SJC sanctions fees to appeal parking tickets

By David Abel, Globe Staff

There will be no free appeals for parking tickets in Massachusetts, at least not beyond the local level.

A state law that requires scofflaws to pay an extra fee to appeal a parking ticket after being held responsible by a municipal parking clerk is constitutional, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled today.

In a unanimous decision, the justices ruled that two men who challenged parking tickets in Northampton – one for $15 and the other for $100 – still had to pay $275 to appeal to a Superior Court after they lost by challenging their citations with local parking officials.

The men, Vincent Gillespie and Edward Hamel, were both issued parking tickets in 2005. After losing their initial appeals in Northampton, they argued the steep appeal fee was so costly that it effectively denied access to the courts to those who believe they are wrongfully cited. They argued that local parking clerks lack neutrality, given that parking fines raise revenue for their municipalities.

They also noted that many states handle parking ticket appeals in district courts, small claims courts, or before judicial officers, with significantly lower or no filing fees.

In the court’s ruling, Justice Robert J. Cordy wrote that the law requiring a filing fee does not violate anyone’s access to the courts, given that a waiver is available for the indigent, and that the fees help reduce frivolous appeals in an already overburdened judicial system.

“The government interest in judicial economy and deterrence of frivolous appeals is substantial,” he wrote. “Municipalities issue millions of parking citations annually and … [the law] provides procedural mechanisms to root out human error, while the filing fees imposed for formal judicial review are legitimately calculated to conserve court resources.”

William C. Newman, a Northampton lawyer who represented the plaintiffs, said the court’s ruling underscores the need for legislative action. He noted a bill filed this year by Representative Byron Rushing, a Boston Democrat, would change the law by allowing parking ticket appeals at small claims court.

“In light of today’s decision, we hope the Legislature will act favorably on that sensible bill and protect access to courts,” Newman wrote in an e-mail.

Officials in the state attorney general’s office, which defended the law imposing the fees, declined to comment.

Northampton Mayor Clare Higgins said the ruling was “reasonable” and noted her city relies on revenues from parking tickets.

“Given the state of the courts of the Commonwealth, it’s reasonable for the Legislature to set a fee,” she said, noting her city issues an average of 45,000 tickets a year, which this fiscal year she expects to raise about $900,000. “I think the decision was reasonable and that it doesn’t unduly burden people or inhibit their access to justice.”

Joan Kenney, a spokeswoman for the state court system, said the Superior Court does not track the number of parking ticket appeals. She said the $240 fee, supplemented by surcharges of $15 and $20, has been in effect since 2003.

In his ruling, Cordy wrote that judicial review sometimes requires payment of a filing fee.

He added that the court has previously found that no “fundamental right” exists to operate a motor vehicle.

“There being no fundamental right at stake, the statute survives constitutional review if it is rationally related to a valid government interest,” he wrote.

Cordy noted that the state’s appeals fees are substantially higher than other states, but he said the amount required was a legislative prerogative.

“Our lens focuses only on the constitutional question,” he wrote.

He added: “The plaintiffs have failed to establish that there is no rational basis for the filing fees and designation of the Superior Court as the forum for judicial review.”