TRAFFIC_CAMERAS.JPG

The Ohio Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in a lawsuit challenging whether Toledo -- like Cleveland and other Ohio cities -- can consider motorists' appeals of camera tickets through a police hearing instead of a municipal court.

(Roadell Hickman, The Plain Dealer, File, 2005)

COLUMBUS, Ohio—In a case that could decide the future of traffic cameras in Ohio, the state Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday about whether Toledo's camera ticketing system is constitutional.

The lawsuit, filed by Kentucky resident Bradley Walker, claims Toledo illegally circumvents the court system by handling camera ticket appeals through a police department hearing officer.

Walker's lawsuit doesn't directly challenge the constitutionality of traffic cameras themselves. But Andrew Mayle, Walker's attorney, told reporters after the hearing that cities will likely ditch their camera programs if they have to treat traffic violations as a criminal matter instead of issuing civil fines.

At the very least, if the Ohio Supreme Court rules against Toledo, the decision would likely also apply to Cleveland and a number of other cities that hold administrative hearings for camera tickets.

Attorneys for the city of Toledo and Redflex Traffic Systems, a camera company also named in the suit, argued before the court that home-rule authority allows the city to hear appeals itself. If that power is taken away, Redflex attorney Quintin Lindsmith said, there would be a "major disruption" in cities' ability to handle issues such as zoning and public health.

Mayle rebutted that home-rule authority doesn't allow local governments to sidestep the judicial system. Doing so, he claims, violates state and federal constitutional rights to due process and equal protection under the law.

Justices Bill O'Neill -- the lone Democrat on the seven-member court -- and Paul Pfeifer appeared skeptical about Toledo's appeals process, which allows drivers to appeal administrative rulings to common pleas court.

O'Neill said it was a "legal fantasy" to consider traffic violations a civil matter instead of a criminal one.

No immediate decision is expected in the case. Rulings from the court often are not released for weeks, or even months after oral arguments are heard.

There are at least seven other pending court cases in Ohio challenging traffic cameras, including a lawsuit against Cleveland's hearing process that has been appealed to the Supreme Court.

State lawmakers have also said they intend to pass legislation this fall that would effectively ban the devices, which have been set up in at least a dozen cities around the state.

The debate over the cameras has pitted law enforcement officials, local governments, and camera companies, who say the devices make roads safer, against numerous lawmakers and civil-rights advocates who believe such monitoring is intrusive and only serves as a money-maker for cash-strapped municipalities.