2011 Ohio 6624
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Parma Codified Ordinances 313.035 creates a civil automated school zone enforcement program with an administrative appeal process.
- In January 2010, a Parma program camera recorded Demsey driving 35 mph in a 20 mph school zone around Holy Family Grade School.
- Demsey received a notice of liability with options to pay or contest and to request a hearing.
- A Parma hearing officer found Demsey liable after reviewing video, notices, and a Statement of Technology on the Redflex equipment.
- Demsey appealed to the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, which affirmed; Demsey challenged Home Rule applicability to traffic cameras.
- The court applied home-rule standards and concluded Parma did not exceed its authority, affirming the hearing officer’s decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Home Rule Amendment prevents Parma’s traffic camera ordinances. | Demsey argues the amendments exceed local self-government authority. | Parma contends ordinances are a permissible concurrent police power not altering state law. | No error; Parma did not exceed home-rule authority. |
Key Cases Cited
- Canton v. State, 95 Ohio St.3d 149 (2002-Ohio-2005) (three-part Home Rule test for conflicts with general laws)
- Mendenhall v. Akron, 117 Ohio St.3d 33 (2008-Ohio-270) (automated speed enforcement under home rule; civil enforcement)
- Kisil v. Sandusky, 12 Ohio St.3d 30 (1984) (limited appellate review in RC 2506.04 appeals; questions of law)
- Lorain City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 40 Ohio St.3d 257 (1988) (appellate review scope under RC 2506.01 and 2506.04)
- State v. Vega, 12 Ohio St.3d 185 (1984) (limits on expert testimony; admissibility of testing results)