The United States Constitution and all State constitutions have only two (2) forms of action (a legal claim) to bring to Court; CIVIL or CRIMINAL. But there is sot of a third one that bastardizes our laws and turns the normal innocent until proven guilty upside down and although not in the Constitution it's called administrative law.
With the passing of time, the original intent of the US Constitution has been ignored, superseded, and modified without an amendment. The legislature of our State has created a third (3rd) cause of action called Quasi-Criminal and in many ways resembles an administrative hearing process where one is considered guilty as charged and one must present exculpatory evidence to find themselves innocent.
Traffic infractions and offenses are classified in this Quasi-Criminal administrative category.
QUASI-CRIMINAL: A civil proceeding that may result in a penalty akin to a criminal penalty.
An infraction is a civil traffic violation that results in a fine and a surcharge.
An infraction is a strict liability offense and civil in nature (not criminal), however. guilt for the infraction must be proven by the criminal standards beyond a reasonable doubt.
COMMENT: In plain language, if you did or did not do something and a police officer witnesses your action or inaction and testifies to it, you are automatically guilty. It does not matter whether you made a mistake or did not intend to do or not do whatever. If you are issued a traffic ticket, the accusations on the ticket are taken as true and you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent. It is the opposite of what you have been led to believe, that you're innocent until proven guilty (that's still true in a criminal trial, traffic is Quasi-Criminal). Although you're provided an opportunity to have your day in Court, your guilt was/is sealed the moment the traffic ticket was issued.
WHAT IS STRICT LIABILITY?
In Quasi-Criminal law, strict liability is liability for which the "guilty mind" (the mens rea) does not have to be proven in relation to one or more elements comprising the guilty act (the actus reus).
Although intention, recklessness, or knowledge may be required in relation to other elements of the offense.
The liability is said to be strict because defendants (you) will be convicted even though they were genuinely ignorant of one or more factors that made their acts or omissions criminal (Quasi-Criminal).
The defendants may therefore not be culpable in any real way, i.e. there is not even criminal negligence, the least blameworthy level of a guilty mind. (the mens rea).
Ohio Revised Code R.C. 2901.21(A)(2) shows, a separate mental state need not be specified for every element of an offense. And although the general rule for criminal liability requires a culpable mental state, a guilty intent is not necessary for every offense. Offenses without any culpable mental state are strict liability offenses, and they impose liability for simply doing a prohibited act. In this type of case, ignorance of a fact or an element of the offense is not a defense.
Every criminal offense is made up of
(1) a voluntary act or failure to act when there is a duty; and
(2) a culpable mental state for each element that specifies a mental state. R.C 2901.21(A).
All conduct is innocent unless there is a statute that criminalizes it.
R.C. 2901.03(A) provides that no conduct constitutes a criminal offense against the State unless it is defined as an offense in the Ohio Revised Code. Generally, an offense will be defined in terms of a prohibited act accompanied by a culpable mental state, the mens rea, or guilty mind. R.C 2901.21 sets forth the basic requirements for criminal liability.
Because strict liability for an offense is the exception to the rule, the Ohio General Assembly set forth in R.C. 2901.21(B) a test that indicates whether an offense is a strict liability offense.
When the section defining an offense does not specify any degree of culpability, and plainly indicates a purpose to impose strict criminal liability for the conduct described in the section, then culpability is not required for a person to be guilty of the offense.
When the section neither specifies culpability nor plainly indicates a purpose to impose strict liability, recklessness is sufficient culpability to commit the offense.
R.C 2901.21(B) offers a default rule to use when language defining an offense fails to include any culpability. Unless there is a plain indication of strict liability, recklessness is sufficient culpability for the offense.
COMMENT: Check your traffic ticket to see if recklessness is a checked element in the offense charged. If it's not checked then ........
To invoke a court's subject-matter jurisdiction, a criminal complaint must allege criminal liability.
Criminal liability is defined by R.C 2901.21(A) to require "conduct that includes either a voluntary act, or an omission to perform an act or duty that the person is capable of performing." Necessarily, that conduct must violate some requirement which is imposed by law.