Ohio City Says There’s No Need for High Court to Review Camera Ruling

By DAN SEWELL | January 12, 2015

Toledo and its camera vendor told the Ohio Supreme Court there’s no reason to reconsider its ruling upholding traffic camera enforcement.

The city and camera company responded this week to a driver’s request that the court take a second look at its Dec. 18 decision. The justices ruled 4-3 to uphold Ohio cities’ authority to use cameras to catch speeders and drivers who run red lights and to handle appeals with administrative procedures.

The driver said the court went beyond the state constitution and court precedent.

Toledo law director Adam Loukx wrote in Thursday’s filing that the driver’s motion is filled with “repetition and hyperbole” and rehashes old arguments.

“It is clear that this matter is not one of the rare cases that warrant reconsideration,” Loukx stated. “The majority opinion was correctly decided.”

Toledo’s co-defendant in the case, Redflex Traffic Systems of Phoenix, Arizona, responded separately that the driver’s motion is “restatement of the same arguments in new packaging.”

Andrew Mayle, Fremont attorney, had said in the bid by driver Bradley Walker that the court’s decision “incorrectly allows city councils to exercise an awesome, sweeping power.”

Mayle said this week’s responses don’t dispute the constitutional points he raised and said while Toledo’s brief claims his motion uses “absurd hypotheticals,” it’s “the very opinion that Walker is asking to be reconsidered, when taken to its logical conclusion, (that) is precisely what leads to the absurdities.”

It’s not known when the high court might respond to the reconsideration request.

Walker, a Paducah, Kentucky, businessman, was ticketed in Toledo for speeding in 2009 and paid a $120 fine before deciding to sue.

Camera advocates say they free up police for other crime fighting and make communities safer. Foes contend they trample drivers’ constitutional rights and are mainly meant to raise revenues.

Officials in some cities are considering a legal challenge to a recently signed Ohio law to require a police officer to be present when camera enforcement is used. The city of Dayton announced this week that it would discontinue use of fixed-location cameras because of the new law.

Loukx on Thursday dismissed in his brief “the speculative claim” that legislative actions support the driver’s position against camera enforcement.

Was this article valuable?

Here are more articles you may enjoy.