From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

City of Dayton v. Adams

Supreme Court of Ohio
Feb 15, 1967
9 Ohio St. 2d 89 (Ohio 1967)

Opinion

No. 39838

Decided February 15, 1967.

Criminal law — Motor vehicles — Municipal ordinance regulating speed — Municipal police cars used in enforcement to be marked — Section 4549.13, Revised Code — Traffic officer incompetent to testify, when — Using unmarked car.

1. Municipal police cars used in the enforcement of municipal ordinances regulating the speed of motor vehicles upon the streets of the municipality are required to be marked as provided in Section 4549.13, Revised Code.

2. A municipal police officer, who is on duty exclusively or for the main purpose of enforcing motor vehicle or traffic ordinances of the municipality, providing the offense is punishable as a misdemeanor, is incompetent to testify as a witness in any prosecution against a person he arrests or participates or assists in arresting for the violation of the motor vehicle or traffic ordinances of the municipality, if such officer, at the time of the arrest, was using a motor vehicle not marked in accordance with Section 4549.13, Revised Code.

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County.

This cause is submitted upon an agreed statement of facts.

The appellant was stopped in the city of Dayton by Dayton police officer, W.K. White, who issued the appellant a citation accusing the appellant of operating a motor vehicle at 35 miles an hour in a 25-mile an hour zone. The speed of appellant's motor vehicle was checked by the use of a radar device.

Officer White operated a properly marked Dayton police cruiser known as a "chase vehicle." Officer Burns operated an unmarked motor vehicle owned by the city of Dayton, which carried a radar box, a radar recording device and radar tape.

The appellant was tried in the Dayton Municipal Court and found guilty. It is stipulated by the parties that appellant's counsel entered timely objections to the admission into evidence of the testimony of both police officers pertaining to the radar device.

A motion for a new trial was overruled. Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals, the judgment of the Municipal Court was affirmed. ( 3 Ohio App.2d 126.)

The cause is before this court upon the allowance of a motion to certify the record.

Mr. Henry W. Phillips, for appellee.

Messrs. Bailie Allen and Mr. David H. Bailie, for appellant.


The sole question presented to this court for determination is: Are municipal police cars, used in the enforcement of municipal ordinances regulating the speed of motor vehicles upon the streets of the municipality, required to be marked as provided in Section 4549.13, Ohio Revised Code?

The answer to this question is found in the statute itself, Section 4549.13, Revised Code, which says:

"Any motor vehicle used by a member of the state highway patrol or by any other peace officer, while said officer is on duty for the exclusive or main purpose of enforcing the motor vehicle or traffic laws of this state, provided the offense is punishable as a misdemeanor, shall be marked in some distinctive manner or color. * * *" (Emphasis added.)

The intent of the Legislature in enacting this provision of law was to provide uniformity in traffic control and regulation in an effort to make driving safer in all political subdivisions within the state. As Judge Herbert, speaking for a unanimous court, stated in City of Cleveland Heights v. Woodle, 176 Ohio St. 113, at page 116:

"* * * uniformity is essential both for traffic safety and for efficient traffic regulation."

It was also the intent of the Legislature, in part, in enacting this provision of law, to put a curb upon the speed traps which were often operated by "peace officers" of the municipalities and townships.

When the words, "laws of this state," are used, the generally accepted meaning is that this includes the state statutes and municipal ordinances.

"`Ordinance' as a term of municipal law is the equivalent of `legislative action,' and it may be included within the meaning of the term `law,' * * *. Thus it is a local law of a municipality, * * * and is both a local law and, in a sense, a law of the state. * * *" 62 Corpus Juris Secundum 785, Municipal Corporations, Section 411.

The appellee relies principally upon the case of Village of Brewster v. Hill, 128 Ohio St. 354.

The court, in the opinion in the Brewster case, supra, referred to the explanation of the text of Section 2, Article IV of the Ohio Constitution, which explanation was submitted along with the text to the electorate for their decision at the polls. This explanation specifically defined and limited the word, "law," as used in Section 2 of Article IV of the Ohio Constitution, to "statute." The construction given to the word, "law," in the opinion in the Brewster case is, therefore, limited to the facts of that case.

Since the Dayton police cruiser operated by Officer Burns at the time of the arrest was not marked in accordance with Section 4549.13 of the Revised Code, Officer Burns was incompetent to testify as a witness for the prosecution against the appellant by reason of the provisions of Section 4549.14 of the Revised Code.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is, therefore, reversed.

Judgment reversed.

TAFT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, HERBERT, GRAY and BROWN, JJ., concur.

GRAY, J., of the Fourth Appellate District sitting for SCHNEIDER, J.


Summaries of

City of Dayton v. Adams

Supreme Court of Ohio
Feb 15, 1967
9 Ohio St. 2d 89 (Ohio 1967)
Case details for

City of Dayton v. Adams

Case Details

Full title:CITY OF DAYTON, APPELLEE v. ADAMS, APPELLANT

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Feb 15, 1967

Citations

9 Ohio St. 2d 89 (Ohio 1967)
223 N.E.2d 822

Citing Cases

State v. Butler

State v. Huth (1986), 24 Ohio St.3d 114, 115, 24 OBR 306, 307, 493 N.E.2d 961, 963. See, also, Dayton v.…

State v. Lumpkin

"Through the enactment of these statutes, the legislature demonstrated an intent to provide uniformity in…