Posted on 08/12/2007 4:30:08 PM PDT by RDTF
The labor pains were coming, so Jessica Hodges got going. The 26-year-old bank teller from Burke sped toward Inova Fairfax Hospital, but before she got there, the law got her -- 57 mph in a 35 zone. Reckless driving.
Hodges's labor pains subsided -- they turned out to be a false alarm -- but the agony from her ticket is mounting. She was found guilty of the July 3 offense and given a $1,050 civil fee on top of a judge-imposed $100 fine and court costs, making her one of the first to be hit with Virginia's new "abusive driver fees," which have been greeted by widespread public outrage.
-snip-
Anger and exasperation have been common sentiments recently in Fairfax General District Court, where fee-facing drivers such as Hodges have started to join the daily swarm of traffic offenders. After waiting hours to give their side of the story to judges -- several of whom seemed just as annoyed with the fees as defendants -- many nevertheless left owing enormous sums that they said would be difficult to pay.
-snip-
The fees, which range from $750 to $3,000, were passed by the General Assembly in the spring as part of a package aimed at funding scores of transportation projects. Backers said the fees would both raise money and improve highway safety by targeting the state's worst drivers -- those guilty of severe traffic offenses such as DUI, reckless driving and driving on a suspended license.
But the fees have since been vilified by an angry public (more than 170,000 people have signed an online petition to repeal them), denounced by lawmakers who once supported them and ruled unconstitutional by judges in two localities who said they violate equal protection rights guaranteed under the 14th Amendment.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Do you honestly argue that abusive drivers do not cause the expenditure of millions of dollars more in transportation and related dollars than good drivers?
Anyway, since the Legislature was set on raising revenues, I see you would be in favor of raising taxes on everyone to accomplish that. Okay, that’s you.
As for your legal analysis, if the courts agree with you that the law violates the Equal Protection Clause or some provision of the VA Constitution, fine. But I doubt they will in the end.
For one thing, look at your last line: “that aren’t equally applied to all those in similar circumstances.” Think about all the ways in which it can be argued that the categories of individuals you claim are similarly situated are not.
States regularly argue, and win, on the proposition that they have a greater interest in regulating their citizens, as opposed to out-of-state citizens. They regularly argue, and win, that it is more cost-effective to limit certain regulatory functions to their citizens/borders.
I’m not saying those arguments apply or would win here. I’m merely pointing out that the law takes an elaborate view of what it means to be “similarly situated,” a view that is not how “similar” is used in everyday parlance.
One of the great disservices radical liberalism has done our nation is engender the idea that “equal protection under the law” means absolutely equal treatment. It does not.
Isn’t that what technical amendments are for?
The point is even if the law were to be found violative of the Equal Protection Clause because it doesn’t apply to out-of-staters (which I highly doubt will happen), all the state has to do is apply it to out-of-staters. If the terminology has to be changed to do so, then it would be changed.
Please see post # 116.
legislator = Legislature !
I am from Virginia and have always been proud of it and have wanted to return. But this law reversed that desire. I would never want to live in my home state again. I find this absolutely astounding.
Read up on what “equal before the law” actually means. It does not mean that everyone is treated equally.
It sometimes means that those who are “similarly situated” or who are being denied a “fundamental right” must be treated “equally.”
Sorry.
As for the reasonableness of laws, I’m all for that. The fines may be excessive, but that is not the same as claiming it is unreasonable to fine abusive drivers.
Absolutely. The Legislature has directly said these funds are for solving transportation problems. This includes building new roads, bridges, interchanges, etc. There is no relationship between going 81 in a 65 and VA's transportation problems.
Anyway, since the Legislature was set on raising revenues, I see you would be in favor of raising taxes on everyone to accomplish that. Okay, that’s you.
I probably would be in favor of raising the gas tax to pay for new roads, because that tax is borne by the people who actually use the roads. But if there is going to be a new tax, we should make the cowards in Richmond call it what it is rather than pulling this ruse.
As for your legal analysis, if the courts agree with you that the law violates the Equal Protection Clause or some provision of the VA Constitution, fine. But I doubt they will in the end.
It's a virtual certainty that it will be struck down if not repealed by the Legislature.
There were little fees for everything.
The ones that got me the most was the yearly personal property tax on my auto that I bought in Texas with an 8.25% sales tax.
Oh, not to mention the county tag on top of registration and inspection tags.
Received a ticket in that state as well....yikes!!!! Man they run ya through the mill in fines.
No radar detectors, they’ll nail ya.
Insurance rates were outrageous.
License and registration check points all over the place at all hours.
I remember leaving the plant to get a bite to eat during lunch. At the entrance of the industrial park was a License checkpoint. I couldn’t even go to get a bite to eat without showing my papers......somethings wrong with that.
No fireworks, memberships to go out to have a drink, liq stores were run by the state (ABC stores).
The county also sent me a personal property tax inventory for my home items as well.
Oh almost forgot, state income tax on my earnings while living in Virgina.
Went home shopping...a little ol “ranchette” about 900 sqft was about 120K back then (mid 90’s)
Yeah, the good ol commonwealth of Virginia.......the state was wealthier than the commoners.
Great place to visit...never want to live there again.
Of course, they can always amend the statute, though this would be a substantive rather than a technical amendment. If they can easily amend it to include out-of-state drivers why didn't they just include them in the first place? After all, that would generate a lot more revenue. There's a reason they didn't apply it to out-of-staters so I don't think changing it is going to be as easy as is being portrayed.
Plus the out-of-state exemption is the only argument that has been made so far. There is also an equal protection argument that there is no meaningful relationship between the conduct of the bad drivers and the necessity for road improvements. Plus there is the excessive fine argument under the VA constitution. Plus there is the argument under the VA Constitution that it's a tax which isn't being equally applied. Right now, the challenges are being made by criminal defense practitioners at the district and circuit court levels. If heavy-weight constitutional lawyers get involved at the appellate level, it's going to be a fun show.
I assume from your screen name that you're a military attorney. I'm curious whether constitutional law is a big part of what you do.
Yeah, but we have beer in supermarkets and 7-11s. Gotta love that! :-)
In Louisiana they sell bourbon in 7-11.
In Texas, the liquor stores are privately owned and the selection is HUGE.
The ABC stores regulated the consumption by pricing and selection.
Whats up with the membership thing when you want to go out on the town anyhow?
You go to the club, knock on the door, a lil opening in the door slides to the side and you pay a membership fee mandated by the state. Then you can enter. ????
The law would have two purposes, punishment and deterrence. The punishment is not reasonable, although that certainly adds to the deterrence. But once the law is not applied to out of staters or people with "no fixed address" it is not a deterrent to them which makes it a lot less effective.
Well, I came from Maryland where you have to go to a liquor store for everything, including beer and wine. So beer and wine in the supermarket is a big improvement. I’m not sure what you mean by the memberships as I’ve never seen it. Is that a VA thing?
Anything can happen once litigation is commenced, but in my view it is very, very far from a “certainty” that this law will be ruled unconstitutional.
I disagree. One of the major causes of backups is abusive driving. Backups lead to calls for "more roads," but any traffic engineer will tell you that the roads we already have would work a lot better if people drove better.
It's sort of like emergency rooms. Yes, you may need more emergency rooms *in part* because of an increase in population. But part of the demand for "more emergency rooms" is also impacted by people abusing emergency services in various ways. So if you charge those who abuse the emergency services a surcharge, is that unreasonable?
I find it very myopic, and not realistic, to look at state revenues as a quid pro quo proposition. Money is money, whether spent or raised. It would be nice if our tax system were a "pay for what you use" system, but it is not. So arguing that a tax (however named) is appropriate only if it folds back into solving the problem being taxed is a nonstarter. When taxes are used, at least in part, for social management---IOW, to penalize or incentivize certain behaviors---it doesn't matter if the revenue raised is spent also to address those behaviors.
Why are cigs taxed? Alcohol? Are those taxes tied totally to problems caused by use of tobacco and alcohol? Hardly.
If you view these fees as a tax and the Legislature as cowardly for enacting them, you'll get no argument from me. (Though the Legislature was quite upfront about the purpose of the fees and, moreover, could hardly have thought it would escape political fallout on this law. It's a little wierd, I think, that some here act as though somehow the Legislature thought we wouldn't notice.)
My own view, though, is so what they didn't call them taxes or treat them like taxes. We're smart enough to know what's going on here and we have the same opportunities to exert political pressure if we so choose. I don't see what's to be hung up about in a name.
That's why I've said okay, which is better---a general tax or this tax on certain individuals. You have answered that you would support a general tax. Fine, that's you.
My point exactly. And until that argument is made, it seems to me it's dumb to claim there's an equal protection violation. If the rationale or circumstances are such that the law is in fact not easy to extend, then perforce that rationale or those circumstances are likely to be sufficient to support the original scope of the law in the first instance. I am sure you are aware that the likelihood of any higher court finding a law unconstitutional on a "reasonableness" basis is highly remote. If the state can proffer any basis at all, a responsible court is unlikely to substitute its judgment for that of the legislature. That said, I agree that all the arguments you pose are viable. In my opinion, though, at least from what I've seen at this point, they are not winners. You can bet that constitutional lawyers will get involved. There are many issues. However, they are pretty garden variety. There's a ton of constitutional precedents that bear on these issues, since forever states have been trying to limit the impact of laws to their citizens.
When this has been unsuccessful, it has often been in the context of a state wanting to limit *benefits* to those who have not met certain residency requirements. It's much harder to argue that a law is "bad" because it doesn't apply to the other guy, than to argue that a law is "bad" because you don't get the *benefit* of it.
Think about it: criminal defense attorneys? To challenge the law, they first have to admit that it applies to their client. IOW, they can't challenge if they claim "I shouldn't have gotten a fine because I not driving recklessly." There they are just challenging the application to their facts. They have to admit, "I was driving recklessly, but the penalty is [fill in the blank argument]." Okay, now your client is already a few steps back from the batting box. Apart from the sympathetic plaintiff here and there, in this case, criminal defense attorneys will be representing people who are admitting the law applies to them (i.e., that they are a traffic violators), but challenging the law on other grounds. Moreover, unlike the murderer who nevertheless often gets sympathetic judicial treatment, the "legal harm" to this client is that he has to pay money---that is far different from "life or liberty" being in jeopardy. Then you add in that the major arguments are that (1) the fines are "excessive"---a subjective judgment that, while there are outer limits, such as "shocking to the conscience" and "unconscionable," is a judgment that, under the Constitution's separation of powers belongs to the Legislature, not the judiciary---and that (2) the fines should *also* be imposed on the other guy . . . well, I don't see this as a favorable scenario for a constitutional challenge. Not insurmountable, but not favorable.
Wierd things happen in court, but that's the way I call it now, based on what I've read in the news.
As for your last question, I think screenames are like tatoos; they often represent a certain phase or era in one's life, not the full panopoly of one's experience.
I would add that there are some military lawyers who are in positions where they do nothing but big-time constitutional law.
True, but all I’m saying is, even if it is a “less effective deterrent” because of the exemptions you set out, if it’s still demonstrably a deterrent-—i.e., the net effect is that Virginia’s roads are safer-—that’s about all the state has to show to pass legal muster.
The issue of excessiveness also is a tough one to win. There are a couple of legal standards that would probably be invoked in defense of the law and, if fairly applied, the state would probably win. This would be especially true if the law allows some opportunity to appeal and present evidence in extenuation and mitigation before the fine is final.
IOW, if there is a mechanism for a person who, in human terms, deserves a break to get one-—i.e., a “safety valve” for application of the fines-—then they are even less likely to be ruled “excessive.”
Sorry for the format farts on post # 136. My bad a bunch of paragraph codes dropped off.
This is a Constitutionalist board, not a Statist board.
On a Constitutionalist board, the obvious answer is NONE OF THE ABOVE.
But, hey - you're a Statist, so whatever thuggery the State engages in is A-OK by you!
Can you believe this guy, KB? Post after post after post, riding his little "Any Measure The State Takes To Steal Your Jack Is OK!" hobby horse into the sunset.
Put a sock in it, fJ. They're a crowd of effing thieves, and others before me have well recognized that fact.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.