New argument in speed camera lawsuit



More than 3,000 speed camera violations have been issued.
By JOHN W. GOODWIN JR.
VINDICATOR TRUMBULL STAFF
GIRARD -- Arguments in a class-action lawsuit against the city's use of a camera to catch speeders continue, with briefs and oral arguments to be wrapped up in six weeks.
Attorneys for Councilman Dan Moadus, who brought the action against the city, and attorneys for Traffipax, the company responsible for operating the camera device, appeared Wednesday before Judge John Stuard of Trumbull County Common Pleas Court in Warren.
Both parties agreed on a list of facts including council's passage of an ordinance permitting the camera, the contract with Traffipax and the procedure by which citations are issued and fines collected.
Atty. Jim Denney, representing Moadus, is expected to file a brief with the court in the next 20 days. Attorneys for the city will then respond to that brief within 10 days. Both parties will be back in court May 17.
To date, more than 3,000 speed camera violations have been issued. As of January about 50 percent of those issued citations had not been paid.
One new argument brought forth by Denney during Monday's hearing is that the city has, in fact, raised the speed limit by using the speed camera device.
The speed camera, Denney said, does not issue a violation until a person is driving at least 15 miles above the speed limit, therefore, raising the speed limit by 15 miles per hour without going through the proper procedures to raise the limit.
Here are arguments
Denney has continually argued that the city, in creating the camera legislation, has ignored stipulations set by the state for handling speeders by making speeding a civil offense. He said the system takes due process away from those cited.
"The ordinance violates the state structure scheme and the due-process rights of those who have been cited," he said.
Atty. Carrie Dunn, representing Traffipax and the city, said the ordinance does not change the fact that speeding is illegal. She said the only change is the penalty applied to those who have been speeding.
Dunn said the ordinance and use of the camera do allow for due process in its appeal process, where those cited can petition a citation before a hearing officer. She said the due process afforded to those cited is commensurate with the penalty of an $85 fine and no potential for points on the individual's driving record or jail time.
Dunn told Judge Stuard some people included in the suit should be excluded because they have not taken advantage of the process for petitioning tickets offered by the city.
Denney said the hearing officer is employed by the city and it is therefore in his best interest to rule against those petitioning the citations. He also questioned the fairness of the $20 fee to petition a citation.
In mid-January, Judge Stuard ordered that all fines collected from citations issued by the camera be put into an interest-bearing escrow account. The city is free to do as it chooses with fines collected before that order.
jgoodwin@vindy.com

By using this site, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of use.

» Accept
» Learn More