City of Dayton v. Siff

• Docket Number: C. A. 29526
• Decision Date: 22 December 2023
• Parties: CITY OF DAYTON Appellee v. SARAH SIFF Appellant
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

1

2023-Ohio-4685

CITY OF DAYTON Appellee
v.
SARAH SIFF Appellant

C. A. No. 29526

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, Montgomery

December 22, 2023

Civil Appeal from Municipal Court Trial Court Case No. 2021-CVH-6212

SARAH SIFF, Appellant, Pro Se

ADAM M. LAUGLE, Attorney, and GREGORY PARKER, Certified Legal Intern, for Appellee

OPINION

WELBAUM, P.J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Sarah Siff, appeals pro se from a trial court judgment overruling her objections to a magistrate's decision and finding her liable for a civil notice of liability. The court also rejected Siff s counterclaim against Plaintiff-Appellee, the City of Dayton ("City"), which issued the notice of liability.

2

{¶ 2} According to Siff, the trial court erred in numerous respects, including: (1) improperly construing Civ.R. 13 and applying statutory procedures that conflict with the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) denying Siff s rights to due process, privacy, and equal protection of the law; (3) improperly shifting the burden of proof to Siff in violation of Evid.R. 301; and (4) concluding that the municipal court lacked jurisdiction to order an injunction.

{¶ 3} After considering the record and applicable law, we find no merit in any of Siff s arguments. The court did not err in finding Siff liable on the notice of liability, which alleged that Siff had violated a speed ordinance. Siff admitted she was the registered owner of the photographed vehicle and failed to provide any evidence to rebut the prima facie presumption that she was responsible for the violation.

{¶ 4} The court also did not err in failing to apply various provisions in the Ohio Civil Rules, such as issuing summons and serving a party with a complaint. The statutory scheme in R.C. 4511.092 to R.C. 4511.099, which governs photo enforcement of traffic laws, is a special statutory proceeding and renders these civil rules "clearly inapplicable" under Civ.R. 1 (C). Furthermore, contrary to Siffs claim, the trial court did not fail to consider her "counterclaim." The court lacked jurisdiction to issue an injunction, and Siff, as a pro se litigant, was not entitled to attorney fees or to be reimbursed for time spent in litigation (which she lost, anyway). Finally, the City did not violate Siffs rights to due process, privacy, and equal protection of the law.

{¶ 5} For the reasons discussed below, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

3

I. Facts and Course of Proceedings

{¶ 6} On November 24, 2021, the City issued a photo enforcement notice of liability to Siff, informing her that a vehicle registered in her name had been photographed violating Dayton Revised Code General Ordinance ("R.C.G.O.") 71.50(c). Transcript of Court Proceedings ("Tr."), 20-21 and Plaintiffs Ex. 1. The violation was for driving 52 miles per hour in a 35-mile per hour zone in the 2200 block of Smithville Road in Dayton, Ohio, on November 13, 2021, at approximately 9:09 a.m. Id. at 21 and Plaintiff's Ex. 1. The vehicle's speed was detected with a mobile speed trailer. Id.

{¶ 7} In photo enforcement, once photo images are taken, the company that runs the mobile speed trailers sends the City the images for review to make sure the license plate matches the information the license plate reader caught. Id. at 22. Dayton Police Officer Diane Thomas was an appointed contact for the public and reviewed the notices of liability for accuracy. Id. at 20. Among other things, Thomas made sure the reader had captured the vehicle in the correct lane and had not captured the front plate of an oncoming vehicle. Id. at 22.

{¶ 8} In this case, Thomas identified the notice of liability at the hearing and confirmed that the vehicle was registered to Siff (a fact Siff did not contest). Id. at 20-21 and 31. If Thomas reviewed a camera image and found an error, no notice was issued. Id. at 27. A notice of liability is a civil violation, whereas a speeding ticket issued by an officer who stops a car is a minor misdemeanor criminal violation. Id. at 24-25.

4

According to Thomas, the company operating the trailer calibrates the machines on a daily basis. On a quarterly basis, the police capture a sample of ten vehicles for each sensor by using either a laser unit or a radar unit. The police then compare these speeds with the speed that the trailer is capturing. As long as the speeds are the same within two miles per hour, the calibration verification is considered to be good. Id. at 28-29.

{¶ 9} The notice sent to Siff stated that an $85 payment was required and must be received by December 24, 2021. Id. at Ex. 1. The notice further stated that:

Unless you file an Affidavit or request a Photo Enforcement Hearing to contest this violation, as instructed on the back of this page, a civil penalty of $85.00 must be paid by the date shown on this notice."

