On Thursday, June 14, Woodstock's own Administrative Adjudication Court will hold its monthly session. Will there be fireworks there that day?
The dollar amount of fines (or bonds posted) is not yet available from the Woodstock Police Department from its report for the month of May. June 5th came up too fast for the P.D. to prepare and submit its May report; it may be available for the June 19 City Council packet, or it may be held over to the July meeting. If the report is not in the June 19th packet, we might not see the numbers for a month, since the City Council may not meet on the first Tuesday in July. Will the report be delayed?
Through April the P.D. reported $18,500 (that's $18,500) in impoundment fees year-to-date. $10,000 was collected in April alone! ($8,500 for Jan.-Feb.-Mar., when the department was gearing up). Perhaps some drivers or owners were at the May 10th court. Perhaps some (many?) will be at the June 14th court.
Remember, it's not Judge Eterno's fault. He just hears the cases and decides liability (called "liability", not guilt, in administrative adjudication courts). Remember, it's not the fault of the cop who writes you the $500 ticket and calls for a tow truck. He's following orders.
From where do the orders come? The Woodstock Police Chief. But he gets his marching orders from the City Manager, and he gets them from the Mayor and City Council.
Whose fault is it? You can look squarely at the Woodstock City Council. The state law changed on January 1, opening the door for a little, ol', sleepy town like Woodstock to stick it to drivers in this way. On January 3 Chief Lowen had his nice, all-legal letter to the City Manager ready to go. Keep in mind that January 1 was a Sunday and January 2 was a legal holiday.
The letter was in the City Council packet for its January 17 meeting, and the City Council approved the new ordinance unanimously and without discussion! It did so as part of the Consent Agenda. The police chief estimated 50 cars a year would be impounded. His department is already on a pace of 200 cars/year!
I'd love to know who was the source for this idea. Did it originate in the police chief's office? In the City Manager's office? In the Mayor's office? In the office of the city's law firm? And who had pushed it through the legislature?
Can you tell I don't like this law? The police department should not be a profit center for a city. Right now it's on a $100,000/year pace. I wonder if there is a contest at the P.D. for who can write the most impoundment tickets.
Are extra points awarded on the eligibility standings for promotion? What happens to the officer who exercises his discretion and does NOT impound a vehicle? Is he disciplined? Ostracized? Dare an officer ever actually exercise discretion? How would it look if officers always towed the cars owned by known criminals and down-and-outers but gave a pass to (used discretion toward) Mr. Big Name in Town; say, someone with Esq. behind his name?
You never know who is interested…
3 months ago
7 comments:
You are right Gus, officers should just get a percentage of the impoundment ticket.
You say that it's not "judge" Eterno's fault? Because a rule is a rule ...
there is just no way this logic can break down is there?
What exactly is the job of a judge if the "rule" is for him to find "liability" in 97.5% of the cases? Why bother, just have the cop be the judge ... and we will only have an error rate of 2.5%
That has to be BIG success, right?
Somebody posted that this administrative court was a kangaroo court, way back when you were telling the rest of us that Judge Eterno was doing such a bang up job. Perhaps you should have focused on the reasons we shouldn't allow courts like this.
Now there are problems ... hmmmm, nobody could have seen that coming ...
oh ... wait.
Ray, there is no "rule" that Judge Eterno is to find a defendant liable 97% of the time.
In my opinion, he runs a pretty good court.
Ray, I don't recall anyone's comment that the Woodstock Admin. Adjud. Court was a kangaroo court.
It's not.
Ray for JUDGE!!! Hang'm high!
Admit it Gus. he caught you swinging both ways
Why is it that I have to explain terms used in common language to you again and again?
As a RULE I ride my bike to school, however there is no RULE that I ride my bike to school. Now do you get the use of the word?
As a RULE the "judge" finds no liability in 1 in 40 cases, however there is no RULE that he find liability at all.
I don't even understand why I bother Gus. (look up "obtuse")
Step #2: If you have a court where anyone sitting in the judges chair will find only 2.5% of the litigants not guilty, WHY DON'T WE JUST HAVE THE COPS BE JUDGES -- BECAUSE WHEN THEY FIND EVERYONE GUILTY (or LIABLE) THEY WILL ONLY BE WRONG 2.5% OF THE TIME?
And lastly ... I said, the city court was a kangaroo court (now I know I confused you by not using the words "kangaroo court", so let me help by explaining). A kangaroo court is one that is set up for a reason other than to do justice: i.e. collect fines, punish dissenter, etc. and almost always only decides for the entity that established it regardless of evidence.
In an earlier post I spoke of a case where 7 teenagers in a van were all charged with possession of the same can of beer, the fines amounted to $3,500.00 (I represented one of them). After a hearing where it was demonstrated that my client had not been near the one can of beer, nor did she or her parents own the van the beer was found in, the "judge" made a finding of liability. (Yeaaaah!, city wins at their own court!! hooray for them!! (followed by a "he does such a nice job" in your blog for the judge.) Not bad for one day of city court.
Think of all the money we could save by just getting rid of this court and letting the police be their own judges ....
Because it's all about saving money. (now look up "satire")
The end.
Post a Comment