In January 2017, the Ohio Supreme Court has again been forced to consider the ramifications of traffic cameras in Ohio cities. The matter has begun for the third time in less than a decade, this time with the city government of Dayton arguing that the state’s highest court should reject a law passed by state legislature limiting the use of red light and speeding cameras for issuing citations. The city of Dayton, as well as a number of other Ohio city governments also involved in the case, are trying to convince the court that the requirement laid down by the state legislature is an unreasonable requirement for city governments in Ohio. These city governments plan to argue that these cameras are intended to increase traffic safety without tying up police resources for other duties elsewhere in their jurisdictions.read more information about Cam Recordings Public Record at http://www.ohiolawfinder.com/supreme-court-rules-police-dash-cam-recordings-public-record/
The state government, opposing the city governments, are claiming that these cameras are intended to do nothing but increase city revenues while denying Ohio drivers due process of law when cited for speeding and running red lights. The state legislature recently passed a law that went into effect in 2015, requiring that live police officers attend all cameras posted around speed traps and traffic lights. The state government is arguing against the city governments, which has changed the dynamic of the court cases considerably from the previous two times this matter has recent the Ohio supreme court.
Previous similar cases emerged in an Akron case in 2014 where the court ruled in favor of the city’s right to use camera systems. The justification for the ruling was a matter of the cities using home rule authority in drafting local laws, effectively over ruling an appeals court case agreeing that a driver city in Toledo had been denied their chance to defend themselves against a speeding citation, effectively bypassing the courts and the due process of law.
However, now the case is being argued not by individual drivers, but by city governments. Arguing for the state of Ohio is the state’s attorney general, lead by Mike DeWine, effectively pitting two levels of Ohio government against each. The attorney general’s office has gone on record as stating that the new law is good for the public interest by creating a standardized, statewide system for handling traffic violations, as well as allows live police officers to detect malfunctions or allow for reasonable exemptions from ticketing.