(Emphasis sic.) Id.

{¶ 10} The back of the notice listed three options and stated in all capitals and in bold type that: "FAILURE TO SELECT AN OPTION OR FAILURE TO TAKE ACTION WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE IS DEEMED TO BE AN ADMISSION OF LIABILITY AND A WAIVER TO CONTEST THE VIOLATION." Plaintiff's Ex. 1 at p. 2. The listed options were as follows: (1) paying the amount due by the due date (in this case, December 24, 2021) to the Dayton Municipal Court, with a $25 late fee for payment after the due date; (2) asking the court for a hearing within 30 days after receipt of the notice; or (3) completing, notarizing, and filing an affidavit with the court within 30 days after receipt of the notice. In this last situation, the affidavit would designate another driver who was responsible or the affidavit would report other situations, such as that the vehicle or plates had been stolen or that the vehicle had been

5

sold or leased at the time of the traffic violation. Id.

{¶ 11} Siff filed a notice with the municipal court requesting a hearing; the court then set a photo enforcement hearing for January 27, 2022.^[1] On January 21, 2022, Siff filed a motion for a continuance, which the court denied on January 25, 2022. However, the case was apparently continued because the court filed an order on February 2, 2022, setting the hearing for February 22, 2022. In the meantime, Siff filed a "pretrial motion" on January 28, 2022, asking the court to issue an "amended summons" correcting the caption of the case.

{¶ 12} On February 18, 2022, Siff filed a document entitled "Answer and Counterclaim." The counterclaim asserted in Count I that the City was liable to Siff for time spent defending herself and protecting the public interest. Count II alleged that the court should enjoin the City from "issuing to vehicle owners any further photo-enforcement-complaints and demands for payment until such time as the citation and hearing process is explicitly sanctioned by the municipal code and complies with both

6

state law and the rules of civil procedure." Answer and Counterclaim, p. 2.

{¶ 13} On February 24, 2022, the court reset the hearing to March 15, 2022; the hearing was then held on that date. At the hearing, a magistrate heard the testimony recounted above. During the hearing, Siff admitted that she had received the notice. She testified that when she received it, she had a "visceral reaction" to doing something that felt as it if were infringing on her right not to account for herself. Tr. at 30. She further stated that she did not recall if she or her husband had been driving the car that day. Id.

{¶ 14} At the end of the hearing, the magistrate allowed Siff 30 days to file a written argument and also gave the City a chance to respond. Id. at 34. Siff filed a trial brief on April 14, 2022, but the City did not respond before the magistrate's decision. On June 2, 2022, the magistrate filed a decision dismissing the counterclaim. The magistrate further rejected a privacy claim Siff raised in her brief, concluding that there was no privacy violation in reading a license plate. Magistrate's Decision, p. 2. The magistrate further found that Siff had had the right to designate another driver as responsible for the notice of liability if she was not the operator at the time of the violation. However, Siff chose not to do so, and the magistrate found her liable, since there was no designation or other testimony to rebut the presumption that the registered owner (Siff) was liable. Id. In a separate decision filed the same day, the magistrate found Siff liable and assessed the $85 penalty plus $40 in court costs. On that day, the judge signed a judgment entry adopting the magistrate's decision.

{¶ 15} On June 14, 2022, Siff filed objections to the magistrate's decision. On the

7

same day, the City filed a response to the counterclaim as well as a trial brief. On June 24, 2022, the City also filed a response to Siff's objections. Subsequently, Siff filed a notice of appeal on July 7, 2022, before the hearing transcript was filed and before the trial court had a chance to rule on the objections.

{¶ 16} We filed a show cause order on July 27, 2022, since the notice of appeal had been filed more than 30 days after the trial judge had signed the judgment entry. On further review, we remanded the case to the trial court because the court had not resolved the objections to the magistrate's decision. See Dayton v. Siff, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 29526 (Aug. 12, 2022). The hearing transcript was then filed on August 24, 2022.

{¶ 17} On March 28, 2023, the trial court filed a judgment entry adopting the magistrate's decision, finding Siff liable, and ordering her to pay $85.00. As a result, we returned the case to our docket and lifted our stay. Dayton v. Siff, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 29526 (Order, Apr. 3, 2023). We also allowed Siff to amend her notice of appeal to include the March 28, 2023 judgment, and she did so.

II. Alleged Error in Dismissing the Counterclaim

{¶ 18} Siff's...