Feed on
The Second District Court of appeals held that  SB 342 did not violate the Ohio Constitution’s home rule provisions.  SB 342 requires police officers to be present when traffic cameras are operating, and imposes other restrictions on the use of traffic cameras.  The Montgomery County Common Pleas Court ruled that these provisions violated the City of Dayton’s home rule rights, and granted a permanent injunction  that allowed the city to continue citing motorists without officers present.  The Court of Common Pleas decision was overruled and the permanent injunction vacated by the appellate court.  The case is Dayton v. State, 2015-Ohio-3160.

Trial court erred when it granted partial summary judgment to appellee, finding that certain provisions of Am.Sub.S.B. No. 342 unconstitutionally violated appellee’s home rule powers. When properly analyzed in its entirety, Am.Sub.S.B. No. 342 constitutes a comprehensive, uniform, statewide regulatory scheme which clearly prescribes a rule of conduct upon citizens generally. Accordingly, we find that Am.Sub.S.B. No. 342 is a general law that does not violate Article XVIII, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution, the “Home Rule Amendment.” Judgment reversed and permanent injunction vacated.

See Dayton Daily, Court sides with state in Dayton traffic camera case.

Leave a Reply