Citation Numbers: 77 Op. Att'y Gen. 73
Judges: DONALD J. HANAWAY, Attorney General
Filed Date: 3/30/1988
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
E. MICHAEL McCANN, District Attorney Milwaukee County
You have requested my opinion as to the validity of an ordinance adopted by the village of West Milwaukee which authorizes the police department to apply an immobilization device to the automobile of an individual who has ten or more outstanding or otherwise unsettled traffic violations. The pertinent portions of the ordinance read as follows:
A. A motor vehicle parked on a public street or highway at any time may, by or under the direction of a Police Officer of the Village of West Milwaukee Police Department, be immobilized in such a manner as to prevent its operation if there are ten or more outstanding or otherwise unsettled traffic violations, pending against the owner of such motor vehicles.
. . . .
C. The owner of such immobilized vehicle or other authorized person, shall be permitted to secure release of the vehicle upon:
1. Depositing the amount of the penalty for each violation for which there is an outstanding or otherwise unsettled traffic violation notice or warrant; and
2. The payment of the fees as required by Subsection E of this paragraph.
. . . .
D. The immobilizing device or mechanism shall remain in place for forty-eight (48) hours unless the owner has complied with Subsection 3 of this Section. If such compliance has not occurred within forty-eight (48) hours the vehicle shall be towed or impounded. Towing and storage fees as specified in *Page 74 Subsection E of this paragraph shall be paid along with fees specified in Subsection C of this paragraph before the owner of such vehicle, or authorized person, shall be permitted to repossess or secure the release of the vehicle.
E. The owner of an immobilized vehicle shall be subject to a fee of $35.00 for such immobilization. The owner of an immobilized vehicle which was impounded shall be subject to a total fee of $80.00 plus a fee for storage.
The first question presented is whether the ordinance and the procedures to enforce it violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the
Villages may manage and control their highways to provide for the public health, safety and welfare except as provided elsewhere in the statutes. Sec.
Despite the breadth of a village's power over parking violations, a municipality may not exact a penalty greater than that provided for in state law. See Madison v. McManus,
Moreover, the same principles of statewide uniformity of traffic laws apply to nonparking and other traffic violations. See secs.
Accordingly, it is my opinion that the ordinance is in excess of current authority provided by the Legislature and thus is not a permissible exercise of the village's authority.
DJH:GBS *Page 76