Ohio judge tells town its speeding-ticket blitz is 'scam' against motorists
An Ohio judge on Thursday ordered an end to a speeding-ticket blitz in a village that installed traffic cameras, saying it's “a scam” against motorists.
Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Robert Ruehlman blasted the cameras and the thousands of $105 citations that resulted.
He ruled that the cameras violate motorists' constitutional rights to due process and said Elmwood Place's enforcement is stacked against drivers.
“Elmwood Place is engaged in nothing more than a high-tech game of 3-Card Monty,” Ruehlman wrote, referring to a card game used by con artists. “It is a scam that motorists can't win.”
The suburban Cincinnati village began using the cameras in September, resulting in about 6,600 speeding citations in the first month — triple the number of village residents. Revenues that are shared with the company that operates the cameras soon topped $1 million.
Motorists and village businesses say in their lawsuit against Elmwood Place that the traffic cameras are hurting the village's image and businesses.
The lawsuit says the cameras were put into use without following Ohio law for public notice on new ordinances. The plaintiffs say it's unconstitutionally difficult to challenge the citations, and Ruehlman agreed in granting a permanent injunction against enforcement of the village ordinance that created an “automated speed- enforcement program.”
Village police Chief William Peskin said Elmwood Place will appeal the ruling. But in the meantime, it is halting use of the traffic cameras.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.