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
