Wdk. Admin. Adj. Ct. - Disord. Conduct case

In last Thursday's Woodstock Administrative Adjudication Court a case was called that had involved a fight at a city park.

What normally happens is that a person charged with an offense appears without an attorney. Before court the City's prosecuting attorney asks to speak with the person charged and will attempt to make a deal.

If a deal (a "plea") is agreed to, then the prosecutor informs the judge of it when the case is called. Judge Eterno is careful to ask the defendant if he understands the deal and is agreeing to it of his own free will.

Sometimes a deal can't be struck, for a variety of reasons.

In this case, the defendant believed he was not guilty and he wasn't going for a "deal". So this case proceeded to a hearing, right then. One of the first problems was that the other party was not in court. And a witness had not appeared, although a letter to the witness had been sent on June 2.

The prosecutor asked the judge for a continuance to "try" again to get the witness in, but the judge wasn't having any part of it. What the judge did have a problem with was the charge, which he read as "unlawfully engaged in or attempted to fight". He said, "'Attempting to fight' is not a violation.

Juge Eterno began explaining to the defendant how he was about to make his decision. The defendant interrupted him - more than once. The judge, politely but firmly, told the defendant to stop talking until the judge was done speaking.

I've visited several of the court sessions, and it seems to me that, when Judge Eterno begins explaining matters to the defendant, he is about to rule in the defendant's favor. Defendants, of course, don't expect that and they seem not to listen very well to the judge, or they would figure out pretty quickly that the judge is about to side with them.

My suggestion? Decide whether you are going to plead "Guilty" (called "Liable" in this court) or if you want "your day in court." Judge Eterno does not impose a "trial tax"; i.e., if he decides against you, you are still only going to get stuck with the fine and the court costs that you would have paid anyway, had you pled Guilty (Liable).

If you get cited into Woodstock's court, listen very, very carefully to Judge Eterno. Don't assume that he is about to drop the hammer on you. He is fair, both to the defendants and to the City. He understands that you are not a lawyer and don't know the law or all your rights. He will expect the City to prove its case. Be ready with your defense. And don't forget to ask him to find you "Not liable."

Woodstock's new court - it works

Woodstock's new Administrative Adjudication Court met this morning, starting about 9:30AM in the City Council chambers. This court handles cases filed under the Woodstock City Code, even if there is a related State statute for the particular offense.

The court is presided over by Administrative Court Judge David G. Eterno. While the court is considerably more informal that McHenry County courts at the Government Center, Judge Eterno made it clear to today's defendants that it's serious business.

The first case heard involved storage of inoperable vehicles in a driveway in front of an attached garage on Woodstock's north side. I had noticed these vehicles over the past 3-4 months and wondered why they were never being moved. Because the driveway is full with two inoperable vehicles, a third vehicle is parked in the parkway, on the paved driveway, parallel to the street. The City cited the property owner in mid-September and the case was heard today.

In a negotiated plea, the owner agreed he was liable (guilty), and Judge Eterno set the fine at $100 plus court costs. Then he ordered the fine and court costs held in abeyance for 30 days, giving the owner time to comply with the City's ordinance.

Comment: Presumably the City was in contact with the owner prior to citing him. When he didn't comply, the City cited him for the violation. In the three weeks since the citation, he still didn't comply; I noticed the vehicles there last night at 9:00PM. Will he comply in the next 30 days? Maybe, like, on the 29th day or the day before he is due back in court on November 12? If laws in Woodstock are to have any teeth, the City should have asked the judge not to allow 30 more days of this nuisance.

The court then heard several truancy violations. Negotiated pleas of "liable" (guilty) resulted $50.00 fines plus court costs ($50.00 more). Several students appeared without parents. Judge Eterno queried students whether they had jobs; i.e., had their own earnings with which to pay the fines and court costs. He stressed to those who did not work that they were expected to pay the fines and not rely on gifts from parents.

Judge Eterno dealt respectfully and personally with each of the students. He stressed that they were "very lucky" to be in this court and not in the McHenry County Court system, because no record of their conviction follows them around to affect future job and school applications.

He also handled one possession-of-alcohol violation and one smoking violation.

These cases were all settled by Agreement and without a hearing. In most of the cases, the prosecution asked the judge to amend the original citation because of an error in the City Code Section Number. In each case the judge asked the defendant (student) if he had any objection to the City's request. I had to wonder if the judge would have thrown out each case, if the defendant had responded that he did object and if he had asked the judge to dismiss the case because of the City's error.

However, the young adults in the courtroom did not know to ask that question. And it wasn't the judge's responsibility to explain legal rights to a defendant who didn't understand the law or know his rights. The judge left the door wide open for each defendant to walk through it, but they didn't know to take that walk.

