Lakeland hearing officer upholds multiple red‑light camera violations, dismisses one case

Lakeland City hearing officer Josh Brown upheld a red‑light camera violation for Steven Hineswell and issued a $158 fine plus a $100 administrative fee, with 30 days to pay, after reviewing photographs and video of the intersection stop bar.

The decision came after Hineswell disputed the identification evidence and questioned the vendor that reviews camera captures. "Pursuant to the video and the photographs I've seen, that there's sufficient evidence that a violation occurred on that date and time. And so I'm gonna uphold the violation, fine a $158 fine, $100 administrative fee, and 30 days to pay," Brown said after the hearing.

Why it matters: Lakeland's enforcement hearings determine whether automated evidence from a third‑party vendor and city review meet the local standard for a civil traffic violation. Contesting motorists frequently raise vendor reliability and identification concerns; hearing officers examine only the record presented—photos and video—when determining whether a violation occurred.

Evidence and contested testimony City staff presented the case against Hineswell as violation number 1242400180490, alleging the incident occurred Aug. 12, 2024, at 7:26 p.m. at the intersection of Socram Loop Road and Cumby Road. Staff said the vehicle, a white Infiniti with a Florida plate, was recorded traveling 55 mph in a 40 mph zone; the yellow interval reported was 4.9 seconds and the red interval 0.8 seconds. Staff displayed still photos and played the capture at reduced speed for the hearing record.

Hineswell denied recollection of driving through that intersection at the listed time and said others have driven his vehicle. "I don't even know if I was even driving. I mean that, I don't even remember this at all," Hineswell said. He questioned the vendor that initially reviews the footage—naming VeriMobility and referencing Redflex in his remarks—and raised concerns about possible manipulation and the absence of a visible front‑plate photograph or a visible timestamp in the video he reviewed.

A city staff member who presented the case responded that the vendor uploads suspected violations to its Arizona office for initial review and that the city reviews the footage again before issuing a notice. "The videos, when you run the light and the camera captures your violation, it's uploaded and it goes to Arizona. That's where the main office is at. They view the video and if it meets our criteria then they send it to us and we view it again," a staff member identified at the hearing said.

Other contested hearings Brown also announced outcomes in two additional contested hearings he had called. He dismissed violation number 239403 (respondent Benjamin Norman) after staff said Norman provided receipts showing vehicle issues and that the vehicle pulled into a parking lot after the incident, which the presenting staff said supported dismissal. "He provided receipts. He was having vehicle issues and pulled into the parking lot right after this. Was not able to stop," the presenting staff member said when recommending dismissal.

Two other contested notices were found to be violations. Violation number 197‑742 (Tammy Haddock) was recorded Sept. 3, 2024, at 4:09 p.m. at Massachusetts Boulevard and Memorial Boulevard; staff reported a gray Chevrolet at 36 mph in a 35 mph zone, with a yellow interval of 4.1 seconds and red interval of 0.4 seconds. Violation number 214299 (Janice Murphy) was recorded Sept. 20, 2024, at 4:04 p.m. at Florida Avenue and Parker Street; staff reported a green Toyota traveling 50 mph in a 40 mph zone, with a yellow interval of 4.4 seconds and red interval of 0.2 seconds. Brown sustained both violations and imposed the same $158 fine and $100 administrative fee with 30 days to pay.

Summary dispositions and next steps For the remaining notices on the hearing calendar, attendees chose summary disposition. The hearing officer recorded those as $158 fines with a $12.50 administrative fee and 60 days to pay. The hearing officer read a list of the last five digits of numerous notice numbers alongside surnames of the respondents who accepted summary disposition.

After issuing rulings, Brown told attendees the administrative record would be mailed: "You'll get a new notice in the mail. Anything you want to do beyond that is between you, other courts, other legislative bodies, and any lawyers you may hire." The hearing officer also reiterated his limited jurisdiction: he reviews only the photographic and video evidence to determine whether a violation occurred at the date and time shown.

Questions the hearing record shows Hineswell and others raised three recurring concerns during the contested hearing: (1) whether the vendor review process (identified in testimony as performed out of state) alters or filters evidence before the city's review, (2) the absence of a clear front view or timestamp in the video copy shown to the motorist at the hearing, and (3) whether the registered owner can be held responsible when another person may have been driving. The hearing officer noted those are matters for other forums (civil suits, contract disputes, or legislative change) outside the narrow administrative determination he performs.

Administration and enforcement context Hearing officer Josh Brown identified the scope of his role at the start: he determines whether a violation occurred based on the position of the vehicle relative to the stop bar and whether the city’s evidence meets the statutory standard; for right‑turn‑on‑red incidents he said he also considers whether the turn was "reasonably careful and prudent." Brown stated the fines and administrative fees consistent with the city's standard practice.

A new notice reflecting the hearing officer's rulings will be mailed to respondents with instructions for payment or further appeal options where available.