(A) A law enforcement officer employed by a local authority utilizing a traffic law photo-monitoring device shall examine evidence of alleged traffic law violations recorded by the device to determine whether such a violation has occurred. If the image recorded by the traffic law photo-monitoring device shows such a violation, contains the date and time of the violation, and shows the letter and numerals on the license plate of the vehicle involved as well as the state that issued the license plate, the officer may use any lawful means to identify the registered owner.
(B) The fact that a person or entity is the registered owner of a motor vehicle is prima facie evidence that that person or entity is the person who was operating the vehicle at the time of the traffic law violation.
(C) Within thirty days of the traffic law violation, the local authority or its designee may issue and send by regular mail a ticket charging the registered owner with the violation. The ticket shall comply with section 4511.097 of the Revised Code. If the local authority mails a ticket charging the registered owner with the violation, the local authority shall file a certified copy of the ticket with the municipal court or county court with jurisdiction over the civil action.
(D) A certified copy of the ticket alleging a traffic law violation, sworn to or affirmed by a law enforcement officer employed by the local authority, including by electronic means, and the recorded images produced by the traffic law photo-monitoring device, is prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein and is admissible in a civil action or proceeding concerning the ticket issued under this section.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2015–2022 · leading case: Dayton v. State, 2021-Ohio-967, 170 N.E.3d 502.
Dayton v. State, 2021-Ohio-967, 170 N.E.3d 502. · cites it 11ד02(C), and R.C. 4511.096, were unconstitutional. The trial court found that all of the contested provisions, with the exception of R.”
Toledo v. State, 2017-Ohio-8955, 98 N.E.3d 222. · cites it 6ד093(B)(3), which allows municipalities to issue tickets based upon evidence recorded by traffic cameras, but only if they comply with state- mandated ticket-issuing requirements; R.C. 4511.096(A), which requires that a “law enforcement officer employed by a municipality”…”
City of Toledo v. State, 2019-Ohio-1681, 130 N.E.3d 341. · cites it 12ד093(B)(3) is simply a process provision that prevents local authorities from issuing two citations for the same offense and requires local authorities to issue traffic-camera citations in accordance with other sections of the Ohio camera law.”
Dayton v. State, 2017-Ohio-6909. “R.C. 4511.096 requires a law-enforcement officer to examine camera footage to determine whether a traffic violation occurred; if so, the local authority, or a designee, may send a violation notice to the registered owner of the vehicle within 30 days of the violation.”
Toledo v. Ohio, 2016-Ohio-4906. “095 (mandating the completion of a safety study prior to implementation of photo-monitoring system); R.C. 4511.096 (setting forth various law enforcement officer duties); R.”
Springfield v. State, 2016-Ohio-725. · cites it 4ד094, R.C. 4511.096, R.C. 4511.097, and R.C. 4511.”
Dayton v. State, 2022-Ohio-4412, 203 N.E.3d 758. · cites it 10ד02(C), and R.C. 4511.096, were unconstitutional. The trial court found that all of the contested provisions, with the exception of R.”
State ex rel. Magsig v. Toledo, 2020-Ohio-3416, 156 N.E.3d 899. “Toledo points to R.C. 4511.096(C) and (D), which require a municipality to file specific documents 5 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO in municipal court in photo-enforcement cases.”
Dayton v. State, 2015-Ohio-3160, 36 N.E.3d 235. · cites it 3דR.C. 4511.096(A) – This section contains a requirement that a law enforcement officer examine the evidence of an alleged violation recorded by a traffic camera in order to determine whether a violation has in fact occurred.”
Wright v. Brice, 2021-Ohio-2246. · cites it 4דFACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY {¶ 2} The facts and procedural history of this case were set forth in the municipal court's May 7, 2020 judgment entry as follows: This matter came before the Court for non-oral hearing upon the traffic law violation issued on 12/13/19 pursuant to…”
Toledo v. State, 2022-Ohio-1192. · cites it 2דThe trial court dismissed the city’s claims because it found that these statutes no longer apply to the city in light of its temporary suspension of its photo enforcement traffic program.”
Toledo v. Ohio, 2017-Ohio-215. “095 (mandating the completion of a safety study prior to implementation of photo-monitoring system); (3) R.C. 4511.096 (setting forth various law enforcement officer duties); (4) R.”
Toledo v. State, 2017-Ohio-8955, 98 N.E.3d 222. “093(B)(3), which allows municipalities to issue tickets based upon evidence recorded by traffic cameras, but only if they comply with state- mandated ticket-issuing requirements; R.C. 4511.096(A), which requires that a “law enforcement officer employed by a municipality”…”
Springfield v. State, 2016-Ohio-725. “094, R.C. 4511.096, R.C. 4511.097, and R.C. 4511.”
Dayton v. State, 2015-Ohio-3160, 36 N.E.3d 235. “R.C. 4511.096(A) – This section contains a requirement that a law enforcement officer examine the evidence of an alleged violation recorded by a traffic camera in order to determine whether a violation has in fact occurred.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.096(B): 3 cases
Toledo v. State, 2017-Ohio-8955, 98 N.E.3d 222. “093(B)(3), which allows municipalities to issue tickets based upon evidence recorded by traffic cameras, but only if they comply with state- mandated ticket-issuing requirements; R.C. 4511.096(A), which requires that a “law enforcement officer employed by a municipality”…”
Springfield v. State, 2016-Ohio-725. “094, R.C. 4511.096, R.C. 4511.097, and R.C. 4511.”
Dayton v. State, 2015-Ohio-3160, 36 N.E.3d 235. “R.C. 4511.096(A) – This section contains a requirement that a law enforcement officer examine the evidence of an alleged violation recorded by a traffic camera in order to determine whether a violation has in fact occurred.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.096(C): 8 cases
Dayton v. State, 2021-Ohio-967, 170 N.E.3d 502. “02(C), and R.C. 4511.096, were unconstitutional. The trial court found that all of the contested provisions, with the exception of R.”
Toledo v. State, 2017-Ohio-8955, 98 N.E.3d 222. “093(B)(3), which allows municipalities to issue tickets based upon evidence recorded by traffic cameras, but only if they comply with state- mandated ticket-issuing requirements; R.C. 4511.096(A), which requires that a “law enforcement officer employed by a municipality”…”
Dayton v. State, 2022-Ohio-4412, 203 N.E.3d 758. “02(C), and R.C. 4511.096, were unconstitutional. The trial court found that all of the contested provisions, with the exception of R.”
State ex rel. Magsig v. Toledo, 2020-Ohio-3416, 156 N.E.3d 899. “Toledo points to R.C. 4511.096(C) and (D), which require a municipality to file specific documents 5 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO in municipal court in photo-enforcement cases.”
Springfield v. State, 2016-Ohio-725. “094, R.C. 4511.096, R.C. 4511.097, and R.C. 4511.”
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.