CINCINNATI — For the third time in less than a decade, the use of traffic cameras by Ohio cities is
before the state Supreme Court.
Attorneys for the city of Dayton will Tuesday urge the justices to reject a law passed by the Legislature
that took effect in 2015. It added restrictions on camera use led by requiring that a police officer be
present when cameras are used to generate red-light or speeding citations.
Dayton, backed by other Ohio cities, says that requirement is meant only to make it cost-prohibitive for
them to use their cameras. Supporters say cameras increase safety by deterring drivers from speeding and
running red lights while freeing up police resources for other duty.
Ohio legislators and other critics around the country say cities use camera enforcement to boost revenues
while violating motorists’ rights to due process.
The Ohio Supreme Court has twice upheld the use of camera enforcement, the last time by 4-3 vote in
December 2014. That ruling tracked a 2008 decision in an Akron case when the state’s high court said
cities have the right to use camera systems under their "home-rule" authority to make local
laws.
The 2014 ruling overturned a state appeals court agreeing with a driver cited for speeding in Toledo that
the city improperly bypassed the courts.
Toledo Law Director Adam Loukx, who successfully argued the 2014 case, said the latest case pits city
home-rule powers against a statewide law passed by the Legislature. So this time, instead of motorists
who are challenging the cities, the other side is being argued by Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine’s
office.
"It’s a whole different dynamic," Loukx said.
The attorney general contends that the new law serves the public interest by creating a uniform,
statewide system for traffic camera use.
"Just as a local authority may not use blue stop signs … so too that local authority may not use
traffic cameras in conflict with state standards," his office said in its written brief on the law.

The state also says having a police officer present helps detect camera system malfunctions and
situations that clearly call for an exemption from ticketing, such as a driver racing to get a woman to
a hospital to give birth.
"A police officer’s presence inserts a level of common sense," the attorney general’s office
wrote.
Dayton contended in its written arguments that the law would allow legislators to negate cities’ local
authority and said: "The sole function of the Officer Present Requirement is to make it
prohibitively expense for cities to utilize automated photo enforcement programs."
Loukx, whose city has won a ruling by a different state appeal court than Dayton’s that upheld Toledo’s
camera use under the new law, said it’s difficult to predict the high court’s leanings because two
justices on the 2014 panel have been replaced. One was in the majority, one dissented.
Also, Justice Terrence O’Donnell again recused himself from hearing a traffic camera case and a different
state appellate judge than the one who in 2014 joined the majority will sit in for O’Donnell. Cases
involving Toledo and Springfield are on hold pending the Dayton case ruling, expected later this year.

"I can’t prognosticate on this at all," Loukx said. "I can only say that I wish Dayton
well."