One of the common sayings we lawyers hear about the law is that “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” Like most such sayings the truth is usually more complicated than that, but sometimes such sayings are right on the money. This was illustrated recently by the opinion of Maryland’s Court of Appeals in State of Maryland Central Collection Unit v. Jordan.
The Court’s opinion dealt with a judgment the State of Maryland obtained against Jordan for penalties arising from his failure to maintain insurance on a vehicle registered in Maryland in his name. Jordan owned a truck that he had insured, but the Motor Vehicle Administration said he failed to maintain or provide proof of insurance on the vehicle. He was fined and a judgment eventually obtained against him.
Jordan claimed that he sold the truck for cash before the insurance was cancelled, and then it was never driven on the road using his tags without insurance. He appealed the District Court judgment against him, and the Circuit Court judge believed his testimony that he did not know he had violated the law. The MVA had contended that it tried to get information from him about the insurance status of the vehicle, and he failed to respond. The trial Judge set aside the judgment, and the State appealed to the state’s highest court. Jordan did not file a brief but relied on the Circuit Court opinion.
The Court noted that ordinarily proving a violation of a statute that punishes a citizen requires proof of knowledge or intent, unless the law is deemed a “strict liability” statute. The Transportation Article of the Maryland Code requires that to register a vehicle in Maryland the owner must provide proof of financial security, normally motor vehicle liability insurance. The law specifies the minimum amounts of liability insurance required ($20,000 for injury to one person, $15,000 for property damage). If the insurance is allowed to lapse, the owner must turn in the tags of the vehicle.
Section 17-106 of the Transportation Article provides penalties of $150 per vehicle without the required insurance for up to 30 days, and $7 a day thereafter up to a maximum of $2,500 per year. Jordan in fact violated the law for nearly two years and had a judgment of over $5,000 entered against him. Section 17-107 provides penalties for driving a vehicle the driver knows or should know has no insurance.
The Court of Appeals held that 17-106 is a strict liability statute, and it was no excuse that Jordan said he did not know he was violating the law. The Court relied on the fact that only knowing violations of the law on driving an uninsured vehicle could be punished, while no such language was in 17-106. These are the types of penalties, the Court said, that the defendant generally is in a position to avoid, as Jordan could have if he responded to MVA. The limited nature of the fines showed that the goal was more regulating conduct than punishment.
This case illustrates the importance of knowing the vehicle laws, since ignorance may very well be no defense.