By DYLAN LYSEN
KCUR
Critics argue adding additional fees and interest on unpaid traffic fines is unfair to low-income drivers. And it may not even be legal under Kansas law.
TOPEKA — On a snowy night in 2004, Jamie Kuykendall was driving home from the store in Topeka when she came up to a traffic light turning red.
There was a small amount of snow on the ground. When she hit the brakes, her car wouldn't stop and she slid through the intersection. A Topeka police officer gave Kuykendall a ticket because she did not have a valid driver’s license.
Now, 20 years later, she’s still paying for that ticket and another one from 2008 because she was not able to pay the original fines on time. The City of Topeka sent the $200 in fines to a collection agency and tacked on a service fee and interest.
Kuykendall, a low-income single mother, said her debt totaled $3,000 and she still has $900 left to pay.
Her license was suspended for years until she recently got a restricted one that lets her drive to places like work. While working, her paychecks were garnished to help pay off the debt.
“I'm mad,” Kuykendall said, “because that's money that I could have put to better my home, my kids, myself.”
Unpaid traffic tickets can end up costing low-income Kansans thousands of dollars when cities send unpaid fines and fees to collection agencies and add interest on top.
Critics say the system is unfair to lower income Kansans who already could not afford the initial fine and courts should consider alternatives to monetary punishment. It’s also unclear if it’s even legally allowed under Kansas law.
Proponents of the system argue it is legal, and communities need to be able to add interest to make sure some drivers who ignore traffic laws don’t go unpunished.
Unfair fines
Kansas Legal Services, a nonprofit legal agency, helps people like Kuykendall negotiate lower fines in Topeka courts when their debt spirals out of control.
The Topeka Municipal Court sends unpaid debt to a collection agency, CBK Inc., which has a contract with the city. That contract allows the collection agency to add a 30% fee on top of the debt as a service charge, according to a contract obtained through the Kansas Open Records Act.
Micah Tempel, an attorney for Kansas Legal Services, knows other municipal courts use collection agencies that add fees on top of the original fine, like Olathe and Wichita. That means low-income drivers across the state are likely facing similar debt.
In Topeka, Tempel said the court also adds up to 12% interest annually. He argues tacking on those fines and interest fees is unfair to low-income drivers.
“We have clients who couldn't afford originally,” Tempel said. “They definitely can't afford the thousands of dollars that it's turned into.”
Tempel also questions if it's even legal to add interest on court fines and fees because there does not seem to be a state law that directly permits it. But there has not been a court ruling that sifts through that legal gray area.
Tempel said he would like to challenge the practice through court appeals that would likely take a ruling from the Kansas Supreme Court to settle the issue. But none of his cases have gone that far, because Topeka has offered to wipe away his clients’ debt. That also means the city is not taking a strong stance on their interpretation of the law, either.
But those settlements mean less time in the courtroom for Tempel’s clients and they also come with other certainties, like drivers getting the licenses back.
“It’s a better deal for the client,” Tempel said.
Enforcing the law
Officials for the City of Topeka declined to answer questions about using a collection agency and adding interest on traffic court fines and fees.
John Goodyear is legal counsel for the League of Kansas Municipalities, of which Topeka is a member. He said it’s common for municipal courts to use collection agencies on unpaid tickets to get some drivers to finally pay up.
He said it’s a legally sound practice, as state law specifically allows courts to use collection agencies. The statute stipulates collection agencies can add a service fee up to 33% of the amount collected. It also mentions adding interest, possibly meaning it’s legal, too.
Goodyear said without the ability to add fines and fees, some people could simply flout traffic laws and never be punished.
“We have to have something,” Goodyear said. “We have to have a tool in the toolbox to enforce these laws.
However, Goodyear said his organization is also supports courts lowering fines and fees for people who are making a good-faith effort but are struggling to pay back the debt. He said courts should look at each case individually and make a determination on what is best — whether that’s providing relief to low-income drivers or tacking on interest for drivers who can pay it and continue to skirt the law.
“Judicial discretion here is important,” he said.
Better alternatives
Meanwhile, Kansas lawmakers have made recent changes to the state law, making it easier for people with outstanding fines to get a restricted driver’s license. The most recent law, which goes into effect in January, provides relief by consolidating and reducing fines and fees drivers need to pay to get their license reinstated.
Kuykendall said efforts from lawmakers helped her get back on the road, and it will likely lead to the state lifting the suspension on her driver's license early next year.
But those changes do not stop ticket fines and growing debt. Unless a court halts cities from adding interest, or lawmakers pass a law prohibiting it, drivers unable to pay will continue racking up debt.
The Fines and Fees Justice Center, a New York-based advocacy group, wants communities to rethink how they use fines and fees. For instance, the organization worked with the Unified Government of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kansas, to eliminate court fees that were previously automatically charged when a violator pleaded guilty.
Tim Curry, the policy and research director for the organization, said charging court fees and adding interest are an additional tax that disproportionately affects low-income violators.
“You are being pulled into the system for longer,” Curry said. “You're incurring greater penalties, whether there are more fees, whether there are interest rates.”
A Brennan Center for Justice study in 2019 found that courts are increasingly reliant on fines and fees to fund their basic governmental duties. The study suggests that's an inefficient method to raising government revenue and it’s unclear if the use of fines and fees in criminal justice improves public safety.
Curry recommends communities use different ways to hold low-income traffic violators accountable, like sliding fee scales based on a violator's income or community service instead of fines.
Otherwise, cities like Topeka are using fines and fees to fund their government and that poses an excess burden on low-income residents, Curry said.