Guilty? You Pay. Innocent? You Pay Almost As Much.
Via @radleybalko, the Massachusetts Supreme Court just approved charging innocent people who contest their tickets. From thenewspaper.com:
Motorists issued a traffic ticket in Massachusetts will have to pay money to the state whether or not they committed the alleged crime. According to a state supreme court ruling handed down yesterday, fees are to be imposed even on those found completely innocent. The high court saw no injustice in collecting $70 from Ralph C. Sullivan after he successfully fought a $100 ticket for failure to stay within a marked lane.Bay State drivers given speeding tickets and other moving violations have twenty days either to pay up or make a non-refundable $20 payment to appeal to a clerk-magistrate. After that, further challenge to a district court judge can be had for a non-refundable payment of $50. Sullivan argued that motorists were being forced to pay "fees" not assessed on other types of violations, including drug possession. He argued this was a violation of the Constitution's Equal Protection clause, but the high court justices found this to be reasonable.
"We conclude that there is a rational basis for requiring those cited for a noncriminal motor vehicle infraction alone to pay a filing fee and not requiring a filing fee for those contesting other types of civil violations," Justice Ralph D. Gants wrote for the court. "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 court insisted that allowing a hearing before a clerk-magistrate instead of an assistant clerk, as well as allowing a de novo hearing before a judge constituted benefits that justified the cost. Last year, the fees for the clerk-magistrate hearings generated $3,678,620 in revenue for the courts. Although Sullivan raised the issue of due process during oral argument, the court would not rule on the merits of that issue.
Does anybody notice the pattern, day after day after day, of how "citizen" is starting to seem somewhat synonymous with words like "mark," "victim," and "cash cow"?
Oh, forgot to add this last night: I'm for "loser pays" in court, but "winner pays"?
Talk about adding insult to injury. Now they can just pull people over for nothing, and so long as the fine is less than $70 people will pay it.
Joe's Garage is finally upon us.
brian at September 23, 2011 5:51 AM
This is just...unconscionable! What's to stop them from just pulling everyone over? I don't understand, at all, how they can make a decision like this without some sort of massive outcry or public protest.
Choika at September 23, 2011 6:06 AM
It's easy to get this kind of decision without notice. Like California, Mass has a long history of getting the marks accustomed to being serfs. The internet may be instrumental in combating this sort of crap, but don't bet on it near term.Once upon a time in California a moving violation could be satisfied by attending traffic school and the fine was waived; the only cost to the driver was the moderate cost of traffic school. Somewhere along the line our legislature figured out that they could collect the fine and still send the driver to traffic school. It is still worth the cost to prevent any increase in auto insurance. Now the driver must pay a fee to be allowed to attend traffic school, pay for traffic school, and pay the fine. Step by step......
BarSinister at September 23, 2011 6:49 AM
This would seem to be a violation of due process.
You want your 'day in court,' you have to pay for it?
Traffic courts are funded by fines and fees (mostly fees), so the incentive is to find you guilty (or offer to 'lessen the charge' so you end up paying a smaller fine, but the same fees). The fees or 'court costs' aren't split with the city/township/whatever like the fines.
DrCos at September 23, 2011 7:11 AM
This has got to be one of the most insane rulings I can recall. There is no need for taxation in Massachusetts anymore, just give everyone a ticket, even if they aren't speeding. Cha-ching, baby. Instant revenue stream.
Bastages.
Dangerboy at September 23, 2011 9:24 AM
Whine, move, or elect some one who will change it. Mass trends strongly one party. Familiarity bred contempt.
MarkD at September 23, 2011 9:36 AM
I can't believe a country as litigious as ours can't draw some blood over this... There's got to be an attorney out there who could convince a jury that the Commonwealth deserves to be punished for this misconduct with a HYOOOGE award to some comely lass of a client.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 23, 2011 11:43 AM
Revenue enhancement at its finest.
Ariel at September 23, 2011 12:09 PM
When the tira missu finally hits the fan, apparatchiks of the Courts would do well to keep their heads down and their mouths shut.
Harry Bergeron at September 23, 2011 1:11 PM
What a handy tool for harassing your political opponents!
Cousin Dave at September 23, 2011 5:12 PM
"Citizen" is now a synonym for "Subject"
John Galt at September 24, 2011 12:35 PM
I guess since uber-liberal Massachusetts is driving all the producers and freedom-lovers out of the state, they have to get their money where they can.
mpetrie98 at September 25, 2011 1:05 AM
Leave a comment