The Florida Senate
BILL ANALYSIS AND FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT
(This document is based on the provisions contained in the legislation as of the latest date listed below.)
Prepared By: The Professional Staff of the Committee on Transportation
BILL: SB 476
INTRODUCER: Senators Pizzo and Book
SUBJECT: Aggressive Careless Driving
DATE: February 7, 2021
ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR REFERENCE ACTION
1. Proctor Vickers TR Pre-meeting
2. CJ
3. RC
I. Summary:
SB 476 provides the aggressive careless driving statute may be cited as the “Anthony Reznik
Act,” and provides penalties for the offense of aggressive careless driving. It further revises the
definition of “aggressive careless driving” by adding the following acts to those already listed,
requiring two or more of those listed to occur simultaneously or in succession for the act of
aggressive careless driving:
Operating a motor vehicle while texting; and
Operating a motor vehicle in violation of driver license restrictions.
The bill provides that a person who commits aggressive careless driving:
Must be cited for a moving violation.
And who, by reason of such operation, causes:
o Damage to the property or person of another commits a misdemeanor of the second
degree.
o Serious bodily injury to another person commits a misdemeanor of the first degree.
o Death to another person commits a felony of the third degree.
The bill ranks aggressive careless driving resulting in death on the offense severity ranking chart.
The bill may have an indeterminate positive fiscal impact to state and local government due to
the collection of fines and fees for aggressive careless driving. See Section V. Fiscal Impact
Statement.
The bill provides an effective date of October 1, 2022.
REVISED: BILL: SB 476 Page 2
II. Present Situation:
Anthony Reznik
On February 10, 2021, a motor vehicle was traveling on Sunny Isles Beach Boulevard near
Highway A-1-A. There is a traffic light for vehicles to stop for pedestrians crossing the roadway
on the crosswalk. Eleven year old Anthony Reznik had a green light to cross the road and began
to make his way across the lanes of traffic in the marked crosswalk. There were three lanes of
traffic that he needed to cross to get to the other side of the road. Cars were stopped for the first
two of the lanes of the roadway. However, in the third lane, there were no cars stopped for the
red light. As the driver approached the stop bar of that third lane, she failed to stop. When she
went through the red light, the vehicle she was driving struck Anthony. Anthony was rushed to
the hospital; however, his life could not be saved. He died after being on life support for about
two weeks.
1
After the crash, the driver stopped her car and remained at the scene. She cooperated with the
investigation and provided a recorded interview to the police. In that interview, she stated that
the traffic light was green for her. The police did not detect any signs of impairment so there was
no legal basis to compel her to provide a sample of blood or urine for toxicology testing. Further,
the police investigation indicated that she was not driving at an excessively high rate of speed at
the time of the collision. No evidence was found to prove that she consciously disregarded the
traffic control device.
2
The Miami-Dade Police Department Traffic Homicide Unit was called to handle the fatal crash
investigation. The investigators took photographs and crash measurements, conducted witness
interviews, reconstructed the collision, and reviewed video surveillance footage of the crash.
After factoring all the evidence gathered in this case, it was their opinion, as well as the Assistant
State Attorney’s, that there was insufficient evidence to charge the driver with any felony
offenses in conjunction with this crash. There was no evidence that she was driving under the
influence of drugs/alcohol, and she did not flee the scene. Consequently, she could not be
charged with DUI Manslaughter or Leaving the Scene of a Deadly Crash.
3
Moreover, the charge of Vehicular Homicide could not be sustained in this matter, either. In
order to prove the crime of Vehicular Homicide, the State would have to prove that the driver
was driving recklessly. The distinction between reckless driving (the basis for criminal vehicular
homicide charges) and careless driving (which cannot be the basis of a criminal offense but can
result in the issuance of traffic tickets) has been addressed in a multitude of cases with similar
outcomes.
4
In other words, even when an innocent person is killed in a traffic crash, the law
1
Janine Stanwood, Driver won’t face criminal charges after running red light, striking and killing 11-year-old in Sunny
Isles, Local 10 News, September 14, 2021, available at https://www.local10.com/news/local/2021/09/15/driver-wont-face-
criminal-charges-after-running-red-light-striking-and-killing-11-year-old-in-sunny-isles/ (last visited February 4, 2022); and
Memorandum to File from Assistant State Attorney Laura Adams, (September 10, 2021) (on file with the Senate Committee
on Transportation).
