More on new VA traffic laws - lawyers??

I would love to see a lawyer take this one on... We've all heard about the "bad driver" civil penalties, but I'm affected by another, much less publicized effect of the new laws - because it affects so few people.

I have an antique plate on my '78 Spitfire (sorry - I know this is the F-list; I'm sure it will affect you guys with the older Ferraris, or vintage Rolls Royces ;-) ). The DMV wants me to fill out a notarized form, well, here's the start of the letter: "Effective July 1, 2007, Virginia law (Code of Virginia, Section 46.2-730) requires that owners of registered antique motor vehicles and trailers provide evidence that they own or have regular use of another properly registered passenger vehicle or motocycle. Owners must submit an original notarized certification that the registered antique motor vehicle or trailer meets the safety equipment requirements for the model year in which it was manufactured and is capable of being safely operated on the highways of Virginia."

So I have to fill out and get notarized a form which tells them - WHAT THEY ALREADY KNOW!! What do they have those massive computer databases for? They knew my name, address, vehicle make, VIN, title number, and plate number - surely they know all this about all the other cars registered in my name?!?

But wait, there's more! I also get to pay them $50 for the privilege of telling them WHAT THEY ALREADY KNOW! GRRRRRRRR!!!! Can anyone tell me that I'm misunderstanding this? That it's not really gotten this bad in VA?? Well, we did elect a democrat for governor, so what should I expect...... (sorry)

I am unbelievably PO'd about this absurdity.

gp

 

My guess is that they have many people that register as antique but don't have another car registered. They probably can't prove that they don't use another car owned by a family member, for example. So instead of just targeting the suspects they pass a law requiring everyone to fill out the form. It's all to collect more money from people. Sad part is it will probably cost more to implement than they collect.


BTW - I heard last night that a judge ruled the new speeding "fines" unconstitutional in one county in VA. Now the whole program is in question.

 

Unfortunately, upon investigation, the DMV's demand is clear and legitimate. The purpose is two-fold. First, the DMV wants you to certify that you have "other" transportation. Why? Antique vehicles have limitations: they can only be used in "club activities, exhibits, tours, parades and similar events and to carrying or transporting passengers, personal effects and other antique vehicles for show purposes. They may also be used on VA highways to test vehicle/trailer operation, obtaining maintenance or repairs and/or to sell the vehicle or trailer. Antique plates permit occasional pleasure driving (not to exceed 250 miles from the owner's residence) BUT ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR GENERAL TRANSPORTATION PURPOSES, included but not liimited to, daily travel to and from the owner's place of employment." Thus, you cannot use them for your daily transport, which explains the need for a second vehicle, or access to one. Or, perhaps, that you take Metro?!

Second, to ensure that the vehicle you are operating is safe. As antique vehicles are exempt from safety inspections, you must certify that the vehicle is safe to operate. Perhaps the legislature/DMV is taking a stab at getting these vehicles up to a higher safety bar by establishing the owner's liability in the event of an equipment failure that results in accidental injury or death.

I don't take this as an "information grab", as you suggest. They do already have your vitals. What they're asking for is a certification that you have a) other registered transportation so your antique plates are used appropriately and b) that the antique vehicle is safe to operate on VA roads.

BTW, if you wish to know more, you may be able to find the drafter's notes of a law. I would expect that the VA Legislature publishes them online. It may be worthwhile to have a look for them and find out the reasoning behind the law.

CW

 

Pardon me. How, in the infinite stupidity of the world's laziest bureaucrats is it that it is impossible to own an antique auto without owning a modern piece of junk? Could the person be retired? Could antiques be all that person owns? Could it be a foundation that owns only antiques. Of course not! Beltway diseases are insidious, deadly, and mind destroying.

Strict (correct) interpretation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States prevents any government from monitoring a citizen's movements within the confines of the continental US. Whether you use another car is entirely irrelevant.

Having made that correct statement. PA asks that you provide your annual mileage when you renew you auto registration. Pa has no right to this information. I have never provided this information and never will. My Congressman verifies that this is a violation of the 4th Amendment. Pa continues to ask. Only the seriously stupid, undereducated idiots inhabiting this piece of real estate provide that information. No State has the right to monitor my movements.
Prove me wrong!

