Michelle J. Perin
615
N 93rd St.
Mesa,
AZ 85207
phxsonnenblume@highstream.net
Judge R. Michael Traynor,
City of Chandler
Chandler Municipal
Court-Maricopa County
200 E. Chicago Street
Chandler, AZ
85225
CC.
Mayor Boyd W. Dunn
Vice Mayor Phillip Westbrooks
City Councilman Bob Caccamo
City Councilman Lowell Huggins
City Councilman Matt Orlando
City Councilman Martin Sepulveda
City Councilman Donna Wallace
November 5, 2005,
Dear Judge Traynor,
On June 10, 2005
at 11:44am, Mrs. Jane Judy Smith
was issued Arizona Traffic Ticket and Complaint #B-000000. She was cited with violating ARS 28-645A3A at
the intersection of Arizona Avenue
and Ray Road in Chandler,
Arizona.
On receipt of the red light photographs, Mrs. Smith analyzed the
position of her car and believed the violation was in error. Viewing the front tires of her vehicle
clearly over the second crosswalk line, Mrs. Smith, armed with a common
misperception, felt she had entered the intersection prior to the light turning
red. Understanding her lack of
occupational expertise in civil traffic law matters, Mrs. Smith sought the
advice of a friend who is a Phoenix
police officer. This officer also looked
at the photographs and confirmed Mrs. Smith’s initial belief of the violations
fallacy. Armed with her belief and her
perceived expert opinion, Mrs. Smith chose to waive her right to attend Defensive
Driving School,
and therefore, maintain her blemish-free driving record. At that time, Mrs. Smith requested a hearing
to dispute the legality of the citation and provide an explanation of the
circumstances surrounding the time of the alleged red light violation. Although uncomfortable with the required
waiver, Mrs. Smith chose to execute her constitutional right to a hearing.
Mrs. Smith addressed the court on Monday, August 8, 2005. During the hearing, testimony was heard from
Mrs. Smith and Chandler Police Officer William Brown #000. Officer Brown explained the logistics of the
intersection and the red light camera sensor positions. He also pointed out the presence of a red
line to show drivers where to stop. It
is important to note in the photographs the red line is almost
imperceptible. If citizens are required
to make decisions of whether or not to dispute a violation in Chandler,
it would be prudent to point out this important marker somewhere on the
citation itself. When citizens are armed
with as much legal information as possible, especially involving civil traffic
law, they are able to make educated decisions, therefore, saving the court
unnecessary hearings disputing citations based on misperception. After Officer Brown’s statement, Mrs. Smith
explained her position and the circumstances surrounding her choice to enter the
intersection, as well as, her decision to request a hearing.
First, she explained, a white Chevrolet Blazer was directly
behind her when approaching the intersection.
Due to the speed and proximity of this vehicle to Mrs. Smith’s car, in
the split second she had to make a decision, she chose to speed up and clear
the intersection to avoid being rear-ended.
As stated earlier, this decision was also based on her, and many other
citizens, misperception the intersection begins at the last line of the crosswalk. Again, even the Phoenix
officer that Mrs. Smith sought legal advice from advised her of that common
marker. Unfortunately, Mrs. Smith was
not aware of the impact curved curb lines had on intersection markers. Due to this, the intersection actually begins
approximately ten feet north of the second crosswalk line. If she would have been aware of this fact,
Mrs. Smith would have chosen to plead responsibility to the infraction and
attend Defensive Driving
School maintaining her clean
traffic record. Again, unfortunately
Mrs. Smith was under a common misperception, and a notation of this unusual
curb situation and line on the citation would have saved all the parties
involved time and money wasted on this hearing.
As far as the second vehicle is concerned, the Chevrolet is
clearly visible in the photographs issued to Mrs. Smith. Although the Blazer is turning westbound just
after Mrs. Smith enters the intersection, the vehicle had previously been at a
high rate of speed allowing it to be in this position at the time the red light
signal was activated. Mrs. Smith chose
to speed up and cross the intersection to avoid a hazardous situation. A review of any traffic engineering
photographs prior to 11:44:20am
would support this statement.
Instead of requesting further evidence on her argument about
the other vehicle, the Court found against Mrs. Smith and ordered her to pay
the fine and attend Traffic Survival
School. At the time the court secretary had Mrs. Smith
sign a Notice of Right to Appeal, Mrs. Smith asked what the process was to
appeal the decision. She was told to go
to the Court window and ask for assistance in filling out the proper
paperwork. Mrs. Smith also asked what
method of payment she could use to pay the judgment, as well as, appeal. She was told any method would be fine
including using a credit card. Mrs. Smith
thanked her and exited the courtroom.
She was not given a copy of the Notice she signed.
