Pla inti ff v oluntaril y

dis mis se d with p re

jud ic e th e indiv idualdef endant s, a llAk

ro n City Co uncil 1 M embers sued intheir official ca pacities, leaving the City of Akron, Oh io, andNestor Traffic Sy stems, Inc., as def endant s. Thi s co urt gr ante d the mo ti on of Ame ri can Tra ff

ic Solutio ns, Inc. , to int erve ne a s a sub st itute party f or Ne st or Tra ff ic Sy st ems wi th r es pe ct

to c erta in c la ims s ubjec t t o an As se t Pur cha se Agre eme nt. NOT RE CO M M E NDE D F OR F UL L
- T E XT P UB L I CA T I ON

Fi l e N ame: 10a0197n. 06 N o. 09- 3061 UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT
K E L L Y M E N D E N H A L L , Indi vidual l yand as a C l ass R epr es ent at i ve foral l Per s ons Si m i l ar l ySi tuat ed, P lain tiff -A p p e llan t,
v. CI TY O F A K RO N ; N ESTO R T RA FFI C SY STEM S, IN C ., D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees, A M E R IC A N T R A F F IC S O L U T IO N S , IN C ., Interv en o r. O n A ppeal fr om t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he N or t hern D i s t r i ctof O hi o at A kr on

/ B efore: G U Y , C L A Y , an d K E T H L E D G E , C i rcu i t Jud ges. R A L P H B . G U Y , JR . , C i rcui t Judge. Pl ai nt i ff K el ly M en d en h all ap p ea ls fr om the entr yof j udgm entagai ns ther , ar gui ng ( 1) t hatt he di s t r i ct cour t err ed i n r ej ect i ng herfede r al due pr oces s chal l enge t o t he ci t y or di nance author i zi ng ci vi l penal t i es fors peedi ng vi ol at i ons captur ed byaut om at ed ca m er as ; and ( 2) t hat the d is t r i ctcour terr ed i n deny i ng herm ot i on f o rr e ma n d t o s t a t e c o u r to n t h e g r o u n d s t h a tt h e r e mo v a l wa s i mp r o p e r . W e a f f i r m. 1No. 09-3061 2

The p la inti ff

’s ho me- rule c hall eng e under the Ohio Cons ti tuti on was re ject ed by the Ohio Supr eme 2 Cou rt, after the questionw as certifiedfor decisionby the district court
. Me nde nhall v . Ci t yof Ak ron , 88 1 N. E.2d 255 (Ohi o 2008 ). Pl ai nt i ff r ece i ved a civ il ci t at i on underA kr on C i t yC ode § 79. 01, as t he ow nerof a
c a rt h a tw a s r e c o r d e d s p e e d i n g i n a s c h o o l z o n e . P l a i n t i f f , r e p r e s e n t e d b y h e ra t t o r n e yhus band, exer ci s ed her r i ght t o have an adm i ni s t r at i ve hear i ng, and succ eede d i n havi ng t he ci t at i on di s m i s s ed on the gr ounds t hatt he s peed- l i m i ts i gn had bee n van d ali ze d o rw as
m i s s i ng att he t i m e t hathercarw as phot ogr aphed. N o ci vi l penal t yw as as s es s ed. T he compl ai nt , fi l ed i n D ece m ber 2 0 0 5 , s oughtdecl ar at or yand i nj unct i ve r el i ef in v a lid a tin g th e o r d in a n c e in its e n tiretya s v io lativ e o f b o th th e f

e d e ra l an d sta te
cons t i tut i ons . D efe ndant s r emoved t he ac t i on t o fede r al cour t on t he bas i s of fe der al ques t i on j ur i s di ct i on, 28 U
. S. C
. § 1331, and pl ai nt i ff mov ed fo r re m and on the gr ounds t hat d ec laratoryjud g m en t w as a stat e law claim
. A s the d istri ct co u rt o b s e rv ed , p lai n ti ff ’s
c o m p la in t a lle g e d , in tera lia , t hat t he or di nance vi ol at ed D ue Pr oces s and Fi ft h A m endment
r i ght s guar ant eed byt he U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tu ti on. W hethera cl ai m ar i s es underfede r al l aw i s det er m i ned byexami ni ng t he “w el l pl eade d” al l egat i ons of t he compl ai ntand i gnor i ng p o te n tia l d e f

