642 N.E.2d 407 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1994
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *284
This case comes before the court on appeal from a judgment of the Toledo Municipal Court which found appellant, Dwayne L. Wacenske, guilty of violating Toledo Municipal Code
On July 4, 1993, at approximately 5:40 p.m., appellant was operating his motorcycle on Water Street in Toledo, Ohio, when he was stopped by a Toledo police officer. Appellant was cited for operating his motorcycle without having his headlight on as required by Toledo Municipal Code
On September 21, 1993, appellant filed a motion in which he asked the municipal court to declare the ordinance unconstitutional. Appellant asserted that Toledo Municipal Code
On November 18, 1993, the trial court denied appellant's motion and found him guilty of the charged offense. Appellant appeals that judgment and asserts the following assignments of error:
"When a municipality by ordinance criminalizes conduct that has not been criminalized by the state of Ohio causing nonuniform operation of the law in the state of Ohio and when the conduct is not of such a nature to inherently alert a potential offender that the conduct is likely to be criminalized, due process of the
"When a municipality by ordinance criminalizes conduct involving the operation of a motor vehicle that has not been criminalized by the state of Ohio causing nonuniform operation of the law in the state of Ohio, and the municipality does not require before conviction of a nonresident offender proof of actual knowledge of the ordinance or probability of knowledge of such ordinance, then the ordinance is unconstitutional as a burden on interstate travel."
"An ordinance which establishes a classification between operators of vehicles on a highway and which impinges upon rights to due process and to the right to travel and for which classification the city has no compelling interest, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution of the United States."
"When a municipal ordinance criminalizes failure to have a headlight in operation during daylight hours while operating a motorcycle, when such conduct is not criminalized by the state of Ohio, and when the municipality does not apply such daylight headlight operation to bicycles and automobiles that also use the roadway, and when such municipality convicts a nonresident with [sic] violation of such ordinance without making a showing that the violator knew or probably knew of such ordinance, such conviction is unconstitutional as applied."
The ordinance challenged by appellant in all of his assignments of error reads:
"Every motorcycle upon a street or highway open to traffic within this City, regardless of the hour of the day or night, shall display lighted lamps and illuminating devices as hereinafter respectively required for different classes of vehicles, subject to exceptions with respect to parked vehicles as hereinafter stated. No motorcycles shall be operated upon a street or highway within this City using only parking lights as illumination." Toledo Municipal Code
The arguments supporting each of appellant's assignments of error tend to intertwine separate constitutional principles. Appellant, however, actually raises only two federal constitutional arguments in his assignments of error. First, he contends that, pursuant to Lambert, Toledo Municipal Code
In Lambert, supra,
In this case, Toledo Municipal Code
"Many of these offenses are not in the nature of positive aggressions or invasions, * * * but are in the nature of neglect where the law requires care, or inaction where it imposes a duty. Many violations of such regulations result in no direct or immediate injury to person or property but merely create the danger or probability of it of which the law seeks to minimize. * * * [P]enalties commonly are relatively small, and conviction does no grave damage to an offender's reputation."Morrisette, supra, at 255-256,
Therefore, in Ohio, intent is not required in a statute or ordinance if the accused had the means of knowledge relating to the facts of the violation, or where, due to the substantial and significant public interest involved, the accused had a duty to ascertain the facts of the violation. Middletown v. Campbell
(1990),
This case involves a traffic offense, a class of law specified by Morrisette, supra,
Appellant's first assignment of error is found not well taken. *287
In his second, third and fourth assignments of error, appellant maintains that Toledo Municipal Code 337.2(d) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the
Equal protection under the law requires that no person or class of persons shall be denied the protection afforded by laws to other persons or classes in like circumstances. Nordlinger v.Hahn (1992), 505 U.S. ___,
In this case, appellant contends that the Toledo ordinance violates equal protection because automobiles and bicycles, that is, other "vehicles" (see R.C.
The right to interstate travel as a fundamental right was recognized in Shapiro v. Thompson (1969),
We hold that Toledo Municipal Code
As to a claim of unequal application of Toledo Municipal Code
Appellant's second, third and fourth assignments of error as they relate to any alleged violation of his right to equal protection are found not well taken.
Finally, to the extent that appellant's assignments of error assert that Toledo Municipal Code
On consideration whereof, this court finds that appellant was not prejudiced or prevented from having a fair trial. The judgment of the Toledo Municipal Court is affirmed. Costs of this appeal assessed to appellant.
Judgment affirmed.
ABOOD, P.J., and HANDWORK, J., concur. *289