Hey, there! Log in / Register
Court upholds fees for appealing traffic tickets
By adamg on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 10:54am
The Supreme Judicial Court ruled today there is nothing unconstitutional about requiring people to pay a fee to appeal a traffic ticket.
Ralph Sullivan, who wanted to get back the $75 in fees he spent successfully appealing a traffic ticket from Salem, argued the fees violate the Constitution's right to equal protection because people appealing tickets for smoking or carrying marijuana are not levied fees.
But the state's highest court ruled that traffic appeals are not the same as smoking or pot appeals, so that principle does not apply. People contesting traffic tickets can subpoena witnesses, ask for a hearing before a judge or clerk-magistrate and can appeal their verdicts to another judge, while people appealing other types of tickets can do none of that, the court said.
Where the Legislature provides greater process that imposes greater demands on the resources of the District Court, it is rational for the Legislature to impose filing fees, waivable where a litigant is indigent, to offset part of the additional cost of these judicial proceedings. ...
The number of hearings on civil motor vehicle citations each year also dwarfs the number of hearings on public smoking and marijuana violations. [FN8] Where approximately 700,000 motorists cited for moving violations potentially may seek recourse in the District Court each year, and where approximately 200,000 seek clerk-magistrate hearings, it is rational for the Legislature to deter frivolous filings by requiring a twenty-five dollar filing fee, and to deter frivolous appeals from a clerk-magistrate's finding of responsibility by requiring payment of an additional fifty dollar fee to schedule a hearing before a judge.
The court also rejected Sullivan's argument the fees violated the Constitution's ban on ex-post-facto punishments, because they came into effect after he had been issued his ticket and asked for his initial hearing. The court said fees are not punishments, they are just fees, and so that provision does not apply.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
So, court sanctioned shake-down?
What if the ticket was issued in error? This is forcing people to pay for access to the courts even if they are in the right.
ding ding ding
Brookline charges a "data processing fee" of something like $10 for parking tickets, for example. It's not refunded, even if you successfully contest the ticket, so they're guaranteed money from every ticket they write.
Pardon me if I'm being unreasonable here, but if a city worker wastes 2 hours of my life (and wages), I really don't see where they get off doing anything other than paying ME.
wrong
Brookline charges $2 extra for online payments only and that goes right to the private company which handles online credit card payments for the Town. You don't pay anything for appeals.
But Arlington charges $5 to
But Arlington charges $5 to appeal a parking ticket.
Yeah what
I got a $100 parking ticket that was totally written in error. They didn't accept my write-in appeal, and they've now raised the ticket to $130 or some bullshit. If I take time off work to go discuss it with them in person (at a time THEY choose, naturally), that will cost me even more money for something that wasn't my mistake in the first place.
WTF.
We get what we deserve.
Everyone wants services without paying for them, so politicians write shady and coercive laws designed to raise revenue. They could just as easily have the fees attached to lost appeals, but that wouldn’t raise the revenue needed to operate the shakedown machine. It’s unfortunate the courts can’t see through this.
Seems to me
They're deferring real appeals. Also, who are they to prejudge what is frivolous and what isn't before actually seeing the case?
I'm no judge, but this ruling doesn't pass the sniff test. $75 to appeal a ticket seems to cross the reasonable barrier of what a defendant should have to pay to appeal an charge against him from the state.
We still appoint court lawyers for people with financial hardship too, don't we? When are we going to tell them they're on their own?
They're judging it for only
They're judging it for only $25. If you want it further judged, that's when you have to pay the additional $50.
WHAT A RACKET !!!!!!
WHAT A RACKET !!!!!!
You get what you deserve, Massachusetts
Remember, these judges interpret the laws made by these scumbags that you keep electing again and again.
Fill in that incumbent oval again next time there's an election. No, seriously, do it. Complain about how corrupt Massachusetts is, then elect the same corrupt people again. Garbage in, garbage out.
Here's a tip: You see a "D" or an "R" next to their name, they're probably trying to screw you. Don't fill in those ovals.
Too bad you can't vote in a primary election
without publically declaring you support the "D"s or the "R"s. You can't say you support the "I"s, because they aren't included in primary races.
Now if we changed the system so that ALL voters are "U"s (unenrolled), and placed ALL eligible candidates for an election on the same primary ballot with the instruction "Vote For One Only" next to each office, then voters could make their choice soley on the candidate, regardless of whether they are "D", "R", "I", "L", or other flavor.
This change would make elections less expensive (only one ballot to be printed, less recordkeeping involved), and would both give voters greater choices and all candidates more exposure.