United States v. Sahneewa Trimble

487 F.3d 752 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sahneewa TRIMBLE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 06-30298. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted March 8, 2007. Filed May 30, 2007. Jerome Kuh, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Tacoma, WA, for the appellant. Barbara J. Sievers, Assistant United States Attorney, Seattle, WA, for the appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington; Franklin D. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-05-05826-FDB. Before: DIARMUID F. O'SCANNLAIN, A. WALLACE TASHIMA, and MARSHA S. BERZON, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge BERZON; Concurrence by Judge O'SCANNLAIN. OPINION BERZON, Circuit Judge. 1 The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. The United States produced its first automobile in 1877, and the first traffic ticket issued in 1904. 2 Fast forward to 2005: Sahneewa Trimble was issued several traffic tickets, fairly serious ones, on a military base. She believed that she was charged too much—more than other drivers who did the same thing on federal property on the same day. When Trimble appeared in court to plead guilty to the violations, the magistrate…

Opinion by Judge BERZON; Concurrence by Judge O’SCANNLAIN.

OPINION

The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. The United States produced its first automobile in 1877, and the first traffic ticket issued in 1904.

Fast forward to 2005: Sahneewa Trim-ble was issued several traffic tickets, fairly serious ones, on a military base. She believed that she was charged too much— more than other drivers who did the same thing on federal property on the same day. When Trimble appeared in court to plead guilty to the violations, the magistrate judge dismissed two of the six original citations but imposed a twenty-five dollar processing fee for three of the remaining ones. Standard stuff, except that some individuals, like Trimble, were charged the fee while the others were not. Why? Because Trimble received a new version of the citation notice and the fortunate others received an older version. So what follows is a tale of two forms, old and new. We reverse — demonstrating, again, that our Constitutional principles protect against monetary injuries large and small. See Harper v. Va. State Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 , 664 n. 1, 666, 86 S.Ct. 1079 , 16 L.Ed.2d 169 (1966) (striking down…

concurring in the judgment:

I agree that no rational basis supports the discriminatory imposition of processing fees in this case. However, the majority opinion exceeds the grounds necessary to decide this appeal. Accordingly, I concur only in the judgment.

*758 Appendix A

[[Image here]]