ghostcartwo.jpg

Cleveland is appealing an unfavorable ruling on the legality of the appeals process for drivers who challenge traffic camera tickets.

(Josh Gunter/The Plain Dealer)

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Cleveland is asking the Ohio Supreme Court to overturn a ruling that said the method for appealing the city's traffic camera tickets is unconstitutional.

The city wants the justices to accept its appeal of a case involving driver Sam Jodka, saying a substantial constitutional question and broad public interest are at stake.

In February, a three-judge panel of the Eighth District Court of Appeals in Cleveland ruled unanimously in favor of Jodka's argument that appeals of tickets from photo enforcement of speed and red light violations should take place in municipal court, not in front of an administrative clerk.

Jodka, now of Columbus, lived in Northeast Ohio in 2007 when he got a traffic camera ticket for speeding. He paid the fine and then filed a court challenge to the city's appeals system that uses a hearing officer instead of a judge.

Cleveland said in a 53-page memorandum filed Friday with the Ohio Supreme Court that the Jodka decision tramples on its home rule authority to establish a quasi-judicial appeals process for drivers who want to contest traffic violations captured by cameras. The city said Ohio law does not say that municipal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over traffic ordinance violations.

The Jodka ruling also limits the ability of not just Cleveland but also other home-rule municipalities to set up such systems, the city said.

The attorney for Jodka, Andrew Mayle, said he plans to file a cross-appeal within days.

Mayle said Cleveland's action is odd given that the Jodka ruling was a split decision that Cleveland ultimately won at the Eighth District level.

Here's why: Although the appellate court said Cleveland's administrative hearings were illegal, it also said Jodka had "no standing" to get a refund on the fine he paid because he didn't go through the administrative appeals hearing as prescribed by city ordinance.

Mayle is critical of that finding, saying on the one hand the court ruled the appeals method illegal, and on the other required Jodka to submit to the "kangaroo court" before he could have standing for a legal appeal.

Strangely, Mayle said, since Cleveland has appealed the overall decision, it is "conceding," in Mayle's view, that Jodka does have standing, since the Ohio Supreme Court cannot otherwise take up the case.



It appears that Cleveland wants to get to the bottom of whether the appeals process is proper, and sacrificed its win on the standing issue to push the merits of the case forward, Mayle said.

Maureen Harper, a spokeswoman for Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson, said the city declined comment on the pending court case.

After the Jodka ruling earlier this year, Cleveland temporarily suspended hearings on traffic camera ticket appeals, then resumed them, citing the "no standing" part of the Eighth District Court of Appeals decision.

Harper said motorists who receive violation notices should pay the fine or appeal it as outlined on the ticket. "Our appeals process is proceeding," she said.

The Ohio Supreme Court will hear oral arguments June 11 in another case – this one out of Toledo – that also challenges an administrative appeals systems for traffic camera citations.