Hearing officer affirms dozens of Miami code-enforcement cases; one dismissed after camera photos

Hearing Officer Dawn Grace Jones presided over a City of Miami code-enforcement session that resulted in dozens of agreed settlements, several trial decisions and one dismissal after photographic evidence showed material had been placed by an adjacent property. The hearing covered alleged violations of City of Miami Code section 22-6 related to illegal dumping, bulk trash size and placement, and other solid-waste rules.

The hearing matters because the city enforces placement and size rules for yard waste and bulk materials to prevent illegal dumping in public rights-of-way and to keep neighborhoods clear. Several property owners and their representatives either accepted settlements during the pretrial settlement period or proceeded to trial; a few contested citations went to formal rulings.

Hearing Officer Jones opened the session by explaining the process and swearing witnesses. “These hearings are conducted by the city of Miami, a hearing officer,” she told attendees. Inspectors from the City of Miami Solid Waste Department presented digital case files and photographs to support citations; several individuals offered evidence, including still photos and video captured by home security cameras.

In one trial, Inspector Dukes presented photos showing construction debris and household items along a shared property line at 3144 Southwest 20 Fourth Terrace. The property representative provided date-stamped photographs from a home camera indicating the materials had been placed by a neighbor; after reviewing the photos, the hearing officer dismissed that case. “Case dismissed,” Jones said after the evidence was entered.

At another trial, Inspector Zastrow Perkins testified he first observed a large pile of tree trimmings and related debris on June 24 and said the pile exceeded size limits under section 22-6. Brian Halley, an attorney representing property owner Brett Rosen at 8501 North Bayshore Drive, argued the city had not shown that Rosen placed the material and questioned whether the pile met the weight and size thresholds. The hearing officer found the violation proved and ordered a $5.25 penalty plus a $100 court cost for the case. Perkins described his contact with the owner and the photos he included in the city’s digital file: “I first noticed that that would be June 24, because I had to talk with the property owner,” he said.

At separate trials involving addresses on Northwest 50th Eighth Street, inspectors produced photographs connecting cut branches and fence materials to the cited properties. Allison Austin, who said she had lived at her address for decades and was unaware the pile placement violated city rules, testified, “I’ve been living in this home 65 years. We’ve only had a place to dump trash on the block.” The hearing officer credited the testimony about long-standing local practice but said the code’s size and placement rules applied; she assessed the standard $5.25 penalty but waived the $100 court cost in those cases given the speaker’s testimony and circumstances. Similar reasoning produced a $5.25 penalty (court cost waived) in the case involving Claudette Mark; Mark and a partner said they later installed camera equipment and captured other people dumping at the location, but the recorded footage began after the citation date and therefore did not negate the city’s evidence for that citation.

The session also included a large settlement period in which many respondents agreed the violations occurred and signed orders to pay civil penalties. Those settled amounts ranged from nominal administrative penalties ($2.50 and $5.25) up to larger fines in a few cases (for example, a $2,000 agreement where the owner was represented by a power of attorney). Hearing Officer Jones repeatedly instructed attendees that signing two copies of the agreement would complete the settlement and that the city would retain one copy.

Votes at a glance (case number — address — outcome — penalty): 0098904 — 3144 Southwest 20 Fourth Terrace — dismissed after photographic evidence credited the defense — dismissal 00097219 — 8501 North Bayshore Drive — violation affirmed; penalty $5.25 plus $100 court cost — assessed 00098185 — 1140 Northwest 50 Eighth Street — violation affirmed; penalty $5.25; court cost waived — assessed 00098173 — 1143 Northwest 50 Eighth Street — violation affirmed; penalty $5.25; court cost waived — assessed 97013 — 5151 Northwest Fourth Terrace — settlement; agreed to pay $250 — settled 97095 — 600 Southwest Sixtieth Court — settlement; $250 — settled 97680 — 455 Northwest 45th Avenue — settlement; $250 — settled 97651 — 795 Northwest 59th Street — settlement; $150 — settled 97022 — 1878 Northwest Fifteenth Street (Riverside Holdings) — settlement; $250 — settled 85975 — 1101 Northwest Nineteenth Avenue — settlement; $150 — settled 98053 — 3667 Southwest 20 Fourth Terrace — settlement; $250 — settled 96552 — 550 Tamiami Boulevard — settlement; $250 — settled 97519 — 3910 Southwest Second Street — settlement; $250 — settled 97031 — 823 Northwest 20 Third Avenue — settlement; $250 — settled 98347 — 1478 Northwest 30 Third Street — settlement; $250 — settled 98373 — 1855 Northwest 20 Second Place — settlement; $250 — settled 98197 — 258 Northwest 40 Seventh Avenue — settlement; $250 — settled 98756 — 3661 Southwest 20 Fifth Terrace — settlement; $250 — settled 94919 — 3056 Northwest Fourteenth Street — settlement; $525 — settled 114209 — 3290 Shipping Avenue — settlement; $2,000 (owner represented by POA) — settled 98736 — 198 Northwest 40 Sixth Avenue — settlement; $250 — settled 96096 — 990 Southwest Fourth Street (case 96096) — settlement; $250 — settled 92800 — 990 Southwest Fourth Street (case 92800) — settlement; $79 — settled 92207 — 790 Northwest 60 Third Street — settlement; $200 — settled 97020 — 820 Northwest Thirtieth Avenue — settlement; $100 — settled 98372 — 661 Northwest First Street (case 98372) — settlement; $2.50 — settled 98375 — 661 Northwest First Street (case 98375) — settlement; $5.25 — settled 98746 — 2431 Southwest 26 Lane — settlement; $250 — settled 96099 — 5745 Northwest Fifth Avenue — settlement; $150 — settled 98846 — 626 Northwest 60 Seventh Street — settlement; $5.25 — settled 119987 — 353 Northeast 60 First Street — settlement; $125 — settled 95665 — 1929 Northwest 20 Fourth Court — settlement; $250 — settled 93848 — 3420 Northwest Thirteenth Avenue — settlement; $250 — settled 91905 — 1801 Northwest 40 Second Street — settlement; $250 — settled

Several additional cases were read as failures to appear and were upheld on the record; the clerk listed those case numbers near the end of the session and noted they will be entered as upheld in the system.

The hearing officer reiterated that respondents who wish to challenge a final order have 30 days to appeal to the Circuit Court of Miami-Dade County. Jones also instructed attendees that city staff would scan and enter orders into the case-management system; respondents who settled were directed to sign two copies and were provided instructions about payment and obtaining their copy of the signed order.

The session underscored recurring enforcement issues for Miami solid-waste inspectors: bulk pickup scheduling, the permitted size and weight of tree trimming and yard debris, and neighbors’ practice of depositing materials in shared or frequently used spots. Inspectors said they rely on photographs, property-appraiser records and, where available, statements or video to relate materials to a specific parcel; defendants sometimes countered with evidence suggesting others placed the materials. When photographic or video evidence showed material was placed by someone else before the citation date, the hearing officer dismissed the citation; where the city’s evidence linked materials to the cited property and the owner or representative could not show exculpatory contemporaneous proof, the hearing officer affirmed the violation and assessed the established civil penalty.

Copies of final orders and instructions for appeal will be entered into the city’s records and made available to respondents per the hearing officer’s directions.