Opinion ID: 2616879
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Parts 1, 2 and 3 (Neimi, Tolles, Fosdick)

Text: 1. In each of the cases Fosdick, Tolles and Neimi the charge was negligent driving. 2. That during the applicable time in 1969 there was in existence a special practice of the District Court at Fairbanks which required that charges of negligent driving, reckless driving and operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol would have to be brought on a typed complaint as opposed to a uniform traffic citation. 3. It is a finding of the Commission that this requirement of a typed complaint often resulted in the following situation during the fall of 1969: a. Trooper gives ticket for negligent driving and sets court appearance date on the ticket. b. Since the court will not accept the charge of negligent driving on the traffic ticket, a formal complaint is required. c. There is delay in preparation of the formal complaint in the District Attorney's Office and the defendant appears in court on the date set on the traffic citation prior to filing of a complaint. 4. The Commission finds that the factors listed in the immediately preceding paragraph were all common to the cases of Neimi, Tolles and Fosdick. 5. In the case of Neimi matters may be summarized as follows: a. Neimi appeared in court on August 7, 1969 as specified in his traffic citation. b. There was no complaint on file with the court. c. A court file was opened utilizing the defendant's copy of the traffic citation and the case was given court number 69-1941. d. The case was dismissed on the basis that no complaint had been filed. e. Thereafter an Information signed by an Assistant District Attorney was filed on August 21, 1969 and a Summons was issued. f. On August 26, 1969, the defendant appeared before the court and was given a $1.00 fine. 6. The case of Fosdick involved exactly identical procedure to that found in the Neimi case. 7. As to the Tolles case, it may be summarized as follows: a. Tolles appeared before the court on July 24, 1969, in response to the date set on his traffic citation. b. A court file was opened utilizing the defendant's copy of the traffic citation, and opened under the number of 69-1780. c. The defendant Tolles pleaded guilty and testified as to extenuating circumstances and was fined $1.00. d. Thereafter on August 21, 1969 an Information charging Tolles with the same offense and signed by an Assistant District Attorney was filed with the court and Summons issued. e. On August 25, 1969 Tolles appeared before the court and the respondent judge, noting the prior $1.00 fine at the earlier appearance, entered a dismissal of this Case No. 69-2183 on the ground That the defendant has heretofore entered a guilty plea and paid the fine. 8. With respect to the Tolles matter, page 20 of the transcript which is Exhibit D-7, the respondent acknowledges his statements set forth in lines 20 through 24; and acknowledges that his comment on the actions of the District Attorney's Office as some sort of stupidity was not a proper judicial comment. 9. The respondent's conduct is found to be obstructive to the administration of justice.