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. Yes diversity is so very important. With justice Rucker off ... the court is too white. Still too male. No Hispanic justice. No LGBT justice. And there are other checkboxes missing as well. This will not do. I say hold the seat until a physically handicapped Black Lesbian of Hispanic heritage and eastern religious creed with bipolar issues can be located. Perhaps an international search, with a preference for third world candidates, is indicated. A non English speaker would surely increase our diversity quotient!!!

  2. First, I want to thank Justice Rucker for his many years of public service, not just at the appellate court level for over 25 years, but also when he served the people of Lake County as a Deputy Prosecutor, City Attorney for Gary, IN, and in private practice in a smaller, highly diverse community with a history of serious economic challenges, ethnic tensions, and recently publicized but apparently long-standing environmental health risks to some of its poorest residents. Congratulations for having the dedication & courage to practice law in areas many in our state might have considered too dangerous or too poor at different points in time. It was also courageous to step into a prominent and highly visible position of public service & respect in the early 1990's, remaining in a position that left you open to state-wide public scrutiny (without any glitches) for over 25 years. Yes, Hoosiers of all backgrounds can take pride in your many years of public service. But people of color who watched your ascent to the highest levels of state government no doubt felt even more as you transcended some real & perhaps some perceived social, economic, academic and professional barriers. You were living proof that, with hard work, dedication & a spirit of public service, a person who shared their same skin tone or came from the same county they grew up in could achieve great success. At the same time, perhaps unknowingly, you helped fellow members of the judiciary, court staff, litigants and the public better understand that differences that are only skin-deep neither define nor limit a person's character, abilities or prospects in life. You also helped others appreciate that people of different races & backgrounds can live and work together peacefully & productively for the greater good of all. Those are truths that didn't have to be written down in court opinions. Anyone paying attention could see that truth lived out every day you devoted to public service. I believe you have been a "trailblazer" in Indiana's legal community and its judiciary. I also embrace your belief that society's needs can be better served when people in positions of governmental power reflect the many complexions of the population that they serve. Whether through greater understanding across the existing racial spectrum or through the removal of some real and some perceived color-based, hope-crushing barriers to life opportunities & success, movement toward a more reflective representation of the population being governed will lead to greater and uninterrupted respect for laws designed to protect all peoples' rights to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. Thanks again for a job well-done & for the inevitable positive impact your service has had - and will continue to have - on countless Hoosiers of all backgrounds & colors.

  3. Diversity is important, but with some limitations. For instance, diversity of experience is a great thing that can be very helpful in certain jobs or roles. Diversity of skin color is never important, ever, under any circumstance. To think that skin color changes one single thing about a person is patently racist and offensive. Likewise, diversity of values is useless. Some values are better than others. In the case of a supreme court justice, I actually think diversity is unimportant. The justices are not to impose their own beliefs on rulings, but need to apply the law to the facts in an objective manner.

  4. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

  5. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

ADVERTISEMENT