Posts Tagged ‘chillicothe attorney’

ChillicotheDUI.com

March 5th, 2011

Welcome to ChillicotheDUI.com.  This site was developed to provide practical information regarding Chillicothe and Ross County’s tough drunk driving law.  Here you will find information on DUI (now called OVI) law in the Chillicothe Municipal Court and in the Ross County Common Pleas Court.  If you find yourself accused of a crime contact Charles M. Rowland II.

CHILLICOTHE MUNICIPAL COURT INFORMATION

The Judges who may hear your case in the Chillicothe Municipal Court are Judge Bunch, Judge Street, Magistrates Large and/or Martin.  The Court can be reached at (740) 773-3515.  The Chillicothe law director is Toni L. Eddy.  The Law Director and her assistants are responsible for prosecuting DUI/OVI offenses in the Chillicothe Municipal Court and can be reached at (740) 774-4175, or via E-mail: lawdirector@horizonview.net

Follow these links for important information about your Chillicothe DUI charge:

Charles M. Rowland II represents clients from all of the following areas of Ross County: Adelphi, Bainbridge, Chillicothe, Clarksburg, Frankfort, Kingston, North Fork Village and South Salem.  Contact Charles Rowland by phone at 937-318-1DUI (937-318-1384), 937-879-9542, or toll-free at 1-888-ROWLAND (1-888-769-5263). For after-hours help contact our 24/7 DUI HOTLINE at 937-776-2671.  Immediate help is available by filling out the CONTACT form on any of these pages.

For information about Charles Rowland/Dayton DUI sent directly to your mobile device, text DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500.  Follow @DaytonDUI on Twitter at www.Twitter.com/DaytonDUI or Get Twitter updates via SMS by texting follow DaytonDUI to 40404. DaytonDUI is also available on Facebook and you can access updates by becoming a fan of Dayton DUI/OVI Defense. You can also email Charles Rowland at: CharlesRowland@CharlesRowland.com or write to us at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324.

Chillicothe, Ohio Fights Traffic Cameras

August 20th, 2009
Traffic camera
Image by Adrian Short via Flickr

Ohio City Attempts to Undermine Traffic Camera Referendum

Chillicothe, Ohio attempts to undermine November referendum on the use of photo enforcement.Activists in Chillicothe, Ohio vowed on Monday to fight efforts to sabotage a referendum on the use of traffic cameras. Residents signed a petition demanding the right to have a vote in November on whether to keep or outlaw red light cameras and speed cameras. Once on the ballot, no referendum of this type has ever failed to pass, and Chillicothe officials are doing what it takes to ensure that never happens. Assistant Law Director James L. Mann on Friday filed a formal petition with the Ross County Board of Elections seeking to block the petition.

“The city of Chillicothe… protests against the petition for the initiative petition for the reason that portions of the petition violate existing state law, portions of the petition violate the Ohio and United States Constitution and the petition is confusing and misleading to the voting public,” Mann wrote.  Mann argued that the petition is unlawful because, he claimed, a city may not by initiative bind the actions of county law enforcement. He also claimed that citizens may not “impair” the existing contract between Redflex, the private Australian company that actually operates every aspect of the program from installing cameras to mailing citations, and Chillicothe. Mann insisted that citizens of Chillicothe have no power to bind the future actions of the city council. In effect, he said that the council decision was beyond the power of citizens to correct.  ”The actions of the council of the city of Chillicothe in enacting Ordinance 151-07 and Chapter 315 of the Codified Ordinances were administrative and not legislative,” Mann wrote. “Therefore those actions are not subject to initiative proceedings.”

Rebekah Valentich, leader of the group Citizens Against Photo Enforcement, insisted that Mann’s arguments were without merit. Since the mid-Nineties, five cities — including two in Ohio — have used the initiative process to overturn photo enforcement programs. Not one of these efforts was sidelined by legal, contractual or constitutional challenges of the type cited by Mann. Valentich says her group has followed the letter and spirit of the law.  ”CAPE has collected valid signatures; the board of elections has certified the petitions and forwarded them to the secretary of state, where the wording has been approved for the ballot and have returned them to the board of elections,” Valentich said in a statement. “Now the city of Chillicothe has come forward protesting the petition, with a last ditch effort to take the voice away from the people.”

At least three other referendum efforts are scheduled for November’s ballot. Most recently, activists in Toledo, Ohio confirmed that they had secured the requisite number of signatures, as has the city of Heath. In College Station, Texas, officials this week backed down on an earlier effort to undermine the photo enforcement ballot initiative. Valentich said she is willing to go the distance to ensure citizens have the final word on automated ticketing machines.  ”We are not going to back down from those bullies,” Valentich said. “They can threaten all they want, but until the fat lady sings, the game is not over. As of now, it is still going on the ballot. If the board of elections agree with the city, than it will go to the supreme court.”  The mayor and city council members from Chillicothe ignored requests to comment for this story. A copy of the ballot initiative and Mann’s letter are available in a 250k PDF file at the source link below.

Source:Initiative Ordinance Restricting the Use of Mobile Speed Enforcement Vehicles (City of Chillicothe, Ohio, 8/14/2009)

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Chillicothe, Ohio Anti-Camera Petition Succeeds

April 30th, 2009
Main Street in Chillicothe, Ohio, 6/17/2006 Ca...

Chillicothe, Ross County, Ohio

Activists in Chillicothe, Ohio obtained more than double the number of signatures required to call a vote to ban red light and speed cameras.

A third city in Ohio is poised to ban the use of photo enforcement. The Chillicothe group Citizens Against Photo Enforcement (CAPE) announced Thursday that it had submitted more than double the number of signatures required to give voters in November the choice of banning both speed cameras and red light cameras (view initiative text).

“CAPE is against the red light cameras because they are unsafe, they do not add safety to the city, they only add revenue and still to this day, we have illegal short yellows,” CAPE President Rebekah Valentich explained.

Under Ohio Code Section 4511.094, which became law on September 12, 2008, it is illegal for any camera-equipped intersection to have a yellow time duration of less than 4.0 seconds. Similar to a new Georgia law, cities must add one second of yellow time to any intersection using a camera. CAPE members caught local officials using yellows with durations under four seconds after the law had passed at intersections such as Bridge and Main. After the city increased the yellow to 4 seconds at this location, the number of citations issued dropped nearly 90 percent. According to the group, several intersections remain undertimed.

Given the strong petition support and the history of similar efforts, prospects are favorable for the referendum. A similar initiative banned cameras in Cincinnati last year. In 2006, three out of every four voters in Steubenville chose to kick out speed cameras after the devices had issued $600,000 in citations. Over the past twelve years, voters in Anchorage, Alaska; Peoria, Arizona and Batavia, Illinois have also banned cameras.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]