e n s e s . B enef

i ci alN a t’ l Bank v. A nders on , 5 3 9 U
. S
. 1 , 6 (20 0 3 ). M o reo v er, undert he s ubs t ant i al
- fede r al
- ques t i on doctr i ne, t her e i s j ur i s di ct i on w her e “the vi ndi cat i on of a r i ght under s t at e l aw nece s s ar i l ytur n[s ] on s om e cons t ruct i on of fe der al l aw . ” Franch ise T ax B d. v. C on str. L ab orers Va cati on T rust , 463 U
. S. 1, 9 ( 1983)
. W e fi nd t hatt he di s t r i ct
cour tdi d noter ri n deny i ng t he mot i on forr emand. 2 W i t h r es p ec t to t he mer i t s , t her e i s no quarr el conce r ni ng t he fa ct s , as t he part i esNo. 09-3061 3

ent er ed i nt o ext ens i v e sti p u lat ions a nd t he due pr oces s cl ai m ati s s ue w as r es ol ved on the bas i s of compet i ng m ot i ons forj udgm ento n the r ecor d. A s fort he l aw , t her e i s al s o no di s put e thatt he di s t r i ct cour t acc ur at el y s et for t h t he t w o- par t t es t fordet er m i ni ng w hether th e e n f o rc e m e n t s c h e m e is c iv il o r c ri m in a l, s ee Sm i th v. John D oe , 5 3 8 U
. S
. 8 4 , 9 2 (20 0 3 ), inclu d ing the s ev e n f

a c tors to b e c o n side red u n d er the sec o n d step to d eterm ine w h ethe r,
n o tw ith stan d ing the e x p ress inten ti o n to i m p o se a no n p u n it ive c ivil sch em e, th e e ff ec ts are
s o p u n itiv e a s to n e g a te th a t le g is la tiv e in te n t, s ee Kennedy v
. Mendoz a- M ar t i nez , 37 2 U. S. 144, 168- 69 ( 1963)
. N ot w i t hs t andi ng pl ai nt i ff’ s rei t er at i on of t he ar gum ent s m ade i n t he di s t r i ctcour t , w e fi nd t hatt he di s t r i ct cour t pr oper l y appl i ed t he l aw and abl yar t i cul at ed the
rea so n s su p p o rt ing the co n clus ion that this en fo rce m en t sch em e i s civil in n a tu re . A c cord K ilp e r v . C ity o

f A rn o ld , N o . 0 8 -cv -02 6 7 -T C M , 2 0 0 9 W L 2 2 0 8 4 0 4 (E
. D
. M o . Ju l. 2 3 , 2 0 0 9 ). F in a lly , p lain tiff

a rg u e s th a t ev e n so , the o rd in a n c e d id n o t p ro v id e c o n stitu tio n a lly ad eq u ate d u e p roc ess w h en the c o m p eti n g interests of the g o v ern m en t and the in d ividu al are b a la n c e d
. See M

athew s v. E ldr i dge , 424 U
. S. 319, 335 ( 1976)
. A s t he di s t r i ctcour tfound, t he or di nance pr ovi des for not i ce of t he ci t at i on, an oppor tuni t yfora hea r i ng, pr ovi s i on for
a re c o rd o f

th e h e a rin g d e c isio n , an d th e rig h t to a p p e a l an a d v e rse d e c isio n . W e a g re e w ith t he d i stri ctcou rt that t he o rdi nan ce and i t s i m plem entat i on , as det ai l ed in t he st i pu l at i on s,
sa tisf yd u e p ro c e ss , an d re

jec t p lain tiff ’s a ss e rtio n th a t itv io late s d u e p ro c e ss to im p o se c iv il penal t i es fors peedi ng vi ol at i ons i r r es pect i ve of w hether t he ow ner w as , i n fac t , dr i vi ng t he
v e h ic le w h e n th e v io la tio n w a s re c o rd e d
. See, e. g. , I dr is v. C i t

y of C hi cago , N o. 06- C
- 6085, 2 0 0 8 W L 1 8 2 2 4 8 (N .D . Il l. J a n . 1 6 , 2 0 0 8 ), a ff’d , 5 5 2 F .3 d 5 6 4 , 5 6 6 -6 8 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 9 ); C ityNo. 09-3061 4

