1. law, govt and politics

COVER
IN
KELLY
THE
SUPREME
MENDENHALL,
SHEET
COURT
OF
THE
CASE
et al,
STATE
OF
OHIO
NO. 2006-2265
V.
THE
CITY
OF AKRON,
et al.
CERTIFIED
AMICUS
BRIEF
QUESTION
OF DAN
OF STATE
MOADUS
et al, IN SUPPORT
MENDENHALL,
Reg.
A. Denney
1631 South
Girard,
No. 0028205
Atty. Antoni
Dalayanis
Atty. Jacquenette
St.
Building
5 _hFI.
Ohio 44308
190 N. Union
Akron,
No. 0070165
Daniel
Moadus,
et al
Wayne
JoAnne
H. Burger
L. Lattur
44420
12 E. Exchange
Akron,
WarnerMendenhall
Street
545-4250
Exchange
Reg. No. 0068595
Reg.
REPRESENTING
State
Ohio
(330)
Atty.
LIST
ADDRESS/PHONE
Atty. James
OF KELLY
et al
COUNSEL
NAME
LAW
Janice
St., Suite
201
Kelly
A. Sipe
Mendenhall
Ohio 44304
S. Corgan
Reg. No. 0072778
Atty.
Donald
W. Herbe
4900
Nestor
Key Tower
Reg. No. 0076500
127 Public
Square
Atty.
Heather
Cleveland,
Ohio 44114
Reg.
No. 0069606
Atty.
Richard
L. Tonsing
Traffic
Systems,
Inc.
S. Gurbst
Reg. No. 0017672
Atty.
Stephen
A. Fallis
161 S. High
Reg. No. 0021568
Atty. Michael J. Defibaugh
Akron,
Reg. No. 0072683
Akron,
Atty.
4900
Richard
S. Gurbst
Reg. No. 0017672
St., Suite 202
The
r
f
n,
2ityo
AL_r_AL _
i_
Ohio 44308
217 S. High
Street
HAR 1 g 2007
Ohio 44308
Key Tower,
Cleveland,
Ohio
127 Public
44114
Squa
MARCIA J. MENGEL, CLERK
SUPREME COUR1 OF OHIO
TABLE
INTRODUCTION
LAW
AND
..................................................................................
ARGUMENT
ORDINANCES
3 OF THE CONSTITUTION
IN CONFLICT
WITH THE
TRAFFIC
II.
1
.........................................................................
THE CAMERA
I°
OF CONTENTS
IN TITLE
THE ORDINANCE
VIOLATE
4
ARTICLE
XVIII
SECTION
OF THE STATE OF OHIO, BY BEING
GENERAL
LAWS OF OHIO GOVERNING
45 OF THE OHIO
VIOLATES
REVISED
PROCEDURAL
CODE
DUE
................
PROCESS
GUARANTEED
UNDER THE OHIO AND U.S. CONSTITUTIONS,
AND IS THEREFORE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
ON ITS FACE AND
IN ITS ENFORCEMENT
......................................................
CERTIFICATE
TABLE
OF SERVICE
OF CASES
...................................................................
................................................................................
APPENDIX
A.
DAN MOADUS
ETAL
V. THE CITY OF GIRARD,
TRUMBULL
COUNTY
COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS, CASE NO. 05-CV1927
B.
JOINT
C.
GIRARD
STIPULATIONS
SPEED
OF FACT
CAMERA
ORDINANCE
ii
4
15
21
22
IN
THE
SUPREME
COURT
OF
THE
)
Kelly
Mendenhali,
CASE
OF
NO.
OHIO
2006-2265
)
et al,
)
Certified
Question
of State
Law
)
V.
)
The City
STATE
of Akron,
AMICUS
BRIEF
OF DAN
et ai_ IN SUPPORT
et ai.
MOADUS
OF KELLY
MENDENHALL_
et al
INTRODUCTION
Dan Moadus
Trumbull
County
class
certification
2006
(copy
Court of Common
as appendix
Article
Section
XVIII,
Ordinance
conflicts
As a matter
County
with these
challenge
of the position
Our country
their golden
realized
that there
in Plaintiffs'
statutes
were
"B",
"C",
are the Joint
Girard Ordinance
of the State of Ohio contained
laws" within
the meaning
granted
favor on July 6,
as appendix
case, and at Appendix
Constitution,
counsel
to Girard
has long been
in Title
of the term as used
and that the Girard
will state
Speed
Camera
the essence
7404-05
and motivation
and the reasons
for their
in this case.
of freedom,
discovered
age, 550 B. C. to 300 B.C.
types
briefly
City Ordinance
a beacon
originally
are different
Plaintiffs
laws.
of the Plaintiffs
and principals
during
are "general
3, of the Ohio
of introduction,
of the Plaintiffs'
philosophy
code
decided
Also attached,
That Court ruled that the speeding
Revised
et al v The City of Girard,
Pleas, ease no. 05-CV-1927.
"A').
of Fact in the Trumbull
45 of the Ohio
support
in Dan Moadus
by the Court, and the case was
attached
Stipulations
7404-5.
et al are the Plaintiffs
of freedom:
having
and described
Even these
political
been founded
by the ancient
early
proponents
and personal.
on the
Greeks
of freedom
in
Political freedomdealswith issuessuchas
of religion,
speech,
government.
assembly,
Personal
freedom,
we enjoy in our day-to-clay
freedom
of choice,
only in certain
permitted
it by default,
written
were conjoined,
Herodotus
society
Herodotus
protect
5.78,
personal
meaningless.
our political
statutes,
calling
in the world."
translation-de
freedom,
under a despotic
and personal
freedoms.
law, should
Ways,
to take it away.
co-existed,
based
and personal
on
freedom
for the first time in history.
are the elements
a "...noble
that make
thing"...,
government,
a
for "...while
they had no better
by Bruce Thornton,
In essence,
personal
scheme
organization
yet, once the yoke was flung off, they proved
selincourt]).
The speed camera
freedom
that freedom
(See Greek
for without
of citizens
that
and it existed
in existence
freedom
our
of movement,
political
There, for a time, political
and personal
were oppressed
freedom
rudimentary
and personal
by a large number
that political
and common
when
political
at war than any of their neighbors,
the finest fighters
can influence
It is a natural freedom,
I.E., there was no strong government
strong and able to survive,
success
of privacy,
etc.
prior to the Greeks,
and exercised
they [The Athenians]
fiscal
lives, such as freedom
and philosophy.
recognized
freedom
on the other hand, deals more with the freedom
under the Greeks,
law, tradition,
our representatives,
in which we as citizens
the right to own property,
situations
However,
that is, the ways
electing
freedom,
at issue
political
P. 166 [From
freedom
political
freedom
in this case strikes
can and should
becomes
at the heart of both
The rule of law, as set out in our constitutions,
not be ignored
or subverted
for expediency
and for
purposes.
Our political
institutions,
freedom,
the Courts
being
and therefore
our personal
of vital importance
freedom,
in this regard.
are protected
by our
Today,
financial
with the advent
problems
Rather
methods
faced
than
such as Girard,
These
funds
Akron,
schemes
to keep
police
camera
officers,
by more
that generate
been adopted
officers
Less freedom,
ordinances
is to short-cut
because
because
more
revenue
is taking
a beating.
conventional
municipalities
by exploiting
instituted
process,
budgets
have
human
nature,
by municipalities
of these
burden
Therefore,
and less freedom
speed
statutes,
of proof,
sufficient
fewer
become
and red light
the duly constituted
doubt,
do not have
law enforcement.
and the state criminal
outside
of reasonable
the cities'
revenue,
the nature
due process
"hearing"
of the concepts
some
ordinances
on duty for serious
less law enforcement,
administrative
problems
with the
and others.
of the day.
devoid
schemes
combined
freedom
development,
and red light camera
have
police
or economic
technology,
our personal
deal with fiscal and budgetary
to the easy solution:
such as the speed
electronic
by local governments,
such as tax increases
resorted
of modern
camera
and create
courts,
the order
a "hearing"
instead
process
and the right of
confrontation.
