after petitioner had completed all of the terms of his sentence and after his driving privileges were reinstated, the Department informed petitioner by letter that he would either have to install the device on his vehicles or face revocation of his driver license. Despite the Department’s arguments to the contrary, neither section 316.193 nor section 322.16, Florida Statutes (2002), grants the Department authority to require the imposition of the device in the absence of a court order. The unambiguous language of section 316.193 clearly establishes that Florida’s trial courts, not the Department, are responsible for ordering the installation of the device upon qualified offenders. See Dickenson, Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Aultman, 905 So.2d 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)(<HOLDING>). While section 322.16 provides general
holding that director of police department does not have final policymaking authority in miamidade county despite having some discretionary authority holding that fmla does not impose individual liability holding that department does not have independent authority to impose device in absence of court order recognizing inherent power of supreme court independent of statutory authority to punish for contempt of court holding that when defendant failed to appear at scheduled suppression hearing the court could have decided the motion in defendants absence but it did not have the authority to refuse to consider it