The first sheet shall be the court record.
The second sheet shall be the abstract of court record for the Bureau of Motor Vehicles as required by section 4507.021 of the Revised Code. The second sheet may be omitted from the Ticket if the court reports violations to the Bureau by electronic or other means acceptable to the Bureau.
The third sheet shall be the defendant's copy.
The fourth sheet shall be the enforcement agency record.
A wrap-around may be added to the first sheet. The issuing authority may use the front and back of the wrap-around for any data or information it may require.
Each ticket sheet shall be perforated tab bound at the edge or end with carbon paper interleaved so that all carbon paper is securely bound to the tab and removable with it, or shall be on treated paper so that marking from the top sheet is transferred legibly to successive sheets in the group.
When a single enforcement agency, except the State Highway Patrol, regularly has cases in more than one court, the ticket used by the agency shall be issued through the court for adults in the most populous area in the jurisdiction of the agency. Tickets used by the State Highway Patrol shall be issued by the Superintendent of the State Highway Patrol.
Ohio. Traf. R. 3
Staff Note
(January 1, 2014 Amendments)
The amendments to division (F)(1) and (2) are intended to clarify the signature requirements for the electronic filing of traffic tickets yet retain the uniform substance of the tickets. Although the amendments make it clear that the signature of the defendant is not necessary, the amendment to division (F)(2) added language setting forth the law enforcement officer's signature obligation. The phrase "electronically affixes the officer's signature thereto" may include a cursive signature, officer's unit number, or a typed name applied by computer or other electronic means.
Traffic Rules Review Commission
Commentary (October 1, 2006 Amendment)
The October 1, 2006 amendment added language to division (E)(1) to provide an alternative means of serving the defendant with a completed traffic ticket. At least one trial court and three courts of appeal have held that former Traf. R. 3(E) and the Uniform Traffic Ticket, when read together, require a law enforcement officer who issues a traffic citation to personally serve the defendant with a copy of the citation. See Akron v. Detweiler (1978), 54 Ohio Misc. 5, 6; Oregon v. Fox (Jan. 21, 1983), Lucas App. No. L-82-317; State v. Campbell, 150 Ohio App. 3d 90, 2002-Ohio-6064; and Columbus v. Ford, 2004-Ohio-5715. Although personal service is easily accomplished when a typical traffic citation is issued, compliance is difficult in "hit-skip" cases and other situations where the offender is not cited at the time of the violation or in cases where the defendant resides outside the jurisdiction in which the offense occurred.
The amendment to division (E)(1) retains the requirement that the issuing officer serve the ticket and, together with the Uniform Traffic Ticket, contemplates that service will be made personally in the majority of cases by the issuing officer. However, if the issuing officer is unable to personally serve the ticket on the defendant, service may be accomplished through issuance of a warrant or summons pursuant to Rule 4 of the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Commentary (February 1, 2002 Amendment)
The February 1, 2002 amendment added division (F) to authorize the use of traffic tickets that are produced by computer or other electronic means and the adoption of local rules relative to the electronic filing of traffic tickets. The intent of division (F)(1) is to retain the uniform substance of traffic tickets produced by jurisdictions throughout Ohio from the standpoint of the layout and content of the ticket, but recognize that electronically generated tickets need not comply with certain requirements applicable to traditional printed forms of traffic tickets. In developing electronic traffic tickets, courts, clerks, and law enforcement agencies should ensure that the electronic ticket comports as closely as possible to the Uniform Traffic Ticket contained in the Appendix of Forms
The amendment to add division (F)(2) is based on a recommendation from the Digital Signatures Committee of the Ohio Judicial Conference. The amendment authorizes the adoption of local rules, consistent with standards contained in the Rules of Superintendence, relative to the electronic filing of traffic tickets. The amendment requires that the defendant be provided a paper copy of the ticket and states the issuing officer's responsibility with respect to issuance of an electronically filed ticket.
Traffic Rules Review Commission Commentary (February 1, 2002 Amendment)
The February 1, 2002 amendment added division (F) to authorize the use of traffic tickets that are produced by computer or other electronic means and the adoption of local rules relative to the electronic filing of traffic tickets. The intent of division (F)(1) is to retain the uniform substance of traffic tickets produced by jurisdictions throughout Ohio from the standpoint of the layout and content of the ticket, but recognize that electronically generated tickets need not comply with certain requirements applicable to traditional printed forms of traffic tickets. In developing electronic traffic tickets, courts, clerks, and law enforcement agencies should ensure that the electronic ticket comports as closely as possible to the Uniform Traffic Ticket contained in the Appendix of Forms
The amendment to add division (F)(2) is based on a recommendation from the Digital Signatures Committee of the Ohio Judicial Conference. The amendment authorizes the adoption of local rules, consistent with standards contained in the Rules of Superintendence, relative to the electronic filing of traffic tickets. The amendment requires that the defendant be provided a paper copy of the ticket and states the issuing officer's responsibility with respect to issuance of an electronically filed ticket.
.