A local authority shall not issue a ticket for a violation of section 4511.21 or 4511.211 of the Revised Code or a substantially equivalent municipal ordinance due to failure to observe the applicable speed limit based upon evidence recorded by a traffic law photo-monitoring device unless one of the following applies:
(A) For a system location that is located within a school zone or within the boundaries of a state or local park or recreation area, the vehicle involved in the violation is traveling at a speed that exceeds the posted speed limit by not less than six miles per hour.
(B) For a system location that is located at any other location, the vehicle involved in the violation is traveling at a speed that exceeds the posted speed limit by not less than ten miles per hour.
Dayton v. State (Slip Opinion), 2017-Ohio-6909. · cites it 14דWe also hold that R.C. 4511.0912, which prohibits the municipality from issuing a fine to a driver who is caught speeding by a traffic camera unless that driver’s speed exceeds the posted speed limit by 6 m.”
Toledo v. State (Slip Opinion), 2018-Ohio-2358, 110 N.E.3d 1257. “342"), effective March 23, 2015, to regulate the use of traffic cameras by local governments. The act provides, among other things, that a law-enforcement officer must be present whenever a camera is in operation, R.”
Toledo v. Ohio, 2016-Ohio-4906. · cites it 2ד Under R.C. 4511.0912 citations for speeding violations detected by automated photo-monitoring systems may not be issued unless the vehicle was traveling at least six miles per hour over the speed limit in a school zone or at least ten miles per hour over the speed limit…”
Newburgh Hts. v. State, 2021-Ohio-61, 166 N.E.3d 632. · cites it 2דR.C. 4511.0912 provided that local authorities shall not issue a ticket for a speeding violation unless “the vehicle involved in the violation is traveling at a speed that exceeds the posted speed limit by not less than” 6 m.”
Dayton v. State, 2021-Ohio-967, 170 N.E.3d 502. · cites it 2ד095(A)(2) were unconstitutional, as argued in its complaint, Dayton also asserted that R.C. 4511.0912 violated the Home Rule Amendment because it prohibited municipal authorities from issuing speeding tickets for violations recorded by traffic law photo-monitoring devices unless…”
City of Toledo v. State, 2019-Ohio-1681, 130 N.E.3d 341. · cites it 3ד093(B)(1), which required police presence at the location of a traffic camera while in use; R.C. 4511.0912, which prohibited a municipality from issuing a fine for speeding based on a traffic camera unless the driver's speed exceeded the speed limit by 6 or 10 miles per hour;…”
Springfield v. State, 2016-Ohio-725. · cites it 4ד095, and R.C. 4511.0912 were unconstitutional as it had in its complaint, Springfield asserted that R.”
Dayton v. State, 2015-Ohio-3160, 36 N.E.3d 235. · cites it 4ד095(A)(2) were unconstitutional as it had in its complaint, Dayton asserted that R.C. 4511.0912 violated the home rule because it prohibits municipal authorities from issuing speeding tickets for violations recorded by traffic law photo-monitoring devices unless the individual…”
Springfield v. State (Slip Opinion), 2017-Ohio-8954, 95 N.E.3d 363. · cites it 2ד(The third provision found unconstitutional in Dayton, R.C. 4511.0912, which allows a speeding ticket to be issued only when a driver exceeds the speed limit by more than six miles per hour in a school zone or park and by ten miles per hour elsewhere, is not squarely at issue;…”
Toledo v. Ohio, 2017-Ohio-215. “0911(A) and (B) (requiring manufacturers to provide maintenance records for photo-monitoring devices, along with a certificate of proper operation that attests to the accuracy of such devices); and (8) R.C. 4511.0912 (specifying that speed limit violations are only punishable if…”
Dayton v. State, 2022-Ohio-4412, 203 N.E.3d 758. “095(A)(2) were unconstitutional, -9- as argued in its complaint, Dayton also asserted that R.C. 4511.0912 violated the Home Rule Amendment because it prohibited municipal authorities from issuing speeding tickets for violations recorded by traffic photo-monitoring devices unless…”
Akron v. State, 2015-Ohio-5243. · cites it 7ד{¶1} Defendants-Appellants, the State of Ohio and the Attorney General of Ohio (collectively, “the State”), appeal the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas declaring R.C. 4511.0912, 4511.093(B)(1), (3), and 4511.”
Springfield v. State, 2016-Ohio-725. “095, and R.C. 4511.0912 were unconstitutional as it had in its complaint, Springfield asserted that R.”
Dayton v. State, 2015-Ohio-3160, 36 N.E.3d 235. “095(A)(2) were unconstitutional as it had in its complaint, Dayton asserted that R.C. 4511.0912 violated the home rule because it prohibits municipal authorities from issuing speeding tickets for violations recorded by traffic law photo-monitoring devices unless the individual…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.0912(B): 3 cases
Springfield v. State, 2016-Ohio-725. “095, and R.C. 4511.0912 were unconstitutional as it had in its complaint, Springfield asserted that R.”
Dayton v. State, 2015-Ohio-3160, 36 N.E.3d 235. “095(A)(2) were unconstitutional as it had in its complaint, Dayton asserted that R.C. 4511.0912 violated the home rule because it prohibits municipal authorities from issuing speeding tickets for violations recorded by traffic law photo-monitoring devices unless the individual…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.