The City of Cleveland Automated Photo Enforcement Program is continuing and individuals who wish to appeal violation notices they receive will be able to have a hearing on the matter. This announcement comes after a recent Eighth District Appeals Court decision in Jodka v. Cleveland caused the City to temporarily suspend the hearings.
“Traffic cameras in Cleveland are influencing driver behavior and promoting safe driving,” said Barbara Langhenry, Director of Law. “But it is important to us that citizens who receive civil violation notices through the program have an avenue for appeal. Our ordinance provides for that process through the Photo Safety Division of the Municipal Clerk’s Office.”
The recent Eighth District Appeals Court decision in Jodka v. Cleveland established the Plaintiff had no standing to proceed with the claims in his lawsuit. It also included language that discussed the Court’s view of the constitutionality of the appeals process, but it does not bar the City from operating its traffic camera program and proceeding with the established appeal process in the Municipal Clerk’s office. Civil traffic camera appeal hearings under Cleveland Codified Ordinance 413.031 will again be scheduled.
Instructions for Citizens
- If you receive a violation notice through the traffic camera program and do not wish to appeal, follow the instructions on the notice of violation for making payment.
- If you were previously notified that your scheduled hearing had been delayed, you will receive notification of a new hearing date.
- If you had received a notice of a camera enforced violation and had a deadline for timely responding to the violation notice between January 23 and today, you may file an appeal within 21 calendar days of this announcement.
- All appeals will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
The City continues to evaluate its appeal process to determine whether another process may be implemented to address the concerns expressed by the Appeals Court. Finally, the City of Cleveland will continue to monitor court action on this matter, as the Plaintiff (Jodka) has asked the Appeals Court to reconsider its opinion.