Warning:
(image courtesy of Robb Allen)Massachusetts: Supreme Court Approves Charging Innocent Ticket Recipients
Motorists issued a traffic ticket in Massachusetts will have to pay money to the state whether or not they committed the alleged crime. According to a state supreme court ruling handed down yesterday, fees are to be imposed even on those found completely innocent. The high court saw no injustice in collecting $70 from Ralph C. Sullivan after he successfully fought a $100 ticket for failure to stay within a marked lane.
Bay State drivers given speeding tickets and other moving violations have twenty days either to pay up or make a non-refundable $20 payment to appeal to a clerk-magistrate. After that, further challenge to a district court judge can be had for a non-refundable payment of $50. Sullivan argued that motorists were being forced to pay "fees" not assessed on other types of violations, including drug possession. He argued this was a violation of the Constitution's Equal Protection clause, but the high court justices found this to be reasonable.
Got that? If the cop mistakes your car for another that's speeding, or a toll camera glitch causes your EZ Pass to not register, or if you were traveling with the flow of traffic and were singled out for your red convertible, you're still going to pay. The $20 fee in and of itself is pretty objectionable - it's ostensibly to cover the court costs associated with fighting the ticket - adding $50 on top of that is simply to discourage folks from fighting tickets even if they're in the right.
Now, it's one thing if you fight the ticket and lose - that's part of the roulette wheel you spin when you decide to fight a ticket. In that case, it's part of the process. But to appeal the ticket and win, and then get charged on top of it? Shouldn't that fall under the fifth amendment and due process? If you are found innocent of the charges that resulted in the ticket, shouldn't the fees then not apply? It will be interesting to see what happens with this one down the road.
One thing's for sure: in Massachusetts you're going to pay one way or another - even if you're innocent.
That is all.
14 comments:
I saw that a few days ago, and was going to bring it to your attention. Ah Massachusetts! I would love to see this go to the Supremes, as long as we have the 5-4, as I am sure two of the Justices have novel ideas about what the U.S. Constitution says.
WHY do people live there?
Wow ... Just ... Wow.
You'd think i'd've used up all my surprise at MA screwing folks over.
It is well past time for the application of tar and feathers to the thugs in control of your government. If they fail to heed that warning, the reminder comes at the end of a rope.
Sorry if this comment is politically incorrect. I no longer care about politicians and their bed-wetting. They work for us, not the reverse. It is time to re-assert our authority over our government.
(wv='obeyaud', as if...)
I am outraged that anyone would support this with their tax dollars.
I think most states have some form of 'court fees' that a person has to pay, even if they're found not guilty. Generally, the judge can waive the fee, but that almost never happens.
I've always believed that it's a serious Constitutional violation, but the courts have always supported it (go figure).
The 'costs' should only be collected from those who are convicted, and should be charged (along with the defense attorney's fees) to the police department or prosecutor's office when the accused is found not guilty. This approach would also help to curb frivolous prosecutions.
As it stands now, even if you win, you lose.
New England trees should have their falling leaves replaced with judges and politicians.
Wel what are you gonna do, take up arms and revolt? MA took care of that, too!
And I thought NJ sucked.
I'll do you one better. I got ticketed for having a hot date in my car (the ticket said speeding). I went to court, but court was closed due to snow. I went back the next day and was informed that the court had 'deemed' me to have pled guilty and the judge had entered verdicts, working from home. I was told that the fee for appealing a verdict was $250, non-refundable.
Pay the fees. Then sue in federal court. Do it per se. Make the retards pay through the nose to defend themselves in order to collect a sub $100 "fee".
And ask for an emergency injunction to forbid collecting these fees while the case is decided.
Little pissant states like Massachusetts only get to violate the constitution when the inmates let them.
And people complain about California?
California, Maryland, New Jersey and New York are all cut from the same libtard cloth as Mass.
Incredibly stupid law!
Didn't the Beatles have a song about that? Taxman or something.
Post a Comment