La. R.S. » RS
Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 32:57 (2026)

Penalties; alternatives to citation

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

NOTE: This provision of law was included in the Unconstitutional Statutes Biennial Report to the Legislature, dated March 14, 2016.

§57. Penalties; alternatives to citation

            A.(1) Except as provided in Paragraph (2) of this Subsection and Subsections H and I of this Section, the first violation of the provisions of this Chapter or any regulation of the department, secretary, and commissioner made pursuant thereto shall be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred seventy-five dollars or by imprisonment for not more than thirty days, or both, unless otherwise specifically provided. A subsequent violation shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than ninety days, or both.

            (2) If a violation of R.S. 32:53(A)(2) is committed in the preparation of or during the commission of a felony offense in order to escape detection, the violator shall be punished by an additional fine of two hundred dollars or by imprisonment of an additional thirty days, or both. For any violation of R.S. 32:53(A)(2), the vehicle may be immediately impounded.

            B. If the violator is other than an individual, there shall be no imprisonment but a double fine imposed.

            C.(1) Each governing authority on whose behalf citations are issued for alleged violations of the provisions of this Chapter shall establish a procedure by which alleged offenders may promise, in writing, to appear in court to answer the charge or charges. The written promise to appear shall be accepted in lieu of posting bond or depositing a driver's license.

            (2) Each city, parish, and district court for traffic offenses within their respective jurisdictions may also establish a procedure by court rule by which certain traffic offenses, as determined by the court, constitute one-time-appearance violations. Alleged offenders who are charged with a one-time-appearance violation and who have not paid the fine prior to the date and time for appearance as indicated on the citation shall be presumed to plead not guilty. The alleged offender shall then, at the date and time indicated on the citation, appear in court, be arraigned and proceed to trial. If the trial is not held on the date indicated on the citation and no continuance has been granted, then the charges against the alleged offender may be dismissed.

            D. Each governing authority on whose behalf citations are issued for alleged violations of the provisions of this Chapter shall establish a procedure by which alleged offenders may plead guilty or nolo contendere to the alleged offense and pay the fine by mail. However, if the offender fails to pay the fine by mail in advance of adjudication and fails to appear at the time and date indicated on the citation, the court may impose an additional penalty in an amount not to exceed the amount of the fine for the original violation unless the fine was paid by certified mail and the postmark indicates that the payment was mailed on or before the date indicated on the citation. In addition, each governing authority shall establish a procedure allowing for payment of the fine by credit card as it may designate. However, the procedure shall not limit such payments to payment by credit card.

            E. The provisions of Subsections C and D of this Section shall not apply to citations alleging that the operator of the motor vehicle was:

            (1) Operating the motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances.

            (2) Exceeding the speed limit by fifteen miles per hour or more.

            (3) Exceeding the speed limit in a school zone.

            (4) Driving with a suspended license.

            (5) Drag racing.

            (6) Cited for failure to maintain compulsory security.

            F. The provisions of Subsections C and D of this Section shall not apply when the operator was involved in an accident in which a person was injured, nor shall those provisions apply when an operator is alleged to have committed the same offense twice within a period of one hour.

            G.(1) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, any person who is found guilty, pleads guilty, or pleads nolo contendere to any motor vehicle offense when the citation was issued for a violation on the Huey P. Long Bridge or the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway Bridge or approaches to and from such bridges by police employed by the Greater New Orleans Expressway Commission shall pay an additional cost of five dollars.

            (2) All proceeds generated by this additional cost shall be deposited into the state treasury.

            H. If a person operating a motor vehicle exceeds the speed limit or breaches a construction zone or utility work safety zone on the portion of a highway or road which is under active construction or maintenance and construction or utility workers are on site, or which is in the process of being repaired and construction or utility workers are on site, the fine shall be not less than five hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars.

