Statistics used by the Arkansas State Police and cited in a prosecutor's ruling that the town of Damascus runs a speed trap were inaccurate, the city attorney said in a response released late Wednesday.
Beau Wilcox, who represents the town of about 385 residents, also said Damascus, which lies in Faulkner and Van Buren counties about 20 miles north of Conway, is not in violation of the state's speed-trap law "because of multiple, severe Constitutional deficiencies in the law itself."
"The plain language of the statute ... is not plain at all, which gives rise to the argument that Damascus cannot be penalized by way of legislation that is fraught with ambiguity and problematic language," Wilcox wrote in a nine-page response emailed to Prosecuting Attorney Cody Hiland and the news media.
Hiland said his office would review the response, which it received Wednesday evening.
U.S. 65 runs through the town's full north-south length and is a key route to such tourist sites as Branson.; the Buffalo National River; and Greers Ferry Lake. The highway's 65 mph limit drops to 45 mph through the main part of Damascus.
In late February, Hiland found that Damascus was operating a speed trap under Arkansas Code Annotated 12-8-401 through 403.
A city is in violation of that law if its revenue from traffic fines and costs related to its traffic citations exceeds 30 percent of the town's total expenses, less capital expenses and debt service, in the preceding year. Alternatively, a city also is in violation if more than 50 percent of its misdemeanor tickets issued on a state highway are for people driving 10 mph or less over the speed limit. Sanctions include ordering the town to cease patrolling affected highways or ordering the town to pay all or part of future revenue from such traffic violations to a county fund for public schools.
In the response, Wilcox said the city clerk had determined the revenue figures cited in Hiland's report included some fines, fees and costs that resulted from neither speeding citations nor violations of city ordinances.
Wilcox said the figures incorrectly included revenue from fines and costs associated with nonmoving violations and other offenses not associated with speeding -- among them citations for vehicular tag problems, defective equipment, misdemeanor drunken driving and moving violations such as improper passing of a school bus or a law enforcement vehicle.
"The statute is, in common parlance called the 'Speed Trap' statute but in the very language of this section of the Code, the ill-defined [phrase] 'traffic offenses' is used," Wilcox argued. "As motorists are generally aware, speeding is a very specific offense, and there are numerous other offenses that are associated with operation of a vehicle in an unlawful manner."
Wilcox said the statute "simply does not provide the precision necessary to determine what a 'traffic offense' is."
The law gives a judicial district's prosecutor the authority to make a violation ruling and to order a sanction.
Hiland, who has not ruled on a sanction, said in his report that the state police and the state Legislative Audit Division had examined Damascus data three ways and for two time periods, 2013-14 and 2014-15. He said all three methods found the citations had exceeded the 30 percent threshold.
City revenue from traffic fines and costs above the 30 percent level ranged from $77,836 to $298,449, depending on the year examined and the method of analysis, according to Hiland's report.
Wilcox countered that the state's speed-trap statutes "are plagued with incomplete and ill- or inadequately defined language."
"The speed trap statute effectively places the Prosecutor in the position of adjudicating the issue at hand and assessing penalties for presumed violators of the said statute. ... there is an obvious and troubling lack of due process afforded Damascus or similar municipalities under the statute in the present form," Wilcox wrote.
After reviewing the town's response, Hiland said late Wednesday that his office will "issue a written finding addressing the final disposition on the substance of the matter and any sanction levied against the city, should the final decision be adverse to the city's interest."
State Desk on 03/23/2017