| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Lurid Crime Tales- |
| DOJ sez Virginia driver's license suspension law unconstitutional |
| 2016-11-15 |
| [CBS] RICHMOND, Va. -- The U.S. Department of Justice sided with a lawsuit filed in July on behalf of low-income drivers, which challenged the Commonwealth’s practice of suspending the driver’s license of people who can’t afford court costs and fines. Plaintiffs alleged that state officials "unconstitutionally deprive people of this important interest by automatically suspending the driver’s licenses of those who fail to pay court fines or fees, without providing adequate process and without assessing whether the failure to pay was willful or the result of a defendant’s inability to pay." The Department of Justice agreed that the practice did violate due process in a brief. "...The practice of automatically suspending an indigent person’s driver’s license for failure to pay money owed to a court without adequate consideration of the person’s ability to pay violates the Fourteenth Amendment," the DOJ wrote in the brief. The DOJ said an automatic suspension of driver’s licenses for failure to pay fines or fees does not advance a state’s inherent interest in promoting public safety, nor is it an effective means of achieving the identified purpose of this practice, namely compelling "future compliance with a court order." The DOJ also stated that if a payment plan is offered, but a person can’t pay any money in the foreseeable future, states must consider alternative options that do not require monetary payment. "These alternatives include reducing fines or fees to a manageable amount in accordance with a person’s ability to pay, offering community service programs, or requiring the completion of coursework, such as traffic safety classes," the DOJ wrote. |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #7 "I'd rather see some sort of work program instituted" Virginia, where the suit is filed, has provisions for payment plans and (some sort of, I think) work program, but most courts don't tell the driver about them (and most drivers up on traffic charges don't bring a lawyer, even if they can afford one). On the other hand, some of these people have 10 or 20 (or more!) different convictions in multiple courts around the Commonwealth (not including those for driving on a suspended license). |
| Posted by: Barbara 2016-11-15 20:44 |
| #6 Still, why is this not decided in the courts? |
| Posted by: Pappy 2016-11-15 20:18 |
| #5 Yes, driving is a privilege, not a right, but suspend a poor person's license and he won't be able to get to work. At that point, it's game over -- job lost, apartment lost, thrown in jail. I'd rather see some sort of work program instituted, say ten hours a week sweeping the streets at the equivalent of minimum wage until the debt is paid off. In the end the community and the individual will be better off, instead of both losing. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2016-11-15 18:51 |
| #4 When I was sixteen years old here in California and trying to get a drivers license all the grown ups kept drumming it into my head that driving is a privilege that can always be revoked for any transgression, not a right. How things have changed! But what does Baraq's DOJ have to say about it anyway? Why is this case not being decided by the courts? |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2016-11-15 12:04 |
| #3 So DoJ is saying auto insurance is also optional if you can't afford it? |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2016-11-15 11:27 |
| #2 So a Driver's License is another of the inalienable rights? |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2016-11-15 11:16 |
| #1 The DOJ said an automatic suspension of driver’s licenses for failure to pay fines or fees does not advance a state’s inherent interest in promoting public safety Run that by me again please. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2016-11-15 09:12 |