Home >Camera Enforcement > Speed Cameras > Ohio Supreme Court Saves Speed Cameras

Related News Arizona Drops Speed Camera Points Arizona Arrests Nevada Woman Based on Photos Louisiana Legislature Passes Red Light Camera Bill Budget Bonanza from Maryland Speed Cameras Arizona: Sheriff Caught Fudging Photo Radar Stats View Main Topics: Camera Enforcement    Speed Cameras    Red Light Cameras    Revenue from Cameras    Camera Accuracy    Engineering/Signals Police Enforcement    Random Checkpoints    Speed Limits/Traps    Tickets and Cash    Seizure/Confiscation    Parking Tickets    Taxes and Tolls    Drunk Driving Laws Miscellaneous Issues    Miscellaneous    Hypocrisy    Bad Policy and Injustice    Propaganda    New Technologies    Privacy Issues The Revolt    Protests    Camera Destruction Subscribe via RSS or E-Mail Back To Front Page

1/31/2008 Ohio Supreme Court Saves Speed Cameras Text of an Ohio Supreme Court ruling granting cities the authority to install speed and red light cameras without legislative authorization. The Ohio Supreme Court today issued a ruling upholding the right of municipalities to create new "civil penalties" for crimes already covered by criminal statutes. The long-awaited ruling gives the green light for Ohio cities to expand speed camera and red light camera camera programs, an authority which the state legislature had specifically declined to grant. "Home rule jurisprudence has become confused over the years because different theories have been used to determine when an ordinance is in conflict with a general state law," Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger wrote for the court. The high court reasoned that even though a state law punishes only the driver of a vehicle, this is not in conflict with the city ordinance that punishes vehicle owners, even innocent ones, because "the actual conduct prohibited -- exceeding speed limits -- is the same." The court even allowed for the use of such an ordinance for the sole purpose of generating millions to help reduce a budget deficit. "Much has been made of the motivation behind the city's decision to adopt an ordinance of this type," the Lanzinger wrote. "There is disagreement among the parties as to whether the city's decision was motivated by concerns over safety or by a desire to increase revenue. Motivation does not play any role in home rule analysis however, and a city has the right to enact 'such local police, sanitary and other similar regulations, as are not in conflict with general laws.'" The court acknowledged due process concerns with photo enforcement but declined to consider them. Today's decision is contrary to the finding of Minnesota's highest court which ruled photo enforcement a violation of the state constitution based upon its reading of a statutes essentially identical to those considered by Ohio. The full text of the decision is available in a 75k PDF file at the source link below. Source: Mendenhall v Akron (Supreme Court of Ohio, 1/31/2008) Regional News: Other news about Akron, Ohio Permanent Link for this item Return to Front Page

Front Page | Get Updates | Site Map | News Achive | Search | theNewspaper.com: A journal of the politics of driving