ROCHESTER HILLS, MI — Is the city of Toledo running an unconstitutional speed trap via its red-light camera program?
Casandra Ulbrich, the elected president of the Michigan State Board of Education, came to that conclusion after attempting to fight a ticket she got last Nov. 20. “The city of Toledo has created an unbalanced system where there is an appearance of due process, but where one does not really exist,” said Ulbrich, who is also the vice-chancellor at the University of Michigan Dearborn.
Stephen Steinhardt, a criminal defense attorney in Mount Clemens, MI wrote a blistering article about the issue “A Mockery of the Justice System?” in the Macomb County (MI) Bar Journal in April. “This unjust practice tarnishes (Toledo’s) reputation as a good place to do business, and is offensive to the justice system,” he said.
Attorney Andrew Mayle of Perrysburg not only agrees, he has taken another such case (State ex.rel. Susan Magsig v. City of Toledo) to the Ohio Supreme Court, where he expects a ruling soon that will strike down the program, on the grounds that only Toledo Municipal Court has jurisdiction over any civil infraction, including traffic tickets.
But Dale Emch, the City of Toledo’s law director, sees it differently. “I’m not in the position to comment directly on the situation because we are in litigation over this program,” he said. But Emch added, “that said, this is not a traffic court in which an officer pulls over someone for something like speeding. The person does not get assessed points, and there are no negative insurance consequences.
“Further, there is no record of a conviction should the person appear in court again.”
However, the fact that they don’t get a day in court is precisely the problem, those opposed to this system said. Ulbrich, who previously has had only one speeding ticket in her life, got a $120 ticket for going 72 miles per hour when the speed limit was 60.
When she drove to Toledo to contest it, Steinhardt accompanied her. To their surprise, he said the entire matter was decided by a city official who, the attorney said, “served as judge, jury and prosecutor for the case.” The city official, who is not part of the law department, based his findings on a one-second video, he said.
The university official then attempted to appeal the decision, but in March got a letter from J. Bernie Quilter, the Lucas County Clerk of Courts informing her there would be a $300 fee to file an appeal of a $120 ticket. “Outrageous,” she said.
Steinhardt did not formally represent her, because he is not licensed to practice in Ohio. But he argued that Toledo “utterly failed to establish any evidence that the radar gun was calibrated and working properly,” on the day Ulbrich got her ticket. “Utter disregard for traditional norms of justice and fairness,” he said.
However, the Toledo law department’s Emch said that the camera program clearly could be shown to save lives. “It is a safety issue. We feel it is a deterrent to speeding and running red lights,” he said, adding that he finds himself slowing down because of them.
What is clear is that Toledo makes a lot of money from the red light and speed camera program, which is actually operated by a private, Australian-based firm, Redflex Traffic Systems. According to documents filed in Common Pleas Court, the city made $7,372,166 from the cameras in 2018, before whatever fee was paid to Redflex.
That money came from more than 127,000 different tickets, and the city has argued that it would cost the city far more if everyone had to go through Toledo Municipal Court. (Several other major Ohio cities, including Dayton and Akron, also use similar camera programs.)
The Ohio General Assembly, however, apparently wants these programs ended. Nine years ago, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld the legality of the traffic cameras on a 4-3 vote, possibly, Mayle said, because there was some ambiguity in the wording of the law.
But last year, Ohio’s General Assembly passed new language. Indicating that county municipal courts have “exclusive jurisdiction over every civil action concerning a violation of a state traffic law or a municipal traffic ordinance.”
“Exclusive jurisdiction,” Mayle said. “How could it be clearer than that?” He thinks the Ohio Supreme Court is bound to invalidate the traffic camera program, and noted one justice wanted to issue summary judgment doing so when the case was argued.
But when the new law was passed, the city of Toledo asked Lucas County Common Pleas Judge Myron Duhart to issue a preliminary injunction preventing it from taking effect.
Judge Duhart agreed, noting that “the purpose of an injunction is to preserve the status quo,” and agreeing with the city that “significant harm would result from such a change,” presumably meaning the city’s revenue stream. That injunction, however, will likely expire if the Ohio Supreme Court rules, as Mayle expects it will, that it is illegal to issue traffic violations that don’t go through Toledo Municipal Court.
Clearly, if the high court does invalidate the use of the cameras, Toledo and other cities are going to have to make major changes in how they handle traffic enforcement.
But if it doesn’t, Toledo’s reputation as an unfair speed trap may well increase, and some people — including the president of a neighboring state’s school board — may go out of their way to avoid visiting anytime soon.
A version of this column appeared in the Toledo Blade.
-30-
