Robinson v. Purkey

• Decision Date: 11 June 2018
• Docket Number: Case No. 3:17-cv-01263
• Parties: FRED ROBINSON; ASHLEY SPRAGUE; JOHNNY GIBBS; and BRIANNA BOOHER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DAVID W. PURKEY, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security, in his official capacity; DEBBIE MOSS, Circuit Court Clerk of Wilson County, Tennessee, in her official capacity; MELISSA HARRELL, Circuit Court Clerk of Rutherford County, Tennessee, in her official capacity; COREY LINVILLE, Court Clerk of the Municipal Court of Lebanon, Tennessee, in his official capacity; SUSAN GASKILL, Court Clerk of Mt. Juliet, Tennessee, in her official capacity; WILSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE; RUTHERFORD COUNTY, TENNESSEE; LEBANON, TENNESSEE; and MT. JULIET, TENNESSEE, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee

FRED ROBINSON; ASHLEY SPRAGUE;

JOHNNY GIBBS; and BRIANNA BOOHER,on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DAVID W. PURKEY, Commissioner of

the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security,

in his official capacity; DEBBIE MOSS,

Circuit Court Clerk of Wilson County,

Tennessee, in her official capacity;

MELISSA HARRELL, Circuit Court Clerk of Rutherford County,

Tennessee, in her official capacity; COREY LINVILLE,

Court Clerk of the Municipal Court of Lebanon,

Tennessee, in his official capacity;

SUSAN GASKILL, Court Clerk of Mt. Juliet,

Tennessee, in her official capacity;

WILSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE;

RUTHERFORD COUNTY,

TENNESSEE; LEBANON, TENNESSEE;

and MT. JULIET, TENNESSEE, Defendants.

Case No. 3:17-cv-01263

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

June 11, 2018

Judge Aleta A. Trauger

MEMORANDUM

Fred Robinson, Ashley Sprague, and Johnny Gibbs have filed a Motion to Certify Class (Docket No. 13) and a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 25). Susan Gaskill, Corey Linville, and the cities of Lebanon and Mt. Juliet, Tennessee, ("City Defendants") have filed a Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 118), as have Melissa Harrell, Debby Moss, and Rutherford and Wilson Counties, Tennessee, ("County Defendants") (Docket No. 121). David W. Purkey, the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security ("TDSHS"), has filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Robinson, Sprague, and Gibbs (Docket No. 128) and a separate Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Brianna Booher (Docket No. 131), a later-added plaintiff. For the reasons set forth herein, the City and County Defendants' motions will be granted in part and denied in part, Purkey's motion regarding Booher will be denied, Purkey's motion regarding the other plaintiffs will be granted in part and denied in part, and the plaintiffs' class certification motion will be granted in part and denied without prejudice, in part, as moot. The court will set an evidentiary hearing regarding the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction.

I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY¹

A. Driving in Tennessee

The State of Tennessee generally prohibits drivers from using its streets and highways without a driver's license. Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-50-301(a)(1). An applicant for a Tennessee driver's license must furnish certain required information and submit to an examination, including "an actual demonstration of ability to exercise ordinary and reasonable control in the operation of a motor vehicle." Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 55-50-321, 55-50-322(a)(1)(A). Upon fulfilling the necessary requirements, a qualifying applicant will be granted a Tennessee driver's license.

A license to drive, though, is not a license to drive however one wants. A driver has an ongoing obligation to comply with Tennessee's traffic laws—the violation of which, generally speaking, amounts to at least a Class C misdemeanor. Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-103. For example:

• "[I]t is unlawful for any person to operate or drive a motor vehicle upon any highway or public road of [Tennessee] in excess of sixty-five miles per hour,"with an exception for certain designated "controlled-access highways with four (4) or more lanes," where it is lawful to drive up to seventy miles per hour. Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-152(a), (c).

• A driver who comes to a crosswalk that is not governed by a traffic-control signal "shall yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is upon the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling, or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger." Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-134(a)(1).

• "The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of the vehicles and the traffic upon and the condition of the highway." Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-124(a).

The list goes on. Many, if not most, of the ordinary rules of the road that Tennesseans follow are not just good ideas or accepted customs, but codified entries into the state's criminal statutes.

