Springfield was trying to defy the (relatively) minor rules placed on their use of automated ticketing machines. On Friday, the Second District Court of Appeals ruled that it was entirely constitutional for the legislature require police presence where photo ticketing devices are in use (view ruling). Springfield refused to make any changes at all in the way their private vendors operated. They filed suit to block enforcement, objecting to the new law's requirement that a safety study justify the use of a camera and the prohibition on ticketing vehicles allegedly traveling 5 MPH or less over the speed limit.
"Upon review, we conclude that Springfield's traffic camera ordinance is clearly an exercise of its police power," Judge Mary E. Donovan wrote for the court. "In light of our previous holding in Dayton, we find no merit to Springfield's argument that Am.Sub.S.B. No. 342 is not a general law. Contrary to Springfield's assertions, Am.Sub.S.B. No. 342 was not enacted to limit municipal powers, and the statute constitutes a comprehensive, uniform, statewide regulatory scheme which clearly prescribes a rule of conduct upon citizens generally. Like the city of Dayton before it, Springfield has failed to meet its burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that Am.Sub.S.B. No. 342 in any way offends the Ohio Constitution."