Quantcast
Home / The VLW Blog / Challenge to fees filed in Henrico County

Challenge to fees filed in Henrico County

An early test of the constitutionality of Virginia’s civil remedial fees for abusive drivers could come as early as July 24 in Henrico General District Court.

Attorneys Craig Cooley and Esther Windmueller have filed a writ of prohibition seeking to bar the court clerk from collecting the fees because they are a violation of equal protection. The fees apply to Virginia residents but not to out-of-state drivers.

Cooley said he and Windmueller originally filed the writ on behalf of “all prospective clients,” but Windmueller has since been appointed to represent a client who faces imposition of the fees. Both the writ and the client’s case are on the July 24 docket.

The attorney general’s office contends that jurisdiction for the writ is in circuit court, not general district court where it is pending, Cooley said.

“I haven’t talked to a judge yet who doesn’t think it’s a violation of equal protection,” Cooley said. “I don’t know that I’ve talked to one who’s coming up for re-election.”

The fees are part of a $3 billion transportation funding package adopted by the General Assembly this year. They range from $750 to $3,000 over 26 months for such traffic-related misdemeanors and felonies as reckless driving, drunken driving and driving with a suspended operator’s license. They are expected to produce about $65 million annually.

They generated little controversy during the extended efforts to reach a compromise on highway spending but drew outrage as the effective date of July 1 due near and they received extensive publicity.

2 comments

  1. The case was not resolved in Henrico today. See this site for an update.
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19931993

  2. The criminal case, Commonwealth v. Price, a case of driving suspended, was heard on the constitutional issue in Henrico GDCT today, August 2. Judge Yeatts ruled that that law was unconstitutional, and the matter has been sent to Circuit Court under 16.1-131.1, where the issue is to take precedence on their docket.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Scroll To Top