New Miami’s attorney Wilson Weisenfelder also asked the 12th District to reconsider its ruling and to take notice of the Walker case.
The 12th District judges said they must only reconsider a case if someone points out an obvious error in their decision or raises an issue that was not considered but perhaps should have been.
“While this court did not address the Walker case in its decision, such was unnecessary because the application of Walker does not change the ability of appellees to bring a facial constitutional challenge without first raising the issue in an administrative appeal…,” the ruling reads. “Walker does not affect this court’s holdings that appellees have standing.”
The high court has also refused to reconsider its decision in Walker, so that holding is now final. Sage sent a 23-page explanation for his decision on the class issue up to the appeals court on his last day on the bench, so his replacement Judge Michael Oster has a couple more motions on the case to decide.
Weisenfelder said Oster could even undo what Sage did, since there is still his motion for relief from judgment based on the high court ruling.
“The new judge could undo what Judge Sage did by granting the motion for relief from judgment,” Weisenfelder said. “But there is another wrinkle in this that doesn’t necessarily affect these plaintiffs. The legislature passed a statute in December addressing most of these traffic camera laws. It becomes effective March 23.”
Weisenfelder said the law basically creates a “blueprint” for using the speed catchers, making it a bit more difficult for jurisdictions to use them but also clarifying current law.
Josh Engel, one of the plaintiff’s attorneys, said the 12th District refusing to apply Walker to the current appeal was a good decision and means the case moves forward.
“The court of appeals agreed that people can seek refunds by suggesting that the entire scheme is unconstitutional,” he said. “The Walker decision doesn’t change over 50 years of law on that issue.”