OCR Text |
Show THK FOUR PASS DAILY i tICORD FRIDAY, MARCH 3, 1972 4 Office of the Attorney General 58-0- 77 OPINION NO. 72-0- 06 February 25, 5 this question. which dealt. with other Any i state regulaopinion that the Utah Highway Patrol, being tory agency, should issue citations under the laws of the State as set forth by state statutes or as set forth by valid rules and regulations of state regulatory agencies, even though county, city or town ordinances may also be applicable. However, where no state law covers the conduct in question, but a city or town ordinance does, then the Highway Patrol may issue citations under the applicable city a ' 0. Elder County Attorney REQUESTED BY: Mr. PREPARED BY: Vernon B. Romney, Attorney General David S. Young, Chief Assistant Attorney General QUESTIONS: 1. Where must a city, town or county justice of the peace pay the fines and forfeitures collected by the justice of the peace for traffic citations written by Utah Highway Patrol' Troopers? 2. May. a highway patrol trooper issue a traffic citation for violation of a city or town ordinance ' 67-1- 06 27-10- ; , and opinions, letters or oral statements which might be read to be in conflict with this opinion are expressly overruled and superseded by this opinion. -4 See Utah Code Ann. (Repl. Vol. 1969). 1972 dvr, State of Utah . on a Dee Lund, Box or town ordinance. also are of the opinion that it would be contrary to law to circumvent the provisions of Utah Code Ann. S (1953) by having justices of the peace issue formal complaints under local ordinances on traffic citations issued by highway patrolmen under state law. We state highway within the city limits? Is' there any means by whici a town, such as 3. Perry, 77-57- -37 Elder County, Utah, may share in the fines 'and forfeitures collected on tr ic citations issued by the highway patrolman .n the state highway within the corporate limits of the ' Box city or 3. As has been previously mentioned, if a citation is issued under a town or city ordinance, the town retains the fines. However, if the citation is under a state law or county ordinance, the fines must be paid to the county treasurer. There is provision for towns or for third class cities to retain money obtained from fines as there is for first or second class cities. When fines or forfeitures are obtained from citations under state law, the justice of the peace must comply with Utah Code Ann; $ (1953) and pay such money as is received to the within thirty days. We do not conclude, treasurer county however, that the county commissioners by this statute are precluded at their discretion from utilizing these fines and forfeitures to assist in correcting unsafe conditions or to assist in enforcing traffic laws upon state highways running through cities and towns. town? 1. See opinion. 2. Yes, but only if there is1 no state statute, or state rule or regulation governing the conduct CONCLUSIONS in question. 3. See opinion. 77-57- -37 w. m rCj OPINION ' t t I Under the present laws of Utah, the disbursement received of money by justices of the peace from traffic fines depends upon the ordinance under which the traffic citation was issued. If a citation was issued for violation of a city or town ordinance, the fines must be paid to the city or town 1. statute, the counties are bodies corporate By and by law and such politic and have those powers specified powers as are necessarily implied and the powers of a county . can only be exercised .by the board of county commissioners (Repl. Vol. 1962) the county commissioners are authorized to pass rules and regulations "such as are necessary and proper to provide for the safety, and preserve the health of the county and the inhabitants thereof. . . ." When the State has not preempted the county, the county commissioners may allocate money obtained from ' traffic citations to cities and towns to help promote safety Under Utah Code Ann. S 17-5-- 77 . ... city or town justice of the peace has exclusive original jurisdiction of public offenses arising under or by reason of the violation of any city or town ordinance. Utah Code Ann. (1953). Thus, it.iu unlikely that a precinct justice would process citation:', written under a city or town ordinance 1 A 78-5- -5 treasurer as provided states: which v ta. by Utah Code Ann. 78-5- (1953), -6 6 7 - -37 "All fines and forfeitures collected, except in cases arising out of prosecutions under city or fically provided. "2 All fines collected for violation of state laws or county ordinances are to be paid to the county treasurer and the city or town has no claim these upon 1 ' monies. Thus, when fines are derived from citations issued under a city or town ordinance, the city or town justice of the peace is directed to pay the collected fines to the town treasurer. When citations are issued under state law or under a county ordinance, the city or town justice of the peace is directed, to pay these fines and forfeitures to the county treasurer. 