By on May 6, 2011

Ohio’s supreme court has a long history of defending traffic tickets, whether they happen to be issued by police or a machine. The court on Wednesday maintained this tradition in tossing out a constitutional challenge to the photo enforcement hearing process, denying the challengers the chance to present their case in full.

The high court first upheld the right of municipalities to issue speed camera and red light camera tickets in 2008, even though the state legislature had decided against authorizing such programs (view ruling). Other decisions upheld police officer-issued speeding tickets based solely on a visual guess of the driver’s speed (view decision) and found that drivers who do nothing unsafe could still be ticketed (view opinion).

In this case, a group of motorists filed a class action lawsuit against Columbus arguing the city set up a “shadow” court system within the police department to handle traffic camera tickets and other ordinance violations as a mean of bypassing the municipal court. The General Assembly maintains the sole authority to establish municipal courts under the state constitution.

“The Franklin County Municipal Court has jurisdiction over absolutely all of Columbus’ red light ordinance violations… because municipal courts have jurisdiction over the violation of absolutely and unequivocally all municipal ordinances, even fully decriminalized ordinances which regulate the standing or parking of vehicles, except where the violation is required to be handled by a parking violations bureau,” attorney Paul M. Greenberger argued. “As a result, [the parties that run the Columbus red light camera hearings] are subject to the immediate issuance of a write of prohibition preventing them from exercising the judicial power over said violations which judicial power must be exercised by the judges of the Franklin County Municipal Court.”

The Columbus ordinance also states that the hearing officer’s decision may only be appealed to the municipal court and that any ruling by a Franklin County judge is “final and no other appeal may be taken.” The challengers argued this ran contrary to a state law which specified that municipal decisions could be challenged before the court of appeals.

Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor did not provide justification for her decision to dismiss the challengers’ argument. The Columbus city attorney moved for dismissal on the grounds that the direct appeal to the supreme court was improper.

“It is easy to see what the relators truly want — a declaration that Columbus’s ordinance is unconstitutional and an injunction forcing Columbus to return all the monies collected under the city’s traffic camera enforcement system,” City Attorney Richard C. Pfeiffer Jr argued. “It is well established, however, that this court does not have jurisdiction over actions in which the real objects sought are declaratory and injunctive relief.”

A copy of the order granting dismissal is available in a PDF file at the source link below.

Source: PDF File Entry for Turner v. Brown, et al (Supreme Court of Ohio, 5/4/2011)

[Courtesy:Thenewspaper.com]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

4 Comments on “Ohio Supreme Court Defends Traffic Camera Program...”


  • avatar

    This appears to be merely a technical/procedural decision (essentially saying that the case should be heard first in a lower court, not the state supreme court) rather than an actual decision about the legality of the traffic camera program. Accordingly, this article (and the headline) is misleading.

  • avatar
    jkumpire

    And that is why, as a resident of Ohio, I avoid Columbus like the plague. I’ll spend my overinflated worthless currency in some other city in the state.

    Totally OTT, thanks to all who answered my question to Sajeev and Steve on 4/29! I was out of town and unable to respond immediately to your great comments!

  • avatar
    CarPerson

    The camera companies have one thing hugely in their favor: All that money is totally corrupting, all the way to the top of the judicial system.

  • avatar
    Detroit-Iron

    A supreme court is supposed to rule on the legality of things, not defend them. In this case I think that is a disturbingly accurate characterization.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India