First of all, with respect to the flashing lights, does the town have any evidence that the lights were flashing?

I have the school calendar here, sir. There was nothing on that day, sir, so the lights would be flashing at that time.

I agree the lights should have been flashing. I allege that they were not flashing, because if they were, I would have slowed down, just like I do at Tildenville, just like I do every day when I go to work and from work.

Okay, well, I understand your testimony is that they weren't, that the town's testimonies that they were. I'm asking, is there any other, is there any kind of documentary evidence that wouldn't be in the self-check for the cameras? Is there any other recorded data that would tend to show that the lights were flashing?

Like I said, we have a computer program that comes on and off by the computer program. That is that it comes on every day that schools in session.

Does that maintain some, is there some kind of a record of that? It's maintained.

I believe that computer isn't here. I could show that it's not here.

Okay. Regarding the signage, it was my understanding from the last case, and maybe I was misunderstanding this, that there are signs posted showing the 20-mile-per-hour speed limit during this event. 2.30, 3.30 timeframe. This petitioner says those signs aren't on the road he was traveling. Is it possible for someone to travel as he claims he did without seeing those signs? I'm not familiar with the area.

No, sir. Hold on a second.

The signs you showed me were on the side street, not on Oakland Avenue.

Yes, sir. But it still shows that the posted from 7.30 to 3.30, sir.

That is photo-enforced. It doesn't say that the speed limit drops.

But it also has the flashing light for the speed limit.

But if the light's not flashing, then the speed limit doesn't drop to 20, according to the sign.

Okay.

We don't have documentation. Also, the system doesn't capture the lights flashing. So the enforcement time that is shown is the entire enforcement time.

Right. I mean, I understand it's enforcement at that time, that entire time by the cameras. The petitioner's point is that the signs aren't telling him, allegedly are telling him that the speed limit was 20 miles per hour at that time, that the only way he would know that is if the lights were flashing, and then that would be the signal that it was 20 miles per hour. I don't think that you need to have those lights flashing if the signs tell you that the time is... Excuse me, the time frame is 20 miles per hour, but if you don't have that, that could be a problem. Is the signage that tells the time frame that 20 miles per hour is in force, is that something that he could have driven that's not on the road he was traveling? That's what he's saying. And I don't know if that's true or not.

The time signs that specifically say 20 miles an hour and list the specific times at which those are enforcing are on the side streets. The reason they're on the side streets are because the side streets don't have the actual flashes.

Legitimate. Don't have the flashes? All right. And we don't... Mr. Rutherford is testifying from personal knowledge. I mean, he says that the light wasn't flashing when he drove past. Officer, are you able to testify from personal knowledge that the light was flashing? Did you see it flashing that day? I don't have any.

I can't recall on December 15th, 2025, sir.

All right. And just so I'm clear then, officer, is it? The signage that gives the time frame when the 20-mile-per-hour speed limit is enforced that are on the side street, those are in a location that the motorist, if he's traveling on Oakland, would drive past without seeing?

No, sir.

He can see them?

No, he couldn't see them, sir.

He couldn't see them?

All right.

All right, Mr. Rutherford. Well, on this one, then, I'll find that the preponderance of the evidence, or rather that the evidence is insufficient to meet the greater weight standard, given the dispute about whether the lights were flashing. Mr. Rutherford testifies that they weren't based on personal knowledge. I don't have any comparable testimony from a witness with personal knowledge. and i don't have a record backing that up such a record might exist in the computer somewhere but apparently it's not here today so mr rutherford i'll accept your testimony on that point apparently it's possible to drive past on oakland avenue without seeing the side street signs uh which uh um i failed to uh to appreciate earlier so um i will go ahead then and dismiss this citation on that basis um and mr rutherford you're free to go thank you i suggest that you put the video that there'll be flashing lights on the back sides of these things so that the video shows whether the light is flashing or not Well, that might be a good idea. But thanks for coming in.

