Abuser Fees: Violate Due Process? Perhaps.

By: Donkey Hotay
Published On: 8/21/2007 1:41:36 PM

So, this is not an exact fit and I am no attorney but perhaps those amongst us with JDs can fill in the gaps in my logic (or just tell me that I'm being ridiculous).

Looking at BMW V Gore the Court decided that "grossly excessive" punitive damages violated the due process clause of the constitution.

Now, Civil Remedial Fees are not Punitive Damages, but they run pretty close.  Both are additional financial penalties assessed in addition to what the court (or legislature) determines to be actual injury caused by a particular action in an effort to deter said behavior.

So in BMW V. Gore, Justice Stevens sets up a three part test to determine if "grossly excessive" penalties exist. (quote from Wikipedia article)

The Supreme Court applied three factors in making this determination:

  1. The degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct;
  2. the ratio to the compensatory damages awarded (actual or potential harm inflicted on the plaintiff); and
  3. Comparison of the punitive damages award and civil or criminal penalties that could be imposed for comparable misconduct.

Test 1: Clearly, a simple speeding infraction of 15 or 20 MPH over on a highway is not reprehensible enough to garner a $3,000 ticket.

2: Again, we have to stretch here.  But if it had previously been decided that the "harm" caused by reckless driving (based purely on excessive speeding) was circa $300, then $3,000 (or a 10:1 ratio) is too high.

3: Refer to #2.

Sorry, I don't have time to go more in depth with this but my lunch break is over and just wanted to float these ideas.

Comments



Due process (Emperor Palpatine - 8/22/2007 12:16:53 AM)
It could very well, and someone should challenge it on those grounds as well as the tax issue.

As was commented by a Rep. Condino from Michigan when he voted no on passing our stupid "driver fee" law:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I have voted no as to concurrence with Senate bill 509 for the same reasons I voted no when this bill came to the House earlier this year. I believe the bill is well intended and has meaningful public policy reasoning. However, I believe the bill has serious constitutional defects as written, which make it impossible for me to support. I believe the bill as written violates the equal protection clause of the Federal and State Constitutions and may even have due process violations which may well render the bill unconstitutional. For these reasons I have voted no."

http://www.michiganv...

But it was passed anyway. And now we have the same problems as NJ, NY, TX, and VA will soon have. 100,000+ unlicensed and uninsured drivers on the road, running from police. And more so in TX as I learned for the love of christ, they put out arrest warrants if you fail to pay the fine!!