The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled Wednesday that the Los Angeles $63 expired parking meter fine is not an “excessive fine” with the meaning of the US Eight Amendment (“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”) but remanded the case to the lower court for further consideration.
Under the Los Angeles ordinance, individuals who park beyond their allotted time limit, forcing people to drive in search of other parking spaces, must pay a $63 fine. Any individual who fails to pay the fine within 21 days has to pay an additional late-payment penalty of $63.
The suit, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenged the parking ordinance. The district court granted summary judgment to the city and ruled that the fines were not “grossly disproportional” to the underlying offense, and therefore did not violate the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause.
On appeal, the appeals court held that the fine did not violate the Excessive Fines Clause because it was not “grossly disproportionate” to the offense. To determine whether the fine was “grossly disproportional” to the offense, the court looked at four factors: (1) the nature and extent of the underlying offense; (2) whether the underlying offense related to other illegal activities; (3) whether other penalties may be imposed for the offense; and (4) the extent of the harm caused by the offense.
The court found that the plaintiffs were culpable because they did violate the ordinance, even though their culpability was low because parking violation was minor. There was no information as to whether overstaying a parking meter relates to other illegal activities, and neither party suggested alternate penalties. The court, therefore, did not address the second or third factors. However, the court did consider monetary harm and how the violation eroded the government’s purpose for proscribing the conduct. The court determined that overstaying a parking meter leads to increased congestion and impedes traffic flow. Although the offense is not serious, neither is the current fine, and the fine “likely deters violations.”
The court did decide to reverse and remand the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment to the city for the $63 late payment fee, as it “did not know the City’s justification for setting the late fee at one hundred percent of the initial fine.”
