FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
On October 20, 2000, the Second Appellate District of Ohio issued its
decision in the Steven Selz case. In a 2-1 decision, with Presiding Judge
Grady dissenting, order that "...the judgment of the trial court is
Reversed, and the Defendant-Appellant is ordered Discharged." In layman's
terms, a slamdunk victory for Steven Selz!
The court issued a 7 page decision, written by Judge Mike Fain, explaining
its decision. Steve Selz was charged with "impeding traffic" while
traveling uphill from a stoplight on Salem Avenue in the City of Trotwood,
Ohio. Importantly, he was NOT charged with violating O.R.C. Section
4511.55(A), which requires a cyclist to ride as far to the right as
practicable.
Critically, the court held that "We agree with Mr. Selz that the ordinance
cannot reasonably be read as prohibiting bicyclists from using a public
highway," The court reasoned that since Ohio law clearly PERMITS bicycles
to use the roads, this right cannot be taken away by simply prohibiting them
from riding on any road on which a cyclist cannot pedal the stated speed
limit. The key here was the evidence elicited that Mr. Selz was traveling
virtually as fast as a reasonable cyclist could travel at the time he was
ticketed. The court found that charging Mr. Selz with impeding traffice
based SOLELY on speed was inappropriate.
The court noted that, had Mr. Selz been charged with failing to ride as far
to the right as practicable, the record would have supported a guilty
finding. This statement, while not relevant to the holding of the case, was
the only troubling part of the opinion for Mr. Selz' attorney, Steven M.
Magas. According to Magas, since the state had not charged Mr. Selz with
this offense, the focus of the trial presentation on the reasonableness of
Mr. Selz's speed, not his position on the roadway. Indeed, the position on
the roadway did not even become "important" until the case reached the court
of appeals when the City of Trotwood relied upon his position on the roadway
for the only argument raised in their brief! Had the "as far to the right"
statute been raised at trial, expert testimony would have been presented to
prove that Mr. Selz was riding appropriately.
Presiding Judge Thomas J. Grady filed a dissenting opinion in the case,
arguing that the matter should have been returned to the trial level for a
retrial. Judge Grady reasoned that Mr. Selz's argument that he was
traveling at a reasonble speed for a bicycle, albeit at a slower speed than
motorized traffic, was insufficient to avoid a conviction. He felt the
issues raised by Mr. Selz amounted to a defense of "necessity" under Ohio
law. Judge Grady felt Mr. Selz should have a new trial and should have the
opportunity to prove this defense.
Mr. Magas and Mr. Selz would like to thank Chuck Smith, The Ohio Bike
Federation and all persons who made donations to the Steven Selz Defense
Fund through the OBF. Mr. Magas handled this entire matter on a greatly
reduced fee basis due to the importance of this case to the cycling
community and every dollar contributed had an impact helping Mr. Selz decide
to pursue his appeal. Mr. Magas will be emailing an electronic copy of the
opinion to the Ohio Bike Federation for posting on the OBF website.
Good Luck and Good Riding!
Steve
========
Steven M. Magas
Bison Jacobson Law Office
3536 Edwards Road, Suite 201
Cincinnati, OH 45208
513.533.3030
fax 533-3037