State legislation requiring police officers to be present, and imposing other restrictions on the operation of traffic cameras, SB 342 , will not go into effect in Toledo today. See Toledo Blade City gets stay of red-light camera law. A Lucas County judge granted Toledo a preliminary injunction halting the parts of state legislation from going into effect. The Court found there is a substantial likelihood the City will prevail on its claim that SB 342 violates the City’s home rule rights under the Ohio Constitution. See Toledo v. State, Lucas C.P. Case No. CI-201501828, Opinion and Journal Entry, Mar. 22, 2015:
Section 45ll.093(B)(l) mandates the presence of a law enforcement officer at the location of all photo monitoring devices used to detect traffic law violations. Section 451l .095(A)(l) mandates a three-year safety study before the deploying of any traffic law photo-monitoring devices. Section 4511.0912 prohibits the issuance of a speeding ticket based on photo-monitoring devices unless the vehicle in question exceeds the posted speed limit by not less than six miles per hour in a school zone, park or recreation area, and for any other location the vehicle must exceed the posted speed limit by at least ten miles per hour.
The Court finds that the above-referenced Sections violate the City of Toledo’s authority under the Home Rule Amendment to the Ohio Constitution. Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiffs petition for a preliminary injunction enjoining the Defendants from enforcing Ohio Revised Code Sections 451l.093(B)(l), 451l .095( A)(l), and 4511.0912 as specified in S.B. 342.
Similar litigation was filed by the City of Akron, See Akron v. State, Summit County C.P. No. CV-2015-02-0955. Plaintiffs and Defendants have both filed motions for summary judgment in that case.
