OH Supreme Court strikes down restrictions on traffic cams

This area is for discussions that do not fit into the formal firearms discussions of the website. Common sense and non-controversial contributions are expected. Certain topics are forbidden. See the forum rules for more details.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

User avatar
Bruenor
Posts: 7306
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:03 pm
Location: Geneva, OH

OH Supreme Court strikes down restrictions on traffic cams

Post by Bruenor »

Not good. I'm not a fan of cameras issuing tickets for revenue generation.
http://fox8.com/2017/07/26/ohio-supreme ... c-cameras/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ohio Supreme Court strikes down restrictions requiring police officer at traffic cameras
The ruling was 5-2 in support of the city of Dayton’s challenge of provisions in a state law that took effect in 2015. The city said it improperly limited local control and undercut camera enforcement that makes cities safer by reducing red-light running and speeding. Dayton and other cities including Toledo and Springfield said the law’s restrictions made traffic cameras cost-prohibitive.

The court Wednesday ruled illegal requirements in the law that an officer be present when cameras were being used, that there must be a lengthy safety study and public information campaign before cameras are used, and that drivers could be only ticketed if they exceeded the posted limit by certain amounts, such as by 6 mph in a school zone.

A majority opinion written by Justice Patrick Fischer found those three restrictions “unconstitutionally (limit) the municipality’s home-rule authority without serving an overriding state interest.”
Μολὼν λαβέ

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."

- Thomas Paine

"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem."

- Thomas Jefferson
Brian D.
Posts: 16229
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:42 pm
Location: SW Ohio

Re: OH Supreme Court strikes down restrictions on traffic ca

Post by Brian D. »

I know of two towns down this way that will be frothing at the mouth to re-commission those robo speed cameras. One 'burg was sued and lost, and ordered to take down the cameras. They didn't comply and the judge sent sheriff's deputies out to physically SEIZE the cameras. That was fun to watch.

With this court decision, I am now again getting more serious about building a suppressed 5.56 rifle. :twisted: Okay, I'd really LIKE to do that though.
Quit worrying, hide your gun well, shut up, and CARRY that handgun!

********************************************************************************
1911 and Browning Hi Power Enthusianado.
User avatar
WY_Not
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 2435
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 10:15 pm
Location: Miami County, OH
Contact:

Re: OH Supreme Court strikes down restrictions on traffic ca

Post by WY_Not »

I rather like the way the Brits deal with these automated thieves...

Toss a tire over it, pour some gas on it, light it. :twisted:
Learn how Project Appleseed is supporting freedom through Marksmanship and Heritage clinics.
Samuel Adams wrote:If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
User avatar
sodbuster95
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 6954
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 5:14 pm
Location: Maumee
Contact:

Re: OH Supreme Court strikes down restrictions on traffic ca

Post by sodbuster95 »

I could rant all day about traffic cameras. But, for me, it basically comes down to this: if the cameras are about "safety", then why are they simply sending a picture in the mail demanding money while making ZERO effort to actually stop "unsafe" drivers?
NRA Benefactor Life Member

Information posted in these forums is my personal opinion only. It is not intended, nor should it be construed, as legal advice.
screwman
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 805
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 2:25 pm
Location: Oak Harbor

Re: OH Supreme Court strikes down restrictions on traffic ca

Post by screwman »

Toledo has the camera fines in the budget, which means they're already spending the money they don't have. It's all about the safety... Right
Mike

The American Indians found out what happens when you don't control immigration.

Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
glocksmith
Posts: 3918
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 10:04 am
Location: Cincinnati/SW Ohio

Re: OH Supreme Court strikes down restrictions on traffic ca

Post by glocksmith »

Brian D. wrote:I know of two towns down this way that will be frothing at the mouth to re-commission those robo speed cameras.
Please name names and refresh my memory. I will avoid traveling through, or doing any sort of $$ business it those areas.
Give em' Hell Pike!!!
User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5800
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: OH Supreme Court strikes down restrictions on traffic ca

Post by JustaShooter »

sodbuster95 wrote:I could rant all day about traffic cameras. But, for me, it basically comes down to this: if the cameras are about "safety", then why are they simply sending a picture in the mail demanding money while making ZERO effort to actually stop "unsafe" drivers?
Not only that, as I recall it has been shown that red light cameras cause an *increase* in rear-end crashes since people are more likely to stop short when the light begins changing.
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

Want to become more active with OFCC and help fight for your rights? Click Here!
Brian D.
Posts: 16229
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:42 pm
Location: SW Ohio

Re: OH Supreme Court strikes down restrictions on traffic ca

Post by Brian D. »

glocksmith wrote:
Brian D. wrote:I know of two towns down this way that will be frothing at the mouth to re-commission those robo speed cameras.
Please name names and refresh my memory. I will avoid traveling through, or doing any sort of $$ business it those areas.
Elmwood Place and New Miami.
Quit worrying, hide your gun well, shut up, and CARRY that handgun!

