(A) Prior to deploying any traffic law photo-monitoring device, a local authority shall do all of the following:
(1) Conduct a safety study of intersections or locations under consideration for placement of fixed traffic law photo-monitoring devices. The study shall include an accounting of incidents that have occurred in the designated area over the previous three-year period and shall be made available to the public upon request.
(2) Conduct a public information campaign to inform motor vehicle operators about the use of traffic law photo-monitoring devices at system locations prior to establishing any of those locations;
(3) Publish at least one notice in a local newspaper of general circulation that announces the local authority's intent to utilize traffic law photo-monitoring devices, the locations of those devices, if known, and the date on which the first traffic law photo-monitoring device will be operational;
(4) Refrain from levying any civil fines on any person found to have committed a traffic law violation based upon evidence gathered by a fixed location traffic law photo-monitoring device until the local authority observes a public awareness warning period of not less than thirty days prior to the first issuance of any ticket based upon images recorded by the device. During the warning period, the local authority shall take reasonable measures to inform the public of the location of the device and the date on which tickets will be issued for traffic law violations based upon evidence gathered by the device. A warning notice may be sent to violators during the public awareness warning period.
(B)(1) A local authority that deploys its first traffic law photo-monitoring device after the effective date of this section shall do so only after complying with division (A) of this section. If such a local authority thereafter wishes to deploy an additional traffic law photo-monitoring device, the local authority shall comply with that division prior to deploying the additional device.
A local authority that is operating or has operated on its behalf a traffic law photo-monitoring device on the effective date of this section may continue to operate the device after that date without the need to comply with division (A) of this section. However, if such a local authority wishes to deploy an additional traffic law photo-monitoring device after the effective date of this section , the local authority shall comply with division (A) of this section prior to deploying the additional device.
(2) All tickets that result from evidence recorded by a traffic law photo-monitoring device and that are issued prior to the effective date of this section by or on behalf of a local authority may be processed and adjudicated in accordance with the rules and procedures that were in effect for such tickets prior to the effective date of this section . On and after the effective date of this section , no ticket for a traffic law violation that is based upon evidence recorded by a traffic law photo-monitoring device shall be processed and adjudicated in any manner other than in accordance with sections 4511.096 to 4511.0912 of the Revised Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (3 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 20דFinally, we hold that R.C. 4511.095, which directs the municipality to perform a safety study and a public-information campaign prior to using a camera, unconstitutionally limits the municipality’s home-rule authority without serving an overriding state interest.”
Toledo v. State (Slip Opinion), 2018 Ohio 2358 (Ohio 2018). “The act provides, among other things, that a law-enforcement officer must be present whenever a camera is in operation, R.C. 4511.093(B)(1), that speeding tickets may be issued only if the driver exceeded the speed limit by specified amounts, R.”
Toledo v. Ohio, 2016 Ohio 4906 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2ד Under R.C. 4511.095, the municipality must complete a three-year safety study of any intersection at which the deployment of a new traffic law photo-monitoring device is proposed.”
Newburgh Hts. v. State, 2021 Ohio 61 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2דAnd R.C. 4511.095 required local authorities to conduct safety studies and a public information campaign, educating and notifying the public about the location of the cameras.”
Dayton v. State, 2021 Ohio 967 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2ד0912 (prohibiting a municipality from issuing a fine for speeding based on a traffic camera unless the driver's speed exceeded the speed limit by six or ten miles per hour); and R.C. 4511.095 (requiring a municipality to perform a study and public-information campaign before…”
Springfield v. State, 2016 Ohio 725 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 5דSpringfield also challenged R.C. 4511.095(A)(1) and (2), the provisions which require that a local authority must conduct a safety study and public information campaign for the location under consideration for the placement of a new device before any new photo-monitoring…”
City of Toledo v. State, 2019 Ohio 1681 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2ד0912, 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; and R.C. 4511.095, which required a municipality to perform a study and public-information campaign…”
Dayton v. State, 2015 Ohio 3160 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 5דSpecifically, R.C. 4511.095(A)(1) requires a municipality to conduct a safety study of intersections or locations under consideration for placement of a traffic camera.”
Springfield v. State (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 8954 (Ohio 2017). · cites it 2ד093(B)(1), which requires a law-enforcement officer to be present when a traffic camera is in use, and R.C. 4511.095, which requires a safety study and public-information measures before implementation of a traffic camera.”
Toledo v. Ohio, 2017 Ohio 215 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “093(B)(1) and (3) (requiring police officer presence during the operation of photo- monitoring devices); (2) R.C. 4511.095 (mandating the completion of a safety study prior to implementation of photo-monitoring system); (3) R.”