2
Memorandum to File from Assistant State Attorney Laura Adams, (September 10, 2021) (on file with the Senate Committee
on Transportation).
3
Ibid.
4
Luzardo v. State, 147 So.3d 1083 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 2014), the court noted that “By definition, the crime of vehicular
homicide requires proof of the elements of reckless driving… Reckless driving, in turn, is defined as driving ‘in willful or BILL: SB 476 Page 3
recognizes that accidents can happen, and people should not go to jail or prison for mere
mistakes. Unless the at-fault driver can be shown to have taken deliberate action knowing that it
was likely that death or serious injury would likely result, the charge of Vehicular Homicide
cannot be proven.
5
Road Rage and Aggressive Driving
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), “aggressive
driving” is defined as when an individual commits a combination of moving traffic offenses so
as to endanger other persons or property.
6
Occasionally, aggressive driving transforms into
confrontation, physical assault, and even murder. A study on road deaths and injuries shows that:
road death and injury rates are the result, to a considerable extent, of the expression of
aggressive behavior. . . . Those societies with the greatest amount of violence and
aggression in their structure will show this by externalizing some of this violence in the
form of dangerous and aggressive driving. . . .
7
According to NHTSA, “road rage” is the label that has emerged to describe the angry and violent
behaviors at the extreme of the aggressive driving continuum.
8
The willful intent to injure other individuals or to cause damage, although directed at a specific
target, presents an immediate danger to all in the vicinity of those engaged in acts of road rage.
There are numerous accounts in which road rage incidents inadvertently involve drivers or
pedestrians not targeted in the incident.
Aggressive driving maneuvers, such as tailgating and speeding, can also be seen as the result of
the driving environment, and they are also connected with the issue of congestion.
9
Studies show
most incidents happen between the hours of four and six o’clock in the evening, times in which
traffic congestion is more than likely a factor or the primary cause of an accident. In addition,
wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property…’” The court goes on to note that “willful” means “intentional,
knowing and purposeful” conduct and that “wanton” means “with a conscious and intentional indifference to consequences
and with the knowledge that damage is likely to be done to persons or property.”; Damoah v. State, 189 So.3d 316 (Fla. 4th
D.C.A. 2016), noted that “The law differentiates between negligent driving conduct, which exposes a wrongdoer to civil
liability, and criminal driving conduct, which subjects a person to incarceration and other criminal sanctions. Case law
strictly construes criminal driving statutes to prevent the net of the criminal law from sweeping so broadly that it snares all
conduct, both criminal and negligent.” The Damoah court went on to note that “Consistent with this view, the Florida
Supreme Court has held “statutes criminalizing simple negligence to be unconstitutional.” State v. Smith, 638 So.2d 509, 510
(Fla.1994). “[U]nintentional conduct [ ] not generated by culpable negligence” will not support criminal liability. State v.
Hamilton, 388 So.2d 561, 563 (Fla.1980); and Berubev. State, 6 So.3d 624 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. 2008) found that “What is
missing from the State’s proof is evidence that Berubev, in an intentional, knowing and purposeful manner, made an
improper left turn with a conscious and intentional indifference to consequences and with knowledge that damage is likely to
be done to persons or property.”
5
Supra FN 2.
6
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Aggressive Driving https://nhtsa.dr.del1.nhtsa.gov/Driving-
Safety/Aggressive-Driving (last visited February 4, 2022).
7
Whitlock, F.A., Death on the Road: A Study in Social Violence. London (Tavistock Publications 1971).
8
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
https://one.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/aggdrivingenf/pages/introduction.html (last visited February 4, 2022).
9
Dominic Connell and Matthew Joint, Driver Aggression, Road Safety Unit Group Public Policy (Nov. 1996), available at
https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/40587 (last visited February 4, 2022). BILL: SB 476 Page 4
there is strong evidence correlating the number of lane change maneuvers to accidents, and speed
to accidents. Some researchers have theorized the root cause of these aggressive behaviors is
passive-aggressive driving, i.e., the failure to move to the right from a left lane of a multi-lane
highway when being overtaken by faster traffic. The theory contends that because slower moving
traffic often refuses to yield to vehicles wishing to pass, those faster moving vehicles resort to
aggressive driving such as “bobbing and weaving” from lane to lane.
Current Florida law in relation to “driving on right side of roadway” does require vehicles
moving at a lesser rate of speed to drive in the right hand lane as soon as it is reasonable to
proceed into that lane. Exceptions and exemptions include: when overtaking and passing another
vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or
into a private road or driveway.
10
Violations of this law are noncriminal offenses.
Another important distinction is that aggressive driving is considered a traffic violation, while
road rage may result in criminal offenses. Currently 15 states have laws pertaining to aggressive
driving as described above (including Florida).
11
Most, if not all acts under the umbrella of what
is considered road rage, are labeled criminal offenses with applicable punishments. Road rage, if
not accompanied by some other type of violation, is not considered a punishable crime in statute.
Some crimes considered to be an act of road rage if carried out while driving include: Criminal
Damage, Using Threatening, Abusive, or Insulting Words or Behavior (thereby causing fear or
provocation), Wounding with Intent, Common Assault, Assault with a Deadly Weapon, Murder,
Manslaughter, and Vehicular Homicide.
Florida Aggressive Driving Laws
Section 316.1923, F.S., describes, “aggressive careless driving” as committing two or more of
the following acts simultaneously or in succession:
Exceeding the posted speed as defined in s. 322.27(3)(d)5.b., F.S;
Unsafely or improperly changing lanes as defined in s. 316.085, F.S.;
Following another vehicle too closely as defined in s. 316.0895(1), F.S.;
Failing to yield the right-of-way as defined in ss. 316.079, 316.0815, or 316.123, F.S.;
Improperly passing as defined in ss. 316.083, 316.084, or 316.085, F.S.; or
Violating traffic control and signal devices as defined in ss. 316.074 and 316.075, F.S.
These violations carry separate penalties for each offense. Section 316.1923, F.S., does not,
however, provide for any penalties to be administered for the act of aggressive driving itself.
Law enforcement officers, by law are to check off a box, which is included on a ticket or an
accident report form, when the officer believes the traffic violation or crash was due to
aggressive careless driving.
12
The information is recorded and used by the Department of
Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV).
10
Sections 316.081(1), (2), and (3), F.S.
11
National Conference of State Legislatures, Aggressive Driving and Speed
https://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/aggressive-driving-and-speed.aspx (last visited February 4, 2022).
12
Section 316.650(1), F.S. BILL: SB 476 Page 5
Current law provides that drivers overtaking other drivers must use the proper signal, and those
being overtaken must yield the right of way to the overtaking vehicle. In addition, vehicles being
overtaken may not increase speed until the attempted pass is complete or it is reasonably safe to
do so.
13
Some of the infractions may require a mandatory court hearing.
14
Criminal Punishment Code
In 1997, the Legislature enacted the Criminal Punishment Code
15
(Code) as Florida’s “primary
sentencing policy.”
16
The primary purpose of the Code is to “punish the offender.”
17
“Rehabilitation is a desired goal of the criminal justice system but is subordinate to the goal of
punishment.”
18
Noncapital felonies sentenced under the Code receive an offense severity level
ranking (Levels 1-10).
19
Points are assigned and accrue based upon the level ranking assigned to
the primary offense, additional offenses, and prior offenses. Sentence points escalate as the level
escalates. Points may be added or multiplied for other factors such as victim injury or the
commission of certain drug trafficking offenses. The lowest permissible sentence is any nonstate
prison sanction in which total sentence points equal or are less than 44 points, unless the court
determines that a prison sentence is appropriate. If total sentence points exceed 44 points, the
lowest permissible sentence in prison months is calculated by subtracting 28 points from the total
sentence points and decreasing the remaining total by 25 percent.
20
Absent mitigation,
21
the permissible sentencing range under the Code is generally the scored
lowest permissible sentence up to, and including, the maximum sentence provided in s. 775.082,
F.S.
22
However, if the offender’s offense has a mandatory minimum term that is greater than the
scored lowest permissible sentence, the mandatory minimum term supersedes the lowest
permissible sentence scored.
23
Further, some offenders may qualify for prison diversion under
various sections of the Florida Statutes.
24
13
Section 316.083, F.S.
14
Section 318.19, F.S.
15
Sections 921.002-921.0027, F.S. The Code is effective for offenses committed on or after October 1, 1998.
