Automated School-Bus Camera Enforcement Program Survives Due Process Challenge, but Unjust Enrichment Claims Proceed

TAMPA (LN) — A federal judge kept unjust enrichment claims alive against Verra Mobility Corporation and the Polk County School Board in a putative class action challenging an automated school-bus camera enforcement program that, according to the complaint, has issued more than 11,400 notices of violation and generated an estimated $1.3 million in civil penalty revenue since its launch.

The court dismissed the constitutional core of Richard Smith's complaint, concluding that the CrossingGuard System's two-step enforcement process — an initial $225 notice of violation followed by a uniform traffic citation with a full hearing — provided constitutionally adequate process under the Fourteenth Amendment's procedural due process guarantee. The Polk County Sheriff's Office was terminated from the case entirely, and the declaratory relief count was dismissed as to all defendants.

Smith had argued that the notice of violation he received in February 2025 gave him no meaningful way to contest the infraction without triggering escalating penalties. The notice offered two options: pay $225 or submit an affidavit claiming one of four statutory exemptions. There was no option to request a hearing. If a recipient did neither within 30 days, a uniform traffic citation would issue, raising the penalty to $329 and exposing the driver to an additional civil penalty of up to $500 plus court costs — and potential license suspension.

Smith declined to pay, received the citation, requested a hearing, and was found guilty. The court assessed a $198 fine, a $7 additional fine, and $131 in court costs, for a total of $336, which Smith paid. He did not appeal.

Applying the three-factor balancing test from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court concluded Smith's property interest was modest — the initial fine was not recorded on his driving record, and he faced no mandatory payment or license restriction until he declined the notice and the citation issued. The court also concluded the risk of erroneous deprivation was minimal, noting that Smith never alleged the CrossingGuard System captured his vehicle in error or that an earlier hearing would have changed the outcome. The government's interest in efficient traffic enforcement and child safety, the court added, weighed against requiring an additional pre-citation hearing layer.

The court drew heavily on the Eleventh Circuit's 2019 decision in Worthy v. City of Phenix City, which sustained a similar red-light camera enforcement scheme, and rejected Smith's argument that the escalating penalty structure meaningfully distinguished his case. The court wrote that the risk of further penalties does not elevate Smith's initial property interest, especially in view of the later-available procedures.

Smith's Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claim against Verra fared no better. The court ruled that drivers who receive traffic fines are not consumers purchasing goods or services in a marketplace, and that Verra's conduct was independently shielded by FDUTPA's safe harbor for acts specifically permitted by state law. Smith did not allege Verra failed to comply with the authorizing statute.

The unjust enrichment claims against Verra and the School Board survived, however. The court rejected Verra's argument that the claim was duplicative of the dismissed constitutional counts, allowing Smith to plead it in the alternative. The School Board's voluntary payment defense failed at the pleading stage because Smith alleged the defendants coerced payment by discouraging contestation and failing to provide clear opportunities to challenge liability before penalties accrued.

The Sheriff's Office's unjust enrichment claim was dismissed with prejudice on sovereign immunity grounds — Florida has not waived immunity for quasi-contractual claims, and Smith offered no authority for carving out a disgorgement exception.

The School Board's counsel faces a May 12 deadline to show cause why the court should not impose sanctions or refer the matter to the Florida Bar. The court identified several problems with the School Board's brief: it misrepresented the holding of the Eleventh Circuit's decision in Pincus v. American Traffic Solutions, Inc.; cited two cases that do not appear to exist — Abreu v. City of Miami Beach and Gonzalez v. City of Coral Gables; cited a third case, Morgulis v. BusPatrol Am., LLC, with an Eastern District of New York citation that does not exist as cited; and cited Leder v. American Traffic Solutions, Inc., an Eastern District of New York decision that applied New York law rather than Florida law.