Toledo's Traffic Camera Revenue: Where Does It Go?

The use of traffic cameras in Toledo, Ohio, has been a contentious issue, with a motorist, Susan Magsig, challenging the city's red-light and speed camera program in the Ohio Supreme Court. The court ruled in Magsig's favour, stating that municipal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over red-light camera violations. This decision led to the suspension of Toledo's red-light and handheld camera violations program. While the city's administration believes the program helps improve road safety, critics argue that it is merely a form of taxation. The revenue generated from these traffic cameras has been a concern for citizens, and the city has had to address this by offering payment plans for offenders. With the future of the program uncertain, the debate around the use of traffic cameras in Toledo, and the subsequent allocation of funds, remains a topic of interest for residents.

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled municipal courts have the exclusive jurisdiction to handle red-light camera violations

In 2020, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that municipal courts have "exclusive jurisdiction" over red-light camera violations in Toledo, Ohio. This ruling was made in the case of Magsig v. The City of Toledo, where a motorist, Susan Magsig, challenged the city's use of administrative hearings for red-light camera violations. Magsig received a $120 fine for an alleged speeding violation from an automated speed camera but argued that the appeals process was unlawful.

The Ohio Supreme Court agreed with Magsig and ruled that the city's administrative hearings, which used a city-appointed officer to decide on appeals, were unlawful. The Court interpreted a revised 2019 law as vesting "exclusive jurisdiction" over non-criminal traffic law adjudications in the municipal courts. This ruling meant that the City of Toledo could no longer conduct its own quasi-judicial proceedings for red-light camera violations and had to switch to using the municipal court system.

This decision marked a shift from the Court's previous ruling in 2014 in Walker v. Toledo, where it had upheld the city's use of administrative hearings for red-light camera violations. However, the addition of the word "exclusive" in the 2019 law clarified the legislature's intent to give jurisdiction over these matters to municipal courts.

The City of Toledo's law director, Dale Emch, acknowledged the Supreme Court's ruling and confirmed that the red-light camera program, including handheld cameras, would be suspended until further notice. Emch stated that the city would continue to operate its traffic camera program but that appeals would now be handled by the municipal courts. He also mentioned that the city administration was working with the municipal courts to make the transition as smooth as possible.

This ruling by the Ohio Supreme Court had significant implications for the future of red-light camera programs not just in Toledo but also in other cities across the state that used similar types of hearings. It reaffirmed the principle that individuals accused of breaking the law are entitled to their day in court and that municipal courts have the exclusive authority to handle these types of violations.

Toledo's red-light and speed camera program is facing a roadblock from a motorist

Toledo's red-light and speed camera program has hit a roadblock due to a legal challenge from a motorist, Susan Magsig of Woodville, Ohio. Magsig received a $120 fine for an alleged speeding violation from an automated speed camera near Toledo Promedica Hospital. She was given the option to pay the fine or appeal, but she argued that the appeal process was unlawful.

Magsig took her case to the Ohio Supreme Court, claiming that her red-light camera violation must be handled by the local municipal court, as per state law. Her attorney, Andrew Mayle, argued that the addition of the word "exclusive" to a new law that went into effect in July 2019 as part of the state transportation budget, changed the jurisdiction to municipal courts. The Supreme Court granted Magsig a writ of prohibition, suspending her administrative hearing.

The city of Toledo has faced criticism for continuing to operate with administrative hearings, even after the change in law. Mayle argued that these hearings do not follow the rules of evidence and that there is no proof required of the city, giving them an unfair advantage. He also stated that the program is more about generating revenue than improving traffic safety.

In response to the Supreme Court ruling, the City of Toledo suspended its red-light and handheld camera violations program until further notice. The city law director is working to switch the appeals process over to the municipal court, and all current and future appeals will be dismissed. While the traffic camera program itself is still legal, the city must now handle violations through the municipal court system.

The new ordinance passed by the Toledo City Council will bring back the city's traffic camera enforcement program, with citations staying at $120 and more stationary camera locations being added. The city has also offered a payment plan for offenders, allowing them to pay $25 towards the full payment of the citation while getting a 90-day extension on the due date.

The city's administrative hearing process for traffic camera violations is unlawful

In 2019, Susan Magsig of Woodville, Ohio, received a $120 fine for an alleged speeding violation from an automated speed camera near Toledo ProMedica Hospital. She was given the choice to either pay the fine or appeal, but she argued that the appeal process was unlawful. Magsig's attorney, Andrew Mayle, claimed that his client was "presumptuously guilty" and that the only way to appeal was through a city-appointed hearing officer, rather than a municipal court as required by state law.

