APPROPRIATE FOR THE OFFICER IN QUESTION TO ACCEPT A FINE PAYMENT WOULD DEPEND UPON THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN QUESTION. IF, FOR EXAMPLE, THE OFFICER HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INITIAL ARREST, HIS OR HER RECEIPT OF A TENDERED FINE PAYMENT THROUGH THE MAIL, AT THE COURTHOUSE WHILE ACTING AS THE COURT CLERK, WOULD NOT BE A PER SE PROBLEM. IN ANOTHER SITUATION, HOWEVER, SUCH AS IF THE OFFICER IN QUESTION WAS IN THE FIELD, MADE AN ARREST, AND WAS CONFRONTED WITH A DEFENDANT WHO DESIRED TO MAKE A FINE PAYMENT AT THAT TIME AND PLACE, I DO NOT THINK THAT THE ACT ENVISIONS THAT SUCH AN ACCOMMODATION.
THE ACT GOES ON TO ESTABLISH A UNIFORM PROCEDURE FOR DEALING WITH INDIVIDUALS WHO DO NOT HONOR THEIR OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE ACT, AND SETS FORTH A NUMBER OF RECORD KEEPING OR NOTIFICATION DUTIES OF THE COURT CLERK RELATIVE THERETO. HOWEVER, THESE DUTIES, LIKE THE ONES SET OUT IN DETAIL ABOVE, ARE REALLY MINISTERIAL IN NATURE, AND DO NOT IMPACT DIRECTLY UPON A LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNCTION AS A POLICE OFFICER.
IN SHORT, WHILE THERE ARE NO DOUBT SOME VERY LEGITIMATE PUBLIC POLICY QUESTIONS THAT CAN BE RAISED ABOUT A FORMAT WHEREIN A MUNICIPAL POLICE OFFICER ALSO ACTS AS THE MUNICIPAL COURT CLERK, I CAN FIND NO PER SE STATUTORY IMPEDIMENT TO SUCH A FORMAT, IF THE CITY IN QUESTION HAS A CHARTER PROVISION THAT AUTHORIZES SUCH A DUAL OFFICE HOLDING FUNCTION, OR, IN THE INSTANCE OF A STATUTORY MUNICIPALITY, IF THERE IS AN AUTHORIZING ORDINANCE, AND IF THE PERSON IN QUESTION IS ALSO A DEPUTY CITY CLERK. IT MIGHT WELL BE POSSIBLE FOR A POLICE OFFICER TO HAVE A CONFLICT IN FACT DUE TO THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MIGHT BE PRESENT IN ANY GIVEN CASE. HOWEVER, THAT IS A DIFFERENT SITUATION FROM THERE EXISTING A PER SE CONFLICT OF INTEREST, AND A SITUATION THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE REVIEWED ON THE MERITS OF THAT INDIVIDUAL SET OF FACTS.
(MICHAEL SCOTT FERN)