            I. If a person operating a motor vehicle violates the provisions of this Chapter while on the portion of a highway which is designated as a highway safety corridor pursuant to R.S. 32:267, the fine shall be not less than seven hundred fifty dollars nor more than one thousand dollars, or imprisonment for not more than thirty days, or both, unless otherwise specifically provided.

            J. For purposes of Subsections H and I of this Section, the following words shall have the following meanings:

            (1) "Construction zone" shall mean an area of a highway with construction, maintenance, or utility work activities marked by temporary traffic control devices consisting of signs, channelizing devices, barriers, pavement markings, and work vehicles.

            (2) "Utility work safety zone" shall mean an area where utility companies are actively performing work such as digging, installing, or repairing underground or overhead utilities marked by temporary traffic control signs.

            Acts 1962, No. 310, §1. Amended by Acts 1977, No. 113, §1, eff. June 22, 1977; Acts 1983, No. 583, §1; Acts 1995, No. 1036, §1; Acts 1997, No. 775, §1; Acts 1997, No. 1011, §2; Acts 1997, No. 1145, §1; Acts 2003, No. 1032, §1; Acts 2008, No. 168, §1; Acts 2012, No. 834, §5, eff. July 1, 2012; Acts 2021, No. 478, §1, eff. June 29, 2021; Acts 2022, No. 426, §1; Acts 2023, No. 256, §1; Acts 2024, No. 127, §1; Acts 2025, No. 202, §1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 55 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1967–2025 · leading case: Greater New Orleans Expressway v. Olivier, 860 So. 2d 22 (La. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Greater New Orleans Expressway v. Olivier, 860 So. 2d 22 (La. 2003). · cites it 12× “R.S. 32:57 is unconstitutional on several grounds.”
State v. Lanclos, 980 So. 2d 643 (La. 2008). · cites it 17× “00 fee used to supplement police officer salaries and to purchase or maintain police equipment, violates the doctrine of separation of powers. In Safety Net, we distinguished a penalty assessed by statute as a "court cost" from a tax.”
State v. McGraw, 1 So. 3d 645 (La. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “R.S. 32:57. In its recent ruling in Virginia v.”
King v. Louviere, 543 So. 2d 1327 (La. 1989). “R.S. 32:57. The Highway Regulatory Act, La.”
Greater New Orleans Exp. Com'n v. Olivier, 892 So. 2d 570 (La. 2005). · cites it 2× “" The Commission has appealed to this court, challenging the district court's judgment on three grounds: (1) the court improperly held that defendants had standing to raise the issue of the constitutionality of the statute; (2) the court erred in declaring the statute…”
State v. Fuslier, 954 So. 2d 866 (La. Ct. App. 2007). “R.S. 32:57(A). Accordingly, Defendant was not entitled to a jury trial on any of these three misdemeanor offenses.”
State v. Stoutes, 980 So. 2d 230 (La. Ct. App. 2008). “R.S. 32:57(C-E); see also State v. Sherman, supra, which held that SITA may occur immediately before the arrest, or even in lieu of the arrest, so long as the officer has probable cause to arrest for an offense allowing arrest, following Rawlings v.”
State v. Fraychineaud, 620 So. 2d 338 (La. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “" The penal provision for a violation of the speed limit laws is provided for by LSA-R.S. 32:57 which reads as follows: A.”
State v. Bergman, 887 So. 2d 127 (La. Ct. App. 2004). “32:58 is found in LSA-R.S. 32:57(A) which provides for a fine of not more than $175 and/or imprisonment for not more than thirty days for a first violation.”
