Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
LUCAS COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURTCASE DESIGNATION
TO: Bernie Quitter, Clerk
The following type of case is Pxtessional
Legal Malpractice (L)Medical Malpractice (M)
Product Liability Other Tort
LL
Workers' State Funded Self Insured (K)
Administrative Appeal
Commercial
CASE
JUDGE
G-4801-CI-0201802922-000Judg
MYRON C. DUHART
By submitting the complaint, signature of the Attorney, the Attorneyaffirms that the name of person withsettlement authority and his/phone number will be request to a party or counsel in
ther L_I Consumer Fraud (NT1Forfeiturer i Appropriation (P) n i M Other Civil (H)- F I C e r t i f i c a t e E l Copyright Infringement (W)
This case was previously dismissed pursuant to CIVIL RULE 41 and is to be Judge, the original Judge at the time of dismissal. Thepreviously filed case number was CI
This case is a civil forfeiture case with a criminal case currently pending. The pending is, assigned to Judge
This case is a Declaratory Judgment case with a personal injury or related case The pending case number is, a s s i g n e d to Judge
This case is to be reviewed for consolidation in accordance with Local Rule 5.02 as a related case. This designation sheet will be sent by the Clerk of Courts to the newly assigned Judge with the Judge who has the companion or related case with the lowest case number. The Judge receive the consolidated case may accept or deny consolidation of the case. Both Judges will designation sheet to indicate the action taken. I f the Judge with the lowest case number agrees to reassignment of the case by the Administration Judge shall be processed. I f there is a disagreement Judges regarding consolidation, the matter may be referred to the
Related/companion case number CI
Approve/
A t t o r n e y A d a m W. Loukx
Addre
Assigned
Date Approve/Deny D a t e
1 Government Ctr., Ste. 2250
Toledo, Ohio 43604
T e l e p h o n e 4 1 9 - 2 4 5 - 1 0 3 1
CITY OF TOLEDOOne Government Center, Toledo,
Plaintiff
VSTATE OF OHIOc/o Ohio Attorney 30 E. Broad St., Columbus,
Defendant
LuCAS
IN THE COURT OF C T. M M O , A I E r l . : LUCAS COUNTY, OHIO
E3ERNIE atk i l f t .OF
Judg
G-4801-C I -0201802922-000Judg
MYRON C. DUHART
PLAINTIFF'S VERIFIED COMPLAINT SEEKING DECLARATORYJUDGMENT,PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
For its complaint against the Defendant, Plaintiff City of Toledo ("City") hereby
follows:
Nature of
1. T h i s action involves the State of Ohio's ("State") unconstitutional enactment o f
S.B. 342 and its efforts to enforce parts of S.B. 342 that have been invalidated by courts through
economic coercion as part of Ohio's 2015-2017 budget bill (H.B. 64).
2. S . B . 342 improperly tried to regulate home-rule municipalities' use
traffic cameras. This Court, other Ohio trial and appellate courts, and the Ohio Supreme Court
ruled that various parts of S.B. 342 are
3. T h e Ohio General Assembly added a few paragraphs to the 2015 budget bill, H.B.
64 that purport to enforce S.B. 342. These paragraphs, added to the budget bill after
invalidated parts o f S.B. 342, sought to require local-government-fund payments to be cut to
municipalities who were not "fully compliant" with S.B. 342. These provisions will hereinafter
be referred to as the "penalty provisions." Because these improper penalty provisions were
buried deep within the State's biennial budget bill, the provisions were ultimately passed as part
of that bill.
4. O n April 27, 2015, this Court, in Case No. 2015-1828, permanently enjoined the
State from enforcing certain provisions of S.B. 342. O n October 7, 2015, this Court issued an
Order to enforce the permanent injunction and enjoined the State from taking any actions that
would reduce the City's local government funds for noncompliance with the provisions in H.B.
64. A Common Pleas Court in Montgomery County similarly enjoined the penalty provisions.
5. T h e State appealed the Order to enforce the permanent injunction to the Sixth
District, which affirmed the ruling. Upon information and belief, the State never appealed the
Montgomery County order and that order remains in effect in case no. 2015-cv-1457.
6. T h e State then appealed the Sixth District's decision to the Ohio Supreme Court,
which ruled that this Court lacked authority to enjoin the penalty provisions in H.B.
no action had been filed challenging its constitutionality and because no court had specifically
ruled it to be unconstitutional. T h e Ohio Supreme Court reversed the Sixth District Court o f
Appeals and dissolved the injunction.
7. T h i s action is brought seeking a declaration confirming that all parts o f
that would decrease local government funds t o municipalities f o r fai l ing t o fo l low the
unconstitutional provisions of S.B. 342 also are unconstitutional. T h e State cannot prohibit or
regulate municipalities from utilizing automated-traffic cameras and i t cannot
indirectly enforce unconstitutional laws b y withholding o r threatening t o withhold local
government funds i f the unconstitutional laws are not followed. Moreover, this
2
injunctive relief to preserve the status quo and stop the State from unconstitutionally infringing
on the City's home-
Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue
8. P l a i n t i f f is an Ohio municipal corporation that has enacted certain
pursuant to the authority granted to it by the Home Rule Amendment of the Ohio Constitution
for the health, safety, and welfare of
9. D e f e n d a n t State i s the statewide governmental body that passes legislation
through its General Assembly, which is then signed into law by its Governor.
10. T h e parties are both governmental entities o f and wi th in Ohio, therefore
Jurisdiction is proper in this Court. Venue in this Court is also proper pursuant to Ohio Civil
Rule 3(B)(1), (2), (3), and
Facts Common to All Claims for Relief
11. A u t o m a t e d traff ic photo enforcement programs ( the "Photo
Programs") are used in cities across Ohio and the rest of the United States to
and red-light violations, without requiring the physical presence of a law enforcement officer.
12. P h o t o Enforcement Programs have been shown to reduce injury and fatal motor
vehicle accidents
13. P r i o r t o December 2014, O h i o h a d n o t substantially interfered w i t h
municipalities' ability to operate Photo Enforcement Programs despite the introduction o f
proposed legislation from time to time that sought to ban or l imit municipal exercise
rule power in regards to photo-
14. T h e City Council unanimously passed Ordinance 125-99 providing for "Civi l
penalties for automated red light system violations" on March 16, 1999. ("Ordinance"). T h e
-3
Ordinance was approved and signed by the Mayor o f the City on March 21, 1999. T h e
Ordinance was codified as Section 313.12 of Toledo Municipal Code ("TMC § 313.12"). T M C
has been amended from time to time and presently also provides for photo enforcement
as well.
15. T h e stated purpose of the Ordinance was set forth as follows:
"WHEREAS, the frequency of red light running within the city of Toledocontinues to increase as the number of vehicles on our roads
WHEREAS, an automated red light camera system will assist the ToledoPolice Department by alleviating the necessity for conducting extensiveconventional traffic enforcement at heavily traveled, high risk an
WHEREAS, the adoption o f an automated red light camera system wi l lresult in a significant reduction in the number of red light violations accidents within the city of Toledo***"
16. T M C §313.12 provides for civil enforcement imposing monetary liability upon
the owner of a vehicle for the vehicle's failure to comply with traffic signals at
posted speed limits.
17. Pu rsuan t to TMC 313.12, the criminal justice system is not involved with the
City's Photo Enforcement Program, the offender is not issued a criminal traffic citation
police officer, the offender is not summoned to the traffic court in the Municipal
points are not assessed against the driver or owner's driving record by the Bureau o f Motor
Vehicles
18. U n d e r the Ordinance and the City Photo Enforcement Program, i f a
through a red light at an intersection or exceeds the posted speed limit, the owner of the vehicle
is issued a notice of liability. T h e notice of liability includes photographs o f the vehicle, the
vehicle's speed (if applicable), and the amount of the civil penalty.
4
19. I f the owner or the vehicle receiving a notice of liability wishes to challenge
her notice of liability, the owner may complete and mail a notice of appeal within 21 days
date listed on the notice of liability. I n such cases, an independent hearing officer
and conducts
20. Persons dissatisfied with the finding of the independent hearing officer may file
an administrative appeal pursuant to R.C.