Some
freedom
of today's
include
and vehicles),
chips
codes
widespread
the massive
in personal
information
embedded
is slowly
high-tech
video
DNA
computers,
into magnetic
and the burgeoning
intent,
other
surveillance,
databases
random
strips,
in everything,
and non-high
replacing
searches,
the proposed
bureaucratic/administrative
our democratic
"locator"
institutions.
chips
(in cell phones
tracking/memory
detectors,
loading
I.D. card, computer-read
record
apparatus
on our personal
accumulated,
metal
national
credit
infringements
computer
that are being
airport
the extensive
tech
dossiers
which,
personal
bar
kept on most citizens,
through
inertia
if not
an
Of course,mostof thesedo not run directlyafoulof the law, althoughmost
peoplewould agreethattheir cumulativeeffectis detrimentalto our personaland
political freedom.
The subjectSpeedCameraandRedLight CameraOrdinances,in additionto
beingrepugnantto personalfreedomdo in factrun afoul of the law, in severalrespects:
(1) Theyviolate Article XVIII and3 of the Constitutionof the Stateof
Ohio;
(2) Theyviolate the dueprocessrightsof allegedviolators;
ARGUMENT
1.
THE
CAMERA
ORDINANCES
VIOLATE
SECTION
3 OF THE CONSTITUTION
IN CONFLICT
WITH THE GENERAL
TRAFFIC
IN
ARTICLE
TITLE
XVIII
XVIII
OF THE STATE OF OHIO, BY BEING
LAWS OF OHIO GOVERNING
45 OF THE OHIO
SECTION
ARTICLE
REVISED
3 OF THE OHIO
CODE.
CONSTITUTION
READS
AS
FOLLOWS:
Municipalities
government
sanitary
A point
is a grant
a grant,
shall have authority
and to adopt
and other similar
that is both obvious,
of authority
municipalities
Our federal
originating
would
system
together
by the Constitution
United
States.
The U.S. Constitution
or authority
for example,
these
local entities
much
the State of Ohio,
no authority
whatsoever
States,
does not grant
whether
of the time,
of local
to exercise
municipal,
only exist as creations
with general
is that this section
Without
such
any powers.
State. governments,
i.e., the several
or recognize
self-
such local police,
to municipalities.
of fifty independent
of the United
of any local government,
all powers
their limits
regulal_'ons, as are not in conflict
laws.
is a combination
bound
within
and overlooked
from
have
to exercise
and enforce
states
created
any independent
county,
of the Ohio
or township.
Constitution
the
status
In Ohio,
and
Legislature,andwhatauthoritytheyhaveis not inherent,but grantedby the state.
Articles
"home
10, 18, and 8 of the Ohio
rule" powers
Constitution
held by municipal
make
this clear.
governments
in Ohio
In other
words,
the
only exist by virtue
of a
grant from the State of Ohio.
The Ohio
throughout
Code
the state;
Title 45.
Constitution
has created
initially
These
Article
In Linndale
discussion
Legislature
under
the General
state statutes
XVIII,
v. State,
as to what
are general
section
of uniform
Code,
laws,
traffic
laws for application
and currently
under
Ohio
Revised
as the term is used in Ohio
3.
85 O.S. 3 rd 52 (1999),
constitutes
General
a system
a "general
laws are those
the Court
said the following
in its
law":
enacted
by the General
Assembly
to safeguard
the
peace, health, morals, and safety and to protect the property
of the people
of the state. Schneiderman
v. Sesantein
(1929), 121 Ohio St. 80, 82-83,
167 N.E. 158, 159. General laws "apply to all parts of the state alike."
at 83, 167 N.E. at 159. This court held in W. Jefferson
v. Robinson
(1965), 1 Ohio St.2d
three of the syllabus,
Section
setting
113, 30 O.O.2d 474, 205 N.E.2d
that "[t]he words 'general
laws'
3 of Article
forth police,
XVIII
of the Ohio
sanitary
or simila
Constitution
regulations
Id.
382, paragraph
as set forth in
means
[sic] statutes
and not statutes
which
purport only to grant or to limit the legislative
powers of a municipal
corporation
to adopt or enforce police, sanitary or other similar
regulations."
(Emphasis
added.) This
those operating
uniformly
throughout
conduct
on citizens
application
conditions.
Garcia
271, 17 O.O.3d
Schneiderman,
interest
generally,
throughout
and operating
the state under
v. Siffrin
that it is necessary
Detective
244, 602 N.E.2d
(1962),
with general
uniform
the same circumstances
Residential
Assn.
(1980),
as
and
63 Ohio
St.2d 259,
167, 174, 407 N.E.2d
1369, 1377-1378
(citing
supra). " 'Once a matter has become of such general
to make
require uniform statewide
regulation,
legislate in the field so as to conflict
Private
court also defmed general laws
the state, prescribing
a rule of
173 Ohio
Agencies,
1147,
it subject
Inc. v. N. Olmsted
1149, quoting
to statewide
control
so as to
the municipality
can no longer
with the state.' "Ohio Assn. of
(1992),
65 Ohio
State ex rel. McElroy
St. 189, 194, 19 O.O.2d
3, 6, 181 N.E.2d
St.3d
v. Akron
26, 30.
242,
In City
ruled
ofNiles
v. Howard,
that the drug statutes
stating
on page
'General
in Ohio
164 of its opinion:
12 O. St. 3 rd 162 (1984),
Revised
"The
Code
the Supreme
Court
Title 2925 et. seq., were
drug laws of the State
of Ohio
general
laws,
of Ohio are, therefore,
Laws'.
That
amounts
case involved
of marijuana
The Ohio
Statute
29, the Ohio
Ordinance,
conflict
enacted
which
misdemeanor,
for the same violation
a minor
Court
under
rule authority
became,
therefore,
granted
drug law in the state statute.
was not in conflict,
and upheld
possession
of small
by up to six months
misdemeanor,
in jail.
under
title
jail sentence.
for the Howard
the home
made
punishable
was deemed
Code, with no possible
with the general
Ordinance
City Ordinance
a first degree
Criminal
The question
a Niles
it, citing
whether
the Niles
in Article
The Howard
Struthers
XVIII
Court
8, was in
found
that the
v. Sok__q__Lol
108 O. St. 263
(1923).
The Court
Struthers
Ordinance
Ordinance
licenses
in Sokol
was not in conflict
is in 'conflict'
that which
A newer
used the following
with general
the statute
forbids,
test is two part (found
part is to determine
ifa
state statute
test in reaching
with state law:
laws,
its determination
"In determining
the test is whether
that the
whether
the Ordinance
an
permits
or
and vice versa."
in Canton
is indeed
v. State,
98 O. St. 3ra. 149), the first
a "general
law",
and to be a "general
law",
it must:
(1) be part of a statewide
(2) apply to all parts
the state,
(3) set forth police,
only to grant
and comprehensive
sanitary,
or similar
or limit legislative
set forth police,
legislative
of the state alike and operate
sanitary,
regulations,
power
or similar
rather
of a municipal
regulations;
enactment,
uniformly
throughout
than purport
corporation
to
(4) prescribea rule of conductupon citizensgenerally;
Thesecondpart of thenewtest is to determineifa statestatutetakesprecedence
overthe local ordinance,which occursif:
(1) the ordinanceis in conflict with the statute,
(2) the ordinanceis an exerciseof the policepower,ratherthanof local
self-government,and
(3) the statuteis a generallaw.
This
the simple
decision
Court
Sokol
has ruled that there
test.
written
In Cleveland
by Justice
v. Betts,
Zimmerman
From what
Also,
is more
has been
168 O. St. 386 (1958),
(at page
said, it would
on point,
conflicted
Justice
Zimmerman
a municipality
with the general
the statute
and
"home
civil matter
of
can make
what is there
case,
rule"
Justice
the felony
to prevent
of carrying
concealed
it from treating
armed
[*390] grand larceny or even murder in the
of such offenses in the Municipal
Court.
ruled in Betts
state statute,
even
with the statute
to
though
O.R.C.
the
that Cleveland
Section
conduct
2923.01,
in question
ordinance
by making
was
the
prohibited
the ordinance.
a misdemeanor
is transformed
again_paraphrase
Ohio
that the offense
continues:
and his six colleagues
into a misdemeanor,
1 year,
seem obvious
only as such, conflicts
a misdemeanor,
Zimmerman
In the present
within
stated:
and is
punishable
robbery, arson, rape, burglary,
same way, and finally dispose
by both
in a unanimous
misdemeanor,
invalid.
weapons
state felony
22), the Court
issue than
relating
If by ordinance
11.2314
of the conflict
carrying concealed
weapons
is a felony under the [State] statute
that subject, and an ordinance
which makes the same offense a
exactly
Justice
to an analysis
into a civil matter
Zimmerman,
subdivision)
if these camera
speed
under
what is there
from making
ordinances
offense,
DUI,
are allowed
jailable
Girard
to prevent
assault,
on a second
ordinance
it (Girard
or domestic
to stand?
7404-5.
offense
To once
or any other
violence
into a
Threeyearsafter Betts,
St. 371 (1961).
DUI conflicted
The sole question
above),
Court
decided
Toledo
the Court
was whether
with the state law banning
the same
conduct.
in another
unanimous
Taft, Weygandt,
Matthias,
this time found
identical
Supreme
before
The Court,
Zimmerman,
the Ohio
no conflict
(6 Justices)
decision
a Toledo
(including
and Bell, who all concurred
with the state law, because
to the state law in all respects,
including
conduct
vs. Best,
172 O.
ordinance
Justices
in Cleveland
the ordinance
prohibited,
on
v. Bats
was
degree
of offense,
and punishment.
In distinguishing
Betts,
the Court
in Toledo
v. Best stated:
We feel that the pronouncement
of this court in the case of City of
Cleveland
v. Betts, 168 Ohio St., 386, has no application
to the cause
factual
situation
question
about
we are now considering.
the conflict.
In Betts
It was obvious
case there
and apparent.
or
was no
In the instant
case, there is no conflict, especially
in view of the two aforequoted
sections of Title XXIX of the [***8] Revised Code, and the final clinching
argument
is the result
reached
in the Municipal
Court.
The sentence
imposed by the Municipal
Court was imprisonment
for three days,
assessment
of the costs of $ 81 and suspension
of driving rights.
Had the
defendant
been charged
under
the state statute
have received the identical
sentence
under the municipal
ordinance.
Clearly,
state
in the present
laws into a civil matters,
"obvious
and apparent"
Statutes,
which
Both
provided
some
case, the camers
Sokol
conduct
that these
are "general
and Howard
for different
fit directly
laws",
involved
penalties
was prohibited
imposed
ordinances,
and should
ordinances
of Cleveland
are in direct
be ruled
conflict
by the City Ordinance
he could
Court
criminal
v. Betts,
and it is
with the State
invalid.
(Sokol-liquor,
than the state statute;
form,
by the Municipal
by transforming
into the facts
ordinances
in its present
Howard-drugs)
in How__d,d more
which
severe,
that was not prohibited
in Sokol,
by the state
statute.Neither theSokol
Court
and the City Ordinances
These
Girard
two cases
Traffic
doubt
Traffic
driving
disappears;
Section
points
assessments
This point
assessment
reads
(C) A Court
are accumulated
for traffic
... when
a criminal
an offender
the
matter
to
guilty beyond
a
off the road by suspending
24 months
violations
is found
the following
the speed
miles
their
also magically
in Ohio
Revised
Code
points
for an offense
based
on the
exceeds
exceeds
pertaining
the lawful
to speed:
speed
limit by thirty
.... 4 points.
the lawful
per hour by more
speed
limit of less than
than five miles
per hour
2 points.
offenders
citations
Court.
convert
within
per hour or more
............
duly constituted
case regarding
portion:
the speed
fifty-five
and red light camera
the present
of any law or Ordinance
(c) When
repeat
laws,
formula:
miles
Dangerous
from
take bad drivers
in relevant
(11) A violation
(a)
with the general
as does the right of confrontation.
shall assess
following
a conflict
the Ordinances
which
12 points
which
found
on the state to prove
disappears,
after
4510.036,
Here,
of proof
magically
privileges
distinguished
Ordinance.
The burden
Court
upheld.
are easily
Camera
civil matters.
reasonable
were
or Howard
may continue
they receive.
The Court
system
Also
to drive,
no matter
disappearing
is bypassed
from
completely
how many
speed
the process
is the
under
these
Ordinances.
Also radically
matters,
altered
is the enhancement
misdemeanor
upon
a second
by this attempt
under
to convert
state law from
moving
violation
a state criminal
a minor
within
misdemeanor
a 12 month
period:
statues
city civil
to a fourth
degree
This law, duly
enactedby the Ohio legislatureandsignedby the governor,asall the statutescited
herein,is Ohio RevisedCode
violations
minor
Section
misdemeanors,
(B) If, within
This penalty
light violators
one year of the offense,
camera
violations
of or plead
guilty
a misdemeanor
enhancement
within
(B), which
makes
most moving
traffic
except:
convicted
offense,
4511.99
city limits
of the fourth
of course
and never
previously
motor
has been
vehicle
or traffic
degree.
also magically
subject cities.
of the
as they please,
the offender
to one predicate
disappears
Offenders
face the prospect
for speeders
may receive
of jail,
points,
an red
as many
or license
suspension.
These
Howard.
under
the same
make
Revised
cases,
alterations
respective
In the present
case,
conduct
disappear
state statutory
and in fact in some
by the legislature
altogether,
guilt beyond
These
create
Code, specifically,
under
that was once
the state to prove
differences
law did not exist in Sokol
or
law remained
instances,
the penalties
for
were enhanced.
and intended
safer,
criminal
City Ordinances,
conduct
designed
of state statutory
acts deemed
prohibited
our roads
require
of radical
In those
criminal
penalties
types
criminal
(points,
along
Section
4511.21
- Speed
Section
4511.12
- Traffic
Section
4511.06
- Uniform
Section
4511.07
- Local
doubt
and direct
but not necessarily
t0
in a duly constituted
to conflicts
of Traffic
Regulations
civil;
offense)
to
offender
Court.
to
with Title 45 of the Ohio
with the following:
Devices
Application
Traffic
becomes
jail on subsequent
conflict
limited
Control
statute
with the fight of an alleged
a reasonable
an obvious
under
Laws
Section
4511.036
- Point
Section
4511.99
- Penalties
In addition,
offender
to attack
definition
trader
various
the accuracy
control
device",
Traffic
control
devices
Ohio
Revised
of a camera.
in Ohio
mean
there
Revised
is no way for an alleged
These
Code
all ...... devices
cameras
Section
fit the
4511.01
...for the purpose
(QQ):
of
...... traffic,..."