16
See chs. 97-194 and 98-204, L.O.F.
17
Section 921.002(1)(b), F.S.
18
Ibid.
19
Offenses are either ranked in the offense severity level ranking chart in s. 921.0022, F.S., or are ranked by default based on
a ranking assigned to the felony degree of the offense as provided in s. 921.0023, F.S.
20
Section 921.0024, F.S. Unless otherwise noted, information on the Code is from this source.
21
The court may “mitigate” (reduce) the scored lowest permissible sentence if the court finds a mitigating circumstance.
Sections 921.002(1)(g) and (3), 921.0026(1), and 921.00265(1) and (2), F.S. Section 921.0026(2), F.S., provides a list of
mitigating circumstances. This type of sentence is often referred to as a “downward departure” sentence.
22
Sections 921.002(1)(g) and 921.0024(2), F.S. The sentencing court may impose sentences concurrently or consecutively. A
prison sentence must exceed 1 year. If the scored lowest permissible sentence exceeds the maximum penalty in s. 775.082,
F.S., the sentence required by the Code must be imposed. If total sentence points are greater than or equal to 363 points, the
court may sentence the offender to life imprisonment. Section 921.0024(2), F.S.
23
Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.704(d)(26).
24
See e.g., s. 775.082(10), F.S. (diversion for an offender whose offense is a nonviolent third degree felony and whose total
sentence points are 22 points or fewer); s. 921.00241, F.S. (diversion into a Department of Corrections’ prison diversion
program for certain nonviolent third degree felony offenders); and s. 948.01, F.S. (diversion into a post adjudicatory
treatment-based drug court program for certain nonviolent felony offenders). BILL: SB 476 Page 6
III. Effect of Proposed Changes:
The bill amends s. 316.1923, F.S., to provide it may be cited as the “Anthony Reznik Act” and to
provide penalties for the offense of aggressive careless driving. It further revises the definition of
“aggressive careless driving” by adding the following acts to those already listed, requiring two
or more of those listed to occur simultaneously or in succession for the act of aggressive careless
driving:
Operating a motor vehicle while texting as defined in s. 316.305(3)(a), F.S.; and
Operating a motor vehicle in violation of driver license restrictions imposed under ss.
322.16(1)(a) or (b), F.S., such as restrictions suitable to the licensee’s driving ability with
respect to the type of special mechanical control devices required on a motor vehicle and
restrictions on use of the license with respect to time and purpose of use.
The bill provides that a person who commits aggressive careless driving:
Must be cited for a moving violation, punishable as provided in chapter 318.
25
And who, by reason of such operation, causes:
o Damage to the property or person of another commits a misdemeanor of the second
degree, punishable as provided in ss. 775.082 or 775.083, F.S.
26
o Serious bodily injury to another person commits a misdemeanor of the first degree,
punishable as provided in ss. 775.082, 775.083, or 775.084, F.S.
27
As used the term
“serious bodily injury” means an injury to another person which consists of a physical
condition that creates a substantial risk of death, serious personal disfigurement, or
protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.
o Death to another person commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in
ss. 775.082, 775.083, or 775.084, F.S.
28
The bill amends s. 921.0022, F.S., to rank aggressive careless driving resulting in death second
on the offense severity level six offense severity ranking chart.
The DHSMV indicates that generally, most crashes result in either property damage, injury, or
death of another. The practical effect of the bill is that a large percentage of vehicle crashes may
likely become criminal in nature.
29
For example, consider a careless driver who, traveling at or
below the speed limit, fails to stop at a stop sign and, in doing so, crashes into another vehicle
traveling on an intersecting roadway with the right-of-way. The at-fault driver has committed
25
Section 318.18(3)(a), F.S., provides penalties for noncriminal traffic infractions, and except as otherwise provided, the fine
for a moving violation not requiring a mandatory appearance is $60; however, other penalties and fees may also be imposed;
s. 322.27(3), F.S., the DHSMV is authorized to suspend the license of any person upon showing of its records or other good
and sufficient evidence that the licensee has been convicted of violating motor vehicle laws or ordinances amounting to 12 or
more points as determined by the point system, and the suspension may not exceed a period of 1 year; and s. 322.27(7), F.S.,
unless otherwise specified in law, the points for a moving violation are 3 points.