2'. The highway 9 has been established , It is 76-5-- 10 20 (1953). important to note that for cities of the first and second. class and for all county-se- at cities where city courts arc established, the cities are entitled to keep, unless otherwise specifically provided, one-ha- lf of t)je fines collected for violation of state laws, Utah Code Ann. (1953). Since this opinion concerns the distribution of fines by justice1 of the peace courts, we feel it necessary to only point this out This opinion is in harmony with those portions of Opinions No. 78-4-- 4 and second (1953) class and See Utah Code Ann. See Utah Code Ann. 17-4- -1 17-4- -2 (Repl. Vol. 1962). (Repl. Vol. 1962) . state highways within incorporated areas. This use of money would be for county purposes since it would be used to provide for the safety of the inhabitants of the county.Since the expenditure of this money is in the discretion of the county commissioners, a city or town would be unable to compel the board of commissioners to allocate aset amount or pro rata share of the money obtained. The use and allocation of the fines and forfeitures would be in the discretion of the commissioners, and if they agree to share this money with the cities and towns, we are of the opinion that such an arrangement would be within their powers, and we are of the opinion that this would be the only way such cities and towns may share in the fines and forfeitures collected on traffic citations issued by highway patrolmen on state highways for violation of state laws. This is certainly in harmony with the legislative intent as expressed in the Interlocal et. seq. Act, Utah Code Ann. 23 11-1- 3-1 tion (1953) . Respectfully submitted. VERNON the Apparently the only exception to this section specifically made by the legislature are for fish and game regulations, Utah Code Ann. (Repl. Vol. 1969) and for fines derived from cruelties inflicted upon dumb animals, Utah Code Ann. 3 of the on B. ROMNEY .mm DAVID 10 23-20-- patrol. cities all first cities to establish city courts and authorizes these cities to retain of the fine3 collected for d patrol by state legislature to enforce the laws, rules and regulations of the state governing the use of the state highways, and to regulate traffic on all highways and roads of the state. It is our 2 78-4-- 23 - within thirty days after receipt thereof, except as otherwise speci- - l highway (1953) and -1 violation of state laws. shall be paid by the justice to the county treasurer ' 78-4- vests one-h- alf county ordinances, i (Repl. Vol. 1969) which -5 county-se- at , I ,'t See Utah Code Ann. which allows However, all fines collected other than those for violation of a city or town ordinance, must be paid to the county treasurer as provided by Utah Code Ann. (1953), which states: 77-57- 27-10- the powers of peace officers to the "All fines, penalties and forfeitures for violation of any city or town ordinance shall be paid by. the officer receiving the same to the city or town treasurer." r.--r See Utah Code Ann. S. YOUNG I "vUvyv 7 For decisions of other states authorizing the expenditure or county funds within incorporated areas see: City of Oakland v. Garrison. 228 Pac. 433 (Calif. 1924) which allowed a county to expend funds for improving a public street within a municipal corporation, and compelled the county auditor to draw a warrant to pay such expenses. See also Union Free School Dist. No. 3 of Town of Rve. Westchester County v. Town of Rve. 280 N.Y. 469, 21 N.E.2d 681, 683 (1939) which said that a city or county may give or allocate money, to another public corporation for a public purpose. While both these cases were primarily concerned with whether the allocation of money involved was prohibited by their respective const itution.i, which prohibited the "giving of public money to a municipal corporation," the theory behind these decisions applies to this opinion in that they allow a county to allocate money to a municipal corporation if done for a public purpose. |