DocketNumber: Case No. 2002-T-0040.
Judges: DONALD R. FORD, P.J.
Filed Date: 4/25/2003
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
{¶ 17} While I certainly share the majority's concern for the safety of school children, inconsistency in the application of the law is a threat to the integrity of our legal system and, ultimately, our children's future. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
{¶ 18} In Ravenna v. Sherman (Nov. 17, 1989), 11th Dist. No. 89-P-2054, 1989 Ohio App. LEXIS 4297, this court held that the "critical issue" in a school zone speeding case "is the time of the school day."Id. at 2. The violation in Sherman occurred during the school's designated recess or lunch period. In that case, we also held that the presence or absence of children outside the school was irrelevant to whether a violation occurred. Id.
{¶ 19} Now, in this case, the majority ignores the fact that appellant was cited before the school day ended. In fact, the majority now essentially says that the time of the school day is irrelevant because "[s]tudents may be present outside of the building for a variety of reasons during the course of the day." (Emphasis added). The majority, in this case, adopts a blanket "foremost concern" test for school zone speeding cases that now requires the "exercise" of "extreme caution upon entering a school zone" at any time of the day. This well-intentioned concern for children safety renders R.C.
{¶ 20} The majority's decision also is essentially opposite to the holding in Sherman that the "critical issue" is the time of the school day.
{¶ 21} In its analysis, the majority misinterprets the "clear language" in R.C.
{¶ 22} The threshold precept in the interpretation of a statute is what it says. In light of this court's ruling in Sherman, there is no need to engage in judicial activism or judicial expansionism of the meaning of R.C.
{¶ 23} In this case, the majority now places great emphasis on the fact that students and buses were present outside the building. This is inconsistent with this court's opinion in Sherman, supra, where despite some testimony about children sometimes crossing the road during the lunch hour, this court held that the presence or absence of children was not relevant or dispositive. Id.
{¶ 24} Under R.C.
{¶ 25} For these reasons, I would reverse the decision of the trial court.