Indiana
Judge’s severe penalty simply for contesting tickets results in lawsuit Wednesday, December 9th, 2009
Marion County (Indianapolis) traffic court Judge Bill Young instituted a policy when he took the bench on January 1, 2009 that defendants found guilty after contesting a traffic ticket would be fined an additional sum of up to $500. He’s posted signs in his courtroom warning that the court can impose up to $500 in fines against defendants. Some defendants have been scared away from entering a not guilty plea. They are worried that, no matter how much they may disagree with the traffic ticket issued, it’s too risky to fight A guilty finding would result in too much of a fine and simply paying is the safer option.
A local attorney perceived this to be nothing more than unfair intimidation.
Paul K. Ogden filed a lawsuit alleging that traffic court Judge Bill Young’s threat of imposing additional court costs against defendants who unsuccessfully fight an Indianapolis traffic ticket violates due-process rights in the U.S. and state constitutions. Neither Glenn Lawrence, administrator for Marion County’s superior courts, nor Judge Young had anything to say about the lawsuit at this early stage. Lawrence did mention that the additional $500 is within statutory limits and there is nothing wrong with warning motorists that they may ultimately be fined near the high end of the range of legal fines.
Ogden, however, maintains that Young uses the threat of the $500 fine specifically to discourage people from challenging their tickets and ultimately keep his court from becoming more crowded . While Lawrence argues there’s nothing wrong with warning a motorist of what the fine may be, Ogden is essentially arguing that the way the fines are applied–high if you fight, low if you roll over and pay–is the primary problem with all this.
This is important. If this is accurate–a judge is basically punishing people simply for exercising their Constitutional right to confront their accuser–it’s dangerous. It’s one thing to examine the facts on a case by case basis and offer those who don’t proceed to trial “leniency” to the tune of a plea bargain of sorts. It’s an entirely different thing to systematically charge people simply for exercising their rights. It’s a challenge worth following.
Submitted by Scott Feifer
New York Traffic Ticket Attorney
Feifer & Greenberg, LLP
NYTicketHELP.com
