Posted on 02/03/2018 7:05:38 AM PST by JP1201
Drivers sent tickets by New Miami, Ohio speed cameras will be getting a refund. The state appeals court has upheld the ruling handed down by the lower court last spring. At stake is $3 million in fines, illegally obtained by the town.
The Ohio Court of Appeals on Monday delivered a heavy blow to New Miami's attempt to block a court-ordered refund of $3,066,523 in speed camera citations. The village insisted that the lower court (view ruling) got it wrong and that the village should not be forced to pay back any amount on the grounds of sovereign immunity. Not so, said the unanimous three-judge panel.
"While it is true that New Miami has the authority to enforce its traffic laws, it must do so in a constitutional manner," Judge Michael E. Powell wrote for the appellate court. "New Miami does not have the authority to do so in an unconstitutional manner."
This is the end of six year legal battle over New Miami's speed cameras. The lower court had problems with the lack of options made available to ticket recipients to challenge speeding tickets. It also had problems with New Miami's cozy relationship with the speed camera company, which provided free cameras in exchange for a percentage of collected fines. This fostered an unhealthy relationship between the two, leading to the town becoming most famous for being a speed trap. The company saddled New Miami with a minimum of 100 operating hours per camera each month. This led to spike in tickets and a healthy thirst for continual cash infusions on the part of New Miami's governance.
The Appeals Court addresses New Miami's last-ditch attempt to salvage the $3 million it obtained unconstitutionally. The town tried to go the "sovereign immunity" route, claiming it could not be held responsible for monetary damages arising from a civil suit. The court explains handing out refunds isn't the same thing as issuing a check for monetary damages. From the order [PDF]:
[P]laintiffs are seeking the recovery of the specific amount of penalties they paid pursuant to the unconstitutional ordinance and that were therefore wrongfully collected by New Miami. That is, Plaintiffs are seeking the return of specific monies that had once been in their possession and so belonged to them "in good conscience," and thus have asserted a claim for the return of the very thing to which the class was allegedly entitled in the first place. Santos, 2004-Ohio-28 at ¶ 13-14. The action seeking restitution by Plaintiffs "is not a civil suit for money damages but rather an action to correct the unjust enrichment of" New Miami. Id. at ¶ 17. As the Ohio Supreme Court plainly held, "A suit that seeks the return of specific funds wrongfully collected or held by the state is brought in equity" and "is consequently not barred by sovereign immunity."
The government also tried to claim the speed camera funds were not unjustly obtained. It argued it had a legal right to impose fines for traffic violations. The court agrees the town can indeed do that, but points out it has to comply with the Constitution when it does.
New Miami claims that this is not a case where Plaintiffs are seeking reimbursement for services rendered or money "wrongfully collected." New Miami asserts that the penalties paid by Plaintiffs were not "wrongfully collected" because New Miami has the authority "to operate traffic programs and collect penalties for violation of traffic laws."
Apparently, it is New Miami's contention that because it has legal authority to collect penalties for violation of its traffic laws, Plaintiffs' claim is necessarily for money damages based upon a denial of due process in the collection of those penalties. While it is true that New Miami has the authority to enforce its traffic laws, it must do so in a constitutional manner. New Miami does not have the authority to do so in an unconstitutional manner.
Hopefully, this will be the end of New Miami's run as "the little speed trap that could." It's been told otherwise -- twice. It can't. Not the way it's been doing things. If the town wants to assess fees for traffic violations, fine. But it has to provide an avenue for recipients to challenge tickets. Its cozy relationship with the camera company prevents that. And its contractual obligations pervert the incentives, moving it from public safety to generating revenue.
The winners here — lawyers
What did thew own do that was unconstitutional?
The article states that the town got the cameras for free and the company that provided them got a percentage of the take. I’d be pretty upset if I got caught up in that web.
I wonder if some of the ticket recipients also got increases in their car insurance bills.
The picture says you're guilty - now shut up and pay......
Bfl
I dislike speed cameras and red light cameras for that reason. It’s a racket. The speed camera company gets a percentage, and the town gets a percentage. It’s a money making scheme. It has nothing to do with road safety or any other alleged reason to set up these cameras. It’s all about money.
Similar rackets are happening in some places, with variable toll road pricing. I’ve heard of one in the Washington, DC, area, in which they can raise the tolls at rush hour, based on how much traffic is on the road. Supposedly this is to encourage car pooling and alleviate traffic congestion. But is that the real reason to impose tolls in this manner??
Speed trap towns run their scams on unsuspecting people not from the area. Here in PA we had one that ran a 25mph speed limit on a 4 lane road. The state even ran a disclaimer that that town was not their jurisdiction. Eventually it got put out of business when the traffic court judge was found to be making out like a bandit.
The winners, the people.
All the camera tickets (red light in VA and work zone speeding in MD) result in no points on my license. Everyone knows it’s for the revenue, not safety.
In that light, yes, law enforcement actions to try to get people to slow down (or I would argue - even better, pay attention!) are trying to save our lives. Bravo, thank you.
However, there are far too many "speed traps" set up that don't really encourage safer driving, they are simply revenue generators for the locals. I don't even argue this point with anyone anymore. Like pornography, you know it when you see it and there's no denying it.
Memories of New Rome Ohio a suburb on the west side of Columbus. The small town and now village made national news years ago because of their infamous speed traps - 25 mph speed limit along broad stree for about a quarter mile. It was dissolved in 2004. With a population of less than 100, about one out ten residents worked for the police department and with a mayor’s court run by a non citizen that also fueled the outrage. If you google “new Rome” on the first page of results you’ll find links that discuss the speed trap. Newromesucks.com for instance. Full disclosure, I graduated from Westland high school across the street. Fortunately never got a ticket there but several friends got bit.
Oh, I should also mention a very high revenue underpass camera in DC. That’s basically a toll camera. Again, no points, because everyone knows the deal.
Camera companies usually provide free cameras and they even pay for personnel to review the cameras to check for violators in exchange for a cut of the traffic fines.
The camera companies typically get the town to reduce the time the yellow light stays on for red lights. In Georgia there were a lot of complaints and the legislature specified that yellow lights must stay on for a minimum of 4 seconds. The number of traffic tickets dropped by 80% at intersections monitored by the cameras, and a lot of the camera companies packed up and left.
“What did thew own do that was unconstitutional?”
EXCERPT: “The lower court had problems with the lack of options made available to ticket recipients to challenge speeding tickets.”
6th Amendment right to confront accuser/witnesses. Aparently there were no/unclear options about challenging the ticket.
Columbus had to remove their traffic cameras for a similar reason. The Court said they had to have a police officer present where the cameras were if they wanted to issue tickets. At least that way a defendant could “confront” his/her accuser. Not much you can do to confront (in court) a traffic camera. The city could not afford to put an officer at every camera location, so down they came.
The picture knows who you are and can swear to the court that it observed you speeding. So yeah shut up and pay.
I have driven through some of those tiny Ohio towns. It is a racket with some of them changing the speed limit all of sudden from a high speed to a very low speed. You don’t even see the signs very well until you have passed them, and there is the lone town cop waiting there because they know that there will be some poor fella who missed the change.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.