Civil Vs. Criminal Classifications
United States v. Halper
This is to address cases where court jurisdictions attempt to classify tickets as
“civil in nature” or “administrative” and claim the constitutional protections afforded
criminal defendants don’t apply. The argument is without factual and legal merit. The
U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that simply classifying a fine, as a civil fine is not the
standard for determining if a fine is civil or penal in nature. The U.S. Supreme Court in
United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 447 (1989) citing Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624,
632 (1988) held “the labels affixed whether to the proceeding or to the relief imposed . . .
are not controlling and will not be allowed to defeat the applicable protections of federal
constitutional law.” (Emphasis added.) The Court stated, “in determining whether a
particular civil sanction constitutes criminal punishment, it is the purposes actually served
by the sanction in question, not the underlying nature of the proceedings giving rise to the
sanction, that must be evaluated.” United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435,. 447 (1989).
The U.S. Supreme Court went on to state “we have recognized in other contexts that
punishment serves the twin aims of retribution and deterrence.” See e.g. Kennedy v.
Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 168 (1963) (these are the traditional aims of
punishment”). Furthermore, “retribution and deterrence are not legitimate non-punitive
governmental objectives.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441, U.S. 520, n. 20 (1979). “From these
premises, it follows that a civil sanction that cannot fairly be said solely to serve a
remedial purpose, but rather can only be explained as also serving either retributive or
deterrent purposes, is punishment, as we have come to understand the term.” United
States v. Halper Supra at 448. This “civil vs. criminal” analysis and standard has been
followed by the Virginia Court of Appeals in Tench v. Commonwelth, 21 Va. App. 200,
204, 462 S.E.2d 922 (1995).