Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Arlington judge rules Virginia’s abusive-driver fees unconstitutional
Examiner.com ^ | 9/27/07 | Maria Hegstad

Posted on 09/27/2007 9:32:18 PM PDT by freespirited

An Arlington General District Court judge declared Virginia's abusive-driver fees unconstitutional Tuesday, the first such ruling in Northern Virginia and the third in the state since the fees took effect.

The fees, which range from $750 to $3,000 for such infractions as reckless driving, are levied in addition to fines and court costs. Oscar Reyes Hernandez was convicted of failing to obey a traffic signal and driving without a license and faced fees of up to $750. Instead he was fined $100 and must pay court costs of $140 for the July 7 incident.

The attorney general's office will appeal the decision to Arlington's Circuit Court, spokesman David Clementson said. Hernandez’s attorney, public defender Doug Wham, did not return a call seeking comment by press time.

Out-of-state drivers are exempt from the fees, and General District Court judges in Hanover and Henrico counties have declared the fees unconstitutional on the basis that they do not apply equally to all drivers. The judges' rulings, issued earlier this year, have been overturned by their higher circuit courts.

Challenges to the fees have also been raised in traffic courts in Charlottesville, Virginia Beach and Albemarle, Chesterfield, Greene and Halifax counties. The General District Court judges in these areas found the fees constitutional, Clementson said.

The General Assembly exempted out-of-state drivers from the fees because it didn't think it could force non-residents to pay a civil penalty. Legislators and Gov. Tim Kaine agreed on the fees in April to raise $65 million annually for road maintenance.

Attorney General Bob McDonnell disagrees with exempting out-of-state drivers but is defending the cases because his office is required to defend Virginia laws, Clementson said.

Kaine and leading legislators have committed to changing the legislation to include out-of-state residents when the General Assembly meets next year, regardless of the outcomes of the court cases.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: constitutionality; driverfees
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last
...leading legislators have committed to changing the legislation to include out-of-state residents when the General Assembly meets next year, regardless of the outcomes of the court cases.

May they be voted out of office before then.

1 posted on 09/27/2007 9:32:20 PM PDT by freespirited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: freespirited
Oscar Reyes Hernandez was convicted of failing to obey a traffic signal and driving without a license

Any bets on the citizenship of Mr. Hernandez?

2 posted on 09/27/2007 9:38:10 PM PDT by A_Tradition_Continues (THE NEXT GENERATION CONSERVATIVE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

Common sense from the bench?


3 posted on 09/27/2007 9:51:22 PM PDT by saganite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
An Arlington General District Court judge declared Virginia's abusive-driver fees unconstitutional Tuesday, the first such ruling in Northern Virginia and the third in the state since the fees took effect.

The fees, which range from $750 to $3,000 for such infractions as reckless driving, are levied in addition to fines and court costs.

It would be one thing for a lay person to offer the opinion that fines of $750 to $3,000 are excessive, or even unwise. But unconstitutional?

According to what principle, pray tell?

4 posted on 09/27/2007 9:54:35 PM PDT by AmericanExceptionalist (Democrats believe in discussing the full spectrum of ideas, all the way from far left to center-left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmericanExceptionalist

Because the punishments are different for residents?

Two people can commit the same infraction, but receive vastly different punishments.


5 posted on 09/27/2007 10:07:41 PM PDT by ltc8k6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
agreed on the fees in April to raise $65 million annually for road maintenance.

Call it what it is -- road taxes

6 posted on 09/27/2007 10:10:02 PM PDT by John123 ("What good fortune for the governments that the people do not think" -- Adolf Hitler)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmericanExceptionalist

“It would be one thing for a lay person to offer the opinion that fines of $750 to $3,000 are excessive, or even unwise. But unconstitutional?

According to what principle, pray tell?”

Because it doesn’t meet the principle of equal justice under the law, when two American citizens who commit the same crime receive vastly different financial penalties, based on their home address.


7 posted on 09/27/2007 11:30:37 PM PDT by GOPrincess
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
All I can say is that I am not heading for Virginia any time soon.

They exempted folks from out of state because they fear the backlash of people deciding that Virgina is not the place to visit. And, they are right. Ultimately, this should translate into some changes in representation that passed this horror.

8 posted on 09/28/2007 1:30:32 AM PDT by dalight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John123
"Call it what it is--road taxes"

The Northern Virginia Transportation Authority has the authority to tax, impose fees, and add tolls.

9 posted on 09/28/2007 3:06:38 AM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

Once again, Democrats line up in opposition to Amendment XIV.


10 posted on 09/28/2007 3:08:46 AM PDT by Hoodat (satan always overplays his hand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmericanExceptionalist

The principle is equality under the law; non-residents are exempt from these “fees”.


11 posted on 09/28/2007 3:12:50 AM PDT by Squawk 8888 (Is human activity causing the warming trend on Mars?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

The abuser fees legislation was advocated and passed by the Republican majority state house and senate.


12 posted on 09/28/2007 3:13:28 AM PDT by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
And yet many cops and politicians swear that traffic fines are for the promotion of "public safety", and have nothing to do with raising money for the state or municipality. At least in this case they are honest about their intentions.

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

13 posted on 09/28/2007 3:19:14 AM PDT by Fresh Wind (Visualize the Clintons in jail.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
Man I hate this law. I heard a conservative republican member of the state legislature talking about this shortly after the law became effective (7/1/07). The reason for the fees is that drivers who cause problems on the roads through gross misconduct or repeated infractions should bear more of the burden of maintaining and policing the roads. He did not, however, agree with the unequal imposition of the fees based upon state residence.

It is interesting to note that the judge imposed both a fine and a fee (court fees) of $100 and $140 respectively. So I guess in principle the court doesn't have any problem with fees in addition to fines to cover the costs of the judicial system.

Also, the article doesn't point out that the fees are assessed annually for 3 years. e.g., $750 = 3 payments of $250.

14 posted on 09/28/2007 3:52:42 AM PDT by vamoose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmericanExceptionalist
It would be one thing for a lay person to offer the opinion that [the] fines...are excessive, or even unwise. But unconstitutional?

Amendment VIII: "...nor excessive fines imposed..."

15 posted on 09/28/2007 5:24:12 AM PDT by fzx12345 (ACLU DELENDA EST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: saganite
Common sense from the bench?

A rare commodity today

16 posted on 09/28/2007 5:52:16 AM PDT by ninonitti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
VOTE THEM ALL OUT in November. Its a disguised tax increase masquerading as a traffic fine and the shameful thing is the VAGOP voted for it!

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

17 posted on 09/28/2007 5:56:32 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vamoose
Also, the article doesn't point out that the fees are assessed annually for 3 years. e.g., $750 = 3 payments of $250.

Somewhat like the Massachusetts system where non-competitive insurance rates are set based on point system. Minor infractions: turn signal/broken tail lens etc count toward higher insurance rate. The $50 traffic ticket turns into $600 over the 5 years it stays on your record.

18 posted on 09/28/2007 5:59:00 AM PDT by ninonitti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Truth29; Hoodat
The abuser fees legislation was advocated and passed by the Republican majority state house and senate.

True. But if you look at the roll call, you see that virtually all the Democrats were happy to vote yea, whereas most of the nay votes were Republicans. We still have a few principled legislators among us.

The RATS think they will take over the Senate after the November election, I assume because of this debacle.

19 posted on 09/28/2007 6:43:39 AM PDT by freespirited (All great truths begin as blasphemies. -- George Bernard Shaw)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

I am afraid not. I lived in Northern Virginia for the past four years and I have watched it deteriorate. I escaped Virginia last month and am grateful for it.


20 posted on 09/28/2007 7:16:44 AM PDT by Redleg Duke ("All gave some, and some gave all!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson