The Missouri Supreme Court is set to rule on an appeal filed by two drivers who are challenging a lower court’s decision that allows a $3 surcharge on speeding tickets, which benefits the Missouri Sheriffs' Retirement System, to stand.
Daven Fowler and Jerry Keller sued the Missouri Sheriffs' Retirement System in 2017 alleging that a $3 surcharge violates the open court provision of the Missouri Constitution.
“What's interesting to me is that the $3 is just another form of taxing people and taxing people in the inner city for an entity that they don't benefit from,” said attorney Gerald McGonagle who represented the plaintiffs before the trial court. “These are retired elected sheriffs and there's no direct benefit that anyone gets from the $3 except for the retired sheriff.”
Section 14 of the Missouri Constitution states that “the courts of justice shall be open to every person, and certain remedy afforded for every injury to a person, property or character, and that right and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay.”
Although the plaintiffs didn’t allege that the $3 dollar surcharge was discriminatory by race, McGonagle said his client, Mr. Fowler, is African-American and Kansas City has a large population of black people.
“Why would a young African-American man who was attending Howard University have to pay for the retirement of an elected sheriff in Lake Lotawana County,” McGonagle told the St. Louis Record. “What's that got to do with the administration of justice in Kansas City municipal courts? Absolutely nothing. I don’t know if the surcharge is racial in nature but I sure see a problem with it.”
The Missouri Sheriffs' Retirement System has been issuing retirement benefits since 1986, according to its website. To date, some 138 retired sheriffs and 49 beneficiaries are receiving benefits.
“If you're an individual who is earning minimum wage and just trying to get by, $3 can be the difference between keeping the lights on and feeding your children,” McGonagle said.
When the circuit court dismissed the plaintiffs, it cited their failure to name the municipal division clerks as defendants and McGonagle sees it as an attempt to muddy the waters.
“Municipal clerks are not a necessary party,” he said. “All they are is a facilitator for the collection of the funds. The entity that's collecting the funds is the sheriff’s retirement system. They are the ones that get the money and they’ve got millions of dollars that they’ve collected from these individuals and many others.”
The Missouri Sheriffs' Retirement System filed a cross-appeal, questioning whether voluntary payment by the plaintiffs bans their unjust enrichment claim.
“It wasn't a voluntary payment because the plaintiffs had no choice but to pay it,” McGonagle said. “They couldn't get the case resolved without paying the $3 surcharge. That’s not voluntary.”
The voluntary payment doctrine provides for an individual who makes a payment while knowing the facts cannot be refunded if it was by mistake with no fraud or coercion present.
Jeff Padgett, executive director of Missouri Sheriffs’ Retirement System, declined to comment except to say, "We are awaiting a decision regarding this case from the Missouri Supreme Court."