No, You Should Not Pay Your $206 Speeding Ticket With Urine-Soaked Coins
47-year-old Washington resident Michael Lynch tried and failed to pay a $206 speeding ticket with a plastic bag filled with coins and urine. Surprisingly, his special payment for doing 54 mph in a 35 mph construction zone didn't violate any laws...
"It was nasty. It reeked," said Sgt. Phil Anderchuk.
Anderchuk called a U.S. postal inspector to see if federal law had been broken, and learned that it's not against the law to mail a box of bodily fluids, as long as it's properly packed and doesn't emit an obnoxious odor. (Court staff could only smell the contents once they opened the package).
So the sergeant sealed up the box and mailed it back to Lynch — with $27.30 postage due if Lynch wanted his change back.
The Multnomah County courthouse mailroom supervisor says that obscenity-laced payments are "a common daily occurrence," and the office refuses to accept more than $20 worth of coins.
Lynch tried to pay the fine with a standard check, but he addressed it to the wrong agency. He tried again, but made it out for the wrong amount. His ticket is now with a collections agency, which might be more accepting of urine-soaked payments.
Washington man streams his anger — but still must pay traffic ticket [The Oregonian]
(Photo: formatc1)
Post a comment
Comments:
Sigh. Nobody likes speeding tickets, but ... act like a grown-up, geez.
I think their is some law that says coins are legal tender for any debt. Unless it was disclosed to him that they only accepted $20 in coins before he got the ticket, this is a debt and they needed to accept coins as payment.
@wcnghj: This is a common misconception: [www.treasury.gov] Since this court is a public "business" though (I think), I am not sure if this statute applies - I can only assume it would.
@wcnghj: If he rolled the coins and didn't include the urine, they might have been required to accept the payment. However, urinating on coins could be considered defacement of legal tender, which AFAIK is illegal.
hey! is that a "looza" brand juice bottle in that cat pic? Because I use one to store coins in as well.
Meh.... just wipe your butt with some paper money & get on with your life.
@scottr0829: You're misreading it, a little bit.
The key word is "debt". In other words "If you owe money," the creditor has to accept all forms of legal tender, coins, bills, whatever.
However, if you walk into a store and want to buy a $500 television, you don't have a "debt". You're entering into an agreement to sell, and the seller can put restrictions on that exchange of goods as they see fit (e.g., "I will only accept reasonable amounts of cash or coin").
If a bar lets you run up a tab, though, for example, it becomes a debt, at which point the "all debts" clause comes back into play.
In this case, though, the ticket-fine clearly represents a debt. (as evidenced by it being sent to a debt collections agency), and so the government agency was in violation of the law in rejecting his payment of the debt using legal tender.
I think there was a story a few years ago about someone paying a parking ticket upon which he had wiped feces. And I think I remember it landing him a disorderly conduct citation.
My own uniformed beleif is:
- That package was not properly packed for a bodily fluid
- There is a probably a law (or policy, or something) about a citizen subjecting an employee intentionally to an extremely unsanitary /health threatening condition.
(Why urine when you can easily ship it in the cavity of a raw chicken?)
This story reeks, and not just because of the cat piss.
""I encourage you to submit your payment in a more traditional form," he wrote in a January letter. He told Lynch to expect a visit from a postal inspector, presumably to talk about how close he came to violating federal law."
But he didn't break any federal law and the coinage was valid for this debt.
"Lynch apparently got the message, because a few weeks later a check arrived. But it was made out to the wrong agency. Courthouse staff sent it back. In February, a new check arrived, but this time it was made out for the wrong amount: $206, which didn't account for $65 in penalties for arriving late. Last week, the state turned Lynch's case over to a collection agency. "
So due to the courts own refusal to take his money they have only compounded the problem. It's beyond the pale to refuse the original payment amount and turn the debt over to collections because it arrived late. Why not accept the payment and seek the $65 separately? Twice they refused what appeared to be a proper payment for the debt and instead have threatened him with arrest, continued to harass him, and now are trying to ruin his credit.
Urine solves everything.
@wcnghj: I dont know about the law, but if he were in a position to challenge them, the police can safely say they refused the urine not the coins
@snowmoon: You know what? I think once you mail the court a bunch of pennies soaked in urine, they're not going to give you the benefit of the doubt anymore.
There had got to be a way to fit a jelly fish attack in here somehwere. That way the urine could be useful.
I don't blame him for doing that! Nothing annoys me more than cops sitting around looking for a chance to give somebody a ticket.
Why are we so allergic to responsibility? The man was in the wrong. If you do something wrong, and you're busted, own up to it.
I'm tired of everyone with an entitlement complex thinking they're somehow exempt from responsibility. Me, me, me, me, me.
Asshole.
If the ticket was for 42 in a 35, I could see your point. Doing 54 in a 35 is a little bit extreme. Even in speed traps where the speed drops, it usually doesn't drop from 55 to 35; there's often a 45 zone in the middle there.
If you do get caught doing something you know you aren't supposed to be doing, it's stupid to respond by...doing something you know you aren't supposed to be doing.
Apparently those defending Mr Lynch would have no problem receiving their government payments (income tax refund, veterans, unemployment or social security benefits) in pennies or urine soaked bags.
@wcnghj: Correct. Coins are a legal tender for all debt. That does not mean the business has to accept it. Just like a can of cat food is food for my cat, it doesn't mean she has to eat it, want a different "flavor", and/or eat something else instead.
Personally I don't see how he's responsible for paying at this point. The court received his money and sent it back. I call that a refund.
@Danny Champlin: Yeah! Just cuz I decide to speed through a school zone, doesn't mean that a cop sitting there trying to protect them can pull me over!
I mean, just b/c someone breaks the law, why should a police officer act on it. They should all sit in the station house and wait until Danny, who pays their salary after all, calls them to tell them what to do.
In NJ, if you throw, hurl, toss, etc... ANY bodily fluid, including, but not limited to:saliva, blood, urine, feces, seminal fluid or any other bodily fluid on a officer, it is considered assault.
This guy is lucky they didn't call a full out bio hazard response. I worked in a mail room inspecting packages for a major world wide company, and I know if anything suspicious came in, I had to be locked in until we cleared it of anything dangerous.
A cursory search of LexisNexis reveals only one case on-point to this issue, State v. Carroll, 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 928. In that case, the Ohio Court of Appeals held that the Clerk of the Court didn't violate the Coinage Act (31 U.S.C. 5103) when it refused to accept the payment of a fine in loose pennies. The Court said, "It defies logic and common sense that this Congress intended such a wooden and broad application of the statute beyond any control of the payee regardless of circumstances." While this isn't binding outside of this particular appellate district in Ohio, it would likely been seen as persuasive by other courts.
Under this ruling, the refusal in this case was probably lawful.
@Danny Champlin: Somehow, with a $206 fine, I doubt it was just some cop sitting around waiting for someone to go 36 in a 35.
@Bevill: You'd be OK if someone paid you a debt in urine-soaked coins then? I mean, they paid you, right?
Won't somebody think of the urine!!!
Seriously, dude. You're upset because you got caught, we get that. Pay the fine and move on. Life too short to angry up the blood over the small stuff. (Like when some other guy doing 54 on your 35 street t-bones you as you back out of your driveway.)
@snowmoon: Did you really read the article?
Lynch apparently ignored the ticket and missed a court date in which he could have shown up to fight the ticket or argued his case to the judge in a letter. He racked up an extra $65 in fees.Then, the box showed up.
The $65 dollar was part of the "original" debt.
As for the "coinage was valid for the debt", yes, it is a valid form of payment. Doesn't mean they have to accept it. Besides, how would you feel if you were stuck at the counter, while the nice lady/guy counted out $271 in change?
@forgottenpassword: I once tried to make a water filtration device for smoking tobacco out of one of those. It was Looza blackberry and something juice.
