Amended Class Action Complaint
Here is a full copy of the amended complaint filed on December 6, 2005:
In the Court of Common Pleas of
Jefferson County, Ohio
AMENDED COMPLAINT and CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
for Declaratory Relief, Action for Injunction, Action for Money Judgment
Case Number: 05 CV 524
Judge: David E. Henderson
APRIL STERN
Individually and as a Class Representative
Of All Persons Similarly Situated
Plaintiff
-vs-
THE CITY OF STEUBENVILLE, OHIO
and
TRAFFIPAX, INC.
Ste 100, 9017 Red Branch Road
Columbia, MD 21045
Defendants
INDIVIDUAL CLAIM
1) On November 17, 2005, plaintiff received two "Speed Violation Citations" from the Automated Traffic Enforcement Division of the Steubenville Police Department alleging that she owed penalties of $85.00 each because a vehicle registered in her name had been photographed in October of 2005 exceeding posted speed limits, once on Bryden Road and once on Lovers Lane, in the City of Steubenville. Copies of the citations are attached hereto.
2) The law upon which the City relies for its purported authority to assess such penalties, Ordinance 2005-67, was enacted by defendant's city council on August 2, 2005, and the police department began implementation of the ordinance on September 23, 2005. A copy of the ordinance is attached hereto and incorporated herein.
3) This law cannot be enforced against plaintiff because the City failed to comply with conditions expressly required in the ordinance itself, including, but not limited to:
a) Failure to publish notice of the dates and the locations of automated traffic enforcement in a newspaper of general circulation for at least 14 consecutive days prior to installation;
b) Failure to erect conspicuous signs prior to the date enforcement began;
c) Failure to maintain a list of monitored locations available for public inspection.
4) Not only is the ordinance unenforceable because of the City's failure to comply with its own preconditions, but the ordinance is also invalid in its entirety for the following reasons:
a) Persons who wish to contest their citations are limited to a hearing that is not subject to any prescribed rules of procedure or evidence, and is not heard by an impartial tribunal, but is decided by a police officer employed by the very department that issued the citation, whose decision is final and not subject to judicial review or further appeal, all of which violate the due process rights guaranteed by the Ohio and the United States constitutions;
b) The ordinance violates Ohio Revised Code § 4511.07, which does not authorize local authorities to enact their own laws regulating the speed of vehicles on streets and highways except in public parks, and which limits the authority of local governments to enact ordinances treating traffic offenses as noncriminal to cases involving parking violations;
c) Even if the State of Ohio were to authorize the enactment of ordinances like the one in question, the ordinance in its present form violates the public policy of Ohio and the legislative intent of the legislature implied by Ohio Revised Code §§ 4521.02 through 4521.08, which mandate that when local governments enact laws to enforce parking violations as noncriminal offenses, they must first establish a regulatory enforcement scheme that includes a hearing governed by designated rules of evidence and procedure, sets forth specific qualifications for hearing officers, and provides a mechanism for judicial review.
CLASS ACTION CLAIM
5) Plaintiff also brings this action on behalf of all persons who, on and after August 2, 2005, received a "Speed Violation Citation" from the Automated Traffic Enforcement Division of the Steubenville Police Department claiming that they must pay a penalty because vehicles registered or leased to them had been photographed while exceeding posted speed limits.
6) For the same reasons set forth in her individual claim, plaintiff asserts that the City's Ordinance 2005-67 is invalid and unenforceable against all members of the class of persons set forth above.
7) Defendant TRAFFIPAX, INC., has contracted with the City to provide equipment, personnel and services in connection with the installation, maintenance and operation of the Automated Traffic Enforcement System.
8) According to sworn testimony from a member of the Steubenville Police Department, the City, in concert with defendant TRAFFIPAX, INC., has issued over six thousand speeding citations to date and has collected over $229,000 in penalties from 2700 alleged violators, some of which money has been paid to or is in the custody of defendant TRAFFIPAX, INC.
9) A class action is necessary and appropriate because:
(a) the class is so numerous, and so likely to include vehicle owners who are not residents of the local area, that joinder of all members is impracticable,
(b) there are questions of law and fact common to the class as a whole,
(c) the claims of plaintiff are typical of the claims of the class,
(d) plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
(e) the prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the class would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the defendants,
(f) the City and Traffipax have acted on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole appropriate, and
(g) questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays as follows:
1. For a judgment declaring that the City and/or its designated agent has failed to comply with the terms and preconditions set forth in its own ordinance, thereby rendering the enactment currently unenforceable;
2. For a judgment declaring that the City's Ordinance 2005-67 is unconstitutional and/or invalid under Ohio law, and therefore totally void and unenforceable;
3. For a permanent injunction prohibiting continued enforcement of the ordinance as to members of the class against whom proceedings are still pending;
4. For an order requiring restitution from both defendants of all civil fines they have collected under the Automated Traffic Enforcement System; and
5. For such further relief as is necessary and/or appropriate.
STERN, STERN & STERN CO., LPA
By _________________________________
GARY M. STERN (0001399)
108 South Fourth Street
Steubenville, OH 43952
(740) 284-1211
Trial Attorney for Plaintiff
Back Read the Ordinance