********************************************************************************
1911 and Browning Hi Power Enthusianado.
glocksmith
Posts: 3918
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 10:04 am
Location: Cincinnati/SW Ohio

Re: OH Supreme Court strikes down restrictions on traffic ca

Post by glocksmith »

Hearing those names reminded me of another...Arlington Heights...which I think "owns" about a 1/4 mile stretch of Ronald Reagan/Cross County Hwy. I believe they were also in some traffic cam related court battle a few years back.

EDIT: Population 745 LOL. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlington_Heights,_Ohio
Give em' Hell Pike!!!
screwman
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 805
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 2:25 pm
Location: Oak Harbor

Re: OH Supreme Court strikes down restrictions on traffic ca

Post by screwman »

The cities claim home rule, but I see a lot of cameras, stationary or handheld on state and federal highways and interstates. Even most major city streets have some sort of state and federal funding. What's home rule about that?
Mike

The American Indians found out what happens when you don't control immigration.

Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
User avatar
WY_Not
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 2435
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 10:15 pm
Location: Miami County, OH
Contact:

Re: OH Supreme Court strikes down restrictions on traffic ca

Post by WY_Not »

Easy fix for the legislators...

If a city wants red light cameras then THEY must staff/operate them out of the police budget with LEOs. NO outsourcing. NO non-LEO. AND all funds stolen go to State general fund. :twisted:
Learn how Project Appleseed is supporting freedom through Marksmanship and Heritage clinics.
Samuel Adams wrote:If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
glocksmith
Posts: 3918
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 10:04 am
Location: Cincinnati/SW Ohio

Re: OH Supreme Court strikes down restrictions on traffic ca

Post by glocksmith »

Then there's the opportunity for scammershttp://www.wcpo.com/news/crime/erlanger ... ed-cameras
Give em' Hell Pike!!!
Brian D.
Posts: 16229
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:42 pm
Location: SW Ohio

Re: OH Supreme Court strikes down restrictions on traffic ca

Post by Brian D. »

glocksmith wrote:Hearing those names reminded me of another...Arlington Heights...which I think "owns" about a 1/4 mile stretch of Ronald Reagan/Cross County Hwy. I believe they were also in some traffic cam related court battle a few years back.

EDIT: Population 745 LOL. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlington_Heights,_Ohio
Hamilton County Sheriffs now patrol there, Arlington Heights PD no longer exists. In part because the village wasn't sending the state's share of ticket revenues to Columbus. This would happen if the accused speeder stopped by Village Hall to pay in person with cash. That's probably the news story you remember.
Quit worrying, hide your gun well, shut up, and CARRY that handgun!

********************************************************************************
1911 and Browning Hi Power Enthusianado.
User avatar
schmieg
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5751
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: Madeira, Ohio

Re: OH Supreme Court strikes down restrictions on traffic ca

Post by schmieg »

JustaShooter wrote:
sodbuster95 wrote:I could rant all day about traffic cameras. But, for me, it basically comes down to this: if the cameras are about "safety", then why are they simply sending a picture in the mail demanding money while making ZERO effort to actually stop "unsafe" drivers?
Not only that, as I recall it has been shown that red light cameras cause an *increase* in rear-end crashes since people are more likely to stop short when the light begins changing.
I think people nowadays just expect you to run lights and stop signs. In the last three days, I've almost been hit four times in the rear when I have come to a full stop at stop signs in Indian Hill. While I'm shifting into first, I cringe as I hear the squeal behind me.
-- Mike

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
WhyNot
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:23 am
Location: NW Ohio

Re: OH Supreme Court strikes down restrictions on traffic ca

Post by WhyNot »

Ah yes. The long lost pleasure of driving for no real reason. Just fun. Driving through these locales during extremely busy times, such as 4-6pm fridays, stopping completely at stop signs, lights. Look around a bit enjoy the sights. Doing the speed limit. The minimum speed limit :)
Acquisitions thus far:

-Slingshot
-Butter knife
-Soda straw and peas
-Sharpened pencil
-Newspaper roll
--water balloon (*diversionary*)

Yeah, I'm that good
Post Reply