City of Toledo v. Wacenske
642 N.E.2d 407, 95 Ohio App. 3d 282, 1994 Ohio App. LEXIS 2250 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipal ordinance requiring motorcycles to operate with headlights on during daylight hours is a constitutional public welfare regulation that does not violate due process, even without a requirement to prove the operator's knowledge of the law. Such an ordinance, which does not impinge on a fundamental right, is subject to rational basis scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.
Facts:
- On July 4, 1993, Dwayne L. Wacenske was operating his motorcycle on Water Street in Toledo, Ohio.
- The time was approximately 5:40 p.m., during daylight hours.
- Wacenske was operating the motorcycle without its headlight illuminated.
- A Toledo police officer stopped Wacenske and cited him for violating a Toledo municipal ordinance requiring motorcycle headlights to be on at all times.
Procedural Posture:
- Dwayne L. Wacenske was cited for violating Toledo Municipal Code 337.02(d).
- In the Toledo Municipal Court (trial court), Wacenske filed a motion to declare the ordinance unconstitutional.
- The trial court denied Wacenske's motion and found him guilty of the offense.
- Wacenske, as appellant, appealed the judgment of the municipal court to the Court of Appeals of Ohio.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a municipal ordinance requiring motorcycles, but not other vehicles, to have their headlights on during daylight hours violate the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment when applied to an individual who was unaware of the local law?
Opinions:
Majority - Melvin L. Resnick, Judge.
No, the ordinance does not violate the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses. The court reasoned that the ordinance is a strict liability public welfare regulation, which does not require proof of criminal intent or knowledge of the law. Unlike the felony registration law in Lambert v. California, minor traffic regulations enacted for public safety fall outside the category of offenses requiring notice for due process. Furthermore, the ordinance does not impinge upon a fundamental right to travel, which relates to interstate migration rather than the mode of intrastate transportation. Therefore, the ordinance is subject to the lenient rational basis test, not strict scrutiny. The law easily passes this test because requiring motorcycle headlights to be on during the day is rationally related to the legitimate governmental interest of promoting public safety by increasing the visibility of motorcycles to other drivers.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that minor public welfare offenses, particularly traffic regulations, can be constitutional as strict liability crimes where intent or knowledge is not an element. It clarifies the narrow scope of the Lambert 'notice' exception, distinguishing between serious crimes based on passive conduct and minor regulatory infractions. The case also affirms that regulations concerning the specific mode of travel are subject only to rational basis review, not strict scrutiny, thereby distinguishing them from laws that penalize the fundamental right to interstate migration. This strengthens the authority of municipalities to enact specific traffic safety laws that may differ from state law, so long as they are not in direct conflict and have a rational basis.
Unlock the full brief for City of Toledo v. Wacenske