ILNews

Indiana traffic court issues dent judiciary's public perception

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Hundreds of cases come before them each week and present issues that may give judges only a few moments to make a decision about a parking or moving violation.

These community-focused courts that handle traffic infractions, ordinance violations and sometimes small claims can be seen as a sort of “People’s Court” that offer litigants a glimpse of the justice process. These settings are often the only experience an individual might have as a litigant in a courtroom.

But in a time when the court process is seen by some as confusing, delay-ridden, and one that only a lawyer can understand, public perception is being clouded even more by recent events in Indiana.

Two central Indiana traffic court judges are under fire for their conduct and practices in their courtrooms, with one Marion Superior judge facing disciplinary charges after sparking statewide legislative changes and criticism from the Indiana Court of Appeals. The other jurist, who serves as a Beech Grove city judge, is being scrutinized for his conduct on and off the bench and how he’s been conducting his court for the past three years.

Some judges and attorneys say the public’s view of the entire judiciary is tarnished by these issues. It becomes even more difficult for the legal community to do its job, they say, when situations like these affect the general confidence people have in the legal system. That concern is amplified now as the state judiciary wants to reform the court system in an effort to reduce redundancy and confusion and make the process less complicated for people.

“Judges have many duties on the bench, but one of those is minding that public perception,” said Greenwood City Judge Lew Gregory, who said he’s heard about the recent examples out of Marion County and Beech Grove. “Whenever that reputation gets dinged, the system suffers and all the courts feel an impact...”

Most recently, Beech Grove City Judge Charles W. Hunter has been in the news for his handling of a woman’s handicapped parking citation in his court. Charity Bryan, who uses a wheelchair, received a ticket in August for parking in a handicapped spot without a placard, and she went to court to contest it on the grounds that the valid placard had simply fallen off her rearview mirror. She said the judge refused to dismiss the ticket, but a local television news team later reporting on the issue reportedly caught Judge Hunter – the 87-year-old attorney and jurist who uses a wheelchair himself – parking in a handicapped spot without a placard displayed and then verbally shrugging it off because he didn’t get a ticket from police.

The city mayor has publicly defended the judge, who he brought out of retirement in 2007 for the creation of the new court, and said while he’s disappointed in the judge’s alleged hypocrisy, he said not everyone will always be happy about the way a judge rules on their case.

Judge Hunter returned a call to Indiana Lawyer and said he regrets the situation and damage to the court’s reputation, but that he didn’t want to go into specifics about this issue or even talk more generally about his handling of pro se litigants or people in his court. He cited some concern about judicial conduct rules prohibiting him from speaking about these issues.

In Marion County, Superior Judge William E. Young faces scrutiny because of his behavior on the bench and the way he runs his courtroom.

A federal lawsuit filed late last year accused the Criminal 13 judge of instituting a policy allowing defendants who come before his court and are found guilty to be fined up to an additional $500 just for challenging their tickets. That suit also detailed how the judge closes proceedings to the public.

That case prompted outrage from the General Assembly. Legislators approved state statute changes, supported by Gov. Mitch Daniels, addressing what happened in Judge Young’s courtroom. Enrolled Act 399 took effect in July and set a series of maximum fines within the $500 limit for moving violations that are Class C infractions, including speeding in regular zones and violations at stop signs and lights. The law now takes into account a person’s history of contesting tickets, and it will allow higher fines depending on a person’s record of unsuccessful attempts on fighting tickets in court.

In addition to the statutory revisions, a disciplinary action was also filed against Judge Young relating to his professional conduct.

In a seven-page charging document issued July 16, the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications formally outlined four misconduct allegations against the judge, who at that point had already been publicly criticized, sued, and even reversed by the state justices for his handling of traffic court cases that had come before him since he took the bench in January 2009.

The commission alleges he “engaged in a practice of imposing substantially higher penalties against traffic court litigants who chose to have trials and lost,” and the commission also alleges that Judge Young “routinely made statements implying that litigants should not demand trials and would be penalized for doing so if they lost.”

The Indiana Supreme Court reversed one of Young’s decisions in June and ordered a new trial in the case of Hollinsworth v. State, No. 49S02-1006-CR-286, pointing specifically to Judge Young’s behavior that violated three judicial conduct canons requiring impartiality, patience, unbiased behavior, and recusal if a judge’s impartiality might be questioned. While that ruling indicated that Judge Young fell short of meeting the conduct standards, it didn’t go into any potential disciplinary matters – that came later in the year. Now, the Marion County judge faces a disciplinary hearing on those accusations in early December. A hearing panel will decide if he committed any misconduct and send a report to the state justices to review for a final decision.

