If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Politics & ReligionWell Since every damn forum has one. Might as well leave it out there. This place is loosely moderated and should not be entered if you're weak of heart.
Woman speeding to Hospital in Labor stopped & fined $1150!
or the unconstitutional excess taxation of virginians
Quote:
First Casualties of Va. Fees Go to Court
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.
It's crazy," said an unregretful Hodges. "Having a baby's more important. Of course I'm going to speed."
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.
Those lucky enough to live out of state or to have been pulled over before the fees went into effect July 1 -- the "magic date," as one judge called it -- escaped the penalties, as did many who hired attorneys who were able to argue for lesser charges or continuances.
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. A Centreville man convicted of reckless driving filed a challenge to the fees in Arlington County General District Court on the same grounds.
Nonetheless, the penalties remain in effect, and offenders have started to feel their pinch. Melissa Norquest, 33, of Manassas shelled out $522 Tuesday after being found guilty of reckless driving for going 56 mph in a 35 mph zone July 3. She will pay the rest in installments.
Norquest took issue with a provision that exempts out-of-state drivers from paying the fees. If you don't live in Virginia, she said, "you just pay your l'il $100 fine and go on your way. . . . If they're going to make it for Virginia residents, they should also make it for whoever drives through Virginia or get rid of it completely. I mean, you want the whole state to be safe, right?"
Norquest, who works for Fairfax County Family Services, also said she did not see the point of hiring a lawyer at a cost of hundreds or thousands of dollars. "You're either paying for one or you're paying for the other," she said.
Defendants weren't the only ones grousing about the penalties.
"Quite frankly, these are going to be a major burden on the clerk's office," Judge Michael J. Cassidy said Monday while explaining the fees during his opening remarks to the crowded courtroom. "I realize that these might be a financial burden. . . . It was not the clerk's choice to impose these fees."
Bob Battle, a Richmond attorney who was in Fairfax traffic court Tuesday, said disapproval among judges is widespread.
"Judges, like other people, don't like them," he said. "Two have made it loud and clear, but so many of them out there are convinced that [the fees are] unconstitutional."
Battle said he thinks the fees are excessive. It's "sort of a kick-them-while-they're-down mentality," he said. "I think people who were charged with reckless driving, speeding or DUI were crazy not to have a lawyer before.. . . With a DUI defendant, you mean the potential year in jail, a $2,500 fine, at best a restricted license, the classes they have to go to, insurance wasn't a sufficient punishment?"
Because post-July 1 defendants make up only a small fraction of the caseload, it's too soon to determine what effect, if any, they will have on the judicial system, said Nancy Lake, Fairfax General District Court clerk. "I think it might have an effect in September, when most of the docket are these types of cases," she said.
Kathryn Bogush, 37, of Centreville caught a break in her case from a judge who amended her charge because she has a good driving record.
"Your [offense is] after that magic date of July 1," Judge Lisa A. Mayne said to Bogush, who was facing a reckless driving charge for going 80 mph in a 55 mph zone. "On the other hand, you have a plus-five driving record. I will take that into account."
Minutes later, a smiling Bogush was headed to the cashier after her charge was lowered to simple speeding, thereby avoiding the civil fee. "I was thankful she changed it," Bogush said.
Not everyone was so lucky. Upon hearing that he would have to pay the first $350 of his civil fee after being convicted of reckless driving, Samuel Ortez, 34, of Woodbridge, a truck driver and father of two from El Salvador, stared blankly for a moment outside the cashier's office, his eyes watering slightly.
"It's going to affect the bills," he said quietly in Spanish, his nephew Leo Ortez interpreting.
People who are unable to pay the first installment the day of their conviction are charged an additional $10 and are given 90 days to six months to pay, depending on the amount of the fee, Lake said.
Some, like Hodges, thought they had a legitimate excuse for speeding and would be able to get the charge lowered.
But when it came time to testify, Hodges said she felt rushed and couldn't adequately explain her situation to the judge, who found her guilty.
She said that she plans to appeal the decision.
She and her husband, Jeff, a massage therapist, barely go out and are living basically week-to-week to support 17-month-old Madison and infant Alessandra, born July 19, she said.
If the appeal is denied, her husband will probably have to work overtime, she said, but she's hoping a second judge will dismiss her case because of the circumstances.
"I'm getting out of here," Hodges said, "before I have to pay for any new roads."
__________________ William (Will) SBN
R.I.P. Krazy Hawaiian-you will be missed brother!!
SUPER MODERATOR
Questions, Concerns, Issues please PM me!
Bike Mods:CarbonFreak Windscreen, Power Commander, Galfer Superbike Brake Lines, Carbone Lorraine Brake Pads, BMC Air Filter, Motovation Frame Sliders, Redlinestands Swingarm Spools.
WERA #951
NESBA #951 www.dropthehammerracing.com Hemmet-cam LEO-LEESTA!!!
Audentes Fortuna Iuvat!-Virgil
POLICE K9: GO AHEAD AND RUN, IT'S YOUR ASS!
SHUT UP!! I can only listen to one person lie to me at a time!!-Officer737
2006 Graduate of the Kevin Schwantz Suzuki School (race school)
"Putting my foot in your ass since 2005!"
i'd bet if polled alot would rather 'do time' then pay that crazy ass fine.
they originaly admited that they implemented this, as to not raise tax's for road construction they needed to do.
another recent article
Quote:
Va. Bad Driver Fees Are Upheld
Texas Report Shows Problems There, Too
RICHMOND, Aug. 13 -- The wrangling over the state's steep new fines on bad Virginia drivers intensified Monday as a suburban Richmond judge ruled that the fees are constitutional, and fresh evidence emerged that legislators and the governor may have enacted the fees without fully researching the effect on the poor of comparable programs in other states.
