ghostcar.jpg

Traffic cameras in Cleveland have been ruled unconstitutional by an appeals court for the second time in recent weeks.

(Joshua Gunter, The Plain Dealer)

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Cleveland's traffic camera system lost another court test, with a ruling Thursday in favor of a man who was spotted speeding by one of the automated cameras.

It was the second time in recent weeks that motorists prevailed in challenges to the controversial system for catching speeders and people who run red lights. Both cases focused on how appeals of the automated tickets are handled in Cleveland, although the matter ruled on Thursday also contested other parts of the city's camera program.

"Cleveland's ordinance has now been found unconstitutional twice," said Andrew Mayle, the attorney for Sam Jodka of Columbus, who won a favorable ruling in January from a three-judge panel of Ohio's Eighth District Court of Appeals.

It was just two days ago that Cleveland said it was restarting the ticket appeals process that the court said was against the law. On Thursday, Mayle said the city should end the program. A spokeswoman for Cleveland said that won't happen.

The judges in the Jodka case found Cleveland's civil process for handling challenges to camera tickets unconstitutional and said appeals should go to municipal court. But in a 2-1 opinion, the judges said Jodka didn't have the right to retrieve his fine money. Mayle has since

that decision.

It was another panel of judges who sit on the Eighth District that delivered the latest blow. The judges reversed a trial court decision that had upheld a traffic ticket and fine against driver Darrell Dawson of Reynoldsburg, Ohio, who was ticketed at 71st Street and Chester in Cleveland .

The opinion did not address all of Dawson's contentions. It simply referenced the Jodka ruling that called the appeals process unconstitutional.

Of the new judgment, Cleveland spokeswoman Maureen Harper said: "Given that it was based on the Jodka case, which is still pending before the court, we will continue to monitor the court's action on the matter closely. At this time, our traffic camera program will continue."

Mayle said he was puzzled by that response. "There's nothing to monitor," he said. "They should just shut down the program."

Dawson was ticketed in June 2012 after a camera photographed him going 49 miles an hour in a 35-mile-an-hour zone. At an administrative hearing in August 2012, the city hearing officer listening to Dawson's appeal found the ticket to be in order and ordered him to pay $100.

Dawson filed an appeal in common pleas court in the next month, making factual challenges and citing what he said were various procedural and constitutional violations by the city. Dawson requested a court hearing, claiming that the testimony given before the hearing officer wasn't made under oath, and that the officer did not file a proper transcript of the proceeding.

The trial court ruled in May that the hearing officer's conclusions were supported by substantial and reliable evidence.

Dawson appealed to the Eighth Circuit. Judge Patricia Ann Blackmon wrote the ruling issued by the court in his case.

She noted Dawson's appeal presented another challenge to Cleveland's automated cameras, and said the panel would follow the Jodka decision that found Cleveland's traffic camera ordinance "unconstitutionally usurps the authority of the Cleveland Municipal Court to adjudicate certain traffic infractions. As such, we sustain Dawson's challenges and reverse the trial court's decision."

Cleveland continued operating its traffic cameras after the Jodka opinion, but suspended appeal hearings. This week

because it said the court did not bar the city from operating its cameras or proceeding with its existing appeals setup.

Gary Singletary, assistant law director, explained that the Eighth District concluded that Jodka had not followed the right procedures for challenging his ticket -- Jodka paid his fine and did not go through the civil hearing -- therefore he had no standing to contest the constitutionality of hearings in front of an administrative officer.

The city's position appeared to be that the Eighth District ruling in the Jodka case was advisory. Mayle disagrees. He said the decision is binding.

"Any suggestion otherwise is wrong," he said.

Traffic cameras have been a flashpoint since their introduction in Cleveland and cities nationwide. Proponents say they make streets safer for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians, as the cameras clamp down on reckless drivers. Critics say the machines are less about safety than about generating revenue.