09.02 - Administrative Fines - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The lionomble Steve Smith December 1,2003 Page 6 certain regulatory control of streets and roads within their boundaries,they are plainly precluded from creating their own enforcement systems inconsistent with those prescnbed by statute. 3. Given our response to the second question, it is unnecessary to address whether local administrative enforcement systems conflict with state laws in the particular master of providing for keeping records of traffic violations..It is likely,however,that the need for uniform and consistent implementation of such programs is one reason for the strong legislative assertion of state preemption in Ole area of traffic regulation. 4. A number of.Minnesota statutes and criminal procedure rules make a provision for pre-trial, or presentencing, "diversion" programs. See, e.g. Minn. Star. §§ 388.24, 401.065 (2002), 628.69, 30.03, Mum. K Crim. Prot. Rule 27.05. In particular, in the case of a traffic violation, Minn. Stat § 169.89, subd.5 autharizes a trial.court to.require, as part of or in lieu of other penalties, that convicted persons attend a driver improvement clinic. All such programs, however, require that a trial court make the determination as to whether attendance at such a clinic is appropriate. We are aware of no express authority for local officials to create a pretrial diversion program. 5. For the reasons set forth in Op. Atty. Gen.629a, May 9, 1975, the Attorney General's Office does not generally address the constitutionality of statutes or governmentally established procedures. Thus, we are unable to determine the constitutional validity of various administrative"hearing procedures"that might be established by cities. I note, however, based on the materials you submitted, the majority of the local administrative penalty provisions do not appear to provide for any administrative bearing process at all. Rather, they state that persons who contest their liability or refuse to pay the assessed penalty or complete the required training will be charged through the normal judicial channels. It appears that all the programs to which you refer are entirely voluntary in that the accused ma withdraw from the process at any time prior to payment of the city penalty. Given th elective nature of these processes, it is likely that the due process rights of the accused are not jeopardizod. 6. lAcwise, a completely voluntary process would n6t appear to offend the separation of powers principles embodied in the constitution or to encroach upon the judicial function. In Holmberg v Holmberg, 588 N.W.2d 720 (Mmn. 1999), the court indicated that evaluation of administrative hearing schemes under the separation of powers doctrine involves consideration of; inter alia existence of adequate judicial checks,appealability and voluntariness of entry into the administrative process. Id. at 725. Furthermore, as the court pointa3 out in concluding that the role of the administrative board was not judicial in nature in Meath-v. Harmful Substance Compensation Board, 550 N.W.2d 275(1996):