Postal Service claims it's immune to state, local traffic regulations
A lawyer's claim that the U.S. Postal Service is immune from state and local traffic regulations has angered traffic officials who are now writing their own version of the post office creed.
“Neither snow, nor rain, nor heat, nor gloom of night, nor traffic lights stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed routes,” writes George Hittner, general counsel for American Traffic Solutions, who rejected the lawyer's claim.
Jennifer Breslin, senior litigation counsel for the Postal Service, is attempting to get dismissed almost $700 in traffic tickets given to USPS employees in East Cleveland, Ohio, claiming the service is immune from state and local regulations.
The tickets were received for running red lights in school zones, ATS reports.
“In providing mail service across the country, the Postal Service attempts to work within local and state laws and regulations, when feasible,” Breslin wrote in response to a summons for payment. “However, as you are probably aware, the Postal Service enjoys federal immunity from state and local regulation.”
The USPS Employee Safety Guide states employees will “receive no special privileges or rights as a postal driver.”
David Van Allen, regional spokesman for the Postal Service, said in an interview that postal employees “are subject to obeying local traffic laws and ordinances just like any other citizen. However, the Postal Service cannot legally be billed for any traffic violation fines incurred by its employees.”
East Cleveland Mayor Gary Norton said he was bewildered by the news.
“I was unaware that the post office doesn't have to stop at red lights or obey the speed limit,” he told Cleveland.com. “But since they are, I wish I'd get my mail faster.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Judge orders W.Va. agency to release pollution data
- Man caught jumping White House fence
- 4 private security guards convicted
- Coast Guard to seek billions to protect Arctic interests
- Security at Capitol questioned
- 8 arrested in post-game riots in Morgantown
- North Korean detainee reunites with family in Ohio
- Coburn’s final ‘Wastebook’ tallies $25B in what he considers ‘pork’
- Social Security recipients to get increase in benefits
- Personal use of Secret Service agents on staffer’s behalf draws investigaton
- Academic scandal at University of North Carolina bigger than previously reported