Stanley C. Lowicki v. State of Delaware
CPU4-17-003452
| Del. Ct. Com. Pl. | Dec 7, 2017Background
- On May 18, 2017 a vehicle owned by Stanley C. Lowicki was photographed running a red light under Delaware's Electronic Red Light Safety Program (21 Del. C. § 4101(d)).
- Lowicki requested a hearing; the Justice of the Peace (JP) Court found him responsible and imposed a $75 fine plus assorted court costs and fees, for a total of $172.50.
- Lowicki appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, arguing the court has de novo jurisdiction because the total monetary charges exceed $100 and also arguing the State failed to prove he was the driver.
- The State responded that jurisdiction under § 4101(d)(12) depends only on the civil penalty (the statutory assessment and any late-payment assessments), excluding court costs and administrative fees.
- The Court of Common Pleas analyzed the statutory text and legislative history and concluded the civil penalty does not include court costs or similar administrative fees; therefore the JP Court’s imposed civil penalty did not exceed $100.
- The Court dismissed Lowicki's appeal with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and did not reach the merits of the driver-identity challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Court of Common Pleas has jurisdiction to hear appeal under 21 Del. C. § 4101(d)(12) | Lowicki: total charged ($172.50) — including fine, court costs, and fees — exceeds $100 so de novo appeal right exists | State: § 4101(d)(12) requires "civil penalty" > $100; statutory "civil penalty/assessment" excludes court costs and administrative fees | Held: No jurisdiction — "civil penalty" excludes court costs/fees; imposed civil penalty did not exceed $100 so appeal dismissed |
| Proper statutory construction of § 4101(d)(3) and (d)(12) — whether "additional penalty assessments" includes court costs/administrative fees | Lowicki: textual argument that § 4101 uses "assessment" and that (d)(12)'s "additional penalty assessments" should encompass all assessments including court costs | State/Court: plain meaning separates "civil or administrative assessment" (the penalty) and "court costs or similar administrative fees"; late-payment assessments are the only additional penalties counted toward the civil penalty | Held: Court: plain reading and legislative history show separation; late fees count but court costs/administrative fees do not |
| Whether the Court should decide the factual sufficiency (identity of driver) | Lowicki: JP Court failed to meet State's burden to prove he was the driver | State: JP Court, as factfinder, found Lowicki's testimony not credible; that credibility finding controls | Held: Not reached — appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction before merits were addressed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of Swanson, 623 A.2d 1095 (Del. 1993) (statutory interpretation: apply plain meaning when statute is unambiguous)
- Nelson v. Best, Inc., 768 A.2d 473 (Del. Ch. 2000) (courts must give effect to a statute's plain meaning to implement legislative intent)
- City of Wilmington v. Minella, 879 A.2d 656 (Del. Super. 2005) (characterizing traffic-signal enforcement appeals as civil proceedings)
- Szucs v. State, 284 A.2d 291 (Del. 1971) (distinguishing appealable fine amount from court costs in assessing right to appeal)