Is Ohio Putting the Red Light on Traffic Cameras?

Ohio local authorities, including municipalities, counties and townships may establish ordinances for the use of photo-monitoring devices. Photo-monitoring devices used in Ohio include both speed cameras and red-light cameras.  The use of photo-monitoring devices is further supported by Ohio Revised Code §4511.094.  Pursuant to the Ohio Revised Code, before a municipality, county or township may begin using photo-monitoring devices to enforce traffic laws upon its roadways, it must erect signs informing inbound traffic that such devises are in use.¹  

The signs must be within the first 300 feet of the boundary of the local authority in each direction of travel where traffic first enters the municipality, county, or township. R.C. §4511.094(B)(1).  The local authority who erects the signs is responsible for not only the erection of the signs, but also the maintenance and replacement of the signs.  The signs must conform to the specific size, color, location, and content as provided by the department of transportation manual.  In the event a traffic citation is issued by one of the devices, but the local authority has not substantially complied with the sign requirements, the citation is invalid.  A local authority is deemed to be substantially compliant if at least 90% of the signs are in place and functional and the authority annual documents and if requested certifies its compliance. Finally, when a photo-monitoring device is used to enforce traffic at an intersection controlled by a traffic sign with different colored lights and arrows, it must time the operation of the lights pursuant to the department of transportation manual.

Although photo-monitoring devices may make roads safer and can act as a money maker for many Ohio municipalities, their use may soon come to an end.  There are currently two cases before the Ohio Supreme Court, which are challenging how a motorist may appeal a citation issued by a photo-monitoring device.²  Neither case is about whether speed and red-light-camera tickets are legal. The court answered yes to that question in an Akron case in 2008.³  Both the Walker case and the Lycan case involve the issue of the process a motorist is provided to appeal a citation received from a photo-monitoring device.  The appeal is heard not by the court system but at an administrative hearing, much like a zoning or health and housing ordinance violation appeal.  Opponents of the photo-monitoring devices argue the process for the appeal deprives them of due process rights.  The Court has yet to issue a ruling in either case, however with arguments heard in the Walker case back in early June, we could see a decision in the near future.

While we wait for the Supreme Court to render a decision, the Ohio legislature is already knee deep in regulating the use of photo-monitoring devices.  In June 2014, the Ohio House passed H.B. 69, which would prohibit cities and the Ohio State Highway Patrol from using a "traffic law photo-monitoring device to determine a violation of either the state traffic light or speed limit statute" other than in school zones, at certain times of day and when a law enforcement officer is present.⁴  Although alternative language has been proposed, which would regulate the use of the devices rather than ban them, municipalities using the devices should be prepared to "reduce expenditures, tap into alternative revenue streams, or implement some mix of both expenditure reductions and revenue replacement."⁵  Even if the Bill fails in the Senate, the people are taking matters in their own hands.  During the November elections, two Ohio cities voted on issues involving the use of photo-monitoring devices.⁶  By a three to one margin, Cleveland voters approved a charter change to require a law enforcement officer to be present and personally issue a citation to a violator caught by a photo-monitoring device.  On a similar note, Maple Heights residents passed an amendment by seven-six percent which would require violations to go before a court rather than an administrative hearing officer.  It further prohibits the city from entering into contracts, with third party traffic camera vendors, where payment to the vendor is contingent upon the number of citations issued.

What does the future hold for local authorities who are either already using photo-monitoring devices or who are planning on installing such devices?  Only time will tell.  For now, although the use of the devices has not been prohibited completely, it appears that the costs necessary to maintain using them will become too much to sustain.  It appears the direction the law is taking will be that a municipality must not only comply with the signage requirements of R.C. §4511.094, but also maintaining a police officer at the device to issue citations to violators and to provide an appeal process through the local court system instead of to an administrative hearing officer.  Municipalities will need to take a hard look at whether the fines gained from the use of the devices is sufficient to cover the expenses involved to use or continue to use them.

¹ §4511.094
² Bradley L. Walker v. City of Toledo, et al., 2013-1277; Janine Lycan et al. v. City of Cleveland, 2014-0358
³ Kelly Mendenall, et al. v. City of Akron, 2006-2265
⁴ Stop on red: Ohio courts rule against speed, traffic cameras, Posted By Maggie Thurber on  January 24, 2014 @ 9:10 am; http://watchdog.org/125364/ohio-red-light-cameras/; H.B. 69
⁵ H.B 69 
⁶ Cleveland, Maple Heights voters smack down red-light cameras By Leila Atassi, Northeast Ohio Media Group on November 05, 2014 at 12:14 AM, updated November 5, 2014 at 7:47 AM; http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2014/03/25/attorney-who-sued-stopped-elmwood-traffic-cameras-sues-dayton/6861335/