By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
A significant issue in several states lies with the revolving door of driver license suspensions. A typical example would be a defendant who is cited for a violation and receives a license suspension as a penalty. Often there is a monetary fine that must be paid in addition to other sanctions to receive the license reinstatement. Often times these fines are of such cost that those subject to license suspension have difficulty paying and therefore their license and consequently their livelihood is taken away. Often what starts as a simple traffic ticket that goes unpaid leads to effectively a debt bondage, where the driver is required to pay increasing fines, interest, and assessments with little for relief.
To have a perspective on some of the various issues a brief and basic history of license suspension can be helpful. We will use Washington State as a reference. In the 1980’s the standard procedure was if a person did not pay a traffic infraction, an FTA/FTC (Failure to appear / Failure to comply) was placed onto their driver’s record. When the license was to be renewed, renewal was conditional on paying the penalties of the traffic infractions plus a fee. The license was then invalid if not renewed with settling the outstanding violations. Later a situation began to arise in the state where the amount of FTAs for some grew with time and there were cases where habitual violators would have in excess of 20 or more, leading to concerns by the Department of Licensing and the legislature of a growing problem of lack of responsibility.
To address this a criminal traffic law was enacted that made it a misdemeanor offense to drive with having two or more FTAs on record, meaning that a custodial arrest could be levied against the driver. Progress was made on reducing the FTAs where a forced responsibility was placed on the driver if they continued driving and did not address their outstanding tickets. Due to court decisions and other legislative changes the remedy sought by the state changed. There were enacted three degrees of license suspension (First through Third Degree). The legislature directed the courts and the Department of Licensing to order a Suspension of a driver license in the third degree for failing to comply or pay fine for a traffic violation. The difference from previous approaches was now license suspension was effectively automatic for FTA and Driving While License Suspended in the Third Degree was a misdemeanor. A driver who failed to pay a traffic infraction could easily find themselves in a situation where they were stopped for a broken tail light, their license was checked by the Law Enforcement Officer, and when it was found they had a suspension on their record they could then be arrested even if they did not know their license had been suspended.
Economically it could be as simple as being stopped for throwing a cigarette out a window and receiving a $1,000.00+ fine, failing to pay or appear, receiving an additional penalty, later stopped and cited for DWLS, fined an additional $250.00, plus penalties. Soon penalties are levied and even more risk of being stopped as the suspension times is added. Soon several thousand dollars is owed to the state which the driver is now unable to pay easily.
During the 1980’s an element in the previous driving while license suspended law, and accompanying case and administrative law, required that the state prove the driver was given notice of the suspension via certified mail or otherwise and that a certified copy of driver’s records be provided to the court. Presently, no notice of this kind is required. A driver could find themselves subject to a summary suspension and a surprise at a traffic stop. And thus can begin the spiral of suspension and increasing penalties.
For some it can be a wakeup call that prompts them to action, others continue their pattern or inability to pay. The issues can be difficult even for those who want to pay but are unable and it couples with issues such as economic, life and social needs of the person. Driving in modern America is unquestionably a requirement for many. Public transportation is not widely available especially in rural areas or small towns. With the increasing mobility of society and increasing distances during commute, along with more single parent households the options available to some are limited. Often it is the case where a driver must choose between their jobs and risking being stopped and cited for driving while suspended. The risk is further aggravated by rules that proscribe adding additional time to the suspension if subsequent DWLS citations are received by the driver, it can be up to one year in some cases.
The length of the suspension adds to the risk of being caught, more fines added and more penalties or even jail time sentenced. Soon many find that they are unable to escape the trap they are in with this revolving system. One also has to address the issue of retribution. In many ordinary crimes such as theft, restitution is mandated to the victim of the theft where the damage is the economic loss suffered by them caused by the defendant. But with suspension and traffic violation penalties to a lesser degree it is not as clear. The penalties and fines are largely artificial constructs where the state cannot argue significant actual economic loss. But to the suspended driver, they can be overwhelming.
Often it can be years before a driver has the means to satisfy the demands of the state. Where does the state balance the need to deter traffic violations, encourage responsibility for those liable to the state for the fines district courts order, and not shackle individuals to more and more debt for which they might not be able to pay even with the best of intentions? When the laws were changed to mandate suspension upon failure to pay a traffic fine, the number of suspended drivers increased tremendously to the observations of some in the field. Now there were more suspended drivers, the courts were increasingly flooded with DWLS 3rd cases and other criminal traffic cases were crowded for court time.
With more drivers liable to the fine spiral one might question whether the fines are treated as deterrence or a source of revenue. So what would be the balance? One possible solution might be community service in lieu of fines where a suspended driver could elect to perform voluntary services at a charity, social or government agency to earn credits toward the arrears fines. But could there be a moral issue with doing this such as creating high levels of debt to the state to cause people to go into essentially servitude?
If the labor credits were low certainly this could be argued. For this matter to be honorable a person should be able to reduce by a substantial amount their fines and restore their licenses by an honest day’s work. But for some this might be a realistic option. Another consideration might be the sheer numbers of suspended drivers and a limited amount of available work for them to engage in, plus the administrative overhead of servicing this program.
Another approach would be deference programs where the prosecutor’s office offers a defendant the option to enter into a deferred prosecution in exchange for participation in classes or services to learn skills and alternatives to avoid the downward spiral and perhaps offer lessons with a small amount of social work to educate and arrive at a payment plan in exchange for the suspension being lifted, (as the carrot) under penalty of enforcing the original suspension penalty for non-compliance with the program (the stick). Or alternatively, a realization that increasing penalties only do so much before they are ineffective and in-fact become rather counterproductive, might be warranted. A cap on penalties might be reasonable to consider and coupled with the possibility of jail time for wanton offenders might be a deterrent for the wayward who continually demonstrate respect for the law.
We have to ask each other if it is in the interest of driving safety ensured by consigning people to debt and perpetually being subjected to sanctions or are there better ways to balance accountability with pragmatic understandings of human nature?
By Darren Smith
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.