So guilty or not they tag you for $25. That seems kind of unfair.

THIS IS WRONG, JUST PLAN WRONG

Someone better versed in the criminal side of constitutional law than I am needs to articulate a basis for finding this unconstitutional, so that I can repeat it in subsequent discussions as if it were my own intellectual product.

We're a corrupt Northeastern state, so this is just the natural progression of things. Charge the victim of injustice a fee for putting up a fight. Patrick Deval has been a rather large disappointment for our state.

But then if we weren't spending trillions of dollars to keep rich people in the money, federal aid to states wouldn't need to get cut and the states wouldn't be so desperate to find revenue elsewhere.

Bring home the troops. Let the CEOs go without their golden parachutes.

kronicfeld: Someone better versed in the criminal side of constitutional law than I am needs to articulate a basis for finding this unconstitutional, so that I can repeat it in subsequent discussions as if it were my own intellectual product.

I should like to subscribe to your newsletter, sir or madam.

"We the jury find the defendant not guilty of all charges."

"Right you are. Bailiff, throw the defendant in jail for 30 days for being innocent."

They also upped the fee to appeal a magistrate's guilty finding to a real judge. It's $50 now. Magistrates are corrupt political appointees whose budget is paid for by the money they bring in from traffic cases. The hearing with a judge more resembles a real trial; most importantly the judge will expect a witness to the offense to testify against you. The ticketing officer rarely shows at the magistrate hearing because, the courts have said, the ability to appeal to a judge means there is no harm done if the magistrate violates the law.

kronicfeld: Someone better versed in the criminal side of constitutional law than I am needs to articulate a basis for finding this unconstitutional, so that I can repeat it in subsequent discussions as if it were my own intellectual product.

Well, it's unconstitutional because...


RON PAUL

kronicfeld: Someone better versed in the criminal side of constitutional law than I am needs to articulate a basis for finding this unconstitutional, so that I can repeat it in subsequent discussions as if it were my own intellectual product.

I'm sure DamnYankees will be happy to oblige.

Let me understand this. Cops can go around and write as many bogus tickets as they want, guilty or not, legitimate violation or not, the state is going to win either way? Now THAT'S quite a system you have there.

/ONE IF BY LAND, TWO IF BY SEA

kronicfeld: Someone better versed in the criminal side of constitutional law than I am needs to articulate a basis for finding this unconstitutional, so that I can repeat it in subsequent discussions as if it were my own intellectual product.

It would seem to stand in contradiction to your Miranda rights, in that if you can't pay for legal representation it will be provided for you. It should not cost you one cent to represent yourself in traffic court to plead guilty.

I'd have to think more deeply about the Constitutional implications, but I think we can all agree that we don't penalize people for not breaking the law.

Forgot the *not* there.

The problem is, that if it really is necessary to have a fee to cover this cost, then it should only be imposed on those found guilty. You shouldn't have to pay a fee if you walk in and show the magistrate that the cop is a lying bastard who hates motorcyclists. Not that I'd know anything about that.

Upon a few seconds further reflection, the cop should pay the fee if the case is dismissed. That would be fun.

pandabear: Upon a few seconds further reflection, the cop should pay the fee if the case is dismissed. That would be fun.

I came here to say exactly this. It's the only equitable solution. Which of course means that it will never occur in Massachusetts.

kronicfeld: Someone better versed in the criminal side of constitutional law than I am needs to articulate a basis for finding this unconstitutional, so that I can repeat it in subsequent discussions as if it were my own intellectual product.

This isn't criminal law; traffic fines are administrative (they only get criminal if you don't pay).

Were I a lawyer, I'd try this: In administrative law, like all law, due process is expected under the 14th Amendment, and "the fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard." Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 268 (1970). Due process that you have to pay for is not due process. Conditioning a hearing on the advance payment of a non-refundable fee deprives people of the opportunity to be heard in the same way that a poll tax (where you have to pay a fee before you can vote) denies people the right to vote, especially people without the financial means to pay the $25 to contest a ticket.

and that's why us Mainers call them MA55holes.

You jerks just need to learn to slow down. If you don't want to pay a fine, then don't drive by a cop who's having a bad day.

Now excuse me, while I go drive in the left lane for the next 50 miles, being sure that my speedometer is at least 15 below the speed limit.

Because only assholes don't do things my way!

EvilEgg: So guilty or not they tag you for $25. That seems kind of unfair.

Should be $25 unless you win your case. Then that'd be fair. Because honestly, if you don't drive like an asshole you're probably not going to get a ticket anytime soon, and the small majority of people ACTUALLY in the right will likely win their court case and not be out the $25.

The rest of the jackasses who claim they didn't notice the red, or that 65 really meant 95 ... can pay the 25 and their ticket.

Bad Housekeeping: and that's why us Mainers call them MA55holes.

3/15/1820
Never Forget!

CalvinMorallis: You jerks just need to learn to slow down. If you don't want to pay a fine, then don't drive by a cop who's having a bad day.

Now excuse me, while I go drive in the left lane for the next 50 miles, being sure that my speedometer is at least 15 below the speed limit.

Because only assholes don't do things my way!

So the opposite of speeding is going below the limit? This is why real people don't consider whiners [re: speeders] arguments seriously.

EvilEgg: So guilty or not they tag you for $25. That seems kind of unfair.

DC and Boston have been doing this for quite some time -- only they charge substantially more. Barring any major constitutional challenge, which I don't see being mounted any time soon, I predict this will become the norm across the nation sooner rather than later.

Diogenes: I'd have to think more deeply about the Constitutional implications, but I think we can all agree that we don't penalize people for not breaking the law.

Well, we didn't in the past. Mostly. If they weren't guilty-looking.

how is this any different than a poll tax?

EvilEgg: So guilty or not they tag you for $25. That seems kind of unfair.

And that's not even taking into account the cost of feeding the meter in the first place.

what a shiatty thing to do, is this unprecedented or do other states already rip people off in this manner?

MasterThief: kronicfeld: Someone better versed in the criminal side of constitutional law than I am needs to articulate a basis for finding this unconstitutional, so that I can repeat it in subsequent discussions as if it were my own intellectual product.

This isn't criminal law; traffic fines are administrative (they only get criminal if you don't pay).

Were I a lawyer, I'd try this: In administrative law, like all law, due process is expected under the 14th Amendment, and "the fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard." Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 268 (1970). Due process that you have to pay for is not due process. Conditioning a hearing on the advance payment of a non-refundable fee deprives people of the opportunity to be heard in the same way that a poll tax (where you have to pay a fee before you can vote) denies people the right to vote, especially people without the financial means to pay the $25 to contest a ticket.


I really don't have time to research this, but I would be looking for something along the lines of the First Amendment's right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. In any civil rights case against the government, if the citizen wins, they not only get their costs (including the filing fee), they also get reasonable attorney's fees paid by the offending agency. 42 U.S.C. 1988.

So happy I left MA years ago. State is a complete disaster.

I never understood the whole concept of "Court costs" that are levied every time you appear in court. I thought that what taxes were for, to pay for administration costs.

"CalvinMorallis 2009-07-02 12:03:40 PM
You jerks just need to learn to slow down. If you don't want to pay a fine, then don't drive by a cop who's having a bad day."

Almost had me there...... 8/10

MasterThief: This isn't criminal law; traffic fines are administrative (they only get criminal if you don't pay).

That's a false dichotomy. All the constitutional protections still apply. Particularly given that many traffic infractions are punishable as misdemeanors.

Wow, I'm now waiting for the town to set up a booth right on the outskirts, and just hand out tickets to everyone entering. Seriously, just make shiat up, busted mirror, expired registration, whatever. I mean, if the person doesn't fight it, you get the fine, plus all the little add-ons that they have put over the year, until the 100 dollar ticket actually costs 250, or, they fight it, you get it dismissed, it costs you 2 bucks, and you make 25. That would be awesome. you would solve every budget problem you have.

