Ohio Supreme Court Hears Traffic Cameras Case

• Report rights infringement
• published: 13 Jun 2014
• views: 420

Christine Long reports: The legal battle over Toledo's red light and speed cameras took center stage in the state capital on Wednesday. The Ohio Supreme Court in Columbus heard oral arguments in the lawsuit challenging how Toledo fines drivers caught on camera. It's a case that puts the fate of the city's red light and speeding camera program on the line. Based on comments and questions from the justices during the nearly 45 minute hearing, the Ohio Supreme Court appears split on the issue of whether the camera system is improperly bypassing the courts. However, justices did not make a decision in the case of Walker v. Toledo today. "Walker has alleged they have my money under this unconstitutional ordinance and I want it back," says Andrew Mayle, the Fremont attorney representing Bradley Walker, the Kentucky man who received a traffic camera ticket while driving in Toledo. The question before the Ohio Supreme Court: does the appeals process for red light camera violations strip courts of jurisdiction? "We believe that is absolutely not the case and that the ramifications of allowing a decision, such as one out of the 6th district that does that, has untold consequence and establish a very negative precedent around the state," says Adam Loukx, the Law Director for the City of Toledo. Justice Paul Pfeifer asks Loukx, "Other than the loss of revenue... is that the untold consequence? Or is there an over-arching legal principle that would be the untold consequence?" Loukx answers, "It's the over-arching legal principal." Loukx says the administrative hearing process was set up 13 years ago by an ordinance established under the city's home rule powers. The attorney challenging the city says drivers shouldn't first face a hearing officer for civil violations. Instead, he says they should face a Municipal Court Judge. "If a police officer has a radar gun, he takes it to Municipal Court. {State law} requires the same thing unless the General Assembly creates jurisdiction," says Mayle. An attorney representing the camera company, Redflex Traffic Systems, also spoke to the justices in Columbus defending Toledo. "There is nothing in this ordinance that keeps anybody from going to Municipal Court," says Quintin Lindsmith, an attorney representing Redflex. One of the justices asks Lindsmith, "How do they get to the Municipal Court?" Lindsmith answers, "They don't have to go to the Municipal Court, which I guess is my point, your Honor. Because the precise question before the court ... is the Municipal Court being divested, stripped of any jurisdiction?" Justice Pfeifer says, "Well, you just said there's nothing here that keeps them from going to Municipal Court. I don't understand after listening to your co-counsel what you're talking about." Lindsmith answers, "I'm trying to clarify that, your Honor." Justice Pfiefer says, "You're not doing a very good job." There are legal consequences, but losing the case could also mean a big drop in revenue for the city. According to the City of Toledo Finance Department, the cameras have brought in a total of $12.5 million in fines since the program began in 2001.