ILNews

Federal case challenges policies of Marion County Traffic Court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


A new lawsuit against Marion County's Traffic Court has implications for how all state-level judges handle fines for citations and violations, and raises questions about whether a part of the judicial system in Indiana's largest county operates fairly and openly.

In the lawsuit filed in December, one man claims he wanted to protest a $25 citation for not wearing his seat belt properly, since he has a pacemaker and his doctor instructed him to wear the shoulder harness under his arm to avoid damaging the medical device. But talk of a court policy that could mean an additional $500 for litigating his case led the man to not challenge the ticket but pay it instead.

Another man traveled 8 miles over the speed limit and fought it in court, despite being warned he could be fined an extra $400 on top of the ticket cost. He lost and ended up being fined $549.50, more than three times what it would have cost him to simply accept the citation and pay the $149.50 fine.

A third man went to court to observe the proceedings, but was told by a bailiff that he couldn't enter as he was not a defendant or involved in any case. The claims are that before court begins, the bailiff announces the closed courtroom policy and threatens to have anyone not involved in a case, yet remains in the courtroom anyway, arrested for trespassing and immediately taken to jail. Once the judge enters and begins court, the bailiff locks the doors so that no one else can enter during the session that can last up to four hours.

Those examples are alleged to have happened in the traffic court known officially as Marion Superior's Criminal Division 13, and each is referred to in the ongoing federal lawsuit against that court, the presiding Judge William E. Young, and the City of Indianapolis. The three plaintiffs are suing to stop others from losing what they claim they have: their constitutional right for a day in court to argue their case on the merits.

The case is Toshiano Ishii, Matthew Stone, and Adam Lenkowsky v. Marion County Superior Court No. 13, The Hon. William E. Young, and the City of Indianapolis, No. 1:09-CV-1509. Indianapolis attorney Paul Ogden filed the case in early December in Marion Superior Court, but it's been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. The class action complaint seeks to end the policies put in place by Judge Young, who took over the traffic court in January 2009. The suit also targets the newly opened parking citation court in Indianapolis, in which defendants who don't pay their tickets prior to a scheduled hearing could be assessed up to $2,500 in fines.

Those fining and access policies undermine the public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, and are highly prejudicial to the administration of justice, according to the lawsuit.

"They're basically punishing people for asking for their day in court," Ogden said. "Some will say that the judge has the authority under statute to increase fines, but you always come back to the fact that the fines are being tacked on because people are wanting to fight a ticket in court, not because of what the judge finds out during the case. The principal is that people should be able to ask for a trial, and be allowed to have that trial without the fear of being burdened because of that. They deserve that right."

Chief litigation counsel for Indianapolis Jonathan Mayes said it's too early in the process to address most of the issues in the suit, but he said many of the comments and allegations by the plaintiffs are taken out of context.

For example, on the issue of public access, Mayes said that the state fire marshal limits how many people should be inside the courtroom at one time and that regularly impacts the caseload and access.

"You have such a large amount of cases during the day and you hear them at a rapid pace, outside of what you may see in another state or federal court," he said. "They often set hundreds of cases, and when you have that many defendants and an equal amount of traffic enforcement officers, you know that the limit could easily be exceeded for that purpose of what the fire marshal orders. You have to do something."

It's not fair to accuse the court of simply denying people access, as if there were open seats available in the courtroom, he said.

"There are so many permeations that reach the conclusion that what the judge does is reasonable and constitutional," Mayes said. "To jump to the conclusion that the judge is violating the law is a rush to judgment without looking at the entire picture."

Ogden said that under state law, court costs are limited to $70. He also noted that a specific statute imposes a fee ceiling of $500 for total costs, but that the Marion County Traffic Court has gone above that to impose additional fines on top of the traffic ticket costs.

He plans to ask the federal court to certify a question for the Indiana Supreme Court to review - specifically how state courts are allowed to assess fines and run their courtrooms under the state law and constitution.

"In this case, I'm not sure the federal court can tell state court judges how to run their courts," Ogden said, pointing out that three of the 11 counts deal with federal issues and the rest involve state law questions. "The Indiana Supreme Court really has jurisdiction in deciding how state courts are run and they should decide those issues."

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT