« ASA Responds (And Nicely, Too) | Main | Used Airbags a Garbage Idea »
May 20, 2005
Double Dipping Isn't Just for Ice Cream
Ohio agrees to a spanking to the tune of $4.5 Million to settle its second class action suit for charging DUI offenders twice for the privilege of reinstating their licenses.
As if once wasn't enough, the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles continued to charge DUI offenders a $250 administrative fee and another $250 judicial reinstatement fee after a 1999 decision holding the State's interpretation of the law as allowing both was erroneous. According to the BMV, the agency was convinced its position would be vindicated on appeal -- so it just went on double dipping. With its unsuccessful appeals exhausted, however, the agency gets to refund the money it knew was being improperly collected. Apparently, the offended offenders get interest, so I sure hope the State put that money to good use.
What is particularly interesting about the trial court's 1999 decision holding that the State's interpretation of the law as allowing two fees was inappropriate is the mere fact that it was successful. When the DUI law was revamped in 1993, Ohio made the DUI process much stiffer, with an automatic administrative license suspension upon arrest, followed later by a criminal license suspension (and fines and/or jail) if convicted. Many people charged under the DUI law argued that the criminal conviction, with its fines and punishment, on top of the automatic administrative license suspension, with its fees and impounding of vehicle, constituted double jeopardy. The courts fairly consistently held that this arrangement did not violate the Fifth Amendment because the administrative interests of the State in immediately removing potentially dangerous drivers from the road was not punishment and was separate and unrelated to the State's interests in criminally punishing offenders.
I always thought that was a sneaky interpretation because the hassle a person went through was significant, and the fees and payments that had to be made just to administratively get the license back were often higher than the criminal fines. (You had to pay the towing charges, and the fee to have your vehicle released from inpound, as well as the administrative reinstatement fees.) Therefore, I am surprised that the trial court in the first class action found that the interpretation of the DUI law as allowing for the administrative and judicial reinstatement fees was improper. I am even more surprised that the judge's decision was upheld by the Ohio Supreme Court which has become increasingly conservative over the last several years.
But wait! Ohio agencies are not yet done questioning whether the courts really know what they are doing. The Ohio Liquor Control Commission doesn't seem to think that the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision about laws prohibiting wineries from shipping their alcoholic products across state lines directly to consumers applies here.
See, now if the Liquor Control Commission would let wine be shipped directly to consumers, they could just stay home rather than going out, drinking, and then driving home unsober. That way, we address some of the DUI problem, keep the BMV out of trouble for its interpretation of the DUI law, and make wine drinkers happy all at the same time.
Posted by E L Eversman at May 20, 2005 03:43 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.vehicleinfo.com/cgi/mt-tb.cgi/115
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Double Dipping Isn't Just for Ice Cream:
» Blawg Review #7 from Jeremy Richey's Blawg
“Wisdom is the chief and leader: next follows temperance; and from the union of these two with courage springs justice. These four virtues take precedence in the class of divine goods.” –Plato
Wisdom
Glenn Reynolds got a free copy ... [Read More]
Tracked on May 22, 2005 10:41 PM
» housewife sex from
milf lessons free milf mom son sex hot soccer moms soccer moms milf riders [Read More]
Tracked on August 15, 2005 03:58 AM