21. I n fact, motor vehicle accidents resulting in injuries and/or deaths declined at
monitored intersections and roadways as a result of the City's photo
Moreover, after devices are installed, the Toledo Police Department has noticed
compliance with red light and speed laws at
22. O n December 18, 2014, the Ohio Supreme Court issued an opinion
that, in Ohio "municipalities have Home Rule Authority under Article XVIII o f the Ohio
Constitution to impose civil liability on traffic violators through an administrative
system
23. T h e Court further held "that Ohio municipalities have Home Rule Authority to
establish administrative proceedings, including administrative hearings, related t o c iv i l
enforcement of traffic ordinances and that these administrative proceedings must
before offenders or the municipality can pursue judicial remedies." Walker v. City
Slip Op. 2014- Ohio - 5461 (Ohio Dec.
24. T h e decision in Walker v. City of Toledo reaffirmed the Court's prior holding in
Mendenhall v. Akron, 117 Ohio St.3d 33 (Ohio 2008), where the Court answered the certified
question presented
An Ohio municipality does not exceed: its home rule authoritywhen it creates an automated system for enforcement of traffic
5
laws that imposes civil liability upon violators, provided that themunicipality does not alter statewide traffic
25. O n December 19, 2014, the Governor signed into law Amended Senate Bil l 342
("S.B 342"), which purported to add and revise provisions to the Ohio Revised Code related
exclusively to Photo
26. T h e City sued the State and the Attorney General seeking injunctive relief and a
declaration that S.B. 342 violates the Home Rule Amendment o f the Ohio Constitution. Th i s
Court granted the City's request and permanently enjoined the State from enforcing R.C. §§
4511.093(B)(1) and (3), 4511.095, 4511.096, 4511.097, 4511.098, 4511.099, 4511.0911(A) and
(B), and
27. I n Dayton v. State, the city o f Dayton also sued the State challenging the
constitutionality of all of S.B. 342. The trial court held that three provisions o f S.B. 342 were
unconstitutional and issued a permanent injunction against those provisions: R .C. § §
4511.093(B)(1) (the officer-present requirement), 4511.095 (the speeding-leeway provision) and
4511.0912 (the study and notice provisions). The State appealed and the Second District Court
of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment. Dayton then appealed to the Ohio Supreme
Court, which reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the permanent injunction holding that
the three statutes were
28. Meanwh i l e , in Toledo, the State appealed this Court's ruling to the Sixth District
Court of Appeals, which affirmed the injunction against the sections enjoined by this Court. The
State appealed this decision to the Ohio Supreme Court, which accepted the appeal but
proceedings pending the decision in Dayton v. State. Af te r the decision was reached, the Ohio
Supreme Court vacated the Sixth District's judgment and remanded the matter to the trial court
6
for application of Dayton v. State. The issues in the remand have been briefed and
in Case No.
29. W h i l e these lawsuits were proceeding, the General Assembly passed the 2015
2017 biennial budget known as H.B. 64, which became effective on June
30. H . B . 64 contained changes to three existing sections of the Ohio
which collectively served to penalize cities for using automated-traffic cameras that were not
fully compliant with the unconstitutional requirements of S.B. 342. The penalty
comprised of two new sections of the Ohio Revised Code (4511.0915 and 5747.502) and an
amendment to R.C.
31. Specifically, H.B. 64 amended R.C. § 5747.50 to require the tax
reduce local government funds to cities that are defined as
32. Addit ional ly, H.B. 64 created R.C. § 4511.0915 to require municipalities, which
operate automated-traffic cameras, to fi le a report o f noncompliance o r a
compliance with the State Auditor. The report is required when a local authority operated a
traffic camera "without fully complying with sections 4511.092 to 4511.0914 of
Code," and must include the amount of civil fines that was billed to violators under
R.C. § 4511.0915(A)(1). The statement of compliance is allowed to be submitted
municipality "...has fully complied with 4511.092 to 4511.0914 of the Revised Code...." R .C .
