![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
acroyearIt used to be that a traffic cop thinking about nailing the conviction (and the money) would focus on out of state drivers more than in-state because more often an out-of-stater would not challenge the fine and pay up.
NOW, with this new bullshit in place, the cops will be ignoring out-of-state drivers (aside from drunks, as there is the public safety factor) in favor of nailng VA drivers because they'll be that much more money coming in with a VA conviction. These new "civil fees" can't be enforced on out of state drivers.
Personally, I think that's the main key for getting this bullshit thrown out by the courts in the long run.
The real hassle about this bullshit? The guy who (according to the rumor mill) lobbied for it and proposed the idea was a Springfield traffic court lawyer, who now stands to make a fortune as more people pay him to challenge convictions to avoid the $350-$3000 that they can't negotiate away the way they often could a criminal traffic fine.
NOW, with this new bullshit in place, the cops will be ignoring out-of-state drivers (aside from drunks, as there is the public safety factor) in favor of nailng VA drivers because they'll be that much more money coming in with a VA conviction. These new "civil fees" can't be enforced on out of state drivers.
Personally, I think that's the main key for getting this bullshit thrown out by the courts in the long run.
The real hassle about this bullshit? The guy who (according to the rumor mill) lobbied for it and proposed the idea was a Springfield traffic court lawyer, who now stands to make a fortune as more people pay him to challenge convictions to avoid the $350-$3000 that they can't negotiate away the way they often could a criminal traffic fine.
