General laws must deal with police, sanitary or other similar regulations and regulate citizen conduct. Musto argued that the traffic camera law regulates police conduct, but not citizen conduct. Murphy argued that the camera law must be viewed in the context of the whole traffic code, which is a general law.
RELATED: Court announces it will hear Dayton case
Opponents call traffic cameras automated speed traps deployed just to churn up money for government coffers. Proponents, though, say the cameras free police officers to do other work and prompt motorists to change their dangerous driving habits.
Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor and Justices Pat DeWine, Bill O’Neill and Judith French peppered the two attorneys with questions. O’Connor said the “most troubling” part of the law is that it requires that a police officer “babysit” the camera while violent crime may be occurring elsewhere in the city.
Murphy said the Ohio General Assembly heard testimony about traffic safety as well as complaints that cities use the cameras to generate fines. The requirement that an officer be posted with each camera was considered “a reasonable compromise,” Murphy said.
A decision, expected weeks or months from now, may determine whether Ohio’s 8-million licensed drivers can be ticketed for infractions caught on cameras and whether cities’ home rule authority is weakened.
Cities have won traffic camera cases before the Ohio Supreme Court in 2008 and 2014 but lost issues of Home Rule on gun and predatory lending cases in recent years, Musto said.
The oral arguments Tuesday marked two firsts: the proceedings were webcast in high definition by the Ohio Channel and two new justices joined the bench. Republicans Pat Fischer and Pat DeWine, son of AG Mike DeWine, won election in November.
OTHER POLITICAL NEWS
How did Ohio lawmakers vote last week
Ohio senator pushes for $15 minimum wage
School bias targeted to fix achievement gap
Congressmen want tougher penalty for trafficking fentanyl