Code
certification
Civil Ordinances,
or certification
of a "traffic
regulating
uniform
these
System
Sections
system
4511.09and
for such devices
4511.11
Code
establish
Section
a uniform
4511.11
manual
and
(F) specifically
states:
No local authority
that does
The alleged
to investigate
hearing
not conform
"offender"
or challenge
schemes,
administrative
since
heating
These
statutes
Sokol_, within
shall purchase
or manufacture
to the state manual
of a speed
with these
no right of subpoena
control
device
and specifications...
or red light camera
city compliance
any traffic
violation
sections
or confrontation
has no opportunity
vis-a-vis
exists
the camera
in
in the various
scenarios.
in Title 45 are all "general
the meaning
of the term
laws"
as defined
as used in article
XVIII
out in Howard
section
and
3 of the Ohio
Constitution.
In State v. Rosa,
Court
ruled
as an unconstitutional
City Ordinance
offense
changing
128 O. App.
under
which
attempted
the ordinance.
a misdemeanor
3 rd 556, (1998),
violation
to convert
This Court
offense
of Article
XVIII
a civil offense
stated,
to a felony,
out of the 7 th Appellate
on page
or vice
11
section
under
561:
versa,
district,
3, A Youngstown
state law, to a criminal
"Comparatively,
is in conflict
if
with general
the
statelaw, changingthe classificationof anactfrom a civil to a criminal violationwould
alsobe in conflict."
TheRosa
syllabus
stated
Court
refers
the following
Where
to Toledo
on the "conflict"
the only distinction
ordinance,
proscribing
is as to the Penalty
found
Statute
creating
general
and a municipal
and providing
punishment
therefor,
is Cleveland
(O.R.C.
vs. Betts,
168 O. St. 386 (1958),
to be unconstitutional
Section
2923.01)
because
governing
in
it conflicted
the same
conduct
of
2923.01
created
created
an unconstitutional
a misdemeanor
a felony
what
offense
for the same
the state statute
conflict
for carrying
conduct.
prohibited,
with article
XVIII
a concealed
Even
though
the Court
section
the
in Betts
3, and struck
down.
identical
regulation
under
are the facts
in a municipal
of general
cited above
conduct
was found
did not permit
that it crated
enactment
Court
ordinance
O.R.C.
Nearly
police
certain
a state statute
weapon.
ordinance
the ordinance
between
only but not to the Degree
City Ordinance
The Cleveland
Cleveland
issue:
laws of the
a concealed
while
the
the offense, the ordinance
is not in conflict with the general
state." (Syllabus
Page 24) (Emphasis
Added).
with the State of Ohio
weapon,
where
or Felony)
a Cleveland
carrying
172 06 St. 371 (1961),
(Misdemeanor
•Also cited by the Rosa
which
v. Best,
a civil offense
ordinance
application
O.R.C.
in the present
throughout
45 are contravened
for conduct
which
case.
"It is therefore,
may not validly
contravene
apparent
a statutory
the state ..." Be(_Bg_Page 21).
by City of Girard
is a criminal
law.
12
ordinance
misdemeanor
that a
under
The statutes
7404-5,
by
the state
of
|
I
This
penalty:
Girard
They
eliminate
change
the burden
and eliminate
entitled
ordinance
and Akron
the degree
proof,
ordinance
and type of offense,
and eliminate
Head
speeding
it a non-offense,
of jail and license
due process
protections
the
suspension,
alleged
offenders
are
and red light cases.
note four in Betts
Constitutional
more than change
and in fact, make
the possibility
the level of the constitutional
to in criminal
do much
states
Law
as follows:
> Procedural
Due Process
> Grand
Jury Requirement
i
Criminal Law & Procedure
> Factors
> Sentencing
> Imposition
A presentment
or indictment by a grand jury is essential in the prosecution
of an "infamous
crime," and a prosecution
in any other manner is
authorized
and a nullity
1901.20
gives
committed
for want of jurisdiction.
a municipal
within
court jurisdiction
its territory
Ohio
Rev. Code
to hear felony
and to discharge,
Ann.
cases
recognize,
or commit
the
accused.
The offense of carrying concealed
weapons
is a felony under the
statute relating to that subject, and an ordinance
which makes the same
offense
a misdemeanor,
and is invalid.
punishable
In determining
only as such, conflicts
whether
a conflict
exists
with the statute
between
a
statutory enactment
and a municipal
ordinance
the test is whether the
ordinance
permits or licenses that which the statute forbids and prohibits
and vice versa.
misdemeanor
commission
character.
The same
attempting
degree
to replace
But this test is not exclusive.
entails
relatively
minor
of a felony
carries
(Emphasis
Added)
of difference
a felony
exists
Conviction
consequences,
with it penalties
in the present
with a misdemeanor,
Girard
of a
whereas
of a severe
case, except
attempts
the
and lasting
that instead
to replace
of
a crime
with a civil offense.
The Betts case is cited and followed
District,
made
in State v. Barr,
the act of assisting
153 O. App.
a minor
by the Court
3ra. 193 (2003).
in a curfew
violation
13
of Appeals
of the Second
In Barr,
an Urbana
a minor
misdemeanor,
ordinance
in contrast
to OhioRevisedCodeSection2919.24(A)(1), which makesthe sameacta first degree
misdemeanor.The Barr
Court,
on page
196 & 197, stated
We agree with the state that the principle
supra, is applicable
to conflicts between
Revised
Revised
the following:
espoused in State v. Volpe,
different provisions
of the Ohio
Code, but not to conflicts
between
Code and provisions
in municipal
are controlled
151,154
by Cleveland
N.E.2d
the Constitution
v. Betts
917, in which
of Ohio,
general provisions
in the Ohio
ordinances.
The latter conflicts
(1958),
168 Ohio
St. 386, 7 O.O.2d
it is held that "Section
authorizes
mtmicipalities
within their limits only such local police
with general laws."
Id. At syllabus.
3, Article
to adopt
regulations
XVIII
of
and enforce
as are not in conflict
In the case before us, by contrast, the Urbana ordinance
purports to make
the act of assisting a minor in a curfew violation a minor misdemeanor,
punishable
at most
by $100
fine, while
the statute
makes
the identical
conduct a first-degree
misdemeanor,
punishable
by imprisonment
for up to
six months.
This is a significant
conflict.
We agree with the state that,
pursuant to Cleveland
ordinance.
In distinguishing
Barr Court
stated
a contrary
on pages
v. Betts, supra,
ruling
in Toledo
the statute
vs. Best,
prevails
over the
172 O. ST. 371 (1958),
the
196 and 197:
To be sure, the holding in Cleveland
v. Betts, supra, has been modified
by
the holding in Toledo v. Best (1961), 172 Ohio St. 371, 16 O.O.2d 220,
176 N.E.2d 520. However,
we conclude
that the holding in the latter case
was based upon the fact that the difference
between the ordinance
and the
statue in that case was slight, pertaining
as it did to whether the first three
days of any sentence imposed could be suspended,
and the fact that the
sentence actually imposed in violation of the ordinance
was one that could
have been imposed for a violation
of the statute.
Under
circumstances,
the Supreme
Court, which was evidently
of the statute,
held that:
"In the present
case, although
those
somewhat
critical
the city of Toledo
has remained
constant and the General Assembly
has vacillated,
we feel
this vacillation
is not to a degree which causes a conflict between the
statute
375,
and ordinance
16 O.O.2d
In other words,
and the "general
The Toledo
law"
ordinance
there
220,
herein
involved."
176 N.E.2d
was not a sufficient
(In that case, Ohio
and the state statute
revised
v. Best,
172 Ohio St. at
520.
conflict
between
code section
were nearly
14
Toledo
the Toledo
4511.19,
identical,
ordinance,
the DUI
statute.
and the same result
was
reached
after conviction
2.
