Federal Court Says Taking People's Drivers Licenses Away For Failure To Pay Court Fees Is Unconstitutional
from the towards-a-slightly-less-vicious-cycle dept
Good news out of Tennessee, via Christian Farias: a federal court has struck down the state's modern debtor's prison system.
In Tennessee, if you fail to pay court fines and other fees associated with an arrest or imprisonment for more than a year, your driver's license is revoked. While it may not be as punitive as rounding up debtors and locking them up again (which obviously severely restricts their ability to pay off their debt), it basically serves the same purpose. Someone without a valid driver's license will find their ability to earn income restricted. Driving to and from work with a revoked license just raises the risk of being fined or arrested, placing residents even further away from settling their debts with the government.
The lawsuit was brought by two men who've been unable to make regular payments and have been placed even further behind by having their licenses taken away. Their struggles are briefly described in the court decision [PDF]:
In short, Thomas and Hixson both live in severe poverty and both owe court debt related to past criminal convictions. Thomas is totally and permanently disabled. Hixson has spent time in recent years living in a homeless shelter after a period of incarceration. Each man struggles to afford the basic necessities of life and is unable to pay the court debt assessed against him. Because they failed to pay their court debt for over a year, Thomas and Hixson have both had their driver’s licenses revoked by TDSHS [Tennessee Dept. of Safety and Homeland Security].
The state believes this is an effective deterrent and one of the only ways to guarantee repayment of fines. In fact, a spokesperson for TDSHS has already stated that the ruling is "disappointing" and the agency is reviewing its "legal options." This suggests TDSHS thinks license revocation works, rather than just disproportionately punishes the poorest residents of the state. The district court, however, disagrees with this assessment.
A scheme that revoked the driver’s licenses of non-indigent court debtors after one year of nonpayment would pass rational basis review, because the threat of revocation would plausibly serve as a method for coercing those people into paying their debts. (First Memorandum at 36–37.) Under the Griffin line of cases, however, the court must specifically consider whether the scheme’s lack of an indigence exception is itself rational. Revocation would not be an effective mechanism for coercing payment from a truly indigent debtor, because no person can be threatened or coerced into paying money that he does not have and cannot get. (Id. at 37.) The numbers bear that ineffectiveness out. From July 1, 2012, to June 1, 2016, TDSHS revoked 146,211 driver’s licenses for failure to pay fines, costs and/or litigation taxes; only 10,750 of those people—about 7%—had their licenses reinstated. (Docket No. 64 ¶¶ 107–08.) If Tennessee’s revocation law were capable of coercing people into paying their debts in order to get their licenses back, it would be doing so. The overwhelming majority of the time, it is not.
This is part of the court's analysis of the law and its legality. As precedent holds, a law that affirmatively punishes poor people for being poor is unconstitutional, as it violates both Due Process and Equal Protection principles. Tennessee's law fits the criteria.
Under a long and well-established line of Supreme Court precedents, a statute that penalizes or withholds relief from a defendant in a criminal case, based solely on his nonpayment of a particular sum of money and without providing for an exception if he is willing but unable to pay, is the constitutional equivalent of a statute that specifically imposes a harsher sanction on indigent defendants than on non-indigent defendants.
The court's lengthy examination of the law is worth reading -- especially by federal judges in other states with laws like these. But this is the upshot: the law makes bad situations worse, driving poor people further into poverty. In addition, the state's records show it is completely ineffective on its own terms -- either as a deterrent against non-payment or an efficient way to collect on debts owed.
Ultimately, the court need not determine if the driver’s license revocation law would fail rational basis review based on its sheer ineffectiveness alone, because, as applied to indigent drivers, the law is not merely ineffective; it is powerfully counterproductive. If a person has no resources to pay a debt, he cannot be threatened or cajoled into paying it; he may, however, become able to pay it in the future. But taking his driver’s license away sabotages that prospect.
[...]
In short, losing one’s driver’s license simultaneously makes the burdens of life more expensive and renders the prospect of amassing the resources needed to overcome those burdens more remote.
The court then goes on to note the cycle created by this revocation -- which can lead to additional arrests and/or fines -- just digs a deeper hole for the state. It creates additional debts that have almost zero chance of being repaid. It's nothing more than doubling down on what already isn't working.
Fortunately, there are some on the law enforcement side welcoming this ruling.
Shelby County District Attorney General Amy Weirich praised the decision.
“This ruling will give relief to those drivers whose licenses are revoked only because they lack the financial resources to pay their fines and court costs," Weirich said in a statement. "Our hope is that this will be a positive step toward rehabilitation since offenders getting their driving privileges restored will make employment more feasible. Also, it will reduce our daily caseload and allow us to focus even more on violent crimes and property crimes.”
The attorneys for the pair of residents -- Claudia Wilner and Josh Spickler -- are hoping this ruling results in another favorable ruling in the near future. The pair is also suing on behalf of the 250,000 state residents who've had their licenses revoked for not paying traffic tickets. As it stands now, the state has sixty days to come up with a plan for reinstating all revoked licenses affected by this ruling and submit it to the court for approval. Reinstatement may be stayed during the inevitable appeal, but for now, the state cannot continue to revoke licenses when someone has shown an inability to pay.
It's a big decision, even if its jurisdictional reach is limited to the state of Tennessee. If this is upheld on appeal, it will cover the four states that make up the Sixth District. Although this has been slightly altered in recent years, Ohio still engages in this practice. In Michigan, a state appeals court judge blocked a similar law late last year. (That decision is currently being appealed.) Kentucky is the only state in the district without a law like this on the books, putting it a step ahead of its district competition.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: court fees, driver's license, imprisonment, jail, penal system, poverty, tennessee
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not clear on how far-reaching
That's NOT court costs.
