Cleveland Law Library Weblog

Ohio Supreme Court Dismisses Two Cases Challenging the Constitutionality of Red-Light Cameras

Yesterday, on May 4, 2011, the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed two (2) cases from Cleveland and Columbus that challenged the constitutionality of red-light cameras. The Court simply dismissed the cases so there is no substantive opinion upon which either side can really hang its hat. Click here to read the Court's opinion in the Cleveland case, which sought writs of mandamus and prohibition and wherein the court denied class certification and a request for oral argument in 2 short paragraphs. Click here to read an article from the Columbus Dispatch about the decisions. Click here to read our prior post on the case when it was originally filed in Cleveland just 3 months ago.

Obama Health Care Law is Destined for the U.S. Supreme Court

In a rather long 78 page opinion, federal district Judge Roger Vinson has ruled that the Obama Health Care plan is unconstitutional. Ohio just recently joined the suit, which the court decided today. Although another judge in Virginia only struck down the part of the law related to mandatory insurance, Judge Vinson's decision is more comprehensive. In all likelihood, the issue will go up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Click here to read the Judge's opinion, and click here to read our prior post on the lawsuit, with a link to many more documents in the case, as well as the laws that precipitated the lawsuit. A good summary of the case has been provided by cleveland.com.

Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association's 3Rs Program Underway in Cleveland and East Cleveland High Schools

The Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association's 3Rs program on Rights, Responsibilities, and Realities started today in 10th grade classrooms in Cleveland and East Cleveland high schools. I went to Max Hayes today, and the kids were really pumped up about our visit. Today, we laid the groundwork for our lessons on the Constitution and discussed career plans that the students may already have formulated. This is my 4th or 5th year in the program, and stats show we are making a difference in passage rates on the social studies portion of the Ohio Graduation Test. Go CMBA!

Ohio AG Will Now Defend Appellate Judges and Courts in Non-Monetary Civil Suits

As part of HB 10, the Ohio Attorney General's office will now be representing appellate judges and courts in non-monetary civil suits. A letter the AG's office sent to the courts provides that: "any cases seeking only equitable relief (e.g., writs of mandamus or procedendo) and filed against Appellate Court Judges will be handled by the Constitutional Offices Section of the Ohio Attorney General’s Office.” According to the Supreme Court's press release, the AG's office will also provide representation to appeals court employees whether monetary relief is requested or not.

Cuyahoga County Starts Study of Racial Bias in Justice System

This month, Cleveland State University will conduct a study for Cuyahoga County, Ohio on racial bias in the justice system. The study will cost about $60,000 and pick up where a prior Univ. of Cincinnati study left off. According to First Asst. Prosecutor Michael O'Malley, CSU team members will be riding with police to "traffic-ticketing and other behavior for signs of racial bias."

The U.S. Constitution is Now an iPhone/iPod Touch App

The Legal Current reports that the U.S. Constitution is now available as an iPhone/iPod Touch application created by West Publishing Company.  An article from the St. Paul Pioneer Press indicates that West has been publishing a pocket Constitution since Chief Justice Burger asked West to do it in the 1980's.  Click here to watch a YouTube video about the new app. from West's Director of New Product Development.

Officer Who Personally Observes Traffic Violation Has Probable Cause for Stop Outside His Jurisdiction

In State v. Jones, Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-316, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that a police officer's extra-territorial stop for a traffic infraction does not violate the Fourth Amendment, thereby invoking the exclusionary rule.  The court relied upon its opinion in State v. Weideman (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 501 and the recent United States Supreme Court case, Virginia v. Moore (2008), ____ U.S. _____, 128 S.Ct. 1598, 170 L.Ed.2d 559, to support its holding.  The Cout held that an extra-territorial stop by a law-enforcement officer is not per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment when the officer personally observes the traffic violation upon which the stop is made.  Although the stop may be unlawful under R.C. 2935.03, the court held that this does not rise to a constitutional violation, thereby resulting in a suppression of evidence. The Supreme Court of Ohio pointed out that the Ohio Legislature did not provide a remedy for a violation of R.C. 2935.03 and stated it is not the court's place to rectify a possible legislative oversight by applying the exclusionary rule for a violation.

U.S. Supreme Court Holds Exclusionary Rule Does Not Apply to Invalid Arrest

In Herring v. United States, No. 07-513, the United States Supreme Court upheld the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit holding that the exclusionary rule does not bar evidence seized after an arrest based upon a recalled arrest warrant.  The warrant had been recalled by the court, but the withdrawal was never entered into the police computer system.  By the time the police realized the mistake, the arrest and seizure of drugs and a weapon had already been made.  In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that police mistakes leading to an unlawful search, which are the results of isolated negligence rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements, do not require the application of the exclusionary doctrine.

Akron's Speeding Laws Are Valid Under Home Rule

Yesterday, the Ohio Supreme Court provided guidance to a Cleveland federal district court that certified a question concerning the legality and enforceaiblity of Akron's speeding ordinance. In Mendenhall v. Akron, 2008-Ohio-270, the Ohio Supreme Court held that Akron has the authority under the "home rule" provisions of Ohio's Constitution (Section 3, Article XVIII) to create an automated system for traffic enforcement that does not conflict with state law. The Court further held that Akron's speeding ordinance is a valid exercise of its police powers. The Court's recitation of the certified question indicates that the federal court would apply the same reasoning to issues regarding red-light cameras. However, the Court did not address other potential challenges to the legality of either speeding red light camera ordinances. The dockets and court documents in the underlying federal cases can be found at PACER, using case nos. 5:06 CV 0139 and 5:06 CV 0154. Click here to read the Supreme Court's Press Release.

Ohio Pit Bull Laws Ruled Constitutional

The Ohio Supreme Court issued an opinion in Toledo v. Tellings, 2007-Ohio-3724 which reversed a Sixth District Court of Appeals decision and upheld the constitutionality of 2 state statutes and a Toledo, Ohio ordinance which regulate the ownership of pitbulls. Specifically, the Court held that the state of Ohio, under ORC 955.22 (defining dangerous and vicious dogs) and 955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii), as well as the City of Toledo, have legitimate interests in protecting citizens from dangers associated with pitbulls. The Toledo ordinance under which Tellings was originally cited limited ownership of dogs identified as pit bulls to one per household and required owners to muzzle and confine their animals when off their owner's premises. After the Trial Court conducted an evidentiary hearing and ruled that the aforementioned laws were a valid exercise of police power, Tellings appealed, where he successfully argued that the laws were unconstitutionally vague and denied pit bull owners procedural due process.