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 ...
The "anchor baby" situation is readily resolved by thinking of these guys as "tourists" rather than as "immigrants".
We could also make it part of our law that if you illegally/irregularly enter the country you are simply classified as an "undocumented tourists", issued a 2 day tourist visa (which makes you a legal tourist), and directed to depart the country immediately.
In the meantime you are given temporary quarters and meals ~ and not turned loose!
It think that also eliminates any appellate rights any of these guys might have if classified otherwise.
Remember, if the law is to mean anything then we must stretch it to fit circumstances.
I would hardly call rushing to the hospital to have a baby abusive driving.
The operational word is “draconian” - learn it, live it, love it.
Finally! Some one using their head.
As a defense lawyer said in front of me last week to a law student, always handle DUI's because they're the one group that always pays their legal bills.
bump for later review
Please, half the areas marked as 35 mph zones are marked too low anyway.
I would imagine the design can be extended to higher speeds ~ although I wonder what would happen in one of those 65 MPH zones.
I hope you’re kidding.
How can it be “extorting the public” when the fine is triggered by one’s own volitional conduct?
Moreover, the fines apply primarily to people who already have a record of bad driving.
I see nothing wrong with making those who drive in such a way as to make the roads unsafe and who cause untold millions of dollars to be spent in emergency services, the cost (financial and personal) of traffic jams, and so on to be the first to have to pony up.
It’s about personal responsibility, baby. Drive sensibly, obey the law, and “crazy new fines” won’t be your problem. In fact, your drive-time will get a whole bunch safer and more enjoyable as the word gets out.
Uhhhh . . . is it more conservative to raise taxes on everybody or just charge those whose personal conduct is actually causing the problems that require more public monies to be spent?
Just asking.
Tell me, Steve, when was the last time you were in active labor?
I cannot think of one road on the way to Inova Fairfax on which it’s really important to drive 35.
Or one could just try not driving like a nincompoop for a change.
What’s your reasoning for your conclusion that it was “really silly to exempt out-of-state drivers”?
Since the fines apply to drivers who are multiple violators, it’s not necessarily easy or cost-effective to figure out what someone’s driving record is from each of the other 49 states, territories and foreign nations. Then there’s the cost of attempted enforcement in out-of-state jurisdictions, etc.
Maybe instead of “silly,” it was just practical and cost-effective?
You’re just gullible. She wasn’t in labor, she wanted to get out of a ticket.
And she was driving herself? What’s up with this picture?
Oh, yeah, I always put stock in the “legal” analysis of these erudite district court judges. They always get it right.
You caught that “false alarm” thingie in the story, eh?
Wow, I did not know that. So if you disagree with the speed limit, it’s just like it’s not there? You shouldn’t get a ticket because, in your opinion, the speed limit is “too low”?
Wow, I did not know that.
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.