Final arguments given in speed-camera case

A decision will likely be made in three weeks, the judge said.
By JOHN W. GOODWIN JR.
VINDICATOR TRUMBULL STAFF
GIRARD -- All legal briefs have been filed and final arguments have been made. All that remains is a decision from the court in the class-action lawsuit against use of the speed camera here.
Attorneys John Solomon and Carrie Dunn, representing the speed camera company Traffipax and the city, and Attorneys Jim Denney and Kim Kohli, representing those in the class-action led by Councilman Dan Moadus, offered final arguments to Judge John Stuard of Trumbull County Common Pleas Court.
Judge Stuard said he would try to have a decision in the case within three weeks.
Denney told Judge Stuard that many people from Girard and surrounding communities have been issued citations from the speed camera and the suggestion from opposing counsel that the penalties are nominal is unfair. He said the penalties are not a small matter to those cited.
Conflicting ordinance?
Denney told the court that the ordinance passed by the city permitting the camera conflicts with laws already laid out by the state that deal with speeding.
"When the Legislature passed the speed section and penalty sections, it was meant to be a uniformed law that everybody follows," he said. "There is no question that that is a general law and [Girard's ordinance] conflicts with that."
Denney also said use of the camera should not be allowed because it takes a picture of the rear of a car, not showing who is actually driving the car. The burden of proof, he said, is then shifted to the individual cited, when that burden should be on the city.
Denney argued that the city's current system of using a hearing officer to handle instances where individuals dispute citations should also be stopped because it sidesteps the courts and does not allow those cited to question the accuracy of the camera and radar device.
Dunn told Judge Stuard that the camera system used by the city is not to replace state law, but is in conjunction with state law. She said the city ordinance just modifies the penalties for those caught speeding.
According to Dunn, there is nothing preventing those contesting the tickets from taking the matter to the appellate court if they are not happy with the decision of the hearing officer. She said city officials have simply elected to use a different enforcement method for something recognized as a problem across the state -- speeding.
Question of legality
"The real question is, are these legal, and the answer is yes," she said. "We have all been through Girard and we have all been down 422. We know what the speed is like on that road. We also know the financial predicament the city is in."
Dunn also asked the judge to remove Traffipax from the suit. Judge Stuard said he would make a decision on Traffipax's inclusion in the suit when he makes his decision in the case.
Judge Stuard previously ordered that all fines collected from citations issued by the camera from Jan. 20 on be put into an interest-bearing escrow account. The city is free to do as it chooses with fines collected before that date.
The judge also previously limited the class-action to those who have been cited and did not pay the fine. Those who have been cited and paid the fine are not part of the class action.
jgoodwin@vindy.com