Phillips v. Vill. of New Richmond (S.D. Ohio 2020). · cites it 5ד094 (“Signs required for photo-monitoring devices”); §4511.095 (“Prerequisites for deployment of device”).”
Dayton v. State, 2022 Ohio 4412 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “Dayton also challenged R.C. 4511.095(A)(2), the provision which required that a local authority conduct a public information campaign and safety study of the location under consideration for the placement of a new device before any new photo-monitoring equipment could be…”
Dayton v. State (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 6909 (Ohio 2017). “Finally, we hold that R.C. 4511.095, which directs the municipality to perform a safety study and a public-information campaign prior to using a camera, unconstitutionally limits the municipality’s home-rule authority without serving an overriding state interest.”
Springfield v. State, 2016 Ohio 725 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “Springfield also challenged R.C. 4511.095(A)(1) and (2), the provisions which require that a local authority must conduct a safety study and public information campaign for the location under consideration for the placement of a new device before any new photo-monitoring…”
Dayton v. State, 2015 Ohio 3160 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015). “Specifically, R.C. 4511.095(A)(1) requires a municipality to conduct a safety study of intersections or locations under consideration for placement of a traffic camera.”
Phillips v. Vill. of New Richmond (S.D. Ohio 2020). “094 (“Signs required for photo-monitoring devices”); §4511.095 (“Prerequisites for deployment of device”).”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.095(A)(2) — 6 cases
Dayton v. State (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 6909 (Ohio 2017). “Finally, we hold that R.C. 4511.095, which directs the municipality to perform a safety study and a public-information campaign prior to using a camera, unconstitutionally limits the municipality’s home-rule authority without serving an overriding state interest.”
Dayton v. State, 2021 Ohio 967 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “0912 (prohibiting a municipality from issuing a fine for speeding based on a traffic camera unless the driver's speed exceeded the speed limit by six or ten miles per hour); and R.C. 4511.095 (requiring a municipality to perform a study and public-information campaign before…”
Dayton v. State, 2015 Ohio 3160 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015). “Specifically, R.C. 4511.095(A)(1) requires a municipality to conduct a safety study of intersections or locations under consideration for placement of a traffic camera.”
Springfield v. State, 2016 Ohio 725 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “Springfield also challenged R.C. 4511.095(A)(1) and (2), the provisions which require that a local authority must conduct a safety study and public information campaign for the location under consideration for the placement of a new device before any new photo-monitoring…”
Dayton v. State, 2022 Ohio 4412 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “Dayton also challenged R.C. 4511.095(A)(2), the provision which required that a local authority conduct a public information campaign and safety study of the location under consideration for the placement of a new device before any new photo-monitoring equipment could be…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.095(A)(3) — 4 cases
Dayton v. State (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 6909 (Ohio 2017). “Finally, we hold that R.C. 4511.095, which directs the municipality to perform a safety study and a public-information campaign prior to using a camera, unconstitutionally limits the municipality’s home-rule authority without serving an overriding state interest.”
Springfield v. State, 2016 Ohio 725 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “Springfield also challenged R.C. 4511.095(A)(1) and (2), the provisions which require that a local authority must conduct a safety study and public information campaign for the location under consideration for the placement of a new device before any new photo-monitoring…”
Dayton v. State, 2015 Ohio 3160 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015). “Specifically, R.C. 4511.095(A)(1) requires a municipality to conduct a safety study of intersections or locations under consideration for placement of a traffic camera.”
Phillips v. Vill. of New Richmond (S.D. Ohio 2020). “094 (“Signs required for photo-monitoring devices”); §4511.095 (“Prerequisites for deployment of device”).”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.095(A)(4) — 4 cases
Dayton v. State (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 6909 (Ohio 2017). “Finally, we hold that R.C. 4511.095, which directs the municipality to perform a safety study and a public-information campaign prior to using a camera, unconstitutionally limits the municipality’s home-rule authority without serving an overriding state interest.”
Springfield v. State, 2016 Ohio 725 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “Springfield also challenged R.C. 4511.095(A)(1) and (2), the provisions which require that a local authority must conduct a safety study and public information campaign for the location under consideration for the placement of a new device before any new photo-monitoring…”
Dayton v. State, 2015 Ohio 3160 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015). “Specifically, R.C. 4511.095(A)(1) requires a municipality to conduct a safety study of intersections or locations under consideration for placement of a traffic camera.”
Phillips v. Vill. of New Richmond (S.D. Ohio 2020). “094 (“Signs required for photo-monitoring devices”); §4511.095 (“Prerequisites for deployment of device”).”
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.