THE
under
the ordinance
ORDINANCE
GUARANTEED
VIOLATES
UNDER
IS THEREFORE
in the case being
THE
reviewed.
PROCEDUAL
OHIO
AND
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
DUE
PROCESS
U.S. CONSTITUTIONS,
ON ITS FACE
AND
AND
IN ITS
ENFORCEMENT.
The due process
Constitution
protections
for citizens
of the State of Ohio, Article
In any trial,
in any court,
of the State
I Section
of Ohio
10 (reproduced
the party
accused
shall
are found
in the
here in part):
be allowed
to appear
and defend in person and with counsel;
to demand the nature and cause
the accusation
against him, and to have a copy thereof" to meet the
of
witness face to face, and to have compulsory
process
to procure
the
attendance
of witnesses
in his behalf
and a speedy public trial by an
impartial
jury
committed,"
witness
Also,
are accorded
of the county
No person
against
in which
the offense
shall be compelled,
is alleged
to have
in any criminal
been
case, to be a
himself.
in the Constitution
of the State
the right to redress
in Courts:
of Ohio, Article
I Section
16, Ohio
citizens
All courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done him in his
land, goods, person, or reputation,
shah have remedy by due course of
law, and shall have justice administered
without denial or delay.
The due process
the citizens
of Ohio,
rights
are found
of Citizens
of these United
in Amendments
V, VI, and )[IV,
AMENDMENT
No person
States,
shall be held to answer
applicable
restated
of course
to
here in part:
V
for a capital,
or otherwise
infamous
crime, unless on a presentment
or indictment
of a Grand Jury, except in cases
arising in the land or naval forces,
or in the Militia, when in actual service in time
of War or public
danger,"
be twice put in jeopardy
case to be a witness
nor shall
any person
be subject
for the same
of life or limb," nor shall be compelled
against
himself
nor be deprived
15
offence
in any criminal
of life, liber_
or property,
to
without
due process
without
just
oflaw;
nor shall private
property
AMENDMENT
In all criminal
and public
trial,
prosecutions,
by an impartial
shall have been committed,
by law, and to be informed
confronted
obtaining
defense.
the accused
jury
of the State
against
in his favor,
... nor shall
by a hearing
any State
who earns
review
on substance
judicial
review
persons
or property.
$7.00
of a decision
A municipal
Stanton
ordinance
the right to both investigate
further
right of review
any person
64 Ohio
Consumer
between
App.
Due process
made
consumers
Agency
Traffic
of law is violated
and adjudicate
a Toledo
whether
ordinance
both investigatory
Id. at 54.
his
for the City that issued
the
is no right to further
there
is no provision
the rights
purported
department
was violated,
Burke
of
v. Fought
with no
(1978),
to give the Toledo
powers
was based
for
St. 658.
of city regulatory
due process.
the
is
the ordinance
The ordinance
or property,
its jurisdiction
114 Ohio
and enforcement
16
for
body affecting
the employees
of law, violates
of Counsel
ordinance
when
(1926),
gives
for
Enforcement
is final, and there
by an administrative
which
and suppliers.
within
case, works
v. Tax
2d 50. In _
Protection
His decision
the crime
ascertained
to be
process
of life, liberty,
to any person
who in the Girard
by a court
wherein
XIV
by the Automated
per hour.
issues.
and district
and to have the Assistance
deprive
provided
officer,
the right to a speedy
him; to have compulsory
without due process
oflaw," nor deny
equal protection
of the laws.
The only "hearing"
shall enjoy
which district shall have been previously
of the nature and cause of the accusation;
with the witnesses
witnesses
citation,
use,
VI
AMENDMENT
conducted
be taken for public
compensation.
over disputes
upon
the
Consumer
Sales Practices
Commerce
and enforcement
of those
matter
two powers
which
power
that violated
vests
investigatory
power
with the Attorney
due process
with the Director
General.
in Burke
Id.
of
It is the consolidation
and violates
due process
in the
subjudice.
The Ordinance
Section
and their
Ten of the Ohio
not witnessed
officer
cannot
citations
cannot
the right to confront
challenge
the calibration
subpoenas
observing
the burden
This denial
accuser
before
as stated
the offense
and being
of proof
on the alleged
State
does not require
and asked
the camera
concerning
or to view
above.
available
to testify.
the Ordinance
they are not guilty
of our fight to face our accusers
in court
is contrary
system;
by attempting
At the moment
The Ordinances
require
The municipalities
to convert
the camera
cannot
the offenses
takes
that the accused
17
of
to
logs,
officer
places
of the offense.
to the principals
be permitted
those
their
accused
of our
to eliminate
innocence.
are presumed
of
As a result,
these
to a civil matters.
a picture,
prove
Recipients
impermissibly
to prove
justice
84,
of law enforcement
violators
criminal
St.2d
in place
or repair
of the
is a denial
the violation.
its calibration
to testify,
the vehicle
54 Ohio
are no procedures
In the absence
are
"Any abrogation
(1978),
I,
that a law
of such witnesses
v. Hannah
There
in Article
was operating
limit.
the court
is violated.
of the machine
are not permitted
speed
clause
and red light violations
that a defendant
cross-examination
cross-examine
one's
speeding
of the posted
to a fair trial."
be brought
the confrontation
and the ordinance
to establish
was in violation
right essential
88. The camera
protections
officer
in order
violate
The alleged
right to a full and complete
a fundamental
speeding
Constitution.
testify
and that said operation
defendant's
enforcement
by law enforcement
enforcement
entire
Act,
guilty.
It is up to the owner
of
the vehicleto provehewasn't driving whenthe ticket wasissued.To avoid
responsibilityfor a violation underthe Ordinances,the ownerof the vehicleis requiredin
the Girardscheme,to furnish the hearingofficer an affidavit statingthenameandaddress
of the personwho hadthe care,custody,andcontrol of thevehicleat thetime of the
violation. TheG'trardOrdinancealsostates:"It is primafacieevidencethat the person
registeredasthe ownerof the vehiclewith the Ohio Bureauof Motor Vehicles....was
operatingthe vehicleatthe time of theoffense". This shifting of the burdenof proof
violatesthe dueprocessrequirementsof U.S. ConstitutionalAmendment
Section
1, which
property,
without
cornerstones
violate
states:
"...nor
due process
of our criminal
this important
a hearing
which
an official
one partisan
.Ward reads
justice
Court
procedure
v. City of Monroeville
of law".
deprive
any person
The presumption
system.
of life, liberty,
of innocence
The Ordinance
or
is one of the
and the use of traffic
cameras
principle.
The U.S. Supreme
to allow
shall any State
Fourteen,
in which
(1972),
perforce
has recognized
the factfinder
409 U.S. 57.
occupies
and the other judicial,"
that it is not constitutionally
has an "incentive
In Ward, the Court
two practically
is a denial
to convict."
Ward
held that a "situation
and seriously
of due process.
permissible
inconsistent
Id. At 60.
in
positions,
Headnote
1 of
as follows:
Constitutional
Law
> Procedural
Due Process
> Scope
of Protection
Criminal Law & Procedure
> Trials
Rights > Right to Fair Trial
[HN1]
It certainly
violates
U.S. Const.
> Defendant's
amend.
IV, [Sic?]
and deprives
defendant
in a criminal
case of due process of law, to subject his liberty
property to the judgment
of a court the judge of which has a direct,
personal,
substantial,
him in his case.
pecuniary
interest
18
in reaching
a conclusion
against
a
or
Even
in an administrative
to be heard,
and a fair hearing
examine
witnesses
tribunal
bases
these
basic
show.
App.
No evidence
or even
authenticate
itself.
administrative
hear evidence.
conjecture.
many
Fundamental
A speed
be competent
and photograph
obtained
evidence
a red light
without
testimony
tribunals
can take judicial
App.3d
Girard
657.
case has never
The due process
the procedures
4521.
Hearings
from
notice
required
been
purports
device
to
was properly
cannot
a machine.
rules
none of
other that a
A photograph
While
an
of evidence,
be based
it still has to
on facts,
box, or a red light violation
that the device
and accuracy
can accurately
of a new radar
evidentiary
of its accuracy.
and accuracy
addressed
defects
by expert
violations
form,
not
photo
measure
speed
offenses
must be conducted
19
used
be established
before
(2004),
other
158 Ohio
by Traffipax
in the
in any tribunal.
are strikingly
civil parking
must
v. Levine
device
testimony
device
somewhere,
Cincinnati
of the radar
these ordinances
for prosecuting
for parking
provide
that photograph
or other
the
of Zoning
however,
that a decision
a metal
proof
at least once, in some
The reliability
what
particular
requires
Board
any evidence
cross-examine
to follow
facts on which
violation.
In Ohio, the construction
by expert
to produce
or accurate.
effectively
due process
reading
the fight to cross
ordinances,
that the camera
is reliable
not have
testimony,
Township
to authenticate
to establish
One cannot
tribunal
These
do not have
that the device
a fair opportunity
of the evidentiary
lnc. v. Jerusalem
is required
is required
still requires
the fight to produce
2d 31 at 38.
The police
and no witness
calibrated,
cannot
Cicerella,
59 Ohio
safeguards.
photograph,
includes
due process
and the right to be informed
its decision.
(1978),
proceeding,
clear when
under
compared
O.R.C.
by an administrative
Chapter
body
to
established
officer
by a court
must
be either
4521.05(A).
violation;
and the person
Finally,
O.R.C.
(6 th Cir. 1988).
These
None
nonmoving
violations
because
a moving
due process
simply
there
who possesses
tolerate
be under
such
officer's
fail to provide
would
argument
reason
be greater
oath;
fail to provide
is no right of crossboth investigatory
officer.
decision
the parking
ticket.
can be appealed
procedural
safeguards
in Gardner
exist under
to conclude
afforded
to properly
or red light violation.
to be heard
and to contest
opportunity
powers.
841 F.2d
to persons
1272
for
and fairly
At the heart
of
These
the tickets
is conducted
Our system
cited
requirements
the allegations.
to contest
and the hearing
and enforcement
to save a Columbus
ordinance.
that the due process
that that necessary
the
O.R.C.
v. Columbus,
the Girard
the
to the municipal
helped
any of the safeguards
examination
of proving
has the right to demand
who issued
any meaningful
The hearing
O.R.C.
the city has the burden
such as a speeding
is the ability
4521.04(A(1).
law enforcement
challenge
of these protections
violation
an unjust
officer
a due process
It strains
O.R.C.
with the violation
All of these
ordinances
violations.
ordinances
the hearing
from
for parking
every
charged
4521.08(D).
ordinance
adjudicate
must
jurisdiction.
or a former
of the law enforcement
4521.08(A).
parking
territorial
an attorney
All testimony
appearance
court.
having
by a person
of justice
cannot
system.
1631 South State Street
Girard, Ohio 44420
20
//
L/
(330)545-4250Q___.__
C_-$7_nt44
(330)
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify
Dalayanis,
1541, Warner
Jacquenette
Street,
Mendenhall,
S. Corgan,
Exchange
190 North
Sandier
Gurbst,
4900
Donald
Willaim
Herbe,
4900
Key Tower,
Lynn Tonsing,
4900
Public
Heather
1304, Stephen
Michael
Gurbst,
day of
Key Tower,
Alan Fallis,
John Defibaugh,
4900
Key Tower,
Street,
Street,
127 Public
161 South High
127 Public
Suite
upon
Tony
Cleveland,
127 Public
Street,
Square,
,2006.
21
Square,
Ohio
Ohio
Cleveland,
Ohio
44304,
Richard
44114-1304,
Ohio
Cleveland,
Ohio 44308,
44308-
44304,
Cleveland,
Suite 202, Akron,
Akron,
Ohio
201, Akron, Ohio
Suite 201, Akron,
Square,
Street,
served
5 th Floor, Akron,
127 Public Square,
square,
217 South High
/
702-1747
has been
Building,
Union
190 North Union
D6_
OF SERVICE
that a copy of the foregoing
12 E. Exchange
///
44114,
Ohio
44114-
Ohio 44308-1655,
Richard
44114-1304,this
Sandier
_ ,':"_
TABLE
Burke v. Fought
(1978),
Canton
98 O. St. 3 rd. 149 (2002) ......................................................
v. State,
64 Ohio
App.
OF CASES
2d 50 .................................................
Cicerella,
Inc. v. Jerusalem
Township
Board of Zoning _
App. 2d 31 at38 ...................................................................................
Cincinnati
v. Levine
CityofNilesv.
(2004),
Howard,
Clevelandv.
Betts,
v. Columbus,
Linndale
v. State,
v_ Barr,
State
v. Hannah
State
v. Rosa,
Stanton
Toledo
Ward
841 F.2d
......................................
1272 (6 th Cir. 1988) ........................................
85 O.S. 3 rd 52 (1999) ........................................................
153 O. App.
(1978),
3 rd. 193 (2003)
54 Ohio
128 O. App.
Sokol,
v. Best,
657 ..........................................
12 O. St. 3rd 162 (1984) .................................
v. Tax Commissioner
Struthersv.
App.3d
168 O. St. 386 (1958)
Gardner
State
158 Ohio
(1978),
St.2d
84, 88 ................................................
3 rd 556 (1998)
(1926)
..................................................
ll4
v. City of Monroeville
(1972),
6
59 Ohio
19
19
6, 9, 10, 11
7, 8, 12, 13, 14
20
5
.. 14
17
.....................................................
12
Ohio
16
St. 658 .....................................
108 O. St. 263 (1923) ..........................................
172 O. St. 371 (1961)
17
..................................................
409 U.S. 57 .............................................
ii
6, 9, 10, 11
8, 12, 14
18
:Pt_il
•O_-nance
:fort_
No.
hexe_n,,
74:0 _05_
:(.th_
"..O.._na_")i,
the" Court._ :c:on_Zudes
,.:.
;: , - .'. ,
..... .
'
_n3un_t,_-Ye rel'ief-requested.
:.WhiCh
•
!
_hat
_he
_.l
_a't,es'i
.O_di?nance. V_
I
_,
)
_
.*d
_'in ghe,: 'class:.a're: ati
exclusion
....
c_e_ted!::_
pard£'es
|
n_t. 'se
wh_:ha_
t
_._whohave.
:tmderthe
fail, ;d go
pay
noti'ce-i )rov£sion
eST Filyd
the. fJzies
:_f
the
APPENDIX "A"
.assesse
O_di',nance.
.:againSt
_I lean:
!
i_'IO_W':J_E£
_1, :,l_I
6_;-_'ZI900E'90
i
_he
'
per_i'ne_
i
.I
iO'.
l_V,:_S'ed
all powers
c f loca_
• . ._"_ ....
'enforce
wl_h }J_! _heir
a ita
CO_e..
} ihe.'
self-goye,_en:6
andi.t_,
_adop_'
g_
:'",
" ., " ......
' -' ....
_'"7
".: • ......
_"
-'
':.lir_ts:
Spcl_ ._oea_- 9olice,
):
gen_ra_l_
_a_s..-
-
:P_
:1.
,v;.
! State,,
i_
teSt.,i_or dete
)
Ii
......
Canton
,
anO
h_-the
In
eOn@t-_eut,!'_na:I
_
'
._i'_i:ng:
..
1'49;
_:20'02--0h_o.005_
...........![_':......... i....................
95
Ohib
Whether
S_;
_
a pro_s_on
iof':i :a state
(
,_olIbwS_
batute
_akes
p_e_edence
over:
:a.J_OC_;JLi
A state
ordinance,wh _n :(iF)",the 6rd_:'n_Ce
is/in
c(_tLfi, iCE
wi_h
_he ,_t_ hute;
(2,}"i_he or_hariee
i_-i_,exe_-a_:se
of the po!ic
government;
POWer,
_nd
(31the
rathe_.r:
tha_
Statu_e
is
,i
of
lq¢_!
sei_
"a gen_ra]_
law..
qO_
!
!
a. al
.,Defenda
ht_S 'e'S'sefit_a'_l_ : N_l_o_l,i_dg_
,_urther,.,,Defendant_
Lr-epresents.
,finds
,_an e_ez
Ehe
no
i
""" ...........
_n. :,Gant_n',
.e_dte6
it_Nt
I _
"
'';_
:
ozse: _o_ self- i_gove_en_-,
_
.
:i-._
_-...,-The
a.l.so
.:y
Ci
.Qrdina _.ce _0. ,gove._n how_-t_he c_y-. ',.t.rea_s.
';t-i_af-_e"
c_'£-f._cu£_
,V_rIOSS
.'tNe
_urs0r.y .asse'ct._n. '_hat. t:h=.
. O,rdinahce
in
eonclud_ng
_a.t.-:the :'second ,p,a.r,_
o.= :_he,
•
,ith,.
:
Ocher
_1: ,laWS. of
.and .in p articularw.
'e_th
I
,the .st.'_t.e.
,_re_at-ing..s_e_,J
R.-C. :se.c.t£_S
d[5!_2!._p:),,
and
ordina'hCe
p_.r_.0r_s
_5 .1:99,.
451i.o.2!:{(;.1:...
45!0_CQ'31_b
7
g,,.
_,
"
|
the
-:T.hemose-;_asic...con_£:_:1Ct is. _3ia
go, deerimlna_li,
ze I a
i
t_
of iconduct
'(:_i..vin'g
,
t
_Vd
NIINIVd
Olr_'
mVV_I
_!eZg_S_EE
9.__E!
_O0.g]90//-8,
_:.,_:!T
._r)o_9o.,_zr_
•_n _,_-_-y;..of_
c,.le_eiand(.,v., "_ " '_
"_Ob-_'
S_.,,-386," 154
N.
,_01_r-.t
:£nya l:_da £ed:
,We are: 'a_a_e-:._ha_ _.. :the_'._se p.f v,i]aiage_
.of
ic_:
0'_"_'_e_eS
_ut_
:_'.a_ :,Whence.
_e.,st:_.'tute
p_oh_
,crime_. :by
bitS,
an_
deI _erately
-fozbi_S' and ,prom
_iCe! ..versa, :-it.dO_s
eher_gii_kj
_contra.v._
aln .act wh:kch
cbnSt,:f.::u_es
-a,:
felb_y:.'unae
Conv:i'et:con
ao_
£es,
,_i_ _he:e,
'0£ _a__
_,s:demeangr
qqnsequence.s_
_!_ereas
_e,
eon'eeaied
_ee_$i_)hS:
a _s_ei_:
:entail,
s..
comm_S_:
in_of
_] it,
_te p
'Her;_'tlie. cbn_
,
t
!
iWl_,_ithe
state
has
""
ef:£ned
._Ivll
W_o_g.
"
_ i
a's,crith_a_
.In C._ :y o_ Nlles
v.
" :
'"
),; ,_e
........
conduct
H_ward
l._nt.o:mezely_ a
.(._984)', _2' :Oh_S£ I _3d
') ....
"
Co.u_,: dreW, .a .clear
i"
._stlnct_on_
"
I
|
)
I@:
L
,
!
L
t
_,ow_: a.__6s:._
:_e.C_ _. _e_ _a_
_t
w_th,,genera1_ laws,.
_ere,
_ti_ .O_d_ _,:
!
I
:has
_p!em_'_ed
"_¢R_e, sB
_.th !oUgh
dr.ivO_S
Ehe
)
,_
:
l
po£-n£. _s,y.stem_to
_ !_-_he .z_ads.
_:a_e ca!_._!_sls :or.
:Tk_ _i.!e s o.rc Lnan_e
:h'aS *O!
.
Def_ndant_ .;J_n'±tsi'Supplement
,_2£t_
an, .fnterZocu_J'_ory-open.ion,
by
'
5".'i06_"V_139;
.. T_is
_he; _Opinion;
_,
,its,-Tri_
U_;ited-I_-striCt:
_.h,e
i'_Ise l.s.not
,.R.C.
_NIJJ_I_d DI_
.C_, c_:,,
;
b_ndl'ng'
taw
on
,uses tire stat_tor..y _sch.e_e .adOpted
I__gisl,-'ature under
'Membra_i'du_'
chapter
00W_,
.45 i.
OnSet
t_S,'CoU_I;,
by
:tU_
the!, 0_0
this
,stat_
_y_
•tD,+_o
+
_iit-el
Sas
a_t_r,i:_e_:
•
-
.
nc_n-_cr_na_
"
,-.-,..
'_.ola_-_On-'Of
St-i'On gb_ ,_e: _
less
_V_-_,
d6ne._ s'o_ _d_r
the.
al/y fines
,xvI_-i_,
::genez_aI: cr:_m_
w
t
Cla_ed
ra:_ted, by _sa_d
+.,
,_:._ele
.,
q!
-.
by, ,sa_d
ei_-_
under
:_e'
c_tY.
i.
ndant_,
h_t::,_auNe'
i
for
Ue_ay:o_f:
+
i____:6+
4
-appel
,=
, ......
_a.,ooi_.G_.
_m
STUi
II :t_1
BOZlgmI.EB
L
IN THE COURT
OF COMMON
TRUMBULL
COUNTY,
PLEAS
OHIO
"z
DANIEL
MOADUS,
JR., et al.,
Case No. 2005
)
CV 1927
-•-'
•
'
)
Plaintiffs,
)
JUDGE
STUARD
JOINT
STATEMENT
)
v.
CITY
)
OF GIRARD,
et al.,
))
Defendants.
(1)
OF FACTS
)
)
)
On or about
June,
2005,
the City of Girard,
") passed
ordinance
7404-0_5.
¢:_
("Ordinance"),
which
utilizes
a camera
the rear of, passing
motor
speeding
("System").
Exhibit
violations
A.
Under
vehicles.
"notices
the Ordinance
and creating
this matter
on January
(2)
contract
The Ordinance
creates
for speeding
the System
•
. _
a civil enforcement
to detect
vehicles
violations.
is set forth in the testimony
_
•system
is, attached
that e_e_the
The City's
C2' S.'-._
_
_
.r'Zc-_:
6i r, and ph_ogr'_l_:
the speed
copy of the Ordinance
the City is permitted
of liability"
rationale
of Jerome
:. - ;2_3
fox_
_5.__"-'-
h_reto
aS2 c-.
leg_pee'_
June 29, 2005,
the City of Girard
and Traffipax
F. Lambert
taken
Inc. entered
into a
("Contract").
The Ordinance
Inc. would
install
that Traffipax
are divided
Traffipax
and maintain
would
receive
in the following
Inc. 29%,
(4)
since
Over
and Contract
except
3,000
the inception
radar
$25.00
speed
"speed
control
per notice
approximate
for "late
established
fees,"
camera"
of the System.
a procedure
cameras
of liability
proportions
which
notices
in the City.
issued.
on an $85.00
are divided
APPENDIX
2006,
"B"
Defendant
The Contract
As a result,
citation:
50% - 50%.
of liability/speed
As of January
wherein
violation
approximately
_<
for adopting
20, 2006.
