Ohio Supreme Court to Rule on Red Light Cameras

High court to hear camera challenge

Thursday, February 08, 2007
Plain Dealer Bureau

Columbus- Cleveland and other city leaders who fought hard to save their automated traffic camera programs from lawmakers who wanted them shut down now face an entirely different challenge in the Ohio Supreme Court.

The court on Wednesday agreed to address whether the way cities use the popular cameras violates the state constitution's "home rule" provision allowing local governments to make their own rules as long as they don't trump state laws.

Cities use the unmanned cameras to catch red-light runners and speeders, using license plate numbers captured on the photos to issue tickets by mail to the automobile's owner, regardless of who was driving.

The question for the court is whether cities are correctly treating the traffic tickets as civil matters that carry varying fines, even though state law treats those same violations as criminal offenses.

U.S. District Judge David Dowd, overseeing two related cases against the city of Akron's traffic camera program, asked the Supreme Court to answer the home rule question. More...

--------------------------------------------------------

The issue of "Red Light Cameras", there intended use, and the concern of infringement on cities "Home Rule" has become a hot topic across the United States. The laws or regulations governing the use of these cameras vary from place to place.

In California, a persons face must be in the picture for the citation to be valid. Whereas in states like Tennessee, Washington, & Ohio a facial image will not be required for a citation to be issued.

If a red light infraction occurs, a citation is issued to the registered owner of the vehicle in these states. When a citation is issued and you were not the person driving, most states require a form or declaration sworn out that you were not driving at the time of the infraction and you MUST supply the information of the person that was driving.

While some cities say it is for safety, it appears many communities are installing "Red Light Cameras" at intersections in attempts to raise revenue.

This is why the cameras were installed in Cleveland according to former Mayor Jane Campbell. Campbell also expected to collect an additional $6 million in fines according to the PD in 2005.

It seems she was only about half right or forgot they had to pay the contractor collecting the fees. On Feb.2 the PD reported the following -

How much money did the city's new red-light and speeding cameras bring in last year - what are the projections for this year?

Tickets from the cameras brought in about $6.5 million. The city kept slightly more than half that amount, or $3.7 million. The rest went to the company that installed and maintains the cameras.

City Finance Director Sharon Dumas said the city's collection rate on tickets was 70 percent in early 2006, when the city first began billing. It has since dropped to 50 percent.

If the fines on these citations is not paid and collection efforts are unsuccessful some cities will immobilize and /or impound the vehicle. Which leads to the big question - are the citations civil offenses or are the cities making them traffic offenses.

Channel 5 (WEWS) in Cleveland has recently done several stories regarding incorrect citations being issued, 5,200 citations being disputed, and difficulty they had obtaining records on the red light cameras.

They also highlights the ticket that began one of the lawsuits with Akron over red light cameras. The other is over the use of automated mobile speed enforcement for issuing of speeding tickets.

These lawsuits allege the red light cameras violate rights to due process & the ordinances violate the Ohio Revised Code. A Trumbull County Judge ruled this past July that traffic cameras are unconstitutional and violate the Ohio Constitution.

The cities are clearly in violation of the ORC and the intent of the cameras are to raise revenue.

If the cities really want the cameras for safety and not as a tool to fill depleted coffers, we should look at something along the lines of what, State Senator John J. Carona (R-Dallas) proposed last year in Texas.

The bill would force all revenue collected by a photo enforcement device to be deposited into a state fund for trauma facilities and emergency medical services.

You know that would never happen.

King