 

I don't take this as an "information grab" either - I take it as a MONEY GRAB! "a) other registered transportation..." - they already know this - there's no logical reason for them to ask me for it, and even less for them to demand 50 bucks from me to tell them. "b) ...safe to operate..." - well, ok, maybe - but why do I have to pay 50 bucks to tell them this???

It still just torques me off. I'll try the research as you suggest and see what, if anything, I can find.

Thanks!

gp

 

Just a quick chime in as to how the courts rule on some of these matters. I am in no way endorsing or agreeing with the rulings.
In Va., as in other states, the right to drive ( i said drive, not move about) is a privilege granted by the state and not a right. The right to move about may be granted by the 4th amd. but you have to ride your horse. Hence, the implied consent laws pertaining to breath or blood readings in dui cases, and the state's rights to revoke your privilege to drive after convictions in certain cases (ie. dui, drug, failure to pay fines) Following that train of argument, the government can, therefore, restrict the issuance of certain plates for vehicles to operate on the state's highways. If you want to drive your 25 year old car all over the U.S., go ahead, but either do it on dirt roads not owned and maintained by the states, or comply with their laws. That is the argument that prevails in Va. state courts. If you wish to envoke your right to withhold information, go ahead, but the state will not grant you the right to drive your old beater on their roads. I make a living defending the people charged with crimes, so i have to hear these complaints often, but the states agument in this matter is going to prevail.
As to the fines-cost issue, I believe what you are going to see is that ALL drivers, either in state or out, are going to be subject to the civil cost before it is all over. The equal protection argument loses its teeth when all drivers are faced with the penalties. The law, as written, was either 1) drafted by a baffoon, or 2) legislatively reviewed by a staffer who flunked the bar exam or slept through Con. Law class. After the hoopla dies down, a quick amendment to affect all drivers will pass through the next session of the G.A. The state needs the money to clean up the oil left behind by all the 1970's spitfires that run on the highways.
(where do i send my hourly bill?)

 

Send it to the state........... that if you are correct, I'll be spending less time in.

 

here is a crazy idea all you virginians. It's your state, not the politicians. take it back!

 

sounds like the bs going on over here in md. for almost twnety years i rented my properties with no registration. no problem. all of the sudden, they need to be registered. and of course there has to be a fee. started out at $45 per property. several years later it's $95 per year each. how did we manage without it for 100 years?

 

PA cannot require the admission of mileage per year. That is a direct violation of the 4th Amendment. You are right that the State has no right to this information. Why they want it is beyond my understanding unless, like buggy whips, they have always asked for it. Frankly, none of these mindless bureaucrats would know what to do with it anyway. Remember that Pa is 150 years behind the times with useless Townships and Taxing school districts. The rest of the US is on a county system. Twenty years ago I refused to divulge my movements and was proven correct. I do not divulge my mileage. I do not provide my insurance carrier's national number. I simply send in a check for the registration, money of which goes to buy votes in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. I have never been questioned. Hence, sir, I cannot prove you wrong. I could say more. Nonetheless, I am a gentleman which is more than I can say for the obese governor.

 

Your polemic was a bit much. However, my guess is that a hell of a lot more oil has been left on the road by Prius and other hybrid drivers than all the Ferraris and Spitfires combined.

 

Sorry to bore you there Zingara with my polemic, but the original author of this thread asked for a lawyer's opinion. I am not familiar with the particulars of the Penn. driving statutes. However, as it being a Commonweath, as Virginia is as well, I am willing to bet your state also has an implied consent law as well. The definition being that in exchange for giving a citizen the "privilege" to drive, the citizen consents to waive certain rights. Those rights that are waived include 4th amendment rights (breath and blood test without warrants, inspection of autos by agents of the states ie. truck weigh stations, yearly safety inspections AND it appears in your state, information of milage.) You rebel you, scoffing at the law and failing to write it on your dmv renewal. haha I bet checking those things is on the top priority list of the state police in Penn. (i am kidding)

