« Ind. Decisions - More on "Judge gives reprieve to Hoosier Energy" | Main | Courts - Beyond "In God We Trust"? »

Friday, December 12, 2008

Law - Traffic and red light cameras ruled constitutional by federal judge in Akron case

Laura Johnston of the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported Wednesday:

Akron -- Opponents of traffic-enforcement cameras are running out of arguments after a federal judge ruled Tuesday that the cameras don't violate the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. District Court decision in Akron ended a three-year lawsuit filed by Warner Mendenhall on behalf of his wife, who got a ticket from a portable camera in November 2005. The lawyer and former city councilman plans to challenge the case in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.

But as it stands, Mendenhall said, Tuesday's ruling affects cases filed in Cleveland, Dayton, Toledo and elsewhere. * * *

Typically, traffic law violations caught on the cameras are treated as a civil offense, without traffic-court hearings, points assessed against driver's licenses or escalating fines. Like parking tickets, the violation goes to the owner of the vehicle, not necessarily the driver.

Mendenhall, whose wife won an administrative appeal of her ticket, has spent nearly $10,000 of his own money to fight use of the cameras. In his lawsuit, he argued that the penalties actually were criminal and that the program unfairly punishes the vehicle's owner.

The suit suffered its first defeat last January, when the Ohio Supreme Court unanimously ruled that cities that use the cameras to ticket motorists aren't overstepping their home-rule authority.

Afterward, the suit reverted to U.S. District Court, since it raised the Constitution's right to due process.

In Tuesday's decision, District Judge David Dowd Jr. upheld the law's constitutionality. He found that its $100 fine was a civil penalty, rather than criminal, and that its process respects citizens' legal rights. * * *

Akron police report a 20 percent drop in speeding tickets in school zones since the city began using four video systems. The cameras operate only during the school year, while flashing lights notify drivers the 20-mph speed limit is in effect.

Since the fall of 2005, the program has issued 35,000 tickets and reaped almost $2 million for a traffic safety fund, city spokesman Mark Williamson said.

Cleveland's automated traffic enforcement cameras are posted throughout the city, to catch speeding and red-light running. The cameras generate nearly 120,000 citations a year and collected $8.28 million in 2007.

"This ruling is consistent with the city of Cleveland's legal analysis of the enforcement camera program," said Law Director Robert Triozzi. "These are civil penalties that are imposed when the law is broken; the idea of the program is to help promote safer habits." * * *

Mendenhall insists revenue is the real reason for the cameras. "This is a way to raise money," he said. "It's that simple. That's why these cities are so attracted to these programs."

Mendenhall expects his appeal will be decided next fall. After that, he said, he could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Meanwhile, he urged citizens to pass initiatives to outlaw the cameras in their cities.

See this list of earlier ILB entries on red light cameras.

In a 3-page August 8th Official Opinion, Attorney General Carter has written that running a red light is a "moving traffic offense" subject to regulation by state, not local, law. In Ohio it appears that the federal court has ruled in the opposite direction.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on December 12, 2008 08:37 AM
Posted to General Law Related