In addition to the state's criminal prohibition of those impermissible driving practices, local governments often set forth their own traffic laws that overlap significantly with the state's. See, e.g., Mt. Juliet, Tenn., Code, ch. 2, art. VI § 2-154; Lebanon, Tenn., Code, tit. 15, ch. 1 § 15-120. "[P]roceedings for a municipal ordinance violation are civil in nature, at least in terms of technical application of procedure . . . ." City of Chattanooga v. Davis, 54 S.W.3d 248, 259 (Tenn. 2001). Nevertheless, Tennessee courts have observed that such ordinances reflect a "clear intent . . . to punish the [violator] and to deter similar conduct in the future" that is akin to the concerns animating the state's criminal traffic laws. City of Knoxville v. Brown, 284 S.W.3d 330, 338 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008).

B. Traffic Violations and the Accumulation of "Traffic Debt"

Not every violation of a traffic law, of course, results in an enforcement action. Indeed, it does not go beyond the bounds of ordinary judicial notice to observe that some prohibitions, such as the laws against speeding or following too closely, are violated routinely on the state's roads by ordinary drivers and that, often, those drivers simply go on with the rest of their day without facing any legal consequences for their violations. Sometimes, though, a violation does result in enforcement—often, because the violation was witnessed by a law enforcement officer who elected to perform a traffic stop. Between 2011 and 2015, there were nearly two million traffic stops in the Nashville metropolitan area alone—about 786 per 1,000 driving-aged residents.² (Docket No. 111 ¶ 104.e.) The plaintiffs estimate that, in Wilson and Rutherford Counties, there are about 400 traffic stops per 1,000 driving-aged residents per year. (Id. ¶ 104.f.)

Prosecution of a traffic violation typically begins with "a written citation or an electronic citation prepared by a law enforcement officer on paper or on an electronic data device with the intent the citation shall be filed, electronically or otherwise, with a court having jurisdiction over the alleged offense." Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-207(a). "The traffic citation . . . demand[s] the person cited to appear in court at a stated time and . . . state[s] the name and address of the person cited, the name of the issuing officer, and the offense charged." Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-207(c)(1). A driver may choose to simply concede the violation and pay any related fines and costs before the scheduled court date. Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-207(f). Otherwise, a driver must appear in court to either contest or concede the violation. Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-207(g).

If the driver is convicted of the traffic offense for which she was cited, she may face a number of consequences. See, e.g., Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cty. v. McClard, No.01A01-9312-CV-00543, 1994 WL 665214, at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 23, 1994) (discussing driver, cited and found guilty of speeding, ordered into the state's Driver Improvement Program); see also Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 55-10-601 to -618 (Motor Vehicle Habitual Offenders Act); Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 1340-01-04-.02 (discussing TDSHS's "driver point system . . . designed to identify those drivers whose records reflect a continuous disrespect for traffic laws, and a disregard for the safety of other persons on the highways" using a system of "point value[s] . . . assessed for each accident and moving violation conviction"). As relevant to this case, a driver found guilty of a traffic violation may find herself obligated to pay not only the fine associated with her violation, but a substantial additional amount consisting of costs and litigation taxes. The plaintiffs refer to these combined financial liabilities as "traffic debt," a nomenclature the court will adopt for ease of discussion.

1. Fines

Generally speaking, a Class C misdemeanor is punishable by "not greater than thirty (30) days [imprisonment] or a fine not to exceed fifty dollars ($50.00), or both." Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111(e)(3). Some traffic violations, however, may result in higher fines. See. e.g., Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-12-139(c)(2) (imposing fine of up to $300 based on driver's violation of driver financial responsibility statute). Fines based on the defendant's violation of municipal ordinances covering the same conduct may add to the driver's liability. See, e.g., Lebanon, Tenn., Code. tit. 15, ch. 1 § 15-128(4) (imposing civil municipal fine of $50 for financial responsibility violation "in addition to any other penalty prescribed by the laws of this state."). "[T]he defendant's ability to pay the fine is a factor in the establishment of the fine," but "it is not a controlling factor." State v. Butler, 108 S.W.3d 845, 854 (Tenn. 2003) (citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-207(a)(7)).

The court imposing a fine is permitted to choose from a number of options regarding the timeline for payment:

When any court of this state, including municipal courts for violation of municipal ordinances, imposes a fine upon an individual, the court may direct as follows:

(1) That the defendant pay the entire amount at the time sentence is pronounced;

(2) That the defendant pay the entire amount at some later date;

(3) That the defendant pay the fine in specified portions or installments at designated periodic intervals and that the portions be remitted to a designated official, who shall report to the court in the event of any failure to comply with the order; or

(4) Where the defendant is sentenced to a period of probation as well as a fine, that payment of the fine be a condition of the sentence.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-24-101(a). A court that imposes a fine retains jurisdiction and is empowered to release the fine, in whole or in part, "for...