Wanna challenge a ticket? Think again.

Nope. What it means IS that you had better have a REALLY GOOD case before you dispute a minor ticket.
The additional fines are (sometimes) imposted on those who dispute the ticket and LOSE. If you win, no problem.

I really have no problem with the $500 figure.....if and when it is obvious to the Judge and everybody else that the ticket is being disputed just to be difficult for the Cop and the Court ........when there is really no evidence of not being guilty. $2500 does seem a little excessive but I'd hope that would be reserved for the real "problems".

Can this be abused by a Judge? Sure, most things can but I doubt that will happen often and if it does the Judge would be on the carpet pretty fast.

You are not one who takes every speeding ticket and parking fine to court, are you ???

Some Legal Attorney needs to tackle this one. You should be able to face your accuser without further costs or expense.

This is becoming more common across the country. The various municipalities are imposing additional fees, costs and now fines if one wants to contest a ticket. This will dissuade many from attempting to fight their traffic tickets.

Another way for "our" governments to "take" our money without any cost to them or additional work.

This is really getting out of hand. All of the governments want to do is figure out ways to get our money because of their ignorance/over-spending ways to make up for their budget shortfalls and pay for pet projects.

In this country, and I guess you may be excused from knowing this tidbit if you just arrived here, BUT the presumption of innocence is a basic tenant of the American Justice System. If you like third world legal system standards, please leave and go to your third world country of your choice.

Just another way to intimidate people into paying the ticket. Even if I think I am in the right, I would have to think really hard before challenging the ticket. Do I challenge the $50 ticket and risk a $2500 fine. The cards are once again stacked in the government's favor. It needs to work both ways - I should be able to get compensated for the time and effort spent challenging a ticket if I am right. Is there no penalty for screwing up if you are public employee issuing the ticket?

I suppose the key operator here are the words "up to". That means the fines are probably much lower than that. The max fines are usually reserved for repeat offenders, scofflaws, and dead beats. It would be interesting to see what the average charges are in Indianapolis.

I'd be surprised if there is not some legal team that finds the constitutional loophole to stop this.

In my experience, when it comes to money, anytime a government entity can charge "up to" a certain amount, in very short order their charges (tickets, taxes, etc.) hover very close to the maximum allowed.

Case in point, the City of Ashland Oregon had the voters approve a 1% "meals tax" to pay for parks and open space. The ballot said only a 1% tax, and in the fine print that it could be raised "up to 5% more." The voters got duped, voted for it, and within 2 weeks, the city council set the tax rate at the maximum 6%.........

These days I really think they see us as little more than "dollar trees" that they can pick clean at their discretion...........

NP

If you read the article, the increased fees/fines for challenging tickets was announced at a press conference where the City of Indianapolis revealed that they had just signed a deal with a private (for profit!) company to handle all of the city's parking tickets. The deal is expected to increase the city's revenue by about $500,000 a year....meaning that the for-profit business is going to ratchet up enforcement and ticket prices in order to make money, and the city is licking it's greedy chops in anticipation of the increased revenue stream.

In a warning to the peasants (that would be us) the King (the judges) have issued a decree warning that anyone who dares question the wisdom and rule of the King shall be drawn and quartered (fined up to an additional $2,500) for wasting the King's time........

Really folks, we MUST take a stand against these money-making schemes and challenge them wherever and whenever possible!!! If we don't they will only grow in popularity..........

NP

offers half off the ticket before you approach the bench to challenge the ticket and the cop shows up (if not then your ticket is automatically dismissed). I guess the city now needs the money and fast.

There has been much discussion on this forum that traffic tickets are just a revenue grab and another form of taxation. If a person that receives a ticket feels that it has been improperly or illegally issued, they have every right, and even a responsibility, to challenge the ticket.

But, if a person challenges the ticket simply "on principle", they will very likely lose. Of course, there will be added court costs associated with having such a hearing - and who do you think is paying those costs? The taxpayer!

If I was from Indianapolis, I would not want a lot of people challenging tickets simply to be a nuisance. The government will have to get the money from somewhere, and I would rather it was taken from the people who clog the system unnecessarily than added to my taxes.

IMHO another case of our government running amok -
One of these days the people may just get to a point where they say enough and then these judges and "our"
politicians may get what they are due! (Thrown out of office on their EAR!)

No violence please but, man our government is really pushing and pushing and pushing.

That's brilliant! Perhaps, now the ticket is technically a dispute between the collection company and the ticketee. That makes it a purely civil matter - so, charge whatever you want. (Constitutional issues between the govenment and an individual no longer apply...)

So much for due process, though...

Perhaps in the future, states and governments could charge for "access" to their Constitutions.

Say you want to speak publicly. While you will never be banned from doing so; you will need to pay a "First Amendment Fee". (Newspapers, churches and websites like the POI Factory would pay this fee wholesale, and are free to pass those costs on to their readers and peritioners.)

Or how about an Article 1, "Habeas Corpus Fee"? You will need to pay to have your accuser show-up in court. In civil court you will need to pay a fee to show your "standing" in the matter.

The Sixth Amendment (the right to a speedy trial) is just ripe for fees. The higher the fee you're willing to pay - the higher you are bumped-up on the docket and the speedier your trial.

A Fourth Amendment Fee is possible. If you are ever arrested (or your home is ever searched) during an investigation of a crime; you will be sent a bill for it.

The Seventh and the Fifth Amendments could require a "Jury Fee" to assemble a jury.

The 13th, 15th, 19th and 21st Amendments could be REAL revenue generators, but I am not going there...

All people will still have equal access to their rights; they just need to pay for the ones they want to exercise...like a menu.

Perhaps, if you are too poor to pay these fees there could be a "Constitutional Assistance" program, much like "Public Assistance" welfare programs for the needy. So, for instance, if you happen to be poor - you will still able to speak or petition about any issue you wish; you will probably just need to apply for assistance to do so...

I guess those people wearing those "Freedom Isn't Free" t-shirts really are on to something after all.

The one time I challenged a ticket was 20 years ago. There was a traffic accident and traffic was backed up for miles. I needed to exit a hotel parking lot and take a side street across two lanes of traffic. I got out of my car, and went and talked to two drivers to ask them it they'd let me through. They agreed. I got back in my car, and when traffic moved forward about 10 feet, they stopped, and let me through. There was a cop about 10 cars back in the traffic jam. He came after me, and gave me a ticket for "improper merging." I was very polite, all my paperwork was in order, and I had a spotless driving record. I explained that I had gotten out of my car and spoke to the two drivers--he didn't care. After he left, one of the drivers pulled up next to me incredulous that they had given me a ticket. They offered to come to traffic court to challenge the ticket if needed (a retired couple).

Well, I fought the ticket and brought them as witnesses. I explained to the judge what had happened. He never even let the witnesses testify. Total time in front of the judge: 3 minutes. Total "court costs": $475!!!

Really? It costs $9,500 an hour to run a traffic court?? All those people (judges, clerks, bailiffs, etc) are on salary--so where is the "extra cost" from challenging tickets?? Does it make the docket and thus the wait time for a trial longer? Sure. But where is the added cost???

Puhleaze............it's about money and not wanting the peasants to dare question the Kings.........

NP

Here is the run down where cost of ticket in Virginia.

1. Ticket fine -> education
2. Court cost -> judge, sherff, court clerk
3. Extra -> Jail Housing project

If you pay before Court, you gain Traffic point

If you pay on Court hearing, you pay everthing but may not get point.

Before or after court, cost is no differ if both are the same. Only differ is point.

Point can drive your insuranace cost up.

Don't get your panties all in a bunch.

THAT has nothing to do with the penalties if and when you are found guilty.

All I am saying is: People who come to court and plead a "bad hair day" defense SHOULD pay more than someone who just pays their fine.

Ironic isn't it. the court is being challenged by a citizen in court. Will let you know...indyjkraft

I hope they win it. This seems like "taxation, without representation" in my mind. As for the argument regarding taxpayers pay for the system, do you think the police, judges, and judicial sytem et al don't get paid for showing up to work ALREADY?.

We all know the world is in dire financial straits caused by the economic crisis. This is merely a way of getting some extra revenue in the coffers.

Non-sense: The burden of proof must remain an "evidence of being guilty", not the other way around. Otherwise, where are we going?

Priceless!

Although the burden of proof of guilt remains with the prosecution, the standard for "proof of guilt" is significantly less with traffic violations. These are known as "strict liability offences". A person can be found guilty of a strict liability offence simply by the prosecution demonstrating that the act occurred - regardless of knowledge or intent on the part of the accused.

In traffic court the prosecution only has to present objective evidence (photograph, police officer statement, etc.) that the accused was speeding, went through a red light, or parked illegally. Unless the accused can demonstrate that the proof is incorrect, the accused will be found guilty.

It is only when ciminal cases (absolute liability offences) are heard in court that the full gamut of legal protections are in place.

I've stopped going down I-65 through Indiana when heading south. Indianapolis enforcement is too aggressive for my liking. There's less traffic on I-55, so the ride's more peaceful.

This has always been an issue with administrative law (tax law, for example). In public and private law (crimial law and tort law), juries are generally compulsary. In administrative law, you do not generally have a right to a jury. Traffic court falls under administrative law. My advice is to vote no on all retention votes, get involved in city council meetings, and lobby with your city representatives and officials.
Jen

Fought 3 tickets over the last two years (I drive a lot, sometimes in unfamiliar areas). Won all 3 tickets, but always had to post about $150 as collateral. Got all my money back and 0 points in my record.

Go in prepared with pictures of intersections, signs, etc and be professional. It helps when it's an election year, the judge is always more reasonable

I don't know if I would fight one if I risk a large amount of money... Unless I was absolutely sure I would win.

Larry

News flash: In the case of parking tickets and minor traffic violations....guess what ?? It is your word against the LEO and, like it or not, there IS a bias toward the LEO and you really DO have to provide something better than saying "I didn't do it....." to be taken seriously.

AND that is nothing new. It has been that way for a LONG time......and is not likely to change anytime soon.

P.S. Now that someone has provided more details of the original article, my original comment doesn't really fit THIS situation and it DOES look like there is some "screwing" going on.