J anice Sipes and two other plaintiffs brough t a s imilar action th at pro ceededtoge ther wi th th is case 3 andwas reso lved inthe same order, b ut n o ap peal was taken from the ju dgmen t entered against them
. (No. 06-cv -154). o f Kn o x v i l l e v . Br o wn , 2 8 4 S .W .3 d 3 3 0 , 3 3 8 -3 9 (T e n n . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 8 ); G ar dnerv. C i t y of C ol um bus , 8 4 1 F
. 2 d 1 2 7 2 , 1 2 8 0 (6th C ir
. 1 9 8 8 ) (civil p en alt ies fo r pa rkin g v iolati o n s). A ccor di ngl y , agr eei ng w i t h t he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s w el l
- r eas oned opi ni on and fi ndi ng t hat t he i s s uance of a de t ai l ed w r i t t en opi ni on w oul d be dupl i cat i ve and s er ve no us eful purpos e,
w e AF F I RM t he entr yof j udgm enti n favorof de fe n d an ts f ort he r eas ons s etfor t h i n t he d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s o p in io n e n te re d o n D e c e m b e r 1 9 , 2 0 0 8
. Mendenhal l v. C i t y of A kr on , N o. 06-
cv -13 9 , 2 0 0 8 W L 7 4 8 4 1 7 9 (N
. D
. O h io D ec . 1 9 , 2 0 0 8 ) (un p u b li sh ed ). 3No. 09-3061 5

F or purp os e s o f t

his dis se nt, Ia ssume wi thout de c idi ng that Plai nti ff ha s standing to ra ise 1 this claim. Theredoes not appe ar to bea nee d to addre ss the issue of whether Plaintiff ha s standing to bringthis suit , inasmuch as the pa rties, the district cour

t, and the majority

opinion h ave not addre ssed the issue. C L A Y , C i rcui t Judge, di s s ent i ng. A kr on’ s ci vi l s peed e nfor cements c h e me v i ol at es due pr oces s b yfai l i ng t o pr ovi de vehi cl e ow ner s w i t h an oppor tuni t yt o avoi d l i abi l i t yby pr ovi ng t hatt heydi d not comm i t t he i nfr act i on. T her efor e, I w oul d i nval i dat e the or di nance . 1 W h e n t h e C i t y o f

A k r o n s e n d s t h e o w n e ro f a n o f f e n d i n g v e h i c l e a n o t i c e o f l i a b i l i t y, t he ow nerhas t hr ee opt i ons : ( 1) t o pay t he amount due; ( 2) t o s i gn an af fi davi tt hatt he ci t ed vehi cl e w as l eas ed ors t ol en; or( 3) t o exer ci s e the r i ghtt o an admi ni s t r at i ve ap p ea l. T he
r egi ster ed ow nerof a ve hi cl e i s hel d ci vi l l yl i abl e r egar dl es s of w hethert he ow nerw as dr i vi ng at t he t i m e t he vehi cl e w as phot ogr aphed exce edi ng t he s peed l i m i t . A n ow nerm ay avoi d l i abi l i t yon t he bas i s t hathe ors he w as nott he oper at oronl yi f ( 1) t he ow nerr epor t ed th e v e h icle sto len b e f

o re it w a s p h o to g ra p h e d , o r (2 ) th e o w n e r h a d lea se d th e v e h icle to
s om eone e l s e fors i x m ont hs o rm or e. W hi l e the ow nerm ayr eques tan admi ni s t r at i ve hear i ng at w hi ch she can pre s ent w i t nes s es , document s , or ot her evi dence r el at i ng t o t he i s s ue of l i abi l i t y , t he ordi nance does noti ndi cat e thatpr oof t hatt he ow nerw as noti n fac tdr i vi ng t he vehi cl e att he t i m e of the vi ol at i on can pr ovi de a ba s i s foravoi di ng l i abi l i t yatt he admi ni s t r at i ve hea r i ng. T h e S u p rem e C o u rth as laid o u t a t h ree -pro n g b alan cing testto d eterm ine w h ethe r a
s t at e has pr ovi ded ade quat e due pr oces s pr ocedur es i n a ci vi l cas e: Fi r s t , t he pr i vat e i nt er es t t hat w i l l be affec t ed byt he off i ci al act i on; s econd, t he r i s k of an e r r oneous depr i vat i on of s uch i nt er es tt hr ough t he pr ocedur es us ed, and t he pr obabl e val ue, i f any , o f ad d it i onal ors ubs t i tut e pr ocedur alNo. 09-3061 6

s afe guar ds ; and fi nal l y , t h e G o vernm ent ’ s i nt er es t , i ncl udi ng t he func t i on i nvol ved and the fi s cal and adm inist rat i ve bur dens t hatt he addi t i onal or s u b s titu te p ro c e d u ra l r e q u ir e m e n t w o u ld e n ta il. Mat thew s v. E ldr i dge , 4 2 4 U
. S
. 3 1 9 , 3 3 5 , 9 6 S
. C t. 8 9 3 , 9 0 3 , 4 7 L
. E d
. 2 d 1 8 (19 7 6 ). Pl ai nt i ff’ s pr i vat e i nt er es t at i s s ue i n t hi s cas e i s t he depr i vat i on of herm oney–t he cos tof t he f in e . S e e He rr a da v . C ity o f D e tro it , 2 7 5 F
. 3 d 5 5 3 , 5 5 6 (6th C ir
. 2 0 0 1 ). T h e A k ro n c iv il sp e e d in g e n f o rc e m e n t sy ste m f

a ils to sa tisf

y th is du e p r o c e s s tes t. U nderSect i on 79. 01, A kr on does notpr ovi de an ow nerw i t h a mec h an ism t o avoi d an
e r r o n e o u s d e p r i v a t i o n o f h e rp r o p e r t yi n t e r e s tb y p r o v i n g t h a t s h e wa s n o t d r i v i n g a tt h e t i me t he vi ol at i on occurr ed. R ather , A kr on hol ds a dr i verl i abl e r egar dl es s of w hether s he w as t he per s on w ho comm i t t ed the ac ti n ques t i on. T he or di nance do es provi de an a ccus ed ow ner
w ith th e rig h t to a n a d m in istra tiv e a p p e a l, at w h ich th e h e a r in g o f f ic e r m u st c o n sid e r a ll t es t i m ony , document s orot herevi dence i n det er m i ni ng l i abi l i t yand i s notl i m i t ed t o w hether th e v e h icle is le a se d o r sto le n . S p e c if ica lly , S e c tio n 7 9 .0 1 in stru c ts th e h e a rin g o f f ice r to
cons i ders uch i s s ues as “w hethert he vehi cl e w as s peedi ng, i f t he vehi cl e w as i n t he s chool
zone w hen i tw as r eco rded and phot ogr aphed, w hethert he t i m e w as corr ect , w hethert he
s chool zone l i ght s w er e fl as hi ng, [and] w hether i t w as r ecor ded duri ng t he r es t r i ct ed s chool zone hour s . ” ( St i p. Fact s ¶ 53). B as ed on t he face of t he ordi nance , i t i s cl eart hatt he t ype
o f evi dence t he hea r i ng offi cerm aycons i derw hen det er m i ni ng l i abi l i t yconce r ns w het her a vi ol at i on occurr ed i n t he ow ner ’ s car , notw hethert he o w n er w as t he per s on w ho
com m i t t ed the vi olat i on . T hu s, an o w ner m aybe h el d li able for s om eon e el se’ s act i on s.No. 09-3061 7

T o r ect i fyt hi s defi ci encyi n pr ocess, all A kr on w oul d have t o do i s al l ow an ow ner t o pr es entevi dence at an adm i ni s t r at i ve hear i ng t hats he w as nott he dr i verand pr ovi de that
s uch evi dence , i f cr edi t ed, es t abl i s hes a bas i s for t he hear i ng admi ni s t r at or t o m ake a fi ndi ng of no l i ab i l i t y . Si nce the or di nance al r eadygi ves an ac cus ed vi ol at ora r i ghtt o an admi ni s t r at i ve appe al , cons i der i ng s uch evi dence at t he admi ni s t r at i ve hea r i ng w oul d pr ot ect t he ow ner ’ s pr i vat e pec uni ar yi nt er es tfr om an err oneous depr i vat i on w i t houti m pos i ng any
a d d iti o n a l b u rd e n s o n th e g o v e rn m e n t. T h e re f o re , I re sp e c tf

u llyd iss e n t.