Jennifer Edwards Baker

jbaker@enquirer.com

The local attorney whose class action suit shut down controversial traffic cameras in Elmwood Place is now going after Dayton's.

Former Hamilton County Prosecutor Mike Allen filed a lawsuit Tuesday on behalf of a handful of citizens to try to stop Ohio's sixth largest city from using the speed and red light cameras to ticket motorists.

"This lawsuit directly affects thousands of nearby residents," Allen said Tuesday. "Automatic traffic enforcement systems are often more about raising revenues for cash-strapped municipalities than improving traffic safety."

He is asking the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court to allow anyone else who has received a ticket from Dayton's cameras to join the lawsuit. It seeks to throw out traffic tickets issued by the city's automatic enforcement systems and refund their fines.

The suit targets Redflex Traffic Systems of Arizona, the longest consistently operating company in photo enforcement with about 300 systems in 250 cities across the U.S. and Canada. Redflex shares ticket proceeds with Dayton city officials.

Allen's Downtown Cincinnati law firm, Michael K. Allen & Associates, sued and stopped at least two local villages from using speed cameras to ticket motorists and generate revenue: Elmwood Place in Hamilton County and New Miami in Butler County.

In the Elmwood Place case, a Hamilton County Common Pleas Court judge last year ruled the village's three speed cameras that began operating in 2012 were illegal and ordered the village to shut them down.

Judge Robert Ruehlman called the cameras a money grab, describing them as "a scam motorists can't win" and "a game of three-card Monte."

The Optotraffic cameras ticketed any vehicle going more than 5 mph above the speed limit. In the first month, the cameras produced more than 6,000 tickets – triple the village's population – with some motorists cited multiple times.

Ruehlman ruled the camera system violated Ohio's constitution and rules on judicial process and public notice. He ordered the city to refund the $1.76 million collected in fines from the cameras — and to pay attorneys' fees — because the city "acted in bad faith in implementing the ordinance."

In the New Miami case, a Butler County Common Pleas Court judge recently ruled the village ignored "the basic tenants of procedural law" by enacting a similar system that was "strongly skewed in (New Miami's) favor."

The Dayton suit marks the first time Allen's law firm has filed suit against a municipality for using red light cameras.

In Dayton, ticketed motorists can challenge citations, but they cannot bring in witnesses, obtain discovery or otherwise receive documents to show if the camera system was not operating correctly, the suit contends.

The suit states Dayton's ordinance is unenforceable because it "it fails to provide adequate due process to vehicle owners as guaranteed by the Ohio Constitution" and also unconstitutionally divests the Dayton Municipal Court of of jurisdiction.

"We are not saying that these devices can't be a valuable law enforcement tool," Allen said. "We are saying that if the government wants to impose fines on citizens, it has an obligation to give the citizens a fair chance to defend themselves."

Under Dayton's system, ticketed motorists must pay the $85 fine first before they can appeal to an administrative hearing officer.

Dayton has used cameras for red-light enforcement for a decade, and added speeding cameras in 2011. Attorney Josh Engel said records show Dayton cameras generated more than $6 million in revenue over the last two years, with the company that operates the cameras keeping a third of the revenues.

Dayton spokesman Bryan Taulbee said Tuesday that the city didn't have a comment immediately on the pending litigation. The city's website says accidents from running red lights have declined a third with cameras, adding: "The success of photo enforcement technology to enhance public safety is undeniable."

Camera enforcement has been increasing nationally but now is going down amid growing debate, Allen said.

Supporters argue cameras stretch police resources and keep communities safer. Opponents, however, contend they are just revenue-raisers that violate constitutional rights.

Some Ohio legislators want to ban or restrict traffic cameras. Legal challenges in at least five municipalities have been working their way through courts, with recent appellate rulings against Cleveland and Toledo traffic cameras.

The Ohio Supreme Court has previously upheld camera use in the city of Akron.

The Associated Press contributed.