At this point, it is important to note Mrs. Smith’s physical
condition at the time of the hearing.
Due to a knee injury, Mrs. Smith was using two crutches and had limited
mobility.
At the Court’s front window, Mrs. Smith asked to fill out
the appropriate appeal paperwork. Mrs. Smith’s
hope in an appeal would be an investigation into her statements regarding the
Chevrolet Blazer. Also, she hoped the
lack of explanation regarding the curb lines would allow the Appeal’s Court to
rule in favor of reversing her fine, allowing her to attend Defensive
Driving School.
To pay her fine, Mrs. Smith provided her credit card. In contradiction to what the Court had told
her, Mrs. Smith was advised she could only use cash. If she did not use cash, she would waive her
right to an appeal. Explaining she only
had her debit/credit card with her, Mrs. Smith asked if there was an ATM
located in the building. Unfortunately there was not one provided,
although many citizens are required to pay cash to the Court. Due to her physical limitations, Mrs. Smith
explained if she left to go to an ATM, she might not make it back by the end of
the business day. The clerk told her a
fine would be attached to her case if she did not pay at that moment. Again, Mrs. Smith advised she only had her
credit card. The clerk then told Mrs. Smith
she could use the credit card but would have to waive her right to an
appeal. Feeling she did not have a
choice in the matter, Mrs. Smith paid the fine with her credit card.
Not feeling good about the justice provided her in this
case, Mrs. Smith approached me about the situation. I requested a copy of the audio tape to
review the legality of the Court’s decision and the consideration of Mrs. Smith’s
explanation. I also drove to the
intersection of Arizona Avenue
and Ray Road to review the
lane lines and the behavior of other drivers.
Although agreeing the red line is not clearly visible in the
citation photographs, I explained the visibility of the marker at the
intersection to Mrs. Smith and the unusual nature of the curved curbs. She accepted the legality of the citation. Still unhappy with the Court’s refusal to
address the issue of the Chevrolet Blazer, I told her photographs could be
requested from traffic engineering if cameras were located at that
intersection. To determine the reason
for the contradiction in payment method, I went to Chandler Municipal Court at 11:50am on Monday, October 17, 2005. Although seventeen people were waiting to be
assisted only two windows were open. I
found this concerning due to it being the first day of the business week during
most citizen’s lunch hour. Also, the
Information Window was closed. Even
though I only had a question, I took a number.
During my wait, I looked around to make sure my question was not
addressed by any paperwork placed on the wall.
The only documentation I found were two small signs on either side of
the windows stating that fines could be paid by any method. Unsure why Mrs. Smith was told she had to pay
cash by the clerk, I waited for my turn.
Although more and more people continued to enter the Court
for assistance, additional windows were never opened. The Information Window also remained
closed. I noticed several numbers were
called without response indicating someone came for service, was unable to wait
the lengthy amount of time required to be seen, and left without being
assisted. Another concern was the two
clerks consistently called out the same number the other clerk was already
serving making the Court seem grossly unorganized and inept. At 12:47pm,
a third window was opened, but one of the other two open windows promptly
closed. With over ten people waiting,
this appeared against good customer service practices especially with the lack
of an information-only window.
At 12:50pm, my
number was called. Once at the window, I
asked the clerk about the Notice of Right to Appeal Mrs. Smith signed. A copy was provided to me. I then asked the same question Mrs. Smith did
about paying a fine and was given the same answer. Any method of payment was fine. After explaining Mrs. Smith’s specific
situation to the clerk, I was advised that at the time of a request to an
appeal the fine is changed to an appeal bond and can only be paid with
cash. Mrs. Smith was never told about
this change. I thanked the clerk and
left the court.
As you can see, Mrs. Smith’s original hearing did not take
into consideration her argument about the other vehicle, her clear driving
record, or the choices she had to make within a few seconds of entering the
intersection. It also was unable to
consider the confusion of the citation photographs and the poor advice by a law
enforcement officer. With contradictory
and semantically changed information, she waived her right to an appeal and was
not given any assistance although she was visibly physically handicapped. My experience at the court reinforced the
inefficiency and lack of customer service she received. Although Mrs. Smith has waived her
constitutional right to an appeal and several deadlines have passed, we would
like this matter looked into. Mrs. Smith
would like the option to attend Defensive Driver’s School and her record to be
expunged. We understand this is an
unusual request but are assured Mrs. Smith’s is an unusual situation. Up until this point, we have enjoyed our
dealings with the City of Chandler,
especially due to our law enforcement backgrounds. Please help us address this situation, so in
the future everyone who deals with the Chandler Municipal Court has a positive
experience and view of Chandler. Thank you in advance for your time and
consideration.
Sincerely,
Michelle J. Perin, B.S. JSI