“If you believe these traffic cameras are intended to promote public safety, reduce speeding, reduce accidents on the road, then that's a great incentive for municipalities to operate these cameras. “It’s a net zero effect for them financially,” he explained. Engel told News 5 this ruling changes the landscape for traffic cameras in Ohio going forward. Joshua Engel serves as a civil rights attorney who’s dealt with cases over Ohio’s speed cameras. RELATED: In Depth: Speed cameras raising concerns over due process and public safety revenue News 5 has reported extensively on communities and their controversial use of traffic cameras. “Because of this program that we put in, we now have more officers, more firefighters and can better serve our residents whose resources are taken away by commuters commuting back and forth to Cleveland,” Cicero added in February. In court filings, Newburgh Heights, a village with a population of fewer than 2,000 people, disclosed it collected more than $2.4 million in traffic camera revenue in 2018, with tickets being issued to vehicles traveling at least 12 miles an hour over the speed limit on city streets. “The Supreme Court today affirmed that simple, black-letter rule of law.” “The state constitution gives the legislature, not the cities, the power to decide when and how to spend state money,” Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost said in a statement. It’s not clear at this point if or when they would be used again. “This is a systemic, indirect attempt by the legislature to dictate the minutia and make it economically unviable or impossible or imprudent to run any traffic camera program,” Michael Cicero, counsel for the village of Newburgh Heights, said during oral arguments for this case on February 9.įollowing the ruling, the mayor of Newburgh Heights released a statement, saying “We are aware of the court’s decision and we will comply with the ruling.”Īdditionally, the village turned off its traffic enforcement cameras shortly thereafter. The ruling comes after the village of Newburgh Heights and the city of East Cleveland sued the state of Ohio, calling the laws unconstitutional. The decision to fund them would ultimately come from City Council.NEWBURGH HEIGHTS, Ohio - The Ohio Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the General Assembly can reduce a municipality’s state funding by the amount of income generated by its traffic camera program. And critics say cities use them to boost revenues while violating motorists' rights.ĭespite the ruling, says Columbus' assistant director of public safety Cathy Collins, the city is not looking to obtain red light cameras again. The state countered that the law is within the legislature's powers as a "statewide and comprehensive" way to regulate enforcement of traffic. But amid state lawmaker efforts to restrict their use, and in the wake of a scandal involving the city's former red light camera vendor, Columbus got rid of them.ĭayton and other cities said the law's restrictions, which also required a three-year traffic study, made traffic cameras cost-prohibitive. The city of Dayton had challenged the law SB 342, which took effect in 2015, saying it improperly limited local control and undercut camera enforcement that has made cities safer.Ĭolumbus had 44 red light cameras at 38 intersections in 2015. The justices voted 5-2 in a ruling Wednesday, the third time the high court has ruled for cities on cameras. But Columbus officials say the city won't rush to bring their cameras back. The Ohio Supreme Court has again upheld cities' use of traffic camera enforcement, striking down as unconstitutional legislative restrictions that included requiring a police officer to be present.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |