Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

Massachusetts Supreme Court upholds policy of charging $70 fee to innocent motorists

Getting a ticket can ruin even the best of days, but at least American motorists have the ability to fight moving violations in court. Challenging a ticket at least gives drivers a shot at avoiding or reducing fines and/or points charged to their records.

In Massachusetts, however, a new state Supreme Court ruling means drivers have to pay, win or lose. The Newspaper details the case of Ralph Sullivan, who was charged $70 in non-refundable fees even after he successfully fought a lane violation ticket ($20 for appealing the summons to a clerk, then another $50 to get the case in front of a district court judge). Sullivan argued to the Massachusetts Supreme Court that the policy violates the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution, as motorists are saddled with fees that offenders in more serious cases are not required to pay. The court disagreed and ruled against Sullivan.

In the ruling, Justice Ralph D. Gants writes, "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."

Yeah, we get it. The courts are busy and they're expensive to run, so the $3,678,620 Massachusetts courts received as a result of fines in 2010 is needed to keep the doors open. We're of the opinion that anyone found not guilty should never have been pulled over in the first place, so the fine is levied as punishment for no crime committed. Isn't wasting half a day in court punishment enough?

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/09/24/m...ocent-motoris/

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

they don't call it taxachusetts for nothing.

Getrag

Wow.......basically to keep the courts open, pay the salaries of the court personnel, and the salary of overpaid judges, officers can just randomly pull over people for the most minor of infractions.

The state makes money either way; through somebody pleading guilty and even when exonerated!


Crazy stuff.

mmarshall

I agree that the ruling is questionable (and the article did not say who else on the MA Supreme Court sided with Judge Gants....we can assume that he is not on the Court alone). But we also don't know all the facts in this case....the article doesn't describe the actual fees very well, how they are assessed, and how they came about. But it also stresses the need for careful driving (Sullivan successfully fought the ticket, but we don't know his real innocence or guilt)..............a lot of drivers try to beat the system, and sometimes do, even if they are in fact guilty.

Anyhow, if Sullivan still thinks the ruling is unfair, he can appeal it to Federal District Court......yes, perhaps for another filing fee. But I'd be inclined to go with a Federal Court ruling on this one, because a Federal court, not being connected with the MA court-system, doesn't stand to make any money from their ruling.

ABC

i'm surprised California has not tried this yet...

I8ABMR

just a simple way of ripping off the people. No other way to look at it

mmarshall

CA's huge population (and the electorate's legal ability to recall public officials) may have the state thinking twice.