Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />STATE OF MINNESOTA <br />OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR <br /> <br />REBECCA OTTO - <br />STATE AUDITOR <br /> <br />SUITE 500 <br />525 PARK STREET <br />SAINT PAUL, MN 55103-2139 <br /> <br />(651) 296-2551 (Voice) <br />(651) 296-4755 (Fax) <br />state.auditor@state.mn.us (E-mail) <br />1-800-627-3529 (Relay Service) <br /> <br />Statement of Position <br />Administrative Penalties for Traffic Offenses <br /> <br />Minnesota law regulates traffic enforcement in Minn. Stat. ch. 169. Some Minnesota <br />cities and counties have attempted to implement their own administrative system of <br />traffic enforcement. We believe that local administrative civil penalty traffic tickets are <br />not in compliance with Minnesota law. <br /> <br />In December 2003, the Minnesota Attorney General addressed the issue of cities using <br />"administrative fines" for state traffic offenses. The Minnesota Attorney General quoted <br />Minn. Stat. S 169.022: <br /> <br />The provisions of this chapter shall be applicable and uniform throughout <br />this state and in all political subdivisions and municipalities therein, and <br />no local authority shall enact or enforce any rule or regulation in conflict <br />with the provisions of this chapter unless expressly authorized herein. <br />Local authorities may adopt traffic regulations which are not in conflict <br />with the provisions of this chapter; . provided, that when any local <br />ordinance regulating traffic covers the same subject for which a penalty is <br />provided for in this chapter, then the penalty provided for violation of said <br />local ordinance shall be identical with the penalty provided for in this <br />chapter forthe same offense. <br /> <br />Cities have only the authority expressly given to them in statute or in a city charter, or <br />necessarily implied by the express authority given to them. Mangold Midwest Co. v. <br />Village of Richfield, 143 N.W. 2d 813, 819-20 (Minn. 1966). Counties are subordinate <br />agencies of the State. It is a function of counties to implement State policy. They do not <br />exist exclusively for the benefit of their citizens. Kasch v. Clearwater County, 289 <br />N.W.2d 148, 151 (Minn. 1980). A state law may fully occupy a particular field so that <br />there is no room for local regulation. Id. Moreover, a local regulation may not conflict <br />with state law. Id. <br /> <br />The Minnesota Attorney General concluded that, by enacting Minn. Stat. ch. 169, the <br />State has pre-empted the field with respect to these traffic offenses. Consequently, <br />neither cities nor counties are authorized to change the nature of penalties for traffic <br />offenses specified by chapter 169. <br /> <br />The adoption of administrative civil penalty tickets for State traffic offenses is a violation <br />of state law. The administrative ticket process allows violators of state traffic laws to pay <br />a lower fine than state law prescribes, and allows the city or county to retain all of the <br />revenue without forwarding any portion to the State. In addition, state traffic violations <br /> <br />Reviewed: March 2007 <br />Revised: March 2007 <br /> <br />2007 -1002 <br />