Fowler v. Ohio Dept. of Public Safety
2017 Ohio 7038
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Fowler sued the Ohio BMV and State Treasurer claiming a 2009 amendment to R.C. 4509.101 improperly diverts part of increased financial-responsibility reinstatement fees to the Indigent Defense Support Fund, violating Article XII, §5a of the Ohio Constitution.
- The fee at issue is a reinstatement fee ($100/$300/$600 depending on offense count) charged to motorists whose operating/registration privileges were suspended for failing to maintain proof of financial responsibility (insurance).
- Am.Sub.H.B. No. 1 (2009) increased those fees and directed specified portions of each fee into the Indigent Defense Support Fund rather than exclusively into highway-related funds.
- Fowler sought declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution, and class certification; the trial court granted the BMV’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion, holding R.C. 4509.101 constitutional under Article XII, §5a, and dismissed the complaint.
- Fowler appealed; the State cross-appealed raising standing. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court and deemed the State’s cross-appeal moot after resolving the constitutional issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the increased financial-responsibility reinstatement fee is a fee “relating to” registration, operation, or use of vehicles on public highways under Ohio Const. Art. XII, §5a | Fowler: The fee is a vehicle-related fee; diverting any portion to Indigent Defense Fund violates §5a’s restriction on spending vehicle-related fees for non-highway purposes | Defendants: The fee is tied to a civil penalty for noncompliance with financial-responsibility laws and is not primarily a vehicle-registration or highway-use fee; thus diversion does not violate §5a | Court: Fee is more closely related to enforcement/penalty for failing to maintain insurance (analogous to Ohio Trucking); diversion to Indigent Defense Fund does not violate §5a — appellant’s assignment overruled |
| Whether plaintiff had standing to bring the constitutional challenge | Defendants: Fowler lacked standing | Fowler: He paid the fee and was injured | Court: Did not decide standing on merits because issue was moot after resolving the constitutional question; cross-appeal moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Ohio Trucking Assn. v. Charles, 134 Ohio St.3d 502 (2012) (fee for certified driving-record abstracts was related to certification process, not to registration/operation/use for purposes of Art. XII, §5a)
- Beaver Excavating Co. v. Testa, 134 Ohio St.3d 565 (2012) (commercial activity tax on motor-fuel-related receipts was closely connected to motor-vehicle-fuel sales and thus implicated Art. XII, §5a restrictions)
- Ohio Grocers Assn. v. Levin, 123 Ohio St.3d 303 (2009) (party challenging statute bears burden to prove unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt)