Laserfiche WebLink
The Honorable Steve Smith <br /> December 1,2003 <br /> Page 2 <br /> 6. None apparently provide for reporting any information to other govemuiental <br /> agencies concerning persons-convicted!'04 or admitting,violations_ <br /> 7. Failure to pay the city's administrative penalty results in the city's pursuing a <br /> normal misdemeanor or petty misdemeanor prosecution in the courts. <br /> Some of the programs provide alleged offenders a means to challenge the imposition of <br /> administrative penalties by way of a hearing conducted by a local official or appointed panel. <br /> Others provide that a challenge to the civil penalty will result in the filing of the pertinent <br /> misdemeanor or petty misdemeanor charge in court. <br /> You also enclosed information concerning a diversion program employed by one city <br /> whereby local peace officers have the option of"holding"citations for certain traffic offensas to <br /> give violators an opportunity to complete an eight-hour traffic safety course for which the <br /> violator must pay$75. If the violator completes the course within 21 days,the citation is"tom <br /> up <br /> Cities have cited the need for increased revenues,along with frustration over the time and. <br /> resources required for court prosecutions, and the results achieved thereby, as reasons for <br /> creating their own enforcement programs. You note that the State Auditor has recently expressed <br /> her views questioning the authority of cities to adopt such procedures. <br /> Based upon this information,you ask the following questions. <br /> 1. Is it permissible for a local governmental unit to issue. for an act that would be the <br /> equivalent of a misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor. or felony under state law, an <br /> administrative citation that provides a penalty substantially below that which <br /> would be imposed for a violation of the comparable statuto? <br /> 2. Does state law preempt county or statutory or home Wile charter city ordinances or <br /> policies that allow local law enforcement to assess administrative sanctions in lieu <br /> of in addition to,or as an alternative to a citation for a state traffic law violation? <br /> 3. Do local administrative procedures and sanctions conflict with state laws intended <br /> to punish repeat traffic violators such as Mum. Stat. § 169.89, subd. 1, and <br /> § 171.18 (2002)? <br /> 4. Does state law preempt county ordinances,statutory city ordinanocs, or home-rule <br /> city ordinances that allow traffic offenders to attend a driver-safety diversion <br /> program in lieu of being charged with a petty misdemeanor traffic citation? Are <br /> such ordinances or policies in conflict with state law? <br />