(A) A local authority may utilize a traffic law photo-monitoring device for the purpose of detecting traffic law violations. No county, township, or representative of a county or township shall utilize a traffic law photo-monitoring device to detect and enforce traffic law violations.
(B) The use of a traffic law photo-monitoring device is subject to the following conditions:
(1) A local authority shall use a traffic law photo-monitoring device to detect and enforce traffic law violations only if a law enforcement officer is present at the location of the device at all times during the operation of the device and if the local authority complies with sections 4511.094 and 4511.095 of the Revised Code.
(2) A law enforcement officer who is present at the location of any traffic law photo-monitoring device and who personally witnesses a traffic law violation may issue a ticket for the violation. Such a ticket shall be issued in accordance with section 2935.26 of the Revised Code and is not subject to sections 4511.096 to 4511.0910 and section 4511.912 of the Revised Code.
(3) If a traffic law photo-monitoring device records a traffic law violation and the law enforcement officer who was present at the location of the traffic law photo-monitoring device does not issue a ticket as provided under division (B)(2) of this section, the local authority may only issue a ticket in accordance with sections 4511.096 to 4511.0912 of the Revised Code.
Last updated April 30, 2025 at 10:44 AM
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2015–2022 · leading case: Dayton v. State (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 6909 (Ohio 2017).
Dayton v. State (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 6909 (Ohio 2017). · cites it 22ד] Home rule—Ohio Constitution, Article XVIII, Section 3—R.C. 4511.093(B)(1), 4511.0912, and 4511.”
Toledo v. State (Slip Opinion), 2018 Ohio 2358 (Ohio 2018). · cites it 4ד342"), effective March 23, 2015, to regulate the use of traffic cameras by local governments.”
Dayton v. State, 2021 Ohio 967 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 9ד62, R.C. 4511.093, R.C. 5747.502(C), (D), (F), R.”
City of Toledo v. State, 2019 Ohio 1681 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 24ד"); R.C. 4511.093 (titled "Use of traffic law photo monitoring device.”
Toledo v. Ohio, 2016 Ohio 4906 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 5דEven if all 19 officers could be diverted from their other duties to park their patrol cars next to the traffic cameras to satisfy R.C. 4511.093, the city would never have the financial resources to man every camera.”
Newburgh Hts. v. State, 2021 Ohio 61 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 3ד342 were set forth in R.C. 4511.093(B)(1), 4511.0912, and 4511.”
Toledo v. State (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 8955 (Ohio 2017). · cites it 4דThe only majority holding in Dayton is that R.C. 4511.093(B)(1), 4511.095, and 4511.0912 are unconstitutional; the majority was fractured as to the reasoning behind the holding, with no position garnering support from four justices.”
Shaker Hts. v. El-Bey, 2017 Ohio 929 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2ד* * * jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over defendant cited for expired vehicle registration in violation of village ordinance).”
Springfield v. State, 2016 Ohio 725 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 12ד*** R.C. 4511.093, 4511.095, and 4511.0912 undoubtedly regulate the requirements and implementation procedures to which a municipality must adhere if it chooses to use traffic cameras to record red light/speeding violations.”
Dayton v. State, 2015 Ohio 3160 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 15ד{¶ 28} R.C. 4511.093, 4511.095, and 4511.0912 undoubtedly regulate the requirements and implementation procedures to which a municipality must adhere if it chooses to use traffic cameras to record red light/speeding violations.”
Toledo v. State, 2022 Ohio 1192 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 8ד{¶ 20} We agree with the city’s argument under its first assignment of error, namely that the trial court erred when it refused to consider the city’s claims related to R.C. 4511.093(B)(1), 4511.093(B)(3), 4511.”
Springfield v. State (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 8954 (Ohio 2017). · cites it 4דThe only majority holding in Dayton is that R.C. 4511.093(B)(1), 4511.095, and 4511.0912 are unconstitutional; the majority was fractured as to the reasoning behind the holding, with no position garnering support from four justices.”
City of Toledo v. State, 2019 Ohio 1681 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “"); R.C. 4511.093 (titled "Use of traffic law photo monitoring device.”
Springfield v. State, 2016 Ohio 725 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “*** R.C. 4511.093, 4511.095, and 4511.0912 undoubtedly regulate the requirements and implementation procedures to which a municipality must adhere if it chooses to use traffic cameras to record red light/speeding violations.”
Dayton v. State, 2015 Ohio 3160 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015). “{¶ 28} R.C. 4511.093, 4511.095, and 4511.0912 undoubtedly regulate the requirements and implementation procedures to which a municipality must adhere if it chooses to use traffic cameras to record red light/speeding violations.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.093(B)(1) — 14 cases
Dayton v. State (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 6909 (Ohio 2017). “] Home rule—Ohio Constitution, Article XVIII, Section 3—R.C. 4511.093(B)(1), 4511.0912, and 4511.”
Toledo v. State (Slip Opinion), 2018 Ohio 2358 (Ohio 2018). “342"), effective March 23, 2015, to regulate the use of traffic cameras by local governments.”
Dayton v. State, 2021 Ohio 967 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “62, R.C. 4511.093, R.C. 5747.502(C), (D), (F), R.”
Toledo v. Ohio, 2016 Ohio 4906 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “Even if all 19 officers could be diverted from their other duties to park their patrol cars next to the traffic cameras to satisfy R.C. 4511.093, the city would never have the financial resources to man every camera.”
Newburgh Hts. v. State, 2021 Ohio 61 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “342 were set forth in R.C. 4511.093(B)(1), 4511.0912, and 4511.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.093(B)(2) — 4 cases
Dayton v. State (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 6909 (Ohio 2017). “] Home rule—Ohio Constitution, Article XVIII, Section 3—R.C. 4511.093(B)(1), 4511.0912, and 4511.”
City of Toledo v. State, 2019 Ohio 1681 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “"); R.C. 4511.093 (titled "Use of traffic law photo monitoring device.”
Springfield v. State, 2016 Ohio 725 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “*** R.C. 4511.093, 4511.095, and 4511.0912 undoubtedly regulate the requirements and implementation procedures to which a municipality must adhere if it chooses to use traffic cameras to record red light/speeding violations.”
Dayton v. State, 2015 Ohio 3160 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015). “{¶ 28} R.C. 4511.093, 4511.095, and 4511.0912 undoubtedly regulate the requirements and implementation procedures to which a municipality must adhere if it chooses to use traffic cameras to record red light/speeding violations.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.093(B)(3) — 5 cases
City of Toledo v. State, 2019 Ohio 1681 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “"); R.C. 4511.093 (titled "Use of traffic law photo monitoring device.”
Toledo v. State (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 8955 (Ohio 2017). “The only majority holding in Dayton is that R.C. 4511.093(B)(1), 4511.095, and 4511.0912 are unconstitutional; the majority was fractured as to the reasoning behind the holding, with no position garnering support from four justices.”
Springfield v. State, 2016 Ohio 725 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “*** R.C. 4511.093, 4511.095, and 4511.0912 undoubtedly regulate the requirements and implementation procedures to which a municipality must adhere if it chooses to use traffic cameras to record red light/speeding violations.”
Dayton v. State, 2015 Ohio 3160 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015). “{¶ 28} R.C. 4511.093, 4511.095, and 4511.0912 undoubtedly regulate the requirements and implementation procedures to which a municipality must adhere if it chooses to use traffic cameras to record red light/speeding violations.”
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.