Welcome to Massachusetts, that will be $25.

They do the same in PA, except here if you get a ticket and want to plead not guilty you have to pay the fine and court costs and fee to do so. Then if found not guilty you supposedly get your money back. But in order to get your day in court you have to pay the full fine and all fees associated with it first. There is even a fee for the court's computer system.

You know, I don't live in a state that does this, but if I ever got charged a $25 fee for pleading not-guilty, I would probably not feel the least bit bad if I then stole something worth twice or three times that much from the state.

tombotia: Should be $25 unless you win your case. Then that'd be fair. Because honestly, if you don't drive like an asshole you're probably not going to get a ticket anytime soon, and the small majority of people ACTUALLY in the right will likely win their court case and not be out the $25.

The rest of the jackasses who claim they didn't notice the red, or that 65 really meant 95 ... can pay the 25 and their ticket.

That's usually the way it works. When you get a speeding ticket and have to cough up $200+, chances are pretty good that anything over $80-$100 is "court costs", and you will be charged the full amount whether you contest the ticket in court or not. This "hearing fee", or whatever the hell they want to call it, is in addition to the court costs, and even the innocent have to pay it... presumably for wasting the judge's time.

tombotia: CalvinMorallis: You jerks just need to learn to slow down. If you don't want to pay a fine, then don't drive by a cop who's having a bad day.

Now excuse me, while I go drive in the left lane for the next 50 miles, being sure that my speedometer is at least 15 below the speed limit.

Because only assholes don't do things my way!

So the opposite of speeding is going below the limit? This is why real people don't consider whiners [re: speeders] arguments seriously.


Are real people kind of like real Americans?

And besides, I was just being a jackass for the heck of it. You, however, seem to actually be a jackass :D

GurneyHalleck

But then if we weren't spending trillions of dollars to keep rich people in the money, federal aid to states wouldn't need to get cut and the states wouldn't be so desperate to find revenue elsewhere.

NO! If they got more money they would just spend more money, and you would be no better off. The only thing you can do is elect people who are genuinely concerned about runaway spending. Not sure if you can find any of those in Massachusetts.

This is the funniest thing that made me sad all morning.

It's amazing how the colony that once brought us the Boston Tea Party has mutated into Taxachusetts.

Freedom ain't free.

/Wait, what?

This is why I bribe the cop instead of paying a fine.

ZAZ: They also upped the fee to appeal a magistrate's guilty finding to a real judge. It's $50 now. Magistrates are corrupt political appointees whose budget is paid for by the money they bring in from traffic cases. The hearing with a judge more resembles a real trial; most importantly the judge will expect a witness to the offense to testify against you. The ticketing officer rarely shows at the magistrate hearing because, the courts have said, the ability to appeal to a judge means there is no harm done if the magistrate violates the law.

Is there some way it could be pinned back on the Magistrates? What would it take for that? Or is that the whole "prove the harm done" thing?

Don't speed by a cop having a bad day? I don't care that some cop has a bug up his ass, like a cop probably wouldn't care that a bad day might be the reason for my speeding. They just need to stick to doing their job, not going on personal vendettas.

So you fee me 'cause of your mutha'uckin' fee?

FarkinHostile: I never understood the whole concept of "Court costs" that are levied every time you appear in court. I thought that what taxes were for, to pay for administration costs.

THIS THIS THIS, yes, THIS!

skinink: Don't speed by a cop having a bad day? I don't care that some cop has a bug up his ass, like a cop probably wouldn't care that a bad day might be the reason for my speeding. They just need to stick to doing their job, not going on personal vendettas.

Hook, line and sinker? Or a 10/10?

So, talk slowly enough to make up the $25 in employee time?

Yes they can!