Cleveland traffic cameras

The Ohio Supreme Court on Thursday upheld cities' administrative process for violations issued from traffic enforcement cameras, but the controversial cameras could be rare in Ohio once a bill effectively banning them becomes law.

(Plain Dealer file)

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- The Ohio Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the city of Toledo's traffic enforcement cameras and the city's administrative appeals process for people who are ticketed.

But use of cameras to issue red light and speed violations may be on their way out in Ohio, as a bill effectively banning the cameras passed the General Assembly last week. Gov. John Kasich is not expected to veto the legislation, which would require a police officer be present at every traffic camera.

In a 4-3 decision, the state's high court decided Ohio municipalities have home-rule authority to establish administrative procedures for traffic ordinance offenses before pursuing judicial remedies.

"Our holding that a complementary system of civil enforcement of traffic laws is within a municipality's home-rule power acknowledges that administrative procedures must be established in furtherance of this power," Justice Sharon Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.

Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor, Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger and 5th Appellate District Court Judge W. Scott Gwin, sitting in for Justice Terrence O'Donnell, concurred.

Justice William O'Neill dissented in an opinion joined by Justices Paul Pfeifer and Judith French.

"A hearing officer is simply not a substitute for a municipal court judge who has been elected to preside over judicial matters," O'Neill wrote. "[Toledo's traffic camera system] is a direct infringement of the municipal court's jurisdiction as well as the legislature's right to confer jurisdiction on the court and the right of the general population to elect those empowered to determine whether laws have been violated."

Toledo's traffic camera system issued civil violations and asked violators to either pay a fine or appeal the violation. Failure to pay or appeal within 21 days of the notice is considered an admission. Appeals are handled through administrative hearings through the Toledo Police Department, not through the municipal court.

In 2009, Kentucky resident Bradley Walker received a violation and paid $120. He later filed a class-action complaint against Toledo and camera company Redflex.

The lawsuit did not challenge the constitutionality of the cameras -- that was settled in a 2008 Akron lawsuit. Instead, Walker claimed the administrative process violated his state and federal constitutional rights to due process and equal protection under the law.

The Lucas County Common Pleas Court dismissed the lawsuit. He appealed, and the Sixth District Court of Appeals in Toledo sided with Walker. Toledo and Redflex appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, and Cleveland, East Cleveland and other cities filed briefs in support.

Thursday's decision settles a similar challenge to Cleveland's administrative hearing process. Earlier this year, a three-judge panel of the Eighth District Court of Appeals in Cleveland ruled the process unconstitutional, arguing appeals should be made before a municipal court instead of an administrative hearing officer.

Voters in Cleveland and Maple Heights banned the cameras in those communities earlier this year.

The bill on its way to Kasich does not outright ban the cameras. City officials from around the state say stationing officers at cameras would be too costly to continue their programs. Parma already uses cameras in conjunction with police officers but only in school safety zones.

That legislation becomes effective 90 days after Kasich signs the bill into law.