The bill establishes that regardless of which party prevails in the civil action, the court will retain the advance deposit. Notably, it specifies that the registered owner or any designated party will not be charged for court costs and fees related to these civil actions, which provides a level of financial relief for defendants. In cases involving tickets issued in school zones, should there be a ruling on the case, the party that does not prevail will bear the responsibility for court costs and fees in those specific circumstances.
SB2267 is a significant amendment to the Illinois Vehicle Code that addresses the handling of civil actions related to tickets issued by local authorities based on automated traffic control systems. A key provision of the bill mandates that when a certified copy of such a ticket is filed in municipal or county court, the local authority is required to provide an advance deposit that covers all associated court costs and fees. This provision is aimed at ensuring that the courts have the necessary funds upfront to process these civil actions efficiently.
Overall, SB2267 represents an important development in the governance of automated traffic enforcement and the judicial processes that accompany it. By delineating financial responsibilities and protections in civil actions involving traffic incidents captured by automated systems, the bill seeks to streamline operations in both the court system and local traffic enforcement agencies, while potentially mitigating disputes over costs.
One of the points of contention surrounding SB2267 is the handling of costs associated with automated traffic enforcement, as some parties may view the advance deposit requirement as a potential financial burden on local authorities, which could influence their operations of automated traffic systems. Additionally, there may be discussions regarding the fairness of requiring court costs to be imposed on the non-prevailing party, particularly in situations where the validity of the automated tickets can be contested. These aspects could spark debates about the balance between enforcing traffic regulations and protecting the rights of drivers.