Lawsuit calls New Miami speed cameras unconstitutional

A lawsuit has been filed against the village of New Miami claiming the speed-enforcement cameras stationed along U.S. 127 are unconstitutional, and that the village’s law is almost identical to one struck down by a Hamilton County judge earlier this year.

The suit, filed Friday in Butler County Common Pleas Court, names four area residents and businesses as plaintiffs, but states it could become a class action, meaning that anyone who has received a ticket from New Miami’s speed cameras could join the suit as a plaintiff. The suit was filed by Lebanon attorney Charles Rittgers and Mason attorney Michael Allen. New Miami Police Chief Kenneth Cheek is named as a defendant.

According to the lawsuit, New Miami’s speed camera ordinance is unenforceable because it “fails to provide adequate due process to vehicle owners as guaranteed by the Ohio Constitution,” and because it divests the New Miami Mayor’s Court and the Hamilton Municipal Court of jurisdiction.

The way the ordinance reads, “If you weren’t driving that day, you have to inform whoever it was that was driving your vehicle that day, if you know. That’s the only defense … it’s all hearsay evidence, and there’s no way to contest the accuracy of the camera and how it obtained your speed,” Rittgers said.

One of the plaintiffs in the suit is Hamilton resident Doreen Barrow, who got a speeding ticket on July 2. She wishes to present evidence that she was not driving through New Miami at the date and time noted on the citation.

Don Muirheid, of Cincinnati, has a business that received notice of a violation on June 17. Muirheid has directed his employees to avoid traveling through New Miami, resulting in increased travel time and expenses.

Plaintiffs Michelle Johnson of Liberty Twp. and Diane Woods of Cincinnati paid their fines but did not believe they were speeding.

The suit also states that New Miami’s speed camera ordinance is “virtually identical” to the one in the village of Elmwood Place in Hamilton County, which used the same camera company, called Optotraffic. Judge Robert Ruehlman of Hamilton County Common Pleas Court, ruled that their cameras violated due process and ordered them to be removed. In his ruling, the judge called their system “a scam that motorists cannot win.”

The same is happening in New Miami, Rittgers said.

“It totally voids 200 years of law in this country where we as citizens have due process rights … What really bugs me is that it makes you inform on your spouse. It’s Big Brother … it’s terrible,” he said. Legally, there is a principal called spousal privilege, similar to attorney, client privilege, in which spouses cannot inform on one another.

Cheek said Monday he had not seen a copy of the lawsuit. He said New Miami did not consult Elmwood Place’s speed ordinance, but the one in Hamilton, where a mobile speed camera is used. He previously stated the cameras have reduced speeding in the village.

The village has two sets of two cameras each posted along U.S. 127. They have recorded more than 12,000 violations since they were installed in October 2012, said Kenny Cheek.

By the end of last year, fines totaling $210,000 had been collected, he said. Violators caught by the cameras pay a civil penalty, starting at $95.

A Hamilton resident, Lara Rodeffer, acting without an attorney, successfully sued New Miami over her speeding ticket. In her case, however, the ruling was not because of the cameras, but because the village failed to provide a transcript of her administrative hearing.

About the Author