Ohio Appeals Court Green Lights Traffic Camera Suit


Ohio’s second highest court on Thursday ruled that a constitutional challenge to photo enforcement should proceed. Attorney Jeffrey Posner had appealed a speed camera ticket he received from a private contractor operating in Cleveland on the grounds that the way the private firm handled the evidence undermined his right to due process. A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Eight Appellate District found merit in his concerns and reversed the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court decision that previously had found no problem with the system of automated ticketing.
Posner argued that the evidence used against him was unscientific, unsubstantiated and not authenticated. The common pleas court replied that this line of reasoning was equivalent to saying that the city’s ordinance was unconstitutional — something the common pleas court claimed it did not have the power to decide. Posner, however, challenged the constitutionality of the process as applied to his specific case.
“Although the common pleas court had no jurisdiction to determine a facial challenge to the ordinance, it should have addressed Posner’s ‘as applied’ arguments,” appeals court Presiding Judge Mary J. Boyle wrote for the majority. “We therefore reverse the decision of the trial court and remand with instructions to address Posner’s constitutional due process challenges to C.C.O. 413.031 ‘as applied’ to his case.”
Because Posner showed that he had reasonable grounds to appeal, the court ruled that he should recover costs. Judge Larry A. Jones disagreed with the majority, saying that he did not believe Posner had proved anything.
“It is a well-settled presumption that municipal ordinances are presumed to be constitutional,” Jones wrote in his dissent. “C.C.O. 413.031 is afforded the same presumption… We should find, similar to the context of an as-applied constitutional challenge to zoning ordinances, that a party challenging the constitutionality of an ordinance on due process grounds bears the initial burden to produce evidence rebutting the presumption of constitutionality.”
A copy of the decision is available in a 45k PDF file at the source link below.
Source: PDF File Cleveland v. Poser (Court of Appeals, State of Ohio, 7/1/2010
[Courtesy: Thenewspaper.com]
Latest Car Reviews
Read moreLatest Product Reviews
Read moreRecent Comments
- Redapple2 I d just buy one already sorted. Too many high level skills (wiring, paint, body panel fitment et. al.) that i dont have. And I dont fancy working 100 s of hours for $3 /hour.
- 28-Cars-Later I'm actually surprised at this and not sure what to make of it. In recent memory Senator Biden has completely ignored an ecological disaster in Ohio, and then ignored a tragic fire in Hawaii until his handlers were goaded in sending him and his visit turned into it's own disaster, but we skipped nap time for this sh!t show? Seriously? We really are through the looking glass now, "votes" no longer matter (Hillary almost won being the worst presidential candidate since 1984 before he claimed the crown) and outside of Corvette nostalgia Joe doesn't care let alone know what day it happens to be. Could they really be afraid of Trump, who AFAIK has planned no appearance or run his mouth on this issue? Just doesn't make sense, granted this is Clown World so maybe its my fault for trying to find sense in a senseless act.
- Tassos If you only changed your series to the CORRECT "Possibly Collectible, NOT Daily Driver, NOT Used car of the day", it would sound much more accurate AND TRUTHFUL.Now who would collect THIS heap of trash for whatever misguided reason, nostalgia for a much worse automotive era or whatever, is another question.
- ToolGuy Price dropped $500 overnight. (Wait 10 more days and you might get it for free?)
- Slavuta Must be all planned. Increase price of cars, urbanize, 15 minutes cities. Be poor, eat bugs
Comments
Join the conversation
"As applied" means no precedential value - basically, even if his suit comes to the conclusion that the red light camera tickets are unconstitutional, that decision will only be good for him and can't be used to affect anyone else. Seems like a lot of trouble for this guy to go through just to get out of his ticket.