You choose, we deliver
If you are interested in this story, you might be interested in others from The Journal Gazette. Go to www.journalgazette.net/newsletter and pick the subjects you care most about. We'll deliver your customized daily news report at 3 a.m. Fort Wayne time, right to your email.

Ohio

Advertisement
Associated Press
Traffic cameras in Elmwood Place, Ohio, and other communities in the state are at the heart of multiple challenges pending in the courts.

Speed-camera ruling likely to reverberate across Ohio

– A judge’s upcoming ruling in a lawsuit against a Cincinnati-area village’s speed cameras will lead off a pivotal year in the accelerating debate over traffic cameras in Ohio.

Ticketed motorists want Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Robert Ruehlman to order the village of Elmwood Place to refund speeding fines and fees totaling $1.8 million.

The village says there shouldn’t be refunds for speeding violations and has appealed the judge’s earlier rulings against cameras.

Ruehlman last year ordered the village to halt its camera use, comparing the automated system to a rigged card game. He also has approved class-action status for ticketed Elmwood Place drivers.

The judge said he’ll rule Thursday. Whatever his decision, the case will likely be appealed by the losing side.

Several other lawsuits are pending, including one before the Ohio Supreme Court challenging traffic cameras in Toledo.

Meanwhile, state legislators are pushing ahead on measures to ban or restrict camera enforcement statewide.

Supporters say cameras stretch law enforcement resources and make communities safer, while foes say they are primarily revenue-raisers for local governments that violate drivers’ rights.

“No question, it’s a crucial year for speed cameras in the state of Ohio,” said attorney Mike Allen, who filed the Elmwood Place lawsuit and is involved in similar litigation against the village of New Miami in nearby Butler County.

Arguing for Elmwood Place before the judge last month, attorney Judd Uhl described cameras as allowing police to focus on violent crimes and drugs.

The village has said the camera enforcement in late 2012 resulted in a sharp decline in speeding on its streets.

But some business owners and a church pastor said the resulting ticket blitz drove people away. Motorists’ attorneys said the cameras violated constitutional rights to due process, giving drivers little chance to challenge the citations.

They also said the village didn’t give proper notice that the camera enforcement was starting, resulting in thousands of speeding citations within the first month in a village of 2,200 people.

Meanwhile, the 2011 Toledo case that the Ohio Supreme Court will consider this year has statewide implications. That case challenges the use of administrative hearing officers instead of courts to handle camera ticket cases, saying the city is usurping court authority and violating motorists’ rights to due process.

The Ohio Municipal League, in a legal brief in support of Toledo, told the state’s highest court the stakes are high.

“Considering the impact of this issue just on photo enforcement programs, about two dozen Ohio cities will be affected, including six of Ohio’s seven largest cities, and potentially every Ohioan who drives or owns a vehicle,” the league stated.

Depending on how long legal filings and arguments take, the high court could rule late this year.

Advertisement