Agomo v. Fenty
| Citation | 916 A.2d 181 |
| Decision Date | 01 February 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 03-CV-813.,03-CV-813. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Columbia District |
| Parties | Emelike U. AGOMO, et al., Appellants, v. Adrian FENTY, Mayor, District of Columbia, Appellee.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
Thomas Ruffin, Jr., Washington, DC, with whom Horace L. Bradshaw, Jr., was on the brief, for appellants.
Stephen C. Rogers, Volunteer Attorney, with whom Robert J. Spagnoletti, Attorney General for the District of Columbia at the time the brief was filed, and Edward E. Schwab, Deputy Attorney General, were on the brief, for appellee.
Before FARRELL and GLICKMAN, Associate Judges, and NEBEKER, Senior Judge.
Appellants Emelike U. Agomo and Auto Ward, Inc. filed a complaint against the District of Columbia under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the Automated Traffic Enforcement System ("ATE System") established by D.C.Code § 50-2209.01 (2001) et seq. violates the guarantees of due process under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. In essence, the ATE System detects moving violations under the District's traffic laws through the use of photographs taken by automated cameras installed at various locations throughout the District. The trial court denied the District's initial motion to dismiss the complaint on January 14, 2003, but six months later granted summary judgment for the District and denied appellants' subsequent motion to alter or amend the summary judgment order on July 14, 2003. Appellants filed a timely notice of appeal on July 21, 2003.
Appellants argue that the method of assessing liability preliminarily to the registered owner of the car conflicts with the statutory framework set forth in D.C.Code § 50-2302.06(a), which requires that the District prove a moving violation by clear and convincing evidence, and that this "presumption of liability" violates their due process rights. Second, appellants argue that the compensation arrangement with a private corporation, Automated Computer Systems, Inc. ("ACS"), for certain administrative aspects of the ATE System violates due process by creating an adjudicatory tribunal that is tainted by financial considerations. We hold that there exists no constitutional violation as asserted and affirm.
The stated purpose of the traffic adjudication statutes is "to decriminalize and to provide for the administrative adjudication of certain violations," D.C.Code § 50-2301.01, such as the moving violations involved in this case. An "infraction" subject to this section of the Code is defined as "any conduct subject to administrative adjudication under the provisions of this chapter and with respect to which the [Attorney General] does not commence a proceeding in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia." D.C.Code § 50-2301.02(4). The statute defines "operator" and "owner" as follows:
(6) The term "operator" means:
(A) Any person, corporation, firm, agency, association, organization, federal, state or local governmental agency in the business of renting or leasing vehicles to be used or operated in the District;
(B) An owner who operates his own vehicle; or
(C) A person who operates a vehicle owned by another.
(7) The term "owner" means:
(A) Any person, corporation, firm, agency, association, organization, federal, state or local governmental agency or other authority or other entity having the property of or title to a vehicle used or operated in the District; or
(B) Any registrant of a vehicle used or operated in the District; or
(C) Any person, corporation, firm, agency, association, organization, federal, state or local government agency or authority or other entity in the business of renting or leasing vehicles to be used or operated in the District.
Applying these statutes to moving violations, Subchapter II of this code chapter specifies that "[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, all violations of statutes, regulations, executive orders or rules relating to the operation of any vehicle in the District . . . shall be processed and adjudicated pursuant to the provisions of this subchapter. . . ." D.C.Code § 50-2302.01. For any such alleged traffic violation, Subchapter II provides for a hearing:
(a) Each hearing for the adjudication of a traffic infraction pursuant to this subchapter shall be held before a hearing examiner in accordance with Chapter IX of Title 18 of the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations except as provided by this chapter. The burden of proof shall be on the District and no infraction shall be established except by clear and convincing evidence.
(b) If a person to whom a notice of infraction has been issued fails to appear at a hearing for which he or she received notice, the hearing examiner may enter a default judgment . . . .
. . . .
(d) After due consideration of the evidence and arguments presented, the hearing examiner shall determine whether the infraction has been established. Where the infraction is not established, an order dismissing the charge shall be entered. Where a determination is made that an infraction has been established or where an answer admitting the commission of the infraction or admitting the commission of the infraction with explanation has been received, an appropriate order shall be entered in the Department's records.
(e) An order, entered pursuant to a determination that an infraction has been established or pursuant to the receipt of an answer admitting the infraction or admitting the infraction with explanation, shall be civil in nature but shall be treated as an adjudication that an infraction has been committed. . . .
Id. § 50-2302.06. An appeal from an adverse decision by the examiner may be made to an Appeals Board, D.C.Code § 50-2304.02, and ultimately to the Superior Court, D.C.Code § 50-2304.05. See generally Kovach v. District of Columbia, 805 A.2d 957, 961-63 (D.C.2002) ().
