Under the authority of sections 318.30318.38, Florida Statutes, and article V, section 2, Florida Constitution, this court adopts the following rules and procedure for the Civil Traffic Infraction Hearing Officer Program:
Fl. R. Traf. Ct. 6.630
Committee Notes
1990 Adoption. The rule attempts to incorporate relevant provisions of chapter 89-337, Laws of Florida, with minor modifications.
The provision in subdivision (c) that the traffic magistrate shall serve at the will of the chief judge is implicit in chapter 89-337, and is believed to be a good policy since it makes irrelevant consideration of the necessity of any involvement by the Judicial Qualifications Commission.
(d)(1) See 1990 Committee Note concerning rule 6.080.
In relation to subdivision (e) on appeals, the subcommittee believes that the addition of the language on the certifications to district courts, while making an obvious point, would avoid any possible confusion. It was also the consensus that there would be no need to recommend amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure since rules 9.030(b)(4)(A) and 9.030(c)(1)(A) would appear to cover the matter adequately without further amendment.
Subdivision (g) goes into less detail concerning the actual length of training (40 hours preservice/10 hours continuing) required by chapter 89-337. A special plan for such training will be provided separately, including a recommendation for the waiver of such training for recently retired county court judges.
This rule expands the statutory prohibition of chapter 89-337, section 7, which prohibits traffic magistrates from practicing before other civil traffic magistrates and handling traffic appeals. The committee expressed concern that a limited prohibition extending only to practice before other magistrates might be read as condoning magistrate practice in traffic cases in front of county court judges. Given the contemplated relationship between county court judges and magistrates in education, training, and professional duties, such practice would give the appearance of conflict and should be prohibited.
In relation to subdivision (k), it was the opinion of the subcommittee that the wearing of robes might lead to confusion and interfere with the informal setting of the hearings.
1990 Amendment. Amendment of section 318.30, Florida Statutes (1990), reduced the case load requirement from 20,000 to 15,000 for purposes of allowing a county's participation in the Civil Traffic Infraction Hearing Officer Program. This amendment is necessary to conform the rule to the provisions of the amended statute.
1995 Amendment. Language was added to subdivision (d) to make it clear that hearing officers/magistrates can hear and rule upon motions, such as continuance motions, and otherwise handle normal motion practice in infraction cases.
1996 Amendment. Enactment of chapter 94-202, Laws of Florida, necessitated the deletion of all references in the rules to traffic "magistrates" in favor of the term traffic "hearing officers."
Subsection (a) reflects the legislative intent of section 318.30, Florida Statutes (1994). No longer is a minimum number of cases required before a county can establish a traffic infraction hearing officer program.
Changes to subsection (m) are intended to make uniform the procedure for assignment to a county judge for hearing.
2001 Amendment. Subdivision (g) provides detailed requirements for standardized initial training of traffic hearing officers. A statewide survey of judges and traffic hearing officers was taken and the rule then amended to incorporate the current statewide practice.
Subdivision (h) was added to resolve a conflict that existed between the rules and section 318.34, Florida Statutes.
Subdivision (i) was amended to conform the rule to the current practice prohibitions for hearing officers contained in the Code of Judicial Conduct. The code reflects the consensus of the committee as to appropriate prohibitions.