Smokey and the Bandit - Part II

The saga of jurisprudence gone bad was just beginning when the story ended last time. Here's a bit more for you to chew on as you offer your advice :D

As far as I can tell, the entire legal process is exceedingly coercive: using force or authority to make a person do something against his or her will. In this case, San Mateo County wants me to pay a fine for going 90 MPH. Here's my evidence.

I mentioned that I went down to the Superior Court last Thursday. What I didn't mention at that time was that I was 10 minutes late. Why? Well, of course the Man would say there are no good reasons. However, there were some interesting circumstances. First, Highway 101 is a complete NIGHTMARE in the morning. However, I had factored that in when I left for the court. Then, the exit that Google and Yahoo suggest taking to make it to the court building is under construction. You cannot take that exit - meaning you have to go about 5 miles out of your way. Then, the court house has precious little parking. So, you have to park approximately 1/3rd to 1/2 a mile away from the court house.

Interestingly, none of these facts are mentioned on the court web site. Wouldn't that be nice?

So, I was 1o minutes late.. or as the Court likes to say it.. i had "failed to appear". No grace. No exceptions. Sweet. What really hurts is that they tell you you're late with such happiness.

Now, failure to appear is another way of saying 'you disrespected our authority' - which, if you follow the Barry Bonds case or Martha Stewart.. you find the government really, really dislikes. In fact, while my speeding ticket is a simple 'infraction' under the law, failure to appear is a MISDEMEANOR. That's right, my blatant disrespect for the court, as demonstrated by being 10 minutes late, was a big deal.

Remember that whole coercive thing I mentioned? Well, here's one evidence of it. When I got to the window I was informed that 'if I paid my fine right now - we'll minimize the impact of the failure to appear'. Get it; pay up without any more trouble and we'll let you off easy.

Well, as it turns out I had the good fortune of having signed up for a one month extension just the night before. So, I technically was EARLY. Bums. No $750 fine for failure to appear for the State of California.

Having established I wasn't a Misdemeanor-level criminal we had that little discussion about traffic school I told you about last time. As you will recall - that was the one where they try to get me to plead guilty so I can beg the judge for a right I absolutely have; coercive.

After recovering my right to traffic school I asked my next question; 'I noticed on your web site that if I were to actually contest my ticket I will lose my right to traffic school. Is that right?'

Clerk: yep.

Tod: hmm.. why is that?

Clerk: because we offer traffic school to people that don't understand the rules. if you contest your ticket we figure you understand the law - so we take traffic school off the table.

Tod: did I hear you right? you think that people that plead guilty are just stupid and they don't know the rules of the road?

Clerk: i didn't use the word 'stupid' - but you got the gist.

Tod: so, that sign that says 'Stop'. You figure they don't understand that? Or those signs on the road that say 'Speed Limit' - you figure they don't know what that means? You think that's why you offer traffic school? Seriously?

Clerk: seriously.

Tod: so, can you tell me what statute gives you the right to deny me traffic school just because I contest my ticket; because this whole deals sounds kind of coercive.

Clerk: in what way?

Tod: well, when you force me to face thousands of dollars of increased insurance costs just because i had the audacity to contest my ticket. well, that pretty much is coercive.

Clerk: well, you can just plead guilty and pay the fine and avoid that possibility.

Tod: ... wouldn't that pretty much be coercion right there? pay up or we'll use our full authority to make you wish you did?

Clerk: perhaps you should consult a lawyer if you have other questions.


Now, I've spent some time trying to find anything in the Vehicle Code, Penal Code and the Rules of the Court - and I still can't find anything that would indicate I lose rights just because I challenge a ticket. But, I gotta assume it's in there somewhere. Wow, this process sure is fair.


Okay - here's another thing I learned along the way on this whole ticket thing. Here's what the Vehicle Code says about the maximum fine I can be charged:

42001. (a) Except as provided in this code , a person convicted of an infraction for a violation of this code or of a local ordinance adopted pursuant to this code shall be punished as follows:

(1) By a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100).

The way I read this.. the fine should be.. $100 or less. Mine was $321. So, now I'm more curious. How in the world did they figure the fine was $321? If you are anything like me, this answer will just piss you off.

First, you have to DOUBLE the fine because Penal Code 1464 says.. more or less.. that whenever a criminal pays a fine they owe the same amount to the State of California. This is referred to as the 'State Penalty'. Note that they call it a 'Penalty' (not a 'Fine') apparently to avoid violating their own law above (42001).

Then, you pay 20% more extra under Penal Code 1465.7 which says a 'state surcharge' - in additional to the 'state penalty' shall be imposed. Not much more explanation than that. Just, give us 20% more.

Then, there's the California Government Code Section 70372 which collects another 50% - or the 'state court construction penalty'. I guess that means I have to help build the buildings they steal my money from. That's sweet.

Then, there's Calfiornia Government Code Section 76000 which collects 70% minus the 70372 fee (50%) = 20% more.

If you're still with me that's: $100 + $100 + $20 + $50 + $20 = $290!!

At this point I pretty much gave up trying to understand how to account for the remainder of the $321. I know there are like three other laws that allow them to charge me for sending me the citation ($10), blah blah blah.

So, in summary: the Legislature sets the maximum FINE at $100 - then just starts tacking on PENALTIES and SURCHARGES to the tune of 221%. So, how is THAT legal? Huh???

It just gets depressing when you start to understand just how much more they can 'surcharge and penalize me' should I exercise my constitutional right to a trial. Trial costs, paperwork fees, and on and on and on and on. But, the court doesn't understand how a citizen could possibly believe that they are coercive: using their authority to force me to pay a ticket for going 90 when I didn't.

Your thoughts?