The State of Civil Traffic Infraction Litigation in Clark County, Nevada

Nevada’s civil traffic infraction system stands as a unique anomaly within the American legal landscape. Unlike most states, which treat traffic violations as criminal offenses, Nevada has classified them as civil matters. This distinction has far-reaching implications for the administration of justice in the state, particularly in Clark County, where the volume of traffic citations is among the highest in the nation.

At the core of the system’s dysfunction is a complex interplay of factors, including the absence of the District Attorney as a prosecuting authority, the subsequent overburdening of the courts, and the pervasive ambiguity within the state’s traffic laws. These interconnected issues have created a system that is often inefficient, unfair, and in dire need of reform.

Traditionally, the District Attorney serves as the public prosecutor, responsible for bringing charges against individuals accused of criminal offenses. This role is fundamental to the administration of justice. However, in the realm of civil traffic infractions, the Clark County District Attorney has adopted an unconventional stance: complete disengagement.

The decision of the District Attorney to abdicate this prosecutorial role has far-reaching implications. By removing a crucial legal actor from the equation, the system has been thrown into imbalance. The absence of a dedicated prosecutor, whose primary function is to represent the state's interests, has created a power vacuum that has been filled, albeit imperfectly, by the judiciary.

“The current state of civil traffic infraction litigation in Clark County, Nevada, is a testament to a dysfunctional system.”

With the District Attorney’s withdrawal from the prosecution of civil traffic infractions, the Nevada court system has been thrust into an unprecedented role. Judges, traditionally arbiters of disputes, now find themselves acting as both judge and, in many respects, prosecutor.

This expanded role presents a myriad of challenges. Courts, already overburdened with a heavy caseload, must now dedicate additional resources to the prosecution of traffic infractions. This diversion of judicial manpower can lead to delays in the resolution of more complex civil and criminal cases. Moreover, the dual role of judge and prosecutor can create potential conflicts of interest and raise questions about impartiality.

The absence of experienced prosecutors within the court system may also result in inconsistencies in case handling and a diminished ability to effectively present the state's case. This can lead to increased burdens on defendants, who may face challenges in defending themselves against the state without the benefit of a dedicated adversarial process.

Compounding the challenges posed by the absence of the District Attorney and the overburdened courts is the issue of poorly drafted traffic legislation. Nevada’s statutes governing civil traffic infractions are often ambiguous, contradictory, or simply outdated. This legislative patchwork creates significant difficulties for both defendants and the judiciary.

For example, local rules, such as Las Vegas Justice Court Rule 7.9, can create significant obstacles for individuals seeking to resolve traffic citations without resorting to a formal hearing. The requirement of “no prior citations” for eligibility for demerit point reductions, for instance, directly conflicts with the fundamental legal principle of the presumption of innocence. A dismissed traffic citation should not be used to penalize a driver in subsequent cases.

Moreover, the system often fails to accommodate the unique circumstances of specific groups. Commercial drivers, for example, are automatically excluded from demerit point reduction programs, denying them opportunities to mitigate the impact of traffic violations. This lack of flexibility highlights the one-size-fits-all approach of the current system, which often disregards the specific needs and challenges faced by different segments of the population.

The current state of civil traffic infraction litigation in Clark County, Nevada, is a testament to a dysfunctional system. The lack of a District Attorney to prosecute cases, along with the overburdened courts, has created a vacuum filled with inefficiency and injustice. Poorly written statutes and rigid procedural rules compound these issues, often prioritizing administrative convenience over defendants' rights.

The result is a system that frequently fails to deliver fair and equitable outcomes. Reform is urgently needed to address the fundamental flaws in this system. This includes restoring the role of the District Attorney, providing adequate resources to the courts, and undertaking a comprehensive review and overhaul of traffic laws. By taking these steps, Nevada can move towards a more just and efficient traffic adjudication process.

At the Maridon Law Firm, we take the time to listen and explain your options. What good is legal service if you don’t understand the approach? When we meet with clients in our office, whether the meeting is the first or we have been meeting with the client for years, you are our guest and we treat you as such.