Seti Johnson

Johnson v. Jessup

Location: North Carolina
Status: Ongoing
Last Update: March 3, 2022

What's at Stake

The 桃子视频 (ACLU), 桃子视频of North Carolina, Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), and Southern Coalition for Social Justice are suing the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) for indefinitely revoking driver鈥檚 licenses of people who cannot afford to pay traffic tickets. North Carolina鈥檚 wealth-based license revocation system impacts hundreds of thousands of people each year, preventing them from driving legally to support themselves and their families. This system funnels people unable to pay traffic tickets, particularly people of color, into cycles of debt, traffic violations, and poverty in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment鈥檚 promises of due process and equal protection under the law.

Summary


More than 15 percent of North Carolina residents live in poverty. And drivers鈥� licenses are crucial to people鈥檚 ability to secure and maintain employment, drive children to school, and obtain other basic needs. Yet, North Carolina routinely subjects impoverished people to indefinite revocation of their driver鈥檚 licenses for no reason other than nonpayment of fines and costs imposed for traffic offenses without ensuring ability to pay. This practice disproportionately harms .

North Carolina statute requires the automatic revocation of licenses for nonpayment of a traffic ticket 40 days after a court judgment. But the law does not require a hearing before revocation to ensure that a person punished under the statute is actually able to pay. Nor does the DMV ensure that people are provided an ability-to-pay hearing or even notice of the right to a DMV hearing on their ability to pay before their licenses are indefinitely revoked.

Plaintiff Seti Johnson, a Black father of three, had to choose between paying traffic fines and supporting his children. After a routine traffic stop last summer in Cabarrus County, he was surprised to learn that his license had been revoked for unpaid traffic tickets. He was forced to use his rent money to pay off the more than $700 he owed to reinstate his license.

Johnson鈥檚 license was reinstated, but not before he received a separate traffic ticket for driving with a revoked license. The charge was later reduced, and the court ordered him to pay a $100 fine and $208 in court costs. He was able to pay $100, but couldn鈥檛 pay more, and was assessed an additional $20 fee because he couldn鈥檛 pay in full that day. Without a job, he struggled to pay the remaining amount. The fees were due on May 22, and Johnson fears that he will lose his license again.

The federal lawsuit challenges the DMV鈥檚 revocation of driver鈥檚 licenses without first providing proper notice and hearings to ensure that only the licenses of people who have not paid traffic fines and costs, but have the ability to do so, are subjected to license revocation. U.S. Supreme Court precedent makes it clear that a person鈥檚 inability to pay must be considered before they are punished for nonpayment of a court fine.

Plaintiffs in the case seek a court order declaring that North Carolina鈥檚 law and the DMV鈥檚 practice of revoking driver鈥檚 licenses are unconstitutional. They also seek an injunction to prevent the DMV from revoking licenses for nonpayment without first providing hearings to determine whether motorists willfully did not pay and without sufficient notice of options other than payment to prevent license revocation for those who cannot afford to pay. The suit further requests an injunction that would require the DMV to restore any licenses that were revoked solely for nonpayment.

The lawsuit was filed in in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.

UPDATE: March 3, 2022 - A federal court approved a settlement agreed to by civil rights organizations and the N.C. Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) in this case. Read . Read .

Press Releases


Support our on-going litigation and work in the courts

Related 桃子视频