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.