26
Section 775.082(4)(b), F.S., term of imprisonment not exceeding 60 days; and s. 775.083(1)(e), F.S., a fine not to exceed
$500.
27
Section 775.082(4)(a), F.S., term of imprisonment not exceeding 1 year; and s. 775.083(1)(d), F.S., a fine not to exceed
$1,000.
28
Section 775.082(3)(e), F.S., term of imprisonment not exceeding 5 years; and s. 775.083(1)(c), F.S., a fine not to exceed
$5,000.
29
Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 2022 Legislative Bill Analysis for SB 476, (January 13, 2022), p. 4 (on
file in the Senate Committee on Transportation). BILL: SB 476 Page 7
two of the enumerated acts simultaneously or in succession, violating a traffic control device and
failure to yield the right-of-way. Therefore, the at-fault driver would now be subjected to
criminal penalties under the bill for aggressive careless driving. At a minimum, the at-fault driver
would be charged with a second degree misdemeanor for aggressive careless driving causing
property damage or injury to another. If the crash resulted in death, the at-fault driver would be
charged with a third degree felony. Moreover, the offense of aggressive careless driving resulting
in death would be punishable as a level six offense and subject the driver to a possible prison
sentence.
30
The bill provides an effective date of October 1, 2022.
IV. Constitutional Issues:
A. Municipality/County Mandates Restrictions:
None.
B. Public Records/Open Meetings Issues:
None.
C. Trust Funds Restrictions:
None.
D. State Tax or Fee Increases:
None.
E. Other Constitutional Issues:
The bill criminalizes aggressive careless driving resulting in damage to property or
person, serious bodily injury, or death. Damoah v. State, 189 So.3d 316 (Fla. 4th D.C.A.
2016), noted that “The law differentiates between negligent driving conduct, which
exposes a wrongdoer to civil liability, and criminal driving conduct, which subjects a
person to incarceration and other criminal sanctions. Case law strictly construes criminal
driving statutes to prevent the net of the criminal law from sweeping so broadly that it
snares all conduct, both criminal and negligent.” The Damoah court went on to note that
“Consistent with this view, the Florida Supreme Court has held “statutes criminalizing
simple negligence to be unconstitutional.” State v. Smith, 638 So.2d 509, 510 (Fla.1994).
“[U]nintentional conduct [ ] not generated by culpable negligence” will not support
criminal liability. State v. Hamilton, 388 So.2d 561, 563 (Fla.1980).
30
Ibid, p. 5. BILL: SB 476 Page 8
V. Fiscal Impact Statement:
A. Tax/Fee Issues:
None.
B. Private Sector Impact:
The bill may have a negative fiscal impact on individuals receiving a uniform traffic
citation, or being charged with a misdemeanor or felony, for the aggressive careless
driving.
C. Government Sector Impact:
The bill may have an indeterminate positive fiscal impact to state and local government
due to the collection of fines and fees for aggressive careless driving.
The bill may have an indeterminate prison bed impact due to the criminalization of
aggressive careless driving resulting in damage to property or person, serious bodily
injury, or death.
The bill may have an indeterminate negative fiscal impact to the DHSMV’s operational
resources due to the need for programming to create four new disposition codes in the
Motorist Maintenance Application and Citation Processing and to add four new violation
codes to the Uniform Traffic Citation Annual Statistic Report.
31
VI. Technical Deficiencies:
None.
VII. Related Issues:
Section 316.1923, F.S., and the bill do not require any sort of intent to elevate the enumerated
noncriminal violations to a criminal violation. Rather, it is the unintended result of a careless
behavior that elevates the noncriminal violation to a criminal violation. Because the bill does not
require any sort of intent behind the act, it is likely that persons who lack intent or would not
ordinarily be characterized as aggressive drivers will find themselves facing criminal penalties.
32
VIII. Statutes Affected:
This bill substantially amends the following sections of the Florida Statutes: 316.1923 and
921.0022.
31
Ibid.
32
Ibid. BILL: SB 476 Page 9
IX. Additional Information:
A. Committee Substitute – Statement of Changes:
(Summarizing differences between the Committee Substitute and the prior version of the bill.)
None.
B. Amendments:
None.
This Senate Bill Analysis does not reflect the intent or official position of the bill’s introducer or the Florida Senate.