Court ruling vindicates Girard’s use of camera

A city official said council is not likely to bring the
camera back.

By JOHN W. GOODWIN JR.

VINDICATOR TRUMBULL STAFF

GIRARD — Residents, and even a city council member, railed against the use of an automated camera to catch speeders here, but the Ohio Supreme Court has said the practice is legal.

That means the city can put the camera back into use, and might get to keep the fines collected through the use of the device.

The state’s top court Thursday gave a green light to municipalities that want to use automated camera systems to enforce traffic laws and levy fines against violators.

Supreme Court justices, in a unanimous opinion, said municipalities can enact civil penalties for traffic signal light or speeding violations, provided the municipalities do not alter statewide traffic regulations.

Penalties levied on speeders from the camera are civil, not criminal in nature.

The decision came in a case that challenged use of a camera system in Akron. That city used cameras in schools zones after a child was struck and killed in a crosswalk in 2005.

Girard city officials, in 2005, agreed to use a mobile camera to photograph the rear license plates of speeders. A civil fine would then be imposed on the owner of the vehicle.

Use of the camera was suspended in mid-2006 when Judge John Stuard of Trumbull County Common Pleas Court ruled that use of the camera device is in violation of the Ohio Constitution.

In his ruling, the judge also ordered the city to discontinue use of the camera unless it is used in accordance with the state’s criminal laws, instead of the civil penalties assessed under the city’s camera ordinance.

The city currently holds $185,784 of camera fine money in escrow. The money was collected on 1,700 fines of varying amounts.

Former Councilman Dan Moadus, a staunch camera opponent and plaintiff in the lawsuit that struck down use of the device, asked that an ordinance instructing the administration to begin refunding the money be put on the agenda for council to consider in July 2006.

Judge Stuard ordered any fines collected from the camera’s use be held in escrow until the dispute over the device’s use was resolved.

Judge Stuard decided to take no action on a 2006 motion by Atty. James Denney, representing Moadus, to have payments reimbursed at that time, opting to allow the state Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue.

The judge, after hearing of the Supreme Court’s decision, would not comment on the money being held in escrow because the matter is still pending, but he said the higher court’s decision would be a major factor in his ruling.

The matter of the funds’ release is pending because the money cannot be released until Judge Stuard makes an official ruling.

“After I have had a chance to read the court’s opinion, that will determine what I decide about the money being held in escrow,” he said.

Judge Stuard said the ruling would allow municipalities to pass legislation that will force citizens to pay civil fines without the state having to prove that particular person, not someone else driving the car, violated the law.

Upon hearing of the high court’s decision, Moadus said it is unfortunate for Ohio residents.

“This is a sad day for Ohio drivers. I foresee the day when they pollute our cities with these cameras,” he said. “Those cameras bring in a huge chunk of money. You put up a few of those and you could [finance] an entire city. It will definitely entice municipalities to put more of those things up.”

Mayor James Melfi said that bringing the camera back would be a decision for city council but that he has not heard any council members say they are in favor of doing so.

He acknowledges that the camera did bring in a substantial amount of money, but it also created a savings because it reduced the amount of time police officers had to spend monitoring traffic.

Melfi said the city, even if Judge Stuard releases the funds in escrow, may not spend the money right away.

“My recommendation to the auditor will be to keep the money in escrow and wait to see what happens in any appeals,” he said.

Councilman Tom Seidler said he does not believe anyone on council will be interested in bringing the camera back.

He said the camera initially was put in use in part because the city was short on police officers, but conditions in the city are better, and the device may not be as needed.

“As far as the community is concerned it was too much of a controversial issue,” Seidler added. “I think members of the community made it real they do not want to see that continue.”

jgoodwin@vindy.com