A motorist's claim that a city's action, in fining him an amount for a traffic violation under a city ordinance that was in excess of the amount of the fine authorized by state statutes for the same offense violated his federal constitutional rights was rejected by a federal appeals court. Under a city ordinance, the motorist was fined $150 for careless driving, along with a $15 amount for court costs and a $1 administrative fee, while state law punishes careless driving with a $30 fine. The city stopped the practice after the North Dakota Supreme Court ruled in Sauby v. City of Fargo, #20070202, 747 N.W.2d 65 (2008) that doing this violated state law. Despite this, the previous imposition of a higher fine on the plaintiff did not violate constitutional due process, equal protection, or the Eighth Amendment prohibition on excessive fines. Mills v. City of Grand Forks, #09-2119, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 15308 (8th Cir.).
     Motorists in Cleveland, Ohio sued the city, challenging the decision to enforce a traffic camera ordinance, which involves taking pictures of motorists who run red lights at certain locations, against drivers who lease, and do not own, their cars. They argued that such enforcement of traffic citations against them amounted to an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation, in light of the fact that the ordinance did not originally provide for liability on the part of lessees. The ordinance was subsequently amended to provide for lessee liability. The lawsuit involved citations the city enforced against lessees prior to the amendment of the ordinance. A federal appeals court ruled that the plaintiffs had failed to assert a constitutional claim under the Takings Clause of the U.S. or Ohio Constitution, since the ordinance in question did not aim at the seizure of or "otherwise impair" an "identifiable" fund of money. The court did, however, order further proceedings on the plaintiffs' claim that such enforcement of the traffic camera ordinance unjustly enriched the city in violation of state law, which the trial court had not analyzed. McCarthy v. City of Cleveland, #09-4149, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 23203 (6th Cir.).
     A Tennessee motorist filed a federal civil rights lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a city's court processing fee for those charged with running red lights based on photographs of their cars taken by a company that forwarded the photos to the city, which then issued a citation and assessed a $50 fine. Under the city's ordinance, motorists who choose to challenge the citation and fine are informed that, if they chose to do so, they will be assessed a $67.50 court processing fee. A federal appeal court ruled that the plaintiff motorist, while having standing to challenge the citation as improper because the processing fee amounted to more than the possible fine, had an "unripe" claim, because the city, at oral argument, had agreed to give her a hearing. Only after she actually attended such a hearing could she have "suffered a hardship" allowing her to go forwards with her claims. Williams v. Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., #08-5545, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 21637 (6th Cir.).
     An increase in the initial $23 parking ticket fine to $519, which occurred as the result of the assessment of a $16 per month late penalty fee, did not violate the excessive fines provision of the Constitution, despite the plaintiff's argument that he never received the initial ticket. The city did mail him an additional notice of the ticket, and he failed to pay it. The growth of the amount due could be attributed to his failure to pay or contest the ticket, not to any unconstitutional action by the city in designing the late fee penalty. The court also rejected the plaintiff's due process claim, finding that he received adequate notice of his right to contest the ticket and of the late fee penalty. Wemhoff v. City of Baltimore, Civil Action No. CCB-08-1209, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 104398 (D. Md.).
     A city system involving capturing photos of cars running red lights or making illegal turns, and then imposing fines on the owners of such vehicles, regardless of whether or not they were the driver, did not violate the due process or equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. There is, the court noted, no "fundamental right" to avoid being seen on a public street or to run a red light, nor did the "modest" $90 fine involve any fundamental property right. It is rational to fine the vehicle owner rather than the driver, since the driver could blame others, as it is likely that the driver would not be revealed in the photographs. Idris v. City of Chicago, No. 08-1363, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 42 (7th Cir.).
     A police officer had probable cause to stop a motorist and issue a citation for driving without headlights on after sundown and without wearing a seat belt. The motorist himself did not deny that he had been stopped on the date, so that the fact that the defendant officers' motion for summary judgment stated the wrong date for the incident, stating a date in which the motorist had been out of the state, did not matter. The plaintiff also did not deny driving after sundown with his headlights off and without wearing his seatbelt, which was broken. Austin v. Gaskins, No. 4:07cv420, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 66153 (N.D. Fla.).
     The legality of automated red light enforcement traffic citations and contingency fee contracts with private providers was upheld by an intermediate California appellate court. In re Red Light Photo Enforcement Cases, #D048882, 2008 Cal. App. Lexis 873 (4th Dist.).
      City's action in imposing late fees for those who do not timely pay parking tickets, even if unauthorized by any municipal ordinance, was not a violation of federally protected civil rights, such as due process. Tickets did provide recipients of the time within which to pay and the amount of the late fee, and the city's action did not involve any fundamental rights or constitute conduct shocking to the court's conscience. Rector v. City and County of Denver, #02-1434, 348 F.3d 935 (10th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
     Placing parking tickets on illegally parked cars was sufficient to provide due process notice to vehicle owner of the claimed parking violations and of the fact that accumulating three unpaid and unappealed such tickets could result in the placing of an immobilizing "wheel boot" on the auto. Plaintiff showed, however, that the city failed to provide a "meaningful opportunity" to be heard before or after the placement of such a "boot" on his car, since the tickets did not explain how to contest the validity of the placement or explain how and when the "boot" could be removed. Individual defendants, however, including the city's mayor, a police officer, and a parking monitor, were entitled to qualified immunity from liability because the law in the area of "wheel booting" was not clearly established. Gross v. Carter, 265 F. Supp. 2d 995 (W.D. Ark. 2003). [N/R]
Vehicle owner had no privacy interest in auto parked on city street; no warrant was required to seize vehicle after default judgment issued for failure to pay parking fines. Administrative parking violation notices provided were sufficient to give vehicle owner notice of available pre- and post-deprivation remedies. Rackley v. City of New York, 186 F. Supp. 2d 466 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). [2002 LR Jul]
     A city's delay in setting a hearing date for a number of weeks after a motorist's car was towed for alleged parking violations, despite the owner's "insistent and immediate" demand for a hearing violated both a California state statute, Ann. Cal. Vehicle Code Sec. 22852, and constitutional due process, as clearly established twenty-five years before in Stypmann v. City & County of San Francisco, 557 F.2d 1338 (9th Cir. 1977).