Background
Jazmane Preston, proceeding without counsel, was cited after Warrensville Heights police officer Elizabeth Roxbury observed her vehicle proceed through a stop sign at Midway and Wickfield Avenues without stopping. The officer also observed an expired registration sticker and confirmed through the Law Enforcement Automated Data System that the vehicle registration had expired in May 2024.
Following a bench trial in Bedford Municipal Court, Preston was found guilty of operating a vehicle with expired plates under Warrensville Heights Codified Ordinances 335.10(D) and failing to stop at a stop sign under WHCO 331.19. The court imposed a $50 fine plus costs. Preston appealed, challenging notice of the charges, the evidence, discovery and bill-of-particulars issues, the ordinance’s validity, and double jeopardy.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth District affirmed. The traffic rules did not entitle Preston to a bill of particulars, and the record showed she received the traffic ticket, the pertinent ordinances, and the city’s discovery. The court also held that Officer Roxbury’s testimony, corroborated by the LEADS report, supported both convictions despite the officer’s malfunctioning body camera.
Preston forfeited her constitutional challenge to the expired-plate ordinance by not raising it in the trial court. Her double-jeopardy claim also failed because the offenses at issue occurred on different dates and in a different jurisdiction from her prior expired-plate convictions. The court reiterated a prior warning that continued frivolous appeals could result in Preston being declared a vexatious litigator.
Key Takeaways
- Ohio traffic rules do not require a bill of particulars in ordinary traffic cases.
- An officer’s testimony can establish traffic violations without body-camera footage or other physical corroboration.
- Separate expired-registration violations on different dates and in different jurisdictions do not constitute double jeopardy.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that traffic convictions may rest on credible officer testimony and records such as a LEADS report, even where body-camera footage is unavailable. It also underscores that constitutional challenges to municipal traffic ordinances generally must be raised in the trial court to preserve them for appeal.