City of Dayton v. State
| Decision Date | 26 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 28818,28818 |
| Citation | 170 N.E.3d 502 |
| Parties | City of DAYTON, Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee v. STATE of Ohio, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
JOHN C. MUSTO, Atty. Reg. No. 0071512, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, City of Dayton Prosecutor's Office, 101 West Third Street, Dayton, Ohio 45402, Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee.
CAITLYN NESTLEROTH JOHNSON, Atty. Reg. No. 0087724, & ZACHARY M. HOLSCHER, Atty. Reg. No. 0098039, Ohio Attorney General's Office, 30 East Broad Street, 16th Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215, Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant.
{¶ 1} The State of Ohio appeals from a judgment of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, which sustain in part and overruled in part the City of Dayton's motion for summary judgment regarding whether certain statutory provisions were unconstitutional. The State filed a timely notice of appeal on June 9, 2020.
{¶ 2} On July 29, 2019, Dayton filed a Verified Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction, which requested that the trial court enjoin the enforcement of certain newly enacted provisions of Am.H.B. No. 62 (H.B. 62) on the grounds that the provisions violated Article XVIII, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution, otherwise known as the "Home Rule Amendment." Specifically, Dayton asserted that the contested provisions of H.B. 62 unconstitutionally limited its Home Rule authority to implement a traffic law photo-monitoring enforcement program by implementing the following statutory provisions: 1) reinstating the S.B. 342 requirement that a law enforcement officer be present at every photo-monitoring device at all times while the device is in operation, R.C. 4511.093(B)(1) ; 2) reducing Dayton's local government fund allocation by the amounts collected from drivers for violations recorded by the photo-monitoring enforcement program and eliminating local government funds completely for municipalities that failed to report revenues from the program to the State, R.C. 5747.502(C), R.C. 5747.502(D), and R.C. 5747.502(F) ; 3) eliminating municipalities’ ability to appoint administrative hearing officers to adjudicate photo-monitoring program tickets and conferring "exclusive jurisdiction" over such actions to municipal and county courts, R.C. 1901.20(A)(1), R.C. 1907.02(C) ; and 4) requiring municipalities to provide advance and non-recoverable court deposits to cover "all applicable court costs and fees" for civil actions related to the photo-monitoring program, R.C. 4511.096(C), R.C. 4511.099(A).
{¶ 3} On January 17, 2020, the State filed a motion for summary judgment, in which it argued that Dayton had the burden to establish that the contested provisions of H.B. 62 were unconstitutional.1 The State also argued that the General Assembly had the exclusive power to define the jurisdiction of lower courts and to provide for their maintenance and had the express constitutional authority to decide state spending. The State further claimed that the contested provisions of H.B. 62 did not violate the Home Rule Amendment since the provisions constituted general laws. Lastly, the State argued that Dayton's additional constitutional arguments failed because: 1) the unconstitutional conditions doctrine did not apply and had not been violated; 2) Dayton had no rights under its remaining constitutional challenges; and 3) Dayton had no other constitutional claims because the contested provisions did not violate the retroactivity clause, the one-subject rule, the uniformity clause, and/or the void for vagueness doctrine.
{¶ 4} On January 24, 2020, Dayton filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the contested provisions of H.B. 62 violated the Home Rule Amendment because the contested provisions solely limited Dayton's legislative power and did not prescribe rules of conduct upon citizens and the Home Rule Amendment prohibited limitations on municipal authority. Dayton also argued that the contested provisions imposed unconstitutional conditions, were unconstitutionally retroactive, violated the void for vagueness doctrine, violated the uniformity clause, violated the one-subject rule, and violated the separation of powers doctrine.
