JOSEPH BESSARD

v.

MIAMI DADE COUNTY

CASE NUMBER: 2025-27 AP 01 TRAWICK, Judge.

This appeal, brought by taxi driver Joseph Bessard ("Appellant") against Appellee, Miami-Dade County, seeks review of the County hearing officer's decision entered on March 4, 2025, to affirm four citations, B282227, B282229, B282231, and B282232, that were issued on May 24, 2024, as a result of a "taxi survey" inspection.

In reviewing the instant case, this Circuit Appellate Court is limited to the following narrow standard of review:

[w]here a party is entitled as a matter of law to seek review in the circuit court from administrative action, the circuit court must determine [1] whether procedural due process is accorded, [2] whether the essential requirements of law have been observed, and [3] whether the administrative findings and judgment are supported by competent, substantial evidence.

City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So. 2d 624, 626 (Fla. 1982). See also Dept. of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. Alliston 813 So. 2d 141, 144 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).

Upon review of the transcript of the administrative hearing held on March 4, 2025, as well as the record, the relevant laws, and the facts in this case, this Court affirms three citations, B282227, [*2] B282231, and B282232, and we reverse citation B282229, as discussed below:

1) Citation No. B282227 was issued for the alleged "Failure to use taximeter for credit card processing system as required by code (use clover app)." The Notice of Hearing dated December 5, 2024, stated that the violation was for Code section 31-86(a). This citation, as well as the others affirmed herein, was supported by competent, substantial evidence, due process was accorded, and the hearing officer complied with the essential requirements of the law. Upon review of the record, this Court affirms citation B282227.

2) Citation No. B282231 was issued for the alleged "Violation of abuse language prohibition or being discourteous to passengers or enforcement personnel." The Notice of Hearing dated December 5, 2024, stated that the violation was for Code section 31-303(i)(10). This citation was upheld by the hearing officer as the trier of fact, and this Court is unable to reweigh the evidence to overturn the factual determinations made by the trier of fact. Upon review of the record, this Court affirms citation B282231.

3) Citation No. B282232 was issued for the alleged "Failure to use air conditioner (windows were open)." The Notice of Hearing [*3] dated December 5, 2024, stated that the violation was for Code section 31-303(i)(17). This citation was upheld by the hearing officer as the trier of fact. This Court is unable to reweigh the evidence to overturn the factual determinations made by the trier of fact. Upon review of the record, this Court affirms citation B282232.

4) Citation No. B282229 was issued for the alleged "Failure of chauffeur to use established rates." The Notice of Hearing dated December 5, 2024, stated that the violation was for Code section 31- 303(i)(7). As to this Citation B282229, we vacate the decision of the hearing officer. The County Code provision at issue, 31-303(i)(7),1 read in conjunction with Resolution R-700-22 ("Resolution"), both of which were relied upon by the County, does not prohibit using flat rates. (See Resolution No. R-700-22 dated July 29, 2022, in Appellant's Notice of Supplemental Authority filed on Jan 28, 2026). The County's interpretation of the Code contradicts the interpretation [*4] of the Resolution given by the County's witness, Mr. Horn, during the administrative hearing below. This Court finds that a plain reading of the Resolution eliminates flat fare zone rates, not flat fares in general.² Additionally, in the Resolution, the Board of County Commissioners states that it "desires to accomplish the purposes outlined in the accompanying memorandum, a copy of which is incorporated by reference . . ." Id. This is a reference to the County Mayor's "Memorandum" regarding Resolution No. R-700-22 ("Memorandum"). (See "Memorandum" dated July 19, 2022, in Appellant's Notice of Supplemental Authority filed on Jan 28, 2026). The Executive Summary of the Memorandum states that:

Taxicab operators can still provide service at a rate below the maximum meter rate if they find it convenient to compete with transportation network companies.

Id.

[*5] Based on this Court's reading of the Code and Resolution, and the facts of the instant case, we find that the hearing officer's findings did not comply with the essential requirements of law in that it was permissible for the Appellant to charge a flat rate without violating either the Resolution or the relevant County Code ordinance.

Furthermore, we find that there is a due process issue regarding the notice that was provided in the Citation for a violation of 31- 303(i)(7). The Citation did not reference the Resolution. By the admission of the County's attorney during oral argument, the Code provision has not been updated to incorporate the Resolution, which was adopted in 2022. Thus, we find that there was a lack of adequate notice provided to Appellant.

Accordingly, the instant case is AFFIRMED IN PART, as to Citations B282227, B282231, and B282232, and REVERSED IN PART, as to Citation B282229. Thus, Citation B282229 is hereby VACATED. This matter is remanded for any further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

DE LA O, and ARECES, R., JJ., concur. [*6] COPIES FURNISHED TO COUNSEL OF RECORD

AND TO ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL

RESOLUTION REVISING MAXIMUM TAXICAB METER RATE FOR FOR-HIRE

VEHICLES; ELIMINATING THE TAXICAB SERVICE FLAT FARE RATES FOR ZONES A, B, C, D, E,¹, 2, 3, 4, AND 5: ELIMINATING THE TAXICAB FLAT

FARE RATE TO AND FROM THE MIAMI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AND

THE PORT OF MIAMI; ESTABLISHING A 30 PERCENT TAXICAB METER RATE SURCHARGE FOR LARGER VEHICLES; AND ESTABLISHING A MINIMUM CHARGE OF $15.00 FOR TRIPS ORIGINATED AT MIAMI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT OR THE PORT OF MIAMI (Capitalized in the original).