235 So. 3d 1077
La.2017Background
- In 2007 New Orleans enacted the Automated Traffic Enforcement System (ATES) ordinances to issue civil penalties from traffic-camera images; ATES provided administrative hearings and an appeal path.
- Plaintiffs Rand and Harris challenged the hearing/appeal process (filed 2011), alleging violations of Louisiana Constitutional due process (Art. I, §2) and access-to-courts (Art. I, §22) rights.
- Trial court granted a preliminary injunction; on further proceedings the district court later entered a declaratory judgment finding ATES hearing procedures (Feb. 2008–Nov. 2011) unconstitutional.
- During the litigation the City amended §154-1702 to (1) shift appeals from Civil District Court to Traffic Court and (2) cap appeal fees at $50; the City also made procedural changes to hearings (including use of a City attorney).
- The plaintiffs’ specific citations were dismissed by the City before trial, and the district court’s final judgment did not award injunctive relief (so the earlier preliminary injunction was effectively vacated).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ATES appellate procedure denied access to courts (appeal required in Civil District Court with high filing fee) | Rand/Harris: appeal to Civil District Court with prohibitive fees effectively foreclosed meaningful access to court | City: ordinance was amended to permit appeals to Traffic Court with fees capped at $50; practical changes cure the complaint | Moot — court found amendments and long-standing practice removed reasonable expectation of recurrence; access-to-courts claim dismissed as moot |
| Whether intake form requiring admission of owner/operator status deprived due process | Rand/Harris: intake form forced an admission that functioned as liability admission and violated due process | City: intake form used later version; plaintiffs’ cited tickets were dismissed and form as introduced did not apply to them | Moot — plaintiffs lacked justiciable interest because citations were dismissed and form related to later procedures |
| Whether hearing officers’ dual role (prosecutor + adjudicator) violated due process | Rand/Harris: hearing officers who obtained evidence and adjudicated were biased and violated due process | City: procedures were changed (by 2012) so City attorney presented the case and hearing officers no longer performed dual prosecutorial/adjudicative role | Moot — procedural reforms reduced risk of recurrence; no exception to mootness applies |
| Whether district court properly issued declaratory relief invalidating hearings from Feb 2008–Nov 2011 | Rand/Harris: sought injunctive relief; court declared past hearings unconstitutional | City: challenges to constitutionality are moot where subject matter no longer affects plaintiffs and City corrected procedures | Reversed — appellate court vacated the district court’s declaration of unconstitutionality and dismissed the action with prejudice as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Louisiana Federation of Teachers v. State, 171 So.3d 835 (La. 2014) (standard of review and presumption of constitutionality for legislation)
- City of Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge v. Myers, 145 So.3d 320 (La. 2014) (ordinance construed like statute; challenger bears burden)
- Rand v. City of New Orleans, 173 So.3d 1148 (La. 2015) (prior appellate ruling reversing permanent injunction and reinstating preliminary injunction)
- Cat’s Meow, Inc. v. City of New Orleans, Dept. of Finance, 720 So.2d 1186 (La. 1998) (mootness when legislative change cures challenged provision and no reasonable expectation of recurrence)
- Mary Moe, L.L.C. v. Louisiana Bd. of Ethics, 875 So.2d 22 (La. 2004) (distinguishing standard of proof for preliminary vs permanent injunction)
- State v. Mercadel, 874 So.2d 829 (La. 2004) (party must show statute seriously affects rights to maintain constitutional challenge)