Ticketed drivers fined extra if using constitutional rights

In Indianapolis, Marion County Superior Court has started fining
motorists who take their cases to court and settle moments before their
trials start.

Judges hope that will discourage people who go to court in hopes of
winning a dismissal simply because a police officer fails to show up.
The new fines were announced after an investigation by The Indianapolis
Star found that more than one in three traffic ticket cases is
dismissed because officers skip their court dates.

Now, drivers who request a trial and then pay after they get to court
and see the officer has shown up will pay an additional $50 fine. The
policy took effect Monday.

Critics question the policy. Defense attorney Jennifer Lukemeyer said
the court is applying a broad policy to matters that ought to be
handled on a case-by-case basis. The court might be inviting a
class-action lawsuit or review by the Indiana Supreme Court.

"No court should have a uniform policy on imposition of any sentence,
fine or disposition," Lukemeyer said. "It's no different than if the
court tells a defendant, 'If you go to trial, you will get an extra 10
years.'"

Others say the new rules penalize people for exercising their
constitutional rights.

"You have a right to have the state produce their evidence and go
forward," Marion County Chief Public Defender David Cook said. "The
state still has the obligation to show up at trial."

Cook thinks the new rules have a chilling effect that discourages
motorists from coming to court even if they have good excuses that
could persuade a judge.

Under the old rules, drivers accused of running a red light or
speeding, for example, had their cases dismissed if they came to court
and the officer who wrote their ticket was absent. But if the officer
is present, the motorist could pay the fine with no additional penalty.

"This is all because officers didn't show up, and now the court wants
to infringe on a defendant's right to have a trial," Indianapolis
attorney John Fierek said. "That's the wrong approach."

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> In Indianapolis, Marion County Superior Court has started fining
> motorists who take their cases to court and settle moments before their
> trials start.
>
> Judges hope that will discourage people who go to court in hopes of
> winning a dismissal simply because a police officer fails to show up.
> The new fines were announced after an investigation by The Indianapolis
> Star found that more than one in three traffic ticket cases is
> dismissed because officers skip their court dates.
>
> Now, drivers who request a trial and then pay after they get to court
> and see the officer has shown up will pay an additional $50 fine. The
> policy took effect Monday.
>
> Critics question the policy. Defense attorney Jennifer Lukemeyer said
> the court is applying a broad policy to matters that ought to be
> handled on a case-by-case basis. The court might be inviting a
> class-action lawsuit or review by the Indiana Supreme Court.
>
> "No court should have a uniform policy on imposition of any sentence,
> fine or disposition," Lukemeyer said. "It's no different than if the
> court tells a defendant, 'If you go to trial, you will get an extra 10
> years.'"
>
> Others say the new rules penalize people for exercising their
> constitutional rights.
>
> "You have a right to have the state produce their evidence and go
> forward," Marion County Chief Public Defender David Cook said. "The
> state still has the obligation to show up at trial."
>
> Cook thinks the new rules have a chilling effect that discourages
> motorists from coming to court even if they have good excuses that
> could persuade a judge.
>
> Under the old rules, drivers accused of running a red light or
> speeding, for example, had their cases dismissed if they came to court
> and the officer who wrote their ticket was absent. But if the officer
> is present, the motorist could pay the fine with no additional penalty.
>
> "This is all because officers didn't show up, and now the court wants
> to infringe on a defendant's right to have a trial," Indianapolis
> attorney John Fierek said. "That's the wrong approach."
>

Well what do you expect? People fighting corruption are interfering with
the money flow. A solution had to be found, somehow. -Dave

On 29 Jul 2006 10:22:48 -0700, wrote:


>
>"No court should have a uniform policy on imposition of any sentence,
>fine or disposition," Lukemeyer said. "It's no different than if the
>court tells a defendant, 'If you go to trial, you will get an extra 10
>years.'"
>

Hell - courts have always done that.

"Dave" > wrote in message
reenews.net...
>
> > wrote in message
> > "This is all because officers didn't show up, and now the court wants
> > to infringe on a defendant's right to have a trial," Indianapolis
> > attorney John Fierek said. "That's the wrong approach."
> >
>
> Well what do you expect? People fighting corruption are interfering with
> the money flow. A solution had to be found, somehow. -Dave
>
I don't have a problem with fining the citizen in these cases. I do think,
though, that police officers should *also* be fined for not showing up to
testify. I would think that's part of their job, just as it is for the
civilian CSUs. I bet my daughter would be in serious trouble, maybe to the
point of losing her job, if she ignored a subpoena.

Linda

>> Well what do you expect? People fighting corruption are interfering with
>> the money flow. A solution had to be found, somehow. -Dave
>>
> I don't have a problem with fining the citizen in these cases. I do
> think,
> though, that police officers should *also* be fined for not showing up to
> testify. I would think that's part of their job, just as it is for the
> civilian CSUs. I bet my daughter would be in serious trouble, maybe to
> the
> point of losing her job, if she ignored a subpoena.
>
> Linda

Cops have plenty of incentive to show up. Their next promotion depends on
it. If you ask, you will be told that there are no ticket quotas. That is
a bald-faced lie. Cops on traffic duty are rated by number of tickets they
write per hour, and (more important) HOW MUCH MONEY is collected in fines.
That's why you see so many cops on speed patrol on major highways and
ignoring speeders in school zones (for example). 5 over in a school zone is
much more serious than 30 over on the highway, but guess which activity has
the larger fine?