{¶ 5} On May 27, 2020, the trial court sustained in part and overruled in part Dayton's motion for summary judgment and also sustained in part and overruled in part the State's motion for summary judgment. The trial court found that all of the contested provisions in H.B. 62, R.C. 4511.093, R.C. 5747.502(C), (D), (F), R.C. 4511.099(A), R.C. 1901.20(A)(1), R.C. 1907.02(C), and R.C. 4511.096, were unconstitutional. The trial court found that all of the contested provisions, with the exception of R.C. 1901.20(A)(1) and R.C. 1907.02(C), were unconstitutional violations of the Home Rule Amendment. Specifically, the trial court found that the restrictions in R.C. 5747.502 requiring the collection and reporting of civil fines and penalizing Dayton for operating a photo-monitoring program violated the Home Rule Amendment because they did not serve an overriding statewide interest and failed to prescribe rules of conduct upon citizens in general. With respect to the provisions of R.C. 4511.099(A) and R.C. 4511.096 requiring Dayton to file every notice of liability issued with the municipal court and deposit a non-refundable fee, including a filing fee and court costs for every notice, the trial court ruled that these provisions also violated the Home Rule Amendment because they did not serve an overriding statewide interest and failed to prescribe rules of conduct upon citizens in general. The trial court further found that the provisions limited Dayton's legislative authority in that it controlled the procedure Dayton must follow when issuing notices of liability without serving an overriding statewide interest and without prescribing rules of conduct upon citizens in general. The trial court held that R.C. 1901.20(A)(1) and R.C. 1907.02(C) were general laws that did not violate the Home Rule Amendment.
{¶ 6} The trial court also found that all of the contested provisions in H.B. 62 unconstitutionally violated the one-subject rule, including R.C. 1901.20(A)(1) and R.C. 1907.02(C). While noting that the General Assembly has wide powers when enacting legislation, the trial court stated, however, that sections of an appropriation bill violate the one-subject rule when they fail to share a common purpose with and have no discernible, practical, or rational relationship to other provisions in the bill. Therefore, the trial court found that the contested provisions in H.B. 62 were not related to the transportation budget, but rather were inserted as last minute riders after having been voted down by the state senate during the committee process. The trial court found that the contested provisions were not at all related to the appropriation of funds for transportation purposes, thus violating the one-subject rule and rendering the contested provisions unconstitutional. The trial court sustained the State's motion for summary judgment with respect to Dayton's other constitutional arguments.
{¶ 7} It is from this judgment that the State now appeals.
{¶ 8} On June 12, 2002, Dayton enacted Ordinance 30114-02, which authorized an "automated traffic control photographic system" (ATCPS) for placement at intersections throughout the city. Initially, the system only provided for the enforcement of red light violations. Subsequently, on February 17, 2010, the system was modified to provide for the enforcement of speed violations as well (Ordinance 30965-10). The ordinances were codified in Dayton R.C.G.O. 70.21. Dayton states that the purposes of the traffic law photo-monitoring system were to reduce the number of red light and speeding violations and automobile accidents in the city and to conserve limited police resources.
{¶ 9} Am.Sub.S.B. No. 342 was signed into law on December 19, 2014, and became effective on March 23, 2015. The following Revised Code sections were enacted as a result of S.B. No. 342's passage: 4511.092; 4511.093; 4511.095; 4511.096; 4511.097; 4511.098; 4511.099; 4511.0910; 4511.0911; 4511.0912; 4511.0913; 4511.0914; and 4511.204(C)(2). Viewed collectively, the new sections provided a comprehensive definition section ( R.C. 4511.092 ) and expanded upon existing requirements for municipalities that employ the use of traffic photo-monitoring systems.
{¶ 10} Significantly, in City of Dayton v. State , 151 Ohio St.3d 168, 2017-Ohio-6909, 87 N.E.3d 176, Dayton challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions contained in S.B. 342, on the grounds that they violated Article XVIII, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution, the Home Rule Amendment. In its complaint in that case, Dayton specifically challenged the requirement in R.C. 4511.093(B)(1) that a law enforcement officer be present at the location of any traffic law photo-monitoring device when it was being operated. Dayton also challenged R.C. 4511.095(A)(2), the provision which required that a local authority conduct a public information campaign and safety study of the location under consideration for the placement of a new device before any new photo-monitoring equipment could be deployed. In Dayton's motion for summary judgment in that case, in addition to arguing that R.C. 4511.093(B)(1) and 4511.095(A)(2) were unconstitutional, as argued in its complaint, Dayton also asserted that R.C. 4511.0912 violated the Home Rule Amendment because it prohibited municipal authorities from issuing speeding tickets for violations recorded by traffic law photo-monitoring devices unless the individual was driving more than six miles per hour above the speed limit in a school zone and/or park or ten or more miles per hour above the speed limit in any other location. Upon review, the Ohio Supreme Court held that the contested provisions in S.B. 342 violated the Home Rule Amendment and struck down the...
To continue reading
Request your trial