Red-Light Camera Issue Now in Voters' Hands

BY LOREN GENSON • Gazette Staff Writer • October 25, 2009
Zainesville, Ohio

After a yearlong grassroots campaign to end the use of red-light cameras, the measure finally will go before voters Nov. 3 for final approval.

Chillicothe Police Chief Roger Moore worries the initiative that would ban the cameras also could ban local law enforcement from doing their jobs. Moore said he doesn't take a stance on the issue of red-light cameras, but said the initiative on the November ballot would make it difficult for his officers to do their jobs.

"I understand what they're trying to do, but I don't know how we'll be able to run law enforcement," said Moore.

Rebekah Valentich, president of Citizens Against Photo Enforcement said the initiative petition committee has no intent to prevent officers from doing their jobs.

"We want police officers to do their jobs, that's why we're so against the cameras," Valentich said.

The argument Moore raises also has been posed by the city to the state Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of the cameras. The Supreme Court did not rule on the city's claims, except to deny their motion to strike the issue from the ballot because it was filed too late.

The proposed ordinance would ban the city from using "any traffic law photo-monitoring device or mobile speed enforcement vehicle fro the enforcement of a qualified traffic law violations, unless a law enforcement officer is present at the location of the device or vehicle and personally issues the ticket to the alleged violator at the time and location of the violation."
Moore said that language is too confining and would make impossible for officers to run radar and issue tickets.

"If you're running radar and you pull someone over a half-mile up the road, you have to bring them back to where you clocked them and by then it won't be the time of the violation," Moore said. "I know they only meant red-light cameras, but the way it's worded it can prevent us from issuing tickets."

When asked if he's interpreting the wording a little to strictly, Moore said maybe, but his main concern is how defendants might use the ordinance to get out of tickets in court.
"It will give people an easy way to try and fight any ticket they get," Moore said.
But the CAPE group disagrees. Valentich said the group included that wording to prevent speed vans from being used. The initial contract with Redflex required speed vans within the city; however, Mayor Joe Sulzer opted not to use them.
"We had to include that language because we didn't want them implementing these vans," Valentich said.
CAPE attorney David Kastner said there's nothing in the ordinance that would restrict officers from performing their duties and only asks that radar be used by an officer present at the scene.
"Currently, there's no officer there," Kastner said. "You get a ticket in the mail and it looks like it's from Chillicothe, but it's not, it's from Cleveland or somewhere else. That's not what the citizens want."
Aside from the law enforcement questions, another question is how the city will proceed with issuing Redflex tickets. Joe Sulzer signed a five-year contract with Redflex Inc. in February 2008 and Law Director Toni Eddy said she was unclear of what would happen if the city halted photo enforcement. "If Redflex were to assert a breach of contract claim against the city, there is a potential for financial repercussions," she said.

Assistant Law Director Jim Mann said he would wait to see how voters decide in November before detailing what actions the city would take. "This doesn't get down to whether we support Redflex or not," he said. "We think it's a very badly worded piece of legislation." But the CAPE attorney disagrees and said the city the ordinance would not restrict law enforcement.

"To say that this will apply to all law enforcement equipment is incorrect," Kastner said. "All the proposed ordinance is saying is that these devices must be used by an officer."