Deerfield Beach Speed Camera Ruling Contested In Broward Circuit Court Appeal

DEERFIELD BEACH, FL — A Lake Worth man is asking the 17th Judicial Circuit Court to overturn a Deerfield Beach school zone speed camera citation, arguing in a newly filed appellate brief that the city's administrative hearing did not provide a fair proceeding under Florida law.

The case, *Richard Best v. City of Deerfield Beach*, Case No. 26-0010975, was filed as an administrative appeal in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward County. Best, who is proceeding pro se, filed his initial brief on July 7, 2026, with the Broward County Clerk of Courts, appealing a Final Administrative Order rendered June 10, 2026, that upheld a $100 civil penalty plus $80 in administrative costs.

The underlying citation is a Notice of Violation issued by the City of Deerfield Beach School Zone Safety Program under Florida Statutes Sections 316.183 and 316.1896, the state's school zone speed detection system law. According to the record on appeal, the notice alleges that a vehicle registered to Best was recorded on Jan. 8, 2026, at 12:06 p.m. traveling 50.6 miles per hour in a posted 35 mile-per-hour school zone in the 600 block of westbound Southeast 10th Street at Deerfield Beach Middle School. The notice was signed by Deputy K. Lian, ID No. 19189, and issued Jan. 11, 2026.

Best requested an administrative hearing, which was held June 9, 2026, in the Deerfield Beach Commission Chambers at 150 NE 2nd Avenue. The Final Administrative Order, signed the following day and reviewed by Boca Post, identifies Special Magistrate Andrew Dunkiel as the local hearing officer who upheld the violation.

Best's initial brief raises three principal issues. It alleges that he was not afforded a fair and impartial hearing, that the proceedings departed from the essential requirements of law, and that the city failed to establish the alleged violation by competent, substantial evidence. Best also contends the administrative record produced by the city is incomplete.

According to the brief, Best disclosed to the special magistrate before any evidence was presented that Dunkiel had previously served as opposing counsel in multiple prior legal matters. The filing states that before serving as special magistrate in this matter, Dunkiel served as counsel for the City of Coral Springs in matters involving Best that included his employment, execution of a settlement agreement, subsequent civil litigation, a motion to dismiss and a motion seeking costs. The brief alleges that after Best raised the issue, the special magistrate stated he could remain impartial and proceeded with the hearing. The brief further alleges that Best was advised the assigned special magistrate was the only individual available to hear the case, but that he later learned through records obtained from the city that more than one special magistrate had been appointed. The record on appeal includes Deerfield Beach Resolution No. 2023/200, which appoints the Law Offices of John J. Hearn, P.A., as special magistrate and identifies both John J. Hearn and Andrew Dunkiel as authorized to hear code enforcement matters.

The brief also alleges procedural concerns with the presentation of evidence. Best states that after his defense, and after the city's counsel had indicated the city had nothing further to present, additional testimony and exhibits were introduced through the city's code compliance manager, whom the brief identifies as Mr. Davis. According to the filing, those materials included GIS mapping and photographs relating to school zone signage that had not been included in the city's original evidence packet or provided to Best before the hearing.

On the sufficiency of the evidence, the brief alleges that the city did not establish every statutory element required under Section 316.1896. Best contends the testing log for the speed detection system reflected testing at exactly 5:00 a.m. on multiple consecutive days, and that on redirect examination the city established the testing was performed automatically by a third-party company that was not present at the hearing. The brief also alleges that video evidence showed another vehicle traveling immediately adjacent to Best's vehicle, and that Mr. Davis testified he did not know the specific technology the third-party vendor used to distinguish between vehicles in separate lanes but stated he believed the system was capable of doing so.

The brief further alleges that a Chapter 119 public records request Best submitted after the hearing produced an incomplete record. According to the filing, the city advised the request had been completed and told Best that "if there are no records there will be nothing to view." The brief alleges that certain exhibits admitted into evidence during the hearing, including an exhibit offered by Best, were not included in the city's production and that the city did not identify the individuals who spoke during the hearing.

The appeal is governed by Florida Statute Section 162.11, which limits circuit court review of a final administrative order to the record created before the hearing officer and provides that the appeal is not a hearing de novo. Best's brief asks the court to reverse the Final Administrative Order, direct that the Notice of Violation be dismissed, award costs as permitted by law, and grant such further relief as the court deems just and proper.

The filing reviewed by Boca Post is Best's initial brief and does not include a response from the City of Deerfield Beach. An answer brief and any further filings would be reflected on the circuit court docket as the case proceeds.

Boca Post tracks civil court filings in Deerfield Beach, including lawsuits involving local businesses, residents, condo and HOA associations, and property owners. Follow our Deerfield Beach Lawsuits coverage for recent filings.