In light of the legal maneuvering, the Virginia Supreme Court is considered likely to decide whether the fees, which can reach $3,000, violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection because they apply only to Virginians and not to out-of-state motorists. In a related development Monday, an 81-year-old Roanoke woman launched a separate challenge to the fees -- intended to raise $65 million for transportation projects -- after being cited for reckless driving.
In January, a month before the Virginia General Assembly approved the fees, the Texas legislature issued a report that concluded a similar program in that state was failing because thousands of drivers could not afford to pay the fees. A copy of the report was obtained by The Washington Post on Monday.
Texas, New York, Michigan and New Jersey impose fees, in addition to court costs and fines, on drivers convicted of serious traffic offenses, such as driving under the influence. As in Virginia, motorists who don't pay the fees in those states could have their driving privileges suspended.
According to the Texas Legislative Budget Board, the state has reported a collection rate of 29 percent since the fees went into effect in 2003. As of a year ago, in 55 percent of cases, involving 828,000 licenses, licenses were suspended because fees were not paid, the report says.
Last month, The Post reported that the licenses of tens of thousands of motorists in New Jersey and Michigan -- including many low-income drivers -- have been suspended because of unpaid fees. Michigan judges are calling for repeal of the program because they are seeing an influx of motorists cited for driving on suspended licenses, which prompts a new round of fees that many cannot afford.
The Texas report recommends that lawmakers significantly modify the state's Driving Responsibly Program, which raises money for trauma care, to make "payment of certain surcharges more feasible for low-income drivers."
The report says lawmakers should consider offering periodic amnesty to some drivers facing the fees, including those who can prove that their driving has improved.
Until changes are made, there are signs the fees are clogging the Texas court system.
Texas Sen. Eliot Shapleigh, a Democrat from El Paso, estimates that half of outstanding arrest warrants in El Paso and Austin are for people who are unable to pay the fees. According to Shapleigh's analysis, 11 percent of residents of those cities have outstanding arrest warrants.
"Driving responsibility laws are increasingly resembling debtors prisons," Shapleigh wrote in a letter to Texas lawmakers last month.
Krista Moody, a spokeswoman for Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), said the governor is open to amending the fee program but does not want to repeal it.
"We think it has gotten off to a slow start, but we think it is a worthwhile program because it holds drivers accountable for their actions," Moody said.
Virginia Del. Thomas Davis Rust (R-Fairfax), who helped craft Virginia's abusive-driving fee law, said he was unaware of the problems created by the Texas law. But Rust said the General Assembly will consider changing the fees when it convenes in January.
"I don't know what the Texas law says, but in Virginia, the thing just went into effect a month ago, so let's wait and see what happens, and if we have to make changes, we will make changes," Rust said.
In Virginia, the latest court challenge of the fees involves an 81-year-old woman on a fixed income who says she cannot afford to pay the $1,000 fee she faces if she is convicted of reckless driving.
Mary Elizabeth Minter filed suit in Roanoke County Circuit Court seeking to block the state from imposing the fees on Virginia residents. Minter, who has a clean driving record, was cited for reckless driving July 29 after allegedly running a red light and causing an accident. Her attorney, John P. Fishwick Jr., said his client, if convicted, would have to pay a fee that exceeds her monthly income.
"She is on a fixed income. She has an impeccable driving record. It would be catastrophic for her to pay these exorbitant fines," Fishwick said.
Joanne Nattrass, executive director of Commonwealth Catholic Charities, said a $1,000 fee can be "a major, major hardship" for someone on a fixed income. "It would force someone to chose, 'Do I pay for food this month, or do I pay this . . . fee?" Nattrass said.
Minter's lawsuit contends that Virginia's fees are unconstitutional because they do not apply to out-of-state motorists. It also contends that the fees violate the separation-of-powers doctrine because a court is being asked to collect what amounts to a tax.
In recent weeks, district court judges in Richmond and nearby Henrico County have ruled the fees unconstitutional, saying that excluding out-of-state motorists violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.
In a victory for Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) and state lawmakers Monday, Henrico Circuit Court Judge L.A. Harris Jr. overruled the lower court and declared the fees constitutional in Henrico.
Harris said it is reasonable to expect Virginia motorists to pay more to keep up highways than do motorists who are just passing through. Harris cited other instances in which states have set different charges for different groups of people.
House Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford) and Senate Majority Leader Walter A. Stosche (R-Henrico) issued a statement applauding the ruling. But they said they intend to find a way to impose the fees on out-of-state motorists when the General Assembly convenes in January.
Until the General Assembly acts, the lawsuits are expected to continue. A Navy veteran is challenging the fees in Arlington County General District Court, where a hearing is scheduled for next week.
J. Tucker Martin, a spokesman for Attorney General Robert F. McDonnell, said, "We continue to anticipate uncertainty as various courts rule on the issue, and we believe this issue will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court of Virginia."
Oh bullshit. That's no excuse for unreasonable and unfair penalties, especially ones that are not even related to safety or crime prevention, but are rather just added extortion against a particular group of people because the state wants more money.
PhilB
__________________
'93 Ducati Monster 900
158,000 miles (so far)
Oh bullshit. That's no excuse for unreasonable and unfair penalties, especially ones that are not even related to safety or crime prevention, but are rather just added extortion against a particular group of people because the state wants more money.
PhilB
I find it pretty simple, they know the rules and they know the penalties for violating those rules. If they choose to violate them then they bring it upon themselves. Do I think the fines are excessive? Hell yeah I do! In the case quoted the lady was on the way to the hospital as she thought she was going into labor. Her best idea would have been to call an amulance to her house or where ever she was and have them take her. Say for instance she blows a red light and t-b
Woman speeding to Hospital in Labor stopped & fined $1150!