@snowmoon
Would you take coins that you knew or suspected were soaked in urine? If you tell me yes you should immediately proceed to your nearest window and repeat, "I'm a liar, I'm a liar, I'm a liar...."
Maybe if the guy would have obeyed the posted speed limit in a construction zone he wouldn't be in this situation to begin with?
What a moron. I recently got a speeding ticket and paid it with a check so I would have the canceled check as proof that I paid it, since if the payment got lost somewhere, I'd be spending a night in jail. Besides, the ticket was my own damn fault, I was speeding, and I held no anger towards the cop who pulled me over. My anger was directed at my radar detector that doesn't do a good job of picking up laser :D
@BoogerRed: I don't have any debtors nor do I intend on lending money so it's a moot point.
The coinage act also doesn't apply to sales of goods or services.
@3RandomBagsOfCr@p_GitEmSteveDave: The article is actually confusing since, to me, it reads that additional fees were racked up between the first and second check.
I'm not saying the guy is not a first class jerk, but the letter ( but not the intent ) of the law was on his side.
I've been pulled over a few times and let go with a warning - not all cops are jerks. But based on this guy's sunny disposition, I'm going to guess he didn't respond to being pulled over in a calm, rational manner.
And if he felt he didn't deserve the ticket and had a valid argument why, he could have gone to court and fought it. He didn't. If you don't take advantage of the opportunities the justice system gives you to seek redress, you have no reason to protest it.
@3RandomBagsOfCr@p_GitEmSteveDave: No. "Original" means first. The article states that the $65 was "extra", therefore not original.
Below is a decent rundown of the few cases out there.
I think the gist of the rulings are that payments that are intended to be unreasonable can be refused. That would leave a huge gray area, but cases like the above would be clear cut.
Only two cases out there and none of them have been appealed so it's pretty weak precedent.
@Bevill: What if you employer paid you in urine soaked coinbags because they resented the fact that, just because you work there, they have to pay you?
@Danny Champlin: @Danny Champlin: He was going 54mph in a 35mph construction zone. In many places, fines are doubled for speeding through a construction zone because of the danger it poses to the people working there. Like it or not, construction zone speed limits are the most legitimate ones you can find outside of a school zone.
@3RandomBagsOfCr@p_GitEmSteveDave: It's only considered assault if he didn't ask for a Cleveland Steamer ;-)
@t325: I got a parking ticket years ago, they wouldn't accept a check. Bank or money order only, NOT EVEN CASH. You're lucky you could pay so easily.
@snowmoon:
While the precedent is weak, the logic behind it certainly makes sense and seems well-grounded.
I doesn't appear that Sgt. Phil Anderchuk sent the fluid to a laboratory for analysis. Can the Sgt. Phil Anderchuk estabish a chain of custody for the coins? For all we know Sgt. Phil Anderchuk urinated on the conins and sent them back to Michael Lynch because he was to lazy to count the coins.
Additionally, the package was returned to Michael Lynch with $27.30 postage due. It is against the law to intentionally mail a package with insufficient postage. I'm reporting this crime at the postal inspection service web site.
There is no proof that Michael Lynch sent urine with his payment. There is proof that Sgt. Phil Anderchuk mailed the urine back to Michael Lynch and intentionally short changed the required postage.
Sgt. Phil Anderchuk should be arrested for disorderly conduct, assault and mail fraud.
@Julius Seizure. Jim to my Peeps: If "some other guy doing 54 on your 35 street t-bones you as you back out of your driveway," then you get the ticket for backing without due care. :) Granted, he might get a ticket for speeding, but you caused the crash.
@edrebber: I think it was mailed COD not insufficient fund. Now, I believe that postal regulations prohibit mailing something COD that was not expected by the recipient.
@edrebber: Nice theory, with the exception that the package showed no signs that there was urine inside until they opened the package. If there were no signs that the urine was somehow introduced to the package during shipment, then urine was in the package when Lynch shipped it. However, they should not have returned it the way they did.
The cat seems to like it.