Traffic courts

Each year more than 30 million motorists are summoned into traffic courts throughout the United States. For 9 out of 10 of these citizens, their day in court will be the only opportunity they ever have to observe American justice in operation. But in­stead of a true court of justice, the man accused of a traffic violation* will too often face a mere fine-collection agency. He will probably have to wait hours in a crowded*, noisy courtroom, only to appear finally before a bored, impatient judge who is more interested in disposing of his case quickly than in safeguarding his legal rights.

"These courts," wrote former US Supreme Court Justice Charles E. Whittaker, "are so poorly housed, staffed and equip­ped, the proceedings so lacking in dignity and their judgements so perfunctory*, that they actually create disrespect, if not con­tempt, for all laws and all courts."

Traffic courts do not have to be this way. During the 20 years the American Bar Association has been active in this field, more than 300 communities have cleaned up their courts and given motorists true justice.

Poor traffic courts run to a pattern. In most, all motorists are summoned into court at the same hour, thus assuring a lengthy wait for many of them. Nobody explains court procedure or legal rights. The judge appears interested only in levying* fines; he gives out no other corrective sentence. (In some courts a cash register sits next to the judge's bench.). The judge may say, "Why don't you plead guilty? The fine is only $10." What he does not say is that you will also have a conviction on your record and will have taken the first step toward losing your licence and perhaps toward having your insurance premium boosted*.

To plead not guilty you often have to wait until all the guilty pleas have been handled, only to have your case postponed be­cause the arresting officer is not in court. When your case is fi­nally heard, if you and the officer tell conflicting stories, you are wrong and he is right — almost always.

The experience of a New York businessman is typical. On a rainy night he made a left turn — and got a ticket. The officer told him a "No Left Turn" sign was clearly visible; the motorist was so sure it wasn't that he doubled back and came up to the intersection again. Then he saw the sign, high up on a post at the right-hand curb — so high it could not be seen through the section of windshield* that the wipers* cleared.

He determined to plead not guilty and the next day took snapshots of the sign. At his hearing he told the judge that it was raining, explained that the sign was not visible in the circum­stance, offered the pictures he had taken as evidence. The judge tossed them back, found the motorist guilty and fined him $5. The conviction was the first he had had in 35 years of driving.

One reason why it is hard to reform the fine-collecting courts is that traffic tines are a major source of income for many communities. New York City, for instance, collected over 15 million dollars this way in 1962; the same year Chicago took in close to ten million dollars. There are towns in Florida where fines yield­ed up to 25 percent of total income. In many courts the judge is given a budget at the beginning of the year detailing how much money in fines his court must produce. Obviously this puts pressure on him to convict and collect, rather than to examine and judge.

The fee system, which still exists in 25 states, fosters even more abuses*. Under this arrangement judge are paid so much per case handled, often out of the 'costs' collected by the court from the person convicted. Some justices of the peace have made as much as $20,000 a year in fees.

What should a traffic court be like?

Early in 1959 a Miami, Fla., newspaper printed a story list­ing a number of traffic tickets that had been fixed in the Miami area. Partly as a result of the ensuing scandal, hundreds of citi­zens, the Chamber of Commerce and the Citizens Safety Coun­cil induced Dade County, which includes Miami, to set up an entirely new traffic-court system. The American Bar Associa­tion was asked to assist. These courts, which have been operating since July 1959, show how a first-class traffic court should oper­ate.

It is virtually impossible to fix a ticket in Dade County to­day. The chief reason is the Uniform Traffic Complaint and Sum­mons, worked out by the Bar Association. Each ticket is number­ed and printed in quadruplicate, with one copy each for the motorist, the police, the court and the state motor-vehicle bu­reau. The ticket describes precisely what the offence was and under what conditions it occurred; such details help the arresting officer to be fair and specific in his charge, the judge to evaluate the offence and the motorist to defend himself. It also has a space for recording the disposition of the charge, so it becomes a complete record.

All motorists charged with hazardous moving violations must appear in court; but, once there, they get fair treatment. Since hours of appearance are staggered, no one has to wait long. The arresting officer is in court when each case is called, so the man who wants to plead not guilty has an immediate hearing. Many motorists who make dangerous errors in driving, through igno­rance, inexperience or faulty judgement are not fined, but in­stead are sent to a driver-improvement school that is run in conjunction with Dade courts. Drivers who are capable of driv­ing safely, but through irresponsibility or defiance do not do so, receive severe sentences; heavy fines, jail terms, and, in some cases, suspension, or loss of license.

Finally, the whole atmosphere of Dade courts has been trans­formed. At the beginning of each session the judge tells motor­ists what procedure will be, what their rights are and how proper enforcement of traffic laws makes highways safer.

Дата добавления: 2015-07-20