6 ms·
But AB 645 is designed to punish and deter rather than compensate, which creates a genuine constitutional vulnerability under California's Article I, Section 16
by sjtgraham 6mo ago
But AB 645 is designed to punish and deter rather than compensate, which creates a genuine constitutional vulnerability under California's Article I, Section 16 jury trial guarantee.
The structural problem is that revenue goes to program costs and traffic calming, not to anyone harmed by speeding, which makes the fines punitive in character under any substance-over-label analysis.
The lack of DMV points and criminal record weakens the argument somewhat, but under California's substance-over-label approach those omissions aren't dispositive. They merely show the legislature knew how to stay on the civil side of the line, not necessarily that it succeeded.
If a court finds the penalties punitive in character, the owner-liability structure becomes a compounding problem: California's state due process protections are arguably more robust than federal, and imposing a punitive fine on a registered owner without proof they were driving, while burden-shifting exculpation to them looks increasingly difficult to sustain.
- joshuamorton 6mo agoEverything you've said applies to parking tickets too. You can't prove that the owner parked the vehicle. Tha owner is ultimately civily liable if the vehicle is parked in a way that it shouldn't be. Extending that same civil liability to the active operation, as opposed to only the consequences of active operation, seems perfectly reasonable.
- sjtgraham 6mo agoThe key difference is a parking ticket isn't $500.
- joshuamorton 6mo agoThe mentioned fines are $1-200, which is in the same range as parking tickets. I think the best argument is that license points are criminal in nature, but I don't really buy that.
- joshuamorton 6mo agoAnd in fact the law at issue doesn't even assign points.
- ImPostingOnHN 6mo ago> Tha owner is ultimately civily liable if the vehicle is parked in a way that it shouldn't be. Extending that same civil liability to the active operation, as opposed to only the consequences of active operation, seems perfectly reasonable. As this judgement reveals, such a suggestion is patently unreasonable, for the reasons listed in the judgement
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- joshuamorton 6mo agoHaving read the order, it doesn't really justify the central claim, that these are criminal, and in my opinion a lot of the context cuts against that (the liability being only a fine and some other things).
- ImPostingOnHN 6mo agoThat is a fair view to hold as a prior. Indeed, the judge took that context into account when judging that it was a criminal matter. Other states which do things differently might have received a different judgement based on their own context.