Articles :: A 'Questionable' $10 Fee
A 'Questionable' $10 Fee
Extra charge on local fines called improper by state court officials
BY TONY BARTELMEThe Post and Courier
Published on 04/23/06
People nabbed in Charleston and Mount Pleasant for speeding and other municipal offenses forked over nearly $2.3 million in “criminal user fees” in recent years, even though the state's top judge says such fees are improper and the S.C. Attorney General's Office calls them "constitutionally questionable."
Both cities quietly add an extra $10 to fines when people are convicted in municipal court. Charleston has been collecting these $10 fees for 12 years, Mount Pleasant for five. Over time, these small fees have added up: Charleston hauled in nearly $1.8 million and Mount Pleasant collected $525,000.
The problem: "They're not supposed to do that," said Robert McCurdy, summary court manager for the S.C. Court Administration. Earlier this year, his boss, South Carolina Chief Justice Jean Toal, told the state's municipal court administrators to stop collecting criminal user fees.
State court officials were "getting vague reports that some communities were creating an additional surcharge," McCurdy said. "A surcharge has to be mandated by the state. The idea behind it is that no matter what county you're in, you're going to pay the same amount for a ticket."
The state's chief justice isn't the only one questioning criminal user fees. Just last month, the S.C. Attorney General's Office told Mount Pleasant that the town's criminal user fee ordinance is "of doubtful constitutionality." The attorney general added, however, that only the courts have power to strike down an illegal city law.
So far, no one has sued to get his or her $10 back. Both cities report that they've received few, if any, complaints about the fees.
On the other hand, they don't exactly advertise what they're doing. When Mount Pleasant and Charleston police cite someone for speeding, they often write tickets for $10 more than the state-mandated maximum — say $190 for speeding 16 mph over the limit, instead of $180. There's no mention about the user fees on the tickets.
The result: "I didn't know about this at all," said Carmela McIlwain, a College of Charleston philosophy major, echoing a dozen other people interviewed during a recent session of Charleston traffic court.
McIlwain was slapped with an $86 speeding ticket — $10 more than the state's maximum penalty. "It's not just $10," she said while in line to pony up her payment. "I'm a full-time student. It's a big deal."
Peter Johnson also was waiting to shell out $100 for disregarding a stop sign. "I don't want to pay any more than I have to," he said. "The bottom line is that if it's illegal, we shouldn't be paying it."
'Constitutionally questionable'
Charleston began collecting its extra $10 fines in 1994. It was City Councilman Larry Shirley's idea.
At the time, the city was considering new user fees on sidewalk tours, restaurants and real estate transfers to avoid a property tax increase, Shirley explained last week.
"My thought was, 'OK, you want to do tourists and restaurants, why not start popping people who are criminals?' I didn't do a lot of thinking or get a lot of legal advice, but the mayor liked it." Shirley said he had hoped the user fee would target "more hardened criminals" instead of "mom-and-pop people," but added: "I did vote for it because it does impose a tax on the people who break the law."
Shirley said the issue has yet to appear on City Council's radar. "As far as I know, there haven't been any mass protests against it."
In Mount Pleasant, town leaders began talking about the fee soon after hearing about Chief Justice Toal's warning. In early March, town officials asked the attorney general for a formal opinion. Three weeks ago, they got their response.
The attorney general's office cited earlier legal precedents that challenge the legality of criminal user fees and wrote that the state constitution has "firmly" established the principle that the "judicial system throughout the state be the same from one county to another."
Mount Pleasant Town Administrator Mac Burdette said officials modeled their ordinance after Charleston's.
"We've always taken the position that those who use a service should pay for most of the cost of that service," he said.
But Burdette said he wouldn't be surprised if Town Council kills the fee soon, given what members have learned from the chief justice and attorney general. Doing so would shrink the town's coffers by about $90,000 a year.
"In the scheme of things, it's small potatoes, but another way of looking at it is that it's equal to two police officers," Burdette said. "We're not going to raise taxes, but we'll have to find a way to make up for it."
Burdette said the question about the user fee's legality raises another one: "Will we have to pay people back? Our answer to that is no, unless a court tells us otherwise."
'We're being blind-sided'
Back in traffic court, people waiting to pay their fines last week said they were frustrated with how the courts are being used as a revenue-collection system.
Some said they were glad that the judge reduced their fines — sometimes by one-half. But even with the judge's reductions, Charleston and Mount Pleasant still take their $10 cuts.
Jesse Quallen, a 25-year-old ex-Marine, said he drives roughly 50,000 miles a year. With that kind of mileage and the area's aggressive traffic enforcement, he figures it's inevitable he'll get pulled over.
Police tagged him recently while he was on his way to meet his pregnant wife at a doctor's office. Paying an extra $10 only adds a few more grains of salt to his wounds.
"I feel like we're being blind-sided," he said, while waiting to pay his $86 ticket — $10 more than the state's maximum.
The fee was a small percentage of his overall fine, but "$10 is still three gallons of gas," he said, and then handed the clerk $86 in cash.
[ back to top ]