motor vehicle privilege in Florida

2013The majority here, as it did in Vargas v. Enterprise Leasing Company, 60 So.3d 1037, 1042-43 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 769 , 181 L.Ed.2d 486 (2011), suggests that a law that is clearly a financial responsibility law is in essence something else because it does not specify that its purpose is to allow the privilege of registering and operating a motor vehicle.

2013The majority here, as it did in Vargas v. Enterprise Leasing Company, 60 So.3d 1037, 1042-43 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 769 , 181 L.Ed.2d 486 (2011), suggests that a law that is clearly a financial responsibility law is in essence something else because it does not specify that its purpose is to allow the privilege of registering and operating a motor vehicle.

2013The Second District reasoned that 324.021(9)(b)(l) does not “impos[e] financial responsibility or insurance standards on the owner of a motor vehicle for the privilege of registering and operating a motor vehicle” or “impose liability on business entities engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles for failure to meet the financial responsibility or liability insurance requirements under State law.” Rosado, 1 So.3d at 1205 (quoting 49 U.S.C. § 30106 (b)) (alteration in original).

2011As recognized by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Garcia v. Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc., 540 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir.2008), these provisions clarify that although states may not impose vicarious liability on rental car companies for the negligence of their lessees, they may still reqúire insurance or its equivalent as a condition of licensing or registration (under provision (a) of the savings clause) and may enforce the requirement of insurance or its equivalent by suspending licenses or registrations, or imposing other penalties, for the failure to meet such requi

2011As recognized by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Garcia v. Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc., 540 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir.2008), these provisions clarify that although states may not impose vicarious liability on rental car companies for the negligence of their lessees, they may still require insurance or its equivalent as a condition of licensing or registration (under provision (a) of the savings clause) and may enforce the requirement of insurance or its equivalent by suspending licenses or registrations, or imposing other penalties, for the failure to meet such requi

2009In excellent discussions, Judge Hodges, in Garcia, 510 F.Supp.2d at 829-33 , and Judge Gross, in Vargas, 993 So.2d at 618-21 , have concluded that this definitional section does not "impos[e] financial responsibility or insurance standards on the owner of a motor vehicle for the privilege of registering and operating a motor vehicle" and does not "impose liability on business entities engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles for failure to meet the financial responsibility or liability insurance requirements under State law," as provided within the savings clause o

2009In excellent discussions, Judge Hodges, in Garcia, 510 F.Supp.2d at 829-33 , and Judge Gross, in Vargas, 993 So.2d at 618-21 , have concluded that this definitional section does not “imposte] financial responsibility or insurance standards on the owner of a motor vehicle for the privilege of registering and operating a motor vehicle” and does not “impose liability on business entities engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles for failure to meet the financial responsibility or liability insurance requirements under State law,” as provided within the savings clause o

2009In excellent discussions, Judge Hodges, in Garcia, 510 F.Supp.2d at 829-33 , and Judge Gross, in Vargas, 993 So.2d at 618-21 , have concluded that this definitional section does not "impos[e] financial responsibility or insurance standards on the owner of a motor vehicle for the privilege of registering and operating a motor vehicle" and does not "impose liability on business entities engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles for failure to meet the financial responsibility or liability insurance requirements under State law," as provided within the savings clause o

2009In excellent discussions, Judge Hodges, in Garcia, 510 F.Supp.2d at 829-33 , and Judge Gross, in Vargas, 993 So.2d at 618-21 , have concluded that this definitional section does not “imposte] financial responsibility or insurance standards on the owner of a motor vehicle for the privilege of registering and operating a motor vehicle” and does not “impose liability on business entities engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles for failure to meet the financial responsibility or liability insurance requirements under State law,” as provided within the savings clause o

2003The panel opinion relied on City of Miami v. Hong-De La Cruz, 784 So.2d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), which reasoned that City of Pinellas Park should apply to a foot chase.

2001As we explained *252 in Holland v. State, 696 So.2d 757, 759 (Fla.1997), the violation of a traffic law provides sufficient probable cause to make a lawful stop under the objective test laid out by the United States Supreme Court in Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 , 116 S.Ct. 1769 , 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996) (constitutional reasonableness of traffic stop is not dependent on actual motivations of individual officers).

2001As we explained *252 in Holland v. State, 696 So.2d 757, 759 (Fla.1997), the violation of a traffic law provides sufficient probable cause to make a lawful stop under the objective test laid out by the United States Supreme Court in Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 , 116 S.Ct. 1769 , 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996) (constitutional reasonableness of traffic stop is not dependent on actual motivations of individual officers).

2001We affirm the conviction but strike that portion of the sentence relating to the Ninth’s Circuit’s “collections court program” in accordance with our opinion in Blackiston v. State, 772 So.2d 554 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

1978G., Jr. v. State Of Florida, 334 So.2d 275 , wherein, among other matters, it is provided as follows: ‘Operation of a motor vehicle in violation of restrictions imposed on juvenile’s restricted license was a juvenile traffic offense and, hence, would not support adjudication of delinquency.