Does your office file DWLI cases based on unpaid DPS surcharges-TRC 708.152? If so, what type of plea offer do you make to the defendant?

My elected has asked me to check and see how other prosecutors are handling these type of cases. We are drowning and there is no end in sight. If you prefer to email me directly, please do so at the following address: john@johnsoncountytx.org.

If you're going to Baby Prosecutor/Investigator next week, I'll be there, so let's talk. Thanks in advance.

I'm ashamed to say that I don't know what our office policy is (our misdemeanor division is on another floor of the building) but I know that at least two of the police agencies in our county will not arrest or file cases with our office on suspensions for just fees.

We accept them...Most of the surcharges are due to the defendant's failure to follow the law..No insurance convictions, Intox convictions, etc. Some view it as a tax and that is certainly their right, but why would you refuse to prosecute someone who 1) violates the law 2) fails to comply with the requirements to maintain their privilege (not right) to drive and 3) insists on driving anyway? We have to follow the rules, why shouldn't they..We are elected/appointed to prosecute the laws as written, not as we believe they should be written.You can always consider the reason for the suspension and any remedial action they have taken in your disposition of the case.

I have seen a blurb indicating legislation was passed to make many of the DWLI offenses class C in September, which may eliminate some of the quandary for prosecutors.

Effective Sept. 1, 2007, most first-offense DWLIs will be Class C misdemeanors.

Come to one of TDCAA's popular legislative updates to learn all about the changes:

Sign up now

For the last 6-7 months we have not been filing those that have been arrested on site. DPS was making most of our DWLI stops, and when stopped outside of business hours they could not call to confirm the license invalidity. Their policy was to write a citation, let them go, and send us a report for possible filing and a warrant. We would look at those to see if the circumstances warranted filing (usually someone who was repeat).

Of those that were arrested, I would confirm that they went to jail, paid a bond, and had to get their car out of impound--then nolle their case. The price for DWLI in our county is a night in jail, paying your bondsman, and paying the impound lot. And no case filed and sitting on our docket. This still has a strong deterrent effect because nobody wants to go to jail and pay the bondman and tow truck guy--much less lose work if they are on their way there.

This was based on the fact that we only have 1 CCL with about 1200 pending cases with one prosecutor--me. This was just a docket control measure. Although I agree with Gordon, that we should enforce the laws as written, our county simply does not have the docket or prosecutorial capacity to take every case. I would rather dump DWLIs while still getting our deterrent effect of arrest--and dedicate most of my efforts to cases where there are victims other than the state's pocketbook.

Now we nolle them all because there is no reason in setting a case on our docket that won't end up in court before it has been reduced to a Class C. Now it's hard to see the point in getting worked up about a first time DWLI.

That is just one person's opinion, but it has worked for us over the past few months--and DPS understands even though they don't like it.

We have a couple of strategies we use: 1. If the defendant was not arrested because it was a surcharge offense, we give them 30 days to get right with DPS. If so, we dismiss. If not, we file and they get arrested. 2. If the person was arrested at the scene we tell them to get their license in compliance and show proof of insurance. If they do these things, we either give a deferred or a dismissal, depending on their criminal history.

Most like to pay up before another surcharge gets put in place for the new offense.

Our officers arrest for any suspension and we accept and file everything. We treat them all the same, they get a reasonable amount of time to clear up their license and then we reduce to class C no license on demand. That way we at least get the court costs back. If people get their DL clear by first or second appearance I usually just dismiss. The DWLI's also serve as a bit of a bargaining chip. We frequently dismiss them with a plea to just about anything else.

I don't know if anyone in our office has ever tried one of these cases. When we put our foot down and say they must either plead or set for trial, they always just plead.

John, we accept DWLI filings but we have met with all our law enforcement agencies including DPS. Our officers are writing citations on DWLIs as most of them now are for failure to pay the surcharge. We have had the problem of our jail filling up with DWLI arrests. So that is how we are combatting the problem before September 1. Also when subsequent DWLIs come to court our primary concern is the subject regaining their license so anything we do has some provisions for that, including dismissing on pre-trial diversion on proof of regaining.

$500 fine; $200 court costs

Reckless Legislating
Virginia's new 'abuser fees' stir outrage in the commonwealth.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007; A14

IT WAS NOT quite a hell-has-frozen-over moment, but it was still remarkable: Last week, Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) held a joint news conference with House of Delegates Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford), and the two opposing pols were reading from similar scripts. Neither wants to see a special session of the Virginia legislature this summer to reform the commonwealth's new and increasingly controversial system of "abuser fees" for motorists, which was passed earlier this year as part of a compromise road-funding bill.

Some constituents are in an uproar over the prospect of shelling out hundreds of dollars for traffic convictions, and misinformation abounds regarding which violations might result in a steep fine and which won't. According to Del. David B. Albo (R-Fairfax), one of the architects of the plan, residents are calling up to express worry that minor traffic tickets will qualify them for one of the law's expensive penalties, which run above $1,000. In fact, as Mr. Albo points out, the fees focus on drivers who are guilty of criminal offenses -- not even close to the kinds of infractions most Virginia motorists might commit. And, as a matter of policy, the logic of deterring the worst driving with steep fees has some appeal, particularly if it saves lives on the roads.

Some criticism is deserved. It is clear enough that when the General Assembly developed the measure, the goal of establishing a fine-tuned traffic safety policy took a back seat to that of raising revenue for badly needed road maintenance. This spineless approach to fixing the state's highways, aimed at avoiding a modest tax increase, has produced an unexpectedly large backlash. The law does not apply to non-Virginians driving in the commonwealth -- a problem that proponents say they will try to correct when the General Assembly reconvenes in January -- and there are warnings that it might overwhelm the traffic-court system.

Despite these issues, calling a summertime special session in order to reduce or eliminate the fees would be an overreaction that might give opponents of the transportation package an opportunity to unravel a deal that was far from perfect but was still better than no deal at all. A spokesman for Mr. Kaine argues that the legislature should wait to see how the program works over the coming months before it begins to tinker with it. That's sensible. If reform does come, any change in the law must be accompanied by a source of revenue -- a small increase in the gas tax, for example -- to fill the resulting funding gap.

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/billlookup/History.aspx?LegSess=80R&Bill=HB1623



Is this passed?? ( DWLI CLASS C ) The new legislative updates listed on the SAPD MDT system doesnt list this as a legislative update...... TMPA I dont believe has this posted either.

www.cop-talk.net

Yes, this passed - I just got back from the TDCAA leg update and it was in fact included. All first offense DWLI are now Class C's with the exception of DWI suspensions, they remain a Class B.

The way the legislation is worded, DWLI can also be a Class B misdemeanor if the defendant has ever had a license suspension for an offense related to operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Thus, a person with an ALR suspension at any time in their past could be charged with a Class B DWLI.

Ah, good point - I missed that.