Not guilty, so what, pay the fine !!

Fees are not the same as fines, but the bottom line is that even if a driver is found innocent, there is an out of pocket expense. The larger expense is the time and energy diverted to the exercise of contesting the ticket. As entertaining as that exercise would be, I would prefer to get my entertainment elsewhere!

The most interesting piece of the situation is the reference to waiver of fees for indigent persons:

From the findings:

"Before July 1, 2009, no fee was required to challenge a citation before a clerk-magistrate, and a twenty dollar fee was required to appeal from the decision of the clerk-magistrate to a justice. Under St.2009, c. 27, §§ 73-74, which were enacted on June 29, 2009, and became effective on July 1, 2009, St.2009. c. 27, preamble, a twenty-five dollar fee must be paid prior to commencement of the clerk-magistrate hearing, and a fifty dollar fee must be paid prior to scheduling an appeal hearing before a judge. G.L. c. 90C, § 3(A)(4). [FN5] Indigent persons may obtain a waiver of these fees. G.L. c. 261, §§ 27A-27C."

When exactly would a motor vehicle operator be categorized as indigent? If you can afford to fill the gas tank, it seems to me, that would knock you out the box.

Would heartburn/indigestion count?

Ditto

The Government IS NOT your friend.

By making the fee non-refundable; the message is that the Legislature considers that anyone contesting a civil vehicle citation is "filing frivolously", even if they are innocent.
Mark

Even go so far as to say they are your enemy.

Don't you know you are guilty until proven innocent in this country. Just cause you are found not guilty doesn't mean you didn't commit the offense. Welcome to the socialist system. It's a shame we have elected to go down this path, and then complain when we don't like it.

My preference would be that the fee be waived (refunded) for persons being found innocent.

However, concluding that the MA legislature considered all contests to a civil vehicle violation to be "filing frivolously" can not be supported by the entirety of what I quoted from the MA court.

Again, in its entirety:
We conclude that there is a rational basis for requiring those cited for a noncriminal motor vehicle infraction alone to pay a filing fee and not requiring a filing fee for those contesting other types of civil violations under G.L. c. 40, § 21D. The process provided under G.L. c. 90C, § 3, to those who challenge a motor vehicle violation is significantly greater than that afforded to those who challenge a civil infraction under G.L. c. 40, § 21D. General Laws c. 90C, § 3, provides for the subpoena of witnesses for the hearing; G.L. c. 40, § 21D, does not. Those contesting motor vehicle violations under G.L. c. 90C, § 3, are entitled to a hearing before a judge or clerk-magistrate; those contesting a civil infraction under G.L. c. 40, § 21D, may be heard by an assistant clerk. Those found responsible by a clerk-magistrate for a motor vehicle violation under G.L. c. 90C, § 3, are allowed to obtain a de novo hearing before a judge; those contesting a civil infraction under G.L. c. 40, § 21D, have no entitlement to a de novo hearing on appeal. Where the Legislature provides greater process that imposes greater demands on the resources of the District Court, it is rational for the Legislature to impose filing fees, waivable where a litigant is indigent, to offset part of the additional cost of these judicial proceedings. See Gillespie v. Northampton, ante 148, 158-160 (2011). See also Ortwein v. Schwab, 410 U.S. 656, 660 (1973).

The number of hearings on civil motor vehicle citations each year also dwarfs the number of hearings on public smoking and marijuana violations. [FN8] Where approximately 700,000 motorists cited for moving violations potentially may seek recourse in the District Court each year, [FN9] and where approximately 200,000 seek clerk-magistrate hearings, see note 8, supra, it is rational for the Legislature to deter frivolous filings by requiring a twenty-five dollar filing fee, and to deter frivolous appeals from a clerk-magistrate's finding of responsibility by requiring payment of an additional fifty dollar fee to schedule a hearing before a judge. See Gillespie v. Northampton, supra; Longval v. Superior Court Dep't of the Trial Court, 434 Mass. 718, 722-723 (2001)."

In the first paragraph, the court distinguished between "noncriminal motor vehicle infraction[s]" " under G.L. c. 90C, § 3" and "other types of civil violations under G.L. c. 40, § 21D"

After enumerating the differences the Court stated:
"Where the Legislature provides greater process that imposes greater demands on the resources of the District Court, it is rational for the Legislature to impose filing fees"

It is more likely that the legislature was attempting to discourage "filing frivolously" but did not take the further step of writing into the code refundability for those who proved they did not commit the infraction cited.

But there are other possible outcomes than "innocent". Refundability might not be appropriate where a person was found "not responsible" (as was Ralph Sullivan) if that decision was based on a technicality (and I have wondered if the reason - in this case - was that the ticketing officer did not appear).

Maybe tickets by Onstar or some other embedded electronic device in your vehicle is next!

In Washington State if you overpay your ticket say by $5.00 it does not go on your record because they can't close the account. If they send you a refund, shred it!

Urban legend.

Have you heard about the new wide area UK cam network where they database your plate when your car is spotted and when you are next spotted will ticket you if you got to that next camera in less time than you would if you'd driven the speed limit?

You aren't actually clocked speeding - it is guilt by inference.

Then again they are raising speed limits in the UK in the immediate future.

City need the court fees money. Just think of it as your donation to the city for the salary of the judge, bailiff, court clerk and electricity of City hall.

When you say "by inference", I am having difficulty understanding what you mean. Perhaps it is because there is not an officer involved as in the case where a radar gun is used.

In the radar situation, the radar unit is making a calculation based on the change in frequency (doppler effect) of the transmitted and returned waves. In the "cam network" the speed is calculated based on the difference in timing of the license plate readings. Both are calculations (and both are subject to the accuracy of the device(s) used).

Years ago I accompanied a severely disabled friend on one of his work trips. He worked for Cal Trans and, at that time, was Disabled Programs Coordinator for that agency. He had to go from Chico, CA to participate in a job fair at Cal State Northridge. We flew to LA and rented a car to travel to the university. We spent the entire day there and then flew home the next day. As my friend is severely disabled, the car was rented in my name.

A week or so later I received a $50 parking ticket from the Beverly Hills traffic division. (This was about 25 years ago and $50 was a huge amount for a parking ticket. I had received $110 as a stipend to accompany my friend as his assistant on the two-day trip.) The parking ticket had my name, my drivers license number, the WRONG license plate for the rental car, the WRONG color of the car, etc. MY info was correct but the car they ticketed was NOT the one I had rented. I had never been anywhere near Beverly Hills.

I called to ask about correcting the error and was told that the ONLY way to correct it was to appear, in person, in Beverly Hills traffic court. Riiiiiigggghht. I'm going to fly or drive to LA so I can contest a $50 ticket. It was totally wrong and totally unfair but there was nothing at all I could do to fix it that wouldn't cost a lot more than paying the bogus fine.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you should not have paid the ticket.

It is the owner of the car that gets the ticket - the rental company had the responsability to resolve the problem, since all they did was forward the ticket to you and you had the proof that the car you rented was not the one ticketed..

I had a similar problem with a redlight camera ticket. I got the notice in the mail and was livid, because I knew I had not run a redlight. I examined the photos and they clearly showed my car (though over the line) on the correct side of the redlight. The photo clearly showed that the brake light in my rear window was on. I asked for a hearing but still had to pay the fine.

Are you saying that you had, indeed, stopped (with the photo showing your brake light on) but because you were "over the line" had to pay a ticket for "running a red light"?

I think the courts wants us to just pay whatever comes in mail and even say thankyou while paying

WOW somebody had a brain fart thinking this one up.

The older I get, the less respect for the government I have. The level of corruption, cronyism, and general disrespect for "We the people" that are the real employers of the civil servants, and the elected office holders astounds me. I have lived in and traveled many parts of the world. Every day I see the USA sliding further down the road toward "Third World Status"

No.

While it could happen under communism, it can occur under any economic model.

Ron

It seems to me that if a either a municipality or single officer are "over zealous" in issuing tickets that municipality or officer should pay for the court costs. Yes, I know it eventually gets in to the taxes. Though if the court finds it a wrongful act by the officer/gov't then it is most probably covered by the professional liability insurance and there wouldn't be a direct bite out of the "budget" or pocket. More importantly, it would serve as a disincentive to issue such tickets.

When the people who make the laws collect the revenue, don't expect to win.

I live in New Jersey and got a ticket in the mail from Nassau County, NY for going through a red light camera. I admit I did, but it was a right-on-red corner and I slowed to 3 mph. Nobody could cross the street I was turning onto because the left-turn arrow was on and cars were moving. In many places, I would have had a green arrow since I couldn't interfere with traffic or pedestrians. The ticket is $50. Then they add a $15 "administrative fee" on top of that. If you pay by credit card it's $4 more. If you want to dispute the ticket, you must appear in court. For me to travel to a Nassau County court would cost about $50 in tolls and fuel.

You pay the bill, grind your teeth some more and wonder when common sense will return. (I'm 54, it had better come back soon.)

About 2 years ago I received a notice from the City of Spokane informing me of an unpaid parking ticket. The letter had my current address in Illinois and the plate number of a car I once owned.
I called to inquire if a mistake was made. No, the ticket was issued to your 1979 Camaro. Hmm? I said. Your letter reached me at my Illinois address. That car was last registered in WA in 2002. I registered it in Illinois in 2003. The WA license plates are nailed to the wall in my garage. I sold the car to a neighbor a couple of years ago. I am looking at it right now. It has Illinois plates.
Then they said that perhaps a mistake was made. I asked them to send me copy of the ticket and a letter saying the ticket was dismissed. She said no and hung up.
I never heard from them again.