The Virginia Supreme Court will send letters this week to some of South Hampton Roads' worst drivers, offering them refunds for drunken- and reckless-driving fees.
Some were convicted of eluding police during the commission of a crime, while others were caught behind the wheel after lower courts had already revoked their licenses and ordered them not to drive.
At least 4,204 drivers convicted in the five cities as of the end of 2007 will be told the special fees they were once asked to pay are forgiven, according to the state Supreme Court. Those who have already paid hundreds of dollars of those extra fees will be getting refund checks.
The bad drivers are still obligated to pay their original fines for DUI, reckless driving and other offenses. They still have to pay court costs and suffer the burden of higher vehicle insurance because of their offenses.
But they'll no longer pay the "abusive driver fees" because last month Gov. Timothy M. Kaine was persuaded by a public uproar to sign the repeal of a law that he and the General Assembly had hoped would help finance millions in interstate maintenance projects.
The fees were a small part of a huge 2007 transportation bill and were intended to punish the worst drivers with a new category of fine - a "civil remedial fee" - that would apply to crimes or misdemeanors committed while driving.
Simple traffic infractions such as ignoring a highway sign or failing to yield were not subject to the harsh new fees.
The law ensnared an estimated 58,000 Virginians who were ordered to pay the fees after the law went into effect on July 1, 2007, said Katya Herndon, director of legislative and public relations for the Supreme Court.
About 23,000 of them had begun making payments, she said.
Some of the fees were eye-openers.
Reckless driving brought three fees of $350 each that had to be paid to the Department of Motor Vehicles within 14 months of conviction. A manslaughter conviction arising from driving while intoxicated brought three annual fees of $1,000 each.
But the fees were withdrawn under an onslaught of public anger, driven in part by an online petition signed by an estimated 180,000 Virginians who wanted the law repealed. Many were confused over what offenses were included, while others objected to a provision that limited the fees to Virginia drivers only.
The repeal will force Virginia to repay $7.32 million to bad drivers, said Virginia Controller David Von Moll, of the Department of Accounts. The Virginia Department of Treasury will print the checks, he said. State officials had not yet computed how much of that money will be refunded to drivers in Chesapeake, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Suffolk and Virginia Beach.
"We're trying our best to make sure that we get a check to the person who paid the fee," Von Moll said.
The high court did not reveal the names of those convicted, but the data it did provide offered insights into driver behavior in South Hampton Roads.
More tickets were issued in Norfolk for driving on suspended or revoked licenses than in any other South Hampton Roads city, while Virginia Beach led in abusive driver fees for driving while intoxicated, records show.
Mike Goodove, coordinator of southside Virginia Mothers Against Drunk Driving, is discouraged that the fees were eliminated.
Goodove, who lost his 19-year-old brother Jeffrey to a drunken driver, felt remedial fees would have saved lives if given a chance.
"But we'll never know now," he said. "I thought they got a lot of people's attention. When you get people in the pocket, it can affect their decision-making process."
Goodove said the arguments from opponents that the fines were unfair or overly expensive "pale in comparison to the damages done by drunk drivers on the road."
The repeal of the abusive driver fees, one of two major portions of the transportation bill of 2007 that were struck down this winter, represented a major setback for lawmakers who have struggled to develop a long-term solution for funding improvements to Virginia's ailing transportation network.
The fees would have generated about $65 million a year for highway maintenance.
In a separate action, the state high court on Feb. 29 struck down the centerpiece of the transportation bill, saying regional transportation authorities do not have the power to impose taxes on localities. That responsibility rests solely in the hands of elected leaders, the justices said.
The ruling meant that Hampton Roads suddenly had no means to finance six long-sought transportation projects that have thus far proved impossible to build.
Virginia Beach lawyer Sonny Stallings, a former Democratic state senator, derided the civil fees as a "ridiculous attempt that was all smoke and mirrors" designed to hide the need for a statewide tax increase.
Stallings said defense lawyers in Hampton Roads benefited from the law.
"It was going to bolster our business, because the people could not pay," he said. "If they were convicted and didn't pay, then they'd lose their license and get a ticket for that. Then they'd be back to us again. It was a lawyer's moneymaker."
