Traffic cameras rejected in Ohio ruling
HAMILTON, Ohio — The speeding cameras have gone dark in another Ohio community, the latest turned off by a string of court rulings against automated traffic enforcement.
A Butler County judge last week ordered the village of New Miami to hit stop, saying cameras were being used to violate motorists' rights to due process.
The order followed a strong rebuke of speeding cameras in a Cincinnati-area village by a judge in neighboring Hamilton County who called them a scam against motorists, and appellate court rulings against camera systems in Toledo and Cleveland.
The string of rulings against cameras is a reverse course from a few years ago when the Ohio Supreme Court upheld municipalities' ability to use them for enforcement in a 2008 Akron case, and they had withstood other court challenges in state and federal courts.
“The trend, I think, is that you have judges looking more closely at procedures used by the municipalities that may be motivated more by raising revenue than for public safety,” said Josh Engel, an attorney for motorists in the New Miami and the Elmwood Place lawsuits.
In those cases, the judges said separately that the administrative systems made it difficult for motorists to challenge the tickets. Butler County Common Pleas Judge Michael J. Sage expressed “great concerns about due process.” Bruce D'Arcus of Oxford, Ohio, was pleased to hear about the New Miami ruling. He said he recently received a mailed speeding citation, even though he knew he hadn't been driving in New Miami at the time. He said his wife apparently was driving the car, but she didn't remember going through the village just outside of this county seat the day of the citation.
“It feels a little strange,” he said of the automated enforcement system. He said the phone number on the citation was for an out-of-town, third-party service only interested in collecting his payment, not answering any questions.
He said he would be willing to reconsider his order if New Miami alters its system to give motorists a better way to appeal.
Under the system he rejected as unfair, motorists could appeal in an administrative hearing set up by the village, which Sage said had a “vested interest” in the outcome for budget reasons. Taking an appeal to court would cost a $315 filing fee to contest the $95 ticket, Engel said in court.
Wil Weisenfelder, an attorney for the village, urged the judge to hold off on ruling until the Ohio Supreme Court hears the Toledo camera case. In that suit, driver Bradley Walker didn't argue directly against camera use, but said the system usurps municipal courts and lacks due process to allow motorists their day in court.
“Walker is going to decide who wins or loses this case,” Weisenfelder told Sage.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
- Supreme Court to consider reprieve for teens who kill
- Stocks up before earnings reports
- Dissolving heart stent fuels hope for new generation of devices
- El Niño storms might not be savior for Calif.
- Half Moon Bay contest dubs 1,969-pound pumpkin the plumpest
- Lawmaker seeks ban on LGBT ‘conversion therapy’ in New Hampshire
- Army budget cuts stretch forces thin, threaten readiness, secretary says during conference
- Tennessee bill seeks to curtail teaching of ‘religious doctrine’
- Wyoming fire forces evacuations
- Community lines streets as students return to class in Roseburg
- Dell buying EMC in a transaction valued at about $67 billion