 |
Massachusetts Page |  |
|
Massachusetts Page | |
The Massachusetts law that forces traffic ticket defendants to pay a non-refundable fee for the "privilege" of defending themselves in court is being legally challenged, finally. Two cases one involving the nonrefundable court fees, and another contesting a $275 filing fee to challenge a parking ticket are being combined for consideration by the states Supreme Court.
In the first instance, the defendant, who happens to be an attorney, went through the first level administrative hearing (first paying the required $25 fee, only cash accepted), lost and appealed for a trial by a judge (now paying $50, in advance, no refund). The defendant prevailed at the second trial and then made a motion to have his $75 returned. The court denied his motion. The defendant appealed and the case was eventually accepted by the MA Supreme Court.
The parking ticket case has its own moments of great irony. State law limits a parking ticket defendants due process options to a hearing overseen by the parking authority that issued the ticket. Failing in that fair and impartial venue, the defendant may appeal to the Superior Court for the modest sum of $275. The imbalance apparent in spending $275 to overturn an $8 ticket escaped the attention of the crafters of this law, or perhaps not?
With this background we can step back and explore the issues at hand. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution clearly states "nor shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . ."
This right to due process is applied to all the states via the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Federal and state courts have sliced and diced the right to due process (even overcoming pesky but clear Constitutional language that sets a much higher standard for due process) such that due process now varies depending on the severity of the crime. It can range from mandating a 12-person jury and a government-sponsored defense attorney down to a "fair and impartial hearing" conducted by the same agency that is prosecuting the defendant.
The Attorney General for the state of Massachusetts argues that it is perfectly reasonable, and legal, for a traffic ticket defendant to pay for access to the courts to defend himself. The reasoning is that "justice isn't free," and when someone files a civil suit, it is accepted that he pays for the courts services.
Enter the convenient fiction: Many states, including Massachusetts, invented the rationale that if a conviction for a crime does not involve imprisonment, the crime is no longer a crime; it is a civil violation or infraction. Just to fuzzy it up a bit more, defendants are now declared "responsible" (guilty) or "not responsible" (not guilty). In exchange, defendants lose the due process rights of criminal defendants. Goodbye jury trials. Discovery is replaced with scripted incident reports, and rights become privileges.
When forced, higher courts have declared/admitted that when the intent of a law is to punish for specified acts, these are criminal matters. Punishment can be incarceration, financial penalties, or other punitive sanctions. Disputes between two or more entities over matters of equity (property, money, control, injury etc.) are civil matters.
Creating a fiction that says traffic tickets are civil matters does not make them civil matters. Traffic tickets are intended to punish those who violate traffic laws. Criminal prosecution precedes punishment and therefore should compel criminal due process rights.
Even with the convenient fiction in full play, the Massachusetts A.G. lost sight of the forest for the trees when she shifted to the civil suit excuse for charging for access to the courts it is the plaintiff, not the defendant/respondent that pays the filing fees.
In the traffic ticket case, the state/prosecution is the plaintiff and thus, even following the fallacious fiction that this is a civil matter and not a criminal matter, the plaintiff (the state) should be paying the court fees, not the unwitting defendant.
The NMA Foundation is planning to file an amicus brief in this case, raising these and other issues.