(A) A registered owner or designated party may contest the ticket by filing a written request for an administrative hearing to review the ticket with the Police Department or its designee. A written notice of request for an administrative hearing must be received by the Police Department, or its designee, within 30 calendar days after the date of issuance of the ticket. The failure to give notice of request for an administrative hearing within this time period shall constitute a waiver of the right to contest the ticket. A Hearing Officer shall conduct administrative hearings. Administrative hearings shall be held within 45 business days of the date that timely request for a hearing is received by the Police Department or its designee, but not sooner than 21 days from receipt by the Police Department of such request; this time may be extended upon a reasonable written request for additional time or upon reasonable notification of the Hearing Officer or village with notice of all parties. The administrative hearing shall be open to the public, and a hearing schedule shall be posted in a conspicuous place near the entrance to the hearing room that shall identify, by alleged violator, the administrative hearings scheduled for that day and time of each hearing. More than one hearing may be scheduled for the same time to allow for such things as non-appearances or admissions of liability.
(1) The Hearing Officer shall determine whether a preponderance of evidence establishes that a traffic law violation occurred and the person requesting the administrative hearing is the party operating the vehicle at the time of the traffic law violation.
(2) The hearing officer shall advise the person or entity on the day of the hearing of the hearing officer’s decision.
(a) If the Hearing Officer finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the alleged traffic law violation did in fact occur and that the person or entity named in the ticket is the person who was operating the vehicle at the time of the violation, the Hearing Officer shall issue a written decision imposing civil penalty for the violation upon the individual or entity and submit it to the village or its designee and the person or entity names in the ticket.
(b) If the Hearing Officer finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the alleged traffic law violation did not occur or did in fact occur but the person or entity named in the ticket is not the person who was operating the vehicle at the time of the violation, the Hearing Officer shall issue a written decision finding that the individual or entity is not liable for the violation and submit it to the village or its designee and the person or entity named in the ticket.
(c) If the person who requested the administrative hearing or a representative of the entity that requested the hearing fails to appear at the hearing, the Hearing Officer shall determine that the person or entity is liable for the violation. In such a case, the Hearing Officer shall issue a written decision imposing liability for the violation upon the individual or entity and submit it to the local authority or its designee and the person or entity named in the ticket.
(B) If the registered owner or designated party chooses to contest the ticket, the Hearing Officer may consider any of the following as an affirmative defense to a violation upon the defense being established by a preponderance of the evidence by the registered owner or designated party:
(1) That the motor vehicle or license plates of the motor vehicle were stolen before the violation occurred and were not under control or possession of the registered owner at the time of the traffic law violation. In order to demonstrate that the motor vehicle or license plates were stolen before the traffic law violation occurred and were not under the control and possession of the registered owner at the time of the traffic law violation, the owner must submit proof that a police report about the stolen motor vehicle or license plates was filed prior to the traffic law violation or within 48 hours after the traffic law violation occurred;
(2) That the motor vehicle was under the custody and/or control of another person at the time of the violation. In order to establish this, the owner or responsible person must provide the name and address of the person who had custody and/or control of the motor vehicle at the time of the traffic law violation;
(3) That this section is unenforceable because the photo traffic enforcement system was not operating properly or the automated traffic enforcement system was not in proper position, or that the image that served as the basis for the notice of liability is not legible enough to show letters and numbers or the state that issued the license plate number on the vehicle;
(4) Evidence, other than that adduced pursuant to division (B)(1) of this section, that the registered owner or person named in the ticket was not operating the motor vehicle at the time of the violation. To satisfy the evidentiary burden under this division (B)(4), the owner or person named in the ticket shall provide to the Hearing Officer evidence showing the identity of the person who was operating the motor vehicle at the time of the traffic law violation, including, but not limited to, the operator’s name and current address, and any other evidence the hearing officer deems pertinent;
(5) That the notice of liability was issued and sent more than 30 days after the date of the violation recorded by the photo traffic enforcement system;
(6) That the driver of the vehicle passed through the location or had increased speed in order to yield the right-of-way to an emergency vehicle, in accordance with R.C. § 4511.45 or to a funeral procession, in accordance with R.C. § 4511.451; and
(7) That under consideration of the totality of the circumstances, the person or entity named in the ticket is not liable. The Hearing Officer may dismiss the ticket when he or she deems that a dismissal is fair and equitable or warranted based upon his or her sole discretion.
(C) If the Hearing Officer finds that the person or entity named in the ticket was not operating the motor vehicle at the time of the violation or receives evidence under division (B)(4) of this section identifying the designated party, the Hearing Officer shall provide it to the village or its designee within five calendar days, along with a copy of any evidence substantiating who was operating the motor vehicle at the time of the traffic law violation.
(1) Upon receipt of evidence of the designated party pursuant to this section, the village or its designee may issue a ticket, with the name and address of the designated party and the information required with § 73.48 of this subchapter, to the person that the evidence indicates was operating the motor vehicle at the time of the violation.
(2) A ticket issued under division (C) of this section, shall be sent by the village or its designee by ordinary mail no later than 21 business days after the receipt of the evidence from the Hearing Officer.
(3) If a designated party who was issued a ticket under division (C) of this section contests the ticket by filing a written request for an administrative hearing to review the ticket not later than 30 days after receipt of the ticket, the village shall require the registered owner of the motor vehicle also to attend the hearing. If at the hearing involving the designated party, the Hearing Officer cannot determine the identity of the operator of the vehicle at the time of the violation, the registered owner is liable for the violation. The Hearing Officer then shall issue a written decision imposing liability for the violation on the registered owner and submit it to the village or its designee and to the registered owner. If the designated party is also a registered owner of the vehicle, liability for the violation shall follow the order of registered owners as listed on the title to the vehicle.
(4) A person who is named in a ticket for a civil violation may assert a testimonial privilege in accordance with R.C. § 2317.02(D).
(5) The Hearing Officer shall render a decision on the day a hearing takes place.
(6) A person or entity may appeal a decision rendered by a Hearing Officer under this section to the court with jurisdiction over the location where the violation occurred.
(Ord. 17-09, passed 5-17-2017)