Ticket Splitting
“Ticket splitting” occurs when an officer writes more than one ticket or citation relating
to a single event, such as writing a citation for speeding and another citation for failure
to yield or failure to wear a seatbelt. It is the opinion of MTAS consultants that ticket
splitting should be avoided based on the legal authority appearing below. Notably, it is
a practice that varies among jurisdictions, but as a best practice, officers are encouraged
to file a single citation or case, comprised of various charges stemming from a set of
related actions or event. The case should then be filed, with the court having the
jurisdiction to hear the most severe charge.
A strict reading of the statute on citations appears to refer to only one citation and one
court (place) being authorized:
§ 7-63-101. Citations or complaints; issuance; copies; contents
When any person violates any traffic, or other ordinance, law or regulation of
any municipal, metropolitan or city government in the presence of a:
(1) Law enforcement officer of such government;
(2) Member of the fire department or building department who is
designated as a special police officer of the municipality; or
(3) Transit inspector employed by a public transportation system or transit
authority organized pursuant to chapter 56, part 1 of this Title;
such officer or inspector may issue, in lieu of arresting the offender and having a
warrant issued for the offense, a citation or complaint for such offense. A copy
of such citation, which shall contain the offense charged and the time and place
when such offender is to appear in court, shall be given to the offender.
As municipal courts are civil in nature, consideration should be given to the “single
injury rule.” This rule prevents plaintiffs from splitting their causes of action and filing
multiple claims relating to one event resulting in injury. The single injury rule works
as, estoppel, meaning any previous judgment entered regarding an event is conclusive,
not only as to matters actually put in issue in that case, but equally as to those claims
which by due diligence of the litigant might have been put in issue and determined in
that original case. Hayes v. Civil Serv. Comm'n of Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson
Cnty., 907 S.W.2d 826 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995)
“Res judicata” is term describing preclusive effect of a former judgment; in its purest
form it prevents a subsequent suit between the same parties and their privies on the
same cause of action; if parties are the same but the cause of action is different, the term
is “collateral estoppel,” meaning that parties and their privies in any other cause of
action cannot re-litigate any matter which was actually determined in the prior suit. Id.
For 130 years proceedings to recover fines for the violation of municipal ordinances
have been considered civil for the purposes of procedure and appeal, although the
principles of double jeopardy have recently been determined to apply in such cases. See
Miles, supra; cf. United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 109 S.Ct. 1892, 104 L.Ed.2d 487
(1989)(discussing under what circumstances a civil penalty constitutes “punishment” for
the purposes of double jeopardy analysis). The basis of the cases is that an appeal to
circuit court of a judgment of a municipal court-even when the defendant is the
appellant-is an appeal in a civil action brought by the municipality to recover a “debt.”
Being such, where requested, the appealing defendant is entitled to a jury trial as in any
other civil case, despite the fact that no direct penalty of imprisonment or fine greater
than $50 is involved. Myers, 787 S.W.2d at 928. Based on the Miles and Myers opinions
by our Supreme Court, the court in City of Church Hill v. Reynolds concluded that the
prohibitions against double jeopardy apply to proceedings involving Defendant's
alleged violation of these municipal ordinances. City of Church Hill v. Reynolds, 2001 WL
242583, at 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 12, 2001).
The courts have held that double jeopardy attaches upon the first trial, ruling that a
second trial based on the same events is barred.
Considering these legal doctrines, MTAS consultants advise cities to avoid ticket
splitting and instead instruct officers to issue a single citation with multiple charges
relating to one event.
Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.