Losing your driver's license for too many tickets or not paying tickets has always been the norm.
The last paragraph of the article seems to be saying that the "indigent" shouldn't have to pay fines or fees for traffic infractions.
Frankly, if they can't afford to pay traffic tickets, how are they paying to own, register, insure, and operate a car?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not clear on how far-reaching
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not clear on how far-reaching
Then, at the very end, it says for TRAFFIC TICKETS.
Operation of a motor vehicle on public roads requires a Driver's License, with the understanding that if you accrue too many tickets, you will lose that privilege.
So only people with jobs should follow the law? If you're poor you can do 80 in a 20mph zone past a school?
Here in NY, the fines and jail time for unregistered or uninsured motor vehicles are far more severe than Unlicensed Operation (no license).
This really smells like the two lawyers with that "client pool" of a quarter million people are out for cash and nothing more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not clear on how far-reaching
Look at those New Yorkers. Always got to be proving they're up to being meaner and stupider than anyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not clear on how far-reaching
They are lawyers, in the United States system, which is adversarial. In the same way as they challenged the forfeiture of driving licenses for failure to pay court costs, they are challenging the validity of forfeiture for failure to pay tickets. That is what a good lawyer, that is to say and advocate, does.
Normally/theoretically, this shouldn't be done in the courts, but in the legislature. Unfortunately, my faith in most legislatures has been shaken by the last decade or so of, in my opinion, poor decisions on most topics that I care about and directly impact me.
I should note that, where I live at least, if you truly can't pay you can get court fees and even ticket payments either suspended, lowered or waived. On the other hand, many people seem to view many things that I have chosen to have as "things I cannot live without".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not clear on how far-reaching
Yes. The system, especially in the American South, has always delighted in finding people who're hanging onto the edge of a financial cliff — and stomping on their fingertips. Repeatedly. Hard stomps. Finger-crushing stomps. To make 'em fall off.
I suspect the system delights in that mostly out of pure meanness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not clear on how far-reaching
So what? Nothing in the article or the judges ruling ever says this idea only applies to court costs. They're talking about any fees levied by the government against a citizen for any reason.
The last paragraph also doesn't say anything about the "indigent" or whether they should have to pay fines or fees. I'm not sure what paragraph you might actually be referring to, but the whole point of this ruling was that taking away their privilege to drive is not an effective or reasonable punishment for not paying a government fee. That doesn't mean some punishment can't be used. Only that this one isn't reasonable because it unjustly punishes poorer people over wealthier ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not clear on how far-reaching
If you're unable to pay your traffic tickets, the State can't revoke your Driver's License.
What's the point of traffic laws ANY laws, that have no penalty for breaking them?
I don't agree with suspending or revoking DL's for NON-vehicle related things, such as non-payment of child support, but for TRAFFIC infractions? YES. Get them OFF the roads.
What I find most annoying about this piece is the way it starts off reasonably, talking about court costs. Then in the second to last paragraph we find it's (apparently) a husband and wife team of lawyers looking to cash in on a quarter million unpaid traffic tickets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not clear on how far-reaching
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not clear on how far-reaching
Well there seems to be some contradiction in the article, though not directly. At one place they say:
Then at the paragraph you mention:
If they are separate numbers, then there are 396211 people that have had their licenses revoked and one wonders why those money grubbing attorneys were missing the extra income. Or, the second number included the first number and was mischaracterized in the description of the offences being represented. Maybe just over simplified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not clear on how far-reaching
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not clear on how far-reaching
Not Okay - Losing driver's license b/c you cannot pay the fines for those tickets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not clear on how far-reaching
Everybody else, the indigent need not be made to suffer overmuch as the money can be recovered in small amounts stretched over a long period of time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not clear on how far-reaching
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The next logical step
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The next logical step
As if lawmakers need an excuse to do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The next logical step
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The next logical step
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The next logical step
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The next logical step
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The next logical step
If there are a few good ones point them out. I'm sure I could Google anything and find a result I agree with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The next logical step
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who named that department? Might as well just call it "Goon Squad".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
does this apply to Passports?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: does this apply to Passports?
I've never quite understood that. You aren't living in the US, so you aren't using the vast majority of the services provided by American citizenship but our government still taxes you? How does that make sense? I hope that similar to deductions of state income tax, you can deduct whatever you pay in taxes to your country of residence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Just" punishing
Can't it be both?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Just" punishing
Can't it be both? The quoted statistic shows it works 7% of the time. If you don't care about the poor, why wouldn't you want an extra 7% of people to pay?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It makes sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maine just did this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rather than? Sounds to me like that's exactly how the sleazebags intended it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Transportation should be a right not a privilege.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
People who are not get points on their licences, which ultimately get revoked if the driver doesn't mend his or her ways.
The last thing anyone wants is drivers who can't demonstrate to the satisfaction of a professional authority that they know the rules of the road and can drive safely and competently driving about causing accidents.
I actually know someone who bought a car off a friend and was driving around without either a licence or insurance. When she crashed the car she abandoned it where it was and since she wasn't known to the police she got clean away with it. How many hit-and-runs are down to unlicenced or uninsured drivers fearing the consequences of their actions? Sorry mate, I disagree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The implications for the homeless are incredible here. Look for holy heck to break loose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It would actually be cheaper than criminalising and mistreating them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The problem is that we need to scare people into spending the prime of their lives working, which is also why we frighten people regularly about saving enough for retirement, as if we would ever discard the elderly like they did to Boxer in Animal Farm.
Drinking water is socialist. At the least, we need a Department of Drinking Water to ensure that those who can afford to pay for their own water don't mooch off the government!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Else some of these people would also have had their ability to vote stripped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
suspended for a accident that use not my fault lost on default j
[ link to this | view in chronology ]