§ 4511.0915(A)
33. F i n a l l y, H.B. 6 4 created the definitions "delinquent
"noncompliant subdivision." I f a local authority does not fi le a report or
compliance, it is deemed a "delinquent subdivision." Delinquent subdivisions
any local government funds. R.C. § 5747.502(B)(1). On the other hand, i f a local
7
a report of noncompliance it is defined as a "noncompliant subdivision." The tax commissioner
shall "...reduce the amount o f each o f the next three local government fund payments the
noncompliant subdivision would otherwise receive under division (C) of section 5747.50
Revised Code in an amount equal to one-third o f the gross amount o f fines reported
noncompliant subdivision on the report filed for the calendar quarter." R.C. § 5747.502(C)(1)
In-other words, i f cities operate automated traffic cameras that do not "ful ly" comply with the
unconstitutional provisions o f S.B. 342, they lose local government funds in the amount o f
dollar-for-dollar billed automated-traffic-camera fines. L e s s than 100% o f
liabilities assessed are
34. D a y t o n filed a Motion for Order in Aid of Execution and to
Injunction in the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court The court granted the
enjoined the State from "taking any action that would result in a reduction of State funding to
Dayton as a result of Dayton's noncompliance with R.C. §§ 4511.093(B)(1), 4511.095 and
4511.0912. The State did not appeal
35. S i m i l a r l y, Toledo filed a motion to enforce judgment with this Court.
granted the motion on October 7, 2015 and ordered that the State "including all those acting in
concert with the State of Ohio, are hereby enjoined from taking any action that would result
reduction o f State funding to the C i ty o f Toledo as a result o f the C i t y o f Toledo's
noncompliance with R.C. Sections 4511.093(B)(1) and (3), 4511.095, and 4511.0912."
36. T h e Defendant appealed the order to the Sixth District, which affirmed
The Defendant then appealed the Sixth District's decision to the Ohio Supreme Court. The Ohio
Supreme Court ruled that this Court lacked authority to enjoin enforcement o f the penalty
provisions because no court had specifically found them unconstitutional and because
8
had been filed challenging their constitutionality. Toledo v. State, Slip Opinion No.
2358. The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the judgment o f the Sixth District and dissolved the
injunction issued by
37. To l e d o is compliant with all constitutional provisions of H.B. 64.
38. U n l e s s stayed, the State may claim that penalty provisions are effective despite
their inherent invalidity and attempt to further deprive Toledo o f local government funds to
which it is otherwise entitled pursuant to state budgets and the Ohio Constitution Article XII,
Section
39. A s a matter o f law, the following statutes are unconstitutional: R.C. § §
4511.093(B)(1) and (3), 4511.095, 4511.096, 4511.097, 4511.098, 4511.099, 4511.0911(A) and
(B), and
40.- T h e penalty provisions purport to require full compliance with the statutes listed
in the preceding paragraph, which are
Count I - Violation of Ohio
41. P l a i n t i f f re-alleges and incorporates herein each allegation set
42. Unconsti tut ional statutes are void ab initio. Therefore, R.C. §§ 4511.093(B)(1)
and (3), 4511.095, 4511.096, 4511.097, 4511.098, 4511.099, 4511.0911(A) and (B), and
4511.0912 are void
43. T h e penalty provisions reference and incorporate unconstitutional, vo id and
unenforceable statutes and, therefore, are unconstitutional, void and
Count I I - Violation of Ohio Constitution Home Rule Amendment
44. P l a i n t i f f re-alleges and incorporates herein each allegation set
9
45. S e c t i o n 3, Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution provides that
authorized "to exercise all powers of local self-government and to adopt and enforce within their
limits such local police, sanitary and other similar regulations, as are not in conflict
laws" (the "Home Rule Amendment").
46. T h e penalty provisions within H.B. 64 violate the Home Rule Amendment
because they are not part of a statewide and comprehensive legislative enactment, as required by
the Ohio Supreme Court in City of Canton v. State, 95 Ohio St. 3d 149
47. T o the contrary, the penalty provisions target a specific activity —the
automated-traffic camera in a manner that is inconsistent with S.B. 342. The
are not part of a general
48. T h e penalty provisions violate the Home Rule Amendment because they only
purport to limit the legislative power of municipal corporations to set forth police, sanitary, or
similar regulations, which was prohibited by the Ohio Supreme Court in City of Canton
95 Ohio St. 3d 149
49. T h e penalty provisions also violate the Home Rule Amendment because they do
not prescribe a rule of conduct upon citizens generally, in violation of the Ohio Supreme Court's
ruling in City of Canton v. State, 95 Ohio St. 3d 149
50. T h e penalty provisions are only intended to circumscribe what
and cannot
51. T h e penalty provisions reduce local government funds by the amount o f fines
billed by automated-traffic cameras (instead of what is actually collected).
52. B e c a u s e the penalty provisions seek merely to limit the City's ability
home rule powers, they are unconstitutional.
- 10 -
Count II I — Violation of Ohio Constitution Home Rule Amendment (Self-Government)
53. P l a i n t i f f re-alleges and incorporates herein each allegation set
54. T h e penalty provisions impair the ability o f municipalities to exercise their
powers o f local self-government by penalizing cities that do not fol low the unconstitutional
procedures directed by
55. B e c a u s e the penalty provisions seek to l imit the City's ability to exercise all its
powers of local self-government, they are
Count IV — Violation of the Single-Subject Rule
56. P l a i n t i f f re-alleges and incorporates herein each allegation set
57. A r t i c l e II, Section 15 of the Ohio Constitution provides:
"No b i l l shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly
expressed in its title. No law shall be revived or amended unless the new
act contains the entire act revived, or the section or sections amended, and
the section or sections amended shall be repealed."
58. T h e additions of the penalty provisions to H.B. 64 violate the single-subject rule
and therefore are
Count V - Claim for
59. P l a i n t i f f re-alleges and incorporates herein each allegation set
60. I f not enjoined, the State's enforcement of the penalty provisions not only violate
the Home Rule Amendment, but will also cause irreparable harm to Plaintiff for which there is
no adequate remedy
61. A l l o w i n g the penalty provisions to apply to the City will require some or all
following:
• A re-deployment of police personnel resulting in no enhancement safety, health, and welfare of
• A n increase in financial burden as a result of the forced re-deployment ofpolice personnel;
A reduction or elimination of the City's Photo which will result in an increased risk of death and injury to and a reduction of revenues to
• A reduction in local government funds that are used to pay for publicsafety personnel
62. N o n e of the irreparable injury described above is recoverable from the State at
law so that there is no adequate remedy at law.
63. M o r e o v e r, the imposition o f injunctive relief will impose no burden upon the
State whatsoever where the State has allocated no resources to the City to pay for the
resulting from the penalty
64. T h e injunctive relief will serve the public interest by avoiding a waste o f police
resources that are to be used to protect the public and would avoid funding burdens on City
taxpayer
65. M o r e o v e r, injunctive relief will allow the City to serve the public interest by
continuing a program that reduces the costs, potential o f physical injury, and disruption to the
residents of the City caused by motor vehicle accidents and promotes compliance with traffic
laws
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court grant the following relief:
a. G r a n t Plaintiff a preliminary and permanent injunction preserving status
and prohibiting the Defendant from enforcing the penalty provisions or reducing
the Plaintiff s local government funds for noncompliance with S.B. 342;
b. D e c l a r e that the penalty provisions violate the Ohio Constitution in whole or in
part
- 12
c. G r a n t Plaintiff such other and further relief as may be just and/ r
Respec
mch, Law Director (0080004)Adam W. Louloc (0062158)Joseph McNamara (0076829)City of One Government Center, Suite 2250Toledo, Ohio 43604Telephone: (419)245-1020Facsimile: [email protected]@toledo.oh.gov
PRAECIPE
To The Clerk:
Please serve the named Defendant with a copy of Summons and Complaint by certified
mail in accordance with the Civil Rules and the t T I i s Court.
Adam W. L
- 13 -