Opinion ID: 1791264
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: dismissal of cases

Text: A more serious matter is presented in Respondent's dismissal of cases upon representations made by the offender and without hearing the State's side of the case. With the exception of the game law violations, all offenses involved tickets given by highway patrolmen. Four state troopers testified. Two of them stated that they had no problem with Respondent's handling of their tickets, which represented but a small fraction of the number of tickets they had given returnable to his court. Practically all of the tickets they had issued resulted in pleas of guilty and assessment of fines. The third officer, when asked if he had any problem with Respondent's dismissal of cases, answered: A. Well, I do to a degree. Whenever we make a stop, I feel like we're putting our life on the line, and a lot of times when we get back a not guilty verdict, it's just hard to swallow. As far as whatever Judge wants to do with it, it's his business, it's up to him, but to a degree, I don't think it's fair, I sure don't. The fourth officer was active in filing the complaint against Respondent with the Commission. He strongly objected to Respondent's dismissal of tickets he had given after simply talking with a defendant. There were 17 individuals who had been given tickets by this officer for speeding, improper tag, improper license, and improper equipment. It is, of course, absolutely correct that a law enforcement officer is not the prosecuting attorney or the judge, and it is not his function to determine or set the punishment in any case in which he is the arresting officer. The overwhelming majority of officers recognize this, and that they would over-step their authority if they sought to fulfill the court's responsibility. The corollary of this observation is likewise true. A prosecuting attorney and judge have a solemn obligation to uphold the law, and support the law enforcement officers in their effort to enforce the law. The law enforcement officer, the prosecuting attorney and the judge  while each has a different function  are all engaged in a joint enterprise of protecting society and engendering respect for the law. Nothing can be more demoralizing for any of the three, the judge, the prosecuting attorney or the law enforcement officer, than to get it into his head that one or the other is failing to do his duty. Highway patrolmen especially, who must daily patrol highways where any unguarded moment may result in injury or loss of life, are due the confidence in a prosecuting attorney and judge that when they do bring a law violator before the bar of justice that his case will not be summarily or unfairly dismissed. By the very nature of the court and the offenses involved, justice court judges and highway patrolmen must have a lot of dealings with one another. Each must have confidence in the integrity and fairness of the other. Respondent most certainly should have recognized that a ticket should not be dismissed without hearing from the officer who issued it. And, at the very least, when he dismissed a ticket, he owed the officer the courtesy of telling him about it, and why he had dismissed it. There is no excuse for Respondent's failure to abide by these simple rules. There are extenuating circumstances in Respondent's favor. Some of the cases he did not recall. Others he did. In this particular county, when he took office there was a custom or practice of dismissing a ticket for improper tag or license upon a showing that it had been corrected. In other instances he testified the officer was close by when he disposed of the case. In some the offender had several tickets given him by the officer in the same incident, and in those the judge took guilty pleas on one or more tickets and dismissed the rest. Also, he testified that for first-time offenders, especially students, there was a custom or practice of giving them another chance on traffic violations. Between 1,500 and 2,000 cases a year are handled in this county's justice court. We have carefully studied this record and the explanations given by Respondent and are impressed with his sense of fairness and compassion, while at the same time upholding the law in the overwhelming majority of the cases in his court. Most of the cases in which he exercised leniency involved transients or people of very modest means and circumstances, and in which he could expect no political return or benefit. We are also impressed by the county attorney's testimony in Respondent's favor. The county attorney, a native of the county, who had been in office for ten years, testified that Respondent was the best justice court judge he had ever known, and was absolutely fair and impartial to the state and defendants alike. He testified Respondent called him two or three times a week for advice and counsel, and was a conscientious judge. Respondent is an officer in his local church and in his lodge. He is respected in his county. No doubt the Commission was impressed by Respondent, because it recommends an admittedly limited sanction of public reprimand. Ordinarily, we would uphold this recommendation without question. Having studied this record, however, we are persuaded that Respondent's infractions were never intended to be detrimental to law enforcement and judicial fairness, but rather what he at the time thought were fair and common sense dispositions of quite minor offenses. If there was the slightest hint of dishonesty, or attempt to gain political favor in any of these instances, we would be otherwise inclined. This record reveals a justice court judge who is trying to do a good job, even though there have been these instances of inattentiveness to his responsibility to law enforcement officers. We add that all had been corrected before this matter was ever heard by the Commission. It will not promote law enforcement for the law to publicly embarrass this judge in the county where he must have respect for his court in order to fulfill his responsibility. The special facts of this case should not give rise to other justice court judges that we might be inclined to leniency in future cases involving similar behavior. This, after all, is a first case, and there will be no excuse for future infractions as evidenced in this case. By no means do we regard Respondent's conduct in reference to dismissing cases outside of trial, and without hearing from the arresting officer as trivial. Indeed, this Court expects this case to serve as a warning that conduct similar to this case will not be treated lightly by us in the future. Respondent will receive a private reprimand.