Toledo's traffic camera appeals process struck down

COLUMBUS — The Ohio Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously struck down the city of Toledo's administrative process for hearing appeals of traffic camera citations, determining that municipal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over such appeals. The decision deals a blow to the city's traffic camera program, which relies on hearings overseen by city-appointed administrative officers to consider challenges to the civil citations issued by mail as a result of red-light and speed violations captured by automated and hand-held cameras. "(State law) expressly vests exclusive jurisdiction over noncriminal traffic-law adjudications in municipal courts," Justice Judith French wrote. "Toledo therefore has no jurisdiction to conduct its own quasi-judicial proceedings." The challenge was brought by Susan D. Magsig of Woodville, who was allegedly clocked traveling 75 mph by a hand-held speed camera in a 60-mph zone on westbound I-475 near ProMedica Toledo Hospital. She had the option under the city's ordinance of paying a $120 fine or challenging the citation before a city administrative hearing officer. She ultimately turned to the Supreme Court to directly challenge the city's authority to hold administrative hearings. Dale Emch, Toledo's law director, said the ruling does not end the program, but it's possible that it could be temporarily suspended as the city adjusts to having hearings conducted in municipal court rather than before an administrative officer. As a practical matter, that might mean rewriting the ordinance governing the program. "This is a very limited ruling," he said. "We're still litigating what we see as the state's violation of our home-rule authority in trial court on other issues." As for a person who's just received a citation in the mail, Emch didn't have an immediate answer as to what they should do. "It's a fair question," he said. "We will meet with the administration to come up with a plan to (move) forward and will give people an idea of how to proceed." The city's current budget anticipated collection of $7.4 million in revenue from automated red-light and hand-held speed enforcement cameras. Through April, the most recent month available, the city had collected nearly $1.9 million. The Supreme Court had previously voted 4-3 in 2014 to uphold that hearing process, but that was before lawmakers passed a new law expressly stating all such violations must be heard in municipal court. "Magsig contends that the hearing officer patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction," Justice French wrote. "We agree and conclude that Toledo's patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction to carry out its red-light and speeding camera civil-enforcement system is clear on the face of (the amended law)." The city had contended that its process still complied with the new law because motorists have the option of appealing the decisions of the hearing officers to municipal court. It had also sought to block action because other elements of the law had been found by lower courts to be unconstitutional, and the state had been blocked from enforcing those provisions. "But even assuming these provisions are unconstitutional, (a question we emphatically do not decide), Toledo does not claim that the exclusive-jurisdiction clause (of the law) itself violates the Constitution," Justice French wrote. "To the contrary, the authority of the General Assembly to set the jurisdiction of municipal courts is undisputed." The challenge on behalf of Magsig was brought by attorneys Andy and Ronald Mayle. The state of Ohio, through Attorney General Dave Yost, had also intervened on her behalf against the city. Andy Mayle of Perrysburg said Toledo's camera ordinance mandates that these hearings take place before an administrative officer, and the city cannot simply switch the cases to municipal court without passing a new ordinance. "I think Toledo politicians depend upon this program and the money it raises rather than making real policy decisions and being fiscally responsible in tax policy and spending policy," he said. "They've totally taken advantage of their citizens and ripped them off. That's not going to happen anymore." The new law that placed exclusive jurisdiction for traffic cases with municipal courts also shifted the costs of such filings to the city, further cutting into the potential revenue for such citations. "This is a big win for justice," Andy Mayle said. "The Supreme Court has taken the financial incentive away from policing for profit with this decision. It's absolutely the right decision. There's no doubt these programs will just die on the vine. They do not want to be in a normal court. The entire thing is a scam." Unlike criminal citations filed after violations are caught by a police officer, the mailed civil citations attached to the camera programs do not lead to points against drivers' licenses or reports to their auto insurance companies. Dayton, Akron, and several other cities also operate traffic camera programs. It remains to be seen how they will be affected by this ruling. ——— ©2020 The Blade (Toledo, Ohio) Visit The Blade (Toledo, Ohio) at www.toledoblade.com Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.