In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in Walker v. Toledo that the city's use of administrative hearings was constitutional. However, in 2019, a new law went into effect as part of the state transportation budget, which changed the jurisdiction to municipal courts. Mayle argued that the addition of the word "exclusive" in the new law made it clear that anyone cited for breaking the law was entitled to their day in court.

The Ohio Supreme Court agreed with Magsig and her attorney, ruling in 2020 that the city's administrative hearings were unlawful. The Court's decision stated that a revised 2019 law "vests exclusive jurisdiction over noncriminal traffic-law adjudications in the municipal courts. Toledo, therefore, has no jurisdiction to conduct its own quasi-judicial proceedings." As a result, the city of Toledo suspended its red-light and handheld camera violations program until further notice.

The city law director worked to switch the appeals process over to the municipal court, and all appeals currently in the system or filed after the decision would be dismissed. While the traffic camera program itself was not ruled illegal, the city's administration decided to consider suspending the program until the switch to the municipal court was complete. The city continued to emphasize that the program was about public safety and slowing down speeders, but critics argued that it was merely a money-grab by the city.

Toledo's traffic camera enforcement program will return in 2021

Toledo's traffic camera enforcement program has been a source of controversy in recent years, with legal challenges and questions over how fines are handled. The program, which includes red-light and speed cameras, was implemented by the city to improve road safety and discourage reckless driving. However, some motorists argue that the cameras are merely a revenue-generating tool for the city.

In 2019, a case was brought against the city by Susan Magsig of Woodville, Ohio, who received a $120 fine for an alleged speeding violation from an automated speed camera. Magsig's attorney, Andrew Mayle, argued that the process for appealing the fine was unlawful, as it involved a city-appointed hearing officer rather than a municipal court judge. The Ohio Supreme Court granted Magsig a writ of prohibition, suspending the administrative hearing and ruling that municipal courts have "exclusive jurisdiction" over red-light camera violations.

As a result of the Magsig v. The City of Toledo decision, the city of Toledo suspended its red-light and handheld camera violations program until further notice in 2020. The city law director worked to switch the appeals process over to the municipal court, and all appeals currently in the system or filed after a certain date were dismissed. Despite the suspension of the program, the cameras remained operational across the city.

The use of red-light and speeding cameras has faced further challenges in Ohio. In 2022, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the state legislature could withhold funding from cities that utilize these cameras for enforcement. This ruling created a disincentive for cities to use the cameras, as any revenue collected would be offset by a loss of state funding. Despite this, the city of Toledo maintained that the cameras were about public safety and not revenue.

In 2021, Toledo's traffic camera enforcement program will return, with the city working to implement strategies that promote traffic safety. The program will likely continue to face legal challenges and public scrutiny, with ongoing debates over its effectiveness in improving road safety and its impact on city finances. While the specifics of the program's return are not yet clear, it is expected to operate within the framework set by the Ohio Supreme Court rulings and continue to generate discussion among residents and motorists in Toledo.

The city will offer a payment plan for traffic camera citations

Toledo, Ohio's traffic camera program has been the subject of legal challenges in recent years, with a motorist, Susan Magsig, contesting the validity of the program in the Ohio Supreme Court. The Court ruled in Magsig's favour, stating that municipal courts have "exclusive jurisdiction" over red-light camera violations. This decision led to the suspension of Toledo's red-light and handheld camera violations program, including the administrative hearing process, which was deemed unlawful.

In response to the Court's ruling, the Toledo City Council passed a new ordinance to reinstate the city's traffic camera enforcement program, addressing the issues with the appeals process. The new program, set to begin on April 1, 2021, includes a payment plan option for offenders.

The payment plan offered by the city of Toledo allows individuals who receive a ticket in the mail to pay an initial amount of $25 towards the full payment of the citation. Along with this partial payment, individuals will receive a 90-day extension on the due date for the remaining amount. This option provides flexibility for those who need more time to pay the $120 citation in full.

The city's decision to offer a payment plan is a response to citizen concerns about the amount of the tickets. By providing this option, the city aims to alleviate the financial burden on offenders, giving them more time to gather the necessary funds without incurring late fees or penalties. This approach also helps ensure that individuals are held accountable for their traffic violations while providing a degree of leniency and understanding.

The traffic camera program in Toledo, Ohio, has been a contentious issue, with some arguing that it is a "money-grab" by the city, while others believe it improves road safety. The program's suspension and subsequent reinstatement with a revised appeals process and payment plan demonstrate the city's efforts to balance public safety and legal compliance while addressing citizen concerns.

Frequently asked questions