Time to start killing the politicians

[Cobrabill]

Armed With Checkbooks and Excuses, First Casualties of Va. Fees Go to Court

By Jonathan Mummolo
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 12, 2007; A01



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."

[cobra de capell]

I really don't see a problem with this - she could have killed someone.

[Cobrabill]

And you have no problem with the state revenueing to plug a leak in the budget that they caused?
And i'm sure you've never driven done a road that the speed limit was artificially low.
This goes way beyond a pregnant women on the way to the hospital.

[Ron61]

INMHO it is an asinine law and I bet none of us have not been guilty of speeding. As for She could have killed someone, so can anyone doing the speed limit and talking on their dam cell phone while swerving from lane to lane.

Ron

[Wayne Maybury]

Ron

Talking on the cell phone is one thing but the newest trend, and one I consider to be much more dangerous, is sending text messages while driving.

Wayne

[tcrist]

I am with CDC on this one. If she were that worried would it not have been better to call an ambulance? If she would have hit and killed your child I think your opinion ('s) might be a little different.

Terry

[VRM]

But she didn't hit and kill anyone. Plenty of people speed every day without hitting and killing anyone. The odds are in favour of it not happening.

The same argument is used for gun control - the gun COULD be used to kill someone so we have to get rid of them.

Steve

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by Cobrabill

And you have no problem with the state revenueing to plug a leak in the budget that they caused?
And i'm sure you've never driven done a road that the speed limit was artificially low.
This goes way beyond a pregnant women on the way to the hospital.

No, no problem filling the budget leak with money from people that are speeding, speeding to the hospital, included - I would prefer spending cuts to solve the budget problem, but there are worse places to target. Once again, she could have killed someone - should have had someone drive her to the hospital or go via ambulance.

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by VRM

But she didn't hit and kill anyone. Plenty of people speed every day without hitting and killing anyone. The odds are in favour of it not happening.

The same argument is used for gun control - the gun COULD be used to kill someone so we have to get rid of them.

Steve

Dangerously using a gun would be the same thing - do the crime, pay the fine. Besides, she was in labor - SPEEDING to the hospital - that cannot be a good thing for other citizens on the road at the same time - she simply needs to pay up and move on. Guilty as charged.

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by Ron61

INMHO it is an asinine law and I bet none of us have not been guilty of speeding. As for She could have killed someone, so can anyone doing the speed limit and talking on their dam cell phone while swerving from lane to lane.

Ron

But, Ron you have never been speeding and in labor at the same time - have you witnessed a female in labor - it's not a pretty site and seems very painful - very, very distracting, so speeding and being in labor don't mix. She's just a selfish B---- that more than likely had other options to get to the hospital or perhaps too stupid to consider options for the past 9 months.

[Excaliber]

Pay up and move on, OK, but lets establish a FAIR amount that is reasonable punishment for the crime commited. As I see it, this new 'tax' on speeders is NOT fair because the Judge cannot adjust the amount by taking into consideration extenuating circumstances. In the above case (pregnant lady) perhaps the mitigating circumstances were insufficient, but I'm sure there are a lot of cases where they would be.

Crime must equal appropriate sentence guidelines, don't tie the courts hands in making that determination. Which, by the way, is what happens to often on the Federal level, the Judge has little or no say even when mitigating circumstances are substantial.

[Ron61]

Ray,

I have no intentions of getting into any arguments over this. You say she more than likely had other options and that could be so, but we don 't know if for a fact do we? I think the $500 speeding exhibition ticket for chirping a tire is asinine too. But that is now the law in the smaller Republic of Redding.

Ron

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Pay up and move on, OK, but lets establish a FAIR amount that is reasonable punishment for the crime commited. As I see it, this new 'tax' on speeders is NOT fair because the Judge cannot adjust the amount by taking into consideration extenuating circumstances. In the above case (pregnant lady) perhaps the mitigating circumstances were insufficient, but I'm sure there are a lot of cases where they would be.

Crime must equal appropriate sentence guidelines, don't tie the courts hands in making that determination. Which, by the way, is what happens to often on the Federal level, the Judge has little or no say even when mitigating circumstances are substantial.

Too many judges don't use discretion when it’s available to them in a prudent manner – just look at child molestation cases all over the country. She was speeding, she pays as everyone will pay that speeds, period. There really is no excuse for speeding.

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by Ron61

Ray,

I have no intentions of getting into any arguments over this. You say she more than likely had other options and that could be so, but we don 't know if for a fact do we? I think the $500 speeding exhibition ticket for chirping a tire is asinine too. But that is now the law in the smaller Republic of Redding.

Ron

Arguments can be fun - especially when I win! We do know that she had at least one alternative - to the hospital via ambulance - that's virtually always an option no matter where one lives. Besides, she had 9 months to think about options and from the article it doesn't look like options were given consideration. Besides her statement ""Having a baby's more important. Of course I'm going to speed" indicates a total disregard for the safety of the public in general - she just a selfish B!

If you think about it, she placed that life of her baby in harms way by speeding, just for that the fine should be double.

[Cobrabill]

CDC-what road was she on?
How many lanes?
What time of day?
What was traffic like?

[petek]

Originally Posted by VRM

But she didn't hit and kill anyone. Plenty of people speed every day without hitting and killing anyone. The odds are in favour of it not happening.

The same argument is used for gun control - the gun COULD be used to kill someone so we have to get rid of them.

Steve

Invalid argument.

She broke the law and was caught, tried and found guilty. This is much different than what a gun COULD be used to do. In fact, if you use a gun to kill someone - and get caught, tried, and found guilty - the penalty is quite a bit more than a simple (albeit expensive) fine.

That said...

I wonder if someone will (successfully) challenge the law as being a form of taxation applied unequally. Seems to me that they need a good lawyer to take up the challenge!

[hey,littlecobra]

She's just a selfish B----

wow you continually say the dumbest things.

not suprised; you're very predictable.

[427sharpe]

Quote from Ron:
"I think the $500 speeding exhibition ticket for chirping a tire is asinine too. But that is now the law in the smaller Republic of Redding."

In Dallas that qualifies as an 'exhibition of speed'---$1500 AND impound the car. In Dallas if your car is impounded, God only knows what you'll get back--if anything. At least here they gave the judges leeway. They are really hammering the street racers (a good thing). The street racer crowd have killed quite a few people in the area the last few years. It really is history repeating itself. Sooner /later some politician will start ranting over 500 hp cars on the street and the insurance crowd will kill our little 'golden era'.

[Ron61]

427Sharpe,

No argument from me on that. Fortunately we don't have much street racing here and I too agree that is is dangerous and should be severely penalized. The chirping a tire is a speed exhibition here also as I stated in an earlier post, but the first fine the last I heard, which was two years ago was $ 500 and then if you got a 2nd one it was $1500. I am sure they may have gone up but I don't intend to find out by doing it. So far as I know they don't impound the car here unless you are under the influence of something and then I have no problem at all with that. In fact I think that with the exception of automatically impounding the car every time, your law is better than ours. I just don't think that a chirp when starting from a stop light should be considered a speed exhibition when you are in bumper to bumper traffic doing 15 MPH.

Ron

[Ron61]

Ray,

Of course you win as I am not going to debate this. And as I am sure, you have never broken the speed limit, I can't possibly compete against you because I have. And I had no excuses for it either, just going faster than was posted.

Ron