Ohio:Appellate court rules against Cleveland, sides with leased car drivers in traffic camera class-action

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The 8th Ohio District Court of Appeals on Thursday revived a class-action lawsuit challenging part of Cleveland's controversial traffic-enforcement cameras.


The ruling by the three-judge appellate panel increases the chances that the city will have to refund millions of dollars in fines to the drivers of leased cars who received camera-generated tickets, lawyers for the plaintiffs said.

The appellate court said the city enriched itself unjustly, and ordered the case returned to Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, where Judge Richard McMonagle originally ruled in favor of the city in November 2009.

"This decision clearly opens the door for the people who were improperly fined to recover their money," said attorney Craig Bashein, who represented the plaintiffs in the class-action.

Bashein previously estimated that the city wrongfully collected up to $10 million in fines from drivers of leased vehicles.

He said the city was aware of flaws in the camera ordinance, yet continued to collect fines from the drivers of leased vehicles for nearly four years.

"The law of equity demands that any money collected improperly or illegally be returned," Bashein said.

City Law Director Robert Triozzi said the legal theory of unjust enrichment does not apply to governments, although he suspects Bashein is basing his case on that theory, only under a different name.

"It's really not a victory for them," Triozzi said in an interview. "The law is squarely in our favor here. But the court will need to make a finding on this issue. I expect the city will prevail."

Since 2005, the city has used the cameras to photograph vehicles running red lights or speeding. Unlike police-issued tickets, which are criminal violations, camera-generated tickets are civil infractions resulting in $100 fines. Drivers can contest the fines at the Parking Violations Bureau.

Bashein's class-action claims that up until February 2009 the city illegally ticketed thousands of people driving leased vehicles under a law that provided only for fining the owners of vehicles.


Previous stories
Nov. 13: Petition drive planned to unplug East Cleveland traffic cameras

Nov. 12: Traffic cameras will watch Euclid Avenue drivers in East Cleveland

Nov. 5: Voters oust traffic cameras in Garfield Heights. Could Cleveland be next?: Road Rant


Oct. 14: Appellate judges question legality, fairness of Cleveland's traffic-enforcement camera law

Sep. 18: Garfield Heights to refund money to some drivers ticketed by traffic cameras: Road Rant

Aug. 18: Parma gets revenue boost through school-zone ticketing cameras

Aug. 9: Traffic cameras generate cash, outrage, become campaign issues

More about traffic cameras

City Council amended the law in February 2009 to include drivers of leased vehicles.

The city asked a Common Pleas Court judge to dismiss the lawsuit before it reached trial. McMonagle complied.

Bashein's appeal was centered on the city's right to keep the millions of dollars in fines paid by ticketed drivers of leased vehicles.

City lawyers argued to the court that speeding or red-light violators who paid their fines, or who argued their innocence at the Parking Violations Bureau, forfeited their rights to an appeal. The lawyers also maintained that records from the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles make no distinction between leased and owned vehicles.

But the appellate panel disagreed. In his eight-page opinion, Judge Kenneth Rocco wrote: "While we recognize that the (ticketed drivers) had the opportunity to challenge the imposition of the fines before they paid them, this opportunity does not necessarily foreclose any right to equitable relief."

He continued: "The question whether (the ticketed drivers) were induced to pay the fines by a mistake of fact or law, and whether they were coerced to pay by a threat of additional penalties may be relevant to this question."

Judges Mary Jane Boyle and Frank Celebrezze Jr. concurred with Rocco's opinion.

A similar, separate class-action lawsuit challenging the city's traffic-enforcement cameras recently was returned to Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.