Elmwood Place traffic cameras

The Village of Elmwood Place’s battle to use traffic cameras in enforcing speed limits within its less than one square-mile jurisdiction hit another pot-hole Tuesday with the Ohio Supreme Court’s unceremoniously  denying its motion for a “Stay of Judgment and Injunction” without bond throughout its appeal of Common Pleas Court Judge Robert  Ruehhman’s  finding that the Village's traffic camera enforcement system violated the due process clause of the Ohio Constitution and issuance of permanent injunction is granted to the Plaintiffs prohibiting further enforcement of their ordinance.

Elmwood’s complaint in part contested Judge Ruehlman’s ruling with the statement that the Court “has previously determined that municipalities possess the constitutional authority to enact civil traffic camera enforcement ordinances. Mendenhall  v. Akron, 117 Ohio St.3d 33, 2008-Ohio-270, 881 N.E.2d 255, and that  Due process challenges to such enactments have also been rejected.Mendenhall v. Akron, 374 Fed. Appx. 598, 2010 W.L. 1172474 (6th Cir. 2010); Gardner v. Cleveland, 656 F. Supp. 2d 751 (N.D. Ohio 2009);Balaban v. Cleveland, U.S. Dist., N.D. Ohio, Case No. 1:07-CV-1366, 2010 W.L. 481283 (Feb. 5, 2010).

On its initial appeal of Ruehlman’s decision, the First District summarily denied Elmwood’s request for a stay and subsequently dismissed both its appeal and a motion for reconsideration this past May.

Among its contentions in appealing to the Supreme Court, Elmwood professes “as a political subdivision, Relator Village was and is entitled to a stay of the judgment and injunction without bond throughout the appeal as a matter of right. State ex rel. Ocasek v. Riley, 54 Ohio St.2d 488, 490, 377 N.E.2d 792, 793 (1978); State ex rel. Geauga Cty. .Bd. of Commrs. v. Milligan, 100 Ohio St.3d 366, 369, 2003-Ohio-6608, 800 N.E.2d 361, ¶ 15; State ex rel. Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 129 Ohio St.3d 30, 36, 2011-Ohio-626, 950 N.E.2d 149, 155.