By Dan Sewell
Associated Press
CINCINNATI — A divided Ohio Supreme Court on Thursday again upheld use of traffic camera enforcement by the state’s municipalities, reversing a lower court after a year of legal setbacks for camera use.
The Supreme Court justices ruled 4-3 to stick to its 2008 ruling in a challenge to Akron cameras that cities have “home-rule authority” to use the cameras to catch speeders and red light-runners.
A state appeals lower court had agreed with a ticketed motorist’s contention that Toledo overstepped its authority with a camera system. The driver’s attorneys had argued that the system improperly bypassed the courts and violated his rights to due process.
Camera advocates say they free up police for other crime-fighting and make communities safer. Foes contend they are aimed primarily at raising revenues.
The justices focused on legal issues, not the debate over safety and revenue.
Andrew Mayle, attorney for motorist Bradley Walker, said Thursday he will ask the narrowly split court to reconsider the case because of its broad implications for the state.
Ohio legislators just passed a bill that would require a police officer to be present when enforcement is used.
In June 11 arguments before the justices, Mayle, of Fremont, Ohio, said cities were usurping the judicial system by making motorists appeal camera-generated citations within the city’s own administrative procedures.
Toledo law director Adam Loukx countered that the camera systems are allowed under local self-governing powers, or “home rule,” provided by the Ohio Constitution as upheld in the 2008 case on Akron’s traffic cameras.
Walker, a Paducah, Kentucky, businessman, was the lead plaintiff in the case against Toledo. He was ticketed for speeding in 2009 and paid a $120 fine before deciding to sue.
Toledo’s camera vendor and co-defendant, Redflex Traffic Systems of Phoenix, Arizona, said it has operated camera systems in Ohio for more than a decade and believes it has helped improve public safety in a way that is consistent with Ohio law.
Hundreds of communities across the nation are using automated photo enforcement to cite speeders or red light runners, but there has been a wave of legal challenges. The California Supreme Court in June ruled unanimously against a motorist’s challenge to a camera-generated red light citation.
One of the sharpest rejections of cameras came last year in Hamilton County, Ohio, where a judge compared Elmwood Place’s camera system to a con artist’s card game, calling it “a scam” against thousands of motorists who racked up $105 speeding fines within weeks of the cameras’ installation.
Copyright 2014 The Associated Press