The Ohio Supreme Court ruled on July 26, 2017 that three provisions of a 2015 state law regulating the use of traffic cameras were unconstitutional. Justice Fischer wrote the majority opinion in Dayton v. State, holding that:
“R.C. 4511.093(B)(1), which requires that a law-enforcement officer be present at the location of a traffic camera, infringes on the municipality’s legislative authority without serving an overriding state interest and is therefore unconstitutional. We also hold that R.C. 4511.0912, which prohibits the municipality from issuing a fine to a driver who is caught speeding by a traffic camera unless that driver’s speed exceeds the posted speed limit by 6 m.p.h. in a school or park zone or 10 m.p.h. in other areas, unconstitutionally limits the municipality’s legislative powers without serving an overriding state interest. Finally, we hold that R.C. 4511.095, which directs the municipality to perform a safety study and a public-information campaign prior to using a camera, unconstitutionally limits the municipality’s home-rule authority without serving an overriding state interest.”
Justice Fischer’s opinion was joined by Chief Justice O’Connor and Judge Baldwin of the Fifth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Justice O’Donnell. Justice French wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Kennedy. Justice French found the state laws unconstitutional on the ground that they “fail to prescribe a rule of conduct upon citizens generally,” and thus violate the Home Rule Amendment (Art. XVIII, Sec. 3).
Under Article XVIII, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution, municipalities have authority to exercise powers of local self-government. They also have authority to adopt and enforce police regulations, as long as those regulations do not conflict with state laws. The Court uses a three-part test to examine potential conflicts between local ordinances and state law. The local ordinance must yield to a state statute if “(1) the ordinance is an exercise of the police power, rather than of local self-government, (2) the statute is a general law, and (3) the ordinance is in conflict with the statute.”
Dayton permitted its police department to begin using traffic cameras in 2002. When the state law passed in 2015, Dayton challenged the provisions that conflicted with its existing local ordinances. The parties agreed that the state laws and local ordinances conflicted, and the Court determined that Dayton’s laws were an exercise of police power. Thus the remaining part of the test stated above, and the issue in this case, was whether the challenged provisions of the state law were general laws.
Justice Fischer and Justice French both used a four-part test from Canton v. State, a 2002 Ohio Supreme Court decision, to determine whether the challenged provisions were general laws. Under this test, to qualify as a general law, a statute must “(1) be part of a statewide and comprehensive legislative enactment, (2) apply to all parts of the state alike and operate uniformly throughout the state, (3) set forth police, sanitary, or similar regulations, rather than purport only to grant or limit legislative power of a municipal corporation to set forth police, sanitary, or similar regulations, and (4) prescribe a rule of conduct upon citizens generally.” When this general-law test is not satisfied, then the statute is deemed an unconstitutional limitation on the municipality’s legislative home-rule authority.
The majority opinion focused on the third prong, and determined that the provision requiring the presence of an officer contradicted the purpose of using the cameras; that the speed-leeway provision acted as an increase in speed limit, violating the city’s legislative power; that the study and notice provision does not actually require use of the study and would not succeed in notifying all potential motorists. The concurring opinion focused on the fourth prong and noted that the challenged provisions do not apply to citizens’ conduct in driving, but rather places limitations on municipalities.
Justices DeWine and O’Neill wrote separate dissenting opinions, both challenging the validity of the Canton test and pointing out that the 2015 law promotes uniform application of traffic laws around the state. Justice DeWine wrote that the Canton test is applied unevenly and does not provide sufficient guidance for the legislature. Additionally, to determine whether a state legislative enactment is a general law, the reviewing court should instead examine whether the statute has statewide reach and whether it treats the objects of the law equally.
