Toledo v. State (Slip Opinion)
152 Ohio St. 3d 496
| Ohio | 2017Background
- This is a dissent (DeWine, J.) from the majority's decision to vacate the court of appeals' judgment and remand for application of this court's decision in Dayton v. State.
- Dayton held (fractured court) that three statutory provisions of 2014 Am.Sub.S.B. No. 342 were unconstitutional, but produced no single majority opinion explaining the reasoning.
- The trial court here had declared numerous other photo-enforcement provisions of S.B. 342 unconstitutional; the court of appeals affirmed that ruling.
- The provisions at issue in this appeal (but not decided in Dayton) include statutes governing municipal ticketing based on traffic-camera evidence, required officer review, prima facie owner liability, 30-day issuance rule, fines, required ticket contents, defendants’ procedural rights, administrative hearings, and device certification/maintenance records.
- The majority remanded to the trial court to apply Dayton, but DeWine J. argues Dayton provides no clear guidance on the unresolved provisions and that further remand will cause delay and uncertainty for municipalities.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of photo-enforcement statutory scheme (many provisions) | Trial-court finding: multiple S.B. 342 provisions are unconstitutional | Ohio (or municipalities) argue provisions are valid and should be enforced | Majority: vacated appellate judgment and remanded for application of Dayton; DeWine J.: dissent — remand is improper because Dayton lacks majority reasoning and did not address most provisions |
| Applicability of Dayton v. State | Appellant: lower courts should be guided by Dayton | State: Dayton may not resolve all challenged provisions | Held: Court remanded to apply Dayton; dissent says Dayton offers no clear guidance for unresolved statutes |
| Whether court should resolve all statutory challenges now | Appellant: this court should decide remaining issues | State: defer to trial/appellate courts or remand for further proceedings | Held: Majority remanded; dissent urges this court to decide the unresolved provisions now |
| Effect of fractured precedent on lower courts | Appellant: Dayton controls relevant questions | State: fractured opinion creates uncertainty | Held: Majority proceeded with remand; dissent emphasizes fractured Dayton adds confusion and argues for deciding case now |
Key Cases Cited
- Dayton v. State, 87 N.E.3d 176 (Ohio 2017) (fractured decision holding three specified S.B. 342 provisions unconstitutional; no single majority rationale)