Most recently, the judge has gotten the attention of the Indiana Court of Appeals and been reversed twice because of his conduct and the forms given out to pro se litigants in his court.

In two cases from August, the appellate court found the forms were unhelpful to litigants and should be examined more closely. An Aug. 25 memorandum decision was issued in Uma D. Chaluvadi v. City of Indianapolis, a case involving the appeal of Judge Young’s motion to set aside a default judgment relating to a speeding ticket Uma D. Chaluvadi received in November 2009. A police officer cited her for driving too fast in a school zone, but then crossed out the amount owed and Chaluvadi assumed it was a warning because no fine had been assessed. When she left the country and didn’t contact the court, a default judgment was entered against her and her license was suspended. She asked for the judgment to be set aside, but Judge Young dismissed that the next day.

The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case, finding that the judge should have allowed the default judgment to be set aside on grounds of Chaluvadi’s excusable neglect because of her initial conclusion about the ticket. While recognizing that she didn’t include a meritorious defense as required, the appellate court also found that the traffic court’s forms for litigants were inadequate.
 

baker-john-g-mug Baker

“We note, however, that the form provided by the trial court for litigants seeking to set aside a default judgment is entirely unhelpful to those litigants, inasmuch as it does not emphasize the need to provide a meritorious defense,” Chief Judge John Baker wrote, referring to the reason the trial judge had denied her motion and that the form only provided a couple of lines for such a defense to be supplied.

The appellate court inferred what the woman’s meritorious defense might be in this situation and found that it would be reason to set aside the default judgment.

Two days after the traffic court condemnation, the court in Michael Butler v. City of Indianapolis even more strongly criticized Judge Young’s court and the forms used in another pro se case involving a truck driver accused of speeding and driving his vehicle in a restricted area. The case brought up similar issues, and the appellate panel addressed the procedural issues that it found most concerning about Judge Young’s court: The inadequate form and a requirement for a self-addressed stamped envelop that Judge Mark Bailey found doesn’t exist according to the Indiana rule listed on the local trial court form.

“We strongly suggest that the trial court update this form for the benefit of future litigants,” he wrote in a footnote.


ogden-paul-mug Ogden

Judge Young did not return messages from Indiana Lawyer seeking comment for this story and could not be reached at his court prior to taking the bench. Attorneys who practice in his court say that litigants who’ve appeared before Judge Young and later called their law offices about the issues have been outraged and shocked by how they were treated. Not much has changed in the past year, they said.

“This all has a traumatic impact on people who just expect to get their day in court, but instead are treated very poorly,” said Indianapolis attorney Paul Ogden, who represented the plaintiffs who sued the traffic court earlier this year. “People who go into that court, this is their first brush with the court system and they came out fearing it. They’re treated rudely, told by court staff they don’t care, that 99 percent of the time the court finds for police. And that if you argue your case and don’t win the fine won’t be $150 but $550.”

Ogden said he’s pleased about the law changes this year, but he hopes more will change and the traffic court will reform how it treats people.

“People are very intimidated by that court,” he said. “That gives a black eye to our entire legal process.”

Judge Gregory says the Johnson County Bar Association and his own court staff have been concerned with those two situations and the impact on the judiciary. The judge said that he tries to always give people as much guidance as he can, but admittedly it can be difficult in a court with that much traffic each day. One day recently, the judge said he had 94 cases set that morning and only a dozen may have attorneys.

“There’s pressure to keep things moving, but you also have to make sure each person leaves with an understanding of what’s happening and their rights in this system,” he said. “It’s a difficult balancing act, and you can lose track of the fact that many of these people may not understand. But we do our best to provide that lubrication for the system and prepare people for what happens in our courtrooms.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • TRUTH
    The courts are not even allowed to hear cases that don't involve a demonstrable injury directly related to the actions of the defendant. I didn't see one mention about that is this article.
  • driving licences being suspended due to accesive tickets in aperiod of a few days
    I have some concerns regarding some of the same issues on some of my situations i was incarcerated and proved to the court system that i was incarcerated with the prooper paper work and ask the court to either set aside this judgment or dismiss the tickets and i was denied immeditly and even one of the clerks thought it was veryily strange they denied it that quick and didnt look into my situation i feel that this was unfair and i would like this looked into.

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. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: melisaeva9@gmail.com WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

ADVERTISEMENT