 

No problem, sir. Much of what you say is fine. Nonetheless, there is no legal requirement to divulge annual mileage or insurance codes. I have checked this out long ago(15 years) and these are not an impediment to registration renewal. Nothing in the code requires you to abrogate the right to privacy in this regard. It is simply that, like the rest of archaic government in PA, the forms have never been changed. Waiver of rights does not include mileage and insurance information beyond name of company and policy number. Mileage is important only when the title to the vehicle is transferred. How many miles I drive per year, and where I go is nobody's business but mine. As to your last sentence, nothing but speeding is a priority of the State Police, vis-a-vis the obese Governor's welfare budget. As to the "Old Dominion," magnificent place to pass through.

 

FOU: Thanks for the response to my inquiry. I understand your points about our right to "move about" (vice "drive") - but I'm still confused as to why the DMV even thinks they *need* to ask about my other vehicles (when that's all a matter of DMV records)? Further, I'm guessing that your statement about cleaning up all the oil left behind by 70's Spitfires was probably tongue-in-cheek, but for the record, I'd bet that many (if not *most*) 70's Spitfires are now in the hands of enthusiasts who keep them in a much better state of tune and operation than the average Joe Schmuckatelli mindlessly careening down the highway in his POS Chevy Cavalier (or Honda Civic or Nissan Sentra or Ford F-150 or Expedition/Excursion/Navigator/Hummer/etc etc.).

I also agree that the solution (despite yesterday's newspaper headline about a politician set to introduce a bill to rescind the "civil fees") will be to make them applicable to all drivers, as you said. There's simply too much money to be lost otherwise, and we all know how that goes.

To WETPET: I agree with you, too - it is our state and I have a list of all the state politicians who voted *for* this bill, which I fully intend to bring with me to the polls at the very next opportunity. And vote *AGAINST* every one of them that I possibly can.

Thanks all!

gp

 

360. I was joking only about your spitfire, but having owned various English cars, (and still do, for that matter) I personally have leaked more oil, power steering fluid, and transmission oil than the entire Clean the Chesapeake Foundation can dispose of. As the the new fees, its all for money and we all know that.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/11/AR2007081101352_pf.html

Armed With Checkbooks and Excuses, First Casualties of Va. Fees Go to Court

By Jonathan Mummolo
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 12, 2007; A01

The labor pains were coming, so Jessica Hodges got going. The 26-year-old bank teller from Burke sped toward Inova Fairfax Hospital, but before she got there, the law got her -- 57 mph in a 35 zone. Reckless driving.

Hodges's labor pains subsided -- they turned out to be a false alarm -- but the agony from her ticket is mounting. She was found guilty of the July 3 offense and given a $1,050 civil fee on top of a judge-imposed $100 fine and court costs, making her one of the first to be hit with Virginia's new "abusive driver fees," which have been greeted by widespread public outrage.

"It's crazy," said an unregretful Hodges. "Having a baby's more important. Of course I'm going to speed."

Anger and exasperation have been common sentiments recently in Fairfax General District Court, where fee-facing drivers such as Hodges have started to join the daily swarm of traffic offenders. After waiting hours to give their side of the story to judges -- several of whom seemed just as annoyed with the fees as defendants -- many nevertheless left owing enormous sums that they said would be difficult to pay.

Those lucky enough to live out of state or to have been pulled over before the fees went into effect July 1 -- the "magic date," as one judge called it -- escaped the penalties, as did many who hired attorneys who were able to argue for lesser charges or continuances.

The fees, which range from $750 to $3,000, were passed by the General Assembly in the spring as part of a package aimed at funding scores of transportation projects. Backers said the fees would both raise money and improve highway safety by targeting the state's worst drivers -- those guilty of severe traffic offenses such as DUI, reckless driving and driving on a suspended license.

But the fees have since been vilified by an angry public (more than 170,000 people have signed an online petition to repeal them), denounced by lawmakers who once supported them and ruled unconstitutional by judges in two localities who said they violate equal protection rights guaranteed under the 14th Amendment. A Centreville man convicted of reckless driving filed a challenge to the fees in Arlington County General District Court on the same grounds.

