ILNews

Lawmakers criticize traffic court fines

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A legislative committee this week unanimously approved a bill that would cap the fines a court could assess for traffic violations. In doing so, several lawmakers expressed outrage and urged the Indiana Supreme Court to investigate fining practices of a Marion County traffic court judge that have led to a federal lawsuit.

But an even broader issue raised by Senate Bill 399 is how the state's trial courts are funded, a topic that ties two other pieces of legislation to the same debate playing out before the Indiana General Assembly this session. Questions have arisen in various committee meetings about the practice of court judgments being directly tied to revenue brought in from infractions, and whether that interferes with the judiciary's role in providing litigants a fair day in court.

On one hand, SB 399 would apply to the roughly 130 Class C infractions statewide. Fines would be capped; however, the fines could be increased within the cap if a person challenged previous tickets unsuccessfully. During the House Courts and Criminal Code Committee meeting Wednesday, members expressed their concern about the policy in Marion Superior Judge William E. Young's courtroom. Committee chair Matt Pierce, D-Indianapolis, said he would write a letter to Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard asking for an investigation.

This legislation came from Sen. Mike Young, R-Indianapolis, who filed it specifically on the heels of a December class-action lawsuit challenging the fines being imposed by Judge Young, who's presided over the county's traffic court in Marion Criminal 13 since January 2009. Plaintiffs allege they were penalized for simply taking their cases before the judge, with total costs running more than three times what it would have cost them to accept and pay the citation. The case is Toshiano Ishii, Matthew Stone, and Adam Lenkowsky v. Marion County Superior Court No. 13, The Hon. William E. Young, and the City of Indianapolis, No. 1:09-CV-1509.

Indianapolis attorney Paul Ogden, the attorney in the federal case, attended the hearing and said he was impressed at the legislators' reactions to what was happening in the traffic court. "They were very angry and upset about what's going on," he said. "We expect this to pass the House ... the only possible hitch might be if the House decides it does have a fiscal impact and sends it back to the Ways and Means Committee after the deadline has passed. That could mistakenly kill the bill."

While Young's bill involving the traffic court weaves through the process, lawmakers are also considering two other bills that tie into that issue - HB 1154 that would impose a minimum $35 fee on traffic infractions to pay for the conversion of Marion County commissioners to magistrates; and SB 307 that would allow a $50 fee on Bartholomew County traffic infractions to pay for a new Superior Court there.

The Senate Appropriations Committee today passed the magistrates bill, while the House Judiciary earlier in the week unanimously approved the Bartholomew County bill and forwarded it to the full House for consideration.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT