HD31 - Examining the Feasibility of An Alternative Method for Disposing of Traffic Infractions

  • Published: 1993
  • Author: Committee on District Courts
  • Enabling Authority: House Joint Resolution 39 (Regular Session, 1992)

Executive Summary:
In response to increasing volume of traffic caseloads filed in limited jurisdiction courts each year, judicial systems throughout the country have instituted procedures and practices aimed at improving the efficacy of their adjudication systems for minor violations. The most consistent trend among the states has been the move towards decriminalization of these offenses. During the past twenty years, many states, including Virginia, reclassified such violations as "infractions." In others, the statutes were revised to declare such violations as purely civil in nature.

While reclassification cleared the way for the establishment of expedited case processing, decriminalization was seen as permitting a move to have these matters handled administratively by subordinate judicial officers. The use of personnel such as special magistrates was considered more economical as well. This has been and is today a primary concern for policymakers given the cutbacks in available funding for judges and clerical positions in the courts.

A few states, including California and Rhode Island, the District of Columbia, and several large urban areas, opted to locate these hearing officers within agencies of the executive branch of government. This removed non-criminal traffic case adjudication form the purview of the courts. Statutes were revised in still other jurisdictions to permit the hiring of such parajudicial officials within the judicial system. Today, such officers serve many courts on either a full- or part-time basis. Another alternative, sometimes employed in conjunction with hearing officers, was the creation of centralized traffic infraction bureaus to process uncontested and default cases. Adjudication of contested infractions remains as the responsibility of the local courts.

In addition to creating the category of infractions, the 1977 "Traffic Adjudication Act" adopted by the General Assembly emphasized procedural improvements such as prepayment by mail, single court appearances in most contested cases, and authority to hold trials in absentia. The responsibility for adjudication contested cases remained with the judiciary. This was consistent with the philosophy established earlier in the 1970's by the I'Anson Commission to have all disputes filed in courts decided by full-time, law-trained judges. Numerous revisions have been made since to further expedite traffic case processing. Perhaps most significant statutorily was the statutory revision made in 1987 to transfer to the Department of Motor Vehicles the responsibility for processing uncontested overweight vehicle cases.

The analysis of traffic adjudication trends and information gathered to date on the alternative methods utilized in the other states raises numerous questions for policymakers in Virginia regarding the advisability of changing the method of adjudicating infraction cases. The research indicates that while the trend toward decriminalization of minor traffic matters continues, the movement towards administrative adjudication of traffic infractions by hearing officers outside the court system has declined. In fact, for various reasons, two of the states that initially opted for administrative adjudication of traffic infractions by the executive branch have reincorporated traffic adjudication within their state judiciaries.

The Committee's research found the few existing cost-benefit analyses on the administrative adjudication approach to be dated and lacking in complete information. Regarding the quality of service offered citizens, the evaluations found no significant differences between the administrative approach and court adjudication in terms of fairness or in their impact on highway safety.

Initially, one major report indicated that the administrative approach might be more efficient and less costly. In more recent studies, this assessment has been challenged for overlooking a glaring problem. That is, if the salary gap between administrative agency hearing officers and judges in the court system decreases, as has happened, the major basis claimed for cost savings will be eliminated. By necessity, any state that adopts administrative adjudication has increased its total costs for determining cases, unless all the judge positions formerly required for traffic have been eliminated, or the need for such positions has been forestalled indefinitely.

Similar experiences with cost increases have occurred in jurisdictions where the statutes permit the employment of "special justices," "commissioners" or "referees" within the judicial branch to hear and dispose of these cases. For example, in Florida, a 1988 constitutional amendment permitted the establishment of a civil traffic hearing officer system for the purpose of hearing minor traffic violations in jurisdictions where infraction caseloads exceeded 15,000 hearings per year. Within two years of the establishment of this option, the fees for the appointed part-time traffic magistrates, all of whom must be attorneys, had been raised from $20 to $50 per hour.

Use of such parajudicial officers, located either within the judicial or executive branches, appears to be most common in densely populated urban areas. Their assistance there is even more heavily depended upon today due to funding constraints in the authorization of sufficient full-time judges. Although the ability to call upon such personnel is heralded in some states, the appropriateness of this approach in Virginia must be evaluated carefully. In addition to the fact that up-to-date, comprehensive cost-benefit analyses are unavailable, other concerns have surfaced. These include problems with the adequate supervision and accountability of the hearing officers as well as dissatisfaction reportedly expressed by citizens and the bar over the inability to have cases heard and decided by full-time judges.

The Committee found that the primary benefits of centralized traffic infraction bureaus operated either within the judicial system or the executive branch are the "economies of scale" offered by this approach. However, definitive conclusions are not possible at this time both because of the lack of comprehensive data available in other states and because an in-depth cost analysis of this approach has not yet been completed in Virginia.

Recently-conducted studies on traffic adjudication systems indicate that effective traffic case processing depends more on how well a system is managed than on the particular model or system used. They have found no reason why any of the innovative practices and procedures used in administrative models cannot be used equally well within the courts.

In fact, the innovation that is credited to have done more to improve both the cost effectiveness and quality of services in traffic adjudication is technology. Hand-held computers used by police officers, automated case tracking and scheduling, optical scanning and storage of traffic citations, and use of automated teller machines for receipt of payments, among other advances, have reduced the workload for judges, to varying degrees, greatly assisted clerks' offices in the processing of infraction cases, and further increased the convenience of payment of fines and costs for citizens.

In addition, traffic case management procedures such as segmented or sequential docketing of cases have reduced the amount of waiting time both citizens and law enforcement officers spend in court disposing of traffic cases. This single change has done much to enhance the public's confidence in and image of the courts, where it is used. It also serves to better regulate the numbers of people who must be in court at any given time. Finally, statutory changes have been made in other states to permit additional types of cases to be included among prepayable offenses, including accident cases where injury and damages are minimal. These measures also are seen as having contributed to more efficient case processing.

In summary, no evidence reviewed by the Committee suggests that any one traffic adjudication method inherently is more cost-effective or more likely to improve the quality of service offered to citizens than another. Instead, further improvements would seem more likely to result by instituting some of the procedures and innovative techniques found within each of these models. Based upon this study, the Committee concludes that such techniques and practices could be employed successfully within the existing traffic adjudication system. The recommendations contained in this report reflect these findings.