Tom Holden, (757) 446-2331, tom.holden@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Why would the pilot remove my post but not these
The Pilot removed my post which pointed out that, despite what another poster had implied, 20 miles over posted speed is not reckless if you are within a 35 mph zone. For that mph zone, you must be going 60. It seems even some cops don't know this exception as I have had to point this out to them in court. Also, anything over 80 is reckless regardless of whether the posted speed is 75 mph. So, to say that 20 mph over is a blanket rule for reckless driving is misleading. But really PILOT, you let some of these back a forth dribble on here and you remove a relevant clarification?
Pilotonline has captured the attention of a lot of regulars
It seems like the same few people get into personal arguments with each other on a daily basis about trivial matters concerning multiple news articles. I am surprised the editors let this go on by the same people every day. My understanding is you can only have one letter to the editor published every six months for the printed version of the Pilot so why are all of these personal attacks allowed online every few minutes? I could name the cast of characters but it would serve no purpose.
(continued)
...(me, for example) or convicteded of stuff they didn't do, but there's certainly a strong statistical relationship between someone being ticketed and someone being guilty of something. But I suppose I'm misinterpretting your words.
You say: "...Thus....man you really are thick eh. ..."
I say: Why the anger? Why the personal insults? Do you interact with people that way in the real world or just on anonymous internet message boards? This is a waste of everyone's time, especially mine. I'll give you the last word, man.
You say: "Thick Jim, I
You say: "Thick Jim, I never said you made the post. MikeR made one of the typical post re; this boner of legslation to the effect of "if you don't drive bad you don't have to worry about it blah blah"....."
I say: You know, at some point, when people repeatedly misinterpret your intent, you may want to consider the possibility that you aren't expressing yourself as clearly as you think. First, it was "quilty" doesn't mean legal guilt. OK, fine. Then, you refer to the original post that "precipitated this..." but are not referring to either my post or your post. I'm not quite sure how someone would get that from your vague remarks. OK, whatever. I don't take any responsibility for someone else's post.
You say: "...I debated incorrect statement (there is not necessarily a relationship between guilt and arrest or ticketing) and you jumped in. "Oh I think there is a relationship...blah blah." Is it coming back to you now?..."
I say: Yep, I remember what I wrote. Do you? You said there is NO relationship between someone getting a civil fine and whether they are guilty. I'll stick by my original remark. People occasionally are wrongly ticketed (me, for exampl
what a joke!
the pilot states that the fees were a "smart part" of the plan but then stresses that they would have put 65 m in the coffins then digresses to talking about someone who actually wanted the fees because he felt they would stop wreckless driving. what an insult to your readers that were against the fees, is there no transparency whatsoever!
these so called fees were a joke from the beginning. never understood what good 65 m would have done at the expense of making a mockery out of the same citizens that needed these roads to get around in the first place. cops were pulling over everybody trying to get quotas to raise that money. thank goodness this nightmare is behind us, a sad chapter in virginia politics ...
World does not revolve around you thick Jim
Thick Jim, I never said you made the post. MikeR made one of the typical post re; this boner of legslation to the effect of "if you don't drive bad you don't have to worry about it blah blah". I debated incorrect statement (there is not necessarily a relationship between guilt and arrest or ticketing) and you jumped in. "Oh I think there is a relationship...blah blah." Is it coming back to you now? Thus....man you really are thick eh. Regardless, guilt or not in somebody's mind has nothing to do with it. Fact is, you can be guilty of nothing and still have to deal with it. Again ratio of who paid fees to who was actually guilty is not a 1/1 ratio.
RE: The Gripe
"Okay I don't mean to interrupt whatever is going on, but the one gripe I had with these abusive driver fees was that it applied to only a person with a VA plate"
I totally agree with you, but you have to remember the people doing the griping about the bill are the worst driver on the roads.
"...Back to thick Jim. If
"...Back to thick Jim. If you go back to the original post that precipitated this it went something like..."if you don't break any traffic laws you don't have to worry about the fees." blah blah....."
Nope. Sorry. Nice try. I never said that. If you aren't guilty (as in the judge says "you're not guilty," not "I know in my heart that I'm not guilty") then you don't have to pay the civil fees. That's what I said.
".... As you have pointed out, you do not have to be factually "guilty" to wind up paying the fee...."
We're just talking in circles, man. People are sometimes convicted of stuff they didn't do, whether traffic violations or anything else you can think of. What does that have to do with the civil fees?
"...Again slowly thick Jim...you do NOT have to have"
Hey. Where'd you go? I won't be able to sleep tonight if you don't complete your words of wisdom.
The GRIPE
Okay I don't mean to interrupt whatever is going on, but the one gripe I had with these abusive driver fees was that it applied to only a person with a VA plate. What about the military who has an address here? Who pays the utilites, may have a mortgage, and for all intents and purposes resides here. They were able to get a carte blanche just because they never registered in Virginia? They do live here..
Internet Tough Guys
I'm sorry; but, after reading three pages worth of comments about who's better than who, it appears that some of you are just a bunch of Internet tough guys hanging out in Mom's basement. (Ooops, no basements in Tidewater). Hanging out in your rooms. Does Mom know you skipped school today, children?
Angry Steve.."slowing down to read the words..".
Is mandatory to decipher your posts. Your grammar is terrible. "You very "will" can and many have." convition is also not a word. You also misspelled genius in an earlier post about me. A remedial English course is advisable...post haste
Yes indeed
Yes indeed, Angry Jim. NOW we're getting somewhere.
You say: "... "Guilty" means by definition:"having committed an offense, crime, violation, or wrong". ..... Guilty does not mean a convition in a court of law. ....."
Hmmm, how does our society determine whether a person is "guilty?" Do they ask him? [Hey man, are you guilty? No? OK, never mind...] Do they read his mind? Do they flip a coin? No, we have that pesky judicial system you referred to earlier. That's how we determine legal guilt. Period. Are people sometimes wrongfully convicted of crimes, traffic offenses, etc? Of course. How was the risk of a person being wrongly convicted [found "guilty"] of certain traffic offense associated with civil fees any greater than the risk of being wrongly convicted of any other law on the books? Should we repeal all laws because we sometimes wrongfully convict people?
OK, Angry Steve
"...Thus...one more time slowly. You do not have to be guilty of a traffic offense to recieve one of these tickets nor would you have to be guilty to have to pay the fee. ..... Got it now? Read very slowly and think about each word....."
Ok, I've completed my assignment. I've read your words. Slowly. And fully pondered the meaning. Can you define "guilty?" That seems to be the issue. Are you talking about "guilty" in your own mind, or "guilty" as decided by the court? If you're talking about the former, then I guess your post makes some sense, although it's completely irrelvant. There's ALWAYS the chance that someone will be wrongly convicted of a traffic offense, capital murder, etc., even though they aren't "guilty" in their own mind. What's that got to do with abusive driver fees? If you mean the latter, then your post makes no sense. If the court didn't find a person guilty of the underlying offense, then the person DID NOT have to pay the extra civil fee. Your rant about police and courts being pressured to raise money for road building makes great blog material, but otherwise rings hollow.
Might Have Been Ghetto
If it was the maybe escaped from a slum, and moved to the ghetto..lol
Escaping The "Slum"
Since you live in Atlanta, you are probably familiar with the works of Tyler Perry..In "Diary of A Mad Black Woman", When Kimberly Elise shows up at Madea's house, in "Atlanta"...trying to remember what they called that area? Was it "slum"?... Catch the Vick story in today's VP? lol
Attn: stevenc55848
If you are not even living here anymore, I think we would all prefer to not have you post. Can we stop you? No. Nor should we be able to. Simply out of courtesy, you should stop. Been to Atlanta before too... not exactly a safe haven (i.e. crime isn't exactly low). You whine far too much for the great citizens of Virginia.
Steve
"I have seen Ocean View recently on various websites as a group of young gang bangers were beating up some kid. Looks like a nice place and I'm sure you feel right at home."
Then you have not seen OV, and before you go talking about crime here you better look in your own backgard in GA.
Pilot staff post only what they want
You either have a malfunctioning web form or your staff picks and chooses posts to publish at will. The Pilot as a whole is a biased joke (as many, many would agree) but to stop people from posting is an even bigger joke.
Gee Stevenc, Golly Wally, Shucks Beeve
"Am I a GA native Cont? How long did I live in VA to form an opinion or did I just pass through and stop at the library to form my complete set of knowledge". .....Why are you asking me these questions? Shouldn't you know the answers yourself? I mean the questions you are asking are about yourself.. I hope you should be able to answer them yourself as well. Unless you forget who & what you are even replying to again.....embarrassed? more like amused..thanks for the entertainment...lol
Sounds Like Some Bragging To Me..
"That durn Carter thing has brought 5.7M people (and growing) here along with bucu businesses, commerce, institutions of higher learning, great museums, etc." ..So....Are you bragging?....or complaining? lol