The brief filed by the 1851 Center is joined by 29 state legislators who say traffic enforcement systems, in which administrative hearings are used to hear appeals by ticketed motorists, attempt to “circumvent and thwart” the state legislature’s powers as well as the courts.
“The city of Toledo’s automated traffic camera ordinance attempts to exact property from Ohio drivers through administrative hearing officers, without access to an elected and accountable judge or a judge authorized by the state’s duly elected and accountable legislators,” the legal brief states.
“It makes sense that legislators would intervene and try to defend their own constitutional powers,” said Andrew Mayle, a Fremont attorney who represents the driver in the Toledo case.
Other Ohio cities — including Cleveland, Columbus and Dayton — that use cameras for traffic enforcement have filed briefs in support of Toledo. The Ohio Municipal League stated the case could potentially affect “every Ohioan who drives or owns a vehicle.” Briefs from the cities argue Ohio law allows them to administratively handle a variety of matters such as zoning issues, and that forcing them into courts would be costly and clog the judiciary. The cities are backed by companies that operate the traffic cameras for a portion of the revenues.
Supporters say cameras stretch police resources and make communities safer. Opponents charge that they violate rights and are meant mainly to raise revenue.
Attorneys for Toledo will have time to respond to the latest filings, and then the justices likely will hear oral arguments in the case later this year.