KipEsquire said on February 13, 2006  

Ex post facto simply means that what was legal yesterday suddenly becomes punishable today. Traffic infractions were punishable yesterday, so XPF doesn't apply.

The better argument to make is an estoppel / "finality of judgments" argument and thereby claim a procedural due process violation -- if the penalty has already been issued (and paid), then one can and should argue that the government is barred by due process from revisiting it.

 JDB said on February 13, 2006  

No need to haul out the 14th Amendment. Article I, section 10 says: "No State shall . . .pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts . . .." Section 10 actually has a lot of "no State shall" provisions.

 Anonymous said on February 14, 2006  

The ex post facto clause applies to more than just making actions innocent at the time criminal. The second category could apply here if driving infractions are crimes. See Calder v. Bull (Chase, J.):

1st. Every law that makes an action , done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2nd. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3rd. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender.

3 U.S 386, 390.

I would think, however, in light of the cases upholding sex-offender registry laws requiring registration for offenses prior to the act, the VA law seems to be on solid ground. Surely points toward a license are less criminal than a mark of shame like the registries.

 Anonymous said on February 15, 2006  

It is alot more money than $20. It is more like at least $150 and if it is a DUI, upwards of a $1000.