Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 12-2490
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (8:12-cv-01248-JFM)
Argued:
Decided:
January 7, 2014
for Appellees.
ON BRIEF: Stephen H. Ring, Gaithersburg,
Maryland;
Christopher
R.
Dunn,
DECARO,
DORAN,
SICILIANO,
GALLAGHER & DEBLASIS, LLP, Bowie, Maryland, for Appellants.
Sandra D. Lee, KARPINSKI, COLARESI & KARP, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellees.
permits
localities
to
employ
speed
monitoring
years,
two
electronically-signed
Maryland
speeding
towns
issued
citations
by
During
number
first-class
of
mail.
use
process.
of
the
citations
as
evidence
at
trial
violate
due
I.
Snider
International
Brown,
and
action
challenging
form
of
Al
Goyburu
automated
the
Corporation,
(Appellants)
Mark
filed
constitutionality
speeding
of
citations. 1
Cranford,
Stan
putative
class
the
issuance
Appellants
and
received
citations from the Town of Forest Heights, Maryland and the Town
of Riverdale Park, Maryland (Appellees).
The
putative
class
action
never
constitutionality of the speed camera program.
challenged
the
A.
Since 2006, the Maryland General Assembly has permitted the
use of speed monitoring systems throughout designated areas
within the state.
pilot
run
expanded
in
Montgomery
statewide
in
County,
the
speed
October
2009.
After a
camera
Under
program
Maryland
21-
21-809(a)(5).
21-
amounts
to
an
admission
of
civil
liability
and
may
21-809(g).
General
Assembly
further
prescribed
the
citation
to
the
registered
the
form
and
of
the
recorded
vehicle.
21-809(d)(1).
An
agency
is
either
the
local
police force or, where a locality lacks its own police force,
the entity charged with administering the automated citations.
21-809(a)(2).
owners
The
information;
citation
the
must
time,
contain
the
and
location
date,
registered
of
the
of
recipient
Maryland
809(d)(5).
21-809(d)(1).
The
in
may
lieu
recipient
elect
of
may
trial
paying
the
present
for
in
the
District
penalty.
21-
consideration
any
The
court
determines
liability
using
21-809(e)(3).
a
At
corroborating
operator.
evidence
21-809(e)(1).
certificate
affirming
or
authentication
by
the
systems
both
violation
and
satisfaction
21-809(e)(1).
of
Under
into
evidence
at
trial:
the
systems
operators
successfully
completed
5
self-test
prior
to
the
by
an
809(b)(2)-(4).
independent
calibration
laboratory.
21-
21-809(e)(2).
Maryland
resident. 3
21-809(d)(4),
(f)(4).
In
this
context, the statute does not specify the use of any particular
mail service or delivery method.
arises
when
describing
procedures
for
defense
that
the
registered owner was not driving the vehicle at the time of the
alleged violation.
21-809(f)(3).
B.
Between May 2010 and January 2012, Appellees issued fiftyfive citations via first-class mail to Appellants. 4
paid
some
Appellants
of
these
defaulted
citations
by
neither
immediately.
paying
the
Appellants
Other
times,
citations
nor
electing
trial.
In
yet
other
instances,
Appellants
elected
and
still
refused
to
pay.
As
to
all
fifty-five
filed
putative
class
action
in
the
United
Appellants
and immediately
by
paid
citations
issued
the
Town
of
Forest
by
the
Town
of
Riverdale
Park,
(3)
anyone
issued
to
nonpayment,
and
(4)
anyone
suffering
under
42
U.S.C.
1983,
alleging
default
due
to
Appellants sought
violations
of
the
ruling
on
the
class
certification
motion,
the
district
court
constitutional
laws
held
that
through
it
1983
could
not
enforce
actions,
and
state
that
res
contents
process.
did
not
Appellants
violate
timely
substantive
appealed,
or
procedural
challenging
only
due
the
II.
We review a district courts grant of summary judgment de
novo.
Glynn v. EDO Corp., 710 F.3d 209, 213 (4th Cir. 2013).
notwithstanding,
denial
on
the
The district court held that res judicata did not apply to
the two paid classes because those plaintiffs never received a
final judgment on the merits.
III.
Appellants maintain that the automated citations violated
both
procedural
and
substantive
due
process
in
three
ways.
process,
certified
and
that
mail.
Appellees
Second,
must
Appellants
use,
at
contend
minimum,
that
citations
trial.
noncompliance
Third,
with
Appellants
21-809(b)
claim
violated
that
the
the
citations
process
required
(4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S.
144, 150 (1970)).
United States
noncompliance would not violate federal law and thus cannot give
rise to 1983 relief.
Cir. 1988); see also Street v. Surdyka, 492 F.2d 368, 371 (4th
Cir. 1974) (officer cannot be liable under 1983 for violating
9
Maryland
arrest
constitutional
law
law
unless
governing
he
. . .
also
violated
arrests).
the
federal
The
alleged
Cir.
The
district
court
properly
found
that
IV.
The
Fourteenth
Amendment
prohibits
the
States
from
process
prevents
mistaken
or
unjust
Due process
Procedural
deprivation,
while
We consider
10
A.
At bottom, procedural due process requires fair notice of
impending state action and an opportunity to be heard.
Mathews
hearing are two distinct features of due process, and are thus
governed by different standards.
534 U.S. 161, 168 (2002).
to
339
convey
U.S.
information
at
314;
concerning
see
also
deprivation.
Presley
v.
the
familiar
three-step
inquiry
for
City
of
Mathews set
determining
the
a balancing of the
private interest and the public interest, along with the risk
of
an
erroneous
deprivation
of
such
interest
through
the
1.
