-a257a48ff08e9bb0.jpg

Cleveland's traffic camera tickets are vetted in an unconstitutional way, a court has ruled. A car zips by a traffic camera at the photo-enforced intersection of Carnegie Ave. and E. 55th St. in this picture from last May.

(Joshua Gunter, The Plain Dealer)

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Cleveland's automated traffic camera system for spotting motorists who speed and run red lights is unconstitutional, the Eighth District Court of Appeals said Thursday.

The three-judge panel ruled unanimously that Cleveland's system violates the requirement that tickets issued for traffic violations come under the jurisdiction of the municipal court.

Andrew Mayle, who represents a Columbus man who sued over Cleveland's traffic cameras, called the decision "a major victory for motorists. Cleveland's going to have to basically cancel its program or file the cases they want to pursue in court."

Cleveland spokeswoman Maureen Harper and Gary Singletary, the assistant city prosecutor who argued the case for the city, could not be reached Thursday afternoon.

Cleveland has 16 portable cameras and 49 fixed units, and says another five red-light cameras installed earlier this month will issue tickets starting Thursday, Feb. 6. Cleveland and other cities that have the cameras, as well as police organizations, say the equipment increases safety by reducing the number of drivers who speed or barrel through red lights.

Sam Jodka, of Columbus, sued Cleveland in 2012, not over the cameras themselves, but rather over how the city handled challenges by drivers who received tickets from the automated units. His complaint said that drivers who wanted to fight a ticket instead of paying it had to go before a city hearing officer, when the venue, as mandated by Ohio law, should be municipal court.

The Eighth District ruling, written by Judge Kenneth Rocco said, "This court agrees ... that the power to adjudicate civil violations of moving traffic laws lies solely in municipal court."

The ruling said Cleveland's labeling of the traffic camera tickets as "parking infractions" -- which are violations that do not have to go to municipal court -- deprived the municipal court of rightful jurisdiction.

The court ruled 2-1 against Jodka on his claim that he should be reimbursed for the fine he paid, then subsequently sued over. The prevailing judges said Jodka had no standing to get the fine money back because he never went before a city officer to challenge the ticket, even as the court described the hearing that Jodka should have pursued as an "unconstitutional quasi-judicial process."

In a dissent, Judge Sean Gallagher noted that Cleveland's traffic camera ordinance has no provision for a reduction in a fine after it's been paid. And with minimal fines involved, there is little incentive to challenge a ticket in the first place, Gallagher wrote.

Mayle, Jodka's lawyer, said he will ask the appellate court to reconsider ruling against reimbursing his client.

"They were basically saying he had to go before the kangaroo court, lose, pay and then sue," Mayle said.

Mayle thinks Cleveland's overall traffic camera system would not withstand scrutiny in court.

"They'd have to prove their case under normal court laws," he said. "They'd have to prove that their cameras are synchronized properly. They'd have to prove that they're calibrated properly. They'd have to have a human being testify to all this."

He said he expects Cleveland to appeal the Jodka decision to the Ohio Supreme Court, which recently agreed to hear another case out of Toledo that raised a similar challenge to the cameras.