Dayton's Red-Light Cameras Survive at the Supreme Court: What It Means for Crash Victims

Published August 8, 2017 · Ohio Supreme Court

Two weeks ago the Supreme Court of Ohio handed the city of Dayton a win in a fight that has been going on since 2014. In Dayton v. State, 2017-Ohio-6909, the Court held that three parts of the state law restricting red-light and speed cameras are unconstitutional because they invade the city's home-rule authority. For most people the story is about tickets. For the people I represent, it is about something else: whether the intersections where Dayton drivers are most often hurt will keep the cameras that both deter red-light runners and record what happens when one of them hits you.

This is not a personal-injury decision, and I will keep the legal summary short. But the case matters to anyone who has been in an intersection crash in Montgomery County, and I want to explain why.

How we got here

Dayton installed red-light cameras in 2002 after studying which intersections had the highest number of crashes. According to the facts recited in the Supreme Court's opinion, the number of violation-related crashes dropped almost immediately after the cameras went in, and the city expanded the program to speed enforcement in 2010. Under Dayton's ordinance, a police officer reviews every camera image before a notice is issued, and the vehicle owner has thirty days to appeal to an independent hearing officer.

In late 2014 the General Assembly passed Senate Bill 342, which took effect in March 2015 and imposed a long list of conditions on local camera programs. We wrote about the bill when it was signed in Ohio Reins in Red-Light Cameras and followed the lawsuit in Dayton's Red-Light Cameras vs. the State of Ohio. Dayton sued before the law took effect. The Montgomery County trial court struck three provisions and enjoined the state from enforcing them; the Second District reversed; and the city took the case to Columbus.

What the Court decided

Three provisions of S.B. 342 were before the Court:

• The officer-present rule, R.C. 4511.093(B)(1). A city could use a camera "only if a law enforcement officer is present at the location of the device at all times during the operation of the device." For a city that adopted cameras to free up police for other work, this requirement defeated the purpose.
• The speeding "leeway," R.C. 4511.0912. No camera speeding ticket could issue unless the driver was at least six miles per hour over the limit in a school or park zone, or ten miles per hour over anywhere else.
• The study and publicity requirements, R.C. 4511.095. Before placing a camera, a city had to complete a three-year safety study of the location and run a public-information campaign.

The Ohio Constitution's Home Rule Amendment, Article XVIII, Section 3, gives cities the power to adopt local police regulations that do not conflict with "general laws." Under the Court's long-standing test, a state statute is a general law only if, among other things, it sets forth police regulations rather than merely limiting what cities may do. The Court held that each of the three provisions failed that test: they did not regulate drivers, they regulated Dayton. The officer-present rule was severed from the statute, the speeding-leeway and study provisions were struck entirely, and the trial court's injunction against enforcing them was reinstated. Five of the seven justices agreed with the result, with two dissenting.

The rest of S.B. 342, including the signage requirements, the officer review of each violation, and the appeal procedures, was not before the Court and remains in place.

Why a tort lawyer cares about traffic cameras

Red-light running is one of the most dangerous things a driver can do. A T-bone collision at a Dayton intersection delivers the full force of the striking vehicle into the side of your car, where there is almost nothing between you and the other bumper. These are the crashes that produce the head injuries, spinal fractures, and deaths that fill our intersection collision files.

Anything that reduces red-light running reduces those injuries. Dayton's own experience, as described in the opinion, was that crashes at camera intersections fell quickly once the cameras were operating. Whatever you think of the tickets, fewer people being hit broadside is good news for the community.

The second reason is evidence. Dayton's cameras record both still images and video of the intersection. When a red-light runner hits a client of ours at a monitored intersection, that video can show the color of the signal, the position of each vehicle, and the timing of the collision down to a fraction of a second. In a dispute where each driver swears the light was green, that footage ends the argument. Our 2013 post on proving who had the green light explains how hard that proof can be without it.

Camera footage is not kept forever. Like most video, it is retained for a limited period and then overwritten, and the city will not search for your crash unless someone asks. When we are retained after an intersection crash, one of the first letters out of our office goes to the agency that operates any camera at that location, asking that the footage be preserved. The sooner you call, the better the odds that it still exists.

What the decision does not change

A few points deserve emphasis so that no one reads too much into this case.

The decision does not make red-light cameras legal everywhere in Ohio or strike down S.B. 342 as a whole. The Court addressed only the three provisions Dayton challenged and said so expressly.

A camera notice is a civil penalty against the vehicle owner. It is not a finding of fault in your injury claim, and the absence of a camera ticket does not mean the other driver was not negligent. We prove fault with the crash report, witnesses, vehicle damage, physical evidence, and, where it exists, video.

Finally, the ruling has nothing to do with the legal standards that apply when a driver is hurt by a government vehicle, by a road defect, or by a traffic signal that malfunctioned. Those claims run into Ohio's political-subdivision immunity statute and are a different subject entirely.

What this means for you

If you were hurt by a driver who ran a red light at a monitored intersection anywhere in our service area, there may be a recording that proves exactly what happened. Do not assume the city or the insurance company will find it for you. Call a lawyer early enough that the preservation request goes out before the footage is overwritten.

If the intersection was not monitored, the same rules of proof apply, and the same early steps matter: photographs, witness names, the 911 recording, and the signal-timing records for that intersection. Dayton's cameras are a tool, not a substitute for a prompt and thorough investigation.