Opinion ID: 852103
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: State v. Aubrey

Text: On August 18, 2010, Matthew Aubrey was scheduled to appear before Respondent in case number 45H04-1006-IF-14765 for an alleged seatbelt violation. When Aubrey's case was called, the following exchange took place: Respondent: Mr. AubreySeatbelt violation. Admit or deny? Aubrey: I deny. I have some paperwork though to back me up. Respondent: Well ... Let me ask you something. Was it under your arm? Aubrey: Yes. Respondent: Do you have a medical excuse for that from a medical doctor? Aubrey: No. Respondent: Then you have no paperwork to convince me of anything. Aubrey: Well, under law that I was ... uh Respondent: Are you a lawyer? Aubrey: No. Respondent: Ok. Good. Don't hurt yourself. Aubrey: It's just that under 9-19-10-2. Uhh ... Each occupant of a motor vehicle equipped with a safety belt shall have a seat belt properly fastened. It does not say what properly is. The same thing in the driver's manualpage 75. Indiana law requires that a driver and all passengers to [ sic ] use seat belts at all times when the vehicle is in operation. Operators of busses [ sic ] are also required to use seat belts. Respondent: Is this an accurate description of your vehicle? That it's an '05 vehicle? Aubrey: Yes. Respondent: Okay. I believe that the automotive industry, since well before 2005, has installed seat belts that include a shoulder harness. Aubrey: Yes. Respondent: There you go. Aubrey: Well, how are you supposed to know if nobody's ever told you? Respondent: I'll tell you whatlet's have a trial on this, okay? Then it gets about 10 times as expensive. October 6. Aubrey: Uh ... Respondent: Do you admit the seatbelt violation? Aubrey: I do. Respondent: Alright. $25. Step around and get a to-pay card. The parties agree that Respondent's statements made during the hearing in 45H04-1006-IF-14765, as quoted above, violated the Code of Judicial Conduct's provisions that required him: to act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, Jud. Cond. R. 1.2 (asterisks deleted); to perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially, Jud. Cond. R. 2.2; to refrain from act[ing] in a manner that coerces any party into settlement, Jud. Cond. R. 2.6(B); and to be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, Jud. Cond. R. 2.8(B). See also In re Young, 943 N.E.2d 1276, 1279 (Ind.2011) (imposing discipline where judge threatened to, and did, impose increased penalties for traffic infraction litigants who exercised their right to trial instead of pleading guilty, so as to penalize them for doing so and to discourage others from doing so).