Have You Paid Money To The City Of Cleveland For A Red-Light Or Speed Camera Violation?

Have You Paid Money To The City Of Cleveland For A Red-Light Or Speed Camera Violation?  Are You The Owner Of Your Vehicle?  Are You Ready To Join The Class?

On January 23, 2014, the Eighth District Court of Appeals (Cuyahoga County) released two decisions which will have an impact on the City of Cleveland’s automated camera civil traffic enforcement procedures.  The decisions in Lycan v. Cleveland, 2014-Ohio-203, and Jodka v. Cleveland, 2014-Ohio-208, call into question the constitutionality of the enforcement as well as the ability to present a defense to the “cameras”; and also establish a class of individuals who may be able to continue a lawsuit against the City of Cleveland and other named defendants as it relates to automated camera ticket infractions.

In Lycan, according to the Eighth District Court of Appeals, “[a]t issue in this case is whether the plaintiffs may maintain as a class action their claims for unjust enrichment and declaratory relief arising from the enforcement of a red-light camera ordinance against the individuals in the putative class.”  The argument made by Lycan is that neither he nor other individuals who received tickets were “vehicle owners” as defined by the prior codified ordinance CCO 413.032, as they had leased their respective vehicles. 

The class of people permitted to maintain the lawsuit is defined by the Eighth District Court of Appeals as “[q]uite simply, the class is defined to include persons who were not a ‘vehicle owner’ under former CCO 413.032.  Former CCO 413.031(p)(3) defined a vehicle owner in terms of the vehicle’s registered owner. Thus, a non-vehicle owner is in the class regardless of whether he or she leased the vehicle or not.”  The class of individuals in the lawsuit is limited to “[a]ll persons and entities who were not a ‘vehicle owner’ under CCO 413.031, but were issued a notice of citation and/or assessed a fine under that ordinance, prior to March 11, 2009, by/or on behalf of Defendant, City of Cleveland.” 

The decision can be viewed at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/8/2014/2014-ohio-203.pdf.

           

            In a similar case and decision released on the same day, the Eighth District Court of Appeals held that the City of Cleveland’s automated camera civil traffic enforcement system violates the Ohio Constitution.  In Jodka v. Cleveland, 2014-Ohio-208, Jodka argued that CCO 413.031 unconstitutionally usurps the authority of the Cleveland Municipal Court to adjudicate certain traffic infractions.  Jodka also argued that the procedures in CCO 413.031(k) and (l) violate the Ohio Constitution’s Art. IV, Sec.1.  In its analysis the court agreed and held “[i]n this process, the same non-judicial hearing officer is both the prosecutor and the judge, and the person who contests liability lacks any meaningful ability to present a defense.”  The court was also troubled by the ordinance “purporting to label moving violations as ‘parking infractions’ so as to deprive the municipal court of jurisdiction over violations of ‘any ordinance,’”.  Ultimately the court decided that the power to adjudicate civil violations of moving traffic laws lies solely in municipal court.

The decision can be viewed at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/8/2014/2014-ohio-208.pdf.

For questions or concerns regarding any of your legal needs contact us at 216-241-1074, or e-mail info@stafford-stafford.com

Stafford Law Company