On or about
(3)
issued
device
A true and accurate
this System,
limit and issue
and radar
•
to measure
revenues
Traffipax,
provided
collected
City of Girard
71%,
citations
have
50% of these
been
in
notices
payer
of liability/speed
violation
citations
of the City and an individual
had not been paid.
Plaintiff
who has not paid his notice
Russel
of liability,
Hippo
is a tax
and is representative
of said class.
(5)
Speed
The
City issues
Enforcement
System
not the operators
citation
documents
were
After
the photographs
City's
photographs
Maryland.
The registered
increases
on the Motion
would
the Automated
of motor
violation
and an initial
if not paid in a "timely"
that the matter
under
owners
of liability/speed
of the rear of said vehicle,
are taken
go electronically
of liability.
agent
a notice
citations
basis.
citation
penalty
Some
be sent for "collection"
by regular
in the amount
second
for Preliminary
vehicles,
notice
Injunction
if not paid.
No
ever sent for "collection."
(6)
notices
indicating
violation
has civil penalties.
sent out prior to the hearing
language
citations
payable
of liability/speed
receive
a photograph
the amount
contained
which
of said vehicles,
U.S. mail containing
of $85.00;
notices
The notices
or designee,
The sender
Enforcement
they are sent to Traffipax
to the Girard
of liability/speed
to the individual
is designated
Division."
Police
Traffipax
these
citations
Police
notices
Then
to be sent as
are sent by Traffipax,
of Traffipax
Department
of liability
processing.
for approval
from the office
as the "Girard
sends
Department
camera
violators
for initial
as the
in the state of
Automated
Traffic
only with prior permission
from the City.
(7)
answered
Girard,
The toll free telephone
by an agent
Ohio.
(8)
or employee
Recipients
The notices
is not a traffic
ticket,
typical
of violation
notice
of citations
number
of Defendant
is attached
Traffipax,
can also call the Girard
of liability/speed
but is instead
listed on the "citation"
a "civil
hereto
is (866)
Inc. at a location
the City of
for assistance.
contain
language
that the_ "citation"
citation"
and is not a "moving
-2-
outside
Department
citations
B.
and is
Police
violation
as Exhibit
358-3660,
violation."
A copy of a
(9)
The noticesof liability/speedviolationcitationsalsoincludelanguageindicating
that the individual cancontestthe noticeof liability/speedviolationcitationby signingthe
hearingrequestform on the "citation" andsendingit to a GirardP.O.Box. Underthe Ordinance,
an additional$20.00canbe chargedif the violator is "found guilty" althoughto dateno such
chargeshavebeenimposed. The"hearing" consistsof anappearance
beforea non-lawyer
retiredpolice officer hired by the City. An employeeof DefendantTraffipax, Inc. assistsin the
hearingprocessby schedulingthe hearingsand,until January20, 2006,by answeringtechnical
questionsaboutthe speedcamera.SinceJanuary20, 2006,no employeeof Traffipax has
attendedthe hearings.An allegedviolator canpresentwhateverevidenceor discusswith the
hearingofficer anythinghe or shewould.like. No standard:
for burdenof proof is setoutby the '
Ordinance.To avoid responsibilityfor a citation,a personmustsatisfySectionI (C)(4) or
otherwiseestablishnon-liability. The evidenceat thehearingincludesa pieceof paperwith a
photographtakenby a machine,andswornto or affirmedby thepolice chief who did not witness
thephotographbeingtaken.
(10) T.heactualduly constitutedcourt in the subjectjurisdiction is the Girard Municipal
Court. No noticesof liability/speedcameracitationshavebeenprocessedby saidcourt. No
effortshavebeenmadeby the City to obtainajudgmentarisingout of a citation in that or any
othercourt.
(11) The speedcamera/radardeviceis setto capturephotographsof vehiclestravelingin
excessof the postedspeedlimit, with a setcushion,for example40 mphin a 25 mphzone,and
50mph in a 35 mph zone.
(12) Citationsareissuedalsobasedon a setcushion,40 mph in a 25 mphzone,and50
mph in a 35 mph zone. The existenceof thecushionhasbeenmadepublic by DefendantCity of
Girard,andpublicizedin the local media. This conformswith the generalpracticeof police
officers in the City of Girard.
-3-
r
(13)
James
The cushion
is determined
by the Mayor
of the City,
Melfi.
(14)
have
set out in 11 and 12 above
Speeding
occurred
whether
is a serious
health
and safety
in the City in recent
years,
particularly
the number
of serious
accidents
problem
in the City.
in the State
had increased
within
Street
the three
Many
serious
corridor.
years
accidents
It is unclear
prior to enactment
of the Ordinance.
(15)
Generally,
The City employs
only 2 of these police
12 police
officers,
officers
are available
Respectfully
tats Street
(330)
hio 44420
545-4250
Chief,
and three
dispatchers.
for duty at any one shift.
submitted,
/ \
/
one police
John ,_n_on_)_"_"06")
-
)
Akron,
{_/
Ohio 44308
Telephone:(330).208-1000.
Facsimile:
(330) 208-1001
,
-.
Kimberly
K_i
(0078777)
3680 Starr Center Drive
Canfield,
Ohio
(330) 702-1747
Attorneys
44406
Carrie
M. Dunn
(0076_52)
SATER,
SEYMOUR
VORYS,
2100 One Cleveland
Center
1375 East Ninth Street
for Plaintiffs
cleveland,
Telephone:
Ohio 44114-1724
(216) 479-6100
Facsimile:
(216)
Attorneys
-4-
for
479-6060
Defendants
AND PEASE
LLP
!
_ACT_o
X _¢_W_C
CIVIL
P_fl.4.1._+
VlOLAT/ONB._
,_D._E
NOw, _mmvR_
S_CTION
h
C|_t
PION -]7 _n A_o_
Jm_IT
OP _
ORDAII_D
pcu_Itl s for automated
(.),+mom,med rmll
t
MUNIC_AL
_
LIGHT
CO_'_"IWL_,
AND
S'I'K,_)I'_
by the _orty-Seomx_'Counofl
r_
light sud _peedlng
!hi arts slm_llng r_llem/e_l
VIDIA_0n- 0_.
oftI_
_n,_m
_
vlolmlo._.
I
of
hL3/4
t
(
Amc_dJncnts
to ORD#. 42-I 19
.
,
.
a ills r:
R
::
County
A'ri'Es>
(J
APPROVAL
DATE:
• FIRST READING:
SECOND
READING:
THIRD
[..
-&/j
_4/- /1 - o_"
SECONDED
I hereby
certify
that t!m foregoing
Ordinance
Legal News on the dates herein below set forth
°Bulletin
Board
DATES
on the day hereh_ below
, 2005
OF _,
2005
CLERK
OF COUNCIL
_'_
MARK
INSTRUMENT
STANDOHAR,
_/£8/o
was published
m_d was posted
d'...
_"
in tile Trumbull
on the Girard City
POSTED:
.._,-___DAY
•THIS
/__ ,_._I/1{ Ce_
set forth.
OI} PUBLICATION:
•..2/s._)a_( oF ,Tb,,.
BY:
DATe:
KEAD1NG:
PREPARED
LAW
/c/_'_DAYOF_
_e-,2oo5
BY:
DIRECTOR
,.._ ......
_i_._-,--
7
.
. ":,.
" :.55x_.'::.,,-:-;_._i55L
1