COLUMBUS, Ohio -- State law restricting cities' use of red light and speed traffic cameras is unconstitutional because it restricts local police actions without imposing conditions on citizens, attorneys for the city of Dayton argued before the Ohio Supreme Court on Tuesday.

At issue is whether camera restrictions enacted in 2014 violate the Ohio Constitution's protections of home rule power. Dayton attorney John Musto said the court's decision could set a new, lesser standard for upholding state laws that infringe on municipalities' authority to set and enforce their own laws.

Cities with camera programs say they increase safety in the wake of reduced police forces and generate revenue needed to offset state budget cuts. Critics say cities use the cameras to pad their coffers.

What's the case about?

Ohio lawmakers have been trying for years to eliminate cameras that catch speeders and drivers who run red lights.

After failing to enact an outright ban in 2007, lawmakers instead sought to limit camera operation. In 2014, they passed a law requiring, among other things, police officers be stationed at cameras. Cities said the cost of placing an officer at every camera defeated the main purpose of the programs.

Dayton filed suit against the state and other cities followed. East Cleveland, Akron, Springfield, Toledo and the Ohio Municipal League have submitted friend of the court briefs in support of Dayton.

What did Dayton attorneys say?

Musto said the law doesn't meet the standards for being a "general law" in the state's best interest because it limits only municipal authority. General laws have to make some corresponding restriction to citizen conduct, Musto said, based on a 2002 Supreme Court decision.

"The power is directly provided by the Constitution and it may not be withdrawn by the General Assembly," Musto said.

Musto said the court has established standards clarifying home rule and general law over the past 100 years.

The law also requires cities to complete a three-year traffic safety study and give public notice before placing photo enforcement cameras. Cameras cannot be set to register speeding citations at less than 10 mph over the posted limit, except near schools and parks, where they can be set to photograph cars traveling 6 mph over the speed limit.

Dayton already conducted traffic studies on its cameras. Musto said the city's camera program reduced accidents by 46 percent. After the cameras were shuttered by state law, he said red-light running, crashes and fatalities increased.

What did attorneys for the state say?

Justices questioned state attorney Eric Murphy about whether the law met the court's standards of a general law, noting it doesn't change the definition of running a red light or speeding.

"[The law is] related only to the activities of the municipalities," Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor said.

Murphy interjected, "It's related to how municipalities interact with their citizens."

"You think that's the test?" O'Connor said.

Murphy said the case was about how to uniformly enforce traffic laws.

"If the state can't regulate traffic cameras how can the state regulate for instance traffic control devices," Murphy said. "The state requires municipalities to follow the manual of uniform traffic control devices. It does not allow them to use blue stop signs."

Murphy said the requirement that an officer be present at the camera was a "reasonable compromise" that allows officers to be more efficient because they don't have to stop speeders.

"That's the best of both worlds in many respects for officer safety; it promotes driver safety," Murphy said.

What happens next?

The court can take several months to issue its opinion.

Watch Tuesday's oral arguments below.