The fate of traffic cameras in Akron and across Ohio could be decided by the state Supreme Court by the end of the year.

The court on Tuesday listened to arguments for and against the unmanned traffic enforcers in a test case that began with a single citation mailed to the wife of an Akron attorney.

Each side of the argument, after being peppered with questions by the justices, left the court feeling better about their cases.

The court's ruling, expected to be returned in the next two to three months, could resolve the argument over traffic cameras used in Akron as well as cities throughout Ohio, including Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Springfield.

At issue before the Supreme Court is whether the city's use of civil fines for traffic infractions captured on camera lodged against the vehicle's owner and not the driver, violates state home-rule laws.

Stephen Fallis, a city of Akron assistant law director, told the justices that the local laws established with the traffic cameras are a complement to existing state laws and help ensure safety around schools and high-accident areas.

Akron attorneys Warner Mendenhall and Tony Dalayanis argued that the camera laws are in direct conflict with existing state statutes. They contend local governments are exceeding their authority by creating a branch of civil penalties attached to existing traffic laws.

They also said the civil penalties assessed by the city circumvent state laws that call for points being placed on a driver's license and fines being paid through local courts.

The argument of constitutional issues such as due process protections were not part of the arguments before the Supreme Court. That could come later.

''I hope that the battle in terms of how state law is applied ends this litigation now and if the state legislature thinks these devices are useful then we can get into equal protection arguments sometime down the road,'' Mendenhall said after leaving the court.

Akron has enacted fines for being caught on camera speeding through school zones. State law already invokes criminal penalties such as fines and points on a driver's license. Those state laws are not applied when a car is captured on camera in Akron and elsewhere.

Akron began using the speed cameras on a trial basis in October 2005.

Max Rothal, Akron's law director, said it appeared from the questions raised by the justices during arguments Tuesday that they understand the city's stance.

''(Fallis) said the right things and I have to have confidence that what was said was analyzed by the court to be correct,'' Rothal said.

Mendenhall filed the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the cameras on behalf of his wife, Kelly, and other lawyers representing Ohio citizens.

The Mendenhall case currently sits in U.S. District Court in Akron. Federal Judge David Dowd Jr. earlier concluded that Akron's speed-camera ordinance was not in conflict with state law, citing his review of the Ohio Constitution's home-rule provisions that give cities broad powers to govern themselves.

The federal case is on hold while the Supreme Court considers the state constitutionality. Attorneys expect Dowd to follow the Supreme Court's ruling.

During arguments in Columbus, Chief Justice Thomas Moyer and Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton questioned Mendenhall about safety, saying some studies suggest the cameras have reduced crashes.

Also during the arguments, Stratton said drivers may feel the city's civil citations are a better alternative than a police officer's citation.

''I would prefer getting charged with a civil one without getting the points. It benefits me not to get the points and not to get the heavier fine,'' she said.

And Moyer opined that the city's law does appear to complement state law when it comes to helping ensure public safety.

''If the purpose of speeding laws is public safety, then it seems to me the purpose of cameras at an intersection complements that, do they not?,'' he said during Mendenhall's argument.

Fallis contended that the city has not changed state law, but rather it has found a new approach to enforce speed limits already established by the state.

''Modern technology gives us the ability to do something'' about speeding, he said.

Justice Paul Pfeifer interrupted Fallis and said the city's law is different from state laws because camera citations, like a parking ticket, target a car's owner and not necessarily the law violator.

Fallis replied that there is no state law prohibiting cameras and it is therefore not a conflict. He also said criminal traffic fines and penalties could not be issued through the use of a camera only.

''We would not be able to charge the operator under this (law) like we do criminally because we don't have an officer there to identify them,'' Fallis said.