Nonetheless, the penalties remain in effect, and offenders have started to feel their pinch. Melissa Norquest, 33, of Manassas shelled out $522 Tuesday after being found guilty of reckless driving for going 56 mph in a 35 mph zone July 3. She will pay the rest in installments.

Norquest took issue with a provision that exempts out-of-state drivers from paying the fees. If you don't live in Virginia, she said, "you just pay your l'il $100 fine and go on your way. . . . If they're going to make it for Virginia residents, they should also make it for whoever drives through Virginia or get rid of it completely. I mean, you want the whole state to be safe, right?"

Norquest, who works for Fairfax County Family Services, also said she did not see the point of hiring a lawyer at a cost of hundreds or thousands of dollars. "You're either paying for one or you're paying for the other," she said.

Defendants weren't the only ones grousing about the penalties.

"Quite frankly, these are going to be a major burden on the clerk's office," Judge Michael J. Cassidy said Monday while explaining the fees during his opening remarks to the crowded courtroom. "I realize that these might be a financial burden. . . . It was not the clerk's choice to impose these fees."

Bob Battle, a Richmond attorney who was in Fairfax traffic court Tuesday, said disapproval among judges is widespread.

"Judges, like other people, don't like them," he said. "Two have made it loud and clear, but so many of them out there are convinced that [the fees are] unconstitutional."

Battle said he thinks the fees are excessive. It's "sort of a kick-them-while-they're-down mentality," he said. "I think people who were charged with reckless driving, speeding or DUI were crazy not to have a lawyer before.. . . With a DUI defendant, you mean the potential year in jail, a $2,500 fine, at best a restricted license, the classes they have to go to, insurance wasn't a sufficient punishment?"

Because post-July 1 defendants make up only a small fraction of the caseload, it's too soon to determine what effect, if any, they will have on the judicial system, said Nancy Lake, Fairfax General District Court clerk. "I think it might have an effect in September, when most of the docket are these types of cases," she said.

Kathryn Bogush, 37, of Centreville caught a break in her case from a judge who amended her charge because she has a good driving record.

"Your [offense is] after that magic date of July 1," Judge Lisa A. Mayne said to Bogush, who was facing a reckless driving charge for going 80 mph in a 55 mph zone. "On the other hand, you have a plus-five driving record. I will take that into account."

Minutes later, a smiling Bogush was headed to the cashier after her charge was lowered to simple speeding, thereby avoiding the civil fee. "I was thankful she changed it," Bogush said.

Not everyone was so lucky. Upon hearing that he would have to pay the first $350 of his civil fee after being convicted of reckless driving, Samuel Ortez, 34, of Woodbridge, a truck driver and father of two from El Salvador, stared blankly for a moment outside the cashier's office, his eyes watering slightly.

"It's going to affect the bills," he said quietly in Spanish, his nephew Leo Ortez interpreting.

People who are unable to pay the first installment the day of their conviction are charged an additional $10 and are given 90 days to six months to pay, depending on the amount of the fee, Lake said.

Some, like Hodges, thought they had a legitimate excuse for speeding and would be able to get the charge lowered.

But when it came time to testify, Hodges said she felt rushed and couldn't adequately explain her situation to the judge, who found her guilty.

She said that she plans to appeal the decision.

She and her husband, Jeff, a massage therapist, barely go out and are living basically week-to-week to support 17-month-old Madison and infant Alessandra, born July 19, she said.

If the appeal is denied, her husband will probably have to work overtime, she said, but she's hoping a second judge will dismiss her case because of the circumstances.

"I'm getting out of here," Hodges said, "before I have to pay for any new roads."

 

Predictable.

I realize Remix just took this thread in a different direction, and it may be more appropriately posted elsewhere, but stay tuned. The wonderful Fairfax attorney and legislator that thought this scheme up in the first place is reportedly drafting new legislation that would include out-of-state drivers. So, while this very unpopular law may very well be repealed, there's one lining up behind it that presumably wouldn't be.

