Ohio Attorney general sides with traffic camera challenge

Under Toledo’s camera ordinance, she had the choice of paying the fine or challenging the citation before an administrative hearing officer who works for the city.

Instead, she turned directly to the state’s highest court, arguing that the city’s process violates a new state law that grants exclusive jurisdiction to hear all traffic law violations — including those captured by hand-held and automated cameras — to municipal court.

“The administrative hearings at issue here are the quintessential quasi-judicial proceeding because they task an executive official with doing things that courts do every day: hearing evidence and deciding whether a party to the dispute before it violated the law,” the attorney general argued in part.

Mr. Yost, whose duty is to defend state law, contends the Supreme Court should rule for Ms. Magsig, regardless of how it might eventually rule with regard to the city’s contentions that the law and new financial penalties imposed on camera cities violate their constitutional authority to home rule.