Traffic-fine fight pits state against localities
By Peter Vieth
Published: November 4, 2011
Tags: General Assembly, Tucker Griffin Barnes, Traffic Offenses Published: November 4, 2011
Complaints about “speed traps” may prompt the Virginia General Assembly to recalibrate how the state and various localities divide the money that goes with the traffic fines.
Under longstanding practice, Virginia’s local governments have passed their own traffic laws, which frequently correspond to state traffic statutes. Local prosecutors can choose to proceed under local law, which keeps the money from fines – several million dollars a year for some localities – in local coffers.
A new state auditor’s report questions the general practice and the revenue split.
The September report from Auditor of Public Accounts Walter Kucharski has legislators scrutinizing local budgets that explicitly rely on catching speeding motorists.
“Some jurisdictions have gotten a reputation for establishing budgets based on income generated by individual police activities … that winds up paying for salaries and equipment,” said Sen. John Watkins, R-Midlothian, a member of the Senate Finance Committee.
Hopewell is one locality that has planned on drivers being in a hurry. The city council approved a plan in 2007 to hire two part-time deputies to write speeding tickets on a two-mile stretch of Interstate 295. The project, detailed in council meeting minutes, was expected to bring in $500,000 to $1 million per year. The costs of the police car and officer salaries would be paid for in the first four to six weeks of the program, a report to the city council estimated.
After hearing the state auditor’s report last month, some members of the Senate Finance Committee are considering possible curbs on how localities can use the local fines and costs, one senator said.
For many local governments, there is big money at stake. In the fiscal year ending in June 2010, the audit shows courts collected $95 million in fines and costs from enforcement of local ordinances, mostly traffic laws that parallel the state traffic code. Local governments have a free hand in how they use that money.
By contrast, money from fines and costs related to state statutes goes to the state treasury, much of it earmarked for teacher retirement and school construction.
The auditor’s report has raised concerns among local government officials that the General Assembly might have its eye on the money they get from local ordinances.
Kucharski said the practice of allowing localities to pass local versions of state laws developed over the years without any analysis of what happens to the money paid by defendants. “People in the Courts of Justice Committees are adding this language without considering the impact on the Literary Fund or the general fund,” he said.
But there may be more specific issues involved in local ordinances. Watkins, who proposed the auditor’s study, said one of his concerns is the classic “speed trap” – local traffic enforcement activities designed to fill local coffers rather than enhance traffic safety.
The state audit shows the city of Emporia and surrounding Greensville County collected more than $2.9 million in local fines and costs in fiscal 2010. Internet postings suggest many motorists consider that area, where Interstate 95 intersects with U.S. 58, to be a speed trap.
Richmond traffic lawyer Robert E. Battle said the Hopewell officers patrol a section of highway where the speed limit is 70 miles per hour. Under Virginia law, anyone clocked over 80 can be charged with the crime of reckless driving. “It’s like spearing fish in a barrel,” Battle said.
The audit shows Hopewell collected more than the anticipated $1 million in local fines and costs in fiscal 2010.
Basing traffic enforcement on revenue estimates is not good government, Watkins said. “To me that calls into question the legal reputation of the enforcement and prosecution,” he said. “That’s not what justice is all about.”
Watkins said he also is concerned about the amount of money diverted from the state’s school fund as more and more localities have enacted local ordinances to beef up their budgets.
Fines and costs for state law violations go to the state Literary Fund, which contributes to teacher retirement and school construction, whereas money from local ordinance enforcement can be used by the local government for any purpose.
Watkins said some legislators hope to change how localities are allowed to use the money from local ordinances. “I think there’s a lot of people interested at Senate Finance,” he said.
The Virginia Municipal League wasted no time defending spending practices for local ordinance revenue. VML executive director R. Michael Amyx fired off a letter to Kurcharski while the audit report was still in preparation, listing the ways localities use the money for courts and law enforcement.
Localities spend roughly half of the local revenue for education, according to Neal Menkes, VML’s director of fiscal policy. That’s far more than what the state contributes, he said.
Menkes also says there is arguably a stronger local interest in traffic violations than state interest.
“Ultimately, for all localities, any reduction of revenues from fines and fees will put more pressure on real estate and personal property tax rates,” said Roger C. Wiley, a Richmond lawyer with extensive local government experience.
Wiley also points out local governments have to pay for lawyers for indigent defendants facing jail time when local criminal ordinances are enforced, so state costs of prosecution would increase if local ordinances were eliminated.
Portsmouth Circuit Court Clerk Cynthia P. Morrison, president of the Virginia Court Clerks’ Association, fears a loss of local fine revenue. As state funding decreased in recent years, “many of us had to rely on localities to step up to the plate,” she said.
Del. Scott Surovell, D-Fairfax, who is both a state legislator and a traffic defense lawyer, said localities such as Fairfax provide significant sums for court and law enforcement operations. The county government pays for judicial clerks, staff in the commonwealth’s attorney’s office, and police resources.
“I suspect a lot of jurisdictions are putting more in than they’re taking out in fine revenue,” Surovell said.
Nevertheless, Surovell said he was troubled by the suggestion some traffic enforcement operations were created just to raise money. “I think that’s kind of abhorrent,” he said, comparing it to speed cameras that generate fines without regard to driver points.
“It’s why a lot of people don’t trust the system to be fair and honest,” he said. “The whole thing raises a lot of interesting public policy issues.”
As always, please consult with a Virginia attorney about legal issues raised in this article. Every situation is unique.
Tucker Griffin Barnes - Where deep insight equals powerful advantage.
Tucker Griffin Barnes P.C.
Charlottesville, Virginia
434-973-7474
Education for traffic signs and improving the sense of being liable to act upon it is necessary to keep that to the point.
ReplyDelete