traffic cameras

Ohio Supreme Court Rules Three Restrictions on Traffic Cameras Are Unconstitutional

/

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled on July 26, 2017 that three provisions of a 2015 state law regulating the use of traffic cameras were unconstitutional. Justice Fischer wrote the majority opinion in Dayton v. State, holding that: “R.C. 4511.093(B)(1), which requires that a law-enforcement officer be present at the location of a traffic camera, infringes […]

Ohio Supreme Court Rules Three Restrictions on Traffic Cameras Are Unconstitutional Read Post »

Appeals Court Rules State Restrictions on Traffic Cameras are Constitutional

/

The Second District Court of appeals held that  SB 342 did not violate the Ohio Constitution’s home rule provisions.  SB 342 requires police officers to be present when traffic cameras are operating, and imposes other restrictions on the use of traffic cameras.  The Montgomery County Common Pleas Court ruled that these provisions violated the City

Appeals Court Rules State Restrictions on Traffic Cameras are Constitutional Read Post »

Cities Disobeying State Traffic Camera Restrictions Will Lose State Funds, Although Restrictions Held Unconstitutional

/

Ohio’s budget act, HB 64, requires that municipalities operating traffic cameras in violation of state restrictions lose local government funding from the state in the amount equal to the fines collected from the cameras.  The Ohio legislature recently enacted restrictions on traffic cameras, such as requiring police officers to be present, and other restrictions. See SB 342.  Several county

Cities Disobeying State Traffic Camera Restrictions Will Lose State Funds, Although Restrictions Held Unconstitutional Read Post »

State Restrictions on Traffic Cameras Violate Home Rule, Says Lucas County Court

/

The Lucas County Common Pleas Court held yesterday that State legislation requiring police officers to be present, and imposing other restrictions on the operation of traffic cameras,  SB 342, violates the home rule provision of the Ohio Constitution.  See Toledo v. State, Lucas C.P. Case No. CI-201501828.  The City of Toledo was granted an injunction. 

State Restrictions on Traffic Cameras Violate Home Rule, Says Lucas County Court Read Post »

State Traffic Camera Restrictions Violate Home Rule, says Montgomery County Common Pleas Court

/

According to the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court, the Ohio law requiring a police officer to be present during operation of traffic cameras, SB 342 , violates the Home Rule provision of the Ohio Constitution.  The Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of the City of Dayton to stop the state law from going

State Traffic Camera Restrictions Violate Home Rule, says Montgomery County Common Pleas Court Read Post »

Toledo Granted Preliminary Injunction to Halt State Traffic Camera Restrictions

/

State legislation requiring police officers to be present, and imposing other restrictions on the operation of traffic cameras,  SB 342 , will not go into effect in Toledo today.  See Toledo Blade City gets stay of red-light camera law.  A Lucas County judge granted Toledo a preliminary injunction halting the parts of state legislation from

Toledo Granted Preliminary Injunction to Halt State Traffic Camera Restrictions Read Post »

Akron Files Lawsuit Challenging State Law Restrictions on Traffic Cameras

/

The City of Akron filed a lawsuit in order to stop recent traffic camera legislation from going into effect.  SB 342 requires that a police officer be present when a traffic camera is in operation, making traffic cameras economically infeasible for most cities.  The new law also creates procedural requirements and states that motorists can

Akron Files Lawsuit Challenging State Law Restrictions on Traffic Cameras Read Post »

Traffic Camera Litigation Continues: Butler County Case Asserts Due Process Violations

/

Even with the Ohio Statute prohibiting traffic cameras without a police officer present ( SB 342) and the Ohio Supreme Court’s ruling finding administrative appeals of traffic camera tickets constitutional (Walker v. City of Toledo, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-5461. ), there is still plenty of litigation around concerning traffic cameras.  For example, in Butler County,

Traffic Camera Litigation Continues: Butler County Case Asserts Due Process Violations Read Post »

Traffic Camera Appeals Process is Constitutional, Ohio Supreme Court Rules

/

The Ohio Supreme Court held that administrative appeals of traffic camera tickets did not unconstitutionally usurp the powers of municipal courts as set forth in the Ohio Constitution.  The case involved the  City of Toledo’s practice of  diverting challenges to traffic camera violation notices to an administrative hearing officer set up within the police department.

Traffic Camera Appeals Process is Constitutional, Ohio Supreme Court Rules Read Post »

Scroll to Top