Then Judge Eterno heard the case of the City vs. Deer Pointe Homes over a tall weeds complaint on three lots at the Ponds of Bull Valley. The defense attorney, Patrick J. Smith of Cary, argued that the City had not complied with proper notice to the property owner prior to issuing the citation. He also questioned whether a prior notice had been addressed to the correct legal name of the corporate owner. After arguments by both sides, Attorney Smith asked for a directed verdict in his client's favor. Judge Eterno explained his opinion and then granted the directed verdict.

The argument hinged on whether the City had complied with its Code, because it had sent the Notice of Violation by First Class Mail, not by Registered Mail. The City offered the letter (the Notice of Violation) but testified it had been sent by First Class Mail. The City's attorney did not ask the city employee or the defendant whether either knew that the Notice had been received; the issue was how it was to be sent.

The City, according to the Code, was to send a Notice of Violation (NOV) by Registered Mail, personal delivery or "posting". Posting of a NOV was not discussed but apparently means by posting of the NOV on the property that is the subject of the violation.

Traffic Tickets = Revenue?

I have generally opposed the idea that traffic tickets are written for the purpose of generating revenue for the cop's jurisdiction. But I'm changing my mind...

When tickets are written for violations of State traffic laws, they are processed at the McHenry County Traffic Court. My understanding was that revenue did not come back to the City of Woodstock for convictions or guilty pleas on those tickets. The money went to the State of Illinois and the huge court costs didn't make it back to Woodstock, either. However, looking back at a Northwest Herald article on December 7, 2007, it appears that 25% of the fine might find its way back to Woodstock.

But now, with the possibility of a new Administrative Adjudication Court in Woodstock, are traffic tickets being written as violations of Woodstock ordinances? Will those cases go to the new, local, hometown court, where fines and court costs will stay right here in Woodstock? Was the new Court approved at the March 3, 2009, City Council meeting? Can't find a thing online about it.

Kind of gives new meaning to "Shop Local", right?

I'll be doing some checking on this tomorrow. Is the new court up and running? Are there 30-40 tickets being on each of the three daily police shifts? When and where is court?

Court is open to the public, and the public should make sure to drop by and observe how court is conducted in Woodstock. And to anxiously await a financial report on the revenues generated and for what violations.

New Woodstock Court on the way

At Tuesday's Woodstock City Council meeting the Council will consider, and most likely establish, a new Administrative Adjudication Program. Three ordinances are proposed and will be voted on Tuesday night.

You can read Ordinance titles on the Agenda for Tuesday's meeting through the link on the homepage of the City's website at www.woodstockil.gov

For more detail, go to City Hall or the Woodstock Public Library and read the information that Council members have received.

What kind of tickets will go to the Adjudication Court (like Crystal Lake recently formed)? City Code violations, red-light tickets (as soon as the City adopts an ordinance and contracts for cameras), and anything else that can be wrestled away from the McHenry County Court.

Here's the question. How does this ball get rolling without notice to the public? Who authorized the City Manager to direct the City Attorney to prepare these ordinances? And at what cost?

What is the cost/benefit ratio to the City? How many tickets does the City expect to write and process through this new court? What are the estimated fines and court costs for each of the next five years? How much will the judge be paid? Has a judge already been selected? (yes)

The City is under a hiring freeze. How is it going to handle hiring a new judge? Oh, just make it a contract position; then we won't have to show him as an employee? What is this? The Federal Government's way (and the State of Illinois way) of expanding government. Coming soon to Woodstock.

Now, maybe the City Council did discuss this in public and I missed the news. Were any public hearings held?

How could Council members discuss and authorize this legal work without discussing it in a public meeting? Or did they?

If you want to put your two-cents' worth in on this, be sure to attend Tuesday night's meeting at City Hall.

Red-light Cameras in Woodstock?

Are you ready for this? Are we about to get a red-light camera in Woodstock? Where will it be? Is it really needed? Will it pay for itself? Will there be more than one?

The first step in the process is to create an Adjudication Court, so that tickets can be handled locally and not sent to McHenry County Traffic Court (with the corresponding loss in revenue). Rumor has it that such a Court is under heavy consideration in Woodstock, and perhaps a judge has even already been identified.

I think Crystal Lake recently established its own adjudication court, where it hears cases involving violations of City Codes.

Having such a court here could be a convenient and profitable way to handle City Code violations, such as parking and nuisance violations. And with such a court tickets for red-light violations could be processed right here in Woodstock. A "plus" for the violator is that payment of a fine or conviction, should he ask for a trial, does not result in a blemish on his driving record at the office of the Illinois Secretary of State.

Would liquor license violations be processed there, too? If so, that would move them out of the "courtroom" at Liquor Commission hearings.

We can expect to hear more about this in the coming weeks.