3 Things To Know
- An appeals court sided with the state of Ohio in its legal battle with the city of Dayton, but traffic cameras are still on and drivers in Dayton need to be mindful that they can be ticketed if a police officer is present.
- The city of Dayton likely will appeal the ruling, but will wait until similar cases are settled in Toledo and Akron.
- Dayton has generated up to $1.7 million annually in revenues from the cameras. The city has 30 cameras, which were first installed in 2002.
Ohio’s Second District Court of Appeals on Friday upheld the state’s new legal restrictions on traffic ticket cameras that require a police officer’s presence when tickets are issued.
That decision will almost certainly be appealed by the city of Dayton.
Dayton has generated up to $1.7 million annually in revenues from the cameras. The system, which includes 30 cameras, was first installed in 2002 for red lights and amended in 2010 to issue tickets for speed violations.
In the decision, written by Ohio Second District Court of Appeals Judge Mary Donovan, a three-judge panel ruled that “a municipal ordinance must yield to a state statute” if the local law is an exercise of police power, a general law and is in conflict with the statute.
The ruling reverses an April 3 decision by Montgomery County Common Pleas Court Judge Barbara Gorman, who wrote that Ohio Senate Bill 342 was not unconstitutional in its entirety, but that certain provisions violated the rights of cities under Ohio’s constitutional home rule protections.
Appellate court judges Donovan, Jeffrey Froelich and Michael Hall disagreed.
Donovan wrote that the state’s restrictions on such cameras enacted March 23, 2015, provide “a uniform, comprehensive, statewide statutory scheme regulating the use and implementation of traffic law photo-monitoring devices in Ohio, and was clearly not enacted to limit municipal legislative powers.”
The appellate court vacated the permanent injunction that allowed the city to continue citing motorists without officers present.
Drivers in Dayton still need to be mindful. Mayor Nan Whaley said police will staff some camera locations and issue tickets.
City police and commission members credit the system for sharply reducing accidents and dangerous driving.
A city of Dayton appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court seems almost certain. Whaley said the city is awaiting a conclusion to similar court cases in Lucas and Summit counties before appealing the case. The cities of Akron and Toledo also challenged the state.
“This is just one step in this controversy,” she said of the ruling. “The roads are less safe because of the state legislature’s action.”
She said that just in the past month, with word that the city would not be ticketing at all cameras, violations jumped. The cameras, even when not issuing tickets, are still recording violations.
Red light violations spiked by 107 percent in July compared to the previous month, going from more than 1,000 in June to above 2,000 around the city. Speeding violations rose 27 percent.
Nationwide, 469 communities have red light violation cameras and 137 have speed cameras. Regionally, other communities with traffic cameras are Hamilton and Middletown.
On July 23, Dayton assistant city attorney John Musto argued before the court for the city’s right to protect its citizens.
“There’s no other way to say it — it’s a sham,” Musto said during the hearing. “The provisions that are challenged are not general law. They’re nonsensical, they waste police resources and they’re specifically intended to act as a burden as a de facto ban on photo enforcement.”
State assistant attorney general Halli Watson argued that day that the law is meant to standardize state traffic laws just like speed limits and stop signs.
“Having a police officer present inserts a level of human involvement and common sense that you can never have when you’re dealing solely with an automated camera enforcement system,” Watson said.
Attorney General’s Office spokeswoman Lisa Hackley said Friday: “We are pleased with the court’s decision. As we have stated from the beginning, we believe the statute complies with the Ohio Constitution.”
The state law also requires cities to study traffic problems in an area before installing an automated camera. Ohio cities also must oversee a 30-day public education campaign before installing a camera, to alert the public of its presence.
In regard to S.B. 342, Donovan wrote that with respect to all Ohio motor vehicle drivers, “the statute outlines the procedures to be followed by a driver who is issued a ticket, how to pay or dispute the violation, and finally, the procedures and rules an individual is subject to if he or she chooses to challenge the violation before an administrative body.”
“Clearly the state’s action is controversial as evident by the mixed decisions we have seen across the state,” Whaley said. “As I have said many times, this legislation makes our streets less safe and prevents cities from using technology to better enforce its traffic laws. The city of Dayton will continue to pursue its legal options in this matter.”
Springfield suspended its red light camera program in March and later filed a lawsuit against the state, claiming the new law violates its home-rule authority. The state filed a motion on July 7.
The decision in Dayton may have no bearing on the Springfield case because different judges may hear it if it were to go to appeals court, or the same judges may view arguments differently, Springfield law director Jerry Strozdas said.
Springfield leaders have turned off the city’s cameras and have said they won’t turn them back on until the issue is settled statewide. Springfield has 17 cameras at 10 intersections. They currently are covered with bags.
About the Author