Further procedural protections are established through District regulations. The regulations require certain identifying information to be included in any Notice of Infraction ("ticket"). 18 DCMR § 3000.1 (2006).1 The regulations also delineate the rules of evidence applicable to any administrative hearing on traffic violations:
3012.1 The burden of proof shall be on the District.
3012.2 The standards of proof established by the D.C. Traffic Adjudication Act are the following:
(a) Clear and convincing evidence in cases of moving violations; and
(b) Preponderance of the evidence in cases of parking violations.
3012.3 All testimony shall be given under oath or affirmation administered by the hearing examiner.
3012.4 The respondent shall have the right to present witnesses, to conduct examination and cross examination, and to introduce documentary evidence.
3012.5 The hearing examiner may require production of evidence.
3012.6 The Notice of Infraction shall constitute prima facie evidence of the statements contained in the notice and shall be a record in the ordinary course of business.
There is no dispute between the parties that, in all ways relevant to this litigation, moving violations resulting from use of the ATE System are subject to the statutory scheme as set out above.2 D.C.Code § 50-2209.01 expressly authorizes use of the ATE System and establishes the weight given to evidence obtained through it:
(a) The Mayor is authorized to use an automated traffic enforcement system to detect moving infractions. Violations detected by an automated traffic enforcement system shall constitute moving violations. Proof of an infraction may be evidenced by information obtained through the use of an automated traffic enforcement system. For the purposes of this subchapter, the term "automated traffic enforcement system" means equipment that takes a film or digital camera-based photograph which is linked with a violation detection system that synchronizes the taking of a photograph with the occurrence of a traffic infraction.
(b) Recorded images taken by an automated traffic enforcement system are prima facie evidence of an infraction and may be submitted without authentication.
Id. Section 50-2209.02 describes liability, limitation of liability, and due process rights afforded to those vehicle owners who have been charged with a moving violation on the basis of ATE System evidence:
(a) The owner of a vehicle issued a notice of infraction shall be liable for payment of the fine assessed for the infraction, unless the owner can furnish evidence that the vehicle was, at the time of the infraction, in the custody, care, or control of another person. In the event that the registered owner claims that the vehicle was in the custody, care, or control of another person, the registered owner of the vehicle shall provide evidence in a sworn affidavit under penalty of perjury, setting forth the name, drivers license number, and address of the person who leased, rented, or otherwise had care, custody, or control of the vehicle . . . .
(b) When a violation is detected by an automated traffic enforcement system, the Mayor shall mail a summons and a notice of infraction to the name and address of the registered owner of the vehicle on file with the Bureau of Motor Vehicle Services or the appropriate state motor vehicle agency. The notice shall include the date, time, and location of the violation, the type of violation detected, the license plate number, and state of issuance of the vehicle detected, and a copy of the photo or digitized image of the violation.
(c) An owner or operator who receives a citation may request a hearing which shall be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Behm v. City of Cedar Rapids
..., 621 F.Supp.2d 372, 384–85 (E.D. La. 2009) ; Shavitz v. City of High Point , 270 F.Supp.2d 702, 707 (M.D.N.C. 2003) ; Agomo v. Fenty , 916 A.2d 181, 183 (D.C. 2007) ; City of Hollywood v. Arem , 154 So.3d 359, 365 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014), disapproved of by Jimenez v. State (Jimenez II )......
-
Behm v. City of Cedar Rapids & Gatso United States, Inc.
...621 F. Supp. 2d 372, 384-85 (E.D. La. 2009); Shavitz v. City of High Point, 270 F. Supp. 2d 702, 707 (M.D.N.C. 2003); Agomo v. Fenty, 916 A.2d 181, 183 (D.C. 2007); City of Hollywood v. Arem, 154 So. 3d 359, 365 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014), disapproved of by Jimenez v. State (Jimenez II), 24......
-
Krieger v. City of Rochester
...placement of ultimate responsibility on the automobile's owner is entirely permissible. [978 N.Y.S.2d 604]See e.g. Agomo v. Fenty, 916 A.2d 181, 193 (D.C.Ct.Apps. 2007) (automated traffic enforcement system's vicarious liability provision did not violate due process). In addition to the V &......
-
Potomac Dev. Corp.. v. Dist. of D.C., 10–CV–632.
...... claim brought under § 1983, ‘it is necessary to ask what process the State provided, and whether it was constitutionally adequate.’ ” Agomo v. Fenty, 916 A.2d 181, 191 (D.C.2007) (quoting Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 126, 110 S.Ct. 975, 108 L.Ed.2d 100 (1990)). “The Supreme Court ......