The Ohio Supreme Court upheld the city of Dayton’s use of stationary traffic-enforcement cameras, striking down several state provisions that limited how cities could use them.

The justices voted 5-2 in a ruling Wednesday that should secure Toledo’s use of stationary red light and speed enforcement cameras.

“Home rule is the big principle involved here,” Toledo Law Director Adam Loukx said, adding that the decision means the status quo will be maintained for the city’s 43 fixed-location traffic cameras.

The city of Dayton had challenged a state law that took effect in 2015, saying it improperly limited local control and undercut camera enforcement that has made cities safer. The court struck down provisions that required a police officer to be present at the location of a traffic camera, that the fines cannot be issued unless a driver is traveling more than 10 mph over the speed limit in most areas, and that required cities conduct a safety study and public information campaign before the cameras are used. 

RELATED CONTENT: Ohio looks at banning tiny towns’ traffic cams ■ State attorney spars with justices over traffic camera law

The plurality opinion, written by Justice Pat Fischer, said those three provisions of a 2014 state law “unconstitutionally limit the municipality’s home-rule authority without serving an overriding state interest.” That opinion was joined by Justice Maureen O’Connor and 5th District Court of Appeals Judge Craig Baldwin, who sat for Justice Terrence O’Donnell. Justice O’Donnell recused himself from the case without explanation.

Justice Judith French concurred, and was joined by Justice Sharon Kennedy. Together, these five made up the majority in the case, with Justices William O’Neill and Pat DeWine dissenting.

“As in many cases in this area, the result today seems to have everything to do with the policy preferences of the majority and nothing to do with the language of the Home Rule Amendment,” Justice DeWine said. He is the son of Attorney General Mike DeWine, and has said he will only recuse himself from cases argued personally by his father.

Critics say cities use the cameras to boost revenues while violating motorists’ rights. The city of Toledo budgeted $2 million in revenue from the fixed cameras, and has collected $881,543 through the end of June. Halfway through the fiscal year, the city has collected only 44 percent of the its budgeted amount. That contrasts with the handheld speed cameras used by Toledo police, which have brought in more than $2.2 million through the end of June, or 96.7 percent of the $2.3 million budgeted for 2017.

Toledo police spokesman Sgt. Kevan Toney said no decisions have been made on how department practice could shift because of this ruling.

The state’s highest court has twice previously ruled for cities on cameras. Mr. Loukx said he expects the city’s case, which was pending before the state supreme court until this case was decided, will be decided in the coming days based on the Dayton decision.

That leaves two remaining traffic-camera related cases in the court system. The city sued the state after it enacted a set-off law, which deducted from local government fund payments the amount of money the city collects from any camera ticket that did not comply with the now-struck down state law.

“I think it’s moot,” Mr. Loukx said. “There’s no way the state can order a city to comply with a law the highest court in the state ruled unconstitutional.”

Because the issues at stake have to do entirely with state law, Ohio Attorney General spokesman Dan Tierney said there are no further avenues for an appeal.

“Our role is to defend the laws passed by the legislature,” he said.

Rep. Teresa Fedor (D., Toledo) voted for the bill in 2014, saying she believed the Ohio General Assembly had the authority to regulate these cameras at the time, but that she is in favor of the decision because it affirmed home rule. She does not support any further state-level steps to regulate city use of traffic cameras.

“Today’s ruling was clear,” she said. “I like the fact that we have certainty.”

State Sen. Randy Gardner (R., Bowling Green) also voted for the regulations, but did not respond to a request for comment.

This case does not settle the ongoing litigation from Bradley Walker, who was ticketed in 2011 and has been battling the fine in court ever since. His current appeal, which has not been accepted by the state supreme court, deals primarily with due process issues connected to the administrative hearing process that settles the camera tickets.

Contact Zack Lemon at zlemon@theblade.com, 419-724-6282 or on Twitter @zack_lemon.

First Published July 27, 2017, 5:44 a.m.