Just one more reason to vacate and not come back

CW

 

or vacate the elected officials.

 

Unfortunately, it's probably easier to sell the stock than it is to change an accounting rule that benefits the corporation. Possibly a poor analogy, but the point is that just changing the politicians may not provide us the results we desire. Regrettably, institutions also have their own momentum. So, while it's true that throwing out the elected officials that voted for this poorly conceived law would send a message, it's often difficult to repeal a law due to many factors (not the least of which is that it generates revenue, so where will the make-ups come from?). We can be optimists, but I've had it with VA anyway. Time to move on. Actually, it's way past the time to move on.

The-hopefully-soon-to-be-ex-VA,

CW

 

The Virginia requirements are not to register a 25+ year old car, but rather to register a 25+ year old car as an antique with "Black Tags" which provide certain advantages over, or exemptions from, the regular registration. One of these being the exemption from safety inspections. If GP wants to go ahead a get the Spitfire inspected and registered with regular tags or yellow antique plates in the Commonweatlh of Virginia he can avoid this one time hassle and fifty dollar fee, but I would bet annual inspections(and the preparations to pass) and registration fees will in a year or two's time more than equal the time and money spent to get the Black Tags with there one time fee and process.

I would assume that any car that you are required to certify the mileage on in Pennsylvania could instead be registered regualrly rather than as an antique and have that process be avoided as well, thus the 4th amendment does not really apply.

 

CW - where can you go? Maryland is busy raising every tax it can find, and it's hard to call this state enthusiast friendly. Where do you see any sign of hope?

 

WCH, don't most consider MD better for car people?

It would take a lot of property and other tax increases in MD to make up for the car related taxes in VA...especially if you have a unusually large collection of valuable vehicles.

I'm not hot on MD at all, but it does seem like the best option locally for a diehard car person.

An open road in Montana would be nice...but then you'd be in Montana...wait a sec...

LS

 

I sent in that stupid form to DMV for my Lancia. There was no $50 charge. It cost me a stamp, the time to fill out their form and time to go get notorized. What a pain! Still beter than having to get car inspected annually, pay property tax on antique vehicle (they sent me the $ back last year), no emissions testing that I surely wouldn't pass considering all the emissions control devices are removed, not paying for emissions test, legally run w/ no front license plate in VA which would have destroyed appearance of showcar, .....

Who did you pay $50?

 

WCH,

That's why I'm out of the mid-Atlantic region ASAP! Can't see a legitimate reason to stay. ALL elected officials seem very pleased to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, but that's not news.

Don't know if you caught it today, though, but VA is now attempting to require multiple-DUI-convicted-drivers to affix yellow plates with red lettering. Beyond the Scarlet letter and Star of David undertones, I have issues with this.

Same broadcast on NBC4, Gov. Kaine is seeking to figure out how to make-up the budget shortfall for VA's roadways because their ridiculous abusive driver fees are falling short by about half of the $65MM figure hoped for. He's "looking at all alternatives, including additional fuel taxes." NICE! More taxes. Sounds like a tax and spend Dem to me! Of course, the Administration(s) has spent itself into this corner. Little sympathy from me. Just keep taxing NoVA and sending the $ downstate. Great plan. Genius!

Same broadcast, some dope on a bicycle was cited for and convicted of operating his bicycle in a poor manner on his lunch break and has to pay over $1000 in abusive driver fees. Yes, a BICYCLE! WTF, VA?!

CW

 

yeah, when I read 360GTracer's post I freaked out because I sent my Certificates in w/out a check. I didn't see any $50 requirement other than the 50 I paid years ago when I got the plates.

I did write a nasty comment about giving them info that they already had about my other modern cars which will never be read; but it felt good. They also are clearly oblivious to the fact that classic car insurance has more restrictions on use than the VA statute does.

As for the horrendous speeding fees, I wonder how Delegate Albo's private law practice is doing? He was the Delegate who sponsored the f-ing bill, and his law firm specializes in traffic offenses. Kind of like Delegate Wetpet sponsoring legislation requiring us all to own humuhumunukunukuapuaas in 100 gal tanks . . . .