“The Supreme Court in discretionary appeals is very careful and they take very few cases,” Gora said. “Of course we believe it’s a case that should be reviewed… The position of most attorneys that file these is that while they don’t take many, they should take this one.”
New Miami's former speed catcher program was deemed unconstitutional by retired Common Pleas Judge Michael Sage in March 2014 when he banned their use and certified the class action. Judge Michael Oster reinforced Sage's ruling last year and the case has twice gone to the court of appeals in Middletown.
Gora, who replaced now retired outside counsel Wilson Weisenfelder, will be fighting the lawsuit lodged by two Butler County and two Cincinnati residents who sued New Miami over the virtually automatic $95 speeding tickets.
The speed cameras were installed in 2012 and after 15 months in operation, the village collected about $1.8 million on 44,993 citations.
One of the plaintiffs’ attorneys Josh Engel said he is dismayed the legal battle is continuing.
“We are disappointed that New Miami is continuing to pursue appeals on procedural issues instead of addressing head-on Judge Sage’s decision that the ordinance violated the due process rights of motorists,” he said. “Most observers would probably say that the likelihood the Supreme Court will take this case on a procedural appeal is low. We look forward to having this case back before the Common Pleas Court as soon as possible so that we can begin the process of getting refunds to motorists.”
Village Solicitor Dennis Adams said previously if they lose, the village has 10 years to pay the refunds. As for dragging the case out on procedural issues Adams said they didn't initiate the litigation.
“We didn’t ask to be sued. The fact of the matter is all of the Supreme Court decisions have all been on our side,” Adams said. “The reason why it’s going is we’ve been sued and we have to defend ourselves.”
Typically when a governmental body is sued their insurance company handles and pays for the litigation. The village is footing the legal tab on this litigation — that amount was not readily available —because they determined their insurance company wouldn’t cover it.
“This is a question of law, this is about whether or not legislation we passed was constitutional,” Adams said. “If it was a civil rights case for example our insurance company would have provided coverage, absolutely. But I don’t think we even submitted it to our insurance company and requested coverage. Because I believe we reviewed the policy and understood there was no coverage.”
While New Miami’s and several other lawsuits have been rolling around the state appellate courts, the legislature passed strict new laws for the use of the traffic enforcement tools. Under the village’s new law — passed last year and implemented earlier this year — a police officer is stationed with a camera and traffic citations are not issued for driving less than 10 miles over the 35 mph speed limit or six miles over the speed limit in school and park zones.
The cities of Dayton and Springfield have asked the high court to declare the new speed camera laws unconstitutional because it tramples home rule rights. The high court has accepted the Dayton case but no decision has been made on the other. New Miami is challenging the 12th District’s ruling on class status, constitutional issues haven’t yet been addressed in the local case, other than Sage’s ruling.
About the Author