Civil Infractions-When most people mention the term “traffic court” they are generally speaking about civil infractions.  “Civil infractions” include those traffic violations that were de-criminalized by the Michigan Legislature several years ago.  Instead of being classified as misdemeanors (where jail is a possible penalty), they are now only punishable by monetary fines and points on your driving record.  Moving violations such as speeding, failing to signal, running a red light, improper turns, and failing to yield the right of way are all examples of civil infractions.

When addressing a civil infraction the judge or magistrate will not ask for a plea of “guilty” or “innocent”.  Rather, the defendant will be asked to plead “responsible”, “responsible with an explanation,” or “not responsible.”  This variation reflects the de-criminalized nature of the offense.

The defendant in a civil infraction has the right to admit responsibility by mail either by paying the assessed amount of the fine or by writing a letter to the magistrate admitting his responsibility and offering an explanation.  If the defendant opts for the latter, i.e. offering an explanation, the magistrate has the authority to lower the fines and costs if he feels there are sufficient grounds to do so.  The magistrate cannot, however, waive or lower points on any given violation.  

Should an individual wish to contest the citation he received, that person would not usually have a trial, but rather a hearing.  One of our magistrates, either Eric Colthurst or Ted Johnson, would conduct the hearing.

The burden of proof in a civil infraction matter is much different than a misdemeanor or felony matter.  Unlike criminal cases (i.e. misdemeanor or felony matters) where the prosecution must prove their case “beyond a reasonable doubt” in civil infractions, the prosecutor need only demonstrate that it is “more likely than not” that the accused violated the law.  That is to say, the jury needs to be persuaded “by a preponderance of the evidence.”

By way of example, because this is not the rule, imagine that “beyond a reasonable doubt” meant that a reasonable person was 99.9% sure that the defendant committed the crime.  This same person, under a preponderance of the evidence would only need to be 50.1%, or slightly more than sure that the defendant was at fault. 

In 2001, Magistrates Colthurst and Johnson conducted 1,585 Informal Hearings in which the tickets were contested, testimony was taken and the magistrates had to decide the outcome of the case.  This means that 5.5 % of the civil infractions that were filed at that court were contested by the defendant in open court.  The magistrates also addressed another 3,033 cases (10.5% of all civil infractions) by either reading a letter from the defendant, or hearing information in open court from the defendant in which the defendant admitted responsibility, but wanted the opportunity to explain the events that led up to the violation.  3,563 cases (12% of all civil infractions filed) were handled by either Judge Lowe or Judge MacDonald.  The remaining 19,706 cases, or 68% of all civil infractions filed, were admitted and paid by the defendant at the counter, through the mail or via the court’s webpage.