Thank you, sir.

Okay, our next petitioner is Francesco Scala with numbers ending in 789 and 838. Is Mr. Scala present? Your Honor, he is not present.

All right. Do we have one second. Do we have Mr. Tarrant, Brandon Tarrant?

Yes, he is present.

Why don't we go ahead and take his case then and then circle back to Mr. Scala.

Okay, thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Tarrant. Can you hear me?

I can hear you fine.

Very good. All right, let me hear from the town first. Officer, if you'd get us started, please.

Yes, sir. On Monday, March 23rd, 2026, at approximately 2.34 p.m., a Honda bearing Florida registration 26CAHK registered to Brandon Michael Tarrant was photographed by a portable speed monitoring system while traveling along the 500 block of Oakland westbound. at a speed of 34 miles per hour. The posted speed limit is 20 miles per hour. The photo enforcement school zone and speed limit signs are posted along the 500 block of Oakland Avenue, westbound. Calibration tests were conducted at the beginning and at the end of the unit's operational period to ensure the unit was functioning properly and it was, Your Honor. The self-test verification and annual calibration certificates are present in court today, Your Honor. All these events occur in the town of Oakland.

All right. Thank you. Also received the town's exhibits and evidence consisting of the photographic image is taking on the speed zone enforcement cameras. Mr. Tarrant, you have any questions for the officer? I do not. Do you have any evidence or testimony that you would like to give?

I have test testimony, but no evidence.

All right, we'll go ahead.

Um, first, uh, I looked up, it was supposed to be, when I looked it up, it said that school was not in session at Oakland Avenue Charter School on March 23rd. And the flashing light was not flashing when I went by there. I have a Class A CDL and children and would not go fast through a flashing school zone. I've driven that road for many years.

You're saying, first of all, that school was not in session on 323?

According to Google, it was not.

On our calendar set, it said students return, begin fourth period, beginning marketing fourth period.

Your indication is that they came back sometime that day?

Hold on a second, sir.

If you give me a second, I can... Yeah, I know. That's what I'm looking for. Give me one second, Your Honor. All right.

The date, Mark.

Sir, I have proof, and the SRO was in the courtroom today. She applied that she checked the cameras at 7.39 a.m. Both school zone lights are flashing, and she checked it again at 2.39 p.m., and both school light zones are flashing.

Did you say she's here? At 2.34, they were not.

Did you say she's here? Yes, sir. She's in the courtroom right now.

Well, let's let's go ahead and if she can testify that effect, let's go ahead and bring her out.

Good afternoon, Your Honor. Officer Samaria Lake.

Good afternoon. You're a little bit off camera for me. Can you maybe scoot over closer to petitioner if possible? Thank you. There we go. All right. Let me get you. Let me get you sworn in first. Would you raise your right hand, please? Do you swear or from the testimony you'll give would be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Would you state your name, please? Samaria Lake. All right, Officer Lake. And why don't you go ahead and tell us what what you know about the cameras on this date?

All right. So so my job is the school resource officer here at the Oakland Avenue charter school and before and after the special before arrival and after the special, I checked the cameras and I documented in the cats and stuff.

All right. And on the date in question, this would be March the 23rd, 2026. Do you have testimony about the cameras operation or excuse me, the flashing light operation on those days?

Yes, sir.

They were flashing and I documented it in the cat system. That would include in the afternoon? Yes. Okay. All right. Very good. Mr. Tarrant, do you have any questions for Officer Lake?

I do. What time do they start flashing in the afternoons? I have no evidence proving that they weren't flashing. I'm sorry, you have to speak up. I have no evidence saying that they weren't flashing, just my memory.

Oh, okay.

All right. Anything else, Mr. Tarrant? No. Mr. Tarrant, anything else?

No, sir.

All right. Well, based on the photographic imagery received in evidence from the enforcement zone cameras, as well as the testimony that I've heard, including Officer Lake's testimony about the operation of the flashing lights, which I'll credit, I'll find the greater weight of the evidence does support the violations stated in the notice of violation in this case, so I will uphold it along with the $100 fine that it carries. We'll also impose municipal costs of $50 for today's proceedings. Does the town need anything else on this case?

No, sir.

Do you have any questions, Mr. Tarrant? I do not. Thanks for coming in. You are free to go. Thank you, Officer Lake. Appreciate that. All right.

So we will go back to the last one. Francesco Scala, number 789 and 833 is still not present.

All right. So the record reflects that Mr. Scala is not present after receiving notice and an opportunity to be heard. And having requested the hearing, we will go ahead and hear these two cases at this time. And officer, if you'd get us started, please.

Yes, sir. One second, sir. On Monday, February 23rd, 2026, at approximately 9.58 a.m., a Mercedes bearing Florida registration, NAJQ45, registered to Scala Francisco, was photographed by a portable speed monitoring system while traveling along the 400 block. of Oakland Avenue eastbound at a speed of 46 miles per hour at the posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour. The photo enforcement school zone and speed limit signs are posted along the 400 block of Oakland Avenue eastbound. Calibration tests were conducted in the beginning and the end of the unit's operational period to ensure the unit was functioning properly and was your honor. The self-verification and annual calibration certificates are present in court today, your honor. All these events occurred in the town of Oakland.

All right. Thank you. Officer. I received the town's exhibits and evidence. The photographic images and video taken from the speeds of enforcement cameras based on that evidence and the testimony we've just heard. I'll find the greater weight of the evidence does support the charge stated in the notice of violation. So uphold that citation along with the $100 fine that it carries and assess $50 in municipal costs for today's proceeding. And so we've got one more for Mr. Scala.

Yes, sir. On Thursday, March 5th, 2026, at approximately 7.45 a.m., a GMC bearing a Florida registration of HKBA29 registered to Francisco Scala was photographed by a portable speed monitoring system while traveling along the 400 block of Oakland Avenue eastbound at a speed of 37 miles per hour. The posted speed limit sign is 20 miles per hour. The photo enforcement school zone and speed limit signs are posted along the 400 block of Oakland Avenue eastbound. Calibration tests were conducted at the beginning and at the end of the unit's operational period to ensure the unit was functioning properly And it was, Your Honor. The self-verification and annual calibration certificates are present in court today. All of these events occurred in the town of Oakland.

All right. Thank you, Officer. I'll receive an evidence. Photographic and video images obtained from the speed zone enforcement cameras based on that evidence and the testimony that I've heard. I'll find that the greater weight of the evidence does support the charge stated in the notice of violations that I will therefore uphold that citation along with the $100 fine that it carries and assess costs in the amount of $50 for today's proceeding. Does the town need anything else on this one?

No, Your Honor. I have no... All right.

Do we have any further business on today's agenda?

No, sir. I believe that's it.

Very good. In terms of the orders going out, is there something that I need to look at, review, and sign, or do you issue them? I wasn't able to adjudicate them online here. Not that I'm aware of, sir. Okay. Just let me know how you want the orders to go out or if you need me to do something.

Can you tell them?

We have, based on your rulings today, we would have to adjudicate the tickets in our system. But I don't think, I think we take care of that on our end, yeah.

Okay.

Not on our end. We just need to document what your rulings were. And then that one, the one person, Ms. Phillips, you reduced her ticket, right? For all four of them, correct? Correct.

Well, for three. One was dismissed. Three were repelled, and I reduced the cost to $25 on each of them. So I reduced that.

Yeah, so we'll take that information, and we'll work together to get that reduced so it reflects on her citation when she logs into her account or when she logs into our payment portal.

Okay. So I don't need to do anything else on the adjudication side. That all gets taken care of on your end?

Yes, that's correct.

Very good. All right. There will be no other business. We're adjourned. I will see you next time. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Your Honor.

Thank you.