Capone v. Ormet Corp., 822 So. 2d 684 (La. Ct. App. 2002). “R.S. 32:57. These Title 32 laws when construed with the laws in Title 48 show that the roadside ditch is not intended for vehicular usage.”
Sevin v. Par. of Jefferson, 621 F. Supp. 2d 372 (E.D. La. 2009). “101-27 at 17 (using evidence to show that violations of the ATSE “are prosecuted in the First Parish Court in the identical manner as misdemeanors under LSA-R.S. 32:57.”). Finally, in an attempt to stave off a possible jurisdictional challenge, the plaintiffs have argued that…”
State v. Cowart, 862 So. 2d 225 (La. Ct. App. 2003). “R.S. 32:57. There is no evidence here that the Defendant's vehicle was exempted from inspection.”
Show all 55 citing cases →
La. Rev. Stat. § 32:57(A): 5 cases
State v. Fuslier, 954 So. 2d 866 (La. Ct. App. 2007). “R.S. 32:57(A). Accordingly, Defendant was not entitled to a jury trial on any of these three misdemeanor offenses.”
State v. Bergman, 887 So. 2d 127 (La. Ct. App. 2004). “32:58 is found in LSA-R.S. 32:57(A) which provides for a fine of not more than $175 and/or imprisonment for not more than thirty days for a first violation.”
State v. Davenport, 520 So. 2d 463 (La. Ct. App. 1988).
State v. Knight, 574 So. 2d 483 (La. Ct. App. 1991).
Farris v. Jefferson (W.D. La. 2021).
La. Rev. Stat. § 32:57(C): 1 case
State v. Cox, 963 So. 2d 1080 (La. Ct. App. 2007).
La. Rev. Stat. § 32:57(C)(1): 1 case
State v. McGraw, 1 So. 3d 645 (La. Ct. App. 2008). “R.S. 32:57. In its recent ruling in Virginia v.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 32:57(D): 1 case
Primas v. State, Dep't of Pub. Saf. & Corr., Off. of Motor Vehs., 734 So. 2d 899 (La. Ct. App. 1999).
La. Rev. Stat. § 32:57(E): 1 case
State v. Cox, 963 So. 2d 1080 (La. Ct. App. 2007).
La. Rev. Stat. § 32:57(E)(F): 1 case
Opinion No. (La. Att'y Gen. 2006).
La. Rev. Stat. § 32:57(G): 8 cases
State v. Lanclos, 980 So. 2d 643 (La. 2008). “00 fee used to supplement police officer salaries and to purchase or maintain police equipment, violates the doctrine of separation of powers. In Safety Net, we distinguished a penalty assessed by statute as a "court cost" from a tax.”
Greater New Orleans Expressway v. Olivier, 860 So. 2d 22 (La. 2003). “R.S. 32:57 is unconstitutional on several grounds.”
Greater New Orleans Exp. Com'n v. Olivier, 892 So. 2d 570 (La. 2005). “" The Commission has appealed to this court, challenging the district court's judgment on three grounds: (1) the court improperly held that defendants had standing to raise the issue of the constitutionality of the statute; (2) the court erred in declaring the statute…”
State v. Williams, 94 So. 3d 770 (La. 2012).
Harris v. Jefferson Par. President & Par. Council, 119 So. 3d 603 (La. Ct. App. 2013).
La. Rev. Stat. § 32:57(G)(1): 3 cases
Greater New Orleans Expressway v. Olivier, 860 So. 2d 22 (La. 2003). “R.S. 32:57 is unconstitutional on several grounds.”
Greater New Orleans Expressway Comm'n v. Olivier, 875 So. 2d 876 (2004).
Greater New Orleans Exp. Com'n v. Olivier, 875 So. 2d 876 (La. Ct. App. 2004).
La. Rev. Stat. § 32:57(G)(2): 4 cases
Greater New Orleans Expressway v. Olivier, 860 So. 2d 22 (La. 2003). “R.S. 32:57 is unconstitutional on several grounds.”
State v. Lanclos, 980 So. 2d 643 (La. 2008). “00 fee used to supplement police officer salaries and to purchase or maintain police equipment, violates the doctrine of separation of powers. In Safety Net, we distinguished a penalty assessed by statute as a "court cost" from a tax.”
Greater New Orleans Expressway Comm'n v. Olivier, 875 So. 2d 876 (2004).
Greater New Orleans Exp. Com'n v. Olivier, 875 So. 2d 876 (La. Ct. App. 2004).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.