Chris Sikich

IndyStar

April 21 update: Carmel Attorney Doug Haney released a statement Wednesday that the city would cite future traffic offenders under an appropriate ordinance in the wake of a court ruling that says another Carmel ordinance improperly duplicated state law.

"Fortunately, the long-term effects of this decision will be minimal. The decision did not dispute the fact that the trial court found Mr. (Jason) Maraman committed the traffic offense with which he was charged. Instead, it merely held that he was charged under the wrong City Code section. This is more of an issue of form over substance in that the court found that municipalities needed to create their own ordinances specific to these offenses instead of using a local ordinance that referenced the state code."



Earlier story: A court ruling that invalidated a traffic ordinance Carmel used to ticket thousands of motorists will stand now that the Indiana Supreme Court has declined to hear the city's appeal.

The state Court of Appeals on Dec. 11 unanimously ruled that Carmel's ordinance 8-2, which defines general traffic regulations, improperly duplicated state law. After considering legal briefings filed by all sides, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case last week.

"The Supreme Court determined that the appellate court decision was correct on all accounts and the ordinance has been deemed to be invalid as a matter of law," said attorney Ed Bielski, who is pursing a class-action lawsuit in federal court from motorists who received tickets under the ordinance.

Bielski believes collecting money from traffic fines was Carmel's motive.

In court filings, Carmel has said city police have issued 8,124 speeding tickets under the ordinance during the past three years alone. It's still unclear this early in the discovery process how much cash in fines the city has collected.

Carmel Mayor Jim Brainard and City Attorney Doug Haney could not be reached. The city and the Indiana attorney general's office, though, have filed to dismiss the class-action lawsuit. They argue, in part, that the federal court has no jurisdiction and that the plaintiffs did not appeal their fines in a timely fashion.

Bielski said the motions to dismiss are largely technical arguments and he plans to file rebuttals.

"We are still in the very early legal processes," Bielski said. "I am extraordinarily confident in our position, and I will file a response in a timely fashion."

Carmel's legal team had filed several motions to urge the Indiana Supreme Court to hear the appeal and overturn the lower court's ruling.

And the Indiana winner for president is ... John Kasich?

The Indiana Association of Cities and Towns and the Indiana Municipal Lawyers Association had filed briefs supporting Carmel's effort, saying in court filings the ruling could have dire impacts on cities and towns throughout Indiana with similar ordinances.

While no other ordinances have been challenged in court, Carmel named Evansville, Fort Wayne, Franklin, Griffith, Hamilton County, Hammond, Indianapolis, Lafayette, LaPorte, Peru, South Bend and Westfield as governments it believed had similar traffic ordinances.

Despite Carmel's opinion, Indianapolis and Hamilton County attorneys said they reviewed local ordinances and found them to be in compliance with state law. Peru's city attorney advised the police department to quit citing motorists under its own traffic law, according to a story in the Kokomo Tribune. He told the paper the city's ordinance does essentially duplicate state law and he is reviewing options to make it comply with state law.

Jodie Woods, general council for the Indiana Association of Cities and Towns, didn't know of any specific communities that had ordinances similar to Carmel's, but imagined many would be taking a close look at the ruling.

"I think it means that they need to review the court of appeals' opinion along with their particular ordinances and see if they have established them in a manner that would be permissible under the law," she said.

Carmel's predicament stems from a traffic ticket Jason J. Maraman received last year that cited him under Carmel traffic ordinance 8-2 for driving 30 mph in a 20 mph zone. The state Court of Appeals ruled Carmel's traffic ordinance 8-2 was invalid because it simply copied the state code governing traffic.

The state's Home Rule Act says local governments can't simply duplicate a state statue, Maraman argued in court, representing himself. If local governments adopt traffic ordinances, he argued that under the Home Rule Act they have to write local ordinances detailing their specific interests, for instance, reduced speed in front of a school.

Maraman, who said he has no legal training, said he decided to represent himself because he felt the law was clear. He said he was surprised he was being cited for violating a state statute under a city ordinance.

“There is really no question here,” he said. “This is clearly established law. Carmel tried to argue the law doesn’t apply to them, and the appellate court said, no, the law does apply to Carmel.”

Bielski believes Carmel's motivation to write tickets under its own ordinance is, in part, financial. Carmel police are citing motorists under the local ordinance, he said, so the city, rather than the state, can collect the fines. While it's unclear this early in the discovery process how much money Carmel has collected, the individual fines are steep.

Bielski said a speeding ticket for driving 20 mph over the limit includes a $35.50 state fine, plus court costs, under state statute. Under Carmel's ordinance, he said, driving 20 mph over the limit on the same road includes a $125 city fine, plus court costs.

No court dates have been set.

Carmel bans heavy trucks on Keystone Parkway

Call IndyStar reporter Chris Sikich at (317) 444-6036. Follow him on Twitter: @ChrisSikich and at Facebook/chris.sikich.