Appellants challenge first-class mail as a constitutionally
insufficient means of providing notice.
Mullane
is
the
appropriate
rather
an
effort
guidepost
As noted in Dusenbery,
for
this
question.
reasonably
11
calculated
to
effect
actual
notice.
Mullane,
necessary.
satisfies
U.S.
Dusenbery,
due
reasonably
339
534
process
certain
at
U.S.
where
to
315.
at
it
inform
Actual
notice
170-71.
either
those
is
not
Instead,
notice
is
in
itself
or
2)
where
1)
affected
Mullane,
547
U.S.
220,
226
(2006);
Tulsa
Profl
Jones v.
Collection
Servs., Inc v. Pope, 485 U.S. 478, 490 (1988); see also Mullane,
339
U.S.
at
recognized
319
as
(recognizing
an
efficient
that
the
mails
and
inexpensive
today
are
means
of
cf.
Greene
v.
Lindsey,
456
U.S.
444,
455
(1982)
providing
proper
notice
the
under
constitutionally
due
process).
required
Where
the
assurance
of
identities
of
to
the
record
addresses.
Mullane,
339
U.S.
at
316
to
ensure
actual
notice
is
minimum
constitutional
upon
Appellants.
Appellees
mailed
connection
with
Through
summonses
the
to
recorded
their
the
designated
addresses
vehicles.
It
agencies,
registered
in
difficult
to
is
by
Transp.
Vehicle
the
states
transportation
Administration
13-402,
13-403
(MVA).
(requiring
agency,
See
Md.
residents
the
Maryland
Code
to
Ann.,
register
were sent to what was likely to be the most current address for
the registered owner.
(requiring
owners
address changes).
to
the
MVA
within
thirty
days
of
See Robinson v.
13
of
this
method
for
two
reasons.
First,
an
harm
from
the
method
of
notice,
cannot
challenge
the
Second, due
Appellants
offer
no
facts
that
would
have
Appellants payment
reasonableness
in
continuing
to
use
the
same
notice
procedure.
Appellants
spend
significant
time
attacking
first-class
do
not
displace
requirements
for
in
personam
This
rem,
and
quasi
in
rem,
thus
we
employ
the
reasonably
As to their
is
insufficient
for
providing
notice
in
an
However, Miserandino
Furthermore,
and
contrary
to
Appellants
position,
notice;
even
if
it
did,
such
enhancement
would
not
held
that
improvements
in
the
reliability
of
new
(2d
Cir.
2004)
(As
notice
by
is
deemed
to
be
to
recipients
demonstrate
correlation
signature
upon
delivery
and
an
requiring
improvement
a
or
16
See
mail,
thus
certified
only
increases
chance
of
actual
Id. at 234.
Courts
identical
notice,
returned unclaimed.
even
where
the
certified
notices
are
Dir. of Revenue, 455 F. Supp. 2d 978, 989 (W.D. Mo. 2006), affd
sub nom. Crum v. Vincent, 493 F.3d 988 (8th Cir. 2007).
follows
that
prerequisite
Griffin,
scheme
d[id]
941
was
not
initial
to
the
A.2d
not
of
484
an
the
to
certified
of
requiring
indication
that
infirm
certified
first-class
(explaining
constitutionally
prior
Without
failure
sufficiency
at
require
undeliverable
mail).
an
merely
mail
[the
that
the
to
be
use
of]
the
is
not
mail.
dual
Cf.
mailing
because
[it]
returned
first
first-class
It
as
class
mailing
See
had
been
returned
unclaimed.).
as
something
more
revealing
than
second
argument
challenges
the
validity
of
procedural
occurrence
of
due
process
deprivation
violation
but
arises
rather
the
125.
Therefore,
to
determine
whether
not
failure
upon
the
of
due
constitutional
private
risk
interest
involved,
2)
the
of
an
erroneous
probable
procedural
value,
if
safeguards,
any,
and
3)
of
additional
the
state
or
substitute
interest,
including
than
evaluating
the
twenty
MVAs
years
ago,
deprivation
we
applied
procedures
with
Mathews
respect
in
to
Plumer v. State of
required
hearing,
setting
notice
to
forth
the
the
licensee
basis
for
of
the
The procedure in
a
pre-deprivation
suspension,
and
an
Id. at 932.
Id.
received
constitutionally
19
sufficient
notice
of
the
evidence
with
their
own.
Appellants
interest
is
given
the
trial
mechanism
already
in
place.
The
burdened
safeguards,
resources,
were
exhausting
that
we
to
require
significant
would
provide
additional
fiscal
little,
and
if
procedural
administrative
any,
additional
fact,
their
Notwithstanding
the
mere
availability
of
grievances
undermines
the
that
fact
10
trial
in
Appellants
Appellants
which
to
argument.
predicate
their
20
citations
evidence.
as
an
affidavit
or
otherwise
admissible
See Mora,
constitutionally arbitrary.
Md., 683 F.3d 525, 535 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting Lewis, 523 U.S.
at 846).
any
pre-deprivation
procedural
21
protections
or
of
adequate
Rucker
the
state
interest
in
traffic
enforcement.
Furthermore,
the
state
has
[alleged] errors.
given
[them]
the
means
to
correct
the
V.
We find that the notice and hearing afforded by Marylands
speed camera statute satisfy due process.
The availability of
election,
trial
adequate
in
state
court,
opportunity
imposition
of
the
to
upon
be
Appellants
heard
statutory
on
any
penalties.
objections
Any
flaws
provided
prior
in
to
the
Accordingly,
22