Anyway, when it comes to court, having too many tickets tossed can really
screw up a cop's numbers. So it is in the cops' best interest to show up
and lie to the judge so that the ticket doesn't get tossed. But if the cop
does NOT show up, it hurts nobody except the cop. So nobody is going to
twist a cop's arm and tell them that they have to go to court on their day
off to keep their numbers up. So it is quite common for cops to ignore
court appearances. -Dave

Cliff and Linda Griffith wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> reenews.net...
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > > "This is all because officers didn't show up, and now the court wants
> > > to infringe on a defendant's right to have a trial," Indianapolis
> > > attorney John Fierek said. "That's the wrong approach."
> > >
> >
> > Well what do you expect? People fighting corruption are interfering with
> > the money flow. A solution had to be found, somehow. -Dave
> >
> I don't have a problem with fining the citizen in these cases. I do think,
> though, that police officers should *also* be fined for not showing up to
> testify. I would think that's part of their job, just as it is for the
> civilian CSUs. I bet my daughter would be in serious trouble, maybe to the
> point of losing her job, if she ignored a subpoena.
>
> Linda

The real problem here is the city's method of processing tickets and
collecting fines. In this city, there is but one huge auditorium-sized
traffic court for that large city, and over a third of tickets are
tossed out (and fines uncollected) because police officers choose to
avoid it.

In comparison to another city in another state, the officers set the
court date according to their schedule (usually but 10-14 days from the
date of issuance) in a small court (sometimes just a trailer), and very
few tickets are tossed.

In Indy, the city's inefficient approach to settling traffic tickets is
the problem, and they are now adding additional fines for the ticketed
because of their system's weaknesses, when all those appearing are just
utilizing their constitutional rights.

wrote:
> In Indianapolis, Marion County Superior Court has started fining
> motorists who take their cases to court and settle moments before their
> trials start.
>
> Judges hope that will discourage people who go to court in hopes of
> winning a dismissal simply because a police officer fails to show up.
> The new fines were announced after an investigation by The Indianapolis
> Star found that more than one in three traffic ticket cases is
> dismissed because officers skip their court dates.
>
Not uncommon. Around here the even more disgusting practice is that
the random tax agent will perjure himself on the ticket giving you a
"break" (which is like saying a rapist is giving a woman a "break" by
wearing a condom) by keeping it 10 under, then if you fight it, he
will change it to the actual speed.

Disgusting. But all aspects of the random tax scheme are.

SP Cook

Cliff and Linda Griffith wrote:
>
> I don't have a problem with fining the citizen in these cases. I do think,
> though, that police officers should *also* be fined for not showing up to
> testify. I would think that's part of their job, just as it is for the
> civilian CSUs.

I disagree. A police who fails to show up for court should be treated
the same as his victim. He should be arrested, jailed for an
indefinate period, photoed, printed, have his DL and veh. reg.
suspended, and be smacked with a "criminal record".

If showing up to honor a subpoena, which is a court order, is too hard,
then I have the solution. Do serious useful work and leave motorists
alone.

SP Cook

Cliff and Linda Griffith wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> reenews.net...
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > > "This is all because officers didn't show up, and now the court wants
> > > to infringe on a defendant's right to have a trial," Indianapolis
> > > attorney John Fierek said. "That's the wrong approach."
> > >
> >
> > Well what do you expect? People fighting corruption are interfering with
> > the money flow. A solution had to be found, somehow. -Dave
> >
> I don't have a problem with fining the citizen in these cases.

why not? It's essentially a fee for exercising your right to trial.

> I do think,
> though, that police officers should *also* be fined for not showing up to
> testify. I would think that's part of their job, just as it is for the
> civilian CSUs. I bet my daughter would be in serious trouble, maybe to the
> point of losing her job, if she ignored a subpoena.

ah, but this is not a criminal case... the normal rules don't apply.
Besides, they're better than we are.

nate

SP Cook wrote:
> Cliff and Linda Griffith wrote:
> >
> > I don't have a problem with fining the citizen in these cases. I do think,
> > though, that police officers should *also* be fined for not showing up to
> > testify. I would think that's part of their job, just as it is for the
> > civilian CSUs.
>
> I disagree. A police who fails to show up for court should be treated
> the same as his victim. He should be arrested, jailed for an
> indefinate period, photoed, printed, have his DL and veh. reg.
> suspended, and be smacked with a "criminal record".
>
> If showing up to honor a subpoena, which is a court order, is too hard,
> then I have the solution. Do serious useful work and leave motorists
> alone.

While in principle I agree that cops should be treated no differently
than ordinary citizens, I seem to recall learning in traffic school
that missing traffic court on a civil offense will not lead to the
issuance of a bench warrant (which is for criminal offenses). Hence if
you miss your civil court date, the next time you are stoped by the
police they take you down to the station, but you are free to go once
the fine is paid. There is no criminal record thereafter.

I do think, though, that in the interim your license is automatically
suspended (without necessarily receiving a notice), and I also believe
that usually means so is your insurance.

Jason