Judge: State can’t withhold traffic camera funding

Accusing the state legislature of “economic dragooning,” a Lucas County judge this week ordered that the state may not withhold funding from the city of Toledo for operating traffic enforcement cameras.

Common Pleas Judge Dean Mandros ruled in April that portions of a new state law that restricted the use of redlight and speed-violation cameras unconstitutionally violated the city’s home rule powers.

Among the provisions he cited was the requirement that a police officer be present at all times when a traffic camera is in use.

The Ohio General Assembly subsequently approved a budget bill that said any city that disregarded the camera law would have the amount of the gross fines billed from its traffic cameras deducted from the local government funds it receives from the state.

In a 15-page decision filed this week, Judge Mandros said the state would be in contempt of court if it reduced funding to Toledo for “noncompliance of the unconstitutional statutes.”

“... The threatened loss of funding for failure to comply with the unconstitutional statutes is economic dragooning that leaves the city with no real option but to shut down its automated traffic photo enforcement program even though studies have shown the presence of automated traffic cameras has resulted in a large decrease in the overall number of violations as well as the number of accidents,” Judge Mandros wrote.

City Law Director Adam Loukx was pleased.

“The state is enjoined from withholding any money from us as the budget bill would otherwise have held so it’s good news in that sense,” he said.

Mr. Loukx said Toledo has continued to operate the cameras.

The current city budget anticipates $3.2 million in revenue from camera fines, of which $1 million was to come from overdue fines.

The amount of local government funding Toledo could lose under the budget bill actually could be more than that, though. Under the budget bill, the state would withhold an amount equivalent to the fines issued, not what it collects.

In 2014, the city received just under $1.4 million from Ohio’s Local Government Fund.

Lisa Hackley, communications director for Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, declined to comment Friday on the judge’s ruling.

Mr. DeWine’s office has appealed Judge Mandros’ April ruling as well as similar findings by courts in Summit and Montgomery counties that were brought by the cities of Akron and Dayton over the traffic camera issue.

While the appeals in Lucas and Summit counties are pending, on Aug. 7 Ohio’s 2nd District Court of Appeals reversed the finding of Montgomery County Common Pleas Court.

The appellate court found that the state’s traffic camera law “provides for a uniform, comprehensive, statewide statutory scheme regulating the use and implementation of traffic law photo-monitoring devices in Ohio, and was clearly not enacted to limit municipal legislative powers.”

The city of Dayton has appealed the case to the Ohio Supreme Court, which is where the debate was expected to wind up from the start of the debate.