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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT